Docta ignorantia, ou a ignorância aprendida - Sócrates, Nicolau de Cusa e a ignorância na filosofia

Hello friends and friends, you know. In today's video we are going to talk about the ignorance

learned by Dr. Ignorant in Latin. We are going to take a point from this work here,

the ignorant doctrine in Latin, but I am in English, so it is of Learn Ignorance,

or about the ignorance learned, which is from a medieval writer. He is there doing the

point between the middle and the Renaissance, it is a philosopher called Nicolau de Cusa,

and then we are going to talk about some more general questions related to

the philosophical ignorance. Why is it necessary to learn to be ignorant?

It seems to be paradoxical, but it is not. We are going to explain this in this brief video of today,

which is the end of the story, the ignorance learned, and why is that fundamental to

do philosophy. Come on.

Before starting, a brief talk is made in our new course, the philosophy of

Calmarx, the introduction. The goal of this course is to make a record in what is specifically

philosophy in Calmarx works. But well, this is not a course of introduction to Marxism,

because Marxism is a tradition that begins in Marx's works, but it is a branch of

several other thinkers and also several other arts of knowledge, and the record of our course

is Calmarx and its philosophy. For more information, to know the

example of the Greek topic, just click on the link that is in the description of this video.

Our second question is that it continues to all the vapor of our course,

the introduction to philosophy of the saccharacter. The goal of this

most general course of introduction to philosophy is to put you in direct contact with

some of the main texts of all the history of philosophy. So, instead of reading

comments or then the secondary literature, talking about philosophers, the goal of our

videos is to put you in direct contact with some plates of Aristoteles,

Seneca, Marco Aurelio, Santa Gustinho, Henry DeCarte, Imanualcante,

Ragell, Marx, Sartre, etc. For more information, just click on the link

that is in the description of this video. We will then return to our topic,

the ignorant doctor or the learned ignorance. Initially, let's talk briefly about

who is the author of this work, the author of the ignorant doctor.

Nicolò de Cusa is a German thinker, he born here in Germany, a city called

Cusa, and he is an interesting thinker because he makes a echo, he is a connection

between the media and the relationship, the human thought to be more exact.

He has some very interesting positions, typical positions of the humanism, but for example,

he was extremely tolerant in relation to Islam. He thought that we should

know better Islam and pointed out all religions as, in fact, being

in many manifestations to many cults to the same God. He was born in the year

of 10101, here in Germany, as we have already stated, and died in Italy in the year

1464. So he was a thinker, totally there in the 15th century. He studied

philosophy at the University of Ralderberg, and also studied in Italy,

the right to canonical, mathematical and theology. From a theoretical point of view,

conceptual, philosophical, what can we talk about Nicolò de Cusa? He is an interesting

connection between the neoplatonism original, the neoplatonism of the media, and the

systems of the Renaissance. Nicolò de Cusa was also influenced by the master

E.C. and the nominees. And he was in the position that our knowledge

leads us to a certain point, to a certain barrier, even in which the

thought is. We just perceive that, and this reminds us a lot of Kant and the

things in itself. And it is not a surprise, we are totally in a

context to the German. Nicolò de Cusa, the German, the master E.C. also,

the German, and Manuel Kant also. So we perceive that this thing already appears here,

this reflection of our knowledge leads us to a certain point, but then we can't

pass it. And then we have, in the case of the master E.C. and the neoplatonism,

we have the divine, which is the thought. And instead of just that, we reach the

call, ignorant. The reflection that neoplatonism will make here is in the

logical sense. His ignorance is in the sense of the knowledge of God, this will be

closer to a negative theology. But here we are not going to talk about God

here in this episode, because what is really interesting in this reflection of

him is the way we obtain knowledge. So it is a natural reflection of

epistemological. We can basically affirm that all the philosophy of

Nicolò de Cusa is found in this work, in the Dota Ignorance,

the learned Ignorance. This work was finished in 1440, and it received

more or less 4 editions until the year 1514, but you see it is just interesting.

This work only received a new edition in 1913, it received the jump of 1514

to 1913 to have a new edition of this work. And even if she was released in Brazil,

before recording this video, I made a research to know if the translation

appears and it seems that the editor of the little Rio Grande do Sul released the edition

of the book. You know, it was in 2002 and 2002, I don't know, but I even found it

in the virtual form for a price even good, but I just realized that this work was

in the middle of the century, a new edition. And the work is very interesting,

not yet, it is not exactly original. It is basically a work of negative theology,

as we have already stated. Right in the first chapter, Nicolò already presents

the Dota Ignorance, learned Ignorance, in the main object of application

that is God or the knowledge of God. And he will basically say,

when we will know a certain object of which we do not have any experience,

that is, we will try to know in direct object, we can only do this through

approximations, through truths. We only realize that this is not relative

to the knowledge of God, as we will give the example of here a little bit. What do you want?

Let's take a look at it. When we will give a description of something that we do not

know in a direct way, we can only give this basic description to what we already know

through similarity. Now the question is, nothing in this world is exactly identical to the other.

So, whenever we want to describe something that we do not know, we need to do

that based on what we already know. Our partial knowledge implies, therefore,

an Ignorance. As if it were not like that, if we do not recognize our own

partial ignorance, we will fall into the mistake of firm knowing more than actually,

we know. So, let's give an example here to leave this very clear. But we just

have an individual who was born and grew up in a totally isolated tribe,

because we call it civilization of our great metropolis. An individual always

immoralized does not have any knowledge of what is our technology. He never saw a car,

he never saw a plane, a helicopter, a television, a phone, and so on. He does not have any knowledge

of that. He is totally in a brutal nature state. Now, I think that for some reason,

this individual, he appears in one of our great cities, he is taken to there,

and he begins to know such objects, right? The object is like TV, he looks at the cell,

he comes to the helicopter, he goes, he realizes that there are people inside here, he

finds a helicopter, and after seeing all this, he goes back to his tribe, and there he will try to

explain to his community everything that he presented. How this individual will do this, how he will

transmit knowledge, and how those other individuals who do not see, do not have the knowledge

of the objects, do not have the knowledge of the helicopter, for example, how can they understand

what that partner is talking about? This example is in a certain way a modification of the

cavalry of the silver horse, because at least in the cavalry of the cavalry, the individuals had the shadows

there in the wall, but in this case, they do not see no shadows of this, they are listening to

things that they do not even know, at least, imagine the way, because they do not have

the shadow, the contour of things, it is obviously the individual will try to explain what is

an helicopter, so that who never has an helicopter, starting from what they know, well, they know

the birds, so they will try to explain that maybe an helicopter is something similar to the bird,

maybe it is a flower, maybe it is similar to a gaffer, anyway, imagine, just how the individual will

try to explain, try to describe the object of which they do not have direct knowledge,

this question that is involved here, so in the first chapter when he will talk about God,

we do not have direct knowledge of God, so how can we talk about him, just for the

approximations, for the truth, for analogy, and in this we have a type of negative theology,

what is negative theology, you affirm only what God is not, we can never say in a

direct way what God is, you just deny, you say, well, God is not finite, this is God is infinite,

say that God is infinite, he means that he is not finite, so the descriptions of negative theology are

always negative, they will always deny certain characteristics to say what God is not,

these lines are so that Nikolá and Kuzov will talk about the ignorance learned,

your main object here is God, it is a medieval work, we are talking about a Christian

writing about theological things, but your epistemological reflection is very interesting,

as we do in this example, this helps us to realize how the process of knowledge works,

this is, we always have to talk about reality, we always have to describe things from

what we already know, and this has even implications in the own pedagogy, and when we talk about

stupid ignorance, about ignorant ignorance learned, one of the things that occur to us immediately

is ignorance and its own practice, that sentence attributed to the only thing that I know,

well, first of all, socrates never says this, this formulation I know nothing

seems to be a way condensed to try to describe some things that Socrates said in a

similar way, but Socrates has never stopped this, even there are passages in the work of Plato,

as for example in the Socrates' apology, in which Socrates, in fact, the firm knows something,

so Socrates already arrived, no, I know that, so he never made the firmation of

that he does not know anything, absolutely nothing, this issue of ignorance, socrates has the origin,

the apology of Socrates, which is one of the works that are here in this volume, in the part that Socrates

speaks about the message he received from the oracle of Delphus, saying that he was the most famous man,

and Socrates, obviously, as a devotee, he could not hear the word of God,

so he says, God is right now, I do not understand this because I do not think I am the most famous man,

I do not think so, I have to try to find out what he wants to say with this, because in the way I

understand the oracle, he is false, but I do not think God is lying, so he was to try to find out,

in this process he began to talk to several people, with several individuals who

were authorities, without several areas of knowledge, and Socrates arrived in the conclusion,

look, the difference between these individuals and I, they think they know things that they do not know,

while I know when I do not know things, it is basically what Socrates said, so he was more

wise in the sense of recognizing the own ignorance, so he never said I only know that nothing

is what he said is, I know and recognize the ignorance, I am more wise than this, I am more wise

because I know I am ignorant, in case you have interest in reading this in the

Proprime of Socrates, you just get here the Socrates apology, in the 21st of the day he will talk

about the oracle of Delphi and in the 29th century, he will talk about what he actually knows,

he will give at least one of the passages of the firm that knows something, and in this

29th century, what he will say is that he knows that it is evil, you will desobede, here they are

better than you, they are gods or men, but what matters here is the firmament that he knows

what I would like to highlight here at this point of reflection, this position for the

Socrates' diagmatic in relation to philosophical faze, because to make philosophy essential

recognize the own ignorance and not be considered in the post of truth, at least two

conceptions of philosophy in Plato, and in these two conceptions we never can have the post of truth,

first or because we can't grab the truth or because when we grab it we

escape from the gods, so we never can keep the post of truth, this is paradiagmatical and

essential to make philosophy, because the individual who is considered in the post of truth is the

individual who will not do more philosophy, because we just seek what we still have, we will not

seek for something that we already have, something that we already found, we just look for something

that is lost by what we do not have, that's why the post of truth is the dogmatism and the end of the

death of the philosophy itself, the position of the philosopher in the world, therefore it is of a

eternal ignorance, but we do not have to confuse the ignorance of philosophy with the

natural ignorance with which we are born. We are not talking about a return of a

walking cycle, this is, I will do philosophy only for the end of discovering that I already knew

in this, that I am ignorant, well, if I started to do philosophy, why? I recognized the need to

heal the anger of ignorance, now if I pass the whole life doing this for the end, I recognize that I

still am ignorant, this means that I will have the point of departure, not necessarily,

a life dedicated to philosophy will never be the same thing as a life not dedicated to making

philosophy. And in this sense, this reminds me of the spirit of the spirit of the king, which is a work that

will describe the various and successive experiences of consciousness on this one. The interesting aspect

in the phenomenology in relation to our discussion here is the following, in certain moments, the

consciousness will return or repeat certain experiences for which it has already passed, but in the

phenomenology of the king what happens is that this return does not fall into repetition, but it is

always a return enriched. We never have the consciousness, so simply doing the same thing,

as if it were perhaps the composition of the repetition on the psychoanalysis. Never

that, a return or return again the same experience is always the return different and enriched

in a way of a sound, passing here, taking another example in the music, when we take a sound,

mainly the sound of Beethoven in the example. The sound has a structure A-B-A, we have an

video here on the channel and the episode there, you can ask for it. What does this

structure of the sound A-B-A mean? It is that the sound is part of a certain theme, and then you

must imagine how you were going out of the house to make a pass, to pass through an experience,

this is B, and in the end you return A, but when you hear a sound of Beethoven, for example,

this return again to A, it does not fall into repetition, from what you hear at the beginning of the

music, it does not fall, but it is a enrichment repetition, a repetition that in truth brings

into consideration all that she learned, that she discovered in the B part, which was this part of experience,

in this adventure. So it is in this sense that we can encourage the process of the philosopher,

so the philosopher is the one who is not a god and not a whole, it is something that the

philosopher also speaks about, why the philosopher puts himself to make philosophy because he decides to do

such things, but in the past the philosopher is the one who is in the middle between the gods and the

gods, because only the gods and the gods do not make philosophy, the gods, why do they already know everything and

do not need to know anything, the gods already know everything, so the gods do not make philosophy,

and the gods think they do not need to know nothing, so the tool will not make philosophy,

now if you are not a god and not a whole, you recognize your ignorance, then if you will dedicate

to philosophy, then the philosophers are these, right, here there is as a point of

starting to recognize the own ignorance, but after spending a whole life doing philosophy,

what happens? We return to the same point? No, we can imagine this return as an

ignorance learned or a doubt ignorance, that's why the philosopher is characterized by the

intellectual humility who convives with the doubt, that's why the philosopher is open, he wants to know

everything, he wants to talk to everyone, he wants to know other points of view, now an individual who

thinks that he already considers himself in the post of truth, he enters in the discussion only to

come, he wants to enter the discussions to show the others mistakes, to point the

words, because well, it can be in another way, right? If the individual is considered in the post of truth,

it means that the rest of the world is in the error and in the lie, so this is the lesson of today,

we must seek the doubt ignorance, the ignorance learned, how much more we dedicate to the philosophical

activity, but we convince ourselves that we are ignorant, but this ignorance is preferable to

have a natural brute ignorance, it is a qualitative ignorance different and superior, the

doubt ignorance is superior to the natural ignorance, because we cannot say that

after a life dedicated to the philosophy, we are ignorant in the same way as we were in the

beginning of the day, no, our ignorance is certainly a return, but a return enriched,

as well as in the experiences of consciousness, in the spirit of the kingdom and also in the

structure of the sound as we find in Beethoven's music, remembering once again, make your

description in our course, the philosophical marks, the introduction, the link is in the description of

this video and if you also write in our course, the introduction to philosophy of the

classic press, the link is also here in the description. Remembering once again, we have a

reading club here on the channel, to participate in this reading club, just turn the

channel, clicking on the button that is down in the description of this video, if you

remember, you will have access to immediate updates to all the videos we have already

published and will be able to follow and participate in our reading club and also

part of our telegram group. A big hug and until the next.