#sartres

damn about myself tho….its a no from me dawg…jks

"Verdadeiramente livres"

Quando se falar de liberdade recordo sempre das palavras de Paulo aos Gálatas: "É para sermos verdadeiramente livres que Cristo nos libertou." (Gl 5:1a, TEB), pode-se dizer que esse é o prelúdio da resposta ao conceito sartreano.  

O conceito de Paulo sobre a liberdade não vem para ser uma "repressão a liberdade humana", e sim encontrar a liberdade em comunidade, algo que para Sartre parece ser impossível. O capitulo cinco mostra no que consiste "ser livre": Confiança na fraternidade (vv. 5-6); Fidelidade no serviço a fraternidade (vv. 13-14); E amor à fraternidade que leva a transformação (vv. 22-23).  

Pois, por mais que tentamos ser livres por nossas escolhas, essas escolhas pode acontecer na sobreposição ao outro, transformar o outro no instrumento para alcançar minha liberdade ou se transformar instrumento para alcançar a liberdade do outro, querendo no fundo a minha liberdade. É nesse conflito que faz sentido acreditar que por esse tipo de pensamento que existe "certas violências" em nossa sociedade? Eliminar os valores de fraternidade, serviço e amor ao próximo, a vida do ser, não existirá violência, já que o homem é livre para criar sua existência? Paulo antecipa que esse tipo de pensamento geraria a "destruição comunitária" (vv. 15). Já que a consciência é algo formado pela liberdade como ela pode levar ao homem a sua existência?  

Não há liberdade se não tem conhecido de que consequências o homem sofrerá por suas escolhas sem ao menos ter plena consciência dela. A proposta de Paulo nesse escrito foi apresentar as consequências, tornar ao leitor pleno consciente de suas escolhas.  

Considerações finais

Portanto, a ética cristã vem como resposta, não religiosa ao conceito de liberdade proposto por Sartre, o homem permanece livre para decidi a partir de sua consciência, mas ao invés do "espaço" que existe na questão do "Eu e o Outro" no conceito sartreano de liberdade, cria-se um "ponte" nessa relação, dando ao homem a plena consciência das consequências de suas escolhas e mostrando as possibilidades de ser feliz em comunidade.  

Referências bibliográficas

DANELON, Marcio. O conceito sartreano de liberdade: implicações éticas – Disponível em < http://www.urutagua.uem.br//04fil_danelon.htm> - Acesso em 05 de dezembro de 2013.

Buildings are the intermediary between man and god.  Dostoevski's Grand Inquisitor postulated that the common man is not able to bear the burden of divine presence on Earth all on his own.  "The kingdom of God is within you" is thus translated from a form of liberation to a heavy cross one has to bear.  Instead of this direct and constant confrontation, the Church intervenes to take on the burden of divine surveillance to meet the common man and his common sins with an earthly presence.  Similarly, architecture provides more than a shelter or a venue for events to take place in.  It contains, reflects, and retains dreams and memories, hopes and achievements.  There's a promise with every building of a relationship to experience that is not singular or linear.  It begins long before it is acknowledged and it lasts long after it is granted.  That promise is the earthly expression of will and opportunity waiting to be taken advantage of, waiting to be remembered, waiting to be changed.  It is the physical existence of something that did, does, or will happen, and the patience it evokes is indicative of its fragility.  As contingent as the belief in a god, it can only subsist if it is relevant.  Therefore, Tschumi's event-space can be repostulated as if-space.

In House of Cards, Frank Underwood professes, "I pray to myself for myself."  Here is an update to the idea of having an intermediary between God and man.  Here both God and the intermediary are canceled, or rather, replaced.  The New Testament thus meets its Nietschian challenger, an ubermensch holding an armor that on the outside proclaims "God is dead" and on the inside is nothing but a mirror.  It is a narcissistic declaration of strength and autonomy.  Power is not earned; is self-referential and subjectively objective.

This type of existence is happily limited.  Happy because it is of its time and place.  The man feels a sense of control, perhaps not of his surroundings, but of his reaction to and confrontation with the world around him.  Where he starts is where he ends.  "I've got my balls and word and I don't break neither one of them for nobody."  What you see is what you get.  You don't need god or architecture to understand this man.  You need only fear him.  The story is driven by a revenge a la montecristo, but this man needs no motive to be vengeful.  He's the Hobbesian degree zero of man in a society.

Such an insulated and introverted interface with the world stands in contrast with the one that, in spite of itself, is more fluid and porous.  Sartre's nausea is not a passive occurrence.  It is triggered by the investment of the mind in its physical delimitations, which very quickly depart from the extents of the body and its sensory abilities.  It effectively expands the sensibility of a body in space, of bodies in space.  The multiple become one, or at least the consciousness(es) thereof explore objects, living or not, in the vicinity of the body.  The conscious mind floats and bounces like a bullet that ricochets from and through otherwise inanimate environs.  The cliche of "out of body experience" is avoided in the way the physical body deals with the explorations of the expanded mind, namely with nausea.  This sickness seems to be related to the introduction of the body-in-space feeling, not to the feeling itself.  in The Matrix, Neo experiences the same nausea as he is first introduced to the idea that his mind had been imprisoned his entire life.  The body rejects with violence the introduction of greater truths, and this is that level of understanding (perhaps Chris Marker will grade it a Level 4 on his Level 5 scale) that the Grand Inquisitor warns the second coming of Jesus against.  That nausea is not fit for the common man, at least not the submissive one of a violently oppressive empire.