HUMANIZATION & INTELLECTUAL EMANCIPATION

“HUMANIZATION & INTELLECTUAL EMANCIPATION”, it was born from a rereading, was born from the necessity of a new sense happening to the existent paradox between the thought of two great philosophers: Aristotle’s, thinker of origin Macedonia, divergent disciple of Platão, of ancient Greece, (a.c); and Jean Paul Sartre (1905-1980) existentialist philosopher of the century XX.
Epistemologicamente, such a problematic is situated between two different theories of to be: That of Aristotle’s, centered in the conceptions of the Act and of the Power, characterized in the finalities of the being, in other words, of what the being can become from what if it is; And the conception of Sartre, opposite that of Aristotle’s, which extols what is the being that is, in other words, that is not a being closed in itself, in a nature, but opened for a human condition.
The new sense, the rereading, consists exactly of a more deepened study, specifically what concerns the conceptions man's Aristotelians, in which it is glimpsed, is discovered, two different senses for the term finality: The first like objective thing (target to be reached); The second as end to which something destines (predetermination).
What is solved is that, all the other beings, in the theory of the Act and of the Power of Aristotle’s, differently of the man, are conceived like being to be irrational, and, so, inside a finality conception, for the nature, determinist or daily pay - determinist.
However, as for the man, there is a finality, but I do not eat predetermination, and yes like target to be reached. In other words, something exists in opened, one “that to do” I humanize, a condition that needs to be reached so that the man becomes a man in fact, very much besides him simply man is born, to grow and to die.
Aristotle’s was defining the man like a rational being for nature (but like target to be reached and not in the direction of determination) and it was considering the rational activity, the act of thinking, like the extract of this stated finality, i.e. like surviving the power in accordance with his reason.
He was saying that, to be happy, to happen while man, this reason should command the acts of his conduct ethics, if it orientated it in practice of the virtue.
Theoreticians who were centered specifically in the conceptions of the Act and of Potencies, without opinion that there was an exception to this rule specifically relative to a man, to “to be a man”, given that Aristotle’s had a parallel theory, special for the being man, did not understand Aristotle’s how it should and, like Sartre, still what with all his greatness and philosophical magnitude, judged it badly.
Aristotle’s, while speaking about the conduct ethics, of the practice of the virtue, of the search of the happiness, speech of the necessity of the existence of a human condition humanized in the man, in coherence with his rationality, so that he in fact should is humanized, but not of any human stated condition, and yes of one that it allows to him to be humanized, to become a human being in fact.
Looking for backrest in Nietzsche, in his appreciations of which “the man is a bridge that goes of the animal her besides him”, as well as in the bases epistemological existentialist, and, confronting dialectically those to know with the historical problems of social exclusion and economical, especially in the present centuries, we reach the axiom of which:
Distant men of a human condition humanized in fact, distant of the exercise of his rationality, besides not happening while human beings in fact, of not becoming men in fact, acquire, incorporate, in themselves, any other paradoxical existential condition to a human condition humanized fact, becoming slaves, animalizados, alienated and, in the modern sense, excluded.
In other words, just there it is that it characterizes the opening “of the being man”: he can reach his target, happen in fact while man, as much as can be any another thing,