Anais do 17º Colóquio Habermas e 8º Colóquio de Filosofia da Informação.

UNSPECIFIED Anais do 17º Colóquio Habermas e 8º Colóquio de Filosofia da Informação., 2021 [Conference proceedings]

This is the latest version of this item.

Preview

Text
E-book atualizado.pdf
Download (3MB) | Preview

English abstract

The world is currently experiencing one of the greatest health crises in human history. Despite all the technological progress that has been achieved, the number of human lives that have been lost (and that continue to be lost) to diseases directly or indirectly associated with the COVID-19 pandemic only increases daily, on an increasingly variable scale, but always tragic. Called to take a stand, Philosophy, whose historical vocation has been, with few but important exceptions, the conceptual and the universal, lacks a sufficient collection of specific reflections on disaster events. One of these very famous exceptions was the Lisbon Earthquake of 1755, which sparked philosophical debates about its causes, its reconciliation with divine goodness, and our position in the multiplicity of possible worlds, better or worse, in which they took part. thinkers such as Immanuel Kant, in the wake of the contributions of Voltaire and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The millions of fatal victims and daily victims of experiences of suffering, exposure to health risks, the asphyxia of the health system and unemployment and hunger make the pandemic a privileged topic for reflection, criticism and discussion. Our collective experience is very intense and painful, in light of everything we witnessed and learned from the beginning of 2020. On April 12, 2020, Jürgen Habermas gave an interview to the French newspaper Le Monde in which he addressed important philosophical issues from the COVID-19 pandemic. Habermas emphasized that catastrophic events such as a pandemic force human beings to seriously consider and take a responsible stand on health, political and legal issues, often restricted to their respective circles of experts. Everyone needs to reflect on the best behavior and make decisions with the presence of a highly contagious and lethal infectious disease in the social space. We all need to find ways to protect human life, even in situations that conflict with economic interests, both of individual political agents who debate in the public sphere, and of large capitalist corporations that seek to overcome the democratic debate. The rule of law is not authorized, Habermas claims, to make decisions that directly result in the death of the citizens under its protection. Responsible governments should, in theory, take all necessary measures to preserve the greatest number of lives. In practice, however, it is seen on a daily basis that not all governments and bureaucracies are committed, beyond the protocol rhetoric, to the fundamental principles of the rule of law, including the principle of human dignity. Habermas points out that not only political authorities, but also common people are faced with the important decision to respect sanitary rules or not, whether because of economic interests (in some cases, due to extreme need, poverty) or because of ideological convictions (such as the deniers). Failure to comply with health rules, including social isolation, has widespread consequences, often fatal and massive, which make these decisions more serious and relevant. Thus, the number of infected people increases and enormous pressure is created on the health system. Life-or-death choices are imposed by physicians due to the strong demand on scarce resources, such as intensive care beds and respiratory support equipment. The persistence of prioritizing the systemic imperatives of money and power in the debate around the pandemic shows that we live in a society fraught with pathologies, which in this context become more salient. Although the current pandemic is causing illness and death for people from different social strata, the effects of death, suffering, deprivation and exposure are, as always, more intense among the poorest. It is from this perspective that Habermas highlights in the aforementioned interview: “Solidarity is the only solution”. It is in the footsteps of this suggestion by Habermas that the choice of the central theme of the XVII Habermas Colloquium and the VIII Colloquium on Philosophy of Information, held between 14 and 16 September 2021, is justified: “Pathologies of reason and social rights during the Pandemic”. Although, as is often the case every year, the events welcome diverse contributions from the work of Habermas and other leading critical thinkers (in particular, this year, contributions on the theory of justice by John Rawls, given the anniversary of his main work), we would like the space for discussion of the events to serve for qualified and collective reflection on the economic, social and environmental causes and consequences of the pandemic. It is necessary to investigate and discuss the responsibilities (and livelihoods) of States, markets and citizens to control the spread of the disease and reduce its damage. The obstacles that the imperatives of money and power, especially in the current form of neoliberal capitalism, represent for the protection of life and work and the preservation of dignity in the exceptional context of the pandemic must be discussed and deeply evaluated. It is worth highlighting the role of the public sphere and of philosophers and scientists as public intellectuals in combating misinformation and denial and in providing guidance on ways of collectively and in solidarity with the local and global challenges of the health tragedy. It is also up to them to discuss the role that social rights and policies, especially those aimed at more vulnerable social groups, can and should play to alleviate or overcome the effects of social pathologies emerging or aggravated by the pandemic.

Item type:	Conference proceedings
Keywords:	Habermas, Colóquios, Informação, Pandemia
Subjects:	A. Theoretical and general aspects of libraries and information. > AB. Information theory and library theory. B. Information use and sociology of information B. Information use and sociology of information > BD. Information society. B. Information use and sociology of information > BH. Information needs and information requirements analysis. I. Information treatment for information services
Depositing user:	Clóvis Montenegro de Lima
Date deposited:	01 Dec 2021 01:20
Last modified:	01 Dec 2021 01:20
URI:	http://hdl.handle.net/10760/42580