CULTURE

According to Abbagnano[1] Culture could be defined in two ways: 1) as “(…) men’s build, their development, refinement(…) and 2) as “(…) its product, i.e, its cultivated ways of living and thinking, known as civilization”. (p.209). From the 17th century on/, scientific thought or rationalization/ overcame religion as the most important essential truth producer regarding the world and human nature. Rationalization brings along with it another conviction that starts to be taken for granted: men’s free will[2]. It offers a compensation for redemption’s loss (post-death redemption). During this process, Culture’s meaning semantically slips and starts being “naturally associated” to the idea that free will would enable us to create purpose in life. According to Kant: “Culture is the result of being able to choose their own goals and purpose, in rational beings”[3]. We are not going to dig into this discussion because it is beyond our knowledge and the intent of this work. To our purpose, it is enough to know that Culture runs through all identity development levels and that, alone, can’t exhaust all necessary conditions for understanding individual ways of symptomatizing. But.. what does that mean? How and in which levels culture has an impact on personalities and interactions? Is there a consensual answer for these questions? From Ego’s perspective, If we take these issues into account, Culture may be considered in two broader senses: 1) as Meta-narrative-in this case it would work as essential structure of truth production (most basic assumptions regarding human nature, for instance). They aren’t “logical truths”, such as 2+2=4, they are empirical. But that doesn’t mean they are “circumstantial” or that have the same status of opinions. Assuming something as essential truth during a period of time doesn’t mean to be a “relativistic”. To talk with Wittgenstein[4], something meant as an essential “truth” works as an origin mythology, which is illustrated by the image of a hard rock limiting the course of a river or sea boundaries. Truth is not ethereal (hard rocks erode as time goes by), but as long as it works as a hard rock, it is a stable reference to limit course of rivers and the sea.

To be continued on the next Post

[1]Abbagnano, N. 1982. Philosophy dictionary . São Paulo, p.209 [2] Free will is discussed since Old Testament . Our purpose is to link it to ego’s transformation during centuries. Therefore, beyond being considered as a human nature constituent it starts working as aspiration, life’s horizon or happiness condition. [3]Abbagnano, N. 1982.Philosophy dictionary. Crit. Do Juízo. Paragraph 83 [4] “The propositions describing this world-picture might be part of a kind of mythology. And their role is like that of rules of a game; and the game can be learned pure practically, without learning any explicit rule(…) The mythology may change back into a state of flux, the river-bed of thoughts may shift. But I distinguish between the movement of waters on the river-bed and the shift of the bed itself; though there is not a sharp division of the one from the other(…) And the bank of that river consists partly of hard rock, subject to no alteration or only to only an imperceptible one, partly of sand, which now in one place now in another gets washed away, or deposited”. Wittgenstein, L. On certainty.