Environment Behavioral Paradigms
When the man awakens to the new paradigm it is “the mechanistic conception of Newton and Descartes to a holistic and ecological vision” (Capra, 1996, p.13), let the values anthropocentric and egocentric values in pursuit of the vision of interdependence and makes It is part of everyday life, a fundamental change in our thoughts, perceptions and values.
Studies clarify what is a paradigm. Thomas Kuhn in the Structure of Scientific Revolutions gives two meanings to the word paradigm. The first, wider, has to do with “a whole constellation of opinions, values and methods etc… attended by members of a society, “founded a discipline by which the company is directed to itself and holds the set of their relations. The second, narrower, and is derived from the first means of reference examples, the solutions of problems, taken and held as copies and replacing the explicit rules in solving other problems of moral science (Kuhn, 1970, apud BOFF , 2004).
By comparison between the concepts can be taken as the first concept that is most similar to the studies discussed in this work. The refusal by “demean the Earth to a series of natural resources or a reservoir of physical and chemical raw materials” as Boff (2004, p. 27), is that the base in pursuit of the new paradigm, to feel the need to use new science and technology to nature, justifying the choice of the concept of paradigm given by Kuhn.
Created by the mechanistic view of scientific revolution represented by Copernicus, Descartes, Bacon, Newton, Galileo describes the world as a machine driven by mathematical laws. The evolution of human thought, the disclosure of chemical processes unmasking the functioning of living organisms has not been able to overthrow the Cartesian paradigm.
The art, literature and philosophy were the initial trigger of the real opposition to this dominant paradigm, with Lavoisier, William Blake, Goethe, Kant and Hutlon begin to differentiate between living organisms as self-reproduction and self-organization and see the integration between the parties and the Planet (Capra, 1982).
In the most remote times, the references to Greek and Roman on Earth were emotional, as Boff describes: Everything was full of respect and veneration, because they saw things as simple inert beings, but full of meaning and irradiation. The Earth, in the various expressions of Great Mother, of cultivated land and home, was seen as a living organism. It cannot be violated or predators. Otherwise if revenge by storms, lightning, droughts, fires, earthquakes and volcanoes […] The man had a relationship of reverence and awe in the face of Mother Earth. (1999, p. 64)
According to the author, this feeling was never completely lost in humanity. Spirits were always sensitive to magic and the enchantment of nature, even in modern times that the world massacred and reduced to a container of resources to be exploited by technology. In today this feeling resurfaces from the so-called science of the Earth. They also tend to see more and more the Earth as “Gaia”, a live, super organism highly organized and balanced with subtle, always fragile and always on repeat, as the theory says the scientist of NASA, Lovelock (1991).
The systemic thinking may have been launched from the biological view of the problem observed by biologists of the early XX century.
For Capra (1996), with the systemic view the properties of an organism or living system, are properties of a whole that no party has. Arise from interactions between the parties; if it is dissected in isolated elements, these properties are destroyed.
The systemic thinking has revolutionized the scientific thought, awakened by the impact that comes from the perception that the systems cannot be understood by analysis of its parts, but in a broad, contextual, analytical thinking is the opposite, that to understand anything we must isolate it.
The paradigm shift from mechanistic thinking to systemic thinking leads to reflect on the materialist philosophy in which human beings came to believe the matter as one consistent reality, all phenomena are secondary derivations thereof.
For systemic thinking the matter can be seen in another form, such as energy, “the matter is not simply material but stabilized energy, full of complex interactions,” citing Boff (1999, p.24). Even states that matter, the philology of the word suggests, is the mother of all things, even the life that is self-organization of matter.
The foundations for the creation of dominant paradigms emerged today of the main philosophical currents initiated from the modern era (XVII century) and the development of science.
These generated models of development incompatible with the ecological balance in the process of civilization of the West, which finally broken this environmental crisis. Turn led to the contemporary society of the century. XX, the environmental thinking.
The historical background of the main philosophical and scientific currents that influenced the formation of environmental thinking mean to say that these have led to concepts, models and forms of reasoning peculiar, or different paradigms. Highlight the most relevant paradigms of Modern Age to the present day.
Cartesian philosophy was in the focus of intervention in nature is now observed, as to “meet her for her use, control and dominate,” drawing from the power of human reason over nature (CHAUÍ, 1997). Emphasizes that as to understand the intelligence of the things from principles, are the means to dominate them. Descartes said that science must become the masters of human nature and the world. So they have the power to dominate nature through scientific knowledge, being the “master’s owners” of nature, not its slaves (JAPIASSU, 1992).
It is also called the mechanistic philosophy, which includes the world as a machine, ie, the phenomena can be explained by mechanical devices. Argues that the universe is transparent look of the right and that everything can be explained by the particles of matter divisible. Nature is regarded as the world non-human, stripped of all the dynamism, creativity of the whole, all the sensitivity of any conscience, any sympathy or antipathy, all heat or cold, all color, taste and smell , in short, a world completely mechanical, no mystery, no life and no fertility (JAPIASSU, 1992). The Cartesian rationalism influenced the thinking because environmental introduced a purely mechanistic conception of nature in which it has no purpose, and completely at the mercy of human exploitation. Stimulated the development of an instrumental rationality, which means without using any criteria to achieve the purposes, leading to a disrespect and abuse and predatory natural resources and ecosystems, as well as the development of polluting technologies.
Hence the disciplinary division of science classic, there is no connection between the disciplines and independence that are treated. Thus there was also the idea that mind and spirit are separated from the field, or the body, enhancing the mental work on the manual labor, recovery of the body of the mind alone, ignoring the psychological dimension of diseases, among others.
Therefore, the output of man’s nature as he did most of it, the disappearance of the divine vision of the scientific world has created a spiritual vacuum that has become characteristic of our Western culture (Capra, 1982) The paradigm – “EMPÍRICAL” The Empirical is a major philosophical currents of the XVII to XIX. In the explanation of empirical knowledge and any phenomena can be obtained only by observation and experimentation.
They argue that the reason, the truth and rational ideas are acquired by us through the experience, in opposition to the rationalists. In this approach, a scientific theory is a result of experimentation, so that the experiment aims to verify concepts, confirm them and produce them. Using the inductive method, the presentation of assumptions about the object reaches the definition of fact (CHAUÍ, 1997). Contrary to rationalism, empiricism claims that the knowledge begins with the experience of the senses, or the sensations that form perception (vision, hearing, touch, taste, smell). The association produces the sensation of repeated ideas.
The experiences are perceived by sensory perception and the habits and form ideas in the memory because the gathering to form the thoughts (CHAUÍ, 1997). The Englishman Francis Bacon (1561-1626), was an empiricist classic, the first to develop the inductive method of scientific research, data from individuals to reach a universal truth with deep passion for scientific experimentation, defending the value of experimental research. His motto was to be able, in their view that scientific knowledge is a practical tool to control the reality (COTRIM, 1991).
The empiricist doctrine was focused on practical science based on experimental inductive method, which is made the laws, generalized from the observation of repetition of events with constant characteristics. For this proposition that the scientific knowledge used to control the reality, paved the way for that science can also be used as an instrument of domination and control of nature.
Whereas knowledge postulated as dependent on personal experiences, perceived by each person, individually, induce people to develop individualistic conceptions. Thus, the individual was more important than society. Groups with specific interests and economic exploitation that cause specific adverse effects of human actions on nature were seen only by the side of the benefit, and will lead to greater economic gains for those specific groups.
Isaac Newton (1642-1727), using a methodology that combined the rationality, the empiricism, determinism and the mechanism to develop their concepts. Drafted the law of gravity, greatly influenced the biology, physics, chemistry, psychology and social sciences since it was formulated, used as a basis for science in general, which occurred by the end of the nineteenth century and beginning of the twentieth century when entered into decline. The limitations of the Newtonian model are only made from the theory of relativity and quantum theory that created new ways of thinking. The paradigm of Kantian – “CRITICAL” With the industrial revolution in the seventeenth and XVIII century, the advent of the steam machine was established the connection between science and technology, causing profound changes in the environment. The optimism in the power of reason to rearrange the world, the Enlightenment, the Enlightenment or Enlightenment, was the critical emergency, proposed by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) through his “Critique of Pure Reason” (ARANHA; MARTINS, 1993).
The criticism refers to the Kantian criticism, attitude prevailing at the time. A person is one that is critical positions defined and independent think for itself and only accepts as true what is established, after its consideration of the fact (ARANHA; MARTINS, 1993).
It is considered that from the Enlightenment that people began to think for themselves, not let dominate and be manipulated.
The criticism has influenced the thinking of introducing the environmental critical posture, contrasting it with an attitude of submissive acceptance of facts. What has caused scientists and thinkers, especially of the XX century, opened the questioning of the dominant scientific theories and models, establishing a connection between them and the current environmental crisis. This attitude has enabled new paradigms are created in order to solve the environmental disaster has already occurred and prevent others will occur.
The paradigm – “POSITIVISM” Augusto Comte (1798-1857) was its main representative, based on positivism, emerged as a post-Kantian philosophy in the nineteenth century, in the midst of the changes to the industrial revolution.
This doctrine created the “myth of scientism” extolling the science and the scientific method of which went all knowledge possible and perfect (ARANHA; MARTINS, 1993).
It is believed in the benefits that science and technology would provide for the industrial revolution capitalist progress. The positivism denied the painful social consequences resulting from industrialization, defended the legitimacy of the industry, agreeing with the existence of capitalist entrepreneurs and operators directly (the proletariat) (COTRIM, 1991).
The positivism postulated that knowledge must be guided by a “systematic observation”, a necessary condition to make a sound scientific research, and the human spirit must recognize the impossibility of obtaining absolute terms, about their origin, the fate of the universe and unravel the problem. What matters is to know the phenomena through their laws, which makes the science exists.
Comte said that progress is always associated with the idea of order and should be subordinate to it. Arose, then the positivist applied to the company motto: “Order and progress”. This slogan would later be part of the Brazilian flag (CHAUÍ, 1997).
The positivism deeply affected the thinking because environmental introduced the philosophy of progress, understood as technical-scientific progress and accumulation of material goods, which was won with a style of sustainable development, produced by a degraded area of the nature. The technology and science were tools of domination of nature by man, which could provide details about the natural phenomena.