The person exists in itself and for that is she substantiates. I specify it of substantiates is to be for itself; therefore with the term it substantiates if it understands ' ' essence which competes the being for si' ' , in which the Being is not the same essence. Properly speaking it substantiates is only the individual not universal it. It substantiates it is real the ontolgica condition of the presence of determined capacities, of the current exercise of certain operations, of exterior manifestation of necessary behaviors. It is substantiates it thus understood that it assents to explain the unit (in the space) and the permanence (in the time) of the identity of the human being. 9 _ INTERPRETATIONS MATERIALISTIC OF THE MAN. The materialistic interpretation of the man, according to marxism, if bases more on the certainty of that the substance is the last root of all the reality, and on particular, of all expression human being. The man is the apex of the evolutiva substance.
This means that the man, even so revealing a deeply distinct level of existence of the one of the animals, in I finish in case that it is understandable with the aid of material categories. In the origin of the marxist materialism it is, without a doubt, the antropolgica doctrine of Feuerbach, that destroys the transcendncia and reduces the man to a reality imanente. For Feuerbach the content and the object of the religion are absolutely human, the mystery of the theology are the anthropology, the mystery of the being the holy ghost are the human being. The practical consequence of this it is an absolute materialism and a imanetismo. In the base of the anthropology of Feuerbach it has a false vision of the man and God. To make great the man, if it needs to destroy the God, because the existence of God empobrece to the man alienates and it.
With the social division of the work and the production of excesses, were clearly that a man would be capable to more than produce what its necessities of subsistence, thus creating the economic possibility of the exploration. From then on, members of other communities, made prisoners, were not died nor untied but transformed into slaves, making to appear a new type of society, with private property of the means of production, a escravista society. The Anthropology registers the slavery at remote times, however, with patriarcal character, gentleman and slaves working together (over all to the south of the Sahara). With the growth of the social division of the work and the development of the exchanges, civil and military heads had become kings and emperors. The use of the power institutionalized for the defense and the magnifying of the goods grew.
The seted guards, the courts, the arrests and the lunatic asylums had formed themselves. The State appeared as instrument of violence of the ruling class on the explored masses and the assignment of madness for any 7 different mannering logic of hegemonic. Slaves had supported agricultural explorations, the large states of Rome. They had constructed the pyramids of Egypt. The Related Companies shines more light on the discussion. They had initiated the first plantations of cotton, without which the modern industry would be inconceivable. ' ' As the machine and the credit wrote MARX the slavery constituted the base of the industry burguesa' ' 8. The history of the escravista society is the history of a encarniada fight of classrooms and numerous revolts of slaves, one of them, of the most known, commanded for Spartacus (73-71 B.C.), in Rome. The feudal reality, in turn, showed of unquestionable form the interdependence enters the productive relations of production and forces. Rank that the slave was not interested in the increase of the production and the escravismo, of this form, stopped the development of 9 the productive forces, became necessary the creation of a stimulaton to raise the productivity.
To characterize the man in Jean-Jacques Rousseau she is necessary to have in mind the way as it reconstructs the history of the humanity, showing that the existing inaquality between the men is fruit of the action of the proper men throughout history. Through this reconstruction the author works the State of Nature and the Civil State. Rousseau says that the property becomes the beginning of the inaquality of the men and defends that only an organized society can reveal the divisions of the properties, as many private properties as public, but being always the private property a common good. For the distant philosopher the more the man will be of the Civil State, of the rationality, better the man if he becomes, therefore he believes that what ruins the man is the society, is the rationality and is for this reason that Rousseau wants the return of the man for its State of Nature. The author was the first philosopher to question the rationality, that for it the rationality was not something negative, therefore the way as being something positive, but yes, because it was come back toward the things superfluous and not essential to the men and for this reason contests that it. It does not believe that the rationality was used for being the rational man and yes for interest. For the thinker the man must be independent and therefore he believes that only the education cannot be only one way of instruction, but yes a pedagogia of the autonomy. Rousseau believes a Social Contract where the people is who decides, where the laws are determined by the people, it had the notion of public good, where only with public good if it would arrive then at an organized society that had prescribed the properties. For Rousseau the scientific ascension was not folloied by a moral ascension, human being, for it and as he himself at the beginning says Of the Social Contract ' ' the man is born exempts, and for all the part meets acorrentado' '.
2. We only can think the things about a cause relation and effect because the causalidade is in the citizen, not in the world, according to Kant (Critical of the Pure Reason), in contrast to Hume, that considered it a habit (Inquiry On the Human Agreement). In Kant the forms a priori of the agreement (the pure concepts) are the categories. The causalidade concept is part of these categories. Of this form, we cannot conceive the succession of the phenomena not to be as causal succession. That is, we know a priori that all phenomenon is caused and that in all change some never dumb thing (this is its condition of possibility). The critical kantiana continues when it says that ' ' whichever the way and the ways for which the knowledge can become related with objects, the way for which the knowledge if relates immediately they is intuio' '.
That is, intuition only exists if an object in the data. However, ' ' intuitions without concepts are cegos' '. The impossibility of knowledge of a priori object goes beyond any particular causal relation. As much for Hume how much for Kant it is in guideline the empirismo. All knowledge starts for the experience, precedes never it.
The paper of the rational citizen is basic in the critical one. ' ' We do not know in the things seno a priori what we ourselves in it colocamos' '. In the Critical one, the objects in relation to the citizen are considered independent things, the proper substance of the knowledge. The phenomenon is as these objects appear for we, and being dependents of the citizen they constitute the form of the knowledge. One is about the external belief in the object existence according to Hume. In the Hume Inquiry it says: ' ' It seems exactly that, in isolated cases of operation of bodies, never we can discover, for the examination most minute, something beyond a simple event following itself it another one, and we are not capable to apprehend any force or power for which the cause operated, or any connection between it and its presumption efeito' ' (Inquiries VII). In the operations of the Nature the events if occur independently of the citizen. Our way to see the world if bases on the belief which according to, our perceptions sees objects as if they present to the directions. But about this context, if to think about the transcendental idealismo, the way to know the causes and the effect, this knowledge is opposing to the empiricist. The principle transcendente exceeds the domain of the experience. All the progress of science will not open the limits of the experience. Everything that will be given we is always relative. If all subjectivity will be abstracted, object will not be found in place none.
We prefer the expression? technological? for distinguiz it of the scope of sciences properly said, the term ' ' cincia' ' it has held some meanings: it can not only assign the scientific knowledge organized around an object or any knowledge since that systemize, logical, methodical, critical. This position of the edge the confusion. We cannot call a jurist, a doctor, a musician, one politician, of scientist. He is a technologist. 5.4.1- The right is a repository of behavior norms, imposed coercitive, aiming at to adjust the behavior of the individuals to the objectives of each estadoi: ubi societas ibi jus.
All rule of law is servant, and applied, with determined intention. If a government plans to fight the inflation, low norms of restriction of the credit, wage wage freeze, increase of the interests, aiming at to dry the demand. If the state if considers to stimulate the production, to the opposite, will create stimulatons, as low interests, better wages, reduction of the exportation tariffs, will open credit facilities to the producers. A state that defends the private property of the capital goods has the well different legal system of that it condemns the private property and alone it admits the production for the state. The same radical difference we find between states that defend the liberal-democracy and those of organization fascist or Soviet the right in a state escravocrata is one, different of that abolitionist. And so on. In all state, it has necessity of social order, security to the integrity of the people and to the property, protection to the basic rights of the men, respect to the word freely pledged, state autonomy against attacks and external mediations, economic and cultural progress, preservation of the conquests of the civilization etc the maintenance of statu quo alone is possible thanks to the norms imposed for the state, coercitive, folloied of severe sanctions for the infractors.