Monthly Archives: November 2012


Knowledge. The knowledge is unquestionably a fact. In any society it is a constant. The history of the knowledge is a permanent process of rectification and overcoming of concepts, explanations, theories, techniques and ways to think, to act and to make. The characteristics of the knowledge, its roots and its process of elaboration and improvement are studied under well different perspectives, for the diverse thinkers who if have busy of this subject. For the idealist, the knowledge is born and depletes in the citizen, as pure idea. Criticizing radicalism of the idealistic positions, LEFERBVRE observes that ' ' many Metaphysical ration in the following way: ' ' The citizen of the knowledge, the human being, is a conscientious individual, one I; who is one I? It is a conscientious of itself e, therefore, closed being in itself exactly, In it, cannot have seno subjective states, states of conscience. How it could leave itself exactly, to carry itself to it are of itself in order to know a diverse thing of itself? The object, in case that exists, it is it are of the reach.

The pretense knowledge of objects, proper the existences of these, is not more than an illusion (…). The knowledge is defined as apprehension of an object for the citizen, that is, the cognoscitivo citizen, the conscience, has as function apprehension of the object. This apprehension is become fullfilled by means of a process where the citizen leaves its sphere to catch the properties of the object, being that these properties appear as image in the citizen. It is important to emphasize that a citizen alone is subject for an object and an object alone is object for a citizen, therefore these remain separate. The knowledge object tends to identify itself with real object, without never atingiz it, however, in its fullness. The objetividade is an infinite process of approach, as occurs in the assinttico parallelism of LOBATSCHEWSKY (1793-1856).


Per moments, it will not be easy to tolerate the anxiety of the change, but to be kind to it, it allows to recognize it, and thus, to modify it. Little by little it will yield the anxiety, the chaotic thing of the emotions. He is for that reason better to realise it along with specialists who can contain these anxieties and fear. 3. – To accept the differences, the pair does not have to think like you, to speak like you, to think like you, to do the love like you, and amarte as you say that she must love. The pair is an individual person with its own ways and behaviors, which attracted to you initially. To change to the expectations and the forms of property in relation to feminine sex and the family.

4. – To learn to satisfy the own needs. That is to say, to stop hoping that the pair makes the things by us. To assume the rolls that each unon has I decide to play, and to support, not to do violence to. 5. – To train in other forms and you rule of relation. To improve the communication, first with one same one, to know our feelings, our thoughts, our actions and needs, and later those of my pair, as well as those of the relation and those of the family.

To give to each of them the specific weight him of its importance. The family and the pair are a society in which all require of well-taken care of and respect. 6. – To construct Igualitarias Relations: as much the pair as I comprised important of the bond and for it she is needed that we are equals in everything. The women require of a valuation than they do, although per moment, their world is only domestic. It is an equipment and all require of conditions of equality to work.

Eugen Rosenstock

The language form is determined by the sender who in turn transmits to the receiver its message. ORIGIN OF the LANGUAGE As appeared, which its true origin? According to Eugen Rosenstock? Huessey in its book ' ' The origin of linguagem' ' , it appeared through the imitation, of the gestures. For me ' ' origem' ' of the language any is so legitimate question how much another question of ' ' origem' '. This wants to say that it possesss that limitation that is central to any of these questions: she is necessary to know what we want to say for ' ' origem' ' what we want to say for ' ' o-rigem' ' of the language. (ROSENSTOCK-HUESSEY, 2002, P. 37).

When it is said in origin of the language we have a double one felt: the language as capacity of the man if to communicate, because it is about an essential property to its species and another one through the manifestations carried through for signals, is gestuais, fisionmicos or constructed they. The significant fogueiras, the telegraph of Morse, the current traffic lights to govern the transit in the cities biggest, the double communication of the deaf person-dumb are examples, through gestures that they mean letters or of the symbolic gestures for them created and that they allow to a colloquy almost so fast how much ours. Ribot, in ' ' Evolution DES ides gnrale' ' it says: ' ' To perfect for the effort of all the thus invented language and thanks to the tradition, that transmits the results successful; but at the same time, it modifies itself, as everything that lives; when the races and social groups of the humanity if had divided and diversified, also it was cindiu in different languages. Here it is verified that the language if holds as a social fact. (RIBOT, P.