YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → TODA FILOSOFIA PARA GABARITAR O ENEM 2026

TODA FILOSOFIA PARA GABARITAR O ENEM 2026 — Transcript

by Marcos Vasconcellos · 9,535 words · 1,631 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00In this video, you'll have access to a
0:03complete 50-minute philosophy review for
0:05the ENEM exam.
0:08You'll go through the philosophers who
0:10always appear on the exam, understand
0:12the concepts they address, and be fully
0:15capable of answering any philosophy
0:17question that comes up on your ENEM exam
0:20day.
0:21For this lesson, I brought in Professor
0:23Juliano, who is a true expert in history
0:26and philosophy for the ENEM exam.
0:28He has worked for over 10 years in the
0:30best in-person prep courses in Brazil
0:33and will conduct this review focused on
0:35the main points of philosophy that you
0:37need to pay attention to, that you need
0:39to know to ace the exam questions.
0:43I've also prepared a list of philosophy
0:46questions for you to access and practice
0:48until the day of the exam, with my
0:50philosophy predictions, so you can train
0:53and solidify all the knowledge you've
0:55seen in this lesson.
0:57To access this list of questions, you
1:00have to join our free materials group,
1:02which I've linked in the description.
1:05And I'll only release this list of
1:07questions if we get 1000 likes on this
1:09video and 300 comments.
1:12So, I'll only post the list of questions
1:14with the commented answer key, with the
1:17philosophy predictions for the ENEM exam
1:19, if this video gets 1000 likes and 300
1:21comments.
1:23So, leave your like, leave your comment
1:24, and also subscribe to the channel to
1:26help me reach 200,000 subscribers.
1:28I have a big goal of reaching 200,000
1:30subscribers. I work my ass off to make
1:32this channel grow, so I can deliver free
1:35, high-quality content to all of you. So
1:37, in return, I ask that you subscribe to
1:39the channel, because you will also
1:41receive a lot of high-level content that
1:43I'm sure will increase your scores on
1:45the ENEM exam. So, subscribe, leave a
1:48like, leave a comment, create hype so
1:50that it can reach more people, so that
1:52more people can benefit from this video
1:54. So, let's get to the lesson. Before we
1:57go to the lesson, a very important point
1:59. If you're aiming to prepare for the
2:012027 ENEM exam, we're having the biggest
2:03Black Friday in Protocolo ENEM history
2:05with the best offer we've ever made.
2:08For those who don't know, Protocolo ENEM
2:10is my platform with classes from the
2:12best teachers in Brazil, including
2:14Professor Juliano, who teaches history
2:15and philosophy.
2:17These are experienced teachers,
2:19specialists in their fields, and we've
2:21had hundreds of students accepted into
2:23the most competitive courses in Brazil.
2:26So, if you want top-level preparation
2:28for the 2027 ENEM exam and wish to gain
2:30access to the most incredible offer we
2:32have ever made in our entire history,
2:34register using the link that I will
2:35leave right here in the description,
2:37okay?
2:38Just click, enter your information, and
2:41you'll receive the offer, which will
2:43only be available there. So, don't
2:45forget to register, everyone. Now, a
2:48class with everything you need to know
2:50about philosophy for the ENEM exam with
2:52Professor Juliano.
2:53Grab a notebook, write down the main
2:56points, and I'll send the material to
2:58the group if we reach our goal of 1000
3:01likes and 300 comments.
3:03Let's go!
3:04>> Hey everyone, how are you all doing?
3:06This is me, Professor Juliano, in our
3:08little lesson here, everything you need
3:11to know about philosophy for the ENEM
3:13exam in 50 minutes.
3:16Come with me, and I'll bring you the
3:18most important concepts, how they are
3:21compared, the themes among themselves,
3:23and also the important questions we had
3:25in the last exams, how they appeared,
3:28how you should look at the questions, at
3:30each of these contents within the skills
3:33and competencies of the ENEM reference
3:35matrix.
3:37Obviously, right?
3:39But nobody lives on a reference matrix;
3:41we live on the content that is addressed
3:44within each of the skills contained
3:46within the competencies.
3:48So, come with me. Let's go for it, let's
3:51crush that exam! And that's it, folks.
3:53Next, I've put here for you, right,
3:55about the pre-Socratics, Balmon. So,
3:57we're going to work with the most
3:59important authors in philosophy for the
4:02ENEM exam within our timeline of Western
4:04philosophy, right?
4:07Understanding that we work with this
4:09conception of philosophy, uh, because
4:10the ENEM exam has been asking some
4:12questions related to this in recent
4:14years, right?
4:15Some important authors there, such as
4:17François Fanon himself, right? We will
4:19also work on that in our sociology class
4:22, as well as on Achille Mbembe and the
4:24concepts of necropolitics, which we will
4:26cover a little further on.
4:28But here are the philosophers we have
4:30there: the pre-Socratics, then Socrates
4:32, Plato, Aristotle, then a little bit of
4:33medieval philosophy, then modern
4:35philosophy where things start to get
4:37interesting, right?
4:39Then contemporary philosophy, and we
4:41finish with Balman and Bun Shunhan, who
4:43have been appearing in the exams more
4:45recently. Okay? Come with me then so we
4:48can do a nice little review.
4:50Everyone, listen up: do you remember
4:52that transition from the era of mythical
4:55thought to the very beginning of
4:57philosophy, is that clear?
5:00I've put a lot of information here for
5:02you, because later you'll receive these
5:04slides and you can write down some
5:05important details, right?
5:07But we don't talk about everything
5:08that's here. I mean, we talk about
5:10everything, but not by reading, right?
5:11Because that's what matters.
5:13What do we have that's important?
5:14Philosophy is a form of knowledge
5:17production that emerged around the 6th
5:19century. So, uh, the 6th century, with a
5:22specific way of producing knowledge,
5:25right? Before that, we have myth. Be
5:26careful, right?
5:28This transition from myth to philosophy
5:31isn't abrupt, right?
5:33We call mythical thought cosmogony, and
5:36the emergence of pre-Socratic philosophy
5:38is called cosmology.
5:40So, what's the difference?
5:42Myth is explaining reality through the
5:46supernatural.
5:48Philosophy, on the other hand, is
5:50looking at the world and explaining it
5:51through reason, right? Through logos.
5:55So, logos is therefore the way we should
5:57describe reality, and along with that,
5:59it's the order that is already
6:01predetermined, established in the things
6:03of the universe, right?
6:05So, these first thinkers will utilize
6:08this logos, this rationally oriented
6:10discourse, in order to explain the
6:12nature of things, to explain the origin
6:15of all that exists, don't you think?
6:18And they want to understand the origin
6:19of everything. For them, there would
6:22therefore be a beginning to all things,
6:24right? They fundamentally seek the idea
6:27of arche.
6:30This arche would be an initial
6:32explanatory principle, right, of all
6:33other things.
6:36So, philosophy is born from the
6:37investigation of physis, from the
6:39investigation of the elements of nature
6:41.
6:43This investigation is done through the
6:45undertaking of reason, through
6:46deliberation, right, through thinking.
6:48So, the emergence of science, of
6:51cosmology, in opposition to cosmogony.
6:54Be careful, we don't have a total
6:56rupture from one element to the other.
6:58This total transition won't happen. An
7:00example of this is that Plato himself
7:03ends his Republic in Book 10 with the
7:06myth. So, it's just to understand that
7:08there's a different way of thinking,
7:10right?
7:11Myth isn't questioned because myth
7:13belongs to tradition, myth belongs to
7:15culture, myth belongs to the people,
7:17whereas philosophy, being produced by an
7:19individual, can be criticized.
7:22That's where we have the various
7:24discussions about what the arche is,
7:26right?
7:28Therefore, we have different conceptions
7:30of arche, right? You'll see that in
7:33detail later. The first of these
7:35thinkers is Thales of Miletus, who says
7:37that water is the initial principle,
7:39right? Everything comes from water. Then
7:41Anaximander criticizes Thales as well,
7:43Anaximander of Miletus, and says: "No,
7:45little brother, it's the apeiron, it's
7:47the indeterminate, it's the infinite and
7:49eternal principle that generates
7:51opposites, and from there everything
7:53arose, right?
7:54Then also in Miletus, Anaximenes."
7:57Here's a detail that the proofs
7:58sometimes address, okay? An important
8:00detail. Philosophers argue among
8:02themselves, they discuss among
8:03themselves, right? Ah, you say one thing
8:04, but I don't agree. Why? Because it's
8:07individual, it's personal. The idea
8:08isn't collective, it's not traditional,
8:10therefore, right? So Anaximenes will
8:13determine, therefore, that Pneuma would
8:16be arche.
8:18And then we arrive at Heraclitus, right
8:19? Heraclitus is that famous thinker of
8:22the idea that you can't bathe in the
8:25same river twice, right?
8:27Why? Because the river is no longer the
8:29same and you are no longer the same
8:31either. The river has already had the
8:33experience of coming into contact with
8:34you and you have already had the
8:35experience of bathing for the first time
8:36. Therefore, you won't be the same when
8:38you jump in again, because you've
8:40already jumped in once before, right?
8:42Therefore, for Heraclitus, everything
8:44flows, everything is in constant
8:45transformation, everything is changing,
8:47right?
8:49And then Parmenides, Parmenides is the
8:51opposite of Heraclitus, right?
8:53Parmenides determines the question of
8:54being. Being is one, immobile and
8:56eternal.
8:57He denies the transformations, okay?
9:01Along with all of them. Then we arrive
9:03at the pluralist philosophers, right?
9:06Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Leucippus, and
9:09Democritus.
9:11Empedocles worked with the idea that we
9:13have the four elements, and from them,
9:15we would have the emergence of all
9:16things originating from that base.
9:19But how are they going to look at it,
9:20and how did the things that are here now
9:22, at this very moment, come to exist in
9:23this way? They had a history, something
9:26came before them, right? So I'm here
9:28because my parents made me, I'm here
9:29because my parents 'parents made me, my
9:31father's parents made me, my mother's
9:33parents made me.
9:34And then my grandparents' parents made
9:36me, and so you already have this thought
9:37, but how did it all begin?
9:39And how did the things of the world
9:41begin, right? This house here is built
9:43of brick. But what is brick? Is it clay
9:45? Is it earth with water and cement?
9:47But what was it before? Ah, that was
9:50such and such. And what was that thing
9:51made of? And then you get stuck in this
9:54thought, right, this endless digression
9:56. How do you resolve this?
9:58Through what they'll call trying to find
10:00the arche, from which everything arose,
10:02right?
10:03Empedocus will say that there are four
10:05things: water, air, earth, and fire.
10:07Then Anaxagoras determines that nous is
10:09the origin of everything, right? And
10:12Leucippus and Democritus with the idea
10:14of the atom and the void.
10:16Eternal, indivisible matter for
10:18Democritus. Everything is a combination
10:21of atoms. Everything is a combination of
10:22atoms. It's just the mixture of things
10:24that are here, right? The mixed atoms
10:26gave rise to us, right?
10:28Do you know who is a great scholar of
10:29Democritus? Karl Marx. That's why Marx
10:31is also a materialist. It's about taking
10:34the elements of Democritus here from the
10:36philosophy that we define as being a
10:38pre-Socratic philosophy, right?
10:40What is the change from pre-Socratic
10:43thought to Socratic thought and to the
10:45beginning of another type of philosophy
10:47? What I like to share with you is the
10:49following concept: Oh, Bolota, my dear,
10:50my dog who likes to be a nuisance and
10:52get under my feet. Bolhão, Bolhão,
10:53Bolhão. Go away, go, son.
10:56Here in the philosophy of the
10:57pre-Socratics, let's divide the screen
10:59here.
11:01First, the pre-Socratics. The
11:04pre-Socratics, they looked here, then,
11:06here, right, at the human being, the
11:08individual and so on. And then there was
11:10the world.
11:12And then they will take this logos and
11:14project the logos onto the world. What
11:17is the origin of things? How did
11:19everything begin, how did things arise?
11:21So, logos is directed towards
11:26the world, right? Let me erase this here
11:28. This doesn't make much sense, right?
11:32What will Socrates do about this?
11:34Socrates will change this question. So,
11:36you take the same individual, instead of
11:39the individual only asking about the
11:41origin of the world and things, okay? So
11:43, instead of projecting this logos onto
11:46the world, he's going to project this
11:48logos onto himself, right?
11:51So the logos here, philosophy, will
11:54begin to focus on the human being, on
11:57action, right, on the action of the
12:00human being.
12:01Therefore, from here on, okay, fine, but
12:04instead of trying to understand the
12:06origin of everything, what would beauty
12:08be, for example?
12:11What would it be to do the right thing?
12:15What is acting in the right way? What is
12:17justice? What is beauty?
12:20What is love? What is wisdom?
12:23Huh?
12:24These concepts, right? These questions
12:27arise with Socrates, okay? Socrates. So
12:30, remember an important element. He
12:32didn't found any school, or anything,
12:33nothing written about him remains.
12:35It's only what Plato basically wrote
12:37about him.
12:39Xenophon, Aristophanes too, okay?
12:42And the stance of Aristotle, of Socrates
12:45, pardon me, is a stance of "I only know
12:47that I know nothing." The more I know
12:50about the things of the world, the more
12:52I realize I have things to learn.
12:55Therefore, what I know is always
12:56insufficient. Therefore, I will never
12:58know much. Therefore, I only know that I
13:01know nothing.
13:03Remember one thing, Socrates isn't going
13:05to determine things, like, love is this
13:06, justice is that, beauty is something
13:08else.
13:09No, he's going to write, right? The
13:13Socratic passages that reach us through
13:15Plato, right,
13:18>> are through dialectics, through dialogue
13:22, through maieutics. Maieutics in the
13:24sense of, remember Socrates? Socrates '
13:26mother was a midwife, right? A midwife
13:28is someone who gives birth.
13:30So Socrates wanted to make people give
13:32birth to the truth, right? He would
13:34approach a person and start talking to
13:36them about a certain thing.
13:37Oh, really? You like such and such, but
13:39what is it?
13:40Then the person would try to explain
13:41what it was.
13:43And Socrates would counter-argue, right
13:45, this approach, right, to the birth of
13:47ideas, right, knowledge as a result of
13:49the critical examination of
13:51consciousness.
13:52And then Socrates speaks with a person,
13:54the person responds, they engage in this
13:56dialogue with another person, they
13:58discuss, and these dialogues unfold,
13:59right?
14:00And Socrates criticizes, bringing new
14:02ideas, reinforcing or discarding some
14:04elements, right?
14:05And this is what we call Socratic
14:07dialectic or maieutics.
14:10So maieutics is about making the person
14:13give birth to the idea.
14:16Not that Socrates says what things are,
14:18right?
14:20Socrates will never call himself a wise
14:20man, because the wise man is the one who
14:21knows.
14:23Socrates is a philosopher, he is the one
14:24who loves to know. Loves in the sense of
14:26desire, he is the one who wants to know
14:28about things, right? So that's the
14:31important element we'll have here.
14:33Socrates wants to know about things.
14:35He doesn't know, that's why he'll be
14:37there criticizing what love is, what
14:39life is, what justice is, right? And
14:41whenever the guy gives a kind of weak
14:43argument, right?
14:44He then uses irony to disconcert the
14:47interlocutor, right?
14:50When he realizes it's a weak argument,
14:52something, he ironically criticizes the
14:55guy, right? Sometimes these important
14:57dialogues, therefore, didn't end in
14:59anything, right? They were also called
15:01aporetic dialogues.
15:03Socrates, who is often the main
15:05character in the texts of Plato, who
15:07later becomes his disciple, do you see
15:09what I mean?
15:12Look, Socrates.
15:14Who doesn't know what something is?
15:17How could they know what kind of thing
15:19it is?
15:21Or does it seem possible for someone who
15:23doesn't know at all who Meno is?
15:26For that person to know if he is
15:27beautiful, if he is rich, and if he is
15:29noble?
15:31It seems impossible, Meno, that the
15:33things you affirm to be virtue.
15:37If you don't know who Meno is, without
15:39knowing who Meno is, how are you going
15:41to know what virtue is? Without saying
15:43what virtue is?
15:45Here Socrates is, right, in dialogue.
15:48How are you going to know that something
15:49is something without knowing it?
15:50The attitude presented in the
15:52philosopher's interrogation of Meno is
15:54an explanation of the use of epistolary
15:56writing. Folks, what is an epistle?
15:59Epistle of Saint Peter the Apostle to
16:01the Corinthians.
16:03An epistle is a letter, right? False.
16:06Dialectical method. This here is a
16:08dialogue. Yes. Socrates is in dialogue,
16:10conversing with Meno to reach some
16:12conclusion or at least, right?
16:14To philosophize about a certain thing.
16:16Dialectic in the Socratic, Platonic
16:19sense is dialogue, right? Dialectic for
16:22Marx is something else, right? Tragic
16:25language, there's nothing tragic here,
16:27right? Fiscalist explanation. I don't
16:29even know what that means. Judicial
16:30suspension. What would judicial
16:32suspension be? Suspending judgment,
16:34right? That would be a skeptical stance
16:36, right? A Pires-like one. Actually, no
16:39. This has nothing to do with it.
16:40Dialectical method. Well, Plato is a
16:42student of Socrates, right?
16:44And then Plato follows with the Socratic
16:46conceptions and concepts important to
16:49him. The first of them is that famous
16:51theory of ideas, right? What is the
16:53theory of ideas?
16:55How do we know what things are before we
16:56know them?
16:58It's Meno's paradox that was in the
16:59previous text, right?
17:00How did I...where did the idea of a cup
17:03come from, right? Again, I always use
17:04the same example because there's always
17:06a cup near me. Where did the example
17:07come from? The idea of a cup arose, even
17:09though the cup didn't exist before. Huh
17:11?
17:13Think about your cup now.
17:15The coolest cup I own is definitely my
17:16São Paulo one, which I think is just the
17:18absolute best. Best cup in the world.
17:22And this is my cup. Your cup is a
17:24different cup, the other person watching
17:26this class has a different cup, right?
17:28It's Marcos's cup.
17:30What is a cup? So, where did this idea
17:32come from? How does everyone, besides
17:33knowing where it came from, know that
17:35it's a cup, right?
17:37That's where the theory of ideas arises
17:38.
17:40There must be a place, right?
17:43A supra-world, right?
17:45Another world that is intelligible,
17:47perfect, and eternal.
17:50Because how do I say it's a cup? You,
17:51cup, cup.
17:53Each person is thinking of a different
17:55cup, and we all understand what we mean
17:58because there is a world of essence, an
18:00eternal world, a world of perfect things
18:03, and from there we gradually download
18:05these concepts to our material life, to
18:07this sensible world that is imperfect,
18:10right?
18:12And we materialize and understand this
18:14here, right?
18:16His dialectical theory is the method of
18:18ascension to true knowledge through
18:20dialogue. Therefore, what leads us to
18:22know things is dialogue.
18:24So, dialogue is what leads us to reach
18:27these ideas.
18:29Because the teacup is a silly example,
18:31right? We can talk about justice. What
18:33is justice?
18:34How do you know you're being just?
18:37For Plato, justice is achieved through
18:40philosophy.
18:41Be careful, okay? For Aristotle, justice
18:43is achieved through habit.
18:46Be careful, right?
18:48So, for Plato, there are two worlds.
18:50There's a separation between a sensible
18:52world and an intelligible world. The
18:54sensible world is what we're seeing here
18:57, okay?
18:58This sensible world is imperfect, and
19:01the intelligible world of the intellect
19:04is a perfect world. Professor, what does
19:06that mean? There has to be an essence of
19:08justice so that I know what justice is,
19:11you and all living people know what
19:13justice is. Only in this way does it
19:15make sense for us to understand what
19:17things mean, right?
19:20Plato is a great critic of democracy,
19:23right? Saying that democracy is a form
19:26of government that would degenerate into
19:28tyranny.
19:30Right, everyone? Here's the famous myth
19:32, right?
19:33It's not a myth of the cave, actually
19:36it's an allegory, a set of metaphors, if
19:39we take the concept rigorously, what
19:42it's representing, right? Remember?
19:45I forgot to mention a detail, remember
19:47that Socrates is going to be killed,
19:48right? Socrates is going to commit
19:50suicide, in fact, he's going to be
19:51condemned to death, right? And he's
19:52going to drink poison. Why? Because
19:55Socrates is being considered someone who
19:56was harming the polis, right? Someone
19:58who was challenging the nobles, the rich
20:01.
20:01And why? Because he was trying to lead
20:04people towards knowledge.
20:06This allegory of the cave also serves to
20:08explain Socrates, right?
20:10So, people were looking there, right?
20:12The prisoners here looking at the back
20:14wall, thinking that this was reality,
20:16when in fact this reality was happening
20:18here, right?
20:19The animals here that aren't reality yet
20:22, but are simulacra here, objects, right
20:24?
20:25And the fire, the shadow of this here,
20:27made this.
20:29Then one of the prisoners escaped,
20:31noticed the fire, went and climbed up
20:32when he got here little by little, right
20:34? Because otherwise he'll go blind.
20:36Then he looked and said: "Wow, this is
20:38the real world."
20:40And then he'll go back and try to free
20:42the others. When he tries to free the
20:43others, they kill him and say: "Man, are
20:45you crazy? Of course this is true. This
20:47is true, dude. Look, that's not what
20:49you're saying, you understand?" And then
20:52, along with that, we can already
20:54understand, therefore, Plato's
20:56epistemological conceptions.
20:58For Plato, epistemology has two worlds,
21:00the world of ideas and the sensible
21:02world. The perfect world, the world of
21:04ideas, the sensible world, the imperfect
21:05world. OK? The question we have here. So
21:09, we
21:13agree that when we see an object, we say
21:15: "This object that I am seeing now has
21:17a tendency to resemble another being,
21:19but it may have defects."
21:23It cannot be like the being in question
21:25and is, on the contrary, inferior to it
21:27.
21:28Thus, in order to make these reflections
21:31, it is necessary that we have first had
21:33the opportunity to know this being to
21:35which the said object approximates, even
21:38if imperfectly. How so? How do I know
21:40that the idea of justice existed? This
21:43idea of justice, therefore, is innate,
21:45right?
21:46Here is a key part of Plato's work,
21:48which is the concept of reminiscence.
21:51Therefore, in our lives, we remember
21:53things that exist in the world of ideas
21:55, and we manifest them here in the
21:57course of our lives; we remember,
21:59therefore, the concepts of things, okay
22:01?
22:03That thing he's talking about, the being
22:05in itself, right?
22:06Another being.
22:08Therefore, if my cup is different from
22:10your cup, there must be a perfect cup
22:12from which we take the reference.
22:14Justice, love, beauty, everything also
22:16falls within these questions, right? So
22:19, in epistemology—remember what
22:20epistemology is? Epistemology is the
22:22origin of knowledge.
22:24Epistemology can stem from rationalism,
22:26idealism, or empiricism.
22:29Plato is an idealist who believes that
22:32ideas are innate, right?
22:35For Platonic epistemology, knowing a
22:37particular object implies, that is, for
22:39us to be able to know something in this
22:41world that we are seeing, it implies
22:43establishing similarities between what
22:45is observed at different times.
22:48If I'm looking at one thing now, another
22:49thing later, and another thing at
22:51another time, I'm conducting an
22:52experiment.
22:53So I'm comparing the thing I'm seeing
22:55with what? With itself.
22:58So, it's not about comparing the
23:00observed object with a detailed
23:01description of it.
23:06Where does this detailed description
23:08come from, right?
23:09To correctly describe the
23:10characteristics of the observed object.
23:12So, you are describing the observed
23:14object, that's true, false.
23:16To make a correspondence between the
23:18observed object and its being.
23:21Yes, even though I'm looking at these
23:23headphones and I know they're not
23:24perfect, where did the idea of
23:25headphones come from?
23:28They have to exist beforehand, before I
23:29was born.
23:31So, the correct answer is letter D. It's
23:33the same thing. You're going to compare
23:35the object that exists with the being of
23:37that object, okay?
23:39Following that, Aristotle is perhaps the
23:41author who appears most often on the
23:42ENEM exam, okay?
23:44So, we are going to have to talk about
23:46Platonic epistemology and also about
23:47Plato's ethical questions. Uh,
23:49Aristotelian epistemology and
23:50Aristotelian ethics, okay?
23:53Aristotle wants to resolve the problems
23:55of the pre-Socratics, right? Okay? One
23:58thing transforms into another. How so?
24:01Then it becomes something else, right?
24:03Being is being, non-being is not.
24:05Everything changes, everything flows,
24:08how does it work? And then Aristotle
24:10brings us the concept of substance.
24:13Everything that exists is substance.
24:15It's not the substance you learn in
24:17chemistry, it's substance for him.
24:18Forget what you know about chemistry
24:19because of Aristotle in this context,
24:21okay?
24:22Substance, therefore, this here, this
24:23here is a substance. This here is a
24:25plastic bottle, okay? This here, this
24:27little bottle, right?
24:29This bottle has a material, plastic, and
24:32it has the shape of a bottle.
24:35If I flatten this bottle, it will become
24:37something else. If I melt this plastic,
24:39it will become something else.
24:42Therefore, at that moment, it is a
24:43substance.
24:45What determines what it can be is its
24:47material.
24:49Its material is what is capable, what
24:52gives the possibilities for the form,
24:55right?
24:57I can't turn this into gold, for example
24:59, because it's not within the natural
25:02capabilities of plastic to transform
25:04into gold, right?
25:06But I can take this and transform it
25:07into something else.
25:11For example, a statue, material bronze,
25:13form of a goddess.
25:16So, the statue of Aphrodite, for example
25:18, is a bronze statue of Aphrodite.
25:21If I take that bronze and melt it, I
25:23transform it into something else, okay?
25:25So, what is Aristotle trying to say?
25:26That a thing is one thing and other
25:28things that it can become.
25:32What determines what it can become are
25:34its potentialities.
25:37That's what he defines as the division
25:39between act and potency. Act is what the
25:41thing is now.
25:42So, the statue at that moment.
25:45But its material, which is bronze,
25:47allows it to be transformed into other
25:48things.
25:50What allows it to become and also what
25:54delimits what it can become is the
25:57potency, what it can become.
26:01And then, of course, you're looking at a
26:03seed, so there's the little seed.
26:05The seed is the seed, but at the same
26:08time that it is the seed, it is the
26:10capacity to be transformed into a tree.
26:14Therefore, it is both seed and tree,
26:17because the tree is contained in the
26:19potential for transformation of that
26:22seed.
26:23Thus, he explains transformation.
26:27And in this way, he looks at nature and
26:30believes that everything must be acting
26:33.
26:34And in this way, everything in the world
26:36is in this constant process between act
26:39and potency.
26:41Act is what it is at the moment, potency
26:43is what it can become, including the
26:45human being itself, right?
26:48Therefore, in the universe, all things
26:50are what make them what they are, right
26:52?
26:54So, the function of water would be to
26:56quench thirst, the function of food to
26:58satisfy hunger, right? Animals, right?
27:00As Professor Cloves de Barros Filho says
27:02, the frog is a sapê tree and the sea is
27:04a mare, right? And what, therefore,
27:06would be the function of a human being?
27:08The function of a human being would be
27:10to be the best human being possible. How
27:11could a human being be the best human
27:12being possible?
27:14By finding their function and meaning in
27:16life, right? Ethics, therefore, for
27:18Aristotle, is an ethics of the pursuit
27:20of happiness, which we will call
27:22eudaimonia.
27:23Right? Eudaimonia is doing something
27:26that fulfills you in the polis and,
27:28therefore, doing good for the members of
27:31the polis. It's not just doing good for
27:34yourself, it's doing good for everyone,
27:37right? That's happiness, okay? And how
27:40do you achieve this happiness? By doing
27:42something good. Therefore, if you do
27:44something good, you shouldn't do it just
27:46once in your life; you should do it
27:48constantly, okay? So, we should be good
27:51at being human beings.
27:53We will be good at doing what we are
27:54good at.
27:56If you are good at something, you have
27:58to do what is good for others, right?
28:01And if you are good at it and it's good
28:03for everyone, everyone will need you.
28:05Therefore, you have to do it constantly
28:06.
28:07We will be happy being good, right?
28:10Virtue, for him, is acquired through
28:12habit.
28:14Habit is what leads us to perfection or
28:17to what leads us to fulfillment.
28:20So you will learn what justice is by
28:22being just.
28:25We become just by acting justly. We are
28:28what we repeatedly do.
28:30That's where you find happiness. Another
28:34important concept from Aristotle is the
28:36concept of the middle way, right?
28:38It's not enough to know how to pass the
28:40entrance exam; you need to practice. You
28:42have a lot of theory, a lot of tables, a
28:44lot of plans and actions. Let's go,
28:45let's do it, right? And how will you
28:47know if you're doing the right thing?
28:49Seek the middle path.
28:51No, you won't study 19 hours a day
28:53either.
28:54You won't study for 5 minutes.
28:58You won't spend the whole week studying
28:59and completely neglecting your family
29:01and friends, but you also won't just
29:02spend time with your friends.
29:07It's the middle path.
29:08The middle path is the just measure in
29:10Aristotle's conception, which we'll have
29:13here, and that's the important detail
29:15for us to think about regarding these
29:17possibilities of achieving happiness for
29:19human beings, the just mean, which is
29:21what we'll have there.
29:24Okay? Well, let's move on, everyone, so
29:26we can do question number 14. No one
29:29deliberates on things that cannot belong
29:32to another. Ah, okay.
29:34An important detail about Aristotle is
29:36that he defends the conception of human
29:38nature as zoon politic, right?
29:40What would that be?
29:43This zoon politic is the idea that human
29:45beings are naturally social animals.
29:50Human beings are naturally political
29:52animals; we are born to live
29:54collectively, right?
29:57Uh, nobody deliberates about things.
29:58What does deliberation mean, folks?
30:00Deliberation is rationalizing, it's
30:02thinking, acting accordingly, choosing
30:04according to our reason.
30:07Nobody deliberates, nobody reasons about
30:09things that cannot be otherwise, nor
30:11about things that are impossible to do.
30:14Consequently, since scientific knowledge
30:16involves demonstration, but there is no
30:19demonstration of things whose first
30:21principles are variable.
30:23And since it is impossible to deliberate
30:25about things that are by necessity,
30:27practical wisdom is by necessity.
30:30Practical wisdom cannot be science, nor
30:33art, nor science, because what can be
30:35done is capable of being different.
30:39Nor art, because acting and producing
30:40are two different kinds of things.
30:42Therefore, the alternative remains that
30:45it is a true and reasoned capacity to
30:48act with respect to things that are good
30:51or bad for man, that is, ethics, right?
30:55Aristotle considers ethics as belonging
30:57to the field of practical knowledge,
30:59because it is learned by doing, one
31:00becomes good at it, right?
31:03In this sense, it differs from other
31:05forms of knowledge because it is
31:07characterized as conduct defined by the
31:09rational capacity for choice.
31:11The capacity to choose according to
31:13scientific standards.
31:16Knowledge of things important to human
31:18life. No. Technical, no.
31:23Ah, politics established according to
31:25democratic standards of deliberation.
31:26No. Correct alternative, letter A. Great
31:29. Let's move on, everyone. Then we have
31:30the Middle Ages. During the Middle Ages
31:33, philosophy is subservient to
31:35religiosity, right? We have the
31:37Patristic period and Scholasticism. And
31:38we arrive at the modern world.
31:40In the modern world, we already have a
31:42great conflict between rationalism
31:45versus empiricism.
31:47The rationalists, right, represented by
31:49Descartes, by Spinoza, but mainly by
31:51Descartes, believe that knowledge—where
31:53does knowledge come from?
31:56Knowledge comes from our reason.
31:58So, we are born with reason.
32:00Reason is something innate, it's already
32:02in everyone. That's why he's also
32:03similar to Plato, right? We are born
32:05with reason, right?
32:08We don't learn to rationalize, we are
32:09born with it, according to Descartes,
32:11okay?
32:13Empiricists, on the other hand, will say
32:15no, empiricists will say that the origin
32:17of our reason is that we are born as a
32:19blank slate.
32:21And then we write on this blank slate,
32:23and this writing on the blank slate is
32:25experience.
32:26And from there, knowledge arises, right
32:29?
32:30So rationalism, as I already told you,
32:32believes in the elements of innate ideas
32:35of a deduction, which would be logic.
32:37True knowledge comes from reason.
32:40Reason is the foundation of certainty.
32:42Truth is necessary and universal, right
32:44?
32:45It values the deductive and mathematical
32:47method, because Descartes was a
32:48mathematician, right?
32:50And he also wants to find a mathematical
32:52truth for philosophy, right?
32:55I think, therefore I am, right? The
32:57conception of Descartes that we will
32:58have there, Descartes is responsible for
33:00the production of the method, right?
33:02He's a Cartesian who wants to look at
33:04philosophy the way mathematicians
33:05produced knowledge. He's a critic,
33:07therefore, of the philosophy that was
33:08being produced at that time.
33:10He wants a philosophical truth like the
33:12truth of mathematics, right?
33:15That's why he creates a method, right?
33:17He's going to divide, therefore, the
33:19stages of the analysis of reality, right
33:20? The stages of a method to try to prove
33:23that, right? Then his question of "I
33:25think, therefore I am," what would that
33:27be? The cogito ergosum.
33:29Decart will say: "Okay, but how do I
33:31know?
33:33Right? He's reasoning, using his
33:35reasoning and all that. How do I know
33:38I exist, right?
33:41Because who guarantees that I'm not the
33:43product of a demon's thoughts?
33:46He's thinking,' I'm in someone else's
33:49head. 'Hmm.
33:50There he'll say:' I can doubt...I can
33:53doubt... 'How so, professor? I can doubt
33:56that this bottle exists. I can doubt
33:58that the world is here. I can doubt if
34:01I'm the product of a projection of a
34:03future artificial intelligence. I can
34:06doubt all of that. I just can't doubt
34:08that I am doubting at this moment.
34:11And therefore, if I am doubting, if I am
34:14considering, if I am thinking, then I
34:17exist, right? I escape solipsism, I
34:20escape mere thought, right? I am in the
34:23world I am thinking about, therefore, I
34:25seek indubitable knowledge through
34:27reason, right? So, we have doubt in
34:29Descartes, being an element in achieving
34:32truth. This is a stance towards doubt,
34:35right?
34:36Unlike Michel de Monten, who is a
34:37skeptic who doubts, therefore, the truth
34:40.
34:40Okay? Descartes develops his famous
34:44Cartesian method, right? A reliable way
34:47to obtain all knowledge.
34:48So you divide it into two parts: first,
34:50evidence, analysis, synthesis, and
34:52enumeration. Evidence: accept only what
34:54is clear. It doesn't matter what you're
34:56telling me about things, I want to see
34:57it. I want the true evidence of the
34:59thing. Analysis: divide the problem into
35:01parts. Synthesis: order the thoughts
35:03from simple to complex. Four,
35:05enumeration. Review to leave nothing out
35:07.
35:08See, it's a totally mathematical thought
35:10to understand philosophical truth, okay
35:12?
35:13This is René Descartes, the guy of the
35:15scientific method.
35:17Scientific reason, right? The height of
35:19the scientific revolution will be
35:21promoted there by Cartesian thought,
35:23right?
35:24Uh, I've already talked about this here
35:25with you. Ah, of course, the elements of
35:28division between res cogitans and the A
35:30broad tie between mind and body, between
35:32reason and matter.
35:34So, we have a dualism present in Plato,
35:36which is also present in Descartes.
35:39Question number nine.
35:41In the first meditation, I explain the
35:44reasons why we can doubt all things, and
35:46particularly material things, at least
35:49until we have other foundations in the
35:51sciences beyond those we have had until
35:54now.
35:56In the second meditation, however, the
35:57spirit recognizes that it is absolutely
35:59impossible for itself, the spirit, not
36:01to exist.
36:03Why is it impossible for it to exist?
36:05Because it is doubting, right? It is
36:07pondering at that very moment.
36:10The intellectual instrument employed by
36:12Descartes to analyze his own thoughts
36:15aims to identify a starting point for
36:17the consolidation of secure knowledge,
36:20to observe particular events for the
36:22formation of a universal understanding.
36:26This is the method of empiricism, okay,
36:28folks? To look and determine, therefore
36:31, how experience is the source of
36:33universal truth. False. Be careful with
36:35these little questions. Descartes is a
36:37rationalist. John Locke is an empiricist
36:40. David Hilln is an empiricist.
36:42To analyze human needs. For the
36:44construction of empirical knowledge.
36:46Descartes is not an empiricist. See how
36:48silly that is? But that's what appears
36:50on the test, man.
36:51Establishing a cognitive basis to ensure
36:53the valorization of memory. Valorization
36:55of memory. How so? Investigating
36:58structured totalities to endow them with
37:00meaning. So you're going to take a
37:02structured whole and give meaning to
37:04each of these things here, right?
37:06The correct alternative is letter A.
37:09Okay?
37:10Empiricism, on the other hand, believes
37:12in this idea that we are born as a blank
37:15slate, right?
37:16And that, therefore, experience imprints
37:18things on us, right? And knowledge,
37:20therefore, is the fruit of experience.
37:22Yes, right? The basis of the modern
37:24scientific method: observation,
37:26hypothesis, test, and conclusion.
37:28Important thinkers are Locke and David
37:30Hill, right?
37:32David Locke will argue, therefore, that
37:35the human mind is a blank slate, that
37:37all knowledge comes from experience,
37:39that there is no innate reason, there is
37:41nothing. What we have is...Our senses
37:44are what we use, right?
37:47And then our senses observe things that
37:49are outside, then a sensation arises,
37:52and then that sensation is registered in
37:54our head, and then we produce memories
37:57about that, and these things mix in our
37:59head, and from that arises knowledge,
38:02right?
38:04For Rousseau, knowledge is mental habit
38:06, right? Criticizing, for example, the
38:09idea of a substantial self, right?
38:11For Rousseau and Descartes, there is a
38:14self inside, right?
38:16It's like there's a little being that's
38:18thinking. There's a being that thinks.
38:20Rousseau will say no.
38:23Humboldt will say that we are the ones
38:24who construct this self-perception, the
38:26idea of self, right?
38:28What's thinking inside your head? Is
38:31this essential, or is it just how you
38:33see yourself?
38:35Isn't it?
38:35It's an element of Rumian radical
38:37skepticism, right?
38:39So, Humboldt is a critic of the
38:43deductive method, right?
38:46Or rather, of the inductive method. He
38:48is a critic of induction, right?
38:51Induction is leading Using one thing
38:54leads to a universal statement, right?
38:57Suppose a person is suddenly brought
38:59into this world endowed with the most
39:01powerful faculties of reason and
39:03reflection.
39:04Is it true that they would immediately
39:06observe one event following another?
39:08But they couldn't discover anything
39:10beyond that.
39:11Rum is a critic of the idea of causality
39:12, right?
39:15He wouldn't know it at the beginning, he
39:17wouldn't be able to learn, through any
39:19reasoning, the idea of cause and effect
39:20.
39:21Therefore, the idea of cause and effect
39:22is a construction of the human mind.
39:25According to Rum, our ability to
39:27establish relationships like those
39:29mentioned in the text represents, uh,
39:31results from the representation
39:33constructed by the assimilation of
39:36universal judgments.
39:37Therefore, universal judgments exist.
39:40What is a universal judgment? A
39:41universal truth that's here waiting for
39:44us to access it.
39:45Rum is an empiricist. He doesn't believe
39:47in the idea of essences of universal
39:50truths. Everything is the result of
39:52experience, a false habit developed by
39:55the repetition of an operation. Yes, we
39:58determine, right?
40:00He'll say:" And the Causality, the
40:02problem isn't that just because the sun
40:03rose every day doesn't guarantee it will
40:05rise tomorrow, right?
40:08"Testimony derived from third-party
40:10accounts, intuition formed by pure
40:12mental activity." Pure mental activity,
40:14like that, nothing from experience.
40:16Reminiscence. Oh, that's why these words
40:19I'm telling you are important. This is
40:20Plato, divination from past lives.
40:23So you're going to take things that have
40:24already happened and look at them and
40:25perceive that thing that happened that
40:27time in my other life, right?
40:28Nothing to do with it.
40:30Here's a little question from Locke, but
40:32you can finish it later with the
40:33material, and because we have to move on
40:35and talk about the contractualists and
40:36about the question of political
40:37philosophy, right? The first of these
40:39political thinkers is Machiavelli.
40:41Remember? Two very important concepts
40:43from Machiavelli. Machiavelli is a
40:45pluralist in ethics, right?
40:48He reminds us that we should look at
40:50human beings as they are and not as we
40:52would like them to be, right?
40:55So he determines that we, the ruler,
40:57should have an ethical plurality,
40:59because the objective of every ruler
41:02should be to remain in power and control
41:05their people, right?
41:07All human beings are ungrateful, Fickle
41:09, false, hypocritical, cowardly, and
41:11greedy.
41:12So, the ruler must look at reality as it
41:16is, right, and control human beings.
41:19That's where Machiavelli's idea comes in
41:20, right, that the ends justify the means
41:22, the ends being social control, right?
41:24And the means, whatever he deems
41:26necessary. That's where the ideas of
41:27virtue and fortune come in, right?
41:30Fortune, luck, opportunity, things that
41:32are outside the ruler's control.
41:35For example, an earthquake, for example
41:37, a tsunami, for example, a volcanic
41:38eruption, a pandemic.
41:40These are things that are outside the
41:42ruler's control. Now, how will he deal
41:45with that?
41:46That's within the ruler's control.
41:50That's why we have virtue, it's the
41:52prince's capacity to act in a situation
41:55of fortune, right?
41:57How he will act, how he will deal with
41:59that situation. That's what matters.
42:01That's the point, for it's the only
42:03place one can act.
42:04And so, why is it that we have a
42:05conception of an ethical plurality?
42:07That classic example of...Machiavelli
42:09describes a ruler who, to end a revolt,
42:11ordered the leader of the revolt to be
42:13arrested, right?
42:14He tied this guy here, his arms, legs,
42:16and neck, each to a rope, each rope to a
42:19horse, took him to the city square,
42:21brought everyone to watch, and then he
42:23put a cannon on each horse to fire. Then
42:25each horse went in a different direction
42:27, tearing the guy's body to pieces, and
42:29the revolt ended.
42:31The ends justified the means. He killed
42:33a person. From a Christian point of view
42:36, killing someone is right on some
42:38occasions. No. Therefore, he did not
42:40take Christian ethics into consideration
42:42. But if he had taken Christian ethics,
42:44only Christian ethics, he would not have
42:46controlled the revolt. Therefore, the
42:48ruler must act according to the
42:50circumstances, not according to
42:52predetermined formulas, right?
42:55Hobbes is another important thinker who
42:57doesn't define that human beings are
42:59evil by nature, but rather that human
43:01beings are cowardly, right?
43:03Man is a wolf to man. Since the human
43:05being is a wolf to man, what is going to
43:07happen now? The being Humans live in an
43:08eternal war of all against all. To
43:10resolve this, therefore, they relinquish
43:12part of their freedom and establish a
43:14social contract.
43:16And thus, humankind can defend its
43:18existence through this social contract,
43:20which would be that of Leviathan.
43:23We have Robeswick, John Locke, whom
43:25we've already seen, and also
43:27Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as philosophers
43:29we would define as contractualists,
43:31right?
43:32Let's do it, we won't have time to do a
43:34little question about him here, because
43:35otherwise we won't be able to finish
43:37where we need to, because we still have
43:39some other thinkers to finish with,
43:41right?
43:42Here's a question: how can I obtain
43:44secure and true knowledge, both through
43:45reason and experience, about the things
43:47of the world?
43:49So, is knowledge innate, do things, does
43:51knowledge of things exist naturally, or
43:54do I need to go through experience?
43:57And that's where we arrive at Kant.
44:00Kant is a guy who will try, in some way
44:01, to establish his criticism, right?
44:04But for the The ENEM exam, which is our
44:07focus here, tests the idea of
44:09enlightenment.
44:11It's an idea that defends the notion
44:14that human beings should use reason to
44:17be autonomous, right?
44:20The dare to know or to lose.
44:23What would that be, right? The answer to
44:25what enlightenment is, right? The answer
44:27, what is the Enlightenment?
44:30The Enlightenment is the enlightenment,
44:32it's the human being, through reason,
44:34determining the things in which he will
44:35act, right?
44:37Kant, in Kantian ethics, we have an
44:40ethics determined by duty, an ethics
44:42that we will call deontology.
44:44There is always the right thing to do.
44:47And this, this ethics, this question, is
44:50universal, okay? Ethics for Kant is
44:53acting correctly.
44:55The consequence of the action doesn't
44:57matter, what matters is the action
44:59itself, right?
45:01So, we must do what is right, not what
45:03our desires tell us to do, because
45:05acting according to our desires makes us
45:07slaves to our desires.
45:09We must act, therefore, according to the
45:11Reason.
45:13The human being who uses reason to
45:15deliberate on things is an autonomous
45:17human being.
45:19The one who dictates that another person
45:21choose for themselves is a heteronomous
45:23human being who allows the other to
45:25choose and make decisions.
45:28You are responsible when you become
45:30someone who uses your reason, right? For
45:32that you need courage, right? And to
45:35break with your cowardice in Kant's
45:37conception, okay?
45:40And then we have the so-called
45:41categorical imperative.
45:43Act universally from duty, act only
45:46according to a maxim.
45:48That you can will to become a universal
45:51law.
45:53Morality, therefore, is the autonomy of
45:54reason. The subject is free when he
45:56obeys the laws that he himself gives to
45:58his rationality, right? This is an
46:00important element for Kant.
46:02Kant highlights in the text the concept
46:04of enlightenment that I just brought to
46:05you, right?
46:07Fundamental for understanding the
46:08philosophical context of modernity.
46:11Enlightenment in the sense used by Kant
46:14represents the claim of autonomy by
46:17rational capacity as an expression of
46:19maturity. That is, using reason to be
46:23greater is this, right?
46:27The exercise of rationality as a minor
46:29premise in the face of eternal truths.
46:31No, no, no.
46:33The imposition of mathematical truths,
46:35no. With the objective character of a
46:37heteronomous form. Hetero is different,
46:39it is the other. No. Understanding
46:40religious truths that liberate man from
46:42lack of understanding. No. Kant is super
46:45religious. The emancipation of human
46:47subjectivity from ideologies produced by
46:49reason itself. Nothing to do with it.
46:51The correct alternative, therefore, is
46:53letter A. Then we arrive at a field of
46:54the philosophy of ethics that are the
46:56so-called utilitarians, right? So, let's
46:58think.
47:00Aristotle will say: "Doing the right
47:02thing is achieving audacity," right?
47:05It's the middle way, right?
47:08Then we arrive, therefore, there after,
47:10for example, we talked about Machiavelli
47:12, doing the right thing depends.
47:16It's an ethics that will lead you to a
47:17consequence. It's a consequentialist
47:19ethics, it's a utilitarian ethics. And
47:22here we return to it, right? Doing
47:24something seeking A specific objective.
47:27We talked a little while ago about Kant
47:28. Kant disagrees. Kant will say no.
47:31You don't have to do the right thing
47:32because of its consequences, you have to
47:33do the right thing because it is right.
47:36So Kant, looking at that example I gave
47:37you, where Machiavelli mentioned the
47:39king who ordered someone killed, Kant
47:40will say: "That's wrong."
47:43Ah, but he maintained control of the
47:44population. The consequence of the act
47:46doesn't matter. The act itself is wrong
47:48. Killing is wrong, therefore it cannot
47:49be done.
47:51In the same way, right?
47:54For example, for a utilitarian, if a guy
47:56went and stole to support his family,
47:58because his wife had terminal cancer and
48:00needed very expensive medicine, he
48:02couldn't get the money, so he robbed a
48:05bank, got the money, and bought the
48:06medicine.
48:09For utilitarians, that would be right.
48:12For Kant, no, because stealing is wrong
48:13, right?
48:16Therefore, utilitarian ethical
48:18philosophy is the greatest happiness for
48:20the greatest number. People. That's the
48:22calculation. Remember that trolley
48:24dilemma?
48:25You have a trolley that's going one way
48:27or the other? And you have two options.
48:30Here you have path A, there's one person
48:32tied up there. Here there are three.
48:34Here's path B, and this trolley is
48:36coming from here.
48:38You're the one who's going to guide it.
48:39Whether the trolley goes to A or to B.
48:41The utilitarian will say: "You have to
48:43kill just one here."
48:47You go this way, their ethics are
48:48utilitarian, it's the maximization of
48:50happiness for the greatest number of
48:52people.
48:53If there are more happy people, that's
48:55the right thing to do. Therefore, path B
48:58is the correct one, right? Let people
49:00exist and kill just one here, which is
49:03the utilitarian view. It's a
49:05consequentialist action, an action
49:07evaluated strictly by the results
49:09achieved. Look at this composition, this
49:12juxtaposition of ethical perspectives
49:14here, right?
49:15What perspective of justice emerges from
49:17the relationship established in the text
49:19between punishment and happiness?
49:21Application of means to achieve an end,
49:23imposition of rules to establish a Duty
49:25? You already saw that option A is
49:27correct, right? Because that's what we
49:28have here as utilitarian ethics.
49:30Application of means to achieve an end,
49:32right? Machiavelli was a utilitarian.
49:35Did you see Jeremy Benton? That's
49:37utilitarianism. That's why option A will
49:39be correct. Great. We've arrived at
49:41Nietzsche, folks.
49:42Nietzsche will be a thinker who will
49:44look at questions of ethics and morality
49:46and he will say that you're all wrong,
49:47right? The great problem in the history
49:49of philosophy began with Socrates and
49:50Plato, and everyone has been repeating
49:52their things. Not everyone is wrong,
49:53right?
49:54Because universality doesn't exist.
49:57Morality was constructed by the majority
49:59, and the majority is weak, right?
50:01That's why Nietzsche is the philosopher
50:03of the hammer, right?
50:04Philosophy began to decline from
50:06Socrates and Plato onwards, right?
50:10Christianity is Platonism for the masses
50:12, because Christianity values a morality
50:15of the weak, inverts the vital values of
50:17human life, the senses...Vital aspects
50:19of human life, right?
50:22He is the philosopher of the hammer. Why
50:26? Because he will destroy the great
50:28idols, the abstract and eternal values,
50:30right?
50:32Nietzsche, therefore, will determine the
50:34questions of master morality and slave
50:36morality.
50:38Christianity is the morality of
50:39resentment, it is the morality of the
50:41slave, the morality of the weak, where
50:43you can't act in a certain way because
50:46you are boasting, oh, because I can't,
50:48oh, I don't know what. That's it. Keep
50:50complaining, keep complaining, don't act
50:52too much, don't think too much.
50:54That's the morality of the slave. That's
50:56what Nietzsche will say about
50:57Christianity.
50:58The morality that existed before was a
51:00morality of the masters, of
51:01self-affirmation, of the will to power,
51:03right?
51:04The will to power as the vital force
51:06that impels the individual to expand,
51:09affirm and create, right? Nietzsche will
51:12say, "Act in such a way.""The love that
51:15he determines for us is, imagine that
51:17you were to live your life eternally,
51:20reincarnate, you would make the same
51:22choices that you made.
51:25The individual who overcomes the
51:27morality imposed by society and the
51:29denial of eternal life is the one beyond
51:31man. That is salvation. Because here in
51:34Christianity, the human being gives up
51:37his will, his power, right, his Dionysus
51:40for his Apollo, because he abdicates
51:42this life thinking about a future life,
51:45thinking about salvation. The Nicholson
51:47will say:' There is no salvation. '""If
51:48there is no God, there is no salvation.
51:50And then what are you going to do, right
51:52?
51:52Unconditional affirmation of life as it
51:54is, without lamenting or wishing it were
51:56different, just be, right?
51:58That's a little question from Nietzsche
51:59. The passage contains a formulation of
52:01Nietzsche's doctrine of eternal return.
52:03Which one? Here is the teaching of my
52:05doctrine. Live in such a way that you
52:07must desire to relive, for in any case
52:10you will relive. He who loves above all
52:13to submit, obey, and follow, let him
52:15obey. But let him know where his
52:17preference is directed and not retreat
52:19by any means. It is eternity that is at
52:22stake.
52:24You want to be submissive, know this.
52:25You will be submissive again, right?
52:27[The text then abruptly shifts to a
52:29different topic:] H, which presents
52:30radical criteria for evaluating the
52:32quality of our personal and collective
52:34existence, the convenience of caring for
52:36physical and spiritual health, the
52:37legitimacy of the pagan doctrine of the
52:39transmigration of the soul, the veracity
52:41of the cosmological postulate of the
52:42perpetuity of the world, the validity of
52:44habitual patterns of human action
52:46throughout history.
52:47What do we have?[The text then shifts
52:49again:] represents, presents radical
52:50criteria."...from the evaluation of the
52:52quality of our personal and collective
52:54existence.
52:56The last thinkers we will work with here
52:58, folks, are the existentialists, right
52:59? Sartre and Albert Camus, right?
53:01Remember Sartre? Existence precedes
53:04essence. We are all condemned to be free
53:08, right? There's no escaping it. Choice
53:11is inherent to humanity. You will have
53:13to choose.
53:14We make about 35,000 decisions and
53:17choices a day, right?
53:19So you have freedom as a condition for
53:22human beings.
53:23There is no essence, only existence.
53:27And from that, if you don't have a
53:28predetermined divine essence for your
53:30life, it means you will have to choose
53:32what you will do for yourself.
53:34And then you will have to bear the
53:35consequences of your actions. And that's
53:37where anguish arises, that's where
53:39nausea arises in Sartre's conception,
53:40right?
53:41Along with Sartre we also have Albert
53:43Camus, who is the philosopher of the
53:45absurd, who will say: "Our life is
53:47absurd. Life has no meaning at all,
53:49right?" The conflict lies between the
53:51search for meaning and why should I do
53:52this if things will all go wrong again
53:54tomorrow? Why do I have to do this if I
53:55have to wake up and go back to work
53:56tomorrow? Why should I live, right?
53:59And then you have the myth of Sisyphus.
54:01You have to determine, therefore, a
54:02meaning for your life. So you have a
54:04mountain there, and here's Sisyphus,
54:05right? Sisyphus will be climbing up
54:07there, pushing a rock. When he gets to
54:09the top, that rock will fall again, and
54:11the cycle will begin. That's the meaning
54:13of your life. Choose one for it,
54:14therefore, and be happy that way, okay?
54:18Last points we have to talk about, which
54:19is very important, Simone de Buvoá,
54:21right? There's basically no question
54:22about Simone de Buvoá, but it doesn't
54:24hurt to remember the idea that gender is
54:26a historical and social construct. No
54:28one is born a woman, one becomes a woman
54:30, right?
54:31A woman's role is always constructed in
54:33comparison to a position of
54:34subordination to the male subject. So,
54:36woman is the other in relation to the
54:39essential, universal subject, which is
54:41man, right?
54:43We will discuss Foucault in our
54:44sociology class, where we will address
54:46him in more detail later on, covering
54:48the specific topics of biopower and
54:50biopolitics, is that alright? Hannah
54:52Arendt too. And here to wrap things up,
54:54just Balman.
54:55Balman is the thinker of liquid
54:58modernity, right?
55:00The world we live in today is a world
55:01where everything is ephemeral, liquidity
55:03is what things used to be—before, things
55:05were solid, rigid, right?
55:07Water takes on various forms; you can't
55:09just hold it here inside the container.
55:11In my hand, if I throw it here, it runs
55:13away, just like the time of our lives,
55:15just like our relationships in our
55:16contemporary world, right?
55:18Everything is fleeting, everything is
55:20ephemeral, everything fragments, right?
55:23Nothing is permanent, neither our lives
55:26nor our perspective on the future, right
55:29?
55:29In the past, you had the prospect of a
55:31future where you would go to college,
55:33then have a family, then get a job, then
55:35have a house, a car, a house on the
55:37beach, and a car in the countryside. And
55:39you could achieve all of that. The
55:40future was solid. Nowadays, you don't
55:42even know if your job will still exist
55:45in two months, right? That's the Balma
55:47we're collaborating on here. So, for
55:49utopia to be born, two conditions are
55:51necessary. The first is a strong feeling
55:54that the world is not functioning
55:55properly and that its foundations must
55:57be reviewed so that it can readjust.
56:00The second condition is the existence of
56:02a confidence in human potential, up to
56:04the task of reforming the world; the
56:06belief that we, human beings, can do it
56:08, being able to perceive what is wrong
56:10with the world, what needs to be changed
56:12, what the problematic points are, and
56:15having the strength and courage to
56:17eradicate them. Therefore, utopia has a
56:19function in our lives, right? According
56:21to the author, what is the function of
56:22utopia in the context of social
56:23transformations? To enable affective
56:25memories. Utopia is that perfect thing
56:28that hasn't happened, but that we want
56:30to achieve. It's a guiding principle
56:31that we establish. Therefore, if it's a
56:33guiding principle that never happened,
56:34how can it be a memory, right?
56:36To point out possible alternatives. Yes
56:38, we know that life in the future, we
56:40have it, we know that achieving a
56:42perfect society is impossible.
56:44But if we remove that perfection from
56:46our destiny, anything will do.
56:48So, the function of a utopia is to point
56:51out possible alternatives. That's it,
56:53everyone? We've finished our little
56:54correction of questions and reviewed the
56:56most important topics for the ENEM exam
56:58. I went a little over the 50 minutes I
56:59promised, but nothing too serious.
57:01That's it, I'm Professor Juliano. Best
57:03regards, happy studying, and an
57:04excellent exam to you all.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of TODA FILOSOFIA PARA GABARITAR O ENEM 2026 by Marcos Vasconcellos, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 9,535 words across 1,631 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to choose a caption track available on the video.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, caption language selection, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.