O que é este blog?

Este blog trata basicamente de ideias, se possível inteligentes, para pessoas inteligentes. Ele também se ocupa de ideias aplicadas à política, em especial à política econômica. Ele constitui uma tentativa de manter um pensamento crítico e independente sobre livros, sobre questões culturais em geral, focando numa discussão bem informada sobre temas de relações internacionais e de política externa do Brasil. Para meus livros e ensaios ver o website: www.pralmeida.org. Para a maior parte de meus textos, ver minha página na plataforma Academia.edu, link: https://itamaraty.academia.edu/PauloRobertodeAlmeida;

Meu Twitter: https://twitter.com/PauloAlmeida53

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/paulobooks

Mostrando postagens com marcador pensamento. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador pensamento. Mostrar todas as postagens

quarta-feira, 12 de janeiro de 2022

Direito Internacional no Brasil: pensamento e tradição - George Rodrigo Bandeira Galindo, 2 vols (Lumen Juris)


  O atual Consultor Jurídico do Itamaraty, jurista e professor George Rodrigo Bandeira Galindo, deu a partida, alguns anos atrás, a um ambicioso projeto de "garimpagem", ou escavação jurídico-histórica, no sentido de resgatar os grandes mestres do internacionalismo jurídico no Brasil, desde as origens, ainda na criação das primeiras faculdades de Direito no primeiro Reinado, até os dias atuais.


Depois de muita labuta, e com a colaboração de algumas dezenas de mestres do direito, internacionalistas, alguns diplomatas e outros batalhadores do Direito Internacional no e do Brasil, os dois primeiros volumes dessa magnífica coleção vieram a lume, justamente pela Editora Lumen Juris:

George Rodrigo Bandeira Galindo (organizador):

Direito Internacional no Brasil : pensamento e tradição, 2 vols.

(Rio de Janeiro: Editora Lumen Juris, 2021, 460 e 444 p; 

ISBNs: 978-65-5510-741-8 e  978-65-5510-742-5 

Tenho o prazer de apresentar, acima, a capa do primeiro volume, que é similar,


 mas não semelhante, à do segundo volume, assim como, aqui ao lado, a gentil dedicatória que ele me fez ao encaminhar os dois primeiros volumes. 

Não figuro ainda nestes dois primeiros volumes, pois minha colaboração, feita já em 2019, relativa ao diplomata internacionalista Rubens Ferreira de Mello deverá constar de um terceiro volume: “Rubens Ferreira de Mello: o primeiro tratado brasileiro de direito diplomático”, Brasília, 3 março 2019, 20 p.

Transcrevo, por importante, mais abaixo, os sumários dos dois volumes já publicados, e aproveito para também inserir o trecho da Introdução no qual o Consultor Jurídico informa sobre os ausentes, grandes nomes do internacionalismo jurídico no Brasil cujas lacunas poderiam ser preenchidas por eventuais interessados em participar desta valiosa iniciativa. Também coloco, o trecho no qual o professor Galindo informa aos candidatos seus critérios metodológicos, ou seja, questões que poderiam ser respondidas por eventuais colaboradores a respeito do seu personagem, ainda faltante, e a respeito da obra por ele conduzida nesse terreno.

Termino por cumprimentar o professor Galindo por este brilhante empreendimento, ao mesmo tempo em que convido novos voluntários a escolherem alguns dos nomes carentes nesta bela homenagem recapitulativa aos grandes mestres do Direito Internacional no Brasil.

Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Brasília, 12 de janeiro de 2022

Sumario do 1. volume:



Sumario do 2. volume:



Eis os grandes mestres ainda faltantes do empreendimento em curso atualmente: 


Finalmente, as questões colocadas, sugestivamente, aos colaboradores.


Introdução de George Galindo, neste arquivo: 

Direito Internacional no Brasil: pensamento e tradicao - George Galindo, 2 vols (2021)

quarta-feira, 31 de março de 2021

Xi Thought: China's push to be a modern, socialist superpower - Reuters

Pergunto: o que tem de socialismo nisto tudo? 

"patriotism, democracy, civility, harmony, power through wealth, justice, freedom, equality, rule of law, industriousness, sincerity and friendliness."

A igualdade? Mas o capitalismo trouxe muito mais igualdade do que qualquer regime socialista do mundo, em qualquer época.

Todos, invariavelmente todos os princípios e valores de Xi Jinping são, inquestionavelmente princípios meritórios, que também deveriam estar sendo impulsionados por qualquer democracia de mercado das mais conservadoras.

Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Xi Thought: China's push to be a modern, socialist superpower

BEIJING (Reuters) - The political “thought” of President Xi Jinping, China’s most powerful leader in decades, is encapsulated in two weighty tomes and dozens of published “important speeches”.

Chinese President Xi Jinping speaks to Papua New Guinea's Prime Minister Peter O'Neill (not pictured) during a meeting at the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse in Beijing, China June 21, 2018. Fred DUFOUR/Pool via REUTERS

“Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era,” as it is officially known, is an all encompassing theory guiding China to become a global military and economic power under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party.

The end goal is the “Chinese dream of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation”, set for 2050, when Xi expects China will return to its rightful status after over a century of bowing to the demands of Western powers.

All former top leaders of the party have had guiding theories. Before Xi, Hu Jintao put forward a “scientific outlook on development”, and Jiang Zemin, before him, had the “three represents”.

But Xi Thought differs from previous ideologies in that it carries his name and was written into the party charter while he was still in office - honors only given to Mao previously.

Xi Thought is a smorgasbord of sayings, slogans, historic allusions and literary references, all of which are the subject of numerous dedicated social media accounts and spin-off books explaining exactly what Xi means.

Below is a selection of some key tenets.

CORE SOCIALIST VALUES

A set of 12 values to guide individuals, society and the nation: patriotism, democracy, civility, harmony, power through wealth, justice, freedom, equality, rule of law, industriousness, sincerity and friendliness.

THE FOUR COMPREHENSIVES

This slogan guides Xi’s twin drives to clean out the rot of corruption in the Chinese Communist Party and set up an even-firmer system of party rule. Four aspects of political rule must be followed: strict governance by the party, rule of law, pushing forward reform, and building a moderately prosperous society, an ancient Confucian term for everyone being basically well-off.

THE CHINESE DREAM

This is arguably the core of Xi’s thinking.

It says that all people should strive to make China “prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, harmonious and beautiful” by 2050. Similar in aspects to the American dream, China’s version is about achieving prosperity for the Chinese people, but rather than the freedom to pursue individual wealth and happiness, being well-off is inextricably tied to the “great rejuvenation” of the nation.

THE FIVE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS

Xi’s theoretical underpinning for the practical questions about how China’s economy should develop - in a green, innovative, coordinated, shared and open manner. These ideas are meant to guide China to avoid a hard landing for a slowing economy, boost consumption, improve innovation and services-based growth, and tackle hazardous pollution.

COMMUNITY OF COMMON DESTINY FOR MANKIND

This is the lofty concept that is meant to guide China’s relations with the rest of the world. A “new style” of international relations is proposed that is “win-win” and of “mutual benefit” for all, but many Western nations remain critical of China’s regional behavior over issues such as the contested waters of the South China Sea. Some academics say the concept is an attempt to counter fears of China’s rise and to avoid conflict with existing powers.

Reporting by Christian Shepherd; Editing by Philip McClellan


domingo, 1 de outubro de 2017

Pensamento: doze definições do Dicionário de Samuel Johnson

O pensamento do dia

Segundo Samuel Johnson, em seu Dictionary of the English Language (1755), o conceito "Pensamento" pode ser compreendido por meio de uma dúzia de sentidos diferentes ou complementares:
 Thought:
1. The operation of the mind; the act of thinking. 2. Idea; image formed in the mind. 3. Sentiment; fancy; imagery; conceit. 4. Reflection; particular consideration. 5. Conception; preconceived notion. 6. Opinion; judgement. 7. Meditation; serious consideration. 8. Design; purpose. 9. Silent contemplation. 10. Solicitude; care; concern. 11. Expectation. 12. A small degree; a small quantity.

Excelente para os meus exercícios mentais, que podem, assim, assumir uma dúzia de formas diferentes...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Brasília, 1 de outubro de 2017

sábado, 7 de maio de 2011

Hugo Chavez na UnB: grande contribuicao ao pensamento politico mundial

O fato de Hugo Chavez comparecer na UnB para uma palestra cujo tema é "Independência e Revolução: o Continente Rebelde" -- e que antecipamos será um sucesso total, com atropelos entre estudantes ávidos de saber e uma imprensa avassaladora na cobertura -- representa, sem dúvida alguma, uma enorme contribuição para uma reflexão profunda sobre o sentido da revolução e do pensamento rebelde para os dias de hoje.
Exatamente o que necessitamos, desesperadamente, no Brasil de hoje, um país relutante em engajar reformas e em revolucionar ideias arcaicas que ainda perduram por ai.
Hugo Chávez vai demonstrar com todas as letras, e no seu estilo peculiar, que é possível, sim, revolucionar todo um país e provocar transformações profundas em suas estruturas econômicas, políticas, sociais, morais, educacionais, produtivas, filosóficas (you name it...), de maneira tão profunda, que não se deixa pedra sobre pedra do sistema corrupto, moralmente degradante, economicamente injusto, politicamente oligárquico que vigia anteriormente.
O Brasil está precisando de uma transformação similar.
Hugo Chávez veio para nos dizer exatamente o que fazer, como fazer: resistir contra o império é não só possível, como necessário.
Ele vai ter sucesso, podem crer. Vai ser um sucesso, total e absoluto.
Mas, não assistirei: excesso de gente, atropelos, desconforto. Prefiro ler, depois, o que ele disser. Vai confirmar tudo aquilo que eu penso dele e de seus experimentos.
Aliás, a proposta do DCE, que convidou Chávez, "é rediscutir o desenvolvimento latino americano", no que eles tem muita razão. Hugo Chávez é a melhor pessoa para fazer isso.
Um must, de verdade.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

O Diretório Central dos (as) Estudantes, em parceria com a Fundar (Fundação Darcy Ribeiro) e Embaixada da Venezuela, convidam para uma palestra do presidente Hugo Chávez: "Independência e Revolução: o Continente Rebelde".
Nossa proposta é rediscutir o desenvolvimento latino americano, este será o primeiro de uma série de encontros com representantes dos países da região.

Dia: 10/05
Horário: 18hs
Local: Memorial Darcy Ribeiro
Cartaz: http://twitpic.com/4u7okp

O evento será transmitido por um telão na parte externa do Memorial.

@dceunb
facebook.com/dceunb
http://www.dce.unb.br
dce@unb.br
dceunb@gmail.com

terça-feira, 20 de julho de 2010

Pensando o pensamento - Stephen W. Browne

Thinking about Thinking
By Stephen W. Browne
From TheAtlasphere.com, July 19, 2010

The difference between ignorant and educated people is that the latter know more facts. But this has nothing to do with whether they are stupid or intelligent. The difference between stupid and intelligent people — and this is true whether or not they are well-educated — is that intelligent people can handle subtlety. They are not baffled by ambiguous or even contradictory situations — in fact, they expect them and are apt to become suspicious when things seem overly straightforward.”

Neal Stephenson, The Diamond Age

Clear thinking requires courage rather than intelligence.”
Thomas Szasz

Response to my column “Making up Stories” has been very gratifying, and not only because it was overwhelmingly positive, though I do thank you all for your kind words.

There were many thoughtful comments, observations, and some very good recommendations of sources for further research. And, refreshingly, many admitted to “making up stories” themselves from time to time — as have I.

That is compelling evidence of intellectual courage and honesty in individuals, and of a mature movement in philosophy.

One correspondent asked about the examples I gave, “How can you call such people intelligent?”

That’s why I included the Stephenson quote above. I think there is a confusion between “intelligent” and “stupid.” Stupidity is independent of intelligence, and in fact high intelligence often gives added scope to the harmful consequences of stupidity.

Stupidity in intelligent people is marked by their ability for rationalization and self-deception. Stupidity is not lack of facts, but willful failure to face facts. That’s why Sir Arthur Clarke remarked that ignorance is forgivable, stupidity is not.

A not-too-bright person may make a stupid decision about their personal budget and lifestyle choices, but is scarcely likely to do harm of the magnitude that’s been done by academics and intellectuals over the past two centuries.

After all, Karl Marx was a very intelligent man.

I sometimes illustrate this with a conundrum: What is the stupidest thing that walks the earth?

Answer: an adolescent with above-average intelligence.

How does that compute? An adolescent with above-average IQ can see from direct observation that he is more intelligent that most of the people around him. What he cannot understand is that experience counts for anything at all — that’s what makes opinionated young twerps so insufferable. He can’t believe it because he doesn’t have any; it’s like the fourth dimension to him.

Please understand something: I am not being holier-than-thou. I was that opinionated twerp, and the fact that I’ve got an unusually detailed memory often brings painfully embarrassing recollections of exactly how conspicuously stupid I could be as an adolescent and young adult.

Somebody once said that in any conflict between logic and experience, experience is almost always a better guide to action. Logic is a method of dealing with the relationship of facts, or rather propositions. (Statements alleged or assumed to be true representations of reality.)

But complex situations can have a huge number of relevant facts, not all them obvious, not all of them known, and the relationships between them are often far more complex than we can know. Experience is what leads us to believe that similar situations produce similar outcomes. Not a perfect match, as in a logical syllogism or mathematical formula, but enough of a match to guide our actions most of the time.

Consider the above-mentioned example of Marx. Though he theorized at length about industrial workers, he had no direct experience of them — and made no effort to get any, in spite of numerous invitations by his collaborator Friedrich Engels to visit his factories.

That’s where the issue of intellectual courage comes in. Marx had no experience of the subject of his theorizing, and made no attempt to acquire any — in fact, resisted getting any.

So how does a reasonably intelligent person guard against the temptations of self-deception? The insidious desire to bend our perception of reality to what is comfortable, rather than what is needed to cope with an often uncomfortable reality?

A number of things have been recommended by the wise: studying logic and in particular the informal fallacies, studying rhetoric to learn to recognize the tropes of persuasion, and studying history — which is, after all, the record of other people’s experience.

What I came up with was a series of questions, to try and keep myself intellectually honest:

1. How often have you changed or abandoned a deeply held belief because of either 
(a) personal experience or (b) a persuasive argument backed by compelling evidence?

2. How often have you, after examining the evidence reached a conclusion that was uncomfortable, unsettling, or profoundly disturbing to you, i.e., reached a conclusion you did not like and wished weren’t true?

3. How often have you admitted honest confusion about an issue that was important to you and decided to defer judgment — or simply live with the uncertainty?

4. How often have you realized while listening to someone speak for a position you agreed with, that it was nonetheless being supported by a weak or invalid argument?

5. How often have you listened to two sides of an issue and concluded that you agreed with someone you disliked and disagreed with someone you liked?

If you answered “never” to all or most of them, you might ask yourself whether you are thinking at all. You almost certainly won’t, though.

And if you answered “yes” to any, it might be fun and profitable to compare examples in the letters-to-the-editor section below.

Stephen W. Browne is a writer, editor, and teacher of martial arts and English as a second language. He is also the founder of the Liberty English Camps, held annually in Eastern Europe, which brings together students from all over Eastern Europe for intensive English study using texts important to the history of political liberty and free markets. In 1997 he was elected an Honorary Member of the Yugoslav Movement for the Protection of Human Rights for his work supporting dissidents during the Milosevic regime. His regularly-updated blog is at StephenWBrowne.com.