thegoodfellas/blogset-br huggingface dataset:
it is also central to be a good dancer and to relate better to ones body in space. An activity that is able to not only develop the physical conditions of the individual but also to integrate mind and body is an activity that is integral and therefore highlly recommended to all individuals. The way of seing the body as a property rather then as ourselves is a alienated way of living and must be overcome for anything to be concrete in this reality, development and evolution are only possible when the body is our effective selves and therefore this way of experiencing reality must be stimulated and encouraged dispite of gender, race or aptitude. Bibliography:(1) Levine, Steven. "Phil 381." Class Notes on Strawson. UMB, Boston. Mar. 2014. Lecture.(2) Evans, Gareth. "Commentary upon Strawson's Individuals." Things without the Mind. Print(3) Melo, Jose Pereira. Development of the corporal consciousness: an experience of physical education in the pre-school age. Sao Paulo. UNICAMP,1997(4) Bertherat, The?re?se. The Body Has Its Reasons: Self Awareness through Conscious Movement. N.p.: n.p., 1989. Print. (5) Sartre, Jean-Paul. "Chapter 2 - The Body." Being and Nothingness: A Phenomenological Essay on Ontology. Philosophical Library, 1956.(6) Shoemaker, Sydney. "Introspection and the Self." 121. Print(7) Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. The Phenomenology of Mind. London: Routledge, 2002. Print.(8) Pereira, Barbara. Personal Statement.
Financialization was argued in a variety of ways in this weeks readings, the shift from industrial to finance capitalism is the main connector in all approaches, also the shift from real investment to financial investment. Krippner define financialization as the growing weight of finance in the American Economy; A pattern of accumulation in which profits accrue primarily through financial channels rather then through trade and commodity production. According to her since the 1970's the US have derived more profits from financial activities and she illustrate this theory with table 3- how the financial industry outpaced the productive investment in industry share of corporate profits. A decline in manufacturing and a rise in both service and finance shows how finance grew more then 5 times in the last 50 years even tough it didn't really impact employment. Financialzation can also be seen as the freedom from banks and consequently a decline in the cost of loans. Instead of getting money from a bank the entrepreneur that wanted to start an industry went to some rich family and asked for a long term money loan bond. It was like a ownership right on a firm, a right to future earnings.Globalization have a central role in the process of financialization. Free market was pushed by IMF and world bank, which obliged countries to fit into the world market. Imperialism of world trade due to competition among states, in competitive markets prices go down due to number of sellers, so the more the better. Entrance cost reduction due to information technology also contributed for the global market. It was desired that capital could be invested outside borders, the capitalist claimed that this expansion was to help 3rd world countries since capital was going to flow into them and therefore could ameliorate the conditions of life and stimulate growth for the country, what was sold to 3rd world countries was the promise of growth with financialization and capital flow from developed to not developed. Also, idle capital that wasn't productive and wasn't generating surplus could now start to expand itself in a new market that generated more surplus then investment in developed sectors. But speculation became the world economy, financialization caused an integration of global production, taking advantage of floating exchange rates. Many aspects of the economy are affected by fluctuation of exchange rate, and trade when it encompass different money values. Exports were affected due to value of the currency fluctuation, the US wanted to keep the dollar high and therefore lost exports, since it is much easier for other countries to import if the value of the money that they buy from is depreciated. Finance changed the meaning of surplus extraction, not interested or usury but instead in commission made from the exchange of one currency over the other. The key to make profit in finance was not the size of the firm, but diversification, specially of currency. Decentralization was the key to profits in the financial-sector.As argued in the essays, the question of investment of surplus and of surplus generation is central to the
financialization process. As noted, productivity gains have not been reinvested in the corporation, but rather been distributed to shareholders or used for the purchase of financial products. The victory of the rentiers has come at the expense of wage-earners and households, who have faced stagnating real wages and increased debt. Since the 1970s American corporations have increasingly derived profits from financial activities. Not only has the financial industry increased its share of GDP, but profits from interest, dividends and capital gains for non-financial corporations have outpaced those from productive investment. And this was extended to the workers life, or the financialization of the civil society. Corporations started selling bonds to regular people to bring in more cash to the capitalist; when relating financial availability to the labour class the financial concept of Securization is key, since it means to take one form of a note and sell it again, so make money in two ways with the same note. All financial concepts and modifications were based on models rather then in practice, which gives more room to error and therefore to crisis or inequality of information. The lack of information of electronic trading filled with mistiming in opened financial websites such as yahoo, also went against the labor class. Even tough finance opened the market for civilians to act upon it, and to make profits, it wasn't a fair openness, and therefore didn't help the labor class.On Lapavistas theory she introduces the concept of financialization as a form of capital accumulation; in a Marxist view this pattern can be identified as the characteristics of mature capitalism 'absorption of surplus' monopolies generate an ever expanding surplus that results in stagnation and in declining production while finance thrive. Seek profit in some way other then attempting to profitability in production; The comodification and expansion of an area that didn't exist before as profit generating. The development of Marx 'fictious capital' seen as financial prices, stock market. While Orhangazi show us a different perspective of financialisation having a negative effect on capital accumulation, since accumulation can be understood as simply the re-investment within the production process, which doesn't happen as illustrated by both Orhangazi and Davis, since what they show is that the surplus doesn't go into real investment but rather flow from financial investment to financial investment and therefore isn't accumulation. I disagree. The fact that the concept of accumulation mean a re-investment into production don't leave out the fact that financial investment expands capital and therefore produce surplus that isn't distributed in the economy but instead is appropriated by the capitalist. The graph on Krippner's theory seem to illustrate that even tough cash flow and profit rose, employment wasn't generated and therefore centralization of capital and accumulation happened as a result of financialization.
O tempo chegou. O povo acordou. A nacao mudou, e o governo ira mudar com ela.Tudo por dinheiro, foda-se o que e moral, social ou etico, afinal quase ninguem no congresso teve aula de filosofia ou sociologia. O proprio Lula nao tem nem a quinta serie, entao nao deve ter lido Marx ou Locke alias, disse que nao gosta de ler. Nao sabe o que e politica, ou como ela nasceu, de onde vieram os artigos da Constituicao e com base em que eles foram criados. Se bobear nao sabe nem que a menos de mil anos nao existia dinheiro, e que dinheiro foi inventado quando a Religiao ja nao fazia o controle da populacao sozinha. Afinal, era pecado emprestar dinheiro... quem diria!Mas que Pais retrogrado: em pleno seculo XXI, um religioso, que se bobear nao sabe nem quem fundou a propria religiao, nunca deve ter ouvido falar de Lutero ou das mudancas que Constantino fez na Biblia que leem atualmente - esse homem se tornaria o Presidente da Comissao de Direitos Humanos da Camara Federal!Que governo estranho e imoral.Nao queremos vinte centavos, queremos REDISTRIBUICAO, ORDEM, ETICA.Queremos que a Interpol pegue os 20 bilhoes encontrados do mensalao e entregue em nossas maos, nas maos de quem quer um Pais melhor: transporte de qualidade, hospitais e rodovias decentes, controle da devastacao do meio ambiente e redistribuicaode renda - e isso que precisamos.Dinheiro nao foi feito para ser estocado em montes e guardado para gerar juros ou uma seguranca ideologica como a maioria dos alienados acreditam.O dinheiro deveria existir para maximizar a nossa qualidade de vida, melhorar nossa realidade e fazer tudo ficar mais facil. E isso claramente nao acontece no Brasil.No Brasil TUDO e mais dificil: pessoas que querem trabalhar tem que se sacrificar sobrevivendo com um salario minimo, se esmagando dentro de um transporte publico, duas, tres, quatro vezes por dia; gastando mais que 20% do seu salario minimo somente em transporte! Transporte esse que na grande maioria das vezes esta depredado, queimando oleo e poluindo o ar, com o pneu careca e risco de acidente, e sempre lotado.Que forca de vontade alguem tem de passar por tudo isso quando no Fantastico mostram materias sobre hoteis com diarias de NOVE mil reais?Que falta de HUMANIDADE, de respeito para com mais de 60% da populacao que sobrevive com 650 reais mensais. Isso sem falar nas filas de hospitais, dos desvios de dinheiro de MERENDA escolar para conta de laranjas.A mudanca tem que vir - e vira! - atraves da minha geracao; nos que estudamos muito e que ja nascemos no meio dessa escoria que manda no Pais e que ira mudar, esta mudando, ira evoluir!So espero que o tamanho da mudanca seja um terco do tamanho da insatisfacao generalizada. Estou no terceiro ano de filosofia na faculdade, e cada dia que passa a ideologia do ser humano me assusta mais. Neste semestre estou muito focada em Marx e em suas teorias do social. Acredito que se tivessemos o livro Capital ao inves da Biblia como o mais lido, certamente ja estariamos uns 400
anos mais evoluidos do que estamos atualmente.O que quero escrever hoje e sobre o conceito que ele introduz nesse livro, e que depois e muito debatido e muito presente quando o assunto e a ideologia da minha geracao: a reificacao.A reificacao e a ideia de que todos estamos coisificados, ou que vivemos em uma sociedade onde o material tomou o lugar do social. As nossas relacoes, nao so as sociais mas em todos os conceitos como os basicos de Amor e de Justica, ja nao existem mais: deram lugar a um novo conceito de amor e de justica, esse que consegue ser comprado ou materializado.Eu mesma vejo isso desde quando nasci, quando meu avo dizia que temos duas chances de dar certo na vida, uma quando nascemos e outra quando casamos. O pulo do gato aqui e que esse "dar certo na vida" nao e a chance de ser feliz, ou de amar, ou de viver bem, que sao conceitos do social, mas ao inves, e a chance de ter capital, de ter dinheiro, de ter bens, de acumular tudo isso, e isso e o material. Dar certo e ter coisas.Esse e um exemplo basico de como ate o Amor virou algo comercial, quando voce quer ter (o amor) nao para a satisfacao emotiva, mas para a satisfacao fisica e meramente terrena, material.Isso nao e nada estranho para uma sociedade onde ate Deus quer dinheiro. Obvio. Para os nao esclarecidos sobre as verdades do nosso mundo, Deus precisa de dinheiro. Entao quem somos nos para achar que nao precisamos?O casamento para mim era algo que envolvia muito mais do que dinheiro e sexo, como atualmente. Eu acredito no amor, e acredito na felicidade, e acredito que nenhum dos dois envolvidos em uma relacao amorosa dependem do acumulo de capital para serem felizes.Mas em um lugar onde voce so pode transar ou ficar pelada na frente do namorado se este estiver pagando suas contas ou se este estiver com intencoes de unir bens, para mim isso e prostituicao e nao amor. E por isso que o amor tem uma ideia reificada (usando o termo filosofico), visto que o Amor nao e mais tido ou sentido como algo fora do mundo material.A Justica e outro excelente exemplo disso. Atualmente, com todos esses acontecimentos dos Kaiowa, no Brasil; da Palestina; das reservas ambientais que viram resort e, principalmente, dos presidios, e mais claro do que nunca que a Justica tambem se rendeu ao materialismo. Uma amiga postou no Facebook essa semana um grafico que mostra as prisoes e as divisoes raciais, mostrando que o numero de negros e latinos presos aqui nos Estados Unidos e exorbitantemente maior do que os de brancos. Voces acham que isso acontece por que? Porque os brancos sao bem mais educados e nao cometem crimes como os mal educados negros e latinos? Obvio que nao! O que acontece e que a Justica se tornou um comercio: quem tem mais dinheiro nao e preso e quem nao tem e melhor que fique la dentro.Nao existe mais o senso social, somente o
senso material, onde o que importa e quem paga mais e nao quem tem mais razao ou etica. E o triunfo do capital.Esses sao apenas dois exemplos dos milhares de reificados que temos atualmente. Dois que eu sinto na pele e que me assustam. Mas tudo se enquadra dentro da ideologia reificada que temos hoje sem nem sabermos de onde ela vem. Nos vamos so seguindo as ovelhas como se tudo fosse normal e natural, sendo que o capital nao deveria estar relacionado a nenhum dos dois termos.
The audience is interested in seeing films that they can relate to, with good acting and high quality screenplays. That can impact them instead of just distracting them for a short amount of time. As time went by, producers and directors are being able to see that the cinema consumers are more interested in good stories than in technological screenplays. The amount of money invested in technology in big productions should instead be sent to writers that have good ideas and screenplays but have no funds to produce films. The future of cinema might not be technology but, instead, the return of an essential way of making cinema; A way known to be focused in small personal dramas rather than focused on 3D technological productions. Cinema should be seen as a type of Art, in which one can experience and relate to, instead of being one more approach of the entertainment industry, in which one get distracted for a short amount of time. By making cinema a part of the junk entertainment industry the studios are degrading the film production and making it less interesting to the audience. Technology did help the cinema industry tremendously with special effects, by making visual transformations available. Even though it made acting easier and more authentic it didnt replace actors. Some might say that technology will be the future of cinema because actors arent always as writers expect them to be, while virtual actors can be shaped to perfection in order to fit to the writers will. When one writes a story, a book, or a play they have the idea of the character that they are building. That character may not exist in our world. Real actors dont always fit perfectly to the writers ideas, and that is when technology can be helpful. Two of the best directors of all times have talked about the replacement of actors over forty years ago. Stanley Kubric once said In the future, it will be easier for directors, we will be able to work with virtual actors that are certainly going to be better than the actors we have now. (Kubric) When you create a virtual actor you are able to shape him to fit your will in order to build your movie character the exact way you want him to be. If the actors are virtually created you are able to make them do whatever you want. The world widely known Alfred Hitchcock said All actors should be treated like cattle. (Hitchcock) and what he meant is that directors should be able to make actors do whatever they want in their movies in order to fit to the character. Technology made it easier for an actor to be transformed trough computer technology in order to fit in the character as the producers and writers want them to do so. Technology made movies more real to the writers view. With virtual characters the science fiction movies can be done with perfection. Monsters, magical happenings, and whatever the writer wants the story to include, can be there, with the
help of technology. However, after researching about cinema, it is easy to see that animations and science fiction movies arent only what cinema is going to be about in the future. No one can neglect that technology is and will still be a tremendous help for the cinema industry, but technological productions wont be everything in the future, and it wont replace actors. By making technological productions the future of cinema, would be less reachable to the audience, since it limits the audience. First of all, not everyone likes animations, fantasy, and science fiction movies. And second of all, adults dont consume animations as effectively as they now consume personal screenplays. A magazine article that came out last year mentioning the movies planned to be released in 2011 and 2012 argues that movies in 3D that are technological and include animations will only be common among the Cartoon Animation Industry such as Walt Disney and Pixar Studios, instead of being current in Hollywood movies like many cinema critics thought in the beginning of last year. The plans for 2012 in film productions are focused more in Cartoon Animations including many different Disney productions. 3-D plays a very big hole in Animations, and will keep on playing. (Rhoda 42) Differently then what Alfred Hitchcock and Stanley Kubrick have said in the previous century, technology isnt substituting actors, but instead it is helping them. The special effects are a resource brought by technology in order to help actors fit into the character in an easier way. Writers similar to them, that writes horror and fantasy films, are being able to gather a lot of help with technology. It helps them create the visual effects that they want the audience to experience. But it didnt make actors out of a job, since society doesnt want animations, but instead, good screenplays acted by good actors with good visual effects. Producers tried to sell Adult Animations but it didnt work because these animations are usually just an entertainment, it doesnt impact the audience like good screenplays do. Animations and virtual actors and productions are going to be focused on science fiction movies and cartoons, which limits the audience, because not everyone that likes cinema likes these types of films. Individuals that appreciate the art of cinema like movies that can impact them, which doesnt happen with cartoon animations and neither with science fiction movies. Therefore if technological productions become the future of cinema it would limit the audience to those that want entertainment rather then impacting storylines. Technological productions can also limit the audience because it wasnt made for everyone. Experiencing 3D in some productions is incredibly pleasant, but studies show us that theres no pleasure without pain: Enjoying 3D material in the cinema can lead to undesired effects (Samsung) warns the Samsung official website. Samsung introduced to the market a new TV, DVD and Blue ray that have the 3D technology in it, but the company is worried about possible side effects caused by this new type of experiencing entertainment. The symptoms could be possible headaches,
nausea disorientation, cramps, and epileptic seizures. The most vulnerable groups are young children, the elderly, those under the influence of alcohol, and pregnant women. (Poulter) 3D is a very good way of experiencing entertainment but it filters out a lot of the people that are able to enjoy it. Not everyone is able to watch movies in 3D. People that wear corrective glasses have problems wearing the 3D glasses in front of their regular glasses. The only option they have is to wear contact lenses every time they watch 3D movies. People that suffer with Strabismus cant experience 3D at all; their vision is incapacitated of seeing more then two dimensions. Even though 3D technological productions are a promising future for cinema it is very selective when it comes to audience, not everyone can experience 3D just like they are used to do with regular 2D films. Therefore 3D isnt a promising future because it is very selective when it comes to audience, not everyone is able to experience it, which filters out the audience, and make the 3D movies seen by less amount of people. The cinema executives already realize that, and they created a new way of making profit with 3D movies; they charge more for them, so that they can have more profit with less audience. Various people argue that the fact that cinema took the technological pattern in the last couple of years, is because 3D is a resource used by the movie companies to make the bad movies more profitable. Some movies used 3-D as a last option, or a resource to make the movie more lucrative and more marketable. (Guzman) Some movies that were poorly done are using the 3D technology to make it more vendible to the young cinema consumers so that the movie could sell. By doing that, they make the whole concept of 3D to be lost, since one must use 3D in order to make the movie better visually and aesthetically, instead of it being used as a last option to bad screenplays. Young Hollywood is corrupt, and lost the instinctive feeling for story and quality, instead, now everything is about the marketing (Ebert). What the audience is looking for isnt technology and animations, but quality. If a movie is good it doesnt need a big production or a lot of money to be spent. 3-D is only good for Hollywood executives because they are able to make more money with ticket prices. (Kehr) For the cinema industry big productions bring more profit since they charge more for the ticket price. A regular screenplay done by an unknown director cost fifteen dollars in a regular movie theater while a 3D movie can cost up to thirty dollars per person in the same movie theater (AMC). It is 100% more for an individual that watches a 3D movie; which consequently makes the cinema executives to have more profit with this type of film. Therefore the cinema industry has increased the production of 3D technological films in poorly produced screenplays, so that they could