Submitted by Renata Lopes (renatasil82@gmail.com) on 2016-06-17T14:51:22Z No. of bitstreams: 1 douglaswillianferreira.pdf: 1099084 bytes, checksum: 84ef19e1d6122c16caa3d1f6d67e131d (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Adriana Oliveira (adriana.oliveira@ufjf.edu.br) on 2016-07-13T14:39:28Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 douglaswillianferreira.pdf: 1099084 bytes, checksum: 84ef19e1d6122c16caa3d1f6d67e131d (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-07-13T14:39:28Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 douglaswillianferreira.pdf: 1099084 bytes, checksum: 84ef19e1d6122c16caa3d1f6d67e131d (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-03-02 / FAPEMIG - Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais / Para Luc Ferry, a contemporaneidade se caracteriza fundamentalmente como a era do amor. Segundo o autor, a secularização e o processo de desconstrução acontecidos na Filosofia não legaram ao homem uma sociedade sem fundamentos, nem mesmo um pessimismo niilista. Ao contrário, o que se vê é uma divinização do humano através da valorização do outro como aquele que permite ao homem a saída de si, e, assim, a ultrapassar os limites subjetivistas ao expandir seu pensamento. Essa divinização é um resultado claro da valorização da liberdade, sendo essa a centelha divina no humano. Afinal, a liberdade é caracteristicamente o que descoloca o homem para além de todos os determinismos, permitindo, assim, o fazer-se a si mesmo. Nesse sentido, o que se vê é um rompimento, segundo o autor, com todas as formas tradicionais de pensamento e uma superação do religioso e suas seduções. O homem-Deus, é, portanto, o grande responsável por todo o processo de secularização: tanto da moral e do amor quanto da própria espiritualidade. Nesse contexto, torna-se visível uma espiritualidade, aparentemente laica, pautada no ágape secularizado, que se apresenta, antes de tudo, como uma espiritualidade cristã, porque não consegue se desvencilhar, em suas próprias bases, da influência do amor cristão. / For Luc Ferry the contemporaneity is characterized fundamentally as the era of love. According to the author, the secularization and the deconstruction process that happened in philosophy did not bequeath to man a society without foundations, not even a nihilistic pessimism. Instead, what is seem is a deification of the human being, through the appreciation of the other as the one who allows the man to come out of himself, and then, to exceed the subjective limits to expand his thoughts. This deification is a clear result of the appreciation of freedom, being this the divine spark in the human being. After all, freedom is characteristically what displaces man beyond all enabling determinisms to become himself then. In this way, what it is seen is a disruption, according to the author, to all the traditional ways of thinking and an overcoming of the religious and its seductions. The God-man is therefore the great accountable for the whole process of secularization: of both moral and love as well as of His own spirituality. In this context, it becomes visible a seemingly secular spirituality because, based on the secularized agape, it presents above all as a Christian spirituality, as it cannot disentangle itself from its own bases of influence of Christian love.

The subject-matter of the following essay is to investigate the relationship between what is commonly called Deep Ecology or Biocentric Philosophy, as articulated by the co-founder of the Deep Ecology Movement, Arne Naess, and later proponents of the biocentric school of environmentalist thought. I contrast Naess’ concept of Self-realization as founded in his Ecosophy T to the ideas of american conservationist and co-founder of the radical green movement Earth First! Dave Foreman, and to the controversial finnish environmentalist and ecofascist Pentti Linkola’s ideological agenda of population-reduction respectively. According to some critics of the movement, especially the social ecologist Murray Bookchin and French liberal philosopher Luc Ferry, the Deep Ecology ideology is essentially misanthropic and totalitarian in structure. A central idea among deep ecologists is that ecosystems and natural entities have intrinsic value in themselves, even outside a human social context. This idea is thought of among deep ecologists to create a philosophically sound basis for counteracting the environmental global crisis. Both Bookchin and Ferry argue that this idea reduces the role of human reason and ethics in a fundamental way, especially in relation to questions concerning population-growth control. My aim is to show that the original intention of Arne Naess in his philosophy (Ekosofi T) does not resemble either Ferrys focus of critique, neither the controversial statements made by Dave Foreman and Earth First! nor Linkolas population-control agenda.