FILOSOFIA X RELIGIÃO: RODRIGO SILVA E CLÓVIS DE BARROS - Inteligência Ltda. Podcast #1616

you You This is a work in progress, and we are working on it. We are working on it, and we are working on it. We are working on it, and we are working on it.

Hello, Terracius! How are you? I'm Roger Vileira, and we're starting another Intelligence Unlimited, a program where the limitation of intelligence happens only by the host who speaks to you. I always bring more intelligent, more interesting people and with a much more philosophical and religious life than mine.

Much more, right? Religious, for sure, more than you, right?

Yeah, yeah. But I'm trying...

But you're a philosopher, man. I am. I like philosophy a lot. I would like you to put your original thought about life now.

About life?

What is life? Ah, life is a matter of suffering and also of pleasures. So we have to keep this balance to be able to move on with life and have each time better, right? Was it good? It was good was good the thought of he is close to which philosopher pleasure and pain and pain well I think he stayed there between Chopin and Epicurean is what you really do yes yes is what

he studies the most so I was so bad. I tried to simplify a little more.

The thought of who? Which were the two he spoke?

Which were the two?

The boy there, who has already passed away.

Yes.

And the boy who has already passed away was very good.

He took a risk there. The guy was alive. But it's difficult.

I only know Professor Clovis, and the one who is alive, Cortella, and Lucilena Galvão, who are contemporary philosophers.

Pondé.

Exactly.

How will be the participation of one of the philosophers who are at home watching this? Look, for those who want to participate in this mega special live, you can send your super chat, we will be choosing the best. It's no use sending a hug, neither to the teacher nor to the friend. Send a hello. We can't read the hug, right? I'll read it, but I won't transmit the hug.

So I'll keep it to myself. And also leave that like now and subscribe to the channel, right? Good, good. So give the like now. And if the live is bad, you take the like at the end.

I'm sure no one will take it.

I doubt it.

This live is very much expected. This gathering... How many have asked us? I want to talk to you, who is at home, about something very important. You already know that Estratégia Concurso is our partner. You already know that, right?

Estratégia is the absolute leader course in public contests. Just so you have an idea, seven in ten approved in contests in Brazil. You studied with him, you knew about it, right?

I did.

So public contests are a sensational opportunity for you to earn more, have financial stability forever and never again run the risk of being fired, as Kratos runs every day here.

It's a tension here. Every day.

And there are some contests to go, right? That it's worth talking about. I'm all areas of training, including for those who do not have a college. If you are interested, you will like what strategy has prepared for you.

Approaching your cell phone in QR Code is already on the screen, right?

It's already on the screen.

Or accessing the link in the description of the video, you will have access to exclusive material on how to be approved in public contests in three steps. I thought it was really cool, their initiative to release this free material that teaches the way of the stones and very safe, this is to achieve what? The long-dreamed vacancy and stability that only those who are public servers know what I'm talking about, right?

Yeah, only them, not me.

So go there, access the QR code that is on the screen, link in the description and find out how to be approved in a contest in just three steps. Strategy, once again, thanks for the partnership and our faithful sponsor here of limited intelligence is that and the other partner of ours is always going to be long-term and has our exclusive discount of 15% manager was crazy coupon intelligence as activated by pointing the cell phone pro qr code on the screen or by clicking the description link exactly can repeat

your life lesson then your philosophy of life?

Life is a mixture of pain, suffering and pleasure.

Ok, I liked it.

And after such a noble knowledge as this, Clóvis, introduce yourself to the people, if someone doesn't know you, say hi to everyone. It's a pleasure to have you here again, always a joy.

Wow, I'm very happy too, because every time I came here, it was like... Unique moments, right? I left here... ...empowered, energized, sure that... ...the moment... ...was well lived, and sure that when I was invited again, I would come back.

I usually say that a moment in life is worth it when you... ...would like to repeat it indefinitely. I think that the presence here is one of them, because, of course, otherwise I would end up making up an excuse to miss it, right? But then I think it was really worth it and today it won't be different, especially because today we have the presence of a person who is not only deeply knowledgeable of what he studies,

but also an unparalleled human figure. So it's a spectacle to be here and learn from him a lot about what he teaches with mastery about Jesus, etc. So I'm super happy, super happy and I start by proposing that our listener take back what you said, because it's very, so, generating perplexity. 7 out of 10 candidates that were approved did the course?

Yes, strategy-contests.

Of strategy?

Yes.

Wow, but this is incredible. This in the whole of Brazil?

Yes.

Wow, but this is a staggering figure, right? 7 out of 10, more than half of the successful ones studied.

There must be a way out.

I'm very happy that you have this support, because your work is a work that cannot stop. And for your work not to stop, it needs to have the support of the social forces that can help him. So, congratulations to the strategy, congratulations to Insider, because this bet is a bet that, for all of us who are your fans, and follow your programs, and learn from your programs, it is thanks to this support that this is possible

This is very cool

Thank you, professor, thank you so much As I said, we have very unique moments here I remember the first podcast we had you here

You sang Trem das Onzes in French

It was amazing

I've been here with very different weights.

I was going to say.

Yeah, you've had a very thin arm. Yeah, I... You were thinner last time. Than now?

Yeah.

I don't remember the penultimate, I think the penultimate maybe.

These oscillations have to do with all the medication you take. When you take corticoid regularly, especially with injections, you get bloated. I have a video here, one of the most viewed, where I myself have difficulty recognizing myself. My head is completely round. It's rounder. And in other moments, because of my frailties, I've lost more weight than I am now. Are you on her weight? I'm on her weight.

How much are you weighing? I'm weighing 79 kilos.

Height?

1.84.

Wow, you're good.

I weigh the same as you.

I'm 1.80, so I'm... No, but you're a strong guy, right? Thank you, thank you.

Kratos doesn't agree.

If you have to carry a Beetle on your back, you carry it. It's not my case, but I think... My case is the case. You have to drive a Formula 1 car, you know? Is the food normal? Or are there restrictions? Because I take immunosuppressants, right? So, you take immunosuppressants, you weaken the body

so that the body can't attack itself. Very good. But you can't overdo it, otherwise you'll get very weak. So, it's a dose, it's a balance that's being studied, a little experimentally, you know? How do you have to medicate yourself, etc. And you get to know yourself. I've been on this medication for a while now and I'm living that phase of life that every day that we finish, we celebrate, we celebrate. the next day we hope to wake up well and move on.

Amen! And amen because I'm going to call Rodrigo Silva now, who is also an old participant here, he came right at the beginning of the podcast. There's a podcast by Rodrigo Silva, I don't know if you know,

it has 14 million views, One of the most viewed.

I knew it.

How are you, Vilela? I'm very happy to be here with you once again. And that historical episode... But today I have a paradox. Why? Because on one hand I'm happy because I'm making a dream without any silk tearing, which was to have a chat with professor Clóvis de Barros,

who never agreed met the schedules, but on the one hand happy, on the other hand sad, because I'm not personally. This week I'm in class recording here at NASP, and I finished recording the class 40 minutes ago. Not that I would take a helicopter and get there, I wouldn't. Professor Clóvis, I'm happy for the opportunity, but this chat may not be worth 100%, because we have to meet in person someday.

Is it already scheduled?

It's already scheduled. Scheduled, very scheduled.

Please.

He has rubber bullets to offer.

You don't have that here.

Exactly, these bullets have something that add to the life.

I have no doubt.

One thing that always caught my attention about Professor Clovis, it's interesting, because you define yourself as a stoic, but the way you talk about life, about Christ, about ethics, it's so vibrant, so passionate, that it infects you. It seems contrary to the stoic, who was reserved in his feelings, I won't show too much euphoria, you don't show it, and it enchants us.

It's a life lesson, especially the subjects about ethics, about philosophy, the practical way to take complicated subjects and speak in the language of the people. Because sometimes the academic world, Vilela, it steals this from us. It wants you to only talk to the peers in the language of the Marfin Tower. And the podcasts we go to today, they are an opportunity that we have to cross the university wall,

and talk to the population in general, an extra-wall conversation. This is what we call scientific dissemination, and sometimes some peers even question it. When an academic goes to the world call scientific dissemination. Sometimes some couples even question, when an academic goes to the world of scientific dissemination, the couples say, it's getting too popular, it's getting too simple. But it's not like that.

I'm very happy, I hope everyone understands this subject, that it yields a lot, and we have a lot to talk about.

I'm happy because there are two, as Professor Clóvis says, two explainers, right? They are those people who take complex issues and make this connection of points, right? Of things at first disconnected and translate it and make these connections for us. We got to many, many answers or at least new questions here with both, so I'm very happy. There was an episode that I don't know if you watched it, Clóvis,

very cool, with a rabbi, a priest and a pastor. It looked like a joke, right?

A priest and a pastor, and a rabbi, and they went into the bar.

It was very cool.

Everyone singing in Hebrew at the end, right?

Exactly. It was Father Joãozinho,i Sani, and what else? You had said that if we made a show with people from other religions, and since Vilela, besides being a podcast host, has a career as a comedian, I always remembered two jokes you always say, the parrot joke and the joke where a priest came in and Rabinho passed by in a bar. So we didn't go to a bar, but we went to a podcast, and it was a really cool experience.

We could do another one. Today he's a philosopher and an archaeologist, a philosopher and a theologian. So, let's go. The podcast's theme, which is reason and faith, philosophy and religion, at first we think a lot like opposite things.

Faith or reason? Religion or philosophy? I'd like to ask both, starting with Clovis, if they're excludents or if there's a bit of one inside the other. We see a lot of movies, a lot of series, where there's this fight, I remember a series I was a fan of, Lost,

where there was a character that was faith and another that was science, that was reason. So we see this clash a lot in movies, in literature and everything.

Are they exclud exploding or not?

Look, I think that this relationship between philosophy and religion is a relationship, and I don't want to avoid the question, but it is in fact very complex. I think that immediately after great moments of religiosity in history, great moments of philosophical production emerged. I would like to mention three different situations that I find very interesting, which are the emergence of Greek philosophy, with the so-called pre-Socratics and then with Socrates, Plato, Aristotle,

the Stoics and the production of Homer, the production of Hesiod, the Theogony of Hesiod, the Hylia and of Odysseus, where you realize that the presence of the gods was remarkable in the culture of that moment. So, you have a first moment to study, which many call a Greek miracle. I don't like the expression because I understand that the emergence of philosophy can be explained by very precise historical and material, very precise. So, there is no reason to introduce the word miracle here.

But we went from a poetic, mythological production to a philosophical production, and in this passage we observe a lot of rupture, but also a lot of continuity. Some ideas permeated this beginning. I would say that many of the great themes approached by philosophers were already present, of course presented in a different way, of course presented from another type of manifestation. It is evident that an Odyssey is very different from a philosophy treaty or a dialogue of Plato. It is evident. But some of the ideas were already present,

and this is absolutely wonderful. So I'm going to cite an example, without wanting to extend myself too much, because I like to hear what Rodrigo has to say. Aristoteles suggests that there are no... These are sentences that you can practically open quotation marks. There is nothing in nature that is completely out of place or useless. And everything in nature has a reason to be, and everything in nature has what he called a final cause, a finality.

Well, then, Aristotle believed that the universe was the Greek paradigm, a cosmic, coordinated, organized universe, and each part of this universe has, let's say, a role, as if it were a... the universe would be like an engine, a machine, or a living organism, where each one fulfills its function. That was the way to think. So, why does the wind exist? Because something needs to cool down,

because something needs to pollinate. So there is a cause, but that cause is the purpose of that. Right. Do you understand? So, the tide is the tide, the rain is the rain, the frog is the frog,

and each one fulfills its role in this whole cosmic order. And of course, we are not spectators of this wonder, we are part of this wonder. We are integrated in this wonder, in a way that this is also true for us. That is, each one of us has, let's say, a role to fulfill, a cosmic responsibility, let's say. We can talk about a cosmic ethics. Why? Because if the cosmos, the universe, to work well, it needs everything that is inside it, there is nothing silly, there is nothing eating flies, everything has

its function, we too. And then the question is, but in the case of the wind, the tide and the frog, the purpose is absolutely linked to the very existence. The wind can't do anything but wind. The tide can't do anything but tide. And the frog, do anything else, the tide, and the frog, the frog, and the dog, the cat, the cat, and so on. In our case, look how interesting, Vilela, in our case, we can integrate harmoniously into the whole cosmosmic or not. Yeah.

Look how curious. But, if the cat has the role of catching and he is already born catching because he has no other way, another option, how do I know what is my place in this Cosmos? But what is the purpose? What is my place in this cosmos? What is my purpose? What is my function? The lesson you find in Aristotle, but also find in Marcus Aurelius, you find in the stories, is to observe your nature. Observe your nature, in other words,

understand that your nature will give you an answer to this role. And there is an element there that Aristotle called natural place. If you go to the zoo, you have the animals there, and the animals are in a cage, and the cage has a sign, Habitat, but But it came from the man of Shurya, I don't know... So, apparently, animals, they have a natural place, a place, let's say, where their nature is good, where their nature is plump.

Now, what will Aristotle say? For us too, right? For us too. Our nature can be better in some places, not in others. Each one has its place. Very well. When you study, or better, when you read the Odyssey,

what do you observe? Ulysses is in Ithaca, happy with life, happy and content with Penelope, with the son to be born, adored by his rulers, adored by his rulers, everything is fine. So, because of a matter of treason, a war is waged between the Greek cities and Troy. And Ulysses is summoned. So the war lasts 10 years, and it's 10 years lived out of place, 10 difficult years. And then he tries to return, and he wants to return, and he does everything to return, and the Odyssey is Ulisses' return home. What is the idea that you see behind this story? It's Ulisses trying to re-harmonize with the whole in its proper place,

which is Itaca, and doing what? Governing, administering, managing things, and doing justice in Ithaca too. So he does everything for that. And look, in the 10 years of return, 7 are spent on the island of Calypso, which is a wonderful goddess, who gave everything of the good and the best.

And then comes a spectacular question comes up. It may be the wonder that is not my place. It's not my place. Even if it's spectacular, it's not my place. And Calypso? Calypso is amazing! And the Paquitas, the Nymphs?

They are amazing! And the Lobster barbecue? It was amazing! ninfas, elas são incríveis e o churrasquinho de lagosta, bem incrível, era lagosta com abacaxi, era tudo de meio, e ele chorava, chorava, eu tô, tô te dando tudo, pois é, mas esse é o problema. E aqui eu observo que se você pega o lugar natural de Aristóteles e você pega o Homero I observe that if you take Aristotle's natural place and you take Homer with the Odyssey, in the appearances of the form, in fact, it has nothing to do with the way a manifesto is,

but the idea that is, with the cosmos. Look at that tasty reflection. You know that, Rodrigo, I'm retiring from the university a long time ago, but I'm retiring indefinitely, there's time for that. So, the questions are, where are you going? I usually provoke, where do you suggest I go? I'm going to go to Cancun, to Dubai, to St. Petersburg, to Hawaii, to... It's interesting.

Look how curious. I would have spent my whole life here as a teacher, and when I retire and don't need to be a teacher anymore, I'll do something else. What doesn't cross my mind is that if I lived the way I did, it's because my understanding is that this is the best life I've ever had, and being the best life I've ever had, I intend to continue in it. I'm not going to Cancun for no reason. But you don't know Cancun? It's wonderful, it must be amazing. I don't know it. The water is hot, the sea is green, the hotels are amazing, etc.

But wait a minute. My nature taught me that the great treasure of my life is to explain. If there's someone there interested in explanation, I even take a risk, otherwise I prefer to stay here. See how interesting, Ulysses and Eucalyptus, and it is perfectly possible for you not to be taken for granted by what are the obvious of a happy life,

and you understand, within this Greek perspective, that it's not quite like that, that my nature is... I'm the habitat of a classroom. If the bear lives in Siberia, I live in the classroom, and if I get out of there, I will be underutilized. Do you understand what the perspective is? So, look, what I wanted to show with this example.

I wanted to show with this example that there is an obvious rupture of way of thinking, of foundations, of taking the gods out, taking care only of concepts, not to use the stories, but to work with the abstraction of the notions and concepts, all of that. But, curiously, what was... what was intended to be taught is very close, it's very correlated. The other two points, I'll just leave it here, so as not to leave our friend

who is with us, in his hand, are the apogee of religenment of the first generation, which has in philosophy as the greatest symbol Descartes. So, Greek mythology, Aristotle, the Middle Ages, Descartes, and the third that crossed my mind is the impressive link between Calvinist, Lutheran, etc. thought with Kant. Third moment in which you find this same phenomenon. Right after a pungent and effervescent religious life,

a remarkable and relevant philosophical production.

And emergent.

So I think we have to calmly, when you see one versus the other, one denies the other, one beats the other, etc., it's a little more complicated than that, isn't it? Why? Because, in fact, in many moments of the history of thought, there was an important imbrication. And this imbrication is subtle at times, but it is very rich and powerful. So, I'm going to shut up here so I can hear it too, but when Paulo suggests that the reason be worked with Esmeralda, he gives two reasons for this. The first is that only reason would allow the adequate interpretation of the sacred texts.

And so, there you already have a role in philosophy. Subordinate is true, as it will remain for many centuries, but it is a relevant role. Philosophy can help us in the hermeneutics, in the interpretation of the sacred texts. And finally,

Paulo will say that the accurate reason allows the appreciation of the universe. And by allowing the appreciation of the universe, the just appreciation of the universe, allows the observation of the perfection of divine creation. What is being said there is that for you to marvel at divine creation, it is necessary to prepare. If you are in the game of the whirlwind, if you are governed only by the logic of survival, if you are playing the game of the most ry everyday game, maybe you can't stop and, for example, look at the stars and genuinely marvel.

It's not looking at the stars and saying, wow, how beautiful it is, there are people looking and such, and 30 seconds later you're already in the register.

No, no, no.

It's in fact a kind of competence that the elevation of reason can allow, which is the competence of the flagrant of creation as perfect. And look, here you have another example that is not one hitting the other. Paulo was a great thinker and therefore we have here a wonderful opportunity to realize how much they also walk hand in hand and correlatively these two forms of production of human culture. Yes, Rodrigo, I would like you to talk about this by putting a little bit of the Bible in this conversation. Some great characters of the Bible, such as Abraham, for example,

that moment when he is asked for the sacrifice of his Bible, like Abraham, for example, that moment when he is asked to sacrifice his son, or the moment when Jesus asks if it is possible to remove the chalice, or other moments that you can remember,

are they moments between this clash of faith and reason, or do you think not?

No, actually, to answer your question in a very clear way, the Bible encourages the number one element of philosophy, questioning. You can see that in Christian theology, in general, Abraham is called the father of faith. But if you look at Genesis,

the first time Abraham, the father of faith, opens his mouth, is to express a doubt. How will it be, sir? For a long time, the idea was built that faith does not admit questioning.

Blind faith.

I've even heard many churches say that the true believer never asks why. He at most says why. This is not true. Jesus on the cross of Calvary said, My God, why, in Hebrew, why, a why of question, why did you abandon me?

So faith also carries doubt. And doubt leads me to progress, to growth. It is precisely the search that makes me leave where I am, to where I should go. Now, if I have no doubt, if I have no search, if I have no uncertainty, I will stay where I am.

And Professor Clóvis is completely right about what he said, I'm not just knitting or making confetti, but it's true, I followed his entire historical part, and if I can add something to what he said to make this junction between faith and reason, which were never disassociated, I can start by saying the following.

It is very sad a philosopher who is only stuck in the sphere of the everyday of the material. He said this at a certain moment, and it reminds me a lot of Camus' problem, when he talked about the human being in the myth of Sisyphus, that he gets stuck and he describes the subject on the tram, just living the same thing every day, and life is just that existence and not a living. We have to ask as philosophers,

do we live or do we just exist? Regarding Greek philosophy, Burtz said that we think as we think because the Greeks thought as they thought. In other words, Western society is based on Greek philosophy. Even the people who are watching us, who have never heard of Penelope, Ulysses,

or any of the names mentioned by Professor Clóvis de Batos, even those have a Greek way of reasoning. Our language is based on Greek. When I study Semitic languages, for example, like Hebrew, Aramaic, Akkadian, it's interesting that these languages always start the sentences with the verb.

For example, in Hebrew, it's said like this, Vayerhi devara donai, and the word of the Lord came. In Portuguese, Iai, and the word of the Lord came. In Portuguese I would say, the word of the Lord came. In Hebrew it says, Bereshit bara elohim, in the beginning God created. In Portuguese I would say, in the beginning God created.

Why? Because of our Greek heritage of putting the idea before the action, our language starts with the subject and then the verb. As they were more practical, they put the verb first, then the subject. This already shows that they had a way of conceiving the world that could be different from ours, which is the heritage of the Greek world, but it was a philosophical way. So much so that, just as Professor Clovis questioned, and rightly so,

the expression Greek miracle, I will also question it and add one more element, from my part, of course. The idea of the Greek miracle started because of a European fanaticism that wanted to be the center of global thought. So much so that Europe was the old world and America the new world. So, everything good was from Europe.

And at a time when Europe was establishing itself in its nationalism, it had to find an origin, as I would say, almost of royalty for the Europeans. And where was this origin? In the Greek world.

Coincidentally, it is at this time that you will have a very great effervescence of the search for European roots in Greece. Even philosophy takes over this when Harry Schillemann discovers the city of Troy, when Arthur Evans meets Crete and starts studying.

Then comes the idea of the Greek miracle, and the Greek miracle that finds its deepest locus in Europe. So you have to think everything through Greece. And from there, something that can be questioned from a historical point of view, that philosophy was born in Greece, begins to be said. I prefer to say that Western philosophy was born in Greece,

but the previous philosophy, because you have philosophical treatises much earlier than the Greeks, for example, the Pythagorean theorem was already applied by the Egyptians in 2600 BC. You have Imhotep, who was an Egyptian philosopher, mathematician and everything else.

You have Babylonian treatises, the man talking to his soul, ethical treatises that precede Aristotle's Nicomachean ethics, you have other treatises based centuries before. So there was a previous philosophy in different mental categories from the Greeks, of course, but it doesn't mean it wasn't a philosophy.

Once I saw a philosopher, I'd rather not say her name so as not to give a controversy, she wrote in a book like this, that in fact what existed before Greece was a wisdom,

but it can't be called a philosophy. First, it's strange, because philosophy means lover or friend of wisdom. But what's the justification of this philosopher to say that before Greece there was only a wisdom that could not be classified as philosophy?

Because before they thought the world in a religious way, but the Greeks started to think the world in a non-religious way. This is an artificial way, and me, even anachronistic way of creating an inexistent rupture between reason and faith, because although Socrates was accused of atheism, in addition to being a corrupt youth,

the word atheism applied by Socrates' allgoses is not the meaning of the word atheism that I will give in the modern age. Christianity itself was also accused of atheism by Rome, so Paul was also an atheist. Atheism at that time meant the denial of the gods of Olympus, or at the time of Rome, a denial of the gods of Rome.

So if I deny a specific type of medicine, it doesn't mean that I'm rejecting medicine as a whole. I'm going against that type of medicine. So philosophy rose up against a hegemony of gods and myth that wanted to explain reality in a way, allow me to say, using the element of the sacred as a bad faith.

So that's why you start there, from Thales of Miletus, he starts to show people that there could be an explanation for the affixes, for nature, for the logic of all things, that it was not just that turned to the myths, to the gods and in the hegemonic way, like the despots, which were precisely the kings,

this word comes from the despotism era, how they used those religious principles to subjugate the people. Curiously, if I take the example of Abraham, which you asked, Vilela, Abraham himself was also a disruption. When Abraham leaves the Middle East and questions the gods of Sumeria

and comes to the land that the God of Israel showed him, the Abrahamic religion is already a rupture with that form of Sumerian religion. For example, he now conceives a new type of religion that had no images of sculpture. Abraham conceives a religion that, unlike the Sumerian religion, the deity is not the daughter of the universe,

but the one that produces the universe. Because in Sumerian myths, the gods are children of the universe. The universe either exists for all eternity or it is self-existent after it that the gods emerge. Even in Greek mythology, the Theogony of Hesiod goes in the same line.

Zeus, Poseidon, the gods of Olympus, Hera, they are fruits of the universe, the universe existed before them. The Abrahamic religion, no. The Creator precedes, this is tremendously revolutionary. To worship a God without using images as intermediaries, this is tremendously philosophical.

What, starting from Thales of Miletus and coming to Socrates, then Plato and Aristotle, happened in Greece in reaction to the religious establishment, happened in Sumeria with Abraham in relation to the religious establishment. Jesus himself, when he questions the religious patterns of his time, he is also coming against the establishment.

And the others that we could mention, as has already been well put by the professor, entering the Middle Ages, outside, then the time of the Protestant Reformation, and even today. In other words, philosophy puts me in a situation of discontent with what cannot be questioned. And to finish my answer, I find in the Bible several passages

that encourage me to question. God himself speaks through the prophet Isaiah, speaks through Malachi, says, I have done a test of myself, to prove and see that the Lord is good. And this word prove in Hebrew, the word ta'am,

means to prove with the sensory elements, with your head. When Jesus spoke of his coming to the world, the first thing he said was, look, see that no one deceives you. with your ears, with your head. When Jesus spoke of his coming to the world, the first thing he said was, look, no one can deceive you. The apostle John wrote in one of his letters to the church,

put the spirits to the test to see if they proceed from God or not. Paul praised the Bereans because when they received the Gospel, they went to check in the books if it was really like that. So, religion, I won't say true religion, because it would be a little fanatic, but the religion that is really sadistic, it encourages questioning.

But what kind of questioning? The playful, lucid and sincere questioning. Because here it doesn't mean that all questions are applaudable. There are questions that are just... Professor Cloves knows this, there are students in the classroom who sometimes ask a question and he has no doubt about it,

he wants to appear. Or sometimes he wants to corner the teacher to see if the teacher said something different than the other teacher who taught in the first class. So there are doubts that are honest, that are sincere, these lead to growth,

but there are doubts that are just a desire to appear. So we have to separate what kind of doubts we are talking about. And the first, the sincere doubt, it is very welcome in religion, it is encouraged, at least in the Jewish-Christian matrix religion.

Mr. Clovis, can faith be considered a method of knowledge as legitimate as reason? My supernatural experiences, what I call faith, what I believe, is it as valid as what I have reasoned, what I have learned from my material experiences as well? Well, I think that to start trying to answer your question, I don't even think I have the means to give you a completely satisfactory answer. First, I would like only that those who are with us record a speech by Professor Rodrigo

when he says that our way of thinking, which is structuring the life of our spirit, and that therefore for us it seems like an obviousness to think the way we think, is only one of many possible. So, the example he gave is absolutely wonderful, I will write it down and taxi. And it's interesting because you have this sequence, I, subject of the sentence, I'm going to get the verb, then the taxi, the complement, remember? Subject, verb, complement, subject, verb, complement.

So the subject comes first. And of course, after you repeat this sequence zillions of times, it becomes... it adheres to the spirit as an obviety and see, it is perfectly possible to start as he explained the sentence by the verb. And if you organize your way of expressing in another way, what happens? It changes your reality too. It's a whole logos of thought. The word is the same in Greek, But look how interesting. You say, I did the oral exam in college and

it was very common for me to hear things like, speak, I can't. Well, the impression I get is that there is a department that is the department of thought. Once the thought is made, this thought goes to the department of packaging, which is the language, and then it

goes to the department of the enunciated, which is phonetic, mouth, etc. It doesn't work like that. Thought is inseparable from language. That is, we think through words, and not only through words, and not only through words, but also through a certain organization of words that has been presented to us since birth. disproved of a semiotic materiality, of a symbolic materiality. So, in this sense, what he said, I was absolutely delighted,

because many times when you read the Bible, depending on the translation, in fact, many times the verb comes before the subject, as he explained. And this is wonderful because a simple inversion of this already completely changes the emphasis of things, the way that is understood. God himself presents himself as I am. I am the verb.

It's an action. It's not. In the beginning. It's very interesting because it's not by chance that this word logos is the same for both speech, symbolic production, as for thought, and even for reason, etc. So, it is evident that there is an imbrication that the common sense often does not give due importance.

But now, going back to what you asked me, I think that Jesus' case could help us. And why? What I see is evident that I am not a specialist, but I think I can contribute. Do you have a Greek way of thinking? Where, I would say, the hegemonic philosophy, the white sheet philosophy,

the philosophy that triumphed, the winning philosophy is, in this sequence, I would say, constituted by Parmenides and Heraclitus, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, then Epicurus and the Stoics. Very well. I would even say that we could take out Epicurus and leave only the Stoics. Very well.

What is this philosophy going to propose? Well, that there is a natural hierarchy between beings. And why? Because things in the universe are of unequal importance. depending on your role in this whole cosmic, you will be more or less relevant. Who will govern? Read Plato's Republic. Who will govern? Who will govern is the one who thinks well. And the one who thinks well is the philosopher. Simple as that.

Of course we could understand this as a self-advocate, because whoever is writing is a philosopher, maybe he is claiming a little more power for himself. Leaving this aside, it seems to me, let's say, sustainable, that whoever thinks better is in charge of making the decisions at the police, right? Well, who will take care of the police's security? Security, right? Ministry of Security, right?

Secretariat of Security, internal and external, therefore, armed forces for external combat and police, internal security. Who will take care? It is who is cut by nature for this. Let's say someone little affected by fear of a confrontation, etc. So, it is necessary to put the person in the right place. And then, who is going to do the craft, agriculture, etc.? Basically, those who are left over, that is, those who have the lower part of the soul more developed, are very desirous, are very attached to material things,

so they will take care of what they know best, you know? So, the upper part of the soul takes care of governance, the middle part of the soul takes care of security, and the lower part of the soul takes care of the production. Very well. It is clear that depending on your initial nature, depending on the dispositions of nature that are yours,

you must, in a just city,

be allocated to one of these sectors,

but that are hierarchically arranged.

The top guy is even superior to the middle guy, who is even superior to the guy in the middle, who is even superior to the guy below. That is, people are distinctly pitted by nature to fulfill their role. I could give another example. If the role of the eye is to see, an eye that sees badly is an inferior eye, it is an eye that does not fulfill its role. See how to think.

If the role of a cow is to milk, a milk cow is superior. It is a cow that gives little milk. If the role of the horse is to run fast, the horse that runs faster is superior. Do you understand? There is a natural hierarchy among beings.

Very well.

Where do I see one of the revolutions. With Jesus, if you ask Jesus, if you don't agree, does it mean that nature is the same for everyone? No. Why not?

Look, Professor Rodrigo will agree with me, if you put Calwan Raymond here and open a poll among the thousands and millions of followers, who is the most handsome, it is possible that I will not receive any vote. There is more certainty about this difference in beauty than about a resolution by the Pythagorean theorem. At least 10% is wrong, the Pythagorean resolution, but who is the most beautiful is zero. Nature is like that.

The advantage is that beauty is not the only attribute that nature gives. But, it's ok. Now, what Jesus...

Marcos Aurelio said, I would vote for you, professor.

We have a vote.

As in every rule, there will always be someone to deny us. I thank you so much. Long live Marcos Aurelio. He understood everything. Now, I ask you.

It's historical.

It's historical.

It's historical.

What is the grace of history? What Jesus will propose to us is the following. Look, the differences of nature exist, but leave that aside. Because the value is not in what you received in this original division. Oh, no, no, no. But then, where is the value? And I would start by saying, it's somewhere else, not this one.

So, where is it? It's a break, right? Yes, because now, and see the influence of Jesus in the later philosophical thought. You open the critique of practical reason or the foundations of Kant's metaphysics of customs. There is only one thing that is indisputably good, goodwill. So, now, see what the idea is.

Listen, from now on I will see how much you are worth. If you have gained five talents of nature, or three talents of nature, or one talent of nature, and the word talent is wonderful, because it is at the same time the talent of nature and money, to show that it is a matter of value. Now I'm going to pass the ruler, and I make a point of this allegory.

I'm going to pass the ruler because we're on the starting line, and we're all aligned on the same point. The 5 is there, the 3 is there, because what's going to count is not the 5, 3 and 1, but what I'm going to do from now on is what's going to count. See?

That's amazing.

That's absolutely revolutionary. You were born smarter, you were born stronger, you were, more beautiful, but it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter from now on. But now it's easy for you to say, of course, yes, of course, yes, of course, yes, but it was necessary back then for someone to have

completely changed what we could easily call a paradigm you see, the set of ways of thinking that is transformed it's a brutal rupture the parable of the talents of Jesus marks a brutal rupture in the way of understanding the value of life in the way of understanding the value of human conduct the presence of the human in the way of understanding the value of life, in the way of understanding the value of human conduct,

the presence of the human in the world, and so on. Why? Because it will be worth it from now on. I just wanted to make some reservations. If Aristotle says, give the best flute to the best flutist, what is he saying? If you were born with talent to play the flute, the city has to give you everything.

And the other one who is not talented? This one nothing, this one who does not play the flute, this one who is not stupid here, he will only fill our bag. You know, a child with a Yamaha flute. A flute of the north. No, don't play the flute. Now, was he born with the talent to think?

All the books in the world. He wasn't born with the talent to think? Ignorance is not your beach. He was born with the talent to think. Now, notice that... Let's take the case of sport, we would have Olympic matches between talented people, between galards. between... So Jesus is a kind of patron of the Paralympic Games.

Understand. And Jesus He will allow And he will defend that someone who doesn't have so much talent to play the flute, receives a flute. Because what will be worth is what he does with the flute, with the talent he has. I can guarantee you, Professor Rodrigo will agree with me,

for us who were not born exceptional in anything,

how good

that Jesus existed and said what he said.

Because,

how many times do I remember my father trying to... for me to discover what was... My father had a Greek way of thinking, although he didn't know it at all, he never studied any of that, you know? But he wanted to know where my talent was,

and he said, you are bad at everything!

He said that?

Yes!

Yeah... You are bad at everything! He said that? Yes!

Without any concern to traumatize me. You know what? You are bad at math, bad at drawing, bad at things, bad at poetry. And he even had a very noble list.

Really?

Yes, even equitation. You are bad at everything. From the moment you are bad at everything, where you hit, you hit. Where you grab, you grab. It's like a stork in the river. Where you stay, you stay. You don't have to do anything.

Now, this idea, in the Greek perspective, would put me at the end of the line, in the last car, and oh my! I don't think even a car would save me. You go, hey, hey, hey, it's like this.

There is a matrix of thought that ends in the French Revolution.

Egalité, you see?

There is no inequality of principle. No, sir.

There is a inequality of nature, but what counts is the same. It is the same possibility that we have to make with lemons a lemonade, with kind of person that, in the face of a divine idea, I get emotional. And you need to get that. The study is inseparable from the joys, the sorrows, the affections. You need to link it, to learn it, to enjoy it. This is a fabulous idea. Malandro, what nature gave you was what will be worth from now on. This is the chance that everyone was waiting for.

This is the opportunity that everyone was asking for. And how many, how many, how many, how many people who lived with enormous pungency were condemned right away for the apparent disqualification of talents made from the beginning. So, I would say that thanks to this way of thinking

we have a revolution. Very well. Now I get to what you asked me very quickly. I understand faith as a certainty. I understand faith as a certainty, a conviction.

To believe without seeing.

I understand. Yes, that's it.

It's like my ex-wife, who asked if I was a woman of faith, and I said, are you a woman of faith?

Yes, it's a definition.

She asked to see my WhatsApp and I said, have faith, believe without seeing. Thomas Aquinas, quietly, without possible proof, without possible verification. So, now here I report again to Kant when he insurges against the rational proofs of the existence of God.

And why? To support an idea? And he is the one who is talking, because after this, Professor Rodrigo, they make cuts

and then it's as if we had said, imagine if I have the condition to elaborate this thought. I have no condition to elaborate this thought. Kant is the one who says, if the existence of God is rationally proven, God ceases to be a matter of faith. And I didn't like it.

I prefer that God continues to be a matter of faith. This is the first point. And a second point, which I would say is my last intervention in this conversation, because for me it is the most beautiful link between philosophy and religion, which is the discussion about the evil that Leibniz proposes and that I think is absolutely charming. When the question is, if God exists, where does evil come from?

And then he says, if God does not exist, where does good come from? And of course, for us, the problem of good is already solved, but the problem of evil is a problem. And Leibniz will propose a resolution that I think is a genius... There are people who have irritating genius. It's an intellectual competence so superior to the one you could reach that you... this guy has to be beaten, it's not possible. And Leibniz comes up with this

solution, but I would like to conclude my speech with this quote that I think is sensational, and I give you the floor.

Rodrigo, to finish...

I just wanted to say something here, because it's before the question, I just wanted to say a little bit of what you said, Leibniz was a genius. Leibniz, at the age of 8, learned Latin and Greek by himself. At 12, he created the differential calculus, which, according to some, was what allowed the calculator. And at 21, he already did his first doctorate in law. I'm following more or less what you're saying.

No, no, no.

21 years.

He must be joking. Professor Rodrigo is a pandego. Following my steps is what I said. And not what I did.

You don't have a doctorate in law?

Yes, I have a doctorate in law. But in the library they couldn't have followed my steps for several reasons. One of them is... The first one is the one before, of course. But, anyway, in Liberia they couldn't have followed my steps for several reasons. One of them...

The first one is that I came before, of course.

But, because... I wanted to insist on this. Professor, I am an explainer of other people's thoughts within very shallow limits. So, what I understood, I share and explain. What I didn't understand, I don't explain. So, from my original thinking, I can barely connect what one said with what the other said

and say, oh, I think it has to do with it. Period. with what the other said and say, oh, I think it has to do with it. And that's it. That's the way of thinking. Now, a quote like that from Leibniz, I would need to live five lives to reach this level of intellectual competence.

But in fact, I did a doctorate in law very early, but anyway. But allow me to put a counterpoint here, Professor Clovis. I'll put Professor Clovis' own philosophy against Professor Clovis. Why? What he said here is an example. I know that for a question of humility, modesty, he says, no, who am I to be? But many people who are watching us don't know who Leibniz is.

But Professor Clovis de Barros knows. So what happens? Taking the example he wanted to give, let's assume that Leibniz won 10 talents, and Professor Clóvis, following only what he is saying, won only 2.

But both of them are influencing thousands of Brazilians for good. So here I remember a magic word, which is exactly what he is saying. I think that life only has a meaning of being lived, first of all, with the transcendent, I don't give up on transcendence, and below transcendence, my life has to have something, Vilela, which is called legacy. I'm working a lot on the legacy theme, now, Vilela, which is called legacy.

I'm working a lot on the legacy theme, now I'm becoming a lecturer too. Many companies are calling me to talk about legacy. Lectures about legacy. And why am I talking about this? Legacy is that success that is not alone.

It's 1, 2, 3, 4 thousand talents, it doesn't matter. No one was born without talents. We all have a talent, even if it's smiling or crying with someone, you have it. And if you take that talent and only use it for your benefit, that's selfishness, egocentrism, whatever you want to call it. But when other people are benefited by the little or the much talent you receive,

then your life starts to make sense. It's like some people who get rich, but they are so poor that the only thing they have is money. Others are rich, and they benefit so many people that we can say, how good that this person got rich.

How good that this person got a doctorate and became a professor.

I'm sorry, Rodrigo, for interrupting you.

Forgive me.

No, please. Once again, the influence of Jesus' thought. Why? Because our viewer could be asking himself, wait a minute, for the Greeks, the most intelligent is superior, right?

He is virtuous, he does what he does well, he does not work, he exercises himself, work is a fifth class thing. They are aristocratic. Kratos, power, aristocrats. The best. Power given to the best. Perfect. Now, Jesus says, no, no, what will be worth from now on is you putting your hand in the dough. It's you doing it.

And, of course, I could ask, but listen. And it's okay. It's worth from now on on, but I would say, what are the criteria for a good life from now on? It's okay, it's going to be worth it from now on, but what do I have to do to live well according to Jesus? I mean, you will make someone smile, who would not have smiled without you. You will bring joy, who would not have been happy without you. You gave me a shoulder. There is a role here of the other, of the otherness, of the so-called neighbor,

and that the great value of life in the eyes of Jesus is in the way you consider the other. And by relating to him, you catapult him, you trampoline him, or potentialize him, or put him up, and this is wonderful. This is wonderful. So, he said very well, of course, Leibniz 10, me half. But according to Jesus, Jesus will look there and say, well,, what did you do with this money? Damn, only in Vilela is it the fifth time I'm going.

Six hours, yes.

And I say, it's 40 books, 40 years of academic life, I don't know what, and I think that something, I must have contributed, there's the legacy. By the way, if you're listening, if the teacher is presenting himself to give a lecture about legacy, you, who are from the corporate world,

hire him for yesterday, because we lack in the world of lectures people with this level of maturity to reflect on values, about what matters, instead of simply vociferating strategies to make money, to accumulate, to excess. So this intellectual competence is highly welcome, and therefore, in corporate events, Professor Rodrigo would be a spectacle. I've already said my piece. Now let's...

Thank you. The point I wanted to make... Thank you from the bottom of my heart. What I take here, for example, at the time of Jesus, there were two schools of Jewish thought, the one of Hillel and Shammai, which were contemporary to Jesus. Although the 613 commandments of Judaism will be systematized by Maimonides a long time later, at the time of Jesus there were already a series of laws and rules

of the oral tradition, of what could and could not be done on Shabbat, what could and could not be done when the woman was menstruating and everything. And the story is told, and this is outside the Gospel, that once a young man came to Hillel, and after he came to Shabbat, and Hillel was a very irascible comrade, he was brave, very legalistic, and the boy said like this, oh Rabbi, while I'm here in an uncomfortable position,

doing the four, we call it four, he summarizes my law and the prophets. He gave the boy a slap and said, go away, don't make me waste time, you can't summarize the entire ethical treaty of Judaism while you're in that position. Then the boy went to ask the same question to Chamay, and Chamay said, look, it's simple,

what you don't want the other to do, don't do it to him. Curiously, in the New Testament, we have a similar situation, where someone came to Jesus and asked, Lord, what is the greatest of commandments? In Hebrew, it means, how do I summarize the whole law in one thing? It's the teacher's question. And now, how do I do that? Jesus answered, simple, love God above all things,

that is, speaking in philosophical language, live for the transcendent and love your neighbor as yourself. This is what all the law and the prophets depend on. The rest is commentary. Now look how interesting, while the other put it in a passive way, what you don't want the other to do, don't do to him. And we find this also in Confucius, Confucius has a very similar sentence, what you don't want the other to do, don't do to him.

But it's a comfortable ethic. If I don't want Professor Clovis to bother me, I won't bother him either. If I don't want him to ask me for water, I won't ask for water. But it leaves me in a very comfortable zone. Jesus' ethics is active.

What you want the other to do, do it to him first. And in this sense, that's where the legacy comes from. The legacy is in you saying, ok, I have talent to sing, to make money, to study, I have a PhD, two PhDs, two universities, what did I benefit from others with my degree?

I became a doctor, my father was proud because I graduated first in the medical school at USP, what is my medicine benefiting other people? And it's not just what you can pay, what is my son, no. Because even the dictators want to put their son in power. Even the dictator, Jesus said, even the bad guys love their sons. The business is that which cannot pay me back.

And I wanted to show a photo here, which I think illustrates, I asked Fabi to pass it a picture here, I think I've illustrated it, I asked Fabi to pass it to the people, I don't know if it's here. It's a picture of Samir and Ahmed. Samir was a Christian,

and Ahmed was a Muslim. But one of them, they lived in Syria. The picture has no date, but it's assumed that it's from the beginning of the 20th century, the end of the 19th century, around our ideas, or 1890, something like that. One was Christian, the other was Muslim.

But Samir was blind, and Ahmed was a dwarf with atrophied legs. They lived on the streets of Damascuscus suffering, until one day they met. And what happens? One became the eyes of the other and the other became the legs of the other.

Wonderful.

So they walked around the streets. They walked around the streets. So the little dwarf could see very well and he helped the other one, the other one had good legs, and so they sold pots and became a lasting friendship. So what do I learn from this photograph? Sometimes my problem is blindness.

Sometimes the other's problem is atrophied legs. Let the other's virtue complete your deficiency

and use your virtue to complete the other to complete your deficiency,

and use your virtue to complete the deficiency of the other. Thus we have an ethic that makes humanity work as a gear. And in this question that we really see in Aristotle, in the hierarchies, also in the Republic of Plato, in the hierarchies of social strata, the world works as a gear.

Because even if my life is worth more than the life of the worm, take all the worms out of the world and you will have an ecosystem breakdown that can cause the end of humanity. That is, even the dog's carapace has a role in nature. So it is very important to know what my role is and how I am benefiting the other.

And to finish my compliment that the professor said, my reaction to his speech, it's interesting that this is a lesson even for the religious, because one of the descriptions of Jesus in Matthew 25, about the day of the final judgment, is to come to people to him and with an unimaginable arrogance say,

Lord, but come here, in your name I prophesied, in your name I did healing, that is, in your name I was religious. The Bible presents two reactions to the Judgment Day. There is the reaction described in Revelation 6, of those who are lost, and ask for the stones that fall on them because they can't stand looking at the throne of God's judgment. And there is the version of those believers or religious people

of façade, who with arrogance say, wait a minute, they will not ask for the stones to fall on them, they will with arrogance say, but in your name I did this, I did charity, I studied theology, I preached in the church, I held mass, I did a story in the evangelical church, and he said, get away from me, I don't know. And what's the difference?

The difference is precisely what you do with the talents I gave you. And what you do with the talents I gave you is not just self-promotion, self-development, but it's from your development, from your growth, to help others. Remembering that even small growth can be, in the eyes of God, a reason for applause. That's why Jesus reversed the world's perspective.

The good fortunes are going just in the opposite direction, because he says, blessed are those who cry, blessed are those who are hungry, those who are persecuted. For example, it seems that the happy ones are the unhappy ones. I finish with a parable that I remembered now, which illustrates one of the professor's speeches, it's a rabbinical parable.

The rabbis said that once the owner of a... he had the wines there, I forgot the name, a winery. He had a large winery and his wines were being stolen. So he hired two unemployed men to watch his cellar. The first one he hired was an abstainer, who had never drunk in his life, never tried alcoholic beverages,

and the second one was someone who struggled with the addiction to alcohol. He had been an alcoholic, had stopped drinking for some time, but still struggled with the will to drink. And he put both of them to watch. One watched one winery, the other watched the other. Both spent the whole night watching the winery.

When the Lord arrived the next morning, he was happy because not a single glass of wine was stolen. But when it was time to make the payment, for the abyssal wine, he gave, I'll create a symbolic value here, he gave 10 shekels. For the other one, who was fighting alcoholism, he gave 50 shekels.

Then the first one complained, wait a minute, I worked the same amount as him, I stayed the same number of hours and he didn't steal any wine, why am I earning much less than the other?" He said, because you had to watch only the wines. He had to watch the wines and himself. He showed that he has a high power of domination over himself,

although socially speaking, he seems inferior to you, because while you are abstemious, he is a person who fights with a terrible addiction. So, many times, in the divine ethics, the roles are reversed. Happy, the unhappy. Because they will rule the kingdom of God. Unhappy, depending, of course, on what perspective you are evaluating the concept.

Do you want to comment on something? Because I was going to talk about that subject we were talking about before the live, about the parables. I really liked the books of Joseph Gumbel, he tried to make a monomyth, an idea that all the myths, all the old stories, they talk about more or less the same things, there is this role of the hero, of the mother, of nature, of the mother, of the rebirth.

And I see some stories from the Bible, for example, both from the Prometheus, that who steals the fire of the gods, the knowledge, as well as Pandora's box, that she opens the box she shouldn't open, or Eve and Adam,

that have the fruit, have a tree of knowledge of evil that they shouldn't have. And this dichotomy I don't understand from time to time, because it seems that God, or these myths, put some impossible things, because they know that it is the nature of the human being to want to learn more, to want to evolve, to seek knowledge, and at the same time puts an impossible challenge for them. Don't do it like that. In the case of the tree

of the good of knowledge, then I'll come back to Rodrigo, which is, if you eat from this tree, as the snake says, you will be like God. Why is there this dichotomy of don't do this, but we already know in history

that there will be a fall, that they will do what the gods or God is prohibiting.

Well,

you imagine that

taking all this... And parables in mythology, are they similar?

The meaning, the formulation, what is a parable? Well, if you... So, starting from people, a didactic concern. Teaching things. And it is very important that these people, who have this didactic concern, they have a notion of the repertoire

of their interlocutor.

Yes.

And above all, the diversity of the repertoire of the interlocutor's repertoire. So, it is necessary to find mechanisms to make oneself understood by anyone. So, the idea of the par it is a didactic initiative to pass a message to be understood by anyone. A concern that a Greek philosopher of fine sepia would not have, because he only speaks... So much so that Plato and Aristotle would have literature for the beginners, literature for the second grader, literature for... and the dialogues would be the most popular part of his production.

Now, Jesus, even in great coherence with what he said, he already manifested himself to be understood by anyone. And of course, it is not through abstractions, notions and concepts that you are understood. Why? Because if by chance the individual did not have in his trajectory the opportunity to understand the meaning of that concept and he is excluded from understanding.

This is the power of history, right? Do you understand what I'm talking about? So, what I find funny, because Rodrigo spoke of arrogance, right? And I think there's another great merit of philosophy, that when it's well carried out, it puts you in a good place, you know? It lowers your ball, and...

And, as society often demands a kind of self-sufficiency demonstration. For example, check out the of capacitation, and philosophy goes in the opposite direction. That is, with each new step, a new field of ignorance.

That's why the more you study, the more shouting ignorance is. Why? Because it is that knowledge that allows to illuminate

what you perceive you don't know while if you didn't get there, you can't even know you don't know Is that perfect? So I think Socrates is the great example with that story, why do the gods say I'm the wisest if I know nothing? I already understood. I at least know I know nothing. The others don't know that.

So I am in the lead, in fact. And the gods, as they are always right. So, now, going back to the issue question of great narratives, it is very important to understand how often the domain of certain notions

is directly related to the type of life you lived, is directly related to the places you frequented or the places you could frequent. And many times, the difficulty or the inability to access thoughts that require concepts, notions and abstractions, ends up being confused with some kind of stupidity, or lack of intelligence, etc. Which is completely absurd, and has directly to do with the opportunities

that a certain type of life facilitated. So, Jesus spoke through parables, and these stories were understandable to anyone. But, of course, each thing is in a different place. So, in this sense, the very idea of the word symbol, its origin origin has to do with it, right? Because everything that has a meaning, that comes from the Greek, refers to this union of more than one thing, you know? Like the synthesis, for example, right?

So, the word symbol, right? It even has to do with a stick that you break in the middle, but you can put it together correctly, in a way to reconstruct the original stick, right? That's the origin of the word symbol. So, what's the grace of the story? It's that you have a narrative there,

and I would say that each element of this narrative suggests the link of other elements, which is, after all, what you are trying to teach. But see that Plato himself, in the Republic's Book 7, proposes the myth left the cave and had photophobia when he found sunlight. It's obvious that each element of that story is in the place of another.

It has a function.

It's in the place of another. And so, the parables have this same characteristic. Each element refers to others, and as, of course, the sky is the limit, this investigation of meaning, it doesn't necessarily have a certain and closed answer and that's it. No, it can allow other interpretations and a refinement of interpretations with views in search of a kind of tendential truth, something that you refine, refine, refine, to try to discover, based on other elements,

what the narrator really wanted to tell. Do you understand? So, in this sense, it's very wonderful because, as we present here in the Parable of Talents, where you give more to one, and more to the other, and then you applaud one and criticize the other,

what is being explained here? It is being explained here that the important thing, what is valuable, is what the guy did after the distribution of the coins. And of course, this allows a comprehension at various levels, but above all, this gives everyone the chance of some understanding about what is being taught. And of course, you have to consider that this parable is proposed at a time when Greek thought was still extremely strong, present, important, etc. So, it is clear that when you propose a subversive thesis like this, because subversive is in relation to, when you propose a subversive thesis like this, it is evident that you seek adhesion, there is no speech that does not seek any adhesion, and you seek an adhesion on top of resources that you suppose are the cognitive resources

of your interlocutor. So the parable was the right way for this to happen. I go to my podcast, Professor Rodrigo, every Thursday I have a podcast where I myself ask and I myself answer. Because this way we avoid problems with flying and taxis If I'm not there, nothing happens

If the questioner is not there, the one who answers won't be there

Won't be there And I did Aelida and the Odyssey I did the Divine Comedy, that is, first telling about my way and then showing, within my orbital of knowledge, what that has to do with other things, etc. So now I'm starting to work on Jesus' thought. And it's very fascinating because I made a content distribution

and I realize that I would take exactly one year to start to stir up the epidermis of the problem, with weekly episodes. I started by dealing with this relationship of philosophy with religion, I intend to make a well-made bed, to bring the parables later, and that they find a more fertile ground for understanding. Now,

let it be clear to everyone who listens to me, because this is an intimate conviction that I have. One thing is to know what Jesus said. The other thing is what Jesus said, in fact, is to guide your life, to be part of your life, to help you live. They are very different things.

Nothing prevents you from knowing, decorate andorate critic of Kant's practical reason and to be a cuckold when it comes to life. It's not impossible. Nothing prevents you from knowing perfectly, I don't know, the third part of Spinoza's ethics, and being a pithy living being from an emotional point of view.

There is a conceptual domain that is at a certain level and that does not necessarily permeate life.

It would be very unfortunate if this happened in the case of Jesus.

In other cases as well, but in the case of Jesus in particular. Regardless of the creed, the multiplication of the temples does not ensure a true presence of what Jesus wanted to teach us in our lives.

True.

You know, Professor, I was coming here and I was thinking that I live in the city of São Paulo, right? And then I thought about making an initial provocation and say, ah... Why did Paulo lend the name to this city? Maybe because it is welcoming, maybe because people reach out to the different, to the weakened. Maybe because Jesus' teachings are lived everywhere.

Maybe because in São Paulo immigrants are not persecuted. lived everywhere. Maybe because in São Paulo immigrants are not persecuted.

Maybe because in São Paulo Haitians do not suffer what they suffer, Bolivians do not suffer what they suffer, and they are Haitians, they are Bolivians, they are not Brazilians, but for Jesus. So this recrudesciment of a hostile look at the stranger, the other, or to the neighbor, it has nothing to do, nothing to do with what Jesus wanted to teach.

Professor,

and here I am saying things from the heart. If Jesus wanted to teach us something, it is that this neighbor who approaches, he has to be considered by you in a certain way. And this way is not a downgrader, it is not humiliating, it is not depreciating, it's not devaluating, because the other is not a mere instrument of your glory, the other is not a mere step of your trajectory, the other is not a mere ladder of your climb who decides with equity between two contradictory claims, no, for the eyes of A, B is like A. B's claims are worth like A's, B's life is worth like A's, B's desires are as valuable as A's,

and there is no reason to call yourself a disciple of Jesus and believe in a kind of superiority of principle of oneself in relation to whoever you want to be.

Professor Claus, can I make a note here? Just let me make a note, Rodrigo, because he mentioned Kant and I'm I'll paraphrase Matrix, ok? Matrix has a saying, it's different to know the way and to follow it.

That's a phrase I...

Wow, excellent, excellent.

Now it's your turn.

See? That's what I wanted...

It's a film based on philosophy.

Wow, of course. And see how wonderful it is... to get to places with an empty glass. Completely empty is boring, because after all you were invited to say something. But at least with an empty glass. I'm already filling your glass. Because the arrogance of the one who knows everything ends up preventing you from learning.

It ends up preventing you from getting enriched. The one who has the cup to the brim has no more room for the perfecting of his own spirit. So, instead of listening to everyone saying that you need to look at the full side of the glass, you need to look at the full side of the glass,

you need to look at the full side of the glass, I recommend that you also look at the empty side of the glass. Because it is on the empty side of the glass that there is the opportunity for growth, for elevation, which has no end. I mean, I spent two hours here trying to say that one thing was one thing, another thing was another thing. He remembered the Matrix and solved my problem.

Thank you, professor. He solved my problem. So what am I going to do? I'm going to write it down, because it is a close one. As we are not the owners of our discourse, this is a wonderful polyphony of people here who are here seeking some purpose and leaving some legacy, so that we can help each other, We are here to help, just like the blind and the lame of the picture shown by the teacher.

We are here to help each other. Because this teacher's attitude of those who know everything, not only is it pathetic, ridiculous, false, and lying, but it is also an impediment to growth. And nothing is better than listening and considering the other, because it is only from the richness of the plurality of repertoires and trajectories that you will be able to learn more.

Rodrigo.

I just wanted to say a few things that the professor has pondered. It is interesting that Jesus commanded to love the neighbor. Why this emphasis? Jesus could say, love all people. It would seem to make more sense. Love all people.

The law decides to love God above all things and all people like yourself. He didn't do that. He told us to love our neighbor. Do you know why? Loving the one who is far away is easy. Filling a container of used clothes and sending it to poor children in Somalia, that's easy to do. And legalism allows this kind of action. Now, loving the person who is in the toilet near my house,

who is farting, that I can smell his bad breath, loving the person that I know his defects, this is different. And in relation to the practical Gospel, to make it more than a rhetoric, you can even try to follow any ethical norm in the world, by legalism, and even that of Jesus, but there will be a difference.

Imagine a person, I don't know if Vilela has seen this situation, that someone who doesn't have the talent to be a comedian, he will tell the same joke that the comedian tells. The same one.

My father. My dad. My dad. He tells the joke, nobody laughs, and then he explains the joke. So bad that he told it. Exactly. You got it? The parrot, I don't know what.

It's my dad.

Then people laugh like that, and it's not funny. Now, take someone like Tirolipa, for example. I had a fight with Tirolipa, for example, I had a tirulipa once. The tirulipa even with its mouth closed is funny. The vilela itself, which during the movie...

Igor Guimarães!

Yeah.

Exactly. What do I want to do with this comparison, this parable? The person put it very well, parable, in Greek, to stop next to D. Bollé is a launch. So much so that you say bullet, revolver. So, parable is what is thrown next to it, to make sense. I'm using a parable of humor.

When you say you follow Jesus, but you don't have inside you the element of love that makes it sprout in your heart, you look like someone without talent for humor, trying to tell a joke. You say the same thing about the humorist,

but you can't pull laughter from anyone. So you can even try to imitate Jesus' ethics, Jesus' teachings, repeat his words, but there will be no energy, nothing that works. And that's why Jesus often challenged the establishment of his time. And there's an interesting thing I wanted to to point out about Jesus' parables.

Besides what Professor Clovis said, to facilitate understanding, Jesus went from the known to the unknown, the parable had two more facets, if I may contribute here. The first one, Jesus integrated all people. For example, in one shot, he told a parable about a lost sheep. Those who took care of sheep in the field were mostly men.

But then he told a parable about a lost coin in the house that a woman owned. In another shot he told a parable of a farmer, men. Then he told of a baker. The women were the ones who made the daily bread. So I note in Jesus' parables that he had a parable suitable for the female audience, for the male audience,

not in the sense of segregation, but in the sense of aggregation. That is, he spoke of elements that were part of the male and female everyday life. In other words, Jesus had men and women in his audience. In a predominantly male time, where only men could be rabbis, only men could follow the highest stages of rabbinism, Jesus had women.

And a woman in particular, Maria Magdalena, is described as the one who was learning at the feet of Jesus, according to the Gospel of John. This learning at the feet of is an idiomatic expression that we find in the Talmud related to an official student of a rabbi.

So much so that Paul is described as the one who who bowed at the feet of Gamaliel. So Mary Magdalene was Jesus' official student. Today I can have here at NASP, Professor Clóvis at USP, students and students. At the time of Jesus, students were a very rare thing,

he added all people. And the second facet of the parable, besides this aggregator role, the parable has a paradox, because at the same time that it simplifies, it complicates the obtuse mind. And normally, I don't have a deep study about this, it's just an insight,

normally people who are very narcissistic, dictators, despots, and who think they are too much, are tremendously obtuse to learn things from the spirit and to understand ironies. It should be seen that at the time of the military dictatorship in Brazil, there were many songs that were speaking badly of the regime and no one noticed. Michelangelo, when he painted the creation and the final judgment in the Sistine Chapel,

he put a lot of subliminal messages there that the theologians didn't notice. It's the brain, but they were more concerned with the naivety of God and the others. So, usually, the narcissist, obtuse person, dictator, he doesn't understand the irony. And in the parables we see this. There are moments when Jesus says, look, I tell this parable so that the simple understand and the aristocrats, he didn't use the expression, but he used the concept, don't understand.

It was just the opposite. The pharisees were puzzled about what he meant by that, and the simple ones understood. In a conversation with Nicodemus, he used a parable. You need to be born again. How can a man go back to his mother's womb? In other words, very obtuse and narcissistic people

have a hard time learning the things of the spirit. So the parable has this facet. At the same time that it facilitates and adds, it makes it difficult for the person who is not prepared for the super-terrestrial truths, for truths that are truths of the spirit.

I loved it, I really loved it. Clóvis, why is it that something related to faith or religion, I don't know if the word is misplaced, but it is diminished in relation to reason. But this is your belief. This is something you can't prove. Does it really have this weight of what is produced in our experience by the brain?

And this thing that transcends things that can be proven, material things. Do you feel that today? of a person who is spiritualized, is she reduced to someone more scientific like that or not? Look, it depends a little on where you are, from the universe you are visiting. But I am absolutely convinced that... Let's put the so-called common sense aside.

If you go to talk to scientists, you will easily realize that those who were not, as Professor Rodrigo just said, taken for the pride, for the absolute arrogance, for the conviction that they are almost gods, etc. These ones, less. Because they can prove it. But those who understood something, those who take seriously the idea that science is not the truth about the world, is a great philosopher of science,

a scientist is the one who, first of all, shows the errors of the current truth. Those who take this seriously know that what they may come to discover is insignificant in relation to what is to be more and more involved in mystery. It's like I said a little while ago. You climb a step of knowledge and that allows you to see a new horizon of ignorance.

I think you didn't take seriously what I said. You didn't keep the letter to think at home. And that's why I'm going to repeat. You climb a little step of knowledge and throw light over an ocean of ignorance. Have you ever imagined, after ten steps,

how many oceans of ignorance you have illuminated? That you can see now that it is higher

understand?

this this observation is a observation that puts us

with our feet on the ground

in the sense of realizing the importance of the investigation of the limits of reason. A concern that today I have with the cante on my mind, but... That reflection about how far we can go, from here to there, I don't know anymore. Look at the antinomies, look at his reflection on freedom. Between freedom and determinism, I think it is a kind of blockade. It is not possible to lock something in this regard. So, I will keep this to continue thinking. Now, I cannot nail an absolute determinism because I stumble upon difficulties

about the primary causes. I cannot nail in cracks of freedom because the material causalities make up a seemingly imperative network? I get a little tied up. So there is a limit to reason. And the lucid scientist?

Look, for example, in astrophysics. If you take a lucid guy in astrophysics, he will turn to you and say, James Webb allows you to see a star that has not existed for 100 years. He is seeing the past. and allows us to see a star that doesn't exist for a million years. Do you know what is the light traveling for a million years? In the speed that is the fastest.

So it's fucking far.

Fuck!

In short, it's far.

It's fucking far, right? Yes. Then he said, now I'm going to surprise you. James Webb allows us to see 1 billion years.

Wow.

Then you say, but it allows us to see 13 billion years. Then you ask, and how much does this shit have? 13.8 Then you say, look, the .8, I put my glasses in front of me and we see the beginning of everything?

No!

Why not? Because it was too dense and the density would attract the light, there was no light, there was no way to see, it's no use putting on glasses, there's no way to see And how are we going to know? There's no way to see it. And how are we going to know? There's no way. Then he looks at you and says, and you want more? The universe is expanding. What we see today, tomorrow, we won't be able to see anymore.

You're running, right? Tomorrow, bye, bye, I can't see anymore. So, what will Lucido say? Malandro, we found something for the dumb.

A lot.

But we also found out that what we found out is nothing. Did you realize how ambiguous the show is?

It's nothing.

It's nothing. We don't know anything! Nothing! We don't know anything! We don't know anything. Oh, and before the Big Bang! Bad and bad, bad and bad!

I mean, assuming that there was the Big Bang and such, because... Yeah... This theory says that the whole universe was the size of an atom, less than an atom. It's a lot of density, huh? Professor, my combi is the size of an atom. But it's not my combi, all the combis in the world are the size of an atom.

But it's not all the combis, it's the planet world the size of a bush but it's not all the combs it's the planet Earth the size of a bush Japan is far, it's far, it's big, it's far it's the size of a bush but it's not the planet Earth, it's the solar system but it's not the solar system

it's the Milky Way but it's not the Milky Way

it's the...

the...

all the galaxies

all the galaxies All galaxies, the size of a thing like this, are very dense. It's so dense that it causes discomfort. And then the thing explodes, and since the temperature is very high, and the cooling is too abrupt, solid units of reality start to form. That's what they say. It's the most accepted model.

But then you raise your hand and say, where did this little shit come from?

I don't know.

I don't know.

It's a minor idea. It's a minor idea. It's a minor idea.

It's a minor idea.

A lucid scientist is of an irritating humility. Right? See, classical philosophical statement. Little science gives up religion and God, a lot of science seeks religion and God.

How cool is that?

I had no idea.

Oh, really?

Oops, there's no doubt, right? Because the little Mequetrefe scientist is usually full of himself, with a full cup, and you think you're the best. But as the guy gets better and better, he says, Hey, man, etc. They end up, wow, funneling into some coincidences that are wonderful, wonderful, wonderful. Confucius says, the rule of happiness is how much you give happiness to someone. What a wonderful thing!

Wonderful thing! because you open the weekly magazines, what is happiness? I, I, I, until, until nausea, understand? Until nausea. And then the Chinese back there, I said, you see, maybe this wonderful state of life that you are looking for, be in the way you impact people. Let's agree that there are very interesting links with other Chinese wisdoms and that are equally wonderful.

So, what is the grace of history? As the professor said, I came here with my half-talent, but it is possible that among all those who are following us, there is someone who says, damn, that touched me, that makes sense, and then everything will be worth it.

But it was worth it in the other. It was worth it in the other. It was worth it in the other. What the teacher taught is something that, going down another path, I once said, to love those who are far away,

any slouch loves.

Any spiritually low-level individual loves it.

Right?

Because... Now... As he said...

Next.

When you leave home, you go to the supermarket closest to your house, and there's a family there. You say, oh, buy food for my son. Then you look and he says, I know what you're thinking, we're going to sell the things you give us to buy drugs, isn't that what you're thinking? I hadn't opened my mouth yet.

He said, do this. You buy, come here and eat with us. This happened on Bela Sintra Street. Very close to my house. Very, very close. So I said, let's try this thing. So I went there, I bought bread, ham, cheese, milk, juice, everything that came in the pan,

including some sweets that would be slaughtered by the world of nutrition. Can you imagine? But, what the fuck? There are children who don't like a little X, a little donut, a rubber bullet. I made a purchase, I said,

I'm still invited?

Oops!

So I sat down where they were. I put everything in the middle. David Ado, oh, pa, Tommy sent a on distal

Okay, to do me

So I'm just coming here. He just for me

No, vamos vender para comprar droga. Nos estamos a conforme

Yeah, então Fizemos la sandwich So we made a sandwich, ham and cheese. The ham and cheese was over quickly. I went to the supermarket and there was more. Half a kilo of each. Sliced to make the sanduba easier. One more bread. Then you look and say, what do I answer to that colleague of the club who suggested that I go to Dubai first class because there is a shower in the aircraft?

Professor, what do I answer? If you go to Dubai, go first class, because there is a shower in the aircraft. You imagine, you leave home, as it is first class, the guys come to pick you up at home, take you to the airport, pass in front of everyone, enter and such. When you're in the middle of the Atlantic, you say, I think I'm dirty. Oh, come on, come on, because we have a shower. At an altitude of 10,000 feet.

So then you go and get a towel and such and look from up there and you turn on the shower and you're like, nothing, how am I going to go back now and travel without a shower? How am I going to travel back now and travel without a shower? How am I going to travel without a shower?

How so?

Man!

It's not possible for you to inhibit indignation. Because in fact, in fact, we are not welcoming, we are not welcoming, we are not giving, we are not loving, we loved as Jesus loved, lived as Jesus lived, felt as Jesus felt, smiled as Jesus smiled, and then, at the end of the day, maybe a little bit of a compression to compensate for so much poverty in life.

What Professor Clovis said reminded me of a passage from Ferdinand, where Socrates talks about social alienation, and he says, when he's talking to Admanto, I think it was Admanto, correct me if I'm wrong, one of the brothers of Plato, he says that it is still necessary to denounce the poetry of your worst evil. When he talks about poetry, I'll explain, he's talking about the poetry of Coralina, he's talking about any kind of entertainment, whether it's theater, oratoryatory, causes alienation. By the way, I even open a parenthesis here to say that we must choose

between recreation and entertainment. Entertainment is a disgrace, because the word to have fun is to take you out of that. That is, alienation. And he talks about poetry, he says, have you noticed when we are watching Almero,

in a Panegyric, when the actor in the theater screams, a lot of pain, we get moved, we bathe our faces in tears, and we feel the pain of the actor and the character. I'm paraphrasing.

But when we leave that scene the pain of the actor and the character, I'm paraphrasing,

but when we leave that scene and see reality presented in poetry, in theater, live and in color, then we change our behavior. The emotional attitude we showed before is now the attitude of women,

it doesn't compete with a man like me crying. So we have to be careful because, as I said about the next one, it's very easy to get moved by a Hollywood movie scene, you know? Something like that, for example, now that there was this complaint

that we are hearing on the internet about the children's adultization, now it's easy to get up, get the hype, and speak against it and everything, but this, suddenly suddenly you have a child being a victim of something, and you know what? I'm not going to tell YouTube not to cut our live here, in my house, or in the house next door, or from 12 streets down, I'm not going to mess with this, it has nothing to do with this,

maybe later the guy will want to satisfy me. Then the attitude is to stay still.

Yes.

Now, it's interesting.

Cowardly.

Cowardly. And it's interesting that the Bible says that the cowards will not enter the kingdom of heaven. It's interesting that the Bible attributes cowardice, an ethical question. The coward is in the apocalypse and will not enter the Kingdom of God. Now I appeal to Saint Augustine of Hippo, in a reading he made, first I will talk about Paul, then Augustine.

Paul was very lucid in his anthropology, when he said that in us there is no good. He says, «Disgraceful man I man, who will free me from this death? Because the good I want to do, I don't do. The evil I don't want, I practice.

I remember Saint Augustine making a re-reading of this. Saint Augustine said that when he was a child, he was in the Confessions, he said he loved to steal pears from the neighbor's house. And he asked me what made me want the neighbor's pears. Hunger? No, I had food in my house.

Will to eat pears? I didn't have pears in my house, but the neighbor's were forbidden. So Saint Augustine realized that there was no good in him. Then I learn something about the ethics of Jesus, which may be missing in the Nicomacan ethics, the ethics of Spinoza, or any other we can have. Jesus' ethics is not merely trainable, it has to be born from a meeting with grace.

That's why Saint Augustine talks so much about grace, grace, grace. Because the human being in himself is naturally selfish. This goes way back to the evolutionism of the Avenist, we are evolving, we are involving, we are selfish. It's easier to hate than to forgive. It's easier to go there and beat the guy up if I can do that than to forgive.

Our tendency, as Agostinho said, is to want to steal the neighbor's pear, because I have pears in my house. So the guy needs a meeting with grace. It is grace that enables me to do what I wouldn't do in myself. It is grace that operates this miracle. In other words, Jesus' ethics doesn't want to make me just a better father,

a better husband, a better citizen. It wants to transform me, as he talked to Nicodemus, into a new creature, a rebirth. It is the power of transcendence acting in me. The ethics of Jesus, by mere training, is just a legalism, an attempt to buy the sky for good works.

This will not work. Just as the professor said that we can reach step by step. The only thing we can do is to illuminate a little more the vast ocean of ignorance. We can do all the meritorious work in the world. We will be like an ant tickling the paw of an elephant. We will not be able to buy our salvation or our union with the transcendent.

That's why Paulo says, I'm crucified with Christ, I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. Then the music of Father Zezinho makes all sense, because then I will love, as Jesus said, love. And I close my comment here, since I talked about love, it's exactly love.

What's the difference between doing a good work for the fruit of grace and doing a good work only for merit? Well, not disregarding the work of the babas, because it is a very beautiful work, and the babas who are watching us, if there are any, receive my deep respect,

but let me, babas, make a comparison. To take care of a newborn, you don't need to be a mother, because a babá To take care of a newborn, you don't need to be a mother. Because a babá can take care of a newborn, even without having any children. She can do that professionally. That is, you don't need to be a mother to take good care of a newborn. But expect the one who is a mother to take good care of your newborn.

And here's the difference. Because the nanny does that, even though she has devotion and attachment to the child, she does it for a CLT issue. She stops paying the nanny to see if she will meet her schedules. She cleans the child's diaper,

because at the end of the month you will pay her a salary to do that. You will sign her portfolio, you will give her pension fund, you will give her pension fund, you will give her rights, so she takes care of the child for a profession. The same thing, the nurse in the hospital. The mother takes care of the child for love.

See, both are playing the same role, cleaning the back of a child who pooped on the diaper. But one does it for love, destitute of any gain, the other does it for a CLT. So the ethics of Jesus,

fulfilled with a mercantilist purpose, doesn't take any place. It has to be the fruit of a love. And I finish by saying, it's not changing diapers that makes a woman a mother, because the babá can do that, but once she is a mother, expect her to change diapers.

So it's not about doing good things that makes you a disciple of Christ, but expect the disciple of Christ to do good things. the of life after we have found the meaning or followed the meanings that we never like.

Do you want me to repeat?

No, you don't need to. It's interesting because the word meaning has two meanings. It can mean the meaning or it can mean direction, the holy sense. When it means direction, you will hardly find a sign in Santos

that indicates the holy sense, because you are already there. Therefore, the direction is always to another place, not the one where you are. Now, why am I saying this? Because, after all, this relationship between purpose has a component of meaning, since it points to a duty, to a becoming, to what is about to happen, to what is about to be achieved,

to what is about to be obtained for what is to be obtained, but at the same time, as in the case of the plaque, this purpose is defined here. So, from the point of view of time, every purpose has two moments. The moment of its definition, the moment in which it is considered, thought, elaborated, felt, gestated, and the moment in which it can be achieved. And therefore, in this case, it will disappear as a mere purpose and will become a lived life, a fulfilled life, an obtained life, a conquered life. I think this is very cool because after the universe became infinite,

with the scientific revolution of our Copernican heroes, Galileo, Newton, etc. It's true that others had already said, but let them go there.

The truth is that at every step we have 360 degrees of possible paths and therefore also of possible destinations. But life is one.

To be here, I can't be at home. Being here giving this interview prevents me from other lives, right? At the same time. At least not in this universe. If you want the parallels, think about them, I don't have intelligence for that. Even because intelligence is also limited by the limited by the interviewee.

What is this, professor?

So, what happens? The definition of a purpose presupposes a choice. And a choice presupposes the identification of what is most valuable to you. So I think there is a huge problem here that we face, and maybe we have always faced, but I, as I have only lived 60 years, know this part better here, which is this unpreparedness that we have to deal with values. The fact that values are not a permanent part of our reflection, of our argumentation.

An individual, then, who lives without destiny, he is at the mercy of the marolas, he is at the mercy of the contingencies, he is at the mercy of the contingencies, he is at the mercy of the opportunities of occasion. He, therefore, has no anchor. He is not, let's say, lord of his trajectory. He is passive in the face of a avalanche of variables that he doesn't control.

He doesn't know where he's going. So, he's living for living. It's completely different from someone who had the chance to reflect on the values of life itself, which may coincide with the lives of many others, and from these values could define purposes. Because these purposes will be the reference from which I can take my decisions step by step.

So, if I am here today, talking to Professor Rodrigo, talking to Vilela, and I'm not in any other place, is because there is a great value in my life, which is to study and share what I studied. This is important to me. You may even ask where I got this certainty from, and I'll have another conversation.

But the fact is that it has a huge value for me. So, being here has more coherence with my purpose than being in a bar, for example, at this moment. Study and share what I studied. Study and teach something of what I studied. Study and facilitate the understanding of things I studied. And that is my great value.

It doesn't have to be anyone else's. It's mine. And this makes it easier for me to deliberate about the seconds of life that are chosen by me. Well, I keep thinking how difficult and distressing life must be for those who don't have a reference like this.

Because millions of possibilities of life pass by your head at every moment, and since you don't have much clarity of where you want to go, you are affected by the stimuli of the world, often in a contradictory way, in an incoherent way, thus giving a feeling of acute existential emptiness. I insist,

I'm not here teaching anyone how to live. I'm here just referring to my case. My case is a case of a life dedicated to a great value, superior to any other.

And therefore, all decisions made, a great value, superior to any other.

And therefore, all decisions made, they find coherence and pertinence in function of this value and purpose. And they end up defining a meaning, as a direction. My city of Santos, my place of destination, is already defined.

And then I have more ease and peace in my heart to give up proposals that are diagonal, that are in the opposite hand, that are beautiful maybe, but incompatible with what I want for myself. So, if I don't answer the question of our viewer, I at least try to think differently, from my case, and that's good.

Rodrigo, do you want to add something? One interesting thing, when I talk about the meaning of life, I want to refer to an author here, Victor Frankl, who wrote in search of meaning. Victor Frankl quotes a sentence from Nietzsche, but I don't know where he got the sentence from, he doesn't give the source,

so I will quote Nietzsche through Victor Frankl. And Nietzsche, Viktor Frankl says, the one who has a why, can support almost any how. What is my goal? The person spoke of direction.

Viktor Frankl is a guy worth knowing the pains he went through. Viktor Frankl had the tragedy of being newly married, he was a few months married, the war started, he was taken to the Nazi concentration camp, where his mother, his newly married wife,

his father, who died in a Nazi concentration camp, and his brother, who he will meet later, who he thought had died. He went through Dachau and twice through Auschwitz. Viktor Frankl had the concentration camp mark here. He was doing a thesis that later became a logotherapy,

which was in search of meaning. Viktor Frankl, who was also a disciple of Freud, he broke with Freud like Jung, because Freud's problem, and Jung said the same thing, is that they were stuck just finding the meaning of life in their own life. It doesn't make sense.

Wittgenstein always said that the meaning of a closed system is always outside of it. This is easy to understand. For example, if I had a credit card in my hand, if an ET looks at the credit card, as the credit card is closed, the ET will not understand the credit card. He will not understand how I can make purchases with a credit card.

Because what makes sense to the credit card is the banking system, the economic system that is outside the credit card. This is true for everything. The internet only makes sense when it is outside of it. So much so that a cell phone in the Middle Ages would not work. So this life is limited.

It is between two dates, the date of birth and the date of death. So the meaning of this life cannot be only in it. So this was the problem of Viktor Frankl with Freud. Freud signaled everything here, Viktor Frankl appealed to transcendence. So he speaks in Logotherapy, at the first moment, of seeking the meaning of life within these dates, but he doesn't stop here.

The three elements he puts are the following, you can seek the meaning of life, first, in the realization, projects, plans you have, secondly, you can look for the meaning of life in the inspiration you have in a work of art you contemplate, in a search you hear, in the relationships you develop, and thirdly, develop a meaning of life

even in the midst of suffering, which he dealt with suffering. And his will was to die. I've seen many of Professor Clóvis, the pessimistic philosophers, Kafka, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, each one at his time, Camus himself, because they put life without transcendence. And they are honest in admitting that it is crap.

Camus himself said that the great mystery, the great center of philosophy is why don't we kill ourselves? Why don't we end our own lives? Because no matter how happy you are, you will grow old, die and that's it. That's it. So there is a transcendence, and this transcendence is what makes me look for what is there. Dostoevsky has a part where he says

that many people are like birds in a cage, and the cage is the castle of all certainties. The bird is in the cage, there he has the alpiste, he has the bird, he has everything under control. But he keeps looking out there, the birds flying, but he imprisons himself in the cage, even with the door open,

because someone convinced him that birds should not fly, that birds are made to live in cages. So he lives in the cage, the queen of all certainties. The cage is the castle of all convictions. Everything is very controlled, everything is easily measurable, verifiable,

the alpist is there, he can see the whole ocean, and he keeps singing, sad, imagining a flight that in his head is a utopia. Now, if we understand, and again as C.S. Lewis said, that there is a will, a search for a transcendence within me, natural, innate, it doesn't depend on culture, social level or intelligence,

we are all born with an opening to the transcendent, with a will of eternal life. And if I discover that there is in me a huge thirst for something that is not around, this means that even though I live this reality, there is something in me that tells me that I have an opening to a superterreal reality, to transcendence, to the world of spirituality. And it is this world of spirituality that allows me to have a purposeful life.

Why? Because I live my life with wisdom, in a connection with the transcendent, and I still know that everything I go through here is only temporary, whether it's good or bad. The comparison I make is with a very hungry person who is at the door of a restaurant and receives some appetizers, some free food samples.

He eats and opens his appetite more. And the waiter says, Did you like our seasoning? Did you like it? I want more. Calm down, lunch will be served. But if he is a person who only limits the meaning of life

to this material life, he will have to be content with that free sample, even if his stomach asks for more, because his mind, his soul, his spirit, asks for a greater transcendence. We cry for... There's an Italian song that says,

the dance's thirst doesn't end. We want to live forever. We don't want the death of our loved ones. There are many people who can say, I know I'm going to die, I'm prepared for death, but ok. And your son?

You don't want him to die before you? So, even if we philosophize about how to have a healthy, peaceful death, it's still something that's not part of our other. Otherwise, we would not mourn the loss of a loved one, and we would not have so much repulsion of death. The repulsion of death,

as much as Darwin says it is a natural process of life, it is not. It is something that is where it should not be. So I have an opening for something bigger, and I have to search and let my spirit search for that bigger thing. Then I know, with this philosophy of life, that the bad things I face are temporary,

and the good things are just a free sample of something much superior, which Providence, which the transcendent, whatever you want to call it, is reserving for those who choose the path of light, the path of good. It's that question that I once said, the problem of many materialist philosophers, I talked about Kafka, Schopenhauer, and so on, is that when they talk about the existence of the purpose of life,

they put a point where theology forces me to put a comma. The grave is the point. In theology, it is a comma. This life is the point. It only has a comma.

This is the question I want to ask, a question that I'm sure the two of you will answer differently. So, first for Clóvis, would you accept an immortal life? What would be the immortality here on Earth for you? Would you accept this treatment?

Clóvis, I will give you immortality. No, not at all.

At this point, I understand life marked and defined by its main attribute, which is finitude.

And it is within finitude that life must be well lived. If there were an eternity in a life like ours, nothing of what we have thought to this day would exist or have pertinence.

Because there would be no rush, there would be no urgency.

All the values ​​of life presuppose their scarcity and their rarity. Therefore, I... I'm even afraid to imagine a scenario like this. And therefore, I am sure that, as the professor explained, we are here

endowed with reason that allows us to glance here and there some fragment of wisdom that gives us the condition of a life that we pretend to be the best possible, that is good.

But of course one of the virtues that is common to all of us is hope. we want another life.

The discourses of salvation, and salvation is always faced with a bad thing, and a very bad thing is the fear of death,

so there is a kind of competition to see who is the one who proposes the most soothing salvation discourse of a soul that is afraid of dying. And it's very interesting because... Do you have this fear of death? Me? No, no, I've had it, of course. Now, as you see everything approaching, you intensify the reflections and...

and you elevate yourself a little. But... Hope... as well as faith...

they are temporary virtues. Because if you wait for eternal life, once you reach eternal life, hope is no longer hope. Hope, as everything else, is in the absence. It also makes no sense to have faith. You have faith that you will be on God's side. Once you are on God's side, there is no reason to have faith. Now it is a statement.

The only virtue that remains is love. This love accompanies us. We have the possibility of living loving before, during and after. Always. And that's why love is worth more than anything else. Because you could think that a great value in life is the struggle to keep living. If you can change and put yourself in the place of someone you love and who is threatened, you will.

My daughter got very sick when she was four years old, a terrible syndrome, Kawasaki, a virus that, if decubated, kills the child instantly. But if it doesn't decubate for 2 years, he dies and the child is cured. Today my daughter is 22 years old and she is very well. But when all of this happened, I communicated, hoping to be heard by the absolute, and I said, change it. Take this virus out, it's not omnipotent. Put it on me. If you want, I can make another proposal. Take 20 kids with this animal, put the 20 animals on me,

and release the 20 kids. Just don't forget to put my daughter in the middle. At that moment I realized that the love for my daughter was greater than my will to continue living, which was never small. So, I understand that this love will accompany, this love will transcend, this love is what matters. This love is what God has in us.

This love is our divine share. Because if God is love and we love, the thought about the opposite of the word professional. Who is not a professional, that is, who exchanges an activity for a material counterpart, is an amateur. Amateur sport, amateur boxing championship, amateur whatever. Now, the word amateur, if you imagine that you have the beloved, A loves B, B is the beloved of A, and A, the word lover was captured by a very specific scenario. So the word amateur is the one that does it for love, and the professional is the one that does it for another reason.

Just like the professor mentioned the case of the nannies and the mother. Why? For the money? I've always been an amateur teacher. Even because being a professional teacher implies a strategic error. It's not a profession where professionalism is auspicious. When I was told, you're not a professional. I hesitated to celebrate or to feel insulted. I regretted because the intention was to insult,

but I rejoiced because because who is not a professional is an amateur. If he is an amateur, he loves. And if he loves, he is closer to God. Amador ama e se ama, se ama está mais perto de Deus. Então sou um professor amador por entender que o meu professorado se faz por amor e esse amor é uma centelha de divino em mim. And this love is a spark of divine in me.

And I finish, and I won't say anything else today. I finish by saying the following. If God had made the perfect world, because all evil comes from some imperfection, moral evil, physical evil, if God had made the perfect world, he would not have created anything beyond himself. This is Leibniz. Because I promised I would...

True.

This is Leibniz. Therefore, if... If it was so, so that God could create something that is no longer the same, it would have to be in imperfection. Why does God, who can do everything, not solve everything in a pen? So let's see this metaphysical evil of imperfection. The omnipotence of God. God could sit next to me teaching, and as he is perfect, he turns to me and says,

Hey, take this off, put that on, do this, do that. And what would happen in this case? There would be no Professor Clovis. For Professor Clovis to exist with all his imperfections, it is necessary that God, knowing that he is perfect, allow Professor Clovis to manifest imperfectly. There is a thinker named Simone Weil. She died in London, I think in 1942 or 1943.

She explains this with an unparalleled beauty.

For each of us to exist,

it is necessary that God, with perfection, grant us this license of imperfection. Therefore, this divine love for us, this divine love for us, it contains this retreat, this distancing. It is necessary that God leaves me from the class imperfectly so that I can be who I am. And because He loves me, so He does. If He kept correcting me all the time, the class would be perfect and divine, but it would not be mine. The allegory proposed is this.

The world is the footprints of God on the beach sand. God went through there. God did that, but for the world to be able to exist as another creation in relation to itself, Recu. It's a love of distancing.

It's a love of letting go.

It's a love that you can find, Professor, between parents and children. Now go.

I was going to quote that.

Now go. Follow your path. And it was this beautiful quote from Leibniz, which Simone Veil explains wonderfully, and you may be listening to me and saying, but this is kind of obvious. It was necessary to say, because when you get and say, listen, if God is the sum of goodness and the world is God's creation, how is it that evil exists in the world? And that's why I'm enchanted, because I have an emotional enchantment for the beauty of ideas,

including for the beauty of ideas with which I don't agree completely, but I can separate an opinion and the size, the greatness of that idea presented there. I... well... you know how it is, I also have my limits. I would like to thank you very much. I'll take this opportunity to...

Thank you very much, Professor.

I would like to thank you for the opportunity of... this first meeting with the Professor, who taught me so much... tonight... I am a teacher who taught me so much tonight, and who taught all of you who are watching us the opportunity to have learned in a super beautiful way,

which is through dialogue, through interaction, by being forced to produce a speech based on what the other said, and not based on something ready, but based on what was suggested, which is a trace of respect and generosity, but it is profoundly enriching, because if we only repeat what we already know, we don't leave the place. It is necessary that there is this kind of stimulus to say what we had never said before, to revisit scenarios that we hadn't touched on in a long time. So, thank you to the professor who allowed me to say the things I said.

I hope I was helpful to everyone who followed us. I look forward to a new invitation, and that it be in person, because the colorful rubber bullets cry for the teacher's absence and wait for his presence as soon as possible.

Thank you.

Rodrigo, I would like to extend, as we are heading towards the end, your idea about immortality, which will certainly also cover eternal life. But would you exchange or add this eternal life for an intermortal immortality?

Look, Vilela, it's not just a matter of being politically correct or passing the idea well, but I don't disagree with Professor Clovis. You said you would give different ideas, but as far as he answered, I agree. He talked a lot about Leibniz, and Leibniz was a mathematician, and he even created a term to list all this problem,

which is the term Theodicy, which is understanding the existence of God in a world of imperfections, and he used the elements of mathematics. He said that the perfection of the square presupposes the imperfection of the hypotenuse. And in relation to having eternal life in this state we are in,

the professor is completely right. There is a parable, since we talk so much about parables, attributed to H.G. Wells, which would be the idea of a cosmonaut trapped in outer space, and let's say that the cosmonaut knows that the parable works and you have to work with this assumption. A cosmonaut who knows that planet Earth exploded and that in the whole universe there is no other living creature but him.

No amoeba, no virus, no bacteria, no frog, no dog, no mammal, no amphibian, no extraterrestrial, there is no one in the universe, only he who is alive there on top of an asteroid. And he has two ampoules in his monkey, one ampoule an elixir of eternal life, the other poison. Which of the two ampoules would he take?

And the parable ends by saying that he would obviously take the poison, because why would you live forever in a universe stuck in an asteroid, only you there? Only he accidentally drank the elixir of eternal life. And he had to bitterly, now, that's how the parable ends, an eternal life without purpose and without meaning.

One of the questions that were asked by the people at Superchat was this, what is the meaning of life? So, living is more than merely existing. Living is finding a purpose, a reason, a reason that transcends everything we can imagine. In fact, bringing eternal life to this condition we live in is like anticipating something we are not prepared for.

I will give a comparison of something that happened to me once when I was in Israel, leading a group, and a man came to me with a lot of shame and said, can you help me? And he covered his mouth like this, because his tooth had broken. And I said, calm down, tomorrow morning we'll go to a hospital, a dentist, and we even went to that hospital in Bercheva, which was bombed, there was a dentist there, and the dentist said, look, what I can do for you, I took the man there, he was very ashamed, as you have the rest of the trip, I will put your tooth with a temporary mass,

keep that word, temporary. But when you get to Brazil, you'll have to look for your dentist, because this mass is temporary, if you keep it, you'll break your tooth at any time. And the rest of the trip. He was smiling, eating with difficulty, because he had a temporary mass. Now imagine, I don't know what happened when he arrived in Brazil,

but supposing he might get here and didn't look for the dentist to change the temporary for the permanent. Imagine the tragedy that would be. But sooner or later he would smile and the tooth would fall again. While he brushed his teeth, because that mass is temporary, it could cause infiltration,

it could cause a bacterial problem in his mouth, maybe a canal treatment, something much more serious. In other words, temporary things, as the name itself says, should be used only in a temporary way. This life we have has many elements of provisionality. As I always say, I always feel this phrase,

we are a cadaver of the Hade that procreates. So, all the meaning we give to this life has to be a meaning in connection with transcendence. Fernando Pessoa wrote this phrase, with transcendence, with a greater purpose. And I have to live this life intensely,

but in preparation for transcendence. And the key element is exactly what Professor Clovis put, it's love. That's why the Bible says that God loves, but He doesn't limit Himself to love. God loves and is love.

Now, the most beautiful thing is that even we live in this temporary situation, of imperfection, where leucemia and childhood, unfortunately, are linked in the same sentence, in this life, the Gospel says that Logos, the person mentioned the Logos, he didn't just contemplate our tragedy and give us moral lessons from transcendence.

He made flesh and dwelt among us. And we saw his glory, glory like the father's nest. God assumed in the incarnation of Jesus the human imperfection, because although he was the divine Logos in a human form, he could have a stomachache, a headache, he could get hurt, he was afraid, he cried, he cried when Lazarus died,

he feared the crucifixion. If you compare the death of Socrates with the death of Jesus, Socrates is joking, making a joke. Jesus demonstrates the terror of that. He, as the apostolic creed says, went down to our hells

so that we could be in the heaven that belonged to Him. This is the legacy of Christianity. So the simple answer is, this life is not prepared for eternal life. It would be like staying forever with a temporary tooth. It's not smart.

Temporary is temporary.

I felt that even without knowing, Rodrigo, you're mocking me because I was tempted to buy a strawberry of love on Sunday. I barely knew that a tooth of mine would fall with this hate strawberry. I went to bite it, it's hard, and it fell out.

So I'm without a tooth here. I have a temporary tooth, and you, without knowing it, cited an example.

So I'm very grateful for your presence.

So, my friend, look for a dentist now, so you don't have to be with a temporary tooth and a head statue.

So I'm very grateful to the teachers.. I changed my life a lot. I think that when I was asked what was more important when I was younger, if it was destiny or journey, I answered that it was destiny, because I was in a hurry to get to the places I wanted. As I got older, I changed my answer to journey, because journey was as important as destiny. And today I have a different answer that is more important than journey.

Destiny is the company and the company of you two. Because I was thinking, what is the end, what can I bring to this debate, to this conversation? I was already imagining how nice this conversation would be, but all of this was possible because of the company of you two. And I didn't want to be in any other place than here. Thank you very much, professors. Professor Clóvis, Professor Rodrigo.

And now it's your turn to talk. You can, social media, books, feel free.

I wanted to make an invitation. I created an introduction. A lot of people want to study with us. Professor Clóvis has his students. And today the internet has this facility, you have virtual students. And we are opening an introduction to post-graduation

in archeology, history and interpretation of the Bible. So, many people ask, do I go to post-graduation or not? So, this year I had an idea with the people of UNASP to create an introduction to post-graduation, where the student can enter this introduction

and watch four classes that I prepared in Israel, and there he will be motivated to enter for post-graduation or not. So, Fabi has the link, she can put it for whoever wants. Introduction to post-graduation in Archeology, History and Bible Interpretation.

It will be in the description, Rodrigo.

It's already in the description. And And all these courses help in several things. First, the person who does it has the knowledge, and knowledge doesn't take up space. It's a legacy, it's a way of bringing to you what I learned. Secondly, by acquiring this course, you're also helping with the maintenance of MAPI,

which is the Museum of Biblical Archaeology, which Professor Clovis is invited to come and meet. It will be a pleasure to welcome you here. A great pleasure. Thank you very much. The file has already arrived. It's a collection of 3,000 original pieces.

Very good.

And, in third place, the social arms of MAB. We help a NGO in Jeruquilho, we help students to study. So, I mean, every student of the introduction to post-graduation or any other course I present, besides benefiting from the content, knowing that what they are paying for there

is helping in these social causes and in the maintenance of culture in Brazil, in MAPI. So, the link is in the description, it's very easy. I invite everyone to participate and thank you very much. Professor Clovis, without any demagogy, I can't help but thank you for accepting the invitation to speak with me.

I'm sorry I'm not there in person. And I liked the first word you said, because as an audience I want to make a commitment, if Vilela allows us and your schedule, to be there again, experiencing Jujuba candy, not only with the eyes, but also with my taste.

I realized that Jujuba is a more aggregating reason than me. I've noticed both. If there's no Jujuba, there's no talk.

But, Clóvis, the teacher talked about this new wave of videos, where people watch the video. I would also like to invite our... those who are following you, those millions who are following you to sign up for a class I will give next Wednesday. Tell me what day is next Wednesday, Virlela, you who have the cell phone in your hand.

The 20th.

The 20th. The 20th. The 20th, next Wednesday. Please sign up. Is it in the description too? Or is it in the...

We'll put it.

It's in the description? It's already in the description? Fabinho said it's already there. We will put it. It's in the description. For you to sign up, the link is in the description. This is an inaugural class of a course entitled Corporate and Ethical Culture that, in fact, although it has this title for lack of a better one,

that, in fact, was an initiative that I did to bring together all the themes that my clients asked me to develop in corporate lectures over the last few years. It was a suggestion they gave me, I found it very interesting, because those who are not employees of the hiring companies don't have the opportunity to have contact with this content. So I took the course. And the inaugural class, which is open to everyone,

of this course will take place on Wednesday, what time is it?

8 o'clock.

20 o'clock, 20 o'clock. But the guidelines are all there, next Wednesday. And then, for you to have an idea of this content developed. In addition, of course, I do morning reflections that I distribute on WhatsApp. They are short, every day, and if is the link of Clóvis' WhatsApp. Then you put your phone and you start receiving a message daily,

in addition to the links to the Inédita Pamonha, Partiu Pensar, the things I do. So it would be nice if you joined this already robust group of people who daily are willing to swallow me right at the sun's rays, sometimes doing gymnastics, sometimes going to work, etc. Listening to what I happen to say, always in the morning, as a first inspiration. I think it's really cool to do this. It's a way to communicate with people who really want to be close to you. So, I leave these two suggestions

and I hope that you, as you get closer, can join me in all my ignorance and fragility.

I thank you very much. I'll tell the people here something that I haven't said yet, I'll tell you something I haven't said yet. I'll say it first hand. We're doing a documentary here of the program of five years, which we'll complete in November. And I can already say with all certainty

that this talk was one of the best talks of these five years and will be in this documentary. I think Rodrigo agrees, right? Clovis agrees. And everyone here, we have an audience here today. It was amazing.

And I'm going to read what Larissa wrote here. Larissa Venturolli said, This live saved my life today. Thank you for everything, Professor Clovis, Professor Rodrigo, thank you, Vilela and the team. And a person who saves a life,

saves the whole world. So thank you very much. Thank you. Wow, we thank you for sure. And thank you, I have to thank you too, Kratos. You have to thank me. You didn't talk about my company, you only talked about Professor Clóvis' company. Okay, so I'll extend it too. I only talked about the team, and the team is you.

Thank you, Kratos. It's time for you to shine. Let's thank our senators right is to thank the strategy that is with a free material is a book that is three steps for those who want to pass the public contest and there is a link in the description and want to record on the screen and also the insider that is with our coupon there, right? 15% discount but you have to use the coupon intelligence. Remember that at the beginning I said that people would like and not

would have how to take it out at the end? It's impossible, impossible. And you, you naughty, who is watching this live and didn't like it, or is watching it later, you can like it now, ok? And now it's time for you to shine. What do people write in the comments to prove that you got to the end of this wonderful conversation? Juan Remo, he wouldn't get any votes. Right. So, leave it there. Vote for Clovis. Vote for Clovis. People will have to watch the live to understand. They'll think that this candidate...

I voted for Marcos Aurélio.

He already has a lot of votes.

Already. It's a start, right? It's a start.

Let's see how many they'll have.

With this fan club, I won't have...

Yeah... Yeah... future. But we'll see in the comments, more people will vote. Thank you so much, teachers. God bless you at home too. A kiss on the elbow and bye accuracy of the participants' speeches. If you feel offended or have any questions about the statements made in this video,

please contact us for clarification. please contact us for clarification. We are open to evaluate and, if necessary, edit the content to ensure the accuracy and respect to the content.