A Pessoa: quem somos? Uma resposta construída ao longo de séculos de reflexão | Módulo 3 | Aula 4

the fourth class of the third group. The third group is about the human being, as you remember, and this class is about the person. What does the person mean in the case of the human being and in general, also for the angels and for God. The third group is about the human being.

The ancient word "person" comes from the Etruscan word "fersu"

which is equivalent to the Greek "prósopon" and the Latin "persona" and which designates the mask of theater. It is interesting that as we start to think of a person not so much as a character, sorry, not so much as a human individual, but as a character, that is, as someone who represents a role,

and more than a character, a type, a certain type of character. The Greek masks had the purpose of representing exactly that. And as you see in this image here, masks are used in many contexts, they have always been used in human history,

and in many contexts. Funeral masks, for example, here you have one from Mycenae, from the excavations of the city of Mycenae in ancient Greece, a mask from Japanese theater, two Korean masks,

two Indians from the Pacific coast, North of the Pacific in the United States, performing a ceremony. So, within a ceremony, which in general is also a theater, masks were used in almost all situations. The mask at the same time reveals and hides.

reveals what we want to show and hides what we don't want to show. And this is typical of a character. Artists from theater, cinema, etc., with ease,

have psychological exhaustion of various types, precisely because they have to show only aspects of their personality or even represent types that are contrary to their personality, and this extremely generates a permanent and very intense anxiety.

So here you have this African mask of a secret society. Interesting that within African tribes there were secret societies, sometimes to defend the enemies, sometimes to eliminate the enemies of the king or the state, sometimes as a masonry for mutual promotion, etc.

Here masks that we do not know exactly the purpose of China, very old, around 5000 BC, very ancient, huge and we do not know exactly its purpose. Here a mask of shame, which is a mask of the end of the Middle Ages, beginning of the Modern Age,

which was used to punish criminals from various faculties. That is, the mask was wavy on the head of the person and gave him this aspect more or less of a pig, with which he was exposed to public execution. It was a way of publicly humiliating him. And finally, the Venetian carnival masks, which continue to this day and are very well known and famous.

So, the word person is born from this context, because we realize that we represent a role in this world, and this role that we represent is indissolubly linked to who we are, to our identity.

Notice also that in the first century BC, a trend in Roman art begins, which is totally out of the norm. Practically no culture in art seeks to perfectly represent the portrait of the individual. Here you have as a counterpoint a Greek statue,

in which you can see perfectly that the face is almost generic, the face is a face with perfect proportions, but it could be the face of many people. And the body is also a representation of the perfection of the human being, of the maximum that would be possible for the human being,

while here, these two images on the right are Roman images that present what was called realism to the wrinkles. If you notice, all the imperfections of the face,

the very marked features around the face, the imperfections of the body, the folds of the skin caused by age, etc. Everything is presented to its highest degree. That is, opposed to the ideal of perfection, of the Greek, you have here the ideal of individuality.

Now, all this has not yet perfectly conformed the concept of person. The origin of the concept is not entirely philosophical,

nor Greek nor Roman but it is theological and Christian the concept of person really the word persona in Latin only changed its meaning at the moment when

the great debates began within Christianity, in the fourth century, especially, with various heresies, Arianism, Nestorianism, etc., which sought to understand what exactly would be the Holy Trinity, that is,

Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, it seems that they are three people, three different individuals. But on the other hand, no, God is one and this, since the entire Old Testament, passes the whole time hammering: God is one, one, one, one, one.

And Christ does not deny this, Christ actually reaffirms at the same time as he says that "he" and "my Father" are one. And the Spirit that falls upon the waters in Genesis, returns to manifest itself in Pentecost and before, during the very discourse of the Eucharist and in the discourse of the Last Supper.

So, how to understand this business? So, there were actually centuries of debates. The Council of Nicea gave a first approach, condemning Arius, who said that Christ was not God, Christ was a first creature of God, therefore clearly different from God, almost divine, but not entirely divine.

It was almost, but it was not enough. And the Council of Constantinople established the formula: an essence in three persons, in Greek, an usir in three hypostases, which describes the Trinity and which, let's say, became the default definition for this.

But Tade Agostinho, when trying to explain this to the Latinos, is the one who transformed this formula into an essence in three people. So, "person" is no longer something, let's say, a vulgar and normal term that people use on the street, "oh, that guy there", like our guy, more or less, right?

and now it becomes an ontological category, an ontological category like essence, which we have seen in the previous classes, accident, substance, and so on. So, the person now has the value of a technical, scientific, philosophical word.

And then the Council of Chalcedony defines Christ as a person in two natures, which in turn requires two natures, the divine and the human. Which initially characterizes the person as a subject, someone who is subject to rights and duties, responsibilities and freedoms,

subsistence that exists with the independence of other beings, incommunicable in the sense that I cannot take myself as an entire person, that is, body and soul, and give myself to someone in all dimensions of my being. Unfortunately, it does not. Whether or not we are separated by the reality of matter.

in a constitutive relationship. So, incommunicable means the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father. The Father and the Son are not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. The human nature of Christ is not the divine nature of Christ, the divine nature of Christ is not human. But the person

who manifests himself externally in relation to other beings, is the person of God. Very well, then, "substantial subject, incommunicable in a constitutive relation with others." Why a constitutive relation? Because the father gives the origin to the son.

The Father and the Son give origin to the Holy Spirit. They are in a permanent relationship. Saint Thomas later says that people in God are subsistent relationships. That is, the category "relationship"

The father is the father in relation to the son, the son is the son in relation to the father. Individually taken are God, full God, but taken in relation to them is that they are... ...towards each other, related to each other. Therefore, it is essential for the person

for the ontological category, for the metaphysical category, person, the category of relationship is essential. And this has everything to do with what we said before, I play a role. This role I play in relation to whom. And if you notice, people, and this is not a wound in simplicity or sincerity,

People relate differently to other people. You were raised by your parents and you treat your parents differently from the way you would treat your wife, or from the way you would treat your brothers, or from the way you treat your coworkers. The relationship between the different people

is different. And this relationship is always constitutive. Whether you want it or not, you owe yourself entirely to your parents.

You owe some things to your brothers, you owe something to your colleagues at work, you owe something to your wife, to your children, you owe something to your friends. I mean, relationships are asymmetrical, relationships are not always symmetrical and the same and cute, I am for you what you are for me, no, no,

It doesn't work like that, it's not a category-relation. Boetius, finally, will give the classic definition. Here you have an image that is in the Divine Comedy. Dante and Beatrice appear in the high place, greeting St. Thomas and his preceptor. And below are the nine most wise people of Christianity, at least in the understanding of Dante.

Boesio is here, the sixth of the row, going from left to right. And here is Ricardo de São Vítor, who is the ninth. Note that Boesio coined a definition that is a classically insufficient definition, and that, however, was the definition of a person that lasted for more than a thousand years.

In fact, honestly, it lasted for 1500 years, although with some matization. Person is an individual substance of rational nature. Rational nature, it is good to remember, does not only mean that it has intellect, but also that it has free will, etc. Therefore, individual substance, a body, an entity,

that has a rational nature. This definition is not wrong, but this definition totally omits the aspect of relationship that people have and that, as we have seen, is constituent in its origin, which is the Most Holy Trinity.

And Ricardo de São Vitor defines, takes one of the categories that emerged in the Council of Constantinople, as you have seen, is the incommunicable existence of an intellectual nature. Better, but

and at the same time includes that perfect love requires two or more people. Therefore, it means

He considers the relational aspect, but only in the form of love, when there are other types of relationship: revenge, hatred, desire to kill, etc. Saint Thomas does not add much to this. Saint Thomas will use

A synthesis of this saying that the person is a substance, rational and individual, in creatures, in angels and in us, and in God the person is a subsistent relationship. This double dimension preserves, let's say, both things and at the same time distinguishes.

has an inconvenience that is the following: it is that it does not see the relational dimension in the people created in us and in the angels. Modernity will use, will totally abandon this vision and will try to recreate the person from nothing. Descartes, in his famous experience, proves that there is his res cogitans, he himself defines himself as a thinking thing.

If I doubt everything, what is the only thing I know? I know that I doubt, if I doubt I think, and if I think there must be someone or something that thinks, so I am a thinking thing, a res cogitans.

Then Descartes will not be able to put his body into this business anymore. He will have to do juggles to be able to stick back soul and body. And this, during all modernity, especially in what is called continental rationalism, will be weak, weak. They will not be able to make this union.

And the trend is what you still notice today, the idea of ​​considering ourselves as pure spirits. Here you have a graffiti on an entire building that shows this, as if it were a person, a cellist guitarist, who is undoing himself in his parts, which is a kind of pure spirit.

When we say: "I want to be what I understand well" I am considering myself as a pure spirit. It is enough that my will to define what I will be. And as we know, it has already been shown extensively, this produces problems, problems and problems. Frustrations and about frustrations. Because in England, Locke,

The English line is much more pragmatic, it is what I can see, smell and sense, what is evidence of the senses. So Locke will say that the person is not evidently manifested to the senses, very indirectly. So he will consider the person a psychological aspect. You consider yourself a person.

and you are a person as long as you are aware of yourself. As long as you know: "I am Henrique, I am this and that, I know who I am, I know that I am thinking what I am", as long as I have this awareness, I am a person. It happens that this raises very serious problems. Here you have the frame of the Van Gogh,

noon or the hour of the fast with two peasants lying down and sleeping on the hay, in a good mood, completely forgotten about themselves and completely unconscious of themselves. So, what happens with this definition? When you sleep, you are no longer a person, you are only a person when you are awake.

If you are in a vegetative state, you are not a person. One of the reasons why it is advocated today to cut the support of a person who is in a vegetative state is precisely because of this definition of LOC.

In other words, it is a definition that has serious problems. Then comes Kant. Kant, let's say, tries, but only rationally, to reintroduce the person as a fundamental metaphysical category. Saying, for example, that the person can only be used as an end and never as a means.

The person is always the end of our attitudes and activities. This is very beautiful, but this makes it possible to determine the person of others, something that depends entirely on your reason. Let's not forget that it is simultaneously the time of the English Industrial Revolution,

where people had properties, industries, etc. and were very little to get by with the eventual rights of the people who worked in their industries, etc. And this went all over Europe. In other words, this definition is also seriously insufficient.

Because it depends, in fact, on my subjective appreciation of what a person is. Here you see, right at the end of the Kantian era, Napoleon to the point of being erased by the Allies. It's like a candle-light eraser, like this, on him.

and around are the soldiers with weapons. What is a representation of this, that the person is a person according to my convenience. She becomes a person as long as it is convenient for me.

Napoleon here clearly is not a person, an unpleasant insect to be eliminated. With that we reach the 20th century. Jean-Paul Sartre, who was a existentialist philosopher, who was a huge success shortly after the Second War and until the 60s and so, 70s, he launched a concept that is the following: you are not born

with a nature. And therefore you are not born as a person. You become who you are, you become a person by your free decisions.

which in turn is indirectly derived from Descartes, but clearly, fully derived from Sartre, all the people today who want to become something that is not. A gorilla, a lizard, a tiger, a ...

It is simply to be who he is not. And this implies that there is no meaning to your life. That is, you are the one who gives meaning to your life. But when you don't know the meaning of your life, or when you failed to get the meaning you had proposed, what happens? There is no meaning to existence.

There is no ultimate meaning, no real purpose for existence. And therefore existence makes no sense. This kind of psychological disarray that is growing in modernity is largely

derived from Sartre. This house that you see derived with absolutely splendid graffiti, but that shows the fear, the depression on the girl's face, is typically the result of Sartrean ideas.

And then Nietzsche, who reached the maximum degree, Nietzsche says: "Look, there simply is no person. I'm sorry, Negão, you're deceiving yourself. You are not someone. You are a block of instincts, a block of tendencies, a block of... the main of which is the appetite for power, the will to power.

but the others are: food, sex, property, money... In other words... you are not a person, you are not the purpose of anything, you are an accident of nature. And Nietzsche very clearly says that... the superman, that is, the one who has a strong enough will...

can dominate over others without any remorse or concern of conscience or...

He is an indirect descendant of Kant and comes exactly to the absolute opposite of everything Kant said and thought. And the Nietzschean ideas, as much as the people want to save Nietzsche from that, rehabilitate him, etc. But Nietzsche's ideas led to the totalitarian movements of the 20th century.

Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and here the famous scene of the lonely man in Tiananmen Square. This one, yes, made a point of, in the face of a system that I wanted to deprive him of his personality, of his personality,

decided to do a heroic act and hold the column of tanks that as you see is much larger than it appears in the normal photographs of this scene. Usually only two or three tanks appear, here you see the entire column with dozens of them. And one guy locked everything.

showing that he was someone despite all the sorrows. At the end of the 19th century, beginning of the 20th century, with a more or less distant foreman, Kierkegaard, a movement called Personalism was born. It is a movement within philosophy,

is not a school because it is not systematic, it is not constant and it does not try to make a kind of general vision of the world, such as the system of St. Thomas, or of Aristotle, or of Plato, or of Kant, or of others. So it is more a movement that tries to restore

and re-propose the person as the central point of anthropology and metaphysics. Here we see the worst example initially, which is Michel Foucault, who claimed that all societies are, deep down, forms of oppression to people.

and everything is an instrument of oppression. So, the white race is an instrument of oppression.

patriarchy, that is, the valorization of the male, is a form of oppression. Everything is a form of oppression. The government is a form of oppression. Taxes are a form of oppression. The fact that you have to use the private ones built and standardized by the government is a form of oppression, etc. etc. etc. Everything are forms of

oppression. And this naturally dissolves the person, which becomes a simple construction of power. The result of Foucault is the "woke" culture, which all the time is dedicated to showing the wounds

that you, instruments of oppression, caused me. Totally self-centered, totally destructive, everything is a mere form of oppression that prevents me from fully enjoying my freedom and therefore, I mean,

And it is because I affirm that it is so. Therefore, you, representatives of the toxic white patriarchy, are the cause of my sadness, indecision, depression, anxiety, etc. It happens that if everything is structures of oppression,

So the only way to eliminate the structures of oppression is to destroy society completely, including the Wokes who fall into oppression when they accuse others of oppressing them permanently. So, this in the end leads to total nihilism.

Now, there is the other side that starts with phenomenology. Phenomenology is a philosophical current from the beginning of the 20th century, vaguely inspired or born from Kant, from Kantianism.

But Russell, the founder of phenomenology, is more concerned with understanding the mental processes. But he talks about the person as a constituting transcendental ego. Notice that in this expression he is already enriching the traditional understanding of the person.

So, first, it is an ego. In this sense, it brings, within the rational substance, it brings the understanding that there is a psychological aspect in the person, which is the consciousness of itself. But that's not enough, it's a transcendental ego, that is, an ego that comes out of its own ego, that comes out of itself, that is, it comes into relation with others.

and constituting, as we had seen, because relationships are always transformative, always transformative, they modify the people with whom we live and they also modify ourselves. So notice that it is a auspicious beginning. Then comes Merleau-Ponty, who comes to say: "I am my body,

but he is Cartesian, so in fact, in the last analysis I am my body, but I am also my thinking ego, and how do I stick to these things, and in the end he can't get anywhere. Levinas, he is from Eastern Europe, Levinas affirms that

we have an infinite responsibility for the good of the other. Now, as this infinite responsibility does not necessarily find a correspondence, it becomes asymmetrical and impossible to be lived. That is, we want to know everything about others, we want to help them in everything, we want to improve their lives, etc.

But he naturally exaggerates by saying that it is an infinite responsibility. Infinite only with regard to God, who assumed an infinite responsibility with regard to us. But not an infinite responsibility with others, because there is necessarily this reciprocity, and this reciprocity, in fact, cannot be lived as infinite.

As much as I wanted to give the whole world to my beloved, as much as I wanted to give it to my mother, I can't give the whole world to my mother, it's impossible. And, I mean, simply, it would be enough to say, to accept this, I mean, I can't give everything to everyone. I am limited and therefore the relationships that I constitute are also limited.

Only God is able to have unlimited, absolute, perfect and total relationships. I put here this cartoon of Norman Rockwell, of the gossipers, because the gossip is the one who wants to know everything about the lives of others, and here you see the news being transmitted from one to another, from one to another, until it ends again in the first person who released it.

It is a kind of vicious circle, as Levinas considers. And finally, a thinker who is in fact innovative and extremely rich, Martin Buber, a Jew, who recovers the dialogal and relational dimension of the person.

He says: "The person is formed in the relationship "I-you", "I and you", which is present only in genuine encounter. What is a genuine encounter? You go, let's say, to the bakery on the corner, buy something,

grunts a good morning to the girl who is in the box, she grunts something similar to a good morning back to you, you pay and leave. And you don't remember the face, you don't remember the name,

This is not a genuine encounter, this is practically a friction between inanimate objects. A genuine encounter occurs when you start talking

For example, as an Uber driver, and ask what is your name, are things going well, are things right, is the traffic very bad? It starts to happen, it is still superficial, but it starts to happen. And genuine, genuine encounter, even when you meet people who

potentially can love or will tend to love. So Buber is extremely important. He has a very strong phrase that says: "In principle, it is the relationship." And this is true for us. Our principle is in the relationship of our parents. And then in the relationship of our mother with us. And then in the relationship of our two parents with us.

We are who we are thanks to the relationship we had with them. And that's why serious injuries in the relationship between parents and children are injuries that have a huge destructive power, monstrous. And ideally also a absolutely huge constructive power. They are like the first model for all the relationships that the person will tend to form.

The first model does not mean that it is the only model, the definitive model or the model that cannot be changed. But it means that the person will tend to model their relationships by comparing them with this one. From the principle is the relationship, all real life is encounter. And if we notice this too, it is true.

Think of a person in solitary confinement, why is solitary confinement so painful, so expensive for the vast majority of prisoners who are condemned to it? Why can it also affect mental health? Precisely because there is no one to relate to.

and it is extremely painful. And that is why monks, the ancient monks of the desert and then some types of hermits also seek to eliminate the relationship, not so much because they want to eliminate the whole relationship, but because they want to have only and exclusively the relationship par excellence, which is the relationship

"I" capital "TU" That is, to let God take over the place of others and of the other in our consciousness. Buber says there is no isolated "I". There is the temporarily isolated "I", I would say, but the "I" in relation.

and all the relationship, I-you, says he, points to God as the eternal you, the foundation of all relationships. That is, he makes a case and so much to defend the subject. Who liked him a lot, or who liked him a lot, was Karol Wojtyla, Pope John Paul II.

who developed what he called an action phenomenology. He says: "In the experience of acting, the person reveals himself as a distinctive subject, through the efficacy of the cause being and self-determination, that is, of his free decisions. He also teaches the transcendence of the person,

because the person possesses and governs himself, integrating his body, emotional and spiritual dimensions, without dualism, the body is a part, a dimension of the person, not a mere instrument of the person.

That is, he already draws a more complete picture. What he calls a personalistic norm is that the only appropriate attitude towards the person is love. So, let's go. The person reveals himself as a subject,

because she realizes that it is the cause, the cause of the behavior of others, but also the cause of the movement of things around us, and that this causality comes from our self-determination, that is, from our freedom, from free decisions. In addition,

We possess ourselves and govern ourselves. I am fully aware that all my free acts have origin here, in me. They are not acts that I was forced to do. In fact, precisely the distinction between free and non-free acts is that the free are those that I caused because I wanted to.

and the non-freed are those I caused, but my revelation. I may faint when visiting the British Crown Exhibition, break the window there, let a siren go, be arrested, taken to prison, etc. and such, but all this ... I caused a pile of things, I caused an international commotion, but ...

There really isn't much I could modify here on the subject.

So, self-determination, transcendence, I possess myself, I govern myself, and the only adequate attitude towards the person is love. This is extremely important in the theology of the body of John Paul II. And love implies that we distinguish different types and different riches of love, which will be more or less important.

The authentic participation, he also says, being with others and acting with others is essential because it avoids conformity with what everyone does. What is conformity? Conformity is: I don't care what my neighbor does, I behave with what most people do and with that I have no relationship with any of them.

I just want to follow the movement of the mass. I adjust to what the mass does and decides. And this is typically a meaningless relationship, as Buber said. It is a value-less relationship, a relationship that is not authentic.

Now, if I am in line with what the other does because I admire him, because I consider him an important person, etc. Yes, there is this exchange, this real exchange. Conformism leads to the loss of subjectivity and isolation.

Loss of subjectivity, we have a tendency today, especially in the Thomistic and other Catholic media, to think that subjectivity is bad, always in everything. And the answer is no. Subjectivity is an extremely important dimension of the person.

The question is not to be not subjective and to be complete and totally objective. It is impossible to be complete and totally objective. What is important is to combine subjectivities in a whole that is transcendent to each one of us, that is greater than us and that is able to do more than everything.

That is, the question is of an administration of subjectivities and a fusion of subjectivities with regard to the common good. And not to say: science with absolute perfection and total exemption

only attending to the facts, says that you can kill your son. This kind of objectivity, free me God. Two more authors and we come to the end. One is Paul Ricoeur,

that distinguishes between the "Idem" and in fact the images you see here is a French painter who portrayed himself in several moments of existence, in several attitudes, in several poses, in several emotional movements. So,

as Ricoeur says, and this is an extremely important point. What allows me to be myself, always myself, is the narrative that I tell myself about my life. Have you noticed that at the end of the day you sometimes do

memories, what I did today, this, this, that, then another, what are you doing? You are telling a story. And in fact, identity is the story of your whole life that you tell to yourself. Memory itself seems to me to be structured in a narrative way.

If someone wants to ask you, wants to know you, what will he say? First, he will ask your name. Ok, fine. Second, he will ask what? Some external data. Father, work, where he lives, where he was born, etc. But, if he really wants to enter your life,

You need to tell the story of your life. It is obvious that you will not tell everything, day by day, month by month, but you will tell relevant parts of the general narrative of your life. And for this person to become your friend, you will have to tell relevant parts of the story of your life.

and this allows for a degree of love between equals to feed friendship. That is, it is important that there is a certain fusion, thanks to the narrative that we tell each other. And this narrative, what does it do? It takes the past, brings it to the present, merges with the present, I am the product of all this story,

and this allows me to anticipate the future, because some things will repeat themselves, I know that because they have already been repeated several times, for example, winters, summers, very hot summers, storms and so on, and obviously also episodes of my life, reactions that I have to certain things, I don't always get the full of life when

So there is a certain predictability, thanks to the narrative of our past, our future becomes open. I would say that it is a very rich contribution to this. And another is Charles Taylor, who insists that personal identity is inseparable from orientations or moral sources.

that we would call "principles" and "reference frames". Knowing who I am is knowing where I am. It is evident that at home, in my parents' house, I will not act in the same way. Why? Because the reference frames are different. The subject who is violent with regard to his colleagues

aggressive, does not tolerate any kind of thing that he perceives as an attack, it's a coconut candy with the little mother. These are the reference frames, I mean,

to all past situations, to a whole world view, more or less unconscious, that determines how we function. The questions "who I am and how I should live" are inseparable. Whenever you ask yourself "who I am", you ask yourself "who I should be".

Here the painting that follows the image of Charles Taylor is the eternal human dilemma, the choice between virtue and vice. And this choice is largely determined by the choices I made before. I do not say determined in the sense that it is mandatory, but that it is strongly influenced.

The author states that secular modernity, we know that modernity lives without reference to God, practically, that her big problem is that she cut off the connections with the moral sources that gave her meaning. That is, today we no longer understand why I should obey the laws of Transition, why should I pay taxes, why should I?

If I do not have any moral conception, I also do not have any conception of moral law, fair or unfair, and most likely that all law ends up being perceived as unfair, and that I therefore want to define myself as being an antisocial entity, for example.

So, secular modernity became dumb and superficial, because it simply says: "No, things are like this because they are like this." Exactly what she criticized in Christianity, in the Middle Ages, etc. "Things are because they are." It falls exactly in the same thing, but now there is no God to justify it, there is not even a God to justify it. So, very well.

So, notice, Buber, João Paulo II, Ricoeur and Taylor are practically the guys who set up a rich, very strong, very visible personality that assimilates all aspects of the person. So, a complete definition that we could give is: it is an individual substance,

of a rational nature, created in the image of God, of the first relational dimension, manifested in the substantial dimensions of body and soul, exists constitutively, growing and making it grow in relation, reveals itself through free action, constitutes its identity through the inner autobiographical narrative,

"he reaches his fullness in the gift of himself, the gift of love, and is ordained to eternal communion with God." So now you have a complete definition of what a person is, and that incorporates 2500 years of reflection on the subject. So it's not that bad. Even so, Gabriel Marcel, another French philosopher, not a personalist himself,

but he says that the person always remains a mystery. What is mystery? Mystery is not a problem that needs to be solved. Mystery is a reality that is inexhaustible.

"Always, until the end of my life, I will think about it, I will try to understand it, I will try to deepen it and I will never end it." This is the mystery itself. The mystery goes far beyond our capacity. And in this sense, let's say, we come back to something very similar to the Trinity. The Trinity is almost a mystery by definition, "mysterium tremendum",

the mystery that surpasses all mysteries, and contemplation, the reality is contemplation, makes us gain intimacy with this mystery without absorbing it, that is, we gain relationship.

All people can relate to each other and in this relationship, without absorbing each other, in communicability, they can enrich each other by mutual contemplation.

by knowledge, by loving gaze. Very well, and with that we end this class, we leave the free area for the next and last of this block, which will be about society.