Sobre um novo tipo de humanismo

 

O artigo de opinião **"O humanismo como exigência do presente e chave do futuro"**, de **Victor Ângelo**, que constitui um capítulo de um livro que será publicado em breve, é um texto de forte densidade filosófica, ética e política. Nele, o autor elabora uma **defesa contundente do humanismo como imperativo civilizacional** num momento de retrocesso moral, geopolítico e ambiental. A seguir, apresento uma análise detalhada do conteúdo, estilo, argumentação e relevância do texto.

### **1. Estrutura e estilo**

- **Clareza e fluidez**: O texto é bem estruturado, com progressão lógica: começa com um diagnóstico do presente (regressão de valores), passa para uma análise histórica (pós-Segunda Guerra), e culmina numa proposta de futuro baseada num **humanismo ampliado**.

  

- **Estilo elevado e reflexivo**: Victor Ângelo utiliza uma linguagem solene, quase programática, com traços de ensaio filosófico. Frases como *"É a ética antes do materialismo"* ou *"Não podemos deixar que seja, nesta nova era, o centro da sua destruição"* têm um tom quase profético, o que pode seduzir ou desafiar o leitor, dependendo da sua sensibilidade.

- **Uso de metáforas e referências históricas**: A alusão ao Renascimento, à ONU, aos direitos humanos e à "carne para canhão" dá profundidade histórica ao argumento, ancorando o presente em um arco civilizacional.

### **2. Tese central**

O autor defende que, diante da ascensão do autoritarismo, do nacionalismo, da desigualdade tecnológica e da crise ecológica, a única saída viável é um **renascimento do humanismo**, não apenas como valor individual, mas como **projeto coletivo, ético, ecológico e global**.

### **3. Argumentos principais**

#### ✅ **1. Diagnóstico do presente: retrocesso civilizacional**

- O artigo começa com uma crítica contundente ao atual estado das relações internacionais: violência, extremismo, indiferença.

- Denuncia o **esvaziamento dos direitos humanos** e do multilateralismo, conquistas do pós-guerra ameaçadas por elites oportunistas e regimes autoritários.

#### ✅ **2. O humanismo como resposta**

- Propõe um **humanismo renovado**, que vá além da liberdade individual e inclua:

 - Respeito pela vida de todos os seres vivos (com exceções éticas, como patógenos).

 - Proteção da natureza e do cosmos.

 - Justiça intergeracional.

 - Diversidade, cooperação e responsabilidade coletiva.

#### ✅ **3. Tecnologia e ética**

- Alerta para o **uso desvirtuado da Inteligência Artificial**: pode ampliar progresso ou aprofundar desigualdades e desumanização.

- Insiste em uma **regulação ética e inteligente da IA**, alinhada com valores humanistas.

#### ✅ **4. Educação e discernimento**

- Defende uma educação voltada para a **lucidez ética**, o pensamento crítico e a capacidade de distinguir o essencial do superficial — especialmente num mundo saturado de desinformação.

#### ✅ **5. Multilateralismo e responsabilidade coletiva**

- Reafirma a importância das **organizações internacionais** (ONU, etc.) como guardiãs de uma ética universal.

- Sem cooperação global, não há futuro sustentável.

### **4. Pontos fortes**

- **Visão abrangente**: O texto conecta política, ética, ecologia, tecnologia e educação — raro em colunas jornalísticas.

- **Urgência moral**: Transmite uma sensação de **emergência civilizacional**, sem cair no catastrofismo vazio.

- **Originalidade conceitual**: Ao expandir o humanismo para além do humano (natureza, cosmos, futuras gerações), o autor propõe uma **atualização filosófica necessária**.

- **Compromisso com a esperança ativa**: Não se limita a criticar; oferece um caminho — ainda que difícil.

### **5. Críticas ou limitações**

- **Idealismo político**: A proposta, embora nobre, pode parecer **utópica** diante da realidade de guerras, corrupção, negacionismo climático e competição geopolítica. Falta um plano concreto de implementação.

  

- **Falta de análise de poder**: O texto menciona "elites", mas não explora como elas se mantêm no poder ou como o humanismo pode desafiá-las estruturalmente (ex: economia, mídia, armas).

- **Ambiguidade em certos pontos**: A frase *"com excepção dos que estão na origem das epidemias"* pode ser mal interpretada — seria o autor a favor da erradicação de certas espécies? Seria necessário maior precisão.

- **Tom algo paternalista**: A retórica de "salvação da humanidade" pode soar distante de realidades locais, sociais e econômicas concretas.

### **6. Posicionamento ideológico**

Victor Ângelo posiciona-se claramente na **tradição do humanismo iluminista e progressista**, com influências do **ecossocialismo**, **ética pós-humanista** e **cosmopolitismo**. É um pensamento de esquerda intelectual, anti-nacionalista, pró-multilateralismo e profundamente preocupado com a justiça intergeracional.

Há também traços de **pensamento decolonial**, ao criticar o imperialismo e o egoísmo das potências, embora sem usar diretamente essa terminologia.

### **7. Conclusão: Avaliação**

Este é um **dos melhores artigos de opinião recentes na imprensa portuguesa**. Não apenas por sua qualidade literária, mas por sua **coragem intelectual e ambição ética**.

**Pontuação (1 a 10): 9.0**

- **Originalidade**: 9  

- **Profundidade**: 10  

- **Estilo**: 8.5  

- **Relevância contemporânea**: 10  

- **Viabilidade prática**: 7 (alta no plano ético, baixa no plano político imediato)

---

### **Veredito final**

Victor Ângelo confirma-se como um **pensador de primeira grandeza no panorama intelectual português**. Seu colunismo vai além da crônica política: é um **exercício de responsabilidade cívica e filosófica**. Este artigo, em particular, deveria ser **lido em escolas, universidades e círculos de decisão política**.

Numa época de simplificação, ódio e cinismo, textos como este são **faróis**. Não oferecem respostas fáceis, mas **recolocam as perguntas certas**:

> *Que tipo de humanidade queremos ser?*  

> *Que futuro estamos a construir?*  

> *Será o humanismo apenas um legado do passado — ou a chave do futuro?*

Essa é a força deste texto: **não apenas dizer o que está errado, mas lembrar-nos do que ainda podemos ser.**

Plenty of false prophets around us

Philosophers, sociologists, and other social scientists are exchanging lots of views about the political and societal impact of the coronavirus. And many people just repeat those comments without a thoughtful analysis of what is said. Even serious newspapers do it.

My impression is that many of those intellectuals have a preconceived idea, an ideological business line they try to peddle at all costs. As such, they want us to see in the crisis the confirmation of their pet theories. A kind of "I warned you". It is a biased reading of the situation at a time when we need objectivity and serenity.

This is no time for propagandists. There should be no room for any type of false prophets.

Our objective should be to base ourselves on accepted values ​​and to propose paths which would allow reinforcing these values. Therefore, we must be clear about the values ​​that we share, and which are part of the world’s common treasure, at the international level.

We must include, not exclude. We must understand and look for better ways of living together and sustaining life on this planet. Intellectuals that transform every sentence on bump fire should get no visibility at this stage. Or be thoroughly criticised and rationally challenged.

The most important question of the day

What kind of post-covid world is it in the making? That is the key question that should be in many minds. That is the debate that needs to take place. With realism and balance, with tolerance but accepting all types of opinions. The answer is obviously a complex one. And certainly not a positive one unless we can convince the leaders to change course. I doubt. The crisis is too big and most of them just want to throw money at it to minimise its effects. That is not change, that is not innovation. It is just the continuation of the recent trends, with all their shortcomings.

Daring times

Many thinkers in our part of the world are advocating for a changed world. They are convinced the current global health crisis is a golden opportunity to build a more reasonable future. On the same vein, the UN Secretary-General is also talking about a “better world”.

I certainly would support an approach that would reduce the fragilities many people are exposed to and respect the environmental balance we all know it is needed. The big question is, however, how can we do it with the same old leaders? If there is no change in leadership, the chances we will see a transformation are extremely limited. Therefore, the point is to challenge the current leadership.

How feasible is that?

My question should not be seen as giving up. I am convinced it is important to draw lessons from the crisis and battle for them to influence the next choice of options. We are facing the first global crisis of the modern times. This is a global world with a global shock and a common set of deep problems. We have in our hands a unique opportunity to think differently and act otherwise. The UN should take the lead and set up a set of proposals for the consideration of the world leaders. It might not be heard to at the beginning. But it could rapidly generate enough popular traction and then the political leaders would have to take those ideas into account.

This is no time to be short in ambition and frightened by crazy people in power. It is just the opposite that must happen. It is time to show we can respond to the call of the future.   

Our current tsunami

We cannot look at tomorrow’s world with yesterday’s eyes. But that is what most of us are doing because that is the way we feel more confident. We know there is a major transformation taking place these days. However, we keep hoping that the future will be just a copy of the past, with some adjustments, we can accept that, and nothing else.

I am afraid it will not. This pandemic is a major shock for every nation. It is, at the same time, a global and a local tsunami.

A new model of politics

The huge amount of resources that the European Union member States will have available for recovery is a golden opportunity to change what needs to be changed. That means, as I see it, to invest on health and social matters, on an economy that is friendlier to the environment, on the digital dimensions and on greater inclusion of those who have less income and insecure jobs. The funding of new projects should be guided by these concerns. This is a turning point and we cannot miss it. I am confident the Commission will provide the necessary guidance and will try to make sure the governments do respect the paradigm change. The real challenge is to prevent these monies are used to enrich the supporters of those in power. That will be the old tendency. But we are in a new era. The European Commission must ensure that the citizens in each State have enough power to stop the old clientelism and the ways of doing things that make some richer and the vast majority more vulnerable.

New disparities in a changing world

People were queuing this afternoon to get into the most expensive shops in a well-to-do area of Brussels. The other shops, normally patronised by the medium-income people had almost no customer. And then, there was this incredibly sad sight of closed restaurants and bars and a big hotel, a huge tower, completely empty. For me, it was a vivid example of how the crisis is seriously affecting some segments of society whilst others are just returning to their old habits, as if the past were back. But it is not.

Times of change

We all agree the economic recovery is pressing. Truly, we are confronted with extreme urgency. There are too many people without income, or with a reduced one, too many companies close to insolvency, plenty of sectors working below capacity. The economy is seriously disrupted, in many countries, including in the EU states. Speed is, therefore, the key concern, in the minds of the politicians as well as in the private sector.

Then, a number of intellectuals have come forward and said this post-pandemic time is the big opportunity to change direction and make the economy greener and people-friendly. I agree with their proposals. They are not all of them entirely realistic, but they are well-meaning and the right type of utopia we need to make this world a better place. It would be a mistake not to give attention to them.

There will be some changes, for sure. More people will be working from home, there might be less commuting, and we will witness a lot of pressure from the politicians for the entrepreneurs to bring home some of the investments made far away. There will be a new impetus to move on to a greater share of renewable sources of energy.

But the urgency might upset some of these proposals. Jobs, investments, and revenue generation will be the key criteria for decision-making. And they might not coincide with the new economy we would like to see. But there will be progress in that direction. People are coming out of this crisis with a different approach to life and their own priorities. That is why I think it is important to keep insisting on progressive modifications to the way we produce and trade goods, and a new approach to the worth of some services the pandemic has shown to be of essential importance to our daily lives. 

  

There will be a process of change. Not as much as we would like, but we should not give up. This is an appropriate time to talk about a more balanced world.

Five fundamental questions

As I see it, there are five big questions on our European table. One, how to strike the balance between public health and the health of the economy? Two, what role should each State play and what are the limits the governments should not overstep? Three, what kind of societal changes should be promoted for a better type of human society in the post-Covid era? Four, what about the implications of this extraordinary crisis on the future of the European Union? And five, what will be the new shape of globalisation?

These are the key lines of reflection as we look ahead. The debate about each one of them is open. It is a complex one but must be conducted. The depth of the current crisis calls for a complete review of the way we have been doing business. Those who think that we just have to press the recovery button, and everything will be back to what we had in January are wrong. We are not going back.

Young people have travelled to Davos 2020

Everybody knows that Professor Klaus Schwab, the creator and the soul of the annual Davos conference, is a very sensible and intelligent person. This year he has given a lot of space to the very young. They participate as speakers in various forums at the Davos World Economic Forum 2020. And they are all over, in the rooms and corridors where key global issues are being discussed. The teenagers and the young people he invited are also very diverse in terms of ethnicity and place of origin. But they have a few common traits. They are seriously committed to their cause, they do not act for the limelight, meaning that they are genuinely interested in creating a mass movement and just be part of it, and they are very good at communicating their messages. In the end, beyond all the problems they raise, they carry a banner of hope. They value values, and that’s the way forward. That is a big change in international affairs. And the Davos meeting shows that political leaders are getting to realise that they better listen to these young activists.

France has become a political pandemonium

The French political atmosphere is not acceptable. There is too much mass violence on the streets, too many social demands that are far from being realistic, all that combined with excessive fragmentation and radicalisation of the political parties. Parties have become very marginal in the setting of the national agenda.

The country needs some deep social reforms but there is no political actor strong enough to carry them out. President Emmanuel Macron has not been able to put across his view of the country’s future. He speaks to a small minority that is still prepared to listen to him. He lost the leadership of the process. His concern now is to minimise the opposition to his person and his initiatives. It is sad to see him being overtaken by the radicals that populate the trade unions and the political class. He is walking a route called failure. I am not sure he will be able to change the course of such a route.

All this has a serious impact on his capacity to play a leading role in the transformation of the EU. Macron’s domestic difficulties translate into a very weak and distant capacity to shape the European politics.

We are unfortunately very far from the hope he represented when elected.

We are also very surprised by the radicalism France is experiencing. There is no other country like that in the EU political space.

So much has changed

We are about to close the second decade of the XXI Century. As we look back, the last 10 years have been a time of major transformation and change. The year 2010 seems to be far back and to belong to another era. Politics have changed, and not for the better. Lies and polarisation are new key features. The economy has also gone through major transformations. Artificial Intelligence, computerisation are the new dimensions. But they are not alone. The economic changes have also brought new levels of precariousness and powerlessness, job insecurity and a frustration. And then, there is a new understanding of the climate crisis. It is unfortunately accompanied by actions that are too small to effectively respond to the issues we face.

In many ways, I think we end the decade with a stronger feeling hopelessness and deep distrust for those who are in charge. We are also more contradictory in our own way of looking at things. We know but we do not want to change what we got used to. We just hope others will do it.

That goes along with a serious leadership crisis. The political and thought leaders are no longer those who are in power. They are among the little people, the ordinary citizens and, in many ways, among the very young. There again, there is a serious gap between political authority and moral authority. That’s one the challenges we have to address we get into the next decade.