REVISTA
BRASILEIRA DE DIREITO
From ecosophy to deep ecology: for a new
ecological and sustainable paradigm
Da ecosofia à ecologia profunda: por um novo
paradigma ecológico e sustentável
Elisaide Trevisam(1); Julio Trevisam Braga(2); Isaque Trevisam Braga(3)
1 Doutora em Filosofia do Direito pela Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP). Mestre em Direitos
Humanos. Especialista em Direito do Trabalho e Processo do Trabalho. Professora no Programa de Mestrado em
Direito da Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul (UFMS).
E-mail: elisaidetrevisam@gmail.com I ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6909-7889
2 Doutorando (bolsista CNPq) e Mestre (bolsista CNPq) em História Social pela Pontifícia Universidade Católica de
São Paulo (PUC-SP). Professor na Faculdade da Aliança Educacional do Estado de São Paulo (FAEESP).
E-mail: julio.t.braga@gmail.com I ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9738-3145
3 Mestre em Filosofia pela Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP). Especialista em Filosofia Clínica
pelo Instituto Interseção de São Paulo, com ênfase em Terapia Ecosófica. Bacharel e Licenciado em Filosofia pela
Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP). Professor de Filosofia na Fundação de Rotarianos de São
Paulo.
E-mail: isaque.t.braga@gmail.com I ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6596-7245
Revista Brasileira de Direito, Passo Fundo, vol. 16, n. 1, p. 1-19, Janeiro-Abril, 2020 - ISSN 2238-0604
[Received/Recebido: Setembro 21, 2020; Accepted/Aceito: Novembro 08, 2020;
Publicado/Published: Fevereiro 05, 2021]
DOI: https://doi.org/10.18256/2238-0604.2020.v16i1.4307
Como citar este artigo / How to cite item: clique aqui!/click here!
1
Revista Brasileira de Direito, Passo Fundo, vol. 16, n. 1, p. 1-19, Janeiro-Abril, 2020 - ISSN 2238-0604
Abstract
Currently, the issue surrounding sustainable development still faces strong resistance to
effectuate a responsible acquaintanceship of human beings with the environment in which
they live. In this sense, it is necessary to develop an ethical, epistemological and even political
posture capable of developing a new sustainable paradigm. Thus, this article proposes to
establish, as its objective, the dialogue between the concepts of ecosophy (Naess and Guattari)
and deep ecology (Naess), in order to promote a human acquaintanceship with nature,
evolving the ecological foundation of environmental sustainability. In order to carry out this
investigation, the present research will take place through a scientific analysis of bibliographic
nature, dialoguing concepts through a deductive approach method, searching to develop the
evolution of the debate about the new ecological paradigm of sustainability. As a result, the
composition of the objectives and methodology listed allows a glimpse of a new sustainable
paradigm capable of bringing together the human collectivity and nature as equally members
of the same natural community and, therefore, in an interdependent relationship.
Keywords: Ecosophy. Deep Ecology. Ecological Paradigm. Sustainability. Natural Community.
Resumo
Atualmente, a problemática em torno do desenvolvimento sustentável encontra ainda forte
resistência para tornar efetiva uma convivência responsável do ser humano com o meio
ambiente em que vive. Nesse sentido, se faz necessário desenvolver uma postura ética,
epistemológica e mesmo política capaz de desenvolver um novo paradigma sustentável. Desse
modo, este artigo propõe estabelecer, como objetivo, o diálogo entre os conceitos de ecosofia
(Naess e Guattari) e de ecologia profunda (Naess), a fim de promover a (con)vivência humana
com a natureza, fazendo evoluir o fundamento ecológico de sustentabilidade ambiental. Para
levar a cabo esta investigação, a presente pesquisa se dará por meio de uma análise científica
de cunho bibliográfico, dialogando conceitos através de um método de abordagem dedutivo,
na busca por se desenvolver a evolução do debate sobre o novo paradigma ecológico da
sustentabilidade. Como resultado, a composição dos objetivos e da metodologia elencados
permite entrever um novo paradigma sustentável capaz de reunir a coletividade humana e
natureza como igualmente integrantes de uma mesma comunidade natural e, portanto, numa
relação interdependente.
Palavras-chave: Ecosofia. Ecologia Profunda. Paradigma Ecológico. Sustentabilidade.
Comunidade Natural.
2
Revista Brasileira de Direito, Passo Fundo, vol. 16, n. 1, p. 1-19, Janeiro-Abril, 2020 - ISSN 2238-0604
1 Introduction
Based on the philosophical, historical and social facts of the construction of a new
human conscience, the objective is to present a challenge to reflect on the ecological
crisis that is being experienced by contemporary society and the need for a new attitude
of man before the whole, centered, in turn, on the power of using rational, moral and
ethical knowledge at the service of the realization of humanity, for the effectuation of a
balanced environment and sustainable development.
The problem surrounding sustainable development has not yet found a tangible
conclusion for the realization of a responsible and solidary acquaintanceship between
human beings and the environment within which they exist as a species.
However, the emergence of the ecosophical theory (NAESS, 1994; GUATTARI,
2012) opens a new front to face this problem, putting in evidence that the
philosophical, ethical, political and social reflections of contemporary reality cannot be
abandoned in order to reach the ends proposed here.
On the other hand, overcoming a limited conception around environmental
sustainability becomes an ethical and epistemological duty, aiming to possibilitate to
put into practice the implementation of a new sustainable paradigm.
Thus, the evolution of philosophical thinking around the concept of deep ecology
(NAESS, 1998) allowed the maturation of the proposed discussion, recognizing the
need and the importance of defending the environment beyond its natural aspect,
once that we are dealing with a context in which human beings are inserted, with their
subjectivities and social relations understood there but, above all, the nature that is also
vitally connected to humanity, in an ecological interdependence, that is, in a web of life
(CAPRA, 2006).
Finally, in order to achieve the proposed objectives, this research will take place
through a scientific analysis of bibliographic nature, dialoguing concepts through a
deductive approach method, in the search to develop the evolution of the debate about
the new ecological paradigm of sustainability.
2 Ecosophy from the perspective of Félix Guattari
Ecosophy is a field of investigation that shows itself as a growing subcurrent of
Philosophy. Of the various ecosophical currents, it’s possible to speak about of three
main approaches at least, namely the ethical, ontological and social approaches, noting
that in reality, these approaches are not located in a pure form so that would be fully
covered under the various developments in which it presents itself to Philosophy.
The ecosophical studies tend to consider mankind predominantly as beings
that express value judgments, arguing that the main causes of human actions are
3
Revista Brasileira de Direito, Passo Fundo, vol. 16, n. 1, p. 1-19, Janeiro-Abril, 2020 - ISSN 2238-0604
consolidated values and norms. In this sense, if human actions must correspond to a
human permanence as a species, the deterioration of the environment presents itself as
an effect of incoherent values.
Whitin this perspective, if mankind can be seen as conscious and rational beings,
whose actions are determined by their views of the world, the fundamental cause of the
ecological crisis would be a flawed interpretation of the world that substantially derives
from the process of acquiring knowledge. Such perspective ends up privileging the
appreciation of epistemology above a true and proper ontology and, particularly, the
importance of this observation refers to a critical position around the imperialism of
scientific knowledge.
In this way, the attention returned to focus on more concrete issues, among which
daily life and philosophy seem committed to renewing its old tradition of knowledge
useful for the construction of life, personal identity, relationship with others and the
world.
Enrique Leff explains that:
The environmental issue has emerged in the last decades as a
crisis of civilization, [...] questioning the dominant economic
and technological rationality. This crisis has been explained
by a diversity of ideological perspectives, [...] and this
environmental problem has generated global changes in complex
socioenvironmental systems that affect the planet’s sustainability
conditions, proposing the need to internalize the ecological bases
and [epistemological principles] that guide the construction of a
productive rationality based on ecological sustainability and social
equity (LEFF, 2010, p. 62).
The purpose of ecosophy is to achieve a total and complete vision of the human
condition, both in a collective and individual way and this completeness comprises
the entire global context, whose human being is inserted, dividing a world of diverse
cultures that move towards a total vision, always looking for answers for living together
in harmony with the Earth. Not forgetting that what each individual and what each
community does and will always do is to inhabit, a place, in a place, always with others
according to certain moral habits.
From an ecological perspective centered on the concept of living, the ecological
crisis appears as a break in the original relationships between culture and nature,
between society and place, between living and habits.
If the roots of the crisis are cultural and its effects are also felt in the language and
in the way of being in the world, in the way of inhabiting and hosting in a territory, it
is precisely from there that the need will arise to reconstruct a close relationship with
4
Revista Brasileira de Direito, Passo Fundo, vol. 16, n. 1, p. 1-19, Janeiro-Abril, 2020 - ISSN 2238-0604
the environment, and as a consequence, highlight strategies for solving the same global
ecological crisis.
Therefore, ecosophy considers as its object not only the dimension of the
environment as a principle of nature, but in the same condition and quality of social
relations with its subjectivities, which operate inside and outside the individuals that
compose it, rescuing life in its fuller meaning through interdependent and articulated
ecosophical dimensions, built on the basis of the individual’s relations with themselves
and with all beings, as a species and as groups intrinsically linked to the natural
environment in which they belong.
The panorama outlined by the ecosophy has the bias of understanding the
moral value of nature and the principle on which founds a duty to respect it, starting
from a reflection on the ecological crisis experienced in the present days. For Felix
Guattari, within a perspective more focused on the social and political sphere as the
environmental crisis matrix, the basis of the environmental problem is founded in
integrated worldwide capitalism, starting from the reflection on the global tendency
to move from simple production mode to a occupation of a more immaterial sphere
of communication through the formation of the subject and its articulations in social
relations (GUATTARI, 2012, p. 7).
The mankind has the ability to relate to a much broader sense of being, which
transcends the ego, extending the sense of identification beyond the point focused on
the ego and walking back into a broader sphere of interrelations, being not so difficult
to identify themselves with the other living beings of nature. Thus,
The Earth planet is going through a period of intense technical-
scientific transformations, in contrast to with ecological imbalance
phenomena that, if not remedied, on limit, threaten life on its
surface. In parallel to such disturbances, individual and collective
human ways of life evolve towards a progressive deterioration
(GUATTARI, 2012, p. 7).
It can be said that human ways of life, both individually and collectively, are
compromised in the face of the devastating breakdown and the evils that are installed
around nature and there will be no real response to the ecological crisis unless on a
planetary scale , with the proviso of operating an authentic political, social and cultural
revolution that reconduct the objectives of the production of material or immaterial
goods. This revolution should concern not only the relations of forces visible on a large
scale, but also the domains of sensitivity, intelligence and desires (GUATTARI, 2012, p. 9).
In this sense, it’s possible to approach Guattari to the indications and thoughts of
Hannah Arendt (2010) about the human condition, not as a human essence or nature,
but as a definition of mankind under the political and rational animal aspect, that is,
5
Revista Brasileira de Direito, Passo Fundo, vol. 16, n. 1, p. 1-19, Janeiro-Abril, 2020 - ISSN 2238-0604
a conditioned, finite and precarious subject, capable to become somebody through his
inaction and passivity, or to do himself in the political action bringing something new
to the world. It can be stated that:
[...], wherever we turn, we find this same nagging paradox: on
the one hand, the continuous development of new technical-
scientific means potentially capable of solving the dominant
ecological problems and determining the rebalancing of socially
useful activities on the planet’s surface and, on the other hand,
the inability of organized social forces and subjective formations
constituted to appropriate these means to make them operational
(GUATTARI, 2012, p. 12).
Then, with Ecosophy, Guattari presents the creation of a new reference that
makes it possible to indicate lines that will recompose human praxis in its most varied
domains and, in this context, the discourses on the defense of the environment must be
overcome by new ways of conceiving the production of human existence that will bring
new perspectives in the history of the world.
2.1 The three ecologies
To define ecosophy, Félix Guattari proposes to extend the institutions of
environmental ecology to the field of the individual and social psyche through his
thinking about “the three ecologies”.
2.1.1 The ecology of mind
The ecology of mind will make use of a pre-objective and pre-personal logic that
does not materialize the subject, but that starts from an indistinction of mental objects
and be able to follow the bifurcated ruptures that produce subjectivity. It is an ecology
that concerns the relationship of each human being developed with his body and with
his subjectivities, with the mysteries of life and death, or even with spirituality, that is,
a personal ecology that translates itself into connections of mankind with the world
resisting the homogeneous tendencies of political and ideological manipulations.
The practices that the ecology of mind will put into action will resignify the
enunciation concatenations that, in any case, will articulate with the rest of society. So
the ecology of mind operates based on the principle of recognition of the limitation and
fragility of the human condition, proposing the rescue of respecting to one’s own body
with its immanent characteristics, acting by the logic of accepting oneselves and referring
mankind to his animality, or that is, what each human being is simply in his nature.
6
Revista Brasileira de Direito, Passo Fundo, vol. 16, n. 1, p. 1-19, Janeiro-Abril, 2020 - ISSN 2238-0604
This ecosophical attitude of mankind calls for a deep recognition and acceptance
of the most intimate human being spheres, being revealed the self and the acceptance
of its specificities of human subjectivity, in other words, it is about peace with oneself,
tolerance, welcome and care for your own life.
2.1.2 The social ecology
Social ecology will promote the affective and pragmatic investment in human
groups in their various dimensions, corresponding to a qualitatively specific
reconversion of the primary subjectivity of the subject what descends from mental
ecology. Social ecology will also deal with the proliferation of new valuation systems
that have suffered a fall from the state and from capitalist economic power, which could
join with the development of social issues. As Guattari explains,
The social ecosophy will therefore consist of developing specific
practices that tend to modify and reinvent ways of being within
the couple, family, urban context, work etc. [...] The issue will be to
reconstruct the set of modalities of being-in-group literally. And not
only for “communicational” interventions, but also for existential
mutations that concern the essence of subjectivity. In this domain,
we would not stick to general recommendations, but we would
operate effective experimentation practices at both the micro-social
levels and at larger institutional scales (GUATTARI, 2012, p. 15-16).
The values promoted by the ecosophical practices would, evidently, be very far
from the characteristics of the general equivalent, typical of the capitalist valuation
system, based on the financial market. Collective interests would be much more
considered in terms of art, research and individual initiatives.
Based on the assertion that the work for the reconstruction of human relations
(GUATTARI, 2012, p. 33) is the axis of social ecosophy at all levels of socius, it cannot
be forgotten that “the capitalist power shifted in extension about infiltrating the most
unconscious subjective strata”.
In this way, the social dimension must be understood based on the assumption
of the expansion of collective interests, which will depend on the capacity for openness
to dialogue and the exploration of possibilities of relationship and experience with
the other, within a link between collective desires and subjectivities. Only then will
be possible to re-establishing the union between nature and society, and the mankind
will become free to build multiple connections of reconciliation with themselves, with
others and with the environment.
7
Revista Brasileira de Direito, Passo Fundo, vol. 16, n. 1, p. 1-19, Janeiro-Abril, 2020 - ISSN 2238-0604
2.1.3 The environmental ecology
As for environmental ecology, Guattari affirms the particular principle that
everything is possible, from “the worst catastrophes to the evolutions that flow
with ease”. More and more natural balances fall on human intervention, and these
interventions will depend on mankind’s relationships with themselves, regarding his
subjectivity, and with the environment.
In environmental ecology, it is not only about the defense of nature, but the fight
for a better life quality, sustainability, rights and an environmental democracy in terms
of the reappropriation of nature based on social and individual references. As Guattari
explains,
[...] the environmental ecology, as it exists today, did nothing
but initiate and prefigure the generalized ecology that I advocate
here and which will aim to radically decentralize social struggles
and ways of assuming the psyche itself. The current ecological
movements certainly have many merits, but I think that, in fact, the
global ecosophical issue is too important to be left to some archaic
and folkloric currents, that sometimes deliberately choose to refuse
any and all large-scale political engagement. The connotation of
ecology should no longer be linked to the image of a small minority
of nature lovers or qualified specialists (GUATTARI, 2012, p. 36).
It should be noted that the environmental ecosophy was outlined by Guattari
based on the ecosophy of mind together with the social ecosophy, in order to
accentuate the interposition of the three ecologies articulated in their dimensions, to
reinforce the thought that life will only be reinvented since that, the three ecological
visions are intertwined. Therefore, the common principle of Félix Guattari’s three
ecologies consists in the fact that the existential territory, with which they are
confronted,
[...] do not occur as a own closed “in-itself”, but as a precarious,
finite, singular and singularized “for-itself”, capable of bifurcating
or in stratified and deadly reiterations or in a procedural opening
from practice that allows it to be made habitable by a human
project. Is this practical opening that constitutes the essence of the
“eco” art that submits all the ways to domesticate the existential
territories, whether related to the intimate ways of being, of the
body, of the environment or of the great contextual groups related
to ethnicity, to the nation or to the general rights of humanity
(GUATTARI, 2012, p. 37-38).
8
Revista Brasileira de Direito, Passo Fundo, vol. 16, n. 1, p. 1-19, Janeiro-Abril, 2020 - ISSN 2238-0604
With the reflection on ecosophy it concludes that the definition of Environment
as a space, or territory, as a provider of infinite resources from where it is possible to
extract from nature, in a continuous and unlimited process, something that exclusively
supports the economic growth and continue towards the continuous transformations
closely linked by the idea of “progress”, refers to the finding that, especially, the absence
of measures that balance the relationship between production and consumption within
technical-scientific societies brings to the fore the danger of an impending catastrophe,
more and more inserted in a concrete reality where the future possibility of human life
finds serious difficulties.
Therefore, in order to deepen the ecosophical definition of human experience
in its environment, its articulation with the concept of deep ecology will compose
the affirmation of a new paradigm, proposed in order to reconfigure human
acquaintanceship with nature, in an interdependent relationship and that allows the
effectivation of a sustainable environment.
3 Historical-philosophical perspective of nature
The Western philosophical tradition has always faced the question of nature, and
it can be said that Greek philosophy was born around this problem, that is, the search
for arché (the foundation of all things) and physis (nature) from the thoughts of Tales
of Miletus (c. 624-546 BC), nature occupied a prominent place within the scope of the
thinking of western thinkers.
However, this reflection has changed over the course of history and this is
not only valid for the conclusions reached by philosophers over time, due to the
harmony of the cosmos, the ancients, or the machinist view, of the modern ones.
What happened, in fact, was not a change only in the answers, but a change that also
occurred in the nature of the questions about nature, posed by philosophy.
At first, ancient philosophical thought turned to physics as the main source for
obtaining answers around the investigation of what unites nature, since its particular
expressions are so varied.
This theoretical interest, mainly focused on the study of principles, the
description of nature, the understanding of its internal secrets, has a continuity that
plays a crucial role in the history of philosophy through the Aristotelian categories of
analysis, medieval universals, Cartesian res extensa, philosophy of romantic nature and
contemporary theoretical physics.
The critical reflection on nature in its essence, after Socratic thoughts, was
configured as an ethical issue, where the ethical question regarding nature was placed
on the relationship between this and the essence of human action.
9
Revista Brasileira de Direito, Passo Fundo, vol. 16, n. 1, p. 1-19, Janeiro-Abril, 2020 - ISSN 2238-0604
There were very diverse interpretations of such a relationship, and nature was seen
as a source of natural law and of principles and references to the act of acting morally
well, being possible to quote the thoughts of Aristotle, the Stoics, Locke, Rousseau,
among others, or, still, of sin and corruption according to Catholic theology.
The discussion of the problem was based on the idea that nature inspired good
actions in mankind, as a natural cause, prescribed by the law of nature or not. The
important thing is that, despite the questioning, the object of moral attention was
almost always made up of mankind and not of other natural entities.
It will be from the nineteenth century that space will be opened for a new way
of approaching nature, when it will no longer be considered only as a form of human
actions, that is, natural actions or against nature, but begins to assume value as the
recipient of moral concern.
Modern man, away from nature and seeking refuge in the fortress of the spirit,
has rediscovered himself as an inhabitant of the same nature at the moment when his
economic interests threaten his home, that is, his environment.
Nature, therefore, came to be recognized not only as a “pedagogical” value, as a
former of the spirit, but also as a value of its own, dignified of being protected from the
threat of the economic-industrial complex.
The ethical springs of the environment could follow two main paths: the first
consisted of an extension to other subjects with inviolable rights, or, still, the moral
consideration of their own interests that were considered the prerogative of humans
and the second could be related to a radical change of paradigm, putting into question
the same notion of right and individual pleasure/suffering to focus on empathy,
expansion of the concept of self, considerations of direct and indirect interrelationships
between individuals, collectivities and economic, cultural, mental structures.
The tyranny that human animals exert over non-human animals has caused
and continues to cause a great deal of suffering today compared to that produced by
centuries of indisputable dominance by white-skinned humans over black-skinned
humans. The fight against this tyranny was of equal importance to all other moral or
social battles fought in recent years.
In a legal perspective, Francesco Viola notes that, from the moment that nature is
given a legal status, historically, nature assumes the only role of environment necessary
for human survival. which means that the environment of human experience is subject
to legal protection, in a sine qua non condition, only if it is linked to the cultural notion
of nature, “linked to man and the quality of human life” (VIOLA, 1994, p. 157-158).
Quoting Massimo Severo Giannini, Viola states that:
Oggi si ritiene eticamente riprovevole aggredire l’ambiente
se ein quanto lo si renda aggressivo; se l’azione umana non
producessequesto evento dannoso per la collettività, l’aggressione
10
Revista Brasileira de Direito, Passo Fundo, vol. 16, n. 1, p. 1-19, Janeiro-Abril, 2020 - ISSN 2238-0604
dell’ambientepotrebbe provocare rimpianti, o altri fatti emozionali,
ma non interes-serebbe la normazione giuridica. L’ambiente
aggressore è invece preoc-cupante, talora per le sue dimensioni
superstatali (GIANNINI. 1976, p. 3 apud VIOLA, 1994, p. 157-158).
This is what happens in the present content of Brazilian legal system, for example,
which defines the environment as a public good and whose purpose it to preserve the
human and common well-being of the Brazilian people.
In this sense, Heron J. de S. Gordilho reinforces that nature, considered an
environmental good, ended up being subject “to limitations that assure everyone the
mediated enjoyment of good, with regard, for example, to its scenic beauty, oxygen
production, wild animal refuge, etc.” (GORDILHO, 2016, p. 130).
In order to be able to resize nature in the field of legal science, it is necessary
to consider the environment in the list of diffuse rights, overcoming the limitations
of aspects of public or private law and, therefore, the environment becomes a
“unsusceptible division” object (GORDILHO, 2016, p. 130).
Peter Singer, using emotionally participating descriptions, moves explicitly
over the ground of moral reasoning, separating the affection, piety or sensitivity that
can be had for an animal, from the ethical need to put an end to the oppression and
exploitation everywhere it manifests, to ensure the fundamental moral principle of
equal consideration of interests so that it does not arbitrarily come to circumscribe our
species (SINGER, 2010, p. 9-10).
The sacredness of the individual with interests that are equivalent to all other
individuals, often with their unquestionable meaning in modern reality, involves the
sacralization of some economic freedoms to the detriment of others.
This choice resulted in the loss of the political dimension of the horizon of human
actions, making the social power to determine the legality and preference of interests
less and less decisive, thus resulting in a weakening of the capacity to project the
common good or to foresee the individuals will as a prerogative of society and not of
the individual.
In this sphere of thought, it is important to conclude that the concept of
ecosystem is, in environmental philosophy and in the ecological political movement,
with meta-scientific, ethical and aesthetic meanings in order to bring harmony, balance
and autonomy to nature.
In modern times, several thoughts brought to the nature a less focused view on
the function and its use value. In this regard, Baruch Espinosa saw nature as an infinite
substance and, therefore, as God, that is, the parts of nature as a modification of a
single whole (ESPINOSA, 2005, p. 112).
Espinosa founds his ethics on a deterministic vision founded on the absolute
necessity that derives from the infinitely potent nature of God himself, that is, in nature
11
Revista Brasileira de Direito, Passo Fundo, vol. 16, n. 1, p. 1-19, Janeiro-Abril, 2020 - ISSN 2238-0604
there is nothing contingent, but all things are determined by the divine nature’s need to
be and to operate. He also criticizes the prejudice that mankind “have been considering
all natural things as means for their useful life”, not so much in the sense of the
improper exploitation of nature, but as in the sense of a projection in nature aimed at
satisfying human needs (ESPINOSA, 2005, p. 122).
For Espinosa, those who believe that man disturbs the order of nature are wrong,
instead of following it, since nature has no “addictions” or exceptions, but follows the
same rules everywhere, and explains that:
Therefore, it can be concluded, absolutely, that in all that, of which
there may be several individuals, there must necessarily be an
external cause for which these individuals exist. Therefore, since
the nature of the substance belongs to exist, its definition must
involve its necessary existence, and, consequently, it is only from
its definition that the respective existence must be concluded
(ESPINOSA, 1973, p. 91).
An integrated view of nature emerges from Spinoza’s writings in which all
the particular elements are mutable expressions of an infinite substance that is God
Himself. By the conception of the intellectual love for nature, he handed over to later
tradition an image of a less instrumental, more affective and captivating nature,
more mental faculties than the only technical-scientific utilitarian rationality. “The
intellectual love of the mind towards God is part of the infinite love with which God
loves himself”, in view of the perspective that God can be understood as the nature
system (ESPINOSA, 2005, p. 369).
On the other hand, for Schelling, nature does not enjoy autonomous values
regarding to human intelligence, since natural non-human beings are failed attempts
by a nature that have, in any case, as the greatest expression of themselves the result of
the intelligence of par excellence, that is, the natural product that testifies to the unity
of the subjective and objective, of the spirit and of nature itself. Thus, Schelling is based
on the ontological distinction between the subject and the object, considering them in
the same process investigated by two opposite starting points, maintaining the idea of a
primacy of values of what is conscious and intelligent, attributing these characteristics
exclusively to the human species (SCHELLING, 2006, p. 55).
Putting aside the manipulative relationship of the economy that mystifies
sustainable development, it is necessary to find a concept that serves as a reference for a
desirable ecology or various ecologies, scientific, philosophical and political that knows
how to put the harmful model of capitalist development in crisis, aiming to recreate a
close and harmonious relationship between human and non-human nature.
12
Revista Brasileira de Direito, Passo Fundo, vol. 16, n. 1, p. 1-19, Janeiro-Abril, 2020 - ISSN 2238-0604
4 A new paradigm from Deep Ecology
Drawing a more lucid outline of the ecological debate, the proposed reflection is
to operate a distinction to expose the known meanings of ecology, that is, the meaning
of Science, as the main part of biology that studies the living being in its interactions
with the environment; the meaning of Philosophy, as an ethical and political reflection,
which considers the relationship between the living being and nature, from the
perspective of overcoming man’s dominance over the rest of nature in a theoretical and
aesthetic way and the legal meaning and actions affirmative statements regarding the
effectiveness of equality and the emancipation of the subject of law, actions that reflect
intrinsically in the social, economic and political sense. In this way, a reflection on
Ecology as a political movement will be traced in a relationship of interdependence and
not of commercialization with the environment.
When mankind exposes his expectations in relation to dominating nature, right
after the Industrial Revolution, a kind of race against time begins to potentiate the
destruction of the environment and the development of the economy. From then,
“the way humanity is dealing with this scenario brings to light the fact that its future
depends exclusively on how it is willing to treat the future of the environment in which
it lives” (BRAGA, 2015, p. 8).
When it comes to sustainable development, it must not be forgotten that a society
in which its members recognize the imperative task of taking care of each other and
taking charge of managing common affairs, requires solidary and responsible citizens
to face the challenges ahead presented within a complex society, centered on the
concept of living and on the ecological crisis as a break in the original relationships
between culture and nature, between society and place, between living and habits.
To the possibility of achieving this sustainable development within a complex
society and, so that everyone opts for solidarity and ethical responsibility towards
nature and all human beings, in addition to reflecting on a possible planetary
acquaintanceship in an integralizing and emancipatory way, the Ecosophy becomes a
means of understanding the moral value of nature and the principle on which the duty
to respect it is founded, starting from a reflection on the ecological crisis experienced
today, through an ethical, ontological and social approaches.
The various declinations of the view on the questions of ecology are not mere
accidents and, concretely, in the semantic field and in history, there is a transmission
of traditional thoughts, research and actions that do not share the same starting points
or similar conclusions, but they only refer to a lecture of the ever more evanescent
contours, that is, the relationship between mankind and nature to those of modernity
and nature, the ethical relevance of man as a rational animal to that of ecosystems,
landscapes, primitive cultures and, still, from the description of the natural world to
the critique of contemporary industrialization.
13
Revista Brasileira de Direito, Passo Fundo, vol. 16, n. 1, p. 1-19, Janeiro-Abril, 2020 - ISSN 2238-0604
Based on a new perception of reality, Capra proposes the restructuring of
the scientific view at all levels of living systems, whether organisms, social systems
or ecosystems, in order to undertake the expansion of this perception not only in
science or philosophy, but, above all, in commercial activities, in politics, in health,
in education and in daily life. Thus, Capra’s proposal is to create a new basis for
ecological policies that will allow the construction and support of communities that
do not edanger the possibilities of future generations, seeking to alert to the need to
establish a sustainable balance between the political spheres, economic, social and
cultural (apud BRAGA, 2015).
Faced with the threat offered by the ethical irresponsibility of the technical-
scientific progress, bringing to light a profound crisis in the moral paradigm, not only
within the scope of the scientific sphere, but even that designated by the author as the
“crisis of the social paradigm”, Capra discloses the urgency of changing paradigms.
From the cultural transformation of the social paradigm crisis, Capra exposes
the generalization of Thomas Kuhn’s definition of scientific paradigm (KHUN, 1962)
as “a constellation of achievements - concepts, values, techniques, etc. - shared by a
scientific community”, and used by it “to define legitimate problems and solutions”,
to then analyze the social paradigm shift, which Capra defines as “a constellation
of conceptions, values, perceptions and practices shared by a community”, and that
“shapes a particular view of reality, which forms the basis of the way the community is
organized” (CAPRA, 2006, p. 24-25).
The new paradigm proposed by him arises in order to break with the mechanistic
view of the universe and institute a holistic world view, “which conceives the world
as an integrated whole, and not as a collection of dissociated parts”, thus being able
to at the same time, to call it an ecological vision, where the “ecological” is used in a
deep ecological perception that “recognizes the fundamental interdependence of all
phenomena, and the fact that, as individuals and societies, we are all embedded in the
cyclical processes of nature”(CAPRA, 2006, p. 25), since humanity becomes, in the end,
dependent on these same processes.
However, before generalizations fall, Capra specifies the distinction he makes
between a holistic worldview and a deep ecological perception, determining the
importance of distinguishing the two visions when addressing living systems, as they
maintain a “more vital connection” with the environment. Thus:
The two terms, “holistic” and “ecological”, differ slightly in their
meanings, and it appears that “holistic” is somewhat less appropriate
to describe the new paradigm. A holistic view, saying, of a bicycle
means seeing the bicycle as a functional whole and understanding,
accordingly, the interdependencies of its parts. An ecological view
of the bicycle includes this, but it adds to the perception of how the
14
Revista Brasileira de Direito, Passo Fundo, vol. 16, n. 1, p. 1-19, Janeiro-Abril, 2020 - ISSN 2238-0604
bicycle is embedded in its natural and social environment - where
the raw materials that enter it come from, how it was manufactured,
how its use affects the environment natural and the community for
which it is used, and so on (CAPRA, 2006, p. 14).
In this way, the new ecological paradigm that Capra proposes recognizes the
intrinsic value of each living being, “conceives human beings only as a particular
thread in the web of life” (CAPRA, 2006, p. 26-27).
At this moment, the author is linked to Arne Naess’s understanding of deep
ecology, which is expressed by the distinction between a “shallow ecology” and a
“deep ecology”, finding wide use to refer to the divisions within contemporary
environmentalist thought.
On the one hand, shallow ecology is distinguished for being anthropocentric, that
is, for being centered on the human being, since it considers it above or outside nature,
“as the source of all values”, giving nature an instrumental value , if not “use”.
On the other hand, deep ecology perceives an interdependence between human
beings and the natural environment, and the world is seen “not as a collection of
isolated objects, but as a network of phenomena that are fundamentally interconnected
and are interdependent” (CAPRA , 2006, p. 26-27).
Heron J. de S. Gordilho brings up the existing dichotomy between a Shallow
Ecology and a Deep Ecology, arguing that, for its resolution, it is necessary to replace
the concept of sustainable development with the notion “acceptable global survival”, an
idea coined by Van Rensselaer Potter, author of Global Bioethics: Converting Sustainable
Development to Global Survival:
For [Potter], the expression sustainable development - because it
carries with it two core ideas, development and sustainability (the
first, linked to the idea of growth, expansion of the number of
successful enterprises, and the second, related to the need to ensure
the existence of resources natural for a few more decades) - it is
an anthropocentric concept aimed at safeguarding the economic
interests of the present and future generations (GORDILHO, 2016,
p. 11-12).
What Gordilho rescues with deep ecology is the need to overcome the concept of
sustainability linked to the condition of corresponding, specifically, to the guarantee
of future generations to enjoy the resources that nature has for human survival. What
should be sought, therefore, “is the protection of nature itself” (GORDILHO, 2016, p. 12).
Defender of a holistic and biocentric vision, Arne Naess presents a deep ecological
movement, refuting the image of humanity inserted in a different environment in favor
of the image of a total and relational field, where organisms are like the nodes of a
15
Revista Brasileira de Direito, Passo Fundo, vol. 16, n. 1, p. 1-19, Janeiro-Abril, 2020 - ISSN 2238-0604
network of relationships intrinsic, that is, the model where the total field dissolves the
acceptable idea only at a superficial or preliminary level of communication, according
to which mankind and objects can be conceived from the same environment, therefore,
it is a biospheric egalitarianism (NAESS, 1994, p. 29-30).
Starting from the idea that there is an equal right for all to live and to fulfill their
own ends, reducing this equal right to human beings only has negative effects on any
type of life on the planet, according to Arne Naess (NAESS, 1998, p. 95 ), there are
two categories of ecology, that is, deep ecology and shallow ecology. Shallow ecology
is defined as the movement that fights against pollution and the depletion of natural
resources, with the central objective of the health and wealth of the populations
of developed countries. As for the category of deep ecology, this is inserted in
environmental ethics as an ecocentric perspective, with some traces of egalitarian
biocentrism, being a perspective that encourages environmental activism.
Aiming to answer the deepest questions regarding the current questions about the
environmental problem, typical of superficial environmentalist perspectives, Rodrigues
explains that for Naess, the deep questioning about the truth and the meaning of
things is what will allow to reach the potential for self-realization, not under the
selfish aspect of personal fulfillment, but in an expansion of oneself to a whole, as
an extension of the natural world, the realization of the self in a Self. This feeling of
belonging to an organic whole, encourages the feeling of care and compassion for all
the forms of life (RODRIGUES, 2012, p. 6).
Therefore, Naess’s vision is identifiable (RODRIGUES, 2012, p. 28) from the
perspective of attributing intrinsic value to all beings and the preservation of a whole
to the detriment of an individual being, an “I” of organic totality that mirrors a
conscience in cosmic communion with all beings, a thinking that all things in the
biosphere have an equal right to live and flourish, and to reach their own individual
unfolded forms, that is, the right to self-realization.
Naess’s proposal is not a simply adjustment of Western culture, which recognizes
injustices towards animals or the damage caused to the environment, that is, only an
ethics, but raises the image of a nature that is always in competition. It is proposed to
design a new paradigm, a philosophical system called ecosophy, which deals with all
aspects that contribute to form a complex world view, that is,
The word ecosophy is composed of the Greek terms oikos and
sophia (house and wisdom). As for ecology, eco has a meaning that
goes beyond that immediate of home, family and community. The
most appropriate translation would be “Earth House”. Therefore,
an ecosophy is nothing more than a global vision (or system) of a
philosophical type inspired by living conditions in the eco-sphere
(NAESS, 1994, p. 29-30).
16
Revista Brasileira de Direito, Passo Fundo, vol. 16, n. 1, p. 1-19, Janeiro-Abril, 2020 - ISSN 2238-0604
From this perspective, Arne Naess’ proposal is more than an ethics, it is a
maturing process that places the individual as an integral part of the Universe. The
human being, therefore, is one more element of the natural community, but with the
added responsibility of being aware of his actions and the consequences that result.
Thus, mankind is not only a species of the natural and complex system, since the
values of nature preservation are rooted within himself as part of his conduct, therefore,
he does not need to resort to a morality produced by society itself in which is inserted,
but, seek to be responsible and solidary in its actions in living with the environment so
that it can contribute to the sustainable development of life together on earth.
Therefore, based on deep ecology, understanding Ecosophy implies that the
individual must be receptive and responsible for the needs of the place where he / she is
inserted, of his/her “Earth house”, with all beings and with the respective community,
remembering that this knowledge comprises norms, rules and hypotheses according to
the diverse universal experiences.
5 Final Considerations
Among several currents of ecological and philosophical thoughts, in the
proposed debate, some theoretical fronts were brought together, but not deprived of
their specificities, a coherent content capable of showing a future for ecology with
its ecosophical based assumptions, through a solidary and effectively ecological
perception.
What each individual and each community has always done and will always do is
to inhabit, to inhabit a place, in a place, and in the ways forged by the same place and
the community in which it lives.
Faced with the issue that denounces man’s destructive action on nature,
historically, the evolution of the ecological debate has shown that the traditional
repertoire built around the concept of ecology has found its wear. However, the absence
of a coherent and affirmative position in the face of such a problem, allowed the
emergence of new debates and the birth of a new ecological paradigm.
In this sense, through the composition of a new paradigm proposed by Fritjof
Capra and allied to the development of Naess’s deep ecology, the ecosophy (Guattari
and Naess) appears to re-found the bases of ethics, scientific epistemology, politics and
society in a perspective complex.
In these terms, the ecosophy establishes, therefore, a new paradigm capable, on
the one hand, of placing the human individual as an integral part of the Universe and
no longer as the traditional predator at the top of the food chain, subjecting all nature
under the power of technical and scientific progress. On the other hand, nature itself
also assumes a new dignity as an equally integral part of the whole.
17
Revista Brasileira de Direito, Passo Fundo, vol. 16, n. 1, p. 1-19, Janeiro-Abril, 2020 - ISSN 2238-0604
Therefore, in a relationship of interdependence between mankind and nature,
ecosophy and deep ecology emerge as a new ecological and sustainable paradigm to
make effective the practice of an ethical acquaintanceship that understands nature
not only as a mean of existence, but fundamentally as an integral part of the natural
community, alongside the human community.
18
Revista Brasileira de Direito, Passo Fundo, vol. 16, n. 1, p. 1-19, Janeiro-Abril, 2020 - ISSN 2238-0604
References
ARENDT, Hannah. A condição humana. São Paulo: Forense Universitária, 2010.
BRAGA, Isaque Trevisam. Por uma vivência planetária eco-lógica: diálogos interfilosóficos
em torno de uma ética da responsabilidade. 2015. 106 f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Filosofia).
Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo. São Paulo, 2015.
CAPRA, F. A teia da vida: uma nova compreensão científica dos sistemas vivos. Tradução de
Newton Roberval Eichemberg. São Paulo: Cultrix, 2006.
ESPINOSA, Baruch. Etica: trattato teologico-politico. Tradução do autor. Turim: Utet, 2005.
ESPINOSA, Baruch. Ética. Tradução de Joaquim de Carvalho. São Paulo: Abril Cultural, 1973.
GUATTARI, Félix. As três ecologias. Tradução de Maria F. Bittencourt, 21. Ed. Campinas:
Papirus, 2012.
GORDILHO, Heron J. de S.; SILVA, Raissa P. Os animais, a natureza e as três ecofilosofias.
Revista de Biodireito e Direitos dos Animais. v. 2, n. 1, Brasília, jan./jun., 2016, p.1-19.
GORDILHO, Heron J. de S.; SILVA, Tagore T. de A.; RAVAZZANO, Fernanda. Animais e a
hermenêutica constitucional abolicionista. Revista Acadêmica. Faculdade de Direito do Recife.
v. 88, n. 2, jul./dez., 2016.
KUHN, Thomas S. The structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1962.
LEFF, Enrique. Epistemologia ambiental. Tradução de Sandra Valenzuela. 5. ed. São Paulo:
Cortez, 2010.
NAESS, Arne. Ecosofia. Ecologia, società e stili di vita. Tradução do autor. Como: Red, 1994.
NAESS, Arne. Il movimento ecologico: ecologia superficiale ed ecologia profonda. Una sintesi.
Tradução italiana de M. Tallacchini. Tradução em português do autor. Milão: Vita e Pensiero,
1998.
RODRIGUES, Vera Mónica dos S. Deep Ecology: princípios, fundamentos e fins. 2012. 89 f.
Dissertação (Mestrado em Ecologia Humana e Problemas Sociais contemporâneos). Universi-
dade Nova de Lisboa. Lisboa, 2012.
SINGER, Peter. Ética prática. Tradução de Jefferson Luiz Camargo. São Paulo: Martins Fontes,
1998.
SINGER, Peter. Liberazione animale. Tradução do autor. Milão: Il Saggiatore, 2010.
SCHELLING, Friedrich W. J. Sistema dell’idealismo trascendentale. Tradução do autor. Milão:
Bompiani, 2006.
VIOLA, Francesco. Stato vincoli natura. XIX Congresso Nazionale della Società Italiana di
Filosofia Giuridica e Politica, Trento – Itália, 29-30 set. 1994.
19