For Kant, the man meets subordinated to the laws of the nature, of where the determinismo happens and, concomitantly, the laws of the freedom that they originate the moral. This argument results in the fact of the man to possess conditions of autolegislar itself, as well as of that it is who motivates the existing phenomena in the world. Endowed with reason, it catches that this moral, is free determinative, and it is this differentiates that it of the animals. It is exactly in the scope of the reason that we can perceive that the practical freedom or the independence of the will can be seen when the reason in them propitiates regramentos. comes there to tona what we must or not to make.
This interior experience retraces to the idea of independent freedom of the will of empirical reasons, as cause of the reason capable to determine the will to act or not through impulses, sensible that is, contaminated of interests. The independence of the will of empirical reasons integrally is related with the recital of the kantiana morality, in reason of the morality to imply the autonomy concept, therefore for Kant all man is independent. This results in the existence of a free will of sensible reasons. from now on, becomes related it idea of freedom with the one of autonomy. This relation is perceived as referring freedom the unknown aimings for the man and as freedom of the college of the will capable to allow autolegislao. Doubtlessly, Kant needed this freedom, related to the rational dimension of the man, to construct its moral theory. Its argument finds bedding in the idea according to which whenever we think about them as free, recognizes the conscience of the autonomy possibility. Therefore, as to be rational, the man is endowed with a free, capable will of raised function in order to allow the morality.
The spite of this, Rousseau affirms that the freedom is inherent to the man as well as the capacity to perfect itself and these to two would differ it characteristics from the excessively animal ones, in way that the deliberation power does not meet in its physical characters. Here it is, therefore, the cause of the degradation of the man: its power to perfect, that it removes it if its position initial, ' ' I see in animal all only one ingenious machine to who the nature gave sensible to function alone and to guarantee itself, until certain point, against that it tends to destroy it or to disarrange it. I perceive the same things necessarily in schemes human being, with the difference that the nature makes everything alone in the operations of the animal, to the step that the man concurs for its in the quality of agent livre.' ' 5 the desires of the wild man, in its natural state, does not pass of physical necessities as to move away themselves from the cold or to eat, but the man who lives in society finds necessities that derive from its knowledge. For each necessity that it is imposed for the nature, the man, through its reflection, found ways of surpassing them to it, and thus to the measure that the necessities it acometiam its spirit evolua he disnaturalized and it. Of course the man alone would possess a virtue, the mercy. This virtue affects the men universally and is put in front to any reflection, exactly the animals give signals of they possess that it and still in the society action is possible to recognize it nas human beings. mercy is in the natural state the support of the reason substituting laws, customs and virtues, ' ' espcie' concurs for the mutual conservation of all; '. 6 the savage does not have moral feeling, the morality alone is developed in the society through the customs; the feeling that the savage possesss completely is contained in the physical aspect of its existence, this physical desire is general, it inhabits in what it has of animal in the man, is not lingered in a fruit or a specific female, but in any one.
In this process, the forms the religious ones had been if constituting and if modifying in function of a game of forces that opposed the symbolic effectiveness of what contextual the social legitimacy was defined as magical and of what it was assumed as religious. Thus, even so the more recent antropolgicas analyses tend to fix these cosmovises and its rituals as inherent to the religious identities being assumed implicitly that these practical already had been born as ‘ ‘ religies’ ‘ defined -, it can be perceived from the historical data presented by the literature that the particularitities of the local contexts, the personalities and the trajectories of the mediating agents whom they look to institutionalize certain practical and the limits placed for the lines of direction legal-politics of the State had promoted arrangements many difficult times to fit in the religious tipologias produced by the academic models, as we will see adiante.’ ‘ v Inside of this context we will find the constitution of a Brazilian religious pluralism still on the optics of the hegemonic religion, as we observe below in the transcription: ‘ ‘ the particularitities of the formation of the State and the society in Brazil had constructed to religious pluralism from the doctor-legal repression practical perceived as magical, the threatening ones of the public morality. Of this form, the way as today presents ‘ ‘ alternativas’ ‘ religious it results to a large extent of a process of codification of practical in which mdiuns and parents and mother-of-saint had taken in account the constaints of a legal-legal picture in transformation, the consensuses historically constructed on what it offers danger and what can be accepted as practises religious, the repertoires of practical staffs constructed throughout its trajectories of life and the expectations of public and of the competitors..
This would be, certainly, an attitude fascist: of hatred to the other and hatred to the other-critical. The part would not be fascist exactly for not operating such type of exclusion, but to question certain faces of the acriticidade. A possible project of transvalorao of the values must pass for this sphere, namely, to understand the critical plurality as the phenomenon noblest of the human being and to perceive, still, that at certain moments such project becomes one ' ' so that it serves? ' ' , over all when in the citizen it has a deep filiation and necessity of determined person. In this in case that, the transvalorao becomes one ' ' mero' ' to understand who submits and who is submitted, and not a destruction of an order. The part meets in this plot and it does not get over, that is, it does not make mere ' ' to accept for aceitar' ' , one ' ' as much makes, as much fez' ' , when it does not have another exit, but it constructs bridges so that, exactly ahead of the disastrous theater, it is not plus one, but one. The hypocritical one still can tax the part in such a way: ' ' how adolescent mentality! I thought that she was dealing with an intellectual who wise person who what it is good is what the majority and I like, because the voice it people is the voice of Deus.' '. Two errors, however, proceed from this affirmation: 1 who is with mental retardation is proper the hypocritical one, that is with one ' ' age mental' ' very inferior, and one does not confide to the new; 2 friction the intellectual while that one that accepted what the majority likes, not perceiving that this, many times, is mere mass not hands of bakery-absurd, is they producing musical comedies, grifes of fashion, publishing companies, etc. .