Seriamente entediado: Schopenhauer sobre o confinamento solitário, de David Bather Woods
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179378667888Palabras clave:
Schopenhauer, Tédio, Confinamento Solitário, PenitenciáriaResumen
A evidência textual primária confirma que Schopenhauer estava ciente da adoção generalizada do confinamento solitário no sistema penitenciário americano e alguns de seus efeitos prejudiciais. Ele entende sua perniciosidade no que diz respeito ao tédio, fenômeno pelo qual é conhecido por ter nele pensado e analisado extensivamente. Neste artigo, eu interpreto o relato de Schopenhauer sobre o tédio e sua relação com o confinamento solitário. Defendo Schopenhauer contra a objeção de que os casos de confinamento servem apenas para ilustrar a inadequação geral de sua explicação do tédio como a falta de coisas para se querer. Esta defesa chega à conclusão de que, ao contrário, alguém pode muito bem sofrer da falta de coisas para querer como resultado direto de estar confinado; e que o tédio, entendido como a privação de vontade — fenômeno que sugiro poder ser chamado de privação conativa — faz uma contribuição esclarecedora para a nossa compreensão teórica da nocividade do confinamento solitário.
Descargas
Citas
BLAKE, William. A Sentence Worse than Death. Solitary Watch [online], March 11, 2013. Disponível em: http://solitarywatch.com/2013/03/11/voices-from-solitary-a-sentence-worse-than-death. Acesso em: 05 set. 2018.
DICKENS, Charles. American Notes. London: Penguin, 2000.
FOUCAULT, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Translated by Alan Sheridan. London: Penguin, 1991.
GRASSIAN, Stuart. Psychiatric Effects of Solitary Confinement. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, v. 22, 2006, p. 325–83.
GUENTHER, Lisa. Solitary Confinement: Social Death and Its Afterlives. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2013.
HANEY, Craig. Mental Health Issues in Long-Term Solitary and “Supermax” Confinement. Crime and Deliquency, v. 49, no. 1, 2003, p. 124–56.
HANEY, Craig. “Madness” and Penal Confinement: Some Observations on Mental Illness and Prison Pain’. Punishment and Society, v. 19, no. 3, 2017, p. 310–26.
HANEY, Craig. Restricting the Use of Solitary Confinement. Annual Review of Criminology, 2018, p. 285–310.
HERON, Woodburn. The Pathology of Boredom. Scientific American, v. 196, 1957, p. 52–6.
JANAWAY, Christopher. Necessity, Responsibility and Character: Schopenhauer on Freedom of the Will. Kantian Review, v. 17, no. 3, 2012, p. 431–57.
PEVSNER, Nicholas. A History of Building Types. London: Thames & Hudson, 1976.
QUAY, Herbert C. Psychopathic Personality as Pathological Stimulation-Seeking. American Journal of Psychiatry, v. 122, no. 2, 1965, p. 180–3.
REGINSTER, Bernard. The Affirmation of Life: Nietzsche on Overcoming Nihilism. London: Harvard University Press, 2006.
REGINSTER, Bernard. Nietzsche’s New Happiness: Longing, Boredom, and the Elusiveness of Fulfillment. Philosophic Exchange, v. 37, no. 1, 2007, p. 17–40.
ROTHMAN, David J. “Perfecting the Prison: United States, 1789-186”. In: The Oxford History of the Prison: The Practice of Punishment in Western Society. edited by Norval Morris and David J. Rothman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998, p. 100–16.
SCOTT, G. D.; GENDREAU Paul. Psychiatric Implications of Sensory Deprivation in a Maximum Security Prison. Canadian Psychiatric Association Journal, v. 14, 1969, p. 337–41.
SELLIN, Thorsten. The Origin of the “Pennsylvania System of Prison Discipline. The Prison Journal, v. 50, 1970, p. 13–21.
SHALEV, Sharon. Supermax: Controlling Risk Through Solitary Confinement. London: Routledge, 2009.
SHALEV, Sharon. Solitary Confinement and Supermax Prisons: A Human Rights and Ethical Analysis. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, v. 11, no. 2, 2011, p. 151–83.
SHAPSHAY, Sandra. “Schopenhauer’s Early Fourfold Root and the Ghost of Kantian Freedom”. In: Schopenhauer’s Fourfold Root. Edited by Jonathan Head and Dennis Vanden Auweele. London: Routledge, 2017. p. 80–98.
SCHOPENHAUER, Arthur. Sämtliche Werke. Edited by Wolfgang Freiherr von Löhneysen. Vols. 1–5. Stuttgart: Suhrkamp, 1986.
SCHOPENHAUER, Arthur. “Prize Essay on the Basis of Morals”. In: The Two Fundamental Problems of Ethics. Edited and translated by Christopher Janaway. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
SCHOPENHAUER, Arthur. “Prize Essay on the Freedom of the Will”. In: The Two Fundamental Problems of Ethics. Edited and translated by Christopher Janaway. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
SCHOPENHAUER, Arthur. The World as Will and Representation, Vols. 1–2. Edited and translated by Judith Norman, Alastair Welchman and Christopher Janaway. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010 (vol. 1), 2018 (vol. 2).
SCHOPENHAUER, Arthur. Parerga and Paralipomena, V. 1. Edited and translated by Sabine Roehr and Christopher Janaway. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
SCHOPENHAUER, Arthur. Parerga and Paralipomena, V. 2. Edited and translated by Adrian Del Caro and Christopher Janaway. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
SUEDFELD, Peter. The Benefits of Boredom: Sensory Deprivation Reconsidered. American Scientist, v. 63, no. 1, 1975, p. 60–9.
THOMAS, Marianna (Ed.). Eastern State Penitentiary Historic Structures Report. Philadelphia: Philadelphia Historical Commission, 1994.
TOOHEY, Peter. Boredom: A Lively History. London: Yale University Press, 2012.
VAUX, Roberts. Letter on the Penitentiary System of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: Jesper Harding, 1827.
VAUX, Roberts. The Pennsylvania Prison System. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, v. 21, no. 116, 1884, p. 651–64.
YOUNG, Julian. A Schopenhauerian Solution to Schopenhauerian Pessimism. Schopenhauer-Jahrbuch, v. 68, 1987, p. 53–69.
Publicado
Versiones
- 2022-03-17 (3)
- 2022-02-01 (2)
- 2022-02-01 (1)
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2021 Voluntas: Revista Internacional de Filosofia
![Creative Commons License](http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc-sa/4.0/88x31.png)
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0.
La sumisión de los originales para este periódico implica la transferencia, por parte de autores, de los derechos de publicación impresa y digital. Los derechos autorales para los artículos publicados son del autor, con derechos del periódico sobre la primera publicación. Los autores sólo podrán utilizar los mismos resultados en otras publicaciones indicando claramente este periódico como el medio de publicación original. En virtud de ser un periódico de acceso abierto, está permitido el uso gratuito de los artículos en aplicaciones educacionales, científicas, no comerciales, desde que referenciada la fuente (por favor, vea la licencia Creative Commons en el pie de página de este periódico).