This chapter argues that the Covid-19 pandemic has exposed the limits of the mainstream individualistic notion of resilience and, in light of these limits, it advances a new, relational notion of the concept of resilience that contributes to the individuals’ well-being and takes into consideration the role of systemic inequality. The first half of the paper argues that the individualistic notion is flawed in two ways: i) it can foster ill-being because it is cognitively taxing, and ii) it discounts systemic (...) inequality because it transfers the responsibility of any achievement and failure onto the single individual without regard for conditions of oppression. The second half of the paper reconceptualizes the concept of resilience as a relational notion that takes into account structural support as well as conditions of oppression and marginalization. According to this latter notion of resilience, the chapter argues that oppression, lack of material conditions, or lack of structural support are elements that can impact the appropriateness of calls to be resilient. A relational notion of resilience fosters well-being because it puts the collective community at the center (instead of the individual) and it takes into consideration material conditions and structural injustices. (shrink)

O artigo propõe problematizar ou inquirir sobre as relações lógicas [ e não apenas uma – como é normalmente defendido pelos comentadores imanentistas ] entre Deus ou substância e o universo dos modos em Spinoza (1632-1677), provando, ao seu fim, a hipótese de que podem [tais relações] ser devidamente demarcadas como de transcendência e de imanência em conciliação. Para tanto, o trabalho efetua o estudo do escólio da EIPXXIX [condição da prova] sob o apoio de outras passagens da Ethica (1677) (...) e de obras complementares de Spinoza. (shrink)