YouTube Instagram TikTok How it works FAQ

The fastest way to turn talking videos into clean, searchable text. Free, private and no account required.

About

Built by Rishav Raj with one goal: free transcripts for everyone.

rishav@yttotranscript.com

Transcribe

YouTube to text
YouTube with timestamps
Instagram Reels
TikTok videos

Learn

How it works
FAQ
YouTube transcripts guide

More

Chrome extension
Contact
Privacy policy
Terms of service

© 2026 YTtoTranscript. Made for creators & researchers.

Not affiliated with YouTube, Instagram or TikTok. Respect creators’ copyright.

Aula Magna Uniasselvi-Esmesc — Transcript · YTtoTranscript

Home/Transcripts/YouTube

YouTube Transcript

Aula Magna Uniasselvi-Esmesc

ESMESC · 18,921 words · 95 min read · EN

Watch on YouTube

Share X LinkedIn WhatsApp

Below is the complete, readable transcript of Aula Magna Uniasselvi-Esmesc by ESMESC on YouTube. Read the full text, copy any part you need, or generate a transcript for any video with our free tool.

the things that I will do in my heart is bringing me the scars of your

Alo. Hello.

Hello, ladies and gentlemen, good evening. It is an honor to welcome each and every one of you to today's inaugural lecture in partnership with the Leonardo da Vinci University Center (UNIAV), which will address judging and feeling, the human face of justice. This academic activity is part of the program commemorating ESMESC's 40th anniversary

. To welcome the guests who will make up the presiding panel at this inaugural lecture, we invite tonight's host, the Director-General of the Superior School of the Judiciary of the State of Santa Catarina, Judge Maurício Cavalazi Póvoas.

We invite to join us at the table the magnificent rector of the Leonardo da Vinci University Center, Uniav, Professor Valdecir Antônio Simão.

The speaker will be the esteemed Judge Quitéria Tamanini Vieira, from the Court of Justice of the State of Santa Catarina. The speaker is Dr. Bald, a lawyer. And finally, the mediating lawyer, Dr. Gisele Rodrigues Martins Guedert.

Please take a seat. I would like to inform those present that this inaugural lecture is also being broadcast via the SMESC YouTube channel to law students from various UNIAELV campuses, whom we cordially greet. I now give the floor to the Director-General of SMESC for the initial greeting. Good evening everyone. To everyone. It's working, right?

Transcribe another video

Paste any YouTube, Instagram or TikTok link to get a free transcript.

Free · No sign-up · Unlimited

Add to Chrome — transcribe in one click

Esteemed authorities, distinguished professors, beloved students, and guests who honor us with their presence this evening. It is with immense joy and deep pride that I welcome you all to the inaugural lecture that marks the official beginning of another academic journey at Unia Self. This is a moment of celebration for the entire legal community that

we represent and that we build together every day. I would like to express my very special and sincere gratitude for the presence of each and every one of you. The active participation of students, faculty, and partners is what gives true meaning to our educational mission and transforms this auditorium into a vibrant space for debate, learning,

and knowledge. One of the fundamental pillars for the success and constant evolution of SMESC has been our strategic partnership with institutions such as Uniav. The continuation of this solid and fruitful cooperation between our institutions is living proof that by joining forces we can further raise the standard of higher education and professional training that we offer to society.

This alliance allows us to combine pedagogical excellence, innovation, and an unwavering commitment to quality, preparing students not only for the challenges of the present, but also to deal with the transformations of the future of the legal and academic world. May this inaugural lecture serve as inspiration for us all, renewing our energies and awakening all that

intellectual curiosity that drives great professionals. I wish each student a period of many achievements, learning, and profound personal growth. Thank you so much for being here and for being a part of this story and success. I want to apologize profusely to the speakers because tonight there are two more events related to this function, and I won't

be able to stay until the end. However, since it will be streamed on YouTube, it will be recorded, and I will certainly make a point of watching it later. I apologize in advance . It is very good. So, uh, as I said, I'm very grateful to everyone for being here, and it's always

an honor to receive partners, universities, students, speakers, everyone here in this environment that is made precisely for this purpose: knowledge. Thank you very much. I now hand the floor over to the rector of UNIACELV. Good evening everyone. I would like to take this opportunity to warmly greet Judge Maurício, director of SMESC, who faces

a very significant challenge, a challenge that a school requires, which is to work with knowledge, especially within the judiciary, which has its own unique challenges. I know what it's like to be a manager, someone who goes far beyond technical skills and works with people, with training, but mainly with life transformations within a complex scenario like

ours. So, congratulations on your challenge, on your work leading SMESC, on the SMESC board, and as a judge. And I was very happy that we quickly had a conversation, we already discussed some other activities related to the training process and also a project of SMESC, which is in another location where we will

expand these relationships. Thank you very much, judge. I also greet Judge Quitéria Vieira, and it is a great joy and satisfaction for us to participate in this moment, even more so with a theme and content that has to do with the human being, in a world full of technology, in a world where

technicality sometimes makes us forget about the human being. Well, moments like this allow us to reflect beyond the formative process, and those of us who are with the students understand the meaning of a moment like this. And I congratulate you on your career path, Judge Eia Svo. I am very happy to be here, Dr.

Maurício, here at SMESC, working with knowledge and a wide range of expertise, right? Last year we had this inaugural class, it was fantastic, as we will certainly have again, Dr. Bacteria. Well, tonight I salute Professor Helen, who came from far away, but very close, because knowledge brings themes closer, and even more so when this theme

comes to the forefront, and these are research studies that are shared in just a few minutes, but with great impacts on all of our lives. I greet Professor Gisele here representing our institution, the faculty, and the students. I greet Professor Suelle, the esteemed coordinator of the course here in Palhoça, who is also

representing the administration of our college in Palhoça, Professor Karen, and Professor Silvia, the director. I greet Professor Karina, who is our coordinator for the law course here in Florianópolis, and all the students from Florianópolis and Palhoça. And here I offer a reflection. The professors, all of them, including Professor Bernardo, who couldn't be here, who is the director of the

faculty, but the students here seem few, but we have students remotely from the city, not only from Florianópolis, Palhoça, but Blumenau, Itajaí, Rio do Sul, Guaramirim, Cuiabá, Rondonópolis, that is, it transcends the state and a theme like this will be used in all our classes. such as examples and knowledge. We at UNIAELV are proud to bring

social advancement, or rather, social inclusion, to the forefront through relevant themes, allowing our students to learn from those who actively work and fight for these issues. Unelv is honored and grateful for this opportunity, and we are certain that this partnership will last for a long time and bring meaning to each student who is here tonight

. We know that some who are here now will one day also be in their careers as legal professionals, holding the position of judge. A good career path, right, judge? So, I wish you all a good night and a good class. Thank you very much. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, I will now proceed to read

the brief resumes of the speakers and moderator. Quitéria Tamanini Vieira is a judge on the Court of Justice of Santa Catarina. She holds degrees in law and psychology from FURB. He completed postgraduate courses (lato sensu) in civil law at Univale, criminal law and criminal procedure at FURB, and management and control in the public sector at UDESC. And

also a master's degree in law from the Federal University of Santa Catarina. He teaches in postgraduate courses, lato sensu, at the School of Magistrates and at the Judicial Academy of the Court of Justice of Santa Catarina. Instructor in training courses in judicial mediation, accredited by the National Council of Justice. She is a member of the Santa Catarina Academy of

Legal Letters (CALE), director of the Women's Department of the Santa Catarina Magistrates Association (AMC), author of the online courses "Uncomplicated Civil Sentence" and "Conciliation in Light of the CPC," and author of the book "Let's Conciliate: Elements for Improving the Challenging Task of Mediating Conflict Resolution." Ellen Baldi holds a bachelor's degree in business administration from the University of

Australia and also completed additional studies at the University of Chicago. Lawyer with a bachelor's degree in law from the University of Southern Santa Catarina, Brazil, and a master's degree in philosophy of law from the University of Buenos Aires, Argentina. Gisele Rodrigues Martins Gedert holds a bachelor's degree in law from UNISU and a master's degree

in international relations for Mercosur from UNISU. She is currently a lawyer and teaches at UNIACELV. I kindly request that the panelists take their seats with the audience, as we will be projecting the speakers' material.

First, I'll hand the floor over to the speaker, lawyer Helen Bald.

Hello, hello, hello.

Test, test.

Hello, hello, hello, hello, hello. Test. Ah, now

good, uh, good night everyone. Well, it's a pleasure to be back, to be back in Florianópolis. It's after 3 years. Well, the last time I was at Uniav, it was also at the invitation of Professor Suelle, whom I want to thank and congratulate for the initiative of choosing this topic. And I want to say that it is a

great joy and honor to be here with Judge Quitéria, with dear Professor Gisele, and to be in this house celebrating 40 years, isn't it? Well , I have exactly 40 minutes to tell you about this super important topic, which is the role of feeling, let me put it here, the role of feeling in

judging, right? Hey, wait a minute, let me just... I'm going to take a little walk through this presentation to answer that question. I'm going to take a tour through many disciplines, okay? I have a master's degree in philosophy of law, but I already understand that we need an interdisciplinary approach to answer this question. So,

I'm going to give a presentation, kind of in the style of rebellious teaching, which I think Professor Dilsa will later confirm if that's really what I did. Well, to answer the question of what role feeling plays in judging, I think we should start by asking what we do when we judge. right? And

there are many actions, many things involved when we judge, right? Well, to offer reasons, to evaluate, to compare, to motivate, in short, to justify, right? But feeling is part of judging, right? So, I ask you, who thinks that a good judge should be blind to emotions? Anyone want to take the risk? Well, who thinks that justice should

be blind to emotions, right? So, uh, that's a question that we can look for answers to in history, and you'll see, you'll realize that in the iconography of justice, justice wasn't blindfolded until the Renaissance, right? And what happened? So, there was a book by Sebastian Brant, who is a jurist, right, who wrote this book, "The

Endless," and it's a satire, right, a critique of the bias and corruption of judges, right? So, you can see here that justice, from that point on, became blindfolded, right ? And over time, then, this blindness came to signify impartiality, blindness to emotions. Well, even before the law conceived of a judge without passions, philosophy was

already discussing emotions, the problem of emotions. Hey there, Aristotle. Well, so emotions, in philosophy, were known as phenomena, sensations of pain or pleasure were known as judgments or beliefs, and were said to be mental states with semantic content. And Aristotle believed that emotions were a state, a mixture of these three things, precisely

because of the feedback between them, and continuing, there are other philosophers that I would like to bring here for you, who had a very important influence, called Chrysippus. Chrysippus was a historical philosopher known as the father, the creator of propositional logic, right? That famous one, eh, eh, if A, then B, right? He's the creator of connectives, right?

And here I take the opportunity to tell you about this book that was recently released here in Brazil, Logic, Proposition and Norm, which is a Latin American classic that every law student who wants to learn logic should have. I translated this book; it was written by my doctoral advisor, Dr. Ricardo Guibu. So, continuing here,

Chrysippus said the following: that emotions are judges, value judgments, right? And that judgment is agreement with an appearance, isn't it? And he said that emotions can be flawed logical judgments . You can see that, right? And he said the following: "There are two stages to emotion. The first is verifying its appearance, right? Verifying its truth or

falsehood, right? And the second stage is the stage of approving this truth or falsehood and then validating and continuing to feel the emotion that was the proposed, the appearance of the situation that occurred, right? So Chrysippus said, look, emotion is a pathology of reason, right, that must be examined, controlled and even extinguished, right?

And continuing here, uh, to philosophers of morality, of emotions, right? Uh, more current ones, because those for the historical... So, wait a minute, I pressed the button. Okay. I bring here two more contemporary philosophers, Martha Nusbalm, who is American and is considered a neohistorical philosopher, and Robert Solomon, who in the 70s wrote a famous book called Emotions

with Judgments, right? Both of these philosophers believe that emotions are not irrational impulses, although Solomon says that..." Emotions can indeed be hasty and dogmatic judgments, right? And Marta gives an example, right? She says that emotions are value judgments about valuable things, right? They always have an object of intention and are important for a person's flourishing.

And she gives an example, right? She says: "Look, my dog died, that's a fact." " The judgment, my dog was important to me." Emotion, sadness. So, emotion itself already brings a judgment of reality, right? And with that, then, uh, both of these, uh, uh, philosophers of emotion, uh, will propose, then, that there

is this cognitive scheme where beliefs, right, emotions generate uh, uh beliefs that generate positive or negative evaluation, right, which then generate physiological changes of pleasure and pain, what we also call suffering, uh, which generate agitation of thought, right, and will generate there the decision, action or inaction, uh, or uh, an automatism, right,

patterns, in short, in a perpetual, constant cycle, uh, uh. Guys, I'm monitoring the time here, my God. Let's go. Uh, uh, well, just so I do n't get lost. Well, so there it is .

Uh, so, continuing, excuse me, I'm a little nervous. Okay. And so, and these descriptions, These discussions about emotions then generate this description of what the ideal judge in law would be, right? So we have Aristotle, who says that law is reason free from passions, right? Hobbes, who says that the ideal judge is effectively

free from fear, anger, hatred, and compassion, right? He speaks of technical coldness, emotional coldness, right? Beccaria, who defends the legal syllogism. Why? Because it's a way to maintain legal certainty, because emotions cause legal uncertainty. And Montesquieu, with his defense of the judge as the mouthpiece of the law. Why? The judge as the mouthpiece of the law then plays

exactly the role of rationality, right? And he says the following: that emotions should be confined to the legislative branch. Emotions should be confined to politics, okay? And the judiciary should be the realm of reason, precisely to maintain what? Legal certainty. Right? Well , so far we've talked about emotions, right? And, there's a

word here that has appeared several times, and that word is judgment, judgments, right? And so I'm going to ask you, do you think all judgments are the same? They aren't, right? There are two types of judgments. There are judgments of fact, which are judgments of the world, right? The world of facts, of things as they are, which

describe things as they are, and are susceptible to being true or false, right? And there are value judgments, right? Judgments that are from the world of morality, right? And which don't describe, they prescribe, right? This is the world of what is and this is the world of what ought to be. But then, if here in the world of facts

we can substantiate these facts, discover where they come from based on evidence, how do we do it here in this world of values, in this world of what ought to be, how do we discover where the ought comes from? Okay, right? And this is a very complex discussion, uh, it's in moral philosophy, and I'm going to ask for help from

moral philosophers. And the question is: where does morality come from? Does morality come from emotions, is it born from emotions, or is morality born from reason? And Kant will answer then. Sing with your... Oops, sing, right? I pressed this too hard here. Just talking about Kant, but you can give me a hand here. Wait, let me see. Let's see

here. Ah, someone's helping me. Great, Lucas. Thank you. I already know his name because he worked miracles for me here. Uh, uh, one more. So here, let's go to Kant. Kant will say the following, that morality is linked to reason, right? He will link this to pure reason, practical reason, to his categorical imperative. And here I

would love to ask you what you know about the categorical imperative, but it won't work. Okay, so I'll say it quickly, because I love repeating the categorical imperative, right, to act in such a way that your action, right, can become a universal law, right? That is, not to do something that you would

n't accept others doing, right? And the other imperative, which is that of humanity, is to take into account, right, one's own humanity and that of others, always as an end and not as a means. So, for him, reason is linked to duty, right? He is the philosopher of duty, the philosopher, his philosophy known

as deontology. And in contrast, there's Jeremy Benthon. And Jeremy Benthon will say that morality is, uh, the result of a calculation between pleasure and pain, right? Where you must make a mathematical calculation to achieve the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Well, but not all philosophers agree with this. And this philosopher is called David Hillman.

David Hillman will say that emotions are the primary cause of morality. He will say the following, and I will I'll read this to you guys, you're losing. He's going to say the following, that... Ah, wait, 13 here. Yes, reason is and should be a slave to passions, because reason alone cannot motivate us to act.

It is our emotions that give us moral ends. End quote. Hmm. And then we have moral philosophers who followed Hillary in broad strokes with several differences. Uh, just out of curiosity, Stevenson, Blackburn, for them emotions are only expressions of attitude, uh, they are approval, disapproval or means of persuasion. Uh, and currently there is this philosopher

here, you see that it all came out with my face, right? But anyway, no, it doesn't matter. His name is Jessie Prince. This Jessie Prince, he is a moral philosopher and also a very interesting psychologist and he radicalizes. He says the following: "Moral judgments are emotional." That's what he says. And here I make a little reflection of my own,

uh, that if he is right that, that moral judgments are indeed Emotional, I suspect so, uh, imagine how neo-constitutionalism, right, which is now known as moralistic jurisprudence, impacts judges, right? Judges must be very challenged, right, emotionally when formulating their judgments. This is my reflection, okay? And that's why the FGV professor named Joaquim Falcão

wrote an article, and I've heard it said , that judging is suffering. Well, but then we ask the judge what term I'm going to pass on here. Let's go. Well, now we're going to see, we're going to ask for help from science, okay? So, until now we've seen philosophers of morality, philosophers of law, uh, philosophers of emotions,

right? The journey through the disciplines. Now we're going to see a scientist who will help answer this question, right? After all, morality has to do with emotions. The cause is emotion, is reason. And this primatologist named Franz Wall, he uh, did an experiment with monkeys. I think some of you must have already

seen it. This experiment. Just a minute, Lucas. Let me explain quickly, just a minute. Uh, and in this experiment, there are two monkeys, okay? They have to perform a task. Upon completing the task, they receive a cucumber as a reward. And this is consistently the case until one day it changes, right? One monkey continues to receive

cucumber and the other starts receiving grapes. Both doing the same task. Notice what will happen. Lucas, now, please. The monkey who gets cucumber is the one who gets cucumber. The one on the right is the one who gets grapes. The one who gets cucumber. Note that the first piece of cucumber is perfectly

fine. The first piece she eats. Then she sees the other one getting grapes, and you will see what happens. So she gives us a rock. That's the task, and we give her a piece of cucumber, and she eats it. The other one needs to give us a rock, and that's what she does.

And she gets a grape, and the other one sees that she gives us a rock. Now, she gets cucumber again.

He tests the... Rock now against the wall. She needs to give it to us. SK again.

So this is basically the Wall Street protest that you see here. It's a monkey who gets cucumber. The one on the right is the one who gets grapes. The one who gets cucumber—note that the first piece of cucumber is perfectly fine. The first piece she eats, then sees the other one getting rock us. Great. So now, that was

the little film I wanted to show you, and I'm going to read it. Thank you, Lucas. And now I'm going to read what Franz Wall, who is a primatologist, said to Jorge Pactual on the Milênio program on Global News. I quote: "And if you think about the origin of morality, philosophers have written

entire books about the sense of justice and equity and explained why we have the sense, why we have a sense of justice. They say it's a construct. When I published this study, the philosophers were bothered and said: 'How can monkeys have a sense of justice?'" If justice is such an intelligent and complex cognitive concept,

philosophers never imagined that morality could, at its core, stem from certain emotions, as demonstrated by monkeys. And I believe that's how our human sense of justice works. We discovered that the chimpanzee who receives the grape sometimes refuses to accept it until the other chimpanzee also receives it. This comes very close to the human sense of

justice. We've reached a point where we no longer know if there are differences between the human sense of justice and that of chimpanzees. I quote here a comment of mine. It seems he forgot to mention David Hillman, right? And David Hinn already sensed that. So, what does neuroscience say about this issue of reason and morality?

One of the most influential studies ever conducted on difficult moral decisions , some of you may have already seen, was about the trolley problem. right? I think everyone must have heard of this by now, right? Joshua Green, who is also a moral philosopher and psychologist, conducted this experiment, this experiment involved posing the question

with an MRI scanner attached to the participants and asking them what they would do, whether they would activate this lever. It 's not about sacrificing one person to save five, and a variant of pushing one person off the top of the walkway, sacrificing that person to save five, that is, it placed these

people in front of these dilemmas and measured their brain activity. And then Joshua Green proposed that there is a dual functioning of the brain, right? So, in the study he published, he said the following: whoever thought it was right, whoever decided to sacrifice or not sacrifice one person to save five, right? He formulated

deontological judgments. right? And we've already mentioned the word deontology here, right? We should remember Kant, right? The philosopher of duty, right? And who decided to sacrifice five people? Uh, sacrifice one person to save five, right? Well, they formulated consequentialist judgments. You remember Benton's, right? To weigh, to weigh is the mathematical calculation, right, between pain

and pleasure. And Joshua Green, then, verified that precisely in the decision where the person had to push the other person off the walkway, the resonance activated an area of the brain that is the emotional brain, known as the amygdala, right? It was as if he, he, he says, it's as if the brain, uh,

as if the mygdala were screaming inside the person. That's wrong, isn't it? So what did he conclude? He concluded that people who hold these deontological judgments are much more driven by emotional reactions that are rationalized and processed afterwards, and that those who make consequentialist judgments are engaging the prefrontal cortex more, right? And he was heavily criticized for that,

Joshua Green. Why? Uh, he wrote an article called " Kant's Secret Joke of the Soul," right? So, basically, I'm proposing the following: those who formulate these deontological judgments, right, and are guided by the categorical imperative, are effectively, let's say, more driven by emotion and subsequent rationalizations. Well, and the other extremely important contribution

that I, at least, consider—I think everyone considers the most important—in neuroscience is from a neurologist and neuroscientist named António Damasio. Antônio Damáio had patients who suffered brain injuries. Uh, either an injury from an accident, one from an accident and the other from surgery, right? And they had an impact in that area, which is the area

responsible for emotions. And he discovered the following: these people were no longer able to make decisions. They simply retained their intelligence, memory, language, and functionality, but they couldn't make up their minds . Just to illustrate, he had a patient who was one of those whose secretary would call him and say, "Well, I'm available Tuesday or Thursday, at

2 or 3 pm." He would look at his calendar and reply, "I have it, I can do any of the days, yes, but what's best for you?" He couldn't decide. He ended up losing his marriage, he lost his job, he lost everything. And his IQ was extremely high. Why? The amygdala is responsible for doing this

, see? prioritization. In other words, Damá discovered that the problem isn't an excess of emotions, the problem is a lack of emotions, right? Without feeling, you don't make decisions. Point. He proved it, didn't he? So, and this is interesting, his book is called Descartes' Error , right? Why? He's going to say this: that phrase "I think, therefore I

am, is a mistake," right? Because thinking isn't enough , right? It 's not enough. You need to feel it. Ah, good. So, uh, and then I reflect, uh, here, you know, that feeling is necessary, right? So, how do we actually do it? How do we use this feeling well and prevent emotions from becoming a

pathology of reason, as Crisípula says, right? the historical philosopher, the father of propositional logic. So here I bring to you the psychoanalytic theory of Albert Eiserang, who is a little-known philosopher of law . I discovered him recently. Oh, okay, I just discovered him recently. And he says the following, he says that law exists to

regulate emotions. Law is a channel for emotions, isn't it? So, you see, when we think about normative categories— obligatory, forbidden—what emotions do you think underpin, and effectively give efficacy, psychological and social efficacy to these categories? Fear, the fear of punishment, isn't it? Ah, trust, right? Trust gives you the assurance that the rules will be followed, that there will be

legal certainty, right? So you see the importance and the shame, talking about shame here, right? Embarrassing, disapproved, right? All of this leads to, uh, the adoption of compliance with the rules, right? And the right exists, right? Well, so for centuries, emotions have been described in law as irrationality, bias, and preference, right? When we

say things like, "Oh, that's very subjective, we're talking about preferences," right? But ultimately, we're talking about emotions, right? And the jusnalist theory, which is... oops, and the jusnalist theory, which is... talks a lot about practical reason, oh my God, talks a lot about practical reason or phróises, phróises, which is linked to wisdom, to

virtue. So, uh, I wanted to tell you all that I think it 's very likely that Kelsen wrote the pure theory of law based, uh, probably on impulses, right , based, uh, uh, uh, on, uh, eliminating, right, morality, justice, and all that question of emotions. Why? These aren't options of the human mind, right?

And Albert Eis said, right, that he thought the dispute between positivism and legalism effectively tries to avoid this problem of emotionality, right? Well, ultimately a facade of rationality is necessary to hide the terrifying, truly terrifying fact that the law is decided by the emotions of the judges. I 'm not the one saying this; it was said

by Jerome Frank, a philosopher-judge of legal realism, who said this in the 1930s. He said: "Look, justice depends on what the judge had for breakfast," right? And he also said, you know, that these written sentences are disguises for what are disguises for decisions made by the gut or the heart of the judge, right? So, when

he says that, John Frank, this realist of legal realism, this philosopher of legal realism, he's criticizing the legal syllogism, the legal formalism, which says that the sentence is a result. Hey, you don't want to pass it to me, do you? I don't know. Okay, this is taking up a lot of my time. Oh, move on to the

next one, please. And that. Excellent. So he's criticizing this legal syllogism, right? This idea that the sentence is the result of a major premise, which is the minor premise, right? And that leads to the conclusion, which is the sentence, right? He will say that first comes the conclusion, and second and thirdly, it is decided which is the norm

and which is the relevant fact. So he's going to say that there's a circularity, right, where there's no neutrality. Why is n't there neutrality, right? The judge has to choose the applicable rule, but to do so he has to choose the relevant facts. So, you see, emotions are at play here, the judge's beliefs and values are at play here, right? So, there

is no neutrality and, effectively, that 's what happens, right? Emotions influence the choice of norms, they influence the weighing of factors, the aceological gaps, the balancing of factors, equity, and they are linked to law and justice. So, what does neuroscience say about justice? Could you pass it to me, please? Well, a study was conducted with

265 people and it revealed the following: that emotions are a necessary condition for... for sensitivity to justice, right? But emotions aren't enough. Why? You have to rely on reasoning, right? Analytical reasoning, understanding intentions, and above all, you have to rely on perspective, right? Why? Basically, he's saying this: it's not enough to have the

kind of empathy that's contagious, emotional empathy; you also need cognitive empathy. Without this, you cannot impart justice and you cannot impart equity. You can't, uh, uh get to that, can you? And here's the psychopathy, which you should be able to conclude, right? It's a complete lack of sensitivity to justice. Okay, so, in

short, uh, I'm going to read this because there are only 2 minutes left. In short, we learned today that without emotions it's impossible to make decisions, because emotions serve for prioritization, motivation, and assigning relevance. They are cognitive interpretations of reality; they are, or can be, flawed logical judgments, right? These judgments can be

dogmatic and hasty , right? Well, these are expressions of approval, disapproval, and means of persuasion. These are subjective preferences, moral compasses. Therefore, no legal professional should be blind to emotions, least of all judges, because the legitimacy of a decision requires distinguishing between legally legitimate emotions—that is, not all emotions are legitimate for making decisions—and

those that compromise impartiality. So, notice here that I found a little drawing of Justice kind of taking off her blindfold, right? Eh, eh, to realize that, right? This is the exercise that needs to be done. So, the challenge becomes introspection, right? And we talked about this here in introspection in 2013, to examine and

identify these emotional intuitions or preferences and subject them to scrutiny or, uh, transform them into public criteria, something essential for judicial legitimacy, right? Ready. Just two more minutes, please. It is something that is essential for judicial legitimacy, whether the decision is made by a human or by artificial intelligence. And then we can

talk more later. And Dorkin himself, to Dorking, a philosopher you may have heard of, when speaking about the ideal judge called Hercules, said, and I quote, "the judge must not refuse to uncover the hidden structure of his reasoning, of his judgments, nor refuse to submit them to public scrutiny." Closing quotation marks. And

my doctoral research is somewhat about that, about a method by Ricardo, Dr. Ricardo Gemburg, whom you met at the beginning of the semester, about a method for transforming these preferences into public criteria. And I'll give you a very quick example. Suppose there is a judge who systematically rules in favor of vulnerable elderly people

. There are two possibilities here. Either he has a hidden emotional reasoning that these applicants remind him of his grandparents, or there's an explicit criterion of age, dependency, and combined vulnerabilities that causes this judge to always determine greater protection for them, right? The results may coincide, but only the second case can be

examined, debated, corrected, and reproduced consistently, and perhaps implemented in artificial intelligence. The problem is not whether the judge felt compassion, but whether compassion can be translated into an explicit criterion for justifying similar cases. So I'll make one last, practical suggestion. We all need to have more emotional intelligence, much more, right? To have that ability that

Crisipo speaks of, to examine. The truth or falsehood of appearances, right? And doing that introspective stuff, is n't it? Okay, if you can stop by and then we'll... I'll... raffle off 20 emotional intelligence tests. You can go through. Hey, can you do it? I think there's one more. You're not managing it either, are you? Well, it's

a test that's like a map, it's a psychometric test that I think everyone should take. This introspection, you can do it using the Chrysippus method in analysis, therapy, CBT, whatever, right? But a psychometric test is a map, right? Which shows you where you are. For example, this one here, which is the one we're going to

draw, will show you the brain profile of your processing of emotional and rational data, right? So, for example, this person, their brain, their focus is more on the emotional side. So, when she goes into places, in everything she's doing, she's guided by emotion, right? Her decisions, she's more of an evaluator than an innovator, you know.

right? This person, her motivation, is practical and not idealistic; that is, she is more, probably more consequentialist and less Cantian, less ideological, right? You can see that she's been challenged, right? Her self-awareness is low; she can't identify her own emotions, she can't recognize her own patterns, right? You have difficulty reflecting on the consequences, don't you? So this could be

harmful to anyone, huh? For a lawyer, and even more so for a mediator . As for judges, let's not even talk about them. But I 'm sure judges don't reflect on the consequences. I'm sure of it. Oh, and here's how to improve empathy. This person has extremely low empathy, don't they? So we have to analyze whether empathy is

cognitive in nature or if it runs the risk of emotional contagion, right? So here's my contribution to you all. Thank you very much and until next time.

Thank you, Dr. Helen Balde. We will continue.

Congratulations, Dr. Helen. It was great to hear her. I will immediately hand the floor over to Judge Quitéria Tamanini Vieira. Could it be? Thanks. Thanks.

Now again. Good evening, my dear friends. What a significant moment this is that we are experiencing! It could have been any night, a Wednesday, a Thursday, a rainy night, but it's not just any night in that we all had a common reason for being here. And today is , in some way, part of

each of your histories, because we are talking about the inaugural lecture, which is the opening lecture of the law course at UNIACELV. And if it's part of your story, it's part of my story too, because I chose to be here. So, in this way, speaking about the importance of the moment and the symbols themselves in our

lives, because I believe that time will pass and who knows, one day you might look back and say: "Remember that day when we were in the SMESC auditorium and we reflected on aspects like today, on the human face of justice?" I hope that at some point in your lives, this snapshot of the

moment, of the instant we are living now, will come to you, because life is that, it's a sum of instants. But so, I begin by thanking you for the opportunity to be here, and I thank Professor Dilsa for extending the invitation. It's a thank you that goes to all of SMESC and naturally to

all of UNIAELV as well, and any other institution that is here, because I know that other institutions also accompany us in some way. So, I thank Rector Valdecir, uh, Professor, it's a pleasure to have you here, and it's a great honor for SMESC to weave its history with this thread that unites so many students from

different institutions, because the institution is a place through which we pass... A part of our lives is a journey, a period, an extremely important path that shapes us, impacts us, transforms us, modifies us as human beings to become professionals. But after it come other institutions, other people, other stories, other challenges, and SMESC

is here with open doors to perhaps welcome you along your journey with the other challenges that may come. I especially greet Professor Helen, who spoke to us about so many exciting topics that lead us, that induce us to a desire to study more, to read, to revisit this subject, that awaken curiosity, because

neuroscience and all this knowledge applied to the philosophy of law speaks about us, not about them, not about others. We are not talking about them, the judges. And don't say : "Ah, but you are a judge." I am also judged; I am a citizen; I am part of the same society. So all of this speaks to us,

regardless of whether we occupy different places, but these places are also transitory. And how good that is , how good that life is made of movement. I, for example, uh, today when I was visualizing the moment of coming here, I remembered when I began my journey as an academic. I was a 15-year-old girl when I started studying

law. In this case, it was at FURB, in Blumenau, without knowing exactly what I wanted, I wasn't very sure, but I knew what bothered me. This pain caused by injustice was something that bothered me. And then, based on that, I carefully considered whether that was exactly what I wanted. And from the moment I found myself

involved not only in the study of laws, but also in the study of the impact of laws on the lives of citizens and human beings, which is us, I said, I think this is the way to go. I also want to begin by thanking and greeting Professor Gisele, who is with us and who is mediating and

who will allow us to weave together some ideas at the end. My friends, this is a very exciting topic. Talking about this, for me, is like inviting me for coffee, sitting down, and chatting. And Professor Valdecir said here, oh, it wasn't Professor Valdecir, it was Judge Maurício who said in his speech that

only you, the students, can transform this space into a vibrant space of knowledge. So, in order for this to be a vibrant space, I invite everyone to feel very comfortable. And when I say everyone, I mean everyone who is here, everyone who is watching us, because this moment is being broadcast, so we

also have people watching us remotely, which shows the power of technology, and how good that is. So I leave everyone very comfortable to raise their hand at any point during my speech, ask a question, say something that's on their mind, in short, write something in the comments, and if anyone can follow the

comments on the YouTube broadcast to eventually send me a question, I would appreciate it. And why am I saying this? Because when I read my resume it said: "Graduated in law and psychology". Yes, I went to study psychology and started at 48 years old, which proves that it's never too late when your

family says, "But what are you doing? Why are you doing this?" And with many people questioning it, and me now that I've finished, I can say that it was a wonderful 5 years in which the theme of being human was paramount, everything mattered. And with a certain maturity, life seems to clear our lenses, and the

issues become even more important. So, she was a psychology academic who, when she talked about marriage, I would say, oops, when she talked about teenagers, when she talked about suicide, when she talked about death, when she talked about conflict. So I don't even need to say it, because it's in this field of conflict that

I've chosen to work. And that's why I went to study psychology, because within my career I understood that simply applying the law to a specific case wasn't enough to minimally ensure that the people affected by that decision felt justice. And I say this because after a sound like that, did you hear it?

It seems like there needs to be some silence. It is a silence of greeting. It is a silence of obedience. And I'm not here to say that we won't obey. No. There are times when justice needs to be done this way. Yes, by imposing a decision, but the path from where I am to the use of the

gavel, that is, the imposition of an obligation through a judgment, doesn't have to be so short. This path may be somewhat longer, allowing for other alternatives to take place. And then someone will say, "Oh, is she going to talk about mediation?" Yes, I'm going to talk about mediation because it's through mediation , which is nothing more than a

way to promote constructive conflict management, that people are ensured to take ownership of their own story. People are invited to look inward and identify what they feel so that, based on what they feel, they can express what they want, so that the other person hears it, but not only what the person wants, so that the other person

hears it for them. I'm talking about dialogue. This is what happens when words circulate among people, but it's no use for words to circulate if there's no one to listen. Not just listening. Hearing seems very mechanical as a human sense, does n't it? In the sense of listening and caring about what is being

said. And here comes a very important question, because we are talking about conflicts, and we are not only talking about the conflicts that reach the judiciary, since that's only a small percentage of them . I would like to talk to you about conflicts in general, about that conflict that you may be experiencing right now at home,

at work, or with a friend. Life is made up of them, and conflicts arise with a purpose. I hope we take this opportunity to learn something from them. But the question remains: are we caring about what the other person feels, what they want, and why they want it? Are we also expressing what matters to us?

This field of conflict mediation is directly related to feeling, but judging is not separate from it. So, when I found myself talking about human behavior, about human feelings, especially when I was teaching or lecturing on mediation, I thought: "Whoa, this is unsafe territory for me. I come from the academic world of law. I understand

very little about human beings, very little indeed. Today we even have a few subjects, one or two, that talk about psychology applied to law, but it's so little. I hope this serves to encourage us to try to understand a little more about human beings. Because if it's not to understand human beings, if it's not to

care about human beings, I ask: "What are we doing here in the justice system, where we chose to be?" "Each of you chose to be here." When I talk about the justice system, I 'm not just thinking about the judiciary; I'm thinking about the system as a whole. This includes universities, police stations, the

judiciary, lawyers, the Public Prosecutor's Office—in short, all the professionals who directly or indirectly are part of this system. Mediators are included as well. So, not dissociating this from the essence of being human is the perspective I bring to you. And about the human face of justice, ah, where's the passer? Thank you. Regarding the human face of justice,

I bring, I bring first a poem, because nothing starts with them, right? Have you noticed that poets give us the opportunity to think beyond and the lightness usually in the way we access thoughts, feelings, and perceptions sometimes marked by anguish, pain, and sadness? And poetry can access all these feelings. But look at what makes

poetry beautiful, just like art. I could be talking about a... The work, of a great painting, but here I'm talking about poetry, is the role of the interpreter. In fact, the other day I was in front of a painter and I asked him what he wanted to express in that work. And since he was

a familiar painter, someone very close to the family, a cousin, he said that everyone asks me this, I don't even know how to answer, but that doesn't matter. What matters is what the person feels when they look at the work. And then he asked: "What do you feel?" That, for him, was the most important thing.

So, poetry and art in general, it reaches us through interpretation. But I say all this because it's very natural to think that poetry is interpretation. So I want to bring to you something I learned from psychology when I say that everything is interpretation, absolutely everything. Our first glance at someone is interpretation, the first reading of a norm, the

interpretation of a doctrine, someone's countenance, the tone of voice that person uses, everything is interpretation. So, considering that everything, including poetry, is interpretation, I begin with Carlos Durmão... Andrade, who says that laws are not enough, lilies don't grow from laws. We couldn't live with laws alone. And with laws, we also couldn't live with

imposed decisions, with handcuffs, with bars, with punishments, with the sound of the key locking the prison, with limitations, with expressions like "I am guilty of," "I decree," "I condemn." Is this world important? I've already said yes. But it takes away our air, it takes away our freedom, and we, to the fullest extent,

need this autonomy to be who we are in our fullness. Of course, the law comes in bringing this rigor when necessary. And the reflection I bring to you is that beyond the law, we need more, because lilies don't grow from laws. Acceptance doesn't grow from laws. The way we position ourselves in front of

the people who come to us seeking professional help, that way doesn't grow from laws. I would like , in a very quick moment, to ask you, to ask you to simply speak aloud to Perhaps those who are following us can also hear, or say something and I'll repeat it, uh, in a very quick exercise. When you

think of justice today, what is the first word that comes to your mind? Be faithful. The first word is order, judge, forgiveness, prison, justice, humanity, equality, prosperity, order of a society. Anyone else? Decision. You saw how there's a difficult tone, we talked about prison, right? We talked about difficulties, but there's also a

positive perspective. And many words came in that sense, humanity, prosperity. And then I would ask you, who among you has ever shaken hands with the judiciary? I, who have been in the judiciary for 27 years , have never shaken hands with the judiciary. Do you know why? Because the most I can do is shake hands with the

president of the Court of Justice. In other words, it is we, humans, who bring, who give meaning to all this expectation placed on institutions and who have the opportunity to give an answer to society with one word or another, it will always depend on us. And then, uh, speaking of this The human being that

dwells within us, I would like to think aloud about some aspects with you all, and, as I said, I leave everyone very welcome to raise their hand and participate whenever they wish . And I was going to make a comment when I said that and I ended up forgetting. If you ask me,

Quitéria, what was the most important thing you learned in your five years of psychology studies ? I would tell you, speak. Speak. Freud was right when he said that everything we don't say makes us sick. So, being invited here today to think aloud, to talk with you about the human face of justice

reminds me that this first tip for healthy emotional and psychological survival, which is to speak, is something that demands a lot from us, because let's face it, either I'm wrong or we haven't been speaking much. Speaking little really means putting yourself in front of someone you care about. It could be our partner, a child, a

friend, or a stranger, in short, someone, a client, a teacher, a classmate, and so on. It's important to listen to what he wants to say. How many times have you been in front of someone intending to ask for a chance to talk, but the person was in such a hurry that you thought: "No, never mind." And it's not for nothing that we

go through the world and the world asks: "Are you okay?" And we say, "Yes, that's fine. Wow, it's raining today," right? And we know that many times things are not okay. I know that we're not going to open our hearts to just anyone and tell them how we really feel. But the question is: is there anyone,

or a few people, to whom you can tell how you truly feel? There are certainly many people around you . I, for example, have many, uh, I don't know , followers, we could talk about that, but sometimes I feel lonely, sometimes I don't know who to talk to. Ah, but I go to therapy and it's

very good, it's very important, because in therapy we have the opportunity to say everything we really feel, right? without any fear of being judged. But therapy isn't just what happens in those 60 minutes we're there; it's what happens between sessions. So, what am I doing between sessions to extend these human connections ?

So, my friends, when we talk about human stories, I want to tell you that this is our subject matter. Our subject matter is not the case numbers of the proceedings that will pass through your hands, as lawyers, as judges, as prosecutors. No. People don't just want to know how many cases you have in your office if

you're a judge, or how many clients you have. The people who pass through your life's story, the people whose stories intertwine with yours, expect to be much more than just a number. But to do that, you need to cultivate, right from the start, the human capacity to care and listen, because in today's context, we do

that less and less. And if I think about a legal process, oh my God, the person who is going through a problem, seeks a lawyer, narrates everything they feel. The lawyer filters, because he has typically learned in academia how to compose a logical syllogism to determine what the facts are. Based on these, he

will formulate his claim and take it to the judiciary, which will summon another person, who will then present their defense. Look, the defense is already defending itself against everything the other person said. We're talking about a real attack. It's a fighting system. If it weren't such a system of confrontation and struggle, the

CPC, the new CPC, which isn't so new anymore , right, from 2015, it came saying that in mediation sessions in the family field, the defendant should not receive that petition, the initial petition prepared by the lawyer, but would receive the summons without a copy. A counterfeit is the petition, a copy of the

initial petition made by the plaintiff's lawyer. Why? Because when you read it, anger as an emotion, hurt feelings, resentment, come to the surface, because many things may have been said there that could create an additional obstacle in the moment that follows, which would be that of mediation. So, we've had a lot of difficulty

communicating, both in society and within the judicial process. So, that process has already gone through the initial petition, the defense, then the reply, until it reaches the hearing stage. And I remind you that a large number of cases are judged without a hearing. This is what we call a premature judgment on the merits. But

some people do have a system where, when oral evidence is required, we'll have a hearing there. Between the day that the citizen, Mr. Pedro, sought out the lawyer, explaining his feelings, his desires, and what led to the lawsuit, and the day he sits before the judge, some time will have passed. To be very optimistic, that

past will have been around for about 9 months, 1 year, 2 years, some time. So I ask, who were you 9 months ago, a year ago, 2 years ago? We are different every day when we wake up . We are not the same as we were yesterday. Thank God. That's good . Even your Pedro and Manuel,

when they sit before a judge, so long after filing the lawsuit, they are not the same. Hopefully, the judge will have the sensitivity to open the hearing by asking him, "Mr. João, you filed this lawsuit on such and such a date, requesting such and such things, but what do you truly expect from this

lawsuit today?" He might be surprised. As I often saw when I was still a judge at the first instance, the person would look at the lawyer and say, "May I speak? May I respond?" Folks, we're there for them, because of them. He is the citizen, he is the one subject to the jurisdiction. Of course he can

speak. And I will wait, watching attentively with a respectful gaze, so that he feels he can take a deep breath and speak. Because if I'm in a hurry, I'll say, "Well, Mr. John, do you have it?" "Ah, sir, you don't have a proposal, so let's hear from the first witness." I can act like that too.

In fact, in terms of possibilities, we can act in different ways, but the person who enters a courtroom— which is just the example I 'm giving here—senses whether they are being treated with humanity or whether the judge is in a hurry. The rush, I need to talk about the rush. And that's why I brought an

hourglass, because if there's one thing that has affected me while studying psychology, studying about human beings, it's time. Many things have affected me, but time in particular, because it is finite. Here I can wait for it to end and turn around and turn around again, but my time is finite. He will pass. And as I said, we

are different every day. Today, at 54 years old, I am not the same person anymore. When I was 15 years old and started my law degree, when I was 48 years old and started my psychology degree. And I remember that when I wanted to start, my husband didn't really agree. And then I asked him, "So what do

you suggest?" Then he said, "Maybe you could wait until your daughter graduates and then you can start." And I did the math, I would be over 60 years old. I don't know if I would have studied psychology; that was my time, my moment. And I think I became a better mother, a better judge.

Finally, the children said they noticed a great transformation. And the importance of time came from the interest in studying death, right? Death speaks of finitude, but not in a funereal sense. It is death that reminds us that all of this will come to an end. So my thesis was about education for death, but an education for death that

reminds us that we are alive and that time is happening now. Why did I bring all this? Because we have acted too hastily. And acting in such a hurry, having so many lines on the same page of that day's agenda, squeezing appointments between one line and another, we wake up already feeling like we're

running late, we eat lunch in a rush. The little free time we have, if we pick up our phones and look at social media, will only make us more anxious. If you open WhatsApp, you'll have five more problems on top of the 15 you already had. And everything is very immediate, because if you don't respond

right away, the person gets hurt because it seems like you didn't care about them. Do you understand? It's a logic of speed that disconnects us from ourselves and from others as well. I need to talk about this because when we live in a rush, first I want to say, time will continue in the

same proportion, 24 hours a day, 60 minutes an hour. The proportion of time, right? The timing will not change. But if we live in too much of a hurry, time continues to pass at that same pace. But we're either going to die sooner because of anxiety, carelessness when crossing the street, and other problems that we know

can happen because of stress and burnout. I could list countless problems here for you all. Or we'll reach 80 , 90 years old, but without much of a story to tell, because we passed through life so quickly that we didn't really live. So, if I have chosen to deal with human conflict, I feel that this

human connection is important to me. If I were to choose to work within the judicial system, I would feel that caring about each and every person under its jurisdiction makes all the difference. This isn't about attending to some old man who knocked on my door, hadn't made an appointment, but wanted to speak with the

judge. That's not what's going to cause my productivity to decrease. And we see professionals who sometimes hesitate to accept payment and so on. And I am very pleased to receive it, and of course, I won't be able to say anything because he has to talk to his lawyer. So I just listen. Mr. João enters, and I say, "Mr. João,

I am the judge in your case. What would you like?" "Ah, Madam Judge, I wanted to tell you that this, that this, that this , that this, that this, that this." And he tells the story. And then I listen attentively and afterwards I say: "Mr. João, you know that as a judge I can't tell you

anything, that you need to talk to your lawyer, but I only received you because you were here." The person immediately says: "I know, doctor, I know, I understand perfectly. I just wanted you to listen to me. Remember when I said that not speaking makes you sick? Imagine that in a courtroom setting. Luiz is giving a personal statement and asking

questions, and I used to be that judge, okay? I would go to the courtroom having studied the case, logically I knew which issues in that case needed to be resolved. Then, since no agreement had been reached, I was already in the testimony-gathering phase, I was there in front of Mr. Manuel, and I asked Mr. Manuel

a question, and he gave an answer that took a longer route. I used to be the judge who, with all due respect—and I thought I was being kind, polite, anyway—I would say: "Oh, Mr. Manuel, uh, I understand that you want to address this, but now, at this moment, I ask that you answer

my question." I asked him such and such . It's as if I wanted to say yes or no, did you see or didn't you see? People, if I When people ask me what changed after I understood a little more about human beings, it was that I never interrupt someone who is speaking and I

understand that each word carries with it the importance of having been spoken. And then my husband suffers because, poor thing, sometimes a word he has an intention for, maybe he didn't even have one, I don't know what he was thinking with it, but for me it has a huge meaning. I'll give you an example. The other day the

big trash can we had at home was broken, and he put it out on the sidewalk for the garbage collectors to take. And the garbage collectors took the trash and didn't take the trash, the big trash can that was supposed to be taken, but they didn't take it. Of course, they interpreted it as

just the trash can, one of those big ones, but it was broken and all that. And the garbage collectors never took it. So he went there and wrote: "Retired, taken." When I saw that, I said: "No, Adriano, no." This means that retirement is a phase of life. The garbage collector may be retired, but I, for

example, will retire to pursue several other projects. So, words matter. of utmost importance. So, when I talk about speed, it's to remind you that there's no way to walk through life with sensitivity, neither with ourselves nor with others, by acting too fast. And people seem to be in a frantic hurry to get somewhere they don't even

know exactly where that place might be. Much more important than the speed at which we live. I prefer to talk about the direction. So, I really like to contrast the clock, which symbolizes time and direction. Because when you're heading in the right direction, speed doesn't matter, you'll get there. And what should be

the right pace of life to live without losing that sensitivity? which is what we are discussing. Your speed. There is no right answer to that. It's a speed that allows you to look at someone you're greeting and realize that maybe that person wants to talk. that allows you to be at the dinner table

with your loved one, without the anxiety of knowing what is happening in the world or what people are saying about what is happening in the world, but caring enough to listen to what they have to say. Because, my friends, it 's real-life experience, the kind you're seeing in this film, that features elderly people, children, couples, and

women. Well, it's this film that fades from one photo to the next, portraying the passing of years in our lives. I, with almost 30 years of experience as a magistrate, am here in court today, and it was said, look, who knows, maybe you'll get there, you'll get there if you want to, you won't get there if you don't want to,

right? It's a decision we make to move forward. The important thing is not to give up, but to stay on the right track. Because we know the path isn't easy, it's marked by a lot of pain. And answering the question that Professor Helen asked when she said: "If they judge, they constitute." And then they read my resume, remember?

They said, "Oh, she has such and such postgraduate degrees, a master's degree, a book." They didn't mention that I have four children. Four children. Today, all adults. It's a new phase of my life. Leaving home, the empty nest. I live in Florianópolis, they live in São Paulo, Paraná, Santa Catarina, and Rio Grande do Sul. The four of them are divided

among the four states. They did n't mention that I closely followed the situation , the illness with Alzheimer's and everything that this disease involves, of a person who was like a mother to me, who raised me, who was very humble, illiterate, but was the person who did everything she could so that I could study, who gave me the main

lessons of empathy, humanity, and caring. They did n't mention that I had obesity problems in my family, for example, with bariatric surgeries. Why am I saying this? Because today I am a judge—I haven't even gotten used to that expression yet, but anyway. I say that I am a judge, because I think not It doesn't matter where you

are, the competition I took was this one. And when I open a case, I read stories there that somehow connect with mine. So, if someone talks about neutrality, I'll say they've gone crazy. Because, people, when we are born, we already carry genetically a historical burden from our ancestors. The way we are born, the world

we arrive in, another burden. The expectations they had of us, another. The historical moment in which we spent our childhood, our adolescence, what we saw, what we suffered, the tears we cried, the lacks we felt, all of that has constituted us. So, having gone through the judiciary, having faced the challenges specific to

women in the job market. There are so many experiences as a mother, as the daughter who cared for a sick mother and who often, for example, to take her from where she was to a medical appointment, people don't imagine the work that is, assembling, preparing the person, disassembling the wheelchair, putting it in the

back seat. From the car, find a place where you can park the car, bring the wheelchair, pick her up, put her in the wheelchair, find a sidewalk that allows you to proceed with the wheelchair, close the car and go. I didn't say if it was raining, I didn't say if I had bags to carry,

but I remember the day I took all this care and arriving in front of a doctor, the mother was going to an appointment, the doctor looked at her and said: "Ah, you are Mrs. Altamira?" "What do you want, ma'am?" My heart stopped at that moment. She didn't understand what it meant for us to be

there. And I'm giving an example of a completely unempathetic service. She was practically asking us, "What do you want a prescription for? What's your problem?" This same experience can be replicated in the judiciary, in law firms, in classrooms, in all spaces where humans circulate. And I like to bring flashes of our history to show that all of this

shapes us. So, it is with great pride that I look at my history, remembering the chapters I've lived through, and I understand why I have sensitivity when I see a case involving elderly people. Today, for example, we have a very serious problem in society, and it is reflected in the judiciary, which are the scams

related to loan agreements. The elderly person doesn't receive a payslip; they only know how much was credited to their account, and they are unaware that there were one, two, three, five contracts there, and soon the amount decreases before they realize it, and for that reason... He needs to retrieve his payslip, which is incredibly difficult

because he has to download my INSS (Brazilian Social Security Institute) information, and for that, he needs the GOL (Brazilian Social Security Number). I tried to do it for my mother, and it was incredibly complicated. Imagine the difficulty a simple, layperson has with this, because there are no more NSS service centers ; everything has gone virtual. So

, when these cases reach me, I need to understand this reality so I can be in front of my peers, for example, in the Chamber where I work, to say: "People, those R$100 that were taken from someone who earned R$900 or R$1,000, it means much more than taking R$1,000 from someone who earns R$1,000

." much more, because someone who earns R$ 1,000 can only afford to pay for their own living expenses. For someone who earns so little, anything you take away, even if it's just R$ 50, will be missed when it comes to buying food, bread, or anything else. So, we can't minimize someone else's problem

from our own perspective. I need to seek out and experience other perspectives. And the best way to experience other perspectives is to walk through life slowly, to take the time to look people in the eye , to care about someone who is speaking while they are speaking, and to give yourself the opportunity to express what you feel. It's

a type of training that we do. There are no breathing exercises that we also breathe very poorly with. Our anxiety stems largely from this as well. We breathe here, you know? And that's why we breathe so badly. Our breathing should be abdominal, diaphragmatic, but we don't normally do that. And why am I

talking about breathing? Because there's a systemic psychologist I greatly admire, Virginia Satir, who says that communication is to human relationships what breathing is to life. We cannot live without breath. We start to run out of breath, and the first thing that ends is... well, you know? Because when the heart stops, the first thing we think is, "

He was breathing, he stopped breathing, he died, the time of this human story is over ." Communication does the same for relationships. When a marriage ends, it's because dialogue didn't take place there. It is because I don't have the opportunity to talk about what I feel that I see marriages ending, business partnerships

collapsing, and wars happening around the world. So I'm talking about air, but the air of the word that allows us to live together better in society. And now, as we're nearing the end, I want to tell you—this is a phrase from my book, and I think it makes a lot of sense—because we talked about life

as a succession of steps, like a long journey. Much more than a path, peace translates into a way of walking. I desire a way of walking lightly, serenely, that doesn't rush life, but allows you to absorb life, to savor life. Tasting food is different. And you can savor life in simple moments, while you have coffee with

a friend. You can savor life while you're sitting in the classroom, next to a classmate, taking lessons with a teacher you admire so much. But what you can't do is throw life away and fail to savor it, because while you pay attention to life, you are building the professional you will be tomorrow.

And I talked about the phases of my life to discuss the elderly, but I also wanted to give an example, which is that of bariatric surgery. Recently in court we have encountered several cases in which the person underwent bariatric surgery and after a while, having lost a lot of weight, usually 50 or 60 kg, they need to have

cosmetic surgery. And then she asks for it, and in some cases the health insurance plan denies it. How sensitive should I be in a situation like this? I need to understand that psychological report. When the person said something like , for example, "It seems to me that I haven't had bariatric surgery." I lost weight, I

lost 50 kg, but I still feel like I did before, because of course, the effect of sagging skin remains, there are several effects that in some situations continue to cause emotional pain, distress, and physical and clinical problems as well. But I need to have that perspective on it. I need to be sensitive to the pain of others, I

need to be sensitive to others. That's the quote from Virginia that I mentioned. And now, uh, I'm going to invite you all to do a quick exercise so we can wrap up this evening. And for that, uh, if someone could dim the lights in the room for a little while, I'd like to invite you all to pay a

visit to yourselves. Yes, this day wasn't born, today wasn't meant to be just any day. So now, we who speak of haste, we who speak of emotions, we who speak of human suffering, we will be, putting myself in your place, and I already am, the professionals who will receive these people bringing narratives of their

stories. We need to be connected with ourselves. This is urgent. So now, for a moment, I invite you to sit comfortably, close your eyes, and breathe deeply and slowly, at least twice.

Deep down, it's an exercise in connecting with life. Right now, this is a wake-up call, because most likely many of you haven't done this in a long time. So, now with your eyes still closed, I invite you to remember the day you learned you would have this meeting, a meeting that would take place at SMESC.

On a Thursday night, when someone would come to talk to you, some people would talk about sensitivity when judging. Yes, at this point in your life you are either beginning or already well advanced in the course you chose, which is law, and only you know the reasons why you made that choice. This

is where I invite you to make an emotional record. Keep very close to yourself the reasons that led you to make this choice. You're going to need them. I assure you, coming from a professional experience, as I said, of many years, I assure you that in many difficult, challenging moments, where it seems that

we won't be able to cope, I look for these reasons and I find them, and they nourish me with what I need most. I may be using different words, but that's what gives meaning to the purpose. So, I want to invite you now to connect with the reasons that led you to make this choice and to understand that

you are in the middle of this journey called life and you know where you are going. Today you received a warning: be careful with your speed. Pay much more attention to direction and realize that life is happening now, while each of us is making plans for the future. The future is an illusion. The only certainty we

have is the present. The phrase I just quoted was said by John Lennon, who left us a wonderful artistic legacy. And now, in your own time, take a deep breath, be kind to yourself, I invite you to open your eyes, but remember to be kind to yourself, because when we aren't kind to ourselves,

we can't be kind to others either. We are mirrors all the time, and we feed off the other mirrors that pass before us. Of course, I'm referring to other humans whose stories intersect with our own. Well, my friends, after this necessary moment of introspection, I don't think I can move on. That's okay.

Oops, no, no, I think there was something before, but it's okay. No, it didn't have any. That's exactly right. I conclude this moment by thanking you, thanking you very much for every instant you dedicated to yourselves, not to me, not to what I said, not to what others said, but to everything you

sowed in the field of your lives, because that is what will nourish each of you professionally with what you yourself will not need, but other people will. People who are involved in human conflicts, often vulnerable, and who are touched by conflict during difficult times in life, will benefit from what you offer, by being who

you truly are. Never stop being yourselves at your core, okay? There's an author I greatly admire in humanistic psychology, Carl Rogers, who says that only when I accept myself as I am, can I then change. He himself says: "Curious paradox, isn't it? So let's accept ourselves as we are so that we can evolve, but not so that we

can meet other people's expectations." I am, I have the discerning way of being a judge. You'll have your own way, Pedro, of being a lawyer; Mariana, of being a police chief; Joaquim, of being a judge; Paulo, of being an appeals court judge; and Antônio, of being a teacher. But don't stray from that essence

to meet someone else's expectations, because it's only when we are centered on who we are that we access our full potential. If I thought that coming here to talk to you meant that I should just sit there, motionless, because, well, that's what you expect from a judge—me talking about Freudian psychology here—I would

n't be being myself. So, being considerate, I present myself to you in this way, and I hope that each of you, throughout your lives, will present yourselves as you truly are. Yes, I believe John Lennon would have had much more hope if he looked to the future and understood that we are valuing

what is happening now. We do make plans for the future, yes, but we already figured out what he said. Life is what happens now. May this moment have been worthwhile. Thanks.

Doctor. Quitéria, I'm going to break protocol. I have been a collaborator here at MC, in SMESC, for 26 years. This is the moment that makes this journey extraordinary. Yes. Moments like this make all the difference. Congratulations, beautiful. As always, my dears, I am immensely grateful. We, I will invite, continuing, excuse me, I

will then invite our speakers to return to the table, and I also invite the moderator, Professor Gisele, please.

Professor Gisele, I'm going to leave you, I'm going to leave you both with Professor Dilsa, and at the end of the debates Professor Dilsa will need the floor to make some tributes. Thank you very much. Goodnight. It was a pleasure. Thanks. Well, good evening everyone, right? What can you say after a lecture like that, right? Well, I

appreciate the opportunity, I appreciate Selv, you know? SMES, which is also my home, right? Professor Dilsa's, always there for you, right? It's different from yours here, right? Most of them, right? My student is my student. Well, I only came into contact with that feeling during my postgraduate studies, only during my master's degree. And it was that person there, you know,

who brought that feeling into my life, you know, that's Professor Dilsa. Professor Dilsa was my professor during my master's degree and in my law degree, which is what we are all going through here, isn't it? I only had that contact much later, right? And I realize that many of you come to law school

precisely with this culture of litigation, and that's challenging, isn't it? Because, as a rule, we want to do justice, right? Herin commented. And that balance, right? It's precisely between judging and feeling, which is the theme of the lecture, that it comes very clearly, right, in the speech of Dr. Quitéria, right, the judge Quitéria, who for me is

a reference point, right? Helen was my student at UNISU a long time ago, right, Helen? So, for over 10 years we haven't liked talking about dates, you know, but I have here, right next to me, the beginning and the reference point in mediation, basically. And then Professor Disa looking at me, it 's really moving, isn't it, and so many

other people who are part of this journey. So, I am immensely grateful, and the challenge here is great for us to try to connect our thoughts so that you all leave with the same feeling. My desire was to stay there, you know, the doctor had told me to, you know, comment about the weather,

but I really didn't have the courage, you know, so there was no way, right? So, basically, I'd like to bring up a few points here, to connect these discussions. We can't go on too long because our time is also short, but precisely because we're here with undergraduate students at the beginning and end of their studies, right? So, we have people

leaving, people starting out, right? And the great challenge that I always perceive in the classroom is precisely the fact that, uh, in times of artificial intelligence, how to balance this feeling, you know, when judging, obviously, how to make this counterpoint, right? So I'd like to pass the word to our speakers so they can give a

brief talk on this subject. Yes, and if you have any questions, because we do have very little time, you know. For sure. It

would be very enriching to hear your questions. I would really like that. That. Let's go. We already have one hand raised. Remember not to let the word get stuck in your throat. Look what Freud said. First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude for the speeches by Doctors Helen and Gisele,

and also for the mediation by Professor Gisele. I thank my course coordinator, Professor Kina, uh, SMESK, for providing this moment. Those speeches from the two speakers were truly moving. Well, I'm from the 1970s generation, and back in the late 20th century you used to say that the scourge of the 20th century would be depression and the pains

of the soul, right? Just as in the 20th century, tuberculosis claimed the lives of a large number of writers and thinkers of that era. And indeed, this was confirmed. We're seeing that the largest number of absences we have in public and private companies is precisely due to depression or burnout; in short, teachers are constantly taking time off

because of this. This is confirmed, I believe, also in the judicial sphere. We sadly saw a judge this week drinking and smoking during a session, and he was removed from his position. Finally, we are certain that this also impacts the judiciary in a very forceful way regarding the issue of emotional pain. And you all spoke

brilliantly about it. Well, my question is this: how is this being addressed within these spaces, you know, where we, uh, I'm, sorry, I said my name, I said, right, Alexandre from the eighth semester, right, uh, in the law course. And how is this being addressed, not only in relation to the judiciary, but also in relation to our

category within the OAB (Brazilian Bar Association), within the SMESC (Municipal Secretariat of Education, Culture and Sports), because we need to be treated, I think from now on, as students, right? Because we're going to face a reality that will be very... uh, I do n't know if that's the right word, right? But it's oppressive in relation to what

we're going to face, we're going to decide about the affections of others, right? But what about our inner feelings, how are they ? So, that's really my question , right? How do you even think about dealing with this kind of situation, right? Thanks. No, I just wanted to congratulate you on the question, and I just wanted to

remind Alexandre of something Vará used to say, that before mediating for others, we need to learn to mediate for ourselves, right? So, I think that's a very important question, and I congratulate and highly value this humanistic education, this space. And I think that we have to have this concern and train ourselves and take care of ourselves, right,

before and during this process of attending to and dealing with the conflicts of others, because we have internal conflicts, we are mirrors, as the judge said, all the time. So, we ca n't be escalating conflicts, right? Well, we have to do something, right? Uh, to help mediate, to reconcile, right? So I hope that the Brazilian Bar Association (OAB),

law schools, judicial training schools, all of them, invest in humanistic education, self-knowledge, self-regulation, ethics, and self-direction. You're in that introspective phase, right? And I think that's it. The judge can give a... Thank you Alexandre for the question, and it gives me the opportunity to reflect on something that has been troubling me a lot, but I want to start

by saying that Gregory Batson is an anthropologist who developed several studies from which systemic psychology was born. He says that before speaking, before you even begin talking about anything, it's important to say how you're going to talk about it. Your question opens the door to two answers. I'll tell you which one I won't address. I

wouldn't want to say that the judiciary is actually responsible for, for example, psychological treatment, right, where when you get sick you bring a doctor's note and you take time off. This also happens in companies, where there are sectors within the judiciary to care for and support people who are going through problems of this

nature, including public servants, and there are various types of violence as well, such as violence against women. So, there are many engaged people within the institution who are looking out for the human aspect. And that's very positive, isn't it? When I say I don't want to talk about it, it's because I want to talk about something else. But the point

here is that there is a perspective on this. There are also many pharmacies. When you go home, try to see how many pharmacies you'll find along the way; I'm always amazed. Sometimes there are four on a street corner. And when I see that, I think, why is that ? They are being fueled by

a high consumption of medication. And we use pills to sleep, pills to wake up, pills to smile, pills, practically pills for everything. When would we find the answers in the field of human relationships? So, this is one of the answers. I would like to say that we need to change this reality, because if we

want to live in a different world, we can't keep doing the same things. And we continue doing the same things year after year, decade after decade . Today, for example, when we think about the judiciary, we see an escalation of lawsuits, statistics that are only increasing, and what are we doing? Producing more.

Then more come in; it's a machine, it has an input, which is what goes in, and an output, which is what comes out. For a judge to be considered even minimally responsible, he needs to produce at least what he was assigned. Because the internet and AI, which the professor mentioned, are so prevalent that the

numbers and statistics on judges' productivity are mirrored in real time. And the ombudsman's office, the presidency, all the CNJ bodies, they monitor this in real time. So, the judge knows that he needs to at least produce what was requested. Today, in a Civil Chamber, we receive an average of 400 cases. If I consider that there

are four weeks in a month, I would have to schedule 100 cases per week, but I also vote on cases involving two other judges. So, each week I would have to prepare 100 votes. and vote for 200. But that's not all I do. I also rule on many preliminary injunctions. There are many injunctions. I also participate in the

chambers group, I also receive lawyers and I also give lectures. I'm alive, I have children, I have a husband, I try to go to the gym, I try to have a life. But what I want to tell you is that as long as this input is this high, we're going to have to make

very quick judgments. And when I held the hourglass, I immediately remembered the anguish I've been discussing on my couch, uh, in the therapy I do, you know? The anxiety of judging too quickly. It's very distressing to judge quickly. It's the same as a teacher who loves their subject entering the classroom and saying, "You have 15 minutes to

talk about this topic; imagine preliminary injunctions in health situations. Look at the richness of this subject. You have 15 minutes to address it." I've been comparing it to a dancer. Recently I saw a video about dance, and I found the dance, the movement of the dance, everything very inspiring, right, compared to life.

And ask a dancer who loves to dance to dance fast. He has to dance fast, and he has to keep dancing. And then he's tired, he wants to rest, but he can't. He has to keep dancing. There will come a time when his body will ache, until his soul aches, until he collapses,

because it's not human. Remember I talked about respecting time? There's also a right time to reflect, to study, to decide what to judge. Doing anything so quickly, especially living—because I used a lot of life analogies—takes away the shine. If you walk fast down a street, leave home fast, going to work, you wo

n't see... The IP that just blossomed, you won't see that father walking with a child, you won't see so much because there's no time for anything anymore. And as I said, we'll grow old if everything goes well. If everything goes well, we 'll grow old. But how many exciting stories we'll have to

tell. So, I'm very concerned about the speed at which people judge. It makes me sick because I love to judge, I love what I do. But lately it's been very difficult to deal with this speed. Yes, slow speed, 200 years. In the right direction when it will develop its offspring. Uh-huh. To reproduce, how will it?

Uh-huh. We, right? It lives its life, right? That's it. Uh, the turtle is a good example. In my lectures I use the example of a little plant. I say: "It's no use planting a pitanga tree here and saying : 'Grow, grow, because I want to harvest the fruits to make pitanga juice tonight'." She will grow up in

her own time. If I plant two or three, each one will grow differently. Some will bear more fruit, others less, perhaps some will bear no fruit at all and yet be beautiful trees. Therefore, respecting the uniqueness of our history is the fundamental premise for moving forward. Yes. And it won't work, right? That's

because time is passing, and with time we become even more aware of it . Exactly. So, when we look at this generation of young people, we can say this. Wow, that's amazing. Hopefully they will listen to us. We always talk about it in class, right? I even talked to some of them here,

right? I think that in the week before, we always think, "Oh, I'm behind schedule," " Oh, I'm ahead of schedule," "Oh, I should have done such and such," right? And I always say that you're in the right time , in the right moment, right? So, there are several people here, right, at the

beginning, at the end, right? And this challenge, which I think is most important, at least in a law degree program , is really reconciling all of that, right? So, am I on the right track? How am I supposed to do this, right? And if I become a judge later on, how am I going to develop this line of

reasoning? Yes, that's it, exactly. Yes, time. Exactly. We have a question here, I don't know if anyone else in the audience has any questions , but there is. Ah, then Jehoshaphat, you can. He was in the lead. Hi. We'll send it to you later. So, in my own words, Dr. Quité, uh, I was very happy with all the

content of the two lectures, and that reminds me... I remember my father. Once, since I was little, I used to do math, and one day I went to my father and said: "Dad, why are you taking my bicycle to be repaired again, when the repair costs X and a new bicycle costs a little more

than that X? It costs X," and my father replied: "If I buy another new bicycle, one day it will break." And one thing we'll never be able to escape is maintenance. Bringing this into our context, I observed that you are a judge, you pursued a degree in psychology, and you became a good manager, because a

company manager, if he is hasty, will quickly fire a professional. But that professional, he has a problem. But whoever comes in his place will also have problems. And we ca n't escape this maintenance. So a good manager isn't the one who fires you right away . Often it's the person who talks to you. I realized that your

performance isn't the same. I can do something to help you. I can change your schedule, transfer you to another branch. And there, in a human way, he will present possibilities. So, in a way, it fascinates me to know that a professional, a lady who could be at home doing anything else, can arrive at the Court of

Justice tomorrow, bang the gavel, and that's it, right? No, the lady had that concern for understanding others. I don't know if I 'm wrong, it's my interpretation, but I think that the lady's great purpose in life might be this. I realized that the lady derives greater satisfaction from reconciling and resolving the problem than from the

sentence itself. I think the best fight is the one we avoid, and the best, the greatest weapon that exists is the brain. If you know how to talk to someone, a mugger will give up on killing you. This happened to Patricia Brabanel, the kidnapper who had a gun pointed at her head. And

regarding what you said about the finiteness of life, that's something I've always, as a good Scorpio, always known . And this became even clearer to me after my father passed away in 2023. I think that society in general, world leaders, politicians, often act as if they are eternal and self-sufficient. So, often in

one decision, a president of a country sells the sovereignty of an entire country, even though he often has another 5 years of life, another 10 years of life, because of his family. Sometimes he puts a nation with 200, 300, or 500 million inhabitants to the test. And that reminds me of the movie Braveheart,

at the end, the character played by Mel Gibson, when he's about to die, he died for freedom, right, because of what was going wrong under the rule of the English, right? And he said a line in the movie that really stuck with me, which was: "Every man dies, but not every man truly

lives." And I find that very interesting. So I would like to congratulate all of you. Uh, the doctor too, uh, we, I have an excellent philosophy professor, who is Professor Leonardo. I love his class. Professor, I love you, professor. It's worth mentioning. It's important to express your feelings, you see, professor. He is a fantastic teacher.

He is a very well-educated professor, with postgraduate degrees, a master's degree, and a doctorate, and we often disagree with him. And I'm sure that at some point in his home, he thinks about me. I think about him a lot at home because there's a quote from Oxo, you know, the Indian Oxo, that says: "I

'm not here to meet all your expectations, because if I meet all your expectations, I'll never be able to transform you into those shocking experiences. It will only stop, and at that moment something new will enter you." But I'm very happy with this mission of the ladies to seek what is fair and treat people with humanity,

right? Well, equality with a minimum of, at least, humanity. I think it's because God is just. We have a sense of justice here; we try to do what's right, don't we? Thank you, my dear. Thanks. I adore him. Thank you, teacher. We have another subscriber, right? I think we have more questions, and

there are questions in the chat as well. No chat here. We could combine that one and this one to wrap things up, as my main concern is your schedule. For me, it's more about your schedule. Good evening, how are you? My name is Josafá, I am a student at the Palhoça campus, fourth semester. My question to the

judge is this: what happens, as she spoke about sensitivity, today I see that in virtual hearings I think that people have lost that sensitivity to see if the person is really telling the truth, or if it is true. Often during the legal process, the lawyer brings something up, but I see that today, in

virtual hearings, there's this lack of clarity. So, sir, you want to do it this way, with this timeframe, it's been more than 30 years, what are you thinking now for today? Look, that's a question that allows for different perspectives. If you're looking for the truth, the search for truth for a trial, then there are several

criteria that the analysis of the evidence allows us to identify, based on the information that the witness provides, combining that with what another witness said, right? And the questions that the magistrate asks also allow us to get closer, including assessing the credibility or lack thereof of that testimony within a probative context that is never isolated;

there are always other elements such as photographs, videos, documents, and so on, and the magistrate will reach a conclusion. Well, it must be said that there are few cases that we judge with the clarity of almost absolute conviction. Often, referring here to civil cases, which is the area I work in most, we end up judging

based on the burden of proof, that is, if the person did not produce satisfactory evidence, they lose, or the other party managed to provide minimal proof. So, there's hardly a clear picture, right? So, the judge will have to decide which one appears most credible in that context of evidence, which is usually insufficient. That's the

truth plan, right? Because what we take as truth, as I said, is a truth constructed from the accounts of other people within the context of the evidence. We take that as the only possible truth that we were able to access. In another context, there is the truth that matters to people. Therefore, I'm not talking

about judgment, I'm talking about what she wants, what matters to her in the context of a conflict. And often she can only identify what she really means when she starts talking. I learned that we only truly know what we think when we put it into words. And it's no coincidence that sometimes we surprise people with

something we've said. So the mediator, for example, has this ability to listen to what one person brings and to pass the word to the other in a symphony that allows both to listen to each other and together build a conclusion that doesn't need to interest only one or the other, right? This comes from

practicing empathy. So, there's the truth constructed by people's accounts that will support a sentence that will decree something, and then there's the truth that one person simply wants another to understand, right? What she is suffering, for example, a mother after her child has been run over. Yesterday we were judging a case of a young man who jumped

into a shallow pool and became quadriplegic as a result. So, imagine how much pain, how many unlived moments occurred between that event and when the trial took place. So, this truth that one person wants the other to understand is part of the process of jointly building a just and fair solution. This one

is too. Well, these are different forms, different perspectives on justice. Perfect. Fernando's question, the seventh phase, uh, from Paulo Palhoço. He asks: "Given the need for a judge to reconcile the impartial technical application of the law with emotions, empathy, and understanding of the human dimension involved in each case? How to find the

balance between judging with reason and feeling the human face of justice without allowing emotions to compromise the impartiality of the decision? This is a fine line, isn't it, that we can only respect. It's a point of internal balance. You're talking about the person who asked, what's their name? Fernando, Fernando, he's talking about

internal balance. See the importance of this question, because it's a question that invites us to do what we practiced here, to stop for a moment and look inward and connect with ourselves. I know my pain. Many people don't. Some look at the book cover and say, "Oh, she was very lucky," right? And then comes that

whole story that we often hear about, but few people know about the wounds and scars left along the way. I know, because..." For example, because I've never worked in a juvenile court, because in my history with four children, two are adopted, and there were very sensitive situations for me in their previous lives, before they

came to us, because it was a late adoption, they were already grown, very sensitive. So, today when I hear a report involving, I don't know, child abuse or all those circumstances that can lead to the termination of parental rights, it's very sensitive for me, it's much more sensitive than I consider reasonable to judge. So I avoid it.

Now, in a civil court where I am, I have many patrimonial cases, as people say, but there are also many cases with a very significant emotional charge. I can't ignore the emotional burden in that case, for example, where a young person, at the time 13 years old, became paraplegic. I can't ignore the emotional impact. In the case of that young

woman who, after losing 50 kg, said it's as if she hadn't had bariatric surgery because she doesn't feel... It's different now, you don't feel good, you know, about your own self-esteem. So, a legal process might be about a traffic accident, but far beyond the dynamics of the accident, lives have been transformed, sometimes taken.

And I need to understand that to judge, but to connect with that, I need to be alive. How good that emotions permeate our entire lives. I wouldn't want to be judged by a machine. Don't put my problem in a machine, bringing in the information so that AI can tell you the solution. It will never have the capacity

to feel what we feel. It will locate the law, it will bring up recent rulings, it will make a good summary, it will improve the writing and it will help us a lot so that we have more time to look sensitively at what needs to be looked at and feel what needs to be felt. Because, as

Antônio Damáio said and Professor Helen brought up, the importance of his legacy, we are never just rational, we are rational and emotional all the time. So, Fernando, I try to stay in touch with myself. Same here. Uh, I go to therapy, I think out loud, in short, I try to have a minimally healthy life, you know? But when I

feel that I'm not in a position to act in a case, due to its circumstances, I can recuse myself . Uh, or, for example, it happened, I think it was this week , that I was judging and I had a goal, I needed to do so many, but there came a point after the in-

person session, we had an in-person session in the Sixth Civil Chamber, uh, which was Tuesday, it went until almost 1 pm, then we came back and continued until 5 pm, folks. There were almost 40 oral arguments and many sensitive cases, very important cases. I left exhausted, intellectually exhausted, but emotionally happy, because everyone who

wanted to speak spoke, all the lawyers expressed themselves, all the judgments were debated, we did the best we could with each of those judgments. So much so that normally the sessions end at noon and one o'clock, we really extended them to judge well. But When I got home, I opened my computer and tried to

judge a little more, but I thought it would be irresponsible of me to do that, because humanly I was no longer able to. So that's what I want to say. I need to read the signs. And the body, here's one last tip for you. We lie, but the body doesn't lie. Everything we

feel is a sign, a symptom of something. Not noticing that your breathing is there, that your heart is pounding, is a big mistake. Or noticing and not giving it importance. Now, if you get in the car in a little while to go home and there's a little red light on the dashboard, I'm sure you

'll stop to look at what it is. We stop, okay? Because the car has some problem, but when the heart is pounding, when breathing is labored, when even tired we can't sleep at night, do we think that's just how it is? So I try, Fernando, to pay attention to myself to continue being

responsible for the lives that pass through my life. Great. So, I am immensely grateful for this opportunity. I think we don't have time for more questions, right? I just wanted to honor what I said here, that I was going to raffle off 20 tests, those tests for recognizing your cognitive-emotional patterns, right? It's a

test from an American company that I represent; I'm their preferred partner here in Brazil. It's a methodology, psychometric tests are used in multinational companies like Shell, GE, Prep & Gamble, that is, all multinationals are training executives in emotional intelligence and metacognition, which is thinking about your thoughts, thinking about your feelings, and it could

n't be different in the judicial system, answering the question from the colleague who already left, Alexandre. We need to train legal professionals with emotional intelligence. We need that. So, I'm going to do this; it will be a raffle. We have a list here of the... People who are present, there will be 20 people.

These selected people will send me a message either by email helkald@gmail.com or by going to my Instagram, which is Helenabald, and sending me a message so you can answer this test that takes 7 to 8 minutes and receive this map of introspection so you can get to know yourselves, recognize yourselves, and build yourselves up,

to become better people, above all, and better legal professionals. That's how we walk the path that the judge Quitéria spoke so much about here. Thank you. Good night. So, we have a list with 72 participants. You can say the number and we'll read it. It's random, so just say the number and we'll read the person's name

. 25. 25. Paulo Vinícius de Morais.

125 is 25. That's it. Cléber Gonzales Benedite. Benedite. Oh, that's great. That's wonderful. You sent me a message, then. Uh, 12. Helen Cabalde. Exactly. 12. That's it. Let's go. Marcos Aurélio Rocha Pressado 21 21 Beatriz Vitória Longo Martins. And I think Beatriz isn't present. 14 11 14 Shauana One Trick. That's it. Uh, 11. Beatriz Farias Gonçalves

isn't present there. 22 Renato Rubik Martins. No, 35. Oh, 35 is gone. 70. No, Renato. 37. So, just a minute. 37. Cane Ébert Pereira. That 's very good. No, 72 said. Yeah, help me out. 70. Lála Raíça Policena isn't present either. Uh, number one. Number one is exactly. Vitória Fernanda da Cúnia. There you go

. Number Two. Michel Manuel Francisco. No, present 72. 72 of the last. Dimitri Aquino do Nascimento there. Eh, five, five, five. Who wants to see? Marcos de Vinícius Duarte Dutra. Great. Eh, how many has 20 already? 3 4 5 6 7 8 Oh, my God. Let's go. Number 9 9 10 11. Cécio Caldas Neves.

It's CO number 10. 10. 10. Nicole Clícia Silva 11. Beatriz Farias Gonçalves 13. Yes, let's go. 45. Oops. 13. 13. Pâela da Silva Soares. 45. William Henrique Amorim. 55. Gabriela da Silva 56. 56. Luciana Cor Tomasini. I tried. 61. Fábio Luiz Rolfman Silva 37. Caneert Pereira 38 38 Jasper Crels 39 Cleiton Mesquita Mar

already done 40 51 40 Sinara Gomes Moraes 51 right 51 Gisele Adriana Cardoso Linhares now That's enough, right? Let's see. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 67 67

67 68 Nádia Carnevsk de Menezes 67 there 68 Carolina Rosele Vieira 69. Elon Gustavo Correa da Silva. Ah, great. 35 already done, right? Already done, already done. 23 49. Gustavo Rogério. 49. Yes, Pablo Pereira. So let's go, people, you'll write to me, right? Helencabald@gmail.com or Helencabald on Instagram to receive the link. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 20. 205. Closed?

We're just going to ask Mr. Simão now, he'll deliver it I think Just to conclude with all the honors of the house and the partner institution, we invite the rector, the magnificent rector, to present the certificates to our speakers who graced us with their talks today. Please, you can stay there. Good, Judge

Jorge, after the three of us together, go over there, Gel, get ready. Now we're just going to take a picture, the three of us , please. Please, take a picture. Take a picture. There's

more there, dear ones. Thank you for the presence of each and every one of you. Take everything you learned here, but above all, live intensely what you heard here today. So much feeling, so much sensitivity, so much love. Dear ones, you were wonderful, you made these moments truly different, did n't you? And there's a song I love, I

listen to it every morning, that pause for silence, which says: "I turned off the noise of the world outside, because this is a sacred moment, it's here and now." And try to listen, pause for silence. It's all good for our hearts . We need it. Thanks.