Refine
Year of publication
- 2015 (42) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (28)
- Working Paper (5)
- Book (4)
- Doctoral Thesis (3)
- Contribution to a Periodical (1)
- Review (1)
Language
- Spanish (13)
- Portuguese (11)
- English (9)
- German (6)
- Italian (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (42)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (42)
Keywords
- Recognition (5)
- Reconhecimento (4)
- Axel Honneth (3)
- Critical Theory (2)
- Critical theory (2)
- Dialética negativa (2)
- Education (2)
- Educação (2)
- Frankfurt School (2)
- domination (2)
Institute
- Philosophie (42) (remove)
La Critique de la vision phénoménologique est une tentative de critique de la phénoménologie, à travers la Théorie Critique et la philosophie d’Emmanuel Lévinas, qui caractérise la phénoménologie comme une science eidétique. Nous proposons donc une bref histoire du concept de l’eidos, qui est compris comme un archétype idéal depuis le Platonisme. On aborde l’opposition du matérialisme et de l’idéalisme ancrée dans la Théorie des formes de Platon, l’hylémorphisme d’Aristote, et la Théorie matérialiste des simulacres de Lucrèce. La question substantielle : «matérialisme et/ou idéalisme »nous conduit aux principes de l’individuation, au formalisme et aux concepts de la réification. La phénoménologie de Husserl est née dans le Kulturkampf qui se caractérise par le déferlement du positivisme dans l’idéalisme. Sous cet angle, la phénoménologie est un certain tour de force idéaliste contre le positivisme. La phénoménologie essaie d’intégrer les courants contemporains de la philosophie allemande, et c’est ici et non en biologie que se situe la lutte pour la vie, selon Husserl. Le problème de la vision phénoménologique, en regard de la «race» comportant des significations qui ne sont pas particulièrement biologiques, est un problème qui remonte à Aristote. Selon lui, l’usage de l’eidos est aussi synonyme des catégories de genre et d’espèce. L’eidos d’Husserl inclut la conception d’Aristote, et se présente comme un moyen possible de construire un concept métaphysique de la race en dehors de la biologie. L’eidos en tant que type, tel qu’il est constitué dans la Lebenswelt , se caractérise finalement par la transformation de l’Umwelt en Heimwelt, dans lequel l’individu est passivement formé par la tradition, l’habitus, par terre et sang–un monde de la moyenne, de la « normalité ». Nous essayons de montrer, dans le processus de ce bouleversement irrationnel de la philosophie en Allemagne, le cas particulier et tragique du devenir de la phénoménologie de Husserl entre les mains de Heidegger, qui suggère une auto-limitation de la phénoménologie à la recherche d’un sens qui vise à l’unité du Dasein . Notre but ici est simple et radical : de même que Marx a montré que la philosophie de Hegel n’est rien d’autre que la collection des catégories de la philosophie bourg eoise en déclin, Lévinas et l’École de Francfort ont montré que la philosophie de Heidegger n’est rien d’autre qu’une poursuite de la philosophie hégélienne, mais à un niveau plus abstrait et aussi plus global.
The practical aim of this work is twofold. Firstly, it is to construct a theory of language based on historical-materialist premises, i.e. a theory which stresses the sociality and historicity of language, and finds in them the fundamental characteristics which make language one of the central phenomena of human life. Such a theory is inherently counterposed to the dominant theories and philosophies of language in the last century, be they Saussurean, idealistic, structuralist, psychologistic or Chomskyan etc. It also rejects vulgar materialistic accounts of language, where language is seen merely as a “reflection” of the economic base of society, as well as the version proposed in Stalin’s short pamphlet, Marxism and Linguistics, which sees language merely as a means of communication, regardless of society or class, therefore neutralised and consequently branded irrelevant for Marxist theory. In short, the first aim would be showing what language is not and what it cannot be by showing what it is.
The second aim is related to Marxist theory in general. Following the presuppositions of this work, a Marxist account of language proves to be an immensely important field of research for Marxism. The reasons are fairly simple, if one is willing to accept them: language is a certain type of social practice, it is related to the way people act, which also means that it is interconnected with consciousness, i.e. to the way people think and to the content of their thought. Language is ideological and political; it is an element of class rule and class struggle. Thus, understanding language should be of utmost importance for any socialist revolutionary project, as ideological struggle is central not only to a revolutionary period, but, perhaps even more, to a period where revolution is not even in sight. I do not wish to derogate other Marxist fields of research, but, on the contrary, to simply insist on their equal importance. Ideological phenomena should not be a secondary or inferior object of research to strictly economic phenomena, or vice-versa. In reality, those phenomena form a dialectic unity; only if theory follows suit, can a pregnant Marxist philosophy be formed.
Adorno’s negative dialectics wants to free the thought from the dictates of the system, taking position against the illusion to grasp the essence of reality by logic. Against that false idea of totality, Adorno devises a philosophy of fragment, a logic of disgregation that presupposes a different concept of totality: a fragmented, scattered and conflicting wholeness. The anti systematic thinking of Adorno is configured, however, as a systematic rejection of any systematic formulation: philosophy can at most claiming a pretension to truth by the practice of interpretation. A dialectic configuration of fragments of totality is at stake here: so, the arrangement of such fragments can both produce an image of reality endowed with meaning and also unfold through heterogeneous combinations that are not definitive, but always renewable from time to time. In Adorno’s reflection are so expressed two different instances which are complementary at the same time: on the one hand it represents the critical and negative element against the system and its hybris, on the other hand it expresses the need of the thought to go beyond and overcome that fragmentation, showing how the need of unity of the system is a need of the thought in itself.
Il saggio propone una ricostruzione critica della concezione di impegno e di politicità della letteratura formulate da Brecht e da Adorno. Concezioni opposte che possono essere considerate le formulazioni più efficaci delle due posizioni predominanti nel dibattito estetico del Novecento.
Adorno fonda la politicità della letteratura sulla sua autonomia e sulla liberazione della forma. La politicità dell’arte scaturisce per lui dal rifiuto della discorsività, dalla aggressiva sottrazione del senso, dalla esposizione del negativo. La sua è una concezione dell’impegno elitaria che subordina il discorso artistico a quello filosofico. Brecht fonda la possibilità politiche della letteratura sulla consapevolezza della medialità dell’esperienza. Può essere rivoluzionario solo l’autore che ha riflettuto sulle mediali condizioni della propria produzione e produce opere che non sono espressione di una soggettività ma lavoro alla trasformazione e al cambiamento di funzione dei dispositivi mediali e delle istituzioni in cui agisce.
El siguiente trabajo se propone como objetivo la reconstrucción de la estructura interna que constituye a las acciones con sentido (o intencionales) de los hombres tal como puede ser hecha desde la pragmática trascendental del lenguaje de Karl-Otto Apel. Resaltando (I) el papel decisivo que juega el lenguaje y el discurso en la constitución como tal de las acciones intencionales, se procede a la explicitación de una estructura interna de pretensiones de validez similar a la que es posible encontrar en el discurso explícito, tal como lo hicieron los planteos clásicos de Karl-Otto Apel. Luego de la discusión de algunas críticas que pueden hacerse a esta reconstrucción (II), se arriban finalmente a algunas conclusiones referidas a los presupuestos de las acciones no lingüísticas (III).
El propósito de este artículo es discutir, en un primero momento, en que medida los maestros vinculados a la Universidad de Salamanca y a su correspondiente Escuela de Salamanca contribuyeron para la validación de un saber relacionado a los descubrimientos que permitió pensar una nueva configuración geográfica de la Tierra. En un segundo momento, mostraremos como la universidad salmantina, junto con otras instituciones de saber, operaron como un centro de actividad ‘científica’ que estuve a servicio de los proyectos de la monarquía española.