What Heraclitus and Parmenides have in common on Reality and Deception

It is usually assumed that Heraclitus is, exclusively, the philosopher of flux, diversity and opposition while Parmenides puts the case for unity and changelessness. However, there is a significant common understanding of things (though in differing contexts), not simply an accidental similarity of understanding. Both philosophers, critically, distinguish two realms: on the one hand, there is the one, common realm, identical for all, which is grasped by the ‘logos that is common’(Heraclitus) or the steady nous (Parmenides) that follows a right method in order to interpret the real. On the other hand, the realm of multiplicity seen and heard by the senses, when interpreted by ‘barbarian souls’, is not understood in its common unity. Analogously, when grasped by the wandering weak nous it does not comprehend the real’s basic unity. In this paper I attempt to defend the thesis that both thinkers claim that the common logos (to put it in Heraclitean terms) or the steady intellect (to say it with Parmenides) grasp and affirm the unity of the real.

Plato on Oblivion. About Memory and Forgetfullness in the Platonic Dialogues

The aim of this paper is to tackle the role of oblivion in the Plato’s dialogues. It takes as work texts the dialogues where the anamnesis doctrine is exposed, and from these writings, but also attending to several other ones, the connexions between oblivion and other Platonic issues, as, e. g., language, memory, experience or love are explored, in order to clarify their relations of mutual dependence. In this way, we attempt to find out in the Platonic oblivion a philosophical sense, which is not disdainful in comparison with the sense and the relevance that the readers of all times have granted to anamnesis; for anamnesis and oblivion are inseparable indeed.

El dinero en la historia del pensamiento económico: la teoría monetaria postkeynesiana y su confrontación con la ortodoxia

Las disputas en torno a determinados aspectos del dinero, como su neutralidad y el carácter endógeno o exógeno de la oferta monetaria, han sido permanentes entre las distintas escuelas de pensamiento y autores, estando su origen, probablemente, en la época de desarrollo del pensamiento escolástico. En este artículo pretendemos, en primer lugar, realizar un recorrido cronológico e histórico sobre el tratamiento científico económico del dinero, para, en segundo lugar, poner sobre la mesa la macroeconomía ortodoxa a la que han dado lugar las interpretaciones al respecto, así como los enfoques alternativos frente a este pensamiento dominante. Finalmente, intentamos poner en valor los desarrollos monetarios post-keynesianos, integrados en lo que denominan “Economía Monetaria de Producción”, confrontándolos con la llamada Nueva Síntesis Neoclásica.