Desarraigo y experiencia: Lecturas sobre Paul Ricouer y Philipe Claudel

We often wonder what is the role or the role that intellectuals, academics and artists can play in countries and conflict environments, for this specific case, countries and environments that do not have real protection both its integrity and satisfaction their basic and special needs. Beyond establishing what mode as artists, intellectuals and academics can contribute to meeting these requirements, this article is intended to establish a position on the importance acquired symbolic forms and reflected in the writers regardless whether philosophers or writers, let put the rawness of what happens and there comes the lonely spirits whose loneliness imposed and caused never chosen, appears to them as a lifestyle. For Philippe Claudel and the case of Paul Ricoeur, they are thus chosen for this article as incessant dialogues of the ways in which the rootlessness provides food for thought especially for those we see as different titles you are assigned to experiences of violence.

Paul Karl Feyerabend Las proyecciones de la proliferación teórica en la relación ciencia-metafísica

La doctrina de la Proliferación teórica de Paul Karl Feyerabend ha sido interpretada por sus especialistas como un intento de salvaguardar el ideal del progreso científico. Aunque tales estudios hacen justicia, en parte, a la intencionalidad de nuestro filósofo no explicitan la crítica fundamental que implica para Feyerabend el pluralismo teórico. La proliferación teórica constituye en sí misma una reductio ad absurdum de los distintos intentos del positivismo lógico y del racionalismo crítico por definir la ciencia a expensas de lo metafísico. Este artículo presenta la proliferación teórica como una reivindicación del papel positivo que ocupa la metafísica en el quehacer científico. Se consigna la defensa que hace Feyerabend de la metafísica en cuanto que ésta constituye la posibilidad de superar el conservadurismo conceptual, aumentar de contenido empírico de la ciencia y recuperar el valor descriptivo de las teorías científicas.

Sacrificio y ejemplaridad. Comprendiendo los fenómenos de Leonel Messi y Diego A Maradona

Leo Messi y Diego Maradona, son dos grandes deportistas que han alcanzado fama mundial. En parte, si bien esa fama les da a los argentinos cierta posición de privilegio respecto al futbol, no menos cierto es que se los estima de diversas maneras. El arquetipo del padre de la fe y del héroe trágico acuñados por Kierkegaard da una ruta conceptual clara y pertinente al estudio de los ídolos contemporáneos como así también esboza una crítica al deporte moderno como revitalizador ideológico de las fallas o frustraciones que se ha multiplicado por acción del capitalismo.

David Hume and contractualism

David Hume belonged to the consecuencialist philosophical tendency, in which is included utilitarianism. This tendency was opposed to the normativism philosophy, in which is enrolled contractualism. This article analyzes the critique made by David Hume, from the utilitarianism perspective, against contractualism. The major philosophers of contractualism are Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau. Hume implemented three arguments in opposition to them: 1) historic: the social contract does not have any practical testing. Therefore it could not be presented as the foundation of the state; 2) philosophical: it is not the duty, but the interest that moves men to seek the formation of the political authority; 3) social: in the consciousness of the people, there is no trace of the social contract.Utilitarianism was one of the philosophical tendencies that finished the theoretical hegemony that contractualism had during the XVII and the XVIII centuries. Nonetheless from the historical and social point of view, the liberalization movements in many parts of the world, at that time, were inspired by contractualism. It means that from the theoretical point of view, utilitarianism, certainly, stressed the empirical origins of the state but not the rational justification of the political Authority. Hume was unable to understand the normative force that contractualism owns, which inspires human action.

Metaphysics of love in the religious philosophy of Pável Florensky

This article focuses on the analysis of the concept of love in the religious philosophy of Pavel Florensky, who shares the ontological approach to the consideration of love with other representatives of Russian religious philosophy (N. berdyaev and S. bulgakov). We pay more careful attention to the understanding of love-άγαπαν by Florensky. We have drawn the conclusion that, in the philosophy of P. Florensky, Love, closely connected with truth and beauty, is considered an ontological basis existence of personality. We develop the ideas of Pavel Florensky, and accordingly assume that it is possible to synthesise love-agape and love-eros around the idea of sacrificial love. Agapelogical and erotical ‘bezels’ of one jewel of love is aspects of united love, which is given by God. this gift of God, the gift of united love, is kept by humans through prayer and deeds of love.

Quintus Curtius before his sources: the episode of Alexander and the Scythians on the Tanais

Quintus Curtius found in his sources a speech where a Scythian censured Alexander, followed by the King’s reply. Curtius drastically abridged this second discourse in order to highlight the criticism of the Macedonian. The Scythian’s words have a striking rhetorical language and some allusions taken from Greek literature, in addition to possible indirect references to Caligula. Curtius declares that he follows his source word-for-word aiming to justify these inconsistencies, but also trying to hide the manipulations he has done to achieve his own narrative purposes.

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.