Philosophy and Politics in the 20th in Argentina. Readings of Italian Idealism

The transition from a positivist matrix to an idealistic one in Argentinean academic philosophy can be read as a result of a gradual and problematic pollution. It was, also, heavily traversed by considerations that exceeded the theoretical aspects. Based on the willingness to explore this transit, the article pays attention to one of the episodes of this contamination: how the Revista de Filosofía reads Croce and Gentile’s philosophy. Observing there some possibility of dialogue between positivist assumptions, with which the journal takes a position, and the idealism the article analyze how this dialogue and its limits were given from a political consideration. If the idealism was condemned, it is centrally owed to its performance during the first years of the government of Mussolini. If, meanwhile, it was some to rescue of that philosophy, it was that it contributed to think the revolutionary change.

Dogs in the paradise: The influence of the cynical philosophy in the construction of the myth of the good savage

This paper studies the influence of cynic philosophy in the construction of the myth of the good savage. In the first part it studies the importance of cynicism in the XVI century and how the cynic influence of Erasmus, More and Montaigne was fundamental to the way that Europe approached the American indigenous. In the second part it studies the cynic motives that could have influenced in the construction of the myth of the good savage.

Averroes y las cosas justas por naturaleza

En su comentario a la Ética a Nicómaco, Averroes se ocupó del pasaje donde Aristóteles distingue entre las cosas que son justas por naturaleza y aquéllas que lo son en virtud de la ley (V, 7 1134b18-1135a5). Su comentario es particularmente breve, pero plantea algunas dificultades importantes, como su alusión a un derecho naturale legale, que, según Leo Strauss, vendría a ser simplemente un derecho positivo de aceptación general. En este artículo se busca caracterizar lo justo natural y lo justo positivo en el comentario de Averroes y mostrar el alcance de la variación de los criterios propios de la justicia positiva.

Hybrid philosophy and rational vitalism in Canguilhem and Ortega y Gasset

This paper explores the problem of the synthesis between vitalism and rationalism, in contemporary philosophy. With this aim, we compare the intellectual careers of Georges Canguilhem (1904-1995) and José Ortega y Gasset (1883-1955). We contrast their conceptions of philosophy as “hybrid” knowledge, closely related to science, as well as their points of view on Vitalism, anthropology, the technique and the perspectivism. To avoid that comparison is purely abstract and ahistorical, we use the method of the sociology of philosophy. This forces us to locate both paths in their respective philosophical fields and generational units, also according to his social background and professional career.

Vis-á-Vis-á-Vis. The Three-dimensional and artistic view of a problem

ANPO (A Non-predefined Outcome) is an an art-making methodology that employs structuralist theory of language (Saussure, Lacan, Foucault) combined with Hegel’s dialectic and the theory of creation of space by Lefebvre to generate spaces of dialogue and conversation between community members and different stakeholders. These theories of language are used to find artistic ways of representing a topic that community members have previously chosen. The topic is approached in a way that allows a visual, aural, performative and gustative form. To achieve this, the methodology is split in four main steps: step 1 ‘This is not a chair’, Step 2 ‘The topic’, Step 3 ‘ Vis-á-vis-á-vis’ and step 4. ‘Dialectical representation’ where the defined topic is used to generate artistic representations.The step 1 is a warm up exercise informed by the Rene Magritte painting ‘This is not a Pipe’. This exercise aims to help the participants to see an object as something else than an object but as a consequence of social implications. Step 2, participants choose a random topic and vote for it. The artist/facilitator does not predetermine the topic, participants are the one who propose it and choose it. Step 3, will be analysed in this publication and finally step 4, the broken down topic is taken to be represented and analysed in different ways.