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.

"Éros" y poesía en "Fedro", "Banquete" y "República": la reelaboración platónica de los terrenos poéticos para la realidad y el deseo

El trabajo explica el vínculo existente entre las distintas concepciones platónicas del éros y de la poesía, como parte del legado poético del siglo v. Y analiza su evolución, y la de su relación con la filosofía, en Fedro, Banquete y República, como un proceso de destilación del éros elaborado por la poesía, del que es afín el éros filosófico configurado en el Fedro, pero cuya incompatibilidad, insinuada en el Banquete, se hace explícita y taxativa en la República. Todo ello con el fin de demostrar hasta qué punto asume el pensamiento de Platón la herencia poética precedente, poniendo en evidencia que dicho proceso responde, en todas sus fases, a un mismo objetivo: materializar el anhelo poético por excelencia: la creación de un «terreno intermedio» donde conciliar la irrenunciable dualidad de las aspiraciones humanas. En consecuencia, se invita aquí a mirar la ciudad platónica como materialización posible, no utópica, de un espacio logrado en el que integrar armónicamente la realidad y el deseo.

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.