This book addresses how our revisionary practices account for relations between texts and how they are read. It offers an overarching philosophy of revision concerning works of fiction, fact, and faith, revealing unexpected insights about the philosophy of language, the metaphysics of fact and fiction, and the history and philosophy of science and religion. It will be of interest to a wide range of scholars and advanced students working in philosophy of language, metaphysics, philosophy of literature, literary theory and criticism, (...) and history and philosophy of science and religion. (shrink)

The focus of this paper is Mexican historicism. It has three objectives: first, to introduce English-speaking readers to the nature and history of Mexican historicism; second, to defend Mexican historicism against the charges of relativism usually raised against historicism in general and “Mexican” philosophy in particular; and third, to argue for what I call the transcendental, or alternatively, “liberatory,” nature of Mexican historicism—a nature with philosophical and political consequences. The hope is that by making the clarifications and determinations made here, (...) the tradition of Mexican philosophy, of which Mexican historicism is a key moment, may find its place in the increasingly pluralistic US philosophical landscape. (shrink)

This article considers the implications of inferentialist philosophy of language for debates in the historiography of philosophy. My intention is to mediate and refine the polemics between contextualist historians and ‘analytic’ or presentist historians. I claim that much of Robert Brandom’s nuanced defence of presentism can be accepted and even adopted by contextualists, so that inferentialism turns out to provide an important justification for orthodox history of philosophy. In the concluding sections I argue that the application of Brandom’s theory has (...) important limits, and that some polemics by contextualists against presentists are therefore justified. (shrink)

Este artículo trata sobre dos temas: cómo se establece el canon filosófico y las razones por las cuales la filosofía latinoamericana es generalmente excluida tanto del canon de la filosofía occidental como del canon de la filosofía a nivel mundial. El segundo tema permite ilustrar los problemas que surgen en el contexto del primero y proporciona una respuesta a ellos. El artículo sostiene que varias teorías que se proponen explicar la formación del canon y la exclusión de ciertos filósofos del (...) canon occidental en particular, no hacen justicia a la situación porque ignoran el papel de la tradición en el proceso. Más específicamente, se ilustra cómo la tradición explica por qué la filosofía latinoamericana tiende a estar ausente tanto del canon filosófico occidental como del mundial. This article discusses two topics: how the philosophical canon is established and the reasons why Latin American philosophy is generally excluded both from the canon of western philosophy and the canon of world philosophy. The second topic illustrates the problems that come up in the context of the first and provides answers to them. The article argues that several theories that purport to explain the formation of the canon and the exclusion of certain philosophers from the western philosophical canon in particular, do not do justice to the situation because they ignore the role of tradition in the process. More specifically, the article shows how tradition explains why Latin American philosophy tends to be absent both from the canon of western philosophy and the world canon of philosophy. (shrink)