Sovint el humans ens hem somiat déus. I Déu n'hi do si hem fet coses admirables: ciència, organització social, art,...motius n'hi ha per estar orgullosos. La vida, però, també ens mostra amb insistència la cara més fosca de nosaltres mateixos, i en aquests moments el més fàcil és passar de l'orgull a la desesperança més absoluta. El camí, però, no pot ser el de l'abandonament. Ni déus ni bèsties! Els déus no trien i, sense esforç ni dubtes, coneixen (...) i realitzen sempre el millor. Els animals, empresonats en la seva naturalesa, tampoc no trenquen gaire el cap a decidir què faran amb les seves vides. Nosaltres no tenim la sort dels uns ni la dels altres, i ens toca amb feines i treballs anar bastint la nostra realitat, aquella que nosaltres farem. Per això existeix l'ètica. "Coneix-te a tu mateix", ordenava l'oracle: només amb les nostres llums i amb les nostres ombres, amb l'instint, amb la ràbia, amb el sentiment, amb la paraula, amb la raó; només coneixent i assumint tot allò que som, tindrem la possibilitat, tal vegada, de construir un món més humà. (shrink)

Jean Paul Sarte, Franz Kafka i Milan Kundera: tres mirades diferents sobre la realitat, tres percepcions del món que participen d'un mateix rerafons filosòfic, d'una mateixa sensibilitat: l'absurd. Tres obres que neixen, creixen i maduren sota l'eclipsi de Déu, en l'atmosfera de la buidor més penetrant i la negació radical del sentit. L'ésser és estantís, feble, pura representació, i la vida humana una comèdia tragicòmica que comença per casualitat i s'acaba també per pura casualitat. Però l'home ha de viure, i (...) si el món no té sentit, caldrà forjar-lo amb les pròpies mans, caldrà projectar una idea per la qual valgui la pena viure i morir (Kierkegaard). Tres iniciatives, tres expectatives, que es configuren sota l'escola de l'absurd i la mort de Déu (Nietzsche). Davant d'aquesta concepció del món marcada pel desencís i l'angoixa hi ha la metafísica de la plenitud de l'ésser (sant Tomàs d'Aquino), que descriu l'univers com un dinamisme perfectiu que té una direccionalitat pròpia, una causa primera i un fi darrer. La lògica del sentit versus la lògica de la buidor. (shrink)

Jean Paul Sarte, Franz Kafka i Milan Kundera: tres mirades diferents sobre la realitat, tres percepcions del món que participen d'un mateix rerafons filosòfic, d'una mateixa sensibilitat: l'absurd. Tres obres que neixen, creixen i maduren sota l'eclipsi de Déu, en l'atmosfera de la buidor més penetrant i la negació radical del sentit. L'ésser és estantís, feble, pura representació, i la vida humana una comèdia tragicòmica que comença per casualitat i s'acaba també per pura casualitat. Però l'home ha de viure, i (...) si el món no té sentit, caldrà forjar-lo amb les pròpies mans, caldrà projectar una idea per la qual valgui la pena viure i morir (Kierkegaard). Tres iniciatives, tres expectatives, que es configuren sota l'escola de l'absurd i la mort de Déu (Nietzsche). Davant d'aquesta concepció del món marcada pel desencís i l'angoixa hi ha la metafísica de la plenitud de l'ésser (sant Tomàs d'Aquino), que descriu l'univers com un dinamisme perfectiu que té una direccionalitat pròpia, una causa primera i un fi darrer. La lògica del sentit versus la lògica de la buidor. (shrink)

El més gran dels pensadors i el més petit dels homes”; amb aquestes paraules va referir-se Gadamer d'una manera molt punyent a la desconcertant figura del seu mestre, Martin Heidegger. L’autor d’Ésser i temps ens ha deixat en herència no només una obra filosòfica capaç d’exercir una grandíssima influència, sinó també el repte d’interpretar la tensió entre vida i pensament. Hem de creure que cal una gran vida per tal que hi hagi un gran pensament? O hem d’admetre que no (...) hi ha cap relació entre una cosa i l’altra i, per tant, que un gran pensador pot adherir-se de forma entusiasta a un dels règims polítics més abjectes de la història d’Europa sense comprometre la qualitat de la seva producció filosòfica? Heidegger és segurament un exponent d'una Europa contradictòria i angoixant: no només un representant excepcional de la millor tradició filosòfica, sinó també de les grans bogeries i pors del segle XX. (shrink)

Trobar la forma d’expressar quelcom per al qual no hi ha paraules fou un dels reptes que assumí Levi quan volgué explicar la cruel deshumanització que va sofrir com a presoner al Lager. Nogensmenys, hi va trobar la solució mitjançant el concepte d’animal. En aquest sentit, el seu testimoni és ple de metàfores faunístiques que representen el patiment de la seua reducció cap al fons i la crueltat de ser tractat com una bèstia a la qual podien assassinar i que (...) patia com un esclau castigat. Levi confirma amb les seues analogies que la deshumanització és una metamorfosi animal. Tanmateix, la tesi d’aquest assaig és que la deshumanització no és convertir-se en una bèstia, sinó transformar-se en allò que nosaltres hem fet dels animals. Una proposició que afirmem gràcies a l’etologia, que ens evidencia que el comportament real de les feres no equival a estar pres ni a ser humiliat. De fet, creiem que la raó principal per la qual Primo Levi pensava que la deshumanització era animalitzar-se sorgeix arran d’una ideologia antropocèntrica. (shrink)

«Jo només escric», diu l'autor, «quan les sensacions o idees se'm fan dimonis íntims que intento foragitar amb la literatura. Però no resulta fàcil sentir ni pensar amb naturalitat i seguretat, superar els propis vertígens i censures, deixar avançar la ment amb la confi ança que trobarà el que busca, la mateixa confiança amb què el rei s'asseu sense mirar enrere, segur que trobarà la cadira que algú li haurà acostat.Un entorn raonablement sensual i fins i tot una relativa (...) gimnàstica sexual ajuden sens dubte l'esperit: el que aquest no admet és cap lligam sentimental. Al cervell no li roba energia el moblament sensual o l'erotisme profilàctic, és a dir, tot allò que apaivaga un cos que ha de funcionar alhora com la seva font d'energia i el seu instrument. El pensament ens permet, doncs, el que ens estabilitza però no el que ens mobilitza; tolera el que ens gratifica però no el que ens sedueix. Més que en la repressió, el pensament i la cultura es basen en la fredor, s'aixequen sobre l'egoisme i es mantenen a força de narcisisme. Ens perdonen tal volta els plaers, però mai els amors». (shrink)

En el presente trabajo se pone de relieve una tesis del último Kuhn que ha sido, y aún es, desatendida: el carácter no universal del lenguaje. Luego de ubicarla en los textos y contextos teóricos donde aparece, se intenta aclararla a partir de algunos de sus textos posteriores. En este afán, el trabajo presente en primer lugar muestra, cómo, deben ser modificadas algunas de las propuestas filosóficas atribuidas al Kuhn clásico para poder comprender esta tesis y en segundo lugar, intenta (...) dar cuenta muy brevemente de ciertas innovaciones filosóficas del último Kuhn. Además, se comparan algunas de esas nuevas tesis de Kuhn con sus posibles -aunque nunca explicitados- interlocutores, a saber: N. Chomsky y J. Fodor. This paper draws attention to one of the theses of the Later Kuhn, which has been ignored: the non-universal character of language. After locating the thesis in the texts and theoretical contexts in which it appears, it is attempted to be clarified in view of some of his later texts. In regard of this, the paper firstly shows, how some of the philosophical proposals attributed to the Early Kuhn must be modified in order to understand it. Secondly, a very brief account for certain philosophical innovations in the Later Kuhn is attempted to be given. In addition, some of Kuhn's new theses are compared with his most likely, even if never explicit, interlocutors, namely N. Chomsky and J. Fodor. (shrink)

Quines són les causes del dèficit filosòfic que arrossega la cultura catalana contemporània? Aquest llibre ofereix un panorama bastant complet —i amarg— de les condicions acadèmiques i extraacadèmiques en què s’ha hagut de conrear als Països Catalans la filosofia, tota la filosofia, centrant-se, això sí, en les aventures personals i col·lectives dels qui han tingut la vel·leïtat de dedicar-se a la lògica. Hi són narrades amb amenitat i lucidesa l’estada de Bertrand Russell a Barcelona, la defenestració d’Eugeni d’Ors, les aberracions (...) docents de Josep Daurella i Rull, la breu i fulgurant trajectòria intel·lectual de Joan Crexells, les peripècies eclesiàstiques de David Garcia Bacca i Miquel Soy, l’exili de Josep Ferrater Mora i la gestació del seu voluminós Diccionario de filosofía, la marginació de Manuel Sacristan, els conflictes de la Facultat de Filosofia de València en els anys 70... El resultat és una història de la filosofia apartada en molts aspectes de la imatge «abstracta» i «idealitzada» que sol oferir la historiografia filosòfica a l’ús. (shrink)

(Spanish) RESUMEN: La libertad absoluta postulada por Viktor Emil Frankl y Jean-Paul Sartre, la Shoah y la creencia en un dios omnipotente, bueno y justo parecen contradecirse. La pregunta por el sentido del sufrimiento de las víctimas del Holocausto (la verdadera catástrofe, el mayor crimen contra la humanidad), simbolizado por Auschwitz, y como punto de inflexión en la historia, es terriblemente dolorosa y parece no tener una respuesta filosófica ni teológica. A mi juicio, es importantísimo distinguir entre las víctimas inocentes (...) de la Shoah que perecieron y las víctimas inocentes que sufrieron un verdadero infierno y perdieron a sus seres queridos, pero que lograron sobrevivir. Ambas son víctimas, por supuesto, pero así como encontrarle un posible sentido al sufrimiento de las víctimas masacradas y gaseadas podría suponer un insulto a su sufrimiento y agonía –en especial, al horror que sufrieron los niños–, el horrible sufrimiento de los supervivientes pudo dar, tal vez, de alguna manera, un sentido a sus vidas después de la liberación de los campos de concentración y exterminio, ya fuera como voz, como protesta o como simple supervivencia. Frankl apuesta por un sentido último (que abraza el sentido del sufrimiento de las víctimas), y Sartre, aunque parezca no apostar por sentido alguno, volcó su vida al compromiso político después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, y ello parece vislumbrar una minúscula pizca de sentido después de la barbarie. La filosofía de Frankl es un sí a la vida incluso en las situaciones más extremas, un grito casi nietzscheano que exalta el valor de la vida más allá de cualquier sufrimiento. Frankl, padre de la logoterapia y superviviente del Holocausto, abre una puerta a Dios al hablar de un dios inconsciente, una dimensión suprahumana y una fe incondicional, y define la religión como espiritualidad y como la búsqueda del hombre por el sentido último. Según Frankl, la libertad no se contradice con Dios, y la religión existe no a raíz de la barbarie, sino a pesar de la barbarie. El existencialismo sartreano es una filosofía de la libertad radical y de la responsabilidad. El hombre está condenado a ser libre. El ser humano es un ser en el que la existencia precede a la esencia. Somos totalmente responsables de lo que somos. Sartre afirma que la libertad humana es incompatible con Dios. En un mundo sin Dios, la moral la construyen los hombres, con sus propias decisiones y sus acciones, y la existencia y el sufrimiento de las víctimas no tienen sentido alguno. Sartre define al hombre como libertad, responsabilidad, angustia y contingencia. Frankl define al hombre como libertad, responsabilidad, espiritualidad y búsqueda de sentido. Con esta tesis me propongo entrar en la resbaladiza dimensión del dolor, la desesperación, el sentido y sinsentido del sufrimiento de las víctimas (teniendo presente los horrores de Auschwitz, que en teología y filosofía ha simbolizado desde la liberación de los campos la muerte de Dios y la muerte de la moral). Es verdad que no solo los hombres, mujeres y niños judíos fueron víctimas de la barbarie alemana, pero, como reza el mensaje de Elie Wiesel en la exposición permanente del Block 27 del Auschwitz-Birkeanu State Museum: "Not all victims were Jewish in this place, but all Jews were victims". La Shoah no es un episodio dentro de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, sino un punto de inflexión en la historia de la humanidad, y es una catástrofe que nos concierne a todos, hombres y mujeres judíos y no judíos, religiosos e irreligiosos, creyentes e increyentes, como seres libres, responsables y morales que somos –o que deberíamos ser. Muchas de las víctimas del Holocausto, en medio de la desesperación, entraron en las cámaras de gas orando, aferrándose a la esperanza de que ese final espeluznante no era un punto final. Con esta tesis no me propongo de ninguna manera responder a la eterna pregunta de si Dios existe o no, sino que propongo interpretar ese grito hacia Dios como un desesperado anhelo de esperanza. También me propongo encontrar una coherencia en las posturas de estos dos grandes pensadores para quienes la libertad y la responsabilidad definen al hombre: Frankl (quien apuesta por una dimensión suprahumana donde existe un sentido último en el que el sufrimiento de las víctimas tiene que tener algún sentido, aunque ese sentido sea completamente incomprensible en la dimensión humana) y Sartre (el existencialista ateo por excelencia, para quien el mundo, la existencia y el sufrimiento son absolutamente contingentes). En el primer capítulo expongo la logoterapia y el existencialismo sartreano: describo las tres dimensiones del hombre y las tres búsquedas de sentido propuestas por Frankl, y expongo las cinco consecuencias de "l'existence précède l'essence", centrándome en la libertad y la responsabilidad, y hablo del suicidio. El segundo capítulo está dedicado al dios inconsciente frankleano, la dimensión suprahumana, la búsqueda por el sentido último y la fe incondicional. En el tercer capítulo ilustro la libertad sin Dios sartreana, la ontología sartreana, el ateísmo sartreano y el humanismo sartreano, y hablo sobre la responsabilidad, la mauvaise foi, la contingencia, la situation y la angustia. El cuarto capítulo es necesariamente histórico (sin dejar de ser filosófico): me pregunto por la muerte de Dios después de Auschwitz, argumento y defiendo la unicidad del Holocausto (la Shoah es un punto de inflexión en la historia de la humanidad), describo las masacres antes de los campos de exterminio (Einsatzgruppen, Ordnungspolizei y Wehrmacht), el gigantesco complejo de Auschwitz (Stammlager, Auschwitz-Birkenau y Monowitz-Buna), reflexiono sobre Dios y el mal (centrándome en los niños de Auschwitz), describo los días de Frankl en Auschwitz, hablo de Dios como esperanza, de la inmortalidad y la escatología, de la crueldad de Dios, de la relación entre el cristianismo y el antisemitismo, del islam y el antisemitismo, critico el silencio de Dios, hablo de la muerte de Dios y del juicio contra Dios. En el quinto capítulo expongo la moral frankleana (una moral que atañe al hombre y no a Dios), basándome en su teoría del amor y en su única obra de teatro (Synchronisation in Binkerwald), y la moral sartreana (una moral que atañe a una humanidad sin Dios), recordando a Dostoyevsky, analizando la famosa cita de Garcin en Huis clos "L'enfer, c'est les Autres", criticando el marxismo de Sartre y cuestionando (con la mirada de Frankl y Sartre) el verso de Brecht "Erst kommt das Fressen, dann kommt die Moral"; al final del capítulo incluyo una reflexión propia y las críticas frankleana y sartreana sobre la impunidad de los verdugos y colaboradores después del Holocausto (con el permiso de Dios). Después de la Conclusión, añado un Apéndice sobre las vidas de Frankl y Sartre, para poder entender mejor su obra. PALABRAS CLAVE: logoterapia, existencialismo sartreano, búsqueda de sentido, libertad, responsabilidad, moral, angustia, sufrimiento, supervivientes, víctimas, contingencia, espiritualidad, religión, Dios, esperanza, antisemitismo, culpa, Auschwitz, Holocausto, Shoah. /// (English) ABSTRACT: The absolute freedom defended by Viktor Emil Frankl and Jean-Paul Sartre, the Shoah and the belief in an omnipotent, benevolent and just God seem to contradict each other. The question of the meaning of the victims' suffering of the Holocaust (the true catastrophe, the biggest crime against humanity), simbolised by Auschwitz and as a turning point in History, is terribly painful and doesn't seem to have an answer. In my opinion, it's crucial to distinguish between the innocent victims of the Shoah who perished and the innocent victims who sufferend a real hell and lost their loved ones, but managed to survive. Both are victims, of course, but just as finding a possible meaning to the suffering of the massacred and gassed victims could result in an insult to their suffering and agony –especially to the horror that the children suffered– the gigantic suffering of the survivors could, maybe, somehow, give a meaning to their lives after the liberation of the concentration and extermination camps, either as a voice, as a protest, or as a simple survival. Frankl believes in an ultimate meaning (that embraces the meaning of the victims' suffering), and Sartre, even if it appears not to embrace any meaning, turned his life to political engagement after War World II, and that attitude seems to give a tiny glimpse of meaning after the barbarity. Frankl's philosophy says yes to life even in the most extreme situations, and it's a Nietzschean-like scream that exalts the value of life beyond any monstrous suffering. Frankl, the father of logotherapy and a Holocaust survivor, opens a door to God when he talks about an unconscious God, a supra-human dimension and an unconditional faith; he defines religion as spirituality and as man's search for ultimate meaning. According to Frankl, freedom is not contradictory with God, and religion exists not because of the barbarity but in spite of the barbarity. Sartrean existentialism is a philosophy of radical freedom and responsibility. Men are condemned to be free. We are beings where the existence precedes the essence. We are completely responsible of what we are. Sartre argues that human freedom is incompatible with God. In a godless world, morality is constructed by people, with their own choices and actions, and human existence and the suffering of the victims don't have any meaning. Sartre defines man as freedom, responsibility, Angst and contingency. Frankl defines man as freedom, responsibility, spirituality and search for meaning. With this dissertation I attempt to enter in the slippery dimension of the pain, despair, meaning and meaninglessness of the victims' suffering (having in mind the horrors of Auschwitz, that in theology and in philosophy have simbolised, since the liberation of the camps, the death of God and the death of morality). It's true that not only Jewish men, women and children were victims of the German barbarity, but, as Elie Wiesel's message from the permanent exhibition from Block 27 of the Auschwitz-Birkeanu State Museum reads: "Not all victims were Jewish in this place, but all Jews were victims". The Shoah is not an episode inside War World II, but a turning point in the history of humankind, and a catastrophe that embraces us all, Jewish and not not Jewish men and women, religious and not religious, believers and not believers, as the free, responsible and moral beings that we all are –or that we should be. A lot of the victims, in the midst of their desperation, entered into the gas chambers praying, holding to the hope that their horrifying end was not the ultimate end. With this dissertation I do not attempt to answer the eternal question of the existence of God, rather, I will try to interpret that scream to God as a longing for hope. I also intend to find a coherence between the thought of these two great thinkers for whom freedom and responsibilty define man: Frankl (who argues that there is a suprahuman dimension where an ultimate meaning exists and where the victims' suffering has to have a meaning, even if this meaning is completely incomprehensible in the human dimension) and Sartre (the atheist existentialist par excellence, for whom the world, human existence and suffering are absolutely contingent). In the first chapter I expose logotherapy and Sartrean existentialism: I describe the three dimensions of man, the three searches for meaning, the five consequences of "l'existence précède l'essence" and I speak about suicide. The second chapter delves into the unconscious God, the supra-human dimension, the ultimate meaning and the unconditional faith. In the third chapter I expose the freedom without God defended by Sartre, Sartre's ontology, Sartre's atheism, Sartre's humanism, and his ideas about responsibility, mauvaise foi, contingency, situation, and Angst. The fourth chapter is necessarily historical (while being philosophical too): I wonder about the death of God after Auschwitz, I argue and defend the uniqueness of the Holocaust (the Shoah is a turning point in the history of humankind), I describe the massacres before the extermination camps (Einsatzgruppen, Ordnungspolizei y Wehrmacht), the gigantic Auschwitz camp complex (Stammlager, Auschwitz-Birkenau y Monowitz-Buna), I reflect on God and evil (focusing on the children of Auschwitz), I describe Frankl's days in Auschwitz, I talk about God as hope, about immortality and escathology, I discuss God's cruelty, the relationship between Christianity and antisemitism and Islam and antisemitism, I question the silence of God, and I talk about the death of God and about the trial against God. In the fifth chapter I talk about the Franklean morality (a morality that concerns man and not God), on the basis of his love theory and his only work of theater (Synchronisation in Binkerwald), and the Sartrean morality (a morality that concerns a humanity without God), remembering Dostoyevsky, analysing Garcin's famous quote in Huis clos "L'enfer, c'est les Autres", crticizing Sartre's marxism and questioning (with Frankl's and Sartre's eyes) Brecht's verse "Erst kommt das Fressen, dann kommt die Moral"; at the end of the chapter I include my own reflection (and Frankl and Sartre's critique) about the impunity of the executioners and collaborators after the Holocaust (with God's permission). After the Conclusion, I add an Appendix about the lives of Frankl and Sartre, which helps understanding better their work. KEYWORDS: logotherapy, existentialism, search for meaning, freedom, responsibility, morality, Angst, suffering, survivors, victims, contingency, spirituality, religion, God, hope, antisemitism, guilt, Auschwitz, Holocaust, Shoah. (shrink)

Actualment en Filosofia, tenim dues caracteritzacions canóniques sobre la naturalesa de la Metafísica, la carnapiana i la quineana, tot i que són dues tesis diferenciades, ambdues coincideixen en que la Metafísica és reduïda a qüestions d'existència. No obstant, Kathrin Koslicki considera que aquestes caracteritzacions de la naturalesa de la Metafísica són errònies i que comporten una crítica explícita a la Metafísica o redueixen la resolució dels problemes metafísics a un pragmatisme. Per això, Koslicki considerant que els desacords metafísics són legítims (...) i profunds, tenint com a marc de referència la filosofia aristotèlica, considera que la tesi quineana i carnapiana no reflecteixen bé la naturalesa de la Metafísica, ja que, hi ha disputes metafísiques que es deuen a disputes no-existencials sobre temes de fonamentabilitat. Koslicki considera que la Metafísica no pot ésser reduïda a qüestions d'existència, sinó que ha de ser pensada com la reflexió de quines entitats són fonamentals, i quines són derivades d'aquestes. L'article està dividit en una primera part introductòria sobre els meus objectius, seguit d'una breu exposició de les tesis carnapiana i quineana de la metafísica, i per últim l'exposició de la proposta neo-aristotèlica de Koslicki. (shrink)

Take part... and you will bear witness to the semiotic nature of human animals. This event, commented by Charbel Niño El-Hani (Federal University of Bahia) and chaired by Elma Berisha (Lyceum Institute), is part of the activities of the 2022 International Open Seminar on Semiotics: a Tribute to John Deely on the Fifth Anniversary of His Passing, cooperatively organized by the Institute for Philosophical Studies of the Faculty of Arts and Humanities of the University of Coimbra, the Lyceum Institute, the (...) Deely Project, Saint Vincent College, the Iranian Society for Phenomenology at the Iranian Political Science Association, the International Association for Semiotics of Space and Time, the Institute for Scientific Information on Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Semiotic Society of America, the American Maritain Association, the International Association for Semiotic Studies, the International Society for Biosemiotic Studies, the International Center for Semiotics and Intercultural Dialogue, Moscow State Academic University for the Humanities and the Mansarda Acesa with the support of the FCT - Foundation for Science and Technology, I.P., of the Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education of the Government of Portugal under the UID/FIL/00010/2020 project. *** Jamin Pelkey is Associate Professor and Program Director in the Department of Languages, Literatures and Cultures at Ryerson University, Toronto, where he is also an active faculty member in the Ryerson-York graduate program in Communication & Culture. He serves as Co-Editor of Semiotica, Vice President of the International Association for Cognitive Semiotics, and executive board member for the International Cognitive Linguistics Association, the International Society for Biosemiotic Studies, and the Semiotic Society of America. Jamin’s research explores semiotic dimensions of language evolution and embodied cognition. He is the recipient of the 2017 Mouton d’Or Award for best article in Semiotica and has edited or co-edited twelve collections in linguistics, anthropology, and semiotics, including Tropological Thought and Action (2022), Cognitive Semiotics (2019), Applied Brand Semiotics (2018), Archaeology of Concepts (2018), Sociohistorical Linguistics in Southeast Asia (2017), Virtual Identities (2016), and The Semiotics of Paradox (2015). His authored books include Dialectology as Dialectic (2011) and The Semiotics of X (2017). He is currently editing Bloomsbury Semiotics, a major reference work in four volumes. *** Charbel N. El-Hani is full professor in the Institute of Biology, Federal University of Bahia, Brazil. Coordinator of the LEFHBio - History, Philosophy, and Biology Teaching Lab and the INCT IN-TREE - National Institute of Science and Technology in Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Studies in Ecology and Evolution. Between January 2020 and July 2021, he was visiting researcher at the CES - Centre for Social Studies of the University of Coimbra, Portugal. He works in the areas of philosophy of biology, ecology, ethnobiology and science education research. *** Homepage: https://www.uc.pt/fluc/uidief/io2s Auditorium: https://www.uc.pt/fluc/uidief/io2s/auditorium *** Technical support assured by Robert Junqueira. The cover image for the video was designed by Zahra Soltani. (shrink)

https://revistes.uab.cat/enrahonar/article/view/v25-medina.

https://revistes.uab.cat/enrahonar/article/view/v27-fermandois.

En una breve presentación inicial, hago notar la importancia de Heidegger y el reconocimiento que se le ha brindado, inclusive por parte de científicos de renombre. Luego, aludo a la tesis de Heidegger "la ciencia no piensa", a partir de ¿Qué significa pensar? A continuación, procuro aclarar tal aserto desde su conferencia "Ciencia y Meditación". Considero explicaciones posibles de la frase en cuestión, descartando varias de ellas y postulando que hay que pensar en otra dirección para dar cuenta de la (...) tesis. Esa nueva dirección implica introducir la diferencia entre pensar calculador y meditación, así como centrarse en lo que Heidegger entiende por ser, esencia, sentido, esencia de la técnica moderna y Unicuadridad o Cuaternidad . In a brief initial presentation, I underline the importance of Heidegger's thoughts and its acknowledgement by renowned thinkers and scientists. Then, I refer to Heidegger's thesis "science does not think" from the book What Calls for Thinking? or What is Called Thinking? In order to clarify this sentence, I use his lecture "Science and Reflection". Possible explanations of the phrase in question are put aside, and I postulate that is better to think in another direction in order to better understand the thesis. This new direction introduces the difference between calculative thinking and reflection and focuses on what Heidegger understands as: being, essence, sense, essence of modern technology and Fourfold. (shrink)

Los 18 trabajos recogidos en este volumen tienen como telón de fondo una preocupación por la racionalidad occidental. Mucho se ha hablado de su crisis o de su fracaso. De ello se ha ocupado durante décadas la Escuela de Francfort, en sus distintas reencarnaciones, y, más recientemente, el pensamiento posmoderno. Lo que este libro pretende es enfrentarnos a la crisis de la razón pero desde un ángulo insólito, desde el pensamiento judío. El judaísmo hizo su experiencia de la modernidad. Sintió (...) que no tenía sitio. Algunos de los autores aquí estudiados tuvieron que plantearse, en el momento de su madurez, que había que elegir entre ser moderno o marginarse. Durante siglos, la mayoría optó por lo primero, es decir, por la asimilación. Hasta que algunos plantearon y decidieron seguir siendo judíos sin renunciar a filosofar. Con ello el judaísmo se convierte en un lugar privilegiado para valorar el pulso de la razón occidental. El judaísmo era el límite de la Ilustración. Así lo planteaban los ilustrados y así lo vivieron durante mucho tiempo los propios pensadores judíos. Hasta que les dio por pensar por sí mismos. En este libro se reconstruyen algunos de esos memorables episodios. (shrink)

La vida entera de muchos ensayistas transcurre sin dar jamás con un tema. Este ensayo no sólo se topa con un tema, sino que incluso se da el lujo de aprovecharlo. El tema es la felicidad. Sin embargo, La herida de Spinoza es un libro de ?losofía, no de autoayuda. Parte de algunas conclusiones recientes de la neurología, en particular de las investigaciones de Antonio Damasio acerca de la impertinencia de la secular división entre mente y cuerpo. El propio Damasio (...) vincula sus investigaciones con las ideas que Spinoza expuso en su Ética. Para Damasio, la tranquila aceptación de la muerte, una de las señas de identidad de la ética de Spinoza –de hecho, la «herida» de Spinoza–, resulta «irritante». Ese comentario de Damasio parece inocuo, pero para Vicente Serrano no lo es, sino que apunta a una especie de «desajuste», a una extraña incomprensión de la diferencia última de la ética spinozista. A partir de ahí el autor no se propone criticar solamente esa y otras lecturas de Spinoza, sino que plantea además una amplia crítica a la modernidad, y también a la posmodernidad. La herida de Spinoza se convierte entonces en una revisión de la historia entera de la ?losofía en esa zona en que ética y metafísica (u ontología) se superponen. Aunque el proyecto parece apabullante, el autor se asegura de estar bien equipado. Por una parte suprime el aparato académico, lo que le permite ser más breve y directo, y por otra echa mano de una erudición notable y, sobre todo, de una capacidad absolutamente inusual de explicación. Si hubiera que buscar parangones a esa capacidad, no quedaría más remedio que acudir a Rüdiger Safranski. El autor, sin embargo, no hace biografías, ni siquiera historia de la ?losofía como tal, sino que intenta ?losofar de la mano de los más grandes pensadores de la historia. El ensayo se completa con la inclusión de una pieza maestra: los afectos. Los afectos serían la respuesta posible de la ?losofía al problema de la biopolítica. La progresión de la modernidad no sólo implica la desaparición de la naturaleza, sino la sustitución absoluta de los afectos por la voluntad (de voluntad). Si la vuelta a la naturaleza es imposible, e incluso indeseable –dado que la naturaleza no fue nunca más que una metáfora–, Serrano se inspira en Foucault para proponer una «vuelta» a los afectos como la pieza fundamental que cierra la reflexión sobre el poder. «Un ensayo en el sentido más ágil del término, obra a mitad de camino entre lo reflexivo y lo literario… Bien pensado y bien escrito, muchísimo más de lo que se ha vuelto habitual en nosotros» (Gabriel Albiac, Leer). «La cuestión de fondo teórica –a qué responde la religión y qué problemas de comprensión existencial atiende o atendía– es algo mucho más complejo y creo que más apasionante. Un buen tratamiento filosófico de la cuestión es el que ofrece Vicente Serrano en La herida de Spinoza, reciente ganador del Premio Anagrama de Ensayo… Serrano explora las consecuencias posmodernas del abandono de las religiones: un tema más sugestivo que la refutación de las iglesias...» (Fernando Savater, El País). «Iniciado como un arroyo para abrirse en un delta que abarca toda la modernidad filosófica, la obra de Serrano analiza, sin pedantería ni falsas oscuridades, las inflexiones que han tenido los conceptos de religión, deseo, naturaleza, esperanza, progreso, poder y felicidad» (Juan Malpartida, ABC). «Entre quienes lo lean sumará cientos de fascinados. Ojalá miles» (Félix Soria, La Voz de Galicia). «La vida entera de muchos ensayistas transcurre sin dar jamás con un tema. Este ensayo no sólo se topa con un tema, sino que incluso se da el lujo de aprovecharlo. El tema es la felicidad… Plantea una amplia crítica a la modernidad, y también a la posmodernidad. La herida de Spinoza se convierte entonces en una revisión de la historia entera de la filosofía en esa zona en que ética y metafísica (u ontología) se superponen» (Diario de León). (shrink)

El personatge de Sòcrates ha plantejat sempre a la civilització occidental una paradoxa curiosa: tota la història de la filosofia grega està tradicionalment organitzada al seu voltant, però no sabem qui fou realment Sòcrates. Sòcrates, com diu Jean Brun, és un "fet històric" que escapa a la història i la seva influència ha estat encara més gran si tenim en compte que no va deixar cap obra i que només el coneixem pels testimonis dels seus contemporanis, testimonis que ens diuen (...) massa o massa poc de la seva personalitat i que sovint entren en contradicció. Més enllà del personatge, però, hi ha el missatge i la vigència del pensament socràtic. Malgrat els jutges que el van voler reduir al silenci, aquesta veu que s’alçà a Atenes fa més de 2300 anys no ha deixat mai de sentir-se, i les seves màximes, "coneix-te a tu mateix", "només sé que no sé res"... continuen sent motiu de reflexió per a qualsevol que es plantegi l'actitud ètica de l'home respecte a ell mateix i al món que l'envolta. (shrink)

Nuestro ensayo La erótica platónica busca ampliar la comprensión del concepto de Eros en Platón a partir del diálogo del Banquete. Buscamos presentar una visión genealógica sobre el origen, la aparición e importancia del concepto y su emoción sentimental en el contexto de la cultura griega en general y del mundo socrático, en lo particular, que nos presenta la visión platónica de la filosofía. A partir de los distintos personajes que conforman la obra, su autor nos va presentando distintas significaciones (...) del eros o amor para cada uno de ellos. Podemos comprender la visión del significado del tema en cuestión desde las vertientes poética, pedagógica, médica, mítica, sexual y filosófica. Esta última desplegada en la postura de Sócrates al referir la importancia que tuvo una mujer, Diotima de Mantinea, en su formación y comprensión del hecho erótico, tanto para su vida como para su visión de la filosofía. Al final del diálogo notaremos una descripción algo desbordada que da el discípulo socrático, Alcibíades, de su maestro y llegamos a comprender que la filosofía es un ejercicio amoroso por el deseo (carencia) del saber en el hombre y que el filósofo, a diferencia del hombre sabio que no busca ningún saber porque ya lo posee, será un entusiasta y enamorado permanente de la filosofía por sentir que su ser requiere una permanente búsqueda del conocimiento de sí gracias al lema socrático del conócete a ti mismo . On Plato`s erotic. An interpretationOur Platonic Er otic essay seeks to broaden the understanding of the concept of Eros in Plato's dialogue Banquet . We seek to present a genealogy of the origin, occurrence and importance of the concept and its sentimental emotion in the context of Greek culture in general and the Socratic world, in particular, that presents the Platonic view of philosophy. From the various characters that make up the work its author presents different meanings of Eros or love for each of them. We can understand the vision of the meaning of the subject matter from different perspectives: poetic, educational, medical, mythical, sexual and philosophical. The latter displayed in the position of Socrates in reference to the importance that a woman, Diotima of Mantinea, had in his training and understanding of the erotic fact, both for her life and her vision of philosophy. At the end of the dialogue there is a description -somewhat overwhelmed- of his teacher given by Alcibiades, the Socratic disciple. We then understand that philosophy is a loving exercise by desire of knowledge in man (lack of); thus the philosopher, unlike the wise man, who seeks no further knowledge because it already has it, will be an enthusiastic and permanent lover of philosophy since he feels that his being requires an ongoing search of self-knowledge by means of following the Socratic motto know thyself. (shrink)

https://revistes.uab.cat/enrahonar/article/view/v40-lucas.

El estudio de las emociones en la Antigüedad ha tenido en las últimas décadas una gran eclosión. En su desarrollo, la propuesta aristotélica de los afectos ha recibido una atención especial. En ese marco, se ha observado que la emoción de la ‘indignación’, tal como la define el Estagirita no habría recibido por parte de los griegos el nombre que este le asigna. La objeción se funda, sobre todo, en los testimonios de las oraciones forenses. Nuestra propuesta incorpora el testimonio (...) de la comedia aristofánica a la discusión, ya que la indignación ha sido considerada por muchos la emoción típica de la comedia. (shrink)

Tercer i últim volum de les memòries lliures i impertinents d’un dels filòsofs i educadors més influents de Catalunya En els dos primers volums de les seves memòries, el filòsof i pedagog Octavi Fullat s’ha revelat per a molts lectors com un dels intel·lectuals de referència del segle XX català. El seu estil, hereu de la profunda senzillesa d’Albert Camus, combina de manera inconfusible la memòria, l’assaig i la narració. Després de La meva llibertat i La meva veritat , en (...) aquest tercer i últim volum Octavi Fullat ens condueix pels secrets de l’art i la bellesa: l’emoció que pot despertar el cos d’una dona, la conversa a l’entorn d’un diàleg platònic acompanyat amb un bon vi francès o la rememoració d’una màgica nit africana. Per les pàgines d’aquest llibre hi transiten pensadors com Schopenhauer o Hegel, pintors com Van Gogh o Tintoretto, escriptors com Dante o Rilke, músics com Mozart o Beethoven i, com calia esperar, punyents al·lusions al nostre país i als seus polítics. Així, es tanca l’obra més personal d’un home que mai no ha buscat recer i que sempre ha viscut per la llibertat, per la veritat i per la bellesa. Compra La meva bellesa en E-book Web d'Octavi Fullat Octavi Fullat Nascut a Alforja (Baix Camp) el 1928, és doctor en Filosofia per la Universitat de Barcelona i catedràtic de Filosofia de l’Educació de la Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona des de 1986. Ha rebut diversos premis i, des de 1996, és membre numerari de l’Institut d’Estudis Catalans. Ha estat deixeble de Lévi-Strauss, Michel Foucault i Jean Wahl, i doctor honoris causa a Mèxic i Xile. Ha impartit cursos a diferents universitats d’Europa i Amèrica. Ha estat president del Consell Escolat de Catalunya i del Consell Superior d’Avaluació del Sistema Educatiu de Catalunya. És autor de nombrosos estudis sobre pedagogia, filosofia, ètica, antropologia i història, entre els quals destaquen, La moral atea de Albert Camus (1963), Marx y la religión (1974), Filosofías de la educación (1992), Política de la educación (1994), Antropología y Educación (1997), Els valors d’Occident (2001), El siglo postmoderno (1900-2001) (2002), L’autèntic origen dels europeus (2005), La meva llibertat (2006) i La meva veritat (2008), aquests dos últims publicats per Angle Editorial. (shrink)

Qualsevol que es llegeixi aquest llibre s'adonarà que molts d'aquests mites amb els quals ens han promès la felicitat no són ni tan sòlids, ni tan certs, ni tan "progres" com sembla. Amb lúcida ironia, Ignasi Riera reflexiona sobre algunes de les qüestions que actualment saturen els mitjans de comunicació i que, com a polític i periodista, l'han preocupat al llarg de la seva vida: la idealització del món rural, l'obsessió per la salut, però també el maniqueisme de certes actituds (...) pseudodemocràtiques, les paradoxes de la societat del benestar o el fals esquerrisme. La crítica de fons és doblement interessant: marcada pel to satíric i desenfadat que el caracteritza, Riera ens proposa la deconstrucció d'un concepte viciat com és el de la felicitat, enganyós, mercantil i utilitari, i d'aquestes formes de pensament dirigit que, segons ens diuen alguns, són el camí per arribar-hi. La conclusió és clara: els que pretenem lluitar contra la felicitat, hem de canviar de sentit tota la nostra vida així com el conjunt de les nostres creences: tirar al foc moltes de les que semblen veritats eternes.IGNASI RIERA, escriptor, articulista, comentarista radiofònic i polític, ha conreat tots els gèneres literaris. Ha estat guardonat amb els premis Octubre, Ramon Llull i Pere Quart d'Humor i Sàtira. És autor de llibres de narrativa breu, de novel·les, de pamflets, dels llibres de no ficció: El meu oncle Pere Quart, Un patriota exemplar, Els catalans de Franco, Viatgers de Barcelona, Jordi Pujol. Llums i ombres ; de la biografia, Lluís Llach: companys no és això i de Llibre d'hores del ben menjar. A Edicions 62 ha publicat: Pàries, sindicalistes, demagogs, Diccionari de la Cuina Catalana i Un català a Madrid. (shrink)

El conjunto de ensayos que el lector tiene entre sus manos expresa un cuerpo sistemático de ideas provocadoras sobre la tensión entre el constitucionalismo y la democracia. Su autor, el profesor Joel Colón-Ríos, boricua, formado en las dos facultades de derecho canadienses de mayor renombre, e investigador de una de las mejores universidades de Oceanía, las ha fraguado a lo largo de más de un lustro y debatido con gran éxito ante la elite intelectual de Norteamérica. La propuesta central del (...) libro es una original reivindicación de la democracia frente al constitucionalismo. Su institucionalización consiste en un constitucionalismo débil. La piedra angular de este modelo es una constitución inacabada, permanentemente abierta al cambio, que permite y promueve la participación y la deliberación popular continua, en particular, mediante el potencial ejercicio del poder constituyente en cualquier momento. De esta manera, el pueblo tiene la posibilidad de hablar por sí mismo cuando lo juzgue pertinente. Puede cuestionar y reformular los principios básicos de la organización social. No está supeditado a las decisiones adoptadas por los ancestros que expidieron la Constitución, ni por sus representantes que, en el Congreso, ostentan el poder de reformarla. Precio: 49.000 pesos. (shrink)

https://revistes.uab.cat/enrahonar/article/view/v37-vicente.

INTRODUCTION BY NANCY FUMERO What is a translation that stalls comprehension? That, when read, parsed, obfuscates comprehension through any language – English, Portuguese. It is inevitable that readers expect fidelity from translations. That language mirror with a sort of precision that enables the reader to become of another location, condition, to grasp in English in a similar vein as readers of Portuguese might from João Guimarães Rosa’s GRANDE SERTÃO: VEREDAS. There is the expectation that translations enable mobility. That what was (...) written in one language be accessible in another. And that a translator is to serve as a mediator, acting ultimately in service to ideas within the source text. To disperse them. However, this notion of translation is partly antithetical to the ideas in Rosa’s work. Or, alternately, to convey the despair of terrain slipping beneath one’s feet, and to encounter the heightened suspense of magic, the translation, as part of its strategy, cannot devotedly rely on its original language, not as its source text. The work undertaken by Felipe W.Martinez is a new form of translation that risks everything in order to encounter the same treacherous knowing Rosa had traversed. And it takes its risks by not taking risks: by being, almost word for word, a literal translation. This is an approach that reductively converts, as opposed to translates. The idiomatic differences between English and Portuguese are not accented. The syntax is not finessed. Liberties are not assumed on account of improving readability. What stands, resoundingly amid such absences, is the awakened challenge of reading. The genuine peril of not knowing. That is, this translation, one that purports to know nothing, creates access into the guileful world Rosa had created in Portuguese. But not by translating. If anything, GRANDE SERTÃO: VEREDAS is speaking a cosmic language through a linguistic one. And W.Martinez does us the service of recognizing this, as what configures the shapes of words and sentences is not as simple as neologisms, portmanteaus, and digressions, but as terrifying as the path the fool traverses: all paths. As such, this translation doesn’t speak English, just as the original does not speak Portuguese. It is the assemblage of paradox as a new logic that can be navigated, if only one could suspend the comfort of readability, of expectation. If one could descend a mountain in the pitch dark of night, each step shocking the body, unable to acclimate to the unleveled heights. Without a doubt, the translation is incongruous to the Portuguese. Taking a small excerpt to compare: Eh, well, thereafter, the rest the Sir provide: comes the bread, comes the hand, comes the god, comes the dog. What is striking is the interplay between “god” and “dog”. To most English speakers, this anagram is a familiar one. But in Portuguese the words god (“deus”) and dog (“cão”) are not so closely linked. In fact, there is no direct mention of “deus” in Rosa’s text: Eh, pois, empós, o resto o senhor prove: vem o pão, vem a mão, vem o são, vem o cão. Both are fascinating. In Rosa’s excerpt, the rhythm is unmistakable and precise, despite, of course, the indices of hesitation: the commas, the Eh, the uncomfortable way of searching through prolongation and wait. This is the sort of paradox Rosa can engage within a sentence. W.Martinez’s does this as well, at a scale that reverberates beyond the sentence, and with one noticeable addition: deus. What may appear to be an overstep, to add such a weighted word that draws out wordplay but is, nevertheless, not in the source text, is exemplary of risk. The translation buzzes because of it. This is because throughout the text we encounter dogs frequently, as some primal beast on par with humans. The dog is one that masters and can be mastered. A creature that is at times its face, and at others a mask. It is a powerful presence. For the translator to be attuned to the reverent undercurrent attributed to this animal, and create within the translation such charged play in English from what was only an implication in Portuguese, is in tribute to the grand beauty within dissonance. What aberrant modes of writing and translation can teach us most assuredly, is that things, words, are not in states of rightness or wrongness, but of oscillation. This isn’t so different from what Rosa says himself: The Sir look…see: the most important and beautiful, of the world, is this: that the people are not always same, still were not completed — but that they go always shifting. They tune or detune. We find this so readily in W.Martinez’s translation, this tuning and detuning. Nancy Fumero Los Angeles GRAND SERTÃO: VEREDAS BY JOÃO GUIMARÃES ROSA TRANSLATED FROM THE PORTUGUESE BY FELIPE W.MARTINEZ Nonothing. Shots that the Sir heard were man brawling not, God be. Bleach white sights on the tree in the backyard, down in the river. By my right. I do this every day, I like; from the bad of boyhood. Thereof they came to call on me. Case of a calf: a white calf, errorful, eyes of to not be—saw selves—; and with a mask of a dog! They told me; I didn’t want to catch a sight. Same that, by the defects of birth, upturned lips, looked to be a laughing man. Folkface, dogface: they determined—it was the devil. Bananas. Killed it. Do not know who owned it. They came to borrow my guns. I caved. I’ve no power to impose. Oh, sir, you laugh certain laughs…Look: when it’s a true shot, first the dogs begin to bark, instantly—after, then, you see who’s handed death. Sir, endure, this is the Sertão. Some want that it is not: that situated Sertão is in and out of those general fields, they say, end of the road, highlands, the other Urucuia. Toleima. For those of Cortino and of Curvelo, then, isn’t here said Sertão? Ah! That there’s more! To place the Sertão it’s told: it’s where the pastures lack latches; where one can tear off ten, fifteen leagues without running into a houseinhabitant; where criminalousness lives out its christ jesus. Sifted out from the tightening grip of the law. The Urcuia comes from the western mountains. But today, its banks, give all—farmlands of farms, pastures of meadows of good yield, low tides, cultures that go kill for kill, until these virgins there are. The general fields run round. These general fields are without size. Ultimately, whichever one one approves, the Sir knows: bread or breads, it’s a question of heads…the Sertão is everywhere. Of the devi? No comment. Sir ask the dwellers. Falsely I fear they unspeak that name of his—only say: whatsitcalled. Volt! no… Whosoever over avoids it, lives with it. In the sentence of one Aristides—who exists in the first palm grove on the right hand side, called Vereda-of-Cow-Calm-of-Saint-Rita—everyone believes: he can't pass in three designated places: then can be heard the tiny cry, behind, a little voice warning:— "Here I come! Here I come!... "— that is the Capirote, the whatsitcalled... And one Jise Simplicio—who anyone from here will swear he keeps an imp in house, a little satanite, imprisoned and obliged to help in all greedful deeds; reason that Simplicio emprises en route to complete riches. As such, for this they say too that his beast bristles and refuses, denying his banner, unyielding, when he wishes to mount... Superstition. Jise Simplicio and Aristides, continue getting fatter, thence unheard or heard. Still the Sir study: right now, in these days of time, you have people purporting that the devil proper stopped, mid-passage, in Andrequice. A boy out of there, to whom'd appeared, and there lauded that, to get here—normally, by horse, a day-n-half—he was capable of such with only some twenty minutes enough... by coasting the River of Chico by the headwaters! Or, too, who knows—sans offense—will not have been, for example, even yourself the Sir who announced such, when you passed by there, for fun run funny? Thereof, not my given crime, I know that wasn't. And evil I wanted not. Only that one question, in hours, at times, brightens peaceful reason. But, the Sir understand: if such a boy, there was, he wanted to dupe. Because, hey, that, to cut the river off by the springs, would be the same thing as one redoubling in the internals of this our state of ours, costant of a journey of some three months... Then? Whatsitcalled? Dodo. The fantastication. And, the respect of giving him such these names of delicacy, is what it is for one to want to invoke that he form of form, with his presence! Not that is. I, personally, almost that have lost in him the creed, deserving to Deus; is the that to the Sir I say, to pure-secret. I know that it is well established, that it greases our Saintly-Gospels. On occasion, I conversed with a young seminarian, super suitable, conferring in the book of prayers and coated in vestments, with a stick of black-sage in hand—prosed that he went auxilitator to the father, to extract the Cujo, from the body living of an oldwoman, in Waterfalls-of-Bulls, he went with the vicar of Field-Round... I conceive. The Sir not is as I? I didn't believe a single thing. Compadre mine Quelemem describes that that which reveals effect are the low spirits meager, of third, adoing in the worst darkness and with anxieties of connecting selves with the livers—they give support. Compadre mine Quelemem is who much me consoles—Quelemem of Goias. But he has to live far from here, in Jijuja, Vereda of Buriti Dark... Ahrr, I leave myself there, that in enevildemonment or with support—the Sir too must have had known diverse, men, women. As not yes? For me, umpteen I've seen, that I've learned. Ma-Neigh, Blood-o'Other, or Legion-Lips, or Tear-em-Down, Cold-Cutter, or Sissy-Goat, one Treciziano, or Verdigris... or Hermogenes... o'them, pileload. If I could forget so many names... I'm not a man for calming horses! And, same, whom of yes of to be jagunço self enters, yea is for some competence entrant of demonion. Will it not? Will it? From first, I made and mixed, and to think not I thought. I didn't have the deadlines. I lived pulling difficult from difficult, fish alive on griddle: who lives asp'rously, no fantasies. But, now, fete of fate to me comes, and sans little disquietudes, I'm from creaky net. And myself invented in this like, of to speculate ideas. The devil exists and nonexists? I say the saying. Opennouncement. These melancholies. The Sir sees: exists waterfall; and since? But waterfall is gulch of ground, and water so pouring from it, retumbling; the Sir consume that water, or undo that bankment, remainder waterfall any? To live is negotiation much perilous. I explain to the Sir: the devil vigors inside of human, the wrinkles of human— or is the human ruin, or the human of adversess. I free, per se, citizen, is that not has devil notone. Notone!— is the that I say. The Sir approve? Me declares total, frank— is high merit that me make: and to beg might, increased. This case— by rashtravagance that me they see— is of mine certain importance. God grant not was... But, not say that the Sir, awised and instructed, that agrees in people of them?! Not? You I appreciate! Your high opinion composes my value. Yea I knew, waited for it— yea the field! Ah, a we, in oldness, we lack of to have plowing of rest. You I appreciate. Is devil notone. Nor esprit. Never I've seen. Someone ought to see, then was I myself, this your servant. Was I you to tell... Well, the devil regulate his state black, ins creatures, ins womens, ins humans. E'en: ins childrens— I declaim. Since not is said: "boy—trainee of the devil"? And ins thes uses, ins plants, ins waters, in terra, in wind... Manures. …The devil in the street, in the middle of the vortex... Hey? Hey? Ah. Figuration mine, of worse by back, the certain memories. Mal-make me! I suffer pain of to tell not…Meliorate, if chillingly: well, in a ground and with equal format of branches and leaves, not give to cassava-calm, that is eaten common, and the cassava-mad that kills? Now, the Sir yea saw a strangeness? A cassava-sweet can rapidly to turn agonizing— motives not I know, at times is said that is for replanted in the terrain always, with mutations then, of caules—go embittering, of s’much in s’much, of its self takes poisons. And, well look: the other, the cassava-mad, too is that at times can fix calm, the estimate, of is to eat sans notone mal. And what this is? Eh, the Sir yea saw, for to see, the ugliness of hate pleated, facetorqued, on the faces of one cobrarattlesnake? Observed the porker fat, capita day more felicity brute, capable of, could, snort and engulf for its own dirty coziness the world total? And sparrowhawk, blackbird, some, the features of they yea represent the need of cleave for before, rend and shred by beak, appears a knife much fine for ruin I desire. Total. Has even twisted races of stone, horrorous, venomous— that spoil mortal the aquas, if they are buried beneath of well; the devil inside of them sleeps: they are the devil. Is known? And the demon— that is only thus the significance of one mercury malign— have order of to follow the path of him, have license to brag?! Arr, he is variegated in all! What the what wastes, goes spending the devil of inside of the people, by itttybits, is the reasonable to suffer. And the delight of love—compadre mine Quelemem says. Family. Really? Is, and not is. The Sir think and not think. Total is and not is… Almost all more grave criminous ferocity, always is much good husband, good son, good father, and is good-friend-of-your-friends! I know of those. Solo that have the afters— and Deus, joined. I spy many nimbi. But, in veracity, son, too, softens. Look: one called Aleixo, resident a league from Step-of-Sour, in Of-Sand, was the man of major badness calm that yea you saw. Me agreed that near the house of his had a weir, amidst the palms, with traíras, for souls of enormous, desenormous, to the real, that received fame; the Aleixo gave of to eat to them, in hours just, they self accustomed to if assuch of lunacies, in order to gobble, seemed to be fishes instructed. One day, solo for grace rustic, he killed an oldman who by there passed, destitute begging alms. The Sir not doubt—have people, in this bored world, that kill solo in order to see someone make grimace… Eh, well, thereafter, the rest the Sir provide: comes the bread, comes the hand, comes the god, comes the dog. This Aleixo was man afamilied, had children small; they were the love of his, total, absurdity. Gave good, that not even a year there passed, of to killed the oldman poor, and the children of Aleixo there they asickened. Smallepidemic of measles, they said, but complex; they never heal. When, then, they healed. But the eyes of theirs vermillionized high in an inflame of spraining to rebellion; and nexthing— the that not I know is if they went of at once, or one later and later other and other— they remained blind. Blind, sans remission of one sweet of light of this Ours! The Sir imagine: stairset— three boys and one girl— all blind. Sans remediable. The Aleixo not lost the judgment, but he changed; ah, mutated complete— now lives of band of Deus, sweating to be good and charitous in all his hours of night and of day. Appears even that he fixed the felicity, that before not was. He himself says he was a man of luck, because Deus wanted to have pity of him, to transform for there the route of his soul. That I heard, and me it gave rage. Reason of the children. If being castigated, what culpa of the let-there-bes of Aleixo those little children had?! Compadre mine Quelemem reproved my uncertainties. That, for certain, inother life returnaound, the children too had been the most wicked, of the mass and part of the father, demons of the same kettle of place. Sir the what thinks? And the oldman, assassinated? — I know the Sir goes to discuss. Well, too. In order that he had a sin of crime, in the body, by to pay. If the people— conforming compadre mine Quelemem is who says— if the people turn to to incarnate renovated, I contemplate even that enemy of death can come as son of the enemy. Look see: if to myself I say, has a subject Pedro Pindo, neighbor of here more six leagues, man of good for all in all, he and the woman of his, always been good, of goodness. They have a son of some ten years called Valtei—name modern, is the that the population of here now appreciates, the Sir knows. Well this-little-thing, thislet, since that some understanding illuminated in him, deed demonstrated the that is: petition stepfather, acid burner, likeful of ruin of inside of the profundity of the species of its nature. In which that torments, to the slowly, of all beasts or raisinglings little that quarrel; one time he found a creole woman hooched foolish sleeping, he arranged a shard of bottle, lashed at three points on the stern of the legs of hers. The what this boy drooled seeing, is bleeding hen or to knife pig.— “I enjoy of to kill…”— one occasion he teeny me told. He opened in me a fright; because: birdy that self leans over— the flight yea is ready! Well the Sir oversee: the pa, Pedro Pindo, mode of to correct this, and the ma, they give in him, misery and mast—they cast the boy sans to eat, they tied to trees in the yard, he nude, unplumed, even in June cold, they tilled the bittybody of his with the trammel and with the goblet, after they cleansed the skin of the sanguine, with bottle gourd brine. The people know, spy, fix wasted. The boy yea relowered of thinness, the eyes entering, caress of bones, enskulled, and tuberculated, the time total hacking, coughness of the that draw parched pectorals. Arr, that now, visible, the Pindo and the woman self habituated of on him hit, of little bit in little they were creating in this a pleasure ugly of diversion— as they regulate the canings in hours certain comfortable, until they call people to see the example good. I think that boy not endure, yea there is in the ta-da, not arrive for the lent to come… Ooee-ooee, then?! Not being as compadre mine Quelemem to want, that explication is that the Sir bestowed? That boy had to be a man. He should, in swing, terrible perversities. Soul of his was in the pitch. Demonstrated. And, now, paid. Ah, but, happens, when he’s crying and paining, he suffers equal that as was as a boy good… Bird, I saw all, in this world! Yea I saw even horse with hiccups… —the that the thing most costous that is. Good, but the Sir may say, should of: and in the start— for offenses and arts, the people— as for that was that s’much amended was started? Ey, ey, ey all collided. Compadre mine Quelemem, too. Am solo a sertanite, in these high ideas I navigate mal. Am much poor poor-thing. Envy my pedigree and of ones conform the Sir, with total reading and doctoration. Not is that I be illiterate. I spelt, years and middle, midly speller, memory and palmer. I had master, Master Lucas, in the Curralinho, he memorized grammar, the operations, rule-of-three, even geography and study patria. On leaves great of paper, with caprice I traced handsome maps. Ah, not is for to speak: but, since of the start, me they thought sophisticated of side. And that I merited of to go to course latin, in Lesson Waterlily—that too they said. Time nostalgic! Going today, I appreciate a good book, despaced. On the farm The Lilittlelemon, of one mine friend Vito Soziano, so sign of this almanac thick, of logoglyphs and conundrums and other divided matters, all year come. In s’much, I place primacy is in the reading advantageous, life of saints, virtues and examples— missionary astute engambling the Indians, or Saint Francis of Assis, Saint Anthony, Saint Gerald… I like much of moral. To ratiocinate, exhort the others for the good way, to acounsel to just. Mine woman, that the Sir knows, vigils for me: much prayer. She is a blessable. Compadre mine Quelemem always says that I may to aquiet my fears on conscience, that being well-attended, terrible good-esprits me protect. Eep! With like… As is of saint effect, I help with mine to want to accredit. But not even always can I. The Sir knew: I total the mine life I thought for me, lining, I am born different. I am and I same. I divert of total the world… I almost that nothing not I know. But I disconfide of many things. The Sir, conceding, I say: in order to think long, I am dog master— the Sir loose in mine front an idea ease and I research that by profundity of total the backwoods, amen! Look: the should of to have, was of so reunited-selves the wise, politicos, constitutions graded, closed the definitive the notion— to proclaim for one time, art assemblies, that not have devil notone, not exists, not possible. Valor of law! Solo assuch, they gave tranquility good to the people. Because the government not cares?! Ah, I know that not is possible. Not me settled the Sir for philistine. One this is to place ideas arranged, other is to deal with country of people, of flesh and sanguine, of thousand-and-many miseries… S’many people—gives scare of to know—and notone so calms: All nascenting, crescendoing, so wedding, wanting collocation of employment, consumables, health, abundance, to be important, wanting rain and affairs good… Of luck that lacks of so to choose: or we t’weave of to live in the salacious common, or care solo of religion solo. I could to be: father clergyman, if not chief of jagunços; for other things not was I birthed. But mine oldness yea principaled I erred of total account. And the rheumatism… There as whom says: in the primers. Ahem. Hey? Hey? The that more I think, I testify and explain: all-the-world is mad. The Sir, I, we, the people all. For this is that so lacks principally of religion: in order to desendodorize, to disdodoate. Pray is that heals of lunacy. In the general. This is that is the salvation-of-the-soul…Much religion your servant! I here, not I lose occasion of religion. I profit of all. I drink water of all rivers… One solo, for me is little, maybe not me arrives. I pray christian, catholic, I burrow the certain; and I accept the prayers of compadre mine Quelemem, doctrine of he, of Kardec. But, when I can, I go in the Mindubim, where one Matias is believer, methodist: the people so accuse of sinner, reads high the bible, and why, singing hymns beautiful of his. Total me quiets, me suspends. Whatever small shade me refreshes. But is solo much provisory. I wanted to pray— the time total. Many people not me approve, they think that law of Deus is privileges, invariable. And I! Doof! I Detest! The what I am? — the what I do, that want, much curia. And in face of total I face, executed. I? —not I trammel. Look: I have a black girl, Maria Leoncia, long from here not she lives, the prayers of her afame much virtue of power. Well to her I pay, every month— ordering of to pray for me one third, every saint day, and, on the Sundays, a rosary. Value, so values. Mine woman not sees mal in this. And I am, yea mandated word for an other, of the voyage-voyage, a Izina Calanga, in order to come here, I heard of that prayer too with grand mermermerits, I go to effect with she treatment equal. I want handful of those, me defending in Deus, reunited of me in volta… Cuts of Christ! To live is much perilous… To want the good with too much force, of incertain way, can yea to be being so wanting the mal, per to initiate. These humans! All they pull the world for itself, for the to concert amended. But capita one solo sees and understands the things of one his world. Amountain, the most supro, most serious was Mediero Vaz. That one man ancient… his Joaozy Ben-Ben, the most brave of all, no-one never can decipher how he by inside consisted. Joca Ramiro— grand man prince!— was politico. Zé Bebelo wanted to be politico, but had and not had luck: fox that lingered. So Candelario so demonized, by to think that was with illness mal. Titao Passos was the by the appreciation of friends: solo per via of them, of his same amities, were that such high so ajagunçoed. Antonio Do— severe bandit. But by half, grand majority half that be. Andalecio, in the profound, a good man-of-good, being raving in his total justice. Ricardao, same, wanted was to be rich in peace: for this he warred. Solo the Hermogenes was that born formed tiger, and assassinite. And the “Ofidios White”? Ah, not me speak. Ah this… joyless mischeivious, that was— that was a poor boy of the destiny… So good, congruous. The Sir heard, I you told: the ruin with the ruin, they terminate by the spine-bushes so to crack— Deus awaits that spendance. Boy!: Deus is patience. The contrary, is the devil. So consumes. The Sir file knife on knife— and file— that so they scrape. Even the rocks of the profound, one of in the other, they go-so aroundabounding even, that the rivulet rolls. Per enquantity, that I think, total as hath, in this world, is because so merits and lacks. Afterly precise. Deus not so reports with rifle, not garrotes the regulation. For what? Quit: goof with goof—one day, some illumination and learn: smart. Solo that, at times, for most auxiliar, Deus begets, in the middle, a pinch of pepper… Therebe? Well, for example: some time, I went of train, there in Seven-Lagoons, for parts of to consult a medical, of name me indicated. He went vested well, and in car of first, by via of the doubts, not me they shadowed for jagunço ancient. It goes and happens, that, close same of me, enfront, he took aseat, returning from the wild North, a mac Jazevedao, delegate professionale. Came with a capanga of his, an undercover, and I well knew the two, of that s’much a was ruin, as the other ruin was. The veracity to say, first I had the strict of me to surpasss for one lonng, to mutate of my place. Judgement me told, meliorate stay. Well, looking, I looked. And— you I tell: never I saw face of man furnished of brutez or malady more, of the them in that. As that was ogre, trussed of thickset, relustered of crude in the eyes small, and armed a chin of stone, toweringbrow; not of mid nor forehead. Not laughed, not so laughed not even one time; but, speaking or silent, the people appeared always to him some teeth, prey pointed of canids. Arr, and blustered, an ittybit. Solo growled curt, low, the mid-words grizzled. He came relooking, historicizing the documents— one by one the leaves with portraits and with the blacks of the digits of jagunços, lifters of horses and criminouses of death. That application of work, in one thing of those, generated the ire in the people. The undercover, busybodyguard, total close, seated joined, attending, excelling of to be dog. Me made a dread, but solo in the goof of the corpus, not in the intern of the courages. One hour, one of those reports fell— and I bent quickly, I knew there precisely by why, not I wanted, not I thought— even today I raise shame of this— I picked the paper of the ground, and delivered to him. Thereof, I say: I had more rage, because I did that; but there yea it was done. The man not even me looked, not even said notone thankfulment. Event he soles of the shoes of his— solo looking— that soles rough thick, bent of enormous, appearing iron bronzed. Because I knew: This Jazevedao, when he apprehended someone, the primary quiet thing that proceeded was that he came entering, sans to have to to say, feigning some hurry, and go stepping on the top of the feet of the poorthings. And that on these occasions he gave laughters, gave… Well, geck! I delivered to him the leaf of paper, and went leaving of there, by to have hand on me of not to destroy by shots that subject. Meat that much they weigh… And umbilicated beginning of belly pot bellied, that me created will… With my lightness, joyful that I’d kill. But, the barbarities that this delegate made and happened, the Sir not even has callus in heart to be able me to hear. He achieved of many men and women to cry blood, for the simple universolo ours here. Sertão. The Sir knows: sertão is where mandates who is strong, with the guile. And bullet is a tidbit of metal… S’much, I say: Jazevedao— one assuch, should of to have, needed? Ah, need. Leather ruined is that calls goad of point. That there be that, after— business particular of he— in the life or in the other, each Jazevedao, accomplished the that he has, desclimbs in his time of pain, too, until to pay the that he gave— compadre mine Quelemem is there, in order to fiscalize. The Sir knows: the peril that is to live… But solo of the mode, of these, by ugly instrument, was that the jagunsaga so finished. Sir thinks that Antonio Do or Olivino Oliviano were going to fix goodies by pure spelling of itself, or by begging of the infelicitous, or by always to hear sermon of father? You I think! In the aims… Of jagunço comported active in order so to repent in the middle of his jagunsagas, solo I lay of one: called Joe Cazuzo— was in smashing of one shotshow, for on the summit of the place Sierra New, district of river rusted, on the stream Traçadal. We made mal minority small, and they closed in order summit of us the personnel of one Coronel Adalvino, forted politico, with many soldiers uniformed in the center, commanding of the Lieutenant Epiphany Helm, that after fixed captain. We lasted hour more hour, and yea gave almost of encircled. There, of misslip, that Joe Cazuzo— man much valiant— so kneeled turned on the ground of the thick, lifted the arms that not even shoots of Jatoba dry, and solo yell, howl clear and howl deaf:— “I saw the Virgin Ours, in the resplendor of the Heavens, with her children of angels!... ” He screamed not touched. — “I saw the Virgin!... ” He ensouled? We desequaled. Bolt for my horse—that I thought— I leaped in mal seat, noteven I knew in which rupture-time I unfastened the halter, of tied up it foot of timber. I flew, arrived. Bullet come. The pasture roared. In the brush, the fear of the people so goes to the whole, one fear intentional. I could to lash out, fated burro brute, giv-that, giv-that. Some two or three bullets so drovein the pad of the mine saddle, they perforated of to tear away almost much the kapok of the filling. Horse trembled in pro, in middle of gallop, I know: thinks in the owner. I not fit of to be more well shrunken. Bulleted came to the sack that I had on the back, with few mine things. And other, of fusil, in ricochet decreed, heated my thigh, sans me wound, the Sir see: bullet does the what to want—so pierced impressed, between in me and the harness! Times crazy… Burumbum!: the horse so kneeled in the fall, dead perhaps, and I yea falling for front, embraced in foliage full, branched and linias, that me swayed and skewered, done I was pendulating in web of spider… Whither? I traversed that life total… Of fear of anxiety, I ruptured to read with mine corpus that forest, I know there — and me fell world below, rolled for the hollow of a grotto closed of shrubs, always me grasped— rolled same assuch: after: after, when I saw mine hands, total on they that not was withdrawn sanguine, was smeared green, on the digits, of leaves living that I pulled and mashed… I landed on the sedge of the profound— and a beast dark gave a releap, with a sneeze, too mad of fright: that was a papa-mel, that I descried; in order to flee, this is solely. Bigger being I, me doused mine overcoat; I spigotted total. And of one bit of thought: if that beast irara lying there then there not had cobra. I took the place of his. Existed cobra notone. I could me to lose. I was solo spineless, softness, but that not deadened, inside, the collisions of the heart. I gasped. I conceived that they came, me kill. Not even did mal, me mattered not. Assuch, some moments, at least I guarded the license of term in order me to rest. Conforming I thought in Diadorim. Solo I thought was in he. One joão-congo sang. I wanted to die thinking in my friend Diadorim, hand-o-bro, who was on the Sierra of WoodO’Bow, almost on the border baiana, with our other half of the so-candelarios… With my friend Diadorim me embraced, sentiment my went-flew right for he… Ay, arr, but: that this mine mouth not has order notone. I am accounting outside, things divagated. In the Sir me confide? Til-that, til-that. Say the angel-of-the-guard… But, conforming I came: after so knew, that same the soldiers of the Lieutenant and the goats of Coronel Adalvino remitted of to respect the blast of that Joe Cazuzo. And that this ended being the man most pacificious of the world, fabricator of oil and sacristan, in the Saint Sundays White. Times! For total, cleaned revelation, I fix thinking. I like. Meliorate, for the idea if well to open, is travelling in train-of-iron. Could, lived to top and to bottom, inside of it. Information that I ask: same in the Heavens, end of end, how is that the soul wins so to forget s’much sufferments and maladies, in the received and in the given? The how? The Sir knows: are things of hideous ofmuch, have. Pain of corpus and pain of idea mark forted, that forted as the total love and rage of hate. Goes, sea… Of luck that, then, the Firmiano, by appellationed Louse-of-Snake, so leoprosized with the leg disconformed, thickening, of that disease that not so cures; and not discern almost more, constant the branchials in the eyes, of the cataracts. Of before, years, had to of so disarray of the jagunsaga. Well, one occasion, some was on the ranch of his, on the High Jeuitai, after accounted—that, turns time, comes subject, he would say: “Me give yearning is of to seize a soldier, and such, for one good flay, with knife blind… But, first, to castrate…” The Sir conceive? Who has more dose of demon in self is Indian, any race of brusque. Folk see nation ofthese, for there profound of the generals of Goias, theofwhere has vagarous grand rivers, of aquas always so clear pleasantly, running of down crystal rosed… Louse-of-Snake gave of sanguine of heathen. Sir me will say: but that he pronounced that out of mouth, manner of to represent that yet not was old decadent. Opus of to oppose, for fear of to be tame, and cause in order so to see respected. Total listened for such rule: palavered of ruins, for more so valued, because we to the environs is hard durability. The worst, but, is that they finish, through the same ford, given of one day to execute the declared, in the real. I saw s’much crudity! Pain not pays to account; if I go, I collide. And me dedrip, three that me sicken, this total. Me convokes that the personnel, today in day, is good of heart. This is, good in the trivial. Malices wildwants, and perversities, always have some, but scarcities. Generation mine, true, was not assuch. Ah, goes to turn a time, in which not is used more to kill people… I yea am old. Good, I was saying: question, this that me excavates… Ah, I formed that question, for compadre mine Quelemem. That me responded: that, for close to heaven, we so amplified so, that total the uglies past so exhaled of not to be—fated sans-modus from time of youngster, mal-arts. As we not lack of to have remorse of the which divulged in the pulsation of his nightmares of one night. Assuch that: fleeced-so, flourished-so! Ahem. For this said, is that the journey to the Heavens is delayed. I confide with compadre mine Quelemem, the Sir knows: reason of creed same that has—that, for total the mal, that so does, one day so repays, the exact. Subject assuch rises three times, in ante of to want to facilitate in any minutia reprehensible… Compadre mine Quelemem never speaks vacant, not subtreats. Solo that this to he not I go to expose. We never should have to declare that accept entire the alien—that is what is the rule of the king! The Sir look…see: the most important and beautiful, of the world, is this: that the people are not always same, still were not completed — but that they go always shifting. They tune or detune. Truth major. Is the that the life me taught. This that me animates, mound. And, other thing: the devil and the brutes; but Deus is treacherous! Ah, a beauty of treacherous— gives like! The force of his, when he wants— boy!— me gives the fear dread! Deus comes coming: no one not sees. He does in the law of gentle— assuch is the miracle. And Deus attacks beautiful, so amusing, so economizes. The well: one day in a tannery, the little knife mine I had dropped inside of a tank, solo soup of bark of tan, stryphnodendron adstringens, angico, there I know. —“Tomorrow I try…”— I said, withmyself. Because it was of night, light notone I not disputed. Ah, then, I found: on the other day, early, the knife, the iron of it, had been gnawed, almost by half, by that aqua dark, total quiet. I left, for more to see. Crack, fuse! Know the what was? Well, in that same of afternoon, there: of the little knife solo so found the handle… The handle, for not to be of cold metal, but of horn of deer. There is: Deus… Good, the Sir heard knows, the that knows me understands… We sum, not think that religion fractures. Sir think the contrary. Visible that, those other times, I painted—belief that the neoglaziovia variegata lifts the flower. Ah, good my joy… Boyhood. But boyhood is task for more later so to deny. Too, I of that of to think in vague in s’much, lost mine hand-of-man for the management hot, in the middle of all. But, today, that I ratiocinated, and think the endeavor, not nor for this not I give for low my competence, in a fire-and-iron. The to see. Would approach would come here with war on me, with bad parts, with other laws, or with excessive looks, and I even draw to ignite this zone, ay, if, if! Is in the mouth of the blunderbuss: is in the rete-te-tem… And lonelyonly not I am, there-of-the. For not this, I was I placed encircle my mine people. Look the Sir: here, close, vereda below, the Paspe — cropper my — is mine. More league, if that, have the Herpetotheres, and have the compadre Ciril, him and three children, I know that they serve. Band of that hand, the Alaripe: knew the Sir the that is that so boasts, in rifleation and by the knife, one cearense did this! After more: the João Innatal, the Quipes, Lophiosilurus-of-claws. And the Fafafa— this gave fights high, all side with me, in the combat old of the Anteater-such: we cleaned the wind of whom not had order of to respirate, and ante these we desencompassed… The Fafafa has a mass of mares. He raises horses good. Even a little more distant, on the ped-of-sierra, of band mine was the Sesfred, Jesualdo, the Nelson, and João Concliz. Some others. The Triol… And not I go valuing? I leave terra with them, of theirs the what is mine is, we close that we not even brothers. For what I want to gather richness? They are there, of arms aireated. Enemy to come, we cross called, gathering: is hour of one good shotshowerment in peace, they exp’riment to see. I say this to the Sir, of confidence. Too, not go to think in double. We want is to work, propose tranquility. Of me, person, I live for mine woman, that total mode-meliorate merits, and for the devotion. Well-to want of mine woman was that me assisted, prayers of hers, graces. Love comes of love. I say. In Diadorim, I think too— but Diadorim is the mine nebulina… Now, well: not I wanted to touch on this more— of the Tineaous; arrive. But has a nevertheless: I ask: the Sir believe, think trust of truth in that parlance, of with the demon so to able to deal with pact? No, no is no? I knew that not there. I spoke of favas. But I like of total good confirmation. To vend you proper soul… Inventionate false! And, soul, the what is? Soul of has to be thing internal supremed, much more of the of inside, and is solo, of the that one if thought: ah, soul sheer! Decision of to vend soul is fearless moll, fantasied of moment, has not the obedience legal. Can I to vend those good terras, thereof of between the Veredas-Four— that are of one Mr. Admiral, who resides in the capital federal? Can I some? Then, if one boy boy is, and for this not so authorizes of to negotiate… And we, this I know, at times is solo fated boy. Mal that in mine life I prepared, I was in a certain infancy in dreams — total runs and arrives so swift —; will be that if hath flame of responsibilities? If dream; yea so did… I gave rapadura to the chump! Ahem. Well. If his soul, and has, it is of Deus established, not even that the person want or not want. Not is vendible. The Sir not thinks? Me declare, frank, I beg. Ah, you I appreciate. You so see that the Sir knows much, in idea firm, beyond of to have letter of doctor. You I appreciate, for much. Your company me gives high pleasures. In terms, I liked that I would live here, or close, was a help. Here not so has conviviation that to instruct. Sertão. Knows the Sir: sertão is where the thought of the people so forms more forted of the than power of the place. To live is much perilous… Eh, that you so go? Yeayea? Is that not. Today, no. Tomorrow, no. Not I consense. The Sir me forgive, but in endeavor of mine friendship accept: the Sir stay. After fifth of-morning-early, the Sir wanting to go, then goes, same me leaves feeling your absence. But, today or tomorrow, no. Visit, here in house, with me, is for three days! But, the Sir really intends to trespass the field this sea of territotires, for sortment of to confer the what exists? You have your motives. Now— I say for me — the Sir comes, came late, Times were, the customs mutate. Almost that, of legitimate loyal, little surplus, not even no excess more nothing. The bands good of valientoughs they reparted their end; many who were jagunço, by ouch pain, beg alms. Same as the herdsmen they doubt of to come in the commerce vested of clothes entire of leather, they think that garb of jerkin is ugly and boor. And even the herd in the shrubbed pasture goes waning less mad, more educated: casted of zebu, dissee with the rest of corralers and captiveborns. Always, in the generals is to the poverty, to the sadness. A sadness that even gladdens. But, then, for a crop reasonable of bizzarancies, I recounsel of the Sir to entest journey more dilated. Not were my desmight, by acids and rheumatism, there I went. I guided the Sir till total. March 2013 San Diego, CA ORIGINAL TEXT NONADA. TIROS QUE O SENHOR ouviu foram de briga de homem não, Deus esteja. Alvejei mira em árvores no quintal, no baixo do córrego. Por meu acerto. Todo dia isso faço, gosto; desde mal em minha mocidade. Daí, vieram me chamar. Causa dumbezerro: um bezerro branco, erroso, os olhos de nem ser – se viu –; e com máscara de cachorro. Me disseram; eu não quis avistar. Mesmo que, por defeito como nasceu, arrebitado de beiços, esse figurava rindo feito pessoa. Cara de gente, cara de cão: determinaram – era o demo. Povo prascóvio. Mataram. Dono dele nem sei quem for. Vieram emprestar minhas armas, cedi. Não tenho abusões. O senhor ri certas risadas... Olhe: quando é tiro de verdade, primeiro a cachorrada pega a latir, instantaneamente – depois, então, se vai ver se deu mortos. O senhor tolere, isto é o sertão. Uns querem que não seja: que situado sertão é por os campos-gerais a fora a dentro, eles dizem, fim de rumo, terras altas, demais do Urucuia. Toleima. Para os de Corinto e do Curvelo, então, o aqui não é dito sertão? Ah, que tem maior! Lugar sertão se divulga: é onde os pastos carecem de fechos; onde um pode torar dez, quinze léguas, sem topar com casa de morador; e onde criminoso vive seu cristo-jesus, arredado do arrocho de autoridade. O Urucuia vem dos montões oestes. Mas, hoje, que na beira dele, tudo dá – fazendões de fazendas, almargem de vargens de bom render, as vazantes; culturas que vão de mata em mata, madeiras de grossura, até ainda virgens dessas lá há. O gerais corre em volta. Esses gerais são sem tamanho. Enfim, cada um o que quer aprova, o senhor sabe: pão ou pães, é questão de opiniães... O sertão está em toda a parte. Do demo? Não gloso. Senhor pergunte aos moradores. Em falso receio, desfalam no nome dele – dizem só: o Que-Diga. Vote! não... Quem muito se evita, se convive. Sentença num Aristides – o que existe no buritizal primeiro desta minha mão direita, chamado a Vereda-da-Vaca-Mansa-deSanta-Rita – todo o mundo crê: ele não pode passar em três lugares, designados: porque então a gente escuta um chorinho, atrás, e uma vozinha que avisando: – “Eu já vou! Eu já vou!...” – que é o capiroto, o que-diga... E um José Simpilício – quem qualquer daqui jura ele tem um capeta em casa, miúdo satanazim, preso obrigado a ajudar em toda ganância que executa; razão que o Simpilício se empresa em vias de completar de rico. Apre, por isso dizem também que a besta pra ele rupeia, nega de banda, não deixando, quando ele quer amontar... Superstição. José Simpilício e Aristides, mesmo estão se engordando, de assim nãoouvir ou ouvir. Ainda o senhor estude: agora mesmo, nestes dias de época, tem gente porfalando que o Diabo próprio parou, de passagem, no Andrequicé. Um Moço de fora, teria aparecido, e lá se louvou que, para aqui vir – normal, a cavalo, dum dia-e-meio – ele era capaz que só com uns vinte minutos bastava... porque costeava o Rio do Chico pelas cabeceiras! Ou, também, quem sabe – sem ofensas – não terá sido, por um exemplo, até mesmo o senhor quem se anunciou assim, quando passou por lá, por prazido divertimento engraçado? Há-de, não me dê crime, sei que não foi. E mal eu não quis. Só que uma pergunta, em hora, às vezes, clareia razão de paz. Mas, o senhor entenda: o tal moço, se há, quis mangar. Pois, hem, que, despontar o Rio pelas nascentes, será a mesma coisa que um se redobrar nos internos deste nosso Estado nosso, custante viagem de uns três meses... Então? Que-Diga? Doideira. A fantasiação. E, o respeito de dar a ele assim esses nomes de rebuço, é que é mesmo um querer invocar que ele forme forma, com as presenças! Não seja. Eu, pessoalmente, quase que já perdi nele a crença, mercês a Deus; é o que ao senhor lhe digo, à puridade. Sei que é bem estabelecido, que grassa nos Santos- Evangelhos. Em ocasião, conversei com um rapaz seminarista, muito condizente, conferindo no livro de rezas e revestido de paramenta, com uma vara de maria-preta na mão – proseou que ia adjutorar o padre, para extraírem o Cujo, do corpo vivo de uma velha, na Cachoeira-dos-Bois, ele ia com o vigário do Campo-Redondo... Me concebo. O senhor não é como eu? Não acreditei patavim. Compadre meu Quelemém descreve que o que revela efeito são os baixos espíritos descarnados, de terceira, fuzuando nas piores trevas e com ânsias de se travarem com os viventes – dão encosto. Compadre meu Quelemém é quem muito me consola – Quelemém de Góis. Mas ele tem de morar longe daqui, na Jijujã, Vereda do Buriti Pardo... Arres, me deixe lá, que – em endemoninhamento ou com encosto – o senhor mesmo deverá de ter conhecido diversos, homens, mulheres. Pois não sim? Por mim, tantos vi, que aprendi. Rincha- Mãe, Sangued’Outro, o Muitos-Beiços, o Rasgaem-Baixo, Faca-Fria, o Fancho-Bode, um Treciziano, o Azinhavre... o Hermógenes... Deles, punhadão. Se eu pudesse esquecer tantos nomes... Não sou amansador de cavalos! E, mesmo, quem de si de ser jagunço se entrete, já é por alguma competência entrante do demônio. Será não? Será? De primeiro, eu fazia e mexia, e pensar não pensava. Não possuía os prazos. Vivi puxando difícil de dificel, peixe vivo no moquém: quem mói no asp’ro, não fantaseia. Mas, agora, feita a folga que me vem, e sem pequenos dessossegos, estou de range rede. E me inventei neste gosto, de especular idéia. O diabo existe e não existe? Dou o dito. Abrenúncio. Essas melancolias. O senhor vê: existe cachoeira; e pois? Mas cachoeira é barranco de chão, e água se caindo por ele, retombando; o senhor consome essa água, ou desfaz o barranco, sobra cachoeira alguma? Viver é negócio muito perigoso... Explico ao senhor: o diabo vige dentro do homem, os crespos do homem – ou é o homem arruinado, ou o homem dos avessos. Solto, por si, cidadão, é que não tem diabo nenhum. Nenhum! – é o que digo. O senhor aprova? Me declare tudo, franco – é alta mercê que me faz: e pedir posso, encarecido. Este caso – por estúrdio que me vejam – é de minha certa importância. Tomara não fosse... Mas, não diga que o senhor, assisado e instruído, que acredita na pessoa dele?! Não? Lhe agradeço! Sua alta opinião compõe minha valia. Já sabia, esperava por ela-já o campo! Ah, a gente, na velhice, carece de ter sua aragem de descanso. Lhe agradeço. Tem diabo nenhum. Nem espírito. Nunca vi. Alguém devia de ver, então era eu mesmo, este vosso servidor. Fosse lhe contar... Bem, o diabo regula seu estado preto, nas criaturas, nas mulheres, nos homens. Até: nas crianças – eu digo. Pois não é ditado: “menino – trem do diabo”? E nos usos, nas plantas, nas águas, na terra, no vento... Estrumes. ... O diabo na rua, no meio do redemunho... Hem? Hem? Ah. Figuração minha, de pior pra trás, as certas lembranças. Mal hajame! Sofro pena de contar não... Melhor, se arrepare: pois, num chão, e com igual formato de ramos e folhas, não dá a mandioca mansa, que se come comum, e a mandioca-brava, que mata? Agora, o senhor já viu uma estranhez? A mandioca-doce pode de repente virar azangada – motivos não sei; às vezes se diz que é por replantada no terreno sempre, com mudas seguidas, de manaíbas – vai em amargando, de tanto em tanto, de si mesma toma peçonhas. E, ora veja: a outra, a mandiocabrava, também é que às vezes pode ficar mansa, a esmo, de se comer sem nenhum mal. E que isso é? Eh, o senhor já viu, por ver, a feiúra de ódio franzido, carantonho, nas faces duma cobra cascavel? Observou o porco gordo, cada dia mais feliz bruto, capaz de, pudesse, roncar e engolir por sua suja comodidade o mundo todo? E gavião, corvo, alguns, as feições deles já representam a precisão de talhar para adiante, rasgar e estraçalhar a bico, parece uma quicé muito afiada por ruim desejo. Tudo. Tem até tortas raças de pedras, horrorosas, venenosas – que estragam mortal a água, se estão jazendo em fundo de poço; o diabo dentro delas dorme: são o demo. Se sabe? E o demo – que é só assim o significado dum azougue maligno – tem ordem de seguir o caminho dele, tem licença para campear?! Arre, ele está misturado em tudo. Que o que gasta, vai gastando o diabo de dentro da gente, aos pouquinhos, é o razoável sofrer. E a alegria de amor – compadre meu Quelemém, diz. Família. Deveras? É, e não é. O senhor ache e não ache. Tudo é e não é... Quase todo mais grave criminoso feroz, sempre é muito bom marido, bom filho, bom pai, e é bom amigo-de-seus-amigos! Sei desses. Só que tem os depois – e Deus, junto. Vi muitas nuvens. Mas, em verdade, filho, também, abranda. Olhe: um chamado Aleixo, residente a légua do Passo do Pubo, no da-Areia, era o homem de maiores ruindades calmas que já se viu. Me agradou que perto da casa dele tinha um açudinho, entre as palmeiras, com traíras, pra-almas de enormes, desenormes, ao real, que receberam fama; o Aleixo dava de comer a elas, em horas justas, elas se acostumaram a se assim das locas, para papar, semelhavam ser peixes ensinados. Um dia, só por graça rústica, ele matou um velhinho que por lá passou, desvalido rogando esmola. O senhor não duvide – tem gente, neste aborrecido mundo, que matam só para ver alguém fazer careta... Eh, pois, empós, o resto o senhor prove: vem o pão, vem a mão, vem o são, vem o cão. Esse Aleixo era homem afamilhado, tinha filhos pequenos; aqueles eram o amor dele, todo, despropósito. Dê bem, que não nem um ano estava passado, de se matar o velhinho pobre, e os meninos do Aleixo aí adoeceram. Andaço de sarampão, se disse, mas complicado; eles nunca saravam. Quando, então, sararam. Mas os olhos deles vermelhavam altos, numa inflama de sapiranga à rebelde; e susseguinte – o que não sei é se foram todos duma vez, ou um logo e logo outro e outro – eles restaram cegos. Cegos, sem remissão dum favinho de luz dessa nossa! O senhor imagine: uma escadinha – três meninos e uma menina – todos cegados. Sem remediável. O Aleixo não perdeu o juizo; mas mudou: ah, demudou completo – agora vive da banda de Deus, suando para ser bom e caridoso em todas suas horas da noite e do dia. Parece até que ficou o feliz, que antes não era. Ele mesmo diz que foi um homem de sorte, porque Deus quis ter pena dele, transformar para lá o rumo de sua alma. Isso eu ouvi, e me deu raiva. Razão das crianças. Se sendo castigo, que culpa das hajas do Aleixo aqueles meninozinhos tinham?! Compadre meu Quelemém reprovou minhas incertezas. Que, por certo, noutra vida revirada, os meninos também tinham sido os mais malvados, da massa e peça do pai, demônios do mesmo caldeirão de lugar. Senhor o que acha? E o velhinho assassinado? – eu sei que o senhor vai discutir. Pois, também. Em ordem que ele tinha um pecado de crime, no corpo, por pagar. Se a gente – conforme compadre meu Quelemém é quem diz – se a gente torna a encarnar renovado, eu cismo até que inimigo de morte pode vir como filho do inimigo. Mire veja: se me digo, tem um sujeito Pedro Pindó, vizinho daqui mais seis léguas, homem de bem por tudo em tudo, ele e a mulher dele, sempre sidos bons, de bem. Eles têm um filho duns dez anos, chamado Valtei – nome moderno, é o que o povo daqui agora apreceia, o senhor sabe. Pois essezinho, essezim, desde que algum entendimento alumiou nele, feito mostrou o que é: pedido madrasto, azedo queimador, gostoso de ruim de dentro do fundo das espécies de sua natureza. Em qual que judia, ao devagar, de todo bicho ou criaçãozinha pequena que pega; uma vez, encontrou uma crioula bentabêbada dormindo, arranjou um caco de garrafa, lanhou em três pontos a popa da perna dela. O que esse menino babeja vendo, é sangrarem galinha ou esfaquear porco. – “Eu gosto de matar...” – uma ocasião ele pequenino me disse. Abriu em mim um susto; porque: passarinho que se debruça – o vôo já está pronto! Pois, o senhor vigie: o pai, Pedro Pindó, modo de corrigir isso, e a mãe, dão nele, de miséria e mastro – botam o menino sem comer, amarram em árvores no terreiro, ele nu nuelo, mesmo em junho frio, lavram o corpinho dele na peia e na taca, depois limpam a pele do sangue, com cuia de salmoura. A gente sabe, espia, fica gasturado. O menino já rebaixou de magreza, os olhos entrando, carinha de ossos, encaveirada, e entisicou, o tempo todo tosse, tossura da que puxa secos peitos. Arre, que agora, visível, o Pindó e a mulher se habituaram de nele bater, de pouquinho em pouquim foram criando nisso um prazer feio de diversão – como regulam as sovas em horas certas confortáveis, até chamam gente para ver o exemplo bom. Acho que esse menino não dura, já está no blimbilim, não chega para a quaresma que vem... Uê-uê, então?!Não sendo como compadre meu Quelemém quer, que explicação é que o senhor dava? Aquele menino tinha sido homem. Devia, em balanço, terríveis perversidades. Alma dele estava no breu. Mostrava. E, agora, pagava. Ah, mas, acontece, quando está chorando e penando, ele sofre igual que se fosse um menino bonzinho... Ave, vi de tudo, neste mundo! lá vi até cavalo com soluço... – o que é a coisa mais custosa que há. Bem, mas o senhor dirá, deve de: e no começo – para pecados e artes, as pessoas – como por que foi que tanto emendado se começou? Ei, ei, aí todos esbarram. Compadre meu Quelemém, também. Sou só um sertanejo, nessas altas idéias navego mal. Sou muito pobre coitado. Inveja minha pura é de uns conforme o senhor, com toda leitura e suma doutoração. Não é que eu esteja analfabeto. Soletrei, anos e meio, meante cartilha, memória e palmatória. Tive mestre, Mestre Lucas, no Curralinho, decorei gramática, as operações, regra-de-três, até geografia e estudo pátrio. Em folhas grandes de papel, com capricho tracei bonitos mapas. Ah, não é por falar: mas, desde o começo, me achavam sofismado de ladino. E que eu merecia de ir para cursar latim, em Aula Régia – que também diziam. Tempo saudoso! Inda hoje, apreceio um bom livro, despaçado. Na fazenda O Limãozinho, de um meu amigo Vito Soziano, se assina desse almanaque grosso, de logogrifos e charadas e outras divididas matérias, todo ano vem. Em tanto, ponho primazia é na leitura proveitosa, vida de santo, virtudes e exemplos – missionário esperto engambelando os índios, ou São Francisco de Assis, Santo Antônio, São Geraldo... Eu gosto muito de moral. Raciocinar, exortar os outros para o bom caminho, aconselhar a justo. Minha mulher, que o senhor sabe, zela por mim: muito reza. Ela é uma abençoável. Compadre meu Quelemém sempre diz que eu posso aquietar meu temer de consciência, que sendo bem-assistido, terríveis bons-espíritos me protegem. Ipe! Com gosto... Como é de são efeito, ajudo com meu querer acreditar. Mas nem sempre posso. O senhor saiba: eu toda a minha vida pensei por mim, forro, sou nascido diferente. Eu sou é eu mesmo. Diverjo de todo o mundo... Eu quase que nada não sei. Mas desconfio de muita coisa. O senhor concedendo, eu digo: para pensar longe, sou cão mestre – o senhor solte em minha frente uma idéia ligeira, e eu rastreio essa por fundo de todos os matos, amém! Olhe: o que devia de haver, era de se reunirem-se os sábios, políticos, constituições gradas, fecharem o definitivo a noção – proclamar por uma vez, artes assembléias, que não tem diabo nenhum, não existe, não pode. Valor de lei! Só assim, davam tranqüilidade boa à gente. Por que o Governo não cuida?! Ah, eu sei que não é possível. Não me assente o senhor por beócio. Uma coisa é pôr idéias arranjadas, outra é lidar com país de pessoas, de carne e sangue, de mil-e-tantas misérias... Tanta gente – dá susto de saber – e nenhum se sossega: todos nascendo, crescendo, se casando, querendo colocação de emprego, comida, saúde, riqueza, ser importante, querendo chuva e negócios bons... De sorte que carece de se escolher: ou a gente se tece de viver no safado comum, ou cuida só de religião só. Eu podia ser: padre sacerdote, se não chefe de jagunços; para outras coisas não fui parido. Mas minha velhice já principiou, errei de toda conta. E o reumatismo... Lá como quem diz: nas escorvas. Ahã. Hem? Hem? O que mais penso, testo e explico: todo-omundo é louco. O senhor, eu, nós, as pessoas todas. Por isso é que se carece principalmente de religião: para se desendoidecer, desdoidar. Reza é que sara da loucura. No geral. Isso é que é a salvaçãoda- alma... Muita religião, seu moço! Eu cá, não perco ocasião de religião. Aproveito de todas. Bebo água de todo rio... Uma só, para mim é pouca, talvez não me chegue. Rezo cristão, católico, embrenho a certo; e aceito as preces de compadre meu Quelemém, doutrina dele, de Cardéque. Mas, quando posso, vou no Mindubim, onde um Matias é crente, metodista: a gente se acusa de pecador, lê alto a Bíblia, e ora, cantando hinos belos deles. Tudo me quieta, me suspende. Qualquer sombrinha me refresca. Mas é só muito provisório. Eu queria rezar – o tempo todo. Muita gente não me aprova, acham que lei de Deus é privilégios, invariável. E eu! Bofe! Detesto! O que sou? – o que faço, que quero, muito curial. E em cara de todos faço, executado. Eu não tresmalho! Olhe: tem uma preta, Maria Leôncia, longe daqui não mora, as rezas dela afamam muita virtude de poder. Pois a ela pago, todo mês – encomenda de rezar por mim um terço, todo santo dia, e, nos domingos, um rosário. Vale, se vale. Minha mulher não vê mal nisso. E estou, já mandei recado para uma outra, do Vau-Vau, uma Izina Calanga, para vir aqui, ouvi de que reza também com grandes meremerências, vou efetuar com ela trato igual. Quero punhado dessas, me defendendo em Deus, reunidas de mim em volta... Chagas de Cristo! Viver é muito perigoso... Querer o bem com demais força, de incerto jeito, pode já estar sendo se querendo o mal, por principiar. Esses homens! Todos puxavam o mundo para si, para o concertar consertado. Mas cada um só vê e entende as coisas dum seu modo. Montante, o mais supro, mais sério – foi Medeiro Vaz. Que um homem antigo... Seu Joãozinho Bem-Bem, o mais bravo de todos, ninguém nunca pôde decifrar como ele por dentro consistia. Joca Ramiro – grande homem príncipe! – era político. Zé- Bebelo quis ser político. (shrink)

Jeremy Waldron is well known for his disdain of U.S. jurisprudential doc- trine that allows courts to invalidate democratically enacted legislation on the ground it violates certain fundamental constitutional (and quasi-moral) rights. He believes that where disagreement on the relevant substantive is- sues is widespread among citizens and officials alike, it is illegitimate for judges to impose their views on the majority by invalidating a piece of enacted law. Even if we assume, plausibly enough, there are objective moral constraints on (...) what restrictions on behavior may be enacted into law, judges have no privileged access to the objective truth and must, like everyone else, rely on their own subjective intuitions and views. Given that judges are hence no more likely than citizens or legislators to reach the correct decision about what morality requires, these disagreements should be democratically resolved. As he puts it, if disagreement about rights is to be sorted out by counting heads, it should be the heads of citizens who have ultimate sovereignty in a democracy, rather than those of unelected judges, that ought to count.In this essay, I consider Wilfrid Waluchow’s response to Waldron’s argument in his outstanding new book, A Common Law Theory of Judicial Re- view, in which he attempts to provide the practice of judicial review with something akin to the foundation that justifies allowing judges authority over the development of the common law. I will begin with a short explication of Waldron’s argument and then consider Waluchow’s objections to Waldron, as well as Waluchow’s living-tree conception of a common-law constitution with content that evolves through a common law approach to reasoning in constitutional disputes.Resumen:A Jeremy Waldron se le conoce por el desprecio que ha manifestado con relación a la doctrina constitucional estadounidense que permite a los tribunales invalidar legislación que ha sido promulgada de manera democrática, dado que según Waldron lo anterior constituye una violación a ciertos derechos constitucionales (y cuasi-morales). Él piensa que si existe un desacuerdo importante entre los ciudadanos y oficiales del derecho en relación con cierto tema sustantivo, es ilegítimo que los jueces impongan sus puntos de vista sobre los de la mayoría de la población al invalidar una ley promulgada. Incluso si suponemos, de manera lo suficientemente plausible, que existen limitantes morales objetivas sobre las restricciones que el derecho puede contemplar en relación con el comportamiento de los ciudadanos, los jueces no gozan de un privilegio especial con el que puedan acceder a estas verdades objetivas y deben, como todos los demás, basarse en sus propios puntos de vista e intuiciones subjetivas. Entonces, dado que los jueces al igual que los ciudadanos y legisladores no pueden llegar a mejores y correctas decisiones en relación con lo que exige la moralidad, estos desacuerdos se deben decidir de manera democrática. Como sostiene Waldron, si los desacuerdos sobre los derechos se deben decidir con un recuento de manos, deben ser las manos de los ciudadanos, los cuales tienen la soberanía última en una democracia, no así los jueces que no son electos.En este artículo, el autor analiza la respuesta de Wilfrid Waluchow a los argumentos de Waldron, los cuales se encuentran plasmados en el nuevo e interesante libro: A Common Law Theory of Judicial Review, donde Waluchow intenta justificar la práctica del judicial review a través de algo parecido a la justificación que otorga a los jueces autoridad para desarrollar el common law. El autor inicia con una breve explicación del argumento de Waldron y continúa con las objeciones de Waluchow a Waldron, entre las cuales destaca la concepción de Waluchow de la Constitución como árbol viviente. (shrink)

En su obra de 1884, Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik [Gl.], Frege establece el principio del contexto como uno de sus principios fundamentales y propone valerse de él para dar con el concepto adecuado de número. Así, ofrece una definición de tipo contextual de número cardinal, pero ante una objeción que le resulta insalvable se decide por una definición explicita. La cuestión acerca de cuál ha sido entonces el sentido de establecer con tanto énfasis el principio del contexto admite más de (...) una respuesta. Mi texto polemiza con la interpretación canónica que se ha dado al papel de este principio en Gl., acusándola de permanecer encandilada por lo que se lee de manera inmediata en desmedro de una evaluación más integral y crítica. En particular, defenderé que: i) a diferencia de lo afirmado en Dummett 1991, la definición contextual de número cardinal no es abandonada por Frege al dar su definición explícita de número, ii) el principio del contexto tiene en Gl. un papel erístico fundamental de eliminar posiciones rivales acerca de la naturaleza de los números, iii) dicha definición contextual de número tiene un papel heurístico en el contexto de descubrimiento, en el sentido de que ofrece una intuición clave que permite llegar a la formulación final, iv) a su vez, la definición contextual es una condición necesaria de la definición explícita en el contexto de justificación, siendo que esta última se ha construido a partir de la primera. Por todo ello, sostengo que la función del principio del contexto no es la que prioriza Dummett, i. e., la fallida función de resolver el problema ontológico de la naturaleza de los números, sino que es fundamentalmente metodológica. En efecto, es en su función erística y heurística en donde debe ubicarse su relevancia para la investigación llevada a cabo en Gl. In his masterpiece of 1884, Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik [Gl.] Frege presents the context principle as a fundamental one in his investigation à propos an accurate concept of number. Thus, resting on it he offers a contextual definition of cardinal number; but after analyzing some objections he realizes that this definition does not work and decides himself for an explicit one. The question about what is the purport of the context principle when something that appeared to be the consequence is put aside admits more than a single answer. In this paper I argue against the canonic interpretation for, even while keeping next to the Fregean text, it fails to offer an integral explanation of how the context principle works all along Gl. In particular, I will defend that: i) contrary with Dummett 1991, the contextual definition of cardinal number is not abandoned by Frege when giving his explicit definition of number, ii) the context principle has in Gl. a fundamental eristic role of crossing out rival positions about the nature of numbers, iii) such contextual definition of number has an heuristic role in the discovery context, in the sense it offers a key intuition towards the final formulation, iv) furthermore, the contextual definition is a necessary condition in the justification context for the latest has been built up through the first one. For all this, I maintain that the function of the context principle is not the one Dummett prioritizes, i. e., the failed function of solving the ontological problem of the nature of numbers; the function of the context principle is rather and fundamentally methodological. It is on its eristic and heuristic function that its relevance to the Gl. investigation must be looked for. (shrink)

Sobre dialéctica recoge las principales aportaciones –inéditas en su mayor parte– de Manuel Sacristán Luzón (1925-1985) en torno a esta debatida noción, entre las que se incluye el importante prólogo que escribió en 1964 para su traducción castellana del Anti-Dühring, prólogo que Javier Muguerza ha caracterizado como “el texto filosófico más significativo de Sacristán –el que más me impactó cuando lo leí y prolongó más duraderamente dicho impacto” y del que Gregorio Morán escribió que “otro tanto ocurrió con su soberbio (...) prólogo al Anti-Dühring…; fue un texto capital en la formación marxista de una generación”. Como señaló Sacristán, y tal como reflejan los distintos textos que configuran este volumen, la dialéctica es una visión global del mundo, no un método, y una hipótesis de estas características no se aplica: se realiza, se concreta, y para ello hay que trabajar de verdad y verazmente. Miguel Candel Sanmartín, Manuel Monleón Pradas y Félix Ovejero Lucas son los autores del prólogo, nota final y epílogo del volumen. Antoni Domènech ha traducido para esta edición la “Loa a la dialéctica” de Brecht. Manuel Sacristán Luzón (Madrid, 1925-Barcelona, 1985) estudió Derecho y Filosofía y Letras en la Universidad de Barcelona y cursó estudios de lógica y epistemología en el Instituto de Lógica Matemática e Investigación de Fundamentos de la Universidad de Münster (Westfalia, Alemania) entre 1954 y 1956. Sacristán se doctoró en Filosofía en 1959 con una tesis sobre Las ideas gnoseológicas de Heidegger y en 1964, dos años después de que le fuera negada la cátedra de lógica de la Universidad de Valencia, publicó Introducción a la lógica y al análisis formal, uno de los textos que más contribuyeron a la presencia y consolidación de la lógica formal en la cultura científica y filosófica española. Profesor de “Fundamentos de Filosofía” y de “Metodología de las ciencias sociales” en la Universidad de Barcelona, impartió durante el curso 1982-1983 dos seminarios de postgrado en la UNAM de México. Miembro del comité central del PCE y del PSUC, entre 1965 y 1970 formó parte del comité ejecutivo del PSUC. En su faceta de filósofo marxista, destaca la sensatez y originalidad con que siempre trató el complejo, y en ocasiones oscuro, tema de la dialéctica y su concepción del marxismo como una tradición de política revolucionaria. De uno de los escritos aquí recogidos, Félix Ovejero Lucas señaló en 1985: “Apenas veinte páginas tenía la introducción de Manuel Sacristán a la edición castellana del Anti-Dühring, de Engels; veinte páginas que enseñaron a varias generaciones de marxistas mucho más acerca de lo que significaba ser marxista que la marabunta editorial de unos años más tarde”. (shrink)

Ash’ariyyah is the biggest school of Islamic Intellectual History. It is a sect based on the ideas of al-Ash’ari, who is accepted as its imam and founder. Among al-Ash’ari’s thoughts on belief, one of the most interesting is his views on faith. His view of faith has a different place in the understanding of faith in Islamic thought. In this study, al-Ash’ari’s view of faith, which is one of the main points of separation of the Islamic Sects, is discussed. In (...) addition, the Risalah he wrote on this subject was examined. Although al-Ash’ari wrote more than a hundred works, there are very few works that have reached us and whose existence is known. Among them, the works of Maqālāt, Ibānah, al-Lumaʿ, Risalah ila Ahl al-Thaghr and Istihsan al Khawd have found fame in the world of science, studies have been made on them, and they have been translated and published in Turkish. While this is the case in terms of the five works mentioned, the work related to Faith, which we will talk about in this article, did not find much fame in the world of science, and as far as we can determine, there has been no study or translation on it in our country, and the Arabic text of the work has not been published. In order to fill this gap, a study has been carried out that includes both al-Ash’ari’s view of faith and the evaluation of his work, as well as the Turkish translation and the Arabic text. Thus, with this article, it is aimed to contribute to presenting all of al-Ash’ari’s existing works to the benefit of science aspirants in our country. (shrink)

A partir de la convicción de que la filosofía ha de atenerse a los datos de la realidad, de la imagen del filósofo como sometido a la fuerza de la verdad que se le impone, según la enseñanza de Aristóteles en su Metafísica, de que le está prohibido facilitarse la tarea descartando aquellas aristas de la experiencia reacias a encajar en sistemas previamente establecidos, Millán-Puelles desplegó su titánica labor filosófica. Esta posición totalizadora permitió que, a partir de la filosofía de (...) la Escuela, vitalmente asimilada, y en contacto con las principales corrientes del pensamiento moderno, especialmente Kant y la fenomenología, su pensamiento esclareciera importantes asuntos pertenecientes a distintas disciplinas filosóficas: la metafísica, la antropología, la ética, la filosofía política, la pedagogía, y también a campos afines como la economía, la historia y el arte.(Resumen de la editorial). (shrink)

En varios pasajes de sus obras psicológicas, Avicena sugiere que los animales no humanos tienen un yo. Aquí argumentaré que, a partir de las características que le atribuye a la percepción, hay razones de peso para sospechar que los animales no humanos efectivamente tienen un yo: el impulso natural en ellos hacia la supervivencia, la familiaridad con su propio cuerpo, su capacidad para tender hacia aquello que les resulta conveniente y huir de lo peligroso de acuerdo con sus propias circunstancias, (...) así como el modo de relacionarse con el mundo, son conductas que, como se verá, requerirían la presencia de un yo. In several passages from his psychological works Avicenna suggests that non-human animals have a self. Here I argue that from the Avicennian description of perception, there are strong reasons to suspect that non-human animals have a self: their natural self-preservation impulse, the familiarity they have with their own body, their capacity to move towards what they perceive as convenient and to avoid what is dangerous according to their own circumstances, and the way each one relates to the world, are behaviors that, as will be shown, would require the presence of a self. (shrink)

Forgiveness typically becomes an issue where an offender has wronged a victim. What the offender and his victim are concerned with when engaging in a process of asking for and granting forgiveness includes the social relations that previously existed between them. It is against the background of these relations that the question arises whether there can be a duty for a victim to forgive and a right for an offender to be forgiven. I suggest distinguishing between personal and moral relations (...) between people; the latter bind every rational agent to the community of all moral agents, whereas the former are a personal matter. Accordingly, I distinguish between personal and moral forgiveness. And I argue that the offender has a right to be morally forgiven, either by the victim herself or by another member of the community of moral agents; but the victim does not have a duty to forgive the offender personally. (shrink)

La Iglesia ha dado por zanjado el caso Galileo en más de una ocasion. No obstante, la polémica ha continuado. Aquí se argumenta que las distintas iniciativas de la Iglesia respecto al caso Galileo -la revision de la condena dei copernicanismo a partir de 1820; la utilización de los documentos dei dossier inquisitorial de Galileo a partir de 1850 y la polémica suscitada; el caso Paschini (1942-1965); y las conclusiones de Juan Pablo II en 1992-1993- ponen de manifiesto la misma (...) actitud de la Iglesia y la persistencia de los intereses básicos de partida, que hacen muy improbable que el “caso de Galileo”, al margen de los problemas genuinamente históricos, pueda cerrarse.Althoght the Catholic Church has setlled “Galileo’s case” several times, the controverse goes on. I argue that Church’s initatives on this matter -the revision of the condenmation of copernicanism from 1820; the use of documents coming from Galileo’s inquisitorial dossier from 1850 on and the controversy raised by this use; Paschini case (1942-1965); and the conclusions drawn by pope John Paul II in 1992-1993- make evident the identical actitude of the Church as well as the persistence of his basic interests, which make very unlikely that Galileo’s case, regardless of genuine historical problems, call be considered as closed. (shrink)

'El Ser y el Tiempo' de Martin Heidegger ha venido a corroborar la fama de difciles que tienen las obras maestras de la filosofa, por lo que han de ser bien acogidos por los lectores y estudiosos todos los trabajos que tiendan a facilitarlas. El primero de los indicados a abrir paso a la comprensin de una obra como 'El Ser y el Tiempo' es, sin duda, el de exposicin de los temas capitales entresacados de los secundarios que los complican, (...) y formulados en los trminos del autor, pero introduciendo stos como no los introduce un autor no preocupado especialmente por la didctica: partiendo de una terminologa y siguiendo un orden tales, que la preparacin y el esfuerzo del lector culto y atento basten para entender los trminos en el sentido que el autor les da. Es el tipo de exposicin al que esta 'Introduccin' ha procurado ajustarse en mayor grado que las exposiciones ya existentes de la obra de Heidegger. En medio de las divergentes traducciones, y traducciones de traducciones, de la terminologa heideggeriana, simplemente el que sea idntica la terminologa de esta exposicin a la de la traduccin con la que hace juego ha dado a esta 'Introduccin' ndole de literalmente nica, aparte de otras cualidades que dimanan del profundo conocimiento que tena Jos Gaos de 'El Ser y el Tiempo', obra al estudio de la cual, y a su explicacin erudita y traduccin fiel y meticulosa, consagr buenos aos de una actividad intelectual frtil en todos los terrenos de la filosofa y la enseanza. (shrink)

Reviews the books, Emotion and peace of mind: From stoic agitation to Christian temptation by Richard Sorabji and Other minds by Anita Avramides . The two works considered here are deeply serious and composed by scholars who have executed their projects with undeviating integrity. In Emotion and Peace of Mind, based on his Gifford Lectures, Richard Sorabji moves the reader through a veritable course of study on a subject as notoriously protean as it is central to the lived life. The (...) twenty-six chapters range over whole realms of thought on the subject of emotion, beginning with ancient philosophy and reaching the research and theory advanced right now in that congeries of specialties dubbed the brain sciences. Between the covers of this truly estimable work one meets not just the subtle and instructive thought of Seneca and Augustine, Iamblichlus and Epictetus, but insightful commentaries on the work of Damasio, Le Doux, Maclean and others. In all, Emotion and Peace of Mind is a benchmark- volume, an outstanding contribution to the philosophy and psychology of emotion; surely a required work for anyone prepared to approach the subject with the seriousness it demands. The second book of this review, Other Minds, is a work of philosophical rigor and originality, composed by an Oxford tutor who has skillfully shaped other minds with the sharp and sharpening instrument of conceptual analysis. Do computers have minds? Do animals have minds? Are there minds other than my own? And if I know of my own mind in that most basic first-person sense, then clearly there is no other mind that I can thus know. If there is something epistemologically amiss about first-person achievements, then there is surely something suspect about claims to the effect that I know of my mind. If there is nothing less than a required first-person account of minds, then there is something epistemologically suspect about any statement of any other mind. 2012 APA, all rights reserved). (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:BOOK REVIEWS 189 titative n'est pas pos~ entre les deux termes. Sujet et objet ne peuvent donc ~tre pos6s sans cette difference qui seule les distingue, ce qui veut dire que l'actualit~ de l'identit6 absolue implique la diff6rence quantitative qui par son d~s~quilibre engendre les choses particuli~res darts la pluralit~ finie; l'identit~ absolue implique par sa forme le fini. Tout ~tre particulier est par consequent une d~termination non de (...) l'essence, mais de la forme de la totalitY, de sorte qu'il y a entre l'id~alit6 absolue et la chose finie qui est posse par los d~!terminations quantitatives de sa forme une relation positive d'analogie. Le particulier par rapport ~. lui-m~me est une totalit6 analogue de l'absolu. L'unit6 et la difference des contraires sont int~gralement maintenues au sein de l'absolu m~me dans une tension unitive permanente ce qui se r~alise dans une unit~ vivante. Donc strueturellement l'essence de l'absolu consiste uniquement en une relation unitive. L'unit~ des deux termes opposes, ~ savoir, l'infini et le fini trouve sa r~alit~ existentielle dans l'id~e. L'id~e est une individualit~ concrete et formelle qui comporte l'ins~parabilit~, donc la contemporan ~it6 de l'infini et du fini--~tat de chose qui est connu imm~diatement dans l'intuition intellectuelle, ce qui eonstitue l'essence de l'esprit. Aussi l'unit6 absolue des choses et des concepts se trouve-t-elle r~alis~e dans les idles absolues des choses, qui sont des individualit6s, des concrete absolus. La r~alit6 absolue est donc celle des idles et l'absolu, comme idle des idles ou expression formelle de la relation immediate qui les constitue, est lui-m~me une individualit6 qui est l'objet ad~quat de la philosophie. Le fini r~el est incorpor~ ~ l'infini r~el de facon organique. L'organicit$ de la totalit$ absolue o~ tout ~tre fini est simultan6ment donn~ sans aucun rapport ~ la causalit~ et au temps dans une presence int~grale et individuelle traduit l'unit~ vivante et individuelle des opposes dans la r~alit~ spirituelle de l'id~e. ARS~NE ROEMER Mainz, Germany Hegel: Reinterpretation, Texts, and Commentary. By Walter Kaufmann. (New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1965. Pp. 498.) "The aim of this book is as simple as its execution is difficult: to establish a comprehensive reinterpretation of Hegel--not iust of one facet of his thought but of the whole phenomenon of Hegel." This is the opening sentence of the preface. In view of its ambitiousness, to say that the book partially succeeds in fulfilling its objective is to recognize that it is a considerable achievement. Walter Kaufmann's outstanding virtue as a Hegel scholar is that, unlike most of his Anglo-Ame.rican predecessors, he works with Hegel the man, the thinker, and the writer at close quarters. The author has mined unpublished manuscripts, letters, and other documents with the skill of a professional historian and the discerning eye of a storyteller. One maior consequence of this method of approach is that Kaufmann is able to explode the myth of the arrogant Prussian drillmaster philosopher, marching an army of dialectical propositions heavenward in snappy triadic array. On May 1, 1807, upon completion of the Phenomenology, Hegel wrote Schelling" I am curious what you will say about the idea of [the] 1st Part, which is really the introduction -for I have not yet got beyond introducing, in mediam rein. Getting into the details has damaged, as I feel, the synopsis of the whole; but the whole is by its nature such an interlocking hither and thither that, even if it had been formed better, it would still take me a lot of time before it would stand there clearer and more finished. --That single parts, too, would require a lot more work in many ways to be really mastered, I need not say.... --Regarding the greater deformity of the later parts, be considerate also because I finished the editing around midnight before the Battle of Jena (p. 319). This letter, to be found in Kaufmann's "documentary" chapter... (shrink)

Los vertebrados usados en protocolos experimentales son reconocidos como sintientes, lo cual favorece su consideración desde la zooética, su protección en la legislación nacional e internacional, así como la salva- guarda de su bienestar. En consecuencia, se ha recurrido a otros modelos in vivo como los animales invertebrados para realizar investigación. Salvo casos particulares, los invertebrados no cuentan con la protección legal ni existe preocupación por su bienestar, en tanto que se les consideraba no sintientes. Por lo tanto, se realizó (...) una revisión de artículos científicos (de 1997 a 2022) para examinar la sintiencia entre los grupos Mollusca, Arthropoda y Nematoda, phyla ampliamente utilizados como modelos experimentales. Se encontraron dieciocho artículos que constataron un cierto grado de sintiencia en estos phyla, por lo que se propone su inclu- sión en la reflexión zooética. Este texto constituye un primer esfuerzo para procurar el bienestar de estos individuos utilizados en procedimien- tos experimentales. (shrink)

El uso de las Tecnologías de la información y la comunicación ha permitido introducir mejoras en la forma como se desarrollan los procesos de enseñanza y aprendizaje, así como los procesos propios a la gestión y administración de las actividades académicas. Sin embargo, el índice de adopción de estas herramientas es reducido en cobertura y en profundidad. No obstante, para el uso de la herramienta Teams hay que detallar las ventajas y desventajas encontradas y finalizar con conclusiones en base a (...) las experiencias personales. Palabras Clave: software, Microsoft Teams, herramienta, ventajas, experiencia. Referencias [1]C. E. F. Pabón, «MÁS ALLÁ DE ZOOM, GOOGLE MEET, TEAMS…,» Slidesgo, vol. 1, nº 1, p. 12, 2020. [2]F. García, A. Correl, V. Abella y M. Grande, «La evaluación online en la educación superior en tiempos de la COVID-19,» EDUCATION IN THE KNOWLEDGE SOCIETY, vol. 21, nº 1, pp. 1-12, 2020. [3]G. Jose, C. Alfredo, G. Victor y GrandeMario, «Education in the Knowledge Society,» Ediciones Universal Salamanca, vol. 1, nº 12, p. 26, 14 05 2020. [4]E. Dans, «Educacion online: Plataformas educativas y el dilema de la apertura,» Universidad y Sociedad del Conocimiento, vol. 6, nº 1, p. 10, 02 03 2009. [5]A. Mauricio, A. Roberto, V. Edgar y F. Karen, «Convergencia de procesos de docencia universitaria: El uso de la aplicacion Teams de Microsoft,» ResearchGate, vol. 1, nº 1, p. 9, 21 11 2019. [6]B. Jose, L. Lina, H. Maria y J. Eusebio, «Utilización del alfa de Cronbach para validar la confiabilidad,» Engineering and Technology, vol. 11, nº 1, p. 9, 16 08 2013. [7]J.-J. a. C.-R. D. a. D. P. Monedero-Moya, «Usabilidad y satisfacción en herramientas de anotaciones multimedia para MOOC = Usability and Satisfaction in Multimedia Annotation Tools for MOOCs,» e-Lis, vol. 22, nº 44, p. 62, 2018. [8]I. Ros Martínez de Lahidalga, «Moodle, la plataforma para la enseñanza y organización escolar,» Ikastorratza, e- Revista de Didáctica, vol. 2, nº 50, p. 12, 2008. [9]D. Marlene, «Herramientas para la producción de materiales didácticos para las modalidades de enseñanza semipresencial y a distancia,» ACIMED, vol. 16, nº 2, p. 5, 2007. [10]C. Barbara, «Diseño y validación de un instrumento,» Universitat Illes Balears, vol. 4, nº 50, p. 415, 10 2006. (shrink)

La Iglesia ha dado por zanjado el caso Galileo en más de una ocasion. No obstante, la polémica ha continuado. Aquí se argumenta que las distintas iniciativas de la Iglesia respecto al caso Galileo -la revision de la condena dei copernicanismo a partir de 1820; la utilización de los documentos dei dossier inquisitorial de Galileo a partir de 1850 y la polémica suscitada; el caso Paschini (1942-1965); y las conclusiones de Juan Pablo II en 1992-1993- ponen de manifiesto la misma (...) actitud de la Iglesia y la persistencia de los intereses básicos de partida, que hacen muy improbable que el “caso de Galileo”, al margen de los problemas genuinamente históricos, pueda cerrarse.Althoght the Catholic Church has setlled “Galileo’s case” several times, the controverse goes on. I argue that Church’s initatives on this matter -the revision of the condenmation of copernicanism from 1820; the use of documents coming from Galileo’s inquisitorial dossier from 1850 on and the controversy raised by this use; Paschini case (1942-1965); and the conclusions drawn by pope John Paul II in 1992-1993- make evident the identical actitude of the Church as well as the persistence of his basic interests, which make very unlikely that Galileo’s case, regardless of genuine historical problems, call be considered as closed. (shrink)

El texto de Tácito sobre el incendio de Roma y la per-secución neroniana constituye uno de los textos más antiguos de la his-toriografía romana sobre los cristia-nos y ha sido objeto de innumerables hipótesis por lo controvertido del mismo. B. Shaw, recientemente, ha considerado la persecución nero-niana de los cristianos como un mito sin base histórica. Este artí-culo aborda los datos de Tácito, así como el impacto que el incendio y la persecución de este empera-dor dejaron en las fuentes cristia-nas. (...) Asimismo, se expone la tesis de B. Shaw, las críticas que se le hanhecho, así como una posible solución. (shrink)

En aquest article pretenc fer una crítica al nihilisme mereològic, al·ludint que les expressions «simples agrupats en-tant-que-F» tenen unes conseqüències desastroses per als seus compromisos ontològics. Primer, explicaré què és el nihilisme mereològic -que és part de l’eliminativisme- el qual pretén negar l’existència dels objectes compostos (objectes amb parts pròpies) i l’estratègia de la paràfrasi: l’ús que fan de les expressions «simples agrupats en-tant-que-F» per referir-se als objectes ordinaris sense comprometre’s amb l’existència d’objectes compostos, però posaré l’èmfasi en aquells nihilistes (...) mereològics que pretenen explicar l’existència de les propietats emergents. Seguidament, presentaré una classe de crítiques, les de Bennett i Tallant, sobre l’ús d’aquesta estratègia per part dels nihilistes, i quina és la resposta crítica que ofereix Brenner sobre aquesta classe de crítica. Finalment, presentaré la meva crítica on mostraré que el nihilisme mereològic utilitzant l’estratègia de la paràfrasi s’està comprometent amb l’existència d’objectes compostos i que la crítica de Brenner no funciona amb la meva postura. -/- In this paper I intend to critique mereological nihilism, alluding that the expression «simples arranged F-wise» has disastrous consequences for its ontological commitments. First, I will explain what mereological nihilism is -which is part of Eliminativism- which tries to deny the existence of composite objects (objects with proper parts) and the Paraphrase Strategy: the use they make of the expression «simples arranged F-wise» to refer to ordinary objects without committing to the existence of composite objects, and I put the focus on the mereological nihilist that pretends to explain the existence of emergent properties. Second, I will present a kind of criticism, by Bennett and Tallant, of the use of this strategy by nihilism and which is the response of Brenner about this kind of criticism. Finally, I will present my criticism where I will show that nihilism by using the Paraphrase Strategy is committing itself to the existence of composite objects and that the Brenner’s critique does not work with my position. (shrink)

L’estiu de 1947, tres joves amics, Yves Klein, Claude Pascal i Armand Fernandez, s’asseuen a la platja de Niça. Encara no són artistes, no fan res i perden el temps omplint-lo de projectes i paraules. Prenen el sol, miren el mar i el cel de la Mediterrània, fan declaracions entusiastes sobre el Gran Art del futur i comparteixen la natura, com uns nens que es divideixen un regne imaginari. Klein pren el blau del cel que abasta amb la mirada, com (...) el color absolut i ideal de la pintura. -/- Yves le Monochrome dirà diverses vegades que, aquell matí d’estiu, va fer un viatge fantàstic, com si fos un astronauta conquerint l’espai, i va signar, com si es tractés d’un llenç pintat de blau, l’altre costat d’aquest bell cel sense núvols: la més bella i la més gran de les seves obres. Aquest cel blau pintat de blau és una obra immaterial i impossible, no feta per les mans de l’artista, amb colors, pinzells i teles, sinó explicada amb les seves paraules, mites i llegendes. (shrink)

Este artículo trata acerca del compromiso político de los autores de la Teoría crítica. Muchas veces se les ha reclamado (todavía sucede en las discusiones presentes) no haber sido más cercanos a algún grupo político, a algún gobierno de izquierda, algún partido o sindicato. En el contexto de esa crítica, esbozo estas reflexiones para demostrar que su compromiso con la emancipación humana sólo pudo ser tan incondicional por la distancia que mantuvieron con las organizaciones de izquierda existentes en su tiempo.

Aquest treball explora la concepció de l'anàlisi de Moore tot relacionant-la amb la sevadefensa del sentit comú i el llenguatge ordinari com el seu vehicle d'expressió. La secció 1 estudiael paper que l'anàlisi representa en la seva filosofia, així com la seva importància perafrontar problemes filosòfics. La secció 2 descriu en què consisteix l'anàlisi segons Moore, discuteixels criteris que ha de satisfer una anàlisi correcta, i classifica els diferents tipus d'anà-lisi trobats en els escrits de Moore, alhora que nega que (...) se'ls pugui considerar lingüístics oconceptuals. La secció 3 aclareix les nocions de sentit comú i llenguatge ordinari, subratllantla preeminència d'aquell. La discussió es proposa de resoldre dues qüestions: a ) c o mes pot reconèixer una proposició del sentit comú, i b ) com es pot reconèixer si tal proposicióés vertadera. Finalment, ens concentrem en el paper concedit al sentit comú i/o llenguatgeordinari com a pedra de toc a l'hora d'acceptar o rebutjar arguments filosòfics. (shrink)

Aquest treball explora la concepció de l'anàlisi de Moore tot relacionant-la amb la sevadefensa del sentit comú i el llenguatge ordinari com el seu vehicle d'expressió. La secció 1 estudiael paper que l'anàlisi representa en la seva filosofia, així com la seva importància perafrontar problemes filosòfics. La secció 2 descriu en què consisteix l'anàlisi segons Moore, discuteixels criteris que ha de satisfer una anàlisi correcta, i classifica els diferents tipus d'anà-lisi trobats en els escrits de Moore, alhora que nega que (...) se'ls pugui considerar lingüístics oconceptuals. La secció 3 aclareix les nocions de sentit comú i llenguatge ordinari, subratllantla preeminència d'aquell. La discussió es proposa de resoldre dues qüestions: a ) c o mes pot reconèixer una proposició del sentit comú, i b ) com es pot reconèixer si tal proposicióés vertadera. Finalment, ens concentrem en el paper concedit al sentit comú i/o llenguatgeordinari com a pedra de toc a l'hora d'acceptar o rebutjar arguments filosòfics. (shrink)

Una interpretación particularmente influyente de la teoría de la implicación lógica de Bertrand Russell y Clarence I. Lewis es la propuesta por Quine en su artículo “Reply to Professor Marcus”. Allí Quine sostiene que la lógica modal de Lewis nació en pecado: el pecado de confundir uso con mención, ya que cuando se afirma que una oración implica lógicamente a otra, estas oraciones no están siendo usadas sino mencionadas. Según la interpretación de Quine, Clarence I. Lewis persistió en el error (...) de Russell, que consistió en confundir la implicación material con la implicación lógica, y confundió la implicación estricta con la implicación lógica. Estos ‘pecados’ de Russell y Lewis pueden entenderse mejor si se tiene en cuenta que tanto Lewis como Russell sostienen que los axiomas y los teoremas en un cálculo lógico se usan de dos maneras: (a) como premisas a partir de las cuales se obtienen nuevos teoremas, y (b) como reglas de inferencia mediante las cuales se obtienen nuevos teoremas. En efecto, estos autores suscriben la teoría del doble uso de los principios lógicos que parece originarse en la obra de Peano y que ha sido casi completamente ignorada en la literatura acerca de la historia de la lógica. -/- A particularly influential interpretation of Bertrand Russell’s and Clarence I. Lewis’s theory of logical implication is the one proposed by Quine in his article "Reply to Professor Marcus". In that article Quine argues that Lewis's modal logic was born in sin: the sin of confusing use with mention, since when it is stated that a sentence logically implies another sentence, these sentences are not being used but mentioned. According to Quine's interpretation, Clarence I. Lewis persisted in Russell's error, which consisted in confusing material implication with logical implication, and confused strict implication with logical implication. These 'sins' of Russell and Lewis can be better understood if we take into account that both logicians argue that the axioms and theorems in a logical calculus are used in two ways: (a) as premises from which new theorems are obtained, and (b) as rules of inference by which new theorems are obtained. In fact, these authors subscribe to the theory of the double use of logical principles that seems to originate in Peano's work and that has been almost completely ignored in the literature about the history of logic. (shrink)

El problema del presente es abordado en su dimensión de realidad dada al hombre. En primer lugar, este articulo ahonda en el carácter impersonal del tiempo y en su condición contradictoria de lugar de entrega de lo dado: al presentarse el presente no hay ni donador ni beneficiario. En segundo lugar, declinando el sentido de la palabra francesa "maintenant", se evidencia el "ahora" como nulidad entre pasado y futuro; como intersticio dual en el que se alcanza y se pierde toda (...) cosa. Apoyándose en la concepción kantiana del tiempo y en la noción de donación de Derrida, el autor indica que el "ahora" es receptividad inmediata, intuitiva y no conceptual: en el presente el hombre se da y se recibe a si mismo. El presente, a la vez que constituye el espacio de la identidad, es también vector de diferencia: al hacerse signo a si mismo de sí mismo, el presente aparece como su propia alteridad. La duración del presente, por expresar la relación del hombre consigo mismo, es signo de alternancia entre llegada y partida; entre muerte y reparación. En fin, se analizan las mutaciones del sentido que se le ha dado a la noción de promesa en la historia de Occidente, entendida como la experiencia de la proyección del ahora hacia el porvenir. The problem of present is analyzed as a reality given to man. First, the impersonal character of time is studied in its contradictory condition of opening place of giving: when present appears, there is not a giver, nor a receiver. In the second place, by considering the etymological sense of the French word "maintenant", it is showed that the "now" is a nullity between past and future, a dual interstice in which everything is reached or lost. Following the Kantian conception of time and the Derridian notion of "donation", the author highlights that the "now" is immediate receptivity, intuitive and not conceptual: in the present, man gives himself to himself and receives himself from himself. The present, at the same time that it constitutes the space of identity, it is also the vector of difference: when it becomes a sign to himself of himself, the present appears as his own alterity. The present duration, as it traduces the relation of man with himself, is a sign of alternation between coming and leaving; between dead and reparation. Finally, the mutations in the meaning of the notion of "promise" in Western history are investigated and understood as the experience of the now projected towards the future. (shrink)

La presencia de Platón y del pensamiento platónico se ha mantenido de manera incesante a lo largo de la historia de la cultura. En esta historia, el siglo XX refleja el rechazo y la aceptación, la recepción, en suma, de un modo inusitado tal vez porque, durante este siglo, la humanidad se vio cara a cara con los infiernos que supo crear: un mundo en ruinas hacía imposible intuir la perfecta quietud de las Formas. La recepción de Platón en el (...) siglo XX bucea en la recepción de Platón en aquel mundo contradictorio: ¿cómo se integra su pensamiento fundacionalmente metafísico con la deconstrucción de la metafísica? ¿Cuáles son los alcances de la crítica que la teoría política hace, desde la época de los totalitarismos, al autor de la República? ¿Qué valor cognoscitivo y pedagógico puede tener en mito platónico para filósofos cristianos que se ocupan del pensamiento platónico? ¿Cómo recibe la poesía hispanoamericana su voz de demiurgo? Estas preguntas, de las que se ofrecen diversas respuestas en este libro, son tratadas con rigor académico y confrontadas doblemente con las fuentes: en primer término, con Platón y luego con quienes son estudiados en el presente volumen, aunque desde ángulos muy diversos: M. Heidegger, H. G. Gadamer, K. Popper, E. Cassirer, L. Marechal. La seguridad del tratamiento metodológico y lingüístico que se refleja en esta obra hace que sea altamente recomendable para alumnos de grado y de posgrado en Filosofía, Teoría Política, Literatura y Humanidades en general. (shrink)