This article tries to unravel some of the main clues provided by Ortega on his understanding of philosophy. The thesis we defend is that the Spanish philosopher maintains two slightly different answers concerning the question what is philosophy, though Ortega does not acknowledge them in the explicit narrative of his thinking. This, we believe, creates tensions in his late second philosophical model, as he does not fully break away from certain “adherence” or “mannerisms” associated to his early model. In this (...) respect, Ortega would be a thinker who lives between two philosophical worlds, someone who sees, narrates and interprets the philosophical shock wave occurring at his time, but does not quite let go of the old intellectual constructions. To support our thesis, we will compare two texts, his 1929 lectures What is Philosophy?, and his Notes on Thinking, from 1941. In the period between these two works, Ortega seems to move from a more “traditional,” “universalistic,” “transcendental,” in short, Husserlian phenomenological understanding of philosophy, to a more historicist, hermeneutical, and pragmatic one, which lays the emphasis on the plurality of discourses on the sense, the contingency of the philosophical narrative itself, and even the very possibility of its ending, at least in its more “metaphysical” and classical form. (shrink)

In this study I focus on the importance of the concept of the apocryphal to understand the work of Antonio Machado in its entirety. The concept of the apocryphal implies a critical position before tradition: the negation-forgetting of the real past, the affirmation reinvention of a possible past. The apocryphal comes to solve, according to Machado, the great crises that modern poetry faced: the loss of the ties that bound humankind and the universe, the relationship between high culture and mass (...) culture, the relationship between the ethical and the aesthetic in the work of art. (shrink)

La democracia, entendida como el horizonte moral de la sociedad occidental, ¿necesita la terminación de la filosofía como saber fundante último? ¿Conllevan todos los relatos del fin de la filosofía una derrota de la verdad en favor de la opinión, una transformación y subordinación del propio discurso filosófico a la forma de convivencia que se considera más justa, más abierta, más inclusiva? Dicho de otra manera, ¿la pregunta sobre qué tipo de vocabulario y de acercamiento filosófico puede servir mejor a (...) la libertad humana tiene que ser la pregunta filosófica fundamental? ¿Habría que hacerle entonces a la filosofía las mismas terroríficas preguntas que Lenin le hizo a la libertad: filosofía sí, pero, ¿para quién, para hacer qué? A lo largo de este ensayo, se abordan estas cuestiones de la mano de dos relatos que teorizan el final de la filosofía con más de cuatrocientos años de diferencia. el primer relato es obra de Thomas Hobbes. el segundo, lo protagonizan Gianni Vattimo y Richard Rorty. el juego de espejos que se estable en el texto entre ambas narrativas quiere ser una reflexión sobre la identidad del discurso filosófico y su implementación en la institución universitaria en el marco de las democracias del siglo XXI. (shrink)