Is there progress in philosophy? This question is addressed along the three sections of this article. In the introductory section a comparison with similar questions which may be posed in connection to the arts and the sciences is made. A preliminary result of such comparison is that the same as in science the notion of progress in philosophy should be understood in an epistemic sense. However, if a notion of epistemic progress useful in the case of science is applied, a (...) negative conclusion concerning the existence of such progress in philosophy may be easily reached.. In fact, a usual way of arguing for such negative conclusion is to recall the lack of consensus around any proposed solution of main philosophical problems and, hence, the existence of seemingly endless controversies around them. But against such conclusion I argue that a particular notion of progress – involving conceptual or intellectual enlargement and articulation – is more appropriate to the nature of philosophy. Once such notion is adopted, consensus ceases to be a necessary condition for progress. In the second section, after defining the notion of controversial field as a set of interrelated controversies, a classification of main positions vis-a-vis philosophical controversial fields is proposed. The main distinction is between the mainstream view according to which lack of consensus and endless controversies are, to use Kant´s words, the “scandal of philosophy” and an alternative view, advocated by Russell and Rescher, who praise the controversial status of philosophy as a way of preserving the plurality of our basic value commitments. Though recognizing the merits of those views, a serious flaw affecting all of them is pointed out, namely, their lack of attention to the actual development of controversial fields. After introducing such historical focus, the differences between different types of controversial fields are described. In particular, the difference between progressive and regressive types. Moreover, the differences between different stages in the development of controversial fields such as refocusing and substitution are also described. In the last section the preceding conceptual scheme is illustrated by sketching the development of twenty century philosophy of science through its main stages and controversial fields. Finally, an answer to the question posed at the beginning is provided: it is possible to assert the existence of progress in philosophy, in the sense introduced above, but only within the limits of controversial fields. If there is also progress between controversial fields is a question that may be doubted. It is not, in any case, dealt with in this article. (shrink)

Seventeen essays make up the body of this anthology. Most of the authors are Latin Americans (although some of them work in other regions), and thus we might say that this volume is, in a very approximate sense, a showcase of recent Latin-American ontology and metaphysics. The remaining authors—Pierre Aubenque, Barry Smith, Lorenzo Peña and James Hamilton—are distinguished teachers who have had important contacts with the Latin-American philosophical community. The articles in this anthology address some of the central questions in (...) ontology and metaphysics: the possibility of a science of being (Aubenque), the different possible approaches to ontology (Hurtado), the recent application of ontology to informatics (Smith), guise theory and its Leibnizian antecedents (Herrera), the reduction of space and time to phenomenological properties (Rodríguez Larreta), the Newtonian ontology of space and time (Benítez and Robles), the relation between truth and the so-called “truth-makers” (Rodríguez Pereyra), the ontological position of the Pyrrhonic skeptic (Junqueira Smith), the limits and difficulties of metaphysical realism (Cabanchik, Pereda), the defense of physicalist or emergentist positions regarding the mental (Pérez), the metaphysical nature of persons (Naishtat), the ontology of cultural entities (Peña), political ontology (Nudler), the relation between ontology and literature (Hamilton), the ontology of art (Tomasini). Some of the works (e.g., those Aubenque and Robles) approach the question from a historical perspective: others examine the most recent philosophical literature on the problems focalized (e.g., those by Pérez and Rodríguez Pereyra), and others offer new approaches (e.g., those of Rodríguez Larreta, Peña or Nudler) to a specific problematic area. (shrink)

This is a collective work of philosophy of science on a topic, even though it could already be considered a classic, of great academic actuality in the field: change and incommensurability in science. The contributors are researchers from Spain, Argentina, Mexico, Brazil and Colombia.

chapter 7. How DNA became an important molecule: Controversies at the origins of molecular biology Eleonora Cresto José María Gil Contributors Author index ...

The paper outlines the model of controversy spaces. The model of controversy spaces integrates two different elements of the dialectical tradition. On the one hand, dialectics in its ancient meaning: the practice of controversial dialogue. On the other hand, the model incorporates dialectics understood as a pattern of change in intellectual history, based on the confrontation between opposite standpoints. I will be argued in this paper, the dialectical tradition was almost completely left aside in modernity and substituted by a monolectic (...) approach. The model that will be outlined below aims at overcoming this view by focusing on the emergence, development and transformation of controversy spaces. (shrink)

A diferencia de las disciplinas en las que la reflexión sobre sí mismas no forma parte de ellas, en la filosofía, como lo testimonia la obra de filósofos pertenecientes a distintas épocas y tradiciones, desde Platón y Aristóteles hasta Wittgenstein o Husserl, esa reflexión ocupa una posición central. Dado que no existe un modo canónico de entender y practicar la filosofía, al menos uno que exceda el ámbito de una particular escuela o tradición, la reflexión sobre la propia disciplina resulta (...) ser más imperiosa que en otros ámbitos. Y lo es sobre todo en tiempos de crisis y de transformaciones, por lo que no es sorprendente que el siglo que acaba de finalizar, caracterizado justamente por una acumulación de cambios radicales o «giros», haya sido una época especialmente rica en producción metafilosófica. En el ámbito de la filosofía iberoamericana la filosofía de la filosofía ha tenido históricamente cierto número de manifestaciones, sobre todo en México a partir de la influencia de José Gaos. Actualmente, el cultivo de la problemática metafilosófica, signo de la madurez de una comunidad filosófica, está despertando un interés creciente entre filósofos iberoamericanos de distintas orientaciones. Con este volumen, cuyo objetivo es proporcionar una muestra variada y plural de la reflexión metafilosófica actual en español, se pretende asimismo estimular el desarrollo ulterior de este campo. (shrink)

After referring to Bertrand Russell's view of philosophy as stated in his book The Problems of Philosophy, according to which the value of philosophy lies not in the achievement of any truth or certainty but in its capacity to "enlarge our thoughts", I address the issue of the nature of philosophical controversies. Based on a development and application of Russell's view, I criticize the prevailing assumption that the existence of protracted, unsettled controversies shows that there is no progress in philosophy. (...) My criticism points to the static, undifferentiated view of philosophical controversies associated to that assumption. In order to argue for the need of a more sophisticated view, I distinguish between progressive and degenerated controversies as well as between normal and extraordinary ones. Then I propose a model of the changing phases that philosophical controversies often go through. Finally, I take as an example of application of such model the history of the main controversies that took place along twenty century philosophy of science. My conclusion is that in this case, and in some other important cases too, it may be rightly claimed that there have been progress in philosophy in the Russellian sense of an enlarged understanding of the objects under philosophical reflection. (shrink)

Se formula el problema de trazar una analogía entre tres acontecimientos en principio difícilmente comparables entre sí: los procesos de Sócrates, Galileo y Josef K. Se analizan las principales interpretaciones que se han dado de cada uno de ellos y se concluye que son insatisfactorias. Se propone un enfoque alternativo -una estética del acontecimiento-, el cual pone de manifiesto una analogía profunda entre los tres procesos. Se argumenta, en primer lugar, que los tres procesos han tenido como trasfondo una crisis (...) de la articulación entre la imagen del mundo, la forma de vida y el sentido. Y, en segundo lugar, que los tres son modos arquetípicos de enfrentamiento entre el Poder y el individuo. (shrink)