scholarly journals Três lugares para a crise de legitimidade da ciência

Tempo Social ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 47-69
Author(s):  
Renan Springer de Freitas
Keyword(s):  
Edmund Husserl ◽  
Karl Jaspers ◽  
Jose Ortega Y Gasset ◽  
Paul Feyerabend ◽  
Johan Huizinga

Neste ensaio defende-se a tese de que a “crise de legitimidade” da ciência é um fenômeno para o qual podem existir três lugares: o mundo celestial a que nos conduzem os escritos de autores como José Ortega y Gasset, Karl Jaspers, Johan Huizinga e Edmund Husserl; o mundo dantesco a que nos levam os escritos do filósofo da ciência Paul Feyerabend; e o mundo da realidade terrena a que nos conduzem os escritos de cientistas que reagem a uma situação de aberta hostilidade à ciência. Neste último caso, o termo “crise” não exprime uma desilusão pessoal com a ciência (como nos casos de Ortega y Gasset, Jaspers e Huizinga), nem as idiossincrasias de um sistema filosófico (como no caso de Husserl), nem as consequências funestas de uma bem-intencionada utopia libertária (como no caso de Feyerabend), mas uma redefinição dos caminhos a serem tomados por diferentes disciplinas científicas. Isso aconteceu na Alemanha da República de Weimar, a rigor o único lugar em que já existiu o que pode ser apropriadamente chamado de crise de legitimidade da ciência. 

scholarly journals ¿Perdidos en el laberinto? Husserl, Ortega y Gaos ante los desafíos de la diversidad cultural

Daímon ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 87-102
Author(s):  
Jesús Díaz Álvarez
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Cultural Diversity ◽  
Edmund Husserl ◽  
Jose Ortega Y Gasset ◽  
Siglo Xx ◽  
Special Relevance ◽  
Made In

Este artículo trata de mostrar la forma en que tres destacados filósofos del siglo XX ––Edmund Husserl, José Ortega y Gasset y José Gaos–– han lidiado con la diversidad cultural. Ligados entre sí por fuertes vínculos intelectuales, los protagonistas del texto plantean tres modos diferentes de acercarse a este crucial y espinoso asunto en donde el papel asignado a la razón resulta de especial relevancia. Husserl confiará plenamente en ella. Ortega, incluso el Ortega más husserliano, abajará considerablemente tales pretensiones. Y Gaos, radicalizando las tesis perspectivistas de su maestro, considerará que es mejor asumir su impotencia. El juego de espejos que el ensayo pretende crear con el cruce de las tres propuestas quiere poner en valor la pertinencia de la filosofía hecha en español en los debates más acuciantes del presente. This article tries to show how three leading philosophers of the twentieth century ––Edmund Husserl, José Ortega y Gasset and José Gaos–– have addressed the issue of cultural diversity. Linked to each other by strong intellectual relations, the protagonists of the text will offer three different ways of approaching this crucial and thorny issue where the role assigned to reason is of special relevance. Husserl will fully trust her. Ortega, even the most Husserlian one, will lower such claims considerably. And Gaos, radicalizing the perspectivist theses of his teacher, will consider that it is better to assume her impotence. The game of mirrors that the essay tries to recreate with the crossing of the three proposals wants to value the relevance of the philosophy made in Spanish in the most pressing debates of the present.

scholarly journals José Ortega y Gasset y la generación de 1911. Reflexiones en torno a la filosofía «post-neokantiana»

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dorota Leszcyna
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Martin Heidegger ◽  
Karl Jaspers ◽  
Jose Ortega Y Gasset ◽  
Nicolai Hartmann ◽  
Siglo Xx

RESUMENEl intento del presente artículo es investigar el lugar de Ortega en el panorama del pensamiento europeo, especialmente alemán, de la primera mitad del siglo XX, utilizando uno de los conceptos fundamentales de su filosofía, es decir, el concepto de la «generación». Por tanto se defiende la tesis de que Ortega puede ser considerado como uno de los representantes de la generación post-neokantiana llamada por él mismo la generación de 1911 y que el pensamiento orteguiano se inscriba en el programa intelectual de filósofos como: Nicolai Hartmann, Heinz Heimsoeth, Karl Jaspers o Martin Heidegger. Todos estos filósofos brotan de la tradición neokantiana y la superan creando una nueva actitud filosófica centrándose en la reflexión ontológica y en el proyecto de superar el idealismo moderno.PALABRAS CLAVESORTEGA, GENERACIÓN, NEOKANTISMO, POST-NEOKANTISMO, ONTOLOGÍA, IDEALISMO ABSTRACTThe aim of this paper is to investigate the site of Ortega in the panorama of European, especially German thought, in the first half of the twentieth century, using one of the fundamental concepts of his philosophy, that is, the concept of «generation». Therefore I will defend the thesis that Ortega can be considered as one of the representatives of the post-neo-Kantian generation, called by himself the «generation of 1911» and that Ortega’s thought participates in the intellectual program of philosophers such as: Nicolai Hartmann, Heinz Heimsoeth, Karl Jaspers or Martin Heidegger. All these philosophers emerge from the neo-Kantian tradition but it overcomes, creating a new philosophical attitude, focusing on ontological reflection and on the project to overcome modern idealism.KEYWORDSORTEGA, GENERATION, NEO-KANTIANISM, POST-NEO-KANTIANISM, ONTOLOGY, IDEALISM

scholarly journals El concepto de “club” en Ortega y Huizinga

2020 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 213-223
Author(s):  
Taro Toyohira
Keyword(s):  
Jose Ortega Y Gasset ◽  
Johan Huizinga

El presente estudio investiga la influencia de José Ortega y Gasset sobre la teoría del juego de Johan Huizinga. Analiza especialmente la distinción entre el juego auténtico y el pueril (Huizinga), el deporte y el pasatiempo (Ortega) y el concepto de club en ambos autores. El club es una comunidad originaria por la cual el espíritu lúdico entra e interviene en el mundo cotidiano. Según ambos autores, el espíritu lúdico deportivo crea el Estado y todas las instituciones culturales políticas a través de este extraño tipo de comunidad.

Phenomenology: a neuropsychiatric perspective

2020 ◽  
pp. 43-50
Author(s):  
Michael Trimble
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Edmund Husserl ◽  
Continental Philosophy ◽  
Western Culture ◽  
Karl Jaspers ◽  
Best Fit

To understand the development of phenomenology, one must also understand the Kantian influence on pre-nineteenth-century continental philosophy, namely his distinction between the noumenon (the thing itself) and the phenomenon (the thing as it appears to us). This chapter explores the effects of phenomenology’s evolution on the field of psychiatry and then neuropsychiatry, following the pari passu shifts in Western culture and its prevailing philosophies. By examining the intellectual trajectories of philosophers, such as Edmund Husserl and Karl Jaspers, it traces the development of our understanding of consciousness, arguing Jasper’s ‘method-based psychiatry’, heavily reliant on the patient’s description of their experience, to be the best fit for neuropsychiatry, neither tied entirely to empirical neurology or the ‘Cartesian freely floating ego’ of conventional psychiatry.

scholarly journals Respuesta a Noé Expósito Ropero

2021 ◽  
pp. 369
Author(s):  
Graham Harman ◽  
Jimmy Hernández Marcelo
Keyword(s):  
Edmund Husserl ◽  
Inanimate Object ◽  
Jose Ortega Y Gasset ◽  
Intentional Objects ◽  
Real Objects ◽  
San Martín

Este artículo es una respuesta a la crítica de Noé Expósito Ropero —que se basa en gran medida en la visión de Javier San Martín— a mi interpretación de la filosofía de José Ortega y Gasset. El resultado del argumento de Expósito Ropero es que Ortega es más fenomenólogo de lo que yo considero, que me equivoco al pen-sar que existen los “objetos reales” más allá de los objetos intencionales de Edmund Husserl, y que ningún objeto inanimado puede ser tratado como un “yo”. Como réplica, respondo a cada una de estas acusaciones.This article is a response to Noé Expósito Ropero’s critique—which draws heavily on the views of Javier San Martín—of my interpretation of the philosophy of José Ortega y Gasset. The upshot of Expósito Ropero’s argument is that Ortega is more of a phenomenologist than I realize, that I am wrong to think there is any such thing as “real objects” beyond Edmund Husserl’s intentional objects, and that no inanimate object can be treated as an “I.” In response, I answer each of these charges

scholarly journals Descriptive psychopathology, phenomenology, and the legacy of Karl Jaspers

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-29 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Edmund Husserl ◽  
Existential Philosophy ◽  
Karl Jaspers ◽  
General Psychopathology ◽  
Natural Development ◽  
Meaningful Connections ◽  
Descriptive Method ◽  
Philosophical Phenomenology

With his early publications (1910-1913), Karl Jaspers created a comprehensive methodological arsenal for psychiatry, thus laying the foundation for descriptive psychopathology. Following Edmund Husserl, the founder of philosophical phenomenology, Jaspers introduced phenomenology into psychopathology as “static understanding,” ie, the unprejudiced intuitive reproduction (Vergegenwärtigung) and description of conscious phenomena. In a longitudinal perspective, “genetic understanding” based on empathy reveals how mental phenomena arise from mental phenomena. Severance in understanding of, or alienation from, meaningful connections is seen as indicating illness or transition of a natural development into a somatic process. Jaspers opted for philosophy early. After three terms of law, he switched to studying medicine, came to psychopathology after very little training in psychiatry; to psychology without ever studying psychology; and to a chair in philosophy without ever studying philosophy. In the fourth and subsequent editions of his General Psychopathology, imbued by his existential philosophy, Jaspers partly abandoned the descriptive method.

Phenomenological/Descriptive Psychiatry: The Methods of Edmund Husserl and Karl Jaspers

1992 ◽  
pp. 46-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Osborne P. Wiggins ◽  
Michael Alan Schwartz ◽  
Manfred Spitzer
Keyword(s):  
Edmund Husserl ◽  
Karl Jaspers

An Introduction to Clausewitz

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 25-58
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Edmund Husserl ◽  
American Civil War ◽  
Final Examination ◽  
Writing Style ◽  
Authentic Self ◽  
Object A ◽  
Jose Ortega Y Gasset ◽  
External Relations ◽  
Ontological Sense

The article analyzes a series of topics from Carl von Clausewitz’s On War by approaching them as philosophical positions without questioning the critique of Clausewitz by military historians and strategists. Special attention is given to Clausewitz’s writing style. Drawing on the works of Edmund Husserl and José Ortega y Gasset, the author distinguishes two types of writing, which may be called “empty” and “vivid” understood in their ontological sense: empty writing presents the reader with the separate qualities of an object, while vivid writing points to the object in its authentic self-absence, in its distancing from all qualities and relations. Clausewitz constantly turns to vivid writing, and the article examines a profusion of examples. Discussing the scale of a victory, a topic raised by Clausewitz, the author emphasizes how much attention Clausewitz devotes to various kinds of asymmetries in warfare. For instance, even if both sides of a conflict are equally bloodied, the loss of the defeated party will always outweigh the gain of the victor. The author illustrates this thought with the example of the American Civil War. When it comes to the question of how combats are decided, the author criticizes ontological positions which favor events over objects and are unable to acknowledge that events are merely a specialized kind of object. A battle is an event, but it is first and foremost an object, which is not exhausted by its internal or external relations, and therefore deciding the outcome of combat does not depend on what transpires in the battle. In his final examination of Clausewitz’s theory of absolute war, the author gives an account of Col. John Boyd’s remarks on it. While the author is generally in agreement with the critique, he draws the conclusion that Clausewitz’s focus on the decisive battle paradoxically pushes the battle itself into the background in comparison to the consequences that follow from it.

Impact of Karl Jaspers’ General Psychopathology: the range of appraisal

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph Mundt
Keyword(s):  
Psychosomatic Medicine ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Edmund Husserl ◽  
Psychotic Symptoms ◽  
Mental Life ◽  
Existential Philosophy ◽  
Karl Jaspers ◽  
General Psychopathology

Growing unease in the scientific community has stimulated reception of classical authors as Karl Jaspers. By drawing on existential philosophy Jaspers has given GP a depth which allows reflecting the methodological premises of psychopathology. Anthropologic phenomenology of Edmund Husserl was received with scepticism by Jaspers as was V. v. Weizsäcker’s psychosomatic medicine and Mitscherlich`s psychoanalysis. Jaspers refined mainstream psychopathology by understanding their nature and defining precise criteria. Delusion and psychotic symptoms are examples. The observation of patient`s and psychiatrist`s “vicarious self-representations” gained acceptance although low reliability was expected. Substantial critique on GP is rare. Some authors consider Jaspers’ work as replica of French psychiatrists. However, Jaspers’ work is unique in getting in touch philosophy and psychiatry. The comprehensiveness of the material is one merit of GP. Amazing that in times when psychopathological concepts are short lived a book published one hundred years ago still exerts influence. This steady interest may be an indication that GP touches upon the very roots of mental life.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document