Este trabajo examina cómo, para ocupar la tribuna vacante del filósofo-orador José Ortega y Gasset, el exiliado Eduardo Nicol elaboró el emergente problema contemporáneo de la relación entre retórica y filosofía. Esta cuestión atañe tanto al qué como al para qué de la filosofía. ¿Hay un “grado cero” retórico en el pensamiento? Y si existe, ¿es el grado óptimo, considerando la meta humana de la filosofía? Nicol respondió ambas preguntas avanzando sobre la semiótica fenomenológica de Husserl, para establecer en la (...) comunicación humana la constitución simultánea de expresión, significación y objetividad; y renunciando a la brillantez ensayística de Ortega como paradigma de influencia cultural de la filosofía. Pero, en el primer camino, no extrajo todas las consecuencias de su expresionismo; en el segundo, hubo de admitir una norma retórica algo diferente del grado cero, ya que la humanidad estaba en peligro. El caso de Nicol, en diálogo con todas las corrientes de la filosofía contemporánea, reafirma el lugar central que en ellas viene ocupando la semiótica. (shrink)

El presente artículo trata de responder la decisiva cuestión qué es la vida personal desde la perspectiva de la rehumanización. Para ello se revisan las dos concepciones del ser humano opuestas que subyacen en la filosofía contemporánea desde sus comienzos: una visión antropológica trascendente de la vida emparentada con la filosofía de Sören Kierkegaard, y una visión antropológica inmanente de la vida emparentada con la filosofía de Friedrich Nietzsche. Este análisis nos va a permitir proponer una filosofía de la rehumanización (...) en clave de Ciencias de la Persona como tarea filosófica venidera esperanzadora. (shrink)

A theory of knowledge is the explanation of things in terms of the possibilities and capabilities of the human way of knowing. The human knowledge is the representation of the things apprehended sensitively either through the senses or intuition. A theory of knowledge concludes about the reality of the things studied. As such it is a priori speculation, based on synthetic a priori statements. Its conclusions constitute interpretation, that is, hermeneutics. Linguistics as the science studying real language, that is, the (...) language spoken, reverts to human subjects in as much as they speak, say and know. Language thus must be studied as a theory of knowledge. (shrink)

Human beings make themselves with language in history. Language defines human beings making them subjects of their being and mode of being. In this sense language is essential and exclusive of humans. The problem with language consists in explaining the reality of language, something internal to speakers but manifesting itself as external to them.

Linguistics of saying studies language in its birth. Language is the mental activity executed by speaking subjects. Linguistics of saying consists in analyzing speech acts as the result of an act of knowing. Speaking subjects speak because they have something to say. Tthey say because they define themselves before the circumstance they are in. And this is possible because they are able to know. Speaking, then, is speaking, saying and knowing. In this sense there is a progressive determination. Knowing makes (...) possible saying, and saying determines speaking, or, in other words: speaking involves saying and knowing, and saying involves knowing. The problem thus is to determine the meaningful intentional purpose of the individual speaker to say something in every speech act. (shrink)