ABSTRACTIf we take Heidegger's ontology to be a philosophy of history, then, for Husserl, the problem of history is only one among the three major directions of his thoughts. After Husserl met Dilthey in 1905, he more and more attended to the problem of history and reflected upon the longitudinal intentionality of time-genesis-history. His basic idea is to grasp the condition of possibility of history by means of an eidetic intuition upon the longitudinal intentionality. However, because Husserl never explicates his (...) thoughts on history in his published works, he is often regarded as a “non-historical” philosopher. In fact, like Dilthey, Husserl purports to combine historical enlightenment with critique of knowledge. It is hence Dilthey-Yorck, Husserl, Heidegger and Gadamer who established together the most important tradition of history of philosophy in the twentieth century, namely, phenomenological-ontological philosophy of history. (shrink)

We comment on the last chapter of Henrich where the author offers a ‘key’ to Hegel’s Logic focusing on the problem of the passage from self-reference to determination in the beginning of the Logic. We argue that what he offers as a ‘key’ is actually a reduction of Hegel to the logic of understanding from the point of view of an autonomous Ego; consequently, he excludes dialectics. Contrarily, we present Hegel’s own solution, eliciting the remark where he shows that the (...) proposition “Being and Nothing are the same” negates itself insofar as it is uttered and reflected on the Other’s understanding. We conjecture that this remark offers a privileged point from which to consider the connection Hegel-Lacan, provided we recognize the Absolute in Hegel as the big Other in Lacan. We suggest that the dialectical identity of identity and difference is actually an operation in the Agora and that the Hegel-Marx-Lacan theory can be properly denominated dialectical materialism. We also offer an answer to Žižek’s question of how a “neutral medium of designation” can emerge within a “life-world practice” or out of a “universe of matter. (shrink)

Luhmann’s theory has been commonly considered as a radical overcoming of the traditional philosophy. The interpreters often refer to the non-ontological background of the theory as the criticism of the conscience's centrality, the emphasis in conflict and distinction and the influence of sciences as cybernetic, biology and mathematics. In the present paper we try to demonstrate that there is also an important philosophical heritage in the Luhmann’s sociological work: the Hegelian heritage. We refer to four main points: the congruence of (...) being and thought; the being as the unity of unity/distinction; the rationality as auto-reference and the congruence between theory and society. The focus of our analysis is on the complications of the system theory when it tries to eliminate the idea of spirit. La teoría de Luhmann ha sido considerada comúnmente como una radical superación de la filosofía tradicional. Los interpretes se refieren frecuentemente a los antecedentes no ontológicos de esta, como la crítica a la centralidad de la conciencia, el énfasis en el conflicto y la distinción y la influencia de ciencias como la cibernética, la biología y las matemáticas. En el presente artículo se intenta demostrar que existe también otra importante herencia en la obra sociológica de Luhmann: la herencia hegeliana. Los principales puntos analizados son: la congruencia entre ser y pensamiento; el ser como unidad de unidad/distinción; la racionalidad como auto-referencia y la congruencia entre teoría y sociedad. El enfoque de nuestro análisis radica en las dificultades de la teoría de sistemas al intentar eliminar la idea de espíritu. (shrink)

In this paper I sketch a reconstruction of the basic psychoanalytic conception of the mind in terms of two historical resources: the conception of the subject developed in post-Kantian idealism, and Spinoza's laws of the affects in Part Three of the Ethics. The former, I suggest, supplies the conceptual basis for the psychoanalytic notion of the unconscious, while the latter defines the type of psychological causality of psychoanalytic explanations. The imperfect fit between these two elements, I claim, is reflected in (...) familiar conceptual difficulties surrounding psychoanalytic theory and explanation. (shrink)

In order to understand Hegel's approach to philosophy, we need to ask why, and how, he reacts to the well-known criticism of German Romantics, like Novalis and Friedrich Schlegel, against philosophical system building in general, and against Kant's system in particular. Hegel's encyclopedic system is a topical ordering of categorically different ontological realms, corresponding to different conceptual forms of representation and knowledge. All in all it turns into a systematic defense of Fichte's doctrine concerning the primacy of us as actors (...) with respect to any knowledge claim or scientific theory. Hegel's limitations of the principle of causality and of the possibility of using mathematical methods in science show, in fact, how a merely compatibilist solution of Kant's third antinomy can be overcome. (shrink)