Is the dilemma between social commitment and commitment to knowledge inevitable for intellectuals? This paper, based on the thought of Leopoldo Zea, and through a hermeneutical, analytical-conceptual, critical-evaluative, and theoretical-constructive method, argues that these commitments are not only compatible, but also implicate each other. To argue this point, it elaborates a conceptualization of the figure of intellectuals and his social commitment, according to which it is proper to them to articulate his theoretical activity to ethical and political transtheoretical activity, while (...) preserving the autonomy of theoretical activity and seeking universal knowledge. The article has a double importance: on the one hand, it makes a reformulation of the valid ideas of Zea in this regard; on the other hand, it offers a scheme with a claim of general validity regarding a now as ever urgent social problem: intellectuals’ social commitment and his commitment to knowledge. (shrink)

Framed within the development policies for the region, educational agendas for Latin America represent specific commitments that transcend the improvement in the results of specific tests permeating both pedagogical practices and conceptual frameworks in which these ones acquire meaning. This paper covers some of the commitments made by these agendas and develops the general framework in which participation of philosophical community is expected and required as a guarantor and promoter of the construction of spaces for reflection and action on educational (...) system. (shrink)

En el presente artículo se presenta, desde la filosofía, primeramente la tesis de L. Zea, según el cual la universidad del hombre americano, se halla en la aceptación de la diversidad concreta de las pluriformes maneras de ser de los americanos. Europa recién ahora se pone filosóficamente el problema de la pluralidad cultural. Se analiza luego la forma de considerar el gobierno y las leyes tanto de los americanos sajones como de los americanos latinos, cuando construyen sus propias formas de (...) ser. Se considera el intento y el fracaso al querer éstos imitar a aquéllos. Trata, además, la hipótesis de L. Zea según el cual la identidad de los pueblos latinoamericanos está en no tener ninguna que lo marque como pueblo y hombre común a toda América Latina, salvo ciertos rasgos de conducta común, derivados del talante conquistador español. Ortega y Gasset prolonga este análisis y lo centra en las influencias de la inmigración en Argentina, de lo que -entre otras causas- surge una explicación para ciertas conductas que dan forma a la identidad de los argentinos. Algo no ha cambiado en el modo de ser argentino: éste no se dedica primeramente a vivir la vida, sino a hacer fortuna y defenderse. Se identifica por lo que posee o desea poseer.This article presents, from a philosophical stand, firstly Leopoldo Zea's thesis according to which the American man's universality resides in his acceptance of the concrete diversity of the various ways of being American. Only now Europe is starting to consider philosophically the problem of cultural pluralism. Secondly, we analyze the way the Saxon Americans and the Latin Americans consider government and laws during their respective processes of becoming their own selves. We examine the intent and subsequent failure of the latter at trying to imitate the former; also, Zea's thesis according to which the identity of Latin American peoples lies precisely in not having a unique identity that define them as a man and people common to all Latin America, except for some behavioral traits deriving from the Spanish conqueror temper. Ortega y Gasset extends this analysis focusing on Argentina's immigration and concluding that this partially accounts for the Argentinean behavior and identity, their priority being to make a fortune and to defend themselves. Their identity rises from what they have or what they want to have. (shrink)