This paper intends to validate the hermeneutic relevance of three core theses: José Matias (i) is demonstrably an “open work”, (ii) it constitutes a philosophical short story and (iii) it illustrates the failure of panlogism. With regard to the first thesis, it is necessary to concede up front that this interpretation of José Matias does not purport to be unique nor does it encompass the richness of the work’s content. Yet, given the second thesis, the paper intends to defy the (...) common notion among critics that the philosophical references that pervade the Queirozian text fulfill a merely rhetorical function, in the pejorative sense of this expression. Finally, the third thesis seeks to bring the reader to realize that after all, in this narrative, we have a subtle literary incarnation of the nineteenth-century crisis of reason, of which ‘scientism’, far from a cure, was nothing but a symptom. (shrink)

The Letter from Pero Vaz de Caminha to the King of Portugal, Manuel I, is a unique document because its account of first contact with a people unknown in Europe up to that time may be regarded as evidence of the anthropological impossibility of a neutral gaze. This is an asymmetric testimony, as we do not possess (for obvious reasons) the Amerindian counterpart of European discourse. Although the letter’s author is someone who fully assumes the objectivity claim, we must not (...) neglect the rhetorical framework of this assumption. Hence the need for textual analysis that seeks to somehow discern the boundaries between fiction and reality. It is not as an ethnographic document, indeed, that we should value the Letter. In fact, it is necessary to recognize that this is a beautiful piece of literature whose architectural weave owes everything to the classical mechanisms of Rhetoric. (shrink)

As far as the relationship between The Society of the Spectacle (1967) and Commentaries on the Society of the Spectacle (1988) is concerned, one either acknowledges Guy Debord's self interpretation, according to which these books complement each other, or one is forced to concede, on the contrary, the existence of an "epistemological cut", undermining, therefore, the revolutionary unity of Debord’s work. According to the first hypothesis, Machiavelli and Marx will eventually be linked up in a Situationist project to overthrow spectacular (...) society. However, the second hypothesis involves dismissing political economy analysis, whose field is apparently occupied by police logic. Because Debord’s interpretation seems to us to be more plausible, even though its defence is not an easy task, we will endorse his point of view. (shrink)

In Mind and World, John McDowell intends to make the diagnosis of a fundamental philosophical anxiety, whose hard core, from his point of view, is deeply rooted in the relationship that usually occurs between mind and world, as the title suggests. Moreover, assuming entirely the clinical consequences of metaphor, McDowell’s main aim is to point towards a cure. This therapy, as we shall see, doesn’t have an effective Wittgensteinian direction, in contrast with McDowell’s assertions. On the other hand, I will (...) show, in particular on the issue of skepticism, a contrasting vision of «analytical» and «phenomenological» approaches to the problems of knowledge. (shrink)

A interrogação que preside a este ensaio não busca, à maneira heideggeriana, o impensado esquecimento de um certo desenvolvimento historial, mas há de apenas delimitar o estado da arte da visão cartesiana do mundo. Para o efeito, no entanto, não vai além do horizonte epistêmico da Filosofia da Biologia, porque o seu principal objectivo consiste em diagnosticar a “crise de identidade” da Biologia, cujo sucesso experimental não deve camuflar a sua “depressão epistemológica”. Na verdade, trata‑se de uma disciplina que, entre (...) física e metafísica, ainda não encontrou o seu espaço teórico. Ora, é possível remontar tal dificuldade à raiz filosófica da Modernidade. Assim sendo, impõe‑se uma avaliação da mutação paradigmática que Descartes introduz na ordem do saber, de acordo com a qual a investigação racional passa a ter por destino o domínio da Natureza. (shrink)

Neste ensaio, pretendemos evidenciar o marxismo crítico de Guy Debord a partir de uma revisitação de Maio de 1968. Cinquenta anos depois deste evento, com efeito, impõe‑se a pergunta: «Em que medida a definição situacionista da subjectividade anticapitalista ainda mantém a sua pertinência histórico‑crítica?» Não sendo simples, a resposta equivale, afinal, à avaliação do marxismo debordiano, tendo em vista discriminar, a seu respeito, o que está vivo e o que está morto.

Revisiting May 1968, this paper highlights the critical nature of Guy Debord's Marxism. Fifty years after the French events, the question then arises: “To what extent does the Situationist definition of anticapitalist subjectivity still preserve its historical-critical relevance?” The answer is not simple. After all, it amounts to the evaluation of the critical Marxism of Debord, in order to distinguish, in its regard, what is living and what is dead.

In this paper, I will focus on the nature of the modernity from the perspective of a «logical» square. On the basis of its vectorial orientation, I will show the value of Guy Debord’s work, according to which, undeniably, there is a need to articulate two core issues of our time: «How does a multitude turn into a class?» (Benjamin’s question) and «How does the individual become a subject?» (Althusser’s question). It is precisely the nexus between these questions that allows (...) us to draw the line between the modernity and the postmodernity. (shrink)

This paper aims to examine the nature of the situationist concept of spectacle, especially by separating it into its philosophical elements, in order to check the effectiveness, from a systematic point of view, of situationism’s radical critique. In doing so, the main focus of our attention will be Debord’s major theoretical work: Society of the Spectacle. In fact, the concept of spectacle, repeatedly evoked in other writings, has its most far-reaching version in that small but great book, whose first edition (...) was published in 1967. (shrink)

As far as the relationship between The Society of the Spectacle (1967) and Commentaries on the Society of the Spectacle (1988) is concerned, one either acknowledges Guy Debord's self interpretation, according to which these books complement each other, or one is forced to concede, on the contrary, the existence of an "epistemological cut", undermining, therefore, the revolutionary unity of Debord’s work. According to the first hypothesis, Machiavelli and Marx will eventually be linked up in a Situationist project to overthrow spectacular (...) society. However, the second hypothesis involves dismissing political economy analysis, whose field is apparently occupied by police logic. Because Debord’s interpretation seems to us to be more plausible, even though its defence is not an easy task, we will endorse his point of view. (shrink)