UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE SANTO DOMINGO (UASD)

SUBJECT:
Philosophy

TOPIC:
Philosophy

SECTION:
94

PROFESSOR:
Abraham Martínez de León

LAST NAMES:
Calderón Gálvez

NAME:

Jancy

ENROLLMENT:
100635795

1
 Introduction

This workbook is the result of a need felt by us philosophy teachers. The new generations
of teachers have become aware of the importance of direct contact with the texts of the
basic authors in order to introduce students to the study of philosophy. This is a difficult
task when there is a lack of teaching materials accessible to students at the introductory
level of philosophy.

The present booklet of introduction to philosophy is the result of a series of materials of

self-reflection exercises, which for didactic purposes, we have used for more than a decade
in the teaching-learning process at the Universidad Autónoma de Santo Domingo. This
booklet is the first of a series of three, entitled: Practice-Workshop I, II and III (Self-
Reflection Exercises). Specifically, it contains six texts taken from contemporary authors,
which present their answers to the question What is philosophy? They are Leopoldo Zea,
Jostein Gaarder, J.M. Bochenski, Andrés Avelino García, Julián Marías and Bertrand
Russell.

The common element of these texts-fragments is the unity in relation to the question What
is philosophy? In order to introduce students to the task of philosophical research, reflection
and self-reflection, the workbook contains six self-reflection exercises, one for each text.
These exercises contain questions and mandates for: a) research in different documentary
sources, b) reproduction, c) analysis-synthesis and d) self-reflection (creative imagination).

We are simply in the presence of a working tool, whose purpose is to facilitate the student's
access to the texts of the classical authors of philosophy, so that they can, through an
approach, identify themselves with their thoughts and take the necessary steps in
philosophical reflection.

2
 LEOPOLDO ZEA

What is Philosophy? (Fragment)

Text Number I

3
 ON THE CONCEPT OF PHILOSOPHY

1. What is philosophy?

An introduction to philosophy must start from the assumption of a certain idea that one
has about it. This idea may be positive or negative, but it will always be an idea. To enter
into philosophy it is necessary to have an idea of what we are going to enter into, at least
that idea that moves us to enter into that which may be for us something unknown. There is
something that moves us to know what we know, that incites us to know it. The incitement,
this movement to get to know him, is already accompanied by a certain idea. In the case of
philosophies, almost all of us have an idea about it, from the learned to the vulgar, entering
into it implies knowing what it is. That is, it implies affirming the idea we have, or
changing it for another one that seems more true.

The first question we must ask before entering into philosophy is this: What is philosophy?
That is, what is it that we are going into? Let's get into philosophy okay, but what is
philosophy? How are we going to get into something we don't know what it is? It can be
thought that the exploiter enters places that he does not know what they are, that he does
not need to know it in order to want to enter. But if you think well you will observe that it is
not so: the explorer enters somewhere because he thinks he can find something or not in the
same way we are going to enter into philosophy. What can happen to us is that it is not that
idea that reveals itself, that philosophy presents itself to us as something other than what it
was. Everyone has an idea of philosophy, from the one who thinks it is the most boring
science to the one who thinks it is the most boring thing in the world. Both hope to test this
idea, but it may not be the highest science, just as it may not be as boring as expected. Right
now an idea of philosophy is being put forward, it is being said that philosophy can be one
thing or another, or very different things, it is being said that philosophy can be very
different things. That is, one already has a certain idea of philosophy.

It is all very well, one might think, but if philosophy can be different things, if one can have
different ideas about philosophy, it is necessary to know what is the precise idea of
philosophy, or at least in which of the ideas that we have about philosophy we are going to
consider it as philosophy. In other words, we return to the question: What is philosophy?
And we return to her in order to make her story, to enter into her history. What we are
asking for is a definition of what philosophy is, we are asking for its demarcation, we want
to see it separated from all things, different from it. But to ask for such a thing
doesn't it also imply having an idea of philosophy, yet another idea? When to ask us for the

4
The reason is that we suppose, we have the idea that philosophy is definable, that it can be
accepted, and we hope that its history is the history of this definition of philosophy that we
want to have. Now we realize that the question "What is philosophy?" can be answered in
different ways, depending on one's idea of philosophy. From the one who says that
Philosophy is the most boring and useless science and therefore uninteresting, it is enough
to say that it is the science of sciences. The supreme knowledge. From the one who thinks
that philosophy is definable, to the one who thinks that it is indefinable because it has
multiple meanings.

2. Different interpretations of philosophy

If we want to enter philosophy, we will have to choose an interpretation from those given to
philosophy i.e.. We will have to give an answer to our question about philosophy, in order
to enter into it. Which one will we choose? Of course, the best thing to do is to ask, not to
whom we think, since we know little or nothing about the matter, but to those who have
dedicated themselves to give an answer to the question, to the philosophers,
What is philosophy? Surely philosophers will tell us what philosophy is, they will give us a
definition of what philosophy is, and knowing this we will be able to enter into it. Of
course, let's ask the highest among philosophers. With the assurance that they will tell us
what philosophy is.

The first place where we find the word philosophy is Greece. Among the Greeks raer is an
expression that translates as atan of knowledge. The first to be attributed
This name is to Pythagoras, About what this philosopher understood by philosophy Cicero
tells us the following: That Pythagoras having learnedly and discursively treated some
questions, Leo, prince of the Phrygians asked him of what art he chiefly made profession,
to which Pythagoras replied: that he thought that the life of man and the fair which was
held with

The games before the contest of the whole of Greece, for just as there some aspire with skill
of their bodies to the glory and name of a crown, others were attracted by the profit S, desire
to buy and sell, but there was a class, and precisely the one formed in the greatest
proportion.But there was a class, and precisely the largest proportion of free men, who
sought neither applause nor profit, but came to see and observe with eagerness what was
being done and in what way; we too, as if to attend a fair from a city, so we would have
started for this life from another, but we would have gone to this life from another place, and
so we would have gone to this life from another place. some to serve glory, others money;
there are a few who, having all things for nothing, consider with eagerness the nature of
things, and they are called zealous of this, that is, philosophers, and just as they do there, so
they do not consider it with eagerness.And just as there the most proper thing for the free
man was to be a spectator without acquiring anything for himself, so in fa life far surpasses
all the desires of contemplation and the knowledge of things'. The idea of philosophy is that
it is a free, disinterested, theoretical knowledge, that is to say, a knowledge of visual
contemplation.
Philosophy is presented as a free and, therefore, disinterested pursuit of knowledge.

5
If we ask the first wise men, the first men who have deserved the name of philosophers by
historians, such as the pre-Socratics, we will find that for them, philosophy is an effort to
explain the things of the world around us, the nature and the way man should behave
towards his fellow men. All this projected towards the exterior, they want to know how the
things that surround them exist, they look for the beginning of them, their origin and, and
they give them diverse answers, for some it will be the water, for others the air, or the earth,
or the fire, or all the elements; they will also speak of the atoms. Here philosophy is
represented as an inquiry into the material principles of the Cosmos, as an inquiry into its
order.

For Socrates, philosophy will be a very different thing. Wisdom, in the sense that the pre-
Socratics understood it, is a knowledge reserved for the gods. The knowledge to which man
must aspire is of another kind, the desire to know, to be directed towards another plane,
towards man himself. In the ''Know thyself'' is enclosed the idea that Socrates had about
philosophy. Philosophy is an eagerness that man feels to know about himself. The accent of
philosophy is placed on moral and political knowledge.

For Plato philosophy is the acquisition of science. But this science does not have for its
object the sensible things that are in a perpetual state of fluctuation, in which no truth, no
stability is found; the object of science must be the immutable, the identical, that which
never changes; this object is what Plato calls the idea. These ideas; eternal models of
things, reside in the Divine Being, and all are summed up and comprehended in the
supreme idea of good Philosophizing is a perpetual search for ideas, a striving to know
what is Truth and Beauty, which is none other than good as the supreme idea. The
philosopher who knows the good, is good not only for himself, but also for others, is the
true politician, the uniter or legislator who can give the city the basis of goodness and
virtue. Philosophy is now the highest ascension of the human personality and human
society by wisdom

For Aristotle, philosophy has as its object being as being. Philosophy is the science that
deals with the causes and principles of things, but from first principles and first causes,
until it reaches the absolute principle that comprises everything. A science of principles,
philosophy is, in this sense, a universal science. As for Plato, philosophy is a science of the
universal and necessary. If we summarize his philosophy, we will not find that Aristotle
gives philosophy the following characters: 1. It is a universal science, "the "Sage possesses
as far as possible the science of all things, without possessing the science of each one
individually. 2 It is a difficult science, for whoever can know things arduous and not easy
for man to know, is wise". 3. a rigorous science.
4. It is a didactic science: -1. Also that the most rigorous and the most capable of teaching
is, in all science, the wisest". 5. It is a preferable science, the preferable one in itself and in

6
grace to knowledge is wisdom to a greater degree than those that are preferable for their
consequences. 6. It is a principal science, "The principal is wisdom with greater propriety
than the subordinate: for it is not in that the wise man is commanded, but that he
commands, nor that he obeys another, but he the less wise". 7. It is a divine because of its
object and its subject. "The most divine is also the highest in rank and by this nature the
only one that can be so in two ways. That which can have God more than anyone else is the
divine among the sciences, and that which could speak of things divine, now this one, but
she alone, turns out to be both: all consider God one of the causes and a certain principle,
and God alone, or more than anyone else, can have a science of this kind.

With the appearance of the skeptics, the Epicureans and the Stoics, another new
interpretation of philosophy "teacher of life, inventor of laws, guide of virtue" arises.
Seneca defines it as the theory and art of right conduct. The Epicureans give philosophy a
fully practical meaning. Epicurus considers it as an activity that seeks to attain happiness by
means of discourse and reasoning. All sciences are subordinated to this purpose of
usefulness for life.

With Christianity, a new interpretation of philosophy will emerge. Philosophy will be for
St. Augustine a striving for wisdom, only that this wisdom will be from God. St. Thomas
will distinguish between what belongs to the domain of reason and what belongs to the
domain of faith. Thus two sciences emerged: philosophy and theology. St. Thomas says: "It
has been necessary, for the salvation of mankind, that there should be a science based on
revelation, in addition to the philosophical sciences based on the investigation of human
reason". It is reason that prepares the truths for faith; but these truths are given by grace.
Reason cannot demonstrate the truths of faith; but it can destroy the objections that oppose
such truths. Here the supreme science is theology, the revealed science, philosophy is but a
science placed at the service of divine science. Philosophy is here the servant of theology.

In the Renaissance, philosophy regained its independence. Bacon and Descartes leave
religion out of philosophical speculation and give philosophy objects of reflection.
Descartes will say that "the word philosophy means the study of wisdom, and by wisdom is
not meant only prudence in business, but a perfect knowledge of all things that man can
know, both for the conduct of his life and for the preservation of his health and the
invention of all the arts. And for this knowledge to be such, it is necessary that it be
deduced from the first causes". Philosophy here has a theoretical and practical character.
Like Aristotle, he understands philosophy as the science that seeks first causes, but differs
in that these are sought for a practical purpose: the material happiness of homo: a, his well-
being and health. The theory is here put at the service of

7
of the practice. Modern philosophy will be an instrument for the domination of nature, but
within nature, man himself will be included. Man himself will be the object of knowledge:
in order to be dominated, he will be transformed into a series of calculable springs.

With Kant, philosophy will be transformed into a critical science, a science that questions
the scope of human knowledge.

These and other different answers will be obtained if we continue to ask philosophers what
they understand by philosophy. As will have been seen, each of these ideas has been
presented to us as distinct. To the question "What is philosophy?", we have received
various answers:

I. Philosophy is a free and disinterested pursuit of knowledge. Pythagoras.

II. Philosophy is an inquiry into the ordering principles of the Cosmos.
Presocratics.
III. Philosophy is the highest ascent of human personality and society through
wisdom. Plato.
IV. Philosophy is a universal, difficult, rigorous, didactic, preferable, principal and
divine science. Aristotle.
V.Philosophy is a teacher of life, inventor of laws and guide to virtue. Cicero.
VI. Philosophy is the theory and art of right conduct. Seneca.
VII. Philosophy is a desire for God. St. Augustine.
VIII. Philosophy is the servant of theology. St. Thomas.
IX. Philosophy is the study of wisdom, both to conduct life for the
preservation of health and the invention of all the arts. Descartes.
X.Philosophy is a critical science that asks about the scope of human knowledge
Kant.

Which of these answers is philosophy? Let's get into the philosophy, but,
what is the philosophy we are going to enter into?

8
 JOSTEIN GAARDER

What is Philosophy? (Fragment)

Text Number II

9
 What is philosophy?

Dear Sofia. Many people have different hobbies. Some collect old coins or stamps, others
like to do handicrafts, and others spend most of their free time practicing sports.

Many also enjoy reading. But what we read is very varied. Some read only newspapers or
comics, some like novels, and others prefer books on different subjects, such as astronomy,
wildlife or technological inventions.

Even if I am interested in horses or precious stones, I cannot demand that everyone else has
the same interests as I do. If I follow all sports broadcasts on television with great interest, I
have to tolerate that others find sports boring.

Is there, however, something that should interest everyone? Is there something that
concerns all human beings, regardless of who they are or where in the world they live? Yes,
dear Sofia, there are some issues that should be of interest to everyone. These are the issues
that this course deals with.

What is Jo most important in life? If we ask a person who is on the edge of hunger, the
answer will be food. If we address the same question to someone who is cold, the answer
will be warmth. And if we ask a person who feels lonely, the answer will surely be to be
with other people.

But with all those needs covered, is there still something that everyone needs? Philosophers
think so. They believe that human beings do not live by bread alone. It is evident that the
whole world needs to eat. Everyone also needs love and care. But there is still something
else that everyone needs. We need to find an answer to who we are and why we live.

Being interested in why we live is not, therefore, a fortuitous interest or as casual as, for
example, collecting stamps. Whoever is interested in questions of that kind is concerned
with something that has interested human beings ever since they have lived on this planet.
How the universe, the planet and life here came into being are bigger and more important
questions than who won the most medals at the Winter Olympics.

The best way to approach philosophy is to ask some philosophical questions:

How was the world created? Is there any will or intention behind what you do?

Is there another life after death? How can we solve problems of this type? And, first and
foremost. How should we live?

10
There is no known culture that has not been concerned about who human beings are and
where the world comes from.

In reality, there are not so many philosophical questions we can ask ourselves. We have
already formulated some of the most important ones. However, history shows us many
different answers to each of the questions we have asked.

We see, then, that it is easier to ask philosophical questions than to answer them.

Today, too, everyone has to find their own answers to these same questions. You cannot
consult an encyclopedia to see if God exists or if there is life after death. Nor does the
encyclopedia provide us with an answer to how we should live. However, when forming
our own opinion about life, it can be helpful to read what others have thought.

The search for truth that philosophers undertake could perhaps be compared to a detective
story. Some believe Andersen is the murderer, others believe it is Niélsen or Jepsen. When
it's a real police mystery, the police may one day discover it. On the other hand, it may also
happen that the mystery is never unraveled. However, the mystery does have a solution.

Even if a question is difficult to answer, it can still be thought of as having one, and only
one, correct answer. Either there is some sort of life after death, or there is not.

Throughout the ages, science has solved many enigmas. Long ago it was a great mystery to
know what the other side of the moon looked like. Such questions were hardly debatable; the
answer depended on one's imagination. But, today, we know exactly what the other side of
the moon looks like. It is no longer possible to "believe' that the moon is a cheese.

One of the old Greek philosophers who lived more than two thousand years ago thought
that philosophy arose because of the wonder of human beings. The human being seems so
strange to exist that philosophical questions arise of their own accord, he believed.

It is like when we watch magic tricks: we do not understand how what we have seen could
have happened. And then we ask ourselves just that: how could the conjurer turn a pair of
silk handkerchiefs into a live rabbit?

To many people, the world is inconceivable as when the conjurer pulls a rabbit out of a hat
that a moment ago was completely empty.

11
As for the rabbit, we understand that the conjurer must have fooled us. What we would like
to reveal is how he has managed to deceive us. When it comes to the world, everything is a
little different. We know that the world is not a trap or a deception, for we ourselves walk
the earth as a part of it. In reality, we are the white rabbit out of the top hat. The difference
between us and the rabbit is simply that he does not have the feeling of being in a magic
act. We are different. We think we are involved in something mysterious and would like to
unravel that mystery.

P.S. As for the white rabbit, it might be worth comparing it to the entire universe. Those of
us who live here are tiny critters living deep inside the rabbit's skin. But philosophers try to
climb on top of one of those fine hairs to look the great conjurer in the eye.

Do you follow me, Sofía? Continued.

Sofia was exhausted If she followed him? I didn't remember breathing during the entire
reading.

Who had brought the letter? Who, who?

It could not have been the same person who sent the postcard to Hilde Moller Knag, as the
postcard was stamped and postmarked. The yellow envelope had been put directly into the
mailbox, as had the two white envelopes.

Sofia looked at her watch. It was only a quarter to three. It was almost two hours before his
mother was due home from work.

Sofia went back out into the garden and rushed to the mailbox What if there was something
else?

He found another yellow envelope with his name on it. He looked around, but saw no one.
He ran off to where the forest began and stared down the trail.

Not a soul was to be seen there either.

Suddenly, she thought she heard the rustling of some branch inside the forest, she was not
entirely sure, it would be impossible, anyway, to run after if someone tried to escape:

Sofia went back into the house and left her mother's backpack and mail, hurried upstairs to
her room, took out the big box where she kept the pretty stones, threw them on the floor
and put the two big envelopes in the box. Then he returned to the garden with the box in his
arms. Before leaving he took out food for Sherekan.

12
Mili, misi, misi!

Back in the alley, he opened the envelope and pulled out several new typewritten sheets and
began to read.

A Strange Being

Here I am again. As you can see, this philosophy course will come in small doses. Here are
some more introductory comments.

Did I already say that the only thing we need to be good philosophers is the capacity for
wonder? If I did not say it, I say it now: THE ONLY THING WE NEED TO BE GOOD
PHILOSOPHERS IS THE CAPACITY TO AMAZE.

All young children have that ability. It goes without saying. After a few months, they
emerge into a whole new reality. But as they get older, that capacity for wonder seems to
diminish. What is the reason for this? Does Sofia Amundsen know the answer to this
question?

Let's see: if a newborn baby could talk, it would surely say something about the strange
world it has arrived in. Because, although the child does not know how to speak, see how
he points to the things around him and how he tries to grab with curiosity the things in the
room.

When he starts talking, the child stands up and shouts "whoa, whoa". We may feel a little
overwhelmed by the child's enthusiasm. "Yes, yes, it's a wow wow", -we said, very
knowledgeable about the world, "you have to stay still in the car" Not feeling the same
enthusiasm. We have seen dogs before.

Perhaps this episode of great enthusiasm is repeated a couple of hundred times before the
child can see a dog go by without losing his temper. Either an elephant or a hippopotamus.
But before he learns to think philosophically, the world has become habitual for him.

Too bad, I say!

What worries me is that you are one of those who take the world for granted, dear Sofia. To
be on the safe side, we are going to do a couple of experiments before starting the
philosophy course proper.

Imagine you are out for a walk in the woods one day. Suddenly you discover a small
spaceship on the path in front of you. Out of the spacecraft comes a small Martian who
stands there, staring at you.

13
What would you have thought in such a case? Well, that doesn't matter, but has it ever
occurred to you to think of yourself as a Martian?

It is true that it is not very likely that you will encounter a being from another planet. We
don't even know if there is life on other planets. But it may happen that you bump into
yourself. You may suddenly stop one day, and see yourself in a whole new way. Perhaps it
happens precisely during a walk in the woods.

I am a strange being, you may think. I am a mysterious animal.

It is as if you were waking up from a very long sleep, like Sleeping Beauty. Who am I? you
might ask. You know you are crawling on a planet in the universe. But what is the
universe? If you discover yourself in this way, you will have discovered something just as
mysterious as that Martian we mentioned a moment ago. You have not only seen a being
from space, but you feel from within that you yourself are, a being as mysterious as that
one.

Do you follow me, Sofía? Let's do another thought experiment.

One morning, the mother, father and little Thomas, two or three years old, are sitting in the
kitchen having breakfast. The mother gets up from the table and walks over to the counter,
and then the father suddenly begins to float under the roof, while Toma stares at him.

What do you think Tomás says at that moment? Maybe point to your dad and say, "Dad's
floating!".

Thomas would be surprised, of course, but he is very often surprised. Dad does so many
curious things that a little flight over the breakfast table doesn't change things much for
Thomas. His dad shaves every day with a strange razor, other times he climbs up to the roof
to fix the TV antenna, or sticks his head in the engine of a car and pulls it out black.

Now it's mom's turn. He has heard what Tomas has just said and turns resolutely.
How will she react to the spectacle of the father flying freely over the kitchen table?

He instantly drops the jam jar on the floor and screams in horror. He may need medical
treatment when Dad has descended back into his chair. (You should know that you have to
be seated when you eat breakfast).

14
Why do you think the reactions of Tomás and his mother are so different?

They have to do with habit (Take note of this) The mother has learned that human beings
do not know how to fly. He continues to doubt what can and cannot be done in this world.

But in your own world, Sofia? Do you think the world can float? This world is also flying
free

The sad thing is that we don't just get used to the law of gravity as we get older. At the
same time, we get used to the world as it is.

It is as if during growth we lose the ability to be surprised by the world. In that case, we
lose something essential, something that philosophers try to reawaken in us because there is
something within ourselves that tells us that life is a great enigma. It is something we have
felt long before we even learned to think about it.

I point out: although philosophical questions concern everyone, not everyone becomes a
philosopher. For various reasons, most people cling so tightly to their daily lives that their
interest in life is relegated to the background. (He went into the rabbit's skin, settled in and
stayed there for the rest of his life.

Precisely on this point, philosophers are an honorable exception. A philosopher has never
been able to become completely accustomed to the world. For him or her, the world is still
something unconscionable, even something enigmatic and mysterious. Therefore,
philosophers and young children have this important ability in common. One could say that
a philosopher remains as susceptible as a small child throughout life.

So you have a choice, dear Sofia. Are you a little girl who has not yet become the perfect
connoisseur of the world? Or are you a philosopher who can swear she'll never get to know
him?

If you simply shake your head and laugh and do not recognize him as either the child or the
philosopher, it is because you too have become so accustomed to the world that it has
ceased to amaze you. In that case you are in danger. That is why you receive this
philosophy course, i.e., to ensure. I do not want you justly to be among the indolent and
indifferent. I want you to live an awakened life.

You will receive the course totally free of charge. Therefore, you will not be refunded any
money if you do not finish it. However, if you want to discontinue it, you have every right
to do so. In that case, you'll have to leave me a sign in the mailbox. A live frog would be
nice. It has to be something green too; otherwise, the letter carrier would be too scared.

15
A brief summary: you can pull a white rabbit out of an empty top hat. Since this is a very
large rabbit, this trick lasts for many billions of years. At the end of the fine hairs of their
skin are born all human creatures. In that way able to be amazed by the impossible art of
magic. But as they get older, they get deeper and deeper into the rabbit's skin, and stay
there. They are so at ease and so comfortable that they dare not go back to the fine hairs on
their skin. Only philosophers undertake this perilous journey to the extreme limits of
language and existence. They stay on the road, but others cling tightly to the little hairs of
the rabbit's fur and shout out to all the beings sitting comfortably deep inside the soft rabbit
fur, eating and drinking beautifully.

- Ladies and gentlemen," they say. We float in the void.

But those beings inside the skin do not listen to philosophers. -Oh what a pain in the

ass! -they say. And they continue chatting as before.

- Give me the butter. How is the stock market doing today? How are the tomatoes? Have
you heard that Lady Di is expecting another child?

When Sofia's mother returned home later, Sofia was in a state of shock. The box with the
letters of the mysterious philosopher were well stored in the Alley. Sofia was beginning to
do her homework, but she kept thinking and meditating on what she had read.

There were so many things I had never thought about before! She was no longer a child, but
she was not quite an adult either. Sofia understood that she had already begun to enter the
thick skin of the rabbit that she had pulled out of the black top hat of the universe. But the
philosopher had stopped her.

He - or would it be she? - had grabbed her tightly and pulled her down to the fur where she
played as a child. And there, at the end of the hair, he had seen the world again as if he
were seeing it for the first time.

The philosopher had rescued her; there was no doubt about that. The unknown letter sender
had saved her from the indifference of everyday life.

When her mother arrived home at around 5:00 p.m., Sofia took her into the living room and
forced her to sit in an armchair.

- Mom, don't you find it strange to live? - started.

16
The mother was so stunned that she didn't know what to answer about homework when she
came home from work.

- Well," he said. Sometimes yes.

- Sometimes? what I mean is if you don't find it strange that a world exists

- But, Sofia, you mustn't talk like that.

- Why not? So, does the world seem completely normal to you?

- Of course it is. As a general rule, at least.

Sofia understood that the philosopher was right. For adults, the world was a sitting thing.
They had once and for all entered the daily dream of Sleeping Beauty.

Bah! You're just so used to the world that it has ceased to amaze you," he said.

- What do you say?

- I say you are too used to the world. Completely atrophied, - Sofia I don't allow you to talk
to me like that.

- So, I'll put it another way. You have settled well into the skin of the rabbit that has just
been pulled out of the black top hat of the universe. And now you will put the potatoes to
bake, and then you will read the newspaper, and after a half hour nap you will watch the
news.

The mother's face took on an air of concern. As planned, he went to the kitchen to put the
potatoes on to boil. After a while, she returned to the living room and it was she who
pushed Sofia into an armchair.

- I need to talk to you about something," he began.

From the tone of his voice, Sofia understood that it was serious.

- You're not into drugs, are you, my child?

Sofia burst out laughing, but she understood why this question had come up in exactly this
situation.

Are you out of your mind? -he said. Drugs stunt you even more. And nothing was said
wrong-, that one neither about drugs, nor about the white rabbit.

17
J. M. BOCHENSKI

Philosophy
(Fragment)

Text Number 3

18
 PHILOSOPHY

Philosophy is a matter that does not concern only the teacher of philosophy. Strange as it
may seem, there is probably no man who does not philosophize. Or, at least, every man has
moments in life when he becomes a philosopher. The thing is true especially of our
scientists, historians and artists. Sooner or later, everyone tends to get into philosophical
flour. Actually, I do not claim to be doing an eminent service to humanity. The books of
philosophizing laymen - otherwise famous physicists, poets or politicians - are usually bad
and often contain a naively childish and generally false philosophy. But this is ancillary
here. The important thing is that we all philosophize and, as it seems, we have no choice
but to philosophize.

Hence, for everyone, the importance of the question: What is philosophy properly
speaking? Unfortunately, this is one of the most difficult philosophical questions. Few
words I know that have as many meanings as the word "philosophy". Just a few weeks ago,
in France, I attended a colloquium of leading European and American thinkers. They all
talked about philosophy and by philosophy they understood absolutely different things. Let
us examine more slowly the various meanings and try to find a path to intelligence in this
anthill of opinions and definitions.

There is, first of all, an opinion according to which philosophy would be a collective for
everything that cannot yet be treated scientifically. Such is, for example, the opinion of Lord
Bertrand Russell and many positivist philosophers. The supporters of this opinion draw our
attention to the fact that, in Aristotle, philosophy and science meant the same thing, and that
later on particular sciences were gradually detached from philosophy: first medicine, then
formal logic itself, which, as is well known, is generally taught today in the faculties of
mathematics. In other words: there would be absolutely no philosophy, in the sense, for
example, that there is a mathematics, with its own object. Such an object of philosophy does
not exist. This would designate only certain attempts to solve or clarify various problems
that are still immature.

It is certainly an interesting point of view and, suddenly, the arguments put forward seem
convincing. However, if one looks at the matter a little more closely, very serious doubts
arise. First of all, if it were as these philosophers say, there would have to be fewer
philosophers today than there were a thousand years ago. This is not the case. Today there
is not less philosophy, but much more than before. This is not only in terms of the number
of growers - currently estimated at around ten thousand - but also in terms of the number of
problems dealt with. When compared to

19
In the twentieth century after Christ, we are faced with many more problems than those
known to the founders of philosophy.

Secondly, it is true that in the course of time various disciplines have been detached from
philosophy. But the shocking thing is that, as a special science became independent, almost
simultaneously a parallel philosophical discipline has always arisen. Thus, in recent years,
when the philosophy of formal logic was separated, a philosophy of logic immediately
emerged, much &fused and hotly debated. In the United States of America, it is written and
discussed perhaps more than purely logical questions, despite the fact that this country is at
the forefront of logic, or precisely because of it. The facts show that philosophy, far from
dying with the development of the sciences, is becoming more vigorous and enriched.

And, finally, a malicious question to those who think that there is no philosophy: in the
name of what discipline or what science is this assertion based? Aristotle already argued to
the deniers of philosophy: Either one must philosophize or one must not philosophize. If
there is no philosophizing, it will be in the name of philosophy. So, if there is no
philosophizing to be done, there is philosophizing to be done. And the same can be argued
today. Nothing is as amusing as the spectacle of the supposed enemies of philosophy
adducing grand philosophical arguments to prove that there is no such thing as philosophy.
It is difficult, therefore, to agree with the first opinion. Philosophy has to be something
other than a general container of immature problems. She must have played this role at one
time, but she is more than that.

The second opinion affirms, on the contrary, that philosophy will never disappear even if
all possible sciences are derived from it, for philosophy, according to this opinion, is not
science. If the object, it is said, is the superrational, the incomprehensible, that which is
above reason or at least on the borders of it. It has, therefore, very little in common with
reason or science. Its domain is located outside the rational. According to this, to
philosophize does not mean to investigate with reason, but in another way, more or less
irrationally. Here is an opinion that is very widespread today on the European continent and
is represented, among others, by the so-called existentialist philosophers. An extreme
representative of this direction is certainly Professor Jean Whal, the leading philosopher of
Paris, for whom there is basically no distinction between philosophy and poetry. But also
the well-known existentialist philosopher Karl Jaspers is in this respect close to Jean Whal.
In the interpretation of Jean Hersch, a philosopher from

Geneva, philosophy is a boundary thinking between science and music. Gabriel Marcel,
another existentialist philosopher, has had a piece of his original music printed directly into
a philosophical book. And let's say nothing of the novels that some of today's philosophers
tend to write.

20
This opinion is also a respectable philosophical thesis. The truth is that different arguments
can be put forward in their favor. In the first place, that in borderline questions - and such
are generally philosophical questions - man has to make use of all his forces, including,
therefore, feeling, will, fantasy, as the poet does. Secondly, that the fundamental data of
philosophy are not even accessible to reason. We must therefore try to understand them, as
far as possible, by other means. Thirdly, that everything that touches reason already belongs
to one science or another. There remains, then, for philosophy only this poetic thinking at
the frontier or beyond the frontier of reason. And perhaps even more could be claimed for
the style.

Numerous thinkers defend themselves against this opinion, among others those who are
faithful to Ludwig Wittgenstein's saying: "What cannot be spoken about must be kept
silent". By speaking here Wittgenstein means rational speaking, i.e., thinking. If something
cannot be understood by the normal means of human knowledge, that is, by reason, say
these impugners of poetic philosophy, it cannot be understood at all. Man has only two
possible ways of knowing things: by seeing the object directly, or by deducing it. In both
cases, however, a cognitive function is performed and, essentially, an act of reason. From
the fact that one loves or loathes, that one feels anguish, disgust or disgust and the like, it
may follow that one is happy or unhappy, respectively, but nothing more. So say these
philosophers, who in addition - and I regret it - laugh in the face of the representatives of
the opposite opinion and call them sounders, poets and informal people.

I cannot go deeply into the discussion of the issue here. We will have the opportunity to
return to it later. I would just like to make one observation. If we look at the history of
philosophy -from the old Thales of Miletus to Merleau-Ponty and Jaspers-, we find with
constant reiteration that the philosopher has always tried to clarify reality. Now, to clarify
or illuminate reality does not mean anything other than to rationally interpret a given
object. Even those who have most rudely fought against the use of philosophy, for example
Bergson, have always done so. The philosopher - so it seems at least - is a man who thinks
rationally and tries to bring clarity - that is, order and, therefore, reason - to the world and
to life. Historically, that is, in what philosophers have actually done and not in what they
have said about their work, philosophy has always been, on the whole a rational and
scientific activity, a doctrine or theory, not poetry. From time to time philosophers also had
poetic gifts. Thus Plato and St. Augustine. So, if it is licit to compare with the greats of
history a contemporary, Jean-Paul Sartre, who has written a few good plays. Everything,
however, seems to have been for them a means of communicating a thought. In its essence,
as we have just said, philosophy has always been a theory a consciousness.

21
But, if they are, the question arises again: a science of what? Different schools answer this
question with very varied answers. I will only list some of the most important ones.

First answer: the theory of knowledge. The other sciences know. Philosophy studies the
possibility of knowledge itself, the presuppositions and limits of possible knowledge. So
Immanuel Kant and many of his followers.

Second answer: values. Every other science studies what it is. Philosophy investigates what
should be. This answer has been given, for example, by the followers of the so-called South
German school and many contemporary French philosophers.

Third answer: man as the foundation and supposition of everything else. According to the
advocates of this view everything in reality is in some way referred to man. The natural
sciences and even the sciences of the spirit leave this reference aside. Philosophy is
confronted with it and, consequently, has man for its proper object. So do many
existentialist philosophers.

Fourth answer: language. ''There are no philosophical propositions, but only clarification of
proportions,'' says Wittgenstein. Philosophy studies the language of other sciences from the
point of view of their structure. Such is the theory of Wittgenstein and most of today's
logical positivists.

Such are some of the various opinions on the subject. Each has its arguments and is
defended almost convincingly. Each advocate of these views accuses the supporters of the
other that they are not philosophers at all. One has only to hear with what intimate
conviction such judgments are made. Logical positivists, for example, tend to brand those
who disagree with them as metaphysicians. And metaphysics, according to them, is
absurdity in the strictest sense of the word. A metaphysician emits sounds, but says
nothing. The same goes for Kantians: for them, everyone who does not think like Kant is a
metaphysician, although this does not mean, according to them, that they say absurdities,
but that they are old-fashioned and are not philosophers. And let us not speak, as it is
universally known, of the contempt with which existentialists treat those who are not
existentialists.
Now, if I may tell you my modest personal opinion, I experience a certain uneasiness in the
face of this firm faith in one or another conception of philosophy. It seems very reasonable
to me to say that philosophy has to deal with knowledge, with values, with man, with
language. But why only in that? Has any philosopher demonstrated that there are no more
objects of philosophy? To the one who so claims, I would advise him first of all, like
Goethe's ''Mephistoles'', a collegium logicum to learn of course what is

22
a demonstration. Nothing of the sort has been shown to be unresolved, of important
unresolved problems that pertain to all of the above-mentioned fields, but are not and
cannot be dealt with by a particular science. Such is, for example, the problem of the law.
This is certainly not a mathematical problem. The mathematician can calmly formulate and
study his laws without asking himself the question of the law. Nor does it belong to
philology or the science of language, since it does not deal with language, but with
something that is in this world or, at least, in thought. On the other hand, the mathematical
law is not a value either, for it is not something that must be, but something that is.
Therefore, it does not fall within the theory of values. If philosophy is limited to a special
science or some discipline that I have numbered, this problem cannot be elucidated at all.
There is no place for him. And yet, it is a real and important problem.

It seems, then, that philosophy cannot be identified with the special sciences, nor can it be
limited to a single field. It is in a sense a universal science. Its domain is not limited, like
that of the other sciences, to a strictly delimited field. But, if this is so, it can happen, and in
fact it does happen, that philosophy deals with the same issues that the other sciences deal
with.

How then does philosophy differ from this other science? It is distinguished - we reply -
both by its method and by its point of view. For his method because the philosopher is not
forbidden any of the methods of knowing. Thus he is not obliged, like the physicist, to
reduce everything to sensibly observed phenomena. That is to say, the philosopher need not
limit himself to the empirical, deductive method. It can also make use of data intuition and
other means.

Philosophy is also distinguished from other sciences by its point of view. When he
considers an object, he always and exclusively looks at it from the point of view of the
limit, of the fundamental aspects. In this sense philosophy is a science of fundamentals.
Where the other sciences stop, where they do not ask themselves questions and take a
thousand things for granted, there the philosopher begins to ask questions. The sciences
know; he asks what it is to know. Others lay down laws; he wonders what the law is. The
ordinary man speaks of meaning and purpose. The philosopher studies what is properly to
be understood by meaning and finality. Thus, philosophy is also a radical science, for it
goes to the root in a deeper way than any other science. Where the others are satisfied,
philosophy continues to question and investigate.

It is not always easy to say where the boundary between a particular science and
philosophy lies. Thus the study of the foundations of mathematics, which was to develop so
beautifully in the course of our century, is certainly a philosophical study, but it is on a par
with the study of the fundamentals of mathematics, which was to develop so beautifully in
the course of our century, certainly a philosophical study, but it is on a par with the study of
mathematics.

23
closely linked to mathematical research. There are, however, some areas where the border
appears clear. Such, on the one hand, is ontology, a discipline that does not deal with this or
that thing, but with more general things, such as the entity, essence and existence, quality
and the like. On the other hand, philosophy is also concerned with the study of values as
such, not as they appear in the evolution of society, but in themselves. In these two areas,
philosophy does not simply confine itself to nothing. There is no science outside of it that
deals or can deal with these issues. And ontology is then taken for granted in research in
other fields, which also distinguishes it from other sciences that do not want to know
anything about ontology.

This is how most philosophers of all times saw philosophy: as a science. Not as poetry, not
as music, but as a serious and serene study. As a universal science, in the sense that it is not
closed to any field and uses any method that is accessible to it. As a science of borderline
problems and fundamental questions, and therefore also as a radical science that is not
satisfied with the assumptions of the other sciences, but wants to investigate to the root.

It must also be said that it is an extremely difficult science. Where almost everything is
always called into question, where no assumptions or traditional methods apply, where the
highly complex problems of ontology must always be kept before our eyes, the work
cannot be easy. No wonder opinions differ so much in philosophy. A great thinker and not a
skeptic -on the contrary, one of the greatest systematists in history-, St. Thomas Aquinas,
once said that only very few men, after a long time and not without errors, are capable of
resolving the fundamental questions of philosophy.

But man is, whether he wants to or not, destined for philosophy. I still have to tell you, in
conclusion, something else: despite its enormous difficulty, philosophy is one of the most
beautiful and noble things there can be in life. Anyone who has once come into contact with
a true philosopher will always be attracted to him.

24
 ANDRES AVELINO GARCIA

The Essence of the Theory of Knowledge and the Essence of

Philosophy (Fragment)

Text Number 4

The Essence of the Theory of Knowledge and the Essence of Philosophy

To find out what the theory of knowledge is and what it proposes, we must first know what
philosophy is. But to ask what is the essence of philosophy demands an antinomically
problematic answer. Like the essence of all other being, the essence of philosophy

25
cannot be delimited in a precise and definitive way in the way the scientist pretends to
delimit the objects of his cognitive interest. The essence of all being as being is an
antinomically problematic object, for neither by demonstration nor by sensible
experimental verification can one demonstrate and prove what a being is as being.

Each philosopher will give an answer, (his answer), to the question: what is the essence of
philosophy? The innumerable different answers that philosophers have given to this
question, and the fact that they exclude one from the other, is already an indication that we
are dealing with an antinomian object. In the Greek etymology of the name philosophy,
"love of wisdom"; "love of knowledge," a definition of philosophy is insinuated, which,
although it has been repudiated as a very general definition, gives the content of the essence
of philosophy. The rejection of the Greek etymology has been made because they have not
been critically and sufficiently addressed in The etymological definition. But to penetrate
into the meaning of the concept of philosophy, into the significance of thought:
"Philosophy is love of wisdom" we must know what is the essence of love, which is also an
object with respect to whose essence answers arise that are also antinomically problematic.

If love is the longing for being not possessed, more properly, the longing for being not
possible, the word philosophy gives the meaning of the essence of philosophy. Philosophy is
the love of wisdom, the yearning for a being that is not possessed and that the true
philosopher glimpses that it is impossible to possess definitively. Wisdom is a being that is
not possessed because philosophy, which pretends to obtain it, is a mere discourse on
antinomically problematic thoughts. Science comes to know, to possess intellectually its
objects, or at least, the scientist, in his dogmatic attitude, is satisfied with a certain
possession of those objects. But the objects of philosophy are radically different in nature
from scientific objects. The latter are material optical objects, whereas philosophical objects
are merely antinomian, problematic thoughts about substantial optical objects.

Philosophy is, then, a problematic discussion about the antinomically problematic problems
that arise about scientific objects and about the substantial realities of all kinds.

The thoughts that the scientist enunciates about his objects are not antinomically
problematic; they are merely problematic; they admit a univocal solution that can be
verified. The scientist finds or considers that a sensible verification and exhaustive
demonstration of his problems is found. The philosopher can find neither sensible
verification nor demonstration of his problems, since his objects are antinomically
problematic thoughts, alien to the sensible real and to the demonstrable.

26
in the mathematical sense. Its objects are only immediately non-sensible, non-experiential
in an immediate non-sensible way, not experimental in an immediate sensible way like the
real objects of science.

Philosophy and science have always gone together; they are the product of two attitudes of
man: the skeptical attitude and the dogmatic attitude. The first attitude leads man towards
objects: antinomically problematic thoughts, the second leads him towards non-problematic
objects, non-thought objects, substantial objects, which he considers known in their essence
and in the general principles that govern them and of which he is only interested in a
knowledge, a second-degree knowledge: their behavior, their processes, their relations,
their orderings, their laws.

There is no man who is absolutely skeptical in philosophy or absolutely dogmatic in

science. An absolutely dogmatic scientist would be a religious and not a scientist; a
philosopher in the highest flights of research falls into the realm of the scientific and the
scientist in his 'measured march of knowing the absolute evidence sometimes ascends to the
sphere of antinomically problematic knowledge.

Philosophy has rarely been given in a state of absolute purity. At the dawn of Western
problematic thought, in Greek, the Ionians discussed antinomically problematic thought
What is the fundamental principle of all things? Philosophy can be pure in terms of the
question it prompts, and impure in terms of the method or procedure it uses to answer such
a question metaphysics is a type of philosophy of high purity, but which does not always
succeed in maintaining it. In Parmenides, Plato and Aristotle we have the metaphysics of
the highest degree of purity that has been given in antiquity. Metaphysics is not the type of
philosophy of the highest degree of purity, because although it discusses antinomically
problematic thought, which are its objects, this discussion is done in a dogmatic way and in
most cases with constant reference to unproblematic objects. The metaphysics of the
highest degree of purity that Greek philosophy bequeathed us was, from this point of view,
that of Parmenides. It is followed in degree of purity by Plato and Aristotle.

The purest philosophy that has been given up to the present is Platonic. Its objects are its
totality antinomically problematic thoughts about all kinds of reality. And his method was
the genuinely philosophical method: dialectical discussion of antinomian problems of all
kinds.

Precisely those same antinomies that Kant later tried to remove from the bosom of
metaphysics because he considered them useless, are the essence of philosophy.

27
In philosophy there is a discipline that possesses an even higher degree of purity than that
of metaphysics: the theory of knowledge. In it all questions are about antinomically
problematic thoughts; their positions are dual, polar antinomical and are developed in
problematic discussion and without possible support in sensible realities. It is true that in
metaphysics these things also exist, but they do not occur in the same way. The
metaphysical position is dogmatically outlined, although the opposite antinomian position
is actually evident. Socrates' attempt to ''make every human action a conscious action'' is
not philosophy: 1. An absolutely pure philosophy like the Platonic philosophy of the
Socratic and polemical dialogues in which the antinomically problematic discussions do not
yield any knowledge. This includes philosophy and the Theory of Knowledge; 2. The
philosophy of transcendental metaphysics in which statements about antinomically
problematic objects, although they do not obtain it certainly consider obtaining knowledge;
for them it is a philosophy of less purity than that of the theory of certain, definite
knowledge, not altered by any doubt; nor challenged by any criticism, is scientific
knowledge, whether it proceeds from science or from philosophy.The philosophy of
transcendental metaphysics, in which the affirmations about the antinomically problematic
objects, although they do not obtain it, certainly consider to obtain knowledge; for them it
is a philosophy of less purity than that of the theory of certain, definitive knowledge, not
altered by any doubt, nor challenged by any criticism, is scientific knowledge, whether it
comes from science or from philosophy. All knowledge obtained in an impure philosophy
is knowledge with a definitive character.

Any philosophy accepted as definitive, uncontested knowledge, becomes scientific

knowledge, becomes dogmatic science for those who accept it without discussion, although
it can, after an epoch, be again contested, converted into what it is properly, an
antinomically problematic object, and become again what is properly a philosophy.It may,
however, after an epoch, be again contested, converted into what it is properly, an
antinomically problematic object, and become again what is properly a philosophy.

3. another type of philosophy is that of immanent inductive metaphysics, which, although

its thoughts refer to antinomically problematic objects, pretends to obtain certain
knowledge, whose being is, according to the scientist, beyond discussion. There is, finally,
a philosophy, which by its essence ceases to be philosophy, positivism and the so-called
scientific philosophies, in which research is not carried out by means of antinomically
problematic thoughts.

These philosophers do not want to do philosophy but mere science. All knowledge acquired
by them is knowledge, definitive, not because it certainly is, but because the scientist
considers it to be so.

28
 JULIÁN MARÍAS

The Idea of Philosophy and the Origin of Philosophy (Fragment)

Text Number 5

THE IDEA OF PHILOSOPHY

It is worthwhile to pause for a moment at some high points in history, to see how the
interpretations of philosophy as a knowledge and as a way of life have been articulated. In
Aristotle, philosophy is a rigorous science, the wisdom or knowledge by

29
excellence: the science of things as they are. And yet, in speaking of ways of life, he places
among them, as an exemplary form, a theoretical life, which is precisely the life of the
philosopher. After Aristotle, in the Stoic and Epicurean schools, etc., which have filled
Greece since the death of Alexander, and then the entire Roman Empire, philosophy is
emptied of scientific content and becomes more and more a way of life, that of the serene
and imperturbable sage, which is the human ideal of the time.

Within Christianity, for St. Augustine it is a question of The contrast, even more profound,
between a theoretical visit and a blessed visit. And a few centuries more lude. Sardinian
Thomas will move between a scientia theologica and scientia philosophica; duality I have
passed from the sphere of life itself of the various modes of science.

In Descartes, at the beginning of the modern era, it is no longer a question of a science, or

at least simply of it; it is, perhaps, of a science for life: it is a question of living in a certain
way, knowing what one does and, above all, what one should do. Thus philosophy appears
as a way of life that postulates a science. But at the same time, the highest demands of
intellectual rigor and absolute certainty are heaped upon this science.

This is not the end of the story. At the moment of European maturity, Kant will speak to us,
in his Logic and at the end of the Critique of Pure Reason, of a scholastic concept and a
worldly concept of philosophy. Philosophy, according to his scholastic concept, is a system
of all philosophical knowledge. But in its worldly sense, which is the deepest and most
radical, philosophy is The science of the emigration of all knowledge with the essential
ends of human reason The philosopher is no longer an artificer of reason, but the legislator
of human reason; and in that sense, says Kant, it is very proud to call himself a philosopher.
The ultimate end is moral destiny; the concept of the moral person is thus the culmination
of Kantian metaphysics. Philosophy in the worldly sense - an essential way of life for man -
is what gives meaning to philosophy as a science.

Finally, in our time, while Hussert insists once again on presenting philosophy as a strict and
rigorous science, Ckithey links it essentially to human life and history, the idea of vital
reason (Ortega) radically rethinks the very core of the question, establishing an intrinsic and
necessary relationship between rational knowledge and life itself.n vital (Ortega) radically
rethinks the very core of the question, establishing an intrinsic and necessary relationship
between rational knowledge and life itself.

30
 ORIGIN OF PHILOSOPHY

Why does man philosophize? Rarely has this question been sufficiently raised. Aristotle has
touched it in such a way that it has decisively influenced the whole subsequent process of
philosophy. The beginning of his Metaphysics is an answer to that question: All men tend
by nature to know. The reason for man's desire to know is, for Aristotle, nothing less than
his nature. And nature is the substance of a thing, that in which it really consists; therefore,
man appears defined by knowledge; it is his very essence that moves man to know. And
here again we find a wiser implication between knowledge and life, whose meaning will
become clearer and more transparent throughout this book But Aristotle says something
else. A little further on he writes: "By astonishment men began, now and at first, to
philosophize, first being astonished at the strangest things that were nearest at hand, and
then, as they advanced thus little by little, becoming questioned about the most serious
things such as the movements of the Moon, the Sun and the stars and the generation of the
whole". We have, then, as the most concrete root of philosophizing, a human attitude which
is astonishment. Man misses the things that are close to him, and then the totality of all
there is. Instead of moving among things, using -them, enjoying or fearing them, he stands
outside, estranged from them, and wonders in amazement at those near and everyday
things, which now, for the first time, appear before him, therefore, alone, isolated in
themselves by the question, "What is this?" At this point the philosophy begins.

It is a completely new human attitude, which has been called theoretical as opposed to the
mythical attitude (Zubiri). The new human method arises in Greece one day, for the first
time in history, and since then there is something more radically new in the world, which
makes philosophy possible. For the mythical man things are propitious powers or. harmful,
with which it lives and which it uses or shuns. This is the attitude prior to Greece and is still
shared by the peoples where the marvelous Hellenic discovery does not reach. Theoretical
consciousness, on the other hand, sees things in what were once powers. It is the great
discovery of things, so profound that today it is difficult for us to see that it is indeed a
discovery, to think that it could be otherwise. For this we have to resort to modes which
bear only a remote analogy to the mythical attitude, but which differ from our European
one: for example, the infantile consciousness, the attitude of the child, who finds himself in
the world full of benign or hostile powers or persons, but not of things in the strict sense of
the word. In the theoretical attitude, man, instead of being among things, is in front of them,
estranged from them, and then things acquire a significance of their own, which they did
not have before. They appear as something that exists by itself, apart from man, and that
have a certain consistency: some properties, something that is theirs and that is proper to
them. -Surgen

31
then things as realities that are, that have a peculiar content. And only in this sense can we
speak of truth or falsehood. Mythical man moves outside this sphere. Only as something
that is can things be true or false. The oldest form of this awakening of things in their truth
is wonder. And this is why it is the root of philosophy.

PHILOSOPHY AND ITS HISTORY

The relation of philosophy to its history does not coincide with that of science, for example,
with yours. In the latter case, they are two different things: science, on the one hand; and on
the other, what science was, that is, its history. They are independent, and science can be
known, cultivated and exist apart from history and what has been. Science is constructed on
the basis of an object and the knowledge that is possessed about it at a given moment. In
philosophy, the problem is itself; moreover, this problem is posed in each case according to
the historical and personal situation in which the philosopher finds himself, and this
situation is, in turn, largely determined by the philosophical tradition in which he finds
himself: the whole philosophical past is already included in each action of philosophizing;
thirdly, the philosopher has to question the philosophical problem in its totality, and
therefore philosophy itself, from its original root: he cannot start from an existing state of
fact and accept it, but has to start from the beginning and, at the same time, from the
historical situation in which he finds himself. That is to say, philosophy has to be posed and
fully realized in each philosopher, but not in any way, but in each one in an irreplaceable
way: as it is imposed on him by all previous philosophy. Therefore, in all philosophizing is
inserted the entire history of philosophy, and without it neither is it intelligible nor, above
all, could it exist. And, at the same time, philosophy has no more reality than that which it
achieves historically in each philosopher. There is, then, an inseparable connection between
philosophy and the history of philosophy. Philosophy is historical, and its history
essentially belongs to it. And on the other hand, the history of philosophy does not. is mere
scholarly information about the opinions of philosophers, but is the true exposition of the
actual content of philosophy. It is, therefore, strictly speaking, philosophy. Philosophy is
not exhausted in any of its systems, but consists in the effective history of all of them. And,
in turn, none can exist alone, but needs and involves all the previous ones; and even more:
each system only reaches the fullness of its reality, of its truth, outside of itself, in those that
will succeed it. All philosophizing starts from the totality of the past and projects itself into
the future, setting in motion the history of philosophy. This is, in a nutshell, what is meant
when it is stated that philosophy is historical.

32
BERTRAND RUSSELL

Philosophical Doubts
(Fragment)

Text number 6

33
 PHILOSOPHICAL DOUBTS

Perhaps the reader may expect us to meet this treatise with a definition of philosophy; but,
rightly or wrongly, this is not my purpose. Any definition given of this word will vary with
the philosophy adopted; therefore, all we can say at the outset is that there are certain
problems which are of interest to certain people, and which, at least for the present, do not
belong to any particular science. All these problems are of such a kind as to raise doubts
about what passes commonly for knowledge; and if these doubts are to be cleared up, they
will by no means be cleared up only by a special study to which we give the name of
''philosophy.'' Consequently, the first step that can be taken to define this word consists in
indicating these problems and these doubts, which also constitute the first step in the true
study of philosophy. Among the traditional philosophical problems, there are some that do
not lend themselves, in my opinion, to any intellectual treatise by themselves, since they
transcend our cognitive faculties; therefore, we will not deal with these problems. There are
others, however, which, although they are not susceptible of being solved now, are at least
susceptible of being shown the direction to be followed to achieve them and the type of
solution that suits them, and which may be reached in time.

Philosophy originates from the unusually obstinate effort to reach the true. What in our
ordinary life passes for knowledge suffers from three defects: it is too sure of itself; it is
vague; it is contradictory. There is also another quality that we desire for our knowledge,
and that is comprehension: we want the area of knowledge to cover as much as possible.
But this is more a matter for science than for philosophy. An individual is not a better
philosopher because he knows a greater number of scientific facts; if it is philosophy that
interests him, it will be the principles, methods and general conceptions that he will learn
from science. The philosopher's work begins, so to speak, where the rough facts end.
Science gathers them into bundles by means of scientific laws: and it is these laws, rather
than the original facts, that constitute the raw material of philosophy. This implies the
critique of scientific knowledge, not from a fundamental point of view different from that
of science, but from a point of view less interested in the harmony of the total body of
special sciences.

The special sciences have all been born by the use of notions derived from common sense,
such as things and their qualities, time and accusation. Science itself has come to show that
none of the notions of common sense is entirely adequate to explain the world; but if it can
hardly be considered as committed to any

34
of the special sciences the necessary reconstruction of the foundations. This is a matter for
philosophy. I must say, from now on, that I consider it a matter of the utmost importance. I
believe that philosophical errors in common sense beliefs not only produce confusion in
science, but also harm ethics and politics, social institutions and even the conduct of our
daily lives. It is not in our interest in the present work to bring out the practical effects of a
bad philosophy: our task will be purely intellectual But, if I am not mistaken, the
intellectual enterprise we are about to undertake has consequences in many sectors which at
first sight seem to have no further connection with the matter in hand. The effect produced
by our passions on our beliefs constitutes one of the favorite subjects of modern
psychologists; but the inverse effect, that is, that of our beliefs, on our passions, exists as
well, although it does not have the character that would have been supposed in the
intellectualist psychology of the old school. Although we will not stop to discuss it, it will
not be superfluous to remember it, in order to realize that our discussions may imply certain
consequences or have certain relations with matters that lie outside the pure intellect.

A moment ago we mentioned three defects that common beliefs suffer from: they are
overconfident, vague, and contradictory. It is incumbent upon philosophy to amend these
defects insofar as it is able to be fully endowed with knowledge. To be a good philosopher,
a man must be endowed with a vehement desire to know, the reason for a great caution to
believe that he knows; he must also possess great logical penetration and the habit of exact
thought. All of these, of course, are a matter of degree. Vagueness in particular belongs to a
certain extension of human thinking; consequently, it is a continuously perfectible activity,
not something in which we can achieve final perfection once and for all. In this respect,
philosophy has suffered greatly from its association with theology. Theological dogmas are
fixed and are considered by the orthodox as inept for further improvement. Philosophers
have often tended to establish definitive systems in similar lumia have not been content
with the gradual approximation that satisfies men of science. This is a mistake. Philosophy
would be, in any case, fragmentary and provisional like science; the definitive truth is a
thing of heaven and not of this world.

The three defects we have mentioned have a relationship of mutual dependence and it is
enough to notice any one of them to recognize the existence of the other two.

We will try to illustrate these three types of defects with some examples.

35
Let us first consider the belief in common objects, such as tables, chairs and trees. All of us
feel perfectly safe about these things in ordinary life, and yet our confidence is founded on
flimsy grounds. The naive common sense supposes them to be as they appear to our senses,
which is impossible, since they do not appear exactly the same for two simultaneous
observers; it is at least not possible that if the object is only one, it is the same for all those
who observe. If we admit that the object is not what we see, we can no longer feel so sure
of its existence, and here the first doubt arises. However, we will promptly recover from the
contrariety and say that, of course, the object is in ''reality'' what physics teaches us. Now,
physics tells us that a table or a chair is 'really' an incredibly vast system of rapidly moving
electrons and protons separated by empty space So far it all goes perfectly, but the
physicist, as an ordinary man, depends on his senses to prove the existence of the physical
world If one addresses him solemnly and says. "Would you be so kind as to tell me as a
physicist what a chair is?", I would get a learned answer, But if one were to say without
preamble ''Is there so a be?'', answering her: ''Of course there is, it is not true!'' to this we
should not answer in the negative; he should say ''No.''. I see certain colored spots, but I
don't see electrons and protons, and you tell me that these are the ones that make up the
chair. He would perhaps reply: ''yes, but a large number of electrons and protons together
appear to the eye as a colored blob''. ''What do you mean by showing up?'' I would then ask
him. He has a constellation of electrons and protons (or, most likely, refers to them coming
from a light source), they reach the eye, originate a series of effects on the cornea and
retina, the optic nerve and the brain and, finally, produce a sensation. But the physicist has
never seen an eye, nor an optic nerve, nor a brain with any more certainty than he has seen
a chair: he has only seen spots of color, which he says have the likeness of these things.
That is to say that he believes (as does anyone else) that the sensation one has when one
sees a chair depends on a series of physical and psychological causes, all of which, as he
shows us, are essentially and forever outside the experience. Notwithstanding all this, he
claims to base his science on observation. Evidently there is in this a problem of logic, a
problem that does not belong to physics, but to another kind of study altogether. Here is a
first example of how accurate inquiry destroys certainty.

The physicist believes that electrons and protons are inference from what he perceives; but
this inference is never clearly established in logical concatenation, and even if it were, it
might not be plausible enough to warrant confidence. In reality, the unfolding of ideas from
the objects of common sense to electrons and protons has been guided by certain beliefs of
which one is seldom aware, but which exist in the nature of every man These beliefs are not
immutable, but rather

36
 grow and develop as a tree grows and develops. We start by believing that the chair is what
it appears to be, and that it remains that way even when we don't look at it. However, with a
little reflection we will find that these two beliefs are incompatible. If the chair is to subsist
whether we see it or not, then it must be something other than the spot of color we see, for
it depends on conditions extraneous to the chair, such as, for example, the way it receives
light, the color of the lens we use, and the like. This induces the man of science to consider
the ''real'' chair as the cause (or indispensable part of the cause) of our sensations when we
see the chair. This implies the idea of accusation as an a priori belief without which there
would be no reason to assume in any way the existence of a ''real'' chair. At the same time,
the idea of permanence carries with it the notion of substance: the ''real'' chair is a substance
or conglomerate of substances that enjoy permanence and have the power to produce
sensations. It is this metaphysical belief that more or less unconsciously leads us to infer
electrons and protons in our sensations. The philosopher must bring such beliefs out into
the light of day to see if they still survive, very often he will find that they die as soon as
their clarity is exposed.

Self Exercises. Reflection

Self Exercises. Reflection: Text No. 1

1. Research biographical data about Leopoldo Zea.

Mexico City, June 30, 1912 - June 8, 2004) was a Mexican philosopher, one of the
thinkers of integral Latin Americanism in history. He was a disciple of José Gaos, who got
to know him at the time when he was studying both law and philosophy and had to work at
night, so Gaos supported him to obtain a scholarship and devote himself exclusively to
philosophy. He became famous thanks to his graduate thesis El positivismo en México
(1945), with which he applied and studied positivism in the context of his country in the
transition world of the 19th and 20th centuries. With this, he initiated the defense of
American integration, conceived by the liberator and statesman, Simón Bolívar, and gave it
a meaning of its own, based on the break with U.S. imperialism and neocolonialism. In his
approaches he demonstrates that historical facts are not independent of ideas and, in the
same way, do not manifest themselves in the abstract, but as a simple reaction to a certain
situation of human and popular life.

2. Identify, write and define five central concepts contained in the text.

Science (from Latin scientĭa, 'knowledge') is a system that organizes and orders knowledge
through testable questions and a structured method that studies and interprets natural, social
and artificial phenomena.
Discipline means to instruct a person or animal to have a certain code of conduct or order. In
the field of child development, discipline refers to methods of character building and teaching
37
self-control and acceptable behavior, e.g., teaching a child to wash his or her hands before
meals.
Philosophy (from Ancient Greek φιλοσοφία 'love of wisdom' derived from φιλεῖν [fileîn] 'to
love' and σοφία [sophia] 'wisdom';1 trans. in Latin as philosophĭa) is an academic discipline
and a set of reflections and knowledge of a transcendental character that, in a holistic sense,
studies the essence, first causes and ultimate ends of things. It attempts to answer a variety of
fundamental problems about such questions as existence and being (ontology and
metaphysics), knowledge (epistemology and gnoseology), truth (logic), morality (ethics),
beauty (aesthetics), value (axiology), mind (philosophy of mind), language (philosophy of
language), and religion (philosophy of religion).gics), morality (ethics), beauty (aesthetics),
value (axiology), mind (philosophy of mind), language (philosophy of language) and religion
(philosophy of religion).456 Throughout history, many other disciplines have emerged in the
wake of philosophy, which is why it is considered the basis of all modern sciences by many
authors.7The term was probably coined by Pythagoras.
Didactics is the science that has as its object of study the educational teaching process aimed
at solving the problem that we call social task: to prepare man for life, this process only
occurs in school as formal education.
Philosophical Doubts: Having doubts about many aspects of life is typical of people with a
particularly keen sense of curiosity. Some try to think deeply and try to find answers to the
questions they ask themselves, while others avoid overthinking, as they find it difficult to find
solutions to the questions.
These questions, considered as existential, correspond to the meaning of life and to all kinds
of aspects: from the most absolute banality to impossible questions to be solved. They are part
of the human reasoning that tries to answer all its doubts.

3. Leopoldo Zea's answers to the question What is philosophy?

It is a discipline that can only have a historical justification, which expresses valid truths
for a certain place and time, outside of which it would be totally invalid and false.

4. How does Leopoldo Zea argue his statement that "We all have an idea about
philosophy?

I. Philosophy is a free and disinterested pursuit of knowledge. Pythagoras.

II. Philosophy is an inquiry into the ordering principles of the Cosmos.

Presocratics.

III. Philosophy is the highest ascent of human personality and society through wisdom.
Plato.

IV. Philosophy is a universal, difficult, rigorous, didactic, preferable, principal and

divine science. Aristotle.
38
 V. Philosophy is a teacher of life, inventor of laws and guide to virtue. Cicero.

VI. Philosophy is the theory and art of right conduct. Seneca.

VII. Philosophy is a desire for God. St. Augustine.

VIII. Philosophy is the servant of theology. St. Thomas.

IX. Philosophy is the study of wisdom, both to conduct life for the preservation of
health and the invention of all the arts. Descartes.

X. Philosophy is a critical science that asks about the scope of human knowledge Kant.

5. Where does the expression ''philosophie'' originate?

in Greece

6. What is the meaning of ''philosophie?

literally meaning "love of wisdom", is an approach of critical thinking and questioning
about the world, knowledge and human existence . It has existed since ancient times in the
West and in the East , through the figure of the philosopher , not only as a rational activity
but also as a way of life. The history of philosophy allows us to understand its evolution.

7. Who is credited with having used the name philosophie for the first time?
According to Cicero, it was Pythagoras who first used the word philosophy. He
compared life to the Olympia festivities in which some were businessmen, others just went
to compete, others for fun and others out of curiosity.

8. Please narrate the circumstance in which Pythagoras first used the expression
Philosophie.

That Pythagoras having dealt learnedly and dissertedly with some questions, Leo, prince
of the Phrygians asked him of what art he was chiefly professing, to which Pythagoras
replied: that the life of man and the fair which was held with games before the concourse of
the whole of Greece seemed to him a similar thing, for just as there some aspire by the skill
of their bodies to the glory and name of a crown, others were drawnS profit, desire to buy
and sell, but there was a class, and precisely that formed in greater proportion of free men,

39
 who sought neither applause nor profit, but who came to see and observe with eagerness
what was being done and how it was done.

9. Briefly write the various answers to the question what is philosophy?

For Plato philosophy is the acquisition of science.

For Aristotle, philosophy has as its object being as being. Philosophy is the science that
deals with the causes and the principles of things _ _

Kant philosophy will be transformed into a critical science, a science that questions the
scope of human knowledge.
10. Make a self-reflective commentary on the text read.

The first thing we have to do when we have to summarize a text is to follow the following
procedure:

a) Perform a first reading of the entire text. This will allow us to have an overview of the
issues raised therein. Some students begin to underline on the first reading, so having a partial
view of the text, they do not underline correctly.

b) Perform a second reading underlining the main ideas, secondary ideas, relevant concepts
and unknown terms (it is very important to understand these terms, either by using the
dictionary or by asking an expert). The most widespread shortcomings of students in the use
of the underlining technique tend to be twofold: underlining almost the entire text and
underlining practically nothing.

c) To make some kind of scheme. It is important that it has a hierarchical structure, which will
allow us to show the structure of the text: main ideas, secondary ideas and their relationships
with each other. A hierarchical schema model is concept mapping. It is typical for students
not to carry out this step, which results in a bad result when summarizing: repetition of ideas,
literal copy of the text, disorder and lack of structure,... The use of hierarchical diagrams will
also facilitate the task of explaining the text in an orderly fashion.

d) Write the summary. The main idea or ideas, the secondary ideas and the relationships
between them, i.e., the logical structure or reasoning of the text, must be stated. Paying
attention to the syntactic aspects of the text will facilitate this task. The summary is the
simplest task of a text commentary, but many students do not attach importance to it and are
therefore unable to make a good explanation of it.

40
Self-Reflection Exercise: Text No. 2

1. To investigate biographical data about Jostein Gaarder and his novel Sophie's
World.

Born August 8, 1952, in Oslo, Norway, he is a Norwegian writer, author of novels, short
stories and children's books. In 1990 he received the National Prize for Literary Criticism in
Norway and the Literary Prize of the Ministry of Social and Scientific Affairs for The
Mystery of the Solitaire and the following year the European Youth Literature Prize. In
2012 his book Det spørs (I wonder) was published, with illustrations by Turkish-Norwegian
artist Akin Düzakin, covering fifty universal philosophical questions to encourage
intergenerational dialogue. The questions concern both moral issues (friendship, justice,
beauty) and metaphysical issues (the universe, life, death, God). According to Gaarder, the
most important philosophical question of the present is one that he did not include in his
book: what will the human being be like in the future? .

Dear Sofia. Many people have different hobbies. Some collect old coins or stamps, others
like to do handicrafts, and others spend most of their free time practicing sports. Many also
enjoy reading. But what we read is very varied. Some read only newspapers or comics,
some like novels, and others prefer books on different topics, such as
such as astronomy, fauna or technological inventions. _

2. In Gaarder's opinion, what is the best way to approach philosophy?

The best way to approach philosophy is to ask some philosophical questions: How was
the world created? Is there any will or intention behind what you do? Is there another life
after death? How can we solve problems of this type? And, first and foremost. How should
we live? There is no known culture that has not been concerned about who human beings
are and where the world comes from.

3. What are the philosophical questions that appear in the text?

How was the world created? Is there any will or intention behind what happens, is there
another life after death? How can we solve problemsofthistype?And,firstandforemost.Howshouldwelive?

4. What is the one thing we need to be a good philosopher?

41
 To be a good philosopher, a man must be endowed with a vehement desire to know, the
reason for a great caution to believe that he knows; he must also possess great logical
penetration and the habit of exact thought. All of these, of course, are a matter of degree.

Self Exercises. Reflection: Text No. 3

1. Research biographical data about J.M. Bochenski

Philosopher and theologian, Dominican religious, was born in Czuszow in 1902 and
died in Fribourg, Switzerland on February 8, 1995. He was professor of the history of
modern philosophy at the University of Freiburg. He made use of symbolic logic (of which
he was a great cultivator) in many investigations on the development of ancient and
medieval logic, drawing strictly on the theses of the school of Lukasiewicz. He has also
carried out studies on contemporary thought, which also include the thought of Eastern
Europe. Works: Current Methods of Thought (1957), Dialectical Materialism (1958), What
is Authority (1989) and Introduction to Philosophical Thought (1963).

2. Identify, write and define five central concepts contained in the text read.

Science (from Latin scientĭa, 'knowledge') is a system that organizes and orders knowledge
through testable questions and a structured method that studies and interprets natural, social
and artificial phenomena.
Discipline means to instruct a person or animal to have a certain code of conduct or order. In
the field of child development, discipline refers to methods of character building and teaching

self-control and acceptable behavior, for example, teaching a child to wash his or her hands
before meals.
Philosophy (from Ancient Greek φιλοσοφία 'love of wisdom' derived from φιλεῖν [fileîn] 'to
love' and σοφία [sophia] 'wisdom';1 trans. in Latin as philosophĭa) is an academic discipline
and a set of reflections and knowledge of a transcendental character that, in a holistic sense,
studies the essence, first causes and ultimate ends of things. It attempts to answer a variety of
fundamental problems about such questions as existence and being (ontology and
metaphysics), knowledge (epistemology and gnoseology), truth (logic), morality (ethics),
beauty (aesthetics), value (axiology), mind (philosophy of mind), language (philosophy of
language), and religion (philosophy of religion).gics), morality (ethics), beauty (aesthetics),
value (axiology), mind (philosophy of mind), language (philosophy of language) and religion
(philosophy of religion).456 Throughout history, many other disciplines have emerged in the
wake of philosophy, which is why it is considered the basis of all modern sciences by many
authors.7 The term was probably coined by Pythagoras.
Didactics is the science that has as its object of study the educational teaching process aimed

42
at solving the problem that we call social task: to prepare man for life, this process only
occurs in school as formal education.
Philosophical Doubts: Having doubts about many aspects of life is typical of people with a
particularly keen sense of curiosity. Some try to think deeply and try to find answers to the
questions they ask themselves, while others avoid overthinking, as they find it difficult to find
solutions to the questions.
These questions, considered as existential, correspond to the meaning of life and to all kinds
of aspects: from the most absolute banality to impossible questions to be solved. They are part
of the human reasoning that tries to answer all its doubts.

3. Response from J.M. Bochenski to the question What is philosophy

properly?

Unfortunately, this is one of the most difficult philosophical questions. Few words I
know that have as many meanings as the word "philosophy". Just a few weeks ago, in
France, I attended a colloquium of leading European and American thinkers. They all
talked about philosophy and by philosophy they understood absolutely different things.

4. What is the author's question and argument to those who claim ''that there is no
philosophy?

If there is no philosophizing, it will be in the name of philosophy. So, if there is no

philosophizing to be done, there is philosophizing to be done. And the same can be argued
today. Nothing is as amusing as the spectacle of the supposed enemies of philosophy
adducing grand philosophical arguments to prove that there is no such thing as philosophy.
It is difficult, therefore, to agree with the first opinion. Philosophy has to be something
other than a general container of immature problems. She must have played this role at one
time, but she is more than that.

5. Who is the philosopher, according to Boechenski?

He was a professor at the Collegium Angelicum in Rome during the period 1935-1940,
and extraordinary professor, then full professor, at the University of Fribourg. He was a
disciple of Jesus Łukasiewicz, and has devoted much of his work to logic, highlighting his
dedication on analogy. He also highlights his historical research on logic in antiquity,
especially that of Theophrastus and oriental logic, and especially values the scholastic logic
of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries .

6. Answers of the various philosophical schools to the questions What remains for

43
 philosophy as a science? What is your home turf?

First answer: the theory of knowledge. The other sciences know. Philosophy studies the
possibility of knowledge itself, the presuppositions and limits of possible knowledge. So
Immanuel Kant and many of his followers.
Second answer: values. Every other science studies what it is. Philosophy investigates what
should be. This answer has been given, for example, by the followers of the so-called South
German school and many contemporary French philosophers. Third answer: man as the
foundation and supposition of everything else. According to the advocates of this view
everything in reality is in some way referred to man. The natural sciences and even the
sciences of the spirit leave this reference aside. Philosophy is confronted with it and,
consequently, has man as its proper object. So do many existentialist philosophers. Fourth
answer: language. ''There are no philosophical propositions, but only clarification of
proportions,'' says Wittgenstein. Philosophy studies the language of other sciences from the
point of view of their structure. Such is the theory of Wittgenstein and most of today's
logical positivists.

7. He comments on the statement that philosophy ''is in a certain sense a universal

science''. And how does philosophy differ from these other sciences?

It is in a sense a universal science. Its domain is not limited, like that of the other
sciences, to a strictly delimited field. But, if this is so, it can happen, and in fact it does
happen, that philosophy deals with the same issues that the other sciences deal with. How
then does philosophy differ from this other science? It is distinguished -we answer- both by
its method and its point of view. For his method because the philosopher is not forbidden
any of the methods of knowing. Thus he is not obliged, like the physicist, to reduce
everything to sensibly observed phenomena.

8. Why ''philosophy is a science of fundamentals''?

The sciences know; he asks what it is to know. Others lay down laws; he wonders what
the law is. The ordinary man speaks of meaning and purpose. The philosopher studies what
is properly to be understood by meaning and finality. Thus, philosophy is also a radical
science, for it goes to the root in a deeper way than any other science. Where the others are
satisfied, philosophy continues to question and investigate.

9. Why does the author state that philosophy ''is the extremely difficult science''?

It is an extremely difficult science. Where almost everything is always called into

question, where no assumptions or traditional methods apply, where the highly complex

44
 problems of ontology must always be kept before our eyes, the work cannot be easy. No
wonder opinions differ so much in philosophy. A great thinker and not a skeptic -on the
contrary, one of the greatest systematists in history-, St. Thomas Aquinas, once said that
only very few men, after a long time and not without errors, are capable of resolving the
fundamental questions of philosophy.

10. Do a self-reflection exercise on the content of the text read.

Explanation is the most comprehensive aspect of text commentary and probably the most
difficult. As we have already indicated above, this cannot be carried out correctly if we have
not understood the literality of the text, and if we have not carried out the previous steps (even
mentally).

The same as in the summary, there are some techniques that make it easier for us to make a
correct explanation. The steps we could follow are as follows:

a) Starting from the hierarchical scheme, some people forget it and begin their explanation by
stating the author's general thought without sticking to the content of the text.

b) Complete the previous scheme, or make a new one, with the aspects that we are going to
develop in the explanation. In this case it is good to keep in mind several elements:

Starting from the main idea of the text and its problems.
Indicate the philosophical background and the circumstances that generate this problem.
Refer to the situation of the problem in the evolution of the author's thought and in the work
to which the text belongs.
Justify the ideas in the text in relation to the author's thinking.
Indicate subsequent solutions to the problem in the text.
Write in an orderly and correct manner, taking into account the above outline.
By following these steps you will be able to comment on a philosophical text with sufficient
guarantee of success. Following these steps may seem a bit forced, but over time you will
become more comfortable and achieve a personal style.

It is important that you avoid the typical defects of an explanation: stating what you know
about the author, repeating ideas, reproducing what appears in the text, writing in a disorderly
manner and without a common thread, etc.

Self Exercises. Reflection: Text No. 4

1. Research biographical data about the philosopher Andrés Avelino García Solano.

45
 was a Dominican poet. He was born on December 13 , 1900 in San Fernando de
Montecristi and died on March 18 , 1974 in Santo Domingo. He is one of the three creators
of Postumismo, the others being Domingo Moreno Jimenes and Rafael Augusto Zorrilla.
He was mainly characterized for being the theorist of the group, giving the movement its
aesthetic and ideological bases, which appeared in the Postumista Manifesto published in
Fantaseos. His poetic work, like that of Moreno Jiménez, can be said to begin with a very
special form of modernism, emphasizing the weakest and most external elements of
Romanticism, from which he came. At times his style is so closely identified with that of
his idealistic companion thathismostfar-reachingpoem,"Cantosamimuerteviva"(Songstomylivingdeath),

2. According to philosopher Andrés Avelino, what is the essence of philosophy?

The innumerable different answers that philosophers have given to this question, and
the fact that they exclude one from the other, is already an indication that we are dealing
with an antinomian object. In the Greek etymology of the name philosophy, "love of
wisdom"; "love of knowledge", a definition of philosophy is insinuated, which, although it
has been repudiated as a very general definition, gives the content of the essence of
philosophy. The rejection of the Greek etymology has been made because they have not
been critically and sufficiently addressed in The etymological definition.

3. Look up the meaning of the term ''antinomic''.

It is a term used in logic and epistemology that, in a loose sense, means paradox or
irresolvable contradiction.

4. What does it mean that an ''object is antinomic''?

Antinomy means, in a general sense, paradox or irresolvable contradiction. It is used in logic

and epistemology.

In logic, the existence of two contradictory statements about an object, with equally
convincing logical foundation is called an antinomy.

5. Why, according to Andrés Avelino, the philosopher can't find sensitive

verification not demonstration of his problems?

The philosopher can find neither sensible verification nor demonstration of his
problems, since his objects are antinomically problematic thoughts, alien to the sensible
real and the demonstrable in the mathematical sense. Its objects are only immediately non-
sensible, non-experiential in an immediate non-sensible way, not experimental in an
immediate sensible way like the real objects of science.

46
6. What is the purest philosophy so far, in Andrés Avelino's opinion? (Please explain
your answer)

The purest philosophy that has been given up to the present is Platonic. Its objects are its
totality antinomically problematic thoughts about all kinds of reality. And his method was
the genuinely philosophical method: dialectical discussion of antinomian problems of all
kinds. Precisely those same antinomies that Kant later tried to remove from the bosom of
metaphysics because he considered them useless, are the essence of philosophy. In
philosophy there is a discipline that possesses an even higher degree of purity than that of
metaphysics: the theory of knowledge. In it all the questions are about antinomically
problematic thoughts; their positions are dual, polar antinomical and are developed in
problematic discussion and without possible support in sensible realities.

Self Exercises. Reflection: Text No. 5

1. To investigate biographical data about the philosopher Julián Marías.

He was born in Valladolid on June 17, 1914. In 1919 he moved with his family to
Madrid and studied at the Colegio Hispano. In 1931 he obtained a Bachelor's degree in
Science -with extraordinary prize- and in Letters, at the Cardenal Cisneros Institute.
Between 1931 and 1936 he studied Philosophy and Letters (specializing in Philosophy)
with a degree award in 1939, at the Complutense University of Madrid, where he was a
disciple of Ortega y Gasset, Xavier Zubiri, José Gaos and Manuel García Morente, among
others. He also began a career in chemistry, which he abandoned when he realized that his
true vocation was philosophy. At the age of twenty-six, he wrote a History of Philosophy
quoting original texts that he consulted in his private library. He learned Greek under the
guidance of Xavier Zubiri and, reading the first edition of Heidegger 's Sein und Zeit in
1934, he perfected the German he had learned in high school classes with Manuel
Manzanares. His first publication of certain entity is his participation in the book Juventud
en el mundo antiguo, published in 1934 (it gathered texts by Marías, Carlos Alonso del
Real and Manuel Granell) narrating the university cruise that these students made in 1933
through the Mediterranean Sea, and in which Salvador Espriu, Enrique Lafuente Ferrari,
Luis Díez del Corral, Antonio Rodríguez Huéscar, etc. also participated. In 1934 he also
published a translation of Auguste Comte, commissioned by Ortega.

2. What is the origin of philosophy in Julian Marias' concept?

The beginning of his Metaphysics is an answer to that question: All men tend by nature
to know. The reason for man's desire to know is, for Aristotle, nothing less than his nature.
And nature is the substance of a thing, that in which it really consists; therefore, man
appears defined by knowledge; it is his very essence that moves man to know. And here
again we find a wiser implication between knowledge and life, whose meaning will become
clearer and more transparent throughout this book But Aristotle says something else. A
little further on he writes: "By astonishment men began, now and at first, to philosophize,
47
first being astonished at the strangest things that were nearest at hand, and then, as they
advanced thus little by little, becoming questioned about the most serious things such as the
movements of the Moon, the Sun and the stars and the generation of the whole". We have,
then, as the most concrete root of philosophizing, a human attitude which is astonishment.

3. Why does man philosophize?

Rarely has this question been sufficiently raised. Aristotle has touched it in such a way
that it has decisively influenced the whole subsequent process of philosophy. The
beginning of his Metaphysics is an answer to that question: All men tend by nature to
know. The reason for man's desire to know is, for Aristotle, nothing less than his nature.
And nature is the substance of a thing, that in which it really consists; therefore, man
appears defined by knowledge; it is his very essence that moves man to know.

4. What is the root of philosophizing?

And only in this sense can we speak of truth or falsehood. Mythical man moves outside
this sphere. Only as something that is can things be true or false. The oldest form of this
awakening of things in their truth is wonder. And this is why it is the root of philosophy.

5. At what point does philosophy begin, according to Julián Marías?

We have, then, as the most concrete root of philosophizing, a human attitude which is
astonishment. Man misses the things that are close to him, and then the totality of all there
is. Instead of moving among things, using -them, enjoying or fearing them, he stands
outside, estranged from them, and wonders in amazement at those near and everyday
things, which now, for the first time, appear before him, therefore, alone, isolated in
themselves by the question, "What is this?" At this point the philosophy begins.

6. What does the theoretical attitude mean as opposed to the mythical attitude?

The mythical attitude, but which differ from our European one: for example, the
infantile conscience, the attitude of the child, who finds himself in the world full of benign
or hostile powers or persons, but not of things in a rigorous sense. In the theoretical
attitude, man, instead of being among things, is in front of them, estranged from them, and
then things acquire a significance of their own, which they did not have before. They
appear as something that exists by itself, apart from man, and that have a certain
consistency: some properties, something that is theirs and that is proper to them. -Then
things emerge as realities that are, that have a peculiar content.

7. How is it explained that in the theoretical attitude man places himself outside of
things?
48
 In the theoretical attitude, man, instead of being among things, is in front of them,
estranged from them, and then things acquire a significance of their own, which they did
not have before. They appear as something that exists by itself, apart from man, and that
have a certain consistency: some properties, something that is theirs and that is proper to
them. -Then things emerge as realities that are, that have a peculiar content. And only in
this sense can we speak of truth or falsehood. Mythical man moves outside this sphere.
Only as something that is can things be true or false.

Self Exercises. Reflection: Text No. 6

1. To investigate biographical data about Bertrand Russell.

He is known for his influence on analytical philosophy along with Gottlob Frege, his
colleague G. E. Moore and his student Ludwig Wittgenstein and A. N. Whitehead, co-
author of his Principia Mathematica. His work has had considerable influence on
mathematics, logic, set theory, philosophy of language, epistemology, metaphysics, ethics
and politics. Russell was a prominent pacifist anti-war social activist.Third Earl of Russell,
he was the son of the Viscount Amberle, John Russell, and godson of the utilitarian
philosopher John Stuart Mill, whose writings had a great influence on his life. She married
four times and had three children.

2. How does Russell explain the problems as the starting point of philosophy?

traditional philosophical problems, there are some that do not, in my opinion, lend
themselves to any intellectual treatise by themselves, since they transcend our cognitive
faculties; therefore, we will not deal with these problems. There are others, however,
which, although they are not susceptible of being solved now, are at least susceptible of
being shown the direction to be followed to achieve them and the type of solution that suits
them, and which may be reached in time. Philosophy originates from the unusually
obstinate effort to reach the true. What in our ordinary life passes for knowledge suffers
from three defects: it is too sure of itself; it is vague; it is contradictory.

3. What is the origin of philosophy according to Bertrand Russell?

philosophy originates from the unusually obstinate effort to reach the true. What in our
ordinary life passes for knowledge suffers from three defects: it is too sure of itself; it is
vague; it is contradictory. There is also another quality that we desire for our knowledge,
and that is comprehension: we want the area of knowledge to cover as much as possible.
But this is more a matter for science than for philosophy. An individual is no better

49
philosopher because he knows a greater number of scientific facts; if it is philosophy that
interests him, it will be the principles, methods and general conceptions that he will learn
from science.

4. What are the three defects of ordinary knowledge in Bertrand Russell's

view?

The three defects we have mentioned have a relationship of mutual dependence and it is
enough to notice any one of them to recognize the existence of the other two. We will try to
illustrate these three types of defects with some examples. Let us first consider the belief in
common objects, such as tables, chairs and trees. All of us feel perfectly safe about these
things in ordinary life, and yet our confidence is founded on flimsy grounds.

5. What are the elements of interest to the philosopher?

An individual is not a better philosopher because he knows a greater number of

scientific facts; if it is philosophy that interests him, it will be the principles, methods and
general conceptions that he will learn from science. The philosopher's work begins, so to
speak, where the rough facts end.

6. In Russell's perspective, what elements constitute the raw material of the

philosopher?

The philosopher's work begins, so to speak, where the rough facts end. Science gathers
them into bundles by means of scientific laws: and it is these laws, rather than the original
facts, that constitute the raw material of philosophy.

7. In Russell's view, what is necessarily to be a good philosopher?

Tobe a good philosopher, a man must be endowed with a vehement desire to know, the
reason for a great caution to believe that he knows; he must also possess great logical
penetration and the habit of exact thought. All of these, of course, are a matter of degree.
Vagueness in particular belongs to a certain extension of human thinking; consequently, it
is a continuously perfectible activity, not something in which we can achieve final
perfection once and for all.

50
 8. To inquire from a reflective reading of the text ''the role of beliefs in the process of
knowledge'' and to see the relationship of such beliefs with human nature.

Belief has been considered the simplest form of representative mental content in the
formation of thought.

Two fundamental forms of belief formulation are considered:

Believing that... about the truth of a particular cognitive content. I believe the earth is round
Believe in...., which, in turn has two different forms:
To believe in a person, in the sense of "trust" or "confidence in him": I trust...; I believe in his
ability to do such and such a thing.
Believing in the existence of something: I believe in witches.
In every belief there is a general presupposition:

an individual, the one who believes.

an intentionality with respect to an object, which constitutes the content of the belief as such.
A logical proposition that objectifies the content.
a statement in which it can be expressed linguistically.
Lynne Ruder Baker25 considers four ways of looking at belief:

According to common sense: according to which there are entities that correspond to what we
talk about when we talk about beliefs.
Although common sense is not entirely appropriate to a content as true, it is nevertheless
useful for predicting and preventing an individual's psychological behavior.
The general interpretation of common sense is completely erroneous and can be eliminated as
soon as a theory appears that renders the use of this concept useless.26
Common sense offers no truth in beliefs; but both animals and people, even computers, if they
have beliefs at all, offer positive behavioral strategies through them.27
Does a belief whose content is false still have cognitive content? Plato28 defines knowledge
as true belief justified by reason. Traditionally, this has meant that a false belief would not be
knowledge, even if such a belief responds to a sincere attitude of truthfulness on the part of
the individual who holds it.

Justification of a belief as true would be self-evident knowledge. But the question is, is a
belief true because it is self-evident knowledge or, conversely, is it self-evident because it is
true knowledge? Distinguishing knowledge from belief is not easy.2930

Beliefs are one of the bases of tradition. They imply a subjective evaluation that one makes of
oneself, of others and of the world that surrounds one. The most important beliefs are
convictions and prejudices that are not contrasted with the principles and methods of science
51
that would make them proper knowledge.

9. What is the role of the philosopher in the face of beliefs?

The sources from which the beliefs originate are varied:

external, when they originate in cultural explanations received for the interpretation and
understanding of certain phenomena and the determined comprehension of certain
discourses.7
internal, when they arise from one's own thinking, experience and convictions.
External beliefs are generated:

Because of the tendency to internalize the beliefs of the people around us and imitate their
behavior, especially if it is endorsed by social success. It is fundamental during childhood in
the formation of the child's personality. This is often the case with cultural, political,8 and
religious beliefs.9
People tend to adopt the beliefs of leaders even when they contradict their interests.
Beliefs are not always voluntary because individuals need to associate their experience of
reality with rational beliefs as theories that avoid cognitive contradictions and justify
behaviors. The refuge in the collectivity or in the "common sense" of tradition as well as the
security in the submission to the norm imposed by the group, the "boss" or those in charge,
plays a primordial role in this.
The obsessive repetition of specific contents of advertising messages finds its justification in
this.10
The idealization of the interpretation of a cognitive content or of a fact (abstract or concrete)
for which no justification or rational foundation is required is usually put as a paradigm of
beliefs: faith and religious or magical experience; but they are also the culturally received
prejudices with which we usually interpret the world.

10. What role does Russell attribute to memory and the testimony of others in the
scientific process?

The intention of the scientific method is to reach the path to the exact truth, so it must base its
knowledge following a rigorous and systematic structure. However, in order to establish a
scientific law, one must begin by observing the most significant facts and then draw
hypotheses that strictly explain those facts, and once these hypotheses are established, they
must also be tested by the facts that the observation yields. Therefore, if the hypothesis is
verified, it is established as a provisional truth, because the man of science does not seek to
establish absolute truths, but aims to approach the exact truth by accepting "probable errors",

52
which can be installed in the observer. So what is science for Russell? Russell tells us,
"Science, in its ultimate ideal, consists of a series of propositions arranged in hierarchical
order." (Russell, 1983, p. 59). What does this mean, though?

The hierarchy of which Russell speaks consists of a double path that begins with induction
that goes from particular to general facts and deduction that proceeds from the general to the
particular: "The ascending connection proceeds by induction; the descending by deduction.
(Russell, 1983, p. 60).in this way science always operates under deduction and induction, in
any case, physics is the only one that manages to approach.

The significant event.

the scientific methodbuy on amazon

In the beginning something was mentioned about the significant event, but what is meant by
significant event? The physicist Antoine Henri Becquerel discovered radioactivity thanks to a
chance occurrence as Russell tells us: "Becquerel had some very sensitive photographic
plates, which he had planned to use; but, as the weather was bad, he kept them in a dark
cupboard, in which there turned out to be some uranium." (Russell, 1983, p. 63). And that is
how they discovered that the uranium was radioactive. In any case, it is a chance occurrence
that yielded a significant fact. On the other hand, it is necessary to clarify that scientific
theories do not arise out of nothing, since each of them has a preliminary basis. For example,
today's physics owes much to Albert Einstein.

Yesterday I dreamt that I was bald

Physics has always been noted for being a grounded theoretical edifice that at the same time
demands rigor in experiment and observation, but this brings difficulties when it comes to
exact measurements, therefore Bertrand Russell tells us: "In the Newtonian theory of
gravitation it was impossible to calculate how three bodies could move under their mutual
attractions; it was only approximately achieved, when one of them is much larger than the
other two." (Russell, 1983, p. 63). Therefore, it is only possible to sustain approximations,
because to calculate in an exact way would imply exceeding the limits of human forces and
this is absurd (Russell, 1983). And it is here where we state that the man of science does not
seek absolute truths. For this reason, science is mostly criticized by theologians who often say
that it is in constant change and question its accuracy, in other words they question the formal
rigor of science and as we have seen above it must operate in a systematic way to build a
well-founded theory.

Measurement and qualitative law.

Measurement and formal rigor in scientific knowledge are of enormous importance, but
Russell tells us that this has been exaggerated in an unusual way. Therefore, mathematics has
a lot of power in this quantitative field, however, there are laws that are not quantitative. So
which law is not quantitative? In this case it would be the experiments of Ivan Pavlov that
first formulated a law of conditional reflex that was used for political and scientific purposes.
In this way they manipulated several dogs to see if they were able to give some kind of
response to a previous stimulus. For this reason Pavlov realized that when he gave them food,

53
they instantly generated saliva, so he began to condition them with the sound of bells before
giving them food and then as a result the canines also generated saliva by the mere fact of
hearing them, even if they had no food, just by listening to the sound they drooled. In this
sense we are talking about the well-known stimulus-response and a peculiar way of training.
Consequently, behavior can be studied qualitatively but not quantitatively, since we are
dealing with behavior.

Hypothesis and analysis

Bertrand Russellbuy on amazon

Induction operates logically in all scientific laws, however, problems can be encountered that
may call into question the hypothesis that you are trying to implement, in this case, if that
were to happen, you would have to build a much more abstract hypothesis. And this is why no
matter how much rigor and accuracy a hypothesis shows it should not ultimately be regarded
as true: "Since it is probably only a highly abstract aspect of the hypothesis, which is logically
necessary in the deductions we make from it to observable phenomena." (Russell, 1983, p.
66).After all what problem can you have? Bertrand Russell explains: "All cats have tails. But
the first time one sees a Manx cat one will have to adopt a more complicated hypothesis."
(Russell, 1983, p. 67). This is why such a hypothesis may falter and force the scientist to look
for more abstract facts, which often turns out to be a very complex task, due to the fact that
imagination is always present and may intervene in the process of identifying such facts. On
the other hand, there is the analysis that is of vital importance in science, since it is not
possible to obtain everything at once as Russell says, it is necessary to analyze separately in
order to arrive at a concrete fact. For example: "The moon is attracted simultaneously by the
Earth and the Sun. If the Earth were acting alone, the Moon would describe one orbit; if the
Sun were acting alone, it would describe another; but its present orbit is calculable by
knowing the effects which the Earth and Sun would exert separately." (Russell, 1983, p. 68).

Finally, the scientific method follows edifying steps that are closely related to formal systems
that demand a concrete accuracy, for this reason if a knowledge wants to be considered
scientific it must undergo experiments that can be reproducible by any scientist to determine
the accuracy of the hypothesis put forward.

54