Search

Este trabajo realiza un estudio metafísico sobre la noción de contacto en términos de límites a partir de una ontología de objetos materiales. Dos cosas están en contacto cuando sus límites (o partes de ellos) se topan espacialmente. Las tesis relacionista y la substantivista sobre la naturaleza del espacio son evaluadas en sus compromisos respecto a la idea de contacto. Sin embargo, puesto que considerando algunos descubrimientos de la física cuántica es posible descartar la idea de contacto físico, la discusión requiere ser trasladada a un espacio topológicamente continuo. Aquí la idea de contacto requiere solucionar la compatibilidad entre la existencia de un espacio continuo y la existencia de límites como un tipo de discontinuidad. Cuatro tesis son evaluadas: clásica, superposición, brecha, y coincidencia. Esta última es defendida puesto que, a diferencia de las otras, no renuncia a características ontológicas fundamentales de un límite y es la menos arbitraria sobre su pertenencia.

En el presente artículo trataremos un tema inédito dentro de los estudios sobre la vida y obra de García Bacca. En especial, trataremos de ver en qué medida la obra de García Bacca puede ser interpretada como una expansión de los límites que, en opinión de Heidegger, la propuesta metafísica nietzscheana lleva asociado de modo intrínseco. En especial, trataremos de analizar comparativamente ambas propuestas metafísicas con el fin de demostrar que si bien parte de la génesis de la propuesta filosófica garcibacquiana responde parcialmente ciertos elementos característicos de Nietzsche, el progresivo contacto de García Bacca con otras perspectivas políticas, filosóficas, económicas, etc., provocan una aproximación paralela a las obras de Machado y Marx. Dicha aproximación a estos y otros factores de influencia, provocan una transformación y ampliación en su propuesta filosófica.

The purpose of this article is to show how the redefinition that Eugenio Trias has made of rationality in terms of «border reason» (razónfronteriza) has a deeper meaning if understood as an alternative to the postmodern drifts of rationality. In spite of the fact that this hypothesis can have a practical point of view, this paper is only pointing out the theoretical aspect of border reason. For this reason, an intertextual analysis has been made of the mature works of the philosophy of the limit, and this allows to understand some passages that, if read in isolation, can be ambiguous or incomprehensible. The conclusion of this study shows that an opening towards a «symbolic supplement» (in its artistic, but above all in its religious aspect) reveals its coherence and its most genuine hermeneutics if it is interpreted in the light of the controversy that the philosophy of the limit has with postmodernism.

Martin Heidegger and Eduardo Chillida held a rich and fertile intellectual exchange in 1968 and 1969, by the time they were preparing the artists’ book Die Kunst und der Raum («The Art and the Space»), which was to contain a text on art and space, written by Heidegger, as well as seven litho-collages and one lithography created by Chillida. The article deals with the similarity that exists between the German philosopher’s and the Spanish-Basque sculptor’s conception of space and time. Both understand space in connection with time as something dynamic, inseparable from life and human experience, which is not simply «given», but has to be looked for and realized. Starting point of this article is a circumstance that has not been investigated up to now: Heidegger read and discussed with Chillida the reflections on space that the latter had written and sent to him in the early 1969 at his request. At the end of the article, Chillida’s reflections used by Heidegger in a German translation, when he was preparing his text on «The Art and the Space», will be published for the first time, as well as a bigger selection of Chillida’s reflections, which the artist could have sent to the philosopher, and finally a page of the notes, which Heidegger took on Chillida.

The aim of the present study is to broach the question of the possible ontological and metaphysical meaning contained implicitly in the aesthetic reflection concerning the phenomenon of musical sonority. Starting from the consideration of the specific way of being of music understood as indeterminate ontological «event» separate from concrete objects, we shall examine the way in which the tension between the limit drawn by the world of defined things and the «un-limiting» power of sound is expressed in the context of aesthetic proposals on the essence of music made by F. W. J. Schelling, Arthur Schopenhauer and Emmanuel Levinas. These three meditations, each of them in its own way, coincide in pointing out a singular reference of the musical to the ontologically indefinite, the ab-solute and the boundless, that turn the experience of musical perception into a peculiar variant of harkening of the infinite.

The impact of technologies on human action is a main issue in contemporary philosophy. In this paper I point out some of the key metaphysical and ethical issues of this ongoing technological revolution, highlighting an important change of paradigm: the metaphysical issue now arises within ethics. Today’s technology, indeed, opens up new possibilities: a man overcoming it is now at least conceivable, if not fully viable. The category of dependence is thus replaced by that of auto poiesis, in order to achieve perfection and to eliminate boundaries. In this regard, the technological possibilities are annihilating the «outdated» human subject, as it is profoundly determined by its limits. On the contrary, I show how the concept of limit may be a good starting point for an ontology of difference/identity: the limit, thus, allows us to recognize the identity and the difference. In contemporary environmentalism we can observe the opposite tendency: every individual —even the human being—is functional to the preservation of life (Ecosystem), and it can be, thus, sacrificed. In this regard, the overcoming of human nature coincides with the victory of Nature, i.e., of Life: life is to be protected, at all times, whether it is human or non-human life. The main reason of this fact is our naïve concept of Nature and our conception of the human being as a dangerous agent; the awareness of a great destructive power gained, however, cannot be a sufficient reason to consider the human being a cancer on the planet. In order to reestablish a proper relationship of man with himself and with the world, we finally need to develop an adequate anthropology, which takes into account the human person’s natural and spiritual nature, its limitations and its limits.