Search

The affective challenge of interdisciplinary researchIn this paper I analyze the affective problem related to interdisciplinary research using, as a guiding theme, some of my autobiographical memories linked to Mariano Artigas. Starting from a theory of feelings that connects emotions closely to reasons, I defend that many problems in developing interdisciplinary research are caused by the current divorce reason/emotion in which many researchers are educated. Secondly, I identify three types of feelings in a hierarchical relationship, whose scope may be very extensive, in my opinion, for the good performance of interdisciplinary dynamic: eureka excitement, narrative catharsis, and ecstatic experience. In the last part of my paper, I offer some suggestions on how to return feelings to academic domains and, at the same time, keeping sources of funding, and avoiding present evils as commoditization of knowledge and students, clientelism, and cynicism.

This paper discusses the resources for deconstruction offered by cognitive science, drawing inspiration from David Gunkel’s work on the topic (Deconstruction, MIT Press 2021). The gesture of deconstruction is seen as having a positive impact on the development of this interdisciplinary field by challenging misleading dichotomies and examining its underlying assumptions, such as the symmetry of integration.

This article addresses the issue of the identity of the philosophy of nature in the context of three features characteristic of this philosophical discipline, namely its methodological diversity, interdisciplinarity and specific developmental dynamics. This paper examines the threats to the identity of the philosophy of nature resulting from this set of features, particularly from its methodological diversity. It will also attempt to consider these features as (paradoxically) strengthening the identity of the philosophy of nature. Lastly, the entire discussion will be considered in relation to the metaphilosophical dimension of philosophy as an area of knowledge.

Is a naturalistic world view coherent?Plantinga’s argumentation against naturalism from Artigas’ perspectiveIn this paper, I examine the critique of the naturalistic world view that Plantinga exposes based on the concept of world view formulated by Artigas. The analysis of the results of contemporary science carried out by the American thinker, stemming from his epistemological investigations, is largely coincident and convergent with that of Artigas, developed almost a decade in advance. The impossibility of sustaining a naturalistic belief, in keeping with the developments of contemporary science, contrasts with the success of the new atheists’ popular diffusion, which Artigas thoroughly studied in Oracles of Science. Both philosophers, Artigas and Plantinga, are examples of how philosophical excellence allows a more attentive interdisciplinary world view and a more extensive and precise knowledge.

In this work we analyze the relationship between science and religion in the beginning of the 21st century in a context of change. The hypothesis from which we articulate the paper is that we are immersed in a failure of the so-called “secular raison”. Next, we show the aspects that in a fi rst sight illustrate this change from the point of view of religion and experimental science. Finally, we suggest some proposals to integrate in an interdisciplinary perspective this relationship, which is so important to obtain a comprehensive and profound vision of reality.