Search

Copyright of Discusiones Filosóficas is the property of Universidad de Caldas and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In this paper, I shall present a reasoned answer to the question about the usefulness of philosophy. I start by analyzing the meaning and intentionality of the question "philosophy: what for?" Next, I study the different meanings of the word "philosophy" in the context of that question (section two). In the third section, I present some examples of certain answers given to the question "philosophy: what for?" as they can be studied from a historical and anthropological perspective. Next, I take into account certain outstanding philosophical systems to see how they have answered the question about the usefulness of philosophy (section four). Finally, I argue a reasoned answer to the question from the perspective of a Stoic, materialistic philosophy of the present (section five). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, I will discuss what specific traits distinguish sciences from other historical institutions. First I will review several philosophies conceiving sciences having in mind constitutive, but generic, features. This is the case when sciences are understood as explanation, as comprehension, as knowledge, as description, as representation, as construction, as cultural institution, as experimentation and elaboration of hypotheses, as theory, and as instrument of domination and intervention on reality. I put forward certain specific traits of theorems and scientific fields that allow us to distinguish sciences from other historical formations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents a classification of the sciences carried out from the Gustavo Bueno's philosophy of categorial closure. Firstly, I will comment on certain assumptions of Bueno's theory that affect this classificatory task. Then, I will distinguish the classifications based on ontological criteria from those based on gnoseological criteria. Next, I will present a gnoseological criterion of classification of sciences that, although different from that proposed by Gustavo Bueno, is internal to the philosophy of categorial closure. Finally, I will apply that criterion and I will propose a classification of the sciences, confronting it with other alternatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, the author responds to Vicente Chuliá's comments on the idea of substantive arts in Gustavo Bueno's work. The author addresses different criticisms and provides responses to each of them. They discuss the relationship between substantive art and the prose of life, the elimination of the author in substantive arts, the importance of the spectator in artworks, Bueno's theories on the substantivity of artworks, and the existence of an allegorical plane in substantive artworks. The author presents arguments and evidence to support their responses to the raised criticisms. [Extracted from the article]

This article summarizes the characterization of substantive arts in the work of Gustavo Bueno. The definition of substantive art as that which exists outside the prose of life is discussed, but it is noted that this characteristic does not allow it to be distinguished from other forms of art such as the ludic and the sacred. The difference between substantive arts and adjectival arts is also explored, as well as the comparison between substantive arts and sciences. The importance of the spectator in works of art is raised, and the elimination of the subject in substantive arts is questioned. Additionally, the topic of purpose in substantive arts is addressed, and the criteria used by Bueno to characterize them are analyzed. [Extracted from the article]