8/17/2019 Contemporary Philo CAP 01

1/3

Contemporary philosophy is very difficult to periodize. Where begins contemporary philosophy isalready a matter of controversy within contemporary philosophy itself, as it is not where ancient

philosophy, philosophy or medieval, or modern philosophy begins. It is more conventional orresolved to a more conventional manner in these three cases in the case of contemporaryphilosophy.

On the other hand there is an obvious ambiguity in the contemporary word, what is itcontemporary? It is present in some sense. We are not talking philosophy of the century this orthat. So we have a "contemporary" name that has an ambiguity because it refers both to thepresent and to a period in time it is very difficult to determine. This is because of the controversyof contemporary philosophy is where it begins. Is inevitably philosophical historical reasons,systematic reasons, should be combined in some way, which makes the decision to build in oneway or another course of contemporary philosophy is very conditioned, very dependent on this set

of issues that we just

expose. Therefore, every year or every two years we change the emphasis within a more or lesscomprehensive understanding of contemporary thought. However, any decision about thebeginning is required. That is not the historical point of view, or periodization is offside. I can notbegin a course of contemporary philosophy with Plato, although the issue today in philosophy isitself a problem because what is current in philosophy? In any case it is a new way to examinewhat not current, and is an out of date way of intervening in the actual. This means that there is akind of complex traversal timeline in philosophical thought which enables Plato is a contemporaryof us, and maybe someone who does philosophy today not what is for some reason the story of Itdetermines philosophy. So we have to find are the questions that our philosophical thinking we

are in force in the philosophical contemporaneity. That is, the question of where begins thecontemporary philosophy and if you order in relation to the current is very difficult to answerbecause it could have ended and seating us at a time that does not yet have a name, and perhapsfollows that contemporary call. We could even consider this possibility. So I say that now thequestion is no longer where it begins and ends contemporary philosophy, but what are thesignificant issues for our way of intervening in the philosophical debate called contemporary,where contemporary are is the current time, ie which contains us philosophizing ourselves assubjects. Therefore, a course of contemporary philosophy requires this kind of commitment, ierespond with their own commitment to this adventure thinking of practicing philosophy.

In this case, we turn to choose a question that we consider closed at all, which is how the question

has been settling humanism / anti-humanism at different times of philosophy in the twentiethcentury, especially in the second half of the twentieth century. For this we have made a selectionof authors, and within these authors also we made a cut in their ways of development of theabove issues, which have to do with the shaft or controversial humanism / anti-humanism. On theeffective date of this question it seems to me that do not fit too controversial, as it remains a

permanent question of philosophizing demands understanding of the human situation itselfwhatever the notion of the human to be put into play. And in this effort to understand the human

8/17/2019 Contemporary Philo CAP 01

2/3

requires that all aspects related to philosophy (ontological, cognitive, and everything that weusually labeled in a way one quick, convenient and problematic both as a practical philosophy:ethics, aesthetics, politics) come into play in this determination, clarification or understanding ofthe concept of the human. The human gets there immediately as a concept at stake in aconstellation of concepts. This always happens in the development of philosophy, because it is

itself the concept: divided, included or excluded. This means that there is a whole dialectic, amovement of concepts to each other which makes it philosophy, and immediately certainfundamental dichotomies arise when we asked about the condition of the human. For example, itis a continuity with the human being as a whole, and there are positive continuities that will in anyway be any way to be? Here the question with nature appears, is the human a continuum with thenatural, or is there a break, discontinuity philosophical thought must enshrine when interrogatedby the human condition? We have here then a natural-unnatural pair. Or maybe, in the unnaturalturn different branches, such as history, society, culture, language, etc. Then, the link between thenatural and the unnatural is an element that must be developed when one wants to deal with thisdispute or complaint humanism / anti-humanism that has occurred in certain times of thetwentieth century.

But any deepening of the same distinction of the natural-unnatural and will be part of thedevelopment of the problem. You can not take quick steps as if any of them is not in itselfproblematic. Therefore, it is more complex not only on the side that when one puts "no" to a wordlike "unnatural" expression, openness is greater, because there are many ways to determine the"no" of something. For example "I am not now in a lot of sides and these in one." So say where Iam seems much more limited than say where I am not. If I put where I am, instead of where I amnot, it is clear that within the class where I am there is a huge amount of things to say, potentiallyinfinite. While where I am I am one.

C

4

So natural natural-does not contain the same question, determine the unnatural as another ofnature, while I simplifies the enunciation of it, but leave it open enormously everything thatconceptual spectrum allows some of the things that we just to see in the course withinunnaturalness. However, natural is something a little more complex than say I'm in the classroom250 of the faculty. A second dichotomy is between the individual and the collective, to whatextent what we call the human or condition of the human can be determined within the sphere ofsomething called individual existence ?, or the human condition and is always and originallycollective? Where the collective we will refer in part to history but partly also leads us tocommunity, a link, a relationship between individuals or the relationship between the individualand wholes wider-encompassing, determinations encompassing and that somehow Theycharacterize it without deleting it. Therefore oppositions that are taking place in this other sphere(the individual and the collective) also have their complexity. I'm not saying now simply theindividual and not individual. Here instead of what not individual we can talk about what exactlycan be seen as pre-individual (which is some kind of manifestation of being that is pre-individual,who is not yet individualized, but nevertheless is acting for the individual), or supra-individual.Let's call in either case "collective", being together, being with the other. That determination to be

8/17/2019 Contemporary Philo CAP 01

3/3

together, to be with the other, be concomitant of the human, or something added and removed,something not necessarily address ?, can represent the human in the form of the detached,secluded, than self-sufficient, independent of what ?, or human is always worked, crossed bybeing together, by forces, devices, determinations question its autonomy, that threaten itssovereignty? Individual can also become replaceable to some extent by the ego, the subject, self-

consciousness, of subjectivity as a point of view or subjectivation processes; but in any case aninstance that does not seem completely homogeneous or reduced again to that other than thecovers and contains.

That one that embraces and contains in a particular configuration of this stage of the philosophy ofthe twentieth century we pass through has been called

C

5

structure. During this stage the rise of structuralism takes place, determining not only in thisdiscussion between humanism / anti-humanism, but also in relation to its continuation in thehistory of philosophy, because some of what we usually understand by contemporary philosophyin some contexts it is called post-modernity, and in others it is called late-modernity, and otherpost-structuralism. Therefore, if there is a determination of contemporary thinking under the labelof post-structuralism, it must inevitably be the question of what is or consisted structuralism. It iswhere we find that the structure presented within this "movement structuralism" as the a-subjective instance, as that instance perhaps unconscious, collective not inter-individual but in anycase prior to or outside the determinant individuation towards it especially when thisindividuation is conceived in terms of self-consciousness. And there we find the debate betweenwho was a hero of the philosophy of consciousness as was Sartre and who was the exclusivereference of structuralism was Levi-Strauss. These two authors went grouping different debates,

different referents and was installed one of the stages of this discussion humanism / anti-humanism. Student: Postmodernism is not identified with post-structuralism? Teacher: For now Idelved into that, just say that sometimes this period of philosophy that we try to identify andwhich we call it one way and sometimes another. The question about whether or not the samepost-modernism and post-structuralism would not take it as a question that is worth beinganalyzed in those terms. First we must clarify what is what before comparing. I meant only thatsometimes these tags are used interchangeably to speak in this philosophizing time when we are,that is fallen pillars of the so-called modernity, the crisis of the modern subject.

Structuralism name is not just found in the thinking of humanity the importance of theconsideration of the structure, but the structure is put as the