In this article I will focus on the debate on the causality principle that originated in the light of quantum mechanics concerning Moritz Schlick and Karl Popper. The discovery of quantum mechanics led to a broad debate on the interpretation of the principle of causality. Schlick proposed that it should be understood as an empirically verifiable postulate, and therefore with limits regarding causal indeterminacy in quantum physics. This approach had an influence on some scientists, especially Werner Heisenberg. However, Popper would (...) develop a different way of understanding science because of the role played by unverifiable elements in theories that can nevertheless be falsified. It is precisely the discussion around the principle of causality that opens up different ways of understanding science. I will first try to analyse Schlick’s argument in the context of the debate that was taking place in the late 1920s in the light of the new quantum mechanics; secondly, I will look at the reception that Schlick’s idea of causality had in Heisenberg and the Copenhagen Interpretation; thirdly, I will analyse Popper’s argument against Schlick’s interpretation; finally, I will try to see the resonances of this debate in Heisenberg and other physicists. (shrink)

In this article I will focus on the debate on the causality principle that originated in the light of quantum mechanics concerning Moritz Schlick and Karl Popper. The discovery of quantum mechanics led to a broad debate on the interpretation of the principle of causality. Schlick proposed that it should be understood as an empirically verifiable postulate, and therefore with limits regarding causal indeterminacy in quantum physics. This approach had an influence on some scientists, especially Werner Heisenberg. However, Popper would (...) develop a different way of understanding science because of the role played by unverifiable elements in theories that can nevertheless be falsified. It is precisely the discussion around the principle of causality that opens up different ways of understanding science. I will first try to analyse Schlick’s argument in the context of the debate that was taking place in the late 1920s in the light of the new quantum mechanics; secondly, I will look at the reception that Schlick’s idea of causality had in Heisenberg and the Copenhagen Interpretation; thirdly, I will analyse Popper’s argument against Schlick’s interpretation; finally, I will try to see the resonances of this debate in Heisenberg and other physicists. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to examine how the Greek motto γνῶθι σεαυτόν plays a central role in Plato’s philosophy in order to show how ethics and knowledge go hand in hand in his model of παιδεία. The question of self-knowledge is a practical and theoretical task in life which is developed implicitly in his dialogues, it is for this reason that i examine some passages of the Charmides, Alcibiades I, Phaedo and Republic in order to show how Plato (...) discovers the human interiority and how self-knowledge is refined and articulated with the tripartition of the soul in the Republic. (shrink)

En este artículo se analiza el concepto de vida presente en la ética de Epicucro, especialmente en la Carta a Meneceo, poniéndolo en relación con su doctrina sobre la felicidad. Epicuro entiende la vida como una sucesión de instantes sentidos, y este concepto de vida se desarrolla de acuerdo con una noción de muerte. Este artículo analiza algunos problemas filosóficos que acarrea este modelo centrándose en sus nociones filosóficas de vida, placer, muerte y felicidad, de cara a mostrar si su (...) hedonismo es motivacional o única-mente étic. (shrink)

El neodualismo postanalítico atribuyó a Russell, el primer Wittgenstein y Popper una actitud radicalmente anti-fundamentalista, con posterioridad a la teoría de los juegos del lenguaje del segundo Wittgenstein, debido a tres motivos, al menos según Von Wright y Apel, a saber: la fundamentación dogmática inductivista del positivismo lógico en los dos primeros casos; las sucesivas refundaciones meramente hipotéticas del racionalismo crítico en Popper; y, finalmente, la fundamentación explicativo-comprensiva preconizada de un modo meliorista por el pragmatismo semántico en aquel último caso. (...) Pero a pesar de este acuerdo básico, von Wright y Apel discreparon acerca del sentido meramente pragmático, o más bien pragmático-transcendental que, a pesar de todo, se debería seguir otorgando a la noción de fundamentación en los seguidores de estas nuevas tendencias del neodualismo postanalítico. (shrink)

RESUMENSe reconstruye la doble génesis semiótica y a la vez heurística de los proyectos programáticos del primer Wittgenstein y Popper, como ellos mismos se reprocharon mutuamente por razones éticas contrapuestas en el así llamado “incidente del atizador” de 1946. Por su parte Wright y Apel también prolongaron este tipo de análisis acerca de las mutuas relaciones de subalternación y autodiferenciación o, por el contrario, de fundamentación y complementariedad recíproca, que se deberían establecer entre las correspondientes críticas del sentido y las (...) subsiguientes éticas de la ciencia, analizándolas desde un enfoque neodualista postanalítico o estrictamente pragmáticotrascendental muy contrapuestos, dejando sin resolver numerosos problemas abiertos.PALABRAS CLAVESEMIÓTICA, HEURíSTICA, FALSACIONISMO, ANÁLISIS, NUEVO DUALISMOABSTRACTThis paper presents a reconstruction of the semiotic and heuristic double genesis of the programmatic projects by the early Wittgenstein and Popper, the way they both argued with each other due to conflicting ethical reasons in the so called “Wittgenstein’s Poker” incident in 1946. Wright and Apel also prolonged this type of analysis about mutual relationships of sub-alternation and auto-differentiation or, on the other hand, of foundation and reciprocal complementary, that should be established between the corresponding critics of meaning and the subsequent ethics of science, analysing them from a post analytical neo dualistic approach or a strictly pragmatic-transcendental approach –both radically opposed– leaving numerous rising problems unsolved.KEYWORDSEMIOTIC, HEURISTIC, FALSACIONISM, ANALySIS, NEW DUALISM. (shrink)

In "The Revolt of the Masses" Ortega y Gasset set two conceptions of political powers, represented by Cesar and Cicero, against each other. In this article I try to show how both are complementary, as it happened along the history.

D’Ors and Ortega carried out an anthropological-cultural and historical-social transformation of the pragmatic notion of belief. In so doing, both philosophers were expanding certain suggestions of Unamuno and Ganivet, for confronting the antihumanist crisis of European science originally denounced by phenomenology, but in a distinctive way.

Se reconstruye el modo como Anscombe y Llano rehabilitaron la noción de persona después de la transformación conceptual ocurrida en la filosofía, ya se postulara a partir de las propuestas fregeanas de Wittgenstein o a partir de la revisión pragmatista llevada a cabo por Apel. Con este fin se revisó el posible papel del silogismo práctico en la superación de las paradojas que entonces se originaron, así como en la desactivación del distanciamiento crítico que Wittgenstein y Apel habían mantenido con (...) la noción fregeana de concepto formal. En cualquier caso Anscombe concibió la transformación conceptual de la filosofía como una rehabilitación personalista de un realismo intencional de carácter práctico, mientras que Llano añadiría que se debería otorgar a esta rehabilitación personalista un alcance intencional metafísico. (shrink)

Wittgenstein y Apel pretendieron definir el constitutivo formal del sujeto intérprete del lenguaje a partir de las propuestas de Frege o de Peirce, pero en ambos casos sus propuestas se acabaron volviendo paradójicas. Primero, Wittgenstein por no poder fundamentarlo ni de un modo crítico-transcendental a partir de una noción de “yo” metafísico ni de unos juegos del lenguaje en sí mismos conductistas que tampoco permiten remitirse a unos signos intérprete, al modo exigido por Frege. De todos modos, posteriormente, Apel habría (...) propuesto evitar estas paradojas mediante una interpretación pragmático-transcendental del sujeto intérprete a partir de Peirce, aunque finalmente comprobaría como también se acabarían fomentando el mismo tipo de paradojas. Wittgenstein and Apel sought to define the formal constitutive of the language interpreter subject based on the Frege or Peirce proposals, but in both cases their proposals ended up becoming paradoxical. First, Wittgenstein for not being able to ground it in a critical-transcendental way based on a notion of metaphysical "I" nor on behavioral language games in themselves that also do not allow to refer to some interpreter signs, in the way demanded by Frege. Anyway, later, Apel would have proposed to avoid these paradoxes by means of a pragmatic-transcendental interpretation of the interpreting subject starting from Peirce, although finally it would prove how the same type of paradoxes would also be fostered. (shrink)