El artículo aborda, a partir del primer romanticismo alemán (Frühromantik), la concepción de un fundamento teórico relativo a la toma de conciencia de una verdad conflictiva que se manifiesta históricamente. Este fundamento contrasta con el concepto de teoría de la ciencia moderna, y trata de recuperar algunos rasgos de la noción antigua (más allá de la dicotomía sujeto-objeto). Esto implica el reconocimiento de cierta performatividad de la teoría y con ello de la poética, que muestra la ineficacia de las concepciones (...) empleadas en la Modernidad, y particularmente muestra las carencias del concepto de teoría literaria. Posteriormente analizamos el problema mediante la concepción de las poéticas especulativas del romanticismo, para lo cual se estudia la tensión entre el discurso fragmentario y la singular idea de sistema en el pensamiento romántico. (shrink)

El texto aborda la idea de poema en Walter Benjamin, aconsiderando tanto el contexto histórico como el literario que da pie a su particular concepción. La obra de arte en general y el poema en particular, suponen una instancia no representable, que permanece en un espacio indefinido, sin embargo, aprehensible mediante una dialéctica que tiene lugar en la propia obra.

José Jorge Mendoza argues that the difficulty with resolving the issue of immigration is primarily a conflict over competing moral and political principles and is, at its core, a problem of philosophy. This book brings into dialogue various contemporary philosophical texts that deal with immigration to provide some normative guidance to immigration policy and reform.

In (Re)Defining Racism, Alberto Urquidez argues that conflicting philosophical accounts over the definition of racism are at bottom linguistic confusions that would benefit from a Wittgensteinian-inspired approach. In this essay, I argue that such an approach would be helpful in disputes over the definition of metaphysically contested concepts, such as “race,” or semantically contested concepts, such as “racialization.” I disagree, however, that such insights would prove helpful or do very little for disputes concerning normatively contested concepts, such as “racism.”.

In this chapter, I outline what philosophers working on the ethics of immigration have had to say with regard to invidious discrimination. In doing so, I look at both instances of direct discrimination, by which I mean discrimination that is explicitly stated in official immigration policy, and indirect discrimination, by which I mean cases where the implementation or enforcement of facially “neutral” policies nonetheless generate invidious forms of discrimination. The end goal of this chapter is not necessarily to take a (...) side, but to outline the terrain and provide the reader with an adequate entryway into these philosophical discussions over discrimination and immigration. (shrink)

In her book, Socially Undocumented: Identity and Immigration Justice, Amy Reed-Sandoval discloses and criticizes a kind of oppression that is uniquely suffered by a group she identifies as "socially undocumented." The problem with her account is not with the identification of this group nor in her conclusions or recommendations, but in taking an overly constrained version of liberalism as her starting point. This non-radical version of liberalism does not have the necessary resources to properly recognize as unjust the kind of (...) oppression that Reed-Sandoval is most concerned with. I therefore argue in this essay that in order to properly recognize this kind of oppression as unjust, one must either subscribe to a “Goldilocks” version of liberalism or rely on a political theory that gets beyond liberalism. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:A "Nation" of ImmigrantsJose Jorge MendozaIntroductionIn "Nations of Immigrants: Do Words Matter?" Donna Gabaccia provides an illuminating account of the origin of the United States' claim to be a "Nation of Immigrants." Gabaccia's endeavor is motivated by the question "What difference does it make if we call someone a foreigner, an immigrant, an emigrant, a migrant, a refugee, an alien, an exile or an illegal or clandestine?" (Gabaccia 5). (...) This question is very important to the immigration debate because, as Gabaccia goes on to show, "[t]o ponder this question is to explore the vastly differing ways that human population movements figure in nation-building and in the historical imagination of nations" (Gabaccia 5-6). In this paper, I am going to delve deeper into Gabaccia's claim and argue that the issue of immigration is important for philosophers to consider because it is an issue that lies at the heart of the intersection between political philosophy and philosophy of race—an intersection that shows, more than anywhere else and in particular in the debate surrounding the use of the word illegal, how and why words do matter.The Braid of WhitenessDavid Roediger, in his book Working Toward Whiteness, argues that it is problematic to read "ethnicity" back into earlier accounts of race, specifically in the United States during the period from 1860-1924. Roediger argues that the term "ethnicity," at least as we use it today, does not really appear during this period. He goes on to show how the use of racialized language during that period was in fact very messy and would not fit neatly into the strict biological/phenotypic definitions that we give today. He writes: [End Page 41]This loose, state-endorsed linkage of biology to culture, history, and class can mislead modern historians of race who characteristically attempt to disentangle the biological from other rationales for oppression, regarding the former as underpinning racism and the latter as underpinning other kinds of prejudice. But what was so striking about restrictionist and racist thought at the beginning (and indeed, at the end) of the twentieth century was its very entanglement of the biological and the cultural.(Roediger 66)In short, Roediger is arguing that the distinction we currently make between race and ethnicity was not nearly as sharp at the turn of the century as it is now and that this messiness was most clearly present in the debates surrounding immigration.Roediger, for his part, argues that we do not need to fear this messiness or inability to neatly distinguish between race and ethnicity at the turn of the century, but instead we should allow for a space of "in-betweeness" within the strict white/nonwhite binary. In allowing for this space, Roediger claims we can come to understand how the "new immigrants" (i.e., Irish, Italians, Jews, and immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe who emigrated to the United States between 1860-1924) went from being nonwhite to white and in so doing, solidified our current understanding of whiteness (Roediger 3-130). While I am not sure Roediger does enough in his account to warrant dismissing the race/ethnicity distinction at the turn of the century, I think he is right in emphasizing whiteness as central to racism. He is also correct to note the key role that restrictions on immigration played in the construction and solidification of the U.S. nation-state as a white nation.To be clear, the term whiteness, in its more technical sense, does not simplistically refer to skin color, but denotes the dominant race and/or ethnicity as it passes for the nonracialized and non-ethnic norm upon which the "other" is differentiated. As George Yancy, a current philosopher of race, writes:To say that whiteness is deemed the transcendental norm is to say that whiteness takes itself to be that which remains the same across a field of difference. Indeed it determines what is deemed different without itself being defined by that system of difference. Whiteness is that according to which what is nonwhite is rendered other, marginal, ersatz, strange, native, inferior, uncivilized, and ugly.(Yancy 3)This privilege that whiteness enjoys is... (shrink)

Today there are many who recommend we stop using the term “Latinx.” They argue that it is grammatically inaccurate, susceptible to the domination objection, and lacks respect for the Latin American community. This essay, however, offers a qualified defense of the term. It suggests ways in which a proponent of “Latinx” might respond to each of these objections and in doing so gives the best possible case for “Latinx.” This case will be more of a pyrrhic victory than anything else, (...) but it does show that for the moment “Latinx” is the best possible term to use to refer broadly to the Latin American community in places like the U.S. (shrink)

This essay argues that Latinx philosophers are not only already providing important and original contributions to standard open-borders debates, but also changing the very nature of the ethics of migration. In making this case, the essay is divided into two parts. The first summarizes some of the important and original contributions of Latinx philosophers to the standard open-borders debate. Among the highlights are Jorge M. Valadez’s “conditional legitimacy of states” argument; José-Antonio Orosco’s communitarian-based argument for a more liberalized admissions (...) policy; Javier S. Hidalgo’s claim that people have a moral right (and often an obligation) to disobey immigration laws; J. Angelo Corlett’s defense of immigration restrictions on grounds that such restrictions serve to protect Indigenous people’s sovereignty and rightful claims to territory; and Amy Reed-Sandoval’s freedom of movement argument based on the collective right of trans-border communities. The second section outlines four ways Latinx philosophers have pushed discussions within the ethics of migration beyond the standard open-borders debate. First, they have made persuasive arguments about why we ought to reject, or at least be suspicious of, approaches to migration justice that begin by assuming the legitimacy of states. Second, they argue that the issue of enforcement has been overlooked in standard open-borders debates. Third, they argue that philosophers must not avoid dealing with the social (as opposed to merely juridical) implications of labeling people “illegal” or “anchor babies.” Fourth, they show how current debates over the ethics of migration are too Euro- or Anglo-centric and therefore could benefit from the inclusion of non-European and non-Anglo voices. (shrink)

This chapter looks at the history of US citizenship and immigration law and argues that denying admission or citizenship status to certain groups of people is closely correlated to a denial of whiteness. On this account whiteness is not a fixed or natural concept, but instead is a social construction whose composition changes throughout time and place. Understanding whiteness in this way allows one to see how white supremacy is not limited merely to instances of racism or ethnocentrism, but can (...) also include instances of xenophobia. On this account, whiteness is more analogous to a braid of three interwoven strands: the racial strand (e.g., science, biology, or phenotypes), the ethnic strand (e.g., culture, customs, or heritage), and the national strand (e.g., territory, sovereignty, and citizenship). In emphasizing one or a combination of these strands, whiteness can be granted to social groups that previously were denied full white status, while at the same time it can be rescinded from groups that at different times and different places might have been considered (if only provisionally) white. Understanding whiteness in this way is important for dealing with issues of immigration and citizenship because it lets us see how nationality and xenophobia play a role in the construction of whiteness and thereby how terms like illegal help to reify the status of certain persons, including natural born citizens, as perpetual foreigners (i.e., non-whites). (shrink)

In debating the ethics of immigration, philosophers have focused much of their attention on determining whether a political community ought to have the discretionary right to control immigration. They have not, however, given the same amount of consideration to determining whether there are any ethical limits on how a political community enforces its immigration policy. This article, therefore, offers a different approach to immigration justice. It presents a case against legitimate states having discretionary control over immigration by showing both how (...) ethical limits on enforcement circumscribe the options legitimate states have in determining their immigration policy and how all immigrants (including undocumented immigrants) are entitled to certain protections against a state’s enforcement apparatus. (shrink)

This essay argues that we should find Crimmigration, which is the collapsing of immigration law with criminal law, morally problematic for three reasons. First, it denies those who are facing criminal penalties important constitutional protections. Second, it doubly punishes those who have already served their criminal sentence with an added punishment that should be considered cruel and unusual (i.e., indefinite imprisonment or exile). Third, when the tactics aimed at protecting and serving local communities get usurped by the federal government for (...) immigration enforcement purposes, they often undermine these original aims or get used in ways that conflict with the U.S. Constitution. These concerns should prompt us therefore either to reject the government’s plenary power over immigration or require the federal government to be more consistent about maintaining the separation between criminal law and immigration law. (shrink)

Thomas Aquinas summarizes almost exclusively the attribute of knowledge in God in Q. D. De Veritate II: De scientia Dei. The absence of confrontation, in its substance, between this text and contemporary studies, referring primarily to the Sacred Doctrine or Theology as science, are treated in this paper integrally with those investigations. However, the approaches differ substantially. In those studies the metaphysical question for theology as a science is prioritized; in this work, however, the essence of God as a science (...) is highlighted. (shrink)

El presente texto es la traducción íntegra del latín al español del proemio de Alejandro de Hales a la Metafísica de Aristóteles. Las breves páginas que lo componen manifiestan un claro conocimiento del corpus aristotelicum y una división particular de las ciencias. Tal introducción a la metafísica aristotélica fundamenta las bases de la ciencia del ente en cuanto ente mostrando su dignidad y regencia sobre los demás saberes.

El presente texto es la traducción del latín al español de la _Suma de Teología_ (lib. I, tr. int., q. I, cap. I-IV) de Alejandro de Hales. Allí se explica la diferencia epistémica fundamental entre teología sagrada, filosofía primera, y las ciencias de la física y la matemática. Luego, se separa la teología sagrada de las demás ciencias especulativas bajo un criterio rector: la ciencia revelada se orienta por la gracia de Dios, mientras que las demás ciencias lo hacen sin (...) la gracia y por las solas fuerzas de la razón. Sobre esta distinción, luego se identifican los términos teología sagrada y doctrina sagrada sin descuidar la necesidad de armonizar la tradición teológica con el avance del aristotelismo latino de principios del siglo XIII. (shrink)

De acuerdo con las D.M. de Francisco Suárez, la ciencia metafísica ha perdido su horizonte. Por esta razón el tratado del Dr. Eximio principia con un estudio de la filosofía primera donde paulatinamente se atenderán las dificultades emergentes relativas a una consideración de las ciencias especulativas. De ese modo la claridad alcanzada en derredor de la metafísica colocaría las bases necesarias para evitar –o tratar de corregir– los errores en teología sagrada por su vinculación necesaria con la filosofía primera. Asimismo, (...) el esclarecimiento del objeto adecuado de la metafísica conlleva la necesidad de evidenciar para la razón aquellos propios de las demás ciencias, configurándose así una división y relación entre ellas en sede objetiva. A su vez este panorama aparece expresado con total claridad en las D.M. I, I, 14-15 sobre el que exclusivamente se hará foco. (shrink)

Traducción, selección y estudio preliminar José María Felipe Mendoza * Edición bilingüe. Se recomienda descargar el PDF para visualizar mejor la traducción y el original en paralelo.

As corporate social responsibility (CSR) grows increasingly well known and accepted worldwide, organizations attempt to make sense of their social strategies bridge the gap between their current situation and what their stakeholders expect of them. If social strategies represent a potential stepping stone to more sophisticated forms of CSR, then research must investigate the strategies that organizations have adopted. After defining a framework for classifying and analyzing organizations' social strategies, this article considers empirical evidence from 10 case studies in Colombia (...) to reveal how organizations might build on their social involvement to engage in more sophisticated CSR practices. The framework also suggests some different trajectories that organizations might follow. (shrink)

In this chapter I attempt to provide a general overview of the philosophical literature on immigration from both an ethics of immigration and philosophy of race perspective. I then try to make the case that putting these two literatures into conversation would be fruitful. In particular, that it could provide an underappreciated argument for limiting the discretion states are normally thought to enjoy with respect to immigration.

This article discusses some of the claims of the earlier and later versions of the Contemporary Theory of Metaphor (CTM) and addresses some of the criticism that has been leveled against it. It is argued that much of this criticism arises from common misconceptions as to the real claims made by the theory. However, CTM is still in need of further exploration and empirical support. In this connection, we identify some areas where research is still needed and supply our own (...) developments. We argue for a more complex classification of metaphor types, which takes into account various complementary taxonomic perspectives, including the nature of source and target and the genericity and complexity of the metaphoric operation. We also explore metaphor in relation to cognitive prominence and conceptual interaction issues. Finally, we deal with the problem of constraints on metaphor and make a proposal for three complementary kinds of constraint. (shrink)

Given the oncoming demographic changes—which are primarily driven by the growth in the Latinx community—the United States is predicted to become a minority-majority country by around 2050. This seems to suggest that electoral strategies that employ “dog-whistle” politics are destined for the dust-bin of history. Following the work of critical race theorists, such as Ian Haney-Lopez and Derrick Bell, I want to suggest that pronouncing the inevitable demise of dog-whistle politics is premature. This is because there are reasons to suspect (...) that certain segments of the Latinx community—much like the Southern and Eastern Europeans in the early part of 20th Century—might be co-opted into American whiteness. (shrink)

David Miller’s defense of a state’s presumptive right to exclude non-refugee immigrants rests on two key distinctions. The first is that immigration controls are “preventative” and not “coercive.” In other words, when a state enforces its immigration policy it does not coerce noncitizens into doing something as much as it prevents them from doing a very specific thing (e.g., not entering or remaining within the state), while leaving other options open. Second, he makes a distinction between “denying” people their human (...) rights and “deterring” people from exercising their human rights. On this view, when those assigned to protect or fulfil human rights are also tasked with performing immigration enforcement duties, undocumented immigrants are not being denied their human rights, even when this deters them from exercising those rights. In this article, I argue that Miller’s two distinctions have an implication that he might not have foreseen. Specifically, I argue that these distinctions provide ideological cover for what has come to be known as “crimmigration” and that we have strong reasons for wanting our theory of immigration justice to reject this, even when doing so leaves open the possibility for an indirect open-borders argument. (shrink)

El presente trabajo propone una introducción a la doctrina de la ciencia matemática de Francisco Suárez según sus Disputaciones Metafísicas I. El contexto de la investigación aborda la noción de objeto adecuado, una teoría de la abstracción y el orden de las ciencias especulativas en general. Por ello, para mejor comprender las ciencias matemáticas, es necesario observar su relación con la metafísica, delimitando no solo su fundamento, sino también su horizonte especulativo.

El presente trabajo propone una introducción a la doctrina de la ciencia física de Francisco Suárez en sus _Disputaciones Metafísicas I_. El contexto de la investigación aborda la noción de objeto adecuado, una teoría de la abstracción y el orden de las ciencias especulativas en general. Por ello, para mejor comprender las ciencias físicas, es necesario observar su relación con la metafísica, delimitando el fundamento, el horizonte y las divisiones de la filosofía natural.

In this essay, I argue that even when they appear to help, restrictions on migration are usually only an impediment, not an aid, to cosmopolitan justice. Even though some egalitarian cosmopolitans are well intentioned in their support of migration restrictions, I argue that migration restrictions are (i) not truly cosmopolitan and (ii) will not have the kinds of consequences they expect. My argument in defense of this claim begins, in section 1, by outlining a defense of migration restrictions based on (...) egalitarian cosmopolitan grounds. Then in sections two and three, I reply to the harms this position associates with open borders and provide some reasons as to why restrictions on migration are incompatible with cosmopolitan justice. (shrink)

Background No studies have been conducted in Mexico to ascertain what ethical problems doctors working at hospitals deal with. This article aims to describe the ethical conflicts most commonly identified by Mexican internists and the importance they attribute to each of these conflicts. Methods Voluntary survey to the members of the Internal Medicine Association of Mexico. Results Responses were submitted by 347 internists. Half of those face ethical conflicts almost always or frequently. The most commonplace and relevant conflicts are those (...) resulting from the clinical relationship (communication, confidentiality, informed consent, assessment of mental capacity, decisions involving incapacitated patients, and conflicts with family members), and secondly those problems related with the end of life (palliative care, withholding or withdrawing treatment, and “No CPR orders”). To resolve conflicts they seek support through protocols, Institutional Ethics Committees (IECs), and consultations with colleagues and, occasionally, with bioethics experts. Protocols and IECs are the tools most in demand among them. Conclusions 1) the most frequent and relevant conflicts are those caused by the clinical relationship, above all those due to doctor–patient communication, and secondly those due to problems which arise at the end of life; 2) though nearly all of them have doubts about how to resolve conflicts, the vast majority are satisfied with the way in which they do so; 3) to deal with conflicts, they seek support mainly in protocols, IECs, and consultation with colleagues; and 4) in order to resolve them better, what they most demand are protocols and IECs, but also bioethics consultants. (shrink)

Philosophers have assumed that as long as discriminatory admission and exclusion policies are off the table, it is possible for one to adopt a restrictionist position on the issue of immigration without having to worry that this position might entail discriminatory outcomes. The problem with this assumption emerges, however,when two important points are taken into consideration. First, immigration controls are not simply discriminatory because they are based on racist or ethnocentric attitudes and beliefs, but can themselves also be the source (...) of social and civic ostracism. Second, by focusing so much on questions of admission and exclusion, philosophers have tended to overlook the discriminatory potential of immigration enforcement mechanisms. In this essay, I make the case that philosophers who deal with the issue of immigration cannot dispense with the potential for discrimination in a state's enforcement mechanism as easily as they have with the potential for discrimination in a state’s admission and exclusions criteria. In addition, I put forth the positive claim that the way to combat this potential for discrimination (e.g., xenophobia) must begin with a defense of, and advocacy for, immigrant rights. (shrink)

Since at least the second half of the 19th century, the U.S. federal government has enjoyed “plenary power” over its immigration policy. Plenary power allows the federal government to regulate immigration free of judicial review and thereby, with regard to immigration cases, minimize the Constitutional protections afforded to non-citizens. The justification for granting the U.S federal government such broad powers comes from a certain understanding of sovereignty; one where limiting sovereign authority in cases like immigration could potentially undermine its legitimacy (...) and thereby lead to something like a Hobbesian “state of nature.” One of the potential downsides of allowing the federal government to have such broad powers, however, is the potential to place non-citizens in a situation analogous to what Giorgio Agamben has called the “state of exception.” This situation appears to leave us with the following dichotomy: without something like the plenary power doctrine a political community will end up with a state of nature, but with something like the plenary power doctrine they end up with a state of exception. This essay offers a two-part response to this dilemma. First, it argues that the plenary power doctrine goes against the spirit of the U.S. Constitution, specifically the Fourteenth Amendment. Non-citizens, even undocumented immigrants, are entitled to more Constitutional protections than they currently enjoy. Second, since extending these protections is more consistent with the spirit of the Constitution, I argue that curtailing the federal government’s power over matters of immigration does not undermine its sovereignty, but promotes it. In short, with regard to immigration, it is a false but seductive dichotomy that constitutional democracies must choose between a state of nature and a state of exception. (shrink)

Resumen: En las Disputationes Metaphysicae XIII, X-XIV Francisco Suárez expone su parecer sobre la incorruptibilidad de los cielos. Particularmente, la sección XI, 13-34 reviste capital importancia de acuerdo con un tópico contextual: la incipiente revolución copernicana y el quebrantamiento de las tesis fundamentales aristotélicas. Su confutación, ubicada principalmente en las D.M. XIII, XI, 13, constituye la piedra angular que le permitirá al Dr. Eximio continuar sosteniendo una posición metafísica-cosmológica de cuño aristotelizante.

Philosophers of the American tradition should be more proactive in their inclusion of Latino/a thinkers, even when the work of these thinkers does not directly connect back to classical tradition of American philosophy. This argument has two mterrelated parts. First, if the American philosophical tradition is committed to a social and political philosophy that begins from "lived-experience," then one area it has largely overlooked is the Latino/a experience. Second, if the contributions of the Latino/a community go unrecognized as a part (...) of the American tradition, then the American philosophical tradition is tacitly assenting to what Chavez calls the "Latino Threat Narrative." The Latino Threat Narrative puts forth a view of the Latino/a community as inherently anti-American, not to be celebrated, and to be avoided as a perpetual threat. Following Ch. (shrink)

Durante los últimos decenios del siglo XX la filosofía de Francisco Suárez fue considerada parte integrante de un movimiento escolástico comúnmente mencionado como escuela tomista. La perspectiva de abordaje, según el mote impuesto, colocaba la posición especulativa del Dr. Eximio más próxima al dominico Tomás de Aquino de acuerdo con los siguientes matices: a. en el ámbito epistémico la figura del Aquinate eclipsaba ampliamente aquella de Suárez, promoviendo una auténtica desconsideración de sus tesis originales; b. el jesuita español fundaba, igual (...) que Tomás de Aquino, la división de las ciencias especulativas en el acto intelectual de abstracción; c. la diferencia entre ambas concepciones metafísicas no implicaba necesariamente una comprensión epistémica distinta. Ahora bien, contra estas interpretaciones aparece en el siglo XXI otra lectura, donde se acentúa la diferencia decisiva de la filosofía del jesuita del siglo XVI, quien, en letras medievales, escribe y piensa en permanente tensión entre la herencia de la filosofía antigua y medieval por una parte, y una neo-escolástica de aires renacentistas por la otra. De acuerdo con ello, si bien su pensamiento discurre por una tradición aristotelizante del saber, la comprensión de las ciencias se asienta, a diferencia de Tomás de Aquino, en clave objetiva. Sobre esta premisa, el siguiente estudio abordará con exclusividad la originalidad epistémica de Suárez según la división de las ciencias especulativas y reales, mostrando el orden, el principio y las relaciones entre las ciencias física, matemática y metafísica. (shrink)

Until recently, much of the philosophical literature on refugees has focused on what Serena Parekh (2020) in No Refuge: Ethics and the Global Refugee Crisis, calls the “first refugee crisis,” i.e., the refugee crisis as experienced from Europe, understood as the arrival of large numbers of asylum seekers and the political handling of this situation. This literature has therefore dealt primarily with questions about who really counts as a refugee and when states acquire obligations to admit non-citizens. Rarely, however, do (...) philosophers talk about the ethical implications of what Parekh calls “the second refugee crisis”: the crisis for refugees themselves, who “are unable to access the minimum conditions of human dignity while they wait for a more permanent solution.” In short, when philosophers debate the ethics of asylum and refugeehood, the conclusions or insights they come to will, at best, be applicable to about 10 percent of the world’s forcibly displaced. In this review essay, I briefly outline Serena Parekh’s (2020) argument, showing how her reframing of the refugee crisis provides a much-needed intervention in the current philosophical literature. I then extend these insights into questions concerning immigration enforcement. In doing so, I argue that in order to adequately deal with the second refugee crisis we must be more receptive to the open borders position than Parekh seems to allow. (shrink)

This study provides a thorough exegesis of the names of metaphysics according to the proem of the Disputationes metaphysicae by Francis Suarez. The key to its consideration lies in the simultaneous unity between this science and the names assigned to it mainly by Aristotle. Due to the scant attention devoted to this work, this study emphasizes that the epistemic unity of metaphysics is given beforehand –prior to the final consideration and determination of its proper object, which is the entity insofar (...) real entity– by the complementarity of the different perspectives each name of metaphysics denotes. (shrink)

La Cátedra de Historia Naval, impulsada por la Armada Española y la Universidad de Murcia, tiene entre sus objetivos investigar y difundir la Historia y el Patrimonio Naval y Marítimo. Con objeto acercar el conocimiento científico y la información divulgativa versada en esta materia al usuario, nuestra institución no se limita a utilizar los canales clásicos de comunicación como pueden ser los artículos y las monografías, entre otros, sino que, en su apuesta por las Humanidades Digitales, hace un uso pro-activo (...) de un blog y de unos perfiles en las redes sociales que, aparentemente, nos hacen contactar con el lector virtual de manera eficaz. Con el objetivo de seguir mejorando, a través del presente trabajo se analizan qué temas han suscitado un mayor interés entre los lectores de nuestras herramientas sociales, a través del estudio de las publicaciones de nuestra bitácora 2.0 y del reflejo de éstas en nuestra página en Facebook. La respuesta nos ayudará a conocer mejor los intereses y necesidades de información de los usuarios y, consecuentemente, podremos seguir perfeccionando los puentes digitales que hemos tendido entre ellos y la Historia y del Patrimonio Naval y Marítimo. (shrink)

The scholastic scientific diagram of the 13th century has a main component: the translations of Aristotle treatises. In this way Boethius’ works are highly significant both for his translations of Greek terms and for fixing a precise lexicology that allows us to interpret it. These records were enriched with meaningful translations and comments that began to spread in the 12th century and the following ones of the 13th century. However, Thomas Aquinas’ scientific view shows this tradition and enhances a certain (...) understanding of the Aristotelian texts. On this basis the following paper analyzes the notion of ‘dignitates’ on the thomistic opera omnia, because this is one of the terms which sets up the scientific scheme of Aristotelian root, with the objective to show its place, its meaning and its scope in the order of sciences. (shrink)

In this article, I broadly sketch out the current philosophical debate over immigration and highlight some of its shortcomings. My contention is that the debate has been too focused on border enforcement and therefore has left untouched one of the more central issue of this debate: what to do with unauthorized immigrants who have already crossed the border and with the “push and pull” factors that have created this situation. After making this point, I turn to the work of Enrique (...) Dussel and argue that his philosophical approach offers some insights that can help overcome these shortcomings. In particular, Dussel’s commitment to a social critique and transformation that begins with the material grievances of the most excluded and oppressed in a community. Under this type of approach, the immigration debate would begin with the grievances of the victims of immigration polices and reform (i.e. unauthorized immigrants) instead of with concerns for how to better enforce borders. Lastly, I point out that this type of approach is consistent with the current Immigrant Rights Movement in the United States. (shrink)

In 2008 Robert Lovato coined the phrase Juan Crow. Juan Crow is a type of policy or enforcement of immigration laws that discriminate against Latino/as in the United States. This essay looks at the implications this phenomenon has for an ethics of immigration. It argues that Juan Crow, like its predecessor Jim Crow, is not merely a condemnation of federalism, but of any immigration reform that has stricter enforcement as one of its key components. Instead of advocating for increased enforcement, (...) I want to suggest that just immigration reform must adhere to two standards, equality of burdens and universal protections, and that only by doing so can the potential for Juan Crow be adequately avoided. (shrink)