RESUMENUn intento por comprender la realidad sociopolítica podría consistir en situarse entre posiciones que marcan polos opuestos en el espectro de las ideas. Desde la filosofía griega se conocen las bondades y desventajas de colocarse en puntos intermedios que se hallan entre actitudes extremas en lo concerniente a asuntos morales y sociales. Una de las respuestas plausibles es una forma de eclecticismo, que tendría la función de una síntesis fructífera. Este teorema del sentido común guiado críticamente se asienta en concepciones (...) filosóficas clásicas, incluyendo la Escuela de Frankfurt. El ensayo pone como ejemplo principal el tratamiento de las utopías políticas.PLABARAS CLAVEARISTÓTELES, HABERMAS, HEGEL, SENTIDO COMÚN, TEORÍA CRÍTICA, UTOPÍAABSTRACTAn effort to understand the social-political reality could consist in taking a position between opposite poles in the spectrum of ideas. The advantages and disadvantages of placing oneself midway between extreme attitudes concerning moral and social problems have been aknowledged since Greek philosophy. A plausible answer is a form of eclecticism, which could have the function of a fertile synthesis. This theorem of a critically guided common sense is based on classic philosophic conceptions, including the Frankfurt School. This essay sets the analysis of political utopias as a main example.KEY WORDSARISTOTLE, COMMON SENSE, CRITICAL THEORY, UTOPY. (shrink)

El texto muestra la complejidad de la discusión en torno al sentido y la dirección de la historia, en especial, la dificultad mayor de una dotación de sentido en favor del desarrollo histórico en el mundo actual. El ensayo reconstruye brevemente la posición pesimista de la Escuela de Frankfurt sobre..

Este artículo muestra el probable origen de las concepciones del desarrollo linear ascendente, cuyos representantes más conocidos en la era moderna fueron Hegel y Marx. En contraposición al concepto circular de la evolución histórica, que fue el predominante en muchas culturas, las doctrinas del des..

The fundamental tenet of contemporary sociobiology, namely the assumption of a single process of evolution involving the selection of genes, is critically examined. An alternative multiple-level, multiple-process model of evolution is presented which posits that the primary process that operates via selection upon the genes cannot account for certain kinds of biological phenomena, especially complex, learned, social behaviours. The primary process has evolved subsidiary evolutionary levels and processes that act to bridge the gap between genes and these complex behaviours. The (...) subsidiary levels are development, individual animal learning, and socioculture itself. It is argued that individual learning is pivotal to the derivation and biological analysis of culture. The differences between cultural and noncultural societies are stressed. It is concluded that such a multiple-level model of evolution can form the basis for reconciling opposing sides in the sociobiology debate. (shrink)

Many of the commentaries cohere around two major points of criticism. The first is that we have omitted discussion of the mechanisms that are assumed to operate at levels 2, 3, and 4.Campbell, Cloak, Dewsbury, Eckberg, Mundinger, Pulliam, Richerson & Boyd, Slobodkin, Simon, Williams, andWahlstenall make comments that bear on this point. The second point is that we have omitted discussion of the fact that "organisms change the environment by their activities" and thereby modify the selection pressures that act on (...) them. Apart from Lewontin, this point has been raised in different forms byBarkow, Chase, Hull, Perzigian, Ruyle, and less directly bySlobodkin. Stemming from these two basic omissions there is a third general criticism. Numerous commentators have pointed out that we have failed to discuss sufficiently either the extent or nature of the constraints that may or may not be operating on supraordinate evolutionary processes as a function of their nested relationships to subordinate evolutionary processes within our scheme. We start by acknowledging these three basic omissions. We agree that they exist and that they are serious. (shrink)