I have always considered two ways in which we describe the processes of education. If we attend to the existing definitions of "education" of the most diverse authors and strive to a clarification of the term, assign a type of communicative interaction process between human beings that we call "education", there are two functions that these processes can take with regard to the social whole in which necessarily occur. We understand education as a form of communication, not necessarily linguistic, but that implicitly is a trend in relation to the social environment. That is, there may be a reproductive claim existing or historical reality we can speak of an attempt to transcend it. Necessarily understand that whenever there is what we call "education" is an allusion or, rather, connecting with a range of possibilities that historically rooted in the skills acquired by men can crystallize, to form part of the historical reality contributing to its transformation (Zubiri). The teacher-student teacher should be before display of these possibilities, a keen tracker of them in the mud of reality, or at least contribute to enlightenment of them. O no, quite the opposite, for closer look and, therefore, education, what is given in a reduction of education to socialization reproductions. In fact, this ambiguity of all education is outlined and decanted by many factors other than the mere choice or willingness to be critical by the teacher (a sort of Hippocratic oath educator). Surely there is plenty to study and in many ways. Perhaps the track Pierre Bourdieu help us shelling the ambiguity of the teacher as one who serves certain masters but can fraternize with the dispossessed by them. Suffice it to say for now that the avoidance of false illusions, idealistic flights, the reactionary escapism, fatalism conservative, go for a study of how social conditions can lead to a class of society (intellectuals, teachers, pupils, students , proletarians, impoverished, abused, etc.). educator engaged in a liberating sense. If that is the job of a class or social group.
As will be obvious to many, I am driving a concept of historical reality from Zubiri's philosophy and his disciple Ellacuría. I do this because these philosophies have the advantage of allowing us to understand the apparent paradox of a regulation establishing the story to transcend its current configuration critically to get away without so idealistic historical material itself (the world). This is the achievement that surpasses the approaches of Habermas and Apel as they have an ideal add items that are to be placed, counterfactually, outside history, as much as its realization is always incomplete in the course of actual history (Romero, 2010, 93-101). Thus, convinces me more immanent transcendence mode in which social criticism can be exercised according to Zubiri as Ellacuría developed as a historical reality. So there is a historicity of human understanding requires the realization of the human-historical in worldly terms, but that, as Romero points out, is based on a metaphysical dynamism of all reality (104). This historicity is different, as it notes the study, that of the Dasein Heideggerian insight to which we alluded in a previous post. "(...) The historicity is an ontological category of Dasein , is a constitutive feature of their mode of being in the world. (...) The category of historicity of Heidegger grasps the actuality and historical contingency of human beings through an ontological category, that is, becomes constitutive of Dasein , which lost by precisely the factual and contingent self of the historical. The transformation of history into an ontological category of Dasein lose sight of the precise nature of historical reality itself. Therefore, no historical category would be more than one pseudoconcreción "(105-106). Romero points out that this was precisely the criticism of the young Marcuse to Heidegger. "Marcuse said that phenomenology can not be satisfied with an affirmation of the historicity of Dasein and then raise it back to the realm of abstraction. Keep it, however, in maximum focus. That is, he let them into the character analysis of the concrete material concrete historical situation. Heidegger's problem is that it would last long on the material constitution of the historicity of concrete existence. Heidegger would have remained at a level of abstraction, the Dasein as such, which prevents access to the material constitution of historicity "(106). Zubiri enters this problem as a philosopher who provides a model of historical reality and of man than that of formalism is in the historicity of Dasein Heidegger. I believe this is pointing to a juicy discussion with all the phenomenological tradition and materialism and Marxism-ellacuriano or Zubiri. Would deal with the historical in man, and about its history, on what terms more or less material, more or less formal ontologizing, can be understood.
But meanwhile, it is worthwhile to continue extracting everything Ellacuría Zubiri or provide for a critical concept (social) inherent, given in history, in the materiality of history and worldly margins. It is an endeavor in which history itself is involved as it seeks to be without making formal or transcendence transcendentalism transmundane. How utopizar criticize and this without idealism, without having to postulate something beyond our own history? Serves Zubiri said Romero accurately, so that the critical challenge and promote transformation in a way no reproductions of the social whole, can contingently from that same thing. The apparent paradox is resolved by better Zubiri that Habermas or more orthodox Marxism. We saw that it was a tension in the first generation of the Frankfurt School whose metaphysics is not, of course, but nature Zubirian truncadamente Hegelian-Marxist. Zubiri gives way to conceive how the given question from reality, his theory of history as a process of training and possibilities that arise from them can turn real crystallize in new capacity to continue this march is not teleological or progressive cumulative triumphant sense of history. In other words, the reality would be pregnant from their formation of new training materials from them, transcending the merely given but this involves a going beyond the history and the mundane material. So you can try to solve a danger that besets any critical approach would have the basis to consider how certain subjects could hypothetically exert a look beyond the given height to the height of the times (likely not yet crystallized as given).
The critical subject was not finalized by Zubiri, says Romero, but we can speculate on the specificity of historical I can light on the undiscovered potential of this and start moving futurition, or go to a different future beyond hell of the Eternal Return. This hell is what remains unchanged under the guise of the new (critical Benjamin bourgeois capitalist society.) This subject is, to Paulo Freire, the oppressed who suffer the violence of the structure. But it is important to know, then, that along with the possibility of liberating illumination, have the possibility of a hell of what is given as it blocked the ability to discern new possibilities. Ellacuría is what he called "historical evil" or Zubiri "historical sin" as historical configuration that blocks out of it and we condemned to its perpetuation. It would be a hell of eternal figure, which is repeated. It would be interesting Romero points out correctly, referring to the subjective lock mode with which this historical sin is experienced by the subjects. Here it is seen as successful a track that starts Freudo-Marxism of Erich Fromm, for example, or, as we parallel reading Lukacs, just full description of consciousness "oppressed" is related to structural fatalism. Fatalism in the structure, the imposition of a closed destination, manifests itself in a fatalistic consciousness, we said in our posts dedicated to the Hungarian Marxist philosopher Lukács. Romero suggests that these blocks of history is to point to conflicts between interest groups in which a minority imposes destination Fatal eternal reproduction of the given. "The key question here is what social interests actually have driven the historical process of renovation of possibilities in the direction has in fact taken. This finding of a fracture of the social community, which has determined that the historical process of renovation of possibilities has been carried out driven by particular interests of a minority, frees us from the beginning of a naive acceptance of the notion of progress "(p . 117). This should also take into account how it is configured mercantile our historical reality, which can be described more or less in Marxist terms ( Capital). Marxism so that we serve as an excellent critical-historical dialectic capitalist model, but to be finalized with a metaphysics and philosophy of historical reality to pick Zubiri ellacuriana better what's the story. That is, would be relativized both dialectical materialism as global explanation of reality, as historical materialism as a philosophy of history. Zubiri leads to a caution, said in a previous post, in relation to the end that man tends to, ideally, in history (teleology).
addition
indicate JM Romero, and Hector Romero Samour who mentioned that the philosophy of historical reality as theoretical support for a praxis of liberation (realization of the possibilities of the current historical reality for all, that is what we understand as Ellacuría or Zubiri humanization of history) leads to a moral necessity that this is so. liberating project, in this sense, is the ultimate moral project. "This is a deliberately facing material ethical man in his historical present to understand it as an array of possibilities relevant to the human self. It is an ethic geared to transcendence, understood here not so much as opening a transmundane beyond, but as momentum of freedom beyond the coercive framework defined by an alleged historical necessity experienced as natural. This encourages ethical significance go beyond the immanence infernal eternal return of the same relations of domination, which is reduced to a present when it is perceived as having exhausted the realm of possibility "(114).
If we return, finally, to our initial reference to education, we would here also the basis for understanding educational processes in a sense of liberation that would put the general educator and social educator especially in the position to choose between serving the reproduction of the given or act as a seed to open light on the possibilities of justice and freedom that hides the real. No teacher would be asked to continue the path of a vague utopianism, or dialectical course of history, or social destiny, or a perpetuation of the same. Would be asked simply that their connection with historical reality in which education and that education, contributed to realize that this reality can give themselves the benefit of all (can it be that the ethics of the teacher?) . This task releasing the task (moral ) own a way of understanding education should be detailed and exemplified in successive post in this blog to avoid the charge of vagueness and idealism that might be yet. One can say that in its ambiguity social , the educator will be doomed to have to choose between two masters, as a destination or the stigma that comes so closely linked to the suffering and those who make them suffer.
Bibliography used :
Romero, JM (2010). critical and historical. Trials to rethink the foundations of a critical theory . Barcelona: Herder.
0 comments:
Post a Comment