I will draw some relevant ideas, trying not to repeat things already said, the book of papers presented at the International Congress "Ignacio Ellacuría: 20 Years Later "held in Seville in 2009. In one of these papers, Conill Jesus reminds us of the presence of biological ethics as Ellacuría. That is, since its approach Zubiri, the moral is intrinsic to the human level of reality itself as an extension of the physical nature of human reality which appropriates property, held as an animal of realities. This reality is creating the proper of man as a species, as specific activity, is what it essentially moral. Morality and point to this area of \u200b\u200bproperty ownership and thus reconstruction of the reality and essence by man. That is, the man makes himself one way or another, opting to some extent and reshaping their world, drawing from the given new opportunities and capabilities. This is what the man has been given as a special biologically their own kind, therefore there is a grounding of morality in biology. Man solves its problems not only through immersion in the reality, like other animals, but as an amendment to its reality (p. 87). There is therefore metaphysical implications in this task of man as it is reality. This is the animal way of being human. The moral of this peculiar relationship between man and the real and assumed all the acquisition Smart said it all (p. 88). What it said Conill is taking over from reality. This is to take a responsible way you understand the implications beyond the merely contemplative attitude or interpretation. It's a take active, operational, so it also speaks to bear reality. These two moments (taking over from reality and carry it) drive to deal with reality as we can identify a form of moral duty. This, I believe, the impact that what men have in reality. This would be the way it continues the process of humanization, as Ellacuría, and how the biological conforms to the moral, but we can not talk about a biological concept of ethics in the crudest sense reductionist (pp. 88-89). This is achieved because Ellacuría ethics and opens a realm of reality in which it develops, which is none other than history, as we know. The historical reality is the realm of ethics as an area specifically human, which makes man kind. There is, therefore, a kind of qualitative change in the reality that in humans results in the transition from pure biology to the historical, not biological it is denied or eliminated. History is where you can take the optional within the limits and the material that gives the story itself, in that combination of freedom and determinism that characterizes the human activity, human praxis, according Ellacuría. Yet Jesus Conill points (p. 91) to a possible aporia by introducing from outside the story a transcendent purpose to it (teleology) as Ellacuría speaks of human rights in terms reminiscent of a secularization of the theological notion of the Kingdom of God. Surely this must think and come back to this later, as I remember it as being constituted this blog, our claim is that of an immanent transcendent norms in support of a critical theory. Would be somewhat disheartening to find an ingredient metaphysical in the sense external history, Ellacuría. Anyway in our long exposure and Ellacuría philosophy and, above all, from his book Philosophy of historical reality, that is resolved favorably, we believe, as we called it an appearance of paradox "immanent transcendence" . Would have to reread the post dedicated to it, but I have a report that addresses and resolves Ellacuría well from this problem, as is usual with him, his teacher Zubiri. In other papers we have said this is explained as a critically grasp the rift between the given height and height as possible, to grasp that the epistemological requirement remains located in shady history, of the awfulness of her victims. This, therefore, and also points Conill finally be resolved prior to going Zubiri that the Hegelian-Marxist tradition which does not fully challenge the norms that made from the self as (immanent), although it is true which is one of the great claims of Marxism so.
0 comments:
Post a Comment