Sistema Regional de Información
en línea para Revistas Científicas de América Latina,
el Caribe, España y Portugal

In the year 2020, Pedro J. Chamizo Domínguez published two studies, one in English, the other in Spanish, focused on the problem of translating the English noun «actuality» to multiple European languages. He argued that, as a result of some semantic change in their evolution, two languages-- let us say English and Spanish-- share at least one of the meanings of their signifier, but they differ with respect to the other meanings. This difference in meaning (present in all Romance languages and German) make translation difficult. The present study offers a concrete, significant application of Chamizo´s thesis by following his example through an analysis of the English word «actuality». We examine the use of this word in the English version made by us of Xavier Zubiri's 1968 metaphysics course Estructura dinámica de la realidad [Dynamic Structure of Reality]. Here we show that Zubiri compels us to employ the word «actuality» to translate his Spanish word «actualidad» for reasons suggested by Chamizo. Yet in addition, such a translation obeys three concrete related purposes, which thanks to Chamizo makes Zubiri's metaphysics clearer : (1.) to distinguish «reality» from «being», a basic premise of Zubiri's 1968 treatise, On Essence, (2.) to define the concept of «structure», and (3.) to conceptualize time and its relationship to being, vis-à-vis Heidegger's Being and Time.      

Levinas est traditionnellement perçu comme une voix critique à propos de la pensée de la totalité de Hegel et, ainsi, comme un philosophe qui cherche à dénoncer la négation de toute différence dans la pensée de l’identité, que ce soit dans l’unité de la vie, de l’esprit, du savoir ou du concept. Or, le paradoxe de Levinas est de critiquer Hegel tout en réinterprétant et en s’appropriant certains de ses concepts fondamentaux. Plus particulièrement, c'est le cas avec la radicalisation de la puissance du négatif. Il s’agit donc de s’interroger sur l’effort de Levinas pour développer une forme intrinsèque à la dialectique hégélienne que Hegel aurait entrevue sans développer dans sa philosophie, encore trop enracinée dans une métaphysique que Levinas tente de quitter. Ce faisant, il s’agit d’éclaircir si l’on peut même parler d’une dialectique négative lévinassienne.

Ludwig Wittgenstein’s and Bertrand Russell’s views on mysticism show their intense interest in this subject and how they explored its nature and possibilities. Wittgenstein, who had abandoned his Catholic faith as a teenager, became a religious searcher, which began from his fears of the terrors of war. He had enlisted as a soldier to fight for Austro-Hungary during which his terror of war led him to pray to God for refuge. The fortuitous discovery of Leo Tolstoy’s book, The Gospel in Brief, opened Wittgenstein’s mind to the importance of Jesus and led him to value Christianity once more. Russell’s interest in mysticism appears in a published article written in 1914 and seems to have been one of curiosity, rather than religious. From a young age, Russell became extremely interested in mathematics and he came to perceive that this subject might be called mathematical mysticism. In both cases, Wittgenstein and Russell shared a keen interest in mysticism, with Wittgenstein concluding in his Tractatus that the mystical was transcendent while Russell chose to examine how mysticism and empiricism might complement each other.

The concept of false friends suggests that language is essentially misleading. Words seem to be similar to each other, but in fact often are not. This is an aspect of the general view in philosophy and religion that language is confusing. There is scope for linking the concept of false friends with the idea of false enemies, where terms appear to be opposite to each other and yet perhaps are not as polarized in reality. In fact, it is sometimes argued that we forget how things are really linked up. So we are typically frightened and upset by death, yet it is sometimes argued that it is unreasonable to see it as something to which we ought to be opposed. Death is a false enemy and the language that surrounds it acts to point us in erroneous directions. It is suggested that just as language is replete with false friends, false enemies may also be a significant feature. The result is to reinforce the thesis that language has to be approached with caution.

This essay shows that truth cannot be divorced from human experience and an individual’s world view, his or her weltanschauung. There exist different weltanschauungen that favour alternative truths. Thus, loosely speaking, truth is determined by context. It may be socially acceptable to prefer one among the alternative truths as truly true, but this goal necessarily involves taking an ideological perspective on what is perceived and accepted as the sole truth. In other words, it is prejudiced. The truth value assigned to the proposition God exists starkly illustrates this claim, but in the course of this essay I demonstrate that alternative truths are widespread and that conflicting truths can co-exist within a community even when they create dissension. A hegemonic group will assert a preference for one truth over its alternatives, but that does not eliminate the existence of alternative truths. Alternative weltanschauungen need to be managed somehow, and the recognition that alternative truths exist is one step in their management.

This text presents the key points of the thoughts of Fernando Rielo (1923-2004). His epistemological optimism regarding the philosophical practice, together with his pedagogical pursuit in the transmission of his own philosophy and his metaphysical proposals are the key points. Nevertheless, the rielian language is of special interest and gives rise to some interesting debates, that will be adequately addressed.

The present article focuses on listening conceptualized as an active process of perception, with no fixed boundaries, directly connected to thought, and highlighting the ethical underpinnings of communication. Overall, listening is discussed as the primary and authentic characteristic of being with a double movement – towards the Other and towards oneself. A close link between obedience and listening is emphasized, which is demonstrated by emplying the Russian equivalent of the verb ‘to obey’ and the peculiarities of its cases. The dynamic nature of listening is also discussed in terms of metaphor (transfer based on similarity) and metonymy (transfer based on contiguity). It is argued that listening reveals the liminal and sacred nature of communication.

In 2019 a novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, spread around the world and a global pandemic was declared early in 2020. Currently, the pandemic has still not been brought under control. Over time, many new words have seeped into ordinary language and old words have changed their meanings. In this article, I trace the semantic development of the word ‘endemic’ which spread from science discourse into political discourse and then into public discourse and became a euphemism. People are told that they should now ‘live with’ the pandemic, a pandemic that is no longer dangerous, because it has turned endemic. This euphemistic use of ‘endemic’ has serious consequences for pandemic management and disease control, not only in countries like the UK, where the word has, indeed, become ‘endemic’, but around the world, as the word has the social function of concealing the circulation of the virus and normalising the spread of infection, even death.

The translations of Aristotle and Pseudo-Aristotle in Galician lands or by Galicians in the Middle Ages are considered, as well as the problems inherent to any translation operation in any period and circumstance. We focus on Pedro Gallego, representative of the 3rd generation of translators at the court of Alfonso X the Wise in Toledo, of whom he was a friend and confessor, even though he was based in Murcia and titular bishop of the recently recovered see of Cartagena. And we detail the different sequences in the transfer of one of Aristotle’s major works, which so interested the Arabs, from Arabic into Latin, the Liber de animalibus,a compendium of various naturalistic and biological works, translated by our author from Ortigueira (Mariña Lucense).

In this paper, I will explain and go through some of the ideas exposed by the French philosopher Michel Foucault. This philosopher has multiple works and books that have been of interest while writing this paper, and he made certain claims that are bound to make his readers reflect. From his ideas of power, power relations, and madness, I will make an analysis and will take it to our current society, in order to understand mental health in the 21st century. To ensure a better understanding and perspective, data on current mental illness—both globally and nationally, from Spain—has been searched for.