Parte de:<\/span><\/p>\n \u00bfQu\u00e9 es la Filosof\u00eda Pol\u00edtica? \/ II. La soluci\u00f3n Cl\u00e1sica<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Por Le\u014dnardus Str\u016bthi\u014d<\/span><\/p>\n\n One example must suffice here. Today it is held in certain circles that the basic task of political or social science is to understand the most concrete human relation, and that relation is called the I<\/span>\u2014<\/span>Thou<\/span>\u2014<\/span>We<\/span> relation. It is obvious that the Thou and the We are supplements to Descartes\u2019 Ego; the question is whether the fundamental inadequacy of Descartes\u2019 Ego can be disposed of by <\/span>any supplements, and whether it is not necessary to return to a <\/span>more fundamental beginning, or to the natural beginning. The phenomenon which is now called the <\/span>I<\/span>\u2014<\/span>Thou<\/span>\u2014<\/span>We relation was known to the classics by the name of friendship. When speaking to a friend <\/span>I<\/span> address him in the second person. But philosophic or scientific analysis is not speaking to a friend, <\/span>i.e., t<\/span>o this individual here and now, but speaking to anyone concerned with such analysis. Such analysis cannot be meant to be a substitute for living together as friends; it can at best only point to such living together or arouse a desire for it. When speaking about someone with whom I have a close relation I call him my friend. I do not call him my Thou, Adequate \u201cspeaking about\u201d in analytical or objective speech must be grounded in and continue the manner of \u201cspeaking about\u201d which is inherent in human life. By speaking of \u201cthe Thou\u201d instead of \u201cthe friend,\u201d I am trying to preserve in objective speech what cannot be preserved in objective speech; I am trying to objectify something that is incapable of being objectified. I am trying to preserve in \u201cspeaking about\u201d what can be actual only in \u201cspeaking to.\u201d Hence I do injustice to the phenomena; I am untrue to the phenomena; I miss the con<\/span>c<\/span>rete. While attempting to lay a foundation for genuine human communication, I preserve an incapacity for genuine human communication.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Next paragraph<\/a><\/p>\n Previous paragraph<\/a><\/p>\n Para aportar luz a lo anterior, nos ser\u00e1 suficiente un ejemplo. En determinados c\u00edrculos se sostiene hoy que la tarea b\u00e1sica de la ciencia pol\u00edtica o social consiste en entender la m\u00e1s concreta de las relaciones humanas. Dicha relaci\u00f3n es denominada la relaci\u00f3n Yo-T\u00fa-Nosotros. <\/span>Resulta obvio que el T\u00fa y el Nosotros son <\/span>complementos del yo <\/span>\u2014<\/span>ego<\/span>\u2014<\/span> de Descartes. El problema es si la fundamental inadecuaci\u00f3n del yo cartesiano puede ser descartada gracias a alg\u00fan complemento, y si no resulta necesario volver a un comienzo m\u00e1s fundamental, o volver al comienzo natural. El fen\u00f3meno hoy denominado relaci\u00f3n Yo-T\u00fa-Nosotros fue conocido entre los cl\u00e1sicos por el nombre de amistad. Cuando hablo con un amigo, yo me dirijo a \u00e9l en la segunda persona. Pero el an\u00e1lisis filos\u00f3fico o cient\u00edfico no es dirigirse a un amigo, es decir, a este individuo aqu\u00ed y ahora, sino m\u00e1s bien, a cualquiera que pueda estar interesado en dicho an\u00e1lisis. <\/span>Esa clase de an\u00e1lisis no puede ser considerado un sustituto de la convivencia sostenida por los amigos; en el mejor de los casos, apunta a esa convivencia o despierta el deseo de ella. Cuando hablo de alguien con el que tengo una relaci\u00f3n cercana lo llamo mi amigo. No le llamo mi T\u00fa. <\/span>Un <\/span>\u00ab<\/span>hablar de<\/span>\u00bb <\/span>adecuado en un discurso anal\u00edtico u objetivo debe estar fundamentado en, y seguir las pautas de, ese <\/span>\u00ab<\/span>hablar de<\/span>\u00bb <\/span>que es inherente a la vida humana. Al hablar de <\/span>\u00ab<\/span>el T\u00fa<\/span>\u00bb<\/span> en lugar de <\/span>\u00ab<\/span>el amigo<\/span>\u00bb<\/span>, <\/span>estoy intentado conservar en el discurso objetivo lo que no se puede conservar en dicho discurso; estoy intentando de objetivar algo que no puede ser objetivado. Estoy intentando conservar en ese <\/span>\u00ab<\/span>hablar de<\/span>\u00bb <\/span>lo que solo puede puede existir en el <\/span>\u00ab<\/span>hablar a<\/span>\u00bb. <\/span>Por consiguiente cometo una injusticia con los fen\u00f3menos; <\/span>dejo de lado lo concreto.<\/span> A<\/span>l intentar sentar las bases para una comunicaci\u00f3n humana genuina, lo que hago es <\/span>conservar<\/span> una<\/span> incapacidad para una <\/span>genuina <\/span>comunicaci\u00f3n humana.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Siguiente p\u00e1rrafo<\/a><\/p>\n P\u00e1rrafo anterior<\/a><\/p>\n Ir al inicio de esta entrada<\/a><\/p>\nLe<\/span>\u014d<\/span>nard<\/span>\u012b<\/span> Str\u016bt<\/span>h<\/span>i<\/span>\u012b<\/span> verba<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/h1>\n
Hisp<\/span>\u0101<\/span>nice<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/h1>\n