Para no pocos pensadores desprevenidos resulta poco viable que temas como el pensamiento, la individualidad humana y otros, puedan encajar en el ideal de hacer efectiva ciencia. En este artículo se presentan algunos criterios que van en contravía con esa noción. Ello, no por pasión sino por razón (o por intento de razón).. Accedan...
For not a few unsuspecting thinkers it is not feasible that topics such as thought, human individuality and others, can fit into the ideal of making science effective. This article presents some criteria that go against this notion. This, not out of passion but because of reason (or by intent of reason) .. Access ...
It is clear that objective reality is the fundamental (and complexly determining) theme of science. When we speak of objective reality we are making clear reference both to the phenomena of nature (chemical, physical and biological) and to social phenomena (the relationships that human beings establish to live). Since this last expression of objective reality -social phenomena- is not exactly a human-centric object but a socio-relational one, since science establishes another great object; that is to say, hominity. Let's look at these couple of examples ... Political economy, as we know, is an adult social science among a thousand reasons because it assumes as its theme, the links that individuals draw in the process of production of material goods and services within the current mode (planetary) of production (which has not been other - for a significant time - than capitalism). Such social science does not take as its object the human being as an individual (which is its most concrete expression), but the rules of the game that human beings put into practice in the historically respective productive process. Psychology -and this other case is useful- is a social science that, on the other hand, assumes within its broad doing, the concrete, specific individual. Of course ... the concrete individual as a dialectical, complex, poly-directional result of objective reality, above all, the social one -from whose waters (usually cloudy) he has had such a personal entity to drink.
Seen in this way, then, there are two great objects of science ... Objective reality (nature and social relationship) and hominity, the former being the determining ... Rather, the dialectically determining.
It is opportune to add that the scientific object called hominity contains four sub-objects. Four sub-objects which can never be assumed, on the one hand, as one who does medical dissection, and on the other, failing to see that they are systemically and dialectically determined by objective reality, especially social relations. These sub-objects are: Language, thought and emotionality; also the objective process of shaping personal individuality. We, in our philosophical-scientific work -which for more than half a century we have been developing according to the UCV (1), the UPEL (2) and also motu proprio-, have stabilized the signifier PSISEMIA to properly identify those just referred to. first three sub-objects: Language, thought and emotionality.
Psisemia is the trinitarian unity between the cognitive, the linguistic and the emotional, the ideological being the cement that unites everything according to the transhistoric interest of social class. Of course, understanding ideology as an omnipresent force that hides and shows reality to the extent that the contradictory dynamics of social power allows it.
[We allow ourselves to recommend the material that regarding the philosophical-scientific category PSISEMIA, published by the Everipedia / Total Encyclopedia network. We do not doubt that if they also go to the documentary clues that appear in the footnotes of this article, the matter takes more shape. The aforementioned link is the following:
In a broad way, we understand by language the constitutive instance of the human being through which, given the determination of the socio-historical relationships (and, of course, the high level of brain development that is deeply embedded in them), the signposts on which thought manages to develop in terms of logical and ideological arrangements. Language, thus, is abstract, eidetic; but it is also material. It is, we reiterate, abstract since it embodies notions, theory, eidetic senses ...; but it is also material, given its socio-relational support and given its partial physical composition (which, as the acute Russian thinker of the early twentieth century Valentin Voloshinov refers to, takes existence in smell, ink, cement, shape, sound, gesture, etc., etc.). (3)
In a broad way, we understand by thought the constitutive instance of the human being through which, given the determination of the socio-historical relationships, the high level of brain development (deeply immersed in these) and the movement of language, are gestated and they develop the notional energies that are expressed in logic and ideology. Thought is idea, imagination, theory, abstraction; all this as a dialectical expression of the set of socio-historical relations and, together with it, of the development of symbology. (4)
In a broad way, we understand by emotionality the human instance of regulation, on the one hand, of the biological functions and the individual system of those acts that carry social roots, and on the other hand, of the linguistic and thought functions; implying all this, endogenous and exogenous phenomena (instincts, drives, balance, conservation, affects, adaptation), and, above all, dialectical determination of socio-historical relationships. Emotionality, thus, is a systemic unit which mounts its multiple regulatory movement, on the dialectical car of the historical determinant. We are wrong if we seek the understanding of the emotional, privileging sources other than those that spring from this complex of factors. (5)
To conclude this article, we proceed to make a reference to the other sub-object that makes up the hominity object which, as we have already indicated above, is called the objective process of shaping personal individuality.
- ACERCA DEL PROCESO OBJETIVO DE CÓMO SE CONFORMA LA INDIVIDUALIDAD HUMANA... / ABOUT THE OBJECTIVE PROCESS OF HOW THE HUMAN INDIVIDUALITY IS CONFORMED...
It would be a major brand nonsense for someone to set out to build a science of Peter, Juan, Briggitte, Siu-ling, E-rang, Maria Margarida, Makongoro or some specific individual. However, more than one thinker has formulated here, there and there a pertinent and complex concern which we reproduce below ... How is it that if, on the one hand, science tends to achieve knowledge about a concrete object (and therefore not ethereal, chiaroscuro, diffuse), and on the other hand, the specific hominity object actually registers in the specific person (Peter, Juan, Briggitte, Siu-ling, etc.), the concretion more radical, it turns out then a huge disciplinary error, to build a scientific knowledge of Peter, Juan, Briggitte, Siu-ling, E-rang, Maria Margarida, Makongoro, in short?
All right. What interests science, especially when it assumes the hominity object and the personal individuality sub-object in its research and exposition, is to take the pulse of those objective factors, especially the social ones (better said, the historical-social ones involved in the bowels of biography), which dialectically determine personality. In this scientific work of scrutinizing those objective elements (historical-social, biographical) that, throughout the real time of personal life, exercise determination of personal individuality, acquire highly significant importance [as the French philosopher Lucien Sève puts it in the second half of the last century (6)], categories such as socio-personal life acts and others.
It is, therefore, fascinating to study the human scientifically, without caricaturing the disciplinary need to specify.
NOTAS AL PIE QUE VIENEN DE LAS LLAMADAS MARCADAS EN EL TEXTO: / FOOTNOTES COMING FROM CALLS MARKED IN THE TEXT:
- (5) Ídem.
- (6) Ello, a pesar del sesgo ideológico que traza en su interesantísimo libro Marxismo y Teoría de la Personalidad. / This, despite the ideological bias that he traces in his very interesting book Marxism and Theory of Personality.
FUENTES DE LAS IMÁGENES: / SOURCES OF THE IMAGES: