THE XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW
a publication of The Xavier Zubiri Foundation of North America
Volume 13 ISSN 1538-5795 2013-2015 —————————————————————————————————— Zubiri Studies in the 21st Century Editorial
Ontología y ciencia: de la substancia aristotélica a la sustantividad zubiriana Carlos Sierra Lechuga
Quantum Field Theory and Zubiri’s Philosophy of Reality Thomas B. Fowler
Naturaleza, Estructura y Sostenibilidad Francisco Jose Ortega Martinez
Zubiri and Contemporary Ontology Eric Weislogel
¿Tiene sentido la crítica de Gustavo Bueno al concepto zubiriano de religación? Joathas Soares Bello
O Xavier Zubiri e a dereita revolucionaria Alexandre Xavier Casanova Domingo
La realidad nunca traicionada Nativitat Senserrich y Morata
The Transcendental Panentheism Of Xavier Zubiri In Nature, History, God And Man And God C. Eduardo Sanchez Gauto
J. J. Gibson’s Psychology of Perception from Zubiri’s Standpoint Alfonso de la Puerta González-Quevedo
Book Reviews
Editorial Review Board for Volume 13
Thomas Fowler President, Xavier Zubiri Foundation of North America, Wash- ington, DC, USA Antonio González General Secretary, Fundación Xavier Zubiri, Madrid Xavier Sotil Baylos Former Rector, Seminario “Redemptoris Mater”, Brasilia, Brazil
Guillerma Díaz Muñoz Professor of Philosophy, Instituto de Enseñanza Secundaria de Madrid, Spain
Special thanks once again to Mr. Robert J. Todd, whose generous contributions to the Foundation have made this issue of the Review possible.
Sponsors Sought for The Xavier Zubiri Review The Foundation is seeking sponsors for future volumes of The Xavier Zubiri Review, generous friends of the Foundation who could underwrite the modest cost of publishing and mailing the Review. If you are interested in this important work, please contact the President of the Foundation at your convenience, using the information on page 2. Thank you!
Subscription Information The Xavier Zubiri Review is published as a service to the worldwide community of schol- ars interested in the philosophy of Xavier Zubiri. It is primarily an electronic journal, and all volumes are available for download in Adobe PDF format from the Foundation’s website, www.zubiri.org/general/xzreview/xzreview.html. A limited number of printed copies is available for the most recent volume and some earlier volumes. These copies are distributed free of charge to qualifying organizations. Others may purchase copies for $US 20, postpaid. For further information, please contact the Editor by e-mail, edi- [email protected].
Information for Contributors The Xavier Zubiri Review is always seeking quality manuscripts on Zubiri’s philosophy for publication. Please see the “Call for Papers” on page 171 of this issue for further information regarding manuscript submission.
THE XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW
Volume 13 ISSN 1538-5795 2013-2015
Zubiri Studies in the 21st Century Editorial ...... 3
Ontología y ciencia: de la substancia aristotélica a la sustantividad zubiriana Carlos Sierra Lechuga ...... 5
Quantum Field Theory and Zubiri’s Philosophy of Reality Thomas B. Fowler ...... 23
Naturaleza, Estructura y Sostenibilidad Francisco Jose Ortega Martinez ...... 43
Zubiri and Contemporary Ontology Eric Weislogel ...... 57
¿Tiene sentido la crítica de Gustavo Bueno al concepto zubiriano de religación? Joathas Soares Bello ...... 77
O Xavier Zubiri e a dereita revolucionaria Alexandre Xavier Casanova Domingo ...... 87
La realidad nunca traicionada Nativitat Senserrich y Morata ...... 97
The Transcendental Panentheism Of Xavier Zubiri In Nature, History, God And Man And God C. Eduardo Sanchez Gauto ...... 107 J. J. Gibson’s Psychology of Perception from Zubiri’s Standpoint Alfonso de la Puerta González-Quevedo ...... 133
Book Reviews ...... 167
Call for papers ...... 171
1
Entire contents © 2015 by the Xavier Zubiri Foundation of North America. Permission to republish in any form is hereby granted, provided that source is acknowledged. Electronic versions of the texts contained herein are available at the Foundation’s web site, www.zubiri.org.
The Xavier Zubiri Foundation of North America is incorporated as a non-profit, charitable educational organization under the laws of the District of Columbia. It is recognized as a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt foundation by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s purpose is to promote the work of Xavier Zubiri and expand awareness of his philosophy, especially in the English-speaking world.
The Xavier Zubiri Foundation of North America 1571 44th Street, NW Washington, DC 20007
Phone 202-298-0495, Fax 202-338-9084 www.zubiri.org Please direct all e-mail correspondence to the president, Dr. Thomas Fowler, at [email protected]
2
Zubiri Studies in the 21st Century
Editorial
This issue brings together a wide range of topics, and shows the current breadth and depth of Zubiri scholarship. It also illustrates the great variety of areas where researchers have found application for Zubiri’s philosophy. This is extremely important because it allows Zubiri’s thought to enter into wide areas of scholarship and research, far beyond the confines of the philosophy class- room and seminar. Philosophy of course should be a touchstone for knowledge in all areas, and influence as well as be influenced by developments in those areas, as Zubiri well knew. This means that scholars and researchers in many areas such as physics, medicine, economics, and political theory—just to name a few—must take the time to engage with the problems of philosophy and in particular Zubiri’s ideas. Zubiri told me once that he got along better with sci- entists than with philosophers. The articles by Lechuga and Fowler penetrate deeply into science and how Zubiri’s thought fits well with it, especially contemporary science, at the cutting edge. Lechuga looks at the developments in science and points out that in many ways science is still mired in Aristotelian ways of thinking, especially in terms of substance, when Zubiri’s notion of substantivity is a better fit. Fowler discusses Quantum Field Theory and how Zubiri’s ideas are able to handle the many new ideas there, such as virtual particles, symmetry, negative energy, negative momentum, and the blurring of the distinction between mathematics and physics. Most earlier philosophies are unable to come to grips with these new ideas—ideas that have been forced upon us by careful observation and ex- perimentation with the most advanced equipment in the world, such as the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN in Geneva. The article by Ortega looks at economics and sustainability in today’s world—both very important subjects. He points out the inadequacy of conceptions based on positivism and analytic philosophy, in favor of Zubiri’s ideas. Eric Weislogel looks at new metaphysical ideas such as trope theory, and discusses them in the context of Zubiri’s phi- losophy. In the area of theology we have two articles. Soares Bello’s article considers criticism of Zubiri’s concept of religation, and shows that the criticism is not justified. Sanchez Gauto examines Zubiri’s theology as manifested in Na- ture, History, God and concludes that it represents a type of transcendental panentheism, defined as a “vision” of God in the world and the world in God. In the realm of psychology we have a very interesting in-depth study of the paral- lels between the theories of American psychologist J. J. Gibson and Zubiri’s noology. The article by Casanova Domingo is definitely a different take on polit- ical theory with respect to Zubiri, rather different than the take of Senserrich y Morata. We leave it to the reader to reflect on this and the other matters raised in this issue.
Thomas B. Fowler June, 2015
3
Ontología y ciencia: de la substancia aristotélica a la sus- tantividad zubiriana1
Carlos Sierra Lechuga Grupo de investigación Círculo de Filosofía de la Naturaleza Université de Strasbourg, Francia2
Abstract Science, for over a hundred years, has given new ways of approaching physical reality and, thereby, also the necessity of new horizons of understanding. We now face classical problems such as the principle of least action, but new ones such as the physical difference between gravitational mass and inertial mass, the formerly so-called “wave-particle duali- ty”, the thin line between the observer and the observed both experimentally—Compton Effect, for example—and theoretically—Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle—the problem of integrating gravitational force into the standard model, the impassable barrier of limit of the speed of transmission of information, the problem of evolution and its many theories, living organisms, self-organization of matter, the binding quantum, emergence of intelligence, macromolecules, the passage between a macromolecule to a cell, space-time, among many others; in short, the concept of system, clearly disclose an intellectual situation that re- quires philosophical speculation for clarity in the foundations of our way of approach to material reality. If there are epistemological or ontological problems in science, that is, if there exist meta-scientific problems, I believe it is due to the horizon of understanding from which we are facing them. In this paper I present the thesis that science has continued thinking in an Aristotelian way in terms of the concept of substance, and I will propose an- other independent variable: substantivity. To do this, I will briefly talk about on the hori- zons of understanding that Zubiri found in West (mobility and nihility) and, then, I will show why our intellectual situation invites us to think of complex structures from a horizon that could be called that of complexity. Then, I will show how horizons previous to ours still thought in terms of the Aristotelian concept of substance even though there are who may not see it like that. Finally, I will say why to our horizon is required to think not so much in terms of substance as of substantivity, if we as philosophers want to be at the height of our times.
Resumen La ciencia, desde hace más de cien años, ha lanzado nuevos modos de acercamiento a la realidad física y, con ello, necesidad de nuevos horizontes de comprensión de la misma. Problemas clásicos como el principio de mínima acción, la diferencia física entre la masa gravitacional y la masa inercial; y modernos como la antes llamada «dualidad onda- partícula», la delgada línea entre el observador y lo observado tanto experimentalmente –el Efecto Compton, por ejemplo– como teóricamente –el principio de indeterminación de Hei- senberg–, el problema de integrar la fuerza gravitacional al modelo estándar, la barrera infranqueable de la velocidad límite de transmisión de información, el problema de la evo- lución y sus múltiples teorías, los organismos vivos, la autoorganización de la materia, el enlazamiento cuántico, la emergencia de la inteligencia, las macromoléculas, el paso entre una macromolécula a una célula, el espacio-tiempo, entre muchos más; en fin, el propio
5 6 Carlos Sierra Lechuga ______concepto de sistema, dan cuenta clara de una situación intelectual que requiere de la espe- culación filosófica para mayor claridad en los basamentos de nuestros modos de acerca- miento a la realidad material. Si existen problemas en la ciencia de orden epistemológico u ontológico, es decir, si en ella existen problemas meta-científicos, se debe –creo yo– al hori- zonte de comprensiones desde el cual se les está enfrentando. En este artículo, presentaré la tesis de que la ciencia ha continuado pensando aristotélicamente en función del concep- to de sustancia y propondré otra variable independiente: la sustantividad. Para ello, echaré mano brevemente de los horizontes de comprensión que X. Zubiri ha encontrado en Occi- dente (movilidad y nihilidad), para luego mostrar por qué nuestra situación intelectual nos invita a pensar en las estructuras complejas desde un horizonte que podría llamarse de la complejidad. Seguidamente, pasaré a mostrar cómo los horizontes previos al nuestro son horizontes que piensan en función del concepto de sustancia aristotélica aun a pesar de que haya quien así no lo viera. Por último, diré por qué para nuestro horizonte se requiere pensar no tanto en términos de substancia cuanto de sustantitividad si como filósofos que- remos estar a la altura de nuestros tiempos.
Introducción Si existen problemas en la ciencia La ciencia, en nuestros tiempos y de orden epistemológico u ontológico, es desde hace más de cien años, ha lanzado decir, si en ella existen problemas meta- nuevos modos de acercamiento a la reali- científicos, se debe en parte –creo yo– al dad física y, con ello, nuevos retos que horizonte de precomprensiones desde el desafían dichos modos; trae con eso la cual se les está enfrentando; digamos, a la necesidad de nuevos horizontes de com- clave de interpretación. En este artículo prensión. Problemas clásicos como el prin- presentaré la tesis de que la ciencia ha cipio de mínima acción, la diferencia física continuado pensando aristotélicamente en entre masa gravitacional e inercial; y con- función del concepto de sustancia y que temporáneos como la antes llamada «dua- ha sido por ello que ciertos acercamientos lidad onda-partícula», la delgada línea a nuevos fenómenos resultan improceden- entre el observador y lo observado tanto tes o enclenques; en virtud de esto pro- experimentalmente –el Efecto Compton, pondré otra variable independiente: la por ejemplo– como teóricamente –el prin- sustantividad, del filósofo Xavier Zubiri, cipio de indeterminación de Heisenberg–, noción que considero más urgente y apro- el problema de integrar la fuerza gravita- piada en la situación intelectual de nues- cional al modelo estándar, la barrera in- tros tiempos. Para ello, echaré mano bre- franqueable de la velocidad límite de vemente de los horizontes de comprensión transmisión de información, la existencia que el mismo Zubiri ha encontrado en la historia del pensamiento occidental, mos- de un bosón constitutivo en la formación trando cómo los horizontes previos al de la materia, la ondas gravitacionales, el nuestro piensan según la sustancia aristo- problema de la evolución y sus múltiples télica para luego mostrar por qué nuestra teorías, los organismos vivos, la autoorga- situación intelectual nos invita a pensar nización de la materia, el enlazamiento en las estructuras complejas desde un cuántico, la emergencia de la inteligencia, nuevo horizonte –al menos de cara a las el paso entre una macromolécula a una ciencias físicas. Concluiré mostrando que célula, el espacio-tiempo, entre muchos para nuestro horizonte se requiere pensar más; en fin, el propio concepto de sistema no tanto en términos de substancia cuan- da cuenta clara de una situación intelec- to de sustantitividad si como filósofos que- tual que requiere de la especulación filosó- remos estar a la «altura de nuestros tiem- fica para clarificación de los basamentos pos». de nuestros modos de acercamiento a la Para empezar, sin embargo, aclaro realidad material. que por «ontología» no entiendo una onto-
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 Ontología y ciencia: de la substancia aristotélica a la sustantividad zubiriana 7 ______
4 logía clásica, es decir, no entiendo por ella griego se dijo οὐσία , de οὖσα, participio «el conocimiento del ser expresado en lo- presente femenino del verbo είναι, ser –o gos», sino ante todo una disciplina filosófi- como yo preferiría: estar. Lo estante (τὸ ὂν) ca que estudia lo real en tanto que real se dice siempre de un único principio: la (diferenciada de la metafísica, por estudiar sustancia5. Aristóteles ha dicho “τὸ ὂν ésta la realidad qua realidad); entiendo λέγεται πολλαχῶς μὲν ἀλλ᾽ ἅπαν πρὸς μίαν ἀρχήν: entonces por τὸ ὂν lo estante, y no «el ente» τὰ μὲν γὰρ ὅτι οὐσίαι, ὄντα λέγεται, τὰ δ᾽ ὅτι πάθη clásico. Por otro lado, es de saber que en 6 las lecturas de raigambre fenomenológica οὐσίας […]” , esto es: lo estante se dice de que Zubiri hizo del pensamiento aristotéli- muchos modos, pero en todos ellos de cara co, encontró que Aristóteles se refiere por a un único principio: pues de unas cosas οὐσία a dos cosas diferentes en virtud del se dice que están por ser οὐσίαι, de otras modo como uno accede a ella, a saber, la por ser afecciones de la οὐσίας […]. Las οὐσία del λóγος y la οὐσία del νοεῖν, lo que he cosas están por ser sustanciales, y aquello llamado «sustancia lógica» y «sustancia que no es sustancial depende de aquello noética»; aclaro, pues, que por sustancia que sí. Es claro, pues lo estante está fun- me refiero a la primera, pues a la segunda damentalmente debido a aquello que lo el Zubiri maduro llamaría sustantividad.3 hace estar, que es independiente de todo Vayamos, pues, a pasos contados: lo demás por ser precisamente ello lo más ¿Qué es sustancia aristotélica? ¿Qué es estante. Lo que los griegos –y los escolásti- sustantividad zubiriana? ¿Cuáles son los cos luego– entendieron por sustancia es lo horizontes desde los que se piensa occi- que está-ahí, el ahí del estar, subsistiendo dentalmente y es acaso verdad que en bajo otras realidades; la sustancia es, en ellos la sustancia tipifica cómo conocer el esta medida, una realidad no dependiente mundo? ¿Cuál es nuestro horizonte y sino más bien una de la que otras realida- puede la sustantividad auxiliarnos en des dependen: “ἐξ οὗ τὰ ἄλλα ἤρτηται, […] οὖν 7 nuevos modos de conocer? ¿Qué conclui- τοῦτ᾽ ἐστὶν ἡ οὐσία” , de aquello de que las mos de todo esto? demás cosas penden […] esto es la οὐσία. En su virtud, es incluso que lo estante I. Sustancia aristotélica viene a ser lo mismo que la sustancia: “τί Preciso que hablaré de sustancia aris- τὸ ὄν, τοῦτό ἐστι τίς ἡ οὐσία”8, qué es lo estan- totélica y no de «sustancia en Aristóteles» a te es lo mismo a qué es la sustancia. Todo pesar de que mi referencia primera a ella lo demás o no está o lo está sólo por estar sean los propios textos de aquél filósofo. en lo más estante. Este «en» refiere en todo Esta precisión en el fondo dice que la lec- caso a un con, hay cosas que sólo están tura que hago de la sustancia aristotélica por estar con lo más estante, por acompa- sí es la lectura clásica, es decir, la lectura ñarlo. Esta es la clásica distinción entre que sus intérpretes en la tradición en ge- aquello que es οὐσία y aquello que es neral han hecho, y no así la lectura que συμβεβηκός. La primera como la realidad hoy los grandes estudiosos del pensamien- primordial propia de sí misma, la segunda to clásico griego pudieran encontrar nove- como lo que acompaña a la realidad pri- dosa. Me apego a esa lectura clásica por- maria, como lo que siendo con la οὐσία que la historia en general así lo ha hecho, podría ser, sin embargo, de otra manera, y aquí me interés qué ha pensado la histo- es decir, como su accidente (accidens); lo ria. Esta interpretación tradicional ha ver- συμ-βεβηκός es «lo-ido-con» la sustancia. sado siempre en torno a la «sustancia lógi- De este modo, traída la οὐσία a terre- ca», y a ésta me referiré. Dicho esto, ¿qué nos epistemológicos, se dice que la sus- es sustancia? tancia es la realidad primaria y, como tal, La sustancia está presente en todo conociendo su realidad tendremos un co- el discurso que forjó al pensamiento mo- nocimiento completo de la realidad propia derno y, con ello, a su ciencia. Grosso mo- de la cosa misma. Decía Tomás de Aquino do, lo que llamamos sustancia es lo que en que hay un principio (principium) en las
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 8 Carlos Sierra Lechuga ______cosas (aliqua) según el cual—y sólo gracias cedor de, o al menos quien intenta cono- a él—podrá conocérseles (sit modus eorum cer, sustancias. Modernamente, la sustan- quae de re illa cognoscuntur); es decir que cia puede ser tanto cósica (por ejemplo, en conociendo la sustancia de la cosa (rei el caso de Newton [substantia]) como «sub- substantiam) nada de la cosa inteligida jetiva» (la res cogitans de Descartes) e, in- excederá la razón humana (nullum cluso, exclusiva de la divinidad (como en intelligibilium illius rei facultatem humanae su caso lo pensó Spinoza [substantia]). La rationis excedet).9 Esto será preclaro para οὐσία griega termina desembocando me- lo que más adelante diremos. Oὐσία, en dievalmente en conceptos substanciales este sentido, se entiende como la cosa; no como el de ens, del cual uno de sus tras- como cualquier cosa. Es la cosa más cosa, cendentales era ser quid (quiditas), lo que es la cosa presente, más presente, según compartía cierta sinonimia con la afamada la cual el resto de la cosa queda precisa- res. A partir de la modernidad, la sustan- mente delimitada (πέρας) como cosa. cia subjetiva (p.e. res cogitans) tenderá a Las realidades penden (ἤρτηται) de buscar sustancias objetivas (p.e. res ex- un principio más real a ellas, de tal forma tensa) precisamente por estar puestas en que conociéndolo a éste conoceremos a frente, en su frente (Descartes, Leibniz) o, aquéllas. No se trata de una extrapolación en su búsqueda, afirmará la imposibilidad de dicho principio hacia la totalidad de la de conocerlas (Locke, Hume, Kant) –es lo cosa, sino de la representación de la tota- que se llamó ob-iectum. Quiero destacar lidad de la cosa en la presentación de di- este punto clave de la modernidad: la sus- cho principio. Es en este sentido como la tancia subjetiva busca en las cosas sus sustancia fue un concepto que marcó la sustancias (las sustancias objetivas), no historia de Occidente desde que Aristóteles sus accidentes. Busca de ellas lo que es la acuñó explícitamente,10 tratándose en más real –o lo que así se considera que sea efecto de ella como algo πέρας, algo tam- más real–, no aquello que parece (frente al bién καθ' αυτό (suficiente) y algo ὑποκείμενον. sujeto) no más que algo accidental (distin- La sustancia es también ὑποκείμενον, ción típicamente moderna entre el ser y el es precisamente sustrato de accidentes. Si parecer, esse y percipere). Por ello es que, la substancia es lo que está-ahí entonces bien entendido, Galileo –padre de la cine- es lo yaciente (κεῖται), y estando además mática moderna– muestra esto diciendo: por debajo (ὑπό) de otras realidades acci- […] io dico che ben sento tirarmi dalla dentales, entonces es lo sub-yacente. Lo necessità, subito che concepisco una sub-iectum es en esa medida una realidad materia o sostanza corporea, a no dependiente; y así, lo substante deviene concepire insieme ch'ella è terminata e sub-yacente (ὑπό-κείμενων). figurata di questa o di quella figura, Pero la ciencia moderna es, preci- ch'ella in relazione ad altre è grande o samente, moderna, no griega ni medieval. piccola, ch'ella è in questo o quel ¿Qué hay con este principio substancial y luogo, in questo o quel tempo, ch'ella subsistente según el cual conociéndolo a si muove o sta ferma, ch'ella tocca o él se conoce a la cosa toda? Dijo Aristóte- non tocca un altro corpo, ch'ella è una, les “τί […] ἐστὶν ἡ οὐσία, ὅτι τὸ μὴ καθ᾽ 11 poche o molte, né per veruna ὑποκειμένου ἀλλὰ καθ᾽ οὗ τὰ ἄλλα” , qué es la imaginazione posso separarla da οὐσία: aquello que no (se dice) de un queste condizioni; ma ch'ella debba ὑποκειμένου, pero de ello (se dicen) las de- essere bianca o rossa, amara o dolce, más cosas. Pasa que, siendo la sustancia sonora o muta, di grato o ingrato aquello que no se predica sino de lo cual odore, non sento farmi forza alla mente se predica, en la modernidad ocurrirá un di doverla apprendere da cotali giro en el que las sustancias se distinguen condizioni necessariamente accompa- de lo que propiamente –a partir de enton- gnata […] 12 ces– llamamos sujeto. El sujeto es el cono-
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 Ontología y ciencia: de la substancia aristotélica a la sustantividad zubiriana 9 ______
En tal pensamiento galileano se La sustantividad da cuenta de un precomprende algo más real y algo que no modo de constitución de las cosas, más lo es tanto, su acompañante nada más, concreto en lo efectivo, más general en lo esto es: sustancia y accidente. Incluso, teórico. La sustantividad se da de manera inmediatamente después, el mismo Galileo primera; se da al νοεῖν y no al λóγος. “Ser nos habla precisamente de un sujeto sujeto en cuanto término de un λóγος no es (suggetto) en el que residen (riseggano) ser físicamente una realidad subjetual en accidentes (accidenti). Nótese, por otro cuanto realidad. No es lo mismo ser sujeto lado, que aquello de que uno tiene necesi- de atribución que poseer lo atribuido como dad de concebir (necessità a concepire) propiedad física de un sujeto.”15 La consti- junto con la sostanza apunta hacia lo que tución de la cosa que la hace ser precisa- en filosofía llamamos las categorías, que mente esta cosa es primera (prioridad de son quienes acusan (κατηγορεῖν) al sujeto rango, dice Zubiri), y en ella la totalidad de (suggetto) del que se dicen. He aquí que la sus propiedades están puestas unas res- ciencia moderna es parida por la metafísi- pecto de otras, sin anterioridad ninguna. ca clásica –lo que es preciso no olvidar so Las cosas aparecen primeramente como riesgo de resbalar en ideologías. Cuando el cosas constituidas en su unidad, sin esci- moderno quiere saber la sustancia de la sión alguna entre su parecer y su ser, en- cosa, abstrae todo cuanto la hace esa co- tre la aditividad de sus accidentes y su sa, a excepción de su realidad primaria (o sustrato sustancial; aparecen constituidas mejor dicho de lo que cree— de manera plena. “La sustantividad expre- precomprende—que es su realidad prima- sa la plenitud de autonomía entitativa.”16 ria), creyendo que todo lo demás cuanto la Esto es: las cosas aparecen como siste- hace esa cosa es mero accidente. mas, y no como elementos aislados ino- cuos entre sí ni tampoco como errantes II. Sustantividad zubiriana accidentes orbitando en torno a un centro Xavier Zubiri indicó que la filosofía en sustancial. Cuando se estudia el organis- nuestros tiempos requiere de una metafí- mo de un ser vivo, no hay en sentido abso- sica de la sustantividad y no sólo de la luto un elemento del cual todo lo demás sustancialidad. ¿Qué es la sustantividad? dependa, tan fundamental el cerebro como “a la estructura radical de toda realidad el estómago, por ejemplo en un animal, […] he llamado sustantividad”13. La sus- pues sin uno el otro no podría hacer lo tantividad tiene, ante todo, una primaria suyo, en virtud de esto se llama, justa- «cualidad»: ser-esta-cosa-presente. La sus- mente, organismo. La sustancialidad es tantividad es algo delimitado y formal, resultado de un proceso racional, del λóγος, diríamos acaso estructural y sistemático. que dé cuenta de alguna realidad ulterior a lo primeramente dado en esta cosa (y A mi modo de ver, las cosas están for- puesta lógicamente luego como si fuera malmente constituidas por propieda- anterior), y es por ello secundaria. La sus- des, notas, […] coherentes entre sí: ca- tancia o sustancialidad podrá ser lo real da una en cuanto propiedad es propie- que se quiera, lo independiente, etc., pero dad de todas las demás, es «propiedad- secundaria.17 Por otro lado, el νοεῖν palpa de». Es lo que con un vocablo tomado la cosa presente, simple y sistemática, de la gramática de las lenguas semíti- donde no hay diferencia entre el ser y el cas, llamo «estado constructo». En el aparecer. Nótese, sin embargo, que bien estado constructo los vocablos entre sí, entendido no se trata del vetusto esse est y por tanto lo por ellos designado, percipi.18 La cosa es esta cosa precisamen- constituyen formalmente una unidad te por ser un sistema complejo constituido intrínseca propia. Y esta unidad del es- por la totalidad de sus notas. El color de tado constructo es lo que yo llamo sis- esta hoja de papel se presenta como parte tema.14 constitutiva de la sustantividad de esta hoja de papel; aun cuando, quizá, lo subs-
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 10 Carlos Sierra Lechuga ______tancial sea su celulosa y no las longitudes pues baste tener en dicha estructura un de las ondas electromagnéticas que rebo- elemento de más, por ejemplo de oxígeno tan en ella, éstas como consecuentes a (H2O2), para dejar de tener agua y tener aquélla. Pero sea como sea esta sustancia- entonces peróxido de hidrógeno –la llama- lidad, esta hoja ya presente lo es tanto por da agua oxigenada. Cualquiera que en- su celulosa como por su coloridad. Enten- cuentre irrelevante la estructura, tome un diendo la sustantividad como un sistema sorbo de H2O2 en vez de uno de H2O y su- de notas que precisa la concretitud de las frirá, literalmente, las consecuencias. Dice cosas, la hoja (a)parece blanca porque es Zubiri que: blanca, y sólo porque esto es verdadero, [La sustantividad] funcional no es for- patentemente verdadero (ἀλήθεια)19, es que zosamente el resultado de luego puede volverse a ello con el λóγος y una combinación de sustancias que desplegar la realidad presentada de mane- produjera una sustancia nueva. Tam- ra simple y de antemano. Diego Gracia ha poco es un mero agregado de sustan- dicho que “Si el acto de darme cuenta de cias, porque en tal caso sólo tendría- que el bastón parcialmente sumergido en mos funciones aditivas. Es un acopla- el agua está roto no me otorgara algún miento de sustancias tal que todas tipo de saber cierto e indubitable acerca de ellas se codeterminan mutuamente. Y la cosa, ¿cómo podría yo llegar algún día a esto es lo que hemos llama- deducir las leyes de la refracción?”20 La do estructura. La sustantividad está sustantividad nos muestra la cosa consti- determinada no siempre ni formalmen- tutivamente como una unidad integral- te por sustancias, sino por estructura, mente real, y no consecuentemente como y consiste en una unidad coherencial habiendo algo en ella más real que lo primaria. Esta estructura es la esencia otro.21 de la sustantividad en cuestión. La su- Zubiri toma de la sustancia aristo- prema forma de unidad metafísica de télica el momento de estar presente (τὸ ὂν), lo real, no es la unidad de sustanciali- de delimitación de la cosa (πέρας) y de sufi- dad, sino la unidad de sustantividad, ciencia (καθ' αυτό), pero no así su sustrati- la unidad estructural.22 vidad o subjetualidad (ὑποκείμενον), como si hubiese algo más real que la totalidad de La sustancia es la que se separa de la cosa que la hace ser, precisamente, esta la cosa misma como siendo lo más real de cosa. Este «esta» es un deíctico que nos la cosa, sustrativamente, sin lo cual no habla de la unidad o delimitación, de la habría tal; la sustantividad, por su parte, suficiencia o ser por sí, y de su estar aquí es la cosa ya presente, con la que tropiezo, ya presente. Las cosas son tales no tanto delimitada y suficiente, constituida por su por una realidad mayor implícita en ellas, estructura, toda ella. Esto es justamente cuanto por el modo como todas sus notas una constelación de notas que hacen de la (o «propiedades») quedan estructuradas cosa una cosa constructa. La sustantivi- para constituirlas. La sustantividad nos dad tiene que ver con la estructura23 de dice que las cosas son tales por la estruc- algo, con su organización interna que lo tura del todo, en vez de por el enseñora- hace ser precisamente un algo, ese algo miento de una de sus partes. Así, por coherente por sí; con una realidad que, de ejemplo, una molécula de agua es tal por suyo, se articula en relación consigo mis- estructurarse de dos átomos de hidrógeno ma y en relación con lo otro precisamente y uno de oxígeno (H2O), y sólo es tal por para ser real y uno. Tal realidad es una y dicha estructura, ningún elemento suyo es está sistemáticamente organizada. No es más real ni anterior que el resto de la es- una suma de propiedades (o notas) sino la tructura. Antes de ello sólo hay hidrógeno unidad dinámica y estructural que concre- y oxígeno, dos elementos «hidrogenales» y tiza la especificidad de la cosa. Pongamos uno «oxigenal» por aparte, pero no agua. El un caso: la imposibilidad de medir a una y modo de organización es fundamental, con la misma precisión el momento y la
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 Ontología y ciencia: de la substancia aristotélica a la sustantividad zubiriana 11 ______posición de una «partícula» subatómica dido su sustantividad. La sustantivi- muestra que al medir hay que romper: la dad la tiene solamente el organismo perturbación del sistema, el colapso de la entero: sólo el organismo es el sistema función de onda, formalmente un rompi- clausurado y total. Por ello la sustan- miento. Físicamente hemos perturbado el cia misma de la glucosa es en el orga- sistema físico. Pero filosóficamente, lo que nismo perfectamente insustantiva. Lo ha ocurrido es que la sustantividad de radical y primario de las cosas no es, dicho fenómeno cuántico ha sido desarti- pues, sustancialidad, sino sustantivi- culada en sus propiedades, perdiendo, así, dad. Y la transformación de la sustan- su unidad constitucional24. El sistema físi- tividad no es ni remotamente trans- co, aun cuando pueda conservar sustan- formación en la sustancialidad: no es cialidad, ha perdido esa sustantividad al transmutación de realidades. La trans- haber discernido el momento o la veloci- formación de la sustantividad consiste dad por aparte siendo así que el sistema en que el sistema de propiedades pier- físico no sea ya más el mismo: esto es rigu- de su unidad constitucional.26 rosamente el significado filosófico de la Si bien el pensamiento moderno abstrae perturbación. En este sentido se ha trans- todo cuanto hace que una cosa sea esa sustantivado. Ha ocurrido una transfor- cosa, como creía Galileo, a excepción de su mación de la sustantividad, de su estruc- realidad primaria precomprendiendo lo tura. No se trata ya de sustancialidad al- que debería ser esa realidad primaria, y lo guna como realidad primera. Zubiri dice: cual venía desde el pensamiento medieval, El cloro y el hidrógeno son sustancias, ocurre que en efecto se trata más bien de y lo es asimismo el ácido clorhídrico que no tenemos motivos inamovibles para resultante de su combinación, y es creer que lo sustancial sea más real que el una sustancia distinta de las compo- resto de componentes constitutivos de la nentes por hallarse dotada de propie- cosa. ¿Por qué no podrían ser todos los dades diferentes a las de éstas. Pero en momentos de la cosa igualmente reales esta idea […] entran indiscernidamente para la cosa misma? A final de cuentas, ni dos cosas distintas: la sustancialidad y la contigüidad, ni la secuencialidad, ni la la sustantividad. […] extensión, etc., podrían presumirse como más fundamentales que la cosa misma sin [A]mbos conceptos son perfectamente una cosa sustantiva que pueda ser conti- distintos. La sustancialidad sólo es un gua, consecuente, extensa, etc. tipo de sustantividad: la sustantividad que algo posee para que todo lo demás III. Horizontes de precomprensión se apoye en él en orden a la existencia. Fundamentalmente un horizonte de Pero no es la única sustantividad posi- precomprensión es el punto de partida ble. Sustantividad es la suficiencia de desde el cual uno comprende, enjuicia y un grupo de notas para constituir algo conceptualiza aquello que es objeto de sus propio; es la suficiencia del orden comprensiones, enjuiciamientos y concep- constitucional. 25 tos.27 Este punto de partida suele ser su- Y también: brepticio, no es notorio pues está implícito antes de las propias comprensiones, en- Así, la glucosa en un frasco es algo que juiciamientos, etc. Es el conjunto de pre- en la metafísica clásica se llamaba supuestos, precomprensiones, etc., desde sustancial, pero a la vez es algo sus- el cual uno se lanza a la realidad.28 Así, tantivo. En cambio, ingerida en un or- por ejemplo, si uno toma un martillo, pre- ganismo (prescindiendo de las altera- comprende que debe ser usado para mar- ciones metabólicas), a pesar de conser- tillar, y dicha precomprensión va implícita var íntegras su presunta sustancia y antes incluso de siquiera tomar el martillo. sus propiedades, sin embargo ha per- Digamos –por usar una analogía musical–
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 12 Carlos Sierra Lechuga ______que un horizonte es la clave desde la cual horizonte griego de la realidad sino de có- se interpreta la obra de la comprensión. mo podía darse en movimiento. La pregun- Pues bien, Xavier Zubiri ha encontra- ta fundamental en este horizonte es «¿por do que en la historia de Occidente ha ha- qué lo que siempre está, cambia?». Desde bido dos grandes horizontes desde los cua- este horizonte se precomprende la estancia les se ha comprendido la realidad; los ha de la realidad y su movilidad, y desde aquí llamado i) el horizonte de la movilidad y ii) se comprende el resto. Este es el horizonte el horizonte de la nihilidad. El primero es de la movilidad. el horizonte nacido con la filosofía griega y ii) Otro es el caso del horizonte de muerto también con ella; el segundo es el la nihilidad. Este horizonte irrumpe en el horizonte nacido con el cristianismo y que anterior con la llegada a Occidente del culmina en Hegel, aunque dejando secue- judeo-cristianismo. Aquí comienza a haber las incluso hasta Husserl y Heidegger.29 un interés particular por «el ser». El griego i) Para los griegos, la realidad está no se ocupaba del ser, sino de lo que está; dada, no se duda de que pueda o no estar. y es que no podría ocuparse del ser porque Es lo que se muestra cuando en la Física en su horizonte no está precomprendido Aristóteles dice que es ridículo querer de- en modo alguno su contraparte la nada. mostrar la existencia de la naturaleza,30 lo Para el griego el mundo ha estado desde que se muestra con el mismo concepto de siempre y para siempre, y los dioses res- φύσις y la constante búsqueda de su ἀρχή y ponden a ello. Pero para el cristiano el lo que queda a la vista con el afamado τό mundo no está dado sino que viene dado, ὄν. La realidad está dada, y la pregunta viene dado por Dios. Y lo ha dado desde la fundamental no va tanto por el lado de si nada (ex nihilo); cabe hacer mención que debería o no estar dada sino por cómo es esta expresión –originaria de Tertuliano– que está ya dada. Es verdad, la realidad no es siquiera bíblica, no aparece en el ahí está, pero está moviéndose. ¿Cómo hebreo de la Tanaj sino tan sólo en una puede entonces estar moviéndose sin dejar versión poco clara, en lengua griega, del de estar? Si siempre está, ¿cómo es que deuterocanónico Macabeos (II, 7:28), ha- está moviéndose? Surgió así toda la dispu- blando de una creación «desde las cosas ta entre el ὄν y el μὴ ὄν, naciendo con ello, que no son/están» (ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων). Quiero por ejemplo, toda la física aristotélica lide- decir con ello que este nuevo horizonte rada por la ενέργεια/ἐντελέχεια y la δύναμις a occidental es plenamente otro. Desde este fuer de explicar el movimiento. No sólo otro horizonte, se piensa en la posibilidad Aristóteles, sino también Platón pensaba de que este mundo pudiera ser otro que el lo propio; bien es sabido que el único in- que es, es decir, se posibilita la posibilidad tento de Platón por hacer una física está misma de los mundos posibles, así como en el Timeo, mostrando que una de las el que el estado de cosas pudiera ser dife- condiciones para lo estrictamente físico, rente. Este horizonte deja de preguntar como lo es el tiempo, no es más que una por el cambio y la movilidad de lo dado y copia imperfecta de la eternidad.31 Sus ahora lo hace por la propia aparición de lo predecesores hicieron lo respectivo al no dado, por su quid. En este, la pregunta dudar de la φύσις sino del modo de ser de deja de ser «¿por qué lo que siempre está, su principio, su ἀρχή, ese principio orde- cambia?» y deviene en «¿por qué es el ser y nador que regula los cambios físicos y que no más bien la nada?»32. Desde este hori- permanece sin cambiar a pesar de generar zonte se precomprende al mundo como el cambio. Incluso los eléatas partirán de creatura, es decir, como contingente, y lo mismo, si bien para ellos el movimiento desde ahí se comprende al resto. es aparente, ni duda cabe que hay movi- Pero nos interesa de esto el adve- miento –a pesar de que lo más real no se nimiento de la ciencia en el cauce de los mueva. Quizá esté demás decir que la horizontes. La ciencia moderna, como hoy misma φύσις significa surgir, es decir, bro- la conocemos, nace en el horizonte de la tar, cambiar. Así pues, no se duda en el nihilidad. La modernidad toda queda im-
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 Ontología y ciencia: de la substancia aristotélica a la sustantividad zubiriana 13 ______buida en él; ¿no acaso su padre, Descar- en su pensamiento, en tanto que posible tes, retoma a San Agustín en la vuelta a sólo como para él. La ciencia, nacida en el uno mismo para conocer las cosas?33 El horizonte de la nihilidad, resulta idealista horizonte de la nihilidad no trata de creen- anteponiendo la razón del sujeto a la pro- cias teológicas, sino de precomprensiones pia constitución de lo real, el científico es en la resolución efectiva de la realidad, y tal en la medida en que modela; como si ahí quedan los padres de la ciencia. Justo hubiese un modelo racional (instituido es mencionar que el matemático Cauchy, racionalmente) al que la realidad deba teórico de las funciones continuas y crea- seguir o, justamente, amoldarse. dor de la definición formal de límite, llegó Decía entonces que la ciencia nace a decir “Yo soy cristiano, es decir, yo creo en el horizonte de la nihilidad, es decir, en en la divinidad de Jesucristo, con Tycho- el horizonte en que se posibilita lo que las Brahe, Copérnico, Descartes, Newton, cosas no son, que las cosas no sean y, con Fermât, Leibniz, Pascal, Grimaldi, Euler, ello, en donde es viable conocer lo que es Guldin, Boscowich, Gerdil, con todos los mediante lo que no es. Con el modelo ideal grandes astrónomos, todos los grandes de lo real, se conoce lo que sí es con lo que físicos, todos los grandes matemáticos de no es. Conocer la realidad conociendo la los siglos pasados.”34 El horizonte da idealidad. cuenta de que previa a sus disertaciones Hay que decir, por otro lado, que la científicas, está precomprendida la reali- modernidad (y pre-modernidad) ha visto a dad desde la nihilidad, esto es, de que las la conciencia como un contenedor al cual cosas son contingentes y pueden conocer- le llegan contenidos. Es a esto a lo que nos se a partir de lo que no son, y las leyes que referíamos antes cuando decíamos que lo van encontrándose son las razones del conocido se subsume en el cognoscente. A porqué (y/o cómo) haya algo en vez de veces se le ha visto como un contenedor nada. con forma (Kant) pero a veces también sin En este horizonte, pues, el conoci- forma (Locke), sea como sea, la verdad es miento de las cosas puede ser sustituido que se le ha visto como contenedor. El por el conocimiento del sujeto que conoce mundo, por su parte, es los contenidos las cosas, o si se quiere: sustituir la reali- que por tales o cuales motivos terminan en dad por un modelo ideal. El pensamiento aquel contenedor; para quienes creen que moderno presupone una creencia acrítica el contenedor tiene forma, los contenidos de una figura dada de la racionalidad, a de la conciencia adoptan la misma (al mo- partir de la cual se cree conocer más la do como, análogamente, lo hace un fluido): realidad alejándose de ella, tendiendo ha- el mundo queda idealizado, subjetivado; cia su idealización. Hay un alejamiento de para quienes no, el contenedor es una la realidad en pos de un acercamiento a la tabula rasa que adopta formalidad según razón. Nótese la máxima hegeliana que la impronta que dejan sus contenidos: el mienta Was vernünftig ist, das ist wirklich. sujeto queda mundanizado, es el empiris- Was wirklich ist, das ist vernünftig, lo que mo. Empirismo e idealismo son, en bruto, racional es, eso es real; lo que real es, eso siameses. Sea como fuere, la conciencia es es racional. El sujeto impone las condicio- un recipiente que recibe al mundo. El nes de posibilidad de cognición de la cosa, pensamiento occidental moderno, con su débilmente hablando; en sentido fuere: el ciencia germinal, está cuandocado dentro sujeto impone las condiciones de posibili- del horizonte de la nihilidad. dad de existencia de la cosa. Lo conocido Históricamente, pues, acaecen am- es subsumido enteramente (o quasi) en el bos horizontes. Ahora bien, ¿qué hay con cognoscente. Veremos más adelante como el concepto de sustancia? En ambos hori- este «estar subsumido» no es sólo un modo zontes la búsqueda de comprensión se ve de hablar. En términos de la segunda gran encaminada a la luz de la sustancia. En el metáfora orteguiana: la naturaleza es un de la movilidad, lo que cambia no es la pedazo del sujeto, en tanto que contenida sustancia; la sustancia es justamente
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 14 Carlos Sierra Lechuga ______aquello más real que, por ser tal, no cam- bió en su Essai philosophique sur les pro- bia. En el de la nihilidad, la sustancia su- babilités:37 “Una inteligencia que en un ma no ha sido creada sino que es justa- momento determinado conociera todas las mente la creadora (Ipsum Esse per se Sub- fuerzas que animan a la naturaleza […] sistens). En este segundo horizonte nace podría abarcar en una sola fórmula los la ciencia moderna. Y si bien su interés no movimientos de los cuerpos más grandes está en esa suma sustancia (pues no re- del universo y los del átomo más ligero; quiere de tal «hipótesis» divina, como lo nada le resultaría incierto y tanto el futuro dijera Laplace), sí lo está en aquello que como el pasado estarían presentes ante dicha sustancia ha creado a su semejanza: sus ojos.”38 Se trata aquí de conocer, pues, las sustancias perenes del mundo finito. la sustancia del mundo. Una cosa u otra Que pueden hallarse a la luz de los con- bien pudo haberla dicho Laplace o el ceptos de, por ejemplo, ley y determinismo. Aquinate. Son parecidos, en efecto, porque Las cosas perenes, no sus contingencias, ambos discursos parten del mismo hori- son sustancias que obedecen siempre a zonte de nihilidad que precomprende como las leyes naturales. Es así como, por fundamental una realidad primaria; para ejemplo, es posible en la mecánica clásica el caso, la sustancia como materia. Aun- conocer toda la trayectoria de cualquier que el mismo Aristóteles consideró que la proyectil si de él determinamos la posición οὐσία estaba en el εἶδος y no en la mate- y la velocidad. La posición y la velocidad ria39 –pues la materia no puede (ἀδύνατον) son, para el caso, las cantidades matemá- nunca estar separada y, por lo tanto, no es ticas que determinan la sustancialidad del independiente–, para entonces la única proyectil –por decirlo así–, éste tiene (o sustancia que se tomaba por eje era la cobra) realidad física si es viable determi- material. El químico y nobel Wilhelm Os- nar dichas cantidades: con la posición y la twald dijo que “La substancia de la Física velocidad se conserva la sustancialidad del y la Química del siglo XIX lleva el peculiar proyectil, misma que permanece tanto nombre de materia. […] No es del todo fácil atrás en el tiempo como adelante (deter- determinar unívocamente lo que hoy día minismo).35 se entiende por materia, ya que al intentar Hemos de recordar en este punto que dar una definición, resulta que en general si la ciencia moderna nació fue en buena se ha presupuesto ya el conocimiento de medida por la lucha anti-aristotélica que aquel concepto […]”40. Por su parte, el se tuvo entonces de cara a sus explicacio- mismo Werner Heisenberg habló crítica- nes cualitativas del mundo físico.36 Esto, mente de la sustancia material desde la por otro lado, no significó la renuncia a la electrodinámica: “En la electrodinámica, lo sustancia, sino la cuantificación de la auténticamente existente no es la materia, misma; la sustancia sigue subrepticiamen- sino el campo de fuerzas. Un juego de te. Estando Aristóteles en la cumbre de la relaciones entre campos de fuerzas, sin época histórica del horizonte de la movili- ninguna substancia en que se apoyaran dad, fue fácil que sus conceptos se filtra- dichas fuerzas, constituía una noción ran, igualmente de manera histórica, al bastante menos comprensible que la siguiente horizonte. noción materialista de la realidad […].”41 Si recordamos lo que Tomás de Es claro que de la sustancia está Aquino dijo, a saber, que si la inteligencia brotando la ciencia moderna, pero ya des- inteligía la sustancia de la cosa no habría de sí misma (con el electromagnetismo en nada de ésta que escapara a aquélla (si general, la teoría cinética de gases, la ter- intellectus humanus alicuius rei sub- modinámica de procesos irreversibles, etc.) stantiam comprehendit nullum intelligi- es notoria la insuficiencia de tal noción y, bilium illius rei facultatem humanae con ello, la necesidad de nuevas nociones rationis excedet), entonces entenderemos a la altura de estas igualmente nuevas el fuerte bagaje de esta precomprensión en exigencias. las siguientes palabras que Laplace escri-
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 Ontología y ciencia: de la substancia aristotélica a la sustantividad zubiriana 15 ______
IV. La altura de nuestros tiempos: idealización43 –como antes he dicho. Un nuestro horizonte punto es intrínsecamente inexistente, no es físico sino matemático,44 el cuerpo es Hoy en día, sin embargo, estudiamos físico, pero para estudiarlo prescindimos fenómenos que no respetan lo que po- de él remitiéndonos a la abstracción; los dríamos llamar el «Principio de Conserva- péndulos cuya masa es puntual, cuyos ción de la Sustancialidad»; por el modo hilos no tienen masa, y para los cuales no preciso y fino de su estructuración, éstos hay resistencia del aire (piénsese en los no son los mismos antes que después, osciladores armónicos) son buenos ejem- tanto incluso que no podemos regresar a plos. Claro que la abstracción (ἀφαίρεσις), estados previos desde el estado presente y como toda vía negativa, requiere prescindir muchas veces ni predecir los futuros. He- de lo particular en pos de lo general; pero mos comentado anteriormente que la no se trata de eso, sino de insistir en que realidad de las cosas está en su estructu- eso «general» sea «lo más real», y esto es ya ración, no en un principio único, por lo inadmisible. Esta recurrencia epistemoló- que al perturbar su estructuración se per- gica de perseguir aquello independiente de turba, de hecho, su modo de ser real. lo cual lo demás depende, el sustrato, de Coincidiendo en esto con Zubiri. No hay perseguir la sustancia, ha sido fructífera que pensar grandes ejemplos, baste sim- en el devenir de la ciencia, ni duda cabe. plemente mencionar –para mostrar esta Pero ha ocurrido y, a mi parecer, cada vez diferencia entre codeterminación sustanti- ocurre con más frecuencia en nuestro va y dependencia sustancial– la síntesis tiempo, que la ciencia se enfrenta a fenó- llevada a cabo por los aminoácidos para la menos que le resultan inabordables, formación de proteínas; los aminoácidos inoperables, o poco abordables y poco ope- se estructuran de manera tan precisa y rables, por este ardid epistemológico que adecuada que la proteína resultante es ha funcionado sólo dentro de determina- otra que ellos; no es la adición de aminoá- dos límites. Ostwald había ya caído en la cidos, sino algo radicalmente nuevo, una cuenta de la insuficiencia del concepto de macromolécula propia. No es tan sólo su sustancia en ciencia y decía que “tenemos adición, sino el modo concreto en que se dos distintos grupos de razones, de las articulan efectivamente, un conjunto de que unas nos llevan a atenernos a la aminoácidos sustanciales no hacen una realidad de las cosas según se nos proteína sustantiva, necesitan de una aparecen, y las otras al abandono de dicha concreta estructura al modo como un apariencia. [Pero] cada una de las montón de ladrillos no constituyen un indicadas actitudes encierra insufi- muro. Necesitan una cierta disposición, ciencias, mientras que la combinación de un cierto orden. ambas constituye una nueva y suficiente Creer que las realidades tienen en tesitura. Es natural que las insuficiencias ellas algo más real que todo el resto o que aludidas hayan de buscarse mediante una su organización intrínseca, es creer en la delimitación, en dos opuestos frentes, del sustancia, y esto no alcanza a concebir ya concepto de substancia.”45 la totalidad de objetos propios de la cien- Pensemos por ejemplo en los fenó- cia contemporánea. No podemos seguir menos subatómicos, o en el concepto de buscando lo sustancial y dejar de lado sistema, organismo, incluso célula y de- todo cuanto creamos accidental. Los pro- más ejemplos mencionados al inicio de blemas ya no son los de antes.42 Cuando este artículo. Fenómenos como éstos exi- clásicamente se habla de un cuerpo, por gen ser estudiados no ya desde un hori- ejemplo, y de él se obtienen determinadas zonte que precomprenda que debería ha- ecuaciones, se trabaja –en general– no con ber en ellos una realidad más real que respecto al cuerpo, sino con respecto al todo cuando en ellos ocurre, realidad más centro de masa, es decir, con respecto a real que explica y da cuenta de todo cuan- un punto, esto es, con respecto a una to de ella depende. Estos fenómenos exi-
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 16 Carlos Sierra Lechuga ______gen ser estudiados desde otro horizonte filosófica la especulación de nociones úti- porque están siendo planteados desde les en el abordaje de lo real, y es labor afuera de los límites que presuponen una filosófica proveer de herramientas teóricas realidad suma y perene. Escapan, pues, a según las cuales el científico tenga de los horizontes viejos reclamando uno nue- dónde partir para nuevas herramientas vo. A éste horizonte Diego Gracia lo llamó matemáticas precisas47, una matemática el horizonte de la complejidad.46 En las que mire los sistemas rigurosamente como estructuras complejas se trata de no bus- sistemas constituidos por sus propiedades car una realidad sustancial de la que de- estructurales, todos mayores a la suma de penda toda la estructura, como si tuvieran sus partes, y no como efectos consecuen- una piedra angular; toda la estructura es tes de un único principio. real y toda ella tiene manifestaciones pro- V. Conclusión pias inexplicables sin la totalidad de la estructura. Ver la totalidad de la estructu- Confío en que el filósofo español Xa- ra como un único fenómeno en vez de co- vier Zubiri, quien hubiera estudiado con mo un conglomerado de accidentes de- Einstein y Schrödinger en Berlín, y con pendientes de una sola «parte» es partir Louis de Broglie en París, ha dado en el desde un nuevo horizonte abierto a las clavo para el abordaje de las nuevas reali- exigencias de los problemas de la ciencia dades a las que nos enfrentamos en nues- de nuestro tiempo. tro tiempo. Nuestra situación intelectual ¿Por qué es que no puedo medir a da para más que un mero análisis lógico la vez la posición y el momento de una del lenguaje, y no se trata aquí de distin- partícula subatómica con arbitraria preci- guir taxonómicamente lo que es sustancia sión? Esta pregunta se lanza sólo si se de lo que es sustantividad, se trata de es- precomprende que la sustancia de un fe- cuchar a la realidad misma de las cosas y nómeno tal está en su carácter de ser par- ver qué tienen ellas que decirnos, por en- tícula. Las partículas son sustancialmente cima de lo que nuestros modelos canóni- determinables por su momento y posición. cos y canonizantes prefieren. Se trata, a la Pero este fenómeno subatómico requiere postre, de atenerse modestamente a la de otra clave (la clave de interpretación) realidad de las cosas, de atender más a las según la cual esta pregunta resulta ser, a cosas de las que queremos saber antes la postre, una pseudo-pregunta o, al me- que a nuestras preconcepciones y prejui- nos, una deutero-pregunta. Si se ve al fe- cios desde los cuales decimos que quere- nómeno como totalidad estructural no nos mos saber. Nuestra situación intelectual parecería extraña la ausencia de caracte- nos exige ver las cosas en su estructura, rísticas de partícula porque de hecho no como sistemas, como complejos, como esperaríamos que fuese una partícula o realidades respectivas48 y no innocuas. que se comportase como tal; lo mismo si Interpretarlas en una nueva clave puede esperamos que se comportase como onda. dificultar nuestro acercamiento al ser éste Es verdad que hoy decimos que para cier- uno nuevo, radicalmente otro que ese que tos experimentos el fenómeno acontece nos mantenía en un nivel considerable de como siendo partícula, para otros no; pero certezas y en un estado confortable, pero ¿cómo se explica este cambio de dirección aminora la carga cuando la clave resulta en la naturaleza? No se explica, y por eso ser una luz a la que esas realidades poco tienen los científicos que recurrir a antro- comprensibles desde otro enfoque, son pomorfismos como «el electrón decide ahora sensibles. No es que la realidad sea si…»; no, no decide nada, carecemos de translúcida y por lo tanto estemos vedados conceptos porque seguimos circundando de verla por principio, pasa que debemos uno que nos limita la visión de cara a esta ajustar las longitudes de nuestras radia- clase de fenómenos: la sustancia. La tota- ciones hasta alcanzar lo mínimo necesario lidad de este fenómeno es total, y siendo el para que reboten contra su real e intrínse- caso, uno debe verla como tal. Es labor ca opacidad. Aunque sea más cómodo
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 Ontología y ciencia: de la substancia aristotélica a la sustantividad zubiriana 17 ______afirmar que sólo es cognoscible aquello mejor noción para acercarse a las realida- donde hasta ahora conocemos, no es esto des complejas a las que hoy nos enfrenta- ni verdadero ni laudable. Amicus Plato sed mos, quizá haya otras muchas que ayuden magis amica veritas, donde «Plato» signifi- más y mejor, pero es una que atiende ho- ca cualquier cosa que interpele al lector. nestamente al escudriñamiento de la tota- Ver desde donde no se ha visto o desde lidad de lo real; escudriñamiento frente al donde apenas se ha empezado a ver, sin cual Platón, hace ya más de 2000 años, duda será arduo, pero al final alguien tie- confesó haber desfallecido49 pero –como ne que poner (de θέσις) la vista (de ὁράω) en enseñara Zubiri– no por ello haberse des- ello, es decir, alguien tiene que teorizar animado.50 (θεωρία). Quizá no sea la sustantividad la
Notes
1 Una versión más corta del presente artículo cia de algo (cuando un joven hereda, es in- fue presentada como conferencia en el XVII dependiente de su familia y demás trabajos). Congreso Internacional de Filosofía (Morelia, De aquí que se usara esta misma palabra Michoacán, México) de la Asociación Filosófi- pero compuesta para indicar «autoridad»: ca de México, A.C., en una de las mesas de ἐξουσία. Todavía hoy en griego moderno se Filosofía de la Ciencia. habla de los bienes y la fortuna como περιουσία. 2 Vicepresidente Asociado Fundador de la 5 Academia Internacional Tomás de Aquino Quizá haya mejores traducciones para οὐσία, (AITA). Miembro de la Sociedad Educativa pero la tradicional ha sido sustancia. Aun- Latinoamericana para Fe y Ciencia que estrictamente esté en desacuerdo con (SELFYC), instalada principalmente en Gua- llamarle así, prefiero dejarla tal y como se le temala. Colaborador Asociado de la revista ha llamado para señalar la tradición de este Razón y Pensamiento Cristiano, Chile. Editor horizonte. y creador de la Colección Estudios Libres, en 6 Met. 1003b5. ARISTÓTELES, Aristotle’s Met- Ediciones Castilibros, México. Licenciado en aphysics, Oxford: Clarendon Press, W.D. filosofía por la Universidad del Claustro de Ross, 1924. Todas las citas griegas que vie- Sor Juana, México. Ha participado como po- nen de la Metafísica se tomarán de esta edi- nente en los VI y VII Congresos Latino Ame- ción. Las traducciones al castellano de las ricanos de Ciencia y Religión, organizados mismas son traducciones mías, permitién- por el Ian Ramsey Centre de la University of dome dejar en griego los términos que consi- Oxford y en el curso Ciencia y Fe: Dos ven- dero clave. tanas una Realidad organizado por el Fara- 7 Met. 1003b18. day Institute de la University of Cambridge. 8 Met. 1028b3. 3 Cfr. Cfr. ZUBIRI, Xavier, “Filosofía y Metafísi- 9 SCG I, 3. “Cum enim principium totius ca,” in. Cruz y Raya 10 (1935), pp. 7-60. Y scientiae quam de aliqua re ratio percipit, sit ZUBIRI, Xavier, Los problemas fundamenta- intellectus substantiae ipsius, eo quod, les de la metafísica occidental, Madrid: Alian- secundum doctrinam Philosophi, demonstra- za, 2008, pp. 67, 68. En esta última refe- tionis principium est quod quid est; oportet rencia Zubiri dice que el mismo Aristóteles quod secundum modum quo substantia rei dio tratamiento sistemático a dos modos de intelligitur, sit modus eorum quae de re illa acceso a la οὐσία, el del λóγος y el de la cognoscuntur. Unde si intellectus humanus κίνησις (dejando de lado el acceso por νοεῖν), alicuius rei substantiam comprehendit, puta pero que al final subsume la κίνησις en el lapidis vel trianguli, nullum intelligibilium λóγος, resbalando. illius rei facultatem humanae rationis 4 La propia palabra οὐσία es usada en el griego excedet.” AQUINO, Tomás de, Summa contra con la significación de heredad o herencia; la gentiles, Romae: Typis Ricardi Garroni, herencia es lo que garantiza la independen- 1928. pp. 7,8.
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 18 Carlos Sierra Lechuga ______
“El principio del que parte toda ciencia Junio, 1981), Núms. 216-217, Vol 56, pp. que pueda la razón percibir acerca de un ob- 41-59, p. 44. jeto, es la captación de la sustancia del mis- 15 Op. Cit. ZUBIRI, Xavier, Sobre la esencia, p. mo: porque como dice el Filósofo, el principio 86. de toda demostración es la esencia de una 16 Ibid., p. 87. cosa. Y así, según el modo como se conoce la sustancia de un objeto, así es como se puede 17 “Radical y formalmente, lo real no es sustan- conocer dicho objeto. Por ello, si la inteligen- cialidad, sino sustantividad.” ZUBIRI, Xavier, cia humana puede comprender la sustancia “Reflexiones teológicas sobre la Eucaristía”, de alguna cosa, como de una piedra o de un op. cit. p. 45. triángulo, nada excede la inteligibilidad de 18 Aunque Zubiri no hablaría ni de «apari- esa cosa a la facultad de la razón humana.” ciones» ni de «existente», a este respecto me AQUINO, Tomás de, Suma contra los gentiles, parece que en las primeras páginas de L'être México: Porrúa, Carlos Ignacio González, et le néant, con la fenomenología de fondo 2004. p. 3. Sartre ha sido preclaro: “Les apparitions qui 10 Platón, por su parte, ya hablaba también del manifestent l'existant ne sont ni intérieures εἶδος como siendo οὐσία. Es interesante no- ni extérieures : eltes se valent toutes, elles tar que él decía lo que más abajo señalare- renvoient toutes à d'autres apparitions et mos decisivo en la interpretación zubiriana aucune d'elles n'est privilégiée. La force, par de la sustancia aristotélica y que sugeríamos exemple, n'est pas un conatus métaphysique al inicio: que la οὐσία es el objeto de la et d'espèce inconnue qui se masquerait νόησις. “νόησιν δὲ περὶ οὐσίαν” Rep. 534a. derrière ses effets (accélérations, déviations, etc.) : elle est l'ensemble de ces effets. 11 Met. 1029a8 Pareiltement le courant électrique n'a pas 12 “…anzi, se i sensi non ci fussero scorta, forse d'envers secret : il n'est rien que l'ensemble il discorso o l'immaginazione per se stessa des actions physicochimiques (électrolyses, non v'arriverebbe già mai.” GALILEI, Galileo, incandescence d'un filament de carbone, Il Saggiatore, progetto Manuzio, 1997, p. 108 déplacement de l'aiguille du galvanomètre, (Cursivas mías). En castellano, traducción etc.) qui le manifestent. Aucune de ces libre: actions ne suffit à le révéler. Mais elle “ […] digo que siento la necesidad, tan pronto n'indique rien qui soit derrière elle: elle concibo una materia o sustancia corpórea, indique elte-même et la série totale. Il de concebir junto con ella que está s'ensuit, évidemment, que le dualisme de delimitada y figurada de ésta o aquella l'être et du paraître ne saurait plus trouver forma, que en relación a otras es grande o droit de cité en philosophie.” SARTRE, Jean- pequeña, que está en este o aquel lugar, en Paul, L'Être et le Néant. Essai d'ontologie este o aquel tiempo, que se mueve o está phénoménologique, Paris : Éditions Galli- quieta, que toca o no toca otro cuerpo, que mard, 1943, p. 11. es una, o pocas o muchas, y ni con gran 19 Nótese que ἀλήθεια no quiere decir algo como imaginación puedo separarla de estas condi- «des-velar», sino más bien «sin-velos». No es ciones; pero que deba ser blanca o roja, lo mismo des- que sin-, pues lo primero im- amarga o dulce, sonora o muda, de olor plica que en efecto hay velos, y que éstos de- agradable o desagradable, no siento que ben ser descorridos; lo segundo, por su par- fuerce a mi mente a tener que aprehenderla te, quiere decir que efectivamente no hay ve- acompañada necesariamente de estas lo alguno (y por lo tanto no hay que desco- condiciones: más bien, sin los sentidos no rrer nada). las hubieran advertido, tal vez el discurso [la 20 GRACIA-GUILLÉN, Diego, “Actualidad de razón] o la imaginación por sí mismas no lo Zubiri: La Filosofía como Profesión de Ver- hubieran advertido jamás.” dad”, in. Tellechea Idígoras, J. Ignacio (ed.), 13 ZUBIRI, Xavier, Sobre la esencia, Madrid: Zubiri (1898-1983), Vitoria: Departamento de Alianza, 2008, p. 87. Cultura del Gobierno Vasco, 1984, p. 90. 14 ZUBIRI, Xavier, “Reflexiones teológicas sobre 21 “La sustancialidad sólo es un tipo de sustan- la Eucaristía”, Estudios escolásticos (Enero- tividad: la sustantividad que algo posee para
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 Ontología y ciencia: de la substancia aristotélica a la sustantividad zubiriana 19 ______
que todo lo demás se apoye en él en orden a Y esto ha seguido de una manera muy la existencia. Pero no es la única sustantivi- pertinaz hasta nuestros días.” ZUBIRI, Xa- dad posible. Sustantividad es la suficiencia vier, Los problemas fundamentales de la me- de un grupo de notas para constituir algo tafísica occidental, Op. Cit. p. 35. propio; es la suficiencia del orden constitu- 30 “ὡς δ' ἔστιν ἡ φύσις, πειρᾶσθαι δεικνύναι cional.” ZUBIRI, Xavier, “El hombre, realidad γελοῖον” Física 193a3. ARISTÓTELES, Aristo- personal”, In. Revista de Occidente, 1, 1963, tle’s Physics, Oxford: Clarendon Press, W.D. p. 21. Ross, 1936. 22 Idem. 31 Vid. Timeo 37d. “ἡ μὲν οὖν τοῦ ζῴου φύσις 23 Aquí estoy usando «constructo» y «estructura» ἐτύγχανεν οὖσα αἰώνιος, καὶ τοῦτο μὲν δὴ τῷ sin mucho rigor distintivo. Formalmente son γεννητῷ παντελῶς προσάπτειν οὐκ ἦν δυνατόν: diferentes, pero ahora no viene a cuento de- εἰκὼ δ' ἐπενόει κινητόν τινα αἰῶνος ποιῆσαι, tenernos en este detalle que, en otros ámbi- καὶ διακοσμῶν ἅμα οὐρανὸν ποιεῖ μένοντος tos, es crucial. αἰῶνος ἐν ἑνὶ κατ' ἀριθμὸν ἰοῦσαν αἰώνιον 24 “La transformación de la sustantividad con- εἰκόνα, τοῦτον ὃν δὴ χρόνον ὠνομάκαμεν.” siste en que el sistema de propiedades pierde PLATÓN, Platonis Opera, Londres: Oxford su unidad constitucional” ZUBIRI, Xavier, University Press, John Burnet, 1902. “Reflexiones teológicas sobre la Eucaristía”, “Pero dado que la naturaleza del mundo Op. Cit. p. 45. ideal es sempiterna y esta cualidad no se le 25 ZUBIRI, Xavier, “El hombre, realidad perso- puede otorgar completamente a lo generado, nal”, In. Revista de Occidente, 1, 1963, pp. procuró realizar una cierta imagen móvil de 21-23. la eternidad y, al ordenar el cielo, hizo de la eternidad que permanece siempre en un 26 ZUBIRI, Xavier, “Reflexiones teológicas sobre punto una imagen eterna que marchaba se- la Eucaristía”, Op. Cit. p. 45. gún el número, eso que llamamos tiempo.” 27 A esto Heidegger llamó Verweisung, (vid. Sein PLATÓN, Diálogos VI: Timeo, Madrid: Gredos, und Zeit, § 17) y Bezogenseins (vid, Ontologie María Ángeles Durán y Francisco Lisi, 2008, (Hermeneutik der Faktizität), capítulo 4). Ga- p.182. damer le llamará abiertamente Vor- 32 Recordemos la gran lucha de Leibniz por verständnis entender por qué hay algo (quelque chose, lit. 28 Posiblemente la aprehensión primordial de cualquier cosa) y no mejor nada (no La Na- realidad esté exenta de estos horizontes. da, sino nada –Leibniz escribe rien y no Creo que Zubiri así lo pensaría, así lo pienso Néant): “la première question qu’on a droit de yo en lo personal; pero es un tema que ame- faire sera : pourquoi il y a plutôt quelque rita filosofarse por aparte. chose que rien ? Carle rien est plus simple et 29 “El mundo griego ha visto esencialmente la plus facile que quelque chose. De plus, idea del ens, la idea del ὄν, desde el horizon- supposé que des choses doivent exister, il te de la movilidad. Si nos trasladamos al faut qu’on puisse rendre raison pourquoi mundo medieval, nos encontramos con algo elles doivent exister ainsi, et non autrement.” totalmente distinto. Lo primero que piensa el LEIBNIZ, Gottfried, Principes de la nature et medieval es por qué hay cosas en lugar de de la grâce fondé en raison, que no haya nada. Es curioso que esta pre-
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 20 Carlos Sierra Lechuga ______
ist Metaphysik?, Friedrich Cohen, Bonn, composent, si d'ailleurs elle était assez vaste 1931, p. 27. pour soumettre ces données à l'analyse, 33 Decía San Agustín: “Noli foras ire, in te embrasserait dans la même formule les ipsum redi, in interiore homine habitat mouvemens des plus grands corps de veritas, et si tuam naturam mutabilem l'imivers et ceux du plus léger atome: rien ne inveneris, trascende et te ipsum.“ (De vera serait incertain pour elle, et l'avenir comme religione XXXIX). Si el nacimiento de la mo- le passé, serait présent à ses yeux. LA- dernidad se cuandoca con Descartes, baste PLACE, Pierre-Simon de, Essai philosophique decir que éste viene retomando una filosofía sur les probabilités, Paris: Bachelier, 1840, p. y modo de filosofar muy agustino; volver a sí 4. mismo e, incluso, meditar es algo que Agus- “Una inteligencia que en un momento de- tín inaugura en su afamado si fallor [ergo] terminado conociera todas las fuerzas que sum y en sus confesiones. Para las influen- animan a la naturaleza, así como la situa- cias medievales en el padre de la moderni- ción respectiva de los seres que la compo- dad, vid. Étienne Gilson, Études sur le rôle nen, si además fuera lo suficientemente am- de la pensée médiévale dans la formation du plia como para someter a análisis tales da- système cartésien, Paris : Vrin, 1930. tos, podría abarcar en una sola fórmula los 34 La cita continúa diciendo: “Yo soy también movimientos de los cuerpos más grandes del católico como la mayor parte de ellos; y, si se universo y los del átomo más ligero; nada le me pregunta la razón, yo la daré con mucho resultaría incierto y tanto el futuro como el gusto. Se vería que mis convicciones son el pasado estarían presentes ante sus ojos.” resultado, no de prejuicios de nacimiento, LAPLACE, Pierre-Simon de, “Ensayo filosófi- sino de un examen profundo.” Citado por co sobre las probabilidades”, In. Hawiking, Baltasar Rodríguez Salinas y José L. de Ma- Stephen (ed.) Dios creó los números, Barcelo- ría. “Cauchy”, Historia de la Matemática, na: Crítica, 2005, p. 362. 1994, pp. 79-111. 39 Met. 1029ª27 “[…] οὐσίαν εἶναι τὴν ὕλην: 35 Esta noción ha traído vicios en la ciencia ἀδύνατον δέ”, […] que οὐσίαν sea la materia, contemporánea pues, como «gracias a» posi- esto es imposible. ción y momento las cosas «cobran» realidad 40 La cita completa es: „Die Substanz der según la mecánica clásica –ya que de otro Physik und Chemie des neunzehnten modo no podríamos saber de ellas y, sin sa- Jahrhunderts führt den besonderen Namen berlas, «cómo decir que son reales»–, enton- der Materie. Diese ist sozusagen als ces 1) o el principio de indeterminación de Verdampfungsrückstand hinterbliebe, nach- Heisenberg está equivocado (lo que tuvo que dem viele von den Substanzen des rechazarse no de buena gana sino porque la achtzehnten Jahrhunderts, insbesondere der potencia operativa del mismo obligaba a ello) Wärmestoff, die elektrischen und magne- o bien 2) aquello que se mide en Mecánica tischen Materien, das Licht und noch Cuántica no es (tan) real, dejando en ascuas manche andere, im Laufe der Zeit ihres a quienes preguntan por el sentido físico de Substanzcharakters verlustig gingen und als las ecuaciones matemáticas. „Kräfte“ ein mehr geistiges Dasein zu füren 36 Galileo se refiere a los aristotélicos con su angewiesen wurden. Was gegenwärtig unter personaje abiertamente burlón llamado Sim- Materie verstanden wird, ist nicht ganz leicht plicio. Cfr. su Diálogo sobre dos nuevas cien- unzweideutig festzustellen; denn versucht cias. man bestimmte Definitionen zu ermitteln, so findet sich, dass meistens die Kenntniss 37 En lo que sigue de este párrafo, compuesto dieses Begriffes bereits vorausgesetzt wird por lo demás de citas, para facilitar al lector [...]“ OSTWALD, Wilhelm, Vorlesungen über su ritmo citaré en castellano, dejando para Naturphilosophie, Leipzig: Veit und comp. las notas al pie los originales. 1902, p. 148. 38 La cita completa es: Une intelligence qui, “La substancia de la Física y la Química pour un instant donné, connaîtrait toutes les del siglo XIX lleva el peculiar nombre de forces dont la nature est animée, et la materia. La materia es por así decir el situation respective des êtres qui la residuo de una evaporación, lo que ha
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 Ontología y ciencia: de la substancia aristotélica a la sustantividad zubiriana 21 ______
quedado luego que muchas de las cos, Vol. 22, N° 42, año 2013, pp. 170-201. substancias del siglo XVIII, especialmente el Y en: SIERRA-LECHUGA, Carlos, “Asir gra- fluido calórico, las materias eléctrica y dualmente la realidad: para un principio de magnética, la luz y muchas otras, hubieron correspondencia ontológico- perdido en el curso de los tiempos su epistemológico”, Atualidade Teológica, ano carácter de substancias y, consideradas XVII, fasc. 45, 2013. como ‘fuerzas’, hubieron accedido a una 45 La cita completa es: “Es sind also zwei forma de existencia más espiritual. No es del Gruppen verschiedener Gründe vorhanden, todo fácil determinar unívocamente lo que von denen die eine das Festhalten an der hoy día se entiende por materia, ya que al Wirklichkeit der Dinge, wie sie uns intentar dar una definición, resulta que en erscheinen, die andere das Abgehen von general se ha presupuesto ya el dieser Ansicht unterstützt. Wenn der hier conocimiento de aquel concepto […]” OS- vorhandene Widerspruch sich soll lösen TWALD, Wilhelm, “Lecciones sobre filosofía lassen, so wird dazu der Nachweis natural”, In. Heisenberg, Werner, La imagen erforderlich seins, dass bei beiden Ansichten de la naturaleza en la física actual, México: Unvollständigkeiten vorhanden sind, deren Planeta, 1993, p. 115. Ausfüllung die Vereinigung bewirken wird. 41 Werner Heisenberg, La imagen de la natura- Diese Unvollständigkeiten werden natürlich leza en la física actual, Op. Cit. p. 10. El ori- in der beiderseitigen Abgrenzung des ginal se llama Das Naturbild der heutigen Substanzbegriffes zu suchen sein” Physik, desafortunadamente no disponemos OSTWALD, Wilhelm, Vorlesungen über de un ejemplar para citarlo, por lo que me Naturphilosophie, Op. Cit. p. 148. disculpo con el lector al no ofrecerle la posi- “De modo que tenemos dos distintos bilidad de hacer su propia traduc- grupos de razones, de las que unas nos ción/interpretación del texto. llevan a atenernos a la realidad de las cosas 42 No quiero decir que la física clásica sea obso- según se nos aparecen, y las otras al leta, sólo estoy diciendo que sus problemas abandono de dicha apariencia. Para resolver no son los problemas con que hoy nos en- esta contradicción, hay que mostrar que contramos. Sus problemas siguen pudiendo cada una de las indicadas actitudes encierra ser resueltos (y así seguirán) con física clási- insuficiencias, mientras que la combinación ca, pero hay otros que exceden su campo de ambas constituye una nueva y suficiente epistémico y a ellos me refiero. tesitura. Es natural que las insuficiencias 43 Hasta que surgiera la genialidad de un gran aludidas hayan de buscarse mediante una hombre de ciencia que ideara una matemáti- delimitación, en dos opuestos frentes, del ca menos reduccionista: Henri Poincaré, uno concepto de substancia.” OSTWALD, de los padres de la topología. Wilhelm, “Lecciones sobre filosofía natural”, In. Heisenberg, Werner, La imagen de la na- 44 Que diga que un concepto matemático no turaleza en la física actual, Op. Cit. pp. existe, significa sólo que no está en el mundo 114,115. físico, pero sí en el conceptual; pasa que a esa «existencia» conceptual no le nombro 46 Conferencia llamada “Nuestra situación inte- existencia sino consistencia. He tratado esta lectual: Zubiri en el horizonte de la compleji- diferencia (además de la subsistencia) en: dad.”, dictada por Diego Gracia Guillén SIERRA-LECHUGA, Carlos, “¿Por qué deci- (Fundación Xavier Zubiri, España) el martes mos que la Realidad es una y que, además, 31 de agosto de 2010 en el marco del III tiene ventanas distintas?”, in. Navarro, César Congreso Internacional Xavier Zubiri que tu- y Chamorro, Gonzalo (eds.), Ciencia y Fe: dos vo lugar en el Salón de Honor de la Pontificia ventanas una realidad, Guatemala: Sociedad Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, Chile. Educativa Latinoamericana para Fe y Cien- 47 Es verdad que ya se intentan (la matemática cia, 2013, pp. 23-37. También en SIERRA- fractal, sistemas dinámicos [sistemas de LECHUGA, Carlos, “Dios y la Realidad Fási- ecuaciones diferenciales], matemática del ca: Aplicación de las distinciones entre la caos, cómputo numérico, teoría de juegos, consistencia lógica, la existencia objetual y la variable compleja, etc.), pero según nos dice subsistencia metafísica.”, Apuntes Filosófi- la experiencia, con un éxito grande, sin du-
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 22 Carlos Sierra Lechuga ______
da, pero no tan grande como se esperaría. 49 ἀπειρήκη τὰ ὄντα σκοπῶν. Fedón, 99d. 48 Zubiri también trató el tema de la respectivi- 50 ZUBIRI, Xavier, Los problemas fundamenta- dad de lo real. Tema de orden metafísico pe- les de la metafísica occidental, Op. Cit. p. ro que, nuevamente, a mi parecer puede ser 121. retrotraído al del orden físico (propio de las ciencias).
Contact information: Correo: [email protected] Website: http://carlossierralechuga.blogspot.mx/
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015
Quantum Field Theory and Zubiri’s Philosophy of Reality1
Thomas B. Fowler Xavier Zubiri Foundation of North America Washington, DC USA
Abstract
The nature of reality as revealed by the most modern science is compatible with Zubiri’s philosophy, but less so with traditional philosophies. This vindicates Zubiri’s view of reality as formality rather than a zone of things, and his view that progression is a search not just for new things but also for new forms and new modes of reality.” Zubiri understood well the quantum theory developed by his friend Werner Heisenberg and others in the first dec- ades of the 20th century. He recognized that this new theory of physics brought with it new modes of reality, such as that of elementary particles, neither waves nor bodies exclu- sively, which do not fit into classical philosophy and are not visualizable in any ordinary sense. But newer developments, especially Quantum Field Theory, have continued in quite unexpected ways and revealed still more forms and modes of reality that had not been sus- pected. The nature of these modes suggests that the boundary between the physical and the mathematical is blurring, all of which can be accommodated in Zubiri’s thought, but which is devastating for much of Western philosophy, especially Hume and Kant, and actu- ally favors a more Platonist view. This includes virtual particles that have non-physical properties: negative energy, negative momentum (momentum opposite to velocity), off-shell mass values, speeds greater than light; gauge fields that are more real than ordinary fields, but less measurable; internal symmetry spaces that allow calculations but are otherwise non-real; and symmetry principles in which reality seems to “partake”. Quantum Field Theory also moves away from the problematic action-at-a-distance notion of classical fields, to a more traditional causality requiring contiguity, but with many important differences from the classical view. The nature of the scientific method as understood on the basis of Zubiri’s philosophy changes somewhat with these new developments. However Zubiri’s analysis of science and scientific reality can handle these changes.
Resumen La naturaleza de la realidad tal como lo revela la ciencia más moderna es compatible con la filosofía de Zubiri, pero no tanto con las filosofías tradicionales. Esto justifica la opi- nión de Zubiri de que la realidad es formalidad en vez de una zona de las cosas, y su opi- nión de que “la marcha es una búsqueda no sólo de nuevas cosas reales sino también de nuevas formas y de nuevos modos de realidad.” 2 Zubiri entiende bien la teoría cuántica desarrollada por su amigo Werner Heisenberg y otros en las primeras décadas del siglo XX. Reconoció que esta nueva teoría de la física trajo consigo nuevos modos de realidad, como el de las partículas elementales, ni olas ni corpúsculos exclusivamente, que no encajan en la filosofía clásica y no son visualizables en el sentido ordinario. Pero los nuevos desarro- llos, especialmente la Teoría cuántica de campos, han continuado en formas inesperadas y nos han revelado aún más formas y modos de realidad que no se había sospechado. La naturaleza de estos modos sugiere que la frontera entre la física y la matemática se está
23 24 Thomas B. Fowler ______desdibujando, todo lo cual puede ser alojado en el pensamiento de Zubiri, pero resulta de- vastador para gran parte de la filosofía occidental, especialmente la de Hume y Kant, y de hecho favorece una visión más platónica. Esto incluye las partículas virtuales que tienen propiedades no físicas: la energía negativa, el impulso negativo (impulso opuesto a la velo- cidad), los valores de masa fuera de la capa, una velocidad superior a la luz; los campos de norma que son más reales que los campos comunes, pero menos medibles; los espacios de simetría interna que permiten cálculos, pero que en otro sentido son no reales; y los princi- pios de simetría de los que la realidad parece “participar”. La teoría cuántica de campos se aparta de la noción problemática de “acción a distancia” de los campos clásicos, acercán- dose a una causalidad más tradicional que requiere la contigüidad, pero con muchas dife- rencias importantes respecto del punto de vista clásico. La naturaleza del método científico, tal como se entiende sobre la base de la filosofía de Zubiri, cambia un poco con estos nue- vos desarrollos. Sin embargo, el análisis de Zubiri de la ciencia y la realidad científica pue- de manejar estos cambios.
Introduction: Philosophy and Science Euclidean geometry and its inclusion as Philosophy is not an empirical sci- part of General Relativity essentially de- ence, like physics or chemistry. But it stroyed Kant’s philosophy, because it does have an empirical basis, because showed that reality is not ultimately Eu- philosophy is ultimately knowledge of real- clidean and that we can consistently un- ity, and science acquaints us with reality, derstand reality in non-Euclidean terms. especially aspects of reality that are not Thus Euclidean geometry cannot be how part of ordinary experience. All philoso- we synthesize experience. This implies phies—all philosophical systems—take as that any new philosophy must be extreme- their starting point some aspect of our ly robust with respect to possible advances experience, and build upon it to create a in science, as well as incorporating what comprehensive view of reality. Plato, for science has already taught us about reali- example, started from our perception of ty. Zubiri understood this well, so we qualities such as beauty; and because shall examine how his philosophy is able what we perceive is always less than per- to handle ideas in physics that were not fect but nonetheless exists in degrees, envisioned during his lifetime, or were only inferred that there must be an ideal realm vaguely understood then. where beauty in its most perfect form sub- The purpose of this paper is to show sists. Objects in our world “partake” of that the nature of reality as revealed by this beauty. Aristotle started from com- modern science is compatible with Zubiri’s mon notions such as causality and philosophy, but less so with traditional change, and built what we now term “clas- philosophies. It also shows that the scien- sical philosophy”. Kant famously started tific method, as constructed based on from Hume’s empiricism but perhaps even Zubiri’s philosophy, is still valid under the more importantly, from Newtonian phys- newest physics, though with one change. ics, making it an essential part of his phi- This vindicates Zubiri’s view of reality as losophy. The problem of course is that if formality rather than a zone of things, subsequent developments in our because modern science, in particular knowledge—mainly through science— quantum theory but especially Quantum invalidate or supercede the empirical basis Field Theory (QFT), has revealed new assumed by the philosopher, his entire modes of reality that had not been sus- system can collapse. Aristotle’s theory of pected, and which are not real in the substantial change, involving a return to sense of macroscopic bodies or even the prime matter and a new form, is not com- particles and waves of quantum mechan- patible with modern atomic theory. Non- ics. The nature of these modes suggests
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 Quantum Field Theory and Zubiri’s Philosophy of Reality 25 ______that the boundary between the physical Gauge fields and gauge symmetry and the mathematical is blurring, which is Gauge fields are essential to mod- devastating for much of Western philoso- ern physics, but are very peculiar “enti- phy, especially Hume and Kant, and actu- ties”, for want of a better term. They be- ally favors a more Platonist view. gan as ways (auxiliary fields) to express constraints, but soon took on a life of their Modern physics and Zubiri’s philosophy own. The simplest example of a gauge of reality field is the vector potential A, defined with Zubiri was well acquainted with quan- respect to the magnetic field vector B. One tum mechanics, as developed by Bohr, of Maxwell’s equations is B 0 . Heisenberg, Dirac, Pauli, and others. Hei- Whenever the divergence of a vector field is senberg, in particular, was his friend. So zero, it immediately follows that the field— he recognized the significance of the new B in this case—is the curl of another field; ideas such as the wave/particle duality: that field is always called the “vector po- In the most elemental field of reality we tential”, A, with defining equation have intellectively apprehended that the BA . Thus the vector potential A material things in it are what we term expresses the constraint on B that its di- ‘bodies’. In the progression beyond the vergence must be zero. What is especially field it has been thought for many cen- significant about A is that it is not unique- turies that the things “beyond” are also ly determined: one can add the gradient of bodies—of another class, to be sure, any scalar function to it and its defining but still bodies. It required the commo- equation is unchanged, because if tion generated by quantum physics to AA f , we have introduce in a difficult but undeniably BA () A f successful way the idea that the real beyond is not always a body. Elemen- AA f tary particles, in fact, are not corpus- since the curl of a gradient is always zero. cles (neither are they waves in the clas- Susskind notes: sical sense, be we leave aside this as- The vector potential is a peculiar field. pect of them) but another class of mate- In a sense it does not have the same rial things. Borne along by the field in- reality as magnetic or electric fields. Its tellection of things, we were disposed to only definition is that its curl is the intellectively know the things beyond magnetic field [B]. A magnetic or elec- the field as bodies, different perhaps, tric field is something that you can de- but when all was said and done, still tect locally. In other words, if you want bodies. The measure of the real was to know whether there is an elec- undertaken with a determinate metric: tric/magnetic field in a small region of “body”. Now, the progress toward reali- space, you can do an experiment in ty has opened up to us other real mate- that same region to find out…But vec- 3 rial things which are not bodies. tor potentials cannot be detected local- But stranger ideas have come from QFT, ly.4 such as virtual particles, gauge fields, iso- Moreover gauge fields such as A go far spin, and internal symmetries, all of which beyond mere computational devices. Ex- stretch our notion of what is real in the periments can be devised that show (very sense of empirically observable, but which indirectly) the presence of the A field using are in some ways more real than what is the Aharonov-Bohm effect, where no B empirically observable. First let us exam- field exists.5 Furthermore, we cannot do ine these notions, and then explore how physics without them: they fit with Zubiri’s understanding of reality, causality, and knowledge. There is no way to derive Lorentz’s force law from a Lagrangian without the vec-
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 26 Thomas B. Fowler ______
tor potential [A]. This is a pattern: To and what is apprehended therein has write the equations of modern physics its proper intelligibility.8 in either Lagrangian or Hamiltonian QFT and related developments have shown form, auxiliary gauge fields have to be us that there are forms of reality beyond introduced…Gauge fields cannot be those conceived by quantum mechanics. “real,” because we can change them In addition, QFT gives us better insight without disturbing the gauge invariant into the problem of causality. Traditional- physics. On the other hand, we cannot ly causality was assumed to require a con- express the laws of physics without tiguous, efficient cause. This made expla- them.6 nation of inertial movement, such as that So the gauge fields such as A are in a of a stone that has been thrown, very diffi- sense more real than fields we can actual- cult: there is no contiguous efficient cause. ly measure, such as B. This is hard to Even worse was the problem of action at a explain on the usual view that reality is a distance, which came to the fore with New- zone of things, but is readily understand- ton’s laws and his theory of gravity. How able on the basis of Zubiri’s philosophy: could the earth cause instantaneous “The real is not a ‘thing’ but something ‘in changes in the motion of the moon over a its own right’, thing or not”7. distance of 400,000 km? The answer to the first problem was stated by Galileo and Virtual Particles and Causality incorporated into Newton’s laws as the First Law of Motion, the Principle of Iner- Zubiri was well acquainted with quan- tia: “a body in uniform motion tends to tum mechanics and the ways in which it stay in motion unless acted upon by an revised our notions of physics and reality external force.” But this did not really from classical mechanics. As noted above, solve the causality problem; it merely af- he noted that in quantum mechanics we firmed that such causality is not relevant. learned about forms of reality that are not It was not until Einstein and his applica- “bodies” in the classical sense. Zubiri also tion of symmetry that we understood why recognized that with quantum mechanics, it is not relevant: there are no privileged we have moved beyond visualizability as a reference frames in the universe. What criterion for scientific reality: looks like motion to one observer looks like …elementary particles are realities, different motion to another, or no motion since they are given a splendid mathe- at all. No causal explanation is needed matical description in quantum me- because we are just looking at a symmetry chanics. Nonetheless, they are not vis- of nature. ualizable as if they were waves or parti- The second problem proved more dif- cles. Their real structure is such that ficult. Faraday first recognized that they are emitted and absorbed as if sources of electric and magnetic force cre- they were corpuscles and they propa- ated “fields” in space. In classical physics, gate as if they were waves. But they and even relativistic physics, a field is an are neither. And it is not just that in entity which has a value at each point in fact we do not see these particles, but space and time, and which is capable of that they are in themselves realities exerting a force on particles as a function which are “non-visualizable”. And…the of its value where the particle is, and the identification of the visible and the in- relevant “charge” on the particle (e.g., elec- telligible is philosophically false: every trical or gravitational). Thus any suitable intellection is sentient and, therefore, object that ventures into the volume of every mode of apprehension of the re- space where the field exists would experi- al—even if that reality be neither visual ence a force proportional to its “charge” nor visualizable—is true intellection, with respect to that field. Maxwell showed that these fields are not instantaneous,
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 Quantum Field Theory and Zubiri’s Philosophy of Reality 27 ______but propagate at the speed of light; and ties, such as travelling faster than light, or this idea was extended to gravity: the negative momentum (momentum in oppo- earth sets up a gravitational field, felt by site direction to velocity). Moreover the the moon. Einstein later refined the idea interaction between real particles, mediat- of a gravity field, replacing it with the no- ed by the virtual particles, is the result of tion of a warped spacetime fabric. But the sum of probabilities of all possible how this fabric interacts with bodies was ways in which the virtual particles can left somewhat obscure. travel between the real particles. Figure 1, QFT solved the problem by a return, from Feynman, shows some of the possible in a sense—but only in a sense—to the paths a photon can take in going from idea of contiguity. In QFT, a field does not point S to point P, reflected off of a mirror. have the function of exerting a force on The amplitude at point P is the sum of the objects; rather, the field merely creates amplitudes of all the paths, as determined virtual particles which mediate the force, by their phases, which add as shown at i.e., transfer energy and momentum be- the bottom of the figure. Only those paths tween the particles. That is, the virtual near the center have phases which are particles are force carriers. They are close in value and hence add; those fur- called “virtual” because they are not ob- ther away are random and cancel. Thus servable even in principle without disrupt- we say that the light takes the shortest ing the interaction between the particles path—the usual law of reflection, even and in fact can have non-physical proper-
Figure 1. Possible photon paths in mirror reflection
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 28 Thomas B. Fowler ______though in reality it takes all paths simul- particles are not real in ordinary sense— taneously but most of them cancel out. they have some other form of reality. This Likewise In the case of interactions, all has culminated in the Path-Integral formu- possible exchanges of virtual particles can lation of much of physics, pioneered by occur, an infinite number, some of which Dirac and especially Feynman, based on are shown in Figure 2, for Compton scat- earlier work by Fermat. tering (interaction of a photon and an elec- If reality were a zone of things, we tron). The first two diagrams show the could not put virtual particles and sym- basic interaction of the photon and the metry principles in it, and we certainly electron. The remaining figures show the could not explain the path integral formu- alternative ways of interaction. The more lation of physics, with the “same” particle loops, the less probable the interaction, taking an infinite number of paths be- but all must be summed to get the total tween origin and destination. But virtual probability of the interaction occurring. particles and symmetry are real, though in Figure 3 shows the interaction of an elec- a different way than even the waves and tron and a positron, which annihilate in a particles of quantum mechanics. We have burst of energy as a photon (indicated with taken leave of “thingness” as a criterion of k in the diagram), the virtual particle, reality, though we started with: which subsequently creates another elec- tron and positron (Bhaba scattering). As …the intellection that the real things before there is the basic interaction, and are bodies, but also and above…that to an infinite number of variants, only a few be real is to be a “thing”, in the sense that this word has when one speaks, of which are shown. It is never possible to for example, of “thingness”. That was observe the virtual particles without com- the measure of reality: progression be- pletely disruption the interaction, i.e., cre- yond the field was brought about by ating a new and different interaction that thinking that the measuring reality is a now involves the observer. “thing”. An intellection much more dif- As described above, the virtual par- ficult than that of quantum physics ticles, the gauge bosons, have some rather was needed in order to understand that peculiar characteristics: they “take” an the real can be real and still not be a infinite number of paths between the par- thing…that progression is a search not ticles simultaneously, each with a certain just for new things but also for new probability; and they can assume non- forms and new modes of reality.”9 physical characteristics such as negative momentum and speeds greater than the The path integral formulation of physics, velocity of light. So we have not really encompassing Feynman diagrams, defi- reestablished contiguity because virtual nitely represents a new mode of reality.
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 Quantum Field Theory and Zubiri’s Philosophy of Reality 29 ______
Figure 2. Possible interactions and gauge bosons in Compton scattering.10
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 30 Thomas B. Fowler ______
Figure 3. Possible interactions of electron and photon in Bhaba scattering11
Isospin ously, when physicists thought of Heisenberg first noted that the simi- symmetry, they thought of the sym- larity between protons and neutrons (they metry of spacetime. Parity, rotation, are almost identical except for electric even Lorentz invariance and general co- charge) could be explained if we postulate variance, are all rooted, to a greater or a type of abstract internal space in which lesser degree, in our direct perception one of the two, say a proton, can “rotate” of actual spacetime. Now, in one into the other, a neutron. In effect, Hei- sweeping motion, Heisenberg opened senberg deduced the presence of a hidden up for us an abstract inner space in symmetry in nature, called “isospin”, and which symmetry operations can act al- the corresponding abstract space is so.12 termed “isospin space”. It is not a rotation Isospin symmetry is known by mathemati- like those in our normal day-to-day life. cians as SU(2); it paved the way for further Zee comments: application of symmetry to fundamental Isospin represents a stunning land- physics. Numerous other isospin multi- mark in the development of symmetry plets are known, including the sigma par- as a primary concept in physics. Previ- ticles, the pi mesons, and the kappa parti-
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 Quantum Field Theory and Zubiri’s Philosophy of Reality 31 ______cles. Essentially we have something non- by Heisenberg, and exact symmetries. physical dictating the physical. In Zubiri’s These exact symmetries have become the terminology, isospin space is real because most important in recent years, with the it has the formality of reality, but it is not, development of Yang-Mills theories. His- obviously, a body or even normal space, or torically the Lorentz symmetry was the anything material. first to be explicitly formulated, and its importance as a symmetry of nature was Symmetry recognized by Einstein, who made it the The march away from Newtonian basis of the Special Theory of Relativity. mechanics and determinism, expressed Other symmetries are those in particle fully by Laplace’s Demon, began in earnest physics, which govern what particles of with quantum theory, which Zubiri knew, various types there are, and how they are but has continued in quite unexpected related to each other. Emmy Noether’s ways. In QFT, as noted, virtual particles theorem relating symmetry, conservation, have non-physical properties: negative and invariance has further cemented the energy, negative. momentum (momentum importance of symmetry in all of physics: opposite to velocity), speeds greater than whenever there is a continuous symmetry, light. But especially it is the notion of there is a conserved quantity. And con- symmetry that has become of the greatest versely, if there is a conserved quantity, importance in modern physical theory. It there is a continuous symmetry. now goes far beyond a description of reali- The most important aspect of sym- ty, but in fact acts in a regulatory manner: metry is that it is not so much descriptive Symmetry forbids. Forbidding imposes as prescriptive, which entails a significant order, but many different things that change in the orientation of science and in possess a certain order may derive from particular, that of the physicist. The 19th the same symmetry….That is why and early 20th century paradigm of sci- physicists believe that the underlying ence, with which Zubiri was acquainted, symmetry, which forbids whole classes worked as follows: collect a large body of of occurrences at one stroke, is, in a experimental facts, look for patterns, and sense, more fundamental than the indi- find a set of equations that describe those vidual occurrences themselves, and is patterns. In Zubiri’s terminology, those worth discovering.13 equations postulate a reality. Then verify the reality—the equations—by devising This suggests that we are moving back and performing experiments. In the case towards a Platonic view, wherein worldly of Special Relativity, Einstein realized that things “participate” in ideals or forms, the Lorentz invariance of Maxwell’s equa- specifically, symmetry. One could also tions (their symmetry) demanded a revi- take the view—more Aristotelian—that sion of the laws of mechanics and of the symmetry is a type of formal causality, rest of physics as then understood, includ- though how that would work is not clear. ing our understanding of energy, momen- The types of symmetry involved in- tum, and time. The schema is shown in clude some approximate symmetries, such Figure 4: as the isospin symmetry of neutrons and protons in isospin space, first recognized
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 32 Thomas B. Fowler ______
Facts about Nature Maxwell’s Recognition of Revision of rest of obtained by experimenting electromagnetic Lorentz physics including with frog’s legs and wires, theory as Invariance and nature of time, etc.; derivation of individual embodied in his key role of energy, etc. laws: Faraday’s, Gauss;, equations Symmetry Ampere’s
Figure 4. 19th and Early 20th Century Paradigm of Physics14
But then physicists realized that the en one of the equations, we can deduce arrows in this schema can be reversed, the others.15 implying a radical change in reasoning In fact Einstein used this approach in his and hence in the way of doing physics: development of the General Theory of After Einstein worked out special rela- Relativity, which describes gravity. Rather tivity, it dawned on him and his con- than infer the theory in a laborious man- temporary Hermann Minkowski that ner from a collection of disparate facts the arrows in this schema may be re- about the motion of bodies, he formulated versible. Suppose that it was secretly a symmetry that was capable of actually revealed to us, in the dark of night, that determining the theory. The symmetry he the world is Lorentz invariant. Knowing used is related to the invariance in the this, can we deduce Maxwell’s theory speed of objects falling in a gravitational and hence the facts of electromag- field. He noted that it is impossible to netism, without ever stepping inside a distinguish between the effect of gravity laboratory? To a large extent, we can! and that of uniform acceleration—this is The requirement of Lorentz invariance known as the “Equivalence Principle”—a is a powerful constraint on Nature. key symmetry in nature. As a result the Maxwell’s equations are so intricately schema he followed is that shown in Fig- interrelated by this invariance that, giv- ure 5.
Facts about gravity, Einstein’s theory Symmetry (abstracted spacetime warp, Big Bang, of gravity from one fact observed etc. by Galileo at the Tower of Pisa)
Figure 5. New Way of Doing Physics16
This method did not catch on imme- I regard Einstein’s understanding of diately, but by the second half of the 20th how symmetry dictates design as one of century it had become of the utmost im- the truly profound insights in the histo- portance. As Zee notes: ry of physics. Fundamental physics is
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 Quantum Field Theory and Zubiri’s Philosophy of Reality 33 ______
now conducted largely according to Perhaps more importantly, symmetry Einstein’s schema rather than that of principles severely constrain the form the nineteenth century physics. Physicists physical laws can take. When Einstein in search of the fundamental design realized that he had to modify Newtonian begin with a symmetry, then check to physics to make it compatible with Lorentz see if its consequences accord with ob- invariance, he did not have a free hand: servation.17 The revision of Newtonian mechanics Equally important is the fact that sym- was not up to Einstein; it is dictated by metry principles assure us that science is Lorentz invariance [symmetry]…That a bona fide exercise: the longevity of stars, the magic of light, …symmetry principles tell us that the compass needle seeking north, and physical reality, though perceived to be the frog’s leg twitching are all interre- superficially different by different ob- lated and controlled by one symmetry 19 servers, is in fact one and the same principle—now that is a real surprise! physical reality at the structural lev- Symmetry represents a way of measuring el…[in the case of isospin] one observer reality, in an important sense. Zubiri sees a proton, but another observer, rightly emphasized the notion of measura- whose viewpoint is isospin rotated from bility with respect to knowledge of the real, the first, may insist that he sees a neu- and at one point referred to the “coercive tron. They are both right…18 force of the real”, which was prescient with As noted earlier, the relativity of uniform respect to symmetry and its role (though motion—essentially the principle of iner- the original context was the noetic expres- tia—is also a symmetry of nature. That is, sion of the force of reality with respect to 20 it reflects the same physical reality, so no our impressions). further explanation of such motion is A summary of the modes of reality needed in terms of contiguous efficient and their measurability, based on QFT, is causes. shown in Table 1.
Mode of Reality Ordinary Quantum Virtual Phantom Quasi- Postula- objects postulation tion Measura- Directly Measurable Inferred Not measur- Not physical Strictly bility measurable subject to from effects; able but but real and mathe- limitations characteris- physical in connected matical (uncertainty tic would some sense with physi- principle) violate phys- cal reality ical laws if directly measurable Examples Macroscopic Subatomic Virtual par- Vector poten- Symmetry Hilbert objects particles- ticles tial, isospin spaces, wave/particle space, weak imagi- duality isospin nary space, gauge num- fields bers
Table 1. Measurability and Modes of Reality in Modern Physical Theory
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 34 Thomas B. Fowler ______
The Scientific Method in Zubiri’s Phi- hazy. For example, in medicine, there is losophy and Zubiri’s Philosophy of Sci- the problem of the interaction of mind and entific Reality body. What is the mind, and is it real, Two key notions in Zubiri’s philosophy does it form part of the canon? Are colors of reality with respect to science are that of naturalistic? What about other psycholog- canon and postulation. We shall review ical phenomena, such sounds, or even these briefly. dreams? While it might be relatively easy to disregard dreams, colors are more diffi- The Canon of Reality cult. If we discount or reject colors, we are Zubiri pointed out the key role of the in danger of rejecting the whole basis for canon of reality in his work. Canon comes our perception of nature and natural phe- from the Greek , rule. Though intro- nomena. duced much earlier and used by Kant and In the 18th century, it was widely ac- others, he believes that the original, ety- cepted that there is a distinction between mological meaning is the only one that is primary and secondary qualities, and that valid: only the former were really important with respect to nature. In the 19th and early That reality which is already known in- 20th centuries, physicists thought that tellectively is not a medium but a they had everything pegged with a deter- measure, both with respect to what ministic billiard-ball model of reality. The concerns what is real and what con- cerns that which we call “form and idea of things that could be waves under mode of reality”. Now, that which is some circumstances and particles under measuring is always reality in the pro- another was not part of their canon. Nor found sense. But the measurement is were things that had inherent uncertain- always brought about by some particu- ties. But even in high-energy physics to- lar metric. Reality as the measuring day, supposedly the hardest of the hard- principle is what I term canon of reali- core science, things are not always so ty.21 clear. Nobody knows what dark matter is, let alone dark energy, how they may inter- Simply put, the canon of scientific reality act with “regular” matter, or what proper- is the set of entities usable in scientific ties they may have. The uncertainty prin- explanation or acceptable as outcome or ciple made clear that full explanation by prediction of scientific theory. Knowledge means of physical laws, as envisioned by through reason in all its forms involves the Laplace’s Demon, was an unrealizable canon: fantasy, thus delivering a great blow to …reason consists in measuring the re- reductionism. ality of things; in it real things give us A review of the history of science read- the measure of their reality. But reason ily discloses that science has repeatedly measures reality in accordance with and profoundly changed our view of the canonic principles which are sensed in world and of reality, and thus affected our the field manner.22 canon of reality, as well as affecting the specific canon of scientific reality. The So science as knowledge inevitably works canon of reality allows us to search for by utilizing a canon that is the set of new things and new forms of reality. It is things deemed to be acceptable as objects of science. This is often taken in general thus a guide, but of a particular and es- terms as “matter and energy”. The impli- sential sort: cation is that the canon can be clearly and A canon is not a system of normative unambiguously delineated. However, up- judgments but is, as the etymology of on closer inspection, the canon of science the word expresses precisely, a “met- or the canon of scientific reality is often ric”; it is not a judgment or a system of
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 Quantum Field Theory and Zubiri’s Philosophy of Reality 35 ______
judgments which regulate affirmative search. Knowledge is limited by being measurement. This “metric” is just knowledge. An exhaustive knowledge of what was previously known intellective- the real would not be knowledge; it ly as real in its form and in its mode of would be intellection of the real without reality. The thinking intellection goes necessity of knowledge. Knowledge is off in search of the real beyond what only intellection in search. Not having was previously intellectively known, recognized the intrinsic and formal based upon the canon of reality already character of rational intellection as in- known.23 quiry is what led to…subsuming all truth under the truth of affirmation.24 Successful theories remain as beyond- [Italics added] reality-postulations and the reality they postulate usually enlarges our canon of In Zubiri’s word’s, reason is “measur- reality; unsuccessful theories become es- ing intellection of the real in depth”.25 sentially literary postulations; indeed, There are two moments of reason to be “science fiction” as a literary genre is distinguished (1) intellection in depth, e.g., closely related to failed scientific theories. electromagnetic theory is intellection in Thus the Theory of Relativity gave us rela- depth of color;26 (2) its character as meas- tive space and time, and the speed of light uring, in the most general sense, akin to as a universal constant, as well as the the notion of measure in advanced math- equivalence of mass and energy, made ematics (functional analysis). For exam- famous by E = mc2 and of course nuclear ple, prior to the twentieth century, materi- weapons. al things were assimilated to the notion of Zubiri believes that one of the princi- “body”; that was the measure of all materi- pal errors of past philosophers was their al things. But with the development of excessively static view of knowledge—a quantum mechanics, a new conception of conquer it “once and for all” approach. material things was forced upon science, Typical of this mentality are the repeated one which is different from the traditional attempts to devise a definitive list of “cate- notion of “body”. The canon of real things gories”, such as those of Aristotle and was thus enlarged, so that the measure of Kant, and Kant’s integration of Newtonian something is no longer necessarily that of physics and Euclidean geometry into the “body”. Measuring, in this sense, and the fabric of his philosophy. Knowledge as a corresponding canon of reality, are both human enterprise is both dynamic and dynamic and are a key element in Zubiri’s limited. It is limited because the canon of quest to avoid the problems and failures of reality, like reality itself, can never be past philosophies based on static and un- completely fathomed. It is limited because changing conceptions of reality. as human beings we are limited and must constantly search for knowledge. The Postulation and reality phrase “exhaustive knowledge” is an oxy- Because reality is a formality, and not moron: a zone of things, its content can be postu- lated. This is the primary vehicle for dis- The limitation of knowledge is certainly ciplines such as mathematics and litera- real, but this limitation is something ture. But it also is important in science derived from the intrinsic and formal since science postulates the content of nature of rational intellection, from reality through its theories—loosely speak- knowing as such, since it is inquiring ing, we could say that it postulates reality. intellection. Only because rational in- tellection is formally inquiring, only be- As Zubiri explains: cause of this must one always seek In-depth reality is actualized in what more and, finding what was sought, has been freely constructed by postula- have it become the principle of the next tion…It is not truth which is postulated
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 36 Thomas B. Fowler ______
but real content. And this is so whether nism. And all of this is, without any dealing with theoretical or non- doubt, a free creation for rationally in- theoretical construction. It is not postu- tellectively knowing the foundation of lation of reality but reality in postula- all the cosmos. Its fertility is quite ap- tion. One postulates what belongs to parent. Nonetheless, the fabulous suc- something [suyo] but not the de suyo cess of the idea of a mathematical uni- itself. Postulation is the mode by which verse cannot hide its character of free in-depth reality is endowed with a freely creation, of free postulation, which pre- constructed content.27 cisely by being free leaves some unsus- pected aspects of nature in the dark.29 The great success of science over the past four centuries has been due to its use of With the notions of canon and postulation, such postulation: it is possible to construct Zubiri’s vision of the scientific method. In physics, at the beginning of the
modern age, there were two great free Scientific method creative efforts to intellectively know ra- Zubiri never explicitly stated his no- tionally the in-depth reality of the uni- tion of the so-called “scientific method”, verse. One consisted in the idea that but it is possible to deduce it from his the universe is a great organism whose diverse elements comprise systems by writings, and in particular, his idea of the sympathy and antipathy. But this never canon of reality and his notion of postula- had much success. The one which tri- tion of reality. Indeed, by formulating the umphed was the other conception. It scientific method in terms of these two was the free creation which postulates ideas, matters are notably clarified. In for cosmic reality a mathematical struc- this approach science involves 5 steps: ture. That was Galileo’s idea in his New Science: the great book of the universe, 1. Start with some knowledge of reality (at he tells us, is written in geometric lan- all three noetic levels-primoridial ap- guage, i.e., mathematics.28 prehension, logos, and reason). All science is based on observations which Due to the state of knowledge of mathe- ultimately derive from primordial ap- matics—what we would now term “ordi- prehension, and all rational explana- nary differential equations”—this view of tions are intended to tell us about real- physics became identified with a particular ity beyond apprehension which may type of determinism known as mechanism, account for our observations. Typical- and the idea that science could be other ly the scientist starts from knowledge than mechanistic in this sense was at least at the logos level, and more of- changed only after prolonged battles, ten at the level of reason. For exam- fought mostly in the early decades of the ple, the Special Theory of Relativity 20th century. But this changed with the starts with observations about Galilean development of quantum mechanics, when (non-accelerated) frames, and the the recognition of the probabilistic nature speed of light, and as we noted, sym- of physical laws was forced upon the re- metry in the form of the Lorentz trans- luctant practitioners of physics—but was formation. All of these are already understandable because of advanced in concepts at the rational level, though mathematics itself, which made clear that they clearly use the logos level because determinism was a special case of proba- things are named. Likewise quantum bilistic and statistical descriptions. Thus mechanics starts with the observed The mathematical structure of the uni- distribution of light frequencies from verse subsists independently of its ear- atoms, and Maxwell’s theory starts lier mechanistic form, which was too with observations about electric and limiting. Mathematicism is not mecha- magnetic fields. In the theory of evolu-
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 Quantum Field Theory and Zubiri’s Philosophy of Reality 37 ______
tion, as promulgated by Darwin, one 3. Explore the postulated content (reality). starts with observations about similar- At this stage the scientist explores the ities in physiological function and also new content of reality which has been historical sequences of organisms, the postulated by the tools at his disposal. existence of random changes in genetic Typically this involves deduction or material, and the existence of the pro- other inference of consequences about cess of natural selection. the new reality, and possibly visits to new places, construction of new exper- 2. Postulate the content of reality. This imental equipment, or reexamination may involve postulation of new things of existing materials. such as atoms or quarks, and their characteristics stemming from their 4. Verify. At this stage the scientist seeks essences; or it may involve postulation to determine if what has been learned of new relationships among things al- through the exploration of postulated ready known, such as the Universal content (reality) is in accord with our Gas Law. There may be a combination experience of reality beyond apprehen- of the two. In the case of the Special sion. This is done by finding things in Theory of Relativity, the reality postu- the postulated reality which have not lated is that the speed of light is a uni- yet been observed in reality beyond versal constant, and that all Galilean apprehension, and then searching for frames are equivalent, i.e., there is no them in that reality, usually by exper- absolute space or time. Quantum me- imentation. Verification in this case chanics postulates that energy is takes the form of congruence. quantized and that the position of par- 5. Check for satisfactory result. If the ticles is described by a probability new theory works for known data, and density function—which is equivalent makes successful predictions, make to saying that they do not have abso- any necessary additions to the accept- lute position and momentum. Max- ed canon of scientific reality, and con- well’s theory postulates a set of rela- tinue to explore reality seeking new ev- tionships among electric and magnetic idence, for or against the theory. In fields, as expressed in his famous four the case of discrepancies, gather more equations. Darwin’s theory postulates data, rethink postulations, and then that random mutations operated on by continue through the loop until a sat- natural selection can account entirely isfactory level of agreement exists. See for the history of life on earth. Figure 6.
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 38 Thomas B. Fowler ______
Gather data Rethink Postulate reality
Gather Explore more data if postulated reality necessary Modify Canon of reality if Verify necessary
N Y Satisfactory?
Figure 6. Scientific Method Based on Zubiri’s Philosophy
For Zubiri, of course, reality is for- Only as an explanation of color is there mality, and not a zone of things. Hence intellection of electromagnetic waves or the realists’ fundamental problem—how to photons. The color which gives us establish a relationship between mathe- pause to think is what leads us to the matical formulations of scientific laws and electromagnetic wave or to the photon. theories and the real world—is not an is- If it were not for this giving us pause to sue because any scientific theory itself think, there would be no intellection of postulates reality. Thus the real issue—for a beyond whatsoever; there would be at both science and philosophy—is not why most a succession of intellections “on we can describe reality with our theories, this side”.30 but how well postulated reality corre- 5. Modify the canon of reality. Suc- sponds to reality beyond apprehension. cessful theories remain as beyond-reality- We can describe reality with our theories postulations and the reality they postulate because they postulate it. For example, usually enlarges our canon of reality; un- phlogiston was postulated to account for successful theories become essentially observed transformations in combustion. literary postulations; indeed, “science fic- But further research disclosed that there tion” as a literary genre is closely related is no such entity—it did not correspond to failed scientific theories. Thus the The- well with reality beyond apprehension. ory of Relativity gave us relative space and However the postulation of subatomic par- time, and the speed of light as a universal ticles such as electrons, photons, and constant, as well as the equivalence of quarks has proved useful. The integration mass and energy, made famous by E = of postulated reality and apprehension is mc2 and of course nuclear weapons. very tight in Zubiri’s philosophy. This is Note that steps (3) and (4) do not re- illustrated by his famous example of pho- quire experiments such as those typically tons and color: the photons are postulated done in chemistry and physics; it is only reality, but there are not two realities, necessary for the theory to tell the scien- photons and color; rather, color is the tist to look where he has not looked before, photons as sensed: to find something that he has not found Now, reason or explanation is above all before. Otherwise sciences such as cos- the intellection of the real in depth. mology and geology, for example, could not
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 Quantum Field Theory and Zubiri’s Philosophy of Reality 39 ______exist, since we cannot make stars in a symmetries have already been discovered laboratory, or even travel to them. Nor and analyzed by mathematicians; so what can we recreate mountain-building plate Zee is referring to here is not the discovery tectonics. per se, but the discovery of applicability. Thus physicists are not in the business of Revisions to Zubiri’s Philosophy of Sci- discovering new symmetries, but rather ence and Philosophy of Reality with determining in which symmetries physical reality “participates”, so to speak. It is with respect to postulation of re- With respect to mathematics, Zubiri notes: ality that the new view of physics has led us to a more profound understanding. A free thing is the physical reality with Rather than postulate a new descriptive a freely postulated content. Such are law, such as the Universal Gas Law or the objects of mathematics, for they are Schrodinger’s equation, the physicist real objects constituted in the physical starts with some basic observations and a moment of “the” reality in a field, the symmetry principle, and infers the de- same reality according to which things scriptive law. For example, consider the like this stone are real. The moment of hydrogen atom: reality is identical in both cases; what is not the same is their content and …the rotational symmetry group im- their mode of reality. The stone has re- poses the shapes that a hydrogen atom ality in and by itself, whereas the circle can assume, and…the energies associ- has reality only by postulation. None- ated with these structures are accu- theless the moment of reality is identi- rately reflected in the hydrogen spec- cal.33 trum.31 So in this sense we have mathematical Now there are many symmetries possible, realities determining, not describing, reali- often expressed in terms of symmetry ty. In this way, the boundary between groups, such as SO(2), the group of rota- mathematics and physics—long thought to tions about a point in two dimensions; or be unbridgeable—has now broken down. SO(3), the group of rotations about the The postulation step in science, or at least origin in three dimensions, etc. So utiliz- in fundamental physics, is postulation of a ing the Myth of the Cave from Plato, the symmetry—something already real, from task of the physicist is metaphorically, to mathematics—from which implications ascend from the cave of day-to-day experi- about reality beyond apprehension are ence in which he sees but the shadows of drawn, rather than a direct postulation of ultimate reality on the wall, to the light of reality beyond apprehension. This is the day of reality, to wit, the symmetries which sense in which Zubiri’s philosophy of reali- govern reality, though mathematics. Zee ty must be modified. Notes: What is the reality of symmetry? The discovery of a symmetry is much Symmetry, known and studied by mathe- more than the discovery of a specific maticians since the 19th century, is real in phenomenon. A symmetry of space- the same sense as other mathematical time, such as rotational invariance or objects—spaces, irrational numbers, etc. Lorentz invariance, controls all of phys- But not every symmetry governs reality. ics…Lorentz invariance, born of elec- So those symmetries that have been found tromagnetism, proceeds to revolutionize to “dictate” reality—in the form of fixing mechanics. And once the laws of mo- particle number, types, and characteris- tion of particles are revised, our con- tics—have a special type of reality which ception of gravity has to be changed as goes beyond that of pure mathematical well, since gravity moves particles.32 objects, but is not that of directly observa- ble entities such as bodies or even waves. What is most interesting is that all these It does not seem that Zubiri anticipated
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 40 Thomas B. Fowler ______this blurring of the distinction between nature. And he only postulates the ap- mathematics and science, though it most plicability of an already known symmetry. likely would have delighted and intrigued Then he proceeds to deduce the conse- him, especially in view of his theory of the quences and see how well the fit observa- reality of mathematical objects and the tions. recognition of reality as formality rather Because of its belief in reality as a than a zone of things. zone of things, the situation we now have In a famous essay, Nobelist Eugene in physics, with virtual particles, sym- Wigner asked why mathematics is so effec- metry, and gauge fields, matters are very tive in describing reality through science.34 dire for the empirical tradition in philoso- While it is obviously impossible to give a phy, capped by Hume, for whom non-theological answer to this question, knowledge was divided into matters of fact Zubiri’s philosophy at least gives some and relations of ideas. The rather stark insight. The fact that mathematicians overlap of “ideas”, i.e. mathematics, and postulate reality, and postulate many “fact”, i.e., physical reality, makes his phi- types of reality, with widely varying struc- losophy and that of the other empiricists turality, suggests that some of these pos- untenable. In a related vein, the general tulations might have applicability to our Kantian approach is also untenable. Kant experience of reality. Kant’s explanation of accepted by and large Hume’s criticisms, this applicability—that the mind synthe- but sought to overcome them by building sizes reality according to rational princi- causality and physics as then understood ples such as Newtonian mechanics—is into his philosophy. The idea that “catego- clearly wrong. Zubiri’s idea, applied to ries” can change and expand (essentially symmetry, seems much closer to the Zubiri’s canon of reality) was not really truth. Although symmetry is a notion that amenable to Kant’s philosophy; and the comes from ordinary experience, its ap- idea that mathematical notions such as plicability in fundamental physics stems symmetry can exercise a power over reality from extensive work (i.e., postulation) on does not fit either, since Kant envisioned the part of mathematicians of such things the domination of mind over matter as a as symmetry groups. The symmetries that type of synthesis of raw experience by the appear to govern reality stem from postu- mind, not something that the mind can lation first as reality by mathematicians, truly grasp of reality. The situation for the then postulation as reality in some sense rationalist philosophies is somewhat bet- by physicists describing the world. ter, but their lack of basis in empiricism is How far the use of symmetry will take still ultimately fatal. us, that is, the extent to which reality Zubiri’s comments still hold true by “participates” in symmetry, is unclear. and large: Attempts to unify the four forces of nature based on ever larger symmetry groups In summary, that which specifies intel- appear to have stalled, at least in the lection, making of it knowledge, is in- sense that “supersymmetry” and string depth reality. And this in-depth reality does not consist in either objective theory are not yielding any verifiable pre- ground (Kant), or in intelligible entity dictions. In QFT, forces are interpreted as (Plato), or in causality, still less in nec- interactions with gauge bosons, as noted essary causality (Aristotle), or in the earlier; but gravity has stubbornly resisted absolute (Hegel). In-depthness is the this interpretation. mere “beyond” as “ground-reality” in all As for the scientific method, the pos- the multiple modes and forms which tulation step is where a small correction this beyond can assume. Causality or must be made. As noted, the scientist the principles of a deductive form of postulates not a law describing reality knowledge are not thereby excluded, beyond apprehension, but a symmetry of
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 Quantum Field Theory and Zubiri’s Philosophy of Reality 41 ______
nor are the possible steps toward an fields, virtual particles, and symmetry absolute reality. What is excluded is groups, fit quite well with his thinking that the idea that something of sort formally the canon of reality is never fixed, and can constitutes the in-depth reality in be expanded. The new modes of reality do which reason is installed by the move- not have to be identified with “bodies” in ment of intellection as thrown from any classical sense. Nor is it the case that from the field to the beyond.35 we are compelled to think about reality in Conclusion these ways, as Kant believed. We have Zubiri’s philosophy of scientific reality discovered these new forms of reality in is able to absorb the new developments in the course of normal scientific investiga- QFT, as is the scientific method implied by tion, and they have replaced earlier no- his philosophy. In particular, the new tions. modes of reality, represented by gauge
Notes
15 1 The text of this article will appear in a revised Ibid. from in a forthcoming book on Zubiri’s theol- 16 Ibid., p. 97. ogy, co-written by several Zubiri scholars. 17 Ibid., p. 96. 2 Xavier Zubiri, Inteligencia y Razón (Madrid: 18 Zee, p. 160. Alianza Editorial/Sociedad de Estudios y 19 Zee, p. 73. Publicaciones, 1983), 57. 20 IRA, p. 310; English edition, p. 352. 3 Ibid., p. 56-57; English edition, p. 261. 21 IRA, p. 57; English edition, p. 261. 4 Leonard Susskind and George Hrabovsky, The Theoretical Minimum, New York: Basic 22 IRA, p. 310-311; English edition, p. 352. Books, 2013, p. 195. 23 Zubiri, Sentient Intelligence, op. cit., p. 261; 5 Chris Quigg, Gauge Theories of the Strong, Inteligencia y razon, p. 57. Weak, and Electromagnetic Interactions, 24 Zubiri, Inteligencia y razón, p. 261-262; Sen- Redwood City: California, Addison-Wesley, tient Intelligence, p. 336. 1983, p. 43-44. 25 Zubiri, Inteligencia y razón, p. 45; Sentient 6 Susskind and Hrabovsky, op. cit., p. 211. Intelligence, p. 257. 26 7 IRE, p. 207; English edition, p. 75. Zubiri, Inteligencia y razón, p. 43; Sentient Intelligence, p. 256-257. 8 Xavier Zubiri, Inteligencia y realidad (IRE), p. 27 IRA, p. 129-30; English edition, p. 285. 104-105; English edition, Sentient Intelli- gence, tr. by Thomas Fowler, Washington, 28 IRA, p. 132; English edition, p. 286. DC: Xavier Zubiri Foundation of North Amer- 29 IRA, p. 132; English edition, p. 286. ica, 1999, p. 40. 30 IRA, p. 43; English edition, p. 256-257. 9 IRA, p. 57; English edition, p. 261. 31 Vincent Icke, The Force of Symmetry, p. 102. 10 Robert Klauber, Student Friendly Quantum 32 Zee, p. 73-74. Field Theory, p. 340, 352. 33 Zubiri, Inteligencia y logos, p. 134; English 11 Ibid., p. 307. edition, p. 153. 12 Anthony Zee, Fearful Symmetry, Princeton: 34 Eugene Wigner, “The Unreasonable Effec- Princeton University Press, 2007, p. 159- tiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sci- 160. ences”, Communications in Pure and Applied 13 Vincent Icke, The Force of Symmetry, Cam- Mathematics, vol. 13, No. 1 (February, 1960). bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995, p. Reprinted in The World of Physics, Vol. 3, ed. 103. by Jefferson Hane Weaver, New York: Simon 14 After Anthony Zee, Fearful Symmetry, Prince- & Schuster, 1987, pp. 82-96. ton: Princeton University Press, 2007, p. 96. 35 IRA, p. 168-169; English edition, p. 302.
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015
Naturaleza, Estructura y Sostenibilidad
Francisco Ortega Universidad de Sevilla Sevilla, España
Abstract
We start from consideration of “economic relationship” as a dialectical relationship between Man and Nature, and as such what is truly real is the Global System that this relationship determines. This system consists of two analytic moments, first what we mean by “Nature,” “World” or “Reality” (or physis) and another what we mean by “man” (or “society”) as consti- tuted in an institutional structure. Every structure is determined by an ideology (super- structure), and to change the former a change in the latter is also required, which requires leaving the modernist conceptualization of the economy based on positivism and analytic philosophy and going to a more contemporary view, in which Reality is a system (graph) consisting of nodes or meaning-things configured dialecticly or respectively. Finally, we present concrete examples of modernist economic structures that do not allow a sustaina- ble system in the human-nature relationship (such as the supposed laws governing natural parks in Andalusia)
Resumen Partimos de la consideración de la “relación económica” como una relación dialéctica entre Hombre y Naturaleza, como tal lo verdaderamente real es el Sistema Global que dicha rela- ción determina. Dicho Sistema consta de dos momentos analíticos, por un lado lo que en- tendemos por Naturaleza, Mundo o Realidad (o Physis) y por otro el Hombre (o sociedad) en cuanto constituido en una estructura institucional. Toda estructura viene determinada por la ideología (superestructura) y para cambiar aquella también se requiere cambiar esta, lo cual requiere salir de la conceptuación meramente modernista de la economía que encierra el Positivismo y la Filosofía Analítica por una más Contemporánea, desde la cual la Reali- dad son sistemas (grafos) constituidos por nodos o cosas-sentidos dialéctica o respectiva- mente configurados. Por último presentamos ejemplos concretos de estructuras económicas modernistas que no permiten un sistema sostenible en la relación Hombre-Naturaleza (co- mo son las supuestas leyes rectoras en parque naturales andaluces)
Entiéndase que la relación econó- relacionales son también subsistemas, por mica de una Sociedad (o de una persona un lado el Mundo es un sistema relacional considerada particularmente como siste- (la Naturaleza o Physis como ecosistema ma biológico) con el Mundo es el modo que global que supone el planeta Tierra con esa colectivo tiene de interaccionar con el sus diferentes especies vivientes) y por medio de cara a su viabilidad existencial, otro lado el Hombre (como Grupo Social es decir a la simple permanencia temporal Global, como el cómputo de personas que o existencia (en el sentido escolástico). constituyen los habitantes del Planeta). Entiéndase también que en un grado ab- Hablar de supervivencia es hablar de la soluto de abstraccion los dos términos sostenibilidad o sustantividad de la Uni-
43 44 Francisco Ortega ______dad del Sistema como un todo relacional analíticamente los términos relacionales Hombre-Mundo, es decir, lo verdadera- Naturaleza-Hombre, tenemos que: mente real no es la Naturaleza o la Socie- a) Por su lado la Physis aporta a la dad en cuanto subsistemas independien- relación una “fuerza impositiva” que es la tes sino la relación misma como Sistema fuente del “estar siendo” de la relación Total. Pero además, entiéndase que esa misma, este es un elemento formal im- sustantividad o sostenibilidad consistente prescindible para la relación puesto que la en la permanencia de la actividad relacio- condición ontológica del Hombre es la de nal es dinámica y lo cual nunca es mecá- mera “apertura”, es decir algo que tiene nica sino teleológica; lo importante es que condiciones para “recibir”, una fuerza ex- el telos o fin al que tiende no implique la terna que llamamos fuerza física. Es el extinción de la relación misma sino a un sentido originario del término Physis en la equilibrio entre los subsistemas para lo- Antigua Grecia y lo que Aristóteles enten- grar su permanencia sine die. Desde el derá por substancia en cuanto fuente que orto de la Cultura Occidental en los Preso- hace que lo que Hay esté ahí o se sustente cráticos (interpretación de Zubiri de Par- ahí por sí mismo. Otro problema sería ménides), entendemos que lo que Hay o cómo históricamente esa substentabilidad Ser es una actividad de ser; un “estar sos- ha llegado a entenderse; recorrido que va teniéndose” o “estar siendo”, en gerundio, desde la noción de aje, a los eidos platóni- lo verdaderamente existente es la relación cos, a las cualidades substantivas básicas dinámica y no los términos relacionales de Aristóteles (aire, agua, fuego, tierra) como momentos aislados o posiciones ab- hasta la noción moderna de átomo como o solutas contrapuestas, como entiende el mínima extensión (espacio-tiempo) divisi- Ser la Cultura Oriental. Es decir, desde ble, y la contemporánea de cuerda. Todo lo una consideración Contemporánea y Occi- cual es un problema de hermenútica his- dental, la Unidad Sistémica que hay que tórica (entender el contexto histórico que sostener es en toda regla una relación dia- condicionó el inicio de la investigación de léctica en el sentido hegeliano del mismo: la Tabla Periódica hasta el actual Bosson la relación de la Natura o Physis con lo de Higgs), en el cual ahora no entramos. otro que no es ella, el Hombre. En toda En definitiva, decimos que el Ser es lo que relación dialéctica, un término o momento Hay en cuanto un “de suyo” físico o fuerza de la relación de define abstractamente en cuanto que es algo que se impone “en, por su oposición al otro, pero lo verdade- por desde” sí mismo (Inteligencia Sentien- ramente real es la relación misma en te). cuanto Sistema. b) Por el otro lado, el Hombre en Ahora bien, si queremos hacer una cuanto el “otro” término de la relación, lo análisis de la relación desglosando sus que aporta es no una formalidad sino el términos, los podemos separar como mo- contenido de la relación, digamos que el mentos constitutivos aunque siempre Hombre aporta la parte “psíquica” o “in- siendo conscientes de que cada uno de tencional” (Husserl) que constituye la rela- ellos son meros momentos abstractos, lo ción con un sentido cognitivo teórico y verdaderamente real es su “respectividad” práctico para el Hombre mismo en cuanto constituyente en cuanto actividad relacio- consciencia, sentido que a su vez determi- nal. El Hombre no es algo “aparte” de la na el telos de la relación. Con tal el Hom- Naturaleza ni ésta algo diferente a su rela- bre es un subsistema que se concreta en ción con el Hombre, aunque sea en una una “estructura” institucional, desde la mera relación cognitiva. Por ejemplo, ¿ha- cual se materializa la relación misma. Lo bría electrones o bosones sin el Hombre decisivo es que aprehendemos la relación que constituya su presencia en su mente? económica Hombre-Naturaleza como una Pues bien, si analizamos el Sistema relación con “tal” contenido, aprehende- Global como un supuesto y ficticio eco- mos las cosas de la Physis como tales co- sistema económico y para ello separamos sas con un sentido funcional para de la
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 Naturaleza, Estructura y Sostenibilidad 45 ______vida humana, así aprehendemos la Reali- tivo de esa estructura. Ese concepto de dad o el Mundo como un sistema esencial ideología ha evolucionado y actualmente o campo global de significación constituido ya no lo entendemos con la connotación por tales entidades u objetividades con un peyorativa que tenía para Marx, para él significado determinado, el cual también estaba determinada por la estructura ins- es un sistema dialéctico o relacional (Zubi- titucional era el instrumento de justifica- ri diría de respectividades) ción lógico-hermenéutica de la misma con Teorizar ahora sobre las condicio- el fin de perpetuarse; sin embargo actual- nes de la objetividad y la significación hu- mente se usa en un sentido más positivo mana nos va a llevar demasiado lejos (In- como “marco” cultural de principios teóri- teligencia y Logos), lo importante ahora es cos, conjunto de valores, conceptos, apti- entender lo que llamamos “estructura” en tudes, teorías... necesarios que dan de sí cuanto instrumento institucional desde la una estructura. La ideología es un “círculo que Hombre constituye la actividad del hermenéutico”, un “horizonte de sentido”, Sistema relacional Hombre-Physis. “Es- una “visión del mundo”... que causa y de- tructura” es un rancio concepto utilizado termina una estructura. Siempre nos que- por la Antropología Cultural (Estructura- da la vieja cuestión de si para cambiar la lismo) pero su origen está en la Filosofía estructura (por lo tanto la infraestructura) Marxista. Viene a significar el conjunto de como marco normativo de instalación del normas, instituciones, ritos, regulacio- Hombre en la Physis hace falta primero nes,... desde la que se efectúa la relación cambiar la ideología o a la inversa (como misma y que determinan un contendido o consideraba el materialismo dialéctico). En sentido concreto teórico-práctico de la todo caso, en su sentido amplio, una ideo- forma-Physis. Dicha estructura institucio- logía es una cultura en cuanto consciencia nal a su vez, determina la instalación del social que determina una estructura la Hombre en la Physis desde una “infraes- cual determina a su vez una infraestructu- tructura” como manera de materializarse ra. Siguiendo con nuestro ejemplo, el que esa estructura. La estructura está cau- mayoritariamente tengamos plantas nu- sando una determinada infraestructura en cleares depende de las normas e institu- cuanto modo ejecutivo o agente material ciones que lo hacen posible y a su vez es- de la estructura en su acción con la Phy- tas depende de la ideología cultural que le sis, esto es, la infraestructura es: el tipo de da sentido. Esta consideración del Hombre construcciones civiles de una habitat físi- es puramente heideggeriana: el Hombre es co, de industrias productivas, la infraes- “pastor del ser”, entifica el ser, al nom- tructura viaria, energética. Por ejemplo, si brarlo y darle sentido crea las entidades una estructura energética prima la obten- que constituyen la Physis. Así cada socie- ción de energía a través de centrales nu- dad culturalmente diferenciable e históri- cleares, la infraestructura que concreta camente constituida constituye o crea su esa interacción serán plantas tales. propio “mundo entorno”, crea su propio La estructura económica es lo que “claro de bosque”, o “cuida del ser” a su el bueno de Marx quería cambiar con su propia manera. Es decir, la vida humana “revolución”, es decir, la estructura insti- se realiza desde un conjunto de entidades tucional de producción de momento histó- esenciales que se definen entre sí (dialécti- rico, que fue la de final del XIX, para así camente o en respectividad) constituyendo generar otra infraestructura de cara a un un marco cultural o ideológico (genos o reparto más comunitario de la riqueza campo de sentido), y si se quiere cambiar (hasta alcanzar una utópica riqueza tal la estructura e infraestructura relacional que permita a todos los miembros d ela de Hombre con la Physis también hay que colectividad existir según sus necesida- cambiar ese marco superestructural. des). Ahora bien, en relación a ella, tam- En definitiva, es la ideología como bién se refería a una “superestructura” o ámbito psíquico de una colectivo (Espíritu ideología como marco de sentido justifica- Objetivo de Hegel) quien determina en
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 46 Francisco Ortega ______realidad que algo es lo que es, algo es tal con lo Tras-cendente. cosa por “no ser otra”, es un ente porque Aquí sólo atendemos ahora al eje se define negativamente o dialécticamente horizontal o estructura económica, y hay en más o menos grado respecto a otro ente que “darse cuenta” que para cambiar ésta dentro del campo de sentido o marco ideo- de cómo está actualmente constituida, y lógico que la constituye como “tal cosa”. se presenta como algo necesario ya que la Un campo de sentido es cualquier teoría actual nos está llevando a una situación científica, o simplemente el campo de los claramente insostenible de cara a existen- colores del arco iris (el rojo es rojo porque cia del Sistema Naturaleza-Hombre como no es verde, azul,...), una novela, el siste- Sociedad Global, hacia una relación más ma monetario internacional (el valor del ecológica o sostenible hay también que euro es respecto al cambio con el yuan, el cambiar la ideología o marco cultural pre- rublo, el dólar,...), etc. Una cultura es un dominante y ¿cuál es el marco ideológico amplio “campo de sentido” o marco ideoló- que se manifiesta en la estructura que gico de entidades, una respecto a las otras regula la relación Hombre-Naturaleza en la desde la que se despliega la vida de los actualidad? humanos que comparten esa cultura, y La estructura económica actual es donde cada cosa-ente es lo que es por re- todavía claramente “modernista” sin llegar lación a las demás. Por eso a veces es tan a reflejar la nueva y diferente ideología difícil la comprensión intercultural que en que ya podríamos entender claramente realidad es como un diálogo de sordos. como “contemporánea”. Para entender esto Pues bien, sea como sea verdaderamente hace falta un breve recorrido histórico. la ideología es la que determina la estruc- La salida de la Cultura Occidental tura de una sociedad histórica (no entra- de la mentalidad medieval supuso una mos en la vieja disputa del materialismo secularización de lo real y de la vida en su histórico respecto a prioridad de la una conjunto. Con la Modernidad la Cultura sobre la otra). De esta manera las ideolo- Occidental rompe definitivamente con el gías alternativas son utopías, en el sentido sentido que proporciona a su vida la exis- que P. Ricoeur pretende, como motores tencia de un mundo tras-cendente y trata necesario para el cambio de la realidad en de asumir su “mayoría de edad” recono- que se vive (Ideología y Utopía, 1997). En ciendo nuestra soledad en la vida “frente” principio toda ideología tienden a justificar a la Physis. Que el hecho de vivir suponga o dar sentido a una realidad, por lo tanto un enfrentamiento con la Naturaleza es es conservadora, la utopía tiende a propo- algo que ideológicamente viene de lejos y ner estructuras alternativas dando lugar a se corresponde con nuestro arquetipo bí- otra infraestructura, otro medio de acción blico representado por la “caída” y consi- del Hombre es en su instalación en la Phy- guiente expulsión del Paraíso, pero el re- sis. conocimiento de esa capacidad de inter- Pues bien, después de este largo vención de una voluntad trascendente es preámbulo hay que decir que toda estruc- el hecho determinante de la instalación del tura social como espíritu objetivo desde el Hombre en el Mundo, pero ahora bien, en que el Hombre se instala en el Mundo, la “modernidad” ya no hay una “voluntad” tiene tres ejes: eje horizontal o estructura providente y más o menos paternal que económica, que regula las relaciones del nos ayude en ello. El Hombre Moderno Hombre con la Physis de cara a la subs- frente al Medieval se define por el hecho de tentabilidad existencial o vital; eje circular estar enfrentado” él solo” a la alteridad de o estructura política, que regula las rela- la Physis, desde ese consideración preten- ciones del Hombre consigo mismo de cara de una relación de dominio sobre ella, su a la substentabilidad del Hombre como afirmación como “mayor de edad” radica- grupo social; eje vertical o estructura reli- ría en el ejercicio de ese dominio y para giosa, regula la relación del Hombre con lo ello cuenta con la “razón” en cuanto fun- que no es medio físico ni grupo social, sino ción psíquica para establecer un “ámbito
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 Naturaleza, Estructura y Sostenibilidad 47 ______transcendental” desde el que ejercer dicho que supone la Modernidad. El Hombre y dominio. Entender con claridad que tras- su vida tiene sentido como lucha y domi- cendente es el mundo allende la concien- nio sobre la Naturaleza, desterrado del cia tal como lo entendía la Filosofía Anti- Paraíso está enfrentado a la Naturaleza gua y Medieval y trans-cendental es el como trabajo (ética luterana y calvinista), y mundo como presencia en la conciencia para vencer en esa lucha hay que descu- humana tal y como lo entiende la Filosofía brir, controlar y predecir y para ello hay Moderna y Contemporánea; trans- que aprehender la Physis con el instru- cendental porque podemos trans-itar de mento con que estad dotado nuestra con- una presencia primordial a otra de los dición natural: nuestra “razón”, la cual a mismo pero simbólicamente elaborada. El su vez es una función psíquica que tiene modelo necesitar un “dominio” está tam- como fundamento el “principio de identi- bién en el arquetipo bíblico de la “volun- dad”. La Modernidad insiste y re-insiste en tad” divina como potencia dominadora, y establece un nuevo tipo de saber científico es un principio en la fundamentación de la basado exclusivamente en las capacidades estructura relacional, sólo que ahora des- humanas y en un presunto método infali- plazada al Hombre: es la voluntad huma- ble (conjunto de reglas que en realidad na quien constituye el Mundo no la de ningún investigador aplica), el resultado Dios Efectivamente el Renacimiento es de ese arduo proceso de delimitación y un Humanismo. Este principio ideológico búsqueda desde Bacon, Galileo, Descartes, es el que determina el sentido fundamen- y Newton culmina en el Positivismo de tal de la estructura económica en la Mo- finales del XVIII, prolongado a través del dernidad, lo cual se concreta a nivel ideo- Neopositivismo y la Filosofía Analítica de lógico en la posesión o aprehensión cuan- principios del XX (Russell, Escuela de Vie- titativa de la Physis y a nivel práctico en na, Hayeck, Popper...). Este saber para la Revolución Industrial. El refuerzo con- “dominar” lo otro consiste en constituir ductista a ese papel de supuesta domina- definiciones identitarias universales de ción nos viene a través de éxito que pro- índole cuantitativa, lo cual, unido a la idea porciona la Mecánica Newtoniana como cristiana del tiempo, dió lugar a la consig- teoría explicativa de la Physis, y en la na política del “progreso” económico. El práctica en el “aparente” dominio sobre la Positivismo científico pretende que la Physis que es la Industria Moderna. Esto realidad aprendida como dato o positum, llevará a la Cultura Occidental al “orgullo lo cual se verifica, confirma o falsea desde ilustrado” y a la noción de “progreso”, no- una definición constituida como algo idén- ciones ya decadentes en la actualidad. tico a sí mismo en el ámbito transcenden- El Dios Bíblico como idea de una tal de la conciencia, es la Realidad misma. entidad substante, infinita y perfecta y Todo lo que se adecúe en más o menos tras-cendente queda en la Modernidad medida a la definición es un positum ver- relegado a condición necesaria pero me- dadero (verdad lógica), lo contrario es un ramente teórica, a mera petición de prin- positum falso o no adecuado a la defini- cipio lógico-discursivo, algo supuesto pero ción (mide o no mide tal magnitud, desde sin protagonismo ni actuación en la vida una simple lógica binaria), de esta mane- humana y ni mucho menos en la relación ra, igual que el resto de disciplinas aca- económica. El Dios moderno es un mero démicas, cualquier manual de economía relojero, o un papirotero, o un postulado ingenuamente todavía parte de la contun- de la razón práctica, un avalista del orden dente idea de que la Economía debe ser racional, el primer principio innato,...,todo una “ciencia positiva”. lo que se quiera pero ya no se concibe que En todo caso esta ideología o “Vi- intervenga en la temporalidad e Historia sión Moderna del Mundo” implica: Humana (Deísmo de Voltaire). Este aleja- a) Una Naturaleza fija, constituida miento de una la providencia tras- por esencias inmutables de acuerdo con cendente es el proceso de secularización su definición identitaria, de ese modo la
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 48 Francisco Ortega ______
Modernidad sólo concibe el movimiento pueda definir “identirariamente”. Pregun- como mecánico (también el atomismo témonos, por ejemplo ¿qué es el átomo antiguo fue un mecanicismo), es decir algo para la Física Contemporánea? Un sistema puede transformarse en otra cosa que no de subpartículas según el “modelo stan- sea un múltiplo de ello mismo, si algo dar” ¿Cuál de las subpartículas –y ya se cambia de esencia deja de ser lo que es. definen más de doscientas- sería el verda- Aquí no hay marco ideológico para enten- dero átomo? ¿El Bosón de Higgs? En la der los procesos dinámicos de transforma- Fisica Contemporánea, ahora nos damos ción teleológica, ya sea escatológica o gra- cuenta que lo que entendemos por átomo dual (evolución). Efectivamente de ahí los es un sistema de partículas subatómicas problemas a finales del XIX para aceptar definidas matemáticamente una respecto a la Teoría de la Evolución como fórmula otra, digamos que lo verdaderamente real para explicar la aparición de nuevas espe- o lo que aprehendemos es la relación entre cies vivientes. La Physis en la Modernidad ellas y que ese sistema en cuanto tal es un “gigantesco retablo” de cosas o enti- siempre será una objetividad constituida dades “clara y distintamente” definidas, es en un “en mí” como campo de sentido. No decir, identificadas como una representa- es que exista el supuesto átomo o cada ción psíquica solipsista y abstracta, y que una de las partículas subatómicas como mantiene su puesto fijo en la hornacina de una realidad en sí definidas frente a Nada, su parte del cosmos. Así es el mecanicis- tampoco como si cada una de ellas fuese mo de Galileo, Descartes, Newton,... pro- un momento del ser identitario y abstracto cedente de la adopción del atomismo aislado de una relación constituyente, cuantitativo como canon interpretativo de cada concepto o momento de ser lo puedo lo que aprehendemos. Si transcendental- definir u objetivizar pero como tal es sólo mente constituyo construyo simbólica- un término relacional dentro de un con- mente o defino tal entidad racional: metro, junto de entidades que lo define en respec- newton, voltio,.... la presencia o impresión tividad: un “nodo” relacional definido den- positiva (hecho sensible) que se me está tro de un sistema. Un átomo es un “siste- actualizando es verdadera si se adecua, ma relacional” de más de doscientas enti- sino es falsa (verdad lógica. La Physis se dades matemáticas en respectividad, dicha me aparece como un gigantesco retablo respectividad es lo que se puede expresar ensamblado con estas unidades. La Physis simbólicamente como una función mate- está constituidas por estas entidades iden- mática, siendo lo verdaderamente real el titarias y la interacción entre ellas es sólo sistema relacional mismo no los nodos o mecánica de adhesión o separación. Ade- entidades que objetualizamos como partes más si algo es tal cosa no puede dejar de del sistema. serlo y ser tal otra (Fixismo). En definitiva, resulta que para la b) Sin embargo, para el Hombre economía positiva moderna (Fisiocracia, Contemporáneo la Physis ya no es así, Liberalismo, e incluso Socialismo), el para éste la identidad o esencia de algo Hombre es un “sujeto” individual pero con expresada como un concepto genérico y una conciencia genérica y el cual tiene abstracto es una realidad que se constitu- sentido como legítimo agente de ese domi- ye como una entidad dentro de un campo nio de la Physis a través de su razón, ya de sentido u “horizonte de esencias”, algo que, rotos los lazos con la E. Media, ha no es una definición “constituida” de una asumido la heredad del Mundo y se consi- forma abstracta y definitiva como algo “en dera “mayor de edad” (que propugnan los mí”, como algo fuera de un genos o campo Ilustrados). Si antes el dominador sobre la de sentido de ser, no es una identificación Physis era el Dios Bíblico ahora lo es su abstracta flotando en el vacío o frente a la Hijo: el Hombre Occidental. El modo de nada. Algo es lo que es por una relación ese legítimo dominio es actuando sobre dialéctica dentro de un sistema esencial o relaciones cuantificables y hete aquí el campo de sentido y ya no hay nada que se marco de presupuestos ideológicos laten-
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 Naturaleza, Estructura y Sostenibilidad 49 ______tes en el libro de A. Smith: Ensayo Sobre una red o campo de sentido, en un primer la Naturaleza y las Causas de la Riqueza grado dichos los nodos son “leyes físicas” de las Naciones (1776) que da pie a la con- que se relacionan como un sistema cerra- ceptuación económica positivista que ac- do de respectividades (las tres leyes de la tualmente ha entrado en crisis. Desde un mecánica), pero a su vez cada una es un punto de vista Contemporáneo la Physis sistema que está constituido por concep- no es ya un mecano controlable por un tos-definiciones, los cuales son nodos o orgulloso Hombre que domina en base a entes con un sentido determinado por su las condiciones que impone su excelentí- respectividad dentro de una ley (nociones sima lógica identitaria: la razón analítica. de materia, espacio, velocidad, tiempo,...), Este es el presupuesto básico del concepto conceptos que a su vez están se constitu- de empresa como institución estructural yen por generalizaciones de presencias básica de la acción económica en la Mo- primordiales con un sentido determinado dernidad. desde una investigación histórica y cultu- Para empezar, actualmente el con- ral. Pero no sólo una teoría científica, cepto de Naturaleza como un ámbito de también cualquier novela es un sistema o partes extensas (hasta llegar a una míni- “campo de sentido” donde los personajes, ma) ha desaparecido. ¿Qué extensión o por ejemplo, son psicológicamente identifi- materia tiene un bosson de higgs? De cables o entidades con sentido por su res- acuerdo con una lógica dialéctica, que es pectividad: D. Quijote es quien es respeto el modelo de función racional que está a Sancho, Dulcinea,... o incluso al paisaje presente en Física Contemporánea, en la manchego; La Regenta es quien es respec- Physis todo son “campos de sentido” o to al Magistral y viceversa;... Pero ¿qué es “redes de nodos”, y estos son entidades o exactamente un nodo? Una cosa-sentido o cosas-sentido que interaccionan unos en- ente tal y como lo expresa Zubiri en su tre otros constituyendo el campo, sistema teoría del conocimiento, así toda ciencia o o grafo. Un ente o cosa-sentido es una disciplina académica es necesariamente realidad transcendental pero cultural e una ontología históricamente constituida históricamente constituida como tal signi- (es lo que viene a demostrar la Estructura ficación, no es una definición constituida de las Revoluciones Científicas de Khun). respecto a sí misma sin más (es lo que El modelo de la Physis Contempo- distingue al Wittgenstein del Tractatus ránea es el siguiente: el átomo actual es cercano a la concepción analítica de la un sistema o grafo de partículas subató- razón del segundo Wittgenstein de las In- micas interrelacionadas dialécticamente a vestigaciones Filosóficas, en realidad cer- través de algo que se conceptúa como cano a la razón entendida como razón dia- “fuerzas atómicas débiles”; a su vez estos léctica). grafos atómicos constituyen nodos que En todo caso la Realidad como Sis- son las moléculas interaccionando dialéc- tema está constituida por redes de nodos ticamente a través de “fuerzas de enlaces entendidos como entidades o cosas- químicos” (iónico, mecánico, covalente); sentido que a su vez pueden ser un sub- grafos que a su vez interaccionan dialécti- sistemas o subredes constituidas por otro camente formando nodos o moléculas pro- subnodos, es decir en cuanto unidad sis- teicas más complejas; que a su vez son témica un nodo o ente puede ser un sub- grafos que interaccionan formando nodos sistema o campo de sentido menos genéri- como los corpúsculos intercelulares (ribo- co o menos abstracto, los sistemas son somas, mitocondrias,...); que interaccio- redes cuyos nodos son a su vez subsiste- nan formando células; tejidos; órganos;... mas, como en un juego de muñecas rusas. Lo importante es entender: Una teoría física (por ejemplo la mecánica 1º) Que en el grafo o sistema, cada newtoniana) es un sistema explicativo nodo o elemento relacional es lo que es, constituido de nodos o entidades relacio- una cosa-real, por su relación dialéctica nadas entre sí o en respectividad como dentro del sistema, la relación de respecti-
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 50 Francisco Ortega ______vidad es lo que determina su ser, su esen- transcendental como campo de sentido cia o lo que es, es la respectividad lo que académico-cultural e históricamente cons- determina que algo sea lo que es, que ten- tituido. ga sentido. Esta capacidad de dar sentido Las ideologías y teorías que consti- es lo que entendemos por razón dialéctica tuyen la ciencia y la cultura son “campos (la cual es necesariamente una lógica poli- de sentido” a diferentes niveles de abstrac- valente). Sea esa cosa una presencia pri- ción simbólica. Actualmente incluso empe- mordial como un mero color o una presen- zamos a concebir la muerte de algo como cia ulteriormente constituida como una la desaparición de una red o grafo, sea la fórmula matemática o como un producto muerte de un organismo vivo como de una financiero, o una prima de riesgo, o... es teoría científica, se trata de un sistema tal cosa por su respectividad dentro de un que se vuelve inestable, al desaparecer las “campo de sentido”. De tal modo que lo relaciones entre sus nodos desaparece el verdaderamente real es la relación como sistema. En el caso de un organismo vivo, sistema o grafo de los nodos que lo consti- por ejemplo, nos situamos a un nivel don- tuyen, estos no son momentos identitarios de lo nodos son moléculas bioquímicas bivalentes constituidos respecto a una que deshacen sus relaciones, ahora bien, definición analítica, sino presencias cons- las partículas a nivel físico-químico ele- tituidas dcon un sentido determinado de mental no deshacen sus relaciones asíu el manera polivalente. Es decir, en realidad átomo de carbono se mantiewne como sun lo que Hay y tal como lo entendemos de subgrafo de partículas con lo cual se pue- manera ulterior son redes sistémicas cons- de recombinar para generar otro organis- tituidas como “campos de sentidos”, unos mo, las partículas atomicas se recombina dentro de otros: un sistema ecológico, ca- formando otro grafo orgánico, es la propie- da uno de los seres vivos que lo constitu- dad de “bricolage” de todo sistema en red.1 yen, una secuencia de ADN (donde un gen 2º) Otras de las características de es lo qu es por su relación a con demás), el un sistema en red es la de su singulari- átomo “de Schödingger”, el movimiento de dad, no hay dos iguales, posiblemente ni placas tectónicas en el planeta,... La iden- siquiera a nivel subatómico. Efectivamente tidad de cada nodo que constituyen los las redes presentan la propiedad del “bri- sistemas (el color en un cuadro, tal órgano colage”, tras una crisis sus nodos se re- corporal, tal prima de riesgo en el sistema combinan de otra manera constituyendo financiero, el muón como subpartícula otra red, otro grafo, otro sistema, digamos atómica,...), lo que algo “es”, su entidad que otro nodo. Las posibilidades de gene- como cosa-sentido es sólo un momento rar sistemas subsistentes son casi infini- abstracto de la respectividad (en rigor la tas, pero entiéndase que los que subsisten relación es posterior y posible por esta porque mantienen una relación sustenible respectividad, según Zubiri) y meramente como nodos de una red superior son teórico y más o menos negativo o poliva- siempre contingentes2. lente. Efectivamente, podemos decir que Probablemente el pensador actual como “cosa real en sí” no existe el “quak que mejor ha expresado esta conceptua- top”, ni el “bosson de higgs”. Este es sólo ción de la Physis es Edgar Morin, desde una entidad identificada como tal en vir- los átomos a las galaxias, desde las células tud de su interacción con el neutrino, el a las sociedades, todos son sistemas de muón, el fotón..., es algo “en mí” o “por redes donde el concepto de parte o ele- mi” conciencia o “de la esfera transcenden- mento idéntico a sí mismo, en cuanto uni- tal” del sujeto (expresión de Husserl); la dad objetiva y cuantitativamente distin- cual es a su vez una esfera cultural e his- guible, no es posible3. tórica de sentido, es decir, algo es tal cosa En definitiva debemos afrontar el respecto o de acuerdo con el sistema rela- problema del análisis de la estructura cional que lo constituye como tal “en” la económica y la necesidad de una supervi- psique humana la cual es una esfera
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 Naturaleza, Estructura y Sostenibilidad 51 ______vencia ecológica actual como un problema cala libre” porque una crisis en aquél nodo ideológico en cuanto que es esta la que “da determina una crisis en todo el Sistema de sí” la estructura institucional que a su Global destruyéndolo, cuando lo ideal se- vez determina la infraestructura producti- ría un Sistema Global sustentable de tal va actual del Mundo. Si la estructura es manera que al no depender de ningún una gigantesco campo de sentido consti- nodo principal la red se mantuviera sine tuidos por: normas, leyes, decretos, nor- die, lo mismo que los nodos que son su- mas regulativas,.... A su vez, la infraes- bredes. La dependencia, por ejemplo, de tructura económica también es un sistema una red energética basada en producción en red, y en cuanto global, sería el Sistema nuclear, si hay una crisis en su abasteci- Global de relaciones efectivas de la Socie- miento haría depender todo el suministro dad Humana con la Naturaleza, la infraes- y por ende todo el sistema, aunque peor es tructura económica mundial actual es un la dependencia financiera... enorme grafo o sistema dialéctico en red: Atendamos a un ejemplo concreto a un sistema más o menos “modular en nivel de “sistema económico nacional” de red”, donde los nodos son también subsis- como la ideología determina una estructu- temas; el sistema financiero, el sistema ra u a su vez esta una infraestructura energético, el sistema agrícola,.... “Más o inviable: la estructura actual de regulación menos” modular porque siempre hay no- medioambiental en España está hecha de dos que por su abanico de interacciones tal manera está pretendiendo actuar sobre con el resto de los nodos o subsistemas es alguno de los nodos concretos de un sis- una “entidad” más decisiva o principal tema (una especie silvestre, un cultivo,...) para la pervivencia del Sistema Global, queriendo inhibir actuaciones o promover- como ha sucedido recientemente con el las, pero, por ejemplo una especie en peli- Sistema Financiero, es tan principal que el gro de extinción no se salva sin salvar el Sistema no es modular sino de “escala ecosistema entero, de ahí que esa estruc- libre”, todos los subsistema se relacional tura mecanicista es claramente un fraca- con él a través del “apalancamiento” y de so. Lo mismo sucede con las legislaciones tal manera que una crisis en el sistema de control de residuos; un conjunto de financiero y repercute en una inhibición leyes con propuestas mecánicas totalmen- del flujo monetario y en desestabilización te fracasadas no tienen en cuenta ni plan- del Sistema Global (parecido sucedió con tas para reciclaje, ni procedimientos de la Crisis del Petróleo en le 73, la principa- recogida en función de ellas, no hábitos lidad y dependencia energética de este consumidores,... Para una conservación recurso supuso una crisis en todo el Sis- eficiente del ecosistema de una zona, por tema Económico Occidental). ejemplo, hay que partir de un análisis dia- Pero para ello hay que aprehender léctico de las especies que configuran el la Naturaleza dialécticamente, como un sistema, siempre suele haber unos nodos Sistema en red y no como “partes aisla- “principales” por su mayor número de das” identitariamente definibles como en interacciones que otros, así en el sistema realidad todavía se hace por desde una ecológico que es el bosque mediterráneo, ideología que parte de la consideración de por ejemplo, desde un estudio del grafo la economía como ciencia positiva (tanto que en qué consiste, es más importante el en los planes del Gosplan como en la Es- nodo-conejo que el nodo-lince, aquel in- cuela Neoclásica y posteriormente la desa- teracciona como presa con el lince, el águi- rrollada por la Sociedad Mont Pelerin). la, el zorro, el meloncillo, la gineta,... y Efectivamente, desde esta ideología la in- como depredador con un conjunto de fraestructura del Sistema Económico Glo- plantas, gramíneas, leguminosas,... que si bal es un grafo donde cada nodo es un proliferan demasiado pueden hacer desa- subsistema (energético, agrícola,...) pero el parece incluso el marco vegetal de soto- principal es el financiero, de tal manera bosque y se convierte en estepa. Es obvio que el sistema no es modular sino de “es- que el conejo es imprescindible para ese
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 52 Francisco Ortega ______
“sistema ecológico”, es un nodo principal como sistema, no puede existir como “Na- pero el lince no. Lo que es absurdo es pre- turaleza Virgen”, lo que hay es un sistema tender “salvar al lince” sin salvar a todo el relacional que si ha pervivido durante mu- ecosistema del cual es parte y para ello es cho tiempo es porque es un sistema equi- imprescindible una recuperación de las librado, sustentable por, desde, y con la poblaciones de conejos, para “salvar al actuación humana (cinegética, agrícola, lince”. ganadera,...). Lo que se ha mantenido via- Por otro lado, queda claro que la ble es la relación misma y sus nodos prin- Sociedad Humana Contemporánea des- cipales Comunidad Humana-Naturaleza pués de años de “propaganda e informa- como tales son sólo momentos teóricos ción ecologista” tiene una fuerte concien- resultado de un análisis cognitivo, pero lo cia de su dependencia en la interacción verdaderamente real es la relación misma con la Naturaleza, es decir, de la Unidad es decir, el sistema relacional que califi- relacional Grupo Humano-Naturaleza en camos de “Natural”. Ahora bien, si por base a un “dependencia amorosa o simpa- moda, por demagogia política (con intere- tética” y no en base a una masoquista ses manipuladores de la población), por “dependencia de dominación”. Lo verdade- ignorancia creyendo en una economía po- ramente decisivo e importante en esta sitiva,... se estructuran instituciones que propaganda ideológica es efectivamente la cambian los términos seculares de la rela- noción tácita de que un sistema económi- ción Comunidad Humana-Naturaleza, co es un grafo de interrelaciones donde los podemos encontrarnos con otro Sistema, nodos principales son, por un lado comu- quizás no deseado o no sostenible. Piénse- nidades humanas y por otro los elementos se en un ecosistema económico con una presentes de su medio bio-físico y que, en infraestructura muy simple: en la explota- cuanto relación dialéctica, la pervivencia ción de una “dehesa de encinas y alcorno- de uno depende de la del otro y viceversa ques”. Es un sistema natural que subsiste en una relación “simplatética”. Esto hay en cuanto intervenido por el Hombre en que entenderlo adecuadamente porque, si función de la relación económica que lo secularmente hay seres humanos en un hace viable, como tal: las encinas se po- medio o ecosistema concreto interactuan- dan, se mantiene una proporción de gana- do en él y ese sistema ha subsistido de do, un determinado tipo de ganado y no esta manera, es imprescindible mantener otro, los alcornoques se descorchan, se dicha actuación si no el sistema entrará hacen cortafuegos,... el sistema tal y como en crisis buscando un equilibrio de espe- secularmente se ha intervenido es viable cies que bien podría ser no deseado para económicamente y por ello existe. Ahora el sistema. Por ejemplo, la desaparición de bien, por cierto enfoque bisoño o ideológi- la secular actuación de carboneros en Do- co modernista se genera una estructura ñana con su “tala depurativa” sobre el normativa (llámese Plan Rector del Parque alcornocal hizo que la proliferación de en- Natural) que inhibe la actuación tradicio- fermedades en dicha especie vegetal hicie- nal: se prohíbe la tala, se requiere autori- ra desaparecer en pocos años casi la tota- zaciones para desbroce, se prohíbe el des- lidad de la arboleda y las subsiguientes caste cinegético,... El resultado es “otro especies asociadas (por la urgencia ante ecosistema” probablemente menos viable los controles de la UNESCO ha habido que para en sus sostenibilidad al estar regula- replantar con ejemplares ya adultos). Pero do por normas mecanicistas que no tienen en España apenas quedan nichos ecológi- en cuenta el conjunto: más incendios, cos sin intervención humana (Doñana menos biodiversidad al predominar la es- mismo era un coto con una secular actua- pecie más concurrente, abandono, enfer- ción cinegética), y además todo los Parque medades... Además, probablemente para Naturales eran lo que eran en virtud de la comunidad humana el sistema es invia- dicha actuación secular. En líneas genera- ble económicamente para mantener el les, actualmente la Naturaleza en España, número de miembros de personas que
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 Naturaleza, Estructura y Sostenibilidad 53 ______habitan dicho espacio, de ahí la migración Todas las regulaciones estructura- de estos hacia otros hábitats más urbanos les adoptadas como “buenas en sí”, por (los cuales, como todo sabemos, no tiene mera identidad definitoria y abstracta en por qué ser naturales, es decir aquí la Na- virtud de que están incluidas en un pre- turaleza no tiene por qué ser Naturaleza, sunto “bien general” de la población, no esto es un privilegio solo de los espacios tiene nada que ver en realidad con la Na- no urbanos). turaleza. Esta es un todo sistémico no una Se impone la necesidad de un agregación de partes o especies animales cambio ideológico, la estructura legislativa sin más, toda actuación estructural que actual bajo el principio mecanicista fun- no tenga en cuenta un entronque dentro damental de “no intervención” humana”, el del sistema dialéctico en red concreto que cual hasta ahora se ha hecho plausible es la estructura económica de la zona que como “bueno para todos” en la mente de aparentemente quiere “proteger”, es un los políticos, personas con capacidad para enfoque modernista que sólo ve la Natura- hacer leyes estructurales, es inoperativo. leza “a trozos”, como si la Naturaleza fuese Es decir, los terrenos rústicos cuanto más un mecanismo de partes aisladas. Y sobre virgen mejor, que cuanto menos actuación todo “no ve” la otra parte principal en la humana tengan “más naturales”, mejor relación de ese todo: el Hombre. En el conservados y “mayor bien” para todos, es ejemplo anterior, la legislación de parque absolutamente inadecuado. En nuestro natural que quiere proteger a la encina ejemplo, a base a ese principio fundante se como especie puede que destruya al propio ha generado una estructura con un ór- “medio natural” que pretende preservar. Si gano de gestión institucional de ese espa- en las decisiones administrativas, en base cio que se puede llamar “dirección general a una norma “buena” en abstracto, no se de parque natural” (una estructura eco- tiene en cuenta la red de relaciones eco- nómica), esta dirección promulga leyes nómicas ya existentes pueden hacer invia- (plan rector del parque) que inhiben las ble para la vida humana ese medio natural actuaciones seculares que mantenían el tal y como secularmente ha existido y se sistema como ecosistema sostenible ya quiere conservar, en nuestro ejemplo asis- que en abstracto lo bueno y deseable es la timos a que efectivamente los propietarios “no intervención”. Es decir, por ese princi- de finca abandonan las intervenciones que pio y de acuerdo con la lógica basada en el secularmente hacían sobre el ecosistema principio de identidad, se regula la inter- por presión administrativa, actuaciones vención secular poniendo trabas adminis- que en realidad son las que han hecho que trativas y posibles sanciones al desbroce, el sistema exista como un entramado de tala,... Entonces, siguiendo con nuestro relaciones económicas sostenible, (podas ejemplo, el propietario de la dehesa, decide de árboles, cultivos, descastes de anima- que lo cómodo es no intervenir. Resultado: les,...). Al hacerse ahora una estructura de los árboles no se talan con lo que no se actuación humana en base al principio revigorizan y le acosan las enfermedades legislativo, a priori abstractamente (la seca, el taladro,...), no se descasta el “bueno”, de que el ser humano no debe ganado y el exceso de una determinadas “intervenir” porque la naturaleza debe especies silvestres concurriendo en el conservarse cuanto más virgen mejor mismo hábitat hace desaparecer otras, el (ideal para un biólogo bisoño), sólo se rea- exceso de purines desequilibra el estado lizan las actuaciones que sobre el papel un microrgánico del suelo,... en definitiva, burócrata-técnico dictamine, y si para que tendríamos otro ecosistema otro equilibrio, un árbol se regenere por viejo, por ejem- probablemente un desierto, paradójica- plo, hace falta talarlo incluso para que mente la “no intervención” determina una brote de raíz, pero la norma proteccionista actuación mucho más agresiva para con lo prohíbe y el burócrata no da permiso, la un sistema natural ya equilibrado. arboleda en pocos años se muere, con lo cual el mismo parque natural desaparece
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 54 Francisco Ortega ______porque no es viable como sistema o en- (sólo recientemente se están permitiendo tramado en red tal y como existía. El bien descastes cinegéticos en el P. N. de Doña- social como principio dictaminado desde na). La verdad es que eso es muy probable una lógica modernista donde sólo prima que pase ante la necesidad de tantos per- un principio de identidad abstracto no misos y trámites administrativos para la genera vialidad a los sistemas relacionales, intervención en esos sistemas naturales de a ningún nivel. España ¿no será la presunta causa de la Este mismo ejemplo pude pasarle seca de las encinas la tinta del papeleo no ya a parque naturales sino nacionales administrativo?
Notes
1 ¿Cómo debemos entender el cáncer en cuanto El tejido celular está continuamente reno- enfermedad orgánica? Situándonos a un ni- vándose, las células se duplican y redupli- vel del sistema orgánico de tejido, donde las can. Dada la complejidad de un genoma red está constituda por nodos denominadas como sistema de genes ¿porqué dentro de la células , un tejido consiste básicamente en infinita posibilidad de duplicaciones singula- células interconectadas dialécticamente, su- res que ofrece una célula madre empiezan cede que hay una que desconecta de ese gra- sólo a replicarse unos genes determinados fo o red no ejecutando la función-sentido que para constituir un tejido determinado? El debira según su posición en la red, de ese hecho es que dentro de un mismo organismo modo si se autoduplica y crece por su cuenta cada vez que una secuencia de ADN se repli- produce el tumor en cuanto tejido ajeno al ca en una meiosis se producen mutaciones, grafo o red de tejidos que constituyen al res- singularidades genéticas (cada vez que una to del órgano ¿por qué en un momento dado base nitrogenada no rompa según el modelo sucede esa “crisis” en una célula ? Las redes prederminado), son los llamados seudoge- biológicas siguen un modelo “modular” o red nes. Pero como no tienen relación con el res- de pescadores, aquí cada nodo es un subgra- to de la red proteica el sistema que constitu- fo de elementos fuertemente conectados en- ye ese gen es inestable y sus elementos son tre sí pero poco con el resto del sistema glo- reutilizados desapareciendo como nodo, aho- bal donde también está incurso. Normalmen- ra bien si un gen de ese tipo si es capaz de te una célula que por azar aparece de esta interaccionar con otro gen forman una pro- manera (resultado de una meiosis no previs- teína nueva y tenemos otro tipo de células en ta) es inviable y se desmantela en nodos más el mismo tejido que si a su vez se replica primarios, pero si puede nutrirse u creecer dan lugar a un grafo subsistente totalmente genera una tejido dentro del tejido sin la or- independiente dentro del tejido original, de denación de funciones adecuada al órgano esta manera se desarrolla un nuevo tejido donde se da. dentro del otro y no tiene nada que ver con el originario e incluso con el resto del sistema 2 Tratar de explicar la evolución de las redes orgánico. celulares es una tarea ambiciosa y que aquí 3 tampoco podemos ahora intentar, lo que es «La partícula no sólo conoció una crisis de evidente es que hay que partir del subgrafo orden y una crisis de unidad (se calculan que determina la aparición de un gen nuevo hoy más de doscientas partículas subatómi- en cuanto secuencia atómica mínima capaz cas), sino que experimentó una crisis de de autorepetirse, es decir, capaz de singula- identidad. Ya no se la puede aislar de modo rizarse: una mutación. Por lo mismo podría- preciso en el espacio y en el tiempo. Ya no se mos entender que el cáncer se produce la puede aislar totalmente de las interaccio- cuando hay algún gen dentro de la estructu- nes de la observación...En fin, es la idea de ra del ADN constituyente de una célula, el unidad elemental misma la que se ha vuelto cual no se autoreplica, produciendo células problemática: quizás no exista la última o la diferentes al que constituye el tejido inicial. primera realidad individualizable o aislable,
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 Naturaleza, Estructura y Sostenibilidad 55 ______
sino un contínuum (teoría del bootstrap), in- mo...Todos los objetos clave de la física, de la cluso una raíz unitaria fuera del tiempo y del biología, de la sociología, de la astronomía, espacio (d´Espagnat 1972)...En tanto que ob- átomos, moléculas, células, organismos jeto, la partícula ha perdido toda sustancia, ,sociedades, astros, galaxias, constituyen toda claridad, toda distinción, a veces inclu- sistemas. Fuera de los sistemas, no hay sino so toda realidad: se ha convertido en nudo dispersión particular. Nuestro mundo orga- gordiano de interacciones y de intercambios. nizado es un archipiélago de sistemas en el Para definirla es necesario recurrir a las in- océano del desorden.» Ed. Morin, pág. 119- teracciones de las que participa, y cuando 121, El Método I, La Naturaleza e la Natura- forma parte de un átomo, a las interacciones leza, ed. Cátedra, Madrid 1981 que tejen la organización de este áto-
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015
Zubiri and Contemporary Ontology
Eric Weislogel Saint Joseph’s University Philadelphia, PA USA
Abstract
Ontology is defined as the study of what there is in the most general sense. Depending on the philosopher, ontology may or may not be a synonym for metaphysics. As is universally admitted, the definitions of “ontology” and “metaphysics” are generally contested, and some philosophers, such as Xavier Zubiri as we shall see, have tried to distinguish them. In this essay, I will first outline one particular position that is central to contemporary debates in ontology, a version of trope theory. In particular, the one-category “bundle theory” (the idea that things are bundles of tropes) that I will present will draw heavily (but not exclusively) from Peter Simons’ work. Ultimately, I’ve synthesized ideas from several trope-theoretical positions to formulate what I take to be somewhat strengthened version of trope theory. Let’s call this a Plausible Trope Theory (PTT). By “plausible,” I certainly don’t mean uncon- troversial, nor do I mean there could not be a more plausible trope theoretical ontology. I simply mean that if one were committed to developing a trope theoretical ontology, PTT would not be a bad place to start. Second, I will consider some significant criticisms of trope theory in general and bundle theory in particular, and how PTT might address them. Third, I will highlight key elements of Xavier Zubiri’s understanding of the nature of real objects as constitutionally sufficient unified systems of notes, which on the surface bears a resemblance to trope theory. In the process I will discuss Zubiri’s understanding of the dis- tinction and relation between metaphysics and ontology, presenting a condensed version of Zubirian metaphysics (ZM). I will compare and contrast the basic understanding of the terms “trope” and “note,” in part to determine whether Zubiri’s theory is committed to a one-category ontology. Finally, I will show the similarities and differences between PTT and ZM and raise some questions for further ontological reflection.
Resumen Ontología se define como el estudio de lo que hay en el sentido más general. Según el filóso- fo, la ontología puede o no puede ser sinónimo de la metafísica. Como se admite universal- mente, las definiciones de “ontología” y “metafísica” generalmente se disputaron, y algunos filósofos, como Xavier Zubiri como veremos, han tratado de distinguirlos. En este ensayo, voy a esbozar una primera posición particular que es central en los debates contemporá- neos en la ontología, una versión de la teoría de tropo. En particular, el de una sola catego- ría de “teoría del paquete” (la idea de que las cosas son paquetes de tropos) que presentaré se base en gran medida (pero no exclusivamente) sobre las obras de Peter Simons. En últi- ma instancia, he sintetizado las ideas de varios puestos de tropo teóricos para formular lo que estimo una versión mejor de la teoría de tropo. Vamos a llamar a esto una Teoría Plau- sible de Trope (PTT). Al decir “plausible” ciertamente no quiero decir “incontrovertible,” ni me refiero a que no podía haber un tropo ontología teórica más plausible. Simplemente quiero decir que si uno se compromete a desarrollar una ontología teórico tropo, PTT no
57 58 Eric Weislogel ______sería un mal lugar para comenzar. En segundo lugar, voy a considerar algunas críticas significativas de la teoría del tropo, en general, y el paquete teoría en particular, y cómo PTT podría abordarlos. En tercer lugar, voy a destacar los elementos claves de la comprensión de Xavier Zubiri de la naturaleza de los objetos reales como sistemas unificados constitu- cionalmente suficiente de notas, que superficialmente parece relacionada a teoría de Trope. En el proceso voy a hablar de la comprensión de Zubiri de la distinción y la relación entre la metafísica y ontología, la presentación de una versión condensada de la metafísica zubi- riano (ZM). Voy a comparar y contrastar la comprensión básica de los términos “tropo” y “nota”, en parte para determinar si la teoría de Zubiri se ha comprometido a una categoría única ontologíca. Por último, voy a mostrar las similitudes y diferencias entre PTT y ZM y plantear algunas preguntas para la reflexión ontológica.
I. Ontology and Trope Theory: Towards have the opportunity to examine one sub- a Plausible Trope Theory (PTT) set of trope theories, that of “bundle theo- ry”—in short, the idea that things are Thomas Hofweber, in his article “Logic bundles of tropes. This is what ontologists and Ontology” in the Stanford Encyclope- call a one-category ontology, meaning that dia of Philosophy,1 generalizes the issues the category of trope is, according to these of concern to contemporary ontologists as philosophers, adequate for articulating a follows: sufficient understanding of the basic na- The larger discipline of ontology can ture of real things. In the main, we will be thus be seen as having four parts: engaged with (O3) in this discussion, but (O1) the study of ontological commit- the other issues will no doubt arise. ment, i.e. what we or others are com- Allow me to address briefly a set of re- mitted to, lated questions that might arise for the reader at the outset: Is not science – in (O2) the study of what there is, particular, physics – sufficient for answer- (O3) the study of the most general fea- ing the concerns of (02) and (03)? Does not tures of what there is, and how the science tell us what there is and explain things there are relate to each other the most general features of reality? Is it in the metaphysically most general not the case that, today, metaphysics ways, simply reduces to physics?2 Does the trope-theoretical ontology to be discussed (O4) the study of meta-ontology, i.e. in these pages consider itself in competi- saying what task it is that the disci- tion with the ontology of science? pline of ontology should aim to ac- To fully address these concerns would complish, if any; how the questions it take us far afield of our theme here, but it aims to answer should be understood; must suffice to say that although these and with what methodology they can seem like reasonable questions, in fact, be answered. these questions rest on significant confu- In the process of addressing these sions about both science and ontology. broad concerns, ontologists involve them- Trope theorists (as is the case with most selves with a variety of specific questions mainstream ontologists and, for that mat- about objects, universals, properties, ter, Zubiri) are not concerned to develop a tropes, time, events, change, identity, sets, competing ontology. “Science,” if there is numbers, persons, free will, God, and so such a unitary thing, must necessarily on. We cannot, of course, deal with all have ontological commitments. Both work- these matters in the confines of this paper ing scientists and ontologists are, in a in the manner each deserves. Instead, we sense, triangulating towards a plausible will explore one particular ontological posi- ontological view of reality, one that tion, trope theory. Indeed, we will only squares with the practice of science but
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 Zubiri and Contemporary Ontology 59 ______that is logically and metaphysically coher- in which the tropes “inhere.” This, of ent. So it is not a matter of an ontology course, should seem unsatisfying to one- competing with science so much as it is a category trope theorists, as it would intro- matter of (possibly) competing ontologies. duce the distinct ontological category of And it is not even necessarily a matter of substance and treat tropes as properties competing ontologies, as I hope to show in inhering in substances. But, on the other this paper, but rather of complementary hand, to say that a cue ball just is the ontological insights. Both trope theorists conglomeration of certain tropes leaves the and Zubiri mean for their philosophical theory vulnerable to saying that if a trope considerations of what there is in its basic white is over here and a trope spherical is structures to be a complement to and elu- over there and a trope weighs six ounces is cidation of the findings of the natural sci- at some third place and smooth-surfaced is ences.3 in yet another place, we’d still have a cue Tropes are “ontologically unstructured ball. That stretches credulity. (simple) abstract particulars.”4 Although Thus it is said that the “compres- Santayana first used the term “trope” in a ence”10 of these tropes constitutes the ob- philosophical sense, it is generally consid- ject. But, again, how should we under- ered that the locus classicus of trope theo- stand “compresence”? And what all is ry is an essay by Donald Williams.5 He compresent? The four tropes, white, spher- proposed that tropes (he adopts the term ical, smooth-surfaced, and weighs 6 ounc- “abstract particular”) es, are compresent, but is that compres- ence, itself, a trope? And white and spheri- …are the primary constituents of this cal are compresent - is that particular or any possible world, the very alphabet compresence a trope as well? In other of being. They not only are actual but words, are there relational tropes such as are the only actualities, in just this compresence? And if so, are there further sense, that whereas entities of all other relations between the compresence trope, categories are literally composed of itself, and the “atomic” tropes (white, them, they are not in general composed spherical, et. al.) of the kind we named? If of any other sort of entity.”6 so, does it lead to an infinite regress? And Thus, on this view, things are composed of even if that regress is infinite, is it vicious tropes and the relations of location and or benign?11 Call these sorts of relations similarity.7 Now, this understanding of “internal relations.” tropes as primitive — i.e., considered as a Of course, we have not mentioned the one-category ontology8 — leads directly to further tropes, which Williams for one the “bundle theory” of objects: objects are would countenance, of “external relations”: nothing but bundles of tropes. the compresence of the white-spherical- A question arises for bundle theory: smooth-weighs-6-ounces and the green- what makes this object (this bundle of felt-flat-surface of the pool table. Must we tropes) this object?9 Specifically, must consider such tropes, if tropes they be, in there be some substrate in which the understanding the constitution of the cue tropes inhere or which in some other fash- ball? ion binds the tropes in such a way as to And what are we to say of two identi- constitute this object? Let’s take for an cal cue balls? Is it even possible to have example a white billiard ball. Among the two identical objects at all? And what key tropes that constitute this object are about the trope “white,” which constitutes “white,” “spherical,” “smooth-surfaced,” both cue ball A and cue ball B? In classi- and “weighs six ounces.” How shall we cal ontology, the white in cue ball A and think about this? Some philosophers ar- the white in cue ball B are instantiations gue that there would have to be some who- of “whiteness,” a universal (e.g., a Platonic knows-what (Locke called it a “bare par- form). The concern with universals for ticular”) that “underlies” these tropes and trope theorists (but not only them) is that
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 60 Eric Weislogel ______they seem to commit us to ethereal, inde- Tropes are not independent things, pendently existing abstract objects, which but are ontologically dependent. However, conflicts with the commitment of modern in their bundling tropes can also yield science to a physicalist metaphysics. As something emergent, something more then mentioned, PTT is meant to be a comple- just an agglomeration, something with an ment to the modern scientific worldview, independence of its own. not an alternative to it. But if tropes are The notion of dependence, here, is still particulars rather than universals, they problematic. As we saw, one-category on- cannot be in two places at once, as uni- tologists do not want anything in their versals allegedly can be. So how does trope theory that would commit them to a sec- theory explain two white cue balls?12 ond (let alone a third or fourth) ontological Trope theory holds that tropes are particu- category. So upon what are the tropes of a lars, and so either does not countenance given thing dependent? It certainly cannot universals or reduces them to classes of be a “bare substance,” on this view. exactly similar objects (with very little Simons proposes what he calls a nu- analysis of in what “exact similarity” or clear theory to attempt to address this “exact resemblance” consists)13. question. It is a “pure” bundle theory, if I One hopes that in addressing these may put it that way, a one-category ontol- sorts of issues we can come to a better ogy. There is no thought of substance or understanding of the constitution of real an “extra” substratum or otherwise prop- objects. Setting aside the question of uni- ertyless something-or-other that bundles versals for the time being, let’s at this tropes together. Simons’s theory, though, point keep in mind that tropes ought not will hold that there is “something” upon to be considered as parts of a thing such which tropes are dependent. But can he that a thing is “made up of” tropes. De- have his cake and eat it, too? Can he hold spite the way Donald Williams puts it (see to a one-category ontology that (1) answers above), that is not the best way to under- the question of how this object is this ob- stand bundle theory’s tenets. According to ject; (2) accounts for the distinction be- Peter Simons, “Trope bundles are not tween essential and accidental features of meant to be mere collections, and certainly things, and thus accounts for the intuition not collections of self-subsistent individu- that things can indeed undergo accidental als which could first exist and then be change; (3) does not sneak in through the assembled into a whole like an army is back door some notion of substance or built by putting men together, or a ship is substratum under another guise, thus built out of divers bits of steel, etc.”14 vitiating the claims of the sufficiency of Some philosophers would say that tropes one-category ontology? are not parts but ways things are. To see what he intends by this “some- On the other hand, Simons reminds thing” that is not another ontological cate- us, gory, we have to see how Simons thinks objects are constituted. Objects can be We should not however take seriously thought to be constituted generally in two the view that tropes, whether they are (non-temporal) stages. To understand ways or not, are not entities at all. what follows, we must make a brief detour Clearly a bundle theorist cannot, be- to discuss the meaning and the weakness cause then he would be building enti- of foundation relations as Edmund Husserl ties out of non-entities. Ways and sees them. According to him, a right un- tropes are not nothing, hence they are derstanding of foundation relations will something, hence they are entities. But stave off the threat of an infinite regress they are not THING-like, if by that we that arises if two objects can only be uni- mean substance-like. They are not res, fied via some third entity. Husserl recog- they are rei or rerum.15 nizes two forms of foundation relations that are immune to this threat:
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 Zubiri and Contemporary Ontology 61 ______
An individual A is weakly founded on ly dubious—again, PTT intends to com- an individual B iff A is necessarily such plement science. Second, it treats place as that it cannot exist unless B exists. a substratum—just what one-category trope theory hopes to avoid. Finally, it For instance, if B is an essential proper makes the whole idea of movement (and part of A, then A cannot exist without B identity throughout movement) to be mys- (or any other of A’s essential proper parts). terious. On this (mistaken) view, a trope is There is, however, a second type of what it is based on the place it occupies, foundation relation recognized by Husserl: so if it were to move (along with the thing A is strongly founded on B iff A is weak- it comprises) it would cease to be what it is ly founded on B and B is not a part of (and the thing it comprises would no long- A. er be the same thing). None of these solutions captures what Strong foundation works like this: A can- our intuitions tell us: that things have not exist unless B exists, but B is not a properties that can change while the thing part of A. For instance, a color trope could remains the “same” thing. Traditional sub- not exist without an extension trope, but stratum theory would be a strong con- extension is not part of color. tender for a satisfactory explanation were One can wonder, however, whether it not for the fact that, as we have seen, these conceptions are really helpful or the notion of “substratum,” itself, is highly whether they are not, in fact, merely vague problematic. 16 and confusing. Simon proposes this puz- Simons’ own proposal for understand- zler: ing the constitution of objects applies a Suppose that A and B are strongly mu- somewhat different concept of foundation tually founding, that is, neither is part relation, although it owes much to Hus- of the other, and neither can exist with- serl. out the other. We may now ask, what is Firstly, two particulars are said to be it about A and B that makes this so? directly foundationally related if either Consider that it may be an essential is founded, whether weakly or strongly, proper part of a Dry Erase Marker that it on the other. Two particulars are then be some color (there can be no Dry Erase foundationally related iff they bear the Marker that is no color at all), and yet that ancestral of the relation of direct foun- fact alone does not account for the fact dational relatedness to one another. A that some Dry Erase Markers are red. Si- collection forms a foundational system mons chalks up the problem to Husserl’s iff every member in it is foundationally carelessness about what holds at the spe- related in it to every other, and none is cies level and what holds at the instance foundationally related to anything level. Color is such (viz., as species) that it which is not a member of the collection. requires (is strongly founded upon) exten- If A is either weakly or strongly found- sion. But a given instance of an extended ed on B or if B is weakly or strongly object, while requiring color, does not re- founded on A, then A is directly founda- quire an instance of red. tionally related to B. So Husserl’s solution to our problem The condition, “bears the ancestral of of the constitution of particular entities is the relation” (in this case of direct founda- insufficient. tional relatedness) is derived from Frege. In an effort to have this thing be this Edward N. Zalta explains it by an example: thing, what about if we say that A and B are compresent if they are at the same The intuitive idea is easily grasped if we place, P? Simons objects that, first, it pre- consider the relation x is the father of y. supposes an absolute concept of place or Suppose that a is the father of b, that b space that is physically and metaphysical- is the father of c, and that c is the fa-
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 62 Eric Weislogel ______
ther of d. Then Frege's definition of ‘x is a plausible trope theory (call it “PTT”). In an ancestor of y in the fatherhood- the next section, we will explore several series’ ensured that a is an ancestor of objections to trope theory and its at- b, c, and d, that b is an ancestor of c tendant bundle theory ontology. and d, and that c is an ancestor of d.17 II. Criticisms of Trope- and Bundle- In the present case, foundational relations Theories can be traced back to the direct founda- tional relations in the given object. That A. Problems with tropes object, here considered as a foundational Jerrold Levinson, in his “Why There system, is such if and only if every mem- Are No Tropes,”21 supplies many of the ber (here: trope) in it is foundationally re- reasons some philosophers have rejected lated to every other member (trope) in it, trope theory. and none is foundationally related to any- First of all, says Levinson, a trope is thing that is not a member of that collec- defined as a particularized attribute. Now, tion of tropes. This gives the object its “in- there are two kinds of attributes, proper- dependence” and its organic unity. ties and qualities. Levinson defines “prop- So consider a collection of co- erty” as follows: occurring mutually founding tropes. This Properties are exemplified by being red, collection forms a foundational system being heavy, being wise, being viva- (every member of the collection is founda- cious, being a bachelor, and are stand- tionally related to every other member and ardly designated by gerundive expres- not to any non-member). This foundation- sions, most notably, ‘being _____’. They al system forms the nucleus of the object. are conceptualized as conditions ob- It is the individual essence or individual jects can be in, and are not quantiza- nature of the thing.18 It is not a mere col- ble, that is, not things an object can lection of tropes, but a “connected unity”.19 have more or less of. In other words, But this will most likely not be a complete they are indivisible, non-partitionable thing, as it will also have a variety of other things. Properties can also be con- properties. Considered as tropes, non- ceived, although awkwardly, as being- essential properties can be borne in a a-certain-ways, that is, as entities that strong foundational relation with the nu- have ways of being, or ways things can cleus. These leave us with a view of objects be, at their core. that is consistent with our intuition that things (thought of in terms of the nucleus) On the other hand, “qualities” can change (by addition or subtractions of …are exemplified by redness, heavi- non-nuclear tropes) and remain the same ness, wisdom, vivacity, and are stand- thing (again, in terms of the nuclear foun- ardly designated by abstract nouns. dational trope system). Simons asserts They are conceptualized as stuffs of an that his theory combines the best of bun- abstract sort, and thus as a rule as dle and substratum theories.20 That which quantizable, that is, as things an object plays the role of substratum avoids the can have more or less of. In other who-knows-what character of the tradi- words, they are inherently divisible or tional view of substratum — it is, itself, partitionable things. nothing but a nucleus of mutually found- ed essential tropes. Given this understanding of the terms, The preceding was a brief introduction Levinson notes that tropes would have to to the idea of tropes, of one-category on- be particularized qualities. Tropes cannot tology, and some of the issues with which be “particularized properties,” as that trope theory must contend. In particular, I phrase, says Levinson, is oxymoronic. have singled out Peter Simon’s “nuclear” Properties cannot be quantized or parti- version of “bundle theory” as the basis for tioned. So if there are tropes, they would
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 Zubiri and Contemporary Ontology 63 ______have to be particularized qualities (i.e., mately presuppose attribute thought. abstract stuff). Thus tropes are not only either inco- But can there be particularized ab- herent or unbelievable posits, but met- stract stuff? Only if there can be abstract aphysically otiose ones as well.25 stuff (i.e., qualities) in the first place. On In this thoroughgoing attack on the very reflection, Levinson came to think that idea of tropes (abstract particular attrib- such abstract stuff is incredible. There utes), Levinson raises many other objec- cannot be qualities, bits of stuff that are tions that I shall leave to one side. The somehow like material bits of stuff but upshot is that Levinson finds conceiving of abstract, and so there cannot be particu- tropes as particularized attributes is high- larized qualities. So there cannot be ly problematic, if not completely implausi- tropes. ble or incredible. He notes, however, that if Levinson takes Williams to task on his tropes are conceived some other way, then idea that there are “subtle parts” of objects this particular set of criticisms may very in addition to “gross” parts. Williams’ well not hold. Levinson writes, somewhat famous example is of three var- iously similar lollipops.22 Each lollipop has Thus, if tropes are proposed as non- an exactly similar “gross” part: their re- attribute-like abstract particulars of spective sticks. But they also share exactly some sort, their claim to recognition is similar “subtle” parts, such as their shape. not touched by what I have said here. Levinson finds the latter “parts” to be in- Similarly, if tropes are proposed as credible. How can there be parts that are property instantiations or property ex- non-decomposable and intangible? What emplifications, then since these are is it to say that an object is “made up of” simply varieties of states of affairs, they (in part) its shape?23 too are unaffected by the brief I have Simons, as we have seen, does not go presented. But in the sense of tropes as as far as Williams in claiming that tropes originally introduced into modern phil- are “parts,” but Levinson still objects to osophical discussion, that is, as par- Simon’s talk of tropes as “particularized ticularized, necessarily unshareable, at- ways” things are. Tropes, by definition, are tributes, able to serve as the primitive particulars (and not universals and thus building blocks of a coherent alterna- shareable). But even though it is clear that tive ontology, there are, I maintain, no for two objects, A and B, which seem to tropes.26 share a particular way of being, W, that A’s being W and B’s being W are different B. Problems with bundles (by the simple fact that A is not B), never- Even if Levinson’s objections to tropes theless there is no reason for not saying as the building blocks of all reality, as that W, itself, is exactly similar (or identi- Williams would put it, can be answered, cal) in each case. For instance, if W = what are we to make of the attendant “weighs 10 pounds”, there is no reason to “Bundle Theory” of objects? The notion think that W is not a shared attribute. Ten that objects are nothing but bundles of pounds is ten pounds. tropes is problematic. Even in a fairly so- Levinson criticizes Cynthia MacDon- phisticated bundle theory as that pro- ald’s proposals for tropes24 by saying, in posed earlier by Peter Simons, wherein effect, that trope theory is less explanatori- there is both a nucleus of essential tropes ly efficient than traditional (universal at- to which other, adventitious tropes adhere tribute) theory. Levinson writes, in some way, is open to significant ques- Standard attribute thought doesn’t tioning. need tropes, whereas trope thought, as- To meet the criterion of self-identity of suming there were any good reasons to objects, tropes must be compresent. This think there were tropes, would ulti- notion is under-analyzed in the literature,
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 64 Eric Weislogel ______however. We’ve already seen some issues culmination of his lifetime of philosophical that arise with this notion of compresence, endeavors. That book, entitled Man and including the fact that it may imply an God (El Hombre y Dios), was left uncom- unwarranted conception of absolute space pleted.30 Although Man and God is an am- and time. In addition, as Maurin points bitious and wide-ranging work, it does out, either compresence is an “internal” provide a convenient summary of Zubiri’s relation, in which case the tropes that are metaphysical vision of reality as it was laid compresent must always be compresent27 - out in his earlier works, especially On Es- - an unacceptable consequence -- or com- sence31 (Sobre la esencia)32 and The Dy- presence is an “external” relation, which namic Structure of Reality33 (La estructura would then lead to different metaphysical- dinimica de la realidad).34 ly unpalatable consequences (viz., Brad- Zubiri would make a distinction be- ley's Regress28). Again, the question is al- tween the terms metaphysics and ontology, ways: What makes this object this object? viewing the latter as founded upon the former. For Zubiri, reality is not merely a C. A brief rejoinder from PTT field of things. Thus to understand what The Plausible Theory of Tropes I've contemporary ontology might learn from a been sketching in this paper may be able Zubirian point of view, it is important to to address some of the key objections lev- establish what Zubiri means by the word eled by Levinson, generally by taking a cue “reality.” from Levinson's own parting remarks. The He begins his discussion by saying strategy would be, first, not to conceive of that “everything real is constituted by cer- tropes in the traditional language of at- tain notes.”35 Each note exhibits two mo- tributes (whether properties, qualities, or ments of a thing. First, each note “be- ways). Second, discussion of tropes should longs” to the thing, and, second, each note take place in terms of states of affairs. serves to determine what the thing is to However, this latter piece of advice which it “belongs.” I put the term “belongs” raises other sorts of problems. If a particu- in scare-quotes to indicated that there is lar state of affairs consists in part of a not a relationship between, on the one “property instantiation” or “property ex- hand, a thing and, on the other, a note. emplification,” we are still left with the Certainly, for Zubiri, there is no “thing” problem of the means of that instantiation that has a metaphysical (let alone tem- or exemplification. Or we could put it this poral) priority over its notes. His example: way: what are we talking about when we heat is a note of a thing, and heat deter- talk about properties in this case? We re- mines that the thing is a hot thing (and turn, thus, to the problem universals, and not some other kind of thing). Zubiri however we solve it, we are sure to be spurns the traditional term “property” in committing ourselves to at least a two- his exposition because of his objection to category ontology. In other words, there the traditional coupling of property with might be tropes, but there has to be more substance. On this traditional view, sub- than tropes. stance is conceived as a subject in which PTT, which is committed to a one- properties inhere. I like to call a simplistic category ontology, might propose the fol- version of this traditional substance- lowing workaround for this objection: metaphysics the “Mr. Potatohead Meta- states of affairs are adequately describable physics.” Mr. Potatohead is a children’s toy in terms of abstract particulars that are that consists in a brown ovoid plastic po- the constituents (not parts) of a given state tato with a variety of small holes in it, as of affairs.29 well as a separate set of attributes (eyes, mustache, ears, lips, etc) that can be in- III. Zubirian Metaphysics terchangeably plugged into the holes, thus At the time of his death, Zubiri was at giving Mr. Potatohead a variety of possible work on a book that was, in effect, the looks. On the simplistic view of substance-
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 Zubiri and Contemporary Ontology 65 ______metaphysics that Zubiri rejects, the “pota- - something “physical” (by which term he to” represents the substance and the ears, does not mean simply material; he is dis- lips, eyes, etc., represent the properties. tinguishing “physical” from “theoretical” or Zubiri objects to the Lockean idea that “conceptive,” which are mere for Zubiri). there must be something underlying the Only certain kinds of things can appre- features or properties that is in itself, hend reality. To illustrate this point, Zubiri somehow, featureless.36 compares humans and dogs as they en- But what is reality? For Zubiri, reality counter heat. For a dog, heat is the signal is the fact that notes belong to a thing in for a certain response (move away, come their own right.37 The “in their own right” closer). That just is heat for a dog, and, if I is the key. This is the formality of reality. may put it this way, it’s all about the dog. To be formally real, a thing must have its But for a human, heat is a warming, and notes in its own right. Notes cannot simply not simply a stimulus invoking a response. be imputed to a thing, nor can they be It might invoke a response in a human, for simply signs of a stimulus-response rela- instance if the heat causes discomfort in tion if the thing to which the notes belong the human. But the human apprehends is to be a real thing. What does this mean? the heat in its own right, immediately (i.e., Suppose I imagine I am experiencing a does not have to reason towards that as a dragon. The dragon is large, green, scaly, conclusion). and fire-breathing. But none of these This, by the way, is the answer to notes of the dragon belong to the dragon “Cartesian anxiety” concerning the “exteri- in their own right, but are merely imputed or world.” How do I know there is a world by me. Thus the “dragon” is not real (be- “out there” that’s not just in my head? cause “its” notes do not belong to “it” in Zubiri answers: Before you even come to their own right). Take another example: I know the world at all you apprehend the am at work on a table. Its notes include otherness, the in-its-own-rightness, of that it is a fine workspace and it is aes- things. That is a precondition of knowing thetically pleasing. According to Zubiri, a (and hence questioning) anything at all. table is not a real thing - or as he puts it This capacity of human beings forms the more informatively - a table is a “meaning- basis of what Zubiri calls “sentient intelli- thing” but not a “reality-thing.” Yes, there gence.” is a real thing here in my office, a thing We can see – as we always do in met- whose notes belong to it in its own right. aphysical exploration – that the epistemo- That thing has a certain mass, shape, logical quickly enters into the discussion. physical makeup, etc. It is a physical ob- However, what Zubiri is describing here is ject. The fact that it is a “table” is a func- not, at bottom, epistemological but meta- tion of my having a need for this physical physical. He is not addressing the ques- object according to some project I am pur- tion of how we know but of what reality is. suing. Tables do not have their notes as Reality is not a function of human know- tables in their own right, but only as im- ing; rather, he says that reality is “activat- puted by some person or other. Meaning- ed” in sentient intelligence.39 Reality is things are not independent from reality- neither a concept nor an idea. Reality is things, of course, and certain reality- fundamental and, for Zubiri, an obvious things and not others have the capacity to fact. Where we philosophers go wrong is in be certain meaning-things. As Zubiri says, the “entification of reality”40—adopting the the reality-thing water has no capacity to idea that reality = things, and the “logifica- be a table.38 tion of intellection”41—the idea that reality How do we know that certain things is a function of predication. are real? We apprehend reality directly, To continue, things (generally) have a says Zubiri. Reality is not a concept or variety of notes, and real things have those abstraction nor is it the conclusion of a notes in their own right. Those notes form line of reasoning. It is - as he likes to put it a unity, but that unity—the unity of a real
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 66 Eric Weislogel ______thing—is not simply an additive unity but Zubiri does not think the “more” is a systematic unity. A real thing is a unified some extra thing, even though every real system of notes. What does this mean? thing is not just the sum of notes, not just Zubiri explains that every note of a thing a string of notes. Each note is constitu- should be understood as a “note-of” the tional in character, and the system of thing. In other words, there are no free- notes has constitutional sufficiency— floating notes, and a thing is not a mere meaning that this systematic unity is suf- conglomeration of pre-existing notes. To ficient for constituting this thing. The for- say that a note is always a note-of is to say mal notes (as opposed to the “adventi- that a note is what it is as a function of all tious” notes, notes that are a function of the rest of the notes of the thing. And it is the thing’s relationship with other things to imply that the thing is what it is solely in the world) in their systematic unity just as a function of the notes that it possesses are the real thing; they constitute the real in its own right.42 There is no Mr. Potato- thing. So where is the “more”? head apart from his notes, and the sys- Here, Zubiri makes another important tematic unity of his notes just is Mr. Pota- distinction. He coins another term, sub- tohead. The unity makes the notes to be stantivity, and then opposes it to “sub- what they are, and the notes make the stantiality.” The latter term refers to Aris- unity what it is. The key here is the prepo- totle’s (and St. Thomas’) notion of sub- sition “of.” Zubiri says that the “of” is a stance. In Zubirian terms, a substantivity moment of a thing’s reality. Things are, in is not a substance. The way Zubiri would effect, particular forms of “of-y-ness” (if put it, each organism is one substantivity you will forgive me this atrocious locution). comprising a multitude of “substances.” So is Zubiri saying something like, “A He gives the example of the substance, thing is nothing more than its notes”? No, glucose. It is a substance, not an “acci- he is not. Every note, insofar as it is a dent.” But it is taken up by an organism note-of, always points to something (say, a human being) in such a way that it “more.”43 Your notes, for instance, are loses its (on Aristotelian terms) substanti- “your notes”—not mine or anyone else’s. ality as it becomes note-of the human be- Your notes are notes at all only because ing. Zubiri reserves the term “substance” they are yours. It is not as if there is a big in the contemporary sense of “stuff” or bucket of notes somewhere and someone “material.” Things are substantivities.44 (say, God) grabs up a bunch of these pre- Again, this is the reason Zubiri wants existing notes and glues them together to speak of “notes” rather than “proper- and comes up with you. If that were the ties.” On Aristotelian terms, properties case, you would be nothing more than inhere in a subject (the word “sub-ject” these glued-together notes. Hume perhaps literally means “thrown underneath”). For thought something like this. There is no Zubiri, notes cohere among themselves, “substance” at all (that’s just a manner of comprising a systematic unity. The sys- speaking); all there is are properties. But tematic unity is substantivity. that is not what Zubiri is saying. He does Further, Zubiri makes the distinction not think that Hume’s position is defensi- between notes that are constitutive and ble. What would it mean to say that there notes that are not constitutive. All notes, is “big” or “green” or even “hairy” all by says Zubiri, are constitutional; some are themselves? If that is incoherent, things constitutive. He gives the example of “all won’t get any better if you string them white cats with blue eyes are deaf.”45 He together into a “big-green-hairy”—all by says these notes are constitutional (of itself it won’t result in a big, green, hairy blue-eyed, deaf, white cats), but not con- monster. You need something more. But stitutive. Why not? Because these notes the “more” is the question. Is it a sub- are “grounded in others.” What others? stance, something in some way “independ- The notes of the cat’s genes. These genetic ent” of the accidents? notes are constitutive of the cat (i.e., ac-
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 Zubiri and Contemporary Ontology 67 ______count for its bare existence, so to speak), The unity of the system of notes de- unless of course science comes to show termine a thing’s “interiority,” what Zubiri that genetic notes are further grounded in calls its in. These notes form a constitu- more “fundamental” notes. But this, he tional systemic unity. But at the same says, is a matter for biology, not philoso- time, notes project outward. This is the phy.46 system’s ex. Zubiri, then, defines dimen- Compare this to Aristotle’s under- sion as “the projection of the whole ‘in’ into standing of the structure of the human the ‘ex.’”48 Each constitutional sufficiency soul. According to him, that structure is (laypersons call that a “thing”) has multi- based on functions. For instance, there ple dimensions, multiple ways it projects are the rational functions of the soul. “itself” outwards. And each dimension What mechanism allows for these func- projects the entire unity of the system of tions (e.g., brain, neurons, central nervous notes. system, etc.) is a biological question. The Even though notes are always “notes- metaphysical question is: What are the of,” each note, itself, is a form of reality. constitutive functions of any human being They are real. “The color green is the (no matter how they happen)? Or in other greenish form of reality.”49 An entire sys- words, what functions are essential if a tem of notes as a constituted reality is a thing is to be a human being? This is form of reality. There are various forms of something like what Zubiri is after here. reality. Zubiri says that the notes of a liv- He finds the essence of things in their ing being are “reduced to physico-chemical constitutive notes, the systematic unity of elements.”50 The living being qua living notes that are not grounded upon other being, however, has its own form of reality notes and that are necessary and constitu- (different from a star or a stone, he says). tionally sufficient for the thing. He writes, The corollary to this is that a living being is not reducible to its physico-chemical The constitutive notes comprise the elements. Those are different forms of real- radical subsystem of substantivity: they ity.51 are its essence. Essence is the struc- You might say that they are different tural principle of substantivity. It is not realities, but for Zubiri reality is always the correlate of a definition. It is the numerically one. There is just one reality, system of notes necessary and suffi- but it is comprised of multiple forms of cient so that a substantive reality may reality. And each form of reality deter- have its remaining constitutional notes, mines how that reality is “implanted” in including adventitious notes.”47 the one reality. Personhood, for instance, Here again, Zubiri is distinguishing is a “way of being implanted in reality.”52 himself from Aristotle. He is trying to de- Zubiri summarizes: fine what the essence of something is. [E]verything real, be it an elemental Traditionally, essence is presented in note or substantive system, has two terms of an idea or a definition. For in- moments. There is the moment of hav- stance classically, the essence of a human ing these notes: this is suchness. And being was to be an appropriate body with there is the moment of having form and a rational soul. A human being is an “em- mode of reality; which technically I bodied soul.” shall call ‘transcendental,’ designating For Zubiri, this seems “definitional,” with this term, not a concept, but a merely a way of speaking. For him, the physical moment….53 essence of anything is the substantive system of constitutive notes. That’s the We said that a substantive reality is technical definition of (the word) “essence,” “more” than the sum of its notes. What is but essence is not a technical definition. It the “more,” we wanted to know. It is not a is a reality. subject, a subjectum, that is standing un- der an array of properties. Zubiri writes,
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 68 Eric Weislogel ______
Each real thing, through its moment of Notice at this point that Zubiri is not reality, is “more” than what it is saying “in relation,” because a relation through the mere content of its notes. implies that there are at least two separate The moment of reality, in fact, is nu- things that then come together in that merically identical when I apprehend relation. But openness is a constitutive several things as a unit. This means element of anything real to be real at all. that the moment of reality is, in each To be the note that it is, the note has to real thing, an open moment. It is already be open to other notes and be con- “more” than the notes, because it is stituted by its openness to other notes. open to everything else. This is the Relations can only come after this consti- openness of the real. The openness is tutional openness, are only possible be- not of conceptual character. Nor is it cause of this openness of the real. If there the case that the concept of reality can were no openness of the real, there could be applied to several real things; rather, never be any relationships at all. There are reality is a moment physically open in thus systems of systems of notes, based in itself. That is the reason why transcen- the end on the most fundamental or con- dentality is not a mere concept, com- stitutive notes (in biology, this might be mon to everything real; transcendental- the notes of genes; in physics, perhaps it ity is not community. It is actually is superstrings). about a physical moment of communi- This insight leads Zubiri to a further cation.54 point about reality, the difference between relationality and respectivity. He says, “The moment of reality is numerically “Everything real, both in its suchness and identical,” just means there is one reality. in its reality, is intrinsically respective.”55 Each “thing” has its form of reality and He writes, “Respectivity remits [“sends each collection of things (say, a landscape) forward”] each real thing to another.” Real has its form of reality. But there is just things are like this because of their consti- one reality. tutive openness. The ground of the in-its- The “more” of each substantive reality own-rightness is respectivity. Each real lies in its openness to everything else. A thing is what it is in its respectivity to- tree is a tree and as such it is open in its wards what else is, in its constitutive implantation in reality to be an element of (which means “that which makes some- the landscape (which in turn has its own thing to be what it is”) openness. Each real form of reality, different from the mode of thing is implanted in reality in a determi- reality of the tree). Zubiri calls this the nate way, based on its capacities for re- openness of the real. When Zubiri writes, spectivity, based on its role (so to speak) in “transcendentality is not community; it is the system. The thing determines the sys- actually about a physical moment of tem and the system determines the thing – communication,” he means that openness and all this is before anything like “rela- does not merely mean that things can be tionships” develop. This is a constitutive set next to each other and considered as a fact – not a choice or an option, not just a collection of things, a “community” of way of looking at things – according to things. He means that openness of the real Zubiri. entails that all things are communicating (in a manner of speaking) with each other; Nothing is real if it is not “its own” re- they are being together essentially because ality, and nothing is “its own” reality anything real is always open to everything unless it has to be, by virtue of being else. Respectivity is always necessary; re- constitutively open. […] The result is lations are possibly accidental, but always that every real thing is open “towards” and necessarily founded on (prior) respec- other real things, and each form and tivity. mode of reality is open to other modes and forms of reality.”56
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 Zubiri and Contemporary Ontology 69 ______
Radical respectivity is not thing-to- mans (or something with consciousness) thing but mode/form of reality-to- experience something does that something mode/form of reality. So, for Zubiri, the exist. This is called “idealism,” and it has world – and there can be only one – is “the its roots in Platonic thinking. Idealism respective unity of all realities insofar as holds that what is real is the idea. Plato they are realities.” There might be more thought the ideas—the forms—were the than one cosmos, by which Zubiri means most real things and that they somehow an already constituted system of things possessed eternal being. Other idealists (maybe there are other possible kosmoi, think ideas are only found in people’s i.e., a multiverse), but there can only be minds. In either case, there is a distinction one world, one reality. What Zubiri is say- between idealism and materialism (which ing here does not contradict what we said holds that what is real is matter). above about there being one reality, that Zubiri is neither an idealist nor a ma- reality is “numerically always one.” Ulti- terialist in the classical senses of these mate reality is this total respective unity of terms. He is a philosopher of reality, and all modes and forms of reality that, to one for him both ideas and matter are real. implanted in reality in that way, certainly That means reality is not based on ideas feels like the “only” reality, and that makes or on matter; rather, these are based on the forms/modes of reality of others seem (or founded in) reality. like different “realities”. One world, one So Zubiri is, in a sense, equating “ac- ultimate reality. tuality” with being manifest to us, having And that reality is respective. Even if a role in our reality. “Actualness” is just there were only one real thing, it would be the idea that real things are (and, as real, “formally respective in and of itself.” It are open and respective). Things attain would be its own world. actuality as a function of sentient intelli- Zubiri makes a further distinction be- gence. There would be actualness without tween actuality and actualness. He ex- sentient intelligence, but not actuality plains that actualness is just like St. Zubiri writes that “Whatever is real Thomas’ understanding of act. It is the because of its respectivity is real as a opposite of potency. Actuality—and he function of the other real things. This is thinks this word is the one most philoso- the functionality of the real.”57 Now, every- phers equate with Thomas’s idea of “act”— thing is real because of its respectivity, so for Zubiri means, in effect, the way in everything that is real is real as a function which any real thing is here, now. Virus- of other things. es—his example—were always real, always “Function” is a familiar Aristotelian had actualness (there were not mere po- term, but the functional analysis that tencies). But humans didn’t always know Zubiri presents differs markedly from Aris- about viruses, didn’t always have to deal totle’s functional analysis of the human with viruses. Viruses were not a part of soul, for example. Functionality points to our reality, so to speak. But now they are. something deeper in the actualness of real Now, they are actual, they have actualized, things. Before anything can have a func- they have actuality. Actuality is founded tion (ergon) or a set of functions in the upon (or grounded by) “prior” actualness Aristotelian sense, it must be recognized (the founding/grounding is not temporal, that all real things are what they are as a of course). function of everything else. Zubiri means Why is Zubiri making this point? He the word “function” in something like the wants us to see the relationship between sense of “My buying Elton John tickets what is real, on the one hand, and what was a function of wanting to see him in we know to be real, what we experience as concert.” Buying tickets is nothing at all real, on the other. There are those philos- except with reference to the show and my ophers—Bishop Berkeley, to give one ex- wanting to go to it. However, Zubiri does ample—who like to think that only if hu- not necessarily mean function in the sense
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 70 Eric Weislogel ______of something I do, some act or set of acts I i.e, would have to make reference to our perform. He means function as in “func- human way of apprehending reality, in tion-of” (as he means note as in “note-of”). order even to get started. This is more or less a restatement of the Having brought to light some of the lesson that any “thing” is a constitutional- key ideas of Zubiri’s quite elaborate meta- ly sufficient system of real notes, and both physical vision—and before attempting to the notes and the system they comprise map his work onto contemporary discus- are constitutively open to the rest of reali- sion in ontology—we should pause to ty. The notes determine the thing; the highlight some key questions and prob- thing determines the notes; and everything lems raised by this work. determines (in one way or another) every- 1. Have we hit bottom? thing else. This is not because we think it’s this way; it’s because it is this way. In philosophy, starting points matter. Everything is the way it is as a function of Despite the last century’s philosophical the way everything else is.58 preoccupation with anti-foundationalism, Finally, Zubiri makes a distinction be- anyone hoping to develop a systematic tween being, the province of ontology, and theory—especially of reality, itself—has to reality, the province of metaphysics. He make a start somewhere, beyond which bases that distinction on the difference the theory cannot go. All sensible philoso- between actuality and actualness. Being is phers agree that at some point one has to to reality as actuality is to actualness. The put one’s foot down, so to speak, and ac- latter term in each pair is the ground or cept that other philosophers can always foundation for the former term in each question this starting point. There is no pair. A key implication of this distinction getting around this, and we must remain is that whatever we say in ontology ought humble about our choices of principles. to be grounded in reality, properly Zubiri—in some ways like Descartes— grasped. In On Essence, Zubiri makes a begins his metaphysical quest from an conceptual cut in this manner: experiential or epistemological standpoint. Reality, for Zubiri, is the foundation for all The view from without inward is a way that follows. There is no getting outside, of viewing as inhesion and leads to a underneath, or beyond reality. But we “get theory of the categories of being. The at it” immediately. We apprehend the “in- view from within outward is a view of its-own-right-ness” of things (and do not actualization or projection and leads to have to argue towards it or deduce it). It is a theory of the dimensions of reality. our starting point. These two manners of viewing are not Now, there is a long-standing drive in incompatible; rather, both are neces- thought for “objectivity,” a point of view sary for an adequate theory of reality.59 that is not any particular point of view, a Real things are unified systems of position that is absolute, and this for fear notes in their own right that can be un- that a subjective and relative position derstood from the point of view of either could only yield a parochial theory, per- the “in” (the “of-y-ness” of the respective haps no better than a idiosyncratic taste notes) or the “ex” (the outward projection, or predilection. This purported Holy Grail the dimensions, the actualness of the of theory has been described as view of thing as a function of all other things). things as if we never existed.60 But is such Zubiri would say that an Aristotelian- a goal attainable? I think not. I know of no inspired category ontology can (and must) one who has fundamentally doubted the be developed based on the former perspec- veridicality of one’s own general experience tive, just as a metaphysics of reality in all (even accounting for error as a modulation its dimensions would need to be developed of the veridicality of experience). It seems, on the latter. The latter project would have to me anyway, acceptable to start with this to take into account sentient intelligence, reality that we apprehend directly in its
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 Zubiri and Contemporary Ontology 71 ______
“in-its-own-right-ness” and see where this count for the difference between things. methodological starting point leads us. But what differentiates one note from an- One possible objection that could be other? Is it that notes, themselves, have levied against this option can be drawn notes? Does this lead to some sort of re- from deconstructions of what is called the gress? Would such a regress be vicious or “metaphysics of presence,” the idea that benign? being is not fully, transparently present to 3. What accounts for the systematic unity? apprehension but subject to position in I.e., why are there certain things rather differential systems and temporal deferring than others? (what Derrida called différance). Zubiri’s thought, I might argue, tends to be im- Again, to say that different things dif- mune from such criticism. A defense fer due to the different notes that form stems from the distinction Zubiri makes their systematic unity raises the question between reality and being and with the of why are there different systematic uni- notions of “openness,” “functionality,” and ties? What even accounts for these uni- “respectivity.” However, this argument ties? cannot be made here. Suffice it to say that 4. Is there a phenomenological basis of any philosophical position – including de- metaphysics, and if so is this legitimate? construction—has a certain “aboutness.” This may be a complementary ques- To the extent that a philosophical position tion to the first one raised here. I think we is not just meaningless chatter, it has an would agree that there is a difference be- object. Deconstruction is, to my mind, still tween asking about what there is and ask- too wedded to a philosophy of language. ing about what we apprehend that there Zubiri’s philosophy—while not reverting to is. We would all wager, I’m sure, that there pre-Kantian naïveté—is about reality. are things we do not apprehend (to say 2. What is the ontological status of nothing of comprehend). Does Zubiri’s “notes”? principle, that reality is apprehended im- But what, exactly, in addition to the mediately by sentient intelligence, leave us formality of reality (i.e., the “in-its-own- with a merely subjective or correlationist right-ness”), do we apprehend? What is, view of reality? Has he, in spite of himself, besides the formality, the content of that missed the point that reality exceeds our basic apprehension? It is the notes of indi- apprehension? This is the gist of the vidual things. Zubiri holds that “there is knock on Kant made by Quentin Meil- nothing real that is not individual.”61 lassoux.62 Kant rightly recognized that Those individual things are unified sys- human modes of apprehension deny ac- tems of notes. Now, we know that Zubiri cess to things-in-themselves – his “Coper- does not think that notes themselves are nican revolution.” But then Kant, says things, and so he does not hold to some Meillassoux, limits reality to what is struc- idea that things are mere conglomerations tured by the structure of reason— of notes. But what exactly is the ontologi- “correlationism.” Meillassoux suggests cal status of notes? How shall we think that Kant should have quit while he was about what he is calling notes? Notes are ahead, having undone anthropocentric not the imputation of human beings. They notions of reality. The problem, it seems to are realities or forms of reality (if not me, however, is that there is no way to not things). But what does this mean, ulti- have some degree of “correlation” between mately? In many ways, “notes” is an our thought and our world. Otherwise, our unanalyzed concept in Zubiri’s thought. thoughts are about nothing and the world What accounts for the fact there are differ- infinitely withdraws. Certainly, we cannot ent notes? Different things are different plumb the depths of reality with anything because they are each a systematic unity like comprehensiveness, let alone com- of different notes. It is the notes that ac- pleteness. There is an irreducible mystery
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 72 Eric Weislogel ______to being. But this does not mean we can (that are likewise respective). The core or make no headway in trying to understand essence is a matter for science to deter- reality to some extent. It is a story for an- mine (for instance, that it is the genetic other time, but Zubiri’s analysis of sen- material of organic beings that constitutes tient intelligence may provide substantial the essence of those beings). That there is tools for the project of understanding reali- such a core is a “physical” (i.e., not merely ty that does not simply determine things theoretical or conceptive) fact. Is there a to be correlates of thought or conscious- “more” to O? Yes, but only in the (im- ness. portant) sense of “transcendence in”, as As we will now see, Zubiri’s philoso- Zubiri puts it—in other words, in the phy is hardly the only one open to these openness of the real, i.e., vis-à-vis respec- kinds of questions and objections. tivity. (b) PTT, while not countenancing a IV. Conclusions: Similarities, differ- featureless substratum, nevertheless holds ences, and some further questions that there is a core or nucleus of mutually Clearly, similarities and differences founding tropes, each of which is founded exist between a plausible trope theory upon the others members and none of (“PTT”) and Zubirian metaphysics (ZM). Let which is founded upon any non-member. us explore some of them. This nucleus might then serve as a one- 1. Both Zubiri and PTT reject what I’ve way foundation for other tropes that might called the “Mr. Potatohead” substance- themselves be founded on other non- attributes ontology. Both ZM and PTT re- members of this essential nucleus. ject the idea of an underlying who-knows- (c) We can see, therefore, that ZM and what to which adhere various properties. PTT have similar intuitions as to the suffi- Both find the trouble with this notion of cient constitution of any object, O. But in underlying subject (or bare substance) to neither case is there some thing in addi- be that it is an empty notion. A that- tion to the notes or tropes that constitute which-lacks-any-features-in-its-own-right O. is literally unthinkable. 4. Neither ZM nor PTT accepts the ex- 2. Both ZM and PTT (as opposed to, istence of free-floating notes/tropes. How- say, Williams’ understanding of trope the- ever, there is a difference. ory), reject the Humean version of bundle (a) PTT seems to agree with all trope theory. ZM rejects it as strictly insufficient theories (whether they be exclusive or an to account for the constitution and identi- element of a multi-category ontology) in ty of things, and PTT rejects it for its in- seeing tropes as abstract particulars that soluble logical difficulties, as outlined have an “identity” of their own. Tropes above. come ready made, so to speak (despite 3. Nevertheless, both ZM and PTT rec- their not being free floating). Levinson, as ognize the importance for reasons of object we saw, criticized this position on a num- identity (especially through change and ber of fronts, but a key complaint is that over time) to posit something that counts this conception of trope would automati- as the essence of the thing that remains cally entail at least one additional ontolog- (essentially) the same over time and ical category: a universal. It would do so through change. because to even understand the trope is to (a) ZM maintains that an object, O, is see a trope as a token of a type (and there a unified system of notes whose essence is seems no getting around this with the its irreducible core of fundamental, consti- suspect notion of “exact similarity”). tutionally sufficient constitutive notes. The (b) ZM, on the other hand, finds the unification of the system is a function of “identity” of any note to be a function of all the respectivity or openness of reality – the the other notes to which it is both respec- notes of O are what they are as a function tive and open. In other words, a note is of (or with respect to) all of the other notes what it is because of all the other notes of
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 Zubiri and Contemporary Ontology 73 ______the object as well as of the object itself fundamental level, that of sentient intelli- (considered as a unified system of those gence, the intellect actualizes the reality notes) it characterizes. In addition, that that the table qua thing is in its own right. note is what it is as a function of how the But the truth of this intellection is prior to object as a whole is open and respective logos, prior to the articulation even of the the rest of reality. Not only are there not thing’s de suyo features. Does the intel- free-floating notes, there are also no sub- lect’s ability to articulate such features stantially independently identifiable notes imply a realist commitment to universals at all. or abstract entities? If the formality of re- (c) The question is whether PTT or ZM ality is the in-its-own-right, then are artic- is more satisfying of our explanatory ob- ulations themselves real? Or, if they are jectives. Short of a (paradoxical) Platonic indeed real, would they have any neces- view of a particularist ontology (i.e., trope sary connection to that of which they are theory), there is no adequate way of un- articulations? It is hard to see how they derstanding tropes themselves, as Levin- would, and if they do not then articulation son has argued quite vigorously. On the appears nominalistic. “Reality things” in other hand, ZM leaves us in the same bind logos turn out to be “meaning things” rela- as some of his illustrious predecessors, tive to particular theoretical programs of including both Parmenides and Heraclitus, one kind or another. as well as any contemporary process- The possibility I am raising here is relational metaphysicians (for instance, certainly arguable and depends on possi- Whitehead): How can we tell what O “real- ble interpretations of Zubiri’s metaphysical ly” is if its notes are subject to a constant position. I raise the issue in consideration flux of respectivity (or, the flip side of the of the question raised earlier: How can we same coin, if it is melted into a single Real- tell what object O “really” is if its notes— ity)? the ones it has de suyo—are subject to a (d) But what if Zubiri is a nominalist constant flux of respectivity? It would after all? What if “reality-things” are, seem the answer is that we cannot. themselves, (merely) “meaning-things,” The lesson to be drawn from this things that derive their identity and mean- (possible) conclusion is that the ontologi- ing as a function of their place in a human cal project, whether in the guise of a quest experiential scheme of one particular sort for an plausible trope theory (a desidera- or another (physics, say, or metaphysics)? tum of those adhering to the “unholy trini- Thomas Fowler63 identifies nominalism, ty” of nominalism, reductionism, and nat- the metaphysical view that only particu- uralism) or rather in the terms of Zubiri’s lars exist, that so-called “universals” and metaphysical program, is always a practi- “abstract entities” are simply manners of cal project, a praxis, and as such is a speaking, 64 as one of the three pillars of function of human projects generally. Nei- the “unholy trinity” in much contemporary ther PPT nor ZM—nor any other meta- philosophy of science (the other two pillars physical program—could possibly bring being naturalism and reductionism).65 the quest to get at the basic structures of Zubiri's view of what he calls “meaning reality to a close. things” is clearly nominalist in the sense Recognizing this, the terms of the de- that a table qua table has no de suyo (i.e., bate have changed. It is no longer a matter in-its-own-right) features. But what of the of seeking “adequacy” but rather a ques- “reality thing” that can manifest as a ta- tion of the nature of the praxis itself. What ble? For Zubiri, the table qua thing has its are we really after? reality de suyo, and not simply as a func- In any case, both PTT and ZM make a tion of human perception or practical in- substantial contribution to our metaphysi- terest. cal and ontological project. Both, though, But here it pays to recall Zubiri's in- have their weakness. PTT tries to account sight into the levels of intellection. At the for things in isolation in a way that Zubiri
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 74 Eric Weislogel ______would find, in fact, implausible. Respectiv- fault, unable to account adequately for the ity and the openness of reality demand at identity and perdurance of objects without least the addition of other strategies. ZM, the supplement of categorical ontology. on the other hand, may be holistic to a
Notes
1 Hofweber, Thomas, “Logic and Ontology”, The tropes and their connections of location and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring similarity.” Williams, p. 8. 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = 8 I.e., a single category is sufficient for ade-
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 Zubiri and Contemporary Ontology 75 ______
17 Edward N. Zalta, “Frege,” Stanford Encyclo- it could not serve as a building block of reali- pedia of Philosophy, ty, as trope theorists want tropes to do. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/frege/ 28 See Anna-Sofia Maurin, “Trope Theory and Accessed 10/14/2014 18:11. the Bradley Regress,” Synthese 175, no. 3 18 Simons uses the term “substance” in this (2010). and Anna-Sofia Maurin, “Bradley’s discussion, but there is an ambiguity at Regress,” Philosophy Compass 7, no. 11 work. Substance can mean one of two (along (2012). “Bradley’s Regress” is the same sort with property) metaphysical co-principles of of objection that Aristotle’s “Third Man” ar- things. This is the propertyless something-or- gument held against a Platonic theory of other of what I will refer to later as the “Mr. forms. Potatohead version of substance theory. But 29 What I have in mind here as a strategy is substance can also mean that which is apt to akin to Donald Davidson’s “anomalous mon- exist in itself, a whole existing in its own ism” theory of mental events. His view on right and not as an intrinsic part of anything that issue is that all mental events are physi- else. Here, Simons means the latter. To keep cal events, but that they are anomalous. That matters - to my mind, anyway - more clear, I means we have not two different ontological will just use “object” or “thing” instead of categories (mental and physical), but rather “substance.” two irreducibly different explanations of men- 19 “A foundational system is not just a mere tal events. See “Mental Events” in Donald collection or plurality of things, but a con- Davidson, Essays on Actions and Events nected system.” Simons, “Particulars in Par- (Philosophical Essays of Donald Davidson) ticular Clothing: Three Trope Theories of (Oxford University Press, 2001)., pp. 229- Substance.”, p. 563. 244. 20 Simons, “Particulars in Particular Clothing: 30 El Hombre y Dios was originally organized Three Trope Theories of Substance.”, pp. and completed by Ignacio Ellacuría and pub- 567-568. lished in 1984. That version of the book went through five editions. The English transla- 21 Jerrold Levinson, “Why There Are No tion, Man and God, by Joaquín Redondo Tropes,” Philosophy 81, no. 04 (2006). (with critical revisions by Thomas Fowler and 22 See Williams, “On the Elements of Being: I.” Nelson Oringer) was made from (apparently) pp. 4 ff. the 2nd or 3rd edition of El Hombre y Dios, 23 Levinson, “Why There Are No Tropes.” p. both from 1985. That translation appeared in 570. 2009 (University Press of America). In 2012, a greatly expanded New Edition of El Hombre 24 See Cynthia Macdonald, “Tropes and Other Things,” in Readings in the Foundations of y Dios appeared. This has yet to be translat- Contemporary Metaphysics, ed. S. and C. ed to English. In this paper, I will be citing Macdonald Laurence (Oxford: Blackwell, from the English translation [hereinafter MG] 1998). and the 5th edition of the Spanish original [hereinafter HD]. 25 Levinson, “Why There Are No Tropes.” p. 31 527. E. J. Lowe is criticized in a similar fash- Xavier Zubiri, On Essence. Translation and ion. See pp. 575-6. Introduction by Robert Caponigri (Catholic Univ. of America, 1963). 26 Levinson, “Why There Are No Tropes.” p. 32 579. Xavier Zubiri, Sobre La Esencia / About the Essence (Obras De Xavier Zubiri) (Spanish 27 As an example of an internal relation, if John Edition) (Alianza Editorial Sa, 1962). Original- is shorter than Mary, that is simply by virtue ly published in 1962. of the fact that John is the height he is and 33 Mary is the height she is. There is nothing Xavier Zubiri and Nelson R. Orringer, Dy- “additional” at work here. If John is the namic Structure of Reality (Hispanisms) (Uni- height he is and Mary is the height she is, versity of Illinois Press, 2003). then they will always be in the height relation 34 Xavier Zubiri, Estructura Dinamica De La they happen to be in - necessarily. Note that Realidad / Dynamic Structure of Reality an internal relation would not, therefore, be a (Obras De Xavier Zubiri) (Spanish Edition) trope, as it has no “independent” reality. I.e., (Alianza Editorial SA, 1994).
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 76 Eric Weislogel ______
35 Xavier Zubiri, Man and God (University Press 51 Although it is beyond the scope of this paper, of America, 2009)., 24. this insight might be fruitfully applied to is- 36 “The idea then we have, to which we give the sues in the philosophy of mind by those the- general name substance, being nothing but orists hoping for a viable non-reductive phys- the supposed, but unknown, support of icalism. those qualities we find existing, which we 52 Technically, a form of reality has a particular imagine cannot subsist sine re substante, mode of implantation. See Zubiri, Man and without something to support them, we call God, 27. that support substantia; which, according to 53 Zubiri, Man and God., 27. the true import of the word, is, in plain Eng- 54 Zubiri, Man and God., 27. lish, standing under or upholding.” John 55 Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Under- Zubiri, Man and God., 27. standing; book 2, chapter 23; “Of our Com- 56 Zubiri, Man and God., 28. plex Ideas of Substances” 57 Zubiri, Man and God., 29. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_the 58 Note that this idea consonant with concept of ory evolution and natural selection. 37 Zubiri, Man and God., 24. 59 Zubiri, On Essence ; Translation and Intro- 38 Unless, I suppose, the water is in the frozen duction By a. Robert Caponigri., 148. state and is shaped in a particular way. See 60 One contemporary school of philosophy that Zubiri, Man and God., 25. goes by the name of “speculative realism” 39 Zubiri, Man and God., 38. (and sometimes “object oriented ontology”) finds the central flaw of both Anglo-American 40 Zubiri, Man and God., 48. analytic philosophy and continental philoso- 41 Xavier Zubiri, Sentient Intelligence (Xavier phy to be their adherence to “correlationism,” Zubiri Foundation of North America, 1999)., the idea that things are merely correlates of 35. human thought. The speculative realists 42 Again the phrase, “it possesses,” here can be want to get at what things are in themselves misleading. There is no separate, metaphysi- beyond any correlation that might exist with cally independent “it” that then “possesses” consciousness. What this project could notes. To say, “it possesses,” is just a manner amount definitely remains to be seen. It of speaking. should be noted, though, that one important proponent of this school, Graham Harman, 43 Zubiri, Man and God., 27. specifically names Zubiri as a key influence 44 To be clear: Zubiri contrasts his idea of “sub- on his thinking “from the point of view of ob- stantivity” with that of the traditional notion jects.” It is not the purpose of the present of “substance” in the sense of the Mr. Potato paper to unpack and assess this relationship Metaphysics. But there is an ambiguity. For between Zubiri’s ideas and those of specula- Zubiri, a substantivity is a unified system of tive realism. notes, and some of those notes are “sub- 61 Zubiri, On Essence; Translation and Intro- stances.” This latter usage, however, does not duction by Robert Caponigri., p. 156. refer to classical metaphysics. Rather, “sub- stance” in this latter usage means something 62 Quentin Meillassoux, After Finitude (New like “material” or “stuff” of a certain kind. I York: Continuum, 2009). do not believe Zubiri is implying that this lat- 63 Thomas Fowler, “Reductionism, Naturalism, ter usage was Aristotle’s or St. Thomas’s, and and Nominalism: The “Unholy Trinity” and the difference between their metaphysical Its Explanation in Zubiri’s Philosophy,” The theories still holds (despite this ambiguity). Xavier Zubiri Review 9(2007). 72 45 Zubiri, Man and God., 26. 64 Stathis Psillos, Philosophy of Science a-Z 46 Zubiri, Man and God., 26. (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007). 163 47 Zubiri, Man and God., 26. 65 Fowler, “Reductionism, Naturalism, and 48 Zubiri, Man and God., 26. Nominalism: The “Unholy Trinity” and Its 49 Zubiri, Man and God., 27. Explanation in Zubiri’s Philosophy.” 71 50 Zubiri, Man and God., 27.
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015
¿Tiene sentido la crítica de Gustavo Bueno al concepto zubiriano de religación?
Joathas Soares Bello São Bento do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Abstract
The present article aims to provide an answer to the criticism formulated by the philoso- pher Gustavo Bueno to Zubiri’s Theologal Philosophy. On one side, Bueno considers the concept of “religation” not to be a consistent one because it relies on the “absurd” notion of creation; on the other side, he states this concept is not a good enough foundation for a Philosophy of Religion, since religation would not account—for instance—for the existence of irreligious people. To refute these theses it will be necessary to verify the relationship between religation and creation as well as clarify the distinction between religation and religion
Resumen El presente artículo pretende responder a las críticas del filósofo Gustavo Bueno a la filoso- fía teologal de Zubiri. Bueno, por un lado, considera que el concepto de “religación” no es consistente, pues se apoya en la noción “absurda” de creación; por otro, piensa que tal concepto no sirve como base de una filosofía de la religión, una vez que la religación, por ejemplo, no daría margen a la existencia de personas irreligiosas. Para contestar a estas tesis será necesario averiguar la relación entre religación y creación y aclarar la distinción entre religación y religión.
Introducción nas no religiosas. Tales críticas, que pre- En este artículo se responde a dos crí- tenden ser demoledoras, están en las ticas al concepto de religación en Zubiri: cuestiones 2ª y 5ª de su libro Cuestiones Gustavo Bueno ha sostenido que el con- cuodlibetales sobre Dios y la religión, que cepto mismo es inconsistente, al estar recoge un conjunto de conferencias “re- fundado en la noción “absurda” de causa- construidas”, en palabras del autor. lidad creadora; y que es incapaz de fun- Las respuestas a estas dos críticas damentar una filosofía de la religión, pues, constituyen las dos pequeñas partes de además de que no sería posible probar la este trabajo. En primer lugar, consideraré existencia de un fundamento personal en qué sentido es posible asimilar la reli- religador y creador, la religación implicaría gación a la creación, y si ésta constituye una pansebeia o religión universal, lo que, una noción “absurda”; después, buscaré por un lado, quitaría el carácter antropo- mostrar si, efectivamente, el hecho de que lógico de la filosofía de la religión (todo ser todo esté religado implica una pansebeia y sería religado) y, por otro, sería desmenti- no permite el hecho de la irreligiosidad, es do por el hecho de que hay muchas perso- decir, aclararé el nexo entre religación y
77 78 Joathas Soares Bello ______religión. ne, aunque desbordándole, en parte, al de causa eficiente, sobre todo creadora. 1. ¿Tiene consistencia el concepto de Porque la causa (sobre todo creadora) religación? tiene un poder (decir “potencia” induci- En su cuestión 2ª (“El conflicto entre ría a confusión, dada la correlación la religión y la ciencia”), Bueno afirma que aristotélica potencia/acto). Además, la filosofía teologal de Zubiri es una “Teo- poder, por sus connotaciones políticas, logía preambular”, porque considera que personales, prepara muy bien la silueta tiene un origen teológico –para el autor, el de algo que está preparado para ser re- pensamiento de Zubiri es una “filosofía llenado por un ser personal, Dios, como escolástica”, en el sentido de la ancilla Causa creadora y conservadora, el theologiae–, pero, con honestidad intelec- Gran Poder5. tual, reconoce que la crítica tiene que En la interpretación de Bueno, el apode- apuntar a sus eventuales insuficiencias, ramiento es el acto creador de Dios que sinsentidos o contradicciones internas1. pone y conserva en la existencia al hom- Bueno considera que la doctrina de la reli- bre, que es “absoluto” en cuanto “ente-en- gación de Zubiri es un ejemplo de lo que él sí” y “para-sí”, pero que es “relativo” por- denomina “contra-modelo”: “Entendemos que es efecto del “Poder de la Causa” (el aquí por ‘contra-modelo’ a un sistema in- “Gran Poder”), manteniendo con éste una consistente de términos y relaciones, dado relación transcendental, que es la religa- que algunos de sus elementos son incom- ción. Dice Bueno: patibles”2. La religación zubiriana sería un contra-modelo ontológico, porque estaría …aunque en su núcleo, esta idea es la edificada sobre la idea de la causalidad de tradicional relación trascendental de la la persona, que supone la idea “errónea” criatura, y en particular, de la persona de la causalidad como relación binaria libre a su Creador, que la pone en el ser (causa-efecto), y la idea “absurda” de cau- como libre (Bañez, Molina, Zumel) está salidad creadora3. Veamos con más detalle justificado acudir a un término nuevo su interpretación, para luego analizarla. (religación), puesto que lo que se quiere De acuerdo con Bueno, el concepto de subrayar es que, por ejemplo, hay que religación habría sido construido sobre el atender, no sólo a la subordinación o concepto tradicional de “relación trans- dependencia (lo que conduciría a una cendental” (de las criaturas a su causa teoría de la religión afín a la de Sch- primera) y sobre el teorema kantiano de la leiermacher), sino al momento positivo, “apercepción transcendental”, según el absoluto, de la persona. Tampoco in- cual, como afirma Bueno, la conciencia se teresa subrayar la premoción física, di- da originariamente en el mundo exterior. vina, del acto libre de la voluntad, pues Esta conciencia habría sido convertida en se trata de abarcar al ser total del “existencia”, en la filosofía existencial; hombre y no sólo a su voluntad, ni, después, la existencia habría sido conver- menos aún, a su entendimiento. Por tida en “vida”, en Ortega y Gasset, y final- ello, re-ligación no es ob-ligación. Porque mente la vida habría sido convertida en la obligación presupone al sujeto previo “persona”, en Zubiri4. El concepto de al que se obliga, mientras que la religa- “apoderamiento” estaría sobrepuesto al de ción surge en la constitución misma del causa eficiente, en particular a la causali- sujeto, como es propio de una relación dad eficiente que se atribuye al acto de trascendental. Por otra parte, la elec- creación: ción del término religación (que en prin- Si no entendemos mal (y entender aquí cipio se justifica por el ligare, en com- es encontrar el modelo tradicional sobre posición opuesta al obligare, como he- el que se está construyendo), apodera- mos dicho) tiene la gran ventaja de que miento es un concepto que se superpo- recorta, “en línea punteada”, lo que casi
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 La crítica de Gustavo Bueno al concepto zubiriano de religación 79 ______
inmediatamente después se llamará re- lo real”—, sino “categorial”9: la religación ligión6. está en la línea de lo que Zubiri llama “respectividad remitente” –toda cosa real Una vía más fácil para contestar a está de suyo abierta a las demás cosas Bueno quizás sería decir que la religación reales–, la cual, aunque sea inseparable de o el apoderamiento por el poder de lo real la realidad, se funda en la “respectividad se trata de “dominación” –del momento de constituyente”10—la apertura de la reali- realidad– y no de “causalidad” (“funciona- dad a su propio contenido—, del mismo lidad de lo real”)—entre cosas reales—, y modo que la relación categorial se funda también que la “fundamentalidad” o “fon- en la sustancia, aunque la relación creatu- tanalidad” de Dios—esencia del hecho de ral sea un tipo de relación categorial espe- la religación—no es necesariamente crea- cial, inseparable de la misma creatura o ción, pero aquí he elegido otra vía. cosa real11. La relación trascendental, en Para Zubiri, la religación es el he- realidad, nunca se da entre realidades, cho por el cual el hombre está vinculado a sino entre co-principios reales (como ma- las cosas reales en tanto que reales, fun- teria y forma, acto y potencia, etc.). Dicho dándose en la realidad de las cosas como eso, consideremos el concepto bueniano algo último, posibilitante e impelente, es de causalidad. decir, en el “poder de lo real”. El hombre Para Bueno, la causalidad no es se ve impelido a investigar el fundamento una relación binaria de causa (X) y efecto del poder de lo real vehiculado por las co- (Y), expresada en la función Y=f(X), porque sas reales, y para Zubiri este fundamento causar es producir una alteración (un es Dios, Realidad Absolutamente Absoluta, efecto) en un esquema material procesual siendo la esencia de la religación la fonta- de identidad (H, de hylé), lo cual se expre- nalidad de Dios. Zubiri no identifica, en el sa en la función compleja Y=f(X,H): plan filosófico, esta fontanalidad con la creación, que para él es un tema teológico. …para que algo se configure como efec- En otro lugar he sustentado que no hay to será preciso contar con un esquema razón para no llegar filosóficamente al material procesual de identidad cuya tema de la creación a partir de un análisis configuración depende de diversos su- de la religación7. Aquí haré una síntesis de puestos de índole filosófica, científica o lo que ahí he desarrollado. cultural. El esquema material de iden- Zubiri, supuestamente, se manten- tidad podría hacerse corresponder con dría en la línea de Duns Escoto, el cual la causa material aristotélica, siempre negaría la creación como verdad racional. que ella quedase determinada según Pero, en realidad, Escoto, así como Santo criterios positivos E, que expresaremos Tomás, simplemente niega que la verdad en la fórmula E(H). El efecto se define de la creación en el tiempo sea objeto cier- entonces como una interrupción, rup- to de la razón8. En cualquier caso, aún tura, alteración o desviación del es- tengamos un universo eterno (como postu- quema material procesual de identidad laba Aristóteles), este no sería increado, (ruptura que no afecta, en principio, al sino que estaría fundado en un Principio sistema que, por decirlo así, engloba al metafísico, que es precisamente la Reali- efecto). Se comprenderá, dada la relati- dad-Fundamento zubiriana, que desde vidad del concepto de efecto, no ya in- siempre estaría creando, de la nada, el mediatamente a su causa, sino a un mundo—eternidad y creaturalidad no se esquema material de identidad (dado en oponen necesariamente. Con lo cual la un sistema complejo de referencia) que, “tensión teologal” del hombre hacia Dios si no es posible determinar en cada ca- puede ser entendida como la clásica “rela- so este esquema procesual de referen- ción creatural”. Pero ésta no es una “rela- cia, la noción de efecto [consecuente- ción trascendental”—como piensa el mis- mente la de causa] se desvanece12. mo Zubiri en el artículo “Respectividad de
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 80 Joathas Soares Bello ______
Si se traduce este pasaje a térmi- ron en la producción de efectos particu- nos aristotélicos, la causalidad eficiente lares por causas particulares, las cua- sólo podría ejercerse en un substrato ma- les necesariamente presuponen algo terial; donde no haya “materia”, no puede anterior a su acción. En este sentido, haber causalidad. Así, la idea de “crea- era opinión común entre ellos que nada ción” sería absurda, pues su esquema se hace a partir de la nada. Sin embar- material procesual de identidad sería “la go, esto no se da en el origen de las co- nada” (creatio ex nihilo subjecti), y no la sas procedentes del principio univer- causa eficiente divina inmutable. Conse- sal15. cuentemente, admitiéndose la existencia En la creación no se produce “tal” o de Dios como ente infinito, todo “efecto” “cual” realidad particular, desde otra(s) divino no podría “salir” de él mismo, por realidad(es) particular(es), sino “la” reali- así decirlo; por eso la crítica a la posibili- dad en cuanto tal, desde la “realidad abso- dad de causar un ser libre: éste, de ser lutamente absoluta”—de ahí que Zubiri se causado por Dios, no podría ser algo dis- refiera alguna vez al acto creador como tinto de él (tema que Bueno retoma en la “producción de lo real en tanto que real”16. cuestión 5ª). A partir de estas premisas, La aplicación de la noción de causalidad desde una posición materialista, se con- de Bueno al acto creador divino es una cluye que, como hay lo finito, “lo que no es incongruencia, un “disparate”17. Dios”, no puede haber Dios. Esta conclu- Al lado de la razón de “producción”, sión es la consecuencia lógica de la asun- de procedencia artesanal, Santo Tomás ción del principio de extranihilidad (“de la atribuyó a la creación el carácter de “ema- nada, nada se hace, y nada puede volver a nación”, despojada del paradigma “necesi- la nada”); tal principio, como enseña el tarista” del gnosticismo (inmanencia, falta profesor Juan Cruz Cruz, de libertad y degradación del principio Es una negación de la tesis creacionista originario). Como lo expone Juan Cruz o de la producción de lo finito por el in- Cruz: “en el interior divino la emanación finito mediante un acto libre […]. Con la es un orden de origen entre coincidentes o admisión del principio de extranihilidad concurrentes; en el exterior divino, la se expresa que hay coincidencia o iden- emanación es un orden de origen entre tificación entre lo infinito y la serie ili- incoincidentes, especialmente en el plano mitada de cosas finitas13. entitativo…”18. En sentido semejante, Zu- biri, para quien la creación es “proyección Santo Tomás ya había respondido, en la ad extra de la vida divina”, la compara con Suma Teológica, a la objeción de Bueno, las procesiones trinitarias: “Así como en entonces formulada así: las procesiones trinitarias se constituye la Según el Filósofo en I Physic., los anti- esencia infinita de Dios, así también en la guos filósofos admitieron como una procesión creadora se constituye la esen- verdad de sentido común que de la na- cia finita de las cosas”19. da, nada se hace. Pero el poder de Dios 2. ¿Puede la doctrina del a religación no llega hasta lo que es contrario a los fundamentar una filosofía de la reli- primeros principios; por ejemplo a ha- gión? cer que el todo no sea mayor que la En su cuestión 5ª (“Religación y re- parte o que la afirmación y la negación ligión”), Bueno plantea dos críticas: por un sean las dos verdaderas a la vez. Por lo lado, repite la idea, ya presente en la cues- tanto, Dios no puede hacer algo a partir tión 2ª, de que la doctrina de la religación de la nada, esto es, no puede crear14. es una réplica de la doctrina kantiana de A lo cual Tomás respondió: la apercepción transcendental; por otro, pretende mostrar que esta doctrina de la Como hemos dicho anteriormente [q.44 religación no es apta para fundamentar a.2], los antiguos filósofos sólo se fija- una verdadera filosofía de la religión, ya
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 La crítica de Gustavo Bueno al concepto zubiriano de religación 81 ______por sus premisas, ya por sus consecuen- puede “demostrar” racionalmente su fun- cias. damento allende la aprehensión –el fun- Según Bueno, Zubiri habría susti- damento del poder de lo real o de la reali- tuido la conexión transcendental entre la dad simpliciter allende la aprehensión “conciencia de mi existencia” y el “espacio también es, forzosamente, el fundamento de los objetos” por la conexión entre “per- de la persona humana. El poder de lo real sona” y “Dios” o, con más cautela, entre en cuanto fundamento de la realización persona y “ente fundamentante” o “Poder humana dado en intelección primordial no último de lo real”. De la misma manera es formalmente lo mismo que su funda- que los objetos del espacio-tiempo no son mento demostrable en intelección racional. algo sobreañadido (tras su re- Pero demostrar algo no es hacer este algo representación) a la conciencia, sino algo presente en intelección primordial, sino constitutivo de ella, tampoco el Funda- “dar razón”, a través de él, de aquello pre- mento sería algo sobreañadido a la perso- sente en esta intelección; es decir, en el na, sino constitutivo de la misma; así co- caso que nos ocupa, se trata de pensar mo el mundo exterior no puede conside- aquello que posibilita que el poder de lo rarse contenido de una tesis demostrable, real sea fundamento mostrable y mostrado una vez que su presencia está presupues- de la realización humana. Una posibilidad ta en toda demostración, el poder de lo sería decir que el poder de lo real es un real no sería algo demostrable. Pero la puro factum, que es justamente la posición doctrina de la religación sería “heterodoxa” atea. Zubiri y Kant recurren a vías distin- respecto de la filosofía crítica, según la tas para llegar a Dios, pero en ambos ca- cual el orden moral práctico es el funda- sos, se trata de partir de lo dado en mento de las ideas transcendentales (Al- aprehensión—el poder de lo real o el orden ma, Mundo, Dios), como si este orden fue- moral como lo entiende Kant—para justifi- ra el ens fundamentale; la doctrina de la car a Dios como fundamento metafísico ya religación pasaría por alto la crítica de la del hecho de la religación, ya de los hechos razón, recorriendo en sentido contrario el morales. Bueno confunde aquí el orden de camino crítico, y recayendo en las posicio- la fundamentación epistemológica—o nes escolásticas prekantianas20. ¿Cómo “noológica”, en términos zubirianos– con el responder a este planteamiento? orden de la fundamentación real o metafí- Para Zubiri, hay una respectividad, sica. En el caso de Kant, el orden moral es en la intelección, entre inteligencia y reali- fundamento del conocimiento de Dios co- dad en cuanto “verdad real”, es decir, mo “Sumo Bien”, pero Dios mismo es el realidad actualizada –y no realidad “allen- fundamento (postulado) de la realidad de” la aprehensión–; y hay otra en la ac- moral: “la razón práctica […] apoyada so- ción humana –considerada metafísicamen- bre el hecho moral tan inconcuso en su te, en cuanto constituyente de la “realidad género como el hecho científico, se ve for- humana siendo”–, entre la persona y el zada a aceptar como condición de posibili- poder de lo real (que es la misma realidad dad del mismo la existencia de Dios”21. En como ultimidad, posibilitación e impelen- el caso de Zubiri, el poder de lo real es el cia), presente en cada cosa real; esta se- fundamento del conocimiento de Dios co- gunda respectividad, que es la religación, mo “realidad absolutamente absoluta”, también es algo dado en la intelección pero Dios es el fundamento de la realidad primordial. Este poder de lo real es fun- como poder. La perspectiva “crítica” kan- damento de la persona humana, y no es tiana está asumida en la noología de Zubi- nada sobreañadido a ella, como afirma ri, y no representa ningún escollo para su Bueno. Pero no se trata de algo “presu- filosofía teologal. Dicho eso, pasemos a la puesto”, sino de algo “mostrable”, porque crítica que Bueno hace de la religación en está presente en la aprehensión primordial cuanto fundamento de la filosofía de la de toda acción del hombre. A partir de esta religión. presencia del poder de lo real es que se
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 82 Joathas Soares Bello ______
Según Bueno, las dos premisas pero no inteligencia humana o inteligencia más importantes de la doctrina de la reli- sentiente. Un radio infinito es un contra- gación son la premisa de la existencia de ser, pero una inteligencia infinita es me- un ens fundamentale de naturaleza divina ramente una inteligencia sin las limitacio- y la premisa de que este ens fundamentale nes de las condiciones humanas, algo que es el correlato de la “relación transcenden- no destruye la esencia misma de la inteli- tal” implicada en la religión—ya hemos gencia, aunque no la podamos conocer en visto que no se trata de relación trasncen- sí misma. dental. En verdad, la existencia de la Bueno sigue diciendo que, aunque realidad divina no es una premisa, sino existiera el Dios personal, la “segunda una conclusión a partir del hecho de la premisa” no sería verdadera, porque un religación, y la segunda “premisa”, en ver- ser personal infinito no podría ser “religa- dad, se reduce a la primera. Pero, prescin- dor” de la persona humana, pues la ab- diendo de esto, la crítica que Bueno hace sorbería en su infinitud. El “apoderamien- es, en primer lugar, una crítica general a to” sería un absurdo, “como es absurda la cualquier prueba de la existencia de Dios posición extra causas del efecto de una en cuanto realidad personal, crítica que causa que se supone infinita y personal, y además tiene la pretensión de ser una que habría de contener, por tanto, en su prueba de la inexistencia de Dios en el conciencia infinita, a todas las conciencias sentido indicado; y, en segundo lugar, es finitas que estuviesen religadas a ella”24. una crítica al carácter fundamentante de Esta crítica depende de la noción de cau- un supuesto Dios personal. salidad que supone Bueno –por la cual Para Bueno, el Ser o Fundamento algo infinito sólo podría producir un efecto del ser al cual apuntan los argumentos infinito–, y, por tanto, queda respondida ontológicos o cosmológicos22 no tendría con lo que se dijo acerca de la creación en por qué ser un ente de naturaleza perso- el análisis de la 2ª cuestión25. nal, dotado de inteligencia y voluntad; o Para Bueno, las principales conse- mejor, no podría ser una entidad personal, cuencias de la doctrina de la religación una vez que conciencia o personalidad son serían que todo ente finito está religado (la “figuras” del ente finito, cuyos límites se idea de la religión universal o pansebeia) y perderían o desaparecerían, “como desa- que ningún ente finito puede dejar de es- parece, o se desfigura, la figura de la cir- tarlo (en contradicción con el hecho del cunferencia en el momento en que su ra- ateísmo y de la irreligiosidad). dio se hace infinito”23. Bueno sostiene que, una vez que La comparación que Bueno esta- todo ente finito está religado, todas las blece entre circunferencia y personalidad cosas reales serían “religiosas”, lo que (o inteligencia) como “figuras” no tiene desdibujaría la disciplina de la filosofía de sentido: una “figura” geométrica es, por la religión, que ya no sería antropológica, definición, algo delimitado, de modo que si sino también geológica, astronómica, bo- el radio de una circunferencia se volviera tánica, zoológica, etc. La doctrina de la infinito, no sería ya radio, ni habría cir- religación necesitaría dar dos “saltos mor- cunferencia, mientras que la “figura” per- tales”: pasar de esta pansebeia a la religa- sonal o la “figura” inteligente—si de “figu- ción personal (estricta), y de esta religa- ras” se quiere hablar—, aunque esté deli- ción personal hasta las figuras de las reli- mitada en y por realidades finitas –hablo giones positivas: de hombres–, no se define por esta limita- El “primer salto mortal” equivale a yux- ción. La “inteligencia” es mera actualiza- taponer al concepto genérico de religa- ción de la realidad y la “persona” es la ción universal, el concepto específico de realidad formalmente suya. La “figura” una religión propia de la raza humana, humana es lo que dejaría de existir en el o de la persona, estableciendo, por momento que su inteligencia se volviera ejemplo, que la religación del ente inte- infinita; seguiríamos teniendo inteligencia,
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 La crítica de Gustavo Bueno al concepto zubiriano de religación 83 ______
ligente-sentiente, tendría caracteres es- las realidades concretas, cabe distinguir la pecíficos (lo que equivaldría a afirmar respectividad que acontece entre este po- que la religión tiene varias especies: der y las personas humanas, y el término geológica, botánica, humana) y, a lo religación sirve a este propósito: manifies- sumo, que la religión humana (la reli- ta lo peculiar de esta ligadura en lo que gión natural o personal) es la religión respecta a al hombre. De modo que la reli- en sentido estricto (lo que sólo podría gación no implica ninguna pansebeia. establecerse en virtud de una simple La religación no es ni “religión na- estipulación arbitraria). El segundo tural” ni “religión personal”, sino un mo- “salto mortal” tendría lugar al pasar de mento constitutivo de la persona humana la religión natural a las religiones posi- (es “religación personal”). La religión es su tivas. Pero ¿acaso es posible pasar del plasmación28, no necesariamente en forma concepto de una religión “personal” a de “religión positiva” (verificable histórica- los conceptos de las religiones positi- mente), pero siempre como “religión per- vas?26 sonal”, porque es un acto (de la entrega al El poder religante domina también sobre fundamento del poder de lo real) de la per- las demás cosas reales, y no sólo sobre el sona. No hay “salto mortal”, porque la reli- hombre, pero sólo en la persona humana gación no es religión, sino que puede con- esta respectividad cobra el carácter especí- cretarse en religión (que podrá ser institu- fico de “religación”, que es la fundamenta- cional o no). lidad en cuanto dirigida a la realización de Más adelante, Bueno cuestiona un ser personal, es decir, la fundamentali- cómo es posible explicar, desde la religa- dad formalmente experimentada: ción, la impiedad y el ateísmo, una vez que todos están religados: “¿por qué si todos Religados al poder de lo real es como los hombres están religados, según su estamos apoyados en él para ser relati- específica forma humana, no todos los vamente absolutos. En otros términos, hombres son religiosos…?”29. Y dice que la el sujeto formal de la religación no es la única respuesta es postular una hipótesis naturaleza sino la persona, o mejor di- ad hoc: el ateo es el hombre “desfunda- cho la naturaleza personizada. De suyo mentado”. la religación afecta al hombre no sepa- En realidad, las actitudes no- radamente de las cosas, sino que en al- religiosas (indiferencia, ateísmo, agnosti- guna forma afecta a todo. Pero sólo en cismo) se explican exactamente por el he- el hombre es formalmente religación, cho de que la religación no es religión, ni sólo en él es el acontecer formal de la se despliega necesariamente en religión, fundamentalidad. La persona no está porque no todos descubren el fundamento simplemente vinculada a las cosas o del poder de lo real en la realidad divina, dependiente de ellas, sino que está aunque siempre haya un proceso intelecti- constitutiva y formalmente religada al vo y una opción respecto de la fundamen- poder de lo real27. talidad de la vida. Bueno cita el término No se trata de una “arbitrariedad” “desfundamentado”, referido al hombre decir que sólo hay religación en sentido ateo, y utilizado por Zubiri en su artículo estricto en la persona humana, pues esta “En torno al problema de Dios”30, cuando afirmación integra la conceptuación de la debería fijarse en el análisis de El hombre religación, en la medida que distingue por y Dios, que en cierto modo supera la pers- una parte la fundamentalidad del poder de pectiva anterior31. Además Bueno no ex- lo real sobre el hombre como un apoyo plicita el contexto de la expresión. Zubiri para ser relativamente absoluto, y, por dice que el hombre puede “sentirse” desli- otra, la fundamentalidad material del po- gado en virtud del éxito de su vida, “endio- der de lo real sobre el cosmos. Dentro de sando” a ésta, pero que esto es una inter- una misma respectividad fundante, entre pretación del poder de lo real (“deidad”, la el poder de lo real y todas y cada una de llamaba entonces), sólo posible en virtud
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 84 Joathas Soares Bello ______del hecho de la religación (que el ateo pue- zonable y, si es posible referirlo a la religa- de “olvidar”), y en la cual el ateo identifica ción—como pienso que es e intenté apun- este poder con la facticidad de su vida. tarlo—, no implica ninguna dificultad. Pero como el fundamento real del ateo no Sobre la crítica de Bueno acerca de es su propia vida32, solamente el “fracaso” la religación como posible fundamento de de ésta lo hará percibir esta realidad: la religiosidad, se puede decir que sólo la realidad humana se encuentra estricta- En su hora, la vida fundamentada so- mente religada, pero esta religación no es bre sí misma aparece internamente aún religión sino la raíz de todas las acti- desfundamentada, y, por tanto, referida tudes posibles frente al poder de lo real, a un fundamento de que se ve priva- sean religiosas o no-religiosas (atea, ag- da.[.…] Por esto el ateísmo verdadero nóstica o indiferente). sólo puede dejar de serlo dejándole que La religación no es una teoría, sino sea verdadero, pero obligándole a serlo que Zubiri nos brinda la descripción del hasta sus últimas consecuencias. Sin hecho, por todos constatable, de la depen- más, el ateísmo se descubrirá a sí pro- dencia que la persona humana tiene en pio siendo ateo en y con Dios. El fraca- relación a la realidad, la cual nos remite al so que constitutivamente nos acecha problema del Fundamento de esta reali- asegura siempre la posibilidad de un dad. El ateísmo asumido por Bueno es redescubrimiento de Dios33. una posibilidad de interpretar el poder de Es decir, el ateo no es una suerte lo real: éste sería mero factum, y la vida de hombre “no-religado” –una especie de humana sería autosuficiente. Pero tal “no-predestinado” que vive “suelto” en el ateísmo no es el punto de partida en la mundo y que no podría llegar a ser religio- experiencia humana, y el teísmo zubiriano so–, sino que vive la religación apoyado en tiene derecho a la ciudadanía filosófica: un fundamento aparente –su propio ser–, éste no es fruto de una especulación “ab- y su posible hallazgo de este hecho descu- surda”, basada en sofismas, sino de una bre que su vida, en cuanto se apoyaba en posibilidad anclada en el hecho mismo de sí misma, no estaba en su verdadero fun- la religación, pues el poder de lo real no es damento y, en esta medida, estaba des- un poder de una realidad específica, y así fundamentada. Éste me parece el único es razonable pensar que se funda en la modo posible de entender lo que dice Zu- Realidad Divina. biri, a la luz del contexto y de su conclu- En nuestros días, el problema de sión: este descubrimiento descubre, a la Dios, antes de ser el problema de su exis- vez, que el ateo siempre estuvo “en” Dios y tencia, es la cuestión de si la vida humana “con” Dios, pudiendo ahora estarlo for- tiene fundamento. La religación apunta a malmente. que “alguien viene”, y justifica los esfuer- zos intelectuales para la demostración de Consideraciones finales la faz concreta de este Fundamento. La Con lo dicho, queda demostrado fecundidad filosófica de esta idea de la que el motivo que Bueno apunta para con- religación, a mi parecer, no queda com- siderar la religación como un “contra- prometida por la crítica de Gustavo modelo” no se sostiene: el concepto de Bueno, sino que ésta ha sido ocasión para causalidad creadora es perfectamente ra- establecerla aún más firmemente.
Notas
2 1 Cf. BUENO, Gustavo. Cuestiones cuodlibeta- Ibid., p. 109. les sobre Dios y la religión. Madrid: Ed. Mon- 3 Cf. BUENO, Cuestiones cuodlibetales sobre dadori, 1989 (Col. Enfoques 9), p. 105. Dios y la religión , p. 111.
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 La crítica de Gustavo Bueno al concepto zubiriano de religación 85 ______
4 Cf. Ibid., p. 109. de respectividad y la noción clásica de rela- 5 Ibid., p. 110 (énfasis añadido). ción; para los efectos del presente artículo, basta lo dicho en el cuerpo del texto. 6 BUENO, Cuestiones cuodlibetales sobre Dios y 12 la religión, p. 111. BUENO, “En torno a la doctrina filosófica de la causalidad”. Disponible en: 7 Cf. BELLO, Joathas. “A religação do homem a http://www.fgbueno.es/med/dig/meta89i.p Deus em Xavier Zubiri e Tomás de Aquino”. df (consulta: 02/03/2014). Además de las Coletânea: Revista de Filosofia e Teologia da “causas”, Bueno admite “razones”, que res- Faculdade de São Bento do Rio de Janeiro, ponden a la pregunta “¿por qué?” cuando se Ano XII – Fascículo 24, Junho/Dezembro trata, no ya de la identidad de procesos indi- 2013, pp. 234-252. viduales, sino de clases, como ocurre por 8 Acerca del problema de la creación en Escoto: ejemplo en las ciencias históricas, cuyas re- GILSON, Étienne. Juan Duns Escoto: laciones causales “se dan en múltiples líneas Introducción a sus posiciones fundamentales, de secuencias, cuya reunión, aún sin ser Pamplona: EUNSA, 2007, pp. 328-341. aleatoria, tampoco es necesariamente causal: 9 “Sólo del término de la creación surge una la llamaremos transcausal. En ellas, aunque relación; ese término es la misma cosa hecha no haya causas, habrá razones” (Ibid., loc. y producida por el creador; y la relación es cit.). un accidente categorial. No es formalmente 13 CRUZ CRUZ, Creación, signo y verdad, p. 20. una relación trascendental…” (CRUZ CRUZ, 14S. Th. I, q45, a2, ad 1. Juan. Creación, signo y verdad: Metafísica de la relación em Tomás de Aquino. Pamplona: 15S. Th.I, q45, a2, ad 1. El hecho de que la EUNSA, 2006, p. 154). “Algunos autores afi- creación suponga la omnipotencia divina no maban, por ejemplo, que la relación de las es el problema de la polémica anti- criaturas a Dios debería incluirse dentro de creacionista, porque la única objeción que se este género [relación trascendental] y no en- puede hacer desde una perspectiva formalis- tre los accidentes. Santo Tomás sostiene, sin ta es la de que el poder de Dios no podría embargo, que se trata de un accidente que hacer algo contradictorio (que es el supuesto las criaturas tienen por haber recibido el ser de la crítica de Bueno y de los “antiguos filó- de Dios” (ALVIRA, Tomas; CLAVELL, Luis; sofos”). Así, es suficiente apuntar que, en vir- MELENDO, Tomas. Metafísica. Pamplona: tud del objeto a ser conocido (la creación de EUNSA, 2001, p. 75). “la” realidad desde la “realidad absolutamen- te absoluta”), la “causalidad eficiente”, en 10 ZUBIRI, Xavier. “Respectividad de lo real”. cuanto sistema de referencia, debe ser utili- Realitas III-IV, 1976-79, 1979, p. 31.. zada de modo análogo. 11 Para Zubiri, la “respectividad” es una dimen- 16 PTHC 154. sión más honda que la “relación”, ya catego- 17 rial, ya transcendental, como afirma en su Cf. IL 284-285. artículo “Respectividad de lo real” (cf. ZUBI- 18 CRUZ CRUZ, Creación, signo y verdad, p. RI, “Respectividad de lo real”, pp. 13-43). 137. Considero que Zubiri lo dice movido por la 19 PTHC 177. polémica con la metafísica clásica, de la cual 20 Cf. BUENO, Cuestiones cuodlibetales sobre quiere mantener cierta distancia, para afir- Dios y la religión, pp. 201-204. mar la novedad de su pensamiento. Pienso, sin embargo, que la originalidad de la inteli- 21 ELLACURÍA, Ignacio. “Voluntad de funda- gencia sentiente no consiste en una negación mentalidad y voluntad de verdad: conoci- de la gnoseología clásica, tal como la toma- miento-fe y su configuración histórica”, en siana, por ejemplo, sino en una radicaliza- Revista Latinoamericana de Teología, año 3, ción de aquel planteamiento, posibilitada por mayo-agosto de 1986, p. 114. la interposición de la crítica kantiana. En el 22 El autor ignora la especificidad de la vía de la estudio citado más arriba (“A religação do religación. homem a Deus em Xavier Zubiri e Tomás de 23 BUENO, Cuestiones cuodlibetales sobre Dios Aquino”) trato de mostrar más ampliamente y la religión, p. 206. cómo es posible alinear el concepto zubiriano
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 86 Joathas Soares Bello ______
24BUENO, Cuestiones cuodlibetales sobre Dios y 29 BUENO, Cuestiones cuodlibetales sobre Dios la religión, p. 208. y la religión, p. 212. 25 Bueno también se refiere a los problemas de 30 Cf. NHD 393. la “ciencia” y de la “moción” divinas, pero la 31 Como afirma Antonio Pintor-Ramos, “la ex- posibilidad de conciliarlas con la libertad de plicación que en 1935 se daba del fenómeno nuestras acciones, sin absorberlas, queda ya del ateísmo por la ‘soberbia de la vida’ puede fundada en la razonabilidad misma de la sin duda explicar muchas formas concretas creación. Aquí no me referiré a las posibles de ateísmo, pero filosóficamente no puede soluciones (tomista o molinista, por ejemplo), considerarse ni satisfactoria ni suficiente” sino que remito a un texto de Zubiri en el (PINTOR-RAMOS, “Dios y el problema de la cual trata de estas cuestiones y propone su realidad en Zubiri”, en Cuadernos de Pensa- respuesta particular: cf. SSV 155-193. miento, n. 1, 1997, p. 109). 26 BUENO, Cuestiones cuodlibetales sobre Dios 32 Desde la comprensión de que el fundamento y la religión, pp. 210-211. del poder de lo real es la realidad divina. 27 HD 92-93. 33 NHD 393-394. 28 Cf. PFHR 87.
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015
O Xavier Zubiri e a dereita revolucionaria
Alexandre Xavier Casanova Domingo Galicia, Spain
Abstract
Xavier Zubiri can be seen from a new viewpoint called “Arch-individualism” or, more politi- cally, “Revolutionary Right.” This school of philosophy, Archindividualism, acts much like Xavier Zubiri himself, as Zubiri always has the philosophical and Christian tradition as his starting point; nothing can be done without the tradition or away from the tradition. But it is not vulgar Conservatism, either politically or theologically. Zubiri shows that a revolu- tionary analysis of reality, the human being and his relationship with God can be made from the very realm of tradition, purifying it without throwing it away, and thus opening the way for true human liberation. Now a parallel with the Theology of Liberation (from its lead- ing head and Zubiri's disciple, Ignacio Ellacuría) facilitates the comparison between the left- wing perspectives starting from Zubiri and the right-wing perspective, also starting from Zubiri, of Arch-individualism, which in turn is very close to Theology of Liberation, alt- hough Theology of Liberation would be left-wing.
Resumen O Xavier Zubiri pódese ver desde un novo punto de vista chamado Arqueoindividualismo ou, máis politicamente, Dereita Revolucionaria. Esta escola de filosofía, o arqueoindividua- lismo, traballa moi no estilo do Xavier Zubiri, porque o Zubiri sempre ten a tradición filosó- fica e cristiá coma o seu punto de partida; non se pode facer nada sen a tradición ou fora da tradición. Mais isto non é conservadorismo vulgar, nin politicamente nin filosoficamente. O Zubiri mostra que unha análise revolucionaria da realidade, do home e da relación do home co Deus, é posible dende o mesmo campo da tradición, purificándoa sen desbotala, e así abrindo o camiño para a verdadeira liberación humana. Agora un paralelo coa Teoloxía da Liberación (partindo da súa cabeza representativa e discípulo do Zubiri, o Ignacio Ella- curía) facilita a comparación entre as perspectivas esquerdistas que parten do Zubiri e a perspectiva dereitista, tamén inspirada no Zubiri, do arqueoindividualismo, o cal pola súa parte está moi próximo á teoloxía da liberación, aínda que a teoloxía da liberación sería esquerdista.
Nota lingüística preliminar. teolóxica en galego. Por tanto, aquí utiliza- É sabido que o galego ten un com- rei (en xeral) a típica normativa maiorita- plicado proceso sociolingüístico de norma- riamente usada hoxe na filosofía ou teolo- tivización e regulación dende a súa recu- xía en galego: a normativa da Real Acade- peración no uso culto i escrito a partir do mia Galega, sen por iso pronunciarme no século XIX. coñecido conflito que esta institución Esta aportación ó pensamento do mantén, por exemplo, coa Academia Gale- Xavier Zubiri non ten pretensións estilísti- ga da Língua Portuguesa, pois estoutra cas, filolóxicas ou lingüísticas, senón que academia normativa fai practicamente é, simplemente, unha reflexión filosófica e idénticos ó galego e ó portugués europeo
87 88 Alexandre Xavier Casanova Domingo ______continental. un medio, nunca un fin, no progreso real Iso si, dado o rexeitamento da pe- dos pobos e dos individuos. dantería académica que manteño en forma É certo que a teoloxía usouse e e fondo para esta reflexión, vou manter un úsase para dicir moitas parvadas sen pro- risco enxebre da lingua galega que hoxe, veito. por calco morfosintáctico do castelán ou É certo que as ideoloxías de dereita por falso senso da elegancia, é típicamente usáronse e úsanse para intentar abusos e omitido no galego escrito: o artigo ante crimes por parte dos que ostentan postos nome de persoa ou de nación. En galego xerárquicos de inmenso poder político, dise tradicionalmente: o Xavier Zubiri Apa- económico e intelectual. lategui, a Galicia, o Brasil, a Rosalía de Mais existe unha teoloxía verdadei- Castro. a Nélida Piñón. ¡E non é un vulga- ra, de boa fe i eficaz. O mesmo para a de- rismo! ¡Trátase de galego, non de castelán, reita coma concepción ideolóxica, política onde as cousas son moi distintas! Tamén e filosófica: hai unha dereita verdadeira, oralmente en portugués europeo, ou en de boa fe i eficaz. brasileiro, é un trazo lingüístico xenuina- Todo isto hai que dicilo de entrada, mente lusófono, ó que non cómpre renun- xa que vou analizar ó Xavier Zubiri dende ciar por imitación doutras linguas neolati- unha concepción filosófica, unha escola de nas, sexan o castelán ou o francés. filosofía, creada no ano 2014, que entre os seus moitos sinónimos, “movemento das Introdución raias vermellas”, “revolución do arquetipo” Tradicionalmente, na filosofía, hai e, sobre todo, “arqueoindividualismo”, ten dúas preguntas esgrevias. o sinónimo de "dereita revolucionaria". Con ¿Ten algunha utilidade real a teo- efecto, é abertamente unha escola filosófi- loxía? ca de dereita, e recoñece a importancia do ¿É a dereita algo máis cá monótona Deus e da teoloxía. apoloxía que os ricos e privilexiados fan de O difícil de entender nesta nova es- si mesmos? cola de filosofía é o seu encadramento "an- Pois ben: ó meu ver, a resposta é titradicional". Porque hai, en xeral, unhas positiva en ambos casos. A teoloxía é útil ligazóns tradicionais entre tendencias de para responder ás grandes preguntas que cada escola filosófica, ligazóns que son fai a filosofía. E a dereita xenuína non fai cambiadas ou mesmo invertidas polo ar- unha noxenta apoloxía das riquezas mal queoindividualismo. Presento a continua- gañadas, senón que distingue entre rique- ción as ligazóns tradicionais nun cadro zas mal gañadas e ben gañadas; e mostra sistemático. que mesmo as riquezas ben gañadas son
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 O Xavier Zubiri e a dereita revolucionaria 89 ______
Individualismo Relativismo ético Realidade Derradeira Permanente Autoritarismo sociopolítico Absolutismo ético Colectivismo ideolóxico Espiritualismo Antimaterialismo Amor Altruísmo Hedonismo Inmanentismo Tradicionalismo Dogmatismo Cientifismo Escepticismo gnoseolóxico Inmortalidade da ánima O Deus creador Liberdade contra a autoridade externa Agnosticismo Realidade do Deus Monoteísmo Ateísmo como inexistencia do Deus Laicismo Ascetismo Antihedonismo Revolución política comunista Antropocentrismo Reencarnación Indiferencia ante a pobreza das masas Liberalismo radical Democracia Fin da opresión do home polo home Igualitarismo Antiabortismo Familias numerosas Soterioloxía Salvación por un Deus externo ó home Aristocratismo Endogamia e cooptación culturais Nirvana Aniquilación do ego Dereita Contrarrevolución Outros (engadir) ¿?
Tabla 1. Ligazóns tradicionais dentro de cada escola filosófica
Porén, o arqueoindividualismo mantén zóns da segunda columna, como veremos tódalas reivindicacións da primeira co- no segundo cadro esquemático lumna... cambiando radicalmente as liga-
Individualismo Absolutismo ético Realidade Derradeira Permanente Libertarismo sociopolítico Absolutismo ético Antigregarismo aristocrático Espiritualismo Materialismo Amor Egoísmo Hedonismo Transcendentalismo Tradicionalismo Chegada experimental ó coñecemento Cientifismo Construtivismo gnoseolóxico Inmortalidade da ánima O Deus emanador dende si mesmo Liberdade contra a autoridade externa Gnosticismo Realidade do Deus Politeísmo Ateísmo como inexistencia do Deus Relixiosidade Ascetismo Hedonismo Revolución política comunista Teocentrismo Reencarnación Eliminación da pobreza das masas Liberalismo radical Rexeitamento da democracia
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 90 Alexandre Xavier Casanova Domingo ______
Fin da opresión do home polo home Diferenza entre homes peores e mellores Antiabortismo Forte e sostida redución da natalidade Aristocratismo Autosalvación individual Soterioloxía Promoción de todos á casta suprema Nirvana Afirmación eterna e infinita do ego Dereita Revolución Outros (engadir) ¿?
Tabla 2. Ligazóns dentro do arqueoindividualismo
Aínda que moi esquemáticos, estes Respondo a isto que o existencia- dous cadros mostran a forte orixinalidade lismo, en filosofía, si que é definible e de- do arqueoindividualismo, e a dificultade limitable como actitude primaria ante a para comprendelo como nova escola filosó- investigación filosófica. Se partimos do ser fica. O decisivo é comprender que o ar- en abstracto, deslocado da situación con- queoindividualismo non é unha reforma creta, non hai existencialismo. Se, pola menor dalgunha escola filosófica xa exis- contra, partimos da vida ou existencia tente; e que, por outro lado, se apoia ex- concreta de quen busca a verdade, hai xa plicitamente na longa tradición filósofica un existencialismo intencional, aínda que das escolas anteriores, non sendo un ada- os resultados da investigación poidan ser nismo xurdido dunha folla en branco. tan dispares coma os que opoñen ó Sartre, ¿Como enlaza todo isto co esforzo á Ayn Rand e ó Karl Jaspers, por exemplo. metafísico e teolóxico liberador que fai o Mailos tres parten da experiencia concreta Xavier Zubiri? Verémolo deseguido. da persoa, da súa existencia non abstracta senón vivida concretamente; por iso os O existencialismo revolucionario do tres son existencialistas. Cousa que nunca Zubiri. poderemos dicir do san Tomé de Aquino, É frecuente incluír ó Xavier Zubiri do Maimónides nin do Jacques Monod, no existencialismo; ou, quizais mellor, nos por poñer tres exemplos moi diferentes existencialismos, nas diversas correntes entre si. Por tanto, hai delimitación entre filosóficas que parten da existencia como existencialismo e ausencia de existencia- dado fundamental da realidade. lismo na actitude filosófica inicial. Os existencialismos adoitan divi- E, así, tamén o Xavier Zubiri Apa- dirse en existencialismos teístas e non lategui é un existencialista. Un existencia- teístas, e dentro dos existencialismos teís- lista radicalmente cristián. tas falaríamos de existencialistas cristiáns, A principal xustificación disto está coma o Emmanuel Mounier, o Gabriel na propia obra do Xavier Zubiri. En efecto, Marcel, o Kierkegaard e o propio Xavier o seu transparente e antirretórico caste- Zubiri. lán, a lingua na que fai toda a súa obra, É coñecida a crítica segundo a cal o dá acceso fácil e directo ó seu pensamen- existencialismo é un caixón de alfaiate to. Unicamente son necesarias traducións filosófico, onde cabe de todo e, por tanto... e reexposicións das súas ideas ós que non non se define nada. Se todo filósofo pode falen castelán ou teñan tanta présa que ser un existencialista, entón dicir dun non poidan le-las pasaxes significativas filósofo que é un existencialista non enga- das obras principais deste filósofo vasco. de ren a dicir que un filósofo é un filósofo. Maticemos lingüisticamente que, ó I entón dicir que o Zubiri é un existen- se-lo éuscaro (non o castelán) a lingua cialista cristián nada engadiría a dicir que materna do Xavier Zubiri Apalategui (tra- o Zubiri é un filósofo cristián, de inspira- dución literal deste nome do éuscaro ó ción cristiá. galego: Casanova Xunto á Ponte Biblioteca) a obra en castelán do filósofo vasco contén
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 O Xavier Zubiri e a dereita revolucionaria 91 ______numerosos xiros morfosintácticos inspira- todo é o Deus non é diferenciable de dicir dos na lingua vasca. E concretamente os que o mundo é o Deus... ou que o mundo abondosos neoloxismos en castelán intro- é eterno, sen o Deus; daí a clásica acusa- ducidos polo Zubiri, transparentan o rico e ción de ateísmo contra o panteísmo do moi produtivo sistema de matización por Espinosa (Spinoza). sufixos e partículas, arredor da raíz se- Orabén, o Zubiri, e toda hipótese mántica orixinal, que hai no éuscaro, mais metafísica seria a prol do teísmo (quer non tanto no castelán. politeísta ou monoteísta) distinguen graos Se o facemos directamente no as- de realidade. Tódalas cousas son o Deus pecto lingüístico, se lemos directamente en ou os deuses por participación, mais non castelán os libros do Xavier Zubiri, encon- todas do mesmo xeito nin con igual identi- tramos un claro e persistente existencia- ficación á divindade. O teísmo serio é un lismo cristián. panteísmo cualificado, un panenteísmo. Cousa que sempre fixen, ler en cas- No panenteísmo hai ó tempo iden- telán directamente ó Xavier Zubiri sen tidade e diferencia entre a realidade finita necesidade de comentaristas ou traduto- creada (ou, segundo o arqueoindividua- res. lismo, emanada) e o Deus, realidade de- Con todo, en galego, é recomenda- rradeira, que lle dá orixe. Coma di o de- ble a introdución ó cerne do pensamento vandito Everaldo Cescon, falando do Zubi- zubiriano feita polo brasileiro Everaldo ri: “Deus doa o poder do real, de uma ou de Cescon e publicada na revista norteameri- outra forma, com a realidade fundante”. cá "The Xavier Zubiri Review" no ano 2007. Faino, si, mais conservando a diferenza Titúlase "A “trilogia teologal” de Xavier entre o Deus mesmo e a súa máxima cria- Zubiri: contribuições e problemas". Xa que tura, o home. Engade o Everaldo Cescon: o galego, o portugués europeo e o brasilei- “o homem é experiência de Deus porque ro (portugués americán) son tres formas está fundamentado na realidade de Deus.” da mesma lingua lusa. E aquí xorde explicitamente o ca- A exposición devandita do Everaldo rácter revolucionario da metafísica e a teo- Cescon é fiel ó proxecto do Xavier Zubiri i loxía do Xavier Zubiri. Cito outra vez ó explica a concepción fundamental do filó- Everaldo Cescon: “O homem está constitu- sofo vasco. Daí podemos tirar citas e fra- tivamente religado ao poder do real e é ses rumo a esta reivindicación do Xavier levado a entregarse inteiramente à realida- Zubiri para a dereita revolucionaria (ar- de absolutamente absoluta, que está no queoindividualismo). fundo de toda a realidade e da pessoa hu- Dou por suposto un bo coñecemen- mana.” to xeral da filosofía do Xavier Zubiri nas Hai pois a posibilidade do cambio reflexións que poñerei a continuación; e radical de plano. A deiformidade, que non remito ós falantes de galego se non teñen deformidade; a posibilidade de obter, por tal coñecemento, unha vez máis, ó salien- parte da criatura, por parte do home orixi- table traballo do Everaldo Cescon. nado, a forma do Deus. Cousa, por outra Entón, a obxeción fundamental que parte, xa anunciada polo mesmo Xesucris- se lle pode facer a este existencialismo to: “En verdade dígovos: deuses sodes.” teísta cristián, ó pensamento nuclear do Non vou negar, nin moito menos, Xavier Zubiri, é a mesma obxeción que se as fortes diferenzas metafísicas e teolóxi- lles pode facer tamén ó arqueoindividua- cas entre o Xavier Zubiri e o meu pensa- lismo e a toda filosofía teísta: se admitides mento sobre os mesmos temas, inspirado ó Deus como principio explicativo supremo libremente no arqueoindividualismo. Se- e como ente verdadeiro, ¿que cousa real gundo esta escola, afirmo que a realidade non é o Deus? Se todo é o Deus, e o teísmo divina é politeísta, hai moitos deuses, no así o afirma, en derradeiro termo hai pan- canto de monoteísta, porque non hai un teísmo. I en derradeiro termo o panteísmo Deus único que anule ou debilite ós de- equivale a un vulgar ateísmo. Dicir que mais deuses. Tamén recoñezo o ateísmo: o
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 92 Alexandre Xavier Casanova Domingo ______
Deus e os deuses non existen, porque a frase que os arqueoindividualistas facemos existencia é unha limitación, e o Deus non extensiva a toda comprensión global que é limitado. As cousas distintas do Deus pretenda mellora-la realidade. Por iso apa- existen no Deus, que lles dá existencia sen rece a nosa estraña, en aparencia, ser, en si mesmo, existencia. Non hai nada conxunción entre revolución e dereita, xa maior que o Deus no cal o Deus poida que tradicionalmente pénsase que a revo- existir. Porén, negala existencia do Deus lución é cousa da esquerda. non é inmanentismo, senón polo contrario Pois unha verdadeira revolución o recoñecemento da trascendencia non nunca parte de cero. Por iso, neste senso, dual, non sometida á continxencia da exis- toda verdadeira revolución é "de dereita", tencia, que ten o Deus real; o plano su- se pretende triunfar, se pretende liberar ó premo da realidade. home dos seus atrancos. Debemos partir, En cambio o Zubiri, dende o seu na revolución, do que xa coñecemos e cristianismo católico, resulta radicalmente avanzar sobre tal coñecemento. O ar- monoteísta; di que só o monoteísmo é ex- queoindividualismo, que é sen dúbida un clusivamente verdadeiro. movemento revolucionario no metafísico e É certo que a linguaxe, mesmo un- tamén no político, parte de feitos compro- ha linguaxe acertada, só é aproximativa en bados e de teorías sometidas cientifica- materia teolóxica, pois o Deus é unha mente a comprobación, falsación e reela- realidade non verbal en derradeira instan- boración experimental. cia. Con todo, reitero a verdade relativa do E no mellor da aventura intelectual politeísmo porque, no plano fenoménico, do Xavier Zubiri albíscase isto tamén. todo o que é aprehendido é aprehendido A parte estritamente eclesiástica e como ser senlleiro, diferenciado dos outros apoloxética do catolicismo no Xavier Zubi- seres. Daquí é transparente que os moitos ri, sinceramente, éme pouco interesante; deuses saben abofé que proceden dunha tan pouco como adoitan selo pra min as orixe sen manifestación sen nome. Mais apoloxías da respectiva superioridade do non por iso necesitan nomear un só Deus xudaísmo, o budismo, o luteranismo, o como presidente ou rei de todos eles, no islamismo, etcétera. Abonda aquí con indi- que os demais deuses deleguen os seus car, no plano metafísico e neste senso su- atributos divinos. prarrelixioso, co René Guénon, que nin- A pregunta latente, claro está, é se gunha tradición espiritual é insubstituíble todo isto pasa dalgún xeito de ser un mero e culminación metafísica en si mesma... xogo verbal, completamente inútil, entre xustamente porque se dá no plano feno- conceptos que de nada liberan ó home real ménico aínda relativo (concepto sánscrito dos seus numerosos e graves problemas. de ilusión radical, "maia"). O intento de Pois non estamos na típica i estéril substituír unha relixión, o catolicismo por discusión sobre o sexo dos anxos. exemplo, por outra relixión, o sunismo O Xavier Zubiri, igual que preten- islámico por exemplo, que sería máis ver- demos face-los arqueoindividualistas, bus- dadeira, é pueril, por moi humano e com- ca a religación total, completa, de cada prensible que resulte na socioloxía relixio- home co Deus. sa. O fin disto non é establecer unha Aquí entra unha frase hoxe admiti- distinción verbal predominante entre poli- da con maior ou menor matización por teísmo e monoteísmo, por exemplo, senón tódalas relixións: “O Deus é amor.” achegarmos efectivamente ó Reino do Pois será. Mais, mesmo si é verda- Deus. de, tal amor é moi diferente para o rico e I este reino non pode chegar se fa- para o pobre. Certa teoloxía cristiá afirma cemos asercións falsas ou moi improba- que os pobres son os preferidos polo Deus. bles. Daí a magnífica frase do Xavier Zubi- Tendo en conta feitos ben comprobados, ri, de novo atopada no Everaldo Cescon: non meras opinións, que indican que os “As religiões nunca partem do zero.” Unha pobres viven menos tempo e con máis en-
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 O Xavier Zubiri e a dereita revolucionaria 93 ______fermidades que os ricos, mesmo sendo moi (mellor: emanado, segundo o meu punto indulxente con esta frase e co contexto no de vista) pensaríamos que hai unhas ba- que tradicionalmente se di, cómpre re- rreiras físicas i espirituais á súa compren- coñecer que a pobreza non achega a Deus, sión que non existen, pois se o home quere non produce nada positivo en si mesma; chegar á santidade, chegará a ser santo, e que da pobreza se debe fuxir coma do de- as portas do inferno non prevaleceran con- mo. tra el; crer que a salvación non é posible Dito con outras verbas, e bastante dende a racionalidade humana é o erro do duras: teoloxía si, parvadas non. calvinismo. En xeral: a apoloxía da dor e das O que se necesita é amor sen nar- dificultades no mundo fenoménico, tan cisismo. O que se necesita é egoísmo ben característica de tódalas relixións e cos- entendido, que é o amor a si mesmo, e non movisións de alicerce bíblico (incluidas as desprezo do próximo. Quen se ama a si tendencias islámicas) choca de sócato co mesmo, amará con verdade e con poder ó feito de que hai moitas manifestacións da seu próximo. dor que son completa ou case completa- Por isto queda o aporte sólido do mente mecánicas, estériles, que nada te- Xavier Zubiri á liberación real do home, un ñen de divino directa ou indirectamente e aporte tan sólido que non precisa gaban- que, simplemente, débense á autonomía zas indixestas. relativa de funcionamento e desenvolve- O Deus revélase precisamente na mento que ten o mundo material fenomé- acción do home que busca entender, que nico transitorio. busca a realización da súa máis alta posi- En xeral, a dor non acerca ó Reino bilidade. É un Deus intrínseco á concien- de Deus, senón todo o contrario. cia do individuo, sen por iso limitarse á Agora, pode parecer que me afasto escuridade e á continxencia do individuo radicalmente do Xavier Zubiri e que vou a transitorio. É un Deus que libera por estar un prometeísmo laicista e inmanentista. dentro mais empurrando para fora. Fora Pois non hai tal. O que busco, o do mundo material de tebras: ata o Cristo que busca a dereita revolucionaria, é unha Cósmico. revolución metafísica e política real, que A intelección sentinte, segundo o ten moi en conta a tradición (de feito, en Xavier Zubiri, permite un acceso completo típica frase da dereita: o que non é tradi- á realidade percibida. Hai nisto unha su- ción é plaxio) mais que, lonxe de insistir peración da dualidade, da imperfección no no pecado, a culpa, a caída e conceptos coñecemento. ligados, insiste no contrario: na acción A miña interpretación do Zubiri é, santa, na autoxustificación inocente, no abofé, meta-kantiana. Sosteño que as aná- andar ergueito. lises da aprehensión da realidade polo Di o Zubiri, citado polo Everaldo home, pola súa intelixencia, pola súa afec- Cescon, que o amor en Deus "é real, formal tividade, pola súa corporalidade e polo e constitutivamente um êxtase de pura vo- encontro transcendentalmente reforzante lição e de pura inteligência". Isto implica coa Realidade Derradeira, o Deus, permi- plenitude física no posible, plenitude sí- ten progresivamente chegar a un coñece- quica e apertura á excelencia espiritual. É mento exacto do real, por moi longo que deiformidade, deiformación... ¡deificación! resulte o proceso. O que se necesita é un equilibrio Esta posibilidade non é unha vari- superior. Sen conciencia do carácter tran- ña máxica, mais si a guía antirrelativista sitorio, insatisfactorio e humillante do que orienta en todo o proceso. Os planos mundo fenoménico, creríamos que é posi- de realidade, especialmente na Historia ble a felicidade nun plano existencial tan (aquí salienta o Zubiri máis teólogo, máis baixo; é o erro do prometeísmo. Por outra cristián) son progresivamente transparen- parte, sen conciencia da natureza intrin- tes segundo a actuación do home religado secamente divina do ser humano creado ó Deus.
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 94 Alexandre Xavier Casanova Domingo ______
Vou rematando. Realmente, a difi- ra, cómpre concluír que, empiricamente, a cultade está na integración do pensamento pobreza nin é liberadora nin dá, en xeral, zubiriano nos paradigmas do arqueoindi- oportunidade ningunha de liberación ou vidualismo. mellora. Agás escasas excepcións, a po- breza produce corrupción, desesperación, A teoloxía da liberación, o arqueoindi- maldade, pecado, crime, morte, dor... e vidualismo e o Zubiri. máis pobreza, en círculo vicioso. Unha comparación coa recepción Non cabe outra actitude racional do Xavier Zubiri na teoloxía da liberación, ante a pobreza ca elimina-la pobreza, so- a través do amigo i expositor de Zubiri, o bre todo a pobreza extrema, a miseria. xesuíta Ignacio Ellacuría, aclarará a novi- Ontoloxicamente, a pobreza fai do dade da miña formulación. home, realidade aberta en principio coma A teoloxía da liberación é aberta e ben di o Zubiri.... unha realidade pechada. intensamente política. Orabén, o feito de O pobre real, non o pobre imaxinado por recibir inspiración do pensamento zubi- certos teólogos da liberación, é un ser cá- riano, non directamente político en por si, seque sempre involucionado ó animal indica que o pensamento zubiriano permi- prehumano. O pobre real é un home ca- te mediatamente obter consecuencias polí- rente de horizontes e de capacidades para ticas importantes. Isto, tanto na teoloxía saír da súa condición. A miseria non pro- da liberación como na dereita revoluciona- duce revolución; só produce miseria. ria. Así, este irrealismo fantástico, to- En xeral, a Teoloxía da Liberación talmente inaceptable, é o punto nodal que xorde pra dar unha solución ó problema desloca á dereita revolucionaria, ó ar- da ausencia de liberación hispanoamericá. queoindividualismo, da teoloxía da libera- A fundamentación teolóxica da liberación ción. Sendo totalmente imposible, na non pode ser só sociolóxica ou económica, realidade, mellora-la condición humana malia o importante peso do marxismo na baixo a pobreza severa, é necesario tamén teoloxía da liberación. Por iso o Ignacio rexeitala simbolicamente e recoñecer que a Ellacuría parte do seu excelente coñece- pobreza nada ten de divino e que un con- mento do Xavier Zubiri (que foi mestre cepto racional do Deus non ve pobreza no seu) para postular unha espiritualización Deus, senón riqueza (xusta) no económico do home, como realidade radicalmente e no espiritual. A “civilización da pobreza” aberta segundo o Zubiri, que na praxe proposta polo Ignacio Ellacuría é un con- histórica induza unha espiritualización trasentido, por moito que o propio Ignacio que teña sempre en contra a materialidade Ellacuría pretenda logo matizar este grave da realidade. erro, presentándoo como “satisfacción uni- O esquema, ata aquí, é moi simi- versal das necesidades básicas”. ¿O que é lante ó esquema da dereita revolucionaria, iso, senón precisamente riqueza? O que do arqueoindividualismo. ¿Onde está a necesitamos é unha “civilización da rique- diferencia? za... da riqueza xusta e universal”. Ó noso xuízo, ó xuízo dos ar- Así, a consecución dunha gran queoindividualistas, no feito de que o Ig- abundancia material é ós ollos da dereita nacio Ellacuría (e a teoloxía da liberación revolucionaria unha condición necesaria e en xeral) propoñan ó pobre como un "lugar ineludible para a liberación do home na teolóxico" ou concepto paradigmático da Historia; o cal, segundo o coñecemento acción salvadora e liberadora do Deus na científico comprobado, implica un axuste Historia. demográfico radical (limitación i estabiliza- Orabén, dende o materialismo his- ción da poboación) e o cambio da irracio- tórico, cultural e dialéctico, non só do nalidade consumista á produción de mate- Marx e o Engels senón tamén de moitos riais e servizos de gran calidade, longa outros autores coma o Marvin Harris, o duración e harmonía ecolóxica sostible no Freud, o Darwin, o Jacques Monod, etcéte- medio ambiente sen o cal ho home real
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 O Xavier Zubiri e a dereita revolucionaria 95 ______non pode vivir. Pódese entende-la dereita divino. O cal implica recoñecer, sen ro- revolucionaria, aínda, como unha forma manticismo ilusorio, o peso determinante de teoloxía ou filosofía da liberación... (e abafante se non o recoñecemos) das leis mais, iso si, unha teoloxía da liberación do mundo material, para crea-los puntos realista e nunca utópica. de salto a dimensións cada vez máis li- Trátase no noso sentir, no sentir do bres, cada vez menos atadas á materiali- arqueoindividualismo, dunha lectura rea- dade animal transitoria, do home no que lista e progresista das teses do Xavier Zu- ten de propiamente anxélico, de crístico e biri. O home, sendo en principio unha divino. realidade limitada e falible, ten, nembar- E, como non tratamo-los arqueoin- gantes, a capacidade de acolle-la capta- dividualistas de fachendear de novidade ción do poder divino e humanizar toda a académica, coma o noso interese é sinxe- realidade, cara á divinización tamén, pois lamente a liberación real, física, metafísica a “deiformidade” e a “deiformación” do ho- e relixiosa, do ser verdadeiro empírico, do me implican que o home só pode ser ple- home, quedamos á espera de todo tipo de namente humano aspirando a ser tamén críticas e suxestións.
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015
La realidad nunca traicionada
Nativitat Senserrich y Morata Departamento de Filosofía Teorética y Práctica Facultad de Filosofía de la Universidad de Barcelona Barcelona, España
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to reflect about a portion of the correspondence between El- lacuría and Zubiri in order to establish a foundation for articulation of thought of the Jesuit based on his reception of Zubiri’s thought, and their relationship. For Ellacuría philosophy was always something very serious, something that required a disciplined exercise in search of impeccable intellectual rigor. Following these criteria he laid the foundations of what was supposed to represent a new Christian philosophy that was in full harmony and consistency with Latin American reality. We could summarize the center of his intellectual concerns, his intellectual project. But it is something else. This article seeks to show, on one hand, something of the meaning of philosophy and life, and on the other hand, to as- sert the importance of the philosophy of religion as a discipline or field of philosophy, one that can access the keys to many of the conflicts pressing upon our century. This is im- portant because without thinking how can action be developed? Philosophy and life show that life is religated, and it is though religación that theology is done in the passionate de- sire to give consistent voice to religated reason. This is the common ground of Xavier Zubiri and Ignacio Ellacuría; teacher and student. Both epitomize consistency and accuracy; and for both intellectual passion becomes life and how you always pay a price for that con- sistency when there is no possibility to buy what is not for sale.
Resumen El objeto de este trabajo es reflexionar alrededor de una parte de la correspondencia entre Zubiri y Ellacuría a fin de poder establecer las bases de la articulación del pensamiento del jesuita a partir de la recepción, por su parte, del pensamiento y de su relación con Zubiri. Para Ellacuría la filosofía fue siempre algo muy serio, algo que requería de un ejercicio dis- ciplinado a la búsqueda de una impecable rigurosidad intelectual. Siguiendo estos criterios acabó construyendo las bases de lo que habría de representar una nueva filosofía cristiana que estuviera en plena sintonía y coherencia con la realidad latinoamericana. Así podría- mos resumir el centro de sus preocupaciones intelectuales, su proyecto intelectual. Sin embargo es algo más. Este artículo quisiera mostrar, también, por un lado algo del signifi- cado del binomio filosofía y vida y por otro lado, reivindicar la importancia de la Filosofía de la Religión como disciplina, o ámbito de la Filosofía, privilegiado para poder acceder a las claves de muchos de los conflictos que urgen, que están apremiando a nuestro siglo a pen- sar, por que sin pensamiento ¿cómo va a elaborarse la acción? Pensar de forma significati- va, desde dentro y para adentro. Del binomio filosofía y vida, la vida se religa, es religación y religación que se hace teología en el deseo apasionado de dar voz coherente a la razón religada. Es este el lugar común de Xavier Zubiri e Ignacio Ellacuría; maestro y alumno; a mi entender epítomes ambos de coherencia y rigor; de pasión intelectual que se hace vida y de cómo siempre hay que pagar un precio por esa coherencia cuando no hay posibilidad de comprar aquello que no está en venta.
97 98 Nativitat Senserrich y Morata ______
Escribir sobre Xavier Zubiri e Ignacio en general, si es posible una filosofía Ellacuría representa para mí, siempre, un cristiana o tan solo una weltans- reto íntimo porque aprendí a comprenderle cahuung o una sapientia cristiana. durante mi investigación doctoral y signifi- Brehier concluye… que nunca ha habi- có un auténtico hito vivencial. En mi vida do filosofía cristiana, y que el cristia- y en mis intuiciones hay un antes y un nismo en cuanto tal no ha influido en la después de conocer, comprender y refle- filosofía. Le responde Gilson que la filo- xionar a ambos. Quisiera en este artículo sofía occidental es lo que es gracias al recordarlos a ambos en el hoy de mis pen- cristianismo.2 samientos. El objeto de este trabajo es Respecto a la recepción de esta polé- reflexionar alrededor de una parte de la mica en el mundo intelectual católico Ella- correspondencia entre Zubiri y Ellacuría a curía dice lo siguiente: fin de poder establecer las bases de la arti- culación del pensamiento del jesuita a … se centra más en el segundo tér- partir de la recepción, por su parte, del mino: lo que es la fe cristiana y su in- pensamiento y la relación con Zubiri. flujo sobre lo que ya sabe de la filosofía Los citas1 de Zubiri y Ellacuría perte- y de sus exigencias. Según Heidegger, necen a una serie de textos y correspon- la pregunta sobre el ser no irrumpe dencia inédita de él que aparecieron en la mientras se está en la seguridad y en la Revista ECA de la Universidad Centroame- comodidad. El que cuenta con la fe de ricana José Simeón Cañas, concretamente la Biblia no puede preguntar auténti- en el número 577-578 correspondiente a camente, porque tiene la respuesta an- los meses de noviembre y diciembre de tes que la pregunta sin dejar de ser 1996. Por ello, ya queda dicho aquí y por creyente. Por tanto, no es posible un fi- ello no aparecerá ninguna nota al pie en losofar cristiano…3 referencia a los textos citados ya que todas Podríamos definir a la filosofía cristia- ellas serían idénticas. na como aquel pensamiento filosófico Para Ellacuría la filosofía fue siempre desarrollado íntegramente por cristianos algo muy serio, algo que requería de un convencidos. De modo que el auténtico ejercicio disciplinado a la búsqueda de problema reside en determinar que es un una impecable rigurosidad intelectual. filósofo cristiano. Éste sería aquel pensa- Siguiendo estos criterios acabó constru- dor que pudiera distinguir entre el orden yendo las bases de lo que habría de repre- del saber y el orden de la fe, así como sentar una nueva filosofía cristiana que aquel que reconociera las causas natura- estuviera en plena sintonía y coherencia les aunque encuentre en la revelación cris- con la realidad latinoamericana. Así po- tiana una luz para iluminar a la razón. dríamos resumir el centro de sus preocu- Aunque esto sea claro y simple la defini- paciones intelectuales, su proyecto intelec- ción de las características de un filósofo tual. Desde el principio fue consciente de cristiano resultan problemáticas a la vez los muchos problemas que contenía la que discutibles. En un texto que se cree expresión filosofía cristiana hecho que escrito en los años 50, con toda probabili- puso de manifiesto en un escrito de los dad, Ellacuría escribió: años 60 titulado La problemática de una filosofía cristiana. Sin embargo, es impor- … ¿Qué mueve el cristianismo a acer- tante poder ver como se expresaba él en carse y aprovecharse de lo natural, de referencia a esta problemática: lo profano, de lo que, al parecer, no es formalmente cristiano? Y si se quisiera Con ocasión del centenario de la muer- complicar más el asunto, todavía pu- te de San Agustín (1.500) surge la pre- diera presentarse esta otra pseudo- gunta de si Agustín es filósofo, y, más pregunta que tanto los filisteos de un
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 La realidad nunca traicionada 99 ______
lado como los del otro insinúan artera- discusión minuciosa contra el suare- mente como hipócrita inocencia: ¿es cismo le ha hecho presentar un tomis- que el cristiano no tiene suficiente con mo exacerbado y poco actual. De todos su cristianismo como respuesta intelec- modos, se ha metido en un terreno en tual y como actitud vital?4 el que es imposible co-filosofar en Cen- troamérica, donde sería una pena que La respuesta intelectual y la actitud la filosofía comenzara siendo discusión vital no son suficientes para Ellacuría, escolástica. Tal vez, el autor haya pro- creencia que para él se subsume a Santo yectado demasiado su propia y perso- Tomás a quien admiraba profundamente nal formación y preocupación filosóficas por su audacia intelectual. En los años en un ambiente cuyo tono existencial es que transcurrieron a partir de 1955, Ella- ciertamente distinto. Esto no obsta a curía tomó partido en el llamado movimien- que el autor le sea permitido y aun to neo-tomista que propugnaba la vuelta a obligado tener su específica interpreta- un pensamiento católico tomista a partir ción del ser ni a que se le niegue con- de la síntesis entre la filosofía de Santo tacto con el tomismo contemporáneo. Tomás y los descubrimientos de las cien- Con todo, creo sinceramente que una cias y de las filosofías de Kant y Heidegger. predisposición personal le empuja a in- Las figuras más prominentes en esos años terpretar conforme a sus esquemas aun del neo-tomismo eran el Cardenal Mercier, a los tomistas contemporáneos, despo- que fundó la escuela de Lovaina y Mare- seyéndolos así de lo más original en chal. En España destacó el que fuera ellos.6 maestro de Zubiri, Juan Zaragüeta. En este contexto, él buscaba y creía posible Centrándose en el tema de Centroamérica encontrar elementos comunes entre la y la filosofía escribe: filosofía tomista y las filosofías contempo- ¿Puede ser entonces el tomismo con su ráneas. Ellacuría pretendía la síntesis en- forma y sus específicos contenidos filo- tre tomismo y modernismo. De hecho, su sóficos una auténtica filosofía efectiva admirado Santo Tomás había hecho lo en Centroamérica7? La pregunta es mismo cuando intento armonizar su pen- desaforada y a su respuesta no se van a samiento con las filosofías de Aristóteles y aportar aquí sino unas posibles direc- Averroes. Ellacuría se expresa como sigue trices, las más de ellas negativas. Desde en otro texto inédito en junio de 1958: luego no, si se trata de un tomismo in- Urgentemente se precisa captar y decir temporal y repetitivo, es decir, un to- lo que de positivo tienen los modernos, mismo que ni siquiera reproduce el va- no de corrida y con la prisa de añadir lor filosófico de su origen, sino tan solo inmediatamente un pero adversativo y la inteligencia de sus fórmulas. Hay que destructor, sino con ánimo abierto de añadir inmediatamente que, si el to- buscar lo valioso aún entre actitudes y mismo ha sido solo eso en muchas par- expresiones que admiten un doble sen- tes y tiempos, no tiene por qué serlo y tido…5 de hecho no lo es hoy en varios pensa- dores, auténticamente tomistas, autén- En esta etapa se consideraba un par- ticamente pensadores y auténticamente tidario de la filosofía perenne, un escolás- contemporáneos.8 tico. Sin embargo, ya aquí su postura es de una gran apertura lo cual le coloca, en El movimiento tomista y neo-esco- ese medio, como un heterodoxo. A propósi- lástico era, en ese momento, en que lo to de un texto redactado por Peccorini El vivió Ellacuría una postura muy de avan- ser y los seres en 1961 que se presentaba zada, dada la situación de una Iglesia Ca- fiel a las posturas tomistas, Ellacuría es- tólica muy conservadora que en ese mo- cribe: mento estaba preocupada atacando al modernismo, lo moderno y lo que en rela- El haberse entretenido demasiado en la ción se mantuviera en ambos. Su pensa-
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 100 Nativitat Senserrich y Morata ______miento hasta aquí ya nos muestra un Se aprecia con claridad que la síntesis Ellacuría radical, a la vanguardia de los que Ellacuría pretendía pronto se desva- movimientos intelectuales de la Iglesia. necerá a partir de ese primer contacto. Parece ser que para él no era incompatible Volvió a tener la segunda entrevista con servir a la Iglesia, ser radical de varias Zubiri el 2 de agosto de 1962. En diciem- maneras y vivir y estar de acuerdo con los bre de aquel mismo año aparecía publica- tiempos. Ignacio Ellacuría creyó encontrar da SE y el 27 de enero de 1963 Ellacuría en el pensamiento de Ortega y Gasset una le envía una carta entusiasmada a Zubiri filosofía susceptible de poder formar parte de la que reproduciré algunos fragmentos. de su síntesis. Algunos especialistas creen En ella se ve como esta obra le hace pen- que intentó cristianizar a Ortega intentan- sar en la auténtica posibilidad de una do dar con lo más esencial de su pensa- nueva filosofía cristiana, trans-escolástica miento. Más concretamente y como indica y trans-tomista: el título de un trabajo redactado en esos …le quería agradecer su libro por lo que mismos años Posibilidad y modo de apro- tiene de servicio no sólo a la filosofía y ximación de la filosofía escolástica y la no sólo a la verdad, sino, sobre todo, filosofía vitalista moderna, hacer compati- por lo que tiene de servicio al cristia- ble el pensamiento de Ortega con la filoso- nismo y por lo que tiene de servicio a la fía escolástica. Sin embargo, tal proyecto Verdad. Yo lo siento así y así se lo digo se irá desvaneciendo en la medida en que sin limitación alguna … Lo que me pasó Ellacuría conozca el pensamiento de Zubi- fue que el libro fue un deslumbramien- ri, en el que encontrará mucho más vita- to en un terreno en el que me parecía lismo del que creyó hallar en Ortega. En que ni yo cabría en el deslumbramiento esa obra encontró el plus de realidad que … Yo creo que los formados en la esco- le faltaba para que su proyecto intelectual lástica tendían a pensar que lo que us- fuera viable en Centroamérica. Únicamen- ted les podría dar de avance y profundi- te la vida, anclada en la realidad, podría zación estaría en un terreno no todavía renovar el pensamiento filosófico cristiano. cubierto por ella, el terreno de los exis- La crítica que Ellacuría hace al escolasti- tencialismos, historicismos y vitalismos cismo es la falta de radicación vital en la …; en el mejor de los casos pensaban vida misma, el sentido vital. Todo ello es- que usted iniciaría una síntesis y no un taba en plena sintonía con su espirituali- mero conglomerado, entre la filosofía dad de aquel momento. clásica y la filosofía última … El asom- Paralelamente Ellacuría se planteaba bro ha sido, entonces, que usted ha la posibilidad de poner límites a los exis- dado todo esto de una forma superior, tencialismos y en esos términos pensó en como quien da una solución no al pro- Zubiri. Lo que había leído de él en NHD le blema mal propuesto, sino a un pro- había gustado y creyó que su tesis docto- blema que luego habría que replan- ral le daría un espacio apto para discernir tear… Desde luego no se dirá que su fi- en qué medida el pensamiento de Zubiri losofía, ni aún siquiera su filosofar, sea podía acotar los vitalismos y existencia- aristotélico, ni escolástico. Yo diría que lismos9. En una carta de Ellacuría a su es más bien un mea-aristotelismo y vice-provincial se expresa como sigue con tras-escolástico… ni en la técnica, ni en relación a la primera vez que vio y habló los resultados de su pensamiento. Y es- con Zubiri, el 8 de septiembre de 1961: to para nuestros tiempos balbucientes, Le dije sucintamente que veía en él un nebulosos e inacabados es ya un valor modelo de juntura entre lo clásico y lo de primera línea. Pero la escolástica en moderno, entre lo esencial y lo existen- los escolásticos de hoy no tiene de or- cial. Zubiri sonrió y dijo que efectiva- dinario las cualidades que le son pro- mente ese había sido el intento de su pias sino de una manera que yo llama- obra.10 ría prestada y no originalmente creado-
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 La realidad nunca traicionada 101 ______
ra. Esas cualidades en usted dan per- se trasladará de un pensamiento estricta- manentemente la impresión de absolu- mente filosófico y cristiano a un pensa- ta originalidad creadora. La prueba me- miento teológico que tendrá como núcleo jor está en los resultados: allí donde la la liberación y la revolución, así como un escolástica se ha detenido en sus solu- trayecto hacia la llamada Teología Política. ciones…, usted va delante en presentar Conviene, por tanto, prestar una atención más realidad -no solo realidades- y en especial a ese periodo vital para él, en presentarla en su ser positivo.11 cuanto se produjo una transformación intelectual. Todo ello no debe ser concebi- El mes de marzo de 1963 volvió a visi- do en términos de ruptura total a pesar de tar a Zubiri y en una carta dirigida a su que la transformación le lleva del ámbito vice-provincial dice lo siguiente: filosófico al ámbito teológico. Sin embargo, … él conoce en concreto el movimiento creo que podemos mostrar como a un nivel neo-tomista alemán, pero sabe que está profundo no hay tanta transformación ni influido por el trascendentalismo de ruptura, ya que en el fondo lo que siempre Marechal y la tendencia a lo ontológico pretendió fue servir intelectualmente a la de Heidegger. Yo le dije que en muchas Iglesia. Durante este periodo trabajó mu- cosas de fondo, más como orientación cho con y sobre Zubiri. A partir de su tesis que como resultado, iban a reconocerle doctoral, ente los años 1964 y 1967 redac- sus aportes, que a mí me parecen más tó siete artículos en la línea de su tesis. A originales, más profundos y metafísicos pesar de tanta dedicación a la obra zubi- que los de ellos, personalmente juzgo riana, Ellacuría nunca fue asistente de que no hay comparación entre lo que Zubiri. La dedicación vino dada por el te- supone el pensamiento de Zubiri, que mor a que el filósofo falleciera antes de seguramente merecerá consideración haber podido dar a conocer su pensamien- aparte y renovación en filosofía y lo que to más maduro, ciertamente también por- puede suponer un Lotz, Brunner, Sie- que consideraba esta filosofía como de una werth, Coreth y compañía.12 importancia capital en el pensamiento contemporáneo. Siguiendo esta línea en el Ellacuría al contrario que muchos vio año 1968, un mes antes de que diera co- en SE una superación radical del escolas- mienzo la famosa conferencia de obispos ticismo y del neo-tomismo. Le propuso el latinoamericanos en Medellín, Ellacuría primer esquema de su tesis doctoral13 en dictó un curso en esta misma ciudad, so- marzo de 1963, en la misma carta que bre la Teología de la Revolución. De hecho, antes cité, explica: Zubiri le escribe una carta significativa y El tema que le propuse a Zubiri como de mucha importancia de la que citaré un tesis era el de la principalidad de la fragmento que me parece profundamente esencia frente a la presunta principali- esclarecedor: dad de la existencia, lo cual me permi- Tiene usted en sus manos la redacción tía familiarizarme con algún existencia- de mi curso sobre El problema del lista serio, y frente a la principalidad hombre. Desearía que a su publicación del ser lo cual me obligaría a meterme (firmada por ambos) siguiera la de al- con el tomismo alemán hoy. A él le en- gunos otros. A mis años es la única cantó el tema, porque considera que es manera de dar cima a mi labor, usted lo la continuación de su libro. Que no ha sabe tan bien como yo. Con este fin, la desarrollado suficientemente y me dijo Sociedad de Estudios y Publicaciones que volvería a repensarlo mientras fue- (que le cuenta ya como perteneciente a ra escribiendo mi tesis.14 ella) le incorporaría definitivamente a De 1967 al 1972 el proyecto de Igna- su seno para trabajar conmigo, finan- cio Ellacuría en cuanto a renovar la filoso- ciando su viaje, etc. Si sus superiores le fía cristiana sufrirá una evolución ya que autorizaran a continuar su ministerio
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 102 Nativitat Senserrich y Morata ______
en El Salvador con la estancia de unos a los provinciales de América Latina pi- meses en España (por ejemplo desde diendo a los jesuitas una opción más clara agosto hasta febrero, o cosa similar).15 por los pobres constituyeron probablemen- te los tres elementos coyunturales que A partir de 1967 Ellacuría no volverá influyeron en el proyecto filosófico- a dedicarse a la filosofía hasta que en teológico de Ellacuría. Seguidamente pre- 1985, escriba el artículo Función liberado- sento un fragmento que puede clarificar ra de la filosofía, donde decía cuales debe- su postura más madura: rían ser las características de una auténti- ca filosofía cristiana: … (hay que buscar) la auténtica huma- nización de los hombres impedidos es- … aquella que instalase su filosofar au- pecialmente por la miseria y por deter- tónomo en el lugar privilegiado de la minadas estructuras… Ahora bien, verdad de la historia, que es la cruz donde quiera haya ese trabajo por el como esperanza y liberación.16 desvalido, por el injustamente tratado… Es esencial colocarse en términos de hay un trabajo típicamente cristiano.18 autonomía suficiente para poder realizar El 15 de agosto escribe una carta a una crítica de las instituciones o verdades Zubiri en la que le comenta que ha dado inmutables de la Iglesia. En este mismo un curso sobre Teología de la Revolución y sentido, Ellacuría nos dice: uno sobre Antropología zubiriana. Los es- El buscar lo cristiano de la filosofía por quemas de ambos cursos se conservan y el camino de la coincidencia dogmática en ellos destacan la amplitud, la profundi- o de la sumisión a la jerarquía eclesiás- dad y la radicalidad. Los ejes del esquema tica va en contra de la naturaleza mis- son los siguientes: análisis filosófico del ma de la filosofía y ha resultado estéril concepto de revolución; el carácter moral para ella, la filosofía cristiana así en- de las revoluciones; el análisis de la revo- tendida, como la filosofía marxista de lución soviética, cubana y negra de los homóloga estructura, son las mejores años 60 en EEUU y el análisis de la situa- pruebas no sólo de la esterilidad inte- ción de injusticia y miseria de América lectual de ese modo de concebir la cua- Latina. lificación de una filosofía, sino muchas La Teología de la Revolución ha sido veces del cambio de signo de la función considerada por especialistas como José esencialmente liberadora, en función Comblin como la primera contribución de esencialmente controladora y domina- las iglesias latinoamericanas al pensamien- dora al servicio de lo que se considera to cristiano. Podemos considerarla, en este como verdad inmutable o como estruc- sentido, como el antecedente más directo tura institucional intocable.17 de la Teología de la Liberación. Ellacuría la llegó a definir en uno de sus cursos como Se halla ya la idea de una filosofía el sometimiento de la revolución al logos concebida como filosofía liberadora o con- teológico a fin de poder analizar el tema cebida desde una óptica liberadora. Por desde la perspectiva del Dios cristiano. tanto, se puede afirmar de una forma más Podría considerarse como un estudio de que consistente que el proyecto de esta- las revoluciones latinoamericanas desde el blecer las bases para una nueva o renova- punto de vista del Evangelio. A partir de da filosofía cristiana era mucho más para 1968 Ellacuría disponía ya de un proyecto Ellacuría que un proyecto juvenil. La Igle- intelectual maduro que, por si mismo, sia y el mundo estaban cambiando rápi- constituía una de las posturas más avan- damente y sus intereses intelectuales zadas de la Iglesia en aquellos momentos. siempre se adaptaron a la realidad a la No creo que se pueda hablar de ruptura que nunca traicionó. El Concilio Vaticano en Ellacuría entre filosofía y teología sino II (1965), la elección del Padre Arrupe y la más bien de integración de una compleja carta que en diciembre de 1966 éste envió triada realidad-filosofía-teología; es decir,
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 La realidad nunca traicionada 103 ______una Filosofía de la Religión que le permiti- La totalidad de lo real no está dada, rá una postura crítica, así como le man- hay que hacerla y únicamente en y desde tendrá perpetuamente en una plataforma este hacer se puede descubrir más perfec- de observación de las injusticias, de las tamente el carácter más real de la realidad desigualdades19. En ella, es posible anali- misma. Ellacuría se exigió siempre a sí zar los hechos en términos de transforma- mismo una profunda dedicación y una ción y continuidad. Insisto en el hecho de técnica de captación de la realidad, a fin que Ellacuría siempre pretendió servir a la de que la contribución a esa efección de la Iglesia en la búsqueda intelectual y riguro- realidad y a esa iluminación fueran estric- sa de una nueva filosofía cristiana. Una tamente filosóficas. Lo más real de la Iglesia que para él no se identificaba nece- realidad es, según sus propias palabras, sariamente con la jerarquía, sino genui- redactadas en un texto de 1980 titulado El namente con la Iglesia de Cristo. En su objeto de la filosofía, la realidad histórica. vida constatamos que él creía, no tanto El objeto de la filosofía según Ellacuría ha que desde la filosofía no fuera posible ser- de pretender ocuparse de lo que es últi- vir a la Iglesia, entendiendo a ésta desde el mamente la realidad, de lo que es la reali- término Pueblo de Dios, sino que debía dad total en cuanto total. Esta totalidad de hacerse insertando, religando, fuertemente lo real exige una total concreción y esta la filosofía y la reflexión teológica a las total con concreción está determinada por más crudas realidades latinoamericanas. su última realización y cobra su última Creo que toda su reflexión, su vida y realización por la historia y en la historia. su obra intelectual están marcadas por un Son en última instancia los análisis filosó- objetivo centralmente filosófico fundamen- ficos de realidades concretas el instrumen- tado en el pensamiento zubiriano, lo cual to que permitía al filósofo acceder al objeto no le impidió que este objetivo tomara último de la filosofía, la realidad histórica cuerpo en investigaciones políticas, eco- que era tal como él creía estricta metafísi- nómicas y sociales que implicaban necesa- ca. riamente reflexionar teológicamente sobre La historia es forzosamente política. No el hecho de las revoluciones sociales en significa esto que sólo lo político sea América Latina. A principios de 1972 en histórico puesto que esa historicidad Madrid dictó una ponencia acerca del te- compete al grado más intenso de reali- ma general de Filosofía y Política, en el dad, sólo significa que en su última marco de un ciclo de conferencias, en ella concreción la historia es política… Efec- expresaba la necesidad de pasar de una tivamente, allí donde entran a una la filosofía de lo político a una filosofía política actualización, no puede menos que en la cual pudieran tener cabida trata- ocurrir que la politización también me- mientos específicos sobre, la ley, la autori- tafísica de la realidad –en sentido meta- dad, la guerra, el derecho a la rebelión, un físico- de esa actualización, y consi- pensar efectivo desde la más concreta si- guientemente de una reflexión última, tuación real y sobre la realidad más total y total y concreta sobre esa realidad.20 concreta. Esto significaba para él una im- plicación que se piensa efectivamente des- La filosofía madura de Ellacuría tiene de una situación real y no es real sino es como concreción fundamental la realidad absolutamente concreta. Siempre creyó que histórica. Para terminar esta reflexión el pensar sobre situaciones concretas no afirmar que se hacen urgentes a la vez que era más que el primer paso del proceso necesarios para el pensamiento contempo- filosófico ya que, en última instancia la ráneo investigaciones más concretas acer- condición de posibilidad de este pensar era ca de la evolución de la filosofía de Zubiri y acceder a lo más real de la realidad, tal Ellacuría así como la recepción que su como había aprendido perfectamente de vida y su obra han tenido en Europa. Zubiri. También creo fundamental continuar con los estudios sobre Filosofía de la Religión
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 104 Nativitat Senserrich y Morata ______tal y como Zubiri expresó que constituyen tender muchos de los conflictos más cru- hoy un marco privilegiado para poder en- ciales de este nuestro siglo.
Notas
1 Valdés Valle, R: “La evolución del pensa- ta, 1990, pp. 323-372, y 393-442 respecti- miento filosófico de Ignacio Ellacuría” en vamenter. ECA (1996) Vól. 51 Núm, 577-578 Nov-Dic. 8 Valdés Valle, R., op. cit., p. 1040 pp 1029-1047. La revista ECA es una publi- 9 Respecto a poner límites a vitalismos y exis- cación de la Universidad Centroamericana tencialismos recomiendo la lectura de Las José Simeón Cañas fuentes espirituales de la angustia y de la es- 2 Ibid., p. 1029. peranza de Zubiri en donde se ve con clari- 3 Ibid., p. 1030. dad, a mi parecer, cómo el filósofo concreta los límites a los existencialismos. Este texto 4 Ibid. constituye un apéndice de la obra de Zubiri 5 Respecto a esta expresión “… una auténtica Sobre el Sentimiento y la Volición que publicó filosofía efectiva en Centroamérica?” Ellacu- Alianza EditoriaL Zubiri lo escribió a princi- ría se está refiriendo a un pensamiento filo- pios de 1961 a partir de una petición por sófico que pueda conectar con la realidad en parte de Monseñor Boyer-Mas que organiza- la praxis. En este pensamiento que lograra ba unos encuentros de intelectuales cristia- finalmente articular y sistematizar la reali- nos conocidos con el nombre de “Entreriens dad tal y como Zubiri la entiende se converti- de Bayonnex”. Fue el propio Monseñor Bo- rá en eje vertebrador de su filosofía que es a yer-Mas quien lo tradujo al francés y lo leyó la vez teología y Teología de la Liberación. en el encuentro de mayo de 1961, al que Zu- Recomiendo para profundizar en todo ello la biri no asistió en persona. Se publicó, por lectura de los textos de Ellacuría que forman primera vez, en Revista de Filosofía. 3. épo- parte de Misterium Liberationis. Concreta- ca, vol. IV(199l), núm. 6. págs. 239-245. Edi- mente " Historicidad de la salvación cristia- torial Complutense, Madrid. Actualmente en na", y "Utopía y profetismo", en Mysterium Sobre el Sentimiento y la Volición, Madrid, Liberationis. Conceptos fundamentales de la Alianza Editorial y Fundación Xavier Zubiri Teología de la liberación, tomo I ( I. Ellacuría 1994 . y J. Sobrino coeditores) Madrid: UCA y Trot- 10 Valdés Valle, R., op. cit., p. 1041. ta, 1990, pp. 323-372, y 393-442 respecti- 11 vamente. Ibid., p. 1042. 12 6 Valdés Valle, R., op. cit., p. 1031. Ibid. 13 7 Respecto a esta expresión “… una auténtica La tesis doctoral de Ignacio Ellacuría se titu- filosofía efectiva en Centroamérica?” Ellacuría ló La principalidad de la esencia de Xavier se está refiriendo a un pensamiento filosófico Zubiri y la defendió en Madrid en la Univer- que pueda conectar con la realidad en la sidad Complutense en 1965. praxis. En este pensamiento que lograra fi- 14 Valdés Valle, R., op. cit., p. 1044. nalmente articular y sistematizar la realidad 15 Ibid., p. 1045. tal y como Zubiri la entiende se onvertirá en 16 Ibid., p. 1046. eje vertebrador de su filosofía que es a la vez teología y Teología de la Liberación. Reco- 17 Ibid., p. 1047. miendo para profundizar en todo ello la lec- 18 Ibid., p. 1048. tura de los textos de Ellacuría que forman 19 En efecto, Ellacuría sigue las ideas que sobre parte de Misterium Liberationis . Concreta- Filosofía de la Religión expuso Zubiri en su mente " Historicidad de la salvación cristia- texto “Note sur la Philosophie de la Religion”, na", y "Utopía y profetismo", en Mysterium publicado por el Bulletin de l’Institut Catholi- Liberationis. Conceptos fundamentales de la que de Paris. Texto que publicó como parte Teología de la liberación, tomo I ( I. Ellacuría de sus reflexiones acerca de la Filosofía de la y J.Sobrino coeditores). Madrid, UCA y Trot- Religión en relación al curso “La Philosophie
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 La realidad nunca traicionada 105 ______
de la Religion dans le Penseé Contemporai- Zubiri. Notes sur la Philosophie de la Reli- ne”, que dictó entre enero y febrero (4, 11, gión en Bulletin de L’Institut Catholique 18, 25, 1-II, 8) de 1937. Para profundizar (1937) Paris, nº 10. nada más interesante que ir a leer al propio 20 Valdés Valle, R., op. cit., p. 1047.
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015
The Transcendental Panentheism Of Xavier Zubiri In Nature, History, God And Man And God
C. Eduardo Sanchez Gauto, Th.M. Asunción, Paraguay
Abstract
Xavier Zubiri (1898-1983) was perhaps the most original and systematically rigorous think- er in contemporary Spanish philosophy; but he may also be the least known, due to cir- cumstances of his life that prevented him from occupying the center stage in Spain’s intel- lectual life. This paper intends to show that Xavier Zubiri’s theology is in fact a form of panentheism, a view of God where the world is in God via an ontological link, and yet God and the world are not identical. After a summary review of literature relevant for under- standing the question and some basic notions on panentheism, we analyze Zubirian theol- ogy as shown in two of Zubiri’s most important works: Nature, History, God and Man and God. The conclusion of this study is that Zubiri’s theology may be in fact a form of tran- scendental panentheism.
Resumen Xavier Zubiri (1898–1983) fue quizás el pensador más original y más sistemáticamente ri- guroso de la filosofía española contemporánea; pero también es el menos conocido, debido a circunstancias de su vida que le impidieron ocupar un lugar central en la vida intelectual de España. Este trabajo busca mostrar que la teología de Xavier Zubiri es de hecho una forma de panenteísmo, una visión de Dios en donde el mundo está en Dios mediante un vínculo ontológico, y aun así Dios y el mundo no son idénticos. Después de una breve rese- ña de la literatura pertinente para comprender la cuestión y algunas nociones básicas de panenteísmo, se hace un análisis de la teología zubiriana tal como se muestra en dos de las obras más importantes de Zubiri: Naturaleza, Historia, Dios, y El Hombre y Dios. La conclu- sión de este estudio es que la teología de Zubiri puede ser en realidad una forma de panen- teísmo transcendental.
There is unanimous consensus that 1. Introduction for Zubiri the problem of God was one of three problems that challenged him during Panentheism (or Lack Thereof) in Zubiri his entire life, and he devoted considerable Scholarship thought to it.1 Surveys of Zubiri’s views on God are Since this is a study examining the offered by Garagorri,2 Cescon,3 Juan José panentheism in the philosophy of Xavier García,4 Zárraga Olavarría,5 and Melero Zubiri, it is convenient to give a cursory Martínez,6 among others. examination to how this problem was pre- However, most studies treat Zubiri’s sented by the students of Zubiri’s philoso- theology from existential lines, or simply phy. assume that Zubiri’s theology is just an-
107 108 C. Eduardo Sanchez Gauto ______other version of classical theism. However, osophical system is directed, and without there are some hints that Zubiri’s theology it would not be understandable.14 He im- might be considered as a form of panen- plicitly recognizes a panentheism in Zubiri theism. Rivera Cruchaga, in an obituary when he states: “God is effectively in eve- for Zubiri, unconsciously alludes to the rything, but not “exactly” as the pantheist possibility of panentheism in Zubiri’s phi- would have it”.15 losophy. He remembers an anecdote where Despite all these hints, at the present Zubiri said to him: “When we are in the time the author is not aware of any identi- truth, we are in the Word of God, we live fication of Zubiri as a panentheist, save in God”.7 Cescon hints that Zubiri could perhaps a brief, ambiguous and inconclu- have understood the God-world relation- sive mention by Franciscan theologian ship in panentheistic fashion, without Félix Alluntis.16 using the specific term. Since Zubiri un- Panentheism derstood each thing as a manifestation of God, because it is not God and yet it is Panentheism can be described as “a formally constituted in God,8 Cescon con- ‘vision’ of God in the world and the world cludes that for Zubiri a separation be- in God”. This quote, which for now shall tween God and the world was inconceiva- remain unattributed, shows how according ble.9 to this particular view of the God-world A thorough study of the concept of relationship, God and the world are joined religation and his correlation with human together in some sort of ontological link. experience of God is done by Correa Panentheism can be generically de- Schnake.10 Without realizing it, Correa fined as the view of God where “God and describes religation in strongly immanent- the world are ontologically distinct and ist terms that might hint at panentheism: God transcends the world, but the world is “religation is a presence of God in things in God ontologically.”17 According to precisely in order to constitute them as Palmquist, “panentheism typically refers to real, and specifically in the human person a synthesis between traditional theism as that which is constituting its mission to and pantheism, whereby the whole world the ground of its own personal reality in (and everything in it) is believed to be in the configuration of himself.”11 God, though God transcends the bounda- Marquínez Argote sees a remarkable ries of the natural world and is more than similarity between the theologies of Zubiri nature.”18 and another panentheist thinker, Paul That is, the world and everything in it Tillich, despite evidence that Tillich was is in the being of God or ontologically in not aware of the thought of the other. God. Marquínez attributes this similarity to the The notion that the world is in the be- fact that both were disciples of ing of God, that is, ontologically in God, is Heidegger.12 For Marquínez, the similarity key for panentheism and it serves to dis- lies specifically in the analogy between the tinguish it from modern statements of devices of the “depth of the ultimate” in classical theism which strongly emphasiz- Tillich and religation in Zubiri. Corominas es the notion of divine immanence. Cooper also point out the deep influence of explains that for the classical theist, God Heidegger in the formulation of Zubiri’s is not only immanent; he could be abso- theology, making it instrumental in the lutely immanent because God’s transcend- abandonment of Zubiri’s previously held ence is absolute.19 modernistic convictions.13 David H. Nikkel offers a thorough Zárraga Olavarría, after offering an characterization of the concept: elaborate explanation of Zubiri’s view of “Panentheism” literally means “all in God, states that the problem of God was God.” (The word was coined by the for Zubiri the “north” to which all his phil- early nineteenth-century German phi-
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 The Transcendental Panentheism Of Xavier Zubiri In NHD And Man And God 109
______
losopher, Karl Christian Friedrich other thinkers have a panentheistic Krause.) It holds that the non-divine theology while avoiding use of the individuals are included in God, are term or simply not using it. fully within the divine life. God knows 2. Personal or nonpersonal panen- all that exists without externality, me- theism. Some panentheistic diation, or loss (though God’s thinkers see God as nonpersonal knowledge and valuation are more while others see God as personal. than the creaturely experiences that 3. Part-whole or relational panen- are wholly included in the divine ex- theism. Some panentheists regard perience). God empowers all that ex- the world as part of God, without ists without externality, mediation, or fully being God. Others see God loss (though there is genuine indeter- distinct from the world, but minacy and freedom of choice and ac- ontologically linked in a symbiotic tion which God empowers in the crea- fashion. turely realm). This is in contrast to traditional theism, which has tended 4. Voluntary or natural panentheism. to regard God as utterly distinct from Some panentheist thinkers regard the creation and the creatures. Deism creation of the world as necessary is an extreme of this tendency. On the for God. Others see the world as other hand, panentheism also distin- the product of a free creative act guishes itself from pantheism (literally from God. “all [is] God”). It holds that God is not 5. Classical or modern panentheism. reducible to the nondivine individuals, Classical panentheism affirms to the universe as a whole, or to the most theistic attributes of God structure of the universe; but rather including omnipotence, while the God transcends them, having a reali- modern panentheism states that ty—an awareness and a power—that God is affected by creaturely includes but is not exhausted by freedom. thereality of the creation and the ex- This paper will use Cooper’s distinc- periences and actions of the crea- tions as useful tools for the analysis of 20 tures. Zubiri’s doctrine of God. The ontological link between God and world is well described in the explicitly Note on Versions Employed panentheistic theology of Jürgen Molt- In order to write this study, both Na- mann, who states: “God’s essence has in ture, History, God and Man and God were itself the idea of the world from all eterni- examined in their original Spanish, in the 21 ty”. Since God’s essence is also His ex- latest editions available to this writer.25 istence, creation is necessary and an ex- Now, expressing the plenitude of Zubiri’s tension of the divine Being, instead of the thought in English can be a very difficult utterly contingent characterization of crea- undertaking. Melero Martínez ably puts it: tion prevalent in classical theism.22 Systematic analyses of panentheism Xavier Zubiri’s style is unique. He in- are available from Culp23 and Cooper.24 In vents neologisms, changes the mean- his work, Cooper offers a matrix for ana- ing of some terms. He is precise and almost pedantic in his terminology lyzing and classifying the various strands even when that makes for a not very of historical and contemporary panenthe- elegant Spanish. He gives a precise ism according to the following distinctions: philosophical meaning to expressions 1. Explicit or implicit panentheism. from the ordinary language and from Explicit panentheism is distinctly other sciences, such as: personality, assumed by its proponents, while
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 110 C. Eduardo Sanchez Gauto ______
personeity, reity, reality, religation, vague or incomplete. However, even so, theological, theologal, sentient, truth- they provide a good view of the initial stag- ing. These are just some examples.26 es of Zubiri’s theology. In order to quote the text in this work, the author used the English versions Introduction to the Problem of God available. For Nature, History, God the Although “Introduction to the Problem Fowler version was used.27 For Man and of God” is the first of the essays on Nature, God, the version employed was that of History, God dealing specifically with Joaquín A. Redondo.28 These translators Zubiri’s theology, it was a later addition. It deserve a lot of credit and admiration for appeared only in the fifth Spanish edition ably expressing the nuances of Zubirian (1963). The date would appear to situate thought in good English. this essay on Zubiri’s mature period; how- Throughout the work, quotes from ever, in the Preface to the sixth edition Zubiri will be taken from these sources Zubiri states: with some corrections or emendations It is basically a lecture given some 15 from the author when, in his criterion, a years ago, which will enable the prob- better or more precise rendering of a par- lems treated in the chapters In Regard ticular phrase could be used. Therefore, to the problem of God and Supernatu- any responsibility for any errors or mis- ral Being: God and Deification in Paul- takes in translation should lie with the ine Theology to be situated in proper author of this paper and not with the perspective.30 translators of the two previously men- Zubiri begins stating that the current tioned works by Zubiri. time is perhaps one of the times which Zubiri’s Panentheism in Nature, “most substantially lives the problem of History, God God.” It is necessary to examine this prob- Nature, History, God was Zubiri’s sec- lem from the intellectual way; and more ond book (the first one was his disserta- specifically, from philosophy. This is de- tion), and it contains a showcase of his spite the fact that this way is the most early thought. Published initially in 1944, vexing of them, because it is destined to 31 it contained a series of articles and essays leave almost no one satisfied. of diverse provenance, published between In the essay, Zubiri describes God in a 1932 and 1944.29 The fifth edition saw the paradoxical way. “In a certain rigorous inclusion of an additional essay, “Intro- and authentic sense”, the reality of God is duction to the Problem of God”. “the most unreachable of all realities.” Thus configured, the book deals with However, “the reality of God, though on the problem of God in three essays: “Intro- one hand the most distant and unreacha- duction to the Problem of God”, “In Regard ble of all realities, is also on the other the to the Problem of God,” and “Supernatural closest of them all.” The problem of God Being: God and Deification in Pauline The- affects to the very core of human exist- ology”. While these essays were diverse in ence. Man seeks an answer to this ques- origin and correspond to different stages tion because he feels shaken by it at its in Zubiri’s early thought, they all show a very root. remarkable unity on the matter of Zubiri’s However, a review of the status of the theology. problem of God in the history of philoso- This study shall approach each study phy shows that the philosophical way is on its own, and then a concluding synthe- not as simple as it would appear at first. sis will be attempted. It must be noted the Intellection of God, which here means an texts under study are three isolated es- intellectual justification of God’s reality, is says, which show a theology in develop- only achieved at the end of the path. What ment. Many statements are fragmentary, path is this? A cursory examination would
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 The Transcendental Panentheism Of Xavier Zubiri In NHD And Man And God 111
______form the impression that is just another religation man is shown everything that is existential analysis.32 However, right be- real. It is no mere experience of man, nor a hind the existentialist language lies the psychological or social phenomenon, or procedure of phenomenological analysis: a moral conscience, but the very principle series of methodological reductions in or- and ground of any possible experience, der to examine the structures of con- including these four aspects. sciousness with the purpose of appre- This religation exposes man to that hending universal truths.33 This has not ultimateness which Zubiri calls deity.40 gone unnoticed. Several studies have This is another key concept to which pointed out the key place of phenomenolo- Zubiri will return later in Man and God. gy in Zubiri’s thought and specifically in Here, it is described as not necessarily his reflections on the problem of God.34 being God as a reality in and of Himself. Melero Martínez, for example, states that “Deity” is here just a trait, and an enig- phenomenology is the general humus matic one to boot, by which man is being (substrate) of Zubiri’s philosophy.35 shown all that is real. The discovery of this The first step is an analysis of human deity is thus the principle, the beginning of existence. Here we begin to see the initial any possible experience. Now, deity as steps of Zubiri’s phenomenological and described is just an enigma and because transcendental view of God: man is always of this enigmatic condition, deity forces positioning himself in respect of something human intelligence to learn about it. which Zubiri calls “ultimateness”. This is The second step is thus the solution of because man is not a mere thing; but as a the enigma of the deity, and this step is for strictly personal reality, it stands against Zubiri strictly demonstrative. Deity is in- the whole world in an absolute way and exorably grounded on “reality-deity” or his acts are the actualization of his abso- “divine reality”. It is this reality-deity as a lute reality. What is this ultimateness? character of the ultimate reality or as first Zubiri responds: cause. Since it is the first cause of all This ultimateness is not merely some- things, including human realities thing in which man “is,” but rather equipped with intelligence and will, it is a something in which man has to be in first reality which is also intelligent and order to be able to be what he is in free-willing. This reality is beyond the each of his acts. Thus the ultimate- world in order to ground the world as a ness has a grounding character.36 reality. Now, this poses a question: is this This grounding effected by the ulti- ultimate reality, is this first cause, God? mateness determines the absolute charac- This leads us to the third step. ter of human reality, although Zubiri still The third step points out that the first does not disclose at this point what or who cause which was shown in the second step this ultimateness is. This ultimateness to be also free and personal, is essentally a makes the man religated to it. Thus, personal, transcendent reality, and this an Zubiri introduces a key concept in his ex- “absolutely absolute” reality. To this reality planation, something that would be place we can call him God. Now, how can we say at the center of his view of the God-world that God is the grounding, the foundation relationship. Religation is “the absolute of the world? For Zubiri, the answer lies in personal character of human reality actu- an act of pure donation. Since it is a self- alized in the acts which it carries out”.37 donation of a pure and perfect will, it is As one commentator put it, religation is also pure ecstasy, of pure love. This pure the ontological link to the ground of exist- love is the highest form of causality. Thus, ence,38 or, more clearly, is the ontological God is the grounding of the world out of link by which man has access to God.39 By pure self-donation in love.
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 112 C. Eduardo Sanchez Gauto ______
In summary, the three steps are the duction to the problem of God, and here following: the key issue of God’s relation to the world 1. Analysis of the human existence: is explored with more detail than in the discover the ultimate reality, or previous chapter. According to Corominas, “deity”. this essay was heavily influenced by Heidegger’s philosophy.43 2. Deity as first cause or “divine Zubiri again uses a phenomenological reality”. method to access God as a reality, with 3. First cause as an absolutely religation as his key concept. In order to absolute, free and personal reality; know if there is a God, we must begin from that is, God. human existence. This is the starting point Zubiri ends this reflection saying that of Zubiri’s phenomenological access to even though finding God from the philo- God. Now, this is possible because for sophical way is possible by tracing these Zubiri phenomenology is not only ontolog- three steps, it is impossible to grasp ade- ical (as in Husserl), but also a way to ana- quate concepts about God. Man think by lyze reality and not only consciousness. abstracting concepts from things. Some of Man’s personhood is his being. Per- these concepts are “representative”, which sonhood is implanted into being in order are inadequate for thinking about God. to realize itself while living with other But others are “directionals”, which could things. Now, the “with” is one of human be Zubirian-speak for the phenomenologi- personhood’s formal ontological traits in cal intentionality; they point out to other itself. Man has to realize himself as a per- things. They could help in our way to- son during his own life. This life is a mis- wards God; but we must discern ways to sion; life is something sent to man, and God that are possible from others which existence is imposed upon him. What are not. In other words, and inasmuch as makes this imposition is also what “im- Aquinas’ arguments for God are ‘ways’, we pels” (move, prompt, make do) man to live. have the outline of a via phenomenologica Now, what is what impels man into to God.41 living? It’s something previous or “anteri- This paper by Zubiri purports to be a or”. This is something into which man mere introduction. However, in a few pag- holds onto in order to exist and realize es Zubiri manages to present several key himself. This is unavoidable since man concepts of his thinking, such as deity and cannot “be” by himself. “[Man] needs to be religation, or the hierarchy of absolute prompted to make himself. His ontological 44 realities. There is no explicitly panentheis- nihility is radical”. There is something, tic statement here, although it should be then, that makes us to be. noted that God is shown as the ground At this stage, Zubiri introduces his and foundation of any reality by “ulti- key concept in his access to God. This is a mateness”, and man is intimately linked to point that was identified as essential for 45 Him by “religation”. God is thus shown as both his theology and anthropology. We a transcendental reality which is the ulti- are prompted into being, we are obligated mate ground of existence for any being, to exist, because we are ontologically enabling their existence by their link to linked to what makes us to be: We are him in deity or religation. religated. Religation, thus, is that ontologi- cal link to something that previously In Regard to the Problem of God makes us to be.46 It’s a link to something from which we come and “makes there to In Regard to the Problem of God is a be”. Religation evidences the fundamentali- much larger text which was initially pub- ty of human existence, something that 42 lished as a journal article in 1935. There, causes that we are being being. Man is not Zubiri formulates a more detailed intro- only religated; he is constitutively religated.
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 The Transcendental Panentheism Of Xavier Zubiri In NHD And Man And God 113
______
Now, since man exists “with” things, There is no identification of the being and man is religated, the something that of metaphysics with God. In God the religates man, religates with him the whole “there is” surpasses infinitely with re- world. In religation, “the whole material spect to the “is.” God is beyond being. universe appears”.47 Prima rerum creatorum est esse, being This means that religation is our way is before created things, the medieval to access all reality. This begs the ques- Platonists said. Esse formaliter non est tion: What is that something that religates in Deo ... nihil quod est in Deo habet man? For Zubiri, this is “what we call rationem entis, being is not formally in God”: a reality which Zubiri names as dei- God ... nothing which is in God has ty.48 But this isn’t God per se yet; it’s a the form of being, repeated Master reality that opens up for us the ultimate Eckhardt, and with him, all of the reality of God and shows that we are Christian mystics.52 grounded in that reality. God is ens fun- The concept of being becomes prob- damentale, the being which grounds us. lematic, and here is where panentheism Groundness is God’s chief attribute. comes full circle for Zubiri: Since God is Religation shows us that God is not a beyond being, we need a different concept thing. Man is not with God (as it is the of what a being is. The doctrine of creatio case with things); man is in God. Zubiri ex nihilo, paired with the Aristotelian idea here quotes Acts 17:28, “In him we live of substance, could lead to the undesira- and move and have our being”. Man does ble outcome of pantheism. Anything that not need to arrive to God; he is coming “is” is anything that comes from God. from Him. The problem of God is thus the Since God’s status is now a metaphysical problem of religation.49 While many have problem, the world also becomes problem- seen the concept of religation as an origi- atic at once. What is the answer? Panen- nal feature of Zubiri, Yáñez points out its theism: roots in the thought of José Ortega y Gas- Religated existence is a “vision” of God set, Zubiri’s mentor and professor of phi- in the world and the world in God.53 losophy in Madrid.50 The quote may be familiar to the read- God is thus a transcendental reality er, because it was used to characterize accessed through religation. By religation, panentheism at the begining of this paper. humanity and the whole world is “in God” This is the core of Zubiri’s panentheism. ontologically. Zubiri describes his panen- “God remains linked to the world ‘by rea- theistic vision in this terms: son of being’.”54 And the existential link is God is not something which is in man what Zubiri calls religation. as a part of him, nor is He something What is atheism, then? Atheism de- which is added to him, from outside; nies deity; it is a negative position regard- nor is He a state of conscience; nor is ing deity.55 Atheism comes when the man He an object. What of God there may feels that he is unbound; ignores his reli- be in man is only the religation gation, and identifies his being with his through which we are open to Him, life. This happens when the person feels and in this religation God becomes self-sufficient. “Success is the great crea- patent to us. Hence one cannot, strict- tor of atheism”.56 Human life is the ulti- ly speaking, talk of a relationship with mate absolute and, quoting St. John, 51 God. Zubiri states that man falls into “pride of But who is God? Even the verb “is” is life”.57 That’s why pride is the capital sin troublesome because God is beyond Being; among all capital sins. This prompts He is the One who makes being possible Zubiri to make an interesting insight: as ens fundamentale.
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 114 C. Eduardo Sanchez Gauto ______
The present time is a time of atheism; Supernatural Being: God and Deification in it is an time that is proud of its own Pauline Theology success. Atheism today affects, primo This is the last chapter on Nature, et per se, our time and our world. History, God, and it is made from the Those of us who are not atheists, are notes of two courses Zubiri gave; one on what we are despite our time, as the atheists of times past were so despite Hellenism and Christianity in Madrid theirs... As an historical period, our (1934-1935) and the other in Paris (1937- time is one of “unbinding” and dis- 1939). Zubiri says almost defensively fundamentation. For this reason, the “They are simply an exposition of some religious problem of today is not a New Testament texts, as seen by the Greek problem of differing faiths, but the tradition. They are, therefore, simple his- problem of religion-irreligion.58 torical pages, nothing more. I must em- phasize this.”61 Despite this disclaimer, Since this position is not sustainable, however, this chapter has very little of man has tried to clutch himself in all actual New Testament theology and a lot of kinds of supports. Today, Zubiri says, is Christian Neoplatonism, incorporated al- the time of philosophy. But philosophy most wholesale into Zubiri’s theology. cannot be a way of life. Yet, “at the bottom Zubiri actually admits his partiality some of a great part of contemporary philosophy lines below, where he uses “Greek theolo- lies a surreptitious deification of exist- gy” as a synonym with Christian Neopla- ence”.59 tonism: “Personally I shall not hide my Again, panentheism could be athe- affection for Greek theology. Without any ism’s demise: exclusivism whatsoever, I have yielded in Surely the hour will come when man, the following pages to this propensity.” All in his intimate and radical failure, will in all, this is no minor footnote in Zubiri’s awake as if from a dream finding him- thought. It is a key development of his self in God and failing into the realiza- thinking62 and the basis for many con- tion that in his atheism he has done cepts of his theology, such as religation.63 nothing but be in God. Then he will Melero Martínez explains the im- encounter himself religated to Him, portance of this essay for Zubiri: not so as to flee from the world, and others, and himself; but the other way The inclusion of a text of theology, around, in order to sustain and main- Supernatural Being: God and Deifica- tain himself in being. God does not tion in Pauline Theology, which closes manifest Himself primarily as nega- the book, invites to reflection: Why tion, but as fundamentation, as what should a theological discourse ap- makes it possible to exist. Religation pears in a text of philosophy? Why the is the possibilitation of existence as last word in Zubiri is theological? The such.60 seriousness of these questions is heightened because it was an un- In this article Zubiri begins a phe- published text that could have been nomenological analysis of human exist- silenced. Only those who attended the ence and ends with a panentheistic vision course at Madrid, 1934-1935, or of God as a transcendental agent beyond those of the Foyer international des being but the ground where all beings étudiants catholiques of París in 1937 have their existence. Man apprehends the could have known of its existence. At world by being linked to this transcenden- this time, Zubiri is a secularized priest tal agent by religation. Without even begin writing about theology. This text was to define anything related to God’s charac- the last one to pass the ecclesiastical ter, Zubiri’s panentheism is already an censors in October 27, 1944, which essential part of his theology. held back the printing of the book.
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 The Transcendental Panentheism Of Xavier Zubiri In NHD And Man And God 115
______
Only the internal need of this dis- nature. In the Father, it is a principle; course would justify its inclusion.64 in the Son, as constituting agency; in Zubiri begins by investigating the be- the Holy Spirit, as self-donation in 72 ing of God and to the effect he draws heav- act. ily from ideas from Plato, Aristotle, and the Being simultaneous and eternal ema- “Greek fathers”, which for Zubiri usually nations, both the Son and the Holy Spirit denotes the Christian Neoplatonist philos- are images, eikón (icons) of God with a ophers, among whom Pseudo-Dionysius is distinctively Neoplatonic flavor: heavily mentioned.65 “God is love” is no The Son is eikon because He proceeds mere statement; it is a metaphysical defini- immediately from the Father; the Holy tion mediated by the dialectic between Spirit is so because He proceeds from agape and eros66 God’s being is nothing the Father through the Son, and con- static but energéia, power, operating activ- sists in manifesting the identity of the ity.67 God is power; both as power that Father and Son: pneúma ek Patrós unfolds Himself to the world (agape) and di’hyioû ekporeuómenon. Such is the as a power that seeks its own and natural Greek scheme.73 perfection (eros).68 God’s love is both ec- This Neoplatonistic chain-of-being de- static and effusive manifesting itself in an piction of the internal structure of the internal emanation or “effusion”, the Trini- Trinity is essential to Zubiri’s view of God tarian life; and an external effu- and determines a panentheistic view of sion/emanation, a creation and a “deify- God’s relationship to the world. The Trinity ing” self-donation or deification.69 This is not only a model of divine life; “Let us insight by Zubiri was noted by some as the not forget that this expresses not only the basis for the later Zubirian concept of “the nature of the Divine life, but also the struc- 70 power of the real”. ture of creation and of deification”.74 God’s The Trinity is the mysterious mode of personal life is extended by ontological being an infinite God which is yet one by emanation (effusion) into creation and nature. In order to develop his view of deification. Trinity, Zubiri turns to Richard of St. Vic- The trinitarian structure of divine life, tor. Richard’s doctrine on the Trinity were then, causes the ontological and dialecti- used for Zubiri as building blocks to de- cal unity of God and the world that is the velop a trinitarian theology of eternal, per- distinctive mark of panentheism. By crea- sonal emanations.71 God is an infinite be- tion, God produces what is “the other” but ing whose infinity is pregnant with love, as an emanation of God Him”self”. If there understood as the very ecstasy of being. is any doubt that his could be panenthe- God is a personal reality full of love and ism, let’s take a look at the very own manifests itself as a personal reality (the words of Zubiri: Father) which due to his own perfection And hence the creation, at the same eternally generates as an emanation an- time it produces things distinct from other person (the Son), which is the per- God, maintains them in ontological sonification of the power, the dynamis of unity with Him through effusion.75 the Father. This perfection, when it is an actuality that reverts upon its essence is In keeping with this idea, Zubiri ex- 76 the person of the Holy Spirit. Zubiri de- plicitly rejects pantheism. By via negati- scribes in this way the procession— va, Zubiri states that the transcendence perichoresis, circumincession—of the God- production of creation is opposed to the head. immanent procession of the Divine per- sons. This is why Zubiri prefers the term Each person is distinguished from the “effusion” to emanation. For him, “emana- others by the way of having the divine tion” has a pantheistic connotation.
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 116 C. Eduardo Sanchez Gauto ______
Creation produces the otherness in beings, whose being is their life (zoé); and God and in creatures is an ascending at- finally, personal beings, whose being is traction to God and is patterned, as it was their spirit (pneûma).81 Second, there is previously stated, in the life of the Trinity. the cosmic unity of creation: “Being, as The emanations inside the Trinity set the active unity, unifies things in themselves pattern for a chain of being in creation: “in and is unified with God. But we added the transcendental act of creation, the that it also unifies each thing with all oth- three persons fulfill the same function in ers of its species.”82 the order of causality as in the life of the But there is more. A second effusion Trinity”77 Only God truly “is”, and His cre- from the Trinity where God personally ation is an absolute action in nothingness. gives Himself to the world: deification. By How this happens is interesting: deification, creatures get re-united with Creation, then, as an absolute act of God’s personal life and the cycle of divine God, is a voice of God in nothingness. love gets completed. Deification has two The logos has a subject: nothingness; specific moments: First, God makes the and a predicate: the Divine ideas. The nature of a creature —man— the nature of outcome is clear: nothingness is His own personal being. This is the reality transformed (if I may be permitted the of Christ in the Incarnation. Second, expression) into “someone” (subject), through Christ humankind participate and the ideas are projected onto this their personal life into God’s personal life. someone making of him a “something” To this, Zubiri calls Sanctification. Even (predicate). In this way the ontological through deification’s chief object is man, structure of creation is determined; the whole material creation cannot be the finite entity is above all a duality completely excluded from this process and between that it is and what it is.78 somewhat is affected by it. In this way, This leads to another statement that Zubiri’s panentheism grounds his philo- is rather obliquely panentheistic and a sophical interpretation of Christian and quotation of Acts 17:28, a locus classicus Roman Catholic doctrine. of many panentheists: Thus, in “God and Deification” we have a Neoplatonic theology which is Thus it is clear how, without blurring strongly immanentistic and, in the opinion the distinction between God and crea- tures, everything there is in them of of this writer, even panentheistic. God is positive being is owing to the presence viewed as effusive love and the Trinity is of God in them. If, dealing with finite His life as emanations or “effusions” of his causality, the action of the agent is love. Outside Trinity, God’s love emanates received in the patient, then in re- or effuses in two ways. Naturally, in crea- gards to the creator-actor the patient tion by effusing or emanating a hierarchy and its passivity only exist due to their of beings which remain ontologically presence in the agent. We are, we linked to God’s transcendental reality. move, and we live in Him, St. Paul will Supernaturally, by “deifying” His whole say, probably repeating a formula al- creation by a personal Incarnation in ready current in his day.79 Christ and sanctification by grace for hu- manity. Deification is a way for creation to Zubiri now works the consequences of return to God’s intimate life. his panentheism. First, there is an elabo- rate, Neoplatonic chain of beings, “the Summary ontological hierarchy of beings according to their greater or lesser formal perfec- In Nature, History, God Zubiri offers a tion.”80 This hierarchy has three orders in fairly complete account of his theology. the material realm: bodies (soma), whose God is the ground of all beings and the being is its light (phos); then the living ultimate transcendental reality. All things
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 The Transcendental Panentheism Of Xavier Zubiri In NHD And Man And God 117
______are ontologically linked to Him by religa- The problem tion. Religation is the vehicle for a panen- Zubiri begins by stating that all clas- theistic view of God. Probing deeper, this sical arguments or ways for proving God’s panentheism comes from an understand- existence are insufficient. For Zubiri, ar- ing of God highly influenced by Christian guments for God’s existence have started Neoplatonism. from two points of departure: reality, con- In the next section the study shall ex- sidered as nature—via cosmologica—, or amine Zubiri’s view of God at the other the study of a particular aspect of human end of his work, via the posthumous work nature—via anthropologica—, and all of Man and God. them are found insufficient.87 Concerning the cosmological sets of 1. Zubiri’s Panentheism in Man and God arguments, Zubiri examines Thomas Man and God was published posthu- Aquinas’ five ways88 and finds them incon- mously in 1984. As such, it reflects the clusive because they depend on a certain last, mature stage of Zubirian thought. set of metaphysical presuppositions, a When Zubiri died in 1983 the book was specific metaphysical interpretation of almost ready for publication.83 With The sensible reality: these ways take the validi- Philosophical Problem of the History of Reli- ty of Aristotle’s metaphysics for granted gions84 and The Theological Problem of and fail to take account of man’s true Man: Christianity,85 it was part of his “the- place in the universe.89 In addition, they ological” trilogy.86 may point out to something, but it is not For Zubiri, the problem of God has clear at all whether the end to which they two facets or aspects. First, it is necessary point out is the same thing. to determine whether there is something [T]he first way leads to a first un- which we call God. Second, if there is a moved mover; the second, to a first ef- God, it is necessary to determine if man ficient cause; the third, to the first can have any kind of access to Him. Thus, necessary being; the fourth, to a being in Man and God he approaches the issue in the plenitude of being; the fifth, to a in three parts: supreme intelligence. But do these 1. Human reality. five “primarities” refer to one and the same being? That must be proved.90 2. The problem of divine reality. But there’s more: even if we take for 3. Man as experience of God. granted that Thomas’ ways point out to The first part is devoted to questions the same supreme being, it is not clear if of philosophical anthropology; the second, that being is God. Duns Scotus saw it and to problems of philosophical theology; and formulated a two-way argument where he the third, to issues of theological anthro- started by proving the existence of a first pology. For reasons of efficiency, this being, and then he argued that this first study will focus mainly on the second part being is infinite and is thus God.91 But of the work, where the whole of Zubiri’s this is by no means clear, because it is not theology lies. evident that infinitude should be an exclu- In tackling the question of God’s ex- sive or necessary attribute of the divine.92 istence (or more properly, God’s reality) The anthropological way, so far as it Zubiri examines three points: the problem has been presented, is also unsatisfactory of God’s reality per se, the “justification” of for Zubiri. He summarizes anthropological God’s reality (really, an argument for God’s arguments in three types: an argument reality), and the characteristics of such from intelligence and truth (Augustine), reality. from the will and moral duty (Kant), or a feeling of dependence (Schleiermacher). In
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 118 C. Eduardo Sanchez Gauto ______the eyes of Zubiri, all of them fail. First, ond, it is a supreme reality. But here because they are reductionistic: these ar- Zubiri makes an interesting point, which guments do not consider man as a whole, would echo the Neoplatonists and Jakob but just a portion of him (intelligence, will, Böhme: God is a supreme reality but not a feelings). Second, these arguments pre- supreme being. God is beyond being.100 suppose a certain kind of dualism: “the Third, God is an “absolutely absolute reali- truth” against “other truths” in Augustine; ty”. The experience of religation is enig- the categorical will against all other voli- matic because it offers an idea of God but tions in Kant; the feeling of dependence immediately poses the question: Does against all other feelings in Schelierma- such reality exists? Zubiri now goes to cher. Third, the arguments require oppos- justify the reality of God’s existence. ing and distinguishing man from cosmos; man is considered as very different, to the Zubiri’s Justification of God’s Reality point of opposition, to the world. But this How can we say that God exists, is false because man is in the world. It is then? Zubiri does so by resorting to a 93 an “impossible antithesis”. How, then, phenomenological epokhé, that is, the can we arrive to God? suspension of judgment about the exist- In order to arrive to God, Zubiri turns ence or nonexistence of the phenomena to the now familiar phenomenological de- and the exclusion of any factual data or vice of religation. Religation is the ontologi- anything that would prevent the appre- cal link of the whole human existence to hension of the phenomena while fully de- the power of the real. “Religation is not scribing them,101 starting from his view of mere linking or sentiment of dependence, religation. He builds a “justification” of but the constitutive and formal turning God’s existence, which in fact is an expla- towards the power of the real as funda- nation of God’s existence analogous to an 94 ment of my personal life.” Religation is argument or demonstration.102 Thus, one 95 thus the very root of the human being. can think of Zubiri’s justification of God as This might appear to be just another a via phenomenologica, or phenomenologi- anthropological way, but Zubiri claims this cal argument for God even though it may is not the case. Religation is not a merely not be strictly a syllogistic argument. It is anthropological phenomenon. It is the very a long series of concatenated conclusions structure where the power of the real hap- where another key feature of Zubirian 96 pens. Religation is anthropological, cos- thought makes its appearance: sentient mological and ontological in character. intelligence.103 “From this follows that religation is not Reality is apprehended in two differ- something human in contradistinction to ent, yet simultaneous, moments. First, the the cosmic, but the very occurrence of all mind apprehends the quality of the thing 97 reality in man and of man in reality.” In (a thing is red, heavy, etc.) and second, the religation, the power of the real shows mind has a distinct impression of the real- itself as something ultimate, possibilitat- ity of the thing. Now, “[s]ince to apprehend ing, and impelling. This is a key feature of reality is intelligence, and to have impres- Zubirian cosmology and his phenomeno- sions is sensing, it follows that the intel- logical constitution of reality towards lective apprehension of man is sentient: 98 God. The significance of this concept is his intelligence is a sentient intelli- such that Cescon would write in 2007, gence.”104 “the Zubirian concept of ‘religation’ repre- Man has a sentient living in reality. sents the superseding of Thomism and the His life consists in acts made within reality 99 introduction of existentialism in Spain.” and this constitutes him as a person. Religation provides an idea of God When man acts, he does more than merely based on three points. First, God is the perform an action; he is slowly actualizing foundation of the power of the real. Sec-
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 The Transcendental Panentheism Of Xavier Zubiri In NHD And Man And God 119
______and building his Self, his person.105 “Man of reality itself where things understood as is a substantive reality and the Self con- real “more” than the things themselves? sists formally in the actualization of this Zubiri explains this maintaining that each reality in the world”.106 Due to this actual- thing is a vehicle of a character and power ization, the Self can stand in front of any that is not exhausted in the concrete reality and is thus an “ab-solute” being. things, but surpasses them. However, the Self, which is absolute, is But this is not clear by any means, also acquired; and due to this tension, and this unclearness comes from things man only a “relatively absolute” being, and themselves. This is the “enigma” of reality; is radically restless in life. Man’s personal reality is constitutively enigmatic. Because life then, is a process of actualization of of this, we are religated to the power of the the Self, which is a relatively absolute be- real in an enigmatic way. The enigma of ing. reality makes us restless because in every Man’s person is constituted in respect action, man feels a double question: “What to reality; reality is a constituting respectiv- is going to become of me, of my absolute ity of the human person as long as the being? And, What am I going to make of person is with the things. Since this is myself since I am making that being?”110 what constitutes the human person, the The power of the real throws intelligence reality is ultimate. Moreover, since reality towards this enigma, and makes intelli- is what enables the human to be his Self, gence aware of the radical foundation of reality is also possibilitating. Man’s reality each real thing in religation. “Religation is is then constantly in the making; and religation to reality in its enigma.”111 The since reality impels (moves, drives to) man root of this enigma is that the power of the to actualize his Self, reality is also impel- real is grounded in reality itself; but this ling. This reality dominates with its power, reality is beyond each concrete thing in but this dominance is not the result of itself. There is another reality which physical force, but it makes us physically grounds “the” reality; and since this reality aware of this reality. Thus, religation phys- determines my relatively absolute being, it ically determines man’s absolute being. must be an absolutely absolutely reality. Reality is “what makes me be I”.107 Zubiri identifies this absolutely absolute What is reality, then? It’s not some- reality with God.112 thing like a sea that bathes or submerges The power of the real can be found in things. Reality is a character of things; but the concrete reality of each thing. Since the reality of things exceeds their being. the power of the real is God as an abso- “The impression of reality is physically lutely absolute reality, He “is present for- transcendental to each thing. Because of mally in things constituting them as re- this, real things have the power of deter- al”113 Thus, the relationship God-world is mining my relatively absolute being.”108 In panentheistic: each thing we infer that being real is more The presence of God in real things is than being this or that. Each thing, in primarily that of a formal character. reality, determines the power of the real God is not primarily present in real and the ontological link to reality mani- things as the cause is in its effect, but fested as religation, and determines the is present constituting them formally absolute being of man. The “more” present as real. The possible effective causa- in each thing constitutes the power of the tion of God with respect to things is real and determines human personality.109 an ulterior interpretation required by The power of the real is based on the something prior: by the formal pres- “strange unity” between what a thing is ence of God in things. And this pres- concretely and the moment where being ence consists in the fact that the reali- real is being “more”. What is this character
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 120 C. Eduardo Sanchez Gauto ______
ty of each thing is constituted “in” a) God as an Ultimate, Possibilitating and God.114 Impelling Reality God is in things themselves and Zubiri describes the transcendental things are in God. That’s why each thing is reality (God) as reality with three modes: ambivalent: on one hand each thing is its ultimate, possibilitating, and impelling. own reality but on the other is constituted God is an ultimate reality not because in the absolutely absolute reality that is He is the Creator (though he is Creator). God. “Each thing, on one hand, concretely God is the ultimate reality because for is its own irreducible reality; but, on the things, the reality is a physical moment of other, is formally constituted in the abso- them grounded in God’s presence in them. lutely absolute reality, in God. The ambiva- “Without God, things would not be real. lence of reality simply consists in this God is, then, the ground of the ultimate- double moment of not being God, yet being ness of reality and of its power.”119 God is now, formally, constituted in God.”115 also the ground for reality being possibili- Consequently, God exists, and is for- tating, because God is the possibility of mally and wonderfully constituting possibilities; He is the absolute possibility the reality of each thing. Because of and Giver of possibilities. This enables this He is the fundament of the reality man the possibility of actualize his Self of each thing and of the power of the from God. Finally, God is impelling in the real in it.116 building of the Self. Since God is the abso- Zubiri summarizes his via phenomeno- lute reality, He impels man to build his logica to God on these steps: (relatively) absolute being.120 1. Man’s personal life consists in By these modes God is the ground of actualizing his Self, a relatively reality; He constitutes it beyond the four absolute Self, by religation. classical causes. This grounding is called by Zubiri the power of the real. 2. This Self is acquired and actualized by the physical operation of the b) The Power of the Real and Deity in power of the real as ultimate, Zubiri’s Panentheism possibilitating and impelling. The ground of all reality is for Zubiri 3. This power of the real is more than the power of the real.121 This power comes reality itself. from God’s formal and constituting pres- ence in all real things.122 It is not God’s 4. But the power of the real is power, but it is a vehicle of it. grounded in the very structure of This ontological structure of the power reality, distinct from real things, of the real is another vehicle of God in but constituting things as such. Zubiri’s panentheism: This reality is God.117 Certainly, the power of the real is not We see, then, that in order to prove formally the power of God, just as a God’s existence, Zubiri resorts to a panen- real thing is not formally God. But the theistic view of God where He grounds all power of the real “transports” the reality by the ontological link of religa- power of God, transports God as pow- 118 tion. er: real things are, on that account, After establishing his via phenomeno- the “seat” of God as power. Insofar as logica, Zubiri discusses some specific as- it is founded in God, the power of the pects of his transcendental view of God. real is “vehicle” and “seat”.123 God is in all things constituting them in their reality. The power of the real is manifestation of the absolutely absolute reality which is God. Things are “seat” of
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 The Transcendental Panentheism Of Xavier Zubiri In NHD And Man And God 121
______
God. It is an ontological condition which is be God, and that this “not-being-God” be a far beyond being mere effects. Insofar as way of being “in” God.”128 The relationship things are seat of God, they are deity.124 between God and human Self is not a Deity is reality itself when they show that boundary; it is a theological tension.129 they are constituted in God. “Real things The theological tension constitutes the qua real are the deity which manifests human Self. Each human build his own God, who is in them formally, constituting Self; but it is God the One who makes them. And because of this character of each human build his own Self. “God is deity they are the manifestation, the vehi- not mere natura me naturans, but realitas cle of God.”125 me reificans.”130 Since this is essential to Here we have the three cornerstones God’s function, it also follows that man is of the ontological structure of Zubirian implanted into God, “metaphysically im- panentheism: mersed” into him. 1. God is present in all things and all Zubiri is now ready to offer a more things are in God; and God specific description of his theology. grounds their reality by the power of the real. Characteristics of God’s Reality 2. Things are a seat of God’s Once he worked out the details of his immanent presence and this gives phenomenological-transcendental variety them “deity”. of panentheism, Zubiri offers a view of God’s reality in two stages: first, he deals 3. Finally, man accesses this reality with characters dealing with God consid- by the phenomenological device of ered in Himself and then he considers religation. some aspects of the God-world relation- In Zubiri’s own words: ship. God regarded as God is the absolutely a) God considered in Himself absolute reality as ultimateness, pos- sibilitation and impellence, formally Zubiri starts by stating that God is present in real things and constituting the “absolutely absolute” reality: “an abso- their reality. That reality is eo ipso dei- lutely absolute reality is the reality, which ty and manifestation of God, not in a is “in and by itself” full and absolute reali- general and abstract way, but in all ty considered as reality.”131 This does not the concretion history reveals to us. mean, however, that God is the highest Such is the reality of God, justified by Being, or the classical theistic notion that the way of religation.126 identifies God’s essence with His exist- ence. The reason is that God’s existence is c) God as Ground of the Human Self and fundamentally different to any other exist- The Reality ence of real things. God is “a reality, which By the link of religation, God is the through elevation is not only above and ground of any reality and specifically of beyond the difference of essence and exist- human life; He is the reality-ground. As ence, but also above and beyond its al- such, God grounds human freedom, the leged identity.”132 God’s metaphysical es- course of human life and the execution of sence of God is to be an absolutely abso- human actions.127 However, Zubiri is ad- lute reality, and the identity of essence amant in maintaining the distinction be- and existence in God are consequential to tween God and man but the core of this this, and not the reverse. distinction stems from his panentheistic Since this absolutely absolute reality view of God: “precisely because man is not is one and unique, the world is one and God, it is God who is making that man not unique and its foundation, i.e., God, is
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 122 C. Eduardo Sanchez Gauto ______also one and unique. Because of this, In God, to my way of thinking, per- Zubiri regards any polytheism as meta- sonhood is not consequent upon sub- physically impossible. The unicity belongs stantive reality nor upon His life, but to God as a transnumerical character. The is the very principle of it. Intelligence absolutely absolute reality (God) cannot be and volition are the way of being abso- one because there are no other similar lutely His-own, the way of realizing realities; God is one because the absolute- Himself with respect to what He al- ly absolute reality is absolutely one in and ready is as person. This clearly shows of itself. that, in God, intelligence and volition Besides being one, God is also a con- are necessary intrinsic moments of crete reality, an absolutely concrete reality. His substantive reality. The His- This concretion manifests in a personal ownness (suidad) is the fundament of reality: “In His absolute concretion, God is life, and life is the fundament of intel- 136 essentially personal.”133 Moreover, it is a ligence and volition. dynamic reality. “Dynamic” does not In summary, Zubiri ascribes the fol- means here that God is subject to a devel- lowing characters to God when considered opment process as in Hegelian thought or in Himself: absolutely absolute reality, process philosophy; “Dynamism is neither unicity, uniqueness, concreteness, dyna- action nor operation; to my way of think- mism (in the sense of actuality, not devel- ing, it is what I have called ‘giving of one- opment), personhood, life, intelligence and self’“ 134 and “the divine life is not a be- will. It is fair, thus, to conclude that coming”.135 Dynamism means here the Zubiri’s inner picture of God is fairly clas- self-possession of the reality in itself; and sical and roughly consistent with classical for Zubiri this is the essence of life itself. theism. Thus, God as an absolutely absolute reali- b) God Considered in Respect to ty implies His aseity, His self-actuality, Real Things and the World and therefore He is Absolute Life in Him- self. To put it in other words, God is an Zubiri understands God’s relation to absolutely absolute reality, and thus He is real things as a panentheistic relationship. a personal reality, and therefore He is a God is the grounding reality or realitas living reality. fundamentalis.137 However, God as an ab- God’s self-actuality is above all an ac- solutely absolute reality is independent of tuality in the sense of presentation of real- things. We cannot know God effectively in ity to Himself and thus, God’s self- Himself, but only as a ground and founda- actualization is also His intelligence. Since tion of real things.138 However, Zubiri this intelligent self-actuality is self- seems to imply that the God-things rela- possession, it is also fruition in the full- tionship is different from a typical World- ness of His own reality. Because of this, Soul relationship: God’s self-actuality considered as self- God is not grounding things as a kind possession is also God’s will. Therefore, of spirit underlying them; this would God’s self actualization is in fact the key to be an absurd animism. God is God’s intelligent and rational life. Note that grounding things as an absolute self- when speaking about God, Zubiri inverts giving. To ground is to self-give.139 the chain of faculties in human psycholo- Zubiri then specifies the relationship gy: Intelligence and will are moments of God-things among panentheistic lines. The God’s life, which in turn is a consequence formal presence of God in things is intrin- of His personhood, which in turn is a sic to real things, to the point that there is grounding principle of God’s metaphysical no physical or metaphysical separation reality: among God and things; but there is a real distinction between God and things. For
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 The Transcendental Panentheism Of Xavier Zubiri In NHD And Man And God 123
______
Zubiri, this is God’s “transcendence”: “This of God in the world is neither remote- characteristic, according to which God is ness nor identity.142 present in things with a formal and intrin- Consequently, Zubiri also denies sic presence, yet things are not God, is God’s identity with the world and God’s precisely what I call the transcendence of absence from it as it would be in deism or God “in” reality.” God is not transcendent agnosticism; and the relationship between to things; God is transcendent in things: God and the world is also a classic state- ment of panentheism: The transcendence of God does not God is simply transcendent “in” the consist in being beyond things, but world. The fundamentality of God is the other way around. Transcendence the worldly transcendence of God. The is precisely a mode of being in them, world formally carries God in itself.143 that mode in accordance with which God’s presence in things is not only they could not be real in any sense, formal and intrinsic, but also a constitut- unless they formally included in their ing presence. God makes things real and reality the reality of God, without this thus God, as an absolutely absolute reality in any sense making God identical to is a fountain-ality of reality; God is realitas the reality of things.140 fontanalis. Zubiri thinks that by applying his For Zubiri, then, God is an absolutely concept of “transcendence” he can avoid absolute reality, concrete, personal, living, both extremes of pantheism and deism or intelligent and willing, the power of the agnosticism. He denies pantheism because real, the ultimate, possibilitating and im- God’s being “in” things is also is an alteri- pelling reality, and the ground of religa- fying (or other-ifying) “in” and thus an tion. identity between God and things would be impossible. He also denies deism and ag- Summary nosticism, i.e., stating that God is absent from things, because things without God In Man and God, Zubiri develops an would not be real. “The transcendence of impressive feat: expound a coherent natu- God is neither identity nor remoteness, ral theology where he develops a transcen- but transcendence in things.”141 dental view of God that is yet compatible to standard Roman Catholic doctrine. Us- The panentheism of Zubiri is rein- ing religation as a key phenomenological forced by universalizing the statements device, he embarks in an explanation or with respect to things to the world. Things justification of the reality of God via a in reality have the attribute of respectivity, phenomenological epokhé or analysis. He and the unit of respectivity is the world. finds God as the ground of all reality, the Therefore, anything that can be predicated foundation of the power of the real, an of the God-things relationship can be said absolutely absolute reality that is ultimate, also of the God-world relationship: possibilitating and impelling. In Himself He is one, personal, living, intelligent and willing; and with respect of the world He is Hence, the formal and transcendent the ground of all reality. God is ontologi- presence of God in things is a pres- cally linked to the world as a transcenden- ence in the whole world as such. God tal personal power, grounding and giving is transcendent in things, and be- Being to all reality. cause of this He is transcendent in A comparison of Zubiri’s theology in the world. Indeed, for the same reason Man and God with the theology developed that the transcendence of God is not in Nature, History, God shows that Zubiri’s identity or remoteness, the presence theology is now more complete, with
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 124 C. Eduardo Sanchez Gauto ______themes that were previously hinted now There are places in both Nature, History, fully developed (i.e., religation). Despite the God and Man and God where Zubiri span of almost forty years between these speaks not only of God’s presence in the two books, the coherence of thought be- world, but also of the world in God.144 In tween the ideas in both books is remarka- view of this evidence, this study concludes ble. that there is a panentheism in the theolo- gy of Xavier Zubiri. 2. Conclusions Zubiri strongly affirms the immanence of God in the world at an extent that bor- After considering the distinctive fea- ders on pantheism. In “God and Deifica- tures of Zubiri’s theology in both Nature, tion” he maintains that a necessary con- History, God and Man and God, the re- sequence of the chain of being is the cos- markable uniformity and conceptual co- mic unity of creation and the unity of be- herence between two works that are sepa- ing and God (who Himself is beyond be- rated by a time span of roughly four dec- ing). Religation guarantees this ontological ades is nothing short of remarkable. There link of immanence. are developments, of course, such as the At the same time, Zubiri denies em- concept of the power of the real; but the phatically that his view of the God-world key concepts such as religation, deity, and relationship should be considered as pan- the phenomenological epokhé as a method theism;145 that is, he denies that the God- to access God’s reality show an amazing world relationship should be understood continuity. Nevertheless, there is a refine- as an identity. Zubiri denies such identity ment of concepts and themes in the latter and instead maintains a distinction be- work. By Man and God, Zubiri shows his tween God and the world. Furthermore, theology as one of the pillars of his the necessary character of the unity of thought, and a powerful contribution to God and the world should not be extended philosophy in itself. to the act of creation itself. Once created, This study shall conclude by first ex- the cosmic unity of being and God is nec- amining the issue of whether there is a essary; but creation itself is contingent panentheism in Zubiri’s theology; second, because it is the product of God’s freedom. by considering whether this panentheism A good summary of the God-world re- could be described as a transcendental lationship in Zubiri is provided by Antonio panentheism; third, by contrasting the González, who does so while managing to peculiar aspects of Zubiri’s panentheism avoid the use of the term “panentheism”. against Cooper’s 5-point matrix; and then a final evaluation will be attempted. This means then that God is not seg- regated from the world, and the ac- There Is a Panentheism in Zubiri’s theology cess to Him is not, then, a fleeing from the world, but a deepening in the real- There is no doubt that Zubiri’s view of ity of things. This is not pantheism God is strongly immanentistic, a charac- because God is an absolutely absolute terization that is common to both panen- reality with respect to the world. But theism and modern classical theism. Many also it is not possible to maintain that statements given by Zubiri are consistent God and the world are “two” realities. with panentheism, but they cannot ex- God and the world are not two, but clude a strongly immanentistic version of they are not one, neither. It is not classical theism. God is the power of the about identity or duality, but precisely real and the ground of all reality. For about transcendence. God is trans- Zubiri, God is in the world and constitutes cendent “in” things, without being any and all reality. separated from them. This is what However, there are other statements Zubiri means when he writes “God that are consistent with panentheism.
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 The Transcendental Panentheism Of Xavier Zubiri In NHD And Man And God 125
______
transcends the world, but the world is 3. Part-whole or relational immanent to God.”146 panentheism. Since Zubiri states both the ontologi- 4. Voluntary or natural panentheism. cal immanence of God in the world and the world in God, and the distinction be- 5. Classical or modern 148 tween God and His creatures, his view of panentheism. God is a form of panentheism. This matrix will now be applied to Zubiri’s panentheism. Zubiri’s Panentheism Is a Transcendental Explicit or implicit panentheism Panentheism There are some contemporary panen- For Zubiri, God is the power of the re- theists who never identified themselves as al. Religation exposes man to an ultimate such despite meeting with the standard reality which Zubiri calls “deity”. What definition, such as Teilhard de Chardin or deity does, among other things, is to pre- Pannenberg. On the other hand, there are sent all that is real to man by religation other thinkers who explicitly identified and manifest what is real as being themselves as panentheists, such as grounded with God. This characterization Moltmann or Philip Clayton. Where does of God could be described as transcenden- Zubiri falls in this distinction? tal. In fact, Zubiri describes the absolutely The answer should be evident. Even absolute reality as transcendental to though Zubiri’s view of God is clearly things.147 panentheistic, Zubiri never identified his In fact, since God constitutes all reali- view as such. Therefore, Zubiri’s panen- ty and is behind of all things as the power theism should be regarded as an implicit of the real accessed by religation, it is in- panentheism. escapably a transcendental reality. God is A question could be raised on why a reality which determines our existence, Zubiri did not identify himself as a panen- using the power of the real as a condition theist. Of course, perhaps he was not for the apprehension of things, and is aware of the concept; but there are two timeless and universal, the ground of both difficulties to this notion: first, because objects and subject. Zubiri was one of the leading philosophical Moreover, this is not an accidental or minds of his time, regarded as a peer by side feature of Zubiri’s panentheism; it is Husserl and Heidegger, and possessed an mediated by the key themes of religation, astonishing breadth of knowledge. deity, the power of the real, the absolutely Thus, it is somewhat unlikely that he absolute reality, and transcendence. Thus, was not exposed to this concept. Secondly, it is an essential, distinguishing, pervasive it should be kept in mind that Zubiri is a characterization of Zubiri’s view of God. Spaniard, raised at the beginnings of the Therefore, this study concludes that 20th century. Krause, the inventor of the Zubiri’s panentheism can be thought of as term “panentheism”149 was highly influen- a transcendental panentheism. tial in Spain, to the point that Julián Ma- rías states that his thought “enjoyed an Zubiri’s Panentheism and Cooper’s Matrix unusual vitality” in that country. Krausism was mediated in Spain by his As previously stated in this paper, chief Spanish apologist, Julián Sanz del Cooper offers a matrix of distinctions to Río (1814-1869) and later by Francisco study panentheism. These are: Giner de los Ríos (1839–1915).150 The term 1. Explicit or implicit panentheism. “panentheism” was well known in Spain 2. Personal or nonpersonal by the time of Zubiri’s formative years. panentheism. And yet, Zubiri does not use the word
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 126 C. Eduardo Sanchez Gauto ______
“panentheism” even once despite being a On the other hand, however, Zubiri term well known because of the Krausist affirms the personal reality of God and influence in Spain. describes Him as a personal, living, free, There may be a reason for that. intelligent, and willing reality. Thus, Corominas points out a little known fact of Zubiri’s God would hardly be the nonper- Zubiri’s life, his excommunication in 1922 sonal being of non-personal panentheists for his adherence to Modernism, the Ro- such as Ruether or Tillich. man Catholic counterpart to Liberal Prot- Therefore, even though he is influ- estantism who was thoroughly condemned enced by Neoplatonism, it can be main- by Pope Pius X in his encyclical letter Pas- tained that Zubiri is a personal panenthe- cendi dominici gregis (1907).151 Zubiri later ist, because for him God is both the recanted from his Modernist views, but he ground-of-being and an eminently person- was always suspicious in the eyes of the al reality. Nationalist-Catholic establishment that Part-whole or relational panentheism ruled Spain after the Spanish Civil War. Certain types of panentheism main- As Corominas aptly puts it: tains that the world is part of divine na- For Zubiri, Modernism was no mere ture while others view the world as a rela- anecdote. It marked indelibly his life tional correlate of God. For Zubiri, the and work, somewhat conditioned the world is “in God”. Moreover, creation is an free expression of his faith, and made emanation from God and things are kept him adopt a certain restraint up to the in ontological unity with Him.155 However, end of his days in expressing certain Zubiri still maintains a firm distinction theses. [Zubiri] wanted to be sure that between God and the world. Thus, Zubiri everything that he said was orthodox should be regarded as a part-whole panen- and he was willing to remain silent theist, with some qualification. before entering again in a conflict with the Church.152 Voluntary or natural panentheism. This circumstance may explain why This distinction stems from how different Zubiri never wanted to identify his theolo- panentheisms have answered the ques- gy as panentheism: he wanted to avoid tion: “Could God exist without a world?” If even the slightest suspicion of heresy. But the answer is that the world is a necessity this is an argument from silence. The real for God, then this panentheism is natural; answer, of course, is unknown. while if the answer is that God is free and Personal or ground-of-being panentheism creation is an act of divine freedom, then For some thinkers, mostly those of the we have a voluntary panentheism. Neoplatonic tradition, God is the non- personal Ground of Being. For others, Zubiri’s position on this distinction is mostly modern and contemporary panen- clear. He maintains inequivocally the at- theists, God is personal and their panen- tribute of divine freedom and affirms crea- theism is relational or interpersonal. tion as a product of God’s free agency. On one hand, Zubiri clearly follows Moreover, Zubiri affirms divine freedoms the Neoplatonic tradition, and this is clear- explicitly against gnosticism and Ploti- ly shown in the theology of his essay “Su- nus.156 He does not even hint to the “com- pernatural Being: God and Deification in patibilist” compromise on divine free- Pauline Theology”153 God is the ground of dom.157 Therefore, in Zubiri we have a any and all beings and any and all reality; distinctly voluntary panentheism.158 He is the absolutely absolute reality, the Classical or modern panentheism ultimate, possibilitating, impelling reality. The final distinction is between a This would place Zubiri in the ground-of- panentheism that affirms divine omnipo- being field.154 tence and does not allow for creatures to
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 The Transcendental Panentheism Of Xavier Zubiri In NHD And Man And God 127
______affect God, which was the case of classical ology highly original and yet deeply re- panentheists, or stating that God is affect- spectful of Roman Catholic doctrine. ed by human action. In the case of Zubiri, Upon careful examination of the rele- his panentheism is a way to explain how vant texts in both Nature, History, God and God is the ground of all reality; God affects Man and God, this study finds that the creatures by the power of the real, but theology of Xavier Zubiri is a transcenden- creatures do not affect God. Therefore, tal panentheism, mediated by a phenome- Zubiri’s panentheism is a classical panen- nological device (religation), and character- theism. ized as implicit, personal ground-of-being, part-whole, voluntary, and classical. Final Evaluation Zubiri maintains a personal God, but The contribution of Xavier Zubiri to modified by a modified Neoplatonic ontolo- philosophy is of such a significance that gy of “chain of being.” he could be counted, in all justice and In all, this is the work of a genius, a without any exaggeration, among the towering mind who despite his physical greatest philosophical minds of all time. self-exile influenced and still remains in- His approach to the problem of God shows fluential for much of the current Roman the breadth and depth of thought in Catholic philosophy and theology, and a Zubiri, as well as the formulation of a the- significant contribution to the history of philosophy.
Notes
1 The other ones were the problems of intelli- http://culturavasca.asmoz.org/trabajos/200 gence and the problem of reality. See Fran- 6-2007/Carlos_Zarraga.pdf. cisco Correa Schake, “Zubiri: la experiencia 6 José María Melero Martínez, “El problema como vía de acceso del hombre a Dios. Una teologal del hombre en Xavier Zubiri” (PhD aproximación inicial a su trilogía religiosa” diss., Universidad de Murcia, 2008), pp. 220- Teología y Vida 45 (2004): p. 479; Everaldo 242. Cescon, “Uma introdução ao pensamento fi- 7 Jorge Eduardo Rivera Cruchaga, “Recordan- losófico-teológico de Xavier Zubiri (1898- do a Xavier Zubiri,” Anuario Filosófico de la 1983),” Síntese - Revista de Filosofia 31, no. Universidad de Navarra 17 (1984): p. 175. 100 (2004): p. 258; Juan José García, “Inte- Accessed March 3, 2014. ligencia sentiente, reidad, Dios: Nociones 8 Xavier Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, 3rd ed. (Ma- fundamentales en la filosofía de Zubiri,” drid: Alianza Editorial / Sociedad de Estu- Cuadernos de pensamiento español 30 dios y Publicaciones, 1985), p. 149. (2006): 1-73. 9 Cescon, “O problema de Deus e do seu aces- 2 Paulino Garagorri, La filosofía española en el so e a experiência de Deus,” p. 380-383. siglo XX: Unamuno, Ortega, Zubiri (Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 1985), p. 118-157. 10 Correa Schake, “Zubiri: la experiencia co- mo vía de acceso del hombre a Dios. Una 3 Everaldo Cescon, “O problema de Deus e do aproximación inicial a su trilogía religiosa.” seu acesso e a experiência de Deus,” Teología y Vida 44 (2003): 373-394; Cescon, “Uma in- 11 Ibid., p. 492. trodução ao pensamento filosófico-teológico 12 See Germán Marquínez Argote, “Paul Til- de Xavier Zubiri (1898-1983)” lich y Xavier Zubiri: Planteamiento del problema de Dios,” The Xavier Zubiri Re- 4 García, “Inteligencia sentiente, reidad, Dios.” view 8 (2006): 103-110; for Tillich’s panen- 5 Carlos Zárraga Olavarría, “Xavier Zubiri: theism, see John W. Cooper, Panentheism- Filósofo vasco,” 2007, accessed March 3, The Other God of the Philosophers: From 2014, Plato to the Present (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), chap. 8; David H. Nikkel,
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 128 C. Eduardo Sanchez Gauto ______
Panentheism in Hartshorne and Tillich: A Provincias Dominicanas en España, 2nd Creative Synthesis (New York: Peter Lang ed., 5 vols. (Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Publishing, 1995), accessed March 3, 2014. Cristianos, 1994), I, q. 19 a. 3 ad 5; I, q. 13 Jordí Corominas, “Xavier Zubiri y la crisis 46, a. 1. modernista,” The Xavier Zubiri Review 8 23 John Culp, “Panentheism,” in The Stanford (2006): 17-57. Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring 2013, 14 Zárraga Olavarría, “Xavier Zubiri: Filósofo ed. Edward N. Zalta (2013). vasco,” p. 60. 24 See Cooper, Panentheism-The Other God of 15 Zárraga Olavarría, “Xavier Zubiri: Filósofo the Philosophers, “Basic Terms and Distinc- vasco,” p. 59. tions in Panentheism”, in Chapter I, pp. 26-30. 16 Félix Alluntis, quoted by Francisco-Xavier Sotil Baylos, “La conceptuación zubiriana 25 Xavier Zubiri, Naturaleza, Historia, Dios, de la presencia eucarística de Cristo: críti- 9th ed. (Madrid: Alianza Editorial / Socie- cas y valoración de las mismas,” The Xavier dad de Estudios y Publicaciones, 1987); Zubiri Review 9 (2007): p. 43, note 186. Zubiri, El hombre y Dios. Here is the relevant part: “Alluntis remem- 26 Melero Martínez, “El problema teologal del bers that Zubiri identifies that presence of hombre en Xavier Zubiri,” p. 74. God with His transcendence, understood 27 Xavier Zubiri, Nature, History, God, trans. by him —in a way that is different of the Thomas B. Fowler, Jr. [book on-line] traditional sense of the term— not as “be- (Washington, D.C.: University Press of ing beyond” things (transcend “to”) but America, 1981); available from precisely as their mode of being “in” them http://zubiri.org/works/englishworks/nhg (transcend “in”), by virtue of which things /nhgtoc.htm ; Internet ; accessed 14 March are different of God but not separate from 2014. Him. And Alluntis comments that in this 28 Xavier Zubiri, Man and God, trans. Joaquín point Zubiri “uses expressions that [...] A. Redondo, M.E., M.A. (Phil) [book on- gave motives to people to talk about a line]; available from Zubirian ‘kind of pantheism’ (pantheism- panentheism). We believe there is no basis http://www.catholicphilosophy.com/sys- for that.” tmpl/door/index.html ; Internet ; accessed 14 March 2014. Note that the website 17 Cooper, Panentheism-The Other God of the structure makes for an awkward and cum- Philosophers, p. 27. bersome navigation and makes posting a 18 Stephen Palmquist, “Kant’s Moral Panen- more specific URL impossible. theism,” Philosophia 36, no. 1 (2008): 17- 29 Author’s Introduction to the English Edi- 28, doi:10 . 1007 / s11406 - 007 - 9098 - tion, in Zubiri, Naturaleza, Historia, Dios. 0, p. 20. See also the interesting note 13 in Fernando Inciarte Armiñán, “Observacio- 30 Preface to the Sixth Edition, on Zubiri, nes histórico críticas en torno a Xavier Zu- Naturaleza, Historia, Dios. See also Melero biri,” Anuario Filosófico de la Universidad Martínez, “El problema teologal del hombre de Navarra 1 (1971): p. 241-242. Accessed en Xavier Zubiri,” p. 134-138. March 3, 2014 31 Zubiri, Naturaleza, Historia, Dios, p. 396- 19 See Cooper, Panentheism-The Other God of 397. the Philosophers, p. 329-330. 32 An existential analysis is an ontological 20 Nikkel, Panentheism in Hartshorne and analysis of the existent (Dasein), prior to Tillich: A Creative Synthesis, p. 2-3. any psychological, biological or theological descriptions of consciousness, which re- 21 Jürgen Moltmann, Trinidad y Reino de veals the consciousness as a phenomenon Dios: La doctrina sobre Dios (Salamanca: of the existent (Dasein) presented to it as Sígueme, 1983), p. 122. calling. For a cursory description see Jesús 22 For example see Thomas Aquinas, Summa Conill, “La fenomenología en Zubiri,” Pen- Theologica: Suma de Teología, Edición diri- samiento 53 (1997): p. 121. gida por los Regentes de Estudios de las
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 The Transcendental Panentheism Of Xavier Zubiri In NHD And Man And God 129
______
33 See for example Robert C. Solomon, Conti- 1983),” p. 276. nental Philosophy Since 1750: The Rise and 46 Zubiri, Naturaleza, Historia, Dios, p. 428. Fall of the Self, vol. 7, A History of Western 47 Ibid., p. 429. Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), chapter 9, p. 129-138. 48 Ibid., p. 431. 34 For example Conill, “La fenomenología en 49 Garagorri, La filosofía española en el siglo Zubiri,” who states: “Zubiri is, together XX: Unamuno, Ortega, Zubiri, p. 131-134. with Ortega, the privileged locus for the re- 50 Samuel Yáñez, “Vida y religación,” Teología ception and assimilation of phenomenology y Vida 46 (2005): 570-581. in Spain. There is no possible contextual- 51 Zubiri, Naturaleza, Historia, Dios, p. 435. ization of the thought of Ortega and Zubiri if this is not done in connection with phe- 52 Zubiri, Naturaleza, Historia, Dios, p. 441. nomenology”. See also Correa Schake, “Zu- This quote not only echoes Eckart, but biri: la experiencia como vía de acceso del Scotus Eriugena as well, as Zubiri hombre a Dios. Una aproximación inicial a acknowledges in footnote 50 of the essay. su trilogía religiosa”; Corominas, “Xavier See also Cooper, Panentheism-The Other Zubiri y la crisis modernista,” p. 26-27; God of the Philosophers, p. 47-52. Thomas B. Fowler, “Introduction to the Phi- 53 Zubiri, Naturaleza, Historia, Dios, p. 443. losophy of Xavier Zubiri,” The Xavier Zubiri 54 Ibid., p. 444. Review 1 (1998): 5-16; Alberto Basabe Mar- 55 Ibid., p. 450. On the topic of Zubiri and tín, “La metafísica realista de Xavier Zubiri: atheism, see also Juan José García, “Legi- Interpretación metafísico-apriorística de la timidad de las opciones no teístas en la fi- metafísica realista de Zubiri” (PhD diss., losofía de Xavier Zubiri,” The Xavier Zubiri Universidad de Deusto, 1990), p. 59-62; Review 11 (2009): 47-54. Antonio Pintor Ramos, “Los inicios de la fe- nomenología en España,” Diálogo Filosófico 56 Zubiri, Naturaleza, Historia, Dios, p. 449. 46 (2000): p. 47-49. 57 Ibid., p. 449; see 1 John 2:16. 35 Melero Martínez, “El problema teologal del 58 Ibid., p. 452. hombre en Xavier Zubiri,” p. 20. 59 Ibid., p. 453. 36 Zubiri, Naturaleza, Historia, Dios, p. 398. 60 Ibid., p. 453. 37 Ibid., p. 398. 61 Zubiri, Naturaleza, Historia, Dios, p. 456. 38 Melero Martínez, “El problema teologal del The New Testament texts are supposedly hombre en Xavier Zubiri,” p. 135. “certain texts from the Epistle to the Ro- 39 Marquínez Argote, “Paul Tillich y Xavier mans” (p. 457). Zubiri: Planteamiento del problema de 62 Ibid., p. 457. Zárraga Olavarría, “Xavier Dios,” p. 107. Zubiri: Filósofo vasco,” p. 48, note 32 40 Zubiri, Naturaleza, Historia, Dios, p. 408. points out that this chapter came out from Zubiri’s exposure to the Russian Orthodox 41 For a good summary, see José Luis Martín theologian Myrra Lot-Borodine, who was a García-Alós, “Dios como realidad religante vehicle for Russian mystics such as Ber- del hombre. En homenaje a Xavier Zubiri,” diaev, Chestov, Soloviev, Boulgakov and Arbor 116 (1983): 265-289. Lossky, among others. Zárraga quotes O. 42 According to the official Zubiri bibliog- González de Cardedal about the impact of raphy: Revista de Occidente 149 (1935) this exposure to Zubiri: “This is the world 129-159. that Zubiri discovers (in Paris) that it 43 Corominas, “Xavier Zubiri y la crisis mo- means a revolution for his theological hori- dernista.” zon”. On the impact of this course on the 44 Zubiri, Naturaleza, Historia, Dios, p. 427- whole of Zubiri’s theology, see also Coro- 428. minas, “Xavier Zubiri y la crisis modern- ista”; Melero Martínez, “El problema teo- 45 Cescon, “Uma introdução ao pensamento logal del hombre en Xavier Zubiri,” p. 57. filosófico-teológico de Xavier Zubiri (1898-
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 130 C. Eduardo Sanchez Gauto ______
63 Marta Jiménez Valverde, “La religación en 84 Zubiri, X., El problema filosófico de la histo- el pensamiento de Xavier Zubiri,” Revista ria de las religiones (Madrid: Alianza Edito- de Filosofía de la Universidad de Costa Rica rial / Sociedad de Estudios y Publicacio- 2, no. 6 (1959): 59-64. nes, 1993). English translation: The Philo- 64 Melero Martínez, “El problema teologal del sophical Problem of the History of Religions, hombre en Xavier Zubiri,” p. 57. trans. Joaquín A. Redondo, 1999 [book on- line]; accessed 15 April 2014; available 65 Zubiri, Naturaleza, Historia, Dios, p. 473ff; from Cooper, Panentheism-The Other God of the http://www.catholicphilosophy.com/sys- Philosophers, pp. 45-47. tmpl/translatorsintro/index.html; Internet. 66 “There is a profound difference, indeed 85 Zubiri, X., El problema teologal del hombre: almost an opposition, between agape and Cristianismo (Madrid: Alianza Editorial / eros. But this opposition always occurs Sociedad de Estudios y Publicaciones, within a common root; it is an opposition of 1997). English translation: Christianity, direction within the same general line: the trans. Joaquín A. Redondo, 2001 [book on- ontological structure of reality.” Zubiri, Na- line]; accessed 15 April 2014; available turaleza, Historia, Dios, p. 464. from 67 Ibid., p. 467-468. http://www.catholicphilosophy.com/sys- 68 Zubiri, Naturaleza, Historia, Dios, p. 473. tmpl/translator/index.html; Internet. 69 Ibid., p. 480-481. 86 See Marquínez Argote, “Paul Tillich y Xa- 70 Juan José García, “El poder de lo real en vier Zubiri: Planteamiento del problema de Xavier Zubiri y su lectura de los padres Dios,” p. 104; Zárraga Olavarría, “Xavier griegos,” The Xavier Zubiri Review 4 (2002): Zubiri: Filósofo vasco,” p. 10, 47. 19-66. 87 See Melero Martínez, “El problema teologal 71 Interestingly, when Moltmann explicitly del hombre en Xavier Zubiri,” p. 157-171; assumes his panentheism in Trinity and Everaldo Cescon, “A “trilogia teologal” de the Kingdom he also gives credit to Richard Xavier Zubiri: Contribuições e problemas of St. Victor. “The basis [of Moltmann’s abertos,” The Xavier Zubiri Review 9 (2007): panentheism] is Richard of St. Victor’s doc- p. 114-115. trine of the Trinity” See Moltmann, Trinidad 88 Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. 118-121. com- y Reino de Dios: La doctrina sobre Dios, pare with Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, q. chapter 4, note 17 (p. 122). 2 a. 3 resp. 72 Zubiri, Naturaleza, Historia, Dios, p. 486. 89 Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. 121. 73 Zubiri, Naturaleza, Historia, Dios, p. 490. 90 Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. 121-122. 74 Ibid., p. 491. 91 For Duns Scotus’ argument, see Frederick 75 Ibid., p. 493. Copleston, A History of Philosophy, 9 vols. (Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1946- 76 See ibid., p. 493, 496. 1975; New York: Doubleday, 1994), vol. 2 77 Zubiri, Naturaleza, Historia, Dios, p. 495. chap. 48 No. 3, pp. 520-523; Julián Ma- 78 Ibid., p. 496. rías, Historia de la Filosofía, 21st ed. (Ma- drid: Revista de Occidente, 1969), III, 10, 79 Ibid., p. 497. Emphasis of this author. A), p. 173; Carlo Balic, “Scotism,” in Sa- 80 Zubiri, Naturaleza, Historia, Dios, p. 497. cramentum Mundi, vol. 6 (London: Burn & 81 Ibid., p. 499. Oates, 1968), 52-54; Johannes Hirschber- 82 Ibid., p. 501. ger, Historia de la Filosofía, 3rd ed., trans. Luis Martínez Gómez, 2 vols. (Barcelona: 83 See Ignacio Ellacuría, “Presentation”, in Herder, 1968), vol. I, p. 431; “Duns Escoto Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. i-x; Marquínez (Juan)” in José Ferrater Mora, Diccionario Argote, “Paul Tillich y Xavier Zubiri: Plan- de filosofía, 5th ed., 2 vols. (Buenos Aires: teamiento del problema de Dios”; García, Editorial Sudamericana, 1965), vol.1 , pp. “Inteligencia sentiente, reidad, Dios,” p. 17. 488-490; Michele Federico Sciacca, Historia de la Filosofía, 3rd ed., trans. Adolfo Muñoz
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 The Transcendental Panentheism Of Xavier Zubiri In NHD And Man And God 131
______
Alonso and Juan José Ruiz Cuevas (Barce- la filosofía contemporánea hasta los pro- lona: Luis Miracle, Editor, 1958), pp. 254- blemas actuales, 2nd ed., trans. Claudio 255. Matons Rossi and Juan José Ruiz Cuevas 92 Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. 123. (Barcelona: Luis Miracle, Editor, 1956), IV, 2 (p. 143); Marías, Historia de la Filoso- 93 Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. 126. fía, p. 398-399. 94 Ibid., p.128. See also Melero Martínez, “El 102 See García, “Legitimidad de las opciones problema teologal del hombre en Xavier no teístas en la filosofía de Xavier Zubiri.” Zubiri,” p. 171-202. 103 For a concise explanation of the concept, 95 Even though Zubiri appears to reject cos- see Fowler, “Introduction to the Philoso- mological arguments —based on an out- phy of Xavier Zubiri,” p. 10-13. dated notion of causality— in favor of a phenomenological approach based on reli- 104 Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. 135. gation to the power of the real, some have 105 Ibid., p. 136. argued that the power of the real in Zubiri 106 Ibid., p. 136. is just another notion of causality; see 107 Ibid., p. 140. Thomas B. Fowler, “Causality and Personal Causality in the Philosophy of Xavier 108 Ibid., p. 141. Zubiri,” The Xavier Zubiri Review 10 (2008): 109 José Antonio Hernanz Moral, “La consti- 91-112. On the other hand, Antonio Gon- tución del orden transcendental en la me- zález points out that in one of his minor tafísica de Xavier Zubiri,” Estudios Lati- writings, Zubiri appears to have endorsed a noamericanos, nos. 14-15 (2004): 5-23. cosmological argument for God; see Anto- For the place of the transcendental in the nio González, “La vía cósmica hacia Dios metaphysics of Zubiri see Basabe Martín, según Xavier Zubiri,” The Xavier Zubiri Re- “La metafísica realista de Xavier Zubiri”; view 7 (2005): 91-107. Roberto Hernáez Rubio, “El realismo sis- 96 Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. 129. témico de Xavier Zubiri” (PhD diss., Uni- versidad del País Vasco, 1995), p. 69-83. 97 Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. 129. 110 Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. 146. 98 See also the characterization of religation offered by Jesús Conill-Sancho, “«La voz de 111 Ibid., p. 80. la conciencia». La conexión noológica de 112 Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. 147. moralidad y religiosidad en Zubiri,” Isego- 113 Ibid., p. 148. ría, no. 40 (2009): p. 124. For the power of the real, see García, “El poder de lo real en 114 Ibid., p. 148. Emphasis in the original. Xavier Zubiri y su lectura de los padres 115 Ibid., p. 149. Emphasis of this writer. griegos,” p. 25-38. 116 Ibid., p. 149. 99 See Everaldo Cescon, “A “trilogia teologal” 117 Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. 149. de Xavier Zubiri: Contribuições e proble- 118 See Basabe Martín, “La metafísica realista mas abertos” The Xavier Zubiri Review 9 de Xavier Zubiri,” p. 182-183. (2007), 113. 119 Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. 153. 100 Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. 131. 120 Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. 154-155. 101 On the epokhé see Diogenes Allen, Philos- ophy for Understanding Theology (Atlanta: 121 See ibid., Appendix 1, p. 89-91; p. 155- John Knox Press, 1985), p. 261; Solomon, 156. Continental Philosophy Since 1750, p. 135- 122 Ibid., p. 154-155. 136; Wolfgang Stegmüller, Corrientes fun- 123 Ibid., p. 155. damentales de la filosofía actual, with a 124 Ibid., p. 155-156. foreword by Eugenio Pucciarelli (Buenos Aires: Editorial Nova, 1967), chap. II, 4 (p. 125 Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. 156. 117-122); Michele Federico Sciacca, La fi- 126 Ibid., p. 157. losofía, hoy: De los orígenes románticos de
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 132 C. Eduardo Sanchez Gauto ______
127 Ibid., p. 161. Zubiri claims that these 148 See Cooper, Panentheism-The Other God of predicates could be valid for any God, and the Philosophers, “Basic Terms and Dis- not only for the Christian God. tinctions in Panentheism”, in Chapter I, 128 Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. 161. pp. 26-30. 129 Ibid., p. 161. 149 Cooper, Panentheism-The Other God of the Philosophers, chapter 5, p. 121-122. 130 Ibid., p. 162. 150 Marías, Historia de la Filosofía, p. 325; 131 Ibid., p. 165. other similar statements at “Krause (Karl 132 Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. 166; emphasis Christian Friedrich)” in Ferrater Mora, of the author of this paper. Diccionario de filosofía, vol I, p. 1065- 133 Ibid., p. 168. 1066; Copleston, A History of Philosophy, 134 Ibid., p. 168. vol. 7, p. 146-147; and especially the Spanish philosophy appendix to 135 Ibid., p. 169. Hirschberger, Historia de la Filosofía, vol. 136 Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. 170. II, p. 489-492. 137 Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. 172. 151 See Aubert, “Modernism.” 138 Ibid., p. 173. 152 Corominas, “Xavier Zubiri y la crisis mo- 139 Ibid., p. 173. dernista,” p. 18. 140 Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. 175. 153 Zubiri, Naturaleza, Historia, Dios, p. 455. 141 Ibid., p. 176. 154 For example see Fowler, “Introduction to the Philosophy of Xavier Zubiri,” p. 6: 142 Ibid., p. 176. “[Zubiri] rejects the traditional notion of 143 Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. 177; emphasis God as a reality object, instead conceiving from the author of this paper. of Him as a reality fundament or ground” 144 See for example Zubiri, Naturaleza, Histo- (Emphasis of the author of this paper). ria, Dios, p. 443. Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, 155 Zubiri, Naturaleza, Historia, Dios, p. 492- p. 149. 493, 497. 145 See, for example Zubiri, Naturaleza, Histo- 156 Zubiri, Naturaleza, Historia, Dios, p. 493. ria, Dios, p. 443, 493, 496; Zubiri, El 157 See Cooper, Panentheism-The Other God of hombre y Dios, p. 175-176. the Philosophers, p. 29. 146 Antonio González, “La novedad teológica 158 However, see Juan Alejandro Navarrete de la filosofía de Zubiri,” Revista Latinoa- Cano, “Materiales para la elaboración de mericana de Teología 10, no. 30 (1993): p. una teología de la creación desde Zubiri: 255; for a similar statement see Jesús Análisis de un párrafo del libro “El pro- Sáez Cruz, “La causalidad personal: una blema teologal del hombre: Cristianismo”,” propuesta zubiriana en diálogo con Mario Revista realidad, no. 112 (2007): 247-257, Bunge, parte II,” The Xavier Zubiri Review who tends towards the necessity of the 11 (2009): p 78. world from what Zubiri wrote in The Theo- 147 Zubiri, El hombre y Dios, p. 141; see also logical Problem of Man: Christianity. Hernanz Moral, “La constitución del orden transcendental en la metafísica de Xavier Zubiri.”
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015
J. J. Gibson’s Psychology of Perception from Zubiri’s Standpoint
Alfonso de la Puerta González-Quevedo Instituto de Enseñanza Secundaria Antonio Machado Alcalá de Henares, España
Abstract Although James J. Gibson (1904-1979) and Xavier Zubiri (1898-1983) were never ac- quainted, the harmony between the two is remarkable: the power of truth, the power of real- ity holds them. The author is highly critical of authors such as Fodor and Pylyshyn, and he is in the passionate defense of the positions of Gibson and the ecological psychology, albeit with important nuances from Zubiri, the Spanish philosopher, disciple of Husserl, Heidegger and Ortega y Gasset, among others. Perception is direct and not mediated by in- ferences of any kind, because it is direct at its root: the primordial apprehension of reality. We perceive in the field of reality, in which we “are” fluently, and where things are among others: it is the duality of the logos that involves primordial apprehension. The inferences of Gibson’s critics would approach to this duality, but leaves untouched the primordial ap- prehension. Our senses considered as perceptual systems “come out” (Gibson) and feel real- ity directly. That is, human sensing is intellective (Zubiri). Indeed, sentient intelligence is the other side of intellective sensing. Perceiving is the simplest and best way of knowing (Gib- son). Although he did not elaborate anything like Zubiri’s logos and reason, our hypothesis is that his theory of direct perception would approach the primordial apprehension of Zubiri. The ecological approach to perception is in line with the physical-sentient in Zubiri, as a “phenomenology” prior to the level of scientific explanation at the level of reason. This phenomenology can be understood as a philosophical dimension in the context of scientific psychology. There is nothing like Zubiri’s noology for this joining of philosophy and sci- ence.Gibson and Zubiri could well be a prelude to a revolution in cognitive sciences. It al- ways takes time. They are destined to become classics.
Resumen Aunque James J. Gibson (1904-1979) y Xavier Zubiri (1898-1983) no llegaron a cono- cerse, es asombrosa la sintonía entre ambos: la fuerza de la verdad, la fuerza de la realidad los sostiene. Contra autores como Fodor y Pylyshyn, el autor es fuertemente crítico y se sitúa en la defensa apasionada de las posiciones de Gibson y la psicología ecológica, si bien con importantes matices provenientes del filósofo español, Zubiri, discípulo de Husserl, Heidegger y Ortega y Gasset, entre otros. La percepción es directa, y no mediada por infe- rencias de ningún tipo, porque lo es en su raíz: la aprehensión primordial de realidad. Per- cibimos en el campo de realidad, en el que estamos fluentemente, y donde las cosas están entre otras: es la dualidad del logos que envuelve la aprehensión primordial. Las inferencias de los críticos con Gibson apuntan a esta dualidad, pero resbalan sobre la aprehensión primordial. Nuestros sentidos considerados como sistemas perceptivos “salen afuera” (Gib- son) y sienten la realidad directamente. Esto es, el sentir humano es intelectivo (Zubiri). Se supera el origen de todos los dualismos, provenientes de las operaciones de la mente sobre
133 134 Alfonso de la Puerta González-Quevedo ______las entregas de los sentidos. En su lugar, la inteligencia sentiente es la otra cara del sentir intelectivo. Percibir es la forma más simple y mejor de conocer (Gibson). Si bien éste no ela- boró nada parecido al logos y la razón zubirianas, nuestra hipótesis es que su teoría de la percepción directa “apunta” a la aprehensión primordial de Zubiri. La aproximación ecológica a la percepción estaría en línea con lo físico-sentiente en Zubiri, como una “fenomenología” previa al nivel de explicación científica al nivel de la razón. Dicha fenomenología puede en- tenderse como una dimensión filosófica en el contexto de la psicología científica. Nada como la noología zubiriana para esta articulación filosofía-ciencia. Gibson y Zubiri, bien podrían ser el preludio de una revolución en ciencias cognitivas. Esto siempre requiere tiempo. Esta- rían destinados a convertirse en clásicos.
small, atomic. But for perception, Gibson Introduction: Philosophy and Science holds, what is relevant is “the animal lev- What makes Gibson’s works so attrac- el”: this is the ecological level. tive, so resistant to critics, to neglect, and What is ecological is necessarily to the passage of time? As much as it linked to direct perception and vice versa. provokes many “cognitive scientists,” igno- It is a question of the unity of the act of rant of Zubiri’s philosophy, to smile in a perception. We will also see this when we condescending way, let us respond: “The establish the comparison with Zubiri. strength of truth, the strength of reality, Every perception that is not direct loses which imposes itself upon us!” 1 the unity of that act and necessarily im- Although Gibson usually inspires re- plies a projective (transmitting) logic3 in- spect, the most frequent accusation made stead of a logic of “field simultaneity”; it is against him is that of lacking solid exper- what I call “the constructivist journey.”4 imental underpinnings.Yet it would seem This journey, moreover, implies the utiliza- not to matter to Gibson whether authors tion of categories of modern science that he read were scientists or not, judging are in the forefront, as we shall see; that is from the frequency of his quotes from to say, the contrary of the ecological level, Berkeley, Locke, Kant and other philoso- “the animal level.” phers. It would seem that only the reality In fact, that projective logic is marked he confronted mattered to him. It would beforehand by the basic problem of space, also seem that Gibson ignored the consid- which characterized Gibson’s initial break erable baggage of philosophy that went with traditional theories, and with con- with the most essential part of his work. temporary theories as well, as seen from He performed many experiments, but it his first book onward.5 seems that his critics have not accorded It was as a psychologist of the United 2 them much value. Nonetheless, as we States Air Force that Gibson began revolu- shall see, Gibson’s alleged unawareness tionizing one of the pillars of both tradi- was only relative. In our opinion, the ori- tional and contemporary: spatial percep- gins of the misunderstandings of Gibson’s tion. As paradoxical as it seems to us, he work stem from the context of scientific tells us, the space of the airplane pilot is psychology in which he moved. His explicit determined by the earth and the horizon, critiques of the categories of science in his not by the “air” through which he flies. It ecological approach to perception bear wit- was then that ground theory took the place ness to this. Let us examine this point. of air theory for spatial perception. This J. J. Gibson’s Ecological Approach decisive fact—the lack of sensible impres- to Perception sions for the perception of the dimension of To date physical science has mainly depth—is what traditionally has been tak- concerned itself with what is very, very en as evidence for the largely unques- large, astronomical, or what is very, very tioned presumption in philosophy and
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 J. J. Gibson´s Psychology of Perception from Zubiri´s Standpoint 135 ______psychology that all perception, as Kant In SCPS Gibson broaches physiology said, is given in space, and needs some- in harmony with the foregoing. The earlier thing from the mind to be complete. From vision implies that the senses stop being here also derives the traditional distinction mere organs of a brain and that the nerves between sensation and perception. But stop being mere channels for sensation. Gibson’s conclusion is that empty space, Also, Johannes Müller’s nineteenth- besides being a geometric abstraction, is century doctrine of specific nervous ener- unperceivable. We can only perceive the gies is left behind. Then the senses come spatial dimension from longitudinal sur- to be considered as perceptive systems. faces. It is important to point out here, as They cease to be conceived in isolation and we shall see in the comparison with become integrated with the whole organ- Zubiri, that what is sensibly concrete, such ism, with the whole human being, who it as the terrain or the horizon, is what we is that perceives, actively exploring and in can perceive. movement. But what is most important Now, starting from objects situated in and a consequence of all the foregoing is “empty space,” the logic of the “construc- that the perceptive systems begin the pro- tivist journey” is produced: light rays fall- cess of perceiving directly; they are inte- ing on objects that reflect them, transduc- grated with the totality of the human be- tions of energy in our interior, nerve im- ing, which is, in the last analysis, what pulses, sensory organization… We there- directly perceives. Mechanicism has been fore see that the problem starts from the surmounted by means of fully embodied abstraction of geometric space and begins and integrated senses. The dichotomy with scientific categories and units. Per- sensation-perception has been surmount- ception is seen as a product and result of ed. With this, projective logic is also sur- the facts being categorized scientifically mounted, and we accede to “field simulta- (photons, waves, receptors, nerve im- neity.” Then, when we communicate direct- pulse…). The unavoidable result is the ly with things in field simultaneity, our construction of the “terminal image” in the nerve structures resound with the infor- “theatre of consciousness.” Even at the mation. Gibson is aware that this re- outset Gibson analyzed and mercilessly sounding is a metaphor,7 but he counters criticized the popular belief—common to that it is a better and more coherent met- not a few scientists—that the retinal image aphor than those of transmitting logic. is transmitted to the brain. For him al- Ecological optics and the pickup infor- ready in his time there were more sophis- mation theory complete Gibson’s vision.8 ticated versions of the same fallacy, which Given the ecological-psychophysical ap- necessarily presupposed the theory of the proach, light cannot be considered as a homunculus, i.e., “someone” or “some- function of classical optics or as a function thing” becomes necessary in the inside of of the physiological optics inaugurated by our mind-brain, that sees (directly, of Helmholtz for the interior of the eye. In its course) that “terminal image.” To speak, place, Gibson proposes a new optics, as is done today, of neuronal engrams rep- something previously nonexistent, but resenting the “psychological subject,” whose basic lines he began to establish in would be seen by Gibson, once again, as a SCPS and continued to mature in EAVP. more sophisticated version of the same To clarify with an example, he establishes fallacy. a difference between radiant light, which is Assumed scientific categories, con- transmitted and measured by scientific structivism, and indirect perception medi- units, and ambient light, that type of static ated by mental representations necessarily “sea,” the product of infinite reflections of go together. So also do the ecological level light and forming part of the ecological and direct perception.6 medium of light as that by means of which we see.9 It is not something transmitted
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 136 Alfonso de la Puerta González-Quevedo ______but something that is situated (this the simplest and best form of knowledge.14 sounds so much like Zubiri). The ambient All this also implies a new theory about light contains the invariants10 of optical the non-perceptual forms of conscious- structure that would be directly captured11 ness, such as dreams, hallucinations, by our perceptual systems. Gibson’s meta- memories, etc. He responds that the visu- phor states that our senses “go outside” al system that extracts certain invariants15 and directly capture ambient optical distri- from the flow of stimulation can function bution. Finally, he assigns special im- without the constrictions of that flow while portance to what he calls the principles of separating later from the stimulation. reversible occlusion, and the occluding He returns to the idea of affordances edge. These principles require very little that he earlier introduced in SCPS. We description, since almost everything ap- might define them as impelling possibilities pears in their names. Nevertheless, they of stimulation as a function of the struc- express in condensed form an essential tures and needs of the animal. In the hu- nucleus of the ecological optics12 of direct man being they include meanings and perception. In addition, they hold very values. And they are directly perceived. important consequences for psychology This supposes for him the apex of his eco- and epistemology. What underlies this is logical optics and a new approach to psy- that what is seen now and what is seen chology. from here is specified by the ego, not the Gibson Seen from Zubiri’s Perspec- environment. While admitting the percep- tive16 tion of the ego on the same footing as the perception of the environment, Gibson Our second17 major hypothesis is that suggests that the latter perception is time- “ecological” in Gibson is equivalent to the less, and that the past-present-future dis- physical-sentient in Zubiri. Gibson makes tinctions are relevant only for the con- it clear he is dealing with an approach sciousness of the ego. He proposes sur- both to perception and to psychology. To- mounting the doctrine whereby perception day in cognitive sciences it is said that the is to be restricted to the present moment, model of mind is determined by the model and everything else is memory. Perception of perception. I would say that they co- can extend to past and future because it is determine each other, since perception, given in time and in movement. Kaplan’s according to Zubiri, is a psycho-organic experiment of 1969 decisively demonstrat- act. These are the philosophical supposi- ed, according to Gibson, that we also per- tions of modern science. If the first philos- ceive things of which we have no sensation ophy fails, the search loses orientation, at the present moment (hidden), and that and the reception of empirical data is mis- these things cannot any under circum- placed.18 stances be described as remembered.13 The theories criticized by Gibson use In accordance with this posing of the the categories of science at the outset. issue, according to Gibson, the old prob- They begin by conceiving space as physics lems of the permanence of the object, per- does, as a geometric abstraction that shel- ceptual constancy, and so many other per- ters bodies, for which we have no sensible plexing points that for centuries have re- impressions, and continue with light con- sisted analysis of philosophers and psy- ceived in terms of photons or electromag- chologists vanish forever like mist. netic waves, passing through receptors Finally, we can ask how Gibson de- and nerve cells until reaching the postula- scribes what is postulated as mental repre- tion of inner images. But in the ecological sentations. For Gibson his theory does not approach, there is no space19 but the me- rest on itself. It implies a new theory of dium, no radiant but ambient light, no knowledge in general. “To know” is an physical but ecological optics. Sensations extension of “to perceive.” To perceive is are merely incidental and the senses are
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 J. J. Gibson´s Psychology of Perception from Zubiri´s Standpoint 137 ______perceptual systems that extract the infor- Instead, contrariwise, Zubiri tells us mation in “field simultaneity” of environ- that it is perception that breaks into the mental optical distribution. There is no unfortunately denoted “subject” and “ob- transmission, but we enter into direct ject.” Zubiri’s sentient intelligence (or in- communication with the things we see. tellective sensing), as well as the ecological Our nerve structures “resound” with them. approach, preserve the unity of the act of Of course there are no mental representa- perception, becaue perception is direct. tions in the “inner theatre of conscious- The underlying logic is that of field simul- ness.” Speaking of the ecological ap- taneity. This is only possible with what proach, Gibson intends for this to encom- Zubiri calls actuality. pass all necessary levels through which Actuality does not mean the condition the study of perception can be broached, of being an act (actuity). The condition of by which one must begin. It is a question, being an act (actuity) would come from the hence, of a phenomenology which we see act of Aristotelian potential. It would be greatly in tune with Zubiri’s realism. The real and effective fullness of being, which level of scientific reason, let us recall, is in our context we can correlate, among always something lying beyond.20 other things, with the level of actuations of Our third major hypothesis consti- things in receptors, with their interactions. tutes a development of the first: it is the But actuality on the level at which percep- radical philosophical supposition, con- tion takes place is not the condition of scious or not, which errs in theories that being an act. Actuality means “being here- Gibson criticizes, and also in those that and-now present” from the standpoint of criticize him.21 If perception is conceived oneself because of being real, while em- as a synthesis of subject and object, we phasizing the “being” of “being here-and- have dualism right from the outset, and now present.”22 It is something noergic.23 our attempts to free ourselves from it will It apprehends the real, it is intellective,24 be in vain, because the unity of the per- and at the same time something physi- ceptual act has been lost at the point of cal,25 something sentient. It does not need departure. We say this because it is im- to come to reality, because it is already possible to escape a “transmitting” or “pro- situated within it and is “at one,” a situa- jective” logic. It is what I call “the con- tion of the thing in us, and our being situ- structivist journey”, with the light rays hit- ated in the thing. This is unity. In reality ting the objects that reflect them, the it is a question of a co-actuality. The thing transductions of energy in our interior, the qua perceived and I qua perceiver are in nerve impulses, sensory organization, and the same act of perception. This is unity. It the construction of the terminal image in is also unity of what is intentional (intelli- the “theatre of consciousness,” where, to gence or nous) and what is physical (ergon) be sure, the homunculus will be necessary in the noergic part of actuality. Sentient or—but which, in the final analysis, would intelligence is no longer merely intentional. be a more sophisticated version of the The dualism sensing/making intelligible, same fallacy, according to Gibson—the expressed in psychology as sensation and neuronal engrams that represent the “psy- perception, and in many other forms, has chological subject.” As can be seen, this been surmounted. entire heap of nonsense originates with This means that the actualizations of the duality of the point of departure. Per- the condition of being an act26 will always ception would then be irremediably indi- go too far afield27 with respect to the actu- rect, that is, mediated by mental represen- alizations of actuality.28 Hence, we could tations, inferences, etc., in sum, by the correlate Gibson’s relationship stimulus addition of the mind. All this also implies information with Zubiri’s notion of actuali- inexorably mechanicism and mind-body ty, and the relationship stimulus energy29 dualism. with the state of being an act (actuity), just
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 138 Alfonso de la Puerta González-Quevedo ______as radiant light, measured by the catego- does not perceive the same as a six-year- ries of physical science, go hand in hand old child, as an adolescent of sixteen, as with the condition of being an act (actuity), an adult of sixty. Where does the differ- while ambient light and ecological optics go ence lie? Apparently, the mental struc- hand in hand with actuality. tures so acquired make the difference. For the human being, affordances The issue here would be the role that sim- would be the equivalent of Zubiri’s idea of ple apprehensions play, the roll through the meaning-thing, which would go unreality, in Zubiri, in perceptual learning, “mounted” atop the reality-thing. We are in the sense that we have remarked about on the level of socio-cultural symbolic Piaget. Though Gibson concerned himself meanings, which in Zubiri is given in the to a degree about the theme of learning in logos. Let us recall that they are neither his first book PVW, usually insists stub- physical nor phenomenal, but ecological. bornly that there is no enrichment of the Perception is a psycho-organic act. This input, but that what basically progresses is leads us to the construct system of human the education of attention and the abililty substantivity in Zubiri, with its organic to extract the inexhaustible wealth of in- and physic subsystems. Only from this formation contained in the environmental standpoint can the dualisms be coherently light of the ambiance. Here Gibson seems surmounted. In Zubiri co-herence is what to need some important corrections and is proper to the construct system of hu- qualifications. These would be along the man substantivity, wherein every note is a lines that, although the origin of all learn- note-of-all-the-others, co-herent with all of ing is in reality itself—we believe that di- them; substantivity in Zubiri’s philosophy rect perception, the impassioned intuition takes the place of substance/subject of in- of Gibson, would point toward primordial herent properties. Thus what is psychic or apprehension30 as understood by Zubiri— mental and what is organic are only sub- nonetheless not everything is simply a systems without substantivity. Only the question of progress of attention. Or at human being as a system has constitu- least the latter would have to be grounded tional sufficiency, which defines substan- on the duality of the logos: simple appre- tivity. Thus everything organic is psychic hensions play a role, although ultimately and everything psychic is organic. What is they must be realized in what is primordi- psychic would be our turn toward reality. ally apprehended. And in perceptual learn- Co-herence surmounts the dualisms be- ing, acquired mentality, constituted by the cause only in it is there system, that is, building of cerebro-mental structures as unity. Piaget shows, would have to play a role In intimate connection with what has and would correspond to the gradual im- already been said, in Zubiri would there be provement of those simple apprehensions. no mental representations and this would We will consider this at greater length be- harmonize with the alternative that Gibson low. But before that we will characterize offers to non-perceptual psychic phenom- the two important positions. ena: dreams, hallucinations, memories… Let us follow a symbolism, inspired in There exist, though, some critical ob- Gestalt psychology,31 and consider the servations to make of Gibson from Zubiri’s figure-ground dichotomy. The concrete standpoint. Let us focus on perceptual discussion is going to play the role of the learning. We call to mind the stages of the figure; and Gibson and Zubiri’s opposition development of intelligence according to to—let us say—the dominant ideology in Piaget, which involve an entire perceptual the fields of psychology and philosophy in learning, as a function of different mentali- respect to the problem of our concerns, is ties or mental structures that the child going to play the role of the background. has been building in his interaction with We pretend, then, that the contrast be- the world. It is obvious that a newborn tween figure and ground offers us a depth
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 J. J. Gibson´s Psychology of Perception from Zubiri´s Standpoint 139 ______dimension perspective of our question by controversy that has been endlessly de- the lines connecting them. Let us start bated by philosophers and scientists.34 We with the ground of our two opposing men- note that, in his way, Zubiri tries to an- talities: swer it throughout his last work, the trilo- gy on sentient intelligence, which retro- The two positions spectively illuminates all his former work, Let us start with Fodor and Pylyshyn’s and thereby also illuminates our question. famous article (1981, see bibliography) in According to Zubiri, the origin of much of which they think they have argued strong- Western philosophy’s dualisms comes in ly that there will not be a Gibsonian revo- no small measure from the dualism be- lution in cognitive psychology. In contrast tween sensing and intellection. However, to this view our modest study is pointing this trilogy forcefully establishes that, in the same direction as the words of the though sensing and intellection are for- great neurologist Edelman: mally distinct, human sensing, unlike an- imal sensing, is intellective35. Or, what is But I must also add that the cognitive the same, intellective knowing is sentient. enterprise rests on a set of unex- amined assumptions. One of its most The problems that have crystallized as a curious deficiencies is that it makes result of this confusion are called by only marginal reference to the biologi- Zubiri logification of intellection and the 36 cal foundations that underlie the congeneric entification of reality, to which mechanisms it purports to explain. we alluded earlier. When Gibson charac- The result is a scientific deviation as terizes the theories that he criticizes as great as that of the behaviorism it has theories of perception based on sensation, attempted to supplant. The critical er- he says that it is a question of “the deliver- rors underlying this deviation are as ies of the senses to the mind.” Coincidenc- unperceived by most cognitive scien- es between Gibson and Zubiri are striking. tist as relativity was before Einstein The latter characterizes this mentality as and heliocentrism was before Coper- conceiving intelligence, unlike his sentient nicus.”32 intelligence. In Gibson, all his work, but very expressively the title of his second Gibson himself repeatedly expressed simi- book, is fully in line with this: The Senses lar opinions, saying that the many experi- Considered as Perceptual Systems (SCPS), ments done by constructivist cognitive not as mere channels of sensation. Gibson psychology were focused wrongly. He did also dedicated considerable efforts to try- not say they lack any value, but argued ing to imagine how and why this wrong that they must be reinterpreted. We be- state of affairs has historically been pro- lieve, with the disciples of Gibson, authors duced, given its volume. And so back in of the 1981 work Ecological Laws of per- pre-historic times, there was the projective ceiving and acting: In reply to Fodor and nature of shadows, whether from sunlight Pylyshyn, that his ecological approach to or fire, and later, the myth of Plato’s cave, perception is revolutionary, and basically at the origin of Western philosophy, in 33 correct. Why then, this state of errone- which the shadows of objects also project ous theories, put forth by a significant on the wall of the cave. This is what he minority? This is not the place to try to calls the “fundamental graphic act,” at formulate a response to this great and first scribbles, and then drawing and complex question. Gibson’s disciples cor- paintings on the cave walls, until the in- rectly point out that the debate between vention of writing, up through the discov- the position of the Establishment, repre- ery of perspective by Renaissance painters, sented by Fodor and Pylyshyn at that and the invasion of all kind of representa- time, and the ecological stance they advo- tions (paintings, photographs, film, televi- cate, should be considered part of a larger sion, symbols of all kinds in two dimen-
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 140 Alfonso de la Puerta González-Quevedo ______sions, etc.) in modern culture. This secular these concepts as inferred mental tradition would be at the origin of the pic- structures or processes. Conceptualiz- ture theory of perception. In modern phi- ing vision along the lines of a camera losophy and psychology that yielded the obscura is an early instance of this representational theory of perception, the tendency. More modern examples in- idea that we perceive through mental im- clude viewing the mind/brain as a tel- ages in two dimensions (representations), ephone switchboard, a sequential pro- to which the action of the mind must be cessing computer, or most recently, as added in order to perceive three dimen- a parallel processing system. Like sions. It is not that traces of distance and these developments –although per- depth dimension are not found in stimuli, haps less obviously –mental represen- but rather that mechanicism in modern tations, now so central to cognitive culture has produced the pernicious effect theories, are in the first instance, fea- of the distorting influence of technology in tures of the world… the popular mind and in a great number of …What the emphasis on mental rep- scientists. So Gibson is engaged in dis- resentations has succeeded in doing is mantling one of the biggest fallacies in this to deflect attention away from the role field: that the image of the retina is trans- that representations as features of our mitted to the brain. This fallacy may adopt environment play in our daily transac- tions. In turn, this emphasis on men- sophisticated ways, but it is the basis of tal representation has misled us all conceptions of projective logic we have about the nature of cognition itself.”38 grouped under the term “constructivist journey.” But let us focus on what the title of our epigraph says to try to make a concrete Even the more sophisticated theory contribution to the debate. Let us go be- that the retinal image is transmitted as signals in the fiber of the optic yond the background problem, and illus- nerve has the lurking implication of a trate with the figure of a specific problem, little man in the brain. For these sig- which, by the way, we believe represents nals must be in code and therefore something nuclear. have to be decoded; signals are mes- sages and messages have to be inter- The pickup of information and the in- preted. In both theories, the eye variants of optical structure (Gibson)/ sends, the nerve transmits, and a recurrences and simple apprehensions mind or spirit receives. Both theories (Zubiri) carry the implication of a mind that is This section title expresses something separate from a body.37 related to—but is not identical with—the fundamental point of disagreement be- Let us also quote the eloquent words of the tween the two mentalities,39 focusing espe- book Ecological Psychology in Context cially on how the article by Fodor and Py- (Harry Heft, 2001) to illustrate the influ- lyshyn represents the Establishment.40 ence of technology on current theories of Criticism of this article and the prompt perception and cognition, especially in response of Gibson’s disciples M.T. Tur- psychology: vey, R.E. Shaw, E.S. Reed and W.M. Mace, The practice by philosophers and psy- 1981 (see bibliography), are full of im- chologists of using the idea of repre- portant nuances, some of which we will sentation to describe an essential fea- discuss. This is where Zubiri comes in. ture of mind reflects a long-standing While we are unequivocally with Gibson’s tendency to import as concepts arti- followers in this controversy, we have yet facts found in the world “into” the to pinpoint why we think that the criticism black box of the mind, and to use of Fodor and Pylyshyn is understandable
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 J. J. Gibson´s Psychology of Perception from Zubiri´s Standpoint 141 ______
(though we do not agree with it in the portant subtle modifications. And these end). The Gibsonian position is passionate would come, in our view, following Zubiri, because it has captured the root of the by the hand of recurrences which inevita- error of the widespread opposite mentality. bly put our being fluently in reality, and And it has to do with realism. It is not which, in turn, inexorably require the de- surprising that one of the major intellec- tour by irreality. It is the irreality of simple tual roots of Gibson was the radical empir- apprehensions (percepts, ficta46 and con- icism of William James, albeit mostly cepts), which play a role in all perception. through his disciple Edwin B. Holt and his Let’s look a little more in detail the issue. philosophical behaviorism.41 Fodor and It is not that perception is indirect, it Pylyshyn insist that, however interpreted, is not. To begin we must clarify what we in the end we will run into the problem of mean by perception. While Zubiri some- the inevitability of inferences, or mental times uses this term, the term used pref- representations, or intentionality.42 Let us erably in his most definitive and mature quote them towards the end of their arti- work, the trilogy on the sentient intelli- cle: gence, is apprehension. This is also a phil- osophical context of noology,47 or philoso- Missing the point about inference, phy of intellective knowing. Zubiri states missing the point about mental repre- that noology (philosophy of intellective sentations, and missing the point about intentionality are thus all as- knowing), and metaphysics (philosophy of reality) are strictly congeneric. We cannot pects of missing the same point.43 speak of our apprehension of reality with- What do we think is right in Gibson? He is out necessarily referring to the reality we right: perception, ultimately,44 is direct. apprehend. Both the charters of intelli- But it is not only because of that, but be- gence and the charters of reality are in- cause of the overall coherence of all his volved in the act of apprehension, as analysis and proposals, and because of hs Zubiri likes to say. This means that man focus on the ecological approach, which is communicates directly with reality. Moreo- the right point of departure. Otherwise, as ver, he says: he used to say, we would be “putting the cart before the horse”. What fails in Gib- And indeed, by the mere fact of here- and-now apprehending things as real- son, and why do we think he needs ity ... man finds himself inexorably Zubiri’s critical foundation? 45 We describe bound to reality. Bound to reality, but it as follows: the profound truth of his also, secondly, swollen with reality. So radical intuition, his defense of a new orig- swollen, that nothing, not even the ir- inal model of perception, and the light that real, falls outside reality. He is bound this sheds on a new approach to psycholo- to and swollen with reality, but also gy, have led him to underestimate the rel- driven by the real, and physically evance of some arguments of his oppo- dragged along. Now, none of these nents. These arguments contain portions three characteristics is formally the of truth, and so are worth more patient distinction between the character of consideration by him. Of course, the pur- reality and its contents....The distinc- pose is not to take them literally, but to tion between the character of reality reinterpret their criticism in a way that, we and its content becomes, in the intel- think, lends them the attention they de- lective act, something different; it turs served. In this way they would have been into the creation of the scope, the able to provide a non-negligible role in the scope of reality, where man will in- consolidation of his basically correct intui- clude not only the things he actually tions. We believe that his theory of infor- perceives, but also the things that he mation pickup in conjunction with his the- ory of perceptual invariants needs im-
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 142 Alfonso de la Puerta González-Quevedo ______
creates. It is the real scope of irreali- sensing. Neither that purely sensible zation.48 sensing that empiricists talk about, nor even the intellective sensing of the We need never “come to reality”, but impression of reality. Because that we are already and always installed, irref- would be to sense; but it would not be utably, in reality. We are reality, every- to have experience….The integration thing is reality, and there is nothing that of the irreal, a figuration, into the real, is not reality. Even the irreal, simple ap- is just this: experience. “51 prehensions, are “really irreal”, they are reality, although in the form of irreality.49 And he defines perceiving thus: The human being inexorably forges the Now, testing in this case is not simply irreal (percepts, ficta and concepts) in or- to capture what I have ahead. This der to be in reality fluently, because of a would be purely and simply to feel. functional necessity. The human being But it consists in noticing52 that is ex- has to make its life; it has to choose be- actly the same. However, to notice is tween possibilities, freely. This way it also the vulgar manner of expressing what builds the figure of its substantive being. the Latin verb per-captare means, And for that it must to rely on things. But from per-caeptio, which is just percep- for that it needs to recognize them: this is tion….That is the first mode of experi- where, inevitably, our being fluent in reali- ence: the experience of the sameness ty cannot consist in mere sensing, in the of a recurring object is precisely what flow of always-new content in the stream we call the per-caeptio, perception; of consciousness, to use William James’ this is the direct perception of the famous expression. If so, Zubiri says, in- sensed, with respect to what is figured stead of living and making our lives, in recurrence. .... In this sense, expe- choosing between options, and relying on rience is the experience of sameness53, things, “we would just let ourselves live.” not in an incidental way, but formally. With reference to psychologists, let us Perhaps psychologists would disagree mention the classically so-called perceptu- with that, but I would argue with al constancy, which has to do with what them about it.54 Gibson called the direct pickup of invari- That is to say, to perceive is an expe- ants, and what Zubiri called recurrences.50 rience of us, which would put us in the This is where one can introduce an im- charters of intelligence, which, as we have portant nuance. While in some contexts explained, are the charters of our sensing, Zubiri used the terms apprehension and which is an intellective sensing. What does perception interchangeably, there is a dif- it mean to say that it is our experience, ference between the two in his work. In his although an immediate experience? It course, published as a book, Man, the Real means that to make our life, to choose and the Unreal (HRI), Zubiri does study among possibilities, we approach things, perception, and characterizes it as percep- in the recurrences, figuring out what they tual experience. Before doing so, he ex- would be, and integrating our figuration plores the meaning of experience, distin- (the irreal) into the moment of primordial guishing up to five meanings. Finally he apprehension of the directly sensed. Our defines the one we are interested in here simple apprehensions (percepts, ficta55and thus: concepts) ultimately come from our experi- Experience is constitutive and formal ence with reality. They constitute that testing, testing if things indeed are or which earlier in this paper—recalling Pia- are not as we have esteemed them— get’s, theories—I have called the “mentality and not by reasoning, but precisely by gained mentality by an ‘experienced’ per- immediate contact with them….For ceiver,” that mentality with which things this reason experience is not mere are perceived; it may not be the same as
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 J. J. Gibson´s Psychology of Perception from Zubiri´s Standpoint 143 ______that of an inexperienced perceiver, say a here-and-now”, in which the two jurisdic- newborn. tions are compactly, because this is what Gibson, and especially his first wife, constitutes sensing. Gibson for his part Eleanor J. Gibson, addressed the issue of quotes the Scottish philosopher Thomas perceptual learning, and thought specifi- Reid who drew attention to the two regions cally on the topic: “What do we learn when opened by our senses. Thus we see that we learn to perceive? In articles prior to not always, although almost always, phi- his last book, the most definitive, Gibson losophy went astray on the otherness of focuses, in collaboration with his wife, on human sensing, qua sensing, as Zubiri the central issue of whether there is an used to say. A philosopher who inspired enrichment of a poor inputor a progressive Gibson affirmed it and is worth quoting differentiation.56 The conclusion falls on literally60: the side of progressive differentiation. The external senses have a double And in his last book, published short- province; to make us feel, and to ly before his death, he summarizes the make us perceive. They furnish us issue of perceptual learning in terms of with a variety of sensations, some exploration and especially education of pleasant, others painful, and others attention, as a result of which pickups of indifferent; at the same time they give information become finer and more elabo- us a conception, and an invincible be- rate; that is, one achieves finer and more lief of the existence of external objects. elaborate distinctions, which are always This conception of external objects is made directly to the inexhaustible infor- the work of nature. The belief of their mation contained in our environment. existence, which our senses give, is We think that Gibson could not rec- the work of nature; so likewise is the ognize any kind of duality in perception. sensation that accompanies it. This The consistency of all his proposals and conception and belief which nature theories was at stake. However Zubiri said produces by means of the senses, we that inherently there are dualities in per- call perception. The feeling that goes ceptual experience. Above all there is the along with the perception, we call duality between the real thing and its field sensation. The perception and its cor- of reality.57 Each real thing grounds its responding sensation are produced at field of reality, every thing is in reality it- the same time. In our experience we self. There is a cyclical respectivity be- never find them disjoined. Hence we tween each thing and its field.58 Things are are led to consider them as one thing, inter alia. As we are midfield, then it would to give them one name, and to con- be the duality between the perceived and found their different attributes. It be- the perceiver. Today it is well known that comes very difficult to separate them in 20th century philosophy all phenomeno- in thought, to attend to each by itself, logical theories as well as others have gone and to attribute nothing to it which beyond the subject-object dichotomy in belongs to the other (Essays on the In- the theory of knowledge, and, therefore, in tellectual Powers of Man, II, p. 17).61 the conception of perception. It has to do When I touch a piece of cold metal, in with what we said earlier on that there is the same sensing is how it affects me, my in Zubiri a congeneric relationship between skin, my flesh, and me as a whole, wheth- the jurisdictions of intellective knowing (or er the cold metal touches me or I touch it. intellective sensing, say perception), and On the other hand—but in the same sens- the charters of reality (the perceived). Sen- ing—there is the region of the other-than- tient intelligence (or intellective sensing) is me that I sense in my sensing, in this here-and-now in the real perceived, and case, the metal that I am sensing in its the perceived is here-and-now in our intel- hardness, in its texture and in its cold- lective sensing.59 But it is the same “being
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 144 Alfonso de la Puerta González-Quevedo ______ness. Admirable, but no doubt there are of other things. We do not have the same “two things in one” in the “starting point,” appearance when dressed in a particular two realities, analytically distinguishable, way, or hair arranged in a certain way, but not separate, because they are in the than we do in other ways. And, as an es- same sentient act. Here we have the duali- sential part of the field of reality, we are as ty in a unitary act of direct perception. We midfield; as we said the perceived in and give the name “apprehension” to this direct the perceiver are inseparable in apprehen- communication with reality, unmediated sion. Things have relations (in the lan- (by mental representations or the like), guage of ecological psychology) or have and direct in this sense, not indirect, un- respectivities (in the language of Zubiri), mediated. But duality is also at the root. It between them, and between them and is not, as in Kant, some kind of experience us.64 Finally, Zubiri says, man is the geo- by synthesis of the perceiver and the per- metrical locus of reality. The first respectiv- ceived. Rather on the contrary, and in line ities would be integrated into our percep- with phenomenology,62 Zubiri will say, it is tion. That is, we perceive a thing from the rather a dis-integration of the poorly- standpoint of other, previously perceived named “subject” and the poorly-named things, even to form the elemental and “object”, as already explained. And that is constitutive experience of all perception because we start from the radical unity of that psychologists call object permanence, the perceptive act. From the epistemic perceptual constancy. Not only constancy point of view this unity is prior and more of the who (the individual), but constancy fundamental than the aforementioned of the what (the species). The perceptual duality, as we have just expressed. It is experience always carries constitutively from this phenomenological unity that we inherent the experience of these same- have called “apprehension,” which puts us nesses. And William James said, according into direct communication with the real, to Harry Heft, that percepts and concepts that we can subsequently access either the are continuously melded. And perceiving a charters of reality or the charters of sen- thing in terms of other previously per- tient intelligence (that is to say intellective ceived things, we have, according to sensing; it could also be read as “percep- Zubiri, at once a primordial apprehension tion”). In our being fluent in reality, with of reality, involved, or encapsulated, as it different contents streaming, we live mov- were, in the duality alluded to earlier. ing, even when we seem to be still. In this That is to say, there is the duality of, first, flow recurrences are inevitable, and ac- the simple apprehensions (percepts, ficta cording to Zubiri this occurs continuously, and concepts, or the irreality of the char- viz. the merger or integration of the real ters of intelligence), with, on the other side and the irreal of our simple apprehensions (but cast or integrated with the above), (percepts, ficta and concepts). We perceive, what was previously apprehended in pri- we have the perceptual experience of the mordial apprehension (that is to say, the new merged with what we recognize. Gib- charters of the reality in which we are in- son and the ecological psychology speak stalled). Another metaphor to express it about “persistence and change,” for exam- would be to say that in perception, which ple, in our locomotion. We perceive when is always direct and unitary, a root, a pri- we recognize, or when we capture what mordial apprehension of reality, is always remains and does not change in the mid- given; although this root is displayed un- dle of changes (as Gibson would say), or folding in certain branches (which Zubiri (as Zubiri says) one thing from the stand- called the “duality of logos,” because one point of another thing. Zubiri says that in thing is perceived in terms of others) that the field of reality we perceive a thing are the charters of intelligence: percepts, among others.63 But we can also say that ficta and concepts. we perceive one thing from the standpoint
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 J. J. Gibson´s Psychology of Perception from Zubiri´s Standpoint 145 ______
However, this integration or realiza- the notes perceived as something that is tion of the irreal (percepts, ficta, concepts) “in its own right”. In its own right here in the real previously perceived in primor- means autonomy or independence in re- dial apprehension, which has to do with spect to anything, and in respect to the perceptual constancy (and, therefore, with apprehendor itself, as a prius. But for this what Gibson called the direct pickup of to happen, to constitute the real in percep- invariants), is directly involved in the con- tion, human beings inexorably need, ac- stitution of reality. This is the important cording to Zubiri, being surrounded by the concept of formalization in the philosophy irreal: of Zubiri, which has to do with the concept In this perception, so quickly de- explained above, formality. Formality is the scribed, we are dealing with a testing way that content stays in the sentient ap- or experience. We are not talking prehension. And we saw two basic ways of about opening one’s eyes and seeing formality: formality of stimulus, in the the world in just any way, but in a mere animal, and the formality of reality, perfect and direct testing. Man goes in the human animal. Formalization is the about assembling the chain recurring modulation of formality, modulation of the and substantive things based on test- independence or autonomy of the sensed ings; so a moment of irreality inter- content, in respect to other contents, and venes: just what I esteem is the thing, in respect to the apprehendor. Formaliza- the same thing. And secondly, there is tion is precisely the “unity” of the sensed a moment of presentation of the real content.65 And therefore it will have every- thing in perception.67 thing to do with elaboration of the real, which is no stranger to the so called “per- But let us go back to the root, the ceptual constancy,” (which the direct primordial apprehension, and its branch- pickup of invariants in Gibson accounts es. These branches are not only enrich- for). There are variations and invariances ment of the content because of the logos, in recurrences, uniting in this phrase but also by reason. But let us give some Zubiri’s recurrences with variations and minimum references to the reader not fa- invariance in Gibson. According to Zubiri miliar with Zubiri, on the latter point. (Gibson also used this term) to come to For Zubiri, perception is given in the perceive “the same” table, there is a pro- logos, involving primordial apprehension. cess, not of abstraction but selection: This primordial apprehension of reality is the basic form of sentient intellection (or Indeed, certain recurring moments are intellective sensing); and it is the root of all selected in order to say, “these are intellection, although it is never given this table, the same table, and the alone, but, as it were, with its branches. other are events that happen to the The logos, where the phenomenon of per- same table: different lighting, different ception is given, is a modalization or de- 66 distances, different perspective, etc.” ployment of primordial apprehension; it is Zubiri tells us that we proceed by a mode of ulterior actualization of what is leaving these vicissitudes aside, and that already intelligized (sensed) in primordial formalization is precisely the factor playing apprehension, but without leaving the a crucial role on it. And in the human an- apprehension. If intellection is for Zubiri imal, psycho-physiological structures are the mere actuality of the real in the sen- hyper-formalized, i.e., formalizing the tient intelligence, the logos is nothing but stimuli apprehended as real. The formali- a reactualization of what was previously zation depends on the psycho- intelligized (sensed). And what is actuality physiological structures of the animal. for Zubiri? We saw briefly in the first part “Real” means that the unity of the sensed of the article: actuality means “being here- possesses the cutting or unitary profile of and-now present” from the standpoint of
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 146 Alfonso de la Puerta González-Quevedo ______oneself because of being real (while ac- of overcoming the insurmountable dichot- centing the “being here-and-now” of “being omy, harshly criticized by our two authors, here-and-now present”). Present to what? and to which both proposed solid solu- It depends on the context, on what you tions. It is—recalling the famous example consider.68 But in our case, let us think of cited by Gibson in SCPS71—to overcome our sentient intelligence. And so actuality, the paradox of the two tables of Edding- translated as “being here-and-now pre- ton.72 One would be the familiar table, on sent”, communicates directly, in appre- which I study, or I write, or I eat. The oth- hension, the real as perceived (the being), er is the scientific table, composed of at- with the sensor, to which it makes pre- oms, molecules, energy. Eddington said, sent. We put the accent on the being here- according to Gibson, that the table is only and-now to emphasize the apprehensive “a swarm of atoms,” and that, according to character of our direct communication physics, the objects that are on it do not with the real of the environment. As we really touch it; there would be a bom- said earlier, in this apprehension there are bardment of molecules, and that, in fact, “two things in one”, although the appre- the familiar table, like “the earthly world of hension is the unitary root of our direct surfaces, objects, places and events”, is a and immediate contact with reality. But fiction, because to the world of physics this root is split into a duality. Or we could only those particles exist. Zubiri has ech- say that the root continues to a stalk from oed this major problem and has spoken of which a branch sprouts. That branch the scandal of modern science.73 For many would be the logos we have mentioned scientists and philosophers sensible quali- above. And it is in the logos where our ties are subjective: everyday perception occurs. So we said If it is an ingenuous realism—and it that perception is given in the logos “that is—to make sensible qualities into involves the primordial apprehension”. We properties of things outside of percep- also said that the deployment, or modali- tion, it is an ingenuous subjectivism zation or reactualization of what was pre- to declare them simply subjective. viously intelligized (sensed) in primordial Real things are set off in some zone apprehension, was given “without leaving beyond perception, and everything the apprehension”. And reason? This is else is put into the zone of the subjec- another question. tive.74 Reason will be of paramount im- portance in the study of perception, in the So in our issue of perception, neither critical foundation of Gibson’s ecological psychologists or physicists, biologists or approach to perception. To rescue ecologi- physiologists, or philosophers (though it cal psychology from the margins69 the level depends on whom you ask) know where to of reason is also primary. For in reason, house the color.75 The scandal is—to men- yes we escape from apprehension, in the tion another aspect of the same thing— conceptualization of Zubiri, and we access that science has ignored explanation of reality in depth, categorized by science. sensible qualities, and does not tell us a Though the logos enriches the content70 of word about how the physicochemical and primordial apprehension, maintaining the psycho-physiological processes inside our same formality of reality, and without leav- bodies produce sensible qualities such as ing apprehension, in reason, we progress color or sound, or what these qualities in from the field to the world. Or, if preferred, their formal reality are. Phenomenology we progress from “reality at the surface merely describes them. Zubiri qualifies as level” to” reality in depth”. We think this scandalous that what is ignored is what, latter formulation is clearer to psycholo- in the last analysis, is the foundation of all gists, scientists and philosophers in gen- real knowledge. This situation is science’s eral, and for all readers. It has the virtue responsibility, according to Zubiri.76 In the
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 J. J. Gibson´s Psychology of Perception from Zubiri´s Standpoint 147 ______same vein two young followers of Gibson mind; and we consider that the solution said as early as 1981: he brings to us is is not only highly solvent and solid, but fascinating. Stemming from A good measure of philosophical remote origins in ancient Greece, the prob- thinking will be needed just to gener- lem goes back centuries in modernity. Let ate the questions about the essential nature of a knowing agent that theory us recall again the problem of the division and experiment will address. It is not of sensible qualities into primary and sec- that the problem is a new one; it is ondary by Descartes and Galileo. From not. Nevertheless, the problem has of- there it went to other philosophers and ten been avoided, perhaps because of scientists like Locke. It is interesting to the apparent recalcitrance of the quote the above authors, Michaels and problems of purpose and intentionali- Carello, regarding the dualism of “the per- ty for a science trying to deal with ob- ceiver and the perceived” that represents servables. the division of the qualities as primary and secondary mentioned before, dualism that However, in the face of the seemingly has covered much of the history of philo- obvious truths that knowing implies sophical and scientific thought: someone who knows, and that what is known and how it is known cannot be Perhaps the most fundamental prem- indifferent to who knows, the time has ise to which we would object is that come to squarely face these issues. objects have certain properties while Psychologists who are hesitant to ideas about objects have certain other tread on this terra incognita or who properties. At issue for us is not so feel that the ecological psychologists’ much whether the object in the head “obvious truths” above are misty or (idea) and the object in the world have spiritual exhortations should recog- different properties, but whether it nize that similar exhortations have makes sense to consider them as two been coming from the other side of objects.78 science. Quantum mechanics has its The interesting thing that these au- own “algorist problems” in trying to thors are telling us here for us is their understand what it means to observe. brilliant intuition along the lines not just Shaw and McIntyre (1974) quote of Gibson, but of Zubiri and his primordial Winger (1970): apprehension. Not that they or Gibson …the basic concept in the epistemo- noticed the difference between the primor- logical structure of physics is the con- dial apprehension and the logos (this is cept of observation and … psychology one of the main shortcomings of Gibson is not yet ready for providing concepts and ecological psychology, but fortunately and idealizations of such precision as we have Zubiri), but they do make a con- are expected in mathematics or even ceptualization that confronts the dominant physics. (p.37)77 positions (wrong in their judgment and in It can be seen that some people are aware ours) based on a direct perception which of the philosophical problems that under- they do not withdraw, and that in our view lie modern science, including psychology; points towards Zubiri’s primordial appre- problems, moreover, that are old and re- hension. And then they make a conceptu- calcitrant in themselves, which Gibson alization that we see consistent with the himself said have occupied the most prom- primordial apprehension, where there inent thinkers of history. We simply say— would be compactly the charters of intelli- though humbly and modestly—that the gence (or intellective sense) and the char- Spanish philosopher Xavier Zubiri, is, in ters of reality, in the same being, in the our view, one of those heads in Gibson’s same sensing, as explained. This is what makes the question consistent whether it
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 148 Alfonso de la Puerta González-Quevedo ______would make sense to consider two differ- the primordial apprehension appre- ent objects. According to Zubiri, from this hends reality. The intellection of the compaction we can try to access either the most poor reality intellectively known charters of intelligence or the charters of in the primordial apprehension is im- reality. It is the same spirit in which the mensely richer as intellection than the above mentioned Scottish philosopher intellection of reality in its ulterior Thomas Reid expresses himself. But let us modes. It is only as referred to the return to the topic of reason and to our primordial apprehension of reality progression, according to Zubiri, from ap- that the ulterior modes are what they prehension of the logos to the world, mov- are, viz. intellections of the real. It is ing out of apprehension. I said that the because of this that these ulterior formulation of the progression from reality modes are just succedaneous.”79 at the surface level to reality in depth, in That is why we say that Gibson is ul- the context of our article, seems to us timately right about his critics. We think preferable here, because, among other his stubborn defense of perception as di- things, it has the potential to connect to- rect and not mediated by mental represen- gether the two tables of Eddington. Be- tations or any such thing (which Zubiri cause, of course, there is only one table: says almost in the same terms) points pre- Gibson would agree. What we perceive first cisely to this fact, that the root of all per- is the familiar table, which, according to ception, primordial apprehension (but ul- Zubiri, is not only real, but it is the real teriorly deployed into a duality) makes of table par excellence. The scientific table perception always something direct and only represents an enrichment of content, immediate, makes what is perceived a progressing from reality at the surface presentation and not a representation,80 level of the table (the familiar table), to and makes the basis of all perception a reality in depth of the table (the scientific direct communication with reality, in table). We say “real table par excellence,” which we are always irrefutably installed: because, for Zubiri, as we said, in all per- ception of reality we can distinguish con- In this apprehension, then, we appre- tent and formality of reality. All they do, hend the reality of the real impressive- logos and reason, is to enrich the content, ly.81 For this reason I call it the pri- maintaining the same formality of reality. mordial apprehension of reality. In it They are modalizations or re-actualizations the formality of reality is apprehended of the primordial apprehension of reality directly, and not by way of representa- (which would occur in the perception of tions or the like. It is apprehended immediately, not in virtue of other ap- the familiar table; this perception occurs prehensive acts or reasoning process- in the logos, but involving the primordial es of whatever sort. It is apprehended apprehension). But of the two aspects, unitarily; that is, the real, which can content and formality of reality, the mo- and does have a great richness and ment that has primacy is the moment of variability of content (in general), is in reality. So Zubiri says that the logos and its content apprehended unitarily as reason, ulterior modes of intellection, are formality of reality pro indiviso, so to successive: speak. Later I shall speak of this con- It is therein that all of the enrich- tent; for now I refer only to the for- ments of the intellection of what mality itself of reality. It is in the uni- something is in reality have to be in- ty of these three aspects (directly, scribed. Hence, despite its enormous immediately, and unitarily) that the volume and richness, the intellection fact that the formality of the real is of the ulterior modes is unutterably apprehended in and through itself poor with respect to the way in which consists.
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 J. J. Gibson´s Psychology of Perception from Zubiri´s Standpoint 149 ______
In the primordial apprehension of re- suyo83 or “in its own right”. And this be- ality, the real is apprehended in and gins in the apprehension, since in appre- through itself. By virtue of being an hension are compactly the charters of in- apprehension, in it we “are actually” tellective knowing and the charters of real- in reality itself. And this apprehen- ity, at one and the same time and undivid- sion is primordial because every other ed, in the co-actuality of a same being apprehension of reality is constitutive- here-and-now. In the example of the table ly grounded on this primordial appre- the real starts in the apprehension of the hension and involves it formally. It is familiar table. From there we can progress, the impression which primarily and through reason, towards its foundation in constitutively installs us in the real. the world: photons, electromagnetic waves, And this is essential. One does not wavelengths, rods and cones in the retina, have a primordial impression and be- occipital region of the brain,84 etc. The sides it another apprehension; rather, character of being de suyo or “in its own what we have is a primordial right”, would be common to all forms of modalized apprehension which is, at intellective sensing (or sentient intellec- the same time, in distinct forms. The tion): be it primordial apprehension, logos, real, apprehended in and through it- or reason (where scientific categories self, is always the primordial thing would reside). Thus, the colors, or the and the essential nucleus of every ap- causal level of functionality in the logos, or prehension of reality. This is what the the differential equations of quantum expression “primordial apprehension physics, are all be real, not for being here of reality” signifies.82 or there, but for being what they are, de Zubiri says that in the issue before suyo or “in their own right”, absolutely us, perception, the electromagnetic waves, independent of everything else and of all or photons, do not produce color (because possible apprehender, as a prius, which, here we would still have two things or a where appropriate, grounds its own ap- duality) but that the electromagnetic wave prehension and imposes itself with a cer- of light is the color in perception. There- tain force in the impression of reality. How- fore, in perception, when we progress from ever in the case of differential equations at apprehension of the logos to the world (or the level of reason, they must be tested; the in-depth dimension of reality itself, for though what is tested is not the truth of example the table), we go from the per- they affirm (it would not be verification, ceived color to the study of the foundation which is not needed in mathematics) but it of this reality in the world, that is to say, would be the very presence of the reality in depth, where we categorize the afore- apprehended in line with the deduced mentioned foundation in several possible truth.85 All this, as shown, is in perfect ways. One of them—and very important harmony with Gibson’s ecological ap- for Zubiri—is the categorization that sci- proach to the psychology of perception. ence does; therefore we would be proceed- Therefore, since his second book, SCPS, ing from the perceived color to the wave- he said and emphasized to the various lengths or photons. All this puts before us students studying perception that scien- Zubiri’s concept of reality. tific categories were not relevant at this We have seen that for Zubiri, we do level of study. Therefore he also insisted not need to reach reality. For Zubiri sensi- that we should “not put the cart before the ble qualities are real, and, as stated above, horse”. By this he meant not to start with are part of reality par excellence. Zubiri abstract geometric space, with electro- does not say that they are real beyond magnetic waves (with the categories of apprehension. They are real in apprehen- science); as Zubiri says, “at the starting sion, they are real in perception. Reality is line.” That reality in depth you reach by not a zone of things. Reality is what is de marching from the apprehension of logos
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 150 Alfonso de la Puerta González-Quevedo ______to the world. It is the work of reason, iant, and because it is specific to a where Zubiri locates the scientific catego- particular object shape (i.e., there is a ries. But let us finish outlining the nuanc- one-to-one mapping relation between es that we think the theory of pickup in- the two), it could be said with justifi- formation and the invariants of Gibson cation that this invariant structure in needs. reflected light can serve as infor- We have previously analyzed the nu- mation for the presence of this object ances that, we think, the theory of infor- (rather than some other object) in the mation pickup needs. Having presented his immediate environment. second book in his new conception of the But this statement does not go far senses considered as perceptual systems, enough. The next step must be taken we do not now need the plus of the mind, and this invariant must be identified, namely, the operations of the mind on the which is a difficult task. It is toward delivery of the senses. Zubiri would have this effort that much basic work in an said that with this it is presented a con- ecological approach to vision has been ceptualization of the senses in line, not directed, and a great deal of this work with a conceiving intelligence, but with a remains to be done.86 sentient intelligence. The environment is perceived directly by direct uptake of in- So as we said before, this is where we formation by our senses, which “get out come to Zubiri. But for the “discussion” there” and, for example for visual percep- between our two authors, it is necessary to tion, pick up the information contained in sharpen the analysis. This is where Zubiri the sea of ambient light. Instead of saying speaks of recurrences and the integration that coded information on our retina is of simple apprehensions (percepts, ficta projected, producing an image that, in one and concepts), which belong to “the char- way or another is transmitted to the brain, ters of intelligence”, in the real thing, pre- where finally a picture or terminal repre- viously apprehended in primordial appre- sentation would occur, we say that we see hension (the charters of reality). This is not pictures but the real thing viewed di- where we are recognizing. But the integra- rectly through the optical environmental tion of percepts, ficta and concepts in the structure, and our nerve centers, just res- real thing apprehended in primordial ap- onate in field simultaneity to capture in- prehension is realized in the context of a 87 formation. We have resolved the problem direct, immediate and unitary perception. when, as Gibson says, we have superceded In this sense, it is something quite differ- classical theories of perceptual constancy, ent from the inferences of Helmholtz, and recognizing that our visual system cap- with him of many scientists of visual per- tures and extracts the invariant optical ception who followed him in this, such as structure directly. We think this “captur- Fodor and Pylyshyn’s cognitive science. ing or extracting” invariant optical struc- The conception of these authors is prey to ture directly needs elaboration. It is some- the projective logic of what I have called thing that Harry Heft recognizes in the the “constructivist journey.” Instead, Gib- book mentioned, quoting an important son and Zubiri are in the orbit of logic of author, Ulric Neisser: “field simultaneity” of direct perception. However, as mentioned, there is still an In the case of the present problem, it important point for discussion, and it has is hypothesized that what specifies to do with the integration or realization of object shape that structure in the re- simple apprehensions (percepts, ficta and flected light that remains constant concepts) in the real previously intelligized across transformations generated (sensed) in primordial apprehension. Let from a moving point of observation. us see: Because this structure remains invar-
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 J. J. Gibson´s Psychology of Perception from Zubiri´s Standpoint 151 ______
How would this integration or realiza- tions of the past; or that memory is tion be? How would these simple appre- actually physiological, not mental, hensions or gained mentality of an experi- consisting of engrams or traces; or enced perceiver be in us? Let us recall that that it actually consists of neural Gibson said that in perceptual learning connections, not engrams; that there is no enrichment of the input, but a memory is the basis of all learning; progressive differentiation which is a re- that memory is the basis of habit; that sult of exploring, and an education of at- memories live on in the unconscious; tention. In that way Gibson was fighting that heredity is a form of memory; against classical theories of perception that cultural heredity is another form based on sensation; Zubiri called these of memory; that any effect of the past conceptions “conceiving intelligence”. Ex- on the present is memory, including pressing this in a way similar to that of hysteresis. If we cannot do any better both authors, we would say that it is to than this, we should stop using the overcome conceptions that are based on word.89 “the operations of the mind on the delivery Zubiri, in general, did not deal with of the senses”. It is something that comes memory in his writings. Why? We tend to from the dualism at the starting point, think that just as—to take one significant which is superceded by our two authors, example—the word culture hardly appears who are based on the unity of the percep- in his writings, the word memory, like the tive act. word culture, would be heavily loaded with Gibson also disputes that memory connotations that he wished to avoid. plays some role in perception. With this he Zubiri, however, spoke of the meaning- was opposed to the theories that conceive thing, which could be considered as a perception as a series of snapshots which basic ingredient of culture.90 Therefore, we must then be integrated into a sequence— believe that most likely he would be on theories which are unable to account for guard regarding the tremendous complica- motion, either coming from the world, or tion around memory—possibly, we are from movement of the observer. It would speculating, in a way similar to that ex- require a continual recalling of appropriate pressed by Gibson here. Let us quote a representations from memory store. Gib- text that we consider very important in son is opposed, and Zubiri also, to con- this regard: ceive memories or memory contents of thought in the form of representations or ... The brain configures the mind, but mental images. The issue also has to do the mind also configures the brain. with the stream of thought of William And just as the psyche does not re- James and the fact that our perception, is ceive “traces” from the brain, so nei- ther does the brain have traces of the not only in motion, but in time. Let us psyche. For configuring does not quote them: mean “impressing traces”, but config- Because we are led to separate the uring a mode of being and acting in present from the past, we found our- the field of reality. And this “availabil- selves in what I have called “the mud- ity” for action is psycho-organic, dle of memory” (Gibson 1966a)88. We brain-mental. In the brain neither think that the past ceases to exist un- situation nor memories are deposited, less it is “preserved” in memory. We but the brain acquires more or less assume that memory is the bridge be- new “ways of functioning,” which fur- tween the past and the present. We thermore are not privative of the op- assume that memories accumulate tion that has determined them.”91 and are stored somewhere; that they The issue of integration or realization are images or pictures, or representa- of simple apprehensions (percepts, ficta
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 152 Alfonso de la Puerta González-Quevedo ______and concepts) as previously intellectively then commands the muscles to move known in primordial apprehension is is only a little better than Descartes’s something that Zubiri deals with in HRI; theory, for to say this is still to remain but its final version is in IL. However, the confined within the doctrine of re- above quotation is from SH, where Zubiri sponses.”92 extensively treats the mind-brain relation- The philosophical criticism of Carte- ship. As perception is a psycho-organic sian dualism and mechanism can be seen act, like all human activity, it involves in this text, as a background—theories brain-mental act, and therefore we can that implicitly or explicitly underlie projec- find in SH very valuable suggestions for tive logic as embodied in what he calls the our subject of perception. In particular we doctrine of responses. From there it con- have seen the issue of integration or reali- tinues by considering the brain as the zation of the irreal in the real, clarifying place of mind. Gibson sees the senses as step-by-step all its aspects. systems, or, if you like, subsystems em- In parallel to our problem at hand, bedded in another, and so on until the last Gibson shows consequences of his theory system is reached, which is not the isolat- of information pickup, which is to say his ed human being but the organism- theory of direct perception, very much in ecological niche system, according to the tune with those of Zubiri and other, and principle of mutuality between the animal upon which we wish to comment. We pre- and its environment. This Zubiri calls con- sent, first, a text that shows Gibson’s genereity between intelligence and reality, awareness of the contradictions of concep- or coactuality between sentient intelli- tions that fall within what we call “projec- gence and perceived reality. For Zubiri the tive logic”, prey to mechanism and dual- sentient intelligence is a systemic property ism. From here the texts that take more of the whole human substantivity, which direct consequences of his conception of in its dynamism turns towards reality, and direct perception “in field simultaneity” this is its psychic character.93 Otherwise, will become more apparent to us: the text has the virtue of making clear that But the ancient Cartesian doctrine the current trend of “computer as a model still hangs on, that animals are reflex of mind-brain” is a contemporary version machines and that humans are the of mechanism, which historically stems same except for a soul that rules the from Descartes. body by switching impulses at the Here are two texts containing the center of the brain. The doctrine will basic problem to be treated, to be concep- not do. Locomotion and manipulation tualized classically by theories of percep- are not triggered by stimuli from out- tual constancy, and that is replaced by side the body, nor are they initiated Gibson’s pickup information theory, ac- by commands from inside the brain. cording to his general approach wherein Even the classification of incoming invariants of optical structure are extract- impulses in nerves as sensory and ed directly from the flow of environmental outgoing impulses as motor is based stimulation. This was to deal with the on the old doctrine of mental sensa- enormous difficulty of accounting for both tions and physical movements. Neu- persistence and change at the same time: rophysiologists, most of them, are still under the influence of dualism, how- Finally, fifth, optical information theo- ever much they deny philosophizing. ry entails an activity of the system not They still assume that the brain is the heretofore imagined by any visual sci- seat of the mind. To say in modern entist, the concurrent registering of parlance, that it is a computer, with a both persistence and change in the program either inherited or acquired, flow of structured stimulation.”94 that plans a voluntary action and
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 J. J. Gibson´s Psychology of Perception from Zubiri´s Standpoint 153 ______
“The perceiver extracts the invariants activities, such as optimizing, resonat- of structure from the flux of stimula- ing, and extracting invariants, that tion while still noticing the flux. For cannot so easily be measured. the visual system in particular he The ecological theory of direct percep- tunes in on the invariant structure of tion cannot stand by itself. It implies a the optic array that underlies the new theory of cognition in general. In changing perspective structure turn, that implies a new theory of caused by his movements.”95 noncognitive kinds of awareness – Now we present Gibson’s answer to fictions, fantasies, dreams, and hallu- the question we asked at the beginning: if cinations. not in the store of memory, if not in the Perceiving is the simplest and best form of images or mental representations, kind of knowing. …”98 etc., how are our memories, fantasies, dreams, fictions, hallucinations in us? Moreover, as can be seen, Gibson pos- How are percepts, ficta and concepts in tulates a hypothesis to explain, according us? These are what Zubiri called the to his theories, how would it be consistent “simply apprehended”. Gibson’s response to think conscious non-perceptual con- will involve a theory of cognition in gen- tents, going beyond the representationist eral. Referring to: “(a) remembering..such conception of mental content (such as as items in the story of one’s own life; (b) dreams, dreams, imaginations, etc.) as to expect, anticipate, plan, or imagine cre- images or the like appearing “within the atively... within what we call the limits of theater of consciousness.” On the other possibility; (c) to daydream, dream, or im- hand he leaves clear continuity between agine wishfully (or fearfully) ... that are perceiving and knowing. But the final outside the limits of possibility”, he says: statement, that “perceiving is the simplest and best way of knowing”, very much in These three kinds of nonperceptual line with the primordial apprehension of awareness are not explained, I think, Zubiri we’ve seen before, is even more in- by the traditional hypothesis of men- teresting.99 Again the similarities between tal imagery. They are better explained our two authors, who did not know each by some such hypothesis as this: a other, and whose theories are so counter perceptual system that has become to many psychological, cognitive and phil- sensitized to certain invariants and can extract them from the stimulus osophical theories still in force, gives one 100 flux can also operate without the con- pause. straints of the stimulus flux. Infor- Gibson explicitly states that his eco- mation becomes further detached logical theory of direct perception does not from stimulation. The adjustment rely on itself but requires a new theory of loops for looking around, looking at, cognition in general.101 Not only that, but scanning, and focusing, are then in- this requires a new theory of non-cognitive operative. The visual system visual- forms of consciousness—fictions, fanta- izes. But this is still an activity of the sies, dreams and hallucinations. So we system, not an appearance in the the- again arrive—it must be for some reason— ater of consciousness.96 at the issue with which we began the last analysis, viz. about memory, the relevant Knowing is an extension of perceiv- mind-brain relations in perception, and in 97 ing. … general, and how the so-called mental The process of pickup involves not on- representations (images, etc.) are possible. ly overt moments that can be meas- Be that as it may, this is not the place ured, such as orienting, exploring, to address this issue in all its depth. We and adjusting, but also more general believe that with what the texts cited make
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 154 Alfonso de la Puerta González-Quevedo ______clear, is enough that the reader will not sion; and integration or realization is done confuse Zubiri’s position with those of on the root of the same apprehension, Gibson. In EAVP, when summarizing his which is primordial apprehension. Said Pickup Information Theory, he reviewed The primordial apprehension is the exigent Traditional Theories of Perception: Input basis of simple apprehensions (percepts, Processing, and referred, among others102 ficta and concepts) and where they are to those in which there is the Application integrated or realized. We think these es- of Memories to the Sensory Inputs, with sential nuances (a paradox!) that Zubiri which he differed. All of them have to do provides in his trilogy about sentient intel- with “mental processing of information”, ligence are what the too obvious direct as it may be read in the title of the section. pickup of information invariants of Gibson And if there is something characterizing needs. In any case, I must say that the Gibson’s position, it is opposition to all subject is difficult and requires a thorough theories consisting in information pro- analysis. Zubiri dedicated two books to it, cessing. All of them suffer a projective HRI, and the second volume of the trilogy logic, which our two authors have called on the Sentient Intelligence, IL. “the operations of the mind on the delivery Conclusion of the senses.” All of them are forced to a model of indirect perception, to the en- In Zubiri perception is a very complex richment of the sensory input by the mind. phenomenon situated in the logos. Pri- Let us quote Gibson: mordial apprehension in a pure state would never be given.104 Nonetheless, it is The fallacy is to assume that because constitutively implicated in the logos and, inputs convey no knowledge, they can therefore, in every perception. The hypoth- somehow be made to yield knowledge esis I suggest is that direct perception in by “processing” them. Knowledge of the world must come from some- Gibson would approach primordial appre- where; the debate is over whether it hension in Zubiri, although Gibson never comes from stored knowledge, from elaborated anything like Zubiri’s notion of innate knowledge, or from reason. But logos. The thesis of his critics, that all all three doctrines beg the question. perception implies some kind of inference, Knowledge of the world cannot be ex- would approach, on the one hand, the plained by supposing that knowledge duality of the logos, but, on the other of the world already exists. All forms hand, leaves untouched the primordial of cognitive processing imply cognition apprehension that all logos involves. We so as to account for cognition.103 perceive in the field of reality in which we are situated in a state of flux. This is con- While in Zubiri the issue of integration gruent with Gibson’s theory that we per- or realization of percepts, ficta and con- ceive in motion, in time.105 Gibson’s af- cepts in what was previously intellectively fordances of things “would contain” their known in primordial apprehension could sociocultural meanings and would be in be confused with the stance criticized by tune with Zubiri’s notion of habitude, and Gibson as The Application of Memories to with the thing-meaning. the Sensory Inputs, we believe that what Vis-à-vis theories that he criticizes has already been explained leaves it suffi- and vis-à-vis his critics, Gibson basically ciently clear that this is something quite is right. The powerful, well-elaborated phi- different. In Zubiri knowledge of the world losophy of Xavier Zubiri, with which he is comes from the primordial apprehension, very much in tune, backs him up. This present in every perception. The simple basically refers to his ecological approach, apprehensions (percepts, ficta and con- which we describe as phenomenological cepts) come from the irrealization of a con- and prior to the level of scientific explana- tent apprehended in primordial apprehen- tion. In this work we understand phenom-
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 J. J. Gibson´s Psychology of Perception from Zubiri´s Standpoint 155 ______enology as a philosophical dimension in tual desde la perspectiva de Ortega, Zubi- the dimension of scientific psychology. ri, y Aranguren”, en The Xavier Zubiri Re- There is nothing like Zubiri’s noology for view, Vol.7, 2005. this joining of philosophy and science. COPE, Theo. 2007. “Some Thoughts on Metaphor in Cognitive Psychology and Zubiri,s Sentient Intelligence”, The Xavier Bibliography Zubiri Review ,Vol.9, “The Xavier Zubiri Foundation of North America”, Washing- PVW-GIBSON, J.J. 1950. The Percep- ton D.C. tion of the Visual World, The Riverside ESPINOSA LOLAS, Ricardo. 2004. Press, Houghton Mifflin Company, Cam- “Realidad Y Tiempo”, in The Xavier Zubiri bridge, Boston. Review,vol.6, edited by “The Xavier Zubiri SCPS-GIBSON, J.J. 1966. The Senses Foundation of North America”, Washing- Considered as Perceptual Systems, Hough- ton D.C. ton Mifflin Company, Boston. FERRAZ FAYOS, A. 1993. “El espacio EAVP-GIBSON, J.J. 1979. The Eco- en la metafísica de Zubiri”, in Cosmología: logical Approach to Visual Perception, Law- Física, Filosofía, Religión, Editorial Ayun- rence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New tamiento de Pozuelo de Alarcón (Madrid) / Jersey & London, 1986. (Originalmente Patronato Municipal de Cultura / Amigos publicado en 1979). de la Cultura Científica. IRE-ZUBIRI, Xavier. 1980. Inteligencia FERRAZ FAYOS, A. 2005. “Filosofía, Sentiente, Alianza Editorial, Sociedad de ciencia y realidad: apuntes zubirianos”; Estudios y Publicaciones, Madrid, (vol. 1: The Xavier Zubiri Review, Vol.7, 2005. Inteligencia y Realidad). FODOR J.A., PHYSYLYN, Z.W. 1981. IL-ZUBIRI, Xavier 1982. Inteligencia “How Direct is Perception?: Some reflec- Sentiente, Alianza Editorial, Sociedad de tions on Gibson’s “Ecological Approach”, Estudios y Publicaciones, Madrid, (vol. 2: en Cognition 9 (139-196), ed. by Elsevier Inteligencia y Logos). Sequoia S.A., Lausanne (Netherlands). IRA-ZUBIRI, Xavier 1983. Inteligencia FOWLER, Thomas. 2005. “Reality in Sentiente, Alianza Editorial, Sociedad de Science and Reality in Philosophy: Im- Estudios y Publicaciones, Madrid, (vol. 3: portance of the concept of Reality by Pos- Inteligencia y Razón). tulation; The Xavier Zubiri Review, Vol.7, SH-ZUBIRI, Xavier 1986. Sobre el 2005. Hombre, Alianza Editorial, Fundación Xa- GARCÍA, Juan José. 2006. “Realidad y vier Zubiri, Madrid. Cosa-Sentido en la filosofía de Xavier Zu- HRI-ZUBIRI, Xavier 2005. El Hombre: biri”, en The Xavier Zubiri Review,vol.6, lo Real y lo Irreal, Alianza Editorial, Fun- edited by “The Xavier Zubiri Foundation dación Xavier Zubiri, Madrid. of North America”, Washington D.C. ETM-ZUBIRI, Xavier 2008. Espacio, GIBSON, Eleanor, J. 1970. “El Desa- Tiempo, Materia, Nueva Edición, Alianza rrollo de la Percepción como un Proceso Editorial, Fundación Xavier Zubiri, Ma- Adaptativo”, Trans. Mario Carretero, in drid. Lecturas de Psicología del Niño, Compila- tion of Juan Delval, Alianza Universidad, Studies Madrid, 1978. GIBSON, J.J. and GIBSON, Eleanor J. ARRIBAS MONTES, Vicente. 2005. “El 1955-a. “Perceptual Learning: Differentia- tema de la ciencia en la filosofía de Xavier tion or Enrichment?”, Psychological Re- Zubiri”; The Xavier Zubiri Review, Vol.7, view, Vol. 62, Nº1, Cornell University. 2005. GIBSON, J.J. and GIBSON, Eleanor CONILL, Jesús. 2005. “Ciencia, técni- J. 1955-b. “What is Learned in Perceptual ca y filosofía en nuestra situación intelec- Learning? A Reply to Professor Postman”,
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 156 Alfonso de la Puerta González-Quevedo ______
Psychological Review, Vol. 62, Nº6, Cornell MONSERRAT, Javier. 1976. «El rea- University. lismo zubiriano en el conjunto de una teo- GONZALEZ FERNÁNDEZ, Antonio. ría crítico-fundamental de la ciencia», en, 1994. “La Tarea de la Filosofía”, cap.3 de Realitas. II, 1974-1975. Sociedad de Estu- “Un solo mundo. La relevancia de Zubiri dios y Publicaciones. Ed. Labor. Madrid, para la teoría social”. Tesis doctoral. Facul- pp. 139-202. tad de Filosofía y Letras. Universidad Pon- MONSERRAT, Javier. 1998. La Per- tificia Comillas, Madrid. cepción Visual. La arquitectura del psi- GONZALEZ FERNÁNDEZ, Antonio. quismo desde el enfoque de la percepción 2004. “Ereignis y actualidad”, en Desde visual, Biblioteca Nueva, Madrid. Zubiri, Diego Gracia (editor); Editorial Co- MONSERRAT, Javier.2001. “Engra- mares, Granada. mas neuronales y teoría de la mente”, en GONZALEZ FERNÁNDEZ, Antonio. Pensamiento, Vol. 57, Nº 218, pags. 177- 2008. “Las cosas”, en “Zubiri ante Heideg- 211. ger”, editado por Juan Antonio Nicolás y MONSERRAT, Javier. 2005. “La cone- Ricardo Espinoza (eds), Herder, Barcelona. xión fundamental de Zubiri con las cien- -RACIA, Diego. 2005. “Ciencia y cias humanas” in The Xavier Zubiri Re- Filosofía”, in The Xavier Zubiri Review, view, vol.7, edited by “The Xavier Zubiri vol.7, edited by “The Xavier Zubiri Foun- Foundation of North America”, Washing- dation of North America”, Washington D.C. ton D.C. GRACIA, Diego. 2014. Zubiri, Treinta MONSERRAT, Javier.2007. “Zubiri Años Después, Anales de la Real Academia desde la Ciencia Cognitiva”, en Nicolás, de Ciencias Morales y Políticas, Año LXVI- J.A., Samour, H. (edtrs.), Historia, Ética y Número 91-Curso Académico 2013-2014. Ciencia. El Impulso Crítico de la Filosofía de GUEDÁN PÉCKER, V.L. 2001. “La no- Zubiri”, Ed. Comares, Granada. ción de paradigma y su aplicación a la NAKAYAMA, Ken. 1994. “James J. psicología”, en Pedro Chacón Fuertes (ed.), Gibson-An Appreciation”, Psychological Filosofía de la Psicología, Ed. Biblioteca Review, vol.101, Nº 2, 329-335. Nueva, Madrid. PELEGRINA CETRÁN, Héctor, 2006. HEFT, Harry. 2001. Ecological Psy- Fundamentos Antropológicos de la Psicopa- chology in Context, Lawrence Erlbaum As- tología, Edcs. Polifemo, Madrid. sociates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ. PINTOR-RAMOS, Antonio. 1993. “El KUHN, Thomas S. 1957. La Revolu- Sentido en Zubiri”, en Antonio Pintor- ción Copernicana, Ariel, Barcelona, 1996. Ramos, “Realidad y Sentido. Desde una LOSADA LABRAÑA, Mario. 2009. “La inspiración zubiriana”, Publicaciones Uni- concepción del conocimiento científico en versidad Pontificia de Salamanca, Sala- Naturaleza, Historia, Dios: la interpreta- manca. ción ontológica del principio de indetermi- PINTOR-RAMOS, Antonio. 1996. “Zu- nación de Heisemberg”, en Zubiri desde el biri (1898-1983)”, Ediciones del Orto, Ma- siglo XXI, Antonio Pintor-Ramos (Coord.), drid. Publicaciones Universidad Pontificia de PUERTA GONZÁLEZ-QUEVEDO, Al- Salamanca, Salamanca. fonso de la. 2005. Lectura de J.J. Gibson MAZÓN, Manuel. 1999. Enfrentamien- desde la Antropología Básica de Zubiri. to y Actualidad. La Inteligencia en la Filoso- Primeros Materiales de Investigación, tra- fía de Xavier Zubiri, Estudios 74, Universi- bajo de investigación para el D.E.A. (Di- dad Pontificia de Comillas, Madrid. ploma de Estudios Avanzados), presented MICHAELS, Claire F and CARELLO, in la Universidad Pontificia Comillas, in Claudia. 1981. Direct Perception; Prentice- Madrid, June 2005. Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey TURVEY, M.T., SHAW, R.E., REED, 07632. E.S. &MACE, W.M. 1981. “Ecological laws
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 J. J. Gibson´s Psychology of Perception from Zubiri´s Standpoint 157 ______of perceiving and acting: In reply to Fodor res (1953-1983)), Alianza Editorial- and Pylyshyn”, en Cognition, 9, 237-304. Fundación Xavier Zubiri, Madrid, 2006. ZUBIRI, Xavier. 1979. RR (“Respecti- vidad de lo Real”), en EM (“Escritos Meno-
Notes
1 This article has deliberately many words in repeated endlessly for centuries among phi- italics. At least once in the text expressions losophers and psychologists appears in italics that in the work of Gibson 7 See for a grounding of metaphor in cognitive or of Zubiri have special significance, either sciences, in cognition in general, and in the by the strong condensation of meaning, for thinking of Zubiri, Cope 2007. the importance of it, or to make clear im- 8 In note 12 are additional references about portant distinctions. ecological optics, and in our last long sec- 2 See Fodor and Pylyshyn, 1981 or Nakayama, tion, before the conclusion, by the second 1994. third of this writing, "The pickup of infor- 3 The terms "projective or transmitting logic", " mation ..." on the pickup information theory. field simultaneity" or “constructivist journey” 9 The medium (aerial for us…) in Gibson, to- have been invented by me, in the sense that I gether with substances, form the environ- have created them here, from my analysis of ment, and seem to be separated by surfaces. Gibson from Zubiri standpoint, ignoring if They are ecological. such expressions have ever come to the mind 10 We deal with the concept of invariants in of anyone in these contexts, or if they have note 14. already been used by others (which could 11 The pickup information theory, central in have happened, but it is not something that I Gibson’s theory, will account for this, which know of, even if it were something well we are only mentioning briefly here. In the known in general). I am therefore responsible second half of this article, we discuss in for its introduction here. some detail this nuclear and controversial 4The term constructivism in psychology of per- point about Gibson´s theory from Zubiri ception denotes those theories in which the standpoint—the direct pickup of optical in- final product of our perception is constructed variant structure. on the basis of stimuli originating from the 12 The ecological perspective is central to Gib- outside in our mind. This term holds a very son’s proposal. Introduced in his second different meaning in Zubiri and in other con- book, SCPS, he made further developments texts. in his last one, EAVP. Gibson acknowledges 5 PVW: see bibliography that it was nonexistent at the time that he 6 In parallel, we note that criticism of the oppo- created, but he considered it essential for his site view, the Establishment, such as Fodor new theory. He is aware that, for now, he can and Pylyshyn, represented in their article in only guess at its main lines. It is very differ- 1981 (see bibliography), said on pg. 194: ent from the classical optics of physical sci- “Missing the point about inference, missing ence. It is in line with its ecological approach. the point about mental representations, and And he says it will be interdisciplinary, and missing the point about intentionality are thus made of contributions from physical optics, all aspects of missing the same point.” (see lighting engineering, ecology and descriptive note 44). We think, as do the disciples of geometry. Instead of dealing with radiant Gibson, expressed in their article written in light, it will deal with ambient light, which we reply to the previous one of Fodor & Py- discussed. There will be very important con- lyshyn (Turvey, M.T., Shaw, R.E., Reed, E.S., cepts in it, like ambient optic array, optical Mace, W.M., 1981), in the final Postscript, structure, optical invariant structure, and its that the controversy between defenders of culminating concept, the affordances (which ecological psychology and the article by we see in tune with the concept of habitude Fodor and Pylyshyn representing the Estab- and meaning-thing in Zubiri). In our thesis, lishment, is to be positioned in an argument we study a first consideration of light, from
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 158 Alfonso de la Puerta González-Quevedo ______
Gibson’s ecological optics. This is in keeping mostly we point to lines of convergence, but with the theme of ecological approach, and also we examine analytically in detail, to with the ulterior access to the categories of some extent, some points of special interest. science at the level of reason. In the case of In general we talk about hypotheses. light, access to radiant light as energy, and 16 See also, Harry Heft, 2001, pgs. xxii and xiii its electromagnetic waves, photons, etc. As of the Introduction, among others. Besides, ambient light is taken with reference to an the author has the power to note that one of organism; however the radiant light is taken the great problems of modern psychology of with reference to the universe. (SCPS, p. 13). the scientific field is an inadequate philo- 13 We will discuss later, toward the end, how sophical heritage that permeates many of these statements have much in tune with the their historical developments: basically a whole trilogy of Zubiri on the sentient intelli- metaphysics of Cartesian origin, and a phys- gence (see bibliography: IRE, IL, IRA) ics of Newtonian origin, and, in general, a 14 Gibson tells us that: “The theory of the con- philosophy designed to natural things, not current awareness of persistence and change for humans, their psychology, their behavior. requires the assumption of invariants that This is in line with the doctoral thesis that underlie change of the optic array.” (EAVP, we are developing (Critical Foundations - pg. 310). He postulates various kinds of in- from Zubiri standpoint- of JJ Gibson´s eco- variants: “those that underlie change of illu- logical approach to psychology of perception) mination, those that underlie change of the in which one of the hypotheses to study is point of observation, those that underlie over- the decisive non empirical component (philo- lapping samples, and those that underlie a sophical) in theories of perception, both the local disturbance of structure” (EAVP, pg. ones criticized by Gibson, or the contempo- 310). The theory of extracting invariants by a rary theories, we would say. Of course, deci- visual system plays the role, Gibson recalls, sive in Gibson: hence our research. In this of the theories of “constancy”. To illustrate, line (what a coincidence!), Harry Heft argues we point out some of these invariants within that the intellectual roots of Gibson, being the different types; for example, the edge of many, are one of the most important in Wil- the nose, or the horizon, would be invariants liam James, whose radical empiricism has in line with the mutuality between the ob- been seen in line with the so-called "new re- server and the environment. The horizon, for alists". Edwin B. Holt, who decisively influ- example, is an invariant of all optical distri- enced Gibson, is one of them and, according butions and from all observation points; it is to Harry Heft, through which the influence of that to which all the optical movements re- William James came to Gibson. Zubiri was fer. It is neither objective nor subjective. also interested in William James, whose pag- es The Stream of Thought, chapter nine of his 15 To read this letter, in general, the best and Principles of Psychology, described as memo- most convenient, it is a certain familiarity rable, and the author as genial. We guess with Zubiri, in addition to Gibson. To a first there is a great harmony in the characteriza- approximation to Gibson, we recommend the tion done by Zubiri in HRI of our "being flu- website of the Center for the Ecological ent in reality", with the stream of thought of Study of Perception and Action (CESPA) be- William James, as described by Harry Heft. longing to the University of Connecticut, in And this coincidence commented by Zubiri in the US, where there are still some who were HRI is what has made us better understand direct disciples of Gibson. For Zubiri we rec- the distinction, central to his philosophy, be- ommend the introductions of the website The tween content and formality of reality. Our Zubiri Foundation of North America, either in apprehension flows from one content to an- English or Spanish. Here one can find the other, "in reality", in the field of reality. Dif- online magazine The Zubiri Review. Of ferent contents are flowing, but all are part course, if the language of our author is mas- of the same formality of reality. Our hyper- tered, the Spanish website is recommended, formalized neurophysiological structures, www.zubiri.net, for those able to take ad- formalize all our apprehensions with the for- vantage of the joint use of both sites. In this mality of reality. Hence, in Zubiri, the field article we have the current limitations, so will be considered as a means of intellection
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 J. J. Gibson´s Psychology of Perception from Zubiri´s Standpoint 159 ______
(or intellective sensing); that is, considered 19 For Zubiri all space, whether physical or as a means of perception. This will bring im- geometrical, is to be ultimately referred to portant consequences. You can also see the real space and to be inscribed in it and not strong epistemological tensions in the study vice versa. Space is grounded in spacious- of perception and cognitive sciences in gen- ness as a real property of things, sensed in eral in Monserrat, Javier, 1998, pgs. 41, 46, primordial apprehension. Physical space and 79 and 105, among others (see bibliography). geometrical space are situated on the level of 17 We gave an exposition of the first hypothesis scientific reason and therefore lie in a status in the initial lines of our introduction. lying beyond with respect to real space, which is always something sensed. 18 This statement should be qualified. We follow here our convictions, influenced by Harry 20 Ulterior is the expression used by Zubiri. Heft, 2001, who in his pages. 114-119, and 21 See Fodor & Pylyshyn, 1981, Nakayama, 169-171, adequately clarifies the issue. In 1994. the US the influence of the phenomenological 22In intimate connection the theme of being, tradition in psychology often had mentalist the presence of the real in the world, prior to connotations. Gibson was identified, though its presence in intellection, and the complex openly and critically, in the behavioral and theme of the entification of reality and its re- positivist tradition, namely William James lated logification of knowing, are very im- line, which made him reject anything with portant, but we cannot enter into these mat- those mentalist connotations. It was through ters here. Suffice it to say here that the ex- the disciple of William James, Edwin B. Holt, pression of the latter in psychology would be that Gibson received this influence, although the duality sensation-perception. Gibson then drank directly from James´s 23 Noergic is a philosophical neologism of Zubiri Principles of Psychology, and there is no evi- that comes from melting two Greek terms: dence that he was familiar with many of nous (intelligence) with ergon (activity, work, James’s writings other than the aforemen- energy ... it's something physical, and this is tioned. More inclined to the source of W. the meaning given by Zubiri). James than to the Gestalt, from which, how- ever, he received a strong influence (Koffka, 24 Intellective in Zubiri means that it appre- Heider), we could say that the phenomeno- hends reality. logical method of Gibson would come closer 25 Physical in accordance with its meaning in to the way of Merleau Ponty or Heidegger, ancient philosophy, not what it means in than to the Husserlian line, which he did not modern science. See General Note in SE. get to know. Also Langfeld, influenced by 26 The Spanish term used by Zubiri is actuidad. Carl Stumpf, student of Brentano, and Rob- 27 ert MacLeod, influenced by David Katz, of We could say that “the actualizations of the experimentalist phenomenologists line, left- condition of being an act are ulterior with re- their mark on Gibson in his formative years. spect to the actualizations of actuality”. Harry Heft concludes that there is a clear 28 As the phrase could lead to confusion, we use of phenomenological ideas in Gibson, in clarify: actualization is a sustantivation of his first phase, hence the search for concep- the verb to actualize; actuality is the noun. tual frameworks derived from that experi- 29 Gibson distinguishes between stimulus ener- ence, and to contrast hypotheses experimen- gy and stimulus information. This is about, in tally. This would make of Gibson someone the first case, the stimulus categorized as away from classical behaviorism, rather an energy according to the magnitudes of physi- experimentalist phenomenologist, hardly cal science, and in the second, of its dimen- with philosophical prejudices. For us this sion of ecological information that directly the lands on the ecological approach. This, in animal captures , and therefore is defined turn, puts him in Zubirian terms, in line with reference to the animal , ie, the "ecolog- with the ulteriority of scientific categorization ical" level, according to the ecological princi- at the level of reason, beyond the first phe- ple of mutuality between the animal and its nomenological level of perception at the level environment. The latter is explicitly defined of logos that involves primordial apprehen- by Gibson in his third book, EAVP, pg. 8. sion.
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 160 Alfonso de la Puerta González-Quevedo ______
30 We deal specifically with primordial appre- phenomenon of revolutionary authors, hension in the last third of our writing, let- breaking paradigms, as happens in the his- ting Zubiri to speak by himself in the quoted tory of science, as Thomas F Kuhn analyzed. passages corresponding to footnotes 91 and There he analyzes the complexity of the 94. above factors and concludes that in the case 31 Gestalt psychology greatly influenced Gib- of authors breaking the regular molds of in- son, though he criticized it decisively and terpretation, time is required. An author may superceded it. Gestalt psychology was also be fashionable in life and not go down in his- known to Zubiri. tory, and vice versa. Those who eschew fash- ion go down in history and become classics. 32 Edelman, G. (1992). Bright Air, Brilliant Fire: Fashions do not pose serious interpretation On the Matter of the Mind. NY: Basic Books, problems, the classics continuously do it. So p.14, cited by Cope, Theo, The Xavier Zubiri we continue to learn from them. Our convic- Review, Vol. 9, 2007, pp.133-154. It would tion is that both Gibson, as Zubiri are des- be consistent with the words of Edelman to tined to become classics, each in its field. We say that they contradict the view of Fodor do not have the same conviction about Fodor and Pylyshyn who strongly conclude that and Pylyshyn. “there will not be Gibsonian revolution in cognitive science”. We can say after reading For the application of Kuhn’s concept of para- his lengthy article, that Fodor and Pylyshyn, digm to psychology: Guedán Pécker, V.L. of the Establishment of cognitive science at 2001. that time, 1981, would be among the cogni- 33 That was their final statement of their (1981) tive scientists disavowed by Edelman, and Ecological Laws of Perceiving and acting: In precisely because of their unchallenged phil- reply to Fodor and Pylyshyn (see bibliog- osophical assumptions. That is, it would not raphy). be inconsistent with the words of the great 34 Despite the fact that the following point is neurologist, considering that there remains not important here, because it depends on the challenge of Gibson and his followers of intellectual references of each cultural con- ecological psychology to the dominant Estab- text and of each author, let´s say that we do lishment of cognitive science, and also there not characterize said major controversy in remains the challenge of radical empiricism the same way Gibson’s disciples -authors of of William James, which is not far removed the mentioned writing- do, although there in time, not to mention other themes from are similarities. For example, we would not across the Atlantic, such as phenomenologi- describe as arrogant Kantian positions, cally inspired currents, among which we whether explicit or not their roots are, alt- would include Zubiri. According to Monser- hough we also disagree with them. rat 1998, or the 17th International Confer- 35 For Zubiri intellective means apprehending ence on Perception and Action (ICPA) Estoril, reality itself. What is apprehended stays in Portugal, 2013; or the 13th European Work- the sentient with a particular formality, shop on Ecological Psychology (EWEP), which is, in the human animal, formality of Queen s University, Northern Ireland, 2014), reality; however, in the mere animal, what is the challenge remains to the latter and pre- apprehended stays with a formality of mere sent Establishment in cognitive science. For stimulus; that is, as a mere “sign” of tonic all the cited authors and currents, in our modification and response. Being real is to be view, directly conflict with the positions of de suyo or in its own right, absolutely inde- Establishment, narrated by Fodor and Py- pendent of the capturer, and anything else. lyshyn. The consistency of this challenge This is possible because of the hyperformal- means that it is not inconsistent—so to ized structures of the human animal, espe- speak—to continue considering Gibson, at cially the nervous system. This being in its least, a prelude of that revolution. Diego own right begins in the apprehension itself, Gracia, Director of The Zubiri Foundation in but continues beyond apprehension, “in the Madrid, in “Zubiri, Thirty Years Later”, ex- world”. See later in this paper the example of plores the intellectual fashions and factors Eddington’s two tables concerning “reality on that make an author to pass or not into his- the surface” and “reality in depth.” tory. And he gets particularly acute at the
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 J. J. Gibson´s Psychology of Perception from Zubiri´s Standpoint 161 ______
this is where, in our view, the conceptualiza- 36 Zubiri explains that the logification of intellec- tion makes the logos the fundamental mode of tion of Zubiri, including recurrences and intellection. This entails that being is the fun- simple apprehensions, would be useful, qual- damental mode of reality, that reality is entity; ifying coherently, to what Gibson left without this is the entification of reality. But what one sufficient explanation or elaboration. need to do is to “intelligize” the logos; and to 40 This expression is the one the authors used reify being. For the fundamental mode of intel- to position themselves in an exercise not lection is not the logos but sentient intellection lacking irony, given that the Kühnian back- in primordial apprehension of reality; and reali- ground of “scientific revolutions” is guessed. ty is not a mode of being, rather the reverse, Gibson himself said that his ecological ap- being is a mode of reality. The logos is an ulte- proach to perception also aims to be a new rior mode of intellection and being is a ulterior approach to psychology. Coinciding with mode of reality. Logification of intellection and Zubiri Gibson in many of the general as- entification of reality were from Parmenides sumptions on which they rest -although both onwards the two major assumptions of Greek authors apparently didn’t get to know each philosophy, and they have dominated the entire other- it is not for surprise the astonishing western philosophical traditition up to Husserl coincidence between them, and that we are and Heidegger. All this has had and has huge determined to rescue Gibson from the mar- consequences, including conceptualism and idealism, secular evils of philosophy. In the gins (Harry Heft, 2001, inspired us this ex- present problem this immediately translates as pression) through its critical foundation from the difference between sensation and percep- the powerful and solvent philosophy of tion. Or that time (all perception has its spatial Zubiri. dimensions and occurs over time) is something 41 See Harry Heft, 2001, especially chapters 1 that, according to Zubiri, directly affects being, and 2. And on pg. 73 says: “The collective ef- not reality; besides having more to do with the fort of the six philosophers who identified perceiver than with the perceived. And yet, it themselves as The New Realists can be seen seems that William James, who inspired Gib- mostly as an attempt to defend and expand son, has some concepts of sensation and per- James’s radical empiricism and explore some ception that do not fall into the classic prob- of its implications.” Edwin B. Holt was one of lems that almost all positions fell (Harry Heft, them. 2001, pgs.156-158). Nor does Gibson fall into 42 the problems we denounce, as he is clear about Javier San Martín Sala points out in his the problems of postures representing “the article “Psychology and Phenomenology” that operations of the mind on the delivery of the intentionality of most of cognitive science is senses”, as explained. anchored on its representationism. This au- thor echoes the debate that occurred in the 37 EAVP, pg. 61. United States in the 70s and 80s about the 38 Harry Heft, 2001, pgs. 351-352. two ways of interpreting Husserl: a Husserl 39 The two mentalities, of course, are not the who is a representationist theorist (which in- ones of Gibson and Zubiri, as both are on fluence cognitive science), and a Husserl of the same side, but that of the group of which experience (which influence Merleau Ponty we consider them outstanding exponents, and Heidegger), and where there are no rep- and that represented by Fodor and Pylyshyn, resentations. which they call the Establishment, in the 43 Fodor and Pylyshyn, 1981, pg. 194. (See note specific field of cognitive science. The core of 4 pg. 2). The sentences of both notes con- discrepancy, which in turn involves several densed nuclear aspects of both opposing po- points, we could say that is if perception is sitions. direct or indirect. The pickup information the- 44 We hope that this word does not confuse ory is, therefore, something unavoidable in those who are not familiar with certain phil- keeping with the directness of perception, osophical language. For to say that percep- and so things, the direct pickup of invariants tion, ultimately, is direct, is said in a lan- of optical structure is itself necessary, in guage that might suggest that, first, is indi- Gibson’s view, to give account for the phe- rect, which, all in all, sounds like nonsense. nomena known as perceptual constancy. But Perhaps this is better understood saying that
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 162 Alfonso de la Puerta González-Quevedo ______
it is, at its root, direct. As explained below, 51 HRI pp. 155-156. We have to clarify, to avoid what happens is that, ulteriorly, a duality is susceptibilities of Zubiri´s connoisseurs, we given in perception, duality that has a direct are following in this article more the book root. This ulteriority is not temporary, but HRI than IL, as it seems to us, for the prob- concerns foundations. The basis or root is lem at hand, the most enlightening book. direct, although the direct nature involves a Although, actually, as Jesus Conill warns us duality. We explain in detail below. in the Introduction, the meaning of experi- 45 We know of no better philosophy, having the ence Zubiri offered in this book is not exactly strength and creditworthiness of the philos- the same as the one in IRA, or SH. But also ophy of Zubiri, not only for the problem at he remembers Mary Riaza, who, in the fol- hand, but for the great problems of human lowing publications considered this book “a beings and contemporary culture. treaty of experience”, and this course as the most appropriate place to reconstruct a the- 46 See the home page of The Xavier Zubiri ory of experience in Zubiri: Riaza, María, Foundation of North America “Una línea de experiencia que pasa por (http:www.zubiri.org). The Spanish Word Kant”, in Realitas I, 1974, pp. 399-436, and used by Zubiri is ficto, the term for the men- “Sobre la experiencia en Zubiri”, Realitas II tal entity of a fiction or creation, as percept is (1974-75) 1976, pp.245-312 . Cited by Jesus the term for the mental entity of a percep- Conill, pg. x of the Presentation of HRI. tion. The closest word in English could be notional. 52 The Spanish word used by Zubiri is per- catarse, which, etymologically, has exactly 47 The word used by Zubiri in Spanish is the same Latin root than per-captare (actual- noología, kind of philosophical neologism, ly, the Spanish expressions percatarse and coming from the Greek nous, which means percepción come from the Latin per-captare). intelligence. 53 This note is ours. Later on we explain that 48 HRI, pp. 65-66 (Spanish original: to my sameness can be considered from the indi- knowledge there is no translation into Eng- vidual point of view that is the sameness of lish of HRI yet). Moreover, the scope of the ir- who, relative to the percept, or the sameness real, which in its most definitive version by of what, from the point of view of the notes, in IL consist of percepts, ficta and concepts relative to the concept (HRI, pgs. 178 and (the simple apprehensions) as herein men- 179). We will see that this has everything to tioned, and comes from the irrealization of do with Gibson´s theory of invariants. the content of what is apprehended in pri- mordial apprehension in a retracting move- 54 HRI pg. 167. ment, while retaining the moment of formali- 55 Remember this is our particular translation ty of reality. of a neologism created by Z to design that 49 Of course, the above is not a truism, nor a which corresponds to a fiction: ficto (the term simple game of words, but, in our view, an used by Z); we have percept translating per- invaluable conceptualization which is a cepto, concept translating concepto; so we de- product of a thorough analysis, such as cided to translate ficto by fict. those of Zubiri. This is in contrast to many 56 Gibson J.J. and Gibson Eleanor J., 1955a , analyses in which reality is “a zone of things” and Gibson J.J. and Gibson Eleanor J., (González, Antonio, 1994) not included in 1955b. perception. In them the perceptive act lacks 57 Despite important differences—and there are unity, e.g. those of the Establishment of many—any reader of issues of perception Fodor and Pylyshyn’s article, or theories crit- knows the figure-ground duality of Gestalt icized by Gibson, based on sensation, or psychology. This is given as a reference to those of constructivists from the field of sci- know what Zubiri is talking about here. entific psychology, or scientific or philosoph- 58 Zubiri says that the respectivity (in respect to ical theories with a Kantian matrix, either which we consider one thing, depending on expressed or implied. what, etc.) is a deeper stratum than the sim- 50 We refer to HRI. ple relationship, to the point that it predates the related things, and grounds them. The
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 J. J. Gibson´s Psychology of Perception from Zubiri´s Standpoint 163 ______
issue is complex and we can find it in Re- Of course, not everything matches, because spectividad de lo Real in EM. the wordy analysis of Zubiri we believe is 59 The translation into Spanish of is here would unprecedented, and therefore, we could find be está, not es. Perhaps the sentence could important and not negligible differences, as have been expressed using the verb to stay, in fact we do, which in certain contexts are instead of to be. In Spanish, we distinguish important. But here we look at the lines of between ser and estar, a difficult task for a convergence. beginner studying Spanish: both are trans- 61 Gibson quotes the Scottish philosopher lated by the verb to be. In Zubiri the differ- Thomas Reid, who wrote this in 1785, in ence between ser and estar yields a very im- SCPS p.1. portant philosophical meaning which has 62 We could characterize the philosophy of much to do with our investigation, because Zubiri, roughly, as a phenomenological real- in Western philosophy there was no im- ism. portant difference between being (ser) and 63 In order to give orienting references let us reality (which in Zubiri’s philosophy is often put this in connection with, for example, the “represented” by the word estar). Actually, Gestalt figure-ground phenomenon. most times, instead of “reality” the term used was being. For Zubiri there is something be- 64 Here respectivities is the noun in plural de- yond being which is more radical. The ulti- rived from respect, as in respect to, for exam- mate is reality, not being. Being is only a ple. One thing is considered X in respect to mode of reality, not viceversa, as in the other thing. Western tradition. That was called by Zubiri 65 IRE, pp. 36-37. the entification of reality, which entailed its 66 HRI, p. 168. congeneric logification of intellection: because 67 logos is not, for Z, the radical mode of intel- HRI, p. 169. lection: the primordial apprehension of reality 68 We are thinking here about the subject of is instead. In psychology, as we have stated being, that for Zubiri, is the actuality of the repeatedly in this work, this historical prob- real in the world. That is, reality may and lem of the Western tradition has appeared in does have many respectivities or actualities; the form of the distinction between sensation the actuality in the sentient intelligence is and perception. As we have mentioned be- just one of them. fore, and will explain later on, the huge his- 69 It is an expression of Harry Heft, 2001, p. torical problem of entification of reality and xxiv of the Introduction. logification of intellection is one of the main 70 Clarification for Gibsonians: The enrichment problems visited on the Western tradition by of the content, while maintaining the same the separation of sensing and intellection in formality of reality (thus, as it were, without the human contact with reality. Gibson’s losing the primordial apprehension of reality, theories, as we have shown in previous which is at all times the demanding referent chapters, are in tune with all this, in his of the simple apprehensions realizing it) has way. nothing to do with the enrichment of a poor 60 Among other things, worth, because Gibson input to which Gibson and his tradition crit- is directly inspired by him in his revolution- icize and oppose. They do so because the lat- ary conception of the senses considered as ter would be qualified by Zubiri as conceiving perceptual systems (a revolution in tune with intelligence: it starts from a duality and from Zubiri; the authors did not know each other, an indirect perception mediated by mental but they had something important in com- representations. However, in Zubiri, this en- mon: the underlying truth, a genius to reveal richment is only of the content, it belongs to a it, and courage to proclaim it against the sentient intelligence frame, and starts from a prevailing theories). Gibson’s theory is the unitary and direct perceptive act; and is a necessary conception consistent with his presentation and not a representation. Never- ecological approach to direct perception. In theless, primordial apprehension, direct and turn, attunement to the sentient intelligence unitary at its root, is ulteriorly split into a de- (or intellective sensing) of Zubiri is important, as shown here, and generally, in this article.
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 164 Alfonso de la Puerta González-Quevedo ______
ployment where we can see the duality of the authors, looks to be a compendium of refer- logos. ence today in Ecological Psychology. It can 71 SCPS, pp. 21 and 22, paragraph The World be found in the world wide web, on the web- of Physics and the Sources of Stimulation. site of the Center for the Ecological Study of Furthermore, this issue is directly related to Perception and Action (CESPA) of the Univer- the ecological approach. Gibson always said sity of Connecticut. that it is the level where you have to start ... 78 Michaels, Claire F. and Carello, Claudia, because it is the level of the animal ... the 1981, pg.177. reality being structured at all levels ... these 79 IRE, pg.267 (English version, pg. 97). are embedded (nested like Russian dolls) one 80 For example, in IRA, pg.159 (Spanish ver- into each other. Please continue now seeing sion); English version, p. 299. how these levels—in which the environment and reality are structured—are the appropri- 81 Impressively means, according to Zubiri, ate framework to use with Zubiri, as one of sentiently, through our senses, but not con- these levels, the one of the world, to which ceptualized in the classical manner, but as we access going from apprehension of logos, intellective sensing. By being senses they the level where perception occurs. It is worth capture through sensitive impression, by be- noting that Gibson joined the General Sys- ing intellective they capture the stimuli as tems Theory explicitly. We think that the real, ie as de suyo or “in their own right”; philosophy of Zubiri, in general, is in tune which means, absolutely independently of with it; especially through his concepts of the capturer, and of everything else. It is a system and structure. sentient intelligence, not just sensible. This means, in line with Gibson (senses consid- 72 Eddington was a physicist, famous for ered as perceptual systems, and knowledge spreading the theories of Einstein in Eng- as an extension of perception) having struc- land, who in 1929 published a book that had turally three stages: in addition to the mo- great impact, The Nature of the Physical ment of affection—state of being affected, not World. Insurmountable differences were evi- as a feeling or emotion—a moment of other- dent between the world described by physi- ness, and a moment of force of imposition. cal science, and the one we see in our daily Zubiri insists that philosophy has overlooked lives. Gibson echoes this controversy, since it impression, and was fixed almost exclusively has everything to do with his positions, and on affection (in line with projective logic), ne- very specifically with the issue of the ecologi- glecting the moments of otherness and force cal approach. of imposition almost completely. The other- 73 IRE, pg.177 (Spanish Version; English Ver- ness was for the mind (“the operations of the sion pp. 64-65). mind on the delivery of the senses”), with the 74 IRE, pp.177-178. What we have described consequent problems regarding intentionali- formerly as constructivist travel, regarding ty, or the correspondence between the mind theories that Gibson criticizes, seems some- and that otherness. thing very similar to what Zubiri describes 82 IRE pp. 64 and 65 (Spanish Version), English here by saying that it starts from the real version, p. 26. things in the area beyond perception, and 83 We do not translate de Spanish expression the rest is quartered in the area of the sub- de suyo, but it is equivalent to en propio, jective. which we do translate (following the main 75 HRI, pp. 171-176. translators of Zubiri into English—Nelson 76 IRE, pp. 176-177. Orringer, Thomas B. Fowler, etc.—by in its 77 Michaels, Claire F. and Carello, Claudia, own right. 1981, pgs. 168 and 169 (see bibliography). 84 Is it right to have included in the world, both They are quoting Wigner, E.P. In W. Moore & the wavelengths, etc., as well as the rods and M Scriven (Eds.) Symmetries and Reflections: cones of the retina and the occipital region of Scientific Essays in Honor of Eugene P. Wig- the brain In fact, all things considered, if re- ner. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1970. The ality is not a zone of things, and if “it begins book Direct Perception, from the mentioned in the apprehension”, which is also reality
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 J. J. Gibson´s Psychology of Perception from Zubiri´s Standpoint 165 ______
par excellence, and the world is reality in remember in EAVP, pp. 138-140, a reflection depth, which is beyond apprehension. But on this problem around a mailbox. It is the also, in respect to the apprehension, in this problem of meaning and values of things, case corresponding to the color of the table, that Gibson argues that we perceive directly, it turns out that this “beyond” in respect to as they would be placed on the affordances color is both electromagnetic waves and pho- of things, which are specified in ambient tons, as well as rods and cones of the retina light. Given the dualism of the phenomenal and the occipital region of the brain. mail and the physical mail of Koffka, Gibson 85 IRA, pp. 253-254 (Spanish version), English concluded: “I prefer to say that the real post- version, p. 332. box (the only one) affords letter-mailing to a letter-writing human in a community with a 86 Indeed, as Neisser (1978) pointed out some postal system”. Just note here that our hy- time ago, the identification of stimulus invar- pothesis is that the concepts of Zubiri that iants is “the largest outstanding promissory are closer to, or have to do closely with, the note in ecological optics” (p.24). This state- affordances of Gibson are be meaning-thing ment remains only slightly less true today. and habitude. But we cannot here go in 87 In HRI, Zubiri speaks of integration. In IL, the depth in the confrontation of the positions of second volume of the trilogy, he speaks of our authors on this point. Our first impres- realization. Percepts, ficta and concepts sion is that, although there would be differ- come from the irrealization of the content of ences, their conceptualizations on this point, primordial apprehension. It is what Zubiri in line with their general positions, which to- called, in HRI, the forging of the irreal. gether are of great harmony and affinity, 88 Gibson quotes himself: Gibson J.J. “The would not be a striking exception to that af- problem of temporal order is stimulation and finity. perception”, Journal of Psychology 62, 141- 91 SH, pg. 542. 149. 92 EAVP, pg. 225. 89 EAVP, pg. 254. 93 In his philosophy, Zubiri replaces, consistent 90 Something very important in the philosophy with all his positions, the old concept of sub- of Zubiri is the distinction in each real thing stance by the concept of substantivity. The (most of which are surrounding us humans) substance is a sub-jectum, subject of in- of its dimension of reality-thing and its di- inherent properties. Substantivity is a struc- mension of meaning-thing. Zubiri gives the tural system of co-herent notes or properties, example of a table. We never perceive a table where each property or note is note-of-all as such, but the physical materiality of its others. There is an “in” and an “ex” which notes, either wood or whatever material. To could be translated as inner and outer. The be a table is the dimension of meaning-thing, “in” is structurally reflected (structure) on which would go mounted, so to speak, on its the “ex”. But according to this, sentient intel- most radical dimension of reality-thing. For ligence is a systemic property of the whole Zubiri, the meaning-thing is a constructed substantivity, not subjacent, but in any case function of our lives, particularly our being super-shelf. This is in line with, not a “pro- (our personality), with the reality of the table, jective logic” (as it would be the case of sub- namely the reality-thing. We have, in that stance), but with a logic of “field simultanei- way, the reality of the table. Antonio Gonza- ty”. lez points out in “Las cosas” (González Fer- 94 EAVP pg. 239. nández, Antonio, 2008) that a significant vir- tuality of the philosophy of Zubiri, which dis- 95 EAVP pg. 247. tinguishes him from all phenomenological 96 EAVP pg. 256. currents, is that it does not stay in the mere 97 EAVP pg. 258. sense, but comes even to what is most radi- 98 EAVP pg. 263. cal, that is reality. And this has big conse- quences. This is also, in its conceptualiza- 99 Obviously, this statement is our interpreta- tion, an old problem that Gibson dealt with tion, standing on what was said here by Gib- and was already treated by the Gestalt. We son, but from a view of the whole of his work. Gibson did not speak clearly of some-
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015 166 Alfonso de la Puerta González-Quevedo ______
thing like a primordial apprehension as stand by itself, but Zubiri’s support makes it Zubiri did, nor develop anything like logos patent. and reason as Zubiri did, as we have repeat- 100 Hypothesis: is it the truth that underlies edly pointed out. Having his stubborn de- both by low? fense of direct perception in the background 101 Obviously, we think that this theory already of our mind, against theories of perception exists. It is over a thousand pages of the tril- defending that we perceive through mental ogy of Zubiri on the sentient intelligence, with images, we think that statements like the its three volumes: Intelligence and Reality, one upon which we are commenting, “are Intelligence and Logos, Intelligence and Rea- consistent with” or “suggest” something simi- son (see bibliography). This is the subject of lar to the primordial apprehension of Zubiri. our interest and the subject of our doctoral Moreover, the meaning of knowing in Zubiri thesis: Critical Foundation—from Zubiri’s is very accurate, as an ulterior mode of intel- standpoint—of J. J Gibson´s Ecological Ap- lection ultimately anchored in the primordial proach to Psychology of Perception. apprehension. In Gibson, the meaning of 102 knowing does not seem as precise as in In addition to the above-specified, he men- Zubiri. Anyway, Gibson explicitly admits that tions and analyzes the following ones in “The ecological theory of direct perception EAVP, pp. 251-253: Mental Operations on cannot stand by itself. It implies a new theo- the Sensory Inputs, Semilogical Operations ry of cognition in general”. We do think on the Sensory Inputs, Decoding Operations Zubiri has developed a philosophy which, on the Sensory Inputs. among many other things, self-gives some- 103 EAVP p. 253. thing that could be considered the grounds 104 Or hardly ever? of a new theory of cognition in general. That 105 Time in Zubiri is in intímate connection is why we try to give critical foundation and with being, but, as we said, we cannot enter support to Gibson through Zubiri. We believe here into this very important but complex that Gibson’s theory has enough strength to and deep theme.
XAVIER ZUBIRI REVIEW 2013-2015
Book Reviews
Cristianismo y realidad. La credibilidad de Cristo en J. Montserrat y la novedad teológica en X. Zubiri. José M. Millás. Editado por el Pontificio Instituto Bíblico. Gregorian & Bi- blical Press 2014, Rome.
Este texto de José M. Millás surge de la preparación de unas clases para la Facul- tad de Teología de la Universidad Gregoriana de Roma. Dirige su atención a la filosofía de la realidad de Zubiri y atiende a las premisas de que es insuficiente la justificación de la existencia de Dios y la fe cristiana en los modelos clásicos que conocemos. Por un lado, aparece la realidad y la credibilidad de Cristo en la filosofía de X. Zubiri y por otro lado, la idea en J. Montserrat de renovar el paradigma del pensamiento cristiano. Millás decide atender a una intuición según la cual en el pensamiento de J. Mon- tserrat sí se hallarían los elementos fundamentales para esa justificación y credibilidad a las que antes aludía. El objeto principal de este libro es la fundamentación de la fe así como la contribución a la estructuración del pensamiento cristiano a fin de que pueda facilitar el desarrollo de una teología dogmática coherente y actual. La obra tiene dos partes. La primera titulada “Realidad y credibilidad” en la que el autor se centra en el concepto de realidad en el pensamiento de Zubiri y el pensamiento de Montserrat en cuanto a la renovación del paradigma cristiano que corresponda a la comprensión actual del mundo y del hombre. Aunque el mismo autor advierte que ha- brá que verse si todo ello posee una fuerza de convicción suficiente. Con lo cual queda bien planteada la cuestión desde el punto de vista del autor que responde de este modo al tema siempre espinoso del cambio de paradigma en el cristianismo. Un tema que han abordado muchos teólogos y filósofos. Después de muchos años intentando explicar ese cambio de paradigma todavía no me parece claro. En este punto de la reflexión el Dr. Millás no deja a Dios ni a Cristo fuera de ese hipotéticamente necesario cambio de paradigma y es muy de agradecer ya que en esos intentos de explicación hemos oído hablar muy serenamente a teólogos y otros pensa- dores en términos de una religión sin Dios, una espiritualidad sin fe y hasta de un cris- tianismo sin Cristo, que no digo Jesús histórico, sino Cristo, un Cristo tan poco cris- tiano que yo no puedo entender. La aceptación, la asunción, del carácter profundamente enigmático que tiene la re- ligación como experiencia y como manifestación está presente en todo el libro. Se trata de una idea fundante en el pensamiento del autor y transita honestamente, sin que se fuerce su comprensión, todos y cada uno de los capítulos. La segunda parte titulada “Realidad y teología” sigue los pasos de PTHC, El proble- ma teologal del hombre: Cristianismo de Zubiri, publicado en 1997. El autor cree que un planteamiento contemporáneo de la Trinidad tendría que ver con comprenderla en la realidad, en la vida, La centralidad de Cristo Jesús en la comprensión del Cristianismo así como la actualidad de este Cristo en la Iglesia son de una fuerza significativa al ela- borar la idea de realidad en el seno de la reflexión teológica. En el último capítulo el profesor Millás entiende la realidad de la Iglesia anclada en la historia tanto de la Reve- lación como de la Tradición. Es fundamental para el autor mantener la historicidad inevitable, y en su comprensión inquebrantable, de la Iglesia hoy. Sin embargo, la his- toria no es lo más radical del Cristianismo sino el dar de si de Dios en la Historia de la Revelación; del mismo modo que Cristo es no sólo central sino la justa respuesta al enigma de la realidad.
167 168 Book Reviews
Cristianismo y realidad representa una significativa aportación a las revisiones y estudios de teología dogmática que se están realizando hoy. El rigor y la seriedad del profesor Millás en todos sus planteamientos son de indiscutible valor en las reflexiones teológicas y filosóficas contemporáneas.
Dra. Nativitat Senserrich y Morata
* * *
La actualidad de lo real en Zubiri: crítica a Husserl y Heidegger, José Alfonso Villa Sanchez, Plaza y Valdes, 2014, México D.F., 328 pp., 300 pesos. (Available from www.plazayvaldes.com).
This fine book, by Professor José Alfonso Villa, is a great addition to the literature on Zubiri. As its title suggests, it is about the subject of actuality of the real in Zubiri’s philosophy. The author develops this subject in a very insightful manner, which en- lightens many aspects of the subject. But the book also works to clarify the topic of ac- tuality by comparing and contrasting Zubiri’s view of the subject with those of Husserl and Heiddeger, and other philosophers, principally Aristotle. As the author points out in the Introduction, Zubiri himself did not systematically develop the notion of actuality, though it appears throughout his mature philosophy. This book takes up that chal- lenge, and does so in a very thorough and easy to read manner. It begins by showing how Zubiri transforms phenomenology into filosofía primera. It then discusses actuality and the philosophy of actuality in two chapters, and continues with a treatment of sen- tient intelligence in the context of actuality and Husserl’s philosophy. The remaining chapters cover actualization of the real, a dialog with Aristotle, actuality and being, and the transcendental order and being. The explanations and discussions in the book are quite clear and can be understood even by someone with minimal exposure to Zubiri. But they are sophisticated enough to appeal even to those who are experts. I highly recommend this book for all Zubiri libraries. Thomas B. Fowler
El estatuto biológico y ontológico del embrión humano, Francisco Güell, Bern: Peter Lang, 2013, 610pp, $137.95.
This book is an investigation of the biological and ontological status of the human em- bryo, based on Zubiri’s philosophy. In particular, it utilizes his notions of essence and substantivity. It is an attempt to bridge the longstanding gap between the way that the sciences perceive the world, and the way that the humanities—and in particular philos- ophy—perceive the world. Zubiri himself of course always sought to do this; but the present book does so by focusing on a topic of particular interest today in bioethics. The book is divided into three principal parts: Part I is a detailed exposition of the prin- cipal notions of Zubiri’s philosophy, especially those in Sobre la esencia [On Essence]. The second part shifts to biology and gives a detailed explanation of the development of the human embryo from the standpoint of the biologist and physiologist. In the third part there is a precise description of biological reality intended for the purposes of onto- logical and ethical examination and reflection. The author believes—and no doubt Zubiri would concur—that there is a continuity between biological and philosophical investigation. In his conclusion, Prof. Güell notes that “the conclusions about the analysis of the substantive character of the embryo, about the constitutive sufficiency of the em- brio and about the essentiality or constitutionality of the genetic and epigenetic material correspond to the precision which Zubiri bestows upon the meaning of “substantivity,”
The Xavier Zubiri Review 2013-2015 Book Reviews 169
“constitutional sufficiency,” and “essence.” (p. 562) The point of the book is to demon- strate that a complete understanding of the genetic process of the human requires more than biology; it requires a grasp of philosophical concepts such as those provided by Zubiri. I recommend this book highly for all who are interested in biology, in Zubiri’s views of science, and in questions about the uniqueness of humans. Though long, it is a very worthwhile study.
The Xavier Zubiri Review 2013-2015
Call for papers…
The Xavier Zubiri Review is soliciting papers for its 14th edition, which will be pub- lished in 2016. Papers dealing with any aspect of Zubiri’s philosophy or biography will be considered. Of special interest are papers that extend Zubiri’s thought to new areas, expound and solve problems in his philosophy, and deepen our under- standing of key aspects of his philosophical system. All papers are reviewed by the Editorial Review Board, and authors may be asked to make changes or corrections. Papers may be in any language, though English and Spanish are preferred. Papers should be 10-20 pages in length, and should be submitted electronically if possi- ble. This may be done by including a diskette along with the printed version of the paper, or by sending the paper electronically, as an e-mail attachment. Charts, diagrams, and photographs are acceptable, though photographs will only be print- ed in black-and-white. All papers accepted will be published on the Xavier Zubiri Foundation of North America’s web site, www.zubiri.org, as well as in printed form. Papers must be received no later than 1 April 2016 to be considered for this issue. Authors should also include a brief biography and a photograph, or be prepared to supply them after acceptance of their paper for publication.
We are also seeking Zubiri-related books to review. If you wish to have your book reviewed in these pages, or if you would like to serve as a book reviewer, please contact the editor at the address below, or send an e-mail message.
Please send papers and books to review to:
Editorial Board, Xavier Zubiri Review Xavier Zubiri Foundation of North America 1571 44th Street, NW Washington, DC 20007
Address for electronic submission: [email protected]
171