Jorge J. E. Gracia

IN A PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS I believe the speaker is allowed more latitude than in a more ordinary speech. There is more freedom to explore and perhaps even preach. So I am going to do a bit of both. My chapter and verse, some of you will be surprised to know, is a passage from the preface to Foucault’s The Order of Things, in which he argues that categories are a matter of invention. This text has had enormous impact on the issue I wish to address today, and in many ways has helped to define it and to establish as definitive, in the minds of many of our contemporaries, the view that categories are invented.

__Forging People __explores the way in which Hispanic American thinkers in Latin America and Latino/a philosophers in the United States have posed and thought about questions of race, ethnicity, and nationality, and how they have interpreted the most significant racial and ethnic labels used in Hispanic America in connection with issues of rights, nationalism, power, and identity. Following the first introductory chapter, each of the essays addresses one or more influential thinkers, ranging from Bartolomé de Las Casas on race and the rights of Amerindians; to Simon Bolívar's struggle with questions of how to forge a nation from disparate populations; to modern and contemporary thinkers on issues of race, unity, assimilation, and diversity. Each essay carefully and clearly presents the views of key authors in their historical and philosophical context and provides brief biographical sketches and reading lists, as aids to students and other readers. “Latin American philosophy has a long history of engagement with issues of race, ethnicity, and nationality. To date, however, there has been no volume that focused on the contributions of the major figures in the Latin American tradition, to illustrate their connections, and to illuminate the context in which much of their work occurred. This volume fills that gap and takes an important step in remedying this shortcoming in the existing philosophical literature, and also in the literature of related fields such as Latin American studies, ethnic studies, and the cross-disciplinary work of race, ethnicity, and nationality.” —_Manuel Vargas, University of San Francisco _

IF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY studies ideas from the past, as is generally accepted, then historians of philosophy face a serious problem concerning their object of study for two reasons. In the first place, like all history, the history of philosophy is concerned with the past and we can never have direct empirical access to the past unless that past is close to us and we have taken part in it. In order to know the past in which we have not participated we must rely on the testimony of those who had direct access to it and left records of what they witnessed. In the second place, the problem arises because the specific object that the history of philosophy studies is ideas and ideas are not things, events, or facts for which we can have direct empirical evidence even if we are contemporaneous with them. The most we can have is indirect empirical evidence. We do not perceive ideas; what we perceive are certain phenomena that suggest to us certain ideas. If I ask you, for example, "Do you approve of what the President did?" and you frown in return, I conclude that you do not. But it is altogether possible that you do in fact approve of the President's action, although you wish me to think that you do not and thus mislead me by making the frown. My conclusion that you do not, then, can be taken only as an interpretation of what you are thinking based on certain empirical evidence that is only indirectly related to what you think. Thus the study of the history of philosophy is very difficult, more difficult than the study of the type of history that relies on events for which there can be direct empirical evidence; for not only is direct access to the past impossible for historians of philosophy from the present, but even if they had it they would not have direct access to the ideas which are supposed to be the object of their study.

Este artículo trata sobre dos temas: cómo se establece el canon filosófico y las razones por las cuales la filosofía latinoamericana es generalmente excluida tanto del canon de la filosofía occidental como del canon de la filosofía a nivel mundial. El segundo tema permite ilustrar los problemas que surgen en el contexto del primero y proporciona una respuesta a ellos. El artículo sostiene que varias teorías que se proponen explicar la formación del canon y la exclusión de ciertos filósofos del canon occidental en particular, no hacen justicia a la situación porque ignoran el papel de la tradición en el proceso. Más específicamente, se ilustra cómo la tradición explica por qué la filosofía latinoamericana tiende a estar ausente tanto del canon filosófico occidental como del mundial. This article discusses two topics: how the philosophical canon is established and the reasons why Latin American philosophy is generally excluded both from the canon of western philosophy and the canon of world philosophy. The second topic illustrates the problems that come up in the context of the first and provides answers to them. The article argues that several theories that purport to explain the formation of the canon and the exclusion of certain philosophers from the western philosophical canon in particular, do not do justice to the situation because they ignore the role of tradition in the process. More specifically, the article shows how tradition explains why Latin American philosophy tends to be absent both from the canon of western philosophy and the world canon of philosophy

This paper investigates the problem of numerical continuity in thomistic metaphysics and attempts to point out the principle of identity in material substances. it has three parts: the first clarifies the issue and presents the possible alternatives; the second rejects various solutions which have been proposed by interpreters of thomas aquinas such as matter, form, accidents, and substance; and the third part argues that within thomistic metaphysics it is only existence ("esse") that may be considered as an acceptable candidate for this ontological role

The presence and impact of Hispanics/Latinos in the United States cannot be ignored. Already the largest minority group, by 2050 their numbers will exceed all the other minority groups in the United States combined. The diversity of this population is often understated, but the people differ in terms of their origin, race. language, custom, religion, political affiliation, education and economic status. The heterogeneity of the Hispanic/Latino population raises questions about their identity and their rights: do they really constitute a group? That is, do they have rights as a group, or just as individuals? This volume, addresses these concerns through a varied and interdisciplinary approach

Despite predictions that Hispanics will soon outnumber all other minority groups combined in the United States, philosophy has remained indifferent to the growing Hispanic population. This paper offers several hypotheses why this is the case, arguing that Hispanics and Hispanic thought are perceived as unphilosophical (or only narrowly philosophical) and are thus perceived as ill-suited for academia and academic discussions in the United States. The author concludes by proposing strategies for overcoming this marginalization of Hispanics and Hispanic philosophy.

This comprehensive reference volume features essays by some of the most distinguished scholars in the field. Provides a comprehensive "who's who" guide to medieval philosophers. Offers a refreshing mix of essays providing historical context followed by 140 alphabetically arranged entries on individual thinkers. Constitutes an extensively cross-referenced and indexed source. Written by a distinguished cast of philosophers. Spans the history of medieval philosophy from the fourth century AD to the fifteenth century.

After reviewing various formulations of the problems of universals and individuation, this essay considers the dialectic that informs the relationship between the two. This dialectic involves a distinction between a realist theory of universals that satisfies the requirements of science but fails to account for the non-instantiability of individuals and a nominalist theory of universals that fails to satisfy the requirements of science but accounts for the non-instantiability of individuals. Inadequacies found in one view tend to motivate movement to the other view. But, like a pendulum swing, this movement inevitably involves facing what motivated the original view. This dialectic is illustrated by a consideration of the views of five medieval authors: Boethius, Peter Abelard, Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus, and William of Ockham

This article argues for two theses. The first is that many of the sociological factors endemic in the philosophical community function as barriers to the recruitment of members of minority groups in the profession and to their functioning as public intellectuals. The division into familial groups, the fights for security and success, and the weakness of the federal organization of the American Philosophical Association all contribute to these barriers. The second is that sociology has a place in philosophy, even though it should not be confused with it. This means that philosophers need to consider social phenomena.

INDIVIDUALITY has given philosophers considerable trouble. There are conflicting views as to how to understand it and even as to its intelligibility in spite of what appears to be its fundamental character in our experience. For, on the one hand, we seem to experience the world in terms of individuals, but when we try to explain what their individuality is we run into difficulties. Indeed, even a view which at first sight appears quite innocuous, defining individuality formally as a feature which characterizes individuals as individuals, is strongly rejected by many. They argue that individuality cannot be a feature at all in the strict sense of the word, since its being a feature would presuppose that something else could share on it or have it, and that seems to contradict the very notion of individuality. At any rate, this is of no concern to us presently since it is an issue which pertains to the ontological status of individuality rather than its intension. It suffices to point out for the moment that there is ample disagreement concerning the proper understanding of individuality.