Jose Ortega

The extent of neurogenesis in Drosophila is under the control of the so‐called neurogenic genes, named for their mutant phenotype of causing neural hyperplasia. Their wild‐type products appear to be responsible for a signal chain that decides the fate of ectodermal cells in the embryo. Various kinds of data, from cell transplantation experiments as well as from genetic and molecular analyses, suggest that the proteins encoded by the genes Notch and Delta may act at the membrane of the signal‐transmitting cells to provide a ligand to a still unknown receptor molecule; in contrast, the locus of Enhancer of split codes for several functions related to the transduction and further processing of the signal.

José Ortega y Gasset (1883-1955) es, sin duda, el mayor filósofo hispánico y uno de los más importantes del siglo XX. Su obra desvela un pensamiento circunstancial que va hilvanando temas y preocupaciones de varia índole y carácter en el complejo entramado teórico y metodológico de la "razón vital". Obras como "Meditaciones del Quijote", "El tema de nuestro tiempo" o los ensayos contenidos en "El espectador" son perfectamente representativas de ese peculiar estilo filosófico suyo en el que la fuerza expresiva de la frase nace animada por una tensión insoluble entre la metáfora y el concepto. Esa tensión es Ortega y en ella reside el mayor valor de su legado como contribución principal a la construcción del espacio hispánico de reflexión. "Meditación de la técnica" es un claro ejemplo del quehacer filosófico orteguiano, atento siempre a los problemas reales del hombre contemporáneo y pronto a denunciar las falsedades del culturalismo.

This concise, elegant essay on the roots and historical justification of philosophy marks a decisive step in posing the problem of what philosophy is. With consummate clarity and the charisma that distinguished him as a lecturer, José Ortega y Gasset re-creates "that moment when Parmenides began talking about something exceptionally strange, which he called 'being.'" How and why, he asks, did such a surprising adventure come about? Considering the human qualities that prompt a curiosity about existence and eternity, Ortega examines philosophy's etymology, its connection to poetry, and its differentiation from religion and other modes of thought. He lucidly delineates radical differences of doctrine and style among early Greek thinkers, especially the "madman of reason" Parmenides and the "absolute individual" Heraclitus. He also considers philosophy's fundamental task of revealing the latent world poised behind the manifest world and discovering the relations between them. "Unable to find lodging among the philosophies of the past," Ortega observes, "we have no choice but to attempt to construct one of our own." The Origin of Philosophy argues for the vital importance of philosophy as a human endeavor, even while noting that each generation of thought reveals the past as "a defunct world of errors".

The first edition was published in 1948 under the title "The Dehumanization of Art, and Notes on the Novel", translated by Helene Weyl from the Spanish original, "La Deshumanizacion del arte e Ideas sobre la novela," published by Revista de Occidente, 1925. In addition to the two title essays, "The Dehumanization of Art" and "Notes on the Novel," this second expanded edition contains three other essays: "In Search of Goethe from Within" (Goethe desde dentro, 1932); "On Point of View in the Arts" (Sobre el punto de vista en las artes, 1924); and "The Self and the Other" (Ensimismamiento y alteración, 1945).

In this paper intergenerational dimensions of reproductive behavior are studied within the context of the experience of a mid-sized Spanish town just before and during the demographic transition. Different indicators of reproduction are used in bivariate and multivariate approaches. Fertility shows a small, often statistically significant intergenerational dimension, with stronger effects working through women and their mothers than those stemming from the families of their husbands. These effects are materialized mainly through duration-related fertility variables, are singularly absent for variables such as age at first birth or birth intervals, and are much stronger in the case of firstborn daughters than with later siblings. There is a substantial increase in the strength of intergenerational effects during the course of the demographic transition, most visible in age at last birth and duration of reproduction (between women and their mothers), as well as in the effects working through the families of their husbands. These results underscore the on-going importance of biological dimensions of reproduction as well as the way attitudes toward reproduction are taught within the family. The changes identified in this study suggest that the transmission of values and attitudes became more important for reproductive outcomes during this period of demographic modernization

To read, to read a book, is, like all the other really human occupations, a Utopian task. I call “utopian” every action whose initial intention cannot be fulfilled in the development of its activity and which has to be satisfied with approximations essentially contradictory to the purpose which had started it. Thus “to read” begins by signifying the project of understanding a text fully. Now this is impossible. It is only possible with a great effort to extract a more or less important portion of what the text has tried to say, communicate, make known; but there will always remain an “illegible” residue. It is, on the other hand, probable that, while we are making this effort, we may read, at the same time, into the text; that is, we may understand things which the author has not “meant” to say, and, nevertheless, he has “said” them; he has presented them to us involuntarily—even more, against his professed purpose. This twofold condition of speech, so strange and antithetical, appears in two principles of my “Axioms for a New Philology,” which are as follows:1.Every utterance is deficient—it says less than it wishes to say.2.Every utterance is exuberant—it conveys more than it plans.

To read, to read a book, is, like all the other really human occupations, a Utopian task. I call “utopian” every action whose initial intention cannot be fulfilled in the development of its activity and which has to be satisfied with approximations essentially contradictory to the purpose which had started it. Thus “to read” begins by signifying the project of understanding a text fully. Now this is impossible. It is only possible with a great effort to extract a more or less important portion of what the text has tried to say, communicate, make known; but there will always remain an “illegible” residue. It is, on the other hand, probable that, while we are making this effort, we may read, at the same time, into the text; that is, we may understand things which the author has not “meant” to say, and, nevertheless, he has “said” them; he has presented them to us involuntarily—even more, against his professed purpose. This twofold condition of speech, so strange and antithetical, appears in two principles of my “Axioms for a New Philology,” which are as follows:1.Every utterance is deficient—it says less than it wishes to say.2.Every utterance is exuberant—it conveys more than it plans.

Original: José Ortega y Gasset, „No ser hombre de partido”, w: idem, Obras completas, t. IV, 306–313. The consent for the translation and its publication was expressed by the heirs of Ortega, represented by Andreas Ortega Klein The essay „No ser hombre de partido” by José Ortega y Gasset was published for the first time in the Argentinian magazine La Nación. It has been divided into two parts. The first was published on May 15, 1930. The second was June 3, 1930. The subject of reflection is the problem of “partisanism,” which is considered from two perspectives — metaphysical and social. The first one makes “partisanism” a manifestation of compensation, falsification of one’s being and lack of acceptance for one’s own vocation. The second one indicates that “partisanism” is a historical phenomenon, the beginning of which is the nineteenth century. Then, for the first time, society is understood as a permanent and eternal struggle. This requires as a consequence the constitution of fighting groups, called parties. Ortega, on the other hand, wants to overcome both versions of “partisanism.” Therefore, it is on the side of the authenticity of our individual life and independent of the party, ideas, feelings and values.

Es ist klar, dass jede Gemeinschaft bereits Organisation ist und der Mensch ist, ob er will oder nicht, Glied einer Gesellschaft und leistet in ihr Dienste. Jedoch: wenn ein Volk sich die Organisation seines Kollektivlebens als Hauptaufgabe stellt, so tut es das um den Preis der Individualität seiner Mitglieder. Es stellt sich heraus, dass Organisation im Allgemeinen das individuelle Leben der Menschen ausschaltet; man verlangt von dem Menschen, dass er aufhört, Individuum zu sein. Organisation entmenschlicht in gewissem Sinne den Menschen; das Amt ist eine Rolle, eine "Maske". Der Verfasser erörtert dann das schwere Problem der Gegenwart: ob oder in welchem Masse das Kollektive menschlich ist und ob Gemeinschaft, Gesellschaft, Staat allzu abstrakte Dinge sind, als dass wir sie jederzeit gegenwärtig haben könnten. Er behandelt ferner die Frage: ist eine 'Gemeinschaft' von Individuen nicht eine Gemeinschaft von 'Individuen', das heisst von Menschen, individuellen Existenzen? Und wenn diese herunterkommen, ist es nicht klar, dass dann auch die Gemeinschaft herunterkommt? Die bis jetzt ziemlich romantische Frage, ob man sich für die kollektivistischen oder für die individualistischen Theorien zu entscheiden gedenkt, nimmt so eine neue und und spannende Gestalt an, ob nämlich die gegenwärtigen Gesellschaften nicht an sich von kollektiver Verfassung sind und, ihrer eigenen Schwerkraft überlassen, das persönliche Leben schliesslich ersticken und zu menschlichen Ameisenhaufen werden lassen müssen. Im Laufe des 19. Jahrhunderts machte man den Versuch einer Analyse der Gesellschaft und begann ein Buch unter dem Titel 'Soziologie; aber es kam nicht über die ersten Zeilen hinaus; wahrscheinlich glich die neue Wissenschaft nicht genügend der Physik. Und dank diesem Umstand befinden wir uns heute in einer Lage in der es von höchster Dringlichkeit wäre, klare Vorstellungen davon zu haben, was das Soziale oder was ein Kollektivum ist und in welcher Beziehung es zu dem Menschen steht. Ortega y Gasset schlägt schliesslich eine Rundfrage vor um mit aller Strenge die Vorstellungen festzustellen zu suchen, welche die einflussreichsten Männer des Erdballes mit Vokabeln wie 'Gesellschaft', 'Kollektivität', 'Masse', 'Brauch', 'öffentliche Meinung', 'menschliches Individuum', 'Revolution', 'Staat' u.s.w. verbinden. Das Ergebnis wäre niederschmetternd, besonders wenn man die urweltliche Grobheit dieser Ideen dann mit der Präzision der naturwissenschaftlichen Begriffsbildung vergleicht. Die wirtschaftliche Krise hat ausserdem die Unzulänglichkeit der Nationalökonomie blossgelegt. Der Verfasser vermutet, die Mangelhaftigkeit der herkömmlichen Wirtschaftslehre möchte vielleicht daher rühren, dass sie eine soziale Spezialwissenschaft ist, deren Fundamente in der Luft hängen, solange es keine soziologische Grundwissenschaft gibt; genau wie keine gute Optik oder Akustik möglich ist, wenn man keine gute Mechanik hat