Ana Marta Gonzalez

Mientras que la interpretación tradicional de Tomás de Aquino había mantenido durante siglos que la ética tenía un fundamento en la naturaleza, apostando, en consecuencia, por una ética secundum naturam, contemporáneamente, en parte por la influencia anglosajona, pero también por la avalancha de estudios históricos y críticos sobre la obra del Aquinate, la tendencia se ha invertido, y se ha considerado preciso interpretar la ética tomista como una ética secundum rationem, poniendo el acento en la racionalidad práctica y no tanto en la naturaleza. La corrección tiene cierto sabor kantiano, pero en principio parece fiel al propio planteamiento tomista, y parece conjurar asimismo el peligro de transgredir la llamada «ley de Hume», que denunciaba como ilegítimo el tránsito de enunciados de hecho a enunciados de deber. A pesar de la justificable insistencia en lo secundum rationem, mi opinión es que asistimos a un nuevo desequilibrio, consistente en pasar por alto el efectivo fundamento natural de la moral tomista que, con mayor o menor acierto, destacaba la tradición. Ciertamente, sobre la naturaleza como criterio de moralidad pesan muchas objeciones, pero es dudoso que éstas afecten realmente a lo que Tomás de Aquino entendía por naturaleza. En este libro se examina este concepto en su pensamiento, así como la conexión entre la naturaleza y el obrar moral.

This book attempts a conceptual clarification of Kant’s approach to culture, given the lack of systematic study of this aspect of his thought. At its origin there was only a thematic interest in the manifold meanings of the term “culture”, as well as the underlying persuasion that Kant’s moral philosophy could provide us with a systematic framework to understand the increasing relevance of “culture” in modern thought. Specifically, the hypothesis was that the emergence of culture as a relatively autonomous realm was implied in Kant’s refusal to let nature play a role in the constitution of the moral norm, and his requirement that the moral norm be defined through pure reason alone. As a result, culture would appear as a middle terrain: being neither empirical nature nor pure morality. Accordingly, culture can be approached either from the perspective of nature, or from the perspective of morality. Both approaches represent what can be termed “Kant’s explicit account of culture”. Behind this explicit, two-fold account of culture, however, an implicit account of culture in terms of “projection of man’s subjectivity” can be discovered. This latter account, itself a consequence of the critical enterprise, constitutes Kant’s most original contribution to the philosophy of culture.

Although Kant is not usually counted among the forerunners of social sciences, any look at the work of the most prominent social theorists of the past century shows the pervasive influence of Kant's philosophy. This influence is obvious and crucial at the epistemological level, if only because Kant himself set the frame for subsequent discussion of the difference between human and natural sciences. Yet, Kant's work is also rich in substantive contributions to social theory, which may be articulated around his conception of culture and cultural progress.