José Médina

This book offers a polyphonic theory of protest as a mechanism for political communication, group constitution, and epistemic empowerment. The book analyzes the communicative power of protest to break social silences and disrupt insensitivity and complicity with injustice. Medina also elucidates the power of protest movements to transform social sensibilities and change the political imagination. Medina’s theory of protest examines the obligations that citizens and institutions have to give proper uptake to protests and to communicatively engage with protesting publics in all their diversity, without excluding or marginalizing radical voices and perspectives. Throughout the book, communicative and epistemic arguments are given for the value of imagining with protest movements and for taking seriously the radical political imagination exercised in social movements of liberation. Medina’s theory sheds light on the different ways in which protest can be silenced and the different communicative and epistemic injustices that protest movements can face, arguing for forms of epistemic activism that resist silencing and communicative/epistemic injustices while empowering protesting voices. While arguing for democratic obligations to give proper uptake to protest, the book underscores how demanding listening to protesting voices can be under conditions of oppression and epistemic injustice. A central claim of the book is that responsible citizens have an obligation to echo (or express communicative solidarity with) the protests of oppressed groups that have been silenced and epistemically marginalized. Studying social uprisings, the book further argues that citizens have a duty to join protesting publics when grave injustices are in the public eye.

El presente texto aborda la figura de José Gaos que Antonio Zirión nos transmite en su reciente libro El sentido de la filosofía desde dos aspectos: por un lado, Gaos como profesor de filosofía y, por otro, Gaos como filósofo interesado en la tensión no resuelta entre la fenomenología y la metafísica y en la metafísica como problema en sí. Se discute también el lugar que Gaos asignó a la “soberbia” como una faceta esencial del quehacer filosófico y la idea de que las afirmaciones filosóficas son, en última instancia, expresiones de una perspectiva vital personalísima y única.

Epistemic Activism and the Epistemology of Empowerment Resumen: Este artículo argumenta que la teoría de la agencia epistémica compartida de Fernando Broncano llama a un análisis de cómo compartir la agencia epistémica resistente para entender cómo luchar contra los daños epistémicos agenciales en comunidades de resistencia y a través de lo que el autor denomina activismo epistémico. El autor sostiene que la epistemología de la dependencia de Broncano necesita ser suplementada con una epistemología del activismo y del empoderamiento que muestre cómo los daños agenciales epistémicos pueden ser reparados, cómo los obstáculos estructurales e institucionales que constriñen la agencia epistémica de grupos oprimidos pueden ser desmantelados, y cómo la falta de agencia epistémica de grupos marginados puede subsanarse con el empoderamiento epistémico de estos grupos. Abstract: This article argues that Fernando Broncano’s theory of shared epistemic agency calls for an analysis of how to share resistant epistemic agency in order to understand how to fight against agential epistemic harms in communities of resistance and through what the author terms epistemic activism. The author maintains that Broncano’s epistemology of dependence needs to be supplemented with an epistemology of activism and empowerment that shows how agential epistemic harms can be repaired, how structural and institutional obstacles that constrain the epistemic agency of oppressed groups can be dismantled, and how the epistemic agency of marginalized groups can be restored through the epistemic self-empowerment of those groups. Palabras clave: Activismo epistémico, agencia epistémica, epistemología de la dependencia, empoderamiento epistémico. Keywords: Epistemic activism, epistemic empowerment, epistemic agency, epistemology of dependence.

Expanding Miranda Fricker's (2007) concept of epistemic injustice, recent accounts of agential epistemic injustice (Lackey, 2020; Medina, 2021; Pohlhaus, 2020) have focused on cases in which the epistemic agency of individuals or groups is unfairly blocked, constrained, or subverted. In this article I argue that agential epistemic injustice is perpetrated against marginalized groups not only when their group epistemic agency is excluded, but also when it is included but receives defective uptake that neutralizes their capacity to resist epistemic oppression. I identify two harms that such injustice inflicts on marginalized groups: epistemic disempowerment and critical defanging of resistant epistemic group agency. My analysis shows how the harms of agential epistemic injustice can occur through unfair epistemic exclusions in group dynamics, but also through forms of inclusion in group dynamics that distort or coopt the epistemic agency of the group. Following Emmalon Davis (2018) and her analysis of epistemic appropriation, I argue that the harms of agential epistemic injustice can occur when the resistant epistemic resources of a marginalized group are appropriated in a way that disempowers them and critically defangs their resistant epistemic agency. I use Taylor Rogers’ (2021) analysis of the epistemic appropriation of “#MeToo” and “intersectionality” to show how epistemic disempowerment and critical defanging work in unjust epistemic group dynamics. The article offers a diagnosis of the failures of epistemic responsibility involved in agential epistemic injustice, and some suggestions for resisting those failures and working toward more responsible and just epistemic group dynamics.

This paper analyzes the innovative way of doing critical philosophy that María del Rosario Acosta López proposes in her aesthetics of resistance and grammars of the unheard. The paper examines the contributions of two sets of conversations with Acosta López’s critical philosophy. In the first place, staging a dialogue between Acosta López and Black feminist philosophy, the article offers a defence of reconceptualizing philosophy in the 21st Century through a dialogue with the voices and perspectives of the excluded and silenced—a reconceptualization that reimagines the critical role of philosophy. In the second place, the paper calls attention to the crucial significance of Acosta López’s aesthetics of resistance for contemporary debates in contemporary political epistemology, putting in conversation her grammars of the unheard with my epistemology of resist- ance and María Lugones’s concept of complex communication. This second conversation also underscores a new way of understanding the critical and transformative function of philosophy by centering the voices and perspectives of the excluded and silenced.

This article elucidates and expands on María Lugones's account of complex communication across liminal sites as the basis for deep coalitions among oppressed groups. The analysis underscores the crucial role that emotions and resistant imaginations play in complex communication and world-traveling across liminal sites. In particular, it focuses on the role of emotional echoing and epistemic activism in complex forms of communication among oppressed subjects. It elucidates Gloria Anzaldúa's storytelling and Doris Salcedo's visual art as exemplary forms of epistemic activism that issue coalitional gestures and critical provocations that can wake people up from their epistemic slumbers and instigate forms of complex communication that can create new possibilities for coalitional politics.

Se trata de examinar el rendimiento del concepto de “ejecutividad” en la obra de Ortega y Gasset, en dos momentos clave: en 1914, cuando formula el programa de su filosofía de la razón vital en Meditaciones del Quijote y en los cursos de los años treinta, cuando inicia el despliegue de su filosofía de madurez, asumiendo las implicaciones historicistas de la razón vital. En el breve escrito “Ensayo de estética a manera de prólogo” reflexiona sobre un problema del arte sumamente concreto: ¿qué cosa es el objeto de la estética? La respuesta le llevará a conectar un esbozo de teoría de la metáfora con cuestiones de epistemología y de filosofía primera. Y, lo que es más importante: Ortega se sirve aquí de tres conceptos llamados a tener en el desarrollo posterior de su obra una formulación decisiva: ejecutividad, intimidad y presencia. Esta es la razón de que persigamos el despliegue de dichos conceptos en las formulaciones de la vida humana y del yo personal cuando intente la sistematización de su filosofía en los referidos cursos de los años treinta y en las publicaciones a ellos asociadas.I will examine the concept of “executivy” in Ortega’s work in two important moments: in 1914 when he formulates the program of his philosophy of vital reason in Meditaciones del Quijote and in the courses of the 1930s when he initiates the unfolding of his late philosophy which assumes the historicist implications of vital reason. In the short essay “Ensayo de estética a manera de prólogo” he reflects about a problem in art that is extremely concrete: What is the object of aesthetics? The answer will take him to link an outline of a theory of metaphors with issues of epistemology and his primary philosophy. And, what is most important, Ortega uses three concepts that will have a decisive role in his later work: executivity, intimacy, and presence. This is the reason why I examine the unfolding of these concepts in the formulations of human life and of the I when he attempts the systematization of his philosophy in the said courses of the 1930s and the publications associated with them.

_ Source: _Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 39 - 65 Since Euclid, optics has been considered a geometrical science, which Aristotle defines as a “mixed” mathematical science. Hobbes follows this tradition and clearly places optics among physical sciences. However, modern scholars point to a confusion between geometry and physics and do not seem to agree about the way Hobbes mixes both sciences. In this paper, I return to this alleged confusion and intend to emphasize the peculiarity of Hobbes’s geometrical optics. This paper suggests that Hobbes’s conception of geometrical optics, as a mixed mathematical science, greatly differs from Descartes’s one, mainly because they do not share the same “mechanical conception of nature.” I will argue that Hobbes and Descartes also have in common the quest for a different kind of geometry for their optics, different from that of the Ancients. I will show that this departure is not recent since Hobbes’s approach is already evident in 1636, when he judges the demonstrations of his contemporary friends, Claude Mydorge and Walter Warner. Finally the paper broadly suggests what is noteworthy in Hobbes’s optics, that is, the importance of the idea of force in his mechanics, although he was not able to conceptualize it in other terms than “quickness.”

L'analyse des rapports entre les concepts de temps et de mouvement dans la philosophie première de Hobbes permet de confirmer la dimension dynamique de son matérialisme qui ne prend sens qu'avec la théorie unifiée du conatus. Elle nous conduit aussi à reconsidérer le nominalisme radical qu'on lui attribue généralement, à partir d'une interrogation sur le statut de ce que Hobbes appelle la puissance imaginative. The analysis of the relations between the concepts of time and movement in Hobbes' first philosophy allows that dynamic dimension of his materialism which only takes on meaning with the unified theory of the conatus, to be confirmed. It also leads us to reconsider the radical nominalism that is generally attributed to him, by means of an interrogation of the status of what Hobbes calls imaginative power