Mario Saenz

In his early works, Habermas wants to preserve both, the German idealist notion which gives primacy to self-reflection in the history of the human species, and the Marxist materialist conception that self-reflection is based on the material conditions of existence. ;Such dual preservation cannot be maintained; for the primacy given to self-reflection by German idealism is based on a prior spiritualization of the conditions of reflection. It is precisely with those alienated conditions that Habermas's "neo-Marxism" seeks to limit "materialistically" critical self-reflection. This is a bad overcoming of Hegel, since it preserves the Spirit as alienated otherness. ;However, Habermas's more recent linguistic turn evinces an attempt to ground critical self-reflection by means of a de-historicized anticipation of an ideal speech situation through the formal rules of cogency of speech. ;An atheistic reading of Hegel's conception of life, which regards universal life as "congealed space" or pure positivity, allows for a transition to Marx's practical communism. ;The existential attitudes towards death have as their ontological correlate, the motion of life; that is, historical acts may be regarded as attempts to appropriate objectivity which, as pure positivity, cannot be appropriated in principle, especially after the notion of an all-encompassing transcendental subjectivity, which posits the object as alienated subject, has been rejected. ;In the early Marx, historical and social investigations were limited by the primacy of the subject, the object being subordinated to it. To this extent, he naively remained at the level of ideology, i.e., "lived relations." In this manner, the unconditioned supersensible, in the form of a transcendental subjectivity, clouds the examination of the objective conditions of existence. ;The mature Marx's turn to the object expresses the elimination of the unconditioned, and the concomitant consideration of social reality as the basis of positive and negative ideologies, to the extent that the consciousness of freedom arose from the forced emancipation of consciousness from and by material conditions

Through a close examination of philosopher Leopoldo Zea's historicist phenomenology, Mario Saenz offers fresh insights into the role of Mexican intellectuals in the creation of a Latin American "philosophy of liberation". While this philosophy of liberation has been widely recognized as the most intellectual political ideology to emerge from Latin America this century, few scholars have specifically explored the Mexican roots of this intellectual movement. Saenz redresses this imbalance by placing Zea and his contemporary intellectuals firmly within the context of post-revolutionary Mexico, a political and social landscape that fostered criticisms of colonial and neo-colonial structures of dependence. Saenz demonstrates how Zea's philosophy was informed by a sense of Mexico's distinctive social and cultural identity.

The concept of living labor in Marx’s Grundrisse represents the key notion that conceptually ties his early theory of alienation with the drafts of Capital of the 1860s. Through a critique of the formalism that opened space for Marx’s economic writings, I explore living labor, not only as alienated within the capital–laborrelation, but as an absolute, metahistorical exteriority. Furthermore, the interpretive writings of Enrique Dussel on the Grundrisse are contrasted with the reading ofMichael Hardt and Antonio Negri to show how living labor can be understood as ethical excess within the framework of biopolitical production.

Leopoldo Zea contribuyó a un profundo replantamiento del significado de la identidad y su sentido filosófico, trabajando sobre temas que hacen al sentido del filosofar mismo, tales como: si hacer filosofía supone que quien filosofa debe abstraerse de su contexto social y cultural; si así fuera, entonces ¿cuál sería el sentido de la verdad?, específicamente de las pretensiones de verdad que tienen que ver con la cultura, la política, la crítica social e historia. ¿Qué quiere decir "identidad" en la cultura, la sociedad y la política, así como en formaciones sociales en flujo y movimiento histórico? ¿Cuál es la relación del pensamiento y la filosofía latinoamericanos con el filosofar y el pensamiento crítico de otras regiones? No obstante, desde sus primeros ensayos, donde se asocia el significado de cultura con la reflexión de los intelectuales sobre la cultura, hasta los últimos, su pensamiento se muestra como elitista y occidentalista. La América indígena no parece tener más que una posición puramente circunstancial y no definitoria de lo latinoamericano. Se plantea, pues, una paradoja sobre la que el presente ensayo intenta echar luz.Leopoldo Zea contributed to a deep revision of the concept of identity and its philosophical meaning, working on topics that are on the base of the philosophical thinking itself: is it assumed that he who philosophizes should detach himself from his social and cultural context?; and if that is so, what would be the meaning of truth, especially in relation to culture, politics, social criticism, and history? What is the meaning of "identity" as regards culture, society, and politics, as well as social groups flow and historical movement? What is the relation between Latin American philosophy and critical thinking, and philosophy and critical thinking of other regions? Nonetheless, right from his early essays, where he relates culture with the reflection about culture made by intellectuals, to the last ones, Zea's thinking appears as elitist and Occidental. The indigenous America seems to be merely circumstantial and non definitive regarding Latin America. This fact poses a paradox over which this essay intends to shed some light