Jesus Vega

¿Cómo pensar hoy la naturaleza y el valor de la reflexión filosófica? La influencia omnipresente del modelo del conocimiento experto parece exigir una autocomprensión de la filosofía como una disciplina entre las disciplinas. Este artículo propone que la filosofía debe resistirse a esta tentación. Defenderé, por tanto, una especie de "excepcionalismo" para la filosofía basado en la idea de que no puede pretender ser una disciplina. Sea o no cierto que hoy en día las actividades filosóficas estén legitimadas institucionalmente por los principios de un Canon, voy a sugerir una estrategia de transgresión del Canon al rechazar cualquier asimilación de la filosofía a una disciplina, aunque fuera "anómala". La filosofía debe contribuir a la comprensión de nuestros diversos modos de conceptualizar y de transformar el mundo y dar sentido a la experiencia humana. La filosofía debe reclamar para sí una "estado de excepción" y abrir un espacio para cuestionar todo aquello que parece obvio e incuestionable. How to think today about the nature and value of the philosophical reflection? The pervasive influence of the model of expert knowledge seems to require a selfunderstanding of philosophy as a discipline among the disciplines. This paper argues that philosophy should resist this move. So I will defend a kind of "exceptionalism" for philosophy based on the idea that philosophy cannot pretend to be a discipline. Be true or not that philosophical activities are nowadays institutionally legitimized by the principles of a Canon, I will suggest a strategy of transgression of the Canon by rejecting any assimilation of philosophy to a discipline, even if an "anomalous" one. Philosophy must contribute to the understanding of our different ways of conceptualizing and transforming the world and to make sense of human experience. The thesis of this paper is that philosophy must claim a "state of emergency" for itself a open a space for freely questioning what it appears as obvious and unchallengeable

Este artículo presenta lo que denomino la “paradoja topológica de la filosofía”. La filosofía reclama un lugar en el conjunto de los saberes enseñables y, por ende, en la universidad; pero deviene u-tópica en su idea del ejercicio libre de su actividad. La filosofía no puede encontrar un lugar en la universidad y no puede dejar de reclamarlo. La paradoja tiene varias dimensiones, pero es irresoluble. Por eso, su futuro en la universidad exigirá una renuncia a situarse en un lugar disciplinar. Podrá quizá hacerse un hueco entre los saberes si finalmente acepta responder no ante sí misma sino ante las exigencias de lo prefilosófico

What is the concept of knowledge for? What does it do for us? This question cannot be severed from considerations about what we do by using it. In this paper, I propose to view the point of our concept of knowledge in terms of a device for acknowledging epistemic authority in a social and normative space in which we share valuable information. It is our way of collectively expressing the acknowledgment we owe to others because of their being creditable when engaged in the task of knowing. By using the concept of knowledge we are not just marking the epistemic positions we occupy, we are also acknowledging epistemic authority and indicating the advisability of taking oneself or others as “ready” for the transmission of authority.

In this paper, I examine the so-called disjunctive views on hallucinations. I argue that neither of the options open to the disjunctivist is capable of accommodating basic phenomenological facts about hallucinatory experiences and the explanatory demands behind the classical argument from hallucination. A positive characterization of the hallucinatory case is not attractive to a disjunctivist once she is disposed to accept certain commonalities with veridical experiences. Negative disjunctivism glosses the hallucinatory disjunct in terms of indiscriminability. I will argue that this move either renounces to characterize phenomenally the hallucinatory experience or does not take seriously questions about why indiscriminability is possible in the phenomenal realm.

In this paper, it is argued that both the informer and the hearer in a testimonial situation deserve epistemic merit insofar as they contribute to the collaborative achievement of sharing knowledge. The paper introduces a distinction between the ideals of self-sufficiency and epistemic autonomy. The autonomous exercise of our epistemic agency is very often carried out under strong conditions of epistemic dependence. Testimony exhibits a kind of social dependence that does not threaten the autonomy of the subjects that need to consider their own epistemic capacities. When involved in a testimonial situation, both speaker and hearer declare, at least implicitly, the standings they occupy in an epistemic space and are obliged to recognise certain epistemic requirements.

RESUMEN: Este artículo revisa contribuciones recientes a la filosofía de la tecnología tomando como punto de partida una reflexión sobre la naturaleza de los artefactos, su conocimiento y las condiciones normativas vinculadas a su producción y uso. Se discute, en primer lugar, en torno al realismo/anti-realismo respecto a las clases artificiales según la teoría funcional y la teoría histórico-intencional de los artefactos. En segundo lugar, se abordan cuestiones relativas a las peculiaridades del conocimiento funcional y el privilegio epistémico del conocimiento que los hacedores tienen de sus productos. Por último, se retoma el tradicional debate sobre los artefactos como portadores de valor y sobre la dimensión normativa de la técnica.ABSTRACT: In this paper, I review recent contributions to the philosophical reflection on technology. I take as starting point discussions on the ontological nature of artifacts and then discuss questions regarding how we get to know about them and the normative dimensions involved in the making and use of artifacts. Firstly, I introduce the debate between realists and antirealists about the nature of artificial kinds and how the issue is respectively addressed by functional and intentional-historical conceptions. Secondly, I raise some questions about the specificity of functional knowledge as a kind of know-how and discuss about the epistemic privilege of the makers-knowledge. The last section takes up again the traditional debate on artifacts as value bearers and the normative dimensions of technology.

El presente trabajo trata de ensayar la utilidad metateórica de una distinción filosófica acuñada por ciertos pensadores españoles —la distinción entre “dintorno”, “entorno” y “contorno”— a la hora de reordenar críticamente las diferentes posiciones teóricas en torno al problema de la determinación de los límites del Derecho (el problema de la autonomía o la demarcación de la categoría jurídica) y particularmente para clarificar los términos y las implicaciones del debate entre concepciones positivistas y post-positivistas.

Recent developments in pattern analysis research have made this methodology suitable for the study of the processes that are set in motion in psychological interventions. Outcome research, based on the comparison between clinical results from treatment and control groups, has leveraged our empirical knowledge about the efficacy of psychological interventions. However, these methods of research are not precise enough for the analysis of these processes. On the contrary, pattern analysis could be a powerful tool to study moment-to-moment interactions typical of psychological interventions. This is methodology is relevant because clinical psychology is experiencing a paradigm shift from a protocol for syndrome perspective to a principle-based and person-centered intervention. This evidence-based, theory-grounded, and process-oriented paradigm of clinical intervention needs new research methods to thrive. The analysis of the therapeutic relationship built into the verbal interaction between the clinician and the client is one of the cornerstones of this new era of research. So, the purpose of this article is three-fold: to discuss the role of the verbal interaction pattern analysis in the clinical context to the development of the principle-based clinical psychology, to analyze the patterns of verbal interaction in a clinical case, and to compare the results using two different methods. To reach these purposes, using the observational methodology, we have coded the verbal interaction of 16 clinical sessions with a person diagnosed with a borderline personality disorder. We have analyzed the data using sequential analysis and pattern recognition algorithms. We have been able to detect typical patterns during different phases of psychological intervention. Finally, the conceptual, methodological, and empirical implications of this study will be discussed within the realms of pattern analysis research and principle-based clinical psychology.