José Ignacio Murillo

The notion of habit used in neuroscience is an inheritance from a particular theoretical origin, whose main source is William James. Thus, habits have been characterized as rigid, automatic, unconscious, and opposed to goal-directed actions. This analysis leaves unexplained several aspects of human behavior and cognition where habits are of great importance. We intend to demonstrate the utility that another philosophical conception of habit, the Aristotelian, may have for neuroscientific research. We first summarize the current notion of habit in neuroscience, its philosophical inspiration and the problems that arise from it, mostly centered on the sharp distinction between goal-directed actions and habitual behavior. We then introduce the Aristotelian view and we compare it with that of William James. For Aristotle, a habit is an acquired disposition to perform certain types of action. If this disposition involves an enhanced cognitive control of actions, it can be considered a “habit-as-learning”. The current view of habit in neuroscience, which lacks cognitive control and we term “habit-as-routine”, is also covered by the Aristotelian conception. He classifies habits into three categories: (1) theoretical, or the retention of learning understood as “knowing that x is so”; (2) behavioral, through which the agent achieves a rational control of emotion-permeated behavior (“knowing how to behave”); and (3) technical or learned skills (“knowing how to make or to do”). Finally, we propose new areas of research where this “novel” conception of habit could serve as a framework concept, from the cognitive enrichment of actions to the role of habits in pathological conditions. In all, this contribution may shed light on the understanding of habits as an important feature of human action. Habits, viewed as a cognitive enrichment of behavior, are a crucial resource for understanding human learning and behavioral plasticity.

Prof. Brague explores in this interview the usefulness of the study of medieval thought in order to understand the problems of our time. He reflects on the different approaches to reason, politics and religion in Islam and Christianity, and the problems which derivate from the radical modern separation between society and religion. Is it correct to ascribe the casuse of social conflicts to religion or to a strong rationality? Is it possible in the long run to build a society without any religion? Why is the notion of natural law controversial in modern times? And what is the relation between natural law and the law of God, as proposed by certain religions?

In the middle of the twentieth century, Wittgenstein warned that “the method of reducing the explanation of natural phenomena to the smallest possible number of primitive natural laws…leads…into complete darkness” (1958, p. 18). At the time, few philosophers and even fewer scientists were prepared to heed his warning. A half-century later, however, the reductive method of science—the method famously defined by Descartes, brilliantly exemplified by Newtonian physics, and long upheld as the gold standard of scientific explanation—seems to have finally lost its luster. While reduction is still widely defended, in the last decades alternative views have gained credibility, to the extent that a “non-reductive science” is no longer dismissed as an oxymoron.

Thomas Aquinas holds that the actual content of our thought is not accessible for any creature, and that free will cannot be superseded. These theses are founded on the spiritual condition of our intelligence and will, which makes them directly invulnerable to any intervention on our body. On the other hand, he enthrones the will as the keeper of interiority: it precludes a full transparency that would make our free decision to communicate superfluous, and it exert an inalienable control over the action through which we direct ourselves to the good. In this sense, Aquinas departs from reductionist accounts, which either refuse the existence of free will, suppressing the reason to protect its expression, or face the difficulty of explaining the meaning and justification of the rights that are claimed for free will. However, Thomas Aquinas admits the possibility of indirectly accessing our minds through the knowledge of brain states and of influencing our will through passions by means of alterations of our organisms. Although this possibility was not within the reach of the human being in his time, he considered it was within the reach of separated substances. The consideration of the limits of their perspicacity and control sheds light on the possibilities that neurotechnology can allow in the future. The existence of an unassailable stronghold that guarantees our interiority and free will legitimates our right to be respected but does not make their protection superfluous.

Para el transhumanismo, la humanidad es una etapa que, guiada por la evolución biológica, estuvo precedida por otras anteriores y a la que seguirán otras nuevas. Según el transhumanismo hemos de romper la inercia de causas ciegas que gobierna la evolución y, a través de la biotecnología, alcanzar lo que denominan una “vida mejor”. Los autores afines a esta corriente desarrollan sus propuestas negando la existencia de una naturaleza humana, pero sin abandonar la convicción de que resulta posible definir en qué consiste una “vida mejor”. En este artículo analizamos la claridad y el rigor con la que presentan el fin último de su propuesta, la relación entre el fin y los medios planteados para alcanzarlo, y, finalmente, pondremos de manifiesto algunas inconsistencias derivadas de su rechazo de que la naturaleza humana pueda tener valor normativo.

El estudio de la libertad plantea el problema de cuál es el método o los métodos más adecuados y qué podemos esperar de ellos. La filosofía clásica accede a la libertad desde la noción de naturaleza, mientras que la filosofía moderna, que concibe la naturaleza de un modo mecanicista y ateleológico, accede a ella desde la subjetividad. Dos ejemplos de estos planteamientos son, respectivamente, los de Aristóteles y Schelling. Se analizan sus méritos y sus deficiencias para dar cuenta de los rasgos esenciales de lo que entendemos por libertad.

Classic and modern philosophy propose different views on the question of self-knowledge. Ancient philosophy identifies self-knowledge with the knowledge of the soul, which is the principle of unity in man. Modern philosophy is intereseted in subjectivity, but has a problematic view of it. Some currents, like Idealism, consider that a total reflexcion is possible, in which the subjectivity becomes totally present to itself, but others, as Empiricists, are skeptical and even deny the existence of a true subject. The difficulties of the Idealistic project have are uncovered by some contemporary philosophers, like Heidegger and post-modern thinkers. Polo shows how the denial of a reflective and objective knowledge of the person is compatible with the claim that the person is a radical and transcendental act of intellect. The key of this proposal is the affirmation that there are different kinds of acts of the intellect, according to their theme

Presentamos algunos aspectos de la filosofía de Xavier Zubiri que resultan centrales para comprender su acercamiento al problema mente-cerebro y se comentan desde la filosofía de Leonardo Polo: las nociones de viviente y cuerpo y las relaciones psique-organismo y cerebro-intelección. Esta comparación muestra algunos elementos comunes tanto en el planteamiento como en los términos que emplean, que hacen posible un diálogo provechoso, junto con algunas diferencias de método y contenido, que sirven para comprender mejor sus posiciones. Este examen introductorio muestra que un debate en torno a las aproximaciones de estos filósofos comportaría una contribución relevante al debate mente-cerebro.

El problema mente-cuerpo es central para algunos filósofos que pertenecen a la tradición analítica. Este es uno de los temas principales de la la filosofía de la mente. Una de las características de esta tradición es que considera la ciencia moderna como el paradigma del saber riguroso; otra, que parte de un planteamiento dualista, pero busca una solución de corte monista. Este planteamiento tiene importantes implicaciones metafísicas, y plantea algunas dificultades, que pueden ser afrontadas con el método dual, que Leonardo Polo propone para la antropología.

Presentamos, a modo de introducción al número, algunos aspectos que ayuden a enmarcar la aproximación al estudio comparado de las propuestas filosóficas de Xavier Zubiri y Polo. Mostramos la influencia que tuvieron en ambos las corrientes renovadoras del primer tercio del siglo XX y el interés de ambos en continuar y, a la vez, renovar, el pensamiento filosófico anterior, siempre en continuo diálogo con la tradición clásica. Hacemos también mención a las particularidades de la recepción de sus filosofías y a las inquietudes intelectuales comunes ante el problema de Dios, la creación y la persona y su trascendencia.