Juan Pablo Martinez

The aim of this paper is to show that every form of knowledge, even scientific knowledge, is linked with the personal existence that effectuates it. We offer a map of the different schools of Interdisciplinarity attending to an anthropological criterion. To this end, a map of the various schools of interdisciplinarity is offered according to an anthropological criterion, where the persistence of a partial and reductive approach to human knowledge in various modalities is generally detected. The consequence of this way of understanding knowledge is firstly the fragmentation of reality, but also of social life and above all of human existence itself. Thus, the need for a theory of interdiscipline is discovered, that not only transcends the epistemological approach, but also that of action and its ontological dimension. We propose that this expansion is achieved through a radical interdiscipline anchored in personal existence.

Este artículo pretende rehabilitar la hipótesis henryana del Archi-Hijo como condición fundamental para articular una teoría de la intersubjetividad que de cuenta del vivir de cada sí mismo en su relación mutua. Para ello, se analizará en qué clase de proceso queda involucrado el viviente al verse engendrado en la Vida. Se esclarecerá a qué clase de intercambios se presta la Vida en su devenir absoluto. Se mostrará cómo en esos movimientos es la Vida absoluta misma la que va generando distancias o ciertas formas de alteridad con respecto a sí misma: Vida- Primer Viviente, Vida-vivientes e incluso Vida-mundo. Estas consideraciones ayudarán a entender cómo la asunción por parte del viviente del modo revelativo por el cual la Vida se entrega a sí misma acontece bajo la forma de un Híper-poder en el que viene ya incoada nuestra salvación eterna: la transubstanciación de nuestra carne en la carne de Cristo, donde se gesta el justo diálogo incesante entre finitud e infinitud.

Analytic philosophy traditionally uses two classification criteria to distinguish theories of pictorial interpretation: mimetic or illusionistic, and natural or non-natural. In this paper, I propose an alternative and previously unconsidered criterion to classify these theories, based on the type of theory-ladenness argument they employ, whether it is strong or weak. I defend that this third criterion offers four advantages over traditional approaches: (i) it allows a clear distinction between theories of image interpretation that could not be differentiated using previous criteria; (ii) it enables the association of theories previously considered distinct; (iii) it facilitates the recognition of the epistemic and ontological commitments of the theories, allowing a more precise appreciation of their strengths and weaknesses; and (iv) it provides a basis for using literature on the architecture of the mind to argue for or against contemporary theories of image interpretation.