Lior Rabi

In traditional societies the relationship between the group members was more personal and less individual. Most societies were patriarchal, hierarchical and static and most people understood themselves according to their social position. Only a small minority of the members tried to differentiate themselves from the collective in order to follow their potential of individuality. In modern times the social relations became less personal and more individual and the ideal was to allow every citizen to strive for accomplishing his special vocation. The ideal of the vocation of man was presented in the writings of many philosophers and it reflected social, technological and scientific changes. Kant’s ideal of autonomic reason and Nietzsche’s ideal of authenticity were the two ideals of individuality. The first aim of this paper is to reexamine the limits of these ideals by following the ideas of different writers and to convince that this historical change should be conceived as the burden of individuality. The second aim is to rethink the relation between the imperative of individuality and the status of metaphysics in the writings of modern philosophers.

This paper deals with the interpretation of Georg Simmel and Ortega y Gasset to the traditional metaphysic. At the first decade of the 20th century both philosophers appropriated the neo-Kantian approach to the objective of philosophy and did not consider the metaphysical discussion as pivot within the philosophical discussion. At the second decade of the 20th century they both formulated a philosophy which is based on the acknowledgement of the importance of metaphysic for dealing with the objectives of philosophy. The main contention in this article is that this evolution in their thought is best understood when considering their effort to rethink the relationship between philosophy and natural sciences. While they were delving into the history of philosophy they both agreed that the objective of philosophy must be completely differentiated from the objective of the natural sciences. Unlike the neo-Kantian philosophers they argued that philosophy must deal with “the totality of being” (Simmel) or “everything that exists” (Ortega). Based on this argument these two philosophers tried to explain why they could not continue to embrace the neo-Kantian philosophy which tied together the objectives of philosophy and these of the natural sciences.

Summary The article deals with the political thought of the young Spanish philosopher and intellectual, José Ortega y Gasset (1883?1955). The main aim is to examine to what extent his political thought was articulated in a systematic manner, and to understand if it was meant to be practically implemented. Ortega's political thought has been described as liberal on the one hand, and anti-democratic and conservative on the other. The disparities regarding Ortega's politics usually arise from his declarations, which aimed to confront the changing social and political situation in Spain. To many researchers, these declarations seem incoherent, evolutionary, or ideas that can be directly deduced from the evolution of his philosophical theory. The extent to which Ortega's political theory was systematic will be understood through focusing on the role designed for the Spanish intellectuals in Ortega's declarations and works. Instead of considering his political thought in relation to either his philosophy or the political events and changing circumstances in Spain, I will attempt to examine how, during the years of his youth, his political declarations were always guided by a consistent feature with a practical political purpose: to challenge the Spanish intellectuals to promote social awareness of and reflection on the country's problems, and to consider potential solutions to these problems.

In many of his writings and lectures Ortega y Gasset criticized Darwinism on numbers of issues. In this paper I aim to reexamine his critique and to prove that in 1916 the harsh critique was designed to hide the similarity between his ideas and Darwin's idea of Natural Selection. The origins of Ortega's idea on the vocation of man can be traced in his dialogue with Darwin in the year 1916. In the historiography his Philosophy of Life is conceived as a metaphysics that stands beyond biological and any other natural explanation. My contention on the other hand is that Ortega's concept of the vocation of man is an elaboration of Darwin's Natural Selection. I will try to show that in 1916 Ortega conceived the human character and the vocation of man as a product of Natural Selection. Instead of following Ortega's critiques on Darwin and his effort to show that there is no connection between his Philosophy of Life and Darwinism the article proposes to reconsider Ortega's thought as a constant dialogue with Darwin's theory of Natural Selection. The Change in Ortega's conception of Darwin's evolution came rather late in his thought and in the first section we will see how Ortega described technology in a manner that allows the human subject to change the environment in his favor.

Ortega y Gasset is known for his philosophy of life and his effort to propose an alternative to both realism and idealism. The goal of this article is to focus on an unfamiliar aspect of his thought. The focus will be given to Ortega’s interpretation of the advancements in modern mathematics in general and Cantor’s theory of transfinite numbers in particular. The main argument is that Ortega acknowledged the historical importance of the Cantor’s Set Theory, analyzed it and articulated a response to it. In his writings he referred many times to the advancements in modern mathematics and argued that mathematics should be based on the intuition of counting. In response to Cantor’s mathematics Ortega presented what he defined as an ‘absolute positivism’. In this theory he did not mean to naturalize cognition or to follow the guidelines of the Comte’s positivism, on the contrary. His aim was to present an alternative to Cantor’s mathematics by claiming that mathematicians are allowed to deal only with objects that are immediately present and observable to intuition. Ortega argued that the infinite set cannot be present to the intuition and therefore there is no use to differentiate between cardinals of different infinite sets.

עומס האינדיבידואליות הוא אחת החוויות המרכזיות המלוות את החיים של האדם בחברה המודרנית. חוויה זו מתבטאת בקריאה לכל אדם להתחבר לתבונתו הביקורתית ולממש את מלוא פוטנציאל היכולות האינדיבידואליות הקיימות בו. ההנחה של הספר היא שבמסגרת החברות המסורתיות, מרבית בני האדם נטו להבין עצמם בהתאם למיקומם במסגרת ה"אנחנו" הקולקטיבי. מיעוט קטן מתוכם שאף להפריד עצמו מהתרבות הכללית ולעמוד על פוטנציאל האינדיבידואליות השונה שלו. בחברה המודרנית חל שינוי במערכת היחסים החברתית וממבנה של חברה פטריארכאלית, סטטית, מעמדית, בני האדם החלו להיתפס כפרטים, וכך כל אזרח נתפס בהדרגה כבעל פוטנציאל אינדיבידואליות, כבעל תבונה טהורה או אותנטיות אישית. שינוי זה מתואר בספר כעומס האינדיבידואליות.

The ethics of Ortega y Gasset is described in the historiography as an imperative of his philosophical idea on human vocation. Ortega’s ethics is being analyzed as part of his philosophy of life or in other words as a part of his concepts such as human destiny, happiness and vocation. The contention of this article is that Ortega’s ethics can be better understood together with the reflections he had in regard to the Bourgeoisie culture. Emphasizing the importance of the moral characteristics of the individual is meant to counterweigh what Ortega conceived as the bourgeoisie morality. The attention of Ortega was given to what he conceived as the necessity to acknowledge the importance of the qualities of human characteristics. He criticized the way in which modern culture depreciated the importance of the value of individual characteristics and maintained that money economy led to the historical decline of the ideal of noble distinction. Ortega believed that the decline of the historical ideal of noble distinction was caused by the fact that the possession of money became the final goal for human life. The quantitative criterion of money culture outweighed the qualitative criterion of assessment of the individual characteristics. In the 20th century culture, making money became the central goal (faena central) of human life. Ortega argued that too much attention to money possession overshadowed the moral imperative to improve one’s interior virtues (virtudes interiores). Following this line of interpretation of money culture as it was presented by Ortega can enable us to reconsider his ethics, his alternatives to the Bourgeoisie culture and also the way he evaluated the ethical theories of his time.

הייתכן לדבר על השתיקה כשפה? במסע ארוך המשתרע על שבעה עשר פרקים מנסה המחבר להתמודד עם התפיסה המקובלת בימינו, לפיה השתיקה האנושית היא שפה פרטית, פנימית ואינטימית, כזו הנגישה רק לאדם כיחיד. תחילת המסע להתגברות על תפיסה זו מצוי בבחינה מחודשת של הרציונאליזם ואידיאל האינדיבידואליות המודרני בזיקה עם הגישה שלנו אל השתיקה האנושית. בעוד ששפת המילים מוגדרת כשפה המשקפת את העולם, המהווה תמונה של המציאות, שפת השתיקה מתוארת כשיקוף של הפרטי שרק היחיד ככזה יכול לגשת אליו. האומנם השתיקה היא שפה פרטית? רגעים של שתיקה נחשפים במהלך הספר כחלק מהדיאלוג של האדם עם עצמו, עם הזולת ועם מכלול המציאות שמסביבו. ניתוח היחסים בין התחזקות האמונה המודרנית בפוטנציאל הרציונאליזם ו/או מדע האדם לבין תהליך הגדרת השתיקה כשפה פרטית עומד במרכז הדיון. האמונה בכוחן של המילים לשקף ולשלוט על המציאות כמו גם האמונה בכוחו של מדע האדם לתאר באופן אובייקטיבי/מדעי את האדם כסובייקט אנושי ניצבים למבחן מחודש. מטרת הדיון לאפשר לשפת השתיקה לחשוף עצמה כשפה שאיננה פרטית, כשפה של דיאלוג של האדם עם עולם החיים ו/או המציאות האנושית שהוא חלק בלתי נפרד ממנו. היחס של החברה לשפת השתיקה כמו גם יחסה לשפת המילים הוא שיקוף של יחסה לתפקידו של האדם החי בה. הגדרת השתיקה כשפה פרטית מהווה חלק מתהליך ההתעצמות ההיסטורי של ניכור האדם מעצמו ומעולם החיים שהוא חלק ממנו. שתי סוגיות מרכזיות השזורות זו בזו ושמופיעות לאורך כל פרקי הספר: סוגיית הניכור החברתי ובחינה מחדש של החלק של הרציונאליזם בהתעצמות תחושת הניכור של האדם המודרני.