Volume 29, Nº 3 (2025): PHILOSOPHY IN LATIN AMERICA

The research explores the specificity of philosophical reception in Latin America by examining the case of G.W.F. Hegel’s reception in Argentina, which we consider representative of other reception studies in the region. Through this analysis, we aim to address the challenges associated with investigating reception, which reveal the limitations of this concept when applied methodologically in the philosophical domain. We argue that philosophical reception studies cannot abandon the critical pretension inherent to all rigorous philosophical work. To this end, we first outline the main difficulties related to studying Hegel’s reception in Argentina. Second, we present a brief history of this reception based on our research in the field of Hegelian studies. Third, we address the problem of archive construction. Fourth, we consider the disciplinary framing of such research. Ultimately, we aim to define the philosophical boundaries of the concept of reception.

The work of Uruguayan philosopher Carlos Vaz Ferreira (1872-1958) shows a deep ethical commitment to institutions and forms of sociopolitical organization that favor peaceful coexistence in societies that, like his own, at the beginning of the 20th century, faced various conflicts that led people to hold opposing positions on how to solve conflicts. In the context of widespread concern about the risks that polarization entails for contemporary democracies, Vaz Ferreira’s study of the nature of this type of problem, the analysis of the epistemic and psycho-logical conditions that make it possible and, above all, his proposal on the kind of solution that can be applied to normative problems, are of particular interest to address this phenomenon philosophically. Vaz Ferreira conceptualizes polarization, especially in its social and political dimension, as a problem of ideals, that is, a normative issue that, unlike explanatory problems, can be solved by choosing among different options, none of them perfect or necessarily excluding, which the philosopher calls a solution of choice . In this sense, false oppositions, exclusivism, and extremism are, in most cases, obstacles to finding solutions to the problems of ideals and, therefore, often lie at the root of polarizing tendencies. Vaz Ferreira offers an original contribution as his thought articulates epistemic, psycho-logical , ethical, and political elements in studying the causes and effects of polarizing tendencies, thus allowing us to address this phenomenon comprehensively as a single, coherent, and systematic unit of analysis.

This study presents an overview of paraconsistent logic, tracing its historical origins and development within what may be referred to as the Latin American school of paraconsistency. This characterization is admittedly bold, given the diverse theoretical roots of paraconsistency and the contested nature of its interpretation. Accordingly, our discussion addresses the topic from both historical and formal perspectives, emphasizing key moments in the development of paraconsistent logic within the Latin American context. Particular attention is given to the extensive and systematic work of Newton C.A. da Costa in Brazil, whose contributions played a central role in shaping paraconsistent logic as a mature and influential field. In addition, we briefly explore how paraconsistent logic challenges classical logic to reconsider its conclusions in light of paraconsistent principles. Ultimately, this paper seeks to situate paraconsistency within the broader context outlined above, examining its impact and identifying its key theoretical and practical features in contemporary philosophical thought.

Modern Western philosophy has long excluded Latin America from its historical and conceptual narrative, reinforcing a Eurocentric understanding of historical development. This study aims to challenge that exclusion by analyzing how Enrique Dussel’s philosophy - especially as developed in 1492: El encubrimiento del Otro and Meditaciones anticartesianas - reconstructs the origins of modern subjectivity from a Latin American, decolonial perspective. Through textual analysis of Dussel’s works and comparative readings of canonical European thinkers such as Hegel and Descartes, this research investigates the historical and ontological link between the ego cogito and the ego conquiro . Following a philosophical and critical-historical method, the study combines close exegesis with genealogical reconstruction to identify how the myth of modernity emerged through colonial conquest and philosophical erasure. The results reveal that, according to Dussel, the Cartesian subject - the foundation of modern philosophy - is only made possible through the prior conquest and objectification of the colonial Other. This encounter is not peripheral but constitutive: Latin America and the broader colonial world played a crucial role in the birth of modernity, both economically and philosophically, and ontologically. As highlighted in its conclusions, this study represents only an initial step: a deconstructive phase within the broader tradition of the Philosophy of Liberation. The study calls for the reconstruction of a philosophical canon that acknowledges its colonial foundations and includes the voices it has historically silenced. Ultimately, it argues that decolonizing philosophy, a process that broadly extends from Latin America to the entire peripheral world, is not only possible but also necessary for a more just and inclusive global thought.

The unresolved discourse on the specificity of Latin American philosophy - and even on the very possibility of its existence - highlights the need for its reconsideration and reevaluation. Introducing the additional parameter in the form of the philosophy of utopia adds urgency to the issue. In Latin American studies (A. Roig, F. Hinkelammert, H. Cerutti, etc.), utopia is examined in various meanings and contexts, while the discourse on the uniqueness of Latin American philosophy oscillates between the poles of total denial and categorical affirmation. The aim of this study is to explore the concept of “utopia” within the framework of the ongoing debate regarding the identity of Latin American philosophy on the continent, to determine the place of utopia within the system of philosophical knowledge, and to substantiate its special, practically transformative role as interpreted by a number of scholars. In a brief historical overview, the author focuses on the problem of the origins of Latin American philosophy (L. Zea), the initial formulation of the question of its uniqueness (J.B. Alberdi), the debate between A. Salazar Bondy and L. Zea in the late 1960s, and its implications for contemporary research. The author associates the integration of utopia into philosophical discourse with socio-political events in the Latin American continent and the world at large, the influence of Ernst Bloch’s ideas and left-wing ideologues, the perception of Latin America as a “land of utopias,” as well as the critique of Eurocentrism and the efforts of theorists of so-called “instrumental philosophy” to transcend academic philosophizing and enter the realm of politics. Today, utopia is assigned the role of a method of critical thinking and mental experimentation (Misseri), a “regulating force of the idea” (Roig), an alluring and never fully attainable horizon (Hinkelammert, Cerutti), and a driver of historical progress (Cerutti). The utopian dimension of Latin American culture, propelled by the contradiction between ideal and reality, allows - according to some scholars - for a reinterpretation of historical progress from an ethical standpoint as a “will to perfection.”

The research explores the origins of Kantian philosophy at the University of Buenos Aires by focusing on the work of Mario Caimi. Although shifts in Caimi’s emphases and perspectives can be traced over time, this study argues that a consistent orientation underlies his research: the problem of method as the guiding thread of Kant’s philosophy. This interpretative line, inaugurated by Caimi, has decisively shaped the development of Kantian studies at the University of Buenos Aires, establishing a distinctive hermeneutic framework that has since been taken up and further developed by members of the Kant Research Group in Buenos Aires. Through an analysis of key moments in Caimi’s reading of Kant - ranging from the Transcendental Aesthetic to the Transcendental Dialectic - this study aims to demonstrate how the focus on philosophical method reveals a coherent interpretative strategy. It also highlights two defining features of Caimi’s exegesis: the rejection of psychologistic interpretations of Kant, and the insistence on the centrality of sensibility, particularly with respect to the role of sensation.

The research examines the Latin American philosophy of liberation (L. Cea, A. Roig, E. Dussel), from which the intercultural philosophy of dialogue was developed. The dialogue between Russian and Latin American philosophers and the recognition of the philosophy of liberation in Russia are shown. Attention is paid to the discussion about the dialectic of the universal and the culturally-specific, using the example of Latin American philosophy. The article examines intercultural philosophy, which justifies the right to cultural diversity and the normativity of dialogical relations in a culturally diverse world. It analyzes R. Fornet-Betancourt’s project on the intercultural transformation of philosophy, which is based on the cultural embeddedness of philosophical traditions. This means radical changes in the theoretical foundations of understanding philosophical questions in light of the fundamental role of culture in the development of philosophy. This opens up a new perspective in our understanding of what philosophy is, of the history of philosophy and of its role in contemporary society. R. Fornet-Bettencourt criticizes “abstract universalism” and opposes it with the concept of “contextualized and concrete universality”. He emphasizes that the condition for the possibility of dialogue in a conflicted world is to overcome obstacles on the path of dialogical relations. As an example of such obstacles, the International Society for Universal Dialogue (ISUD) is criticized, which was hijacked by a putsch from а hegemonic group, in which the collaborationism of E.A. Taisina (Kazan State Power Engineering University) was complicit. The necessity to critically separate genuine dialogue from simulacrum and to develop intercultural dialogue as a condition for the humanistic transformation of society is emphasized. The article examines the contribution of Russian philosophers to intercultural philosophy using the works of M.T. Stepanyants, V.A. Lektorsky, and V.A. Smirnov as example. The theory and practice of the intercultural philosophy of dialogue can be a helpful model for politics, including in the transformation of international relations, and contribute to the transition from the “monologism” of hegemonic unipolarity to a multipolar (polycentric) world of sovereign states based on dialogue and mutually beneficial cooperation in solving social and global problems.

One of Husserl’s students, the German thinker Wilhelm Schapp (1884-1965), offered his own perspective on the phenomenology of war. In a number of his works devoted to the phenomenology of history, he made a digression in favor of the unconditional factual subject of comprehension - war. Gradually, an independent research approach is revealed in his works, which is partly consistent with the conceptual provisions common to phenomenology, but also has its own original touches. Schapp analyzes war in a system of well-known categories and concepts of phenomenology - transcendence, transcendence and others. But at the same time, he focuses on the deployment of war as one of the substantial foundations of existence, presents this phenomenon as a world of things subject to transcendence, as an essential phenomenon. It is noteworthy that Schapp does not give any specific definition of war, probably avoiding the historicity, eventfulness and facticity characteristic of describing wars in a generalized or concretized form. Nevertheless, there is a clear pattern in the provisions formulated by him, which makes it possible to judge the conceptual design of his approach. The following provisions are meant: (1) overcoming the prevailing ethical format of the reception of war; (2) identification of war as an essential phenomenon - an integral part of being; (3) the deployment of war as the world of things, realized through the act of transcendence. In his approach to the phenomenology of war, Schapp managed to integrate eventfulness, the subject/subjective principle of being, experience as a way of evaluating being, and the experience of being. The article shows that Schapp consistently and accentuated the place of war in a number of other foundations of existence, such as space, nature, the universe and others. The thinker paid special attention to the experience of being as the basis for understanding the war.

The study delves into the process of formation of the worldview of Rudolf Steiner, a thinker who rightfully earned the title "Homo universalis" at the turn of the XIX and XX centuries. There is a complex connection between the influences that shaped his intellectual baggage: from the philosophy of Eduard von Hartmann’s pessimism and the ethical idealism of Johann Gottlieb Fichte to the dialectics of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. A special place in the study is occupied by the analysis of Johann Wolfgang Goethe’s teaching on color, which became a cornerstone in the formation of the Steiner worldview. Inspired by the genius of the great poet, Steiner develops his ideas about the profound effect of color on the human psyche, on the train of thought, modes of behavior and shades of mood. This impulse leads to the creation of an original aesthetic, a special vision of the essence of art and its role in public life. Art appears as an extension of nature, but carried out by more sublime means. All this becomes the foundation for building a unique concept of the spiritual and cultural evolution of mankind, in which man is thought of as an inseparable unity of the physical and spiritual, sensual and supersensible worlds. The article also examines the echo of R. Steiner’s ideas in Russian culture and analyzes the key principles of Waldorf pedagogy.

The research is devoted to the analysis of the works of Vasily Sesemann (1884-1963) on the philosophy of culture. The relevance of the study is determined by the lack of special works devoted to the explication of the thinker’s views on the phenomenon of culture, the need to identify the internal connections of the philosophy of culture with other sections within the framework of studies of the philosophical system of Sesemann as a whole. To achieve the stated goal the sources and philosophical context of Sesemann’s philosophy of culture were identified; the problems of this area that are of greatest importance to the author were analyzed, the questions posed were identified and the approaches to their resolution proposed by the philosopher were considered. This made it possible to reveal the role and place of the problems of the philosophy of culture in the system of philosophy built by the author. In the course of the analysis the deep anthropological nature of Sesemann’s philosophy, close connections between the issues of culture and man with epistemological problems were revealed; reliance on the Kantian position in understanding the phenomenon of culture was discovered, and the range of the most significant issues for the author in the area under study was determined. The work demonstrates that the central place in Sesemann’s philosophy of culture is occupied by the problem of the unity of culture and the consideration of culture as a live organism, as well as the significance of the unity of the mental-body organization of the individual as a subject of culture. Understanding the phenomenon of culture turns out to be organically connected with both theoretical and practical aspects of the thinker’s philosophy, which makes the study of these works productive for a deeper understanding of the integrity of his philosophical system.

The study defines the typology of philosophical worldviews, from naturalistic (various types of materialism and positivism) to pantheistic (naturalistic and mystical or panentheistic) and transcendent, underlying world religions and the corresponding philosophy. The last two types are classified by the authors as metaphysical or idealistic. It is noted that ancient thought is characterized not by materialism as such, which is a product of modern European thinking, but by hylozoism, which does not exclude spirituality. The materialistic is defined in the interpretation of G.V.F. Hegel, Vl. Soloviev, V. Zenkovsky, A. Losev and others as “metaphysical”, unreasonably attributing to itself “scientific nature”. Metaphysical concepts (idealistic ones - pantheism and transcendentism) do not deny the concept of matter, but along with it they also think of other principles, which allows developing dialectics and, based on contradictions, constructing reality in one way or another. While recognizing the Absolute, metaphysical concepts, however, think of it differently: pantheism in all its varieties faces the problem of substantiating freedom, morality and, ultimately, theodicy. Creationist transcendentism, especially in its personalistic (theistic) version, taking the Absolute beyond the limits of existence, turns out to be capable of constructing a theodicy, relying on the concept of free will as the source of evil. In this case, matter and the body turn out to be not a prison and a cage of the soul (as in Orphism, Pythagoreanism and Platonism), not a source or receptacle of evil (as in Neoplatonism), but a “co-worker” of the soul, for everything created is good. Not only the spirit, but also the body is sanctified. Thus, it is precisely in transcendentism that matter takes its worthy and necessary place.