En este artículo, el autor muestra una tensión al interior de la obra de  Francisco Miró Quesada. Una tensión que aparece en su lucha contra los escépticos y en su intento por salvar una razón mínima. Dicha tensión se manifesta tras la publicación de los Apuntes en 1963 y luego en el Esquema en 2012. Obviamente, la tensión recorre esos 50 años. Pero el autor también añade lo que pudo haber sido una salida a dicha tensión: el reconocimiento y valoración de una razón limitada y pragmática. Así, frente a la propuesta de Miró Quesada de una razón mínima con la cual salvar el proyecto racionalista, el autor propone una visión pragmatista  de la razón, que sería el reconocimiento de las consideraciones evolucionistas.

This article is an approach – from what the author understands as ecological rationale– to the  encyclical letter “Caritas in Veritate”, understanding the ecological rationale as the holistic approach of human development. Such perspective has allowed Pope Benedict XVI to over come one basic dichotomy of the scientific and economic philosophy, namely, the fact-value dichotomy.  In his encyclical letter, the Pope criticizes the concept of development that the contemporary world seeks to impose, thus acknowledging that it finds its grounds on making a differentiation of human levels. The result is a moral crisis creeping into a world that achieves significant advances in science and economy, contradictions that clearly evidences the erroneous understanding of the dichotomy.

This article is an approach – from what the author understands as ecological rationale– to the  encyclical letter “Caritas in Veritate”, understanding the ecological rationale as the holistic approach of human development. Such perspective has allowed Pope Benedict XVI to over come one basic dichotomy of the scientific and economic philosophy, namely, the fact-value dichotomy.  In his encyclical letter, the Pope criticizes the concept of development that the contemporary world seeks to impose, thus acknowledging that it finds its grounds on making a differentiation of human levels. The result is a moral crisis creeping into a world that achieves significant advances in science and economy, contradictions that clearly evidences the erroneous understanding of the dichotomy.

In this paper the author seeks to explain why modern life in Peru is chaotic. To this purpose, the author makes use of the concept of communicative action introduced by Habermas. The author finds that modernity in Peru has failed due to the scarcity of the sort of action that seeks understanding. Instead, modernity in Peru develops through actions that seek to impose themselves, and that constitutes a regression towards a primitive and non-modern action.

In this paper, the author presents an explanation of the truth that is obtained from scientific practice. In this way, truth is revealed as functionality, but functionality is understood as negotiation between the researcher, the community and the researched world. However, the author also finds the need not to close the explanation of the truth in a single answer; and that is why he presents a pluralistic explanation of truth that conceives functionality as crosses all the others, and thus accepting that. There are other ways to explain the truth.

In this paper the author seeks to explain why modern life in Peru is chaotic. To this purpose, the author makes use of the concept of communicative action introduced by Habermas. The author finds that modernity in Peru has failed due to the scarcity of the sort of action that seeks understanding. Instead, modernity in Peru develops through actions that seek to impose themselves, and that constitutes a regression towards a primitive and non-modern action.

In this paper, the author presents an explanation of the truth that is obtained from scientific practice. In this way, truth is revealed as functionality, but functionality is understood as negotiation between the researcher, the community and the researched world. However, the author also finds the need not to close the explanation of the truth in a single answer; and that is why he presents a pluralistic explanation of truth that conceives functionality as crosses all the others, and thus accepting that. There are other ways to explain the truth.

En este artículo, el autor presenta la acusación que hace el cientificismo a la filosofía, específicamente a la metafísica, alpunto de sostener el fin de la metafísica con el corolario del fin de la filosofía. El autor propone que dicha acusación parte deuna distorsión en la descripción de la misma ciencia quien se niega a reconocer su carácter incierto. Al final, el autorpropone una reconstrucción de la filosofía haciendo que esta se acerque a la ciencia, pero a una nueva forma de ciencia queestá lejos de la descripción del cientificismo.