I.- Enlightenment and counter-enlightenment in Spain.
The Enlightenment has not had the success among us —in Spain— that it achieved in other European countries, Marcelino Menéndez y Pelayo, an outstanding exponent of anti-enlightenment Spanish reactionism, took pride in claiming a kind of national orthodoxy that seeks to necessarily identify the very idea of Spain as a nation with Roman Catholic fundamentalism; Thus he says the following in his monumental 'History of the Spanish heterodox':
"The Spanish resistance against encyclopedism and the philosophy of the eighteenth century must be written at length, and one day it will be written, because it deserves a separate book, which can be of great teaching and no less comfort. The triumphant revolution has deified its idols."
1.- He encrypted in the name of Voltaire all the evils of modernity: a Voltaire who demanded personal autonomy and vindicated the educability of being
2.- Reactionary thought, given that it does not believe that an order based on personal autonomy and the freedom of judgment of human beings is possible, so the success of the idea of Modernity has to be explained by malicious action and coordination of hidden forces that seek to destroy the principles of society: the conspiracy theory.
3.- The value of tolerance is deeply hated by reactionary publicists because it implies relativizing dogma and dispossessing the ecclesiastical hierarchies of their capacity for moral and physical coercion, so that religious tolerance is nothing more than a stratagem of the wicked to circumvent the control of the Church and undermine the rights of truth.
4.- The very idea of equality is, in the opinion of the reaction, chimerical and damages the hierarchical order that is the order willed by God.
Spanish anti-enlightenment thought was consolidated in the 19th century and has as its best reference Juan Donoso Cortés, (1809-1853) and his Essay on Catholicism, Liberalism and Socialism (1851)
In political life he represented the right wing of the Christians and Elizabethans ('doctrinal liberalism'), but ideologically speaking he was closer to the 'Carlists'. According to Ferrater Mora, [Imagen] his role in Spain was similar to that played in France by Joseph de Maistre [imagen] and Louis de Bonald or in Prussia by Joseph Görres.
According to Donoso, politics depends on theology, constituting the secularizing process of modernity a tremendous error product of human pride. True theology, according to him, is none other than Catholic, since Catholicism is the repository of the only true dogma, since the Church of Rome is, without a doubt, infallible. Donoso's work was directed in general against the revolutionary atheism of the time (Proudhon), as well as, although in a more respectful tone —because of his conservatism— against Guizot's theory about the development of civilization in Europe.
The dilemma of European civilization (and of Spain), for Donoso, does not lie in choosing between freedom and dictatorship, an impossible and misleading choice, but in deciding between the two possible kinds of dictatorship: 'socialist despotism' or 'Catholic absolutism' ; in this diatribe there is no place left for 'liberalism': "Of all schools it is the most sterile, because it is the least learned and the most selfish." His philosophy of history, therefore, based on a very personal reading of Saint Augustine, Bossuet and Vico, is rooted in a radical pessimism regarding the very possibility of a social order based on some form of personal freedom and adopts an eschatological Manichaeism that turns around the concept of divine Providence; in his opinion, human history is nothing other than the history of the mystical body of Christ, as it is expressed in the mysteries of the Incarnation and Redemption:
II.- The advent of the Enlightenment.
Enlightenment is called the intellectual current of thought that dominated Europe and especially France and England (where it had its most energetic expression) that takes root in the XVII with Rationalism René Descartes La Haye in Touraine, current Descartes, March 31, 1596 – Stockholm, February 11, 1650 and reaches the Empiricism of the XVIII David Hume Edinburgh, May 7, 1711 - Ibid. August 25, 1776, goes from the seventeenth century and reaches the Industrial Revolution of the eighteenth century, the French Revolution and Liberalism. The aesthetic expression of this intellectual movement will be Neoclassicism.
A new confidence arises in the human being and in what he can do, during the Enlightenment progressivism is defined as a philosophical and political concept according to which the progress of man and human society is continuous and indefinite (Condorcet) and the The modern ones are better than the old ones and can perfect them. The philosophy of optimism (Leibniz) is formulated against the characteristic pessimism of the Middle Ages and the Baroque.
Society becomes secularized and the notion of God and religion begins to lose the importance that it had had until then in all spheres; an exclusively secular and even anti-Christian and anti-clerical culture develops.
Kant is the philosopher who best conceptualizes the meaning of the Enlightenment in his little work, What is Enlightenment? :
"The Enlightenment is the departure of the minority man from it. The same is guilty of it. Minority lies in the inability to use one's own understanding, without the direction of another. One himself is guilty of this minority when the cause of it does not lie in a defect of understanding, but in the lack of decision and courage to serve independently of it, without the driving another. Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own understanding! Here is the currency of the illustration."
In this paragraph, Kant lays the foundations for the modern concept of autonomy, understood as a dimension of reason that makes it easier for human beings to think and, therefore, to give themselves rules without depending on any authority. Autonomy is achieved from the will to want to possess it, and allows the human being to free himself from the burden of authority. Kant claimed that an autonomous ethics based on duty for duty's sake is the only one worthy of the name.
Autonomy (moral and political) has gone from being an ideal in itself to becoming the basis of democratic societies, since only personal autonomy can make use of the political autonomy that underpins the very idea of Democracy.
The anthropological optimism of the Enlightenment era had its development in the industrial revolutions of the 19th century that arose from the great advances in scientific thought and technological pragmatism, the advance in geographic and cartographic knowledge, in the means of navigation and a new colonial mentality based on in the moral and technological superiority of the European countries, which made it plausible the submission to the Protectorate and Colonial Administration of the indigenous peoples, or the Arab and Asian countries... The old imperialist mentality inspired by the religious superiority of Christianity that justified the Spanish and English Empire, gives way to a new awareness of enlightened superiority dispensing Civilization.
The French Revolution in 1789 caused the bloody overthrow of Absolutism and the French Bourbon dynasty, and the rise to power of the bourgeoisie, after a period of Terror and great instability (Regime of Terror, War of the Convention, Directory , Consulate...) which ultimately led to a new monarchy, represented by Napoleon I and his Grande Armée who embarked France on a decade of imperial wars until the defeat at Waterloo.
French political mythology produces a general legitimation of the very idea of Revolution as a means of accelerating the processes of change and social reform, and in the 19th century the main countries of Europe developed processes of replacing feudalism with capitalism as an economic system to form the modern Nation-States with nationalism appears as a substitute unifying ideology of the loyalties to the old overthrown monarchies. The King dies, long live the Nation. Great Britain, Holland, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, however, joined the Enlightenment not through the Revolution but by reforming their monarchical institutions through gradual adjustments that balance Tradition and Novelty that give rise to perfectly democratic and modern parliamentary Monarchies.
Confidence in the perfectibility of the human being, and in indefinite progress, through which led to the appearance of a multitude of more or less naive reformist and revolutionary proposals. England was the cradle of utopian socialism, perhaps in response to the consequences of the industrial revolution, which caused terrible practices of exploitation of workers, a new form of social thought appears: political economy.
III.- The Chastened Enlightenment: Marx, Nietzsche and Freud—, the Horror of Auschwitz and the GULAG.
The Modernity that emerged from the Enlightenment will evolve in a conflictive way in the 20th century. This century is experiencing a new ideological atmosphere that is no longer characterized by anthropological optimism, but by what Paul Ricoeur has called the philosophy of suspicion.
Freer expressions of spirituality begin to be formulated: libertine nihilism (Casanova, Pierre Choderlos de Laclos), Deism (Voltaire), agnosticism; There are even clearly formulated proposals of atheism (Pierre Bayle, Baruch Spinoza, Paul Henri Dietrich) even reaching a kind of Satanism like the one exposed by some characters in scandalous novels of the time (Marquis de Sade, etc.) It all comes down to reason and sensible experience, and what she doesn't admit can't be believed. The passions and feelings are an evil in themselves, the aesthetics of the moment is Classicism that exclusively values harmony, and rejects everything unbalanced and asymmetrical as ugly; everything disproportionate and exaggerated is considered monstrous. History begins to be rigorously documented; the sciences become empirical and experimental; society itself and its forms of government begin to be subjected to social criticism, culminating in revolutions at the end of the period. Only what is useful deserves to be done; the philosophy of Utilitarianism advocated by Jeremy Bentham is developed, under the formula of "the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people" (Epicurus), from Emilio of Rousseau, a pedagogical passion arises.
Ortega y Gasset called the 18th century the Educator Century, literatures and arts in general must have a useful, didactic, moral or social purpose. Fables become fashionable (Samaniego, Lamartine...) encyclopedias, essays, satires, reports, Economic and Wise Societies (Royal Society, Real Sociedad Bascongada de Amigos del País...) appear everywhere. The theater is not only intended to amuse or excite but tries to educate and correct customs (Mario Onaindía) [*]
Aesthetically, standardized works according to classical guidelines are sought, the models of Greek and Latin Antiquity are considered insurmountable. Academicism prevails. Official optimism aesthetically praises the luminous and the Apollonian, baroque and Dionysian tastes are rejected, and the imperfect, the tragic, the decadent, the superstitious and dark, violence, night, passions and death are excluded.
The so-called enlightened good taste rejects the vulgar or popular, the "enlightened despotism" aims to elevate and correct the people and does not have the aesthetic criteria of the people and the image of reality offered by literature is stylized, neoclassical. The language is refined and does not admit rudeness or insults. The overcoming of the historical is presupposed by virtue of the reason that allows us to free ourselves from tradition. The enlightened assume a cosmopolitan cultural vision and disregard the typical or ethnic, castizo, costumbrista and traditional values and it is proposed as valuable what is accommodated to the Greco-Roman model that is considered the main source of aesthetic inspiration. The exotic arouses interest but is not assumed as valuable but as extravagant. The french language becomes the universal koine and a sign of distinction: french art and culture influences Germany, Spain and Russia.
Kant is the philosopher who best conceptualizes the meaning of the Enlightenment in his little work, What is Enlightenment? :
"The Enlightenment is the departure of the minority man from it. The same is guilty of it. Minority lies in the inability to use one's own understanding, without the direction of another. One himself is guilty of this minority when the cause of it does not lie in a defect of understanding, but in the lack of decision and courage to serve independently of it, without the driving another. Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own understanding! Here is the currency of the illustration."
In this paragraph, Kant lays the foundations for the modern concept of autonomy, understood as a dimension of reason that makes it easier for human beings to think and, therefore, to give themselves rules without depending on any authority. Autonomy is achieved from the will to want to possess it, and allows the human being to free himself from the burden of authority. Kant claimed that an autonomous ethics based on duty for duty's sake is the only one worthy of the name.
Autonomy (moral and political) has gone from being an ideal in itself to becoming the basis of democratic societies, since only personal autonomy can make use of the political autonomy that underpins the very idea of Democracy.
The anthropological optimism of the Enlightenment era had its development in the industrial revolutions of the 19th century that arose from the great advances in scientific thought and technological pragmatism, the advance in geographic and cartographic knowledge, in the means of navigation and a new colonial mentality based on in the moral and technological superiority of the European countries, which made it plausible the submission to the Protectorate and Colonial Administration of the indigenous peoples, or the Arab and Asian countries... The old imperialist mentality inspired by the religious superiority of Christianity that justified the Spanish and English Empire, gives way to a new awareness of enlightened superiority dispensing Civilization.
The French Revolution in 1789 caused the bloody overthrow of Absolutism and the French Bourbon dynasty, and the rise to power of the bourgeoisie, after a period of Terror and great instability and violence.: (Regime of Terror, War of the Convention, Directory , Consulate, Napoleon Empire...) which ultimately led to a new monarchy, represented by Napoleon I and his Grande Armée who embarked France on a decade of imperial wars until the defeat at Waterloo.
French political mythology produces a general legitimation of the very idea of Revolution as a means of accelerating the processes of change and social reform, and in the 19th century the main countries of Europe developed processes of replacing feudalism with capitalism as an economic system to form the modern Nation-States with nationalism appears as a substitute unifying ideology of the loyalties to the old overthrown monarchies. The King dies, long live the Nation. Great Britain, Holland, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, however, joined the Enlightenment not through the Revolution but by reforming their monarchical institutions through gradual adjustments that balance Tradition and Novelty that give rise to perfectly democratic and modern parliamentary Monarchies.
Confidence in the perfectibility of the human being, and in indefinite progress, through which led to the appearance of a multitude of more or less naive reformist and revolutionary proposals. England was the cradle of utopian socialism, perhaps in response to the consequences of the industrial revolution, which caused terrible practices of exploitation of workers, a new form of social thought appears: political economy.
III.- The Punished Enlightenment: Marx, Nietzsche and Freud—, the Horror of Auschwitz and the GULAG. A painful teaching.
The Modernity that emerged from the Enlightenment will evolve in a conflictive way in the 20th century. This century is experiencing a new ideological atmosphere that is no longer characterized by anthropological optimism, but by what Paul Ricoeur has called the philosophy of suspicion.
—Sigmund Freud discovers the world of the unconscious in which drives of death and destruction beat, basic pleasures and terrors (Eros and Thanatos) that influence our individual and collective behavior without being able to neutralize them simply with good will. Religions in the freudian scheme are collective neuroses that relieve us of our personal neuroses, and Civilization is all of it a strategy of control and repression of our basic drives to avoid our destruction. The childhood that had always been associated with innocence is discovered to be subject to the same drives so that, according to the theory of the Oedipus or Electra complex, Freud warns us that on his unconscious level that child yearns for murder his father and maintain relations with his mother. Freud warns us of any illusion and prophetically warns us: “If we didn't want to be so good, we would be better”.
—Marx analyzes the weight of the economic structures and the control of the means of production that determine the dominant social values in all orders: ethical, aesthetic, political and religious. The great creations of the human spirit of which we are so proud would ultimately be mere by-products of the economic structures that blindly determine us and cover up mechanisms of exploitation. Liberal Democracy would be nothing but a farce to cover up a Class Dictatorship, and the future should be decided by the Class Struggle and the creation of a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, which, subduing the individualists and the bourgeoisie, really frees the proletarians from exploitation. Lenin will take this thesis to its ultimate consequences through the violent seizure of power and the implantation of the Revolutionary Terror; declare that political freedom is nothing but a fiction, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat advocated by the so-called "scientific socialism" would coincide with the authoritarian dilemma of our Donoso Cortés according to which the liberal regime is nothing but a weak and selfish system that it can only be resolved either by fundamentalist despotism or by socialist despotism.
— Friederich Nietzsche takes his critique of Modernity further and reduces all values to nothing with a hammer. What we call "values" have a genealogy that links them in one way or another to the Will to Power or to the Resentment of that repressed or betrayed will.
Ethical ideas, cultural values, political institutions, religious principles are strategies of the self-love, fruits of will or resentment:
God is dead. God is still dead. And we have killed him. How can we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? The holiest and mightiest the world has ever possessed has bled under our knives: who will wipe this blood from us? What water will cleanse us? What sacrificial rite, what sacred games we should invent? Is not the greatness of this fact too great for us? Should we appear worthy of it? Nietzsche, The Gay Science, section 125.
The super-man that Nietzsche announces will not feel bound, he will create his own values in a gratuitous and sovereign act of wanting. Nietzsche repudiates all the values of the European religious and political tradition (Christianity and democracy) as strategies of resentment, of those who hate life; they do not correspond to the "esprits forts" who love life with all its consequences and that for that reason same reason they do not fear death.
The problem, to which Nietzsche apparently did not pay attention, is that a world of small gods, detached from social values, only subject to their own sovereignty, seems to lead us to a war of all against all and therefore to a "solitary life, poor, unpleasant, brutal and short" as the philosopher Thomas Hobbes already announced in the 16th century. Nietzsche's own life was not brutal, but it was lonely, poor and short.
IV.- Is that the only thing we can hope for?
The Great Carnage of 1914-1918, provoked in the end, for a question of public order cause, will confront the great European States over a problem of police intervention in Serbia, motivated by the assassination of the Crown Prince of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Behind this justifying screen, what is actually being debated is a struggle for prevalence: the colonial distribution of the world and hegemony in Europe. The Great War turned out to be a Great Carnage in which the first weapons of mass destruction were tested (mustard gas, bombardment by planes...) and in it millions of young people died, and hundreds of thousands of mutilated people were created, also very serious infectious diseases: spanish influenza, syphilis, tuberculosis...
Neither Christian brotherhood nor Socialist internationalism, nor Enlightened reason, nor Common sense managed to stop the confrontation or nationalist hatred. A blind and arrogant Europe begins its own destruction in 1914 with the so-called Great War that culminated, after the carnage, with an Armistice signed in 1918, leaving a balance of 17 million dead and another 21 million wounded or mutilated. The allies — France, Great Britain, and Russia ... — confronted and defeated the central powers: Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and Bulgaria. The injustice did not end here, since the arrogance of the victors imposed leonine conditions in the Treaty of Versailles, incapable of understanding the mutual dependence of European countries, which subjected Germany to great restrictions and heavy economic burdens, which will hinder its economic recovery and institutional normalization of the Central States. French chauvinism will feed German ultra-nationalist victimhood and, without wanting it, will facilitate the rise of national-socialism, which will have terrible consequences for the continent, and for the world: World War II.
The Great Depression of 1929 caused a generalized discredit of the liberal democratic system and of capitalism, the totalitarian ideologies —right or left— spread throughout Europe, from Lisbon to Moscow, by contrast the two great Totalitarianisms of the century emerged with force: On the one hand, Soviet communism led with an iron hand by the Father of All Peoples, "Babushka", Josif Stalin, Secretary General of the CPSU, who establishes a Regime of Terror governed by the KGB and the GULAG, and on the other hand the III Reich presided over by the criminal figure of Adolf Hitler and the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP) National Socialist German Workers' Party. Both totalitarianisms demand the overcoming of Liberal Democracy and enlightened individualism, Communism does it for the sake of Social Class that becomes the only historical subject, and National-Socialism does it in the name of the Nation, a nation defined in racial terms.
The League of Nations, an institution created to prevent armed conflicts, is powerless to prevent the conflict. The policy of appeasement attempted by Chamberlain yielding to Hitler fails to stop the German warmongering and finally World War II begins as a result of the invasion of Poland by the German armies that is answered with the declaration of war by France and England. Stalin gets on well with Hitler and through the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact they share the spoils of Poland and sign a non-aggression commitment, a commitment that explains the initial reluctance of all the Communist Parties controlled by Moscow to confront the Nazis.
World War II reaches levels of violence and deadly effectiveness that had never been seen before, weapons of mass destruction are perfected and direct bombardments against the civilian population are generalized. National Socialism undertakes a macabre program of annihilation of the entire European Jewish population through a network of Extermination Camps managed by the SS. The horror of Auschwitz will shock the world when it is discovered after Hitler's defeat. Meanwhile, in the USSR, the PCUS organizes a system of terror that will later be denounced by Alexander Solyenitsin in his GULAG Archipelago.
In Berlin, the German capital, the scientists Otto Hans and Lise Meitner had already detected the conditions necessary for neutron bombardment of a uranium nucleus. It would not be long before the first of them, and Fritz Strassmann, discovered nuclear fission, [7] but fortunately Nazi Germany was defeated before the Nazis could complete their atomic project; It was the USA, through the Manhattan Project, that finally managed to manufacture the bomb, to test it: they finally used it on two Japanese cities, causing the unconditional surrender of Japan, ending World War II and demonstrating the terrible destructive capacity of human technology. The artifacts were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and August 9, 1945, respectively. These have been the only two atomic bombs with non-experimental military use in world history. Within seconds, both cities were devastated. It is estimated that in Hiroshima, out of a population of 450,000 inhabitants, the bomb killed more than 70,000 people in its first moments, causing another 70,000 injuries. At the end of 1945, the number of fatalities would have risen to more than 100,000, and after five years, the number of deaths added to those caused by nuclear radiation could reach more than 200,000. Nuclear Terror is born, sustained by technical and scientific advances.
The post-war years after 1945 will be years of Armed Peace or of the Cold War, but happily the same mistakes will not be made as in the past, the horrors of Nazism in Nuremberg will be judged, reconstruction policies and economic support will be developed Through the Marshall Plan, the great Franco-German pact will be created as a guarantee of peace and development, which will later give rise to the EEC and ultimately to the European Union.
With the implosion of the Soviet regime in 1989, some authors such as Fukuyama go so far as to proclaim the end of History in the Marxist sense of the term, however on September 11, 2001 (commonly referred to as 9/11 in the Anglo-Saxon world and 11 -S in Spain and Latin America), a series of suicide attacks were carried out that involved the hijacking of four passenger planes by 19 members of the jihadist network Al-Qaeda. This event, televised live by all the media, marked the appearance of a new ideological-political phenomenon: jihadist terrorism, which can be defined as a totalitarian ideology, with different sources and influences, Muslim-inspired, anti-liberal and anti-democratic, with pretensions to combat against the West to the death. Jihadism recovers the old tradition of the so-called Sect of Assassins and promotes suicide attacks against civilians, soldiers and government officials of regimes that oppose its demands and refer to these attacks as martyrdom operations. The slain and their supporters believe that the suicide bombers, as martyrs for the cause of jihad, will be rewarded by going to Jannah (paradise). Along with mass kidnappings, jihadist terrorists have made extensive use of publicity for individual kidnappings ending in extremely cruel executions.
In the midst of this panorama of dangers, there is a bright hope in the unstoppable process of emancipation of Women and a new equality between the sexes that will end up spreading throughout the world of LGBT rights and all minorities, as well as the resurgence of an ecological awareness such as we have never known before.
Of course, the ideal of the Enlightenment has not died or failed, but it has certainly matured and refined in the light of experience. Curiously, in the Basque spoken in Gipuzkoa, experience says "eskarmetua", (learning with pain) linking the knowledge that experience gives us with the pain of the failures that life imposes on us. Today we must be enlightened, chastened, and therefore better in our knowledge of reality. Far from being a naive hope, and despite the madness and obscurities that we have gone through as Humanity and continue to go through, the Enlightenment has worked, as Steven Pinker demonstrates with data and intelligence in his In defense of the Enlightenment, vindicating reason, science and enlightened humanism. Those are the ideals that we still need to face our problems but we cannot be simply illustrated. We need an Enlightenment that learns from experience, that enlightens itself, that assumes that there are lights but also shadows that we have to reckon with.
V.- Andrés Ortíz Osés an illustrator of the Enlightenment
Andrés Ortiz-Osés (Tardienta, Huesca, 1943- Zaragoza, June 18, 2021)123 was a Spanish philosopher, Catholic priest, anthropologist and aphoristic writer, founder of a symbolic hermeneutics of meaning.
Faced with this dilemma of a chastened Enlightenment, the philosopher Andrés
Ortiz-Osés, in the maturity of his life and his thought of him, at a crucial moment in his lifeand of his work, a moment of cross and crossroads —touched by disease—and freer thannever, to launch philosophical and also poetically some of the ideas forces him, to know: that we will only understand the totality, simultaneously understanding opposites. "As far as we can understand it, thinking dualetically the opposites: the Light and Shadow, Reason and Emotion, Sense and Nonsense..."; we can only really be Enlightened if we also assume the shadow romantic, we can only call ourselves reasonable if we make a place for affections, emotions, to what Pascal called the reasons of the heart, because in the end only the affective is effective.
Andrés Ortiz-Osés invites us to an open, democratic, equitable and transversal thinking , that assumes the inevitable conflict and that frees us from the fratricidal drive, from the castrating Mother of the Matrias and the tyrannical Father of the Homelands.
***
Andrés Ortiz-Osés was a Doctor of Philosophy from Innsbruck and Professor Emeritus at the University of Deusto. He was a collaborator of the Círculo Eranos and an honorary member of the Spanish Society of Analytical Psychology. Among his works: The romantic wound, Book of symbols, Heidegger and being-sense, Nietzsche: dissonance incarnate, Jung: archetypes and meaning, Amor y sentido [Love and meaning], Hermenéutica de Eranos [Hermeneutics of Eranos], Masonería. Hermenéutica [Freemasonry and hermeneutics] (with Javier Otaola), El sentido de la existencia [The meaning of existence] (with G. Vattimo).
He has directed the International Dictionary of Hermeneutics, as well as the Diccionario de la Existencia [Dictionary of Existence]. Founder of Symbolic Hermeneutics, the National Autonomous University of Mexico has dedicated the book El Dios andrógino, edited by B. Solares, to him. The University of Deusto has dedicated the tribute book “Filosofía, Hermenéutica y Cultura” to him, with contributions from G. Durand, G. Vattimo, J.L. Aranguren, R. Panikkar, J. Grondin, M. Beuchot, E. Trias and others.
***
Notas
* Mario Onaindia. La construcción de la nación española. Mario Onaíndia intends to address in The Construction of the Spanish Nation the analysis of Spanish Enlightenment thought in order to determine how the construction of a modern society, identified as a “nation”, that was respectful of personal autonomy was proposed in the theatre and literature of Feijoo, Jovellanos, Moratín, Cadalso and others around two different traditions: the republican and the nationalist.
1 HERRERA, Javier, 1994, Los orígenes del pensamiento reaccionario español [The origins of Spanish reactionary thought], Madrid, Alianza
2 FERNANDO DE ZEBALLOS (1732-1802): The false philosophy (1774-76): Proposes a Manichean confrontation between Good and Evil, which leads him to justify the use of violence in all its possible forms (war, punishment of death or torture) to save society. VICENTE FERNANDEZ VALVARCE (1723-1798): The philosophical disappointments (1787-97).
3 Claude-Adrien Nonnotte (Besançon, 1711-1793) French Jesuit known for his writings against Voltaire.
4 Joseph-Marie, Count de Maistre (Chambéry, April 1, 1753 - Turin, February 26, 1821), Savoyard political theorist and philosopher, maximum representative of conservative thought opposed to the ideas of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution in its delicious Considerations sur la France.
5 Louis Gabriel, Vicomte de Bonald (Millau, October 2, 1754 - November 23, 1840). French politician, philosopher, writer and publicist, exponent of traditionalist Catholic thought in the years after the French Revolution. A fervent monarchist, Catholic fundamentalist, Bonald became the voice of the ultra-legitimists; he attacked the Declaration of the Rights of Man, Rousseau's social contract and the political-social innovations of the Revolution, to advocate a return to the authority of the monarchy and religion. human, skepticism towards religious powers, contempt for all fanaticism and the cultivation of doubt and tolerance.
6 See Juan Puelles López. Progreso, historia e imperativo categórico [Progress, history and categorical imperative].
7 In 1944, Hahn received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the discovery of nuclear fission.
ความคิดเห็น