Search results for: Philippine politics

Authors: Nathan Garcia

Abstract:

The polarizing dialogue of contemporary political America results from core philosophical differences. But these differences are beyond ideological and reach metaphysical distinction. Good intellectual historians have theorized that fundamental concepts such as freedom, God, and nature have been sterilized of their intellectual vigor. They are partially correct. 19th-century pragmatist Charles Sanders Peirce offers a penetrating philosophy which can yield greater insight into the contemporary political divide. Peirce argues that metaphysical and ethical issues are derivative of operational logic. His triadic logical structure and ensuing metaphysical principles constructed therefrom is contemporaneously applicable for three reasons. First, Peirce’s logic aptly scrutinizes the logical processes of liberal and conservative mindsets. Each group arrives at a cosmological root metaphor (abduction), resulting in a contemporary assessment (deduction), ultimately prompting attempts to verify the original abduction (induction). Peirce’s system demonstrates that liberal citizens develop a cosmological root metaphor in the concept of fairness (abduction), resulting in a contemporary assessment of, for example, underrepresented communities being unfairly preyed upon (deduction), thereby inciting anger toward traditional socio-political structures suspected of purposefully destabilizing minority communities (induction). Similarly, conservative citizens develop a cosmological root metaphor in the concept of freedom (abduction), resulting in a contemporary assessment of, for example, liberal citizens advocating an expansion of governmental powers (deduction), thereby inciting anger towards liberal communities suspected of attacking freedoms of ordinary Americans in a bid to empower their interests through the government (induction). The value of this triadic assessment is the categorization of distinct types of inferential logic by their purpose and boundaries. Only deductive claims can be concretely proven, while abductive claims are merely preliminary hypotheses, and inductive claims are accountable to interdisciplinary oversight. Liberals and conservative logical processes preclude constructive dialogue because of (a) an unshared abductive framework, and (b) misunderstanding the rules and responsibilities of their types of claims. Second, Peircean metaphysical principles offer a greater summary of the contemporaneously divisive political climate. His insights can weed through the partisan theorizing to unravel the underlying philosophical problems. Corrosive nominalistic and essentialistic presuppositions weaken the ability to share experiences and communicate effectively, both requisite for any promising constructive dialogue. Peirce’s pragmatist system can expose and evade fallacious thinking in pursuit of a refreshing alternative framework. Finally, Peirce’s metaphysical foundation enables a logically coherent, scientifically informed orthopraxis well-suited for American dialogue. His logical structure necessitates radically different anthropology conducive to shared experiences and dialogue within a dynamic, cultural continuum. Pierce’s fallibilism and sensitivity to religious sentiment successfully navigate between liberal and conservative values. In sum, he provides a normative paradigm for intranational dialogue that privileges individual experience and values morally defensible notions of freedom, God, and nature. Utilizing Peirce’s thought will yield fruitful analysis and offers a promising philosophical alternative for framing and engaging in contemporary American political discourse.

Keywords: Charles s. Peirce, american politics, logic, pragmatism

Procedia PDF Downloads 87

Authors: Marcela Davalos Lopez

Abstract:

The history of the circulation of hygienic knowledge and the consolidation of public health in Latin American cities towards the end of the 19th century is well known. Among them, Mexico City was inserted in international politics, strengthened institutions, medical knowledge, applied parameters of modernity and built sanitary engineering works. Despite the power that this hygienist system achieved, its scope was relative: it cannot be generalized to all cities. From a comparative and contextual analysis, it will be shown that conclusions derived from modern urban historiography present, from our contemporary observations, fractures. Between 1890 and 1930, the small cities and areas surrounding the Mexican capital adapted in their own way the international and federal public health regulations. This will be shown for neighborhoods located around Mexico City and in a medium city, close to the Mexican capital (about 80 km), called Cuernavaca. While the inhabitants of the neighborhoods kept awaiting the evolutionary process and the forms that public hygiene policies were taking (because they were witnesses and affected in their territories), in Cuernavaca, the dictates came as an echo. While the capital was drained, large roads were opened, roundabouts were erected, residents were expelled, and drains, sewers, drinking water pipes, etc., were built; Cuernavaca was sheltered in other times and practices. What was this due to? Undoubtedly, the time and energy that it took politicians and the group of "scientists" to carry out these enormous works in the Mexican capital took them away from addressing the issue in remote villages. It was not until the 20th century that the federal hygiene policy began to be strengthened. Despite this, there are other factors that emphasize the particularities of each site. I would like to draw attention here to the different receptions that each town prepared on public hygiene. We will see that Cuernavaca responded to its own semi-rural culture, history, orography and functions, prolonging for much longer, for example, the use of its deep ravines as sewers. For their part, the neighborhoods surrounding the capital, although affected and excluded from hygienist policies, chose to move away from them and solve the deficiencies with their own resources (they resorted to the waste that was left from the dried lake of Mexico to continue their lake practices). All of this points to a paradox that shapes our contemporary concerns: on the one hand, the benefits derived from medical knowledge and its technological applications (in this work referring particularly to the urban health system) and, on the other, the alteration it caused in environmental settings. Places like Cuernavaca (classified by the nineteenth-century and hygienists of the first decades of the twentieth century as backward), as well as landscapes such as neighborhoods, affected by advances in sanitary engineering, keep in their memory buried practices that we observe today as possible ways to reestablish environmental balances: alternative uses of water; recycling of organic materials; local uses of fauna; various systems for breaking down excreta, and so on. In sum, what the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth centuries graduated as levels of backwardness or progress, turn out to be key information to rethink the routes of environmental conservation. When we return to the observations of the scientists, politicians and lawyers of that period, we find historically rejected cultural alterity. Populations such as Cuernavaca that, due to their history, orography and/or insufficiency of federal policies, kept different relationships with the environment, today give us clues to reorient basic elements of cities: alternative uses of water, waste of raw materials, organic or consumption of local products, among others. It is, therefore, a matter of unearthing the rejected that cries out to emerge to the surface.

Keywords: sanitary hygiene, Mexico city, cultural alterity, environmental conservation, environmental history

Procedia PDF Downloads 145