Wedding Templates In Spanish

Activity No. 3, 2011 Initial Course

Activity 3
Read the following passage from The Social Contract (Jean-Jacques Rousseau), and tell us what's critique of the anthropological Hobbesian - present in the film in the figure of Jack - . Justify



CHAPTER I Purpose of this book

Man is born free, and yet lives everywhere in chains. The same love is considered, it remains so to be less a slave than the others. How has this transformation? I do not know. What can give it the stamp of legitimacy? I think I can resolve this issue. If
not serve more than force and the effects derived from it, say: "As a people is bound to obey and obeys, it does well, as soon as it can shake the yoke, and shakes him, works even better since regaining his freedom with the same right that was taken from, the test was created to enjoy it.
Otherwise, it was not worth never take it away. "But the social order is a sacred right which underlies all others. However, this right is not a natural right: it is founded on conventions. Try to find out what are those conventions, but before reaching that point, I fix or determine what I say.

CHAPTER II

of the first companies
The oldest of all societies, and the only natural, is the family, but children do not remain attached to the parent more than during the time they need it for conservation.
As soon as this need ceases, the natural links are dissolved. Children free from the obedience they owed to the father and this relieved of care owed to those, either come to enjoy the same independence. If you remain together, is no longer enforced and, naturally, but voluntarily, and the family itself can not exist only by convention.
That freedom is therefore common of human nature. His main law is to secure their own preservation, his first cares are those due to him. Reached the age of reason, being the sole judge of the means to be preserved, consequently conviértese master of himself.
The family is then, if you will, the first model of political societies: the head is the image of the father, the people of the children, and all, being born free and equal, alienate their liberty but not instead of its usefulness. The only difference is that, in the family, parental love reward the father of the care lavished on their children, while in the state, the pleasure of command who supplies or replaced the love that the boss feels for his constituents.
[...] CHAPTER III


The right of the strongest
Strongest ever is not enough to be always the master or lord, unless he transforms strength into right and obedience into duty. Hence the right of the strongest, ironically made and really looks set to start. But we never explain this word? Force is a physical power, and I see that morality can result from their effects. Yielding to force is an act of necessity, not will, at best, may be prudent.
In what sense may be a duty? Assume for a moment This supposed right, I say that it is inexplicable gibberish, because if the force is the right, as the effect changes with the cause, any force greater than the first, amend the law. Since it can disobey with impunity, we can legitimately, and since the strongest is always right, but is not attempting to be. What, then, a right which perishes when force stops? If we must obey by force is not necessary to obey out of duty, and if the force disappears, the obligation does not exist. It is therefore right that the word adds nothing to the strength or means nothing here. Obey
powers. If this means: yield to the force, a provision is good, but superfluous. I answer that will never be violated. All power emanates from God, I admit, but any disease as well. Will he be banned for it, seek medical advice? If a bandit me in a jungle, I will, not only by force, but may even prevent it, bound in conscience to give my bag? Why, in short, the gun he has is a power? Agree, then, that the force does not make right and that no one is obliged to obey only the lawful powers. So my question is always up early. CHAPTER VI



guess the social pact men arrived at the point where the obstacles to their conservation in the natural state than the forces which each individual can use to stay there. Then this primitive state can not exist, and mankind would perish if not change his ways.
However, as men can not engender new forces, but only unite and direct existing ones, have no other means of preserving the form by adding a sum of forces able to surpass the resistance of them together with a one end and make them work together and conformity.
This sum of forces can not be born but the competition of many, but, being the force and freedom of every man the main instruments for conservation, how could engage without harming without neglecting the obligations you have for yourself? This difficulty, namely my view, can be stated as follows:
"Find a form of association which defends and protects the common force the person and property of each partner, and why each one, joining all not obey but himself and remain as free as before. " This is the fundamental problem whose solution gives the social contract.
clauses of this contract are in such a manner determined by the nature of the act, that the slightest modification would make them useless and void so that, even if they were never formally set out, are everywhere the same and have been everywhere tacitly admitted and recognized, until that violated the social contract each regains his original rights and recover their natural liberty, the conventional loss of which had given up first.
These clauses, well studied, are reduced to one, namely the total alienation of each associate with all his rights to the entire community, because, first, completely giving each of the partners, the condition is the same for all , and still the same, none has interest in making it expensive for others.
Furthermore, carrying out the sale without reserve, the union is as perfect as can be, without any partner has anything to complain because if there remain some rights to individuals, as there would be no common superior who could adjudicate between them and the public , each being to some extent his own judge, would pretend to be all over soon and consequently, the natural pregnant and partnership subsists necessarily become tyrannical or worthless.
In short, giving each individual at all is not given to anyone, and as there is a partner of which is not acquired the same right is transferred, earns the equivalent of all that is lost and more strength to keep what you have.
If discarded because of the social compact what is not of essence, we find that is reduced to the following terms: "Everyone puts together his person and all his power under the supreme direction of general will, and each member considered as an indivisible part of all. " This act of association
instantly converts the particular person of each contracting party, in a normal and collective body, composed of as many members as votes is the assembly, which receives from this act its unity, its common self, his life and will. The public person is, therefore, by the union of all others, once took the name of the city and today the republic or body politic, which is called state when active power compared with their peers. As partners, they take collectively the name of the people, particularly the citizens as participants in the sovereign authority, and subjects to be subject to the laws of the State.
But these terms are often confused, being taken for one another, enough to know when they are used to distinguish them precisely.

Trouble Shooting A Enerstat Et52 Thermostat

Heraclitus in the early work of Nietzsche

By Juan Bautista García Bazán

Chair: Theory of Knowledge

school year: 2010

"From the standpoint of historical-philological may still be possible to demonstrate that nietszchiana conception of truth as an" illusion "comes from Heraclitus, or, in other words, Nietzsche would have copied out and reading this author . Let the historians philosophy the satisfaction of discovering such relationships based on these loans. "
Heidegger: Seminars in Freiburg on Nietzsche

These s word of Heidegger, the seminar devoted to Nietzsche in years 1936-1940, alluding mainly to fr. point of Heraclitus, the 28DK: "For the most esteemed (dokimótatos) knows (gnóskei) things apparent (dokéonta) and saves them, and yet the judge Justice makers and witnesses of lies."
Not only will our Heideggerian analysis of this sentence. Can say, In any case, the truth as illusion would refer to that knowledge, who ran the "most estimates" - the "apparent things, false or deceptive. What is perhaps striking is that the heading is drawn and copied Nietzsche, the philosopher of Ephesus, these issues. Certainly there
Heraclitus brands in most of the works of Nietzsche. For example, in Posthumous Writings of summer-autumn of 1884, reads:
"The philosophy of the Vedas and Heraclitus are my predecessors: that the world is a divine play and is beyond good and evil." Also, another clear reference in these writings, offers a year later: "The game, useless, as an ideal of who is overaccumulated of force, as childish. The childishness of God, in Greek Passon country .... " Obviously the two events were inspired by the fragment 52DK:
"time of life (AION) is a child (country) playing (paisson) the dice, a child the kingdom." Heidegger
But strictly speaking the concept of truth. And the title essay of 1873, Nietzsche, mentioned the word: On the truth and falsehood in an extra moral sense ( Über Wahrheit und Lüge im Sinne außermoralischen ). The first page of this work, said (25):

"In a secluded corner of the universe, where bright innumerable solar systems, there once was a star in which some clever animals invented knowledge. It was the arrogant and deceitful minute" history universal ", but only a minute. After a few breaths of nature that star froze, and the clever animals had to die. Someone could have invented a fable and yet not have sufficiently illustrated the dire state, dark and fleeting ; senseless and capricious in that it shows the human spirit in nature. There were eternities in which there existed, and when it disappears no nothing happened, because for that intellect no function beyond human life [...] "

spoken knowledge of its deceptive nature, but also the nature of eternity, and of human life. All these terms refer to one or other references to Nietzsche's posthumous fragments: The world as a divine play, divine, and understood the reference to the Vedas, as a god is rolled back, such as India that divinity is surrounded by bubbles, which preserves or destroys, according to his own pleasure, the world etc., but also Heraclitus are the eternities, is the nature, cosmos life (aion) which behaves like a child, of course it is the innocence, that aspect would be present in Zarathustra, the child playing with dice, and you can stop and break down the pieces , regardless of the consequences. And is this other life, human life, which in comparison with the divine, is shown below and miserable ...

Say this characterization of human knowledge, but is presented in terms of a hidden story, moreover, not only allusions to the thought of Heraclitus, but also references to a particular worldview, the Greek. For Nietzsche, speaking of knowledge, of truth and falsehood, is installed in the belief that the universe is cyclic, not linear. And from that point of view, it seems that Nietzsche was opposed epistemological conception different from that of modern Western thought: think of Hegel or positivism, as inheritors of the Judeo-Christian temporality, speak of a linearity, irreversible progress their systems. In this sense, beyond the character essay of this work, Nietzsche raises or installed from a different position, or the use of the Greek tradition, and particularly the philosophy of Heraclitus. What was this strategy, if Nietzsche indeed sought to contrast it with the philosophy of his time? And second, how much credit can be given to the words of Heidegger, referring to the readings and loans that would have removed Nietszsche philosopher of Ephesus?. This is what I try to point out below.

When we speak of knowledge and sensation in man is said (26): "... that pride linked to hearing and feeling, which puts a blinding fog over the eyes and senses of men, and deceives on the value of existence, because it carries with it the most flattering evaluation of knowledge. " And again: "Its effect more ... general is deception. "

This reference

knowledge (Erkenntnis ) and deception (Täuschung) read an echo of fr. 56DK:

"He tricked (exepátentai) men with respect to knowledge (gnosis) of visible things (phanerons prapplesíos), in the same way that Homer, who was the wisest of all Greeks. Because he too was misled (exetátesan) children who killed a louse, when he said, "what we saw and we (eidomen elábomen kai), so we let him aside, and we did not see or take, that we take" .

Here is the same reference of the two terms: the knowledge and deception. Secondly, it is interesting to note that the reference has to do with things visible and Homer. This may relate to the fr. 28DK wearing Heidegger are the most esteemed ( dokimótatos) as Homer, the wisest of all Greeks ( Ellénon sophóteros panton ), those who know ( gignoskein ), some, things are apparent ( dokéonta) , the other, things visible ( phanerons prapplesíos ). Is this use of Heraclitus, if correct, pointing to a western philosopher? Because The reference was to Homer, who did not understand the riddle of these young people, and as we passed elsewhere Aristotle (fr. 8, on the poets) this situation had seized the Poet, causing his death. Irrespective of the tests to be offered, or the apparently labile nature of these comparisons, it should continue with the text (27):

"The intellect, as a means of preservation of the individual, unfolds its greatest strength in the act of pretending, because this is the resource with which individuals are kept [...] "

The intellect is related to life, the life of man is said to have deployed his greatest strength in the act of pretending ( entfaltet Hauptkräfte in der seine Verstellung ). At this point Nietzsche continues without departing from the Heraclitean reading: Life of man as artistic activity. In so doing we discover the reflection of God that creates pleasure, to have that extra strength. The man does the same. Forger activity in extra-moral sense here is clear: cheating, lying, slandering, but also represent, as man's own activity.

"Moreover, throughout his life the man fooled by night dream without question his sense of moral stop [...] (27). "

This may relate to three fragments of Heraclitus about the metaphor of sleep: "But other men were hidden (lanthánei) the things they do awake, just as they forget ( epilanthánontai) of the things that make sleeping "(1DK)," We must not act and talk like them that sleep "(74DK). For the waking there is a common world ... those who sleep become a private one (89DK).

But if there is a reference that is not in doubt about these relationships with these Heraclitean, is presented immediately (27):

"What man knows itself from itself? Could be seen even once, exposed as an illuminated? Did not hidden nature of most things, even his own body [...]. " Clearly

resonates here fr. 123 DK: "Nature loves to hide." That nature was previously identified with the eternities, in the words of Nietzsche, with the game, and Heraclitus, the life of the cosmos (AION), is what men do can be viewed on its own poiesis. Here would be another more definite budget reappear in other works. The self ( Selbst) as the voice of the body, that pride, these forces (greed, cruelty, murder) that consciousness, the logical or theoretical knowledge can not even suspect. "Only through forgetfulness can man come to assume that it has [is] the truth" (29).

That truth, defined in terms of "illusions" ( Täuschung) (33) is what people forget to activity-theoretical sense: that the words were born of metaphors, images or intuitions pristine then solidify, crystallize into that, but words to correspond with reality. Forgetting as a process by passing some men in Heraclitus, but also, as one deception as to the knowledge of the apparent, and as knowledge from the most esteemed, or teacher of Hellas, Homer. Was it a coincidence that the vocabulary of the young Nietzsche was so similar to that of Heraclitus?

Nietzsche In the second chapter makes a veiled reference to last fr. Heraclitus (44):
"But the man himself has an invincible tendency to be deceived and is as enchanted with happiness when the bard tells legends as true or when the actor playing the role of king, royal acts more that it shows the reality. "

The quote speaks of the Greeks, on time, and is described in terms of the sentence 104 DK:
"But what is intelligence (nóos ) or mind (Fren ) in them ? Believe ( peithontai ) to the bards of the people and served as master of the crowd, not knowing that the majority is poor and few are good. " Appointment of the intellect and speaks of belief in Nietzsche and enchantment fooled by the same agents.

From all this it may be concluded, synthetically as follows:

The influence of the philosophy of Heraclitus, Nietzsche does not seem fitting. Not only is shown as appellant in relation to the style employed by the German philosopher but also as essential as it appears as structuring of the same argumentative logic of the text. We speak of knowledge, intellect, truth, lie, vocabularies that refer in the first instance, the repertoire of modern philosophy terms, for example, presented with rationalism, however, Kantianism and Hegelianism. It is known debt and turn the rejection of certain concepts of philosophy that Nietzsche schpenhaueriana raised in The origin of the tragedy and in his most mature. But here the references are epistemological and can be extended to land identified, but are also more generic, and the chosen tone, to be essay, might suggest that Nietzsche does not intend to look an explicit attack on any contemporary philosopher. Although it is true that the words almost words and phrases copied from Heraclitus, perhaps to suggest some clues: Greek philosophy as a way out of the pose, seen as reductionist, contemporary philosophy, for if we think about the ability forger as a sort of a priori condition in men, the discussion reinsertaría, probably in the field of theory of knowledge. This operative is given, we might almost say, unconsciously, and in this regard would be located in a sense beyond the moral but also a natural, cosmic, as a reflection of the power of certain forces of the universe. In that act innocent, find peace, pleasure, and provides the values \u200b\u200bto make a culture, a civilization. Both the positive and the negative of such activity, we saw, is explained in terminology and in a Heraclitean conception. This pattern of Greek, and mainly by Heraclitus, is a constant in the thinking of this young philosopher: to serve the study devoted to Wagner, will be on the redefinition of the philosophy of Schopenhauer: the constant struggle of opposites, of drunkenness and sleep, the night light of the Apollonian or of Dionysus, and categories to explain to the music , the experience of philosophy, but ultimately refer further explanation, and constituting, as tensions primacy of the epistemological foundation of the philosopher of Ephesus.
We believe that these slurs on the thought of Heraclitus are present in Nietzsche. Sometimes more visible, others less so. Why Nietzsche joins the terms of knowledge-cheating-lying-dream talk about men? You wanted to be a new Heraclitus leaving, in turn, another puzzle? The philosophy in this sense as a talk about the puzzling, mysterious and tragic.

Bibliography
Heidegger: Heidegger M. (1961), Nietzsche I. Paris: Gallimard.
Heraclitus: Cornavacca, R. (2008). Presocratics. I. Fragments Bilingual Edition. Buenos Aires: Losada.
Heraclitus: Colli, G. (I, 1995, II, 2008, III, 2010). Greek Wisdom. Madrid: Trotta.
Heraclitus: Diano, C. and Serra, G. (2000). Eraclit. I Frammenti e le Testimonianze .
NIETZSCHE: Fink, E. (1973). Philosophy di Nietzsche . Padova: Mondadori.
Nietzsche: Nietzsche, F. (2009). On Truth and Lies . Madrid: Miluna.

Persuasive Surveillance

The Phenomenology of Husserl in contrast to the Cartesian method and empirical psychologists .

Chair: Theory of Knowledge Symposium

: Science and truth in the theory of knowledge

Student: Fernando Cabrera Ricca

school year: 2010

Husserl's position

Husserl posed to the philosophy and theory of knowledge . Will try to construct a theory and method of knowledge which is proper to philosophy. Wants to make an objective science philosophy and it is proposing as its own method of philosophy to the Fe phenomenology. With this method Husserl intends to return to his knowledge universal and transcendental. In this case is going to criticize the empiricism of Hume and the positivism of Comte knowledge trying to make a simple psychological process and will pro- position Cartesian Cogito, as can be objective knowledge. But then you going to object Descartes have separated the knowledge of external reality. Husserl will return to the knowledge of its universal and objective showing that the logical forms are independent of psicologuismo yet give you back the possibility of real world knowledge without the mediation of God as in the case of Descartes. With regard to the need for a theory of knowledge that knowledge itself can be returned to its essential character Husserl says

"Darkness reigns on knowledge in regard to their meaning or essence requires a science of knowledge, a science but does not want to bring awareness to clearly essential. Knowledge does not explain as a psychological fact; or want to investigate the natural conditions under which they come and cognitive acts, nor the natural laws that are linked in his coming into being and change. Investigate this, is the task which proposes a natural science, natural science of psychic events, the experiences of individuals living psychic. The critique of knowledge wants, rather, to clarify, illustrate and bring to light the essence of knowledge and the validity claim belonging to the essence. "

The Method of Phenomenology

to the Phenomenology, subject and object knowledge are not separate, but somehow no one without the other, thus rejecting the knowledge as mere subjective representation. Husserl says that "All consciousness is consciousness of something." This means that my form can not be represented outside the object. It is only my representation: the consciousness is what connects the subject with the object. And the object is not independent of the subject by that consciousness is an "intent": that is traveling to be aware of something, that something is the essence that can be received with universal value, but not in a separate internal representation of the world but in a representation that coexists with the world since both the world and are given representation in consciousness that splits subject and object. The starting point is the awareness and consciousness the object is given to me as what is given, and that being given this essence that consciousness can see, you can show by "reductionism noselógico" bracketing all show the contingent and let the universal essence. In this sense Husserl says

"It is clear that the cogitations thing represents a sphere of absolute immanent data, in any sense to interpret immanence. In the act of seeing the pure phenomenon, the object is not out of knowledge, outside of 'consciousness', and at a time, is given in the absolute sense of itself be seen purely something. We need, however, reinforce this through epistemological reduction "

Phenomenology against empiricist reductionism

Husserl reacts against all forms psychologism. Assimilate the logic does not admit to psychology. Doing so would confuse the proper areas of each. To Husser logic can not be reduced to a psychological fact. Not denying the existence of thought have psychological characteristics, but what it denies is that the universal forms which are thought comes a psychological fact. Thus, for example, laws of logic relate to validations while the psychological facts, ignoring this science is relativized, that is away from the true knowledge. Such is the case of empiricism that reduces all objectivity that transcends a mere psychological state of the subject. With regard to Hume Husserl says

"Knowledge, in all its forms, is a psychic experience, is knowledge of the knowing subject. Before him are the objects known. But how can knowledge be certain of his fitness for the known objects? How can transcend and credibly achieve the objects? (...) Do I have to Hume, to reduce all fiction transcendent objectivity that can be explained by psychology, but can not be rationally justified? Rather this is a tough requirement "


For Husserl psychologism is the tendency to confuse the evidence with the subjective feeling of evidence. Confuse this is to relativize truth to a psychological subjectivity. Husserl called noesis the individual mental act of thinking and noema the objective content of thought. This distinction is based on the content is independent of the act of thinking. This Thus, for Husserl is a pure logic, a logic that is independent of all experience and even psychology. And this logic is the insight of universal essences.

Phenomenology and the Cartesian method


Husserl, like Descartes, accepts the existence of clear and distinct ideas as ways universal and independent of any psychologist, but he criticizes Descartes remain, of these ideas within the subject without the possibility of apprehending the world, but only through God. Husser said about the Cartesian cogito:

" Descartes, after provided evidence of the cogito wondering: what do I make sure this critical data? And answered: the clear and distinct perception. (...) We can now with Descartes, the next step we are allowed to take into consideration as we are given, like the singular cogito, by clear and distinct perception. This certainly does expect bad consequences, if we remember the Third and Fourth Meditations, evidence of the existence of God, the use of veracitas dei, etc. "


Cartesian Husserl solves the problem. This distance that the cogito Descartes conceived for the world, because for the same doubting Phenomenology is given on evidence and this evidence is collected by the consciousness and conscience as if there is consciousness of something, the subject of consciousness and the world can not be split. Put another way: Unlike the Cartesian method for real taking all that after being questioned could be thought of as a clear and distinct, the phenomenological method for making real thought everything is so clear and distinct is ie the subject is in line first to capture the essence of world shown in conscience. This power aware, to realize the essence transcends the merely empirical and contingent psychological.

Bibliography consulted:

• Edmund Husserl: Idea of \u200b\u200bPhenomenology. Madrid-Mexico, FCE, 1982
• Akoun
  André et al: Encyclopedia: Ideas, works and men. Madrid, 1977
• Ferrater Mora: Dictionary of Philosophy. Barcelona, \u200b\u200bPenínsula, 1994
  

Milena Velba Foxy Diciembre 2010

The possibility of metaphysics as a science


BUENOS AIRES PROVINCE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CULTURE AND HIGHER EDUCATION ADDRESS


TOP TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTE No. 129
Career: Lecturer, Curriculum Area
PHILOSOPHY: HISTORY OF MODERN PHILOSOPHY
Course: 3rd Year
school year: 2009

TEACHER: Mr. Ponce, Liliana.
STUDENT: Dalto, Marina.

Job Title: "The possibility of metaphysics as science"

Summary of work:
The following work will address to clarify the problem of metaphysics as a science in Kant, to be the one who raised the possibility with an analysis depth of reason, authority which according to this philosopher becomes, by nature, prone to man to try to find objects that transcend the field of experience. So which also displays the position of Spinoza, as one of the modern representatives bringing this discipline to the top of the ontology itself, putting on the same level the question of being and knowing, for their identity, the author Critics called it a dogmatic reason, just to trust the power of this previously unquestioned in its scope.
also provide a brief comparison of the new meanings of the terms: Idea, reason and understanding, to understand the place that gives them Kant in his philosophy to reallocate its object metaphysics.
anticipation of the end of the matter, Kant manages to knock qualification to the discipline of science but placing it anyway, as the main engine of knowledge itself, as a natural disposition that urges us to turn to the unconditioned.

Introduction:
In modern philosophers as Descartes, Leibniz, Locke, Hume, Spinoza ... we have seen raised the aspirations of an era: achieving true knowledge of things, the correspondence between representation, characteristic of a knower and that which is external, which is presented to the perception or intellectual intuition, in a clear and distinct, which varies, of course, as the current (nativism, empiricism, transcendental philosophy, idealism, etc..) adopted by each thinker. But the problem at all, it is theoretically possible through the building, but the basis on which this theory was based, a shifting base to the collapse ... always threatened many times by relying on the power of the power of man, they considered source of knowledge: some on the right to reject the contribution of the senses, and others, relying on the senses, discounted the power of speculative reason. Thus, metaphysics was rather the stage where the disputed their scholastic philosophers, rather than a sincere attempt to dispel the delusion that the misunderstanding occurred. What
that we can excel in the modern philosophers, is the methodological rigor to that submitted their thoughts, seeking the path that led him to the truth without error, they found only when representations of the subject, were adequate to the object that was available to know , the certainty in the pose was what guided the search criteria and knowledge processing.
But, as stated above, the multiple "access to reality" found, were most resonant question of truth as well, the farther the answer, given the plurality of philosophical systems known. Thus Kant
seek, first, show of what metaphysics has dealt so far and if possible knowledge of the object, calling into question the means of access, is critical of the powers of knowledge and thus eliminates all metaphysical debate before or after him not necessarily part of this clarification. Development

problem:
Man by nature has always tended and always will, to look, thinking, responding to questions that exceed their cognitive abilities. Not made aware of his mistake, but given the very process of knowledge is confident of being right, going back tirelessly for the darker paths, to find a touchstone, an obstacle that while it does not stop, lets not say that I got for himself, his reason, can be known.
And here is where lies the main criticism of Kantian metaphysics, the science that has developed because of our natural attitude has not been systematized, to find principles that are entrenched in their origin and that build a body unsure of itself and therefore what might be called science?, philosopher in the prologue of the first edition, known as "the arena of endless discussions," referring to precisely this lack of firmness in the ground in the arguments hold everything else, and therefore, without foundation, there will never be anything done, what is built will fall again and again.
In the Foreword to the second edition, after comparing it with other disciplines that may have over time become a science, such as logic, mathematics and physics, using pure reason speculative capacity, but without taking the object to its empirical content, that is only to determine the object and its concept (which comes synthesized understanding), argues for it, again, that's Metaphysics, "is an isolated speculative knowledge of reason that nothing takes the lessons experience and uses only simple concepts (without intuitions), where reason must be his own disciple, which was fortunate not to get insurance even in the way of science "1. Finally, we will characterize this second prologue, as a battlefield, where all claims are made, rather, to exercise in assaults forces opponents, but where none has been able to gain solid ground to build anything. Closes with the last sentence that "the march of Metaphysics has hitherto been uncertain, a score, and made, what is worse, by means of simple concepts" 2.


To understand this pose, we need to understand what are the powers involved in the process of knowledge for the philosopher, and how each one does. Briefly expose, to guide the reader.
Kant is to analyze the power of knowledge of the subject to avoid wasting efforts on catching objects apparent. Thus, a distinction between them to intuition, understanding and reason.
The latter would be responsible for pushing the boundaries of possible knowledge, it being understood that the only object of knowledge is that as a phenomenon, and we understand here as what appears to me to intuition, and how empirically things affect us (Kant's first definition that appears in Part of the Transcendental Aesthetic), it is clear that after may be established a body of knowledge that comes directly from the experience but that indirectly referred to it in the series of deductions, that is what the author expresses when he says "that all our knowledge begins with experience but not all come from her "3. What
given in intuition, the phenomenon, there is always multiple and diverse way, to a first synthesizer that are pure intuitions * space and time. Formed the raw material, understanding turns to its task, which is to give an intelligible form to what has been presented significantly. Operates well with * pure concepts, categories, giving unity to experience, because it synthesizes the manifold of intuition on the concept, giving consistency to our knowledge to objects. But it should be abundantly clear that the understanding deals exclusively with the empirical use of its a priori principles (trials) and concepts, ie applicable only to phenomena.

Thus, the philosopher will tell you that Pure Reason, which has two functions, one speculative and practice must be limited to speculative activity, the objects of experience, our knowledge otherwise would have no significance since not refer to any empirical no intuition of forms, but are the result of mere analysis of the concept (while back on itself, not to get any knowledge.)
understood this, we could say that the attitude of man's metaphysical and science so that it has sought to establish, is the product of reason, but misuse or diversion of it. "What drives us to go beyond the limits of experience and phenomena is the unconditioned, which reason necessarily requires the thing itself" 4 ... the problem here is that for Kant, the thing itself has no ontological reality, or at least epistemological, because if something is, is the phenomenon. Dual Nothing really exists, there is nothing that is hidden, nothing is achieved, what I know, is all I can know, because my powers permit. The reverse path made by the author, allows the cancellation of the possibility of knowing the thing itself, because knowledge is not the thing as being such, it is a subject to something that appears to him, has a cognitive structure that allows access to it one way, who is the subject structure of reality, whether or not it is that way, it is impossible to define, is only the way the subject is known.
But well, it's not as sharp with respect to the thing itself, only the exiles from the scope of knowledge, can not access it, because I have no intuition of it, but I can think it, so that you reserve a place in morality, and treat it in his Critique of Practical Reason, but that subject and exceeds us.

back to metaphysics and its problems, to understand what we mean when we say that your soil is sandy and initiated a trial is necessary to clarify that we address the subject so far has lost, confused and even blinded. The inevitable issues of pure reason are God, freedom and immortality, but the only way to treat them, as we stated above, is by reason itself, and here is where dogmatically confident in it. Without the solvency of experience, these approaches will not find any contradiction, but converted only fictions of reason, in wishful thinking, because the illusion is not in the object but at the trial that is launched as planned. Kant therefore, tells us that knowledge entirely match with the laws of understanding can not contain error as it respects the transcendental logic, ie the synthesis of intuitions and pure concepts can not transcend the limits of experience and therefore it can not have that illusion. These ideas of reason are a source of hope, provided that exceeds the empirical use categories and we deceive ourselves with the illusion of an extension of the pure understanding. The illusion logic is solved by the simple application of general logic, but in the presence of the transcendental illusion is not so simple solution, since reason is governed by its own rules that serve as early targets and therefore the need to perform subjective links certain concepts that determine the "things themselves" (of which we spoke paragraphs before) is something that can not be avoided since it is a natural illusion, which is based on subjective principles that are surreptitiously as targets, and have here the danger of being drawn into the reason without any criticism, because from the outset seems to be guided correctly, as well understand now that it is not happening.

Finally, it is necessary that redefinition of concepts that Kant used for transcendental philosophy. First, the modern understanding and identifying the reason as a curriculum, and therefore with the same subject, in Kant, the understanding has the power of the unity of phenomena by means of the rules, and the reason the power unit of the rules of understanding under principles. This means that the mind is responsible for putting the understanding in accordance with itself, Kant characterizes it as a subjective law administration of the provisions of our understanding to reduce the possible number of concepts used by comparison. But if pure reason it relates to items not directly related to them, only with the understanding and judgments. Whatever the reason unifies the whole experience, is conditioned to the unconditioned knowledge of the understanding that the unit is completed. But the propositions that results in this supreme principle of pure reason, will be critical because it can never be an empirical use which is appropriate. Therefore, these concepts Kant called transcendental ideas. This is how ideas become to regain a sense Platonic being as models or prototypes for the experience, as regulators and managers to dress according to experience them. While the concepts will be for him the same realities of experience, but the ideas express something that goes beyond all experience, but it serves the north for our understanding of reality.

Then we can say as the object of metaphysics as a discipline has always been to embrace the totality of knowledge, determining the ultimate causes and first principles of all things that exist beyond all time and space, beyond all physical phenomena. Been searching for the ground of being and knowing, never achieved.
will see, for example in the work of Spinoza, the "Treaty of Understanding Reform", it crosses the limit of Pure Reason, Kant raised to the point of complete identification between being and thinking, those ideas that forge understanding, are the product of the completeness of the real object.
The philosopher seems to have settled onto-epistemological dualism that had dragged on since Plato, and which established the difference between the "actual" and "become apparent" "intelligible world" and "sensible world", the first and true Actually, the other as appearance, a copy of the real, and what changes and therefore can not be grasped by thought.
already imbued with the spirit of mathematical rationality of modernity, can not help but apply his method, that due to the subordination of knowledge as to the ability of understanding, everything will happen, will be achieved in. Because the nature of understanding and the nature of things are identical in Spinoza, is to detect the first real idea of \u200b\u200bthe object or objective essence of nature we know, and therefore "the method is nothing other than knowledge reflective or the idea of \u200b\u200bthe idea "5.
Thus, the second step of the method, once distinguished the true ideas of other ways of knowing, and "as the relationship between two ideas is the same as that between formal essences of these ideas, it follows that the reflective knowledge of the idea of \u200b\u200ban absolutely perfect knowledge is more than reflective of all other ideas, "therefore," the perfect method will indicate how to contact the spirit according to the standard idea given the most perfect "6, here is the supreme cause of all things that exist and therefore all the ideas we have and is the guarantee its truth. "Indeed we must exist as a tool innate, a true idea that once understood, makes us understand, at the same time, the difference between way of knowing this and all other "7.
The order of speaking Spinoza, who have the ideas in the understanding and therefore things that exist in nature, responding to a necessary connection, which arises from pure procedure of the mind, according to its own laws. Here we find the "more geometric" in the knowledge of things from within the same understanding of the Procedure deductive and a priori, regardless of the empirical and the temporality and the author will tell us "the soul acts according to certain laws and how a spiritual automaton "8, based on the premise that" order and connection of ideas is the same as the order and connection of things, "understanding why the governing causal order of events is the same as is the understanding when operating with ideas, because the understanding is in order because of truth itself.
But we resumed, "that our spirit expresses exactly all of nature, must derive all their ideas expressed by the origin and source of all nature, so that it is also the source of other ideas" 9 and this is just the most perfect idea that Spinoza holder dare God, more than any suggestion that the term mystic, will be considered as the only efficient cause of all, a single substance you just called God or Nature. Rightly therefore, will be characterized his theory as a theologizing of nature or a natural part of God, pantheism is also another of their designations, as "Everything is God and God." Since the substance has to be an innate idea clear and distinct, and that its essence necessarily involves existence and as there can be caused by another but must be the cause of itself (causa sui), and also causes all things that exist, there is no room as possible, everything is absolutely knowable once in possession of the true idea and method that addresses the concatenation of the understanding that reproduces, in turn, la concatenación de la Naturaleza. Porque tanto el pensamiento como la extensión son los dos atributos de esta sustancia, con lo cual, los hombres por poseer pensamiento y extensión y las demás cosas de la naturaleza, extensión; son los modos en que éstos atributos se manifiestan (modos en tanto que son “en otra cosa”, y que sólo pueden concebirse en y por otro). Por ello, “el pensamiento verdadero consiste en conocer “las cosas” conforme a su propio modo de ser: por sí mismas o por sus causas próximas”10.

Visto desde este punto, la metafísica de Spinoza, resuelve todo el problema de la ciencia, puesto que “el conocimiento del efecto depende del knowledge of the cause, "11 it is limited only to investigate the necessary order of all things and the causal chain will eventually lead us to the idea of \u200b\u200ba Being who is the" cause "of the need, in this way is evident not only absolute knowledge, but also the Being in its fullness. Nothing is reserved for man's knowledge, nothing is inaccessible once again discovered the standard of truth.

After this brief exposition of Spinoza's theory, we can see it first explained how the metaphysical goal is achieved, the search and the scope of the unifying principle of reality, by the way of reason alone, through deduction of the ideas presented as clear and distinct to the understanding, and by its logic and coherence development in the philosophical system, are difficult to question. Because such exposure can not be substantiated by any experience, and we should be content to believe, if we have failed in this case, to recognize in understanding the true idea of \u200b\u200bourselves, that everything raised is true, or, for the same reason, one would think that it is not.

If we stop in the village of Kant, we find many elements for land taken for the explanation of Spinoza, for example, especially in this case we can say that these are only conclusions reason, which Kant called antinomies, and lack of support point to explain the whole experience, because all knowledge for him necessarily require the synthesis of concepts, the result of a previous synthesis of intuitions, which makes it impossible to try to explain the entire universe, the Being, Nature or God, these are only ideas of reason.

Conclusion:
Thus we can observe how the modern concern has focused primarily on identifying the source that guarantees the truth of the ideas or knowledge of the subject, without making a prior critique of this source, which has been to skip the step important method to verify whether the source is genuine, that the process of knowledge is, too.
Kant's conclusion, as anticipated in the summary of work, is that metaphysics is the negative character, while the ratio is deluding itself by believing some knowledge to achieve true even crossed the field of experience, and positive character that allows one hand, warn of the inability to avoid wasted effort, and secondly because it means using speculative reason framed by the empirical intuitions, the increase of scientific knowledge, because it invites, to anticipate, predict how nature works if apply certain synthetic a priori principles about it.
is necessary to recognize the boundary conditions and not humanly we become skeptical, but critics in both able to analyze carefully the resources we turn, as Kant rightly says in his Preface to the first edition of the CRP, "duty is of philosophy to dissipate the delusions caused by poor intelligence, although this is necessary to destroy the most beloved and enchanting illusions. "
Thus metaphysics can not be science, but it is a natural disposition of the spirit that never ceases to guide us in the search for the unconditioned, only conscious de lo anterior podemos evitar el desvió permanente, sólo la inexistencia del hombre evitaría el desvío momentáneo.

Notas:
1. Kant, Inmanuel., Crítica de la Razón Pura (CRP), Prefacio de la segunda edición, Losada, 2006.
2. Ídem anterior.
3. Kant, I. CRP, Introducción, Losada, 2006).
*Puros se entenderá aquí por lo a priori, lo absolutamente independientes de la experiencia, como la condición de posibilidad de todo objeto de experiencia.
4. Kant, I., Crítica de la Razón Pura (CRP), Prefacio de la segunda edición, Losada, 2006.
5. Spinoza, Baruch. Tratado de la Reforma del Entendimiento (Parágr. 38), Edit. Ship, Buenos Aires, 1944.
6. Ditto above.
7. Spinoza, Baruch. TRE (Parágr. 39), Edit. Ship, Buenos Aires, 1944.
8. Spinoza, Baruch. TRE (Parágr. 85), Edit. Ship, Buenos Aires, 1944.
9. Spinoza, Baruch. TRE (Parágr. 42), Edit. Ship, Buenos Aires, 1944.
10. Ponce, Liliana, Notes on Spinoza and the need for reform of the understanding, Gnoseology Chair, UNR: http://conversacionesphilosophicas.blogspot.com.
11. Spinoza, B. Ethics in the order shown geometrically, Book II, Axiom IV.

Bibliography:
- Kant, Immanuel, Critique of Pure Reason, Editorial Losada, 2006.
- Preface the first edition.
- Preface to the second edition.
- Introduction.
-Second Division of Transcendental Logic, Transcendental Dialectic, Introduction.
- García Morente, Manuel, The Philosophy of Kant, Edit. Espasa Calpe, Madrid, 1975.
- Spinoza, Baruch, the Treaty on Understanding Reform, Edit. Ship, Buenos Aires, 1944.
- Ponce, Liliana, Notes on Spinoza and the need for reform of the understanding, Gnoseology Chair, UNR: http://conversacionesphilosophicas.blogspot.com