Biography of José Ortega y Gasset (1883-1955)

Philosopher, teacher and Spanish writer born in Madrid on May 9, 1883 and died on October 18, 1955.

Biographical synthesis

José Ortega y Gasset was one of the most brilliant Spanish personalities from the first half of the 20th century. Son of Ortega and Munilla and grandson of Eduardo Gasset, both journalists and advocates of newspapers, studied with the Jesuits in Cádiz, and in 1904, received his doctorate in philosophy and letters at the University of Madrid. The following year, he/she moved to Germany to expand their knowledge of philosophy; There followed studies in Leipzig, Berlin, and Marburg, where deepened markedly in the neokantiano thinking. In 1910, a year after his return to Spain, he/she won the Chair of metaphysics at the University of Madrid, from where it was proposed to promote his project of cultural regeneration of Spain.

José Ortega y Gasset, portrayed by Zuloaga. Private collection, Madrid.

Ortega lived his first great moment in 1914, year where he/she founded the "League of education policy in Spain", gave his old Conference and new policy and attended the birth of Spain magazine, of which he/she was the first director. Shortly afterwards, he/she encouraged the Foundation of El Sol (1917) and editor of Calpe (1920), which addressed the "library of ideas of the 20th century".

In the prologue of his first book, meditations of the Quixote (1914), it lays down what would be the core of his philosophical thought. Julián Marías, his disciple, says of this work which constitutes a metaphysics of life, as well as the vision of a Spain in power. From 1916 to 1934 in El Espectador published a collection of essays dealing with issues of cultural and literary; at the same time, he/she wrote many political articles in the Sun, aiming to create opinion. One of his most controversial books appeared in 1921. It's the invertebrate Spain, work in which, based on the concept of decadence, denounced the poor structuring of Spanish society, caused by the absence of some elites. Ortega felt that the evils of Spain were already present, at least its germ, the weak Kingdom of the Visigoths. The theme of our time (1923) is the fundamental work of his early metaphysics. It exceeded the dependence of their neokantiana education, to prefer life to thinking to offer a vital reason that comes to replace the pure reason of their predecessors. Life is a continuous process and circumstances destroy and alter the role of reason. That same year he/she founded the Revista de Occidente, which is converteria in the pillar of Spanish intellectual life. The revolt of the masses (1930) is his best known and, at the same time, most controversial work. In it he/she advocated the creation of a United States of Europe to counteract nationalism and the European decline. His appearance coincided with particularly difficult times for the political intervention of Ortega, which resulted in pessimism and disappointment.

Separated from his chair by Primo de Rivera until 1929, it soon also left the Sun. At that time he/she founded the "grouping to the service of the Republic" and he/she was elected Deputy in the constituent courts; However, in 1933, he/she left all kinds of political activity. Of his retirement from politics is evidence in his speech rectification of the Republic (1931). Since then and until his death, he/she devoted to the study and the maturation of his work.

In the summer of 1936, he/she left Spain and went to France, where he/she lived until 1939, year in which he/she moved to Buenos Aires. Self-absorption and alteration (1939), history as system (1941) and around Galileo (1942) are some of the most significant works of this phase, the wording of which alternated with their jobs of Lecturer in several European and American universities. He/She moved to Lisbon in 1942, and shortly afterwards returned to Spain.

In 1946 he/she opened the Ateneo de Madrid with his lecture "Idea of the theatre". Two years later, with Julián Marías, founded the Institute of Humanities. His presence lit enthusiastically in the new generation and was an enrichment of the Spanish intellectual life, especially at the University, where his work is read and discussed in the corridors. Seriously ill, he/she returned to Spain to die a few months after his arrival. The year of his death saw the light of his unpublished works.

José Ortega y Gasset, original voice.

[Excerpt from the work of man, extracted from "The file of word" from the center of historical studies, edited by the students residence].

Life

José Ortega y Gasset was born in Madrid on May 9, 1883 in the bosom of a family belonging to the gentry who had played an important role in the restoration period. His maternal grandfather, Eduardo Gasset and Artime, had fought in the democratic ranks and the Liberal Union of O'Donnell, first, then during the revolutionary six-year term; It had become Minister of overseas in the reign of Amadeo I, and in 1857 founded El Imparcial. His son, Rafael Gasset, and Chinchilla, inherited newspaper and ardent defender of Joaquín Costaprogram, he/she was appointed Minister of agriculture, industry, Commerce and public works with the Conservative Cabinet of Francisco Silvela, portfolio which would play later nine times in 1900. His paternal grandfather, Ortega Zapata, had been editor of several newspapers as El León Español, the bridge of Alcolea or the Eco's progress, and his son, Ortega Munilla - father of the philosopher, followed the same line with more enthusiasm and greater success; He/She was director from 1879 the literary supplement "Los Lunes" by El Imparcial and, from 1910, was the director of this newspaper. Against this background it is not surprising to Ortega y Gasset comment frequently among his friends and acquaintances: "I was born in a rotary".

After learning the first letters in Madrid with don Manuel Martínez and don José de el Río Labandera, in 1891 he/she was sent to study secondary education at the College of the Jesuits in Miraflores del Palo (Malaga). Completed this in 1897, he/she started his university studies in philosophy and literature at the University of Deusto (1898), and the following year became the Central University of Madrid, where he/she graduated in 1902 and earned the title of doctor in 1904 with a thesis on the terrors of the year one thousand. Criticism of a legend. In 1905 he/she moved to Germany, where extended studies at the University of Leipzig; the following year he/she returned to that country, this time to Marburg, where he/she studied until August 1907 with the neokantianos Hermann Cohen and Paul Natorp. At the turn of Germany at the end of 1907, Ortega was installed in Madrid and spent his intellectual activity criticism of public life as a collaborator of the impartial. The following year he/she participated in the Foundation of a new magazine, Lighthouse, whose first issue came out to the public on 23 February 1908. That same year was appointed Professor of logic, psychology, and ethics in the Superior School of teaching, and in 1910 won by opposition the Chair of metaphysics at the University of Madrid. Lighthouse he/she started in his role as polemicist with Ramiro de Maeztu and Gabriel Maura. In this regard, on September 27, 1909, Ortega continued his journalistic work in the impartial with a controversial article against Unamuno and on February 10, 1910 Amado on Catholic teaching and secular education. In December 1910 he/she attacked the Jesuits concerning the publication of the new book by Pérez de Ayala A.M.D.G. In the field of these controversies of the years 1909 and 1910, and from El Imparcial, Ortega defended the accusation of status magazine Europe and advocated the necessity of Europeanisation of Spain holding a Spanish interpretation of the world. He/She returned to Germany the following year, where their first son, Miguel was born.

From 1911, until 1913, controversial and journalistic activity of Ortega was reduced. Responsibility for their two chairs were added new concerns in turning scientific problems, psychoanalysis and, above all, to the relations between artistic creation and life. From 1913, as a good number of Spanish intellectuals, he/she changed attitude. In October 1913 he/she attended with other young Ateneo members and university professors to the banquet tribute of Melquiades Álvarez, a year before the reform party founder, and signed with García Morente, Fernando of the Ríos, Azaña and other education policy Spanish League manifesto. On March 23, 1914 gave the founding Conference at the Comedy Theatre of Madrid under the title of old and new politics in which criticizing the outdated politicians and proposed a new policy expression of a "vital" Spain against the "official" Spain. The League had its organ of expression in the weekly Spain (1914-1915). The success of the first issue, with a print run of 50,000 copies, was enormous, but the collaboration of Ortega in the magazine only lasted a year. In may 1916 he/she began a one-man publication, El Espectador, that was published every two months, but whose eight volumes are staggered between 1916 and 1934.

On December 1, 1917 it came to public light the newspaper El Sol, founded by Ortega and the businessman Nicolás María de Urgoiti. The conception of the newspaper was a great novelty to incorporate a page dedicated to history, literary criticism, medicine and biology, agriculture, education and public instruction each day. The Sun continued publication during the second Republic, although Ortega, his group of collaborators and Urgoiti broke away from the newspaper to found Crucible and then light. In July 1919, Urgoiti created the Calpe publishing and launched a series of books in thematic collections run by the most eminent intellectuals of the time. The collection "Library of ideas of the 20th century" was directed by Ortega y Gasset, who wrote the forewords of five of his books, notably the decline of the West, from Spengler.From 1927 to 1932, Ortega's political activity was untiring. Between 1927 and 1928 he/she published the surrender of the provinces, a great project of reform of Spain. In 1929 he/she accepted the request for direction, help and advice out of a group of intellectual young people eager to reform the Spanish way of life. The Spanish University passed on the eve of the second Republic difficult moments of internal split. All advocated the reform of the University. Ortega spoke at the end of 1930 its Conference on the Mission of the University where stated purposes that we had to meet and essential disclaimers. The firmness of Ortega y Gasset in the defense of the University reform led him to denounce the privileges that the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera was intended to grant to the universities of Deusto and of El Escorial, which originated serious student unrest and the closure of the University of Madrid, and was finally forced to give up his chair, like others of his colleagues.

On November 15, 1930 wrote in the Sun article "Error Berenguer", ending with the famous words: "Spanish, your State does not exist! Reconstruid it! "Delenda est Monarchia". On February 10, 1931, signed with Gregorio Marañón y Pérez de Ayala, the founding manifesto of the Association for the service of the Republic, the big occasion to make Spain the country dreamed and planned between 1908 and 1914. He/She attended the proclamation of the second Republic and was elected Deputy for León. In September 1931, wounded by the first disappointments such as the burning of convents (OC, XI, 297), affected by the unrest to what some Republicans did by "Contracting Spanish life, narrow horizon, leave small-town inspiration to succeed", and knowing that it expressed the feelings of an immense amount of Spaniards who collaborated in the advent of the Republic in its actionwith your vote and your hope, Ortega wrote his famous "it is not this, it is not this!" and with great vision for the future, he/she added: "the Republic is one thing. Radicalism, another. "If not, at the time" (OC, XI, 387). With cashew and Pérez de Ayala, soon to sign the manifesto that communicated to the Spaniards the dissolution of the Association for the service of the Republic. Its two latest political articles published in December 1933: "Long live the Republic!" and "on behalf of the nation, clarity" (OC, XI, 524-539). Had time to replace the article by the book to start what the previous year called his "second sailing" (OC, VI, 354).

During the Spanish Civil War, Ortega was exiled in France, Holland and Argentina, to settle definitely in Lisbon, with extended stays in Spain, from 1945. In Madrid, founded with Julián Marías, the Institute of Humanities (1948), where again to take some courses in academics. In recent years, before his death, he/she gave lectures in Germany, Switzerland, Britain, United States and Italy. He/She died on October 18, 1955 have returned to take up his University Chair in Madrid. His death produced in Spain a great national commotion and his funeral was a major intellectual and political event for the beginning of the Spanish transition from dictatorship to democracy, which would culminate with the 1978 Constitution, as it has shown in his work Ortega y Gasset José Luis Abellán and the origins of the democratic transition.

Work

Ortega's prominent writings include meditations of the Quixote (1914); The spectator (eight volumes, 1916-1934); Invertebrate Spain (1921); The theme of our time (1923); The Atlantidas (1924); The dehumanization of art and ideas about the novel (1925); Kant (1924-1929); The revolt of the masses (1930); Mission of the University (1930); The redemption of the provinces and national decency (1931); Recitificacion of the Republic (1931); Goethe from within (1932); Guillermo Dilthey and the idea of life (1933); Around Galileo (1933); Self-absorption and alteration (1939); Meditation technique (1939); Ideas and beliefs (1940); Notes on the thought: their theurgy and its demiurgia (1941); Studies on love (1941); History as a system (1941); Of the Roman Empire (1941); Theory of Andalucia and other essays (1942); Diagram of the crisis (1942); Two prologues. A Treaty of Montería. A history of philosophy (1945); and papers on Velázquez and Goya (1950). After the death of Ortega published numerous unpublished including the idea of principle in Leibniz and the evolution of deductive theory (1958); Prologue for Germans (1958); What is philosophy? (1958); Meditation of the young people (1958); Idea of the theatre (1958); Origin and epilogue of philosophy (1960); Europe meditation (1960); Vives, Goethe (1967); Past and future of the modern man (1962); A few lessons of philosophy (1966); On historical reason (1979); (e) psychological research (1982).

The thought contained in these works has tried to organize in a few specific stages that give reason for the intellectual evolution of Ortega, but scholars of the philosopher not have reached agreement on the chronological dimension of these stages. José Ferrater Mora distinguished three stages: Objectivism (1902-1914), perspectivism (1914-1923), and raciovitalismo (1924-1955). José Gaos, his closest disciple before the civil war, established four periods: mocedades (1902-1914), first stage of fullness (1914-1923), second stage of fulfillment (1924-1936), and expatriation (1936-1955). Julián Marías maintained a position contrary to any specification stages or periods and presupposed a substantial unity in the dalmia work from the outset.

Research on the sources that inspired or influenced in the works and thought of Ortega in general is still in its infancy. However, some significant presences in its philosophy can be noted. You can say that it did as permanent partners of navigation to Nietzsche, Kant, Leibniz and Max Scheler. Brentano and Husserl were crucial, and phenomenology had a continuous, although subtle presence, on his work. Other authors exerted a timely influence at some point in their evolution. Thus, reading being and time Heidegger, in 1927, was a decisive impulse for the deepening of certain aspects of their philosophical approaches. In the years 1930-31 its Historicism received a decisive boost from the approaches of Dilthey. It should be also noted that Ortega was not only open to the ideas of philosophers, but of somebody whose approach found interesting, as Joaquín Costa, Oswald Spengler, Renan, Taine, Goethe, J. von Uexküll, H. Driesch, Leo Frobenius, Einstein, Mommsen, etc.

Trends of thought used

José Ortega y Gasset, regenerative

Young people who, like Ortega, lived the crisis of the beginning of the century in Spain, immersed in the currents of political renewal after the disaster of 1898 and in an intellectual climate dominated by the critical work of Joaquín Costa, made the project and the work of this a fundamental reference (OC, X, 24). Ortega would coast key figure to find a way out of the vicious circle in which Spanish society and the policy they were (OC, I, 521). Orientation of the will was the key of the influence of Costa on Ortega. This approach is practiced in a double plane. On the one hand, towards a boost regeneracionista conceiving the theoretical activity as a practical exercise aimed to analyze the roots of the Spanish problem and put the political means for their solution. Philosophical activity could not evade the requirements of the specific Spanish circumstance in that you had to live toward a quiet and Misty academicism invited which make of their German colleagues (OC, I, 55). Genuine educational and cultural reform in Spain would be possible only when it was attached to the reform of other equally fundamental institutions (OC, IV, 317). But, in addition, Ortega remained the idea that it is only out of the crisis changing course the historical trajectory of Spain towards routes of modernization that led to Europe (OC, I, 521) and, in particular, to Germany.

During the years of 1905-1906 and 1906-1907, Ortega studied in Germany. His first visit took him to the conclusion that "the center of spiritual gravity had been diverted to the Germanic races". "Germany does not know me, and basically I just have conquered for her, for their ideas, their ways, the enthusiasm of Spaniards" (OC, VIII, 24-26). In Leipzig, Ortega devoted himself to studying Kant. It was the "first melee desperate with the critique of pure reason", (VIII, 26 OC) in a battle that would last for ten years (OC, IV, 25). "Germanism" meant, at least in a first time, appetite for truth, desire for authenticity, spiritual tension, mental discipline. The program of "Europeanization" of Spain was fundamental, since Europe, and in particular Germany, is understood as expression of science objective. But when Ortega understood that this Objectivism not conformed to the needs or circumstances of the Spanish culture, he/she felt the need to overcome the approaches of Kantian idealism. The Spanish point of view led him to a different perspective, which was already detected in 1910 with "Adam in Paradise", and had a first culmination with the meditations of the Quixote (1914), work in which the formulation of a proper and original philosophy was already.

José Ortega y Gasset, Spanish

As José Luis Abellán wrote, any exposure of dalmia philosophy that does not make reference to the "problem of Spain" distorts its meaning. This was one of the concerns that Ortega inherited very early generation of the 98 and made dramatically when writing: "my God, what about Spain? The width of the ORB, in the midst of countless races, lost in the unlimited yesterday and tomorrow without end, under the vast, cosmic chill of astral flicker, what is this Spain, this spiritual promontory of Europe, this as the continental soul bow? "Where is - tell me - a word clear, a radiant word which can meet a honest heart and a delicate mind, a word that alum the destiny of Spain?" (OC, I, 360). The Spanish question. constantly attracted his attention and dedication through multiple initiatives as the League for political education, the Association for the service of the Republic, intervention in governance through conferences and articles in the press and his parliamentary activity as a member. But all this activity presupposed a prior diagnosis on the "problem of Spain".

The policy concern of Ortega was marked by an effort to "nationalize" the public life by defending the collective interest above the sectoral particularities of one or another kind (OC, I, 521); This can be seen both in several articles of people, things (1916), works such as in the redemption of the provinces and national decency (1931) or rectification of the Republic (1932). But the book that Ortega expressly dedicated to the Spanish problem was invertebrate Spain (1921). In it it broke down the origin of the causes that have historically caused a constituent weakness of Spanish society and carried out an x-ray on the present of that society. For Ortega, in Spain there has been no decline because it there was never a moment of true greatness, and this refers to a constitutive defect and some originating from inadequacies of a very weak Germanization and of a consistent also very weak feudalism, which in turn involved a lack of vitality in the elites of the country. This originated a vigorous village (OC, III, 121) that always has been lacking a governing minority egregious and vital. The present of the Spanish social reality in times of Ortega nor invited optimism. Spain continued to prevail in the indocility of the masses, caused by the absence of egregious minorities, by the lack of the exemplarity of the few which should lead the country, which led to the triumph of opposing particularities, the watertight compartments, the disintegrative separatism and uncontrolled direct action. In short, Spanish society had a profound pathological state of invertebracion. Diagnosis led Ortega to the conviction of the need for a social pedagogy of culture by an elite, in which Ortega would occupy the role of master of Spain, the sculptor of his people. The image of the chisel (OC, III, 128; XI, 417) gives accomplished idea of sculptural aspiration of Ortega, who feels able to Spain as a submissive mass to the reason of the master shape.

The failure of their political projects led Ortega to the conviction that the real transformation of the Spanish society should come from a cultural change. So he/she tried it especially on the issue of our time. For Ortega, a thinker can influence some how feel an individual existence in its entirety, vital sensation, but to change in their ideology, their taste and morals. For this reason, the first key to this cultural reform advocated by Ortega is not to mix religion and philosophy, as it has been traditional in Spain, and introduce clarity between the two concepts. Ortega wanted to conquer philosophy for all Spaniards, without religious distinction of any kind, especially without which is established between Catholics and non-Catholics. The full claim of philosophy to Spain as neutral and autonomous sphere, outside extrinsic interests of all kinds, including religious, would achieve a full inclusion of Spain in the field of universal life, where purely rationalist approach of modernity would be overmatched.

José Ortega y Gasset, European

The most widely read in Europe, especially in Germany, book of Ortega has undoubtedly been the revolt of the masses. Its content was summarized by Julian Marias in the following terms: "in the pages of the revolt of the masses are the big issues of the time in which he/she wrote and which have arisen during half a century more. Shown there which has meant the fabulous growth in Europe and then America, since the beginning of the 19th century, and how it has been linked to liberal democracy and the technique. Compares the "noble life" chaired by the effort and the requirement to "vulgar life" which is abandoned and asks nothing of itself (and all others). Explains the tendency of the hombre-masa violence and crushing of freedom. It is how it has been difficult to hastily form men provided the mental and moral resources to live, with greater activity and intervention than ever, in a much more rich and complex world, and the result has been a new form of Primitivism. In these pages slips the alarm by intellectual vocations crisis, even scientific, despite the extraordinary success of contemporary science. Says Ortega that fascism and communism are 'two typical movements of hombres-masa'; that, far from being true innovations, they are two pseudo-alboradas, and that the only danger is that Europe, attracted by the effort and enterprise of the five-year plan, be lulled into something that ultimately makes you queasy and get excited by communism. The last diagnosis of Ortega is that Europe has no morality left, and the delicate social ' send in the world ' operation is vacant and without a legitimate holder subject".

But despite being the revolt of the masses one of the most famous works of Ortega, not has given enough attention to its content pro-European to the overlook is one of its main thesis: that of the advent of the United States of Europe (OC, IV, 242). This idea of Europe emerged in Ortega as a response to the crisis of demoralization that suffered from the European continent (OC, IV, 270, 272, 275). Ortega was in the revolt of the masses an accurate analysis of the process of nationalization and incorporation of European countries, a theory of the nation as a form of society and State, showing how the Nations of Europe are insufficient, because their problems go beyond the borders of each, and could have no more than a whole solution. Nations were Nations of Europe and, therefore, this is, for centuries, a unit, but he/she did need to be a union, with common institutions. Ortega ran with all energy, as the only solution, the European Union, which called the United States of Europe.

This set of ideas, fully developed in 1930, would take force during his lectures in Germany in the 1950s. On September 7, 1949, Ortega spoke at the free University of Berlin Conference of Europe meditatio quaedam, which had a special resonance among the public University (OC, IX, 246-248). The content of this Conference does not differ much from central ideas that had developed in the revolt of the masses. His base was the existence of a secular European society, which has had various forms of organization over time, but that the current historical circumstances demanded that they formalize politically in a new national State who understood the various traditional homelands. His central idea was that "given the conditions of modern life, the peoples of Europe only can be saved if transcend the old sclerosed idea being a supranacion, towards European integration path".

José Ortega y Gasset, resonator

Xavier Zubiri wrote about his teacher Ortega that this was "during a few decades the resonator that has ceased to hear the voice of all intelligences fertile of Europe in Spain." Spain due to Ortega, firstly, the living incorporation of the most noble and exquisitely intellectual that has occurred during this time outside the peninsula.' If really wanted to Europeanize to Spain, and it means to enforce it the scientific rigor, the first task consisted in that the Spanish are familiar with conceptual knowledge instruments, and for this purpose there is to inform you of the most important intellectual movements roamed Europe and, in this regard, previous task to the to become eco was the detection. In this connection, Moron Arroyo has called Ortega "seismograph": "Ortega is the detector Seismograph of all new encouragement of culture". The task of detecting had two pitfalls that necessarily had to save to be able to carry out the living incorporation of Spain to Europe. The first was the pursuit of some recipients of that information. To overcome it, Ortega saw that the only existing way was to act directly on a chosen Group of Spaniards sensitive to problems of high culture, group which would then act as a leaven in all Spain. The second obstacle was the adequacy of the means of transmission of the message. This requires the recreation of major issues to make them accessible to men who lived a different situation than the one they were born, and so only them would matter. Ortega did resonate especially the German voices of the moment to break with the primitivism and dilate the space in which they fit new European philosophical music off other outdated corrientes. Primitivism was to Ortega in confusing the own horizon with the world, with what reality is, and regardless of the man. Any philosophy that I would like to cure this inveterate Primitivism needed to avoid that which is soft and expandable horizon anquilosara world.

The idea of being resonator does not mean that Ortega was a follower of German philosophy. When Ortega returned to Spain from Germany brought a new level of thinking: the neokantismo in philosophy, classicism in art and an idealistic attitude regarding education and policy. Neokantismo meant need to confront reality with the greatest possible rigour. The basic meaning of the neokantismo was pure knowledge, or, like Ferrater Mora has been called to this first stage of Ortega, Objectivism; that is, rational search regardless of personal tastes or so-called ethnic inclinations. The reason does not know national identities, subjectivism individual or collective, so speak with concepts such as the "national soul" is manifest in an impure knowledge installation. The neokantismo Ortega meant the requirement at the highest level, and level is a formal concept that means extension, depth of knowledge, measured judgment, system requirement and awareness of the limits of all system (OC, VIII, 27). But Ortega discovered soon (1908) the inadequacies of the philosophy he/she learned in Germany, in addition to what they called "misunderstanding of Germany", i.e. the coexistence of two Germanies of opposite sign, symbolized in the Germany of the philosopher and the Germany of the philistine (OC, I, 96). During his stay in Germany, the neokantianos were at the peak of his fame and the schools of Marburg and Baden had become centers of studies, development and reinterpretation of the critical philosophy. Directed by Hermann Cohen and Paul Natorp, Ortega studied Kantian texts. But little by little it was watching Cohen and his disciples as "hierophants" of the intellectual Rite Scholastic, formalist and sterile, the "profesarismo". And as proof of this, Ortega pointed out that in this Germany, deformed, impurificada habits and administrative and political interests no one knew the most important man in philosophy, Brentano. Brentano and phenomenology would be for Ortega the drawbridge that would escape from the neokantismo and out to the open field of life or high seas (OC, III, 432-433).

José Ortega y Gasset, propeller

Xavier Zubiri said of Ortega, who was the big propeller of culture and philosophy in Spain. From the point of view of Zubiri, the great philosophical revolution that was operating in the first decades of the 20th century and which propelled Ortega in Spain wasn't arising philosophies other than the above, but a different of philosophizing same concept. But it was not only have intellectual capacity to philosophize liberally. Who promoted a company must have the ability to communicate and even dramatize until a problem is imposed as a matter that concerned everyone. The circumstances imposed on Ortega for a long time a less rigorous style than he/she would have liked to use. Ortega felt like no contradiction between opposing vocations of philosopher and journalist, lecturer and conversationalist; and, therefore, as pointed out Nelson R. Orringer, the desire to interest drove readers frequently to avoid the reasoned demonstration.

Of all the companies propelled by Ortega y Gasset, the Revista de Occidente, inspired by his pedagogic vocation was the most ambitious. You can say without exaggeration that Revista de Occidente was from 1923 until 1936, the year in which the civil war suspended its publication, the best Hispanic Magazine in many decades. It is detected the richness and quality of the culture in those years and the flourishing of ideas and literary and artistic forms of that period; the porosity of that world, the presence of a few peoples to others, at least among their finest and most insightful representatives; the knowledge that Ortega and his collaborators had of that world, the surprising success in the choice of authors and topics; and the quality, since the magazine was very well written, composed and printed. The Revista de Occidente led from the first moment the collaboration of writers, poets and prestigious scientists of the time, such as Einstein, Eddington, Schrödinger, Heisemberg, Jordan, Broglie, Cabrera, Obermaier, Weber, Uexküll, Russell... The quantitative importance that in the Revista de Occidente had the philosophy section was relatively medium when compared with that of creation and literary criticism, for example.

In addition to magazine, the Revista de Occidente was from the first year a Publisher that soon had more ambitious than the mere monthly objectives. Ortega did publish a huge number of European and American books with a predominance of the Germans, and many Spanish books in which became known to the great writers of the generation of 27. The publishing Fund comprised of works by such figures as Franz Brentano, H. Driesch, a. S. Eddington, J. T. Fichte, g. W. Hegel, Hein Heimsoeth, G. Hessen, E. Husserl, S. Kierkegaard, C. J. Jung, T. Litt, F. Müller, A. Pfänder, Bertrand Russell, Max Scheler, G. Simmel and Werner Sombart, among others. Spanish authors who most frequently published in Revista de Occidente were Rafael Alberti, Francisco Ayala, Valentín Andrés Alvarez, Federico García Lorca, Jorge Guillén, Victoria Ocampo, Gustavo Pittaluga, Pedro Salinas, Pío Baroja, Gerardo Diego, Rosa Chacel, Antonio Espina, Benjamín Jarnés, E. Giménez Caballero, Antonio Marichalar, José Moreno Villa, R. Pérez de Ayala, Guillermo de Torre, etc.

José Ortega y Gasset, philosophical sensitizer

Xavier Zubiri called also Ortega "philosophical sensitizer copy", understanding that it was not a sensitive emotional or tragic, but intellectual. This meant that Ortega was endowed with a peculiar olfactory sensitivity, enabling him to discriminate in embryo the works that were carrying the germ of the success of others, non-viable, that they were almost born dead. Discriminated against the answers because in German environments it had sharpened the sense of smell to detect the problematic air. Ortega put in the hands of the Spanish-speaking works whose definitive consecration would take sometimes years, and came forward in decades to countries with a much more powerful than the Spanish philosophical tradition. But being sensitizer also meant that Ortega knew to transmit to others his own philosophical sensitivity to problems, not through the contagion but fuelling the own sensibility of the disciple, who did not have to coincide with the teacher. This work, located far beyond the scope of teaching and public, had its most appropriate place in meetings and working groups with communication and mutual discussion of ideas. The Revista de Occidente had this character sensibilizadora the problems and inviting to emulation, encouraging his readers to create a cultural atmosphere in which his works are read and discuss. Be sensitizer meant also in Ortega, thirdly, sharpen the sense of smell to the truth. Prefer a grain of truth about something to the pursuit without end of the dilettante. By having sensitized to the problems, Ortega played in Spain a work similar to Husserl which took in Germany: created a field for philosophy and allowed those who received his Magisterium philosophize freely.

The olfactory sensitivity of Ortega to philosophies with future was which made him stumble upon Phenomenology. Nelson Orringer documented entry of Phenomenology in Spain for the first time when Ortega read a critical review published in 1912 by his master Natorp of Husserl's logical investigations, and Javier San Martín has shown that the relationship with Husserl is essential to understand in depth the meaning of the philosophy of Ortega, although its display is full of complexitiesSince none of the two elements is defined with precision and although Ortega will vary their interpretation and their assessment of Phenomenology, at least in the three milestones of 1913, 1934 and 1947. The historiography on Ortega and phenomenology today several conclusions can be inferred. First of all, that Ortega shows large sympathies toward phenomenology in works as early as on the concept of feeling and sensation, construction and intuition. Secondly, that from 1913 to 1916 Ortega shows to know with accuracy the thought of Husserl and that fundamentally agree with him. Since 1913, Ortega welcomed and took the phenomenological method (OC, II, 66) as intuitive method and descriptive knowledge that allowed access to things as they occur. Thirdly, than the claim that it had abandoned the phenomenology issued by itself at a certain moment is false; He/She assimilated well, before this current for use. Fourthly, that at least until 1929, Ortega had the conviction that with the phenomenology had entered into a new era. The texts reflections of the centenary of Kant (1924), the obituary of Scheler (1928) and the annex to the prospectus of Kant (1929) (OC, IV, 48-63) are three testimonies that support this interpretation.

José Ortega y Gasset, radical philosopher

Ortega y Gasset used often the term "radical" as a qualifier of the reality to characterize life. But the term "radical" was used by Ortega y Gasset in way more generally to describe a way of being and a way of truly understanding first and last. The radical principle is not necessarily unique, neither nor the first to be chronologically earlier, logically prior or metaphysically founding of others. The characteristic of being radical is only that, whatever, is something that everything else is "rooted", realities or concepts. Expression of José Ferrater Mora: "radical philosophy or philosophy to radice does not begin with nothing given or course, whether historical, logical or epistemologically-, or even the own philosophy". That is the reason that Ortega consider the philosopher specializing in roots and philosophy is essentially radicalism.

This back, or "anabasis" - as he/she liked to say, Ortega, to the roots is intrinsically linked to his project of reform of philosophy. The root of all Western philosophy lies in the concept of being, and this has clearly demonstrated his disability to understand life, the rejection of this idea of being will mean a radical reform of philosophy (OC, VII, 394). Why the radical as in Ortega means the opposite of any kind of Scholasticism. Ortega, to examine the principle of contradiction in Aristotle in his work the idea of principle in Leibniz and the evolution of deductive theory (1947-1950), introduced a hiatus to try the escolasticismos. The parentheses, as pointed out by Nelson R. Orringer was not a mere digression, because at every step in its criticism to Aristóteles Ortega automedon against some scholastic that his understanding committing an inherited error. What Ortega defines Scholasticism is culturally alien to the receiver doctrines, all philosophy received from distant minds in history or in the social context (OC, VIII, 214). This dalmia vision of Aristotelian Scholasticism as a transplant without roots comes from Dilthey, according to confession of own Ortega (OC, VIII, 221), but its extension to other philosophies was Heidegger's. The idea of Dilthey's Foundation as the root adds Ortega the nuance of philosophical radicalism taken from Husserl when it sees philosophy as the science of authentic origins, the roots of everything, by which the philosopher cannot rest until their own clear problems (OC, VIII, 215).

The philosophy of Ortega was exactly the opposite of a scholastic philosophy. By attempting to bring to light far could be the roots of the human condition, philosophy was to Ortega from its origins experience that housed the radical questions of man. He/She understood that desire and the pretense of knowing led the man repeatedly to move after questions. The question is always a question facing what we don't know, but since absolutely unknown not could move it, that effective orientation reveals the whole question assumptions. All question has as assumptions, and the fundamental assumption of the philosophical question is always a "wonder", which expresses the faith of the man in his reason. To what extent was this level of radicalism in which Ortega stands not touching the same limit of the term "philosophy"? It was aware the own Ortega when he/she wrote that "progress in philosophizing may consist, to the dessert, in which another good day to discover that not only this or another mode of philosophical thinking was limited, and therefore, wrong, but which, in absolute, philosophizing, all philosophizing, is a limitation, a failure, an error, and that need is open otherwise intellectually confront the universe that is not or one or other of the above to" Philosophy, nor is this same"(OC, VIII, 273).

Another decisive aspect of the radical character of Ortega's philosophy is its linguistic radicalism manifested especially in the high appreciation of the philosophical value of the etymologies. He/She said Ortega that the relationship between the thinker and the language originating a pretty dramatic situation since the thinker discovers and reveals realities never seen before by anyone, while the language is made up of signs designating things already seen and known by all. To be a body of the community containing no more than "usual" ideas and common places, how can thinker to say what only he/she has seen, and say it not only to others, but also to itself? The philosopher has no choice but, says Ortega, to create a language; You cannot use the language as a common language, it cannot, as it can and should the poet, starting from the vocabulary and syntax presets and citizens. If you invent entirely new words, it will be not understood by anyone. If it adheres to the usual words, you won't have to tell your new truth. But the most dangerous and common of all is to resort to the words used by ancient thinkers that exist as "mineralized" in mere terminology (OC, IX, 635).

Therefore, Ortega pointed towards a linguistic radicalism, that had its model in Heidegger, when he/she wrote that a good philosophical style is one in which "thinker, bypassing of the existing terminology, soak in the common language, but not for use without further and such as it exists, but reforming it from their own linguistic roots, both in vocabulary and, sometimes"", in the syntax" (OC, IX, 636). For Ortega, the words, like plants, living on roots (OC, VIII, 174) and the etymologies claim, along with phonetic knowledge, a semantic meaning that implies a philosophical talent who, like all the talents, is or is not (OC, VIII, 174). Ortega had it and, like Heidegger, in recourse to the old etymologies (etyma) was a real heuristic principle to return transparency to the opaque and vestigial current languages, trivialized by centuries of history and changes (OC, IX, 636-637).

The philosophy of José Ortega y Gasset

First navigation: toward the vital reason

Awareness of the circumstantial nature of his thought Ortega led to the formation of a key concept of his philosophy: that of circumstance. The idea of the "point of view" appears in Ortega in Adam in Paradise (1910) linked to the notions of "fancy" or "rating system", in the sense of what then would call "interpretations". Formally, the notion of perspective appears with that precise term in the meditations of the Quixote (1914). Although it is related to other concepts such as the French milieu, environment English and German Umwelt introduced in biology, and hence, analogically, extended to other areas, the concept used does not have a primarily biological, but human, and significance to all historical or policy. The circumstances cannot be understood only in a geographical, physical or organic manner. The circumstance includes the outside world and the interior, everything that is foreign to the subject and not just your body. Therefore, everything that I, everything I can find in lathe I am not.

The concept of circumstance is articulated in Ortega's perspective. The idea of circumstance requires evidence of the perspective. The first thing Ortega says the prospect is that he/she is the ultimate being of the world, i.e., the first allocation of the perspective does not refer to or any aspect of yours, but to the real knowledge. It is a reality with own, rigorous structure, which must follow to reach the truth. Falsehood consists in avoiding the prospect, in being unfaithful, or make absolute a particular point of view, i.e., forget the condition perspective of any vision. The perspectivism of Ortega, therefore, comes not from the subjectivity but measure that this is conditioned by the structure of the real, that naturally surrounds the subject, not by what's subject, but by what's real and effective. Hence, my reality is also constitutive ingredient of reality.

The sense of the circumstance is clear when you plant the problem of the reality of the self who the circumstance is, i.e. when it is understood that the circumstance is always my circumstance. This is what emphasizes the phrase that Ortega was considered as the most condensed expression of his philosophical thought: "I am myself and my circumstance, and if not the save it not me save myself" (OC, I, 322). In it, the word "I" has two meanings. The first I is strictly real, is the entirety of my person and understands the "other half" of this circumstance. The second I is 'insufficient', is only one element or ingredient, inseparable from the circumstance, just time to "selfness" of the man, who does not exhaust its reality. This second I is the subject of live, Center of a circumstance which consists to be around an I. The self is who gives to the circumstance as such, therefore unit and vital. But, conversely, the circumstance is only constituted around a self that is not simply defined as Center of hers, that is not one me either, but I itself, able to get in, and that is someone. The crucial point of the formula "I am myself and my circumstance" is not simple coordinating duality "me and my circumstances", but the first I, who I designated or named, that it is not a mere signification, and who is said to be "me and my circumstances". If I am "I" and my circumstances, this means that, from the point of view of the first, the reality of the second is inadequate, needy circumstance. This is the second member of the thesis of Ortega meaning: "and if not the save it not me save myself". The reality of the second 'I' appears, therefore subject to its coexistence with the other term, referred to each other both in their failure. I and circumstance are "moments", "ingredients", subordinate and secondary realities with respect to another primary from which discovers them is and wherein lies their poor and thirsty reality.

The reabsorption of the circumstance is the concrete fate of man" (OC, I, 322). Reabsorption of the circumstance is its humanization, in joining that project of man, i.e. This ago himself, his life, with the things that are offered to you, assumes them projecting them sense. The fate of every man is to impose on the real his personal project, convert that simply "there in my lathe" (circumstance) in personal life. This is the reabsorption of the circumstance: the man, who is there, among things, and with them, running an appropriation of them, customizing them thanks to his project, "resorb them". But reabsorption also means the reabsorption of the man and his project by the circumstance. Both aspects are inseparable; and this character of inseparability is the will expressed by the prefix "re-". Ortega does not say simply "absorption" of the circumstance, because man absorbs while being absorbed by it. The result of this dramatic dialogue between the two is the absorption of what absorbs also, i.e. reabsorption. As the man tries to "humanize" the circumstances and make it a human world, reality "commodified" man, solidifies it and thus deprives him of his ordinary human character, the invention and aspiration. This is the real human condition, the company always tried and always frustrated, unrealizable and indispensable, which consists in living, pretending to be male.

The lattice of the self and its circumstances is life as radical reality. On the issue of our time (1923), the discovery of life as radical reality requires a method from which it is made accessible: is the vital reason, conceived as a same thing with live, since "the reason is only a shape and function of life". It is a new conception of the surpassing reason of the rationalism of "pure reason", as an expression of modernity. According to this new formulation, the reason "is just a short floating island on the sea of primary vitality; far from replacing this, has to support it, nurture it as each of the members lives in the whole organism"(OC, III, 177). This is the theme of our time: "pure reason has to give his empire a la Razón vital" (OC, III, 178). This raciovitalismo sets a new theory of knowledge in which the concept of "perspective" is essential. If the vital reason is a reason attached to the circumstance that is my life, you are assuming a certain "point of view". So says Ortega "each life is a point of view on the universe. Strictly speaking, one cannot see what he/she sees. Each individual - person, people, time - is irreplaceable for the conquest of the truth. Here's how that by itself is alien to the historical variations, acquires a vital dimension"(OC, III, 200).

With his perspectival raciovitalismo, Ortega is opposed alike to rationalism and skepticism. Relativistic skepticism asserts that the observation of the mutability of reality and the struggle between different opinions is proof that truth is unattainable for the man. (OC, III, 157). Rationalism means the attempt of man of relating to the truth beyond any variation of things postulating an absolute perspective on reality, which, by being rational, would be valid for every man and every time (OC, III, 158). Against "theoretical suicide" skepticism, Ortega wants to maintain the dignity of the theorizing. Against the abstraction of reality that underlies all rationalism, it intends to maintain the chromatic richness of the multiplicity of possible perspectives. This should take the basic thesis of the relativism that reality is multiple and which fit multiple perspectives on it. But the basic thesis of the rationalism that the multiplicity of possible points of view about reality must be unified from any guiding principle must also accept. This principle is for Ortega to accept that multiple perspectives are not mutually exclusive and contradictory among themselves, but that they should be unified, because in each of them there is a drop of truth, so that "the truth" will be the unification of multiple perspectives.

Second navigation: toward historical reason

To publish the first collection of his works in 1932, Ortega said in his presentation entitled "to an edition of his works": "begins, then new task." To the sea again, Smoll! "Begins what Plato called ' the second navigation!'" (OC, VI, 354). From this moment, Ortega feels the need to give final form to its philosophical thought has been developed over twenty-five years. It is not a coincidence that between 1933 and 1936 out of his pen around Galileo, history as a system, Ideas and beliefs and self-absorption and alteration, and spell out for immediate future dawn of historical reason and man and the people. The project of the new direction undertaken appears clear to the height of 1938 in the three tasks outlined in a letter that the year he/she wrote from Paris to E. R. Curtius: deepen your general theory of life profiled in the University course of 1929 entitled What is philosophy?, study thoroughly and in all respects the life in its social form which will lead to the man and the people andFinally, investigate form, historical life looking at the Aurora book of historical reason, which would be the culmination of his philosophy blindaje-historic-vitalista. This project, which is described later in the letter to Curtius, had been already outlined above in an article published in the Revista de Occidente in 1928 under the title: "The ' philosophy of history ' of Hegel and the Historiology" (OC, IV, 521-541).

Firstly, Ortega set out to deepen his theory of life in general. Ortega has not his general theory of life, but it was followed by framing it multiple arguments about who wrote and sandwiched compendiums of its fundamental philosophy which are not repetitions of what was said in 1929 they contain new approaches and suggestions (OC, IV, 313-349).

In a few lessons of metaphysics (1932-1933), Ortega refers to the radical need for guidance which man has from its constituent insecurity. Life is always at its root, disorientation, confusion, not knowing what to do and why effort to orient themselves, know what are the things and the man among them (OC, XII, 98). Metaphysics is a radical crisis of existence. Then, what is the need for guidance, gives sense; i.e., relating to "to live" (XII, 98). But this crisis is happening you man coming to you or came you from itself: the metaphysical question about the meaning of being springs from the ontological problem that is constitutively man. The man experience or feel its existence as the urgent need to maintain in being, doing so. That is why you feel lost. It has its being made, finished and closed, but it has to determine in advance the sense of what is going to be. It has, therefore, that take care of itself and worry about how Live (OC, XII, 97). Constitutively, man is in danger of winning or losing in their circumstances and the need to make the effort to know what to expect. Knowledge has its condition of possibility in this radical need for orientation (OC, XII, 98-99). Before science, metaphysics is, therefore, a vital praxis. The need for metaphysics, considered at its root, is equivalent to the vital need for the truth, the man needs the truth to live. It is a "true root and, therefore, will have to be radical." Radical in terms of the universality of its content, and radical in terms of the adequacy of independent of its truth"(OC, XII, 115).

This truth is life as radical reality. Not living in biological or psychological sense, but life as the autopresencia of an Act, in the Executive aware of the living subject: all living is living, feeling live, becoming known to exist; where knowledge does not imply intellectual knowledge or special wisdom any, but is this surprising presence that his life has for everyone (OC, XII, 33). It is an original experience, which is always counted and on which it can be in a process of autoclarificacion (OC, XII, 44), while there is a presaber of it that you can raise to effective evidence. This knowledge or presaber, as originally, includes everything else. Any other phenomenon I was given life, affecting me and for me. The primary intent of this Act, therefore, is not objective or representative, but practico-vital. Life is a be-in the world in the sense of having to deal with things, deal with them, as life is for concern-Yes, take care of their own being, work itself. But, at the same time, this being - is originally one being - with each other and a be-in the circumstance, the real environment, which is a reservoir of facilities and difficulties to exist that I have my life, projecting and realizing my chances of being. Life is, therefore the field occurs where the fundamental correlation of the living subject with his circumstances, a correlation Executive or "coexistence" (OC, XII, 409), dynamic interaction and interdependence. Things "are" and I "the am", that is, we exercise our act of being to the reciprocal. Hence it sole repeat Ortega that the life is not, without more, self, but they I and circumstance are parts or constituent and immanent life (XII, 127 OC) poles. This is the profound sense that now reveals the dalmia formula "I am myself and my circumstance", used in meditations of Don Quixote.

The discovery of the new radical reality in life involves a "reform of the idea of being". As had been understood in ancient philosophy or in modern philosophy, in the form of subject as substance. But the substance is a static concept. It designates the permanence of an identical core through transformations. Now, "if being means to live", as claimed by Ortega, had to stop having static concepts. In life, the I and the things are mutually. The acting being is be destitute since is not enough, because you need of the other of the self. Among the new ontological categories most relevant to mean the reality of life, Ortega puts the "there". Life is, therefore, how much there is (OC, XII, 103), everything there, originally having or scope of the presence, in which the I and things have to deal among themselves, dynamically exercising his own condition. In the field of life, things are not proper, there are, I have them, they act on me, offering me possibilities or difficulties to exist. The issue of his "being" only stands out when making my problem and then ask for what they are, that is, by its ontological Constitution. "Things, when they begin to have a being" (OC, XII, 72). The being is, therefore, a position or interpretation of what is there, when I am not counting on this. The being is, therefore, a conviction Greek, very close to the presupposition of the natural attitude: faith in the consistent identity of things. But having never position but imposition.

The new approaches to life include the problem of truth and ontological subsoil in which life is and is supported. On the problem of the truth, it should be noted the frequency with which Ortega refers to an original and radical truth manifested prior to the trial. This truth would consist of a series of sudden, although not unexpected illuminations - since been seeking-, to spin-off its light after about concepts and the rest of the cognitive activities. This new idea of truth is a return to Greece, by Heidegger. Aletheia (desocultacion) presocratica and Aristotle sought science emerge in Ortega as forms of the original truth, i.e. sudden illumination from the original truth is a method to obtain it. That's precisely what methods, get in the way suitable to the term, and that is precisely what has been the philosophy in its history, a methodical procedure for the revelation: "If you want to talk about experience, this methodical revelation was the basic experience of the first philosophers, and aletheia, the name as seen from their personal privacy was its occupation" (OC(, IX, 433-434).

Ideas and beliefs (1940), Ortega kept the support of dialogue of man with the world, which is the life, is not taken personally and philosophically justified ideas, but the beliefs that are given the time and environmental outline live. Beliefs are which allow the most radical causal explanation and determinant of the major historical changes in Europe. Unlike Heidegger, for whom are the West's great metaphysical choices that have determined the great choices in other fields of culture, Ortega minimizes the importance of these philosophies themselves. Only when the philosophy becomes belief begins to be active socially and agent of new cultural forms epochal. Thus, for example, English, continental and modern rationalist philosophy of the 17TH and 18th centuries became from the 18th century in a faith in reason that became characteristic of the modern world belief. Ortega detects which, in its time, the faith in reason has vanished and that new ways of thinking are no longer based on rationalism but on something very different. The philosophy has been displaced by leaving that belief is living deep beneath. Philosophy even longer indispensable as an agent of transition of a belief to another and not even a permanent activity of man.

Secondly, Ortega deepened the study of life in its social form. The form of social life worried Ortega than life in general. In response, wrote the man and the people. After what is philosophy? (1929-1930) and a few lessons of metaphysics (1932-1933), and from that in 1939 conceptuase the difference between self-absorption and alteration (OC, VII, 79-98), Ortega will seek to deepen the experience of the social in their budgets, essential details, implications, effects and defects. The man and the people (OC, VII, 69-272) Ortega raises not only socially from a sociological point of view, but also the ontological perspective of the essence of the intersubjective and the possibilities of an experience of the world according to the demands imposed by coexistence with things. The analysis of the interindividualidad, need time for elucidation of the vital reason used project, was due to begin an investigation, arrested about loneliness and self-absorption to then pursue the complex world of society and the interindividualidad. So was Ortega's put light on the difficult issue of the relationship between the individual and society, between the soledad-ensimismamiento and intersubjectivity-alteration.

Man and the people respond, firstly, to the old dalmia concern about loneliness in a few lessons of metaphysics as metaphysics is loneliness. Ortega deployed this thesis giving it significant nuances. Personal experiences of a hard disease (1937-1938) and disappointment by the terrible circumst