La enseñanza de la filosofía en el siglo XIX (2)

Sobre la exclusividad académica que se vivía en el siglo XIX, podemos citar el contexto que Schneider nos señala, a partir, también de la visión pesimista que Schopenhauer y Nietzsche tenía sobre la universidad alemana:

“Schopenhauer and Nietzsche in their well-known attacks on university philosophy were unforgiving and apodictic by comparison; they left no hope for originality or independent judgment in a discipline that was, this much is true, not bound in a proper sense to any meaningful purpose. In Germany,philosophy was officially unrestricted, since it was not taught in school; it was in no way directly influenced by any concrete demand outside the university. There were of course academic philosophers who lost their jobs for political or religious reasons, as was true for Bruno Bauer, Ernst Ruge, Kuno Fischer, and others” (6).

Sin embargo, había cierta libertad, a pesar de todo, para elaborar materiales y armar una currícula distinta y diversa. Sobre la conformación prgresiva del canon de filosofía, es necesario traer el siguiente fragmento del artículo:

“Throughout the century these courses formed a canon of philosophical subjects offered at all 19 German universities,19 whatever their size, and taught in intervals by pretty much every professor.20
The canon mirrored a somewhat encyclopedic conception of philosophy, which was also propagated in books but for which no explicit agreement can be found. It was the whole structure of the university that was considered some sort of enacted encyclopedia, at least in the first half of the century. In 1898, university historian Friedrich Paulsen stressed the fact that German universities exchanged students and professors on a regular basis” (6).

Esto es muy importante, ya que nos se nos explicita la gestación de una currícula de tipo enciclopédica, que nunca antes había existido en la formación filosófica, en ese sentido. Sin embargo, ésta será desplazada, a medida que fue avanzando el siglo, por una visión fuertemente “historicista”, que dio una primacía excesiva a la historia de la filosofía, en un sentido privilegiadamente histórico y historiográfico, frente a la formación en más discplinas y ámbitos del saber. Las estadísticas son asombrosas al respecto:

“The canon of subjects regularly taught within the discipline of philosophy would have been incomplete without lecture courses on the history of philosophy and seminar courses on individual philosophers or single philosophical texts. These two “historical” courses taken together accounted for 10 percent of all of the philosophy courses of all 19 German universities at about 1810. At the end of the 19th century, they accounted for 50 percent of all courses. Their increase came steadily, regularly, everywhere in the same undramatic rhythm. Throughout the century, the number of philosophy teachers (professors and Privatdozents) at the university level was 80 to 100; it did not change much. Teaching interests did, however, and philosophy professors taught considerably more historical courses at about 1880 than they did at about 1820. For any student late in the century, philosophy became a historicized discipline. When in 1865 the University of Berlin rearranged its lecture course program and put the lecture on the history of philosophy first—before all other courses in philosophy—this was a fine expression of what was going on everywhere: The historical approach replaced the systematic or encyclopedic one” (7).

La historia de la filosofía deviene así, la introducción clave para la filosofía (Albert Peip). De las lecciones y cursos que se tenían a inicio de siglo, se pasó a una especialización histórica cada vez mayor, con lo cuál un nuevo método tuvo que ser introducido y masificado: el seminario sobre un autor, tema o período específico. Esto llegó al punto de ya no tener en cuenta discplinas o períodos históricos. A lo que se llego fue a hacer un seminario sobre un autor. Nombres, por ejemplo, de cursos: “Kant”, “Hegel”, “Platón”, “Aristóteles”. Podríamos nosotros añadir que hoy eso se lleva al extremo de delimitar al autor en obras específicas (por ejemplo, Seminario sobre la Metafísica de Aristóteles).

Las consecuencias del seminario fueron, al respecto, radicales:

“If reading Plato under the guidance of a teacher and in the presence of a few chosen fellow students meant doing philosophy historically, it also meant, by way of interpretation, doing it hermeneutically. Bound to an authoritative text, philosophy was received as a strict way of formulating ideas that nevertheless needed translation. This translation went two ways: Every reader had to translate forward his problems into the language of the philosopher under study, only to translate backward whatever “answer” there was in those texts. Seminar teaching meant engaging in historical dialogue—and in the end it meant exchanging the authority of the teacher with the authority of an examiner. Historical knowledge had already become proof of qualification in the 19th century. The doctoral dissertation as the first demonstration of the scholarly
expertise of a student had its origin in the seminars.” (8).

La respuesta de Schneider a (1), a la que llegamos es que la historia de la filosofía en el siglo XIX se fue desarrollando con, cada vez más, mayor independiencia en cuanto a sus objetivos, tareas, campos y métodos. Esto es visto como una parte de la filosofía, pero en el sentido de discplina académica que pueda tener la filosofía como tal. Esto generó una visión de la educación en filosofía, a partir del proceso de formación requerido, así como del canon por el cual uno debe de pasar:

“Nineteenth-century lecture courses on the history of philosophy as well as seminar courses slowly built
up a canon of great philosophers who were in turn linked to a canon of important philosophical topics. To study these topics historically meant getting to know them and thereby entering into philosophy itself. To know the history of philosophy in detail was seen as a prerequisite for philosophizing. This was a widespread belief in the
19th century. We can turn to a critic of university philosophy as fervent as Eduard von Hartmann to see it confirmed. Hartmann wrote in 1889, ‘In order to go your own way in philosophy, you have to have at least studied in detail one period of the history of philosophy in someone else’s view and at least one system in its original language.’” (9).

Lo que señala Hartmann puede verse como la explicitación del requisito para filosofar: erudición y conocimiento exhaustivo en un perído, tema, autor, obra determinada. La respuesta a (1) es reformulada entonces:

“Our previous answer must be modified accordingly. The history of philosophy is not only an integral part of the study of philosophy— which did not exist prior to the 19th century; it is also ideologically part of it. The very practice of teaching philosophy historically involved spreading the legend of philosophy as something theoretical and even timeless in nature. The 19th century produced this legend along with the system of philosophical study; it linked the history of philosophy not only practically to philosophy as a discipline but also ideologically to it as an idea” (9).


About these ads

One response to “La enseñanza de la filosofía en el siglo XIX (2)

Deja un comentario

Introduce tus datos o haz clic en un icono para iniciar sesión:

Logo de WordPress.com

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de WordPress.com. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Google+ photo

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Google+. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Conectando a %s

Seguir

Recibe cada nueva publicación en tu buzón de correo electrónico.

Únete a otros 1.371 seguidores

%d personas les gusta esto: