The logical and pedagogical paths of phenomenology. Adalberto Garcia de Mendoza’s and Francisco Larroyo’s

Secondly, Zirion's assessment of their quality as phenomenologists anachronis- tically raises highly specialized academic standards for both Garcia de Mendoza and Larroyo. As Escalante (2016) rightly points out for the case of Garcia de Mendoza, the Mexican Academy and the professionalization of philosophy was underway and it started to consolidate only in the 1950s, especially during Miguel Aleman's presidency (1946-1952).

Relationships with other notable figures are left aside for reasons of scope. In this sense, we can first mention Antonio Caso (1883-1946). A constantly disputed matter is whether both Garcia de Mendoza and Larroyo learned phenomenology from Caso. Some specialists (cf. Zirion, 2004; Granja Castro, 1999) conclude that this could not have been the case after a detailed scrutiny. However, it is clear that they did have a close relationship. Garcia de Mendoza included Caso in the acknowledgments of his Logica. Francisco Larroyo also dedicated his Master's thesis to Antonio Caso.

Another notable mention is the influence of the intellectuals who fled the Spanish Civil War and Francisco Franco's dictatorship (1939-1975) known as the Spanish Exile. One of the notorious figures from the exile is that of Jos6 Gaos, an erudite that directly translated Husserl's works to Spanish, including the Logische Untersuchungen. Gaos is so important that Zirion (2004, 38), for example, appeals to Gaos's lack of acquaintance with Garcia de Mendoza to underline the latter's irrelevance. Gaos also engaged in a debate with Larroyo in 1949, later published as Dos ideas de la filosofia (Proy contra la filosofia de la filosofia). Certainly, the Spanish exile drastically changed Mexican philosophical landscape (and in other sciences as well), and the cultivation of several fields of knowledge in Mexico are indebted to their contributions. However, it is also true that, for many, the arrival of the Spanish exiled intellectuals is a turning point in Mexican philosophy that relegated the life and works of the likes of Garcia de Mendoza into oblivion.

Another important issue is that of Neo-Kantianism. In a way, I have chosen to suspend both Garcia de Mendoza's and Larroyo's appeals to Neo-Kantianism in order to focus on how they resort to Husserl's phenomenology. This analytical decision could have its shortcomings. One non-minor issue in this sense is that there are multiple paths of dialogue between Husserl and authors like Herman Cohen or Paul Natorp, especially when it comes to create a logically grounded general science. Both Cohen and Natorp are important figures for Garcia de Mendoza and Larroyo. La Logi- ca de las Ciencias is dedicated to Cohen. Garcia de Mendoza even compared Husserl's pure logic to that of Cohen (Garcia de Mendoza, 1932a, 131).

Interestingly, comparative biography, which was not my intention here, would allow us to highlight other curious similarities between Garcia de Mendoza and Larroyo than the ones I've focused on in this paper. For instance, at a point they both paid significant attention to Marxist philosophy and would even consider the importance of engaging with dialectical logic (cf. Garcia de Mendoza, 2013c; Larroyo & Cevallos, 1965, 67). This would even allow a deeper comparison with the Marxist Logician Eli de Gortari, another prominent Mexican philosopher who, unlike our two authors here, did not pay too much attention to phenomenology When not having an explicit negative stance towards it (Zirion, 2004, 375).. Throughout the Twentieth Century, Marxism was one of the main XXth Century's philosophical perspectives and it also offered a variety of positions (e.g., the so-called materialist dialectic or “diamat” as it was known in the USSR, the Frankfurt School, etc.). Garcia de Mendoza and Lar- royo would not be the only ones in assessing the importance of engaging in debates with, or even using Marxist ideas. We have the clear example of Jean-Paul Sartre, an existential phenomenologist, and his Critique de la raison dialectique (Sartre, I960). This certainly leaves another line of analysis that would be worth exploring.

As a self-criticism, I do admit that while dealing with Larroyo's contribution relegating Cevallos's one is not only arbitrary but uncharitable to his work and figure. That our current scope does not allow us to cover him thoroughly is not the best rationale to cast Cevallos aside. Although his figure probably does not match that of Larroyo, he certainly made important contributions to the fields of education and phenomenological philosophy.

The final conclusion has to do with the aim towards developing a broader understanding of science. This is one of the main similarities, if not the main one, between Garcia de Mendoza and Larroyo (and Cevallos). Prima facie, the aim towards a general science supported by logic--the “Pure Logic” in Garcia de Mendoza, and Larroyo's teoretica--could seem as nothing more than the repetition of a phraseology that was common to Husserl's and Cohen's times. However, I think this construal would be mistaken. By insisting in their science taxonomy attempts, both Garcia de Mendoza and Larroyo signal that their conception of science is something more than mere phraseology. It remains disputable, however, whether this “science talk” is phenomenological itself.

Husserl's own concern that the process of specialization could result into a fragmentation where logic would end up not ground science is certainly shared by both Garcia de Mendoza and Larroyo. The attitude is more patent in Larroyo and Cevallos, since they underline specific aspects of different sciences and their respective methods, modes of inference, and logical bases (as wrong as they might be, more if we test them against nowadays scientific standards).

Now, I do recognize Antonio Zirion's effort in creating a rich comprehensive view of the history of phenomenology. His work is already an essential reference for analysing the phenomenological movement in Latin America. That being said, I do consider his overall assessment of Garcia de Mendoza and Larroyo as unjust. Both of our authors wrote at a time where the phenomenological discussion in Mexico was underdeveloped, and, in the case of Garcia de Mendoza, practically non-existent. A pedagogical phenomenology, that is, as described above, the colossal effort in opening those paths not only for the highly specialized discussion (whose contexts, again, for Mexico were practically absent) but for the wider public was a precondition for the possibility of a further development of the discussion. Hence, I think that the most charitable attitude we can have towards both Garcia de Mendoza and Larroyo is that of gratitude, despite its theoretical shortcomings. Though contrafactual assertions must perhaps be avoided in philosophy, I believe that without their contributions Mexican phenomenology would have had a great deficit.

REFERENCES

Becker, O. (1923). Beitrage zur phanomenologischen Begrundung der Geometrie und ihrer physikali- schen Anwendungen. Jahrbuch fur Philosophie undphanomenologische Forschung, 6, 385-560.

Becker, O. (1927). Mathematische Existenz: Untersuchungen zur Logik und Ontologie mathematischer Phanomene. Jahrbuch fur Philosophie und phanomenologische Forschung, 8, 439-809.

Bunge, M. (2000). La investigation cientifica. Su estrategiay su filosofia. Mexico: Siglo XXI.

Copi, I. (1962). Introduction to Logic. New York: Macmillan.

Da Silva, J. J. (1997). Husserl's Phenomenology and Weyl's Predicativism. Synthese, 110, 277-296.

De Gortari, E. (1969). Initiation a la logica. Mexico: Grijalbo.

Delgado, L. (2016). El personalismo pedagogico de Francisco Larroyo. Euphta, 10 (18), 89-102.

Escalante, E. (2016). Adalberto Garcia de Mendoza. El oscuro lugar inestable. Revista de la Universidad de Mexico, 148, 33-39.

Gaos, J., & Larroyo, F (1940). Dos ideas de la filosofia (Pro y contra la filosofia de la filosofia). Mexico: La Casa de Espana en Mexico-Fondo de Cultura Economica.

Garcia de Mendoza, A. (1932a). Logica. Obra de Texto en la Escuela National Preparatoria. Tomo I, Introduccion-Significaciones. Mexico: Editorial Cvltura.

Garcia de Mendoza, A. (1932b). Logica. Obra de Texto en la Escuela National Preparatoria. Tomo II, Esencia-Juicio-Concepto. Mexico: Editorial Cvltura.

Garcia de Mendoza, A. (1936). La Filosofia y la teorta de la relatividad de Einstein (Doctoral Thesis). Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico.

Garcia de Mendoza, A. (2004). Filosofia Moderna. Husserl-Scheler-Heidegger. Conferencias de 1933. Michoacan: Jitanjafora.

Garcia de Mendoza, A. (2007). Visiones de Oriente. Michoacan: Jitanjafora.

Garcia de Mendoza, A. (2009). Conferencias de Japon. Michoacan: Jitanjafora.

Garcia de Mendoza, A. (2013a). Manual de logica. Primer cuaderno. 1930. Indiana: Bloomington-Pa- librio.

Garcia de Mendoza, A. (2013b). Evolution de la Logica de 1910 a 1961. Resena historica de la logica, de 1961. Indiana: Bloomington-Palibrio.

Garcia de Mendoza, A. (2013c). Nuevos Principios de logica y epistemologta. Nuevos aspectos de la filo- sofia. Indiana: Bloomington-Palibrio.

Gonzalez-Quinones, J. (2002). Los examenes profesionales de Ponce y Revueltas en el Conservatorio Nacional de Mexico. Latin American Music Review, 23 (1), 131-136.

Granja Castro, D. M. (1999). El neokantismo en Mexico. Signos filosoficos, 1 (2), 9-31.

Granja Castro, D. M. (2013). Francisco Larroyo. Enciclopedia Mexicana de Filosofia. Siglo XX. Retrieved from: https://divcsh.izt.uam.mx/cefilibe/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Larroyo_Fran- cisco-GranjaCastro_DulceMa.pdf

Hernandez Luna, J. (1948). El neokantismo ante la tradicion filosofica mexicana. Filosofiay Letras, 32, 287-310.

Hansberg, O. (1995). La filosofia en Mexico. INTI, Revista de literatura hispdnica, 42, 171-176.

Husserl, E. (2004). Logische Untersuchungen. Hamburg: Felix Meiner.

Kinkaid, J. (2020). What Would a Phenomenology of Logic Look Like? Mind, 19 (516), 1009-1031.

Kern, I. (1962). Die drei Wege zur transzendental-phanomenologischen Reduktion in der Philosophie Edmund Husserls. Tijdschrift voor Filosofie, 24 (2), 303-349.

Larroyo, F (1947). Historia comparada de la education en Mexico. Mexico: Porrua.

Larroyo, F (1973). Historia general de la pedagogta. Mexico: Porrua.

Larroyo, F (1977). Sistema de la filosofia de la education. Ontologta, Hermeneutica, Axio-pedagogta, teleo-pedagogta, personaltstica, praxiologta (2nd Ed.). Mexico: Porrua.

Larroyo, F, & Cevallos, M. A. (1965). La logica de las ciencias (15th Ed.). Mexico: Porrua.

Levinas, E. (1961). Totalite et infini: essai sur la exteriorite. Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

Luna Arroyo, A. (1978). La sociologia fenomenologica. Mexico: UNAM.

Molchanov, V. I. (1988). Vremya y soznanye: Kritika fenomenologicheskoi filosofii. Moscow: Vyschaya Shkola Publ. (In Russian)

Sartre, J.-P. (1960). Critique de la raison dialectique (precede de Question de methode). Tome I: Theorie des ensembles pratiques. Paris: Gallimard.

Schmit, R. (1981). Husserls Philosophie der Mathematik:platonische und konstruktivistische Momente in Husserls Mathematikbegriff. Bonn: Grundmann.

Selvi, K. (2008). Phenomenological Approach in Education. In T. Tymieniecka (Ed.), Education in Human Creative Existential Planning (HUA 95) (39-52). Dordrecht: Springer.

Uscanga Prieto, C. (2011). Mexico y Japon en los anos treinta: los avatares del intercambio academico. Revista de relaciones internacionales de la UNAM, 110, 159-171.

Tieszen, R. (2005). Phenomenology, Logic, and the Philosophy of Mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zea, L. (1968). El positivismo en Mexico: Nacimiento, apogeo y decadencia. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Economica.

Zirion, A. (2004). Historia de la fenomenologta en Mexico. Michoacan: Jitanjafora.

Размещено на Allbest.ru/