Giovanni Gentile e la dialettica come produzione della realtà

This entry is part 20 of 38 in the series Vol 4-2019

Abstract: This paper analyzes Giovanni Gentile’s dialectical philosophy, which he called “actualism,” and has been described as “the subjective extreme of the idealist tradition.” According to Gentile, the “pure act” of thinking is foundational to all human experience – it creates the phenomenal world – and involves a process of “reflective awareness.” Gentile’s dialectic is a radicalization of Kant’s transcendental philosophy, and is an absolutisation of subjectivity. Although I recognize the theoretical value of Gentile’s philosophy of mind, I criticize the abstraction and the immanence of this idealistic point of view, expressing the idea “that only the spirit or mind is real.”

View full Article in PDF

“Tathandlung” e “atto puro”. Realtà e immanenza tra Fichte e Giovanni Gentile

This entry is part 19 of 38 in the series Vol 4-2019

Abstract: Make a comparison between Fichte’s and Giovanni Gentile’s philosophy it’s a difficult task, even if through careful analysis of the central themes of the two authors, this comparison can be made, particularly in reference to the theme of the action: this concept leads in both to the consideration of reality as immanent. This vision of reality, together with the strong moral connotation of their philosophy, makes the task we set ourselves less complicated, and it allows me to affirm how in their thought there are moments of great originality, such as to be able to withstand the challenges of contemporary philosophy, rather than being relegated to a marginal position, which considers them as a moment of transition between Kant’s criticism and Hegel’s idealism. The central theme of this paper will be, therefore, the Fichte’s and Gentile’s personal vision of idealism that springs from the concept of action, which maintains a constant tension between different elements, allowing the production of a reality characterized by a radical transcendental vision, therefore immanent. Later, such immanence, in the development of thought from the theoretical to the praxis, assumes meaning and explicability in a sort of transcendence, and this apparent contradiction will be addressed in the second part of my paper: I try to demonstrate how the two authors can still make an important contribution to contemporary philosophy, especially in relation to metaphysical issues, that in our days are often understood as something anachronistic and not very functional to the development of scientific thought.

View full Article in PDF