"Veritas filia temporis" versus "Philosophia perennis"el "nuevo giro histórico" de Karl Ameriks

Abstract

This paper analyses two questions that are critical to our understanding of the current situation in the theory of History. The vital importance of the figure of Kant in the History of Thought and the counterposition between two opposite notions of the History of Thought. The first one, static and ahistorical, is called philosophia perennis and is embodied nowadays in the English analytical Philosophy, defined as a closed and perfect system of questions and answers, which considers that History at large does not have any interest, not even the History of Philosophy itself. We defend the second notion, called verita filia temporis, characterized by stating that human knowledge is limited by its own nature and develops in time, depending on contingent circumstances. For this reason History, beginning with the History of Philosophy, must be one of the useful criteria for its understanding, but not the only one. That claim of History is inseparable from the claim of the ultimate and from the idea sustaining that historical reality will be always impossible to comprehend and will be beyond the limits of any discourse.