The anthropologic dimension of ontology suggests that existence should not be presupposed with the properties and predicates of the transphysical order. It implies the priority of a manifestative ontological horizon from which metaphysics could possibly be obtained through a metempirical inference. In this foundational variation, the reflection method – through which a part of classic metaphysics has proposed its research, which continues up to Kant and ends with Lonergan – and the phenomenological method – which brings back to the present age the need of scientificity, upon which the ideal of evidence and necessity of the modern age was based – emblematically meet. Both classical thought and phenomenological reduction describe a historical world with a different sense of truth, an identical manifestativeness, which appears differently in cultural horizons. It is thinking about the difference between the world of what is intended and the cultural representation through which we understand it. If sense had no reference to the common world, it would drag in relativism every truth. If reference could appear regardless of the way it is perceived, it would sacrifice real existence to an imagined ideal. A balanced solution, provided that there is one, once again depends on the determination of history and of human nature.
|Translated title of the contribution||[Autom. eng. transl.] For a determination of the anthropological nature of ontology|
|Title of host publication||Mondo Uomo Dio. Le ragioni della metafisica nel dibattito filosofico contemporaneo|
|Number of pages||23|
|Publication status||Published - 2010|