unamuno y ortega en mexico

8/8/2019 Unamuno y Ortega en Mexico

1/22

Samuel Ramos on the Philosophy of Mexican Culture: Ortega and Unamuno in MexicoAuthor(s): Patrick RomanellSource: Latin American Research Review, Vol. 10, No. 3 (Autumn, 1975), pp. 81-101Published by: The Latin American Studies AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2502795

Accessed: 13/09/2010 15:43

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lamer.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Latin American Studies Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Latin American Research Review.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lamerhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2502795?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lamerhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lamerhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2502795?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lamer


2/22

SAMUEL RAMOS ON THEPHILOSOPHY OF MEXICAN CULTURE:Ortega and Unamuno in Mexico*

Patrick omanellUniversityfTexas t El PasoRAMOS AND MEXICO S QUEST FOR A NATIONAL PHILOSOPHYIn 1943 thereappeared in Mexico City the first ook in Spanish on thestory f philosophy n Mexicowritten rom nonscholastic r lay stand-point. ts title s, simply,Historia e a filosofian Mexico, he authorbeingSamuel Ramos (1897-1959) of Zita4cuaro,Michoaca4n, philosophy pro-fessorat the National University f Mexico. The pioneeringwork istentative nd modest n content ut firm nd ambitious n ntent. topensand closes with the same fixed dea in mind: To encourage Mexicanthinkers o develop their wn philosophy by integrating uropean phi-losophywith heir ational pirit; hat s, bynationalizinghilosophy tself.Put negatively and more effectively,he whole point of the author'sendeavor is to get Mexican intellectualsout of the traditionalhabitofimitating he philosophies of othersby nviting hem to thinkhenceforthon their wn two feet bout thefundamental roblemsofMexico herself.Althoughsome allusions to the nationalizationofMexican phi-losophy appear here and there n Ramos's two immediatephilosophicalpredecessors,Antonio Caso andJoseVasconcelos,1there sno doubt thatSamuel Ramos is theactual founderof the contemporarymovement nMexico for the Mexicanization of culture n general and philosophy inparticular.This is clear, forone thing, from his historical urvey ofphilosophy n Mexico, inasmuch as he is so frank bout his own role nher ntellectual tory hathe refers xplicitlyohimself nd his particularcontribution nder the heading "la filosofiade la cultura mexicana"2(which heading is, incidentally, he reason for the titleof the presentwork).Ramos's interest n the philosophy of Mexican culture s tanta-mount, of course, to his ideological campaign fora genuine nationalphilosophy expressiveofthe Mexican spirit.Moreover,whateverreser-*Presented t the FifthNational Meeting oftheLatinAmericanStudies Association, SanFrancisco,California, 6 November1974.

81


3/22

LatinAmerican esearch eviewvations we may have to his chosen project of nationalizingphilosophyand culture n Mexico, Samuel Ramos was not a cheap propagandistbut apatriotic riticwho did notallow the ove of his country o interfere ithhis love of truth.Our Mexican author, to be sure, sees himselfhistorically s anintellectual ioneer in the movementtoward a mexicanidad,ut he is no"Adam" inphilosophy. On thecontrary, e has a keenappreciation fthehistory f Westernphilosophy, and in his brief anorama of ts Mexicanperiodshe is quicktoacknowledgethe ndebtednessof his own genera-tion to the notable Spanish philosopher and social critic,JoseOrtega yGasset (1883-1955)ofMadrid. Ortega's pervasive influenceon contem-poraryMexicanthought ince 1925 s crucialforunderstanding heworkof Ramos.Ramos was the leading philosophical spokesmanforhis Mexicangeneration fContemporauneos.e summarizesOrtega'sphilosophical ndcultural nfluence nMexico in thefollowingneatfashion:3An ntellectualenerationhich egan o actpubliclyetween 925 nd 1930 eltdissatisfied ith hephilosophicalomanticismfCaso and Vasconcelos. ftercriticalevisionf heir octrines,hey oundnti-intellectualismroundless,utthey idnotwish oreturnoclassical ationalism.nthis erplexity,he ooks fJos6OrtegayGassetbegan o arrivenMexico, nd nthefirstf hem,Medita-ciones elQuijote, hey ncounteredhe olutiono theconflictnhis doctrinefvital eason.naddition, s a result f heRevolution, spiritualhange adbeengoing n, which, tartinground 915,was becominglarifiedntheminds fpeople ndcouldbedefinednthese erms:Mexico adbeendiscovered.twas anationalist ovement hichwas being xtendedittley ittle oMexican ulture:inpoetry ithRam6n 6pez Velarde,npainting ith iego Rivera,nthenovelwithMarianoAzuela. Vasconcelos imself,romheMinistryfEducation, adbeentalkingfformingnational ulture nd waspromotinglleffortsnthatdirection. eanwhile hilosophy idnotappear o fit nto his dealpicturefnationalismecause he has alwayspretended o ook tthings romhe tand-point fman ngeneral, ence, pposed othe oncrete eterminationsf paceandtime, hats to ay, ohistory. rtega Gasset ame lsoto olve his roblemby showinghehistoricityfphilosophynhisEltema enuestroiempo.ssem-bling hese deaswith omeothers e hadexpoundednMeditacioneselQuijote,thatMexicangeneration ound he epistemologicalustificationf a nationalphilosophy.

Before howingthesignificant earingofthispassage on the mak-ing of themind ofRamos, itshould be observed npassingthat here s anoteworthy iographicalparallelbetweenOrtega'snegative responsetothe Spanish generation f 1898 and hisdisciple'srevolt gainsttheMexi-can generationof1910 (the Centenarior theAteneo).Just s Ortegahadreacted s a youth gainst the ostensible nti-intellectualismf his Span-ish surroundings, o did the young Ramos do likewiseagainst the samephenomenon in his Mexican surroundings. nterestingly nough, the82


4/22


5/22

LatinAmericanesearcheviewpher of philosophy and life,rather han n Ortega the epistemologist ssuch. In this connection, t happens that the Spanish writer ikens aknower to a "sensitive net,"'10 he function f whichis purely selective;and an ironical confirmation f this ingenious image of the knower isRamos himself,whose peculiar meshes are sensitive to some of hismaster's deas but rsensitive o others. n fact,whattheMexican discipleas a knower s ultimately nterestednknowing s the deologicalmplica-tionsof Orteguianism s a philosophy, imply ecause these fit icelyntohis own theme-the philosophy of Mexican culture.This takes us to theimplicationsof the Orteguian way of thinking orthe twin subjects ofprimary oncerntoRamos as Mexican ideologist:The natureofphiloso-phy itself nd the essence of human life.In Ortega's most systematicwork nphilosophypublished duringhis ifetime1923),El tema e nuestro iempoEng. trans.,TheModern heme,1931),he states explicitly hathis perspectivistway ofthinkingeads totwovitalreforms. ne leads to "a radicalreformfphilosophy,"theotherto "the more mportant eformn oursense ofreality."" The firstallsfora complete repudiation of the traditional onceptionofphilosophy,thesecond for thoroughrevision ofthenineteenth-centuryonceptionoflife. Withrespectto the first eform, rtega's situationaldefinition ftruth s a perspectiveor point ofview in time and place impliesa totalrejection of the classical notion that any known truth s timeless andplaceless, that is, objectively or absolutely valid per se.12 By way ofillustration, e thinks that Spinoza is incurably bstractand naive inmentality, hidingthatmodel critic f all Utopian illusionsforharboringthe grand llusionofbelievingthat eality ould ever be graspedonce andforall by the human mind. Being a model journalist himself,Ortegaanticipatesa later dea ofhis, that a techniquemustbe developed fordetecting ealityub pecienstantisnsteadofsub pecieeternitatis3

If all truth, ccording to Orteguian perspectivism, s actuallyavalid but limitedpoint of view thatvaries with each knower and hiscircumstances, o is philosophicruth.As philosophictruth o conceivedsignifies n absolute breakwithtradition'swhole universalistic onceptof philosophy takenforgranted throughout he ages, Ortega may beregarded as the contemporaryMartinLutherofPhilosophy.To be moreexplicit,Ortega's wayofthinking s a vitalistic erspectivist epresentsbasic reformnboth theform nd content fphilosophy,as traditionallyunderstood. In form,perspectivism hanges philosophyfrom searchforuniversaltruthswhose validity s unrestrictedo a searchforpartialtruths whose validity is restricted o time and place. In content,ittransforms hilosophy from concern with the problems of all reality84


6/22

THE PHILOSOPHY OF MEXICAN CULTURE(metaphysics) ntoa concern with the problems of humanreality meta-culture).Apropos of all this, Ortega's thought amounts essentially to acertain ort ofsituationalphilosophy of culture, nd one clear piece ofevidence of such comes fromhis Mexican disciple'sphilosophy of Mexi-can culture. Since the passage in Ortega's Tema containing the tworeforms mplied by his way of thinking s cited with fullapproval byRamos,14 et us see first ow the Mexican author makes his own use ofthe Orteguian ttack n the traditional osmocentric onceptionof philo-sophy.Ramos's stand thereto s quite evident fromhis militant efenseof the Orteguian doctrineof the historicityf philosophy-a doctrinewhich, by the way, stemsfromWilhelm Dilthey.15The twofoldreasonforour author's defenseof the doctrine n question is: First, t opens anew horizon forhimby making available more possibilitiesculturally;and, second, itmakeshimfeel ntellectuallythome inhis own countryby legitimizing heoretically is desire to nationalizephilosophyas theunderpinning ndispensable forbuilding up a spiritof patriotism nMexico.Ramos in the Historia quotes some key passages in behalf ofperspectivism romOrtega's Meditacionesnd Tema, nd at one pointheinterposesthe all-telling emark hatthose passages of"unquestionableobviousness" illlustrate ow "Ortega defends his right o construct isown philosophyfromhispersonal pointof view and undertheperspec-tive of Spain."'16 The moral of the side remark s perfectly lear: If aSpaniard enjoystheright odo so from Spanish pointofview, thenbythe same token so does a Mexican from Mexican point of view. Thelogic here s impeccable,given the nitialpremise, and Ramos exploits tfullyby restatingOrteguian perspectivism n Hacia un nuevohumanismo(1940)as follows:17Each ndividual ossesses s part fhis existence concrete orld,which sthesole window vailable ohim o ookout nto heworldngeneral. hat s to ay,what achsubject nows etter han nyothersthenaturalandscapenwhichhe lives,thesociety nd thecountryo whichhe belongs.Thesethingsheknows rom ithin,o tospeak,because heyonstitutealf fhimself,eing she is vitally used with them.These concrete bjectsmustperforcee theparticularnstanceswhich end life nd colorto his generic oncepts f theUniverse, umanityr society. espitetheobjective alue of deaswhich sindependentfspace and time,upon entertaininghemwe mustwilly-nillyrefer hemto the circleof our immediate xperiences. his is doubtlesslimitationfour knowledge, utalso on theother and an advantage,hat fdiscoveringn theworldsomething hich the rest would neverbe in thepositionosee.Actually,Ramos goes one better hanOrtega by consistently ushingthe

85


7/22

LatinAmerican esearch eviewlogic of perspectivism,whose genealogy may be traced all theway backto the Periclean Age's famous Protagoreanfragment: Man is a measureof all things."'18 ationalize theHomomensura f ancient Greek Sophist(Protagoras), nd you logicallyget the OrteguianHomohispanusmensuraand the Ramosian Homo mexicanusmensura. n a word, the historicityfphilosophy means to Ramos its possibilityof being humanized in theconcrete, hat s, nationalized.If, as Ortega holds,19 he universe does not appear the same to aclassical "Greek" in Athens or to a contemporary Yankee" in NewYork, tfollows necessarily hatneitherwould itappear the same todayto a Spaniard in Madrid nor to a Mexican n Mexico City.The conclusionis psychologically nd culturally he case, obviously, but Ortega goesfurthernd infers ptimisticallyherefromhat reality, ike a landscape,has infinite erspectives, ll of them equally veridical nd authentic."20If such egalitarianism n epistemology s assumed at the veryoutset, thefirst f the two announced Orteguianreforms o followfromperspectivism s a situationalconceptionof truth,not only implies asituationalconceptionofphilosophy generally,but in additionit leadsspecifically o what is explicit n Ramos and only implicit n Ortega,towit,a "patriocentric"21onceptionofphilosophyfor ach nation n themodern world, including Mexico, ofcourse. In otherwords, the stub-born quest in Ramos for a national philosophy as a body of Mexicandoctrines mplies a nationalistic nterpretationfphilosophy tself.Phi-losophy as thus interpreted hanges masters, nd her old roleas ancillatheologiaenthe medieval worldgives waytothenew role of ncilla atriaein the modern. It should be noted in passing that the differenceustbroughtout between masterand discipleis one ofthe reasons (amongothers)forcallingRamos a Neo-Orteguian. hilosophersworthyof thename are notparrotsbut rarebirds!Ortega'sfirst eform,which iterally uts philosophy n tsplace, sreally part and parcel of his second and more general reform o dolikewisewith human life nd culture.That is to say, the first eforms acorollary f the second, because a demand for a new sense of realityentails a corresponding hange in conceptionofphilosophy. n Ortega'smental history, hough, t happens thathis interestnreformingumanlife,Spanish lifeespecially, s priortohis interestn reforminghiloso-phy, as is insinuatedthroughout is firstnd mostrevealingbook,Medi-taciones el Quijote 1914), to which we must now turn as a necessarypreliminaryoRamos.In the preface to the Meditaciones here s a sentencewhere Or-tega, in search forself-identity,efines himselfcandidlyas a man ofSpain livingunder difficult ircumstances. n retrospect, he sentence86


8/22

THE PHILOSOPHY OF MEXICAN CULTUREmay be said to constitutehis philosophical point of departure: A firstprinciplethat condenses his whole thought. t appears almost casuallyright fter brief eference o whatwe today call ecology, the study ofthe mutual relations between organisms and their environment.Thesentence consists of two parts, the firsthaving to do with life on thebiological plane, thesecond with ifeon the moral.Usually, onlythe first alfof thecelebratedpassage is cited,butfortunately amos quotes the entire entencetwice ntheHistoria22 "Yosoy yo y mi circunstancia,y si no la salvo a ella no me salvo yo."23Bearing in mind its actual context,the English version of it may berenderedfaithfullys follows: I ammyself nd my environment, ut ffail to account for t I fail to get over my difficulties." tated in abbre-viated form,Ortega's starting ointor prime principle n philosophy s:Ego circumstansin Latin), or Mi situacionin Spanish).24Taken in its entirety, he basic proposition in the Meditacionesforeshortens rtega's whole philosophyof life. t signifies hat man isconfronteddaily with a greatvarietyof circumstances favorableandunfavorable), s a result of which he has no other effective lternativethan to make them intelligibleby distinguishing learly those whichhamper his lifefrom hose which facilitatet. This idea, thatman's onlyintelligent ecourse in coping with his daily difficulties esides in theproper use of his powers of understanding, dentifies Ortega's firstprincipleof philosophy with a secularized way of salvation, in otherwords,with a "moralntegral"25In thefinal nalysis, Ortega's situational tarting oint nphiloso-phy, culturally iewed, is another ecular attempt f the modernmindtobring Christianity own to earth. Like Seneca of ancientCordoba, Or-tega ofmodernCastile is a moralist t heart, notwithstanding hat hewas academically professor fmetaphysics t theUniversity f Madridformany, many years. So of course is Ramos, his major disciple inMexico of Mexican birth.In traditionalChristianityalvation means deliverancefrom in,but in Ortega it presupposes deliverancefrom onfusion26 Hence theprimacy f claridad nd comprensionn his thought.For,in order to saveourselves fromdifficulties y surmounting hem,we must first eter-mine preciselywhat they are in any given situation,and in order toaccomplishthatwe must delve deeply nto theparticular istory espon-siblefor hem.Historical larifications, accordingly, heprerequisite orovercoming bstacles n oursurroundingsnd within urselves.Further-more, and this is only implicit n Ortega's initialvision of the humansituation,the difficulties hemselvesencounteredin daily lifeare notsomethingto balk at or cryover childishlybut representa constant

87


9/22

LatinAmerican esearch eviewchallenge to us to create a betterworld here and now. Without suchcreative effort n our partno viable solution to life'sproblems s pos-sible. Consequently,Ortega's own perspective n human life swrittenessentiallynepic erms, nasmuch as its focus s on thesurmountabilityfobstacles and conflicts.An epic spirit,whose nature embodies the ad-venturous and successful side of life,belongs to the class of conquista-dores, ll ofwhom in their undryexploitsmanage somehow,in the faceofdifficultynd against odds, to surmount bstaclesand overcome evilsof every sortuntilthe very end. It is such epic spirit, ubtly diffusedthroughout heMeditaciones f the earlyOrtega, thatpermeatesnot onlythe protest ntheTema gainst a humdrum xistencebut also the accom-panying plea for new sense of reality.27The fact that the author of the Tema,in a playful ournalisticmood, describeshis scheme of reformn ife tyle,picturesquely, s "thesportive nd festive ense of ife,"28 nlyreflects is antipathy o the twocomplementary xtremes haracterizinghenineteenth-century ay oflife in his eyes: The "deificationof work"29 and the decided trend"toward pessimism."30Thispreference tself, owever,ofsportover theworkethic,ofoptimism verpessimism,does not affectt all the conclu-sion thattheCastilianphilosopher s an epic soul at bottom.As a matteroffact, tconfirms heconclusion.ForOrtega'svehementprotest gainstthe industrial pirit nd defeatist ttitudetowardlife,presumablypre-vailing duringthepast century-a protestwhich reappears,in theearlyRamos, as "God deliver us from he 19thcentury!," nd, in the matureRamos,31 s an attackon "the nstrumentalonceptionfman"-has poten-tially ll theearmarks f an epic revival on a grand scale.An indirectbut tellingconfirmationhatOrtega, in spite of hisafterthoughtnd dubious claim to have anticipatedGerman existen-tialism,32ooks at lifeepically or adventurously s his positive responseto the Homericepic and hisnegativereaction o ancientGreektragedy. 3He is sympathetico theformer utunsympathetico the atter.His lackof sympathyfortragicdrama mars his understandingof the literarygenre. Like the bulk ofwriters inceAristotle, heoriginal ulprit n thestorywhose extremelynfluentialdefinition f tragedy34 uffers romambiguity,Ortega assumes thatthegeneraltheme ofGreektragedyhasto do with "the problemsofgood and evil."35Aristotlend Orteganotwithstanding,hequintessenceoftragedy(Greek orotherwise) ies, thematically, ot n problemsofgood-versus-evil (collectively, he ProblemofEvil), as traditional esthetics has as-sumed from time immemorial,but in problems of good-versus-good(collectively, he Problem of Good). Materialiter, hetherdepicted in88


10/22

THE PHILOSOPHY OF MEXICAN CULTUREliterature r manifested n life,the Problem of Evil and the Problem ofGood differ ubstantially n possibilities foutcome. Formaliter,he twotypes of conflict-of-valueroblems differ adically n polarity.While theProblemof Evilstands for resolvable conflict ituation nvolving clearchoice between good and evil, the Problem of Good on the otherhandstands for n irresolvable onflict ituation nvolving perplexing hoicebetween good andgood36Once we take nto ccount theformal ifferencein polarity etween these two primary ypes of conflictn man's life,wecan then see why epic situations,whichpersonify ltimate ictory ue tothe eventual triumph f good over evil, spell glorious success, and whytragic situations, which personify nevitable defeat due to the mutualincompatibility f equally worthygoods or duties at stake, spell noblefailure.Doubtless (with pologies toAristotlegain),it s therare uality fnobleness or strength f charactern a tragicperson that distinguishestragic igure ike the Sophoclean Antigonefrom patheticfigure ike theShakespearean Othello, whose hopelessly deluded mind makes him amodel case of jealous man who is ust absolutelypitiful.7 After ll, thereis a world of difference etween the patheticfailure fan Othello and thetragic ailure fan Antigone, he femalemodel of genuine conscientiousobjectorwhose path in lifeforks t a crucial moment when she mustofnecessity hoose between twogood hings-patriotism nd piety-which,within hegivenplot ofthe Sophoclean play namedafter er, reequipol-lent but antinomic, at the same time. Thus, the Problemof Good iscoextensivewith theproblemoftragedy,butthe ProblemofEvil mani-fests tselfmorally n two opposite forms:The epic and the pathetic.Whereas the epic defines a situationwhere good overcomesvil, thepatheticdefinesone whereevil overpowersood.In view of thefactthat the literary ategoriesof tragic, pic, pa-thetic, akentogether, epresent aradigmaticallyn the rtistic lane thebasic state of conflictn the lifeofman, and, taken separately,conveyideallythe different inds ofmoral conflictsn daily ife, tbehooves usthereforeokeep n mindthepropermeaningof uchcategorieswhenwecome to take up the various angles to Ramos's profileofMexican life.Besides, there s more to the story s to why Ortega prefers he "epicperspective"38n Homer to the tragicperspective n Aeschylus,who isdubbed teopoeta.9 The nimble Castilian journalist-philosopherfromMadrid apparentlyhad to contend all his life with "Spanish circum-stances," and probably he most audible ofthese "silentthings"40n hisimmediate environmentwas none other than the tragic voice of theinflexible asque poet-philosopher nd professor fGreekfromnearbySalamanca, Miguelde Unamuno (1864-1936).41 Ortega'sfirst ook Medi-

89


11/22

LatinAmerican esearch eviewtations n Quixote, ame out the year afterUnamuno's Tragic enseofLife(1913), also published in Madrid. The exact chronologyof these twooutstandingworks n contemporary panish philosophy s important tthis uncture.However odious comparisonsmay be inmatters ersonal, Ortegahimself nce said, felicitously,hat omparison s the unavoidable instru-ment of understanding, he function f which is to serve as "a pair oftweezers"42for apturing finepoint. Applyingthis ntellectual nstru-menthere,we may succinctly utthedifference fphilosophical startingpoints nthetwomajor thinkers ftwentieth-centurypain inthe follow-ing way.Whereas Unamuno starts n factfrom tragic ense of ife43 en-teredon insurmountableonflicts etween good and good (e. g., theconflictbetween intelligence nd feeling),Ortega startswith what in effects anepicsense of life centered on surmountableonflicts etween good andevil (e.g., thecorresponding onflict etweenintelligence nd unintelli-gence). Likeparallel inesin Euclidean geometry,Unamuno and Ortegacan never meet at a common point,because theydiffer ompletely ntheir acitpresuppositionsas to which type of conflict tragicor epic) iscentral o life.This is ultimatelyhereasonthat tragicmindand an epicmind have troubleunderstanding ach other:They arenottalking boutthe same thing n life. Period.In any event,we can now see moreclearly he second ofthe twointerconnected eforms n Ortega, by settinghis requestfor completechange of attitude oward ifeagainstthebackgroundofUnamuno, hisprincipal competitorn the field as well as his primary argetn Spain.Viewed inthis comparative ight, he clear-cut ivergency etweenUna-muno and Ortega ntheir verallevaluationsof ife nvolvesa fundamen-tal difference romthe start n the conceptionand solvability f life'sconflictsnd difficulties. s soon as this nitialdifferencefopiniononfundamentalss fully ecognized, tcan then be moreeasilyunderstoodwhy Ortega, the epic philosopher of Spain, firmly elieves thatlife'sproblems re solvableinprinciple ndwhy he is suspicious44 of the tragicphilosopher of Spain, Unamuno, who just as firmly elieves otherwiseinsofar s he unashamedlytries nd tries o defendtheactual unavoid-ability fthe ntrinsic ppositionbetweentherational nd the rrationalclaims of life,both of which are equally ustifiable n themselvesyetinperennialconflictwitheach other.45This thumbnail omparisonbetween Unamuno and Ortega is ofspecial relevance to our studyof Ramos. Althoughit is truefrom herecord so farpresented that the Mexican philosopherwas influencedmostlyby Ortega, an unacknowledged trace ofUnamuno appears, at90


12/22

THE PHILOSOPHY OF MEXICAN CULTUREleast indirectly,n his (Ramos's) complex thought.But, n the meantime,letus proceed to show concretely ow Ramos appropriates he Orteguianepic-oriented rinciple fEgo circumstansorhis own purposes, reservingthe next section of our essay for ome details on how he is promptedbythe Orteguian protest gainst European life n the nineteenth entury oreformMexican life ince independence from pain.Inan autobiographical tatementn theHistoria, he uthor mpha-sizes thatOrtega's starting oint Ego circumstans) ad servedhimas46a norm pplicable oMexico,whoserealitynd whoseproblems ere ompletelyunknown ophilosophy. hilosophical editationouldverywellbe of ervicenthedefinitionf heMexican nvironmentnd n thedeterminationfwhat s orcould eher ulture,akingnto ccounthedistinctiveeaturesf urhistoryndtheformnwhich he atter ave shapedthepeculiar hysiognomyfMexicanman.With hese bjectivesnmind, he uthor ublishedn 1934 book ntitledEl Perfil elHombre a CulturanMexico,n which n attempt as madefor hefirstime o explore hilosophicallyhehistoricalastofMexico or urposes fexplainingndclarifyinghe pecificraitsfherpresentife hatmightonstitutea sort f haracterologyf heMexican ndhis ulture. he uthor onsideredhispriornvestigationndispensableor asing he dealsof uture exicanife ponpositive ata.

The parallels between Ramos and Ortega are so strikingn thispassage that ven the former'sanguage smacks ofthe atter's, uchas theOrteguianterms"environment" circunstancia),physiognomy,""pro-file," nd "characterology.47Andyet,what s even morerevelatoryhantheircommon thought nd language is theircommon spiritof reform.Here the melioristic ttitude f the reformernd the self-confidenttti-tude of the epic hero go hand in hand. A reformers temperamentallyan epic soul who confidentlypproaches obstaclesto thegood life s evilsto be overcome through uch and such methodor course of action.Ortega used to pride himself s El Espectadorf Spain, but thedesignationsreally ppropriate ohis venerablecomichero nMeditationson Quixote:Cervantes, Spain's greatest pectatorand communicator fthe human comedy. Basically,malgreui, Ortega incarnates the epic or"warrior spirit"48fElReformador. arriors,whether heywielda swordor a pen, are too busy doing and undoing thingsto be disinterestedspectatorsof the human scene. With the hope ofsavinghis own nativeland from nternal roubles nd foreign blivion,what Ortega wanted toreform, bove all, s Spain. This s evident nhisEspaiia nvertebrada1921),the preludetoLa rebelionelas masas 1930).Similarly,hecentral imofhis Mexicandisciple,who had "faithnthe alvationofMexico,"49was, hopefully, o reformMexico. This hope ofsavingMexicofrom ocial evil s theprimemotivebehindRamos's entirephilosophy of Mexican culture. Needless to add, the Orteguian and

91


13/22

LatinAmerican esearch eviewRamosian proposalsfornationalreform ary n actual content ecause the"circumstances" n each arequitedifferent. fter ll,whileOrtegawroteafter hefall fSpain in1898,Ramos didso after heriseofMexico n1910.RAMOS ON THE MEXICAN AND HIS CULTUREThe book in whichour Mexican author spells out the reform orhis owncountry s, ofcourse, El perfil el hombre la cultura nMexico,his mostpublicized work. Althoughhe makes no specificmention fOrtega n thefirst wo editions (1934, 1938), the influence of his Spanish mentor'sEspania nvertebradan thePerfils so obvious thatperhaps he feltno needof referringpecifically o it. At any rate, what the two works share,besides theirgeneral epic spirit, s a common purpose and method ofapproach. Corresponding o Ortega's objective to "create a new type ofSpaniard" with n epic "sense ofconfidence" s Ramos's desire to createnew type ofMexican; and, corresponding o the former's psychologicalhistory"50 f Spanish culture as theproper way to Spain's problems sthe atter'spsychoanalytic istory f Mexicanculture s the properway,in turn,to Mexico's. Technically peaking,Ramos tookmuch more se-riously han Ortegathe then-popularmovement fpsychoanalysis, nd,of the"BigThree" (Sigmund Freud,CarlJung,AlfredAdler), Freud,thefounder f themovement,had the east and Adler thegreatest mpactonhis thought.51In the Prologue to the third edition (1951) of the Perfil,Ramosconveniently ellsthe reader what his task is all about in a single para-graph:52 The basic idea ofthisbook grewoutof tsauthor's ambition oestablish theorywhich would explainthe realcharacter fMexican manand hisculture.This taskcalled for ninterpretationfourhistorynd ledto thediscovery fcertainnationalvices,theknowledgeof which seemstome indispensableas a pointofdeparturefor seriousundertaking fthe spiritual eform fMexico."We may inferfrom his brief tatement hatthe starting ointofRamos's philosophy ofMexican culture s the Mexican counterpart fOrtega'ssituational ointofdeparture.Mexicanize the atter's gocircum-stans nd the ogicalresult s the former'sMexicanus ircumstans. estatedin classical terms, the Orteguian and Ramosian philosophical startingpoints reallyboil down to: "Spaniard,know thy circumstances," nd,"Mexican,knowthine," respectively.As the Mexicanwriter araphrasesAlexander Pope, "the proper studyof the Mexican is theMexican."53Thus,inRamos, thethemeofMexicoand herdestinys raised nprincipleto a philosophical evel of utmost mportance:The subject s no longeramerenational pastime or tourist ttraction.92


14/22

THE PHILOSOPHY OF MEXICAN CULTURERamos insists hat any real reformnMexican ifedependsfirst na profound reform n the characterof our people."54 This is why hesubmits n historical Psychoanalysisof the Mexican"55 s the precondi-tion for mproving the national characterof the Mexican people andfacilitatinghe nationalization fphilosophy nd culturenMexico.I havealready examined the psychoanalytic art of his work elsewhere.56 uf-fice it to say that Ramos's psychohistory f Mexico leans heavily onconcepts borrowed fromJung nd fromAdler, who once characterizedhimself s "the egitimate ather f the nferiorityomplex."57Maintainingthat he personality ype pt to acquire an inferiorityomplex s a Jungian"introvert,58 the authorof thePerfil tatesthat n his "essay a methodicalapplicationof Adler's psychological heories o the Mexican s attempted

for he first ime."59Ramos's thesis s thatcertain xpressions of Mexicanlife, imita-tion"ofEuropean and Anglo-American ulturenparticular,are waysofcompensatingfor n unconscious sense of nferiority."60e recognizesthatgerms of the Mexican syndromewere latent during the SpanishConquestand Colonization ofMexico,but stresses hat heydid notreallysurfaceuntil the struggleforpolitical ndependence at the beginningofthe last century,when the disparity etween ambitions nd capabilitiesbecame painfully evident.61Therefore, t is not at all surprising hatRamos no more likes the nineteenth enturynMexico particularlyhanOrtegadoes generally, lthoughtheir easonsfordislikingt differ ome-what. Allreformers, y calling, re specialists s towhich vices to removeandwhichvirtues o mprove. n the specific ase ofour author,his wholeearnest fforttreformanbe put quite simply.As bothfaithfulon oftheMexican Revolution nd faithfuliscipleofOrtega,theSpanishcastigatorof the Spaniards par excellence, amos is tellingand urginghis owncountrymen o replace theirnegative "sense of inferiority"s a peoplewith a positive"sense ofreality"62bout their ctual circumstances ndfuture ossibilities.Ramos had studiedmedicinefor number ofyearsbeforegoing into philosophy and, like an overeager psychiatrist, eambitiously ndertakes he mmense ob of diagnosingthe spiritual lls ofhis country y resorting o Adlerian psychoanalysis s the masterkey totheMexican malady caused, reportedly, y a collectivefeeling f nferi-ority.Whetherhe diagnoses themwell or,for hatmatter,whether heyare diagnosable at all on a nationalscale, is beside thepointhere.The profileRamos draws of the typicalpost-IndependenceMexi-can is notflatteringt all, and he deserves considerablecredit or t leastthe courage of attempting o "tell it like it is." As a matteroffact,hisAdlerian mage ofthe Mexican people is notonlyfarfrom retty,t s so

93


15/22

LatinAmerican esearch eviewabsolutelypathetic that no wonder he pleads for complete reformnMexican life, specially n the crucialarea of Mexican education, whoseguidingprinciple hould be, according o him,to make all future eachingrelevanto theMexicanspirit, o that"its faultsmaybe corrected nd itsvirtuesdeveloped, the goal being thecreation f humantype uperior othe existing."63Fortunately,however, apart from heir heterogeneity,here arereally not one but two mages of theMexican in the Perfil.One is theobviouspatheticmage developed at lengthbyRamos himself as socialreformer)nd discussed by his critics; he other s the subtletragicmage,leftundeveloped by Ramos (as cultural historian) and ignoredby hiscommentators.fthe firstmage corresponds o Ramos's "patho-analysis"oftheMexican,thesecondcorresponds o his"tragi-analysis," ocointheproper words for he difference. s anticipated lready, this eads to theindirect utdeep-rooted nfluence fUnamuno on our author.Unamuno is mentionedonlyonce inthePerfil,n connectionwiththe acute observation hathe is an exemplary ase ofSpanish individu-alism: "The curious thingabout Spain is thatthere one can become anindividualist ovirtually ny extreme nd stillbe a Spaniard."64But,theinfluence fUnamuno on Ramos appears indirectly nd profoundlyn areference o an admirer of the Basque poet: Ruben Darlo, the Poet ofNicaragua. 5Inmy udgment, heprofoundest hing n thePerfils thefollowingstatement onnecting he yric ryof theNicaraguan poetwiththe tragichistory fHispanic America:66RubenDarlo once criedthathis soul wastheobject of contention between the Cathedral and pagan ruins.' Isn'tthis,perhaps,a valid image of thedrama of America?Today very eriousproblemspersistbecause of the schismbetween the culture nspired nourcathedrals, nd theother,whichemanatesfrom ur ruins. Whenthetwo heritagesmetthey could notbe combined n thecreationofa newsynthesis."In view of thispenetrating nalysis nRamos ofhisown America,what exactly s the underlyingreason for the drama or tragic toryofHispanic America n generaland Mexico in particular? he concise an-swer may be put in the fitting hrase of Carlos Vaz Ferreira, notheradmirer of Unamuno and thefundador f Uruguayan philosophy: Nosynthesis fthe two culturesnvolvedwas possiblebecause of"the lash fideals."67 Reflecting ossiblyon Justo ierra,68he Porfirist istorian ndstatesmanwho is articulate bout theuniquedualancestry fthe Mexicanpeople,69Ramos not only generalizes himbut senses thatthe schismbetween the two heritagesof Hispanic America (Pagan and Catholic)

94


16/22

THE PHILOSOPHY OF MEXICAN CULTUREsignifies tragic onflict f cultures risingout of their nherent ncom-patibility s ways of ife,originally.And, lest thisparticular eference o the tragic roblemof Good inthe ife f a people be considered an isolated phenomenon nour Mexicanauthor, t should be added thatthe early Ramos was quite aware of theUnamunian"tragic ense of ife." This is evident,for ne thing,from issympathetic ketch of the contemporarywriterGiovanni Papini, "thetragic hilosopher"70f taly,prior o his conversion oCatholicism.Listentotheunusual insight f heyoung Ramos intothetragicife fPapini as aconscientious gnostic:71 Papini was religiousfrom hebeginning fhisspiritual dventures. He was a man athirst orfaith, ut who could notbelieve. His tragedy onsisted n the clash between a greatneed forfaithand an enormous criticalpower which made him sinkconstantlyntodoubt."Had the matureRamos taken seriouslyhis own early nsight ntoPapini's life nd developed it, he would have becomethetragic hiloso-pher of Mexico. But, as one swallow does not make a summer, thehistorical act s thatthe epic elementwins out over the tragic lement nRamos. His Perfilbears authenticwitness to this turn of events, andhistoriographymust respect the actual facts, rrespective f personalwishes or culturalbiases. Ramos, in a word, ends up epicallyas a re-former, entas he understandablys on improving he ot ofhis fellow-Mexicans.Nevertheless,to repeat,as a true Mexicanwith a mestizoulturalbackground,ourauthorstillretains tragic trainnhis complex ife ndthought.72On analogy with Papini, it could be said that his tragedyconsists nthe clash between a greatmoralneed toreformMexico,on theone hand,and an equally great ntellectual eed toacknowledgethehardfactsof her complicated history,on the other. This tragic conflict finterests s reflected ubtly but unmistakably n the subdued tone ofRamos as disinterested bserverof Mexican life.For, even with all his vigorous campaign against the alleged ficti-tiousway of ife n Mexico and his epic call for Mexican Reformation,Ramos was partiallyware of the unavoidable difficultiesnherentnhiswhole enterprise f national reform, specially since he could not com-pletely radicate from is mind the tragic amifications f thedual ances-tryof his own country,born from he highlydelicatemarriageof twoalternative utheterogeneous ypesofculture: panish and Amerindian.If the author had pondered furtherhe ever fascinating ubjectof themestizobirth f the Mexican people, hewould have come to thesoberingconclusionthat heyhave not suffered o much from purelyhypothetical

95


17/22

LatinAmerican esearch eviewcomplex f nferioritys from heveryrealcomplexityf their eculiar andprecariousorigins s newbornchildren f ndo-Spain.

True, though Ramos sensed that the tragic story of Mexico ismarkedthroughoutwith a dramaticquality ofconflicting orcesrepre-senting lashing deals of ifeand culture, s a good reformer e had todisregard, for political and moralreasons, what he realized as a goodhistorian.Even so, that comparison of theearly Ramos oftheHipotesis(1928), his first ook, with the laterRamos of thePerfil 1934) reveals adefinite hift fphilosophicinterest romUnamuno to Ortega,does innowise meanthathe lost histragic ense ofhistory ltogether.A sensitiveMexican like Ramos, whose hybrid oul is tragically ornbetween herCatholic and Aztec heritages, can hardly ignore the complexity ndtragedy f ife,no matter ow energetically e tries o do so inthe nterestofreform. o the extent hat his s trueourMexican moralist s definitelya neo-Orteguian.SOME CRITICAL COMMENTS ON RAMOSI would like tosum up by stating rieflymy own reservations oRamos'sbold attemptto nationalize philosophy in general and philosophy ofculturenparticular,owhichreference as made at theoutset.Toput myreservationsn theform f an embarrassing uestion: s "thephilosophyofMexican culture,"our author'sprofessedarea of nterestnspired byOrtega's situational views (includingthose on Spanish and Europeanculture), n intellectualprojectpossible ofrealization,philosophically?The authorofthePerfil hinks o, tobe sure, buthe isnottooconvincing,however.In the first lace, there s an ambiguity s to what Ramos'sPerfilsall about. It is not clear fromthe internalevidence of the book itself,whether t s "a seriousessayon socialpsychology,"on "characterology"and "philosophyofculture," r a seriesof notes onMexicanpsychology"oron "a Philosophyof MexicanHistory."73n otherwords,is it a contri-bution to thepsychologyrto thephilosophyf Mexicanculture?Judgedfrom ts actual contents,thework is in the main a well-intentioned utamateurishdiagnosis of the Mexicanpsychology; hat s,ofthe abnormalbehavior mputed throughout heirpostcolonialhistoryto the Mexican people as a whole, the common denominatorofwhosecharactertraits s, allegedly, "their antisocial nature."74But, thereissomethingwrong somewhere,especiallysincewe expectedfromRamosnotmerely psychology r a sociologyofMexicanculture ut aphilosophyof t. The reason that theMexican authorhardlygoes beyondhis pro-grammaticntentions f making positivecase for nationalphilosophy96


18/22

THE PHILOSOPHY OF MEXICAN CULTUREofMexico, is thathe really annot, strictlypeaking. As the earlyRamosinitially ealized only too well, philosophy s such belongs to "thesphereof the universal"75 nd, ifso, philosophy ofMexicanculture orhistory)cannotbe philosophyxcept by fiat, x hypothesi. brand oftequila, forexample,can be marked"Made in Mexico," but a brandofphilosophycannot at east,not nthesame sense). Fortunately,s was pointedoutatthe very beginning, Ramos is no Mexican chauvinistbecause, foronething,he is prudentenough (in principle) o steer middlecourse (criol-lismo) etweenanextremendigenism nd an extreme uropeanism nhisapproachtoMexico's nationalculture, f whichhis searchfor nationalphilosophyforms n integral art. 6Yet, this s all the more reason for he necessityofdifferentiatingclearly nd distinctly etween philosophyas a country's ultural ctivityand a nationalphilosophyas a propaganda piece. Furthermore, espitehis theoretical trictures n cultural xtremism n Mexico, Ramos in factunfortunately avers between a universalist nd a nationalist pproachto Mexicanculture.7 Apparently, ewants to have his two cakes and eatthem! This wavering on his part is another sign of ambiguity. Suchambiguity s fatalparticularlyn philosophy, where claritys of the es-sence. Ironically, oOrteguiansespecially, s claritys the cardinalvirtueofman, so ambiguitys his cardinalvice.

In thesecond place, the name "philosophyofMexican culture" nRamos is really misnomer ecause, to avert he riskofbeingmisunder-stood, he, as an Orteguian perspectivist,hould have called itproperly,say,philosophyofculture rom Mexican oint fview. This correction fnomenclature itsnwithhisown definition fMexicanculture, ywhichhe means "universal culturemade over into ourown,thekind thatcancoexistwithus and appropriately xpressourspirit."78 uch definitionsnotonlyof nterest o socialphilosophybutpregnantwithcultural ignifi-cance for ll ofus, be we Mexicanornot. Forit nvitesus to reassess thedistinctive ervice thatMexico's own contributions o culture ould ren-der nthiscompactworldof ours, which sbeginning olearn at long astfromdailyevents that there are no chosen people of cultureexceptforthose who stillcontinue to be naively or complacentlyblind to socialreality.Finally, o end on a more positivenote, Ramos in the ast analysisthinks,despitehis occasionally strongnationalistic ias to thecontrary,thatthe ideal of Mexican cultureshould aspire to the goal of Ortega's"general human culture,"79 owit,"the achievementof a new human-ism."80Rightly rwrongly, his swhyour authorcontendsthathis twobooks, ProfilefMan andCulturen Mexico 1934) and Toward New Hu-manism1940), are logically interrelated, ne being theconsequence of

97


19/22

LatinAmerican esearch eviewthe other."'81n any case, if t s not too late or too early,his neo-humanis-tic perspectiveon life,designed to check the dehumanizationofmanbyfocusing n our need of cquiring higher ense ofvalues, mayalertus tothe current angers of a computerizedworld.Like many a vigilant humanist and scientist verywhere oday,Ramos is deeply troubled over the untold harm that the Colossus ofmodern technologymay be doing to the human spirit.His sober reflec-tions on the thorny ubject from Mexican standpointshould elicit atimelyresponse from ll of us presentlyconcerned over the loomingshadow of modern civilization nd the Orwellian predicamentof con-temporaryman, who seems to be franticallytockpilingmanifold orts finformationt the expense of he vital earchforwisdom, which, fter ll,is philosophy at its best regardless of when and where. In sum, theancientbut triedpreceptof the Platonic Socrates on the primacy f self-examination, Know thyself," owhichRamos himself ltimatelyurnsas the proper antidoteforMexico to the pathetic "self-denigration"82ascribedby himto his own Mexican people with remedialpurposes inmind,stillholds independently s theperfect uide to lifefor ll eventu-alities facingpersons and peoples, under whatever culture.N O T E S1. For such passing allusions in their deological writings n Mexico and kindredmattersas speculative ntecedents fthe methodical nd soberworkofRamos in thefield, ideespecially Antonio Caso, Discursos la naci6nmexicana Mexico City:LibreriaPorruia,1922), and El problema e Mexicoy a ideologia acional Mexico City:Cultura,1924); also,JoseVasconcelos and Manuel Gamio, Aspects fMexicanCivilizationChicago: Univer-sity of Chicago Press, 1926), pp. 3-102, and Jose Vasconcelos, La raza c6smica Paris:Agencia Mundial de Libreria, 1925), and Indologia Barcelona: Agencia Mundial deLibreria, 927).2. Samuel Ramos, Historia e la filosofian Mexico Mexico City: mprentaUniversitaria,1943), p. 153.3. Ibid., p. 149. The name "Contemporaneos" for Ramos's generationderives fromliterary ociety nd journal founded n1928 bya Mexicangroupofyoung writers. ormore details on thegeneraldissatisfactionfRamos and hisgenerationwiththe Berg-sonian romanticismnCaso and Vasconcelos,thetwo eading philosophersofthepre-vious generation 1910) in Mexico, see my essay on "Don Antonio Caso y las ideascontemporaneas en Mexico" in the joint memorial volume, Centro de EstudiosFilos6ficos,HomnenajeAntonio aso (Mexico City:Editorial tylo, 1947), pp. 77-91.4. JoseOrtega y Gasset, "Ni VitalismoniRacionalismo," reprintednObras ompletas,thed., vol. 3 (Madrid: Revistade Occidente, 1962), pp. 270-80.5. JoseRomanoMufioz,"Ni irracionalismo iracionalismo, inofilosofia ritica,"Ulises,1 (1927):4-10.6. Ramos, Historia, . 151.7. Ortega, Goethedesde dentroMadrid: Revista de Occidente, 1933), p. xxiv; Ortega,ConcordndLiberty,rans.H. Weyl New York:Norton, 1946), p. 184.8. Ortega, El tema e nuestro iempo, th ed. (Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1955), p. 96.9. Ramos, Profile fMan and CulturenMexico, rans.PeterG. Earle Austin:University fTexas Press, 1962), p. 108. There are four ditions ofEl perfil elhombre la cultura n

98


20/22

THE PHILOSOPHY OF MEXICAN CULTUREMexico 1934, 1938,1951, 1963); the English ranslation fRamos's majorwork sbasedon the third dition 1951).10. Ortega, Tema,p. 97.11. Ibid., p. 99.12. Ibid.13. Ortega, Concord, . 13.14. Ramos, Historia, . 150.15. Ramos is the translator f WilhelmDilthey, La esenciade la filosofiaMexico City:Filosofiay Letras,1944).16. Ramos, Historia, . 150.17. Ramos,Hacia un nuevo umanismoMexico City:La Casa de Espafia enMexico, 1940), p.40.18. Charles M. Bakewell, ed., Source Book n AncientPhilosophy, ev. ed. (New York:CharlesScribner'sSons, 1939), p. 67.19. Ortega, Tema,p. 100.20. Ibid., p. 101.

21. B. A. G. Fuller,A History fPhilosophy, rded., pt. 2 (New York: Holt, Rinehart ndWinston, 1960), p. 499,coins theword "patriocentrism."22. Ramos, Historia, p. 150, 153.23. Ortega, Meditacionesel Quijote,5th ed. (Madrid: Revistade Occidente, 1958), p. 18.24. Ibid., p. 38. Mi vida n the ater Ortega is equivalent,ofcourse,to mi situaci6nn theearlier.25. Ibid., p. 9.26. Ibid., p. 47.27. Ortega, Tema,pp. 91-94.28. Ibid., p. 91.29. Ibid., p. 92..30. Ortega, nvertebratepain, trans. Mildred Adams (New York:Norton, 1937), p. 179.31. Cf.Ramos, Hip6tesis1924-1927) Mexico City: Ediciones de "Ulises," 1928), pp. 5-8;and Ramos, Profile, . 98.32. Ortega, TripticoBuenos Aires:Espasa-Calpe Argentina, 941), pp. 130-32.33. Ortega, Meditaciones,p. 90-101,124-27.34. Aristotle, oetics, , 1449b 23.35. Ortega, Meditaciones, . 125.36. PatrickRomanell,Making f heMexicanMind Lincoln: University f NebraskaPress,1952), p. 22. The presentwriter as sincedeveloped the formal ypology f ife'scon-flictsn severalpublications n medical ethics,but the distinction etween theProblemofEviland theProblemofGood is as applicableto the ntellectual s tothemoral ideoflife.37. Tragedy and tragic re two of the most grosslymisunderstoodwords in our vocabu-lary. n popular diction, ragedy s always confusedwithan unforeseen nd terriblemishap, and in theaestheticfieldthetragic s ordinarily onfusedwiththepathetic.(Otherwise, why would we persistin the errorof calling Shakespeare's Othelloatragedy?) n eithercase, whethertragedy s made descriptiveof some disasterorpathos, thetragic ualityofexperiencegetsassociated bymistakewith thecommonProblem of Evil n the world of fact nd fiction, hereby osing tsproper dentitywiththerarer utmorepoignantProblem of Good in life.38. Ortega, Meditaciones,. 100.39. Ibid., p. 125.40. Ibid., pp. 1, 13.41. Is Aeschylustheteopoeta rtega'sblindforUnamuno, the heologicalpoet ofcontem-porarySpain?42. Ortega, nvertebratepain, p. 92.

43. Miguelde Unamuno, Tragic ense f ife, rans.J.E. Crawford itch New York:DoverPublications, nc., 1954), p. 37.44. Ortega, Meditaciones, p. 73,65.

99


21/22

LatinAmerican esearch eview45. Unamuno, Tragic ense,p. 124.46. Ramos, Historia, . 153.47. Cf.Ortega,Goethe, . 133, for hegeneralreferenceo"a characterologyfpeoples and

races.".48. Ortega, nvertebratepain, pp. 130-36.49. Ramos, Profile, . 11.50. Ortega, nvertebratepain, pp. 87, 132,48.51. For Ortega's critical stand on Freudian psychoanalysis, see his 1911 article,"Psicoanalisis, ciencia problematica," eprinted n ObrasCompletas, ol. 1, pp. 216-37.52. Ramos, Profile, . 4.53. Ibid., p. 168.54. Ibid., p. 4.55. Ibid., pp. 15-72. The Orteguiancounterpart f the Ramosian characterology f theMexican s"Toward a Topographyof Spanish Arrogance,"published originally1923)in Revistade Occidente nd reprinted n Goethe esdedentro 1933). As is well known,Ortega thinksthat the cardinal sin of the Spaniard is soberbia,whose opposite isabyecci6nGoethe, p. 128, 136). Curiously nough the atter,nthe form f"inferioritycomplex" (AlfredAdler) or autodenigraci6nCarlos Pereyra), s thecardinalsinoftheMexican forRamos (Profile, . 17),56. Romanell, Making ftheMexicanMind, pp. 163-66; "Ortega in Mexico: A TributetoSamuel Ramos," Journal ftheHistory f deas 21 (1960): 600-608;book reviewoftheProfile,n nter-AmericaneviewfBibliography3 1963): 44-46;Mexican ducationnCultural erspective,d., StanleyD. Ivie (University f Arizona: College ofEducation,Monograph Series, no. 5, 1971),pp. 32-49.57. Time, 0 June1958, p. 62.58. Ramos, Profile, p. 7-8, 70, 128,138,143.59. Ibid., p. 56.60. Ibid., pp. 18, 9.61. Ibid., pp. 9-10.62. Ibid., pp. 56, 11.63. Ramos, Veinte inos e educaci6n nMxico (Mexico City: mprentaUniversitaria, 941),p. 80.64. Ramos, Profile, . 29.65. Ruben Dario, "Unamuno poeta," La Naci6n Buenos Aires: March1909).66. Ramos, Profile, . 85.67. Carols Vaz Ferreira, studios ilos6ficosBuenos Aires: Aguilar,1961), p. 273.For his n-tellectualrelationswithUnamuno, videVaz's Tres il6sofose la vida:Nietzsche, ames,Unamuno Buenos Aires:Losada, 1965), pp. 199-241.68. VideRamos, Profile, p. 23-24, 131, 161-66, forreferences o Sierra.69. Justo ierra, ThePolitical volution f heMexican eople, rans. CharlesRamsdell Au-

stin:University f Texas Press, 1969), p. 62.70. Ramos, Hip6tesis, p. 39, 56.71. Ibid., p. 59.72. Ramos, Profile, p. 26, 31, 32, 35, 36, 63, 169.To complicatematters,Ramos is annoy-ingly nconsistentn histreatmentfMexico's culturalmestizaje,utthisvery nconsis-tencyonly pointsto thetragic lash withintheMexican authorhimself s a mestizomentality.73. Ibid., pp. 4, 72, 22.74. Ibid., p. 174.75. Ramos, Hip6tesis, . 109.76. Ramos, Profile, p. 73-76,97-98, 102, 106-8,110-25. The earlierSpanish analogue ofRamos's problem of cultural assimilation in Mexico is the hispani-zante-versus-europeizanterand debate in Spain. Just s Ortega had builtup a caseagainstslavish mitation fEurope inSpain, so Ramos does likewise gainst Mexicanmimesis" (ibid.,p. 19).77. Ibid., pp. 108, 131.

100


22/22

THE PHILOSOPHY OF MEXICAN CULTURE78. Ibid., p. 108.79. Ortega, nvertebratepain, p. 39.80. Ramos, Profile, . 12.81. Ibid., p. 12. Despite this xplicit ontention fhis n thePrologue to thethird ditionofthe Profile1951), Ramos does not seem to realize thathis very cknowledgment, hat"the problem of the essence of man is a question of general naturewhich should betreated n abstracto, ithout eference oany case inparticular" ibid., p. 12), flatly on-tradicts is originalOrteguian revolt gainst the universalistic laim and aim oftradi-tional philosophy-which (to recall his own words) "has always pretendedto ook atthings rom hestandpoint fman ingeneral" Historia, . 149). For, f t spretentiousto philosophize about the universe n abstracto,imilarly t s pretentious o philoso-phize about man likewise. Besides, ironically nough, the prefatorycknowledgmentitself f 1951 also destroysRamos's own originalneo-Orteguian basis for the epis-temological ustification f nationalphilosophy" ibid., p. 149). Even so,witnessoncemore in new form) he tragic ilemma ofRamos the neo-Orteguian 1943) and Ramosthe neo-humanist 1951), as reflected ubtly nhis unconscious shift rom ne idea ofphilosophy the antitraditional) o another the traditional).This dilemma n Ramosthe neo-humanisticnationalist f Mexico originates romhis whole effort o do equaljustice to two ideals of man which, as postulated n the author's particular cheme ofthought, are individually attractivebut mutually exclusive: The neo-Orteguianlocalized ideal of Mexicanman n theconcrete Profile, p. 97-98, 154-56), on the onehand, and the neo-humanistuniversalized deal ofthe omplete an s such (Hacia, pp.72, 154), on theother. Either deal of man may be defended separately in theory tleast) without lashing with the other,but not both at the same time, xcept by com-promising he theoretical ssue eclectically, s Ramos trieddesperately n the end toavoid an unavoidable choice confronting im squarely as pioneer defender of thenationalization fthe Mexicanmind.82. Ramos, Profile, p. 72, 17.

101

unamuno y ortega en mexico

Documents