The mosses of Easter Island

The bryophyte flora of Easter Island has been poorly known primarily because few botanists have collected there. In order to increase the knowledge of the flora the two authors collected bryophytes from 12 localities on the island from April 28-May 3, 2000. The small island, which is south of the Tropic of Capricorn, is of volcanic origin and the volcanic soil as well as the destruction of most of the native flora have undoubtedly contributed to the paucity of bryophytes. The present study revealed that the bryophyte flora consists of only a few species, including one unidentifiable member of the Anthocerotaceae, 11 hepatics and 30 mosses. Eighteen mosses are new to the island. Three mosses, Chenia leptophylla (Müll. Hal.) R. H. Zander, Dicranella hawaiica (Müll. Hal.) Broth. and Tortella humilis (Hedw.) Jennings, are new for Chile, while three, Fissidens pascuanus Broth. in Skottsb., Ptychomitrium subcylindricum Thér. and Trematodon pascuanus Thér., are presently known to be endemic to Easter Island. Two of the three endemics, Fissidens pascuanus and Ptychomitrium subcylindricum, were rediscovered on the island. Fissidens pascuanus was found with sporophytes for the first time and a revised description of the species is provided

Political Liberalism and the Scientific Claims of Religion

Political liberalism is said to be neutral between what John Rawls called comprehensive doctrines. These doctrines are usually defined by their ethical and philosophical claims. However, how political liberalism should address factual disagreements in pluralistic societies is less clear. This is the broader question that this work aims to tackle. At a more specific level, the normative question is how liberal institutions should deal with factual claims put forward by religious traditions and communities. I take evolution vs. creationism as a case in point. While the former is a widely-accepted theory within scientific circles, the latter is advocated by religious groups in the US and elsewhere. The question is thus whether the liberal state can legitimately enlist its educational resources to teach Darwinism and exclude creationism as the true story about our origins. To this, creationists claim that (a) as Darwinism is a philosophically naturalistic doctrine, its exclusive teaching violates the promise of liberal neutrality to the detriment of non-naturalistic worldviews; and (b) liberal institutions – from courts of justice to educational boards and executive officials - are promoting a materialistic understanding of the scientific project by arbitrarily disallowing supernatural hypotheses. Accordingly, the best way to honour both metaphysical and epistemological fairness is to treat evolutionary theory and its foes in a balanced way within the framework of mandatory scientific education. Hence, the Creationist Claim (CC) is advanced as a logical implication of political liberalism’s purported impartiality. The first part of this thesis addresses three arguments that liberal theorists have articulated to dismiss CC: (i) Darwinian evolution is just a scientific theory, (ii) religion should not address matters of factuality, and (iii) science cannot handle supernatural hypotheses by definition. But these replies are unconvincing. I argue that Darwinism can be suitably presented as a partial worldview; that most religious narratives incorporate factual claims; and that theistic hypotheses should not be excluded from the purview of science under the disguise of a purely methodological naturalism. Nonetheless, this does not mean that creationism should be taught in the biology classroom. The second part of the thesis aims to provide a public justification for the exclusive teaching of Darwinian evolution. After distinguishing between two stages of liberal neutrality, I argue that the state is legitimated to adjudicate between competing factual claims through fair procedures, an adjudication that is indifferent to the naturalistic or supernaturalistic character of the hypotheses. Two justificatory strategies are then pursued. The first reconstructs the problem by mimicking the conditions of the Rawlsian Original Position, tracking the educational goods that every citizen under the veil of ignorance would sign up for. It concludes that a commitment to the aims of a broadly liberal education leads to the notion that every future citizen is entitled to an adequate degree of scientific literacy, which includes an understanding of the most fundamental idea in life sciences: evolution. The second appeals to Rawls’s suggestion that public reason encompasses the uncontroversial methods and conclusions of science. After addressing several possible objections, I conclude that scientific reasoning is a paradigmatic case of public reasoning, thus suitable for the aims of liberal public justification. Further, it offers a theory to think about scientific reasoning as an extension of everyday reasoning and common sense, a crucial assumption from which we can assert epistemic shared grounds. As a conclusion, this thesis argues that factual disagreements – such as the one that divides pluralistic societies over cosmic narratives - should be addressed by liberals within parameters of public justification, because this is the best way to show respect to all citizens. The scientific claims of religion might well be discarded, not because they are religious but because they fail to provide evidential support in a world in which scientific reasoning works as public epistemology

La mano invisible y el relojero ciego: los límites del paralelo Smith-Darwin

Throughout the history of economic thought and political philosophy, many have identified a common thread between the ideas of Adam Smith and Charles Darwin. In the same way that Smith showed how national wealth and aggregate prosperity are unintended consequences of competition among individuals driven by their selfinterest, Darwin showed how complex design and ecological balance are unintended consequences of competition among organisms. The analogy, notably defended by F. A. Hayek, states that the economic and natural orders were not deliberately designed from the top-down, but they emerged spontaneously from the bottom-up. Taking Hayek’s lead, contemporary popular science writers and political theorists have argued that creationists and “Intelligent Designers” who follow Smith in economics should accept Darwinian mechanisms to explain biodiversity. Otherwise, they are guilty of philosophical inconsistency. The same charge has been levelled against socialists who accept Darwin’s ‘blind watchmaker’ in nature but reject Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ in economics. The paper explores this charge and finds it vulnerable indifferent ways. Among other problems, it violates Hume’s dictum that we do not derive ought from is; it obscures the differences in which individual agency deploys in biology and economics; it underestimates the specific non-chaotic conditions in which each order emerges; it ignores the epistemic features of an omniscient god in Christian theology; and it misreads the extension that Hayek himself gave to the Smith-Darwin analogy.A lo largo de la historia reciente del pensamiento económico y la teoría política, muchos han identificado un hilo común entre las ideas de Adam Smith y Charles Darwin. El paralelo sostiene que, de la misma manera en que Smith demostró que la riqueza de las naciones y la prosperidad de los pueblos son consecuencias inintencionadas de la competencia entre individuos persiguiendo su interés propio, Darwin demostró de qué manera el diseño complejo de las especies y el equilibrio ecológico eran consecuencias de la competencia entre organismos por sobrevivir y reproducirse. Este paralelo, articulado notablemente por F.A. Hayek, sugiere que ni el orden económico ni el orden natural fueron diseñados deliberadamente de arriba-hacia-abajo, sino que emergieron espontáneamente de abajo-hacia-arriba. A partir de las observaciones de Hayek, popularizadores de la ciencia y teóricos políticos de nuestro tiempo han sostenido que los creacionistas y partidarios de la tesis del “Diseño Inteligente” que siguen las ideas de Smith en el campo económico, deberían aceptar los mecanismos darwinianos para explicar la biodiversidad. De lo contrario, serían culpables de inconsistencia filosófica. El mismo cargo se sostiene contra los socialistas que aceptan la acción del ‘relojero ciego’ darwiniano, pero rechazan la acción de la ‘mano invisible’ smithiana. El presente artículo examina este cargo y concluye que es vulnerable en varios sentidos. Entre ellos, viola la Ley de Hume que establece que no se pueden derivar conclusiones normativas de premisas fácticas; difumina los distintos tipos de agencia individual en la economía y la biología; subestima las particulares condiciones en las cuales cada orden emerge; ignora las características epistémicas de dios cristiano; y hace una lectura incorrecta de la extensión que el propio Hayek daba al paralelo entre Smith y Darwin

It's easier said than done. On Kast & Republicanos’ constitutional failure

La irrupción de José Antonio Kast y el partido Republicano en Chile ha sido recientemente interpretada como parte del ascenso de una derecha populista radical en el Latinoamérica. Tras el buen desempeño de Kast en las elecciones presidenciales de 2021, su partido Republicanos logró el control político del Consejo Constitucional que tenía por misión elaborar una nueva constitución para Chile, tras el fracaso del primer proceso constituyente liderado por la izquierda. Aunque Republicanos nunca quiso cambiar la Constitución heredada de la dictadura, se encontró en la paradojal situación de elaborar una propuesta a su imagen y semejanza. Este artículo ilustra el diagnóstico y la estrategia de Republicanos en dicho proceso constituyente, que operó sobre la premisa de un país conservador, desechó la búsqueda de consensos, optó por una narrativa adversarial, y ofreció un texto con su propio ADN ideológico, que fue finalmente rechazado por la ciudadanía en un nuevo referéndum celebrado en diciembre de 2023. El caso ejemplifica las dificultades de los partidos de protesta en el poder, ya que, si bien vehiculizan exitosamente el descontento con la política tradicional, son incapaces de moderar posiciones y forjar acuerdos transversales con un propósito común.The emergence of José Antonio Kast and its Partido Republicano in Chile has been framed within the rise of a radical populist right in Latin America. After Kast’s good performance in the 2021 presidential elections, Republicanos achieved political control of the Constitutional Council whose mission was to draft a brand-new constitution for Chile, after the failure of the first constituent process led by the radical left. Although Republicans never really wanted to change the Constitution inherited from the dictatorship, they found themselves in the paradoxical situation of drafting a proposal at their will. This article illustrates Kast and Republicanos’ diagnosis and strategy in this second constituent attempt, premised on the belief that Chile was a conservative country, and thus discarded the search for consensus and opted for an adversarial narrative, offering a constitutional proposal with its own ideological DNA, which was finally rejected by citizens in a new referendum held in December 2023. This case exemplifies the difficulties of “protest parties” in power, since, although they successfully convey discontent with traditional politics, they are incapable of moderating positions and hence forging wide agreements with a common purpose

Populismo como democracia iliberal: Una hipótesis sobre el estallido social chileno

A number of interpretations have been put forward regarding the social uprising that occurred in Chile in late 2019. This article situates the events within the global climate of populism, a phenomenon understood as a response to the democratic deficits of contemporary liberal democracies. While the liberal literature on the subject is critical of populism, accusing it of undermining typically liberal principles and institutions, authors nonetheless recognize its democratic potential. This tension recreates the canonical distinction between liberalism and democracy. In this context, we go beyond a normative appraisal of the Chilean uprising to argue that it presents characteristics identifiable as populist within both the liberal and radical conceptual frameworks, and that the unrest can be interpreted as a denouncement of the current workings of liberal democracy, seen as incapable of properly processing the will of the people.Se han postulado distintas interpretaciones del estallido social chileno de 2019. Sin perjuicio de ello, este artículo sitúa la protesta y movilización en el marco de un clima populista global, entendido como una reacción al déficit democrático de las democracias liberales contemporáneas. Si bien la literatura liberal es crítica del fenómeno populista por su desprecio a una serie de principios e instituciones del liberalismo, le reconoce de todas formas su potencial democratizador. Esta tensión, recrea la distinción canónica entre liberalismo y democracia. A partir de lo anterior, se concluye que más allá de su evaluación normativa, el estallido social chileno trasunta elementos que son populistas tanto en la conceptualización liberal como en la radical, y admite una lectura como reclamo en contra del funcionamiento de la democracia liberal por su incapacidad de procesar correctamente la voluntad popular

Experiencias ajenas, recorridos compartidos: Boca de lobo de Sergio Chejfec

El artículo rastrea los elementos y los mecanismos por medio los cuales Boca de lobo (2000), de Sergio Chejfec, hace convivir signos culturales fuertemente connotados, en especial aquellos relacionados con el universo semántico del mundo proletario, con otros caracterizados por la ambigüedad y la suspensión del sujeto como conciencia organizadora y rectora de la representación. Procuro leer una figuración del límite como experiencia y como dispositivo narrativo en el paisaje, los personajes y los objetos en la novela para encontrar los modos en que estos inquietan y subvierten los propósitos y los programas del relato. O artigo rasteja os elementos e os mecanismos pelos quais Boca de lobo (2000), de Sergio Chejfec, faz com que convivam signos culturais fortemente conotados, especialmente os relacionados com o universo semântico do mundo proletário, com outros caraterizados pela ambigüidade e a suspensão do sujeito como conciência organizadora e reitora da representação. Procuro ler uma figuração do limite como experiência e como dispositivo narrativo na paisagem, nas personagens e nos objetos do romance para indagar como eles inquietam e subvertem os propósitos e os programas do relato. This article tracks the elements and mechanisms through which Sergio Chjefec’s Boca de lobo meets strongly connoted cultural signs, specially those ones related to the semantic universe of the proletarian world, with others signs characterized by ambiguity and the suspension of the Subject as consciousness that organizes and regulates the system of representation. I look forward to find a representation of the limit as experience and as a narrative device in the landscape, the characters and the objects in the novel in order to find the ways in which they disturb and undermine the purposes and the programs of the story.

Sin agonismo no hay paraíso: Polarización y populismo en el proceso constituyente chileno

El proceso constituyente chileno ha sido interpretado como la canalización institucional y democrática del denominado “estallido social” de octubre de 2019. Aunque sus causas siguen siendo debatidas, el presente artículo lo presupone como una impugnación al rol de las élites políticas y económicas de la transición, así como una reivindicación de sectores tradicionalmente marginados de la toma de decisiones. De estas características emana una hipótesis populista del estallido social, que se ha proyectado en el proceso constituyente chileno. Uno de los elementos de esta hipótesis populista es la crítica a la comprensión consensual de la política, propia de la tradición deliberativa liberal, acusada de neutralizar el conflicto y disfrazar la hegemonía de racionalidad técnica. El presente artículo sostiene que, contra esta comprensión consensual, el proceso constituyente tiende a una comprensión agonista de la política, para la cual la política es esencialmente adversarial, y la legitimidad de la nueva norma es el resultado de una disputa democrática por el poder. Las condiciones de polarización que usualmente se denuncian como problemáticas para alcanzar acuerdos en el centro son, en este caso, funcionales a esta comprensión agonista, en la medida que transparentan la amplitud del arco ideológico y visibilizan a actores habitualmente excluidos. En tanto el proceso constituyente continúa su marcha, es muy temprano para saber si la  combinación entre populismo y polarización imprime nuevo vigor a la democracia chilena, o bien una excesiva fuerza centrífuga pone en riesgo su estabilidad

Lo verdadero y lo posible: La polémica entre Borges y Mallea en los primeros años de sur

This essay reads the fictional and critical texts published by Jorge Luis Borges and Eduardo Mallea during Revista Sur’s early years. (Revista Sur was founded by Victoria Ocampo and had a crucial part in the constitution of Argentine’s literary field during the 20th century’s first half, apart from being the ideal space for the Latinamerican’s most important intelectual interventions and disputes). The goal is to examine the paradigms that these two authors stablish among the struggles for the poetic arts’ acknowledgment in early XX’s. The analysis of the publications made by these writers between 1931 and 1944 in Sur allows to observe a meaningful divergence in the history of Argentinian and Latinamerican literature that accentuates itself as both writers consolidate their work in the literary field. Also, this work seeks to analize the first productions of two essential writers of Latinamerica’s literature.El presente trabajo toma como eje los textos críticos y de ficción publicados por Jorge Luis Borges y Eduardo Mallea durante los primeros años de la RevistaSur (fundada por Victoria Ocampo, decisiva en la constitución del campo literario en la primera mitad del siglo XX argentino y escenario de las más importantes intervenciones y disputas intelectuales de América Latina) para examinar los paradigmas que estos dos escritores establecen en las luchas por la legitimación de las poéticas a comienzos de siglo. El análisis de las publicaciones hechas por estos dos autores entre 1931 y 1944 permite observar una divergencia que será significativa en la historia de la literatura argentina (y, también, latinoamericana) y que se acentúa a medida que ambos escritores se afianzan en el ambiente literario argentino; es esta divergencia lo que el trabajo busca leer con el fin de establecer y evaluar dos corrientes de la literatura que aún hoy escenifican tensiones productivas en el campo literario y para releer, al mismo tiempo, las primeras producciones de dos escritores decisivos en la literatura del continente