Literatura académica sobre el tema "Pierre (1913-1955)"

L’expérience postmoderne entraîne Lyotard à déclarer le déclin des métarécits et la perte de la raison universelle et unificatrice qui les rend possibles, alors que l’expérience chrétienne conduit Thévenaz à renverser radicalement toute pensée philosophique. Face à la crise de la raison, Lyotard aboutit à prétendre la mort de la philosophie par les voies de post-modernité expérimentale, alors que Thévenaz prétend la nécessité de la philosophie par l’analyse réflexive dans une perspective chrétienne. Il s’agit donc d’un passage d’un philosophe incroyant à un philosophe croyant. Car l��imputation de folie par la Parole de Dieu – la sagesse de ce monde n’est que folie devant Dieu – pénètre dans toute la démarche de la pensée philosophique. En contestant ainsi radicalement la raison elle-même, elle rend possible l’explicitation de la conscience de soi et la radicalisation de la philosophie. A partir de cette perspective chrétienne, qui est la philosophie de la vocation et de la responsabilité, surgit la philosophie autonome. Cette thèse sera donc à la fois une approche anthropologique sur l’homme et la réexamination du statut ontologique de la raison dans cette perspective chrétienne
The post-modern experience lead Lyotard to declare the delcline of the meta-récits and loss of the universal reason which makes them possible, whereas the christian experience lead Thévenaz to upset fundamentally all of the philosopic thought. From the crisis of the reason, the former is arrived to pretend the death of the philosophy by the way ot the post-modernity, whereas the latter pretends the necessity of the philosophy by the reflexive analysis in a christian perspective. Therefore, that is the problem of the passage from a non-christian philosopher to a christian philosopher. Because the imputation of the foolishness by the word of God – For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God – penetrate in all of the course of the philosophic thought. Reason makes possible the manifestation of the self-consciousness and the radicalization of the philosophy. From the christian perspective, which is the philosophy of the vocation et of the responsibility, spring up the autonomous philosophy. This thesis would be therefore at the same time an anthropological reproach on man and the re-examination of the ontological status of the reason in this christian perspective

Echando mano de un basamento teórico-conceptual que bebe de la filosofía, la teoría literaria, la sociología y la historia, Juan Pablo Pino Posada se adentra en los pliegues de la obra del poeta colombiano Aurelio Arturo (La Unión, 1906 - Bogotá, 1974) con el propósito de estudiar las maneras en que las nociones de “espacio” y “subjetividad” se trenzan y ponen de manifiesto las tensiones propias de la modernidad tardía. Lo verdaderamente singular de este libro estriba en que su aproximación, al ser de carácter histórico-narrativo, permite pensar los tres periodos creativos de la lírica arturiana –el de su juventud, su adultez y su vejez–, y las espacialidades (sean estas vividas, imaginarias o metafóricas) en torno a las cuales dichos periodos se forjan, como ejes constitutivos de un todo, de una unidad, de un “relato” (aristotélicamente hablando) que ofrece posibles respuestas a la pregunta tardomoderna por la interacción de la subjetividad consigo misma y con el lenguaje. Dejando de lado a José Eustasio Rivera (1888-1928), cuya producción lírica continúa siendo esquiva a rotulaciones generacionales, en el transcurso de esta travesía el autor logra entroncar a Arturo con Los Nuevos (1925), Piedra y Cielo (1939-c. 1944), la revista Mito (1955-1962), el Nadaísmo (1958-1974) y la Generación desencantada (1974-c. 1990), vistos de manera sinecdótica en poetas como Rafael Maya (1897-1980), Eduardo Carranza (1913-1985), Jorge Gaitán Durán (1924-1962), Jaime Jaramillo Escobar (1932) y José Manuel Arango (1937-2002), respectivamente. Lo anterior, pese a estar ceñido al siempre canonizante método generacional (hoy tan cuestionado al interior del campo de los Estudios Literarios), revela el interés de Pino Posada por desterrar el vicio que ha hecho que cierto sector de la crítica siga viendo a Arturo como una figura “insular”, ajena a los múltiples y diversos senderos poéticos del país. Estamos ante un trabajo riguroso, sensible y necesario para los estudios poetológicos en Colombia.

Abstract The duty on the part of manufacturers to incorporate features in equipment for the sole purpose of protecting workers and bystanders from injury grew out of the advent of worker’s compensation legislation in the second decade of the twentieth century. The new legal landscape suddenly made safe design an issue that impacted the bottom line of industrial employers through reduced insurance premiums. This was the impetus for the newly formed National Safety Council in 1913, which drew its members primarily from industry. The real sea change, however, can be traced to a paper published in the ASME Journal two years later by Carl Hansen, titled “Standardization of Safety Principles”[1]. In it, Hansen proposed the novel idea that it was the responsibility of design engineers to address the hazards their machines presented. His proposal was not made in a vacuum. The responses of leading figures in engineering, the insurance industry, and worker safety were published in the Journal as well, and the unanimous consensus was agreement with Hansen’s new ethic. In Hansen’s proposal can be found almost all of the basic concepts of the Safety Hierarchy as it was presented in the 1955 edition of the National Safety Council’s Accident Prevention Manual for Industrial Operations [2]. This states that a manufacturer has a duty to evaluate and address foreseeable hazards, including those related to human error, by design first and foremost. Only if no feasible design solutions can be found may the manufacturer rely on methods that control exposure of the hazard to users and bystanders, such as guarding. Only if no feasible design or exposure-control solutions can be found may the manufacturer rely on personal protective equipment. Since that time the hierarchy, only slightly modified, has penetrated every industry and has come to define the modern basis of safe design in the United States. In 2000, a lobbying group called the Association for Manufacturing Technology sponsored a technical paper which resulted in the promulgation of ANSI B11.0-2020 Safety of Machinery – General Requirements and Risk Assessment [3]. This standard represents a radical departure from established safety principles in that it inserts an undefined process by which manufacturers or purchasers can unilaterally decide the risk associated with any given piece of machinery is acceptable, and thereby opt out of the requirements of the safety hierarchy. The threshold of ‘acceptable risk’ is left uncodified and can be calculated based on a host of factors as vague as ‘culture’ and the ‘context of their own circumstances’. The effect of this approach on the stakeholders who would suffer the most dire consequences, the injured workers, is not considered. I argue that ANSI B11.0-2020 and its related standards are retrograde in their effect on safety in the workplace, and cannot be reconciled with the last 108 years of safe design principles as developed in the United States. This paper will provide a historical review of safe engineering design principles and analyze the provisions and implications of ANSI B11.0-2020. The basis for a revised ANSI B11.0 will be presented.