Según Dilthey, el análisis formalista llevado adelante por la gnoseología de Kant no logra comprender el mundo humano, por su parte, Hegel si aborda al hombre histórico, pero subsume su mundo al despliegue de la razón o el saber absoluto. El proyecto de una fundamentación de las ciencias del espíritu llevado adelante por Dilthey busca adentrarse en el mundo humano concibiéndolo como el conjunto de manifestaciones objetivadas de la vida. Kant y Hegel se convierten en sus interlocutores, pero también Comte con quien se enfrenta en pos de fundamentar la autonomía metodológica de las ciencias del espíritu. Sostengo que la noción tardía de «espíritu objetivo», que Dilthey toma de Hegel, pero que la concibe como el devenir de la vida política y cultural, permite releer toda la filosofía de Dilthey con otra perspectiva. El presente estudio no busca realizar un análisis comparativo entre Dilthey y Hegel, sino partir de la recepción que el primero hace del segundo a los efectos de comprender su filosofía. En este sentido, para Dilthey el «espíritu objetivo» está constituido por el conjunto de las organizaciones exteriores de la sociedad –la estructura político-jurídica de la sociedad- y por las formas culturales como arte, religión y filosofía. El hombre es quien, según Dilthey, produce estas instituciones las cuales a su vez le anteceden y le sucederán en su existencia. En este sentido Dilthey concibe al hombre como un ser histórico y un «punto de cruce» de las distintas objetivaciones históricas. Este mundo compartido es el mundo histórico –expresado a través de las nociones como Gemeinsamkeit, objektive Geist, verwebt y kreuzungspunkt-, aquel que contiene el conjunto de experiencia de vidas acumuladas y las expectativas de futuro. En síntesis, se sostiene que para Dilthey el mundo es manifestación objetiva de la vida –fenomenología del espíritu-, siendo el espíritu objetivo o la vida objetivada, un producto del devenir de la vida humana. Es decir, en el mundo histórico actúan individuos -dotados de voluntad- en una conexión estructural con su entorno, como «puntos de cruce» de las distintas objetivaciones. Es decir, la preocupación histórico-sistemática diltheyana gira en torno al tema del hombre –sujeto individual, «punto de cruce»- y lo socio-histórico –mundo intersubjetivo y espíritu objetivo, manifestación objetivada de la vida-. Así, el hombre juega, para Dilthey, un papel central en la historia y en el despliegue de la vida. Todos los estudios gnoseológicos, epistemológicos, históricos y toda fundamentación sistemática es producto de las conexiones de vida. La importancia de los individuos, sus propias manifestaciones de vida y el «espíritu objetivo» -centros de análisis de las ciencias del espíritu-, permite comprender a la filosofía diltheyana como una filosofía de la intersubjetividad, en oposición a las interpretaciones clásicas que hacían que ella cayera en un psicologismo-empático. Asimismo, el plano de la exteriorización de las acciones individuales y sociales le permite a Dilthey encontrar un saber objetivo para las ciencias del espíritu. / Dilthey points out that while the formalist analysis carried out by Kant's gnoseology fails to understand the human world, Hegel does speak about the historical man, but subsumes his world to the manifestation of reason or absolute knowledge. The project of a foundation of the Geisteswissenschaften carried out by Dilthey seeks to penetrate the human world conceiving it as a set of objectified manifestations of life. Kant and Hegel become their interlocutors, but also Comte with whom Dilthey face in order to sustain the methodical autonomy foundation of the Geisteswissenschaften. I assume that the late notion of "objektive Geist", which Dilthey takes from Hegel, but which he sees as the process/activity of the political and cultural life, allows for a rereading of the whole philosophy of Dilthey in a new perspective. This study does not seek to make a comparative analysis between Dilthey and Hegel, but to set a starting point from/of go along the im put that the first author makes over the latter so as to understand his philosophy. In this regard, for Dilthey, the "objektive Geist" is constituted by the external organizations of society (political-legal structure of society) and the cultural forms as art, religion and philosophy. It is man who, according to Dilthey, produces these institutions, which precede and will surpass the existence of the individual man. Dilthey conceives man as a historical being and as a "crossing point" of the various historical objectifications. This shared world is the historical-world (expressed through the notions of Gemeinsamkeit, objektive Geist, verwebt and kreuzungspunkt), that which contains all the accumulated life experience and future expectations. In short, it is argued that for Dilthey the world is objective manifestation of life (phenomenology of Geist) being objektive Geist or objectified life a product of the manifestation of human life. I.e, in the historical world individuals act -gifted with will- in a structural connection with their environment, as "crossing points" of different objectifications. That is, the historical and systematic Diltheyan concern revolves around the theme of man (individual subject, «crossing point») and the socio-historical world (intersubjective world, objektive Geist, objectified manifestation of life). So, the man plays, for Dilthey, a central role in the history and in the manifestation of life. All gnoseological, epistemological, historical studies and any systematic foundation is a product of life connections. The importance of individuals, their own expressions of life and the «objektive Geist» (the centre of analysis of de Geisteswissenschaften), enable a better understanding of Dilthey's philosophy as a philosophy of intersubjectivity, as opposed to classical interpretations that made its fell into a psychologism-empathetic study. Furthermore, the level of externalization of individual and social actions allows Dilthey to find objective knowledge for the Geisteswissenschaften.

[pt] Entende-se, aqui, o complexo processo de formatação das subjetividades contemporâneas a partir de dois fenômenos principais, os quais são observados não de forma isolada, mas em concomitância, isto é, ocorrendo ao mesmo tempo, sem que se anulem. Ao contrário, os dois se somam. São eles: a exibição de particularidades da vida dita privada nos meios de comunicação, em especial nas redes sociais da Web em sua fase 2.0, como Facebook, Twitter, Instagram e YouTube, a qual podemos aludir como exposição de intimidade, e a crescente e desenfreada preocupação com a obtenção do chamado corpo perfeito, em geral associado, nas narrativas midiáticas, ao porte torneado ou musculoso, fomentando o movimento conhecido como culto ao corpo. Na tentativa de encontrar proximidades, afastamentos e ambiguidades entre o atual modelo de subjetividade predominante, que começou a emergir a partir de meados do século XX, e o anterior, em voga, sobretudo, entre os séculos XIX e primeira metade do XX, esta tese de doutorado coteja dois momentos históricos distintos. Para tanto, a opção foi analisar o discurso de periódicos nacionais, de grandes e pequenas cidades, situado nesses dois recortes temporais. Dessa investigação, a conclusão foi a de que, ao contrário do que alega a maioria dos estudos sobre o tema, a força da exteriorização, tão marcante aos dias atuais, também já estava presente e se fazia sentir no modelo subjetivo de antes, ainda que atuasse de modo diferente: se hoje o predomínio é o da exteriorização ativa, quando o próprio indivíduo expõe a si mesmo, anteriormente o mais observado era o que batizamos de exteriorização passiva, quando o indivíduo é exteriorizado por terceiros, às vezes sem o seu consentimento ou sapiência. Igualmente os objetivos almejados com a exteriorização cambiaram de um momento a outro: no século XIX e primeira metade do XX, buscava-se, notadamente, constranger e/ou envergonhar o outro, especialmente pela difusão de comportamentos considerados desviantes ou inapropriados à moral da época; agora, por sua vez, procura-se, sobre todas as coisas, a captura do olhar do outro, ser visto, o que ascende o sentimento de prestígio social. / [en] It is understood, here, the complex process of formatting of the contemporary subjectivities from two main movements, observed not in isolation manner, but in concomitance, that is, both occurring at the same time, without being annulled. On the contrary, add up each other. They are: the exhibition of particularities of private life in the media, especially in the social networks from the Web 2.0, such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube, which is alluded as exhibition of intimacy, and the growing and unbridled preoccupation with obtaining the so-called perfect body, usually associated, in the mediatic narratives, with the turned or muscular body, fomenting the movement known as cult of the body. In an attempt to find closeness, distanceness and ambiguitiess between the current predominant model of subjectivity, which began to emerge from the mid-twentieth century, and the past, in vogue, especially between the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth century, this PhD thesis matches two different historical moments. For that, the option was to analyze the discourse of Brazilian periodicals, of large and small cities, located in these two temporal cuts. From this investigation, the conclusion was that, contrary to most of the studies defend, the force of externalization, so striking to present days, was already present and felt in the previous subjective model, even though acting differently: if today the predominance is that of active exteriorization, when the individual exposes himself, before the most often observed was what we call passive exteriorization, when the individual is externalized by others, sometimes without your consent or wisdom. Likewise, the goals of exteriorization have changed from the first moment to the next: in the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth, the aim was to embarrass the other, especially through the diffusion of behaviors considered deviant or inappropriate to the moral of the age; now, in turn, it searches for, above all, capture the look of the other, to be seen, which ascends the sense of social prestige.

This work aims, in a rather contemplative manner phased into three related parts, to discuss two concepts indispensable for Hegel's entire philosophy of life and history: language and memory. In Part I, I examine the triple relation between language and thinking, thinking and reality, and reality and language. I argue that language shares a logical structure with thinking and reality, and is itself the performative principle (or acteur) of creating reality, being itself the externalizing tool of the movement of thinking without which any development of the Spirit would not be possible. Part II targets the concept of memory and its function within thinking and action of self-consciousness. It is argued that Hegel's language functions as the modern concept of discourse in terms of its agency in reality. Memory is understood as fundamentally entangled with matter, or the material objectivity that calls in memory to be named, i.e. posited in language. Memory is an interiorizing principle, language is the exteriorizing principle, both deeply rooted in the so-called night of the self of each spirit. I also discuss the subject-objective relation against the background of memory, before moving onto Part III which generally tackles the process of the self-expression of the Spirit in history, the distinction...

This work aims, in a rather contemplative manner phased into three related parts, to discuss two concepts indispensable for Hegel's entire philosophy of life and history: language and memory. In Part I, I examine the triple relation between language and thinking, thinking and reality, and reality and language. I argue that language shares a logical structure with thinking and reality, and is itself the performative principle (or acteur) of creating reality, being itself the externalizing tool of the movement of thinking without which any development of the Spirit would not be possible. Part II targets the concept of memory and its function within thinking and action of self-consciousness. It is argued that Hegel's language functions as the modern concept of discourse in terms of its agency in reality. Memory is understood as fundamentally entangled with matter, or the material objectivity that calls in memory to be named, i.e. posited in language. Memory is an interiorizing principle, language is the exteriorizing principle, both deeply rooted in the so-called night of the self of each spirit. I also discuss the subject-objective relation against the background of memory, before moving onto Part III which generally tackles the process of the self-expression of the Spirit in history, the distinction...