149
Basmanov, A. (2022). Características de la autoidenticación histórica de la “Filosofía de la
Liberación”: el papel de la personalidad intelectual. Cuestiones de Filosofía, 8 (31), 149-161.
https://doi.org/10.19053/01235095.v8.n31.2022.14808
Cuestiones de Filosofía
ISSN: 0123-5095
E-ISSN: 2389-9441
Vol. 8- N° 31
Julio - diciembre, año 2022
pp. 149 - 161
Artículo de Reexión
Características de la autoidenticación
histórica de la ‘Filosofía de la Liberación’: el
papel de la personalidad intelectual
1
Features of the historical self-identication of the
‘Philosophy of Liberation’: the role of the
intellectual personality
Alexey V. Basmanov
2
Peoples’ friendship University of Russia
Rossiski Universitet Druzhby Narodov, Russia
Recepción: 29 de agosto del 2022
Evaluación: 12 de noviembre del 2022
Aceptación: 15 de noviembre del 2022
1 Este artículo fue escrito como parte de mi investigación cientíca acerca de la obra de dos lósofos
latinoamericanos de la liberación: A. Roig y E. Dussel.
2 Master’s degree in History of Philosophy, Candidate Dr. of the Department of History of Philosophy
of Peoples’ friendship University of Russia, teacher of the Department of foreign languages of
Peoples’ friendship University of Russia.
ORCID: 0000-0003-2100-9648
Correo electrónico: basmalex1983@mil.ru
150
Cuestiones de Filosofía No. 31 - Vol. 8 Año 2022 ISSN 0123-5095 Tunja-Colombia
Resumen
Este artículo examina las opiniones de los lósofos latinoamericanos en tor-
no al proceso de formación del sujeto de la historia latinoamericana, sus
rasgos característicos, así como el papel del intelectual en este proceso. El
objetivo principal de este escrito es mostrar la posición del destacado lósofo
argentino A. A. Roig, y comparar dicha posición con la de otro conocido re-
presentante de la losofía de la liberación (E. Dussel). En este trabajo se ana-
lizan entonces las obras de Roig dedicadas a la interpretación losóca del
proceso de formación y desarrollo del pensamiento nacional latinoamerica-
no. Se establece que en las obras de este pensador la actividad de los pueblos
latinoamericanos aparece como la actividad de un único sujeto colectivo de
la historia. A lo largo de este análisis se concluye que ambos lósofos (Roig
y Dussel) llegan a la misma idea de manera diferente: la identidad intelec-
tual del sujeto colectivo latinoamericano de la historia se basa en la historia
de la interacción entre los pueblos de América Latina y Europa, única en su
dramatismo e igual para todo el continente. La obra utiliza principalmente el
método histórico y bibliográco, así como el método de análisis comparativo.
Palabras clave: América Latina, dependencia, otredad, pensamiento nacio-
nal, losofía de la liberación.
Abstract
This article examines the views of Latin American philosophers on the pro-
cess of formation of the Latin American subject of history, its characteristic
features, as well as the role of the intellectual in this process. The main ob-
jective of this paper is to demonstrate the position of the prominent Argentine
philosopher A. A. Roig, and to compare his position with the position of ano-
ther well-known representative of the philosophy of liberation (E. Dussel).
In this paper therefore, Roig’s works devoted to the philosophical interpreta-
tion of the process of formation and development of Latin American national
thought are analyzed. It is established that in the writings of this thinker the
activity of Latin American people appears as the activity of a single collec-
tive subject of history. During the study, we conclude that both philosophers
(Roig and Dussel), come to the same idea in dierent ways: the intellectual
identity of the Latin American collective subject of history is based on the
history of interaction between the people of Latin America and Europe, uni-
que in its dramatic nature and same for the entire continent. The work uses
151
Basmanov, A. (2022). Características de la autoidenticación histórica de la “Filosofía de la
Liberación”: el papel de la personalidad intelectual. Cuestiones de Filosofía, 8 (31), 149-161.
https://doi.org/10.19053/01235095.v8.n31.2022.14808
mainly the historical and bibliographic method, as well as the method of
comparative analysis.
Keywords: Latin America, dependence, otherness, national thinking, philo-
sophy of liberation.
152
Cuestiones de Filosofía No. 31 - Vol. 8 Año 2022 ISSN 0123-5095 Tunja-Colombia
Introduction
Latin American philosophy is a special phenomenon of the cultural life of the
continent. Its characteristic feature is a sharp demarcation and opposition to
the Western European philosophical discourse. It makes a critical rethinking
of the foundations of the Western European way of thinking, reveals its focus
on enslavement, conquest, use of the ‘Other’. The totalitarian intentions of
Western European philosophy in relation to the ‘Other’ have led the intellec-
tual elite of Latin America to the need to rethink the history of philosophy,
the role of the center and periphery in it and to show their freedom through
the justication and actualization of an original way of thinking.
The ‘Philosophy of Liberation’ generally deals with a very wide range of
problems of Latin American reality. However, in this study we focus on the
following problem: how independent and original is the ‘philosophy of li-
beration’, which is the successor of the ‘theology of liberation’, whether the
Latin American philosopher is a separate subject of intellectual activity, or
he is the “voice of the people” articulating his aspirations and aspirations.
During the research, we will rely on the content of such works by Roig as
Filosofía, Universidad y lósofos en América Latina (1981a), Teoría y críti-
ca del pensamiento latinoamericano (1981b), Ethics of Power and Morality
of Protest: Latin American Morality in a State of Emergency (2000). At the
same time, Roig’s position on the role of the intellectual personality is com-
pared by us with the position of Dussel, as perhaps the most famous “philo-
sopher of liberation” in Russia. Dussel and Roig are the most signicant gu-
res of the philosophy of liberation of the late twentieth and early twenty-rst
centuries, that is why we chose their work. However, unlike Dussel, Roig
is extremely little known in Russia. A brief analytical review of his work or
mention of him can be found only in a few works of domestic researchers
(Demenchonok, 1988, pp. 250-254; Petiaksheva, 2000, p. 68). For these rea-
sons, it seems justied to pay more attention to the analysis of the main ideas
of A. Roig, whereas the philosophical views of E. Dussel will be considered
only in the context of the comparison of the positions of both Latin American
thinkers regarding the peculiarities of the formation of the Latin American
subject of history and the role of the intellectual personality in this process.
153
Basmanov, A. (2022). Características de la autoidenticación histórica de la “Filosofía de la
Liberación”: el papel de la personalidad intelectual. Cuestiones de Filosofía, 8 (31), 149-161.
https://doi.org/10.19053/01235095.v8.n31.2022.14808
A. Roig on the formation of the Latin American subject of history and
the role of the intellectual personality in this process
Exploring the ‘philosophy of liberation’, we must inevitably choose as our
starting point the socio-political situation that has developed in Latin America
and has become the environment of its formation. As a result of the conquest,
a part of the population of the South American continent was destroyed, and
a part was oppressed, including through deprivation of otherness, reduction
to categories understandable to European consciousness. Columbus arrived
in America in 1492 and only in 1537 Pope Paul III issued the bull Sublimus
Dei, recognizing the Indians as people who, however, need to be converted
to the Christian faith and show them an example of the right life (Pope Paul
III, 1537). This clearly shows that the conquest and colonialism is not just
conquest and enslavement, it is the assertion of a “good and righteous life”.
Being another manifestation of Eurocentrism, this form of dominance is the
main subject of study and overcoming in the ‘philosophy of liberation’ on
the one hand. On the other hand, it found its expression in the fact that a
corpus/array of human sciences appeared, which stand “(…) in positions of
superiority of modernity over all other ways of development and consider the
act of bringing all cultures to modernity by acculturation as inevitable (…)”
(Tlostanova, 2010, p. 143). Understanding this starting point of the whole
‘philosophy of liberation’ is of great importance for analyzing the views of
one of its representatives, such as A. A. Roig.
According to Roig, the historical specicity of Latin America –the conquest
and the genocide of the indigenous population– is a key moment and natural-
ly generates national thinking capable of autonomous activity, and therefore
claiming independence. Roig calls this process an “anthropological a priori”
of the formation of a philosophical subject
3
. In this formation, the philoso-
pher identies empirical and axiological aspects.
The empirical aspect appears as the disidentication of the subject with the
world around him. It enables the subject to assert his own value for himself:
“On the basis of the empirical, the subject is established as self-valuable,
then it organizes the world into a hierarchy of values, thanks to which ex-
perience is only possible (…)” (Roig, 1981b). As Roig notes: “(…) to be a
historical subject, it is not necessary to have a great history, you need to have
your own history (…)” (2000). Roig calls the specic historical conditions
3 For more information about the concept of “anthropological a priori”, see Basmanov (2021).
154
Cuestiones de Filosofía No. 31 - Vol. 8 Año 2022 ISSN 0123-5095 Tunja-Colombia
of human life “inevitable and necessary spatial-temporal inclusion” (inevita-
ble y necesaria inserción espacio-temporal). It is thanks to her that a person
acquires identity (1981b). Roig sees the beginning of philosophy in the em-
pirical subject in the meaning of a specic historical subject (Zavala, 1997).
The “concreteness” of a subject is the expression in it of the features of its
historical formation. For Roig, this characteristic of the subject is extremely
important, because it shows that the thinking subject is not a manifestation of
any universal Spirit. “Concreteness” characterizes the subject as a product of
his personal history and the history of his people.
Considering the axiological aspect, Roig borrows some ideas from Hegel,
in particular from the Philosophy of History: “A person considered as nite
for himself is at the same time the image of God and the source of innity
in himself; he is an end in himself, has innite value in himself and is ap-
pointed for eternity (…)” (Hegel, 2000, p. 351). That is, any person is, de-
spite his niteness, absolute value. Therefore, Roig considers the process of
his ‘self-armation’ (autoarmación) or ‘self-assessment’ (autovaloración)
to be an important stage in the formation of a subject. During this process,
the protosubject realizes the “absolute value of his own person” for himself.
However, we are talking not only about the act of “establishing one’s own
value” (“ponerse a sí mismo como valioso”), but also about “realizing the
value of thinking about oneself” (“considera como valioso el pensar sobre sí
mismo”) (Roig, 1981b).
The moment of ‘self-armation’ of the subject is not only the beginning
of the existence of the subject of history. This is also the moment of the
emergence of philosophical thinking (comienzo del losofar). Roig believes
that one can speak about the formation of philosophical thinking only when
there appears “(…) a person who establishes the value of knowledge about
himself, striving for self-knowledge. At the same time, the act of self-ar-
mation is necessarily based on the methods of reason (…)” (1981a, p. 52). In
Greece, such a person was Socrates, in Latin America D. F. Sarmiento and
H. B. Alberdi.
The axiological aspect of the “anthropological a priori” also describes the
communication moment of intersubjective reality. It is about restoring the his-
torical justice of mutual recognition of the autochthonous value and legitima-
cy of existence between Western and Latin American subjects. Roig believes
155
Basmanov, A. (2022). Características de la autoidenticación histórica de la “Filosofía de la
Liberación”: el papel de la personalidad intelectual. Cuestiones de Filosofía, 8 (31), 149-161.
https://doi.org/10.19053/01235095.v8.n31.2022.14808
that this valuable knowledge about others and about Latinos themselves
opens the way for them to freedom and to ultimate independence (1981b).
So, the subject becomes empirical, distinguishing himself from the surround-
ing world. Further, in his historical experience and in communication with
other subjects, he becomes self-valuable. However, the Latin American his-
torical subject in Roig’s interpretation has another important specic charac-
teristic: plurality or collectivity.
One of the basic points of Roig’s philosophical concept is the assertion of
self-worth by the subject (el ponerse como valioso para sí). However, at a
certain stage, the becoming subject ceases to be individual (sujeto individual)
and becomes plural (sujeto plural): the formula for describing the process
of value formation changes –“arming our value for ourselves” (“poner-
nos a nosotros mismos como valiosos”) (1981b). Thus, we are talking about
the formation of a subject in the person of the people (pueblo), and not one
person. At the same time, in the case of Latin America, Latin American peo-
ples are meant, they act as a single collective subject of history. Recall that
the subject becomes self-valuable largely due to intersubjective communi-
cation. For Latin American peoples, it was their tragic history of relations
with Europe. In addition, the peoples of the continent are united by a single
cultural heritage, primarily language and religion.
The theoretical Latin American collective subject of history appears in prac-
tice as “we are Latin Americans” (“nosotros somos latinoamericanos”). This
subject is aware of himself as dierent from the Western European subject
and alien to his rational spirit. It is assumed that theoretical criticism in the
philosophy of liberation is conducted on behalf of the ‘Other’, challenging
the experience of the ‘poor’, the people representing the historical subject
(Petiaksheva, 2000, p. 81). This historical subject, in Roig’s interpretation,
is a collective ‘we’ (‘nosotros’), a community whose units have a similar
self-identication due to a common ‘heritage’ and a dramatic past. It seems
that the spirit of such a community has the character of a single and indivisi-
ble entity. It is for this reason that one can speak on behalf of many. The idea
of ‘we’ is inextricably linked with the idea of ‘our’ (‘nuestro’), p.e., ‘Latin
American’. The essence of “our Latin American” comes not only from a
negative attitude towards non-Latin American, but also has its own content.
“In the question of ‘we’ everything becomes clear if the answer is not ac-
companied by the addition of “we are Latin Americans” but is given from
156
Cuestiones de Filosofía No. 31 - Vol. 8 Año 2022 ISSN 0123-5095 Tunja-Colombia
‘our’ person” (Roig, 1981b). Adding “we are Latin Americans” does not suit
Roig, because it contains a negative relationship with everything that is not
‘ours’. The fundamental thing for the concept of ‘Latin American’ is not the
distinction with the dierent, but the action and thinking of the subject as
belonging, participating in the ‘Latin American’.
The concept of ‘involvement’ (‘parcialidad’) helps clarify the concept of
‘identity’. It is ‘belonging’ to a single ‘heritage’ that has transformed and be-
come ‘ours’, ‘Latin American’, that makes it possible for the peoples of Latin
America to feel like a single subject. Awareness of a certain ‘involvement’ is
awareness of a specic Latin American “a priori”. In many ways, it gives rise
to the Latin American ‘we’ –a sense of unity not only with the national, but
also with the supranational continental community.
A person speaking on behalf of Latin American peoples speaks as if on behalf
of a single entity, p.e., on behalf of ‘we’. In his work “Theory and Criticism
of the Latin American Way of Thinking”, Roig tries to convey the feeling of
‘we’. “‘We’ are not windowless monads existing in a pre-established world
harmony, but we have the ability to open up, it gives us the opportunity to
discover ourselves as an acting subject, open to a certain process in which the
historical destroys various ontological theoretical constructions and shows
us that we are ‘inserted’ (‘insertos’) into a contradictory and unpredictable
world. We are aware of ourselves as ‘creating being’ (‘haciendo el ser’), and
for us this being is predominantly social” (1981b). ‘We’ is a state in which a
part contains the spirit of the whole, and the spirit of the whole does not dier
from the spirit of the part. However, this is a state of openness and activity
towards the outside world. This state is opposed to the state of the Western
mind, which is also active, but closed, because it sees only an object for pro-
cessing in the environment and regards only itself as a subject. This expres-
ses his one-sidedness towards the world, which unprotably distinguishes
him from the Latin American mind. Thanks to this, ‘we’, Latin Americans:
(…) “as monads” are “inserted” into the process much deeper than thanks to
the myths of liberal individualism (…) From the “windows” of our monads,
we are not looking at the world alone. It is not a certain ‘I’ who is watching,
but ‘we’ are watching, but not “all people” (“todos los hombres”), also looking
at the world at the same time as us, but “some” (algunos) belonging to our
“dierence” (“diversidad”) and “involvement” (…) (1981b).
157
Basmanov, A. (2022). Características de la autoidenticación histórica de la “Filosofía de la
Liberación”: el papel de la personalidad intelectual. Cuestiones de Filosofía, 8 (31), 149-161.
https://doi.org/10.19053/01235095.v8.n31.2022.14808
Previously, the Latin American “monad” was closed as well as the Western
one. Its ‘closeness’ (‘cerrazón’) was not ontological, but ideological, and its
‘discovery’ consists in gaining consciousness, thanks to its ‘insertion’ into
historical and social processes (1981b). By ideology, Roig means the Western
European Logo, which was brought to the continent by many generations of
European colonizers. This is the Logos of ‘totality’, in terms of which Latin
Americans became slaves, and Europeans became masters; it was he who
deprived Latin Americans of their own being and self-consciousness, making
them objects.
Thus, the acquisition of self-worth necessary for the formation of a full-
edged subject of thought becomes a collective process for Roig. The sub-
ject of history is not an individual, not one national community, but all the
peoples of Latin America who have ever been oppressed and who have risen
to ght for their own independence and for the independence of the conti-
nent. The self-consciousness of the Latin American subject becomes like the
self-consciousness of a group, not of an individual. A separate individual, the
owner of such self-consciousness, feels himself the creator not only of his
personal history, but also of the history of the entire continent. He feels his
responsibility and at the same time his strength, because he is a conductor of
the will of a huge community of people (2000). As a particle of the collective
subject of history, a person acquires historical consciousness, p.e., realizes
the importance of his history for his own formation. From this awareness
philosophy is born. The personalities who articulate this philosophy speak
not on their own behalf, but on behalf of that huge community, of which they
are a part of the collective consciousness.
In the construction of his arguments, Roig adheres to Hegelian dialectics. He
begins with a separate individual, shows the formation of his self-conscious-
ness rst as a subject of individual, purely empirical existence. Further, this
individual subject in the process of intersubjective communication acquires
awareness of the value of his being and thinking, becomes self-valuable. At
the next stage, the individual subject learns a certain content common to each
unit of intersubjective reality –cultural and historical heritage–, the collec-
tive spirit of Latin American history. Then the Roig returns to the individual
again, but at a new level. The individual subject in his external and internal
activity expresses and implements the general content of the collective Latin
American spirit. At this stage, the juxtaposition of the individual and the
general is removed.
158
Cuestiones de Filosofía No. 31 - Vol. 8 Año 2022 ISSN 0123-5095 Tunja-Colombia
Features of the formation of the Latin American subject of history in the
philosophy of E. Dussel
Before proceeding to the comparison of the positions of Roig and Dussel in
relation to the formation of the Latin American subject of history, we will
briey characterize the views of the latter, highlighting in them those aspects
that are of paramount importance in the context of our consideration.
The position of the Argentine philosopher has been changing throughout the
entire period of his work. At rst, he was inclined to believe that an intellec-
tual should stand at the head of the masses of the people, explain to them the
essence of the ruling system, show with the help of his criticism the injustice
of the social structure. The philosopher must go beyond the totality of the
existing world order: “Beyond the oligarchic culture of the dominant elites, a
national culture can be found (…)” (Dussel, 1985, p. 93). The latter, reect-
ing the foundations of the life of the people, not only forms the framework
of national identity, but also the conditions for the existence of a national
oligarchy that ensures the country’s dependence on more developed ones.
Dussel calls this layer mass culture, which thus combines both national and
global principles. The appeal to the former ensures the movement towards
liberation, and to the latter –the existence of a class of oppressors. The intel-
lectual opposes mass culture with the help of his main tool– criticism. Dussel
uses the term “organic intellectual”. Such an intellectual is necessary for the
people, who “alone cannot free themselves” (p. 93).
However, in his later works, the Argentine philosopher concludes that an
intellectual cannot “teach”, “enlighten” or “organize” the oppressed. In a cer-
tain sense, he himself becomes a student who diligently reproduces in his
works the ideas that he received from the people. Dussel refers to Marx’s
ideas about the self-organization of the proletariat (Dussel, 2013, pp. 365-
373). In this light, the concept of the “organic intellectual” is seen dierently.
An intellectual should not try to speak for the people, nor should he distance
himself from them. Thanks to his critical position, the intellectual goes be-
yond the boundaries of repressive institutions and nds himself inside the
people. Then the “organic intellectual” is not just a liberator, but also a natu-
ral part of those whose voice he appears to be. Dussel argues that the intellec-
tual is part of the cultural and historical space in which his thought is created.
For Dussel, the thinker is oppressed in the same way as other social groups.
He expresses this situation in words: “I am the Other” (Mahvish, 2013). The
159
Basmanov, A. (2022). Características de la autoidenticación histórica de la “Filosofía de la
Liberación”: el papel de la personalidad intelectual. Cuestiones de Filosofía, 8 (31), 149-161.
https://doi.org/10.19053/01235095.v8.n31.2022.14808
Other, oppressed and excluded, is the subject of his philosophy because he
himself, Enrique Dussel, thinks of himself as such.
We consider it important to note that the philosophy of liberation in general
and the work of these two philosophers can be read within the framework
of the philosophy of the decolonial turn. This is especially true of Dussel’s
work. A few representatives of the philosophy of the decolonial turn inter-
pret and develop his ideas in a certain way. For example, Lewis Gordon
believes that the consciousness of the indigenous population of the colonized
territories cannot be characterized as either pre-modern or post-modern, but
only as “thoroughly modern” (Gordon, 2013, p. 69). For Walter Mignolo,
the term borrowed from Dussel turns out to be important – “the geopoli-
tics of knowledge”. Based on it, he builds his theory representing the glob-
al geopolitical situation as the interaction of central and peripheral groups,
where central groups create knowledge, classications and hierarchy, and
manage them, placing themselves at the top of the hierarchy, and peripheral
groups perceive this knowledge as the basis of worldview and cognition,
and are also classied and integrated into the hierarchy created by the rst
(Mignolo, 2000, p. 29). Another thinker, Nelson Maldonado-Torres, ques-
tions the need for Dussel to apply Levinas’ categories in the eld of social re-
lations (Maldonado-Torres, 2008, p. 187), but borrows from him the concept
of “trans-modernity” (p. 226). It is also worth mentioning Ramon Grosfogel
(2009), who draws attention to the problem of the decolonization of knowl-
edge and power, as well as to the political and economic characteristics of the
world system. This development of the ideas of the philosophy of liberation
can be characterized as epistemological decolonization, but we interpret this
development rather as the radicalization of the thought of Enrique Dussel
and the philosophy of liberation. In our view of the philosophy of liberation,
we adhere more to the views of Raúl Fornet-Betancourt, a well-known rep-
resentative and researcher of the philosophy of liberation. His position is that
the philosophy of liberation should be read as an anti-imperialist discourse,
historically developed as anti-imperialist thinking and theory (pensamiento y
teoría antiimperialista). For him, the ideas of the decolonial turn are a tribute
to the Zeitgeist dominant in the West (Zeitgeist dominante), which do not
provide answers to the challenges of modernity facing the peoples of Latin
America, while the philosophy of liberation appeared thanks to these chal-
lenges and works with them (Fornet-Betancourt, 2017, p. 118).
160
Cuestiones de Filosofía No. 31 - Vol. 8 Año 2022 ISSN 0123-5095 Tunja-Colombia
Conclusion
As a result of the research, we found that both philosophers see the role of
an intellectual in being a part, the voice of an oppressed people. The phi-
losopher of liberation in their understanding speaks not on his own behalf,
but on behalf of that huge community, of which he is a part of the collective
consciousness. Roig and Dussel come to this idea in dierent ways. Dussel
initially saw the Latin American thinker as a separate active subject of the
“philosophy of liberation”, but later changed his position. Dussel concluded
that the intellectual is oppressed, as well as the people on whose behalf he
conducts his narrative. Awareness of this moment is the starting point in the
struggle against the totality of the Western European Logos. Roig, on the
other hand, describes the genesis of the Latin American collective subject of
history as the process of an individual gaining awareness of an indissoluble
connection with his own history, awareness of his own uniqueness and the
value of his being. Thus, in his opinion, a person acquires the consciousness
and mind of a philosopher.
References
Basmanov, А. (2021). Osobennosti genezisa latinoamerikanscoy losoi os-
vobojdenia: stanovlenie samobitnogo losofskogo soznania. Sociologia,
4, pp. 236-240. https://doi.org/10.24412/1812-9226-2021-4-236-240
Demenchonok, E. (1988). Filosoa «osvobozhdenia». Iz istorii losoi
Latinskoj Ameriki XX veka (pp. 236-266). Moscow: Nauka.
Dussel, E. (1985). Philosophy of Liberation. New York: Orbis Books.
Dussel, E. (2013). Ethics of Liberation: In the Age of Globalization and
Exclusion. Durham: Duke University Press.
Fornet-Betancourt, R. (2017). Elementos para una crítica intercultural de la
ciencia hegemónica. Aachen: Verlag Mainz.
Gordon, L. (2013). Thoughts on Dussel’s Anti-Cartesian Meditation’s.
Human Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of SelfKnowledge, 11
(1), pp. 67-71. https://scholarworks.umb.edu/humanarchitecture/vol11/
iss1/7/
161
Basmanov, A. (2022). Características de la autoidenticación histórica de la “Filosofía de la
Liberación”: el papel de la personalidad intelectual. Cuestiones de Filosofía, 8 (31), 149-161.
https://doi.org/10.19053/01235095.v8.n31.2022.14808
Grosfoguel, R. (2009). Decolonizacia zapadnih universalizmov: decolo-
nialniy pluriversalizm ot E. Sereza do sapatistas. Lichnost’. Kultura.
Obshestvo, Tom XI, 3 (50), pp. 201-216. http://www.ram-wan.net/re-
strepo/decolonial/15-grosfoguel-la%20descolonizacion.pdf
Hegel, W. (2000). Lectures on the philosophy of history. Moscow: Nauka.
Mahvish, A. (2013). The Philosophy of Liberation: An Interview with Enrique
Dussel (Part I). The Naked Punch. http://nakedpunch.com/articles/186
Maldonado-Torres, N. (2008). Against War: Views from the Underside of
Modernity. Durham / London: Duke University Press.
Mignolo, W. (2000). Dussel’s Philosophy of Liberation: Ethics and Geopolitics
of Knowledge. L. M. Alco and E. Mendieta (Eds.), Thinking from the
Underside of History: Enrique Dussel’s Philosophy of Liberation (pp.
27-50). Lanham: Rowman & Littleeld Publishers Inc.
Petiaksheva, N. (2000). Latinoamerikanskaja «losoa osvobozhdenia» v
kontekste komparativistiki. Moscow: Unikum-Center.
Pope Paul III. (1537). Sublimus Dei. Papal Encyclicals Online.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul03/p3subli.htm
Roig, A. (1981a). Filosofía, Universidad y lósofos en América Latina.
México: UNAM.
Roig, A. (1981b). Teoría y crítica del pensamiento latinoamericano. Proyecto
Ensayo Hispánico. https://ensayistas.org/losofos/argentina/roig/teo-
ria/introduccion.htm
Roig, A. (2000). Ética del poder y moralidad de la protesta: La moral latino-
americana de la emergencia. Proyecto Ensayo Hispánico.
https://www.ensayistas.org/losofos/argentina/roig/etica/etica22.htm
Tlostanova, M. (2010). Mnozhestvennaja identichnost’ v kontekste koncepcii
transculturacii. Lichnost’. Kultura. Оbshestvo, 4 (59-60), pp.142-156.
https://www.elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_15627713_74559457.pdf
Zavala, C. (1997). Arturo A. Roig. La losofía Latinoamericana como com-
promiso. Río Cuarto: Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto / ICALA.
https://www.ensayistas.org/losofos/argentina/roig/introd.htm
