Two Unamunos that is the same one

Abstract

Philosophical thought, is exercises in dialogue, so as mine. Ultimately, mine, with the one of my interlocutors. The principal interlocutor is the reality, universal contrast of words; but the reality without interpreters, without human being who speak about it, about them, about me. I would’ve run excessive risk being too alone, so I could misrepresent. True is the ancient advice of the cynics: who reads more than they should, adds to its follies as much as them has been divulged from the books assimilated uncritically; so it should look and feel reality with a naive or returned with great effort to naivety life. But Antisthenes was referring to the exaggerated read, not reading at appropriate doses (the proof is that he plenty wrote, and is not one of the most contradictory authors). So, the reason of composing these new essays about recent positions of Spanish philosophers around the possible or impossible relationship between man and the divine, is to do regard more consistent and deep, truer my own life in the aspect. To achieve it, I need as much precision as bold rereading. I do not do work of scholarship but of philosophy, to the best of my strength. Request of texts throughout their substance, I do not mind calling me or call another – no one should care about such an insignificant point, when it comes to the truth. I write for experienced readers as well as for naive, because I write primarily for me, and for friends that keep the dialogue that allows me to maintain a constant link with philosophy. And my first thesis (which is not as obvious as it might seem) is that part of Unamuno contemporary philosophy done in Spain (not only about the relationship between man and God); so that the other writers prominent philosophers in our language and our country, are heirs of Unamuno in one or another way. But in Unamuno they were given