Gustavo Bueno: ten years of a legacy nobody is comfortable with

Ten years without Gustavo Bueno: the philosophical system nobody can digest

A decade has passed since the death of Gustavo Bueno, and had he still been with us, the Asturian philosopher would have blown out 102 candles. It is not the only fact that invites reflection: ten years on, his figure still provokes almost religious devotion and outright rejection, with no middle ground.

Bueno's philosophical materialism was no pose. With categorial closure, the theory that each science constitutes its own categories, he aspired to build a total system against spiritualism and imported postmodernity. That machinery also produced the distinction between generating empires and predatory empires, a scheme that circulates today more than ever.

The problem is that his work admits no lukewarm readings. For some, Bueno was a first-rate system-builder, capable of giving coherence to a materialist philosophy in a country reluctant towards it. For others, his system paid a very high price: encapsulated, self-satisfied, almost scholastic, with a tendency to expel anyone who did not accept the whole package.

Added to this is the accusation of biological essentialism, of reducing the human to organic matter. It is a serious criticism, levelled at his work by certain currents, but the demand for textual evidence went unanswered and the controversy remains unresolved. Those who defend his legacy consider it a superficial reading. The Oviedo school, heir to his thought, keeps the dispute alive.

Genius or dogmatist? The anniversary has settled nothing. That, probably, is the truest thing there is about Gustavo Bueno: the impossibility of reading him without taking sides.