This dissertation aims to understand, in the light of Wittgenstein’s Investigations, language as a match or a game, whose performance is trained by using certain rules, taking in traditions and those techniques that propel the young shoots to the integration in the world. In order to this, it will be developed the argument that sustains that the learning process, which is incompatible with an automatic system of direct and instantaneous print of information – considering that there is no way that children resemble programmable automata, such as the film Kynodontas simulates –, should go hand in hand with the manner of doing philosophy, given its irreplaceable role in the formation and development, on the one hand, of perspicuity and elucidation, on the other, of thinking, imagination and personality of children. At this point, it must be clear that what is up to educators and tutors is nothing more than introduce the world to the young shoots as it is seen and conceived, through what is known and actually it is, but mainly to invite them to participate in it.

In this essay I seek to explore the nucleus of Vasco de Magalhaes-Vilhena’s tought, a predecessor of historical materialism in philosophy in Portugal. For that, I will begin by giving an historical contextualization of the philosopher, followed by the analyses of two of his works. The first corresponds to the book that the author wrote about Antonio Sergio’s philosophical thought, another contemporary thinker. In it, we find one of the main theses of Magalhaes-Vilhena’s critique of philosophical idealism, a distinctive element of Marxist philosophy. The second corresponds to Fragmentos Sobre Ideologia ( Fragments about Ideology), a collection of texts written by the author while in his exile in France about the role of ideology in science and in society. In this collection we may find another of Magalhaes-Vilhena’s main theses concerning the unity of science. Lastly, I will make a few final considerations incorporating the historical analysis with both book analyses.

Hegel conceptualized the capitalist economy as a system of needs, with commodities and money serving as means to human ends. While anticipating Marx’s criticisms of certain tendencies in capitalism, Hegel insisted that higher-order institutions, especially those of the modern state, could put them out of play and establish a reconciliation of universality, particularity, and individuality warranting rational affirmation. Hegel, however, failed to comprehend the emergence of capital as a dominant subject, subordinating human ends under its end (“valorization”). The structural coercion, domination, and exploitation inherent in the capital/wage labor relationship illustrate that point, as does the depoliticization of inherently political matters in capitalist market societies. The reconciliation of universality, particularity, and individuality Hegel endorsed requires a form of socialism incorporating deliberative democracy in local workplaces and communities, conjoined with representative bodies on regional, national, and ultimately global levels.

Hegel is sometimes regarded as a defender of the market system. Recently, Heisenberg (2018) argued that the prevailing view of Hegel is incomplete, as it overlooks a fundamental advantage of the market: its educational role. In his reading, the Hegelian defence of the market system includes seeing the market as the sphere where persons learn both to regard others as individuals with equal standing and equally relevant desires and to see the well-ordered civil society as the space where all social members can find protection and fulfil their needs. I argue that this focus, while inadequate as a sole ground for a critique of today’s market systems, can potentially bring forward new normative critiques of the market. These in turn require departing from Hegel’s baseline assumptions regarding the market sphere and applying this analysis to the locus where the educational impact of markets arguably subsists: the local or national levels.