Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This essay presents a philosophical clarification regarding the nature of entrepreneurship, seeking to access its unapparent regions. Firstly, it analyzes its complex etymology; the forgetting of the original meaning (becoming the subject of one's own actions) and the predominance of capitalist ideology limit science to the study of effects, neglecting the causes. Subsequently, the dominant paradigm and its ideological biases (economism, organilogism, psychologism, and sociologism) are criticized, advocating for an integrated vision. The phenomenon is then discussed through its modes of appearance: the mode of being (essence) and the mode of seeing (technique). Finally, entrepreneurship is defined as a promise grounded in six elements: innovation, attitude, transformation, commitment, anguish, and freedom. It concludes that the main scientific barrier is the lack of transdisciplinarity. Without the integration of different fields of knowledge, entrepreneurship remains like a seed without soil: a daily reality that, although persistent, remains theoretically inaccessible and not materialized into full knowledge.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Boava et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: