Want To Masterbate In Public

The Last Lecture

Viewpoints

Marzia Bonacci

Q uattordici October the his lectio leave from academic life at the Aula Magna of the University of Turin. Father of "weak thought", which destroys the dogmas and ideological fanaticism for a free and plural society, Gianni Vattimo salutes the university after 44 years. Here's what he told this experience, but also politics, society and the world that we have become not only the future that awaits the philosophy

Forty years of academic life that officially broke down in an autumn day when he held his farewell lecture at the Aula Magna of the University of Turin, it also saw Dean of the Faculty of Humanities. It must be asking yourself in what spirit and what considerations Gianni Vattimo comes close to this time, after intense intellectual and political life. That's why we asked some questions, trying to make an assessment, although it is possible to do so, these 44 years of existence, not just philosophical. Decades rich, in which the thinker has a 360 degrees from books and reading in the European Parliament (1999-2004), the thought on many major newspapers (La Repubblica and La Stampa) participation in various committees of scientific journals and Italian foreign, through the honorary degrees that many universities around the world have given him, until the recognition of Grand Officer of Merit of the Italian Republic. But above all, considered the founding father of the "weak thought, philosophical and political development that challenges the ethical dogmatism and intolerance, and that aspires to a pluralistic society and libertarian. Weak, then, because according to the force (assumed and self-proclaimed) the dogmas of the fanaticism of the principles, the party that claims to be right on all.

Over forty years of academic life that are closed, at least formally, with a public lecture on October 14 at the University of Turin. How do you feel sir? I feel sad not because I leave the university, but as I leave . Even though I am aware that it is not my responsibility. When I joined I had much more hope and the situation justified: it was 1964 and was preparing for 1968, this year, during its forty years, has been deprecated by many.

An error of assessment? Yes, because the university at the time, although the open questions and inherited from the future, it was a great university: there was still a political vitality and students demonstrating a commitment to social change. Today all this is gone, but otherwise dominate the current government attempts to make academia a 'company mainly aimed at chasing economic goals, not just a private company that wants to earn, as in America, but even in the service of economic development. Even the EU's Lisbon agenda, which has inspired many university initiatives, is a program of the knowledge society that is basically aimed at intensifying scientific research and technological efficacy, seeking a win countries and states compete for points in the GDP. All this in '68 was not there, but rather was questioned.

She said that the university has changed in the last forty years, losing the positive spirit of '68. Why? There was terrorism, then the 70 that have deeply marked, but above all there has been a change in Italian society that the university can not reflect that.

So the question to ask is how it has changed the Italian company, it has become? E 'became the capitalist society where Berlusconi wins because of the media, people are disinterested in politics, even to the point of accepting this financial crisis as if it were a natural in front of which there is much to re-do or much to re-think in relation to the dominant development model.

and philosophy professor, have a meaning and a purpose in this global era, rapid, accelerated? I've always imagined, and I continue to do so again today, as a form of critique of ideology: reflections on the value systems that guide us, their conditionality, that it is necessary to maintain the primacy of politics and thus also of philosophy. These two realities are not in fact an act of nature or a scientific-technological knowledge and related to changes in society, but refer to the values \u200b\u200bthat should guide even the sciences and technologies. Consequently, the relationship philosophy-science-technology seems to be basically thought of as the ability of a general thought which is also the common language and shared the idea of \u200b\u200bsetting limits and guidelines to them. I feel, now more than ever, linked to the definition of Leninist communism, and I like to fit in this field: the philosophy of the soviets, it is the knowledge society democratically discussed who manages or directs the technical, scientific, economic and political.

But the Italian philosophy has changed in the last forty years? The Italian philosophy has been a movement of deformation similar to that which has been left and that comes from the conviction that there is no political horizon that capitalism can at most become more compassionate. Philosophers claim objectivism, realism, opposed not only Marxism but also hermeneutics, that is they are against all forms of historical conception of philosophy, against all historical expression of philosophy. Currently, the philosophy urges to start again from "the cat is on the mat" , ie from reality, but the realism in philosophy has always been a conservative perspective that has led to acceptance of the world. The fact that these philosophical positions are mostly found in the cultural section of the Sun is emblematic of 24 hours ...

But capitalism is in crisis, at least so say many commentators in these days of financial tsunami. Perhaps you are starting a critical process, able to bring with it a new wave of thinking about what should be the philosophy? It may well be, I hope, but I'm skeptical, because we are so enveloped in the fog of media that this critical reflection, awareness of this crisis of capitalism threatens to shut off with the same attention: the bags back today ... I do not want to live in a world hungry, but I also want that people were aware that this prosperity we enjoy is the imaginary part and is achieved at the expense of others, many, too many .

So, professor, what future awaits this philosophy so realistic too, unable to go beyond the given, therefore prone to ideological and keep? I expect an anarchist attitude, the ability to exercise critical of all the absolutism that direct us: the Church that preaches the natural law as the only way possible, the business world that offers us the market as the only solution. This is the philosophy has to get rid sbaraccare and all that. Wittgenstein wrote that philosophy has the unique function or the only way to free ourselves from idols: a message is still valid today. The idols of today, for example, prevent us from having a more democratic and law are called, from time to time and in each case, the International Monetary Fund or the Church.

You formulated the so-called weak thought, where the involvement of philosophy with politics are obvious. We say that politics has always been interested, so that also boast experience as an MEP. What would the budget of those years in Strasbourg? As for my political experience in Europe, including the opinion that I expressed on my academic work: When I came to the Parliament in 1999, 'Europe was a hope open, when the' I left, was in a lifeless condition. Again, as already said about the university, through no fault of mine.

In what sense? I became Parliamentary Union in 1999 when it was hoped in the Constitution of Europe: the enlargement of the corner and we had to work on a constitution that would give the EU a more visible features, stronger, more autonomous in world politics. Now what do we have? We do not have the constitution el 'enlargement is aimed at countries that are, for historical reasons, wildly pro-American. The dream of a political alternative - and I say the opposite-American imperial power, has died. For the Italians, for example, Europe is the agency of control over our politics, such as NATO, the IMF, not a political entity. It 's very desperate. The current economic crisis could be an opportunity to revive that dream, but for now it seems that Europe has seized or taken advantage of this chance.

last question. What is the philosophy that is closest to his heart? In my academic career I worked mainly Nietzsche and Heidegger, that is, the two men who both had a reputation negative, because a philosopher was taken by the Nazis, while the other was himself for some years a pro-Nazi. thinkers are crucial because they taught us not to believe that what happens every day is normal to be the stable structure is not given once and for all, but it happens when we are involved, that being is something that we can build, undo, redo. Exactly the opposite of what being there to observe reality objectively and arrive, by law, to comply with this order as given absolute and unchanging. Their merit was to have fought objectivism, realism, the pretense of looking at things as they are for comply.

And Marx? Even Marx, but Marx weakened, that is, a Marx who is discovered with a bit of "weak thought", because he has taken over the Hegelian idea that you could get to a perfect reconciliation after the revolution. not randomly think that with a weakened Marxism, Stalin would not have been possible ... Marxism freed from a non-metaphysical view of history seems to me the only thing that, as a philosophy, one can still profess.