Archivi categoria: Politica

I Principi di Scienza Nuova di Giambattista Vico

Reinterpretare la storia

 

 

 

Principi di Scienza Nuova d’intorno alla comune natura delle Nazioni di Giambattista Vico, pubblicato in diverse edizioni tra il 1725 e il 1744, costituisce un punto di svolta nella storia del pensiero filosofico e storico dell’epoca moderna. Questo testo ridefinisce il ruolo della filosofia e della storia, introducendo un nuovo metodo di indagine sulla civiltà umana, basato su principi di variazione e ripetizione, che Vico chiama corsi e ricorsi storici.
Nel XVIII secolo, il contesto culturale europeo era dominato dal razionalismo cartesiano e dall’empirismo inglese, correnti che propugnavano la deduzione logica e l’esperienza sensoriale quali fonti principali della conoscenza. Vico propone un radicale cambiamento di prospettiva, ponendo l’accento sulla comprensione dell’umanità attraverso le fasi del suo sviluppo culturale e sociale. La sua visione contrappone un modello di conoscenza che valorizza la storia e la cultura come chiavi per interpretare la realtà.
Uno degli aspetti più rivoluzionari di Principi di Scienza Nuova è rappresentato dalla teoria dei corsi e ricorsi storici, secondo la quale la storia dell’umanità si sviluppa attraverso cicli di ascesa, declino e rinascita, riflettendo le leggi naturali della vita sociale. Questa teoria costituisce il portato più famoso e innovativo del pensiero vichiano. Il filosofo sostiene che la storia umana non progredisca in linea retta, ma si muova attraverso cicli ripetuti di ascesa, stasi e declino, che lui identifica con le tre età (degli dei, degli eroi e degli uomini). Ogni ciclo è un “corso”, che alla fine porta a un “ricorso”, ovvero una sorta di ripetizione o rinnovamento, che può anche comportare variazioni significative. In altre parole, i pattern storici tendono a ripetersi, ma ogni ripetizione porta con sé elementi nuovi che arricchiscono il tessuto culturale e sociale delle civiltà. Vico vede i corsi e ricorsi come meccanismi attraverso i quali le civiltà sorgono, fioriscono e poi cadono, solo per essere sostituite da nuove civiltà che, pur essendo diverse, passano attraverso fasi simili. Questo ciclo si osserva, secondo Vico, non solo in Europa ma in tutte le civiltà umane. Le leggi, che iniziano come norme religiose o mitiche, evolvono in codici eroici e, infine, in sistemi legali razionali. Questo processo di evoluzione si ripete ogni volta che una società collassa e si riforma. Anche il progresso tecnico e intellettuale segue un percorso ciclico, in cui la conoscenza si accumula, si perde e poi viene riscoperta o reinventata in nuove forme. Vico utilizza questi cicli per criticare l’idea illuminista di un progresso umano inarrestabile e lineare, proponendo, invece, una visione ricorrente del progresso, che riconosce l’importanza delle ripetizioni storiche e della memoria collettiva. Questo modello gli permette di integrare elementi di storia, filosofia, antropologia e psicologia in una sintesi che mira a comprendere la complessità del comportamento e dello sviluppo umano.
Anche teoria delle tre età della storia riflette la visione ciclica della storia, in cui ogni civiltà passa attraverso tre fasi distinte: l’età degli dei, l’età degli eroi e l’età degli uomini.
L’età degli dei si caratterizza per la predominanza del mondo religioso e mitologico. In questo periodo, la società è guidata dalla paura degli dèi e dalle credenze religiose, che sono utilizzate per spiegare la realtà. Le leggi sono percepite come divine e immutabili, imposte da entità sovrannaturali, e non esiste ancora una chiara distinzione tra il naturale e il soprannaturale. La conoscenza è tramandata attraverso miti e simboli, che hanno la funzione di conservare le norme sociali e morali. Segue l’età degli eroi, un periodo in cui emergono figure carismatiche e dominanti, che assumono il controllo delle comunità. Questi eroi, spesso visti come semi-divini o discendenti diretti degli dèi, stabiliscono gerarchie sociali rigide e sono i protagonisti di grandi gesta e conquiste. In questa fase si sviluppano le distinzioni di classe e le strutture feudali o monarchiche. Le leggi iniziano a essere codificate, ma mantengono un forte legame con l’autorità divina. L’ultima è l’età degli uomini, caratterizzata dallo sviluppo di istituzioni più democratiche e dall’affermazione del diritto civile. La religione perde il suo ruolo centralizzante e le leggi vengono viste come prodotti dell’intelletto umano e del consenso sociale, piuttosto che come imposizioni divine. In questa età, la società si organizza attorno ai principi di uguaglianza e di diritto comune, favorendo lo sviluppo delle repubbliche e delle forme di governo partecipativo. L’educazione si diffonde e con essa cresce l’importanza della scrittura e del dibattito pubblico nella vita civile.
Questo schema delle tre età non solo permette a Vico di analizzare la storia umana in termini di sviluppo e declino, ma offre anche uno strumento per comprendere come le società interpretano e integrano i cambiamenti.
Anche il concetto di provvidenza occupa un posto di prim’ordine nell’opera vichiana. La provvidenza divina non è intesa come un intervento miracolistico negli affari umani, ma piuttosto quale principio ordinatore che guida il corso della storia verso fini di giustizia e razionalità. Questa visione differisce radicalmente dall’interpretazione meccanicistica o completamente laica della storia, tipica di molti suoi contemporanei illuministi. Secondo Vico, la provvidenza agisce attraverso le azioni umane e i loro risultati, inserendo un ordine e un fine morale nel flusso degli eventi storici. La provvidenza non elimina il libero arbitrio, ma lo indirizza verso lo sviluppo di civiltà e istituzioni sempre più complesse e giuste.
Il filosofo, inoltre, critica il metodo matematico di Cartesio, proponendo un approccio basato sulla “fantasia”, che considera fondamentale per la comprensione delle istituzioni umane. La sua metodologia si fonda sulla “poetica”, intesa come la capacità di creare connessioni tra eventi storici attraverso narrazioni che rispecchiano le mentalità e i valori di un’epoca. In questo modo, Vico anticipa tecniche di interpretazione che saranno centrali nelle scienze umane moderne, come l’ermeneutica e la filologia.
Principi di Scienza Nuova ha avuto un impatto profondo su molti campi del sapere, influenzando pensatori come Hegel e Marx nella filosofia, Croce nella critica letteraria e Joyce nella narrativa modernista. La visione vichiana della storia come processo dinamico e culturalmente determinato ha aperto nuove strade per la comprensione del ruolo delle narrazioni e dei simboli nella vita sociale.
L’opera di Vico, pertanto, nonostante la complessità stilistica e la densità concettuale, rimane una pietra miliare nella storia del pensiero occidentale. Offrendo uno straordinario intreccio di analisi storica e riflessione filosofica, il testo invita a riconsiderare le nostre idee sulla conoscenza e sulla civiltà, proponendo una visione della storia umana come teatro di infinite possibilità interpretative e trasformative.

 

 

 

Lascia una risposta

Jean-Jacques Rousseau e l’armonia perduta:
il contratto sociale per una nuova libertà

 

 

 

La politica, per Jean-Jacques Rousseau, è molto più di una fredda architettura di leggi e poteri: è il fragile filo che lega l’uomo alla sua libertà primigenia, un ritorno alle radici della condizione umana prima che la corruzione della società ne oscurasse la natura. In un mondo disgregato dagli egoismi individuali e dalle disuguaglianze, Rousseau immagina un “contratto sociale” come un patto sacro che ridà all’uomo quella libertà che egli stesso ha perduto, vivendo in una società ingiusta. Il contrattualismo di Rousseau si distingue nettamente da quello dei filosofi che lo precedono, come Hobbes e Locke: per lui, l’uomo, nello stato di natura, non è né belva né predatore, ma un essere libero e profondamente buono, che solo la società ha incatenato con le sue convenzioni artificiali e i suoi desideri egoistici. Il “contratto sociale” non deve, dunque, difendere le disuguaglianze esistenti, ma rovesciarle, creando una nuova comunità di uguali, dove la “volontà generale” diventa la vera legge sovrana.
In questo patto, Rousseau vede la possibilità di una politica etica e autentica, dove ogni individuo rinuncia al proprio interesse egoistico per fondersi in una volontà collettiva che non rappresenta la somma degli interessi particolari, ma il bene comune. La volontà generale, quasi come una forza invisibile e trascendente, esprime la più alta aspirazione umana: quella di una società giusta in cui ciascuno sia libero nella misura in cui tutti lo sono. Ecco, allora, che la politica si fa sogno di armonia e purezza, che supera la lotta dei singoli, un luogo ideale in cui l’uomo riscopre la sua vera essenza. È in questa dimensione che si trova il cuore del contrattualismo rousseauiano, un invito a riscrivere il patto sociale, non come vincolo di oppressione, ma come riscoperta della nostra comune umanità, nel segno di una libertà condivisa e di una giustizia universale.

 

 

 

 

 

Lascia una risposta

Il giardino della Libertà:
il contrattualismo di John Locke tra Ragione e Giustizia

 

 

 

La filosofia politica di John Locke fiorisce come un giardino filosofico, dove la libertà e la ragione crescono fianco a fianco, alimentate dal principio inviolabile del diritto naturale. In questo spazio di riflessione e giustizia ogni individuo è detentore di una sovranità innata, inalienabile, che precede qualunque autorità statale. L’uomo nasce libero e uguale, con un diritto originario alla vita, alla libertà e alla proprietà. Tali diritti non sono concessi da un sovrano, ma emergono naturalmente dalla condizione umana stessa, come un fiume che scorre dalla sorgente della ragione.
Il contratto sociale, secondo Locke, non è un patto di sottomissione, ma un accordo razionale che gli individui stipulano per proteggere i propri diritti e assicurarsi una convivenza ordinata. È il consenso della comunità a dare vita al governo e non l’arbitrio del potere assoluto. Il governo esiste solo per servire il popolo e il suo potere è legittimato dalla fiducia e dal consenso dei governati. Quando questo contratto viene tradito – allorché il governo abusa della sua autorità o viola i diritti fondamentali – il popolo ha non solo il diritto, ma il dovere di revocare il potere, di ribellarsi e ricostruire un ordine che sia nuovamente fondato sulla giustizia.
Il contrattualismo di Locke risuona come una sinfonia di libertà, dove il ruolo dello Stato non è quello di dominare, ma di custodire e proteggere. L’autorità è sempre limitata e condizionata dalla legge naturale e il contratto che lega i cittadini allo Stato è una promessa reciproca di rispetto, diritti e dignità. In questa visione, lo Stato non è una forza opprimente, ma uno scudo, un custode che protegge i fiori della libertà e della proprietà dai venti sferzanti della tirannia.
Così, la filosofia politica di Locke diventa un’ode alla libertà, un inno all’autodeterminazione, e il contratto sociale si rivela non come catena che vincola, ma quale filo invisibile che unisce gli individui in una danza armoniosa di giustizia e partecipazione, sempre pronti a difendere, con la forza della ragione, quel giardino prezioso che è la propria libertà.

 

 

 

 

Lascia una risposta

L’immutabile ordine del Cielo: Filmer e il diritto divino dei re

 

 

 

Nell’opera Patriarcha or the natural power of kings, Robert Filmer tesse una trama di idee che si stagliano contro il sorgere delle moderne concezioni di democrazia e sovranità popolare. Non si limita a contestare le teorie contrattualistiche di pensatori come Hobbes o Locke; rivendica un’autorità che trascende il volere umano, radicata non nel consenso, ma nel diritto divino e naturale, immutabile come il firmamento. Il suo argomentare è intriso di riferimenti sacri: il potere monarchico affonda le sue radici nel terreno biblico, germogliando dall’archetipo di Adamo, primo patriarca e sovrano per decreto divino. Così, ogni re non è solo un governante tra gli uomini, ma il legittimo erede di una linea sacra, un successore naturale del Primo Uomo, investito di un potere che non ammette contesa, perché sancito dall’Altissimo stesso. Filmer, così, si erge a implacabile difensore del diritto divino dei re, raffigurando la monarchia come una realtà non solo giusta, ma intangibile. Qualsiasi tentativo di resistenza diventa un atto di ribellione e, addirittura, un’offesa all’ordine divino, un’eresia contro il volere celeste. Patriarcha si trasforma in un manifesto contro il vento impetuoso del cambiamento, contro l’ideologia nascente del governo limitato (nel potere) e della separazione dei poteri. Filmer invoca un ritorno alle radici, fornendo una visione che lega la legittimità politica a un passato venerabile, dove il re non è soltanto un sovrano ma il custode dell’ordine divino sulla Terra, una figura che regge il destino dei popoli con mano ferma, sotto lo sguardo benevolo e inesorabile del cielo.

 

 

 

 

Lascia una risposta

Il patto con il Leviatano: la politica di Hobbes
tra caos e ordine

 

 

 

Thomas Hobbes, ritenendo la politica non mera gestione degli affari pubblici, la reputa, invece, quale fondamentale risposta alla natura intrinsecamente violenta e caotica dell’essere umano. A differenza delle teorie politiche a lui precedenti, che sovente consideravano la società come un riflesso dell’ordine naturale o divino, rompe con questa tradizione, proponendo una visione radicalmente nuova: l’uomo, nello stato di natura, è in perenne conflitto, una “guerra di tutti contro tutti”. Per uscire da questo stato di anarchia, gli individui scelgono di stipulare un patto sociale, un accordo collettivo in cui rinunciano a parte della loro libertà in cambio di protezione e ordine. In tale contesto, pertanto, la politica diventa l’arte di costruire e mantenere uno Stato forte e centrale, un Leviatano, capace di esercitare un potere assoluto. Questo potere, concentrato nelle mani di un sovrano, è l’unico baluardo in grado di garantire ordine, stabilità e sicurezza, prevenendo il ritorno al caos primordiale e alla violenza.

 

 

 

 

Lascia una risposta

Machiavelli: Il fondatore della moderna scienza politica
e la rottura del legame tra Verità e Diritto

 

 

 

Niccolò Machiavelli, teorizzando la necessità per il principe di essere “golpe” oltre che “lione”, ovvero affermando l’indispensabilità (e, per questo, la legittimità) del ricorso alla menzogna e all’inganno finalizzati al superiore interesse della costruzione dello Stato, spezzò il legame etico-razionale della Verità con il Diritto e assestò alla “scientia juris” un colpo mortale. Ecco perché, al di là di tutte le implicazioni, anche morali, il fiorentino può e deve essere considerato il padre della moderna scienza politica.

 

 

 

 

Lascia una risposta

Geopolitics: a Philosophical Approach

 

 

 

These my brand-new reflections on geopolitics present it as a philosophical field, emphasizing the influence of geography on political strategies and the impact of geopolitical actions on collective identities and human conditions. It integrates classical philosophical thoughts on power and State acts, aiming to deepen the understanding of nations’ strategic behaviours and ethical considerations. This reflective approach seeks to enhance insights into global interactions and the shaping of geopolitical landscapes.

 

The Geo-Philosophy

Part IV

 

 

Geophilosophy, in itself and in relation to what produces it, is therefore, first of all, a thought of the outside. This is because it has in the “outside” the only philosophical ground from which to draw its start; such a “start” is “unique” because any other ground would be, and is in fact, precluded to it, from the exclusion from which it comes: the almost nothing of heterogeneous existence and provincial thoughtfulness. In trying to reach a certain understanding of its theoretical consistency and its cultural role, geophilosophy thus comes to think of the place of its Herkunft, which means both belonging and provenance, as the fruit of a meiotic activity within a space of immanence. The mechanisms of exclusion and removal proper to meiotic activity destine a part of being to rejection: it is meiosis that produces that secluded region that constitutes, within the totality of things seen, organized, transmissible, and sensible, a Mërtvogo doma, a dead house, a closed region of the heterogeneous that resembles nothing, with its own laws, its own customs, with a life that does not exist anywhere else, where one can suppose that there is no crime that does not have its representative there, where the existing forces, there cohabiting under duress, are put to work under the threat of the stick, but without such employment having any purpose, its only purpose being instead to deceive the wait. A house where one can therefore learn patience in anticipation of being either enabled to join the bright world beyond, or at least pointed out by it as a mere moral reminder. A dwelling in every way similar to that prison of which Dostoevsky not only sculpted the figures, but also the dynamics, the chemical reactions, the vital functions, and the global dysfunction—the Other, for geophilosophy, is not high (Evola), but low (Nietzsche). The zero degree of exclusion corresponds, however, to the groundlessness of the world and the sense and organization of collective life are directly in function of the degree of exclusion. In this way, the crisis of desynthesis of the West comes to express, in addition to what has already been said, the weakening of the mechanisms of self-recognition on the part of the homogeneous world, which indeed used the inside/outside relationship to determine the sense of the positive, of the good, and of the superior in relation to the negative, the bad, and the inferior. The positive and the homogeneous are the ‘inside,’ the heterogeneous, the negative, and the transcendent are the ‘outside’; the ‘inside’ is a free, evasive region, the ‘outside’ is a closed and secluded region; the inside is the part of sense, of reason, of man and of being, the outside is the part of insignificance, of being, of god, and of the beast; the inside is the organized, serviced, and productive urban space, the outside is “the consistency of a vague ensemble that opposes the law (or Polis) as a hinterland, a mountainside, or the vague expanse around the city.” The desynthesis of the West therefore corresponds to an increase in the disorganization of the world, and thus also to an increase in its insignificance. The degree of insignificance to which the world bends corresponds, however, to the degree of liberation of flows of uncoded thought.
In the face of theology as the perfection of philosophical thinking, geophilosophy, one might say, unfolds—in the sense that it hoists, as sails are hoisted—the imperfection of an absolute anthropology. This, unlike subjective anthropology, which assumed the earth as that sector of being that constitutes the subordinate complement of the sphere of transcendence, assumes the earth as the conclusive, extreme horizon, as an “absolute,” within which the terrestrial and the transcendent, being and being, the human and the divine, the ἱδιότηϛ and the πoλίτης exchange incessantly, in a regime of unlimited reversibility.

In the second place, geophilosophy is a “minor” thought. Being excluded from thought does not mean not being able to learn its features, but rather: not being able to utter a philosophically legitimate sentence unless overcoming within oneself the stammering of the ἱδιότηϛ. “Minor,” in the sense of professional and homogeneous philosophy, is that use of the mind that stammers in thought, that use of the mind that is without past and without future, where, precisely, only what has a past, and therefore a future, and therefore a History, is philosophically relevant. Stammering in thought, without past or future, is indeed the almost nothing of provincial thoughtfulness. Taken in the “geo-” sense, this “minority” is therefore, to use a Deleuzian image, the autonomy of the stammerer insofar as he has conquered the right to stammer.
Finally, geophilosophy is a provincial thought, in the sense that it operates starting from the almost nothing of provincial thoughtfulness and unfolds like a path through the fields.
It is not easy to say whether Heidegger’s famous Feldweg also has this sense, but it is certain that if a path through the fields is mentioned here, it is meant to allude to a path that winds far from the road network of professional philosophy, to a path whose destination is not known with precision nor whether it leads anywhere, and thus to a path that must be attempted before it can be mapped. The path through the fields is therefore first of all a “trial path” (Holzweg), then a relationship of orientation with space, with the landscape and places (Wegmarken)—and not with the history of homogeneous thought, at least not primarily—, then a journey delivered to the horizontal development of the earth’s surface; the spirit does not invert, is not something that rises and falls, but rather, as is clear in the preludes of the dream, it rather spreads “over the broad surfaces of the earth, itself mountain and field and earth…”. Why the sky makes sense writes Cesare Pavese, who is perhaps the greatest poet of the landscape and earthliness of our twentieth century you must sink well black roots into the dark and if light flows right into the earth, like a shock, then even the peasants have a sense and cover the hills, immobile as if they were centuries, with green, with fruit and with houses and every plant at dawn would be a life.
The spirit spreads and covers the surfaces, the timeless hills, within a “closed” that we might say, delimits the absolute terrestrial; not therefore “celestial earth,” as has also been said, but rather, on the contrary, terrestrial sky, in the sense that it is the earth that has a sky, and not vice versa.
Finally, this image of the path, refers to a dialectic between ‘locality’ and ‘dislocation’, between rooting and deterritorialization. In the very near future, every thought begins. The landscape determines our first meditations. Our thoughtfulness is initially perhaps nourished by nothing but landscape. In the landscape and in the mother tongue, our ancestral sensibility is preserved and transmitted. The earth, not as a unifying symbol, but as this concrete relationship with a particular place-territory, gathers and preserves what, eluding manipulability, is free from technique: the faces of the ancestors inscribed in the folds of the landscape, the small cemetery up on the coast, where the ancestors insist and things that last forever. But without a dialectic between rooting and deterritorialization, between remembrance and flight, between the Langhe and Turin or the southern seas (to remain with Pavese), the call to the earth is useless rhetoric. Provincial thought unfolds this dialectic. But this dialectic does not reconstruct the universal, does not restore the eternal, does not provide global solutions, does not console, does not expand knowledge, and does not legitimize political choices. It might be said that it, very imperfectly, articulates local truths and transient facts within a concrete morality, also constantly in transit, aimed at clearing the path for the journey of a restricted community, in search of autonomy and “property” in the drift of the West, in search of a possibility of coexistence in the continuum of conflict, in search of a right and a victimizing responsibility in the deflecting system of laws and universalistic ties, and, finally, perhaps, in search of a terrestrial religion in the decline of Transcendence.
Geophilosophy is thus not, strictly speaking, either a new theoretical proposal or political, even if it has its own theoretical consistency and politics to be carried out, but rather a way of giving itself to thought “from the lucid fury that smolders in the somber thoughtfulness of peripheral recesses.” As such, it is but a transitory and lateral phenomenon, exactly as brigandage was caught between the decline of the ancien régime and the advent of the new political organ, the liberal State.

 

 

 

Lascia una risposta

Geopolitics: a Philosophical Approach

 

 

 

These my brand-new reflections on geopolitics present it as a philosophical field, emphasizing the influence of geography on political strategies and the impact of geopolitical actions on collective identities and human conditions. It integrates classical philosophical thoughts on power and State acts, aiming to deepen the understanding of nations’ strategic behaviours and ethical considerations. This reflective approach seeks to enhance insights into global interactions and the shaping of geopolitical landscapes.

 

The Geo-Philosophy

Part III

 

 

Geophilosophy means first and foremost what its name suggests: geo-philosophy, philosophy of the earth. However, the sense of the genitive, which, as is well known, can be understood in a dual sense, remains unprejudiced. In a subjective sense, the expression “philosophy of the earth” is philosophically banal, as it refers to cosmology if by “earth” we mean the orb, or to natural philosophy or Physics if by “earth” we mean the phýsei onta, the beings that come from Phýsis and that are therefore determined by kínesis, or “motility,” or even to anthropology if by “earth” we mean that sector of being that constitutes the subordinate complement of the sphere of transcendence: ethics as the determination of the good, aesthetics as the determination of the beautiful, law as the determination of the just, and politics as the determination of the good life.
In an objective sense, “philosophy of the earth” can still mean two things:
the earth of philosophy, in an emphatic sense, that is, the homeland, or, as is said today under the influence of a great and controversial master like Heidegger, the Heimat, the native place or womb from which thought is placed or re-placed in the world;
or the being delivered (of thought) to the earth, the absolute terrestriality of thought, its prison, to put it with Nietzsche—if we rightly understand his appeal to fidelity to the earth—, and thus again anthropology, but in a very different sense from the one previously mentioned.
Taken in the objective sense, the expression “philosophy of the earth” can thus mean either a reference to the transcendence of being, which would be the true homeland-motherland of thought (thought is of being, it belongs to it, it is it that places it in the world), or a reference to a plane of “absolute immanence,” on which the human and the historical find consistency but where there is no longer any trace of Man or of History, in which the celestial is contemplated, but only as a possible dimension of an absolute terrestrial, the theological problem is admitted but only as a problem internal to the horizon of an absolute anthropological. Such a thought more than ascertains the fall of man into a closed system; it expresses it, is, so to speak, the symptomatic manifestation of it.
Taken in the objective sense, the expression “philosophy of the earth” thus refers to two irreconcilable things, of which only one is geophilosophy in the sense mentioned above, that is, a thought of local instances, a “Lutheran” use of the mind, and a thought of immanence. Every other meaning of the term refers instead, always anew, to the philosophical primacy of theology.


In general, philosophy is precisely the attempt to assume the earth in the cone of light of an “elevated” and “eternal” gaze capable of embracing everything with a single glance (Plato: synoptikós), or of thinking the whole or the conditions of possibility of the whole (Kant) and thus reflecting its elements and articulations in relation to God or its secularized substitute, the subject, who of God, as Deleuze wrote, conserves precisely the essential: the place. The metric of philosophizing therefore admits, as its only dimension, the verticality; its presupposition is that the whole is transparent in all senses; its perfection is theology; its movement a movement of seesawing between up and down: 1. elevatory perspective, aimed at comprehending all differences and their relationships; 2. descensio ordinatoria, tending to organize and distribute as much meaning as possible.
To make this step, to discover this path between the cracks and in the dysfunction of the Western project, is not, however, professional philosophy, but rather the instances that were traditionally excluded: feminine domestic thoughtfulness, the somber provincial disposition to obsessive fantasies. These instances, emancipated by the expansive movement of the West (urbanized, technologized, acculturated, deprovincialized), suddenly restored as much to the freedom of thought as to the truth of their origins, suffer here an essential shock: faced with the discovery of being nothing other than the silent reserve of the homogeneous world, of the legal and thought community, seized at the edges of historical existence, the primary gesture with which they make their entrance onto the undifferentiated plane of the human is a gesture of refusal or, to be more precise, of withdrawal, of flight toward the thicket. Such “withdrawal” is akin to what Jünger called “passing into the woods,” but it is also an ascent toward the dawn of civilization, toward the prehistoric point at which separation and exclusion have not yet occurred, toward that zero degree of the West in which thought, springing forth, can be founded only on the absence of authority and is therefore, to put it with Bataille, a sovereign gesture, toward the point at which events, occurring, show their radical gratuitousness and in which the state is present rather as pure and simple par-oikía, a system of neighborhood, a form of condominium: neither peace nor war it might be said, mere coexistence—after all, it must be considered that peace is a pure fiction, as it can occur only as the nullification of conflict, brutal subjugation, or annihilation of the enemy as enemy. Such “withdrawal” expresses the refusal to assimilate to the productive homogeneity of the philosophy of the State and the estrangement with respect to its system of legitimation, the derision of its pedagogical function, and the horror for its professionalism. It is for this reason that geophilosophy, at the exact point where it flows, presents itself with the features of a wild thought, not conforming to the educational standards of public philosophy and thus as an uneducated, non-orthopedicized, implausible thought, to which, by definition, the consent of the scientific community cannot go—and therefore also a thought “false” or a false thought and, finally, as an illegal thought, disrespectful of the protocols and legality of scientific practices. Its methodological approach will appear rather as brigandage—this is the meaning to be attributed to the expression “Lutheranism of the mind,” at least from the perspective of homogeneous philosophy: it involves the exercise of something like a “free examination” conducted on texts that the philosophical church transmits, in a sacralizing manner, within a consolidated magisterium; free examination that, in the most extreme situations, may also appear as wild textualism or a sort of methodological vampirism.
Geophilosophy as such arises from a withdrawal of thought, from a wilding, from an attempt to gain not an elevated point of view, but a point of departure as external, lateral, and foreign to the procedures of homogeneous thought as possible. This at least is its public image, its cultural image. From the “geo-” perspective, what here appears as an ensemble of implausible forms presents itself instead now as a fight against culture, now as a revolt against politics, now as a movement of secretion, disappearance, and impulse to autonomy, now as a victimizing philosophy (the assumption of the viewpoint of the victim and the criminal instead of that of the community and the state—the geophilosophy indicates, moreover, an absolute victim, a paradigm of victim: the ἱδιότηϛ, the excluded from common thought, but also the being that stands alone, the private, the domestic, the paysan, the woman, the excluded from the political community and finally the excluded from the historical community, that is, the being without past and future).

 

 

 

Lascia una risposta

Geopolitics: a Philosophical Approach

 

 

 

These my brand-new reflections on geopolitics present it as a philosophical field, emphasizing the influence of geography on political strategies and the impact of geopolitical actions on collective identities and human conditions. It integrates classical philosophical thoughts on power and State acts, aiming to deepen the understanding of nations’ strategic behaviours and ethical considerations. This reflective approach seeks to enhance insights into global interactions and the shaping of geopolitical landscapes.

 

The Geo-Philosophy

Part II

 

 

The phase of the maintenance of our form of civilization unfolds between two apparently opposite and incompatible moments: synthesis and desynthesis. However, the “expansion” of the system has ultimately led to an irreversible crisis. The “crisis” of the West is not due to the incursion of an allotropic element, but to the simple fact that, through expansion, the political grinds down all that is non-political, the metropolis relentlessly grinds down the provincial and the peripheral, urbanism swallows the countryside, the forest, the mountain…, the philosophical absorbs all that is non-philosophical (literature, art, cinema, television, the dream, madness…)—philosophy even amuses itself by producing its own deconstruction; while History grinds down all that is extra-historical, from peoples without history to the history of that which, not unfolding “in public,” would strictly be without history. Now, this expansion has resulted in what Baudrillard calls “implosion,” that is, the “chemical” suspension of all classic opposition in a solution of reversibility or random aggregation, or anyway, according to laws not reducible to any known reference. Such a suspended state is what I call “desynthesis.”
Desynthesis should be understood not as a sort of reflux, but as a movement of drift, like the expression “galactic drift” in the Big Bang theory. The mutual distancing of nebulae here corresponds to the mutual distancing of State, History, and Philosophy and their internal parts from each other; it involves the disarray of the Western system or, more specifically, the breakdown of the system of legitimation of the Western use of the mind, and thus also the dysfunction of the project that refers to that use.


That there is desynthesis can be inferred indirectly from what we might call the Doppler effect of Western civilization, a sort of “redshift” of the “light” emanating from various formations of the objective spirit in which State, History, and Philosophy are variously intertwined.
The Doppler effect we are discussing consists, for example, of the recording of the decline of the universalistic model of the European nation-state and, more specifically, in the shift of political and legal investments to the local and territorial, such that statehood seems to produce more as a multiplicity of subversive pushes than as a totalization of collective existence in the ethno-political universality of the nation. To biopolitics as the perfection of Western statehood (the subsumption of life as a biological fact under a power that acts with aesthetic nonchalance) is substituted a sort of geopolitics of territorial instances (the dissemination of the political in the folds of the concrete territoriality and domesticity of existence). Thus, philosophy no longer produces itself as a national educational project, but as a sort of concrete morality that articulates local truths and transient facts for the use of restricted communities. To the university philosophy, which untangled universal teachings for a community without particularistic divisions within it, and thus an ethnically, legally, and politically homogeneous community—which guaranteed the universality of education through a system of public degrees and certificates—is juxtaposed something like a thought that speaks without legitimation, without authority, without certifications, and therefore a thought ‘gone wild,’ or better said, ‘uncivilized,’ which moves from a retreat to territorial belonging rather than from an imperial investiture. To hermeneutics as the perfection of the public philosophy of the late twentieth century is substituted a thought of local instances, a geo-philosophy; to the image of the state professor, the meticulous philologist, the pedagogue, the jealous guardian of orthodoxy, and the accumulator of glosses is juxtaposed, precisely in the sense that it slips to the side, to the right, that of the corsair thinker or, better yet, pirate, vampyr, one who sucks the soul (the juice, the sap of a thought) introducing into bodies (his public image) a spirit that does not correspond (Wild textualism)—to the productivity and commensurability of philosophical work, typical moreover of every homogeneous formation, is substituted a sort of heterogeneous dissemination of the thinking function, a shift in the register of thought from accumulation to expenditure, from education to conspiracy, from capital to treasure, from universal power to transitory munificence. On this basis is forming another economy of thought that alongside the global governance of the mind affixes something like a liberalism or an anarchism of its use, to the catholicism of thought (revelation + tradition + magisterium) juxtaposes a mind unaware of the revelativity of philosophy, disacknowledging the magisterium of clerics and exercising a sort of free examination of tradition: Lutheranism of the mind.
(Finally, the same can be said for historicity. This no longer produces itself as the unisignificance of the world and facts. To the homogeneous and transferable spiritual heritage of nations is substituted the experience of discontinuity and rupture, to universal history the incommensurability of the historical experiences of concrete local communities.)

 

 

 

Lascia una risposta

Geopolitics: a Philosophical Approach

 

 

 

These my brand-new reflections on geopolitics present it as a philosophical field, emphasizing the influence of geography on political strategies and the impact of geopolitical actions on collective identities and human conditions. It integrates classical philosophical thoughts on power and State acts, aiming to deepen the understanding of nations’ strategic behaviours and ethical considerations. This reflective approach seeks to enhance insights into global interactions and the shaping of geopolitical landscapes.

 

The Geo-Philosophy

Part I

 

 

Philosophy no longer makes individuals wiser nor does it impart wisdom; it neither aids in making beneficial life decisions nor does it bring happiness. However, it certainly does not leave everything unchanged—it is not a futile endeavour. This can be demonstrated through indirect reasoning, for instance by examining how political power has repeatedly striven to seize it or control its discourse.
Yet, the issue is more intricate and simultaneously more straightforward than it appears. First, because philosophy is not merely prey to the political; and second, because the relationship among philosophy, politics, and history is highly complex. It is only through the interplay of this complexity, resembling the ever-changing patterns of a kaleidoscope, that we can glean insights into the characteristics of our way of life, our culture, traditionally referred to as the “West.”
It is thus possible to begin with the observation that philosophy is a fundamental and essential aspect of the “Western project.”
The need to define this term (“Western project”) necessitates first clarifying what “project” implies here. If by project we mean looking forward, the foresight of what will be done, and the structured plan of a construction, then it can be defined as the plan that allows us to foresee everything that needs to be done to then tackle a specific construction.
In general, the blueprint upon which our way of life was developed and built includes three constructive orders: the organization of coexistence, the continuity of events, and the certification of beliefs. The West is an ongoing construction whose unfolding is articulated as a combination of these three problem-solving constructs. On the plane of coexistence, the Western project unfolds as a state organization; on that of eventuality and its impermanence, it unfolds as History; and on that of belief and its uncertainty, it unfolds as Philosophy. The State organizes the community, History retains events, Philosophy transforms faith into truth.


One might wonder in what sense philosophy certifies belief, and the answer is that philosophy arises and establishes itself in opposition to myth. The struggle between philosophy and myth is authoritatively attested by Plato. This struggle is primarily a battle for control over the education system (Paideia) and unfolds in three ways: 1. the exclusion of poets, that is, the wise producers of myths, from the Polis; 2. the repositioning of mythical wisdom in a subordinate role to philosophical knowledge; 3. an unequivocal condemnation of the sophist, that is, the practitioner of a private and thus particularistic Paideia, and moreover in exchange for money.
Philosophy firstly rejects the mere faith-based nature of myth (that which is strongly believed is true) and its inability to establish itself as an exclusive sphere, thereby preemptively invalidating the emergence of other myths, and thus of different and conflicting truths. Philosophy counters the particular knowledge of myth and sophistry with the idea of a universal and incontrovertible knowledge. Now, the philosopher’s certainty of possessing absolutely certain knowledge is based on the acquisition of two notions: 1. truth as unveiling (Alétheia); 2. Being as totality (En-pan). By invoking these two notions, philosophy asserts itself as a total, exclusive faith: philosophy is the eternal and ubiquitous knowledge of the unveiled, that is, of that which, remaining unchangeably in the philosopher’s gaze, is always and everywhere true.
The extent to which this conviction is in turn a belief is something that, following the break from Hegelianism, will be categorically highlighted. Philosophy is no more a certain knowledge than myth was, with the difference that this myth, which is philosophy, has found in the coordination with the State and with History the means to suppress, disqualify, or annihilate any different use of the mind.
State, History, and philosophy are not independent magnitudes. Together, they constitute the response to the problems of the incompatibility of coexistence, the impermanence of events, and the uncertainty of belief, whose kaleidoscopic interplay forms the ever-changing, yet always unified, shape of Western civilization. It could be said that each of these magnitudes presupposes and inevitably refers back to the other two, and that none of the three would have the meaning they do outside of their mutual and triadic relationship, nor could they be separated from this relationship without compromising the entire system’s structure, thereby somehow causing its breakdown. This is a system of transparent planes, each bearing a design; their overlapping, in multiple combinations, gives us the complete design of Western Kultur. What allows the reading of the three planes as a civilization project is thus their very transparency. This system of complex overlays could be termed the Western synthesis, namely the union, the joint capacity for promotion, and the mobile connection of State, History, and Philosophy, along with the transparency of each plane relative to the others.
For instance, knowledge that sought certainty outside the constraints imposed by historical existence would be nothing more than the myth against which Plato fought to establish philosophy as the foundation of all public education. Moreover, if there were no centralized and singular control over the education system, if the Paideia presented itself as a multiplicity of conflicting and irreducible proposals, then there would not be a State, i.e., there would not be a single system of publicity and therefore not even a single system of meaning, there would not be that Einsinningkeit, that unisignificance of facts that is the foundation of the Western mind. In its place, we would have something like a plurality of private meanings and disparate images, and thus the possibility, always given, of their irreconcilable conflict; we would have something powerful, tyrannical, and at the same time inert, flaccid, treacherous, something both superstitious and simultaneously dazzling like a foggy lunar night, like a charming creature yet veiled in damp mists, dim, feverish, internally corrupt and contradictory like Madame Chaucaht.
Thus, the West is primarily a State, that is, the opening of a public space measured by Man, whose measure is Man but only insofar as he is philosophically educated—thus: Homo philosophicus and not “man” simply. The West, following the metaphors of the Magic Mountain, is the “clear day,” the “daylight” where things appear in their incontrovertible objectivity, and “cold,” that is, rational, and finally “glassy,” that is, transparent, unambiguous. This public space, rational, objective, and unambiguous is the realm of manifestation of meaningful events. The meaning of such events, for the philosophically educated being, is univocal, that is, universally comprehensible and transmissible. Such events are thus, so to speak, “eternal facts,” which precisely means: transmissible according to a single meaning. For this reason, they are said to belong to History. History is not the space of facts that simply happen and to which “man” simply conforms, but the realm of the happening of “eternal facts,” which are “facts” only for the Homo politico-philosophicus.

 

 

 

Lascia una risposta