YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Romanae Disputationes 2026/27: Lezione inaugurale

Romanae Disputationes 2026/27: Lezione inaugurale — Transcript

by Romanae Disputationes · 12,009 words · 1,837 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

2:12Well, welcome everyone, good afternoon,
2:15and let's begin the work of this 14th
2:17edition of Romanae Disputationes. We
2:21are thrilled to be here once again,
2:23hosted by the Catholic University of
2:26Milan, and I remind everyone that this
2:29is an initiative involving high school
2:31students where philosophy is taught.
2:35Starting this year, as we will see in
2:37the final announcements, we have also
2:39opened a category for competition and
2:41participation aimed at technical and
2:43vocational schools, which is something
2:45we are truly excited about, so I am
2:47mentioning it now. This initiative is
2:50promoted by the association "Amore per
2:52il Sapere"(API) in collaboration with
2:54many partners, including, of course,
2:55the Catholic University, whom I thank
2:57in advance, and it has a very specific
2:59purpose. This initiative was born from
3:02the desire to support the love for the
3:05study of philosophy, to develop it, to
3:07increase it, and to make it possible
3:09for everyone. And the thing that
3:13characterizes Romanae Disputationes is
3:15the fact that it is built together with
3:17university professors, universities,
3:19and many places where research is
3:21conducted firsthand. And for several
3:25years, Romanae Disputationes has been
3:26recognized by the Ministry as one of
3:28the two projects for the enhancement of
3:30excellence, and so we are very grateful
3:32for this. And even today there are many
3:36of us here in person in this beautiful
3:38hall, but we are also connected from
3:41more than 100 schools in Italy, and we
3:43are an indefinite number between 3,000
3:46and 4,000, because we haven't asked
3:48every teacher who registered their
3:50classes for exact figures, but for us,
3:53it is extraordinary because it means
3:55that philosophy, when proposed in the
3:57right way, can truly reach so many
4:00people. I thank the teachers, as it is
4:04not to be taken for granted that they
4:07find the time, like many of you, to
4:09take the energy, the space, and the
4:11time from their week to participate and
4:14guide and accompany your students here
4:16today, but also throughout the year for
4:19those who will follow the entire path.
4:23Um, and I also thank the partners who
4:26make this study experience possible. I
4:30will list them to thank them: the LER
4:32publishing house of Turin, which
4:34publishes a book dedicated to the
4:36Romanae for us every year; the Toniolo
4:38Institute, which has accompanied and
4:41supported the project for years; CIMEA;
4:43Azimut; the De Gasperi Foundation; the
4:45Laterza scolastica publishing house,
4:48which helps us by donating a prize that
4:50is, philosophically speaking, a prize
4:52in books, so it is very appreciated by
4:55the winners of our competition. The RUI
4:58Foundation and its excellent university
5:01residences, their association, the
5:04Cineteca di Bologna, the Campus
5:06university residences, the universities
5:09of Bologna, Padua, Bari, and Venice,
5:11the Lavoro Più agency, with whom we
5:14will hold the orientation month in
5:16February, and finally the Catholic
5:19University of Milan, represented by
5:22General Manager Mario Gatti and the
5:25Department Director. Paola Müller—
5:29all of these entities help and support
5:32us, making possible something that
5:35could end tomorrow, but could also
5:37continue forever. And this is somewhat
5:40the spirit with which we approach the
5:42annual work of the Romana Disputatio.
5:44From the work of the Romana Disputatio.
5:46The Manifesto for Philosophy was also
5:49born, which you can find online, in
5:51which we try to tell those who make
5:54many choices for us that philosophy
5:57cannot be removed from school curricula
5:59, and thank God, for now, this danger
6:02is not present, though it was years ago
6:05. And so, there are many activities
6:08that have subsequently grown from this
6:10philosophical work of ours. And now I
6:14ask Professor Paola Müller—who is a
6:16full professor of medieval philosophy
6:17here at the Cattolica, is department
6:19head, and is also president of the
6:21Lombard Philosophical Society, making
6:22her a very important person and also a
6:24great friend of the Romana Disputatio,
6:26as well as a member of the scientific
6:28committee—to welcome us and bring us
6:29her greetings.
6:33>> Thank you. The titles were longer than
6:39I am. You forgot one: I am a
6:43grandmother. And so it is fantastic,
6:45which is the most beautiful title there
6:47could possibly be. That said, welcome
6:53to the Cattolica on behalf of the
6:56Department of Philosophy and all my
6:59colleagues who support this initiative
7:02and welcome your teachers. Some are our
7:07colleagues with whom we studied and
7:10shared part of our path of study, work,
7:13and research, and some of you might
7:16grow up to become our students, and we
7:19will be very happy to welcome you. I
7:24also bring you greetings from the
7:26Lombard section of the Italian
7:28Philosophical Society, which supports
7:31this initiative, and also the offshoots
7:34of the Romana Disputatio, which
7:36Professor Ferrari will tell you about,
7:39specifically "Age et Contra," whose
7:42second edition will also be held here
7:44at the Cattolica. So, welcome, and
7:48enjoy the lecture by Roberto.
7:52>> Thank you. Thanks to Paola Müller, and
7:55—for those who have already seen it
7:57—for her beautiful video lecture that
7:59accompanies and supports the research
8:02work in the classrooms throughout this
8:04year's program. So, before giving the
8:08floor to Professor Roberto Mordacci,
8:10who is our most welcome speaker for
8:12this inaugural lecture, I wanted to
8:14recall some aspects that perhaps help
8:17to look at the work in a more complete
8:19way. We are coming from three editions,
8:23the last ones where we talked about
8:25time, what time is; then, what values
8:27are and therefore the genesis and
8:29experience of what is valuable; and
8:32last year a theme, like all the others,
8:34wonderful: "I who am: individual,
8:36subject, individual, person, subject."
8:40Well, reflecting, we choose the theme
8:42thinking about the theme addressed in
8:44the current year and where it can lead,
8:47what horizons it can open up. Speaking
8:50of the I that I am, it occurred to us
8:52that the "I" cannot help but look at
8:54itself as a journey, as a history. And
8:58so we drew the title from here, the
9:00theme for this year, which as you know
9:02is "Is there a meaning in history:
9:04chaos, progress, eternal return." The "
9:08Romane" have also been experimenting
9:10for 14 years with a way of doing school
9:13and philosophy remotely that today is
9:15often common and familiar to many. It
9:19is news from these days that some of
9:22our collaborators have carried out the
9:25translation into Arabic of some lessons
9:28we gave in previous years, requested by
9:31professors and groups of university
9:33students in Saudi Arabia. So it is
9:37something that was born a bit by chance
9:39, but of which we are very proud, and I
9:41also thank Professor Giampaolo
9:43Terravecchia for this, who is also the
9:45president of the didactic committee who
9:47followed this aspect as well. The "
9:50Romane" were born precisely to, as I
9:53said at the beginning, bear witness to
9:55the beauty that is doing philosophy
9:57together. And so I will try to say a
10:01few more words about the theme we have
10:03chosen and then I will finally give the
10:05floor to Roberto Mordacci. What we are
10:10focusing on this year is: whether or
10:13not a meaning exists in history, if it
10:15is knowable, and, as the first
10:18philosophers of classical Greece taught
10:21us, if it is possible to find a law
10:23that underlies cosmic becoming.
10:27Therefore, that famous arché—for the
10:29third-year students it should already
10:31be familiar—which is the origin,
10:33constitutive element, and ultimate end
10:35of everything that happens. And so, we
10:39would like to understand if it is
10:42possible for each of us together to
10:44discover this law of becoming, this
10:47meaning of what happens to us in its
10:50totality. And then there is the word
10:52history which, as Professor Fermani
10:55reminded us in her beautiful video
10:57lesson, indicates both the research and
11:00the ability to write it, to make it a
11:03shared discourse. And so we will go
11:06together to investigate the possible
11:08meaningfulness, the possible linearity,
11:10the possible regularity of the
11:12historical flow, or go to see if we are
11:15inside a chaos of which we cannot,
11:17precisely, find a law. And here, the
11:22great Leopardi helps us, whom we
11:24already used last year for last year's
11:26title, when he says, "Tell me, O Moon,
11:28what does the shepherd's life avail him
11:30, or your life to you?" Tell me, where
11:34does this brief wandering of mine tend,
11:36and your immortal course? We chose
11:39these few lines by Leopardi precisely
11:41because we understand that posing the
11:43theme of history means starting from
11:45one's own individual, personal history,
11:48and then opening it up to the history
11:50of civilizations, right up to cosmic
11:52history. And here, Professor Mordacci
11:54has an important task, which is to give
11:57us the opening note on which we can
11:59then reflect to construct our own work.
12:03Professor Mordacci, whom I thank very
12:05much for being here with us, is a
12:07graduate of this Catholic University
12:09and is a full professor of moral
12:11philosophy and Pro-Rector of Humanities
12:13and Social Sciences at the Vita-Salute
12:15San Raffaele University in Milan. He
12:19was dean of the faculty from 2013 to
12:212022 and has written a great deal on
12:23these topics. I recall in particular "
12:26Ritorno all'utopia" for Laterza and "
12:28Critica dell'utopia" for Castelvecchi.
12:32And I mention it because I hope it will
12:35also come to pass. He is also preparing
12:38a wonderful text, like the one Paola
12:40Müller has already published, in which
12:42he will collect the lessons for the "
12:44Romane Disputaziones," and. Within
12:47about ten months we should be able to
12:49publish it, perhaps sooner; I was being
12:51generous. For, um, well, we are honored
12:54to have him here. So, as always, I
12:57invite you to listen to him with great
12:59attention and take notes. And today, as
13:02always, we are not leaving room for
13:03questions, because we will ask the
13:05questions later in class with our
13:07teachers or with whomever else we wish
13:08to consult. And so I leave you with his
13:11lecture; I thank him, I thank you all,
13:13and enjoy the presentation.
13:20>> Well, first of all, thanks Marco,
13:22thanks to "Romane Disputaziones" for
13:24the knowledge, thanks to the Catholic
13:26University for having trained me years
13:29and years ago. Eh, back then Professor
13:31Müller was already walking the halls,
13:33perhaps she was a doctoral student at
13:35the time or
13:36>> this is not
13:39>> no? Well, more or less my age, there
13:41you go. Anyway, we are right there, but
13:43, actually, it is the first time I have
13:45come to this building and it gives me
13:47great pleasure; I am very impressed. It
13:49is a beautiful building, it is a
13:51beautiful university, and I am happy
13:53that the university has grown so much.
13:57So, the theme of this year's "Romane
13:59Disputaziones" has been formulated as a
14:01question: is there a meaning in history
14:03? And the subtitle, as you can see, is
14:08not an answer. There are three words
14:11that are perhaps three possible answers
14:14to this question, but it is not certain
14:16that they are compatible with each
14:19other, or that at least one of them is,
14:21let's say, credible or appealing. In my
14:26report, I will actually argue that one
14:28of these three words, particularly the
14:30word "progress," if interpreted
14:32critically and constructively, can
14:34offer not an answer, but a task, which
14:36is the most interesting thing. Because,
14:39if we are talking about history, the
14:41point is not to have answers; we create
14:43the answers with our actions, with our
14:45history. The point, when speaking of
14:48history, is precisely what task we have
14:50in history, and that is somewhat the
14:51theme. So, the question of the meaning
14:56of history is, as has already been
14:58noted, an existential, moral, and
15:00political issue all at once. Hm, it is
15:03also a theoretical question, but the
15:05point is that history is constituted by
15:07our actions, by our lives. So the first
15:10point is the first question, the first
15:12way of formulating the question. Is
15:13there meaning in history? And what am I
15:15doing here? Hm. And what is my role?
15:18What can I do? What meaning do I give
15:21to my story? And what meaning does my
15:25story have with respect to the meaning
15:27that history produces or does not
15:29produce? Because in reality, it might
15:32not produce any meaning at all? And the
15:35most radical answer in the direction
15:38that history produces no meaning, and
15:42is essentially an unmanageable chaos,
15:45also crossed by a brutality and malice
15:49that prevents one from even dreaming
15:52that meaning could be given to history.
15:56The most radical answer in this sense
15:59was not formulated by a philosopher,
16:01but by a playwright, namely Shakespeare
16:04. In Macbeth, when Macbeth in the
16:08eponymous tragedy, after having
16:11betrayed his friends, seized power, and
16:14lost his wife, upon the announcement of
16:17his wife's death, Macbeth has this line
16:21: "Life's but a walking shadow, a poor
16:24player that struts and frets his hour
16:27upon the stage and then is heard no
16:30more." Life is a tale told by an idiot,
16:35full of sound and fury, signifying
16:39nothing. This is a challenge for us. Eh
16:43, Macbeth expresses, let's say, an
16:45absolute disenchantment with history,
16:48and it is a disenchantment that he
16:51himself produced. In the tragedy, he is
16:54the one who caused this fury, this
16:57sound, this absence of meaning. And
17:01telling this story tells us this. This
17:04story is not strictly a history, it is
17:06a tale, our life is a little tale. It
17:10is an idiot, to be precise. Much noise,
17:12great agitation, and in the end,
17:14nothing. If Macbeth is right, every
17:19search for meaning in life and history
17:21is a pure illusion. But is he right?
17:26And even if he were right in the facts,
17:29he would be right in principle, that is
17:32, as a guide for our actions. I mean,
17:36even if history never reached a
17:38complete meaning or was truly full of
17:41sound and fury, would that authorize us
17:44not to try to create meaning, even
17:47against the sound and fury? For example
17:53, this is what the characters of a
17:55famous novelist, Albert Camus, try to
17:57do. Camus's characters, particularly
18:03the doctor Bernard Rieux in the novel
18:06The Plague, witness the outbreak, the
18:09unfolding of a brutal epidemic that
18:12causes hundreds of deaths in the city
18:15where he lives and works; yet he
18:18continues to fight, continues to heal,
18:21risking his life, putting himself on
18:24the line, even facing dangers such as
18:28being opposed or rejected. And in the
18:32end, Bernard Rieux says, in the end he
18:35says that what one learns in the midst
18:38of scourges is that there are more
18:40things to admire in men than to despise
18:43. This is a good answer, but perhaps,
18:48let’s say, stated so simply at the
18:50beginning as a response to Macbeth, it
18:53is too little, also because Theodor
18:55Adorno, one of the masters of the
18:57Frankfurt School, whom I happen to
18:59study repeatedly, is right; as Theodor
19:01Adorno says, one must cultivate a
19:03certain disenchantment. Disenchantment
19:07in the manner of Macbeth is important.
19:10Disenchantment in Adorno’s concept is
19:12the antidote of philosophy, what
19:14philosophy has as an antidote to
19:16enchantment. This disenchantment
19:20prevents philosophy from degenerating
19:22and becoming an absolute of itself.
19:25Philosophy, when it sets itself up as a
19:27judge of history, establishes that
19:28there is a meaning, establishes it with
19:30some nice argument and demonstration,
19:31and everything ends there. The idea
19:36that we must instead fight to
19:39investigate whether nonsense is
19:41actually prevalent has an ancient
19:44lineage. The word we used in this
19:47subtitle is chaos, and you know well
19:49that typically the word chaos is
19:52opposed to the word cosmos, the idea of
19:54disorder versus the idea of order. It
19:59is worth pausing a bit on these two
20:00words. Now, in the Theogony, Hesiod
20:04writes that, indeed, first there was
20:07chaos, but for the Greeks, chaos does
20:09not mean exactly disorder, as I said
20:12just a moment ago. The word comes from
20:16a verb that means opening, to open, to
20:19gape, to unfurl in a way that is
20:20certainly not ordered, but rather as a
20:23great opening. Chaos is that chasm,
20:26that empty and formless space which is
20:31simply the abyss from which everything
20:33can emerge and into which everything
20:35can fall back. On the contrary, cosmos
20:40here indicates not just a rigorous,
20:43geometric, or engineering order, but
20:46points to adornment, a well-arranged
20:49beauty, an arrangement of things that
20:52makes sense, that resonates with our
20:55sensibility. I say it resonates; it is
21:00an ornament, it speaks of beauty as
21:02well as meaning, because cosmos shares
21:04the same etymological root as the word
21:06cosmetic, for instance, or cosmesis—
21:08that is, order has to do with beauty.
21:12The point here is, what kind of order
21:13are we talking about? According to
21:17tradition, it was Pythagoras who first
21:20used the word cosmos to describe the
21:22universe because, as we know,
21:24Pythagoras saw in reality an ordered,
21:26mathematical structure that reflected a
21:29certain harmony, the same harmony we
21:31find in art, particularly in music. So,
21:37from this point on, Western philosophy
21:39has frequently investigated these
21:41polarities: chaos and cosmos. For
21:45example, in the Timaeus, Plato imagines
21:48a divine artisan, a demiurge, who
21:51shapes disordered, scattered matter—
21:54scattered in the universe without order
21:56—and molds this matter by looking at
21:59models that are eternal. But similarly,
22:04in another tradition, not the Greek one
22:06but the biblical tradition, Genesis
22:08states that in the beginning the earth
22:10was formless and empty, and darkness
22:12covered the abyss. And creation, in the
22:17biblical account of Genesis, consists
22:19first of all in separating: separating
22:21light from darkness, the waters above
22:24from those below, the earth from the
22:26sea. Order, therefore, is born as a
22:30distinction within the formlessness of,
22:33shall we say, the clashing of all
22:36reality without any recognizable
22:38pattern, without distinctions, in fact.
22:42Order means beginning to distinguish
22:44and, for example, distinguishing
22:46between above and below, but also, for
22:48instance, between good and evil,
22:49between just and unjust. This is the
22:52theme. Chaos is also the place where
22:54there is no just or unjust; there is
22:56only chaos. And the question regarding
22:59the meaning of history is whether the
23:02words justice, injustice, good, and
23:04evil have any sense or meaning when we
23:06look at history. In fact, history looks
23:09a bit more like a situation of chaos
23:11than order when you look at it, let's
23:13say, even from afar. There is an
23:16oscillation between very brief moments
23:19of order which then conflagrate into
23:22disorder, into collapse, into decline.
23:27Hm, there are wars that last for
23:29centuries and periods of peace that
23:31fortunately sometimes last quite a long
23:34time, but which then aren't eternal,
23:37and while we would like peace to never
23:39end. Mbembe is the spokesperson for
23:43this chaos. However, precisely, the
23:46question that should be posed in a more
23:48interesting way, in my opinion,
23:50compared to the idea of defining
23:52whether the universe from a theoretical
23:54point of view is chaos or order. The
23:57issue is not speculative, it is first
23:59and foremost a practical issue, as I
24:01said; it is how we must live so that
24:02history takes on meaning. The question
24:06of meaning, in fact, precedes that of
24:08the order of being, because we inhabit
24:11the world first and look at it later.
24:13When we have, let's say, put ourselves
24:15in a position of minimal security, we
24:18have the luxury of being able to look
24:20at it and ask ourselves, indeed, if it
24:22is ordered from the point of view,
24:24let's say, of its fundamental structure
24:26. I mean that the moral, political,
24:28practical question precedes the
24:30ontological or metaphysical question.
24:33Eh, praxis comes first because it is
24:35the way in which we stand, the way in
24:37which we exist. Wonder, the*thauma*of
24:41which Aristotle speaks in the first
24:42books of the first book of Metaphysics,
24:44presupposes something else; it is not
24:46the first question. Of course, yes, man
24:49feels wonder in the face of the world;
24:51but this wonder can only be felt when,
24:53precisely, he has answered the other
24:55question, or at least has begun to
24:56draft an answer to that other question,
24:58the one Socrates asks himself in the
25:00first book of Plato’s*Republic*,
25:02namely: how must I live? Then, let's
25:07say, there is also the question of the
25:10meaning of the word "sense"(senso). Eh,
25:13the word "sense" has at least three
25:15meanings. We speak of senses in the
25:18plural to refer to our ability to
25:20perceive reality. We speak of the sense
25:22of a word, that is, the meaning that a
25:25word has, and we speak of the sense of
25:27a road, of a direction. And usually if
25:30we speak of a sense in history we are
25:31thinking of the latter, right? We are
25:34thinking of a possible direction in
25:36history. But even here, I wouldn't
25:39forget that the word "sense" also
25:42points us back to the senses. The sense
25:46of history, if it is true, if let's say
25:49it is credible and is something I can
25:52dedicate myself to and embark on a path
25:54toward a direction, is something that I
25:57must at the same time understand, but
26:00also feel; it must resonate in my
26:02humanity, in my ability to perceive.
26:06And that is why I say again it is a
26:08practical, even an aesthetic question.
26:10Even an aesthetic one that has to do
26:12with beauty and with the good, the
26:14relationship between good, beauty,
26:15order, cosmos, and everything else. We
26:21could also say that the question of
26:23meaning is expressed through the
26:25question of the meaning and end of
26:27history, which is the title of a very
26:29important and beautiful book by Karl
26:31Löwith, a 1949 book that speaks
26:33precisely about the meaning and end of
26:35history. Actually, the title in English
26:38, which is the original edition, is "
26:40Meaning in History," therefore meaning,
26:43but also sense. But when the English
26:45say, "My life has no meaning," they
26:47mean my life has no sense, not that it
26:49has no meaning. However, we need to
26:52clarify this relationship between sense
26:54and end a little bit. Is the sense of
26:57history its purpose or its end? If we
27:01could determine the end of history, the
27:03goal, the arrival point, we couldn't
27:08help but think that perhaps that
27:10arrival point is necessary, and that,
27:12precisely, that arrival point defines
27:14everything that preceded it, and that
27:16everything preceding it is simply the
27:18path toward that arrival point. If it
27:24is a certainty, if I can define and
27:26determine the arrival point, and
27:29perhaps even determine all the steps we
27:31will take to get there, because the end
27:34is clear and the steps, the means, the
27:36intermediate stages can be defined with
27:39a good theory or good science. If that
27:42were the case, then all the drama of
27:44history would lose its value, because
27:47we would find ourselves facing a path
27:49determined by something else, by others
27:51or by something else, but certainly not
27:54by our freedom. There would be no true
27:58emotion in the drama of existence if
28:01everything is already established as
28:03destined for something known. Maybe it
28:08is known to someone who is not us, but
28:10it is not known to us. Freedom, instead
28:15, is precisely that state of standing
28:17before the possibility that my action
28:20makes a difference to the course of
28:22history, that I am responsible for the
28:24direction history will take, even in my
28:27own small way. This means that the real
28:32question regarding the sense of history
28:35is the question of defining the space
28:38of human freedom, of individual freedom
28:41, and its relationship with necessity
28:44or determinism, if you will. If
28:47determinism or necessity wins, the
28:49sense is lost because, precisely,
28:51freedom makes no difference at all. If,
28:54instead, freedom prevails as one of the
28:57effective causes of historical events
29:00that, as I was saying, makes the
29:02difference, then history is a task, and
29:05indeed, history is also the stage for
29:07the drama of human freedom. The idea of
29:12the end of history, however, is not
29:14necessarily one that can only or solely
29:16be interpreted as the idea of a
29:18determined, known, and clear goal. It
29:21can also be the idea of an end that I
29:24don't know so well, that I can somehow
29:27intuit or imagine or propose to myself
29:30and which is a horizon, a possibility,
29:34not a certainty, a hypothesis or even,
29:37as good old Kant used to say, a
29:39regulative ideal, that is to say
29:42something that I would like history to
29:45reach, a goal that human beings could
29:48set for themselves and perhaps even
29:51achieve if, if circumstances help us
29:53and if we help one another. So I would
29:57maintain the idea of the end as one of
29:58the meanings of sense. The meaning of
30:02history can be an end that we could set
30:05for ourselves as a possibility:
30:07something that is possible, in which we
30:09can believe as a possibility for human
30:12beings; and which, even if it is vague,
30:14somehow leaves in our hands the
30:16possibility of reaching it or not
30:18reaching it. In this sense, precisely,
30:23the word meaning says there is a
30:25horizon of interpretation. We cannot
30:28define the end clearly, but we can say
30:31that there are some things that if we
30:33were to realize them, we would realize
30:36a good end, we would realize the good,
30:39and that is a bit the idea. Human
30:44actions can therefore have a meaning,
30:46not only in relation to an ultimate end
30:48, but also in relation to an ultimate
30:51end that perhaps will never be realized
30:53. This is precisely the challenge that
30:57I was referring to earlier with Camus '
30:59heroes. Basically, we could understand
31:03that there would be an end, let's say
31:05the situation in which suffering is
31:07reduced as much as possible, we live in
31:10peace, we collaborate, we are
31:12reasonably happy. This, this hope and
31:16this, this goal is entirely legitimate
31:18and it is quite obvious if you think
31:20about it. And yet, if history
31:24constantly contradicts us, or rather if
31:26we constantly contradict ourselves, is
31:28it still worth fighting for? That is
31:31the question. The theme is that yes,
31:36paradoxically, one can also think that
31:38the meaning of history, which would
31:40indeed exist, might never be reached,
31:43and yet that does not mean that our
31:45actions have no meaning. They are
31:48testimony. They are testimony that a
31:51meaning, however small, was possible
31:54here, now, among us, in one, two, three
31:57figures, in one, two, three groups,
31:59people who gave meaning, at least for
32:02as much as they could, to a path of
32:05history that perhaps fails as a whole;
32:07but even if history were to fail, those
32:10, those experiences shine, as moments
32:13of value. The word progress is
32:17obviously linked to the word meaning
32:20and it is a word that speaks of the way
32:23in which modern people have attempted
32:26to provide an answer to chaos. It is a
32:30modest answer, however, because
32:32modernity does not claim that there is
32:35a meaning and that I know it, or that
32:37there is an end and I know it; at least
32:39it depends a lot on the authors, but...
32:42On the whole, modern authors think that
32:44the direction of history is in the
32:46hands of human freedom. And that this
32:51human freedom, not fate, not necessity,
32:54and, deep down, not even providence.
32:58Providence, if it exists for those who
33:00believe it does, is not something that
33:02we know completely. We can place
33:04ourselves on a path that seems to
33:06correspond to providence, but then if
33:09there is providence and providence
33:11takes a direction that we do not
33:13understand, then the question is: "So
33:15what do you do?" The philosopher who
33:19thought about this idea of progress,
33:21perhaps with greater rigor and also
33:23with greater honesty, is Immanuel Kant.
33:26I say honesty because Kant never hid
33:28from Macbeth's objection. Kant deals
33:34with this theme in various texts, but
33:36in a text called*Idea for a Universal
33:38History with a Cosmopolitan Perspective
33:40*, a text from 1784, he proposes to
33:42look at history on a large scale. He
33:46says not in small, individual people
33:48and not even in single events, but let
33:50us look, shall we say, at the general
33:52pattern? The recurrences, the movements
33:55that return, and let us look there and
33:58see if a meaning appears to us there.
34:01And immediately after, Kant confesses
34:04—and I quote—one cannot help but
34:07feel a certain irritation when seeing
34:10how human beings behave on the great
34:12stage of the world, and despite a
34:15semblance of wisdom that emerges here
34:18and there in individual cases, in the
34:21end, on a large scale, everything
34:23appears woven of folly, childish vanity
34:26, and often even a childish, wicked
34:29mania for destruction. And alas, we see
34:33this every day, especially in these
34:36months, in these years. And what to
34:39make of this realism of his? Kant is
34:42very realistic about humans; he is
34:44under no illusions, he does not think
34:46that the human is angelic. In closing
34:48this comment of his, this consideration
34:51of his, comes a remark that has become
34:53famous. Out of timber so crooked as
34:57that from which man is made, nothing
34:59entirely straight can be built. Pay
35:03attention to the adverb "entirely,"
35:05because Kant is still an Enlightenment
35:07thinker and is still a person who
35:09thinks that the possibility of not
35:10continuing to be crooked, of not
35:12continuing to be childish, brutal, and
35:14violent, is something that humans have
35:16before them. It is, let's say, a task,
35:20as I was saying, but Kant, precisely,
35:22is not a naive optimist; he knows that
35:25history is full not just of a few small
35:27isolated moments of progress, but is
35:30full of regressions. One important
35:33thing: we must always think of the word
35:35progress along with its opposite, and
35:37the question I ask you—answer it for
35:39yourselves—do you think that at this
35:41moment in history we are in a moment of
35:43progress or enlightenment, as Kant said
35:45, or in a moment of regression? Kant
35:51examines, regarding the hypothesis of
35:52whether or not history moves in a
35:54specific direction, three hypotheses
35:56that are very important. He says either
35:59the human race is in continuous
36:01regression toward the worse, or it is
36:04in constant progress toward the better
36:06regarding its moral destination, or it
36:08remains in eternal stagnation at its
36:11current level of moral worth, which is
36:13the same as moving eternally in a
36:15circle around the same point. You see
36:18that this idea of the eternal return in
36:20a circle is present in Kant. Naturally,
36:24Nietzsche didn't invent it either; it
36:24is an ancient doctrine, but Nietzsche
36:25then gives it a particular form. So,
36:29the three versions that Kant recalled
36:31—that of continuous regression,
36:33continuous progress, and eternal
36:34stagnation—are analyzed by him in
36:36this text called The Conflict of the
36:38Faculties. In reality, the second part
36:42of this writing is actually titled "
36:44Whether the Human Race Is Constantly
36:46Progressing Toward the Better." Kant's
36:49answer, if I may summarize it, is not "
36:52yes, certainly," but rather "perhaps,
36:55maybe it's possible we'll make it."
36:58There is a tendency, but this tendency
37:01depends on our freedom. However, he
37:05rejects all three of the hypotheses I
37:06mentioned. The hypothesis of certain
37:08regression he calls moral terrorism.
37:11His idea is that if it were true that
37:13we are always plummeting—and in part,
37:15Nietzsche sometimes seems to think this
37:16. Nietzsche speaks of decadence, right?
37:20From antiquity, where there was this
37:22union of the Apollonian and the
37:24Dionysian. Life corresponded to the
37:27brutality of life itself. And then,
37:29later, this great division was created,
37:31right? The Apollonian, therefore the
37:34rational, the philosophical, took over,
37:37erasing life, Nietzsche says. And we
37:40are oriented, headed toward nothingness
37:42, toward nihilism. Well, here too, Kant
37:44is familiar with this type of thesis,
37:46which naturally precedes Nietzsche and
37:48even precedes Kant, but he formalizes
37:50it well, saying, "Very well, but if
37:51that were the case, we would have
37:53already destroyed ourselves long ago.""
37:56We have inhabited this planet for a
37:58sufficient number of centuries to have
38:00led ourselves to destruction." Perhaps
38:03we don't have all the means to do it
38:05immediately, but today we do, eh, in
38:07Kant's time much less, but anyway, this
38:08, let's say, would have happened before
38:10, but in reality Kant's objection is
38:12different. The idea that we are
38:16destined, condemned to regression until
38:19annihilation, is an alibi. It is an
38:23alibi. It is a story we tell ourselves
38:25to authorize ourselves to be bad. It is
38:29a story we tell ourselves to say the
38:31worse, the better. Mh. And with a very
38:35current intuition, Kant says those who
38:38support this thesis of necessary
38:41regression towards nihilism are mostly
38:44the fanatical, that is, those who
38:47precisely condemn the human to be bad,
38:50brutal, and, and, and aggressive. And
38:54with this they do two things. One, they
38:56authorize themselves to be brutal. Two,
38:58they authorize themselves to say, well
39:01yes, when the end comes there will be a
39:04rebirth, right? And in this rebirth we,
39:07well, the fanatic, will be the
39:08righteous ones. Now, Kant says it this
39:13way, but what we see today is that some
39:15are even thinking about accelerating
39:17human destiny toward a fairly
39:19significant catastrophe because they
39:21think they hold the technological,
39:23political, and economic levers to be
39:25the ones who will then benefit from it.
39:29And this is one thing, and what is,
39:30let's say, the political technique that
39:33would lead in this direction? It is a
39:35technique where the best thing to do is
39:38to have extremely rigid, authoritarian,
39:40controlled societies until the end. But
39:45, precisely, it is a wrong answer, it
39:47is an answer that is actually ideology,
39:49as the masters of the Frankfurt School
39:50would say. It is that type of answer
39:52you give yourself because you want to
39:54set yourself up as a judge of the world
39:55. The second hypothesis, however, that
39:59is, constant, guaranteed, certain
40:01progress, is for Kant equally wrong.
40:04The one where progress is a certainty,
40:06it is deterministic, surely we are
40:08heading toward the better. It is not
40:10Kant's answer. I told you that his
40:11answer is not yes, certainly, but it is
40:13perhaps. This thesis is what he calls
40:16eudaimonism, and it also seems to him
40:18that it is unsustainable. But here too
40:21the argument is interesting, because is
40:24the idea that we are destined to
40:26progress toward the better necessarily,
40:28deterministically, unacceptable to Kant
40:31? It is unacceptable because if this
40:34happens necessarily, precisely, freedom
40:37does nothing and it simply happens. It
40:41happens that human beings, through some
40:43mystery of biology, evolutionism, or
40:46perhaps some
40:46technological-pharmaceutical or genetic
40:49trick, become better. But does a
40:53eugenic progress seem like moral
40:55progress to you? But to Kant, no? Eh,
40:59becoming better through technology is
41:01not becoming better, it is simply
41:03changing nature. Goodness is something
41:06that depends, indeed, on the way in
41:08which freedom commits itself to the
41:10good. The other version, the one where
41:15you stand still, Kant calls Abderitism.
41:19It is because he recalls an episode
41:21that is said to have occurred in the
41:23city of Abdera, a city where, at one
41:25point, Democritus, a great philosopher
41:28of antiquity, arrives; he is welcomed
41:30as a great wise man, as a person who
41:33will lift the fortunes of the city,
41:35except that three days later he is
41:37chased away. And that progress that
41:42Abdera somehow makes in three days,
41:44let's say, by listening to the words of
41:46Democritus, is immediately refuted and
41:49denied, and Abdera goes back, right?
41:52And the thesis, therefore, is that
41:54history takes one step forward and one
41:56step back. So, Kant says, this is also
42:00a false answer because, in reality, if
42:03it were like that, says Kant, we would
42:07witness a disheartening spectacle, and
42:10faced with this spectacle, after a
42:13while, we get bored. We get bored,
42:16meaning us humans; even when we see
42:18that we take a step forward and one
42:20step back, we don't stand for it. It is
42:23not the show we want to see. We ask for
42:25the curtain to fall; we want another
42:28scene, we want another sound, we want
42:30another situation. This is what he says
42:34: history cannot be a farce, not
42:36because it very often isn't, but
42:37because for us it is unacceptable that
42:39it should be. We don't want it to be.
42:45So, all three hypotheses fail, but Kant
42:48has his answer. The answer is, indeed,
42:52that progress is something that cannot
42:55be predicted, but that can happen. And
43:00this is because human beings are free
43:03agents to whom, says Kant, one can
43:05dictate what they should do or ought to
43:08do, but one cannot predict what they
43:10will do. Social science forecasts are
43:14almost always problematic and
43:15unsuccessful. Social sciences are
43:18excellent sciences—economics,
43:20sociology, political science—but
43:22making predictions with social sciences
43:24is very risky and often proves to be
43:26wrong. Why? Because human beings
43:29disprove these predictions since they
43:31are not mathematizable and are not
43:34reducible to cause and effect in a
43:36simple way. And yet, says Kant, there
43:40are signs in history, events that
43:43provide a sign that, to put it in a
43:46catchy phrase, another world is
43:48possible; it happens at certain moments
43:52in history. One of these signs for Kant
43:55is the French Revolution. Note that
43:58Kant writes this in 1793. And he
44:04reaffirms this later when he writes in
44:071798 that essay on, uh, on progress, on
44:09whether humanity is in constant
44:11progress toward the better. In 1793 we
44:15already saw that the French Revolution
44:18of 1789 had led to the Terror, to the
44:21guillotine, to summary executions. Hmm.
44:25Imagine by '98. So, why does Kant say
44:29this? Kant says: "I know full well that
44:32the French Revolution ended in
44:34bloodshed, continued in bloodshed, but
44:36that event bore witness to the fact
44:38that not just a small portion of humans
44:41, but an entire people enthusiastically
44:43participated in the attempt to
44:45emancipate themselves, that they had in
44:48fact emancipated themselves from
44:50ancient privileges, from the oppression
44:52of the aristocratic class, from the
44:55Ancien Régime, that the people, an
44:57entire people, were capable of
44:59liberating themselves." And Kant says,
45:03"An experience like this in human
45:05history is never forgotten, even if it
45:08fails." So it is not the French
45:11Revolution from a political standpoint,
45:13which after a few years is indeed a
45:15failure; it is the political revolution
45:17from an anthropological standpoint, the
45:19French Revolution from an
45:20anthropological point of view, that
45:22Kant considers interesting. Hence the
45:26overall Kantian thesis, namely that
45:28there are many moments of regression,
45:31we go backward, we move forward at
45:34other times, but this is the price of
45:39freedom and, in the face of some, and
45:41the tendency toward the better that is
45:44contradicted by regressions,
45:46nonetheless it is a permanent tendency.
45:50Human beings always find themselves
45:52cast back even into their own chaos. [
45:56They] have the task of trying to
45:58rebuild, and if they are not the ones
46:01in that situation, nature takes care of
46:04it, that is to say, what does nature do
46:06? Nature wants to live, living beings
46:09want to live, they want in some way to
46:11flourish, to unfold the potential of
46:13existence. And even after a catastrophe
46:17, life restarts or tries to restart and
46:20finds ways to do so. It invents new
46:23paths. Now Kant says this: this drive
46:26is the memory of those events that we
46:29have not forgotten and that told us yes
46:31, it was possible, says Kant, it is
46:33never entirely forgotten and can never
46:36entirely regress. Also because, says
46:42Kant—and he writes this in another
46:44text called Anthropology from a
46:46Pragmatic Point of View—the
46:48inclination toward freedom is the most
46:50violent of man's natural passions. In
46:54human nature, in the simplest man, even
46:56the simplest of humans and the simplest
46:59of people, they want to be free. So,
47:04this is a profound point and it is
47:07quite clear that Kant, to some extent,
47:11let's say, allows himself the luxury of
47:15thinking that in the end we could reach
47:18a goal. And what is this goal? Even
47:22here, Kant, all things considered,
47:23doesn't entirely hold back. What would
47:25progress consist of? It is precisely a
47:28direction, as mentioned; a possible
47:31direction, not a certain one, but how
47:33do we name it? And here Kant must
47:37resort to a metaphor; in a text called
47:40"Conjectural Beginning of Human History
47:43," he says the natural dispositions of
47:46living beings, including man—and
47:49therefore among the natural
47:52dispositions in man is the impulse,
47:55freedom. These natural dispositions
47:59will always seek to unfold, and the
48:02goal they aim for is to arrive at a day
48:06when, I quote, "perfect art does not
48:09once again become nature." Meaning art,
48:14that is, culture. Does art mean art?
48:17Naturally, it's not just art producing
48:20beauty, but everything human beings do:
48:24the capacity to produce, the capacity
48:27to make, the capacity to create,
48:30culture in general, cultivating oneself
48:33. Art, this ability to give shape to
48:38the world, is a condition in which what
48:41we have built through our creativity
48:45and freedom could become as natural to
48:48us as breathing, until perfect art once
48:52again becomes nature. By nature, we are
48:56not yet in beauty, goodness, and
48:58justice. We are highly imperfect in
49:02this; the crooked timber proves it. But
49:06let's say the direction that nature
49:08itself, the human, the impulse to be,
49:11to live, to be free, the direction it
49:14wants to take, which it would like to
49:16take, is one where we live in peace,
49:19free with what we need, in a world
49:21where no one lacks the necessities.
49:26That ideal condition we would like to
49:29orient ourselves toward is one where
49:32this is as natural as breathing; it is
49:36art because we produced it, we brought
49:39ourselves to that level. Perhaps we
49:42cannot do it alone, and it requires
49:45redemption, providence, and grace. Hm.
49:49But if Providence and grace tell us the
49:51promise is also that this can happen,
49:54then we are aligned. Okay? But Kant is
49:58playing the philosopher here; he
50:00doesn't want to bring in any
50:01theological element, so he tries to say
50:04, "Well, at least free human beings, as
50:06such, could manage it." I don't know if
50:09they will manage it, but they should be
50:11able to. It is their task to do so.
50:14This idea, precisely, that we are in a
50:18situation where justice, respect, and
50:21peace have become natural. Uh, one
50:25thing, among other things, we know that
50:27in some respects we have already lived
50:29through years in which, after a
50:31catastrophe in the 20th century—more
50:33than one, at least two catastrophes in
50:35certain places in the world,
50:37particularly in Europe—a bit of
50:39justice, a bit of peace, and a bit of
50:41mutual respect were formed. This is not
50:45guaranteed to continue, and so we must
50:48still work with our art so that this
50:50continues to exist or starts up again.
50:55But precisely a situation in which
50:57justice, respect, and peace are natural
51:00is, from my point of view, a perfect
51:02definition of utopia. Eh, Kant doesn't
51:05willingly use the word utopia; he uses
51:07it two or three times in his entire
51:09corpus because it is a word that sounds
51:11too idealistic to him, too, how should
51:13I say, hopeful. Hm. But he has a
51:17utopian thought. His thought, precisely
51:21, of this art that becomes nature again
51:24is, in fact, a form of utopia, and he
51:27adds, among other things, that this
51:30condition of unhappiness, this
51:33dystopian condition in which we find
51:36ourselves, is not exactly necessary and
51:40truly natural. Kant writes: "Men would
51:43pull themselves out of savagery, out of
51:46the brutal state, right? out of
51:49brutality little by little, if only
51:52there weren't intentional plotting to
51:54keep them there," meaning that in
51:56social and political dynamics,
51:58something happens whereby the state of
52:01being a bit brutal, a bit aggressive, a
52:03bit violent is convenient for someone
52:09and we must react to this. So, from
52:12this perspective, let's say, Kant is
52:15clear, eh, and it is quite clear that I
52:17share his idea quite a bit. The idea is
52:20that progress is possible, but it is
52:22not only possible, it is also a task, a
52:24duty—the duty to make history. The
52:27third figure, that of the eternal
52:30return, is a figure that in some way
52:33wants to be a radical critique of the
52:35idea of the meaning of history, in the
52:38same sense that Macbeth’s phrase is a
52:41radical critique, but here with a
52:44theory behind it. And the theory behind
52:47it is that history is not simply chaos,
52:49but if you like, there is also an order
52:51. Only that this returns, this order is
52:54an eternal repetition of the identical
52:56and is just as meaningless as the chaos
52:58. It is just as disheartening from this
53:02point of view. The philosopher who
53:06indeed wrote this after the
53:08Enlightenment, after Kant, and who
53:10therefore argued in this direction by
53:12taking up an ancient thesis, is
53:14Friedrich Nietzsche. The doctrine of
53:18the eternal return in Friedrich
53:19Nietzsche is complex, and naturally, it
53:21is not at all easy to summarize it in a
53:23few minutes. Excuse me, Nietzsche,
53:28furthermore, has more than one
53:29philosophy of history. Hm. Nietzsche
53:32sometimes thinks of history, as I said
53:34before, as decadence. We were Apollo
53:36and Dionysus united, but now we are
53:38destined for nihilism in the end.
53:41Sometimes, however, he has an
53:42interesting, curious conception,
53:44doesn't he? History actually fluctuates
53:47between high and low, but the high and
53:49low are not equally distributed among
53:51men; there are giants and there are
53:53dwarfs. And true history is only the
53:57history of the giants, an aristocratic
53:58conception of history. Hm. But then,
54:02precisely, he has this third conception
54:04which is that of the Eternal Recurrence
54:06, which is obviously the most
54:08fascinating. I want to read you one of
54:11the three announcements of the Eternal
54:13Recurrence that Nietzsche makes in his
54:14works. Um, to, to name these, this
54:17exposition of the eternal recurrence,
54:19the announcement was Martin Heidegger
54:21in a course on Nietzsche which is very
54:23substantial, over 1000 pages, a very
54:25fascinating course where Heidegger
54:27interprets Nietzsche, gives some
54:28readings of Nietzsche's theories. In my
54:31opinion, some of Heidegger's readings
54:33are wrong, but I don't have time, let's
54:35say, here perhaps it is not the place
54:37to show how wrong Heidegger was about
54:38many things, not just Nietzsche. But
54:42the three announcements are a good way
54:43to summarize things. The first
54:45announcement, the most important, is
54:47found in the text called The Gay
54:49Science, 1882, and it is a scene; as
54:52always, as very often Nietzsche does,
54:54he dramatizes, dramatizes in the sense
54:56that he stages a drama, an event. I
54:59will read it to you: it is called, it
55:01is paragraph 341 of The Gay Science.
55:05What would happen if one day or night a
55:08demon crept stealthily into your
55:10loneliest loneliness and said to you?
55:15This life, as you now live it and have
55:18lived it, you will have to live once
55:20more and countless times more, and
55:23there will be nothing new in it. But
55:26every pain and every pleasure and every
55:29thought and sigh and everything
55:31unspeakably small and great in your
55:34life must return to you and all in the
55:37same sequence and succession. And so
55:41also this spider and this moonlight
55:43among the trees and likewise this
55:46moment and I myself, demon, the eternal
55:48hourglass of existence is turned over
55:51again and again and you with it, speck
55:54of dust. Nietzsche continues: "Would
55:58you not throw yourself down, hearing
56:00this voice of the demon, gnashing your
56:03teeth and cursing the demon who spoke
56:05thus? Or, or perhaps you have
56:07experienced at least once, a tremendous
56:10moment in which your answer would
56:12instead have been:" You, you demon, are
56:15a God and never heard anything more
56:17divine. "The question you would ask
56:22yourself in this case would be the
56:24greatest question. Do you want this
56:27once more and innumerable times more?
56:30This question would weigh upon your
56:32actions like the heaviest weight. So,
56:35Nietzsche somehow makes us think that
56:39the return of the totality of reality
56:42is necessary. Here, one must
56:45distinguish two levels of this doctrine
56:48. The first level is trivial. Nietzsche
56:52thinks, and states it in several
56:54passages, that the entire, the entire
56:57matter—he is essentially a
56:59materialist—the entire matter, what
57:01reality is made of, is a finite
57:04quantity. There is a finite amount of
57:08reality in the universe, which combines
57:11in a thousand different ways. Let's
57:13imagine that matter is defined
57:14precisely in terms of atoms. Nietzsche
57:17doesn't use this term, but it is an
57:18ancient term, Democritus, well, you
57:20know. Uh, atoms can be combined in
57:23billions upon billions of combinations,
57:27but if matter is finite and time is
57:31infinite, the combinations eventually
57:36run out, but time is infinite and so
57:38the combinations start over. Is that
57:41clear? No, given the premises, finite
57:44matter, infinite time, the eternal
57:45return is an obvious consequence. The
57:49point is that the doctrine of eternal
57:50return is not about this. You have seen
57:54that the greatest question is not: do
57:57you believe that matter returns
57:59eternally, infinitely in the same
58:02sequences and combinations? It is not
58:06something that concerns knowledge. The
58:09question is:" Do you want all these
58:11combinations, all these combinations to
58:14return? Do you want it? Do you want to
58:18be the very power of this returning? Do
58:21you want to be the will that makes the
58:25infinite combinations happen? It is not
58:29a speculative doctrine; Nietzsche's is
58:31an ethical doctrine. And Nietzsche's
58:35thesis is: are you able to will all
58:38these combinations, mind you, with the
58:41horror they entail? For Nietzsche,
58:45violence is, let's say, the norm. Life,
58:49Nietzsche says in several passages, for
58:51example, in Beyond Good and Evil, is
58:53intrinsically oppression and violence.
58:56It's a bit like Macbeth, but you see
58:58how much more radical and structured it
58:59is, right? It is not chaos; it is
59:01something more. There is an order, of
59:04course there is an order, the order of
59:06infinite combinations, but it is a
59:08violent, brutal, horrendous order,
59:11which not only will return eternally,
59:13but which you must will as your destiny
59:16and as what you make happen. It is a
59:21titanic doctrine and at the same time a
59:25resigned one. Why? Why is it titanic?
59:29Because it presupposes that the will is
59:32so powerful in a single man, in a
59:34single human being, in a single person,
59:36as to embrace the entire reality in one
59:39single act of will. And we know this
59:42does not happen. On the other hand, it
59:46is a renunciatory doctrine because it
59:49conceives this act of will in reality
59:52as the acceptance of a dynamic that is
59:55ultimately not that of my own wanting.
59:59Of course, for Nietzsche, my will
1:00:01should be a will to power, identifying
1:00:02itself with this will that, however, is
1:00:04fundamentally impersonal. The
1:00:06individual counts for absolutely
1:00:07nothing in this conception. Individual
1:00:11people, their life, their experience,
1:00:14their desire, their hopes are
1:00:16completely irrelevant. And to be
1:00:22relevant, Nietzsche says, they should
1:00:25strip themselves entirely and adhere to
1:00:29this eternal, fundamental, and radical
1:00:32will to power that transcends me and is
1:00:35totally impersonal. Now, why does
1:00:42Nietzsche reason like this? Because he
1:00:45confuses force and will. Nietzsche's
1:00:49problem is that when he speaks of the
1:00:53will to power, he is thinking of
1:00:56reality as a set of forces and not as a
1:00:59set of forces that, in the form of
1:01:03living beings and particularly humans,
1:01:06reflects, thinks, and asks itself how
1:01:10to use that force. And this question, "
1:01:15how do I use force," is precisely the
1:01:17question of volition: what do I want
1:01:23with, taking into account that what I
1:01:26want must meet or clash with what
1:01:28others want, with what everyone else
1:01:30wants? And Nietzsche makes it a matter
1:01:36of mere force which he calls will, but
1:01:38will is something else. Will is not
1:01:41just the will, precisely, the force to
1:01:43overpower the other. I could want to
1:01:46live together with the other. The
1:01:50thesis that life is only overpowering,
1:01:52violence, is gratuitous, as Canta also
1:01:55says, but as we see every day, it can
1:01:57well happen that we collaborate instead
1:02:00; maybe we don't manage to collaborate
1:02:03forever, we collaborate for a while and
1:02:05then we argue, but collaboration is
1:02:08possible. Will is precisely this
1:02:11ability to suspend force and achieve
1:02:15collaboration. And the will that unites
1:02:19different people to live well together
1:02:23is, in reality, nothing other than
1:02:26power. Power, as Hannah Arendt says in
1:02:30a beautiful essay called On Violence,
1:02:33is not domination, violence, abuse, or
1:02:37overbearing behavior. That is the
1:02:40negative form of power, it is dominion.
1:02:43Power is the capacity that each one has
1:02:45to do what? It is dunamis, it is power
1:02:50to, not power over. And power to is
1:02:54also the power to do things together.
1:02:57Actually, Hannah Arendt says that power
1:03:00, if we want to define it, since each
1:03:03of us has little power, true power is,
1:03:05it is what happens when we act. She
1:03:08uses a beautiful expression, power is
1:03:11acting in concert. In concert, uniting
1:03:16our wills, restraining force, and
1:03:19building something positive. This idea
1:03:25connects to the idea of progress. And
1:03:28here I reach the conclusion, that is
1:03:32chaos is an answer that is not an
1:03:35answer. Deep down, it would simply have
1:03:38us believe that the worse things get,
1:03:40the better. The eternal return would
1:03:44somehow legitimize our will to power as
1:03:46a titanic, yet impotent, will, because
1:03:48ultimately it must accept what exists,
1:03:51whereas we have some power—not that
1:03:53of a titan, but we are not forced to
1:03:56accept everything that happens either.
1:03:59We can fight if we live in a historical
1:04:02moment of nonsense. We can fight for
1:04:06meaning. For this reason, the answer
1:04:08that speaks of progress seems more
1:04:10convincing to me and I interpret it, as
1:04:14already emerged, as a utopia, but a
1:04:16realistic utopia. What do I mean? Let
1:04:20me briefly explain what utopia means to
1:04:23me or how I seem to have seen that
1:04:26utopia also means historically. Utopia
1:04:29is the title of the work by Thomas More
1:04:31, 1516, in which Thomas More writes in
1:04:36the first part, in the first book, an
1:04:39analysis of the state of England at his
1:04:42time, describing a brutal society in
1:04:44which landowners, the feudal lords,
1:04:47appropriate territories, turn them into
1:04:50pasture instead of cultivation, stop
1:04:53feeding the population living on the
1:04:55fiefdom, create a great deal of wealth
1:04:58for themselves through the wool trade,
1:05:02thanks to the fact that sheep can graze
1:05:05on their pastures, but erasing the
1:05:07grain fields and and all that follows,
1:05:12they get very rich, the peasants wander
1:05:15the countryside in despair. In the
1:05:20second book, More tells of a traveler,
1:05:23Raphael Hythloday, who visited a
1:05:25country where this private
1:05:27appropriation of land, which is put to
1:05:30use only for a few, does not happen.
1:05:35There is no private appropriation of
1:05:37land. The point is not so much common
1:05:40property, eh, mind you, the point is
1:05:42that he sees a contradiction. This
1:05:44private appropriation serves only a few
1:05:46. So, let's try to remove private
1:05:49appropriation. And he imagines a
1:05:52society in which property is shared,
1:05:55work is shared, coexistence even
1:05:57between different religions is accepted
1:06:00, families organize themselves to
1:06:02cooperate, right? Sure, it is a utopia;
1:06:06but pay attention, Thomas More does not
1:06:08think that the Utopians are supermen:
1:06:10they are normal people. Unlike what
1:06:13happens in Tommaso Campanella’s City
1:06:16of the Sun or Bacon’s New Atlantis,
1:06:18these human beings in Utopia are not
1:06:19extraordinary; they cannot fly, they do
1:06:22not possess innate knowledge, they are
1:06:24not particularly brilliant. In fact,
1:06:27courts exist because people
1:06:28occasionally make mistakes, and
1:06:30families sometimes fall apart. And
1:06:34people sometimes cannot do what they
1:06:35want to do, or what they ought to do.
1:06:38And yet, says Raphael Hythloday, they
1:06:40live in a reasonably just and happy
1:06:42society because they have eliminated
1:06:44some of the most serious contradictions
1:06:46. So, the relationship between utopia
1:06:51and progress is this, from my point of
1:06:53view. Progress is a possibility for our
1:06:55history. We can progress, we can be
1:06:59progressive, but this requires that we
1:07:02try to imagine a society that is
1:07:04different in the areas that are not
1:07:07working compared to our current society
1:07:10. That is, we must do More's work:
1:07:13identify where things are, what it is
1:07:15that isn't working in our existence,
1:07:18our social life, our life, and our
1:07:20history. And once the point of
1:07:23contradiction is identified, the
1:07:25unacceptable point, we must imagine the
1:07:27alternative before acting. The point of
1:07:30utopia is not that there exists a state
1:07:31somewhere, in the middle of the Pacific
1:07:33, where this is real; that is the
1:07:35fiction. More says the point is that
1:07:39what I see is interesting, but it
1:07:41doesn't concern me; for me, living here
1:07:44, the way the Utopians live is strange
1:07:46in many respects. I wouldn't want to
1:07:48live that way. Pay attention now. The
1:07:52utopia he maps out, the arc of the
1:07:54Utopians' life, is not how an
1:07:55Englishman of the 1500s would want to
1:07:57live. He says there are things there
1:08:01that, compared to some of the
1:08:02contradictions we see at home, are a
1:08:03bit better. We could draw inspiration,
1:08:06but the utopia I want to live in, I
1:08:08have to write it myself here and now.
1:08:12If we read Thomas More thinking we will
1:08:14draw indications on what an ideal city
1:08:16must be like, we are mistaken. Thomas
1:08:19More writes: "What is a city that
1:08:21overturns current injustices like?" So
1:08:23we must identify the current injustices
1:08:26of today. Imagine the alternative with
1:08:29respect to those contradictions,
1:08:31imagine it in detail. Thomas More
1:08:33describes the streets, he describes the
1:08:36way of life, the lunches, the dinners,
1:08:39the music, the art. He describes the
1:08:43way education is conducted, the work,
1:08:47right? Let us imagine the details of
1:08:50what overturns current injustice, and
1:08:53this, even if it is not completely
1:08:55attainable, gives us indications. The
1:08:58work of utopia is the work of political
1:09:01imagination. We will have no political
1:09:06future if we do not have imagination.
1:09:10It is imagination that gives us the
1:09:14design, the blueprint of the
1:09:16alternative. If imagination means that
1:09:20I don't deduce the design of an ideal
1:09:23city from abstract principles, then
1:09:26that's it. That is not the case. I
1:09:30derive the impulse to imagine something
1:09:33else from the contradictions I see, and
1:09:36if anything, this might give me some
1:09:38principles to follow, but the image
1:09:40comes before the principle. And this is
1:09:44the work of Thomas More's Utopia. Much
1:09:46of political philosophy is based on the
1:09:48idea of what the principles of a just
1:09:49society are. Very well, but it is
1:09:52actually a very interesting process to
1:09:54go through. Let's try imagining what a
1:09:57just city would be like first, and then
1:09:59see what principles it would be founded
1:10:01upon, a posteriori. This work of
1:10:05utopian imagination is crucial to me,
1:10:08and I invite you to practice it in some
1:10:11way, with an important note. Not all
1:10:15utopias, as I say, are good. There are
1:10:18progressive utopias and regressive
1:10:19utopias. This is where the two criteria
1:10:22meet. A progressive utopia is one in
1:10:26which we learn to face our
1:10:28contradictions and imagine ways out
1:10:31that are humanly feasible. A regressive
1:10:36utopia is one where the contradiction
1:10:40we find ourselves in is, let's say,
1:10:43addressed by making things even worse.
1:10:48Actually, by imagining a solution that
1:10:52is so abstract, so engineered, so
1:10:57distant from our real sensibilities
1:10:59that we end up in a dystopia.
1:11:02Regressive utopias are dystopias, and
1:11:05many of the utopias written after
1:11:07Thomas More, The City of the Sun, New
1:11:09Atlantis, are actually dystopias; in
1:11:11the 20th century, no utopias were
1:11:13written, only dystopias. Let me give
1:11:16you some examples. We by Zamyatin, a
1:11:19dystopian novel, Brave New World by
1:11:22Aldous Huxley, 1984 by George Orwell.
1:11:26The 1900s is the century of dystopias.
1:11:29But be careful, if we convince
1:11:31ourselves that there are only dystopias
1:11:33and no utopias, we are doomed. We are
1:11:37heading in the direction where we
1:11:39convince ourselves that history is a
1:11:41tale told by an idiot, full of sound
1:11:42and fury, signifying nothing, and we
1:11:44are destined for destruction. We tell
1:11:47ourselves many dystopias to terrify
1:11:50ourselves, but we have no alternative.
1:11:53We have no alternative. If we only
1:11:55write dystopias, there is no
1:11:56alternative. So, my invitation, to
1:12:00conclude, is exactly what you can
1:12:02easily imagine in this course, in these
1:12:05activities you will do in the "Romane
1:12:08Disputationes" and with your
1:12:10contributions. I invite you to try to
1:12:14ask the question about the meaning of
1:12:17history, meaning what could be a good
1:12:20sense of history, a progressive utopia,
1:12:22a way out where we try to give an image
1:12:25of what we would like, and the next
1:12:28step would be to believe that this
1:12:30image can become reality. Thank you. I
1:12:41want to thank Professor Roberto
1:12:43Mordacci because in the three parts of
1:12:46his lecture, he gave us plenty to work
1:12:49on regarding the theme of chaos, the
1:12:51theme of progress, and the theme of the
1:12:54eternal return. The video lessons we
1:12:57are publishing also head in this
1:12:59direction, but the linearity and order
1:13:01with which he helped us understand the
1:13:03unity of this year’s theme subtitle
1:13:05...I invite you to work on it, because
1:13:07it is not trivial. And then, as he said
1:13:11during the lesson, we live in a time
1:13:13where this struggle with the meaning of
1:13:16history—you see it every day—is
1:13:18turning into student riots that set
1:13:20cities ablaze. The wars that are
1:13:24bloodying Palestine and Ukraine. There
1:13:29is so much work to do, not just on a
1:13:31theoretical or speculative level, as he
1:13:34said, but also to challenge our
1:13:36colleagues, teachers, and schoolmates
1:13:39on a historical level; on the level of
1:13:41—as Professor Mordacci told us—what
1:13:44we want our history to be. And, not
1:13:48least, the digital world and artificial
1:13:51intelligence that we see growing within
1:13:54and around us: how does it enter this
1:13:56history, and what possibilities does it
1:13:59open and what challenges does it throw
1:14:02at us? The challenge we are taking on
1:14:05is to do philosophy, to do it all the
1:14:06way through. So, the "Romane," together
1:14:09with all the partners who will help us
1:14:12on this journey—whom I thank again—
1:14:15ask you to challenge yourselves on
1:14:18three levels. I remind you, for those
1:14:21who don't know, everything is included,
1:14:22even notes and bibliography, in a
1:14:24university style done in teams. From
1:14:27two to five students per team. The
1:14:31philosophical creative video, which has
1:14:34an undefined number of participants per
1:14:37team (it can even be the whole class,
1:14:39and as we have seen—go to our YouTube
1:14:42channel, there are videos of all kinds,
1:14:45from silent shorts to animated videos,
1:14:47to dramas filmed and well-edited by the
1:14:50various directors involved), allows
1:14:53even those who might struggle with the
1:14:55language and certain rigors of
1:14:57philosophy. To perhaps still enjoy the
1:15:00problem by working together with their
1:15:02classmates. And then, the last category
1:15:05to arrive is the philosophical
1:15:07monologue, which obviously by
1:15:09definition concerns one person, but we,
1:15:12being creative, have transformed it
1:15:14into a single or duo monologue because
1:15:17we like to cross the principle of
1:15:19non-contradiction. And the single or
1:15:23duo monologue requires a student to
1:15:25prepare a 5-minute video, standing
1:15:27without slides—a sort of short
1:15:30Talk-style lecture—that can be
1:15:32prepared and performed alone or in
1:15:34pairs, and there will be a single
1:15:36category this year that will evaluate
1:15:39the monologues. Those who register for
1:15:42the "Romane" will then be able to apply
1:15:44as a team for the philosophical
1:15:46disputes according to the Age Contra
1:15:48protocol. As always, there will be a
1:15:51drawing of the participating teams, and
1:15:53the eight teams drawn will compete in
1:15:56online semifinals, with the two junior
1:15:58and senior finals held at the Teatro
1:16:00Duse in Bologna on March 10th-11th,
1:16:03when we will meet for our two-day final
1:16:05event. Starting this year, the teacher
1:16:09in charge—I'm telling my colleagues
1:16:11—thanks to our production team, will
1:16:13be able to register all teams using a
1:16:15single form instead of filling out the
1:16:19form multiple times for each team. We
1:16:20hope this is a welcome change, as we
1:16:22know the workload that doing so
1:16:24otherwise entails for you. Um, and the
1:16:28application for the disputes in Gonta
1:16:30will take place at the same time as the
1:16:32registration, which must be completed
1:16:35by November 30th. We invite you all to
1:16:38check the website, the rules, and
1:16:40everything it contains. The winners of
1:16:43the various competition categories will
1:16:46receive a prize; for those registered,
1:16:49this includes the opportunity to be
1:16:51published by LER in the book we release
1:16:54every year, which you can also find
1:16:56online. In addition, there will be a
1:17:00€ 500 prize in books offered by the
1:17:02publishing house, Laterza. And the same
1:17:05applies to the other categories. Go
1:17:07check the regulations for all the
1:17:09specific details. Then, teachers will
1:17:17still need to, um, fill out the release
1:17:21and privacy forms. This form must be
1:17:24submitted by the lead teacher via email
1:17:26to the competition secretariat or as a
1:17:28hard copy during the two-day final
1:17:30event. Everything is on the website,
1:17:34and the official deadline for
1:17:36registration is November 30th. Now,
1:17:40I'll add a few more things that are
1:17:42useful for both teachers and you
1:17:43students. We are reforming the didactic
1:17:47committee, which is composed of high
1:17:49school teachers, so we ask every
1:17:51teacher currently on the committee to
1:17:53confirm their willingness to continue.
1:17:57Those who are not yet part of it but
1:17:59are interested in joining can write to
1:18:01the Romane secretariat. We will hold an
1:18:05online meeting for all these people—
1:18:08both those who confirm and those who
1:18:10ask to participate—on Tuesday,
1:18:13October 20th at 6:00 PM, and we will
1:18:15provide details via our newsletter. The
1:18:19Philosophy Workshop also continues,
1:18:21which is a professional development
1:18:23course coordinated together with the DS
1:18:25association by Romane Disputaziones.
1:18:28Five lessons on the theme of the year,
1:18:29focusing on the meaning of history. I
1:18:31invite all my teaching colleagues to
1:18:33check the website www.ds.org under the
1:18:36philosophy teaching workshops section.
1:18:38It is a course recognized by the
1:18:40ministry, and it is very good. We will
1:18:44see many of our teachers from the
1:18:46scientific committee, as well as some
1:18:48teachers from the didactic committee,
1:18:50who will be giving us lessons. It is a
1:18:53way to continue studying together, just
1:18:55as we saw today with Professor Mordacci
1:18:57. Then, um, we are offering you a
1:19:01wonderful Spring School—the second
1:19:03edition, actually, because the first
1:19:05one for teachers was held this summer.
1:19:09We take care of the teachers, and by
1:19:10taking care of the teachers, we take
1:19:12care of you students. Uh, April 23rd-
1:19:1524th, three days with literary scholars
1:19:17, art historians, and philosophers.
1:19:21Three days of study with a theme and
1:19:23speakers. Obviously, we will provide
1:19:26you with all the information shortly.
1:19:29We have also promoted, together with
1:19:31Future Education Modena, which is a
1:19:33very important research center located
1:19:35in Modena, a training course for
1:19:37teachers titled Writing and Regulated
1:19:40Debate in the Age of Artificial
1:19:41Intelligence. Perhaps the teachers who
1:19:45already know the "romane" are already
1:19:47trained in argumentation and debate.
1:19:51There may be other colleagues who don't
1:19:53know this path yet, so we invite them
1:19:56to this beautiful course, part of which
1:19:58is dedicated to philosophical writing
1:20:00through artificial intelligence. Then,
1:20:04with great joy, we are relaunching the
1:20:07Summer School in New York for you
1:20:10students, and this is something that
1:20:12thrills me just to think about, let
1:20:15alone say. Uh, at the end of July, as
1:20:18we have done for 2 years, we are
1:20:20proposing a two-week stay in New York,
1:20:22uh, carried out by Hermesia, a company
1:20:24that organizes these types of
1:20:26experiences. Together, uh, with us as "
1:20:29romani," we have collaborated. There
1:20:31are six different paths: photography,
1:20:33cinema, uh, orientation to American
1:20:35universities, etc. You can then go and
1:20:38see on the website, uh, where you will
1:20:40find all the specifications. There is
1:20:43also one of these six courses dedicated
1:20:45to philosophy, but they are all
1:20:47interesting, so we will share them with
1:20:49you. Then, together with our friends at
1:20:53the Paidea Campus, which is an entity
1:20:56that offers courses on sustainability
1:20:59and the Mediterranean diet, uh, we
1:21:01launched last year and will relaunch
1:21:04again this year the philosophical walk,
1:21:06uh, with teachers and experts from the
1:21:09Paidea Campus. Uh, a walking path along
1:21:13the coasts of Cilento. Cilento, for
1:21:17those who don't remember, is the
1:21:19territory where Velia, Elea, the city
1:21:21of Parmenides, is located, so the place
1:21:23was not chosen by chance. We will also
1:21:26give you information on this. Then, I
1:21:29return to the "romane," in the
1:21:31strictest sense. It is possible to
1:21:34request recognition for the hours spent
1:21:37as "romana disputatio" as FSL, as
1:21:39school-work training, formerly PCTO.
1:21:44For this, all teachers must write to
1:21:46the email [email protected] to
1:21:48Dr. Donatella Agnolucci, who will
1:21:50provide you with all the information.
1:21:55In February, we will hold a workshop
1:21:57series on orientation together with
1:22:00Lavoro più, Cimea, and Fondazione Rui.
1:22:05This path also helps to give, uh, taste
1:22:08and meaning to those orientation hours
1:22:10that the Ministry requires from us and
1:22:13that philosophy can inhabit with great,
1:22:15with great justice. The title we have
1:22:19chosen is "Orienting Oneself in History
1:22:21," so we will meet experts from Lavoro
1:22:23più, we will meet counselors from
1:22:25Cimea and Fondazione Rui, and so this
1:22:27is also a very beautiful thing that you
1:22:29can propose in class and also to your
1:22:31colleagues. We will soon launch the new
1:22:36edition of the Cosmopolites course, a
1:22:38civic education program offered by our
1:22:41association, More per il Sapere. The
1:22:45title is "Us: Being a Community in
1:22:47Complexity." The course content will be
1:22:50delivered during the second semester.
1:22:53We have launched the edition, and by
1:22:56mid-November, you will have all the
1:22:58detailed information regarding the
1:23:01calendar. There is also the "Opera
1:23:04Prima" writing competition, which we
1:23:05collaborate on as an association with
1:23:07the Toniolo Institute at the Catholic
1:23:09University of Milan. It is a course for
1:23:12writing short stories, podcasts, and
1:23:14subjects for film and TV series
1:23:16screenplays. We invite you to check it
1:23:20out; perhaps you are philosophers, but
1:23:22you also have a knack for writing. It
1:23:25is a wonderful experience that you can
1:23:27take part in. These are just a few of
1:23:31the many opportunities we have built
1:23:34over the years. I want to say this
1:23:37clearly: by pursuing the "good" that
1:23:39Professor Mordacci spoke of, as
1:23:41teachers and a community of teachers,
1:23:43we realized what we wanted to change in
1:23:45schools, and we have done some of it,
1:23:47and we continue to do so. In conclusion
1:23:53, while thanking Professor Mordacci, I
1:23:56believe all the points he challenged us
1:24:00with today should be the primary work
1:24:03to be done in the classrooms of those
1:24:06participating in the Romane; to truly
1:24:09try and understand that wonderful
1:24:12relationship you mentioned between
1:24:15speculation and practical philosophy,
1:24:18taking excursions, I imagine, between
1:24:22the sensibility of history as
1:24:25ontological and metaphysical
1:24:27speculation and, above all, as you
1:24:30proposed, our experience of meaning as
1:24:33we go along. I think it will truly be a
1:24:37theme and an edition that anyone who
1:24:39looks at it closely will enjoy and be
1:24:42marked by. Having said that, I would
1:24:45like to thank him once again with a big
1:24:46round of applause. I thank Professor
1:24:54Paola Müller, the Catholic University
1:24:56for hosting and supporting us on this
1:24:58journey, and for those who wish to and
1:25:00those who will be there, we will see
1:25:02you in Bologna on March 10-11, 2027.
1:25:06Thank you, and have a safe trip home.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Romanae Disputationes 2026/27: Lezione inaugurale by Romanae Disputationes, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 12,009 words across 1,837 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.