Filosofía y universidad como utopías

 

LA FILOSOFÍA Y LA UNIVERSIDAD COMO UTOPÍA. PASADO Y PRESENTE ANTE LA ‘INTELIGENCIA ARTIFICIAL’ Gonçal S. Mayos

Resumen:La filosofía, la universidad y el modelo actual de formación manifiestan aspectos eutópicos  y  positivos  pero  también  otros  irreales  e  incluso  negativos.  Analizaremos brevemente unos y otros. Por ejemplo, la filosofía ha usado hábilmenteel mito pero también ha claudicado ante él. La universidad nace como ‘universo’ de los dedicados libremente a la vida reflexiva pero también recae en dogmatismo jerárquico y en ‘hybris del punto cero’. Bajo  la  guía  primero  de  la  Iglesia  y  luego  del  Estado,  la  filosofía  y  la universidad  se reconfiguran  conflictivamente  en  relación  con  la  teología  y  con  las  tecnociencias.  Su objetivo era sobre todo ‘gobernar las personas’ mediante el ‘poder pastoral’ (Foucault) y la ‘antropotécnica’ (Sloterdijk), pero derivaron cada vez más al mercado y a la razón y saber instrumentales.  Hoy  incluso  el  ocio  y  el  turismo  han  devenido  productivos  y  fuente  de ‘capital humano’. Por eso hay que recordar que otras filosofías, universidades y formaciones son posibles, y continúansiendo claves para mantener el ‘cemento de la pólis’(Aristóteles). Además,  la  ‘inteligencia  artificial’  amenaza  transformarlas  radicalmente,  quizás introduciendo un ‘imaginario’ hegemónicamente no humano (Harari). Sería una disrupción más rotunda que la ‘muerte de Dios’... ¿la muerte de lo humano?

Palabras clave: Filosofía; Universidad; Formación; Poder pastoral; Inteligencia artificial.

CONTROLAR I VIGILAR LA POBLACIÓ. JORNADES DE FILOSOFIA POLÍTICA

Foucault va mostrar l'evolució d'un thanatopoder basat en el poder sobirà de 'donar mort o deixar viure' vers un biopoder i biopolítica que més aviat donava i canalitzava la vida i -en tot cas- 'deixava morir'. 

Ara bé, en diàleg amb Deleuze va quedar clar que calia sumar-hi una nova evolució vers societats de control. Aquestes desplaçaven als marges (més que no eliminaven) la punició i el thanatopoder, els quals no desapareixien en absolut. 

VIDEO: HIPERESPECIALIZACIÓN CONTRA MACROFILOSOFÍA

Conferência Magna de Encerramento / Conferencia Magna de Clausura de G. Mayos en el I Encontro Internacional da Revista de Ciências do Estado.

¿LA VIDA EN RIESGO Y EL ESTADO EN REACCIÓN?

I Congreso Internacional de Ciencias del Estado sobre ¿La vida en riesgo y el Estado en reacción?

Llamada de comunicaciones

El I Congreso Internacional de Ciencias del Estado tiene como tema general ¿La vida en riesgo y el Estado en reacción? El evento se realizará en la red mundial de computadores entre los días 19 y 23 de octubre de 2020, con la organización del Centro Acadêmico de Ciências do Estado y el apoyo de la Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, de la Universidade de São Paulo y de la Universitat de Barcelona.

Hegel. Dialectic between Conflict and Reason

In Hegel. Dialéctica entre conflicto y razón (Hegel. Dialectic between Conflict and Reason) Hegel is a key thinker at a key moment in history. Culminates the modern and classic philosophy, at the same time that it inaugurates the contemporaneity. It Overcomes and synthesizes both Enlightenment and Romanticism, making the last great philosophical system of history. Heir to thinkers as diverse as Heraclitus, Aristotle, Spinoza and Kant anticipates Marx and many contemporary thinkers. 

Social Control: Action, Liberties, and Citizenship

CONGRÈS XVI JORNADES INTERNACIONALS DE FILOSOFIA POLÍTICA
Control social: acció, llibertats i ciutadanies
Universitat de Barcelona, 27, 28 i 29 de novembre de 2019
 

Dedicarem la nostra XVI edició de les Jornades Internacionals de Filosofia Política al tema del Control social: acció, llibertats i ciutadanies. Convoquem a la comunitat d’investigadors i investigadores en filosofia pràctica i de ciències socials afins a participar tot enviant les seves propostes de comunicació. Les nostres Jornades donaran cabuda a enfocaments històrics i contemporanis que se centrin en els següents assumptes:

DOMINION: GARDENER, FARMER, TECHNOLOGIST, ENGINEER

As well as some societies are structured under the metaphor of the ‘forester', other societies have a better ‘metaphorical figure' to describe them, we are talking about the «gardener» figure. For Bauman (2007) the ‘forester' is a pre-modern model, whereas the «gardener» is already a modern model. Regarding the advanced modernity and fordist capitalism, we will describe them using the metaphorical figures of the «technologist», «the engineer» and –also- «the agriculturalist» or «the farmer».

 

Despite the fact of these societies internal diversity, modern societies share the need to dominate and ‘improve' the natural order. They coincide in the need to define an infinite progress inspired in a very secularized utopia. Consciously, the ‘gardener' –like the «technologists», «engineers» and «farmers»- wants to transform, manipulate and perfect (in accordance with strict human needs) the pre-existing wild nature. This won’t be any more ‘virgin' neither will be left its autonomous dynamics, it will always be subjected explicitly to the human will.

FORESTER SOCIETIES

To explain the deep changes in the major attitudes boosted by the turbo globalized and post fordist capitalism, Bauman (2007) compares them beautifully with three great metaphors. They reflect the basic attitudes in front of the world:

-Pre-modern attitude would be the forester.
-Modern attitude would be the gardener. 
- And post-modern cognitive and turbo globalized attitude would be the hunter. 

Here we briefly analyse the two first ones and develop the last one in accordance with the most recent experiences.

CATÁSTROFE Y FILOSOFIAS DEL PRESENTE

El nihilismo, el pesimismo, el desencanto, la depresión y el miedo dominan la mayoría de las ontologías del presente. El futuro inmediato parece aún más inquietante. La utopía parece haber muerto y ya solo podemos pensar la Realidad como distopía o catástrofe. ¿Es así?

 

¿Aún podemos pensar en términos de utopía y de vida ilusionada? ¿Hay un afuera de la turboglobalización neoliberal? Imposibles las filosofías de la historia y muerta la postmodernidad, ¿podemos desarrollar profundas y realistas filosofías del presente? Es posible al menos replantearnos las cuatro grandes preguntas de Kant: ¿Qué podemos conocer del presente? ¿Qué hay hacer ahora mismo? ¿Qué Podemos esperar de nuestra corta vida? ¿Qué es lo humano en el entorno turboglobalizado neoliberal?

Avant-garde, anti-art and revolution: the situationism

Juan Naranjo Galeria & Documentos de Arte, has the pleasure to invite you to Philosophical Coffee , Avant-garde, anti-art and revolution: the situationism, which will involve philosophers Gonçal Mayos and Yanko Moyano. The encounter will take place on November 14th, at 19.00 h at Casanova St. 136-138, B-3, Barcelona.

Recently the philosophical cafes have changed the format of philosophical expositions, recovering the most original practice of the discipline, dialogue. On this occasion Gonçal Mayos and Yanko Moyano will talk about the Situationist International (1958-1972), an organization of artists and revolutionary intellectuals who considered the radical transformation of society and the creation of a new world as the most beautiful and sublime artwork. Specially, the two philosophers will discuss the history, the meaning and the great influence of the situationism on recent social and political movements. The event is part of the Barcelona Pensa Festival activities and is organized by Juan Naranjo Galeria & Documentos de Arte in collaboration with the Vice-rectorade of Institutionals Relations and Culture and the Department of Philosophy of the University of Barcelona (UB).

Gonçal Mayos and Yanko Moyano are both philosophers, who have collaborated in GIRCHE (International Research Group (‘Culture, History and State ‘) and in books Filosofía para indignados  (specially dedicated to situatinism), *Postdisciplinariedad y desarrollo humano* and *Pensadores en clave macrofilosófica*.

CATALAN CIVILIZATION

Culture and civilization are not the same things and so they do not always go hand in hand. They are not synonymous terms and so – if we accept that there is no such thing as a perfect synonym- these two words have significantly different meanings, each one rather interesting, and so we won’t confuse them.

The distinction between “culture” and “civilization” has been the subject of an extensive and complex debate dating back to at least the end of the 18th century. Indeed just when it was thought that this discussion had been forgotten it was revitalized by the controversial “clash of civilizations” theory put forward by Samuel Huntington. We will briefly note the nuances and meanings that separate them.

Traditionally the term “civilization” was reserved for collective, public, objectified, intersubjec- tive and materially observable aspects. On the other hand the word “culture” was used mainly for personal, subjective, mental or spiritual aspects which reveal personal singular character and its individual value. Hence why Immanuel Kant stated in 1784 “the idea of morality belongs to culture", whilst “customs relating to matrimonial matters and exterior decency is called “civilization ”.

SITUATIONISM: VANGUARD OF THE REVOLUTION

The Situationist International (SI) is a key model for new social movement (NMS). As it anticipates the current self-expressive mindset and opens many of the most ingenious media strategies and more radical claims.

Heir of Dada, Surrealism and Lettrisme, it arises in the radical avant-guard of 1950s. SI wants to renew or destroy art by deliberately producing "situations" with a capacity to revolutionarily transform lives and society.

Therefore, the SI was marked by conflict and creative debate amongst its more specifically artistic members and the most politicized. We follow the evolution of the SI and its leader Debord from the beginning in Lettrisme and analyze the nature and impact of its "situations".

The situationist participation in May of 1968 is essential and they wanted it to become the most powerful "situation", self-feeding and revolutionary. The "failure" of May marked the dissolution of the SI, but its impact on the NMS remains very important.

GENEALOGY OF GLOBALIZATION

Globalization is more or less powerful according to the considered aspect. We are very globalized in technological and economical subjects, but little in culture and almost nothing in politics and in social.

It is necessary to humanize globalization and the whole humanity must "empowering" her, being conscious that it is just a human product. Mankind has always been global and therefore, despite of the geographical diversity, remains a single species.

INFINITE TRAINING SOCIETY?

 

Anguish facing proactivity and infinite training. "We do not understand what is happening, and that is what happens to us" (Ortega y Gasset).

Neoliberal capitalism (perhaps especially with the long post 2008 crisis) and the society of knowledge that is nowadays turboglbalized, have also increased tremendously the harrowing competition of all against all.  No leviathan can guarantee today the invulnerability of the medium-term national boundaries or effectively protect the population against the excesses of international markets.

That is why the new cognitive turboglobalized capitalism imposes to all the population a profound metamorphosis in training, attitudes and even long term life projects. Although there are very significant differences, this change affects similarly to managers, technicians, experts, politicians, intellectuals... and workers most of all. As always, the more closer to poverty people are, the more pressure and exclusion they suffered, the more down in the social hierarchy they are, the less empowerment capability they have. No doubt these differences in the quantity and quality of human capital depend critically on social hierarchy and structure.

TO POST-INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY DIRECTLY?

Jumping the Industrial Revolution. Going directly to post-industrial society?

Behind the important similarities already commented, there are significant differences between the 21st century Brazil and the 19th century England. In the classic English case -e.g. Manchester –, a very conflictive situation forced the population to make a very painful and distressing jump -simplifying- from rural and agricultural communities to urban and industrial societies. Now, the challenge that often has to face the population of emerging countries -like Brazil- is one even bigger, almost comparable with the "Neolithic revolution" (according to a famous expression used by Gordon Childe). In some cases the population is forced to jump from degraded situations almost close to the hunter-gatherers communities, to the current post-Fordist and knowledge society.

VULNERABILITY & SOCIAL CHANGE

We will analyze new emerging vulnerabilities in the transition from taylorist-Fordist environments or -even worse- preindustrial environments, to post-Fordist environments and to the "knowledge society". We will especially address important cases (in emerging countries such as Brazil) of intense violation of population rights, where the population is forced to migrate to the metropolis (post-fordist environments) due to a dispossession or destruction of the rural environments they lived in.

Undoubtedly, social and technological changes always create new vulnerabilities. When populations that are empowered in one environment are relocated, they lose their living conditions, and with this, they lose also their power “to manage their own life”, their adaptation habits and therefore, they inevitably suffer a huge breach in their capabilities to deal with social threats (vulnerability increases).

Here, we will try to point out some of the transformations that are more difficult to overcome, the ones that cause more vulnerability and that currently affect a large part of the population in emerging countries, like Brazil.  Such transformations are associated with the new capitalism of the 21st century, which - as everybody knows- is becoming more neo-liberal, turboglobalized, post-Fordist and deeply marked by the knowledge society. We will also see how these transformations affect the development model of emerging countries –including economic, social and educational development. In these sense, Brazil, just like the others BRICS countries (including Russia, China, India and South Africa) is a good example of the challenges and difficulties encountered in such situations nowadays.

RAMON VALLS: MAN, IDEAL, FEAR

Ramon Valls Plana is, without a doubt, a fascinating philosopher because of the difficulty and need to create a "we". It is not merely because in his highly influential 1971 book he interpreted Hegel’s Phenomenology of the Spirit as a process of "From I to we". This is not simply a good metaphor (although it is an excellent one), nor merely a very good interpretive line, or even a line of academic research (which it also is). "From I to we"makes explicit the main personal and philosophical concern of Ramon Valls: how can a "we" be possible?What sort of "we" can pacify the "I"s and avoid a war of all against all?

Valls is not interested in just any kind of "we", but a very specific one, political, real, effective, and most of all, one which reins in violence, and he forcefully rejects other attempts to construct a "we" based on church, class, culture or nation, a civil society of "I"s, as a moralist option and, ultimately, as an emotion. 

AGAIST "WE" AS A CLASS

  
As we have seen, in his intellectual evolution Valls completely abandoned the idea of the Church as "we" and, although he qualifies it, we believe he also abandons the "religious we". He never identified his political "we", always more speculative than of daily praxis, with the sociopolitical class as did Marxism, which he had to coexist with for a long time in the university.

His pragmatic realism, although not really Marxist, his abandoning the Jesuits, his growing anticlerical drift, without a doubt his having specialized in Marx’s "teacher" permitted Valls to be considered an ally by many Marxists. Some kept their distance, such as Manuel Sacristan’s and Paco Fernández Buey’s group. Among those who are closer philosophically, we must mention José María Valverde, secondary school professors Maria Rosa Borras and the professor of the UNED José María Ripalda. Not as close were Gustavo Bueno and his group from Oviedo. Valls confronted the Marxists, like Universitat de Barcelona professor José María Bermudo and Manuel Cruz, and secondary school teacher Lluís Alegret. He was even more opposed to those who rapidly evolved from the extreme left to right wing positions which, for Valls, are frivolous and postmodern (like Eugenio Trias).


One must remember that Valls considered any social class, even the broadest worker or proletarian class, to be merely a part of the whole confronting the other part (the "capitalists" o Bourgeois") and therefore cannot be a true, universal "we". Undoubtedly for Valls and many of his generation the "class struggle" seemed too much like a "civil war" and therefore inhibited the effective existence of a pacifying "we".

AGAIST CULTURE & NATION AS "WE"

The romantic German Herder, and Hegel himself, shared with Ramon Valls the thought that the "we" cannot come simply from the Hobbesian fear of constant competition nor from the mutual agonism among individual "‘I’s", but must emerge from a natural "we" which is present on family and community life. In fact, this is the key in the German concept of nation which Valls always viewed with reluctance.

Certainly Ramon Valls recognized that within the human condition there is the principle of sociability and its contrast: unsocial agonism. But he does not see this dualism as more or less equal (as did Kant and, more optimistically, Herder), but as a disequilibrium with a near complete domination by agonism. For Valls this is a far more powerful principle than unsociability, so that sociability is nearly irrelevant when confronted with the dangerous human agonism. As a result the human condition is dual, as Kant said, and needs sociability and community impulses, as Herder noted, but the predominance of egotistical agonism is so great, according to Valls, that the duality or sociability are marginal.

Therefore, in none of his analyses does Valls start from the impulse of sociability to legitimize the "we"; but always thinks of it as a protector (with a monopoly on violence) against the war of all against all, which is inevitable without the resistance of the "Leviathan-we".

For Valls it is a mistake to think of the "we" as a nation, cultural or linguistic community, etc. This radically separated him from many of the Catalan and Spanish nationalists of his generation. He always refused to consider that the true "we" could be limited (which is different from incorporating some of the secondary characteristics) to such a feeble base which is linked to the dangerous animal human nature such as community, cultural, linguistic, historical ... links.

OVERCOMING "WE" AS THE CHURCH

 
Ramon Valls says "what is my view of Christianity versus the official Catholic version I run into constantly: (...) for me the quintessence of Christianity is simply to respect the sacredness of one who suffers unjustly. The rest is of little or no interest to me. I save the incense around Theodore and Justinian’s speeches and the candles for the ending and the strange dress for the Gothic paintings".

It is not surprising that the young Ramon Valls first searched for the "we" he needed so badly in the Company of Jesus, and later left them with a criticism which was strong and systematic. Significantly, the Jesuits prompted Valls’s studies of Hegel, directing him to study the "intersubjectivity" where "the religious also converges, because religion was always the harbinger of the spirit". The Company was aware that it was necessary to seek a "we" like the Hegelian, which favors the spirit but demands of the institutions effective accomplishment of "real objectives". Somehow the Church and the Company tended to consider themselves as the Hegelian spirit which "moves itself and engenders itself, not alone, but through common action".