Roberto Franzini Tibaldeo

The paper assumes that fear presents a certain degree of ambivalence. To say it with Hans Jonas (1903-1993), fear is not only a negative emotion, but may teach us something very important: we recognize what is relevant when we perceive that it is at stake. Under this respect, fear may be assumed as a guide to responsibility, a virtue that is becoming increasingly important, because of the role played by human technology in the current ecological crisis. Secondly, fear and responsibility concern both dimensions of human action: private-individual and public-collective. What the ‘heuristics of fear’ teaches us, is to become aware of a deeper ambivalence, namely the one which characterizes as such human freedom, which may aim to good or bad, to self-preservation or self-destruction. Any public discussion concerning political or economic issues related with human action (at an individual or collective level) ought not to leave this essential idea out of consideration.

The article assumes that Lipman’s paradigm of ‘Philosophy for Children’ as a ‘Community of Inquiry’ is very useful in extending the range of philosophical practices and the benefits of philosophical community reflection to collective life as such. In particular, it examines the possible contribution of philosophy to the practical and ethical dynamics which, nowadays, seem to characterise many deliberative public contexts. Lipman’s idea of CI is an interesting interpretative key for such contexts. As a result, the article highlights the possibility of understanding a CI essentially in terms of an ethics of responsibility.

The cognizability of the world according to Alexander von Humboldt: the experience of landscape. According to Alexander von Humboldt, geography ought to aim to go beyond the modern attitude of seeing knowledge as being the result of a spatial and temporal abstraction from the real world. Von Humboldt wishes to create a new theory of knowledge, one that instead of just simplifying, schematizing, and categorizing reality is able to highlight its multiple meanings, its diversity of perspectives, and its hermeneutical keys. Von Humboldt’s project strives to achieve a universal cognition of the world (or a universal geography) by claiming the centrality of the experience of landscape. This is evidence for von Humboldt’s far-sightedness, since he anticipated the present day trend of considering landscape as a corner stone of interdisciplinary enquiries into the meaning of the world.

Hans Jonas’ “philosophical biology,” although developed several decades ago, is still fundamental to the contemporary reflection upon the meaning of life in a systems thinking perspective. Jonas, in fact, closely examines the reasons of modern science, and especially of Wiener’s Cybernetics and Bertalanffy’s General System Theory, and at the same time points out their basic limits, such as their having a reductionistic attitude to knowledge and ontology. In particular, the philosopher highlights the problematic consequences of scientific reductionism for human nature. As the final result of an overall process of naturalization, the essence of the human being is reduced to its quantitative features only, while the “meaning” of life as such becomes no different from the “fact” of its material consistency. However, the problem is that by such a process, the human being is deprived of his specificity.

Il pensiero di Hans Jonas, specie per quel che riguarda la cosiddetta “biologia filosofica”, tratta indirettamente del rapporto tra essere umano e animale. A questo riguardo, Jonas rifiuta sia l’approccio dualistico, sia quello monistico-riduzionistico e propende al contrario per una complessiva reinterpretazione del fenomeno della vita nei termini di quel che egli definisce una “rivoluzione ontologica”. In virtù di ciò, il pensatore rintraccia lo specifico del fenomeno della vita e individua nelle forme viventi una scala naturae di complessità, auto-trascendimento e libertà via via crescenti, le cui tappe significative sono la vita organica, quella animale e quella umana. Per quel che concerne la forma animale, varie specie presentano “potenzialità trans-animali”, che evidenziano un ponte biologico e ontologico verso l’essere umano. In altre parole, l’animale è in qualche modo in grado di prefigurare la forma di vita specificamente umana. Tuttavia, sostiene Jonas, non appena quest’ultima fa la propria comparsa, essa è tale per cui se ne evidenzia al tempo stesso anche lo “iato metafisico” rispetto alla vita animale. La specificità umana si manifesta nella propria capacità di essere responsabile e di preservare le condizioni basilari per una vita autentica sul pianeta.

‘Gnosticism and Modern Nihilism’ (published in Social Research , 1952) is indeed one of Hans Jonas’ most famous essays, to which its author reserved very deep attention during his philosophical career. As a former pupil of Martin Heidegger and Rudolf Bultmann, Jonas started to deal with religious topics, and specifically with Gnosticism, from the very outset of his philosophical career in the 1920s. After gaining recognition thanks to his remarkable philosophical-existential interpretation of Gnosticism, he returned to the modern age and its philosophical characters. Principally, Jonas discovered that modern philosophy up to Heidegger and Sartre suffered from a peculiar spiritual disease – namely, nihilism – that he had already traced in ancient Gnosticism and that he intended to reject. Therefore, Jonas’ acquaintance with ancient religion and thinking gave him a deep insight into the modern age and provided him with a first glimpse of what was later to become his biological philosophy. However, whoever could imagine that the idea of tracing similarities between Gnosticism and modern thinking came to Jonas at the beginning of 1950 from the famous philosopher and biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy? In this article, I shall endeavour to demonstrate this thesis by quoting from unpublished documents. However, I shall also try to prove that Jonas did not follow von Bertalanffy’s advice completely. The overall aim is, therefore, both to highlight the origins of an essential turning point in the thinking of Hans Jonas, and, on such a basis, to outline the innovation and originality of his philosophical contribution

The book focuses on the thinking of the philosopher of Jewish origins, Hans Jonas (1903-1993), and precisely on his “philosophical biology”. The overall thesis is that this topic, which occupies the second stage of his thinking, is coherent with the previous phase (which focused on ancient Gnosticism), as well as with the following (which was dedicated to the ethics of responsibility). The main evidence supporting this thesis is the key notion of “ontological revolution”, the development of which I try to analyse in Jonas’ published and unpublished writings. This is the first innovative feature of the research. The second is my attempt to compare Jonas’ ideas of life and organism with the reflections of thinkers such as Aristotle, Spinoza, and Whitehead.