Roberto Franzini Tibaldeo

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thesis is the key notion of “ontological revolution”, the development of which I try to analyse in Jonas’ published and unpublished writings.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.

The present article tries to analyze the role played in Hans Jonas’ ethical reflection by religious—namely, Jewish—tradition. Jonas goes in search of an ultimate foundation for his ethics and his theory of the good in order to face the challenges currently posed by technology’s nihilistic attitude towards life and ethics. Jonas’ ethical investigation enters into the domain of metaphysics, which offers an incomparable contribution to the philosophical endeavour, without undermining its overall independence. In this way, Jewish categories—such as remorse, shame, sacrifice, repentance, and selfrestraint—strengthen the philosopher’s ethical reflection, since he considers them to be essential moral values for the technological epoch. Yet the reference to the Jewish tradition supplies Jonas’ ethical endeavour with a powerful but only hypothetical insight into transcendence.

I wish to carry out a philosophical inquiry into contemporary intercultural public spheres. The thesis I will support is that the achievement of inclusive public spheres (namely, with respect to our European and Western experience, the accomplishment of democracy) largely depends on one’s willingness and capacity to foster an “appreciation of diversities” by first, enhancing policies and forms of cooperation between the citizens’ emotional and motivational resources, and then enhancing their cognitive competences. More specifically, my proposal is to understand such an effort from the viewpoint of postWeberian responsibility, that is of an ethics and politics that overcome the traditional divisions between theory and practice, cognition and emotion, “Verantwortung” (responsibility) and “Gesinnung” (conviction), and therefore succeed in enhancing the citizens’ awareness and attitudes as – in Habermas’ words – “democratic co-legislators”. Fiinally, a case study of Matthew Lipman’s “Philosophy for Children/Community of Inquiry” succeeds precisely in embodying this cultural project.

The article begins with the redefinition of complexity and risk. Indeed, phenomena such as earthquakes, pandemics, ecological emergencies, and issues related to the development of technology highlight the unique and reciprocal relationship between complexity and risk. However, modernity endeavoured to simplify complexity and to erase the connection of the latter with any issue concerning risk. Despite its negative results, whose ineffectiveness and dangerousness have at the present become unmistakably clear, the attitude in favour of simplification succeeded in becoming the forma mentis of modern science, politics, culture, ethics, etc. Yet, in the last decades a new trend seems to have arisen, namely the one focusing on the “governance” of complexity and of the related risks. If considered under a socio-political point of view, its aim is to succeed in efficiency, whilst maintaining democracy. This can be achieved through the advancement of dialogue, the appreciation of diversities, and the enhancement of pluralism. Hence, the pars construens of the article focuses on the notion of responsibility, and tries to highlight its fruitfulness for the socio-political “governance” of complexity

The article endeavours to compare the reflections on the Shoah of two of the most celebrated intellectuals of Jewish origin of the 20th century, namely the German philosopher Hans Jonas and the Soviet writer Vasily Grossman. Both Jonas’ essay on The Concept of God after Auschwitz and Grossman’s novels and reports, such as The Hell of Treblinka, Life and Fate, and The Sistine Madonna, are characterised by a thorough enquiry into the ambivalence of the human condition, that tries to shed some light on the disturbing abyss of Auschwitz and the Shoah. Although neither Jonas nor Grossman considered themselves as religious believers, thanks to the Shoah they recollected their Jewish roots and developed peculiar and innovative thoughts on the meaning and vulnerability of life, human freedom, immortality, and God. The article endeavours to highlight the main similarities and differences between these two authors, who tackled the issue of thinking after Auschwitz.

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.