Enrico Guglielminetti

Once, Ugo Perone defined memory as a form of “resistance against the never exorcisable threat of forgetfulness”, “a passionate resistance in favor of being and the good”. A tragic sentiment of the frailty of the finite, if not even an anxiety for annihilation, runs through Perone’s philosophy. After the caesura, reality is reduced to a “thin line”. The whole reality seems to have become victim of the little hunchback, to use Benjamin’s expression. It is as if we were left with only half of everything: we had a room, now we have a little room; we had a pot, now we have a little pot; we had a world, now we have a threshold. Against such a threat of annihilation, Perone assumes as the “philosophical principle of modernity” the idea that “everything that destroys or decreases reality is false”. The good is first and foremost a nefas, a halt or a block raised against the powers of destruction. Ever since storia e ontologia, the book he wrote in his thirties, Perone rigorously pursues the line of the good as “form of reality”. For him, “the non-transcendible horizon of the good” is “concrete life in its multiple expressions; thus, one cannot answer the question of what the good is without asking oneself first what life is”.

The essay argues that the unitary physiognomy of Duns Scotus’ philosophy is based on the notion of “addition.” Precisely as a theologian who moves from what is believed to what is believed, ultimately Scotus ends up being more of a philosopher than Thomas Aquinas. Thomas limits himself to applying an already made philosophy to theology by correcting and integrating philosophy there where it is in contradiction with the revealed truth. On the contrary, Scotus is concerned with the formulation of a new philosophy that may somehow correspond to the truth of revelation. Thomas’ being is imported from the Greek tradition, and works regardless of whether God is trinity or not. Such a theological truth has no strictly philosophical repercussions. Scotus’ being works only if God is trinity, or better: it offers the transcendental justification for the possibility of an “object” such as the trinity. From such an “object,” through a move of universalization, the entire configuration of being is then rethought and rebalanced. Scotus’ philosophy appears as a unified attempt at solving the question of how being should be if one wants to grant the possibility of a uni-trinitarian God. Thomas does not pose such question which, in its theological impudence, is radically philosophical. The non-identitas formalis ex parte rei [the formal non-identity on the part of the thing] as a distinction media [intermediary distinction] between real distinction and the distinction of reason opens the way to a new definition of the infinite understood as that which is more than itself. The logic of formalities establishes a new type of judgment which is simultaneously analytic and synthetic. The concept of simplicitas Dei [God’s simplicity], which is a real main beam in medieval theology, is maintained and overcome: God is simple, but this simplicity enables addition, which in this essay is indicated as “simplicity”.

The “activities” of a subject, like – for Barack Obama – being the 44th President of the United States or being married to Michelle and being the father of Malia and Sasha, seem to be definable ontologically as indispensable dispensabilities. It cannot be denied that Obama would be who he is even if he had done another job or had met another woman, yet there are reasons of the heart that make this result difficult to accept. Considering the theory of relationships of Duns Scotus, the author proposes a double device of inscription/ascription, such as at least to cast doubt on the two following affirmations: T1 It is the same thing to be Barack Obama and to be the son of his parents, born in Honolulu in August 1961 T2 It is not the same thing to be Barack Obama and to be married to Michelle

The current and the next issues of “Spazio Filosofico”, both devoted to Festival (Festival I and II respectively), are dedicated to Ugo Perone on the occasion of his 70th birthday. Perone’s friends and colleagues have chosen to celebrate his birthday in a philosophical way, namely, with a reflection on the concept of festival/holiday [festa] and its meaning for us today. Thrifty spirits might object that a journal issue is like a gift – one is enough. Are these not times of economic crisis? There is no real festival, however, without a Zugabe: without an addition, an encore, or a supplement. Hence, two issues, both devoted to a single concept. The choice of the theme has not been accidental – the concept of “festival/holiday” plays in fact an important role in Perone’s thought. In an essay that is often quoted in various contributions to the two issues, Perone understands the pair of concepts “ultimate/penultimate,” which has been discussed by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in terms of “holidays/everydayness.” For Bonhoeffer, God is present not where human abilities fail but rather “at the center of the village.” Likewise, for Perone, the square, which is the “symbol for the holiday time,” is the center of town. It is even, “at the same time, the center of town and its interruption.”