The Department of Philosophy of the University of Patras in collaboration with the Third Program, create a new series of philosophy shows that are in line with the climate of the day. Title of the series: “Philosophical windows in times of confinement”
This is a series of seven (7) hour radio shows which will take place in the context of the show of the Third Program “Factory. Ideas / Arts “curated and presented by Dimitris Trikas.
The purpose of this collaboration is to create a window of understanding of reality and a window of hope, to the widest possible audience.
Philosophy becomes, par excellence, relevant in times of crisis and radio is the best conduit for the transmission of its messages.
The series of programs “Philosophical Windows in a Time of Enclosure” is organized around the following axes :
· Conspiracy Theories
Eleni Perdikouri (Assistant Professor) & George Sangriotis (Assistant Professor)
· Mortal Power
Michalis Parousis (Associate Professor)
· The deforestation of our lives
Eugenia Mylonaki (Assistant Professor)
· Solidarity in difficult times
Andreas Michalakis (Assistant Professor)
· Courage: a virtue for war or a virtue for peace?
Stasinos Stavrianeas (Assistant Professor)
· Hope when everything is Mr. playlist
Pavlos Kontos (Professor)
Episodes 1 + 2
Eleni Perdikouri (Ep. Professor) & George Sangriotis (Assistant Professor): Conspiracy Theories
Popular secrets: When asked if he believes in coincidences, Sherlock Holmes answers that “the universe is seldom so lazy”. The profession of detective requires the acceptance of an ontological position. The universe works, instills in the spirit of a rational will. Otherwise it would not have been possible to reasonably clarify the facts. Clarification is needed, because the universe keeps its work secret. Where the “many” see coincidences, the elite, who are not deceived, see a conspiracy. But what is a conspiracy theory? It is not only a theory with the metaphysical commitments mentioned, but also a theory with a certain scientific structure. In contrast to the classic problem of the reliability of miraculous testimonies (see, for example, Hume), a conspiracy theory derives its validity from the absence of evidence, which is considered a presumption. Such a crisis has psychological as well as socio-political and political-philosophical terms (see eg Popper). Who are they, how are they intertwined with the metaphysical and epistemological physiognomy of conspiracy theories and how is it possible for the reason for conspiracies to be addressed to the public?
In the imperial times of the comparison of Greek thought with elements of Eastern religions the Christian gnostic sect appears, representing a new attitude. The world is considered despicable, as a product of a foolish, malicious and evil creator. The belief that the world is a plaything of some dark forces, which only a few enlightened people know (hence the term “Knowledge”), is at the core of conspiracy theories. The implications of this belief are both epistemological and moral. The world is made in such a way that we can not know it: neither observation nor reasoning gives us access to its structure, which is revealed in an exaggerated way only to a select few. And if our world is fundamentally bad, then there is absolutely no reason on our part for a good deed. On the contrary, our ability to be saved may require its destruction.
E.R. Dodds, Nationals and Christians in a time of agony, Alexandria Publications, Athens 1995
Michalis Parousis (Associate Professor): Mortal Power
The Auxiliary is subject to the violence of a punitive power that is legitimized through its material power. The aphorism of the variables that determined his life, such as social recognition, wealth and positions, which turns into an apocalypse in view of the execution of his last sentence, raises the radical interpretive question that leads him to the redemptive refuge in φιλοσοφείν. The pervasive death anxiety caused by the pandemic, the pre-trial confinement that overturns social norms, the categorization of persons into healthy, carriers, patients, hospitalized, intubated, resuscitated and victims, invites Philosophy to formulate both its narrative and its narrative . To the first belongs a reorientation of life in relation to neglected values and principles, to the second the critical view of the technologies of control of space, bodies and wills, hence the discipline imposed by political power and which imposes new forms of governance. Auxiliary imagines philosophy, Montaigne, like Plato, views philosophy as the study of death, while Foucault views the management of death as a political-philosophical starting point for an analysis of bio-power at the boundaries of the triangle: Security, Territory, Population. Suggested bibliography
Assistant, Fairy Tale of Philosophy, translated by A. Sakellariou, Patakis, Athens: 1995.
Μ. Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics, Lectures at the College of France 1978 – 1979)),
μτφρ. V. Patsogiannis, Plethron, Athens: 2012.
——- Thoughts on Marxism, phenomenology and the power, translated by Th. Lagios,
Futura, Athens: 2013.
– —- For the government of the living. Lectures at the College of France (1980 – 1980)),
μτφρ. G. Karabelas, P. Bourlakis, Estia, Athens: 2020.
——- The microphysics of power, translated by L. Troulinou, Ypsilon, Athens: 2005.
Eugenia Mylonaki (Assistant Professor): Deforestation of our lives
We can understand the difficulty we face in the face of the reality of the pandemic in two ways. According to the first, we are faced with a series of “events” which present enormous difficulties. According to the second, we are faced with what Cora Diamond calls the “difficulty of reality”, a certain difficulty in conceiving and imagining something that we consider real. In the first part of the meeting I will try to introduce the listener to this difficulty. In the second part I will try to deal with the possibility that this difficulty for us now has to do with the possibility of a certain loss of our way of life: the “loss of all events”, as Jonathan Lear perceives it. In the third and last part of the meeting I will turn my attention to questions that have to do with what we experience when our way of life is lost or has been lost. While it is commonly thought that this life can be conceived in biological terms (as a life devoid of form, e.g.), I will argue that the life of survival and its inconceivable difficulty can be understood as a deforested or emaciated or wronged life only under the conditions of a certain form of life. Here I will briefly refer to the work of contemporary Aristotelian philosophers with an emphasis on the work of Michael Thompson. This view opens up the prospect of a radical hope.
Suggested reading: From Philosophy and Animal Life, Cora Diamond's article, “The Difficulty of Reality”. From the book by Jonathan Lear the first chapter and maybe the second. And finally the chapter “The Representation of Life” from the book Life and Action by Michael Thompson.
Andreas Michalakis (Assistant Professor): Solidarity in difficult times
The discussion will revolve around the following topics: (1) the origins of the concept of solidarity: republicanism and Christianity, (2) solidarity in friendship and love, (3) solidarity and autonomy as fundamental values of modernity, (4) solidarity and social bond between free and perhaps citizens in modernity, (5) solidarity and democracy, (6) solidarity and individualism, (7) solidarity and social cooperation / the issue of distributive justice and social inequalities, (8) solidarity in the context of globalization: immigration, refugee and cosmopolitan solidarity.
See: a book by Brunkhorst and an article by Dean. From the Greek language bibliography, the book by Stergios Mitas, Solidarity as a fundamental principle of law, Sakis Karagiorgas Foundation Publications, is interesting 2013. Episode 6
Stasinos Stavrianeas (Assistant Professor): Courage: a virtue for war or a virtue for peace?
Today our world is experiencing a condition that often described as warlike. Humanity is fighting against a crowned virus that dominates our lives and threatens to take away, literally or figuratively, its breath. Traditionally the virtue that warriors must cultivate and display on the battlefield is the virtue of bravery, the mother of our bravery. One of the four main virtues, bravery is analyzed by Plato and Aristotle with special care for her relationship with her three sisters: justice, wisdom and prudence. Indeed, courageous deeds seem to transcend the other three virtues, being beyond all calculation, weighting and logic; while on the other hand, these deeds would not be attributed to a courageous character if they did not include the other virtues. It would be just a product of madness, apocalypse or despair. If authentic bravery presupposes the possession of the remaining virtues, then it constitutes the expression, by performing every genuinely brave act, of virtue as a whole. If this position contains a seed of truth, it is not surprising that it is now being fertilized in the important place that the debate on the virtue of bravery seems to hold in different theoretical contexts: in the field of psychology as a condition of creativity and authenticity, in the field of politics as determination and leadership, in the field of entrepreneurship as a skill for developing and managing our potential and re-s. But all of the above are just skills that we are called to cultivate daily in the context of a peaceful regularity. Is bravery a virtue for war or is it equally a virtue for peaceful times?
We will discuss the concept of bravery in Plato and Aristotle and, above all, its relation to the virtue of bravery , as well as the analysis of the latter in the work of his philosophers and psychologists 35 th ai.
Aristotle, Ethical Victories, volume A, translated by D. Lypourlis, published by Zitros, 2005. Book C 6- 9.
Platon, Lachis, translated by D. Tzortzopoulos, published by Zitros, 2008 .
May, Rollo. The courage to be creative, W.W. Norton, 1978.
Pavlos Kontos (Professor): Hope when everything is closed
Hope acrobatics between blind / unjustified optimism and pessimism, resignation, despair. The question, however, is whether or not we want to include elements of rationality in hope, that is, whether such elements do not deprive hope of its true meaning, which is that it leads us beyond what is expected or the product of a mere correct calculation. or a prudent prediction.
Western thought therefore seems to suggest two completely different models: (a) what Thucydides and Aristotle provide us (the former, among others, in the description of its plague Athens, the second, among others, in Rhetoric): here, hope presupposes rationality without, however, ending in sterile calculation and the question is who is good or not, (b) what the Apostle Paul suggests and we find again, in various versions, in Thomas Aquinas or Kierkegaard: here, hope becomes the opening to something beyond reason, to a reality that resists rational interpretation and is opposed to experience and the question is who has the faith that requires such an attitude. Of great interest, of course, are attempts to merge the two models (such is Bloch's project), the last of which is that of Jonathan Lear (Radical Hope, 2006).
News: from Thucydides and Aristotle to the Apostle Paul and Lear, the debate over hope takes on all its drama when it comes to a crisis scene , impasse, question. And this is exactly what makes the issue burning in the current situation.
Σ. Zoumboulakis (ed.), For Hope, Bread of Life, Athens: 2020.
J. Lear, Radical Hope, Harvard UP, Cambridge Mass .: 2013
Kazantzidis, G. & Spatharas, D . (eds.) Hope in ancient literature, history, and art, De Gruyter, Berlin / Boston: 2018.