Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Who thinks that they can subdue Leviathan? Strength resides in its neck; dismay goes before it. It is without fear. It looks down on all who are haughty; it is king over all who are proud. These words inspired PJ Wehry to create Chasing Leviathan. Chasing Leviathan was born out of two ideals: that truth is worth pursuing but will never be subjugated, and the discipline of listening is one of the most important habits anyone can develop. Every episode is a dialogue, a journey into the depths of a meaningful question explored through the lens of personal experience or professional expertise.
PJ (00:01.378)
Hello and welcome to Chasing the Viathan. I'm your host, PJ Weary, and I'm here today with Dr. Peter Trani, a German philosopher and professor at the University of Wuppertal. And we're talking about his book, Freedom to Fail, Heidegger's Anarchy. Dr. Trani, wonderful to have you on today.
Peter (00:18.478)
Yeah, it's nice to have me, so I'm proud. proud. I love that.
PJ (00:20.919)
You
PJ (00:26.978)
So why, and it is a controversial topic, but I'm really excited. think even the way you approach it is just a great way to think about philosophy in general. Whether someone agrees or disagrees, I really appreciated the way you approach it. Why this book? Why this kind of short book, this longer essay? Why did you write Freedom to Fail?
Peter (00:51.022)
Yeah, well, in a way it was a response to the discussions around or about the Black Notebooks, of course, in a way that was the cause. But in principle, I am of course interested in the topic of the meaning of truth and errancy and failure and untruth, of course, in philosophy.
And I guess, well, the topic is a huge one, is a big one. And in this sense, the book is rather small. So there's a book, by the way, from Jaspers, von der Wahrheit, so on truth, it has, so it has 900 pages. So you see, you can really write a lot about the topic. But in principle, I'm still interested in the question.
of truth in philosophy. That was the beginning and is still going on in my thinking.
PJ (02:02.572)
And that kind of takes us in some ways to that initial translation choice in the title. So, Ernest Fuga, if I'm saying that correctly, this idea of freedom to fail is how they choose to translate it, but it also has connotations of getting elbow room, of not necessarily error.
but a way that can, that has error as part of it, kind of air and sea. Can you talk about that word and even like the translation choices, but also why that's important here?
Peter (02:43.238)
Well, there is a whole field of words with irre in Heidegger's thinking. Irre, Irrenis, die Irre, das Irren, verirren, Well, you know the German language has, because of the previous fixes, many possibilities to build strange, in a way strange...
even in the German language. Strange expressions. Because, Irnisfuge is of course not a normal German word. It's a Heideggerian composition. And I choose it of course because of the closeness to a very famous poem by Paul Celan. The name of the poem is Todesfuge. So that's
That's a very, well, it's one of the most iconic poems in German literature of the second half of the 20th century. So I choose this title because I also am dealing with Paul Celan and this poem in the book. Yeah, so that was my choice, but freedom.
fail is not totally wrong concerning the question of the performance of philosophy, of philosophizing. So in a way I know that you cannot translate ... you cannot translate ... you know that's impossible. So in this sense I agree with this translation.
But yeah, but actually if you know poetry, German poetry, and you read the word, Yrnis Fuge, you know, you in a way are remembered of this poem and you know that there was a very important encounter between this Jewish poet, Paul Celan, and this German, well, former Nazi philosopher, Heidegger.
PJ (05:05.752)
And forgive me, but I do have to ask this at the before we jumped on air here, you said you didn't want to be a Heidegger expert, but you have to be. Do you mind expounding on that a little
Peter (05:22.864)
Yeah, in a way it belongs to the topic. So the question is, is philosophy in itself a science? Is it only a science? Is it more than a science? Or is it something totally different than a science? In the scientific business, you have to be a specialist. know, that's even
even a problem of the history of science. So since the beginning of the 20th century you have to be an expert, specialist concerning a certain topic in your discipline. And for continental philosophy it's like this that you have to choose, well, you have to choose one of the philosophers. Well, there are many
whatever are choosing Kant, others choosing Nietzsche and I choose or was chosen or whatever by Heidegger and in this way I'm totally fine with it. I agree with it that I have to do a job also in science, in my discipline and in this sense I'm a specialist.
for Heidegger, I'm also an editor of Heidegger's work, so in this sense I write articles, I wrote scientific articles and so on, but actually as someone who is really interested in philosophy or, well, is a philosopher or whatever, I don't know, you are not only an expert, you cannot be only an expert, so you have to, so in this sense,
For me, if somebody says, this man is the Heidegger editor, he edited the Black Notebooks. So it's always a little bit ambiguous for me. On the one hand, would say, well, I am known as that, but actually my understanding of myself, of my work is not totally...
Peter (07:49.449)
identical with being the editor or being one of the editors of IDA. So that's the point. So in this sense, I'm an expert, but I hope I can be something different also.
PJ (07:56.781)
Yes.
PJ (08:03.99)
Yes, yes, that makes a lot of sense. And it makes sense to as you say, it's close to the topic
What is the value of, and what do you mean by the radical freedom of philosophy? This need philosophy has for elbow room, or I think it's translated as play space in your essay.
Peter (08:32.4)
Well, thing is that, like I said before, the question is what is the importance or what is the role of the importance of truth in philosophizing? this is of course a very, very big question and you probably will never find
Like all the real philosophical metaphysical questions, never will have the one and only answer to that. And this is already the point that if you try to deal with philosophers from whatever Plato
to Wittgenstein or whatever. You are always confronted with people who are dealing with truth and who are trying of course to present a system of ideas, or more or less a system of ideas which are representing something like truth, but you will never find the philosopher or
You will never find the philosopher who really found the truth. Even Plato, and he's probably the number one candidate for that, even with Plato you would never say that this is dogmatically seen the philosopher who brings you the truth, or who brings us truth.
So in this sense, have a discipline, have a type of thinking, a form of thinking, what is course moved and touched and whatever is passionate looking and searching for something like truth, but will never be, in this sense, will never arrive at a point where you can say, now we found
Peter (10:49.862)
we found the philosophy of truth. So in this sense, and this is in a way strange, know, because of course we are thinking, well Kant is of course better than whatever, he's more reasonable than whatever Nietzsche, you know, if you want to be reasonable you have to read Kant, because Kant, well he knows what truth is in a way, but it's not so easy. At this point,
And the next step then is, and this is what I try to explain there, that Heidegger is probably one of the philosophers who knows that heresy in this sense to err, to fail in a way, belongs to human thinking, belongs to
And of course, that's inherently a problem then. If you have a philosopher who knows that to err belongs to what he's doing, you could say then he is not interested in, you know, can say everything. So then you have the problem of responsibility. What can I say as a philosopher? What can I not say as a philosopher? Well, finally I could say, well, was always, it's only failure.
You know that... So it's very humane to air. So what do you want from me? So I said something totally terrible, well, it was wrong, whatever. So in this sense, you have all these questions. And this is of course in a way, it's of course an important question in a way, but yeah, that's what the book is about in a way.
PJ (12:44.904)
admit I'm a little disappointed. thought you were going to give me the answer to truth. thought we were just going to capture it today. Just get the whole, you know, philosophy of truth right here in like five minutes. You're just going to give us the answer to all philosophy.
Peter (12:56.678)
That would be something, but that would be probably then really the explosion of the World Wide Web. it would be apocalyptic in a
PJ (13:05.826)
Yeah.
PJ (13:09.336)
It would be very, very apocalyptic. Yes.
Peter (13:12.46)
I would like to do that actually. I like the apocalypse, but no, I'm not able to do
PJ (13:23.272)
Not planning on bringing around the end of everything with this great revelation. No. Sorry, I couldn't resist. Can you talk a little bit more about the difference between error and errancy? So this idea of walking in a way that can be error, but also can lead us into truth versus just... I think this comes out of...
ways not works, right, that Heidegger talks about.
Peter (13:57.208)
Yeah, it's... If you... the thinking is also beyond Heidegger's language. Thinking is always a process. It's always a kind of an experience. are beginning at a point of whatever, figuring out something about whatever.
and it's like you were traveling in a way and you can never see the results of the process of this, your... You can never find the goal or the target of what you are trying to do. It's like, you know, that in modern painting there are painters who are just beginning to paint something without
knowing what will become of it. it's like, maybe it's even something very close to certain processes in art, in poetry even also. in composition, like improvisation or something, you are on your way and you never know.
what will happen in a way. cannot control the landscape. You have no overview on the landscape you are moving in. So in this sense you are always in a way lost. you know that of course it's not like that that you are totally blind. It's not that you without any orientation. That belongs to Heidegger's concept
of truth, know, that he has this concept that the truth is an event of concealment and revealment, so that you have that, well, something is always concealed of truth. can never see the whole thing, you know. It's just that you can only, whatever, can only see a part or you can
Peter (16:18.862)
you have never the full access to something. But that doesn't mean that you are without any clue. You see something, you have something in your mind. So in this sense you have a certain orientation. But that's never a full shelter against
against errancy. So error is in a way, of course, just one can say that, well, that's an error. you miscalculated something, you know, that can be. you made an error and this is the one thing, but the work, the process of erring is something, well, it's something different.
You know, there are also logical implications of the concept. For instance, if you know that you're airing, you can never air. Airing means that you are without any consciousness about that. You cannot know that you... You cannot say, I'm in the process of airing. You cannot say that
because then you are not, you are not anymore, you know. So in the sense that the thing is that the hiddenness of getting lost is actually the center of the experience. know, at this point where you can say, I'm lost, you are in a
at the beginning of not being lost anymore. But before that, before that, that you can't say you are lost, that's really the loss. If you think, that's the way still, and it isn't. But when, in thinking, when are we able
PJ (18:41.013)
Yes.
Peter (18:47.174)
to really know that. When are we able to really know that we are lost or not lost? That's problem also in the book, but not only in the book. Indeed, so it's a problem of life.
PJ (19:03.409)
It's a problem in life.
PJ (19:11.357)
I want to maybe restate some things you said, make sure on the same track that I'm following you. So when you say we are not blind, another way, and this is coming from my study in Goddomer, but we are not blind, but we are bound by, circumscribed by the horizon. Right? So this idea of no matter where we move, we kind of take our, our line of sight is cut off at some
Is that another way? we in the same ballpark there? The same area
Peter (19:45.68)
Well, you said, if you said, Garamar, I, I, maybe that's, maybe not, that's not a, that's not a real coincidence, but I thought of tragedy, you know, in theory we have the same, we have, in a way we have the same problem. You know, that the hero, the tragic hero is in a
lost but he thinks that he is on the right track, that he knows the truth. But he is already lost. So you cannot say that he is blind. He sees something but he doesn't see
You know that I remember of the Oedipus Rex, when he is, what is the word, he is stitching his eyes off, is it the right word, don't know, because he loses his eyes to become seeing, know, that's the topic of this cruel,
PJ (20:44.354)
Yeah. He's losing his eyes. Yes.
Peter (20:58.342)
event in the tragedy that he is losing his eyes to become seeing, to see the truth. So in this sense it's
Yeah, it's always in a way a very ambivalent situation.
PJ (21:22.744)
There's a metaphor here about ways, not works, and this idea of kind of traveling within a horizon. And if I'm understanding you correctly, most people walk on beaten paths. think, I love what you said, in public there prevails a somewhat boring kind of communication that nevertheless has the great advantage of minimizing the dull frustration of the dissatisfied. You have like,
the path that everybody follows and then what it means to be a philosopher is to walk off the beaten path. Is that a good way to think about
Peter (22:01.978)
Well, it's
Yeah, well, there is this book, you're quoting actually a Heideggerian book also, Holzwege. But of course, there is a little bit a romantic image of the philosopher, that the philosopher is lonely and lonesome and he is not using the general, whatever, ways
communication and ways of speaking. He has a certain, he has a special kind of life, a special way of life and so on. In a way that's still true because I think that thinking is never, at the beginning, is never public. At the origin, it's never public. It's really something what you're doing at your desk.
by writing or whatever. But of course after that you are confronted with the question of the public life and of the sphere. know that there is a, in a late Hannah Arendt book, The Life of the Spirit, there she speaks about the civil
She uses this word, the civil war, between the public sphere and the public thinking and the philosophical thinking. So it's interesting that she's using this, well, I think quite radical word, civil war. But in a way, it's never, at least...
Peter (23:59.666)
Today it's not I wouldn't say it's so good. It's never so dramatic But in a way it has something of its to philosophize. I guess
Heidegger really made a performance out of that because like Wittgenstein, you know, that's interesting that they are so close at this point, like Wittgenstein, Heidegger was actually never interested in whatever, delivering a philosophical system. He was always interested in small forms of also writing.
know, writing articles, writing lectures, writing fragments, writing short texts, and you see that Wittgenstein did the same thing in this sense. And at the end, in the 60s or in the 50s, in the 60s, when he was really, he was, of course, already one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century, but he really made a kind of performance of it,
Working at the same time with different manuscripts always using hand writings Not thinking of publishing the stuff just doing it for himself or for some lovers so that that and and he he really you're quoting the The the the main the main motto of the of the of the samtausgabe
So in this sense, really made a kind of, even in a certain way, an art performance out of it. Because the manuscripts then became actually the objects of philosophy, that you have the writing and you see it's not finished.
Peter (26:06.68)
it's fragmented and so on. And this was his way, his style of thinking. But maybe that says something about what philosophy can be today. If you have maybe the most important philosophers of the 20th century, Wittgenstein and Heidegger, and they agreed on this point that philosophy is not able anymore to deliver a system of truth.
but that philosophy is just whatever able to give some insights in fragments, fragmented truths, not truths of the totality or whatever, then that says something maybe about our relation to what philosophy can be today.
PJ (27:05.176)
as we talk about the way that philosophy can be today.
PJ (27:13.608)
The question of Heidegger's responsibility is a big one. But I'm also interested primarily in as someone who admittedly, not vocationally, I do philosophy and other people who listen, I think a lot to this podcast are doing philosophy. As a philosopher walks in this air and
What is the responsibility of the philosopher? Because you talk about the one who errs is without guilt, and you have to be able to question things in philosophy.
What kind of responsibility does a philosopher have as they walk through this
Peter (27:57.328)
you
Peter (28:03.952)
Yeah,
That's an important and yeah, it's also a crucial question. I really, I
Peter (28:20.548)
I really don't know, probably you can give a lot of... you can try to say something about it. If responsibility, for instance, should be something like a... a... given morality that the philosopher has to accept and that he, in the sense of this morality,
responsible for some thoughts he has so that he can say that that's too dangerous you know that I cannot write that so it's that's irresponsible take somebody like Nietzsche then you can you can whatever you can you can cut off whatever 50 percent of his thinking if he would have been so responsible then you can say
In a way, destroyed philosophy. He destroyed the classic concept of philosophy. If he always would have said that, well, I have to be responsible for philosophy. So there wouldn't have been somebody like Nietzsche. So in this sense, I would say that if there is a kind of presupposed general morality,
I would say that philosophy...
Peter (29:49.626)
has to deal with it, but it cannot just obey to that. So in this sense, for instance, if you read the anti -Semitic passages in the Black Notebooks, you could say, well, maybe it was not necessary
to like that. was not necessary to have this thought. Or if you have these thoughts, it was not necessary to write them down. Because they are in irresponsible. But that's the second question. In what sense? For instance, wrote in this semester, I made a seminar on the principle of responsibility of Hans Jonas.
And he hears responsibility the same way Heidegger heard it, so that you are always giving responses to something. As a philosopher, you're in a way always giving responses to something. You never say something totally new right from the start. So you are already reacting to something. So in this sense, philosophy is of
responsive and then can be responsible. That's what Jonas does, that he says that we are always responding to nature, so we are responsive to nature. In a sense, is, in this relation, is a sort of responsibility. And I would say that this is something what you can think about in philosophy.
PJ (31:15.926)
Yes, yeah, yeah,
Peter (31:40.41)
that in this relation of being responsive to something, for Heidegger of course, to being, there is something, there can be something like the origin of a responsibility. And then also in an ethical sense. So in the sense that I'm not denying, and it would be crazy to deny the question of morals and ethics and philosophy.
But then philosophy should have the possibility to work it out, you know? That philosophy should be, in a way, the origin of certain ethics. Not that ethics is the queen of thinking. That cannot be in my way. There are philosophers who would say something like that. For instance, would say that Descartes
Kant, you know, maybe he would say something like that. But also, Kant would never say that there is a kind of a presupposed ethics we have to obey. It's just we have to then, as a philosopher, I have to work on it and I am involved in ethics.
But of course it's... In a way, you are philosophizing, this question is always at stake. There is a certain... I would say there is a certain responsibility, but not, like I said, not in the way that you just...
You just do what you are set.
PJ (33:32.95)
It almost sounds like there's more responsibility when you're questioning these things.
Peter (33:41.956)
Yeah, in a way it is. But you cannot, you have to be also, in a kind of way, have to be also modest. For instance, take the whole problem of religion. You you will never say that a philosopher was able to murder God. So in a way, if Nietzsche is saying God is that,
So of course there were Christians at the end of the 19th century who said, what is he saying? Why can he say so? What is he? is terrible man or whatever. But of course Nietzsche would have never, he never would have been able to murder God. in the sense, in this sense you cannot say that philosophy is responsible for the situation of everything.
that would be strange. So in this sense the philosopher is also just your neighbor.
PJ (34:50.25)
Sorry, I love that. don't know you don't mind, I want to say in some sense, philosophers are just your neighbors. love that. Like, it is like, there's that very romantic notion. It's like, you know, we talk about philosophers going off the beaten path and I think they do, but it's always in relation to the beaten path. Right? Like, when we talk about somebody who goes off the beaten path, and does not do so in relation to the, like the normal
That person's just a hermit without, without writing, right? Like they just go off and just like live on the mountains and they never write anything that like, that's not a philosopher. Yeah.
Peter (35:26.534)
Yeah, that's not a philosopher. It's always in this, like you said, it's always in the relation too. If you think of Socrates, then he's probably the model of the philosopher. people can say
Yeah, he was always going to the agora. So he looked for the public sphere. This is the... That's the motivation of philosophizing. But if you think about it, what he did on the agora, you have the ambiguity because he went to the agora not to earn money.
PJ (36:17.107)
yeah.
Peter (36:18.756)
because he said that's wrong, you cannot sell ideas. So he went into the public sphere, he went on the marketplace where people are going to earn money, to sell something. He went there and he said what I have I cannot sell, so I'm not here to earn money. And this is the ambivalent, ambiguous situation of the philosopher concerning the public sphere, concerning
the public communication. He has to participate but he cannot in a way. That's also in a way maybe tragic because he was of course exterminated.
Peter (37:07.108)
He's strange. He's a stranger. He calls himself atopos. Atopos that means I'm never really at the place. I'm never really here. I'm here. I'm on the Agora. But I'm doing things which are strange. So that's philosophy.
PJ (37:08.418)
Yes, yes.
PJ (37:26.572)
Yes. Actually, in this, I did want to ask you about this, this phrase, who are the Greeks that they could laugh about their gods? And perhaps that kind of even brings in I, I would eventually like to get around discussion of narrative and poetry. But I think there's this idea of at the post, the
that kind of comes out. Of course, there's poetry in Laughing About Their Gods. You mentioned like there's the three tragedies and then you have your the comedy at the end, Yes. Go
Peter (38:04.39)
The comedy yeah Lots of philosophers are generally not interested in the comedy. So that's that's that's something what is a deformation professional, you know that that that that nobody of the of the maybe heagle heagle is a heagle is an exception, but but but the Nietzsche or or or Heidegger were they were never interested in the the tread in the the in comedies there they only were interested in the tragedy of course, so Diana Dionysus
PJ (38:11.233)
No,
Peter (38:34.156)
is one of the very funny figures of the frogs in Aristophanes. You can really laugh at him. And this is something very strange for German philosophers. That you have a god and they are still, you know, it's not that they
just laughing about it. The relation is still intact. But on the one side you can, can, you are praying in a way to this God, but you can also, at the same time you can laugh at him. And that's something, know, Christianity is the end of that. Christianity is the end of comedy and of tragedy also, you that you never can laugh
Jesus. It's impossible. Only the Roman soldiers who tortured him, they are the only one laughing in the New Testament. So if you are laughing at Jesus, you belong to the torturers. So in this sense, for Christians, it's probably strange to think of laughing at your God.
PJ (40:00.21)
And it's the end of tragedy because it, no matter what, you end in triumph.
Peter (40:06.318)
in Christianity. Yeah, yeah, exactly. Resurrection is the end of the tragedy.
PJ (40:07.224)
Britain Christianity, yes.
PJ (40:15.384)
I was going to ask you about poetry and narrative, but now I feel like we just killed it, right? it's like, yeah, yes. Yeah. So how does poetry and narrative fit alongside philosophy? Because that's kind of how you end freedom to fail, right? You end by talking about narrative and about poetry and, and technicity.
Peter (40:23.258)
No,
Peter (40:44.099)
Yeah, well I think that poetry in a way has this relation
Peter (41:00.518)
It's difficult question. So in this sense, am just... Well, at first, I would say that there is a very important relation between philosophy and poetry and narration right up from the beginning. the problem of then
What is in this closeness between poetry and philosophy? What is, of course, the difference? What are poets doing and what are philosophers doing? So in this sense, in the context of this book, I talked about Paul Celan, this Jewish poet, well, for me, the most important poet of the...
second half of the 20th century, how are we living with poems compared to philosophical texts and philosophers? And I would say that this
Peter (42:28.358)
this whole discourse of the relation between truth and responsibility for philosophy is
Peter (42:41.442)
is also there in poetry, but...
in a very, very difficult simplicity.
It's very, very simple. What happens when you read a poem? What is happening when you are reading, for instance, the Todesfuge of Selang? It's something that at the end is comparable with the reason of reading philosophical texts. But the process
understanding, we want to use this term, or to not understand, or to respond to what you read, or what you learned, or what you felt in the poem, is much more simple than in philosophy. therefore it's not easier. Poetry is course not at least whatever.
certain poetry is not easy to read, it's not easy to understand. Probably there's nothing to understand in a way. So understanding is a critical term in this context. But I would say that in this neighborhood of philosophy, of poetizing and philosophizing, the poet at the end
Peter (44:14.938)
well, it has a
access to... I don't know what, but he has.
PJ (44:27.975)
Is it that fabric though of everyday life?
Peter (44:39.62)
Well, know that, Heidegger often talks about this concept of, well actually only talks about it in Being and Time, but there is this concept of authenticity.
Peter (44:55.158)
And this is a highly criticized concept, not only in Heidegger, but whatever. you today, or if you are whatever, try to understand what authenticity can be even today, what authenticity is. It can be a critical term, it can be criticized. Because what are the criteria of authenticity?
what actually is authenticity. We don't know that. But nevertheless, we have the experience when experiencing certain, for instance, artworks, compositions, in whatever meeting people, there is something where we can say, there is something...
in a poem, there's something in a poet, there's something in a certain human being. And then we could say that this is authenticity, probably already an objectification and in this sense, wrong. We have a certain feeling of integrity, of truthfulness, of seriousness also, of honesty.
And we see that in certain products, like for instance a poem or artworks or whatever. And I would say that this experience is more possible in art or in poetry than for instance in philosophy.
PJ (46:47.158)
I love we've come full circle even talking about this authenticity and even this honesty to the talk of, probably Alethea, this idea of unconcealing. And we've come full circle back around to truth that we started with, right? That this is what, your own work has been in. I want to be respectful of your time. if you don't mind, what is one thing that you would encourage our audience to do or to think about over the next week?
what's something they could take away from today that would help them take that next step on the path, either the beaten path or the maybe more exploratory
Peter (47:33.602)
Well, probably I'm only speaking nonsense, don't know, but I'm erring all the time in our conversation also. But what I said at the end of our conversation, the...
Peter (47:57.894)
I think that let's take for instance the political situation of the United States,
PJ (48:04.256)
Hahaha
Peter (48:06.374)
And you have this split or this confrontation between these two lifestyles also, modes of thinking or ways of thinking. You could really ask yourself, what is
If you really try to be serious with yourself and you are not just thinking of
decisions, political standpoints, whatever.
Peter (48:58.739)
statements, you really want to be honest with yourself and in a way a little bit more authentic to what is at stake in this situation. And you are not just whatever, of what would Kamala say and what would Donald say, you
You really get coming to yourself and try to figure out what actually is really at stake in this situation. And I would say that this is the beginning maybe of authenticity just to really come to yourself, back to yourself in a way more or less leave the public sphere a little bit behind. After that you can return to it but leave it a little bit behind
and choose the way of life of a philosopher in the romantic way, just whatever. For one situation, really try to just cope with the problem in yourself, your integrity, in the nakedness of your life.
PJ (49:57.515)
Yeah.
Peter (50:17.412)
I would say that this would be something what we need today. At least here in Western Europe, have a really radical loss of religion. Religion here is, at least Christianity, is that in a way. we have not anymore this place of, well, this religious place where we could say
Here we have to be really honest. Here we have to really be serious. We don't have this place anymore. So in this sense, we have to think about a place of seriousness anew. I would say that even philosophy cannot give that today because it's too much involved in...
in the political situation of the universities and so on. So in this sense, would say if we really want to take a step to another, maybe to a whatever, to a kind of a solution of this situation we are in, then this would be a beginning. But well, that sounds a little bit too, already it sounds like whatever.
PJ (51:44.632)
No, I think you have to start somewhere
Peter (51:44.934)
like preaching or whatever. I would say that a little bit more to learn what silence is, that would be something.
PJ (52:02.562)
I think that's a tremendous way to end, to sit and to learn silence again. I think it's a great way to end today's conversation. Dr. Trani, been absolute joy having you on today. Thank
Peter (52:16.752)
Thank you, PJ. Thank you.