savarino&vercellone iris 47365069 entrevista biografica 2009

8/2/2019 Savarino&Vercellone IRIS 47365069 Entrevista Biografica 2009

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/savarinovercellone-iris-47365069-entrevista-biografica-2009 1/41

Gianni VattimoPhilosophy as Ontology of Actuality

A biogrphic-theoretic interview withLua saa nd F Vll1

Abstract:The ollowing interview retraces the intellectual development o a leading contemporary thinker,

rom his early student years to his most recent interventions as a political philosopher, and includes a

discussion o some o his most well-known and infuential theoretical contributions, such as the notion o

“weak thought” and his refections on postmodernism. Gianni Vattimo presents his philosophy to the

reader as an “ontology o actuality” which can only properly be understood in the light o the author’s

Christian background and his unwavering interest in social and political questions.

Question: In hi ectre core, Heidegger ppoedy iked to mmrie

the ife of Aritote by decring impy tht “Aritote w born, worked, nd

died.” It wod eem tht yor phioophy, in contrt, cn hrdy be nder-

tood independenty of yor Chritin reigio edction bckgrond onthe one hnd, nd of yor oci nd poitic enggement on the other. In

yor ce it pper if thoght nd biogrphy eectivey reect one nother?

Vattimo: When I ook bck over the pt, I reie tht my own biogrphy h

been very bond p with ideoogic mtter. At the me time, my thoght

i reection of event: in ome ce I hve impy echoed ie nd prob-

em tht were prt of the gener environment rond me, prt of the ir I

w brething every dy.

Question: Why don’t we begin t the beginning?

Vattimo: We, I grdted from the Liceo Gioberti in 1954. And in the me

yer I enroed t the Univerity of Trin. At the me time I hd to work

to pport myef, nd even ttempted to get job in the inrnce bine

(with Aicrzioni Generi). Fortntey, it trned ot tht they didn’t wnt

1 We hod ike to thnk Gido Br ivio for hving mde vibe the text of hi own previoy

npbihed interview with Ginni Vttimo, which we hve ed to expnd pon certinpge in the foowing text.



314 Ginni Vttimo

ioned iber, non-ttit nd nti-brecrtic in otook. We mt o

remember tht, from the poitic point of view, Preyon wy rejected the

Cthoic pproch to m movement, nd regrded my own enggement in

“Cthoic Action” mijdgement. He w iber Cthoic of individ-

itic otook, nd hd no interet in becoming invoved with the “Left” of Chritin Democrcy.

Question: Cod yo decribe wht it w ike t tht time, or te ome-

thing bot the gener tmophere of the fcty of phioophy in Trin?

W it mrked by poitic conict nd dierence, or by bitter cdemic

rivrie of one kind or nother?

Vattimo: Aprt from Preyon, there w ico Abbgnno, who hd grop

of foower who were redy extremey critic nd ecr in otook. The

diviion in the fcty were not primriy poitic in chrcter, nd former

fcit nd nti-fcit minged with one nother. Abbgnno hd never

trongy criticied fcim. On the contrry, thogh he hd never been n

ctivit for the movement, he hd once written book tht reected kind of

fcitic myticim. Preyon, on the other hnd, w certiny not regrded

n irrtionit. The diviion were of mch more gener ideoogic

chrcter, with ome endoring neo-enightenment perpective, whie oth-

er pported the grop which preferred n eentiy hermenetic pproch.

In the Univerity of Trin t thi time the centre w repreented by thoe

invoved in the “Centro di stdi Metodoogico,” nmey Gzzo, Abbgnno,

Preyon, Fro, Crccio (who peciied in the hitory of mthemtic),

Brone (who w tdent of Gzzo’ nd iber). I beieve tht Gzzo never

ct y id word bot poitic qetion. Indeed, when I rt rr ived t

the niverity – nd I w ti good Cthoic, beiever who dy went

to M every morning – I wod often k myef: wht doe Gzzo rey

beieve in? I cod never come p with n nwer to my qetion. He w

o Cthoic, of core, bt he ed to ttend M in the Greek chrch.He never poke openy bot hi fith, nd hi book eentiy foced on

qetion of mority: every hmn ctivity, ccording to him, invove cer-

tin form-giving procee, tht i, eectivey contrct the word of ve,

word tht wod hve no force if there w no ch thing “Ve” with

cpit V, o to pek. He th defended nitic perpective, endoring

teeoogy which betow mening on hmn ctivity whoe. Bt the fn-

dment cim w preciey thi notion of “form-giving.” To omeone who

did not know him perony, Gzzo might eem to reembe Ernt Cirer,

to be kind of neo-Kntin foower of Giordno Brno. Gzzo wrote nebook on Brno which w cited nd pried, I once w, in Gdd’ jorn



315A biogrphic-theoretic Interview with Ginni Vttimo

“Dirio.” The re dierence between Gzzo nd Abbgnno i tht the t-

ter ppeed bove to the Ango-sxon phioophic trdition nd rged

tht we hod concern oreve primriy with the phioophy of ngge,

with the phioophy of cience, in hort, with eentiy methodoogic nd

epitemoogic qetion; Gzzo, on the other hnd, remined more fith-f to the Eropen, nd th o to the Itin, ideit trdition: he hd,

fter , been tdent of Giovnni Gentie, nd hd poken of hi peron

contct with Benedetto Croce, of the occion when he hd gone to meet the

tter, t the end of period when he hd himef been teching in pe,

nd Croce id: “Profeor, yo hod go wy nd ern Napoletano …”

Question: How fr, wod yo y, w Itin phioophy itef ti preent or

reevnt in the debte nd dicion of the period?

Vattimo: Acty very itte. Gentie hd been fcit, Croce trck

more of hitoric chor of itertre thn phioopher. In order to

promote the ce of ethetic, in Ity, Preyon hd engged directy with

Croce, which eemed to gget tht there w no re Itin terntive

trdition nywy. I o went ong to the ectre of De oce, who w

oering core on Itin phioophy, nd I remember one in prticr on

Grmci, who w o diced in De oce’ book on theim. obody

w tdying Ugo spirito, t thi time, thogh ome Mrxit were red-

ing Gvno de Vope. Egenio Grin w writing book on the hitory of

phioophy, nd he w kind of Grmcin, bt, to te the trth, thi w

phioophy tht w too invoved in prty poitic to be fy preent in or

own debte. It i no ccident tht my rt exercie in cdemic ectring

concerned n Angophone phioopher, nmey John Dewey. Preyon hd

ked me to expond nd dic Dewey’ book Experience . It w the

fhion to iten to wht the Americn were ying, nd we hod remember

tht of Americn phioopher t thi time Dewey w the one who w

mot ympthetic to the thoght of Hege.

Question: Yor dierttion on Aritote might eem rther “obiqe” in re-

tion to the ort of ie tht yo wod go on to ddre beqenty.

Vattimo: In between my poitic enggement nd the demnd of teching I

did of core give ome time to writing the dierttion yo mention. I grd-

ted in ovember 1959 with thi dierttion on Aritote which I compoed

primriy with reference to the obervtion of Aqin. My deciion to tdy

the concept of poiesis in Aritote w determined by the fct tht Preyon’ethetic w eentiy theory of prodction, of mking nd fhioning,



316 Ginni Vttimo

n pproch tht introdced rnge of competey new qetion into the

gener context of Itin ethetic which hd rgey been conditioned by

Crocen ideim. Umberto Eco, who hd o recenty grdted nder

Preyon, hd written hi own dierttion on the ethetic ide of Aqin:

if one o ber in mind tht I w ti prctiing Cthoic t the time,nd tht I conted mny Thomit mongt my friend, it i not o dict

to ndertnd the reon for my choice. I propoed non-romntic reding

of poiesis in Aritote in the ene tht it w conidered merey one of the

mny wy in which hmn being “prodce” thing. The centr probem

concerned the mening of the ide of “imittion”: to imitte, for Aritote,

eentiy ignied “to ct ike ntre,” not impy to reprodce ntre

pecttor tht repreent the tter. It w thi twofod chrcter in the concept

of imittion tht rey intereted me. And, in more gener term, I think

tht I w prticry ttrcted by the ide of going bck to the root of

Chritin mode of phioophiing, perhp pre-modern mode of thinking,

nd one which brek with the trdition of modern rtionim.

Question: After grdtion, yo mde deciive choice for yor ftre creer:

yo opted to tdy the thoght of two pecicy “nti-modern” phioo-

pher, ietzche nd Heidegger.

Vattimo: To te the trth, I originy wnted to tdy Adorno! From 1955

onwrd I hd been enthiticy reding the writing of “Critic Theory,”

nd Minima Moralia hd jt ppered in Itin trntion. Bt when I tod

Preyon tht I wihed to tdy Adorno, he w qite tonihed nd impy

id: “Bt why? At et go nd tdy ietzche, who i one of the mter

of nti-modernity.” In fct, Adorno w very popr t the time with the

eft-ening inteect tht Preyon prticry ditrted. In retropect, I

think I cn y tht wht I rey needed to tdy w phioophy tht w

contemporry, bt not modern, in the ene in which the Enightenment nd

hitoricim cn be ced typicy “modern.” Even if I w, t tht time, noonger prticry Thomitic in my otook, the princip ide w ti tht

of dicovering mode of thoght tht w comptibe with Chritinity: the

nti-modern thinker repreented t et the poibiity of tking of God – in

oppoition to the Mrxit project of “demytifying” theoogic dicore,

in oppoition to Enightenment ecrition, in oppoition to hitoricim.

And in fct I oon begn to red ietzche: in the mmer of 1960 I pent

week in n Apine retret, kiing nti middy, nd working in the fter-

noon, where I red The Birth o Tragedy, ong with “The Ue nd Abe of

Hitory for Life,” the econd of ietzche’ Untimely Meditations, beit inFrench trntion. At thi time I w nbe to red Germn nd the t-




ter work hd not yet been trnted into Itin. I ti remember thi time

with prticr pere. ietzche’ ey on hitory exercied profond

eect on me, perhp bece I dicovered here critiqe of modernity

“m ociety” tht in mny repect redy reembed the critic perpective

deveoped by Adorno.

Question: so ietzche cme rt, foowed by Heidegger?

Vattimo: ot excty. Heidegger’ ectre on ietzche were pbihed in

Germny in 1961, nd I immeditey begn to red them, ong with certin

other text of Heidegger ch the Letter on Humanism, in the mmer of

tht yer in Heideberg, where I w now tdying Germn. In hindight, I

wod y tht it w cty Heidegger who hd fcinted me mot from

the beginning. In ovember 1961, if I remember correcty, I hd redy

deivered ectre before the Itin society of Phioophy, in the preence of

ever rther eminent nd venerbe gre. The text w entited “Who i

Heidegger’ ietzche?,” nd eventy becme the rt chpter of my book

Essere, storia e linguaggio, pbihed in 1963. Before tht I hd written very

itte on ietzche, merey two or three ey – I rec cope entited “I

probem de tetimoninz in ietzche” nd “ietzche e i probem de

tempo,” piece which were incorported into Ipotesi su Nietzsche , which w

pbihed in 1967. The tter vome o contined n ey tht I hd redy

deivered t conference on ietzche in Roymont in 1964. Gbrie Mrce

w o preent on tht occion nd I cty remember eeing him weep.

“We, he mt be deepy moved,” I thogh to myef, bt then they id

to me: “Don’t worry, Mrce wy weep.” He w then very dvnced in

yer, nd w eiy moved!

Question: When did yo obtin yor rt oci niverity poition?

Vattimo: Unti 1962 I hd tght t worker’ choo, nd then t econd-ry choo, to be pecic t the Romini schoo, where I got into trobe for

tking my c to poitic demontrtion, omething which cndied the

choo thoritie. At the end of 1962 I w wrded Hmbodt chor-

hip nd pent cope of yer in Heideberg. The rey ignicnt event of

thoe yer w the fct tht we were working on the econd edition of the

snoni Encyclopaedia o Philosophy, edited nder the pice of the “Centro

stdi di Grte,” monment pbiction in ever vome, which h

proved to be omething of brden ince, fter more thn forty yer, I ti

hve to rewrite nmber of entrie in order to keep the work p to dte …At the time I w jt n itnt ectrer t the niverity, which ment tht



318 Ginni Vttimo

I w not erning nything to pek of, which i why I hd to work t the

“Romini,” we pending two fternoon week on the Encyclopaedia,

of which invoved hge mont of work. I th hd three or for fter-

noon week in which to compoe my book: Preyon ed to teephone me

every dy to ee how I w coping. I wrote the book on Heidegger between1961 nd 1963, whie in 1964 I becme qied niverity ectrer in

Trin, which w my rt oci niverity teching pot. I beieve tht the

rt core I oered w on ietzche, then on Heidegger, nd fter tht on

Boch nd scheiermcher. On ccont of the hge mont of work I hd

tken on, I o contrcted erio cer t thi time, probem tht wod

recr in 1969 nd reted in period of recpertion in hopit, from of

which I emerged “Moit”…

Question: And when did yo rt come into contct with Gdmer, thinker

who h been very importnt in yor phioophic creer, bt who w cer-

tiny no ietzchen?

Vattimo: Tht w in 1962, in Heideberg, when I begn working on trn-

tion of Gdmer’ Truth and Method , thogh my verion ony ny cme ot

in 1971. I competed the work whie ti in Heideberg in the mmer of 1969,

where I wod go to dic the trntion with Gdmer bot once week,

I hd redy done in the period between 1962 nd 1964. We rrey poke

bot ietzche, nd then ony bot hi objection to hitoricim they were

expreed in the econd of the Untimely Meditations. For the ret, the book on

ietzche which I pbihed in 1974 hed itte interet for Gdmer, thogh

of core he gred in the text itef t one point. Preyon wn’t bet peed

with it either bece I hd rged tht contemporry hermenetic rn the

rik of impy intoning the ong “everything pe, everything retrn, the

whee of being i etern,” qite forgetting the ting in the erpent’ ti which

for me, t the time, w mtter of revotion pre nd impe … Certiny,

when I think bck pon thi now, thee were tirring time!

Question: With regrd to the ie of Gdmer nd hermenetic, yor book

on scheiermcher cme ot in 1968, which might impy pper omething

of prenthei in the context of yor gener ietzchen-Heideggerin tr-

jectory. And in the me yer yo won the open competition for f profe-

orhip t the Univerity of Trin.

Vattimo: I wrote the book on scheiermcher very qicky with the competi-

tion in mind, bt tking everything into conidertion, I wodn’t impydimi it either: it w n ttempt to recontrct the proper beginning of




phioophic hermenetic, to frnih ome hitoric bckgrond nd p-

port to project tht hd become rther dry nd theoretic in chrcter. It

w n extremey dict book to write, nd one which perhp interet

me even more now thn it did then, bed entirey it w on frgmentry

pge, or on text tht hd never been edited, or t et never deqteyedited, before. From the phioogic point of view it w oid piece of

work, nd I hd red of the vibe itertre on the bject, whether

in Germn or Itin. I m not re to wht extent my interprettion of

scheiermcher cod be decribed Gdmerin: Gdmer himef cimed

tht interprettion, scheiermcher ndertood it, invoved “recontrc-

tion” of n origin mening in it pre tte, where Heidegger’ pproch

w the very oppoite of thi. Bt ince I hd trted from the pychoogi-

c notion of interprettion nd the hermenetic circe, I tended to imi-

te scheiermcher to Dithey, nd th to Heidegger we. In ny ce, I

won the forementioned competition in 1968-69 nd w dy ppointed in

Trin, where I begn by oering core on Ernt Boch ince, I id, I hd

become Moit nd regrded myef tre revotionry.

Question: To wht extent did the deveopment in Preyon’ thoght o

exercie n inence on yor own phioophy?

Vattimo: To be qite honet, I hd ndertood rey very itte of hi erier

writing. Hi rt work on exitentiim, or the book on Fichte, were com-

poed in n extremey rcne idiom nd deveoped in highy “intern”

wy, ike omeone who w pring the hitory of phioophy not in order

to expin to other, bt rther to work on it by himef. The mot cid p-

ge were thoe concerned with ecidting or knowedge of “the Other,”

with ethic qetion which were connected, from the beginning, with the

notion of interprettion. I w very tken, for exmpe, with the centr ide

of hi book Esistenza e persona where he rged tht interprettion i kind of

knowedge which peron poe with regrd to form – I fee tht not evenGdmer h ever expreed thi ide with the me crity tht i chieved

here. In the ery yer of or ocition Preyon w mot excivey pre-

occpied with probem of ethetic, bt it i certiny tre tht we worked

very coey together p nti 1968. In the tmn of 1964, when I w

pecicy chrged with teching ethetic, he deivered n introdctory

theoretic ectre entited “Expreive Thoght nd Revetory Thoght.”

We worked o coey together tht I hd the impreion tht he w repro-

dcing certin thee which I hd diced in my book on Heidegger, reted

to the ide tht thinking i itef thinking of being in both the objectivend bjective ene. Expreed in Heideggeren term, wht he ced “rev-



320 Ginni Vttimo

etory thoght” w thinking which ingrted new opening, whie

“expreive thoght” w thinking tht retricted itef to rticting “from

within” n opening which hd redy been contitted. In fct or inteec-

t retionhip w rey very intene one, we wod it down together

every fternoon nd he wod red everything tht I hd written: my tdy of Heidegger deveoped in pre with the deveopment of certin fndmen-

t thee of hi own thoght. sbeqenty, my interprettion of Heidegger

nd ietzche deveoped in more independent fhion. Even now, when I

ttempt to expin Preyon’ thoght, wht trike me mot forciby bot

him i omething tht we diced throghot thee yer, from the 1970 p

nti hi deth: I wy ttempted to get him to dmit – thogh he never

wod – tht hi ide of God, of the evi in God, cod ony be interpreted

in term of the “event.” According to me, he oght to hve intenied hi

thei in more profondy hitoric ene inted of initing he did on

the orce or inexhtibe origin. I hve never rey ndertood why we

were nbe to come to greement on thi qetion, bt perhp in trth hi

otook w mch more reigio thn my own.

Question: Bt then one of hi fvorite thor w wy scheing, who h

never ppeed to yo in thi wy.

Vattimo: Ye, yo re right. It wy eemed to me tht no one hod be

rey hocked t the ide tht there i omething evi in God! The trth i

tht Preyon fet the force of the probem of evi mch more thn I did –

in thi I m perhp more ike Gdmer, tht i to y, more Hegein thn

scheingin in perpective. The book tht Preyon oved the mot ber

witne to hi obeion with the qetion of evi: the writing of scheing,

Dotoyevky, Kierkegrd. A rge nmber of hi tdent o foowed him

in thi regrd. I myef, to be honet, p nti certin point in my ife exi-

tentiy hred thi drmtic viion, bed it w on the ide of in, nd the

fndment oppoition between good nd evi. Bt beqenty, fter theopertion for the cer, I dopted revotionry otook, nd th begn to

deveop the concept of “wek thoght.”

Question: A fr the deveopment of yor reding of ietzche, nd more

genery the deveopment of yor own thoght, i concerned, wht w the

ignicnce of the mjor new French interprettion of ietzche?

Vattimo: We, I w certiny fmiir with Deeze’ interprettion of

ietzche, thogh I didn’t mke mch e of it myef. I beieve tht, ome-time fter 1968, I wrote “Prefce” to hi book on ietzche which cme ot




in Ity with Forence pbihing hoe, Coportge, which no onger exit.

I hve never rey fy ndertood the importnce tht h been ccorded

to the Deezin reding of ietzche: even now, Deeze trike me

modern Bergon trnted into eft wing term. Hi Anti-Oedipus contined

itte more thn kind of ctivit vitim – it i necery to iberte ife, ndctivey endore the proce of tempority – thogh of core it ppeed to

me on ccont of it nti-cpitit thrt.

I w not epeciy fcinted by Foct either. Hi verion of trc-

trim ppied to hitory ti eemed to me to be metphyic in chr-

cter. And then gin, the History o Madness in the Classical Age i work

intrinicy bond p with very pecic French ctr tmophere: by

the “cic ge” we Itin ndertnd omething qite dierent from the

ge of Loi XIV nd o forth … At certin point, to te the trth, I o

conidered writing hitory of mdne, ndertood conter-hitory to

the tndrd tory of wetern rtionity. I diced the ide with Mrzino

Ggieminetti, who tod me good de bot the “md” gre encon-

tered in the hitory of itertre, bot Arioto’ Orlando Furioso nd o on.

The ide behind thi w imir to Foct’, nd eentiy concerned

the probem of oci norm in gener nd the roe of dicipine. Bt the pb-

iction of Foct’ book w bicy omething of ibertion for me ince

I hve wy recognied certin ck of hitoric ctre one of my own

imittion. I ony red thing tht, right from the rt pge, redy convince

to expore the mteri in greter depth, nd th the work tht I cn cim

to “red” re retivey rre. And if we dd to thi, the fct tht theorit

we tend to hve renonced the neceity of erning hitory in deti, tht I

hd been “working” tdent for ch ong time, we … A thee fctor

rgey expin, rty, why I never did write tht hitory of mdne, nd,

econdy, why I embrced the trdition of phioophic hermenetic. On

one occion I even hd terction with Coi – the ony time we met in per-

on, in Permo, t one of the ery meeting of the Nietzsche Society fonded

by Afredo Fic. Coi hoted t me, from the podim, decring “therewe re, nobody red Pto himef ny more …” It i tre tht I hve wy

been more intereted in the econdry itertre thn in the primry thor

themeve, bt thi i kind of imittion which I beieve I cn defend theo-

reticy inofr the ony re cce we cn hve to thor of the pt i by

men of their “eective hitory,” tht i, by men of the cceive interpre-

ttion of thoe who cme fter them.

In ny ce, I never fond Foct’ interprettion of ietzche convinc-

ing: on hi verion, ietzche i timtey ti proto-zi thinker inofr

he remin n poogit for the connection between trth nd force, eventhogh Foct himef wod interpret hi phioophy wy of nveiing



322 Ginni Vttimo

the hidden dimenion of power. I did tke over the expreion “ontoogy of the

preent” from Foct, bt in fct, on coer exmintion, there i no onto-

ogy in Foct’ thoght: he impy imit himef to recontrcting the “epi-

teme” of the dierent ctr-hitoric horizon in which we hve been ct.

Question: And Derrid?

Vattimo: I ony begn to red Derrid ter, when hi erier writing begn to

pper in Itin trntion. It wod hve been rond 1972, when I pent

cope of emeter in the United stte, t Abny, whie I w working on

Il soggetto e la maschera, which cme ot in 1974. At tht time I w ttempt-

ing to deveop my ietzchen-Heideggeren perpective phioophy of

revotion by drwing on Herbert Mrce nd on Ernt Boch’ conception

of topi.

Question: In hort, yor interprettion of ietzche w inenced fr more

by Germn phioophy thn by French phioophy?

Vattimo: Acty, I didn’t ctch p with ’68 nti the foowing yer. Initiy,

ietzche intereted me miny on ccont of hi nti-hitoricit pproch,

bt I w oon converted to wht cod be ced kind of “Cthoico-

Mrxim,” nd I trted to red him in pre with Mrce. At tht time,

in hort, I hd very itte to do with the modern French thinker; I w by

exporing the Germn trdition, of Lkác, Boch, nd Mrce epeciy.

When I w writing Il soggetto e la maschera my mbition w to become the

ideoogit for the rdic ibertrin Left: I imgined tht my book might rep-

reent the phioophy of “I Mnifeto,” bt no one ee fet the me! o one

ever red it, for they were ti trict diecticin, nd when Lkác died

“I Mnifeto” crried gowing tribte, qite obivio of the fct tht I hd

redy expreed my own digt t ch tpidity! And they were ding

the ter Lkác, of thing, the thor of The Destruction o Reason! Anywy, my book cme ot with Bompini ince, on competing the text,

I howed it to Umberto Eco, whom I hd not een for nmber of yer, nd

informed him tht I hd emerged from 1968 Moit. He repied, “Fine, bt

yo hve o come ot of it n cdemic.” He w rther cerbic bot the

entire thing ince he hd not been ccef in the competition I mentioned

erier. On the other hnd, it w not my ft if Preyon kept compining

tht Eco w iving over in Min, tht he w on very friendy term with

Pci, tht he never ent him ny Chritm greeting (I ed to defend Eco

on thi point, for I never know wht to write on thee occion either, ndEco i qite incpbe of prodcing ny form of the “incere greet-




ing” kind), tht he ccorded too mch importnce to emiotic (thogh thi i

omething I hve never ndertood either). Anywy, Eco got them to red my

book t Bompini nd it got pbihed ret. I hd thereby become itte

member of the circe of ietzchen nihiit, nd w now down to deiver

ectre on ietzche, Mrx, nd nihiim. Thi w the period when the“Red” city conci were o ccef, nd in 1975 Rovtti, Bodei, Ccciri

nd I went rond the new eft wing conci. I remember one evening

in Boogn where I hd been invited, ong with Rovtti nd Ccciri, nd

peope were even tnding on the tir bece the h w ed to cpc-

ity. We were there to pek on the bject of Mrxim nd nihiim. Ccciri

hd redy written hi book Krisis, where ietzche i preented defender

of technoogic nti-hmnim, which i rther ike the roe of cpitim in

Mrx – yo don’t know whether to wecome it bece it incbte the revo-

tion, or cre it bece it dey it rriv. Anywy, phioophy w n enor-

moy popr bject bck then. We thoght tht the poitic trnfor-

mtion of Ity hod be ccompnied by democrtition of phioophic

qetion, withot cricing the eve of ctr dicore on ch mtter.

Question: At certin point, then, yor phioophy hd become miitnt

one. Bt wht concrete form, phioophicy peking, did yor endore-

ment of the rdic movement me?

Vattimo: Before I dicovered Mrce nd the tdent movement, my phi-

oophy hd been one of “romntic nti-cpitim” in Lkác’ ene of the

expreion. Bt in my Introduction to Heidegger , which w written between

1969 nd 1970, I hd redy begn to think of Heidegger’ critiqe of met-

phyic in term of the concept of “reiction.” For by thi time I hd begn

to tdy Heidegger in ernet, nd for me hi phioophy eentiy coincided

with hi critiqe of metphyic, which w itef intimtey bond p with

the toty rtionied ociety of modernity.

I w even robbed of my itte book on Heidegger. someone toe it inRome where I hd tken the mncript with the intention of oering it to

the pbiher Lterz. I hd gone ot to et with friend nd eft the mn-

cript in itce in the cr which w prked in 16th centry cortyrd.

When I retrned, the itce hd vnihed. I hd to recontrct the text on

the bi of very fded copy nd worked ike mdmn to do o. The whoe

book w bicy concerned with the retionhip between “technicity” nd

the rtionied m ociety of the modern word.

Question: And o yo deveoped the ide of combining Heidegger, ietzche,nd Mrx …



324 Ginni Vttimo

Vattimo: To think of ietzche in term of critiqe of borgeoi, in the mn-

ner of Mrx or Heidegger, certiny eem otrgeo, from hitoric point

of view, bt cn eectivey be jtied in retropect: there h been ch

thing ietzchen commnim fter , nd the poprity of ietzche in

Frnce w fr more chrcteritic of the poitic eft thn the right, nd theme i tre of Heidegger. To pt it very impy, I hd begn to think tht

Heidegger’ “hitory of being,” which w omehow ppoed to encorge

the retrn of n experience of being tht w no onger impy inthentic, cn

be meningfy compred with the Mrxin theory of “iention” which

w o ppoed to be overcome in ociety tht wod be thenticy

hmn, where the previing diviion of bor wod be eectivey redced,

where privte property wod no onger exit, where the tte wod wither

wy. I w hrdy the ony one to think ong thee ine: Mrce, fter ,

hd once been tdent of Heidegger’ in Germny, nd Kot Axeo hd

written book entited Marx – Thinker o Technicity, work tht w widey

red in Ity t the end of the 1960 nd hd defended cim not diimir to

my own. To bring Heidegger, ietzche nd Mrx together repreented n

ttempt to nite, o from hitoric perpective, the mot dvnced form

of the borgeoi pirit with the ide of proetrin revotion; nd withot

the pirit of the vnt-grde the proetrin revotion wod never be be

to cceed, it indeed fied to cceed in Ri. And thi ide of forging

kind of “Mrxin-ietzchen-Heideggerenim” w n exhirting expe-

rience for me, one which ted nti 1976-78.

Question: Before we come onto the concept of “wek thinking,” cn yo

decribe the ret of yor tye of poitic dicore t thi t ime?

Vattimo: At tht time, poiticy peking, there hd been ort of gener

“irttion” with the fr Left, bt fortntey tht never ed me to endore

Mrxit-Leninit poition, thogh thi i preciey wht did hppen with

mny of my tdent. In thoe yer I w o ympthetic to ome of theide of Antonio egri when he eborted on the conception of “riding

horebck,” which ment ening neither to the eft, nor to the right, bt

impy preing hed: inted of trying to form Leninit dvnce grd of

the revotion, we wihed to crete tonomo nd nrchitic commnitie

which wod ecpe nd trncend the previing ogic of power. Hence or

mbition to ive withot retion to intittion of power t : if bjec-

tivity itef w inevitby bond p with bjection, if we ony becme

bject by bjecting oreve to the trctre of power. Thi i the centr

ide of my itte vome Al di là del soggetto, which Fetrinei pbihed on therecommendtion of Rovtti. The tre revotion wod be n inner revo-




tion which wod invove dimnting of bjectivity. At certin point,

when I went to the United stte, I tried to expin to peope there how the

Itin Left hd ny entered pot-Grmcin phe. For Grmci hd ti

ideied the gre of the worker who bor nd mke himef worthy to

cceed the borgeoi order, ike the Hegein ve who cqire ki ndcpcitie throgh hi bor nd th nd himef in poition to tke com-

mnd of ociety itef. Bt in reity the worker who cme to Trin nd got

invoved in tdent/worker protet were competey prooted immigrnt

from the soth – in thi ene they were rch-pot-modernit in otook, nd

fr from ideiing bor, they reented it, nd rey jt wnted to enjoy

themeve.

Question: When yo think bck on the ery deveopment of yor thoght, do

yo ee yoref omeone who begn by interpreting other phioopher,

nd ended p by trying to deveop n independent perpective of yor own,

or do yo think tht yo were rey miitnt phioopher from the rt?

Vattimo: The book tht cty ved me from becoming Mrxit-Leninit

w Poesia e ontologia: when they were trying to get me to join the movement

they o mde it qite cer tht I wod hve to repdite the book, nd thi

I refed to do. And qite prt from thi, p to certin point, I hd wy

thoght of myef omeone engged in theoretic work, beit ony within

the rther imited domin of ethetic. Moreover, in Ity it i extremey dif-

ct to engge with erio theoretic work when yo re ti yong, for

no one wod be prepred to pbih yor work nywy. If I hd nnonced,

when I w yonger, tht I wihed to prodce thei on “wek thinking,”

they wod hve repied: “tht’ ne, bt which thor in prticr re yo

thinking of?” In fct, thi i n eentiy intittion probem, connected

with grnt nd bidie, with nnci pport genery, with the wy c-

demic work re crrenty jdged nd eed. Exception to thi nwritten

re re very rre, for within the gener pnorm of pbihing hoe therere ony one or two with phioophicy dventro poicy, ch tht

pred by Adephi. Bt t the me time, I hve wy “pproched” the

thor I choe to tdy from the perpective of highy theoretic qetion.

The contrt between my own pproch nd tht pred by mot hitorin

of phioophy pring from thi: I tdy Mx Weber bece it i importnt

nd rewrding to tdy him, not bece we ti need nother book bot

him. The hitory of phioophy i extremey ef bece we wod other-

wie poe no prmeter for jdging ny prticr work t . At the me

time I reject the mode of chorhip which i dopted by mny hitorin of phioophy nd i bed on the myth of ve-free perpective.



326 Ginni Vttimo

Question: From the cdemic nd ideoogic point of view, thi critic view

of the hitorin of phioophy eft very trong mrk on certin period of

yor own work.

Vattimo: The ide of “wek thoght” becme qite we known bece eve-ryone wnted to chenge it. In fct mny of the hitorin of phioophy

ctive t Trin (nd I m thinking of Vino nd Roi in prticr) reveed

certin reentment in thi regrd tht derived from the fire of their own

theoretic pproch. The trth i tht when they tried to reconcie phioophy

nd poitic enggement – t the beginning of the 1960 in term of neo-

Enightenment pproch, common project in which Abbgnno, Bobbio

nd other o prticipted – their ttempt fied entirey bece the rdic

tdent fond it ttery remote nd eectivey depied it. Amot of their

bet tdent becme mrxit – I m thinking of peope ike Rieer, Mottr,

Giozzi – nd trted contribting to the “Qderni Roi” of Pnzieri:

their poitic-phioophic movement, in hort, ended p in kind of n

extreme form of Itin mrxim known “operimo” nd they incre-

ingy fond themeve ignored. And then there w whoe methodoogic

probem invoved here too: the ide of “wek thoght” w fndmenty

nti-cientic in chrcter, where Vino w ti fcinted by Abbgnno’

“poitive exitentiim” nd w rgey ympthetic to the Americn nd

modernit trdition of thoght. The neo-Enightenment pproch promoted

the ide of moderniing the niverity, endored n Americn mode of the

niverity, where new intittion, the “Deprtment,” wod repce the

ncient “Intitte.” The tter w regrded kind of fed btion, whie

the Deprtment wod be orgnied in fr more democrtic fhion nd

wod be ndertood meeting point of vrio dicipine. Preyon nd

I, on the other hnd, w oreve mch more rdic, nd the t thing

we hd in mind w the mere Americnition of the niverity, ince we

were, fter , herkening to Being itef.

Question: Bt didn’t cience gget rther dierent mode of thinking?

Vattimo: A fr cience i concerned, I hve wy tken Heideggeren

poition which tend to identify cience with technoogy, nd doe o from

brody opertionit view of cience itef. science i not thinking, it doe

not try know thing – it impy fnction. Bt why hod we concde

from the fct tht it fnction tht it cn cim to te how thing re?

Question: When did yo begin to enjoy certin pbic notoriety nd to trtwriting in the newpper?




Vattimo: The rt time tht Ezio Mro interviewed me concerned my

deciion to tnd for the “Rdic,” in 1975-76, fter the referendm on

divorce. I rt begn to ttin ome pbic notoriety when I trted writing

for “Tttoibri,” which w more or e rond the me time.

Question: The re trning point in the deveopment of yor thoght eem to

hve coincided with the birth nd emergence of Itin terrorim. It i rey

no ccident tht the repdition of revotionry vioence w deciive for the

genei of “wek thoght.”

Vattimo: Thee were very dict time. The “Red Brigde” begn to mobi-

ie in 1975, nd in 1977 I becme preident of the “Fcty of Letter nd

Phioophy” t the Univerity of Trin. When I w thretened by the Red

Brigde I received dvice from two qrter: the poice, who id they cod

pt me nder rveince by peope I wod never even notice, nd the

doorkeeper, who wod te me there were for chrcter itting in cr

otide the biding who he thoght might we be terrorit. And omeone

ee tod me tht the Red Brigde hd drwn p it of trget, incding

eft-ening inteect who were oppoed to terrorit method. A ret,

I wod often tke txi when I eft the hoe in the morning. At tht time

there w rey very itte to mie bot: t one point I cty hd to ee

to Tcny, nd jt we were bot to retrn to Trin – it w 16 Mrch

1978 – we trned on the rdio nd herd bot the kidnpping of Moro nd

heded tright bck to the cer… We tyed pt in the hoe of wethy

friend nd mnged to get throgh ot of exceent proviion I remember.

In ny ce, I contined to ct Preident of the Fcty p nti the ery

1980, nd th to remin eectivey “entnged” in the previing intit-

tion. Bt in the mentime the ide of “wek thoght” hd trted to emerge.

The pect of thi which I wod trongy wih to nderine here i

preciey the ethico-poitic dimenion of demythoogiing the trdition

revotionry ide nd repditing the e of vioence. It w n ttempt toremin fithf to the revotionry ttitde towrd cpitit ociety withot

fing into Leninim. Thoe who eectivey tght me tht Leninim cod

never hve cceeded in the rt pce were my own tdent who were get-

ting themeve rreted. Reding their etter from prion, it reminded me of

the voice of thoe who hd once been condemned to deth for their ctivi-

tie dring the reitnce, bt I o recognied ene in which they were

deceiving themeve. Thee were yong peope who wod rie t the crck of

dwn in order to convince themeve they were worker, jmp on their bike

with their CB rdio, nd go o to prepre their “opertion.” Thi i qitedierent from the iberted bject imgined by ietzche: the ietzchen



328 Ginni Vttimo

“Overmn” cod never be revotionry of the Leninit type. At tht time

I irted with the “Rdic,” nd when the Red Brigde trted thretening

me in 1978, I hd redy, in 1976, been n oci cndidte for the Rdic

Prty. It w qite ogic, therefore, tht certin kind of “wekne” wod

trike me, in thoe yer, the ony remining form of poibe emnciption.

Question: Where did the expreion “wek thoght” originy come from?

Vattimo: We, hort time before, Grgni hd edited coection of ey

which w pbihed by Eindi nder the tite Crisi della ragione . Vino hd

contribted n rtice in which he poke of “wek reon.” I myef rt ed

the expreion “wek thoght” in n ey written in 1979, which w enti-

ted Dialettica e pensiero debole nd eventy ppered in my book of 1983. In

fct thi tite hd been invented by Rovtti who w working for Fetrinei

t the time. Then both of convinced, indeed mot compeed, Eco to

write n ey on Iidore of sevie nd “rhizomtic” knowedge. In fct, Eco

w cheerfy indierent to the expreion “wek thoght,” bt the theme

pred in ome of hi nove, ch Foucault’s Pendulum nd The Name o

the Rose , re bicy typic of wek thinking I ndertnd it. In one ce

everything trn on qetion which trn ot, in the end, to be of entirey

mrgin ignicnce, nd mtter for hmor, whie in the other, kind of

Gri qet eventy evporte into mot nothing, nd we re eft with

nothing bt piece of pper, kind of bi, tht h merey been minder-

tood. Thi i n thentic expreion of the pirit of wek thinking, in the

ene of ietzche’ phorim tht te tht the more we know of the ori-

gin of omething, the more inignicnt the origin itef become.

Question: It i ome yer now ince yo cme pon the ide of ibertion

ibertion from the word of competed technoogy. Bt it w ony be-

qenty tht yo trted to rge tht thi ibertion cn ony be “wek”

ibertion, tht i to y, one tht i no onger metphyic in chrcter.

Vattimo: From the phioophic point of view, the enconter with French

thoght hd by thi time now become qite centr for me. I m thinking

of Derrid, bt o of Deeze nd Koowki, of whom were intent on

emphiing notion of nrchy, dierence, nd decontrction. According

to thi common viion, the bet tht ietzchen cn do i to conpire

gint the tte, rther thn ttempting to fond new one. Revotion i

wy omething mrgin, nd cn never me direct poitic power if it

wihed to remin ncorrpted. “Wek thoght” w conceived kind of repone to the one-ided chrcter of two poition here: on the one hnd,




the diectic pproch which promied poitic trnformtion which

w ti imbed with thoritrin eement, nd on the other, the phi-

oophy of dierence tht timtey yerned for n origin which one cod

never rech in principe.

From the phioophic point of view, the ide tht the iberted bjectw eenti y wek bject i notion directy connected with my inter-

prettion of Heidegger. At one point I wrote “Prefce” to schopenher’

The World as Will and Representation, nd begn to reie tht I preferred

rdicy non-metphyic form of Heideggeren thoght, one I wod

o decribe non-Preyonin. For Preyon hd contined to pek of

the we-pring of trth, omething which ppered to me to be reid

metphyic, ort of notgi for n timte grond or origin, thogh

Preyon wy rejected thi criticim. In my eye, it eemed if he

wnted to redicover ome fondtion, which w no onger of core n

Aritotein kind of God, bt one who hd trimphed over nothingne by

creting the word. ow schopenher intriged me preciey inofr he

w critic of the wi to rviv: “wek thoght” encorge to think

of being diintegrtion, diotion, decompoition, the exct contrry,

in fct, of the wi to ife. And mority i nothing other thn askesis, the

negtion of the wi to power.

In thee yer I w deepy preoccpied by one probem in prticr:

wht preciey did Heidegger expect – the retrn of being? The right wing

interprettion of Heidegger wy inited preciey on thi recpertion of

the origin. Bt if I preferred, on the contrry, to defend wek reding of

Heidegger there w pecic theoretic jtiction for thi, nmey tht it

w more repectf of the ide of ontoogic dierence, of the irredcibi-

ity of being to being. A if there w no being omewhere over nd beyond

being, bt ony one which progreivey dioved within being themeve.

And if I thoght of askesis form of wekening in contrt to the cim

of poitive reity, did thi men tht I hd become schopenheren? o,

it ment tht I m Chritin! There hd been time when I no onger ttended M, thogh I hd never indged in poemic ttck on my

own reigio heritge or the Chrch ch. In thoe yer it w qe-

tion of the demnd of the preent: the roe of Chritin Democrcy, the cr-

rent Left, the rdic movement etc. Bt now I hd begn to redicover the

origin mening of my reigio commitment. Of core, omething imir

i o tre of Heidegger: hi critiqe of metphyic w born from hi medi-

ttion on the experience of tempority in the ery Chritin commnitie.

Question: One of the fndment theme of yor thoght i preciey thenotion of n intrinic connection between vioence nd metphyic.



330 Ginni Vttimo

Vattimo: I pent gret de of time dicing the ignicnce of revotion-

ry vioence with my tdent, we on the fct tht ch vioence w

nothing bt the remnnt of poition tht w ti metphyic in chr-

cter. In order to expin the reon for thi tter thei I cn ony ppe

to wht I hve redy id: for wht reon nd in wht ene doe “wekthoght” regrd itef Heideggerenim more Heideggeren thn tht of

Heidegger himef? Bece the doctrine of wekne, we pointed ot, i

the ony coherent wy of fy repecting the ide of ontoogic dierence. It

i preciey here tht the intrinic connection with vioence i reveed. The

contion of being with being tie the poibiity of thinking exitence

open hitoricity bece it ret in the identiction of n timte bt

ient grond. If yo dicover ch fondtion, yo cn eiy recognie it

from the fct tht yo no onger need to eek nything frther. The connec-

tion between vioence nd metphyic pring from the fct tht omething

i preented in impy peremptory fhion, omething before which yo

cn ony y, “ye, indeed, thi i impy how it i,” omething before which

yo cn ony bow yor hed nd obey. Thi i the crci probem, in the

ene tht in the wetern phioophic trdition even God h principy

been conceived n timm to which we cnnot refe or ent. It i not

propery recognied tht thi wy of conceiving God i o determined by n

eentiy metphyic otook, if God were n timte entity or object

tht preent itef ttery evident, entirey given nd trnprent before

. “sch i the wi of God” i n expreion tht i ed ony when we hve

to ccept dmging bow, rther thn when we cty win the ottery, for

exmpe. A if the timte fondtion of thing were omething tht reit

me, even negtivey, omething in which I mt impy cqiece. Bt if thi

fondtion i the kind of immtbe permnence proponded by metphy-

ic, wht re we to do with freedom, in, nd exitence? In hort, wht I

nd repeent bot the ide of n timte metphyic grond i preciey

the peremptory chrcter, the nchengebe ntre of ch fondtion,

omething which invove erie of eect tht mke it impoibe for tothink the chrcter of hmn exitence. I m convinced tht there i no other

wy of dening vioence phioophicy thn thi: the ide of fondtion

before which one cn ony f ient. If yo interrogte the trdition, the

ttempt to dene vioence wi ed yo bck to the conception of “ntr

pce” in Aritote. “Vioence” i everything which prevent being from

reiing it eence, omething which i given for time: re h ntr

tendency to rie, tone ntr tendency to f. If yo red the Aritotein

text, yo wi ee tht the technic proce which pce one brick pon

nother in order to bid hoe i o vioent nd overbering interven-tion, omething tht i pr phyin or “contrry to ntre,” even if thi vioent




intervention i qite jtied. The probem i tht yo cnnot dene vioence

except “contrt with the inner ntre” of being. Bt i the inner ntre

of being wy to be ccepted impy it i? A I ee it, one cnnot nd,

even mongt phioopher who expicity pek of vioence, try coherent

phioophic denition of thi concept. The ony denition of vioence thteem pproprite i tht which refer to proce of iencing, of n rm-

tion of thority, which cim: I m in commnd here. I cnnot deny the fct

tht thi i n extremey hermenetic denition which identie vioence

with n initent objectivity before which one cn ony bow one’ hed, bt

other denition of vioence trike me fr e convincing. Exitentiy

peking, even the fct of being thrown into the word i form of originry

vioence tht mt be cknowedged ch: it i cer tht one cn eiy con-

nect thi fct to the ntr experience of birth in which I m given to myef,

bt if I contine to remin impy I m given, withot tking reponibiity

for myef, withot rticting or interpreting myef, then I m not cting

I hod. Th the ene of thrownne, of contin rethinking of the

hitory of being, i perhp o bond p with thi fndment experience:

oon I m born I wy begin to exit in inthenticity, I m nite

being nd, ch, hve beginning tht I cn never competey cnce or

borb in procee of ef-reection. My hitory i nothing bt the contin

eort to borb thi trting point of my exitence, to come to term with my

nitde, nd th to tke over wht h been given to me, to pproprite

thi by interpreting nd trnmitting it in newy modied wy. A if then-

ticity conited in the deciion to ive my nitde wy of ppropriting

nd trnforming thi very nitde. We nd oreve in ittion whoe

peremptory chrcter mt be borbed nd conmed in proce of inter-

prettion. In certin wy thi i o the mode for how Heidegger think

of the hitory of being: there i nite hppening which i then rticted,

dioved, nd dieminted in procee of everydy ignicnce, nd i not

“cried” in kind of merey contemptive ti.

Question: We hve diced t ome ength the gener ctr nd poitic

context in which “wek thoght” cme to birth. Bt wht re the peci-

cy theoretic point of reference for the deveopment of thi perpective?

Wht re the prticr phioophic trdition to which yo re indebted

in thi regrd?

Vattimo: The concept of “wek thoght” i prodct, in the rt pce, of

certin conence between the exitentiit nd hermenetic trdition.

Phioophic hermenetic proper w born in the 20th

centry when wefy recognied, with Heidegger nd Gdmer, the ide tht trth i een-



332 Ginni Vttimo

tiy n experience of interprettion, nd tht hmn exitence poee

n intrinicy hermenetic chrcter. We re wy thrown into pro-

jected ittion which provide certin pre-ndertnding of the word

nd in retion to which every beqent rtiction i o n interpret-

tion: we cn no onger beieve tht we cn directy cce object if wewere the kind of tabula rasa ggeted by the empiricit trdition. It i no

ccident tht Heidegger i t once mjor theoreticin of exitenti nd of

hermenetic thoght ike. For to conceive of hmn exitence otide of

the trdition metphyic frmework of “objectivity” i eqivent to di-

covering it intrinicy “interprettive” chrcter. And in the econd pce,

“wek thoght” o derive from the trnformtion of neo-poitivit phi-

oophy into nytic nd ingitic phioophy. Biding on the inight of

the o-ced “ter” Wittgentein, phioophy becme form of nyi nd

cme to recognie the prity of or ngge gme. From thi perpec-

tive, voiding phioophic error ment repecting the re tht re pecir

to ech ch ngge gme. “Wek thoght,” in thi ene, pring from the

recognition tht, in or ct experience of the word, we re never directy

concerned with fct bt with text nd word. We mt th cknowedge,

with Heidegger, tht “ngge i the hoe of being.” Moreover, thi rec-

ognition of the centrity of ngge i not pecir ony to nytic phi-

oophy or exitenti hermenetic, bt i o hred by the 20th centry

trctrit trdition. strctrim w born from the ide tht ingitic

cod provide the mode for form of rtion knowedge, nd cod do o

preciey by virte of it formit chrcter. One of the fndment dicov-

erie of trctr ingitic, derived from the work of de sre, w the

notion tht word ignify not by virte of ome direct retionhip to object,

bt bece ingitic mening re contitted throgh intern form dif-

ferentition, if py of dierence between ignier were t work. Thi

impie tht the ignied i n eect of the ignier, of the dierenti py

of ignier: “dog” i ditingihed from “fog,” bt we ony hve to chnge

the “d” to “f” to prodce the entirey dierent mening. It i thi ytemwhich give the word “dog” it mening, nd not ome trnge retionhip

to for-footed nim ot there. In the 1960 there were t et two other

mjor cience, prt from ingitic, which recognied the importnce of

thi principe, nmey nthropoogy nd pychonyi. We ony need to

think of Lévy-str nd Lcn in thi connection. A thee trdition re

reevnt, in vrying degree, to the ide of “wek thoght,” ndertood

recognition of the crii of gob reon, tht i, recognition of the fct

tht there re ony “oc reon” tht re themeve retive to prticr

ingitic prmeter nd phere of experience tht re qite pecic ndpecir to certin domin.




Question: We hve not id very mch bot contemporry Itin phioo-

phy: cod yo te omething bot yor retionhip to the mot promi-

nent gre of Itin phioophic ctre over the t thirty yer or o,

from severino nd Ccciri to Bodei nd Givone, or whoever ee yo wod

ike to mention in thi context – incding thoe who re ctive otide of theoci cdemic ctre (ch sergio Qinzio)?

Vattimo: For vriety of reon, I don’t think I cn y tht I hve been pr-

ticry deepy inenced by my Itin coege: I hve wy enjoyed

very cordi retion with phioopher ch sini, Ccciri, nd severino,

bt I wod hrdy pek of ny re “theoretic” feowhip in thi connec-

tion. At the beginning of the 1980, in the month of Jne, I remember, there

w n oci gthering of phioophic theorit t the Frncicn mon-

tery t Monteripido, on the otkirt of Pergi. A nmber of Americn

chor, moty phenomenoogit, were o invited. Phioopher ch

Vitieo, sini, Ccciri, Pernio, Crchi were mongt the Itin prtici-

pnt. It w o on thi occion tht I got to meet Reiner schürmnn.

However, certin r ivry between phioophic choo grdy begn to

deveop: there h wy been n eement of competition fr my Itin

coege re concerned, nd when yo re rnning ong the me core

there i bond to ome phing nd hoving. I hve wy hd certin

rivry with Ccciri, for exmpe. Perony I think very highy of him, bt

I hve criticied hi rther “rtic” mnner, tht orcr tone which he o

hre with severino.

Question: And wht bot phioophic coege from brod?

Vattimo: If I were to inge ot pecicy phioophic inence, I wod

cty refer to thinker from brod rther thn to other Itin phioopher.

The rt ch thinker with whom I fet coniderbe theoretic ympthy i

Richrd Rorty. We rt got to know ech other in 1979 t conference inMiwkee. He hd reqeted copy of my contribtion, in which I hd in fct

defended very imir cim to thoe which he dvnced in hi bookPhilosophy

and the Mirror o Nature . It w on thi occion tht he gve me copy of thi

book which I red with gret interet nd ttention. I encorged the project to

trnte the work into Itin, nd coborted with Diego Mrconi in writing

the Preace to the Itin edition. It w thi book which eectivey gve birth to

the ide of bringing the neo-prgmtic nd hermenetic trdition together in

n expicit wy. Thee re in fct the yer in which I begn to fee prticr

ympthy for the pot-nytic trdition of Ango-Americn thoght, nd tobeieve in the poibiity of genine enconter between dierent trdition



334 Ginni Vttimo

which hd recognied n emphtic “wekening” of wht hd formery been

regrded trong trctre, nd hd ndertook fndment reconider-

tion of the roe of ngge. In thi connection it might be better to pek of

profond convergence of ide rther thn of ny pecic inence. My princi-

p objection to Rorty i tht he hod hve been prepred to embrce more of Heidegger: there i ti certin ck of hitoric depth in neo-prgmtim nd

ti too mch commitment to “immedicy.” Thi pproch hod be more

prepred to rge in try hitoric mnner, rther thn ttempting to dem-

ontrte it cim “ogicy,” tht i prgmticy.

Bt even before my enconter with Rorty, I hod mention Kr-Otto

Ape, whom I w initiy encorged to red by Ginni Crchi, who hd

prodced the Itin trntion of Community and Communication, the rt prt

of Ape’ btnti two vome work The Transormation o Philosophy. I hd

redy ooked t Ape’ erier book The Idea o Language in the Humanistic

Tradition rom Dante to Vico, bt it hd not mde ignicnt impreion on

me t the time. I w prticry trck by Community and Communication, on

the other hnd, bece it eemed to me to gget the poibiity of redeem-

ing Heidegger’ thoght from renewed nd corrected neo-Kntin per-

pective: Ape hd poken pecicy of Wittgentein’ “emntic reviion

of Kntinim,” bt we cod o mke n nogo point with regrd to

Heidegger. I remined in toch with Ape for ome yer fterwrd. And

peking of Ape wi ntry bring Hberm to mind we. In fct, my

fmiirity with the work of Hberm i mch more recent. Athogh he

entertined certin phioophic repect for Gdmer, who hd invited him

to Heideberg, in my eye Hberm w neo-Kntin pre nd impe.

One of the very rt thing tht Gdmer tod me to do when I rrived in

Heideberg – prt, tht i, from reding the Neue Zürcher Zeitung , terriby

conervtive newpper – w to go nd tdy Knowledge and Human Interests,

which of core I did. My pprecition of Hberm’ thoght h grown

ignicnty over the t few yer, poiby heped by the fct tht we hve

hd mny opportnitie to meet one nother: rt in Pri, t eminr onDerrid, then in Heideberg on the occion of Gdmer’ hndredth birth-

dy, nd ny in Itnb t the Word Congre of Phioophy in 2003. It

i qite tre tht hi mot recent ey on the ftre of hmn ntre hve

not impreed me very mch. Wht we hre i certin preoccption with

the qetion of ngge, omething which derive from Ape, nd erier ti

from Heidegger; wht divide , on the other hnd, i hi tencio commit-

ment to modernity nd hi norm-governed precriptivim. I hve ometime

drwn on hi cim to rge tht twentieth centry thoght h eectivey

witneed trnition from the priority once ccorded to “trth” to tht nowccorded to the principe of “chrity”: perhp for him too, trth i not mt-




ter of “mirroring” nything, bt cim tht merit greement, omething we

re be to preent to other, in hort, n eentiy interbjective qetioning.

Derrid h ong been one privieged point of reference for me, bt before

hi work I wod probby mention tht of Lyotrd. Hi conception of pot-

modernim coey correponded with my own interprettion of Heidegger,which foced trongy on hi ey “The Age of the Word Pictre,” incded

in the Holzwege coection. Here Heidegger decribed the proce in which

the vriety of dierent word pictre hd eventy ndermined the po-

ibiity of prodcing inge nied repreenttion of the re, n pproch

which i very imir to tht dopted by Lyotrd in retion to trdition

met-nrrtive. It w throgh reding Lyotrd tht I hve come to rerm

Chritin perpective: for potmodernity, enviged by Lyotrd, ike the

diotion of metphyic in Heidegger, h reopened the pce for reigio

dicore: if the grnd nrrtive re nihed, the poibiity of peking of

God i o reborn, in the ene tht reigio dicore cn no onger be

contrdicted by the ret of cience, or interpreted impy primitive

phe in the evotion of hmnity. In thi connection, my dicovery of René

Girrd w deciive. When the Itin trntion of Things Hidden Since the

Foundation o the World cme ot in 1985 I reviewed the work t the reqet of

Mrco Vor, nd begn to expore Girrd’ theory of the cpegot the

origin of civiition, mechnim of victimition which Chritinity itef

repdite rther thn conrm. Even if it i qite tre tht the ecceitic

trdition ti mintin the ide of Chrit the f nd perfect crice, he

w cty crcied on ccont of the try “cndo” chrcter of wht

he tght. Thi open the wy to conception of the potmodern kind

of rdicition of ecrition, the end of metphyic, the end of thi

entire victim trctre. The Chrch too mt now be jdged in term of

the o of the cred. My objection to Girrd h wy been tht one cn-

not impy rret the proce of ecrition t certin point, where he

pper to think tht once the victim chrcter of the origin trctre of

civiition h been recognied, one cnnot reinqih the crici rit of the M. A if, withot recore to the ymboim of crice, we cn ony

perpette the cyce of vioence, rther thn eiminting it.

Question: Bt doen’t yor interprettion of ecrition ond rther too

iner nd innoco? In reity, the movement of ecrition wod eem

to be more brpt nd dicontino in chrcter, to invove phe of progre

nd regreion, of enightenment nd rergent prticrim.

Vattimo: Thi might perhp be vid objection to work ch La società trasparente , bt in the econd edition of the text I provided prti reform-



336 Ginni Vttimo

tion of the thei defended in the rt edition. I beieve, or t et hope, tht

hitory i providentiy governed in ome ene. My reding of ietzche,

bt o of Heidegger, h ed in thi direction: ietzche mintined tht the

“Overmn” wod hve to rie nd repond to the eve of thoe technoogic

power which hmnity hd deveoped, whie ny bndoning the oncerering hierrchic trctre of the pt. And Heidegger mintin tht it

i the modern Gestell , or technic “enfrming” of the word, tht permit n

initi gimpe of the Ereignis, of the “event”: if there i ny hope or vtion

for , thi certiny cnnot be ttined by repeting or reciming previo

tte of deveopment, bt ony by penetrting to the root of the tte in which

crrenty nd oreve. A thing conidered, my retivey optimitic con-

ception of the proce of ecrition pring preciey from thi thoght.

And if Girrd doe not rey gree with me in thi regrd, thi i bece he

h peimitic conception of hmn ntre. Bt once Je h demythoo-

gied the ntr notion of the cred, why contine to mintin the ymbo

of crice if it i not bece the hmn being i irremediby corrpted? I

think the fct tht he ee himef n nthropoogit, rther thn phi-

oopher, impie tht Chritinity doe indeed ow to grp the trth

bot the ntre of mn. For him, in hort, trth come before chrity: the

nveiing of the mechnim of victimition, the objective nveiing of the

hmn condition, pper more importnt thn the procmtion of chrity

which wod pring from it.

Bt to retrn to yor pecic Question: the ide of “ecrition” i not

o mch decription of ome iner nd objective deveopment of hitory

propoed interprettion of the hitoric proce tht i to be preferred over

other. I beieve tht I cn detect certin moment of the Eropen pt to

which I m ympthetic preciey bece they were ecriing in chrc-

ter nd eect, bt certiny not bece they inevitby reect ppoedy

necery hitoric proce. secrition, in hort, i not the me wht

w once dened “progre.” The entire opening ection of my text w

critiqe of ch iner hitoricit conception: hitory tory of pro-greive “wekening” mt be tken n interprettion, not ppoedy

objective decription.

Question: Thi i tre, bt the fct remin tht yo hve wy thoght of

ecrition ibertion of dierence, whie hitory often eem to g-

get tht dierence re rdicied in term of their own identity: I m

Crot, yo re serb, or Mim …

Vattimo: If there i one principe which Eropen ctre cn frnih tody inthe context of other ctre, it i tht of “ctre of ctr nthropoogy”




itef, tht i, ctre which exprey recognie the mtipicity of ctre.

Rorty himef h expreed n wrene of thi when he poke of the peri-

ority of democrcy over phioophy. Wht I hve decribed “wekening”

i principe of progre to the degree tht it redy invove nd promote

certin redction of vioence, bt mongt the eement of the “redction”tht ch n pproch bring with it i o one which i pecicy re-

tive to certin coherent hitoric neceity. “Wekne” in thi ene i not

“the bote mening” of hitory. To conceptie ch wekne i to eek

to redce vioence by expicity recogniing the intrinicy interprettive

chrcter, rther thn the bote trth, of one’ own poition. sch recogni-

tion o invove the poibiity tht hitory need not neceriy nfod in

merey iner fhion, in inge emphtic nd nivoc emnciptory direc-

tion, bt cn deveop in mnner tht i more obiqe, it were.

Question: It ometime eem if yor own pproch ed to the ide tht

“vtion hitory” i more bot the hitory of the rviv of certin ve

nd ide thn it i bot the Chritin conception of rerrection. Bt i it

not the ce tht Chritinity i intrinicy nd inoby bond p with the

notion of peron vtion?

Vattimo: Bt I do not rey beieve in the ide of trncendent God – the

trncendence of God h wy eemed to me to be probem beqethed by

mediev Aritoteinim. The trncendence of God ony tke on genine

ignicnce ony if we pek of the trncendence of the hitoric project of

the ftre. The concept of the trncendent, on the other hnd, h hitherto

wy been chrcteried by ome eentiy ntr or rtion trctre: I

beieve ony in vtion hitory. I not the ide of individ vtion impy

prt nd prce of the occident emphi nd initence on the centrity of

individity, omething tht i entirey bent from the orient trdition of

thoght? Of core, I m ttrcted by the ide tht if there i ch thing

vtion, then I mt omehow cknowedge thi in peron wy, btbicy I beieve mch more trongy in apocatastasis: the ide of retortive

“end” i more pibe thn the cim tht the o cod omehow qit the

body in order to enconter nd commne with the o of other individ

omewhere ee.

Question: Wod Ginni Vttimo then decribe himef Chritin

phioopher?

Vattimo: I hve never hd ny dobt tht the ony tre Chritin phioophytht i geniney prcticbe tody wod be the kind I hve eborted, for




ophic pproche nd profeion choice dopted by o mny of the indi-

vid yo hve inenced.

Vattimo: One might eek n initi expntion for thi in the fct tht mny

peope tdied phioophy dring the 1970 preciey in order to go on ndengge profeiony with other ed: t the time there were no niverity

fctie pecicy dedicted to bject ch commniction cience,

pychoogy, or ocioogy. so phioophy w often the bet option even for

thoe who hd no intention of pring profeion creer in the bject.

And gin, thi w o prt of the egcy of 1968, of the trong deire for

poitic enggement nd for phioophic comprehenion of the word tht

w o chrcteritic of tht period.

Question: Yo interpret the pth yor own thoght h tken in term of n

ninterrpted “ontoogy of ctity,” contnty redjted repone to

the hitoric nd poitic ittion of pecic epoch. I thi interprettion

rtionition fter the event, or did it cty nfod in thi wy?

Vattimo: The ide of n ontoogy of ctity cn certiny o be interpreted

retropective viion of my phioophic deveopment. Bt it i eqy

tre tht if one conider the reon which motivted my deciion to tdy

phioophy t the niverity, it i cer tht it w not impy the pecicy

phioophic bject mtter tht ttrcted me, bt o it connection with

coey reted qetion of poitic nd reigion. Poitic ch, n interet

in the contemporry word, h wy been t the centre of my reection,

prt from one or two brief period, one of which w the period of tdy

tht I pent in Germny. At tht time I w not in poition to keep p with

the Itin newpper, which wy rrived very te, nd, crioy, I hd

o topped going to M, mot if there were n emphtic connection

between poitic nd reigion, connection tht I fet w entirey ntr.

Cthoic enibiity in thoe yer neceriy invoved oci nd poiticcommitment: nd my reection were repone to the chrcteritic poiti-

c, ctr, nd reigio ittion of the epoch.

Question: A theoretic project, the “ontoogy of ctity,” nnonced t

et fteen yer go now, h come p gint certin nexpected dic-

tie. To wht extent doe it repreent deveopment of “wek thoght,” nd

t wht tge do think it tnd tody?

Vattimo: “Wek thoght” i phioophy which ntry tend to ndertnditef n “ideoogy of n epoch”: once we hve emncipted oreve from n




pre poitic with the kind of indeqte technic preprtion tht I po-

e? In n ge of peciition, thoe who poeed proper bckgrond in

w, for exmpe, were in mch better poition to ccompih the thing tht

I wod hve iked to do myef. In thi connection, I wrote itte book to

be pbihed by Avn, which I rther jetingy entited Ecce comu. The titei ntry n ironic reference to ietzche nd hi Ecce homo. The bti-

te, “How one become wht one i,” here ignie “How one (re-)become

commnit.” In the dminitered word of tody one cn ony pre

poitic of oppoition on the mrgin, in ccordnce with mode I decribe

nrcho-commnit. And thi probemtic chrcter of poitic i reected

in trn in my own phioophic pproch: I hve yet to nd tifctory

otion to the qetion regrding the retionhip between poitic nd my

princip ed of work phioopher. Moreover, I rey know very itte

bot wht cod cont reective nd tifctory form of poitic: in the

modern democrcie everything come down to the ctivitie of individ

poiticin who oer their wre in the eector mrket pce, nd thi

trn poitic phioophy into rther nintereting enterprie. Bicy, the

ony thing eft for to reect on now re the gret ie of gobition,

of the retion between poitic nd economic, of “deveopment” genery.

In thi connection, I m peimit, nd dring the t few yer I hve

deveoped poitic-ideoogic perpective tht i decidedy hotie to the

crrent ideoogy of deveopment: the mechnim governing the ppropri-

tion of reorce nd the crrent diion of homoogied form of ife mke

me increingy nxio for the ftre of hmnity. The cpitim tht ive

o it own crie eem to oer no wy ot, nd I hve no fith in the ideo-

ogy of economic “growth”: I ee thing, it i impertive tht we ttempt to

redce rther thn to incree the eve of conmption, or t et or eve

of conmption. And ntre itef cnnot provide n pproprite frmework

or tifctory otion to the probem: I hve wy ditrted ppe to

ntre, not ony normtive concept, bt o with repect to it ppo-

edy expreive nd prodctive chrcter.

Question: The ide of redcing the cim nd demnd of or crrent form

of ife in the nme of more tinbe kind of deveopment my be compt-

ibe with the critic nd peimitic view of ietzche nd Heidegger with

regrd to modernity, bt certiny not with the ide tht emnciption mt

be oght in eeing technoogy throgh to the end.

Vattimo: It i tre tht in ome of my writing I hve endored the ide of

emnciption by inting, rther thn by redcing thee cim nd demnd:if I own inge teeviion, I beieve it i the voice of God, if I own twenty



344 Ginni Vttimo

I m no onger o re. And intion, in thi ene, h o wy po-

eed detionry dimenion: the rich re mch e ttched to money

thn the poor, the mtipiction of the fctor on which one i dependent in

ene ed to redction of dependence. My gener perpective my hve

chnged ighty in thi repect, bt I do not beieve tht the ide of redcingthe demnd of or crrent form of ife in nd of itef impie ny intrin-

ic oppoition to frther technoogic deveopment. Wht it doe men i

tht, in ccordnce with the wy in which being “give itef” in or preent

ittion, tht the mening of technoogy o chnge. Technoogic po-

ibiitie become omething tht my be ed for pyf or non-intrment

prpoe, rther thn oey erving end which re oriented to prodction:

Mrce, to mention ony one exmpe, ed to defend the poibiity of n

ironic ecpe from the excee of technoogic domintion. In hort, if

there i n emnciptory pth for hmnity, I beieve tht it mt be oght

in “wekening” tht i o kind of conmmtion nd piritition

of experience: it i necery to rie everything to the eve of pirit. Or to

borrow Heidegger’ word from Being and Time : “There i being, not being,

inofr there i trth.” Thi men tht being re conmmted in proc-

e of ymboition, of form medition of one kind or nother: the ony

trjectory of emnciption tht I cn conceive of ie in certin “dimin-

tion,” dimintion of or cim to identity, of or form of ife, nd th

redction of vioence. And thi impie dimintion from the poitic point

of view we: my theory i one which encorge the progreive democr-

tition of ociety t every poibe eve.

Question: From hermenetic phioophy to book ikeEcce comu – wht i the

connecting thred here?

Vattimo: We, the connecting thred i ti red one. Ecce comu i bove

poitic text, bt the connection with hermenetic i very cer. One cod

rge, in fct, tht hermenetic I hve interpreted it eectivey impied kind of trnformtive Hegein Mrxim which conteted ny ntritic

conception of bote principe nd th poeed poitic voction from

the otet. When I becme Depty in the Eropen Priment, in 1999,

I hoped to ppy thi contettion of “bote” to the poitic domin, by

initing, for exmpe, on the convention chrcter of w, nd on demo-

crtic prctice gronded in procee of coming to greement, by eeking to

brek thoe botim which originy ie from the Vticn nd end

p bttreing the neo-iber theory of the overeignty of the mrket. My

ympthy for Mrxim derive, bove , from Mrx’ cim tht poiticeconomy i not ntr cience, bt hitoric cience whoe tk i to




exmine trctre tht hve been prodced over time nd cn in principe

be chnged. There re therefore no ch thing bote economic w.

And the poitic experience of Erope itef h convinced me tht the

ociety which i now being contrcted t gob eve i ociety of niver

contro, of word tht i ever more tighty integrted in term dictted oeyby the “Whington conen.” Hermenetic, in nd of itef, obvioy cn-

not be trnted into prticr poitic perpective which i denitive nd

vid for time. Bt it drw or ttention to word where trth i n

“event,” i contitted by dierent enconter, by dioge nd convertion,

in hort word which i the very oppoite of gob order bed on n

Enron-tye contro of commniction. For thi reon, I hve retrned to the

notion of niver “proetrinition,” now interpreting the tter in term of

procee of commniction. We my not be trving here in Erope, bt we

might we end p bjected to form of proetrinition throgh the po-

ibiity of n bote contro over or men of commniction, or thoght,

or bodie. The ociety of retive mteri ence which we hve inhbited

for mny yer now i cery no onger one where peope die of hnger, bt

it i one where we cn die of contro: of thi h prompted me to retrn

pecicy to the critic nd negtive mege of Mrx, to the ide of grow-

ing proetrinition tht i encorged by the increing homoogition of

the trctre of commniction nd informtion. In ddition, we ee how

the proce of gobition i o prodcing growing ineqity, growing

diviion between thoe who hve very itte nd thoe who redy hve more

thn enogh. At certin point I begn to beieve tht commnim “cor-

rected” in the ight of “wek thoght” wod no onger inevitby ret in

form of stinim. An botit, i.e. metphyic, Mrxim i objectivey

dngero from the perpective of the oci order we, nd tht i why we

need “wek thinking” to mont critiqe of the indtri mode, nd of the

wetern economic mode in gener, which hd o been impoed, for re-

on of wr, on the poicie of the soviet tte. The ide tht the commnit

mode hd o been “ditorted” by the fct tht it hd to defend itef gintthe hotie intention of the cpitit tte, nd the ide tht the contrction

of n enormoy powerf soviet Union o prng from the neceity of

reiting zim, hve ed me to re-exmine the commnit mege. We cn

y, if we ike, tht even the Leninit denition of commnim correpond

to preciey wht ny good wetern democrt o deire, nmey proce

of economic deveopment nder popr, i.e. eectivey democrtic, contro.

Tody, by contrt, we ive in ociety which h mot nothing in common

with the origin soviet mode bt i increingy “eectried” in chrcter,

tht i, rgey dedicted to economic deveopment even if it dmge peope’ive, even if it ndermine the poibiity of prticipting in power. I hd



346 Ginni Vttimo

originy intended to provide my book Ecce comu with the btite “A Mrch

throgh the Oppoition.” I fond myef driven frther nd frther to the Left

by the fct tht everyone ee w moving to the Right: when I now ook bck

t my rgment from the eector cmpign of 1999, I dicovered tht they

were the me thoe of 2004, except tht the Partito democratico hd ot the“s” for ociim in the mentime.

Question: Wod yo decribe yoref iber Mrxit?

Vattimo: To be honet, I m more of wrecked Mrxit – wht rey fci-

nte me i commnim oci ide, nd one I beieve i reonbe. so I

don’t rey wih to pretend I m Mrxit, bt my own poitic concion

re nogo to ch poition. One of my ogn from the cmpign of

2004 w “Re commnim i ded, ong ive ide commnim!”

Question: Wod yo y tht hermenetic ti contitte omething ike the

common ngge of contemporry phioophy? And if yo beieve it i, wht

deveopment wod yo expect, or wih to encorge, in the hermenetic

trdition? And wht do think bot the “Iconic Trn” which ome cim h

now cceeded the “Lingitic Trn” tht w identied by Rorty?

Vattimo: The ide of n “Iconic Trn” pper pibe to me, bt I hve not

worked on thi re very mch. In the wke of Heideggeren hermenetic

I think we cn ee the emergence of n intenied Hegeinim, one which

concentrte on the domin of “objective pirit,” on the contrction of form

of poibe greement, on the growth of commnictive hrmony, rther thn

ny retrn to emphtic cim. In yor book on the bject of bety, yo refer

to ntre omething we hve been too redy to forget, nd which yo defend

pecicy with reference to the imge nd the ide of bety.2 Thi my be

o, bt in the t nyi I nd it hrd to beieve. I think tht we re cty

moving towrd condition in which everything increingy reve itef hitory, bt hitory tht i ny one tht we mke! Thee re preciey the

motivting inight of Mrxim itef: there re no objective trctre which

intrinicy contrin , nd we cn do i to encorge the diotion of

ch trctre. Tre hitory i hitory of pirit, hitory of the piritition

of or individ nd coective exitence, hitory which men, for exm-

pe, tht immedicy, nd th “the ntr” too, i more nd more thoroghy

bimted, more nd more inteney trnmted onto the eve of ymbo. In

thi connection, I remember dicion with Umberto Eco in Boogn in

2 F. Verceone, Oltre la bellezza, Boogn: i Mino, 2008.




1998-99. He contined to mintin tht there i ch thing reity, tht we

wy bmp into in the end, nd I repied tht whie we do indeed bmp into

reity, thi doe not men tht it mt be treted “the Abote,” nd tht

I wih to detroy thi w which contine to crete the bmp on my hed.

My rereding of Mrxim i impy prctic expreion of n pproch I hdredy fond in Gdmer, in hi ey on “The Phioophic Fondtion of

the Twentieth Centry,” where he y tht we mt go bck nd rered Hege

in term of hi phioophy of “objective pirit,” nd tht the re deciency of

Hege’ thoght ie in hi reid Crteinim, in the ppoed ef-trnpr-

ency of “bote pirit.” Bt my conception of piritition, n ever more

intene contrction of greed trth, of trth born ot of the event of oci

interction, eem to repreent kind of Hegein Mrxim which o cptre

the eence of phioophic hermenetic. Why i it tht not phioopher

tody hre ch hermenetic perpective? Bece they re dominted by

cpitim, tht i, re ti cptivted by n objectivitic nd metphyic orma

mentis which cn ony fvor thoe in power. If there i ny objective nece-

ity, thi i cimed preciey by thoe who wied power. o wek individ

or grop in hitory h ever beieved tht the word i “in order,” tht there i

ny objective form of rtionity.

Question: tre h wy been excded from the domin of objective

pirit. Do yo too not beieve tht if ntre were ny to enter into objec-

tive pirit, thi wod eect very ignicnt chnge? If ntre itef were

regrded e hotie, indeed fvoring – recent deveopment of evo-

tionry theory eem to gget – the cretion of coopertive mode, rther

thn the Drwinin “trgge for ife,” it might be poibe to conceive dier-

ent mode of cience, even “ofter” mode of technoogy.

Vattimo: I gree with ome of wht yo y. We do not hve to think of ntre

oey in the term dened by the Knt’ Critique o Pure Reason. The re

probem i how we cn rete thi to or knowedge of ntre, or enter into dioge with the empiric cience, withot reddreing the qe-

tion of the very concept of ntre, nd th o the hitoricity, the hitoric

trctre which come to dene how we think bot ntre. Bt I m ym-

pthetic to dicore which invove n eentiy hermenetic pproch to

ntre, nd, t the me time, certin “ntrition” of oci dioge. I

m in compete greement with yo here. I cn envige mch e ggre-

ive form of medicine, for exmpe, of cience which i e predtory in

it pproch to ntre. Yet we mt not forget tht thi wod reqire

fndment chnge in the oci order, nd trnformtion in the trc-tre of cientic reerch, which wod then no onger depend oey on



348 Ginni Vttimo

n immedite emphi on prodctivity or on predominnty economic

ogic. And the commnit ide o timtey impied the ide of recon-

ciition with ntre. so we my indeed wecome certin re-ntrition

of hermenetic, ong it come bot throgh trnformtion of or

wy of thinking the ntr cience themeve nd the retionhip betweentechnoogy nd ntre. And thi i preciey wht I hd in mind when I poke

of Heidegger’ Gestell , or concept of “enfrming,” in term of eectronic tech-

noogy – technoogy cpbe of etbihing form of commniction tht

w no onger excivey mono-direction, from the centre to the periphery,

bt rther bi-direction in chrcter.

Question: I it poibe to trce the extent to which “wek thoght” h

enjoyed dignotic we merey phioophic cce? Are yo be to

indicte, fter the event, where yo fee yo grped the time ppropritey,

nd where yo fee yo fied to reie yor objective?

Vattimo: We, in retropect, I think tht I pced too mch fith in techno-

ogy nd it emnciptory poibiitie, perpective tht my be expined

kind of rection gint the peimitic otook of Adorno. I fet tht I hd

to ette ccont with the wy in which both Adorno nd Heidegger hd

eectivey excommnicted technoogic ociety in gener. In thi ene,

perhp, my oppoition to the Frnkfrt schoo perpective here ed me to

overemphie the event of being hrbored within the technoogicGestell ,

which, I w it, poeed n emnciptory potenti. When I prepred the

econd edition of my book La società trasparente , certin retrn to comm-

nim nd the poitic critiqe of contemporry ociety hd redy begn to

mke itef fet. In thi repect, I confe tht I remin metphyic thinker,

in the ene tht I conceived the ontoogy of ctity n ttempt to dien-

tnge the mtter, to retrn to the principe, thi time poitic, from which

everything derive.

Question: It is now exactly thirty years since the publication o Lyotard’s The

Potmodern Condition, a work which exercised an enormous infuence at the time.

In certain respects, it is also a book which seems to urnish a undamental premise or

the idea o “weak thought”…

Vattimo: There w initiy gret enthim for the cim which Lyotrd

dvnced in thi book, prticry for the notion of prity of ngge

gme, for the demie of grnd nrrtive, i.e. for n nregted ociety

which obige yo to become ietzchen “Overmn” ince thoe whore nbe to invent their own interprettion of the word wod cee to




mtter. The ide ti eem vid to me, except tht the ditorting eect of

technoogy, fr emnciption i concerned, i more dict probem

thn I imgined: thi i bicy why I hve become commnit. The tite

of one of my ey, “From wek thoght to the thoght of the wek,” eec-

tivey expree thi fndment probem, nd de to the fct tht “wekthoght” w too redy to beieve tht the event of being redy provided

with pth of emnciption, where ch pth re ti to be dicov-

ered. The n ectre which I deivered t the Univerity of Trin, on 14

October 2008, w dedicted to the qetion “From Dioge to Conict”:

phioophic dicoverie re not independent of the ct preent. And, of

core, o mny thing hve redy trnpired in the mentime, there hve

been the bombing in Irq, the redicovery, the Right h tght , of the

importnce of vioence in hitory, nd o forth. The imit of “wek thoght”

y in certin Heideggeren nd over-toernt hitoricim which h been

corrected in the ight of poitic experience. Th “wek thoght” h now

become “the thoght of the wek”: hermenetic cn be reied throgh

commnim, bt commnim, in trn, doe not emerge ntry, bt mt

be contrcted. At the beginning, “wek thoght” invoved the hope of

hitoric trnformtion tht wod ntry be indced by the technoogi-

c trnformtion. ow I wod deete the “ntry” here: the condition

for emnciption hve certiny been mde poibe by technoogic trn-

formtion, bt emnciption i by no men necery or inevitbe. Thi i

bicy the ide of Mrce when he rged tht “rp repreion” cod

be eiminted in principe bece we were redy in poition, technoogi-

cy peking, to ive more iberted ife.

Question: Unti few yer go, the phioophic point of reference in yor

ectre were principy Heidegger nd ietzche. Tody they hve become

Hege or Mrx. I it tre to y tht yo re now increingy concerned with

the probem of ynthei?

Vattimo: It i qetion of ming poitic reponibiity. Poitic experience

h never been mtter of indierence to me, bt h been very importnt

in term of one’ reponibiity for phioophic thoght. Why i the ir of

Heidegger’ invovement with zim of ch interet to me? Obvioy, hi

poitic choice cnnot poiby be endored, bt wht i intereting i the

fct tht he fet increingy cimed by the poitic, inted of impy con-

tining to theorie the qetion of “thenticity” nd “inthenticity.” Thi

i the moment of the Heidegger’ “trn,” the trnition from Being and Time ,

in which he concentrted pon the probem of “word,” to The Origin o the Work o Art , in which he pek in the pr of dierent hitoric word, nd



350 Ginni Vttimo

of hitoric form of hmnity. And Preyon himef, when he expreed

ene of inteect voction tht w timtey reigio rther thn prey

exitentiit in chrcter, o trned to the qetion of hitory, thogh in

hi ce it w mtter of the ide etern hitory of the origin f of God

in creting word in the rt pce. I fee I m foowing in hi foottepto the extent tht hi mode of expreion pper eentiy egoric to

me: the occrrence of evi, I ee it, i the birth of metphyic nd of pro-

prietry objectivim. My growing ympthy with Hegein-Mrxin, nd

e Heideggeren, pproch bicy correpond to the experience which y

behind Heidegger’ own “trn.” I do not fee I m omeone who cn ome-

how tnd otide hitory. Thoe who beieve they cn tnd otide hitory

do o bece they redy enjoy certin poition of priviege. In thi ene, I

beieve I mt tnd on the ide of thinker ike Heidegger who cknowedged

hitoric commitment, however hort-ighted nd compromiing they were.

Question: And wht i the roe of Chritinity in thi context? How doe it

rete to thi Hegein-Mrxin perpective?

Vattimo: I wod rephre yor qetion in dierent wy. Why, in the t

nyi, do I fee n obigtion to tke the prt of the wek? Certiny not

bece I beieve, in ome evngeic wy, tht the wek redy poe the

trth. I endore thi poition, rther thn nother, for hitoric reon, per-

hp bece I w born the wy I w. For I hve never thoght of ntre in

term of ntr w. Th I do not beieve tht I mt repect my neighbor

throgh n ppe to ntre. If I do o, it i ony bece of certin hitory,

bece I hve been formed by Chritinity, nd the ony niver I know

i, Hege wod y, the ethic-reigio-hitoric niver which i my

own. In hort, I cnnot reject the ide of prticipting in hitory, nd I do o

from the perpective of my Chritin bckgrond nd heritge, in the ene

tht “I cnnot not decribe myef Chritin.”

(Translated rom Italian by Nicholas Walker )

Ginni VttimoUniverity of [email protected]

Federico VerceoneUniverity of [email protected]

Lc svrinoUniverity of Et [email protected]



Copyright of Iris: European Journal of Philosophy & Public Debate is the property of Firenze University Press

and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright

holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

savarino&vercellone iris 47365069 entrevista biografica 2009

Documents