Science and literature, a more in-depth relationship than you assume

Arriving as a preview at Scienza e Virgola, the Science and Media Competition organized by the Interdisciplinary Laboratory of SISSA in Trieste and directed by the author and physicist Paolo Giordano, the scientist Giuseppe Mussardo, professor of Theoretical Physics at SISSA, and the literary critic Filippo La Porta, with the co-written essay “Two cultures? Between science and humanism”, forthcoming from Castelvecchi. They current it on Thursday 16 Might at 7pm within the Antico Caffè e Libreria San Marco in Trieste, in dialogue with the journalist Valeria Tempo.

We regularly speak about science and philosophy, however what we expect is admittedly fascinating is? the connection that binds and divides science from literature. A number of years in the past, at a philosophy competition, there have been two talks, one by Massimo Cacciari and certainly one of Emanuele Severinowhose titles have been involuntarily complementary to one another: that of Severino entitled First issues, that of Cacciari Of the final issues. Nicely, with all due respect for the 2 philosophers, for the logical (Aristotelian) “expertise” of the primary and for sure speculative insights (authentic and daring) of the second, what truly fascinates us and? exactly all the pieces that’s between the primary issues and the final issues.

How usually is it? insufferable of philosophy and? the tendency to proceed by essences, by abstractions and to usually guiltily neglect particulars. AND? It has been noticed that in Heidegger’s philosophical system, for instance, and? inconceivable to differentiate between the Singer manufacturing facility and an extermination camp. Is literature, alternatively, extra related? to science: does it present consideration to selection? of expertise, is experimentally in concepts however skilled concretely, within the context of the state of affairs (how they’re translated, what penalties they’ve…). And the various writers who approached science within the twentieth century have been conscious of this: to restrict ourselves to Italy a minimum of Carlo Emilio Gadda, Italo Calvino, Paolo Volponi and Primo Levi.

Of Gadda, who we are going to speak about in additional element shortly, we solely keep in mind that he didn’t perceive the assertion that “each impact has its trigger” since for him each impact (lump or tangle of relationships) has its causes, and usually he most popular to talk not of causality however of coexistence, of a coexistence wherein all the pieces refers to all the pieces. To this point we have now remained silent a few third protagonist in that sophisticated relationship which sees what we have now referred to as the 2 cultures opposed. We’re referring to know-how, to that entire very dynamic world primarily based on machines, on the gadgets that normally make our lives simpler, on digital gadgets, on robots, on laptop networks, on communication instruments and on the brand new types of synthetic intelligence which might be all the time rising extra imperiously in our lives.

It’s essential to underline with the utmost drive that the approach, with its historical past and the targets it proposes, is? one thing fairly totally different from scientific tradition. May failure to know this vital distinction result in incorrect conclusions about science and a few duties? which might be attributed to it. For Gu?nther Anders, a pupil of Heidegger (fortunately not a Nazi like him, in truth he was a gentle left-wing extremist), «man is? “outdated”, as he prophesied in such an essay? titled from the Fifties, earlier than the appearance of digital. That’s, we really feel guiltily old school, outdated, insufficient in comparison with the machines we produce (which, not like us, are reproducible and just about everlasting!). We solely delude ourselves into utilizing them.

He was occupied with the atomic bomb however it might be sufficient to consider smartphones and PCs. Our inseparable cellphone guides our days, situations our mind-set, of being, of referring to actuality and to others. The approach, what’s it not? solely an instrument but it surely turns into the topic of Historical past, and what’s it? expression of probably the most? excessive rationality? of man (acquiring the utmost with the minimal) though linked to domination, leads us in the direction of the non-human. Now, will we all the time want radicalism? by Anders – the atomic apocalypse as means-ends dissociation, the crucial for which all the pieces that’s? technically possible will probably be achieved, the anthropological mutation, our “Promethean disgrace” in feeling inefficient in comparison with machines – however we additionally should ask ourselves: are we certain that issues like the opportunity of listening to from our kids at any time or getting into any library of the planet staying at residence do they fall into the non-human? Or that know-how prevents us from falling in love, having associates, dreaming of tales we have not lived, getting emotional in entrance of a panorama?

Extract from “Two cultures? Between science and humanism” by Filippo La Porta and Giuseppe Mussardo, Castelvecchi editore. ©? 2024 Lit Edizioni sas courtesy