Original subtitles

[CORNEL WEST] 'THE UNEXAMINED

LIFE IS NOT WORTH LIVING,' PLATO

SAYS IN LINE 38A OF THE APOLOGY.

HOW DO YOU EXAMINE YOURSELF?

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU

INTERROGATE YOURSELF? WHAT

HAPPENS WHEN YOU BEGIN TO CALL

INTO QUESTION YOUR TACIT

ASSUMPTIONS AND UNARTICULATED

PRESUPPOSITIONS, AND BEGIN,

THEN, TO BECOME A DIFFERENT KIND

OF PERSON?

SEE, I PUT IT THIS WAY. THAT

FOR ME, I MEAN, THAT

PHILOSOPHY IS FUNDAMENTALLY

ABOUT OUR FINITE SITUATION.

WE CAN DEFINE THAT IN TERMS OF,

WE'RE BEINGS TOWARD DEATH, WE'RE

FEATHERLESS, TWO-LEGGED,

LINGUISTICALLY CONSCIOUS

CREATURES BORN BETWEEN URINE AND

FECES WHOSE BODY WILL ONE DAY BE

THE CULINARY DELIGHT OF

TERRESTRIAL WORMS. THAT'S US.

WE'RE BEINGS TOWARD DEATH. AT

THE SAME TIME WE HAVE DESIRE

WHILE WE ARE ORGANISMS IN SPACE

AND TIME AND SO IT'S DESIRE IN

THE FACE OF DEATH. AND THEN OF

COURSE YOU'VE GOT DOGMATISM,

VARIOUS ATTEMPTS TO HOLD ON TO

CERTAINTY, VARIOUS FORMS OF

IDOLATRY, AND YOU'VE GOT

DIALOGUE IN THE FACE OF

DOGMATISM. AND THEN OF COURSE

STRUCTURALLY AND INSTITUTIONALLY

YOU HAVE DOMINATION AND YOU HAVE

DEMOCRACY, YOU HAVE ATTEMPTS OF

PEOPLE TRYING TO RENDER

ACCOUNTABLE ELITES, KINGS,

QUEENS, SUZERAINS, CORPORATE

ELITES, POLITICIANS, TRYING TO

MAKE THESE ELITES ACCOUNTABLE TO

EVERYDAY PEOPLE. AND SO

PHILOSOPHY ITSELF BECOMES A

CRITICAL DISPOSITION OF

WRESTLING WITH DESIRE IN THE

FACE OF DEATH, WRESTLING WITH

DIALOGUE IN THE FACE OF, OF

DOGMATISM, AND WRESTLING WITH

DEMOCRACY - TRYING TO KEEP ALIVE

VERY FRAGILE DEMOCRATIC

EXPERIMENTS - IN THE FACE OF

STRUCTURES IF DOMINATION;

PATRIARCHY, WHITE SUPREMACY,

IMPERIAL POWER, STATE POWER -

ALL THOSE CONCENTRATED FORMS OF

POWER THAT ARE NOT ACCOUNTABLE

TO PEOPLE WHO ARE AFFECTED BY

THEM.

[AVITAL RONELL] SO, CAN YOU HEAR

ME WELL?

[ASTRA TAYLOR] AND YOU CAN SPEAK

TO ME, SO...

[AVITAL RONELL] GOOD, GOOD.

WONDERFUL.

OKAY, SO I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE

OUT WHAT YOU WERE GETTING ME

INTO HERE, AND HOW WE'RE

IMPLICATED IN THIS WALK. I WAS

GOING TO INTERVIEW YOU AND ASK

YOU WHAT YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE

DOING?

[ASTRA TAYLOR] I'M SPECIFICALLY

THINKING ABOUT THE CHALLENGE OF

MAKING A FILM ABOUT PHILOSOPHY,

WHICH OBVIOUSLY HAS A SPOKEN

ELEMENT, BUT WHICH IS TYPICALLY

WRITTEN. AND BOOK FORM ALLOWS

YOU TO EXPLORE SOMETHING SO

IN-DEPTH, YOU KNOW, 300, 400,

500 PAGES EXPLORING A SINGLE

CONCEPT, WHEREAS IN A

FEATURE-LENGTH FILM YOU HAVE 80

MINUTES IN THE FORM OF SPEECH

THAT'S BEEN RECORDED, AND IN THE

CASE OF THIS FILM EACH PERSON

HAS TEN MINUTES.

[AVITAL RONELL] YES, THAT IS

SCANDALOUS. I COULD UNDERSTAND

THAT THE OTHERS WOULD HAVE TEN

MINUTES BUT TO, TO BRING ME DOWN

TO TEN MINUTES IS AN OUTRAGE,

THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. THE

THING IS, WE DON'T KNOW WHERE

THIS FILM IS GOING TO LAND, WHOM

IT'S GOING TO SHAKE UP, WAKE UP,

OR FREAK OUT, OR BORE. BUT EVEN

BOREDOM, AS AN OFFSHOOT OF

MELANCHOLY WOULD INTEREST ME AS

A RESPONSE TO THESE DAZZLING

UTTERANCES THAT WE'RE PRODUCING.

BUT I WOULD SAY THAT, EVEN IF

PHILOSOPHY - AND DON'T FORGET

THAT HEIDEGGER DITCHED

PHILOSOPHY FOR THINKING, BECAUSE

HE THOUGHT PHILOSOPHY AS SUCH

WAS STILL TOO INSTITUTIONAL,

ACADEMIC, TOO BOUND UP IN

KNOWLEDGE AND RESULTS, TOO

COGNITIVELY INFLECTED - SO HE

ASKED THE QUESTION, 'WHAT IS

CALLED THINKING?' AND HE HAD A

LOT TO SAY ABOUT WALKS, ABOUT

GOING ON PATHS THAT LEAD NOWHERE

ONE OF HIS IMPORTANT TEXTS IS

CALLED HOLZWEGE, WHICH MEANS A

PATH THAT LEADS NOWHERE. IN

GREEK, THE WORD FOR PATH IS

METHODOS, SO WE'RE ON THE PATH.

[ASTRA TAYLOR] ONE THING I WANT

TO ASK YOU ABOUT IS MEANING. IS

PHILOSOPHY A SEARCH FOR MEANING?

[AVITAL RONELL] I'M VERY

SUSPICIOUS HISTORICALLY AND

INTELLECTUALLY OF THE PROMISE OF

MEANING, BECAUSE MEANING HAS

OFTEN HAD VERY FASCISTOID,

NON-PROGRESSIVIST EDGES, IF NOT

A CORE OF THAT SORT OF THING.

EXCUSE ME.

SO THAT VERY OFTEN ALSO THE

EMERGENCY SUPPLIES OF MEANING

THAT ARE BROUGHT TO A GIVEN

INCIDENT OR STRUCTURE OR THEME

IN ONE'S LIFE ARE COVER-UPS,

ARE A WAY OF DRESSING THE WOUND

OF NON-MEANING. I THINK IT'S

VERY HARD TO KEEP THINGS IN

THE TENSIONAL STRUCTURE OF

THE OPENNESS, WHETHER IT'S

ECSTATIC OR NOT, OF

NON-MEANING. THAT'S VERY VERY

DIFFICULT, WHICH IS WHY THERE IS

THEN THE QUICK GRASP THEN FOR A

TRANSCENDENTAL SIGNIFIER, FOR

GOD, FOR NATION, FOR PATRIOTISM.

IT'S BEEN VERY DEVASTATING, THIS

CRAVING FOR MEANING, THOUGH IT

IS SOMETHING WITH WHICH WE ARE

IN CONSTANT NEGOTIATION -

EVERYONE WANTS SOMETHING LIKE

MEANING. BUT WHEN YOU SEE THESE

DOGS PLAY, WHY REDUCE IT TO

MEANING RATHER THAN SEE THE

ARBITRARY ERUPTION OF SOMETHING

THAT CAN'T BE GRASPED OR

EXPLICATED, BUT IT'S JUST THERE,

IN THIS KIND OF ABSOLUTE

CONTINGENCY OF BEING.

TO LEAVE THINGS OPEN AND

RADICALLY INAPPROPRIABLE, AND

SOMETHING - AND ADMITTING WE

HAVEN'T REALLY UNDERSTOOD IS

MUCH LESS SATISFYING, MORE

FRUSTRATING, AND MORE

NECESSARY, I THINK, YOU KNOW?

AND THAT IS WHY I THINK A

LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN FED AND

FUELED BY PROMISES OF IMMEDIATE

GRATIFICATION IN THOUGHT AND

FOOD AND JUNK, AND SO ON, JUNK

THOUGHT, JUNK FOOD, AND SO ON.

SO THERE IS A POLITICS OF

REFUSING THAT GRATIFICATION. AND

I KNOW THAT'S CRAZY-MAKING, BUT

I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE TO

PULL THE BRAKES.

[ASTRA TAYLOR] SOME PEOPLE MIGHT

BE TROUBLED, OR MIGHT WONDER,

HOW DO YOU BEHAVE ETHICALLY IF

THERE IS NO ULTIMATE MEANING?

[AVITAL RONELL] PRECISELY WHERE

THERE ISN'T GUARANTEED OR

PALPABLE MEANING, YOU HAVE TO DO

A LOT OF WORK AND YOU HAVE TO BE

MEGA-ETHICAL, BECAUSE IT'S MUCH

LOT EASIER TO LIVE LIFE AND

KNOW, WELL THAT YOU SHOULD DO,

AND THIS YOU SHOULDN'T DO,

BECAUSE SOMEONE SAID SO. IF

WE'RE NOT ANXIOUS, IF WE'RE OKAY

WITH THINGS, WE ARE NOT TRYING

TO EXPLORE OR FIGURE ANYTHING

OUT, SO ANXIETY IS THE MOOD, PAR

EXCELLENCE, OF, OF ETHICITY, I

THINK. YOU KNOW, NOW I'M NOT

PRESCRIBING ANXIETY DISORDER FOR

ANYONE, HOWEVER, CAN YOU IMAGINE

MR. BUSH, WHO DOESN'T GIVE A

SHIT WHEN HE SENDS EVERYONE TO

THE GAS CHAMBER OR THE ELECTRIC

CHAIR, HE EXPRESSES NO ANXIETY.

AND THEY ARE VERY PROUD OF THIS,

THEY DON'T LOSE A WINK OF SLEEP,

THEY EXPRESS NO ANXIETY.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT DERRIDA

HAS TAUGHT. IF YOU FEEL YOU

HAVE ACQUITTED YOURSELF

HONORABLY, THEN YOU'RE NOT

SO ETHICAL. IF YOU HAVE A GOOD

CONSCIENCE, THEN YOU ARE KIND

OF WORTHLESS, LIKE IF YOU

THINK, 'OH, I GAVE THIS

HOMELESS PERSON FIVE BUCKS, I'M

GREAT' THEN YOU'RE

IRRESPONSIBLE. THE RESPONSIBLE

BEING IS ONE WHO THINKS THEY'VE

NEVER BEEN RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH.

THEY'VE NEVER TAKEN CARE ENOUGH

OF THE OTHER THE OTHER IS SO IN

EXCESS OF ANYTHING YOU CAN

UNDERSTAND, OR GRASP, OR REDUCE.

THIS IN ITSELF CREATES AN

ETHICAL RELATEDNESS. A RELATION

WITH OUT RELATION, BECAUSE YOU

DON'T KNOW, YOU CAN'T PRESUME TO

KNOW OR GRASP THE OTHER. THE

MINUTE YOU THINK YOU KNOW THE

OTHER, YOU'RE READY TO KILL

THEM. YOU THINK, 'OH, THEY'RE

DOING THIS OR THIS, THEY'RE THE

AXIS OF EVIL, LETS DROP SOME

BOMBS. BUT IF YOU DON'T KNOW,

YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS

ALTERITY, IT'S SO OTHER THAT YOU

CAN'T VIOLATE IT WITH YOUR SENSE

OF UNDERSTANDING, THEN YOU HAVE

TO LET IT LIVE, IN A SENSE.

[PETER SINGER] THIS IS THE

CENTER OF ONE OF THE WORLD'S

RICHEST COUNTRIES AND ONE OF THE

MOST EXPENSIVE PLACES THERE, AND

THAT RAISES AN ETHICAL ISSUE. I

MEAN THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE

THE MONEY TO BUY AT THESE STORES

AND WHO DON'T SEEM TO SEE ANY

KIND OF MORAL PROBLEM DOING

THAT, BUT WHAT I WANT TO ASK IS,

WELL, ISN'T THERE A SORT OF

MORAL PROBLEM ABOUT THAT? ISN'T

THERE A QUESTION ABOUT WHAT WE

SHOULD BE SPENDING OUR MONEY ON?

SO WE'RE OUTSIDE

BERGDORF-GOODMAN, WHERE THEY'VE

GOT A DISPLAY OF DOLCE AND

GABBANA SHOES AND IT'S KIND OF

AMUSING TO ME BECAUSE ABOUT

THIRTY YEARS AGO I WROTE AN

ARTICLE CALLED FAMINE,

AFFLUENCE, AND MORALITY IN WHICH

I IMAGINED THAT YOU'RE WALKING

PAST A SHALLOW POND, AND AS YOU

WALK PASSED IT YOU NOTICE THERE

IS A SMALL CHILD WHOSE FALLEN

INTO THE POND, AND SEEMS TO BE

IN DANGER OF DROWNING, AND YOU

LOOK AROUND TO SEE WHERE THE

PARENTS ARE, AND THERE IS NOBODY

IN SIGHT. YOU REALIZE THAT

UNLESS YOU WADE INTO THIS POND

AND PULL THE CHILD OUT, THE

CHILD IS LIKELY TO DROWN. THERE

IS NO DANGER TO YOU BECAUSE YOU

KNOW THE POND IS JUST A SHALLOW

ONE, BUT YOU ARE WEARING A NICE

PAIR OF SHOES AND THEY ARE

PROBABLY GOING TO GET RUINED IF

YOU WADE INTO THAT SHALLOW POND.

SO OF COURSE, WHEN I ASK PEOPLE

THIS, THEY ALWAYS SAY, 'WELL OF

COURSE, FORGET ABOUT THE SHOES,

YOU'VE JUST GOT TO SAVE THE

CHILD, THAT'S CLEAR.' WELL THEN

I STOP AND SAY, WELL OKAY, YOU

KNOW I AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT

THAT, BUT FOR THE PRICE OF A

PAIR OF SHOES, IF YOU WERE TO

GIVE THAT TO OXFAM OR UNICEF OR

ONE OF THOSE ORGANIZATIONS THEY

COULD PROBABLY SAVE THE LIFE OF

A CHILD, MAYBE MORE THAN ONE

CHILD IN A POOR COUNTY, WHERE

CHILDREN ARE DYING BECAUSE THEY

CAN'T GET BASIC MEDICAL CARE TO

TREAT BASIC DISEASES LIKE

DIARRHEA OR WHATEVER ELSE IT MAY

BE. AND THAT'S REALLY ONE OF THE

REASONS WHY I THINK IT'S

INTERESTING TO BE HERE ON 5TH

AVENUE TALKING ABOUT ETHICS,

BECAUSE ETHICS IS ABOUT THE

BASIC CHOICES THAT WE AUGHT TO

MAKE IN OUR LIVES, AND ONE OF

THOSE CHOICES IS HOW DO WE SPEND

OUR MONEY?

[PETER SINGER] I STARTED

THINKING ABOUT THESE ISSUES BACK

IN THE 1970S, WHEN FOR ONE THING

THERE WAS THE CRISIS IN

BANGLADESH WHERE THERE WERE

MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WHO WERE IN

DANGER OF STARVING BECAUSE OF

THE REPRESSION OF THE

BANGLADESHIS BY THE PAKISTANI

ARMY AT THE TIME. AND THAT MADE

ME THINK ABOUT OUR OBLIGATIONS

TO HELP PEOPLE WHO ARE IN DANGER

OF STARVATION. ALSO, AROUND THE

SAME, I HAPPENED TO MEET SOMEONE

WHO WAS A VEGETARIAN, WHO GOT ME

ASKING MYSELF ABOUT, AM I

JUSTIFIED IN CONTINUING TO EAT

MEAT? WHAT IS IT THAT GIVES US

THE RIGHT, OR THAT JUSTIFIES US,

IN TREATING ANIMALS THE WAY THEY

GET TREATED, BEFORE THEY WIND UP

ON OUR LUNCH OR DINNER OR

WHATEVER ELSE IT MIGHT BE? AND I

READ A LITTLE BIT ABOUT FACTORY

FARMING AND INTENSIVE FARMS AND

THE WAY THEY CONFINE ANIMALS,

WHICH WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS

REALLY JUST GETTING GOING AT

THAT STAGE, AND I THOUGHT THAT

YOU CAN'T REALLY JUSTIFY THIS,

THAT WE'VE JUST TAKEN FOR

GRANTED THAT SOMEHOW HUMANS HAVE

THE RIGHT TO USE ANIMALS

WHICHEVER WAY THEY WANT TO AND

THAT ISN'T DEFENSIBLE. THE

BOUNDARY OF SPECIES IS NOT

SOMETHING THAT REALLY IS SO

MORALLY SIGNIFICANT THAT IT

ENTITLES US TO TAKE ANOTHER

SENTIENT BEING WHO CAN SUFFER OR

FEEL PAIN, AND DO AS WE WISH TO

THAT SENTIENT BEING, JUST

BECAUSE WE HAPPEN TO LIKE THE

TASTE OF ITS FLESH. SO THESE TWO

ISSUES REALLY GOT ME THINKING

ABOUT APPLIED ETHICS, WHICH AT

THIS TIME WASN'T REALLY A FIELD,

IT WASN'T REALLY SOMETHING THAT

PHILOSOPHERS THOUGHT WAS

PROPERLY PHILOSOPHY. BUT I THINK

IT WAS A GOOD TIME TO START

THINKING ABOUT THESE ISSUES

BECAUSE OF THE STUDENT MOVEMENT,

THE RADICAL MOVEMENT OF THE

SIXTIES AND EARLIER SEVENTIES,

WHICH HAD CREATED A BIT MORE

INTEREST IN THESE ISSUES AND

RAISED THE QUESTION, CAN WE MAKE

OUR ACADEMIC STUDIES MORE

RELEVANT TO THE IMPORTANT

QUESTIONS OF THE DAY?

WHEN YOU DO APPLIED ETHICS YOU

OFTEN FIND THAT THINKING THINGS

THROUGH CAUSES YOU TO CHALLENGE

COMMON SENSE MORALITY.

AND OF COURSE THIS IS

CONSISTENT WITH A VERY

ANCIENT PHILOSOPHICAL TRADITION,

IT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED WITH

SOCRATES WHEN HE STARTED ASKING

PEOPLE ABOUT, 'WHAT IS JUSTICE?'

AND THEY THOUGHT THEY KNEW WHAT

JUSTICE IS, AND THEN THEY

STARTED THINKING ABOUT IT AND

THEY REALIZED THEY DIDN'T

UNDERSTAND IT AND OF COURSE

SOCRATES ENDED UP HAVING, BEING

FORCED TO DRINK THE HEMLOCK

BECAUSE HE WAS ACCUSED OF

CORRUPTING THE MORALS OF THE

YOUTH. NOW FORTUNATELY THAT

DOESN'T HAPPEN TO PHILOSOPHERS

TODAY, BUT OF COURSE IT COULD BE

SAID FROM A CONSERVATIVE POINT

OF VIEW THAT APPLIED ETHICS DOES

CORRUPT MORALS, OR CORRUPT IS

THE WRONG WORD, BUT IT CERTAINLY

CHALLENGES MORALS AND MIGHT LEAD

US TO THINK DIFFERENTLY ABOUT

SOME THINGS THAT WE HAVE HELD

VERY DEAR FOR A LONG TIME.

[PETER SINGER] A LOT OF PEOPLE

THINK YOU CAN ONLY HAVE ETHICAL

STANDARDS IF IN SOME WAY YOU'RE

RELIGIOUS, YOU BELIEVE THERE IS

A GOD WHO HANDED DOWN SOME

COMMANDMENTS OR INSPIRED SOME

SCRIPTURES WHICH TELL YOU WHAT

TO DO. I DON'T BELIEVE IN ANY OF

THAT. I THINK ETHICS HAS TO COME

FROM OURSELVES, BUT THAT DOESN'T

MEAN IT IS TOTALLY SUBJECTIVE,

THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU CAN

THINK WHATEVER YOU LIKE ABOUT

WHAT'S RIGHT AND WHAT'S WRONG.

WHEN YOU START TO LOOK AT ISSUES

ETHICALLY, YOU HAVE TO DO MORE

THAN JUST THINK ABOUT YOUR OWN

INTERESTS, YOU HAVE TO ASK

YOURSELF, 'HOW DO I TAKE INTO

ACCOUNT THE INTERESTS OF OTHERS?

WHAT WOULD I CHOOSE IF I WERE TO

BE IN THERE POSITIONS RATHER

THAN IN MY POSITION?

ONE OF THE MOST OBVIOUS THINGS

THAT EMERGES WHEN YOU PUT

YOURSELF IN THE POSITION OF

OTHERS IS THE PRIORITY OF

REDUCING OR PREVENTING

SUFFERING, BECAUSE ETHICS IS

NOT JUST ABOUT WHAT I ACTUALLY

DO AND THE IMPACT OF THAT, BUT

ITS ALSO ABOUT WHAT I OMIT TO

DO, WHAT I DECIDE NOT TO DO.

AND THAT'S WHY, GIVEN WE ALL

HAVE A LIMITED AMOUNT OF MONEY,

QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT YOU SPEND

YOUR MONEY ON ARE ALSO QUESTIONS

ABOUT WHAT YOU DON'T SPEND YOUR

MONEY ON, OR WHAT YOU DON'T USE

YOUR MONEY TO ACHIEVE. AND I

THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE FORGET

THAT, THEY JUST GO, 'OH WELL,

I'M NOT HARMING ANYONE IF I

SPEND A THOUSAND DOLLARS ON A

NEW SUIT.' BUT IN FACT, GIVEN

THE OPPORTUNITIES WE HAVE TO

HELP AND GIVEN THE WAY THE WORLD

IS, I THINK THAT QUITE OFTEN YOU

ARE ACTUALLY FAILING TO BENEFIT

SOMEONE, WHICH YOU COULD BE

DOING. I THINK WE HAVE MORAL

OBLIGATIONS TO HELP JUST AS WE

HAVE MORAL OBLIGATIONS NOT TO

HARM.

[PETER SINGER] OVER THE

THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF HISTORY

AND DEVELOPMENT OF PHILOSOPHY, A

LOT OF PHILOSOPHERS HAVE ASKED,

'DOES LIVE HAVE A MEANING? WHAT

IS IT?' AND THAT'S A QUESTION

FOR WHICH I THINK WE CAN GIVE AN

ANSWER, AND I THINK THE ANSWER

IS, WE MAKE MOST MEANING WHEN WE

CONNECT OURSELVES WITH SOME

REALLY IMPORTANT CAUSES OR

ISSUES AND WE CONTRIBUTE TO

THAT, SO THAT WE FEEL THAT

BECAUSE WE LIVED SOMETHING HAS

GONE A LITTLE BETTER THAN IT

WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE. WE'VE

CONTRIBUTED, IN HOWEVER SMALL A

WAY, TO MAKING THE WOULD A

BETTER PLACE. AND I THINK IT'S

HARD TO FIND ANYTHING MORE

MEANINGFUL THAN DOING THAT, THAN

REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF

UNNECESSARY PAIN AND SUFFERING

THAT THERE HAS BEEN ON THIS

WORLD, OR MAKING THE WORLD A

LITTLE BIT BETTER FOR ALL OF THE

BEINGS WHO ARE SHARING IT WITH

US.

[KWAME ANTHONY APPIAH] I STARTED

THINKING ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE

BETWEEN THE CONTEXT IN WHICH WE

EVOLVED AS A SPECIES AND THE

PRESENT, YOU KNOW, IN THIS AGE

OF GLOBALIZATION, AND ONE WAY TO

THINK ABOUT THAT IS TO NOTICE,

IF YOU LIVE A MODERN LIFE, IF

YOU ARE TRAVELING THOUGH AN

AIRPORT, YOU ARE GOING TO BE

PASSING LOTS AND LOTS OF PEOPLE,

AND WITHIN A FEW MINUTES YOU'LL

HAVE PASSED MORE PEOPLE THAN

MOST OF OUR REMOTE HUMAN

ANCESTORS WOULD EVER HAVE SEEN

IN THEIR ENTIRE LIVES.

AS AN AMERICAN YOU EXIST IN

THIS KIND OF VIRTUAL

RELATIONSHIP WITH THREE HUNDRED

MILLION PEOPLE, IF YOU'RE LUCKY

ENOUGH TO BE CHINESE YOU'RE

VIRTUAL RELATIONSHIPS ARE WITH,

YOU KNOW, SOON, ONE AND A HALF

BILLION PEOPLE OR SOMETHING LIKE

THAT. SO I THINK THAT'S A WAY OF

DRAMATIZING, I THINK, THE

CHALLENGE THAT WE FACE. WE'RE

GOOD AT SMALL, FACE-TO-FACE

STUFF, THAT IS WHAT WE WERE MADE

FOR. WE KNOW HOW TO RESPONSIBLE

FOR CHILDREN AND PARENTS AND

COUSINS AND FRIENDS. BUT WE NOW

HAVE TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR

FELLOW CITIZENS BOTH OF OUR

COUNTRY AND FELLOW CITIZENS OF

THE WORLD - AND THE QUESTION IS,

CAN WE FIGURE THAT OUT?

COSMOPOLITANISM COMES FROM THE

GREEK PHRASE KOSMOPOLITAS, WHICH

MEANS CITIZEN OF THE KOSMOS, OF

THE WORLD. AND WE NEED A NOTION

OF GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP.

THE COSMOPOLITAN SAYS, WE HAVE

TO BEGIN BY RECOGNIZING WE ARE

RESPONSIBLE FOR EACH OTHER, AS

CITIZENS ARE. SECOND,

COSMOPOLITANS THINK IT'S OKAY

FOR PEOPLE TO BE DIFFERENT, THAT

THEY CARE ABOUT EVERYBODY, BUT

NOT IN A WAY THAT MEANS THEY

WANT EVERYONE TO BE THE SAME, OR

LIKE THEM. WHEREAS, THERE IS A

CERTAIN KIND OF PHILOSOPHICAL

UNIVERSALISM, WHICH IS OFTEN

ASSOCIATED WITH EVANGELIZING

RELIGIONS, WHERE 'YEAH, WE LOVE

EVERYBODY, BUT WE WANT THEM TO

BECOME LIKE US IN ORDER TO LOVE

THEM PROPERLY.' THERE IS A GREAT

GERMAN PROVERB THAT SAYS, UND

WILLST DU NICHT MEIN BRUDER

SEIN, SO SCHLAG' ICH DIR DEN

SCHäDEL EIN - IF YOU DON'T WANT

TO BE MY BROTHER, I'LL BASH YOUR

SKULL IN. AND THAT'S THE

OPPOSITE OF COSMOPOLITANISM.

IT'S THE UNIVERSALIST WHO SAY

YEAH I WANT YOU TO BE MY

BROTHER, BUT ON MY TERMS.

NOW IF YOU THINK EVERYBODY'S

ENTITLED TO BE DIFFERENT,

RIGHT, IT CAN PRODUCE A KIND OF

CULTURAL RELATIVISM, WHERE

'WHATEVER THEY WANT TO

DO,' THAT'S - YOU KNOW,

THERE'S NO PLACE FOR ME STANDING

OUTSIDE TO IT,

TO MAKE ANY MORAL JUDGMENTS,

ANY ETHICAL JUDGMENTS,

ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE UP TO.

SO THAT'S KIND OF ONE POSITION

I WANT TO DISTINGUISH MYSELF

FROM, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT

THAT IN THE GLOBAL CONVERSATION

OF HUMAN BEINGS COSMOPOLITANS

RECOMMEND THAT ONE OF THE

THINGS WE'RE DOING IS

EXCHANGING IDEAS OF WHAT'S RIGHT

AND WRONG, AND THAT ITS

PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE TO DO SO.

I HAVE THIS PRIVILEGE OF HAVING

GROWN UP IN A COUPLE OF PLACES,

MY MOTHER CAME FROM ENGLAND, MY

FATHER CAME FROM GHANA. THEY

WOULD NEVER, EITHER OF THEM,

TELL US EXACTLY HOW THEY MET OR

EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS THAT DREW

THEM TOGETHER, THOUGH MY FATHER

ALWAYS SAID THAT MY MOTHER HAD A

SPLENDIDLY UN-ENGLISH BEHIND,

THAT IT WAS, THAT SHE ACTUALLY

HAD A MORE AFRICAN BEHIND AND HE

FOUND THAT ATTRACTIVE. SO I

DON'T KNOW. ANYWAY, IT HAPPENS

THAT IN THE SHANTY WHERE I GREW

UP KINSHIP, THAT IS THE FAMILY,

IS ORGANIZED IN A VERY DIFFERENT

WAY FROM HOW IT IS ORGANIZED IN

ENGLAND. WE'RE WHAT

ANTHROPOLOGISTS CALL

MATRILINEAL. THAT MEANS THAT THE

MOST IMPORTANT ADULT MALE IN A

CHILD'S LIFE ISN'T HIS MOTHER'S

HUSBAND, THAT IS, HIS FATHER, IT

IS HIS MOTHER'S BROTHER, THAT

IS, HIS MATERNAL UNCLE. THERE IS

A WORD FOR THAT, 'WOFA.' SO I

HAVE THESE EIGHT PEOPLE IN THE

WORLD, TWO YOUNG WOMEN AND SIX

YOUNG MEN WHO ARE MY NEPHEWS AND

NIECES, I'M THEIR WOFA AND BY

OUR TRADITION I'M, SINCE MY

SISTERS DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER

BROTHERS, I'M THE GUY WHO IS

RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR EDUCATION,

IF ANYTHING BAD HAPPENS TO THEM

I'M SUPPOSED TO LOOK AFTER THEM,

AND SO ON. NOW OF COURSE IN

ENGLAND, IF YOU HAVE A FATHER,

THAT IS HIS JOB.

THERE IS A CERTAIN KIND OF

UNIVERSALIST WHO WILL SAY, 'ONE

OF THESE HAS TO BE CORRECT.'

BUT THE COSMOPOLITAN SAYS THESE

ARE TWO WAYS TO DO IT AND AS

LONG THEY BOTH DO THE THING

THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO, IT

SEEMS TO ME ABSURD TO SAY THAT

ONE OF THEM HAS TO BE BETTER

THAN THE OTHER OR THAT ONE HAS

TO BE UNIVERSALIZED FOR ANY

REASON.

ONE THING THAT PEOPLE TALK ABOUT

ALL THE TIME THESE DAYS IS

CONFLICTS OF VALUES ACROSS

CULTURES AND OFTEN PEOPLE THINK

THAT THEY'RE IRREVOCABLY

IRRECONCILABLE AND THEY'RE THE

ROOT OF ALL THE DIFFICULTIES IN

THE WORLD. AND I - THE FIRST WAY

YOU NEED TO WORK TO DISENTANGLE

ALL THE PROBLEMS OF THAT WAY OF

THINKING IS TO RECOGNIZE THE

HUGE DIVERSITY OF VALUES BY

WHICH PEOPLE ARE GUIDED.

WE'RE DIFFERENT, THE

COSMOPOLITAN THINKS WE'RE

ENTITLED TO BE DIFFERENT, AND

THAT IT IS PERMISSIBLE THAT

THERE SHOULD BE DIFFERENCES

IN CERTAIN WAYS. BUT THE

COSMOPOLITAN ALSO ASSUMES

THE FACT THAT THERE ARE ALL

THESE DIFFERENT KINDS OF VALUES

AND THE FACT THAT WE CAN

RECOGNIZE SO MANY OF THEM IS A

REFLECTION OF THE FACT THAT WE

ARE ALL HUMAN BEINGS, THAT WE

SHARE WHAT YOU MIGHT CALL A

MORAL NATURE.

OUR RESPONSIBILITIES ARE NOT

TO JUST A HUNDRED PEOPLE WE CAN

INTERACT WITH AND SEE, AND THAT

I THINK IS THE GREAT CHALLENGE.

COSMOPOLITANISM, FOR ME, IS

MEANT TO BE AN ANSWER TO THAT

CHALLENGE. IT'S MEANT TO SAY YOU

CAN'T RETREAT TO THE HUNDRED.

YOU CAN'T BE PARTIAL TO SOME

TINY GROUP AND SIMPLY LIVE OUT

YOUR MORAL LIFE IN THAT. THAT'S

NOT MORALLY PERMISSIBLE. BUT YOU

CAN'T ABANDON YOUR LOCAL GROUP

EITHER, BECAUSE THAT WOULD TAKE

YOU TOO FAR, I THINK, FROM YOUR

HUMANITY. SO WHAT WE HAVE TO DO

IS TO LEARN HOW TO DO BOTH.

[MARTHA NUSSBAUM] ARISTOTLE HAD

THE INGREDIENTS OF A THEORY OF

JUSTICE THAT I THINK IS VERY

POWERFUL. AND THAT IS, IT'S THE

JOB OF A GOOD POLITICAL

ARRANGEMENT TO PROVIDE EACH AND

EVERYONE PERSON WITH WHAT THEY

NEED TO BECOME CAPABLE OF LIVING

RICH AND FLOURISHING HUMAN

LIVES.

NOW OF COURSE HE DIDN'T INCLUDE

ALL THE PEOPLE, BUT AT THE

LEAST HE HAD THE IDEA OF

SUPPORTING HUMAN CAPABILITY

THAT'S THE FOUNDATION OF MY OWN

APPROACH. NOW THEN, IN THE 17TH

AND 18TH CENTURIES A VERY

POWERFUL NEW APPROACH CAME ON

THE SCENE, AND THAT WAS THE

SOCIAL CONTRACT APPROACH -

HOBBES, LOCKE, ROUSSEAU, KANT.

THE SOCIAL CONTRACT APPROACH WAS

INSPIRED BY THE BACKGROUND

CULTURE OF FEUDALISM, WHERE ALL

OPPORTUNITIES WERE DISTRIBUTED

UNEQUALLY TO PEOPLE ACCORDING TO

THEIR CLASS, THEIR INHERITED

WEALTH, AND THEIR STATUS. AND SO

WHAT THESE THEORISTS SAID IS TRY

TO IMAGINE HUMAN BEINGS STRIPPED

OF ALL THOSE INHERITED

ADVANTAGES, PLACED IN WHAT THEY

CALLED THE STATE OF NATURE,

WHERE THEY HAD ONLY THEIR

NATURAL BODY AND THEIR PHYSICAL

ADVANTAGES, AND TRY TO IMAGINE

WHAT KIND OF ARRANGEMENTS THEY

WOULD ACTUALLY MAKE.

THE SOCIAL CONTRACT TRADITION

IS OF COURSE AN ACADEMIC,

PHILOSOPHICAL TRADITION, BUT IT

ALSO HAS TREMENDOUS INFLUENCE

ON POPULAR CULTURE, AND OUR

GENERAL PUBLIC LIFE.

BECAUSE WE, EVERYDAY WE

HERE THINGS LIKE, 'OH, THOSE

PEOPLE DON'T PAY THEIR OWN WAY.'

OR, SUPPORTING SOME NEW GROUP OF

PEOPLE, 'WELL, THEY'LL BE A DRAG

ON OUR ECONOMY. SO THE IDEA THAT

THE GOOD MEMBER OF SOCIETY IS A

PRODUCER WHO CONTRIBUTES

ADVANTAGE TO EVERYONE, THAT IS

VERY, A VERY LIVE IDEA. AND IT

LIES BEHIND THE DECLINE OF

WELFARE PROGRAMS IN THIS

COUNTRY, I THINK IT LIES BEHIND

MANY AMERICANS' SKEPTICISM ABOUT

EUROPE, ABOUT EUROPEAN SOCIAL

DEMOCRACY. THEY, YOU HEAR TERMS

LIKE, OH, THE 'NANNY STATE', AS

THOUGH THERE WERE SOMETHING

WRONG WITH THE IDEA MATERNAL

CARE AS A CONCEPTION OF WHAT

SOCIETY ACTUALLY DOES. WE ALSO

SEE IT IN ANOTHER WAY IN THE

IMAGE OF WHO THE REAL MAN IS -

THE REAL MAN IS SORT OF LIKE

THESE PEOPLE IN THE STATE OF

NATURE. HE DOESN'T DEEPLY NEED

ANYONE, HE ISN'T BOUND TO ANYONE

BY TIES OF LOVE OR COMPASSION,

HE'S THE LONER WHO CAN GO HIS

OWN WAY AND THEN, OUT OF

ADVANTAGE HE'LL CHOOSE TO HAVE

CERTAIN KINDS OF SOCIAL

ARRANGEMENTS.

THE THEORISTS OF THE SOCIAL

CONTRACT MADE CERTAIN

ASSUMPTIONS THAT AREN'T ALWAYS

TRUE. THEY ASSUMED THAT THE

PARTIES TO THIS CONTRACT REALLY

ARE ROUGHLY EQUAL IN PHYSICAL

AND MENTAL POWER. NOW, THAT WAS

FINE, WHEN YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT

ADULT MEN WITH NO DISABILITIES -

BUT AS SOME OF THEM ALREADY

BEGAN TO NOTICE, IT DOESN'T DO

AS WELL WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT

WOMEN, BECAUSE WOMEN'S

OPPRESSION HAS ALWAYS BEEN

PARTLY OCCASIONED BY THEIR

PHYSICAL WEAKNESS, COMPARED TO

MEN. SO IF YOU LEAVE OUT THAT

PHYSICAL ASYMMETRY YOU MAY BE

LEAVING OUT A PROBLEM THAT A

THEORY OF JUSTICE WILL NEED TO

FIX. BUT IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT

DO WELL WHEN WE THINK ABOUT

JUSTICE FOR PEOPLE WITH SERIOUS

PHYSICAL AND MENTAL

DISABILITIES. AND IN FACT SOME

OF THE THEORISTS WHO NOTICED

THAT SAID, 'WELL THIS IS A

PROBLEM, BUT WE'LL JUST HAVE TO

SOLVE IT LATER. - WE'LL GET THE

THEORY FIRST, THEN WE'LL WORK ON

THIS PROBLEM AT SOME OTHER

POINT. WELL, MY THOUGHT IS THAT

THIS IS NOT A SMALL PROBLEM.

THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WITH

SERIOUS PHYSICAL AND MENTAL

DISABILITIES, BUT NOT ONLY THAT,

BUT IT'S ALL OF US, WHEN WE'RE

LITTLE CHILDREN, AND AS WE AGE.

HOW DO YOU THINK ABOUT JUSTICE

WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT BODIES THAT

ARE VERY, VERY UNEQUAL IN THEIR

ABILITY AND THEIR POWER? AND

PERHAPS EVEN HARDER, HOW DO YOU

THINK ABOUT IT WHEN YOU ARE

DEALING WITH MENTAL POWERS THAT

ARE VERY, VERY UNEQUAL IN THEIR

POTENTIAL? AND I THINK THAT THIS

IS A REALLY SERIOUS POLITICAL

PROBLEM. WE'VE ONLY JUST BEGAN

TO UNDERSTAND HOW TO EDUCATE

CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES, HOW

TO THINK ABOUT THEIR POLITICAL

REPRESENTATION, HOW TO DESIGN

CITIES THAT ARE OPEN TO THEM. I

MEAN THIS BRIDGE WE WALKED

ACROSS, A PERSON IN A WHEELCHAIR

CAN GO OVER THAT BRIDGE, BUT,

YOU KNOW, FIFTY YEARS AGO THAT

WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE CASE.

THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN STEPS, AND

THAT PERSON WOULD NOT GET TO SEE

THIS BEAUTIFUL LAKESHORE.

THE CAPABILITIES APPROACH, AS

I'VE DEVELOPED IT AS A THEORY

OF JUSTICE BEGINS WITH THE

IDEA THAT ALL HUMAN BEINGS HAVE

AN INHERENT DIGNITY AND REQUIRE

LIFE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE

WORTHY OF THAT DIGNITY.

THE AREAS OF LIFE THAT SEEM TO

ME PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT WHEN

WE THINK ABOUT THE CAPABILITIES

ARE: OF COURSE, LIFE, IS THE

VERY MOST BASIC ONE; BODILY

HEALTH; BODILY INTEGRITY; THE

DEVELOPMENT OF THE SENSES,

IMAGINATION AND THOUGHT; THE

DEVELOPMENT OF PRACTICAL

REASONING; THE DEVELOPMENT OF

AFFILIATIONS, BOTH MORE

INFORMAL, IN THE FAMILY AND

FRIENDSHIP BUT ALSO IN THE

POLITICAL COMMUNITY; THE

DEVELOPMENT OF THE ABILITY TO

PLAY AND HAVE RECREATIONAL

OPPORTUNITIES; THE ABILITY TO

HAVE RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER

CREATURES AND THE WORLD OF

NATURE; DEVELOPING EMOTIONAL

CAPABILITIES, BECAUSE I THINK A

LOT OF THEORIES LEAVE OUT THE

FACT THAT WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE

LIVES THAT ARE FILLED WITH FEAR,

FOR EXAMPLE.

IN MY VIEW, PEOPLE GET TOGETHER

TO FORM A SOCIETY NOT BECAUSE

THEY'RE AFRAID AND THEY WANT TO

STRIKE A DEAL FOR MUTUAL

ADVANTAGE, BUT ITS MUCH MORE

OUT OF LOVE THAT THEY WANT

TO JOIN WITH OTHERS IN CREATING

A WORLD THAT'S AS GOOD AS IT CAN

BE.

[ASTRA TAYLOR] SO, DO YOU HAVE

TO GO TO SCHOOL TO BE A

PHILOSOPHER?

[CORNEL WEST] OH GOD, NO, THANK

GOD YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO TO

SCHOOL. A PHILOSOPHER IS A LOVER

OF WISDOM. IT TAKES TREMENDOUS

DISCIPLINE, IT TAKES TREMENDOUS

COURAGE TO THINK FOR YOURSELF,

TO EXAMINE YOURSELF. THE

SOCRATIC IMPERATIVE OF EXAMINING

YOURSELF REQUIRES COURAGE. YOU

KNOW WILLIAM BUTLER YATES USED

TO SAY IT TAKES MORE COURAGE TO

EXAMINE THE DARK CORNERS OF YOUR

OWN SOUL THAN IT DOES FOR A

SOLDIER TO FIGHT ON THE BATTLE

FIELD. COURAGE TO THINK

CRITICALLY. YOU CAN'T TALK -

COURAGE IS THE ENABLING VIRTUE

FOR ANY PHILOSOPHER, FOR ANY

HUMAN BEING, I THINK IN THE END.

COURAGE TO THINK, COURAGE TO

LOVE, COURAGE TO HOPE.

PLATO SAYS PHILOSOPHY IS A

MEDITATION ON AND A PREPARATION

FOR DEATH. BY DEATH, WHAT HE

MEANS IS NOT AN EVENT, BUT A

DEATH IN LIFE BECAUSE THERE IS

NO REBIRTH, THERE'S NO CHANGE,

THERE'S NO TRANSFORMATION

WITHOUT DEATH. AND THEREFORE

THE QUESTION BECOMES, HOW DO

YOU LEARN HOW TO DIE? AND OF

COURSE MONTAIGNE TALKS ABOUT

THAT, HIS FAMOUS ESSAY, TO

PHILOSOPHIZE IS TO LEARN HOW

TO DIE. YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT

TRUTH WITHOUT TALKING ABOUT

LEARNING HOW TO DIE.

I BELIEVE THAT THEODORE ADORNO

WAS RIGHT WHEN HE SAYS THAT THE

CONDITION OF TRUTH IS TO ALLOW

SUFFERING TO SPEAK. THAT GIVES

IT AN EXISTENTIAL EMPHASIS, YOU

SEE. SO WE'RE REALLY TALKING

ABOUT TRUTH AS A WAY OF LIFE AS

OPPOSED TO TRUTH AS A SET OF

PROPOSITIONS THAT CORRESPOND TO

A SET OF THINGS IN THE WORLD.

HUMAN BEINGS ARE UNABLE TO EVER

GAIN ANY MONOPOLY ON TRUTH,

CAPITAL T. WE MIGHT HAVE ACCESS

TO TRUTH, SMALL T, BUT THEY'RE

FALLIBLE CLAIMS ABOUT TRUTH,

THEY COULD BE WRONG, WE HAVE TO

BE OPEN TO REVISION AND SO ON.

SO THERE IS A KIND OF MYSTERY

THAT GOES HAND-IN-HAND WITH

TRUTH. THIS IS WHY SO MANY OF

THE EXISTENTIAL THINKERS, BE

THEY - BE THEY RELIGIOUS LIKE

MEISTER ECKHART OR PAUL TILLICH,

OR BE THEY SECULAR LIKE CAMUS OR

SARTRE - THAT THEY'RE ACCENTING

OUR FINITUDE AND OUR INABILITY

TO FULL GRASP THE ULTIMATE

NATURE OF REALITY, THE TRUTH

ABOUT THINGS. AND THEREFORE,

THERE, YOU TALK ABOUT TRUTH

BEING TIED TO THE WAY TO TRUTH,

BECAUSE ONCE YOU GIVE UP ON THE

NOTION OF FULLY GRASPING THE WAY

THE WORLD IS, YOU'RE GONNA TALK

ABOUT WHAT ARE THE WAYS I CAN

SUSTAIN MY QUEST FOR TRUTH? HOW

CAN YOU SUSTAIN A JOURNEY, A

PATH TOWARD TRUTH, A WAY TO

TRUTH? SO THE TRUTH TALK GOES

HAND-IN-HAND WITH TALK ABOUT THE

WAY TO TRUTH. AND SCIENTISTS

COULD TALK ABOUT THIS IN TERMS

OF, YOU KNOW, INDUCING EVIDENCE

AND DRAWING RELIABLE CONCLUSIONS

AND SO FORTH AND SO ON.

RELIGIOUS FOLKS CAN TALK ABOUT

THIS IN TERMS OF SURRENDERING

ONE'S ARROGANCE AND PRIDE IN THE

FACE OF DIVINE REVELATION AND

WHAT HAVE YOU. BUT THEY'RE ALL

WAYS OF ACKNOWLEDGING OUR

FINITUDE AND OUR FALLIBILITY.

I WANT ALL OF THE RICH,

HISTORICAL COLORATIONS TO BE

MANIFEST IN TALKING ABOUT OUR

FINITUDE. BEING BORN OF A WOMAN

IN STANK AND STENCH, WHAT WE, I

CALL FUNK. BEING INTRODUCED TO

THE FUNK OF LIFE IN THE WOMB

AND THE LOVE-PUSH THAT GETS

YOU OUT. RIGHT? AND THEN YOUR

BODY IS NOT JUST DEATH - HERE

VICO TALKS ABOUT IT, AND HERE

VICO IS SO MUCH BETTER THAN

HEIDEGGER, VICO TALKS ABOUT IT

IN TERMS OF BEING A CORPSE.

SEE, HEIDEGGER DOESN'T

TALK ABOUT CORPSES, HE TALKS

ABOUT DEATH, IT'S STILL TO

ABSTRACT. ABSOLUTELY, READ THE

POETRY OF JOHN DONNE, HE'LL TELL

YOU ABOUT CORPSES THAT

DECOMPOSE. WELL, SEE, THAT'S

HISTORY. THAT'S THE RAW FUNKY,

STANKY STUFF OF LIFE. THAT'S

WHAT BLUES MEN DO, SEE THAT'S

WHAT JAZZ MEN DO.

SEE, I'M A BLUES MAN IN THE

LIFE OF THE MIND, I'M A JAZZ

MAN IN THE WORLD OF IDEAS.

THEREFORE FOR ME MUSIC IS

CENTRAL. THEREFORE, WHEN YOU

TALK ABOUT POETRY, FOR MOST

PART PLATO WAS TALKING

PRIMARILY ABOUT WORDS, WHEREAS I

TALK ABOUT NOTES, I TALK ABOUT

TONE, I TALK ABOUT TIMBRE, I

TALK ABOUT RHYTHM. YOU SEE FOR

ME MUSIC IS FUNDAMENTAL.

PHILOSOPHY MUST TO SCHOOL NOT

ONLY WITH THE POETS, PHILOSOPHY

HAS TO GO TO SCHOOL WITH THE

MUSICIANS. KEEP IN MIND PLATO

BANS THE FLUTE IN THE REPUBLIC

BUT NOT THE LYRE.

WHY? BECAUSE THE FLUTE APPEALS

TO ALL OF THESE VARIOUS SIDES

OF WHO WE ARE GIVEN HIS

TRIPARTITE CONCEPTION OF THE

SOUL. THE RATIONAL AND THE

SPIRITED AND THE APPETITIVE.

AND THE FLUTE APPEALS TO ALL

THREE OF THOSE, WHERE HE THINKS

THE LYRE, WITH ONLY ONE STRING,

IT ONLY APPEALS TO ONE AND

THEREFORE IS PERMISSIBLE. NOW

OF COURSE THE IRONY IS WHEN

PLATO WAS ON HIS DEATHBED, WHAT

DID HE DO? WELL, HE REQUESTED

THE THRACIAN GIRL TO PLAY MUSIC

ON THE FLUTE.

I'M A CHRISTIAN BUT I'M NOT A

PURITAN, I BELIEVE IN PLEASURE.

AND ORGIASTIC PLEASURE HAS ITS

PLACE, INTELLECTUAL PLEASURE HAS

ITS PLACE, SOCIAL PLEASURE HAS

ITS PLACE. TELEVISUAL PLEASURE

HAS ITS PLACE, YOU KNOW I LIKE

CERTAIN TV SHOWS. MY GOD, WHEN

IT COMES TO MUSIC, OH,

BEETHOVEN'S 32ND SONATA, OPUS

111. UNBELIEVABLE AESTHETIC

PLEASURE. THE SAME WOULD BE TRUE

FOR CURTIS MAYFIELD OR THE

BEATLES OR WHAT HAVE YOU.

THERE'S A CERTAIN PLEASURE OF

THE LIFE OF THE MIND THAT CANNOT

BE DENIED. IT'S TRUE THAT YOU

MIGHT BE SOCIALLY ISOLATED,

BECAUSE YOU'RE IN THE LIBRARY,

AT HOME, AND SO ON, BUT YOU'RE

INTENSELY ALIVE. IN, FACT YOU'RE

MUCH MORE ALIVE THEN THESE

PEOPLE WALKING THE STREETS OF

NEW YORK IN CROWDS WITH JUST NO

INTELLECTUAL INTERROGATION AND

QUESTION GOING ON AT ALL. BUT IF

YOU READ, YOU KNOW, A JOHN

RUSKIN OR YOU READ MARK TWAIN,

OR, OH MY GOD, HERMAN MELVILLE,

YOU ALMOST HAVE TO THROW THE

BOOK AGAINST THE WALL BECAUSE

YOU'RE ALMOST SO INTENSELY ALIVE

THAT YOU NEED A BREAK.

[ASTRA TAYLOR] YOU GET

ELECTRIFIED.

[CORNEL WEST] EXACTLY, TAKE A

BREAK, GET A LITTLE DULLNESS IN

YOUR LIFE. TAKE MOBY DICK, THROW

IT AGAINST THE WALL THE WAY

GOETHE THREW VON KLEIST'S WORK

AGAINST THE WALL IT WAS JUST TOO

MUCH, IT MADE GOETHE - IT

REMINDED GOETHE OF THE DARKNESS

HE WAS ESCAPING AFTER HE

OVERCAME THOSE SUICIDAL IMPULSES

WITH SORROWS OF YOUNG WERTHER IN

THE 1770S HAT MADE HIS MOVE

TOWARD NEOCLASSICISM IN WIEMAR.

THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT

MAKE US TOO ALIVE, ALMOST, ITS

ALMOST LIKE BEING TOO INTENSELY

IN LOVE - YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING.

IT'S HARD TO GET BACK TO KRONOS

IN, HARD TO GET BACK THE

EVERYDAY LIFE, YOU KNOW WHAT I

MEAN? THAT KAIROTIC DIMENSION OF

BEING IN LOVE WITH ANOTHER

PERSON, EVERYTHING IS SO

MEANINGFUL, YOU WANT TO SUSTAIN

IT. YOU JUST CAN'T DO IT, YOU

GOTTA GO TO THE BATHROOM, HAVE

DRINK OF WATER. SHIT.

[MICHAEL HARDT] FOR MY

GENERATION IN THE MID-80S, WHEN

I WAS IN MY TWENTIES, JUST

STARTING TO DO POLITICS IN A

SERIOUS WAY, IT SEEMED LIKE THE

ONLY WAY TO - THE ONLY OUTLET

FOR REVOLUTIONARY DESIRE WAS TO

GO TO LATIN AMERICA AND TO

SOMEHOW PARTICIPATE IN, OR AT

LEAST OBSERVE, THEIR

REVOLUTIONS. I MEAN, SO A LOT OF

PEOPLE WENT TO NICARAGUA, I WITH

MY FRIENDS WAS MOSTLY INTERESTED

IN EL SALVADOR. BUT THE THING I

REALIZED AT A CERTAIN POINT WAS

ALL WE COULD REALLY DO WAS

OBSERVE WHAT THEIR REVOLUTIONS

WERE. AND THE DEFINING MOMENT

FOR ME CAME IN EL SALVADOR, AT A

MEETING WITH A GROUP OF

STUDENTS. AT A CERTAIN POINT A

FRIEND THERE SAID, 'LOOK, WE'RE

REALLY GRATEFUL FOR THESE NORTH

AMERICAN COMRADES WHO COME TO

HELP BUT WHAT WOULD BE REALLY

BEST FOR US IS IF YOU ALL WOULD

GO HOME AND MAKE REVOLUTION IN

THE US. THAT WOULD REALLY BE

BETTER THAN TRYING TO HELP US

HERE.' AND IT WAS TRUE, OF

COURSE, I DON'T THINK ANY OF

THESE AMERICANS WE'RE

PARTICULARLY HELPFUL IN

NICARAGUA AND EL SALVADOR, ET

CETERA, AND, BUT I SAID AT THAT

POINT, 'REAGAN'S IN THE WHITE

HOUSE, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IT

WOULD MEAN TO MAKE A REVOLUTION

IN THE US. I JUST DON'T HAVE ANY

-' AND HE SAID, 'LOOK, DON'T YOU

HAVE MOUNTAINS IN THE US?' AND I

SAID, 'YEAH, WE HAVE MOUNTAINS.'

AND HE SAID, 'IT'S EASY, YOU GO

TO THE MOUNTAINS, YOU START AN

ARMED CELL, AND YOU MAKE A

REVOLUTION. AND I THOUGHT, 'OH

SHIT.' YOU KNOW, IT JUST DIDN'T

CORRESPOND TO MY REALITY. LIKE

THOSE NOTIONS OF CONSTRUCTING

THE ARMED CELL, ESPECIALLY

CONSTRUCTING AN ARMED CELL IN

THE MOUNTAINS AND THEN

SABOTAGING THINGS. IT DIDN'T

MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL, SO WE

REALLY DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO DO IT.

NOT JUST WE DIDN'T KNOW

PRACTICALLY, LIKE WE DIDN'T KNOW

WHICH RIFFLES TO TAKE UP INTO

THE MOUNTAINS. IT'S THAT THE

WHOLE IDEA OF WHAT IT INVOLVED

WAS LACKING - AND REQUIRED A

REAL CONCEPTUAL RETHINKING.

[MICHAEL HARDT] WE'RE STUCK

CONCEPTUALLY I THINK BETWEEN

TWO ALMOST CLICHé WAYS OF THINK

REVOLUTION TODAY. ON THE ONE

HAND WE HAVE THE NOTION

OF REVOLUTION THAT INVOLVES THE

REPLACEMENT OF A RULING ELITE

WITH ANOTHER, BETTER IN MANY

WAYS, RULING ELITE - AND THAT'S

IN FACT SORT OF THE FORM MANY OF

THE MODERN REVOLUTIONS HAVE

TAKEN AND HAVE POSED GREAT

BENEFITS FOR THE PEOPLE, ET

CETERA, BUT THEY HAVE NOT

ARRIVED AT DEMOCRACY. SO THAT

NOTION IS REALLY DISCREDITED, I

THINK RIGHTLY SO. BUT OPPOSED TO

THAT IS ANOTHER NOTION OF

REVOLUTION, THAT I THINK IS

EQUALLY DISCREDITED FROM I THINK

EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE POINT OF

VIEW, WHICH IS THE NOTION OF

REVOLUTION, WHICH IN FACT HASN'T

BEEN INSTITUTED, WHICH THINKS OF

REVOLUTION AS JUST THE REMOVAL

OF ALL OF THOSE FORMS OF

AUTHORITY, STATE POWER, THE

POWER OF CAPITAL, THAT STOP

PEOPLE FROM EXPRESSING THEIR

NATURAL ABILITIES TO RULE

THEMSELVES.

THE QUESTION OF HUMAN NATURE

HAS LONG BEEN A THING OF

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY. IN FACT

I'M SURE EVERYONE HAD SOME

STUPID EVENING IN COLLEGE

SMOKING WAY TOO MUCH AND

TALKING, WHERE YOU END UP IN A

DISCUSSION WHERE, LIKE, YOU

DECIDE YOU DISAGREE WITH YOUR

FRIEND BECAUSE SHE THINKS THAT

HUMAN NATURE'S EVIL, YOU THINK

HUMAN NATURE'S GOOD, AND YOU

CAN'T GET ANY FURTHER. I MEAN

THIS IS - I THINK THAT KIND OF

STUPIDITY, I THINK, HAS AFFECTED

A LOT OF THE HISTORY OF

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY. AND I

THINK THE RELEVANT FACT FOR

POLITICS -

RUNNING AGROUND.

SHIPWRECKED.

THE RELEVANT FACT FOR POLITICS

IS REALLY THAT HUMAN NATURE'S

CHANGEABLE. HUMAN NATURE ISN'T

GOOD OR EVIL, HUMAN NATURE IS

CONSTITUTED, IT'S CONSTITUTED

BY HOW WE ACT, HOW WE -

THE HISTORY, HUMAN NATURE

IS IN FACT THE HISTORY OF HABITS

AND PRACTICES THAT ARE THE

RESULT OF, OF PAST STRUGGLES, OF

PAST HIERARCHIES, OF PAST

VICTORIES AND DEFEATS. AND SO

THIS IS I THINK ACTUALLY - THE

KEY TO RETHINKING REVOLUTION IS

TO RECOGNIZE THAT REVOLUTION IS

NOT JUST ABOUT A TRANSFORMATION

FOR DEMOCRACY, IT'S REALLY -

REVOLUTION REALLY REQUIRES A

TRANSFORMATION OF HUMAN NATURE

SO THAT PEOPLE ARE CAPABLE OF

DEMOCRACY.

DEMOCRACY IS ONE OF THOSE

CONCEPTS, IT SEEMS TO ME, THAT

HAS BEEN ALMOST COMPLETELY

CORRUPTED TODAY. I SOME CASES

IT'S USED TO MEAN SIMPLY

PERIODIC ELECTIONS WITH A

LIMITED CHOICE OF RULERS. IN

OTHER CASES, WHEN ONE THINKS

ESPECIALLY IN INTERNATIONAL

AFFAIRS, IT OFTEN MEANS

FOLLOWING THE WILL OF THE UNITED

STATES. BUT REALLY, DEMOCRACY

MEANS THE RULE OF ALL BY ALL, IT

MEANS EVERYBODY INVOLVED IN

COLLECTIVE SELF-RULE.

YOU SEE THOSE TURTLES OVER

THERE?

HOW DO YOU TRANSFORM HUMAN

NATURE SO THAT PEOPLE WILL BE

CAPABLE OF DEMOCRACY?

LENIN'S SOLUTION TO THIS

PROBLEM IS A PROPERLY

DIALECTICAL ONE. HE THINKS, AND

THIS IS IN A LARGE PART WHAT THE

SOVIETS ENACT, THAT THERE HAS TO

BE A NEGATION OF DEMOCRACY, CALL

IT 'DICTATORSHIP OF THE

PROLETARIAT,' SOME SORT OF

HEGEMONIC STATE THAT WOULD

OPERATE THE TRANSITION, THAT

WOULD TRANSFORM HUMAN NATURE

THEN TO EVENTUALLY ARRIVE AT THE

TIME WHEN PEOPLE ARE CAPABLE OF

DEMOCRACY AND THE STATE'S NO

LONGER NECESSARY, ET CETERA.

IT'S PROPERLY THE DIALECTICAL

NATURE OF THIS THAT SEEMS TO ME

MISTAKEN. HOW DO PEOPLE LEARN

DEMOCRACY? HOW DOES HUMAN NATURE

CHANGE TO BECOME CAPABLE OF

DEMOCRACY? NOT BY IT'S OPPOSITE.

I CAN ONLY BE DONE IN A SORT OF

POSITIVE DEVELOPMENT, YOU CAN

ONLY LEARN DEMOCRACY BY DOING

IT. AND SO THAT SEEMS TO ME -

THE CONCEPTION, THE ONLY WAY IT

SEEMS TO ME TODAY TO

REHABILITATE THE CONCEPTION OF

REVOLUTION.

REVOLUTION TODAY THAN REFUSES

THAT DIALECTIC BETWEEN

PURGATORY AND PARADISE, IT

RATHER INSTIGATING UTOPIA

EVERYDAY.

AND THERE IS SOMETHING QUITE,

THAT FEELS IMMEDIATELY QUITE

INAPPROPRIATE ABOUT TALKING

ABOUT REVOLUTION ON SUCH

A WHAT WOULD BE SORT OF LIKE

ARISTOCRATIC ALMOST, I MEAN NOT

EVEN BOURGEOIS, ARISTOCRATIC

LOCATION. ROWING ON A BEAUTIFUL

POND IN A PARK WITH THE RICH OF

NEW YORK ALL AROUND IT, ITS LIKE

KIND OF AN ABSURDITY.

[ASTRA TAYLOR] WELL THEN WHERE

WOULD WE PICK THAT WOULD BE THE

REVOLUTIONARY SPOT?

[MICHAEL HARDT] BUT THEN THAT

WOULD BE CLICHé ALREADY. ONE

WOULD THINK HERE THE CLICHé

WOULD BE TO CHOOSE AS A VISUAL

SITE EITHER, EITHER A SCENE OF

POVERTY OR A SCENE OF LABOR AND

PRODUCTION.

BECAUSE THEN YOU WOULD SHOW

THE ONES WHO WOULD BENEFIT FROM

IT AND EVEN THE SUBJECTS, YOU

KNOW, THE ACTORS THAT WOULD,

THAT WOULD CONDUCT IT. BUT IT

STRIKES ME IN ANOTHER WAY THAT

IT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE TO

HAVE, TO WORK AGAINST SUCH A

CONCEPTION OF REVOLUTION AS, AS

LOSS AND AS DEPRIVATION. IT

MAKES LITTLE SENSE TO ME TO SAY

REVOLUTION CAN'T BE MADE IN THE

UNITED STATES, OR REVOLUTION

CAN'T BE MADE IN NEW YORK

BECAUSE EVERYONE IS TOO

COMFORTABLE, BECAUSE THEY HAVE

TOO MUCH TO LOSE, ET CETERA.

THEY TOO HAVE AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT

TO GAIN. WHEN WE SAY A BETTER

WORLD IS POSSIBLE WE DON'T JUST

MEAN A BETTER WORLD FOR THE

LEAST OFF TODAY, WE MEAN A

BETTER WORLD FOR ALL OF US.

[SLAVOJ ZIZEK] THIS IS WHERE WE

SHOULD START FEELING AT HOME.

PART OF OUR DAILY PERCEPTION OF

REALITY IS THIS DISAPPEARS FROM

OUR WORLD. WHEN YOU GO TO THE

TOILET SHIT DISAPPEARS. YOU

FLUSH IT. OF COURSE YOU KNOW,

RATIONALLY, THAT IT'S THERE IN

CANALIZATION AND SO ON, BUT A

CERTAIN LEVEL OF YOUR MOST

ELEMENTARY EXPERIENCE IT

DISAPPEARS FROM YOUR WORLD.

BUT THE PROBLEM IS THAT TRASH

DOESN'T DISAPPEAR.

I THINK ECOLOGY, THE WAY WE

APPROACH THE ECOLOGICAL

PROBLEMATIC IS MAYBE THE

CRUCIAL FIELD OF IDEOLOGY

TODAY. AND I USE IDEOLOGY IN

THE TRADITIONAL SENSE OF

ILLUSORY, WRONG WAY OF

THINKING AND PERCEIVING REALITY.

WHY? IDEOLOGY IS NOT SIMPLY

DREAMING ABOUT FALSE IDEAS AND

SO ON. IDEOLOGY ADDRESSES VERY

REAL PROBLEMS BUT IT MYSTIFIES

THEM. ONE OF THE ELEMENTARY

IDEOLOGICAL MECHANISMS, I CLAIM,

IS WHAT I CALL THE 'TEMPTATION

OF MEANING.' WHEN SOMETHING

HORRIBLE HAPPENS THE SPONTANEOUS

TENDENCY IS TO SEARCH FOR A

MEANING. IT MUST ME SOMETHING.

YOU KNOW, LIKE AIDS - IT WAS A

TRAUMA AND THEN CONSERVATIVES

CAME AND SAID IT'S PUNISHMENT

FOR OUR SINFUL WAYS OF LIFE, AND

SO ON AND SO ON. EVEN IF WE

INTERPRET A CATASTROPHE AS A

PUNISHMENT IT MAKES IT EASIER IN

A WAY BECAUSE WE KNOW IT'S NOT

JUST SOME TERRIFYING BLIND

FORCE, IT HAS A MEANING. IT'S

BETTER WHEN YOU ARE IN THE

MIDDLE OF A CATASTROPHE, IT'S

BETTER TO FEEL THAT GOD PUNISHED

YOU THAN TO FEEL THAT IT JUST

HAPPENED. IF GOD PUNISHED YOU IT

IS STILL A UNIVERSE OF MEANING.

AND I THINK THAT THAT'S WHERE I

THINK ECOLOGY AS IDEOLOGY

ENTERS.

IT'S REALLY THE IMPLICIT

PREMISE OF ECOLOGY THAT THE

EXISTING WORLD IS THE BEST

POSSIBLE WORLD, IN THE SENSE OF

IT'S A BALANCED WORLD WHICH IS

DISTURBED THROUGH HUMAN HUBRIS.

SO WHY DO I FIND THIS

PROBLEMATIC? BECAUSE I THINK

THIS NOTION OF NATURE, NATURE AS

A HARMONIOUS, ORGANIC, BALANCED,

REPRODUCING, ALMOST LIVING

ORGANISM, WHICH IS THEN

DISTURBED, PERTURBED, ALMOST

DERAILED THROUGH HUMAN HUBRIS,

TECHNOLOGICAL EXPLOITATION AND

SO ON, IS, I THINK, A SECULAR

VERSION OF THE RELIGIOUS STORY

OF THE FALL. AND THE ANSWER

SHOULD BE, NOT THAT THERE IS NO

FALL, THAT WE ARE PART OF

NATURE, BUT ON THE CONTRARY

THERE IS NO NATURE. NATURE IS

NOT A BALANCED TOTALITY WHICH

THEN WE HUMANS DISTURB. NATURE

IS A BIG SERIES OF UNIMAGINABLE

CATASTROPHES. WE PROFIT FROM

THEM. WHAT'S OUR MAIN SOURCE OF

ENERGY TODAY? OIL. WHAT, ARE WE

AWARE, WHAT IS OIL? OIL RESERVES

BENEATH THE EARTH ARE MATERIAL

REMAINDERS OF AN UNIMAGINABLE

CATASTROPHE. ARE WE AWARE -

BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW OIL, OIL,

OIL, OIL IS COMPOSED - OIL IS

COMPOSED OF THE REMAINDERS OF

ANIMAL LIFE, PLANTS AND SO ON

AND SO ON. CAN YOU IMAGINE WHAT

KIND OF UNTHINKABLE CATASTROPHE

HAD TO OCCUR ON EARTH?

SO, THAT IS GOOD TO REMEMBER.

NO, YOU CALL THIS PORN? MY GOD.

YOU CAN HAVE A HALF OF A

HAMBURGER, OR MAYBE SOME CHEESE

SANDWICH? THEN YOU CAN HAVE

A MUFFIN, AND SOME JUICE.

ECOLOGY WILL SLOWLY TURN,

MAYBE, INTO A NEW OPIUM OF THE

MASSES, THE WAY, AS WE ALL KNOW,

MARX DEFINED RELIGION. WHAT WE

EXPECT FROM RELIGION IS A KIND

OF AN UNQUESTIONABLE HIGHEST

AUTHORITY. IT'S GOD'S WORD, SO

IT IS, YOU DON'T DEBATE IT.

TODAY, I CLAIM, ECOLOGY IS MORE

AND MORE TAKING OVER THIS ROLE

OF A CONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGY.

WHENEVER THERE IS A NEW

SCIENTIFIC BREAKTHROUGH -

BIO-GENETIC DEVELOPMENT,

WHATEVER - IT IS AS IF THE VOICE

WHICH WARNS US NOT TO TRESPASS,

VIOLATE A CERTAIN INVISIBLE

LIMIT, LIKE, 'DON'T DO THAT, IT

WOULD BE TOO MUCH.' THAT VOICE

IS TODAY, MORE AND MORE, THE

VOICE OF ECOLOGY. LIKE, DON'T

MESS WITH DNA, DON'T MESS WITH

NATURE, DON'T DO IT - THIS BASIC

CONSERVATIVE PARTLY IDEOLOGY

MISTRUST OF CHANGE. THIS IS

TODAY'S ECOLOGY.

ANOTHER MYTH WHICH IS POPULAR

ABOUT ECOLOGY, MAYBE A

SPONTANEOUS IDEOLOGICAL

MYTH, IS THE IDEA THAT WE

WESTERN PEOPLE IN OUR ARTIFICIAL

TECHNOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT ARE

ALIENATED FROM IMMEDIATE NATURAL

ENVIRONMENTS. THAT WE SHOULD NOT

FORGET THAT WE HUMANS ARE PART

OF THE LIVING EARTH, WE SHOULD

NOT FORGET THE WE ARE NOT

ABSTRACT ENGINEERS, THEORISTS

WHO JUST EXPLOIT NATURE, THAT WE

ARE PART OF NATURE, THAT NATURE

IS OUR UNFATHOMABLE,

IMPENETRABLE BACKGROUND. I THINK

THAT THAT PRECISELY IS THE

GREATEST - THE GREATEST DANGER.

WHY? THINK ABOUT A CERTAIN

OBVIOUS PARADOX: WE ALL KNOW IN

WHAT DANGER WE ALL ARE, GLOBAL

WARMING, POSSIBILITY OF OTHER

ECOLOGICAL CATASTROPHES AND SO

ON AND SO ON. BUT WHY DON'T WE

DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT? IT IS I

THINK A NICE EXAMPLE OF WHAT IN

PSYCHOANALYSIS WE CALL

DISAVOWAL. THE LOGIC IS THAT OF,

I KNOW VERY WELL BUT I ACT AS IF

I DON'T KNOW. FOR EXAMPLE,

PRECISELY, IN THE CASE OF

ECOLOGY, I KNOW WELL THERE MAY

BE GLOBAL WARMING, EVERYTHING

WILL EXPLODE, BE DESTROYED, BUT

AFTER READING A TREATISE ON IT,

WHAT DO I DO? I STEP OUT, I SEE

NOT THE THINGS I SEE NOW BEHIND

ME, THAT'S A NICE SIGHT FOR ME,

I SEE NICE TREES, BIRDS SINGING,

AND SO ON. AND EVEN IF I KNOW

RATIONALLY THAT THIS IS ALL IN

DANGER I SIMPLY DO NOT BELIEVE

THAT THIS CAN BE DESTROYED.

THAT'S THE HORROR OF VISITING

SIGHTS OF A CATASTROPHE LIKE

CHERNOBYL. YOU - IN A WAY, WE

ARE NOT EVOLUTIONARILY, WE ARE

NOT WIRED TO EVEN IMAGINE

SOMETHING LIKE THAT, IT'S IN A

WAY UNIMAGINABLE. SO I THINK

THAT WHAT WE SHOULD DO TO

CONFRONT PROPERLY THE THREAT OF

ECOLOGICAL CATASTROPHE IS NOT

ALL THIS NEW AGE STUFF TO BREAK

OUT OF THIS TECHNOLOGICAL

MANIPULATIVE MOLD AND FOUND OUR

ROOTS IN NATURE, BUT, ON THE

CONTRARY, TO CUT OFF EVEN MORE

THESE ROOTS IN NATURE.

WE NEED MORE ALIENATION FROM

OUR LIFE-WORLD, FROM OUR, AS

IT WERE, SPONTANEOUS NATURE. WE

SHOULD BECOME MORE ARTIFICIAL.

WE SHOULD DEVELOP I THINK A MUCH

MORE TERRIFYING NEW ABSTRACT

MATERIALISM, A KIND OF

MATHEMATICAL UNIVERSE WHERE

THERE IS NOTHING, THERE ARE JUST

FORMULAS, TECHNICAL FORMS, AND

SO ON. AND THE DIFFICULT THING

IS TO FIND POETRY, SPIRITUALITY,

IN THIS DIMENSION.

TO RECREATE, IF NOT BEAUTY THEN

AESTHETIC DIMENSION IN THINGS

LIKE THIS, IN TRASH ITSELF.

THAT IS THE TRUE LOVE OF THE

WORLD. BECAUSE WHAT IS LOVE?

LOVE IS NOT IDEALIZATION.

EVERY TRUE LOVER KNOWS IF YOU

TRULY LOVE A WOMAN OR A MAN

THAT YOU DON'T IDEALIZE HIM OR

HER. LOVE MEANS THAT YOU

ACCEPT A PERSON WITH ALL ITS

FAILURES, STUPIDITIES, UGLY

POINTS, AND NONETHELESS THE

PERSON IS ABSOLUTE FOR YOU,

EVERYTHING LIFE - THAT MAKES

LIFE WORTH LIVING. BUT YOU SEE

PERFECTION IN IMPERFECTION

ITSELF. AND THAT'S HOW WE SHOULD

LEARN TO LOVE THE WORLD.

TRUE ECOLOGIST LOVES THIS.

[JUDITH BUTLER] I THOUGHT THAT

WE SHOULD TAKE THIS WALK

TOGETHER, AND ONE OF THE THINGS

I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT WAS WHAT

IT MEANS FOR US TO TAKE A WALK

TOGETHER.

WHEN I FIRST ASKED YOU ABOUT

THIS, YOU TOLD ME YOU TAKE

WALKS, YOU TAKE STROLLS

[SUNAURA TAYLOR] I DO.

[JUDITH BUTLER] AND CAN YOU SAY

SOMETHING ABOUT WHAT THAT IS FOR

YOU? WHEN DO YOU DO IT, AND HOW

DO YOU DO IT, AND WHAT WORDS DO

YOU HAVE FOR IT?

[SUNAURA TAYLOR] WELL I THINK

THAT I ALWAYS GO FOR A WALK,

PROBABLY EVERYDAY I GO FOR A

WALK.

[JUDITH BUTLER] EVERYDAY?

[SUNAURA TAYLOR] AND I ALWAYS

TELL PEOPLE I GO FOR WALKS, SO I

USE THAT WORD. AND MOST OF THE

DISABLED PEOPLE I KNOW USE THAT

TERM ALSO.

[JUDITH BUTLER] AND WHICH

ENVIRONMENTS MAKE IT POSSIBLE

FOR YOU TO TAKE A WALK?

[SUNAURA TAYLOR] I MOVED TO SAN

FRANCISCO LARGELY BECAUSE IT IS

THE MOST ACCESSIBLE PLACE IN THE

WORLD. AND PART OF WHAT'S SO

AMAZING TO ME ABOUT IT IS THAT

THE PHYSICAL ACCESS - THE FACT

THAT THE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

IS ACCESSIBLE, THERE'S CURB CUTS

MOST PLACES, ALMOST, MOST PLACES

I'LL GO THERE'S CURB CUTS,

BUILDING ARE ACCESSIBLE - WHAT

THIS DOES IS IT ALSO LEADS TO A

SOCIAL ACCEPTABILITY. THAT

SOMEHOW BECAUSE, BECAUSE THERE'S

PHYSICAL ACCESS, THERE'RE SIMPLY

MORE DISABLED PEOPLE OUT AND

ABOUT IN THE WORLD, AND SO

PEOPLE HAVE LEARNED TO ACT WITH

THEM AND ARE USED TO THEM IN

THIS CERTAIN WAY. AND SO THE

PHYSICAL ACCESS ACTUALLY LEADS

TO A SOCIAL ACCESS, AN

ACCEPTANCE.

[JUDITH BUTLER] YEAH, IT MUST BE

NICE NOT TO ALWAYS HAVE TO BE

THE PIONEER.

[SUNAURA TAYLOR] YES,

DEFINITELY. DEFINITELY.

[JUDITH BUTLER] THE VERY FIRST

ONE THEY MEET.

[SUNAURA TAYLOR] THE FIRST

DISABLED PERSON THEY'VE EVER

SEEN.

[JUDITH BUTLER] AND HAVING TO

EXPLAIN.

[SUNAURA TAYLOR] YEAH

[JUDITH BUTLER] AND YOU KNOW,

YES I DO SPEAK AND THINK AND

TALK AND MOVE AND ENJOY LIFE AND

SUFFER MANY OF THE SAME

HEARTACHES THAT YOU DO. AND,

ANYWAY, BUT WHAT I'M WONDERING

ABOUT IS MOVING IN SOCIAL SPACE,

RIGHT? MOVING, ALL THE MOVEMENTS

THAT YOU CAN DO, THAT HELP YOU

AND WHICH EXPRESS YOU IN VARIOUS

WAYS. DO YOU FEEL FREE TO MOVE

IN ALL THE WAYS YOU WANT TO

MOVE?

[SUNAURA TAYLOR] I CAN GO INTO A

COFFEE SHOP AND ACTUALLY PICK UP

THE CUP WITH MY MOUTH AND CARRY

IT TO THE TABLE - BUT THEN THAT,

THAT BECOMES ALMOST MORE

DIFFICULT BECAUSE OF THE, JUST

THE NORMALIZING STANDARDS OF OUR

MOVEMENTS.

[JUDITH BUTLER] YES.

[SUNAURA TAYLOR] AND THE

DISCOMFORT THAT THAT CAUSES WHEN

I DO THINGS WITH BODY PARTS

WHICH AREN'T NECESSARILY WHAT WE

ASSUME THAT THEY'RE FOR. THAT

SEEM TO BE EVEN MORE HARD FOR

PEOPLE TO DEAL WITH.

[JUDITH BUTLER] IS THAT

SOMEBODY'S SHOE?

[SUNAURA TAYLOR] SOMEONE'S SHOE,

I WONDER IF THEY CAN WALK

WITHOUT IT?

[JUDITH BUTLER] YEAH! I'M JUST

THINKING THAT NOBODY TAKES A

WALK WITHOUT THERE BEING A

TECHNIQUE OF WALKING, THAT

NOBODY GOES FOR A WALK WITHOUT

THERE BEING SOMETHING THAT

SUPPORTS THAT WALK, OUTSIDE OF

OURSELVES. AND THEN MAYBE WE

HAVE A FALSE IDEA THAT THE

ABLE-BODIED PERSON IS SOMEHOW

RADICALLY SELF-SUFFICIENT.

[SUNAURA TAYLOR] YEAH.

IT WASN'T UNTIL I WAS IN MY

EARLY TWENTIES, ABOUT TWENTY OR

TWENTY-ONE, THAT I BECAME AWARE

OF DISABILITY AS A POLITICAL

ISSUE. AND THAT HAPPENED LARGELY

THROUGH DISCOVERING THE SOCIAL

MODEL OF DISABILITY WHICH IS

BASICALLY, IN DISABILITY STUDIES

THEY HAVE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN

DISABILITY AND IMPAIRMENT.

[JUDITH BUTLER] YEAH.

[SUNAURA TAYLOR] SO IMPAIRMENT

WOULD BE MY BODY, MY EMBODIMENT

RIGHT NOW. THE FACT THAT I WAS

BORN WITH ARTHROGRYPOSIS WHICH

AFFECTS - OR WHAT, WHAT THE

MEDICAL WORLD HAS LABELED AS

ARTHROGRYPOSIS, BUT BASICALLY

THAT MY JOINTS ARE, ARE FUSED,

MY MUSCLES ARE WEAKER, I CAN'T

MOVE IN CERTAIN WAYS. AND THIS

DOES AFFECT MY LIFE IN ALL SORTS

OF SITUATIONS, FOR INSTANCE, YOU

KNOW, THERE IS A PLUM TREE IN MY

BACK YARD AND I CAN'T PICK THE

PLUMS OFF THE PLUM TREE, I HAVE

TO WAIT FOR THEM TO DROP OR

WHATEVER. BUT THEN SO THERE'S

THAT, THERE'S THAT EMBODIMENT,

OUR OWN UNIQUE EMBODIMENTS AND

THAN THERE IS DISABILITY, WHICH

IS BASICALLY THE, THE SOCIAL

REPRESSION OF DISABLED PEOPLE.

THE FACT THAT DISABLED PEOPLE

HAVE LIMITED HOUSING OPTIONS, WE

DON'T HAVE CAREER OPPORTUNITIES,

WE'RE SOCIALLY ISOLATED, WE'RE -

YOU KNOW, IN MANY WAYS THERE'S A

CULTURAL AVERSION TO DISABLED

PEOPLE.

[JUDITH BUTLER] SO WOULD YOU SAY

DISABILITY IS THE SOCIAL

ORGANIZATION OF IMPAIRMENT?

[SUNAURA TAYLOR] THE DISABLING

EFFECTS, BASICALLY, OF SOCIETY.

[JUDITH BUTLER] WHAT HAPPENED,

DID YOU COME IN CONTACT WITH

DISABILITY ACTIVISTS, OR DID YOU

READ CERTAIN THINGS?

[SUNAURA TAYLOR] I READ A BOOK

REVIEW, ACTUALLY.

[JUDITH BUTLER] OH, REALLY?

[SUNAURA TAYLOR] YEAH, I JUST

READ A BOOK REVIEW. AND WHEN

THAT HAPPENED I LIVED IN

BROOKLYN, AND I WOULD REALLY TRY

TO MAKE MYSELF GO OUT AND JUST

ORDER A COFFEE BY MYSELF.

[JUDITH BUTLER] YES.

[SUNAURA TAYLOR] AND I WOULD SIT

FOR HOURS BEFOREHAND IN THE

PARK, JUST TRYING TO GET UP THE

NERVE TO DO THAT. IN A WAY IT'S

A POLITICAL PROTEST FOR ME TO GO

IN AND ORDER A COFFEE AND DEMAND

HELP. SIMPLY BECAUSE, IN MY

OPINION, HELP IS SOMETHING THAT

WE ALL NEED.

[JUDITH BUTLER] YES.

[SUNAURA TAYLOR] AND IT IS

SOMETHING THAT IS, IS, YOU KNOW,

LOOKED DOWN UPON AND NOT REALLY

TAKEN CARE OF IN THIS SOCIETY

WHEN WE ALL, WHEN WE ALL NEED

HELP AND WE'RE ALL

INTERDEPENDENT IS ALL SORTS OF

WAYS.

[JUDITH BUTLER] YES.

[SUNAURA TAYLOR] SHOULD WE STOP

AND GET ME SOMETHING WARM?

[JUDITH BUTLER] I DON'T KNOW,

HONEY.

[SUNAURA TAYLOR] THAT'S PRETTY

FANCY.

[JUDITH BUTLER] LET'S GO FIND

SOMETHING GOOD.

[SUNAURA TAYLOR] YEAH, I THINK

IT WILL PROBABLY FALL OF MY

SHOULDERS.

ALTHOUGH I GUESS WE COULD TRY

IT ON.

ALL RIGHT, SO BASICALLY THAT'S

THE BACK. ALL RIGHT, SO THAT

WOULD BE- YEAH.

[JUDITH BUTLER] OKAY, OTHER ARM?

[SUNAURA TAYLOR] OTHER ARM.

AND I LIKE IT, IT'S STYLISH.

[JUDITH BUTLER] IT'S VERY

STYLISH. OKAY? IT'S KIND OF, YOU

KNOW, SPORTY AND FANCY AND-

[SUNAURA TAYLOR] IT'S GONNA BE A

NEW SHOW, 'SHOPPING WITH JUDITH

BUTLER.'

[JUDITH BUTLER] FOR THE QUEER

EYE.

[SUNAURA TAYLOR] MAYBE I CAN

JUST GET IT WHILE WEARING IT.

[COUNTER PERSON] HAY.

[JUDITH BUTLER] HI, WE PUT THE

SWEATER ON.

[SUNAURA TAYLOR] YEAH.

[JUDITH BUTLER] WE WANT TO BUY

IT.

[SUNAURA TAYLOR] I'M ACTUALLY

BUYING THE SWEATER I'M WEARING.

[COUNTER WOMAN] OKAY, SO IT'S BY

WEIGHT.

[SUNAURA TAYLOR] OH, IT'S BY

WEIGHT?

[JUDITH BUTLER] CAN WE GUESS?

[COUNTER WOMAN] I CAN PROBABLY

JUST DO IT FOR FOUR BUCKS.

[SUNAURA TAYLOR] OKAY.

[JUDITH BUTLER] SOUNDS GOOD.

[SUNAURA TAYLOR] THERE YOU GO.

THANKS. CAN I HAVE THE BILLS

FIRST? AND THEN THE CHANGE?

[COUNTER WOMAN] SURE.

[SUNAURA TAYLOR] OH, I JUST

MEANT THE-

[COUNTER WOMAN] OH, YOU JUST

WANT-

[SUNAURA TAYLOR] YEAH, I JUST

CAN'T HOLD BOTH AT THE SAME

TIME.

[COUNTER WOMAN] THERE YOU GO.

THANKS.

[SUNAURA TAYLOR] THANKS SO MUCH.

[JUDITH BUTLER] I THINK GENDER

AND DISABILITY CONVERGE IN A

WHOLE LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS. BUT

ONE THING I THINK BOTH MOVEMENTS

DO IS GET US TO RETHINK WHAT THE

BODY CAN DO. THERE'S AN ESSAY BY

THE PHILOSOPHER GILLES DELEUZE

CALLED WHAT CAN A BODY DO? AND

THE QUESTION IS SUPPOSED TO

CHALLENGE THE TRADITIONAL WAYS

IN WHICH WE THINK ABOUT BODIES.

ALL RIGHT, WE USUALLY ASK WHAT

IS A BODY, OR WHAT IS THE IDEAL

FORM OF A BODY, OR, YOU KNOW,

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN

THE BODY AND THE SOUL AND THAT

KIND OF THING.

[SUNAURA TAYLOR] YEAH.

[JUDITH BUTLER] BUT WHAT CAN A

BODY DO IS, IS A DIFFERENT

QUESTION. IT ISOLATES A SET OF

CAPACITIES AND A SET OF

INSTRUMENTALITIES OR ACTIONS,

AND WE ARE KIND OF ASSEMBLAGES

OF THESE KIND OF THINGS. AND I

LIKE THIS IDEA, IT'S NOT LIKE

THERE'S AN ESSENCE AND IT'S NOT

LIKE THERE'S AN IDEAL

MORPHOLOGY, YOU KNOW, WHAT A

BODY SHOULD LOOK LIKE. IT'S

EXACTLY NOT THAT QUESTION.

[SUNAURA TAYLOR] YEAH

[JUDITH BUTLER] OR WHAT A BODY

SHOULD MOVE LIKE. AND ONE OF THE

THINGS I'VE FOUND IN THINKING

ABOUT GENDER AND EVEN VIOLENCE

AGAINST SEXUAL MINORITIES OR

GENDER MINORITIES - PEOPLE WHOSE

GENDER PRESENTATION DOESN'T

CONFORM WITH STANDARD IDEALS OF

FEMININITY OR MASCULINITY - IS

THAT VERY OFTEN IT COMES DOWN

TO, YOU KNOW, HOW PEOPLE WALK,

HOW THEY USE THEIR HIPS, WHAT

THEY DO WITH THEIR BODY PARTS,

WHAT THEY USE THEIR MOUTH FOR,

WHAT THEY USE THEIR ANUS OR WHAT

THEY ALLOW THEIR ANUS TO BE USED

FOR.

THERE'S A GUY IN MAINE WHO - I

GUESS HE WAS AROUND EIGHTEEN

YEARS OLD - AND HE WALKED WITH A

VERY DISTINCT SWISH, YOU KNOW,

HIPS GOING ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. A

VERY FEMININE WALK. BUT ONE DAY

HE WAS WALKING TO SCHOOL AND HE

WAS ATTACKED BY THREE OF HIS

CLASSMATES AND HE WAS THROWN

OVER A BRIDGE AND HE WAS KILLED.

AND THE QUESTION THAT COMMUNITY

HAS TO DEAL WITH, AND INDEED THE

ENTIRE MEDIA THAT COVERED THE

EVENT, WAS, HOW CAN IT BE THAT

SOMEBODY'S GAIT, THAT SOMEBODY'S

STYLE OF WALKING, COULD ENGENDER

THE DESIRE TO KILL THAT PERSON?

AND THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT MAKES

ME THINK ABOUT THE WALK IN A

DIFFERENT WAY. I MEAN, A WALK

CAN BE A DANGEROUS THING.

[SUNAURA TAYLOR] I'M JUST

REMEMBERING WHEN I WAS LITTLE,

WHEN I DID WALK, I WOULD BE TOLD

I WALKED LIKE A MONKEY.

[JUDITH BUTLER] OH.

[SUNAURA TAYLOR] AND THAT I

THINK THAT FOR A LOT OF, YOU

KNOW, FOR A LOT OF DISABLED

PEOPLE THE VIOLENCE AND THE, AND

THE SORT OF THE, THE HATRED

EXISTS A LOT IN, IN THIS

REMINDING OF PEOPLE THAT OUR

BODIES ARE GOING TO AGE AND ARE

GOING TO DIE. AND, YOU KNOW, IN

SOME WAYS I WONDER, JUST

THINKING ABOUT THE MONKEY

COMMENT, IF IT IS ALSO A LEVEL

OF - AND THIS IS JUST A THOUGHT

OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD RIGHT

KNOW BUT JUST THE SORT OF -

WHERE, WHERE OUR BOUNDARIES LIE

AS A HUMAN AND WHAT BECOMES

NONHUMAN? YOU KNOW?

[JUDITH BUTLER] WELL IT MAKES ME

WONDER IF THE PERSON WAS

ANTI-EVOLUTIONARY.

[SUNAURA TAYLOR] YEAH.

[JUDITH BUTLER] IT'S LIKE MAYBE

THEY WERE A CREATIONIST. IT'S

LIKE, WELL WHY SHOULDN'T WE HAVE

SOME RESEMBLANCE TO THE MONKEY?

[SUNAURA TAYLOR] WELL THE

MONKEY'S ACTUALLY ALWAYS BEEN MY

FAVORITE ANIMAL TOO, SO, WELL

YOU KNOW SO ACTUALLY QUITE A LOT

OF THE TIME I WAS FLATTERED.

[JUDITH BUTLER] WELL EXACTLY.

[SUNAURA TAYLOR] YEAH. YEAH. BUT

THAT, THAT, WHEN- WHEN IN THOSE

IN-BETWEEN MOMENTS OF, YOU KNOW,

IN-BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE OR

IN-BETWEEN DEATH AND HEALTH -

WHEN DO YOU STILL COUNT AS A

HUMAN?

[JUDITH BUTLER] MY SENSE IS THAT

WHAT'S AT STAKE HERE IS REALLY

RETHINKING THE HUMAN AS A SITE

OF INTERDEPENDENCY. AND I THINK,

YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU WALK INTO THE

COFFEE SHOP, RIGHT, IF WE CAN GO

BACK TO THAT MOMENT FOR A

MOMENT, AND YOU, YOU ASK FOR THE

COFFEE OR YOU INDEED EVEN ASK

FOR SOME ASSISTANCE WITH THE

COFFEE, YOU'RE BASICALLY POSING

THE QUESTION, DO WE OR DO WE NOT

LIVE IN A WORLD IN WHICH WE

ASSIST EACH OTHER?

[SUNAURA TAYLOR] YEAH.

[JUDITH BUTLER] DO WE OR DO WE

NOT HELP EACH OTHER WITH, WITH

BASIC NEEDS? AND ARE BASIC NEEDS

THERE TO BE DECIDED ON AS A

SOCIAL ISSUE AND NOT JUST MY

PERSONAL INDIVIDUAL ISSUE, OR

YOUR PERSONAL INDIVIDUAL ISSUE?

SO, I MEAN, THERE IS A CHALLENGE

TO INDIVIDUALISM THAT HAPPENS AT

THE MOMENT IN WHICH YOU ASK FOR

SOME ASSISTANCE WITH THE COFFEE

CUP.

[SUNAURA TAYLOR] YEAH. YEAH.

[JUDITH BUTLER] AND HOPEFULLY

PEOPLE WILL TAKE IT UP AND SAY,

'YES I, TOO, LIVE IN A WORLD, I

WHICH I UNDERSTAND WE NEED EACH

OTHER IN ORDER TO ADDRESS OUR

BASIC NEEDS - AND I WANT TO

ORGANIZE A SOCIAL AND POLITICAL

WORLD ON THE BASIS OF THAT

RECOGNITION.'

[CORNEL WEST] ROMANTICISM

THOROUGHLY SATURATED THE

DISCOURSE OF MODERN THINKERS.

CAN YOU TOTALIZING? CAN YOU MAKE

THINGS WHOLE? CAN YOU CREATE

HARMONY? AND IF YOU CAN'T,

DISAPPOINTMENT.

DISAPPOINTMENT IS ALWAYS AT

THE CENTER, FAILURE IS ALWAYS

AT THE CENTER. BUT WHERE'D THE

ROMANTICISM COME FROM?

WHY BEGIN WITH ROMANTICISM?

SEE, I DON'T BEGIN WITH

ROMANTICISM.

OH, YOU REMEMBER WHAT BEETHOVEN

SAID AT HIS DEATHBED, YOU KNOW?

HE SAID, 'I'VE LEARNED TO LOOK

AT THE WORLD IN ALL OF ITS

DARKNESS AND EVIL AND STILL

LOVE IT.' AND THAT'S NOT

ROMANTIC BEETHOVEN,

THIS IS THE BEETHOVEN OF THE

STRING QUARTETS, 131, THE

GREATEST, THE GREATEST STRING

QUARTET EVER WRITTEN - NOT JUST

IN CLASSICAL MUSIC, BUT OF

COURSE IT'S A EUROPEAN FORM SO

BEETHOVEN IS THE GRAND MASTER.

BUT THE STRING QUARTETS, YOU GO

BACK TO THOSE MOVEMENTS -

THERE'S NO ROMANTIC WHOLENESS TO

BE SHATTERED AS IN THE EARLY

BEETHOVEN. HE'S GIVEN UP ON

THAT, YOU SEE. THIS IS WHERE

CHEKHOV BEGINS, THIS WHERE THE

BLUES BEGINS. IT'S WHERE JAZZ

STARTS. DO YOU THINK CHARLIE

PARKER'S UPSET BECAUSE HE CAN'T

SUSTAIN A HARMONY? HE DOESN'T

CARE ABOUT THE HARMONY, HE'S

TRYING COMPLETELY RIDE ON THE

DISSONANCE, RIDE ON THE BLUE

NOTES. OF COURSE HE'S GOT

HARMONY IN TERMS OF IT'S

INTERVENTIONS HERE AND THERE,

BUT WHY START WITH THIS

OBSESSION WITH WHOLENESS AND IF

YOU CAN'T HAVE IT, THEN YOU'RE

DISAPPOINTED, AND WANT TO HAVE A

DRINK, AND MELANCHOLIA, AND BLAH

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH. NO, YOU

SEE, THE BLUES, MY KIND OF

BLUES, BEGINS WITH CATASTROPHE,

BEGINS WITH THE ANGEL OF HISTORY

IN BENJAMIN'S THESIS, YOU SEE.

IT BEGINS WITH THE PILES, THE

WRECKAGE, ON ONE PILE ON

ANOTHER. THAT'S THE STARTING

POINT. THE BLUES IS PERSONAL

CATASTROPHE LYRICALLY EXPRESSED

AND BLACK PEOPLE IN AMERICA AND

IN THE MODERN WORLD, GIVEN THESE

VICIOUS LEGACIES OF WHITE

SUPREMACY - IT IS DO YOU

GENERATE AN ELEGANCE OF EARNED

SELF-TOGETHERNESS, SO YOU HAVE

STICK-TO-IT-NESS IN THE FACE OF

THE CATASTROPHIC AND THE

CALAMITOUS AND THE HORRENDOUS

AND THE SCANDALOUS AND

MONSTROUS?

SEE, PART OF THE PROBLEM IS

THOUGH, THAT SEE, WHEN YOU HAVE

A ROMANTIC PROJECT YOU'RE SO

OBSESSED WITH TIME AS LOSS AND

TIME AS A TAKER. WHEREAS, AS A

CHEKHOVIAN CHRISTIAN I WANT TO

STRESS, AS WELL, TIME AS A

GIFT, AND TIME AS A GIVER. SO

THAT YES, IT IS A FAILURE, BUT

HOW GOOD OF A FAILURE?

WE'VE DONE SOME WONDERFUL

THINGS. NOW BECKETT COULD SAY,

YOU KNOW, 'TRY AGAIN, FAIL

AGAIN, FAIL BETTER.' BUT WHY

CALL IT FAILURE? I MEAN WHY

NOT SAY YOU HAVE A SENSE OF

GRATITUDE THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO

DO MUCH THAT - AS YOU DID?

YOU'RE ABLE TO LOVE AS MUCH, AND

THINK AS MUCH, AND PLAY AS MUCH.

WHY THINK YOU NEEDED THE WHOLE

THING? YOU SEE WHAT I MEAN? THIS

IS EVEN DISTURBING ABOUT

AMERICA, AND OF COURSE NOW

AMERICA IS A ROMANTIC PROJECT, A

PARADISAL CITY ON A HILL AND ALL

THIS OTHER MESS AND LIES AND SO

ON. I SAY NO, NO - AMERICA IS A

VERY FRAGILE DEMOCRATIC

EXPERIMENT PREDICATED ON THE

DISPOSSESSION OF THE LANDS OF

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND THE

ENSLAVEMENT OF, OF AFRICAN

PEOPLES AND THE SUBJUGATION OF

WOMEN AND THE MARGINALIZATION OF

GAYS AND LESBIANS. AND IT HAS

GREAT POTENTIAL BUT THIS NOTION

THAT SOMEHOW WE HAD IT ALL OR

EVER WILL HAVE IT ALL, THAT'S

GOT TO GO, YOU'VE GOT TO PUSH IT

TO THE SIDE. WE SHOULD PUSH THAT

TO THE SIDE, AND THEN IT TENDS

TO EVACUATE THE LANGUAGE OF

DISAPPOINTMENT AND THE LANGUAGE

OF FAILURE. AND YOU SAY, WELL

HOW MUCH HAVE WE DONE? HOW HAVE

WE BEEN ABLE TO DO IT? CAN WE DO

MORE? WELL IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS

YOU CAN'T, IT'S LIKE TRYING TO

BRAKE-DANCE AT SEVENTY-FIVE -

YOU CAN'T DO IT ANYMORE. YOU'RE

A MASTER AT SIXTEEN, IT'S OVER.

YOU CAN'T MAKE LOVE AT EIGHTY

THE WAY YOU DID AT TWENTY - SO

WHAT? SHIT, TIME IS REAL.

[ASTRA TAYLOR] SO THE ONE

QUESTION THAT KEEPS COMING UP,

OR A PHRASE IS THIS IDEA OF THE

MEANINGFUL LIFE. IS IT

PHILOSOPHY'S DUTY TO SPEAK ON

THIS?

[CORNEL WEST] ON A MEANINGFUL

LIFE?

[ASTRA TAYLOR] HOW TO LIVE A

MEANING LIFE?

IS THAT EVEN A RELEVANT - IS

THAT EVEN AN APPROPRIATE

QUESTION FOR A PHILOSOPHER?

[CORNEL WEST] NO, I THINK IT IS.

NO, I THINK THE PROBLEM OF

MEANING IS VERY IMPORTANT.

NIHILISM IS SERIOUS CHALLENGE,

MEANINGLESSNESS IS A SERIOUS

CHALLENGE - EVEN MAKING SENSE OF

MEANINGLESSNESS IS ITSELF A KIND

OF DISCIPLINE AND ACHIEVEMENT.

BUT THE PROBLEM IS YOU NEVER

REACH IT, YOU KNOW? IT'S NOT A

STATIC, STATIONARY TELOS OR END

OR AIM. IT IS A PROCESS ONE

NEVER REACHES. IT'S SISYPHEAN,

YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GOING UP HILL

LOOKING FOR BETTER MEANINGS, OR

BETTER, GRANDER, MORE ENABLING

MEANINGS. BUT YOU NEVER REACH

IT, AND IN THAT SENSE YOU DIE

WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO HAVE THE

WHOLE, IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE

ROMANTIC DISCOURSE.

LET ME JUST JUMP OUT HERE ON

THE CORNER.

OKAY YOU ALL.

[CREW] THANKS. THANKS VERY MUCH.

[ASTRA TAYLOR] THANKS

[CREW] THANK YOU SIR.

[CORNEL WEST] TAKE GOOD CARE.

[CREW] YOU, TOO.