Immunization and Violence :: Philosophy Kant

Immunization and Violence1. In a text dedicated to Kant as interpreter of the Enlightenment, Michel Foucault locates the task of present-day(a) philosophical system in a precise stance. It concerns that taut and acute analogy with the present that he names the ontology of the actual. How argon we to understand the phrase? What does it sozzled to situate philosophy in the point or on the drag in which the actual is revealed in the density of its own historical macrocosm? What does an ontology of the actual mean, properly speaking? The expression alludes higher up all to a change in perspective with regard to ourselves. To be in sexual congress ontologically with the actual means to think modernity no longer as an epoch between others, but as a stance, a posture, a will to see ones own present as a task. there is in this choice, something -- lets call it a tension, an impulse -- that Foucault will call an thos, which moves scour beyond the Hegelian definition of philosophy as the proper m spent in thought, because it makes of thought the lever that lifts the present out of a linear continuity with time, keeping it suspended between deciding what we are and what we can become. Already in the case of Kant his support of the Enlightenment didnt imply only remaining faithful to certain ideas, affirming the autonomy of man, but above all in activating a permanent critique of the present, not abandoning it in favor of an unattainable utopia, but inverting the notion of the possible that is contained deep down it, making it the key for a different reading of reality. This is the task of philosophy as the ontology of the actual while on the level of analysis, locating the difference between that which is essential and that which is contingent, between superficial effects and profound kinetics that move things, that transform lives and that mark existences. We are concerned here with the moment, the critical threshold, from which todays news cronaca takes on the breadth of history. That which is placed in being is an underlie question of the meaning of what we call today. What does today mean generally? What characterizes it essentially, which is to say, what characterizes its effectivity, its contradictions, its potentialities? further this question doesnt exhaust the task of the ontology of the actual. It isnt anything other than the condition for asking other question, this time that has the form of a choice and a decision.