The risk of meaning. Scientific experience and the myth of safety

Journal title RIVISTA SPERIMENTALE DI FRENIATRIA
Author/s Andrea Tagliapietra
Publishing Year 2015 Issue 2015/3 Language Italian
Pages 20 P. 9-28 File size 2235 KB
DOI 10.3280/RSF2015-003002
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

the author analyzes, from the perspective of the history of ideas, the difference between two pairs of related concepts: risk/danger and risk/safety. Danger is the menace of an undetermined yet objective harm which often arises from natural or unintended circumstances. Risk is a threat of injury deriving from a human decision and a rational appraisal of advantages and disadvantages. The author hypothesizes that the human capacity for symbolic thinking appeared, during the historical process of hominization, in order to cope with the angst caused by leaving a known and protected environment. Symbolic thinking turned angst into a mythically molded fear, performing an operation akin to a rational appraisal and putting forth the contemporary notion of risk. The adventure of mankind can be re-described as a progressive transposition of dangers into risks, process that accelerates rapidly during the modern age. In the "second modernity", or "risk society", the polarity between risk and safety generates an ever-expanding "principle of safety", a mythical illusion that risks could be eliminated forever. The author, taking into consideration the key role played by science in the symbolic framing of today’s "risk society", analyses the significance of the founding of modern scientific knowledge based on experience (and thus on the notions of hazard, predictive power, risk and danger). Scientific knowledge based on experience is intrinsically exposed to risk and danger. However, in our modern technological society, the generalization of the concept of risk (and of the related myth of safety) enhances a return of the symbolic function of the notion of danger, not connected to the intellectual endeavor to understand references, but to the more general question of meaning. The author ultimately underlines the difference between references and meaning suggesting that both researcher and clinician should deal with the risk of meaning.

Keywords: Risk, danger, safety, scientific experience, meaning, reference

  1. [1] Luhmann N. Sociologia del rischio (1991). Milano: Bruno Mondatori; 1996, p. 9-42.
  2. [2] Plessner H. I gradi dell’organico e l’uomo (1928). Torino: Bollati Boringhieri; 2006.
  3. [3] Blumenberg H. Elaborazione del mito (1979). Il Mulino: Bologna; 1981, p. 26-28.
  4. [4] Maso S. Rischio e techne nella filosofia antica. In: Barrotta P, ed. Il rischio. Aspetti tecnici sociali etici. Roma: Armando Editore; 2012, p. 183.
  5. [5] Beck U. La società del rischio. Verso una seconda modernità (1986). Roma: Carocci; 2000.
  6. [6] Lo Russo M. L’avventura del rischio. Rubettino: Soveria Mannelli (CZ); 2002.
  7. [7] Sofsky W. Rischio e sicurezza (2005). Torino: Einaudi; 2005.
  8. [8] Pulcini E. La cura del mondo. Paura e responsabilità nell’età globale (2009). Torino: Bollati Boringhieri; 2009.
  9. [9] Zizek S. Lacrimae rerum. Saggi sul cinema e il cyberspazio (2005). Milano: Libri Scheiwiller; 2009, p. 241.
  10. [10] Schumpeter J. Capitalismo, socialismo, democrazia (1942). Milano: Edizioni di Comunità; 1964, p. 230.
  11. [11] Cartesio R. Meditazioni metafisiche (1641). Tr. it. in: Opere (Cantelli G, ed.). Milano: Mondadori; 1986, p. 211.
  12. [12] Cartesio R. Discorso sul metodo (1637). Tr. it. in: Opere (Cantelli G, ed.). Milano: Mondadori; 1986, p. 160-161.
  13. [13] Kant I. Critica della ragion pura (1781). Tr. it in 2 voll. (Gentile G, Lombardo Radice G, ed; riv. da V. Mathieu). Bari: Laterza; 1983, vol. I, p. 39.
  14. [14] Galilei G. Il saggiatore (1623). Milano: Feltrinelli; 2008.
  15. [15] Koyré A. Dal mondo chiuso all’universo infinito (1957). Milano: Feltrinelli; 1970.
  16. [16] Blumenberg H. La legittimità dell’età moderna (1974). Genova: Marietti; 1992, p. 241-490.
  17. [17] Scheler M. La posizione dell’uomo nel cosmo (1928). Milano: Franco Angeli; 2000.
  18. [18] Pascal B. Pensieri (1669). Milano: Mondadori; 1994.
  19. [19] Huxley A. Texts and Pretexts: An Anthology with Commentaries. London: Chatto & Windus; 1932, p. 282.
  20. [20] Bacone F. Novum organum (1620). Tr. it. in: Opere (De Mas E, ed.). Roma-Bari: Laterza; 1992.
  21. [21] Chalmers AF. What Is This Called Science? Indianapolis: Hackett; 1976. [22] Russell B. I problemi della filosofia (1912). Milano: Feltrinelli; 1988, p. 75.
  22. [23] Popper KR. La logica della scoperta scientifica. Il carattere autocorrettivo della scienza (1934). Torino: Einaudi; 1995.
  23. [24] Gadamer HG. Verità e metodo (1960). Milano: Bompiani; 1983, p. 402.
  24. [25] Nagel T. Uno sguardo da nessun luogo (1986). Milano: il Saggiatore; 1988.
  25. [26] Bodei R. La stabilizzazione immaginaria del caso. Riti e miti come origine della nozione di libertà. In: Ceruti M, Fabbri P, Giorello G, Preta L, ed. Il caso e la libertà. Roma-Bari: Laterza; 1994, p. 98-100.
  26. [27] Severino E. Legge e caso. Milano: Adelphi; 1979, p. 33.
  27. [28] Wittgenstein L. Tractatus logico-philosophicus (1922). Torino: Einaudi; 1974.
  28. [29] Lyotard JF. La condizione postmoderna (1979). Milano: Feltrinelli; 1981.
  29. [30] Cassirer E. Filosofia delle forme simboliche (1923-1929). Firenze: La Nuova Italia; 1961.
  30. [31] Blumenberg H. Il futuro del mito (1971). Milano: Medusa; 2002.
  31. [32] Dewey J. Esperienza e natura (1925); Bairati P, ed. Milano: Mursia; 2014, p. 26-27.
  32. [33] Sorrentino V. Cupio dissolvi. Senso della vita e abbandono. (Impressioni). Roma: Armando Editore; 2015, p. 71.
  33. [34] Valent I. Dire di no. Filosofia Linguaggio Follia (1995). Bergamo: Moretti & Vitali; 2007, p. 217.
  34. [35] Valent I. L’etica della possibilità (2002). In Valent G. (ed.) Panta diapánton. Scritti teorici su follia e cura. Moretti & Vitali: Bergamo; 2009, p. 319-335; p. 328.

Andrea Tagliapietra, Il rischio del senso. Esperienza scientifica e mito della sicurezza in "RIVISTA SPERIMENTALE DI FRENIATRIA" 3/2015, pp 9-28, DOI: 10.3280/RSF2015-003002