Full Transcript

·YouTLDR

La science pense-t-elle ?

54:18EnglishTranscribed Jul 18, 2026
0:08

[Music] "

0:34

Science doesn't think," said Heidegger.

0:36

This statement is very controversial, you

0:38

should know that, and to discuss it, we'll

0:41

have Jean Bricmont, who will

0:44

defend a certain point of view, as you'll

0:46

see. And facing him,

0:48

well, it's a tough debate, Nicolescu, who has a

0:51

different point of view, as you'll see.

0:53

So the problem that interests us

0:56

today is science and

0:58

thought. There's this relationship between

1:00

the word "science" and the

1:03

verb "to think" that we'll have to

1:05

articulate.

1:06

And as for science, we can

1:09

already see that initially,

1:12

humankind truly

1:14

asked itself the question of what it was doing

1:16

in the universe. All of

1:18

mythological creation is a proto-

1:21

science, a proto-science that was

1:23

very much embedded in a whole domain that

1:25

was in the theological domain. And the

1:28

separation of science from

1:30

theology appeared practically at the

1:32

same time as when philosophy

1:35

separated from theology. On one

1:37

side, we had maps that affirmed the autonomy

1:40

of the Philosophy in relation to

1:42

theology,

1:42

while Galileo also affirmed

1:45

the autonomy of this nascent science,

1:46

which consequently had to take

1:50

theological data into account,

1:51

therefore, in relation to this autonomy of

1:55

science that leads to

1:56

modern science, and it is important to understand that

1:58

the crucial point focuses on this

2:01

problem of modern science,

2:02

we must therefore ask ourselves who thinks about

2:05

science, whether there is a thought process

2:07

of science, whether within the

2:09

activity of the

2:11

scientist there is a reflection on what he does

2:13

or does not do, and ultimately we will

2:16

ask ourselves the question of ethics

2:18

which is linked to this science since

2:20

science without conscience is but the ruin

2:21

of the soul, as Rabelais said, and

2:23

consequently we will have to

2:25

look at the activity of the scientist.

2:26

Perhaps initially, I will

2:29

ask Habas Arabe to perhaps

2:32

react to this sentence by

2:34

Heidegger and perhaps put it back into

2:36

its literary, philosophical, or scientific context.

2:41

So it's a joke, we very often hear this phrase; it's

2:47

a provocative statement. They themselves are

2:49

scandalous on a certain level because, when taken out

2:51

of context, we say that

2:53

science doesn't think, and that's scandalous

2:55

for scientists

2:56

because scientists think that he

2:57

thinks, and he even thinks—seven

3:01

years ago, a girl thought that he thinks more

3:02

than other human beings. Well, that's

3:05

scandalous.

3:06

So, if this sentence appears in a

3:09

text, in a book by Heidegger

3:13

called "What is Called Thought?" which

3:16

was published in 1954, then the

3:20

exact sentence—and I want to say it gently and

3:23

perhaps comment on it at the same time—is that it

3:25

says that

3:29

science doesn't think because its

3:32

approach and its auxiliary means are

3:35

such that it cannot think. Well, up to this point, it's

3:37

almost a vicious circle,

3:41

but then he says that the relationship of

3:43

science to thought is neo-tastic and fruitful,

3:47

that when the gap that separates

3:50

science and thought becomes

3:53

visible, and when it appears that we cannot

3:57

throw that one away, no pump,

4:00

there are no bridges, just a

4:01

very strong affirmation. So, these are

4:03

the contexts of the sentences.

4:06

Exactly, around this idea,

4:07

science doesn't think, and I

4:09

personally believe that we can start from this

4:11

text as it is to enter into it

4:15

because, obviously,

4:17

personally, I immediately say, "

4:22

Why do I think that in war, both right

4:25

and wrong,

4:28

Jean, what is your reaction to

4:30

this commentary on

4:32

Basaraba's reading?" But I am not a

4:34

philosopher, and I don't want to be; I was

4:37

simply giving a reaction based on how I

4:41

see the impact of

4:42

science on the virtues of Sophie, and therefore the

4:45

birth of modern science with

4:48

Galileo and Newton. And in my opinion, it's

4:51

a double

4:51

innovation: on the one hand,

4:56

we realize that there are a number

4:58

of controversies that we can

5:00

resolve;

5:01

we can settle them empirically.

5:03

The movement of the Earth in

5:07

relation to the Sun, the movement of

5:08

comets, was revealed by Dominique. There are so many

5:11

things that we can settle by

5:13

combining reflection with

5:16

observation and later with

5:18

experiments. This is a first, a first

5:21

break with

5:23

speculation and with

5:25

research. If we

5:27

absolutely insist on truth, we have truths that are

5:29

only dependent on our observations,

5:31

which are therefore revisable by

5:34

some; they are not certain, like

5:36

the certainties one could

5:37

find in metaphysics, where I have

5:39

maps, something that, well, yes, like a

5:41

first break, a second break, and that's

5:44

important, it's perhaps where we

5:45

arrive at war, but it doesn't claim

5:48

comfort entirely; it's a

5:50

skepticism in relation to

5:54

speculative approaches or approaches detached

5:56

from experience, that is to say, for example,

6:00

philosophy, metaphysics,

6:02

intuition, religious and cultural tradition.

6:08

This is true because my parents told me so

6:11

everywhere, my teachers told me so,

6:12

and so this dual aspect and

6:16

the impression I have of it, I know, is that

6:19

I have a loan to heal, there was

6:20

a will to save the

6:24

possibility, if not to answer, at least to

6:26

ask questions that go beyond what we

6:28

can scientifically

6:30

know, and it seems to me that he wants to

6:32

reintroduce an approach that

6:35

traditionally more

6:37

scientific philosophers would call metaphysics.

6:42

[Music]

6:48

So when I talk about

6:50

scientific philosophers, I'm thinking of those who have

6:52

more or less

6:55

incorporated [Music]

6:57

the scientific revolution as

7:00

I describe it, and I'm thinking, for example, of the

7:02

English empiricists, especially the

7:07

French materialists, the

7:09

Enlightenment philosophers like Voltaire (whose

7:11

Letters from England), Diderot, and

7:15

other materialists. And in the 20th

7:17

century, I'm thinking of those who, for what was

7:19

called logical positivism, the

7:21

Vienna Circle, or people like

7:23

Bertrand Dresseur, or people like those in

7:26

the Parisian circle, like Karnas. These are

7:28

philosophers that one

7:30

can like or not, but for me, it's a matter of

7:32

war, and I don't even know if they are

7:34

mutually exclusive. And there is clearly

7:37

a divergence in philosophy in the 20th century, if you will, in

7:39

philosophy. On the one hand, there's a

7:41

tradition called analytic, which is

7:44

more or less inspired, with

7:47

divergences due to the certainty of the link,

7:50

and then there's a more continental philosophy

7:52

which, in a certain way, continues, if

7:57

you will, in the metaphysical tradition,

8:00

without, in my opinion, incorporating it. It's a double

8:03

scientific revolution

8:07

[Music]

8:16

1 First of all,

8:22

I may perhaps

8:25

allow myself to say, illustrating with

8:27

specific cases, why I believe he is right.

8:30

Then, I will say

8:33

why I believe he is wrong. So I

8:37

will take the two positions that are

8:39

mine, moreover, I also believe he is wrong,

8:40

he is right. First of all,

8:43

why do I believe he is right? Two

8:46

wars and not with a very

8:48

ancient philosophical tradition and that of

8:50

Parmenides. He predicts Rameau / / / by

8:52

Medina by Melides, his militia, the

8:54

founders, there you have the founders of

8:56

the anthology. Yes, this recalls the anthology

8:59

in philosophy. Well, and he often cites

9:01

the fragments. 6 linked famous ones are who and

9:05

who says that to rethink and letters and the

9:08

same, it has not recovered.

9:09

So the question is only being who their call

9:11

letter the anthology and from this point of

9:14

view it is almost obvious that Heidegger is

9:17

right. Why? Because by

9:19

methodology there are not sciences in

9:22

methodology and without forgetting it often there is

9:24

a scientific methodology, it

9:26

has It was defined by Galileo in 1632 in

9:30

the magnificent books under the Discourse

9:34

on the Great System where there are

9:37

three postulates of science. In the sense that there is

9:40

no science,

9:40

firstly there are the

9:42

universal mathematical laws. Second

9:45

postulate when he says these

9:48

universal rights can be discovered by

9:51

scientific experiments,

9:54

and here it's not so innocent

9:56

because the crucifixes mean a

9:58

very well-defined type of experiment,

10:00

days with protocols, etc.

10:02

Well, yes, we call them experimental.

10:04

There's the experiment that will

10:06

launch games, the suitcase, and from that it was said

10:09

he learned that century, well, and

10:11

third, continues the DGA River, isn't it

10:13

the perfect repeatability of these

10:17

experimental data?

10:18

Well, it's a kind of goal of the alliance

10:22

that was defined that hasn't changed

10:24

despite scientific revolutions. The

10:26

three postulates are still there. Well,

10:29

from this methodological point of view,

10:30

it's clear that science forbids

10:33

talking about letters, forbids itself. It's a

10:35

question, it's a choice.

10:36

A demonstration would be absurd.

10:38

Science doesn't demonstrate anything under the plans

10:40

of Simply being, it forbids

10:42

approaching it except, of course, at the borders.

10:45

Why? Because the Trevisans are

10:47

beyond recovery.

10:48

It's very funny how Borat was able to find

10:52

their... I was going when it's almost

10:54

derisory,

10:55

so that's obvious. Why also on

10:58

Thursday that he's right? It's because

10:59

scientists... there are scientists, even the

11:01

greatest, who thought the same

11:02

thing. I'll give you a simple remark:

11:05

Max Planck, in the image of the leap in

11:10

modern physics, yes, says something like that.

11:13

So, how does Eric's research

11:15

progress from reality? The

11:18

metaphysical reins, the damned... he is, after all, the

11:20

founder of

11:21

quantum physics. The language of science clashes at the

11:24

borders of science.

11:27

Idy... almost the same

11:29

word of rigor before dreaming about it, and

11:33

nobody protested. Day... is not

11:35

able to cross... in

11:36

other words, the bible, whose

11:38

members... and metaphysics... is

11:40

therefore not starting points of

11:42

scientific wealth, but its

11:44

inaccessible goal... the same words are said... these are

11:47

almost identical sentences...

11:49

I It also gives you a

11:52

position from Poincaré that shows

11:54

why he's wrong, why not, actually,

11:58

wrong because he confuses what

12:03

is normal,

12:03

science, and the scientist. So I

12:07

think we need to distinguish between what is

12:09

science and the great scientists.

12:12

When I call someone a scientist, I mean someone who

12:14

created and gave something

12:15

truly essential. These great

12:19

scientists ask themselves the same

12:20

questions, and they think. They think about

12:24

the essence of being annoyed. That's what's

12:25

surprising about this game in a situation that I really liked. The

12:28

square bridges are

12:31

found in the value of science. He

12:33

says everything that isn't thought and the pure nothingness, the mothers

12:35

of thinking about it.

12:38

Yes, to two important scientists, it goes

12:42

much further. We can only

12:43

think about thought. He preferred,

12:47

however, geological history

12:49

shows us that life puts a short episode

12:52

between two eternities on the edge. This is almost

12:56

poetic. What he says is that in this

12:58

episode, even conscious thought has only lasted, will only last a

13:01

moment. Thought is only a

13:04

flash in the middle of a long

13:06

night. And his conclusion is the last

13:09

sentence elsewhere. The last words on the

13:13

value of science, he says, is that this

13:15

flash is everything. So to say that the

13:17

scientist doesn't think is really to say

13:20

that science doesn't think, that's true,

13:23

but to say that scientists don't think

13:25

is completely false. And it's still the

13:27

public who do

13:28

science, yes, we agree. I think there is

13:30

one thing: science

13:32

describes itself. What we say about

13:34

science is that we describe this text. So I

13:36

think that's kind of where the

13:37

direction is, but I think

13:45

[Music]

13:51

First, I tend not to

13:53

share the view that science,

13:56

defined by its methodology, is limited

13:58

by its methodology. For me,

14:00

science shows itself not so much through

14:05

methodology but through results.

14:07

That is to say, you have both confidences,

14:10

coincidences if you will,

14:13

between theoretical predictions and

14:14

experience, and you have technology,

14:17

which is a true miracle. If we don't

14:19

look at ten centuries

14:20

ago, if we take a car, a

14:22

plane in Turin, we take us back to the Middle Ages, already

14:24

about five miracles. So I don't define

14:26

science by prizes, mission, or

14:28

methodological approach, but by results.

14:30

First, and second, it

14:33

will be a question of thinking precisely; it

14:37

might be good not to think

14:39

metaphysically. So my

14:43

reflection, along with Kessel's, among

14:44

the philosophers I've cited, is that

14:46

science, that

14:48

scientific discovery, allows us to consider the

14:51

limits of human thought—not

14:54

scientific thought, but human thought in general.

14:55

And therefore, there is a wolf in sheep's clothing, a death knell for

14:58

experience, something beyond what we

15:01

can know through reason and

15:02

experience,

15:04

which is indeed unattainable.

15:07

I'm going to demonstrate what I want us to

15:11

say about the fact that science,

15:15

scientists think, we have a

15:17

living act, and science, which thinks

15:19

in its stance.

15:21

I find that very interesting, but I've also mentioned something else that's

15:23

interesting:

15:25

having the league,

15:27

scientific rigor for its own

15:29

discourse, that is to say, knowing when we

15:32

exceed the limits of science.

15:34

When I heard the words of the SLA,

15:37

science can judge human thought in

15:41

general. I shuddered at the smell that she was

15:46

leading a reflection on the limits of

15:47

thought, how he can do it, finally,

15:49

50, that she doesn't have the means, the subjects

15:52

of human thought, period, this

15:54

demo, which are not scientific, will be her

15:56

passes, period, what is it that no,

15:58

just France, period, no, no, it's

16:01

because I think that I think

16:03

no, for me the right philosophical attitude

16:05

after the scientific revolution was to realize, on the one

16:07

hand, that on

16:09

certain problems we had the means

16:11

to solve: the age of the earth, the

16:14

structure up to a certain point,

16:15

space-time, the structure of

16:17

matter and terrains, which were

16:18

philosophical questions and to which

16:20

we can answer scientifically, and then there are

16:22

questions about

16:23

why it was necessary to be rather than

16:24

nothing, to take an example, we don't have an

16:27

answer, there is no

16:27

answer at all, we don't have

16:29

an a priori answer in a

16:31

philosophical way, and then simply to say

16:33

that science has no answer, the

16:35

patron saint, the human being, has no

16:36

answer at these latitudes that we can

16:38

take because we It accounts for the fact that,

16:41

little by little, with scientific discoveries, there are

16:44

ultimately questions that we cannot resolve. Can we

16:47

submit them to the

16:49

judgment of minds? To give an

16:50

example of a philosopher, someone who

16:52

generally advises, like a future Blum,

16:54

when he writes, leaves his

16:56

human understanding to the sentence that ends it. It's

16:57

a rather brutal sentence. He says, "

16:59

When you take a book of theology

17:01

or metaphysics from a library,

17:03

ask yourself the following question." I

17:06

'm not from a German background, but I'm told: "Does it

17:07

contain

17:09

abstract reasoning about numbers

17:11

or geometric figures? Does it

17:13

contain reasoning

17:15

based on questions?" Therefore, if it's

17:18

neither one nor the other,

17:19

then throw the water out, because in our

17:21

accounts, it contains only sophistry and

17:22

illusion. It's quite a brutal sentence,

17:25

yet it's the attitude of a

17:26

philosopher who is perfectly aware

17:28

of doing philosophy but who resonates

17:30

from the scientific revolution

17:31

and who resonates with a skeptical attitude towards

17:34

everything, as we often believe.

17:35

But in relation to metaphysics, and

17:37

implicitly forbidden, I therefore have

17:40

this attitude. You find it in this attitude of

17:43

eating scientists, but you

17:44

find it in a certain number of

17:45

philosophers. I think it's

17:46

important to understand that

17:49

philosophy is divided, that people we

17:50

call philosophers like Humboldt Russell,

17:52

etc., will share this point of view, which we

17:56

can like or not like, but with

17:57

which, in the case of a certain Servaty,

17:59

it's not simply

18:00

arrogant, ignorant scientists who don't know what

18:02

they're talking about. And these are people with

18:04

degrees in philosophy who have studied

18:05

philosophy. I meet

18:07

many, for example, in the Anglo-

18:08

Saxon world, who have this attitude. We agree, anticipated

18:10

that I think, I think that this

18:12

opens the discussion now

18:16

on how science has still changed the way

18:20

we looked at the universe, and

18:22

this view of the universe has been expressed in a

18:24

certain way, and I think that

18:26

there is still a

18:28

scientific activity, a Pigeot-like activity,

18:30

in relation to this

18:32

new view, and I propose that we

18:34

look at its dance in a second

18:35

moment when it is in In these discussions,

18:57

I think we agree that our

18:59

view of the universe has

19:02

evolved tremendously. When we consider the perspective of a

19:05

Greek, when he looked up and

19:08

gazed at the universe, seeing the

19:11

Earth more or less as a pancake,

19:12

even if there are interpretations of

19:15

round shapes that are already beginning to emerge,

19:17

if we look at Galileo's perspective, who placed

19:21

the sun at the center of the universe, even

19:24

if there had already been some

19:25

anticipations, there was still a

19:27

shift in our view of the universe.

19:29

Darwin's contribution to the phenomenon of

19:32

evolution, which places humankind in

19:35

a progression and not in a sudden

19:37

emergence, I believe that all

19:41

these factors show that our

19:43

view of the universe and

19:47

humankind within it is, in a way,

19:51

conditioned

19:52

by scientific contributions. So what

19:54

I would like to see is perhaps that we can

19:56

see a little bit of what

19:58

these scientists are saying, so in

20:00

this dance, an attitude that is, in fact,

20:02

part of the scientific community, beyond From a

20:04

scientific standpoint, speaking in my

20:05

metaphysical work, which people were denouncing earlier, well, yes,

20:08

I believe that first of all,

20:11

you shouldn't get lost in endless

20:13

historical considerations. You

20:16

have to limit yourself to the

20:17

scientific revolution of the 19th century, which had

20:20

two major

20:21

intellectual constructions, it must be said, which are already

20:23

a century old:

20:26

quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity.

20:28

And for the moment, they are not outdated at all; in fact,

20:32

they have remained in a state of separation.

20:34

I have been practicing quantum physics for

20:36

40 years, and so I have seen with my own

20:39

eyes, both in the

20:42

scientists' own revolution and in

20:44

astonishing changes in the

20:46

worldview. But I would say there is one point

20:48

that seems focal and central to

20:52

this contribution of scientists to

20:53

thought, to thought in general:

20:56

philosophical thought.

20:58

A completely new idea

21:01

in science, which is that of

21:03

the abolition of the

21:05

epistemological divide between subject and

21:08

object. There are its reasons, but this is what leads to

21:11

this truly

21:14

fundamental book called "Philosophy:

21:16

The Manuscripts of 1942" by Jean-Marc

21:20

Lévy-Leblond. had the superb idea of

21:22

publishing them at the threshold, which is the idea of ​​the

21:23

bass, the birds that develop the most,

21:25

but not at the liana, even the edges, the same

21:27

idea, the basic idea is that with

21:30

quantum physics,

21:32

quantum mechanics, with

21:34

quantum physics we are plunged into

21:36

another relationship between subjects and objects,

21:38

which are still distinct, of course,

21:39

but we can no longer speak of a

21:44

total copy between subjects and objects, as if

21:48

between the two there was nothing but

21:50

scientific observation, called

21:52

scientific, is itself chronological,

21:55

so this idea, they elaborate on

21:59

their work, these are

21:59

not ideas, doors, which are

22:01

not ideas of philosophers,

22:04

an essay based on the principles of

22:07

superposition, which is still

22:08

central,

22:09

so there is no quantum mechanics,

22:11

it is the p The principle of superposition and

22:12

all these developments, all the

22:14

stories, are after the complementarity

22:16

of the aces of derivatives, but the essential thing is

22:19

the principle of superposition and

22:23

this numerous purely epistemological approach

22:26

leads to the idea of ​​levels of reality in the

22:30

regions of reality. He distinguishes

22:33

three categories. This is

22:35

very interesting because it's right in the middle of

22:37

the discussion we had

22:39

previously on Head. He says there is a

22:43

region where the proximity between subject and

22:47

object is not great, that is to

22:52

say, they are quite distant.

22:54

The notion of objectivity, ancient,

22:56

works perfectly, and this is

22:59

classical science, physics,

23:00

whose apogee is

23:02

the theory of relativity. Besides, there is a

23:05

second region of the gharb and of even greater

23:08

proximity. A

23:10

distinction: his conclusions are not

23:12

conclusions, but a

23:15

greater proximity between subjects and objects. The

23:17

subjects operate like cuts in

23:20

reality in such a way that

23:22

reality modifies it—well, not by the

23:24

will of the subjects, of course, but

23:27

simply its own intervention. Well,

23:30

its own existence, intervention as

23:33

my eyes, as that

23:35

measuring apparatus, alas, is still said in this

23:38

region, we have

23:41

quantum mechanics, biology, and the psyche,

23:45

Doullens, sciences of the psyche,

23:48

finally he says that, the third region where

23:51

proximity is almost total but not

23:54

total, it can never be total between

23:56

subjects, the object, by phenomena

23:59

of a religious order, of an aesthetic order,

24:03

it is an idea that we find in

24:05

other forms in Paoli, but it is the

24:08

same idea, there is a second

24:10

essential idea of ​​the beast agents that they

24:14

develop past the bench in his

24:15

books, but in other books that

24:18

are translated into French, the idea that the

24:20

usual logic no longer works

24:21

in this second tribal region of

24:26

quantum mechanics,

24:27

he starts from the third of the third inclusive, that is to say,

24:30

for example, who has a 10 and a 6

24:34

where there is no, to say there are no 12s,

24:37

be true, this false jump, there is

24:40

quantum mechanics, it pays off just like that,

24:42

so it makes another logic, we know very

24:44

well, we who practice it, we

24:45

wondered, all the dreaming players, is

24:47

good, so there is a third

24:49

quantum logic, but which are

24:51

New logic, well then, it opens the door to

24:55

something

24:57

extraordinarily interesting in my opinion. All

25:00

these remarks, shared by its

25:02

founders, are

25:05

sober and the science of the turtle, which has

25:07

humility. That is to say, it's not a

25:11

science that claims to hold

25:13

all the truth. It exists in this world, it's

25:15

said, we have a portion of the

25:18

truth. In Vega, one aspect is there, we

25:22

can begin to dialogue with

25:25

other forms of knowledge.

25:26

It seems to me a pivotal event. It didn't foresee

25:29

the genres, so I'm putting it into play.

25:37

No, we expect a lot, given, I don't dispute it.

25:43

I would like to develop

25:46

another perspective.

25:47

I would first like to point out that when we

25:50

talk about the science of the

25:52

scientific revolutions of the 20th century, what

25:54

you say is quite right,

25:55

managed by their physics, but there is

25:58

biology, there is the development of

26:02

Darwinism, genetics, DNA, etc. These are

26:04

great discoveries that

26:06

dominate our era, and the

26:09

development of

26:11

cognitive sciences, etc.

26:12

We decided not to make real cases

26:15

of specialists. I live for a moment,

26:17

recorded the fact that historically it There

26:21

are other ways of thinking about

26:23

quantum mechanics, and there are

26:25

very explicit objections that would make for another

26:28

show and would be much more

26:29

technical, but you have everything in mind.

26:31

You bought a Belle de

26:36

Breuil balm, sometimes Schrödinger, not mom,

26:38

who is especially Belle, who is the clearest,

26:41

John Buck, and the clearest defender

26:43

of the critique of the idea that there must be

26:46

a quantum logic to the

26:47

critique of edge ideas. You have to

26:50

say his book, I now, but I haven't,

26:53

you haven't read it, I live

26:54

fiction. I wanted to know what his

26:56

book Spider-Man X is. This book is a

27:00

very explicit critique, and my opinion is

27:02

very clear on this idea. So I think

27:05

that when you talk about humility, especially

27:07

me, I find it interesting in

27:09

science from a cultural point of view. It's perhaps the

27:11

opposite, exactly. It's not

27:13

the humidity of science, but it's

27:15

the humility of the human being and

27:17

the humility of particular cultures

27:21

in relation to the universal. And so I

27:24

find that by placing the human being in

27:26

the universe on a lost planet somewhere

27:29

in the universe, as I Sometimes,

27:31

a little mold is said, but

27:32

natural selection is equipped with a brain and a

27:35

positive way of expressing itself, something that doesn't have

27:37

the central role that

27:40

religions generally reserve for humankind.

27:41

Because the Qadiri religions, the People of the

27:45

Book, give an extraordinary role, in a

27:48

certain way, to this all-

27:49

powerful god who created us in his image.

27:51

Thanks to this, a certain

27:52

momentum is very important to

27:55

humankind, and I think that science, in

27:57

relation to this, gives a much more

27:59

modest role. So I find this modesty

28:00

beneficial because the will to

28:03

power, the belief in the

28:05

omnipotence of human beings, is

28:06

extremely destructive, and other

28:08

fears teach it. A new modesty is

28:13

perhaps bestowed upon what Mr. Nicolescu calls

28:15

other forms of knowledge, such as

28:19

cultural and religious knowledge, etc., which, in my

28:22

opinion, need this modesty

28:23

simply to exist. For

28:25

human beings, since they exist among themselves,

28:26

they must believe that they do not possess the

28:29

absolute truth

28:31

found, for example, in

28:32

revealed religions or in the

28:34

superiority of one race. of a culture, etc.,

28:36

and its beliefs in your own

28:38

superiority, both as a

28:39

human being compared to animals,

28:41

compared to the rest of the universe, or

28:42

as Chinese, as gentle, as

28:44

Americans, as Europeans, etc. The

28:46

belief in this is undermined by the

28:49

next scientific approach and by

28:51

the separation of subject and object.

29:03

We have just seen that science cannot help but advance,

29:05

therefore cannot help but dream of

29:08

progress. We are also led to see it

29:11

in a context and a concept

29:15

that is both sociological and also economic, and where we are

29:19

currently seeing pressures. We have

29:22

some recent examples of

29:24

very strong pressure on the

29:27

field of science, which is not

29:30

technology. So there are remarks

29:31

from Lévy-Leblond, for example, showing that we

29:34

are in a break with a

29:36

shift from this

29:39

purely research data to

29:42

practical applications, that is to

29:44

say, a return, and with a

29:47

takeover by a certain

29:49

number of economic actors,

29:52

for example, on patents. The

29:54

brain drain is on, we know this very well.

29:57

To say that large states

30:00

tend to attract

30:03

top-tier researchers with bonuses and long-term positions, whether in science,

30:07

biology, or even more

30:09

fundamental research,

30:10

I would like to ask you

30:12

what your thoughts are on this. Isn't it

30:18

precisely a lack of

30:20

philosophical perspective, where they were making

30:22

farmers, directors, and Croatian rulers? Ah yes,

30:24

at the level of a kind of broad perspective

30:27

[Music]

30:28

on the issues, the

30:30

scientific issues, yes, but we must understand that here we are moving beyond a

30:33

purely philosophical debate.

30:37

Well, we are entering a political domain, if you will,

30:39

and the problem is that the

30:42

timescale we are considering is

30:44

different. When

30:46

I talk about a scientific revolution, I am

30:48

talking about what happened over the course of

30:49

360,000 years. I am talking about Darwin in the

30:52

nineteenth century. The impact of

30:53

discovery will be... Here we are in a stage of

30:58

what we could call the

30:59

commercialization of the world, because it's not just

31:01

science that is... They

31:04

commercialize all the activities of

31:06

public services, from television to

31:09

culture, and those of the... so sorry, this

31:11

general problem... I don't know if it's a

31:13

lack of philosophical perspective or

31:16

simply a lack of interest in

31:17

pure science, knowledge in such times,

31:20

the long term, because

31:22

scientific knowledge

31:26

is obviously also a generator of

31:28

technological revolution, but in the

31:29

long term.

31:30

But if you look at the practices of

31:32

companies... I'm not a specialist,

31:34

but what I read here is that, indeed,

31:36

we think, parliamentary

31:37

transport... the problem is serious and

31:39

will... so the commercialization of the

31:43

world implies the abandonment of the long term. Will it

31:45

last? Will it

31:47

lead to a catastrophe that strikes, that

31:49

people will wake up, or... I don't know... I didn't really

31:50

know what

31:53

history is made of, don't wait, so

31:54

I don't know what will happen. For

31:56

me, I am very... how to say... it's a

31:59

very negative attitude towards what is

32:01

happening today, but I want to

32:03

emphasize that for our debate, we are placing ourselves

32:05

in a different temporal and conceptual framework, that's

32:08

true, but we can still say... is it... Isn't there

32:09

precisely a

32:11

need for popularizing science

32:13

among the general public so that

32:16

decisions are made?

32:18

So, we're back in

32:20

our context, meaning what will

32:22

the scientist be led to say

32:24

about their work? Yes, absolutely, I completely

32:29

agree with what you're saying.

32:31

Moreover, my position is entirely in line with that of

32:33

Jean Bricmont. I

32:36

would simply like to offer a

32:38

complementary perspective that aligns with this idea

32:41

that, in my opinion, the responsibility of

32:43

scientists today lies

32:46

precisely in reflection and

32:49

self-criticism, in a more

32:51

organizational sense, of course, but also in

32:53

other aspects. I'm trying to explain

32:56

the simple idea I'm going to develop, which isn't just mine. It's been

33:00

presented all over the world. It's

33:03

said that science has

33:05

changed its character.

33:08

It's a

33:11

science that unites with

33:15

technology, creating a center, a

33:18

kind of two-headed chimera:

33:20

technoscience. The words exist, even for the

33:23

illiterate, and therefore, for those Even

33:27

fundamental and

33:29

applied science are caught up in a

33:32

completely irrational movement. So,

33:34

paradoxically, science is caught in

33:36

the irrational movements that it and

33:38

its irrational movements are driven by. It's

33:39

efficiency for efficiency's sake,

33:41

this unbridled,

33:44

almost obscene commercialization, isn't it, at the

33:47

global level? What qualifications

33:50

will be made no matter what? It's a

33:53

terrible thing. In this context, it's

33:55

clear that

33:58

science needs to reflect on itself, even if it's

33:59

practically impossible. I

34:02

agree, self-reference doesn't exist;

34:04

it's a problem of

34:06

elementary logic. But by putting itself in its place,

34:09

science, which is both

34:11

strong and humble, and 18 years old, along with

34:16

others, creates these perspectives of ICT. Isn't that what

34:18

can overcome these

34:20

irrational movements? What do

34:30

you think of

34:32

national ICT committees, for example? Do

34:33

you think they are relevant in

34:35

relation to this definition

34:37

of a legislator's decision?

34:40

Because it's just, just in one

34:43

given sentence, the other Do you

34:45

consider this relevant or

34:47

irrelevant? How do you

34:50

position yourself on this? And it's

34:53

true that the idea of

34:54

representatives of major religions and

34:56

religious traditions being called upon to

34:58

speak on ethical issues is something

35:02

I find... Celtics will discuss this, saying that

35:04

one... and he was cool, or titles...

35:07

I'm not convinced that

35:08

religious people are well-placed to give

35:09

lessons in ethics, as secularists don't really see

35:13

their contribution. Well,

35:16

in times when murderers of people are

35:17

religious, and they are part of

35:18

democracy, but should they have what religious

35:19

traditions, as such, should have

35:21

a status, or

35:23

simply national representation

35:25

where we will find people who are

35:26

religious, necessarily... but I would say, I

35:28

think that politics, obviously, is a

35:30

problem of ethics. We shouldn't

35:31

throw stones, how should I

35:35

say it, at politicians, because

35:39

scientists have their own... how should I

35:41

say it, their own ethics of

35:45

effectiveness, that is to say, there is an

35:47

uneducated... that I knew well,

35:50

built in the states United in the

35:51

ivory tower, which still concerns me, who have done

35:54

a fantastic job, we

35:56

discover eternal truths useful

35:59

to people, laugh, but also the framework for

36:00

pure research, and there you have it, society has only one

36:03

wolf in the country, and then we don't ask ourselves

36:04

other questions, all the

36:06

senses are raised regarding the transmission of knowledge, on teaching,

36:07

on the

36:10

popularization of science, and

36:13

generally on the impact, for example, of what

36:17

concerns me a lot,

36:19

the connection between scientists who are

36:20

activists, hours we play at, very few

36:22

questions on this, while the

36:24

dangers posed by the accumulation of weapons

36:28

and the arms race, which is

36:29

inevitably generated by the inequality

36:32

of development between countries, which means that

36:33

some countries have a lot of weapons and

36:35

others don't, but those who don't have any will be able to get them,

36:36

and this grain, so the

36:39

problem of

36:40

scientific responsibility, for me, arises first and foremost there, at

36:42

least I see very little

36:43

ethical questioning there, so we are

36:44

very good at criticizing the irrationality

36:47

of governments, business leaders on the

36:49

ground, and saying we need more

36:50

money for science, but when this

36:52

money comes from the military or When it's

36:54

linked to what we might call the

36:57

prostitution of science,

36:58

scientists working for the military,

37:00

people who ask

37:01

ethical questions, or very few do, when you ask them, you're

37:02

dismissed by saying, "Anyway, we do it

37:04

very well and we

37:06

control the field." For me, that's the

37:08

great danger, even greater than the

37:10

ecological dangers or the dangers

37:11

linked to cloning. Yes, I also

37:17

fully agree with the positions

37:18

developed by Jean Brillon. What I

37:21

would like to address is the question of

37:23

values ​​because without ethics, without

37:25

values, it's pathetic.

37:27

So scientists are facing a

37:30

question, as Etienne says, because they have

37:32

always said no, no, there are

37:33

no values ​​in science.

37:35

We are in the ivory tower he

37:38

talks about. So those who are facing this

37:41

dilemma have even been confronted with it, and we saw it in

37:44

France, precisely in the debate on

37:46

the composition of ethics committees. On

37:49

one hand, the drift—I call it a

37:52

clear drift—of trying to reduce

37:54

ICTs to scientific and, more

37:56

specifically, biological ethics is horrific.

37:59

If truly human beings is just a

38:01

machine determined by a few

38:04

mechanisms, so then I wonder what

38:06

values ​​are, what's the

38:07

point of so many centuries of

38:09

civilization, well, on the other side, the other

38:13

extreme, extremist attitudes, we

38:15

are the holders of values,

38:17

the religious and possibly

38:19

the philosophers have carved out these two

38:21

extremist attitudes that I believe are not

38:24

very harmful because these

38:26

irrational movements will continue, but do we

38:28

want Israel? Yes, I saw

38:31

a research project, we call it

38:32

again, not Saizyk, but I saw a

38:34

research project, it was

38:35

the era of property judges in the

38:37

United States, but it was at the time when you

38:39

are in this mythical existence, or the

38:41

research project in the United States, they say, yes,

38:42

but you know, the Soviets, a

38:44

lot of this kind of thing was

38:46

n't research tonight on

38:48

quarks, it was being physical statistics,

38:49

but I mean, this type

38:51

of argument shows that

38:53

scientists play quite cynically

38:54

with politics and that there are

38:55

questions to ask ourselves here, not

38:57

just telling politicians here and there about money,

38:59

I'm playing, what I mean is that I have

39:02

everything while being in complete

39:04

agreement once again on all

39:06

points, that we can't remain sitting on the

39:08

fence indefinitely, on Thursday,

39:10

taking the taxpayer's state on one side

39:14

and then saying we have nothing to do

39:17

with it, it's fine, nothing to do with the human being,

39:19

which I don't believe, I don't have there either, there can be

39:21

an intermediate position,

39:23

a position of conciliation through

39:26

openness to other forms of

39:28

knowledge,

39:28

I agree and I think we can, no, no, no,

39:32

I don't know what it is,

39:35

I haven't met, excuse me, no,

39:37

but what do

39:37

you call a cash register that

39:39

the Belgian circuit where religion governs is

39:45

aware of, no, but which

39:47

geological seal and then that like a good

39:50

throw, yes, it smells so good, Bell Pizza,

39:55

human sciences like sociology, there are

39:57

human sciences like

39:59

philosophy, is still via an activity

40:00

called music is an art 8 and

40:03

What poetry had, I hope that in

40:05

science it will begin to see an

40:08

activity of self-referentiality, true that we will

40:11

open ourselves to the other before, who remains

40:14

locked in his world, he can say there are

40:17

commands,

40:18

a period, that's all, the recent ones don't interest him,

40:19

so he will disappear.

40:25

[Music]

40:32

In short, beyond science, there is still

40:35

a need to organize a

40:37

kind of vision, let's say, of

40:41

human activity. Doesn't that

40:43

precisely push towards the existence of

40:46

human sciences, or sciences that, let's say,

40:48

of activity, that cultivate human beings,

40:51

will become a science? What do

40:53

you think?

40:53

Ah yes, certainly, but the problem with the

40:57

human sciences as I have

40:58

the impression that there is a latent crisis in

41:00

the human sciences. If you take

41:02

psychoanalysis, for example, it tells us, and not the so-

41:06

called penguins, about a

41:08

resource, about the springs, the unconscious

41:10

of our representations of activities.

41:12

You take pedagogy and it

41:14

explains how to raise children,

41:16

how to teach them such and such a subject,

41:20

sociology now taught on the

41:22

problem of The society

41:23

of conflicts and addressing the issue is present

41:27

in all these disciplines, in

41:29

this vast discourse. What

41:30

is true? And I say that

41:32

to be able to ensure that this discourse

41:35

is true, it seems to me that, at least in the

41:37

natural sciences, we have predictions

41:39

and technologies. And essentially, let's take

41:43

psychoanalysis as a

41:45

relatively clear example: where are the

41:47

predictions, or without

41:48

experimental confirmations? And therapy:

41:50

where is the evidence that therapy,

41:52

as a therapeutic method, works?

41:53

Therapy would have escaped thanks to

41:55

a technology, but we are ready for it to work

41:56

repeatedly and

41:58

systematically, and it is therefore an AI.

42:01

So we say much more than we

42:04

know, to quickly go through

42:05

the history of the human sciences.

42:07

The crisis is significant today

42:10

with the birth, I think, of a

42:13

more biological approach, more centered on the

42:15

brain, and in particular, for example, what we

42:17

call cognitivism,

42:19

cognitive science,

42:20

the study—well, because we realize that there are

42:22

questions we weren't asking ourselves, but were asking ourselves,

42:26

and to which we realize

42:28

the answers are difficult, but which

42:30

are for I have prizes for lighting fixtures in

42:33

the development of the earth,

42:34

humanities sciences like the one I mentioned,

42:36

so what are these questions? How does

42:38

a child learn language? How do

42:41

we catch a ball

42:44

in a soccer ball that's

42:46

flying through the air? What

42:47

calculations do we do in our heads

42:48

to see the movement of the ball, and

42:50

things like that? How do we perceive things?

42:52

How do we recognize faces?

42:53

etc. And so, questions that we

42:56

realize are actually stupid.

42:58

And it poses a very, very

42:59

difficult scientific question, but in another way, it

43:02

seems that these questions are much

43:03

simpler than answering all the

43:06

questions about social benefits, how to

43:08

raise children, and so I think

43:10

the crisis will become clearer when people

43:12

realize that we have given

43:13

answers to questions that we don't

43:14

really have answers to, that we are not even competent

43:15

to answer

43:16

simpler questions, but that we are starting to address these

43:18

simple questions, and perhaps we will

43:20

arrive at a more modest discourse

43:23

because we talk about modesty in the

43:25

natural sciences, but I think that given

43:26

a great modesty in the

43:28

social sciences or in the human face, which consisted of

43:30

not answering all

43:32

sorts of things, what we fear is not so much

43:34

an answer is that

43:35

human behavior is not

43:37

necessarily something that we become

43:40

entirely analytical, and in a

43:42

scientific way, it is not even obvious that it is

43:44

possible to have truly

43:46

unprecedented scientific understanding of the whole of

43:48

human behavior, as we sometimes get

43:49

the impression that this is the case when we

43:51

listen to certain sociological discourses, or

43:54

that the sculptor is very, very

43:56

determined,

43:57

is what we can and Can't we

43:57

say that, all things considered,

43:59

human nature isn't predictive? For example,

44:01

to take psychoanalysis, we were talking about it. There's no

44:02

notion of

44:04

prediction; an analysis can do that,

44:08

yes, but how? Yes, of course, the

44:10

problem is how you categorize your

44:11

competing theories. After all,

44:13

psychoanalysis itself, and

44:15

diversify your tests, Riou, you have

44:17

the cause of your choice on mice,

44:19

disciples, and fieldwork. So who should I

44:21

believe? That's

44:21

my question. I'm in a

44:23

situation where it's hard to decide. I

44:26

think you have the same problem, something

44:27

in the humanities, which is linked to the fact that we don't have

44:29

a

44:31

sufficient level of knowledge, do

44:32

n't have these observational tests of

44:34

prediction to pass, or simply

44:37

the subject of study is too complicated. I

44:39

think there's a desire and their

44:40

disgust. I myself have to answer a

44:42

certain number of questions, and we do

44:43

n't have answers. It was, it will be.

44:44

You have answers. First of all,

44:47

I closed you on March, or the

44:50

plan of language. Yes, it's

44:51

very Interesting, it seems that

44:54

perhaps the answer is sketched out there. Similarly,

44:58

when we say exact science and human sciences, does that

45:03

mean that

45:07

exact science is inhuman? But that's the

45:10

wordplay we usually make, where we

45:12

say hard sciences when they don't have the

45:14

little linguistic game of the... well, we say

45:18

hard sciences and soft sciences.

45:20

I persisted under the

45:21

obvious psychoanalytic connotation of what is

45:23

hard and what is soft on canvas in progress, that's what it

45:27

continues from the

45:29

obvious hard sciences

45:31

soft sciences no I think the news

45:34

simply had a connotation that

45:37

is a bit contemptuous on the part

45:38

of some scientists but

45:40

I continued this little word game we

45:43

say science to someone in the singular

45:46

that they manage to think the thought

45:49

exact science yes automatically practically yes so

45:52

we see here two days

45:54

the editor and mental is always

45:57

ideas of language shifts quite

45:59

extraordinary which in my opinion have

46:02

very interesting historical roots

46:05

which is the separation between science

46:08

and culture

46:09

at the time of the Renaissance and which was

46:12

excellent beneficial

46:14

it is necessary It's important to state this clearly for the sake of science,

46:16

because with prison autonomy and the developed chip,

46:19

we can now ask ourselves the question,

46:21

because things are moving, things are

46:23

changing: is science, in these

46:25

movements of unification with

46:27

technology, giving rise to culture? We

46:31

must use the words "technoscientific." Isn't this a case of

46:35

scientific suicide that it's currently

46:37

perpetrating? It's a question I do

46:39

n't answer, but I believe that

46:41

sometimes questions are better

46:42

than answers. And what is

46:44

currently the position of the separation between

46:46

exact sciences and humanities? It's about

46:49

engaging in these

46:52

irrational movements of

46:53

technoscience without any reflection, without any

46:56

dialogue with other forms of

46:58

knowledge that have existed for

47:00

centuries. We mustn't forget that these

47:01

humanities have existed for centuries. Does

47:03

this mean that philosophy is

47:05

n't a science,

47:06

for example? If this

47:09

name is an aberration, no, the problem, the Kurdish problem, they

47:11

fell with Eric Jean-Jean. No, no, no, no, no, no,

47:15

followed by residence.

47:18

Exactly, it's as if one is exasperated,

47:21

saying what exactly?

47:22

No, but the problem is and on

47:24

terminology since you perfect

47:26

in the field of terminology are there

47:28

objectively

47:32

human sciences, that is to say I believe we have

47:35

in hand as there are

47:36

mathematical sciences and yes that's their name they don't really have

47:39

the problem arises to

47:41

enter into many problems that

47:42

were linked ultimately we have a notion of

47:44

truth well it's no no no wait

47:48

there our signs in the sciences of the

47:50

elite ladies of a proposal of basil of

47:53

Hainaut tories those who speak of

47:54

truth are people who count

47:56

transcendence are knowledge well the

47:58

emphasis knowledge of course he what

48:00

he uses this word they do not

48:01

agree well then but words are

48:04

words it's validity

48:06

the purists and said we had

48:08

solidarity is operative in

48:10

mathematics a methodology

48:12

we try to apply it we did

48:14

experiments in the human sciences

48:16

they have other recipes they stopped

48:18

applying them whereas if they say

48:21

the adversaries of the human sciences

48:23

because there are adversaries of the

48:25

human sciences and sciences and

48:27

human sciences it's not Sciences

48:28

because they lack

48:30

mathematical formalizations because they

48:31

produce nothing, no,

48:32

experimentation doesn't have criteria

48:35

of truth, and that's where

48:36

terrible slippages occur. How can truth

48:39

concern human beings? Is it that we have

48:41

a formulation of the human being and its

48:43

name? That's what we have. We must be

48:44

careful. I think that,

48:47

unfortunately, a serious debate is necessary. Some

48:49

simply have universities, right?

48:53

And if there's someone who says that where the stakes are,

48:57

I don't have the stakes. It's that if science

48:59

closes itself off,

49:01

exact science, it will deliver even totalitarianism

49:05

such as its derivatives. Two hours in

49:07

history, the Nazis claimed to be acting on

49:09

science,

49:09

the Communists claimed to be acting on

49:11

science. A science is a science.

49:13

Bendella, science, the exact words, bull,

49:16

ise, the founders, okay, game, the

49:18

students, I was obliged to study them.

49:19

I'm moving on from the account, absolutely, system of the

49:21

good, and it's absolutely clear that if

49:25

exact science is finally itself, and

49:28

there are two solutions, it would be to Inhuman war,

49:31

she can't deduce values, it's none of their business,

49:33

either recover a

49:36

human and viral structure, men, that's it, the

49:40

young, the molecules, the actors, the

49:42

neurons, and that will be horrible, those

49:45

concentration camps, we wander around and serve for

49:47

five weeks, I don't think

49:48

people live in cognitive science

49:49

without adversaries, human sciences, I don't think

49:51

people who do

49:52

experimental psychology are adversaries of the

49:54

human sciences, in front of these people,

49:55

consider that we have to start from scratch, try to

49:58

answer questions

50:00

to which we don't have answers at the

50:02

moment,

50:02

and forget the answers that only

50:04

psychoanalysis can explain

50:05

everything you do, so really, I don't have

50:06

a problem that is more human,

50:09

tragic, and serves autism or

50:11

serious psychological illnesses, but for a

50:15

very long time, and

50:16

psychoanalytic or

50:18

environmental explanations, 10 by the environment,

50:20

by education in parents,

50:21

now we realize that its

50:23

aunt of these illnesses makes them the basis of

50:24

an ethic, so what

50:25

is the most human

50:26

of gods, what is the most

50:27

totalitarian of... Blaming

50:29

parents because they created a

50:32

psychopathic environment, which

50:35

engenders this or that problem,

50:36

or recognizing reality, knowing

50:39

the reality in the Jose decree, which is, let's say,

50:40

the genetic basis, putting it into practice,

50:42

and so we discover

50:43

other disorders that we don't know about, a

50:45

need in genetics, and what is

50:46

most human is knowing the truth, or,

50:48

as I had said, having the recognition

50:49

of the necessity,

50:50

yes, but there you go, relieved, or Messianic, in the

50:52

version, if we had blamed,

50:55

investing well in its name in the name of a

50:56

discourse on the human, that is, the specificity

50:58

of the human, we are not molecules,

51:00

we are not already a tobacco, Tati Patata,

51:01

but in reality we are, and it is better to know, to know what we

51:04

are. Let's

51:16

imagine that in two or three centuries there will no longer be

51:20

modern sciences as

51:23

we have known them, as we

51:25

know them, it is very possible, all

51:26

forms of cultural aid and a

51:30

deadly form in the east, that's good, it leaves

51:31

and disappears, separate from the seasons, but

51:34

I believe that even on Thursday, even if

51:36

modern science disappears something

51:38

What will remain extraordinary is what

51:40

I call the scientific spirit. The

51:42

scientific spirit, that is to

51:44

say, doesn't believe anyone, doesn't believe

51:47

anyone. The elders crack under the pressure; it's because you can

51:50

verify things yourself, and that has carried weight, okay,

51:54

but it's very important if, at the level

51:56

of questioning, we can pass it on to

51:58

people from any position other than

52:01

scientists. This scientific spirit—

52:03

I'm passing on one more thing, or rather, the

52:06

science of adventure to science—I believe it's

52:09

something that deserves to be

52:11

produced, something that isn't known. The

52:14

specialties are

52:15

because science hasn't

52:17

come to every street. Well,

52:19

we talk about swear words, but we understand

52:21

very little, to be honest. No, when the average person has

52:23

practically nothing, but

52:26

I've outlined what's missing is education.

52:28

I'll tell you something that might

52:30

completely shock you: I'm convinced

52:33

that quantum mechanics, for example, is no

52:35

longer taught to students,

52:36

even in elementary school, if we approach it

52:39

correctly, that is to

52:40

say, with language tools

52:43

that are appropriate for children, etc.

52:45

So it's a question of education, and it is

52:48

only these educational qualifications that

52:51

will create beings capable of communication, that is to

52:53

say, of opening themselves to what we

52:55

call, in this world,

52:57

the transitional spirit, that is to say,

53:00

communication between the different

53:03

disciplines without any pretense

53:06

of authority and hierarchy. That year,

53:09

that exact science, the hall and

53:12

humanities, there is

53:13

poetry, there is

53:15

philosophy, no, it is

53:18

different visions of the same reality. Not hard,

53:21

we also understand the words of reality with

53:23

the rally,

53:24

reality, what governs their LCC, which

53:26

is points, so there we cannot speak of

53:29

reality because the stamps are forever,

53:30

but we can speak of reality, and

53:32

this reality, we must understand well,

53:35

in this civilization which is dominated

53:37

by singulars, always the singular,

53:39

science, truth, no, there are

53:42

sciences, there are truths, and in these

53:45

multiple faces of reality, perhaps

53:47

we will have a chance to survive.

54:04

[Music]

54:11

1

54:13

[Music]

More transcripts

Explore other videos transcribed with YouTLDR.

Get the TLDR of any YouTube video

Transcribe, summarize, and repurpose videos in 125+ languages — free, no signup required.

Try YouTLDR Free