res publica

The idea of a world state. by Gerardo Muñoz

As a theme for his 1949 Aquinas Lecture at Marquette University, an American scholar, Robert Hutchins, decided to titled his conference “St. Thomas and the World State”. It is obvious that Hutchins had fresh in his mind the fact that the long European Civil War of the twentieth century, which included two World Wars, was a direct consequence of warring nationalisms and militarized nations that in our times it is once again has lavishly returned with even higher lethal consequences. There is a major historical difference, however; and that is the fact that whereas the nationalisms of the twentieth century were distinct territorial struggles in the wake of crumbling empires, the emergence of the new nationalisms are concerted, nourished, and aligned to the global commanding American imperialism. The techno-political ideal of an influential figure on American elites such as Peter Thiel takes the form of warring nations and firms against the possibility of a global world state to secure peace, interdependence, and free movement of populations across borders and communities [1]. It is fair to say that contemporary technopolitical dominance is a combination of imperial and national forces through the perpetual administration of anomia or lawlessness. 

What is striking about Hutchins’ 1949 lecture is that although Aquinas’ philosophy of law has been traditionally understood as the most important source of natural law, in his proposal Thomas’ actuality is able to fulfill positive law against the instrumental morality of nationalist empires (the United States and the Soviet Union then) that “in the absence of positive law; they may be expected to break the peace” [2]. For anyone that knows the emergence of the European state as coterminous with the secular authority of legal positivism will find this emphasis contradictory at best. The very notion of positive law requires principles of sovereign authority and normative internal recognition of its command coordination in order to consolidate a stable political form over time. This is a contradiction that Hutchins was aware of throughout his lecture. Consider, as an example, when he claims that: “The origin and meaning of the saying that a state has the natural right to sovereignty therefore, is that one state may not forcibly impose its will upon another. It means that Catholicism should oppose the foundations of a world state by force” (36). 

Or, when glossing over the obvious tension between the right of national sovereignty and a potential international federal state in the views of popes and Catholic thinkers: “I think they know that the national state is no longer the perfect community and that positive law is required to make the world community an effective political organization. I believe that they are making two points that are of the utmost importance: first, they are saying that any world government must be a federal government; and second, they see that world must come into existence by consent and not by conquest” (34). However, any student of modern political thought knows that consent and coercion are two internal modalities of governance for legitimate rule. Hutchins’ notion of “consent”, along with positive law, remains not only unthematized, but dependent on a circular of definition of law; that is, the “common good”, which is not a political concept, but a theological and moral notion extracted from the philosophy of history of Christian salvation. 

Towards the end of the lecture, Hutchins goes beyond strict positive law as if searching for some substantive ground: “…the West should not only survive, but also revive and rescue a deeper conception of human civilization than the one recently current, which enters around a religion of progress by resourceful greed and technological mastery of non-human nature” (42). But Hutchins’ plea for the retrieval of a past memory of the West runs astray when it relocates Church and State into a dual predicament of a new world state for peace on the conditions of the same structure of political theology that are no longer operative, but that actually make up the very ground of the modern collapse into nihilism – nihilism that political form does not remain immune to, quite the contrary. In fact, it is the most salient symptom of civilizational collapse. In the same way that Ernst Jünger immediately after the war called for the subsidiary spiritual assistance of the churches in the face of technological power- “the true conquest of nihilism and attainment of peace will be possible only with the help of the churches” – Hutchins will also repeat that only the conjointment of Church and State “must now work together for world peace founded on university charity…and universal democracy” (44) [3]. And the same thesis has found a clear expression in Pope Francis’ Apostolic Letter Candor Lucis Aetenae (2021): “To restore order and salvation, faith and reason, Beatrice and Virgil…Church and Empire are called to operate in harmony” [4]. This speaks directly to what we have recently called the plasticity inherent in the historical adaptations of thomism in social life [5].

This plasticity amounts to the administration of desperate souls from the structures of the state and Churches, without ever transforming the mere survival of life on Earth. This leaves us with the notion of kingdom, which Hutchins introduces in opposition to the political community of city life (polis), but only to reabsorb it into the order of political theology. And it is at this threshold, that we can claim that the kingdom is not a political theological category, but an experiential allowance in which life, the dead and languages occur beyond and before political determinations. It is no surprise, then, that Ivan Illich called the kingdom primarily a mystical experience: “I will dare to formulate a hypothesis: the kingdom is what constitutes the authentic mystical experience, if the mystic knows what experience is really constituted by. The mystical experience of the believer is the conscious experience of the kingdom before the parousia. The mystical experience is the fruit of love, and, therefore, it is also accessible to every lover. The awareness about its meaning is the fruit of faith…” [6]. 

We tend to forget that both national units and the contemporary empires of world building and destruction have been first and foremost enemies of spoken living languages and idioms. On the one hand, the historical grammars to build the unity of people’s official language, and in our days the rise of Artificial Intelligence has clearly become the last stage through which power abandons languages to computational and rhetorical obsolescence. This opening towards awareness is not an article of faith through consent nor a moral predicament that can be adequate prima facie into a political register; it is fundamentally a linguistic experience that allows for the delicate cultivation of peaceful coexistence taking place not in a world, but between them: “To learn a language in a human and mature way way is to accept the responsibility for its silences and sounds. The gift a people gives us in their language is more a gift of the rhythm, the mode, and the subtleties of its system of silences than its system of sounds…The greater the distance between two worlds, the more this silence of interest is a sign of love” [7]. 

.

.

Notes 

1. “Apocalypse Now? Peter Thiel On Ancient Prophecies And Modern Tech,” in conversation with Peter Robinson, October 2024, Hoover Institute: https://youtu.be/wTNI_lCvWZQ?si=M8-qrBh-G7bYZPfw

2. Robert M. Hutchins. St. Thomas and The World State (Marquette University Press, 1948), 15. 

3. Ernst Jünger. The Peace (Henry Regnery Company, 1948), 69. 

4. Pope Francis. “Apostolic Letter Candor Lucis Aeternae (2021)”: https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_letters/documents/papa-francesco-lettera-ap_20210325_centenario-dante.html 

5. Gerardo Muñoz. “The social efficacy of thomism”, Infrapolitical Reflections, August 2025: https://infrapoliticalreflections.org/2025/08/31/the-social-efficacy-of-thomism-by-gerardo-munoz/

6. Ivan Illich. “Concertning Aesthetic and Religious Experience”, in The Powerless Church and other selected writings, 1955-1985 (University of Penn State Press, 2018), 86.

7. Ivan Illich. “Missionary Silence”, in The Church, Change, and Development (Urban Center Training Press, 1970), 121.

Glosses on Rodrigo Karmy’s Averroes and Italian theory. by Gerardo Muñoz

These are just a few notes on Rodrigo Karmy’s excellent presentation today on Averroes and averroism in Italy in the framework of a two-month course that I am teaching at 17 instituto on contemporary Italian political thought. And this series is a way to supplement and contribute to an ongoing discussion. So, these notes have no pretensions of being exhaustive, but rather to leave in writing some instances that could foster the discussion further in the subsequent interventions with Philippe Theophanidis, Francesco Guercio and Idris Robinson. There are two subtexts to this presentation: Rodrigo Karmy’s essay on Averroes and medieval theology of the person published in the new collection Averroes intempestivo (Doblea editores, 2022), and his preface to my own Tras la política on Italian thinkers forthcoming at some point this year (this text is unpublished at the moment).

1. Rodrigo Karmy is interested in advancing an averroist genealogy of Italian theory, and not just a matter of historical influence or history of ideas. The genealogical central unity for Karmy is the “commentary”, which I guess one could relate to the gloss, but also to philology (in the broad sense), and to the concrete practice of translation and incorporation of a way of thinking about life and the life of thought. Averroes is the signatura of a strong reading of Aristotle (the strongest argues Karmy against Renan). However, there is no academic ideal here, but rather a force of thought.

2. This force of thinking for Karmy is to be found in Averroes’ unique contribute on the Aristotelean text: the common intellect is substance. This will have important and decisive consequences for anthropology and the anthropological determination in Medieval philosophy (the absolutization of the person in Thomism, for instance). So, for Karmy it is no coincidence that Italian theory is heavily invested in the “common intellect”: from Mario Tronti’s elaboration on the autonomy of the worker to Antonio Negri’s general intellect when conflating Marx and Spinoza, but also in Esposito’s thought on the impolitical up to Giorgio Agamben’s self-serving averroism and its relation to experience of language and poetry as a form of life. The common intellect in Averroes allows, then, the separation of the the nominal subject from the genus of Man or Human. For Karmy this signals a fracture of the theological-political paradigm.

3. Why does Averroes emerge in Italian theory, and not, say, in French philosophy or German hermeneutics? Karmy relates this to the Italian tradition as a laboratory of translation, sedimentation, and the commentary. To which I responded that this is consistent with Bodei’s emphasis on fragmentation of the Italian tradition, Esposito’s idea of contamination of Italian living thought, and even Agmben’s most recent emphasis of diglossia and bilingualism in the Italian language from Dante onwards (in fact, Agamben is the editor of the Ardilut series on Italian poetry at Quodlibet). I tried to add to Karmy’s thesis the following: the notion of the “commentary” is far from being just a standard glossing over the corpus of an author, it could be very well taken as a sort of problem of language – a poetics, not a politics – which expresses a dynamic of the living that is prior to grammaticalization and political separation of power, for instance. This is the event of a language as such (una voce). It occurs to me that Karmy’s notion of the commentary could be analogous to the vocative in poetry (formidable present in Andrea Zanzotto’s poetics, for instance).

4. Finally, Karmy insisted that Averroes is, indeed, a sort of step back from the modern foundation of politics and the res publica. I suggested that this must entail a decisive step back from Machiavellian politics, or the ‘Machiavellian moment’ (JGA Pocock), insofar as Machiavelli inaugurates the sequence of technical nihilism from the force the political to the force of the worker (ways of arranging the administration of power). This is very neatly stated in Martin Heidegger’s seminar on Jünger’s The Worker. So, Averroes insofar as it gestures to a step back is something other than political republicanism, and this forces us to rethink the genealogy of politics. That seems a heavy but important task at the core of contemporary Italian theory.

Universidad, Humanidades, Cibernética. Para una conversación con Rodrigo Karmy en la Universidad de Chile. Por Gerardo Muñoz

I. Universidad – El agotamiento epocal de la universidad contemporánea exige una mínima arqueología que no coincida con la historia de la institución. Urge una arqueología de los paradigmas de la crisis no moderna de la universidad. Podemos programáticamente apuntar a tres momentos que guían el devenir de su crisis civilizacional: a) un primer momento de la universidad ilustrada del proyecto de Humboldt, en la que predominó la subjetivación y domesticación de los saberes para la construcción de la autoridad. A escala civilizatoria no habría diferencia alguna entre el proyecto de Sarmiento o el de Simón Rodríguez, o en la campaña de alfabetización total de la Revolución Cubana. La universidad quedaba puesta disposición de un sujeto para la Historia. b) Un segundo momento es la transformación que aparece con el ascenso de la universidad corporativa a raíz del neoliberalismo y de la crisis de legitimación del proyecto ilustrado. En efecto, pudiéramos decir que la universidad neoliberal es parte de la nueva racionalidad que ofreció una salida al estancamiento del fordismo y de la de-contención de la economía en la nueva valorización total. El único lastre de la civilización ilustrada ahora quedaba reducido al dispositivo del contrato entre transmisión de saber y subjetivación del estudiante en consumidor. c) El tercer momento es el que atravesamos ahora y que me gustaría llamar de metástasis cibernética, en el que se busca la destrucción subjetiva de la figura de estudiante con respecto a los procesos contractuales previos. Aquí es muy importante la propuesta programática de Eric Schmidt – escrita en el Wall Street Journal muy tempranamente al comienzo de la pandemia – en la que sugirió que lo importante de este momento era desplegar una verdadera revolución de la infraestructura digital en la que el “estudiante” aparecía como la figura de la mutación. Aunque es demasiado temprano para saberlo, ahora podemos ver que la crisis de la universidad no es meramente relativa a los modos económicos de la organización de la vida, sino que es el sobrevenido de la crisis de la dispensación del logos tras la clausura de la época del Hombre en un nuevo horizonte de la domesticación de la especie. 

II. Humanidades – Para Rodrigo Karmy las Humanidades son el resultado del experimento de la res publica. Desde luego, esto es consistente con el momento ilustrado y sus misiones civilizatorias que hoy ya no avanzan sino a un proceso de abstracción genérico bajo el dominio de la tiranía de los valores. Ahora la funcionalidad efectiva de las “Humanides” es compensatoria en el reino del valor: la única diferencia es que el libertarianismo neoliberal busca limar el polo del valor-negativo (pensemos banalmente en el no-valor que puede tener un curso sobre la pintura de Ticiano o sobre la poesía provenzal); mientras que el progresismo ‘humanista’ defiende un régimen valorativo en la cultura que va mutando, dependiendo de la declinación flexible integra al registro del valor. Por eso es por lo que, como ya en su momento vio con lucidez Gianni Carchia en “Glosa sobre el humanismo” (1977), el debate sobre el humanismo y el anti-humanismo es insuficiente para pensar un verdadero éxodo con respecto al imperii del intercambio, pues en ambos extremos hay un proceso de atenuación de la valorización en curso. En el momento de la impronta cibernética, las humanidades no solo son “residuales” (diagramadas desde la identidad y la intensificación de discursos de la agresión subjetivista), sino que operan como el reducto de la producción técnica del saber. En otras palabras, las Humanidades da un semblante al hecho de que ya no hay una época del Hombre, sino fragmentos que se constelan y que producen encuentros en el mundo.

Las humanidades ahora ejercen la función de domesticar y unificar la an-arquía en curso en las propias mediaciones. Esto genera una mutación en las élites: por eso ya la empresa no es producir “civil servants” de la Humanidad como en la vieja aspiración kantiana; sino más bien en una nueva estructuración medial que domestica la propia potencia experiencial del saber. En un importante ensayo escrito en la última fase de su vida, “Texto y Universidad” (1991), Ivan Illich habló de la pérdida de los contactos sensibles y experienciales con la lectura y las páginas del libro en el experimento del saber. Pero todavía Illich hacia la clausura del mileno, podía pensar que la universidad podía preparar una reforma en línea de la ecclesia sempeter reformanda, capaz de extirpar lo peor de lo mejor de su misión (la corruptio optimi) para renovar el reino de las sensaciones y del gusto en el estudio. Pero ¿es tal cosa posible hoy? En cualquier caso, la fractura de las humanidades nos confronta con la incapacidad de tan siquiera imaginar la forma de otra institución capaz de albergar las condiciones del pensamiento. 

III. Cibernética – El presente pandémico ha mostrado con claridad el ascenso de la cibernética en su eficacia de organizar el mundo de los vivos. Obviamente que esto no es una invención reciente de Silicon Valley; aunque, desde luego, Silicon Valley sea la metonimia de la nueva espiritualización técnica del mundo. En una importante conferencia “La proveniencia del arte y la determinación del pensar” (1967) sobre la relación del arte y el destino de Occidente, Martin Heidegger se refirió la cibernética como la unificación de las ciencias y la hegemonía de la “información” como nueva forma de organizar el mundo de la vida de los existentes. En realidad, la cibernética no es un dispositivo más; sino que llega a suturar la relación entre experiencia y vida, inmiscuyéndose en la noción misma de “distancia”. Por eso es por lo que la cibernética es siempre enemiga de la forma de vida, y es incapaz de crear un destino en el singular. A su vez, la cibernética ya no es un proceso de subjetivación, sino que, mediante su “recursividad”, ahora puede constituir la espectralidad de los vivientes a través de la colonización de la medialidad de los vivos. En este sentido, no hay una oposición entre experiencia y cibernética, sino que la concreción de la cibernética es una organización de las descargas experienciales del mundo psíquico.  

De ahí que en un mundo ya desprovisto de los viejos principios (archein), ahora aparece como la superficie que debe ser optimizada desde la mediación absoluta de la información. La cibernética no es reducible a la tecnología ni a la invención de aparatos, sino a la infraestructura subrogada de la optimización de los fragmentos. Ahora las bases ontológicas de la economía de la acción quedan fisuras ante la crisis de la distancia y la sustitución de la virtualidad por la crisis de la apariencia. Y, sin embargo, la cibernética es incapaz de integrar la irreductibilidad de la existencia. La existencia busca un afuera, desertar de la equivalencia contingente de lo Social, separase asintóticamente con el mundo. Todo pensamiento hoy solo puede acontecer ex universitatis: en otras palabras, el pensamiento es la fuga del vitalismo de una experiencia cuya estrechez política tiende a la negación de la apertura de sus modalidad inexistentes o posibles. En este punto es que podríamos comenzar a pensar una defensa del entorno (Moten) fuera de la vida, que es también una detención de la cibernética que hoy se impone como nueva configuración de un poder en el que experiencia y vida comienzan a constituir la zona invisible que debe ser recogida por la tarea del pensamiento. 

.

.

* Estas notas fueron escritas para preparar la conversación sobre universidad y la crisis de las humanidades en la serie de “Diálogos Permanentes” organizada por Rodrigo Karmy en la Universidad de Chile y que podrá ser vista el viernes 30 de Abril en la página de la Facultad: https://filosofia.uchile.cl/agenda/174490/dialogos-permanentes-humanidades-universidad-contemporaneidad