Dear Veneziani, this is why boycotting Teheran is right
Opposing Teheran’s candidature to host the next World Philosophy Day does not mean inflicting “philosophical sanctions” on Iran, nor does it mean “boycotting” a UNESCO initiative in the name of an assumed “priority of democracy over philosophy.” Marcello Veneziani is mistaken when in Il Giornale he attributes such ideas to those who, like Giuliano Amato and the members of Resedoc’s scientific committe, emphasise it would be grotesque to make a place “in which one can risk one’s life in the name of one’s ideas” the capital of doubt and critical debate. Veneziani is wrong, because if it is true that philosophy is exalted wherever humankind needs saving, it is equally true that it is certainly not the executioner who concedes a philosopher’s right to citizenship. What is at stake is understanding who or what could guarantee a free exchange of ideas between participants, should they meet in November 2010 in the capital of Ahmedinejad’s regime. Veneziani himself perhaps?
This article was originally published on February 3rd by Farefuturo webmagazine
Opposing Teheran’s candidature for the next World Philosophy Day does not mean inflicting “philosophical sanctions” on Iran, nor does it mean “boycotting” UNESCO’s initiative in the name of an assumed “priority of democracy over philosophy.” Marcello Veneziani is wrong in attributing such concepts in Il Giornale to those like Giuliano Amato and the members of Resetdoc’s scientific committee, who emphasise that it would be grotesque to make a place in which “one can risk one’s life for one’s ideas” the world capital of doubt and critical reflection. He is wrong because if it is true that philosophy is exalted wherever humankind needs saving, it is equally true that it is certainly not the executioner who concedes a philosopher’s right to citizenship. In other words, it is not very helpful to mention that philosophers are also persecuted in democracies, also quoting Florenskij to remind one of how philosophy blossomed under the totalitarianisms of Stalin and Hitler. Acute and shareable observations, but not relevant ones.
What is at stake is understanding who or what could guarantee a free exchange of ideas between participants should they in November meet in the capital of Ahmedinejad’s regime. Veneziani himself perhaps? Improbable. Just as it is improbable that the regime itself should play such a fundamental role. This is why, according to the leader writer for Il Giornale, philosophy is “transgressive ” since it develops in spite of conditionings, bans and repressions. To envisage that Iran might leave its authoritarian nature outside the doors of a conference is “trivial kindergarten utopia” just like the dream of universal peace that Veneziani attributes to Dalmayr. Knowing well that “exposing itself to the media and to philosophers would be more damaging than useful to Teheran’s regime” why should they host this event? No answer. One thing is certain; should the World Philosophy Day be held in the Iranian capital, it certainly would not be of help to its citizens. It is hard to imagine that the regime would permit full freedom of thought and expression within the comfortable walls of a UNESCO initiative, to then continue to repress with bloodshed any dissenting protest immediately after leaving the conference room.
And even if such impossible intermittent freedom should be allowed, something far more serious that simple “philosophical sanctions” would take place. We would be witnessing clear discrimination. Those with access to the conference would be free, others would be slaves. Not exactly the kind of behaviour UNESCO intends to promote. It is however very probable that the problem would be solved, as happened for a conference held last year, where the only subject addressed was the relationship between Islam and philosophy. This is how philosophy dies; not in the arms of nihilism, but in those of theocracy; it does not die of doubt but of dogmas. Hence an extremist regime such as the Iranian one, is fundamentally unsuited to host philosophy, not because it is Iranian, but because it is extremist. I therefore propose an amendment to the proposal presented by Amato and Resetdoc. Let World Philosophy Day be held in Teheran on condition the regime does not pose any restrictions to the subjects to be debated. Let Teheran host doubt, let it guarantee to all philosophers of all schools of thought and religions the right to participate. Only then will the whole world be right in choosing its streets to celebrate and reflect.
Translated by Francesca Simmons
