Philosophy has always been suspended between mythos and logos. Plato used myth to convey truths and theses that lie beyond the reach of human reason. However, in different historical periods and philosophical traditions, the balance between these two components has been configured in varying ways. For example, Hegel regarded myth as a sign of the weakness of human thought, which is unable to fully articulate itself. In contrast, Heidegger saw myth as capable of transcending the limitations of logos, particularly in the realm of metaphysics.
This first volume is more directly engaged with the scientific work of Professor Coniglione. The essays it includes address topics discussed in his writings, reflect upon them, and develop them in a creative way. By contrast, the essays collected in the second volume – while devoted to themes that overlap with those explored by Professor Coniglione – do not engage with his work explicitly, opting instead to pursue an autonomous path within their respective fields.
More specifically, the first volume is constructed around these two poles of thought, not in opposition to one another, but rather in a complementary relationship. Accordingly, this collection of essays presents two equally important sources of philosophical inquiry. As illustrated in the opening essay of this volume by Giacomo Borbone and Krzysztof Brzechczyn, according to Francesco Coniglione, the structure of human knowledge resembles an iceberg. Concepts, definitions, models, algorithms, theories, and paradigms constitute the visible tip. Beneath the surface, however, lies tacit knowledge – in the sense attributed to it by Michael Polanyi and Ludwik Fleck – comprising beliefs, myths, parables, and metaphors that provide a holistic vision of the world.
In this preface, we will not dwell on the biographical details or the scientific work of Professor Coniglione, as these aspects are thoroughly addressed in the comprehensive essay by Borbone and Brzechczyn previously mentioned, to which we refer the reader. Rather, we will offer a concise overview of the contributions included in this volume – contributions that collectively embrace both reason and myth as key sources of inspiration in Coniglione’s philosophical journey, while also addressing other topics in which he has shown particular interest.
The papers in the first part – entitled “Reason as an Inspiration for Philosophy” – explore the rational foundations and inspirations of philosophical thought. In their contributions, Fabio Minazzi and Ricardo Roni explicitly reference Karl Popper as a key source of inspiration. In his paper “The Problem of Critical Realism in the School of Milan,” Fabio Minazzi compares the tradition of rationalism cultivated by the Philosophical School of Milan with Popper’s critical rationalism. It is worth noting that this school was founded in the early 20th century by two philosophers: Piero Martinetti and Antonio Banfi. In the 1930s, its core figures included Enzo Paci, Remo Cantoni, Giulio Preti, and Dino Formaggio. The School of Milan exerted a significant influence not only on philosophy but also on various fields of science and art in Italy. Nevertheless, there are surprisingly few references to Preti’s critique of the Vienna Circle’s neo-positivism and to his notion of rationalism, which often closely aligns with Popper’s approach. Roni, in turn, in his article “Science and Philosophy between ‘Open Society’ and ‘Depersonalized Society’: from Claude Bernard to Karl Popper,” compares the views of the Austrian philosopher with the principles of falsificationism, which he identifies in the works of Claude Bernard (1813–1878), considered the father of experimental medicine.
Giacomo Borbone, in his article “Francesco Coniglione on Ernst Cassirer’s Theory of Concept-Formation: Some Critical Remarks,” presents Coniglione’s interpretation of Ernst Cassirer’s thought, highlighting how Coniglione emphasized the crucial distinction made by the philosopher from Breslau between Aristotelian-derived abstraction and idealization, as more recently formulated by the so-called Poznań School. According to Borbone, Coniglione’s merit lies in having been the first to underscore the importance of idealizational processes in Cassirer’s philosophy, revealing their affinity with the epistemological proposals of the Poznań School.
Krzysztof Brzechczyn, in his article “The Development of the Theory ofRevolution in Comparative Historical Sociology: An Attempt at a Methodological Analysis of Skocpol and Goldstone’s Approaches to Revolution,” applies Coniglione’s typology of approaches to idealization to the modeling procedures employed in theories of revolution within comparative historical sociology. According to Coniglione, four basic methodological attitudes toward idealization can be distinguished: (1) Unconscious users – scholars who employ idealization in scientific practice without being methodologically aware of it, or who misinterpret their own scientific behavior; (2) Conscious users – those who use idealization and are fully aware of its methodological role in science; (3) Non-users – scientists who neither apply idealization nor recognize its methodological potential; (4) Cultural expanders – those who advocate for the application of the method in broader cultural domains beyond science. In light of this typology, comparative historical sociologists such as Skocpol and Goldstone can be classified as belonging to the first group.
The next three contributions focus on the social context in which science operates, developing themes that Coniglione has explored with particular interest throughout his multifaceted intellectual journey. Francesco Alfieri, in his article “The University ‘System’ Has Long Been ‘Dead’: Who Were the ‘Perpetrators’ of Its Demise?” offers a pessimistic reflection on the Italian academic system and its opaque employment practices. His analysis is inspired by a short volume written by Coniglione (2011), as well as by other writings in which Coniglione critically addressed the same topic.
In “The Catania Mirrors Project and the AI Transparency Problem,” Thomas Nickles reflects on the threats posed by artificial intelligence to a knowledge-based society. His contribution is grounded in research carried out under the coordination of Coniglione, to which Nickles also actively contributed, as part of the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme. The project, titled MIRRORS (Monitoring Ideas Regarding Research Organizations and Reasons in Science), resulted in a major research report on knowledge-based societies Through the Mirrors of Science. New Challenges for Knowledge-based Societies (Coniglione, ed., 2010), as well as numerous other articles and papers.
Emanuele Fadda, in his article “How Do You See? Ludwik Fleck’s Theory of Vision as a Form of Visual Semiotics,” draws upon the Italian edition of Fleck’s essays, edited by Coniglione, to examine Fleck’s concept of thought styles (or thought collectives), and how these influence the interpretation of facts and the construction of scientific representations of reality.
The articles in the part entitled “Myth as an Inspiration for Philosophy” explore the mystical and mythical foundations of philosophical inquiry. Serving as a bridge between the two parts of this volume is the opening paper, “Ontological Realism and Quantum Mechanics,” by Alberto Giovanni Biuso. The author, engaging also with some theses advanced by Coniglione, examines the physical world through the lens of quantum physics and, in particular, the so-called “Copenhagen interpretation.” In criticizing this interpretation, Biuso draws on the realist epistemology of Lee Smolin, starting from the central claim that time is synonymous with being, time as the foundation of reality. By doing so, the author shows how a fruitful dialogue with metaphysics is possible. The paper also offers several examples illustrating this dialogue and critically discusses Smolin’s philosophical perspective.
R. Loredana Cardullo’s article, “Elements of Solar Theology in Proclus: between Astronomy and Theurgy,” enters into close dialogue with Coniglione’s theses on the esoteric dimension of thought, particularly as developed in his extensive essay on Plato, (Coniglione 2018, pp. 5–51). Cardullo deepens the analysis of the esoteric dimension of Plato’s philosophy – especially as manifested in his unwritten doctrines – and explores the associated doctrine of the Sun, seen as the sensible and divine representation of the Good: the supreme Idea, the ultimate end and purpose of all beings. The article further shows how, in late antiquity, the Neoplatonists developed a form of astro-theology by grafting Chaldean and Orphic religious beliefs onto the foundations of Platonic mathematical physics, harmonizing them with traditional Olympian religion, often in opposition to Christianity. The contribution concludes by focusing on Proclus as a representative of a solar theology that emerges from the perfect harmonization of Platonic astro-ontology with the theurgical and oracular wisdom of theology. Riccardo Pozzo, in his contribution “Interpreting Francis of Assisi,” offers a reading of Francis’s thought through the lens of naturalistic spiritualism, drawing upon Francesco Coniglione’s recent work devoted to the Saint of Assisi (Coniglione 2022). In “Some Considerations on Silence, Music, and the Essence of Things: an Opportunity to Explore Francesco Coniglione’s ‘Southern Passage’”, Emanuele Coco identifies a unifying thread that runs through many of Coniglione’s writings. This thread may be understood as the relationship between the individual and reality, explored from scientific-epistemological, mythical-mystical, and socially engaged perspectives. Coco refers metaphorically to the “Southern Passage” (in contrast to the famed Northwest Passage), alluding to Coniglione’s southern cultural roots. Through an analysis of the thought of Francis of Assisi, Blaise Pascal, and Arthur Schopenhauer, the article reflects on the epistemological and mystical significance of silence.
The final two authors featured in this part reflect on the role of myth in understanding the human condition and its function within democratic societies. In the chapter entitled “How Myths Help to Deal with Complexity,” Santo Di Nuovo argues that myths assist in making sense of complex realities, realities that resist explanation through logic, reductionism, or causal reasoning. Di Nuovo draws on a co-authored essay written with Coniglione on this very topic, as well as on several of Coniglione’s other writings, to offer additional perspectives from a psychological point of view. He also includes some critical reflections on Coniglione’s position, examining how myths attempt to reconstruct realities that are otherwise unspeakable or unexplainable, using cognitive and linguistic tools such as imagination and metaphor. Di Nuovo supports his argument with an analysis of Carl Jung’s Red Book.
In “Objectivity, Knowledge, and Rights,” Sciacca revisits Coniglione’s thematic strand of inquiry into the philosophy of knowledge and its practical implications in politics and law. He attempts to draw a comparison between myth and narrative: while myths portray the world as a realm of unresolved mysteries and riddles, narratives organize facts through temporal sequencing.
Giacomo Borbone and Krzysztof Brzechczyn
References
Coniglione, F. (2011). Maledetta università. Fantasie e realtà sul sistema della ricerca in Italia, Trapani: Di Girolamo.
Coniglione, F., (ed.). (2010). Through the Mirrors of Science. New Challenges for Knowledge-based Societies. Heusenstamm: Ontos Verlag.
Coniglione, F. (2018). Some Remarks on the Meaning of Esotericism and Plato’s Unwritten Doctrines., Mondi. Movimenti simbolici e sociali dell’uomo, vol. I, n. 1, pp. 5–51.
Coniglione, F. (2022). L’uomo venuto da un altro mondo. Francesco d’Assisi, Acireale–Rome: Bonanno.