Ana Carrasco Conde, philosopher: “Nothing more absurd than fleeing from death, it always accompanies you”

She is known as “the philosopher of evil.” But what attracts her is the ineffable, the unspeakable, putting words to what in principle cannot be said. She was always fascinated by shadowy areas, the deep sea, and from a very young age she was attracted by German idealism (Schelling, Kant), which led her to investigate the abysses of existence and publish three books about evil in nine years. : Horizontal hell. On the destruction of the self (Plaza and Valdés, 2012); The clarity of evil. Evil and history in the philosophy of FWJ Schelling (Plaza and Valdés, 2013), and Say evil. Understanding is not justifying (Gutenberg Galaxy, 2021). Professor of Philosophy at the Complutense University of Madrid, this reflective 44-year-old woman, reluctant to the contemporary acceleration that prevents her from taking the time to think about things, speaks in a low voice, with a very soft tone. In November she received the Eugenio Trías Essay Prize with a book that represents a radical change in her career: with Common death. On the intersubjective dimension of dyingwhich will be published on February 21, proposes to think about the final hour from the perspective of us.

The interview takes place on a cold December afternoon, at the Urso hotel in Madrid. Carrasco Conde begins by saying that death is not an evil, that it is inherent to the human being, and points out that the texts on death by the great philosophers of tradition (and some of their colleagues) are for readers an “impenetrable wall.” ”.

ASK. What's the problem, that they only write for the Academy?

ANSWER. They use a way of saying things that does not take into account the dimension of the damage and pain of death. Philosophy today has lost one of its fundamental components, the most precious flower, says Cicero, which is the consolatory element. If it goes towards consolation, it is confused with self-help, and I believe that philosophy has allowed it to occupy a place when it itself could try to help.

Q.Could philosophy somehow replace self-help?

R.It is not about substituting, it has nothing to do with self-help. Initially, philosophy was an approach to understanding reality. It taught you not to accept reality as it comes, not to have positive thinking. You will understand, even if it hurts.

Q.In your new book you reflect on death, do we have to learn to face it?

R.You have to learn to live and die. Once we accept that we are going to die, we have to make a commitment to live a life worth living. This does not mean applying that terrible interpretation that people of the Carpe Diem: since we are going to die, we are going to live everything intensely like crazy. Horacio doesn't say that. He says that you have to learn to live each moment intensely; not thinking about what you have to do; not always being outside of yourself or always with your phone next to you, which is a great way to not be present. You have to be present in life and enjoy the things that are happening now.

“Always having your phone next to you is a way of not being present”

Q.Is being with your cell phone next to you not being present?

R.You are not with the person you are with, you are not here. It's going to sound like I'm a technophobe, but I think it's different to enjoy a concert while watching the musicians than to be with your cell phone in the way. We have this obsession with leaving everything recorded, wouldn't it be better to have everything incorporated in your memory? In the end, I think what counts is accepting that you are going to die and accepting, of course, that it hurts; But don't let this type of certainty lead you to a life of unrestraint or a life of escape: nothing is more absurd than fleeing from death when it always accompanies you.

Q.It seems that people escape loneliness through their mobile phones. What implications does it have for our society that we do not know how to deal with loneliness?

R.This is nothing new. We are social beings, not because we live in society, but because we configure ourselves as ourselves, we carry the community within us, always. But today we have reduced personal contact, the community, to a minimum, because we are increasingly atomized. Where there were flesh and blood people who could listen to you or not, who taught you to dialogue, now there are social networks. Your own subjectivity is then built around false images of people who only encourage your fears or your dogmatism.

Q.So social networks do not replace the community?

R.I don't think so, what they do is usurp that function. We are people who are always looking for relationships with others, but what we obtain through social networks is often water that does not satisfy. Being in a room with a real person forces you to learn when to be silent and when to speak. With social networks you have no filter, you say anything and it doesn't matter.

Q.There are two major wars in the spotlight today. Two of their themes come together in them, death and evil. Does history show us that human beings are incapable of not doing evil?

R.We handle topics from many centuries ago. That the world is evil is a complaint as old as history. Kant says that, as does Hesiod. Are we violent and aggressive beings who are always in conflict? So turn it off and let's go, right? There is a shame of the species, a very negative conception of the human being. They are inertia in the thinking that we all handle, but what is philosophy about?: it is about getting lost, getting off the path. And maybe those clichés should be put aside. It is not evil, it is not war that is repeated, it is our victim-like attitude towards these, because it is easier to say that we are bad beings than to try to think of measures to alleviate what is not irremediable.

“Philosophy has lost the most precious flower, as Cicero said: the consolatory element.”

Q.And how do you position yourself regarding what is happening in Gaza?

R.Just because Hamas terrorists are Palestinians does not mean that all Palestinians are Hamas terrorists. And it is one thing to pursue terrorism and another to murder with unnecessary harm to people who have nothing to do with it. I also believe that this demonization that is being done of the Jews is harmful, because there are Jews who are not in favor of what is being done.

Q.You said in an interview: “In the face of hope, which leads to despair, despair leads us to be active.” Is hope bad?

R.I think that with hope we trust in external elements to solve our problems. In the face of it, you have to show confidence: with the good things you already have, do something, not wait for them to come and save you. Distrust in human beings, for example, in the face of climate change, seems terrible to me because, then, what are we going to solve? We must trust what the human species can do. If there is not trust, but distrust, what there is is fear.

Q.And now we live in very scary times…

R.Very scary. And why?: because we don't trust.

Sign up here to the weekly Ideas newsletter.

_