Alan Xuereb
Alan Xuereb holds a doctorate in Law awarded by the University of Malta (1996) and an M.Phil. in Philosophy of Law (2004) by the same university. He is currently working as a lawyer-linguist at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. Though Alan’s field is that of philosophy of law, he has a constant fascination with political philosophy in general and the common good in particular and with philosophy of physics, particularly all issues related to time. Alan is now exploring the relationship between aesthetic experience in all its forms as a component of the common good. This recent project encompasses a deeper investigation into Christian Norberg-Schulz's interpretation of Martin Heidegger's phenomenological perspective of architecture.
Address: Tawern, Germany
Address: Tawern, Germany
less
Uploads
Papers by Alan Xuereb
fascination with physics. One of the most
exciting scientific adventures of all time is
the search for the ultimate nature of physical
reality, a hunt that in the past century has
yielded such breakthroughs as Einstein’s
theory of relativity and quantum mechanics,
two theories that radically altered our picture
of space, time, gravity, and the fundamental
building blocks of matter.
states of matter that have
‘exotic’ physical properties
that would violate the
known laws of physics, such
as a particle having a negative
mass.
history ‘hands’ have become protagonists. We
hear over and over again phrases like: ‘wash
your hands properly’, ‘use a hand rub’, ‘do not
shake hands’, ‘give a helping hand to those
who are vulnerable amongst us’ and so on and
so forth.
naħseb dwar, ngħidu aħna, ilbioenġinerija.
Xi pajjiżi jibżgħu
jesperimentaw ġenetikament fuq
il-bnedmin13 – mhux biżżejjed
jekk pajjiż wieħed jew ftit pajjiżi
biss jipprojbixxu legalment
esperimenti ġenetiċi fuq ilbnedmin.
U mbagħad ikollok iċĊina
jew il-Korea ta’ Fuq li
jibqgħu jagħmlu dan lisperimentar.
B’dan l-argument
l-Istati Uniti jew ir-Renju Unit
ma jistgħux isolvu waħidhom,
kif se jkun fi żmien qasir, dan ittip
ta’ problemi globali. Ilpressjoni
fuq l-Istati Uniti u l-
Ingilterra (qed nieħu dawn biss
bħala eżempju) se tkun kbira
ħafna sabiex jibdew jagħmlu listess
esperimenti bħall-Korea
ta’ Fuq u ċ-Ċina. Dawn huma
teknoloġiji li jikkomportaw
riskji enormi u anki vantaġġji
enormi. Għaliex bil-mentalità
populista jekk pajjiż ieħor qed
jagħmel xi ħaġa u se jikseb
vantaġġ (anki jekk immedjat)
ma nistax ma nagħmilhiex jien
għall-pajjiżi.
fascination with physics. One of the most
exciting scientific adventures of all time is
the search for the ultimate nature of physical
reality, a hunt that in the past century has
yielded such breakthroughs as Einstein’s
theory of relativity and quantum mechanics,
two theories that radically altered our picture
of space, time, gravity, and the fundamental
building blocks of matter.
states of matter that have
‘exotic’ physical properties
that would violate the
known laws of physics, such
as a particle having a negative
mass.
history ‘hands’ have become protagonists. We
hear over and over again phrases like: ‘wash
your hands properly’, ‘use a hand rub’, ‘do not
shake hands’, ‘give a helping hand to those
who are vulnerable amongst us’ and so on and
so forth.
naħseb dwar, ngħidu aħna, ilbioenġinerija.
Xi pajjiżi jibżgħu
jesperimentaw ġenetikament fuq
il-bnedmin13 – mhux biżżejjed
jekk pajjiż wieħed jew ftit pajjiżi
biss jipprojbixxu legalment
esperimenti ġenetiċi fuq ilbnedmin.
U mbagħad ikollok iċĊina
jew il-Korea ta’ Fuq li
jibqgħu jagħmlu dan lisperimentar.
B’dan l-argument
l-Istati Uniti jew ir-Renju Unit
ma jistgħux isolvu waħidhom,
kif se jkun fi żmien qasir, dan ittip
ta’ problemi globali. Ilpressjoni
fuq l-Istati Uniti u l-
Ingilterra (qed nieħu dawn biss
bħala eżempju) se tkun kbira
ħafna sabiex jibdew jagħmlu listess
esperimenti bħall-Korea
ta’ Fuq u ċ-Ċina. Dawn huma
teknoloġiji li jikkomportaw
riskji enormi u anki vantaġġji
enormi. Għaliex bil-mentalità
populista jekk pajjiż ieħor qed
jagħmel xi ħaġa u se jikseb
vantaġġ (anki jekk immedjat)
ma nistax ma nagħmilhiex jien
għall-pajjiżi.
In the Western world of politics we are so accustomed to watch politicians arguing in an arena like gladiators. Instead of dialoguing, we watch them demolishing each other. A sort of democratic panem et circenses. Sometimes also slurring insults at each other. Blaming each other. Tarnishing each other’s reputation. However, whilst realistically and democratically discussion and debate are necessary tools to keep politicians and parties in check, one feels there should be some democratic space for dialogue.
One has to be careful not to hide behind the concept of dialogue and fall into a relativist trap. In a post-truth world, it is easy to say that objective truth does not exist. That one’s personal interpretation of an objective event is as good as another’s, even if diametrically different.
We all have our opinions, and our prejudices. Dialogue helps us to discover more about the opinions and prejudices of others.
Dialogue may also help us to change our opinions and perhaps, eventually, get over our prejudices. However, dialogue should not be an excuse to change our views at all costs. It is not the aim of dialogue to substitute our own assessment with someone else’s. Dialogue is just a tool based on the genuine disposition of curiosity. It is a leap of faith – trusting that even our antagonists may teach us something about themselves, and ourselves! Dialogue in fact should become a disposition in any conversation. Not just in politics.
The finality of politics should always be the common good and that of dialogue should always be truth. Genuine dialogue then, may lead us, as individuals and as a community, towards working for the common good.
(Truth for the common good)
The human being, as Aristotle says, is a zoon politikon (a political animal). Nevertheless, the human being is as well a zoon glossologicon (a linguistic animal).
In the Western world of politics we are so accustomed to watch politicians arguing in an arena like gladiators. Instead of dialoguing, we watch them demolishing each other. A sort of democratic panem et circenses. Sometimes also slurring insults at each other. Blaming each other. Tarnishing each other’s reputation. However, whilst realistically and democratically discussion and debate are necessary tools to keep politicians and parties in check, one feels there should be some democratic space for dialogue.
One has to be careful not to hide behind the concept of dialogue and fall into a relativist trap. In a post-truth world, it is easy to say that objective truth does not exist. That one’s personal interpretation of an objective event is as good as another’s, even if diametrically different.
We all have our opinions, and our prejudices. Dialogue helps us to discover more about the opinions and prejudices of others.
Dialogue may also help us to change our opinions and perhaps, eventually, get over our prejudices. However, dialogue should not be an excuse to change our views at all costs. It is not the aim of dialogue to substitute our own assessment with someone else’s. Dialogue is just a tool based on the genuine disposition of curiosity. It is a leap of faith – trusting that even our antagonists may teach us something about themselves, and ourselves! Dialogue in fact should become a disposition in any conversation. Not just in politics.
The finality of politics should always be the common good and that of dialogue should always be truth. Genuine dialogue then, may lead us, as individuals and as a community, towards working for the common good.
According to this view, practical reasonableness is the type of reasoning that we use to make decisions about how to act and how to order our lives. Also according to this view the other basic values are pursued with the help of this “reasonableness”. There are nine requirements of practical reasonableness that will be briefly tackled during the talk.
Alan argues that activities like wars, terrorism, racism, separatism, may well appear as benefitting one individual group (say, a nation) over another and thus appear reasonably practical. However, he argues, that in the short, medium and long term all these activities have serious intrinsic consequences on the perpetrator and obviously on the target, making the whole national and international community unstable. It is in other words, a self-harm situation.
Alan will mainly tackle two of these requirements in his talk, namely: the seventh requirement which states that one should never commit an act that directly harms a basic value, even if it will indirectly benefit a different basic value; and the eighth requirement which states that one should look after the common good of the community. Alan will discuss why the aforementioned activities are acts of self-harm, besides of general harm, and why do they go against practical reason, making them “practically unreasonable”.
As always there will be more questions asked than answers given. Alan’s aim in this talk is to create a dialogue through which anyone can critically and practically reason about issues. Then practical reasonableness becomes a philosophical tool that can be used to analyse any issue.