That risk and freedom had some degree of kinship is consciously or unconsciously known to most people. Risk and freedom are two sides of the same coin; however, it seems to result from contradictory and paradoxical reasoning.
Yet, observation of reality is relatively minor. Whenever an attempt is made to mitigate risk, the “price” (monetary or virtual) to be paid is always expressed in terms of a consequent reduction in freedom. More risk, more freedom. Less risk, less freedom.
However, the concrete problem does not arise in finding such an explicit factual equivalence but rather in noting that the essential nature of “risk” is quite different from that of “freedom.” That is, “risk” always comes in the guise of potentiality and is, therefore, inherently non-essential but probably-essential-in-the-future. At the same time, freedom lives in a here-and-now that makes it always present.
Thus, What is exchanged is always a potential risk for actual freedom; without excessive reasoning, it is well understood that the transaction is perpetually at a loss.
The tendency to choose greater risk to retain proportionately greater freedom should not be surprising because what is being done is the reduction of the impact of concern (which I will address in a forthcoming paper to supplement my essay (in Italian), “Il dispiegarsi del tempo psicologico” (ed. “The unfolding of psychological time”) on everyday life that, from the past, turns to the future.
To concern oneself with, that is, to“deal with first,” is to value the potential in the same way as the actual and thereby make it symbolically convertible with it: without this “stratagem,” every possibility of justifying action becomes null, or rather, it nihilates itself to relate to an ineffectual and inauthentic ineffability.
In more immediate words, risk transfer is possible only by considering the latter. Still, such a condition is impossible because the risk is always and only potential, so, to avoid no small problem, man “worries” and by worrying unites, through a symbolic mechanism, the potential with the actual.
Then again, who would pay for“nothing current“? Such an exchange would automatically go into pure divestment, which, as written in a previous post, is at least as impossible as the hypothesis previously stated.
Thus, to limit the penalizing and deteriorating action of worry, the only means man possesses is to give up part of his freedom (understood as a concrete possibility in the moment of a transaction) to let someone else (or something else) take on the burden of worry.
In doing so, however, the subject does not “balance the budget” because, as is evident, once again, worrying is always oriented toward an (at this point even weakened) potential, while freedom is currently lost.
Thus, the conclusion can be drawn from this is that risk is necessary for any design activity, and the effort to mitigate or eliminate it can only be paid for at an ever-increasing price compared to its acceptance. I promise, however, to return to this topic more thoroughly, linking back to what I wrote in the above essay.
Philosophical considerations on Heidegger’s non-entity (nothingness)
In his philosophical works, particularly in his masterpiece “Being and Time,” Heidegger (1889 – 1976) contemplates the concept of“non-being” or“nothingness” in a profound way. Heidegger’s understanding of nothingness (non-entity) goes beyond traditional notions of absence or emptiness. According to Heidegger, nothingness is not a mere negation or lack but an essential aspect of human existence and the world.
Heidegger argues that nothingness is not a mere void or nothingness to be feared or avoided but rather a fundamental element that reveals the true nature of being. By embracing nothingness, individuals can better understand their existence and the interconnectedness of all things.
For Heidegger, nothingness is closely related to the concept of “being-in-the-world.” It suggests that it is through nothingness that we can truly experience the world and interact with the beings and phenomena that inhabit it. Nothingness allows us to transcend the superficialities of everyday life and perceive the underlying truths and meanings that shape our existence.
From Heidegger’s perspective, nothingness cannot be grasped or understood through traditional rational thought. Instead, it requires a profound change in perception and an openness to the mysteries of existence. By embracing nonbeing, individuals can cultivate a sense of wonder and awe, enabling them to interact more authentically and meaningfully with the world.
In conclusion, Heidegger’s conception of nothingness challenges traditional notions of nothingness and invites individuals to dig deeper into the mysteries of existence. By embracing nothingness, individuals can understand their being and the interconnectedness of all things, leading to a more authentic and fulfilling existence.
If you like this post, you can always donate to support my activity! One coffee is enough!
