Christos Giannaras: ‘We are slaves to “sensationalism”, to emotions, to sensational headlines, to the propaganda of television “news”’.

Christos Giannaras, on the occasion of the publication of his two most recent books, *Ontology of the Person* (Person-centred Ontology), and Here and Beyond (Attempts at Ontological Interpretation), spoke with journalist Yiannis Hatzigeorgiou in the magazine Philgood, published by the newspaper Phileleftheros in Cyprus.The interview was published on Sunday 12 February and you can read it below:The philosopher, academic, thinker and ―above all― one of the few remaining intellectuals in Greece continues, in one of his rare interviews, to remain incisive, bold, and at times ‘heretical’, boldly posing new questions for reflection in every answer he gives.The living room of the author and one of the most significant contemporary Greek thinkers, philosophers and professors of philosophy—noted for his public discourse and writings (at Panteion University, though he has taught philosophical terminology and methodology, political philosophy and cultural diplomacy at universities in Paris – he is, after all, a Doctor of Philosophy from the Faculty of Humanities at the Sorbonne University—as well as in Geneva, Lausanne, New York, Boston, Belgrade, etc.) is not filled with books, studies – let alone his own extensive bibliography – but, on the contrary, with framed photographs of his loved ones, mementos from his travels, and small but undoubtedly precious objects. It was very cold that Friday evening when we met, in the little alley where he lives and works, opposite the church of Agios Charalambos, in Nea Smyrni. ‘The old folks were right to build houses with small windows rather than large panes,’ he remarked at one point, smiling. He treated me to some mastic ouzo, poured himself a glass too – ‘it’s just the thing for this sort of weather,’ he said, and sat down in the armchair by the fireplace. He asked me a few things about Cyprus, mentioning specific names of politicians and arguing for or against his opinion of certain ones, concluding that ‘Cyprus pays for our empty faces’ and remained silent for a moment. ‘Savvopoulos was spot on with that line,’ he concluded. A few days ago, you wrote in an article: ‘In Greek society, nothing is renewed with the passing of time. Unbiased, fundamentally realistic thinking also rules out hope. We know the human quality of those who manage our lives, the effectiveness of the institutions and functions of public life, the laws of the jungle that prevail in our much-vaunted cultural ‘model’. All of this rules out hope.” So should we expect utter destruction in the future? And to what extent?What I personally conclude, Mr Hatzigeorgiou, from history and human experience, is that only a realistic awareness of reality can give rise to the surprise of a recovery. The hopes of the Greeks in 1821 were nil: the Ottoman Empire held overwhelming superiority, and the authoritative power of the ‘Holy Alliance’ in Europe ruled out any possibility of rebellion against the established balance of power. A similar overwhelming imbalance existed in the Greeks’ confrontation with the ‘Axis Powers’ in 1940. In both cases, the surprise stemmed from the Greeks’ consistent and utter despair: they knew what they risked losing, and it was unthinkable to them that they should lose it. Today we cling to ‘optimism’ – we dare not despair, because we have nothing of value to defend. What is most valuable to us today are our ‘individual rights’ and the maximisation of our consumer freedom. Yet we can, more or less, retain these even whilst enslaved – to the Turks or to the ‘Markets’.It seems that this ‘crisis’ is not merely circumstantial or temporary; many, countless signs point rather to an unstoppable momentum towards the historical end of Hellenism. What you write sounds terrifying – your reference to an ‘end’. As if every trace of hope, of optimism for the future, has been lost… Perhaps the reference to a historical end seems like an exaggeration to you. But consider this: is there today any element, any quality, that Hellenism bestows upon the Greek (whether from mainland Greece, Cyprus or the diaspora) which is so precious that without it, their life would no longer have meaning? In other words, an element for which they are prepared to die, so as not to lose it? When Cypriot politicians today haggle over terms that will make the Turkish minority and the invaders the arbiters of Greek life, or when Greek politicians hand their country over to humiliating trusteeship, that is, to a complete surrender of national independence, sovereignty and self-determination, does it shock you that we speak of the ‘historic end’ of Hellenism?Speaking of ‘Cypriot politicians haggling over terms that will make the Turkish minority and the invaders the arbiters of Greek life’, are you also referring to the ‘end of Cypriot Hellenism’ which some have been emphasising almost from the outset of the latest – critical – talks on the Cyprus issue? I am not referring to individuals, I am referring to the fact of the ‘negotiations’. To the unthinkable absurdity of a supposedly independent state, a member of the EU, with a democratically elected leadership, is haggling over its own self-destruction, its submission to the outrageous demands of a domestic minority and to the blackmail of brutal occupiers condemned by all international organisations. Hellenism has every right on its side and, unfortunately, elects leaders of pygmy stature to defend those rights. What, then, must be done, in general, to change the current situation – if it is to change at all? Must sweeping, structural changes take place? Beyond the state and the citizens? Given the fatal decline of Hellenism today, it is utopian to discuss what ‘must’ be done. Even if we were to agree on certain ‘musts’ (which seems impossible), who will then enforce them? The comical little men who govern us? The courts? The police? The citizens, however, do not bear the main responsibility for what is happening today, Mr Giannaras? ‘The most nightmarish of all afflictions is the complete numbing of Greek society’s reflexes,’ you write… Which citizens are we talking about who bear the responsibility for this disgrace and destruction? For the last 43 years – since 1974 – educational policy in Greece and Cyprus has systematically engineered the linguistic and intellectual incapacity of the masses (it is well known that people without language are people without thought), and the complete distortion of their historical consciousness. And the infectious influence of radio and television complements and completes their impoverishment. For only voters who have lost their reason, their judgement and their dignity are capable of sustaining such a debased political class as that which represents Hellenism, both in mainland Greece and Cyprus, over the last few decades – with the unforgettable exception, throughout Greece, of Tassos Papadopoulos. If the Greek people bear any responsibility for the ruin and disgrace in which they are now mired, that responsibility lies solely in the fact that they did not revolt. But even the possibility of revolt has been discredited and ridiculed by the nihilism and amorality of the so-called ‘left-wing progressive and modernising forces’.What do you mean when you refer to ‘revolution’ and ‘uprising’? Armed revolutions, as you understand, are now impossible. I mean, for the key institutions of collective life to react: the judicial authorities, university senates, bar associations, teachers in every school, cultural institutions and associations; for citizens to take to the streets and demonstrate their faith in freedom and dignity. It is unthinkable that people’s humanity should be put at risk and haggled over by politicians whom no one would ever entrust with running even a newsstand.Do the Greeks ‘suffer’ from immaturity, an obsession with the past, a superficial approach to handling difficult situations and ‘spoilt behaviour’, in comparison with other peoples, as they are ‘accused’ of? Has the ‘glorious past’ ultimately done a disservice to the current inhabitants of Greece?My personal opinion is that we modern Greeks suffer only or mainly from pretentiousness, just like all those newly liberated Third Worlders who are dazzled by beads and trinkets. We neither understand nor care about the cultural contribution that Hellenism has made and continues to make to humanity – we are only interested in the tacky kitsch produced by Elladex (Greek and Cypriot) for tourists. Ask an MP from AKEL or ‘New Democracy’ to answer this: why is the Parthenon a more important monument than the Eiffel Tower or the Empire State Building? When, from the generation of Evagoras Pallikarides, Karaolis and Dimitriou, Grigoris Afxentiou, or the generation of Seferis, Elytis, Tsarouchis and Manos Hadjidakis, we are separated by a mere few decades, to what factors can we attribute the rapid decline of Hellenism into today’s nightmare? It is abundantly clear that, in an era where technological progress has created unprecedented opportunities for mass manipulation, these opportunities have been exploited, primarily in Greece and Cyprus, by people of tragically low calibre.What connection do you think there is between the Greeks of Greece and the Greeks of Cyprus? Many people observe a different mindset, different ways of reasoning and different approaches to historical adversity, different points of reference and ways of thinking… Your question raises a very interesting issue: from my personal experience, my impressions and my reading, I have formed the opinion (without claiming that it is the correct one) that there was a crucial difference, up until the mid-20th century, between Hellenism in mainland Greece and Hellenism ‘in the periphery’, as they were called at the time – the Hellenism of Egypt, Asia Minor, Pontus, Crimea and the Danubian regions. Hellenism outside mainland Greece tended to preserve a sense of the superiority of Hellenic identity and no sense of inferiority vis-à-vis Western Europeans. This sense allowed the Greeks to adopt the achievements of Western modernity to serve their own needs, not to avoid lagging behind the Europeans in modernisation. Thus, the adoption of Western elements was assimilative rather than imitative; the critical adoption of Western customs and institutions did not in the slightest diminish the Greekness of the Greeks – they chose, they did not mimic. In mainland Greece, unfortunately, due to Bavarian rule following Kapodistrias, and the inferiority complex (coupled with snobbery) cultivated by the quisling collaborators of the era, followers of Korais, a servile inferiority complex and a lifeless imitation of the West prevailed, accompanied by a deep contempt for anything Greek… As this is a crucial issue, allow me to refer to a relevant book I have written, entitled: ‘Europe was born of the Schism’, published by ‘Ikaros’.Cypriot Hellenism, I believe, embodied the same sense of superiority over the West, right up until the island was declared an independent (?) state. The active Greek self-awareness of the Cypriots gave birth to Hellenism’s last great breath: the EOKA liberation struggle. I cannot forget, as a child at the time, the iconic figure of Polykarpos Ioannides, who wore, all his life, traditional Cypriot ‘alantza’ costumes, thereby undermining the English ‘cashmere’.This conscious Greek identity seems to have been lost for good with Cyprus’s ‘independence’. Cypriot society has changed rapidly and relentlessly into a sad imitation of Greek decline and disgrace. Why do you question Cyprus’s independence? And, furthermore, what do you mean when you say that ‘Cypriot society has changed rapidly and relentlessly into a sad imitation of Greek decline and disgrace’? In a single interview, it is not possible to present a documented and therefore convincing account of a social reality. I dare to make allusions that refer to the attestations of shared experience. It is clear to any rational person that the Greek Cypriot community has established a state, yet its state is not independent; it is a captive of the power of an international terrorist, Turkey, which provocatively denies the very basics of logic and international law, rewarded by the ‘enlightened and illustrious nations of the West’, our own, those pretentious idols. As for the sad Cypriot imitation of Greek decline and disgrace, it is up to each individual to recognise the parallel. At least in terms of intelligence and dignity.In many of your writings, you speak of ‘Greeks’ rather than ‘Greeks from Greece’. Why? Yes, because the majority of the population, simply and coincidentally, inhabits Greek soil, with the mindset and behaviour of a globalised consumer. A Greek under the age of 50 today does not understand Papadiamantis or Roidis; he does not know what ‘I fight for the victorious General’ means. When one hears the ‘Greek’ spoken by George Papandreou, Costas Simitis, Dimitris Christofias and Nicos Anastasiades, one is convinced that a history of three and a half thousand years of Hellenism is ending in disgrace.Isn’t what you say about these particular politicians rather harsh – and perhaps unfair? That, dear Mr Hatzigeorgiou, let us leave to our readers to judge. I judge the ‘Greekness’ of our politicians as a teacher, not as a supporter or opponent. Has realism always been the compass of your thinking, writing and teaching? Have you never resorted to… ‘magic’?I think we have become addicted to operating in a consumerist manner, and our consumerist naivety is fed mainly by ‘impressions’. And even the most insignificant or wretched product can lay claim to titles of quality thanks to ‘packaging’ that makes a good impression. Even someone who is blatantly delusional or utterly corrupt can be elected prime minister or president of the Republic, if they spend a fortune on their advertising and succeed in ‘brainwashing’ the masses. With this ‘logic’, we label as ‘optimism’ or ‘pessimism’, ‘realism’ or ‘utopia’, whatever the well-oiled mechanisms of impression-making would have us believe. We are slaves to ‘effects’, to emotions, to sensational headlines, to the propaganda of television ‘news’.I wonder: over all these years, have you ever been ‘inconsistent’ in your views, exercising the right of a person to reconsider what they once believed, given that the surrounding environment and circumstances change?Allow me to observe that a person’s ‘views’—every person’s—their ‘opinions’ and ‘beliefs’ are, as a rule, individual choices, preferences and inclinations that are, at their core, arbitrary in nature. In today’s cultural ‘paradigm’, this arbitrariness is enshrined as an individual ‘right’ – the conventions that enshrine individual rights have the authoritative force of laws that are ‘binding on all’. The basis of our ‘civilisation’, in other words, is the enshrinement of ‘freedom’ as an individual right of choice, a legal shield for the unchecked indulgence of impulses, appetites and interests. This is why the protection of rights, when it establishes the terms of collectivity, equates civilisation with the barbarism of individualism, not with the exercise of freedom that is the society of relationships. Consequently, whatever is an individual choice (views, opinions, beliefs) we can easily change. However, whatever is the fruit of the endeavour of self-transcendence—that is, freedom from the ‘self’ in order to attain the shared truth of the relationship (of faith and trust, of love and self-giving)—does not change. Its expressive form may mature, but the intended goal remains unchanged. Many describe you as a ‘philosopher’ – and ‘heretical’. Certainly one of the very few in Greece who continue to articulate a discourse. What do such labels mean to you? In the Greek tradition, we attribute labels that embody moderation and modesty. A ‘philosopher’ is not the wise man, the one who possesses wisdom; he is the ‘friend’ of wisdom, the lover of knowledge, the one who loves the truth and seeks it. The title of ‘philosopher’, therefore, is an honour and a compliment. The meaning of the word ‘heretic’ has today strayed far from the original meaning the Greeks attributed to it. Today, ‘heresy’ refers to the notion of truth as ideology, that is, as an individual choice of definitively (or even infallibly) formulated ‘beliefs’. The ‘heretic’ questions or even rejects the codes of certainty of ideology; they have chosen individual ‘beliefs’ that do not align with the ‘principles’ and certainties that are obligatory for the ‘faithful’ followers of the ideology. Thus, the word ‘heretic’ has today taken on a rather positive connotation: it refers to the person who questions the ‘infallible’ dogmas of ideologies, the rigid, mandatory ‘beliefs’. It refers to a person who seeks empirical access to the truth. These, then, are roughly what the terms ‘philosopher’ and ‘heretic’ mean to me. Much has been written and said about your views in relation to religion. In simple terms: what does Orthodoxy mean to you today? Orthodoxy has come to be the name we give to the Greek version of the Christian Church, the Greek experience and witness of the ecclesiastical reality. The Church is not just another religion, even if it is ‘better’ than the others. It is a reality, a way, a means of revealing the truth – and ‘truth’ is existence free from time, space, decay and death. The Greeks had called it the ‘church of the demos’, not merely a general assembly of citizens, but the act, the work of ‘poiein’ the political: for citizens to realise and reveal the ‘polis’, that is, another way of being and coexisting that aims no longer merely at necessity (the society of need) but at truth (the society of the true, at harmony according to reason, at civility). It was with this very same Greek meaning that Christians adopted the word ‘ekklesia’: a gathering that realises and reveals the true ‘way’ of existence and coexistence, freedom from the necessities of self-centred impulses – freedom of erotic self-transcendence and self-offering.To conclude, a question – a personal query of mine – to a man like you: what is the meaning of life, Mr Giannaras? The meaning of life cannot, fortunately, be found in a formula, in a ‘should’. Can we ever experience love by following recipes, advice or exhortations? The meaning of life, just like love, is bestowed as an antidote to the exercise of realising freedom from the ‘self’. That is why, within a cultural ‘paradigm’ founded on the absolute priority of shielding the ‘self’, both the ‘meaning’ of life and love are achievements reserved for only a few stubborn souls. Photo: Penelope Masouri