Has truth been downgraded?

Yes, it has. That is the approach of the book. Post-truth is a buzz word right now and I think it is an important, serious issue. There is a kind of contempt for truth. This contempt is manifested in many ways and does not affect truth alone:  so-called epistemic values, such as objectivity, evidence, neutrality, etc., all these concepts have been downgraded, and in the book I express my concern. I believe it's a dangerous road and I don't know where it’s taking us.

Language makes us human. But is human language natural or cultural?

I take a midway approach: at one time there was a predominance of people who pointed towards biology in discussions about language, and that was where hypernaturalism emerged in regard to language; then the pendulum swung the other way and hyperculturalism has been imposed; it asserts that language is totally cultural. In the book I analyse the language issue and the question of perception, and I believe that these two extreme positions go in the wrong direction and that the answer lies halfway between the two. In the book I make a proposal for discussion: there are still many loose ends that need to be worked on, but the thesis would be as follows: neither hypernaturalism, nor hyperculturalism.

“Concepts such as truth, objectivity and evidence have been downgraded, and that path is dangerous”

What knowledge does science offer us?

I think the core concept of that knowledge is justification.  In science it is necessary to justify theses, hypotheses, theories, and justification is the essence; science must always offer a justification. These justifications can be of higher or lower quality and there may be major controversies, but it is always knowledge based on justification.

What are the risks of humour?

Humour is often spoken about from an ethical-political point of view and right now many censorious messages can be heard. In principle, I tend to maximize freedom of expression.  But there can certainly be limitations.  At the end of the day, freedom of expression must be combined with other ethical-political values such as justice, and who knows, injustice could emerge hand-in-hand with freedom of expression.

Humour is a very difficult issue, it is very difficult to be consistent.  It's very easy to censor a kind of humour and then remain silent when faced with another kind of humour, often inconsistently; I want to preserve that consistence. In the book I say that the context is very important. I give the example of a case of torture in which a person who has been tortured treats torture with a sense of humour, in a given context and with certain aims. I think this kind of humour is totally acceptable. But, of course, if that humour or that joke had been made by one of the torturers, the humour would be assessed differently, and I would not rule out the possibility of censoring him, especially because that kind of humour can cause a lot of damage, because it could lead to an injustice. So, I want to safeguard the possibility of maximizing freedom of expression, but I do not rule out that humour could be very harmful, especially when a vulnerable group is bearing the brunt of it. Today, for example, I find the kind of humour made on certain forums about immigrants and refugees very distressing.  It is not offensive, it is harmful, it is a route that infringes people’s rights.

“Philosophy has exerted an influence on justice, the French Revolution, the birth of feminism… the list is very long”

What is happening to philosophy bearing in mind that it has to go around claiming its importance all the time?

The problem is that philosophy cannot be applied directly.  We live in a society that demands direct, immediate applications.  Profitability and productivity are the main values of our educational system and our political system; philosophy and humanities in general find themselves in a very difficult situation. I like to say that the questions that philosophy deals with are very important: who can say that the concept of justice is not important, the concept of justice has always been analysed in philosophy. These reflections cannot be required to provide an immediate application, and therein lies the problem:  philosophy is pretty much at odds with currently prevailing market values. With hindsight, who can say that philosophy has not exerted an influence?  In the French Revolution, in the birth of feminism... the list is very long. From a more general point of view, if the disciplines are observed with a longer time perspective, the map obtained is bound to be different.