Giorgio Agamben. Paul, Augustine, and the Will. 2011

the link between the problem of the wheel the birds and the original problem with the beginning from will in its connection to the problem of potentiality how it's clear the passage and if you have any questions about the problem or the potentiality and potentiality of course what i'm going to do now is to go on on problem of how christian theology really invented and developed in some way the concept of will the modern but we will see i will make perhaps three examples and in each of this example you will see that the concept of the will is introduced and developed each time in order to cope with an aquaria difficulty problem concerning in a different way not in the same way we saw in aristotle in a different perspective in a different context but always what we have to do is to introduce wheel as in order to cope with the problem of the child and not only with a problem like in aristotle often in order to modify to act on the concept of potentiality to transform the concept of charlotte insanity the first of these examples for instance we will say we will see how what is at stake is to split potentiality and actuality and we will see the problem of will arise from this splitting so there is something which is impeding the transition from the child in quality which is separating what you can from from what you can do put a child from actuality and then the concept of will is introduced this important point is concept of the relationship between potentiality and actuality because in aristotle they are clearly distinguished has been sold but they are never separated though potentiality exists in some way in itself especially in the form of the society not to pass to the act but then the essential link between potentiality and actuality is always kept while what we'll see here is a moment when we see a man having to cope with the problem of an interior splitting between what he can and what he does and then we receive the will again so we are going to read a famous important passage from the letter of gold to the romans so one of the founding texts of christianity so it's the letter of the romans 7 7 it's a text which is often quoted to show how christianity invented the concept of it but we will see that it's not really the case and that we what we see in the text is on the contrary yes we see the with the rise and the pier but will the peers originates from a division of potential splitting from a fruit and site is what what you can with respect to the passage there is a kind of breaking of the relation between the two and there it appears to concentrate so of course you can imagine this passage has been commended a thousand times even by we will see pakistan and this passage which concerns the poor critiques of the law literary tuition as you know paul is a messianic thinker and according to jewish nationalism the coming of the messiah coincides with a critique this activation or even an abolition of the the kind of messiah for even right is details the end of the law if you are familiar with the importance of the law jewish tradition you will understand how relevant was this attempt to deactivate usually the translation of paul will even say distraction abolition evaluation but the term is interesting because it contains in some ways our tail are gone all across the verb which means making argos because it is negative so what the messiah does with respect to the lord we will make the love inaugurative so the translation destroy abolish is too strong it's different the law in some way is kept but made others it is so so there is this passage in which four shows how the coming of messiah making operative the law freed us from it made us free from people from the letter of the lord just put it first then the other which is what shall we say that is criticizing the lord what shall we say that the law is a sin no but i would not have known the scene see if law was not there i would have ignored desire love would not have said you must not desire then sin in this way and through the commandment has produced in me all kind of desire because without law the sin would not have been affected but when the commandment the commandment came she became alive and for me this meant death seen grasped in passion through the commandment and seduced me and killed me so you see how strong here is the critique of the lord it is the low this law is not the same but law in some way has produced the seed because commanding you shall not desire this make me desire seen in this way became alive and for me it is maintained so the policing the effect of the commandment of the law is to produce the desire which it prohibited but then what we will see is the first effect of the law but also then the commandment will divide the subject and separate potentiality from actuality so let's read carefully this passage we know in doing this strong critique of the lord you must imagine that paul has to be very careful because he's doing something absolutely prohibited so yes you must be careful saying the law is not the same but it produces the same the law has a good qualities but nevertheless so it cannot really say speak freely so we know that the law is spiritual but i am a cardinal man i am sold to the sea and here begins this problem i do not know what i act what i do what i put in the world i do not do what i want this is usually the salvation i want but here there is this very tailor we saw it just means i'm ready i'm just preferred to do so i do not do what i should like i'm ready to do but i could but i do what i hate i do if i do what i don't want to do in that way it's a way i recognize that law is good but it's not me which acts it is the scene which inhabits me she's beginning i know that good does not dwell in me my my flesh because again this image of the lane and to will to be ready to do it is in my possibility but to put it to the act no so you see clearly this policy is describing an experience in which something has divided in possibility and acting i i do not do what i could do what i am ready to do so the translation to wheel here is too strong but but you see and if i do what i don't want to do i'm not ready to do and being able to do is there but to pass it to the egg that's it's not there this is not so what paul is trying to describe here is that really the experience of a splitting between potentiality and he is no more able to re put in the act it's near to me i could but then i am not i'm no more able to put it to the end past the end if we should express this thing in this man what he can and what he does are separated energy do not communicate anymore and the passage which follows so paul continues this description it is splitting and describe something that could be defined as the experience of double bye as if this separation between potentiality and actuality could be translated into the fight between two opposite commandments so you report again i do not do i do not realize the good that i would like i could realize and i do the evil that i would not like to do i see in me this love what i can do is even nevertheless deeply in me i love the law of god but in my all my body i discover another law which fights against the law of god law of reasoning and make me prisoner of the law of sin which is my body so it translates this splitting between potential sexuality in the opposition between too long to oppose the law of sin and of god when i try to confirm in some way the experience paul is describing this division of the subject we did the subject of potentially in actuality when i compare in some way to aristotle it is not arbitrary and because paul was a jewish but he had a good greek and there is a passage in aristotle and that is horizontal which is near to what he sees when he says that it is the commandment who make him see who revealed the scene i quote this passage from his daughter because it's really interesting if we posit the premise the principle all that is sweet must be tasted imagine this prison all that is sweet must look this commandment all that is sweet must be tasted it follows that the one who has the possibility and it's not often tasty it's not impeded which tastes but if there is another commandment another general proposition which will prohibit to taste and the other one which says all which is blue sweet must be tasted the consequence will be that the desire will push you to taste not with the same deprivation aristotle has the same image of two commandments which are opposed and the result of this contradiction is that there will be a desire to taste so it's very appealing so what we really see here is not as usually uh scholars says the birth of the notion of grief what we see more precisely is that we have an experience of splitting between potentiality and actuality and and then sometimes something as a will could be dependent but the first what is describing is just splitting between the two these two but then we have the reading that the obvious time makes in this message and there we see that he will interpret this passage as something concerning we pakistani is a great repetition and usually scholarly is the one who really invented the christian conception what the understanding will do this commentary would be to shift the context from the sphere of the charity to the sphere he described he he described his own experience with the words taken back and you can describe something he's experiencing before the conversion the same drama that paul so his famous passage we describes his travels before the conversion and what he describes is that he thinks he will something that he is able to wield something but then he is never able to pass to the heart to realize this but we then at the manufacturing i could win and nevertheless i could not act what we paid to see already connection between the motherboards i could can but i could not act at no match but not to act this experience what we value it in fashion it could be but it could not act as a fight between two wheels so he as you know he's a wonderful writer he describes this fight and experience as a horrible experience let's see where this monster comes from is the most true which led to me how it is such a monster possible and why my soul command to the body commands the body but my body does not everybody sorry my soul commands to the body and then my body's obeys but if my soul commands to itself it will not obey to resist my soul command that my hand moves and this is made easy but then why when my soul commands to my to my soul to build my circumvention then why my soul does not obey where come this monstrosity and why if i did not want to command to win i would not have convened but then why my soul does not obey so you see this there is a commandment to win and the soul refuses to win while the country when you when the soul commands the hand to move and moves but if the soul converts to itself to win then he tries to explain this muslims the reason is because i do not want entirely and i do not command entirely because if he commands as far as he will if he doesn't do what he will this means that in reality it doesn't agree the sword does not command fully she it is not identical with its commandment the monstrosity is therefore a sickness a disease of the soul which on one side the wheel on the other does not win there are there two wheels so he so this he tries to explain this impossibility to command to soul to will as a contrast is a position between two b there are two wheels think you can see the transformation so when what paul is describing in terms of potentiality here is translated in turn entire entire movie the contrast is the contrast and the possibility is an impossibility usually they say that the christian augustine paul of eustein et cetera the christian subjectivity is divided but then you have to precise that what is divided is not the consciousness what is divided is a division between concerning will potentiality is the context of this division is this one and the root the reason for that opposition between two wills is the fact that he received that potentiality man is divided this is a very important point and what often delis commence has very common message on these one of the way in which to which power acts on men is dividing them from what they can it's a this is why the passage in paul is interesting because it's exactly like that what causes in paul this splitting between potentiality and actuality is as we saw the commandment of the law that's right it's very interesting passage because what paul is saying there is the commander of the law and the consequence of this commandment that now i see that in myself i cannot do what i could do and this is a very good description of the effect of the command perhaps one of the first effect of the commander of the law is to divide men from what they can of course this can take the very banal form this is prohibited so it's a very clear way of separating yourself from what you can do this you cannot do but there are more complex much more complex introducing yourself in addition if you terrorize you know we will produce the first effect the division within yourself that's why the modern democratic citizens completely divided because it has interiorized and he thinks he is commanding to himself but nevertheless this produces a problem then by the way just made an integration this program said the lease describes how power acts on men and dividing them then from what they came to but also there is another important thing often today power divides you not from from potentiality what you can do but divides you from your impotentiality from what you cannot do because one of the current idea that power today spreads everywhere is that you can do everything you are able to do everything this weekend and so we have the modern subject which loses the experience of its impotentiality the modern subject things i could which is the other side of uh you must make the experience of what you can but also the experience of what you can if you lose these through which power the game splits you impedes you from what you can do because the capability of not doing is equally important as the capabilities so you must know what you cannot do separating you from your potential what you can do but also separating you from what you can do you lose because also the potentiality not to do also your impotentiality is something that you must muster that you can give to us it's important to the but in that way you lose this possibility you are more able to know and master your position i doubt so but what uh what we saw in these two passages is that we see the problem of will arise from a divisional position from a crisis from a dramatic experience of the separation between what i can and what i do as paul is described and it's interesting that while paul tells it is like that it's a division from what i can and what i do in august time it is described as a fight between two wheels that doesn't is that again the will always is linked to a problem concerning potentiality it's a way of transforming or coping with the problem of potentiality transforming a problem potentiality in a problem of will instead of asking why i cannot the problem becomes why are we not it's important we you should lead the passage between old men and modern men ancient men will pose a problem why i cannot cannot but the prophet does not become at all more clear when they said that they tend to explain can with true will it's an explanation of an exclusive obscure another even more obscure what does it mean that i can what this means that i will not one cannot win it's even more the soul to love god and not sin but they can't will the body to do that so they're going to divorce themselves from the body through self-modification and other forms of it is is it the manichaeans concept of the schism between the mind and the body develop from paul's letter to the moment it's not only the manikin dominican perhaps where little perhaps not dependent on paul but the instead of saying the manikins you could have said the agnostics because this is a problem of the opposition between evil and good body and soul i mean the emphasis on this split even the thinking a good god and the bad god defines also the agnostic and these were of course they are not mobile of course where are around the same moment and the same place where christianity begins so in this in this way probably there was a connection many kids perhaps not because i don't know if they knew but but the exasperation of the opposition which we find in the gnostic complete also does advocate it's only it's not mentioned very much but he does discuss hierarchy of capacities so it's not just a question of potency and influence but hierarchy so about a poor hierarchy benefit first of all do you know the etymology to go back to our program of commandments okay means sacred commandment then the disturbance was invented by this stranger guy mystic someone who presents himself as being a follower paul but he said comes sixth century after it's the false book so he invented this idea of a he wrote a book called the heavenly ivory meaning the heavenly sacred power but in that book it developed the idea that the second power is hierarchically modern science you have a trinity which is a very hierarchy then you have the angels the concept of hierarchy again contains the commandment and and this is what i mentioned before it's very important that nietzsche says we is commandment because then you understand better what you mean once you don't see the wheel of power into power and so when the perhaps here is is this bigger of a higher key but perhaps he implies that every hierarchy contains a commandment so there are sorry i'm not very familiar with christian theology so maybe it's a simple question paul says that she's here i come from jewish background but not practicing paul says that there is he can command his body even so but it seems that the pole is divided into three then not only into two because he can command the soul and command body serves neither one or the other i can do but i can but i cannot there's a division between soul and body and there's a division in the soul itself but the division between soul and body is not relevant because body obeys when i command this when i command to my soul to win it will but it is interpreted as the division as the presence and the soul of two country wheels but then there we see this idea arising i think we can see very clearly where this problem begins to readdress in the technical manuals on spiritual warfare that come up and also in the geographies for example the rita santi antonia atanasius is manual and a necessity for those kinds of techniques but it's also a kind of obscurity in that division within the soul that you need to have a way to see that to determine to judge and to practice which from which uh division a directive will become active actually right what we see it is s e in that moment let's say the first centuries of christianity is it it is it what is going on is a great transformation anthropological destination man which takes the form of a crisis and interior religion which we do not find in classical for instance the tragic contrast in the tragic era it's not a contrast of an interior splitting away not at all it's a construct of two opposite principles antigonus she sees as his duty to give to people while this is prohibited from the law and that you have a contrast between that it's not an interior console it's an objective contrast but in modernity is interiorized the drama the contrast and we you see a kind of a psychological catastrophe i say this because when you read in this moment the monastic movement also begins when people begin to escape from huge how to cope with this drama where we will have the seed but but it always takes the form of an interior division so the christian subjectivity especially in the beginning in the moment of its formation also now but in the beginning it's clear it's a completely divided man this takes the form of the concert between uh scene and but also the form of your will is divided we have this marvelous description of the seven devices so so many of these instructions for the monks have had the form of the distribution of devices that treated these and one of the most terrible is the acadia the meridian david is no more able again to do anything he seems to want he know i know that i now it's the moment i have to read the book of soul but i take the book and the books fall from my hand today and the formation of modern subjectivity is is done through a profound and deep experience of a division dramatic speech which is completely ignored by the ancient men they don't have these problems they do not eat fruit it's very curious in one of the earliest formulations of the problem of the the seven deadly sins there were eight and it was who had made the division between uh say for deep sadness it's a kind of depression today we call this depression yes three because of um we know with the trinity in christian theology that's a huge number and i wonder if we can related at all too so god the father is the divine of the word god the son is the flesh of the body god the spirit is perhaps the will and so it seems to map or correspond somewhat to this question of commandment tying the person to someone else through the law one of the greatest achievements of paul's time is the attempt to translate the trinity into an interior the shape of the interior we so it is trying to translate the father the son spirit to translate it in human factions and will but the will is not the spirit the will is more the sun the sun is also the manifestation of the will of the father that's why it's called the world not because we have the father and then the will here you see a very important thing it is the relation between theology and psychology are psychological concepts are often theological concept interiorized and then in pakistan it is for instance if we go back back in the past so we see that for instance love in the beginning was a god as you know eros greek is first a god first of all it's a goddamn person then it becomes it's an experience a psychological experience so i mean there is a process in the history of humanity going from theology to psychology so something is first thought on the planet of theology gods there is for example there will be love and love is exteriorizing image now it's not true because the document we have it's the contrary we have no document saying before that if we had some torments describing love and then if we go really bad the most tension takes god is not a love is a god of course there is always already in some way you are right but then they tend to of course they also experience but they tend to represent this to conceive this as god then after a different country we tend to forget psychology if we are manipulating his and queen is clear because what we are going to see that perhaps the central concept in christian theology is greedy then of course we will have a modern subjectivity free subject who wills is free to read etc but that is again a secularization of something that was thought for god we of god god is ascension gift is the active giving gift as a quality do you mean that if we conceive a faculty capability potentiality as a gift this implies that someone has given it potentiality is not referred to subjectivity so it's not the high who is uh but just a way to present to them or if you might be able to say something about it i don't quite see the point because what we said is think that for the greek the desirable is what makes me desire it's not the reverse it's not that i the subject is the old i am the origin of the my desire the object i don't get the point what was your question exactly more about what happened this object that has a potentiality in it is if we're not helping with subjectivity or not talking about perceiving a great work shows potentiality because this concern the work which is the result of potentiality and what i'm saying potentially does not exhaust itself in the workplace that should be still alive otherwise if potentiality was completely exhausted way the work is dead something no more alive the potentiality is still in the act it's not something which is only before to still eat the egg and even perhaps after i would say that the kappa b it's the country usually we tend to represent possibility something coming before actuality i have the possibility then i realize that i think we should perhaps reverse the problem and thinking possibility is something which comes after why say that because we are always in a certain reality we are always confronted with facts and even power today is also this tendency this is the reality these are the facts you have to cope with this fact and what happens is that you must here have the ability of transforming these facts into possibility to give back potentialities to actualities the capability when you are confronted with fact either you are completely destroyed you can because it's not true there is no fact which does not contain don't see it usually we don't see the possibility that's just the fact there's nothing to do the the ability of thinking is the capability of getting that possibility in that case the possibility comes after it was and start bleeding is of course the capability of making your life possible people usually make your life their life impossible that you must be able to make your life possible this means to give back possibility to defend the situation the reality which you are necessarily take capture sorry today political problems are present as if they will not contain any possibility so the only possibility is the fact is this now you want this or you don't want no no it's not true there is a third there is a possibility i can see that the problem is containing the possibility not as the choice between two facts information is today like that and what the media do is they just present facts no possibility on the contrary we must read this fact okay these are the facts now let's transform them in possibilities this is always exclusive no no no it's not like that it's only chosen to interfere sorry but where do you see the concept of latency of something that is hidden in the object itself is potentiality a way to extract that latency which is already there it's something that for example i'm thinking of um going back to art and microlandials sculptures where like there's a latency in in them that hasn't been realized and there's a potential of the artist or the sculpture to reveal that which is lava which is hidden is there is that a third term that we could maybe introduce or or is not personal if you you made the example of michelangelo i see two instances of this problem first as you know for instance in these capsules of the sacrificial nova in florence we had this idea of consciously leaving unfinished sculptures they are left unfinished so they are not unfinished they are voluntary left and finished and these keeps this idea of potentiality so when you see a work that seems unfinished of course it's playing with potentiality in actuality because you have the idea should this be contingent finish but on the counter it was it was finitely unfit it was a willingly unfinished so it is finished but it gives you the idea of unfinished so it's very interesting i played with this it was perhaps the first to really then it just be done after so this idea of the unfinished is very interesting it released potentially because then you see that there is still potentiality in this work and the other it was this idea he developed in the poem that a single marble contains all the words and infinity wars there is a beautiful point there is no idea in the mind of the artist that the marble does not contain the game now that contains every all the potentialities all the ideas that the mind of an artist can conceive isn't one and that's why so that creation becomes the elimination of certain possibilities you could say that in some way potentiality is latent must have the ability to recognize itself of um of multitasking it's always is if you consider that works very actively actually as a way of pushing potentiality i don't know in which direction but if it is actually almost like an object that's used yeah this is the kind of used temptations it's also a new thing that does not exist just an observation not a question um you mentioned that this notion of the will is based on christian theology and tradition in a number of religions uh in buddhism a number of religions based in india the notion of the will is viewed as something as a weakness that needs to be surpassed your life is meant to surpass the will because the will is a weakness um imposing itself on your life yeah this is a great uh distinction between this christianity is grounded on will also because christianity demands a free subject and a free subject means a subject who will be responsible for his actions and we will see is a way to attribute assign action to a subject you will this so this you are responsible for this act so it's a kind of a device for attributing responses while these other religions are completely in another sphere something which has nothing to do which must be free himself from william it's what supernova took from buddhism you mentioned historical reporting in the first session historical empowering it seems to me it's like a precondition for extracting potential from from the history which has suppressed many things before before it happens so to make that connection of will to the historical economy what you said is true i mean also when you make an historical investigation if you have not the capability of extracting possibilities from the faith because history is a series of facts you have documents facts if you just take this state then as pure actuality with no possibility in them how can you write an history i mean you know but kind of it's just a serious effect so the historian the good historian must also have the ability of finding possibility into the past which is incredible because for usually the past is what has is no more across in the past there are no possibilities but then benjamin has a wonderful image he says something really wonderful he says what is memory what is the word remembering is giving back possibility to the past when you really remember something and it was thinking to what bruce calls the involuntary memories suddenly suddenly a memory appears in your mind this means that the past is again possible and the memory according to enemies and in this sense it's linked to the work of this story because discernment has too has to do with the memory with the past but the historian which is not able to give back possibility to pass and just list a series so i mean this is true for history in the public sense history of the collective sense of mankind but it's true in the personal history so if we are not able to give back possibility to our past our life is really doomed to a sad necessity not because the chain of the effects will enslave you but if you are able to see your past as possible not your future your past as possible that's real freedom he wants them perhaps is really going to go first but i wanted to go back quickly to what was saying about um about a great work of art being one that you mentioned as well it was a potential after it's finished and then um tom had said that um if you have a work consisting of the movement or potentiality conclusion that it re-emerges in film photography like with um leaving this evidentiary trace then of the passage and then you defer the potentiality and so i was wondering i hadn't really thought but is that then is it an example of like um that not happening that if mr pearl's potentiality i'd like to see with the hanukkah in his rendition of kafka's uh the castle whereas at the very very end it just sort of cuts off and says here ends the text as opposed to trying to like glue together some sort of narrative in it it's a little bit more closer to what orson welles did with the trial kind of whereas it kind of flows along more so i was wondering that's an example of film doing that where the potential is not deferred um and maybe some other just of that playing out with film but one important thing that we already mentioned this if there is a transformation in the field of art in modernity contemporary starting from 20th century the big transformation could be described as while we could say before in this field of art the work had the primacy and the creative process the potentiality etc etc was in the shadow what happens in the 20th century is that the work goes in the shadow and the creative process process the artist the potentialities the process how did the work was created et cetera comes to the light and takes the privacy this is a strange reverse amendment but it's a the avant-garde is just that the 20th century avant-garde is just the attempt to establish a primacy of the creative process on the work the work becomes secondary it even does not exist as anymore as in the ready-made you know you shall ready made there is no work of course but in this curious transition of an object from the sphere of the tool to the sphere of the museum something appears which is no more work which is just an act of the arctis or the the main deities the process so this is a this is important to understand what happened in contemporary art so the decline of work and the primacy of the creative process that's why then an artist can play on these like thomas suggested i can now recreate try it's even the case exactly as we suggest that that documentation is something which exists outside and without hard to work so that for example who who designates a snow shovel among men pretty much the same but it's this one that becomes in advance of the verbal arms it's deferred because the shovel itself and the weave was lost and so you have a photograph but that is a very designation when you ask why this one and not the one next to it because we can't tell the difference is it is foreign i would say that we also um think that in terms of what you described as you know a modern socio-political condition of insisting that only potentiality of only being able to do and that you can't do everything is primary that in fact this shift from uh the work being first and the process being second to the primacy of the process being given is actually a way to to deal with the potential of being in operative or impotential in the sense that one must remind oneself that although everything is telling you that you can do that you can't do that you can do this because actually what's most dangerous to this entire system is to not do and to know your inability to not do and what you cannot do is is a form of doing that fits in no way in a system that is completely fixated on utility and that actually the process of what transforms the ready-made into a work is important in the sense that this manufactured object which is part of an industrial mechanism is actually taken out of work and made inaudible so there's it's not so so clear to say that it is not a work it is maybe perhaps more of a comment on the notion of what constitutes work whether it's useful or useless and i think that's important yeah i would just add i think that's a great point that there's actually an action of repotentializing processes objects etc that the artist participates in which is to say to recognize in potentialities that really opens up all of those possibilities in a way that wasn't available before and i think it's a very powerful act perhaps i mean it can dissolve and go into other areas but i do also i i i thank you for the comments today presented that's also related to this professionalization also in general that also the artist's professional quality is perhaps identified by this process of being an artist which actually creates a pure potentiality to his just saying well i'm an artist and that's enough and that's where these kind of changes is they are already made the snow shovels the the urinal the bicycle wheel the bottle rack are lost the original instances of those are all lost so so duchamp himself partakes in on the kind of portrait of that ability by problematizing that he does it another way with the large glass which was installed very precisely in the museum in philadelphia but during his lifetime uh had uh brought about the fabrication of three replications of the large glasses the poverty of a current fascination with reenactment uh is when i spoke about the usage of former life it's not at all something in which concerning interiority and country is something really still the form of your and the first question concerning the reform yeah the form of course is terrorized a lot you know that uh the jewish says always that christianism is just an interiorization of certain jewish concepts and then catholic the reform can be seen as an interization of certain catholic conceptions so there is a this process of internalization in general i prefer the exteriority so i prefer catholic church to reform the church it's better it's there's a perpetrator exterior we have this little paintings not etcetera it's clear while the the reform that's why the reform was what uh contributed more to modernity because that is a real material free reinforcement is a kind of a bargain remnants which is more interesting so it actually is not coinciding with the islamic calendar which is right it's different from vegeta yeah i mean the iranian calendar is also based on the start of the hajira but according to the solar calendar and not the lunar so it's actually like a hundred almost a hundred years behind the islamic lunar challenge in iran it's the year now 1390 1390 and but in arab countries should we stop on chronology you

Channel: European Graduate School Video Lectures

Views: 6,794

Rating: 5 out of 5

Keywords: Giorgio, Agamben, Saint, Apostle, Paul, Christianity, Bible, New, Testament, Christian, theology, epistle, Romans, will, potentiality, law, Augustine, EGS, european, graduate, school

Id: xMDAP0B2M3o

Length: 85min 44sec (5144 seconds)

Published: Sat Apr 07 2012