At the present time, freedom of expression is a praised right anywhere and at any time: our society regards it as a political, social, practical and moral right. In Bizkitarte, in the name of freedom of expression, it can be seen spreading social confusion, injustices and violence, especially in the virtual world of the network, but also in the material public space.

Presuming freedom of expression, I have recently read two interesting books, in French: The antique philosophie of Pierre Vesperini (Old Philosophy, Fayard, 2019) and Sauver the liberté d’expression of Monique Sober-Sperber (Saving freedom of expression, Albin Michel, 2021). The first clarifies the history of Western philosophy of Europe in a new common way and we demonstrate that we can drink from the water of ancient philosophers. In fact, for Vesperini, the mentality of Europeans lies in three principles: the absolute existence of a truth and the intrinsic need to seek it through doctrines; the separation between soul and body; the exclusion of certain categories of people (such as wives). On the contrary, the previous philosophy was made up of free and multiple dialogues: debates were not dogmatic conflicts, they were outside metaphysics. The philosophy was a nice game, which allowed special rules, a fruitful ethical and aesthetic game, which offered practical methods (or pathways) to remain perpendicular to life and society.

For its part, Monique Attribution-Sperber has associated freedom of expression to the history of the three centuries of liberal concept, showing that what we call this today has something to do with the initial notion. For Treasury Sperber, especially on the Internet, people don't let themselves out respecting common ethical standards. There is a risk that, in the name of this new freedom of expression, public space will be covered with a sterile controversy between dogmatic views. If no limits are set, neither pragmatic nor moral, one cannot speak, and ideas can become incomprehensible, a loss for all, says the author. Like Vesperini, Ikerlan-Sperber dreams of public space becoming a healthy, multitudinous, incarnate game, accompanied by life-saving cracks.

I suppose that school and university should be the privileged space to play sanely with the expression of freedom, and, of course, also the expression of the ernea crack. High, this is not possible, at least in primary and secondary public education. Dogmatic teaching is what is recommended: it is necessary to impose ideas on a regular basis, or to make students perceive the official truth, but in the rest it is the same. In college, there is more freedom to convey the values of debate and translation that laughter attracts, but I fear that in the future, states and society are increasingly asking university professors to satisfy the students with dogma and doctrine.

I don't know if society is going to get used to it enough to start playing seriously, to make fun of the truth, of catiximes and of preachers, or to what extent it would be possible for society to endure it. In Anartea, in these bustling times, I enjoy deep debates with philosophical people who don't share my positions, and all the moments of cracking with people I want. & '97; The same time of happiness for you was also a source of pleasure, reader.