PurposeThe paper suggests overcoming the polarization of today's debate on peer‐to‐peer systems by defining a fair balance between the principle of precaution and the principle of openness. Threats arising from these file sharing applications‐systems should not be a pretext to limit freedom of research, speech or the right “freely to participate in the cultural life of the community”, as granted by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from 1948. The paper aims to take sides in today's debate.Design/methodology/approachThe paper adopts an (...) interdisciplinary approach, including network theory, law and ethics. The method draws on both theoretical and empirical material so as to stress the paradox of the principle of precaution applied to P2P systems and why the burden of proof should fall on the party proposing that one refrain from action.FindingsCensors and opponents of P2P systems who propose to apply the principle of precaution to this case deny the premise upon which that principle rests. “Levels of evidence” required by the precautionary principle show that – in many cases in which the outcomes of technology are ignored – another principle is needed for orienting action, namely, the principle of openness.Social implicationsAlarm about how P2P systems undermine crucial elements of the societies often led to the ban of this technology. The paper illustrates why it should not be the case: rather than shutting these networks down, they should be further developed.Originality/valueThe paper provides the comprehensive picture of a far too often fragmented debate. (shrink)

whole numbers that manages to assert that it itself is unprovable (from a given finite set F of axioms using formal logic). (Gödel's paper is included in the well-known anthology [1].) GF : ``GF cannot be proved from the finite set of axioms F.'' This assertion GF is therefore true if and only if it is unprovable, and the formal axiomatic system F in question either proves falsehoods (because it enables us to prove GF) or fails to prove a true (...) assertion (because it does not enable us to prove GF). If we assume that the former situation is impossible, we conclude that F is necessarily incomplete since it does not permit us to establish the true statement GF. (shrink)

The paper examines how technology challenges conventional borders of national legal systems, as shown by cases that scholars address as a part of their everyday work in the fields of information technology (IT)-Law, i.e., computer crimes, data protection, digital copyright, and so forth. Information on the internet has in fact a ubiquitous nature that transcends political borders and questions the notion of the law as made of commands enforced through physical sanctions. Whereas many of today’s impasses on jurisdiction, international conflicts (...) of law and diverging interpretations of statutes can be addressed by embedding legal safeguards in ICT and other kinds of technology, to overcome the ineffectiveness of state action by design entails its own risks, e.g., threats of paternalism hinging on the regulatory tools of technology. Rather than modelling people’s behaviour by design, the article suggests that design policies should respect individual and collective autonomy by decreasing the impact of harm-generating behaviour (e.g., security measures and default settings for data protection), or by widening the range of people’s choices (e.g., user friendly interfaces). (shrink)

This book explores how the design, construction, and use of robotics technology may affect today's legal systems and, more particularly, matters of responsibility and agency in criminal law, contractual obligations, and torts. By distinguishing between the behaviour of robots as tools of human interaction, and robots as proper agents in the legal arena, jurists will have to address a new generation of "hard cases." General disagreement may concern immunity in criminal law (e.g., the employment of robot soldiers in battle), personal (...) accountability for certain robots in contracts (e.g., robo-traders), much as clauses of strict liability and negligence-based responsibility in extra-contractual obligations (e.g., service robots in tort law). Since robots are here to stay, the aim of the law should be to wisely govern our mutual relationships. (shrink)

In order to present a hopefully comprehensive framework of what is the stake of the growing use of robot soldiers, the paper focuses on: the different impact of robots on legal systems, e.g., contractual obligations and tort liability; how robots affect crucial notions as causality, predictability and human culpability in criminal law and, finally, specific hypotheses of robots employed in “just wars.” By using the traditional distinction between causes that make wars just and conduct admissible on the battlefield, the aim (...) is to clarify how advancement of military robotics technology is transforming a 2,000-year-old legal debate on the concept of “just war.” For the first time, legal systems will hold political authorities and military commissioners responsible for what an artificial soldier autonomously decides to do. The paper examines how the new scenario affects both principles of military conduct and notions of justice in resorting to war. (shrink)

The paper examines today’s debate on the new responsibilities of Internet service providers in connection with legal problems concerning jurisdiction, data processing, people’s privacy and education. The focus is foremost on the default rules and safe harbour clauses for ISPs liability, set up by the US and European legal systems. This framework is deepened in light of the different functions of the services provided on the Internet so as to highlight multiple levels of control over information and, correspondingly, different types (...) of liability. The new responsibilities of ISPs concern the original “end-to-end” architecture of the medium and policies on design rather than responsibility for user content and individual messages. (shrink)

The European Medical Information Framework project, funded through the IMI programme, has designed and implemented a federated platform to connect health data from a variety of sources across Europe, to facilitate large scale clinical and life sciences research. It enables approved users to analyse securely multiple, diverse, data via a single portal, thereby mediating research opportunities across a large quantity of research data. EMIF developed a code of practice to ensure the privacy protection of data subjects, protect the interests of (...) data sharing parties, comply with legislation and various organisational policies on data protection, uphold best practices in the protection of personal privacy and information governance, and eventually promote these best practices more widely. EMIF convened an Ethics Advisory Board, to provide feedback on its approach, platform, and the EcoP. The most important challenges the ECoP team faced were: how to define, control and monitor the purposes for which federated health data are used; the kinds of organisation that should be permitted to conduct permitted research; and how to monitor this. This manuscript explores those issues, offering the combined insights of the EAB and EMIF core ECoP team. For some issues, a consensus on how to approach them is proposed. For other issues, a singular approach may be premature but the challenges are summarised to help the community to debate the topic further. Arguably, the issues and their analyses have application beyond EMIF, to many research infrastructures connected to health data sources. (shrink)

The paper focuses on concerns and legal challenges brought on by the use of algorithms. A particular class of algorithms that augment or replace analysis and decision-making by humans, i.e. data analytics and machine learning, is under scrutiny. Taking into account Balkin’s work on “the laws of an algorithmic society”, attention is drawn to obligations of transparency, matters of due process, and accountability. This US-centric analysis on drawbacks and loopholes of current legal systems is complemented with the analysis of norms (...) and principles of the EU data protection law, or “GDPR”. The aim is twofold. On the one hand, the intent is to shed light on some crucial differences between the US and EU law on the regulation of algorithmic operators, both public and private. Whereas, in the USA, scholars debate whether and to what extent new duties and responsibilities of algorithmic operators, e.g. information fiduciaries, have to amend the current framework of self-regulation and light government—as shown by the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy report from November 2016—in EU law much of the new duties and responsibilities of algorithmic operators have been passed upon them as data controllers. Whether such approaches will successfully tackle the normative challenges of the algorithmic society is, on the other hand, an open issue that will likely represent the main topic of debate over the next years. Disagreement may concern: the terms framing the legal question in e.g. statistical purposes of the data processing; how such terms are related to each other in legal reasoning ; and legal hard cases that will increasingly have to do with the principles that are at stake also but not only in data protection. By entrusting such legal hard cases to algorithms, or some sort of smart artificial agent, humans still bear full responsibility for the judgment of what is socially, ethically, and legally “plain” and “hard” in social affairs. The balance between delegation of decisions to algorithms and non-delegation will be the leitmotiv of the algorithmic society. Since the devil is in the detail, the current paper is devoted to some of them. (shrink)

No single moral theory can instruct us as to whether and to what extent we are confronted with legal loopholes, e.g. whether or not new legal rules should be added to the system in the criminal law field. This question on the primary rules of the law appears crucial for today’s debate on roboethics and still, goes beyond the expertise of robo-ethicists. On the other hand, attention should be drawn to the secondary rules of the law: The unpredictability of robotic (...) behaviour and the lack of data on the probability of events, their consequences and costs, make hard to determine the levels of risk and hence, the amount of insurance premiums and other mechanisms on which new forms of accountability for the behaviour of robots may hinge. By following Japanese thinking, the aim is to show why legally de-regulated, or special, zones for robotics, i.e. the secondary rules of the system, pave the way to understand what kind of primary rules we may want for our robots. (shrink)

This article reports the findings of AI4People, an Atomium—EISMD initiative designed to lay the foundations for a “Good AI Society”. We introduce the core opportunities and risks of AI for society; present a synthesis of five ethical principles that should undergird its development and adoption; and offer 20 concrete recommendations—to assess, to develop, to incentivise, and to support good AI—which in some cases may be undertaken directly by national or supranational policy makers, while in others may be led by other (...) stakeholders. If adopted, these recommendations would serve as a firm foundation for the establishment of a Good AI Society. (shrink)

The paper examines some aspects of today’s debate on trust and e-trust and, more specifically, issues of legal responsibility for the production and use of robots. Their impact on human-to-human interaction has produced new problems both in the fields of contractual and extra-contractual liability in that robots negotiate, enter into contracts, establish rights and obligations between humans, while reshaping matters of responsibility and risk in trust relations. Whether or not robotrust concerns human-to-robot or even robot-to-robot relations, there is a new (...) generation of cases involving human-to-human contractual and extra-contractual liability for robots’ behaviour because, for the first time, legal systems hold you responsible for what an artificial system autonomously decides to do. (shrink)

This article examines some of the most relevant issues concerning P2P systems so as to take sides in today's strongly polarized debate. The idea is to integrate a context-based perspective with an ontological representation of informational norms; thanks to a procedural outlook which is presented in terms of burden of proof More particularly, we examine three ''roads." First, the topological approach to complex social networks allows us to comprehend the laws according to which information is distributed through P2P systems and (...) how a "short route" has joined, and sometimes replaced, the traditional "long route" between creator, business, and the public. The second road is the context-based perspective elaborated by Helen Nissenbaum, and developed by Francis Grodzinsky and Herman Tavani: The goal is to determine the norms that govern such an informational flow as norms of appropriateness and distribution. The final road is the informational viewpoint on ethics proposed by Luciano Floridi with the idea that standard ethical theories cannot easily be adapted to deal with the new informational issues emerging with digital technology. While empirical evidence on the impact of P2P systems is still quite controversial, it is crucial to determine on whom the burden of proof falls in a given context, on censors or advocates, by singling out both the default norms and exceptions in the use and development of P2P software. (shrink)

El artículo examina un episodio curioso, ocurrido en las relaciones de Galileo Galilei y de su amigo Giovanfrancesco Sagredo -el destacado personaje del Diálogo sobre los dos máximos sistemas del mundo- con el filósofo aristotélico Cesare Cremonini. Estando todavía de profesor en Padua, Galilei entrega al colega y amigo Cremonini, en forma de préstamo, la cuantiosa suma de cuatrocientos ducados. Al trasladarse de Padua a Florencia, el científico confía a Sagredo la tarea de recuperar el dinero prestado. Las cartas numerosas (...) que Sagredo dirigiera a Galilei a tal propósito, nos informan que la cancelación total del préstamo tardó nueve años (1619), gracias a las reiteradas intromisiones del patricio veneciano. Es opinión común de los historiadores, que la tardanza fue causada simplemente por la morosidad y la mala conducta seguida por Cremonini. El autor, en cambio, sugiere una interpretación diferente de los hechos; al tomar en cuenta, de un lado, la presencia de factores financieros que hicieron subir el costo de la deuda; del otro, la forma agresiva con que Sagredo llevó adelante el cuidado de los intereses de Galilei, hasta el extremo de levantar en Cremonini la sospecha de ser objeto de maniobras usureras. (shrink)

The use of cyber force can be as severe and disruptive as traditional armed attacks are. Cyber attacks may neither provoke physical injuries nor cause property damages and still, they can affect essential functions of today’s societies, such as governmental services, business processes or communication systems that progressively depend on information as a vital resource. Whereas several scholars claim that an international treaty, much as new forms of international cooperation, are necessary, a further challenge should be stressed: authors of cyber (...) attacks can be non-state actors, and identifying the party responsible for such a use of force, whether non-state actors or national sovereign states, is often impossible. Accordingly, several programmes on online security and national defence have been developed by sovereign states to tackle this menace and yet, the endurance of Western democracies and their aim to protect basic rights have already been tested by such programmes over the past years. The new scenarios of cyber force do not only concern the field of international law, since they may represent the main threat in the fields of national and constitutional law as well. (shrink)

Se examina la defensa que de la filosofía en cuanto episteme, elaboró el aristotélico renacentista Cesare Cremonini (1550-1 631), al introducir el curso de lecciones sobre la Física de Aristóteles, según la redacci6n todavía inédita del Ms.200-2 de la Biblioteca Universitaria de Padua. Mediante un topos ya clásico, y actual, los temas en discusión son además de la falta de certitudo y la inconsistencia veritativa que afectan las conclusiones de la filosofía de la naturaleza, la inutilidad e incluso la peligrosidad (...) que, desde el punto de vista ético- político, parecen descalificar la labor del filósofo ociosamente levantar sospechas y alarma. La interpretación de la réplica cremoniniana intenta establecer conexiones entre el perfil conceptual de los argumentos esgrimidos, y algunos episodios de la biografía intelectual y académica de Crernonini sin dejar de tomar en cuenca las implicaciones políticas que pueden derivarse, en perspectiva histórica, del amplio debate que caracterizó la vida académica y cultural del estudio de Padua y de la república veneciana, durante la segunda mitad del siglo XVI.The defence of philosophy as episteme is examined, as elaborated by Renaissance Aristotelian philosopher Cesare Cremonini (1550 - 1 631) in his as yet unpublished manuscript numbered 200-2 by t he University of Padua. Which purported to be an introduction for a course on Aristotle's Physics. Following a topos both classic and contemporary, the issues arc, in addition to the lack of certitudet and the inconsistency of truth concerning the philosophy of nature. The uselessness and even the ethical-political danger arising from the work of the idle philosopher devoted to the contemplation of truth, whose presence in society may stir suspicion and unrest. The analysis of Cremonini’s arguments intends to establish the connections between the philosopher's views and his own academic and intellectual circumstances. Also the political implications are taken into account that resulted from the wide-range debate typical of academic and cultural life in the Studio of Padua and the Republic of Venice during the second half of the 16th Century. (shrink)

The paper examines the open problems that experts of space law shall increasingly address over the next few years, according to four different sets of legal issues. Such differentiation sheds light on what is old and what is new with today’s troubles of space law, e.g., the privatization of space, vis-à-vis the challenges that AI raises in this field. Some AI challenges depend on its unique features, e.g., autonomy and opacity, and how they affect pillars of the law, whether on (...) Earth or in space missions. The paper insists on a further class of legal issues that AI systems raise, however, only in outer space. We shall never overlook the constraints of a hazardous and hostile environment, such as on a mission between Mars and the Moon. The aim of this paper is to illustrate what is still mostly unexplored or in its infancy in this kind of research, namely, the fourfold ways in which the uniqueness of AI and that of outer space impact both ethical and legal standards. Such standards shall provide for thresholds of evaluation according to which courts and legislators evaluate the pros and cons of technology. Our claim is that a new generation of sui generis standards of space law, stricter or more flexible standards for AI systems in outer space, down to the “principle of equality” between human standards and robotic standards, will follow as a result of this twofold uniqueness of AI and of outer space. (shrink)

PurposeThe paper aims to examine the profound transformations engendered by the information revolution in order to determine aspects of what should be visible or invisible in human affairs. It seeks to explore the meaning of invisibility via an interdisciplinary approach, including computer science, law, and ethics.Design/methodology/approachThe method draws on both theoretical and empirical material so as to scrutinise the ways in which today's information revolution is recasting the boundaries between visibility and invisibility.FindingsThe degrees of exposure to public notice can be (...) understood as a matter of balance between access and control over information in a specific context, as well as a function of the ontological friction in a given region of the environment.Originality/valueThe originality of the case study on a new kind of recommender system is enhanced because of the procedural approach which is suggested to further develop the distinction between “good” and “evil” as anything that enriches, or damages, the informational complexity of the environment. (shrink)

In my research published last year, i.e. Homo homini deus. Per un'introduzione al pensiero giuridico di Francis Bacon, I have analytically presented the Aphorismi de Jure gentium maiore sive de fontibus justiciae et iuris and I have closely studied the relationship between the legal and political philosophy of the Lord Chancellor and the civil science of Thomas Hobbes1. In the present essay I will try to summarize some of the main reasons why I think that manuscript of Chatsworth House, discovered (...) to be Bacon's only in 1980, is so important. It clarifies, with its twenty aphorisms, some crucial principles of Bacon's civil philosophy that would probably remain otherwise shadowed. So, here I will take as an excellent example that concept of sovereignty which is presented in the Aphorismi. His famous silences - for which the Lord Chancellor has been often considered the worthy, English heir of Machiavelli: 'We're much beholden...'2, - will be better understood at the light of this 'new' text. However, there is not only this sort of silence that Baconian scholars have to face and to understand, also a historiographical tradition has been consolidated in the twentieth century that has almost forgotten Bacon's civil philosophy. Those Bacon's legal and political texts that have been still considered and analyzed by philosophical critique, have been generally misunderstood. So, in order to avoid as far as possible such a fate for the Aphorismi de Jure gentium maiore either, it is necessary to consider that historical context which, as we shall see, depends very much on separating Bacon as a political thinker from his younger contemporary, Thomas Hobbes. (shrink)

The paper deals with the governance of Unmanned Aircraft Systems in European law. Three different kinds of balance have been struck between multiple regulatory systems, in accordance with the sector of the governance of UAS which is taken into account. The first model regards the field of civil aviation law and its European Union ’s regulation: the model looks like a traditional mix of top-down regulation and soft law. The second model concerns the EU general data protection law, the GDPR, (...) which has set up a co-regulatory framework summed up with the principle of accountability also, but not only, in the field of drones. The third model of governance has been adopted by the EU through methods of legal experimentation and coordination mechanisms for UAS. The overall aim of the paper is to elucidate the ways in which such three models interact, insisting on differences and similarities with other technologies, and further legal systems. (shrink)

The paper examines the realignment of the legal sources in an information society, by considering first of all the differences with the previous system of sources, dubbed as the “Westphalian model”. The current system is tripartite, rather than bipartite, for the sources of transnational law should be added to the traditional dichotomy between national and international law. In addition, the system is dualistic, rather than monistic, because the tools of legal constructivism, such as codes or statutes, have to be complemented (...) with the rules of customary law and contracts. In light of the canonical version of the law as a set of commands enforced through the threat of physical sanctions, however, two further novelties must be stressed, namely the soft law-tools of governance as a source of the system and the aim to embed normative constraints into technology, in order to enforce the law through the use of filtering systems, self-enforcing technologies, etc. This latter approach impacts on functions and requirements of the system, by transferring the normative side of the law from the traditional “ought to” of legal commands to what actually is on the basis of automatic techniques, thus affecting the very notion of source. The overall aim of the paper is to show that rearrangements of the legal sources are intertwined with redistributions of power and hence, a normative standpoint is needed, so as to determine whether scholars can obtain the solution that best justifies the integrity of the law before its hard cases, or the answer is a reasonable compromise between many conflicting interests. (shrink)

This paper adopts a legal perspective to counter some exaggerations of today’s debate on the social understanding of robotics. According to a long and well-established tradition, there is in fact a relative strong consensus among lawyers about some key notions as, say, agency and liability in the current use of robots. However, dealing with a field in rapid evolution, we need to rethink some basic tenets of the contemporary legal framework. In particular, time has come for lawyers to acknowledge that (...) some acts of robots should be considered as a new source of legal responsibility for others’ behaviour. (shrink)

The paper examines the connection between online security and the protection of civil rights from a legal viewpoint, that is, considering the different types of rights and interests that are at stake in national and international law and whether, and to what extent, they concern matters of balancing. Over the past years, the purpose of several laws, and legislative drafts such as ACTA, has been to impose “zero-sum games”. In light of current statutes, such as HADOPI in France, or Digital (...) Economy Act in UK, the paper intends to illustrate how more satisfactory solutions are feasible in the field of online security, such as the new “Police and Criminal Justice Data Protection Directive” that the European Commission presented in January 2012. At least in Western legal systems, it should be clear that either civil rights prevail over security (no balancing), or such balance has to satisfactorily protect individual rights (proportionality). (shrink)

삶은 상처이자 치유의 과정이다! 일상으로 소환한 인문학에서 찾은 삶과 행복의 기본과 원칙 ◎ 도서 소개 인문학의 두 번째 질문, “어떻게 살 것인가?” 고은, 용타, 김상근, 최인철, 차드 멩 탄… 최고의 지성 12인의 상처를 극복하고 공생하는 방법! 존재의 본질에 대한 논의를 잇는 근원적 물음, 어떻게 살 것인가. 삶의 황폐화와 사회 가치의 퇴색, 현실 문제에 대한 근원적인 해결책의 부재로 현대인들은 인간과 삶, 죽음에 대한 근원적인 물음을 품기 시작했다. 그 물음 끝에 탄생한 『어떻게 살 것인가』는 2014년 가을 플라톤 아카데미가 주최한 동명의 대중강연을 엮은 (...) 것으로, 누적 6만 명 이상 청중들의 열광적인 호응을 불러일으켰다. 1부에서 김상근, 한명기, 조성택, 석영중, 황현산, 고은은 인류의 역사 속에 우리 삶의 이정표를 세우는 작업을 통해 너를 살피고 나를 다스리는 지혜를 설파한다. 2부에서 손봉호, 박승찬, 차드 멩 탄, 최인철, 용타, 이강호는 상처를 견디며 행복하게 살아가기 위한 고민을 통해 삶은 상처를 치유하는 과정이라고 역설한다. 삶과 행복의 기본과 원칙이 현실에 닥친 슬픔과 혼란을 극복하고 함께 앞으로 나아갈 수 있는 힘이며, 황폐해진 개인의 삶과 희미해진 사회적 가치를 극복할 수 있는 해답임을 역사와 철학, 종교와 문학 등 인문학 여러 분야를 넘나들며 증명한다. ◎ 출판사 서평 상처 입은 사회, 우리는 어떻게 살아야 할까? 공생하는 삶에 대한 12가지 실천적 철학 나는 누구인가, 어떻게 살 것인가, 어떻게 죽을 것인가. 현대인들이 잊고 살지만, 인생에서 가장 중요한 질문이다. 개인의 삶이 점점 황폐해지고 사회 가치가 희미해지는 요즘, 이러한 근원적인 물음은 우리 삶에 더욱 중요해졌다. ‘인간’을 탐구하고 ‘인생’을 공부하는 학문인 인문학 열풍이 거세진 것도 이와 같은 이유다. 그 물음 끝에 탄생한 『어떻게 살 것인가』는 2014년 가을 플라톤 아카데미가 주최한 동명의 대중강연을 엮은 것으로, 누적 6만 명 이상 청중들의 열광적인 호응을 불러일으켰다. 마치 눈앞에서 듣는 것처럼 고은, 용타, 김상근, 최인철, 차드 멩 탄 등 이 시대를 대표하는 지성 12인이 전하는 삶의 지혜와 인문학적 통찰이 뜨거운 감동과 함께 생생하게 전달된다. 우리 일상에 맞닿은 사례들을 중심으로 삶의 본질을 탐구하며, 위대한 고전과 사상가들의 핵심 메시지를 깊이 있고 흥미롭게 분석했다. 독자들은 이 책을 통해 ‘어떻게 살 것인가’라는 삶의 근원적인 물음에 명쾌한 해답을 얻을 수 있을 것이며, 흔들리고 방황하는 삶에 용기와 철학을 정립할 수 있을 것이다. 행복한 삶을 향한 역사, 철학, 종교, 문학의 성찰 어떻게 살 것인가에 관한 질문은 반드시 ‘행복’이라는 대답으로 이어진다. 역사, 철학, 종교, 문학 등 다양한 시각으로 삶의 방법을 분석한 우리 시대 최고 지성 12인이 상처를 극복하고 함께 행복하게 살아갈 수 있는 방법을 이야기한다. 개인과 사회가 서로 신뢰할 때 우리의 삶은 여유로워지고 사회는 안전해진다. 1부에서는 인류의 역사 속에 우리 삶의 이정표를 세우는 작업을 통해 너를 살피고 나를 다스리는 지혜를 배운다. 대한민국 사회를 ‘아포리아’ 시대로 규정하며 위기를 극복할 수 있는 지혜를 고대 그리스에서 찾은 김상근, 『징비록』에 담긴 역사적 기록을 통해 세계 격변의 시기에 우리가 취해야 할 자세를 고민하는 한명기, 원효의 화쟁사상을 통해 시민의 지혜와 대화의 중요성을 강조한 조성택, 톨스토이의 『안나 카레니나』를 바탕으로 몰입, 소통, 죽음 세 단계의 성장하는 삶을 이야기한 석영중, 주체로서의 나와 타자로서의 나를 소통시키는 시(詩)의 힘을 통해 잘 사는 법을 전한 황현산, 극심한 갈등 속 자기중심적 삶에서 벗어나 세계사적 의미의 통합을 이룰 것을 주장한 고은 시인을 통해 산다는 문제가 공생에 관한 논의로 확장되는 것을 경험한다. 2부에서는 상처를 견디며 행복하게 살아가기 위한 고민을 통해 삶은 상처를 치유하는 과정이라고 역설한다. 우리가 행복하지 않은 이유로 지나친 경쟁심과 불공정한 규칙을 꼽으며 정직하게 나와 타인의 행복과 이익을 함께 추구하는 것이 우리가 지켜야 할 자존심이자 원칙이라고 전하는 손봉호, 나의 ‘홀로서기’와 타인과의 ‘함께 걷기’를 통해서 고통을 넘어서는 희망을 찾을 수 있다는 대안을 제시한 박승찬, 감성지능을 개발하기 위한 세 단계인 주의력 집중, 자기 인식, 정신 습관을 통해 행복의 비법을 전한 차드 멩 탄, 행복을 마음이 아닌 몸과 연결 지어 일상에서 행복을 느낄 수 있는 방법을 찾아나가는 최인철, ‘나, 모두의 행복, 마음 천국, 관계 천국, 세상 천국’이라는 다섯 가지 원리를 통해 나를 이해하는 것에서부터 세계 평화가 시작함을 이야기한 용타, 준비하고 실행하는 삶, 주인공이 되는 삶, 기본과 원칙을 중시하고 만남을 소중히 하는 삶이라는 삶의 다섯 가지 실천을 제시한 이강호를 통해 우리는 어떻게 사는 삶이 행복한 삶인지 다시 한번 숙고하게 된다. 인문학의 목소리로 전하는 인간의 삶과 행복, 기본과 원칙은 현실에 닥친 슬픔과 혼란을 극복하고 함께 앞으로 나아갈 수 있는 힘을 전한다. 황폐해진 개인의 삶과 희미해진 사회적 가치를 극복할 해답을 인문학에서 찾았다. ◎ 본문 중에서 만약 인문학적 성찰이 ‘나는 누구인가’에만 머무른다면 그것은 매우 이기적인 일일지도 모르겠습니다. 인문학은 자기 성찰에서 출발해 이웃과 세상 사람들, 그리고 사회 속에서 행동하고 실천하는 작업까지 이어져야 합니다. 그렇기에 인문학은 반드시 두 번째 질문인 ‘어떻게 살 것인가’로 나아가야 합니다. (14쪽) 『징비록』은 조선 선조 때 영의정을 지낸 서애(西厓) 류성룡이 집필한 임진왜란(壬辰倭亂)의 전란사입니다. 제목인 징비(懲毖)는 『시경(詩經)』 「소비편(小毖篇)」의 “예기징 이비후환(豫基懲 而毖後患)”, 즉 내가 경계함은 후환을 삼가기 위함이라는 구절에서 한 글자씩 따왔습니다. (…) 그는 임진왜란 당시의 참담한 상황을 기록하면서, 동시에 난이 일어나기 이전의 일도 기록해 그 원인이 어디에 있었는지를 밝히려고 했습니다. (31~32쪽) 세상의 중심에 서서 세상을 이어주는 것이 바로 인문 정신이며 시민의 지혜라고 생각합니다. 시민의 지혜로 세상을 바라볼 때, 논쟁이 화쟁적 대화로 이어질 때, 갈등과 분쟁은 더 이상 문제 상황이 아니라 더 큰 진리가 드러나는 에너지요, 기회가 될 것입니다. (97쪽) 톨스토이는 ‘어떻게 살 것인가’라는 질문에 대한 답을 작품을 통해 보여주게 되는데요, 그 답은 바로 ‘성장’입니다. 성장이란 인간이 끊임없는 성찰과 학습을 통해 자기완성에 도달하는 과정입니다. 톨스토이는 성장에 대해 “끊임없이 보다 나은 사람이 되어가는 것”이라고 이야기합니다. (99~100쪽) 개인의 사소한 사정은 더더욱 표현하기 어렵습니다. 사회적인 문제들을 표현하기 위해서는 연대도 가능하고 협력도 가능합니다. 그러나 자기 안에 있는 문제는, 실제로 모든 사람들이 똑같이 느끼고 있음에도 불구하고 연대가 불가능하고 협력도 어렵습니다. 바로 그 사이에 다리를 놓고 협력할 수 있도록 해주는 것이 문학입니다. 또한 그것들을 표현할 말을 만들어내고, 그것들을 표현하기 위해 어떤 특별한 세계를 개발하고 또 그것들을 전파할 수 있도록 약속하는 것이 문학입니다. 그리고 그 문학의 전위가 바로 시(詩)이며, 시가 바로 그 일을 합니다. (135쪽) 아내가 “삶은 상처다”라고 아주 멋진 말을 하더군요. 그리고 삶은 상처를 치유하는 과정이라고 덧붙였습니다. 일상은 늘 상처를 만들고 상처와 만나고 그 상처를 조금씩 치유해주고 가라앉혀주는 것이라고요. 진짜 삶은 누구에 의해 혹은 누구의 규범과 교훈에 종속되어 노예로 사는 것이 아니라 자기 자신으로 살아가는 것입니다. (…) 실존의 존엄성을 우주의 그 누구도 모독할 수 없습니다. (154~155쪽) 우리는 우리의 행동이 어떤 경로를 거쳐 어떤 결과를 가져올지 알아야 하고, 그 결과에 따른 책임도 져야 합니다. 그것이 오늘날 우리에게 필요한 윤리입니다. 그러려면 선한 동기만이 아니라 지식도 있어야 하고, 능력도 있어야 합니다. (185쪽) 고통을 극복하기 위해서는 누구도 자신의 고통을 이해해주지 못한다는 사실을 받아들여야 합니다. 기대할수록 상처는 더욱 커집니다. 고통은 홀로 맞서야만 하는 주관적인 체험입니다. 그렇더라도 고통에 빠진 사람 옆에서 함께 걸어주십시오. 그러면 내가 고통스러울 때 그 사람도 나와 함께 걸어줄 것입니다. 이런 홀로서기와 함께 걷기를 통해서 우리는 고통을 넘어서는 희망을 찾을 수 있습니다. (219쪽) 행복의 비법은 바로 이것입니다. 먼저 마음을 고요하게 해보세요. 그러면 에너지가 필요 없는 기쁨의 세계로 나아갈 수 있습니다. 그리고 자기 인식 능력을 발전시켜서 번뇌로부터 벗어나세요. 마지막으로 친절과 자비를 베풀고 이를 습관화합니다. 이 모든 과정이 훈련을 통해 얼마든지 가능합니다. (238쪽) 단백질, 탄수화물, 지방이 몸을 움직이는 3대 영양소라면, 자유와 유능감과 관계는 영혼을 숨 쉬게 하는 3대 영양소입니다. 그러므로 행복한 삶을 산다는 것은 이 세 가지 에너지를 지속적으로 공급받는 것이라 할 수 있습니다. 그리고 이런 에너지는 당연히 마음 관리에서 나옵니다. 저는 신체활동이나 일상의 여러 활동을 통해 얼마든지 영혼에 에너지를 공급할 수 있다는 이야기를 하려 합니다. (248쪽) 행복한 삶을 위한 원리를 정리하면 ‘나는 모두의 행복을 위해 수심하여 마음 천국 이루고, 화합하여 관계 천국 이루고, 작선하여 세상 천국 이루리라’입니다. 우리 모두가 이 원리만 지키고 살아도 가정의 평화, 세계의 평화, 우주의 평화를 이룰 수 있습니다. (273쪽) 매일 아침, 우리에게는 똑같은 태양이 떠오릅니다. 그리고 똑같은 시간이 주어지지요. 태양과 시간을 어떻게 자기 것으로 만들어가느냐에 따라 각자의 삶이 달라질 것입니다. ‘Every dawn is a new beginning.’ 매일마다의 아침은 또 하나의 새로운 시작입니다. 여러분은 어떤 삶을 원하십니까? (297쪽). (shrink)