The oblique perspective: philosophical diagnostics of contemporary life sciences research.

IF 3.1 Q1 Arts and Humanities Life Sciences, Society and Policy Pub Date : 2017-12-01 Epub Date: 2017-03-04 DOI:10.1186/s40504-017-0047-9
Hub Zwart
{"title":"The oblique perspective: philosophical diagnostics of contemporary life sciences research.","authors":"Hub Zwart","doi":"10.1186/s40504-017-0047-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This paper indicates how continental philosophy may contribute to a diagnostics of contemporary life sciences research, as part of a \"diagnostics of the present\" (envisioned by continental thinkers, from Hegel up to Foucault). First, I describe (as a \"practicing\" philosopher) various options for an oblique (or symptomatic) reading of emerging scientific discourse, bent on uncovering the basic \"philosophemes\" of science (i.e. the guiding ideas, the basic conceptions of nature, life and technology at work in contemporary life sciences research practices). Subsequently, I outline a number of radical transformations occurring both at the object-pole and at the subject-pole of the current knowledge relationship, namely the technification of the object and the anonymisation or collectivisation of the subject, under the sway of automation, ICT and big machines. Finally, I further elaborate the specificity of the oblique perspective with the help of Lacan's theorem of the four discourses. Philosophical reflections on contemporary life sciences concur neither with a Master's discourse (which aims to strengthen the legitimacy and credibility of canonical sources), nor with university discourse (which aims to establish professional expertise), nor with what Lacan refers to as hysterical discourse (which aims to challenge representatives of the power establishment), but rather with the discourse of the analyst, listening with evenly-poised attention to the scientific files in order to bring to the fore the cupido sciendi (i.e. the will to know, but also to optimise and to control) which both inspires and disrupts contemporary life sciences discourse.</p>","PeriodicalId":37861,"journal":{"name":"Life Sciences, Society and Policy","volume":"13 1","pages":"4"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s40504-017-0047-9","citationCount":"23","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Life Sciences, Society and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-017-0047-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/3/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 23

Abstract

This paper indicates how continental philosophy may contribute to a diagnostics of contemporary life sciences research, as part of a "diagnostics of the present" (envisioned by continental thinkers, from Hegel up to Foucault). First, I describe (as a "practicing" philosopher) various options for an oblique (or symptomatic) reading of emerging scientific discourse, bent on uncovering the basic "philosophemes" of science (i.e. the guiding ideas, the basic conceptions of nature, life and technology at work in contemporary life sciences research practices). Subsequently, I outline a number of radical transformations occurring both at the object-pole and at the subject-pole of the current knowledge relationship, namely the technification of the object and the anonymisation or collectivisation of the subject, under the sway of automation, ICT and big machines. Finally, I further elaborate the specificity of the oblique perspective with the help of Lacan's theorem of the four discourses. Philosophical reflections on contemporary life sciences concur neither with a Master's discourse (which aims to strengthen the legitimacy and credibility of canonical sources), nor with university discourse (which aims to establish professional expertise), nor with what Lacan refers to as hysterical discourse (which aims to challenge representatives of the power establishment), but rather with the discourse of the analyst, listening with evenly-poised attention to the scientific files in order to bring to the fore the cupido sciendi (i.e. the will to know, but also to optimise and to control) which both inspires and disrupts contemporary life sciences discourse.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
倾斜视角:当代生命科学研究的哲学诊断。
本文指出了大陆哲学如何有助于诊断当代生命科学研究,作为“诊断现在”的一部分(由大陆思想家设想,从黑格尔到福柯)。首先,我(作为一名“实践”哲学家)描述了对新兴科学话语进行倾斜(或症状性)阅读的各种选择,这些话语旨在揭示科学的基本“哲学”(即指导思想,在当代生命科学研究实践中起作用的自然、生命和技术的基本概念)。随后,我概述了在当前知识关系的客体极和主体极发生的一些激进转变,即在自动化、信息通信技术和大机器的影响下,客体的技术化和主体的匿名化或集体化。最后,我借助拉康的四话语定理,进一步阐述了倾斜视角的特殊性。对当代生命科学的哲学反思既不与硕士的话语(旨在加强权威来源的合法性和可信度)一致,也不与大学的话语(旨在建立专业知识)一致,也不与拉康所说的歇斯底里的话语(旨在挑战权力机构的代表)一致,而是与分析者的话语一致,以平衡的注意力倾听科学文献,以将“科学之神”(即求知的意志,同时也是优化和控制的意志)放在首位,这既激发又破坏了当代生命科学的话语。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Life Sciences, Society and Policy
Life Sciences, Society and Policy Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊介绍: The purpose of Life Sciences, Society and Policy (LSSP) is to analyse social, ethical and legal dimensions of the most dynamic branches of life sciences and technologies, and to discuss ways to foster responsible innovation, sustainable development and user-driven social policies. LSSP provides an academic forum for engaged scholarship at the intersection of life sciences, philosophy, bioethics, science studies and policy research, and covers a broad area of inquiry both in emerging research areas such as genomics, bioinformatics, biophysics, molecular engineering, nanotechnology and synthetic biology, and in more applied fields such as translational medicine, food science, environmental science, climate studies, research on animals, sustainability, science education and others. The goal is to produce insights, tools and recommendations that are relevant not only for academic researchers and teachers, but also for civil society, policy makers and industry, as well as for professionals in education, health care and the media, thus contributing to better research practices, better policies, and a more sustainable global society.
期刊最新文献
Biobanking and risk assessment: a comprehensive typology of risks for an adaptive risk governance. "Data is the new oil": citizen science and informed consent in an era of researchers handling of an economically valuable resource. Investigating the effectiveness of nanotechnologies in environmental health with an emphasis on environmental health journals. Limits of data anonymity: lack of public awareness risks trust in health system activities. The use of digital twins in healthcare: socio-ethical benefits and socio-ethical risks.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1