What Animals Teach Us about Politics最新文献

英文中文

3. Six Theses on the Animal to Be Avoided 3.六论忌兽

What Animals Teach Us about Politics

Pub Date : 2020-12-31 DOI: 10.1515/9780822376057-004

引用次数: 0

Index 指数

What Animals Teach Us about Politics

Pub Date : 2020-12-31 DOI: 10.1515/9780822376057-007

引用次数: 0

Frontmatter

What Animals Teach Us about Politics

Pub Date : 2020-12-31 DOI: 10.1515/9780822376057-fm

引用次数: 0

What Animals Teach Us about Politics 动物教我们的政治

What Animals Teach Us about Politics

Pub Date : 2020-12-31 DOI: 10.1515/9780822376057-001

John Ó. Maoilearca

Brian Massumi, What Animals Teach Us About Politics, Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2014, 137pp; paperback, £14.99Most philosophers don't like animals. This truism is all the more evident if one looks at the manner in which animals have appeared in the history of philosophical anthropology. Traditionally and in separatist mode, these appearances have most often been to inflate the human at the animal's expense. The human is defined in wide-ranging ways, with some depictions simply opposing properties attributed to 'animals' (man as the non-animal, the immaterial, the preternatural, and so forth), while others offer continuist images of humans as sentient animals, conscious animals, rational animals, linguistic animals, political animals, temporal animals... Hence, Aristotle describes humans as exclusively political, Descartes as exclusively conscious, Kant as exclusively rational, Heidegger as exclusively temporal, Davidson as exclusively linguistic, and so on. This positive account consequently provides us with another list of attributes for the animal: the non-political, the non-conscious, the non-rational, the non-temporal, the non-linguistic, etc. And alongside these prosaic descriptions one can line-up all the more fanciful ones - of the human as the animal who has the right to make promises (Nietzsche), or who is what it is not and is not what it is (Sartre), or even who goes to the movies (Agamben).The more recent 'animal turn' in philosophy and critical theory, therefore, would presumably temper this form of animal abuse, given its tendency now to inflate, or restore, some value to the animal. And yet this shift in position is arguably no less a form of abuse, at least conceptually. Deleuze's 'becoming-animal', Agamben's 'bare life', or Derrida's 'animal that therefore I am', can be seen to transform the animal into one more normative and metaphysical idea (albeit now to its advantage rather than its detriment). Philosophy continues to mediate the animal for its own purpose by seeing it as only one instance of aporetic differance (Derrida), proliferated becoming (Deleuze), or bare life (Agamben). Yet any reduction of the animal to that of a proxy for differance, rhizomatics, bare life, or whatever else arguably gains its force by disregarding other aspects of the animal that are placed in the background, namely those that do not fit (or resist) the philosopher and his/her favoured philosophemes. Where Derrida focuses on the suffering and death of the animal, Deleuze concentrates on (its) life. Hence, despite even Badiou's depiction of Deleuze as a philosopher of 'the Animal' (opposed to his own of 'Number'), the fact remains that Deleuze also abuses animals, in his own way.There are kinds of animal that Deleuze (even when working with Guattari) prefers over others in his notion of all-encompassing molecular becoming: domesticated (pitied) and individuated (molarised) animals are unhealthy, reactive, and sad - this being the mot

布赖恩·马苏米:《动物教会我们的政治》，达勒姆和伦敦:杜克大学出版社，2014年，137页;平装本，14.99英镑。大多数哲学家不喜欢动物。如果我们看看动物在哲学人类学历史上出现的方式，这个真理就更加明显了。传统上，在分离主义模式下，这些表现通常是以牺牲动物为代价来膨胀人类。人类的定义范围很广，一些描述只是简单地反对“动物”的属性(人是非动物的，非物质的，超自然的，等等)，而另一些则提供了人类作为有知觉的动物，有意识的动物，理性的动物，语言的动物，政治的动物，世俗的动物的持续形象……因此，亚里士多德将人类描述为纯粹的政治，笛卡尔描述为纯粹的意识，康德描述为纯粹的理性，海德格尔描述为纯粹的时间，戴维森描述为纯粹的语言，等等。因此，这种积极的解释为我们提供了动物的另一个属性列表:非政治的、无意识的、非理性的、非时间的、非语言的等等。除了这些平淡无奇的描述之外，人们还可以列举出所有更有想象力的描述——人类是有权做出承诺的动物(尼采)，或者是谁不是谁(萨特)，甚至是谁去看电影(阿甘本)。因此，最近哲学和批判理论中的“动物转向”可能会缓和这种虐待动物的形式，因为它现在倾向于膨胀或恢复动物的某些价值。然而，这种立场的转变可以说是一种虐待，至少在概念上是这样。德勒兹的“变成动物”，阿甘本的“赤裸的生命”，或者德里达的“因此我是动物”，可以被看作是将动物转变为一种更规范和形而上学的观念(尽管现在对它有利而不是有害)。哲学为了自己的目的，继续把动物作为中介，把它看作是一个纯粹的差异(德里达)，增殖(德勒兹)，或纯粹的生命(阿甘本)的例子。然而，任何将动物简化为差异，根茎，裸露生命或其他任何东西的代理，都可以通过忽视动物的其他方面而获得其力量，这些方面被置于背景中，即那些不适合(或抵制)哲学家和他/她喜欢的哲学家。德里达关注的是动物的痛苦和死亡，而德勒兹关注的是动物的生命。因此，尽管巴迪欧将德勒兹描述为“动物”哲学家(与他自己的“数”哲学家相反)，但事实仍然是德勒兹也以他自己的方式虐待动物。德勒兹(甚至在与瓜塔里一起工作的时候)在他的包罗一切的分子进化的概念中更喜欢一些动物:驯化的(可怜的)和个性化的(molarised)动物是不健康的、被动的和悲伤的——这就是“任何喜欢猫或狗的人都是傻瓜”这一臭名昭著的宣言背后的动机。同样，国家动物(帝国、神话和宗教中的狮子、马和独角兽)也要被拒绝。德勒兹的最爱、哲学家的宠物是“恶魔”或群居动物。因此，就动物的演变而言(而不是人类的演变)，真正的动物总是一种多样性(如狼群)和一个过程(每一个这样的狼群都是狼)。事实上，正是群居动物，作为其他更小的(分子)动物的集合的动物，精确地标志着德勒兹的优待。狼、蟑螂和老鼠是他动物园里的明星(尤其是老鼠)。那么，Brian Massumi的新文集《动物教我们的政治》在动物方面表现如何呢?它的第一个关键概念，“超正常”，在本质上是德勒兹式的(就像所有Massumi的作品一样)，尽管它起源于动物学。动物教会我们如何成为超常的人，也就是说，如何表现出一种本能的行为，这种行为远不是单一的和机械的，就像人们对生物学的普遍理解那样，实际上是在复杂的环境中产生创造性的反应。…

{"title":"What Animals Teach Us about Politics","authors":"John Ó. Maoilearca","doi":"10.1515/9780822376057-001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9780822376057-001","url":null,"abstract":"Brian Massumi, What Animals Teach Us About Politics, Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2014, 137pp; paperback, £14.99Most philosophers don't like animals. This truism is all the more evident if one looks at the manner in which animals have appeared in the history of philosophical anthropology. Traditionally and in separatist mode, these appearances have most often been to inflate the human at the animal's expense. The human is defined in wide-ranging ways, with some depictions simply opposing properties attributed to 'animals' (man as the non-animal, the immaterial, the preternatural, and so forth), while others offer continuist images of humans as sentient animals, conscious animals, rational animals, linguistic animals, political animals, temporal animals... Hence, Aristotle describes humans as exclusively political, Descartes as exclusively conscious, Kant as exclusively rational, Heidegger as exclusively temporal, Davidson as exclusively linguistic, and so on. This positive account consequently provides us with another list of attributes for the animal: the non-political, the non-conscious, the non-rational, the non-temporal, the non-linguistic, etc. And alongside these prosaic descriptions one can line-up all the more fanciful ones - of the human as the animal who has the right to make promises (Nietzsche), or who is what it is not and is not what it is (Sartre), or even who goes to the movies (Agamben).The more recent 'animal turn' in philosophy and critical theory, therefore, would presumably temper this form of animal abuse, given its tendency now to inflate, or restore, some value to the animal. And yet this shift in position is arguably no less a form of abuse, at least conceptually. Deleuze's 'becoming-animal', Agamben's 'bare life', or Derrida's 'animal that therefore I am', can be seen to transform the animal into one more normative and metaphysical idea (albeit now to its advantage rather than its detriment). Philosophy continues to mediate the animal for its own purpose by seeing it as only one instance of aporetic differance (Derrida), proliferated becoming (Deleuze), or bare life (Agamben). Yet any reduction of the animal to that of a proxy for differance, rhizomatics, bare life, or whatever else arguably gains its force by disregarding other aspects of the animal that are placed in the background, namely those that do not fit (or resist) the philosopher and his/her favoured philosophemes. Where Derrida focuses on the suffering and death of the animal, Deleuze concentrates on (its) life. Hence, despite even Badiou's depiction of Deleuze as a philosopher of 'the Animal' (opposed to his own of 'Number'), the fact remains that Deleuze also abuses animals, in his own way.There are kinds of animal that Deleuze (even when working with Guattari) prefers over others in his notion of all-encompassing molecular becoming: domesticated (pitied) and individuated (molarised) animals are unhealthy, reactive, and sad - this being the mot","PeriodicalId":302349,"journal":{"name":"What Animals Teach Us about Politics","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123407953","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 3

2. The Zoo-ology of Play 2. 游戏的动物学

What Animals Teach Us about Politics

Pub Date : 2020-12-31 DOI: 10.1515/9780822376057-003

引用次数: 0

1. To Write Like a Rat Flicks Its Tail 1. 像老鼠甩尾巴一样写作

What Animals Teach Us about Politics

Pub Date : 2020-12-31 DOI: 10.1515/9780822376057-002

引用次数: 0

类型

全部化学•材料生命科学医学物理工程技术环境•农林材料科学地球科学法学管理学化学环境科学与生态学计算机科学教育学经济学农林科学人文科学生物学数学物理与天体物理心理学综合性期刊其他工业工程理学历史学农学文学信息工程

数据库

全部 ACS Publications Elsevier ieeexplore Springer The Royal Society of Chemistry Wiley

期刊

What Animals Teach Us about Politics

全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.

﹀