哲学和科学中的去中心化人文主义:能动性生态学、颠覆性万物有灵论和衍射知识

IF 0.5 3区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY Sophia Pub Date : 2023-12-05 DOI:10.1007/s11841-023-00990-z
Kocku von Stuckrad
{"title":"哲学和科学中的去中心化人文主义:能动性生态学、颠覆性万物有灵论和衍射知识","authors":"Kocku von Stuckrad","doi":"10.1007/s11841-023-00990-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The idea that humans are clearly distinguished from other animals and from the natural world in general is a cornerstone of European philosophy and culture at least from the sixteenth century onward. Often, this idea is related to understandings of ‘humanism’ that emerged in that period and legitimized regimes of power and control over non-European cultures; it also sanctioned the exploitation of the natural world in the form of extractive capitalism. Critiques of Eurocentric mindsets hinge on certain understandings of ‘humanism,’ arguing for a transformation or even abandoning of humanist traditions in the sense of ‘posthumanism’ or ‘critical posthumanities.’ In their selective interpretation of European humanism—exemplified with Immanuel Kant’s philosophy—the current critique shows elements of an Occidentalist construction of humanism. If we want to overcome the idea that humans—and within that group particularly the white, male, educated Europeans—are the ‘masters of the world,’ we are confronted with conceptual challenges that need philosophical and theoretical reflection. The ontological and epistemological implications of non-anthropocentric ways of thinking and knowing provide a clear alternative to some problematic aspects of European philosophy and humanism. Engaging with new interpretations of other-than-human agency, relational understandings of animism, and intra-active production of knowledge can provide a relevant contribution to the ongoing discussion across intellectual, cultural, and political fields, an approach that takes the specificity of human animals seriously without identifying them as the center of knowledge and power.</p>","PeriodicalId":44736,"journal":{"name":"Sophia","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Decentering Humanism in Philosophy and the Sciences: Ecologies of Agency, Subversive Animism, and Diffractional Knowledge\",\"authors\":\"Kocku von Stuckrad\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11841-023-00990-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The idea that humans are clearly distinguished from other animals and from the natural world in general is a cornerstone of European philosophy and culture at least from the sixteenth century onward. Often, this idea is related to understandings of ‘humanism’ that emerged in that period and legitimized regimes of power and control over non-European cultures; it also sanctioned the exploitation of the natural world in the form of extractive capitalism. Critiques of Eurocentric mindsets hinge on certain understandings of ‘humanism,’ arguing for a transformation or even abandoning of humanist traditions in the sense of ‘posthumanism’ or ‘critical posthumanities.’ In their selective interpretation of European humanism—exemplified with Immanuel Kant’s philosophy—the current critique shows elements of an Occidentalist construction of humanism. If we want to overcome the idea that humans—and within that group particularly the white, male, educated Europeans—are the ‘masters of the world,’ we are confronted with conceptual challenges that need philosophical and theoretical reflection. The ontological and epistemological implications of non-anthropocentric ways of thinking and knowing provide a clear alternative to some problematic aspects of European philosophy and humanism. Engaging with new interpretations of other-than-human agency, relational understandings of animism, and intra-active production of knowledge can provide a relevant contribution to the ongoing discussion across intellectual, cultural, and political fields, an approach that takes the specificity of human animals seriously without identifying them as the center of knowledge and power.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44736,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sophia\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sophia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-023-00990-z\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sophia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-023-00990-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

至少从16世纪开始,人类与其他动物和自然界有明显区别的观点是欧洲哲学和文化的基石。通常,这种想法与那个时期出现的对“人文主义”的理解以及对非欧洲文化的权力和控制的合法化制度有关;它还认可以掠夺性资本主义的形式对自然世界的剥削。对欧洲中心主义思维模式的批评取决于对“人文主义”的某些理解,主张在“后人文主义”或“批判后人文主义”的意义上转变甚至放弃人文主义传统。在他们对欧洲人文主义的选择性解释中——以伊曼努尔·康德的哲学为例——当前的批判显示了西方人文主义建构的要素。如果我们想要克服人类——尤其是受过教育的白人男性欧洲人——是“世界主人”的观念,我们就面临着需要哲学和理论反思的概念性挑战。非人类中心主义思维和认知方式的本体论和认识论含义为欧洲哲学和人文主义的一些问题提供了明确的替代方案。参与对非人类能动性的新解释,对万物有灵论的关系理解,以及知识的主动生产,可以为正在进行的跨知识、文化和政治领域的讨论提供相关的贡献,这种方法认真对待人类动物的特殊性,而不将它们视为知识和权力的中心。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Decentering Humanism in Philosophy and the Sciences: Ecologies of Agency, Subversive Animism, and Diffractional Knowledge

The idea that humans are clearly distinguished from other animals and from the natural world in general is a cornerstone of European philosophy and culture at least from the sixteenth century onward. Often, this idea is related to understandings of ‘humanism’ that emerged in that period and legitimized regimes of power and control over non-European cultures; it also sanctioned the exploitation of the natural world in the form of extractive capitalism. Critiques of Eurocentric mindsets hinge on certain understandings of ‘humanism,’ arguing for a transformation or even abandoning of humanist traditions in the sense of ‘posthumanism’ or ‘critical posthumanities.’ In their selective interpretation of European humanism—exemplified with Immanuel Kant’s philosophy—the current critique shows elements of an Occidentalist construction of humanism. If we want to overcome the idea that humans—and within that group particularly the white, male, educated Europeans—are the ‘masters of the world,’ we are confronted with conceptual challenges that need philosophical and theoretical reflection. The ontological and epistemological implications of non-anthropocentric ways of thinking and knowing provide a clear alternative to some problematic aspects of European philosophy and humanism. Engaging with new interpretations of other-than-human agency, relational understandings of animism, and intra-active production of knowledge can provide a relevant contribution to the ongoing discussion across intellectual, cultural, and political fields, an approach that takes the specificity of human animals seriously without identifying them as the center of knowledge and power.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Sophia
Sophia PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
44
期刊介绍: Sophia is now published by Springer. The back files, all the way to Volume 1:1, are available via SpringerLink!   Covers both analytic and continental philosophy of religionConsiders both western and non-western perspectives, including Asian and indigenousIncludes specialist contributions, e.g. on feminist and postcolonial philosophy of religionSince its inception in 1962, Sophia has been devoted to providing a forum for discussions in philosophy and religion, focusing on the interstices between metaphysics and theological thinking. The discussions take cognizance of the wider ambience of the sciences (''natural'' philosophy and human/social sciences), ethical and moral concerns in the public sphere, critical feminist theology and cross-cultural perspectives. Sophia''s cross-cultural and cross-frontier approach is reflected not only in the international composition of its editorial board, but also in its consideration of analytic, continental, Asian and indigenous responses to issues and developments in the field of philosophy of religion.
期刊最新文献
Buddhaghosa’s Model of Temporality seen through the Prism of Bergson’s Duration What Kind of ‘God’ do Hindu Arguments for the Divine Show? Five Novel Divine Attributes of Brahman Reconstructing William Lane Craig’s Explanation of Absolute Time Based on Mulla Sadra’s Philosophy Mirabai Seeks God: A Journey of Devotional Love and Longing “Palamism” and “Barlaamism” in the Russian Name-Glorifiers Controversy of the 1910s: The Philosophical Background
×
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