盖亚与本体论——拉图尔、海德格尔与现象学之争

IF 0.2 3区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY Pub Date : 2022-07-03 DOI:10.1080/02580136.2022.2095163
J. Schrijvers
{"title":"盖亚与本体论——拉图尔、海德格尔与现象学之争","authors":"J. Schrijvers","doi":"10.1080/02580136.2022.2095163","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This essay joins the ongoing conversation comparing the thought of Bruno Latour to Martin Heidegger’s philosophy of technology in particular and the phenomenological tradition in general. The article queries whether or not there is a metaphysics at work in Latour’s philosophy and, if so, whether this metaphysics would be at a sufficient distance from what Heidegger labelled as ontotheology, “grasping” and “comprehending” being and beings in its totality. The essay finds that at crucial stages Latour repeats features of ontotheological modes of thinking that make for the fact that, despite all evidence to the contrary, Latour is not so distant from modern attempts that reveal beings as they truly are or even beings as they always will be. Throughout, we query what Latour’s account of scientific practice and its concomitant crossing of contingency and meaning can contribute to recent debates in phenomenology.","PeriodicalId":44834,"journal":{"name":"SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY","volume":"41 1","pages":"275 - 291"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gaia and ontotheology – Latour, Heidegger and the debate with phenomenology\",\"authors\":\"J. Schrijvers\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02580136.2022.2095163\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This essay joins the ongoing conversation comparing the thought of Bruno Latour to Martin Heidegger’s philosophy of technology in particular and the phenomenological tradition in general. The article queries whether or not there is a metaphysics at work in Latour’s philosophy and, if so, whether this metaphysics would be at a sufficient distance from what Heidegger labelled as ontotheology, “grasping” and “comprehending” being and beings in its totality. The essay finds that at crucial stages Latour repeats features of ontotheological modes of thinking that make for the fact that, despite all evidence to the contrary, Latour is not so distant from modern attempts that reveal beings as they truly are or even beings as they always will be. Throughout, we query what Latour’s account of scientific practice and its concomitant crossing of contingency and meaning can contribute to recent debates in phenomenology.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44834,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY\",\"volume\":\"41 1\",\"pages\":\"275 - 291\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02580136.2022.2095163\",\"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":"SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02580136.2022.2095163","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

本文加入了正在进行的对话,将布鲁诺·拉图尔的思想与马丁·海德格尔的技术哲学以及一般的现象学传统进行了比较。这篇文章质疑拉图尔的哲学中是否存在形而上学,如果存在,这种形而上学是否与海德格尔所称的本体论、“把握”和“理解”整体存在和存在有足够的距离。文章发现,在关键阶段,拉图尔重复了本体论思维模式的特征,这使得尽管有所有相反的证据,但拉图尔与揭示存在真实存在甚至永远存在的现代尝试并不遥远,我们质疑拉图尔对科学实践的描述及其偶然性和意义的交叉对现象学最近的争论有何贡献。
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
Gaia and ontotheology – Latour, Heidegger and the debate with phenomenology
This essay joins the ongoing conversation comparing the thought of Bruno Latour to Martin Heidegger’s philosophy of technology in particular and the phenomenological tradition in general. The article queries whether or not there is a metaphysics at work in Latour’s philosophy and, if so, whether this metaphysics would be at a sufficient distance from what Heidegger labelled as ontotheology, “grasping” and “comprehending” being and beings in its totality. The essay finds that at crucial stages Latour repeats features of ontotheological modes of thinking that make for the fact that, despite all evidence to the contrary, Latour is not so distant from modern attempts that reveal beings as they truly are or even beings as they always will be. Throughout, we query what Latour’s account of scientific practice and its concomitant crossing of contingency and meaning can contribute to recent debates in phenomenology.
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
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: The South African Journal of Philosophy (SAJP) is the official publication of the Philosophical Society of South Africa. The aim of the journal is to publish original scholarly contributions in all areas of philosophy at an international standard. Contributions are double-blind peer-reviewed and include articles, discussions of articles previously published, review articles and book reviews. The wide scope of the South African Journal of Philosophy makes it the continent''s central vehicle for the publication of general philosophical work. The journal is accredited with the South African Department of Higher Education and Training.
期刊最新文献
Two faces of control for moral responsibility African Metaphysics, Epistemology, and a New Logic: A Decolonial Approach to Philosophy The idea of rights in the African thought scheme The good Dogs are still in the Portico: Making sense of the cynic-stoic moral and sociopolitical continuities Violence as a technological concept
×
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