人类的消失

IF 0.1 4区 哲学 Q4 ETHICS Ethical Perspectives Pub Date : 2002-01-01 DOI:10.2143/EP.9.1.503842
V. Roodt
{"title":"人类的消失","authors":"V. Roodt","doi":"10.2143/EP.9.1.503842","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"First, a remark on the topic of my paper, which contains an 'and' where one would expect an 'or'. It might seem highly questionable to want to establish a relation between the self-proclaimed 'last anti-political German', teacher of self-overcoming and solitude, and a political thinker with an express commitment to political action and citizen equality. Would a genuine concern with both thinkers not precisely preclude any attempt to fabricate an alliance between them? One way of circumventing this difficulty might be to argue that Nietzsche is really a political thinker, and, more problematically, that he is some version of a radical democrat. Conversely, one might try to demonstrate that Arendt is really a closet Nietzschean — provided, of course, that one takes Nietzsche to be amenable to a modicum of democratic theory. However, such an attempt to force their divergent projects into the straitjacket of mutual consistency would lose more in integrity — and ultimately, in relevance — than it would gain in cohesion. It is not my intention, therefore, to try and merge their respective undertakings into either a watered-down Nietzsche or a spiced-up Arendt, or to cobble together a new political theory out of their different philosophies. Instead of aiming at an ultimate synthesis, my concern in this paper is with a particular field of inquiry where Nietzsche’s thinking finds, to some extent, its analogue in that of Arendt. The purpose of this exercise is not to simply show up a few points of similarity, but rather, to illuminate a particular problem from two perspectives that stand in an analogical, rather than dialectical, relationship to one another. This analogical relationship does not resolve itself into an ultimate synthesis, and is not predicated on a seamless fit between two different fields of reference. On the contrary, this relationship, like any analogy, has an inevitable remainder, something held in abeyance that transcends the relationship with the analogon. Moreover, as will become clear, it is the differences as much as the affinities between Nietzsche and Arendt’s thinking that serve to illuminate the question this paper aims to address. This question concerns modernity as a condition of disintegration or loss, and particularly the loss of a coherent cultural complex — that is, an inter-human domain of “structured sense”, to borrow a term from Nancy (1997: 8) — which necessarily circumscribes the meaning of the human. The premise of the paper, then, is that what has been lost in modernity are the cultural conditions for being — or becoming — human, as opposed to enduring only as a form of animal life (which of course we always still are) or, on the other side of the scale, descending into barbarism (which is itself a form of animalization). This premise","PeriodicalId":54109,"journal":{"name":"Ethical Perspectives","volume":"9 1","pages":"31-47"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2002-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2143/EP.9.1.503842","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Loss of the Human\",\"authors\":\"V. Roodt\",\"doi\":\"10.2143/EP.9.1.503842\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"First, a remark on the topic of my paper, which contains an 'and' where one would expect an 'or'. It might seem highly questionable to want to establish a relation between the self-proclaimed 'last anti-political German', teacher of self-overcoming and solitude, and a political thinker with an express commitment to political action and citizen equality. Would a genuine concern with both thinkers not precisely preclude any attempt to fabricate an alliance between them? One way of circumventing this difficulty might be to argue that Nietzsche is really a political thinker, and, more problematically, that he is some version of a radical democrat. Conversely, one might try to demonstrate that Arendt is really a closet Nietzschean — provided, of course, that one takes Nietzsche to be amenable to a modicum of democratic theory. However, such an attempt to force their divergent projects into the straitjacket of mutual consistency would lose more in integrity — and ultimately, in relevance — than it would gain in cohesion. It is not my intention, therefore, to try and merge their respective undertakings into either a watered-down Nietzsche or a spiced-up Arendt, or to cobble together a new political theory out of their different philosophies. Instead of aiming at an ultimate synthesis, my concern in this paper is with a particular field of inquiry where Nietzsche’s thinking finds, to some extent, its analogue in that of Arendt. The purpose of this exercise is not to simply show up a few points of similarity, but rather, to illuminate a particular problem from two perspectives that stand in an analogical, rather than dialectical, relationship to one another. This analogical relationship does not resolve itself into an ultimate synthesis, and is not predicated on a seamless fit between two different fields of reference. On the contrary, this relationship, like any analogy, has an inevitable remainder, something held in abeyance that transcends the relationship with the analogon. Moreover, as will become clear, it is the differences as much as the affinities between Nietzsche and Arendt’s thinking that serve to illuminate the question this paper aims to address. This question concerns modernity as a condition of disintegration or loss, and particularly the loss of a coherent cultural complex — that is, an inter-human domain of “structured sense”, to borrow a term from Nancy (1997: 8) — which necessarily circumscribes the meaning of the human. The premise of the paper, then, is that what has been lost in modernity are the cultural conditions for being — or becoming — human, as opposed to enduring only as a form of animal life (which of course we always still are) or, on the other side of the scale, descending into barbarism (which is itself a form of animalization). This premise\",\"PeriodicalId\":54109,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethical Perspectives\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"31-47\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2002-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2143/EP.9.1.503842\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethical Perspectives\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2143/EP.9.1.503842\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethical Perspectives","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2143/EP.9.1.503842","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

首先是对我论文主题的评论,在应该用“或”的地方用了一个“和”。想要在自称“最后的反政治德国人”、自我克服和孤独的导师,与一位明确致力于政治行动和公民平等的政治思想家之间建立一种关系,似乎是非常值得怀疑的。对这两位思想家的真正关注,难道不会精确地排除他们之间捏造联盟的任何企图吗?规避这一困难的一种方法可能是,认为尼采确实是一个政治思想家,更有问题的是,他是一个激进民主主义者的某种版本。相反,有人可能会试图证明,阿伦特实际上是一个秘密的尼采主义者——当然,前提是人们认为尼采对民主理论的一点点顺从。然而,这种将它们的不同项目强加于相互一致的约束之下的企图,将在完整性方面失去更多,并最终在相关性方面失去更多,而不是在凝聚力方面获得更多。因此,我的意图不是试图将他们各自的事业合并成一个淡化的尼采或一个加料的阿伦特,或者从他们不同的哲学中拼凑出一个新的政治理论。在本文中,我关注的不是最终的综合,而是一个特定的研究领域,在这个领域中,尼采的思想在某种程度上与阿伦特的思想相似。这个练习的目的不是简单地指出几个相似之处,而是从两种观点来阐明一个特定的问题,这两种观点之间的关系是类比的,而不是辩证的。这种类比关系并没有把自己分解成一个最终的综合,也不是基于两个不同的参考领域之间的无缝配合。相反地,这种关系,象任何类推一样,有一种不可避免的余物,一种超越与类推关系的暂时搁置的东西。此外,尼采和阿伦特的思想之间的差异和相似之处,将有助于阐明本文旨在解决的问题。这个问题关注的是现代性作为一种解体或丧失的条件,尤其是一种连贯的文化情结的丧失——也就是说,借用南希(1997:8)的术语,一种人与人之间的“结构感”领域——它必然限制了人类的意义。因此,这篇论文的前提是,在现代性中失去的是作为或成为人类的文化条件,而不是仅仅作为一种动物生活形式而存在(当然,我们仍然是动物生活形式),或者在天平的另一边,堕落到野蛮状态(这本身就是一种动物化形式)。这个前提
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
The Loss of the Human
First, a remark on the topic of my paper, which contains an 'and' where one would expect an 'or'. It might seem highly questionable to want to establish a relation between the self-proclaimed 'last anti-political German', teacher of self-overcoming and solitude, and a political thinker with an express commitment to political action and citizen equality. Would a genuine concern with both thinkers not precisely preclude any attempt to fabricate an alliance between them? One way of circumventing this difficulty might be to argue that Nietzsche is really a political thinker, and, more problematically, that he is some version of a radical democrat. Conversely, one might try to demonstrate that Arendt is really a closet Nietzschean — provided, of course, that one takes Nietzsche to be amenable to a modicum of democratic theory. However, such an attempt to force their divergent projects into the straitjacket of mutual consistency would lose more in integrity — and ultimately, in relevance — than it would gain in cohesion. It is not my intention, therefore, to try and merge their respective undertakings into either a watered-down Nietzsche or a spiced-up Arendt, or to cobble together a new political theory out of their different philosophies. Instead of aiming at an ultimate synthesis, my concern in this paper is with a particular field of inquiry where Nietzsche’s thinking finds, to some extent, its analogue in that of Arendt. The purpose of this exercise is not to simply show up a few points of similarity, but rather, to illuminate a particular problem from two perspectives that stand in an analogical, rather than dialectical, relationship to one another. This analogical relationship does not resolve itself into an ultimate synthesis, and is not predicated on a seamless fit between two different fields of reference. On the contrary, this relationship, like any analogy, has an inevitable remainder, something held in abeyance that transcends the relationship with the analogon. Moreover, as will become clear, it is the differences as much as the affinities between Nietzsche and Arendt’s thinking that serve to illuminate the question this paper aims to address. This question concerns modernity as a condition of disintegration or loss, and particularly the loss of a coherent cultural complex — that is, an inter-human domain of “structured sense”, to borrow a term from Nancy (1997: 8) — which necessarily circumscribes the meaning of the human. The premise of the paper, then, is that what has been lost in modernity are the cultural conditions for being — or becoming — human, as opposed to enduring only as a form of animal life (which of course we always still are) or, on the other side of the scale, descending into barbarism (which is itself a form of animalization). This premise
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
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A particularist account of moral principles Experimenting with Basic Income Inspired Experiments Relational Normative Economics: An African Approach to Justice Précis of John Rawls: Reticent Socialist A comparison of approaches to virtue for nursing ethics
×
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