{"title":"人类世的谨慎与粗心:斯蒂格勒的三种转变及其伴随的海德格尔","authors":"Danielle Ross","doi":"10.1215/17432197-8947851","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:This article proposes dividing Bernard Stiegler’s work into three phases, and that a notion of care develops and deepens as these phases progress. To each of these phases there corresponds a particular relationship to Heidegger’s thought: 1) the Heidegger of Being and Time who denies the role of technics in the opening of the possibility of authentic time; 2) as a thinker of the “they” who corrects Simondon’s inability to think collective disindividuation while being himself unable to think a genuine collective individuation process; 3) the later Heidegger who indeed approaches the most mysterious and unsettling aspect of tekhnē and who foresees the most threatening aspect of Gestell as a world in which Dasein loses its privilege as the questioning being. Yet this third Heidegger also failed to reflect on what Stiegler puts at the heart of the thought of his third phase: the question of entropy, understood as describing fundamental but diverse thermodynamic, biological, and informational tendencies. For Stiegler, taking care in the Anthropocene necessarily entails reinscribing philosophical concepts, including that of Ereignis, in relation to entropy, anthropy, and the struggle against them. Beyond Heidegger, this also entails addressing the obsolescence and self-destructiveness of the current macroeconomic model.","PeriodicalId":35197,"journal":{"name":"Cultural Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Care and Carelessness in the Anthropocene: Bernard Stiegler’s Three Conversions and Their Accompanying Heideggers\",\"authors\":\"Danielle Ross\",\"doi\":\"10.1215/17432197-8947851\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:This article proposes dividing Bernard Stiegler’s work into three phases, and that a notion of care develops and deepens as these phases progress. To each of these phases there corresponds a particular relationship to Heidegger’s thought: 1) the Heidegger of Being and Time who denies the role of technics in the opening of the possibility of authentic time; 2) as a thinker of the “they” who corrects Simondon’s inability to think collective disindividuation while being himself unable to think a genuine collective individuation process; 3) the later Heidegger who indeed approaches the most mysterious and unsettling aspect of tekhnē and who foresees the most threatening aspect of Gestell as a world in which Dasein loses its privilege as the questioning being. Yet this third Heidegger also failed to reflect on what Stiegler puts at the heart of the thought of his third phase: the question of entropy, understood as describing fundamental but diverse thermodynamic, biological, and informational tendencies. For Stiegler, taking care in the Anthropocene necessarily entails reinscribing philosophical concepts, including that of Ereignis, in relation to entropy, anthropy, and the struggle against them. Beyond Heidegger, this also entails addressing the obsolescence and self-destructiveness of the current macroeconomic model.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35197,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cultural Politics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cultural Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1215/17432197-8947851\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cultural Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/17432197-8947851","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
Care and Carelessness in the Anthropocene: Bernard Stiegler’s Three Conversions and Their Accompanying Heideggers
Abstract:This article proposes dividing Bernard Stiegler’s work into three phases, and that a notion of care develops and deepens as these phases progress. To each of these phases there corresponds a particular relationship to Heidegger’s thought: 1) the Heidegger of Being and Time who denies the role of technics in the opening of the possibility of authentic time; 2) as a thinker of the “they” who corrects Simondon’s inability to think collective disindividuation while being himself unable to think a genuine collective individuation process; 3) the later Heidegger who indeed approaches the most mysterious and unsettling aspect of tekhnē and who foresees the most threatening aspect of Gestell as a world in which Dasein loses its privilege as the questioning being. Yet this third Heidegger also failed to reflect on what Stiegler puts at the heart of the thought of his third phase: the question of entropy, understood as describing fundamental but diverse thermodynamic, biological, and informational tendencies. For Stiegler, taking care in the Anthropocene necessarily entails reinscribing philosophical concepts, including that of Ereignis, in relation to entropy, anthropy, and the struggle against them. Beyond Heidegger, this also entails addressing the obsolescence and self-destructiveness of the current macroeconomic model.
期刊介绍:
Cultural Politics is an international, refereed journal that explores the global character and effects of contemporary culture and politics. Cultural Politics explores precisely what is cultural about politics and what is political about culture. Publishing across the arts, humanities, and social sciences, the journal welcomes articles from different political positions, cultural approaches, and geographical locations. Cultural Politics publishes work that analyzes how cultural identities, agencies and actors, political issues and conflicts, and global media are linked, characterized, examined, and resolved. In so doing, the journal supports the innovative study of established, embryonic, marginalized, or unexplored regions of cultural politics. Cultural Politics, while embodying the interdisciplinary coverage and discursive critical spirit of contemporary cultural studies, emphasizes how cultural theories and practices intersect with and elucidate analyses of political power. The journal invites articles on representation and visual culture; modernism and postmodernism; media, film, and communications; popular and elite art forms; the politics of production and consumption; language; ethics and religion; desire and psychoanalysis; art and aesthetics; the culture industry; technologies; academics and the academy; cities, architecture, and the spatial; global capitalism; Marxism; value and ideology; the military, weaponry, and war; power, authority, and institutions; global governance and democracy; political parties and social movements; human rights; community and cosmopolitanism; transnational activism and change; the global public sphere; the body; identity and performance; heterosexual, transsexual, lesbian, and gay sexualities; race, blackness, whiteness, and ethnicity; the social inequalities of the global and the local; patriarchy, feminism, and gender studies; postcolonialism; and political activism.