Homo Sloterdijk: filosofía de la tecnología en la Posmodernidad

El artículo intenta abordar la asistemática filosofía del pensador alemán Peter Sloterdijk, la ‘bestia negra’ de la filosofía actual, a partir de la idea de que su nuevo ‘gran relato’ (entregado fundamentalmente en esa mezcla de filosofía de la historia con filosofía de la técnica que es Esferas) constituiría en realidad una suerte de cóctel de distintas pero cohabitantes filosofías. Esta multiplicidad de teorías (esférica, inmunitaria, protésica, antropotécnica, timótica) configura, en los hechos, una misma filosofía animal, que muestra a Sloterdijk como uno de los más influyentes representantes de la familia nietzscheana. A la par con esto, la filosofía de Sloterdijk se presenta como una nueva ontología (para decirlo bien, como una ontogénesis del espacio interior), cuyo componente esencial es el principio de información. Pero también cabe entender su crítica, mejor dicho, su proyecto postliberal, como una filosofía posmoderna de la técnica, cuya clave es la comprensión de la tecnología como destino dentro de la historia del ser. Sobre el final del artículo se decantan algunas ideas un poco más definitivas en Sloterdijk: su crítica política como desenmascaramiento de la macroesfera del poder (militar, financiero, periodístico, fiscal), su ofensiva biotecnológica como manifiesto de un quinismo históricamente invisibilizado por el cinismo de elite y, por último, la de la verdad como concepto inesencial a su proyecto psicopolítico.//The article tries to approach the non-systemic philosophy of the German thinker Peter Sloterdijk, the ‘black beast’ of current philosophy, from the idea of that his new Big Story (delivered fundamentally in this miscellany of philosophy of the history with philosophy of the technique that is Spheres) would constitute actually a kind of cocktail of different but cohabitants philosophies. This multiplicity of theories (spherical, immune, prosthetic, anthropotechnics, timotic) forms, in the facts, the same animal philosophy, which shows to Sloterdijk as one of the most influential representatives of the Nietzschean family. Together with this, the philosophy of Sloterdijk is presented itself as a new ontology (to say it well, as an ontogenesis of the inner space) whose essential component is the principle of information. However, it is necessary to understand his critique, rather than his post-liberal project, as a postmodern philosophy of the technique, whose key is the comprehension of the technology as destination inside the history of being. Finally, some ideas are decided a little more definitive in Sloterdijk: his political criticism as unmasking of the macrosphere of power (military, financial, journalistic, fiscal), his biotechnological offensive as a manifesto of a quinism historically rendered invisible by elite cynicism and, finally, that of the truth as an inessential concept to his psycho-political project

Art’s asymptotic leadership:Arts leadership, education and the loss of autonomy

This article will mostly engage with arts leadership through a discussion that focuses on the arts, leadership and education, and how their convergence might have a direct impact on autonomy. Taking a meta-theoretical approach, the main argument is that arts leadership is an asymptotic state of affairs. Rather than pose art and leadership as antithetical events that necessitate forms of syntheses through identifiable contexts, the context for arts leadership represents a contiguous space where art and leadership continuously seek a mutual way of preserving their integrity in an asymptotic relationship. If this relationship turns into a synthesis, both art’s autonomy and the ability to lead creatively are neutralized. The aim is to question the various implications that bring together the autonomous spheres of the arts, education and leadership, while inviting the reader to draw his or her own conclusions critically and autonomously. To clarify this approach, this article straddles across several horizons, including: arts practice as a sphere of autonomous dispositions and the political implications that follow; education as a horizon that educes - leads out - through the pedagogical exits that are offered by the arts; and art’s anti-systemic pedagogy, where art’s autonomy becomes a possibility of unlearning systems.<br/

Race: the difference that makes a difference

During the last two decades, critical enquiry into the nature of race has begun to enter the philosophical mainstream. The same period has also witnessed the emergence of an increasingly visible discourse about the nature of information within a diverse range of popular and academic settings. What is yet to emerge, however, is engagement at the interface of the two disciplines – critical race theory and the philosophy of information. In this paper, I shall attempt to contribute towards the emergence of such a field of enquiry by using a reflexive hermeneutic (or interpretative) approach to analyze the concept of race from an information-theoretical perspective, while reflexively analyzing the concept of information from a critical race-theoretical perspective. In order to facilitate a more concrete enquiry, the concept of information formulated by cyberneticist Gregory Bateson and the concept of race formulated by philosopher Charles W Mills will be placed at the centre of analysis. Crucially, both concepts can be shown to have a connection to the critical philosophy of Immanuel Kant, thereby justifying their selection as topics of examination on critical reflexive hermeneutic grounds

Towards a systemic research methodology in agriculture: Rethinking the role of values in science

The recent drastic development of agriculture, together with the growing societal interest in agricultural practices and their consequences, pose a challenge to agricultural science. There is a need for rethinking the general methodology of agricultural research. This paper takes some steps towards developing a systemic research methodology that can meet this challenge – a general self-reflexive methodology that forms a basis for doing holistic or (with a better term) wholeness-oriented research and provides appropriate criteria of scientific quality. From a philosophy of research perspective, science is seen as an interactive learning process with both a cognitive and a social communicative aspect. This means, first of all, that science plays a role in the world that it studies. A science that influences its own subject area, such as agricultural science, is named a systemic science. From this perspective, there is a need to reconsider the role of values in science. Science is not objective in the sense of being value-free. Values play, and ought to play, an important role in science – not only in form of constitutive values such as the norms of good science, but also in the form of contextual values that enter into the very process of science. This goes against the traditional criterion of objectivity. Therefore, reflexive objectivity is suggested as a new criterion for doing good science, along with the criterion of relevance. Reflexive objectivity implies that the communication of science must include the cognitive context, which comprises the societal, intentional, and observational context. In accordance with this, the learning process of systemic research is shown as a self-reflexive cycle that incorporates both an involved actor stance and a detached observer stance. The observer stance forms the basis for scientific communication. To this point, a unitary view of science as a learning process is employed. A second important perspective for a systemic research methodology is the relation between the actual, different, and often quite separate kinds of science. Cross-disciplinary research is hampered by the idea that reductive science is more objective, and hence more scientific, than the less reductive sciences of complex subject areas – and by the opposite idea that reductive science is necessarily reductionistic. Taking reflexive objectivity as a demarcator of good science, an inclusive framework of science can be established. The framework does not take the established division between natural, social and human science as a primary distinction of science. The major distinction is made between the empirical and normative aspects of science, corresponding to two key cognitive interests. Two general methodological dimensions, the degree of reduction of the research world and the degree of involvement in the research world, are shown to span this framework. The framework can form a basis for transdisciplinary work by way of showing the relation between more and less reductive kinds of science and between more detached and more involved kinds of science and exposing the abilities and limitations attendant on these methodological differences

Descartes, corpuscles and reductionism : mechanism and systems in Descartes' physiology

I argue that Descartes explains physiology in terms of whole systems, and not in terms of the size, shape and motion of tiny corpuscles (corpuscular mechanics). It is a standard, entrenched view that Descartes’s proper means of explanation in the natural world is through strict reduction to corpuscular mechanics. This view is bolstered by a handful of corpuscular-mechanical explanations in Descartes’s physics, which have been taken to be representative of his treatment of all natural phenomena. However, Descartes’s explanations of the ‘principal parts’ of physiology do not follow the corpuscular–mechanical pattern. Des Chene (2001) has identified systems in Descartes’s account of physiology, but takes them ultimately to reduce down to the corpuscle level. I argue that they do not. Rather, Descartes maintains entire systems, with components selected from multiple levels of organisation, in order to construct more complete explanations than corpuscular mechanics alone would allow

Holistic, Ethical Leadership for the 21st Century

The New Oxford American Dictionary (2001) delineates two definitions for a leader: “1) The person who leads or commands a group, organization, or country; a person followed by others. 2) A short strip of nonfunctioning material at each end of a reel of film or recording tape for connection to the spool.” How often does the latter definition seem more applicable for many of our educational leaders than the former? What are the philosophical foundations of leadership? What does a modern, ethical leader look like? These are just a few questions that will be explored in this article. The challenge beset for the educational leaders of the present and the future is one that will require a bridging and blending of old and new paradigms. A mere paradigm shift may not be sufficient–the term shift is still too mechanistic and linear to adequately describe this new approach. Rather, the modern ethical leader must create a paradigm blend. In the circular way of knowing, akin to the epistemology of the Lakota Sioux (Stolzman, 1986), this article will explore four aspects of modern educational leadership. First, the criticisms and attacks on the educational system will be addressed. Second, the aim of education will be analyzed through three lenses: axiology, epistemology, and ontology. Third, systemic education will be discussed. Fourth, the role of the modern/future educational leader will be explored: specifically regarding the need for him/her to address the concerns of the critics and bridge the divide between two paradigms of education. This essay is a brief exploration that delves into the shortcomings of the modern educational system, the core purposes of education, systemic educational paradigms, and the role of the 21st century ethical leader. The author’s goal is not to provide answers, nor propose a prescription for ethical leadership. Rather, the intent is to aid in focusing the direction which leaders must follow in order to be effective in this millennium. Similar to the manner in which Descartes shared his method of inquiry, the author will share part of his experience in learning and growing as an educational leader. “Thus my purpose here is not to teach the method that everyone should follow in order to conduct his reason correctly, but merely to show how I have tried to conduct mine” (Descartes, 1637/1980, p. 2)

Religion and Globalization: Crossroads and Opportunities

A conversation between the First Vice-President of the Russian Philosophical Society, Doctor of Philosophy, Professor of Moscow State University, Alexander Chumakov and the editor of the special series Contemporary Russian Philosophy at Brill, the Nertherlands, Doctor of Philosophy, Professor Mikhail Sergeev