De Helaasheid der Kringen: naar een beter begrip en nieuwe praktijk van vrij onderzoek

“Waar blíjven ze?” Misnoegd dat hij nergens een nieuwe lichting van denkend jong volk zag opduiken, richtte Hugo Camps zijn open vraag aan De Morgen-lezend Vlaanderen. Steek je licht eens op aan de universiteit, zou je denken. Maar wie op deze beredeneerde gok ingaat en in het studentenleven neust naar broeihaarden van bevlogenheid en diepe gedachten, stoot al snel op twee pijnpunten. Enerzijds verschraalt het oorspronkelijke universitaire motief onder studenten, in één woord de leerlust: de begeestering en het doorzettingsvermogen om grondige inzichten te verwerven; anderzijds verschrompelt ook het oorspronkelijke universitaire objectief, namelijk de persoonlijke groei tot homo universalis: iemand te worden met - naast een eigen specialisme - een robuust basisinzicht in alle kennisvelden, van psychologie tot kosmologie. Unisono met Camps stijgen zowel uit restauratieve als progressieve kringen geregeld klaagzangen op, variërend op dit thema van teloorgang. Ook ik beween dit verval en zal me straks vastbijten in enkele hardnekkige misverstanden omtrent het vrijdenkersbeginsel ‘Vrij Onderzoek’, op zoek naar het mauvaise foi van wat ooit ‘vrijzinnigheid’ werd gedoopt. Maar dat slechts om daarna een ontwerp van oplossing voor te leggen. Een ‘Honours Programme’: een aanvullende traject waarin gefascineerde, capabele studenten hun gedeelde verlangen tot universele vorming kunnen waarmaken. De creatie hiervan is een gedroomd scenario voor de (min of meer Vrije) Universiteiten ’s lands om hun verwaterde Verlichtingsidealen in een praktijk om te smeden die opnieuw het verschil maakt. Hoewel minister van onderwijs Pascal Smet bij dergelijke programma’s (terechte) reserves koestert, ligt hierin een uitgelezen kans om de sprong te maken van 20e-eeuws socialisme naar 21e-eeuwse sociaaldemocratie

De verbeterkunde, een ongewenste bevrijding?

As the reach of medical technology continues to expand, not only the goal of healing is being reached but beyond that the enhancement of the human body and mind also becomes a reality. Examples can be found in advanced prostheses, neurofarmaceuticals, genetic technologies and other fields. The ethical value of this enhancement medicine is being debated fiercly. Often the debate takes the form of a so-called ‘bio-conservative’ stance as opposed to a ‘transhumanist’ position. Transhumanists argue for the fundamental right to ‘morphological freedom’: every individual has, in principle, the right to determine for himself the shape and functions of his own body and every intrusion on this fundamental right – the blanket prohibition on any kind of enhancement medicine being the prime example hereof – has to be accompanied by strong ethical or societal arguments. Bioconservatives often argue precisely for such a general and universal prohibition, often based on intrinsic ethical arguments concerning the goodness of human nature and the unacceptability to freely alter this nature, even if such a choice is based on the sincere personal wish of an informed and socially responsible individual. I focus on these intrinsic arguments concerning the goodness of enhancement. I analyse the bioconservative arguments to conclude that they are incoherent and sometimes even internally inconsistent. Blindness for the responsibility of non-intervention plays a key role here. Furthermore I argue that the fundamental right to morphological freedom should logically be protected in any liberal democratic ethical theory. None the less, as the biological mold of human nature becomes a field of our own cultural agency, our natural passions dissolve as a source of spontaneous motivation. Thus the reality of ever-deepening morphological freedom confronts us with a new existential shock which has not yet been brought into clear focus and which poses a profound challenge for much of modern day discourse on motivation and choice

May the blessed Man win: a critique of the categorical preference for natural talent over doping as proper origins of athletic ability

Doping scandals can reveal unresolved tensions between the meritocratic values of equal opportunity + reward for effort and the "talentocratic" love of hereditary privilege. Whence this special reverence for talent? We analyze the following arguments: (1) talent is a unique indicator of greater potential, whereas doping enables only temporary boosts (the fluke critique); (2) developing a talent is an authentic endeavor of "becoming who you are,"whereas reforming the fundamentals of your birth suit via artifice is an act of alienation (the phony critique); (3) your (lack of) talent informs you of your proper place and purpose in life, whereas doping frustrates such an amor fati self-understanding (the fateless critique). We conclude that these arguments fail to justify a categorical preference for natural talent over integrated artifice. Instead, they illustrate the extent to which unsavory beliefs about "nature's aristocracy" may still be at play in the moral theatre of sports

The fantastic human body: on making his own body: his dignity, his madness

In this contribution I would like to make a short, clear exploration of a pressing moral issue: the importance we attach to living a natural and authentic life. Those terms are often invoked as a touchstone to determine whether certain deviant behaviours are sick or morally reprehensible. That anorexia could be a positive lifestyle choice - which is how the proponents of the 'pro-ana' movement present it - is often disputed on the basis of the unnaturalness of the behaviour and the falseness of the way of thinking. Ascetic monks, on the other hand, are elevated to a state of holiness - their behaviour is suddenly cited as supernatural and having greater authenticity. After all, they follow a purely spiritual path of divine guidance, having freed themselves from natural, earthly passions. Therefore, 'naturalness' plays a profoundly dualistic role: on the one hand, the great ideal and on the other, the great evil. To get to the heart of the matter and to achieve transparency, I will open up the perspective to the fundamental question: are we allowed to drastically reform our bodies and spirits? And if so, in what ways and how far should we go? To put it another way, what means and what kind of bodies are forbidden? These questions are becoming evermore pressing in an era that has seen the development of more and more technologies which we can use to directly intervene in the state of our bodies in order to 'improve' ourselves