From an epistemological point of view, the dichotomy Nature vs. Culture is today totally obsolete, because of the new developments in the field of biology of complexity, and because of certain trends of contemporary philosophy that, accepting the invitation and the new challenge of the “complexity”, suggest an “anthropobiological” approach. The question of Technology – such as the 20th century Philosophy (in its humanistic rhythms and in its anti-humanistic fugues, as well as in its biopolitical outbursts) shaped and transmitted it – has its own sense only in this obsolete dichotomy, whether a great part of contemporary philosophy (which is hampered by its ontological-hermeneutic foundations) likes it or not. In fact, the question of Technology is often the hostage of Bioethics as a welfare service and not as a question of Knowledge. Well, Technology is really just a medium or an inauthentic form of Knowledge? In any case: is it a region inhabited only by the Human? What do we find before and out of Technology: maybe Nature and Being? Moreover, is Technology in the bios or is it against the bios? And what if Nature and Artefact, instead of being in opposition – and maybe synthesized later in the Consciousness or dissolved into the Dasein – “fitted together” through hybridisation and crossbreeding? Philosophy seems to be suspicious of Biology, it seems to avoid the question. Philosophy seems to prefer its old paradigms, it seems to refuse the question in order of its peaceful tradition. Post-human hypothesis is the contemporary proof. But if Post- Human, considered as a Theory of the Human and not as the “Latest Fashion” of the Being, as well as contemporary theoretical approach seems to suggest, was not just an overused slogan? Why Philosophy, in every time, seems to get out of breath when it meets Biology?

Antiquitates? Bios, Natura, Tecnica, Post-human tra manie,fobie e affanni

AMODIO, PAOLO
2012

Abstract

From an epistemological point of view, the dichotomy Nature vs. Culture is today totally obsolete, because of the new developments in the field of biology of complexity, and because of certain trends of contemporary philosophy that, accepting the invitation and the new challenge of the “complexity”, suggest an “anthropobiological” approach. The question of Technology – such as the 20th century Philosophy (in its humanistic rhythms and in its anti-humanistic fugues, as well as in its biopolitical outbursts) shaped and transmitted it – has its own sense only in this obsolete dichotomy, whether a great part of contemporary philosophy (which is hampered by its ontological-hermeneutic foundations) likes it or not. In fact, the question of Technology is often the hostage of Bioethics as a welfare service and not as a question of Knowledge. Well, Technology is really just a medium or an inauthentic form of Knowledge? In any case: is it a region inhabited only by the Human? What do we find before and out of Technology: maybe Nature and Being? Moreover, is Technology in the bios or is it against the bios? And what if Nature and Artefact, instead of being in opposition – and maybe synthesized later in the Consciousness or dissolved into the Dasein – “fitted together” through hybridisation and crossbreeding? Philosophy seems to be suspicious of Biology, it seems to avoid the question. Philosophy seems to prefer its old paradigms, it seems to refuse the question in order of its peaceful tradition. Post-human hypothesis is the contemporary proof. But if Post- Human, considered as a Theory of the Human and not as the “Latest Fashion” of the Being, as well as contemporary theoretical approach seems to suggest, was not just an overused slogan? Why Philosophy, in every time, seems to get out of breath when it meets Biology?
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
AMODIO.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Abstract
Licenza: Dominio pubblico
Dimensione 146.97 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
146.97 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11588/456259
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact