Philosophie

Kategorie: Philosophie

Veröffentlicht am

Metaphysics in Motion

Metaphysics in Motion

My point is not to defend metaphysics. It is not about whether it is useful to describe the world (well, it seems useful to me only in some posthumanist concepts, because it helps to question the limits of being human and to open new perspectives). Nor do I care about Paola-Ludovica Coriando’s question. Paola-Ludovica Coriando is a philosopher concerned with the future of metaphysics. But her question, of whether metaphysics is still relevant in a postmodern world, remains unanswered here. For this is not about the future, but about perspective. And a question.

1. The Perspective

Perspective is often deceptive. The funny thing is that when we study the source texts, we pay no attention to our perspective or the perspective of the time. It is a rather banal anthropological relativist position. But the devil is in the details. And precisely in the examination of what I personally understand by “being”. With the background of one God (and not several deities) and with the burden of Kant. Kant’s influence on metaphysics was enormous, as he explored the limits of the human mind and the conditions of the possibility of knowledge. His critique of traditional metaphysics led to a new way of thinking about being.

2. The postmodern era

Because that’s what we’re talking about. Maybe I’m reading Aristotle wrong (is it possible to read a book wrong? I learned from Derrida that you can read a book in different ways, that not only the reading itself but the reader can change the perspective), but here I find moving motifs. Derrida’s concept of deconstruction shows that texts can have many meanings, depending on the reader’s perspective. And here the question arises whether I want to “detach” myself from metaphysics or not. Rather, whether it describes the world for me, or whether I feel Aristotle aesthetically (and perhaps that is the only perspective we can take).

3. Idealism

And there we have the culprit. Perhaps. Kant turned metaphysics into a museum. Each concept has been neatly assigned a place. But thoughts are not buildings. They cannot serve well as a museum. Thoughts are tools. Hegel used dialectics to move thoughts, but he also succeeded in erecting an immovable statue, perhaps because of his style or because of the time or culture in which he lived. Kant’s systematic approach to metaphysics has often been perceived as rigid and inflexible. Hegel’s dialectic, on the other hand, was intended to bring movement and development to the world of thought but was often criticized for being complex and difficult to access.

Veröffentlicht am

The Convergence of Thought: Phenomenology and Artificial Intelligence in Contemporary Discourse

It’s true. Today’s article was written by our favorite AI. But instead of asking it more questions about itself, we looked at the influence of AI on the topic of phenomenology.
The views offered by an AI are not really original. On the other hand, they are the collected views of humanity (since the AI is fed with knowledge from the Internet).
And maybe that’s why it’s interesting to think about how humanity itself thinks about the changes in phenomenology regarding AI.

The Convergence of Thought: Phenomenology and Artificial Intelligence in Contemporary Discourse

Propmts ©by Zenvampires
Text by Copilot
Pic ©by Zenvampires Collective

Phenomenology and Artificial Intelligence

Phenomenology, a philosophical movement founded in the 20th century by Edmund Husserl, has always grappled with the experience of consciousness and the perception of the world. With the advent of technology, and particularly artificial intelligence (AI), the question arises as to how this discipline can contribute to the interpretation and understanding of this new reality.

Phenomenology emphasizes subjective experience and the meanings we assign to the world. In the context of AI, this raises interesting questions. Can an AI have a phenomenological experience? Can it assign or interpret meanings? Most would argue that this is not the case, as AI, no matter how advanced it may be, is still a product of human construction and programming. It can process data and recognize patterns, but it does not “experience” the world in the same way a human being does.

Postphenomenology and Technology

Postphenomenology, an evolution of phenomenology, offers a useful perspective on the relationship between humans and technology. It views technology not as a neutral tool, but as something that shapes and changes our perception of the world and our interaction with it. In the context of AI, this means that we should not only think about what AI can or cannot do, but also how its existence and use changes our experience of the world.

The Kyoto School and Artificial Intelligence

The Kyoto School, a philosophical movement in Japan, offers another, but complementary perspective. It emphasizes interpersonal connectedness and the importance of context, prompting us to think about the social and cultural impacts of AI. How does AI change our relationships with others? How does it influence our society and culture?

Conclusion

Phenomenology, postphenomenology, and the Kyoto School offer valuable insights into understanding AI. They remind us that technology cannot be viewed in isolation, but is always in relation to us and the world. They challenge us to think about the impacts of AI on our experience, our relationships, and our society. And they invite us to reflect not only on what AI is, but also on what it could be and what it should be.

Veröffentlicht am

Virtual Metaphysics III

Virtual Metaphysics vol. III

How about a bot that listens to music created by a bot? I don’t remember where I heard or read this sentence. I don’t even know if it’s true or false. All I know is that it has the power to redefine reality. Not the reality of war that we all think about. Not even the ethical questions we think about. What if AI not only creates music, texts, and images but also consumes them? What if one day AI produces a philosophy that is read and discussed by AI?

Hic sunt dracones

In his Metaphysics, Aristotle described the concept of the boundary as the ultimate, the last of something. Later, dragons were thought to be beyond the border. I don’t want to discuss now whether this has made it softer. Made it porous. Penetrated. Only much later did Derrida add the concept of difference. A border that is constantly shifting. The conquest of new territory. A concept of constant movement. Which perhaps brings us back to war. Where the war here is different from the one we think of. In which there may be something other than Dracones behind the border.

Metaphysics

What changes for metaphysics? Nothing at all. At first sight. I don’t want to propose the poetic theory that metaphysics is the area “behind” physics. In other words, to take a border between physics and metaphysics as a concept and then redefine it. This is about shifting boundaries within the concept of metaphysics. We have reported here that Imgarden describes human mental activity as metaphysics. Seen in this light, human beings constantly and incessantly produce metaphysics in the form of thought, politics, and history. At the time, we also asked what would happen if not only humans but also computers took over the production of thought, politics, and history.

The Robots

But maybe it’s not so bad. AI (here and here we have already written about this in another context) learns from us. They learn everything they find on the Internet (on computers). In this way, they collect the knowledge of humanity. And they give the knowledge of humanity back to us. And so they cannot (yet) cross the border. Now we can think about the concept of difference—the concept of the slow and steady shifting of the boundary. The question is what this idea brings us.
On the other hand, the “new” emerges from the known. From the composition of what is known. At this point, however, the bots still cannot feel water and do not know what grief is (they know but are not yet new beings). But as I said, I didn’t want to delve too deeply into the subject. I just wanted to present a thought experiment.

The Thoughts

So what happens when bots listen to music made by other bots? Nothing at first. Not much, at least. What happens when they have to decide which music to listen to? That brings up another question. A question that (we’re back to war, but maybe because that’s where development usually goes the fastest) people have only decided ethically. But what else happens?


There is a part of philosophy, experimental philosophy, that deals with things like “free will”. If machines were to make their own decisions, we would have to revisit that question. Then we would be getting closer to the question of “being”.


There is a second metaphysical question (perhaps we should abandon metaphysics and leave it entirely to the machines, because the field is quite complicated, as poststructuralism has already established). The question we have not yet asked is what is the instance of collected human knowledge to which the AI refers. Because humans like to create instances. Like the “swarm intelligence” that got us nowhere. Or Plato’s “third man”. Or the dragons.

The text was created by humans. But the images are not.

Veröffentlicht am

On animals. And a book. And ideas

On animals. And a book. And ideas

In one of his final interviews, Latour discussed how our perception of reality should change. Instead of viewing objects, dead things, or letterboxes, we should view animals, bacteria, nature, and networks as integral parts of the world, embedded in objects.

1. Literature Where do we begin when it comes to drawing attention to animals? There are numerous animal films and even more books about them. The challenge, however, lies in how we observe animals and interact with them. Essentially, all animal stories can be classified into two categories. Some merely observe the life of animals, similar to how Husserl observed letterboxes. This approach objectifies animals and maintains the phenomenological boundary. The other category of animal stories tries to humanize animals by attributing human characteristics to them, which can lead to the same conundrum that Davidson faced when he pondered whether dogs can think. In reality, they can, but the answer depends more on how we define ‘thinking’ than on the dogs themselves.

2. Texts

We could try to learn a “new language” to express ourselves better. However, this approach seems artificial and ineffective because learning new words alone doesn’t necessarily lead to new perspectives. What we need is a shift in our viewpoint. The author of a collection of short stories about her dogs has found an ideal way to interact with her pets. She doesn’t treat them as humans or objects, but rather engages with them and describes those interactions using simple, yet effective words. These words are not fancy or unfamiliar, but they capture the essence of her experiences with her furry companions.

3. The Impression

Joanna Kraińska-Smith found a form that was exactly what Latour was looking for, and it’s where the network starts. These texts are easy to read and have an interesting message due to their everydayness, lightness, and interaction. Additionally, dogs have personalities just like any other living being, despite what Davidson suggests. However, Joanna’s description makes them come to life in an effortless way.

The best Christmas presents come after Christmas. Here’s (external link) a tip. A little book to think about.

Veröffentlicht am

Virtual Metaphysics II

Virtual Metaphysics

Already here we have written about virtuality and metaphysics. Today we will deviate from our plan. Because there is another view, perhaps another perspective of virtuality. Perhaps also another definition.

1. Reality

The term is difficult. But here I would stick to Ingarden. And perhaps also what the Kyoto School says (I use the term deliberately to avoid being put in an esoteric corner). I also don’t want to get into the discussion of epistemology here. Because this has no place here.

Ingarden says that only human beings construct something in addition to the reality in which they live. Be it culture, philosophy, painting, the cinema, atomic physics, etc. Man is constantly producing these, yes, virtualities and expanding them.

What then would reality be without these aspects? Zen Buddhism advises us to perceive them directly. Without the virtuality of our thoughts.

2. Virtuality

For the second time. The virtuality. And the thoughts that revolve around it. But that is not the point. Nor is it about the technological terms. Because these do not create a “new world”. Rather, they prolong our own thoughts and our own ideas. But also our own experiences. So basically we can say that virtuality is the extension, the image, of reality. It is not only in technological terms. But also as religion, philosophy, or even poetry. It sounds banal, and that’s how it is. The virtuality we create only reproduces reality. Nothing more.

And this is where a, yes, shift comes into play. A movement that I would like to stimulate. Or perhaps it is already underway. The shift in the meaning of virtuality. Towards the very things Ingarden mentioned. Towards culture, science, and religion. If we call this virtual, reality then remains on the other side. Or not always.

3. Reality

Because that is what it is all about. The question: Where is the boundary between reality and virtuality? And is there a metaphysics of virtuality? If metaphysics, precisely as a thought, belongs to virtuality?

End of Part II

Veröffentlicht am

Virtual metaphysics

Virtual Metaphysics

At the beginning a few definitions. And delimitations. As always with the articles here, it is food for thought to give someone new possibilities. Or new perspectives. Or simply about expanding the old ones.
It is not a philosophical essay. There is no time for that. And also the place.
The concept of virtuality is a very old one. And causes different connotations. But here it will be about technology. And about interacting with the new technology. And to inquire about what constitutes the human being around the technology. Or are we merely an appendage of technology? And should we remain so?

1. The technology

Let’s not kid ourselves. Virtual reality technology is still… not really mature yet. Compared to the attempts around artificial intelligence, we are talking about children’s shoes here. Especially since we don’t know in which scenarios we will be able to use it. Virtual reality, then. 

Mark Zuckerberg’s attempts (Metaversum) are rather ridiculous. They remind us of an early version of Second Life, and nobody really remembers Second Life anymore. In the end, SL became a big hangout for porn enthusiasts. What an achievement of Western civilization! 

Apple, on the other hand, presented us with augmented reality rather than a truly virtual one some time ago. But that is very interesting. Because we seem to be more likely to accept this reality. And the scenarios for using it can also help us. Maybe they can help us understand ourselves better. In any case, they tell us a story. Namely, that we feel much more in an augmented reality than in a virtual one. We see the familiar environment, and we recognize other people around us (even if we wear funny-looking glasses). And we can “do something with it”. In contrast to the Metaversum, where we are completely immersed in an artificially created world, we feel better in our, perhaps not so ideal, one. 

But Apple Glasses also tell us another story about ourselves. They are simply in the form of glasses. There are two panels built in, and two monitors that scan the environment for us. A bit like driving assistants.
If we see a familiar reality through glasses, it is merely an image. The image that cameras record and show us on the monitors. So we believe we are in a “familiar environment.” But this environment is already digitally edited.

2. Phenomenology

Postphenomenology deals with the question of how digitalization, how new technologies change our perception, and our view of the world. Therefore, it would be too simple to merely ask the question of phenomenology here. Especially since phenomenological theories have drifted into science. But what is at stake here is, simply, something else. It is about, as noted at the beginning, thinking about how human beings change. And not merely his perception. If we stayed with perception, we would be asking ourselves questions that have already occupied epistemologists. Namely, questions about what access to the world we have when we have funny glasses in front of our eyes. Glasses that pretend a familiar environment to us.  

Hence, the following questions. What does a reality do to us that is not ours? And what will this reality look like if it is not created by us but by an AI? And will we be able to find our way around it?

3. The virtuality

It is remarkable that we perceive a pair of glasses that scans the environment and shows us an image of reality as more virtual than the image that a drone pilot sees on the monitor (I am talking about the large long-range drones that have the ability to fly over the ocean and kill a person from a distance). Such a pilot, by not being directly involved in the war, but going home to his family after work, ends up inventing stress.

And that is the first problem. We have become accustomed to thinking of virtuality as something alien. As a whole new reality. But (as the metaverse shows) it is the imagination of people. Other people think about how people would interact with reality. In which environment they would feel comfortable? What viewing habits do they have? It’s kind of like interior design. Or with urban development. Some environments we find too… artificial, too… virtual. We don’t feel comfortable there. Others, however, we prefer.
It is similar to the current AI. It is the result of our thoughts. It collects our data from the Internet and processes it. The results then are the result of mankind’s thoughts.
For this reason the first thought. Virtual reality is not a foreign one. It is our reality. Concentrated on two monitors in a pair of glasses.

 

End of Part I

Veröffentlicht am

Über Geister. Und Philosophie.

Postmoderne und Metaphysik

Es soll hier kein philosophischer Diskurs sein. Noch soll es einen Beitrag zu einem wie auch immer gearteten Diskurs werden. Es sind schlicht einige Gedanken, die mich seit einigen Monaten, vielleicht auch Jahren, begleiten. Vielleicht soll es auch eine Anregung sein. Und eine andere Perspektive.

Es ist auch vielleicht kein neuer Gedanke. Doch diese Idee reklamiert für sich gar nicht, neu zu sein. Sie ist einfach da. Erwähnenswert. Und kehrt ab und an zurück. Wie ein Geist. 

1.Der Begriff der Postmoderne

Leider hat der Begriff der Postmoderne seit einigen Jahren (zumindest in der öffentlichen Debatte) eine negative Konnotation erhalten. Es hat sich von seiner ursprünglichen, philosophischen Bedeutung entfernt. Manche würden daher den Begriff des Poststrukturalismus vorziehen. Allerdings überschneiden sich die Bedeutungen beider Begriffe. Es überschneiden sich auch die Techniken, die der Poststrukturalismus und der Postmodernismus anwandten. Also ganz kurz. Es geht hier um den Begriff, den Denker, wie Lyotard, Derrida, Deleuze im Sinn hatten. 

In Deutschland war einerseits durch eine starke Bindung an den Strukturalismus (Modernismus) mit seinen Ausprägungen der Frankfurter Schule und die Person Habermas aber auf der anderen Seite schlicht durch Eifersucht der hier agierenden Intellektuellen immer eher suspekt. Darauf möchte ich aber keine Rücksicht nehmen.

2. Die Dekonstruktion

Und es geht mir eher um die Kritik an ihr. Aber auch darum, dass die Postmodernisten modernistische (Strukturalistische) Begriffe dekonstruierten, in der Hoffnung, etwas Neues entstünde anstatt. Es kommt nicht immer wie man denkt. Doch das ist nicht das Thema. Die strukturalistische (modernistische) Welt war fein säuberlich aufgeteilt (vielleicht deswegen die große Liebe der Deutschen zum Modernismus). Auf der einen Seite hatten wir die physikalische Welt (deren Beschreibung schon zum Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts nicht mehr so säuberlich war, was an der Quantenphysik lag) und auf der anderen Seite die Metaphysik. Das, was als „geistig“ galt und was Kant säuberlich in Kategorien aufgeteilt war. Wie wunderbar. Wie ordentlich!

3. Die Metaphysik

Es gibt eine landläufige Meinung, die besagt, die Postmoderne habe die Metaphysik zerstört. Es stimmt. Während Feyerabend die wissenschaftliche Methode kritisierte und diese auch dekosntruierbar gewesen wäre, so können Philosophen kaum die schwarzen Löcher zerstören. Die Frage, die sich mir stellt ist, war es tatsächlich die Metaphysik, die mit dem Postmodernismus zerstört wurde? Oder anders gefragt. Wurden die Werte (es ist die heutige Kritik an der Postmoderne) tatsächlich zerstört? Oder nur das, was wir als Beschreibung der Werte verstehen würden? Die schöne, kantianische (aber auch hegelsche) Ordnung der Dinge?

4. Die Geister

Und es geht hier gar nicht um eine „neue Metaphysik“. Machen wir uns keine Hoffnung. Wie es war, kommt nicht mehr. Wir können zwar versuchen, die alte Beschreibung wieder zu etablieren (und mancherorts passiert es) aber es hat keinen Sinn. Die Geister. Es ist eine Metaphysik. Vielleicht hat sie nichts mit Aristoteles zu tun. Vielleicht mehr mit Latour. Oder damit, was Christen „Glauben“ nennen? Oder einfach damit, dass Menschen, ein geistiges Leben haben. 

Und das ist ein Punkt. 

Es gibt noch einen anderen, den ich für wichtiger erachte. Und an Latour denken muss. In der modernistischen Beschreibung (ich weiß, das ist platt, aber eine Ausarbeitung würde zu lange dauern und zu viel Platz einnehmen) haben wir mit einer „fortschrittlichen“ Metaphysik zu tun. Mit einer Metaphysik, die sich an der kantianischen Theologie orientierte. Der Geist konnte nur ein heiliger sein. Oder seinen Platz in Testamentarischen Schriften haben. Daher auch der Glaube, dass der Glaube der Europäer etwas besonderes war. Vielleicht auch etwas fortschrittliches (wie auch immer die Modernisten unter uns den Fortschritt definieren).

5. Der weitere Punkt

Was ist also mit den Geistern? Nichts. Wir können sie suchen. Oder sie kommen nachts zu uns. Oder es ging um das Magische, das Wittgenstein beschrieb. Und manchmal ist es vielleicht sinnvoll in diese nichteuropäische Metaphysik einzutauchen. Und sie zu leben. Und die dortigen Geister besuchen. 

Veröffentlicht am

Robots

Robots

Interview with a chatbot.

Donald Davidson stated that dogs cannot think. These were not thoughts (but this problem predates Davidson, we also asked if natives can think – or how they can think if they think).
Can an AI think?
We interviewed ChatGPT.

Since it searches the Internet for the answers and analyzes texts written by humans, we consider the interview more as an anthropological experiment that shows us the quintessence of our, human thinking.
All drawings are by DALL·E. An AI.

Please introduce yourself.

Hello, I am ChatGPT, a large language model trained by OpenAI. I am here to assist you with any information or questions you may have. How can I help you today?

We would like to make an interview with you.

Sure, I would be happy to participate in an interview. Please ask me any questions you have and I will do my best to provide you with informative and accurate responses.

How do you recon. Which influence your appearance would have on the posthuman ideas?

As a language model, I do not have a physical appearance, so it is difficult for me to say how my “appearance” would influence posthuman ideas. However, it is likely that the development and use of advanced language models like myself will play a role in shaping the way society thinks about the concept of a “posthuman” future.

Some people believe that the increasing capabilities of AI, including language understanding, will lead to the development of machines that are capable of thinking and communicating in ways that are similar to humans. This could lead to new ethical considerations around the rights and autonomy of these machines, as well as questions about what it means to be human in a world where machines can perform many of the same functions as people.

On the other hand, some people argue that the development of AI does not necessarily mean that we are moving toward a “posthuman” future. They point out that while AI can perform many tasks that are typically associated with human intelligence, it is not capable of experiencing emotions or consciousness in the same way that humans do. As a result, they argue that the development of AI will not fundamentally change what it means to be human.

It is important to note that this is a complex and ongoing discussion in the field of AI ethics and philosophy, and different people have different opinions on these topics.

How do you think, do chatbots like you replace writers, authors, and content creators in the future? Or does the human need a human?

As a language model, I do not have personal opinions or preferences. However, it is possible that chatbots like me could be used to assist writers, authors, and content creators in the future.

One possible application of language models like me is in the area of content generation. With my advanced language understanding capabilities, I can be used to automatically generate written content, such as news articles, product descriptions, or even creative fiction. This could save time and increase productivity for writers, authors and other content creators.

However, it is also important to note that while AI-generated content can be of high quality and accurate, it might lack the creativity and originality that humans can bring. The human touch, the personal experience and emotions, the cultural context and many other factors can make a text more relatable, more engaging and more human.

Moreover, while AI can be used to assist with certain aspects of the writing process, such as research, it cannot replace the role of human creativity, imagination, and the ability to bring a unique perspective to a subject.

In the end, it’s a matter of how we want to use this technology, it can be a powerful tool, but it will not replace the human need for human connection, creativity, and emotions.

Will we change our perception? Towards a postphenomenology? 

As a language model, I don’t have personal experiences or perceptions, but I can tell you that the relationship between humans and technology is complex and multifaceted, and it is likely that the increasing capabilities of AI will influence our perception of the world in various ways.

One way in which AI could change our perception is by changing the way we interact with technology. As AI systems become more advanced and more integrated into our daily lives, they could change the way we think about ourselves and our relationship with the world.

Another way in which AI could change our perception is by changing the way we think about the concept of “intelligence” itself. As AI systems become more advanced and more human-like, it could lead us to rethink what we consider to be “intelligent” behavior and what it means for a machine to be “intelligent”.

Postphenomenology is a field that studies how technology affects our perception of the world, and how it shapes our experiences, values, and meaning. It argues that technology is not just a tool that we use, but it also shapes our understanding of the world and our place in it.

In conclusion, as AI systems become more advanced and more integrated into our lives, it’s likely that it will change our perception of the world, and it will shape our understanding of human and machine intelligence, as well as our experience of the world.

Thank you for the interview.

You’re welcome! I’m glad I could help. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask.

Veröffentlicht am

Über ein Buch. Und die Natur.

Über Menschen. Die Natur. Und ein Buch

Wir berichten selten über Bücher, die wir lesen oder die wir interessant finden. Es hat mehrere Gründe. Auf der einen Seite zitieren wir manchmal Autoren. Der Leser kann sich dann selbst ein Blick machen. Wenn wir ein Buch (oder einen Film oder einen Track, ein Gebäude, eine Landschaft) beschreiben, schaffen wir eine gewisse Perspektive. Der Leser kann dann eine Erwartung haben, die aber seiner Perspektive nicht entspräche. Auch das möchten wir vermeiden. 

Daher wird es hier keine Buchbesprechung sein. Es ist eher ein Hinweis.

1. Das Buch

Ich könnte sagen, es sei ein politisches Buch. Aus der Perspektive, aus der auch der Transhumanismus als politisch eingestuft werden könnte (bei Latour geht es aber nicht unbedingt um den Transhimanismus obgleich sich Elemente fänden). Politisch auf einer Metaebene. Einer Ebene, die die Links / Rechts Ontologie längst verlassen hat. Die auch die Ontologie der Macht verlassen hat. Allerdings, wie Richard Rorty mal festgestellt hat, werden Ideen, Diskurse, Ausschnitte daraus von der Gesellschaft gerne übernommen.

Auf der anderen Seite wird die Ontologie der Macht (die gibt es ja in unserer, weißen Gesellschaft) sehr wohl und grundlegend behandelt. Vielleicht auch Themen wie “Revolution” und was wir darüber verstehen (interessanterweise erfährt der Begriff der “Revolution” eine inflationäre Nutzung). 

2. Die Natur

Natürlich wäre jetzt interessant zu fragen, Wass wir unter dem Begriff “Natur” verstehen. Ich möchte hier nicht auf die Einzelheiten eingehen., denn “Natur” hat in der Geschichte der westlichen… tja… Zivilisation (oder was die Europäer so für Zivilisation halten) einige Änderungen erfahren. Genauso wenig, wie wir den Zeitpunkt des Todes beschreiben können, können wir auch nicht eindeutig sagen, was wir unter “Natur” verstehen. 

Hier ist eher der transhumanistischer (wenn wir so wollen, können wir auch den Moment “posthumanistisch” nennen, dies hängt von unserer Perspektive ab) Moment. Oder die Frage, wie behandeln wir die uns umgebende Natur (ich setze die Bedeutung des Begriffes hier voraus). Lyotard hat mal die Frage der techne benannt. Auf der anderen Seite steht – zusammen mit dem Glauben – der eingebildete Auftrag, sich die Natur nutzbar zu machen. Diese aber nicht einzubinden. Sie nicht zu beteiligen. 

Und hier liegt das Problem. Nennen wir es (der Autor hat es nicht gemacht) Überheblichkeit. Nicht nur der Natur gegenüber. Sondern auch den “Barbaren” als auch uns selbst gegenüber. 

3. Der Titel

Oder vielleicht besser: von welchem Buch schreibe ich hier?

Es geht um Bruno Latour und seinen Essay “Wir sind nie modern gewesen. Versuch einer symmetrischen Anthropologie” 

Viel Spaß beim Lesen!

Veröffentlicht am

Angst

Von der Angst

Wir müssen über Gefühle sprechen. Über Emotionen. Über die eine vielleicht. Wir sollten uns über Angst unterhalten. Denn Angst ist für einen Europäer eine sehr wichtige Erfahrung. Wir werden mit der Ontologie der Angst erzogen. Oder, um Heidegger zu paraphrasieren, die Welt in der wir als Seiende sind, ist voller Angst. 

1. Heidegger und die Angst

Ich möchte an der Stelle Martin Heidegger nicht analysieren. Vermutlich wäre es zu kompliziert. Und es würde zu viel Platz nehmen. Und vielleicht habe ich ihn nicht verstanden. Außerdem sollen es wie immer lediglich einige Gedanken werden. Vielleicht eine Anregung. Vielleicht auch nicht. 

Heidegger unterscheidet zwischen Angst und Furcht. Angst, meint er, spürten wir vor unbekanntem, vor etwas, das wir nicht kennen. Furcht hingegen würden wir spüren, wenn wir wissen, was kommt (die Heidegger Kenner mögen mir an der Stelle die Verkürzung verzeihen, es geht mir eher um das Vorkommen des Begriffes denn um die korrekte Wiedergabe).

Angst also. Da wir im Leben stets vor dem Erkenntnishorizont stehen, wir wissen nicht, was passieren wird, wir wissen nicht, wie das morgen sein wird, kann es vorkommen, dass wir ständig in Angst verharren. 

Auf der anderen Seite hat die europäische Kultur viele „furchtlose“ (in diesem Sinne wären es eher „angstlose“) Helden produziert, deren einziges Verdienst darin bestand, keine Angst vor der Zukunft zu haben. 

Es ist nicht nur der Begriff der Zeit, der uns ein morgen haben lässt. Es ist die tägliche Lebenserfahrung, die Europäer in Angst versetzt. 

2. Und die Angst vor dem Tod

Der Tod existiert nicht. Wir haben ihn aus der Kultur verbannt. Es gibt den Tod manchmal in den Nachrichten (dann sind wir alle schrecklich entsetzt). Im täglichen Leben spielt er keine Rolle mehr. Wir haben den Tod in den Käfig gesteckt, ähnlich, wie Kant einst Gott in einen Käfig gestellt hat. Und wir hoffen nun, dass wir so dem Tod entkommen können. Oder wollen die Europäer auch der Angst vor dem Tod entkommen? Auch darüber schrieb Heidegger. 

Das Dilemma ist, dass wir weder ontologisch noch medizinisch eindeutig beschreiben können, wann der Tod eintritt. Medizinisch gesehen vielleicht sogar nie, so dass wir eventuell ewig leben könnten (an Apparate angeschlossen, die unsere Körper mit allem lebenswichtigen versorgen). 

Dank dem Tod (und der ungelösten Problematik seines Eintritts) haben wir die Möglichkeit gefunden, unendliche Angst zu spüren. 

3. Und die Politik

Oder soll ich lieber sagen, Religion? Die europäische zumindest ist auf Angst gebaut. Sie diente ja lange Zeit als Legitimierung. Derjenige, der vorgab, Kontakt mit höheren Stellen zu haben (und in der europäischen Erzählung war es der Gott oder die Götter), der bestimmt auch das Bild des Jenseits. Der kann also auch bestimmen, ob wir denn Angst vor etwas haben, das wir nie erleben werden (der eigener Tod kann nicht erlebt werden, da hat Heidegger schon recht, auch wenn der Tod das Ende des Lebens markiert, kann dieser nicht erlebt werden). 

4. Und die Politik

Doch darüber haben wir bereits an vielen Stellen geschrieben. Und wir möchten uns hier nicht wiederholen. Also sei lediglich so viel gesagt, dass Angst als eine der stärksten Emotionen genutzt wird. 

5. Und das Leben

In Angst. Denn das ist, was den Europäern (ich würde allerdings auch Nordamerika dazu zählen), am Ende bleibt. Angst als ein ständiger Begleiter. Angst, die sowohl religiös als auch politisch gewollt und ontologisch (obgleich ich die europäischen Ontologien, gelinde gesagt, wirr finde) erklärt ist. Ein Normalzustand also. Aus dem Religionen, Politiken und Metaphysiken entstanden sind. 

Unsere Themen
Archive

©Zenvampires 2022

Legales

Follow Us

See also

Cookie Consent mit Real Cookie Banner