(About Promethean shame, p.21-95, The World as a Phantom and die. Philosophical considerations on radio and television, p.97-211, being without time. To Beckett's play "En attendant Godot", p.213-231, about the bomb and the roots of our apocalypse-blindness, p.233-308)
first Images, phantoms and information
second Wrong worlds (coram publico)
third Wrong worlds (Verbiederung)
4th Wrong worlds (production)
5th Wrong worlds (technology, A & B)
6th Wrong worlds (personal responsibility)
7th Man and Nature
8th homo, excentricus'
9th Sketches of an aesthetic education
sets Anders total a conceptually vague, slightly contradictory attitude to the question of the nature of man to the day. I attribute this firstly to the fact that he holds out little benefit to run "opportunity philosophy." (See antiquatedness vol.1, p.8, 14; Vol.2 (1980), p. 10) He is delighted in his written over several decades, for the purpose of its publication in the second volume of his book on the antiquity of the people to find compiled writings from contradictions. But he does not, from now to later make a system "non-contradiction is quite sufficient." (See antiquatedness Vol.2 (1980), p. 11) - This joy in the straightness of one's thought is to treat him very well. He has earned by its equally straightforward action in resistance against the nuclear ambitions. Nevertheless, among other things, its very reason for setting the limits and possibilities of human variability, ultimately unresolved. The other reason is I believe in his rejection of animal-human comparisons. But for more of the same in this post.
It is not the case that would not take other clearly to the question of human nature position. He speaks of the "Unfestgelegtheit of Man": "The ' Unfestgelegtheit human ' () ie: the fact that man lacks a certain binding nature, positive, his relentless self-production, his non-terminating historical transformation - makes the decision about what to him as "natural" and what is considered "unnatural" should be counted, impossible. Even the alternative is wrong. ., Artificial nature of man '"(antiquatedness vol.1, S.309) is - more clearly you can not position really.
Unfortunately this statement are offset by an abundance of them relativizing different statements. Times in the context of human adaptation to the technical equipment of the "in Adapted to its limited nature (s), morphological (n) type of people who talk about a "vol.1 being, who can not be alleviated by other powers or ummodeliert by yourself as you wish ..." (See antiquatedness, p.18). Then it is again from our feelings, that they "hinterherhummpeln" the technology, because they "are not synchronized in history." (See antiquatedness vol.1, p.271) could at all, "the emotional life because of its slowness almost as 'natural', as the constant and unhistorical apply in person ..." (Ibid, p.271) And again Unlike elsewhere speaks of a "Ontic dowry," which "all non-egocentric at all" he meant "all pre-individual, of whatever kind, to the to the" I can not get involved, without being able to do something about it participates ... " (See antiquatedness vol.1, p.69)
Given such statements on the limits of variability of people, I do wonder how different is to the strong thesis of a virtually infinite variability of human beings. Becomes even clearer the limitations of the other propagated opportunity philosophy when you consider again what you well with the "ontic dowry else can be meant, as the biological, ie and animal heritage of the people and Anders' rejection of animal-human comparisons also holds. (See antiquatedness vol.1, p.69, 81f., 327, 332) Anders keeps the "film" of the animal kingdom for "questionable. It is unique because it is dangerous philosophical, used for the definition of man, a film that does not match the actual film of human existence: we are living not so against the backdrop of bees, crabs, and chimpanzees, but by Glühbirnfabriken and radio equipment. But natural philosophy seems to me the confrontation, people and animals' unacceptable: the idea that individual species' man 'as an equal FACE TO counterpart the thousands of species of animals and species and these thousands to treat them as if they embodied a single type of block animal existence, is simply anthropocentric delusions of grandeur. "(antiquatedness vol.1, p.327)
's first argument that it does not regard for the determination of the people into the draw comparison with animals, you can reply that yes this exact animal heritage, is the front of the allegedly effective 'film from Glühbirnfabriken and radio apparatus that does not appear as Matching. Had Plessner people compared only with the claims of technical products, he would never to the eccentric positionality of people came. On this specifically human characteristic he could only plant-animal-human comparison can be attentive. The second argument can at least credit, that probably only had the other hapless behaviorists in mind. If the behaviorists actually people were reduced to animals. But not only the people have been reduced. Even the animals with their complex behavior have been reduced to mechanical reflex arcs. It's in the animal-human comparison, but not non-specific identifications of people and animals, but a species-specific, methodical search for differences.
Plessner has also allowed here occasionally unjustified generalizations from one or more Species closed to all animals and they faced as a whole animal kingdom to man. But even here it was mainly about the differences, ie what the human mind as human beings, and not about the people to equate the 'animals.
The consistency of his reasoning context, on the other says are damaging, at least this reflection waiver, but what does the analytic focus of his essays no harm. As serious as I feel already that escapes the other specifically human significance of the mind-body limit, ie flat, as already noted, the excentric positionality.
0 comments:
Post a Comment