Die Achsenzeittheorie von Karl Jaspers bildete in der Anfangsphase der „interkulturellen Philosophie“ eine wichtige Rahmentheorie (Ram Adhar Mall, Heinz Hülsmann, Franz Martin Wimmer). Mit der Annahme von mehreren Geburtsorten der Philosophie (Indien, China, Europa) konnte der Exklusivitätsanspruch der europäischen Philosophie aufgebrochen werden. Inzwischen ist die Achsenzeittheorie sowohl in der interkulturellen Philosophie als auch in den Kulturwissenschaften zum Gegenstand vielfacher Kritik und zahlreicher Revisionen geworden.
In der interkulturellen Philosophie stellen sich unter anderem folgende Fragen: Wird mit der Achsenzeittheorie den philosophischen Aufbrüchen in anderen Weltregionen nicht doch wieder ein eurozentrisches Schema übergestülpt? Fallen wichtige philosophische Strömungen – wie z.B. die afrikanische oder die lateinamerikanische Philosophie – aus dem Achsenzeitschema heraus? In welchem Sinn wirken die interkulturellen Aufbrüche der Achsenzeit in den Philosophien der Neuzeit nach? Wie können Jaspers‘ Hinweise auf eine zukünftige ‚Zweite Achsenzeit’ in der interkulturellen Philosophie aufgenommen werden?
Die Kulturwissenschaften haben vor allem die Chronologie von Jaspers‘ Achsenzeit problematisiert. Da die Ungleichzeitigkeit und Heterogenität von geistigen Aufbrüchen chronologische Fixierungen unmöglich zu machen, sprechen manche Kulturwissenschaftler nicht mehr von der Achsenzeit, sondern von der Achsenzeitlichkeit („axiality“) als Charakteristikum bestimmter Kulturen. Darüber hinaus überwiegt in den historischen Wissenschaften eine allgemeine Skepsis gegenüber der „Vogelperspektive“ (A. Assmann) globalgeschichtlicher Konzeptionen.
Vor diesem Hintergrund scheint es angebracht zu sein, die Achsenzeittheorie innerhalb der interkulturellen Philosophie auf den Prüfstand zu stellen. Was kann sie leisten? Worin kann sie anregend, worin kann sie hinderlich sein? Gibt es alternative Theorien?
Beiträge aus diesem Forum wurden veröffentlicht in
polylog. Zeitschrift für interkulturelles Philosophieren Nr. 38, Winter 2017
Am zweiten Tag des Forums besteht die Möglichkeit, papers zu verschiedenen Themen interkulturellen Philosophierens einzureichen. Darüber hinaus können auch laufende Forschungsarbeiten oder –projekte vorgestellt werden.
Freitag, 24.2.2017: Ort: Otto Mauer Zentrum, Währingerstraße 2-4, 1090 Wien
Samstag, 25.2.2017: Ort: Schenkenstraße 8-10, 5. Stock, Hörsaal 1, 1010 Wien
Freitag 24.2.2017: Theorie Achsenzeit – Gestern und heute
Block I: 9:00 – 12:00
Block II: 14:00 – 18:00
Samstag 25.2.2017: Themen und Projekte interkultureller Philosophie
Block 1: 9:00 – 12:00
Block II: 13:30 – 15:30
Anmeldung zur Teilnahme (ohne paper) und Einreichungen für Kurzreferate bzw. Präsentationen (jeweils bis 15.1. 2017) an:
a.o. Prof. DDr. Hans Schelkshorn (johann.schelkshorn(at)univie.ac.at)
Dr. Tony Pacyna (tony.pacyna(at)wts.uni-heidelberg.de)
Tel.: +49 6221 54 3288
Organisatorische Hinweise: Das „Wiener Forum interkulturellen Philosophierens“ kann weder Fahrt- und Nächtigungskosten noch Honorarkosten übernehmen. Für Teilnehmer_innen werden Hinweise für günstige Hotels in der Nähe des Tagungsortes gegeben.
(Aus dem Call for Papers:)
Relativ früh haben Umweltethiker (wie etwa Tiefenökologen) die gegenwärtige ökologische Krise auf die moderne europäische Metaphysik zurückgeführt und Anregungen für ihre Überwindung in nicht-westlichen, hauptsächlich fernöstlichen Naturphilosophien gesucht. Die ökologische Krise hat heute ein globales Ausmaß erreicht. Der Klimawandel, der Schutz bestimmter Tierarten, die Errichtung von Naturreservaten, der Schutz indigenen Wissens oder die Einschränkung der Kohlendioxidwirtschaft sind Anzeichen dafür, dass Umweltfragen längst nicht mehr nur innerhalb nationalstaatlicher Grenzen bewältigt werden können. Das Wiener Forum interkulturellen Philosophierens nimmt sich im Jahr 2018 vor, den Beitrag nicht-westlicher Denktraditionen zur interkulturellen Ethik zu untersuchen und die interkulturelle Philosophie durch ursprünglich in der Umweltethik angesiedelte Fragen zu bereichern.
Themen und Problemstellungen betreffen:
Die verwendete Begrifflichkeit (Natur, Umwelt etc.) in anderen Denktraditionen
Umweltrelevante traditionelle Naturauslegungen, die die Subjekt-Objekt-Dichotomie auflösen und den Subjektbegriff erweitern
Das Verständnis und die Bewertung nicht-westlicher Denktraditionen in der bisherigen Geschichte der Umweltethik
Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen anthropozentrischen und nicht-anthropozentrischen (patho-, bio-, geozentrischen) Ansätzen in nicht-westlichen Denktraditionen
Natur oder Mensch? Interessenkollisionen zwischen umweltethischen Ansätzen und wirtschaftsorientierten Theorien im globalen Süden
Die Rolle des indigenen Wissens für den nachhaltigen Umgang mit Ressourcen
Ethische Aspekte der Biotechnologie, die Legitimität von Biopatenten für Saatgut, Pflanzen und Tiere
Die Internationalisierung der Umweltbewegung und die sogenannte globale Staatsbürgerschaft
Philosophische Argumente für die biokulturelle Diversität, die Koinzidenz der hot spots der Biodiversität und jener der kulturellen Diversität
Zugang zu Ressourcen, Klimawandel und globale Ungleichheit: Lösungsvorschläge aus dem globalen Süden
Umweltfreundliche Werte und Praktiken in nicht-westlichen Kulturen etc.
Einige Beiträge aus diesem Forum wurden veröffentlicht in
Monika Kirloskar-Steinbach und Mădălina Diaconu (Hg.): Environmental Ethics: Cross-cultural Explorations. Freiburg i. Br.: Karl Alber, 2020:
Freitag, 23.2.2018 und Samstag 24.2.2018: Ort: Otto Mauer Zentrum, Währingerstraße 2-4, 1090 Wien
(das Forum fand entgegen der ursprünglichen Ankündigung aus organisatorischen Gründen an beiden Tagen am selben Ort statt)
Univ. Doz. DDr. Mădălina DIACONU (Univ. Wien)
apl. Prof. Dr. Monika KIRLOSKAR-STEINBACH (Univ. Konstanz)
a.o. Univ.Prof. DDr. Johann SCHELKSHORN (Univ. Wien)
Dr. Tony PACYNA (Univ. Heidelberg)
Konferenzsprachen: Deutsch und Englisch
Organisatorische Rückfragen und Anmeldung zur Teilnahme am Forum ohne Vortrag (bis 5.2. 2018) jeweils an: johann.schelkshorn(at)univie.ac.at
Das „Wiener Forum interkulturellen Philosophierens“ kann weder Fahrt- und Nächtigungskosten noch Honorarkosten übernehmen.
Dr. Gabriele Osthoff-Münnix (ehem. Universität Münster/Innsbruck)
Dr. Bianca Boteva-Richter (WiGiP/Polylog-Zeitschrift f. interk. Philosophieren) unter Mitwirkung von Sool Park (München)
Spätestens seit dem »translational turn« in den Kulturwissenschaften fällt das Augenmerk auf die Tatsache, dass Über-Setzen nicht nur eine philologische Übertragung von Bedeutung zwischen verschiedenen Sprachen ist, mit der man fremde Denkinhalte dem Verstehen erschließt. Es handelt sich vielmehr immer auch um Transferleistungen zwischen verschiedenen Kulturen, die unter anderem auch mit je verschiedenen Sprachstrukturen zusammenhängen. Wie denkt man anders in Sprachen ohne Kopula; wie denkt man anders (und weshalb?) in Sprachen, in denen wir die Kategorien Subjekt und Prädikat nicht so, wie sie uns geläufig sind, finden? Und damit zusammenhängend die Frage, wie kann man philosophische Inhalte, Texte oder Begriffe in der notwendigen Tiefe übertragen, sodass nicht nur der Sinn, sondern auch die darin verborgene kreative Leistung offenbart werden können?
Übersetzungen dienen, wie allgemein bekannt, nicht lediglich dazu, irgendwelche Texte zu übertragen. Sie verhelfen unbekannte Texte, Themen und AutorInnen kennen zu lernen, zeigen ihre Lebenswirklichkeit und präsentieren diese einem größeren Fach-Publikum. In dieser Hinsicht sind sie absolut notwendig, doch viel zu selten werden die Fragen gestellt: Wer übersetzt was und für wen? Und kann man Kulturen überhaupt ineinander übersetzen?
Die Reflexion verschiedener Philosophien der Übersetzung erweitert das interkulturelle Verstehen um eine Tiefendimension, die die Konzepte interkultureller Kommunikation eher selten wahrnehmen, denn es geht um metaphysische Prämissen jeweiliger Weltsicht, deren Reflexion dem besseren Verständnis anderer Kulturen aufhelfen kann. Die Tagung soll viel Raum zum gemeinsamen Nachdenken geben. Die Thesen der ReferentInnen werden den Teilnehmern daher vorab zugehen.
Dr. Tony Pacyna (Universität Wien)
a.o. Prof. DDr. Hans Schelkshorn (Universität Wien)
Hsueh-I CHEN English
Lavinia HELLER Deutsch
Ralf MÜLLER English
Yvanka B. RAYNOVA Deutsch
Termin: 28.–29. Februar 2020
ORT: IWK, Berggasse 17, A-1090 Wien/Vienna
In this workshop we will discuss the relation between intercultural philosophy and post-colonial / de-colonial theory. The first day will be devoted to African perspectives – the second day the focus is on theories from Latin-America.
Central in this part of the workshop devoted to African perspectives is the close reading and discussion of Felwine Sarr’s book “Afrotopia” and a text written by Mbembe (On the Postcolony: Preface and Introduction to the second edition). Additionally, two invited scholars will present papers on the topic. The combination of paper presentations and the close reading of key texts will give firm ground for in-depth discussion of the topic and exchange of views.
To these presentations readings and discussions all interested scholars, regular students and PhD students are invited to participate. For those interested in participation we advice to read Sarr’s and Mbembe’s texts in advance. The texts will be made available to those who register for the workshop (for registration, see below). Participation in the workshop is also open to those generally interested in the topic without preparation or knowledge of the texts.
Renate Schepen (Amsterdam): Between Islands and Lagoons, Imagining the Planetary
Babacar Mbaye Diop (Dakar): African art and the postcolonial question
Angela Roothaan (Amsterdam): discussant
The de-colonial discourse in Latin-America stands in a long tradition of the “filosofia americana” that dates back to the mid-19th century. Post-colonial theory is thus part of a long history that finds a first impressive culmination point in the 1970s in the so-called philosophy of liberation. On the one hand the de- and post-colonial theories are closely related with these liberation discourses, while on the other hand they develop a powerful critique of essentialist depictions of Latin-America and of fundamental eurocentric aspects oft he liberation discourses from the perspective of poststructural thought (Santiago Castro-Gomez; Walter Mignolo, Anibal Quijano).
Rolando Vázquez (Utrecht): The fundaments of decolonial thought and the challenge of interculturality
Marcela Torres Heredia & Gregor Seidl (Vienna): Territorial Coloniality“: an ontological concept to enhance the visibility of multidimensional structures of colonial continuities and processes of decolonization in space and time
Hans Schelkshorn (Vienna): The image of “Europe” in decolonial discourses in Latin AmerIca
Fri, 19 Feb 2021
Session 1 (09:00-10:00) -
Ontologies, narratives, technologies
-Johanna Wenzel (Berlin): “Sinofuturism”
The concept of Sinofuturism has been popularized through the publication of Ethnofuturisms (Avanessian / Moalemi 2018) and was prominently featured in Lawrence Leks audio-visual Sinofuturist Trilogy. Moreover, the term received interest in the field of Philosophy where Yuk Hui described it as „an acceleration of the European modern project.“ (Hui 2016: 297). The velocity of Chinas economic transformation resonates with Western notions of futurity. Hence, the concept of “Sinofuturism” is enticing for accelerationist thinkers such as Nick Land- who, almost three decades ago, proposed that “Neo-China arrives from the future.” (Land 1994). But in contrast to Afrofuturism, which is characterised by the re-appropriation of technology and history, East Asian subjects have not been excluded but hyperpresent in popular imagination of the future – utilised by sci-fi writers and filmmakers alike. Thus: under which conditions can Sinofuturism, or rather Sinofuturities, operate?
-Norihito Nakamura (Kyoto University): “Kiyoshi Miki’s Philosophy of Technology in the light of Yuk Hui’s Cosmotechnics”
Due to the pandemic of 2020, our world is becoming more and more dependent on information technology. Our dependence on this might enforce the monopoly by the global companies such as GAFA. What can philosophy do against such a situation? Since the 1990s, many theorists in Cultural Studies and post-colonialism have been exposing and criticizing the Western thoughts hidden behind technocentrism. However, their critique even relies on the dichotomy of technology and culture; it is only through multiculturalism that they have criticized the monism of technology.
-Tanaj Gandhi (Independent Researcher): “Against Progress: Democratic Enactments and Embracing a Precarious Future”
How can we reimagine a future that escapes the dichotomies of Euro-centric narratives; dichotomies of technological progress and ruin, of Coloniser and Colonised, hegemon and subaltern, North and South? What does such a radically reimagined future look like? One that subverts strict divisions and hierarchies in favour of practices of “transformative resistance” (Ashcroft, 2001). A future of the margins emerging from an imaginary that rethinks the very notion of future as progress/regress. Crucially, how can we as subjects/agents institute a shared world building on such an imagination? This paper develops an answer in two parts by arguing for a vision of the future as unstable, calling for cultivated modes of response that are distinctly democratic.
-Sora Koizumi (Osaka University): “History in Jean-François Lyotard”
The purpose of this presentation is to show the view of history in Jean-François Lyotard’s early writings. At first glance, Lyotard and history seem incompatible subjects because Lyotard declared a famous thesis ‘the end of grand narrative’ in The Postmodern Condition (1979) and considered the thesis as a criticism against historical materialism. But what Lyotard criticized there was a modern view of history (a linear history). For Lyotard, the postmodern meant that modern times had ‘already’ ended, at the same time, that the modern times had not existed ‘from the start’. Therefore, Lyotard did not declare ‘the end of history’ but said that the modern view of history had already ended. In fact, Lyotard showed another view of history in his early writings before The Postmodern Condition and the view played a part in constructing his postmodern philosophy.
Moderator: Fernando Wirtz
Session 2 (10:00-11:00) - Future spaces
-Erszebet Hosszu (Moholy-Nagy University of Art and Design, Budapest): "Home Away from Home"
As an architect and civil activist, my research is about the social inclusion of forced migrants using the tools of social design. As a result of migration, cultures meet and new communities are created. Until a common understanding is reached, it takes generations to learn and adapt to each other. During this time, the process contains conflicts and misunderstanding which can easily lead to wider social gaps, violence or even terrorism. Asylum seekers experience a strong trauma of forced migration caused by on the one hand the multiple loss (home, place, goods, community, family, existence) and on the other hand confusion over cultural differences. Studies of environmental psychologists prove that Place Attachment has a significant role in recovering the trauma of loss of home. My research aims to determine how the process of Place Attachment can be supported by using design methods. Specifically, it investigates how these methods work in practice with the target group.
-Joy Zhu (UCLA): “The Opportunity Cost of Architecture: Existential Risk and Eco-Trauma”
In this essay, I will give an overview of various philosophical conceptions of existential risks and how architecture responds to them based roughly on Quentin Meillassoux’s differentiation between mathematics and science. For Meillassoux, science is created in the image of human reason. Instead of letting the object reveal itself to us, we impose our reasoning upon the object, turning a blind eye towards irrational contingencies. Existential risk in this context indicates deviations from this complete image. For instance, the ideal picture of an ecosystem's balance does not take into account other spheres, such as the system of magmatic layers beneath the earth. The second definition of risk as contingency goes beyond representation. With Deleuze’s synthesis of time, I will explain how risk is absorbed and converted into an energetic form to induce a Batesonian “phase change” in the broken subject. With the instance of risk leverage, I will demonstrate the Deleuzian form of risk in an architectural context. Koulouri’s example of ecological assets, such as the coastline, shows that they can be leveraged against the risk of retreat. Coastlines, once seen as places for pure economic gain, are counterbalanced by Gross Economic Product, which transvalues nature once again into the self-regulating subject that is autonomous and unpredictable. With this, I will show that the Dutch polder is a long-existing form of natural remediation that has existed for centuries, before the industrial revolution. With the polder, the Dutch are able to offset losses of natural capital through the creation of a new ecosystem on the polder. Instead of being a short term infrastructural coping technique, the polder may be understood as a form of natural investment on the coastline.
-Kendra Griggs (Concordia University, Montreal): “Moral Limits of Land Development”
Considerations for future city developments often revolve around technological progress, utility, and economic benefit. Effective city planning involves various considerations such as reasonable zoning tactics and strategies to encourage business and development in a local area. Developers are incentivized by economic factors such as land and location desirability, logistical concerns, and potential profits that could be made from a particular development. Developers manage stakeholders’ concerns to determine a plan to negotiate terms and complete a successful project. However, the relationship of power between developers and community stakeholders is often disproportionate, favoring the developer. This power imbalance often leads to injustices within a community, especially for marginalized or vulnerable groups.
Moderator: Constanze Wolfgring
Session 3 (11:00-12:00) -
Art & art theory as tools for the future
São Paulo, Brazil
-Polona Tratnik (New University Ljubljana, IAA): “Transgenesis as Art, Art as Infection. The case of Adam Zaretsky”
Adam Zaretsky’s performative art involving biotechnological methods occupies a particular place in the field of biotechnological art: His highly subversive modus operandi unfolds as provocative VivoArts hands-on workshops and lectures sharing lab skills with the untrained. His purpose is to directly include a larger public in the processes of genetic engineering in order to demystify these procedures that usually take place in scientific laboratories, and to viscerally confront participants with the actual questions arising from experiencing transgenic technology as ‘non-utilitarian research creation’.
-Swantje Martach: “Speculative Futurism as undertaken by New Dawn(.digital)”
New Dawn, an interdisciplinary project initiated in 2020, brings together almost 60 artists for the sake of artistically narrating not only probable, but indeed rather possible (referring here to a distinction made by Stengers, see Stengers 2002, 27) futures of gloves, in which the latter precisely in their existence as “tools to touch“ have taken the next evolutionary step from second (subjugated) to third (intendedly acting) skin, and our human role has shifted from actively and decidedly gloving to rather other-determinedly gloved beings. The presently proposed conference contribution, elaborated by a new philosophical team member of this project, and in intense exchange with Vienna-based Felipe Duque, the leading theoretician therein, aspires to focus on the self-claimed manner in which futures are narrated by New Dawn: speculation.
-Flounder Lee (American University in Dubai): “Mundane Devices from the Future: Artists Envision Counterfuturist Projects for Survivance”
How do artists within different Counterfuturist art movements create work that “function” as mundane devices from the future? What can we learn about connections between and themes within these widely varied imagined futures from the devices?
-Šárka Lojdová (Charles University Prague):"Why Are Some (Artistic) Narratives of the Future Marginalized?"
I will approach the conference topic from the point of view of an American philosopher Arthur C. Danto. Somebody might object that Danto belongs to the prominent Western thinkers, and therefore his theory does not contribute to the demarginalization of the future. As a white man belonging to the upper class, he found himself in a privileged position. However, his philosophy can help us to reveal the reasons why some (mostly artistic) accounts of the future are marginalized. My thesis is that the ignorance of representations of the future stemming from marginalized political and societal groups results from their marginalization in our present society.
Moderator: Miloš Ševčík
Keynote 1: (12:00-13:00) -
São Paulo, Brazil
-Preciosa de Joya (Ateneo de Manila University): “Jeepneys to the Future: Transmissions from the Past”
While recognizing itself as the heir to Third World liberation struggles, the term “global South” aspires to surpass the legacy of its predecessor. Regarded as profoundly entrenched in eurocentric notions and representations, the “Third World” has been deemed untenable as a geopolitical concept and emancipatory project. As a response, the global South represents the collective struggle to overcome this epistemic violence/dependence and reclaim the dignity and self-determination of marginalized social groups by ensuring a pluriverse of alternative knowledge and forms of being.
Moderator: Fernando Wirtz
Keynote 2 (14-15)
Boaventura de Sousa Santos (University of Coimbra, Portugal): “Postpandemic scenarios from the perspective of the epistemologies of the south“
No abstract available so far.
Moderator: Razvan Sandru
Keynote 3 (15-16)
Max Ryynänen (Aalto University, Finland): “The World is a Stage”
Back to Rasa Theory: Can the oldest atmosphere theory in the world help us to understand today’s (and our future) aesthetic manipulation?
Moderator: Mădălina Diaconu
Sat, 20 Feb 2021
Session 4 (12:00-13:00)
The future of humanity and humanism
São Paulo, Brazil
-Niclas Rautenberg: “The Future of Democratic Conflict Resolution: A Phenomenology of Difference”
One of the core tenets of liberal political philosophy is the conception of the person as free and equal citizens. Nowhere does this crystallise more than in John Rawls’s Political Liberalism, in which the rational agent in the original position and, subsequently, the reasonable citizen in the well-ordered society, agree on a set of principles that ends social conflict and fosters a realistic utopia reigned by justice. However, recent events such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the killings of Brianne Taylor and George Floyd, have once more rendered it painstakingly clear that we are far from equality across social groups. The thesis underpinning this paper is that Rawls’s ahistorical assumption of the sameness of persons in political matters is unfit to provide us with guidance in our imperfect world. Instead, I argue to work from the bottom up: what if finding sound solutions to conflict requires acknowledging the differences we experience? This paper aims to address this question phenomenologically by analysing the role of the body in conflict. Starting out from a conflict event in Ta-Nehisi Coates’s Between the World and Me,the paper illuminates the particular structure that we encounter in cases of racialised conflict. Critically contrasting the thought of Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Alfred Schutz with black phenomenologists such as Frantz Fanon, Lewis R. Gordon, and George Yancy, I argue that Coates’s conflict experience expresses different modes of being-in contemporary democracies. These include racialised patterns of perception in conflict. The body of the opponent thereby becomes politicised: i.e., its features become markers for political membership. A Rawlsian approach to conflict is incapable of accounting for this perceptual dimension of conflict, as the Rawlsian citizen is oddly disembodied and rid of history. A phenomenological conflict approach that takes its place, does not posit sameness, but acknowledges difference. The solution, then, is not the complete fusion of viewpoints, but a “lateral universal” that we find in the works of philosophers such as Maurice Merleau-Ponty or Bernhard Waldenfels. The future of democratic conflict resolution does not lie in levelling difference, but in interrogating one’s perception of it.
-Stefan Bolea (University of Cluj-Napoca): “Forebodings of a Dead Future. Cioran and True Detective”
Detective Rust Cohle (brilliantly portrayed by Matthew McConaughey) from Nic Pizzolatto’s television series True Detective seems modelled on Cioran’s not-man (not unlike Nietzsche’s overman or superman [Übermensch], ne-om was recently translated as not-man and not as non-human). The concept of the not-man describes a post-anthropological subject, which is “inhumanˮ from a psychological point of view, emphasizing estrangement and otherness in the definition of humanity (human’s psychologic radical alterity). In On the Heights of Despair (1934), Emil Cioran constructs, in his ambiguous and lyrical style, a definition of a new concept, the not-man: “There are among men some who are not far above plants or animals, and therefore aspire to humanity.But those who know what it means to be Man long to be anything but … If the difference between Man and animal lies in the fact that the animal can only be an animal whereas man can also be not-man – that is, something other than himself – then I am not-man.” (Cioran 1992). Before Foucault alluded to the death of man in his The Order of Things (1966) as the downfall of a certain way of conceiving the human being and the advent of a non-humanistic system of reference, philosophers such as Nietzsche and Cioran developed their peculiar way of Antihumanism. These authors add misanthropy to their project of replacing the humanistic perspective. Furthermore, they see their subjects (the not-men)as agents of destruction, and, in a Schopenhauerian fashion, would like to rid us of the obsolete saga of humanism. We understand that the not-man is no longer human. But how may one define it? From a psychological point of view, the not-man is a stranger, a spiritual mutation. Perhaps from the perspective of mankind, the not-man is a a punishable psychological outsider. Rust Chole argues in a Cioranian manner: “I think human consciousness, is a tragic misstep in evolution. We became too self-aware, nature created an aspect of nature separate from itself, we are creatures that should not exist by natural law … Maybe the honorable thing for our species to do is deny our programming, stop reproducing, walk hand in hand into extinction, one last midnight – brothers and sisters opting out of a raw deal” (Pizzolatto 2014). From “consciousness as destiny” [Bewusstsein als Verhängnis], Cioran’s thesis derived from Alfred Seidel, to the Freudian distinction between nature and culture, from the Buddhist idea of the inexistence of the self to the Heideggerian treatment of das Manals Niemand, we are led to the Schopenhauerian tableau of the voluntary self-destruction of species. These post-human subjects belong to the context of a theory of the “end of times”. The “continuous ending” of post-Schopenhauerian philosophy (from Mainländer’s “will to death” to Freud’s “end of the world phantasm”, or from Swinburne’s “sleep eternal/ In an eternal night” to Eminescu’s “twilight of God and sunset of ideas”) is a fitting symptom of the post-humanistic subject, unable to countersign the declaration of human rights.
-Raphael Chim (Chinese University of Hong Kong): “Act as if we could not die”: a secular reworking of George Berkeley’s immortality into a fictional imperative for the future
The future for the 18th century Irish philosopher George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne, consisted largely of the afterlife promised in Christian doctrines. Berkeley’s sense of immortality has been discussed in conjunction to his theory of time and moral philosophy and, hence, however outlandish it might sound to bring up the word in the 21st century, is something we must nevertheless speak of in the study of Berkeley’s writings. In simultaneity, there is also no cause for us not to attempt reworking elements in Berkeley’s philosophy, such as we have seen already in Margaret Atherton and Helen Yetter-Chappell’s attempts at removing God from Berkeley’s philosophy. This paper shall aim for a more modest end though.
-Philipp P. Thapa (Institute for Climate Protection, Energy, and Mobility IKEM, Greifswald/Berlin): “To be a mobile of the Ekumen: The conversation of imaginary cultures and its ethos in Le Guin’s Hainish cycle”
There have always been countercurrents to the (techno-)futuristic imagination in both the societal development and the creative production of the West. They have often dissociated themselves from the term ‘futurism’ for the same reasons that the indigenous futurism movement hopes to change its meaning.For example, the theorist of social ecology, Murray Bookchin, identifies futurism with Jetsons-type visions of the future which celebrate technological progress while conserving and naturalising the existing social order. In contrast, utopianism aims to reconsider all aspects of a social world. It is less interested in The Future as such – itself the construct of a specific culture – than in human possibilities and their diversity.
Moderator: Ursula Baatz
Session 5 (14:00-15:00) - Futurities and nature
Philadelphia, PA, USA
São Paulo, Brazil
-Matthias Fritsch (Concordia University Montréal): “Indirect Intergenerational Reciprocity in Indigenous Philosophies and its Relevance to Climate Ethics”
The talk seeks to propose a concept of justice for future people that is mindful of Indigenous critiques of the ‘Anthropocene’ and associated climate eschatologies. The first section will review these critiques, which suggest that motivating pro-futural care by dreading an impending climate crisis tends to betray a privileged, often settler-colonial perspective, given that for many Indigenous peoples, what is feared the most in such apocalyptic narratives (forced removal from land, loss of meaningful, identity-conferring connection with land and its wildlife perceived as kin, becoming refugees, loss of agency and self-determination, etc.) has already happened to colonized peoples the world over (Dillon 2012; Scott 2016; Whyte 2018).
-Christoph Brunner, Sophie Peterson (Leuphana University Lüneburg): “Futurity’s Speculative Lure”
The Ends of the World (Danowski, Viveiros de Castro) have often been proclaimed. Historically, the end of the world occurred again and again for various subjectivities in the frame of a.o. (settler) colonization and the slave trade, genocide, mass detention, disproportionate violence, and the effects of continued dispossession and dislocation of populations. Such a conception of the recurrent end dislodges a linear idea of time and allows us to critically inquire the term of "future societies" beyond a teleological narrative of betterment.
-Arata Nakashima (University of Bonn): “Grant’s Nature Philosophical Futurism: What is the Future in Nature?”
“Futurism,” in the context of the art movement in Italy, originally consisted in resisting the “dull” traditions of the past by emphasizing rapid technological growth. This movement, on the one hand, certainly had liberal tendencies that encouraged "de-centering," but it also, on the other, had “technocentric” tendencies that could justify the exploitation of nature which caused the environmental crisis. It is no doubt that the environmental crisis is a serious problem for the “future” of humanity: left unresolved, it could eventually lead to fatal consequences (extinction, catastrophe) for us or the generations after us. Therefore, we need to envision a “new (or modified) futurism” to avoid the environmental crisis.
-Renzo Filnich (DEI-UV, Universidad de Valparaíso): “Qatipana: Becoming and Individuation about the encounter between technical apparati and natural systems”
The present research turns around the concepts and processes of Becoming and Individuation where it evidences a functional model based on the articulation of an information processing system based on the approaches of the philosopher Gilbert Simondon; which aims to model a sensorimotor cycle performed by the cognitive system of an Artificial Intelligence agent. To establish this model of biological inspiration, we use the concepts of information and modulation in Gilbert Simondon and information in Norbert Wiener's cybernetics. These resources require us to ask ourselves the following question: How does the technologization and computerization of cultural techniques change the very nature of knowledge of the affection of being with others (people, things, animals)?. To answer this question we will offer an interdisciplinary study (arts, sciences, information technologies) on the effect of this symbiosis and in what ways it can be seen in the use full of knowledge about the foundations of living and non-living matter. The architecture that we have called Qatipana (Quechua word that denotes the flow of information processing systems), although it cannot be considered as a systems theory, has the utility of being able to explain some empirical observations that we also present here. In conclusion, the implications and limitations of this model and the research that is being carried out to present its utility and probability as a model of the algorithmic cognitive system are part of the questions of communication and affect in the decisions provided by the automatic system.
Moderator: Mădălina Diaconu
Session 6 (15:00-16:00) – Asian Futurisms
São Paulo, Brazil
-Matthew C. Kruger (Boston College): “Art, Technology, and the future of religion: Simondon with Mariko Mori and Takashi Murakami”
Gilbert Simondon’s Du mode d’existence des objets techniques outlines an intriguing relationship between technics, religion, and the aesthetic. Technology and Religion are, in Simondon’s telling, branches from the original magical unity of the universe. And in the present moment, they are firmly split, viewed in opposition to each other, addressing contrary human interests and offering contrary effects. The primary question of this paper, therefore, is whether, following Simondon’s articulation, a more harmonious integration of technology and religion might be possible; and the place to look for this would be in the realm of the aesthetic. As Simondon writes: “To this day, it does not appear possible for the two reticulations, that of technics within the geographical world and that of religions in the human world, to analogically encounter each other in a real, symbolic relation. And yet only in this way could the aesthetic impression state the rediscovery of the magical totality, by indicating that the forces of thought have once again found one another. Aesthetic feeling, common to both religious thought and technical thought, is the only bridge that could allow for the linking of these two halves of thought that result from the abandonment of magical thought.” (Simondon 194)
-Amanda Sayonara Fernandes Prazeres (ALAFI): “Empathy and interrelation: exercising intercultural philosophy”
An important issue for intercultural philosophy is the method we use to investigate the thinking that has been developed in a different cultural context. In the circumstance of a globalized world, it becomes increasingly necessary for an academic philosophical work to include the diverse study of the traditions of thought— derived from a distinct cultural, historical, linguistic background. The interest in discovering and valuing other philosophical traditions starts under a critical perspective on the centralism of European philosophy and its philosophical reason. Additionally, it follows the postulation for recreating a temporal and pluralistic universality founded in intercultural dialogue as a mechanism to spend the world, as stated by Raúl Fornet-Betancourt. However, how to learn from other philosophical traditions without falling into a dualistic or relativistic perspective—that tends to separate me and the other, West and East, philosophy and thought? To answer this question, I propose to analyze two concepts developed by the Japanese philosopher Nishitani Keiji (1900-1990) in his masterpiece "Religion and Nothingness". I address Nishitani's interpretation of “learning” (jap. narau 習う) as “ontological empathy” and analyze the consequences of essentially assuming the same way of being of the thing we intend to learn from for a genuine mutual understanding that could be useful for the philosophical work. Furthermore, through the concept of circuminsessional interpenetration (jap. egoteki sōnyū 回 五 的 相 入), I present another possibility of interrelation between I-Thou and I-world, which intends to re-evaluate the method we use in the intercultural philosophical practice. Thus, by applying the concepts presented by Nishitani in the intercultural aspect of philosophy, I believe we can avoid the problem of dualism and relativism, which ultimately hinders the approach and apprehension of philosophy in a plural and inclusive way.
-James Garrison (Baldwin Wallace University): “Reconsidering the Life of Power: Ritual, Body, and Art in Critical Theory and Chinese Philosophy”
Subjectivation, the post-structuralist notion that contingency compels normative subjects to perform ritual norms in order to acquire recognition, autonomy and the means for survival, is a compelling theory for describing the self as relational, bodily, discursive, and ritually-impelled. However, the approach advanced by Michel Foucault and Judith Butler focuses on what she calls The Psychic Life of Power at the expense of its creative side where growth occurs in the course of aesthetic bodily practice, a notion which is well explored in Classical Confucianism and more contemporary Chinese philosophy.
-Bongrae Seok (Alvernia University, Pennsylvania, USA): “Future of Robotic AI in East Asian Buddhism”
New technologies are often biased against certain groups of individuals with particular racial/ethnic, social, and linguistic backgrounds. This is particularly so in information technology. Joy Buolamwini and Deborah Raji (2018) reports that many commercial programs of facial recognition fail to identify faces of people specifically women of color. Drew Harwell (2018) reports many cases of linguistic bias where Amazon’s Alexa and Google’s Assistant fail to respond to foreign accents. Spanish and Chinese users with nonnative English accents have particular difficulty in using Amazon’s Alexa and Google’s Assistant. Additionally and more seriously, computer programs that are used to sentence criminals are biased against African Americans. The most widely used sentencing software in the US (Northpoint’s sentencing program) outputs risk scores of a convict (the likelihood of committing new crimes) to prevent future crimes but many studies show that risk scores are biased against African Americans (Angwin, Larson, Mattu and Kirchner 2016). Perhaps, part of the biases derive from program bugs or underdeveloped data sets but, independently of these technical errors, racial, cultural, and linguistic biases exist in many advanced technologies because of the way they are developed, programmed, and tested.
Moderator: Lucas Machado
Session 7 (16:00-17:00) - Postcolonial Utopies
São Paulo, Brazil
-Lucas Nascimento Machado (University of São Paulo, Brazil, ALAFI): “Intercultural Dialectics and Dialectical Interculturality”
In our presentation, we will, first, approach the following question: how to do philosophy interculturally? In order to answer that question, however, we have to answer a second one: how to think about the relationship between the self and the other? We believe one possible and fruitful way to answer that question would be to resort to dialectics; dialectics, however, conceived itself by means not only of Western, but Non-Western references. Thus, in our presentation, we will attempt to show how, by articulating the dialectics of Hegel, Nāgārjuna and Nishida, one could come up with a fruitful way of both conceiving dialectics interculturally as well as thinking interculturality by means of a dialectical method. To articulate, however, the dialectics of those different philosophers in a method of doing philosophy interculturally, we shall also bring into discussion another philosopher, to wit, Ram Adhar Mall and his conception of situated unsituatedness (orthafte Ortlosigkeit). We believe that Mall’s concept not only provides a central base for articulating the different dialectics of Hegel, Nāgārjuna and Nishida in a method of doing intercultural philosophy, but can itself be better understood if comprehended dialectically. Finally, we will suggest that, taken to its last consequences, the project of thinking of dialectics as a method to do intercultural philosophy has to necessarily take into consideration Dussel’s conception of analectics, and the limits it imposes to our traditional understanding of dialectics and its possibilities. With this in mind, we shall, however, propose one final reflection: can dialectics, conceived interculturally as a means of doing intercultural philosophy, go beyond the limits of dialectics, as conceived and criticized by Dussel’s analectics? Moreover, could it, in some way, be even integrated with analectics itself and thus, become an even more powerful tool do doing and understanding philosophy interculturally? And, if it can, what would such integration look like?
-Federica González (University of Tübingen): “The mimetic dimension of desire in postcolonial societies”
The future is not just a rational portrayal or narrative, it is also the space of praxis, action, and therefore the canvas where subjects consciously – or unconsciously – draw the objects of their desires. Desire is the affective way in which we relate to the future. Desires, in this way, design the diverse imaginaries of the future. In this sense, I believe that in order to understand the future, or the depiction of the future of marginalized societies, it seems necessary to take into account the way desires have been shaped, specifically in postcolonial societies.
-Natalia Rugnitz : “Utopia and Pessimism”
How can human life be better, both from the point of view of individual and of collective experience? What should we do? What can we do and, most fundamentally, what can we expect? The attempt to answer these questions gave rise to a whole literary genre: the utopian genre, which in the Western world was baptized in the 16th Century with Thomas More´s About how things should be in a State and about the new island Utopia. However, utopian spirit and writings existed long before More gave it a name and have, as their most representative ancestral, Plato´s Republic. The utopian nature of Plato´s Republic was the object of an intense debate during the second half of the 20th century and remains such at the beginning of the 21st. The main critique endorsed to it rests in the claim that it offers a picture of a better possible future that has, among others, a fatal error: that of offering a paradigm which is completely unfeasible and, most of all, undesirable all things considered. The aim of my communication will be to develop an alternative interpretation of the utopian nature of Plato´s Republic, according to which such unfeasibility and undesirability are, precisely, what make the Republic´s utopia valuable and useful as a critical instrument for the assessment of representations of the future. My suggestion is that the book constitutes a philosophical utopia, as long as it develops a paradigm of personal and social fulfillment but, at the same time, presents a heavy set of critiques that challenge those paradigms. The fundamental message of the Republic consists not so much of the models being presented, but has to do, rather, with the simultaneous questioning of that very models being performed and, thus, with an advice that is of the utmost importance in relation to the exercise of constructing narratives about a possible better world to come. I will defend that this advice is a methodological one, useful from a point of view that precedes the particular content of whatever utopia is being designed. I will try to show that, to achieve its function of being an effective source of social change, utopian narrative needs to be permeated by an effort of self-criticism that puts into play a pessimistic attitude (in the theoretical and philosophical sense of the term), in order to be more than a wish-thought. Utopian thinking must be capable of assimilating, within itself, the limiting factors to the achievement of the ideal in view of a serious consideration of the given context in which it arises, be it the conventional one, in the sense of the prevailing cultural movement, be it the marginalized one, in the sense of the minorities who work for a more inclusive and representative world.
-Abbed Kanoor (University of Tübingen): “Culture, Ideology, Ontology. On the future possibilities of traditions. A phenomenological investigation”
This conference presentation aims at understanding the relation to cultural past in order to launch a debate about the future of the tradition through the phenomenology of its modes of givenness:
Moderator: Claudia Cedeño Baez
Keynote 4 (18-19)
São Paulo, Brazil
-Brian Goeltzenleuchter (San Diego State University): “The Olfactory Present and the Future Museum”
How would your understanding of your city differ if you let your nose, rather than your eyes, lead the way? So begins Sillage, an olfactory artwork that activates the museum’s site as a platform for participation in public life by using neighborhood smells to initiate informal conversations with visitors around the politics of urbanism. My lecture frames Sillage as a ‘counter-monument.’ Drawing on the writing of James E. Young, I will define the olfactory counter-monument as that which is ephemeral, physically unimposing, and capable of generating discourse chiefly because it hastens public memory. I introduce the ‘dialogical paradox’ of olfactory art; whereas smells are resistant to linguistic sense-making, they also stimulate a type of collective wonder that leads to active dialog. Inspired by Hannah Arendt’s concept of the vita activa, this sort of dialog challenges Immanuel Kant’s aesthetics by proposing a relational aesthetics based on active smelling that leads to engagement with the city and its constituencies. I conclude by speculating on ways in which the future museum might reassess the physical, organizational, and curatorial paradigms that support neo-Kantian ideals by employing currently marginalized practices of decolonizing its collection and collaborating with its diverse constituency.
Moderator: Ingmar Lähnemann
Keynote 5 (19-20)
São Paulo, Brazil
Dominic McIver Lopes (University of British Columbia): “Aesthetic Justice: A Framework”
People with different cultures come into contact with each other, and the contacts can go well or they can go badly. Indeed, if justice is goodness in the arrangement of social life, then arrangements of social life that shape cultural contact can be just or unjust. This lecture introduces a framework for thinking about what is special in contact between aesthetic cultures, in particular, and proposes two interests that should be built into a theory of aesthetic justice.
Moderator: Jale Erzen
Keynote 6 (20-21)
São Paulo, Brazil
Raúl Trejo Villalobos (Autonomous University of Chiapas): “Interculturality: experiences and reflections”
There are currently 12 indigenous peoples in the state of Chiapas, most of them direct descendants of Maya civilization. Since 500 years ago, the features of their history are colonization, resistance and marginalization. Higher and university education, on the other side, are recent in the history of the state. The Autonomous University of Chiapas (UNACH), for example, was founded in 1974, and the Intercultural University of Chiapas (UNICH) in 2004. During these years, the number of members from original peoples that have entered higher education has increased. The main problem in this situation remains in the fact that the institutions of higher education have a number of Western criteria as their characterizing features. Thus, the members of original peoples are forced into learning another language and, most of the time, into abandoning their cultures. It is in this sense that the purpose of my presentation is to make some initial reflections on interculturality, taking Raul Fornet Betancout and Luis Villoro into account, in one hand; and, on the other, sharing some experiences of intercultural dialogue. My work’s central idea lies in considering the main problems of interculturality so as to elaborate a more accurate proposal in the immediate and medium-term future.
Moderator: Razvan Sandru