Suchergebnisse

The "viral" diffusion of the concept of immanence in the philosophical and cultural panorama risks to make it become a buzzword with "contagious" effects, capable of generating a conceptual pathology or dysfunctionality. Undoubtedly, "immanence" is a valid concept, especially on the logic-metaphysical level; however, from a political or social point of view, it has aroused various perplexities. Therefore, in this paper, I discuss some of the basic ideas of a possible "critique of immanence" (§ 1), and then I highlight the outlines of the perspective of the "immanent critique" (§ 3). Finally, I suggest that we can find a possible solution to the tensions between immanence and transcendence if we pose the problem on an anthropological or anthropological-philosophical level (§ 3).

AbstractThe article Anthropological crisis or crisis in moral status: a philosophy of technology approach to the moral consideration of artificial intelligence questions the anthropology of properties commonly assumed in philosophical discussions about the relationship between humans and technologies and the attribution of moral status. By beginning to develop the possible link between the ontology of properties and the anthropological question aptly outlined by that contribution, this short commentary suggests that the adoption of a truly relational or non-proprietary approach in the philosophy of technology seems at once necessary and challenging. For, on the one hand, it represents a response to the demands posed by information technologies; on the other it seems to call into question some of our deeply ingrained habits of thought.

The paper proposes a morphological interpretation of the question of the debt in its intrinsical relationship with the credit. Morphology is conceived as the theory of the genesis of the form (formation), which offers an innovative and fruitful point of intersection and interaction between human and natural sciences. From a biological point of view, the "human form" lives an open dialectic between lack and excess, neoteny and progenesis that characterizes his evolution; debt-credit should be then interpreted as the mutual relationship (munus) which expresses the generic and relational nature of human animal. This munus is made at the same time of incapacity and capacity, and it is not mono-, neither a-, but rather pluri-morphic: it is declined in various forms, from the political and the ethical to the economical etc. Thus, moving from the consideration of the (wo)man as zoon allotriomenon and according both to Western and Eastern thought, I claim that we need to redefine the form of the individual as a social process of individualisation and self-flourishing.