Working on the Myth of the Anthropocene: Blumenberg and the Need for Philosophical Anthropology

IF 0.4 3区 文学 0 LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM
Vida Pavesich
{"title":"Working on the Myth of the Anthropocene: Blumenberg and the Need for Philosophical Anthropology","authors":"Vida Pavesich","doi":"10.1215/0094033x-9439643","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Anthropocene concept emerged from questions raised by scientists about whether human activity has ushered in a new and perilous geological age. The term migrated into the humanities and social sciences and now involves a proliferation of metanarratives about anthropogenic disruptions to systems that support life on this planet. This article develops an interpretive framework drawn from Hans Blumenberg’s theories of myth and metaphor, philosophical anthropology, and philosophy of history to address how Immanuel Kant’s fourth question, “What is the human being?,” has reemerged in the Anthropocene, and to assess which narratives tend to best reflect realistic responses to the current crisis. In contrast to the mythical species-subject Anthropos, Blumenberg’s minimal anthropology characterizes humans as having a permanent bioanthropological need for orientation that requires cultural compensation, including partial reliance on metaphor and myth. As an interpretive optic, this anthropology has the resources to deflate narrative excess. In addition, Blumenberg’s philosophy of history can shed light on how the Anthropocene is both unprecedented yet not entirely new insofar as it addresses problems or questions suppressed by modernist progress myths. Through the prism of a minimal anthropology and an application of Blumenberg’s philosophy of history, this article explores those questions and presents criteria for distinguishing between harmless narratives and unrealistic, dangerous myths, such as ecomodernist fantasies of controlling the Earth system.","PeriodicalId":46595,"journal":{"name":"NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/0094033x-9439643","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Anthropocene concept emerged from questions raised by scientists about whether human activity has ushered in a new and perilous geological age. The term migrated into the humanities and social sciences and now involves a proliferation of metanarratives about anthropogenic disruptions to systems that support life on this planet. This article develops an interpretive framework drawn from Hans Blumenberg’s theories of myth and metaphor, philosophical anthropology, and philosophy of history to address how Immanuel Kant’s fourth question, “What is the human being?,” has reemerged in the Anthropocene, and to assess which narratives tend to best reflect realistic responses to the current crisis. In contrast to the mythical species-subject Anthropos, Blumenberg’s minimal anthropology characterizes humans as having a permanent bioanthropological need for orientation that requires cultural compensation, including partial reliance on metaphor and myth. As an interpretive optic, this anthropology has the resources to deflate narrative excess. In addition, Blumenberg’s philosophy of history can shed light on how the Anthropocene is both unprecedented yet not entirely new insofar as it addresses problems or questions suppressed by modernist progress myths. Through the prism of a minimal anthropology and an application of Blumenberg’s philosophy of history, this article explores those questions and presents criteria for distinguishing between harmless narratives and unrealistic, dangerous myths, such as ecomodernist fantasies of controlling the Earth system.
研究人类世的神话:布鲁门伯格与哲学人类学的需要
人类世的概念源于科学家提出的问题,即人类活动是否开启了一个新的、危险的地质时代。这个词后来进入了人文和社会科学领域,现在涉及到大量关于人为破坏地球上支持生命的系统的元叙事。本文从汉斯·布卢门伯格的神话和隐喻理论、哲学人类学和历史哲学中发展了一个解释框架,以解决伊曼努尔·康德的第四个问题“人类是什么?”,并评估哪种叙述最能反映对当前危机的现实反应。与神话中的物种主体Anthropos相反,Blumenberg的最小人类学将人类描述为具有永久的生物人类学需求,需要文化补偿,包括部分依赖隐喻和神话。作为一种解释性的光学,这种人类学有资源来减少叙事的过剩。此外,布鲁门伯格的历史哲学可以揭示人类世是如何前所未有的,但就其解决被现代主义进步神话所压抑的问题而言,又不是全新的。通过最小人类学的棱镜和布鲁门伯格历史哲学的应用,本文探讨了这些问题,并提出了区分无害的叙述和不现实的、危险的神话的标准,比如生态现代主义者控制地球系统的幻想。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE
NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM-
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Widely considered the top journal in its field, New German Critique is an interdisciplinary journal that focuses on twentieth- and twenty-first-century German studies and publishes on a wide array of subjects, including literature, film, and media; literary theory and cultural studies; Holocaust studies; art and architecture; political and social theory; and philosophy. Established in the early 1970s, the journal has played a significant role in introducing U.S. readers to Frankfurt School thinkers and remains an important forum for debate in the humanities.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信