“人类世”边缘{s}

Nandita Biswas Mellamphy
{"title":"“人类世”边缘{s}","authors":"Nandita Biswas Mellamphy","doi":"10.54195/technophany.13800","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines three distinct onto-political modes: the human-centric onto-politics of ‘centring the human’, post-human onto-politics of ‘de-centring the human’, and a third mode that rejects and argues against these options in favour of jettisoning the human/non-human dyad altogether. Instead of placing humans ‘in or on the loop’ with other species, a third model would place humans ‘out of the loop’ of command. I argue that contrary to claims, the post-human declaration of ‘de-centring the human’ cannot be considered ‘post-anthropocentric’ (implying the abolition of anthropocentrism), though it can be considered ‘anti-anthropocentric’. Only the onto-politics of abolition would truly be post-anthropocentric, because only it would eliminate the human/non-human conceptual dualism upon which the onto-politics of centring and de-centring is based.","PeriodicalId":428251,"journal":{"name":"Technophany, A Journal for Philosophy and Technology","volume":"77 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Edge{s} of the “Anthropocene”\",\"authors\":\"Nandita Biswas Mellamphy\",\"doi\":\"10.54195/technophany.13800\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article examines three distinct onto-political modes: the human-centric onto-politics of ‘centring the human’, post-human onto-politics of ‘de-centring the human’, and a third mode that rejects and argues against these options in favour of jettisoning the human/non-human dyad altogether. Instead of placing humans ‘in or on the loop’ with other species, a third model would place humans ‘out of the loop’ of command. I argue that contrary to claims, the post-human declaration of ‘de-centring the human’ cannot be considered ‘post-anthropocentric’ (implying the abolition of anthropocentrism), though it can be considered ‘anti-anthropocentric’. Only the onto-politics of abolition would truly be post-anthropocentric, because only it would eliminate the human/non-human conceptual dualism upon which the onto-politics of centring and de-centring is based.\",\"PeriodicalId\":428251,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Technophany, A Journal for Philosophy and Technology\",\"volume\":\"77 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Technophany, A Journal for Philosophy and Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54195/technophany.13800\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Technophany, A Journal for Philosophy and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54195/technophany.13800","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文考察了三种截然不同的对政治模式:以人类为中心的对政治“以人类为中心”,后人类的对政治“以人类为中心”,以及拒绝和反对这些选择的第三种模式,赞成完全抛弃人类/非人类的二元关系。第三种模式不是将人类与其他物种一起置于“循环内或循环上”,而是将人类置于“循环外”。我认为,与主张相反,“人类去中心化”的后人类宣言不能被认为是“后人类中心主义”(意味着废除人类中心主义),尽管它可以被认为是“反人类中心主义”。只有废除奴隶制的本体政治才是真正的后人类中心主义,因为只有它才能消除人类/非人类概念上的二元论,而这正是中心和去中心的本体政治的基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Edge{s} of the “Anthropocene”
This article examines three distinct onto-political modes: the human-centric onto-politics of ‘centring the human’, post-human onto-politics of ‘de-centring the human’, and a third mode that rejects and argues against these options in favour of jettisoning the human/non-human dyad altogether. Instead of placing humans ‘in or on the loop’ with other species, a third model would place humans ‘out of the loop’ of command. I argue that contrary to claims, the post-human declaration of ‘de-centring the human’ cannot be considered ‘post-anthropocentric’ (implying the abolition of anthropocentrism), though it can be considered ‘anti-anthropocentric’. Only the onto-politics of abolition would truly be post-anthropocentric, because only it would eliminate the human/non-human conceptual dualism upon which the onto-politics of centring and de-centring is based.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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