幸福与知识的生物政治学:从沉思的生活方式到幸福经济再到幸福经济

IF 0.3 0 PHILOSOPHY
Antonio Cimino
{"title":"幸福与知识的生物政治学:从沉思的生活方式到幸福经济再到幸福经济","authors":"Antonio Cimino","doi":"10.1515/opphil-2024-0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article explores the relationship between two different approaches to happiness and knowledge, that is, the contemplative model and the economistic and instrumental model. Whereas the former equates happiness with the contemplative life, the latter separates happiness from knowledge and subordinates both to what present-day policy-makers call “the economy of well-being.” While biopolitical modernity seems to have rendered the contemplative model obsolete and purposeless, the article suggests reviving the contemplative lifestyle, by putting forward three arguments. First, it contends that we should challenge the economistic and instrumental model, by reaffirming the principle that knowledge and happiness are primarily intrinsic values and ends in themselves. Second, the two models do not necessarily exclude each other and we should strive to combine them. Third, the envisaged integration of the two models requires that we revise them significantly. The elitist and metaphysical character of the traditional contemplative model must be abandoned as it is no longer palatable to modernity. Also, the primacy of economic and instrumental rationality that defines the modern biopolitics of knowledge must be questioned.","PeriodicalId":36288,"journal":{"name":"Open Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Happiness and the Biopolitics of Knowledge: From the Contemplative Lifestyle to the Economy of Well-Being and Back Again\",\"authors\":\"Antonio Cimino\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/opphil-2024-0004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article explores the relationship between two different approaches to happiness and knowledge, that is, the contemplative model and the economistic and instrumental model. Whereas the former equates happiness with the contemplative life, the latter separates happiness from knowledge and subordinates both to what present-day policy-makers call “the economy of well-being.” While biopolitical modernity seems to have rendered the contemplative model obsolete and purposeless, the article suggests reviving the contemplative lifestyle, by putting forward three arguments. First, it contends that we should challenge the economistic and instrumental model, by reaffirming the principle that knowledge and happiness are primarily intrinsic values and ends in themselves. Second, the two models do not necessarily exclude each other and we should strive to combine them. Third, the envisaged integration of the two models requires that we revise them significantly. The elitist and metaphysical character of the traditional contemplative model must be abandoned as it is no longer palatable to modernity. Also, the primacy of economic and instrumental rationality that defines the modern biopolitics of knowledge must be questioned.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36288,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Open Philosophy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Open Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/opphil-2024-0004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/opphil-2024-0004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

文章探讨了幸福与知识的两种不同方法之间的关系,即沉思模式与经济学和工具模式。前者将幸福等同于沉思的生活,而后者则将幸福与知识割裂开来,使两者都从属于当今政策制定者所称的 "幸福经济"。虽然生物政治的现代性似乎已经使沉思模式变得过时和没有目的性,但文章通过提出三个论点,建议恢复沉思的生活方式。首先,文章认为我们应该挑战经济主义和工具主义模式,重申知识和幸福主要是内在价值和目的的原则。第二,这两种模式并不一定相互排斥,我们应努力将它们结合起来。第三,设想的两种模式的融合要求我们对其进行重大修改。传统的沉思模式所具有的精英主义和形而上学的特征必须摒弃,因为它已不再为现代人所接受。此外,还必须质疑现代知识生物政治学中经济和工具理性的首要地位。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Happiness and the Biopolitics of Knowledge: From the Contemplative Lifestyle to the Economy of Well-Being and Back Again
The article explores the relationship between two different approaches to happiness and knowledge, that is, the contemplative model and the economistic and instrumental model. Whereas the former equates happiness with the contemplative life, the latter separates happiness from knowledge and subordinates both to what present-day policy-makers call “the economy of well-being.” While biopolitical modernity seems to have rendered the contemplative model obsolete and purposeless, the article suggests reviving the contemplative lifestyle, by putting forward three arguments. First, it contends that we should challenge the economistic and instrumental model, by reaffirming the principle that knowledge and happiness are primarily intrinsic values and ends in themselves. Second, the two models do not necessarily exclude each other and we should strive to combine them. Third, the envisaged integration of the two models requires that we revise them significantly. The elitist and metaphysical character of the traditional contemplative model must be abandoned as it is no longer palatable to modernity. Also, the primacy of economic and instrumental rationality that defines the modern biopolitics of knowledge must be questioned.
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
Open Philosophy
Open Philosophy Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
20.00%
发文量
25
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
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