Keywords
environment
technopolitics
human zoo
democracy
relationship
How to Cite
Number of views: 529
Number of downloads: 536
Abstract
This paper will analyse the role played by technology in Peter Sloterdijk’s theory, where he seeks to redefine and reconstruct ethics, society and democracy. Indeed, the philosopher’s project is to build a new kind of society, which risks being antidemocratic and elitist: technopolitics. This lemma refers to Sloterdijk’s reconfiguration of the social structure through the elimination of the human rights paradigm in a technological and anti-egalitarian manner. In order to do this, Sloterdijk redesigns the environment as a dangerous place whose rules cannot be followed, and which must be reshaped through technology. Hence, the philosopher reduces ethics to technology, and reinterprets society on the basis of new techno-ethical premises which support a hierarchical and selective new polis.
References
Berto G. 2012. “Perdere la testa. Ginnastica e filosofia,” Aut Aut 355:95–105.
Bostrom N. 2014. Superintelligence. Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Calligaris A. 2001. “Il dibattito che non c’è stato,” Aut Aut 301-302:111–119.
Couture J. P. 2016. Sloterdijk. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Flake A., Davey M., Hornick M., McGovern P., Mejaddam A., & Vrecenak J. et al. 2017. “An Extra-uterine System to Physiologically Support the Extreme Premature Lamb,” Nature Communications 8(1). DOI: 10.1038/ncomms15112.
Greblo E. 2012. “Mi esercito, dunque sono,” Aut Aut 35:106–116.
Leghissa G. 2012. “L’esercizio come condizione di possibilità del soggetto (e della sua sparizione),” Aut Aut 355:19–36.
Lucci A. 2011. Il limite delle sfere. Saggio su Peter Sloterdijk. Roma: Bulzoni.
Mendieta E. 2012. “A Letter on Überhumanismus: Beyond Posthumanism and Transhumanism,” in S. Elden (Ed.), Sloterdijk Now (pp. 58–76). Polity Press.
Musio A. 2005. “La casualità dell’uomo e la rinascita del pensiero in margine ad alcune voci della filosofia pratica tedesca,” Rivista di Filosofia Neo-Scolastica 97(1):105–130. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43063613.
Musio A. 2012. “Il ‘pathos’ della decisione: una lettura filosofica attraverso la generazione,” Medicina e Morale 15:713–731.
Musio A. 2016a. Chiaroscuri. Figure dell’ethos. Milano: Vita e Pensiero.
Musio A. 2016b. “Il capitale in-umano. La bioetica di fronte al ‘lavoro clinico’,” Medicina e Morale 3:293–314.
Orwell G. 1949. Nineteen Eighty-Four. London: Secker & Warburg.
Rovatti P. A. 2012. “Esercizi ma senza ascesi,” Aut Aut 355:7–18.
Sloterdijk P. 2011. Bubbles. Sphere Volume I: Microspherology. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e).
Sloterdijk P. 2013. You Must Change Your Life. On Anthropotechnics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Sloterdijk P. 2014. Globes. Spheres Volume II: Macrospherology. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e).
Sloterdijk P. 2016. Foams. Spheres Volume III: Plural Spherology. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e).
Sloterdijk P. 2017a. “The Domestication of Being. The Clarification of the Clearing,” in idem, Not Saved. Essays after Heidegger. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Sloterdijk P. 2017b. “Rules for the Human Park,” in idem, Not Saved. Essays after Heidegger. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Sloterdijk P. 2017c. “Wounded by Machines. Toward the Epochal Significance of the Most Recent Medical Technology,” in idem, Not Saved. Essays after Heidegger. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Tillería Aqueveque L. E. 2020. “Homo Sloterdijk: filosofía de la tecnología en la Posmodernidad,” Sophia 28:67–90. DOI: 10.17163/soph.n28.2020.02.
Tuinen S. 2011. “‘Transgeneous Philosophy’: Posthumanism, Anthropotechnics and the Poetics of Natal Difference,” in W. Schinkel & L. Noordegraaf-Eelens (Eds.), in Medias Res. Peter Sloterdijk’s Spherological Poetics of Being (pp. 43–66). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Vanni Rovighi S. 1947. Elementi di filosofia. Brescia: La Scuola.