Jos de Mul, Comprendere la natura. Dilthey, Plessner e la bioermeneutica. Lo Sguardo - rivista di filosofia. Vol. 14, no.1 (2014), 117-134.

Abstract: In recent years, authors like Chebanov, Markŏs, and Ginev have attempted to implement hermeneutic categories in the domain of biology. Against this background, the author takes Dilthey’s scattered remarks on the notion of the organic and Plessner’s biophilosophy as his starting point for the development of a biohermeneutical theory of biological purposiveness, which aims at bridging the gulf between the natural and the human sciences. Whereas the natural and human sciences are closely connected with a third-person and a first-person perspective respectively, the author argues that the second-person perspective plays a crucial role in the life sciences. In opposition to the natural sciences, in which causality is the key notion, and the human sciences, which rest on the notion of meaning, the author argues that the central concepts that characterize the second-person perspective of the life sciences are functionality and intentionality.

Nella Lebensphilosophie di Dilthey, l’antropologia e la storia sono strettamente connesse. Come lo stesso Dilthey afferma in una sentenza spesso citata, «Was der Mensch sei, sagt ihm nur seine Geschichte»^[2]. Tuttavia, per Dilthey storia significa solamente storia culturale. Per sviluppare una comprensione adeguata della condizione storica dell’uomo, dovremmo prendere in considerazione però anche la storia naturale. Dopo tutto, in quanto unità psico-fisica, l’Homo sapiens sapiens è il prodotto storico di un’iterazione complessa tra sviluppi sia naturali che culturali. Inoltre, all’epoca delle scienze della vita, la storia naturale e quella culturale sembrano sempre di più sconfinare l’una nell’altra. Le biotecnologie quali l’ingegneria genetica, l’ingegneria metabolica e il trapianto di genoma trasformano gli organismi in artefatti culturali e nel tentativo di creare la vita artificiale (probabilmente il Santo Graal della biologia di sintesi), gli artifatti culturali manifestano via via maggiori qualità prima riservate alla vita organica.

In quanto segue argomenterò la tesi secondo cui l’ermeneutica di Dilthey, specialmente la sua analisi della triade Erleben, Ausdruck e Verstehen, offre ancora un proficuo punto di partenza per lo sviluppo di una bioermeneutica che non ha a che fare solamente con la comprensione umana e con l’interpretazione degli esseri, delle (inter)azioni e degli artifatti umani, ma che include anche la comprensione e l’interpretazione di e da parte di agenti non-umani. Il fatto che Dilthey nei suoi ultimi scritti ermeneutici distingua in maniera piuttosto dogmatica tra natura e cultura pare senza dubbio di primo acchito un ostacolo per lo sviluppo di una bioermeneutica ispirata al suo pensiero. Per esempio, Dilthey rifiuta esplicitamente la possibilità di una comprensione umana della vita delle piante: «Bedeutung oder Wert kann etwas nicht haben, von dem es kein Verstehen gibt. Ein Baum kann niemals Bedeutung haben» (GS VII, p. 259). La possibilità di una comprensione o di un’interpretazione da parte di agenti non umani non è poi nemmeno considerata da Dilthey. Eppure, sosterrò che gli scritti tardivi di Dilthey sull’ermeneutica contengono qualche traccia per lo sviluppo di una bioermeneutica. Svilupperò oltre queste tracce con l’aiuto della biofilosofia di Plessner e grazie a qualche riferimento ad alcuni recenti sviluppi negli ambiti della biologia dei sistemi e della neuropsicologia^[3].

Innanzitutto, riprendendo il dibattito sulla demarcazione delle Naturwissenschaften e delle Geisteswissenschaften che ebbe luogo in Germania attorno al 1900, avanzerò la tesi secondo cui in quel dibattito erano in gioco varie dicotomie ontologiche, epistemologiche, fenomenologiche e normative che non combaciano. Dirò poi che queste dicotomie precludono una comprensione adeguata del carattere peculiare delle scienze della vita, a metà strada tra le scienze della natura e quelle umane (§ 1). Mostrerò in secondo luogo che Dilthey, nonostante il suo approccio per lo più dicotomico nel dibattito su tale demarcazione, a sua volta fondato sulla distinzione tra esperienza esteriore (prospettiva alla terza persona) e interiore (prospettiva alla prima persona), in qualche occasione ha riconosciuto lo statuto speciale delle scienze della vita, connesso con la «conformità di scopo (Zweckmäßigkeit)» immanente delle entità viventi (§ 2). In terzo luogo, dirò che la comprensione del finalismo immanente richiede l’esperienza da una prospettiva alla seconda persona, incarnata e interattiva (§ 3). Al fine di sostenere tale ipotesi, farò riferimento all’analisi di Plessner della triplice dimensione corporale della vita umana in Die Stufen des Organischen und der Mensch (§ 4). Nell’ultima parte, fornirò una breve visione d’insieme dei differenti tipi di interpretazione intraspecie, interspecie e intraorganica e traccerò i compiti che attendono la bioermeneutica (§ 5).

Interview met Botte Jellema in de documentaire Het verraad van de voorstelling. Holland Doc. Radio 1.Zondag 23 februari, 21.00-22.00

Wat is echt? Dat is de vraag die Holland Doc Radio aanstaande zondag stelt. Documentairemaker Botte Jellema (die ook cultuurprogramma De Avonden presenteerde van 2009 tot december 2013) onderzoekt vervormd beeld en geluid in ‘Het Verraad van de Voorstelling‘. Want wat we horen en zien is “tot in de puntjes vormgegeven”, maar “ziet er vaak anders uit dan wat het is”, betoogt Jellema:

“Gephotoshopte gezichten, geknipt-en geplakte radio en televisie, zangers die zuiver zingen door een computer. We weten wel dat het nep is. Maar wanneer voelen we ons belazerd?”

Een radio-essay over “hoe we genept worden door Michael Bublé en Kinderen voor Kinderen”, waarin Jellema zelf zingt en Plato en The Matrix erbij haalt, met medewerking van filosoof Jos de Mul.

Beluister uitzending

Valerie Frissen, Jos de Mul, and Joost Raessens. Homo ludens 2.0: Play, Media and Identity, in Judith Thissen, Robert Zwijnenberg and Kitty Zijlmans (eds.), Contemporary Culture. New Directions in Art and Humanities Research. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2013, 75-92.
 

Foreplay

Immense est le domaine du jeu.  (Emile Benveniste)

A spectre is haunting the world - the spectre of playfulness. We are witnessing a global “ludification of culture”. Since the 1960s, in which the word “ludic” became popular in Europe and the United States to designate playful behaviour and artefacts, playfulness has increasingly become a mainstream characteristic of our culture. Perhaps the first thing that comes to mind in this context is the immense popularity of computer games, which, as far as global sales are con­cerned, have already outstripped Hollywood. According to a recent study in the United States, 8 to 18 year olds play computer games on average for one hour and a half each day on their consoles, computers and handheld gaming devices (including mobile phones).¹ This is by no means only a Western phenomenon. In South Korea, for example, about two-thirds of the country’s total population frequently plays online games, turning computer gaming into one of the fastest- growing industries and “a key driver for the Korean economy”.²Although perhaps most visible, computer game culture is only one manifesta­tion of the process of ludification that is penetrating every cultural domain.³ In our present experience economy, for example, playfulness not only characterizes leisure time (fun shopping, game shows on television, amusement parks, playful computer and Internet use), but also domains that used to be serious, such as work (which should chiefly be fun nowadays), education (serious gaming), poli­tics (ludic campaigning) and even warfare (video games like war simulators and interfaces). According to Jeremy Rifkin, “play is becoming as important in the cultural economy as work was in the industrial economy”.⁴ In ludic culture, sociologist Zygmunt Bauman argues, playfulness is no longer restricted to child­hood, but has become a lifelong attitude: “The mark of postmodern adulthood is the willingness to embrace the game whole-heartedly.”⁵ Bauman’s remark sug­gests that in postmodern culture identity has become a playful phenomenon too.In this article we want to re-visit Johan Huizinga’s Homo ludens (1938) to reflect on the meaning of ludic technologies in contemporary culture. First we will analyze the concept of “play”. Next, we will discuss some problematic aspects of Huizinga’s theory, which are connected with the fundamental ambigu­ities that characterize play phenomena, and reformulate some of the basic ideas of Huizinga. On the basis of this reformulation we will analyze the ludic dimen­sion of new media and sketch an outline of our theory of ludic identity construc­tion.

Jos de Mul, Kunstmatig van nature. Onderweg naar Homo sapiens 3.0. Essay van de Maand van de Filosofie. Rotterdam: Lemiscaat: 2014.

ISBN 978 90 4770 650 2
NUR 730

In Kunstmatig van nature bespreekt Jos de Mul de betekenis van recente ontwikkelingen in de robotica, neurowetenschappen en biotechnologie voor ons zelfbegrip en dagelijks leven. Wat te denken van de Japanse humanoïde robot Miim, ontworpen door Kazuhito Yokoi, die kan dansen, zingen en kleding showen op de catwalk? Zullen dergelijke robots dankzij erotische programmatuur, net als in de sciencefiction-serie Real Humans, een commercieel succes worden? Of neem het experiment van de Amerikaanse neurowetenschapper Miguel Nicolelis die elektroden in de hersenen van een resusaapje heeft aangebracht om de neuronenactiviteit tijdens zijn bewegingen te registeren. De aldus verkregen informatie brengt via het internet elders in de wereld de robot CB-1 in beweging. Een kleine stap voor de robot, maar een gigantische sprong voor het aapje -- en mogelijk in de nabije toekomst ook voor dwarslaesiepatiënten.

Op biotechnologisch gebied heeft men alternatieven ontwikkeld voor het DNA, het ‘bouwplan’ van al het leven. Terwijl de evolutie ooit bestond uit natuurlijke selectie, betreden we met deze alien genetics het tijdperk van kunstmatige selectie. Mogen we hiermee planten, dieren en mensen ‘verbeteren’? Deze nieuwe technologieën vergroten niet alleen onze kennis van het leven op aarde -- ze zijn allang begonnen dat leven fundamenteel te transformeren. Wie we zijn en wat we willen worden, is meer dan ooit een open vraag, een opgave. Zijn wij, ‘de eeuwig toekomstigen’ volgens Nietzsche, onderweg naar Homo sapiens 3.0?

‘Worden wij de eerste soort op aarde die zijn eigen evolutionaire opvolger gaat scheppen?’ -- Jos de Mul

‘Grote eruditie en lucide kijk op veranderingen in de hedendaagse cultuur.’ -- Marc Van den Bossche over Cyberspace Odyssee in Standaard der Letteren

‘Gloedvol pleidooi voor een tragisch levensbesef.’ -- Arnold Heumakers over De domesticatie van het noodlot in nrc Handelsblad  

 'Ik wou dat ik als student zoiets had kunnen lezen' - Piet Hut (Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton) over Kunstmatig van nature

Uit de recensies 

'In het derde hoofdstuk, over robots, krijgt De Muls betoog [...] vleugels. De Zweedse televisieserie Real humans biedt tal van aanknopingspunten voor een boeiend betoog' --- Marcel Hulspas in de Volkskrant

'De speculatieve antropologie die De Mul zegt te beoefenen is  een vorm van filosofische sciencefiction' - Arnold Heumakers in NRC Handelsblad

'Het is een boeiende gedachtegang die De Mul [...] aangaat, maar ook één die allerlei vragen oproept.' --- Marc Janssens in het Nederlands Dagblad

'Met Jos de Mul hebben we te maken met een variant van de idiot savant, de krankzinnige professor, en een nuchtere wetenschapper. Die twee wisselen elkaar voortdurend af. Hij weet idioot veel van wat zich allemaal afspeelt in de biologie, de astronomie, kunstmatige intelligentie, biotechnologie, neurologie of ecologie' --- Carel Peeters in Vrij Nederland

‘Stof tot nadenken dus, op een zeer bevattelijke manier gebracht. Een aanrader.’ --- Jan Matthys in Liberales

'Een zeer verontrustend essay' ---- Ab Blaas, Humanistisch Verbond

'De term ‘onderweg’ die in de ondertitel voorkomt typeert de inhoud van het boek heel goed. Wat wordt geschetst is een evolutionair perspectief. Daarbij komt de gehele ons bekende wereld wel zo ongeveer aan bod. Voor wat betreft het begin wordt aangeknoopt bij de Big Bang theorie, die moderne oerei-mythe. Gelukkig haalt De Mul er de stelligheid uit die vele presentaties van de betreffende denkbeelden ontsiert. En hetzelfde geldt voor zijn beschrijving van het evolutionaire proces dat uiteindelijk – of zo men wil: voorlopig  –  heeft geleid tot de  mens. [...] De Mul houdt een voorzichtiger lijn aan: “Dysons idee dat we de biotechnologie weldra zullen hebben gedomesticeerd , is al met al tamelijk naïef en getuigt van een grote mate van technologische hybris”. Het is mij uit het hart gegrepen'- Harm Bart in Civis Mundi

Uitgeverij Lemniscaat & Stichting Maand van de Filosofie | Omslagbeeld uit sf-serie Real Humans Omslagontwerp: Marc Suvaal | Pb. 206 pagina’s  | isbn 978 90 477 0631 1

Jos de Mul. From open design to metadesign. Keynote lecture at the international conference 3D printing: destiny, doom or dream? eLaw@Leiden, Leiden University, 14 and 15 November, 2013.

In recent years 3D printing has become a hot topic in the media, in industry and in academia. Some claim that 3D printing will enable us to print, rather than buy, all of the products we normally obtain from stores – from clothing and automobile parts to different foods and jewelry. Moreover, with 3D printing we may in the future be able to print organs and tissues, and hence alleviate or solve the suffering of those in need of transplants. With solutions to pressing problems ranging from organ shortages to reducing our environmental footprint through less waste, less transport costs, to more innovation, creativity and personalization some argue that 3D printing is a heavenly destiny indeed.

At the same time, however, there are also critical voices to be heard. First and foremost, while 3D printing has been on the market for some decades now, the public at large has yet to get to know it in practice, let alone to adopt it for their personal production purposes. Techniques and technologies for 3D printing have developed drastically over time, but the mass deployment of this technology is only just picking up momentum. Moreover, research and development with respect to the applications mentioned above – printing your own food or a new organ – are still in their infancy and will probably take decades to come to maturity. These points have led critics to suggest that the big dreams behind 3D printing may turn out to be the hallucinations of a hyped-up new prospect, forever receding over the horizon. 

Finally, 3D printing raises serious social, ethical, regulatory and legal questions. If individuals can print anything they want, how are we going to solve issues of, for example, gun control or intellectual property infringement? What will be the effects of home-printed goods and foods on our economy, on the transport sector, on the worldwide hunt for scarce resources? Does this new technology need regulation, and if so, how will we regulate it, and with which purposes? What is the effect of a level playing field for producing goods on innovation and creativity?

These and many other question will be addressed during the two-day international, multidisciplinary conference ‘3D printing: destiny, doom or dream?, which will take place on 14 and 15 November 2013 at Leiden University’s Law School in the Netherlands. This conference is organised by eLaw, the Centre for Law in the Information Society, and is part of its biannual conference series.

Jos de Mul. Destiny Domesticated. The Rebirth of Tragedy Out of the Spirit of Technology. State University of New York (SUNY) Press, 2014. 

Destiny Domesticated investigates three approaches Western civilization has tried to tame fate: the heroic affirmation of fate in the tragic culture of the Greeks, the humble acceptance of divine providence in Christianity, and the abolition of fate in modern technological society. Against this background, Jos de Mul argues that the uncontrollability of technology introduces its own tragic dimension to our culture. Considering a range of literary texts and contemporary events, and drawing on twenty-five centuries of tragedy interpretation from philosophers such as Aristotle, Hegel, Nietzsche, and Heidegger, literary critics George Steiner and Terry Eagleton, and others, de Mul articulates a contemporary perspective on the tragic, shedding new light on philosophical topics such as free will, determinism, and the contingency of life.

Hard cover - 358 pages 
$90.00 hc 
ISBN 978-1-4384-4971-5

Electronic - 358 pages
$27.95
ISBN13: 978-1-4384-4973-9

Paperback - 358 pages
$27.95
ISBN13: 978-1-4384-4972-2
Release Date: January 2015

SUNY Press
state university of new york press
1-877-204-6073 • This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. • www.sunypress.edu

REVIEWS

“The most important merit of the book is to propose a convincing definition of man and his relation to technology. With regard to the first aspect, de Mul occupies a middle position between the modern philosophies of the subject and the postmodern philosophies which have deconstructed it. As opposed to the Cartesian transparent and self-evident cogito, he argues that there are forces inside and outside man which make us often act against our own expectations. Unlike the contemporary heirs of the masters of suspicion Marx, Nietzsche and Freud, he does not believe that the subject is a mere illusion. The tragic definition of the subject is halfway between these two exaggerations. The tragic man is at the same time powerful and powerless, autonomous and limited, strong and fragile, and there is a surprising continuity between the ancient Greek man and the contemporary human being. Maybe the truth is that we have always been tragic – we have never been modern – but for a long period we have acted as if it was the case. As regards our relation to technology, too, de Mul’s position is halfway between two extremes. In contrast to a certain – especially continental – philosophy of technology of the twentieth century, represented by authors like Heidegger, Ellul, and Marcuse, he does not think that technology is intrinsically destructive forman. Yet it does not mean that technology is simply neutral, according to him. The tragic man deals with technology without unjustified fear, but he is aware of its power.

Thanks to this clear perspective, the text can have a relevant role in the contemporary philosophical debate on technology. Although it was originally published in Dutch in 2006, its ideas are current more than ever.”

Alberto Romele

 约斯·德·穆尔 著，吕和应译：《有限性的悲剧：狄尔泰的生命释义学》，上海：上海三联书店出版社2013年版

作者: 约斯·德·穆尔　[荷] Jos de Mul 
出版社: 上海三联书店
副标题: 狄尔泰的生命释义学
原作名: The Tragedy of Finitude. Dilthey's Hermeneutics of Life. Yale University Press, 2004/2010.

One of the founders of modern hermeneutics, German philosopher Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911) confronted the question of how modern, postmetaphysical human beings can cope with the ambivalence, contingency, and finitude that fundamentally characterize their lives. This book offers a reevaluation and fresh analysis of Dilthey’s hermeneutics of life against the background of the development of philosophy during the past two centuries.

 Amazon.com review of reader

Jos de Mul and Renée van de Vall (eds.). Gimme Shelter. Global Discourses in Aesthetics. International Yearbook of Aesthetics. Vol. 15. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2013.

Gimme Shelter. Global discourses in aesthetics contains a series of reflections on the impact of globalization on the arts and the aesthetic reflection on the arts. The authors – fifteen distinguished  aestheticians from all over the world -   discuss a variety of aesthetic questions brought forth by the aforementioned process of globalization. How do artistic practices and aesthetic experiences change in response to these developments? How should we articulate these changes on the theoretical level? When reflections on the significance of art and aesthetic experiences can no longer pretend to be universal, is it still possible to lay claim to  a wider validity than merely that of one’s own particular culture? What type of vocabulary allows for mutual – dialogical or even polylogical – exchanges and understandings when different traditions meet, without obliterating local differences? Is there a possibility for a creative re-description of globalization? And is there a meaning of ‘the global’ that cannot be reduced to universalism and unification? Can we seek shelter in a legitimate way?

Free download of the entire book (Open Access edition)

Jos de Mul, Forever online? Een socratische monoloog over de sociale media. Biddinghuizen: Lowlands, 17 augustus 2013.

Steeds meer mensen brengen steeds meer tijd door op de sociale media. Doen we daar wel goed aan? Met een verwijzing naar Plato's bespreking van de sociale media uit zijn tijd (het toen in opmars zijnde schrift) zal Jos de Mul ingaan op het nut en het nadeel van de sociale media voor ons leven.

Jos de Mul, RayFish Footwear, or the age of the biotechnological sublime.  Invited lecture at the 19th International Congress of Aesthetics. Krakow: Jagiellonian University, July 23, 2013.

The notion of the sublime, which since the nineteenth century is one of the dominant aesthetic categories, is strongly connected with (the artistic representation of) overwhelming nature. In my talk I will argue that in the course of the 20th century the sublime increasingly becomes entangled with the experience of technology. However, in the age of biotechnologies, such as genetic modification and synthetic biology, the sublime regains a natural dimension. Illustrated by RayFish Footware and some other striking examples of recent 'bio-art' it will be argued that in the age of biotechnology the difference between nature, technology and art will gradually vanish, and new dimensions of the sublime will become manifest.