(Bloomsbury Studies in Continental Philosophy) Scott Campbell, Paul W. Bruno (Eds.) - The Science, Politics, and Ontology of Life-Philosophy-Bloomsbury Academic (2013)

The Science, Politics, and
Ontology of Life-Philosophy
Bloomsbury Studies in Philosophy

Bloomsbury Studies in Philosophy presents cutting-edge scholarship in all the
major areas of research and study. The wholly original arguments, perspectives
and research findings in titles in this series make it an important and
stimulating resource for students and academics from a range of disciplines
across the humanities and social sciences.
Available in the series:
Aesthetic and Artistic Autonomy, edited by Owen Hulatt
Art, Language and Figure in Merleau-Ponty, Rajiv Kaushik
Art, Myth and Society in Hegels Aesthetics, David James
The Challenge of Relativism, Patrick J. J. Phillips
The Cognitive Value of Philosophical Fiction, Jukka Mikkonen
The Demands of Taste in Kants Aesthetics, Brent Kalar
Descartes and the Metaphysics of Human Nature, edited by Justin Skirry
Dialectic of Romanticism, Peter Murphy and David Roberts
The Dialectics of Aesthetic Agency, Ayon Maharaj
Kant: The Art of Judgment in Aesthetic Education, Pradeep Dhillon
Kants Aesthetic Theory, David Berger
Kants Concept of Genius, Paul W. Bruno
Kants Transcendental Arguments, Scott Stapleford
Kierkegaard, Metaphysics and Political Theory, Alison Assiter
Metaphysics and the End of Philosophy, H. O. Mounce
The Philosophy of Art: The Question of Definition, Tiziana Andina
Poppers Theory of Science, Carlos Garcia
Virtue Epistemology, Stephen Napier
The Science, Politics, and

Ontology of Life-Philosophy
Edited by
Scott M. Campbell and
Paul W. Bruno
L ON DON N E W DE L H I N E W Y OR K SY DN EY
Bloomsbury Academic
An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

50 Bedford Square
London
WC1B 3DP
UK
175 Fifth Avenue

New York
NY 10010
USA
www.bloomsbury.com
First published 2013
Scott M. Campbell, Paul W. Bruno, and Contributors, 2013
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval
system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers.
No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on
or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can
be accepted by Bloomsbury Academic or the author.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
EISBN: 978-1-4411-1298-9
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

The science, politics, and ontology of life-philosophy /
edited by Scott M. Campbell and Paul W. Bruno.
pages cm. (Bloomsbury studies in philosophy)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-4411-2353-4 ISBN 978-1-4411-2733-4 (epub)
ISBN 978-1-4411-1298-9 (pdf) 1. Life.
I. Campbell, Scott M. (Scott McElroy) editor of compilation.
BD431.S2883 2013
113.8dc23
2012049946
Typeset by Newgen Imaging Systems Pvt Ltd, Chennai, India
Contents
Notes on Contributors
Acknowledgments
Editors Introduction Scott M. Campbell and Paul W. Bruno
vii
xii
xiii
Part I Life-Contexts in Dilthey, Nietzsche, and Bergson
1 Dilthey as a Philosopher of Life Rudolf A. Makkreel

2 Biological and Historical Life: Heidegger between Levinas
and Dilthey Eric S. Nelson
3 Your Money or Your Life: Using Nietzsches Critique of Mechanism
and Platonism to Defend the Biosphere Ronnie Hawkins
4 The Comprehensive Meaning of Life in Bergson Florence Caeymaex
Part II Converging Technologies
15
31
47
65
5 Information, Self-Reference, and the Magical Realism of Life

H. Peter Steeves
6 The Artificialization of Life: Designing Self-Organization
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
7 eLife: From Biology to Technology and Back Again Jos de Mul
8 Philosophy of Life in the Age of Information: Seinsgeschichte
and the Task of an Ontology of Ourselves Charles Bonner
109
Part III Life, Power, Politics
121
9 Without Inside or Outside: Nietzsche, Pluralism, and the

Problem of the Unity of Human Experience Michael J. ONeill
10 Anachronism and Powerlessness: An Essay on Postmodernism
Leonard Lawlor
11 Taking Hold of Life: Liberal Eugenics, Autonomy, and Biopower
Serena Parekh
67
79
93
123
141
157
vi
Contents
Part IV Philosophies of Life

12 The Care of the Self and The Gift of Death: Foucault and
Derrida on Learning How to Live Edward F. McGushin
13 The Tragic Sense of Life in Heideggers Readings of Antigone
Scott M. Campbell
14 Living the Pyrrhonian Way Stephen R. L. Clark
15 Intuition as the Business of Philosophy: Wittgenstein and
Philosophys Turn to Life Neil Turnbull
16 On Life and Desire: Kant, Lewontin, and Girard Paul W. Bruno
17 The Wisdom of Emotions Jason J. Howard
18 History in the Service of Life: Nietzsches Genealogy
Allison M. Merrick
Index
169
171
185
197
211
223
237
249
261
Charles Bonner earned his PhD in Philosophy from Boston University. He
has worked at various research institutes and private universities in Europe
for more than a decade. His background is in the natural sciences, and he has
taught courses in a wide range of topics, including environmental philosophy
and contemporary continental philosophy. Current research interests and
publications focus on the study of the information age. He teaches at Providence
College in Providence, Rhode Island.
Paul W. Bruno is an Associate Professor of Philosophy in the Department of
Psychology & Philosophy at Framingham State University in Massachusetts.
He is the author of Kants Concept of Genius: Its Origin and Function in the
Third Critique (Continuum, 2010). His recent work has concentrated on ethics
and life.
Florence Caeymaex is an Associate Researcher at the Belgian National Fund for
Scientific Research (F.R.S.-FNRS) and is the director of the Political Philosophy
and Critical Philosophy of Norms Research Unit at the University of Liege in
Belgium. She is the author of Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, Bergson: The Existentialist
Phenomenologies and Their Bergsonian Heritage (Olms, 2005) and of many
articles dedicated to Bergson. Her recent work has concentrated on the political
issues relating to contemporary biopower.
Scott M. Campbell is Professor and Chair of the Philosophy Department at
Nazareth College in Rochester, NY. His major research interest is in the nature
of the human being and the exploration of that nature through a philosophical
analysis of the concept of life. In particular, he is interested in the problem of
language and the role that language plays in human life. He has written on issues
in education and communication, especially as these relate to the notion of the
practical in the early work of Martin Heidegger. He has published The Early
Heideggers Philosophy of Life (Fordham University Press, 2012) and a translation
of Heideggers Basic Problems of Phenomenology from the Winter Semester of
1919/20 (Bloomsbury, 2013).
viii
Stephen R. L. Clark, formerly a Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford (196875),

Lecturer in Moral Philosophy at the University of Glasgow (197483), and
Professor of Philosophy at the University of Liverpool (19842009), is now
retired from paid employment. He continues to manage an international e-list
for philosophers, and to serve as Associate Editor of the British Journal for the
History of Philosophy. His books include Aristotles Man (1975), The Moral Status
of Animals (1977), From Athens to Jerusalem (1984), The Mysteries of Religion
(1986), Civil Peace and Sacred Order (1989), How to Live Forever (1995), Biology
and Christian Ethics (2000), G.K.Chesterton: Thinking Backwards, Looking
Forwards (2006), Understanding Faith (2009), Philosophical Futures (2011) and
Ancient Mediterranean Philosophy (2012). He is married to Professor Gillian
Clark of Bristol University, with three adult children and one grandson. His
chief current interests are in the philosophy of Plotinus, the understanding and
treatment of nonhuman animals, and in science fiction.
Jean-Pierre Dupuy is Professor Emeritus of Social and Political Philosophy,
Ecole Polytechnique, Paris and Professor of Political Science, Stanford University.
He is a member of the French Academy of Technology and of the Conseil
Gnral des Mines, the French High Magistracy that oversees and regulates
industry, energy and the environment. He chairs the Ethics Committee of the
French High Authority on Nuclear Safety and Security. He is the Director of the
Research Program of Imitatio, a new foundation devoted to the dissemination
and discussion of Ren Girards mimetic theory. His most recent work has
dealt with the topic of catastrophe, and is being translated and collected in a
volume to be published by Stanford University Press. Among his most recent
publications: The Mechanization of the Mind (Princeton University Press,
2000); Pour un catastrophisme clair (Paris, Seuil, 2002); Avions-nous oubli
le mal? Penser la politique aprs le 11 septembre (Paris, Bayard, 2002); Petite
mtaphysique des tsunamis (Paris, Seuil, 2005); Retour de Tchernobyl: Journal
dun homme en colre (Paris, Seuil, 2006); On the Origins of Cognitive Science
(MIT Press, 2009); La Marque du sacr (Paris, Carnets Nord, 2009); Dans lil du
cyclone (Carnets Nord, 2009); LAvenir de lconomie (Flammarion, 2012).
Ronnie Hawkins recently retired from a tenured position in the department of
philosophy at the University of Central Florida. She has a degree in medicine
(MD) and completed a residency in anatomic pathology before earning a
doctorate in philosophy. Her interest lies in bringing together discourses that
see humans biologically, in evolutionary and ecological contexts, with those
that consider humans philosophically. She believes a change in our dominant
ix
mode of thought is needed to reverse humanitys biosphere-destroying

trajectory.
Jason J. Howard is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Viterbo University,
La Crosse, WI. He has published on Kant, Hegel, Schelling, and in the fields
of moral psychology, and aesthetics. Currently he is writing a monograph on
the problem of the moral conscience. A short list of some of his publications
include: The Spirit of Emotions, Hegel-Jahrbuch (2010): 198201; Schelling
and Paleolithic Cave Painting: On the Appeal of Aesthetic Experience,
Idealistic Studies 40(12) (Spring/Summer 2010): 10215; Emotions of SelfAssessment and Self-Care: Cultivating an Ethical Conscience, Thinking 19(4)
(Fall 2010): 2432; The Historicity of Moral Categories, in Hegel and History,
ed., Will Dudley (SUNY Press, 2009), 15577; and Kant and Moral Imputation:
Conscience and the Riddle of the Given, American Catholic Philosophical
Quarterly 78(2004): 60927.
Leonard Lawlor is Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of Philosophy at Penn State
University. He is the author of several books including: Early Twentieth Century
Continental Philosophy (Indiana University Press, 2011); and This is not Sufficient:
An Essay on Animality in Derrida (Columbia University Press, 2007). He is one
of the coeditors and cofounders of Chiasmi International: Trilingual Studies
Concerning the Thought of Merleau-Ponty.
Rudolf A. Makkreel is Charles Howard Candler Professor Emeritus of
Philosophy at Emory University and the author of Dilthey, Philosopher of the
Human Studies (Princeton 1975, 1992); Imagination and Interpretation in Kant:
The Hermeneutical Import of the Critique of Judgment (Chicago, 1990, 1995).
Coeditor of a multi-volume translation of Diltheys Selected Works with Princeton
UP (Volume 1: Introduction to the Human Sciences, Volume 2: Understanding
the Human World, Volume 3: The Formation of the Historical World in the
Human Sciences, Volume 4: Hermeneutics and the Study of History, Volume 5:
Poetry and Experience) and of Dilthey and Phenomenology (University Press of
America, 1987); The Ethics of History (Northwestern, 2004); Neo-Kantianism
in Contemporary Philosophy (Indiana, 2010); Recent Contributions to Diltheys
Philosophy of the Human Sciences (fromann-holzboog, 2011). He is currently
at work on a book entitled An Orientational Hermeneutics: On Judgment and
Critique in Interpretation. He was an Alexander von Humboldt Fellow in 19789
and the Editor of the Journal of the History of Philosophy from 1983 until 1998.
He also received grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities,
DAAD, Thyssen Foundation, and Volkswagen Foundation.
Edward F. McGushin is an Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy

at Stonehill College. He earned his PhD in Philosophy at Boston College. He has
been an international resident at the cole normale suprieure in Paris. McGushin
is the author of Foucaults Asksis: An Introduction to the Philosophical Life
(Northwestern University Press, 2007) as well as articles on Foucault, Derrida,
and contemporary continental philosophy.
Allison M. Merrick is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of
Arkansas at Little Rock with research interests in nineteenth-century philosophy
and the philosophy of history.
Jos de Mul is Professor in Philosophical Anthropology and its History and head
of the section Philosophy of Man and Culture. Moreover, he is the Scientific
Director of the research institute Philosophy of Information and Communication
Technology (FICT) and visiting fellow at the Institute of Advanced Study in
Princeton. De Mul studied Philosophy in Utrecht and Amsterdam and in 1993
he obtained his PhD (cum laude) at the Radboud University Nijmegen with
a thesis in which he reconstructed Wilhelm Diltheys Kritik der historischen
Vernunft (Critique of Historical Reason). De Muls research focuses on the (partly
overlapping) domains of philosophical anthropology, philosophy of art and
culture, and the philosophy of information and communication technologies. His
work has been published and/or translated in a dozen languages. Among his books
are Romantic Desire in (Post)Modern Art and Philosophy (State University of New
York Press, 1999), The Tragedy of Finitude (Yale University Press, 2004), Cyberspace
Odyssey (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2010), and Destiny Domesticated. The
Rebirth of Tragedy out of the Spirit of Technology (forthcoming).
Eric S. Nelson is Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of
Massachusetts, Lowell. He is especially interested in the encounter, interaction,
and conflict among different forms of life, systems of practice and belief, and
styles of thought. His areas of research include ethics, hermeneutics, and the
philosophy of culture, nature, and religion. He is the coeditor, with Francois
Raffoul, of the Bloomsbury Companion to Heidegger (forthcoming) and Rethinking
Facticity (SUNY, 2008) as well as coeditor, with Antje Kapust and Kent Still, of
Addressing Levinas (Northwestern University Press, 2005).
Michael J. ONeill is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Providence College
in Providence, Rhode Island, USA. He received his PhD from The Catholic
University of America in Washington, DC. His interests include political
philosophy, the philosophy of history and British idealism. He and his wife Lisa
live in Franklin, MA with their three children.
xi
Serena Parekh is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Northeastern University

in Boston. Prior to this, Professor Parekh taught at the University of Connecticut
where she was jointly appointed in the Department of Philosophy and the Human
Rights Institute. Her primary philosophical interests are in social and political
philosophy, feminist theory, and continental philosophy. Her book, Hannah
Arendt and the Challenge of Modernity: A Phenomenology of Human Rights, was
published by Routledge in 2008 and recently translated into Chinese. She has
also published numerous articles on social and political philosophy in Hypatia,
Philosophy and Social Criticism, and the Journal of Global Ethics. Her current
research focuses broadly on global justice, responsibility, and statelessness.
H. Peter Steeves is Professor of Philosophy at DePaul University where he
specializes in ethics, social/political philosophy, and phenomenology. He is the
author of several books, including: Founding Community: A PhenomenologicalEthical Inquiry (1998); Animal Others: On Ethics, Ontology, and Animal Life
(1999); and The Things Themselves: Phenomenology and the Return to the
Everyday (2006).
Neil Turnbull is Principal Lecturer in Philosophy at Nottingham Trent
University. He is the author of numerous articles and book chapters, as well as
Politics, Psyche and Soma (Humanities Press, 2013, forthcoming) and Modernity
and the Worlds of Science (Eerdmans 2013, forthcoming). He is also currently
the editor of the journal Radical Orthodoxy: Theology, Philosophy, Politics.
Acknowledgments
The remote origins of this book of essays can surely be traced back to the
editors friendship that began years ago as graduate students in the Philosophy
Department at Boston College. In conversations that have ranged from the
philosophical to the personal, it is fair to say that we share the conviction that
philosophy can tell us something about how to live. To be sure, neither of us
believes that philosophy provides ready-made answers, a rulebook for life, so to
speak. Indeed, finding out what philosophy says about life is the task itself. The
desire to pursue a collection of philosophical essays about life reflects, at least in
part, conversations that each of us has had with our students, colleagues, friends,
family, mentors, and with each other for many years. In particular, the editors
would like to recognize Marianne Campbell, Ann Lightcap Bruno, Oscar Bruno,
Ada Bruno, William Richardson SJ, P. Christopher Smith, Jacques Taminiaux,
Joseph Flanagan SJ, Fred Lawrence, Richard Kearney, Richard Cobb-Stevens,
James Bernauer SJ, Gary Gurtler SJ, John Edelman, Patricia Bowen-Moore, Heidi
Northwood, Deb Dooley, Sara Varhus, Mark McCloud, and Joseph DAndrea. We
also would like to acknowledge the contributors to this volume. The experience
of reading and editing these essays has been an education in itself. It was a
pleasure to work with them on this project, and we are grateful to all of our
contributors for sharing their insights and making us think differently about life.
We also had the pleasure of working with an outstanding team of publishers at
Bloomsbury Academic. In particular, we are very grateful to Rachel Eisenhauer,
Assistant Editor for Philosophy and Religious Studies, as well as Colleen Coalter
and James Tupper. At Newgen Imaging Systems, we would like to express our
sincere thanks to Srikanth Srinivasan for excellent copy-editing work. Lastly, we
would like to thank the Philosophy Departments at Boston College, Nazareth
College, and Framingham State University. Generous support from The Center
for Excellence in Learning, Teaching, Scholarship, and Service (CELTSS) at
Framingham State University as well as a Summer Grant from Nazareth College
helped to make this book possible.
Editors Introduction
The biosphere, the right to life, life-support, neurobiology, biotechnology,
genetic engineering, DNA, life coach, life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness, the good life. These words and other phrases are blithely spoken and
understood in popular discourse, but what life meansunderstood contextually,
historically, intentionally, unintentionally, implicitlyis rarely addressed in any
substantive way.
In the most fundamental way, the question of life is at the root of the
scientific, the political, and the ontological. Scientific developments have had
an extraordinary impact on the ways we human beings intervene on natural
biological processes. In the political realm questions of life underlie moral and
legal questions about how we live in a social and political community. Indeed,
questions of life get to the root of what is biologically, anthropologically, and
ontologically.
The purview of the modern natural sciences has set the conditions for the
kinds of questions asked, and consequently, the kinds of answers offered in
response to questions about life. But as scientific disciplines develop, splinter,
and specialize, we can easily forget to consider the consequences of unforeseen
developments. Indeed, the technological threatand how many ever consider
technological progress a threatmay well be the result of technologys
increasing power, a power that runs the risk of slipping out of our control.
Instead of technology being a tool of human control and mastery, the time has
come for us to take seriously the possibility that technology bears the potential
to overwhelm us. If we recognize the etymological roots of the Greek techne as
the creation of some product after a rational (logos) plan, we must also recognize
now that the rational plan calls for, in some instances, technologys autonomy,
self-organization, and nonlinear organization. As such, the question, What
is? enters the picture on the doorstep of life (bios).
So, what is the meaning of life? Philosophers frequently hear this question,
sometimes asked aggressively and defiantly. The question is vast and not given to
pithy answers. There is a tradition of life-philosophy, which extends back to the
work of Wilhelm Dilthey, Henri Bergson, and Friedrich Nietzsche, to which we
can turn to start answering this question, and that is the goal of this volume of
xiv
essays, to retrieve and then extend the work of these life-philosophers in order
to ask about the meaning of life. Immediately, though, we find that when we try
to answer this question, What is the meaning of life? we place it in the context
of our individual lives. This single question breaks apart into a constellation of
questions and problems we face as individual people trying to live meaningful
lives.
We restricted the scope of this book to three themes: science, politics, and
ontology. Scientific and technological advances have brought about significant
changes in our daily lives, but there is a need to think more deeply about how these
advances are changing our understanding of life itself, at both a biological level
and, more particularly, at a human level. Every political ideology presupposes
certain ideas about human life, and they harbor ideas and strategies about how
to manage and structure peoples lives. Understanding the idea of human life
contained within political ideologies and challenging those very assumptions
can significantly enhance our approach to politics as well as our understanding
of the changes to our lives that politics can bring about. It is perhaps something
of a surprise to see ontology connected to the idea of life. In philosophy since
Plato, ontology has meant metaphysics, whose sense of eternity stands in contrast
to the moving flow of life. As we show in this book, however, the study of life
is the study of who we are and of what makes all life to be what it is. Essays in
this volume develop philosophies of life, thus addressing the subtle and nuanced
relations among life, ontology, and metaphysics.
Of course, there are many books on the market these days that purport to
tell us something about the meaning of life. Too often, though, those texts view
life in terms of self-help or motivation and not as genuine philosophy. In them,
philosophical thinking is construed as being aimed at self-improvement, and
thus perhaps as a branch of psychology. But the tradition of life-philosophy
addresses fundamental problems about the meaning of life, and it does so in
a way that is academically rigorous and intellectually stimulating. Indeed, the
topic of life can have more than just academic appeal without becoming a mode
of self-help. Scholars can appreciate this book, but it is also accessible to a general
audience. These essays are academic, but highly readable, and someone with no
formal training in philosophy can benefit from them.
Our goal here is not only to retrieve the tradition of life-philosophy (as we
see, for example, in Dilthey, Bergson, and Nietzsche), but also to show how
innovative and original interpretations of philosophers from the ancient to the
contemporary reveal new ways of thinking about life. Although every essay is
written by a philosopher, there is, nonetheless, an interdisciplinary quality to the
xv
volume. While focusing on the broad themes of science, politics, and ontology, it
includes essays with topics as diverse as biology, technology, ancient philosophy,
phenomenology, post-structuralism, deconstruction, history, liberalism, the
environment, emotions, Greek tragedy, and the philosophy of history. In spite
of this wide array of topics and themes, there is a single, unifying focus to the
book, and that is the concept of life, at least insofar as life can be contained by
a concept. Each essay takes up the concept or, perhaps, the notion of life from a
different perspective and from within the context of a different thinker or variety
of thinkers.
For many reasons, we believe that the topic of this volume is both timely
and important. It reaffirms the importance of life to the activity of philosophy.
Somewhere along the way, philosophy largely abandoned Lebensphilosophie in
favor of logical analysis. We want this book to help restore to life its fundamental
place within philosophical discussion and practice. Second, this volume
is historically oriented. It retrieves that tradition and then goes further, to
open up new areas of inquiry, some of which are inspired by the traditional
life-philosophers and some of which stand in opposition to their work. Third, this
volume addresses serious practical and theoretical problems. From the dangers of
new technologies to significant confusions about eugenics, biology, democratic
liberalism, human emotions, and history, this volume confronts problems that
pertain to life and attempts to address those problems in thoughtful, meaningful,
philosophical ways.
This volume divides into four sections: I: Life-Contexts in Dilthey, Nietzsche,
and Bergson. II: Converging Technologies. III: Life, Power, Politics. IV:
Philosophies of Life.
The first section, Life-Contexts in Dilthey, Nietzsche, and Bergson directly
addresses the work of the classical life-philosophers. It serves as an introduction
to these thinkers and to the tradition of life-philosophy, but this section does
more than simply introduce a topic. These essays show how philosophers attempt
to grasp the historical sense of life over and against a scientific or mechanistic
one.
The first essay, by Rudolf A. Makkreel, is entitled Dilthey as a Philosopher
of Life. For Wilhelm Dilthey life itself serves as the overarching context for all
of our experiences. Life is, as Makkreel writes, an overall context that frames
not only all natural inquiry but all human spiritual strivings and historical
concerns. This context of life is what is given to us immediately. We cannot
go behind or beyond it. Makkreel shows how Dilthey develops a critique, in
the Kantian sense, of historical reason that might ground the human sciences
xvi
as Kant had grounded the natural sciences, to show the extent to which human
consciousness can be traced back to its roots in the historical development of
human beings. This historical embeddedness of life can also be used to explain
how ethical concerns are rooted in the life-context of human drives and impulses.
In Makkreels essay, we see just how much life itself provides the primary context
for human concerns and serves as a frame, a primary nexus of reference, for all
of our historical, cultural, and spiritual experiences.
Eric S. Nelson takes up the themes of life and nature from a
phenomenological perspective in his essay, Biological and Historical
Life: Heidegger between Levinas and Dilthey. He looks at Heideggers
hermeneutics of factical life as well as Levinass turn toward transcendence
in order to evaluate the relationship between Husserls transcendental
philosophy and naturalism. Nelson shows how Levinas discerns in
Heideggerian ontology a kind of naturalism that is inherently inadequate
to the ethical, since it excuses violence. In the early Heidegger, however,
which is informed by Diltheys hermeneutical and historically oriented
life-philosophy, we find a life beyond naturalism. This is a dimension
of Heideggers work that, according to Nelson, Levinas seems to miss. In
a wide-ranging analysis, Nelson looks at language, hermeneutics, and the
body to show how the meaningful, linguistic, and historical contexts of
human experience are operative in Heideggers understanding of life.
Ronnie Hawkins invokes the work of Nietzsche and Schopenhauer in her
essay, Your Money or Your Life: Using Nietzsches Critique of Mechanism and
Platonism to Defend the Biosphere, as a counterpoint to the way in which
mechanistic thinking is threatening the environment, or biosphere, the term
she uses and which captures the realm of life within which all things exist.
Mechanistic thinking makes living things quantifiable and calculable and,
thus, subject to economic forces. Hawkins traces Nietzsches notion of the will
to power back to Schopenhauers idea of the will to live in order to resuscitate
a conceptual framework that might challenge the mechanistic paradigm that
is dominating our understanding of life and is subjecting it to manipulation
and quantification. Both the mechanistic paradigm and, she says, the Platonic
paradigm, are deadening life and rendering it inert. Life is becoming lifeless.
Nietzsches monster of energy, the will to power that recurs eternally in the
realm of life, can show us just how much things are centers of force with a will
of their own. Then we may, in the spirit of Nietzsches bermensch, reject the
monetary advantages that come from quantifying life. In doing so, we may save
the biosphere and our own lives.
xvii
The final essay in this section on the classical life-philosophers is by Florence

Caeymaex. Her essay, The Comprehensive Meaning of Life in Bergson,
presents the essential features of Bergsons philosophy of life through a close
reading of certain key sections of Creative Evolution, emphasizing the central
idea of duration and the image of the vital impetus. Bergsons metaphysical
understanding of life, based on intuition, offers a new way of thinking about
knowledge. Caeymaex relates Bergsons ideas about life to both his metaphysics
and his epistemology in a wide-ranging discussion that includes explorations of
time, aging, the living body, memory, and the evolution of the eye. She shows
how intuition, duration, and the image of the vital impetus help us to conceive
of an intelligence that can think about the vitality of living beings, and vice versa.
She writes, If the notion of duration is the crossroads of all the problems taken
up in Bergsons metaphysics, it is, nevertheless, starting from our experience of
living beings that we are able to grasp its scope and meaning.
The second section of this volume is entitled Converging Technologies,
a reference to the convergence, and thus integration, of nanotechnology,
biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science (NBIC). Some
of the essays in this section address NBIC directly. Overall, though, these
essays reflect our changing ideas about human life in light of technological
advances and scientific discoveries. H. Peter Steeves, in his essay Information,
Self-Reference, and the Magical Realism of Life, takes a personal, lyrical, and
scientific approach to our understanding of life. With inspiration from the fiction
of Garca Mrquez, Steeves thinks about life in a way that does not reject science
but is not determined by science either. Life, in the end, he writes, must be
understood in a new way that structures the scientific search itselfperhaps
as more of a verb than a noun, always as something that involves a community
of things all at once, forever dependent on context and what life accomplishes
by being life. He examines various scientific definitions of life and traces the
notion of lifes self-referentiality through a panoply of thinkers, including
Descartes, Husserl, Derrida, Gdel, and Bohr, and then he follows the idea of
individuality into the liberalism of Western thought and the problems faced by
information theory. He concludes by saying that all information lacks meaning
when it is not informed and contextualized by life itself. Information is not the
same as meaning, and the individuality of modern liberalism lacks context. We
see, yet again, how life, even when it is interpreted scientifically, is informed by
communal and relational contexts, which account for its meaning.
Hannah Arendt recognized the fundamental paradox of our time: as human
powers increase through technological progress, we are less and less equipped
xviii
to control the consequences of our technological progress. Jean-Pierre Dupuys

essay on The Artificialization of Life: Designing Self-Organization takes up the
ethical problems of converging technologies (NBIC). As a consequence of our
technological ability to set off complex natural phenomena, we confront a new
kind of uncertainty, and practically speaking, we must develop new concepts
of prudence that are capable of confronting this novel situation. Dupuy shares
Hans Jonass credo that there is no ethics without metaphysics, and his essay
focuses on the metaphysics of acting into nature in an attempt to escape from the
ethical aporia left in the wake of NBIC.
The next essay, eLife: From Biology to Technology and Back Again by
Jos de Mul, extends the theme of converging technologies by analyzing
the synthesis of biology and computer science as well as the multitude of
subdisciplines, such as biomics, computational biology, and synthetic biology,
to which this synthesis has given rise. In his essay, de Mul surveys the broad
landscape of what he calls informationistic biotechnologies. Using a host of
examples, de Mul analyzes the technological, corporate, and political factors at
stake in the development of these technologies. He shows that in the shift from
gray to green technologies, that is, in the shift from industrial technologies
to informationalistic biotechnologies, there is incredible promise. These
new technologies could radically transform food production, for example,
while offering the hope of prosperity to impoverished rural areas. But these
new technologies harbor considerable risks, and the inherent uncertainties
of biological processes make them difficult if not impossible to control.
Informationistic biotechnologies are changing how we think about life. We are
now trying to control and manipulate life to serve human needs, and de Mul
shows both the hope and the danger involved in doing so.
The final essay in this section, Philosophy of Life in the Age of Information:
Seinsgeschichte and the Task of an Ontology of Ourselves by Charles Bonner, is
an exercise in posing the question of life given our historical moment. A specific
understanding of life that corresponds to the methods and presuppositions of the
life sciences has emerged over the course of the past five or six decades. Given that
the dominant form of rationality is scientific, posing the question itself requires,
according to Bonner, an investigation into the ontological ground on which
we stand, the tacit understanding of being, the prevailing self-understanding
of human being as such, the ontological status attributed to nature, to works of
art, and to God or the gods. The task of reviving a philosophy of life demands
an ontological deconstruction akin to the one Heidegger lays out in the
Introduction to Being and Time, and Bonner initiates such a deconstruction
xix
of our Information Age by tracing the scientific transformation that has taken
place over the last half-century, and moreover, by showing the ontological status
of life vis--vis those transformations.
The third section of this volume, Life, Power, Politics, looks at the different
modes of political life. In Without Inside or Outside: Nietzsche, Pluralism,
and the Problem of the Unity of Human Experience, Michael J. ONeill
looks at the connections between politics and culture to see what kinds of
political forms, according to Nietzsche, might produce a serious and noble life.
Not everyone interprets Nietzsche as a political thinker. In drawing out the
relationships between politics and culture, ONeill shows how liberal democracy
leads to indifference about values. Pluralism accommodates a variety of views
and values, none of which may take priority. When we interpret Nietzsche as
a political thinker, however, we see how he advocates on behalf of a political
culture that makes it possible for values to be lived and not simply discussed.
As ONeill writes, To the extent that a political regime produces an authentic
culture it is worthwhile, or worth living under. ONeill shows the sense of
unity in Nietzsche, unity both in the culture as a whole and in the life of an
individual person. For Nietzsche, the agon is not simply a variety of competing
interests (pluralism) but an arena within which certain values are deemed
worth fighting for. For an individual person, an authentic existence is one in
which ones personal beliefs can be harmonized with their public life. One
who wants to defend the virtues of liberal democracy will have to address the
trenchant criticisms made by Nietzsche of the kind of life that modern liberal
democracies produce.
The next essay, Anachronism and Powerlessness: An Essay on Postmodernism
by Leonard Lawlor, uses the work of Lyotard to develop a way of thinking about
a nontotalitarian social-political bond. We live in a time that is dominated
by global capitalism, and as Lawlor explains, this domination of global
capitalism over every other genre of thinking and being, for Lyotard, amounts
to a kind of totalitarianism. At the beginning of the essay, Lawlor makes a
phenomenological analysis of the self that shows how one finds within oneself
a multiplicity of voices, a we that is nonetheless a heterogeneous entity and
thus, strictly speaking, not a we at all. Is it possible to think of the self, this
we, in a way that is nontotalitarian, noncapitalistic, and noneconomic? Lawlor
retrieves the notion of time in phenomenology and Bergson, and he outlines
Lyotards interpretations of the totalitarian tendencies of primitive and modern
narratives, in order to develop the idea of a social bond made up of people
who are unified around the idea of powerlessness and who refrain from doing
xx
violence to particularities and singularities, taking time to listen better, to hear

the multi-vocality of all living things.
In the final essay of this section, Taking Hold of Life: Liberal Eugenics,
Autonomy, and Biopower, Serena Parekh evaluates the ethical implications of
liberal eugenics through the lens of Michel Foucaults conception of biopolitics.
Liberal eugenics is the biotechnical concern with human enhancement, from
hormone therapies to genetic manipulation. Rather than try to resolve or answer
the ethical questions that abound with these genetic therapies, Parekh takes a
look at how the debate about these technologies has been framed. Because liberal
eugenics does not involve state coercion and does not infringe on autonomy,
it is often regarded as unobjectionable within a liberal state. However, such a
conclusion misses the biopolitical dimension of autonomy. Using the notion
disciplinary techniques developed in Foucault, Parekh investigates dimensions
of autonomy not typically addressed.
The fourth and final section of this volume is entitled Philosophies of
Life. It features a variety of essays on what one might call the ontology of life,
investigations of who we are as living human beings and of what life itself is. In
The Care of the Self and The Gift of Death: Foucault and Derrida on Learning
How to Live, Edward F. McGushin takes up the question posed by Jan Patoka
about whether or not the care of the soul or self can speak to us today. Patoka
and Foucault show how modern forms of power and technology subject human
beings to various mechanisms that constitute us as individuals. McGushin uses
the work of Foucault and Derrida, who were both interested in this question,
to develop ways of thinking about the care of the self that resist these modern
forms of power. He writes that [t]he care of the selfthat life in which the self
is freed, strengthened, given lifeis ultimately a responsibility that comes as a
gift from an other who cannot be known. Looking closely at Socratic political
discourse, Christianity, pastoral power, and responsibility, McGushin concludes
that the notions of gift, self as gift, relationship as gift and aporia, might be able
to serve as elements of a new care of the self.
In The Tragic Sense of Life in Heideggers Readings of Antigone, Scott M.
Campbell looks at the work of another contemporary philosopher. Martin
Heidegger offers two readings of Antigone, the second of which explicitly
counters the commonly accepted view that the play is fundamentally about an
opposition between religion and the state. For Heidegger, the play is actually a
poem about the relation between the human being and Being itself. He closely
analyzes the Greek text and discerns there a series of conflicts and oppositions,
all of which are connected to Sophocles claim, in the first choral ode, that the
xxi
human being is the strangest (deinotaton) of all creatures. These readings, taken
together, open up a way of thinking about the meaning of tragedy in human
life. This essay takes up both of Heideggers readings in order to address that
broader concern. For people who do not find themselves in the same situation
that Antigone finds herself in, this play, nonetheless, resonates with them. The
key to that resonance is Antigones sacrifice. She sees in her life an overpowering
dilemma, which she cannot avoid. While others, such as her sister, Ismene, find
that they do not have to act, Antigone does have to act, and so she takes that
dilemma upon herself. Her decision to act reveals her profound humanity, it
reveals who she is, but in doing so it also reveals the tragic sense of human life.
Human life for Heidegger involves a fundamental conflict, of both belonging
and not belonging, of being both homely and unhomely, of being caught not
only between the state and religion but, more profoundly, between beings and
Being. Antigone assumes responsibility for her humanity, but she becomes
tragic in doing so.
In his essay on Living the Pyrrhonian Way, Stephen R. L. Clark offers a
defense of Pyrrhonian skepticism as a way of life. Similar to the Buddhists,
Clark argues, the Pyrrhonian Skeptics developed strategies for releasing
oneself from attachments that can actually provide healthy modes of human
interaction. Systematically, he responds to the charges of dogmatism that
have been levied against Pyrrhonian skepticism, and he addresses possible
objections to his position. Making a sharp distinction between disbelief and
not believing, Clark shows how the Pyrrhonian skeptic can cultivate a way of
life that, in following impulse and custom without being convinced that what
they are doing is right or true, can achieve equanimity. They seem passive,
but they are not necessarily passive, and because they are not committed to
any particular ways of believing, they are not afraid of counterarguments. For
the same reason, they cannot be taken in by sophistry or pernicious political
rhetoric. Even on an ethical level, the Pyrrhonian skeptics are not immune
from moral outrage because their natural instincts would reject that which
is repugnant. Pyrrhonia skepticism is a way of life that rejects the dominance
of reason in favor of natural instinct and impulse. Their policy, Clark writes
was simply to be guided by nature, feeling, custom, and the rules of such
crafts as they practiced, without supposing even that this was right or good
or epistemologically sounder. . . Theirs was a strategy, not a doctrine. Like
professors, they would question, inquire, analyze, and suggest opposing ideas
without insisting that their ideas are right or correct. This way of life is not just
philosophically defensible, it is eminently philosophical.
xxii
In his essay, Intuition as the Business of Philosophy: Wittgenstein and

Philosophys Turn to Life, Neil Turnbull argues that the philosophical
problematic of meaning is, in Wittgensteins philosophy, preliminary to a
philosophical investigation of more fundamental and historically significant
ethico-religious questions about the relationship between living a life and
the philosophical problem of the world. Drawing on the work of both the
early and the later Wittgenstein and with special reference to Wittgensteins
notoriously problematic term of art forms of life, Turnbull suggests that
Wittgenstein should be conceived as a philosopher who was profoundly
concerned with that most fundamental of all modern philosophical questions:
the relationship between intellectual and ethical life. Wittgenstein sought to
retain a connection between philosophy and a particular kind of practical
wisdom. He concludes that Wittgenstein must be viewed as a thinker who
develops a new practice of philosophy that is founded upon a radical acceptance
of life itself.
Paul W. Brunos On Life and Desire: Kant, Lewontin, and Girard takes its
leave from Kants assertion that life and desire are inextricably linked. Kant, not
surprisingly, conceives of life and desire in terms of faculties, but this approach
limits the way we can think of both. The evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontins
reflection on the relationship among gene, organism, and environment impels
us to consider life as a threefold relationship, a triple helix. This idea is the
pathway to Rene Girards triangular or mimetic desire. Thus, Brunos essay is a
kind of circle leading back to Kants provocative link between life and desire.
The Wisdom of Emotions, by Jason J. Howard, argues that emotion is
essential to our understanding of life. Work on emotion across the fields of
psychology, biology, and philosophy has come a long way in recent decades in
painting a very different picture of emotion than the one with which most of
us are familiar. Rather than seeing emotion as disruptive and chaotic, the echo
of blind libidinal urges of our animal past, a spirit of consensus has emerged
that sees emotion as integrative, stabilizing, developmentally indispensible, and
necessary for a healthy human existence. Taking into account a variety of work
on emotion by thinkers like Jean-Paul Sartre, Hans Jonas, Martha Nussbaum, and
Robert Solomon, Howard provides a cumulative case for the view that emotions
are best seen as types of judgments, which means that emotions provide much
more insight into life than traditionally supposed. Armed with this insight he
inquires into the kind of wisdom disclosed by our emotions and concludes by
arguing that our emotions should be seen as the most visceral expression of our
own philosophy of life.
xxiii
In the final essay in this volume, History in the Service of Life: Nietzsches
Genealogy, Allison M. Merrick explores one of the central exegetical issues in
Nietzsches work: How are we to understand Nietzsches assertion that history
must be in the service of life? Merricks essay establishes an inimical account of
historiographyhistory in the service of the ascetic idealas practiced by Re
and Renan, then proposes the therapeutic potential of the practice of history
that is in the service of life, as evidenced most strikingly in Nietzsches On the
Genealogy of Morality.
There are a number of threads running through all of the essays in this
volume. It is fair to say that each of the essays, in its own way, recognizes an
oversight, lacuna, or limitation in the way we conceive of life. Our conceptions
may be expressed in wordswritten or spokenor expressed in actions, but
they remain inadequate to the task. As word or deed, the ease with which we
overlook the rich and manifold meanings of life may itself say something about
life and the way we human beings live it.
Many of these essays show how Cartesian ideas such as res cogito, res extensa,
the metaphor of the machine, and the goal of mastery and possession of nature,
are manifest both implicitly and explicitly in our understanding of life. For the
most part, these essays view the human being not as a subject or cogito but rather
as a historical being informed by a variety of meaningful contexts.
Several essays recognize that the technical, scientific worldview has become
the dominant way of apprehending the world. But the modern technical, scientific
mode of inquiry is by definition limited. We might say, for example, that our
scientific understanding can provide the knowledge for the technical capability
to engineer an atomic bomb, but it cannot tell us whether or not we should drop
the bomb. The ethical question is beyond the scientific. These essays address that
limitation not by appeal to standard ethical theories like virtue ethics, Kantian
deontology, or utilitarianism, but rather by calling our attention to the threats to
life that scientific advances are making and, even more importantly, the way that
these technologies have transformed and continue to transform our ideas about
the meaning of life.
Furthermore, and this may be implicit throughout the volume, there appears
to be an attempt to rethink our idea of philosophy. Almost since its inception,
the life of the philosopher has been conceived of as a contemplative or meditative
life. Where attempts are made to describe the active life (what Hannah Arendt
famously calls the vita activa) of the philosopher, it is thought that philosophers
must disengage from their contemplation in order to participate in the give
and take of everyday, even political, life. The essays in this volume contribute
xxiv
to the growing body of literature that views philosophy as a way of life, one
that synthesizes contemplative, critical reasoning with an active, engaged life
concerned with addressing contemporary social and political problems. Of
course, the threads identified here are not exhaustive. Readers will surely make
connections and find patterns of their own while exploring these essays.
Scott M. Campbell and Paul W. Bruno, Editors
Part I
Life-Contexts in Dilthey,
Nietzsche, and Bergson
Dilthey as a Philosopher of Life

Rudolf A. Makkreel
Dilthey saw his project as a philosophy of life, but not in any reductive biological
sense. Life is conceived as the overall context that frames not only all natural
inquiry, but also all human spiritual strivings and historical concerns. This
means that life is appealed to not as the antithesis of reason, but as a force
that encompasses reason. Thus he devotes himself to the idea of a critique of
historical reason as a broadening of the Kantian critical project. The goal is to
ground the human sciences as Kant had grounded the natural sciences. Care
must be taken, however, to not simply pattern these newly developing sciences
on the law-based model of the natural sciences. The human sciences need to be
understood in relation to the practices that gradually gave rise to them. Their
conceptual framework must be organized in accordance with the reason of things
that was active in their history (Dilthey 1989, 178). Consequently, they should
not be constructed in the manner of Comte and Mill, but critically delimited
according to their formation. Intellectual Konstruktion must be replaced with
historical Aufbau.
The first condition for the formation (Aufbau) of the historical world,
according to Dilthey, is the purification of the confused and corrupted
recollections of the human race about itself through a critique that is correlated
with interpretation (Dilthey 2002, 280). The critique of historical reason must
be hermeneutical by acknowledging that the nexus of history is that of life
itself insofar as life produces connectedness under the conditions of its natural
environment (Dilthey 2002, 280). To the extent that this connectedness is
rational it inheres in life and cannot be derived from any independent ground.
Life is the ultimate context of an interpretive critique. It encompasses vital
processes and forces, but it also frames the mechanical causality of classical
physics. Life cannot be defined by contrast to anything, for it constitutes the
The Science, Politics, and Ontology of Life-Philosophy
overall givenness of things. This contextual approach to life allows Dilthey to

consider both the biological conditions of human life as well as the reflective
transcendental conditions for understanding its significance.
What Dilthey means by the given is not the sense-content of the positivists,
but life as the unfathomable source and context of all experience. As he writes
in his 1892 essay Life and Cognition: no matter how hard I struggle to obtain
the pure experience of the given, there is no such thing. The given lies beyond
my direct experience.... Everything, absolutely everything that falls within my
consciousness contains the given as ordered or distinguished or combined or
related, that is, as interpreted in intellectual processes (Dilthey 2010, 60). The
given is not an immediate present available to observation, but a mediated
presence that needs to be interpreted in relation to life. We can reformulate this
hermeneutically and say that life is what is always there as contextually given.
Life is the ultimate context that we cannot transcend or go behind. Every given
of experience is already part of some larger whole.
Modern epistemology has ignored this contextual aspect of experience. It
has tended to start with fixed elementary constituents such as impressions and
sensations. Even Kant, who stressed the spontaneous aspects of the cognitive
process, assumed that the matter of what we cognize is . . . an incoherent
manifold, which needs to be synthesized by the formal operations of the
transcendental ego (Dilthey 2010, 66). Dilthey argues that lived experience
(Erlebnis) teaches us otherwise. What is given in lived experience already
has an intrinsic connectedness and constitutes a continuum. To be sure, this
connectedness is indeterminate and needs to be specified. The initial task here
is to analyze and articulate the continuum or nexus of consciousness rather
than synthesize discrete sensuous elements by means of some intellectual act.
To derive the unity of objects of consciousness from the apperceptive activity
of self-consciousness as Kant did is to invert the true course of things. There is
already a reflexively given unity in what is perceived. Apperceptive activity is
needed merely to reflectively specify that unity. Apperception is not an original
or elementary function of consciousness, but acquired over time for scientific
purposes.
Another epistemological prejudice that has to be overcome is that consciousness
is inherently phenomenal, representational, and set apart from the world. Even
when consciousness is directed at so-called phenomenal objects, it possesses
its own reality and is present to itself as a reflexive awareness (Innewerden)
(Dilthey 1989, 6, 26, and 202). This translation is intended to underscore that the
older translation of Innewerden as inner experience is too narrow. What I mean
by reflexive awareness is the self-givenness or the being-with-itself (Innesein)

of consciousness. Whereas consciousness is characterized by an aboutness
that can be directed at what is within or without, reflexive awareness is the
being-with-itself of consciousness. This is how reflexive awareness is described
by Dilthey himself: it is a consciousness that does not place a content over
against the subject of consciousness (it does not re-present it); rather, a content is
present in it without differentiation. That which constitutes its content is in no way
distinguished from the act in which it occurs (Dilthey 1989, 2534). Reflexive
awareness is originally a pre-representational consciousness, but it can also
access states of representational consciousness. Just as for Kant the I-think must
be able to accompany all my representations, reflexive awareness can potentially
accompany any worldly content of consciousness, whether representational or
not (Kant 1998, B131). It involves an implicit self-givenness that precedes an
explicit or reflective sense of self. The felt self-givenness or with-itselfness of
reflexive awareness comes before any introspective observation available to a self
that is for-itself. Thus Dilthey writes that
if we call observation the directing of attention to something-placed-before-me ...
then there can be no observation of reflexive awareness (Innewerden) or its
content. Attentiveness directed at reflexive awareness produces merely an
intensification in the degree of consciousness connected with the exertion of
effort. This intensification in the field of reflexive awareness ... is the most simple
form in which psychic life can appear. (Dilthey 1989, 254)
Reflexive awareness as the being-with-itself of consciousness constitutes its real

connectedness. This connectedness can be articulated into cognitive, affective,
and volitional structures, each of which provides its distinctive nexus to things.
But Dilthey warns that however much we may want to focus on one of these
structures, we should never lose sight of the overall life of the mind. Thus the
cognitive nexus should not be fully isolated from the affective and the volitional.
Cognition is not possible without some inquisitive interest, which is a function
of feeling; nor can it produce determinative results without attention, which is a
function of willing.
The reflexive awareness that informs the connectedness of the processes of
consciousness includes worldly content, but the latter is not explicitly recognized
as belonging to an external world until an adequate sense of self is developed.
Gradually, what is given as interconnected in consciousness undergoes
differentiation. Dilthey illustrates this by the following experience of musical
appreciation: In the nexus of psychic life, hearing and taking delight in the tone
... become constituents of the self that perceives and experiences, while the tone
becomes a constituent part of the external world which confronts the listening
subject as something distinct (Dilthey 1989, 255). The reflexive taking delight
in a sequence of tones can serve as an initial reference point for the perceptual
taking of them as sounds stemming from a piano and the more reflective take on
them as a phrase from a sonata composed by Beethoven.
Traditional epistemologists had attempted to account for our sense of the
distinctness of objects and other subjects in representational terms. But what is
represented in consciousness can never reach beyond itself except in hypothetical,
inferential terms. What Dilthey is looking for is a non-inferential access to the
world, and he finds this access in the volitional nexus rather than the cognitive
nexus. In The Origin of Our Belief in the Reality of the External World and
Its Justification, he writes that the consciousness of a volitional impulse and
of an intention on the one hand and that of the intention being restrained on
the other, that is, two volitional states, constitute the core of the experience of
resistance and thereby of the reality of objects (Dilthey 2010, 21). We have here
the reflexive awareness of the will that it has met resistance within itself.
When resistance to our striving is felt reflexively, the will senses a diminution.
But not until this immediate feeling of resistance (Widerstand) is acknowledged
reflectively as a restriction (Hemmung) on the will does a consciousness of
the world as distinct from the self arise. On the basis of the recognition of a
restraining limit a distinction can be made in consciousness between an inner
experience of the self and the outer experience of the natural world.
The standard contrast between inner and outer experience has an initial
plausibility, but it is not easily defined or maintained. The awareness of my state
of mind and my feelings are obvious examples of inner experience. Perceived
objects like the rocks and trees on my path tend to count as outer experience. But
the perception of some external object like a tree in my garden can also become
an inner experience for me if I remember planting it and think of how much
pleasant shade it has provided me. Then I see it as a valued object that belongs
to my life-history. A statue in a church is another example of a perceptual object
that can be more than an outer experience. But in this case, it provides the basis
for what Dilthey called a transcendental experience in his Contributions to
the Study of Individuality (Dilthey 2010, 217). This third kind of experience
could be said to apperceive a perceived outer object as possessing a value or
meaning not derived from my own life, but from a pre-given life-context with
which I identify. I recognize that the statue is of a revered figure from the past
who embodies virtues that endow human life with dignity. This third kind of
experience involves an understanding that locates an inner sense in something

outer. I find a shared meaning in this statue from my cultural heritage.
The fact that Dilthey spoke of this cultural experience in the context of a
discussion of transcendental reflection allows us to also think of it as a reflective
experience. It appeals to transcendental conditions, not as Kant did to gain
access to the natural world of outer experience, but to reflect on our place in
the spiritual-cultural world. This is not a world that stands apart from us or
even in opposition to our will, but a social world that is co-constituted by us.
In doing so, we apperceive certain objects as more than external givens, but as
objectifications of human activity. What outer experience perceives as a natural
object can, under certain conditions, be apperceived by reflective experience as
expressing something about human life. Reflective experience is transcendental
in giving our life-context a spiritual significance.1
This reflective experience finds its pre-reflective basis in what Dilthey calls
the inherited common context for all elementary understanding. What is inner
here is not primarily mental or psychological or introspective. I quote from
Diltheys The Understanding of Other Persons and Their Life-Manifestations
of 1910:
Before the child learns to speak, it is already wholly immersed in the medium
of commonalities (Gemeinsamkeiten). The child only learns to understand
the gestures and facial expressions, movements and exclamations, words and
sentences, because it constantly encounters them as the same and in the same
relation to what they mean and express. Thus the individual becomes oriented
in the world of objective spirit (Welt des objektiven Geistes). (Dilthey 2002,
22930)
The inner nature of value and meaning resides in contextual immersion before
it can be located in introspective insight. Elementary understanding is oriented
by the normative authority of a local commonality, which encompasses what
is taken for granted on the basis of custom, social convention, even prejudice.
What Dilthey has done here is to take Hegels metaphysical concept of objective
spirit and give it a basis in common life. But in order to grasp its full spiritual
significance he appeals to something akin to transcendental reflection in Kant.
Our historical embeddedness in life is also confirmed by Diltheys reflections
on ethics. In 1890 he offered a lecture course at the University of Berlin (now
the Humboldt University) entitled Ethics: Its Principles and Its Particular
Manifestations. In these lectures, which were posthumously published
with the title System of Ethics,2 Dilthey sets himself the task of developing a
psycho-ethical approach that is rooted in anthropological-historical analysis

(Dilthey 1965, 79). Whereas traditional psychology has analyzed feelings mainly
as responses to sense impressions that come from without, a psycho-ethical
understanding of the feelings that can motivate us to act must be rooted in an
anthropological analysis of our drives, instincts, and desires. Instead of focusing
on the intellectual processes whereby human beings adapt to their surroundings,
Dilthey argues that most of our responses are basically instinctive. The feelings
that measure the effect the world has on us are not just the subjective aspect
of our representations of the world. They are really rooted in our drives and
inseparable from them.
Traditional psychology tends to construct epistemically geared levels of
mental life where sense-impressions constitute the basic level, and these are then
assessed by feelings so that finally the will can decide how to act in the world.
But this intellectual reconstruction of psychic life merely skims the surface of
our lived experience and ignores the real ways in which our sensations, drives,
feelings, and desires are interwoven and merge all levels. The anthropological
considerations that Dilthey is willing to include in ethical self-reflection go all
the way back to our biological makeup. Thus he states that instinct and feeling
cannot be separated from each other within the concrete biological sciences
(Dilthey 1965, 51). What we decide to do cannot be separated from the most
basic reflex-mechanisms of our body such as maintaining life by circulating
blood. Even the reflex-mechanism involved in breathing does not require any
input from the will; nor does the defensive movement that reacts to being
attacked. Examples like this and Diltheys claim that the schema of a living
being consists of reacting to impressions so as to re-establish equilibrium have
led Peter Krausser to define Diltheys anthropology as a cybernetic system
(Dilthey 1965, 48). Although Dilthey does not yet possess the terminology of
twentieth-century cybernetics to fill out his stimulus-response schema with
concepts such as self-regulation and feedback, Krausser finds the basic
features of self-maintaining functional systems in these lectures on ethics. While
there are aspects of this kind of perspective in Diltheys biological descriptions,
it does not do justice to his conception of human life to define it cybernetically
as a system of circular causality that reacts to stimuli from its milieu to learn to
survive by a process of adaptation.
Throughout his writing Dilthey makes it very clear that his life-philosophy
is not to be reduced to a biological theory of organic self-preservation or even
self-propagation. The natural system of philosophy that developed in conjunction
with the rise of the natural sciences is responsible for this reproductive caricature
of the productivity of life. But for Dilthey life is in essence spontaneous and
expansive. It encompasses both natural forces and spiritual powers. Applying
this to ethics, Dilthey claims that the psychological core of the original content
of virtue lies in the joyful consciousness of power and the intensification of
the feeling of life that is connected with it. We find its counterpoint in the joy
of observing others exert power (Dilthey 1965, 60). We instinctively identify
with the exertion of power by others as long as it is not directed against us to
diminish ours. Dilthey states that just as we see animals in herds, we humans
are instinctively governed by a drive for sociability (Dilthey 1965, 101). On this
basis he argues that the psychological feeling of sympathy to which the British
appeal in order to account for human sociability is a mere surface manifestation
of an anthropological sense of solidarity (Solidaritt) that is rooted in our life
impulses (Triebe). This is how Dilthey puts it himself:
Every feeling for others can only originate by means of an imaginative
re-creation of what occurs in the other person (theory of the understanding).
This re-creation is not an intellectual process, but rather is achieved by means of
a movement of the same feelings, motivating impulses and incentives that take
place in the other person. Thus, it always rests on a commonality, a solidarity of
human nature. (Dilthey 1965, 68)
This human solidarity involves being moved by and moving with others
(Mitbewegung) (Dilthey 1965, 75). All psychological forms of sympathy
(Mitgefhl), whether it be compassion (Mitleid), shared joy (Mitfreude), or
empathy (Mitempfindung) are derivable from the more basic movement-with that
characterizes anthropological solidarity.3 This movement-with has a biological/
physiological component that Dilthey calls a being-stirred (Miterzittern), but it
would be a mistake to reduce anthropological solidarity to that. As the above
quote indicates, solidarity has to be understood at the level of motivating
impulses and incentives, and this requires us to reconceive movement-with as
engagement-with.
Solidarity is not just a natural instinctit has to be understood more actively
as an engagement with others. The extent to which we are motivated by a sense
of solidarity is also a function of the sphere of commonality of objective spirit
that surrounds us. And morally it is our task to cultivate this as a virtue. If we
tried to account for ethical behavior merely by solidarity as movement-with,
ethics would remain at the same naturalistic level at which Humes Mitgefhl and
Schopenhauers Mitleid left it (Dilthey 1965, 102). Therefore, Dilthey aligns the
incentive of solidarity with that of benevolence. Human beings must actively will
10
the welfare of others to be ethical. Sympathy and compassion cannot be ethical

incentives by themselves, but only in conjunction with the benevolence that was
linked with solidarity.
As he develops his anthropologically based approach, Dilthey speaks of three
main ethical incentives. One of them is the benevolence (Wohlwollen) that he
aligned with a sense of solidarity. The other two incentives are to do what is right
(Rechtschaffenheit) and to perfect or complete oneself in a socially legitimate
manner (Vollkommenheit). These three ethical incentives were predelineated
as moral principles in an early essay that Dilthey published in 1864 entitled
An Attempt to Analyze Moral Consciousness (Versuch einer Analyse des
moralischen Bewutseins) (Dilthey 1958, 267). In fact, the concluding section
12 of the System of Ethics is taken almost exclusively from this earlier essay, where
the incentives are formulated as three moral oughts. This raises the question how
it is possible to move from anthropologically conceived ethical incentives that are
a posteriori to ultimately arrive at moral oughts that are a priori. There is, I think,
a crucial subsection 9.3 that prepares us for this transition. It is entitled The
Consciousness of Commitment (Bindung) in Duty and Right. Here Dilthey is
quite explicit that the commitment to do what is right demands a consciousness
that must go beyond any aspects of solidarity that could be regarded as a
reflex response to external pressure, whether physiological or spiritual. The
commitment to do what is right must come from within on the basis of respect
for others as ends in themselves (Dilthey 1965, 102). This could be said to
involve the same kind of transcendental reflection that we spoke of earlier and
that transforms something external into something that has inner value without
it being reducible to my own inner experience. The mere life-value of solidarity
is elevated to the spiritual value of respect for others. Having first deepened
Humes approach to arrive at benevolence, Dilthey now engages the Kantian
approach as part of his moral self-reflections. But instead of appealing to respect
for the law to justify doing what is right, Dilthey derives it from a commitment
that is based on both a fidelity to oneself and respect for the self-worth of other
persons (Dilthey 1965, 102). The sense of obligation (Verbindlichkeit) that
comes with this commitment (Bindung) involves a recognition of a reciprocal
human connectedness (Verbundensein) rather than a one-sided dependence on
a higher law (Dilthey 1965, 71, 109).
Formally, Dilthey moves even closer to Kant at the end of the lectures by
acknowledging that ultimately we must make moral judgments that are
unconditional and synthetic a priori (Dilthey 1965, 108). Although Dilthey
had rejected the possibility of synthetic a priori theoretical judgments for outer
11
experience, he is now willing to speak of synthetic a priori practical judgments

for inner experience. Had Dilthey published his 1890 lectures himself he would
no doubt have tempered the language that was imported from his early essay.
But he clearly still thinks that morality requires judgmental assent to oughts
that are unconditionally binding. Already in 1864 he differed from Kant in
insisting that there is no unifying principle that allows us to derive these
oughts from on high. An ethics grounded in anthropology needs three distinct
syntheses to rise to the level of moral reflection. The first synthesis defines the
strictly binding commitment to do what is right that we analyzed earlier and
comes with a sense of duty. Dilthey finds it manifested most prominently in the
male world of political life (Dilthey 1965, 103). The second synthesis links us
to others through benevolence, which he seems to regard as a more feminine
incentive. Whereas the duty involved in the virtue of uprightness can be tinged
with a rigid and negative feeling of indebtedness, benevolence is more positive
in grounding self-limitation on a more flexible and free sentiment of human
reciprocity (Dilthey 1965, 109). The third synthesis involves the formative ideal
of human perfection. It embodies the universal validity that Dilthey considers
the metaphysical correlate of anthropological solidarity (Dilthey 1965, 69). The
first two syntheses acknowledge the sexual differences of human beings, gearing
one to public associations and the other to more local allegiances like family and
friends. The final synthesis recognizes the creative and historical character of
humanity and is projected in artistic and cultural terms.
We can summarize by saying that the first moral synthesis aims to unify
humanity, the second harmonizes it and the third projects an articulated
cultural whole. Speaking of these three synthetic oughts as forms that intersect,
Dilthey declares: they support each other in life but combat each other in moral
theory (Dilthey 1965, 110). In the final two paragraphs of the lectures we are
brought back to the harshness of historical life when Dilthey comments that:
The violation of duty excludes us from human associations; the violation of
benevolence excludes us from the sphere of mutual devotion. The violation of an
ideal excludes us from the intelligible world, from the spiritual world of idealistic
existence (Dilthey 1965, 112).
It is important to realize that the formative kind of ethics that Dilthey strives
to cultivate aims at a kind of perfection that can only be attained in the moral life
made possible by culture. Indeed, the final switch from ethical considerations
to moral oughts in the System of Ethics can be correlated with a transition from
anthropological-historical analysis to modern cultural history. Section 11 on the
epochs of moral culture provides that needed transition to section 12 on moral
12
synthetic a priori judgments. A moral culture emerges when the natural force
of life in a national ethos is diminished allowing other natural aspirations to
be emancipated and produce antagonistic principles that claim to guide life
(Dilthey 1965, 105). Dilthey gives an individuating characterization of modern
culture when he assigns it the same inner coherence, the same concrete unity
that is found in the person . . . The distinctive feature of culture is to possess
the vibrant unity of the person. The culture of a period can be regarded as the
way that this structural system gives itself organs of enjoyment, productivity and
creativity (Dilthey 1965, 105). Then Dilthey differentiates three generations of
moral culture, starting with Eastern nations and then moving to Greco-Roman
culture, which gradually declined because of disparities in ownership, religious
skepticism, and hedonism. Finally, he turns to the rise of modern cities and
nation-states and criticizes the natural system of morality, justice, and religion
of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
We have seen Dilthey start with a psycho-ethical approach rooted in
anthropological-historical analysis and end by correlating moral self-reflection
with cultural critique. The anthropological import of Diltheys System of Ethics
is to provide an understanding of what holds human beings together even as
modernity discloses a process of cultural differentiation and individuation.
This leads us to recognize that life provides us with social drives that point to
the possibility of various forms of human solidarity. But instead of using these
insights to agree with Hegelians that Sittlichkeit should replace Moralitt, he
aims to give new life to morality by ridding it of abstract systems based on purely
rational principles. Dilthey declared in his Baseler Antrittsvorlesung of 1867
that philosophy should reach back to Kant while also taking into account the
contributions of Hegel among others. We already saw how Dilthey enriches the
Hegelian idea of objective spirit by grounding it in common life and then applies
an analogue of Kantian transcendental reflection to account for the way we
grasp its historical import. In his 1890 lectures on ethics, Dilthey acknowledges
the rational power of Hegels social ethics, but places it in a broader framework
established by anthropological reflection on life and then moves it forward
toward the ideals of moral culture.
Diltheys philosophy of life takes irrational forces into account, but it is not
a form of irrationalism. His critique of historical reason is a critique in the
Kantian sense of establishing the limits of pure reason. But instead of defining
these limits primarily through reference to the intellectual faculty of Verstand
(cognitive understanding), Dilthey develops a more encompassing notion of
Verstehen (reflective understanding) that can grasp the reason of things in life
13
itself. This led him to replace the epistemology (Erkenntnistheorie) that grounds
the cognition of the natural sciences with a more integral theory of knowing
(Theorie des Wissens) that can also do justice to the aims of the human sciences.
Such a theory of knowing is based on self-reflection (Selbstbesinnung) which
takes into account both theoretical and practical issues. As Dilthey wrote:
Self-reflection turns to the nexus of the facts of consciousness to find the
foundation for action as well as for thought (Dilthey 1989, 268). Dilthey agrees
with the idealists that consciousness places conditions on what can be known,
but they are not just formal conditions of thought. They should also reflect the
results of the linguistic development of the human race. These conditions must
be apprehended in their full scope and are to be found in willing and feeling as
well as in thinking.... (Dilthey 1982, 45).
To the extent that we seek to probe the life content of these conditions of
consciousness we cannot ignore the history of human development. The only
time Dilthey explicitly ascribes a transcendental function to consciousness is
when it interprets an external given of life as having a spiritual significance
that is binding for us. When something outer is recognized as having
an inner meaning for us, then it becomes possible to attribute to it an
immanent purposiveness with which we can identify. The idea of immanent
purposiveness stems from the Critique of Judgment and is probably the most
important idea that Dilthey appropriated from Kant. It is the inspiration for
his efforts to expand on Kants reflective conception of purposiveness and
extend it from the reciprocal functions of specific organic systems to the
social and cultural systems that serve to focus our productivity in human
history. Diltheys broad contextual approach to life has the unusual virtue
of allowing for both biological agency and transcendental spontaneity. What
he refers to as transcendental reflection can be applied to the articulation
of historical systems in order to transform mere felt life into the intelligible
meaning of the life of human spirit.
Notes
1 For a more extended analysis of reflective experience see (Makkreel 1992, 21825).
2 This text is now only available in Dilthey 1965. However, it is being translated for
volume 6 of Diltheys Selected Works.
3 See (Dilthey 1965, 6578) for the way Dilthey uses these cognate terms without,
however, explicitly defining their relation.
14
Bibliography
Dilthey, W. (1958), Gesammelte Schriften, vol. VI: Die geistige Welt. Zweite Hlfte:
Abhandlungen zur Poetik, Ethik and Pdagogik. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
. (1965), Gesammelte Schriften, vol. X: System der Ethik. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht.
. (1982), Gesammelte Schriften, vol. XIX: Grundlegung der Wissenschaften vom
Menschen, der Gesellschaft und der Geschichte. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
. (1989), Introduction to the Human Sciences, Selected Works (hereafter SW), vol. 1,
Rudolf A. Makkreel and Frithjof Rodi (eds). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
. (2002), The Formation of the Historical World in the Human Sciences, SW 3, Rudolf A.
Makkreel and Frithjof Rodi (eds). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
. (2010), Understanding the Human World, SW 2, Rudolf A. Makkreel and Frithjof
Rodi (eds). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kant, I. (1998), Critique of Pure Reason, Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood (trans and eds).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Makkreel, R. A. (1992), Dilthey, Philosopher of the Human Studies. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Biological and Historical Life: Heidegger

between Levinas and Dilthey
Eric S. Nelson
Introduction
Due in part to the radical antinaturalistic legacies of Edmund Husserl and
neo-Kantianism, subsequent phenomenology often remains uneasy with
nature, life, and biologycategories suspected of being reductionisteven as it
proposes to articulate them anew in contrast with their standard natural scientific
conception. In Heidegger and Levinas, nature is a problematic category referring
to a chaotic and contingent yet instrumentalized realm of alienated brutality
that endangers uncoercive dwelling and ethical transcendence. Heideggers
philosophical trajectory is partially exemplified by multiple attempts to rethink
lifein his early project of a hermeneutics or self-articulation of factical life
and natureas a more originary (physis) in light of poetic dwelling in
his later thought (Heidegger 1983, 11 and 1978, 23799).
In Levinass critique of Western ontology, such life and nature continue to
be overly anonymous and impersonal, tied to the self-assertion of the will and
to a pagan participation and absorption in the mysterious powers of being that
lets them be rather than calling for interpersonal justice. The ontology of nature
and being is not to be rethought through primordial sources, such as returning
to the radical upsurge and sway of archaic Greek physis, as its power is only
interrupted by a transcendence that is irreducible to naturewhether it is causal,
constructed-sedimented, or more originary.
The derivative character of nature, as a construction and projection of spirit
or as a separate phenomenal sphere left to scientific inquiry, is a primary thesis
of transcendental philosophy, whichas customarily portrayeddelineatesthe
scope and limits of legitimate cognitive knowledge based on consciousness
16
and the model ofa primary achievementmodern scientific-mathematical

inquiry. By 191011, Husserl described the late modern cultural situation as
one of crisisindicated by naturalism and historicismand the potential
resolution of this crisis in renewing philosophy as a rigorously scientific and
transcendental enterprise (Husserl 1911, 289341). While neo-Kantian
philosophy bisected nature and spirit, factuality and value, Husserl revived and
radicalized transcendental philosophy with an experientially richer and logically
more sophisticated form associated with the phenomenological method.
The question remains to what extent Heidegger and Levinas transcended or
only modified the transcendental paradigm of Husserl and their neo-Kantian
teachers. In both cases, interpreters and critics dispute whether their thought
signifies a radical departure or a more subtle reorientation. Despite their criticisms
of Husserls ostensibly overly theoretical and intellectualistic conception of
phenomenology, as well as its subject-oriented tendencies, basic concepts and
strategies such as the phenomenological reduction, passive synthesis, temporality
and intentionality, categorial intuition and formal indication continue to inform
and echo in their own discourses.
More intriguingly, given their respective questioning of the priority of
consciousness and the transcendental subject through worldly being-there
(Dasein) and the transcendence of the self through the other, their departures
from Husserl do not lead either thinker back to naturalistic or efficient
causal explanations of experience and the world. This is noteworthy given:
(1) Heideggers use of a different language of the immanence of self-interpreting
life and of nature and naturalnessfrom the violence of the upsurge and holding
sway of physis to the apparent nostalgic sentimentality for fields, groves, and
riversand (2) Levinass persistent identification and critique of this idiom of
life and nature as the crucial element of Heideggers thinking and its failures.
Despite their transformations of phenomenology, Heidegger and Levinas
remain beholden to its commitment to a realm that is independent of the
contingent causal nexus of the natural world and ontic empirical inquiry. The
inheritance of transcendental philosophyand its contestation of what Husserl
called the naturalistic worldviewjoins them, even as the question of nature
whether there is a disclosive encounter with an other nature or an ethical
revelation of an other of nature beyond calculation and instrumentalization
sets their thought into opposition. I will consider in this discussion to what
extent Heideggers early project of a hermeneutics of factical life and Levinass
reorientation of phenomenology toward transcendence, excess, and escape
suggest divergent yet intersecting responses to the potential, risks, and problems
Biological and Historical Life
17
of transcendental philosophy in light of the phenomenological critique of the

nature of naturalism that orients and troubles their philosophical strategies.
The question of nature

Husserls polemic against scientific naturalism coincided with his deep
concern with the epistemological basis of and modes of inquiry in the natural
sciences. While present in their earliest writings, Heidegger and Levinas leave
such concerns aside in intensifying Husserls polemic. Heidegger rejected
epistemology as distorted philosophy, which concerns the question of being
prior to that of knowing, and Levinass radical critique of ontology in the name
of ethics cannot restore philosophys epistemological dimension. Likewise, even
if Levinas distrusts Heideggers suspicion of technology, science, and modernity
in general, as his postwar comments in essays such as Heidegger, Gagarin and
Us make clear, Levinas maintains the phenomenological critique of scientific
and poetic naturalisms in a desire for a land foreign to every nature (Levinas
1969, 34). Levinas already advocated this critique in the 1930s; not to pursue a
more fundamental encounter with being but for the individual human person
irreducible to natural or material factuality.
Whereas by the mid-1930s issues of nature, life, and biology are entwined
with Heidegger and National Socialism, Levinas earlierin the first chapter of
The Theory of Intuition in Husserls Phenomenologyfocused on the reductive
character of scientific naturalism (Levinas 1995). Levinas commented in 1931
that the world overflows nature, that is, the lived world exceeds and is irreducible
to scientifically known nature, and the phenomenological method wants to
destroy the world falsified and impoverished by the naturalistic tendencies of
our times ... (2004, 62).
Heidegger and Levinas do not seriously question Husserls arguments that self
and world cannot be adequately understood naturalistically or materialistically
as a nexus of efficient causes. It is an important issue whether this unavoidably
presupposes a transcendental constitutive subjectivity, even as it appears to
be deferred through the there or a transcendence that exceeds constitution,
intentionality, and the self, and leads to aporia.
It is significant that Levinas (1) notices in On Escape in 1935unlike Husserl
and Heideggerthe ethical social moment in materialism and articulates the
importance of pleasure and sensuous bodily existence and (2) simultaneously
rejects any reification or fetishism of the body and biological or natural existence
18
however these are expressed. Even as Levinas mentions Hitler, and Nietzsche,
he employs vocabulary from Heidegger that indicates that he associates all
three figures with a second variety of naturalism (Levinas 2004, 21). This is
not the naturalism of the modern scientific worldview, which all the classical
phenomenologistsand Heidegger most of allcriticize, but of a romantically
celebrated, heroically embraced, or tragically accepted nature. Levinas diagnoses
such ideologically configured nature as consisting of being, fatalism before
nature, and barbarism: Every civilization that accepts beingwith the tragic
despair it contains and the crimes it justifiesmerits the name barbarian
(Levinas 2003, 73 and 2004, 18). Heideggers proper name is unmentioned yet
ontologism is (Levinas 2003, 71).
Levinass underlying critique of Heidegger from the 1930s to the 1990s is of its
naturalism in this second sense; being as naturenot as science or metaphysical
essence but ratherin the sense of accepting and advocating the brutality of
the factuality, the self-sufficiency, and thereness of being and accordingly
legitimating injustice and violence (2003, 514 and 2004, 134). For Levinas, like
Adorno, no poeticizing about the gift and generosity of being, the awe of natural
phenomena, or the nostalgic simplicity of rural life can be excused. The gift and
generosity of being offers no adequate basis for distinguishing the murderer who
enjoys life and the murdered who is denied life.
As Kierkegaard asked whether the indifference of the external world, in
which it shines or rains on the just and the unjust alike, is equally the rule of
the spiritual world, Levinas posed in 1935 the question of the indifference and
neutrality of being for the individual person. Given what is to come, irrespective
of his depiction of Heideggers thought, the legitimacy of this question stands.
Whereas Adorno critiqued Heidegger for privileging the human over nature,
Levinas objected in the postwar period to Heideggers privileging of anonymous,
indifferent, and neutral being in nature and encompassing landscapes (Adorno
2001, 13; Levinas 1998, 11617 and 1981, 182). There are no persons in such
environments; In the Feldwege, there is a tree; you dont find humans there
(Levinas 1998, 116).
Levinas stresses in Heidegger, Gagarin and Us the monotheistic and modern
technological destruction of pagan groves, sacred sites, and mystery-laden
landscapes. Levinas praises this destruction because it undermines the
distinction between native and strangerand accordingly between nature and
artificeand the violence that this distinction repeatedly justifies. Nature is
conceived here as antihuman and mythical violence; love of locality, place, and
native landscapes is seen as dividing humans into native and foreign. Despite
19
Levinass earlier interpretation of phenomenology as de-reifying the human

being and humanizing things, responsiveness to things is identified with cruelty
to ones fellow humans (Levinas 1990, 2312). Nature and mystery cannot make
humanity human; it is rather by serving ones fellow humans by cultivating
and reshaping the land in order to feed them (Levinas 1990, 233). It is, Levinas
contends, distance from nature that allows humans to engage in their earthly
task of not approaching the widow, the orphan, the stranger and the beggar
with empty hands (1990, 26).
The Holy Land is neither wilderness nor forest paths; hunger is holier than
being. The tamarisk planted by Abraham is a Hebrew acronym for food, drink
and shelter, three things necessary to man which man offers to man. The earth
is for that (Levinas 1990, 233). Though Levinas advocates the separation of
human freedom in relation to nature, a distinct response to nature remains
as Levinas insists that man inhabits the earth more radically than the plant.
Levinas distinguishes this radical earthly inhabiting from Heideggers worldly
care and dwelling by its being devoted to welcoming and serving the other rather
than itself.
Levinas associates Heideggers ontology with a kind of naturalism. Not
that of scientific causal explanation but being as an apparently natural and
ethically unquestionable holding-sway to be heroically embraced or tolerated
in resignation. Such naturalism is inherently inadequate to the ethical, since it
excuses violence. Levinas identifies such dynamic self-unfolding power as central
to Western ontology through a line connecting the self-preservation and striving
of the conatus, the struggle for and self-assertion of existence, the will to power,
and Daseins primary concern for itself in its individuation or its ownnness and
mineness (Bernasconi 2005, 1716; Nelson 2009, 189204).
Heidegger rejected biologism in the first sense of naturalism discussed
abovethat is, as a reduction of human existence to its biological elements
and rejected the notion of a biological or Darwinistic struggle for existence.
Heidegger criticized the notion of a struggle for existence (Kampf ums Dasein),
between objectively existing beings (1994, 134 and 1989, 482). This is an essential
moment of Heideggers thought and of ontology in general for Levinas, who
describes being as war and ontology as violence in the preface to Totality and
Infinity (1969, 2130).
Insofar as Heidegger opposes these concepts, Levinass critique appears to
miss its target. However, the biological and the natural are not solely natural
scientific categories applying to objective entities and their relations. Levinas
does not consider Heidegger to be an acute naturalist or scientist, and he is
20
less concerned with biology as a natural scientific discipline or Darwinism as a

biological theory. His primary concern is with social and ontological Darwinism
and their ideological constructions of nature. By emphasizing self-interest as well
as absorption and participation in collective organismsand such egoism and
collectivism are complementary in totalitarianismbeing and nature become
excuses for and justifications of the violence and injustice of humans against
humans.
Notably, while Levinas addressed the question of whether being and the
fatalism that rivets the person to it can be escaped, Heidegger was speaking
that same year in his lecture-course Introduction to Metaphysics of the violent
upsurge and holding sway of physis, of the ontological and not merely ontic
conflict of polemos and Auseinandersetzung, and the violent event of founding
and creating accomplished by great statesmen, artists, and thinkers (Levinas
2003, 53).1 In other examples, Heidegger speaks of fields, forests, and rivers
and the peasants who appreciate them in less violent yet nostalgic and
sentimental ways. As Adorno argued, Heidegger employed the language of
nineteenth-century romantic naturalism with its categories of the sublime and
the sentimental or pastoral idyllic; even if he rejected the Latin natura for the
more originary physis.
The two senses of naturalismthe efficient causal and the poeticdiscussed
so far do not exhaust questions of nature, life, and biology in Heidegger and
Levinas. Levinas detects vitalist elements in Heidegger, but he noted in 1935 that
the discourse of creative life-forces is tied to the self-assertion of life and thus to
being such that escaping or getting out of being cannot be renovation, creation,
or return (Levinas 2003, 54). Intuitionist life-philosophy was critiqued by the
early Heidegger, as it forgets that perception and experience only speak through
language and interpretation.
Heidegger and the hermeneutics of historical life

What indicates the possibility of life beyond naturalism is the hermeneutical
life-philosophy (Lebensphilosophie) associated by the early Heidegger with
Dilthey and contrasted with Bergsons intuitionism. In an early lecture-course
on intuition (Anschauung) and expression (Ausdruck), Heidegger distinguished
Diltheys historically oriented and interpretive life-philosophy from the
biologically oriented and intuitionist life-philosophy of Bergson and James and
opts for the former (1993b, 15).
21
The transition from intuition to the interpretation of expression is part of the

young Heideggers turn from pure phenomenology as a rigorous science toward
an impure hermeneutics of factical life wherein life (Leben) is encountered
and interpreted in its enactment and occurrence within its situation and
its contextual immanence. Such a hermeneutics of factical life suggests the
possibility of a life encountering and articulating itself. Hermeneutics signifies
more than the art of reading texts. It is the self-explication of immanent life
irreducible to a biological factuality or vitality but in its historical, linguistic,
and relational-interpretive nexus (Zusammenhang) as facticity and possibility.
While Heideggers appropriation of Diltheys strategies is gradually displaced
through the 1920s, much of it remains in the background of Being and Time.
This hermeneutical dimension is underappreciated in Levinass interpretation.
In interrogating the encompassing and entrapping character of immanence,
particularly its codification as ontology, Levinas interprets Heidegger as its
primary perilous culmination. Yet by engaging the relations of language, life,
and interpretation in the early Heidegger, this assessment calls for further
contextualizationin the sense of situating rather than reducing to a set of
determinate conditions. Heideggers early project of a hermeneutics of factical
life complicates Levinass questioning of nature, life, and existence in Heidegger.
What makes of facticity a questionand thus an openingis its groundlessness.
As the early Heidegger clarifies, turning to facticity is a promise and a threat: the
promise that the real (or material or empirical) would be disclosed in a way
left undetermined by the doctrines of realism (or materialism or empiricism).
The threat thus revealed would not be an immediate ground of experience
providing the foundation for knowledge but rather the groundlessness that must
be disturbing to thought. The promise propels us toward the factical; whereas
the threat means that we only ever find ourselves on the verge of grasping it. The
factical (approached in Being and Time as thrownness and birth) as enigmatic,
as inappropriable and as abyssal generates the call that makes us responsible.
As Heidegger writes in a note added to Being and Time, our responsibility is
to the very finitude that leaves us without a given ground and incapable of
self-grounding.
Approaching the factical puts us in a position of relating to what is other,
contingent, and plural such that it is always indirect and deferred further along
the hermeneutic arc. The specific structure of this relating is, in these early
texts, the structure of formal indication so that this hermeneutic circle comes
to include a moment of rigorous formalization of intentionality that transcends
it (i.e. a turn towards the how of Daseins being-in-the-world) and a radical
22
deformalization (i.e. an interpretive turn toward individual and concrete ways

of understanding).
According to Heidegger in 1919, philosophy has been overly abstract,
conceptual, and theoretical and needs to attend to our concrete factical
existence without reifying it or being transfixed by and absorbed in it. Contrary
to the prevalent life- and worldview philosophies that rejected reflection as the
conceptual reification and self-alienation of life, and which had long departed
from Dilthey or Bergsons insights, Heidegger argued that the immediate
concreteness of life addresses those caught up in it as a fundamentally
philosophical issue concerning their own existence. Insofar as the immediacy
of experience and perception is already mediated by language and historicity,
this existence is interpretive prior to explicit conscious reflection. Yet life is still,
via the reflexive categories that inform ordinary practices and everyday ways of
speaking, as much reflective and conceptual as it is intuited and lived.
Life is not a physical or biological factuality or a transparently given
immediacy for intuition. It is structured and mediated by categories (the
categorial) that are shifting and only accessible through their enactment and
practice. Heideggers strategy proceeds through the lived and interpretive
categories of lifeDiltheys conception that challenges the static ahistorical
categories of consciousness and the reductive interpretation of reason offered
by transcendental philosophy, and a precursor to the existentials or existential
categories of Being and Timeand as logos, the communicative event and
enactment of ones own existence through language.
Factical life inexorably entails more than the pure immanence of life or the
blind fatality of brute facts for the young Heidegger. The self-explication of life
requires recognizing the ruination and dispersion of factical life, as Dasein
according to Heidegger later in the decadeonly comes to itself through its very
interruption (Bruch) and brokenness (Gebrochenheit) (2004, 252). Adorno argues
that Heidegger is captured in the contradiction of Dasein being simultaneously
broken and whole (2003, 117). This paradox is comprehensible through the
formal indication of facticalthat is, in each case historical and temporallife.
Dasein is dispersed and outside of its element, such that intuitive immersion
in and irrationalist celebration of the supposed immediacy and vitality of
life is deeply problematized. As exposed, dispersed, standing outside of itself,
ruinated and fallen, factical life does not simply heighten and intensify
its monadic life, ego, or will in overcoming resistance and alterity. Entangled
amidst things with others in the between of the world, factical existence elicits
its own self-articulation through communication by enacting the hermeneutical
23
categories of life as singularly in each case its own to be. Such processes of
self-interpretation and self-reflection, and the possibility of an individuation
more encompassing than the instantiation of a conceptual category or general
type, are part of the very facticity of human existence.
Alienation is not alien to human life if in the uncertainty, uncanniness, and
risk of understanding and interpretation, human existence is opened to itself
in being an issue for itself, as the freedom of an undecided possibility, and as
responsibility for how it relates and does not relate to things, others, and itself.
Human life is thus lived (er-lebt), and disturbingly de-lived (ent-lebt). The
living of it involves the finitude and questionability of existingin its relational
context (Zusammenhang) and dis-relational breakdownsand the care and
effort of understanding and interpretation in communication with others, the
world, and oneself.
The strategy of formally indicating factical life, for which the categories of
formal and transcendental logic are insufficiently formal and universal, discloses
the self as worldly and constantly referred and dependent (angewiesen)
beyond itself; not as neutral and indifferent but as care (Sorge); as each time (je)
singular (einzelnes) and its own (eigenes) rather than as common and universal.
Care is for the early Heidegger inherently communicative. It is not the will or
conatus of modern philosophy but the middle voice, vox media, originating in
the address of factical life, and factical life speaks the language of the world even
when it speaks solely to itself (Heidegger 2005, 357). As such, the self becomes
itself in relation to what it is not; it is individuated in relation to alterity.
Even as facticity is described as the primordial happening (es ereignet
sich) and upsurge of a pre-intentional and pre-theoretical it (es) or there
(da), which is irreducible to consciousness, intentionality, and the subject, the
categorial formalization involved in formal indication ruptures absorption
in the immediacy and immanence of life to be receptive and faithful to it.
Heideggers early project transformed phenomenology by calling attention to its
historical, linguistic, and interpretive character. Further, it indicates a different
understanding of language and interpretation as worlding and happeningas
event (Ereignis), a term Heidegger already uses verbally and hence temporally in
the es eriegnet of 1919and performative enactment (Vollzug) (1987, 735).
Phenomenology is more than the description of the a priori essences and
transcendental conditions of life, subjectivity, and consciousnessnor is it
independent of the empirical-ontic, the finite, and the factical. Intentionality,
subjectivity, and the transcendental indicate questions rather than answers for
Heidegger. Heidegger remarked in the Basic Problems of Phenomenology that one
24
only gains life by giving oneself over to it (Hingabe), andrather than producing,
positing, constructing, or constituting its objectthe philosophical stance is an
eros letting itself go (sich-los-lassen) in life (Heidegger 1993a, 263).
Expression and its interpretation might appear phenomenologically
secondary to intuition and perception, and the seeming transparency of
conscious life to itself; yet experience is already structured in the facticity and
possibilities of worldly and communicative relations such that its complexity
is inaccessible to direct intuition. Encountering and confronting phenomena
occur through signification, disruption, and the categorial-hermeneutical work
of interpretation embedded in everyday practices.
Despite Heideggers switch from the mathematical to the historical in 1915,
he could still claim that logic interested him the most. His engagement with
themes and issues from Existenz and Lebensphilosophie does not signify an
abandonment of earlier concerns with logic, particularly the problem of how
a thisness (haeccitas) is graspable through the categorical, as their historical
reinterpretation and hermeneutical transformation.
Hermeneutics, the art of interpretation, likewise involves the double task
of the grammatical interpretation of language and the technical or indirect
psychological interpretation of individuality. As the latter inevitably proceeds
through language, especially in being concerned with new and different ways
of speaking, questions of concept-formation and logic are inexorable in the
practice of hermeneutics. Departing from his work in Scholastic and modern
logic, Heidegger increasingly approached these questions through Greek and
early Christian interpretations of logos.
The hermeneutical turn in Heideggers early thought, along with a more
rigorous understanding of hermeneutics that avoids reducing it to the either/
or of transcendental rationalism or existential irrationalism, suggests that
his early thought transcends transcendental philosophy qua Husserl and
neo-Kantianism, even if it preserves transcendental moments in reinterpreting
them as hermeneutical and historical. Nor does it, as his critics contend,
embrace the irrationalism of the pure nonconceptual and nonlinguistic intuitive
immediacy of concrete existence.
Heidegger challenges the intellectualistic apriorism of transcendental
philosophy through his early project of a hermeneutics of factical life while
distancing himself from and warning of being entombed in mere living or intuitive
and irrational celebrations of life. Since factical life addresses and claims humans
as a philosophical issue concerning their own existence and how it is to be lived,
immanent existence is questionable and interpretive rather than self-certain and
25
intuited. As communicative, mediated, and indirectly interpretive of itself, such

life is inevitably reflective and conceptual as well as intuited and lived.
In the early Heidegger, life is not interpreted as an atomistic and unshared
living as the struggle and self-assertion of a conatus, will, or ego. Life is primarily
lived in the medium and between as logos, which signifies the communicative
event, enactment, and interpretation of ones own existence in a hermeneutical
situation or relational context of others, things, pragmatic affairs, and meanings.
This lived-nexus (Lebenszusammenhang) is too complexly mediated to be
self-transparent to introspection, intuition, and perception, as Heidegger makes
clear in his response to thinkers as diverse as Husserl and Bergson. The life-nexus,
as Dilthey previously established, is structured prior to self-consciousness and
self-description by the media of history, language, and interpretation. In engaging
and articulating its hermeneutical situation in a particular language, place, and
time, interpretation and reflection cannot evade the historical, communicative,
and pragmatic conditions of its life.
Interpretation involves the reliance on and possibilities of destructuring
(Destruktion) traditions, habits, and customs as the reified and unreflective
sedimentations of historical life that inform and deform lived experience.
Entangled in the world, factical existence categorially enacts, articulates, and
individuates its life as its own. Interpretation and reflection, as practices of
appropriation in the sense of translation, destructuring, and individuation,
belong to the very facticity of human existence. They are not foreign to it,
as in the anti-intellectualism and intuitionism of popularized Lebens- and
Existenzphilosophie. Such issues are relevant to Levinass judgment of Heidegger
as an irrational life-philosopher, affirming the virility of the conatus and the
violence of its struggle for existence, and as retaining an overly intellectualist
and cognitivist understanding of understanding (Verstehen) that reduces ethics
to truth.2
Biological nature and interpretive life

Regarding Heideggers pre-originary logicism, logic as the communicative
event of the word, Heidegger asserted that the problematic of logic had barely
begun to be fundamentally addressed in Western philosophy since Aristotle
(1994, 21). Heidegger criticized logic as a one-sided extreme and a violation
of the living spirit (Heidegger/Rickert 2001, 58). He did not reject the role of
thought, reflection, and concepts in order to intuitively return to life as such.
26
Life can only be grasped immanently or responsively from out of itself in its
categorial, historical-hermeneutical, and ontological-existential character.
Heidegger concurred with Husserl and Rickerts critique of life-philosophy
insofar as it is oblivious to the categorial and conceptually informed character
of human life and culture, implying that the question of the entity at issue
can be ontically answered through depictions of human nature based on the
human sciences. In contrast to the ontic and anti-conceptual tendencies of
life-philosophy, the question of Dasein is one of the categorial (existential)
qualities of its existence and consequently a preeminently philosophical question
(Heidegger 1995a, 216). Heidegger recognized philosophical significance in
life-philosophy although it failed to think the issue of life radically enough. The
task of a hermeneutics of factical life is to articulate life more primordially than
life-philosophy did (1995b, 50). Heidegger remarks that Diltheys thinking of life
is more originary yet like all life-philosophy ultimately recognized lifes disquiet
only to quiet and sublimate it (1995b, 3850).
Heideggers use of life (Leben) resists its biologistic interpretation in
life-philosophy, vitalism, and social Darwinism, since these avoid the facticity and
fundamental disquiet (Unruhe)a precursor to the constitutive uncannniness
(Unheimlichkeit)of history and life (1995b, 3054). That is, its immanent
ruination and questionability (1994, 2). Life is not only given as stability, security,
and certainty but exposed as dispersal, distance, and ruination (1994, 103).
Rather than being a continuum of vital energy or evolutionary progress, disquiet
and uneasiness characterize life and indicate its fundamental motility (1994, 93).
Life-philosophy is too absorbed in life to clarify it. It is a tautology, like the
botany of plants as Heidegger repeats in Being and Time, saying nothing about
the categorial character of the life that it seeks to articulate or its ontological
status (1977, 46 and 1995a).
Life (Leben) as living-experience (Erlebnis), expression (Ausdruck), and
interpretive understanding (verstehen) is not simply intuited. It is not merely
concrete, immediate, or self-transparent to itself. Life is instead a hermeneutical
process as it is constituted by multiple tendencies toward Entlebenof
dispersion, rupture and the interruption of ruination (Ruinanz). Life itself is
already its own self-differentiation and deferment (1987, 845 and 1993a, 232).
The distance and non-transparency of life to itself has three dimensions.(1)The
self-understanding of life cannot avoid the question of death and the possibility
of its own impossibility. It occurs in relation to its own potential absence. (2) The
understanding of life inevitably involves the universalization of the singular that
Husserl called categorical intuition and which Heidegger reinterprets as formal
27
indication and hermeneutical anticipation. (3) It is constitutively always already

and pre-theoretically interpretative such that life embraces more than biological
facts as life is mediated by the facticity and possibilities of history, language, and
tradition. Criticisms of life-philosophy misconstrue Diltheys project. Dilthey
never proposed a self-intuition of life. He called for reflection (Besinnung) and
recognition of the categorial character of life through the categories of life.
Despite Heideggers reemployment of transcendental language in his
engagement with Kant in the 1920s, he modified Husserlian and neo-Kantian
transcendentalism by rejecting its reliance on an inadequate mathematical-scientific
model of theory. He criticized the transcendental ego as an inadequate basis
for knowledge. The I think is inadequate if not referred to the question of
the being of the I am, the I am that Heidegger called an originary facticity
(1977, 46). Instead of being the founding moment for knowledge, the cognitive
attitude of the transcendental subject was founded in relation to a primordial
level of attunement with the world (in mood, disposition) and in intrinsically
communicative understanding.
Knowing presupposes the pre-understanding of the knower in attunement
and understanding. Occurring in attunement and movedness, pre-understanding
is not a preestablished and monadic prejudice prior to and isolated from
communication. This pre-understanding of things, the world, and being is their
intersection, their event and encounter. It is this communicative crossing prior to
reflection and choice but not to worldly relations that orients all understanding,
including intellectual inquiry.
Motility does not refer to the intuited givenness of an isolatable bodily
organism but the affectivity of a historical being situated within an effective
or formative nexus (Heidegger 1994, 161). Heidegger mentions the effective
contextual nexus (Wirkungszusammenhang) and generation, which are contexts
and nexuses of individual life for Dilthey, to which the individual passively and
actively belongs (1993b, 157). The phenomena are never immediately given
and received; they are disclosed in myriad ways requiring communication and
interpretation. There is no disregarding the facticity of the world, the body,
and materiality; Dilthey and Heidegger articulate their inherently interpretive
formation.3
The human body is not given and perceived independently of a hermeneutical
situation of interpretation, insofar as it exceeds a brute factuality of intuition and
a facticity that is understood and interpreted in one way or another. Heideggers
suspicion of the direct intuition or biological explanation of the body, developed
from his early critique of popular life-philosophy to his later criticisms of
28
biological and racial interpretations of Nietzsche, situates his reserve with the body,
especially a body without a nexus and world of significations. This is insufficient
insofar as his critique of discourses of the body emerged from considerations of
the way in which Dasein is in its world, how it is as a linguistic and social-historical
being. Dasein is a bodily being and, in his early thought, articulated through the
categories of life. Following this argument, the body is insufficient for interpreting
this very bodily being in the world or worldly embodiment.
Conclusion
Levinas criticized Heidegger for starting his analysis too late with pragmatic
relations with things, as perception and nourishment are prior to such
relationships. Still, perception and nourishment cannot be thought of as an
attribute of Daseins being in the sense of a past prior to history and language.
They involve a care for self and other, a concern with things and behavior that
is aimed at use, and are inherently interpretive via the practical interests of an
individual human life (Dilthey) or Dasein (Heidegger) and according to the
structures of meaningfulness and their disruption. Heideggers conversion of
intentionality from a guiding principle of a perceiving subject to an orienting
comportment of a worldly finite being shows how the subject is embodied in
a world that is not only physical and material but meaningful, linguistic, and
historical. This brings his thought into proximity to the historical-hermeneutical
understanding of life in Schleiermacher and Dilthey, who recognized that
interpreting phenomena immanently from out of themselves requires indirect
interpretation and communication in the context of historical life and direct
perceptual intuition based in the species biological life.
Notes
1 Compare to (Heidegger 1983, 47).
2 Compare to (Chanter, 2001, 812).
3 Contrast with (Chanter 2001, 12).
Bibliography
Adorno, T. W. (2001), Metaphysics: Concept and Problems. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
. (2003), The Jargon of Authenticity. London: Routledge.
29
Bernasconi, R. (2005), Levinas and the Struggle for Existence, in E. S. Nelson, A.

Kapust, and K. Still (eds), Addressing Levinas. Evanston: Northwestern University
Press.
Chanter, T. (2001), Time, Death and the Feminine. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Heidegger, M. (1977), GA 2 = SZ: Sein und Zeit (1927). Frankfurt: Klostermann.
. (1978), Vom Wesen und Begriff der Physis, in GA 9, Wegmarken. Frankfurt:
Klostermann, 23799.
. (1983), GA 40: Einfhrung in die Metaphysik. Frankfurt: Klostermann.
. (1987), GA 56/57: Zur Bestimmung der Philosophie. Frankfurt: Klostermann.
. (1989), GA 65: Beitrge zur Philosophie: (Vom Ereignis). Frankfurt: Klostermann.
. (1993a), GA 58: Grundprobleme der Phnomenologie, 1919/20. Frankfurt am Main:
Klostermann.
. (1993b), GA 59: Phnomenologie der Anschauung und des Ausdrucks. Frankfurt:
Klostermann.
. (1994), GA 61: Phnomenologische Interpretationen zu Aristoteles. Frankfurt:
Klostermann.
. (1995a), GA 21: Logik. Die Frage nach der Wahrheit. Frankfurt: Klostermann.
. (1995b), GA 60: Phnomenologie des religisen Lebens. Frankfurt: Klostermann.
. (2004), GA 29/30: Die Grundbegriffe der Metaphysik. WeltEndlichkeitEinsamkeit.
Frankfurt: Klostermann.
. (2005), GA 62: Phnomenologische Interpretation ausgewhlter Abhandlungen des
Aristoteles zu Ontologie und Logik. Frankfurt: Klostermann.
Heidegger, Martin and Rickert, Heinrich (2001), Briefe und Dokumente 19121933.
Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.
Husserl, Edmund (1911), Philosophie als strenge Wissenschaft, in Logos: Internationale
Zeitschrift fr Philosophie der Kultur, 1: 289341.
Levinas, E. (1969), Totality and Infinity. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.
. (1981), Otherwise Than Being or Beyond Essence. Kluwer: The Hague.
. (1990), Difficult Freedom: Essays on Judaism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
. (1995), The Theory of Intuition in Husserls Phenomenology. Evanston: Northwestern
University Press.
. (1998), entre nous: Thinking of the Other. New York: Columbia University Press.
. (2003), On Escape. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
. (2004), Unforeseen History. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Nelson, E. S. (2008), Heidegger and the Ethics of Facticity, in F. Raffoul and E. S. Nelson
(eds), Rethinking Facticity. Albany: SUNY Press, 2008.
Your Money or Your Life: Using Nietzsches

Critique of Mechanism and Platonism to
Defend the Biosphere
Ronnie Hawkins
For a brief while, I saw it. That is, I beheld something awesome in the original
sense of that word, something that was in constant motion, writhing, coiling and
uncoiling, continually transforming in its whirling, kicking, tumbling dance, yet
holding steady before me, gently mocking my stupefaction. What I experienced
was something in between visual and conceptual, a little like one of the Hindu
deities with many waving arms, yet at the same time not quite human, or maybe
human and so much more, all of existence vibrating in a ceaseless, throbbing
pulse. It was certainly a candidate for terming:
a monster of energy, without beginning, without end ... a play of forces and
waves of forces, at the same time one and many, increasing here and at the same
time decreasing there; a sea of forces flowing and rushing together; eternally
changing, eternally flooding back, with tremendous years of recurrence, with an
ebb and a flood of its forms ... without goal, unless the joy of the circle is itself a
goal.... (Nietzsche 1967c, 550)
in other words, Nietzsches will to power, the totality of all that is, of which
life, as he noted, is a special case, but the one that happens to concern us most
primally here on this Earth.
The occasion of the above experience was a gathering of indigenous people,
academics, students, and interested others in the Peruvian Amazon several
years ago, a ceremony presided over by a Shipibo-Konibo master shaman
who had introduced us all to the entheogenic brew ayahuasca an hour or so
previously.1 What I saw, however, differed primarily in vividness from a vision
that has long been haunting my minds eye, a world picture that we of life-blind
32
industrial culture are only just starting to imagine, arising out of the braille of
scientific publications and the imagery of our sophisticated technologies. The
plexus of causes in which all of us life-forms are entangled is being revealed,
and yetas the ever-optimistic Zarathustra kept discovering, to his recurring
disappointmentthe great masses of humanity, along with most of our serious
thinkers, still grasp it not.
With regard to healing, the shaman taught us this: a healer does not heal
the sick by applying a cause to produce an effect. Working with plants, the
healers orientation is one of humility; he or she does not bestow a cure upon a
passive supplicant. Rather, our guide informed us, the healer is an intermediary,
connecting the ill person with the spirit of the plant, an active being in its own
right. Some indigenous thinkers scoff at the frenzy of modern, industrialized
biomedicine to analyze, patent, and commodify the active ingredients of their
herbal allies; you can grind up their bodies, turn them into white powders
or pressed pills to be exchanged for money, and these may well have effects
on living bodies, but this process is of a different order than what goes on in
a healing ceremony. It seems industrial medicine no longer revolves around
respect for beings or the intent to heal; in its place, we mostly find an intent to
make money.
In the larger picture, the indigenous peoples of the Amazon are engrossed in a
desperate effort to save their lands and cultures from destruction by an invading
force penetrating ever deeper into their lives. It is part of a global transformation
that is rapidly impoverishing our biosphere, a cataclysm now counted as Earths
sixth great spasm of extinction, more rapid and potentially more devastating
than the demise of the dinosaurs. So much the worse for our prospects of
learning to heal with the spirits of the plants. Tropical forests, with plenty of
moisture and temperatures keeping molecules in rapid motion, are the greatest
planetary generators of species diversity and also among the most imperiled;
about 70 percent of the worlds plant species seem to be falling to the bulldozer
blade and the biocide.2 This is because of a worldview that sees them as nothing
but repositories of resources for making product, an entity so homogenized,
so meaningless in itself as anything other than a means to the end of making
money, that we can even dispense with the definite article.
That said, I think the question we have to ask ourselves is Why? Why, at a
time when we are just beginning to get a glimpse of its magnificent complexity,
are so many of us acting to cut the threads binding together the very fabric of
life on Earth? Browsing through some of Nietzsches lesser-known writings,
I happened on an aphorism that, as I interpret it, seems both to provide a
Your Money or Your Life
33
rather elegant answer to this question and to suggest how we might move on.
Here it is:
The two most extreme modes of thoughtthe mechanistic and the Platonic
are reconciled in the eternal recurrence: both as ideals. (Nietzsche 1967c, 546)
Cracking this nut will require some background on Nietzsche, and Schopenhauer
before him, as important life-philosophers, since together they lay out an
alternative metaphysical/ontological picture that stands in stark contrast to
the traditional bulwarks constructed and endlessly reinforced by most of their
philosophical predecessors and peers. Despite the tirades against metaphysics
scattered here and there in his writingstirades that I generally take to be
directed toward the rigid, deadening metaphysics of his dayNietzsche does, as
all of us necessarily do, work within a framework for understanding how things
hang together, if only to make sense of the world we live in. His alternative vision
was one of turbulence, peopled by myriad living forms, transient and yet eternally
recurring, disparate yet somehow united in joyful oneness. I do not claim to be
a Nietzsche scholar, but I will take seriously Zarathustras injunction to lose me
and find yourselves in trying to work out a better answer to the question What
is there? than the conceptual boxes that currently constrain our thought.
Though Nietzsche rejected many aspects of Schopenhauers philosophy, in
particular his pessimism, saying no to life because of its turmoil and suffering
Nietzsche turned that judgment on its head with his holy Yes!I see his equation
of the world viewed from the inside as will to power and nothing else (Nietzsche
1966, 48) as largely reflective of Schopenhauers metaphysical scheme in The World
as Will and Representation. Schopenhauer describes the will as the innermost
essence, the kernel of every particular thing and also of the whole (Schopenhauer
1969a, 110); representation, in contrast, is the perception of the perceiver
(Schopenhauer 1969a, 3), the world apprehended by the subject from without,
in the form of images and names (Schopenhauer 1969a, 99). Representation is
a surface our senses and our human reason together paint over the unitary will;
we perceive/conceive what we encounter as disjunctive and fragmentary, subject to
plurality, causality, and the other Kantian categories of thought. What lurks under
that surface, however, is not Kants thing-in-itself, but rather the will, something
thatfar from being unknowablewe happen to have intimate, if nonconceptual,
knowledge of, insofar as our will and our body are one. Schopenhauer thus
speaks of two sides to the world, an inner and an outer, the latter of whichalong
with time, interestingly enoughbegan only with the opening of the first eye
(Schopenhauer 1969a, 31), an event that occurred long ago in the evolution of life,
long before the human being appeared on the scene.
34
Manifestations of will ourselves, we humans actively create a world that seems

to consist of a multitude of stable, separate, and even logically orderable
thingsan illusion that Nietzsche spent much of his life trying to dispelbut
we are not the only beings to create a representational world. Like Nietzsche,
Schopenhauer rejected anthropocentric dualism, recognizing instead a graded
continuity in the degree of objectificationthe degree of complexity of
bodily formby which the embodied will of other beings stands revealed to
us, as well as in the way intelligence in other beings represents their world to
them.3
Schopenhauers writings are rich with vivid depictions of living organisms
as manifestations of will. As apprehended by us, the parts of each ones body are
the visible expression of the demands and desires of its particular will:
Teeth, gullet, and intestinal canal are objectified hunger; the genitals are
objectified sexual impulse; grasping hands and nimble feet correspond to
the more indirect strivings of the will which they represent. (Schopenhauer
1969a, 108)
In each living organism, the will is present complete and entire, as fully in an
insect as in a human being, and grades of intelligence exist only to serve the will:
Just as a species of animals appears equipped with hoofs, claws, hands, wings,
horns, or teeth according to the aims of its will, so it is furnished with a more
35
or less well-developed brain, whose function is the intelligence requisite for its
continued existence. (Schopenhauer 1969b, 205)
Plants as well as animals are moved by the blindly urging force of will
(Schopenhauer 1969a, 117), and Schopenhauer supposed them to experience
an obscure self-enjoyment (Schopenhauer 1992, 82). Since the will within us is
said to be identical with that in all other living things, we can know what other
beings will, namely, existence, well-being, life, and propagation (Schopenhauer
1969b, 204), because we experience a drive toward these ourselves. In nature,
however, all the individual wills come into conflict with one another, engaging in
ongoing strife, contest, and struggle as the will-to-live generally feasts on itself,
and is in its different forms its own nourishment (Schopenhauer 1969a,147),
producing a horrifying spectacle from which Schopenhauer chose to withdraw.
Something very like Schopenhauers two sides or opposing aspects of reality
show up in Nietzsches first book, The Birth of Tragedy, as the Apollonian and
the Dionysian. For the ancient Greeks, the god Apollo represented light and
visual form, sculpture, the shifting appearances of dreams, and ultimately human
individuation itself, while Dionysus, the god of intoxication, led with rhythmic
drumbeats to an experience of mysterious primordial unity, leaving the veil of
mayathe illusion of separatenessfluttering in tatters (Nietzsche 1967a, 37).
In later works, Nietzsche transforms Schopenhauers modest will to liveFor
what is not cannot will; but that which is in existencehow could it still strive
for existence! (Nietzsche 2005, 101)into the will to power, the constant push of
everything living not merely to maintain but always to increase and extend and
overcome itself. Zarathustras celebration of the body with its great reason, to
which conceptual thinking is subordinated (Nietzsche 2005, 32), is well known,
as are his many naturalistic metaphors, his love for his animals, the eagle and the
serpent, and his injunction to stay true to the Earth (Nietzsche 2005, 67). In his
notes, collected into The Will to Power, Nietzsche is clear that the human will to
power exists in continuity with that of all other beings:
In order to understand what life is, what kind of striving and tension life is,
the formula must apply as well as to trees and plants as animals.... For what do
the trees in a jungle fight each other? For happiness?For power! (Nietzsche
1967c, 37475)
Life is struggle, life is suffering, life even sacrifices itselffor power! (Nietzsche
2005, 101)but where Schopenhauer turned away, Nietzsche threw his arms
out wide to embrace nature, red in tooth and claw.
36
Nietzsches answer, then, to the question What is there? seems to be similar

to Schopenhauers, a lively world of beings propelled from the inside, constantly
engaged in interactions of domination and submission, each expressing
the will to power in its own way. On the basis of this pushing-and-pulling,
ebbing-and-flowing metaphysics, he rejects what he calls the mechanistic
interpretation of the world, because it attempts to impose a static lid on the
ceaselessly self-transforming monster of energy. Nietzsche observes that
we humans create things by freezing the endless flux, stopping the flow by
projecting our own longed-for stability of self outward onto what is encountered
in the world, dividing it into discrete, uniform, unchanging bits in correspondence
with the particulate structure of our language, with its nouns that make
everything seem solid and static (Nietzsche 1968b, 38). While a belief in things
is in fact false, he claims, since all is really in constant motion and nothing is
permanent or the same, those who divided up the world in this erroneous way
had a survival advantage over those who were more precise; when it came to
recognizing food and dangerous predators, the lumpers among our ancestors
were better off than the splitters (Nietzsche 1974, 16973). But to view living
organisms themselves as nothing but reactive machines, merely adapting to
external conditionsan idea that, he notes, had become fashionable in the life
sciences of his daywas to rob life of a fundamental concept, that of activity:
thus the essence of life, its will to power, is ignored (Nietzsche 1967b, 789).
Darwinisms assumed passivity of organisms in the face of natural selection thus
came under fire: One should not mistake Malthus for nature, and Darwin
forgot the mind (Nietzsche 1968b, 756).
Nietzsches critique of mechanism is most detailed in The Will to Power, a
compilation of his notes from the years 1883 to 1888 put together by his sister
Elizabeth, at the end of which the famous monster of energy quote appears.
Walter Kaufmann, editor of the English edition, notes that the section headed
The Will to Power in Nature has no close parallels in Nietzsches published
books. It begins with a criticism of the Mechanistic Interpretation of the
World:
Of all the interpretations of the world attempted hitherto, the mechanistic one
seems today to stand victorious in the foreground . . . no science believes it
can achieve progress and success except with the aid of mechanistic procedures.
Everyone knows these procedures: one leaves reason and purpose out of
account as far as possible ... in short, one pays heartfelt homage to the principle
of the greatest possible stupidity. (Nietzsche 1967c, 332)
37
Nietzsche maintains that what scientists try to hide under such terms as
pressure and stress requires the recognition of an inner will, the will to
power, analogous to what we experience ourselves:
[O]ne is obliged to understand all motion, all appearances, all laws, only as
symptoms of an inner event and to employ man as an analogy to this end. In the
case of an animal, it is possible to trace all its drives to the will to power; likewise
all the functions of organic life to this one source. (Nietzsche 1967c, 333)
One of the aspects of mechanism Nietzsche seems to find particularly offensive

is that it is geared toward quantification at the expense of obliterating the
qualitative. In order to arrive at a certain quantity of identical units, each thing
that is counted must be like every other thing: The mechanistic world is
imagined ... so as to be calculablethus causal entities are invented, things,
(atoms) whose effect remains constant (Nietzsche 1967c, 339). The force of the
will to power lies in its quality, he maintains, while in a purely quantitative world
everything would be dead, stiff, motionless (Nietzsche 1967c, 304). Without the
thing, moreover, there is no causality. Two successive states, the one cause,
the other effect: this is false; rather, it is a question of a struggle between two
elements of unequal power: a new arrangement of forces is achieved according
to the measure of power of each of them (Nietzsche 1967c, 337). He thereby
dismisses the two popular concepts necessity and law: the former introduces a
false constraint into the world, the latter a false freedom.... There is no obedience
here: for that something is as it is, as strong or as weak, is not the consequence of
an obedience or a rule or a compulsion (Nietzsche 1967c, 337).
Nietzsches perspectivism comes into play in his criticism of the physicists
billiard-ball notion of the atom, and not only because the scientists are
projecting their own perspective outward but seemingly also because even the
atom might be said to have a perspective of its own:
Physicists believe in a true world in their own fashion: a firm systemization
of atoms in necessary motion. ... But they are in error. The atom they posit is
inferred according to the logic of the perspectivism of consciousnessand is
therefore itself a subjective fiction ...And in any case they left something out
of the constellation without knowing it: precisely this necessary perspectivism
by virtue of which every center of forceand not only manconstrues all the
rest of the world from its own viewpoint, i.e., measures, feels, forms, according
to its own force. ... Even in the domain of the inorganic an atom of force is
concerned only with its neighborhood: distant forces balance one another.
38

Here is the kernel of the perspective view and why a living creature is egoistic
through and through. (Nietzsche 1967c, 339)
All beings, it seems, including what we designate as the atom, can be construed
as centers of force, each with its own perspective and will to power. In an even
more straightforward rejection of traditional ideas about cause and effect, he
asserts, [t]here is absolutely no other kind of causality than that of will upon
will. Not explained mechanistically (Nietzsche 1967c, 347).
The possibility that Nietzsches alternative metaphysical framework, which he
sometimes refers to, contra mechanism, as the dynamic interpretation of the
world, might allow for other ways of knowing than those so familiar to us in
the Western world is, I believe, well captured in this passage:
Thingness was first created by us. The question is whether there could not be
many other ways of creating such an apparent world . . . whether that which
posits things is not the sole reality ... whether the effect of the external world
upon us is not also only the result of such active subjectsThe other entities
act upon us; our adapted apparent world is an adaptation and overpowering of
their actions; a kind of defensive measure. The subject alone is demonstrable;
hypothesis that only subjects existthat object is only a kind of effect produced
by a subject upon a subject. (Nietzsche 1967c, 307)
Nietzsche may seem to contradict himself by elsewhere railing against the

very notion of a subject, but I take this in the same vein as his ranting against
traditional metaphysics, targeting the notion of the subject separated from its
actions, the lightning existing separately from its flash. In a world conceived
of as will to powerand nothing besides! the subject is what it does, neither
compelled nor obeying. And it is upon Nietzsches hypothesis that only
subjects exist that we might begin to understand the words of the shaman, that
it is the spirits of the plants that do the healing.
Nietzsche understood the will to power to extend into the inorganic world,
with life being a special case, but the form of being most familiar to us
(Nietzsche 1967c, 368). From his published works, this passage stands out:
The question is ... whether we really recognize the will as efficient, whether we
believe in causality of the will: if we do ... then we have to make the experiment of
positing the causality of the will hypothetically as the only one. Will, of course,
can affect only willand not matter (not nerves, for example). In short,
one has to risk the hypothesis whether will does not affect will wherever effects
are recognizedand whether all mechanical occurrences are not, insofar as a
force is active in them, will force, effects of will. (Nietzsche 1966, 48)
39
If Nietzsches metaphysics resembles Schopenhauers, this tack is not surprising.

Schopenhauer says much the same thing: Hitherto, the concept of will has
been subsumed under the concept of force; I, on the other hand, do exactly the
reverse, and intend every force in nature to be conceived as will (Schopenhauer
1969a, 111). The most universal forces of nature, such as gravity, electricity,
magnetism, and chemical properties, exhibit themselves as the lowest grade
of the wills objectification (Schopenhauer 1969a, 130). The vital force of the
living avails itself of and uses the forces of inorganic nature. Yet these forces in
no way constitute the vital force, any more than a hammer and an anvil constitute
a blacksmith (Schopenhauer 1969a, 142). Rather, the higher Ideaa higher
level of organization in the form of a living organismsubdues the lower grades
of objectification, taking possession of the matter but allowing the inorganic
forces to continue in a subordinate manner.... Thus, for example, we see in the
solidifying of bones an unmistakable analogy of crystallization, which originally
controlled the lime, although ossification is never to be reduced to crystallization
(Schopenhauer 1969a, 1445). However, Schopenhauer recognizes the
boundary between the organic and the inorganic as the most sharply drawn in
the whole of nature, pointing out this fundamental and essential difference:
In the inorganic body the essential and permanent element . . . is matter; the
inessential and changeable, on the other hand, is the form. With the organic body
the case is the very opposite; for its life, in other words its existence as something
organic, consists simply in the constant change of the material with persistence
of the form. (Schopenhauer 1969b, 296)
What should command our attention, given both Nietzsches and Schopenhauers
rejection of the mechanistic interpretation of the world, is that a growing
number of scientists as well as philosophers are coming to the same conclusion:
mechanism does not do justice to life. Living organisms display autopoietic
organization, actively maintaining themselves, and, like the lightning and its
flash, the being and doing of an autopoietic unity are inseparable (Maturana
and Varela 1987, 479). Fritjof Capra, echoing Schopenhauer above, notes that
the central characteristic of an autopoietic system is that it undergoes continual
structural changes while preserving its weblike pattern of organization (Capra
1996, 218). Like Nietzsche, Stuart Kauffman criticizes the neo-Darwinian
insistence on natural selections elimination of the unfit as the only active
process in evolution, instead emphasizing systems which have their own
spontaneously ordered properties (Kauffman 1993, xv). Kenneth Goodpaster
defines being alive as a matter of showing self-sustaining organization and
integration in the face of pressures toward high entropy, and he has identified
40
the appropriate core of moral concern as being respect for all and only entities
manifesting this condition (Goodpaster 1978, 323). Alexis Pietak has taken
on the three ismsreductionism, mechanism, and materialismthat have
straight-jacketed biological science for many decades, daring to imagine how
shifting to a more holistic style of thinking, recognizing the emergent properties
of complex systems, and seeing Life as energy might dramatically change how
we understand the world in which we live.4
The unity-in-multiplicity aspect of life on Earth was first recognized in
Darwins theory of common descent; its radiation from a common ancestor of
three and a half billion years ago is now visible in a striking circular mapping
of evolutionary relatedness.5 With recent advances in ultramicrography we can
now peer deeply into Nietzsches Heraclitean flux, watching on our laptops the
stepping of motor protein dynein6 as it walks along microtubules inside living
cells.7 Even the double helix has to run in place to remain stable: What many
people dont realize is how dynamic the structure of DNA is, Dr. Jacqueline
Barton observed in an interview for the New York Times; The base pairs are
always moving and vibrating, electrons are migrating, holes are opening up
and closing through the center of the DNA. . . . Nothing stays still for more
than a femtosecond here or a millisecond there (Angier 2004). A group of cell
biologists has taken to calling their research into the active, self-organizing
processes of living systems molecular vitalism, to emphasize how unlike the
mechanistic workings of actual machines these processes are.8
With respect to whole organisms, a host of cognitive ethologists and
others have been making great strides in awakening us to the subjecthood of
nonhuman animals. More recently, plants are being revealed as sensing and
acting beings with their own forms of intelligence. Darwin observed that
the sensitive root tip, having the power of directing the movements of the
adjoining parts, acts like the brain of one of the lower animals9; contemporary
work in plant neurobiology is investigating the possibility that meristematic
tissue in thousands of root and shoot tips, interconnected by chemical and
electrical signaling, may result in the emergence of intelligent behavior in a
plant (Hall 2011, 147). Importantly, Matthew Hall concludes, whatever the
current scientific debates, the intellectual basis for treatments of plant life as
inert, vacant, raw materials is demonstrably false (Hall 2011, 156). Recalling
Nietzsches image of a center of force, environmental philosopher Paul Taylor
recognizes all living things as teleological centers of life, each pursuing its
own good in its own wayexpressing its individual will to power!and he
construes each living center an entity to be respected ethically.10 The dependence
41
of our ethics upon our metaphysical/ontological picture of the world should be

obvious. As pointed out by Carolyn Merchant, industrial cultures embracing of
the mechanistic paradigmviewing nature as a system of dead, inert particles
moved by external, rather than inherent forces, an event she calls the death
of nature, legitimated the unrestricted manipulation of nature for human ends
(Merchant 1980, 193), which in turn has plunged us into the extinction spasm
we are undergoing today.
People in the animal rights movement already know the world is full of
nonhuman subjects that interact with us, and their ethics is informed by their
ontology. So do many hands-on gardeners, who propagate plants and help them
thrive, but also take responsibility for weeding when the will to power becomes
a little too exuberant for the garden as a whole. Did what I saw in Peru have
any basis in reality, outside of my own perception/conception/visualization?
I dont know; there are those who have interpreted similar experiences with
an affirmative answer. My intent in participating included learning to enhance
my ability to visualize imaginatively, so Im happy to settle for it as a powerful
metaphor. But I do know that the plants and animals I deal with on a daily basis
are real, entities in their own right independently of me, because they push
backtheir will to power brushes right up against my own.
If the above has served to explicate Nietzsches notion (and vindicate his
rejection) of the mechanistic, what can we say about the Platonic? My
reading is that he objected not only to Christianity but also to the hegemony of
abstract reason in Western thought as being antinature, antilife. In Nietzsches
time, Christian theology provided the afterworldly meta-narrative that
distracted us from the here and now on this Earth. Celebrating our temporal,
bodily existence, Nietzsches message for the nineteenth century was God is
dead!an injunction to get our heads out of the clouds and learn to smell
the roses. Before the Christian heaven became ensconced in the sky, however,
Plato sang the praises of a world of perfection that lay somewhere beyond,
abstracted from our imperfect and temporary lives. Nietzsche notes that he
recognized Socrates and Plato as symptoms of decay (Nietzsche 1968b, 29).
Socrates tried to make a tyrant of reason, ushering in a new kind of agon,
of which he was the first fencing-master, a dialectician who devitalizes his
opponents intellect (Nietzsche 1968b, 32).11 In attempting to do away with the
body, with the senses and the apparent world they reveal, philosophers trade
in conceptual mummies; nothing actual has escaped from their hands alive
(Nietzsche 1968b, 35); in the sign-systems of logic and mathematics, reality
does not appear at all, not even as a problem (Nietzsche 1968b, 36).
42
As Platonism for the masses (Nietzsche 1966, 2), Nietzsche rails against
Christianitys abstract realm where there are nothing but imaginary causes
(God, soul, . . . ), . . . imaginary effects (sin, redemption, . . .), and so
on, an entire fictional world [having] its roots in hatred of the natural
(actuality!) (Nietzsche 1968a, 125). Today, however, our Platonic
mode of thought has become the theology of economics. Nietzsche saw the
beginning of the progression that led to our present predicament: what
one formerly did for the sake of God one now does for the sake of money
(Nietzsche 1982, 123). Our current meta-narrative, unlike the stories of the
Bible, is almost wholly abstracted from the human scene, obsessed with
quantification, and increasingly divorced even from logical intelligibility, yet
its commandments are obeyed with far less resistance. As John Searle so deftly
pointed out, money itself is a social construction, a symbol that exists only
because we all agree to believe it does, an ontologically subjective entity.12
Unlike the atom, there is not even an independently existing center of
force for our representation to wrap itself arounda federal reserve note
is nothing but symbols, all the way down. Today, Nietzsches rant about the
imaginary causes and imaginary effects of the purely fictitious world
that falsifies, disvalues and denies actuality should be directed not toward
God, souls, and the forgiveness of sins, but rather toward compound
interest, derivatives, and credit scores. That we would willingly chop down
the Tree of Life to make chits for a great Monopoly game in the sky should be
enough to make anyone nauseated.
We can now start closing in on an understanding of Nietzsches provocative
pronouncement:
The two most extreme modes of thoughtthe mechanistic and the
Platonicare reconciled in the eternal recurrence: both as ideals. (Nietzsche
1967c, 546)
The mechanistic and the Platonic are extremes; mirror-image twins, they are
both human constructions, ways of representing the world spun out by our
faculty of language, one a false uniformity and deadness imposed on living
nature, the other a realm of pure abstraction with no corresponding actuality at
all. In between these two extremes lies the will to power, the turbulent monster
of energy that feeds on itself, the living reality of embodiment. At best, the
two extremes are conceptual bookends, tools we can apply when the occasion
warrants, but never to be mistaken for the real thing we would apply them to.
These two extremes, being cut from the same cloth, do not require reconciliation
43
with each other so much as they require reconciliation with the world of life,
which is the actual world in which we humans are immersed.
It remains only to make sense of this reconciliation in the eternal
recurrence, the interpretation of which is a demanding task for all Nietzsche
scholars. Schutte understands it as one of several metaphors for overcoming
the dualisms that riddle our culture, healing our alienation from the cyclic
patterns and continuity of life, overcoming our resentment against the past
(Schutte 1984, 5868). Williams sees it as an ideal that enables you to see
yourself, reflecting values as a mirror reflects a body (Williams 2001, 115);
Zarathustra is struck down, she claims, upon encountering the sudden vision,
not only of the small man recurring endlessly, but of himself as well, his own
small place within the welter of humanity (Williams 2001, 11718). Heidegger
makes much of the Moment, the gateway between eternities stretching into
the past and the future. The eternal recurrence says something essential: That
which is to come is precisely a matter for decision, since the ring is not closed
in some remote infinity but possesses its unbroken closure in the Moment, as
the center of the strivingthe Moment determines how everything recurs
(Heidegger 1984, 57).
Seeing ourselves?well, perhaps we would be struck dumb before our
collective image in a mirror. My God! Were primates who have overpopulated
and are now fouling our nest, hypnotized by our own symbols! The thought
should strike everyone ill to the core. The disgust Nietzsche felt toward the
small man, the last man, was provoked by humanitys poverty of will, the
insipid refusal to engage in any striving toward self-transformationbut
in his day the consequences of a mindless stampede to convert the living
world into stuff and money had not yet come to light. Today we see them
everywhere.
But if Zarathustra is the teacher of the eternal recurrence, he is also the
teacher of the bermenschwhat the human could become upon crossing
the rope over the abyss. If everything recurs, then the bermensch, as
well as the small man, has emerged before and will do so once again. What
might this creature will? A knuckling under to an inexorable degradation of
life, excused under the guise of amor fati? Or might the bermensch, in
the Moment that determines what will be, decide that we will reverse our
ecocidal trajectory?and in the making of that decision, utter the words,
As such do I will it!
Not everyone will succeed in making that crossing, I fear, but, should we
begin now, some part of our species just might reach the other side. In place of
44
God is dead, therefore, I suggest a new wake-up call: Money is nothing! For
indeed, money is not a thing at all, while for us, life is everything.
Notes
1 For a beautifully illustrated account of some of the visions attained in this
shamanistic tradition, see Luna and Amaringo (1991). It should be noted that
participation in such a ceremony is not illegal in Peru; however, the issue of
whether such interactions with plants should be considered illegal anywhere is
one academics should examine. For some pertinent views, see (Nutt 2009) and
(Tupper 2008).
2 Along with a fifth of all mammals and about a third of all reptile, fish, amphibian,
and invertebrate species that are threatened with or imminently facing extinction
(Young 2010, 35).
3 N. Katherine Hayles presents a somewhat similar metaphysical scheme,
recognizing the active construction of a world by humans and other forms of life
via a set of processes she calls the cusp, through their interaction with what is out
there, which she calls the unmediated flux (Hayles 1995, 4950).
4 See Pietaks Life as Energy: Opening the Mind to a New Science of Life.
5 See the University of Texass genetic tree, www.zo.utexas.edu/faculty/antisense/
downloadfilestol.html (accessed August 2012).
6 www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2yFlNn2dZc (accessed August 2012).
7 Ironically, it is taking some of our most advanced technologythe mechanistic at
its bestto reveal how little life resembles something mechanical.
8 See (Kirschner et al. 2000).
9 As quoted in (Hall 2011, 139).
10 See Taylors Respect for Nature.
11 Many of todays analytic philosophers seem to be proud heirs to this tradition.
12 See (Searle 1995).
Bibliography
Angier, N. (2004), Constantly in Motion, Like DNA Itself, the New York Times,
March 2.
Capra, F. (1996), The Web of Life. New York: Doubleday.
Goodpaster, K. (1978), On Being Morally Considerable, The Journal of Philosophy 75:
30825.
45
Hall, M. (2011), Plants as Persons: A Philosophical Botany. Albany: SUNY Press.

Hayles, N. (1995), Searching for Common Ground, in M. Soule and G. Lease (eds),
Reinventing Nature? Responses to Postmodern Deconstruction. Washington, DC:
Island Press.
Heidegger, M. (1984), Nietzsche, vol. II, D. Krell (trans.). San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Kauffman, S. (1993), The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution.
New York: Oxford.
Kirschner, M., Gerhart, J., and Michison, T. (2000), Molecular Vitalism, Cell 100:
7988.
Luna, L. and Amaringo, P. (1991), Ayahuasca Visions: The Religious Iconography of a
Peruvian Shaman. Berkeley: North Atlantic Books.
Maturana, H. and Varela, F. (1987), The Tree of Knowledge. Boston: Shambhala.
Merchant, C. (1980), The Death of Nature. New York: HarperCollins.
Nietzsche, F. (1966), Beyond Good and Evil, W. Kaufmann (trans.). New York: Random
House.
. (1967a), The Birth of Tragedy, in W. Kaufmann (trans.), The Birth of Tragedy and The
Case of Wagner. New York: Random House.
. (1967b), On the Genealogy of Morals, W. Kaufmann and R. Hollingdale (trans), in
W. Kaufmann (ed.), On the Genealogy of Morals and Ecce Homo. New York: Random
House.
. (1967c), The Will to Power, W. Kaufmann (ed.), W. Kaufmann and R. Hollingdale
(trans). New York: Random House.
. (1968a), The Anti-Christ, in Twilight of the Idols and The Anti-Christ, R. Hollingdale
(trans.). London: Penguin Books.
. (1968b), Twilight of the Idols, in Twilight of the Idols and The Anti-Christ, R. Hollingdale
(trans.). London: Penguin Books.
. (1974), The Gay Science, W. Kaufmann (trans.). New York: Random House.
. (1982), Daybreak, R. Hollingdale (trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
. (2005), Thus Spoke Zarathustra, C. Martin (trans.). New York: Barnes & Noble.
Nutt, D. (2009), A Dangerous Attitude to Drugs: We Ignore the Scientific Evidence at
Our Peril, New Scientist 2733 (November 7): 5.
Pietak, A. (2011), Life as Energy: Opening the Mind to a New Science of Life. Edinburgh:
Floris Books.
Schopenhauer, A. (1969a), The World as Will and Representation, vol. 1, E. Payne (trans.).
New York: Dover.
. (1969b), The World as Will and Representation, vol. 2, E. Payne (trans.). New York:
Dover.
. (1992), On the Will in Nature, D. Cartwright (ed.), E. Payne (trans.). New York:
Berg.
Schutte, O. (1984), Beyond Nihilism: Nietzsche without Masks. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
46
Searle, J. (1995), The Construction of Social Reality. New York: The Free Press.
Taylor, P. (1986), Respect for Nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Tupper, K. (2008), The Globalization of Ayahuasca: Harm Reduction or Benefit
Maximization? International Journal of Drug Policy 19: 297303.
Williams, L. (2001), Nietzsches Mirror: The World as Will to Power. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield.
Young, E. (2010), Living World: Why the Tropics Are Hotbeds of Evolution, New
Scientist 2757 (April 24): 325.
The Comprehensive Meaning of

Life in Bergson
Florence Caeymaex
Translated from the French by Edward F. McGushin1
There is good reason to consider Henri Bergson, alongside Nietzsche, Dilthey,

and Simmel, as one of the major figures in the field of philosophy of life.
Bergson often evoked his very early interest in theories of evolution.2 As early as
1896, Matter and Memoryhis book on the relation between the body and the
soulput in play the central role of the brain as the organ of attention to life in
the activity of the mind, sketching a conception of the living body (corps vivant),
i.e. of the body as a center of action. But it is with the appearance of Creative
Evolutionthe work which established the national and international fame of
Bergson from 1907 on (Azouvi 2007, 131)that Bergsonism is definitively tied
to the notion, or more exactly the image, of the vital impetus (llan vital). In
both the mental and physical sense, it is the thematic of life that asserts itself as
essential for all of Bergsons reflections. And it is to the evolution of life that this
philosophy returns in 1932 in order to think through the problem of distinctively
human sociability, that is to say, moral and religious phenomena.
In many respects, Bergsons philosophy is an attempt to renew metaphysics
starting from biological science, which took off in the 19th century, and to
found, on new bases, the alliance between science and philosophy that Descartes
realized with mathematics. Just as Descartes had taken mathematics as model
and support,3 Bergson became a student of the life sciences, broadly understood
(biological, psychological, sociological). He was not just looking for a model
that of an empirical and experimental knowledge (connaissance)but he also
had the aim of elaborating a properly metaphysical signification of the notion of
life, born of a philosophical intuition conceived as a direct vision of the real.
48
And yet, despite the link that deeply unites philosophical intuition and life,
Bergsons theory of life is not vitalism, as it is sometimes thought to be. And this
for two reasons: on the one hand, because life is not the sole problem dealt with
in Bergsons philosophy, and on the other hand, because this philosophy never
postulates a vital principle at the core of reality. First of all, we will recall that,
in effect, Bergson presented each of his great books as an entirely new effort
to treat a new problem (Bergson 2009b, 97).4 Hence, the true nature of life is
neither given nor presupposed in Matter and Memory, and Creative Evolution
does not hold all of the keys to the moral problem treated in The Two Sources
of Morality and Religion. Moreover, while Bergson really did seek to isolate the
metaphysical sense of life, starting from the sciences of life (physical, organic,
social), and while he developed this meaning across his different works, he
never advanced life or vitalism as the ultimate, unique, or all-encompassing
explanatory principle. The continuity of Bergsons uvre is foreign to any
systematizing spirit, to any will to take hold of the whole of knowledge virtually
in a single principle (Bergson 2009b, 27).
Therefore, we need to understand that while a philosophy of life really
is elaborated in Bergsons works, life is neither a principle, nor the one and
only site of philosophical intuition. The attempt to integrate the sciences of life
with metaphysics leads not only to the elaboration of a theory of life, but to the
complete revision of metaphysics, that is to say, to a profound transformation
of philosophical thought or intelligibility itself. The primary notion, the one
that fully expresses this transformation, is not that of life, but rather that of
duration (la dure).
Duration has a double sense for Bergson: an ontological senseit refers to
the intuition that the essence of reality is becomingwhich is inseparable from
a gnoseological or theoretical sensereferring back to the idea that an absolute
knowledge or knowledge of the absolute is a thinking in duration. This notion
constitutes neither the center nor the principle, but rather the obligatory point
of passage for all the problems treated by Bergson. For this reason, we should say
that it is possible to seize the true nature of life starting from duration, but life is
not le tout of duration. But as we will see, the intuition of duration is born from
a certain experience of life and it gives back to life the comprehensive meaning
that Bergson attributes to it.
Creative Evolution is situated at the heart of this complex problematic. In effect,
one finds in this book the elaboration of a theory of life, which, by following
the trail of facts isolated by scientific knowledge, arrives at the necessity of a
new genre of knowledge. It is also the realization of the limits of our ordinary
The Comprehensive Meaning of Life in Bergson
49
intellectual categories, which are incapable of grasping the essence, or more

exactly, the whole, of life. This is the reason why the theory of life is inseparable
from a critique and theory of knowledge, through which Bergson will be led to
specify how science and metaphysics are different and yet complementary, thus
demonstrating the respective roles of intelligence and intuition. By remaining
at the level of life itself we will be able to explain why our intelligence, which
always remains a vital function, naturally tends to misapprehend life and incites,
because of this very fact, an intuition which will surpass it.
The aim of this book is to grasp what Bergson calls the true nature of life,
or more exactly, the profound meaning of the evolutionary process (Bergson
2007b, vi). Bergson situates his reflection in relation to the sciences, which take
living beings as their object; to the extent that the idea of evolution has become
their common presupposition, it is, for him, the obligatory point of departure for
any theory about the essence of life. The way one conceptualizes the nature of
lifeand hence its relations with brute, inorganic matteris strictly dependent
upon the way one conceptualizes the evolutionary process.
On the basis of the first and second chapters of Creative Evolution, this essay
attempts to outline the essence of Bergsons theory of life in relation to his theory
of knowledge and his metaphysics. My intention here is not to provide a summary of
all the implications of this theory of life,5 but rather to offer, departing from this
determinate thematic, some of the keys to his work as a whole.
Living body and duration

In the first chapter of the book, Bergson shows that evolutionary theories generally
content themselves with applying traditional notions of finality or mechanism,
and this, despite the empirical indications provided by the sciences themselves.
Having indicated the inadequacy of traditional notions for comprehending the
simple existence of the organized or living body, Bergson goes on to show why
they are a fortiori worthless for understanding the evolution of life. This is how
he is led to propose the image of the vital impulse for thinking evolution, which,
on the one hand, breaks with the mechanistic perspective, and on the other,
profoundly transforms the teleological perspective.
The line of questioning that opens the chapter actually bears on the modes of
existence of entities, and Bergson begins by recalling the results of his previous
works. For him it is established that our existence, as we perceive it from the
inside or psychologically, isto speak in absolute termsuninterrupted
50
qualitative change, a reality with the defining characteristic of enduring (durer),

of persisting through change, of bringing about an irreversible transformation. It
is equally established that the material objects of our external perception exhibit
the inverse character (Bergson 2007b, 7). Our perception fragments material
reality into discontinuous parts and attributes change to a modification of the
order and quantity of the parts. Science takes up the stance of perception: the
succession that it observes, the causality that it postulates (and that it translates
into the language of mathematics), reduced to a quantitative change, assumes the
character of a reversible time, similar to that of a videotape that one could play
backwards in order to return to the first image or to the initial conditions. The
mechanical causality of physics is not an absolute negation of time, but rather
rests on a concept of time arrived at by abstraction from the real duration. The
reversible time of physics is, for Bergson, an artifice designed to conceptualize
the set of changes possible in a system. In this perspective, time is not active; it
does nothing: the present contains nothing more than the past, and whatever
one finds in the effect was already there in the cause (Bergson 2007b, 14).
Between the psychological and the material, where should one situate the
living body? If it is incontestably a portion of material extension, subject to
physical and chemical laws, then it is more than a simple assemblage of parts
or points of matter. One cannot adequately describe it by means of categories
applicable to the raw material objects that sense-perception and the physical
sciences target. Organic unity, on the one hand, tends toward a certain
systematization of parts6 (Bergson 2007b, 14); on the other hand, this unity is
primarily the continuity of a thing which endures (dure), a being whose past
persists in its entirety in its present, remaining actual and active (Bergson
2007b, 15). The most evident manifestation of this duration, of this persistence
through change in the living being, the register in which time inscribes itself
(Bergson 2007b, 16), is the irreversible process of aging. For Bergson, there is
no fundamental difference between embryonic development and aging: it is a
matter of one single continuous process, which is the perpetual change of form
(Bergson 2007b, 18).7 Therefore, in a certain sense, there is, in aging itself, the
production of novelty, what Bergson names creation. One should understand
by this not a process of fabrication, the production of an object, but rather a
transformation, the becoming-other of the organism. In this becoming, the
present state encompasses and includes the whole set of past statesone could
speak of an organic memorybut without having been given, that is to say,
without having been contained in the preceding states as a possibility8: it is more
than and other than simply the series of preceding states added together; it is the
51
set of these past states modified. Bergson had already encountered this concrete
duration in his preceding works: in Time and Free Will and then in Matter and
Memory duration defined the essence of psychic and psychological phenomena.
It appeared in those works as the essential difference between the living and
the dead, the organic and the inorganic. The fundamental characteristic of the
organized body is becoming or history: a continuity where the past acts as a
memory coalescing with the present (Bergson 2007b, 22) and the creation of
something novel and previously unforeseeable.
Embryology, histology, theories of heredityso many domains of knowledge
in which becoming plays an essential role. For Bergson, the direction taken by
the biological sciences of his time, by making duration appear as a reality, put the
received conceptual frameworks of the material sciences to the testconceptual
frameworks which substitute abstract time for concrete duration. It calls for
another model of intelligibility, if not in the biological sciences themselves, then
at least at the level of a theory of life.
In my view, it is not a matter of disqualifying the physico-chemical approach
to organic phenomena, but of showing that in order to elaborate a theory of
life one must depart from the (legitimate) path of physico-chemistry. In sum,
to think organization is to break with Cartesian mechanism. But it is also to
break with the teleology that has typically been seen as the alternative to
mechanism. This is what orients Bergsons opposition to vitalism, which, against
mechanistic reductionism, attempts to explain the organization of living beings
as a function of a vital principle. These theories, which one finds among certain
well-known biologists of the time,9 hold that the development of organisms
obeys an internal principle, independent of physico-chemical causality, acting
within each individual as a final cause and making it take such and such a form
of organization.10 When all is said and done, if the mechanistic view sees the
whole course of development already determined by the initial conditions, a
teleological view inscribes it in the future; in either hypothesis, duration or real
evolution counts for nothing because one presupposes that all is given (Bergson
2007b, 39).
Evolution and vital impetus

If mechanism and teleology are incapable of accounting for the evolutionary
process characteristic of living beings and organized bodies, what will happen
when one applies them to evolution at the level of life as a whole? Beginning
52
with Lamarck, the idea slowly took hold that the relationships and differences
established by the classifications of natural history had to be thought according
to a temporal order or chronological succession, leading to what Bergson
calls transformism (Bergson 2007b, 234). This lets us see, at the level of the
totality of living beings, a series of continuous transformations that, branching
off along different paths, give birth to new species, and also to new individuals
that in themselves represent an original variation of the species. On a grand
scale, it is a process of creating unforeseeable forms. Bergson admits that
transformism, or the theory of evolution, remains a hypothesis that cannot be
demonstrated. But this is not a fatal objection because it underscores that, on the
one hand, the rich development of the life-sciences confers on this hypothesis
an indefinitely increasing probability (Bergson 2007b, 24) and, on the other
hand, that evolutionism has already acquired the status of what we would today
call a paradigm for the biological sciences.11 Under these conditions, how
could a mechanistic conceptionthe logic of which is essentially predictive
and thus focused on the repetition of the samepresume to hold the key to
a philosophy or theory of life? Similarly, under these conditions, how could a
radical teleologywhich conceives of creation as production according to a
goal, plan, or modelcontinue to have meaning?
In rejecting mechanism and radical teleology Bergson is taking a philosophical
position, but that position is not the result of mere reflecting on principles. His
challenge to them comes about through a kind of crucial experience, over the
course of which a series of concurrent scientific hypotheses will reveal the limits
of mechanistic reasoning12 as well as the need for a different understanding of
teleology.
This crucial experience involves the question of how the eye develops over
the course of evolution. How must one comprehend the process that led to
the existence of such a marvelously complex structure?13 And especially, how
can we account for the fact that one finds analogous structures along different
evolutionary lines (e.g. the human eye and the eye of certain mollusks), as if
nature had opted for certain determinate organic structures, rather than for chaos?
Bergsons argument shows that, when faced with these questions, all of the
mechanistic theories of evolution are invalidated: either they give up the attempt
to explain the directions of evolutionand, therefore, of organization itselfor
they surreptitiously reintroduce a final cause which explains the directions taken
by evolution.14 This is the kernel of truth contained in the scientific hypotheses:
it does not seem possible to rely on a certain teleology to understand evolution,
and yet a theory of life must be able to affirm at the same time both that evolution
53
is an unpredictable, continual creation of forms (Bergson 2007b, 87) and that it

is not, for all that, completely arbitrary.
Each of the scientific hypotheses gives only a partial view of evolution
(Bergson 2007b, 85). It is up to philosophy to disengage, at the intersection of
the trail of facts traced by the sciences, the ideas that they suggest about the
subject of life. This idea will not have the transparency of a concept because it
takes form at the moment when we let go of our ordinary intellectual categories
and swim against the mechanistic current proper to scientific conceptualization.
In effect, this is why the idea of life is given by way of an image, the image itself
translating the intuition that lies at its source.
Before making explicit what the image chosen by Bergson designates, let
us note what he wants to retain from the scientific hypotheses, the elements
that he takes to be partial points of view on truth (Bergson 2007b, 868).
From neo-Darwinism15 (the theory of mutations), he holds on to the idea of a
tendency toward internal change, independent of the behavior of the individual;
from the hypothesis of orthogenesis,16 that variations proceed from generation
to generation in a definite direction; from neo-Lamarckism,17 the idea that
the directions taken by evolution follow from a nonsubjective, nonindividual
psychological causality: from a movement similar to an effort, that is, to an
impulse or a will reaching toward the future (Franois 2008, 55).18
The image of the vital impetus translates these different aspects of
evolutionary development and the organization proper to life. In this image,
life appears as a current flowing from an original common impulse and
which, in moving forward, branches into divergent evolutionary lines (Bergson
2007b, 53)along which the distinct forms of life, species, and even different
individuals are distributed. If you do not accept the hypothesis of radical
teleology, how do you account for these divergences, which are organized in
these directions? Even when divided, this impetus is no less continuous along
those lines where it becomes actual through the accumulation of variations
and differences, in the manner of a consciousness wherein the past remains
active in the present. The structural similarities that one finds among these
distinct lines arises from the fact that all the evolutionary lines have a common
origin (Bergson 2007b, 51), as if the latter contained the virtualities (Bergson
2007b, 182) or the tendencies (Bergson 2007b, 513) induced to fulfill
themselves through a labor of invention and creation. These virtualities are
neither spatial forms of organization nor the structures of living beings, but
first of all the virtuality of functions. Hence the formation of the eye over the
course of evolution could be understood as the result of a progress of vision
54
(Bergson 2007b, 97). Its similarity in very different species simply expresses the
acquisition by life, in each of its forms, of one and the same power of vision.
With the image of impetus Bergson is on his way toward assimilating the
vital impetus with the stream of consciousness and toward the idea of a properly
psychological, though nonsubjective and nonindividual, causality at work
in life. First, the vital impetus manifests all the characteristics of the duration
proper to psychological existence: unpredictable development, continuous
change, qualitative transformation, and irreversible becoming, which is at once
both conservation and creation. Second, the division of impetus into divergent
directions amounts to the many choices (Bergson 2007b, 97) by which the
intentions of lifethat is to say, the virtualities of impetusare realized, without
these intentions ever requiring the representation of a goal to attain.19 Finally,
saying that the virtualities or internal tendencies of impetus are virtualities of
function serves to underscore that life is essentially action in the strong sense of
the term, a free activity, which implies an act of consciousness to some degree. In
sum, should we say that what is properly vital in life is consciousness (Bergson
2007b, 1823)? At a conference in Birmingham in 1911,20 Bergson confirms that
the relation between life and consciousness is not only one of analogy. He claims
that de jure if not de facto, consciousness is coextensive with life (Bergson
2007b, 180 and 2009a, 13).
Organization: Life and materiality

Though the vital impetus is a stream of consciousness, life does not express itself
any less by its activity of material organization. We have seen that living bodies
distinguish themselves from inert material bodies by their organizationthat
is to say, by a continuity of duration. It is now evolution itself which could
be understood as a work of organization, in such a way that the nature of the
relationship between consciousness and materiality, constitutive of life, becomes
clearer. This point should allow us to specify the kind of relationship that exists
in the living being between the function and the system that performs it.
On all of these points, the labor of organization distinguishes itself from
fabrication, because the latter is precisely not a creationthe artisan, says
Bergson, discovers in his product only what he puts in it (Bergson 2007b,
93). Vital organization is something other than the assembly of means with a
view to some end, something other than the arrangement of material elements
according to a plan. The act of organization is, in fact, a simple one, which is
55
accomplished when impulse, like an explosive discharge of energy (Bergson

2007b, 99), encounters matter and seeks to cut a path through it. The resistance
of matter makes it both the instrument and the obstacle that divides and clarifies
impetus (lan) (Bergson 2008, 118), in such a way that impetus (lan) must
actualize its virtualities in an original way. From this perspective, the material
organization of the living bodybut also, at another level, the organ, or any living
element whatever it may bemanifests itself as the contingent effect achieved
by impulsion when it successfully breaks through or outflanks the obstacle
of matter. The materiality of the living body or the organ no longer represents
an ensemble of means employed, but rather an ensemble of obstacles that have
been outmaneuvered (Bergson 2007b, 94). If one can speak of an adaptation
of life to external conditions, it is not in the sense that these conditions would
be the cause of organic formseither by direct or indirect actionsbut in the
inverse sense, where adaptation translates the original solution, found by life,
to the problem which the external conditions posed (Bergson 2008, 117).
We have said that the original impulsion includes these virtualities of
functions, that is to say of action, and that the resistance of matter divides and
clarifies this impulsion. Everything happens as if the organic functionseeing,
that is, capturing lightwere this virtuality made actual, active, or effective
thanks to the narrowing, to the canalization of this power of seeing imposed
by matters inertia. From this point of view, the organ is not the instrument of
the function, born of an accidental assembly or guided by more or less complex
material structures. The organ, the instrument, is less than all that: the visual
apparatus simply symbolizes the work of canalization (95), a partial view taken
on a simple and indivisible act, the progress of vision.21
Metaphysical import of the image of vital impetus:

The meaning of life
In a single phrase, Bergson summarizes the two aspects depicted in the image
of vital impetus (consciousness and organization): Everything happens as if a
large current of consciousnesscharged like all consciousness with an enormous
multiplicity of interwoven virtualitieshad penetrated into matter. It organized
matter, but its movement was simultaneously slowed down and split up by it
(Bergson 2007b, 182).
The perspective on the evolutionary process that Bergson develops in
the second chapter of Creative Evolution is a continuation of this image. This
56
process is not a linear progress toward complexity (Bergson 2007b, 136). It is

an act which, under the pressure of matter, diffracts itself into a multiplicity of
life-forms. Such a multiplicity is nevertheless channeled into three principle
directions along divergent lines which Bergson understands as so many different
actualizations of a single tendency to act on brute matter (Bergson 2007b, 97).22
The focus bears less on the material forms of living beings than on the distinct
modalities by which the operation of life realizes itself, that is to say, in essence,
the eruption of consciousness. This is the reason why Bergson first distinguishes,
in the world of living beings, between the nearly unconscious torpor of vegetal
life and the vivacity of animal life. And second, among animal species, between
the quasi-automatism of instinct and the free operation of intelligence (in the
great vertebrates and human beings). From this point of view, human intelligence
marks the highest achievement of the vital impetus, as if, at this level, life becomes
more supple, dynamic, and conscious.
These considerations could have an impact on the biological sciences, but
the real stakes of the image of the vital impetus are primarily theoretical and
metaphysical; they overturn the philosophical tradition on at least four points.23
By refusing to comprehend evolution according to the model of fabrication,
the image of the vital impetus neutralizes the model of intelligibility common
to mechanism, classical finalism, and ordinary, practical intelligence. In effect,
it inverts the perspective, deeply rooted in human intelligence, which leads us
to impute positivity to matter and negativity to consciousness or to duration.
Here, negativity is on the side of matter, which represents the diminution of the
positive nature of the impetus (Bergson 2007b, 211).24 The positive element in
the living being is its duration: its becoming, its evolution.
For all that, Bergson does not reinstate a substance dualism.25 The image of the
vital impetus implies solidarity between impetus and resistance. This solidarity is
essential to vital creativity, to the extent that life singularizes itself by an internal
duality of tendencies. Here, philosophy introduces the fundamental theme of the
finitude constitutive of life (Bergson 2007b, 254). We experience this finitude in
the feeling of effort, that is to say, by way of the resistance that we oppose to the
resistance of matter.26
On several occasions we have spoken of the virtualities of impetus. Bergson
uses the term often in order to qualify the source of the directions or tendencies
present in the lifes evolution, without relying on a traditional teleological model.
The creation proper to the vital movement is therefore never ex nihilo: it implies
virtualities. As Deleuze has stressed, the virtual must be carefully distinguished
from the possible, as conceived according to traditional metaphysics and
57
enveloped in the model of fabrication.27 Reality is not the actualization of

a possibility, the realization of a plan through reproducing it. It is rather a
multiplicity of virtualities of which the actualization requires not only an effort
of creation or invention, but also a reduction (rtrcissement) or a choice. In this
way, actualization obeys a regime of differentiation completely different from
the regime of duplication, which in classical metaphysics articulates the real
and the possible28: in this way the evolution of life advances toward vision, but
under different forms, in species which have totally different histories (Bergson
2007b, 87).
Finally, we must understand that in the Bergsonian perspective life no
longer has the status of a general concept under which the totality of living
beings will be grouped: we must no longer speak of life in general as an
abstraction, or as a simple rubric under which one inscribes all living beings
(Bergson 2007b, 26). Moreover, life is not a principle at the foundation of all
living beings. Rather life is, in general, more aptly described as a tendency to
act on brute matter (Bergson 2007b, 97). Its mode of action, however, is not
predetermined. Understood in terms of evolution and the image of impetus, it
is first of all the ensemble of a very long history (Bergson 2007b, 20), a single,
indivisible history (Bergson 2007b, 37)each evolutionary path, each species,
and each individual life traces its own singular, unique history inscribed in the
history initiated by the original impetus. The historicity of life, and similarly
the historicity proper to each individual living beingthat is to say, its pace
as a singular, irreversible, creative and finite processonly appears when
one forces oneself to think in duration. This thinking in duration adopts an
inverse approach to the reasoning mobilized by traditional metaphysics, since
the latter proceeds, like science, through generalization and categorization.
Constructing a theory of life does not mean, as we have seen, neglecting the
lines of evidence established by the biological sciences, but adopting toward
them a comprehensive method which would not make time an abstraction.
Therefore, the theory of life aims to grasp genuine nature (vraie nature): the
latter is not an essence fixed in place by a concept, but the totality opened by a
history that the image of the vital impetus expresses.
Intelligence and intuition

Bergsons theory of life is bound up with some firmly held metaphysical positions,
but it is far from dogmatic. The rejection of traditional metaphysicsforever too
58
Platonicin effect gathers its arguments from a knowledge (connaissance) which

circumscribes the exercise of the mental faculties (facults de lesprit) according
to their direction and their domain of application (Bergson 2007b, 179). Two
traits distinguish this critique: first of all, it is not, as with Kant, tied to a priori
reflection, but to an experience;29 second, it offers philosophy, or metaphysics, the
possibility of a new use of scientific, and in particular biological, knowledge.
Bergsons theory of the faculties deals first with intelligence. As we have seen,
the latter is one modality of lifes functioning that has arisen over the course
of evolution. As with instinct, it is constitutively ordered toward action. But
instinct is an immediate knowledge of its object and immanent to action itself,
sculpted to fit life, so to speak. Intelligence, however, proceeds in a mediate or
indirect way, in order to know and get a hold on reality. In effect, Bergson defines
intelligence as a faculty for fabricating unorganized instruments, that is to say,
artifacts (Bergson 2007b, 151), a faculty by which the intelligent being acts on
matter. Its object is, first of all, the unorganized solid. Fabrication requires a
specific, somewhat formal, externally oriented type of knowledge, which consists
in representing relations (Bergson 2007b, 152) between discontinuous elements:
a knowledge that envisions reality in terms of space, that is to say, in terms of a
homogenous and empty, infinite and infinitely divisible milieu completely open
to any mode of decomposition whatsoever (Bergson 2007b, 157). Indifferent
to duration, novelty, and radical becoming, intelligence is characterized by a
natural incomprehension of life (Bergson 2007b, 164). It is constituted in such
a way that it comprehends inert matter, and anything in any way explicable, as a
combination of unorganized solids.
Therefore, the mechanistic outlook roots itself in the operations of an
intelligence focused on production all the while attempting to apply itself
little by little to the whole of reality. The strength of formal knowledge lies in
its capacity to reach every object, including those beyond the range of action
(Bergson 2007b, 152). When it distances itself from its practical interest,
intelligence is bound by its nature to want to reconstruct the whole of reality as
a system regulated according to principles or laws, elaborating general concepts
from elementary representations. This is the source of the tendency that led
human knowledge to the physical sciences and then to a theory of matter,
which in many ways served to confirm the most ancient metaphysics, itself
based on intellectualism. But how could any metaphysics aiming to encompass
the whole, or the essence, of reality be established on intellectualism, which
precisely has the task of abstracting, that is to say of considering reality only
from an established point of view, outside of any duration?
59
Bergsons theory of knowledge sets out a double critique: a critique of

intelligence and science that circumscribes and measures their reach; and a
critique of traditional metaphysics that radically inverts its direction. Although
sufficient for the domain of action and the scientific study of inert matter,
intelligence reveals its limits, its clumsiness (Bergson 2007b, 165), as soon as
it has to deal with the life of the body or the mind, organic or spiritual life, that
is, with living beings. For Bergson, it is not a matter of refuting the legitimacy of
an intellectual approach to organic phenomena,30 but of suspending it when it
is time to grasp the true nature of life, in other words what is properly vital
in living beings.
In this case, the philosopher will have to take a different (inverse) tack than
that of intellectualism, which decomposes, abstracts, spatializes, and reconstructs
in order to explain. The philosopher will have to become reacquainted with
that which disconcerts the intellect but which is, nevertheless, the very heart
of life: duration. Bergson designates the effort that goes against the grain of
intellectualism31 with the name intuition. It recovers something of the instinct
by which activity continues the labor of vital organization without rupture:32
an agreement, indeed, a coincidence with life. Intuition would be like instinct
having become disinterested, conscious of itself (Bergson 2007b, 178). It is
not the pure negation of intellectualism, but a comprehensive movement of
enlargement, by which the mind (lesprit) reunites with the life from which it
derives its own impetusand with the evolution in which the direction and
limits of intelligence are rooted.
But what is at stake in intuition goes well beyond a theory of life. For the
intuition of life is in essence an active hold on duration in the experience of
life, the whole metaphysical weight of which, its status as absolute reality,
Bergson put forward as early as Matter and Memory (Bergson 2007b, 3389
and Bergson 2010, 2323). The comprehension in duration of intuition can,
in effect, expand to matter itself, which finds its place in the infinite plurality of
rhythms or tensions of duration (Bergson 2009b, 95). In this way, intuition as
the experience of duration is the point of departure for a philosophical act that
breaks with traditional metaphysics.33
In fact, it is by an act of intuition that life (Bergson sometimes says, the
biological) acquires its profound significance, or more precisely the very
comprehensive meaning that scientific explication foresees but cannot reach.
Traced back to duration, the notion of life can integrate the different dimensions
that ordinary language spontaneously gives to it when speaking about organic
life, psychic life, or social life.
60
But coming to an end, we have to add that the philosophical act would never
reach the absolute if it were not the continuation or integration of multiple
experiences we have of life, within us and outside of us.
Intuition would thrust us into consciousness in general. But is it only with other
consciousnesses that we sympathize? If every living being is born, grows, and
dies, if life is an evolution and if duration is here a reality, is there not also an
intuition of the vital and, consequently, a metaphysics of life that will extend the
science of the living? ... the fundamental cause of organization ... do we not
reach it by recapturing through consciousness the impetus of life that is within
us? (Bergson 1934, 28)
For it is in the most intense experiences of life, those that break the frameworks of
our categories and intellectual habits, that we come back in contact with creative
duration: the free act, emotion, artistic creation, and moral creativity (la cration
moral).34 If the notion of duration is the crossroads of all the problems taken
up in Bergsons metaphysics, it is, nevertheless, starting from our experience of
living beings that we are able to grasp its scope and meaning.
Notes
1 The translator would like to thank Christian Martin for his invaluable assistance and
Scott Campbell for reading drafts line by line to make this a much better translation.
2 In particular for the work of Herbert Spencer (18201903), who was committed to
a mechanistic view of the world and who attempted to elaborate an evolutionary
theory that could serve as the basis for defining the principles of psychology, biology,
sociology, and ethics. Though he held on to Spencers idea of a knowledge modeled on
the details of the facts, Bergson nevertheless vigorously rejected what he quickly came
to think of as a false evolutionism (Bergson 2009b, 2 and Bergson 2007b, x, 3639).
3 Psycho-physical parallelism and positive metaphysics, discussion at the Socit
franaise de philosophie, May 2, 1901 (Bergson 2011, 259).
4 See La pense et le mouvant: Introduction, Deuxime partie. De la position des
problmes. Each work offers to those that follow certain results, but each is organized
around a different problem and constitutes an entirely new creation.
5 Notably its implications for anthropology and practical philosophy, which we take to
be very important (Caeymaex 2012, 31133).
6 This very important and original thesis links living (le vivant) to a process of
individuation and not to strict individualitywhich is never perfect according to
Bergson (Bergson 2007b, 14).
61
7 Perhaps it is not possible to establish a rigorous distinction in organic life

between the creative and destructive processes. This distinction has an essentially
quantitative sense, signifying growth and diminution respectively. Bergson
substitutes for this view that of a qualitative change (change of form), where
creation means at once continuity and change.
8 For the critique of the notion of the possible, see notes 24 and 25 below, as well as
(Bergson 2009b, 99116) (Le possible et le reel).
9 Doctrines called neo-vitalist that postulate, alongside mechanistic processes, an
independent vital principle: the entelechies of biologist and philosopher Hans
Dreisch (18671941); the dominants of botanist, theist, and reactionary Reinke
(18481931).
10 In addition to the indeterminacy of the notion of the vital principle, which by itself
does not explain anything, this thesis of Aristotelian ancestry is inconsistent, like
every theory that wants to make finality a principle internal to the individual. At
what level will we effectively situate individuality: the organized body, the organ,
or the cell? Bergsons idea is that if life is organization in the sense that it tends to
produce systems, it is impossible to designate a sole organic entity as individual,
absolutely speaking. The cell itself is already organized and forms an organization
with other cells. In these conditions, where individuality is never perfect, there
could be no internal finality (Bergson 2007b, 14 and 423).
11 We suspect that the language of transformism now imposes itself on every
philosophy, just as the dogmatic affirmation of transformism imposes itself on
science (Bergson 2007b, 26).
12 In the critical sense of the term. For Bergson it is not a matter of denying the
legitimacy of a methodologically mechanistic approach to organic phenomena
by the physico-chemical sciences, but of defining the field of application for this
approach. It will become clear that another approach altogether will be necessary
to comprehend the whole of life.
13 See (Bergson 2007b, 613).
14 The theory of accidental variations, whether they be gradual or abrupt, whether
or not they rely on an environmental selection (or adaptation) to take place, do
not explain how the variations are maintained and add up in such a way that they
produce the eye as an effect; it [i.e. the theory of accidental variations] does not
explain either how such different causal series could result in similar or analogous
effects, except by bringing in, implicitly, the genie of species which secures the
arrangement. The same holds for the idea that the variations could be the direct effect
of external conditions: must one say that the formation of the eyean organ adapted
to use lightis caused by the action of light? Obviously not. In fact one admits that
organic matter possesses a sui generis capacity for building machines ... for taking
advantage of the simple excitation the influence of which it receives: another name
for the final cause.
62
15 Hugo De Vries (18481935), Dutch botanist, cytologist, and hybridist, attempted

to explain variations in species by the phenomena of mutation through the
hereditary transmission of pangenes at the cellular level.
16 Theodor Eimer (184398), zoologist, countered the Darwinian idea of random
variation with the idea of a variation operating in a determined direction (the idea
of orthogenesis), resting on a physico-chemical causality.
17 Bergson, despite his vigorous opposition to the idea of heredity of acquisitions
(lacquis), nevertheless referred to the doctrine of Edward D. Cope (184097),
known for his work in paleontology and embryology, who in a novel way countered
the Darwinian theory of natural selection and understood evolution from an
energetic perspective (clearly the point which influenced Bergson).
18 The notion of impetus refers back to the dimensions of time or the duration of a
consciousness. If impetus looks like a will, it is so insofar as consciousness tends
toward the future (Franois 2008, 5571).
19 Bergson explicitly uses this experience in The Two Sources of Morality and Religion,
in a key passage where, in order to clarify them, he returns to the ideas that he
intended to convey via the image of the vital impetus (Bergson 2008, 11520). He
specifies, and this is very important, that one must not give an anthropomorphic
sense to this notion of intention, because intention here is not at all the
representation of a goal to attain, but rather a virtuality implicit in the original
impetus. We could add that Bergson emptied this term, like that of consciousness,
of all subjectivist signification.
20 The lecture is entitled La conscience et la vie (Henri Bergson 2009a, 128).
The analogy is not immediate and assumes a detour through the external world
(Riquier 2009, 38893).
21 Bergson elaborated this idea with respect to the subject of perception in Matter
and Memory, which he explicitly refers to in Creative Evolution (Bergson 2007b,
94): vision would be a power which would accomplish, rightfully, an infinity of
things.... But such a vision would not last in action.... The vision of a living being
is an effective vision, limited to the objects upon which the being can act: it is a
canalized vision....
22 These three modalities of life are contained in the initial impulsion as virtualities,
and their development comes about in the form of a dissociation: Vegetative
torpor, instinct, and intelligence, in sum elements which coincided in the vital
impulsion common to plants and animals, and which, over the course of a
development where they came forward in the most unexpected forms, broke away
from each other by the sole fact of their growth (croissance) (Bergson 2007b,
1356).
23 These are fundamental themes that one discovers in the later writings where
Bergson specifies the nature of his metaphysical project, notably in the double
introduction to La pense et le mouvant.
63
24 Bergson is a thinker of dualities, but not a dualist.

25 On this point, as well as on the status of the negative in Bergson, see (Janklvitch
1959) (Caeymaex 2008, 62940) and (Caeymaex 2010, 26183).
26 See (Bergson 2009b, 99116) and (Deleuze 1966, 99103).
27 See (Bergson 2009b, 5 sq. and 19). Here comprehending means expanding the
habitual logic of our thinking in the direction of duration.
28 In the Introduction to Metaphysics, Bergson shows that his method does not
proceed by way of generalization but rather by way of integration and that
metaphysics can be understood as integral experience (Bergson 2009b, 227).
29 Bergson admits in effect that the physico-chemical approach to organic phenomena
finds its verification in the analysis of the functional activity of the living being
(Bergson 2007b, 36).
30 Which is a torsion of intelligence on itself (Bergson 2007b, 162).
31 Because it only continues the work through which life organizes matter, to such
an extent that we could not say ... where the organization ends and where instincts
begins. When the little chick breaks its shell with one peck from its beak, it acts
instinctively, even though it only follows the impetus which propelled it during its
embryonic life (Bergson 2007b, 166).
32 As Fr. Worms wrote, intuition is the apprehension of the meaning of life of which
human intelligence is the concrete incarnation (Worms 2004, 224).
33 We have already noted some elements of this critique of metaphysics. This is also
what is at stake in the final chapter of Creative Evolution.
34 These three vital experiences are clearly privileged by Bergson as inferior or
superior intuitions akin to philosophical intuition. Free act, artistic creation, and
emotion are thematized throughout Bergsons work. In The Two Sources, mystical
intuition comes forward as the most intense intuition, the one which culminates in
the highest form of creation: moral creation (the creation of moral sentiments).
Bibliography
Azouvi, Franois. (2007), La gloire de Bergson. Essai sur le magistre philosophique. Paris:
Gallimard.
Bergson, Henri. (2007a), Essai sur les donnes immdiates de la conscience. Paris: Presses
Universitaires de France. Originally published 1889.
. (2007b), Lvolution cratrice. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Originally
published 1907.
. (2008), Les deux sources de la morale et de la religion. Paris: Presses Universitaires de
France. Originally published 1932.
. (2009a), Lnergie spirituelle. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Originally
published 1919.
64
. (2009b), La pense et le mouvant. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Originally

published 1934.
. (2010), Matire et mmoire. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Originally
published 1896.
(2011), Ecrits philosophiques. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Caeymaex, Florence. (2008), Ngativit et finitude de llan vital, in Annales
bergsoniennes IV, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 62940.
. (2010), Lanalyse des ides dexistence et de nant, in A. Franois (ed.), Lvolution
cratrice de Bergson. Paris: Vrin, 26183.
. (2012), La socit sortie des mains de la nature. Nature et biologie dans Les deux
sources, in Fr. Worms et al. (eds), Annales bergsoniennes V, Bergson et la politique: de
Jaurs aujourdhui. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 31133.
Deleuze, Gilles. (1966), Le bergsonisme. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France (1994).
Franois, Arnaud. (2008), Bergson, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche. Volont et ralit. Paris:
Presses Universitaires de France.
Jankelevitch, Vladimir. (1959), Henri Bergson. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France
(1999).
Riquier, Camille. (2009), Archologie de Bergson. Temps et mtaphysique. Paris: Presses
Universitaires de France.
Worms, Frdric. (2004), Bergson ou les deux sens de la vie. Paris: Presses Universitaires
de France.
Part II
Converging Technologies
Information, Self-Reference, and the Magical

Realism of Life
H. Peter Steeves
On Wednesday night, as they did every Wednesday, the parents went to

the movies. The boys, lords and masters of the house, closed the doors and
windows and broke the glowing bulb in one of the living room lamps. A jet of
golden light as cool as water began to pour out of the broken bulb, and they
let it run to a depth of almost three feet. Then they turned off the electricity,
took out the rowboat, and navigated at will among the islands of the house....
And so they continued sailing every Wednesday night, learning how to use
the sextant and compass, until their parents came home from the movies and
found them sleeping like angels on dry land....
(Garca Mrquez 1993, 5761)
Light is like water. We live in the waves; we live off the particles. Their depths
gave birth to us, to a world of gifts and instruments, of truth and fiction, and of
blurry borders in between.
At the start of his autobiography, Gabriel Garca Mrquez makes the blurry
borders clear: interpretation is everything. Life, he writes, is not what one
lived, but what one remembers and how one remembers it in order to tell it
[my translation] (Garca Mrquez 2002, 1). Lets call this our first definition of
lifeunscientific and messy. And lets admit that there is nothing magical about
magical realism. The genre marks, phenomenologically, an attitude, a taking as,
that ushers in a new world. It is a world where Maxwellian demons with Spanish
accents flood rooms only partially with light, keeping watch over counterpart
human angels on dry land. It is our world, we who are alive.
To paraphrase Aristotle, life is said in many ways. Most attempts to define
life run aground on familiar shoresor furniture, as the case may be. Common
68
to most of them, however, is a sense of self-made destiny. Against Aristotle, there

is little teleology these days in our understanding of life, unless that teleology is
itself self-constituted. But what is lost when teleology is lost? Perhaps the universe
did not mean to create lifeit certainly did not mean to create humansbut in
tossing out all talk of purpose and destination in our discourse we overlook the
possibility that the definition of life might best be had by looking at what it
does rather than what it is. Even the most hearty and strapping definitions of
life are ultimately too boot-strappy and too without heart.
Traditional wisdom suggests that a thing is alive if it is autonomous, if it
metabolizes, and if it reproduces itself. Immanuel Kant saw the difference
between a machine and an organism to be that in a machine the parts exist
for each other but not by each other; their operation has nothing to do with
building the machine. The parts of an organism work together but also produce
the organism: each part is cause and effect, and in this sense an organism is, for
Kant, a self-organizing entity (Harold 2001, 220). More contemporary definitions
give their own twist to this basic template. Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan see
life as that which is autopoietic (Margulis and Sagan 1995, 24). From the Greek
for self (auto) and making (poiein), autopoietic life continually produces
itself, engages in self-maintenance. Stuart Kauffman defines life as an emergent
property of an autocatalytic set of chemical reactions that is self-reproducing
and capable of performing at least one thermodynamic work-cycle (Kauffman
2000, 4 and 35). And Johnjoe McFadden takes life to be a system that uses
internal quantum [self-]measurement to capture low-entropy states that sustain
the state of the system against thermodynamic decay (McFadden 2001, 258).
In each of these definitions the key concept is one of self-reference. Life is taken
to be something special, something that is made from nonliving parts yet as a
whole is somehow self-made. The words auto, self-making, self-measuring,
and self-reproducing are the key terms. And they are all reflexive. Life becomes
life by doing something to itself.
Philosophy has made a career of studying self-referentiality. For 2,500 years,
Western thought has puzzled over, and turned in a crisis to, the self-reference.
There seems to be something almost magical about it. It defies logic and
appears on the scene to get us out of all sorts of binds. It is both trickster and
savior.
In ancient Greece, the liars paradox was well known. Whenever a liar claims
something to be true, it is easy to know that it is in fact false. Unless the liar
claims I am lying. When the liar refers to himself in a sentence that refers to
itself, all hell breaks loose.
Information, Self-Reference, and the Magical Realism
69
Seeking to tame the self-reference, Ren Descartes turned it into the foundation
for all epistemology in his search for apodictic knowledge. Descartes found he
could doubt everything he had ever been taught, everything that his senses were
telling him was real, whether he was dreaming or awake, whether or not he had
a body, even all of the claims of math and geometry. There was, in the end, only
one thing that Descartes could not doubt: the fact that he was doubting. To doubt
one is doubting requires an act of doubting and thus proves that one in fact is
doubting. And given that Descartes was now sure that he was doubting, even if
that doubting were going on in a dream or as a brain in a vat being tricked by a
mad scientist, Descartes knew he must in some sense exist. I doubtI think
therefore I am. The self-reflexive cogito ergo sum thus formed the foundation for
all further knowledgeand generations of philosophic inquiry.
Edmund Husserl updated Descartes nearly three centuries later, arguing
that the mind is always directed and that if we wish to unlock its very structure
we need only bend consciousness back upon itself thus making the object of
consciousness consciousness itself. By undertaking a phenomenological epoch,
we can consequently come to investigate intentionality (i.e., the minds structure
as it is necessarily directed toward some object). Jacques Derrida, who came
from this phenomenological tradition even as he criticized it, would later go on
to claim that everything is ultimately self-referential because there is nothing
outside of the text. We are all caught up in a hermeneutic of being and can find
no place outside to comment objectively on anything. Even Niels Bohr once said
that we must never forget that in the drama of existence we are ourselves both
actors and spectators, the audience to our own performanceand then he went
back to working on the Manhattan Project, building bombs in order to build
peace.
Philosophers outside of the continent are also preoccupied with
self-referentiality and the contradictions and foundations it creates, though in a
more analytic way. Studying the logic and the language of self-reference, Gdel
discovered that given any axiomatic system as or more thorough than arithmetic,
there will be some statements that are true while at the same time cannot be
proven true (cannot be derived from the axioms). These special statements are,
of course, self-reflexiveas interesting set-theory statements often are. One
way, crude but in the right spirit, of understanding Gdels insight would be to
imagine a book that would compile all books within its covers. It would have
everything Garca Mrquez ever wrote, every edition of Shakespeare, all of James
Joyce, every book ever published anywhere. Yet it would always be incomplete
because once all other books were finally compiled, it would still be missing one
70
booknamely, itself. And if we were to put a copy of itself inside its covers (thus
doubling the contents) it would still be incomplete, because now there would
exist a new book (its newly expanded self-edition) that would still be missing.
The move to self-referentiality is always done with flourish. It marks
the demise or the salvation of a system of thought, but always something
importantly system-shattering. Our preoccupation with self-reference, though,
has its historical roots: it rises from a preoccupation with the self. Autonomy is
neither an ancient nor a natural term. Seeing things as separate, self-sufficient,
and self-directed has a political and metaphysical history. In the seventeenth
century this radical individualism took a secure hold on our culture in the form
of liberalism. Descartes isolated monadic self-thinking self would be the start
of all modern Western metaphysics and epistemology. Thomas Hobbes isolated,
selfish, and equal creatures warring in a state of nature would found all social
contract theory, which is to say most political theory in the West. Galileo and
Newtons mathematization of the natural world and conception of objectivity as
the opposite of subjectivity would set the standard for scientific inquiry. In each
of these projects of liberalism, the Other subsequently becomes a nuisance in the
search for truth, knowledge, and security. Philosophy consequently undertakes
a foolish centuries-long project of proving the existence of other minds;
democracies spring up in which I am inexplicably most free when I am most
left alone. Communitiesbeing inherently with Othersare vilified. And thus
when we go to define life scientifically, we naturally start by seeing whatever
is alive as radically individual, a unit, an autonomous thing; and we see the spark
that brought it into being as necessarily self-given. For what else is there apart
from the autonomous self? Life, for the liberal, is an individual enterprise.
[F]iremen forced the door on the fifth floor and found the apartment brimming with
light all the way to the ceiling. The sofa and easy chairs covered in leopard skin were
floating at different levels in the living room. ... Everyones toothbrush floated in
the bathroom, along with Papas condoms and Mamas jars of cream and her spare
bridge, and the television set from the master bedroom floated on its side, still tuned
to the final episode of the midnight movie for adults only. At the end of the hall,
moving with the current and clutching the oars, with his mask on and only enough
air to reach port, Tot sat in the stern of the boat, searching for the lighthouse, and
Joel, floating in the prow, still looked for the north star with the sextant, and floating
through the entire house were their thirty-seven classmates.... For they had turned
on so many lights at the same time that the apartment had flooded, and two entire
classes at the elementary school of Saint Julian the Hospitaler drowned on the fifth
71
floor of 47 Paseo de la Castellana. In Madrid, Spain, a remote city of burning summers

and icy winds, with no ocean or river, whose landbound indigenous population had
never mastered the science of navigating on light. (Garca Mrquez 1993, 15761)
Water is like light. We die in the waves. Communities, especially, are precarious;
they are more thing-like than people. The current may carry condoms, the TV
may float by with sex on the screen, but whatever gives life also takes it away in a
science few of us can every truly master.
I recall watching Carl Sagan on TV in my youth pour the elemental
ingredients of a human body into a large glass boxmostly water, of course.
He stirred it up, smiled in that way that he smiled, and asked why nothing
was alive in there. The same sorts of questions had already been haunting me
for years: what are we, where did we come from, what makes us alive, how
did the cosmos begin, and what is this all for? My childhood answer to Carls
question about animating the stuff of life went back and forth between soul
and electrical-chemical energy. These seemed to me the two possible poles,
divine and secular, and I flitted back and forth from one to the other with
youthful life-force and indecisiveness.
The image has stayed with me all of these years: what was missing in that
box? Order, of course. One cannot put the parts of an airplane on a runway and
wonder why nothing takes off. But it seems to me today that there might be
something more deeply problematic with the question itself. The chemicals that
Carl stirred in his box were of just the right proportion to make a single human.
One way or another, we are still searching for how that one, single, solitary,
unitary, autonomous individual came to life: the first cell, the first strand of
DNA, the first self-replicating peptide. And this is all very liberal.
Sometimes the liberal worldview in the search for lifes origins is explicit. In
trying to understand the birth of the first gene and of the first cell, for instance,
zoologist Mark Ridley uses the ideas of liberal political-philosopher John Rawlss
A Theory of Justice to explain why too-selfish genes do not arise (Ridley 2001,
197). More often, however, the assumptions are implicit. We are looking for
that one thing that was first alive: the ur-Eve to us all, orto mix mythological
metaphorsthat first Venus rising from the foam within the cell of her half-shell,
alone in some warm and frothy little pond.
But what if the assumptions of liberalism are all wrong? What if I am the
point of overlap of my roles and relationships? What if I am not prior to the
Other, nor definable without her, for what it means to be an individual is to be in
community, to be tied to and constituted by my communal enmeshment?1 What
72
would it mean, then, to be the first living thing? Without a biosphere, without
an ecological environment, without an Other? When we imagine the first living
thing, is our liberalism shaping our experiments and our models? Are we looking
for a Hobbesian peptide in a state of nature, a Cartesian RNA-self in radical
isolation in a little pond, a Leibnizian mound of monads in the cell-bubbles atop a
4-billion-year-old percolating ocean? Is the myth of the capitalists self-made man
rewritten as the myth of the first self-made molecule, pulling itself up by its own
bootstraps to make it in the big-time like a mitochondrial Bill Gates? Perhaps we
need a radically new model of individuality before we can find the first individual
instance of lifebefore we can even define that for which we are searching.
In 1906 Ludwig Boltzmann committed suicide. He had been instrumental in
showing how entropy had to do with probability and thus information, arguing
that the laws of thermodynamics would be true only for systems with an
infinite number of particles. After Boltzmanns death, physics student Ludwig
Wittgenstein decided to leave Germany and instead study philosophy in England.
Suicide is not an action that affects a mere individual.
Wittgenstein would make a name for himself early in his career as a philosopher
of individuality. Taking up the project of logical atomism, his Tractatus sought to
found language (and epistemology and metaphysics) on a set of basic atomistic
axioms, on a simple denotative theory of language mirroring the world. Later in
his lifeafter a stint away from higher academics, after years of teaching young
childrenhe would realize that meaning is only achieved in community, in context,
thus developing the idea of the language game in his Philosophical Investigations.
It was a journey from the one to the many. The Tractatus was written in part in
the trenches of World War I; the Investigations in a kindergarten. The context may
indeed be relevant. But constant throughout was Wittgensteins insistence that there
are no private languages, no possibility of meaning, of information, in isolation.
Information theory has become the way to investigate the origin and the
nature of life. But like the assumed individuality of liberalism, such inquiry
is poorly founded. What goes unacknowledged is that information requires a
community and a context. Information is a term that has come to be nearly
synonymous with all good things even outside of science, but this is a sign of a
society that has commodified knowledge, reified it into something that can be
exchanged on a market, and let it stand in for wisdom. Some people, for instance,
believe that they have the wisdom of the world at their fingertips because they
have access to the Internet. But a glut of information does not lead to wisdom
(gluttony is, in fact, a vice).
73
One way to parse out the problem is by thinking through Erwin Schrdingers
attempt to explain the underlying structure of life. Schrdinger realized that
if genes were built from merely a few hundred or a few thousand atoms there
would be such great statistical fluctuation when those genes reproduced that the
mutations would eat away at the base inherited information and destroy any real
possibility of an inheritable essence across time. That is, with only a few atoms
making each molecule, the chances of the atoms combining incorrectly in the
next generation would make it nearly impossible for the gene to reproduce itself
to any great extent. The information would not be secure.
We could think of Schrdingers problem this way: imagine that we are a
race of gamblers who want to tell our future generations all of the gambling
truths we have learned, but we cannot come out and tell them directly. Instead
we must encode the knowledge in a packet of so-called information and hope
future generations see the truth in front of them. Suppose, then, that the message
we want to get across time is that snake eyes tends to come up only once every
36 rolls of the dice in craps, so it is typically not a good bet. If the packet of
information we send in order to advise our future generations is a record of the
outcome of only 36 rolls of the dice, we can expect a statistical fluctuation of
about 6 (the square root of 36). The fluctuation, that is, will be 6/36 or 17 percent.
Consequently, there is a possibility that the sample will fluctuate so much that the
truth we wanted to pass along, the truth we hope they will see about the bad bet,
will not be evident to anyone looking at the information. Two ones might never
come upor have come up several timesif we only throw the dice 36 times
and record each result. However, if we roll the dice 100 times and record the
results, the fluctuation will only be about 10 percent. And better yet, a record of 1
million rolls will yield a tiny .1 percent fluctuation. That is, the greater the sample,
the less the deviation of the snake eyes roll from 1:36, and the clearerat least
so goes the hopethe meaning of the information. As the sample approaches
infinity, we might say that the message gets asymptotically clearer: more data
tends to create a clearer message. Thus we roll the dice a trillion times, record the
number of times we get snake eyes, and pass this along to our progeny, hoping
that they will see just how close that result is to 1 in every 36 rolls and thus what
a hard number that is to make in craps.
The genes, though, pass along their instructions for making a new organism
with a transcript showing only a few dice rollsthey are made with relatively
few atoms. And yet that information is somehow clear. What Schrdinger
realized is that the origin of the order, of the clarity, must be somehow deeper.
His suggestionpresaging Watson and Cricks discovery that the structure of
74
the DNA molecules double helix was important to its information content
was that the form of the molecule would end up carrying part of that ordered
information content. Crystals, for instance, have a set structure to them, with
their atoms in a precise lattice formation. Such a formation would be a prime
candidate for a template of life but for the fact that crystals are so overly ordered
that their structure cannot carry much information at all (one part of the crystal
is just like all the other parts; a simple algorithm could describe how to build
one and thus little information can be stored). But an aperiodic crystal has a
rigid structure without a regular pattern and thus, potentially, could be a greater
conveyor of information. Schrdinger suggested, then, that the stuff of life would
likely be aperiodically crystalline in form, and that the aperiodic structure itself
and not just the atoms that were being structuredwould encode important
information. As a bonus, quantum fluctuations in the atoms comprising the
crystal would likely lead to small mutations with each generation, thus finishing
out the Darwinian picture.
Of course, Schrdinger was wrong about the details. But he was right about
the big picture. He was right that the medium is part of the message. For now,
though, I would like to focus on what we mean by information in such a context,
for this is all, so far, a likely story.
The information content of a signal is often defined as the number of yes/
no questions that have answers that could be coded in that signal. As such,
information in general is never infinite. Indeed, most theories of quantum
gravity, incomplete though they are, conclude that spacetime is not continuous
but rather, on the Planck scale, space appears to be composed of fundamental
discrete units ... (Smolin 2001, 169). There is a smallest length, and thus a finite
amount of information the very structure of spacetime itself could contain.
Here, then, is the first indication that information and meaning are radically
separate. Information is necessarily finite; but since contexts are infinite, meaning
infinitely exceeds information. Put another way, the data from dice rolls might be
thought of as information, but what to do with this, what it means, is something
moresomething that cannot be captured in terms of information theory. It
is not that the informational content of the record of the dice rolls contains
within it a predetermined set of possible yes/no questions. Rather, with each
new context we bring to the record, a new set of questions presents itself: the
information itself changes. One might think of this in terms of Thomas Kuhns
understanding of the structures of scientific revolutions. Once a new paradigm
takes over, the old data appears in new ways, means new things. Equipment and
experiments are designed to expose new parts of the world, and the answers
75
they receive will be partly determined by their own asking. This is the nature of a
context. All possible contexts are not pre-statable; consequently what something
can mean is not pre-statable. If we look, then, at only the information content, we
are overlooking precisely what is important.
Again, to put it another way, all the information in the world cannot equal
meaning. Even as the amount of information approaches infinity there is no
guarantee that any message will be clearer. Surely a record of 100 dice rolls will
show the statistical breakdown of how often snake eyes appears more thoroughly
than a record of only 36 dice rolls. And a record of a trillion dice rolls piles
on more information. But unless the reader, the interpreter, the Other, knows
what to be looking for, all the information addition in the world will not make
a difference. Imagine showing someone the record of 100 dice rolls and asking
Do you get it? only to be met with Do I get what? We show them a record
of a million dice rolls and ask Now do you get it? only to be met with Do
I get what?! We show them the record of a trillion dice rolls, a quadrillion, a
googol, but the conversation remains at a dead end. It might be thought that in
such cases what we require is more information, but increasing the information
in the signal is not the answer. Meaning and context are not at all functions of
information. Indeed, there is nothing objective about information. A text and a
reader co-construct information. What something meansif something means
anythingdepends on what I bring to the table as much as what is already there
at the table. And when it comes to how the building blocks of life first came
together, information theory cannot account for the context of what is read from
those blocks.
When Garca Mrquez is telling his own origin of life storythat is, how
his own mother and father came togetherhe writes that his mothers family
disapproved of his fathers interest in their daughter, and so they took her away
from town, traveling across Colombia, from village to village, in order to keep
the girl hidden. But lovelike lifewill find a way, and the two kept up their
communication and thus their romance by secretly speaking through the
telegraph machines at each stop. There was a code. She would first ask Are you
my godson? He would answer falsely, Yes. They would know, then, that it was
their one true love on the other end, still waiting, still longing.
How much information is in this little story? How many yes or no questions
could be asked and answered about it? Within the story, how much information
is encoded in the question Are you my godson? One cannot know what the
question means to the boy on the other side unless one knows the context. And
this is radically different from thinking that one cannot know what ATGCCA
76
means until one cracks the code of the triplet sequence and how codons code to
build one unit of a proteins structure. To see nucleotides written as information
is to assume that there is one thing that they mean, that they refer, that they
denote. This is a remnant of Platonism we must move beyond. To hear the
telegraph crackling is to realize that there are many things that the scratches
can mean depending on who is listening and who is sending. Indeed, even the
noise on the line is not fairly thought of as negative information, because it can
come under scrutiny at some later date when the context makes it relevant and
thus changes its status from noise to meaningful sound. Context carves up an
ever-malleable world.
It is tempting to think that the reason an airplane does not take off when we
dump all of the airplanes parts on the runway is that the information concerning
how to assemble the plane is missing. But the reason plane-parts do not fly and
random amino acids do not create peptides that reproduce and metabolize
cannot be captured by information theoryand it certainly cannot be captured
by an appeal to why one individual thing is not doing what we want it to do. Until
we reevaluate our metaphors and our assumptions, prebiotic chemistry and the
search for the origin of life will always come up short. Life, in the end, must be
understood in a new way that structures the scientific search itselfperhaps
as more of a verb than a noun, always as something that involves a community
of things all at once, forever dependent on context and what life accomplishes
by being life. Like magical realism, it seems at first fantasticlike light being a
wave without a mediumuntil we realize that all of the stories we tell inform,
implicitly or explicitly, the way in which we start to tell the story of science, too.
It is thus that we can appreciate that there is nothing magical about magical
realism. Its world is our world. And from it, every once in a while, something
suddenly yet reasonably takes flight.
In Garca Mrquezs story, A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings, a very old man
with enormous wings crash-lands in a small fishing town near the sea. He is silent
and diseased. He is thought to be an angel. As he grows stronger, he develops the nasty
habit of appearing in multiple places at the same time in the house of the family that
takes him inreplicating his individuality over and over within the community. The
woman of the house is distraught at the mad logic of it all, complaining about living
in that hell full of angels. He is, it seems, a superposition of beings, an apparently
divine presence in a mundane world. His wings, when examined, though, are
perfectly natural. So natural, so classical, that the doctor concludes that he cannot
understand why all humans do not have them (Garca Mrquez 1999, 21725).
77
Indeed, it is a mystery to some why we are not fully divine. But perhaps it is
a greater mystery how we are not in the slightest divine, how we are alive and
mortal and hereall togetherin the first place.
In the end, the old man flies away, takes his leave, and everyone is relieved. He
flies away over the sea and into the sunrise, across the waves of light and water.
Light like water. Water like light. Lifeand those of us left behindsomehow
caught in the middle.2
Notes
1 For arguments for this claim, rather than mere declarations, see Steeves (1998).
2 My thanks to the members of the NASA Ames Workshop on Quantum Mechanics,
Information Theory, and the Origin of Life where parts of this essay, in a radically
different form, were presentedand especially to Jonathan Trent, Chris McKay, and
Paul Davies who invited me to be a part of that most distinguished group.
Bibliography
Garca Mrquez, G. (1993), Strange Pilgrims, Edith Grossman (trans.). New York: Alfred
A. Knopf.
. (1999), Collected Stories, Gregory Rabassa (trans.). New York: HarperPerennial.
. (2002), Vivir Para Contarla. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Harold, F. M. (2001), The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms, and the Order of Life.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Kauffman, S. (2000), Investigations. New York: Oxford University Press.
Margulis, L. and Sagan, D. (1995), What Is Life? New York: Simon and Schuster.
McFadden, J. (2001), Quantum Evolution: How Physics Weirdest Theory Explains Lifes
Biggest Mystery. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.
Ridley, M. (2001), The Cooperative Gene: How Mendels Demon Explains the Evolution of
Complex Beings. New York: The Free Press.
Smolin, L. (2001), Three Roads to Quantum Gravity. New York: Basic Books.
Steeves, H. P. (1998), Founding Community: A Phenomenological-Ethical Inquiry.
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
The Artificialization of Life: Designing

Self-Organization
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
The ethical aporia

Our capacity to act is no longer limited to the human sphere. We are able to
tamper with, and set off, complex natural phenomena. As Hannah Arendt put it
in her masterpiece work, The Human Condition, we can now act into nature. As
a consequence we have to confront a new kind of uncertainty. From a practical
point of view the key issue is to develop new concepts of prudence that are
suited to this novel situation. A long time ago Aristotles phronesis was dislodged
from its prominent place and replaced with the modern tools of the probability
calculus, decision theory, the theory of expected utility, cost-benefit analysis, etc.
More qualitative methods, such as futures studies, the scenario method, or the
precautionary principle were developed to assist decision-making. I believe that
none of these tools is appropriate to tackling the situation we are facing now.
German philosopher Hans Jonas, in his fundamental book, The Imperative
of Responsibility, cogently explained why we need a radically new ethics to rule
our relation to the future in the technological age. His starting point was a
philosophical aporia. Given the magnitude of the possible consequences of our
technological choices, it is an absolute obligation for us to try and anticipate
those consequences, assess them, and ground our choices on this assessment.
Couched in philosophical parlance, this is tantamount to saying that when the
stakes are high, we cannot but choose consequentialism, rather than a form of
deontology, as our guiding moral doctrine. Consequentialism as moral doctrine
says that what counts in evaluating an action is its consequences for all agents
80
concerned. By contrast, deontological doctrines evaluate the rightness of an

action in terms of its conformity to a norm or a rule, for example the Kantian
categorical imperative.
Something akin to the Kantian categorical imperative cannot do. The latter
enjoins each of us to consider what would happen if the maxim of our present
action were made the principle of a universal legislation: the self-consistency or
inconsistency of such a hypothetical universalization is made the test for our private
choices. But real consequences are not considered at all, and the principle is one not
of objective responsibility but of the subjective quality of our self-determination.
We are in need of a different consistency: not that of the act with itself, but that of
its eventual effects over time, and not in the abstraction of logic. What the actual
future will be as a consequence of our actions is what matters (Jonas 1985, 12).
However, the very same reasons that make consequentialism compelling,
and therefore oblige us to anticipate the future, make it impossible for us to do
so. Unleashing complex processes is a very perilous activity that both demands
certain foreknowledge and prohibits it.
Now, one of the very few unassailably universal ethical principles is that ought
implies can. There is no obligation to do that which one can not do. However,
we, who live in the technological age, do have an ardent obligation that we
cannot fulfill: anticipating the future. That is the ethical aporia. Jonas tried to
circumvent it by working out what he called an Ethics of the Future [Ethik fr
die Zukunft]meaning not a future ethics, but an ethics for the future, for the
sake of the future: the preservation of a future for humankind must become the
major object of our concerns.
Jonass credo, which I share, is that there is no ethics without metaphysics. It
is only if we venture into metaphysics that well have a chance to escape from the
ethical aporia. My topic is the NBIC convergence1: Ive tried to show in my work of
the last ten years2 that the most important ethical issues raised by it are inseparable
from the metaphysical assumptions that govern the field. I will focus here on the
metaphysics of acting into nature, including our nature, to take up Arendts phrase.
The metaphysics of the NBIC convergence

Making the world over
The positivist philosophy that drives most of modern science and technology
(and much of contemporary philosophy) takes metaphysics to be a meaningless
The Artificialization of Life
81
quest for answers to unanswerable questions, but Karl Popper, following

the lead of Emile Meyerson, showed that there is no scientific (or, for that
matter, technological) research program that does not rest on a set of general
presuppositions about the structure of the world. To be sure, those metaphysical
views are not empirically testable and they are not amenable to falsification.
However, that does not imply that they are not interesting, substantial, and that
they do not play a fundamental role in the advancement of science. Those who
deny metaphysics simply render it invisible, and it is very likely that their hidden
metaphysics is bad or inconsistent. To the amazement of those who mistook him
for a positivist, Karl Popper claimed that the philosopher or historian of sciences
task was twofold: first, unearth and make visible the metaphysical ideas that lie
underneath scientific programs in order to make them amenable to criticism;
second, proceed to a critical examination of those metaphysical theories, in a
way that is different from the criticism of scientific theories, since no empirical
testing is here possible, but nevertheless rational.
Two major philosophers from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries can
be said to have fleshed out the metaphysics underlying the new science the
budding of which they were witnessing and of which we are the inheritors: Ren
Descartes and Giambattista Vico. Descartes saw science and technology as aiming
at making man master and possessor of nature and of himself. More subtly, Vico
gave the postulate of the new science (1725) a celebrated formulation: Verum
et factum convertuntur (The true and the made are convertible). This means
that we can have rational knowledge only about that of which we are the cause,
about that which we ourselves have made. The principle of verum factum was
originally understood as implying a want or lack on the part of human beings:
we can never know nature in the way that God does, for God created what we
can only observe. Quickly, however, the principle acquired a positive sense more
in keeping with the growing affirmation of modern subjectivism: what human
beings make can be rationallythat is, demonstratively and deductively
known despite the finiteness of human understanding. Among the branches of
knowledge, ranked in descending order according to their degree of perfection,
mathematics by this criterion of course comes first, followed, however, not by
the natural sciences but by the moral and political sciences, supposed to be more
scientific because they deal with the products of human activity.
As regards the science of nature, however, its first principle, according
to Hannah Arendt, had to be that one can know only in making, or rather in
remaking. Despite his human limitations, the scientist nevertheless from the
outset approached [nature] from the standpoint of the One who made it
82
(Arendt 1958, 295). This explains not only the scientists emphasis on the how
of physical processes rather than on the being of things, but also the considerable
role assigned by science to experiment.
With the looming advanced technologies, we will be one big step further.
The NBIC convergence presents itself as the ultimate culmination of the verum
factum. It is no longer merely by doing experiments on it, it is no longer merely
by modeling it, that men will now come to know nature. It is by remaking it. But,
by the same token, it is no longer nature that they will come to know, but what
they have made. Or rather, it is the very idea of nature, and thus of a given that
is exterior to the self, which will appear outmoded. The very distinction between
knowing and making will lose all meaning with the NBIC convergence, as will the
distinction that still exists today between the scientist and the engineer. Already
today, in the case of biotechnologies, the distinction between discovery and
invention, on which patent law rests, is proving increasingly tricky to maintain,
as the debates about the patentability of life-forms demonstrate.
Under this general heading, we can include what some philosophers call the
artificialization of Nature and, in particular, of life and the mind. The metaphysical
program that drives the NBIC convergence, a Promethean project if ever there was
one, is to turn man into a demiurge or, scarcely more modestly, the engineer of
evolutionary processes. Biological evolution, with its clumsy tinkering, has often
botched the job, and it cannot be especially proud of its latest handiwork, man. It is
up to man himself, then, to try to do better. This puts him in the position of being
the divine maker of the world, the demiurge, while at the same time condemning
him to see himself as out of date. We are dealing here with an extraordinary
paradox of the coincidence of opposites, which such philosophers as Hannah
Arendt or Gnther Anders have brought out: the overweening ambition and pride
of a certain scientific humanism leads straight to the obsolescence of man. It is in
this broad perspective that we must always set the specific questions which are
termed ethical and which touch on the engineering of man by man.
The human condition is an inextricable mixture of things given and things
made. This means that man, to a great extent, can shape that which shapes him,
condition that which conditions him, while still respecting the fragile equilibrium
between the given and the made. Now, already in the 1950s, Arendt prophesied
a human rebellion against the given. She wrote:
For some time now, a great many scientific endeavors have been directed toward
making life also artificial, toward cutting the last tie through which even man
belongs among the children of nature ... This future man, whom the scientists tell
83
us they will produce in no more than a hundred years, seems to be possessed by

a rebellion against human existence as it has been given, a free gift from nowhere
(secularly speaking), which he wishes to exchange, as it were, for something he
has made himself. (1958, 23)
Indeed, the metaphysics of the NBIC convergence dreams of overcoming once

and for all every given that is a part of the human condition, especially the
finiteness of a human lifeits mortality and its beginning in birth. If immortality
has always had a place in mans thoughts or dreams, it is only very recently that
death has come to be considered a problem which science and technology can
solve by eliminating it. As for birth, the fact that we are born into the world
without our having had anything to do with it has become a source of shame
(Gnther Anders). We discover that we have been thrown (the Heideggerian
Geworfenheit) into the world and we feel abandoned. We experience forlornness
when we realize that we are not the foundation of our own being. Technology
fantasmatically promises a remedy for this feeling of nausea: (re)designing
ourselves, partially or totally, as if we were our own machines.
At the heart of the metaphysical research program that drives much of
contemporary technology, there is an enormous paradox. The metaphysics in
question clearly wants to be monist: one would no longer say today that everything
in the universe proceeds from the same substance, but one will say that everything
is subject to the same principles of organization: nature, life, and the mind. The
watchword of cognitive science is: naturalizing the mind. It is a matter of fully
restoring the mind (and life) to their proper place within the natural world. Now, it
happens that the principles of organization supposed to be common to everything
that exists in the universe are mechanistic principles. A device that processes
information according to fixed rules, that is, the algorithm, constitutes the sole model
of everything that exists. Chronologically, and despite what certain preconceptions
might suggest, the mind was first to be assimilated to an algorithm (or Turing
machine: McCulloch and Pitts model, 1943); next was the turn of life, with the birth
of molecular biology (Max Delbrck and the phage group, 1949); and only later
came the thesis that the laws of physics are recursive (or Turing computable). The
naturalization of the mind thus merges with the mechanization of the mind.
Heideggers error
Is the ambition to (re)make the world tantamount to controlling it, in keeping
with Descartes metaphysics? Therein lies Heideggers fundamental error. The
84
author of Sein und Zeit thought he had found in technoscience in general,

and in cybernetics in particular, the culmination of what he called Western
metaphysics. For Heidegger, metaphysics is the search for an ultimate foundation
for all reality, for a primary being in relation to which all other beings find their
place and purpose. Where traditional metaphysics (onto-theology) had placed
God, modern metaphysics substituted man. This is why modern metaphysics
is fundamentally humanist, and humanism fundamentally metaphysical. Man
is a subject endowed with consciousness and will: his features were described
at the dawn of modernity in the philosophy of Descartes and Leibniz. As a
conscious being, he is present and transparent to himself; as a willing being, he
causes things to happen as he intends. Subjectivity, both as theoretical presence
to oneself and as practical mastery over the world, occupies center stage in this
schemewhence the Cartesian promise to make man master and possessor
of nature. In the metaphysical conception of the world, Heidegger holds,
everything that exists is a slave to the purposes of man; everything becomes an
object of his will, fashionable as a function of his ends and desires. The value of
things depends solely on their capacity to help man realize his essence, which
is to achieve mastery over being. It thus becomes clear why technoscience,
and cybernetics in particular, may be said to represent the completion of
metaphysics. To contemplative thoughtthought that poses the question of
meaning and of Being, understood as the sudden appearance of things, which
escapes all attempts at grasping itHeidegger opposes calculating thought.
This latter type is characteristic of all forms of planning that seek to attain ends
by taking circumstances into account. Technoscience, insofar as it constructs
mathematical models to better establish its mastery over the causal organization
of the world, knows only calculating thought. Cybernetics is precisely that which
calculatescomputesin order to govern, in the nautical sense (Wiener coined
the term from the Greek xvbepvntns, meaning steersman and defined it as the
Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine): it seems indeed
to be the height of Western metaphysics.
Thinking so Heidegger remained blind to a fundamental shift in the metaphysics
of contemporary technology. It is often the case that the philosophy implicit to a
new field is given away, admittedly in a crude way, by its visionaries and ideologues.
On this score it is difficult to be more explicit than Kevin Kelly when he writes: It
took us a long time to realize that the power of a technology is proportional to its
inherent out-of-controlness, its inherent ability to surprise and be generative. In
fact, unless we can worry about a technology, it is not revolutionary enough.3
I will illustrate this assertion with the case of synthetic biology.
85
The metaphysics of making life from scratch

In recent years, the enterprise of making life from scratch has been organized as
a formal scientific discipline under the seemingly innocuous name of synthetic
biology. In June 2007, the occasion of the first Kavli Futures Symposium at
the University of Greenland in Ilulissat, leading researchers from around the
world gathered to announce the convergence of work in synthetic biology and
nanotechnology and to take stock of the most recent advances in the manufacture
of artificial cells. Their call for a global effort to promote the construction or
redesign of biological systems components that do not naturally exist evoked
memories of the statement that was issued in Asilomar, California more than
30 years earlier, in 1975, by the pioneers of biotechnology. Like their predecessors,
the founders of synthetic biology insisted not only on the splendid things they
were poised to achieve, but also on the dangers that might flow from them.
Accordingly, they invited society to prepare itself for the consequences, while
laying down rules of ethical conduct for themselves.4 We know what became of
the charter drawn up at Asilomar. A few years later, this attempt by scientists to
regulate their own research lay shattered in pieces. The dynamics of technological
advance and the greed of the marketplace refused to suffer any limitation.
Only a week before the symposium in Ilulissat, a spokesman for the ETC
Group, an environmental lobby based in Ottawa that has expanded its campaign
against genetically modified foods to include emerging nanotechnologies,
greeted the announcement of a feat of genetic engineering by the J. Craig Venter
Institute in Rockville, Maryland with the memorable words, For the first time,
God has competition. In the event, ETC had misinterpreted the nature of the
achievement. But if the Ilulissat Statement is to be believed, the actual synthesis
of an organism equipped with an artificial genome (a free-living organism that
can grow and replicate) will become a reality in the next few years. Whatever the
actual timetable may turn out to be, the process of fabricating DNA is now better
understood with every passing day, and the moment when it will be possible to
create an artificial cell using artificial DNA is surely not far off.
The question arises, however, whether such an achievement will really amount
to creating life. In order to assert this much, one must suppose that between life
and nonlife there is an absolute distinction, a critical threshold, so that whoever
crosses it will have shattered a taboo, like the prophet Jeremiah and like Rabbi
Lw of Prague in the Jewish tradition, who dared to create an artificial man, a
golem. In the view of its promoters and some of its admirers, notably the English
physicist and science writer Philip Ball,5 synthetic biology has succeeded in
86
demonstrating that no threshold of this type exists. And even in the event that
synthetic biology should turn out to be incapable of fabricating an artificial cell,
these researchers contend, it would still have had the virtue of depriving the
prescientific notion of life of all consistency.
It is here that nanotechnology plays an important symbolic role. It is typically
defined by the scale of the phenomena over which it promises to exert controla
scale that is described in very vague terms, since it extends from a tenth of a
nanometer6 to a tenth of a micron. Nevertheless, over this entire gamut, the
essential distinction between life and nonlife loses all meaning. It is meaningless
to say, for example, that a DNA molecule is a living thing. At the symbolic level,
a lack of precision in defining nanotechnology does not matter; what matters is
the deliberate and surreptitious attempt to blur a fundamental distinction that
until now has enabled human beings to steer a course through the world that
was given to them.
Once again, we find that science oscillates between two opposed attitudes:
on the one hand, vainglory, an excessive and often indecent pride; and on the
other, when it becomes necessary to silence critics, a false humility that consists
in denying that one has done anything out of the ordinary, anything that departs
from the usual business of normal science. As a philosopher, I am more troubled
by the false humility, for in truth it is this, and not the vainglory, that constitutes
the height of pride. I am less disturbed by a science that claims to be the equal
of God than by a science that drains of all meaning one of the most essential
distinctions known to humanity since the moment it first came into existence:
the distinction between that which lives and that which does not; or, to speak
more bluntly, between life and death.
Designing self-organization
All the paradoxes that I have brought out so far are epitomized in the paradox
involved in the project of designing self-organization.
With the NanoBioConvergence, a novel conception of engineering has indeed
been introduced. The engineer, far from seeking mastery over nature, is now
meant to feel that his enterprise will be crowned by success only to the extent
that the system he has created is capable of surprising him. For whoever wishes
ultimately to create a self-organizing systemforemost lifeis bound to attempt
to reproduce its essential property, namely, the ability to make something that is
radically new.
87
Natural versus artificial machines

One of the most outstanding conceptual breakthroughs of the second half of
the twentieth century was the emergence and the development of the notion
of natural machine. The current dynamics of technoscience thrives on the
corruption and decomposition of that idea. The ethical and political implications
are momentous.
The reader of Descartes may react here to what she may take as an anachronism.
Obviously there was no need to wait for the twentieth century to treat nature
and life as if they were machines. But one should avoid a confusion at all cost.
One must not confuse the metaphysics that treats nature and life as artificial
machines, on the one hand, that is, machines that have been designed by an
artificerin which case we remain caught in a form of finalism or teleology; and
the metaphysics that treats them as natural machines, on the other hand, that
is, that dispenses altogether with a conscious designer, be it God, the gods, or
Nature itself. The theory of complex, self-organizing systems that emerged in the
wake of cybernetics and in reaction to it permits us to give full consistency to the
concept of a complex machinery such as life without a designer.
An impressive series of scientific and mathematical discoveries made during
the second half of the twentieth century has completely changed the way in which
we conceive of dynamics, the branch of mechanics that concerns the trajectory
of a material system subject to purely causal physical laws. It is well known today
that complex systems, made up of many elements interacting in nonlinear ways,
possess remarkable propertiesso-called emergent propertiesthat justify their
description in terms that one should have thought had been forever banished from
science in the wake of the Galilean-Newtonian revolution. Thus it is said of these
systems that they are endowed with autonomy, that they are self-organizing,
that their paths tend toward attractors, that they are path-dependent, that
they have intentionality and directionalityas if their paths were guided by
an end that gives meaning and direction to them even though it has not yet
been reached; as if, to borrow Aristotelian categories, purely efficient causes were
capable of producing effects that mimic the effects of a final cause.
In a sense, we are not far here from Kants conception of nature in the
second part of his third Critique, the Kritik der Urteilskraft, entitled Critique
of Teleological Judgment. Only explanations that ultimately appeal to causal
mechanisms are considered adequate. Nonetheless, faced with the most
surprising manifestations of complexity in nature (life for Kant), recourse to
another maxim of judgmentteleological judgmentbecomes inevitable.
88
Concepts such as internal finality are indispensable, and perfectly legitimate, so

long as one keeps in mind that they have only heuristic and descriptive relevance.
Teleological judgment consists in treating them as thoughthe Kantian als ob
they have objective value.
Dangerous metaphors
It is striking, to say the least, to observe how unstable this notion of natural
machine has been in the ecology of scientific concepts.
Art
Techn
Nature
In this golden triangle whose vertices are Art (construed as human

workmanship), Nature (including Life), and Technique (construed as the science
of the mechanical) and whose center is the concept of complex, self-organizing
system, the Art-Nature side represents Kants Critique of Judgment with its
two legs: aesthetic judgment and teleological judgment; the art-techn side,
the concept of artificial (man-made) machine; and the techn-nature side, the
concept of natural machine. It is the Kantian side that keeps the natural and
the artificial apart. When it collapsesthat is, when the concept of immanent
finality is lost track ofthe semantic proximity between machine and artifact
causes the concept of natural machine to disappear.
Confronted with the complexities of natural and biological systems, theistic
philosophy inferred the existence of God via the argument from design. To
challenge this, David Hume, in Part II of his Dialogues Concerning Natural
Religion, presented this notorious argument in the following terms:
Look round the world: contemplate the whole and every part of it: You will find
it to be nothing but one great machine, subdivided into an infinite number of
lesser machines, which again admit of subdivisions to a degree beyond what
human senses and faculties can trace and explain. All these various machines,
and even their most minute parts, are adjusted to each other with an accuracy
which ravishes into admiration all men who have ever contemplated them. The
89
curious adapting of means to ends, throughout all nature, resembles exactly,

though it much exceeds, the productions of human contrivance; of human
designs, thought, wisdom, and intelligence. Since, therefore, the effects resemble
each other, we are led to infer, by all the rules of analogy, that the causes also
resemble; and that the Author of Nature is somewhat similar to the mind of
man, though possessed of much larger faculties, proportioned to the grandeur
of the work which he has executed. By this argument a posteriori, and by this
argument alone, do we prove at once the existence of a Deity, and his similarity
to human mind and intelligence. (1998, 15)
The best evidence that Vicos Verum Factum has carried the day is that a
full-blown scientist today, confronted with the same complexities, will reverse
the argument from design and conclude that there are too many things that just
dont make sense if they were designed. If they were designed then we should fire
the designer. In other terms, if It were a designer, Nature would have botched the
job. But we are on a very slippery slope. The design metaphor is so strongand
the concepts of natural machine, immanent finality, self-organization, etc., so
elusivethat the metaphor of the artificial machine eventually wins the day.
Instead of saying there is no design one says the design is bad.
One further step and it is inevitable to ask questions such as Can
nanostructuring improve on Natures design?7 Or, like Damien Broderick,
Is it likely that nanosystems, designed by human minds, will bypass all this
Darwinian wandering, and leap straight to design success? (2001, 118). One can
hardly fail to note the irony that science, which in America has had to engage in
an epic struggle to root out every trace of creationism (including its most recent
avatar, intelligent design) from public education, should now revert to a logic
of design in the form of the NBIC convergencethe only difference being that
now it is mankind that assumes the role of the demiurge.
The important point here is not the mimetic rivalry between mankind and
Natureone admires the weight of contempt carried by all this Darwinian
wandering; the French Nobel laureate Franois Jacob spoke of bricolagebut
what the stakes are: it is a matter of being the better designer! But, of course, all
the critiques that have been leveled at the Intelligent Design paradigm, leading
to the concept of self-organization, are even more pertinent in the case of human
design. There is way too much information, in the form of complexity, in the
organizations presented us by Nature for a single mind, even if it is Gods, to
have been able to design them. If mankind strives to emulate a feat that God
himself could not have achieved, doesnt it run the risk of playing the sorcerers
90
apprentice? Furthermore, human beings do those things for a purpose, for

example, meliorate their well-being. However, as French poet Paul Valery once
wrote, Artificial means, that which tends toward a definite goal. Artificial is
then the opposite of living.... If Life had a goal, it would no longer be Life.8 The
notion of artificial life is a sheer oxymoron.
Last but not least, let us not forget our starting point: we are able to act into
nature and our ambition is to design complex processes that escape our control.
Traditionally, the notions of design and control belonged together. The new
metaphysics associates design and out-of-controlness, a marriage that Heidegger
could never envisage. In 1948, John von Neumann, in a famous lecture, defined
a complex machine (which he called an automaton) as one capable of bringing
about something more complex than itself: its own behavior. Soon, he went on
to prophesy, the builder of automata would find himself as helpless before his
creations as we feel ourselves to be in the presence of complex natural phenomena.
With the NanoBio convergence, we may be nearing that moment. The sorcerers
apprentice myth will then have to be updated: it is neither by error nor by terror
that Man will be dispossessed of his own creations but by design.
Notes
1 See (Bainbridge and Roco 2002, 13).
2 See in particular (Dupuy 2007a, 2007b, and 2008) and (Dupuy and Grinbaum 2004).
3 Kevin Kelly, Will Spiritual Robots Replace Humanity by 2100? in The Technium, a
book in progress, www.kk.org/thetechnium/
4 The Ilulissat Statement, Kavli Futures Symposium, The Merging of Bio and Nano:
Towards Cyborg Cells, June 1115, 2007, Ilulissat, Greenland. www.research.cornell.
edu/KIC/images/pdfs/ilulissat_statement.pdf (accessed August 2012).
5 See (Ball 2007).
6 A nanometer is one-billionth of a meter.
7 See (Hongyou Fan et al. 2007).
8 See (Valry 1926). As quoted in (Canguilhem 2006, 150).
Bibliography
Anders, Gnther. (1956), Die Antinquiertheit des Menschen. Munich: C. H. Beck.
Arendt, Hannah. (1958), The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
91
Bainbridge, William Sims and Roco, Mihail C. (2002), Converging Technologies for
Improving Human Performance: Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information
Technology, and Cognitive Science. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
Ball, Philip. (June 28, 2007), Meanings of Life: Synthetic Biology Provides a Welcome
Antidote to Chronic Vitalism, Editorial, Nature 447: 10312.
Broderick, Damien. (2001), The Spike: How Our Lives Are Being Transformed by Rapidly
Advancing Technologies. New York: Forge.
Canguilhem, Georges. (2006), Machine et Organisme (19461947) in La Connaissance
de la Vie. Paris: Vrin.
Dupuy, Jean-Pierre. (2007a), Some Pitfalls in the Philosophical Foundations of
Nanoethics, Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 32(3): 23761.
. (2007b), Complexity and Uncertainty: A Prudential Approach to Nanotechnology,
in John Weckert et al. (eds), Nanoethics: Examining the Social Impact of
Nanotechnology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 11931.
. (2008), The Double Language of Science, and Why it is so Difficult to Have a Proper
Public Debate About the Nanotechnology Program, in Fritz Allhoff and Patrick Lin
(eds), Foreword to Nanoethics: Emerging Debates. Dordrecht: Springer.
Dupuy, Jean-Pierre and Grinbaum, Alexei. (2004), Living with Uncertainty: Toward a
Normative Assessment of Nanotechnology, in Techn (joint issue with Hyle) 8(2):
425.
Fan, H., Hartshorn, C., Buchheit, T., Tallant, D., Assink, R., Simpson, R., Kissel, D., Lacks,
D. J., Torquato, S., and Brinker, C. J. (2007), Modulus-density Scaling Behaviour and
Framework Architecture of Nanoporous Self-assembled Silicas, Nature Materials 6:
41823.
Hume, David. (1998), Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion: The Posthumous Essays of
the Immortality of the Soul and of Suicide. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co.
Jonas, Hans. (1985), The Imperative of Responsibility. In Search of an Ethics for the
Technological Age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Valry, Paul. (1926), Cahiers B, 1910. Paris: Gallimard.
eLife: From Biology to Technology

and Back Again
Jos de Mul
One of the most striking developments in the history of the science over the
past 50 years has been the gradual moving toward each other of biology and
computer science, and their increasing tendency to overlap. Two things may be
held responsible for this. The first is the tempestuous development of molecular
biology that followed the first adequate description, in 1953, of the structure
of the double helix of DNA, the carrier of hereditary information. Biologists
subsequently became increasingly interested in computer science, the science
that focuses on, among other things, the question of what information really
is and how it is encoded and transferred. No less important was that it would
have been impossible to sequence and decipher the human genome without the
use of ever stronger computers. This resulted in a fundamental digitalization
of biology. This phenomenon is particularly visible in molecular biology, where
DNA-research increasingly moves from the analogical world of biology to the
digital world of the computer.
In turn, computer scientists have become increasingly interested in biology.
One of the highly promising branches of computer science that has developed
since the 1950s was the research into artificial intelligence and artificial life.
Although the expectations were highit was predicted that within decades
computers and robots would exist whose intelligence would exceed by far that
of mansuccess remained limited to some specific areas, despite the spectacular
developments realized in information technologies. It is true that more than 50
years later we have computers that can defeat the chess world champion, but in
many areas toddlers and beetles still perform better than the most advanced
computers. Top-down programming of artificial intelligence and artificial life
turned out to be much more complex than expected. This not only resulted in the
94
fact that computer scientists started to study in depth the fundamental biological
question of what life basically is, but it also inspired them to use a bottom-up
approach, which consists of having computers and robots develop themselves
in accordance with biological principles.
Biologists and computer scientists not only increasingly refer to each others
publications, they have also started to cooperate more often and more closely
than ever before. In the past decades this has resulted in the development of a
complete network of new (sub)disciplines at the intersection between biology
and computer technology. From the field of biology areas of study have developed
which are closely interwoven with information technology, such as biomics
(genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and related types of bioinformatics),
computational biology, and synthetic biology. At the same time in informatics
a whole range of subdisciplines inspired by biology came into existence, which
were focused on the study of genetic algorithms, cellular automata, emerging
systems, neural networks, and biomolecular computers. In the rest of this essay I
will, for reasons to be explained, refer to this wide network of closely interwoven
and partly overlapping biological and information-technological disciplines as
informationistic biotechnologies.
The twentieth century is not called the age of physics for nothing. The
technologies that have determined the face of the twentieth century, such as the
car, the airplane, the telephone, the television and the nuclear installation, almost
all, without exception, have their origin in this discipline. When we look at the
developments mentioned above at the interface between biology and computer
science, it is quite likely that the twenty-first century will become the century
of informationistic biotechnologies. Biotechnology exceeds physics at this stage
already in terms of the size of the research budgets, the number of scientists
active in this field, and the impact of the discoveries that have been made in the
past decades. And when we try to imagine what its implications for our everyday
life and society may be, it does not seem too bold a presumption to expect that
the impact of informationistic biotechnologies will be at least as large as that of
the technologies based on physics in the twentieth century.
The fact that informationistic biotechnologies, in spite of the rapid
developments which have taken place in the past decades, are in many respects
still in their infancy and that their reception, management, and domestication
in society are also subject to continuous change, makes it a hazardous
undertaking to outline future scenarios. On the basis of the developments so
far, however, a number of mutually coherent postulates may be formulated,
which are among the foundations of the informationistic biotechnologies. With
eLife
95
these postulates, we may begin to outline the advantages and disadvantages of

biotech for human life.
From controlling reality to manipulating possibilities

The above-mentioned shift from physics to informationistic biotechnologies is
more than a shift from one scientific discipline to another. It also indicates a
transformation from the mechanistic worldview, which had been dominant since
the rise of the modern sciences in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, to an
informationistic view of the world.1 Mechanical sciences are characterized by
three fundamental ontological postulates or presumptions on the basis of which
they address and approach reality.
The postulate of analyzability states that reality can be reduced to a collection
of atomic materials. In physics and chemistry these are the elements as they are
arranged in the periodical system. (In the meantime we have learned that those
atoms consist of even smaller subatomic parts, but this does not contradict
the postulate of analyzability; it rather shows its persistent power.) According to
the postulate of lawfulness the interaction among the elements is determined by
universal laws, which can be captured in mathematical formulas. The well-known
gas law of Boyle and Gay-Lussacpv/T=constantthus states that the pressure
times the volume divided by the temperature is constant and that this applies
to every gas in a closed space. On the basis of such laws physical phenomena
cannot only be explained, but they can also be predicted and thus controlled
and this is what the postulate of controllability refers to. It is clear that one can
not only explain in retrospect on the basis of the above-mentioned gas law why
the pressure in a closed container has increased after the temperature has been
increased, but one can, by means of a simple calculation, also predict exactly
how high the pressure will be when you increase or decrease the temperature by
ten degrees, and that knowledge also enables you to control the pressure in the
container.
The informationistic view of the world, as it has developed in domains
such as biotechnology, expands the mechanical view of the world, but it also
transforms it in a fundamental way. This is shown by the three postulates
that characterize these sciences. Although the informationistic sciences, too,
dissect reality into elementsfor example, in molecular biology, the four
different types of nucleotide are the four letters in which the hereditary code
of all life on earth is writtenthey are primarily based on the postulate of
96
synthesizability, which states that the shape of a certain configuration of matter

and energy may, time and again, turn into matter of a more complex shape of
(self-)organization at a higher level. The evolution of life on earth is a good
example of such self-organization. The subsequent levels of complexity cannot
be (fully) reduced to their common elements, and they therefore need their own
explanatory principle. Living systems that reproduce themselves are more than
the sum total of the mechanical (physical and chemical) processes that take
place at a cellular level. And though it is true that consciousness presupposes
complex (neurological) processes in the brain, yet it cannot be reduced to
these processes. Although life and consciousness without matter and energy
are impossible, we can only understand them properly if we regard them as
systems which process information to an increasing extent of complexity for
each level.
It is true that among evolutionary theorists we also find proponents of a greedy
reductionism, which reduces the characteristics and behavior of organisms to
their underlying physical and chemical processes and thus explains too much
with too little (Dennett 1995, 82). If anything has been made clear by the Human
Genome Project, however, it is that coding hereditary characteristics by the
genes is an extraordinarily complex process, which virtually always, and in ever
changing combinations, involves the collaboration of many genes. Moreover, the
functions of genes can vary strongly, depending on the genetic network they
are part of. And on top of that, the expression of genes and complexes of genes
are dependent on the interaction with a great number of intra- and extracellular
processes. When we want to understand this complex self-organization, which
consists of various feedback mechanisms, the determination of the genes is only
a modest first step. A deep understanding of the complex dynamics between
the genetic networks and their surroundings requires advanced forms of data
mining in the gene pool, in which statistical methods and advanced methods
of clustering and classification are combined with ways of machine learning,
originating in research on artificial life and intelligence, such as genetic
algorithms and neural networks.2
Contrary to the mechanistic worldview, in which a phenomenon is explained
when the laws which it obeys have been discovered, in the informationistic
sciences the postulate of programmability applies, according to which a
phenomenon is explained as soon as we can simulate it by means of a computer
program (Coolen 1992, 49). This happens, for example, in computational biology
and research into artificial life, by writing computer programs that model and
simulate biological processes. And in the study of artificial intelligence an effort is
eLife
97
being made to get a better insight into what intelligence is by means of computer
simulations of intelligent behavior.3
Not only scientific explanation acquires a different meaning by the postulate
of programmability, however; so do prediction and control. For example, not
only can simulations be made of spatio-temporally related processes in existing
cells with the help of computer programs such as BioSPICE, but the behavior of
genes and complexes of genes incorporated in a cell can be predicted, as well.
Prediction means, in this context, the virtual presentation of potential life-forms
in silico.
What may be programmed, however, can in many cases also be realized in vitro
(in a test tube) or in vivo (in living organisms) by means of genetic modification
of existing organisms or by the production of synthetic organisms. Research
then shifts from reading to writing the genetic code.4 Thus, BioSPICE is not only
used to study simulated organisms, but also to subsequently produce them. In
the case of such a top-down in vivo approach, a beginning is made, for example,
with the production of minimal cells. These are cells of microorganisms from
which all nonessential elements have been removed, so that they may operate
as a carrier of all sorts of new characteristics that are to be incorporated. This
also makes it possible to transplant genomes, transferring all characteristics of
a microbe to another one.5 Another example of in vivo techniques is metabolic
pathway engineering, which adapts the metabolic routes of microbes and other
organisms, for example for the benefit of the production of artemisinin, a raw
material in a medicine against malaria.
Synthetic biology goes one step further in recombining genetic material,
not using living organisms, but trying to build up in vitro cells from the
bottom up, using self-assembling biological materials such as nucleotides and
amino acids. This bottom-up method is used, for example, in the BioBricks
project, a catalog that is accessible to the public and contains an increasing
number of standardized open source biological materials. Just as in the case
of standardized components in micro-electronics, synthetic biological systems
that have been optimized for a certain production of specific biomolecules can
be built in vitro with the help of BioBricks and the design program Bio-JADE.
In 2008 researchers at the J. Craig Venter Institute succeeded in building a
completely synthetic copy of the genome for Mycoplasma genitalium, which
consists of 582,970 base pairs, and in 2010 they were able to insert a synthesized
genome into a cell and cause that cell to start replicating.6 Much of the research
in synthetic biology takes place at the interface with nanotechnology. For
example, at the Delft Technological University molecular engines are being
98
developed which are used to regulate and manipulate the transport of proteins
by means of a specific railway system.7
Genetic modification and synthetic biology are characterized by a
database-ontology, which says that reality consists of atomic elements (atoms,
inorganic molecules, genes, neurons), which may be recombined in numerous
ways.8 This is certainly true when we realize that synthetic biology no longer is
limited to the recombination of the four letters of the genetic alphabet, but
increasingly applies itself to the adaption of these four nucleotides, for example
to produce extended DNA (xDNA) or additional letters, synthesizing and
assembling new types of bases. Thanks to these alien genetics the number of
possible recombinations of DNA increases tremendously.9 In addition, in 2012
an international team of researchers created six altogether different polymers
capable of storing and transmitting information, dubbed xeno-nucleic acids
(XNAs).10 Thanks to the methodical selection of crops and animals, natural
selection has already resulted in an artificial selection of natural elements. In
genetic biology, however, this process results in an artificial selection of artificial
elements.
Sciences such as synthetic biology are therefore characterized by what we
could refer to as the postulate of manipulability. Contrary to the mechanical
sciences, which primarily focus on controlling existing nature by means of a
technical application of existing laws, informationistic sciences focus on the
creation of next nature, recombining (increasingly modified) natural and
artificially synthesized elements. They are modal sciences in the sense that they
do not seem to be guided by the question of what reality is like, but rather by the
question of what it could be like.11 The convergence of biology on a nano scale,
information technology, and engineering results in the creation of databases
that enable us to recombine natural and artificial materials into self-organizing
systems. In physicist Freeman Dysons words: The big problems, the evolution
of the universe as a whole, the origin of life, the nature of human consciousness,
and the evolution of the earths climate, cannot be understood by reducing them
to elementary particles and molecules. New ways of thinking and new ways of
organizing large databases will be needed (Dyson 2007).
From gray to green technology

Physics and inorganic chemistry were at the roots of the dominant technologies
of the twentieth century, but on the basis of the developments described
eLife
99
above it may be expected that informationalistic biotechnologies will play an

increasingly important part in the twenty-first century. In the past decades the
impact of these technologies on society has already become visible in, among
other things, medical and legal applications of (prenatal) genetic screening,
such as gene therapy, the use of DNA evidence, and the genetic modification of
crops and animals. In view of the fundamental nature and virtually unlimited
scope of new disciplines such as synthetic biology, new developments may be
expected in many fields. Given the increase of the world population (from about
1 billion around 1800 to 3 billion in 1960 to more than 7 billion now), which
still takes place at an increasing rate, in combination with the increase of the
consumption of food and the use of sources of energy, which takes place at an
even faster rate, it is not bizarre to presume that our attention will especially be
focused on the production of food and the development of biofuels, in addition
to medical applications. At the moment, those two targets are, in a certain sense,
somewhat in conflict, as biofuels such as ethanol and butanol are made from
crops that are also meant to provide food. The challenge, therefore, is to increase
the efficiency of the transformation of sunlight through biomatter into biofuels,
using crops that are not used to provide food and/or trying to develop methods
of production that do not make use of agricultural soil.
In Our Biotech Future, an essay that was published by the New York Review
of Books in 2007, Dyson advocates the green technology of the future in a way
which is as passionate as it is stimulating.12 According to Dyson open source
biology offers unlimited opportunities in this respect. Even the most efficient
crops such as sugar cane and maize do not transform much more than 1 percent
of sunlight into chemical energy. Contrary to this, silicon solar panels yield
about 15 percent from sunlight. According to Dyson, by replacing the green
chlorophyll in plants with black-colored silicon through the aid of genetic
modification techniques, the soil that is required for the production of biomatter
could be reduced by at least a factor ten. We might have to get used to it, and
the Black Forest would have competition all over the world, but it would also
provide great opportunities to combat poverty in rural areas all over the world.
Everywhere in the world, we see people flee rural areas to try their luckoften to
no availin overpopulated metropolises. This drift to the cities causes not only
social problems, but major environmental problems, as well.
According to Dyson, green technologies could lead to a revitalization of rural
areas. It is true that it was green technologies, too, which marked the transition,
in the neolithic age, some 10,000 years ago, of a hunter/gatherer culture to an
agrarian society in prosperous villages. Think of the domestication of plants and
100
animals and the agriculture and cattle breeding linked to it, the production of
textiles, cheese and wine, etc. The gray industry, which started in the iron and
bronze ages when the wheel was invented, of the paved road and the production
of ships and metal weaponry, is, to the contrary, closely linked to the emergence
of cities. In subsequent centuries, the gray technology also led to the iron plough,
tractors and bio-industries, which not only increased production, but also
resulted in a move of much of the wealth it yielded in the direction of city-based
corporations and financiers. The contrast between poor rural areas and the rich
city increased especially in the twentieth century, which gave birth to a whole
range of gray technologies based on physics.
It is Dysons hope that biotech, which in the past 50 years gave us an insight
into the basic processes of life and in the last 20 years has led to a veritable
explosion of green technology, may be a new source of wealth for rural areas and
thus restore the balance between rural areas and the city. Just like 10,000 years
ago this will lead to the development of many new sorts of plants and animals,
but this time it will not take place by means of a slow process of trial and error.
Thanks to new insights and techniques it will happen much more efficiently and
more quickly. According to him, it will result in more wholesome crops that do
not require herbicides and will thus help save the environment. Modified and
synthetically produced microbes and plants will enable us to deal with many
things in a cheaper and cleaner way than the gray technologies do.
In addition, says Dyson, they offer the prospect of numerous new applications
in which gray technology failed. Ecologically sound green technologies will replace
polluting mines and chemical factories. Genetically modified earthworms will extract
metals such as aluminum and titanium from the clay soil, and magnesium and gold,
in their turn, may be extracted from salt water by means of synthetic seaweeds.
According to Dyson, this will be a sustainable world, in which fossil resources will
not become exhausted, but in which sunlight will be the most important source of
energy and genetically modified and synthetic microbes and trees will recycle cars
and exhaust fumes. Because the new green technologies require land and sun, they
will provide wealth especially to the rural areas in tropical parts of the world and
thus create a greater balance between rich and poor countries.
Limits to green
The future scenario drafted by Dyson is attractive, but the question is how
realistic it is. In any case, some serious comments need to be made. Much can
eLife
101
be said in favor of Dysons proposition that the future technology willin view
of the development of informationistic biotechnologies as described above
be greener than the technologies that we have known in the past. There is a
question, however, about whether this green technology will be the open source
biology providing wealth to the poor that Dyson envisages. Although it is true
that there has been an open source biology movement among biotechnological
researchers since the 1990s, active among other things in the nonprofit BioBricks
Foundation, it is now being surpassed by commercial companies (like the J.
Craig Venter Institute) which are financed by venture capital. Many of the objects
mentioned in the previous section (such as new nucleotides, proteins and amino
acids, and synthetic cells) and methods to produce them (such as biosynthetic
pathway engineering) are covered by patents. Patents have even been obtained
on the (parts) of genes on the basis of information about their sequence (ETC
Group 2007, 32f.).
It therefore remains to be seen whether biotech will not lead to synthetic
slavery for poor countries and for rural areas, as theyin view of the commercial
interests involvedwill have to pay a lot of money for the modified and
synthetic crops. Especially when we realize that, chances are, these new crops,
if they result in higher or qualitatively better yields, will increasingly replace the
existing natural crops or the crops that are the result of traditional growth. This
could also happen when the modified crops would propagate and, as a result,
mix irreversibly with other species. In both cases, that could be an attack on
biodiversity. Moreover, a more efficient synthetic production of crops in richer
countries would, in fact, imply competition for the traditional production in
poorer countries. For example, the Yulex Corporation, established in California,
tries, in cooperation with the Colorado State Agricultural Experiment Station,
to incorporate genetic networks into microbes for the benefit of the production
of rubber. The target is to completely satisfy the homeland demand of rubber,
which at the moment is being met by third-world rubber plantations that are
often small in size (ETC Group 2007, 32). Another example is the previously
mentioned production of artemisinin for medical applications in large Bug
Sweatshops, to the detriment of African farmers who have always extracted this
substance from the Artemisia plant (ETC Group 2007, 52).
According to Dyson, the fear of a dominance of multinationals is unjustified.
He envisages that biotech will go through the same development as did ICT.
Whereas the first mainframe computers were monopolized by major companies,
computer technology has become accessible to and domesticated by many
layers of the population within a few decades. Dyson envisages that within a few
102
decades cheap DNA-scanners and DNA-printers will appear on the market that
will enable consumers to design their own plants and animals (Dyson 2007).
That such a DNA-printer is not mere science fiction is proven by the fact that
people can purchase a used DNA-synthesizer at this very moment for less than
$1,000 and order synthesized DNA for a few dollars through online mail-order
firms. A combination of both technologies results in a biological variety of the 3D
printer that enables consumers to print their own flowers and pets. Due to the
high security costs, obligatory risk analyses, and liability rules, the development
of modified crops has in the meantime become so expensive that it can only
be paid for by a small number of multinational seed companies and chemical
concerns. It is not without tragic irony that the development of open source
biology in Europe in the past few decades has been frustrated by environmental
action groups such as the Seething Spring Potatoes (Ziedende Bintjes). These
groups have made testing by university researchers operating independently of
multinationals almost impossible by destroying the experimental fields in which
modified crops are tested in vivo.
But there are also good reasons not to welcome the domestication of
biotech. Informationistic biotechnologies may severely damage human beings
and the environmentby accident or on purpose. With the aid of a laptop,
DNA-databases that are accessible to the public, and synthetic DNA obtained
through mail-order, for example, a rather simple and deadly pathogen may be
constructed. The molecular biologist Eckhard Wimmer proved in 2002 that a
functional poliovirus can be built in such a way, and in 2005 researchers at the
US Armed Forces Institute in Washington succeeded in reconstructing, with
the aid of tissue from the victims, the very same virus that had caused the death
of between 20 and 50 million people during the Spanish flu epidemic of 1918.
According to Craig Venter, who never shies away from a sweeping statement,
this was the first true Jurassic Park scenario (ETC Group 2007, 24). It is not
surprising that this militarization of biology causes great concerns among
many. Not only because this development may lead to the use of biological
weapons by conventional armies, but especially because all possible forms of
biohacking and bioterrorism are to be feared. It is expected that within five
years or so, with simple means, every conceivable virus may be constructed,
which may then affect society. The structure of such a virus can also be easily
distributed by means of the internet. And when Dysons DNA-printer is realized,
the concept of computer virus will get an uncanny second (at the same time
retro) meaning.
eLife
103
From biotech to biotech

People develop technologies hoping to be able to control nature and thus
control their own destiny. The technical domestication of fate has been very
successful since the rise of the modern mechanistic sciences in the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries. Technologies not only result in controllability, however;
they also entail risks. Technologies can be abused for evil aims, but even when
intentions are good, technologies may still cause a great deal of damage. This
is the case because most technologies have unforeseen and unforeseeable side
effects. In principle, the impact of interventions in nature can be fully predicted
and controlled in the case of the mechanistic sciences, so that the risks involved
can also be calculated in advance. We can calculate relatively easily how large the
risk is that a container filled with gas will explode when the temperature exceeds
a certain value. In practice, however, prediction and control depend on strict
limitations. Full prediction and control are only possible in closed, determined
systems. In reality systems are usually open, which means that there are a
great number of unforeseen elements that may affect the outcome of technical
interventions. Due to the finitude of human knowledge, it is impossible to
take into account all relevant elements in a prediction.13 In the case of chaotic
systemsthat is, systems that are completely determined yet also characterized
by a sensitive dependence on initial conditionseven longer-term predictions are
characterized by a fundamental uncertainty.14 Weather forecasts are a notorious
example. Uncertainty, unlike risks, cannot be calculated. Informationistic
biotechnologies produce such uncertainty. This has to do, first of all, with the
complexity of living systems. However impressive the increasing knowledge of
fundamental life processes is, we are only at the beginning of deciphering the
complex interplay between genes and complexes of genes. Also, the regulating
role of the noncoding part of DNA, which determines whether genes are or are
not expressed (DNA consists of almost 98 percent of this wrongfully called junk
DNA), still greatly puzzles researchers.
The uncertainty produced by informationistic biotechnologies is not only
due, however, to the finitude of our scientific knowledge and the fact that an
increase of knowledge does not automatically entail an increase of controllability.
The uncertainty is of a more fundamental nature, which is the result of the
postulate of synthesizability. Biotech creates artifacts that are characterized by a
greater or lesser degree of independent activity. Organisms develop themselves
and, therefore, show unpredictable behavior. This is not only the case because
104
self-assembling characteristics of natural and synthetic biological molecules

are used, but also because it is always possible that spontaneous mutations take
place when organisms are reproduced under the influence of (among other
things) cosmic radiation and chemical effects. Moreover, living organisms also
continuously interact with their surroundings. As a result, built-in characteristics
may, by means of horizontal transfer, jump over to other natural, modified, or
synthesized organisms. As the number of possible modifications is enormously
large, the effects of mutations and horizontal transfer are in essence unpredictable.
It is sometimes said of nanotechnology that there is a danger of self-reproducing
nanorobots getting out of control and covering the surface of the earth with
gray goo; in a biotechnological world of continuously evaluating engines the
chance that a suffocating green goo will develop seems at least as likely.
Although we can intervene in nature in more depth than ever before, thanks
to the postulate of manipulability, the object of research and manipulation
inevitably and ever more strongly appears as an actor itself. Whereas Latours
attribution of being an actor to a safety belt may in his own view be dismissed as
a form of exaggeration,15 informationistic biotechnologies actually create actors
with a program of their own and, as complexity increases, with intentionality.
Biotech always is, in a fundamental way, biotech as well and therefore in principle
out of control.16 Dysons idea that we will soon have domesticated biotech is,
for that reason, rather nave and shows a considerable degree of technological
hubris. We must rather hope that the biological engines for their part will
not domesticate us. The threat of aggression in the future might sooner come
from the seething spring potatoes themselves than from their self-appointed
spokesmen in the environmental movement.
The face of the unknown

In view of the considerable dangers that may arise from the modification and
synthesis of genetic substances, extensive legislation in this area has been
developed in the past decades. These laws should make sure that no organisms
can escape from the laboratory to the outside world and that people working
in the laboratories cannot be contaminated by them. In addition to regulations
regarding design and equipment there are also a large number of procedural
stipulations. Moreover, an extensive risk analysis methodology has been
developed, focusing on an analysis of the characteristics of the modified or
synthesized organisms, the extent to which man and the environment will be
eLife
105
exposed to these, the nature of possible negative effects, and the chance that
these effects will take place. To limit risks, safety is often incorporated into the
organism, for example, by programming cells in such a way that they destroy
themselves after a lapse of time or when the number of reproductions exceeds a
certain limit.
In light of the aforementioned fundamental uncertainty inherent in
informationistic biotechnologies, however, the question is of whether it is not an
act of hubris to think that it is possible to control the development of synthetic
biology. Let alone whether it would be possible to realize a moratorium on
synthetic biology, as was called for in the United States by 50 environmental
groups in 2011 in a letter to the government in reaction to the 2010 report of
the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues recommending
self-regulation by synthetic biologists.
Given the natural artificiality of human life and the fact that Homo sapiens
from its prehistoric origin has been defined by its technologies, it would be rather
nave to think that we would be able to abandon technological possibilities that
we have already disclosed (Plessner 1975, 382ff.). Although we are the inventors
of technologies, this does not mean that we uniquely control them. They control
us as well, and the more uncertain the effects of our technologies, the more
uncertain will be the impact they have on human life.17
It might be a comfort to know that the evolution of life on earth for as long
as 4 billion years has been governed by contingency and chance (varying from
mutations and genetic drift to environmental changes). The fact that in the
course of this evolution one of the millions of speciesHomo sapienshas
become responsible for the further development of life on earth certainly is
less comfortable. We might even call this human condition tragic. Yet it is not
without heroism: Playing God is indeed playing with fire. But that is what we
mortals have done since Prometheus, the patron saint of dangerous discovery.
We play with fire and take the consequences, because the alternative is cowardice
in the face of the unknown (Dworkin 2000, 446).
Notes
1
2
3
4
See (De Mul 1999).

See (Zvelebil and Baum 2008).
See (Bedau 2003; Johnston 2008).
See (Venter 2007).
106
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

See (Lartigue et al. 2007).
See (Gibson et al. 2010).
See (Seldenthuis et al. 2010).
See (De Mul 2009).
See (Benner, Hutter, and Sismour 2003).
See (Pinheiro et al. 2012).
(Emmeche 1991, 161).
See (Dyson 2007; also see his contribution in: Brockman 2008).
See (De Mul 2004).
See (De Mul 2009).
See (Latour 2002).
See (Kelly 1994).
See (De Mul 2009).
Bibliography
Bedau, M. A. (2003), Artificial Life: Organization, Adaptation and Complexity from the
Bottom Up, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(11): 50512.
Benner, S. A., Hutter, D., and Sismour, A. M. (2003), Synthetic Biology with Artificially
Expanded Genetic Information Systems. From Personalized Medicine to
Extraterrestrial Life, Nucleic Acids Res Suppl 3, 1256.
Brockman, J., ed. (2008), Life. What a Concept! New York: Edge Foundation.
Cohn, D. (2005), Open Source Biology Evolves, Wired, January 17.
Coolen, M. (1992), De Machine Voorbij. Over het Zelfbegrip van de Mens in het Tijdperk
van de Informatietechniek. Amsterdam: Boom.
De Mul, J. (1999), The Informatization of the Worldview, Information, Communication &
Society 2(1): 60429.
. (2004), The Tragedy of Finitude: Diltheys Hermeneutics of Life, Yale Studies in
Hermeneutics. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.
. (2009), Prometheus Unbound: The Rebirth of Tragedy Out of the Spirit of
Technology, in A. Cools, T. Crombez, R. Slegers, and J. Taels (eds), The Locus of
Tragedy. Leiden: Brill.
Dennett, D. C. (1995), Darwins Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life.
London: Allen Lane, The Penguin Press.
Dworkin, R. M. (2000), Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Dyson, F. (2007), Our Biotech Future, The New York Review of Books, July 19.
Emmeche, C. (1991), The Garden in the Machine: The Emerging Science of Artificial Life.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
eLife
107
ETC Group. (2007), Extreme Genetic Engineering: An Introduction to Synthetic Biology.

Toronto: Action Group on Erosion, Technology, and Concentration.
Gibson, D. G., Glass, J. I., Lartigue, C., Noskov, V. N., Chuang, R.-Y., Algire, M. A.,
Benders, G. A., Montague, M. G., et. al. (2010), Creation of a Bacterial Cell
Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome, Science 329(5987): 526.
Johnston, J. (2008), The Allure of Machinic Life: Cybernetics, Artificial Life, and the New
AI. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kelly, K. (1994), Out of Control. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Lartigue, C., Glass, J. I., Alperovich, N., Pieper, R., Parmar, P. P., and Hutchison III, C. A.
(2007), Genome Transplantation in Bacteria: Changing One Species to Another,
Science 317(5838): 6328.
Latour, B. (2002), Morality and Technology: The End of the Means, Theory, Culture,
Society 19(5/6): 24760.
NEST High-Level Expert Group. (2005), Synthetic Biology. Applying Engineering to
Biology. Report of a NEST High-Level Expert Group. Brussels: European Commission.
Pinheiro, V. B., Taylor, A. I., Cozens, C., Abramov, M., Renders, R., Zhang, S., Chaput, J. C.,
Wengel, J., Peak-Chew, S.-Y., McLaughlin, S. H., and Herdewijn, P. (2012), Synthetic
Genetic Polymers Capable of Heredity and Evolution, Science 336(6079): 3414.
Plessner, H. (1975), Die Stufen des Organischen und der Mensch. Einleitung in die
philosophische Anthropologie. Gesammelte Schriften. Vol. IV. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Seldenthuis, J. S., Prins, F., Thijssen, J. M., and Van der Zant, H. S. J. (2010), An
All-Electric Single-Molecule Motor, ACS Nano 4(11): 66816.
Venter, J. C. (2007), A DNA-Driven World: The 32nd Richard Dimbleby Lecture. www.
edge.org/3rd_culture/venter.dimbleby07/venter.dimbleby07_index.html (accessed
August 2012).
Zvelebil, M. J. and Baum, J. O. (2008), Understanding Bioinformatics. New York: Garland
Science/Taylor & Francis Group.
Philosophy of Life in the Age of Information:

Seinsgeschichte and the Task of
an Ontology of Ourselves
Charles Bonner
Beginning in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the concept of
life emerged as a central question or theme in various lines of philosophical
inquiry (Nietzsche, Bergson, Dilthey, etc.), and perhaps as a result, the popular
conception of philosophy as a quest for the meaning of life has persisted to this
day. But by the middle of the twentieth century there was no longer any mystery
about the ultimate nature of lifeat least not from the perspective of the life
sciences, which had reached their properly scientific status, epistemologically
speaking, in two stages marked respectively by the Darwinian theory of evolution
and the Watson-Crick model of the structure of DNA. The latter development
in particular established the biological sciences on a rigorous mathematical
foundation. But the mathematical foundations involved here were not those of
the infinitesimal and/or differential calculus, articulated by Newton and Leibniz
in the seventeenth century, which had established the rigorous foundations for
mathematical physics and determined the epistemological model toward which
all of the sciences oriented themselves. The mathematical foundations for the
neo-Darwinian synthesis of evolution, genetics, and molecular biology were
provided by recent or concomitant developments in cybernetics, computer
science, and the mathematical theory of communication. The meaning of
life thus came to be determined precisely in the same conceptual terms that
provide the foundations, broadly construed, for what we now call the Age of
Information.
If we pose the question, as the following pages attempt to do, What is life
in the Age of Information?we are not asking, or not only asking, a strictly
110
scientific question, a question that can be answered or pursued by means of

scientific inquiry, experiment, or demonstration. But what would it mean, today,
to claim a specifically philosophical dimension to the inquiry into life itself, into
human life, or the meaning of life as such? Neither of the two great philosophical
traditions of the last century, analytical philosophy and phenomenology, oriented
themselves specifically toward an inquiry into life itself, nor did they pursue
the question of the meaning of life. (Heideggers early project of fundamental
ontology did seek to articulate the basic existential structures, the modes of
being, that correspond to human existencebut only as a preliminary stage of the
inquiry into the meaning of being as such, which is the real goal of philosophical
inquiry.) Neither the life sciences nor the human sciences (including philosophy)
provide explicit resources for reviving or revitalizing, as it were, the kinds of
reflective inquiry that flourished under the heading of philosophies of life only a
century ago.
And yet, the original motivations that inspired the various philosophies of life
more than a century ago have not been entirely lost. These motivations may be
described roughly in terms of quasi-Romantic reactions to the political, economic,
and social developments associated with the Industrial Revolution. In our time it
is the postindustrial economy, the digital revolution, and the computerization
of societal relations and structures that shape our reality. Whatever would take
the place of the philosophy of life, in any of its various forms, would confront
this reality, and the forces and institutions of the Information Age function as
both adversary and effective determination of our contemporary understanding
and experience of life itself. This, in any case, is the general framework in which
the present study situates itself.
Not only are we not, today, entirely satisfied with our epochs prevailing
determination and description of life, but more importantlyand perhaps more
urgentlywe have come to recognize a potential conflict between our advanced
industrial or postindustrial way of life and the basic physical, chemical, and
biological conditions that sustain life as we know it on this planet. In other
words, life itself has emerged at the center of a new problematic distinctive of late
twentieth century. Moreover, developments in the life sciences, now directly linked
to advances in information technology (soon to be coupled with nanotechnology,
and thereby tremendously accelerated), have led to unprecedented capacities
to manipulate life, to control basic processes of life, and (in theory, at least) to
program the anatomy, physiology, and behavior of organisms and to alter the
structure and functioning of the Earths ecosystems. These tremendous new
powers over life do not coincide with a deeper understanding or appreciation of
Philosophy of Life in the Age of Information
111
human life, as our technological advances are not informed or directed by any
set of human values based on a meaningful conception of lifeas would have
been sought by earlier philosophies of life.
In one of his later interviews, Michel Foucault remarked on the ambiguity of
his concept of bio-power: it refers, he said, both to the power over life, including
human life, which can now be manipulated in all sorts of new ways (social,
political, psychological, medical, genetic, pharmacological, etc.) and to the power
of life to resist all such mechanisms of control. I would like to take up this informal
indication in order to situate the problematic of life in the Information Age in
a particular philosophical context, indicated above in very preliminary terms
by references to the link between the life sciences and information technology,
on the one hand, and to certain motifs from the later thought (in both cases)
of Heidegger and Foucault. This line of inquiry should not be construed as an
attempt to set a quasi-romantic or neo-Nietzschean conception of life against a
mechanistic, scientific, and technological determination of life. Both Heidegger
and Foucault recognized the profound changesin culture, in human existence
or subjectivity (to use the latters preferred term), and in thinkingassociated
with the onset of what we now know as the Information Age. So the task to be
taken up here, or at least outlined in very preliminary and schematic form, is not
one of combatting the technological developments or the essential structures of
the Information Age by means of a revived philosophy of life. Rather, as both
Heidegger and Foucault understood, the task is primarily one of reflecting on
the altered reality of the world we inhabit by questioning the status of life
in the new ontological regime that grounds the epoch, our own, in which the
ultimate nature of reality is determined, understood, and experienced in terms
of information.
An ontology of ourselves
Our heading here is a phrase invoked in several remarks made by Foucault in
lectures, essays, and interviews from the early 1980s,1 but the intended meaning
can be clearly indicated by citing a passage from Paul Ricoeur. In the chapter
on The Critical Philosophy of History in his magisterial work, Memory,
History, Forgetting, Ricoeur reflects briefly on the (then fashionable) theme of
modernity vs. postmodernity and concludes by asking, how can one even enter
into a debate that avoids the preliminary question of the very possibility of
characterizing the epoch in which one lives? (Ricoeur 2004, 314). Whether the
112
debate concerns an interpretation of a historical event, a literary assessment, or

a scientific controversy, Ricoeurs insistence that one must begin by reflecting
on ones own epoch implies that the starting point must be what Foucault
designated as an ontology of ourselves. Without first questioning whether or
to what extent and in what terms one can characterize ones own epoch, the
implicit assumptions, epistemological and ontological biases, remain implicit
and therefore obscure. Only by first attempting to determine the ontological
ground on which we stand, the tacit understanding of being, the prevailing
self-understanding of human being as such, the ontological status attributed to
nature, to works of art, and to God or the gods, can we hope to clarify (which is
not to say eliminate) the assumptions that shape our mode of inquiry and focus
our attention on specific aspects of the matter at hand.
For our present concerns, what this means is that prior to inquiring into
the status or the meaning of life we must first consider whether and in what
terms we are capable of conceptualizing our own epochthat is, engaging in
a critical inquiry under the rubric of an ontology of ourselves. As we will see,
such preliminary ontological reflection situates the problematic of life at the
core of the fundamental understanding of being as information that determines
the essential contours of our epoch. To be sure, the kind of ontological inquiry
that Foucault demanded amounts to more than merely reflecting on the labels
attached to particular ages or historical epochs (Renaissance, Enlightenment,
Age of Information . . .), but when the inhabitants of a historical epoch
designate themselves or their own time in a specific way, as we do today, this
can be taken as an indication of a fundamental self-understanding of the age
in question.
In referring to our current reality as the Age of Information we are usually
pointing to the importance of certain technological developments associated
with the computer, the internet, or the recent developments with hand-held
digital devices. The computerization of society has been a theme since the
invention of digital electronic computing machines in the 1950s. But instead of
rehearsing the series of advances involving vacuum tube technology, transistors,
microprocessors, etc., I would like to direct our attention toward the underlying
ontological shift that renders reality itself as digital or digitized domain, in
principle subject to binary computation, as potential input for information
processing machines. In focusing on this ontological working up of the data,
we see how the contemporary scientific conception of life in terms of information
theory (the blueprint of an organism understood as a set of biochemical
instructions encoded into DNA) occupies a privileged position embedded in the
113
ontological foundations of our present epoch. Just one indication of this shift in
the fundamental understanding of life in terms of information (which is all that
can be offered here): already in 1943, nearly a decade before the revolution in
molecular biology touched off by the discovery of the structure and reproductive
mechanism of DNA, the physicist Erwin Schrdinger wrote a very interesting
short book entitled What Is Life? Reflecting developments in several branches of
the natural sciences in which, broadly speaking, the thermodynamic paradigm
was being replaced by a paradigm based on informatics and communication
theory, Schrdingers book already conceives of life itself and the basic
processes that distinguish organic matter from inorganic entirely in terms of
information. Such an indication can be taken as part of a larger development
which of course would have to be analyzed in more detailin which various
aspects or dimensions of reality are conceptualized in binary, digital,
information-theoretical terms. Developments in psychology during the middle
of the last century, for example, recast thinking itself, the unique characteristic of
the rational animal that designated itself as Homo sapiens, in terms of cognitive
science as modules of information processing at various levels. Overall, the shift
in our basic conception of reality (our understanding of being itself) prepared
the ground for the computer revolution of the 1950s, so that the powerful
techniques of information processing could, in principle, be applied to all aspects
of reality.
At the center of this ontological shift, I would like to suggest, is the dramatic
change in the scientific understanding of life which simultaneously provided
new mathematical grounds for rigorous methodology in the life sciences, and
placed the life sciences at the center of our scientific civilization, so that over the
course of the last half century the leading edge of scientific and technological
advance is provided not by mathematical physics, but by molecular biology
and genetics. This new status of the life sciences, moreover, is not merely an
incidental effect of the new ontological order (being qua information) but should
be recognized as a decisive motivation for the fundamental reordering of the
world we inhabit. To give just one further indication of this repositioning of the
life sciences, and to point again to the concept of life that emerges concomitantly
with the Information Age, we might consider a recent work of Evelyn Fox Keller,
professor of the history and philosophy of science at MIT, and one of the most
astute observers of developments in the life sciences over the past century. Her
book Making Sense of Life is not an existential meditation on the question of
the meaning of life, but a detailed analysis of the new mathematical, cybernetic,
and informational foundations of the life sciences. For present purposes it will
114
have to suffice merely to cite the subtitle of this work, Explaining Biological
Development with Models, Metaphors, and Machines. It is, as this author shows
rather compellingly, through metaphors borrowed from information theory,
computer science, and cybernetics that we digital denizens of the Information
Age make sense of life.
Foucault: Subjectivity and subjectivization

Taking our task as an ontology of ourselves as suggested in the late work of
Michel Foucault, it may be worthwhile to characterize, briefly and informally,
the so-called ethical turn that demarcates the studies devoted to the ancient
Greeks and Romans in Foucaults final years from the earlier works dealing
with the essentially modern institutions and practices of power that shaped our
essentially modern mode of subjectivity. Foucault himself described his turning
away from those early modern institutions and practices, and turning toward the
practices of the self in Greek and Roman antiquity, in political-ethical terms as
an inquiry into the capacity of the subject to determine its own mode of being.
This practice of freedom or care of the self should not be confused with the
modern, juridical notion of the autonomous subject as self-legislating (as in
Kants moral philosophy), since Foucault is seeking the practical and theoretical
resources, forged by Western subjectivity in antiquity, that enable the self to
work on itself (askesis) in order to shape and fundamentally transform its own
mode of being.
We can discern an indication of this theme, widely discussed throughout
his later lecture courses and essays, in an interview from the early 1980s where
he invokes the concept of spirituality to designate this self-transformative
capacity of subjectivity found in the ethical practices of classical Athens and
imperial Rome: By spirituality, I understood that which precisely refers to
a subject acceding to a certain mode of being and to transformations which
the subject must make of himself in order to accede to this mode of being
(Bernauer and Rasmussen 1994, 14). Such a spiritual capacity to transform
ones mode of being is sharply distinguished from early Christian practices of
askesis, according to Foucault, insofar as the latter efforts were oriented toward
other-worldly notions of salvation, whereas the pagan practices of askesis
(including those of the Stoics and the Cynics) were clearly oriented toward
this-worldly goals of transforming ones way of life. In antiquity, this work on
the self with its attendant austerity is not imposed on the individual by means
115
of civil law or religious obligation, but is a choice about existence made by the
individual. People decide for themselves whether or not to care for themselves
(Dreyfus and Rabinow 1983, 244). Philosophy as a way of life, to take up the title
of an important work by Foucaults friend and colleague, Pierre Hadot, implies
this free choice of an individual to engage in the practices of the care of the self
in order to transform his or her form of subjectivity, mode of existence, way of
life. It is here that a connection with our approach to philosophy of life as a form
of resistance becomes apparent.
Without going into detailed analyses of Foucaults reading of early Platonic
dialogues, his interest in the Roman moralists such as Epictetus and Marcus
Aurelius, or his painstaking treatment of the development of practices of
parrhesia (speaking out)all of which would, no doubt, be relevant to our
present concernsI would like to point here to just one indication of what
might be claimed as the real motivations or intentions of the ethical turn. The
following, highly suggestive passage is taken from a piece written in English by
Foucault, entitled Why Study Power: The Question of the Subject. It is worth
quoting at length:
When in 1784 Kant asked, Was heisst Aufklrung?, he meant, Whats going on
just now? Whats happening to us? What is this world, this period, this precise
moment in which we are living. Or in other words: What are we? As Aufklrer,
as part of the Enlightment? . . . Kants question appears as an analysis of both
ourselves and our present. The task of philosophy as a critical analysis of our
world is something which is more and more important. Maybe the most certain
of all philosophical problems is the problem of the present time, of what we are,
in this very moment. Maybe the target nowadays is not to discover what we are,
but to refuse what we are. We have to imagine and to build up what we could be to
get rid of this political double bind, which is the simultaneous individualization
[of the subject] and totalization of modern power structures. The conclusion
would be that the political, ethical, social, philosophical problem of our days is
not to try to liberate the individual from the state, and from the states institutions,
but to liberate us both from the state and from the type of individualization linked
to the state. We have to promote new forms of subjectivity through the refusal of
this kind of individuality which has been imposed on us for several centuries.
(Dreyfus and Rabinow 1983, 216)
Here we see a rare glimpse into what Foucault is really calling forwhich
is often notoriously difficult to discern, however lucid his conceptual analyses
and exegeses of texts may beand these remarks express a clarion call of
116
sorts, opening up new possibilities, new forms of subjectivity, new ways of life
envisioned through the radical refusal of what we are. To be sure, the political
and ethical resistance called for here takes the modern state and its correlate,
the modern form of subjectivity, as that which must be refused. Invoked in our
present context, circa 2013, the forces and the institutions and the practices that
shape and deform the mode of subjectivity in our Information Age are to be
located not in the state apparatus itself, but in the rapidly evolving technologies
of communication and control that constitute our reality as a cybernetic
totality. What we are and our present reality are determined increasingly by the
encroachment of digital technologies into all aspects of human life, by the internet
and cloud computing, by the reduction of thinking to information processing,
by the ruling paradigm in the life sciences where genetics and evolution are
understood in terms of information processing, by forms of communication
that facilitate the exchange of useless information while alienating human beings
from one another and from themselves in unprecedented ways.
The form of subjectivity that emerges as correlate to the technological
developments and institutions that constitute our reality as Age of Information
can be designated Homo cyberneticus (with a nod to Norbert Wiener who coined
the term cybernetics in 1948): a form of human existence entirely subjected to
Foucault would say subjectivized bytechnological forces of communication
and control (two terms invoked in the subtitle to Wieners seminal work.) And
Foucaults ethical-political imperative, glimpsed in the passage cited above,
can be articulated today as the necessity of refusing the mode of existence in
which our subjectivity is subjectivized as Homo cyberneticus, in order to open
up possibilities for other forms of subjectivity, other modes of being, other
ways of living. This would be the formulation for our present epoch, Age of
Information, of the forces of life rising to creative resistance against the powers
over life, powers that determine life as information and thought as information
processing. That is to say, the revived tasks of a philosophy of life today entail
the resistance or refusal of the subjectivization of life to modes of information
processing, for the sake of opening possibilities for new forms of subjectivity to
be shaped from within: care of the self against Homo cyberneticus.
Heidegger: Seinsgeschichte and the Information Age

In metaphysics reflection [Besinnung] is accomplished concerning the essence of
what is and a decision takes place regarding the essence of truth. Metaphysics
117
grounds an age, in that through a specific interpretation of what is (das Seiende)

and through a specific comprehension of truth it gives to that age the basis upon
which it is essentially formed. This basis holds complete dominion over all the
phenomena that distinguish the age. (Heidegger 1977, 115)
Metaphysics grounds an agebut not ours. The origins and foundations of our
Age of Information are generally understood to lie somewhere in the middle of the
last century, with the rise of cybernetics,2 electronic computing machines,3 and
the mathematical theory of communication4all stemming from and directly
motivated by scientific research conducted during World War II and oriented
explicitly toward military goals. So for those who wish to establish a historical
starting point for the Information Age, 1945 and the postwar years (that is to
say, the onset of the Cold War) might seem like a reasonable suggestion. A little
further consideration will recognize, however, that the theoretical origins of what
eventually came to be electronic digital computation go back to the work of Alan
Turing in the 1930s. This groundbreaking work can only be understood, in turn,
against the background of the radical upheaval in the foundations of mathematical
logic brought about by Gdels incompleteness theoremdemonstrating the
necessary incompleteness of any formalized systematic attempt (such as that of
Russell and Whitehead presented in their Principia Mathematica two decades
earlier) to ground the basic principles of arithmetic and number theory. The
motivation for the work of Russell and Whitehead, in turn, and the original
motivations that led eventually to the practical implementation of Turings
so-called universal machine in the fully programmable electronic computing
machine, constructed under von Neumanns direction at Princeton in the early
1950s, would have to be traced back to the German mathematician David
Hilbert, whose radical work on the foundations of mathematics set the stage, at
the turn of the twentieth century, for the theoretical work that eventually became
the basis for what we now know as computer science.
Nowhere in this research in the fields of logic and pure mathematics do we
find explicit theories about the nature of truth or determinations of the ultimate
nature of reality. The Age of Information is self-consciously post-metaphysical.
But if there is not an explicit understanding of what is (das Seiende) or a
conscious formulation of epistemological grounds for truth in the theoretical
work that underlies and makes possible the digital revolution of the latter
decades of the last century, can we perhaps discern an ontological framework
and a unique determination of the reality of what is (the reality we presently
inhabit) emerging from the technological, political, economic, sociological,
118
and psychological developments associated with our Information Age? Is there

not a unique ontological regime, a particular configuration of the fundamental
constituents of what we take to be reality, that determines our historical epoch
as the Information Age? However this prevailing (or emerging) ontological
order is to be conceptualized, it is clear that the fundamental metaphysical
grounds designated by Heidegger in ontological and epistemological terms as
an understanding of what is and a basic conception of truth, also shape our
theoretical understanding of lifein terms of informationand our practical
experience and self-understanding as human subjects operating in the Age of
Information.
It follows, then, that the motivations and intentions of a revived philosophy
of life in the Age of Information would have to take as its task not only the
refusal of a certain mode of subjectivity, as enjoined by Michel Foucault, or
the correlation between a certain mode of subjectivity and the modern state
apparatus which is its correlate. Heideggers ontological thinking points to the
underlying understanding of being and the prevailing conception of truth as
the ultimate ground in which contemporary human being (Dasein) situates
itself. Accordingly, the implications for the sort of philosophical reflection
outlined above would take on a more radical orientation: what must be
interrogated, undermined, or ultimately refused (as Foucault would say)
are the fundamental contours that shape our epoch and ground the decisive
features of our reality. These fundamental contours also determine the ruling
paradigm in the life sciences today (where life itself is understood in terms
of information) and the way of life that corresponds to the mode of being
of contemporary subjectivity. So the task of thinking that might inform a
revived philosophy of life today would entail an ontological deconstruction, as
announced in the last section of the Introduction to Heideggers Being and
Time, taking as its object not the history of Western theories of being, from
Plato and Aristotle to Kant and Hegel, but a deconstruction of our present
reality, undermining the essential structures of our Information Age.
Foucaults later thinking seems to complement this Heideggerian formulation
of the radical task of ontological reflection by articulating the project in terms
of an ethical-political care of the self. What this task entails, as both thinkers
realize, is a simultaneous inquiry into the prevailing understanding of being that
determines our epoch as the Age of Information and into human subjectivity,
our present mode of existence, our current self-understanding and experience
of life. Whether or to what extent such a two-fold critical inquiry proves to be
119
feasible will determine the chances for a philosophy of life to emerge today as an
efficacious and fruitful line of theoretical and practical engagement. This essay
has attempted to point to just one possible line of inquiry in which Foucaults
call for an ontology of ourselves can be understood in the context of Heideggers
Seinsgeschichte thinkingfor it is clearly implied that an ontology of our present
epoch both recognizes the unique layout of being and truth that characterizes an
age and demarcates it from other epochs. The pragmatic implications of such
an inquiry, as hinted at here, orient the task of thinking toward the refusal or
undermining of the ontological foundations that ground our historical present
in information and determine life, subjectivity, and being itself in terms of
information.
Notes
1
2
3
4
See (Foucault 2011).

See (Wiener 1948).
See (Dyson 1950).
See (Shannon 1950).
Bibliography
Bernauer, J. and Rasmussen, D., eds (1988), The Final Foucault. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Dreyfus, H. and Rabinow, P. (1983), Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and
Hermeneutics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dyson, G. (2012), Turings Cathedral: The Origins of the Digital Universe. New York:
Palgrave.
Foucault, M. (2011), The Courage of Truth: Lectures at the College De France, 19831984,
Graham Burchell (trans.), in Frdric Gros (ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fox Keller, E. (2002), Making Sense of Life: Explaining Biological Development with
Models, Metaphors, and Machines. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Heidegger, M. (1977), The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays, W. Lovitt
(trans.). New York: Harper & Row.
Martin, L. H., Gutman, H., and Hutton, P. H., eds (1988), Technologies of the Self: A
Siminar with Michel Foucault. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
Ricoeur, P. (2004), Memory, History, Forgetting, K. Blamey and D. Pellauer (trans).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
120
Schrdinger, E. (1955), What Is Life? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Shannon, C. and Weaver, W. (1948), The Mathematical Theory of Communication.
Champagne-Urbana: The University of Illinois Press.
Wiener, N. (1948), Cybernetics, or Control and Communication in the Animal and the
Machine. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Part III
Life, Power, Politics
Without Inside or Outside:

Nietzsche, Pluralism, and the Problem
of the Unity of Human Experience
Michael J. ONeill
Whether Nietzsche is a political thinker or not is a matter of some dispute.1 My

contention is that Nietzsches comments on politics are intimately related to his
theory of culture. To the extent that a political regime produces an authentic
culture, it is worthwhile, or worth living under. If that regime is structurally
unable to do so, Nietzsche critiques it as such. A good or authentic politics is
one that serves the development of culture. And only culture can provide content
and meaning for political action. Nietzsches analysis of what he considers
deficient types of political regimes revolves around their structural inability to
produce a culture. Using his critique of democracy as an example, I will argue
that Nietzsche criticizes political forms for their failure to provide the possibility
of a unified experience of thought and actiona unity of values embodied in
expression. This unity is a hallmark of culture for Nietzsche. Corrupt political
forms instead create, by design or inadvertently, a disunitya fracturing of
thought and actionin human experience. Even Nietzsches discussion of agon
is subsumed under this principle of unity.
Nietzsches analysis of liberal democracy is relevant to our current
circumstances since democratic liberalism continues to be the dominant political
ideology in the world. In the vacuum created by the collapse of communism,
forms of theocratic fascism and various postmodern critiques of globalization
have arisen to fill the void. What we are seeing in the rejection of democratic
liberalism in our current age is a critique of democracy that is similar in form
to Nietzsches. In short, the complaint is that liberalism destroys the unity of
human experience. It replaces the meaningfulness of a unified culture with a
124
plurality of moral and aesthetic views, each with equal claim. If this is true, then
it stands to reason that the ideologies that arise to challenge liberalism will share
this criticismsimply in that they are liberalisms dialectical other. Knowing
this, we ignore Nietzsche at our peril, for his is a remarkably articulate and
paradigmatic critique of democracy.
Nietzsches attack on the modern philosophical project and especially on
modern epistemology is relevant here as well. Modern epistemology, he claims,
makes it impossible for thought to see value. It is a kind of thought whose
main value (objectivity) is in fact value-neutral. In its objectivity, this thought
attempts to make no commitments. Democracy is the modern politics that
mirrors this objectivity. It too attempts to make no commitmentsat least none
it can avoid.2 It is modern democratic liberalisms indifference to the seriousness
of life that is Nietzsches main complaint. Democracy is indifferent in that it is
pluralistic (in its ethics, its aesthetics) by design. According to Nietzsche, this
indifference is manifest in the kind of human being produced by democracy and
in its inability to produce a unified aesthetic.
The soul of the state: Nietzsches Machiavellian

reading of Plato
Nietzsche accepts the Platonic idea that the state is a soul writ large and
in turn produces a certain type of soul in its citizens. This view is bound
up with Nietzsches admiration for the Greeks and an aristocratic ethos.
Whereas the model of the soul that produces the form of the polis in Plato
is the philosophical/political genius who acts as founder of the community,
Nietzsche asks the provocative question whether the political community
should be formed by and aim at producing an aesthetic genius. Put another
way, in the Republic, Plato insists that the king be a philosopher and the poets
be banished from the city. However, other manifestations of the political
genius are possible, with the aesthetic or artistic genius being Nietzsches
preference. He writes,
That in his perfect state [Plato] did not place at the head the genius, in its most
general sense, but only the genius of wisdom and of knowledge, that he altogether
excluded artistic geniuses from his state, that was a rigid consequence of the
Socratic judgment on art, which Plato, struggling against himself had made his
own. (Nietzsche 2008, 46)
Without Inside or Outside
125
Plato and Nietzsche are in agreement in their rejection of democracy. In the

Republic, Plato complains that democracy is indifferent to philosophy and to
the noble.
And this regimes sympathy and total lack of pettiness in despising what we were
saying so solemnly when we were founding the citythat unless a man has a
transcendent nature he would never become good if from earliest childhood his
play isnt noble and all his practices arent suchhow magnificently it tramples
all this underfoot and doesnt care at all from what kinds of practices a man goes
to political action, but honors him if only he says hes well disposed toward the
multitude. (Plato 1991, 558 bc)
Nietzsche makes a similar complaint. The problem with democracy, for Nietzsche,
is its indifference to everything including philosophy, the artist, and anything
important to the meaning of human existence.
Despite Nietzsches basic agreement with Plato on the structure of politics,
he follows Machiavelli in arguing that the form of a regime is less important
than its permanence because the durability of a regime is a precondition for the
development of culture. In 224 of Human All Too Human he writes:
So far as the state is concerned, Machiavelli says that the form of government
signifies very little, even though semi-educated people think otherwise. The great
goal of statecraft should be duration, which outweighs everything else, inasmuch as
it is much more valuable than freedom. Only when there is securely founded and
guaranteed long duration is a steady evolution and ennobling inoculation at all
possible: though the dangerous companion of all duration, established authority,
will, to be sure, usually resist it. (Nietzsche 1994, 108)
With that said, whatever form the regime takes, its purpose is the production
of an authentic culture. The characteristics of culture can and will vary based
on language, historical circumstances, and ethnicity for Nietzsche. All true
cultures, however, will share a unity of expression of aesthetic values. While
Nietzsche is not tied to any regime based on any ends intrinsic to human
nature, he criticizes or approves regimes based on the emergent culture (or lack
thereof) that they produce. Certain forms of regime are structurally deficient in
this regard. Since culture is, for Nietzsche, the unified presentation of aesthetic
values, those regimes that foster disunity and pluralism as an ideal, Nietzsche
finds deficient.
Before I turn to his analysis of the pluralism engendered by liberal democracy,
I will examine what Nietzsche means by the unity of culture.
126
Nietzsche and the unity of a culture without

inside or outside
It is a common misconception that Nietzsche is a worshipper of power. I would
argue that his interest in power stems from his concern for the unity of the values
of a culture. The extent to which a thinker can impose her will on a culture in such
a way that that culture is unified in an expression of value, especially aesthetic
value, that is the measure and worth of her power. It is important to bear in mind
that Nietzsches primary concern is aesthetic value. He writes, The existence of
the world is justified only as an aesthetic phenomenon (Nietzsche 1967, 21). By
justification, I take Nietzsche to mean something like the assertion of value or
the creation of beauty in the face of the experience of pessimism. Tracy Strong
summarizes the importance of The Birth of Tragedy for understanding Nietzsches
politics succinctly. He writes, [The Birth of Tragedy] is about how, through the
sociopolitical cultural practice of the tragic festivals, the Greeks managed to
remain themselves, that is, Greek (Strong 2008, 356). Strong rightly points out
that in 21 of Birth of Tragedy Nietzsche claims his subject matter is the most
basic foundation of the life of a people. To remain Greek is to embody some
value identifiable as Greek. If it is identifiable, that is because it is in some way
a unified presentation of valuethought embodied in action.
If value is to be asserted in the face of pessimism, then what would constitute
a unified aesthetic or an authentic culture? In this context, Nietzsche describes
the achievement of the Greeks:
Never have they lived proudly untouchable: for a long time their culture was rather a
chaos of foreign, Semitic, Babylonian, Lydian and Egyptian forms and ideas, and their
religion a veritable battle of gods of the whole orient ... And nevertheless Hellenic
culture became no aggregate, thanks to that Apollinian motto [know thyself]. The
Greeks learned gradually to organize chaos by reflecting on themselves in accordance
with the Delphic teaching, that is, by reflecting on their genuine needs and letting
their sham needs die out ... Thus the Greek concept of culture ... [is] a new and
improved nature, without inside and outside, without dissimulation and convention,
of culture as a unanimity of life, thought, appearance and will. (Nietzsche 1980, 64)
The unity without inside and outside that Nietzsche admires so much is also
expressed in Greek virtue ethicsa harmony of the parts of the soul and a unity
between thought and action. This is why Nietzsche can speak of justice without
irony.3 Justice for Nietzsche is still a kind of harmony, as it was for Plato and
Aristotle, except that it is the harmony of the great soul reflected in the culture it
creates, and reflected in the hierarchical ranking of an aristocratic society.4
127
In turn, the unity or harmony of the soul is the precondition for the creation
of what Nietzsche calls culture. Aesthetic culture, the creation of beauty, provides
an affirmation which can be lived by others. He writes, Culture is, above all,
the unity of artistic style in every expression of the life of a people. Education
and politics must serve this endeavor, since, Much knowledge and learning is
neither an essential means to culture nor a sign of it, and if needs be can get along
with the very opposite of culture, barbarism, which is lack of style or a chaotic
jumble of all styles (Nietzsche 1986, 56). This is fitting with the theme of unity
and harmony, since an education that is counter to the creation of culture, for
Nietzsche, will only give birth to a generation of citizens who carry the seeds
of disunity in them.5 Politics and education must work together to produce the
aesthetic genius because the aesthetic genius as creator of value is the source of
the unity of culture. What this effort results in is the expression of value that
provides content for politics as the vision of the aesthetic genius demands to be
expressed and imposed on reality. Nietzsche explains that,
Thus only he who has attached his heart to some great man receives thereby the
first consecration to culture ... We have to make the transition from the inward
event to an assessment of the outward event; the eye has to be directed outwards
so as to rediscover in the great world of action that desire for culture it recognized
in the experiences of the first stage [the first consecration]; the individual has to
employ his own wrestling and longing as the alphabet by means of which he
can now read off the aspirations of mankind as a whole ... culture demands of
him, not only inward experience, not only an assessment of the outward world
that streams all around him, but finally and above all an act, that is to say a
struggle on behalf of culture and hostility towards those influences, habits, laws,
institutions in which he fails to recognize his goal: which is the production of
genius. (Nietzsche 1986, 163)
However, Nietzsche never meant his idea of culture to be interpreted as a form

of total or monolithic politics. Within this culture there will be agonistic striving.
But it is a prior unified vision that provides the arena for this striving.
Agon and Demos: Recent readings in radical

and genealogical democracy
Some recent readings of Nietzsches politics have encouraged the application
of his thought to the idea of radical democracy.6 In particular, there has been
much work done on the idea of agon as supporting a robust pluralism. Schrift,
128
for instance, calls for an agonistic pluralism which prevents the appropriation
of any fixed notions of identity and aids oppressed groups in overcoming
the traditional ... distribution of power, goods and privileges (Schrift 2000,
220). His reading aims to put the critical tools of Nietzsches thoughtthe
hermeneutic analysis of power, perspectivism, and the idea of agonto work in
creating a robust pluralism where no identity is affirmed and the understanding
of the self in society is one that is empathetic to multiple perspectives and is
constantly in a process of becoming. Forcefully in opposition to this reading
of Nietzsches agon is Don Dombowsky. Dombowsky argues that Nietzsches
critique of democracy proceeds in the spirit of the revocation of democratic
rights and the legitimation of the dispossession or non-recognition of certain
human beings. The differential social space Nietzsche opens up is predicated
on order of rank and class division; it is not a horizontal field (Dombowsky
2002, 280).7 Dombowsky further argues that, in general, the radical democratic
reading in its endorsement of the idea of an agonistic self omits consideration of
the strong will that orders the competing drives and instincts within it.8
The omission of the idea of the strong will in the radical democrats use
of Nietzsches thought is not just misrepresentative of his philosophy, it raises
a serious issue for their project. How is the integrity of plural elements of a
democratic society to be preserved? In the absence of the strong will or a
principle like the subsidiarity of institutions within the state,9 what principle
other than the inertia of habit provides the basis from which a healthy agonistic
contest can occur? Nietzsches concern with modern liberal democracy is that
it does not allow for the assertion of unified identities. In its insistence on
the public/private distinction, on agnosticism in the public sphere, liberalism
makes its limited form total. The distinction between inner and outer
is present as the essence of the regime and it pervades all groups and the
individual soul as well. He writes:
Our institutions are no longer any good; on this point we are all agreed. But
the fault does not lie with them; but with us. Now that we have lost all the
instincts out of which institutions grow, the latter on their part are beginning
to disappear from our midst because we are no longer fit for them. Democracy
has always been the death agony of the power of organization ... For institutions
to be possible there must exist a sort of will, instinct, imperative, which cannot
be otherwise than anti-liberal to the point of malice: the will to tradition, to
authority, to responsibility for centuries to come, to solidarity in long family lines
forwards and backwards in infinitum. (Nietzsche 1964, 96)
129
Even if one were to argue, as Siemens does, that Nietzsche approves of democracy
in parts of his thought, in particular what he identifies as Nietzsches middle
period, his return to an acerbic critique of democratic values in Genealogy
of Morals and Beyond Good and Evil is telling. In these books, he refers to the
democratic mood as misarchism and weakness of will and instinct.10
In a similar vein to Schrifts radical democracy, Wendy Brown provides
an interesting application of Nietzsches ideas as a genealogical approach to
politics. Her Politics Out of History suggests Nietzsches use of genealogy can
be productively applied as an ongoing critique that undermines established
identities and power structures as a check on institutions and institutional
oppression (Brown 2001). Both Schrift and Brown look to establish a perpetual
undermining of institutions and identities in order to allow space for freedom
in the absence of oppression. However, the radical democrats and Browns
genealogical approach share the difficulty of adopting the critical aspect of
Nietzsches philosophy without regard for the appropriative element. While
Nietzsche is rightly famous for having done philosophy with a hammer, the
hammer had the purpose of clearing the way for a new appropriation of
values (aesthetic and moral) that can be lived. Dialectically speaking, both the
radical democrats and the genealogists are proposing a politics of ongoing and
perhaps endless critique without an appropriative move to the affirmation of
some value. Both movements are in danger of turning the disease Nietzsche
is diagnosing (Enlightenment and modern philosophys inability to ground
values on reason alone) into a virtue and the diagnostic tool he uses into a
way of life.
The agnosticism of liberal democracy

The genius of the design of liberal democracy in its solution to the particular
political problem it is confronted with is precisely the issue that makes it so
distasteful to Nietzsche. To take a paradigmatic example, Lockes Second Treatise
of Government was published in 1689, just after the installation of William and
Mary and the triumph of Constitutional monarchy (the Glorious Revolution)
in England. England, with Europe, was weary of the wars of religion and needed
a workable political solution that would allow the coexistence of plural religious
views within a unified state. Attempts to solve this specific problem had been
brewing for more than half a century.11 The brilliance of Lockes solution was to
provide a theory of government whereby the ends and purposes of the state are
130
reduced to what he believed was the common denominator for all peoplethe
protection of private property (which is the states chief end), the defense of
the state, and the expansion of individual freedom (which is laws purpose).
On matters religious, moral, and aesthetic, Lockes liberal democracy remains
agnostic publically.12 By removing matters of conscience from the public sphere,
except as expressed freely in public debate (that is to say, reduced from the
fabric of law to mere public discussion and expression), and protecting them as
freedoms of conscience in the private sphere, Locke hoped to disarm the cause
of the lethal conflicts of his age.
What succeeds as a model for plural political community, fails as a model
for a unified lived experience. By bifurcating public and private, liberalism
may reduce the deadly sources of conflict to a discussion. However, it ensures
that lived values that were thought to be worth dying for can never be fully
embodied in a unified experience. What is public is bound to the parameters
of discussion and must ultimately remain discussed but never fully asserted as
an affirmation of life. In order for the government to remain formally agnostic,
the discussion must continue in this way without resolution. And since it is
unresolved, a value is never fully lived, only discussed. This is the case in any
liberal democracy that contains a bicameral legislature, even in the creation and
promulgation of law. All legislation is ultimately compromise and an aggregate
of perspectives and interests. What is a private matter of conscience therefore
remains removed from the public sphere, since it is never embodied in law. It
is either lived only partially or not at all. Of course, the obvious strength of this
is moderation and flexibility in the finding of legislative solutions to problems.
The design of democratic liberalism with its separation of powers is to prevent
a dangerous centralization of power, not to promote virtue. It is a negative
ideal. For Nietzsche, however, what liberalism results in is a partial or complete
bifurcation within the experience of the human being living within it. Except
in opposition to liberalism itself, matters of conscience are always private and
can never be fully affirmed publically. In solving the problem of pluralism,
liberalism introduces a tension within the individual. The liberal citizen, in
order to live within liberalism, must harbor a tolerance for the incompleteness
of their own lived experience. What pluralism really amounts to is a kind of
agnosticism where no value can be affirmed in a unified way. By design, there
is no harmony between the private thoughts and beliefs of the citizen and the
public face of the state. In this way, for Nietzsche, citizens of liberal states are
always inauthentic.
131
How the unity of aesthetic values comes to be destroyed

In Birth of Tragedy, it is Euripides, speaking in the voice of Socrates, who shatters
the unity of Greek values. Nietzsche writes, The deity which spoke through
[Euripides] was neither Dionysus nor Apollo, but an altogether newborn demon,
called Socrates. It is Socrates relentless subjection of value to the criticism of
reason that is the key to the corruption of Greek values. For Socrates demands,
to be beautiful everything must be intelligible (Nietzsche 1967, 82). In that
demand is contained the source of the devolution of Greek values into disunity.
As aesthetic values come under the bright light of critical reason, as they become
an object for reflection, the Greeks become separated from these values as a lived
reality and reduce them to an object of study and discourse. In short, Socrates
creates disunity by making values an object for analysis.13 Nietzsches opinion of
Socrates is complex. He is both an admirer and a critic.14 However, Socrates is
the first to take the blame for spreading the disease of separation of thought and
value whose contemporary carriers Nietzsche feels compelled to diagnose.
In the modern period, Nietzsche finds symptoms of the disease in historical
education, democratic liberalism, modern natural science, and utilitarian ethics.
Each of these manifestations of Socratism is gathered under the heading of
objectivity. This objectivity is modernitys primary valuea value that values a
noncommittal attitude toward life. In politics, Nietzsche prefers the agonal unity
of the polis to the reflective disunity found in Socrates approach to philosophy.
An agonal unity should be contrasted with the endless agon-as-pluralism
suggested by the proponents of using Nietzsches philosophy to support the idea
of radical democracy (see Schrift and Connolly). There seems to be a mistake on
the part of the radical democrats in assuming that pluralism is or can be agonal
in Nietzsches sense of the word. Modern pluralism is neither an agonal unity
nor endless agon precisely because the politics of classical liberalism is designed
to be publically agnostic. That is to say, pluralism is preserved not by agon and
contest, but by indifference and toleration. It is this indifference which allows the
continual realignment of liberal democratic parties with what were often very
recent political enemies.15
As a rebuttal to the idea of agon as a possible ground of a radical democratic
politics, consider the following. The motivation for agonal striving is eris (envy).
There are two kinds of envy Nietzsche finds in Greek culturea healthy and
an unhealthy form. The unhealthy form of eris will be profitably developed
later by Nietzsche in his analysis of ressentiment. The healthy form of eris is that
132
emotion experienced by the aristocratic soul in its perception of competition

with those worthy of it. Nietzsche writes, And not only Aristotle but the whole
of Greek antiquity thinks of grudge and envy otherwise than we do and agrees
with Hesiod [in Works and Days], who first designates as a wicked one that
Eris who leads men against one another to a hostile war of extermination, and
secondly praises another Eris as the good one, who as jealousy, grudge and envy
incites men to deeds but not to deeds of annihilation but to deeds of contest.
And later, The greater and more sublime a Greek is, the brighter bursts out
of him the flame ofambition, devouring everybody who runs with him on the
same track. Aristotle once made a list of such hostile contests on a grand scale:
among them is the most striking instance of how even a dead person can still
incite a living one to consuming jealousy (Nietzsche 2008, 545). So, agon has a
fundamentally different psychological motivation than modern pluralism.
The essential emotion associated with pluralism, according to Nietzsche,
is indifference.16 Nietzsche writes, If love and hatred are wanted from [the
democratic person] ... he will do what he can and give what he can. But one
should not be surprised if it is not muchif just here he proves inauthentic,
fragile, questionable, and worm-eaten (Nietzsche 1989,127). Contempt for
other embodiments of value on the part of the pluralist would be better because
it would indicate judgment and engagementa realization that values as lived
are important enough to compete over. Pluralism, however, devolves into a tired
relativism whose inability to see other forms of life as competitors in a worthwhile
contest is an indication of the pluralists inability to live their own values fully.
A separation between thought and action, a structural disunity in democratic
politics, becomes a disunity within the soul of the democratic person. Then,
the separation of the person from her values makes all values equally foreign,
equally unlivable, and finally not valued at all.17
In sum, agon is competition within a unified culture motivated by the envy of
the aristocrat who strives to be the most excellent of types of soul. In contrast,
for Nietzsche, pluralism is a disunified agglomeration of attempts at culture.
However, none of these attempts will ever become an authentic culture because
each will always be prevented from doing so by the designed disunity of liberal
democracy. The type of person formed by this regime carries that disunity and
the indifference that is a consequence of it within her.
For Nietzsche, the Socratic tradition of reflective philosophy practiced while
one is assuming optimism or modern objectivity is a dissimulationor at least
only half of the story. The transmission of Socratic reflective philosophy and
optimism down through the history of the West, through the development of
133
Christianity and into modernity, is, for Nietzsche, a history of corruption in the
guise of progress. Worse still, it is the history of a culture that in the modern
period, despite its conceit about itself, refuses to be serious in the sense that
pessimism is never confronted and value never authentically created.18 The
objectivity of modern liberal democracy with the rhetoric of progress that
comes out of the Enlightenment has a parallel in the history of post-Periclean
Greece. Nietzsche suggests, Could it be that the Greeks became more and
more optimistic, superficial and histrionic precisely in the period of dissolution
and weaknessmore ardent for logic and logicizing the world and thus more
cheerful and scientific? (Nietzsche 1967, 21). The suggestion here is that the
Socratic reflective tradition and its modern descendant are masks pulled over
our fear of the ultimate nature of the world. Socrates achievement is a kind of
lie that reassures us that we are reflecting on our nature, when all the while we
assume that this nature is good and inhabits an intelligible universe.
Conclusion: The critique of modernity and democracy

For Nietzsche, as was said above, the Socratism of the modern period values
objectivity. Objective science, objective knowledge, the search for certainty,
the greatest happiness principle of the utilitarian ethic, these are all symptoms
of the disease carried by Socrates. They are attempts to be reassured about the
well-ordered structure of our existence. He writes, A matter that becomes clear
ceases to concern us.What was on the mind of that god who counseled: Know
thyself! Did he mean: Cease to concern yourself! Become objective!And
Socrates?And scientific men? (Nietzsche 1989, 81). The value of objectivity
is pernicious for Nietzsche. It is particularly pernicious in that it commands the
scholar and the artist to a kind of reserve from what they might value. Instead,
it demands that they make what they might value merely an object for thought,
and so denies the aristocratic soul the value of her nobleness. The effect of the
modern demand for objectivity is found most clearly in its education of its
people and in its politics. In its politics, especially modern liberal democracy,
objectivity finds its expression in pluralism. Pluralism requires, at least in the
public sphere, the toleration of disparate forms of aesthetic, ethical, and religious
value. For Nietzsche, it creates a kind of human being that is indifferent to
what is important. He writes of the modern democratic person, He has lost
any seriousness for himself, also time.... His habit of meeting every thing and
experience halfway, the sunny and impartial hospitality with which he accepts
134
everything that comes his way, his type of unscrupulous benevolence, of

dangerous unconcern about Yes and No ... And as a human being he becomes
all too easily the caput mortuum of these virtues (Nietzsche 1989, 127).19 In
contrast, the agonal striving in the polis seeks victory in contest, the affirmation
of value in the creation of culture, not endless indifference. Nietzsche argues
that the purpose of politics with education ultimately can only be redeemed in
the creation of value, in a (primarily aesthetic) affirmation of life. In democratic
liberalism, because of its structure, which includes the distinction between
public and private and because of its inherent agnosticism, this affirmation can
never be achieved.
To those of us who are believers in democratic liberalism, Nietzsches
unflinching criticism is difficult to stomach. However, it is essential to reengage
with his critique. Nietzsches concern with the unity of the soul that lives its
values without inside or outside is a hermeneutic key, as important as the
concept of ressentiment, to understanding the extreme antiliberal (both left and
right) elements of the domestic politics of Western democracies. And, the root
of the hatred of pluralism by theocratic movements who declare themselves
the enemies of Western liberal capitalism is in part explained by the anxiety
caused by the fracturing of human experience in liberalism. In short, the issues
of meaning and identity raised by Nietzsches critique are at the center of any
discussion of the nature of cultural pluralism and its role in human flourishing.
Notes
1 For two prominent examples of those who argue Nietzsche is not a political thinker,
see M. Nussbaum (1997), Is Nietzsche a Political Thinker? International Journal
of Philosophical Studies 5(1): 113; and T. Brobjer (1998), The Absence of Political
Ideas in Nietzsches Writings, Nietzsche-Studien 27: 30019. Don Dombowsky makes
a persuasive case that Nietzsche is a political thinker in his response to Brobjer. See
D. Dombowsky (2001), A Response to Thomas Brobjers The Absence of Political
Ideas in Nietzsches Writings, Nietzsche-Studien 30: 38793; and, Dombowsky and
Cameron (eds) (2008), Introduction to The Political Writings of Friedrich Nietzsche,
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
2 One could argue that democratic liberalisms central commitments are to the
protection of property, the expansion of freedom through law, and the maintenance
of a robust police force. See John Locke (1980), Second Treatise of Government, with
an introduction by C. B. MacPherson. Indianapolis: Hackett.
135
3 See Nietzsche, Human All to Human, 44457; The Wanderer and his Shadow
229; Genealogy of Morals 11; and Beyond Good and Evil 262 to name but a few
sections.
4 Of course the unity sought by Platos and Aristotles virtue ethics is supported by a
metaphysical worldview much different from Nietzsches pessimism.
5 The main theme of On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life is to
warn Nietzsches contemporaries of just this problem with education, and especially
historical education. The oversaturation of an age with history seems to me to be
hostile and dangerous to life in five respects: such an excess creates that contrast
between inner and outer which we have just discussed, and thereby weakens the
personality; it leads an age to imagine that it possesses the rarest of virtues, justice, to
a greater degree than any other age; it disrupts the instincts of a people, and hinders
the individual no less than the whole in the attainment of maturity; it implants
the belief, harmful at any time, in the old age of mankind, the belief that one is a
latecomer and epigone; it leads an age into a dangerous mood of irony in regard
to itself and subsequently into the even more dangerous mood of cynicism: in this
mood, however, it develops more and more a prudent practical egoism through
which the forces of life are paralyzed and at last destroyed (Nietzsche, History, 5).
Those of us in higher education who are engaged in presenting sweeping accounts of
the history of civilization to our students would do well to reflect on this passage.
6 For example, see W. Connolly (1991), Political Theory and Modernity. London:
Blackwell; L. Hatab (1995), A Nietzschean Defense of Democracy. Illinois: Open Court
Publishing; and A. Schrift (2000), Nietzsche for Democracy? Nietzsche-Studien 29:
22033.
7 D. Dombowsky (2002), A Response to Alan D. Schrifts Nietzsche for Democracy?
Nietzsche-Studien 31: 27890. While interesting, the debate between the two sides
does not gain much traction because the radical democrats do not claim to be
explicating Nietzsches position but instead are applying it in ways Nietzsche never
intended. Schrift quotes Foucault approvingly as saying, The only valid tribute
to thought such as Nietzsches is precisely to use it, to deform it, to make it groan
and protest (Schrift 2002), Response to Don Dombowsky, Nietzsche-Studien:
Internationales Jahrbuch fuer die Nietzsche-Forschung 31: 2917. Hatab makes a
similar observation when he says that, Defending democracy by way of Nietzsches
thought would seem to be adventurous at best, oxymoronic at worst (Hatab 1995, 1).
Of course, Hatabs honest admission is followed by a subtle and sustained attempt to
put Nietzsche to work in support of contemporary democratic politics.
8 See Beyond Good and Evil, esp., 200, 203, 208, 224.
9 For a well-articulated presentation of the importance of the idea of subsidiarity to
the health of plural forms of religious identity, see the papal encyclical Centesimus
Annus. It is available online at www.vatican.va, Pope John Paul II (1991).
136
10 See Genealogy of Morals II, 12 and Beyond Good and Evil, 2389. For an account
of the development of Nietzsches thinking on democracy, see Siemens (2009).
11 In particular, the Peace of Westphalia (1648) which ended the wars of religion and
gave the Imperial States within the Holy Roman Empire the right to determine
their religious preference locally.
12 It can be argued that the extreme public agnosticism of Lockes version of liberal
democracy rests on a foundation of English cultural tradition. That tradition
adds much public content to the formal structure of liberalism. Values are present
that Locke may have been counting on to define Englishness. The American
experiment is so interesting precisely because it is a tradition cobbled together from
so many others. It is a much more thoroughly pluralistic experiment in liberalism
than its English progenitor.
13 It is this corruption of Greek values that leads Nietzsche to support the Athenians
treatment of Socrates. He writes, Could Socrates have been the corrupter of youth
after all? And did he deserve his hemlock? See the Preface to Beyond Good and
Evil.
14 Walter Kaufmann gives an excellent and subtle account of Nietzsches thinking
about Socrates. See W. Kaufmann (1974).
15 Consider the alignment of socialist parties with far right parties in France over the
issue of the wearing of the Burqa. Or, in the United States, consider the alignment
of American Evangelical Protestant groups with conservative Catholic groups on
the issues of abortion and gay marriage. The indifference of pluralism allows that
ones traditional enemy may become a political friend as soon as circumstances
allow for a common foe. While Nietzsche considers this a weakness, an absence
of truly affirmed values, it is also a source of flexibility and stability within liberal
democracy.
16 Both Kojve and Fukuyama suggest that liberal democratic capitalism and liberal
democratic socialism are politics that aim at universal recognition. If my reading
of Nietzsche is correct about the psychology of pluralism, then it is possible that
they are both wrong in that these are in fact politics of indifference. See Kojves
Introduction to the Reading of Hegel and Fukuyamas The End of History and the
Last Man.
17 In addition to the radical democrats, another prominent conception of agonal
politics comes from Carl Schmitt. Schmitts critique of liberal democracy is in part
based on Nietzsches conception of the agon and includes an extreme conception
of political strife culminating in an existential challenge that defines and motivates
states. Schmitts thought is not liberal or democratic, and tends more toward a
form of theocratic fascism. Those who propose radical democracy as a kind of
agonal pluralism would do well to notice how fluid the concept of agonal politics
is. See C. Schmitt (1988), The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy; George Schwabb
137
and Tracy Strong (eds), University of Chicago Press; and Schmitt (2007), The
Concept of the Political, Ellen Kennedy (ed.), MIT Press.
18 It is not their love of men but the impotence of their love of men [which] keeps
the Christians of today from burning us (Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, 104).
19 Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, 207. The Latin phrase means dross or refuse,
as in the leftovers of the smelting process.
Bibliography
Altman, W. H. F. (2007), Leo Strauss on German Nihilism: Learning the Art of
Writing, Journal of the History of Ideas 68(4): 587612.
Appel, F. (2001), Nietzsche Contra Democracy, Nietzsche-Studien 30: 50926.
Berkowitz, P. (1994), The Context of Extremes: An Exploration of the Foundations and
the Peak of Nietzsches Political Philosophy, Harvard Review of Philosophy 4(1): 2346.
Brown, W. (2001), Politics Out of History. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Connolly, W. (1991), Political Theory and Modernity. London: Blackwell.
. (2000), Nietzsche and the Nobility of Democracy, International Studies in
Philosophy 32(3): 519.
Detwiler, B. (1990), Nietzsche and the Politics of Aristocratic Radicalism. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Dombowsky, D. (1997), Nietzsche, Justice and the Critique of Liberal Democracy,
Eidos: The Canadian Graduate Journal of Philosophy 14(2): 10525.
. (2002), A Response to Alan D. Schrifts Nietzsche for Democracy?
Nietzsche-Studien 31: 27890.
Donaldson, I. (2000), Democratic Theory and the Significance of Walter Kaufmanns
Aristotelian Nietzsche, Interpretation: A Journal of Political Philosophy 28(2):
14763.
Dudley, W. (1998), Should Nietzsche Have Been a Democrat? Philosophy and Social
Criticism 24(4): 11319.
Franklin, A. (1999), The Political Implications of Nietzsches Aristocratic Radicalism,
Southern Journal of Philosophy 37: 1439.
Fukuyama, F. (1995), The End of History, Five Years Later, History and Theory: Studies
in the Philosophy of History 34(2): 2743.
. (2006), The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Free Press.
Hatab, L. (1995), A Nietzschean Defense of Democracy: An Experiment in Postmodern
Politics. Peru: Open Court.
Hunt, L. (1998), Why Democracy is an Enemy of Virtue, International Studies in
Kaufmann, W. (1974), Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
138
Kojve, A. (1934), Introduction to the Reading of Hegel, James H. Nichols, Jr. (trans.).
New York: Basic Books.
Mangiafico, J. (1998), Rethinking Democracy after Nietzsche, Philosophy Today 42,
Supplement: 11218.
Michaelis, L. (2001), Politics and the Art of Suffering in Hlderlin and Nietzsche,
Philosophy and Social Criticism 27(5): 89115.
Morrisson, I. (2004), Nietzsches Imperfect Perfectionism, International Studies in
Nietzsche, F. (1964), Twilight of the Idols, Anthony M. Ludovici (trans.), in The Complete
Works of Friedrich Nietzsche. New York: Russell & Russell Inc.
. (1967), The Birth of Tragedy, Walter Kaufmann (trans.). New York: Vintage Books.
. (1980), On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life, Peter Preuss (trans.).
Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
. (1986a), David Strauss: The Confessor and the Writer, in R. J. Hollingdale (trans.),
Untimely Meditations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
. (1986b), Schopenhauer as Educator, in R. J. Hollingdale (trans.), Untimely
Meditations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
. (1989), Beyond Good and Evil, Walter Kaufmann (trans.). New York: Vintage Books.
. (1990), Twilight of the Idols, R. J. Hollingdale (trans.). New York: Penguin.
. (1994), Human All Too Human, R. J. Hollingdale (trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
. (2008a), The Greek State, M. Mgge (trans.) with modifications by Nathalie
Lachance, in Cameron and Dombowsky (eds), The Political Writings of Friedrich
Nietzsche. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
. (2008b), Homers Contest, in Cameron and Dombowsky (eds), The Political
Writings of Friedrich Nietzsche. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
. (2009), Human All Too Human: A Book for Free Spirits, Helen Zimmern and Paul V.
Cohn (trans). Lawrence, KS: Digireads Publishing.
Nussbaum, M. (1997), Is Nietzsche a Political Thinker? International Journal of
Philosophical Studies 5(1): 113.
Owen, D. (2002), Equality, Democracy, and Self-Respect: Reflections on Nietzsches
Agonal Perfectionism, Journal of Nietzsche Studies 24: 11331.
Pippin, R. (2000), Deceit, Desire, and Democracy: Nietzsche on Modern Eros,
International Studies in Philosophy 32(3): 6170.
Plato. (1991), Republic, Allan Bloom (trans.). New York: Basic Books.
Redhead, M. (1997), Nietzsche and Liberal Democracy: A Relationship of Antagonistic
Indebtedness? Journal of Political Philosophy 5(2): 18393.
Schrift, A. (1999), Nietzsche for Democracy: Response to Charles Scott, Southern
Journal of Philosophy 37: 16773.
. (2000), Nietzsche for Democracy? Nietzsche-Studien 29: 22033.
. (2001), Nietzschean Agonism and the Subject of Radical Democracy, Philosophy
Today 45: 15363.
139
. (2002), Response to Don Dombowsky, Nietzsche-Studien: Internationales Jahrbuch

fuer die Nietzsche-Forschung 31: 2917.
Siemens, H. W. (2009), Nietzsches Critique of Democracy (18701886), Journal of
Nietzsche Studies 38: 2037.
Strong, T. (2008), Nietzsche and the Political: Tyranny, Tragedy, Cultural Revolution,
and Democracy, Journal of Nietzsche Studies, 356, 4866.
Van Tongeren, P. (2007), Nietzsche, Democracy and Transcendence, South African
Journal of Philosophy 26(1): 516.
Webber, J. (2001), Why Cant We Be Deweyan Citizens? Educational Theory 51(2):
17189.
Widder, N. (2004), The Relevance of Nietzsche to Democratic Theory: Micropolitics
and the Affirmation of Difference, Contemporary Political Theory 3(2): 188211.
10
Anachronism and Powerlessness:

An Essay on Postmodernism
Leonard Lawlor
In Platos Theaetetus, we find thinking defined by means of an interior monologue

(189e190a), that is, by means of a kind of auto-affection. Until he proves in
the Third Meditation that God exists, Descartes is also engaged in a kind of
auto-affection, a meditation on himself. Indeed, the Cartesian formula of I think
therefore I am is an expression of auto-affection, since we find the same ego on
both sides of the therefore. If we progress in large steps across the history of
philosophy, we see then that Descartes cogito forms the basis for the Kantian idea
of autonomy. The Kantian idea of autonomy of course means that I am self-ruling;
I give the moral law to myselfunlike animal life, for instance, on which nature
imposes its laws. But, in order to give the law to myself, I must tell it to myself.
Kantian autonomy therefore rests on the specific form of auto-affection called
hearing oneself speak. Hearing oneself speak seems to include two aspects. On
the one hand, I seem to hear myself speak at the very moment that I speak, and,
on the other, I seem to hear my own self speak and not someone or something
other. Let us now examine the particular experience of hearing oneself speak.
When I engage in interior monologue, when, in short, I thinkit seems as
though I hear myself speak at the very moment I speak. It seems as though my
interior voice is not required to pass outside of myself, as though it is not required
to traverse any space, not even the space of my body. So, my interior monologue
seems to be immediate, immediately present and not to involve anyone else.
Interior monologue seems therefore to be different from the experience of me
speaking to another and different from the experience of me looking at myself
in the mirror, where my vision has to pass through, at the least, the portals of
my eyes. It is important to hear the seems in the preceding sentences. We are
going to expose the essential structure below what is apparent or believed. So,
142
the problem with the belief that interior monologue (in a word, thought) is
different from other experiences of auto-affection is twofold. On the one hand,
the experience of hearing oneself speak is temporal (like all experience). The
temporalization of interior monologue means, as we have just seen, that the
present moment involves a past moment, which has elapsed and which has been
retained. It is an irreducible or essential necessity that the present moment comes
second; it is always involved in a process of mediation. The problem therefore
with the belief that interior monologue happens immediately (as if there were no
mediation involved) is that the hearing of myself is never immediately present in
the moment when I speak; the hearing of myself in the present comes a moment
later; there is a delay between the hearing and the speaking. This conclusion
means that my interior monologue in fact resembles my experience of the mirror
image in which my vision must traverse a distance that differentiates me into
seer and seen.1 I cannot, it is impossible for me to hear myself immediately. But
there is a further implication. The distance or delay in time turns my speaking
in the present moment into something coming second. Temporalization implies
that the present is not an origin all alone; it is compounded with a past so that
my speaking in the present moment is no longer sui generis. Therefore it must be
seen as a kind of response to the past. The fact that my speaking is a response to
the past leads to the other problem with the belief that interior monologue is my
own. Beside the irreducible delay involved in the experience of auto-affection,
there is the problem of the voice. In order to hear myself speak at this very
moment, I must make use of the same phonemes as I use in communication
(even if this monologue is not vocalized externally through my mouth). It is an
irreducible or essential necessity that the silent words I form contain repeatable
traits. This irreducible necessity means that, when I speak to myself, I speak with
the sounds of others. In other words, it means that I find in myself other voices,
which come from the past: the many voices are in me. In the auto-affection of
hearing oneself speak, we discover therefore a kind of deafness. I cannothere
is powerlessnessit is impossible for me to hear myself speak, but the inability
to hear myself speak allows me to hear other voices, to hear a multi-vocality.
Others voices contaminate the hearing of myself speaking. Just as my present
moment is never immediate, my interior monologue is never simply my own. As
Deleuze would say, quoting Rimbaud, I is an other (Deleuze 1994, 86).2
The investigation in which I just engaged is phenomenological. In the strict
sense, determined by the epoche, all phenomenological investigations are
anti-Platonistic. To quote Deleuze again, the project of contemporary philosophy
is the reversal of Platonism. The reversal of Platonism is the reversal of the
Anachronism and Powerlessness
143
priority of objects to the priority of the subject, the reversal of the priority
of the forms to the priority of experience. This definition of the reversal of
Platonism however implies that anti-Platonism is anti-Cartesian only in the
sense that it denies a substantial distinction between the subject and the object,
between thought and extension. It remains Cartesian insofar as it pursues the
sphere which Descartes opened up (even though Descartes does not himself
investigate this sphere): the sphere of the subject, the soul, the cogito. Unlike
Plato, who in the Republic investigates the soul on the basis of an investigation
of the polis (Book II, 368c369b), we anti-Platonists investigate the polis on the
basis of an investigation of the psyche. This claim about anti-Platonismthat
anti-Platonism means that we must investigate the self prior to the investigation
of the politicalexplains, I hope, my opening problematization of auto-affection,
that is, the problematization of immanent subjective experience.
This essay pursues the problematization of immanence. Anti-Platonistic
thought is immanentist thought. Such immanentist thought defines not only
phenomenology, but also postmodernist thought. As is well known, in 1979, when
The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge appears, Lyotard defines the
postmodern as the contemporary decline in the belief in a transcendent world
of forms or any transcendent domain (however this may be conceived) that
exists separately from the world of appearance or of experience.3 Lacking a
transcendent measure to hierarchize and systematize the discourses (or genres,
as Lyotard would say4)a transcendent measure not only like a realm of forms
but also like an origin or an end (a prelapsarian principle or a final purpose)
immanence results in differences among discourses, differences which cannot be
ultimately unified. In other words, there is no one genus or genre of being (there
is no unifying meaning of being); there are only multiplicities of things that
exist (multiplicities of beings). The primary consequence of immanence therefore
is heterogeneity. Heterogeneity means that, just as there is no transcendent
measure for discourses, there is no identity constitutive of the self (or of the
subject). Instead of identity, I find, inside of myself, difference. Again we can say:
I is an other. The other in me turns the I, the self, into a we. But this we is
heterogeneous, and therefore not strictly a we at all.
The fact that the self is a we and yet that the we is absent (i.e. the we
is a collectivity but one that lacks unity and identity) leads to what is really at
issue in what I am presenting here. What is at issue is what Lyotard calls the
social bond (Lyotard 1984, 11). To put this as clearly as possible, what is at
issue in postmodernism is the political subject. How is the political subject
called the peoplepossible when immanence makes discourses, selves,
144
and, most generally, beings, heterogeneous? The recognition that beings are
heterogeneous (a heterogeneity which, as we shall see, is fundamental and
irreducible) is really the reason why postmodernism, for Lyotard, consists in the
loss of belief in any transcendent form of identity. But in particular, as Lyotard
shows, the recognition of heterogeneity has made the modern social bond at
least questionable if not impossible. No longer, it seems, are we able to constitute
the identity of a universal humanity by means of a large narrative (large because
it refers to a collectivity consisting of all humans) about history having an end
or purpose in absolute knowledge or universal freedom. As well, it does not
seem possible to return (except perhaps under the guise of nationalism) to
the primitive social bond, in which a tribes identity is constituted by means
of a small narrative (small because it refers to a collectivity the size of a tribe)
about the origin of that tribe. Instead, in the postmodern epoch of the demise
of the narrative constitution of the social bond, we find that something like a
bond among peoples can be constituted by means of the criteria of optimal
performance and efficiency, the building up of power and time; it is what Lyotard
in his 1983 The Differend calls the hegemony of the economic genre (Lyotard
1988, 178).5 Almost 30 yearslater, it is still the case that the economic seems
to be the sole genre or genus of being; the economic seems to be the sole genre
or genus of thinking. The domination of global capitalism over every other
genre of thinking and being, for Lyotard, amounts to a kind of totalitarianism
(Lyotard 1992, 58 and 667). Therefore, what is most at issue in postmodernism
and therefore in what I am presenting in this essay is the attempt to conceive a
we that is not totalitarian (Lyotard 1988, xiii).
The project of determining the nontotalitarian we divides into two problems.
Thanks to Kant, we are able to formulate the first problem with the question: what
ought we to be? (Lyotard 1988, 178). More precisely, if the victory of capitalist
techno-science is a kind of totalitarianism, then the first problem consists in
determining a we that does not totalize or homogenize all the differences into a
unity and identity. In other words, can there be a people who do not do violence
to singularities? Is it possible for us to imagine such a peoplea people who
is somehow bound together and yet composed of singularities? The question
of imagination brings us the second problem. We can express it in this way:
if the nontotalitarian people is absent, then how are we to call it forth? More
precisely, if, as Lyotard shows, the social bond is constituted by narratives, by
stories, then are we able to imagine a kind of narrative, a kind of literature that
would call forth a nontotalitarian people? Now, while I shall suggest, at the
end, solutionsalbeit insufficientto these two problems, I shall be concerned
145
primarily with determining the conditions that allow not only the two problems
(the determination of the nontotalitarian people and the imagination of a
literature that would constitute the nontotalitarian people) to be posed but also
solutions. To say that the problem of the political subject (the people) consists in
finding consensus among heterogeneous individuals and groups does not see the
true problem arise. Consensus implies that people-formation aims at the goal of
totalization as if the solution was possible and the problem was merely an obstacle
to be overcome. The true problem comes into view only when we recognize
that totalization (a universal people) is impossible and yet the dispersion into
groups is also impossible. Posed in the terms of impossibilities, we see that the
goal and the solution have changed, but also the problem looks no longer to be
an obstacle. Now the problem is a spur for more thinking, for more writing.
What stimulates more writing can be indicated with two words: anachronism
and powerlessness, hence the title of this essay. As we shall see, the conditions
of impossibility called anachronism and powerlessness link in an inseparable
and dis-unified way both heterogeneity and unity, both event and repeatability.
As I indicated already, we shall be able to discover these conditions, however,
only if we start with individual and not with collective experience, with the self
and not the people. It is incontestable that my immanent subjective experience
is temporally conditioned. Therefore, we shall begin by reconstructing the
descriptions of time presented by two philosophical movements who have most
influenced postmodernist thinking: phenomenology and Bergsonism.6
Phenomenology and Bergsonism: The beginnings

of postmodernism7
In order to be brief, I am merely going to summarize the descriptions so that
we can see what is implied in them. The secret of the descriptions of time
given to us by phenomenology and Bergsonism lies in the fact that time is a
medium (continuity) which heterogenizes (discontinuity). We are able to
reformulate the secret in this way. At the same time, the present experience is an
event because it is singular and it is not an event because it is repeatable; at the
same time, the present experience is alteration and it is not alteration because
there is continuity. This at the same time, this simultaneity, is the crux of the
matter. Because of temporalization, we can have no experience that does not
essentially contain these two forces of event and repeatability in a relation of
disunity and inseparability. In other words, because of temporalization, we are
146
confronted with two necessities (the need to repeat and the need to singularize)
related in an irreducibly necessary relation. Derrida would call this relation the
undeconstructible itself; he would also call it anachronism, against time, never
on time, always coming at the wrong time (Derrida 1993, 65). Time is out of
joint, and we are powerless to put it in joint: anachronism and powerlessness. We
have already indicated the powerlessness when we found a kind of deafness
in the auto-affection of hearing oneself speak. But here there is also a kind of
blindness due to anachronism since the present now finds itself always repeated
and replaced, the eye of experience, so to speak, finds itself always gouged
out. It is impossible to stop repetition and singularization. It is impossible
to foresee all the singular events that will come about within repetition; it is
impossible to remember all the events which are being repeated. We cannot stop
the contingency, the accidents, and the supplements from clouding our vision of
what is being repeated, and we cannot stop the repetitions, the reproductions,
and the essences from clouding our vision of the events. We cannot see into
what will happen in the future, and we cannot see back into what has happened
in the past. We cannot see the origin or the end. If the origin is conceivedas
it always has been in philosophyas self-identical, then we must say now, in
light of our descriptions, that the origin had always been already, immediately
divided. If we shift our focus to the future and think about the end, then we must
say that the end will always be still, immediately divided. A prelapsarian and a
post-lapsarian principle, neither of these principles is possible.8
The social bond and totalitarianism

The two impossibilities of origin and end anticipate the two ways in which,
according to Lyotard, narrative attempts to constitute the social bond (Lyotard
1984, 19; also Lyotard 1988, 155). The uses of narrative legitimate, as Lyotard
says, criteria for evaluating what is performed or what can be performed within
a given society. But especially they constitute the identity of a people (Lyotard
1992, 3943). The two uses of narrative are the wild or primitive (le rcit sauvage)
and the cosmopolitical or modern (Lyotard 1988, 155; also Lyotard 1984, 19).
On the one hand, the primitive narrativeLyotard always refers to the Brazilian
tribe called the Cashinahuasuch as myths, tales, and legends always concern
the origin of the tribe. In particular, the myths provide the origin of names,
proper names, through which one who has this name now understands his
position in the society (Lyotard 1988, 153). The narratives, in other words, set
147
up a world of names, the Cashinahua world. In order to hear the narrative, you
have to have a Cashinahua name, and in order to recite the narrative, you have
to have a Cashinahua name. According to Lyotard, the sense of the story, which
recounts the origin of the names, constitutes the social bond, but so does the
present act of recitation. The narratives are repetitive; each narrative begins and
ends with a fixed formula: On this date, in that place, it happened that, etc.
(Lyotard 1984, 212). Through the fixed formulas, the differences between each
recitation are consigned to oblivion, and therefore it seems as though the stories
were told forever (Lyotard 1984, 20). The stories seem to be at once evanescent
and immemorial, as if the origin was always present and will always be present
(Lyotard 1984, 22). There seems to be no hiatus between the current narrator
and the ancients, there seems to be no hiatus between the narrator and the hero
of the story. In this way the we of the Cashinahua, the identity of this one
tribe, is what it has always been: the true men, as the Cashinahua people call
themselves. Because these myths legitimate only the one particular tribe, they
are, according to Lyotard, small narratives (rcits petits) or little stories (petites
histoires) (Lyotard 1988, 155). In contrast to the wild narratives, cosmopolitical
narratives tell a large story (grande histoire) (Lyotard 1988, 155).9 Like the wild
narratives, the cosmopolitical ones are also concerned with legitimation and
with establishing identity. According to Lyotard, the modern or cosmopolitical
narratives ask this question: since this x, this date, and this place are proper
names [like the Cashinahua], and since proper names belong by definition to
worlds of names and to specific wild narratives, how can these narratives give
rise to a single world of names and to a universal narrative (Lyotard 1988, 155).
The Cashinahua little stories allow the Cashinahua to distinguish themselves or
even to make themselves an exception in relation to other humans. The universal
history of humanity, however, consists in the extension of particular narratives
to the entire set of human communities (Lyotard 1988, 157). The extension is
possible because here, unlike the primitive narratives which ground legitimacy
in an original founding act, legitimacy in the modern narratives is grounded in
a future to be brought about, that is, in an Idea to realize (Lyotard 1992, 50).
In contrast to the primitive narratives, the modern narratives do not tell a story
of proper names, a story of particulars. They tell the story only of a general or
universal name. For Lyotard, German Idealism plays an important role here.
There is a subject of history called spirit or humanity. In regard to spirit, the
end of history is absolute knowledge; in regard to humanity the end of history
is universal freedom. Either we have a meta-narrative of spiritan abstract and
theoretical subject above humanitywhich comes to know itself by overcoming
148
ignorance, or we have an epic in which the peoplea concrete and practical

subjectemancipates itself from what prevents it from governing itself. Finally,
unlike the primitive narratives, which are evanescent and immemorial, the
modern narratives consist in memory and projection, as if the end was intended
in the past and will be fulfilled in the future (Lyotard 1984, 26; also Lyotard
1992, 50). We see the distinction Lyotard is trying to make in these kinds of
narratives. Primitive narratives are little, while modern are large: particular
versus universal; primitive narratives concern origins while modern concerns
ends: myth versus history; primitive narratives concern the proper name of a
tribe, while modern concern the general name of humanity; and finally, primitive
narratives are evanescent and immemorial, while modern narratives are
projection and memorial: panchrony versus diachrony. Overall, the distinction
between primitive and modern narratives is the difference between an original
social identity and a final social identity.
As we noted at the beginning, when Lyotard is making his report on knowledge,
near the end of the twentieth century, the belief in the modern, cosmopolitical
large narratives is in decline: postmodernism is arising. Since the 1980s (The
Differend was originally published in 1983, as we noted above), perhaps we have
seen as well the return of primitive narratives under the heading of a revitalized
nationalism (e.g. in the Balkan states). But more clearly, as Lyotard himself notes,
and here he coincides with Deleuze and Guattari and with Derrida, we have seen
the rise, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, of global capitalism. According
to Lyotard, indeed according to all the postmodernist philosophers, capitalism,
being global, makes the economic genre hegemonic over all other genres or kinds
of discourse, over all other modes of thought, over all other genera of beings.
The economic genre, as Lyotard argues, does not strictly form a social bond; the
economic genre takes account neither of proper names (the Cashinahua) nor of
general names (humanity). By means of globalization, however, the economic
genre seems to be universal; it seems to form a kind of unity among peoples
since now there seems to be a universal way of speaking, of thinking, of being
(Lyotard 1988, 177). What becomes universal with the economic genre is the
criterion of optimal efficiency or optimal performativity (Lyotard 1984, 417,
and 64). Something like a piece of knowledge expressed in a sentence must meet
the criterion of efficiency in order to be accepted in the universal discourse,
and for acceptance to happen all knowledge must be converted into information
(Lyotard 1988, 177; also Lyotard 1984, 47). In other words, after being converted
into information (i.e. into a commodity), it is possible to evaluate all sentences,
indeed, all actions, all institutions, in terms of efficiency. These conversions
149
allow the tribunal of capitalism to resolve all disputes and to resolve them as
efficiently and as quickly as possible.
The criterion of efficiency (speed) indicates that the economic genre has a
specific relation to time (Lyotard 1984, 61). For Lyotard, the work that goes into
production does not expend energy; it expends time. Work stocks up time in
the product (Lyotard 1988, 174). It is then the amount of stocked-up time which
determines the value of the product. As well, money amounts to stocked-up
time since it is or ought to be the more or less faithful equivalent of the products
values (i.e. the faithful equivalent of the time incorporated in the product). But
having more capital means having more time and having more time means
having the ability (or power) to gain more time. Time is here not the experience
of temporalization and duration which we analyzed above, temporalization and
duration always including the heterogeneity and contingency of the event, its
incalculability and unforeseeability. Here time must be countable, a quantity
about which we can calculate. What follows from Lyotards definition of value in
terms of countable time is that the exchange of products consists in the attempt
to recover, or better, to cancel the time lost in work (Lyotard 1988, 175). The
more delays there are in the process of exchange, however, the more time is lost.
So, as Lyotard says, we see what the ideal is: to make up time immediately
(my emphasis) (Lyotard 1988, 176). The ideal is to have the smallest hiatus or
distance in between the exchange. The goal of the economic genre is to get time
back as quickly as possible, to gain time. If the small primitive narratives are
panchronic and the large modern narratives are diachronic, then the economic
genre is ortho-chronic, that is, it aims at traversing time as quickly as possible so
that the payment is paid back never at the wrong time, always at the correct time,
on time. The economic genre demands that there must be no anachronism. And yet
the economic genre is hyper-chronic insofar as it wants to gain as much time as
possible: not just equal to the quantity of lost time, but more time. Because of this
more (always more), the economic genre seems to resemble universal history:
everyone is making progress toward having more time for doing things, more
time for adventures (Lyotard 1988, 178). But in fact, the aim of gaining time is
nothing but a quasi-aim since the economic genre never asks what we ought to
be. Global capitalism therefore shifts the emphasis from ends (from finality) to
means (Lyotard 1984, 37; also Lyotard 1988, 179). The question constantly being
asked in the economic genre is: what are the most efficient means to gain more
time (i.e. to gain more capital)? In order to find answers to this question, the
economic genre engages in stories, simulations (which are really calculations)
of possibilities, probabilities, and improbabilities (Lyotard 1988, 148). The
150
economic genre engages only in hypothetical thinking. Its only concern lies
in the possibility of gaining more time: power and hyper-chronism. We can see
already that with its quasi-end of gaining time, the economic genre is totalitarian
(or global): the complete hegemony of the economic discourse (Lyotard 1992,
58). Global capitalism presents itself to the world as a necessity, since, in order to
live, it seems as though one has to participate in the world market and in order to
participate in the world market one has to have capital. Behind the appearance
of the necessity of capitalism, however, according to Lyotard, the quasi-aim of
gaining time totalizes all peoples, all things, all ideas (Lyotard 1992, 59).
For Lyotard, however, the two narrative modes of constituting the social bond
are also totalitarian: they attempt to shelter the social identity from heterogeneity
and contingency.10 We have seen that the tradition of the Cashinahua myths
about the origin legitimate obligations and prescriptions through the authority
of the Cashinahua name. The legitimation is total since it is based in the totality
of life instituted by the narratives. But more importantly, for Lyotard, any event,
human or natural, for which there is no Cashinahua name has no authority to
exist since it is not part of the whole of life set up by the Cashinahua myth of the
origin of names. The myths therefore allow the Cashinahua to see themselves
as the exception among peoples: again, they are the the true men (Lyotard
1992, 46). There is no question of the final identity of the we, an identity to be
accomplished in the future, since the Cashinahua narrative always says that we
ought to be what we areCashinahua (Lyotard 1992, 49). Importantly, Lyotard
extends the myth of origin legitimation to the Nazis who developed the fabulous
stories of the Aryan ancestors. In the Nazi myths, the Aryans are the true
men, the exception among peoples, and just as in the Cashinahua myths there is
no question of a future we to be accomplished: We ought to be what we are
Aryan. In the myth of Aryan origin, other peoples then do not participate in the
vital principle of the Aryans; therefore, all that remains to be done is finish them
off, exterminate them (Lyotard 1992, 512). Lyotards extension of the primitive
myths to the Nazis shows us the modern (not primitive) importance of the small
proper name narrative function.
Let us now turn to the large modern narrative function. So, in contrast to
the primitive myths of origin, the modern large myths are myths of a future
to be brought about, an idea to be realized: the idea of universal freedom or
enlightenment. For this idea to come into realization, it must be the case that a
singular peoples identity pass through an identity crisis, that is, its identity must
decompose or fissure (Lyotard 1992, 52). In other words, the proper name of this
people must be questioned, turning the people into a mass or a crowd (Lyotard
151
1992, 56). Then the mass asks itself what they ought to be. But, as Lyotard points
out, there is an equivocation in the concept of the people. With the concept of
the people, one does not know whether what is being invoked is based on the
tradition of a narrative of origin or on a tendency toward the idea of freedom.
In other words, the name of a peoplethe French people, for example, in the
1789 Declaration of the Rights of Manencompasses at once the singularity of
a contingent community and the incarnation of a universal sovereignty (Lyotard
1992, 53). The equivocation implies that the ideal community already seems to
be real; the people already seem to know how to name themselves. For Lyotard,
the equivocation in the concept of the people leads once more to the Nazis. In
the 1930s, the Nazi cure for the German communitys identity crisis consisted in
presenting (in their festivals) the Aryan myths as the exceptional people (das
Volk) who imparts its name to the end pursued by human history. The Nazis do
not simply say, Let us become what we areAryans; they say, Let the whole
of humanity be Aryan (Lyotard 1992, 56). For the Nazis, the imparting of this
name to everyone led to the violence of a world war. Therefore, as Lyotard shows,
because of the equivocation in the concept of the people, the modern myths are
different from the primitive myths only in terms of the size of their domination.
Both are totalitarian insofar as they produce an identity that dominates an entire
collectivity such as a tribe (the Cashinahua) or an identity that dominates all
humans (the Aryans): the true men. The myths, however, are totalitarian in a
more dangerous sense: they exterminate anything heterogeneous or contingent,
the non-exceptional singularities, that might disturb the identity.
Conclusion: There will never be enough written

We are now able to return to the two problems which we outlined at the beginning,
the two problems of immanentist or postmodern thought. The two problems
concern the constitution of a nontotalitarian we. I shall conclude by suggesting
solutions to them. At the beginning we were able to formulate the first problem
with Kants help, his question of what we ought to be. But now we are able to
formulate the problem more precisely with this question: is a social bond possible
which does not bind in a totalitarian wayas we have seen both the small
primitive narratives and the large historical narratives are totalitarianand, more
precisely, does not bind by means of the aim of gaining more time and having
more calculable possibilities, which does not succumb to the economic goal of
power? The condition for this problem lies in time. By means of panchronism,
152
diachronism, and hyper-chronism, these modes of constituting the social bond aim
to shelter the social identity from contingency and heterogeneity. Yet, as we have
seen, the absolute of temporalization or duration necessarily includes contingency
and heterogeneity. Therefore, anachronism always persists despite and below these
other chronisms (Lyotard 1988, 144).
We are able, therefore, to formulate a solution to this problem by reflecting
more on anachronism. Time is fundamentally ana-chronic because time
temporalizes or endures by means of two forces, the force of repetition and
the force of singularization, the force of universality and the force of event.
The necessity of these two forces is so strong that we are powerless not to
obey their command. But if we are unable not to obey, then we are able. If we
are unable to stop repetition and if we are unable to stop singularization, we
are able to be unable. In other words, our powerlessness gives us a kind of
power. Unable to stop repetition, we are able to let it happen; unable to stop
singularization, we are able to let it happen. Instead of calculable possibilities,
our ability to be unable opens up an incalculable and uncontrollable
potentiality. Therefore, unlike the economic genre which calculates in order
to make the hiatus pass as quickly as possible, we devote ourselves to the
passing of time, letting the hiatus take the time it needs, stretching the link
out as long as possible. We devote ourselves, which takes time, to being deaf
and blind, a deafness to what cannot be heard, a blindness to what cannot
be seen: totality, homogeneity, and identityin order to see better, in order
to see heterogeneity, to see difference, and contingency; a deafness to what
cannot be heard: my own or your own voicein order to listen better, to hear
the multi-vocality of all living things. This ability to be unable amounts to a
new sensitivity, a sensitivity that turns away from the molar and majoritarian
forms toward the micro and minor informalities. Taking up the equivocation
in the concept of the people which Lyotard has pointed to, we contest the
singularity of a people in order to make it pass into universality, in order
to pass over the limit and become otherwise; we contest the universality of
a people in order to make it pass into singularity, in order to pass over the
limit and become otherwise. There would be no consensus here just as there
would be no dispersion. This would be a people who do the least violence to
singularities because it is unified around powerlessness. So far, we have only
used a negative name for this we who are bound together by the power of
powerlessness: nontotalitarian. Now, we are able to give it a positive name: the
friends of passage. Friends, however, require names, proper names, and the
question of the name brings us to the second problem.
153
How are we able to call forth these friends of passage? Lyotard has shown
that the social bond of a people is based in narratives, in stories or histories,
in literature in a broad sense. But he has also shown that both the primitive
myths of origin and the modern myths of end constitute a people who are
totalitarian. He has pointed out as well that even the economic genre, which
is totalitarian in its own way, makes use of stories insofar as it simulates
hypothetical possibilities, foreseeable future outcomes of possible means. We
must therefore try to imagine a literature that differs from all of these kinds
of stories. As we have seen, the anachronism of time implies that there is
no experience that does not include a repetition. The primacy of repetition
means that there is no original identity or original presence being repeated.
In other words, if repetition is necessarily first, then we are never able to
know what is being repeated. Likewise, anachronism shows that there is no
experience that does not include an event; if an event is necessarily last, then
we are never able to know what is going to happen. Due to this inability to
know, we can suddenly imagine a kind of story. It would concern a secret.
Throughout the story two questions would remain unanswered because they
are unanswerable: what happened and what is going to happen? No calculation
of means and ends would be possible here. This literature would recount the
unrememorable and the unforeseeable. In the story, perhaps there would
be a central character with a proper name; or perhaps the story would be
recounted in a letter addressed to someone with a proper name. The proper
name would not indicate a self in the traditional sense, a singular identity.
No, it would indicate a singular potentiality. Unable to find the answers to
the questions of what happened and what is going to happen, being deaf and
blind, this person or persons would hear and see better. They would hear and
see better the others within themselves, allowing them to become otherwise.
And then their proper names would no longer be appropriate. They would no
longer know what name is proper to them. Other names would be needed and,
therefore, other letters addressed to other addressees. In the end we would
have neither the small narrative of one proper name (the Cashinahua) nor
the large narrative of one proper name (the Aryans), but an ever-changing
cloud of stories calling forth these friends whose proper names are never
able to be appropriate because they are letting others pass.11 As we said a
moment ago, however, friendship is not possible without knowing the other
persons proper name. Therefore, this friendship will never be present, this
people will never be complete. The people will always be in the future and
still coming, which means that whatever we write, it will not be sufficient.12 We
154
must continue to write more: never will there be enough written in the name
of passage.13 Writing more, we recognize that the self (either individual or
collective) is always absent (there is no original identity) and always to come
(there is no final purpose). Writing more, we recognize (we postmodernists)
that the problem of the self is more than an obstacle. It is a spur to thinking.
Notes
1 Although time (temporalization and duration) has been the principal idea so far,
space (the porous limit, the hiatus, and now distance) plays an equally important
role. Fundamentally, the hiatus is neither time nor space.
2 Deleuze is quoting one of Rimbauds Letters of a Visionary (Letter of May 15,
1871 to Paul Demeny): Je est un autre.
3 For Lyotards work, I have consulted (Williams 1998) and (Bennington 1988). For
postmodernism, I have consulted (Cahoone 1996).
4 The French word genre must be heard in two ways, as referring to literary genres
and to genera or kinds. So, the term in Lyotard is supposed to invoke not only
language games as in Wittgenstein but also Aristotles multiple meanings of being.
5 In his 1983 The Differend, however, he makes a much stronger claim than the claim
that heterogeneity is irreducible, saying that the event of the Holocaust (the name
Auschwitz) permanently disrupts the teleological constitution of a we (Lyotard
1988, 979; also Lyotard 1989, 36092). Lyotards reflections on Auschwitz are
inspired by Adorno.
6 It is important to keep in mind that Lyotard wrote his first book on
phenomenology. See (Lyotard 1991).
7 This essay continues an earlier text on postmodernism found in Ch. 7, The
Beginnings of Postmodernism: Phenomenology and Bergsonism, Derrida and
Deleuze, of (Lawlor 2003, 10922). I am still arguing that postmodernism flows
out of the philosophy of life.
8 Vincent Descombes calls this impossibility the supposition of the eternal
recurrence (Descombes 1980, 182).
9 Lyotard also calls these narratives modern.
10 Here I am relying on Lyotards 1984 essay called Memorandum on Legitimation
which is found in The Postmodern Explained (Lyotard 1992, 3960).
11 Lyotard makes use of the image of a cloud (Lyotard 1984, xxiv and 64).
12 This entire essay extends ideas I formulated in (Lawlor 2007).
13 This sentence alludes to something that Deleuze and Guattari say in A Thousand
Plateaus: In short, we think that one cannot write sufficiently in the name of an
outside (Deleuze and Guattari 1987, 23).
155
Bibliography
Bennington, G. (1988), Lyotard: Writing the Event. New York: Columbia University Press.
Cahoone, L., ed. (1996), From Modernism to Postmodernism. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishers.
Deleuze, G. (1994), Difference and Repetition, Paul Patton (trans.). New York: Columbia
University Press.
Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (1987), A Thousand Plateaus, Brian Massumi (trans.).
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Derrida, J. (1993), Aporias, Thomas Dutoit (trans.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Descombes, V. (1980), Modern French Philosophy, L. Scott-Fox and J. M. Harding (trans).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lawlor, L. (2003), Thinking Through French Philosophy: The Being of the Question.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
. (2007), This Is Not Sufficient: An Essay on Animality and Human Nature in Derrida.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Lyotard, J.-F. (1984), The Postmodern Condition, Brian Massumi (trans.). Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
. (1988), The Differend, Georges Van Den Abbeele (trans.). Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
. (1989), The Lyotard Reader, Andrew Benjamin (ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
. (1991), Phenomenology, Brian Beakley (trans.). Albany: The SUNY Press.
. (1992), The Postmodern Explained, Don Barry, Bernadette Maher, Julian Pefanis,
Virginia Spate, and Morgan Thomas (trans). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Williams, J. (1998), Lyotard: Toward a Postmodern Philosophy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
11
Taking Hold of Life: Liberal Eugenics,

Autonomy, and Biopower
Serena Parekh
Recent developments in biotechnologies raise important ethical questions. This

essay examines one such biotechnology, liberal eugenics. Liberal eugenics refers
to genetic technologies designed not to improve health or to fight disease, but
to augment the lives of ordinary, healthy individuals. It is liberal insofar as it
does not involve state coercion; individuals are free to choose or refrain from
choosing certain enhancements, either for themselves or for their children.
For some, liberal eugenics is acceptable in a liberal political state because it
protects and promotes the autonomy of individuals. They see the protection of
autonomyunderstood as noninterference with a given choiceas the sine qua
non of an ethically acceptable technology. If this is the case, then it appears that
we have little reason to question the ethics of liberal eugenics.
Looked at in a different light, however, the ethical dimension of liberal
eugenics is not so simple. Indeed, I argue in this essay that in order to better
understand this, we need to reorient the way the debate has been framed and
employ a richer conception of autonomy. I argue that we ought to consider
liberal eugenics as a form of biopolitics, or more specifically, as a biopolitical
and disciplinary technique. Biopolitics is a concept first developed by Michel
Foucault to describe the way in which power functions in modernity. As I
will explain below, power in modernity functions not through repression but
through taking hold of life, through the management of life in the name of the
well-being of the population. In order to explain this, I look at the concept of
autonomy, both as it is understood within liberal political thought and through
the lens of biopolitics. I show that the latter perspective gives us a fuller sense
of autonomy. I argue that autonomy in modernity is shaped not only by state
coercion (or the lack of it), but also through the biopolitical techniques of
158
discipline and normalization. This will help us to see that the absence of state
coercion alone does not in itself guarantee autonomy and hence does not imply
that liberal eugenics is morally or politically acceptable. To make my argument,
I draw on the work of Susan Bordo in order to clarify the way in which liberal
eugenics can be thought of as a biopolitical and disciplinary practice. I conclude
by discussing the ethical questions that are raised when we view liberal eugenics
as a biopolitical technology.
Human enhancement in a liberal state

A liberal state is one that, in virtue of being neutral on questions of the good life,
allows its members the autonomy to develop and seek out the good for themselves. A
liberal state thus only intervenes in the lives of people by guaranteeing basic rights so
that they are able to attain their chosen good in a fair and equal way. As noted above,
it is the absence of state coercion that makes liberal eugenics liberal and hence, for
many, morally acceptable. Here freedom is understood as a lack of state coercion. For
authors like Nicholas Agar, one of the leading proponents of liberal eugenics, liberal
eugenics is permissible because it is compatible with the right of parents to choose
what they think is best for their children. It is all the more compatible because liberal
eugenics can be thought of as enhancing human autonomy insofar as it increases
the range of choice for parents. For proponents of liberal eugenics the fact that it
promotes and enhances autonomy and in no way violates individual rights means
that it ought to be considered an ethically acceptable practice.1
For many, this is the fundamental, decisive issue. On this view, because liberal
eugenics does not violate autonomy, it ought to be seen as a morally acceptable
practice and one which is promoted by states. It is not possible to constrain
peoples choices by limiting enhancement within a liberal framework without
smuggling in a substantive conception of the good (which is impermissible in
a non-perfectionist liberal state). I will argue below that proponents of liberal
eugenics employ an overly simplistic conception of autonomy and that if we
understand autonomy through the lens of biopolitics, we will see that liberal
eugenics raises important ethical questions.
Biopower and autonomy

In the account above, and in liberal political theory more broadly, autonomy
plays a large role. But what makes a choice autonomous to begin with? That
Taking Hold of Life
159
is, how do we arrive at a decision or a choice that is free, that is genuinely our
own? The answer that is usually given to such a question contains two elements.
First, it must not be coerced or manipulated by the state in any way. As Matthew
Clayton puts it, autonomy is essentially a matter of not having ones informed
choices coercively interfered with by others (Clayton 2004, 191). Second, my
choice must be informed, that is, it must be rationally deliberated upon, which
implies a broad capacity to reason and a basic level of education that would
allow me to do this in a sufficient way. If these conditions are met, the choice that
is arrived at is deemed autonomous. We can say, then, that autonomy involves
two momentsthe moment before we make our decision and the moment after.
If both of these are sufficiently free of coercion we can say that a decision was
made autonomously.
The focus of liberal political theory has largely concerned the second moment,
the period after we have arrived at our decision. This is, in part, because liberal
political theory is still based on a sovereignty model of power, a model that says
that power is what comes from on high and is exercised negatively, through
constraint. The power of a state lies in its ability to constrain, detain, and prevent
us from fulfilling our freely arrived at decisions.
The focus of biopolitics, by contrast, is on this first moment, but understood in
a different way. According to this view, our choices are not purely self-generated
just because they are not manipulated by the state. Rather, power is still
operative in this context through norms and normalization. This is grounded
on an alternative view of power, namely biopower. Biopower is power that
impacts all areas of life. According to Paul Rabinow and Nikolas Rose, biopower
can be understood as modes of subjectification, in which individuals can be
brought to work on themselves, under certain forms of authority, in relation [to]
truth discourses, by means of practices of the self, in the name of individual or
collective life or health.2 Biopower is a mode of subjectification in the sense
that it is part of the way that we are formed as subjects. Biopower trains us in
how to think about ourselves. We are formed through working on ourselves,
under certain forms of authority, such as scientific or medical discourse or
the pseudo-medical discourse often connected to cosmetic enhancements. To
say that this occurs in relation to truth discourses implies that these forms of
authority just mentioned have privileged claims to truthto speak with the
authority of science or medicine is to have unique access to the truth, a truth
that remains fundamentally unquestionable. Finally, biopower is unique in that
it is connected to the concept of health broadly construedthe health (physical,
psychological, moral) of the individual or of a people, a state, or a group.
Biopower as a practice on the self is always done in the name of this good.
160
The concept of biopower emerges out of the work of Michel Foucault who
observed that at the advent of modernity, the way that power operated within
a state began to change. Rather than coming from on high by a monarch who
exercised it through taking away things such as time, life, or the body, power
became productive. Power became a matter of shaping and ordering, rather than
impeding. Importantly, it was exercised at the level of life (both of the individual
and the species) and took several distinct forms. The form of power most relevant
to our discussion is disciplinary power. Disciplinary power was concerned with
disciplining individual bodies, by optimizing their capabilities, increasing their
usefulness, and making them more docile.
Disciplinary power works not through imposing on the individual from
a position of authority, but through letting the individual internalize what is
demanded or expected of her so that she imposes it on herself. In other words,
we work on ourselves in order to make ourselves conform to certain given norms
because we know we will be, or could be, seen, judged, and hierarchized based
on our ability to do this. It is in this sense that our bodies are both the objects
and instruments of power. Often this is for our own benefitwe become more
productive, useful, better liked, and better able to fit in. In all of these moments,
power is at play but it is not experienced as a constraint on my freedom as a rational
chooser. Rather, being disciplined is the very condition that allows me to make
my decisions. Power here does not constrain me but produces me in a certain
way; it does not harm me, but rather benefits me, allows me to fit in, and rewards
me for doing so. The subject on whom this power is operated is no longer the
legal subject for whom death is the ultimate constraint and punishment; rather
the subject is the living being for whom power is operative on the level of life itself.
Power takes hold of life, rather than threatening death (Foucault 1990, 143).
What is essential for both biopower and disciplinary power is that they
operate not primarily through law but through the norm, and as such, part of
their power consists in normalization. The norm acts as a continuous regulatory
and corrective mechanism. Unlike law, it does not wait until it has been violated
to respond. Further, unlike the law, the norm does not threaten with punishment
(although the penalties for violating the norm are often well known3), but
qualifies, measures, appraises, and hierarchizes. While it is true that laws also
set up norms (e.g. the illegality of same-sex marriage upholds the norm of
heterosexuality), the law functions primarily through punishment. Further, the
norms that arise as a result of the law are but one way that norms appearnorms
appear out of other historical and social practices as well (such as hospitals,
schools, and prisons).
Taking Hold of Life
161
Biopower, autonomy, and cosmetic surgery

I would like to reconnect this discussion of biopower and normalization with
the topic of autonomy with which the previous section began. To do this, I would
like to draw on the work of Susan Bordo who brings to light the impact of norms
on autonomy. Bordo has written extensively on what motivates women to have
cosmetic surgery and how women themselves understand their motivation.
Bordo sees the pursuit of beauty especially through cosmetic surgery as a
normalizing discipline that is masked behind a rhetoric of personal agency.
What is so dangerous about this rhetoric is that it renders invisible the norms
to which individuals are, in fact, aspiringnorms that often seek to eliminate
diversity and perpetuate pernicious social norms connected to race and gender.
In other words, behind the rhetoric of autonomy and self-empowerment lie
the biopolitical norms discussed above that are active in shaping how we see
ourselves and the decisions we make about our bodies, our lives, and our health.
Though decisions about which plastic surgery to engage in are not dictated by
the state, they nonetheless are not completely free and self-generated in the way
that many people insist that they are.
When women are asked why they are undergoing a particular plastic surgery,
the answer, overwhelmingly, is Im doing it for me. What is usually meant by
this is that the individual is not doing it to please a boyfriend or husband, but
to please herself. It is simply her preference that she seeks to satisfy. In such a
statement, Bordo writes, the self is thought of as a pure and precious inner
space that is untouched by external values and demands (Bordo 2007, 193).
That is, such a decision is thought of as being autonomous simply in virtue of the
fact that the individual woman claims that it is. The very idea that a woman is,
for example, having breast augmentation surgery in order to conform to social
or cultural norms is often greeted with hostility and downright denial. Such a
suggestion is thought to take away from the empowering possibilities of these
surgeries. The result is an impasse, a failure to recognize that there is anything
more than pure personal choice at work.
In Bordos view, this obscures what is really going on in these decisions. The
first thing that is masked with the rhetoric that we are fully in charge of our
decisions is what she refers to as a pedagogy of defect (Bordo 2007, 197).
Women learn to see themselves and various parts of their bodies as being
defective, faulty, or unacceptable. This of course goes on within a particular
consumer culture that, not surprisingly, is able to offer the means that promise
to cure the defect. It is a seamless package of defect and cure that has the added
162
benefit of allowing the individual woman to feel that she has been put in charge
of her life and empowered. What this effaces, however, is the question of what
made the woman dissatisfied to begin with. What makes the normal standards
for beauty normal? Bordo emphasizes that there is a consumer system operative
that depends on our perceiving ourselves as defective in order for us to find new
ways to alleviate our defects; it is precisely this system that is masked through the
language of personal empowerment or preference satisfaction.
Second, what is masked with the language of personal empowerment and
preference satisfaction is that cosmetic surgery is a normative cultural practice;
it is not simply a matter of individual choice. Plastic surgery is normative in the
sense that it sets the standard for what counts as an acceptable body or face.
For example, if the unwrinkled face becomes the norm for older women, the
decision to have a facelift becomes free choice under pressure (Bordo 2007,
203). It is not that anyone, and certainly not the state, is forcing the individual
to have surgerythere is no explicit coercion. But those who choose not to have
the surgery may face certain social, professional, or personal disadvantages.
Everyones face is judged, evaluated, hierarchized by the presence or absence
of wrinkles. This is by no means exclusive to people of a higher socioeconomic
level; indeed, most plastic surgeries are done by middle to lower income people
who either go into debt or spend their savings (Bordo 2007, 220 fn 9 and 10).
More importantly, we learn to evaluate ourselves in these terms, deeming our
own faces acceptable only when they are wrinkle free and young looking.
Finally, the rhetoric effaces the disciplinary reality of cosmetic surgeryit is a
practice that does not merely transform the individual, but normalizes her. Most
individuals who have cosmetic surgery are trying to conform to a model of what is
normal. We have internalized what is expected of us and through these practices
we make ourselves conform to an image of what is normal. For example, women
are normalized to Caucasian standards of beauty. African-American women,
among other non-Caucasian groups, aim to conform to Caucasian norms
of beauty such as straight hair.4 For most of these women, this is perceived as
merely a free choice or a preference to be satisfied. Yet this choice occurs within
a cultural context of historical discrimination based on race. Bordo reminds us
of the nineteenth-century comb test in which the only people who could enter
a certain church or club were people who could pass a comb through their hair
that hung outside the door. The choice of straight hair is not an arbitrary one.
This remains true for other forms of plastic surgery such as reshaping of the nose,
eyes, or particular body parts to be more in line with these Caucasian standards.
For Bordo, individuals are choosing to assimilate ethnic and racial features to
Taking Hold of Life
163
a white norm and these choices cannot possibly be taken to be simply individual
preferences. Further, participation in a process of racial normalization makes
it harder for others to refuse to participate; there is a high price to be paid for
resisting a well-established norm.
Liberal eugenics as a biopolitical and disciplinary practice

Bordos analysis is helpful, I think, because it can help us to understand the way
in which liberal eugenics can be understood as a biopolitical and disciplinary
practice. Further, it can help us to understand how autonomy can be compromised
even when it is not done directly by the state. Recall that disciplinary power
works by making individuals, or to be more precise, by making individuals
work on themselves. In this way, the individual is both the object and instrument
of power. This is done not through the state imposing its will on the individual,
but through letting the individual internalize what is demanded or expected of
her and then impose it on herself. In other words, we work on ourselves in order
to make ourselves conform to certain given norms. Precisely because we know
we are or could be observed and judged, we make ourselves conform to what
is expected of us. Our decisions, then, certainly appear as free choices, but are
much more akin to the free choice under pressure that Bordo describes. We are
aware of the penalties that accrue for failing in this practice.
It is easy to see how liberal eugenics can be understood as a disciplinary
power. The reason we may want certain enhancements, and not others, is because
we have all internalized expectations of what is normal and hence desirable.5
Liberal eugenics is characterized precisely by the absence of state coercion so the
impetus for these decisions appears to be entirely self-generated. What is clear
from Bordos analysis is that the norms that we aim to conform to are certainly
not self-generated but emerge from within a particular context that is anything
but neutral. Yet the emphasis on the self-sufficiency of the autonomous decision
obscures this particular context and prohibits any interrogation of it. The claim
in cosmetic surgery that Im doing it for me or in liberal eugenics that it is
being done to satisfy the preferences of a parent are both revealed to be highly
misleading. It shows further why proponents of liberal eugenics like Agar are
wrong to think that lack of state coercion is sufficient to vindicate the practice.
Recall further that what is essential for both biopower and disciplinary
power is that they operate not primarily through law but through the norm,
and as such, part of their power consists in normalization. In other words,
164
these powers are often independent of the law and are certainly not enforced
through law. Rather, the norm acts as a continuous regulatory and corrective
mechanism. Normalization, I would argue, is inherently a part of liberal eugenics
even though this is precisely what is disavowed with the language of preference
satisfaction and autonomy. The enhancements that are chosen conform to
our understanding of what a normal person is and seeks to enhance certain
normal traits (height, normal social skills, normal features of appearance).
The pedagogy of defect is also at work in the process of normalization insofar
as we learn to see certain traits as defects or undesirable qualities. Genetic
enhancement, as a commercial venture, promises the cure that our children
will not have to suffer with these undesirable traits. The cycle of defect and cure
as a process of normalization is no different with liberal eugenics than with
cosmetic surgery.
It might be objected that unlike cosmetic surgery, genetic enhancement is
done to make people better than normal thus showing that individuals want
to exceed or transcend these norms. While it is true that genetic enhancement
is best understood as techniques not intended to heal a disease or disability but
to enhance an already normal person, it is a misunderstanding to see it as
something that seeks to subvert the norm. Instead, genetic enhancement ought to
be understood as an even more disciplined way of trying to achieve the norm. The
norm is never something that is static but rather is fluid and changing. Genetic
enhancements never diverge from what would be considered good for a human
being and hence what is normal (even if it is something that only few people
achieve), even though our understanding of this might change over time.6 Any
deviation from this, such as genetically changing your children to carry a defect
or social disadvantage, would be prohibited by proponents of enhancement like
Nicolas Agar since they are harmful to children. What could be more harmful
than not allowing your child to be seen as normal? Indeed what is aimed at in
liberal eugenics is to make the child a superlative example of what is normal.
Because of the way that liberal eugenics works as a biopolitical and disciplinary
technology, it is possible to see why it is so difficult to find a ground within
liberalism to prohibit liberal eugenics. Recall that biopower takes hold of life, rather
than threatening death. A legitimate, properly functioning government is one that
takes care of the basic needs of life and allows individuals to realize their potential.
Unlike sovereign power, both forms of power are rarely experienced as a constraint
or a limitation. They do not constrain our desires or suppress our ability to satisfy
our preferences, but rather construct and shape our desires and our preferences.
These two conditionsthat a legitimate government is one that takes care of the
Taking Hold of Life
165
basic needs of life and that biopower is never experienced as a constraintmean

that there is going to be little ground on which to object to liberal eugenics within
liberal political theory. It appears to give us exactly what we want.
Conclusion
In sum, recognizing liberal eugenics as a biopolitical and disciplinary technology
helps us to see that: (i) the decisions we make about enhancement are not as
autonomous or as self-determined as we usually think of them as being. Much
like the choice of conforming to Caucasian standards of beauty, we can no
longer think of our decisions as mere personal preference; (ii) enhancement
must be understood as a normalizing discipline that sets the standards of what is
normal, of what we must achieve, and what the penalties are for those who fail to
achieve it. It sets the standard for both how we judge ourselves and how we judge
others; and (iii) the rhetoric of sovereign powerthat if we are not coerced by
the state, our decisions are free and therefore any noncoerced biotechnology is
unobjectionablemasks the first two claims. It has been the goal of this essay
to show that liberal eugenics must be understood as biopolitical technology
precisely because it helps us to understand this hidden dimension of liberal
eugenics.
Yet simply being a form of biopower does not in itself mean that liberal eugenics
must be abandoned or prohibited. Indeed, given that biopower is rarely experienced
as a constraint on our freedom, and further, that it has positive consequences
it allows us to fit in, to be more productive, to feel good about ourselveswhat
precisely is the problem with it? What I would like to suggest is that seeing liberal
eugenics as a form of biopower shows us that the ethical concerns raised by liberal
eugenics are not limited to the usual concerns around practical consequences or
upholding liberal values such as freedom or equality. Indeed, it introduces a new
domain of ethical concern and ethical interrogation. The new questions raised
include: Ought we to conform to this or that norm? What is at stake in making our
children conform to these norms? How do these norms impact relations between
people? How should we treat people who do not live up to or conform to these
norms? Ethically speaking, what a new technology like liberal eugenics demands
of us is to understand not only whether it should be banned or publicly funded,
but the way in which it acts as a form of dominationmarking some forms of
life as acceptable and others as worthy of elimination. Once we understand liberal
166
eugenics as a form of biopower this new set of ethical issues comes to light and
demands our attention.
Notes
1 Not everyone, of course, accepts this. For Michael Sandel, removing coercion does not
by itself vindicate eugenics. Genetic enhancement remains problematic for him because
of the human disposition it expresses and promotes, in particular, the aspiration to
remake nature in order to serve our purposes and satisfy our desires (Sandel 2009).
2 Rabinow and Rose (unpublished), p. 3.
3 It might be argued that the penalties for violating social normssuch as economic
disadvantage or even physical harmfunction effectively as a form of coercive
punishment. While this is true, we must make a distinction between power that
functions directly through coercion and punishment and power that does so indirectly.
Biopower is coercive and punishing only indirectly and as a last resortif punishment
for failure to uphold a norm is necessary, power has failed in its job. Biopower is
primarily enforced through making people work on themselves, through internalizing
what is expected of them, not through punishment, though this option is never taken
off the table.
4 Sixty-eight percent of Essence readers (a magazine targeted to African-American
women) chemically straighten or hot comb their hair. Cited in Bordo 2003, p. 254.
5 As Bordo points out, not just any choice will do. When women claim that they are
making a decision for themselves and are not influenced by external demands, what
is implied is that they could have made any decision they wanted. For Bordo, this
is just not the case. Women have breast augmentation surgery to make their breasts
look bigger and more appealing, not less; women lighten their eyes and skin, change
their noses, straighten their hair in order to look more Caucasian, and it rarely if
ever works in the other direction. This is because we all know what it is to be an
acceptable woman and this means conforming to particular standards of beauty.
Hence, not any choice will do. See (Bordo 2003).
6 The point is that we never or rarely achieve the norm. This is why we must be
constantly interrogating ourselves, our behavior, our bodies, and our thoughts, in
order to make sure that they are as close as possible to the norm.
Bibliography
Agar, N. (1998), Liberal Eugenics, Public Affairs Quarterly 12(2): 13755.
. (2004), Liberal Eugenics: In Defense of Human Enhancement. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishers.
Taking Hold of Life
167
Bordo, S. (2003), Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture, and the Body.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
. (2007), Braveheart, Babe, and the Contemporary Body, in E. Parens (ed.),
Enhancing Human Traits: Ethical and Social Implications. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press, 189221.
Clayton, M. (2002), Individual Autonomy and Genetic Choice, in J. Burley and
J. Harris (eds), A Companion to Genethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 191205.
Foucault, M. (1990), History of Sexuality, Vol 1. New York: Vintage Books.
. (1994), The Ethics of the Concern of the Self as a Practice of Freedom, in Paul
Rabinow (ed.), Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth, Robert Hurley and others (trans).
New York: The New Press, 281302.
. (1995), Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, Alan Sheridan (trans.).
New York: Vintage Books.
. (2003), Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the College de France 19751976,
D. Macey (trans.). New York: Picador.
Rabinow, P. and Rose, N. Thoughts on the Concept of Biopower Today, Unpublished.
www2.lse.ac.uk/sociology/pdf/rabinowandrose-biopowertoday03.pdf (accessed
August 2012).
Rose, N. (2007), The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the
Twenty-First Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Sandel, M. (2009), The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering.
Boston: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Part IV
Philosophies of Life
12
The Care of the Self and The Gift of Death:

Foucault and Derrida on Learning
How to Live
1
Edward F. McGushin
In Plato and Europe, Jan Patoka asks the question: Can the care of the soul,
which is the fundamental heritage of Europe, still speak to us today? (2002, 14).2
The series of lectures of which the book is composed do not so much attempt
to answer the question as to rigorously develop it, such that it might become a
question and a problem for us. Patoka is not alone in posing the question of
the care of the self and of making it a living problem for us. Michel Foucault
and Jacques Derrida were drawn to his work precisely because they were both
already engaged in their own attempts to problematize the care of the self. It
should be no surprise that Derrida and Foucault were drawn to the work of
Patoka, as they each were able to see something of their own project reflected
in his. Foucaults final works focused on the interconnection of the themes of the
care of the self, the practice of freedom, and the concern for truth as forming
the foundation of ancient, and potentially contemporary philosophical practice.
Derrida, on the other hand, characterizes deconstruction as openness to the
other and the incalculable gift of the other which in some sense constitutes the
relationship to the self (2004, 155). Becoming and remaining open to the other,
being responsible before the other, is the central task of deconstruction (Derrida
2004, 149). In the work of Patoka we see both of these themescare of the self
and the gift of responsibility before the othercombined. For Patoka, a fully
realized care of the self, a full authentic relationship to the self, is accomplished
through being responsible to and before the other, through becoming fully
receptive to the gift of that responsible life.
In what follows I will look down the divergent paths taken by Foucault and
Derrida in order to see whether or not they intersect at a point where care of the
172
self might begin to speak to us today. This task involves two steps. First, we have
to answer the question: What is it in our present that both silences the voice of
care of the self and yet makes hearing that voice a pressing need? Second, we
must think through the history of care of the self both as a relationship of the self
to itself defined by freedom and truth (Foucault) and as a gift of responsibility
before the other (Derrida).
First: what is it about today that both calls for care and yet disables care? On this
point, we would do well to turn to Patoka and Foucault who devoted themselves
to the diagnosis of the contemporary situation and who are largely in agreement
on that diagnosis: the problem of today is the multiplication, extension, and
intensification of power. Patoka argues that from Plato until the rise of modernity,
European civilization was rooted in a metaphysical conception in which the
purpose of human life and hence the purpose of the polis was to care for the self, to
constitute a shared way of living ordered toward the formation of free, responsible
virtuous citizens; after the Christian conversion of Rome this task began to take
the form of a civilization ordered toward eternal life through the salvation of souls.
But the rise of modernity marks a movement away from the care of the self and
toward a civilization founded on a very different organizing principle: the task
of accumulating and consuming power (force) and wealth. While the Greeks
first defined freedom in terms of the care of the selfthe care that frees us from
fear of death as well as from the spiritual enslavement that results from carelessly
indulging our appetitesmodernity begins to reconceive of freedom in terms of
the liberation of individuals to pursue their interests or desires and to make use
of reason as an instrument in the pursuit of happiness understood as satisfaction
of inclinations. Modern civilization involves a new conception of knowledge itself
and a new metaphysics of the human place in the world:
Bacon will formulate a wholly new idea of knowledge and cognition, profoundly
different from that which motivated the care and concern for the soul: knowledge
is power, only effectual knowledge is real knowledge . . . knowledge is to lead us
back to paradise, the paradise of inventions and possibilities of transforming
and mastering the world to suit our needs while those needs remain undefined
and unlimited; soon thereafter Descartes will say that knowledge is to make us
the masters and owners of nature. (Patoka 1996, 84)
According to Patokas genealogy, the result of the modern project of technology

is somewhat paradoxical. On the one hand, to quote Patoka, humans
have ceased to be a relation to Being and have become a force, a mighty one,
one of the mightiest. Especially in their social being, they became a gigantic
The Care of the Self and The Gift of Death
173
transformer, releasing cosmic forces accumulated and bound over the eons. It
seems as if humans have become a grand energy accumulator in a world of sheer
forces. (1996, 116)
On the other hand, this accumulation of force surprisingly comes with a pervasive
mood of deep helplessness and inability to stand upon anything in any way solid
(Patoka 2002, 6). Individuals come to find themselves accumulated, calculated,
utilized, and manipulated like any other state of energy (Patoka 1996, 116).
Modern technology, as well as modern commercial and financial practices,
writes Patoka, led to the rise of an entirely new kind of rationalism, the only
one we know today: a rationalism that wants to master things and is mastered
by them (by the desire for gain) (1996, 110). The project of technological
domination of the world, which has resulted in such unprecedented wealth and
power is itself dominated by the need for control: European humanity and
by now already humanity as such simply are no longer capable of physically
surviving but for the mode of production that rests increasingly on science and
technology (and, of course, increasingly devastates the global, planetary store of
energy) . . . (1996, 11112). The more power or force society amasses the more
helpless and insignificant life becomes and the more life becomes dependent on
modern power and technology.
Patokas diagnosis of the modern condition makes a claim about the
ontological commitments of modern society as a whole. As opposed to the
phenomenological, and totalizing, style of Patoka, Foucault offers a less
sweeping but more focused analysis of the rationality embedded in institutions
and institutionalized practices in order to show how these forms of rationality
migrate, colonize, and intensify. Yet, while the range and tone of Patokas analysis
are very different from Foucaults, they are fundamentally complementary
views. For Foucault the main danger of today is the extension, intensification,
and multiplication of relationships of power and governmentality, which are
especially effective because they function not repressively or negatively, but
rather productively.3 Modern governmentality is not primarily repressive, but it
is all the more effective for this reason. Governmentthe practice of conducting,
guiding, and channeling behaviors (choices, even feelings, desires, thoughts)
is effected through mechanisms that actually nurture, cultivate, enhance, and
empower us as individuals.4 In other words, power subjects or subjectifies, it
is subjectification (assujetissement)it does not simply force us to submit, it
constitutes us as subjects, as agents; it establishes very determinant, very definite
forms of self-relationship and self-consciousness.5
174
In this situation, can the care of the self still speak to us? In a situation
where we already know that all genuine solutions will come from scientific and
technological progress, and from ever more free, expansive, and productive
global markets, where power itself is maintained not repressively but through
offering us self-improvement according to calculable standards of performance
and success, it seems rather nave to invoke something as arcane as the care of
the self.
Though Foucault and Patoka describe a dire situation, they also see in it
thepossibility of a new phase in the care of the self. Let us return to Patoka to
see how this can be the case. First of all, technological civilization is precisely the
civilization which makes possible more than any previous human constellation:
a life without violence and with far-reaching equality of opportunity. Not in the
sense that this goal would anywhere be actual, but humans have never before
found the means of struggle with external misery, with lack and want, which
this civilization offers (Patoka 1996, 118). So, while modern technology is an
ontological transformation of beings into forces, commodities, and objects of
manipulation, this same technology is potentially freeing for that very reason.
Moreover, Patoka reads the devastation of the two world wars fought in the first
half of the twentieth century as the almost inevitable culmination of technological
civilizationtechnology as conquest results in total war, a state in which even
peace is simply another mode of conflict. But the result of this total war, and of the
pervasive sense of helplessness that both feeds it and is fed by it, is the production
of a new form solidarity: the solidarity of the shaken (Patoka 1996, 134). The
shaken are those who feel and understand the danger and destructiveness inherent
in the project of technological and economic accumulation of power and wealth
they understand that conflict, exploitation, and devastation are not accidental, but
rather intrinsic, to a civilization focused on mastery and consumption of power
and wealth. The shaken are those who no longer accept the promise of salvation
through economic and technological progress, the grand narrative behind so much
of modernitybut they also refuse the fundamentalist and reactionary view that
salvation requires rejecting progress and reverting to more traditional forms of
life. Rather, this experience of the shaken draws attention to the fact that war and
domination are really nothing other than a historical situation, a human project
reflecting human desires and decisions and hence not a force of nature or destiny
beyond us. Therefore, Patoka writes,
The solidarity of the shaken can say no to the measures of mobilization
which make the state of war permanent. It will not offer positive programs but
175
will speak, like Socrates daimonion, in warnings and prohibitions. It can and
must create a spiritual authority, become a spiritual power that could drive the
warring world to some restraint, rendering some acts and measures impossible.
(1996, 135)
Is it possible to see this notion of the shaken operative in the work of Foucault
and Derrida as well? Foucaults detailed and sometimes graphic accounts
of societal exclusions and confinements of marginalized, criminalized, and
pathologized others attempt to shed light on those who have been shaken by
the forces of social integration constitutive of modern civilization. And his books
have no doubt had the effect of shaking many readers out of complacency.6 For
his part, Derrida frequently invokes the notions of a shaking or trembling
that follows from the deconstructive surfacing of aporia in texts, concepts, or
ways of life that seem to be sound or solid.7
If the meaning of modern society is found in the technological accumulation
of power, then shaking our enthrallment to technology and power might free us
for a renewal of the care of the self. This is because for Patoka, Foucault, and
Derrida, philosophy and care of the self characteristically arise precisely through
the shaking of pre-given meanings, ready-made interpretations of life.
This leads us into the second part of our inquiry. Given the danger of today,
and given the specific opening it makes for care of the self: Do Foucault and
Derrida succeed in problematizing care of the self in such a way that it might
become a renewed task for us today? In order to answer this question, we need
to sketch something of the history of care of the self as they tell it.
For Patoka the first manifestation of care of the self takes place when
Socrates finds himself shaken by the failure of pre-given meaning in the
Athenian polis:
Passing through the experience of the loss of meaning means that the meaning
to which we might perhaps return will no longer be for us simply a fact given
directly in its integrity; rather, it will be a meaning we have thought through,
seeking reasons and accepting responsibility for it. As a result, meaning will
never be simply given or won once and for all. It means that there emerges a
new relation, a new mode of relating to what is meaningful; that meaning can
arise only in an activity which stems from a searching lack of meaning, as the
vanishing point of being problematic, as an indirect epiphany. If we are not
mistaken, then this discovering of meaning in the seeking which flows from its
absence, as a new project of life, is the meaning of Socratess existence. (Patoka
1996, 601)
176
Socratic care of the self appears in the space left open by a loss of meaning, the
shaking of the meanings established in the Athenian polis. Socratesthrough
his insight into the radical nature of human finitudesees the problematicity
of human life. Finitude means that we cannot have certainty about the ultimate
meaning of our world and our life. Human life is always problematic (Patoka
1996, 75). Acknowledging and living with the problematicity of life is central to
the care of the self, not just for Socrates but for Patoka, Foucault, and Derrida
as well. For Patoka, living in truth, what Foucault calls true life, involves
living with the problematicity of meaning (2011, 21730). Perhaps this can also
be seen in Derridas notion of living on (sur-vivre) in the face of aporia, in the
wake of deconstruction.
Like Patoka, Foucault thinks that Socratic life is defined by the fusion of the
care of the self with the concern for truth. In The Government of the Self and
Others and The Courage of the Truth, Foucault argues that Socratic and Platonic
philosophy originate as a response to the crisis of democracy in Athens, the
problematization of political discourseparrhesia.8 Traditionally parrhesia
free, frank, courageous, and true discoursewas understood by the Greeks to
be the privilege and duty of the best citizens to speak openly in the assembly.9
Only the well-born were able to say what needed to be heard, to have the care
for the city and the courage to risk saying the truth which was painful to hear
(2011, 335). But the traditional game of truth, the traditional mechanisms
that determined who had the duty and the right to speak up in the assembly,
progressively erodedopening the floor more and more to any of the citizens.
This process resulted in a critical discourse that argued politics was losing its
connection to truth and tradition. Parrhesiapreviously highly valued as an
expression of freedom, courage, and truthcame to be associated with license,
with the unrestricted liberty of anyone to say anything. Political speech, in this
view, was guided by new aims and crafted with new techniques. First, speakers
realized they could accrue power only if they ingratiated themselves to the
assembly through flattery. Second, the influx of the Sophists made available a new
techn for political speech: rhetoric. Using rhetoric, speakers could effectively
flatter and win over the assembly. The aim and function of politics were taken
over by the struggle for victory, power, reputation, and wealth. The courage to
speak frank, unpleasant truths freely became intolerable to an assembly more
and more accustomed to this kind of gratifying treatment. According to this
critique, politics lost sight of its traditional and essential function: to take care
of the polis, to give a space for truth to enter into and govern the polis. Socrates,
recognizing that the assembly had essentially closed its ears to truth, initiated
177
a new form of parrhesia. Socratic parrhesia was not directly a form of political
discourse, but rather was integrated into the care of the self, the care for how one
lived, and the relationship to the self. For Socrates and Plato the failure of politics
was predicated on the failure of care of the self, of ethics. Without taking proper
care of the self, citizens would not be able to listen to parrhesiathey would
not be able to stand hearing the truth, they would not have the courage to risk
speaking the truth.
Care of the self became fused with the practice of freedom and the concern for
truth. Furthermore, care of the self was initiated as a response to the problem of
power, as a resistance to technologies of government and dominationnamely,
the techniques of rhetoric employed in political discourse. Foucaults reading
of the Apology in his final lecture course, The Courage of the Truth, provides an
excellent account of the constitution of care of the self as a practice of freedom
and a concern for truthas the attempt to live a true life.10 Foucault begins
his interpretation with a commentary on the opening lines of the Apology.
Paraphrasing Socrates words, Foucault writes: It is my opponents who lie,
my opponents who are skillful speakers, but they are such skillful speakers
that they have almost succeeded in getting me to forget who I am. Through
them . . . I have almost lost my memory of myself (Foucault 2011, 745). The
prosecutors lie, but through the use of rhetoric they are very persuasive. In fact,
they speak in such a way that they almost made Socrates forget who he is.
Conversely, Socrates claims that he will speak only what he knows to be true
and he will do so without any rhetorical adornment, without employing any
techniques designed to sway the jurors views. Foucault notes: If skillfulness
in speech causes forgetfulness of self, the simplicity in speech, speech without
affectation or embellishment, straightforwardly true speech, the speech of
parrhesia therefore, will lead us to the truth of ourselves (2011, 75). Rhetoric
is a technology that obscures the relationship of the self to itself. It attempts to
govern those who hear it by colonizing the relationship to the self. As a result,
those who listen to rhetoric can become mesmerized, they can forget who they
arerhetoric aims, then, at self-forgetting and self-neglect. And it does so in
order to sway ones views, choices, allegiances, commitments, and actions. The
aim of this technique of speaking is to make the audience think something, to
make them choose, to make them commit. Parrhesia on the other hand does
not aim at colonizing the relationship to the self. Rather, it attempts to lead the
self back to the truth of itself, to remember itself, to bring the self back to a care
of itself. Socrates does this through a process of examination, which leads his
interlocutor to question the condition of his own soul and the way he lives his
178
life. Socratic examination is a test or ordeal (preuve), it stings, paralyzes, bites

but the discomfort it results in is a heightened form of self-consciousness and
self-relationship. Socrates develops a way of living and speaking that is oriented
toward the self, that attempts to remember who one is, that aims at strengthening
the relationship to the self.
The mission of care of the self, inaugurated by Socrates, will become,
according to Foucault, the essence of philosophy for the next several centuries.
Foucaults lectures from 198284 provide extensive analysis of the many and
varied forms, practices, relationships, and theories of care of the self developed
and lived by ancient philosophers from Socrates right up to the first centuries
CE. Through this whole long period, the care of the self is the foundation of
philosophical life.
While they generally agree that ancient philosophy was essentially about care
of the self, Foucault and Patoka part ways in their respective interpretations of
the role Christianity plays in the genealogy of care of the self.11 For Foucault,
Christianity is distinctive primarily for the way in which it articulates and
institutionalizes a radically new modality of governing individual lives and
minds, what Foucault calls pastoral power.12 Pastoral power represents for
Foucault the prehistory of modern forms of positive, productive power
governing individuals, conducting their behaviors and thoughts, rather than
repressing them. Pastoral power produces new forms of self-knowing and
the notion of an interior life which needs to be confessed and interpreted.
It creates a new relationship to the self that unfolds within the context of an
intensive relationship to a spiritual director, the pastor, who holds the keys to
self-knowledge and personal salvation. This deep self, for Foucault, serves as
an anchor for power, through practices of spiritual direction, confession, and
penance. In the Greek and Hellenistic practice of care of the self, spiritual
direction and submission to a spiritual director, or parrhesiast, was always
done in the name of forming and strengthening the self, constituting the self
as capable of self-care, self-government, and of living, acting, speaking, and
governing. By contrast, in Christianity obedience becomes an endless tasknot
simply a temporary situation. According to Foucault, pastoral power takes care
of the soul, but it does so in order that the individual can renounce his will and
become permanently obedient.
For Patoka, on the other hand, and this is no doubt what attracts Derrida
to his work, Christianity represents an intensification of the care of the self.
Christianity represents a deeper, more powerful, and more liberating form of
care than ancient philosophical, essentially Platonic, practices.13 Patoka sees
179
Christianity as an event that definitively advances the effort to live freely, truly,
and responsibly.
One might suspect that Derridas deconstructive approach would represent
a rejection of Patoka and Foucaults attempt to retrieve or renew the project
of care of the self. This view would miss the point of Derridas reflections in
The Gift of Death where he provides an extended commentary on the fifth of
Patokas Heretical Essays. According to Patokas narrative, which Derrida
neither definitively accepts nor rejects, the general thrust of the history of Europe,
understood as a history of the care of the self, is to establish the conditions for
responsible life. Derrida seems particularly drawn to Patokas characterization
of Christianity and its role in his history of care of the self. To understand the
importance of Christianity in Patokas narrative, it must be seen against the
backdrop of the Platonic care of the self that it inherits but strives to overcome.
According to Patoka, Plato develops Socratic care of the self into a philosophical
theory and practice that will form the rational foundation of Greek political life
and, as a result, constitute the heritage of Europe itself.14 Platonic care of the self
involves a double movement by which, on the one hand, one liberates oneself by
facing and overcoming the fear of death, and, on the other hand, one ascends
toward clear knowledge of the form of the Good. Philosophy as such is nothing
other than this care of the self. For Plato, at least in theory, what makes politics
rational and justifiable is the task of caring for, nurturing, strengthening, and
giving life to the self by securing a form of life that will free life from the struggle
for mere survival. The polis would, in theory, be the place where knowledge of the
Good could be realized and legislated. The polis then would be a way of living that
liberates people both from serving preestablished meanings or doxa, the ruling
order of the day; and from subjection to the appetites imposed on us by the fight
for survival and gratification. Responsible life, life that takes care of itself, is a life
in accordance with knowledge: responsible life is life that can give an account of
itself, that acts based on knowledge of what is goodresponsible life that acts on
its own terms, the terms of the self freely understanding what is truly Good.
But does knowledge truly liberate us and make us responsible? Are we truly
and fully responsible, truly and fully ourselves, if we act based on our knowledge
of the Form of the Good, our knowledge of an intellectual object that is in a
sense separate from us but also in-forms our choices and acts, determining and
governing us. Derrida puts the problem this way:
To subordinate responsibility to the objectivity of knowledge, is obviously, in
Patokas view, to discount responsibility. . . . Saying that a responsible decision
180
must be taken on the basis of knowledge seems to define the condition of

responsibility (one cannot make a responsible decision without science or
conscience, without knowing what one is doing, for what reasons, in view of
what and under what conditions), at the same time as it defines the condition
of impossibility of this same responsibility (if decision-making is relegated
to a knowledge that it is content to follow or to develop, then it is no more a
responsible decision, it is the technical deployment of a theorem). (1995, 24)
To be truly free and responsible I cannot simply follow orders. In this case, it
would be the Form that is authoritative and responsible, not meI would be little
more than a servant of the Form. Here is where Christianity, according to Patoka,
makes a crucial advance in the care of the self. In Christianity, Responsible life
was itself presented as a gift from something which ultimately, though it has the
character of the Good, has also the traits of the inaccessible and forever superior to
humansthe traits of the mysterium that always has the final word. Christianity
after all understands the Good differently from Platoas a self-forgetting goodness
and a self-denying (not orgiastic) love (Patoka 1996, 106). Responsible life is
not something that is given to me through accepting mortality and knowing the
Good. Rather, it is a gift, and it arises not in relation to an object but with a person:
In the final analysis, the soul is not a relation to an object, however noble (like the
Platonic Good) but rather to a Person who sees into the soul without being itself
accessible to view (Patoka 1996, 107).
This notion of responsible life as a gift, as a relationship to an infinite Other
who lies right in the heart of me but who, nevertheless, remains hidden and
inaccessible, unknowable to me, represents to Patoka an intensification of
subjectivityan intensification of the relation of the self to itself, insofar as that
relation is already contingent upon, exposed and obligated to God as the Person
whose gift puts me in the position of freedom, invites me into an overwhelming
relation to truth.15 The key here is that the care of the self, as responsible life, is
not lived as an objective and impersonal relation to an object or thing. Rather, we
gain full access to the possibility of responsible life only in a personal relationship
to a person. I am given the opportunity to become fully and genuinely true to
myself as a person, not a thing, when I find myself in a personal relationship, in
relation to a person. But the personal relationship to a person cannot be reduced
to or expressed in the form of objectivity and knowledge. Persons are not objects
that can be known. Persons as such remain essentially and forever inaccessible
to knowledge. Being in a personal relationship, living responsibly in relation to a
person requires an act of faitha leap without objectively knowing the meaning
181
of my act. By constituting responsible life as gift and as a relationship to a person,

Christian care of the soul offers, according to Patoka, the greatest, unsurpassed
but also un-thought-through human outreach that enabled humans to struggle
against decadence (1996, 108).16
It is precisely this point in Patokas essay, more than any other, which speaks
to Derrida. The care of the selfthat life in which the self is freed, strengthened,
given lifeis ultimately a responsibility that comes as a gift from an other who
cannot be known. I become a unique I, a responsible self, only by being called
into a relationship with the other. But it is also this turn that gives rise to a
new aporia of responsibility. For Derrida, Patokas essay leads to the idea of
a responsible life that would arise as a gift, a call from the other, calling me
to respond to the other as other, but doing so without my being able to know
precisely what I am doing, why I am doing it, what it is the other really wants
or needs me to do, or even in a sense, who I am insofar as I am fully given to
myself only when called by the other. I only become fully free and responsible
precisely when I realize that I must respond and decide without any recourse to
an objective formula or knowledge that could assure me and everyone else that I
am doing what I ought to do. For Derrida the intensification of subjectivity as
responsible life amounts to an intensification of the aporia of responsibility:
On what condition is responsibility possible? On the condition that the Good no
longer be a transcendental objective, a relation between objective things, but the
relation to the other, a response to the other. . . . On the condition that goodness
forget itself, that the movement be a movement of the gift that renounces itself,
hence a movement of infinite love. . . . What gives me my singularity, namely,
death and finitude, is what makes me unequal to the infinite goodness of the gift
that is also the first appeal to responsibility. . . . One is never responsible enough
because one is finite but also because responsibility requires two contradictory
movements. It requires one to respond as oneself and as an irreplaceable
singularity, to answer for what one does, says, gives; but it also requires that,
being good and through goodness, one forget or efface the origin of what one
gives. (1995, 501)
For Derrida this is a crucial point: the intimacy and intensity of the relationship
to the self are heightened precisely to the degree one becomes open to aporia, to
the possibility of the impossibility of my being, or my knowing, who I am. The
aporia of responsibility functions as a test (preuve) which one must undergo
in order to penetrate into the relationship to oneself. However, the aporia is not
something that is dissolved, and the relationship to the self is always marked by
182
the trace of this test. Consequently, being responsible, responsible life, means
acknowledging the impossibility of fully realizing itself, or even fully clarifying
what that realization might look like or hope for. Does this leave us at an
absolute impasse forcing us to abandon the care of the self and refuse the gift of
responsible life? Or does the impossibility of being fully responsible itself call for
another response?
Foucault and Derrida bring into focus some of the real challenges that
this notion represents. For example, on the side of Foucault, is it really
possible to conceive of philosophical practice today as care of the selftoday
when intellectual activity is constituted and evaluated in terms of scientific
objectivity and detachment. Can we responsibly pursue a project defined
by the aim of self-carewhat Foucault at one point describes as the effort
to think differently, to stray afield of oneself ? On the other hand, on the
side of Derrida, is it reasonable to think of the self and responsibility in
terms of the gift and of aporia? Would this not represent something terribly
irresponsible and irrational? But if Patoka and Foucault are correct that the
distinctive danger of today has to do with the extension and intensification
of power, and power aims at increasing possession, mastery, and exploitation
of beingsthen perhaps the notions of gift, self as gift, relationship as gift
and aporia, might be able to serve as elements of a new care of the self, a
new solidarity of the shaken, or even the basis of a political ethos that
would urge some restraint, rendering some acts and measures impossible
(Patoka 1996, 135) and strive to go forward with the realization that even we,
with all our knowledge and power, do not know who we are.
Notes
1 Versions of this essay were presented at the 29th International Social Philosophy
Conference, July 27, 2012, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, and as a lecture
sponsored by the MA Program in Philosophy at Boston College on September 14,
2012. I would like to thank Serena Parekh, Scott Campbell, Paul Bruno, and
Josef Velazquez for their patience, generosity, and good ideas.
2 Except when quoting directly from Patoka who uses the expression, care of the
soul, I will use the terminology of Foucault and speak of the care of the self.
3 This notion is fundamental to the whole thrust of Foucaults work. It is evident
as early as The History of Madness and only becomes more explicit and highly
developed with his books and lectures through the 1970s. See, for example (Foucault
1995) and (Foucault 1990), especially Part 5.
183
4 See the excavation of the notions of government and governmentality in

(Foucault 2007, 87134). See also the discussion of the related notion of conduct
pp. 191226.
5 See the summary of these notions in (Foucault 2000, 32648).
6 Again, this is central to all of Foucaults works, including his literary criticism, from
The History of Madness through Discipline and Punish, right up to The History of
Sexuality.
7 See (Derrida 1995, 535 and 712).
8 Foucault documents the problematization of parrhesia across a number of texts
beginning with Euripides and including not only Plato but also many other writers
from the period. The summary that follows is based on Foucaults extensive analysis in
his lectures courses from 19824 (see Foucault 2010 and 2011).
9 See (Foucault 2011, 3356).
10 What follows is a summary of Foucaults reading of the Apology, which appears in
(Foucault 2011, 73116).
11 Foucaults analysis of Christianity, it must be noted, takes places almost entirely
before he discovers the ancient conception of care of the self. The possibility of a
different reading of Christianity in relation to parrhesia and the care of the self
only emerges in Foucaults final Collge de France lecture on March 28, 1984.
Unfortunately, he never had the opportunity to develop that reading.
12 The notions of government and pastoral power are analyzed at length in Foucaults
19778 lecture course. See (Foucault 2007), especially pp. 115226.
13 While Patoka thinks that Platonic care is essentially a matter of objective knowing,
Foucault argues that Platonic knowledge was radically different from modern
scientific notions of objectivity. Theory for Plato, and for the traditions that followed
him, was itself a practice that brought about specific subjective transformationsit
was not objective, rather it was a form of subjectivation. See (Foucault 2010, 20958).
14 This claim is repeated throughout Patoka (1996 and 2002).
15 The Christian experience is based on the realization of the misery of humans
incapable of generating meaning themselves and of bestowing it on themselvesan
element which the Christian posture shares with ancient skepticism though in a more
radical form and without that resignation which characterizes skepticism. Christians
coming face to face with the human poverty of meaning, absolute and global, do not
give up but assert their faith more energetically, the more graphically that poverty is
presented (1996, 67).
16 Patoka claims, however, that while Christianity introduces this experience of the
free self, What a Person is, that really is not adequately thematized in the Christian
perspective (1996, 107). He suggests that what we need now, in our current
distress, is a demythologized Christianity (Kohk 1989, 339). Derridas analysis
very explicitly moves in the direction of a Christianity somehow freed from
onto-theology. See, for example (Derrida 1995, 66 and 68).
184
Bibliography
Derrida, J. (1995), The Gift of Death, David Wells (trans.). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
. (2004), Deconstruction and the Other, interview with Richard Kearney, in Debates
in Continental Philosophy: Conversations with Contemporary Thinkers. New York:
Fordham University Press.
Foucault, M. (1990), The History of Sexuality, Volume I: An Introduction, Robert Hurley
(trans.). New York: Vintage Books.
. (1995), Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, Alan Sheridan (trans.). New
York: Vintage Books. Second Edition.
. (2000), The Subject and Power, in James D. Faubion (ed.), Power: Essential Works of
Foucault, 19541984, Volume 3. New York: The New Press.
. (2006), History of Madness, Jonathan Murphy and Jean Khalfa (trans), Jean Khalfa (ed.).
London and New York: Routledge.
. (2007), Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collge de France, 19771978,
Graham Burchell (trans.), Frdric Gros (ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
. (2010), The Government of the Self and Others: Lectures at the Collge de France,
19821983, Graham Burchell (trans.), Frdric Gros (ed.). New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
. (2011), The Courage of the Truth, The Government of the Self and Others II: Lectures
at the Collge de France 19831984, Graham Burchell (trans.), Frdric Gros (ed.).
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kohk, E. (1989), Jan Patoka: Philosophy and Selected Writings. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Patoka, J. (1996), Heretical Essays in the Philosophy of History, Erazim Kohk (trans.).
Chicago: Open Court Press.
. (2002), Plato and Europe, Peter Lom (trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
13
The Tragic Sense of Life in Heideggers

Readings of Antigone
Scott M. Campbell
It is commonly thought that Sophocles play Antigone presents an opposition

between religion and the state. Two brothers, Eteocles and Polyneices, have taken
sides against one other in civil war, and meeting each other in combat, each one
kills the other. Their mutual destruction informs the plot. The primary character
in the play is Antigone herself, who is the sister of both soldiers. The king, Creon,
who is also the uncle of all three, decrees that Eteocles, who was defending the
city against his brother, shall receive a full burial, while Polyneices, who took
arms against the city, must lay unburied, his rotting corpse food for wild animals.
As a citizen of the city, Antigone is subject to Creon and his laws, but she is loyal
to both of her brothers, so she disobeys Creons decree and pours sand over
the body of Polyneices. After Creon orders the dust to be removed from the
body, Antigone returns and, under cover from a storm, gives her brother full
funeral rights, thus burying him for a second time. She believes that she is acting
piously, in devotion to the gods, whose divine law demands respect for the dead,
regardless of their political allegiances.
Caught between civic order and divine command, Antigone defies Creons
law. This leads, eventually, to her own suicide and to the suicides of her
fianceCreons own son, Haemonand of Creons wife, Eurydice, who kills
herself because she is so distraught by the death of her son, but the plays ending
validates divine law over civil law. Having first disregarded the prophecy and
wise counsel of the blind Teiresias, Creon curses his own stubbornness and
laments that he recognized his misjudgment too late to prevent the tragedy that
ensued. In the conflict between religion and the state, the play seems to come
out on the side of religion.
186
Martin Heidegger offers two readings of Antigone, the second of which

explicitly counters the commonly accepted view that the play is fundamentally
about an opposition between religion and the state. For Heidegger, the play is
actually a poem about the relation between the human being and Being itself.
He closely analyzes the Greek text and discerns there a series of conflicts and
oppositions, all of which are connected to Sophocles claim, in the first choral
ode, that the human being is the strangest (deinotaton) of all creatures. In the
early reading, from the Introduction to Metaphysics in 1935, he draws out
conflicts between knowledge (techne) and order (dike) and between language
(logos) and Being (physis). In the later text, from Hlderlins Hymn The Ister
in 1942, he expounds upon two central oppositions, pantoporos-aporos and
hypsipolis-apolis, also from the first choral ode, which he calls the counterturning
within the essence of the human being.
These readings, taken together, open up a way of thinking about the meaning
of tragedy in human life. The following analysis takes up both of Heideggers
readings in order to address these broader concerns. For people who do not
find themselves in the same situation that Antigone finds herself in, this play,
nonetheless, resonates. The key to that resonance is Antigones sacrifice. She sees
in her life an overpowering dilemma, which she cannot avoid. While others, such
as her sister, Ismene, find that they do not have to act, Antigone is compelled to
act, and so she takes that dilemma upon herself. Her decision to act reveals her
profound humanity; it reveals who she is, but in doing so it also reveals the tragic
sense of human life. Human life for Heidegger involves a fundamental conflict,
of both belonging and not belonging, of being both homely and unhomely, of
being caught not only between the state and religion but, more profoundly,
between beings and Being. Antigone assumes responsibility for her humanity,
and consequently she becomes tragic in doing so.
The strangest of creatures

In both of Heideggers readings of Antigone, his focus is on the first choral
ode. Heidegger interprets the first line of the ode as saying that nothing is
stranger or more uncanny than the human being. He views the Greek word
deinon, strange or uncanny, as the essential word, both in the choral ode and
in the play as a whole. In the text from 1935, he distills two meanings of the
Greek deinon: the first is the overwhelming sway, which induces panicked
fear (Heidegger 2000, 160) and the second is the one who needs to use
The Tragic Sense of Life
187
violenceand does not just have violence at his disposal but is violence
doing (Heidegger 2000, 161). Heidegger locates the human being between
these two senses of deinon, and this explains why the human being is strange
or uncanny. The human being is subject to this overwhelming sway and
then uses power violently against it. This challenge draws the human being
out of the familiar and ordinary and, thus, into the unhomely. Strangeness
is not a quality or attribute of the human being, even an essential one, but
characterizes the essence of human being itself. For this reason, human beings
are fundamentally unhomely, not at home in their own essence.
In the choral ode, the strangeness of the human being is due to humans
conquering the earth: crossing the sea, ploughing the soil, capturing and
taming animals, and most importantly, using language. It is strange, according
to the ode, that some animals, human beings, attempt to master and control
nature as well as subdue other animals, submitting them to their own control.
The particular strangeness of language is due to its apparent non-strangeness,
its familiarity. Words belong so naturally to human beings and the use of
language is so essential to the human being that language seems ordinary.
So, too, does the development of language appear commonplace, when
we think that human beings invented words to signify objects. Heidegger
argues, however, that it makes no sense to say that humans invented that
which makes them to be human. Language and, for that matter, thinking and
building, are violent attempts to break into the overwhelming sway and bring
it to containment. The word sea, for example, in poetic speech is the violent
containment of a being as the sea (Heidegger 2000, 167). It requires someone
creative to break into the overpowering sway and bring it into order.
The notion of techne is particularly important in this regard. Heidegger does
not translate techne as art, but rather as knowledge, a form of knowing. He shifts
the focus of techne from making or production to the ability to set limits and
boundaries to Being itself, confronting the overpowering and bringing Being
into a work (Heidegger 2000, 169). This reading of techne, however, differs
somewhat from what Clare Pearson Geiman claims in her reading of this text.
Geiman correlates the shift from techne in 1935 to poetic speaking in 1942 with
Heideggers turn away from the violence of the early work and, thus, away from
the violent politics of National Socialism. In doing so, however, she attributes the
potential for violence to the notion of techne itself. She interprets what Heidegger
says about techne in the 1935 interpretation from out of the context of his critique
of scientific and mathematical modes of knowing. Techne, then, for Geiman,
could not involve the production of an intellectual product, as it does in Aristotle
188
and Aquinas, for example. In other words, there is no place for liberal arts, as
opposed to mechanical or technological arts, in Geimans reading of techne.
Neither is it a creative response to the overwhelming sway of Being itself. She reads
Heidegger as saying that techne is simply a mode of technological production
used to subjugate and master nature (Geiman 2001, 170). The inevitable result
of conceiving of knowing in terms of techne is, for Geiman, monstrous. She
writes, the potential for violence and totalitarian politics belongs inextricably
to the attempt to conceive human knowing through the working of techne
(Geiman 2001, 162).
Heidegger says explicitly, however, in the 1935 text that with techne, The
work of art is work not primarily because it is worked, made, but because it puts
Being to work in a being (Heidegger 2000, 170). He does not read Sophocles as
saying in the choral ode simply that the human being subjugates nature, forcing
order upon it, but rather that humanity is deinon, first, inasmuch as it remains
exposed to this overwhelming sway (Heidegger 2000, 160). In an attempt to
draw a clear line of distinction between techne in 1935 and poetic speaking in
1942, Geiman overstates the productionist model of techne in Heideggers early
reading, minimizing the extent to which the human being, for Heidegger, is
subject to this overpowering sway of Being and must, ultimately, shatter against
it. As we will see, this is precisely what happens to Antigone herself. There is no
doubt that there is a decidedly violent character to what Heidegger says about
techne in 1935, but he explicitly says that he does not conceive of techne as
related to technical skill, tools, and materials (Heidegger 2000, 171). Geiman
misses what Heidegger sees as the essence of the tragedy, which is that Antigone
takes upon herself the overpowering, knowing that this undertaking will fail.
This notion of taking upon oneself the overpowering involves knowing, and
hence techne, but it is also a response to the overpowering sway of Being. The
tragedy of Antigones life, and of human life, is that being human requires us to
confront the overpowering and thus become caught up in this conflict.
In 1935, Heidegger identifies this confrontation in various ways. We see it
in the relationship between techne and dike, where techne breaks out against
dike (Heidegger 2000, 171), which Heidegger understands as the violent
encounter between knowing and the overpowering order or fittingness. As
many have noted, Heidegger does not translate dike as justice or norm because
he sees dike as getting at something metaphysical. Normative or juridical justice
derives from a metaphysical, overpowering order, structure, or fit. Human
activity that confronts Being through the work of poetry, thought, building,
and creating states (Heidegger 2000, 167) is a techne that is exposed to and runs
189
up against the overpowering order of dike. It is not simply production, it is not

an application of faculties that the human being has, but is a disciplining and
disposing of the violent forces by virtue of which beings disclose themselves as
such (Heidegger 2000, 167).
We also see this confrontation in the relationship between logos and physis. He
claims that Being-human, according to its historical, history-opening essence,
is logos (Heidegger 2000, 182). In the choral ode, Sophocles says that human
beings are the strangest, in part, because of their use of language. Instead of the
Aristotelian definition of the human being as a rational animal, which reads
anthropos = zoon logon echon, Heidegger formulates the definition as follows:
physis = logos anthropos echon (Heidegger 2000, 187) to show how the nature
of Being itself (physis), which is the overpowering, requires the grounding of
the human being by logos, language, which he takes to be a kind of original
collecting and gathering, again, of violent forces. In this sense, language can be
seen as a response to the overpowering sway of Being. Heidegger is not so much
defining the human being but rather showing how the human being is subject to
(defined by) Being itself.
In both cases of confrontation, either as techne or as logos, we are called
upon by the overpowering to become human by responding to it. The tragedy
of human life is that in assuming responsibility for our humanity, we expose
ourselves to the overpowering as such.
The counterturning
In both of his interpretations, Heidegger discusses a pair of oppositions that
appear in the first choral ode. These are pantoporos-aporos and hypsipolis-apolis,
which are descriptions of the human being. These oppositions are paired together
in the text of the choral ode. On a literary level, they reflect, I believe, the unity
of opposing forces, or opposition of unities, evident throughout the play. We see
that unity/opposition in the combat between Eteocles and Polyneices, who are
joined together as brothers but opposed to each other in civil war. We also see it
in the blurring of the line between life and death. Polyneices has died, and yet he
is unburied and thus remains among the living. Toward the end of the play, Creon
orders Antigone to be locked in an underground chamber, buried but still alive.
Antigone finds herself caught up in these oppositional unities, which involve
both belonging and not belonging. Heidegger interprets these oppositions as
appellations for the deinon, the strange or uncanny (Heidegger 1996, 75). He
190
translates the first pair of oppositions, pantoporos-aporos, as venturing forth

in all directionswithout experience and, alternatively, as underway in
every directionwithout any way out. The second pair, hypsipolis-apolis, he
translates as towering high above the site-forfeiting the site and as exceeding
the site-without site. He is still interested in the notion of the deinon in this later
text, which he now calls the essential word of all Greek tragedy. He discerns three
meanings of the deinon: the fearful, the powerful, and the inhabitual (Heidegger
1996, 67), but he translates the word as uncanny, in the German Unheimlich,
which accentuates the extent to which human beings are not at home in their
own essence. Much of his analysis becomes a meditation on how the human
being is unhomely, and these oppositions are central to that claim.
As the pantoporos, venturing out in all directions, the human being goes
forth into the world, not as an adventurer, who is actually quite comfortable
and at home in being not at home and in the wilderness (Heidegger 1996, 75),
but rather as someone whose essence runs counter to itself. Heidegger writes,
what properly characterizes the unhomely is a counterturning that belongs
intrinsically to its essence (Heidegger 1996, 84). In being pantoporos, humans
are also aporos, because the plans and projects that we undertake are always,
ultimately, unfulfilling and cannot sustain us. One way to look at this is in terms
of calculation and planning. It is fundamental to Greek tragedy that all human
designs run up against a limit. The experience of tragedy reveals that limit, but
the limit itself and what lies beyond that limitwhat we could call fate, the
overpowering, or most importantly for Heidegger, Being itselfare constantly
forgotten.
The oppositional pair hypsipolis-apolis also reflects this human
counter-essence, but on a political level. The word political derives from the
Greek polis, but that does not indicate that the Greek polis was political in the
way that we understand what it means to be political today (Heidegger 1996,
80, 96). Aristotle says in the Politics that the human being is a political animal
because humans are able to belong to the polis, but this only means that the
human being is not to be identified exclusively with the political (Heidegger
1996, 83). Human beings are political animals because, as Aristotle says, they
are fundamentally animals that have logos, rationality or language. Thus, the
meaning of the polis or state derives from the essence of the human being, and
not vice versa. The polis is the place or site where what is properly human can be
accomplished, not in the modern political sense, but in a more essential sense.
The choral ode then says that as hypsipolis-apolis, the human being is subject
to both excess, towering high above the site, and downfall, being without a site
191
(Heidegger 1996, 86). Uncanniness is this double possibility intrinsic to human

essence. The polis is the site where human beings might become homely, come
into their essence, but within that site the human being may tower into the
heights of ones own essential space or plunge downward into its depths and
be lost in that space (Heidegger 1996, 87).
The task of the human being is to become homely, but as uncanny the
human being is the most unhomely, and, as such, all human ventures lead to
unfullfillment and, in their own essence, humans are subject to profound excess
and downfall. Can human beings become homely? Richard Capobianco notes
that in Heideggers early reading from 1935, there is no suggestion that we can
ever become homely, while the later reading does speak of this possibility. It
is important to add to this Heideggers conclusion in the later text that What
is worthy of poetizing in this work is nothing other than becoming homely in
being unhomely (Heidegger 1996, 121). It is the tragic essence of human beings
that in their very Being, they are both at home and not at home in their own
essence. Thus, the possibility of becoming homely that Capobianco points out
nonetheless reaffirms the counterturning essence of the human being as both
homely and unhomely.
In the beginning of the play, Antigone discusses with her sister Ismene her
plan to bury their brother. Ismene cautions Antigone against it, giving her quite
ordinary advice: never try to do that which is impossible to do (Heidegger
1996,101). With Heidegger, we need to think about the nature of the impossible,
because for Antigone this advice serves as the guiding line for her actions. What
is the impossible for her? She buries Polyneices, so that is clearly possible. What
is not possible for her is to avoid the dilemma she faces. Ismene, by contrast,
does not face the dilemma. Even though she is, in a sense, in the same situation
as her sister, Ismene does not think that sacrifice is warranted and so she is able
to retreat from the impossible. Antigone is governed by the impossible, but only
insofar as she takes the impossible upon herself. It is because of her profound
humanity that she enters into the impossibleinto the dilemmaand lets it
guide her actions. The impossible does not prevent her from acting; it motivates
her to act. This is why she suffers. In her response to Ismene, she says, let me
and my own ill-counselling suffer this terror, and the Greek for suffer this
terror reads pathein to deinon, so in Heideggers translation, Antigone is saying,
let me take up into my own essence the uncanny that here and now appears
(Heidegger 1996, 103). To suffer in this sense is active and passive, both enduring
and taking upon oneself the deinon, which is the uncanny, the overpowering, the
impossible.
192
Sacrifice and tragedy

It is puzzling that Heidegger does not discuss Antigones action in terms of
sacrifice. He talks about risk, but he does not speak of that risk as a sacrifice. In
two texts that appear immediately after the first of his Antigone interpretations,
as Dennis Schmidt has pointed out, Heidegger discusses the meaning of sacrifice.
The Origin of the Work of Art mentions essential sacrifice, and the Postscript
to What is Metaphysics? connects the notion of sacrifice to freedom, gratitude,
and thinking. Heidegger writes there that sacrifice is an essentially free action,
which preserves the dignity of Being (Heidegger 1998, 237). It involves
thinking, which is then also a thanking, that is, an expression of gratitude for
the possibility of preserving truth and dignity, not of beings, but with respect
to Being itself. The thinking that goes into sacrifice cannot be about beings
because it does not pertain to calculation and planning, for sacrifice tolerates
no calculation (Heidegger 1998, 237).
If Antigone were to weigh the relative benefits of her actions, it would
clearly be best not to do them. Breaking Creons law is not practical and for
that matter, Creons decree that a traitor to the city shall not be buried was
neither unprecedented nor unreasonable. What resonates in this play is
Antigones sacrifice, and that sacrifice is a response to something beyond the
register of calculation and planning. Sacrifice is conflictual because it is both a
renunciation of ones belonging to something as well as an affirmation of the
importance of that belonging. Faced with a dilemma that is, itself, embedded
within the counterturning, oppositional structure of human nature, Antigone
chooses to risk sacrificing herself for the sake of her family and the law of the
dead. But more than that, through her sacrifice, she becomes who she is as a
human being.
When William Richardson talks about Antigones choice, he does not cast it
in terms of sacrifice, but he confirms that Antigone becomes who she is through
a response to something more than human. He writes,
The clarity and force of her choice came not from herself alone but from some
Source that attunes all human beings as human beings. It follows not merely
human ordinance. What determines her action here has been encountered
nowhere before, yet has already appeared before all else without anyone being
able to name a particular being from which it has sprung forth. It is to that which
is unconcealed in this way that the essence of Antigone belongs. To embrace it as
such was the essence of her risk. (Richardson 2011, 165)
193
It is paradoxical that something more than human makes Antigone to be human.

How are we to understand this? Antigone is willing to sacrifice her own life
in order to dignify her fallen brother by burying him. In one sense, she and
Ismene are in the same situation. But as mentioned above, only Antigone finds
herself faced with a dilemma. Thus, she takes on that dilemma, and she does so
because she is called, by something, a Source, that makes this demand upon
her to assume responsibility for that dilemma. We normally think of a dilemma
as a choice between two equally unacceptable possibilities. Antigone does face a
dilemma, but only because she has first chosen to do so. We need to understand
her sacrifice from within the context of those overpowering forces of respect,
dignity, and family loyalty that motivate her actions. It is not any one of these
that motivates her. There is, rather, a motivating ground, or source, which makes
them meaningful to her life and thus makes her to be who she is.
In William McNeills discussion of Antigones choice, he views that original
source in terms of time. He writes,
What determines Antigones action is not only no mere human ordinance, but lies
beyond the upper and lower gods, Zeus and Dike, even though it is both of the gods
and pervasively attunes human beings as human beings (quoting GA 53, 144).
The all determinative point of departure (arche) starting from which Antigone
comes to be who she is has no simple origin, and is itself nothing determinate, and
yet it prevails and even lives (waltet, zei): it is that from which the time of human
life first arises and comes to be. And this is something that Antigone and the
poet leave otherwise unnamed, but nevertheless point toward in these lines as the
indeterminacy of that future that steadfastly belongs to being, and starting from
which, in taking it upon herself (pathein), Antigone comes to be the one that she
is. (McNeill 2000, 184)
Antigone becomes who she is but in her own time and according to the particulars
of her own life. The question of Being, for Antigone, is simply a question about
who she is, and she becomes who she is through a noble sacrificial act.
Consistent with Heideggers claim in Postscript to What is Metaphysics?
Antigones sacrifice preserves the dignity of Being. We might lament the
situation in which Antigone finds herself. As Aristotle famously says, tragedy
evokes pity and fear. We pity the misfortune of the characters in the play, and
since we identify with those characters, their judgments, and their misjudgments,
we fear that similar tragedies may befall us. As McNeill remarks, though,
Heidegger views Antigone as the greatest of [Sophocles] tragedies (McNeill
2000, 183) precisely because Antigone does take the deinon upon herself. Thus,
194
in an important sense, the situation in which she finds herself is one that she
has chosen for herself. In that choice, she preserves and shelters the dignity of
who she is as a unique, individual woman. As Richardson writes, Her facing
up to this deinon is her supreme action as a singular human being (Richardson
2011, 164). It would seem, then, Heidegger is right when he claims that the
poem of Antigone is fundamentally about the relation between Being and the
human being, as one extraordinary human being confronts the overpowering to
become who she is, with all of the conflict, opposition, and counterturning that
that entails. The tragic sense of life in Heideggers readings of Antigone involves
sacrifice, which is beyond the register of calculation and planning and preserves
the dignity of Being itself.
As stated earlier, for Heidegger the play Antigone is a poem about the relation
between the human being and Being itself. He discerns a series of conflicts and
oppositions involved in Sophocles claim that the human being is the strangest
(deinotaton) of all creatures. These conflicts and oppositions demonstrate
Heideggers tragic sense of life, a matter of both belonging and not belonging,
being caught between beings and Being. In particular, we see the tragic sense
of life in the notion of sacrifice, which involves opposition because it is both
a renunciation of ones belonging to something as well as an affirmation of the
importance of that belonging.
Running through Heideggers interpretations is a profound sense of the
tragedy of human life. The first choral ode, which is the focus and guide for his
analyses, does not discuss Antigone herself. It is a meditation on the nature of
being human. But her dilemma is one that all human beings must face if they
want to assume the responsibility for being human. That means taking upon
oneself the impossible task of confronting the overpowering sway, and doing so
as individuals to see how the overpowering sway presents itself to each persons
unique and singular life. This confrontation can be understood in various ways.
It can happen as the confrontation between knowledge and the overpowering
order, techne and dike, when one tries to bring Being into a work. It can be
seen, as well, in the confrontation between physis and logos, acknowledging the
power of bringing Being into words. It can be seen in the counterturning of
the human being and in Antigones confrontation with the impossible. In all of
these cases, the tragic sense of human life means discerning dilemmas in ones
life, taking them up, and being willing to sacrifice oneself for the sake of them.
The human being is tragic, but potentially noble. The dignity of being human
comes from being called upon by Being itself to confront the overpowering,
and then choosing to respond to that call, so that we may become who we are.
195
Bibliography
Capobianco, Richard. (2005), Heideggers Turn Toward Home: On Daseins Primordial
Relation to Being, in Epoch, 10(1) (Fall): 15573.
Geiman, Clare Pearson. (2001), Heideggers Antigones, in Richard Polt and Gregory
Fried (eds), A Companion to Heideggers Introduction to Metaphysics. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 16182.
Heidegger, Martin. (1996), Hlderlins Hymn The Ister, William McNeill and Julia Davis
(trans). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
. (1998), Postscript to What is Metaphysics? William McNeill (trans.), in William
McNeill (ed.) Pathmarks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2318.
. (2000), Introduction to Metaphysics, Gregory Fried and Richard Polt (trans). New
Haven: Yale University Press.
McNeill, Will. (2000), A Scarcely Pondered Word. The Place of Tragedy: Heidegger,
Aristotle, Sophocles, in Miguel de Beistegui and Simon Sparks (eds), Philosophy and
Tragedy. New York: Routledge, 16989.
Richardson, William. (2011), Heidegger and the Strangeness of Being, in Richard
Kearney and Kascha Semonovitch (eds), Phenomenologies of the Stranger. Between
Hostility and Hospitality. New York: Fordham University Press, 15567.
Schmidt, Dennis. (1994), Why I am So Happy, in Research in Phenomenology 24(1):
314.
14
Living the Pyrrhonian Way1

Stephen R. L. Clark
What to think
Skeptics, commonly so-called, are free-thinkers, unbelievers, and atheists. They
debunk stories with supernatural or magical elements, but rarely question
the current scientific consensus. Some distinguish the content of that consensus
from the method, disclaiming any commitment to particular theories but
endorsing the scientific method as the only source of knowledge. Other
self-styled Skeptics argue against anthropogenic global warming, the general
theory of relativity, or the standard accounts of 9/11. To the outsider these
Skeptics (denialists) may seem astonishingly credulous: any story that casts
doubt upon conventional wisdom is accepted; any evidence contradicting their
own theory is discounted. Even the first group of Skeptics (scienticists) are
often deeply credulous of historical or philosophical myths: that people before
Columbus thought the world was flat, that Huxley trounced Wilberforce, or that
scientists are open-minded!2
Neither kind are philosophical skeptics, who instead propose that some beliefs
perhaps are probable but none are certain. Some doubt even that we can assess
objective probabilities: really, we know nothing; really, no beliefs are even likelier
than others. We can never know that we know the truth. All we can do is express
a passing affection for particular claims. Does this claim differ from the cynical
assertion that the moon-landings never happened, because human beings
cannot walk upon the moon? An Academic Skeptic would disparage a denialist
who dogmatically denied moon-landings. Analogously, denying that we ever
know the truth rests on an un-admitted dogmatism about the world and us.
198
None of these dogmatically skeptical schools are my present topic.

Pyrrhonian Skeptics were not scienticists, denialists, rationalists, or mysterians.
Their skepticism rested not in disbelief, but simply in not believing.
Or at any rate this was how ancient Pyrrhonian Skepticism developed. Its
eponymous fourth-century founder, Pyrrho of Elis, may have had more positive
reasons for considering all appearances and opinions worthless. Possibly he
considered, like some Indian epistemologists,3 that appearances were all illusion,
and that reality could only be approached by a rigorous stripping away of
human nature (which he is said to have agreed was difficult). Maybe he thought
it necessary to balance every statement by its opposite if one is to approximate
the truth [italics mine] (Wiley 1966, 1112). Or else he agreed with Stoic
epistemologists that the wise man does not believe anything that might possibly
be false, and thence inferred that we should not believe anything. He may also
have shared Stoic ethics. On the one hand, he would maintain that nothing
is honourable or base, or just or unjust, and that likewise in all cases nothing
exists in truth; and that convention and habit are the basis of everything men do
(Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Philosophers 9.62: Long and Sedley 1987, vol.1,
13 (1A)).4 On the other, he was often paired with Aristo of Chios, a hardline
Stoic persuaded that nothing mattered but virtuethat is, the power to endure
whatever happens, without thinking it either good or bad. Ciceros comment has
some force:
Since Aristo and Pyrrho thought that [life, health, pleasure, beauty, wealth,
reputation, noble birth] were of no account at all, to the extent of saying that
there was utterly no difference between the best of health and the gravest illness,
arguments against them rightly stopped a long time ago. For the effect of their
wish to make virtue on its own so all-embracing was to rob virtue of the capacity
to select things. (Cicero, On Ends 2.43: Long and Sedley 1987, vol. 1, 19 (2G))
If virtue is a disposition to choose rightly, but there is nothing to choose between

any outcome, can any choice be wrong?
But do we need to choose, if this means judging one option better than
another? Pyrrho followed the appearances, and his impulses, without supposing
that they were good or bad. This resembles a Buddhist strategy: equanimity
rests in not identifying with transient feelings of pleasure or pain, not supposing
that either are reliable indicators of what is good or bad, nor with any of the
thoughts that cross our minds.5 The policy of Pyrrhos successors as Pyrrhonian
Skeptics was simply to go with the flow, without insisting that this was right
or good or epistemologically sounder. Nor did they make claims about an
Living the Pyrrhonian Way
199
unknowable reality, not even that it was unknowable. Theirs was a strategy, not
a doctrine.
Attending to what is apparent, we live in accordance with everyday observances,
without holding opinionsfor we are not able to be utterly inactive. These
everyday observances seem to be fourfold, and to consist in guidance by nature,
necessitation by feelings, handing down of laws and customs, and teaching of
kinds of expertise. By natures guidance we are naturally capable of perceiving
and thinking. By the necessitation of feelings, hunger conducts us to food and
thirst to drink. By the handing down of customs and laws, we accept, from an
everyday point of view, that piety is good and impiety bad. By teaching of kinds
of expertise we are not inactive in those which we accept. (Sextus Empiricus
1994, 9 (1.234))
Nor did they assert the Stoic epistemological rule that it is wrong ever to
believe, or act on a belief, without adequate evidence6: that rule, consistently
followed, makes life impossible! If I am justified in believing only when I have
incontrovertible evidence, I cannot even do nothing. Even my clear perception
that grass is green is controvertiblestarting from the observation that green
is a secondary quality, existing only in the interaction of grass, light, and human
eyes. It is no more an objective truth that grass is green than that it is dark at
night (owls do not find it so). The most we can manage is that grass looks green,
to us. For we shall not be able ourselves to decide between our own appearances
and those of other animals, being ourselves part of the dispute and for that
reason more in need of someone to decide than ourselves able to judge (Sextus
Empiricus 1994, 17 (1.59)).
Pyrrhonians do not conclude that I should reject my ordinary knowledgeclaims (that I am sitting at a computer, that London is the capital of the United
Kingdom, that two plus two makes four, and tomorrow is another day). There
are believable cases for those claims, just as there are believablethough
more complexcases for their opposites. So a Pyrrhonian balances these
arguments and impressions against each other, and puts her trust in neither
and the argument that there are no justifiable beliefs is also controvertible! The
Pyrrhonian, in brief, seeks to behave in ordinary life as an academic philosopher
behaves in seminars. Our task as philosophers, seeking to induct our students
into the philosophical tradition, is to present opposing cases, not to persuade our
students of any particular dogmanot even of dogmatic disbelief.7 Sometimes
the seminar argument may betemporarilyresolved: no one has anything else
to say, at the moment, against some particular synthesis. But in another seminar
200
the argument will continue. Even if we cannot ourselves think of an argument

against some thesis, we may remember past occasions when the argument has
seemed to be settled, only to be subverted by the dawn of a new idea (Sextus
1994, 12 (1.34)). Conversely, even if we cannot ourselves see any solution, this
need not show that there is none. We suspend judgement about external existing
things, while the Cyrenaics [after Aristippus of Cyrene] assert that they have an
inapprehensible nature (Sextus 1994, 53 (1.215)).
Pyrrhonians offered this as a way to live.8 One response is that the Pyrrhonian
walks downstairs, and does not jump through windows; eats bread and cheese,
not worms; speaks some mother tongue, and not an invented code. The
Pyrrhonian must be a hypocrite, or else be cared for by her friends, lest she walk
off cliffs or try to breathe water. But this argument is poor, even if we allow the
question-begging conviction that the Pyrrhonian would not prosper if she did
such things. When Hume asserted that nature is always too strong for principle,
and that this alone would save Pyrrhonians from the total lethargy their
principles would require, he missed the point: far from refuting Pyrrhonism,
he endorsed it (Hume 1975, 160: section 12.2)!9 Even if I did firmly believe that
some mechanism would allow me to float down through the air (a parachute, an
antigravity belt), I might find it difficult to leap off the roof. Even if I did firmly
believe that worms were nutritious, I might gag at eating them. And even if I
do not know how gravity or digestion works, I will follow impulse and custom.
Pyrrhonians walk downstairs, eat bread and cheese, and chat to their colleagues
in an easy tongue. They do not have to think these impulses reveal the truth (but
neither do they deny it).10
[Pyrrho] did not want to make himself a stone or a stump. He wanted to make
himself a living, discoursing, thinking man, depending on and making use of all
those bodily and spiritual parts in the prescribed and proper way. The fantastic,
imaginary and false privileges of governing, ordering, and establishing truth that
man has usurped, he has renounced and abandoned in good faith. Indeed, there
is no sect that is not constrained to allow its wise man to go along with a number
of things neither understood, nor perceived, nor assented to, if he wants to live.
(Montaigne 2003, 67)
Does acting like this amount to believing? If Pyrrhonians follow nature,

feeling, custom, and the rules of art, what is it they are not doing? The very
word, peithesthai, which we translate as to believe, can signify this compliance.
What else is believing than complying? If I cheerfully drink something, do I not
show I believe it drinkable? But a nonrational animal, or a Pyrrhonian, does
201
not need to believe that it is true that it is drinkable, that it will do her good,
that anything which contradicts that claim is false, and that anyone who acts or
imagines otherwise is wrong.11 Nor do they need to consider the implications of
those imagined truths, or their larger context. Such observations as they make
are contextualand so immune to the arguments of Academic Skeptics (that if
I really knew even that this is a computer I would also know that there are no
mischievous aliens to deceive me on this point: not knowing the latter I do not
know the former).12 Further, whereas rationalists believe that the truth is one,
without a flaw (Waddell 1952, 59, citing Boethius Consolation of Philosophy),
Pyrrhonians do not insist: they do not need to synthesize their various hypotheses
because they are not considered truths. And this too is not unusual, even among
scientists: in this respect physicists are like ordinary people. If they cant resolve
a contradiction, and the contradiction is not pressing, they just disregard it and
give their attention to those aspects of the theory (or theories) that are pleasantly
consistent (Malin 2001, 90).
Must not Pyrrhonians at least be admitting the truth of phenomenalistic
beliefs, as Burnyeat argues?13 Grass looks green. Honey tastes sweet. I seem to be
at my computer, and I seem to be writing in English. There are stories that subvert
any objective implication of those beliefs. My experience is at least compatible
with its being true that I am asleep and dreaming, perhaps in a virtual reality.
What proof could you give if anyone should ask us, now, at the present moment,
whether we are asleep and our thoughts are a dream, or whether we are awake
and talking to each other in a waking condition?14
There is even a contemporary argument to the effect that it is actually very likely
that my experience is only virtual (Bostrom 2003)! But even if it is, I can only act
as the dream allows, and things still look and feel this way.
But even the phenomenalistic claim is controvertible. Pyrrhonians allowed
that honey tasted sweet, without agreeing that it really was: in this they followed
the evident, while putting aside any claims about the non-evident (Kuzminski
2008, 71112). The seemings they acknowledged may even have been public
seemings, not merely private impressions: they were speaking of our shared
human world. But is it certain that sweet identifies a real quality, or that I can
reidentify that quality on separate occasions? Is it not enough that, perhaps, I
lick my lips, utter appropriate noises (yummy), without there being any need
for a single quality even in my own experience, let alone the imagined objective
world? If there are no real essences (as some have argued), then there is no such
thing as sweetness, even subjectively. Do I need to suppose that pain identifies
202
a real, subjective property in order to exclaim, whimper, roll on the floor and
shriek? Is it necessary to think that it is true that pain is what I am in, in order to
resent it? Are such qualia real? Eliminative materialism is a respectable doctrine,
even if one is at odds with ordinary experience and folk-psychology! So the
Pyrrhonian can contest even the subjective, phenomenalistic assertion (Naess
1968, 1617). In another context, of course, both Academic and Pyrrhonian
Skeptics could offer arguments for the real existence of qualities.
What to do
Must Pyrrhonism weaken our morale? It takes a strong belief to step knowingly
off a cliff, even with a rope, and even if there is a visible ledge a few feet down. It
also takes a strong belief to defy or disobey tyrants. As long as the tyrant could
be in the right, Pyrrhonians may find it easier not to disturb a status quo. Like
other Hellenistic schools, their original aim is ataraxia, serenity, or equanimity:
where others hope to achieve that state by securing a conclusion, the Pyrrhonian
achieves it by surrendering that hope, and will thereafter follow impulse where
it leads. And maybe that is, after all, enough even for rebellion. Sextus suggests
that obedience to custom, unhampered by beliefs about how bad it is to suffer,
will help us defy tyrants, or at least ignore them,15 without succumbing to hatred
or conceit.
The profession of the Pyrrhonists is to waver, doubt and inquire, to be assured
of nothing. . . . Now this foundation of their judgement, straight and inflexible,
receiving all objects without application or consent, leads them to their ataraxia;
which is a condition of life that is peaceful, composed, exempt from the agitations
which we receive from the impression of the opinion and knowledge that we
think we have of things. From this arises fear, avarice, envy, immoderate desires,
ambition, pride, superstition, the love of novelty, rebellion, disobedience,
obstinacy, and the majority of bodily ills. In this way, to be sure, they exempt
themselves from jealousy for their discipline, for they debate in a very mild
manner. They do not fear rebuttal in their arguments. (Montaigne 2003, 645)
An attack on their arguments and assumptions is not an attack on them, nor are
they easily bribed or threatened.
Some critics have argued that this sort of life, while possible, is personally
destructive. Impulsive people, responding to every movement of the psychic
weather, are what Aristotle supposed the further barbarians to be (and the
203
deranged).16 They cannot be counted on to keep their promises, nor sustain a

project longer than it takes the wind to change. Or do Pyrrhonians hold themselves
to custom, at the expense of impulse, heathens rather than savages? How are
they to balance these demands?
On the one hand, it seems that Pyrrhonians must be identified with their
impulses or their tribal customs, with no reason to resist or to reform them.
On the other, they must be detached from exactly those impulses and customs,
even while they act them out. Whereas ordinary agents choose one thing over
another (raspberries over strawberries; peace over war) as being better than the
other, Pyrrhonians make no such claim. Confronted by the questionnaires and
opinion polls endemic in our age and region, the Pyrrhonian is happy to count
as a Dont Know, and so is immune to demagogues.
But must this detachment not be constantly subverted? Some things matter
to us in ways that are difficult to forget. These may not be the things most often
mentioned. Bodily pain gets our attention, but we can moderate its effects by
conceiving that this is only a rather unpleasant dream, from which one may
soon awaken. At least it is not certain that pain is an evil (even if it feels that
way).17 On other occasions these dreamy thoughts can be disciplined by a swift
reminder of the recalcitrance of things!18 There is a thought and feeling familiar
to depressives, that there is not any point getting up, or going out, or bothering
to eat: argument is unlikely to dislodge depression, but Pyrrhonism sometimes
may, by suggesting that this all-pervasive mood is not ones self, nor certainly
veridical, or even allowing the possibility of a divine inspiration.19
It is custom and example that persuade us, rather than any certain
knowledge (Descartes 1985, 119). Other possibilities could be true: maybe this
is a virtual reality; maybe we are controlled by aliens; maybe there is a worldwide
military-industrial complex financed by the Rothschilds. It would be hard to
prove otherwise. Most of us are content to ignore these possibilities. We also
ignore even the stories that we think certainly true: that the world is very big, and
very old, and that each of us is mortal. If we can manage without acknowledging
the truth, why might not Pyrrhonians?
Descartes first maxim, before he satisfied himself that there were literally
unquestionable dogmas, was to obey the laws and customs of my country,
holding constantly to the religion in which by Gods grace I had been instructed
from my childhood, and governing myself in all other matters according to the
most moderate and least extreme opinionsthe opinions commonly accepted
in practice by the most sensible of those with whom I should have to live
(Descartes 1985, 123). In this age and region we are encouraged to believe that
204
only material facts are known. But are there not moral truths that we are far
less likely to abandon than even the best supported materialistic theories? Even
the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution might conceivably be mistaken, but most
of us cannot suppose that there might really be nothing wrong with torturing
children, even thoughat some risk to the purity of our imaginationswe
can envisage the state of mind and character required to believe this. There are
possible worlds where terrestrial life was planted, cultivated, and weeded by
envoys of the Galactic Empire, but there are no really possible worlds where
the rape and murder of children is correct. It is such moralnot legaltruths
that best rebut Pyrrhonians. Homosexual acts were criminal in Rome, but not
in Persia (Sextus Empiricus 1994, 38 (1.152)). But we cannot suppose that right
and wrong (as distinct from lawful and unlawful) depend on national or
natural boundaries.
Can Pyrrhonists reply? When Pyrrho, it is said, grew enraged on his sisters
behalf, it was not in obedience to an abstract doctrine (that one should defend
ones female relatives), but following natural impulse, in immediate recognition
of someone dear to him.20 Similarly, Kuzminski suggests that in the absence
of rationalizing, soothing, or distracting dogmatic beliefs about what [was]
going on [in a Roman arena], there would be revulsion and disgust at the
spectacle (2008, 106). Because the Pyrrhonian is not persuaded that reason is
a superior faculty she is less likely to feel superior, and so more likely to be kind:
Montaignes Apology is at once a defence of Pyrrhonism and of sympathy for
the nonhuman! Maybe doctrines are what subvert the immediate and honest
response to iniquity?
What to be
In the absence of reasoned certainty, or even a reasoned claim to objective
probability, what other goal could we have than to achieve and maintain serenity,
in ourselves and in the society we seem to ourselves to inhabit (Sedley 1983)?
Pyrrhonians could follow Plotinuss advice: we should be spectators of murders,
and all deaths, and takings and sacking of cities, as if they were on the stages of
theatres (Plotinus, Ennead III.2 [47].15, 44f: Armstrong 1967, 93). But we do
not need to be entirely passive. Whether its reality or a dream, doing whats
right is what matters. If its reality, then for the sake of reality; if its a dream, then
for the purpose of winning friends for when we awaken (Calderon 2004, 137).
Shestov, though he made use of skeptical tropes in attacking rationalism, did
205
not make personal equanimity his goal.21 Nor do we need to be single-minded,

even in the pursuit of peace. The gods of Greece included Dionysus, Aphrodite,
Aresall spirits of destruction. Pyrrhonians may need to admit the occasional
force of those spirits, and balance them against their opposites. They will not
simply expel them from their souls citadel, and unlike Plato they will prefer to
be clever enough to be able to assume all kinds of forms.22
John Keats commented on his friend Charles Dilke that he was a man who
cannot feel he has a personal identity unless he has made up his Mind about
everything. The only means of strengthening ones intellect is to make up ones
mind about nothingto let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts (1958,
213). Only once we have surrendered our common claims to knowledge and
to common sense can we be changed. This was Montaignes proposal for the
use of Skepticism: that it left us stripped of human knowledge, and so much
more likely to receive divine knowledge . . . a blank tablet prepared to take from
Gods finger such forms as it pleases Him to write on it. The more we turn back
and commit ourselves to God and renounce ourselves, the more we are worth
(Montaigne 2003, 68).23 All too often we prefer to keep to our old opinions even
when the evidence on which they were once based is shown to be mistaken
or irrelevant: we cannot bear to admit that we were ever wrong!24 The solution
is to disconnect. In the Buddhist tradition, so Kuzminski suggests, our beliefs
are called attachments (2008, 139),25 and the goal of Buddhist practice, as of
Pyrrhonian, is to give them up. What follows after is another story.26
Notes
1 An earlier version was read to a symposium on my own work at the University of
Liverpool in September 2010: I am grateful to my auditors, especially Sam Clark,
Daniel Hill, Michael McGhee, John Skorupski, and Panayiota Vassilopoulou.
2 See (Numbers 2009).
3 See (OFlaherty 1984).
4 All references to ancient authors are noted with the relevant standard citation.
Where I have quoted a particular translation I have also cited that. Thus references
to Diogenes Lives, Sextus Empiricus or Cicero indicate both the book and chapter of
the ancient volumes, and a reliable anthology and commentary, for example that on
the Hellenistic texts edited by Long and Sedley 1987.
5 See (Hanson and Mendius 2009, 10918).
6 See Clifford 1901, vol. II, 163, after Cicero Academica 1.43: nothing is more
disgraceful than for assent and approval to outstrip knowledge and perception.
206
7 See Wittgenstein 1981, section 455: The philosopher is not a citizen of any
community of ideas (Denkgemeinde). That is what makes him into a philosopher.
8 See (Bett 1986; Maia Neto 1995).
9 See (Kuzminski 2008, 1315).
10 See Sextus Empiricus 1994, 61 (1.230): Pyrrhonians go along with things, not
resisting but simply following without strong inclination or adherence (as a boy is
said to go along with his chaperon).
11 Pyrrho, according to Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Philosophers 9.68, pointed to
a pigs indifference to the threat of ship-wreck as a good example of serenity in
action, and an explanation of his own failure to panic.
12 See (Lehrer 1971).
13 See (Burnyeat 1980). See also (Thorsrud 2009, 17580).
14 Plato Theaetetus 157c158e: cited in OFlaherty 1984, 39. The unnoticed irony of
this remark is that it occurs within a work of fiction: Socrates and Theaetetus,
even if they had real-world counterparts, are dream figures. Burnyeat has argued
that Greek philosophy does not know the problem of proving in a general way the
existence of an external world (1982, 19). Perhaps so, but his argument depends
on a confusion between a belief that something is the case, and a belief that there
are bodies of a familiar sort. Even if we are dreaming, even if there is only me
dreaming, there would be a fact of the matter distinct from my imagining it. It does
not follow that I know what it is.
15 See Naess 1968, 65 after Sextus Empiricuss Against the Ethicists, pp. 1607.
16 See Aristotles Nicomachean Ethics, Book 7, 1149a10.
17 According to T. E. Lawrence, as portrayed in David Lynchs film Lawrence of Arabia
(1962), the trick [about enduring pain] is not minding that it hurts.
18 See OFlaherty: When lifesamsarabecomes too full of suffering, or even
too full of happiness, we tell ourselves, This must be a dream, hoping in this way
to transform the all-too-real into what we define as unreality. By contrast, we
sometimes find ourselves caught up in a dream that we cannot get enough of, a
dream so wonderful that, when we wake, we cry to dream again. Then we pull this
moment closer to us, telling ourselves, This is real life; I am awake, hoping in this
way to turn the dream into what we define as reality (1984, 301).
19 See al-Ghazali: My disease grew worse and lasted almost two months, during
which I fell prey to skepticism (safaa), though neither in theory nor in outward
expression. At last, God the Almighty cured me of that disease and I recovered my
health and mental equilibrium. The self-evident principles of reason again seemed
acceptable; I trusted them and in them felt safe and certain. I reached this point not
by well-ordered or methodical argument, but by means of a light God the Almighty
cast into my breast, which light is the key to most knowledge (2002, 67).
20 See Kuzminski 2008, 23, commenting on Diogenes Laertius, Lives 9.66. See also
(Nussbaum 1994, 315).
207
21 See Maia Neto 1995, 97 citing Shestovs All Things Are Possible: The summit of
human existence, say the philosophers, is spiritual serenity, aequanimitas. But in
that case the animals should be our ideal, for in the matter of imperturbability they
leave nothing to be desired (Shestov 1977, 54).
22 See Platos Republic 3.398a; see also 10.608a.
23 See (Maia Neto 1995, 1415).
24 See Keohane 2010: In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the
University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political
partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their
minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Thanks to
Piers Stephens for the reference.
25 See also (Pruyser 1974, 24855).
26 The question of the Buddhist influence on Pyrrho and Pyrrhonism is debated by
Flintoff in Pyrrho and India.
Bibliography
al-Ghazali, Abu Hamid Muhammad Ibn Muhammad Ibn Ahmad al-Tusi. (2002),
Deliverance from Error and Mystical Union with the Almighty (1106/7): A Translation
of al-Munqidh min al-Dalal by Muhammad Abulaylah, George F. McLean (ed.).
Washington, DC: Council for Research in Values & Philosophy.
Armstrong, A. H., trans. (1967), Plotinus: Enneads, vol. 3. London: Loeb Classical
Library, Heinemann.
Bett, Richard. (1986), Scepticism as a Way of Life and Scepticism as Pure Theory,
in Michael Whitby, Philip Hardie, and Mary Whitby (eds), Homo Viator: Classical
Essays for John Bramble. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press, 4957.
Bostrom, Nick. (2003), Are You Living in a Computer Simulation? Philosophical
Quarterly 53: 24355.
Burnyeat, Myles. (1980), Can the Sceptic Live his Scepticism? in Malcolm Schofield,
Myles Burnyeat, and Jonathan Barnes (eds), Doubt and Dogmatism: Studies in
Hellenistic Epistemology. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2053.
. (1982), Idealism and Greek Philosophy: What Descartes Saw and Berkeley Missed,
Philosophical Review 91: 340.
Calderon de la Barca, Pedro. (2004), Lifes a Dream. Boulder: University Press of
Colorado (first published as La vida es sueo in 1635).
Clifford, W. K. (1901), Lectures and Essays, L. Stephen and F. Pollock (eds). London:
Macmillan.
Descartes, Ren. (1985), Discourse on the Method (1637) in John Cottingham, Robert
Stoothoff, and Dugald Murdoch (trans and eds), The Philosophical Writings of
Descartes, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
208
Diogenes Laertius. (1989), Lives of Eminent Philosophers, R. D. Hicks (trans.). London:

Heinemann.
Flintoff, Everard. (1980), Pyrrho and India, Phronesis 25: 88108.
Hanson, Rick and Mendius, Richard. (2009), Buddhas Brain: The Practical Neuroscience
of Happiness, Love and Wisdom. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications.
Hume, David. (1975), Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, 3rd edn,
P. H. Nidditch (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Keats, John. (1958), The Letters of John Keats, vol. 2, H. E. Rollins (ed.). Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Keohane, Joe. (2010), How Facts Backfire, Boston Globe July 11. www.boston.com/
bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/ (accessed July 12,
2010).
Kuzminski, Adrian. (2008), Pyrrhonism: How the Ancient Greeks Reinvented Buddhism.
Plymouth: Lexington Books.
Lehrer, Keith. (1971), Why Not Scepticism? The Philosophical Forum 5: 28998;
reprinted in Pojman 2003: 5663.
Long, A. A. and Sedley, D. N., eds (1995), The Hellenistic Philosophers. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Maia Neto, Jos R. (1995), The Christianization of Pyrrhonism: Scepticism and Faith in
Pascal, Kierkegaard and Shestov. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Malin, Shimon. (2001), Nature Loves to Hide. New York: Oxford University Press.
Montaigne, Michel de. (2003), Apology for Raymond Sebond, Roger Ariew and Marjorie
Grene (trans). Indianapolis: Hackett (first written 1576).
Naess, Arne. (1968), Scepticism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Numbers, Ronald, ed. (2009), Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths About Science and
Religion. Princeton: Harvard University Press.
Nussbaum, Martha. (1994), The Therapy of Desire. New Jersey: Princeton University
Press.
OFlaherty, Wendy Doniger. (1984), Dreams, Illusions and Other Realities. Chicago:
Pojman, Louis, ed. (2003), The Theory of Knowledge: Classical and Contemporary
Readings, 3rd edn. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Pruyser, Paul. (1974), Between Belief and Unbelief. London: Sheldon Press.
Sedley, David. (1983), The Motivation of Greek Scepticism, in Myles F. Burnyeat (ed.),
The Skeptical Tradition. Berkeley: University of California Press, 929.
Sextus Empiricus. (1936), Against the Ethicists, R. G. Bury (trans.). London: Loeb Classical
Library, Heinemann.
. (1994), Outlines of Scepticism, Julia Annas and Jonathan Barnes (trans). Cambridge:
Shestov, Lev. (1977), All Things Are Possible, Bernard Martin (trans.). Athens: Ohio
University Press.
209
Thorsrud, Harald. (2009), Ancient Scepticism. Stocksfield: Acumen.

Waddell, Helen, trans. (1952), Medieval Latin Lyrics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Wiley, Margaret L. (1966), Creative Sceptics. London: Allen & Unwin.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. (1981), Zettel, G. E. M. Anscombe and G. H. von Wright (eds),
G. E. M. Anscombe (trans.). Oxford: Blackwell.
15
Intuition as the Business of Philosophy:

Wittgenstein and Philosophys Turn to Life
Neil Turnbull
In the twentieth century, Western philosophy was a discipline in crisis. The

emergence of positivism and pragmatism (in the Anglo-Sphere), as well as
the drift toward a radical philosophical nihilism (in mainland Europe), had
seemingly restricted Western philosophy to superficial modes of investigation,
specifically to inquiries focused upon either the rigor and precision gleaned from
conceptual analysis or the existential and political powers derived from subjective
intuitions. As such, philosophys historic connection to the ideal of the real
that it had viewed as residing in a realm beyond that circumscribed by more
mundane ontologiesappeared to have been severed, and as a consequence
philosophys sense of intellectual purpose was deemed to have been significantly
diminished, especially when the philosopher was presented with the force of the
radical ontological commitments of the theoretical sciences. As a consequence,
the classical ideals of philosophy that aimed to put the intellect in touch with
the world as real appeared now to be little more than an irresponsible flight
into a world of fading dreams (Gadamer 1981, 139). Moreover, the irresistible
rise of an everyday, quotidian culture now appeared to pose a new democratic
threat to philosophys positioning of itself above the fray of ordinary culture.
New everyday worlds seemed to have created another, completely general,
context of relevance that had little need of input from philosophers, especially
in their engendering of a popular anti-Platonism that denied philosophy any
significant cultural vantage point. It is this latter phenomenon that is perhaps the
most important in relation to the attempt to understand the wider significance
of the recent crisis of philosophy, as the everyday still continues to represent a
threatening form of sophistry for the philosopher, even if the current ubiquity
of the everyday suggests a potential new role for the Platonic philosopher as a
212
critic of the metaphysics of the empires of media-generated opinion that now

increasingly render everyday life as intellectually inert.
In this regard, it is interesting that we can now see that the twentieth century
was when philosophy began to question itself and to seek out another path for
thought beyond that of philosophical reason (at least as it had been defined and
practiced within the modern versions of the discipline). In fact the choice facing
philosophy in the twentieth century was precisely spelled out by Henri Bergson.
For Bergson [e]ither there is no philosophy possible, and all knowledge of
things is a practical knowledge aimed at the profit to be drawn from them, or
else philosophy consists in placing oneself within the object itself by an effort
of intuition (Bergson 1913, 37). With respect to the latter, this often meant
searching for a new opening to a more authentic version of philosophy beyond
the logic of utility and calculation, one where traditional forms of philosophy
were replaced by a new poeticized discourse that strove to capture what is
presupposed by all forms of knowledge and truth claims. This was the essence
of Heideggers project and also that of Blanchotboth of whom attempted to
refound philosophy upon the anti-subjective and anti-epistemological modes of
truth contained in a certain experience of mystikos (see Hart 2004).1 For others,
however, it demanded something quite different: a search for a conception
of philosophy entirely at home in the new quotidianised world, a worldly
philosophy that allowed the new everyday worlds to emerge more fully and in
a more authentic form. This was the position, I want to suggest, taken by the
later Wittgenstein, and it is a position that effectively redefines philosophy as
an activity that aims to reconnect philosophical inquiry (and thought more
generally) to its primary lived contextto the ordinary life that nourishes it,
sustains it and in the end always provides it with material for its reflections.
The overall significance of the philosophical method espoused by the later
Wittgenstein is the subject of this essay. In what follows, I will use his conception
of philosophy in order to explore the viability of one particular response to this
crisisthe thesis that philosophy must now immerse itself within the everyday,
and be functional and relevant both within it and for it, if it is to survive in the
leveling maelstrom of late modern experience. More specifically, as a response to
the twentieth-century crisis of philosophy, I will claim that Wittgenstein allows
for a refounding of thought on the terrain of everyday linguistic practices, but
with a view to liberating it from its entanglement in linguistic rules (Wittgenstein
1953, 25). In so doing, I claim that Wittgenstein creates a new vantage point for
thought that enables it to see through and beyond the intellectual chimeras cast
by the deep social conventions (for him grammatical rules) that guide ordinary
Intuition as the Business of Philosophy
213
routines and actions.2 By exposing the conventionality of everyday life through

an analysis of language that reveals language as, necessarily, an expression of
life, Wittgenstein, I want to suggest, establishes that everyday life is always
more than merely the everydayas it is always and everywhere everyday life,
a hurly burly of activities that could always be conventionalized (in language)
differently (life is thus for him more than mere nature, as it connotes the
full complexity of the human context, the complex of actions, experiences,
and affects that is always a dynamic weave out of which the conceptually
patterning and organizing powers of language emerge). By disclosing this
life hidden beneath convention, Wittgensteins philosophical task, I propose,
is basically emancipatory as it aims to liberate everyday lifethe life that is
now dominant in all late modern societiesfrom the distortions produced
by a wider linguistic environment that constantly threatens to undermine its
vitality as well as its general capacity for practical action. We might say that
Wittgensteins general intellectual motivation is to counter a conception of the
real as it has been articulated in modern philosophy, the real as substantial
thing, res extensa or res cogitians, with another idea of the real, one that is
revealed through a close attention to the interweaving of language and everyday
life, the real as the activity of life itself (a quasi-transcendent genus of which
contemporary forms of everyday life are an immanent historical species). It is
to remind those engaged in everyday life, a life that is now impregnated from
all sides by colonizing intellectual discourses of various kinds, what it actually
is beyond all attempts to define it in theory. As such, I claim that Wittgensteins
later philosophy is one that demands that every philosopher today develop a
reflexive understanding of their own historical intellectual predicament, one
that sustains a constant vigilance toward the potential distortions produced
within ordinary language by traditionally sanctioned intellectual discourses
(a conception of philosophy that, somewhat ironically in this context, he shares
with Descartes).3 Overall, I want to suggest that Wittgensteins claim that
philosophy has to become relevant at the level of everyday lifeto address what
he terms our real needis the only way to proceed philosophically given the
current cultural dominance of la vie quotidienne.
Philosophy and the rise of the quotidian

For those of us old enough to have had the benefit of a Marxist adolescence,
the claim that philosophers ought to consider the nature of the relationship
214
between philosophy and everyday life should come as no surprise at all. For
within this tradition, especially the Gramscian tradition of cultural Marxism,
understanding this relationship was seen as the key to prising open a key
problematic of contemporary capitalismhow to unleash the critical potential of
everyday subjectivity in the context of capitalist social relations. For philosophers
working within this tradition, everyday contexts are fundamentally ambiguous
spaces; on the one hand, they are spaces of alienation and ennui, on the other
they are realms that possess the latent philosophical potential for a systematic
intellectual critique of these same conditions. In this way, for Gramsci, the
primary task of the contemporary philosopher is to develop a critical awareness
within everyday life of the (hegemonic) political forces that shape everyday
consciousness, with a view to bringing about the latters progressive development
in a new popular philosophical sensibility. In fact, following Gramsci, we might
claim that in the contemporary age of mass production/mass consumption, when
all conceptual hierarchies seem to have been flattened and all ideational forms
seemingly reduced to a matter of lifestyle, one is forced to acknowledge that
the old Platonic conception of philosophy is now moribund and as a result, as
Gramsci put it, everyone is a philosopheror at least a potential one (Gramsci
1971, 330). For many contemporary (post-Marxist) philosophers, however, this
conception of philosophy sounds overly romantic, especially given that there is
now a general suspicion that any philosopher could in fact perform the role of
consciousness-raiser (who, today, would listen to them in this regard?). Today,
as the self-critical potential of everyday life is very much in abeyance, it can
appear ridiculous to call oneself a philosopher (Lacou-Labarthe 1990, 1).
Given widespread doubts about the possibility of developing a genuinely
philosophical attitude within everyday life, philosophy, for many, can only exist
as a historical phenomenon, as a species of the classical, nostalgically limping
on but devoid of any real historical significanceor as Adorno famously claimed,
[p]hilosophy, which once seemed obsolete, lives on because the moment to
realise it was missed (Adorno, 1973, 3).
It is at this point that the later Wittgenstein makes his entrance and offers us
an alternative.4 In his view, these critiques of philosophy are entirely apposite.
Everyday thought, he accepts, cannot be transformed by means of traditional ways
of doing philosophybecause everyday life is, at base, perfectly in order as it is.
However, this does not, as some have suggested, mean that everyday life is in no
need of correction, because in another sense, in the context of twentieth-century
modernity, it is perpetually at risk of losing itself in conceptions and definitions
derived from orthodox forms of philosophy (but also from science and modern
215
theoretical endeavors more generally). Therefore in his view, in order to retain a

significance for philosophy today the philosopher must perform a different role
than the one championed by Plato, one that accepts that the metaphysical beyond,
at least as traditionally conceived, must be replaced by another philosophical
ideain his case, of life as it can and should be lived (Wittgensteins philosophy,
we might say, is an attempt to lead thought toward an ethics, but without the
help of metaphysics).5 I will not defend this claim here as I have already done
this elsewhere.6 In this particular context, however, it is sufficient to point out
that for the later Wittgenstein life is what is shown to us once we have won the
philosophical battle against language, in showing that language is a phenomenon
of life (and not one that is essentially a logical relation to objects that comprise
a world). For the later Wittgenstein, life is the world as it isthe world and life
are one, as he said in The Tractatus (Wittgenstein 1922, 5.621)but lifes being
all that is the case reveals itself to the philosopher only once we focus on the
ordinary pragmatics of language, on what might be termed its ordinary vitality
its surrounding by a complex of actions, affects, and their reactions.
Thus for the later Wittgenstein philosophy cannot stand outside of human
life, it must engage with itfor this is its subject matter and, ultimately, its
audience as well. Moreover, for Wittgenstein this means that philosophy must
reinvent itself as a kind of workspecifically, as a particular form of expertise
that is capable of providing a service from the point of view of everyday life. But
what service could philosophy provide in this regard? For Gramsci it can only
be the provision of a critical political consciousness, but for Wittgenstein it is
something more directly philosophical. More precisely, for the later Wittgenstein
philosophy is not in the service of providing ideas or arguments (there are no
arguments as such in the work of the later Wittgenstein) but rather liberating
intuitions (hence his choice of the extended aphorism over the essay as the
main literary device through which philosophy can best articulate itself). And
with the later Wittgenstein one particular intuition stands out: the intuition of
life, an intuition that is capable of sustainingin the sense of providing a basic
existential justificationeveryday life as a space of assertion, thought and action
(that is maintaining an idea of everyday life as life). It is important to point out
at this point, however, that this claim amounts to a significant rejection of the
intellectual mainstream as far as scholarly interpretations of the philosophy of
the later-Wittgenstein is concerned. In this regard Anglo-American philosophy
has generally viewed him as an advocate of a philosophical anti-realism that
denies the ability of thought to access an evident transcendent reality (this
conception essentially positions Wittgenstein as a kind of linguistic idealist).7 In
216
the continental tradition conceptions of Wittgenstein as a mystical, anti-positivist

sophist have loomed large, and there have been attempts by Hadot to position
Wittgenstein as a mystic,8 by Badiou to conceive of Wittgenstein as a sophist9 and
by Lyotard to view Wittgenstein as an antimodernist philosopher of narrative and
storying.10 Against these positions, however, I will suggest that none of them is
adequate, because, Badiou notwithstanding, none recognizes that Wittgensteins
main problem is not some specific question or other but the nature of philosophy
itself. Wittgenstein, I want to suggest, was in fact a quasi-vitalist philosopher,
one whose pragmatism was merely a pretext for a new (business-like) attitude to
philosophy, where the philosopher does the hard work of bringing the everyday
back to an intuition of life in order to free it for meaningful activity. As an
attempt to put an intuition of life to use within everyday contexts (an intuition
that is located within language, but reveals at the same time languages limits)
Wittgensteins later philosophy is thus essentially a pragmatic intuitionism, and
in this way his philosophy rejects as false the dilemma posed by Bergson above.
The anamnesis of the ordinary: Wittgenstein

contra Bergson
The idea that philosophy should strive to attain an intuition of life, of its
primordial weave, from within ordinary linguistic experience clearly suggests
an affinity between Wittgensteins philosophy and that of Bergson. Like Bergson,
Wittgensteins philosophy is based on a profound intuition of the primordial
givenness of life, and this may suggest that Wittgenstein was a vitalist in the
Bergsonian sense. There are some important differences that can be pointed out
here, however. Specifically, with the philosophy of the later Wittgenstein such
intuitions are not immediately available but are the product of a peculiar kind
of work; more specifically a long business-like analytical focus on the way that
ordinary language actually functions (in Bergson, it requires a kind of intellectual
sympathy with objects). According to the later Wittgenstein, it is only by paying
attention to the way that we use languageand not to its formal syntactic or
semantic featuresthat we can discern the intimacy that exists between language
and life in an awareness that language cannot exist where the world is lifeless.
This suggests another important difference between these two philosophers. For
Wittgenstein, the intuition of life is not metaphysical in the Bergsonian sense of
the term because it provides us with a revelation without depth, for in his view
language is a surface phenomenon and life is only revealed through an analysis
217
of linguistic activity (analysis merely being a rearranging of linguistic items in

order to dispel intellectual perplexity). Wittgensteins method, we might say,
simply takes philosophy into life as it is lived, and thus back to what we all already
knew because we are all, always and already, in it. His philosophy thus amounts
to an amamnesis of the ordinaryit is not an extraordinary inquiry outside and
beyond the habits of mind more useful to life (Bergson 1913, 14) as it was for
Bergson. For Bergson, true philosophy is an empiricism of the depths that takes
us into fluidity and dynamism of lived experience. For the later Wittgenstein,
however, it is what we might term an empiricism of the surface, an empiricism
where the primordial datum is the experience of language, where nothing is
hidden and everything lies open to view (Wittgenstein 1953, 126). Of course
this experience itself is not readily available as it requires looking at language
as well as at ourselvesdifferently, as primarily active speakers and hearers,
and not, say, as observers or measurers.11 Another contrast with Bergson also
announces itself here. In bringing thought back to its everyday contexts, and
back to an intuition of the vitality that supports them, Wittgenstein exposes those
philosophies that attempt to problematize such contexts as essentially debilitating
fantasies. To put this in Bergsonian terms, for Wittgenstein philosophy must be
understood as a kind of fabulation.12 Philosophy, in his view, is a fabulation
that claims for itself an essential connection to a non-fabulated realm but in
a way that never actually escapes from fabulation. In fact Wittgensteins entire
philosophical project is to redefine the limits of fabulationto show how
fabulation only makes sense from within parameters set by the quotidian
conventions of making sense (so in this way, contra Bergson, Wittgenstein
was not hostile to religious forms of fabulation, as these, in his view, clearly
perform a useful function within everyday life). Overall, the later Wittgensteins
philosophy, we might say, is therefore an inverted Bergsonianism that attempts
to synthesise pragmatism and vitalism in a way that aims to transform everyday
life from within. But how is the philosopher to achieve this? What attitudes
and dispositions are required here?
The business of philosophy and the vitalist

metaphysics of the everyday
One of the key questions that must be addressed to Wittgensteins later work is
the question who, exactly is being addressed there? More specifically, who is
Wittgensteins audienceother philosophers, perhaps, or himself? The latter can
218
seem plausible, as The Philosophical Investigations often reads like a philosopher

arguing with himself. In the canonical literature, however, it is assumed to be the
former, because there Wittgenstein is viewed as a philosopher who undermines
all attempts by philosophers wanting to disrupt the practices of everyday life. In
this vein, it has been widely viewed that Wittgensteins philosophical method
prescribes that, as philosophers, we must always expose the philosophical question
to the withering power of a philosophical logic of the ordinary word. A close
attention to the texts, however, reveals that the later Wittgensteins general mode
of address seems to be much less academicist than this (note the almost total
lack of a scholarly apparatus in Wittgensteins work). Its audience, in fact, is an
imaginary everyone. In fact, the collective terms we, our, everyone typically
prefix Wittgensteins philosophical reflections (as can be seen in his famous claim
that everyone who has not been calloused by doing philosophy (my emphasis)
(Wittgenstein 1953, 348) should recognize that there is something profoundly
misconceived about philosophical problems.13 Thus we need to recognize that
Wittgensteins motivation to philosophize was always more practical and more
Tolstoyan (i.e. universal but also concerned fundamentally with the ordinary,
with the folk) and thus, in a way, basically ethical. More specifically, in his case
the purpose of philosophy is to alleviate a very particular kind of suffering, the
general sense of confusion and loss of focused intellectual orientation caused by
the rapid expansion of the realm of the pseudo-intellectual question. It is here
that we need to call in Wittgensteins Schopenhauerean heritage, which was so
important to the development of The Tractatus, and note that for Wittgenstein,
like Schopenhauer, the purpose of philosophy is essentially to break the link
between (mis)representation and suffering and, in this way, ultimately to find
an alternative way of doing philosophy that gives philosophy a new dignity
and purpose, where it is no longer tormented by questions that bring itself in
question (Wittgenstein 1953, 133). In this way, Wittgensteins overall aim is not
only to provide a new therapeutic for those suffering from theory-generated
intellectual perplexities and confusions in everyday contexts (as he himself
recognizes) but also to forge a new connection between the philosopher and
life, one where the philosopher no longer acts as the Platonic overseer but as
someone who, in immersing himself within the vagaries of everyday life, finds
a role for philosophy as an activity that, in bringing the lived basis of language
back into view, allows the feeling of life to return to those lost in shadows cast by
our linguistic conventions.
As a consequence, it is important to position the later Wittgenstein somewhere
between the everyday and the metaphysical, to the extent that we might
219
usefully refer to him as a metaphysician of the quotidian. As such, Wittgensteins

conception of philosophy carries with it an important idea of what it means to
be a philosopher in todays everyday world. For him, the job of the philosopher
is not merely to describe the way that language is actually used (Wittgenstein
was no ordinary language philosopher) but rather to uncover the rope that
ties the ship to the wharf, the lived and living contexts that ensure that any
symbolism functions as a language (and not merely a system of dead signs).
These overlapping fibers are the metaphor for the weave of life, and for him in
revealing this connection we reveal the imperative that thought concern itself with
life. Wittgenstein is clearly offering us a strong conception of philosophy here,
albeit one significantly revised given the power of the currents of the quotidian
experiences that dominate life today. Philosophy cannot stand outside beyond
the everydaythere is simply nowhere else for the contemporary philosopher
to stand. In fact, as already suggested, philosophy, for the later Wittgenstein,
must illuminate everyday life from within the darkness of our entanglement of
linguistic conventionsand in this way it can only be conceived as an attentive
and industrious activity, a constant battle against the distorting effects of language
(in a way, for the later Wittgenstein, the aim of the philosopher is to ensure that
everyday life stays connected to life in the context of a modernity that always
threatens separation in this regard, separation that, as Heidegger pointed out
darkens the world).
Wittgenstein and the escape from the tyranny of the idea

It is interesting by way of conclusion to compare Wittgensteins conception
of philosophy with that of the self-proclaimed contemporary Platonist Alain
Badiou.14 For Badiou, in a radical anti-Gramscian move, the end of philosophy
has, somewhat paradoxically, actually given rise to a new ubiquity of philosophy,
but only as health and entertainment products, not as a universal philosophical
sensibility in the strict sense (Badiou 2011, 68). Now everyone, in his view, is a
philosopher, but only in a way that has rendered philosophy essentially safe and
servile (popular equals in the service of capital in his account of this issue).
Against this, he defends a conception of philosophy that is both risky and
experimental with respect to extant values and mores and, in true Socratic
manner, a mode of philosophy willing to question and to argue against the
legitimacy of historical truths in the name of the eternal and the infinite (that
he equates with the mathematical).15 In this vein Badiou has recently examined
220
the philosophical legacy of the later Wittgensteinviewing his philosophy as a

classic late-modern restatement of a form of sophistry that attempts to bypass
philosophy in the name of an ordinary pragmatics of language, a philosophy that
has ceased to question but only describes, and thus upholds, in a conservative
way, the basic transcendental structures of the world as it currently exists.16 For
Badiou, however, philosophy today requires a political vanguard to articulate,
interpret, and defend the eternal truths and through these the possibility of other
worlds. For him, this requires the collective effort of a cadre of intellectuals who
effectively function like the priesthood of a church. With Gramsci, philosophy
collapses into the social sciences, but with Badiou it collapses into a politicized
theology.
Wittgenstein, however, offers us a third way, one that in retaining a connection
between philosophy and a particular kind of practical wisdom remains within
the orbit of philosophy as classically conceived. Wittgenstein was thus no
sophist and, when viewed from the vantage points of everyday life, in many ways
achieves what Badious philosophy seems blind toan account of the real that is
readily understandable by everyone, life as it is lived.17 In Badiou, we might say,
thought remains at the level of the idea, and as such, it can never affect anything
other than other ideas. It is, in the end, entangled in the very conventionality, the
linguistic conventions of the academic, from which Wittgensteins philosophy
allows philosophy to escape. Wittgensteins philosophy is thus founded on
a truer universal, the Tolstoyan universal of ordinary living (and in this sense
his philosophy is Platonism democratized as vitalism). Thus for the later
Wittgenstein, the true philosopher of today can no longer be an intellectual
in any straightforward way, he can only be a craft-worker; a skilled laborer in
language who maintains its vitality through an analytical practice that renders
any symbolism meaningless, unless it is possible to trace its connections back to
a life that is shared by all.
Notes
1 See Hart (2004).
2 These conventions, as they become embedded, present themselves as truthsfixed
ideas and forms that purport to accurately reflect the real. If there is a single unifying
idea underlying all of Wittgensteins philosophical endeavors, it is that the real
cannot be conventionalized as facticities reflected in our language.
221
3 More specifically, after Wittgenstein, it is clear that philosophy today must

begin from a series of reflections on the interconnections between philosophical
knowledge and its this-worldly conditions, and show how the former can
allow for a more realistic articulation of the latter (to the extent that, once this is
achieved, it can seem that the need for philosophy disappears).
4 The broad outlines of the later Wittgensteins philosophy are now well known, and
his key terms of art language games, forms of life, meaning as rule-governed
and conventional, philosophy as the bewitchment of the intelligence by means of
language are now part of the conceptual canon of Western intellectual life.
5 For the later Wittgenstein, there is nothing mysterious or esoteric about life. It
is perfectly visible to everyone, if we are taught to see through a deadening and
life-draining conception of language.
6 See Turnbull 2008 and 2012. A givenness that takes the subject beyond its confinement
within the false prisons of linguistic conventions, into a condition of true realismone
where the subject is liberated from language as an everyday agent.
7 See (Dummett 1978).
8 See (Hadot 2010).
9 See (Badiou 2012).
10 See (Lyotard 1979).
11 This is why, in an important sense, for the later Wittgenstein philosophical
problems can only be answered by a change of perspective, a change that may well
require a change in the way that people live. Again, there is a reflexive loop back
into life here.
12 According to Bergson, fabulation involves the attribution of intentional realities
to worldly events in order to cope with traumaespecially the trauma that ensues
from awareness of finitude, of the inevitability of death.
13 Of course this is the precise opposite of the Gramscian conception in that for
Wittgenstein, everyone is aware that philosophy cannot do what it has historically
aimed to do vis--vis everyday life.
14 We might say that the later Wittgensteins philosophy is a vitalist Platonism, as
with him an idea of life functions in exactly the same way as the eternal good does
in Plato. We might even say, with Wittgenstein, the cave is language that can only
be escaped via the light of life. It is an activity that illumines everyday life by
mobilizing an intuition of life to dispel the metaphysical shadows and showing us
that Platos cave was a false prison, an illusion created out of our own linguistic
conventions.
15 See (Badiou 2005) and (Badiou 2011, 7382).
16 See (Badiou 2012).
17 We might say that Badious philosophy has disavowed the everyday only for it
to return in his desire to produce manifestos that no one (unlike those of Marx,
222

who well understood that profound intertwining of language and life), apart from
professional philosophers, will readily understand. Wittgenstein, we might say, in
producing an album of short aphoristic philosophical reflections, realizes that only
the aphorism, rather than the tract, will allow philosophy to engage at the everyday
level.
Bibliography
Adorno, T. W. (1973), Negative Dialectics. London: Routledge.
Badiou, A. (2005), Politics as Truth Procedure, in Theoretical Writings. London:
Continuum, 15360.
. (2011), Second Manifesto for Philosophy. Cambridge: Polity.
. (2012), Wittgensteins Anti-Philosophy. London: Verso.
Bergson, H. (1913), An Introduction to Metaphysics. London: Macmillan.
Dummett, Michael. (1978), Truth and Other Enigmas. London: Duckworth.
Gadamer, H. G. (1981), Reason in the Age of Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gramsci, A. (1971), Selections from Prison Notebooks. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Hadot, P. (2010), Wittgenstein et Les Limits du Langage. Paris: Vrin.
Hart, K. (2004), The Dark Gaze: Maurice Blanchot and the Sacred. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Lacou-Labarthe, P. (1990), Heidegger, Art and Politics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lyotard, J. F. (1979), The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Manchester:
Manchester University Press.
Turnbull, N. (2007), Wittgensteins Leben: Language, Philosophy and the Authority
of the Everyday, in P. Candler and C. Cunningham (eds), Belief and Metaphysics.
Cambridge: SCM Press, 37492.
. (2012), From World to Life: Wittgensteins Social Vitalism and the Possibility of
Philosophy, in S. Shakespeare and K. Moody (eds), Intensities: Philosophy, Religion
and the Affirmation of Life. Aldershot: Ashgate (forthcoming).
Wittgenstein, L. (1922), The Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. London: Routledge, Kegan
and Paul.
. (1953), The Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.
16
On Life and Desire: Kant, Lewontin,

and Girard
Paul W. Bruno
In a footnote in the Critique of Judgment Kant references a rather enigmatic

definition of life that he had given in the Critique of Practical Reason. He writes,
. . . life is defined (narrowly) as the ability of a being to act according to laws
of the power of desire (Kant 1987, 276).1 The self-described narrowness of his
definition undoubtedly stems from its focus on human life,2 but it invites a host of
questions. For instance, if human life is characterized by desire, is it at all related
to animal life, or plant life for that matter? What is the relationship between life
and desire? My fundamental concern in this essay is the link between life and
desire. The essay will be broken into three distinct parts, and the pursuit of the
connection between life and desire will range from philosophy to biology to
literature. The goal is to weave together these three parts using the ideas of life and
desire as they are discussed by three different thinkers: philosopher Immanuel
Kant, evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin, and literary critic3 Rene Girard.
Given these disparate disciplines, this is an essay in the traditional sense of
attempt or try. A brief consideration of Kants critical project is required at the
outset. My claim here is that Kants defining life in terms of desire is a profound
insight, but one that is also hampered by the very terms of his investigation.
For Kant, law is the product of reason, and strictly speaking reason does
not have an experiential correlate.4 Thus, in keeping with Kants critical project
the laws of the power of desire are formal, a priori. But it is precisely desire, a
faculty with higher (rational) and lower (sensible) powers in Kants language that
mediates between reason and experience. The dynamic is not dissimilar to the
one sketched by Socrates in Platos Symposium.5 The higher and lower, rational
and sensible, poverty and plenty, mortality and immortality, these poles as
stipulated by Kant in the first two instances and Plato in the second two, provide
224
the frame of reference for desire. Thus, we see a sense of life emerge that relies on
a relationship between two poles.
We know that Kant labels his critical project Copernican. But, how should
we understand this Copernican turn, or to use Norman Kemp Smiths phrase,
Copernican analogy? It is Smiths contention that the analogy is frequently
misunderstood and that a proper understanding of it requires an examination
of Copernicus own writing, specifically his observations regarding motion. As
is the case with any analogy, some parallels are fitting and others are not. While
I think that Smiths analysis is correct, ultimately I want to look at Copernicus
from a different angle. He writes,
All apprehended change of place is due to movement either of the observed
object or of the observer, or to the difference in movements that are occurring
simultaneously in both. For if the observed object and the observer are moving
in the same direction with equal velocity, no motion can be detected. Now it is
from the earth that we visually apprehend the revolution of the heavens. If, then,
any movement is ascribed to the earth, that motion will generate the appearance
of itself in all things which are external to it, though as occurring in the opposite
direction, as if everything were passing across the earth. (De Revol., i., v.)6
Each of these kinds of motion described by Copernicus is binary, which is to say

Copernicus describes the relationship between two objectsno motion can
be detected by the observed object or by the observer. We might characterize
the first kind of motion described by Copernicus as an objectivist apprehension
of the universethe observed object (the heavens) moves, the observer (earth)
is stationary. To continue in this vein, we might call the second kind of motion
an idealist or subjectivist or even romantic apprehension of the worldthe
observer moves, the observed object is stationary, thus the source of motion
lies with the observer. The third kind of motion ought to give us pause. The
relationship recognizes both the observed object and the observer moving but
at different rates. Thus, some combination of objectivist and subjectivist/idealist
perspectives is at play. Perhaps Kants characterization of his own work as a
critical idealism approaches an apt description of this third kind of motion.7
With this phrase Kant makes clear that he is not interested in a strictly idealist
worldview, but no matter the label, the constraints of Kants project are worth
recognizing here. A consideration of the above quoted passage from Copernicus
may help us to apprehend the parameters of Kants critical project.
The third kind of motion is predicated on the two poles moving at different
rates. If the two objects are moving at the same rate, then no motion can be
On Life and Desire
225
detected by the observed object or the observer. An illustrative example here

would be two stationary people on a moving merry-go-round with the stipulation
that an objectless, monochromatic background surrounds the merry-go-round.
Neither person can apprehend a change of place in the other because they are
moving at the same rate. In the binary terms suggested, this makes perfect
sense. But, as readers we recognize a kind of bracketing taking place with this
third dynamic. We grasp that motion can indeed be detected, just not by the
two people on the merry-go-round. An observer of the two objects (and who is
Copernicus but a third party describing motion and who are we but a third party
imagining Copernicus description?) apprehends motion. Thus, if we break from
the binary terms of the description, motion can be observed. We recognize that
there is a triangular relationship implied, but not fully thematized by Copernicus
or addressed by Kant.
Smith explains Kants Copernican analogy as a hypothesis seeking a subjective
explanation of apparently objective motions (Smith 1913, 550). As Smith
points out, Kant is concerned more with the positive than with the negative
consequences of their common hypothesis. Using Copernicus language, Kant
is concerned with the observer and in keeping with the analogy, he investigates
the observers relationship with the observed. Thus, Kants approach is based on
a binary relationship.
For Kant, law is independent of experience and thus is independent of
relationships with others. While desire is central to life, Kant maintains that desire
originates in the subject and moreover, is independent of others. In Kantian
terms, the laws of the power of desire are formal, and laws are contentless.
Otfried Hffe writes,
The law, Kant says, is supposed to make the association of persons possible,
prior to all experience. Person is not a general anthropological notion here
but instead a specific legal concept. It denotes a legally competent subject, who
can be the cause of his actions and is free in this sense. Law has to do with the
outward freedom to do as one pleases without being at the mercy of others, and
not with inner or moral freedom in the sense of the independence of will from
instincts, desires and passions. (Hffe 1994, 171)
It is instructive that Hffe denies the anthropological significance to this Kantian

person, stressing instead the legal subjects outward freedom. Outwardly there
remains a legal subject, the agent of action who stands before the law as a legal
entity. Ones willa faculty of choosing only that which reason, independently
of inclination, recognizes as being necessary, i.e., as good (Kant 2005, 907)8is
226
on trial in the court of law. To use Hffes distinction, there remains then a person
in an anthropological sense, one who lives a life in association with other people
and who is informed by instinct, desire, and passion.9 It is the anthropological
constitution of person that interests me here. As stated before, Kants Copernican
turn ultimately sets the parameters for his investigation, and thus he investigates
desire in terms of a faculty.10
Smith is correct in his analysis of the Copernican analogy in Kant. The fruits
of Kants critical project are unassailablea subjective explanation of apparently
objective motions has yielded one of the greatest philosophical legacies.
Furthermore, it is irrefutable that Kants thought permeates contemporary
philosophy and, in many bastardized forms, modern popular discourse too.
While Kants approach was profitable, we must also recognize that by definition
it limited Kant.
I stated earlier that in Copernicus description of motion there appeared a
way to think of motion that involved a third party. I want to go on to consider
if there is a way to think about life that involves a trifold relationship, and then
conclude with a discussion of desire in the same triangular way.
The evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin begins The Triple Helix by
recognizing that the entire body of modern science rests on Descartes metaphor
of the world as a machine (Lewontin 2000, 3). This observation is not meant as
a dismissal of modern science, but rather points out that if we do not remain
cognizant of this thoroughgoing metaphor, we miss the aspects of the system
that do not fit the metaphorical approximation (Lewontin 2000, 4).
It is surely the case that we live at a time when metaphors of genetic
determinism abound. The language of blueprint or code or program guides
our apprehension of biology, genetics, and biotechnology, and the notion that a
specific genetic outcome controls the development of an organism dominates
popular discourse. This is a more pronounced version of the more traditionally
articulated nature versus nurture dichotomy precisely because of the modern
discoveries of the human genome, DNA, etc. Lewontin writes, The metaphor
of unfolding is then complete from the level of molecules to the level of the
whole organism . . . The development of an individual is explained in standard
biology as an unfolding of a sequence of events already set by a genetic program
(Lewontin 2000, 11). This model of individual organism unfolding conceives of
the environment as a trigger for starting the developmental process and as a host,
that is, as a place where the range of minimal environmental conditions required
for the individual organism to unfold is present. The simile Lewontin employs
for this second role attributed to the environment is one of old-fashioned film
On Life and Desire
227
development: . . . just as correct chemical baths are required for development

of a film but do not alter the shape of the final image (Lewontin 2000, 1213).
Lewontin emphatically calls this conception of organism and environment
interaction bad biology. There exists, and has existed for a long time, writes
Lewontin,
a large body of evidence that demonstrates that the ontogeny of an organism
is the consequence of a unique interaction between the genes it carries, the
temporal sequence of external environments through which it passes during its
life, and random events of molecular interactions within individual cells. It is
these interactions that must be incorporated into any proper account of how an
organism is formed. (Lewontin 2000, 1718)
Thus, Lewontin points out the inadequacies of binary or dualistic thinking in

biology. He goes on to illustrate the impossibility of genetic determinism using
a host of examples.11 Taking just one example, Lewontin examines the fruit fly
Drosophilia melanogaster. As is the case with insects, the fruit fly has sensory
bristles that detect its movement through the air. The sensors, the result of the
grouping of three different cells, are located under the left and right wing of
the fruit fly and have the same genes. Yet, there is a fluctuating asymmetry in
the number of bristles produced under the left and right wing in each fruit fly.
This is the case even though the average number of bristles produced on each
side of the fly is identical. Unless one were to take the absurd position that the
environment was different under the left and right wing (the insect itself is but
two millimeters in length and one millimeter in width), one could not account
for this difference based on the developmental environment. Lewontin concludes
that developmental noisea consequence of random events within cells at the
level of molecular interactionsis responsible for the difference in the number
of bristles produced under each wing (Lewontin 2000, 336). Lewontin shows
that conceiving of genetic code as the controlling mechanism of an organism is
fraught with misconceptions. Moreover, just as our conception of genetic code
is distorted, so too is our conception of the environment.
Lewontin examines the commonly held belief that organisms are fit for the
environment in which they live. He writes, . . . the fitness of organisms for
their environmental circumstances formed the agenda for Darwin in creating
a satisfactory theory of evolution (Lewontin 2000, 41). In order for Darwin to
conceive evolution in terms of adaptation, he had to first take a revolutionary
step in thinking about organism and environment. Previously there had been
228
no clear demarcation between internal processes and external ones.12 Lewontin

explains:
Darwin created a dramatic rupture in this intellectual tradition by alienating
the inside from the outside: by making an absolute separation between the
internal processes that generate the organism and the external processes, the
environment, in which the organism must operate. (Lewontin 2000, 42)
While there is a range of topics, historical and otherwise, to be considered here, I

want to focus on the implications for the way in which we conceive of the relationship
between organism and environment. We typically talk as if the environment were
something we human beings live in, a sort of complex terrarium within which we
live along with minerals, plants, and other animals. However, Lewontin points out
that an organism is never distinct from or separate from its environment. Just the
same, the environment is never exclusive of organisms. Indeed the environment
is a living organism comprised of living organisms evolving as biological activity
continues, multiplies, desists, and plays out.13 Lewontin writes, The external
conditions that constrain the evolution of modern organisms were constructed by
their ancestors (Lewontin 2000, 66). We get a glimpse of this with the following
example: As insects adapt to insecticides by becoming more resistant, they induce
the farmer to increase the frequency of spraying and to change the chemical.
Thus, they construct their own hostile environment (Lewontin 2000, 67). So a
host of interconnected, dynamic relationships are continually (re)constituting the
environment.
As I stated earlier, Lewontin recognizes from the first that the metaphor of
the machine (as first articulated by Descartes) saturates modern science. He
then recognizes the moment in evolutionary biology when Darwin took the
historical step of separating internal and external processes. Using a quotation
from Alexander Rosenblueth and Norbert Weiner, Lewontin explicitly warns
that [t]he price of metaphor is eternal vigilance.14 Just as vigilance is required
with metaphor, it is required of our awareness of momentous historical shifts like
the one undertaken by Darwin. This vigilance is not a precursor to rejection
Darwins ability to conceive of a separation of internal and external processes
is a sine qua non of evolutionary theorybut to an awareness of what can be
lost in these historical shifts. Unless one adheres to some myth of absolute
progress or exhaustive scientific knowledge, then the call for vigilance is simply
stating something so obvious that we miss it. Indeed, Lewontin suggests at the
conclusion of his book that [t]here is nothing in . . . this book that is not well
On Life and Desire
229
known to all biologists (Lewontin 2000, 129), but one understands this remark
as necessary because so many easily overlook it.
The metaphor of the machine conditions scientific discourse, and as such, it
conditions the study of life (biology). What is more, the language of the machine
leads to common (mis)conceptions of the relationship among gene, organism,
and environment. These conceptions are characterized by a kind of dualism, one
that elides the role of randomness, the third vertex together with organism and
environment that constitutes life. The Triple Helix is a call for us not to forget the
third vertex constituting biologythe elusive, ungraspable random events of
molecular interactions within individual cells to repeat Lewontins phrase.
In what remains of this essay, I would like to return to where I started, which
is to say, I would like to return to Kants promising link between life and desire.
But a return to this link must now take into account the foregoing analysis which
has shown that we have a truncated understanding of life. We saw that Kant
confines his critical investigation to the relationship between the apprehending
subject and the moving object. While he provocatively pairs life and desire, his
Copernican turn limits him to a definition of life that is, in the last analysis,
binary. While Copernicus description of motion suggests that motion might be
apprehended in a third way, Kants project ignores this in favor of a critique that
seeks a subjective explanation of apparently objective motions. Kants pursuit
of laws, as Hffe notes, leads to the conception of the person that is narrowly
conceived as a legally competent subject, one characterized by an outward
freedom to do as one pleases without being at the mercy of others. This leads
us to another Cartesian metaphor, that of the cogito. If Descartes metaphor of
the machine saturates modern science, so too does Descartes cogito saturate
modern philosophical conceptions of the person. It might not be a mistake to
recognize a relationship between Descartes seventeenth-century separation of
res extensa and res cogito and Darwins nineteenth-century separation of inner
and outer processes. Both make important differentiations that lead to fruitful
modes of investigation, but our vigilance is required.15
If, as has been suggested, life is inadequately conceived when confined
to dualities and binary relationships, how might we conceive of it? Inner and
outer. Subject and object. Organism and environment. Idealist and realist. These
dualisms (and others) are everywhere in play and indeed they are divisions that
have borne profound fruit. However, they also limit our apprehension of life.
What our analysis of Copernicus description of motion and Lewontins discussion
of the biological relationship among gene, organism, and environment has
suggested is that we must think beyond the binary to a three-fold relationship.
230
But, what might that look like? And how might life and desire help us in this
pursuit?
Since science and philosophy are laced with the dualities that I have
discussed, it may come as no surprise that they are of little help uncovering
the triangular dimension of life.16 Indeed, it was Rene Girards study of
literature that impelled his discovery of triangular desire. Novels17 disclosed
triangular desire to Girard. Contrary to the romantic lie that desire emerges
spontaneously in the subject, Girard saw in the texts of Cervantes, Flaubert,
Stendhal, and Dostoevsky among others,18 that desire is always mediated
through an other, a model, a mediator. An object is not desired for its
inherent desirabilityiPhones are not inherently more desirable than their
equivalent produced by Samsung or AT&T or whomeverand neither is it
desired spontaneously by each iPhone buyer.19 Our acquisitiveness surfaces
through models. Although his recognition began with an examination of
literary texts, Girard pursues his hypothesis regarding mimetic desire to
the process of hominization itself. Girard writes that animals possess in
common with human beings [acquisitive mimesis] (Girard 1987, 89), and
therefore the difference between animal and human is grounded in what
is common to both.20 Indeed, Girard asserts that mimetic desire is prior to
cognition. Human culture is predicated on mimesis. Girard writes, If human
beings suddenly ceased imitating, all forms of culture would vanish (Girard
1987,7).21 The idea of mimetic desire conflicts with our conceit that we are the
ones responsible for our own desires.22 Girard also insists that the acquisitive
dimension of desire is conflictual. Put more strongly, mutual appropriation
has an inescapably violent dimension to it, something philosophy, starting
with Plato, neglects. This violent dimension is pre-cognitive, but it sets up
a profound human taskagain, one that animals sharewhich is the task
of avoiding conflict. Thus, the fundamental rule facing humanity (and
animals) for Girard is preventing conflict (Girard 1987, 8).
Girards study of mythology and anthropology leads him to posit a
mechanismone that is at once visible and invisible (Girard 1987, 130)that
checks violence. He calls this the scapegoat or victimage mechanism, and it is
exemplified in foundational myths throughout the world. What is important
here is that the scapegoat mechanism acts as a means to stop some sort of crisis,
a plague, a conflict, or some mimetic frenzy, and it does so through collective
violenceall against one. A sacrifice takes place, the crisis stops, and the victim
is paradoxically divinized through his or her death, since the victim is held
responsible for the renewed calm in the community (Girard 1987, 27). Reflecting
On Life and Desire
231
on this dynamic, Andrew McKenna concludes: In the beginning, before the

beginning of man, was violence, which has no origin (McKenna 1992, 47). This
lack of origin is the lack of an object from which the violence emanates. The
violence is not in a person or object. Jean-Pierre Dupuy puts it this way:
The phrase At the beginning the Triangle already was, should not be
misconstrued. The triangular structure of human desire is not an origin, and
the vertices of the trianglethe subject, the mediator, and the objectare not
pre-existing entities. It is only through their transactions that they mutually
shape one another, giving the false impression that they were fully constituted
from the start. (Dupuy 2004, 277)
The convenience of separating inner and outer, subject and object, realist and
idealist is that we are able to concentrate on one or the other, to dissect them
as it were, but these abstractions leave us with a dilemma, namely: How do we
put them back together again? Moreover, the tendency with such dualities is
to privilege one side over the other side. In biology we miss life (bios) when
we reduce an organism to rote genetic unfolding just as we miss life when we
privilege an environmental determinism or when we separate out environment
and organism. We do not live in a genetic world, just as we do not live in an
environment.
Kants marvelous Copernican turn investigates the conditions of the
possibility of reason, of practical reason, and of judgment, but with respect to
morality and the will, we end up with (merely) a juridical subject, to use Hffes
image. While it is surely important that we have a subject responsible for his or
her actions before the law, we must more fundamentally recognize that human
life is always with others and our life with others is constitutive. Desire underlies
the cogito or the juridical subject. Girard sees this primordial conflict as a desire
for being. He writes, . . . [the subject] desires being, something he himself lacks
and which some other person seems to possess . . . (Girard 1977, 146).
My concern in this essay is with Kants linking life and desire.23 However, we
articulated a suspicion about binary or dualistic thinking with respect to life in
both philosophy and modern biology, and furthermore, recognized an invitation
to think of life in threes. Girard provides an opening to complete the circle back
to life and desire through thinking mimetically. It would be too convenient and
pat to state that the randomness that Lewontin recognizes as constitutive for
biology is analogous to the role of violence in Girards thought. Strictly speaking,
violence and randomness are not identical, but there is a resonance between the
two,24 one that McKenna adumbrates when he writes,
232
Three, not two, is the original figure of repetition for the same reason that
it is the ultimate figure of infinity, and of circularity, of eternal return, of
Wiederholungszwang, the compulsion to repeat: because there is no object for
a subject, as there is no nature for a culture, prior to another subject which
designates it as an object of desire and that subject in turn is only constituted by
the other subjects desire, and so infinitely, undecidably. For the origin of desire
is undecidable, being ever only, or always already, the copy, the repetition of
another desire. (McKenna 1992, 65)
Kant sought a subjective explanation of apparently objective motions, to repeat

Smiths phrase, and his project was a response to Copernicus observations about
the limits of explaining motion in strictly objective terms. This snapshotone
thinker responds to or copies a model or rivalrepeats itself throughout history
in varying forms whether in scientific or philosophic explanation. Seeking to
explain life in a genetic map or in an organism or in the environment leaves life
constrained by its terms, but if we use McKennas terms by way of Girard, with
desire, with triangular desire, three is the figure of infinity.
Notes
1 This quotation is taken from a footnote in 73 of the Critique of Judgment.
2 In Logic, when enumerating the questions that define the field of philosophy Kants
fourth and final question asks, What is man? (Kant 1974, 29).
3 It is difficult to categorize Girard as a thinker. His roots are in literary criticism, but
he ranges into anthropology, philosophy, theology, and more.
4 See Lewis White Beck. A Commentary on Kants Critique of Practical Reason, p. 38.
5 See Platos Symposium, esp. 203e204b. See also Engstrom 2009, esp. Ch. 2.
6 As quoted in (Smith 1913, 550).
7 Kant calls his philosophical approach critical idealism, yet even this does not
seem to capture the interrelationship in play here. See Kant, Prolegomena to any
Future Metaphysics (Remark III).
8 See margin number 41213 in James W. Ellingtons translation of the Grounding.
9 Hffe also recognizes that [o]nly from experience can one know what one desires . . .
(Hffe 1994, 157).
10 Recall Nietzsches ironical take on the frenzy Kant inspired after he discovered
a new faculty in man: The honeymoon of German philosophy arrived. All the
young theologians of the Tbingen seminary went into the bushesall looking for
faculties (Nietzsche 1989, 1718). See Part 1, paragraph 11.
On Life and Desire
233
11 The examples range from tropical rain forest vines, cloned Achillea millefolium
plants grown at different elevations, fruit flies, corn, and language acquisition
among Dinkas and Pygmies. See chapter 1, Gene and Organism.
12 Lewontin notes, There was, in the pre-modern view of nature, no clear separation
of living and dead, animate and inanimate (Lewontin 2000, 42).
13 Perhaps a useful metaphor (though not one without some of the problems
Lewontin discusses) for conceiving this dynamic is one used by Hans Jonas. He
writes that metabolism can well serve as the defining property of life: all living
things have it, no nonliving thing has it. What it denotes is this: to exist by way of
exchanging matter with the environment, transiently incorporate it, use it, excrete it
again. The German Stoffwechsel expresses it nicely (Jonas 1996, 889).
14 As quoted in (Lewontin 2000, 4). See A. Rosenblueth and N. Weiner (1951),
Purposeful and non-purposeful Behavior in Philosophy of Science 18.
15 There is no shortage of philosophers who have sought to challenge the traces of
Cartesian subjectivity that permeate modern Western thought. Nietzsche, Kierkegaard,
Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Gadamer, Voegelin, Derrida, Foucault, to name but a few.
16 I regard Lewontin as a scientific voice challenging the prevailing voices in modern
science.
17 For Milan Kundera it would be fitting that Girard finds the novel so fruitful for
the study of life. In The Art of the Novel he writes, The novel has accompanied
man uninterruptedly and faithfully since the beginning of the Modern Era. It was
then that the passion to know, which Husserl considered the essence of European
spirituality, seized the novel and led it to scrutinize mans concrete life and protect
it against the forgetting of being; to hold the life world under a permanent light
(Kundera 1988, 5).
18 See (Girard 1965).
19 Girard writes, The romantic vaniteux [i.e., he who convinces himself that he is
thoroughly original] always wants to convince himself that his desire is written
into the nature of things, or which amounts to the same thing, that it is the
emanation of a serene subjectivity, the creation ex nihilo of a quasi-divine ego.
Desire is no longer rooted in the object perhaps, but it is rooted in the subject; it
is certainly not rooted in the Other. The objective and subjective fallacies are one
and the same; both originate in the image which we all have of our own desires.
Subjectivisms and objectivisms, romanticisms and realisms, individualisms and
scientisms, idealisms and positivisms appear to be in opposition but are secretly in
agreement to conceal the presence of the mediator (Girard 1965, 1516). This is
worth reflecting on when considering Kants Copernican turn and his significant
influence on Romanticism, and here I am thinking of Coleridge.
20 For a detailed discussion on hominization see (Girard 1987), especially Book I, Ch. 3,
The Process of Hominization.
234
21 It is certainly the case that Girard would share Nietzsches suspicion regarding the
role faculties play in the history of philosophy. To speak of a faculty of desire
would be folly for Girard. See note 10 above.
22 Girard writes, . . . the seminal failure of these philosophers to encompass the entire
range of imitative behavior cannot be unrelated to the dearest of all our illusions,
the intimate conviction that our desires are really our own, that they are truly
original and spontaneous. Far from combating such an illusion, Freud flattered it
enormously when he wrote that the relationship of a person to his desires is really
the same as his relationship to his mother (Girard 1978, ix).
23 For an analysis of desire in strictly Kantian terms see (Engstrom 2009).
24 See (Girard 1977), esp. Ch. 1.
Bibliography
Beck, L. White. (1960), A Commentary on Kants Critique of Practical Reason. Chicago:
Dupuy, J.-P. (2004), Intersubjectivity and Embodiment, Journal of Bioeconomics 6:
27594.
Engstrom, Stephen. (2009), The Form of Practical Knowledge: A Study of the Categorical
Imperative. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Girard, Rene. (1965), Deceit, Desire and the Novel. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
. (1977), Violence and the Sacred. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
. (1978), To Double Business Bound: Essays on Literature, Mimesis, and Anthropology.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
. (1987), Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Hffe, O. (1994), Immanuel Kant, Marshall Farrier (trans.). Albany: State University of
New York Press.
Jonas, H. (1996 ), The Burden and Blessing of Mortality, in L. Vogel (ed.), Mortality
and Morality: A Search for Good After Auschwitz. Evanston: Northwestern University
Press.
Kant, I. (1974), Logic, Robert S. Hartman and Wolfgang Schwarz (trans). Indianapolis:
The Bobbs-Merrill Co.
. (1987), Critique of Judgment, Werner S. Pluhar (trans.). Indianapolis: Hackett
Publishing.
. (2005), Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals in Classics of Moral and Political
Theory, 4th edn, ed. Michael L. Morgan. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co.
Lewontin, R. (2000), The Triple Helix: Gene, Organism, and Environment. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
On Life and Desire
235
McKenna, A. (1992), Supplement to Apocalypse: Girard and Derrida, in F. J. Varela and

J.-P. Dupuy (eds), Understanding Origins: Contemporary Views on the Origin of Life,
Mind and Society. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Plato. (1997), Plato: Complete Works, J. M. Cooper (ed.). Indianapolis: Hackett
Publishing Co.
Smith, N. K. (1913), The Meaning of Kants Copernican Analogy, Mind, New Series
22(88): 54951.
17
The Wisdom of Emotions

Jason J. Howard
Emotions are essential to sentient existence, yet once we move beyond the
most obvious reason for their necessity, that of biological self-preservation, it
becomes difficult to say with precision what kind of contribution emotions make
to a worthwhile life. Are emotions largely distractions to the contemplative life?
Are they something we should try to avoid, or at least tolerate as a necessary
consequence of our own corporeality? Do emotions compromise our moral
autonomy? Work on emotion across the fields of psychology, biology, and
philosophy has come a long way in recent decades in painting a very different
picture of emotion than the one with which most of us are familiar. Rather than
seeing emotion as disruptive and chaotic, the echo of blind libidinal urges of our
animal past, a spirit of consensus has emerged across a wide range of perspectives
which sees emotion as integrative, stabilizing, developmentally indispensable,
and necessary for a healthy human existence; and this consensus persists despite
the fact that there remains considerable debate on what exactly constitutes an
emotion.1
My goal in this essay is to lay out both why we have emotions and how
they organize our lives. By examining some of the recent work in this area
from a range of perspectives, not only philosophical (phenomenological and
Anglo-American), but also psychological, I hope to distill what the cumulative
evidence suggests is the most likely function of emotion for human beings.
With this in place I conclude my account by inquiring into the kind of wisdom
that emotions bring to human existence and how this wisdom contains, even
if only in rudimentary form, something like a philosophy of life. If my analysis
is correct, we are best to see emotions as types of judgments that encapsulate
not only what we individually value most, but also delineate what we need to
flourish as a species.
238
Sartre explained in his Sketch for a Theory of the Emotions that in undergoing an
emotion consciousness is captured by its own belief in the world, which is why
basically all emotions have this one element in commonthey evoke the appearance
of the same world as our affective states: our feeling of joy sees the world as joyful, of
fear as fearful, of cruelty as cruel (Sartre 1962, 801). Everyone is familiar with this
fact, which speaks to the way emotions not only permeate our lives, accentuating the
ways we engage the world, but also perpetuate themselves, taking on a momentum
of their own. Because we are upset with our lover, our mind wanders to all those
other times we have been upset with our lover, one negative experience building on
another, and we work ourselves up until we are really pissed offmemories feed
our anger while our anger feeds our memories. This example could be extended to
countless others, but what it demonstrates is the interrelationship between belief and
emotional affection.
To take another example from Robert Solomon: I go into the parking lot in
search of my new car when I notice that it is gonestolen! My first reaction is
surprise quickly followed by anger. I start frantically looking around, helpless
and frustrated. My friend questions me and I respond dismissively, Of course
I know where I parked my car! A few moments later, after my monologue of
obscenities, I realize that I was looking in the wrong spot and that my car had
not been stolen; I simply forgot where I parked it. I may feel foolish and a bit
embarrassed momentarily, but it is also true that it would be irrational for me
to continue feeling angry about my car being stolen, since it was not stolen, and
that if I continued feeling angry about it my friend would be justified in thinking
that something was amiss; that, in fact, I must be angry about something else,
since it makes no sense for me to continue to be angry about something that
never actually happened (Solomon 1993, 12532).2
What this second example brings out in a way that was absent from the first
is that emotions and beliefs do not simply relate to one another. What we believe
both conditions and is conditioned by how we feel. Furthermore, the interaction
between beliefs and emotions also hinges in a very important way on what is
reasonable and unreasonable about beliefs and actions and how these beliefs map
onto states of affairs in the world. It is precisely this cognitive interrelationship,
with all its ramifications, that makes explaining human emotion such a difficult
undertaking because it largely disqualifies any straightforward reductionist
account, whether it be of the behaviorist staple or some other variety. What
seems undeniable is that, in the words of Sartre, emotion is a particular way
of being conscious; it is a specific manner of apprehending the world (Sartre
1962, 57).
239
Echoing Sartres point, one thing that psychological research has made
abundantly clear in recent decades in relation to the physiological causes
of emotion is that physiology directly contributes very little to helping
usunderstand either the great variety of human emotions or what distinguishes
one human emotion from another. To take but one example, the research of
Stanley Schachter and Jerome Singer demonstrates that the variety of emotions
and moods is by no means matched by an equal variety of visceral patterns. In
fact, repeated testing has confirmed that the same state of physiological arousal
could be named joy or fury or jealousy or any of a great diversity of emotional
labels, whose differentiation is dependent more on cognitive appraisals of ones
situation than anything else (Schachter and Singer 1984, 174 and 183). Likewise,
we have complicated relationships with our emotions. We often hide them from
others (Im not upset), feign them (but I really do love you!) and even deny them
of ourselves (Im not ashamedwhat do I have to be ashamed of?), all of which
would be hard to grasp were emotions primarily physiological stimuli. In the
words of Robert Solomon:
Such complex and common mistakes would be difficult to understand if they
were simply misinterpretations of various feelings or complexes of feelings. One
is rarely mistaken about his having a headache, or a toothache, about a feeling of
queasiness or nausea, the dullness that comes from a hangover, or the giddiness
that follows the inhalation of hashish. (Solomon 1993, 101)
However, it is one thing to say that physiological states of arousal will clarify little
about emotion, and quite another to say that emotions are completely conceptual
constructs, wholly intentional products of consciousness. One of the most
persuasive reasons to doubt that emotions are shaped exclusively by cognitive
processes is the impressive body of research surrounding what are commonly
called basic emotions. Carroll Izard, a leading researcher in the psychology of
emotions, defines basic emotions as those that involve internal bodily activity
and the capacity for expressive behavior that derive from evolutionarily adapted
neurological systems that emerge early in ontogeny, and so do not depend on
higher-order cognitive judgments, yet have a unique feeling component (Izard
2007, 262). Although a definitive list of what emotions should be regarded as
basic is still open to contention, typical candidates for inclusion are anger, fear,
and sadness. Most researchers in this area agree that these basic emotions are
universal, unlearned, automatic responses that play different but crucial roles in
regulating and motivating infant behavior. If this is true, then it is unlikely the
cognitive approach can be the sole factor in explaining emotion.
240
Although pin-pointing the function of emotion has met with some consensus,
actually explaining emotions has turned out to be trickier than was traditionally
imagined. Being neither simply physiological nor conceptual, forming neither
one simple class nor one uniform expression, emotions continue to elude easy
classification. As I see it, it is the very irreducibility of emotion, the difficulty we
have of isolating any sole condition or cause, that provides a clue to the manifold
functions emotions play in human life and the meaningfulness they engender.
Interestingly enough, this complexity is even at work in the case of biologically
basic emotions. Leading researchers working on the problem of basic emotion
in humans, such as James Averill, Paul Maclean, and Carroll Izard, agree that
those primitive emotions that are wholly biologically determined form a small
range of emotional responses that are rather quickly incorporated into more
complicated emotional schemes that rely on higher-order cognitive processes.3
As Carroll Izard explains, the influence of basic emotions is strongest in infancy
and decreases rapidly with maturation, socialization, cognitive development and
social learning (Izard 2007, 264). As a result, most theorists agree that basic
emotions are few in number, relatively infrequent, short in duration and are
quickly incorporated into higher-order emotion-schemes (Izard 2007, 265).
What this research demonstrates is that even when we see emotion in terms
of an immediate biological/physiological affect, say in the case of basic emotions
like fear, something we share with all other animals, when it comes to humans
such raw feelings are quickly incorporated into higher-order interpretive/
symbolic schemes. In the words of James Averill, there is no invariant core to
emotional behavior which remains untouched by socio-cultural influences,
and the insistence that there is stems more from prejudice toward emotion than
informed analysis (Averill 1980, 57). And so it seems fair to say that whatever
emotions are, they generally develop in their sophistication in reciprocal
interaction with other capacities, such as language, cognition, imagination, and
socialization, both multiplying and anchoring our needs through interaction
with others. Though only an analogy, we can think of emotions like the roots of
a tree: the more we mature the more expansive and multifarious our root system
becomes, tying us to others and to ourselves in manifold ways and dimensions.
It is commonly recognized by many in the field of philosophy of emotion that
emotions play an indispensible role in the development of cognition, serving,
in the words of Ronald de Sousa, as determinate patterns of salience among
objects of attention, lines of inquiry and inferential strategies which make
awareness and rational judgment specific and concrete (De Sousa 1980a, 137).
This definition is echoed by numerous philosophers, such as Amlie Rorty, who
241
defines them as prepropositional but intentional habits of salience, organization

and interpretation akin to magnetized dispositions (Rorty 1980a, 104) and
Roger Scruton, who explains, just as there is a knowing what to do, so there
is a knowing what to feel (Scruton 1980, 522) and this is not something we
consciously decide but something we are gifted with as members of a common
culture (Scruton 1980, 530). In anchoring attention and motivation, emotion
actualizes cognition and becomes something like the vehicle for many of our
evaluations. Because emotions are often rash or urgent judgments about
the world and our place in it, it should come as no surprise if they miss their
mark from time to time and lead us astray (Solomon 1980, 264). Consequently,
perhaps the best way to conceive of the truthfulness of emotion is in terms of
their appropriateness to a given occasion/belief.4 Certain emotions motivate us
in one way rather than another, and the type of motivation they instill enables us
to comport ourselves to what the situation requires.
Even though philosophers have abandoned the prejudice that emotions are
essentially destructive, or at least disruptive, of cognition, Martha Nussbaum
complains that most philosophers working on emotion continue to see it
in a rather circumscribed way.5 As a consequence, emotions are still viewed
along the lines of simple affective states that may be internally differentiated
according to an increasingly complex cognitive architecture, but the narrative
component of emotions continues to be overlooked. For Nussbaum, it is crucial
to appreciate the narrative component of emotion, which can better account for
the versatility, variability, and malleability of emotion at the level of individual
agency. In stating emotions have a narrative component I mean that emotions
fill themselves out, as it were, in coordination with our personal experience of
the world, coloring our engagements to differing degrees from early infancy to
old age. The narrative qua cognitive approach draws our attention to the fact that
emotions are situational, enacting schemes of interpretation whose boundaries
of significanceare always shifting. What this means is that the same emotion,
say envy, can arise in response to a wide variety of different pressures depending
on a persons past experience, and situation. For my part, I concur with this
narrative qua cognitive approach, and I believe it offers us a very helpful way of
narrowing down the how and why of emotion, and so brings into relief the
potential wisdom of our affective life.6
Following Nussbaum, we can say that emotions are appraisals or value
judgments which not only underscore how we evaluate things, but delineate,
however vaguely, what we require in order to flourish both as human beings
and as specific individuals, making salient those external objects that shape our
242
goals (Nussbaum 2001, 4). As a result, emotions are far from blind responses to
the world but disclose what we value most. Appealing to Aristotle, Nussbaum
argues that emotions are essentially eudaimonistic in character and reveal
a persons particular view on the world, their goals and projects (Nussbaum
2001, 41). Under this proposal, the most important function of emotion is
to disclose what we value, reminding us in the most visceral way possible
of what we cherish and what we dread. What is more, far from registering
simply primitive needs, emotions are indispensible in the discrimination of all
higher goods, such as friendship, love, and justice. Seen from this perspective,
emotion is a kind of existential compass, which brings into relief the way the
world appeals to us as social beings.
This obviously does not mean people cannot be mistaken about their
emotions, that we would never mistake jealousy for love, apathy forpatience,
if we simply paid enough attention to how we feel. Yet on a deeper level, people
only misinterpret their emotions, utilizing all those various psychological
defense mechanisms we have become so familiar with since Freud, because
so much is at stake in how we feel. Emotions are, as Nussbaum puts it,
eudaimonistic judgments, for if there is no personal investment of value
present, there is no emotion (Nussbaum 2001, 55). Moreover, this approach
can better explain the varying differences of intensity indicative of emotion.
Since emotions disclose not only what I value but also how much I value it,
it should come as no surprise that certain things that upset me will not upset
you. Anger, grief, compassion, love, jealousy, we experience these emotions
proportional to their respective intentional objects, to wit, proportional
to the object or circumstance that elicits our emotion. In the words of
Nussbaum, Emotions contain an ineliminable reference to me, to the fact
that it is my scheme of goals and projects. They see the world from my point
of view (Nussbaum 2001, 52). This is why I grieve over the death of my own
daughter differently than I do that of my neighbor down the road. To care
about something, whether an idea or some state of affairs, and to care about
someone, whether as a colleague, spouse, or neighbor, is to value this entity in
a particular kind of way; it is to have ones concerns eased or exacerbated inthe
presence of such entities. However, we should not take Nussbaum to mean
emotions only reveal things that we have consciously invested with positive
significancehating someone is also a way of instilling one particular being
with a degree of significance at the exclusion of others. Rather, her position is
that emotions disclose the way we prioritize what matters to us, and not that
we always value what we should.
243
The psychologist Richard Lazarus, an important influence on Nussbaums

account, defines emotions as cognitive appraisals that serve as subjective
evaluations that disclose an agents perspective on things (Nussbaum
2001, 108).7 Stated otherwise, they are urgent transactions that embody
a high degree of focused attention on the world (Nussbaum 2001, 108). As
a consequence, Lazarus argues that, for the astute observer, there is no other
concept in psychology that can be as revealing about what an individual values,
and how this individual contends with her or his environment, as emotion
(Nussbaum 2001, 108). What is more, this approach is true not only as it applies
to human beings, but for the whole of the animal kingdom. Understood along
these lines, emotions are the primary adaptive vehicles of corporal beings, for it
is their urgency and responsiveness that enable an animal to find its way in the
environment. And so even in the case of other animals, emotions register the
way the environment impinges on a creature, measuring and gauging success,
and are rather far removed from simple stimulus/response mechanismsfood
present so attack.
Outside of captivity, it is doubtful whether food is ever just food or a mate is
ever just a mate, since these objects are always embedded in larger environments
that carry their own attendant risks and dangers, and so must be approached
with caution. Given the indispensible role that emotions play in realizing sentient
existence, it would not be an exaggeration to call emotion the grammar of life.
Summarizing Lazaruss work in this area, Nussbaum writes:
A taxonomy of emotions is thus a taxonomy of a creatures goals, in relation
to environmental events and temporal location. Taken as a group, a creatures
emotions summarize the way it conceives of its very identity in the world, its
sense of what selfhood is and what is central to selfhood. (Nussbaum 2001, 107)
Hans Jonas defends a similar position in his impressive book The Phenomenon
of Life where he attempts to rearticulate Aristotles perspective on animality
from a phenomenological perspective. Jonas argues that motility, the capacity
for movement or locomotion, and desire have an insoluble connection, for
with movement there arises the interposition of distance between urge and
attainment, i.e., in the possibility of a distant goal (Jonas 2001, 101). In order
for a creature to even recognize something outside its immediate physical grasp
as a goal, say a gazelle in the distant plains as food, and keep the intensity of
this goal alive, so as to carry the motion over the necessary span of effort and
time desire is required (Jonas 2001, 101). And so instead of seeing desire as
an urge requiring immediate satiation, it is actually desire that makes deferred
244
fulfillment possible. It is desire that brings duration into experience, infusing

patience with instinct in order to make possible an actual relationship between
a creature and its environment. Quoting Jonas:
Without the tension of distance and the deferment of desire necessitated by it
there would be no occasion for desire or emotion generally. The great secret of
animal life lies precisely in the gap which it is able to maintain between immediate
concern and mediate satisfaction, i.e., in the loss of immediacy corresponding to
the gain in scope. (Jonas 2001, 102)
Building off this fundamental insight, we can assert that the more future
oriented and complicated a creatures goals, the more sophisticated its emotions
will need to be in order to bridge the ever-increasing gap between its needs and
their possible fulfillment. To exist as an animal is to have those essential needs
required of life perpetually at a distance, for there is no guarantee that what
is needed will always be available. There is no desire without risk, no satiation
without potential frustration and anxiety.
It is desire that makes animal life an existence of mediation rather than an
immediate organic functioning. To be an animal is already to live at a remove from
ones environment, which is just another way of saying that animal life is a mediated
life, it is a life in which the environment is either threatening or inviting, but never
indifferent. In the words of Jonas, Animal being is thus essentially passionate being
(Jonas 2001, 106). Armed with this fundamental insight, that emotions embody the
way sentient creatures mediate their existence, we are now ready to take up the
question of what kind of wisdom emotion provides to human existence.
Our emotions have grown in step with all our other cognitive powers, be it
language, imagination, or moral sentiment, just as the appropriateness of distinct
emotions has changed in light of the normative pressure of socialization. It is a
mistake to assume that the achievement of this cultural evolution is won only
with the painful repression of animal instincts, as Freud puts it in Civilization
and its Discontents, or the slow taming of the will into submission, as Nietzsche
states. On the contrary, there is no reason why culture cannot also serve as the
liberation and expansion of emotive life.
Emotions mediate our experience of the world in very sophisticated ways,
expanding our motives and interests, and with this, the way we engage reality.
This complexity is most evident in the fact that we as individuals can participate
in our emotional life. We can learn about our emotions from experience, alter
our interests, imagine alternatives, and even change our habits, all of which
expand our prospects for happiness and some modicum of fulfillment. Nor do
245
our emotions simply thrive in the present, but they suffuse our memories and
impregnate the future. Seen in this way, emotion is what continually propels us
beyond ourselves, and thus is the form of an elemental transcendence. And it is
precisely because human emotion is a form of transcending that we can speak of
the wisdom of emotion.
Emotions transform us; this is an indisputable fact. Yet many of us continue to
see this transformation in largely negative terms. Even when emotion is seen as
something positive, say in feelings of profound love, it is regarded as something
that overpowers us, as an external force, something in tension with our own
agency and sense of autonomy. Much of my account has tried to remedy the
traditional view of emotion that sees it as essentially animalistic, impulsive,
narcissistic, and irrational. In taking this route I admit that I have downplayed
much of the destructiveness of emotion, its extreme psychological pathos.
I readily admit the potential destructiveness of emotions; what I adamantly
deny is that emotions are destructive by design, or that they have no power of
discernment.
Aristotle famously states that our capacity to control our emotions, which is
the preserve of moral virtue, arises neither by nature nor contrary to nature, but
that we are adapted by nature to receive this capacity and it is perfected through
habit (Aristotle 1984, 1103a). The perspective advanced here is very much a
confirmation of this fundamental insight, yet it is also true that Aristotle did not
believe that emotions per se had much wisdom to them beyond their ability to be
molded. It is in response to this last point that I will conclude my discussion.
A common conception of wisdom is that it need not be, and often is not,
explicit as a distinct type of knowledge claim, yet nevertheless can be efficacious.
The wisdom of our emotions is of this sort. First, our emotions compel us beyond
the confines of our own ego, and in doing so demonstrate solipsism for what it
is, an intellectual fantasy. We are implicated in the lives of others and the world
to such an extent that we simply cannot recognize what is worth caring about or
striving for without other people. Our own emotions simply will not allow it.
Second, at a more personal level, emotions enable us to experience our own
individuality, they are the texture of personhood; our sense of self-esteem, shame,
pride, guilt, none of these would be possible without emotion. Related to this, it
is our emotional attachments that allow people to be appreciated in their own
uniqueness. Regardless of what traits we might admire or love about someone,
whatever history we may have with them is infused with the reality of finitude
that one day these people too shall die. Is it not our emotions, more than anything
else, that enable us to be so finely tuned to the temporality of things? And is it
246
not through the lens of emotion that we experience the irreplaceable character
of people and relationships?
Third, our emotions always reveal something important about us and what
we value. Although we can be, and often are, mistaken about our emotions, the
intensity, directedness, and overall character of what we are feeling can still be
an indispensible aid in helping us pinpoint what troubles us. Indeed, without
the wisdom of emotion to help us on occasion, it is difficult to see how we could
distinguish a self-rationalization from a genuine justification. And so emotion is
almost always an indication of some motive or purpose, an expression of some
specific state of mind or commitment.
Finally, we can ask why, if there is so much wisdom to be found in emotion,
does this wisdom continue to be so under acknowledged? Why is it we have so
much trouble seeing our emotions as the moorings for a philosophy of life? This
is a difficult question to answer, and I offer only a few closing remarks. My sense
is that we are aware of much of the good emotion does us, yet at an intellectual
level we still cling to the false ideology that we are somehow victims of our
emotions. We assume the passivity so characteristic of affective life, the elemental
experience we all share of being controlled by our emotions, is the defining
reality of our passionate nature. Although it certainly appears this way from the
perspective of the agent undergoing an emotion, our affections live well beyond
these brief episodic expressions to encompass our attitudes and history. As stated
in different ways throughout this essay, and by different people, emotions are
the accumulated judgments of our deepest existential commitments. To see the
gamut of affective life as something that happens to us as opposed to something
we participate in is to miss the wisdom of embodiment.
Given the arguments advanced here that highlight the flexibility, educability,
and discernment of emotions, it stands to reason there is much we can do to
live more productively and in attunement with our emotions, and that living in
accordance with the mean may even be considerably easier than Aristotle had
originally supposed (Aristotle, 1107a). In order to see how realizable this route
actually is, however, we would first have to acknowledge the wisdom of emotion.
My account is an attempt to introduce you to the plausibility of this position.
Notes
1 For an overview of the major positions on the emotion debate consult What is
Emotion: Classical Readings in Philosophical Psychology, especially the introduction
by Calhoun and Solomon, 340. For a more recent overview see (Deigh 2008).
247
2 Solomon uses the example more than once but see especially the section on
Emotions as Judgments, 12532.
3 See (Averill 1980; Maclean 1980; Izard 2007).
4 See (De Sousa 1980b; Thalberg 1984).
5 See Nussbaums Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions.
6 It is worth noting that G. W. F Hegels account of emotion, what he calls
practical-feeling, which he developed in book three of his Encyclopedia of
Subjective Spirit, anticipates many of the most important distinctions discussed in
this essay. For an account of Hegels revolutionary take on emotions see my essay
The Spirit of Emotions.
7 As quoted in Nussbaum 2001, 108. See Lazaruss Emotion and Adaptation.
Bibliography
Aristotle. (1984), The Complete Works of Aristotle, J. Barnes (ed.). Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Averill, James. (1980), Emotion and Anxiety: Sociocultural, Biological, and
Psychological Determinants, in Amlie Oksenburg Rorty (ed.), Explaining Emotions.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 3772.
Calhoun, Cheshire and Solomon, Robert, eds (1984), What is Emotion: Classical
Readings in Philosophical Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Deigh, John. (2008), Emotions, Values and the Law. New York: Oxford University Press.
De Sousa, Ronald. (1980a), The Rationality of Emotions, in Amlie Oksenburg
Rorty (ed.), Explaining Emotions, 12752.
. (1980b), Self-deceptive Emotions, in Amlie Oksenburg Rorty (ed.), Explaining
Emotions, Berkeley: University of California Press, 28397.
Howard, Jason. (2010), The Spirit of Emotions, Hegel-Jahrbuch, 196201.
Izard, Carroll. (2007), Basic Emotions, Natural Kinds, Emotion Schemes, and a New
Paradigm, Perspectives on Psychological Science 2(3): 26080.
Jonas, Hans. (2001), The Phenomenon of Life: Toward a Philosophical Biology. Evanston:
Northwestern University Press.
Lazarus, Richard. (1991), Emotion and Adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Maclean, Paul D. (1980), Sensory and Perceptive Factors in Emotional Functions of
the Triune Brain, in Amlie Oksenburg Rorty (ed.), Explaining Emotions. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 936.
Nussbaum, Martha. (2001), Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rorty, Amlie Oksenberg, ed. (1980a), Explaining Emotions. California: University of
California Press.
. (1980b), Explaining Emotions, in Amlie Oksenburg Rorty (ed.), Explaining
Emotions. Berkeley: University of California Press, 10326.
248
Sartre, Jean-Paul. (1962), Sketches for a Theory of Emotions, Philip Mairet (trans.). Great
Britain: Methuen & Co.
Schachter, Stanley and Singer, Jerome. (1984), From Cognitive, Social, and
Physiological Determinants of Emotional State, in Cheshire Calhoun and Robert
Solomon (eds), What Is an Emotion: Classical Readings in Philosophical Psychology,
17383.
Scruton, Roger. (1980), Emotion, Practical Knowledge and Common Culture, in
Amlie Oksenburg Rorty (ed.), Explaining Emotions, Berkeley: University of
California Press, 51936.
Solomon, Robert. (1980), Emotions and Choice, in Amlie Oksenburg Rorty (ed.),
Explaining Emotions, Berkeley: University of California Press, 25181.
. (1993), The Passions: Emotions and the Meaning of Life. Indianapolis: Hackett
Publishing.
Thalberg, Irving. (1984), Emotion and Thought, in Cheshire Calhoun and Robert
Solomon (eds), What is Emotion: Classical Readings in Philosophical Psychology,
291304.
18
History in the Service of Life: Nietzsches

Genealogy
Allison M. Merrick
We need history, certainly . . . for the sake of life and action, not so as to turn
comfortably away from life and action . . . We want to serve history only to the
extent that history serves life . . .1
(Nietzsche On the Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life)
Undoubtedly, one of the central exegetical issues for the student of Nietzsche
is how we are to understand his assertion that history, or historiography, must
be in the service of life. For instance, are we to understand Nietzsches attack
on the teleology of the secular progressive conception of history, a mode
of historiography he claims is inimical to life and action, as philosophical or
therapeutic in form?2 Is Nietzsches work complete when we realize that we are
suffering from a consuming fever of history and we are freed from, in this case,
the predilection for a teleological form of historiography? (Nietzsche 1997, 60).
The central ambition of this essay is to offer some preliminary answers to questions
such as these by teasing out the methodological ramifications of Nietzsches
rather gnomic pronouncement, in the hopes that such an analysis may shed
further light on Nietzsches contribution to the tradition of life-philosophy.3
The first part of this essay aims to shape the boundary within which the
claim that we need history in the service of life transverses by presenting an
inimical account of historiography: history in the service of the ascetic ideal. The
second part explores the philosophical function of the correct practice of history
that is in the service of life, as evidenced most strikingly in Nietzsches On the
Genealogy of Morals. I conclude by suggesting that the therapeutic ambition of
Nietzsches project takes shape when we appreciate the philosophical import and
methodological shape of Nietzsches historiography.
250
Historiography in the service of the ascetic ideal

The third essay of On the Genealogy of Morals, as Nietzsche informs us in Ecce
Homo, seeks to offer an answer to the question whence the ascetic ideal . . .
derives its tremendous power although it is the harmful ideal par excellence . . .
(Nietzsche 1969, 312). To tease out the meaning of the ascetic ideal it may
be useful to note it is one thing to engage in ascetic procedures, modes of
self-sacrifice, or self-denial, and quite another to be fettered by the ascetic ideal
(Ridley 1998a, 59). The ascetic ideal represents the idealization of asceticism
as a way of life that is committed to treating living, existence itself, as an ascetic
procedure whereby the end to which this procedure is directed is necessarily
not immanent to existence (as with ascetic practices) but transcends it (Owen
2007, 114). In other words, one may engage in a set of ascetic practices and for
instance restrict ones food and drink without, at the same time, positing the
meaning or the purpose of the practice as a systematic retreat from this world.
The ascetic ideal severs the immanent value of human existence and posits a
transcendent value as the goal or ultimate meaning of human existence (Ridley
1998a, 59). And, it is the interpretation of the meaning of human existence
offered by the ascetic ideal which Nietzsche locates as the only meaning offered
thus far (Nietzsche 1967, 162).
The ascetic ideal derives its tremendous power by providing a solution to the
problem of the meaninglessness of human suffering. The explanation of suffering it
offers, Nietzsche contends, is . . . so universal that all the other interests of human
existence seem, when compared with it, petty and narrow . . . namely, it posits
this life counts as a bridge to that other mode of existence (Nietzsche 1969, 117).
According to the interpretation offered by the ascetic ideal the meaning of human
existence is to be found in all those aspirations to the beyond (Nietzsche 1969,
95), which find expression in commitments such as the belief in the unconditional
will to truth . . . [which] is the faith in a metaphysical value, the absolute value
of truth . . . (Nietzsche 1969, 151). In retaining this expression of the ascetic
ideal for a moment, Nietzsche tells us: The truthful man, in the audacious sense
presupposed by science, thereby affirms another world than that of life, nature, and
history; and insofar as he affirms this other world, does this not mean to deny
its antithesis, this world, our world? (Nietzsche 1969, 152). Life, accordingly, is
juxtaposed (along with what pertains to it: nature, world, the whole sphere of
becoming and transitoriness) with a quite different mode of existence which it
opposes. And, through such a comparison life, as well as the corollary concepts,
History in the Service of Life
251
nature, and world, are treated as a wrong road or as a mistake (Nietzsche

1969, 117). Through the ascetic ideal, Nietzsche argues, suffering was interpreted;
the tremendous void seemed to have been filled; the door was closed to any kind
of suicidal nihilism (Nietzsche 1969, 162). Thus, the ascetic ideal provides an
answer to the problem of unexplained suffering, to turn human existence, as such,
into an ascetic practice. This move wards off the threat of suicidal nihilism by
providing human existence with a transcendent goal. In providing an account of
the ultimate meaning of human suffering and in offering a particular explanation
of the meaning of human existence the ascetic ideal slander[s] the world in its
devaluation of this world, our world (Nietzsche 1969, 95).
It is Nietzsches contention in On the Genealogy of Morals, at least, that modern
historiography does not stand nearly as opposed to the ascetic ideal as it appears.
Modern historiography, Nietzsche claims, does not represent an alternative
to the ascetic ideal but rather is beholden to the ultimate meaning of human
existence afforded by the ideal. I shall, in what follows, attempt to substantiate
Nietzsches claim that modern historiography fosters and perpetuates the ascetic
ideal by exploring the work of Nietzsches two self-described antipodes: Paul Re
and Ernest Renan.4
Nietzsche contends that Res work, The Origin of the Moral Sensations,
typifies a perverse species of genealogical hypothesis, which harbors that
power of attraction which everything contrary, everything antipodal possesses
(Nietzsche 1969, 17). Nietzsche finds Res formulation of the origins of morality
both historically inaccurate and psychologically untenable (Nietzsche 1969,
248). With respect to the latter, Nietzsches critique may be glossed as follows:
Re contends the social utility of the concept of good has been forgotten. Yet,
for Nietzsche, such utility would have been confirmed by experience at all
times (Nietzsche 1969, 27). Hence such utility instead of being forgotten would
be impressed on the consciousness more and more clearly (Nietzsche 1969,
27). To illuminate the former charge Nietzsche argues that Res hypothesis
regarding the origin of the value judgment good (namely the concept good
originates in those in whom goodness, understood as unegoistic or altruistic
actions, is shown), is historically untenable (Nietzsche 1969, 248). An accurate
account of the origins of the concept good suggests that the concept originates
in the good themselves, that is to say, the noble, powerful, high-stationed . . .
(Nietzsche 1969, 28). This lends itself readily to the corollary methodological
point, one that is Nietzsches major point of historical method: the cause of
the origin of a thing and the present purposes to which a concept is employed
lie worlds apart (Nietzsche 1969, 77). Hence, by virtue of his methodologically
252
misguided and therefore historically inaccurate account of the origins of morality,

Res account of the history of morality is tethered to the ascetic ideal.
David Owen offers the following rather tidy assessment of the manner in
which Res mode of historiography is in the service of the ascetic ideal:
. . . even the English genealogists (i.e. Paul Re), who represent the latest and
most honest form of history in the service of the ascetic ideal, entirely obscure
the event in question in virtue of their (mis)understanding of the origins of
morality. (Owen 2007, 142)
Re commits the methodological error of suggesting that the present purpose

to which a concept is made to serve may shed light upon the origins of that
particular concept. Re obscures the historical event, the slave revolt in morals,
and hence conceals the actual history of morality. Accordingly, in obscuring the
event in question, Res historiography is in the service of the ascetic ideal. It
is this same kind of error which irreparably entangles Renans historiography
with the ascetic ideal. Nietzsche finds Renans account both psychologically
thoughtless and methodologically misguided.
Amidst a discussion concerning the meaning of ascetic ideals, in the third
essay of On the Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche writes that Renans work represents
a profound corruption in historiography (Nietzsche 1969, 157). In a moment
of great polemical incisiveness, even by Nietzsches rather high standards, he
thunders:
I know of nothing that excites such disgust as this kind of objective armchair
scholar, this kind of scented voluptuary of history, half person, half satyr,
perfume by Renan, who betrays immediately with high falsetto of his applause
what he lacks, where he lacks it . . . (Nietzsche 1969, 158)
Nietzsche critiques Renans procedural commitment to objective historiography

and, I shall argue, to his psychologically implausible and methodologically
flawed account of Jesus.
In the Preface of his Life of Jesus Renan indeed claims, I have written my
book with the cold candor of a historian, with the single aim of discovering
the finest and most exact shades of truth . . . History, like chemistry or geology,
is a science . . . (Renan 1888, v). Despite such a methodological proclamation
Renan, as is well documented, took stylistic allowances such that his account of
the life of Jesus is perfumed with sentimentality.5 Gary Shapiro writes,
Renan . . . repressed religion. His later works, no matter how positivistic their
official ideology, disclosed a return to the repressed. He allowed his readers to
253
believe themselves scientific and even a bit skeptical, while still allowing them to
indulge in religious sentiments. . . . (Shapiro 1982, 215)
Consider the following rather lengthy pronouncement as one such representative

example of Shapiros critique:
Whatever transformations dogma may undergo, Jesus will still be the author of
pure sentiment in religion. The Sermon on the Mount will not be superseded.
We will even say that facts are of small moment here; biography is of secondary
interest; the idea in such a matter is everything. . . . No discovery, no system will
prevent us from attaching ourselves, as religious men, to the grand intellectual
and moral line, at whose head shines rightly or wrongly the name of Jesus. In
this sense we are Christians, even though separated at nearly every point from
the Christian tradition which has preceded us. (Renan 1864, 353)
Renan concedes Christian dogma may undergo vast changes. Nevertheless,

as religious men we are beholden to the grand intellectual and moral
line (Renan 1864, 353). Hence, insofar as we value the name of Jesus, not
necessarily the facts or the biographical minutiae, we are Christians (Renan
1864, 353). However, the account Renan offers of Jesus, Nietzsche claims, rests
upon an execrable psychological frivolityMonsieur Renan, that buffoon in
psychologicis, has appropriated for his explanation of the type Jesus the two most
inapplicable concepts possible in this case: the concept of the genius and the
concept of the hero (Nietzsche 1990, 153). In considering the latter concept
first, Nietzsche claims, the hero is one who seeks out and confronts resistance,
whereas Jesus is one who, according to Nietzsche, possesses an incapacity for
resistance, as evidenced in the profoundest saying of the Gospel, resist not
evil! (Nietzsche 1990, 153). Nietzsche claims that the concept of genius, a
worse misunderstanding than the concept of hero, is inappropriate because
it is historically misguided insofar as our whole concept . . . has no meaning
whatever in the world Jesus lived in (Nietzsche 1990, 153).
Accordingly, Nietzsche charges Renan with reading the needs of the present
back onto his account of Jesus. Hence, for Nietzsche, Renans formulation
does not account for the manner in which the type of the redeemer has been
preserved to us only in a very distorted form (Nietzsche 1990, 154). In touching
on a point of great methodological import Nietzsche continues:
That this distortion should have occurred is in itself very probable: there are
several reasons why such a type could not remain pure, whole, free of assertions.
The milieu in which this strange figure moved must have left its mark upon
254
him, as must even more the history, the fate of the first Christian community:
from this the type was retrospectively enriched with traits which become
comprehensible only in reference with warfare and the aims of propaganda.
(Nietzsche 1990, 154)
This methodological error is precisely the charge Nietzsche brings against Re,
namely claiming present purposes shed evidential light upon the origins of the
concept. Coquetry of the sort exemplified in the work of Renan is tantamount,
Nietzsche claims, to lascivious historical eunuchism (Nietzsche 1969, 158).
Undoubtedly, the metaphor of the eunuch is revealing. Renan produces a
sterile form of historiography due to both the psychological thoughtlessness of
his rendering of the Jesus type as well as the methodological error of failing to
recognize the type was retrospectively enriched with traits such that one must
investigate the many systems of purposes to which the type was made to serve,
rather than attempting to uncover an unadulterated type (Nietzsche 1990, 154).
In light of the foregoing, we can begin to see why Nietzsche informs us history
written in the service of the ascetic ideal . . . offends my taste; also my patience: . . .
such a sight arouses my ire, such spectators dispose me against the spectacle
more than the spectacle itself (the spectacle of history, you understand) . . .
(Nietzsche 1969, 158). The scare-quotes Nietzsche places around the concepts
spectators and spectacle are instructive. First, the concept of the spectators,
when understood in a derogatory sense, captures Nietzsches other choice labels
for the authors of this mode of historiography: the cowardly contemplatives
or the objective armchair scholars, those historians who wrap themselves in
wisdom and look objective (Nietzsche 1969, 158). The concept denotes the
particularly insidious feigned demeanor of the passive observer. Second, the
spectacle, the picture of history such authors present, is an unseemly one:
they, in other words, make a spectacle of historiography in presenting an
account that is by nature unhistorical: it is both psychologically questionable
and historically mistaken (Nietzsche 1969, 25). The contours of historiography
in the service of the ascetic ideal can be generalized along the following lines:
(1) the actual history of morality, the so well hidden land of moralityof
morality that has actually existed, actually been lived is further concealed by
(2) a spectacle of historical insight and understanding (Nietzsche 1969, 21).
These two points are evidenced, for instance, in Renans continued flirtation
with the ascetic ideal and in Res lack of historical spirit which results in an
account of the history of morality that is by nature unhistorical (Nietzsche
1969, 25). Such spectacles of historical appreciation and understanding serve
255
to (3) seduce their audiences into a life-denying system of purposes. Nietzsches

critique exposes Re and Renan as thinkers subjugated by the ascetic ideal and
as practitioners of historiography who serve a system of purposes inimical to
life.
Yet, as Nietzsche makes clear in On the Genealogy of Morals, these sorts of
methodologically misguided investigations should not ill dispose us toward
the spectacle of history itself. So, in contrast to historiography written in the
service of the ascetic ideal, Nietzsche presents an account of historiography
in the service of life. A form of historiography, in other words, which seeks to
destabilize our commitment to a particular system of purposes, namely the
slave mode of moral reasoning. It is in this way, as I shall argue in the following
section, we should view Nietzsches thoughts on history in the service of life.
Historiography in the service of life

An adequate account of what it means for historiography to be in the service of
life needs to involve the following dimensions of Nietzsches thought. It should
tease out the methodological component of his philosophical project and illustrate
the strategic elements of what he labels in Human, All Too Human, historical
philosophy (Nietzsche 1983, 12) in order to reveal the currently obscured
actual history of morality (Nietzsche 1969, 21). This feature, following David
Owens analysis, involves two methodological constraints: first of being true to
the object of enquiry (i.e. the history of morality); secondly, that of being true
to the purpose of the enquiry (i.e. the re-evaluation of morality) (Owen 2007,
143).6 In what follows, I will focus upon Nietzsches meditation on the value of
history before turning to address the manner in which a cogent account of history
written inthe service of life should render intelligible the manner in which that
history has the potential to serve therapeutic ends, which may include freeing us
from our commitments to particularly pernicious systems of purposes. To put the
point another way, a satisfactory account should chart the manner in which such a
history can enjoin us to embark upon a reevaluation of our evaluative frameworks.
To lend credence to this particular aspect of historiography in the service of life, I
want to isolate a representative example of historiography from Nietzsches On the
Genealogy of Morals in order to make clear both the philosophic and therapeutic
dimensions of Nietzsches thought.
As is well known, Nietzsche in his meditation on the uses and disadvantages
of history presents three modes of historiography: monumental history,
256
antiquarian history, and critical history. Each of which serves a decisively

distinct function and each may be employed in the service of life. Put briefly,
monumental historiography highlights exemplary achievements to demonstrate
that greatness was in any event once possible and may thus be possible again
(Nietzsche 1997, 73). Antiquarian history encourages one to preserve and
revere an aspect of the past by tending to it with a particular kind of piety, while
critical history serves to mitigate the totalitarian effects of the other modes of
historiography by providing the critical apparatus to view entrenched narratives
scrupulously. In accordance with the tripartite purposes of history, we can begin
to distinguish history written in the service of life from a form of historiography
that serves life-negating forces. In terms of further demarcating this distinction,
Nietzsche claims:
These are the services history is capable of performing for life; every man
and every nation requires, in accordance with its goals, energies and needs, a
certain kind of knowledge of the past, now in the form of monumental, now
of antiquarian, now of critical history; but it does not require it as a host of
pure thinkers who only look on at life, of knowledge-thirsty individuals whom
knowledge alone will satisfy and to whom the accumulation of knowledge
is itself the goal, but always and only for ends of life and thus also under the
domination and supreme direction of these ends. (Nietzsche 1997, 77)
Historiography in the service of life, Nietzsche writes, must be animated and

directed by a set of purposes. Historiography operating under the epistemological
demand of pure knowledge itself, not ostensibly bound by a system of purposes,
is inimical to life. The epistemological objective of pure knowledge of the past is
itself motivated by purposes, such as the desire for clarity or breadth of historical
understanding or for certainty, though such purposes are ostensibly denied.7 To
tease out this point we may do well to reconsider Renan who seemed to claim his
historiography was guided by pure objectivity and, so understood, knowledge
is itself the goal of the inquiry (Nietzsche 1997, 77). Yet, if Nietzsches analysis
is correct, Renans supposed objective historiography is motivated by and in
the service of another set of purposes, namely the ascetic ideal. History in the
service of life, by contrast, avoids this error by acknowledging the purposes for
which it operates, methodologically bound by the need for a particular kind
of knowledge of the past, where the kind of knowledge, Nietzsche suggests, is
evoked by hunger, [and] regulated by the extent of its need (Nietzsche 1997,
77). History, so written, is constrained by procedural restrictions and, as such,
maps the purposes of the investigation onto the object of inquiry. History ceases
257
to serve life when a mode of historiography is employed to serve purposes to

which it is ill suited.
In light of the foregoing, I shall suggest that Nietzsches On the Genealogy
of Morals may be viewed as a representative example of historiography in the
service of life. Consider the first essay in which Nietzsche, operating within the
critical mode of historiography, seeks to break up the dominant mode of moral
reasoning, the slave morality. In other words, in the essay on Good and Evil,
Good and Bad, as David Owen puts the point:
. . . by presenting morality as slave morality, as a counter-movement to, and
re-evaluation of, noble morality, [Nietzsche] immediately and dramatically
problematizes the presumption of his audience that morality is the only
possible ethical perspective in making viable another mode of ethical reasoning
and rhetorically situating the reader within the struggle between them, while
also indicating that the enterprise of re-evaluation to which he enjoins his
readers is not a novel phenomenon. (Owen 2007, 1312)
That is, in the first essay, Nietzsche seeks to break up a piece of the past by
demonstrating that the picture of morality we assume is universally binding and
a-historic, the slave mode of morality, is the product of a reevaluation of another
mode of moral reasoning, noble morality. By offering this formed picture of the
history of morality, Nietzsche seeks to dissolve the hold that the slave mode of
morality has upon us, as he attempts to point out reevaluations of our moral
frameworks are indeed possible. Or, to put the point schematically: (1) Nietzsche
takes as his object of inquiry the actual history of morality in order to bring to
light the slave revolt in morality (Nietzsche 1969, 21). In attempting to reveal
something that required two thousand years to achieve victory . . . [given that] . . .
all protracted things are hard to see, to see whole . . . [the slave revolt in morals]
however, is what has happened . . . (Nietzsche 1969, 34). Nietzsche, at the same
time, discloses (2) the purposes of the investigation: to deliver us from our
commitment to the victorious mode of evaluation, the slave mode of moral
reasoning. Here in the first essay, historiography in the service of life is on
display.
If this reading of the first essay is persuasive, then it readily lends itself to
the consolation afforded by the critical mode of historiography elucidated by
Nietzsche in his meditation on the value of history: knowing [that] this first
nature was once a second nature and that every victorious second nature will
become a first (Nietzsche 1997, 77). When placed in the context of the first
essay of On the Genealogy of Morals, the first nature is, of course, the slave form
258
of moral reasoning, the now victorious mode of evaluation. Yet, as Nietzsche

attempts to stress in On the Genealogy of Morals, this first nature was once a
second nature, and it can be understood as a response to the noble mode of
evaluation. The salient point here, as Nietzsche puts it, in an often-cited section
of Beyond Good and Evil, is: Morality in Europe today is herd animal morality
in other words, as we understand it, merely one type of human morality beside
which, before which, and after which other types, above all higher moralities,
are, or ought to be, possible (Nietzsche 1987, 115). If Nietzsches account of the
victory of one mode of evaluation over another is sufficiently persuasive, then
the conceptual space is opened for yet another reevaluation of our evaluative
frameworks. Commenting on the critical mode of history in the second of the
Untimely Mediations, Nietzsche makes clear: The best we can do is to confront
our inherited and hereditary nature with our knowledge, and through a new,
stern discipline combat our inborn heritage and implant in ourselves a new
habit, a new instinct, a second nature, so that our first nature withers away
(Nietzsche 1997, 76). Historiography in the service of life, as evidenced in On
the Genealogy of Morals, at least, is precisely this sort of undertaking insofar as it
maps the object of inquiry, the actual history of morality, onto the purpose, that
of addressing our real needs, such as, for instance, deflating our prejudices and
freeing us from the snares of metaphysics (Ridley 1998b, 235). Hence, Nietzsche
attempts to enjoin us to take up the arduous task of reevaluation, such that we
can, perhaps, begin to implant a new habit, a new instinct, a second nature
(Nietzsche 1997, 76).
Conclusion
At the opening of this essay, I suggested Nietzsches thoughts on history in the
service of life might aid us in unpacking both the philosophic and therapeutic
dimensions of his project. A word, in the hopes of adding further clarity to
this point, as well as a consideration broaching the vexed question concerning
the manner in which Nietzsches ideathat history is valuable only insofar as
it serves liferelates to the tradition of life-philosophy, are certainly in order.
The philosophical dimensions of Nietzsches project are evidenced in the
methodological restrictions he places on historiography, in the strategic manner
in which he accounts for the origins of morality, and in the way in which he
problematizes our commitment to a particularly pernicious mode of moral
reasoning. The therapeutic aspects are contained in the emancipatory potential
259
such accounts may harbor. If Nietzsches account of the history of morality is

sufficiently persuasive, then it has the potential to produce the therapeutic effects
of exposing and breaking down our allegiances to particularly pernicious modes
of framing ourselves.
Nietzsche begins his meditation on the value of history with the following
quotation from Goethe: In any case, I hate everything that merely instructs me
without augmenting or directly invigorating my behavior (Nietzsche 1997, 59).
Accordingly, historiography in the hands of Nietzsche should, at least, have the
potential to strengthen our resolve, to remind us, in other words, why instruction
without invigoration, why knowledge not attended to by action, why history as
a costly superfluity and luxury, must be . . . hated by ushated because we still
lack even the things we need and the superfluous is the enemy of the necessary
(Nietzsche 1997, 59). History in the service of the ascetic ideal is one such example
of instruction without invigoration. History in the service of life is bound by
methodological restrictions, and, accordingly, can be seen to serve life only if the
purposes, the things we need from the inquiry, are accurately mapped onto the
objects of the inquiry (Nietzsche 1997, 59). If the tradition of life-philosophy can
quite generally be understood as a rigorous examination of the manner in which we
make sense of ourselves in this world, our world, then Nietzsches contribution,
at least in the second of his Untimely Meditations, to this philosophical tradition is
transparent: history, or historiography, is valuable only insofar as it is in the service
of life, only insofar as it attends to our real needs, and only insofar as it may directly
augment and invigorate our activity.
Notes
1 Copyright 1997 Cambridge University Press. Reprinted with the permission of
2 For instance, the therapeutic dimension of Nietzsches thought is emphasized in the
following works: Danto (1994), Hutter (2006), and Ure (2008).
3 For instance Thomas Hart identifies this impetus as singularly crucial: [Nietzsches]
philosophy, above all else, is a philosophy of life and living (2009, 117).
4 Nietzsche reveals Ernest Renan as his antipode in 48 of Beyond Good and Evil,
whereas Nietzsche informs us, in the Preface of the Genealogy, Paul Res The Origin
of the Moral Sensations, has that power of attraction which everything contrary,
everything antipodal possesses . . . (1969, 17).
5 See, for example, Schweitzer (1998).
260
6 Owen adds a third restriction, namely: that of being expressively adequate to its
rhetorical task of persuasion (2007, 143).
7 This point is a result of Nietzsches perspectivism, which finds its most cogent
articulation in the third essay of the Genealogy (GM III 12). For an excellent
discussion of this particular issue see: Ridley (2000).
Bibliography
Danto, A. (1994), Some Remarks on The Genealogy of Morals, in Richard Schacht (ed.),
Nietzsche, Genealogy, Morality: Essays on Nietzsches Genealogy of Morals. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Hart, T. (2009), A Philosophy for Education, in T. Hart (ed.), Nietzsche, Culture and
Education. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing.
Hutter, H. (2006), Shaping the Future: Nietzsches New Regime of the Soul and Its Ascetic
Practices. Lanham: Lexington Books.
Nietzsche, F. (1969), On the Genealogy of Morals and Ecce Homo, Walter Kaufmann
(trans.). New York: Vintage.
. (1983), Human, All Too Human, R. J. Hollingdale (trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
. (1987), Beyond Good and Evil, Walter Kaufmann (trans.). New York: Vintage Books.
. (1990), The Anti-Christ, R. J. Hollingdale (trans.). New York: Penguin Books.
. (1997), On the Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life, in R. J. Hollingdale
(trans.), Untimely Meditations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Owen, D. (2007), Nietzsches Genealogy of Morality. Montreal and Kingston:
McGill-Queens University Press.
Renan, E. (1864), Studies of Religious History and Criticism, O. B. Frothingham (trans.).
New York: Carleton Publisher.
. (1888), Life of Jesus. London: The Temple Company.
Ridley, A. (1998a), Nietzsches Conscience: Six Character Studies from the Genealogy.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
. (1998b), A Nietzsche Round-Up, The Philosophical Quarterly 48: 23542.
. (2000), Science in the Service of Life: Nietzsches Objectivism, in W. Stone and
J. Wolff (eds), The Proper Ambition of Science. London: Routledge.
Schweitzer, A. (1998), The Quest of the Historical Jesus. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Shapiro, G. (1982), Nietzsche contra Renan, History and Theory 21: 192222.
Ure, M. (2008), Nietzsches Therapy: Self-Cultivation in the Middle Works. Lanham:
Lexington Books.
Index
action 13, 38, 47, 54, 57, 58, 62n. 21,
7980, 123, 1267, 132, 148, 177,
1924, 213, 215, 225, 231, 238, 249,
251, 259
adaptation 8, 38, 55, 61n. 14, 227
maladaptation 59
Adorno, T. 18, 20, 22, 154n. 5, 214
aesthetic 88, 1247, 12931, 1334
aging xvii, 50
agon xix, 41, 123, 1278, 131, 132, 134,
136n. 17
antagonistic 12
al-Ghazali 206n. 19
Amaringo, P. 44n. 1
Amazon 312
amor fati 43
Angier, N. 40
animal rights movement 41
Aphrodite 205
Apollonian 35
Arendt, H. xviii, xxiii, 7982
Ares 205
Aristippus of Cyrene seeCyrenaics
Aristo of Chios 198
Aristotle 25, 678, 79, 118, 126, 132,
135n.4, 154n. 4, 1878, 190, 193, 202,
206n. 16, 2423, 2456
Aryan 1501, 153
ascetic ideal xxiii, 249, 2505, 256, 259
asceticism 250
ataraxia 202
atom 378, 42, 73, 74, 95
atomism 72
Auschwitz 154n. 5
auto-affection 1413, 146
autonomy xiii, xx, 70, 87, 141, 1579, 161,
1634, 237, 245
autopoietic 39, 68
Averill, J. 240, 247n. 3
ayahuasca 31
Barton, J. 40
beauty 1267, 131, 1612, 165, 166n.5,
198
being alive 39
benevolence 911, 134
Bergson, H. xiii, xiv, xvii, xix, 20, 22, 25,
4764, 109, 145, 154n. 7, 212, 21617,
221n. 12
biologism 19
biotechnology xiii, xvii, 85, 94, 157, 165,
226
body, the xvi, xviii, 8, 17, 278, 335, 39,
41, 47, 4951, 55, 59, 61n. 10, 71, 141,
160, 162
Boethius 201
Bohr, N. xvii, 69
Boltzmann, L. 72
Bordo, S. 158, 1613, 166nn. 45
Bostrom, N. 201
Brown, W. 129
Buddhist xxi, 198, 205, 207n. 26
Burnyeat, M. 201, 206nn. 1314
Calderon de la Barca, P. 204
Calhoun, C. 246n. 1
capitalism xix, 134, 136n. 16, 144, 14850,
214
Capra, F. 39
care xx, 19, 23, 28, 11415, 116, 118, 1645,
17184, 200, 242
Cartesian mechanism 51
Cashinahua 14650
cause 32, 378, 42, 502, 55, 60, 61n.14, 68,
81, 87, 97, 225, 240, 251
center of force 378, 40, 42
Cervantes 230
Christianity xx, 24, 412, 114, 133,
137n.18, 172, 17881, 183nn.11,
1516, 2534
chronological order 52, 83
Cicero 198, 205nn. 4, 6
262
Index
Clifford, W. K. 205n. 6
cognitive ethology 40
Columbus, C. 197
commitment 1011, 124, 134n. 2, 173, 177,
211, 246, 250, 255
commonalities 7, 9
community xii, xv, 712, 76, 124, 130, 151,
206n. 7, 230, 254
complexity 24, 32, 34, 56, 87, 89, 96, 103,
104, 213, 240, 244
computer virus 102
conatus 19, 23, 25
conflict x, xxxxi, 20, 35, 110, 130, 174, 185,
186, 188, 192, 194, 2301
connectedness 3, 4, 5, 10
consciousness xvi, 45, 6, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16,
22, 23, 37, 536, 60, 62n. 18, 69, 96,
214, 2389
self-consciousness 4, 25, 173, 178
consequentialism 7980
context xiii, xiv, xvxvii, xxiii, 34, 67,
13, 21, 23, 25, 27, 72, 746, 1623, 178,
21114, 21619
contextual givenness 4, 5, 27
contradictions 69
controllability 95, 103
converging technologies xviii
Coolen, M. 96
Copernican analogy 2246
Copernicus/Copernican 2246, 229,
2312, 233n. 19
creation xiii, 20, 504, 567, 60, 60n. 4, 61n.
7, 63n. 34, 90, 98, 127, 134, 233n. 19
creationism 89
re-creation 9
crystals 74
culture xix, 1112, 26, 312, 41, 43, 70, 99,
111, 123, 1257, 1324, 161, 211, 230,
232, 241, 244
cybernetics 8, 84, 87, 109, 114, 11617
Cyrenaics 200
Darwin, C./Darwinism 19, 20, 26, 36,
3940, 53, 62nn. 1617, 74, 89, 109,
204, 2279
database ontology 98
death 26, 41, 83, 86, 128, 160, 164, 172, 179,
181, 189, 204, 221n. 12, 230
Deigh, J. 246n. 1
deinon 18691, 1934

Deleuze, G. 56, 142, 148, 154nn. 2, 13
democracy xv, xix, 12339, 176, 211
denialism 161, 1978
Dennett, D. 96
Derrida, J. xvii, xx, 69, 146, 148, 17184,
233n. 15
Descartes, R. xvii, 47, 6970, 81, 834, 87,
141, 143, 172, 203, 213, 226, 2289
Descombes, V. 154n. 8
design 83, 857, 89, 90, 97, 102, 12932,
157, 190, 245
argument from 889
intelligent 89
desire xxii, 8, 34, 84, 164, 166n. 1, 1724,
202, 22332, 232n. 9, 233nn. 19, 213,
2434
de Sousa, R. 240, 247n. 4
dike 186, 1889, 1934
Dilke, C. 205
Dilthey, W. xiiixvi, 314, 202, 258, 47,
109
Diogenes Laertius 198, 205n. 4, 206nn.11,
20
Dionysian 35
Dionysus 35, 131, 205
DNA xiii, 40, 71, 74, 856, 93, 989, 102,
103, 109, 112, 113, 226
printer 102
Dombrowsky, D. 128, 134n. 1, 135n. 7
Dostoevsky, F. 230
Dupuy, J.-P. 231
Dworkin, R. M. 105
dynein 40
economics 42
education 89, 127, 131, 1334, 135n. 5,
159
lan vital 47, 55 seealsovital impetus
embroyonic development 50, 63n. 31
Emmeche, C. 106n. 11
emotions xv, xxii, 60, 63n. 34, 1312,
23746, 246n. 1, 247nn. 2, 57
and animals 2434
basic 23940
as elements of transcendence 245
as eudaimonistic 242
and moral virtue 2456
narrativity of 241
Index
phenomenological perspectives on 238,
2434
physiology of 23940
enhancement xx, 1579, 1635, 166n. 1
Enlightenment 112, 129, 133
entropy 39, 68, 72
environment viii, xv, xvi, xxii, 3, 18, 72,
100, 102, 104, 213, 22632, 233n. 13,
2434
environmental 61n. 14, 84, 99, 102, 1045,
2267, 231
epoche 69, 142
eris/envy 1312
ETC Group 85, 1012
eternal recurrence 33, 423, 154n. 8
ethics xviii, xxiii, 7, 812, 17, 25, 41, 60n. 2,
7980, 124, 126, 131, 135n. 4, 157, 177,
198, 215
ethics (of the future) 80
eugenics xv, xx, 1578, 1635, 166n. 1
Euripides 131, 183n. 8
everyday life 94, 21215, 21720, 221nn.
1314
evolution viii, xvii, xxii, 26, 33, 3940,
4764, 82, 96, 98, 105, 109, 116, 125,
204, 223, 2278, 239
extinction 32, 41, 44
eye xvii, 33, 523, 61n. 14, 127, 141, 146,
162, 166n. 5, 199
factical life xvi, 1516, 213, 246
federal reserve note 42
Flaubert, G. 230
Flintoff, E. 207n. 26
formative ethics 11
Foucault, M. xx, 11112, 11416, 11819,
135n. 7, 157, 160, 17184, 233
biopolitics xx, 1579, 161, 1635
biopower vii, 111, 15865, 166n. 3
care of the self xx, 11416, 118,
17184
ontology of ourselves 112, 114, 119
practices of the self 11416, 15960,
162, 178
freedom 19, 23, 37, 114, 125, 12930,
134n.2, 144, 147, 1501, 158, 160,
165, 1712, 1767, 180, 192, 225,
229
Freud, S. 234n. 22, 242, 244
263
Galactic Empire 204

Garca Mrquez, G. xvii, 67, 69, 71, 756
genre xix, 48, 67, 1434, 14853, 154n. 4
gift xx, 18, 67, 83, 1712, 1802, 241
Girard, R. viii, xxii, 223, 2302, 232n. 3,
2334nn. 1722, 24
Gdel, K. xvii, 69, 117
God is dead 41, 44
golem 85
Goodpaster, K. 3940
Greek(s) xiii, xv, xx, 15, 24, 35, 68, 84, 114,
124, 126, 1313, 136n. 13, 172, 176,
1789, 186, 1901, 206n. 14
Guattari, F. 148, 154n. 13
Hadot, P. 115, 216
Hall, M. 40, 44
Hanson, R. 205n. 5
Hayles, N. K. 44n. 3
healing 32, 38, 43, 164
health(y) xxiii, 128, 131, 135n. 9, 157, 159,
161, 198, 206n. 19, 219, 237
Heidegger, M. xvi, xviii, xxxxi, 1529, 43,
834, 90, 11011, 11619, 18595, 212,
219, 233
fundamental ontology 110
Seingeschichte (history-of-being) 119
Heraclitean flux 40
hermeneutics xvi, 34, 1516, 202, 248,
69, 128, 134
Hesiod 132
heterogeneity 1435, 14952, 154n. 5
historical xiii, xvxvi, xviii, xxiiiii, 3,
78, 1113, 205, 278, 70, 112,
11719, 131, 135n. 5, 151, 160, 162,
172, 174, 189, 197, 21314, 219,
221n.13, 228
prehistoric 70
historicism 16
history xv, xxiii, 3, 6, 13, 268, 512, 57,
93, 113, 118, 1323, 135n. 5, 141,
144, 1479, 151, 153, 175, 179, 232,
234n.21, 2456, 24960
antiquarian 256
critical 2568
monumental 2556
prehistory 178
Hffe, O. 2256, 229, 231, 232n. 9
Homo cyberneticus 116
264
Index
Hume, D. 9, 10, 88, 200

Husserl, E. xvivii, 1517, 247, 69,
233n.17
Huxley, T. H. 197
hypsipolis-apolis 186, 18990
identity 128, 134, 135n. 9, 1434, 1468,
1504, 205, 243
immanence 16, 213, 143
Information Age 11011, 11314, 11618
informationistic biotechnologies xviii,
945, 1015
information theory xvii, 72, 746, 112, 114
inorganic 379, 49, 51, 98, 113
interaction xxi, 36, 44nn. 1, 3, 956, 199,
227, 229, 238, 240
internal principle 51
Izard, C. 23940, 247n. 3
James, W. 20
Jonas, H. xviii, xxii, 7980, 233n. 13,
2434
justice 12, 15, 126, 135, 188, 242
Kant, I. xvxvi, xxiixxiii, 35, 7, 1013, 27,
33, 58, 68, 80, 878, 11415, 118, 141,
144, 151, 2236, 229, 2312, 232nn. 2,
7, 10, 233n. 19, 234n. 23
Kauffman, S. 39, 68
Kaufmann, W. 26, 136n. 14
Keats, J. 205
Keller, E. F. 113
Keohane, J. 207n. 24
Kierkegaard, S. 18, 233n. 15
Kuhn, T. 74
Kundera, M. 233n. 17
Kuzminski, A. 201, 2045, 206nn. 9, 20
Lamarck 523
language vii, xvi, 16, 208, 36, 42, 59,
61n.11, 69, 72, 125, 154n. 4, 162, 164,
18690, 21320, 220n. 2, 221nn. 46,
14, 17, 240, 244
Latour, B. 104, 106n. 15
law 3, 10, 37, 82, 95, 114, 130, 134n. 2, 141,
160, 1634, 185, 192, 223, 2256, 231
Lawrence, T. E. 206n. 17
Lazarus, R. 243, 247n. 7
Levinas, I. xvi, 1521, 25, 28
Lewontin, R. xxii, 132, 223, 2269,

233nn.1214
liberal eugenics xx, 1578, 1635
liberalism xv, xvii, 702, 1234, 128, 134,
134n. 2, 136n. 12, 164
lightning 389
literature xxiv, 1445, 153, 218, 223, 230
Locke, J. 12930, 134n. 2, 136n. 12
logos xiii, 22, 245, 186, 18990, 194
Long, A. A. 198, 205
Lw, Rabi 85
Luna, L. 44n. 1
Lyotard, J.-F. xix, 1434, 14653,
154nn.36, 911
McFadden, J. 68
machines xxiii, 36, 40, 61n. 14, 68, 75, 834,
96, 112, 114, 117, 226, 2289
natural v. artificial 8790
McKenna, A. 2312
Maclean, P. 240, 247n. 3
Maia Neto, J. R. 206n. 8, 207nn. 21, 23
maladaptation seeadaptation
Malin, S. 201
Margulis, L. 68
Maturana, H. 39
mechanism, mechanistic xx, 3642, 4952,
56, 87, 111, 113, 173, 176, 227, 230, 243
seealsoCartesian mechanism
Mendius, R. 205n. 5
Merchant, C. 41
metaphysical xvii, 7, 11, 18, 33, 38, 41,
44n.3, 478, 557, 59, 62n. 23, 70,
804, 11718, 135n. 4, 172, 188,
21516, 218, 221n. 14, 250
metaphysics xiv, xvii, xviii, 33, 36, 389,
478, 5660, 60n. 3, 63n. 28, 33, 70,
72, 804, 87, 90, 11617, 172, 212, 215,
217, 258
microtubules 40
militarization of biology 102
mimetic viii, 89, 2301
modernity 12, 17, 84, 111, 131, 133, 157,
160, 172, 174, 214, 219
modern philosophy xxii, 23, 124, 129, 213,
229
molecular biology 83, 93, 95, 102, 109, 113
molecular vitalism 40
money 32, 424, 101, 149
Index
monster of energy xvi, 31, 36, 42
Montaigne, M. de 200, 202, 2045
moral xiii, xxi, 912, 478, 60, 63n. 34, 79,
81, 114, 124, 12930, 141, 1589, 204,
225, 237, 2445, 2523, 255, 2578
moralists 115
morality 1112, 231, 2512, 2545, 2579
motion 367, 2246, 229, 232, 243
mysterians 198
natural artificiality 105
naturalism xvi, 1620
naturalizing (life and the mind) 83
Nazi 1501
NBIC convergence xvii, xviii, 80, 823, 89
neo-Darwinian/neo-Darwinism 39, 53,
109, 204
neo-Kantian/neo-Kantianism 1516, 24, 27
neo-Nietzschean 111
Nietzsche, F. xiii, xiv, xvi, xix, xxiii, 18,
28, 3144, 47, 109, 12334, 134n. 1,
135nn.45, 7, 136n. 10, 1367nn.
1319, 232n. 10, 233n. 15, 234n. 21,
244, 24959, 259nn. 24, 260n. 7
normalization 15864
Nussbaum, M. xxii, 134n. 1, 206n. 20,
2413, 247nn. 5, 7
Nutt, D. 44n. 1
objectivity 70, 124, 1313, 17980, 182,
183n. 13, 256
OFlaherty, W. D. 205n. 3, 206nn. 14, 18
ontologically subjective 42
organic 8, 13, 39, 502
life 37, 48, 59, 61n. 7
matter 61n. 14, 113
memory 50
phenomena 51, 61n. 12, 63n. 29
orthogenesis 53, 62n. 16
other xx, 611, 16, 19, 213, 25, 28, 345,
50, 68, 702, 75, 84, 124, 127, 136n.
12, 1423, 147, 150, 1523, 159, 165,
1712, 175, 1801, 2256, 22932,
233n. 19, 23940, 242, 245
parrhesia 115, 1768, 183nn. 8, 11
Patoka, J. xx, 17182, 182n. 2, 183nn. 1316
perspectivism 37, 128, 260n. 7
pessimism 33, 126, 133, 135n. 4
265
phenomenology/phenomenological
xvxvi, xix, 1517, 19, 21, 234, 67,
69, 110, 1423, 145, 154n. 6, 173, 237,
243
physis 15, 16, 20, 186, 189, 194
Pietak, A. 40
plants 26, 32, 35, 38, 401, 44n. 1, 62n. 2,
99100, 102, 228, 233n. 11
Plato xiv, xvi, 33, 412, 58, 76, 115, 118,
1246, 135n. 4, 1413, 172, 17680,
183n. 8, 13, 205, 206n. 14, 211, 21415,
21820, 221n. 14, 223, 230
Plessner, H. 105
Plotinus viii, 204
pluralism xix, 125, 12734, 136nn. 1517
polis 124, 131, 134, 143, 172, 1756, 179,
190, 191
politics xiv, xix, 1237, 129, 1314, 135n. 7,
1767, 179, 1878, 190
postmodernism 1434, 148, 154nn. 3, 7
postulates,
of analyzability 95
of lawfulness 95
of manipulability 98, 104
of programmability 967
of synthesizability 956, 103
power xiii, xvii, xx, 9, 15, 19, 35, 37, 40, 55,
62n. 21, 84, 95, 11011, 11416, 126,
12830, 144, 14952, 157, 15960,
1634, 166n. 3, 1728, 182, 183n. 12,
187, 194, 198, 211, 213, 21819, 223,
244, 2501, 259n. 4
powerless, -ness xix, 142, 1456, 152
practices 3, 22, 245, 114, 116, 125, 159,
160, 162, 173, 178, 212, 218, 250
property 68, 86, 202, 233n. 13
private 130, 134
Pruyser, P. 207n. 25
Pyrrho of Elis 198, 206n. 11
rationalism 24, 173, 204
Rawls, J. 71
re-creation seecreation
reduction (rtrcissement ) 57
Re, P. 2512, 2545, 259n. 4
reflexive awareness 46
reflexive experience 511, 13n. 1
relativism 132
Renan, E. xxiii, 2516, 259n. 4
266
Index
representation 56, 8, 334, 42, 54, 58,

62n.19
responsibility xxxxi, 21, 23, 41, 80, 128,
1712, 175, 17982, 186, 189, 1934
ressentiment 131, 134
Rickert, H. 256
Ricoeur, P. 11112
Ridley, M. 71, 250, 258, 260n. 7
Rimbaud, A. 142, 154n. 2
risk xiii, xviii, 16, 23, 38, 89, 1025, 1767,
192, 204, 214, 219, 2434
Rorty, A. 2401
Rosenblueth, A. 228, 233n. 14
sacrifice xxi, 35, 186, 1914, 230, 250
Sagan, C. 71
Sagan, D. 68
Sartre, J.-P. xxii, 2389
Schachter, S. 239
Schleiermacher, F. 28
Schopenhauer, A. xvi, 9, 336, 39, 45, 218
Schrdinger, E. 734, 113
Schutte, O. 43
scientism 233n. 19
Scruton, R. 241
Searle, J. 42, 44, 46
Sedley, D. 198, 2045
self xixxx, 56, 10, 1617, 1928, 36, 57,
68, 70, 11416, 118, 128, 141, 143, 145,
1534, 159, 161, 17182, 183nn. 11, 16,
203, 243
self-consciousness seeconsciousness
self-denial 250
self-organization xiii, 40, 68, 869, 96, 98
self-reference xvii, 6870
self-reflection 10, 1213, 23
Sextus Empiricus 199200, 202, 204, 205n.
4, 206nn. 10, 15
shaman 312, 38, 44n. 1
Singer, J. 239
Skeptics 197210
Academic 197, 2012
Pyrrhonian xxi, 198, 202
Smith, N. K. 2246, 232, 232n. 6
Socrates 41, 131, 133, 136nn. 1314, 1758,
206n. 14, 223
solidarity 912, 56, 128, 174, 182
Solomon, R. xxii, 2389, 241, 246nn. 12
Sophocles xx, 1856, 1889, 1934
statistic 73, 75, 96
Stendhal 230
Stephens, P. 207n. 24
Stoics 114, 1989
story 756, 147, 153
subject/subjectivity xxiii, 56, 1617, 23,
278, 33, 378, 402, 534, 62n. 19,
70, 801, 84, 111, 11419, 143, 145,
1478, 15960, 173, 1801, 183n. 13,
214, 2246, 22932, 233nn. 15, 19,
243
synthetic biology xviii, 846, 94, 97101,
1045
Taylor, P. 40
techne xiii, 88, 176, 1869, 194
technology xiii, xv, xx, 17, 44n. 7, 801,
834, 99, 101, 112, 1578, 1645,
1724, 177
bio- xiii, xvii, 85, 94, 157, 165, 226
computer 94, 101
gray 100
green 99101
information xvii, 94, 98, 11011
nano xvii, 856, 97, 104, 110
teleology 513, 68, 87, 249
temporalization 142, 145, 149, 152,
154n.1
temporal order 52
Thalberg, I. 247n. 4
thing 34, 368, 44
thing-in-itself 33
tragedy xv, xxi, 1856, 18890, 1934
transcendental reflection 7, 10, 1213
Tree of Life 42
truth 25, 523, 67, 70, 73, 11619, 159,
1712, 1767, 180, 192, 197201,
2034, 212, 21920, 220n. 2, 241, 250,
252
Tupper, K. 44n. 1
bermensch xvi, 43
uncanny 102, 1867, 18991
uncertainty xviii, 23, 79, 103, 105
Varela, F. 39
Venter, J. C. 85, 97, 1012, 105n. 4
verum factum 812, 89
Vico, G. 81, 89
violence xvi, xx, 16, 18, 1920, 25, 144,
1512, 174, 1878, 2301
Index
267
virtual 97, 201, 203

virtuality 537, 62nn. 19, 22
vital impetus xvii, 47, 51, 537, 62n. 19
seealsolan vital
vitalism 26, 40, 48, 51, 217, 220
vital organization 54, 59
vital principle 48, 51, 61nn. 910, 150
voice xix, 23, 1412, 152, 172
will xvi, 59, 13, 15, 223, 25, 339, 43, 48,
53, 62n. 18, 67, 84, 126, 1289, 163,
178, 1934, 225, 231, 244, 250
Williams, L. 43
will to power xvi, 19, 31, 33, 358, 402
Wittgenstein, L. xxii, 72, 154n. 4, 206n.7,
21220, 220n. 2, 221nn. 35, 11,
1314, 222
war 19, 72, 117, 129, 132, 136n. 11, 151,

174, 185, 189, 203, 254
Weiner, N. 228, 233n. 14
Wilberforce, S. 197
Wiley, M. L. 198
xDNA 98
Young, E. 44n. 2
Zarathustra 323, 35, 43

(Bloomsbury Studies in Continental Philosophy) Scott Campbell, Paul W. Bruno (Eds.) - The Science, Politics, and Ontology of Life-Philosophy-Bloomsbury Academic (2013)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Bloomsbury Studies in Continental Philosophy) Scott Campbell, Paul W. Bruno (Eds.) - The Science, Politics, and Ontology of Life-Philosophy-Bloomsbury Academic (2013)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Bloomsbury Studies in Continental Philosophy) Scott Campbell, Paul W. Bruno (Eds.) - The Science, Politics, and Ontology of Life-Philosophy-Bloomsbury Academic (2013)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are some of the major topics discussed in the document?

What are some of the major topics discussed in the document?

What philosophical concepts are mentioned?

What philosophical concepts are mentioned?

The Science, Politics, and

Bloomsbury Studies in Philosophy

The Science, Politics, and

175 Fifth Avenue

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Typeset by Newgen Imaging Systems Pvt Ltd, Chennai, India

Part I Life-Contexts in Dilthey, Nietzsche, and Bergson

1 Dilthey as a Philosopher of Life Rudolf A. Makkreel

Part II Converging Technologies

5 Information, Self-Reference, and the Magical Realism of Life

Part III Life, Power, Politics

9 Without Inside or Outside: Nietzsche, Pluralism, and the

Part IV Philosophies of Life

Stephen R. L. Clark, formerly a Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford (196875),

mode of thought is needed to reverse humanitys biosphere-destroying

Edward F. McGushin is an Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy

Serena Parekh is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Northeastern University

The final essay in this section on the classical life-philosophers is by Florence

to control the consequences of our technological progress. Jean-Pierre Dupuys

violence to particularities and singularities, taking time to listen better, to hear

In his essay, Intuition as the Business of Philosophy: Wittgenstein and

Dilthey as a Philosopher of Life

The Science, Politics, and Ontology of Life-Philosophy

overall givenness of things. This contextual approach to life allows Dilthey to

Dilthey as a Philosopher of Life

by reflexive awareness is the self-givenness or the being-with-itself (Innesein)

Reflexive awareness as the being-with-itself of consciousness constitutes its real

The Science, Politics, and Ontology of Life-Philosophy

Dilthey as a Philosopher of Life

experience involves an understanding that locates an inner sense in something

The Science, Politics, and Ontology of Life-Philosophy

psycho-ethical approach that is rooted in anthropological-historical analysis

Dilthey as a Philosopher of Life

The Science, Politics, and Ontology of Life-Philosophy

the welfare of others to be ethical. Sympathy and compassion cannot be ethical

Dilthey as a Philosopher of Life

experience, he is now willing to speak of synthetic a priori practical judgments

The Science, Politics, and Ontology of Life-Philosophy

Dilthey as a Philosopher of Life

The Science, Politics, and Ontology of Life-Philosophy

Biological and Historical Life: Heidegger

The Science, Politics, and Ontology of Life-Philosophy

and the model ofa primary achievementmodern scientific-mathematical

Biological and Historical Life

of transcendental philosophy in light of the phenomenological critique of the

The question of nature

The Science, Politics, and Ontology of Life-Philosophy

Biological and Historical Life

Levinass earlier interpretation of phenomenology as de-reifying the human

The Science, Politics, and Ontology of Life-Philosophy

less concerned with biology as a natural scientific discipline or Darwinism as a

Heidegger and the hermeneutics of historical life

Biological and Historical Life

The transition from intuition to the interpretation of expression is part of the

The Science, Politics, and Ontology of Life-Philosophy

5 Information, Self-Reference, and the Magical Realism of Life

9 Without Inside or Outside: Nietzsche, Pluralism, and the