Conquering the Tertium Datur: Sloterdijk in defense of a “cybernetic anthropology” (between Heidegger, Günther and Latour)

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Pitta, Maurício Fernando
Data de Publicação: 2022
Outros Autores: Weber, José Fernandes
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: por
Título da fonte: Trans/Form/Ação (Online)
Texto Completo: https://revistas.marilia.unesp.br/index.php/transformacao/article/view/7114
Resumo:  Martin Heidegger developed an analysis of metaphysics and technology that questioned its ontological presupositions. However, Peter Sloterdijk, author of a revision of the Heideggerian clearing (Lichtung), under the title of Domestication of being: clarifying the clearing, argues that Heidegger suffers from the same illness he criticizes: an abeyance relative to classical ontology, which, after Plato and Aristotle, separated Being and Nothingness, grounded the logical bivalence, excluding any third possibility, and allowing for the metaphysical dualisms. Following the anthropologist Bruno Latour, who has showed that “Modernity” is a belief in the split between the poles of form and matter, of subject and object, of nature and culture, Sloterdijk also assigns to Heidegger the dependence on classical ontology on the level of the split between ontological and ontic. In this respect, what does Sloterdijk suggest? An alternative to classical ontology in the cybernetics of Wiener and Günther, in order to reattach the links broken by Heidegger between ontology and anthropology. This work aims to articulate Sloterdijk’s critique, Latour’s enquiry and Günther’s ontological-logical revision, in order to open field for an understanding on the Sloterdijkian project of thinking anthropology from cybernetical hypotheses. Recebido: 20/07/2017Aceito: 24/10/2019
id UNESP-10_e0a1eb21ffbc22bc3708fec35d3f325c
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.revistas.marilia.unesp.br:article/7114
network_acronym_str UNESP-10
network_name_str Trans/Form/Ação (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Conquering the Tertium Datur: Sloterdijk in defense of a “cybernetic anthropology” (between Heidegger, Günther and Latour)Conquistar o Tertium Datur: Sloterdijk em defesa de uma “antropologia cibernética” (entre Heidegger, Günther e LatourAnthropologyCyberneticsNon-classical LogicsMetaphysicsOntologyAntropologiaCibernéticaLógicas não-clássicasMetafísicaOntologia Martin Heidegger developed an analysis of metaphysics and technology that questioned its ontological presupositions. However, Peter Sloterdijk, author of a revision of the Heideggerian clearing (Lichtung), under the title of Domestication of being: clarifying the clearing, argues that Heidegger suffers from the same illness he criticizes: an abeyance relative to classical ontology, which, after Plato and Aristotle, separated Being and Nothingness, grounded the logical bivalence, excluding any third possibility, and allowing for the metaphysical dualisms. Following the anthropologist Bruno Latour, who has showed that “Modernity” is a belief in the split between the poles of form and matter, of subject and object, of nature and culture, Sloterdijk also assigns to Heidegger the dependence on classical ontology on the level of the split between ontological and ontic. In this respect, what does Sloterdijk suggest? An alternative to classical ontology in the cybernetics of Wiener and Günther, in order to reattach the links broken by Heidegger between ontology and anthropology. This work aims to articulate Sloterdijk’s critique, Latour’s enquiry and Günther’s ontological-logical revision, in order to open field for an understanding on the Sloterdijkian project of thinking anthropology from cybernetical hypotheses. Recebido: 20/07/2017Aceito: 24/10/2019Martin Heidegger desenvolveu uma análise da metafísica e da tecnologia que questionava radicalmente seus pressupostos ontológicos. Contudo, para Peter Sloterdijk, autor de uma revisão do motivo da clareira (Lichtung) heideggeriana intitulada Domesticação do ser: clarificando a clareira, Heidegger padece daquilo mesmo que ele critica: uma pendência para a ontologia clássica que, desde pelo menos Platão e Aristóteles, separa o ser e o nada, basila o princípio de bivalência na lógica, excluindo qualquer terceira possibilidade, e permite os dualismos constitutivos da metafísica. Seguindo o antropólogo Bruno Latour, que evidenciara que “modernidade” não é senão uma crença na cisão entre os polos de forma e matéria, sujeito e objeto, natureza e cultura, também Sloterdijk vai atribuir a Heidegger a pendência à ontologia clássica, elevada ao nível da cisão entre o ôntico e o ontológico. Diante disso, o que sugere Sloterdijk? Uma alternativa à ontologia clássica na cibernética de Wiener e Günther, reatando os laços, desfeitos por Heidegger, entre ontologia e antropologia. Este trabalho tem por intenção articular a crítica de Sloterdijk, a investigação de Latour e a revisão ontológico-lógica de Günther, a fim de assentar bases para compreensão do projeto sloterdijkiano de se pensar a antropologia a partir de pressupostos cibernéticos. Recebido: 20/07/2017Aceito: 24/10/2019Faculdade de Filosofia e Ciências2022-07-13info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdftext/htmlapplication/x-mobipocket-ebookapplication/epub+ziphttps://revistas.marilia.unesp.br/index.php/transformacao/article/view/7114TRANS/FORM/AÇÃO: Revista de Filosofia da Unesp; v. 43 n. 1: Janeiro-Março/2020; 189-212TRANS/FORM/AÇÃO: Revista de Filosofia; Vol. 43 No. 1: January-March/2020; 189-212TRANS/FORM/AÇÃO: Revista de Filosofia; Vol. 43 Núm. 1: Janeiro-Março/2020; 189-212TRANS/FORM/AÇÃO: Revista de Filosofia; Vol. 43 No. 1: Janeiro-Março/2020; 189-212TRANS/FORM/AÇÃO: Revista de Filosofia; V. 43 N. 1: Janeiro-Março/2020; 189-2121980-539X0101-3173reponame:Trans/Form/Ação (Online)instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)instacron:UNESPporhttps://revistas.marilia.unesp.br/index.php/transformacao/article/view/7114/9408https://revistas.marilia.unesp.br/index.php/transformacao/article/view/7114/9409https://revistas.marilia.unesp.br/index.php/transformacao/article/view/7114/14356https://revistas.marilia.unesp.br/index.php/transformacao/article/view/7114/14357Copyright (c) 2020 TRANS/FORM/AÇÃO: Revista de Filosofiahttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessPitta, Maurício FernandoWeber, José Fernandes2023-05-30T19:48:01Zoai:ojs.revistas.marilia.unesp.br:article/7114Revistahttps://revistas.marilia.unesp.br/index.php/transformacao/PUBhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phptransformacao@marilia.unesp.br1980-539X0101-3173opendoar:2023-05-30T19:48:01Trans/Form/Ação (Online) - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Conquering the Tertium Datur: Sloterdijk in defense of a “cybernetic anthropology” (between Heidegger, Günther and Latour)
Conquistar o Tertium Datur: Sloterdijk em defesa de uma “antropologia cibernética” (entre Heidegger, Günther e Latour
title Conquering the Tertium Datur: Sloterdijk in defense of a “cybernetic anthropology” (between Heidegger, Günther and Latour)
spellingShingle Conquering the Tertium Datur: Sloterdijk in defense of a “cybernetic anthropology” (between Heidegger, Günther and Latour)
Pitta, Maurício Fernando
Anthropology
Cybernetics
Non-classical Logics
Metaphysics
Ontology
Antropologia
Cibernética
Lógicas não-clássicas
Metafísica
Ontologia
title_short Conquering the Tertium Datur: Sloterdijk in defense of a “cybernetic anthropology” (between Heidegger, Günther and Latour)
title_full Conquering the Tertium Datur: Sloterdijk in defense of a “cybernetic anthropology” (between Heidegger, Günther and Latour)
title_fullStr Conquering the Tertium Datur: Sloterdijk in defense of a “cybernetic anthropology” (between Heidegger, Günther and Latour)
title_full_unstemmed Conquering the Tertium Datur: Sloterdijk in defense of a “cybernetic anthropology” (between Heidegger, Günther and Latour)
title_sort Conquering the Tertium Datur: Sloterdijk in defense of a “cybernetic anthropology” (between Heidegger, Günther and Latour)
author Pitta, Maurício Fernando
author_facet Pitta, Maurício Fernando
Weber, José Fernandes
author_role author
author2 Weber, José Fernandes
author2_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Pitta, Maurício Fernando
Weber, José Fernandes
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Anthropology
Cybernetics
Non-classical Logics
Metaphysics
Ontology
Antropologia
Cibernética
Lógicas não-clássicas
Metafísica
Ontologia
topic Anthropology
Cybernetics
Non-classical Logics
Metaphysics
Ontology
Antropologia
Cibernética
Lógicas não-clássicas
Metafísica
Ontologia
description  Martin Heidegger developed an analysis of metaphysics and technology that questioned its ontological presupositions. However, Peter Sloterdijk, author of a revision of the Heideggerian clearing (Lichtung), under the title of Domestication of being: clarifying the clearing, argues that Heidegger suffers from the same illness he criticizes: an abeyance relative to classical ontology, which, after Plato and Aristotle, separated Being and Nothingness, grounded the logical bivalence, excluding any third possibility, and allowing for the metaphysical dualisms. Following the anthropologist Bruno Latour, who has showed that “Modernity” is a belief in the split between the poles of form and matter, of subject and object, of nature and culture, Sloterdijk also assigns to Heidegger the dependence on classical ontology on the level of the split between ontological and ontic. In this respect, what does Sloterdijk suggest? An alternative to classical ontology in the cybernetics of Wiener and Günther, in order to reattach the links broken by Heidegger between ontology and anthropology. This work aims to articulate Sloterdijk’s critique, Latour’s enquiry and Günther’s ontological-logical revision, in order to open field for an understanding on the Sloterdijkian project of thinking anthropology from cybernetical hypotheses. Recebido: 20/07/2017Aceito: 24/10/2019
publishDate 2022
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2022-07-13
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://revistas.marilia.unesp.br/index.php/transformacao/article/view/7114
url https://revistas.marilia.unesp.br/index.php/transformacao/article/view/7114
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
language por
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://revistas.marilia.unesp.br/index.php/transformacao/article/view/7114/9408
https://revistas.marilia.unesp.br/index.php/transformacao/article/view/7114/9409
https://revistas.marilia.unesp.br/index.php/transformacao/article/view/7114/14356
https://revistas.marilia.unesp.br/index.php/transformacao/article/view/7114/14357
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2020 TRANS/FORM/AÇÃO: Revista de Filosofia
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2020 TRANS/FORM/AÇÃO: Revista de Filosofia
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
text/html
application/x-mobipocket-ebook
application/epub+zip
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Faculdade de Filosofia e Ciências
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Faculdade de Filosofia e Ciências
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv TRANS/FORM/AÇÃO: Revista de Filosofia da Unesp; v. 43 n. 1: Janeiro-Março/2020; 189-212
TRANS/FORM/AÇÃO: Revista de Filosofia; Vol. 43 No. 1: January-March/2020; 189-212
TRANS/FORM/AÇÃO: Revista de Filosofia; Vol. 43 Núm. 1: Janeiro-Março/2020; 189-212
TRANS/FORM/AÇÃO: Revista de Filosofia; Vol. 43 No. 1: Janeiro-Março/2020; 189-212
TRANS/FORM/AÇÃO: Revista de Filosofia; V. 43 N. 1: Janeiro-Março/2020; 189-212
1980-539X
0101-3173
reponame:Trans/Form/Ação (Online)
instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron:UNESP
instname_str Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron_str UNESP
institution UNESP
reponame_str Trans/Form/Ação (Online)
collection Trans/Form/Ação (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Trans/Form/Ação (Online) - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv transformacao@marilia.unesp.br
_version_ 1794795209254502400