Dies ist eine mehrteilige Nachricht im MIME-Format.
--------------FE12D65D39E86A5E3E1D721F
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
FYI:
The entire talk of Sloterdijk "Regeln für den Menschenpark" where the
whole debate starts is available at
http://www.suhrkamp.de"; for
downloading (around 80kb as rtf).
regards
Matthias Hahn
Antti M Kauppinen schrieb:
>
> In case anyone is interested and knows German, here are a few links to
> the Sloterdijk debate recently discussed here. The relevance to
> Heidegger is mostly that the talk that started the debate was on 'Letter
> on Humanism', and the discussion also provides some light on Heidegger's
> status with the general (intellectual) public in Germany today.
>
> First, what was apparently the original commentary in Die Zeit (36/99, Sept 2):
>
> Thomas Assheuer: Das Zarathustra-Projekt
> (
http://www.archiv.zeit.de/daten/pages//199936.sloterdijk1_.html)
>
> This article contains a lot of quotes from Sloterdijk's talk. Here's
> a few to give you a feel of what's going on:
>
> "Die ra des neuzeitlichen Humanismus ist abgelaufen,
> weil die Illusion nicht lnger
> sich halten lsst, politische und konomische
> Grostrukturen knnten nach dem amiablen Modell der
> literarischen Gesellschaft organisiert werden." Die
> Entwilderung" des Menschen ist gescheitert und die
> "Zukunft von Humanitt" bei den alten
> "Humanisierungsmedien" in schlechten Hnden.
>
> Going from my fourth to my second language, I'd "translate" the quoted
> sentence something like the following (with apologies to Michael E. and
> other real translators):
>
> "The era of modern Humanism is over, because the illusion that
> political and economic superstructures could be organized on the
> amiable model of the literary society can no longer be maintained."
>
> This is clearly aimed at Habermas (the literary society as the
> paradigm of democracy), so it's no wonder his followers have reacted.
> (Not to trivialize the matters, we mustn't forget that Habermas's
> position on democracy is much more complex and realistic than that; see e.g.
> Faktizitt und Geltung.)
>
> For Sloterdijk, when democracy has shown itself incapable of fighting the
> decay of humanity, its simultaneous animalization and domestication, other
> means are needed. If Assheuer's gloss of the talk is to be trusted, these means
> are provided by genetic selection and planning by the spiritual elite:
>
> Fr die "explizite Merkmalsplanung"
> sind allein geistige Eliten zustndig, die so genannten
> "kulturellen Hauptfraktionen" der Gesellschaft.
>
> Sloterdijk apparently refers directly to Plato's Republic and its
> philosopher kings who are capable of "direction based on insight". The
> rest of Assheuer's article consists of him lambasting Sloterdijk's
> "scandalous talk" and Nietzsche and Heidegger in passing. I find it
> enjoyable from the point of view of rhetoric, at least, and I envy the
> education level of the avarage Die Zeit reader, if they grasp the
> references in sentences like the following (again, freely and with
> apologies): "[C]onsidered from the point of view of "history of
> being", genetic technology looks like a stroke of luck. After the
> alleged failure of humanism, it makes available the means to return the
> homeless and isolated man to his original "essence"." This is, of
> course, rhetoric in the sense that is opposed to philosophy or argument.
>
> In the next issue of Die Zeit (37/99, 9 Sept), Sloterdijk replies with
>
> Die Kritische Theorie ist tot
> (
http://www.archiv.zeit.de/daten/pages//199937.sloterdijk_.html)
>
> In it, Sloterdijk wonders if Assheuer has the same text as he does at
> all, since they read it so differently - Assheuer thinks he's a
> Nietzschean, where he explicitly said that Nietzsche's concept of the
> overman can have no meaning for us any more. The press is once again
> alarming people for alarming's sake. The second part of his letter is
> addressed to Habermas, because Sloterdijk has heard that Habermas has
> spoken about him to many people (!) but not spoken with him. He claims
> that Habermas has mobilized an international attack against him, making
> photocopies of his lecture and sending them everywhere. Sloterdijk goes
> on at length how Habermas has thus reified him - it's a hilarious read.
> With Habermas, critical theory has become a sinister Jacobinism that
> liquidates its opponents through mass media. Its claims are based on
> the "forceless force of the quicker denunciation (and worse reading)"
> instead of what Habermas calls the "forceless force of the better
> argument". Critical theory was the answer for the children of the Nazi
> era. With this debate it has shown itself to be unsuitable for our
> needs: critical theory is dead.
>
> Naturally enough, Sloterdijk does not say a word in reply to the
> criticisms made by Assheuer, even when they seem to be supported by his
> quotes from the actual talk.
>
> Ulrich Greiner comments on the debate in the same issue in
>
> O Sophie - Peter Sloterdijk und die Elite
> (
http://www.archiv.zeit.de/daten/pages//199937.2._leiter_.html)
>
> There are plenty of references to this in the issue, but they are merely
> incidental. As indeed are those in Simone Humml's Der Spiegel article
>
> Eine Vision vom neuen Menschen?
> (
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/0,1518,42136,00.html)
>
> The whole "debate" is ironized in Frankfurter Rundschau (9 Sept) by 'P.I.'
> in their 'Times Mager'-section. In the same paper, Micha Brumlik offers
> critical meta-reflections on the debate (critical mostly of Die Zeit and
> SLoterdijk - after all, Habermas hasn't said anything in public) in 'Der
> Rcher der Enterbten' (18 Sept). Manfred Schneider, in 'Hirt ohne Schafe
> - Sommertheater im Menschenpark: In Sachen Peter Sloterdijk' (15 Sept),
> draws lessons on the politics of philosophy from the discussion and
> offers some more unbiased commentary on the talk. In 'Der Denker auf der
> Bhne - Peter Sloterdijk erklrt die Kritische Theorie fr beendet' (9
> Sept), Harry Nutt criticizes Sloterdijk for his overreaction to
> discussion of his talk. All of these are available in the Archiv-section
> of Frankfurter Rundschau's web page, (
http://www.fr-aktuell.de/fr/index.htm).
>
> By now, the general media has simplified the matters down to something like
> "Philosopher Peter Sloterdijk thinks human beings should be genetically
> improved", which can be used as a prop in writing predictable articles
> about the dangers of eugenics or genetic technology in general. That is
> a shame and Sloterdijk has a right to be pissed off, but I wouldn't
> draw dramatic conclusions about the death of democracy or critical
> theory out of that. (Indeed, for an in-depth analysis of how the media
> came to be like they are, one of the best places to go to is Habermas's
> early _Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere_.) Moreover,
> Sloterdijk's criticism of Habermas is incoherent: first, he says that
> the version of the talk Habermas has is unfinished and should not be
> discussed in public, and then blames Habermas for not discussing it in
> public, only privately with his friends.
>
> I'll stop here, because this is getting all the more irrelevant to
> Heidegger; perhaps someone could bring it back by trying to think
> through what difference genetic technology makes to our understanding of
> being, or rather that of the future generations. Many people are saying that
> biotechnology is going to be as important as information technology is today.
> Is it a qualitatively different kind of technology or just a continuation
> of the ancient project of controlling nature? If we take a Husserlian/
> Merleau-Pontian attitude toward perception as essentially embodied and
> kinaesthetic, isn't our lifeworld going to change radically when its physical
> basis becomes the object of technological improvement and commercial
> competition? Such questions are in the end more important and
> interesting than the politics of philosophy.
>
> Sorry about the length,
>
> Antti
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
--------------FE12D65D39E86A5E3E1D721F
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Visitenkarte für Matthias Hahn
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
begin: vcard
fn: Matthias Hahn
n: Hahn;Matthias
adr;dom: Balger-Hauptstr. 112a;;;Baden-Baden;;76532;
email;internet: hahn-matthias@xxxxxxxxxxx
tel;home: 07221 / 63433
x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
x-mozilla-html: FALSE
version: 2.1
end: vcard
--------------FE12D65D39E86A5E3E1D721F--
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---