ABSTRACT: GEORGES CANGUILHEM’S BIOPHILOSOPHY The eminent French biologist and historian of biology, François Jacob, once notoriously declared «On n’interroge plus la vie dans les laboratoires»: laboratory research no longer inquires into the notion of “Life”. Certain influential French philosophers of science of the mid‐century such as Georges Canguilhem would disagree, or at least seek to resist some of Jacob’s diagnosis. Not by imposing a different kind of research program in laboratories, but by an unusual combination of historical and philosophical (...) inquiry into the foundations of the life sciences. Canguilhem speaks of «defending vitalist biology» and declares that Life cannot be grasped by logic. Is this history and philosophy of biology? Is it vitalism? It definitely is a different project from current philosophy of biology. One short‐lived term for it was “biophilosophy”. In this paper I explore the content of this term as it relates to the above questions. (shrink)

Uncontainable Life: A Biophilosophy of Bioart investigates the ways in which thinking through the contemporary hybrid artistico-scientific practices of bioart is a biophilosophical practice, one that contributes to a more nuanced understanding of life than we encounter in mainstream academic discourse. When examined from a Deleuzian feminist perspective and in dialogue with contemporary bioscience, bioartistic projects reveal the inadequacy of asking about life’s essence. They expose the enmeshment between the living and non-living, organic and inorganic, and, ultimately, life and (...) death. Instead of examining the defining criteria of life, bioartistic practices explore and enact life as processual, differential, and always already uncontainable, thus transcending preconceived material and conceptual boundaries. In this way, this doctoral thesis concentrates on the ontology of life as it emerges through the selected bioartworks: “semi-living” sculptures created by The Tissue Culture and Art Project and the performance May the Horse Live in Me by L’Art Orienté Objet. The hope is that such an ontology can enable future conceptualisations of an ethico-politics that avoids the anthropocentric logic dominant in the humanities and social sciences. (shrink)

In the contemporary context of environmental crises and the degradation of resources, certain habitats become unliveable, leading to the death of individuals and species extinction. Whilst bioscience emphasises interdependency and relationality as crucial characteristics of life shared by all organisms, Western cultural imaginaries tend to draw a thick dividing line between humans and nonhumans, particularly evident in the context of death. On the one hand, death appears as a process common to all forms of life; on the other, as an (...) event that distinguishes human from other organisms. Against this background, this article explores how contemporary art—in particular, the series of works The Absence of Alice by Australian new-media and bioartist Svenja Kratz—challenges the normative and human-exceptionalist concept of death. By employing queerfeminist biophilosophy as a strategy that focuses on relations, processes and transformations instead of ‘essences’, the article examines the ways Kratz’s works deterritorialise the conventional concept of death. In this way, it hopes to attend to the intimacies between materialities of a human and nonhuman kind that form part of the processes of death and dying, and what follows, to reframe ethico-ontology of death as material and processual ecologies of the non/living. (shrink)

Over the past three decades, the philosophy of biology has emerged from the shadow of the philosophy of physics to become a respectable and thriving philosophical subdiscipline. The authors take a fresh look at the life sciences and the philosophy of biology from a strictly realist and emergentist-naturalist perspective. They outline a unified and science-oriented philosophical framework that enables the clarification of many foundational and philosophical issues in biology. This book will be of interest both to life scientists and philosophers.

In this chapter we argue for biophilosophy as a queerfeminist and posthumanities methodology that attends to the question of life by focusing on multiple differences and transformations, materiality and processuality, as well as relations, intra-actions, and disconnections. By combining both the ontological and ethical concerns that go beyond what is conventionally seen as “life”, biophilosophy offers a critical and innovative approach to the issues of death, extinction, (un) liveability, terminality, and toxicity, among others, which all form the backbone (...) of the environmental crises and changing conditions of life on Earth, often framed as the Anthropocene. In what follows, we first discuss select theorisations and implications of the “life/death” coupling as an ethico-political question; subsequently we elaborate the concept of biophilosophy as a methodology; and finally, we propose two examples where we test biophilosophy as a framework that allows us: (1) to engage with the enmeshment of life and death through the concept of the non/living, and (2) to explore the concept of toxic embodiment as an onto-ethical condition we all (human and non-human) are differentially immersed in. (shrink)

Schopenhauer uses what he calls empirical metaphysics, to give an explanation of the essence of the world, and of living things. In doing so, he always tries to make interpretations which are grounded in the sciences. But since all sciences use the principle of sufficient reason, and restrict their observations to the phenomenal world, they can never get to what things are in themselves. There would be no way to do so, if Schopenhauer were not, as a philosopher, himself both (...) a knower and a physically embodied person in the world. Introspection shows the will to live as causality seen from inside. From there, he moves by analogy to other living beings, and even to the whole of nature. His precursors in philosophy and science, up to and including his time, are outlined, and also compared to later views, up to the present. (shrink)

Georges Canguilhem is known to have regretted, with some pathos, that Life no longer serves as an orienting question in our scientific activity. He also frequently insisted on a kind of uniqueness of organisms and/or living bodies – their inherent normativity, their value-production and overall their inherent difference from mere machines. In addition, Canguilhem acknowledged a major debt to the German neurologist-theoretician Kurt Goldstein, author most famously of The Structure of the Organism in 1934; along with Merleau-Ponty, Canguilhem was the (...) main figure who introduced the work of Goldstein and his ‘phenomenology of embodiment’ into France. In this paper I inquire if we should view Canguilhem and Goldstein as ‘biochauvinists’, that is, as thinkers who consider that there is something inherently unique about biological entities as such, and if so, of what sort. (shrink)

In the present condition of planetary environmental crises, violence, and war, entire ecosystems are annihilated, habitats turn into unliveable spaces, and shared “more-than-human” vulnerabilities get amplified. Here and now, death and loss become urgent environmental concerns, while the Anthropocene-induced anxiety, anger, and grief are manifested in popular-scientific narratives, art, culture, and activism. Grounded in the theoretical framework of queer death studies, this article explores present grief imaginaries and engagements with more-than-human death, dying, and extinction, as they are interwoven through contemporary (...) art. It is there where an ecological ontology of death is being exposed and ethical territories of eco-grief unfold. (shrink)

The eminent French biologist and historian of biology, François Jacob, once notoriously declared “On n’interroge plus la vie dans les laboratoires”: laboratory research no longer inquires into the notion of ‘Life’. Nowadays, as David Hull puts it, “both scientists and philosophers take ontological reduction for granted… Organisms are ‘nothing but’ atoms, and that is that.” In the mid-twentieth century, from the immediate post-war period to the late 1960s, French philosophers of science such as Georges Canguilhem, Raymond Ruyer and Gilbert Simondon (...) returned to Jacob’s statement with an odd kind of pathos: they were determined to reverse course. Not by imposing a different kind of research program in laboratories, but by an unusual combination of historical and philosophical inquiry into the foundations of the life sciences (particularly medicine, physiology and the cluster of activities that were termed ‘biology’ in the early 1800s). Even in as straightforwardly scholarly a work as La formation du concept de réflexe aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles (1955), Canguilhem speaks oddly of “defending vitalist biology,” and declares that Life cannot be grasped by logic (or at least, “la vie déconcerte la logique”). Was all this historical and philosophical work merely a reassertion of ‘mysterian’, magical vitalism? In order to answer this question we need to achieve some perspective on Canguilhem’s ‘vitalism’, notably with respect to its philosophical influences such as Kurt Goldstein. (shrink)

Canguilhem is known to have regretted, with some pathos, that Life no longer serves as an orienting question in our scientific activity. He also frequently insisted on a kind of uniqueness of organisms and/or living bodies – their inherent normativity, their value-production and overall their inherent difference from mere machines. In addition, Canguilhem acknowledged a major debt to the German neurologist-theoretician Kurt Goldstein, author most famously of The Structure of the Organism in 1934; along with Merleau-Ponty, Canguilhem was the main (...) figure who introduced the work of Goldstein and his ‘phenomenology of embodiment’ into France. In this paper I inquire if we should view Canguilhem and Goldstein as ‘biochauvinists’, that is, as thinkers who consider that there is something inherently unique about biological entities as such, and if so, of what sort. (shrink)

This work is an examination of the metaphysical presuppositions involved in the science of organic form. Taking the dichotomy of structuralism versus functionalism in nineteenth century biology as the central subject of my study, I explore a network of unquestioned premises and isolate areas where empirical research programs and underlying metaphysical commitments both inform and hinder each other. ;I begin with the Cuvier-Geoffroy debate of 1830--a debate that clearly articulates the tensions between structuralist and functionalist approaches to organic form. On (...) the side of functionalism, I am led to confront the rich concept of teleological causality. The concept of teleology, frequently taken to be semantically univocal, in fact unfolds into a cluster of related notions. I begin to demarcate significant differences between "intentional," "heuristic," "cosmic," and "organismic" teleology. On the side of structuralism, I set out to unearth the presuppositions of materialist versus idealist conceptions of structure--showing where naturalists have been both liberated and enslaved by their respective metaphysical commitments. With the basic divisions between structuralist and functionalist drawn, I set out to trace the dichotomy through the paradigm shift from fixism to transformism. ;In Darwin's system the structural/functional tensions become synthesized into complementary principles of causality. Here I explore the underlying presuppositional shifts which enabled Darwin to harmonize the previously intractable oppositions. These shifts include: rethinking teleology without "design," rethinking the archetype as real progenitor, and adopting a pluralistic perspective regarding causal mechanisms. ;The relative success of Darwin's appropriation of structuralism and functionalism leads to a discussion of the dichotomous character of the central subject itself. I argue that at the root of the dichotomous characterization of structure and function lies an impoverished understanding of teleology. I then offer "organicist" teleology as a powerful alternative to the French-Anglo tradition of "intentional" teleology. Presupposing the alternative teleology forms a challenge to the way in which French-Anglo naturalists have understood structural and functional relations. Together with Darwin's causal pluralism, a richer notion of teleology provides a different set of metaphysical assumptions and leads to an alternative model for empirical research programs. (shrink)

Alfred North Whitehead is arguably the most original 20th-century philosopher of nature and metaphysics. In recent decades a number of physicists have produced ground-breaking new theories in fundamental physics influenced by his process philosophy. In contrast, few biologists are even aware that Whitehead's radical rethinking of the Cartesian assumptions implicit in 19th-century sciences might be relevant to their enterprise. This book seeks to fill this gap by exploring how Whitehead's process ontology might provide a new philosophical foundation for the biosciences (...) of the 21st century. The central premise shared by all of the volume's authors is the idea that all living processes are irreducible processes. Each chapter focuses on assumptions implicit in some of the core concepts of biology- such as organism, evolution, information, and teleology - that play crucial explanatory roles in the biosciences, but as metaphysical concepts fall outside its purview. The authors each identify important shortcomings implicit in contemporary biological paradigms and show how an approach grounded in a process-oriented metaphysics can avoid them. (shrink)

Gegenstand dieser Untersuchung ist die Relevanz und Notwendigkeit eines prozesstheoretischen Verstandnisses des onto- und embryogenetischen Werdens von Organismen. Zuerst werden die Grenzen der modernen systemtheoretischen Reduktion des Organismus auf selbstorganisierte physikochemische Systeme aufgezeigt. Im zweiten Schritt werden, ausgehend von den Prozessontologien von A. N. Whitehead und H. Bergson, alternative Betrachtungen von Onto- und Embryogenese eingefuhrt. Abschliessend wird eine neue Prozessphilosophie skizziert, in welche Ontologien beider Denker integriert werden.

Taxonomically, lichens are classified as a distinct group under the Kingdom Fungi. They have been subject to materia medica books since the ancient times, drawing attention for their medicinal properties. Studies on the biology and history of lichens in Türkiye have now reached a significant level. Therefore, it is epistemologically plausible to consider lichens in philosophy and from a philosophical perspective. The dual nature of lichens known as symbiotic organisms leads to the emergence of certain properties that are not observable (...) when individual partners live separately. The present study explores whether lichens are indivisible individuals, discussing the lichen thallus as a relatively balanced system and even a miniature ‘ecosystem’. Consequently, this paper proposes that emergence, as a concept, can be considered a methodological apparatus in both defining and explaining biological facts and phenomena. Building on biological knowledge, it is suggested that philosophy, particularly biophilosophy and ethics, can consider lichens as model organisms. Through this perspective, principles for coexistence of both individuals, communities, and societies can be established. (shrink)

Purpose. The research is aimed at substantiation of the process of formation of various human images in the postmodernism era in the context of biophilosophy, taking into account the need to find an adequate response to historical challenges and the production of new value orientations reflecting succession of civilization development. Theoretical basis. The author in his theoretical constructs proceeds from the need of taking into account the biophilosophical aspect of postmodern man, as the one who, remaining a representative of (...) the species Homo sapiens, began to dynamically change, losing its own natural and functional qualities, acquiring to a large extent the socio-technology-related qualities. The thesis that in the postmodern society the moral and legal foundations of existence of human being, as the subject of actions and responsibility for these actions, practically coincide with the biological foundations is taken as initial argument. New biological knowledge, as well as the related technologies, orient the public consciousness towards production of fundamentally new or modernization of the existing bio-philosophical ideas. The author's vision of the anthropological collision of the Post-Modernism era is caused by the fact that the issues of a postmodern man acquire a special urgency at the end of the ХХ – early XXI century. A progressive disproportion between a human being, whose abilities as a representative of the species Homo sapiens are biologically limited, and the human community, which sees no limits in its information and technological expansion, is of current interest. Originality. The author reveals the key features of the Post-Modernism era, in which a fundamentally different civilizational space originates, and where a new type of person emerges in its internal culture, which is called the postmodern man. The postmodern man was considered through the prism of bio-philosophy. Its interest in man is caused by his or her place in nature, the prospects of development at the individual, population and species levels. Conclusions. In the process of development of bio-philosophy, its research field will be naturally expanded with the use of philosophical means of perception of life as such and filling the bio-philosophy with philosophical and biological issues. In contemporary conditions, the study of the boundaries of biological reality and its previously unknown properties, definition of new horizons of theoretical knowledge in the science of life, the critical rethinking of the concepts of biocentrism and anthropocentrism in the space of modern scientific knowledge, the definition of perspective trends in the study of man, his or her place and role in the planetary being is of great importance. (shrink)

Biology –in its simplest definition– is a natural science that studies the living things. Philosophy of Biology, on the other hand, is the whole of conceptual analysis, synthesis and deductions that filters the scientific information being produced by biology, especially those of ‘life’ and ‘evolution’. In this study, the importance of the philosophy-science view of the famous philosopher Teoman Duralı, who passed away a year ago, will be mentioned in terms of contemporary biology and philosophy of biology. In doing this, (...) first of all, the historical relationship between the philosophy of biology and the philosophy of science will be revealed. Then having in consideration of the scope of the philosophy of biology, its relationship to the pure biology and to the history of biology will be mentioned. Then, Duralı’s philosophy-science view will be examined in terms of meaning and cause-effect relationships, thus both his contribution to the philosophy of biology literature in Turkish and his position will be pointed out. In conclusion, the use of the term biophilosophy, which concerns and connects two separate-but-adjoint flowing rivers ‘the philosophy’ and ‘the biology’, will be mentioned by pointing out why ‘biology for philosophy’ and why ‘philosophy for biology’ are important reciprocally. Finally, a declaration consisting a list of ten proposed items will be put forth. (shrink)

The article is devoted to the methodological and methodical function of the philosophy of education regarding the variability of the content of modern philosophical knowledge in higher education. The article argues why biophilosophy, as an educational discipline, can be included in educational and educational-scientific programs as a mandatory or optional component. The relevance of the study of biophilosophy for future generations is also asserted, since biophilosophy is a variant of naturalistically oriented philosophy, the conceptual core of which (...) is life, and the content of biophilosophical knowledge covers the philosophy of biology, the philosophy of life and related axiology. It is determined in the work that biophilosophical knowledge contains a potential opportunity to form a worldview in a person with the prevailing ideas of the value and significance of life, to provide a deep awareness of the unity of man and living nature, and therefore to contribute to the comprehensive disclosure of the epistemological, ontological, methodological and axiological foundations of life, on which life is built biological picture of the world. Biophilosophical cognition is interpreted as an intellectual and mental component of personal knowledge (in particular, knowledge about living things) and becomes the basis and source of further relevant cognitive processes (biological knowledge), which stimulates the humanization of human activity, harmonizes human relationships, and is indirectly manifested in the change of people’s attitude to the surrounding world. The conclusions state that biophilosophy in the system of higher education can be a new worldview paradigm for the preservation of human culture and civilization, provided it is popularized through institutions of higher education. Also, biophilosophy, as an educational discipline and a discipline of the new enlightenment, can successfully fulfill one of the main educational tasks: to form in the minds of young people a modern biological picture of the world and a modern worldview. (shrink)

The topic of biopolitics is a timely one, and it has become increasingly important for scholars to reconsider how life is objectified, mobilized, and otherwise bound up in politics. This cutting-edge volume discusses the philosophical, social, and political notions of biopolitics, as well as the ways in which biopower affects all aspects of our lives, including the relationships between the human and nonhuman, the concept of political subjectivity, and the connection between art, science, philosophy, and politics. In addition to tracing (...) the evolving philosophical discourse around biopolitics, this collection researches and explores certain modes of resistance against biopolitical control. Written by leading experts in the field, the book’s chapters explore resistance across a wide range of areas: politics and biophilosophy, technology and vitalism, creativity and bioethics, and performance. Resisting Biopolitics is an important intervention in contemporary biopolitical theory, looking towards the future of this interdisciplinary field. (shrink)

-/- Table des matières Remerciements 1 -/- INTRODUCTION 2 -/- PREMIERE PARTIE LE VIVANT ET LA REVOLUTION SCIENTIFIQUE 7 -/- ONTOLOGIE DU VIVANT OU BIOLOGIE ? LE CAS DE LA RÉVOLUTION SCIENTIFIQUE 8 -/- Introduction 8 La vie et le vivant sont-ils des thèmes de controverse explicites dans la philosophie naturelle de l’âge classique ? 18 Machines de la nature, ferments et métaphysique chimique 28 Crisis, what crisis ? 42 Conclusion 45 -/- LE MÉCANIQUE FACE AU VIVANT 49 -/- Introduction (...) 49 Que signifie : réduire l’homme (ou le vivant) à l’automate ? 51 Qu’est-ce qu’un vivant ? Un mécanisme élargi 56 Le vivant structuro-fonctionnel 64 Conclusion : l’automate affectif 70 -/- UN MATÉRIALISME VITAL ? 73 -/- Introduction : matérialisme et corps 73 Ontologie matérialiste de la Vie ou constitution progressive de la biologie ? 74 Un matérialisme vital 78 Conclusion 84 -/- DEUXIEME PARTIE MATÉRIALISMES ET VIE 87 -/- DÉTERMINISME MENTAL ET NATURALISATION DE L’ESPRIT, DE LOCKE A DIDEROT 88 -/- Introduction 89 Le déterminisme à l’âge classique et son interprétation 89 L’Âme Matérielle et le Traité de la liberté de l’âme : un déterminisme cérébral 94 Locke : la détermination est une perfection 101 Collins : suspendre son vouloir, c’est encore vouloir 105 Diderot : les « causes propres à l’homme » 111 Conclusion 115 -/- LA METTRIE : LA MÉDICALISATION DE LA MORALE ET L’APPROCHE MATÉRIALISTE DU CORPS 117 -/- Introduction 117 Une morale médicale ? 117 La réduction médicale de la morale 120 L’épicurisme médical 125 Une éthique machinale 130 Conclusion 132 -/- DES MOLÉCULES « INTELLIGENTES » A L’ORGANISATION ÉMERGENTE : LE DÉBAT MAUPERTUIS-DIDEROT 134 -/- Introduction 134 Le contexte newtonien et leibnizien 137 L’argument de Maupertuis 139 La critique de Diderot 143 La réponse de Maupertuis 145 Conclusion : enjeux de la discussion 147 -/- UNE BIOLOGIE CLANDESTINE ? LE PROJET D’UN SPINOZISME BIOLOGIQUE CHEZ DIDEROT 150 -/- Introduction 150 Diderot et la biologie 152 Excursus : la naissance de la biologie 155 Spinozistes anciens et modernes 161 Spinozisme et spinosisme 166 Conclusion 168 -/- TROISIEME PARTIE VITALISME 170 -/- ORGANISATION OU ORGANISME ? L’INDIVIDUATION ORGANIQUE SELON LE VITALISME MONTPELLIÉRAIN 171 -/- Introduction : pour introduire au vitalisme de Montpellier 171 Machine et organisation 174 Le concept vitaliste d’organisation, entre Vie et vies 179 Quelle individualité organique ? 186 Organisation ou organisme 190 Conclusion 197 -/- LES ANALOGIES NEWTONIENNES DANS LES SCIENCES DE LA VIE AU XVIIIE SIÈCLE : VITALISME ET PROCÉDÉS EXPLICATIFS PROVISOIREMENT INEXPLICABLES 200 -/- Introduction 200 Le newtonianisme médical littéral 206 Les transpositions non-littérales de la méthode newtonienne : Buffon, Maupertuis et Hartley 212 Haller : une physiologie de « noms d’attente » 216 Le vitalisme du XVIIIe siècle, un « positivisme prudent » plutôt qu’une « métaphysique impénitente » 220 L’antimathématisme de Mandeville et de Diderot 233 Conclusion 240 -/- VITALISME ET VIVISECTION : APPROCHES VITALISTES DE L’EXPÉRIMENTATION ANIMALE 245 -/- Introduction 245 Considérations préliminaires sur le XVIIe siècle 248 L’École de Montpellier 251 Ménuret de Chambaud 255 Un intermezzo sur Diderot 260 Fouquet et Bordeu contre Haller 263 Conclusion 267 -/- LE CHARME DISCRET DU VITALISME SANS MÉTAPHYSIQUE, XVIIIe - XXe SIÈCLES 272 -/- Introduction 272 Vitalisme substantiel et vitalisme fonctionnel 274 Vitalisme et biologie 279 Conclusion 283 -/- QUATRIEME PARTIE ORGANISME ET BIOPHILOSOPHIE 285 -/- L’ORGANISME : CONCEPT HYBRIDE ET POLÉMIQUE 285 -/- Introduction 286 L’organisme, un hybride 287 L’organisme comme individualité 290 Organisme et organicisme 296 L’organisme vitaliste 301 Ontologie de l’organisme 303 Conclusion 305 -/- LE RETOUR DU VITALISME : CANGUILHEM ET LE PROJET D’UNE BIOPHILOSOPHIE 307 -/- Introduction 307 Un vitalisme passe-partout 308 L’organisme entre épistémologie et ontologie 312 Une métaphysique de l’oursin ? Bioexceptionalisme et biochauvinisme 313 Vitalisme versus mysticisme de la chair 317 Conclusion 323 -/- HOLISME, ORGANICISME ET BIOCHAUVINISME 327 -/- Introduction : organicismes forts et faibles 327 Le holisme et l’organicisme plurivoques 329 Deux remarques critiques au sujet de deux périls étrangement connexes de la théorie holiste-organiciste 333 Holisme, biochauvinisme et subjectivité 337 Conclusion 341 -/- CONCLUSION : LA PHILOSOPHIE DE LA BIOLOGIE AVANT LA BIOLOGIE 345 -/- Bibliographie 350 Index 404. (shrink)

Die Philosophie Helmuth Plessners hat in den letzten Jahren eine Renaissance erfahren: Plessner wurde als relevanter Vertreter einer Biophilosophie (wieder) entdeckt, die nicht nur die uberkommene Trennung von Natur und Kultur, sondern auch die Gegenuberstellung disjunkter Wissenschaftskulturen in Frage stellt und ihr Verhaltnis neu bestimmt. DAs Buch nimmt die verschiedenen disziplinaren Faden auf, die die Konzeption von Plessners Biophilosophie insbesondere in den Stufen des Organischen und der Mensch (1928) verstandlich machen. ES stellt Plessners uberlegungen im Kontext von naturwissenschaftlichen (von Uexkull, (...) Buytendijk, Driesch, von Weizsacker, Portmann, Kohler) sowie philosophischen (Bergson, Misch, Hartmann, Scheler, Heidegger, Jonas) Theorien seiner Zeit vor. (shrink)

How Biology Shapes Philosophy is a seminal contribution to the emerging field of biophilosophy. It brings together work by philosophers who draw on biology to address traditional and not so traditional philosophical questions and concerns. Thirteen essays by leading figures in the field explore the biological dimensions of ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, gender, semantics, rationality, representation, and consciousness, as well as the misappropriation of biology by philosophers, allowing the reader to critically interrogate the relevance of biology for philosophy. Both rigorous (...) and accessible, the essays illuminate philosophy and help us to acquire a deeper understanding of the human condition. This volume will be of interest to philosophers, biologists, social scientists, and other readers with an interest in bringing science and the humanities together. (shrink)

The Eurasianist movement launched a theory according to which Russia does not belong to Europe but forms, together with its Asian colonies, a separate continent named “Eurasia” whose Eastern border is the Pacific Ocean. Similarily, in the early 1920s, Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, the founder of the Pan-European movement, developed, the idea of “Eurafrica.” I compare the writings of Coudenhove and those of Nicolas S. Trubetzkoy and show how the idea of Europe was used as an anti-essentialist model of a cultural community. (...) Though both “Eurasia” and “Eurafrica” may be understood to express cultural and economic imperialism, the sophistication with which both concepts are brought forward makes their interpretation as simple derivatives of chauvinism impossible. Both Trubetzkoy and Coudenhove refuse national “egocentricity” which “destroys every form of cultural communication between human beings.” Above that, Trubetzkoy and Coudenhove agree that cultural apogees have often come about through fusion. I discuss the idea of “convergence” in the context of Bergson's and Deleuze's biophilosophies. (shrink)

The article starts with stating the fact that today there is an increasing recognition of difficulties with Darwinism accompanied by vigorous responses on the part of Darwin’s defenders; among the instances of challenge to the dominant theory, one can find a book of Gilson, From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again, and those behind the Intelligent Design movement. Inrelating the book of Gilson to the ID proponents, the author concludes that, while in some ways they are on the same side (...) in opposing the anti-creation thrust of Darwinism, Gilson is neutral on the validity or truth of Darwin’s biological hypothesis. Gilson, however, whose book preceded the ID movement by some twenty years, seeks to analyze Darwinism from the perspective of the classical philosophy of nature. He well understands that, according to modern scientific method, final causes are excluded from consideration, but he calls for a biophilosophy which will be open to the reality of human experience as Aristotle was and recognize that teleology is present in nature. According to him, even if teleology seems to be a contestable explanation, chance as understood by Darwinists is the pure absence of explanation. (shrink)

The call to re-envision theoretical psychology comes after more than a half century of theorists’ efforts to re-envision psychological science. Especially prominent is persistent critique of mainstream psychology’s deployment of the ontological and epistemic templates of the natural sciences, in theorists’ multifaceted mission to replace that metatheoretical grounding with one deemed properly suited to a thoroughgoing psychological science of lived experience. Despite anticipated objection, I call for consideration of boundary-pushing trends and challenges in the natural sciences, especially in theory and (...) philosophy of physics, with an eye toward inspiring theoretical psychologists and mainstream psychologists anew. I also draw attention to the use of relevant findings of mainstream psychological scientists by philosophers of psychology who ask traditional philosophical questions nonetheless. This use mirrors the use of relevant findings of biological scientists by philosophers of biology within the burgeoning field of biophilosophy, in which I find an apt analogue to what I herein call “psycphilosophy.” By adopting a more mutual, relational attitude toward disciplines that have heretofore been dismissed, theoretical psychologists may attain a better position from which to make more constructive and productive contact with mainstream psychological scientists—contact that may facilitate the impact on the mainstream that has to date eluded theorists. (shrink)

Mit dieser Edition wird erstmals ein Vorlesungszyklus aus Helmuth Plessners wissenschaftlichem Nachlaß der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich gemacht. Das klar und übersichtlich gegliederte Kolleg "Elemente der Metaphysik" präsentiert in leicht verständlicher Sprache und gut nachvollziehbarer Gedankenentfaltung die Grundzüge von Plessners Anthropologie, die dieser in seinem nur schwer rezipierbaren Hauptwerk, den "Stufen des Organischen und der Mensch" von 1928, entwickelt hatte, und stellt sie in einen umfassenden philosophischen Kontext. Die Vorlesung umfaßt drei Hauptteile: Im 1. Teil, der "Metaphysik des Bewußtseins", zeigt Plessner, daß (...) der klassische bewußtseinsphilosophische Ansatz zur Beantwortung zentraler metaphysischer Probleme nicht in der Lage ist. Die entscheidende Frage nach dem Sein des Bewußtseins ist – wie Plessner nachweist – im Rahmen der Bewußtseinsproblematik, wie sie von der neuzeitlichen Philosophie seit Descartes entfaltet wurde, nicht zu beantworten. Die Bewußtseinsphilosophie muß daher – so Plessners Grundthese – durch einen lebensphilosophischen Ansatz überwunden werden. Dieser Übergang zur Problematik des Lebens und die breite Ausführung des neuen philosophischen Zugriffs steht im Mittelpunkt des 2. Teils. Plessner unternimmt hier vor allem den Versuch, das Wesen des Lebens durch das Verhältnis des Körpers zu seiner Grenze zu bestimmen und hält fest, daß solche Körper, die ihre Grenzen realisiert haben, "Positionaliät" besitzen. Dieser Begriff der Positionalität wird zum Zentralbegriff von Plessners Biophilosophie, die im Fortgang dieses Teils der Vorlesung ausführlich dargestellt wird. Im Zentrum der Darlegung, die Plessner im engen, kritischen Kontakt mit der biologischen Forschung hält, steht u.a. die Beziehung von Organismus und Umwelt, die Organisationsformen des Lebens, die Struktur der tierischen Umwelt, die Bestimmung des Bewußtseins, das Verhältnis von Bewußtsein und körperlichem Sein und das Problem des Gedächtnisses. Im abschließenden 3. Teil skizziert Plessner die Grundzüge seiner philosophischen Anthropologie, wobei er den Menschen als dasjenige Lebewesen bestimmt, das – in Abhebung vom Tier, dem eine zentrische Organisationsform zukommt – eine "exzentrische Positionalität" besitzt, und das in einem dreifachen Bezug zur Außenwelt, zur Innenwelt und zur Mitwelt steht. Die besondere Bedeutung dieser Vorlesung liegt einerseits in ihrem Charakter als leicht nachvollziehbare Hinführung zu Plessners Philosophie des Lebendigen. Andererseits enthält sie neue Inhalte – insbesondere im 1. und 2. Teil – und trägt dadurch zur Erweiterung unserer Kenntnis von Plessners Philosophie bei. (shrink)

This intra-view explores a number of productive junctions between contemporary Deleuzoguattarian and new materialist praxes via a series of questions and provocations. Productive tensions are explored via questions of epistemological, ontological, ethical, and political intra-sections as well as notions of difference, transversal contamination, ecosophical practices, diffraction, and, lastly, schizoanalysis. Various irruptions around biophilosophy, transduction, becomology, cartography, power relations, hyperobjects as events, individuation, as well as dyschronia and disorientation, take the discussion further into the wild pedagogical spaces that both praxes (...) have in common. -/- . (shrink)

Notwithstanding these wise pronouncements, my project here is to characterize the biological phenomenon of death of the higher animal species, such as vertebrates. My claim is that the formulation of “whole- brain death ” provides the most congruent map for our correct understanding of the concept of death. This essay builds upon the foundation my colleagues and I have laid since 1981 to characterize the concept of death and refine when this event occurs. Although our society's well-accepted program of multiple (...) organ procurement for transplantation requires the organ donor first to be dead, the concept of brain death is not merely a social contrivance to permit us to obtain the benefits of organ procurement. Rather, the concept of whole- brain death stands independently as the most accurate biological representation of the demise of the human organism. (shrink)

This paper treats Deleuze's first synthesis of time and the corresponding concept of larval subjectivity by routing it through a biophilosophy of organism. I develop, out of my reading of Deleuze, a temporal concept of organismic subjectivity.

O artigo compreende o cerne da obra de Georges Canguilhem como um ponto de cruzamento entre problemáticas fundamentalmente médico biológicas e problemáticas sócio-políticas. A consideração histórica descontinuísta do desenvolvimento de conceitos científicos e a classificação da técnica enquanto prótese do organismo vivo, entre outras particularidades, situam o pensamento canguilhemeano na fronteira entre áreas do conhecimento demarcadas separadamente. O que integra e individualiza o seu trabalho filosófico é a ponderação do vital enquanto categoria de base para intelecção e reconstrução de problemas (...) interdisciplinares. Após indicar o posicionamento de Canguilhem dentro do quadro da filosofia francesa do século XX, o artigo procura demonstrar de que maneira a função de regulação é um dos pilares organizadores do pensamento do “vivo” em sua obra. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:FINALITY AND INTELLIGIBILITY IN BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION ANTONIO MORENO, O.P. Graduate Theological Union Berkeley, California I N SCIENCE AND philosophy the final cause has always..,been controversial. To biologists the problem is complicated, but many believe that it is impossible fo give a complete description of the phenomenon of life without taking into oonsideration the teleological aspect of it. Thus Rensch: A special feature of all living organisms is the fact (...) that biological processes in general appear to be: 'meaningful.' They are not only appropriate to the immediate conditions, but also seem to be directed to some purpose which in individual development is only achievE:d at a relatively late stage and after many modications of form.1 Simpson's approach to this problem is shaped by the conviction that biology should attempt to answer all the questions, one of whioh is the reason for a living being's activity: "Here, ' What for '-the dreadful teleological question-not only is legitimate but also must eventually be asked about every vital phenomenon." 2 To understand how finality is realized in biology, let us first turn briefly to the nature of the final cause. The Nature of the Final CaU8e Aristotle deals with causes in the seeond book of his Physics: It is through the causes that scientific conclusions about mobile heings are demonstrated. Movement is intelligible when we discover the causes that produce it. Among the 1B. Rensch, Biophilosophy (New York: Columbia University Press, 1971), p. 107. 2 G. Simpson, Th,is Vi.ew of Life (New York: Ifarcourt, 1964),.pp. 104-108. l ANTONIO MORENO, O.P. causes, the first and most important is the final cause, which is defined as "that for the sake of which a thing is done." 3 The final cause is the motive or reason which impels the agent to operate. Motion is the vehicle by whioh the goal is attained and, consequently, the other causes exercise their causality in dependence on the final cause. Hence, Aquinas says: " The final cause is called the cause of causes, because it is the cause of the causality of all the causes. For it is the cause of the efficient ca:usality; and the efficient cause is the cause of the causality of both the matter and the form.".j, The final cause directs, inclines, and attracts; impelled by this attraction, the efficient pushes and exercises its action. Aquinas asserts that those who reject the final cause destroy the intelligibility of science, inasmuch as they suppress the motive or first reason which justifies motion. The final cause is not the cause that executes the adion, for this is the agent's function, the efficient cause. The final cause is the reason why the agent acts. Therefore, the efficient cause presupposes the final: "The end is not the cause unless it moves the agent to act. If there is no action the final cause does not exist." 5 It is interesting to note that many biologists believe that the existence of finality destroys causality, when actually the opposite is true. For example, Simpson says: " The finalist was often the man who made a liberal use of ignaV'a ratio,... when you failed to explain a, thing by the ordinary process of causality, you could ' explain ' it 1by reference to some purpose of nature." 6 A simple desirn or attraction is not a cause unless it is fol3 Aristotle, Ph&sias (Trans. W. D. Ross) Book II, 3, 194b34. (Oxford, 1962). 4 Thomas Aquinas, In V Metaph., Iect. 3, n. 782. Of. Summa Theol., I, q. 105, a.5. 5 Thomas Aquinas, On the Power of God, trans. English Dominican Fathers (Westminster, Md.: Newman Press, 1952), q.5, a. l. 6 G. Simpson, The Meaning of Evolution (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967), p. 274. FINALITY IN BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION 3 lowed by the activity of the agent. The desire to attain the goal is called the " intention " of the action, even when the goal is not achieved, as happens in many of our actions. Failure does not destroy finality; inactivity does. For that which is first in the intention is the last to be achieved as the effect. The intention does not... (shrink)

La raison interpretant l'experience sensible peut-elle conclure qu'il existe de la finalite dans la nature? A defaut d'etre reconnue comme une notion scientifique, la notion de finalite apparait comme une constante de la philosophie de la vie, ou biophilosophie. L'idee d'une direction finaliste de la nature a beau etre incomprehensible et indemontrable, elle est necessaire. Et si la science est revolutionnaire, Etienne Gilson est convaincu que la philosophie ne l'est pas. De la philosophie naturelle d'Aristote jusqu'aux theories de l'evolution de (...) Lamarck, Darwin et Malthus, Etienne Gilson retrace le parcours sinueux de la notion de finalite et, a rebours du scientisme de son temps, prefere continuer de croire que l'oeil est fait pour voir. (shrink)

Mit dieser Edition wird erstmals ein Vorlesungszyklus aus Helmuth Plessners wissenschaftlichem Nachlaß der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich gemacht. Das klar und übersichtlich gegliederte Kolleg "Elemente der Metaphysik" präsentiert in leicht verständlicher Sprache und gut nachvollziehbarer Gedankenentfaltung die Grundzüge von Plessners Anthropologie, die dieser in seinem nur schwer rezipierbaren Hauptwerk, den "Stufen des Organischen und der Mensch" von 1928, entwickelt hatte, und stellt sie in einen umfassenden philosophischen Kontext. Die Vorlesung umfaßt drei Hauptteile: Im 1. Teil, der "Metaphysik des Bewußtseins", zeigt Plessner, daß (...) der klassische bewußtseinsphilosophische Ansatz zur Beantwortung zentraler metaphysischer Probleme nicht in der Lage ist. Die entscheidende Frage nach dem Sein des Bewußtseins ist - wie Plessner nachweist - im Rahmen der Bewußtseinsproblematik, wie sie von der neuzeitlichen Philosophie seit Descartes entfaltet wurde, nicht zu beantworten. Die Bewußtseinsphilosophie muß daher - so Plessners Grundthese - durch einen lebensphilosophischen Ansatz überwunden werden. Dieser Übergang zur Problematik des Lebens und die breite Ausführung des neuen philosophischen Zugriffs steht im Mittelpunkt des 2. Teils ("Metaphysik des Lebens"). Plessner unternimmt hier vor allem den Versuch, das Wesen des Lebens durch das Verhältnis des Körpers zu seiner Grenze zu bestimmen und hält fest, daß solche Körper, die ihre Grenzen realisiert haben, "Positionaliät" besitzen. Dieser Begriff der Positionalität wird zum Zentralbegriff von Plessners Biophilosophie, die im Fortgang dieses Teils der Vorlesung ausführlich dargestellt wird. Im Zentrum der Darlegung, die Plessner im engen, kritischen Kontakt mit der biologischen Forschung hält, steht u.a. die Beziehung von Organismus und Umwelt, die Organisationsformen des Lebens (Pflanze und Tier), die Struktur der tierischen Umwelt, die Bestimmung des Bewußtseins, das Verhältnis von Bewußtsein und körperlichem Sein und das Problem des Gedächtnisses. Im abschließenden 3. Teil ("Der Mensch") skizziert Plessner die Grundzüge seiner philosophischen Anthropologie, wobei er den Menschen als dasjenige Lebewesen bestimmt, das - in Abhebung vom Tier, dem eine zentrische Organisationsform zukommt - eine "exzentrische Positionalität" besitzt, und das in einem dreifachen Bezug zur Außenwelt, zur Innenwelt und zur Mitwelt steht. Die besondere Bedeutung dieser Vorlesung liegt einerseits in ihrem Charakter als leicht nachvollziehbare Hinführung zu Plessners Philosophie des Lebendigen. Andererseits enthält sie neue Inhalte - insbesondere im 1. und 2. Teil - und trägt dadurch zur Erweiterung unserer Kenntnis von Plessners Philosophie bei. (shrink)

Within continental philosophy of biology the work of Michel Serres has not received a lot of attention. Nonetheless, this chapter wants to argue that Serres was part of a group of thinkers – together with Jacques Monod and Henri Atlan – that started to think about biology in terms of second-order cybernetics and information theory. Therefore, this chapter aims to do four things. First of all, it maps the relation between Serres and Canguilhem, one that was mediated by authors such (...) as Louis Althusser or Jacques Monod. Secondly, it fleshes out Serres’s own ‘biophilosophy’. I label this alternative tradition as a ‘biophilosophy without a subject’. Finally, this chapter explores the consequences of this alternative biophilosophy through a brief examination of two authors whose work lies in the line of this tradition: René Girard and Bruno Latour. Though at first sight different, they both draw inspiration from this biophilosophy to develop a framework that, paradoxically, ‘jumps over’ the subject. Hence, the reason why biology is neither a prominent theme in Girard’s nor in Latour’s work. This is not because of a lack of biophilosophy, but because of an implicit one: a biophilosophy without a subject. (shrink)

_Purpose._ The study aims to substantiate philosophical anthropology as a space for the development of biopolitics, which is a relatively new synthetic scientific knowledge of the political in the biological and the biological in the political, which, however, has its roots in the era of antiquity. The analysis of biopolitics in the context of contemporary global challenges, in particular the COVID-19 pandemic, is carried out, which allows to actualize a new direction of biopolitics – microbiopolitics. _Theoretical basis._ The study is (...) based on an understanding of the initial, in relation to biopolitics, the nature of philosophical anthropology. While philosophical anthropology seeks an answer to the question – who is _Homo sapiens_, given the biosocial nature of man, biopolitics specifies the question in the form – who is _homo politicus_ in modern socio-political space with a focus on the imperative of a human-centred approach in the social sciences. The study is based on scientific works by specialists in philosophical anthropology and biopolitics. _Originality._ The authors substantiate the expediency and relevance of considering philosophical anthropology as a contextual space for the evolution of biopolitical knowledge from the natural philosophy of Antiquity to modern microbiopolitics. _Conclusions._ Philosophical anthropology is seen as a specific epistemological landscape in which fields of scientific knowledge are formed and developed that are in one way or another involved in the philosophical problems of man: philosophical psychology, social anthropology, philosophy of medicine, humanology, philosophy of education, ethics, as well as biophilosophy, bioethics, and, in particular, biopolitics. (shrink)