The Other’s Place in the Space of the Relation: Karl Löwith and Martin Buber as Theorists of Duheit
Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics, 2017
This paper addresses the issue of human spatiality as existential givenness, taking as its fundam... more This paper addresses the issue of human spatiality as existential givenness, taking as its fundamental orientation relationality, namely the natural tendency towards the other as my co-man (Mitmensch) for the purposes of instituting, together with him, the first place for such a spatiality: the being-with-one-another (Miteinandersein). If the being-with-one-another embodies the first place of this spatiality, then the encounter between an I and a you—that is to say, otherness declined in the second person, as Duheit—represents the culmination of such a place. On this basis the τόπος of the Miteinandersein emerges as an οἶκος and the achievement of such an ‘oikological’ rank makes the space of the relation a real Lebensraum, a living space. Given these assumptions, a comparison will be offered between two paradigmatic modes of interpreting Duheit, the outcomes of a short season in which continental philosophy questioned itself on this issue with unusual urgency and depth. On the one hand, the Zwischenontologie (“Between-ontology”) of Martin Buber, on the other, the Mitanthropologie (“With-anthropology”) of Karl Lowith. The comparison here proposed will reveal that the philosophical question of otherness is essentially a matter of measure, namely that the promotion of the space of the relation established by I and you to the rank of οἶκος and Lebensraum depends on its ability to stay within the limit of an anthropic perimeter.
Uploads
Papers by Agostino Cera
Krieges. While this interpretation is well-known in many respects (the essay anticipates the conceptual structure of one of Löwith’s most famous works: From Hegel to Nietzsche), the focus here will be on some of its less explored features. Specifically, attention is drawn to the bold hermeneutic approach Löwith adopts in tracing the genealogy of the European crisis, which he essentially regards as a philosophical-spiritual or metaphysical phenomenon. Such a hermeneutics emphasizes the relationship (and hierarchy) between history and nature. Within this framework, the crisis of Europe – i.e., the definitive fulfillment of European nihilism – corresponds to the irreversible alteration of this relationship, in the form of an eclipse of the cosmological difference between Welt (world) and Menschenwelt (human world).
Keywords: Löwith, Nihilism, Heidegger, Cosmological Difference, Nature (vs. History).
the Denkweg of its author (Eugenio Mazzarella); and, above all, to analyse
some topics raised by that text and by that Denkweg. In particular, our presential status within the framework of the infosphere/metaverse; the fact that the digital turn strongly re-emphasized the somatic question according to its carnal declination. Starting from Mazzarella’s dialogue with Luciano Floridi, the paper focuses on some anthropological-philosophical implications of the somatic question, involving the figure of Günther Anders as a par excellence thinker of the age of technology. The final “postscript” deals with the alteration that the specifically human category of action undergoes in the infospheric framework, namely its degradation to the rank of agency. In the face of this scenario, the urgency of establishing a carnal trench, i.e. a carnal thought, will be emphasized.
Nei saggi ospitati in questo volume, il concetto di Antropocene
viene esaminato criticamente nelle sue principali implicazioni, affrontando
temi quali il rapporto con la crisi ecologica, il femminismo, la tecnologia, i
rifiuti, la democrazia, la relazione tra umano e non-umano, la sua periodizzazione, l’ecomodernismo, e altri ancora.
The issue presents papers by: X. Guchet; A. C. Dalmasso & Sofia Pirandello; A. Scotti; A. Gerola & Z. Robaey; G. Pezzano; C. Malaspina; A. Oraldi; R. Valenti.
priate name is not Anthropo-cene, but Techno-cene. Concretely, the following pages sketch the Paradox of Omni-responsibility, an ethical paradox emerging within the Anthropocene framework and especially evident in the geoengineering solutions being proposed for ecological problems. I have characterized this oxymoron as techno-care, that is, something that transforms responsibility (and care) into a risk rather than a resource. On this basis, the most significant outcome of the Paradox of Omni-responsibility as techno-care is the undermining of Hans Jonas’ principle/imperative responsibility as a standard for the ecological thought of recent decades. In the conclusion, I suggest the possibility of a Care Imperative as a reply to this undermining.
IN THE DIGITAL AGE II: THE DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION OF THE PUBLIC SPHERE" to be held November 21-23 at the University of Ioannina (Greece).