POSTHUMAN STUDIES 05
PHILOSOPHY OF POSTHUMAN ART STEFAN LORENZ SORGNER
Posthuman Studies
Stefan Lorenz Sorgner (ed.) Volume 5
Stefan Lorenz Sorgner
Philosophy of Posthuman Art
Schwabe Verlag
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2022 Schwabe Verlag, Schwabe Verlagsgruppe AG, Basel, Schweiz This work is protected by copyright. No part of it may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, or translated, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Cover illustration: © Jaime del Val Cover: icona basel gmbh, Basel Graphic design: icona basel gmbh, Basel Typesetting: 3w+p, Rimpar Print: CPI books GmbH, Leck Printed in Germany ISBN Hardcover 978-3-7965-4568-9 ISBN eBook (PDF) 978-3-7965-4569-6 DOI 10.24894/978-3-7965-4569-6 The ebook has identical page numbers to the print edition (first printing) and supports full-text search. Furthermore, the table of contents is linked to the headings. rights@schwabe.ch www.schwabe.ch
Contents
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
..................
11
Chapter Two: Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
Chapter Three: Philosophy of Posthuman Artworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
1.
Philosophical Underpinnings of Posthuman Reflections
..........
20
2.
Non-Duality, Technology and Posthuman Works of Art . . . . . . . . . .
23
3.
Posthuman Beauty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28
4.
Bioart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33
5.
Cryptoart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35
6.
A Twist of Art and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
38
7.
Non-Totalitarian Total Works of Art
..........................
39
8.
Conclusion
................................................
40
Chapter Four: The Posthuman Paradigm Shift as the End of Monotheistic Religions? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
43
1.
Philosophy as Intellectual War of Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
43
2.
Transhumanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
49
3.
Critical Posthumanism
......................................
52
4.
The Possibility of Monotheistic Religions after the Posthuman Paradigm Shift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
56
5.
Consequences for the Possibility of Posthuman Religions . . . . . . . . . .
59
6.
Conclusion
59
Chapter One: Posthuman Aesthetic Intimacies
................................................
6
Contents
Chapter Five: Aesthetic Concepts of Posthuman Artworks . . . . . . . .
61
1.
Aesthetics of Monsters: Patricia Piccinini’s “Graham” . . . . . . . . . . . .
64
2.
Aesthetics of Hybridity: Eduardo Kac’s “Edunia” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
66
3.
Aesthetics of the Amorphous: Jaime del Val’s “Microdanzas” Video
68
4.
Aesthetics of Becoming: Damien Hirst’s “A Thousand Years” . . . . . .
70
5.
Aesthetics of Twisting: Stelarc’s “Second Life” Performance . . . . . . . .
73
6.
Aesthetics of Relationality: Random International’s “Rain Room” . .
75
7.
Aesthetics of Bodily Plurality: Orlan’s “Omniprésence. Sourire de Plaisir” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
78
8.
Aesthetics of Superheroines and Superheroes: Jeff Koons’ “Hulk Elvis” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
82
9.
Aesthetics of Smoothness: Hajime Sorayama’s “Sexy Robot”
......
85
10.
Aesthetics of Kawaii: Mr.’s “Sweet” Paintings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
87
11.
Conclusion
................................................
89
Chapter Six: Music . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
91
1.
Posthuman Total Works of Music Drama
......................
92
2.
Opera Now
................................................
94
3.
Techno, Digital and Cyborg Music
............................
96
4.
Björk and the Creation of New Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
97
5.
AI Music and a Beatles song based on Deep Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
98
6.
Conclusion
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Chapter Seven: Leisure in Posthuman Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 1.
The Non-Totalitarian Total Work of Art of the Posthuman Future . . 104
2.
The Problem – Plato, Galileo, Wagner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
3.
Present – Nietzsche, Sven Helbig and the Total Work of Art
4.
A Relational Ontology of Becoming and Mindfulness
5.
Leisure in Posthuman Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
6.
Helbig’s Choral Work “I eat the Sun and Drink the Moon” . . . . . . . . 113
7.
Conclusion
. . . . . . 107
. . . . . . . . . . . . 110
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Contents
Chapter Eight: Afterthoughts on Religion, Culture and Art . . . . . . . . 119 1.
The Posthuman Paradigm Shift and the Possibility of Catholic Religious Leisure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
2.
Cyborgs as a Twist of the Homo Faber and the Homo Ludens . . . . . . 127
3.
Adage of Metahumanism
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Index of Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Index of Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
7
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank my Research Assistants at John Cabot University (JCU) Rome for their support in getting this manuscript ready for publication: Selma Coleman, Moya Seneb, Moustafa Tlass, Megan Dhlamini, Benedetta Grilli, Ihsan Baris Gedizlioglu, Daniela Movileanu, Yurim Ko and Francesca Dalmazzo. I particularly wish to highlight the efforts at polishing this manuscript of my JCU Research Assistants Nicole Ilieva and Chryssi Soteriades. Furthermore, I am grateful for the exchanges I have had, and comments I received, from Prof Brunella Antomarini and Dr Pascal Henke.
Chapter One: Posthuman Aesthetic Intimacies
You cannot experience one artwork twice as you cannot step into the same river twice. Being engaged with an artwork is an intimate encounter. You discover something which intrigues you. Awakes your desires, arouses you, and lets your fantasies develop from an exciting encounter via a moment of intense intimacy to a liberating exuberant relief. A story develops by itself. A discourse happens. Yet, the exchange is not merely a propositional exchange. It can involve an intellectual stimulation, but it can also be an intense emotional encounter. You are the artwork. You live it. You feel it. A moment of unity between the artwork and yourself, which alters both you as well as the artwork, and you will never be able to engage with the artwork as you did before. Then, a distancing process occurs, which leads to the separation between you and the artistic piece. You realize the gap, which enables you to intellectually reflect upon it. To deal with the philosophical issues involved. You realize the traces of the thoughts involved as well as the potential for further unfolding. This intellectual occupation triggers specific insights, intuitions. Motives lead to visions. No logical connection needed. It is an intuitive triggering which occurs. The unfolding continues with an intense emotional stance. Yet, this time it is not the fear an involved protagonist experiences, but it is the pity of a distanced observer. You realize the gap between the event and your involvement, and you can grasp the underlying structures, the logic of the corresponding emotions, the order of feelings. This intimate emotional encounter takes you further to the aesthetic properties: the playfulness of kawaii, the exciting perfection of smoothness, the glorious leadership of superheroines and superheroes, the philosophical fascination of non-duality, the hidden unity of hybridity, the insightful realization of the monsterly in all of us, the puzzling eroticism of the amorphous, the emerging potentialities of permanent becoming, the wisdom of twisting by spinning several strands of yarn into a thread, the continuous relevance of relationality, as well as the affirmation of bodily plurality, while stressing that any plurality consists merely of an immense diversity of contingent nodal points. Here, we are left with the sensual, but the sensual is already another encounter, an interaction, and no perception leaves no traces. The perception is the encounter of the perceiver with the perceived whereby neither the perceiver nor the perceived exist as independent entities. They form a contingent relational unity which leaves traces on both contingent nodal points. It is an intimate encounter, which is occupied with our most meaningful worries: our survival, our
12
Chapter One: Posthuman Aesthetic Intimacies
healthspan, our embeddedness in structures of domination, and our intimate connections. Do we wish to survive just for the sake of survival? When we are confronted with the most serious worries, it might be the case. We just want our permanent becoming to continue. There is another Elisenlebkuchen, which wants to be eaten tomorrow. Yet, what can be done if the suffering gets too intense and lasts longer and longer? It is the healthspan, which needs to be increased. We wish to be healthy and alive to realize the overflowing moments of high jinks. They cannot be realized easily. Determination, ordering, persistence and buona fortuna are needed for realizing structures of domination, whereby you turn into a singular contingent nodal point, which can realize that others do something which they would not do by themselves. This is a central part in the continuous twist of unity and singularity. Order and obey. Activity and reactivity. Act and let it occur. We all have traces of both drives in us – not all of them have the same intensity. Each nodal point longs for resonating others with which it can allow intimacies, an openness to new experiences and the readiness for a boundless innocent playfulness. Beyond good and evil, beyond what one does and beyond the political, social and moral norms of one’s own cultural context, nodal points experience the manifold bunch of intimacies of the innocence of becoming. These excitements fulfil us. Getting fully aroused is what we long for. It is the intoxication of living beyond the norms which brings about a bodily bliss, and an earthly sensuality. The same types of intimacies occur in encounters with artworks. Intimate encounters with resonating nodal points are the moments to which we might say “please remain”. They do not. They merely remain as imprints on us, and as traces of our drives. Yet, they are what is longed for. They might stand for the amor intellectualis dei. They would make Mephistopheles win the bet against Faust. They could turn you into an Übermensch. It is the full affirmation of a moment that has all this transformative potential. The judgement “moment please remain” might be able to justify your entire existence. Everything which has happened in the past and which will happen in the future is necessary for you having experienced this special moment. Amor fati. It helps if you have buona fortuna. This is the best we can hope for. Intense moments of special intimacies are the justifications of our permanent struggles. Yes, these moments are extremely rare, and difficult to realize. Life is a permanent fight. There are permanently new obstacles which need to be confronted. One must not get crushed by them and hope that they are not so devastating that nothing can be done against them. If they get you down for some time, you must make sure to get back up again. Sic mundus est. An intimate encounter with an artwork enables you a brief relief from these struggles. It can excite you, reinvigorate you, enable your leisure, and give you a sense of what matters. The event of encountering an artwork changes you. It also changes the artwork, and you will never ever encounter it the way you did before. You cannot experience one artwork twice as you cannot step into the same river twice. Off to new intimate encounters.
Chapter Two: Preface
In the time of a posthuman paradigm shift, we also get confronted with new aesthetic challenges. Technologically modified animals come up as works of art. Performances and metaformances get realized which address a non-dualistic ontology of permanent becoming. Formal arrangements of posthuman artworks get created which affirm a notion of harmonious beauty which has been looked on with suspicion in particular after the Breker and Riefenstahl aesthetics of the so called “Third Reich”. The cyborg turns up as a figure of ontological relevance in the arts, which enables us to reflect upon the appropriate meaning of non-duality. Religious myths are being referred to in artworks that otherwise stress the relevance of plurality and relationality. AI and gene technologies are considered in the production process of artworks. All of these developments represent challenges for 20th century philosophies of art, in particular the Frankfurt School avant-garde aesthetics, which has been dominant in the art world in the second half of the 20th century, whereby Adorno’s aesthetic theory has been particularly influential. This is a shame, because Adorno’s aesthetics undermines what it claims to promote, i. e., plurality. Furthermore, it attacks totalitarianism, but is totalitarian itself, as it is founded on a categorically ontological duality which claims to be universally valid. The subject-object distinction as well as the complex dialectic between subject and object by means of which he moves beyond the Kantian distinction between the concepts in question are of fundamental relevance for Adorno’s aesthetics. In addition, it claims to be critical, so that the perspectives of minorities always get taken into consideration but starts from an arrogant aristocratic perspective itself, an intellectual snobbism. Its aristocracy is associated with the capacity of reflecting rationally. In the ideal case, an avant-garde work of art represents a genre by itself, as it ought to be different from everything else which was present before. Consequently, avant-garde artworks can only be accessed by highly rational experts from the art world, who have the time and money to dedicate themselves primarily to intellectual reflections. The intellectual arrogance on which this avant-garde aesthetics is founded undermines plurality and democracy and is morally problematic. A posthuman aesthetics, on the other hand, is twisting categorical ontological dualities, aware of permanent becoming, inclusive, non-dualistic, non-anthropocentric, non-foundational, non-essentialist, non-speciesist, non-alethic, non-logocentric, non-heteronormative, perspectival, non-utopian
14
Chapter Two: Preface
and pluralistic. This is what I will show in my reflections on a philosophy of posthuman art. A central concept is that of the twist. Important affirmative concepts are permanent becoming, inclusiveness, and perspectivism. There is a tendency to move away from dualism, anthropocentrism, foundationalism, essentialism, speciesism, alethism, logocentrism, heteronormativity, and utopianism. This book contains the following chapters: Firstly, I explain central elements of a philosophy of posthuman artworks and how they relate to our cultural history. Secondly, I focus on the possibility of a posthuman religiosity. In our cultural history, artworks have been closely related to religions. A consideration of the question of which requirements a plausible posthuman religiosity would have to fulfil explains the possibility of posthuman religious artworks. In this context, the notion of the twist comes out in detail, which is a concept deserving further philosophical considerations within the posthuman context. Thirdly, I analyse ten different types of aesthetics, which are dominant in the variety of posthuman approaches. Fourthly, I will be concerned with the genre of music, which has previously gained too little attention from scholars of the posthuman. In addition, it is closely connected to the concept of total works of art. As posthuman artworks include a perspectival paradigm shift, the notion of the total work of art becomes particularly relevant in this context. Yet, we are confronted with selfrelativizing total works of art, non-totalitarian total works of art. Fifthly, I deal with the notions of leisure and mindfulness, which are of central relevance for the posthuman context. Both concepts are analysed by considering non-totalitarian total works of musical art presented to us by Sven Helbig, one of the most fascinating composers in the posthuman era. In the final section, I reflect upon the implications of the posthuman paradigm shift concerning the future of Catholicism. Selected connections between the aesthetic, ethical and ontological will be highlighted. An “Adage of Metahumanism” (Sorgner 2021a) summarizes the twist toward our posthuman future in a poetic manner.1
1
See also Sorgner 2018b and 2019b.
Chapter Three: Philosophy of Posthuman Artworks2
I became fascinated by grand narratives already during my teenage years. It was then that I began to realize how widespread categorical dualistic ontologies are and that they can be found in various fields, levels and strata of culture and life. When I talk about these kinds of dualities I am referring to distinctions like the one between good and evil, mind and body, culture and nature, the material and the immaterial or the organic and the inorganic. The examples I mentioned are an arbitrary choice and several others could be mentioned, too. One could wonder what is problematic with these distinctions, as we are using them every day, and it is at least not immediately clear why employing them could be problematic.3 The problems, which I started to realize first when I was still a teenager, were the ones related to the distinction between the immaterial mind and the material body. If human beings consist of two such radically separate substances, how could it be possible that mind and body interact with each other? If two substances do not have anything in common, then any kind of interaction seems highly questionable (Sorgner 2007, 46). The next thing I realized were the evaluations which were attributed to the two substances. The immaterial world was usually related to the good, stability, rationality, and unity. The material world on the other hand was connected with evil, change, feelings, and plurality (Sorgner 2010a, 193–211). This way of conceptualizing the world is related to the assumption that the good is something which is universally valid. The good stands for qualities connected with the notion of a good life. In this way of thinking, a good life can be described, and the description is universally valid for all human beings since anthropologically all human beings are identical in so far as they all possess an immaterial personal See: Sorgner 2021b. Material in this book is reproduced with permission of Springer Nature, it originally appeared as Sorgner S. L. (2021): Elements of a Posthuman Philosophy of Art. In: Hofkirchner W./Kreowski, H. J. (eds.): Transhumanism: The Proper Guide to a Posthuman Condition or a Dangerous Idea?, Cognitive Technologies. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-3-030-56546-6_5. 3 Selected thoughts have been integrated from a different short paper of mine (Sorgner 2016c) as well as from a monograph (2016e). 2
16
Chapter Three: Philosophy of Posthuman Artworks
and rational soul, which is identical with their true human nature, and which separates human beings categorically from all other solely natural beings like apes, dolphins or elephants. This way of thinking can still be found in many social contexts, legal constitutions and moral laws. Having reflected upon the question of duality and non-duality for a long time, only recently I managed to connect two insights which I have had for some time, without considering that there could be a connection between them. It concerns the thought that there is a relationship between the birth of dualistic thinking and dualistic media and that there is an intricate link between the coming about and dominance of Platonic thinking and the birth process of ancient tragedy, as both are rooted in a dualistic manner of grasping the world. In early August 2013, just before attending the World Congress of Philosophy in Athens, the Spanish artist Jaime del Val and I were on the island of Aigina and decided to attend a performance of Euripides’ “The Cyclops” in the theatre of Epidauros. It is the only complete satyr play which has survived. During the performance, when I was confronted with the Architectural prerequisites which were brought about by the institutionalization of drama which took place during the 6th century BCE, I suddenly became aware of the dualities which emerged during the birth process of Ancient Greek drama. Originally, there were no theatre buildings, there was no stage and there were no spectators who were separated from the stage. Before the institutionalization of tragedy, there were only groups of human beings singing and dancing together without a rigid dualistic spatial separation between the actors and the audience. Various categorical dualities were introduced during the birth process of tragedy (Pickard-Cambridge 1927). Firstly, there was the spatial separation between the audience and the actors. The audience had to remain seated within certain linear and circular fields which were separated from but also directed towards the circle or rather stage on which the actors were supposed to fulfil their tasks. Secondly, a distinction between the chorus and the protagonists was introduced. On the one hand, there was the chorus, and the task of the chorus was to sing and dance together. On the other hand, there were the individual actors whose task was to recite their roles. Hence, the duality between audience and actors was amplified by further introducing the duality between protagonists and chorus. Thirdly, the dualistic architecture of the theatre was created which enforces these dualistic structures. All of these dualities were absent from the festivities which took place before the invention and institutionalization of the theatre which started with the Theatre of Dionysus in Athens during the 6th century BCE (MacDonald/Walton 2011). The institutionalization of tragedy which came along with the construction of the Theatre of Dionysus was not the sole event during which dualistic media (here: dramatic theatre) came about. However, it seems plausible to claim that
Chapter Three: Philosophy of Posthuman Artworks
this event was a central steppingstone during the historical process of the birth of dualistic media. The same can be observed in the realm of philosophy. Dualistic thinking in the Western tradition was strongly influenced by Plato’s thinking during the 5th century BCE. But we can also find dualistic conceptions before Plato, for example in Zoroaster’s thinking during the first half of the 2nd millennium BCE. Still, Plato can be seen as one of the key figures responsible for introducing dualistic ontological categories into the Western cultural tradition. In Plato’s case, a categorical ontological dualism can be found between the realm of forms and the material world. Even though he introduced a dualism between human beings who possess rational souls, on the one hand, and animals, who do not have such souls, on the other hand, this separation was not yet as rigid as it became later on, because Plato also stresses that there are several types of souls – a vegetative, a sensitive and also a rational soul. Any type of soul or psyche is responsible for self-movement and hence for life. Whatever has a soul lives. Consequently, Plato has good reasons for attributing certain types of souls (but not a rational soul) to plants and animals, as both are capable of directed self-movement which is a reason for attributing a type of soul to them. Yet, Plato regards the rational soul to be solely present in human beings and argues that a rational soul is necessary to be able to enter the realm of forms and grasp the forms, to use language and to communicate via language with one another. The next central step during the development of dualistic ways of thinking occurs with the Stoics. Stoic philosophy upholds that there is a unified logos which encloses immaterial human souls. Animals were not regarded as possessing such immaterial souls, according to Stoics. The main difference to Plato concerning the question of duality has to do with the idea of humanitas. Plato did not think that just because all human beings possess a rational soul they also ought to be treated equally well. He affirmed that there were human beings with gold, silver and others with iron in their souls (metaphorically speaking), and their social rank depends on the type of metal one has in one’s soul. Stoic philosophers, on the other hand, introduce the notion of humanitas which was linked to the equal evaluation of all human beings. All humans deserve the same kind of moral respect, due to their belonging to humanity. This notion was transformed by Cicero into the concept of dignity which all human beings were supposed to have in an equal manner because they all possess a rational soul and belong to the human species. Even though it was obvious to Cicero that human beings differ with respect to their talents and capacities, he also acknowledges that human beings ought to be treated well solely for being a member of the human species. Stoic philosophers or Cicero did not yet develop an egalitarian society in the modern sense; yet, this transformation with respect to the understanding of human beings did also have some practical implications, e. g., concerning
17
18
Chapter Three: Philosophy of Posthuman Artworks
the treatment of slaves in their society, who were gaining higher social recognition during this period of time. A third crucial step in the development of dualistic thinking took place with Descartes and his philosophical outlook. In contrast to the ancient thinkers within the Platonic tradition who acknowledge that there are a variety of different souls, Descartes introduced dualism on an even more rigid level by distinguishing between res extensa and res cogitans. According to Descartes, human beings belong to both types of substances while animals and all other solely natural objects belong to the realm of res extensa only. This kind of rigid dualistic thinking was developed further within the Kantian approach where we can find a similar ontological distinction as in Descartes’ philosophy. However, Kant focused more on the ethical relevance and implications of this dualistic understanding and developed a complex ethics and political philosophy which still serves as the inspiration for the basis of the German Basic Law. Due to this influence, it follows that it is still legally forbidden to treat other persons merely as a means which presupposes a radically dualistic distinction between objects and subjects. Furthermore, this influence is the reason why according to German Basic Law only human beings possess dignity, but animals and all other solely natural entities are supposed to be treated like things. This legal distinction presupposes a highly problematic categorically dualistic ontological separation which was already fundamental in Descartes’ philosophy. Here it might be interesting to note that all the categorically dualistic ontologies just mentioned do not directly have racist, speciesist, heteronormative or sexist implications, even though it cannot be doubted that such associations were culturally established in connection with such ontologies. The logic which was applied is the following one. There is one truth, which is accessible by means of reason, which constitutes our human nature. This nature is not accessible empirically as it is not part of the material world. This truth is in another world to which we will return after will have died. It is the true world. Proper knowledge is available only by means of accessing this other world. By accessing it, we grasp the good, the true and the beautiful. When it gets mixed with the world accessible by the senses, badness, falsehood and ugliness come about. Culturally, these worlds received further associations. It was upheld that the real world is only accessible by reason, which is primarily a male capacity. Men have rationality, and women emotionality. Hence, sexism came about. Furthermore, the serenity of rational reflections was culturally identified with a white skin colour. Plato’s sun from the Allegory of the Cave clearly reveals that brightness is divine. Darker colours were culturally associated with the world of the instinct. Hence, racism came about. Rationality in general is identified with the capacity of using language. Only human beings possess language. Animals do not. Hence, speciesism came about. The natural law associated with the dualistic world order also implies that the sexual union of a man and a woman is the only natural way of
Chapter Three: Philosophy of Posthuman Artworks
acting. Sexual organs are made for reproduction, and they are only used according to their nature, if one uses them primarily for the sake of reproduction. Only heterosexual behaviour is natural. Hence, heteronormativity came about. It is this logic by means of which many types of discrimination and violence came about, which in the lifeworld have extremely violent implications. It needs to be realized that when it comes to hate crimes in the US, racism is the main reason for their occurrence.4 Every victim suffers incredibly as a consequence of the direct violence they have to endure. Yet, it is not just the victims who are affected, but also their families and friends. Traumas can get passed on down generations. We all have to do our best to reduce the likelihood of people being directly violated. This is the duty of any civilized society. The bodily integrity of the inhabitants has to be protected. Violence against individuals has to be minimized. Persons must not be directly harmed. There is a wide range of racist actions, and there is a difference between directly harming another person because they are a person of colour or expressing a certain disrespect by means of a glance. To undermine developments towards further divisions of a society, it is essential to keep the discussions between the various parts of a society going. As long as people talk about differences in a civilized manner, they do not actually fight. It must also be noted that the philosophies just mentioned do not refer to and justify that white, heterosexual, rich men represent a cultural ideal of perfection. Still, it is the case, and it cannot be doubted that culturally, by following the just mentioned logic, the immediate connection between white, heterosexual, rich men and an immaterial rationality was established. On a philosophical level, the shift from dualistic to a non-dualistic ontology was far more important than any later cultural association which was connected to this categorically dualistic ontology. Philosophically, all the thinkers mentioned held that women possess rationality. They also affirmed that a human consists of an entity with a rational soul and a material body. It was this view which was challenged from the 19th century onwards, in part by the great variety of posthuman philosophers. Posthuman philosophers is my shortcut for referring to philosophers of the posthuman, e. g., for philosophers who present either critical posthumanist or transhumanist reflections. The notion of the posthuman comes up in both traditions, even though a different meaning is associated with this word within these traditions. Yet, both traditions doubt that a categorically dualistic ontology is an appropriate anthropology (Ranisch/Sorgner 2014a). After Kant, Nietzsche moved beyond the dualistic history of Western philosophy and the impact on and all the consequences of his approach have yet to be grasped by scholars, thinkers and philosophers today. However, Nietzsche, together with Wagner, Darwin and Freud initialized a cultural move towards a 4
https://www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/hate-crime-statistics (5. 7. 2020).
19
20
Chapter Three: Philosophy of Posthuman Artworks
non-dualistic way of thinking. Consequently, it is possible to stress that with this cultural shift, humanism in its traditional form is coming to an end. Here, I understand humanism as a world view which is founded upon a categorically dualistic ontology. This understanding is in tune with the etymology of the word “humanism” which comes from the Latin “humanitas”. This concept was central for Stoic thinking, and it implies a categorically dualistic ontology. Given that the aforementioned reflections concerning the development of dualistic thinking are plausible, it needs to be realized that the development of Plato’s philosophy has most probably been the central cornerstone for the foundation of Western culture as a dualistic culture. Sloterdijk (1999), who identifies the beginning of humanism with the age of Stoic philosophy, and Hassan (1977), who stresses the close connection between the beginning of the Enlightenment and the beginning of humanism, are correct in claiming that strong versions of dualisms can be found in the philosophies of the Stoics and of Descartes. However, it would certainly be highly implausible to disrespect the central importance of Plato’s philosophy for this development. As a consequence of the breaking together of humanism, several cultural movements have emerged that move beyond categorically dualistic ontologies today. Consequently, it seems appropriate to claim that we are moving beyond humanism into the age of the posthuman, whereby the posthuman as an open metaphor stands for a great variety of beyond humanism movements, like post(Hassan 1977), meta- (Del Val/Sorgner 2011) and transhumanism (Huxley 1951), in which the word “posthuman” comes up and which have in common that they doubt the ontological foundation of humanism. Still, it needs to be stressed that the goals, pedigrees and methodologies of the various movements differ significantly.
1. Philosophical Underpinnings of Posthuman Reflections Posthuman philosophy is my shortcut for referring to a great diversity of contemporary approaches which have in common that they transcend humanism in one way or another. The fine distinctions between the various beyond humanism approaches are not fully being realized not only by the educated public, but also among established scholars. However, the differences, cultural backgrounds and ways of thinking are extremely manifold, which means that any critical philosophical engagement with them needs to clearly distinguish these approaches. However, all of them share certain characteristics which justifies that it is possible to use the shortcut posthuman philosophies for these approaches. The following three aspects are shared by all of these approaches:5 5
The following passages are based upon Sorgner 2020c.
