Chapter Three: Philosophy of Posthuman Artworks

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

2 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).

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

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

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

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).