Peter Sloterdijk reading from Du mußt dein Leben ändern |
|
| Full name | Peter Sloterdijk |
|---|---|
| Born | June 26, 1947 Karlsruhe, Württemberg-Baden |
| Era | 21st-century philosophy |
| Region | Western Philosophy |
| School | Phenomenology, Philosophical anthropology, Posthumanism |
|
Influenced
|
|
Peter Sloterdijk (German pronunciation: [ˈsloːtɐˌdaɪk]; born June 26, 1947 in Karlsruhe) is a German philosopher, television host, cultural scientist and essayist. He is a professor of philosophy and media theory at the University of Art and Design Karlsruhe. He currently co-hosts the German show Im Glashaus: Das Philosophische Quartett.
Contents |
Sloterdijk's father is Dutch. He studied philosophy, German studies and history at the University of Munich and the University of Hamburg from 1968 to 1974. In 1975 he received his Ph.D. from the University of Hamburg. In the 1980s he worked as a freelance writer, and published his Kritik der zynischen Vernunft in 1983. He has since published a number of philosophical works acclaimed in Germany. In 2001 he was named chancellor of the University of Art and Design Karlsruhe, part of the Center for Art and Media Karlsruhe. In 2002 he began to co-host Im Glashaus: Das Philosophische Quartett ("In the Glass House[1]: The Philosophical Quartet"), a show on the German ZDF television channel devoted to discussing key contemporary issues in-depth.[2]
Like Nietzsche, Sloterdijk remains convinced that contemporary philosophers have to think dangerously and let themselves be 'kidnapped' by contemporary 'hyper-complexities': they must forsake our present humanist and nationalist world for a wider horizon at once ecological and global.[3] Sloterdijk's philosophy strikes a balance between the firm academicism of a scholarly professor and a certain sense of anti-academicism (witness his ongoing interest in the ideas of Osho, of whom he became a disciple in the late seventies).[4] Notwithstanding the criticism that some of his thoughts have provoked, he refuses to be labeled a "polemic thinker", describing himself instead as "hyperbolic". His ideas reject the existence of dualisms—body and soul, subject and object, culture and nature, etc.—since their interactions, "spaces of coexistence", and common technological advancement create a hybrid reality. Sloterdijk's ideas are sometimes referred to as posthumanism, and seek to integrate different components that have been, in his opinion, erroneously considered detached from each other. Consequently, he proposes the creation of an "ontological constitution" that would incorporate all beings—humans, animals, plants, and machines.
The Kritik der zynischen Vernunft, published by Suhrkamp in 1983 (and in English as Critique of Cynical Reason, 1988), became the best-selling work on philosophy in the German language since the Second World War and launched Sloterdijk's career as an author.[5]
The trilogy Spheres is the philosopher's magnum opus. The first volume was published in 1998, the second in 1999, and the last in 2004.
Spheres is about "spaces of coexistence", spaces commonly overlooked or taken for granted that conceal information crucial to developing an understanding of the human. The exploration of these spheres begins with the basic difference between mammals and other animals: the biological and utopian comfort of the mother's womb, which humans try to recreate through science, ideology, and religion. From these microspheres (ontological relations such as fetus-placenta) to macrospheres (macro-uteri such as nations or states), Sloterdijk analyzes spheres where humans try but fail to dwell and traces a connection between vital crisis (e.g., emptiness and narcissistic detachment) and crises created when a sphere shatters.
Sloterdijk has said that the first paragraphs of Spheres are "the book that Heidegger should have written", a companion volume to Being and Time, namely, "Being and Space". He was referring to his initial exploration of the idea of Dasein, which is then taken further as Sloterdijk distances himself from Heidegger's positions.
Sloterdijk also argues that the current concept of globalization lacks historical perspective. In his view it is merely the third wave in a process of overcoming distances (the first wave being the metaphysical globalization of the Greek cosmology and the second the nautical globalization of the 15th century). The difference for Sloterdijk is that, while the second wave created cosmopolitanism, the third is creating a global provincialism. Sloterdijk's sketch of a philosophical history of globalization can be found in Im Weltinnenraum des Kapitals (2005), subtitled "Die letzte Kugel" ("The final sphere").
In his Zorn und Zeit (translated as Rage and Time), Sloterdijk characterizes the emotion of rage as a psychopolitical force throughout human history. The political aspects are especially pronounced in the Western tradition, beginning with the opening words of Homer's Iliad, "Of the rage of Achilles, son of Peleus, sing Goddess...". Sloterdijk acknowledges the contributions of psychoanalysis for our understanding of strong emotional attitudes: "In conformity with its basic erotodynamic approach, psychoanalysis brought much hatred to light, the other side of life." (Rage and Time, p. 14) Importantly, for Sloterdijk, Judeo-Christian conceptions of God ultimately "piggyback" on the feelings of rage and resentment, creating "metaphysical revenge banks". For Sloterdijk, "God thus becomes the location of a transcendent repository of suspended human rage-savings and frozen plans of revenge." [6]
Shortly after Sloterdijk conducted a symposium on philosophy and Heidegger, he stirred up controversy with his essay Regeln für den Menschenpark (Rules for the Human Park).[7] In this text, Sloterdijk regards cultures and civilizations as "anthropogenic hothouses," installations for the cultivation of human beings; just as we have established wildlife preserves to protect certain animal species, so too ought we to adopt more deliberate policies to ensure the survival of Aristotle's zoon politikon.
"The taming of man has failed", Sloterdijk lamented. "Civilisation's potential for barbarism is growing; the everyday bestialisation of man is on the increase."
Because of the eugenic policies of the Nazis in Germany 's recent history, such discussions carry a sinister load. Breaking a German taboo on the discussion of genetic manipulation, Sloterdijk suggested that the advent of new genetic technologies required more forthright discussion and regulation of "bio-cultural" reproduction. In the eyes of Habermas, this made Sloterdijk a "fascist". Sloterdijk thought this was a resorting to "fascist" tactics to discredit him.
The core of the controversy was not only Sloterdijk's ideas but also his use of the German words Züchtung ("breeding", "cultivation") and Selektion ("selection"). Sloterdijk rejected the accusation of Nazism, which he considered alien to his historical context. Still, the paper started a controversy in which Sloterdijk was strongly criticized, both for his apparent usage of a fascist rhetoric to promote Plato's vision of a government with absolute control over the population, and for committing a non-normative, simplistic reduction of the bioethical issue itself. This second criticism was based on the vagueness of Sloterdijk's position on how exactly society would be affected by this genetic development. After the controversy multiplied positions both for and against him, Die Zeit published an open letter from Sloterdijk to Habermas in which he vehemently accused Habermas of "criticizing behind his back" and espousing a view of humanism that Sloterdijk had declared dead.[8]
Another dispute emerged after Sloterdijk published on June 13, 2009, in his article titled Die Revolution der gebenden Hand (transl. "The revolution of the giving hand") [9][10] in the Frankfurter Allgemeine, one of Germany’s most widely read newspapers, his statement that the national welfare state is a "fiscal kleptocracy" that had transformed the country into a "swamp of resentment" and degraded its citizens into "mystified subjects of tax law".
Sloterdijk opened this text with the famous quote of leftist capitalism critics (made famous in the 19th century by Proudhon in his "What Is Property?") "Property is theft", stating, however, that it is nowadays the modern state that is the biggest taker. "We are living in a fiscal grabbing semi-socialism- and nobody calls for a fiscal civil war." [11][12]
He repeated his statements and stirred up the debate in his articles titled Kleptokratie des Staates (transl. "Kleptocracy of the state") and Aufbruch der Leistungsträger (transl. "Breakdown of the performers") in the German monthly Cicero - Magazin für politische Kultur.[13][14][15]
According to Sloterdijk, the institutions of the welfare state lend themselves to a system that privileges the marginalized, but relies, unsustainably, on the class of citizens who are materially successful. Sloterdijk's provocative recommendation was that income taxes should be abolished, in favor of a system in which the fiscal needs of the state are met by voluntary contributions from the rich. Achievers would be praised for their generosity, rather than being made to feel guilty for their success, or resentful of society's dependence on them.[16]
In January 2010, an English translation was published, titled A Grasping Hand - The modern democratic state pillages its productive citizens, in Forbes [17] and in the Winter 2010 issue of City Journal.[18]
In January 2011 Sloterdijk's next book titled "Die nehmende Hand und die gebende Hand" (German: The taking hand and the giving hand) will be published in Germany, containing his texts that triggered the 2009-2010 welfare state dispute.