”If you desired to change the world, where would you start? With yourself or others?” - Alexander Solzhenitsyn Introduction In this third part of this series on posthumanism (Part 1 and Part 2), I had intended to define some key principles for thinking with posthumanism. But as I worked on that piece, I found I needed to be clearer about my own philosophical orientation, so that I didn’t give the impression that my list of key principles could be seen as definitive. Posthumanism is a wide discipline covering diverse philosophical orientations, and some of these are about as far apart ontologically as you can get.
In "Assemblage Theory & Method", Ian Buchanan says that one of the main functions of Deleuze's (posthuman) philosophy is to overturn Platonism, particularly on the question of desire (not as lack, but as creative force). Whether this is just another footnote to Plato will depend, I suppose, on whether Deleuze remains as long in people's mind as Plato.
Interesting review. I wonder if “posthumanism”, like any other post, is fundamentally a gesture trapped in its own historical self-referential construct. Looking forward to the days of pre-post (or post-pre, if you prefer).
A case for posthumanism: Part 3 - Taking sides
In "Assemblage Theory & Method", Ian Buchanan says that one of the main functions of Deleuze's (posthuman) philosophy is to overturn Platonism, particularly on the question of desire (not as lack, but as creative force). Whether this is just another footnote to Plato will depend, I suppose, on whether Deleuze remains as long in people's mind as Plato.
Interesting review. I wonder if “posthumanism”, like any other post, is fundamentally a gesture trapped in its own historical self-referential construct. Looking forward to the days of pre-post (or post-pre, if you prefer).