Suchergebnisse

This work revolves around some of the problems ecological thinking encounters when it questions humans' relation with nature. It moves within a territory where ecophilosophy is intended not just to support managerial approaches to ecological problems, but to deal with the entanglement of ontological and ethical issues in regard to what nature is and how we see it, as well as who we are, humans in the ecological crisis. This inquiry, then, explores the meaning of the separation between the human and the natural realms, retrieves its origin in the natural/artificial axis and in the subject/object dichotomy, and considers our representations of nature and the structure of representation itself as a key ecological issue. A relational, entangled understanding of the human and the natural reality is then regarded as the key to interpret and face our current ecological situation. Norwegian founder of deep ecology Arne Naess, Bruno Latour's political ecology, and the founder of the Mādhyamika school of Mahāyāna Buddhism Nāgārjuna are the three central references that dialogue in this work. All three deal with a relational or radically relative reality, and the theoretical and practical consequences of it for some concepts of nature. Naess' work can be considered paradigmatic of much environmentalist sensitivity, in as much as his "ecosophy" attempts to give philosophical form to organicistic and interrelated images of the relation between humans and nature. Naess' idea of "ecological self," entertaining "intrinsic relations" with nature, deals with central ecophilosophical issues, stressing the continuity of nature and humanity in lieu of a man/nature dualism, and the counterpart issue of humanity's peculiar place in nature. Nevertheless, an analysis of Naess' relationism inevitably stumbles into the structure of representation itself in terms of a subject's frontal gaze onto its object, making us wonder whether the proposed switch to a relational worldview is something that can actually overcome the humans/nature separation. Indeed, Naess's problems are more radical within ecophilosophy. Just as Latour notes, Naess does feel the limitations of modern metaphysics in the understanding of the ecological crisis, but the ecological crisis and our relation to nature are entangled with the status of objectivity, subjectivity and with a hidden "metaphysics of nature." The problems opened by relationism are intrinsic to the concept of nature, that the Western world has framed as other to humanity: everything that is not "artificial". This original axis or separation underlies both managerial environmentalist approaches, and ecophilosophical attempts to bridge the dualistic gap. Ambiguities in terms of simultaneous continuity and difference, immanence and transcendence, belonging and extraneousness emerge when the nature/humanity axis is articulated. The humanity/nature fracture is most tragic in the political tension between ecological naturalistic references to a green nature beyond the social realm, and culturalist critiques associated with an anxiety for foundational and immediate natural dimensions. According to Bruno Latour, the difficulties environmentalism faces when trying to secure its political influence emerge as equivocations caused by the a priori framework of nature as otherness to humanity. The nature/culture framework is only one of the possible ways to represent the common world of humans and nonhumans. Latour announces the "end of nature" as a political-ecological solution to the problem of representation. It is possible to reopen the political work of composition of the common world, bringing the sciences (both humanities and hard sciences) to give simultaneous scientific and political representation to phenomena such as climate change or species extinction, which are impossible to categorize as just human or just natural. In this radically relational world, ethics would be the continuous reopening of the constitution of our common world. The second part of this work takes a leap from contemporary ecophilosophical reflection to ancient Indian Buddhism, which was initially triggered by the references Arne Naess makes to Nāgārjuna's "emptiness of own-nature" in order to illustrate his relationism. Despite the opposing solutions to the problem of relationism and representation offered by Naess and Latour, the knot of subjectivity remains the hardest to unfasten, even though this unfastening appears to be a fundamental condition for dealing with ecological issues. Therefore, Nāgārjuna's concept of emptiness [śūnyatā] will soon prove to be of rare assistance in powerfully addressing the tension between a radically relative reality and the attachment of the subject's view to the "nature of things."

2013/2014 ; This work brings together quite heterogeneous sources for reasons, which at first glance seem marginal. For example, without delving too deeply into Naess' problems Latour uses his constructs to sweep them aside. Another example is how Naess makes multiple references to Nāgārjuna's emptiness of own-nature in order to illustrate his relationism. Nevertheless, there are more important structural and philosophical reasons for bringing these three together. These are collected around two primary research points. Firstly, we want to offer an articulation of relationism for ecology, its scope and the difficulties it faces. These span between the problem of the concept of nature and the problem of representation. Beginning with Naess' ecosophy, we can secure a better grasp of the problems environmentalism faces when it makes use of an organicistic and interrelated image of nature. Relationism attempts to posit the overcoming of the subject/object dichotomy as it is structured in the representation of nature, but eventually finds itself trapped in the same premises. Naess's problems are, nevertheless, more radical. Overcoming the subject/object and human/nature dualisms is not just a matter of integrating the two poles into a greater whole. The problems opened in relationism are intrinsic to the concept of nature as otherness to humanity, which underlies both managerial environmentalist approaches and ecological attempts to bridge the dualistic gap. Issues of continuity and difference, belonging and otherness emerge when the nature/humanity axis is articulated. The humanity/nature fracture is most tragic in the political tension between ecological naturalism and culturalist critique. The difficulties of environmentalism emerge as equivocations caused by the a priori framework of nature as otherness to humanity. Latour's idea of the end of nature is a political-ecological solution to the problem of representation. The nature/culture framework is only one way to represent the common world of humans and nonhumans. It is possible to reopen the political work of composition of the common world, bringing the sciences (both humanities and hard sciences) to give scientific and political representation to phenomena such as climate change or species extinction. A second research focus shifts from the political dimension and looks at subjectivity as the main difficulty in the problem of representation. Nāgārjuna's concept of emptiness [śūnyatā] proves to be a powerful insight into the tension between a radically relative reality and the attachment of the subject's view to a "nature of things." ; Questo lavoro raccoglie fonti piuttosto eterogenee, che apparentemente dialogano in modo marginale. Latour rigetta bruscamente la posizione di Naess come prova della coerenza della propria ecologia politica; Naess scivola spesso in veloci riferimenti a Nāgārjuna e alla "vacuità di natura propria di tutti gli enti" per rinforzare il proprio relazionismo come visione alternativa della natura. Tuttavia ci sono ragioni filosofiche e strutturali più profonde che giustificano questo inusuale accostamento. Queste ragioni ruotano intorno a due principali obiettivi di ricerca. In primo luogo, tentiamo di offrire un'articolazione della portata e dei problemi che interessano un pensiero ecologico della relazione con la natura. I quesiti aperti dal relazionismo e le sue difficoltà si muovono nello spazio che si apre tra il concetto di natura come altro dall'uomo e il problema della rappresentazione. Una filosofia della relazione con la natura in un tutto organico tenta di riprendersi dalla rottura modernista della rottura tra soggetto e oggetto. In fondo, però, auspicare un cambio di visione del mondo in direzione ecosofica lascia il pensiero intrappolato nelle stesse strutture che caratterizzano la dicotomia uomo/natura. I problemi dell'ecosofia di Naess sono strutturali, non solo del suo pensiero, ma di molto ambientalismo. Il superamento della frattura tra oggetto e soggetto non si consegue semplicemente integrando i due poli in un tutto più grande. I problemi aperti dal relazionismo di Naess sono intrinseci al concetto di natura come altro dell'uomo, anche in senso ambientale. Tale concetto è alla base di buona parte della produzione eco-filosofica, sia che si tratti di approcci manageriali, sia quando il tentativo va in direzione di un superamento della frattura dualistica. L'articolazione dell'asse uomo-natura nell'ambientalismo apre problemi di continuità e differenza, di appartenenza e alterità. La frattura uomo/natura si mostra in tutta la sua tragicità nella tensione politica tra un naturalismo ecologista e la critica culturale di una natura sempre "natura," sempre rappresentata. Le difficoltà in cui incorrono la maggior parte dei movimenti ambientalisti sono quindi provocate dagli equivoci strutturali di una natura ogni volta pensata come altro dell'uomo. La "fine della natura" per Latour si presenta come una soluzione politico-ecologica al problema della rappresentazione. Lo schema natura/cultura è solo uno dei modi, per Latour, per rappresentare il mondo comune di umani e nonumani. È possibile riaprire il lavoro politico di composizione del mondo comune, portando le scienze (sia "dure," che dello spirito) a dare rappresentazione scientifica e politica a fenomeni quali i cambiamenti climatici o l'estinzione delle specie. Il secondo obiettivo di ricerca slitta invece dalla dimensione politica e passa a guardare la soggettività come il maggiore ostacolo nel problema della rappresentazione. Il concetto di vacuità [śūnyatā] in Nāgārjuna si dimostra uno strumento potente per lavorare sulla tensione tra una realtà radicalmente relativa e l'attaccamento del soggetto alla visione di una "natura delle cose." ; Diese Arbeit verknüpft recht heterogene Argumentationsansätze, die auf den ersten Blick nur geringfügig miteinander verbunden zu sein scheinen. Beispielsweise nutzt Latour seinen Ansatz, um Naess' Probleme beiseite zu drängen, ohne sich genauer auf sie einzulassen. Ein anderes Beispiel ist, wie Naess vielfach auf Nāgārjunas Leerheit der wahren Natur verweist, um seinen Relationismus zu illustrieren. Dennoch gibt es wichtigere strukturelle und philosophische Gründe, diese drei zusammenzubringen. Sie drehen sich um zwei wesentliche Forschungsinteressen. Zunächst wollen wir den Relationismus in der Ökologie rekonstruieren, seine Reichweite und die Schwierigkeiten, mit denen er zu kämpfen hat. Diese reichen vom Problem des Naturbegriffs bis zum Problem der Repräsentation (und Vorstellung). Ausgehend von Naess' ecosophy, können wir die Probleme, vor die sich der Umweltphilosophiegedanke gestellt sieht, wenn er sich auf ein organizistisches oder interrelationales Naturbild stützt, besser verstehen. Der Relationismus versucht die Subjekt-Objekt-Dichotomie, wie sie in der Repräsentation der Natur eingearbeitet ist, zu überwinden, aber läuft möglicherweise in die Falle derselben Prämissen. Naess' Probleme sind gleichwohl radikaler. Den Subjekt/Objekt- wie den Mensch/Natur-Dualismus überwindet man nicht einfach dadurch, dass man die beiden Pole in ein größeres Ganzes integriert. Die Probleme, die sich aus dem Relationismus ergeben, sind wesentlich mit dem Begriff der Natur als das gegenüber dem Menschen Andere verknüpft; mit diesem Naturbegriff arbeiten sowohl der betriebswirtschaftliche Umweltschützer wie die ökologischen Ansätze, um den Graben des Dualismus zu überwinden. Themen wie Kontinuität und Differenz, Zugehörigkeit und Andersheit tauchen auf, wenn die Natur/Mensch-Achse artikuliert wird. Der Bruch zwischen Mensch und Natur ist im politischen Spannungsfeld zwischen ökologischem Naturalismus und kulturalistischer Kritik besonders tragisch. Die Schwierigkeiten der Umweltphilosophiebewegung entwickeln sich aus Mehrdeutigkeiten, die a priori durch das Grundverständnis der Natur als Andersheit gegenüber dem Menschen bedingt sind. Latour's Idee eines Endzwecks der Natur löst das Problem der Repräsentation auf politisch-ökologischem Weg. Der Natur-Kultur-Rahmen ist nur eine Möglichkeit, die gemeinsame Welt von Menschen und Nichtmenschen zu repräsentieren. Es ist möglich, die politische Arbeit des Aufbaus der gemeinsamen Welt neu anzugehen, wobei die Wissenschaften (sowohl Geisteswissenschaften als auch "harte" Wissenschaften) eingebracht werden, um Phänomene wie den Klimawandel oder das Artensterben wissenschaftlich und politisch zu repräsentieren. Ein zweiter Focus der Untersuchungen wendet sich von der politischen Dimension hin zur Subjektivität, der Hauptschwierigkeit innerhalb des Problems der Repräsentation. Nāgārjuna's Konzept der Leerheit [śūnyatā] gewährleistet einen tiefen Einblick in die Spannung zwischen einer radikal relativen Realität und der Bindung der Sicht des Subjekts an eine "Natur der Dinge". ; XXVII Ciclo ; 1982