Intro -- Preface -- Contents -- Chapter 1: Introduction -- Chapter 2: Totalitarianism Without Subject: The End of the Total State and the "Ideology" of the Corporatism -- 2.1 Introduction -- 2.2 What Should Be Done with Totalitarianism Today? Destroyed "Societies" and Their Relationships -- 2.3 Ideology Without Politics? The Permanent Terror -- 2.4 Corporation and State: Bio-cybernetic Power -- 2.5 Conclusion -- References -- Chapter 3: The Mystery of the New Beginning: Hannah Arendt and the Political in Modern Times -- 3.1 The New Between Tradition and Utopia -- 3.2 History as Contingency -- 3.3 The Event and Openness of the World -- References -- Chapter 4: Metapolitics and Evil: Heidegger's "Spiritual Nazism" -- 4.1 Introduction: New Evidence and Facts -- 4.2 State, Leadership, and Geopolitics: Seminars 1933/1934 -- 4.3 Anti-Semitism and Metaphysics: Black Notebooks -- 4.4 Concluding Reflections: Event and Politics -- References -- Chapter 5: The Triumph of Political Religions: Identity Politics and the Twilight of Culture -- 5.1 Introduction -- 5.2 Voegelin's Notion of History: From Gnosticism to Political Religions of Modernity -- 5.3 Political Islam as a New Totalitarianism? -- 5.4 Conclusion -- References -- Chapter 6: Ideology, Terror, Control: Does Totalitarianism Have a Prospect for the Future? -- 6.1 Introduction: Propaganda Beyond Manipulation -- 6.2 Ideology as an "Industry of Consciousness": Kracauer's Contribution to the Criticism of Nazism -- 6.3 Terror, Terrorism, Camps: The State of Exception and Its Victims -- 6.4 The Age of Total Control: Secret Police and Technosphere -- 6.5 Conclusion -- References -- Chapter 7: Power, Mass, and Brutality: Putin's War Machine -- 7.1 The New Geopolitical Leviathan -- 7.2 Autocracy -- 7.3 Historical Revisionism -- 7.4 Totalitarian Rule -- 7.5 Imperialist Policy -- 7.6 Terror and Colonization.
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
This book enters into a detailed discussion with many theorists of totalitarianism, and demands a re-evaluation of approaches that speak of mass manipulation of people and ideological control mechanisms. Zarko Paic shows that totalitarianism cannot be only a political-ideological problem, but rather a problem of the relationship between the technosphere, political power, and the narcissistic culture of the spectacle, which offers postmodern revisionism and forgetfulness of history as opposed to brave civic participation in the public sphere of acting together. He investigates the transformations the political and cultural processes linked to the notion of totalitarianism undergo in the contemporary world, and the transformations (and differences) that this notion expresses today in comparison to what was realized by fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism in the 20th century. Zarko Paic is a Professor at the University of Zagreb, where he teaches courses in Aesthetics and Media Theory. He publishes frequently in philosophy, social sciences and art theory. His publications include White Holes and the Visualization of the Body (2019), Neoliberalism, Oligarchy and the Politics of the Event (2020), and Art and the Technosphere (2022).
The author shows that freedom as an event is a condition for the possibility of the entire metaphysics and history of the West. As a fundamental driver of events, freedom must manifest in its three 'ontological' spatiotemporal ways of appearing in connection with chance and necessity, facticity and contingency, chaos and emergence. The first is the one that opens up philosophy as a possibility of thinking beyond a reduction to myth, religion, art and science, establishing its own autonomy in the age of the technosphere. The second is the one that has its political meaning of action, determination and the creation of something new in history, starting from the idea of the sovereignty of the people and ending in the post-imperial sovereignty of a large area (Gro§raum), as Carl Schmitt defines the end of the era of the nation-state in the history of the world and the transition to the form of the imperial order of power and their permanent struggle for rule over the territory of the Other. The third is the one that appears as the last sign of resistance against all kinds of enslavement and reduction of man to thing-object-information in the system of rule of the posthuman condition with homo kybernetes as the last form of "spiritual Being" of Human in general. Key words: metaphysics, West, freedom, technosphere, homo kybernetes.
Autor u članku analizira Schmittov spis Nomos zemlje postavljajući pitanje na koji se način nakon epohe nacije-države i kraha europskoga imperijalizma, što je bila i ishodišna postavka Hanne Arendt u njezinim Izvorima totalitarizma, uspostavljaju uvjeti mogućnosti političkoga djelovanja, budući da to djelovanje više nema za svoj egzistencijalni prostor ideju ukorijenjenosti u naciju kao državu s mehanizmima zaštite suverenosti s pomoću zakonodavne, izvršne i sudske vlasti zapisane u ustavu. Moć nije pritom tek državno-društvena logika upravljanja fiksnim prostorom i ograničenim teritorijem nacije-države, kako je to bilo uobičajeno od 18. stoljeća u Europi do kraja I. svjetskoga rata. Sam je Schmitt u drugome razdoblju njegova filozofijsko-pravnoga mišljenja, formalno i sadržajno nakon kraja II. svjetskoga rata, političko i politiku sagledao kao univerzalnu geopolitiku "velikoga prostora" (Großraum). Egzistencijalno- decizionistički obrat pokazuje se odlučujućim razlogom zbog čega se Schmittov pojam političkoga ne može proglasiti opravdanjem bilo kakve diktature ili totalitarizma. Odluka počiva na praznom središtu slobode, a ne moći. Nomos zemlje u postnacionalnoj konstelaciji za Schmitta na taj način postaje pitanje poretka i uprostorenja u osvajanju i prisvajanju zemlje u stalnim ratovima i sukobima s Drugim, jer je čovjek sve drugo negoli po prirodi dobar. Kritika ove pozicije u marginalijama Hanne Arendt uz Schmittovu knjigu Nomos zemlje otvara mogućnost rasprave o granicama neoimperijalizma i nove pravno-političke konstitucije svijeta nakon II. svjetskoga rata. Autor smatra da je rezultat ove aporetične i paradoksalne situacije u 21. stoljeću upravo u tzv. postimperijalnoj suverenosti kao nastavku Schmittove postavke o izvanrednom stanju na globalno-planetarnoj razini. Političko otuda prethodi politici kao što novi nomos zemlje zahtijeva obrat u razumijevanju odnosa slobode i moći.
U članku se uspostavlja korelacija između nihilizma i povijesti iz postavke o kraju metafizike u doba tehnosfere. Pokazujući genealogiju postmodernoga obrata u suvremenom filozofijskome mišljenju, autor se kritički razračunava s Vattimovom tezom da je Heideggerov pojam prebolijevanja metafizike (Verwindung) ključ za razumijevanje postmoderne. Unatoč neposredne blizine s Nietzscheom i Heideggerom, ipak je neporecivo da se glavni pojam mora izvesti iz mišljenja kasnoga Wittgensteina, kao što je to učinio Lyotard u analizi »postmodernoga stanja«. Posrijedi je pojam »jezičnih igara« koji uvodi u promišljanje odnos između pragmatike znanja, performativnosti jezika i horizonta događaja. Na taj se način pokazuje da postmoderna nije nikakva vremenski određena »nova« epoha, već reaktualiziranje stanja kojeg određuje vladavina tehnoznanosti, kibernetike i pluralnih obrazaca kulture u postindustrijskome društvu. Autor na osnovi vlastitih prethodnih analiza ovog problema sabranih u knjigama Postmoderna igra svijeta, Politika identiteta, Posthumano stanje i Tehnosfera I–V, smatra da jedino ekstenzivna analiza i tumačenje Lyotardovih postavki omogućuje dolazak na pravi filozofijski put spram odgovora na pitanje o biti nihilizma u suočenju s biti tehnosfere kao računanja, planiranja i konstrukcije neljudskoga. Ono što je preostalo od postmoderne u suvremenosti niti je »pričanje priča« o stilskim tendencijama moderne i neomoderne, avangarde i neoavangarde, niti, pak, sukob univerzalnosti i partikularnosti društva i kulture. Preostalo je jedino ono što ima karakter neotklonjive »sudbine« ovog nihilizma tehnosfere: od postmodernoga stanja do posthumanoga stanja mišljenje se nalazi pred izazovom događaja koji nadilazi sve viđeno u povijesti zapadnjačke metafizike. Kada slika prethodi jeziku, a pisanje govoru, nalazimo se u zatvorenome krugu obrata i preokreta metafizike. Vrijeme je za izlazak iz ovog »začaranoga kruga« u kojem živo postaje ne-živo, bitak informacijom, društvo sustavom objekata, a ljudsko-odveć-ljudsko neljudskim kao takvim. ; The paper establishes a correlation between nihilism and history from the premise of the end of metaphysics in the age of the technosphere. In presenting the genealogy of the postmodern turn in contemporary philosophical thinking, the author critically deals with Vattimo's thesis that Heidegger's notion of overcoming metaphysics (Verwindung) is the key to understanding postmodernity. Despite its close proximity to Nietzsche and Heidegger, it is undeniable that the main notion must be derived from late Wittgenstein's thinking, as Lyotard did in his analysis of the "postmodern condition". It is a notion of "language games" that introduces into consideration the relationship between the pragmatics of knowledge, the performativity of language and the event horizon. In this way, it will be shown that postmodernity cannot be any "new" epoch but rather a re-actualization of the condition determined by the rule of technoscience, cybernetics and plural patterns of culture in post-industrial society. Based on his previous analyses of this problem, collected in the books The Postmodern Game of the World, Identity Politics, The Posthuman Condition, and Technosphere I–V, the author believes that only extensive analysis and interpretation of Lyotard's premises allows one to reach the right philosophical path to the answer to the question of the essence of nihilism in the face of Being, and the technosphere as computation, planning, and construction of the inhuman. In contemporary times, what is left of postmodernity is neither "telling stories" about the stylistic tendencies of the modern and neomodern, the avant-garde and the neo-avant-garde, nor, moreso, the conflict of the universality and particularity of society and culture. All that remains is the feature of the unwavering "fate" of this nihilism of the technosphere: from the postmodern condition to the posthuman condition, thought is confronted with the challenge of an event that goes beyond anything seen in the history of Western metaphysics. When the image precedes the language and the writing to speaking, we find ourselves in a closed circle of turns and reversals of metaphysics. It is time to step out of this "vicious circle" in which the living becomes non-living, the Being becomes the information, the system of objects replaces society, and the human-too-human with inhuman as such.
The author analyzes the politics of responsive interculturalism in Bernhard Waldenfels' thought, starting from the assumption that after Husserl's phenomenology only two fundamental concepts – body and the Other – should be considered. In contemporary German "post-phenomenology" the first concept was systematically articulated by Hermann Schmitz, while the latter theme has been advanced in Waldenfels' works as the phenomenology of the alien, up until the end of Western metaphysics. In the two parts of the discussion, the author draws on his fundamental hypothesis about aporias and paradoxes of interculturalism, since responsiveness and xenology cannot reach the positive definition of the concept of culture in the era of global entropy. The analysis, therefore, deals with the questions: (1) what is the responsiveness of man in relation to the Other, including the different ways of his presence in the world; and (2) whether the Other as alien and uncanny (Unheimlich) calls into question the basic assumption of phenomenology as such – the intentionality of consciousness? ; Autor analizira politiku responzivnog interkulturalizma u mišljenju Bernharda Valdenfelsa, počevši od teze da nakon Huserlove fenomenologije valja razmatrati samo dva fundamentalna pojma: telo i Drugog. U savremenoj nemačkoj "post-fenomenologiji", prvi pojam je sistematski artikulisao Herman Šmic, dok je potonja tema napredovala u Valdenfelsovom delu, i to kao fenomenologija stranog do kraja metafizike Zapada. U dva dela diskusije, autor naznačuje svoju fundamentalnu hipotezu o aporijama i paradoksima interkulturalizma, budući da responzivnost i ksenologija ne mogu da pruže pozitivnu definiciju pojma kulture u eri globalne entropije. Analiza otuda tematizuje dva pitanja: (1) šta je responzivnost čoveka u odnosu na Drugog, uključujući i različite puteve njegovog prisustva u svetu, i (2) zbog čega Drugi kao stranac i neodomaćen (Unheimlich) dovodi u pitanje osnovni stav fenomenologije kao takve – intencionalnost svesti?
