During our meeting with Dr. James, we discussed what sorts of ideas existentialism could offer to posthumanism, or, more generally, what relation there is between existentialism and posthumanism. After Dr. J's remarks, we seemed to have collectively come to the conclusion that posthumanism does not follow from existentialism: Posthumanism appears to want to arrive at an essence for us that is posthuman, a new way of defining us that goes beyond human, which seems to contradict the existentialist claim that humanity has no essence. It is a nothing. My vague title should indicate that I do not hold a strong position as to the proper relation between posthumanism and existentialism; rather, like what Dr. James said, I question the question and challenge that the relationship can really be evaluated at this point.
One important thing that someone pointed out is that we don't have a definitive idea of what the human is. We have traditional humanism, which regards man as being created in the image of God, or as wholly rational, etc., but then we also have existentialist humanism that regards humans as having no essence. Posthumanism is against the first notion of the human, as is existentialism. However, given that there is no established answer as to what is the human, can we really say that the two philosophies are necessarily in conflict? Perhaps we can observe Dr. J's observation and point out the difference in the positive aspects of the respective philosophies: Posthumanism seeks to arrive at that posthuman essence (whatever it is) while existentialism sees us as forever becoming. However, posthumanists seem vague as to whatever that new essence is, only defining it in terms as beyond that which is human: So crediting them with a complete idea of the posthuman seems erroneous at this point -- and since there does not seem to yet be a definitive posthuman, it seems possible that posthumanists could borrow from existentialist ideas of our proper essence (or lack there of) and regard it as posthuman. Also, in their negative aspect, they do both seek to disavow themselves from the liberal humanism, both agreeing in what (post)humans are not, so perhaps they are not in such conflict after all.
I am curious as to what other people think on the relation between posthumanism and existentialism. As I said, I have no definite position myself, but I am reopening the issue for discussion. Does the present vague idea of the human pose a challenge of the proper relation between posthumanism and existentialism? Is the lack of a definitive posthuman essence conducive for existentialism? Are they alike or disalike?
I would say that posthumanism is not in the business of defining a human essence. In fact, I would argue that the attempt to transcend or move beyond the human is a way of dismissing the discourse around human essences entirely. Existentialism (although I think it would be better to talk about individual existentialists specifically) broadly speaking still speaks in terms of essences.
ReplyDelete