Hans Jonas’ “philosophical biology,” although developed several decades ago, is still fundamental to the contemporary reflection upon the meaning of life in a systems thinking perspective. Jonas, in fact, closely examines the reasons of modern science, and especially of Wiener’s Cybernetics and Bertalanffy’s General System Theory, and at the same time points out their basic limits, such as their having a reductionistic attitude to knowledge and ontology. In particular, the philosopher highlights the problematic consequences of scientific reductionism for human nature. (...) As the final result of an overall process of naturalization, the essence of the human being is reduced to its quantitative features only, while the “meaning” of life as such becomes no different from the “fact” of its material consistency. However, the problem is that by such a process, the human being is deprived of his specificity. (shrink)

Hans Jonas developed in ‘Past and Truth’ (1991) a demonstration of the existence of God based on the ‘truth of past things’. And in ‘The Concept of God after Auschwitz’ (1984) he created a new myth of divine self-alienation in order to take away God’s responsibility for human misery. Both these texts were conceived as an alternative to a more Hegelian, objective idealist perspective on theology. This article shows that Jonas’s alternative does not fully succeed in this respect because his (...) arguments bring him back to an idealist perspective. His proof of God is revisited and explained using new insights recently developed by Robert Spaemann, whose interpretation of the proof makes it clear that many important critics of Jonas are too quick to reject his claims. The arguments of Jonas now seem to show a new strength even though they still fail to give an alternative to an objective idealist theological framework. (shrink)

This paper proposes a basic revision of the understanding of teleology in biological sciences. Since Kant, it has become customary to view purposiveness in organisms as a bias added by the observer; the recent notion of teleonomy expresses well this as-if character of natural purposes. In recent developments in science, however, notions such as self-organization (or complex systems) and the autopoiesis viewpoint, have displaced emergence and circular self-production as central features of life. Contrary to an often superficial reading, Kant gives (...) a multi-faceted account of the living, and anticipates this modern reading of the organism, even introducing the term self-organization for the first time. Our re-reading of Kant in this light is strengthened by a group of philosophers of biology, with Hans Jonas as the central figure, who put back on center stage an organism-centered view of the living, an autonomous center of concern capable of providing an interior perspective. Thus, what is present in nuce in Kant, finds a convergent development from this current of philosophy of biology and the scientific ideas around autopoeisis, two independent but parallel developments culminating in the 1970s. Instead of viewing meaning or value as artifacts or illusions, both agree on a new understanding of a form of immanent teleology as truly biological features, inevitably intertwined with the self-establishment of an identity which is the living process. (shrink)

Summary: Kant's characterization of organic entities by the principle of an inner, and that is to say, immanently natural and mind-independent purposiveness has continued to retain validity. Difficulties however exist for Kant's theory from the conditions of their realization. The following inquiry attempts to describe to what extent this difficulty has currently found a system-theoretical solution: The realizability of cyclical causal relationships proves itself here to be a fundamental prerequisite. The possibility for self-regulating systems thus consequently ensues. Decisive for the (...) cybernetical reconstructability of inner purposiveness is however the evidence that the principle of self-regulation - which has apparently been misunderstood in recent discussions (Jonas, Spaemann, Löw) includes not only the possibility of active goal pursuance (robots) but, additionally, the possibility forexistential self-reference (organism). This has fostered greater insight into how normative instances can be established upon a purely physical basis. The status of information will then accordingly be questioned. This inquiry closes with a look to possible ontological consequences. (shrink)

Im Beitrag wird die Apple-Watch vor dem Hintergrund ihrer „Ästhetik der Existenz“ als biopolitisches Artefakt und kontrollgesellschaftliches Dispositiv, vor allem aber als kybernetische Black Box aufgefasst und analysiert. Ziel des Aufsatzes ist es, aufzuzeigen, dass sich in dem feedbacklogischen Rückkopplungsapparat nicht nur grundlegende Diskurse des digitalen Zeitalters (Prävention, Gesundheit, bio- und psychopolitische Regulierungsformen etc.) verdichten, sondern dass dieser schon ob seiner inhärenten Logik qua Opazität Transparenz, qua Komplexität Simplizität (d.h. Orientierung) generiert und damit nicht zuletzt ein ganz spezifisches Menschenbild forciert. (...) In methodischer Hinsicht sollen zur Aufschlüsselung der für die digitale Gesellschaft repräsentativen Black Box „Apple-Watch“ wirksame Begriffskonstellationen der Kybernetik – d.h. Feedback, Regulierung, Selbstkontrolle und nicht zuletzt das Prinzip des „schwarzen Kastens“ selbst (Wiener/ Ashby), in dem sich schon die Funktion des Apparats als (Selbst-)Regulierungstool zwischen In- und Outputs reflektiert – in den Blick genommen und mit behavioristischen Konzepten (besonders solche der Gegenwart, d.h. nudging-Konzepte etc.) kontextualisiert werden. Auf dieser Grundlage lässt sich schließlich, so die These, nicht nur ein Subjektivierungsmodell ableiten, sondern auch eine (durchaus realpolitisch wirksame) Regierungskunst („kybernetische Gouvernementalität“) dekodieren. In diesem Zusammenhang ist schließlich die These zu plausibilisieren, dass das zeitgenössische „Sicherheitsregime“ des ‚new dark age‘ (Bridle) respektive der ‚Black-Box-Society‘ (Pasquale) sich nicht auf „die Unterdrückung von Subjektivität [bezieht], sondern vor allem auf ihre ‚(Selbst)-Produktion‘, […] auf die […] Förderung von Selbsttechnologien, die an Regierungsziele gekoppelt werden können.“ (Lemke) Entsprechend fragt der Aufsatz, welche – auch politischen – Auswirkungen die exzessive Verbreitung dieser und ähnlicher „smart devices“ zeitigt: Denn nicht zuletzt lässt sich, mediiert über derartige datengenerierende schwarze Kästen, eine Form der Regierung und des Regierbar-Machens erkennen, die weniger explizit-imperativisch auf Subjekte als vielmehr implizit-suggestiv auf Datenpunkte und -profile einwirkt. (shrink)

Was ich mit dieser Artikel hier zu zeigen versuchen werde, ist eine gewisse Affinität zwischen Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schellings Konzeptionen und Auffassungen einer Naturphilosophie in den Jahren 1797-1801 und Hans Jonas‘ ontologisch-philosophische Biologie 1, die er in Organismus und Freiheit – Ansätze zu einer philosophischen Biologie entwickelte. Die hier zu erwähnende Schellingsche Naturphilosophie ist die in der Zeit zwischen Ideen zu einer Philosophie der Natur vom Jahr 1797 und Ueber den wahren Begriff der Naturphilosophie und die richtige Art ihre Probleme (...) aufzulösen vom Jahr 1801 entwickelte Konzeption einer Philosophie der Natur.2 Damit schließe ich mich einer These Odo Marquards an: Schelling sei der Philosophie des 20. Jahrhunderts ein Zeitgenosse inkognito. Nur wünsche ich der prominenten Reihe von Philosophen, die Marquard – zwei Jahre nach der Veröffentlichung von Organismus und Freiheit – im Jahr 1975 aufstellte, den Name ‚Hans Jonas‘ hinzufügen. Es soll somit versucht werden, die Möglichkeit dafür zu öffnen, dass die Naturphilosophie Schellings im Lichte der philosophischen Biologie Jonas‘ gesehen werden kann. Damit wünsche ich zu verdeutlichen, dass der Problembereich und frühen Philosophie Schellings durch Jonas‘ Philosophie einen Repräsentant finden, und dass sie mit der Problematik Jonas‘ eine gewisse Aktualität gewinnen könnte. (shrink)

Late antique Gnosticism and Heidegger’s Existentialism are usually counted among the main theoretical targets of Hans Jonas’s philosophy of life and responsibility, since they are supposed to share the dualistic and nihilistic attitude the philosopher deemed most mistaken and pernicious. In particular, Gnosticism is commonly understood as the exact opposite of what Jonas strove to accomplish in his work. However, I think it is simplistic to relegate Gnosticism to a merely antagonistic role in the development of Jonas’s philosophy. My claim (...) is that Gnosticism, being a non-nihilistic form of dualism, might have been a relevant source of inspiration – although not the only one – for amending the flaws of Heidegger’s Existentialism. By taking a closer look at the essay Gnosticism, Existentialism, and Nihilism, this article aims to clarify the critical and constructive role that Gnosticism might have played in shaping some of the major traits of Jonas’s thought. The first part of this essay deals with Jonas’s ‘gnostic reading’ of Heidegger’s Existentialism and highlights the positive insights drawn from such interpretative strategy. The second part focuses on three main motives in Jonas’s philosophy that may be traced back to the gnostic narrative: value objectivity and vulnerability, human responsibility and involvement in the history of being, and the sense of belonging to a wider dimension capable of providing orientation and meaning to human life. (shrink)

The word “utopia” was coined by Thomas More and refers to the unreal and ideal state described in his Utopia, first published in 1516. Following the example of Plato’s Republic, More as well as other thinkers and writers of the 16th and 17th century reflect on the political relevance of utopia and provide unique accounts of ideal, just, and perfect “no places”, as paradigms and standards of social, political, and religious reformation of the coeval world. However, the political significance of (...) utopia relies on a basic anthropological feature, which incidentally is already underlined by More: the relationship between imagination and experience. This means that: 1) the human being’s “eidetic” freedom is characterised by the inseparable relationship between imagination, reflection, experience and action; 2) utopia is capable of disclosing the transformative and normative features related to the human being’s constitution; 3) utopia can be fruitfully used to motivate human will and mobilise support for human flourishing. In this article I endeavour to show that among contemporary philosophers it is Hans Jonas who most fully develops the anthropological significance of utopia by investigating the very relationship between imagination and experience, and by underlining how the eidetic and reflective constitution of the human being leads to ethics. As a further goal, I wish to highlight that the anthropological relevance of utopia can shed light on our imaginative and ambivalent nature, and provide a practical and educational basis for the achievement of an “ethics of images” for the current digital era. For this purpose I shall draw on the thinking of Marie-José Mondzain and Jean-Jacques Wunenburger, among other scholars. (shrink)