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)

Pretende-se, no presente artigo, analisar as raízes ontológicas da noção de técnica, demonstrando como ela faz parte do movimento de abertura - e de liberdade, portanto - da vida humana em direção ao futuro. Para isso, analisar-se-á como a técnica toma em suas mãos o destino do homem e da natureza, sob os riscos e os perigos que acompanham essa tarefa, pois onde habita a liberdade também cresce o perigo. Dada tal condição, é preciso ainda perguntar sobre as consequências éticas (...) da manipulação do mundo provocada pela unificação entre teoria e prática , cuja intervenção, dada a magnitude e a ambiguidade, torna tal poder dependente de um controle ético. Mostrar-se-á, assim, como o tema da técnica está no centro de uma proposta que faz da ontologia um fundamento para a ética.It is my intended, in this article, analyze the ontological roots of the concept of technique, demonstrating how it is part of the opening movement - and freedom, so - of human life toward the future. For this, it will be analyzed how the technique takes into their hands the destiny of man and nature, on the risks and dangers that accompany this task, because where freedom dwells also increases the danger. With this condition, we must still ask about the ethical consequences of the manipulation of the world caused by the unification of theory and practice , whose intervention, given the magnitude and ambiguity becomes such power dependent on an ethical control. We’ll show, how the theme of the technique is in the center of a proposal that consider the ontological foundation of the ethics. (shrink)

A responsabilidade enquanto princípio ético proposta por Hans Jonas representa uma das reflexões morais indispensáveis à civilização tecnológica. Ao ampliar o universo moral também para a natureza extra-humana, e sua opção em recorrer à biologia como fundamento para o princípio responsabilidade, facilitou a associação do pensador com a moral naturalista. A tese aqui apresentada é de que o autor, embora recorra à biologia, não defende uma moral naturalista, afastando-se assim do que ficou conhecido como falácia naturalista. O “novo” da filosofia (...) de Jonas é que o dever fundamenta-se de modo ontológico, por isso a responsabilidade torna-se um dever ontológico e não moral: o homem tem que ser responsável porque ele é responsável ontologicamente. Não se trata de extrair uma ética da ontologia, pois a ética está contida no fato primordial da vida, visto que o dever ser está inserido no próprio Ser, o que faz Jonas usar da ontologia presente na natureza como fundamento da ética. Por ser ontológica e não racional, a liberdade não é um privilégio humano. Reinserido na natureza, o homem reafirma-se numa espécie de ontobiologia e sua proposta classifica-se como uma biologização do ser moral. (shrink)

‘Gnosticism and Modern Nihilism’ (published in Social Research , 1952) is indeed one of Hans Jonas’ most famous essays, to which its author reserved very deep attention during his philosophical career. As a former pupil of Martin Heidegger and Rudolf Bultmann, Jonas started to deal with religious topics, and specifically with Gnosticism, from the very outset of his philosophical career in the 1920s. After gaining recognition thanks to his remarkable philosophical-existential interpretation of Gnosticism, he returned to the modern age and (...) its philosophical characters. Principally, Jonas discovered that modern philosophy up to Heidegger and Sartre suffered from a peculiar spiritual disease – namely, nihilism – that he had already traced in ancient Gnosticism and that he intended to reject. Therefore, Jonas’ acquaintance with ancient religion and thinking gave him a deep insight into the modern age and provided him with a first glimpse of what was later to become his biological philosophy. However, whoever could imagine that the idea of tracing similarities between Gnosticism and modern thinking came to Jonas at the beginning of 1950 from the famous philosopher and biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy? In this article, I shall endeavour to demonstrate this thesis by quoting from unpublished documents. However, I shall also try to prove that Jonas did not follow von Bertalanffy’s advice completely. The overall aim is, therefore, both to highlight the origins of an essential turning point in the thinking of Hans Jonas, and, on such a basis, to outline the innovation and originality of his philosophical contribution. (shrink)

Spinoza est pour Deleuze le «Christ» et le «Prince» des philosophes, le philosophe «absolu», et son Éthique, «l’un des plus grands livres du monde»C’est sur Spinoza que Deleuze aura le plus écrit en lui consacrant deux livres: Spinoza et le problème de l’expression et Spinoza. Philosophie pratiqueSpinoza, le seul philosophe que Deleuze déclarait connaître «dans son cœur», est aussi celui dont la conceptualité fut la mieux approfondie par lui. «C’est sur Spinoza, écrit Deleuze, que j’ai le plus sérieusement travaillé d’après (...) les normes de l’histoire de la philosophie»Mais Deleuze ne s’en tient pas au seul cadre académique d’analyse. Il sait également produire une interprétation éminemment originale de la pensée de Spinoza. (shrink)