Este artigo problematiza o antropocentrismo na “esferologia” de Peter Sloterdijk, com sua narrativa da antropogênese como construção imunológica da “casa do ser”, na qual o humano, rompendo a “jaula” animal, constrói esferas, ilhas imunológicas de coexistência humana. O mito de Orfeu simboliza para Sloterdijk a imunologia: ao perder a amada, Orfeu reconstrói imunologicamente o complemento, neutralizando o espectro ausente como linguagem. Propomos um experimento filosófico, o “Anti-Orfeu”, no qual o perspectivismo cosmológico de Viveiros de Castro e Tânia Stolze Lima, pensado (...) de um ponto de vista topológico, serviria de contraponto para pôr em perspectiva a imunologia, apontando para a variação da diferença entre dentro e fora e para a “antropofagia”, como outra distribuição topológica que permite outra relação com a alteridade que não a imunologia. Com isso, apontamos para uma “esferologia do ponto de vista do inimigo”, da alteridade, permitindo modular a esferologia, evidenciando-a como diagnóstico da “autoimunidade” de esferas imunológicas. (shrink)

Roberto Esposito has extended the deconstructive theory of the gift into political philosophy, theorizing the gift as the transcendental form of political obligation. In Esposito's philosophy of communitas, the munus consists of the single obligation to give, a logic of donors without receivers, yet it simultaneously establishes relations of reciprocity, mutuality, debt and gratitude. I argue that that indebtedness and reciprocity are not logically possible in a gift system where donors are bound by the single obligation to give, as the (...) donor has no other and the gift no recipient. These inconsistencies may be addressed by distinguishing two forms of gift in communitas: the impersonal gift characterized solely by the obligation to give to the gods/communitas and the reciprocal gift characterized by the obligations to give, receive and return the gift. Esposito's philosophy of communitas would additionally be strengthened by conceptualizing symbolic practices, specifically collective representations, as intrinsic to the munus. As impersonal gift, the munus is a symbolic practice through which the members of communitas represent to themselves their being-in-common. The munus operates as a vertical relation of expenditure made possible by the collective representation of the political we. The reciprocal gift, in contrast, constitutes differentiated social ties and networks: the being-in-difference of communal life. The distinction between the impersonal and the reciprocal gift gives rise to a minimal division between the political and the communal within the transcendental structure of communitas. (shrink)