Peter Sloterdijk | |
|---|---|
 Sloterdijk in 2009 | |
| Born | (1947-06-26)26 June 1947 (age 78) Karlsruhe,Württemberg-Baden, Germany |
| Education | |
| Alma mater | University of Munich University of Hamburg |
| Philosophical work | |
| Era | 21st-century philosophy |
| Region | Western philosophy |
| School | Phenomenology,philosophical anthropology,posthumanism |
| Notable ideas | Spherology (Sphärologie), Human Park (Menschenpark), Gifts instead of Taxes |
Peter Sloterdijk (/ˈsloʊtərdaɪk/;German:[ˈsloːtɐˌdaɪk]; born 26 June 1947) is a Germanphilosopher andcultural theorist. He was a professor of philosophy and media theory at and Rector from 2001 to 2015 of theUniversity of Art and Design Karlsruhe. He co-hosted the German television showDas Philosophische Quartett from 2002 until 2012.
Sloterdijk's father was Dutch, his mother German. He studied philosophy,German studies and history at theUniversity of Munich and theUniversity of Hamburg from 1968 to 1974. In 1975, he received his PhD from the University of Hamburg. In the 1980s, he worked as a freelance writer, and published hisCritique of Cynical Reason (German:Kritik der zynischen Vernunft) in 1983. Sloterdijk has since published a number of philosophical works acclaimed in Germany. In 2001, he was named chancellor of the University of Art and Design Karlsruhe, part of theCenter for Art and Media Karlsruhe. His best-known Karlsruhe student and former assistant isMarc Jongen, a member of the Bundestag.[1] In 2002, Sloterdijk began to co-hostDas Philosophische Quartett ('The Philosophical Quartet'), a show on the GermanZDF television channel devoted to discussing key contemporary issues in-depth.[2]
Sloterdijk rejects the existence ofdualisms—body and soul, subject and object, culture and nature, etc.—since their interactions, "spaces of coexistence", and common technological advancement create hybrid realities. Sloterdijk's ideas are sometimes referred to asposthumanism,[3] and seek to integrate different components that have been, in his opinion, erroneously considered detached from each other. Consequently, he proposes the creation of an "ontological constitution" that would incorporate all beings—humans, animals, plants, and machines.
In the style ofNietzsche[citation needed], Sloterdijk remains convinced that contemporary philosophers have to think dangerously and let themselves be "kidnapped" by contemporary "hyper-complexities": they must forsake our present humanist and nationalist world for a wider horizon at once ecological and global.[4]Sloterdijk's philosophical style strikes a balance between the firm academicism of a scholarly professor and a certain sense of anti-academicism (witness his ongoing interest in the ideas ofOsho, of whom he became a disciple in the late seventies).[5] Taking a sociological stance,Andreas Dorschel sees Sloterdijk's timely innovation at the beginning of the 21st century in having introduced the principles ofcelebrity into philosophy.[6] Sloterdijk himself, viewing exaggeration as necessary to catch attention, describes the way he presents his ideas as "hyperbolic" (hyperbolisch).[7]
TheKritik der zynischen Vernunft, published bySuhrkamp in 1983 (and in English asCritique of Cynical Reason, 1987), became the best-selling work on philosophy in the German language since theSecond World War and launched Sloterdijk's career as an author.[8]
ThetrilogySpheres is the philosopher'smagnum opus. The first volume was published in 1998, the second in 1999, and the last in 2004.
Spheres deals with "spaces of coexistence", spaces commonly overlooked or taken for granted which conceal information crucial to developing an understanding of humanity. The exploration of these spheres begins with the basic difference betweenmammals and other animals: the biological andutopian comfort of the mother'swomb, which humans try to recreate through science, ideology, and religion. From these microspheres (ontological relations such asfetus-placenta) to macrospheres (macro-uteri such asstates), Sloterdijk analyzes spheres where humans try but fail to dwell and traces a connection between vital crises (e.g., emptiness andnarcissistic detachment) and crises created when a sphere shatters.
Sloterdijk has said that the first paragraphs ofSpheres are "the book thatHeidegger should have written", a companion volume toBeing and Time, namely, "Being and Space".[citation needed] He was referring to his initial exploration of the idea ofDasein, which is then taken further as Sloterdijk distances himself from Heidegger's positions.[9]
On 25 August 2000, inWeimar, Sloterdijk gave a speech on Nietzsche; the occasion was the centennial of the latter philosopher's death. The speech was later printed as a short book[10] and translated into English.[11] Sloterdijk presented the idea that language is fundamentallynarcissistic: individuals, states and religions use language to promote and validate themselves. Historically however, Christianity and norms in Western culture have prevented orators and authors from directly praising themselves, so that for example they would instead venerate God or praise the dead in eulogies, to demonstrate their own skill by proxy. In Sloterdijk's account, Nietzsche broke with this norm by regularly praising himself in his own work.
For examples of classical Western "proxy-narcissism", Sloterdijk citesOtfrid of Weissenburg,Thomas Jefferson andLeo Tolstoy, each of whom prepared edited versions ofthe four Gospels: theEvangelienbuch, theJefferson Bible and theGospel in Brief, respectively. For Sloterdijk, each work can be regarded as "a fifth gospel" in which the editor validates his own culture by editing tradition to conform to his own historical situation. With this background, Sloterdijk explains that Nietzsche also presented his workThus Spoke Zarathustra as a kind of fifth gospel. In Sloterdijk's account, Nietzsche engages in narcissism to an embarrassing degree, particularly inEcce Homo, promoting a form of individualism and presenting himself and his philosophy as abrand. However, just as the Christian Gospels were appropriated by the above editors, so too was Nietzsche's thought appropriated and misinterpreted by theNazis. Sloterdijk concludes the work by comparing Nietzsche's individualism with that ofRalph Waldo Emerson, as inSelf-Reliance.
Sloterdijk also argues that the current concept ofglobalization lacks historical perspective. In his view it is merely the third wave in a process of overcoming distances (the first wave being the metaphysical globalization of theGreekcosmology and the second the nautical globalization of the 15th and 16th centuries). The difference for Sloterdijk is that, while the second wave createdcosmopolitanism, the third is creating a globalprovincialism. Sloterdijk's sketch of a philosophical history of globalization can be found inIm Weltinnenraum des Kapitals (2005; translated asIn the World Interior of Capital), subtitled "Die letzte Kugel" ("The final sphere"). In an interview with Noema Magazine, Sloterdijk expanded upon the idea of “planetary co-immunism”, referring to the need to "share the means of protection even with the most distant members of the family of man/woman" when faced with shared threats such as pandemics.[12]
In hisZorn und Zeit (translated asRage and Time), Sloterdijk characterizes the emotion of rage as a psychopolitical force throughout human history. The political aspects are especially pronounced in the Western tradition, beginning with the opening words ofHomer'sIliad, "Of the rage of Achilles, son of Peleus, sing, O Goddess...". Sloterdijk acknowledges the contributions ofpsychoanalysis for our understanding of strong emotional attitudes: "In conformity with its basic erotodynamic approach, psychoanalysis brought much hatred to light, the other side of life." (Rage and Time, p. 14) Importantly, for Sloterdijk, Judeo-Christian conceptions of God ultimately "piggyback" on the feelings of rage and resentment, creating "metaphysical revenge banks". For Sloterdijk, "God thus becomes the location of a transcendent repository of suspended human rage-savings and frozen plans of revenge."[13]
Shortly after Sloterdijk conducted a symposium on philosophy and Heidegger, he stirred up controversy with his essay "Regeln für den Menschenpark" ("Rules for the Human Park", 1999).[14] In this text, Sloterdijk regards cultures and civilizations as "anthropogenic hothouses," installations for the cultivation of human beings; just as we have established wildlife preserves to protect certain animal species, so too ought we to adopt more deliberate policies to ensure the survival ofAristotle'szoon politikon.
"The taming of man has failed", Sloterdijk laments. "Civilisation's potential for barbarism is growing; the everyday bestialisation of man is on the increase."
Because of theeugenic policies of theNazis in Germany's recent history, such discussions are seen in Germany as carrying a sinister load. Breaking a German taboo on the discussion of genetic manipulation, Sloterdijk's essay suggests that the advent of new genetic technologies requires more forthright discussion and regulation of "bio-cultural" reproduction. In the eyes ofHabermas, this made Sloterdijk a "fascist". Sloterdijk replied that this was, itself, resorting to "fascist" tactics to discredit him.[15] The core of the controversy was not only Sloterdijk's ideas but also his use of the German wordsZüchtung ("breeding", "cultivation") andSelektion ("selection").
Sloterdijk rejected the accusation of Nazism, which he considered alien to his historical context. Still, the paper started a controversy in which Sloterdijk was strongly criticized, both for his alleged usage of a fascist rhetoric to promotePlato's vision of a government with absolute control over the population, and for committing a non-normative, simplistic reduction of thebioethical issue itself. This second criticism was based on the vagueness of Sloterdijk's position on how exactly society would be affected by developments in genetic science. After the controversy multiplied positions both for and against him,Die Zeit published an open letter from Sloterdijk to Habermas in which he vehemently accused Habermas of "criticizing behind his back" and espousing a view of humanism that Sloterdijk had declared dead.[16]
Another dispute emerged after Sloterdijk's article "Die Revolution der gebenden Hand" (13 June 2009; transl. "The revolution of the giving hand")[17][18] in theFrankfurter Allgemeine, one of Germany's most widely read newspapers. There Sloterdijk claimed that the nationalwelfare state is a "fiscal kleptocracy" that had transformed the country into a "swamp of resentment" and degraded its citizens into "mystified subjects of tax law".
Sloterdijk opened the text with the famous quote ofleftist critics of capitalism (made famous in the 19th century byProudhon in his "What Is Property?") "Property is theft", stating, however, that it is nowadays the modernstate that is the biggest taker. "We are living in a fiscal grabbing semi-socialism – and nobody calls for a fiscal civil war."[19][20] He repeated his statements and stirred up the debate in his articles titled "Kleptokratie des Staates" (transl. "Kleptocracy of the state") and "Aufbruch der Leistungsträger" (transl. "Uprising of the performers") in the German monthlyCicero – Magazin für politische Kultur.[21][22][23]
According to Sloterdijk, the institutions of the welfare state lend themselves to a system that privileges the marginalized, but relies, unsustainably, on the class of citizens who are materially successful. Sloterdijk's provocative recommendation was that income taxes should be deeply reduced, the difference being made up by donations from the rich in a system that would reward higher givers with social status. Achievers would be praised for their generosity, rather than being made to feel guilty for their success, or resentful of society's dependence on them.[24]
In January 2010, an English translation was published, titled "A Grasping Hand – The modern democratic state pillages its productive citizens", inForbes[25] and in the Winter 2010 issue ofCity Journal.[26] Sloterdijk's 2010 book,Die nehmende Hand und die gebende Seite, contains the texts that triggered the 2009–2010 welfare state dispute.
Honorary doctorates
Media related toPeter Sloterdijk at Wikimedia Commons
Quotations related toPeter Sloterdijk at Wikiquote| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
| Academics | |
| Artists | |
| People | |
| Other | |
