首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
相似文献
 共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 555 毫秒
1.
ABSTRACT

Going via Bernard Stiegler’s theorisation of technology, and his response to Chris Anderson’s claim that the era of hyper-networked, algorithmically driven digital technologies signals the end of theory, this paper aims to place the educational practice of networked learning as a space to think the edge, excess or limit of this proposed algorithmic dominance. The author discusses how networked learning can negotiate the border between educational theory, the practice of teaching and learning, and the processes and systems of educational technology, but suggests that to do this it must engage these disciplines through a thinking of technology which does not decide upon its status in advance. He argues that affirming this particular relation to technology is increasingly urgent given we are at a moment in which educational institutions are asking how to prepare our students for an age of continuing technological disruption.  相似文献   

2.
Abstract

My objective in this paper is to write a pharmacology of the university by thinking about its relationship to systemic stupidity, intelligence, and the possibility of becoming. Starting with an exploration of the contemporary dystopia of drive-based stupidity imagined by the French philosopher Bernard Stiegler, which I seek to capture through the idea of the humiliation of thought, I look to deepen his response to this situation by suggesting a return to the work of two of his key sources, Martin Heidegger and Gilles Deleuze. My objective here is to use their work in relation to Stiegler’s in order to suggest a utopia of educational becoming. Following my exploration of Stiegler’s dystopia, in the second part of the article I read Heidegger’s philosophy in order to formulate a utopian theory of education becoming, which is sensitive to the possibility of authoritarianism contained in his catastrophic decision to become a member of the Nazi party. Against the dystopic humiliation of thought Heidegger’s turn to Nazism can be seen to represent, I turn to Deleuze in the name of a model of educational becoming that recognises difference in itself, before noting that this philosophical approach has similarly found humiliation in the contemporary neoliberal university dominated by a form of rhizomatic power. Finally, I look to develop a fusion of Heideggerian and Deleuzean approaches to deepen Stiegler’s pharmacological critique of the contemporary dystopia of systemic stupidity and its potential resolution in an educational utopia of invention on the other side of the humiliation of thought.  相似文献   

3.
Abstract

Bernard Stiegler’s concept of individuation suggests that the human being is co-constituted with technology. Technology precedes the individual in the respect that the latter is thrown in a technological world that always already contains externally inscribed memories—what he calls tertiary memories—that selectively form the individual and the collective space of the community. Revisiting Husserlian phenomenology, Stiegler renews the critique of culture industries asserting that imagination and differance have always been technologically mediated, and echoing the Heideggerian anxiety concerning thinking’s over-determination, Stiegler offers an intriguing analysis of the specificity of our age’s technologies while exploring the possibility for political responsibility and educational intervention.  相似文献   

4.
Abstract

Higher education has not been spared from the effects of the disruptive aspects of technology. MOOCs, teach bots, virtual learning platforms, and Wikipedia are among technics marking a digital transformation of knowledge. The question of the university, the foundation of its authority and purpose is more than timely; it is urgent to any future philosophy of higher education. Will the university survive in the future and if so, for what purpose? We examine two philosophers, Jacques Derrida and Bernard Stiegler, who take on this challenge. Derrida, writing at ‘the scene of teaching’, proposes new humanities for a university ‘without condition’, one with increasing autonomy to democratize it further. Stiegler takes issue with him on the conditions of the university of the future. Stiegler offers not an ‘anti-Derridian discourse’ but a ‘deconstruction of a deconstruction’ of Derrida. Stiegler’s critique of Derrida on the role of the professoriate and the university of the future expand the fissure between them. In this article, we argue that Stiegler’s reading of Derrida points to the university not as an anachronistic way of knowing displaced by the digital revolution but as vital to a politics of the spirit in a democratic future.  相似文献   

5.
Abstract

Bernard Stiegler is known as a leading philosopher of technics. He has developed an original interpretation of technics as an externalized epiphylogenetic memory that (1) remembers in the place of the human being, who appears therefore as a forgetful being and (2) is collective and constitutes a technological community, that is different from any ethnical-political community. Stiegler has also examined the social and political consequences of contemporary technology. Technics are not neutral. Contemporary digital technologies claim to inform but more fundamentally they produce pulsions in a way that is destructive to psychic and collective individuation and leads to a generalized proletarianization, where the problem is not biopower or capitalism but lack of attention and desire. Can the digital world become a new public space? Stiegler is quite pessimistic, but in principle, to some extent, it is possible to seize and convert ‘the means of memory production.’ Stiegler's insights are invaluable in the task of evaluating new learning technologies, because he analyzes political community from the double point of view of technology, and of the care of younger generations. In this article, I present Stiegler's philosophical theory and show how it can be applied to education and digital learning environments.  相似文献   

6.
Abstract

This paper examines the affective disorders plaguing many young people and the problem of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in particular. It aims to define the limits of the critique of British educationalist Sir Ken Robinson in terms of his philosophy of ‘creativity’ through a consideration of the ideas of French philosopher Bernard Stiegler, especially the notions of ‘industrial temporal objects’ and stupidity (bêtise). It makes the case for adopting elements of each distinct research paradigm as a prolegomena to forging a social critique of capitalist-dominated, market-led educational institutions. The former, it will be seen, identifies some of the problems facing teachers in terms of the use and application of technology, the false divide between arts and the humanities, but falls short of explaining the root of the structural and psychic malaise in neo-liberal regimes regarding classroom breakdown in general. The latter, despite the apocalyptic tone of some his pronouncements provides an update and radicalization of Deleuze’s societies of control thesis in terms of what Stiegler designates ‘uncontrollable societies’. Stiegler, it will be seen, presents a critique of technology that is all the more pressing in an age in which the loss of expectation in the lives of young people can lead to a corresponding fall off or destruction in ‘deep attention’. I want to test the hyperbole of Stiegler’s assertion that young people today suffer from a ‘colossal’ attention deficit disorder of unprecedented scale and magnitude.  相似文献   

7.
普罗米修斯盗火虽然属于英雄神话,但又有别于一般的英雄神话,因为其中蕴含着非同寻常丰富的文化意义。首先,普罗米修斯盗火神话,为我们解读文明起源提供了珍贵的启示和线索,这就是文明起源于火,人类文明的黎明是在火的催生下诞生的。其次,普罗米修斯本身就是人类文明进步的代表和象征,是主持正义、献身理想、反抗暴虐的化身,是敢于抗拒强暴,宁死不屈,不惜牺牲一切的英雄形象。再次,普罗米修斯集受难者、殉道者和智慧者、思想者于一身,他所担当的是人类从精神到肉体的全部苦难。  相似文献   

8.
一方面,斯蒂格勒进一步继承和发展了海德格尔的技术双面性解读,批判西方传统二元式理解知识和工具,认为此种解读导致了人和技术二元区分。另一方面,斯蒂格勒批判技术决定论,提出“技术药理学”和“一般器官学”,认为在数字技术和自动化技术的时代,法兰克福学派的错误在于把时代问题归结于技术逻辑,而非从“一般器官学”和“药理学”的角度理解技术和人的本质,也看不到技术的工具性和知识性、毒性和药性的双面统一。“技术药理学”和“器官学”视角解读给出一条克服资本主义经济毒性(熵)的方法,那就是基于人文关怀的一种治疗的负熵和逆生产力。  相似文献   

9.
Abstract

In Taking Care of Youth and the Generations, Bernard Stiegler develops an account of the pedagogical responsibilities which follow from rhythmic intergenerational flows, involving the creation of milieus which care for and pay attention to the future, toward the creation of nootechnical milieus. Such milieus are defined by their objects of attention: intellectual life, spiritual life, and political life; taken together: noetic life. Such is the claim Alfred North Whitehead makes when arguing that the sole object of education is life and the creation of an art of life which is itself a rhythmic adventure.

The purpose of this paper is three-fold. First, to clarify the importance of Stiegler’s reading of Aristotle’s notion of the noetic soul in our thinking about the role, purpose, and function of educational institutions in relation to intellective, spiritual, and political life. In this paper, I will fuse this discussion with a Whiteheadian approach to rhythm, developing what I call a ‘rhythmic nootechnics’ in the service of ‘nootechnical evolution’ as, I argue, Whitehead’s approach to rhythm allows to clarify and enrich Stiegler’s reading of Aristotle. Second, and as indicated, to explore the relationship between Whitehead and Stiegler, insofar as the former has become an increasing reference point for the latter, but this relationship remains unexplored in the literature. Third, to apply this concept of ‘rhythmic nootechnics’ to think about what transformations at the level of pedagogy and politics are necessary to reinvent the university from this Stieglerian and Whiteheadian perspective.  相似文献   

10.
Abstract

We are living in and beyond two massive changes in the world, both of which must be addressed by education, the caretaker of memory. First is the geological era of the Anthropocene—a crisis of nature and mankind, a fundamental geo-trauma. While climate change is a reality which we are belatedly just beginning to understand as we increasingly experience its changing weather patterns, the Anthropocene remains unknown or invisible for many. As a concrete case in point, the 2011 nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in the Tōhoku region of Japan remains an ongoing but largely invisible crisis. Indeed, there is a sense of collective disavowal regarding what we must do in its wake, for it is a crisis which effects not only the contemporary but future generations. The second is equally momentous. The advent of mass access to the Internet in the 1990s and its effects on learning, knowledge, societal relations and psychical life are also just beginning to be understood. For Bernard Stiegler the ecological crisis and the technological question go hand in hand. To explain this position we are naming Stiegler not only a utopian thinker in the classical sense but also a utopian thinker who offers practical ‘negentropic’ weapons to contest entropic becoming in the digital world. We are arguing Stiegler’s oeuvre and pharmacological method has much to give to the philosophy of education as it seeks to account for the crisis in education.  相似文献   

11.
本杰明、杰姆逊和后期海德格尔对雕刻的反思都审视了在后现代时期艺术和技术的亲缘关系。本杰明主张技术摧毁了艺术的氛围,这是对机械中介物替代艺术家来控制美学的一种模糊批判。杰姆逊批判了笛卡尔式的主体再现于后现代主义中,这意味着通过电影(现在通过广告),艺术氛围已经不是一个不可逆的过去的随意回想,而是被吸引的观众当下生活的共鸣。这一点现在普遍反映在消费主义之中。海德格尔对与雕刻相关的空间和处所的反思,说明艺术的角色应该是阐明一个关系性的世界。我们必须学会发现自己正身处这样的世界之中,而不是通过那种维持我们娱乐的机械方法来利用艺术品味。  相似文献   

12.
Abstract

My objective in this article is to consider the implications of Bernard Stiegler’s theory of the neganthropocene for the politics of knowledge and education. Stiegler sets out his theory of the neganthropocene in his recent books, Automatic Society and The Neganthropocene, in order to respond to what he writes about in terms of the entropic conditions of the hyper-industrial society of the anthropocene. In this respect Stiegler extends his earlier work on hominisation, technics, technology, and hyper-industrialisation to take in the concept of the anthropocene and related environmental, ecological concerns. In this article I set out Stiegler’s theory of the neganthropocene, before thinking through the politics of knowledge and education that could make this utopian transformation from an ecologically unsustainable to a sustainable society possible. What would the politics of knowledge of the neganthropocene look like and how would they work in the context of the (global) education system?  相似文献   

13.
Abstract

This paper aims to show how to conceive the relationship between educational methods and cognitive modes. Focusing on the difference between Stiegler and Hayles, I will show that it is necessary to invent an educational philosophy for hyper attention. While Stiegler agrees with Hayles’s position regarding attention, he criticizes Hayles for defining attention as duration. According to Stiegler, attention has less to do with duration than with ‘retention’ and ‘protention.’ Based on this phenomenological insight, Stiegler appeals for a need to protect children from this mutation of the cognitive mode. However, Hayles suggests that hyper attention has certain advantages. It is not only a ‘mutation’ of attention but also a new cognitive mode in modern society. Thus, we should invent new educational methods and educational philosophies appropriate to hyper attention in order to bridge the gap between deep attention and hyper attention.  相似文献   

14.
Abstract

One of the questions that Heidegger presents in his paper, ‘Plato’s Doctrine on Truth’, is the distortion as he sees it of paideia—that is the loss of the essential elements in education. This loss is characterised according to Heidegger, by a misconception of Plato’s concept of teaching and learning. By undertaking an historical examination, Heidegger provides a means to rectify this loss. With reference to past, present and future philosophical perspectives of teaching and learning as particular spaces, an attempt is made in this paper to examine Heidegger’s reading of paideia within the context of online learning. This, for many contemporary writers on education, is an encounter with new literacies, new knowledge and the adoption of an online environment that challenges the hegemonic order of the institution as the purveyors of knowledge. Teachers within this new environment are, however still constituted as experts and their knowledge is seen as ultimately inviolate. Heidegger in his re-interpretation of Plato sees the teacher as leading the students to where they might make themselves intelligible within the space of their being. This alignment forms an acceptance and a challenge to the metaphysical concepts of uniformity of being and place that limits the potential of knowledge as something that is fixed and complete. The experience of the social web or Web 2.0 has seen a shift in learning premised upon dialogue, exchange and constantly shifting horizons. Within this context, the teacher is recast as a craftsman, creating learning opportunity within dialogic exchange. The heightened sense of involvement that is revealed in this context lays the ground for a future visioning of education where emergence is seen as essential, unlike a re-working of authorisation to learn that inhibits student and teacher alike in new attempts at revitalising education.  相似文献   

15.
“人的发明”意味着一个重大的教育学问题,斯蒂格勒为此提供了一种技术哲学解释。通过解读爱比米修斯原则与普罗米修斯原则,斯蒂格勒确立了发明问题的先行缺陷结构,即人的意外悬临必须求助于体外“义肢”。在此基础上,借助现象学方法,通过整合多学科性的技术哲学理论,特别是深描勒鲁瓦-古兰确认的考古人类学成果,斯蒂格勒指认,人是一种“义肢”性存在,“人的发明”乃是区别于动物遗传性获得的“后种系生成”,其隐秘机制即“谁”与“什么”的双重“延异”。教育作为一种“义肢”,与“人的发明”具有深度意蕴关联。“教育即‘人的发明’”这一命题可以在家庭教育、学校教育与社会教育三个层面得到解释,三者构成一种个体生命进阶的教育性秩序,主要表现在个体教育生命原初背景的奠定及其进一步在异质性场域的打开,以及作为一种延展性生命空间的拓宽。随着“义肢”生命助产性滑向对人的本质性奴役,教育必须警惕臣服性技术接受,重视抽象性思维能力塑型,以及强调泛在性具身认知以抵御现代技术的座架风险。  相似文献   

16.
Abstract

At first glance a Russian anarchist’s revolutionary address to the youth of his day made in the late 19th century and the address to youth made by a contemporary French philosopher may appear to have little in common as their context and era are ostensibly very different. How would Petr Kropotkin’s address be understood in our time? Are Kropotkin’s concerns the same as those raised by Bernard Stiegler? Could Kropotkin speak of universal concerns, a sense of elevation and sublimation not governed, undermined or circumvented by digital relations, calculation or algorithmic determination? I find a mutual concern with the coming into maturity of youth, but, I am concerned that as we are passing through an epochal and revolutionary transformation driven by digital and cognitive capitalism and in our toxic and crisis-ridden milieu, Kropotkin’s rhetoric would inevitably fall on deaf ears? Is his rhetoric on revolution anachronistic? How would his rhetoric be crafted for a youth seemingly indifferent to the plight of fellow brethren? Is it conceivable that the humanist-inflected prospects of youth so vaunted by Kropotkin have now been devastated by the inhuman and nihilistic tendencies of the so-called miscreant, ‘blank generation’ as described by Stiegler? True, while it is difficult to calibrate the vision of youth affirmed in Kropotkin with the fear of youth in Stiegler, and, despite differences in episteme, tradition and political orientation, both thinkers I think are concerned with the trials and tribulations of youth and both hold out the prospect of the not-yet of youth, of the coming into being of the maturity of youth, of Aufklärung. It is this shared focus I wish to examine further.  相似文献   

17.

It has become increasingly clear over the past decade that the question of a positive link between research and teaching has no simple or general answer. At the same time, there may well be a positive link under particular conditions. This paper argues that a positive link can be due primarily to the processes, rather than the outcomes, inherent in research and teaching, and that, in particular, student-centred teaching and learning processes are intrinsically favourable towards a positive link, while more traditional teaching methods may at best lead to a positive link for the most able students, who in the perception of traditional academics are, of course, the future university teachers. This finding, in turn, leads to a rational explanation of the persistent myth of a general positive link. Finally, it is argued that pedagogic research and its outcomes could play an important role in strengthening the link.  相似文献   

18.
Abstract

Critical pedagogy is in crisis. To address this crisis, this paper reinvents Paulo Freire’s concept of utopia in and for our age of the Anthropocene. Understood as a system, postdigital critical utopia provides us with normative foundations and returns agency from invisible data and algorithms to human beings. Understood as a process, postdigital critical utopia unmasks the myth of neutrality and adds an important element of myth, religion, ritual, and faith. Understood as an orientation, postdigital critical utopia needs to be balanced by dystopia, integrate environmental considerations, and act with a combination of epistemical curiosity and hope. Theoretical and practical attempts at introducing advanced technology to reimagine new utopias now take place in media theory, hacking, activism, and small pockets of the academia. To transcend its own crisis and remain relevant, contemporary critical pedagogy movement must urgently join these attempts. However, catching up with technological development is only the tip of a much larger iceberg. In order to take the lead in processes of modernization, critical pedagogy movement needs to actively develop utopian visions and techno-administrative systems which may support these visions.  相似文献   

19.
In the last two decades, a decisive anti-foundationalist turn has emerged in educational philosophy and theory. With such a shift, both the possibility and the desirability to conceive of educational processes and practices in terms of mastery and predictability has been challenged. In this paper, by locating my work on such an anti-foundationalist horizon and by staging a comparison between Dewey and Heidegger, I wish to frame the issue in terms of what is behind and what is beyond the detached and self-assured subject that is supposed to found the kind of managerial frameworks that dominate educational practice worldwide. Specifically, it is my contention that for both Heidegger and Dewey, we are, on the one hand, vulnerable from the very beginning, delivered to an uncanny and uncertain condition; even knowledge is dependent upon a wider, non-discursive context. On the other hand, such an uncanniness and dependency, rather than flowing in some nihilistic defeat of educational purposes, puts radical responsibility on the side of the subject. For both Dewey and Heidegger, being a subject means being-with-others while transcending and advancing one’s boundaries. The notion of education that will emerge through the comparison between Dewey and Heidegger is a type of both subtraction and overstepping, a type of event that we cannot manage, and yet requires our attention, our educational effort in dealing with it, in loading it upon ourselves, thus reconsidering our existence.  相似文献   

20.
Where do words go to live when they become meaningless?

—Anonymous

Men of the world who value the Way all turn to books. But books are nothing more than words. Words have value; what is of value in words is meaning.

—Zhuangzi (as quoted in Mao)

For questioning is the piety of thought.

—Heidegger in The Question ConcerningTechnology and Other Essays

This essay argues that user centeredness has become ubiquitous and is in danger of being rendered meaningless. To address this problem, a meditative essay theorizes user centeredness by examining a base term—use—as defined through the ancient concepts of techne and the four causes of making. It concludes that user-centered design should employ the causes in order to avoid inversions during the development of all things technological.  相似文献   

设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号