Advertisement

Foundations of Science

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 305–310 | Cite as

Love and Realism

  • Pieter LemmensEmail author
Reply

Abstract

In this reply I try to show that, contrary to Milberry’s apparent assertion, the general intellect of the multitude does not have the explanatory robustness she accredits to it (following both Virno and the Hardt and Negri of the Empire trilogy). Digital network technologies are currently overwhelmingly effective in proletarianizing and disempowering the cognitariat and only an active technopolitics of deproletarianization could reverse this hegemonic situation. In my response to Verbeek, I attempt to correct his misinterpretation (shared by Milberry) of the Stieglerian approach as being dialectical in nature and show that, far from reinstating the humanist dichotomy between human beings and technologies, my analysis assumes their original, albeit fundamentally ambiguous and even ‘uncanny’ [unheimlich] interconnection. I conclude with pointing out some implications of this view for a ‘really realistic’ political theory of technology.

Keywords

Digital technologies Technical condition General intellect Post-phenomenology Dialectics Politics of technology 

References

  1. Bantwal-Rao, M., Jongerden, J., Lemmens, P., & Ruivenkamp, G. (2015). Technological mediation and power: Postphenomenology, critical theory, and autonomist marxism. Philosophy and Technology. doi: 10.1007/s13347-015-0190-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berardi, F. (2009). The soul at work. From alienation to autonomy. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e).Google Scholar
  3. Carr, N. (2010). The shallows. How the internet is changing the way we think, read and remember. London: Atlantic Books.Google Scholar
  4. Carr, N. (2015). The glass cage: Where automation is taking us. London: Bodley Head.Google Scholar
  5. Crary, J. (2013). 24/7. Late capitalism and the ends of sleep. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  6. Dean, J. (2010). Blog theory. Feedback and capture in the circuits of desire. Cambridge, Malden: Polity.Google Scholar
  7. Dean, J. (2012). The communist horizon. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  8. Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2012). Declaration. New York: Argo navis authors services.Google Scholar
  9. Keen, A. (2015). The internet is not the answer. London: Atlantic Books.Google Scholar
  10. McChesney, R. (2013). Digital disconnect. How capitalism is turning the internet against democracy. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  11. Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the internet is hiding from you. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  12. Rouvroy, A., & Berns, T. (2013). Gouvernementalité algorithmique et Perspectives d’Émanicaption. Le disparate comme condition d’individuation par la relation? In La Découverte|Réseaux (Nr. 177, pp. 163–196).Google Scholar
  13. Stiegler, B. (2009). Acting out. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Stiegler, B. (2015). States of shock stupidity and knowledge in the 21st century. Cambridge, Malden: Polity.Google Scholar
  15. Van Den Eede, Y. (2012). Amor technologiae. Brussels: VUBPress.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2015

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NijmegenNetherlands

Personalised recommendations