Advertisement

Human Studies

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 329–345 | Cite as

Responsibility and the Crisis of Technological Civilization: A Husserlian Meditation on Hans Jonas

  • Ullrich Melle
Article

Abstract

Starting from a reflection on the present stage of technological civilisation, a critical reading of Jonas's ethics of responsibility from a Husserlian point of view is presented. It is argued that Jonas's ethics fails to meet the challenge of the collective character of technological action, that his view of human history is problematic and that the metaphysical foundation of his ethics is uncritical and naive

Keywords

Political Philosophy Critical Reading Human History Present Stage Technological Action 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anders, Günther (1987). Die Antiquiertheit des Menschen, 1. Úber die Seele im Zeitafter der zweiten industriellen Revolution. München: Beck.Google Scholar
  2. Apel, Karl-Otto (1987). “The Problem of a Macroethic of Responsibility to the Future in the Crisis of Technological Civilization: An Attempt to Come to Terms with Hans Jonas's 'Principle of Responsibility,'” Man and World: An International Philosophical Review, Volume 20.Google Scholar
  3. Bahro, Rudolf (1987). Logik der Rettung. Wer kann die Apokalypse aufhalten? Ein Versuch über die Grundlagen ökologischer Politik. Stuttgart, Wien: Weitbrecht.Google Scholar
  4. Bohnke, Ben-Alexander (1997). Abschied von der Natur. Hamburg: Metropolitan.Google Scholar
  5. Easterbrook, Greg (1996). A Moment on the Earth: The Coming Age of Environmental Optimism. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  6. Hart, James (1990). The Person and the Common Life. Phaenomenologica 126. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  7. Husserl, Edmund (1989). Aufsätze und Vorträge (1922–1937), Husserliana XXVII. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  8. Husserl, Edmund (1976). Die Krisis der europäischen Wissenschaften und die transzendentale Phänomenologie, Husserliana VI Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  9. Jonas, Hans (1979). Das Prinzip Verantwortung. Versuch einer Ethik für die technologische Zivilisation. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  10. Jonas, Hans (1981). Macht und Ohnmacht der Subjektivität. Das Leib-Seele-Problem im Vorfeld des Prinzips Verantwortung. Frankfurt a.M.: Insel.Google Scholar
  11. Jonas Hans (1993). Dem bösen Ende näher. Gespräche über das Verhältnis des Menschen zur Natur. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  12. Melle, Ulrich (1991). “The Development of Husserl's Ethics”, Etudes Phénoménologiques, Nos 13–14, 115–135.Google Scholar
  13. Mumford, Lewis (1973). Interpretations and Forecasts: 1922–1972. Studies in Literature, History, Biography, Technics, and Contemporary Society. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  14. Sloterdijk, Peter (1989). Eurotaoismus: Zur Kritik der politischen Kinetik. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  15. Stock, Gregory (1982). Metaman. The Merging of Humans and Machines into a Global Superorganism. Toronto: Doubleday.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ullrich Melle

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations