Nature and Artifice in Manifesting/Producing the Being
In the ancient thought, a great importance is given to the notion of nature. Nature is what remains in what becomes and at the same time it is what allows every becoming-being to manifest itself in its proper determination. Nature is thus a principle of identity and a principle for protecting the forms of becoming from contradiction, in so far becoming means the becoming of what is, and the becoming towards what is (in the form of its telos). In the modern thought nature is what resists against the transformation promoted by the artifice: therefore nature is a starting point that needs to be overcome to the advantage of the enhancement of what is originally defective. In this framework the way is open towards the criticism of an essentialism, which is stiffened up in the representation of the fixity of nature. However the dynamism of the artifice, which is untied from an orientation to the being of what becomes, can lead to the negation of any eidetic principle, particularly to the negation of the idea of the human being to the advantage of a post-human, that could even contradict the human being in its essential structure, as it is emerged through the historical process. How then can phenomenology and the ontopoietic vision of becoming give value to the dynamism of life and, at the same time, to the exigencies of permanence of what becomes in the process? In order to answer this question, it is necessary to rethink the distinction between generation (as manifestation of the being) and production (as construction of the being), so that the former is not entirely subsumed under the latter.