Isabelle Stengers (b 1949)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabelle_Stengers

Partial bibliography

• Prigogine, Ilya and Isabelle Stengers. La Nouvelle Alliance (1979)
• Prigogine, Ilya and Isabelle Stengers. Order out of Chaos, University of Michigan: Bantam Books (1984)
• Stengers, Isabelle and Chertok L. "A critique of psychoanalytic reason: hypnosis as a scientific problem from Lavoisier to Lacan", Noel Evans M (trans.), Stanford: Stanford University Press (1992)
• Prigogine, Ilya and Isabelle Stengers. The End of Certainty: Time, Chaos and the New Laws of Nature, Free Press (1997)
• Stengers, Isabelle. Power and Invention: Situating Science, Bains P (trans.), Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press (1997)
• Stengers, Isabelle. The Invention of Modern Science, Smith D.W (trans.), Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press (2000)
• Stengers, Isabelle. Cosmopolitics I, Bononno, R (trans.), Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press (2010)
• Stengers, Isabelle. Cosmopolitics II, Bononno, R (trans.), Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press (2011)
• Stengers, Isabelle and Pignarre P. Capitalist Sorcery: Breaking the Spell, Goffey A (Trans.), Palgrave Macmillan (2011)
• Stengers, Isabelle. Thinking with Whitehead: a free and wild creation of concepts. Harvard University Press. 2011. (translation of original: Penser avec Whitehead, 2002)
• Stengers, Isabelle. In Catastrophic Times. Resisting the Coming Barbarism[1], Goffey, A. (trans.), Open Humanities Press (2015)
• Stengers, Isabelle. Another Science is Possible: A Manifesto for Slow Science, Muecke, S. (trans.), Polity Press (2018)

Tomorrow (1972)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomorrow_(1972_film) (Plex)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight%27s_Gambit

Blackshore (2024)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt29402557/ (MyVideo)

妙管家 攜帶式瓦斯爐/卡式爐(K080/K077 附收納硬盒 戶外露營防風單口爐 居家休閒爐)

https://www.momoshop.com.tw/goods/GoodsDetail.jsp?i_code=6736127&Area=search&mdiv=403&oid=1_2&cid=index&kw=%E5%8D%A1%E5%BC%8F%E7%88%90

Philips 飛利浦 600W 攜帶式儲能行動電源 DLP8093C(露營/戶外行動電源/UPS不斷電)

https://www.momoshop.com.tw/goods/GoodsDetail.jsp?i_code=11648385&Area=search&mdiv=403&oid=1_1&cid=index&kw=%E5%84%B2%E8%83%BD%E8%A1%8C%E5%8B%95%E9%9B%BB%E6%BA%90%2F%E6%88%B6%E5%A4%96%E9%9B%BB%E6%BA%90

Are there other points of view about Schelling besides Zizek’s? (ChatGPT, 2024-10-3)

Yes, there are several interpretations of Friedrich Schelling’s work beyond Žižek’s view of him as a “vanishing mediator.” Scholars and philosophers have approached Schelling’s thought from various angles, recognizing his unique contributions to different fields of philosophy and his lasting influence. Here are a few significant perspectives:

1. Schelling as a Philosopher of Nature and Freedom:

Schelling is often celebrated as one of the first philosophers to develop a comprehensive philosophy of nature (Naturphilosophie), in which he attempted to reconcile nature with freedom. His early works explored the dynamic, organic structure of nature, emphasizing its creative, self-organizing tendencies. This aspect of Schelling’s thought heavily influenced later thinkers, especially in the Romantic movement and ecological philosophy.

• Perspective: Schelling’s philosophy of nature posits that nature itself has a form of subjectivity, working towards self-realization. This emphasis on nature’s intrinsic creativity stood in contrast to the mechanistic views of nature dominant in his time, which has made his work influential for later philosophers and ecologists who seek to integrate humanity into a living cosmos rather than seeing it as detached from it  

| Yale Forum on Religion and Ecology.

2. The Philosophy of Freedom:

Schelling’s philosophy of freedom—particularly in his later works like Freedom Essay (1809)—is another area where his thought is seen as significant. Here, Schelling grapples with the problem of evil, human freedom, and the tension between necessity and freedom. Unlike Hegel’s more deterministic system, where freedom emerges from the unfolding dialectic of history, Schelling emphasizes the radical, unpredictable nature of freedom as an existential force. For some scholars, this makes Schelling a precursor to existentialist thought.

• Perspective: Martin Heidegger, in his lectures on Schelling, praised this exploration of freedom, considering it a profound engagement with metaphysical questions about existence, decision, and evil. Heidegger saw Schelling as a thinker who prefigured key existentialist concerns, laying the groundwork for future existential philosophy 

| Yale Forum on Religion and Ecology.

3. Schelling as a Proto-Existentialist:

Some scholars, particularly in existentialist and phenomenological traditions, view Schelling as a precursor to existentialism. His emphasis on individual freedom, his engagement with the problem of evil, and his exploration of the non-rational aspects of existence (such as the unconscious) are seen as anticipating themes in thinkers like Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and later existentialists.

• Perspective: Søren Kierkegaard, who attended some of Schelling’s lectures, was influenced by Schelling’s view of freedom, particularly his emphasis on the anxiety and uncertainty that accompanies human choice. Kierkegaard took these insights further in his own existential philosophy of faith, freedom, and subjectivity .

4. Schelling’s Theological Significance:

Schelling’s philosophy also has a theological dimension, especially in his later works where he explores the relationship between God, nature, and human freedom. His concept of a dynamic, evolving God who is in some sense dependent on creation and freedom had a profound impact on later religious thinkers, particularly those in process theology.

• Perspective: In this theological context, Schelling is seen as a thinker who broke away from traditional Christian theism, offering a more relational and developmental conception of God. This influenced modern theologians, such as those in the process theology movement (like Whitehead and Hartshorne), who emphasize God’s interaction with the unfolding of the world 

| Yale Forum on Religion and Ecology .

5. Schelling as a Philosopher of the Unconscious:

Another key area of Schelling’s influence is his exploration of the unconscious. Schelling is one of the first philosophers to emphasize the importance of unconscious drives and forces, a theme later developed in psychoanalysis. He argued that the unconscious was not just a passive reservoir of repressed ideas (as in Freud), but an active, creative force.

• Perspective: This notion of the unconscious as creative and primordial has been of interest to thinkers like Carl Jung, who viewed Schelling’s work as foreshadowing the psychological depth of human experience and the archetypal nature of the unconscious 

| Yale Forum on Religion and Ecology.

6. Schelling as a Philosopher of Art:

Schelling’s Philosophy of Art is also significant, as he believed that art provides a unique way of accessing the absolute, reconciling the finite with the infinite, the conscious with the unconscious. For Schelling, art represented the highest expression of the unity between freedom and necessity.

• Perspective: Schelling’s thoughts on aesthetics influenced many later thinkers, particularly within German Romanticism. His view that art is a way to overcome the limitations of rational thought has remained influential in both aesthetic philosophy and theories of creativity.

Conclusion:

While Žižek’s view of Schelling as a “vanishing mediator” focuses on his transitional role between Kant and Hegel, other perspectives emphasize his lasting contributions to philosophy, especially in areas like nature, freedom, existentialism, theology, and the unconscious. Schelling is increasingly recognized not just as a bridge between thinkers, but as a significant and innovative philosopher in his own right. His ideas continue to resonate with contemporary thought, particularly in ecological philosophy, existentialism, and the philosophy of the unconscious.

What does Zizek mean when he said that Schelling was a ‘vanishing mediator’? (ChatGPT, 2024-10-3)

When Slavoj Žižek refers to Friedrich Schelling as a “vanishing mediator,” he is drawing on a concept used in Marxist and structuralist theory to describe a figure or idea that serves a crucial transitional role in a historical or intellectual process but is ultimately surpassed or absorbed by later developments. The term “vanishing mediator” was popularized by Fredric Jameson, who used it to describe a phase or agent that is necessary for historical change but becomes invisible once that change has occurred.

In Žižek’s application, Schelling occupies this role between the philosophical systems of Immanuel Kant and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Schelling, particularly in his later work, moves philosophy beyond Kant’s critical idealism but does not fully realize the absolute idealism that Hegel would later achieve. For Žižek, Schelling is pivotal in transitioning from Kant’s focus on human subjectivity and freedom to Hegel’s systematic dialectic, where subject and object, thought and being, are reconciled in a more comprehensive philosophical system.

However, once Hegel’s system is fully developed, Schelling’s intermediary role “vanishes,” meaning that his contributions are absorbed and largely overlooked in favor of Hegel’s more dominant philosophy. Schelling’s importance lies in how he provided the philosophical space for this transition, allowing Hegel’s absolute idealism to emerge.

Žižek also appreciates how Schelling’s work on freedom, nature, and the unconscious prefigures certain modern psychoanalytic ideas, particularly the role of the unconscious and the irrational in human experience. Despite this, in Žižek’s view, Schelling remains a transitional figure whose relevance diminishes after his role in the development of post-Kantian philosophy is completed .

Burn After Reading (2008)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burn_After_Reading (Amazon Prime Video)

You see, people were sad in 2008. 

How Your Brain Detects Patterns without Conscious Thought

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-your-brain-detects-patterns-without-conscious-thought/

What’s the difference between philosophical and literary foreseeing? (ChatGPT, 2024-10-3)

Philosophical and literary foreseeing both involve envisioning future possibilities, but they do so in distinct ways, shaped by the different aims, methods, and forms of expression in philosophy and literature.

1. Nature of Inquiry:

• Philosophical Foreseeing: Philosophers engage with abstract, conceptual, and often systematic exploration of ideas. Their goal is to critically assess the underlying structures of reality, knowledge, and society, often through rigorous logic and metaphysical speculation. For instance, Nietzsche’s foresight into the rise of nihilism is rooted in his philosophical critique of values and religion, anticipating how the collapse of traditional belief systems would affect future generations . Philosophical foreseeing tends to analyze broad, foundational principles—whether in metaphysics, ethics, or epistemology—and project how changes in these principles might shape the future.

• Literary Foreseeing: In contrast, literary foresight is more imaginative and expressive, typically manifesting through narrative, symbolism, and emotional depth. Literature, particularly speculative fiction, explores possible futures by creating worlds, characters, and scenarios that embody future potentialities. George Orwell’s 1984 or Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World are examples of literary works that foresee dystopian futures, offering critiques of political and social trends through detailed, emotionally resonant stories. Literary foreseeing often immerses the reader in lived experiences of these future realities, using character and plot to explore the consequences of societal shifts.

2. Form and Method:

• Philosophical Foreseeing: Philosophy often uses logical argumentation and conceptual analysis. Philosophers like Whitehead or Deleuze develop speculative metaphysical systems that provide frameworks for understanding future realities based on the principles of change and becoming. For instance, Whitehead’s process philosophy foresaw an evolving, dynamic universe, but this was based on his abstract reflections on the nature of reality, rather than empirical observation 

| Yale Forum on Religion and Ecology.

• Literary Foreseeing: Literature uses narrative, metaphor, and allegory. Literary works can embed philosophical ideas but do so through storytelling rather than formal argumentation. For example, Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale foresees a future shaped by the oppression of women, but rather than analyzing this possibility through logical exposition, Atwood vividly dramatizes it through the experiences of her characters.

3. Scope of Vision:

• Philosophical Foreseeing: Philosophers typically engage with grand, universal ideas. They often attempt to foresee future developments in science, ethics, or society by examining trends in knowledge, culture, or metaphysics. Their visions are usually broad in scope, addressing fundamental changes in how we might understand reality or live our lives. For instance, Nietzsche’s prophecy of the “Übermensch” (Overman) is a sweeping vision of a future human beyond current moral frameworks .

• Literary Foreseeing: Literature often provides a more intimate and concrete portrayal of future worlds. While it can address broad themes, it does so by focusing on individual lives and the emotional, psychological, and social impacts of future scenarios. For instance, Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 foresees a future of censorship and intellectual repression, but the impact of this future is shown through the personal struggle of the protagonist.

4. Emotional and Aesthetic Experience:

• Philosophical Foreseeing: Philosophical works are more likely to engage with the intellect, using abstract reasoning to encourage reflection on the future. The emotional experience may be secondary to the conceptual clarity or the logical rigor of the vision. Nietzsche’s works, though emotionally charged, are primarily concerned with offering intellectual critiques and foresights.

• Literary Foreseeing: Literature tends to engage both the intellect and emotions through its narrative and aesthetic qualities. Literary foresight can be more immersive, allowing readers to emotionally connect with characters and situations that exemplify possible futures. The sensory and emotional details of literary works allow readers to experience potential futures viscerally, as in the terrifying totalitarianism of Orwell’s 1984 or the environmental collapse depicted in Margaret Atwood’s Oryx and Crake.

5. Purpose and Impact:

• Philosophical Foreseeing: Philosophical foresight aims to critically interrogate reality and offer new ways of understanding or conceptualizing the future. Philosophers like Foucault anticipated the increasing role of surveillance and biopolitics in modern societies through his critical analysis of power structures . The aim is often to inspire change in thinking, policy, or cultural norms based on the insights offered.

• Literary Foreseeing: Literature often aims to provoke reflection and emotional response by showing the human and societal consequences of current trajectories. Writers like Deleuze used literature in creative ways, drawing upon philosophical ideas but presenting them in ways that allow readers to explore them through more imaginative and sensory experiences. The goal is often to inspire both thought and feeling, prompting readers to engage with possible futures on a more personal level.

In conclusion, while both philosophical and literary foreseeing engage with the future, philosophy does so through abstract, systematic inquiry, aiming for conceptual clarity and universality, while literature uses narrative, metaphor, and emotional depth to create immersive, imaginative visions of future possibilities.

How did they do it? Is there a method to foresee the world? (ChatGPT, 2024-10-3)

The ability of philosophers like Schelling, Nietzsche, Whitehead, Foucault, and Deleuze to “foresee” the future is not rooted in a specific method for predicting events in a direct sense. Rather, their foresight came from their profound capacity to recognize deep patterns, contradictions, and potentials within the cultural, scientific, and intellectual landscapes of their time. Here are several key factors that contributed to their forward-looking visions:

1. Radical Critique of the Present: These philosophers deeply critiqued the prevailing structures of thought in their respective times. For instance, Nietzsche critiqued the moral and religious frameworks of European society, anticipating the collapse of traditional values and the rise of nihilism. By recognizing cracks in their present systems, these philosophers could anticipate what might follow in the wake of these societal shifts .

2. Emphasis on Process and Change: Philosophers like Whitehead and Deleuze were attuned to the idea that reality is dynamic, not static. Whitehead’s process philosophy and Deleuze’s philosophy of becoming both rejected the idea of fixed essences and instead focused on the constant evolution and transformation of systems. By recognizing that change is fundamental, they were able to theorize future developments based on the transformative processes they observed 

| Yale Forum on Religion and Ecology.

3. Interdisciplinary Thinking: These philosophers drew from a wide range of fields—art, science, politics, psychology, and more. Foucault, for example, analyzed history, institutions, and social power structures, recognizing patterns that helped him foresee the increasing complexity of surveillance and biopolitical control. Deleuze and Guattari drew on biology, psychoanalysis, and political theory, which allowed them to anticipate shifts in how we understand human subjectivity and technology  

| Yale Forum on Religion and Ecology.

4. Focus on Underlying Forces: Instead of focusing solely on surface phenomena, these thinkers analyzed the underlying forces shaping culture and society. Nietzsche’s exploration of the will to power and Foucault’s analysis of power/knowledge relations allowed them to anticipate how these dynamics would evolve. Similarly, Deleuze’s interest in desire and multiplicity led to insights about future disruptions in social and political structures .

5. Speculative Metaphysics: Philosophers like Schelling and Whitehead developed speculative metaphysical systems that went beyond empirical data to explore the fundamental nature of reality. Whitehead’s notion of the universe as an ongoing process of becoming, for example, was not based on scientific data available in his time, but his speculative framework turned out to align with later discoveries in cosmology and quantum physics 

| Yale Forum on Religion and Ecology.

6. Creative Imagination and Intuition: While grounded in rigorous philosophical inquiry, these thinkers employed creative imagination to think beyond the limitations of their time. Nietzsche’s “Übermensch” and his idea of eternal recurrence are examples of his imaginative thinking about the future of humanity. Deleuze’s concept of “deterritorialization” offered a framework for thinking about fluidity in human, technological, and cultural systems before such ideas became mainstream in the age of globalization and the internet 

| Yale Forum on Religion and Ecology.

In summary, these philosophers did not “predict” the future in a methodical way, but their deep understanding of human nature, societal structures, and metaphysical processes allowed them to foresee patterns and shifts that would later become significant. Their interdisciplinary approach, openness to change, and willingness to critique the present helped them offer visions that continue to resonate with contemporary thought.

In other words, can we say that some philosophers foresaw the world, one or two centuries ahead, for example, Schelling, Nietzsche, Whitehead, Foucault, and Deleuze? (ChatGPT, 2024-10-3)

Yes, we can say that many philosophers, including Schelling, Nietzsche, Whitehead, Foucault, and Deleuze, offered insights that seem to anticipate the developments of one or two centuries later. These thinkers often explored philosophical ideas that went beyond the intellectual climate of their times, envisioning aspects of the world that are highly relevant today.

1. Schelling: Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, particularly through his exploration of nature and the unconscious, laid the groundwork for ideas that would later resonate in both existentialism and psychoanalysis. His work on the nature of freedom and the interplay between consciousness and the cosmos anticipated later debates about existential choice and the metaphysics of nature that continue to influence philosophy, ecology, and even quantum physics today .

2. Nietzsche: Friedrich Nietzsche famously declared the “death of God” and foresaw the rise of nihilism in Western culture. His anticipation of a future where traditional values would collapse has proven prophetic in the sense that many of his concerns about meaning, individualism, and the will to power are echoed in contemporary existential crises and discussions about the postmodern condition. Nietzsche’s emphasis on power dynamics and the “revaluation of all values” also foreshadowed post-structuralism and critiques of modernity .

3. Whitehead: Alfred North Whitehead’s process philosophy, as previously mentioned, aligns with contemporary developments in cosmology, quantum physics, and systems theory. His holistic, dynamic view of reality and his critique of mechanistic materialism resonate strongly with contemporary science, which increasingly understands the universe as an interconnected, evolving system  

| Yale Forum on Religion and Ecology.

4. Foucault: Michel Foucault’s work on power, knowledge, and social institutions foresaw the growing complexity of surveillance, biopolitics, and disciplinary mechanisms in modern societies. His concept of “governmentality” is especially relevant today, as it speaks to the ways in which power operates in subtle, decentralized forms through societal institutions and technologies. His analysis of the role of discourse in shaping truth also anticipated contemporary discussions about media, truth, and post-truth politics .

5. Deleuze: Gilles Deleuze’s work, particularly with Félix Guattari in A Thousand Plateaus, anticipated the rise of network thinking, digital culture, and nonlinear modes of understanding the world. His ideas about multiplicity, rhizomes, and deterritorialization have become increasingly influential in fields like digital theory, cybernetics, and posthumanism, where the boundaries between human, machine, and nature are being rethought .

In sum, these philosophers offered visionary ideas that anticipated future developments in science, culture, and technology. Their work continues to be relevant, not only because they critiqued their own times, but because they foresaw challenges and transformations that are now central to contemporary debates.

Can we say that Whitehead foresaw the contemporary cosmology in his process philosophy, though he didn’t have the observational data yet? (ChatGPT, 2024-10-3)

Yes, we can argue that Alfred North Whitehead, through his process philosophy, anticipated certain elements of contemporary cosmology, even though he did not have access to modern observational data. Whitehead’s philosophical framework, particularly his concept of the universe as a process of becoming rather than a static collection of objects, resonates with contemporary cosmological ideas about an evolving, dynamic universe.

Whitehead’s emphasis on process over substance suggests a cosmos that is continuously in flux, much like the modern understanding of the universe as expanding and evolving over time, from the Big Bang to present-day structures like galaxies and stars. This idea aligns with the current view in cosmology that time and space are not fixed but are intimately connected to the material content of the universe, much as in Einstein’s theory of relativity, which Whitehead critiqued and engaged with deeply .

Additionally, Whitehead’s concept of prehension—where entities influence each other in a network of relationships—could be seen as an early philosophical parallel to contemporary ideas about the interconnectedness of all matter and energy in the universe. His holistic, organic view of the cosmos challenges the mechanistic, reductionist models that were dominant in his time, a challenge that remains relevant today as physicists and cosmologists look for unified theories that integrate gravity, quantum mechanics, and other forces.

While Whitehead did not have access to the empirical tools and data that contemporary cosmologists have, his metaphysical system foresaw a universe much more like the one we are discovering through observational data: one that is dynamic, relational, and fundamentally creative. This makes him a philosophical precursor to some of the discussions in cosmology today about the nature of time, space, and the cosmos as a whole 

| Yale Forum on Religion and Ecology .