Lyotard and Posthuman Possibilities

Abstract

Humanism as a theme in Western civilization has at least two origins. In Greek philosophy, it was Protagoras who famously proclaimed that is measure of all things. The precise meaning of this claim is still in dispute but it does suggest that because we organize world in terms of human categories, world that we experience is ultimately a reflection of ourselves. Whatever value exists in world, we must have created it, and in this respect, we are ultimate measure or judge. Likewise in Bible, we are told that God created human beings in his own image: imago dei. Here again, human beings are conferred with a special standing over against all other beings in world, and bottom line, explicitly affirmed by humanism, is that this world revolves around us. The humanist affirms that human beings are free: we are not conditioned by nature but we transcend it. And as rational beings, we have power to create our own existence, and live autonomous lives. This belief in distinctive value of human beings has inspired movement for human rights and fight against injustice and tyranny. It also fosters faith in continuing progress and enlightenment as we come to fulfill our human potential and throw off chains of religion and every form of superstition. But not everyone has viewed goal of humanism in such an optimistic way. In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche gives us a portrait of who may be viewed as final outcome of rational progress and fulfillment of humanistic ideal: the earth has become small, and on it hops last man, who makes everything small. His race is as ineradicable as flea beetle; last man lives longest. We have invented happiness, say last men, and they blink.' The last men that Nietzsche describes are dazzled by what they have created. And so they blink. But in spite of all their accomplishments, their power over nature, and their rational good sense, they seem to have lost any creative will to power. The last men have become small, Nietzsche comments. They are all same-proper rational beings, who have purged themselves of all unreasonable passion and desire to overcome themselves since they have already achieved highest good. Of course, it is a caricature, but even so, Nietzsche's discussion encapsulates a philosophical criticism of humanism-that humanism typically involves a fixed conception of human nature which ignores difference or even tries to correct it by upholding a standard paradigm of what it means to be a human being. Likewise, our rational nature is emphasized above all other aspects and this leads to a strong separation between humanity and nature itself. The world becomes an over against us that must be dominated and controlled. But with this we lose our sense of belonging and being embedded in world around us. And emphasis upon our rational nature leads us to view all relationships in terms of subject, and object that stands opposed. In this regard, Heidegger writes in his Letter on Humanism that we must reject humanism, because it does not value human!tas of man highly enough; and he thereby inaugurates a reflective anti-humanism. More recently, in work of Foucault and others, anti-humanism testifies to our indeterminability, in sense that any fixed model of human nature, whether Catholic, Marxist or Aristotelian can become repressive for those who don't measure up to it. Anti-humanism emphasizes that we are not centerpiece of creation, and world does not revolve around us. It emphasizes sense in which we belong to natural world (the world does not belong to us); and it values difference, warning specifically against danger of assimilation and reduction to order of same.-And yet, what all of this shows, ironically enough, is that anti-humanism as conceived by Heidegger, Foucault, and others is not so much opposite of humanism but a deepening and a clarification of original humanist project insofar as it is also motivated by respect and reverence for human beings. …