Hierarchy of Objects, or, Fuck Posthumanism


Look here. I know it’s a sexy new trend to talk about post-humanism and how humans are not as important and so on, but when it comes to it, everyone knows that it is not the case, nor should it be the case. Humans are still around and they are the most important component of reality. Does it mean we must destroy environment and kill nonhuman animals in order to achieve the highest level of human satisfaction? Not at all. Or, at the very least, not under all circumstances. If humans are objects (in a neutral sense), then they are the most important objects; there is a hierarchy of objects. There is no equality among objects – some are important and some are not. I do not care for the chair I am sitting on, I do care for those who built it.

All the idiotic bafflement regarding such anthropocentrism is hypocritical posturing. We are, as humans, always after our own survival and prosperity. We care for nonhumans only by extension. When all human conflicts are resolved and settled, we will still be struggling against nature, against the limitations of our physical states, against that which is nonhuman.

10 thoughts on “Hierarchy of Objects, or, Fuck Posthumanism

  1. Yes, Mikhail I know what you mean. It is a little group of humans that tell us that we are obsessed by humans and that non-humans are more important. It is clear for all to see that this is a human move towards social dominance in the small pseudo-intellectual sphere of post-continental oneupmanship. But I think that reconceptualising the human is still a good thing, and that finding a non-“humanist” description of humans is a real contribution to philosophy. This is something that most of the aforementioned “posthumanist” philosophers don’t even try. I would not like their disdain for the concept to stain you with its bitter juices. Resist their crazy nec plus ultra terminology, such as “anthropodecentrism”, I am with you all the way. But I beg you resist their de-vitalisation of the concept into a neo-conceptual froth. Let us see these human all-too-human pseudo “post-humanists” in terms of concepts that they could not imagine. Let us laugh at them not because they are philosophers fighting against the doxa, but because they are bad philosophers fighting against an imaginary doxa with reactionary substitutes for concepts. Post-humanism is not their property, they are latecomers there as for the rest. I am more human than them, and so more post-human than they will ever be.

  2. I just don’t see the appeal of any kind of non-humanism – anti- or post-…

    Philosophy is an essentially human exercise – it is done by humans for humans. Again, that does not mean we need to destroy everything that is non-human. These sorts of “slippery slope” arguments are invalid. We need to protect environment precisely because we, humans, live in it and so on. Human-on-human violence and exploitation are rampant throughout the world – what the fuck do I care about objects when gun, drug and human trafficking are on the rise? Fuck objects, I say. Back to humanism (if we ever really left it to begin with)!

  3. My interest in post-humanism is in reconceptualising the human, what used to be called anti-humanism. “Anthropodecentrism” is a manifesto based form of post-humanism that never does any work. At best it leaves all the work to others and then incorporates it in a series of programmatic statements of principle, and at worst just limps around in a sterile circle; A third sense of post-humanism that may become more important is that which will be produced by our technological progress. So I presume that you are talking about the second sense, which shows no sign of conceptual creativity nor of any real engagement with innovative concrete developments.

  4. See, that’s where my knowledge is really lacking – i.e. what is wrong with “humanism” that it needs to be reconceptualized? Humanism is certainly in need of adjusting in that what it means to be a “human” does change, but I don’t see any movement (or need for such a movement) beyond the human. I mean it is announced once in a while, but it seems like a misanthropic fantasy of a few.

  5. Indeed being anti-humanist is too be humanist!!! Being neutral on the human is to realise the potential of human expansion – especially ethically – and in a meaningful way – which most ‘philosophers’ disdain – let’s move ourselves from ‘philosophers’ to intellectual-philosophers; um, people who actually write something meaningful! (Chomsky is a great example of this)

  6. who fucking cares? humans barely exist (i mean, as “humans”), just a heap of dying cells and memories. regardless, all of us will die eventually. from dust to dust.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s