About

cronenberg_portrait

I’m a philosopher/writer and occasional musician, interested in eccentric alternatives to being human and their various cultural/aesthetic avatars.
My academic work has addressed the relationship between deconstruction and analytic philosophy, philosophical naturalism, the metaphysics of sound and posthumanism. My book Posthuman Life: Philosophy at the Edge of the Human (Routledge 2014) considers the metaphysical, epistemological and ethical implications of the existence of posthumans: powerful nonhuman agents produced by human-instigated technological processes.
ON tumblr

ON twitter

 

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “About

  1. Check out my feature documentary titled The Singularity. Described by the IEET as “the best documentary about the singularity to date,” it would be great for your forthcoming article: Handbook Posthumanism in Film and Television.

  2. Hi David,

    Hope you’re doing well. Just spent an afternoon reading through parts of Posthuman Life and some of the discussions on your blog and others. Some really interesting ideas and rigorous critical thinking, which could prove really helpful for a PhD I hope to begin soon. I’m coming from an fine arts/design background, not philosophy, but I had a couple quick questions that I hoped you could answer.

    1. doesn’t the wide human encompass everything?
    i recently read that, apart from a few isolated pockets, the forests of europe have been cultivated for hundreds of years. it would seem that there’s nothing the anthropocene hasn’t touched. feral animals, an example you give, are still instrumentalised as part of tourism programmes, wildlife refuges, etc and commodified precisely as the ‘wild/authentic/natural’. their existence depends on a kind of negative anthropocentric footprint – habitats created by (temporary) deadspace or legislated protected space. so i guess i’m wondering what wouldn’t (or couldn’t) get enveloped in that framework?

    2. isn’t inclusion or exclusion in the WH also a matter of interpretation?
    in chapter 6 you point out the problems with adopting ‘intentionality’ as a property of the posthuman, and how difficult it is to attribute intentions to them. doesn’t the same apply for attempting to interpret what still belongs to the WH and what has successfully ‘detached’ enough from it? esp. within a framework of capitalism, i could easily imagine entities with a more ‘mixed’ ontology and agency, split between anthropocentric/non-anthropocentric aims/intentions, providing for a more symbiotic type relationship. so kinda related to the first question really – is there a ‘dark enough’ phenomenology on the spectrum, ‘weird enough’ to qualify as liminal or marginal, while still circling around the WH cosmos.

    Hope you can provide some insight into these, and again really enjoying some of this (admittedly very challenging) reading! 🙂

    best,
    Luke Munn

    lukemunn.com
    twitter:@lukemunn

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