The Heuristics of Fear: Can the Ambivalence of Fear Teach Us Anything in the Technological Age?

• Authors: Roberto Franzini Tibaldeo
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The paper assumes that fear presents a certain degree of ambivalence. To say it with Hans Jonas (1903-1993), fear is not only a negative emotion, but may teach us something very important: we recognize what is relevant when we perceive that it is at stake. Under this respect, fear may be assumed as a guide to responsibility, a virtue that is becoming increasingly important, because of the role played by human technology in the current ecological crisis. Secondly, fear and responsibility concern both dimensions of human action: private-individual and public-collective. What the ‘heuristics of fear’ teaches us, is to become aware of a deeper ambivalence, namely the one which characterizes as such human freedom, which may aim to good or bad, to self-preservation or self-destruction. Any public discussion concerning political or economic issues related with human action (at an individual or collective level) ought not to leave this essential idea out of consideration.

Keywords

EN

Fear; Responsibility; Hans Jonas; Heuristics of Fear; Technological Risks

• Publisher: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu
• Journal: Ethics in Progress
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 6
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 225-238

Dates

published

2015-02-01

Contributors

author

Roberto Franzini Tibaldeo

• University of Turin

References

• Apel, K.-O. 1988. Diskurs und Verantwortung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
• Arendt, H. 1958. The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Bauman, Z. 1992. Modernity and Ambivalence. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Bauman, Z. 1999. In Search of Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Becchi, P. (ed.). “Hans Jonas. Due lettere”. Ragion Pratica 8 (2000): 17-31.
• Beck, U. 1992. Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity. London-Newbury Park: Sage.
• Beck, U. 1999. World Risk Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Blumenberg, H. 1983. The Legitimacy of the Modern Age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1983.
• Bodei, R. 1991a. Geometria delle passioni. Paura. speranza. felicità: filosofia e uso politico. Feltrinelli: Milano.
• Bodei, R. 1991b. “La speranza dopo il tramonto delle speranze.” Il Mulino 333: 5-13.
• Bodei, R. 1991c. “Principio speranza/Principio responsabilità.” Iride 6: 231-4.
• Bostrom, N. 2005a. “In difesa della dignità postumana.” Bioetica 13 (4): 33-46.
• Bostrom, N. 2005b. “A History of Tranhumanist Thought.” Journal of Evolution and Technology 14 (1): 1-25.
• Bronfenbrenner, U. 1979. The Ecology of Human Development. Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Coeckelbergh, M. 2013. Human Being & Risk. Enhancement, Technology, and the Evaluation of Vulnerability Transformations. Dordrecht: Springer.
• Del Noce, A. 1964. Il problema dell’ateismo. Bologna: Il Mulino.
• Del Noce, A. 1970. L’epoca della secolarizzazione. Milano: Giuffrè.
• Franzini Tibaldeo, R. 2009. La rivoluzione ontologica di Hans Jonas. Uno studio sulla genesi e il significato di ‘Organismo e libertà’. Milano: Mimesis.
• Franzini Tibaldeo, R. 2013. “Un’esistenza indivisibile. Complessità, governance e responsabilità in età globale.” Governare la paura. http://governarelapaura.unibo.it/
• Frogneux, N. 2001. Hans Jonas ou la vie dans le monde. Bruxelles: De Boeck & Larcier.
• Frogneux, N. 2007. “Pluralität à la Robinson Crusoe. Ist die Anthropologie von Hans Jonas eingeschränkt durch den Archetyp des Einzellers?.” In: R. Seidel & M. Endruweit (eds.) Prinzip Zukunft: im Dialog mit Hans Jonas.Paderborn: Mentis, 167-183.
• Gammel, S. 2013. “Achtung und Verachtung der Natur. Hans Jonas’ Denken zwischen Transhumanismus und Biokonservativismus.” In: G.
• Härtung-Kristian Köchy, J. C. Schmidt, & G. Hofmeister (eds.), Naturphilosophie als Grundlage der Naturethik. Zur Aktualität von Hans Jonas. Freiburg-München: Alber, 239-267.
• Giddens, A. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Habermas, J. 1990. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cambridge: Polity.
• Habermas, J. 2003. The Future of Human Nature. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Heidegger, M. 1977. “Lectures and Essays.” In: idem, The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays. Ed. by W. Lovitt. New York: Harper &Row: 3-35.
• Hösle, V. 1991. Philosophie der ökologischen Krise. München: Beck.
• Jonas, H. 1964. “Heidegger and Theology.” The Review of Metaphysics 18: 207-233.
• Jonas, H. 1966. The Phenomenon of Life. Towards a Philosophical Biology. New York: Harper & Row, 1966.
• Jonas, H. 1974a. Philosophical Essays. From Ancient Creed to Technological Man. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
• Jonas, H. 1974b. “Biological Engineering – A Preview”. In: idem, Philosophical Essays. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall: 141-67.
• Jonas, H. 1984a. The Imperative of Responsibility. In Search of an Ethics for the Technological Age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Jonas, H. 1984b. Das Prinzip Verantwortung. Versuch einer Ethik für die technologische Zivilisation. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
• Jonas, H. 1985. Technik, Medizin und Ethik. Praxis des Prinzips Verantwortung. Frankfurt am Main: Insel.
• Jonas, H. 1987. Wissenschaft als persönliches Erlebnis. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
• Jonas, H. 1988. “Heideggers Entschlossenheit und Entschluss”. In: G. Neske & E. Kettering (eds.), Antwort. Martin Heidegger im Gespräch. Stuttgart: Neske: 221-229.
• Jonas, H. 1991. Erkenntnis und Verantwortung. Gespräch mit Ingo Hermann in der Reihe ‘Zeugen des Jahrhunderts’. Ed. by I. Hermann. Göttingen: Lamuv.
• Jonas, H. 1992. “Fatalismus wäre Todsünde”. Freie Universität-Info (Berlin Freie Universität) 7: 2-3.
• Jonas, H. 2008. Memoirs. Lebanon (NH): Brandeis University Press, 2008.
• Koselleck, R. 1979. Vergangene Zukunft: zur Semantik geschichtlicher Zeiten. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
• Landkammer, J. 1990. “Le domande estreme e le risposte evanescenti di H. Jonas”. Filosofia politica 4: 423-429.
• Latouche, S. La Megamachine. Raison techno-scientifique. Raison économique et le mythe du Progrès. Essais à la mémoire de Jacques Ellul. Paris: La Découverte.
• Lipman, M. 1995. “Moral Education Higher-order Thinking and Philosophy for Children.” Early Child Development and Care 107: 61-70.
• Lipman, M. 2003. Thinking in Education. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
• Löwith, K. 1949. Meaning in History. The Theological Implications of the Philosophy of History. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Marramao, G. 2003. Passaggio a Occidente. Filosofia e globalizzazione. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri.
• Morin, E. 1991. Introduction à la pensée complexe. Paris: ESF.
• Müller, D. 1993. “L’horizon temporel de l’éthique et le poids de la responsabilité”. In: G. Hottois (ed.), Aux fondements d’une éthique contemporaine: H. Jonas et H. T. Engelhardt en perspective. Paris: Vrin: 223-235.
• Nacci, M. 2000. Pensare la tecnica. Un secolo di incomprensioni. Roma-Bari: Laterza.
• Passmore, J. 1974. Man’s Responsibility for Nature. Ecological Problems and Western Traditions. London: Duckworth.
• Pulcini, E. 2013. Care of the World. Fear, Responsibility and Justice in the Global Age. Dordrecht: Springer.
• Ricoeur, P. 1994. “Le concept de responsabilité. Essai d’analyse sémantique”.Esprit 206: 28-48.
• Seidel, R., Endruweit, M. (eds). Prinzip Zukunft: im Dialog mit Hans Jonas. Paderborn: Mentis.
• Severino, E. 1971. Essenza del nichilismo. Milano: Adelphi.
• Severino, E. 1979. Techne. Le radici della violenza. Milano: Rusconi.
• Spinelli, E. Verde, F. 2011. “Hans Jonas: The Function of Fear in Lucretius and Hobbes”. Paradigmi 2: 183-195.
• Svendsen, L. 2008. A Philosophy of Fear. London: Reaktion Books.
• Wolin, R. 2001. Heidegger’s Children. Hannah Arendt. Karl Löwith. Hans Jonas. and Herbert Marcuse. Princeton-Oxford: Princeton University Press.
• Wolters, G. 2010. Ambivalenz und Konflikt. Katholische Kirche und Evolutionstheorie. Konstanz: Universitätsverlag Konstanz.

Identifiers

DOI

10.14746/eip.2015.1.9