Transhuman education: Sloterdijk's reading of Heidegger's Letter on Humanism

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Long, Fiachra
dc.date.accessioned 2017-01-09T09:36:56Z
dc.date.available 2017-01-09T09:36:56Z
dc.date.issued 2016-07-04
dc.identifier.citation Long, Fiachra (2016) 'Transhuman education: Sloterdijk's reading of Heidegger's Letter on Humanism', Journal of Philosophy of Education, 51(1), pp. 177-192. doi: 10.1111/1467-9752.12192 en
dc.identifier.volume 51
dc.identifier.issued 1
dc.identifier.startpage 177
dc.identifier.endpage 192
dc.identifier.issn 0309-8249
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10468/3447
dc.identifier.doi 10.1111/1467-9752.12192
dc.description.abstract Peter Sloterdijk presented a reading of Heidegger's Letter on Humanism at a conference held at Elmau in 1999. Reinterpreting the meaning of humanism in the light of Heidegger's Letter, Sloterdijk focused his presentation on the need to redefine education as a form of genetic ‘taming’ and proposed what seemed to be support for positive eugenics. Although Sloterdijk claimed that he only wanted to open a debate on the issue, he could not have been surprised at the level of opposition this suggestion aroused. In the weeks following, he blamed Habermas for raising this opposition and for refusing to engage with him openly. Although Luis Arenas has chronicled the aftermath of Sloterdijk's paper, it may be of interest to educators to examine how Heidegger's text is presented. What is this new humanism? If Heidegger's new humanism was based on a mystical attitude towards Being, so Sloterdijk's new humanism was to be based on the materialist principles of a biotechnological age. Unlike Heidegger who rejected technology as yet one further example of the forgetfulness of Being, Sloterdijk seems to embrace technology and the enhancement of the human body and mind as the next great step forward in educational theory. Could he possibly be right? Is education in these times a partner or an opponent of the technological enhancement of the human being? This article tries to identify Sloterdijk's disagreements with Heidegger on the question of the human. en
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf en
dc.language.iso en en
dc.publisher John Wiley & Sons Ltd en
dc.rights © 2016, the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain. This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Long, Fiachra (2016) 'Transhuman education: Sloterdijk's reading of Heidegger's Letter on Humanism', Journal of Philosophy of Education, 51(1), pp. 177-192, which has been published in final form at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9752.12192/epdf. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving. en
dc.subject Transhumanism en
dc.subject Sloterdijk en
dc.subject Heidegger en
dc.subject Enhancement en
dc.title Transhuman education: Sloterdijk's reading of Heidegger's Letter on Humanism en
dc.type Article (peer-reviewed) en
dc.internal.authorcontactother Fiachra Long, Education, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland. +353-21-490-3000 Email: flong@education.ucc.ie en
dc.internal.availability Full text available en
dc.check.info Access to this article is restricted until 24 months after publication by request of the publisher. en
dc.check.date 2018-07-04
dc.date.updated 2017-01-09T09:23:53Z
dc.description.version Accepted Version en
dc.internal.rssid 320757925
dc.description.status Peer reviewed en
dc.identifier.journaltitle Journal of Philosophy of Education en
dc.internal.copyrightchecked Yes en
dc.internal.licenseacceptance Yes en
dc.internal.IRISemailaddress flong@education.ucc.ie en


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

This website uses cookies. By using this website, you consent to the use of cookies in accordance with the UCC Privacy and Cookies Statement. For more information about cookies and how you can disable them, visit our Privacy and Cookies statement