Journal of Philosophy: A Cross-Disciplinary Inquiry

In this essay, I consider what happens to debates over genetic enhancement when we “deconstruct” the opposition between “grown and made” and the notion of freedom of choice that comes with it. Along with the binary grown and made comes other such oppositions at the center of these debates: chance and choice, accident and deliberation, nature and culture. By deconstructing the oppositions between grown versus made (chance versus choice, or accident versus deliberate), and free versus determined, alternative routes through these bioethical thickets start to emerge.

Building on the views of Kant and early nineteenth century life scientists, Hegel develops a view of systems that is a clear precursor to the developments in Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s general system theory, as well as the thinking of the ecologically minded system thinkers that built upon the foundation Bertalanffy laid. Hegel describes systems as organic wholes in which the parts respectively serve as means and ends. Further, in the Encyclopedia version of the logic Hegel notes that such systems are comprised of three processes: gestalt, the process of assimilation, and regeneration. In Hegel’s texts, he describes both natural and social systems as organic wholes with such systematic processes. In this paper, these processes and systems are described and it is argued that Hegel quite consistently applies views developed in the logic when describing systems. The paper shows how this parallels later developments in systems theory and goes on to show some distinctions between Hegel’s view of systems and that of later ecologically minded system thinkers.

The present article aims at postulating cannibalism as a fundamental axis for the analysis of the processes of subjectivation of Spanish America since the 15th century. The hypothesis is that this process has gone through three stages, which allow for the delimitation of the differences of what I shall refer to, for now, as regimes of cannibalism understood as subjectivation processes:(i) Anthropophagic or of ritual war.(ii) Mimetic or of colonial incorporation(iii) Iconic or of mediatic absorption, at a global level.In order to construct the regimes of cannibalism as a concept I have chosen to use two perspectives: the one which speaks of the ritual experimentation of anthropophagy from the inside and the one which moves through the variants of that double desire for the other’s desire that makes every process of colonization possible; in the known forms of territorial annexation, incorporation (productive, spiritual, institutional) and absorption by the global system of mediatization.

In What is Philosophy?, Deleuze and Guattari define philosophy, famously, as an activity that consists in forming, inventing, and fabricatingconcepts.” But this definition of philosophy implies a somewhat singular “analytic of the concept,” to borrow Kant’s phrase. One of the problems it posesis the fact that concepts, from a Deleuzian perspective, have no identity but only a becoming. This paper examines the nature of this problem, arguing thatthe aim of Deleuze analytic is to introduce the form of time into concepts in terms of what he calls “continuous variation” or “pure variability.” The aim isnot to rediscover the eternal or the universal, but to find the conditions under which something new is produced (creativeness).

Re-presenting the historically silenced subjects is among the trickiest negotiations a researcher has to enter, especially when working with ancient texts. This essay uses a quasi-experimental, reader’s-response approach to academic writing to spotlight the problem of “recovering” marginalized subjects from across cultures and (pre-) histories. The major thrust of the inquiry is the rhetorical challenge of representing silenced or marginalized subjects in revisionary work. Weaving together personal reflections and academic arguments, the essay presents the process of scholarly research as a heuristic for formulating arguments. The essay also proposes–and demonstrates–a process-based approach that takes into account researcher’s positionality.

The Anthropocentric Vision: Aesthetics of Effect and Terror in Poe’s ‘Hop-Frog’” develops the possible psycho-social results of emotional hegemony through a semi-anthropoid figure who avenges himself on a king desperate to assert and sustain supremacy over his subjects. This essay juxtaposes modern anthropological study and Poe’s fiction; it demonstrates that an anthropocentric study of the author’s aesthetics of terror in “Hop Frog” reveals that what we see and perceive as essential to the titular character’s poetics of revenge and hatred are nothing but a reflection of our (the readers’) own anthropocentrism. This anthropocentric study provides a glimpse into how humans perceive, adapt, and conquer adversarial forces within the society. However, the collapse of the apparent rational order, effected by Hop Frog at the end, also provides a glimpse into the nether side of human consciousness and its illimitable capacity to defy comprehension.

This “experimental” essay both investigates maps and functions as a map. Taking its cue from the Deleuzean rhizome, this essay proposes a new method of inquiry based upon the Scientific Method. This essay works as a series of displacements. Each piece of new evidence will take the paper in a different direction. After each piece of evidence is introduced, it will be my job to draw conclusions about the displacement. This inquiry works like a Deleuzean map.