In this essay, I want to begin a dialogue with the French philosopher Bernard Stiegler’s book Technics and Time. Stiegler is internationally known as the inheritor of another French philosopher whose work is currently being rediscovered worldwide: Gilbert Simondon. In Stiegler’s work, this Simondonian heritage plays itself out in the domain of continental philosophy. The thesis maintained here will be the following: there is another relation to Simondon that is possible, one that also takes up the major problems we’ve inherited (...) from the continental philosophical tradition. The double fundamental philosophical problem raised in Stiegler’s debate with Simondon is the following: A) On the one hand .. (shrink)

La 4e de couv. porte : "Gilbert Simondon (1924-1989) a été considéré de son vivant comme un philosophe de la technique original mais difficile. Il s'impose aujourd’hui comme l’artisan d’un « nouvel encyclopédisme » qui veut unifier les sciences au sein d’une philosophie de la nature et renouveler l’humanisme. Pour l’« ontologie génétique » de Simondon, toute chose tient sa réalité de la genèse où elle«s’individue ». Celle-ci est un processus ininterrompu auquel l’inerte, le vivant, le technique, le social, mais (...) aussi le savoir et la pensée eux-mêmes appartiennent. On expose ici la question de « l’individuation » dans ses trois dimensions essentielles – la différence entre le physique et le biologique, le « transindividuel », l’objet technique – pour montrer ensuite comment le génétisme de Simondon dépasse les oppositions classiques entre matière et forme ou sujet et objet, mais aussi les antagonismes (par exemple entre technicisme et humanisme) qui se disputent la conception de la nature et de l’homme. On développe enfin l’enjeu politique et social d’une philosophie pour laquelle une véritable « culture technique » pourrait supprimer une des principales causes de l’aliénation humaine et donner aux hommes les moyens de comprendre leur monde.". (shrink)

Unlike the free interpretations of Simondon’s genetic encyclopaedism, the constraining exegesis of this doctrine resolves the paradoxes that are essential for it to be constructed in its depth and subtlety. Now, at the root of these simple paradoxes lies what is no longer one, but which constitutes a true contradiction, of a methodological type. That is why today we need an encompassing refounding of Simondon’s genetic ontology, which makes it possible to eliminate the contradiction by transforming this ontology into a (...) translation of a new first problematic, called “archi-reflexive semantics.” Such is the program of the global but radically antidogmatic system of the individuation of sense, or “human ecology”, the ultimate telos of which is political-economic and articulates itself with a decentered humanism refounding the law outside ethics. (shrink)

Beginning with The Automatic Society, where Stiegler, on the occasion of an analysis of the unification of the technical system by the digital, synthesizes his thought of the three stages of the process of "proletarianization," this paper comes first to a critical examination of the originary "prosthetic conditions" which, according to Technics and Time, made possible the ambivalence of the technical pharmakon and the "systemic stupidity" of today. This leads then to a development on the problem of the status of (...) desire in the stieglerian pharmacology of mind, which makes it infinite and specific to humans. Finally, this development leads us to a confrontation between Stiegler’s mobilization of doing-right (faire-droit) to unify the domains of philosophy, and a redefinition of doing-right within a differently unified human ecology, whose archireflexive methodological questioning is translated secondarily in this redefinition in terms of suffering needs versus consumerist Desire. (shrink)

Si l'Encyclopédisme génétique de Simondon offre de quoi surmonter la crise du sens qui caractérise l'époque des technosciences, c'est d'abord parce qu'il présente une pensée de l'homme, de la technique et de la connaissance capable d'assumer deux paradoxes sans jamais tomber dans la contradiction. D'une part, il construit une pensée non anthropologique de la technique qui pourtant ne se présente pas comme « destinale » , dépassant par là le débat entre la sociologie des sciences et la pensée heideggérienne. D'autre (...) part, il rend possible une théorie de la connaissance qui distingue radicalement Relativité philosophique et relativisme. If Simondon's genetic Encyclopaedism offers enough to overcome the crisis of meaning which characterizes the techno-sciences times, it is indeed first because he presents man's thought processes, an approach of technique and knowledge able to come to terms with two kinds of paradoxes without ever running the risk of falling into contradiction. On the one hand, it builds a non-anthropological thought about technique which, however, doesn't seem to appear as being « destinal » , thus going beyond the traditional debate between the sociology of sciences and Heideggerian thought. On the other hand, it enables a theory of knowledge radically distinguishing between philosophical reality and relativism. (shrink)

Those who know the work of Karl Popper will have recognized in my title the transformation into interrogation of a formula repeated several times by this eminent philosopher of science, whom some consider as the greatest of the 20th century in his specific field - even if they do not share his theses. This Popperian formula, to which I wish to devote my analyzes here, has at least the merit of being clear and impactful. But as often, what is clear (...) and impactful can become too simple for what is to be thought, and perhaps even too simple to express faithfully the philosophy which one seeks to summarize there. Writing this, I am not claiming that Popper was not really a falsificationist. Far be it from me to dispute that the great thesis of his epistemology consists in making any scientific theory worthy of the name falsifiable or refutable. This is indisputable: for Popper, the dividing line between scientific theory and non-scientific theory lies precisely in this falsifiable character. (shrink)

L'épuisement de la querelle du réalisme en physique, qui est la conséquence épistémologique de la divergence inexplicable entre mécanique quantique et physique relativiste, manifeste la nécessité d'un dépassement de l'opposition traditionnelle entre réalisme et antiréalisme. La Théorie de la Relativité d'Échelle de Laurent Nottale, dans la mesure où elle vise à réunifier microphysique et macrophysique grâce aux concepts d'espace-temps fractal et de dépendance d'échelle, opère le dépassement de cette opposition en postulant la valeur d'être des relations physiques. L'exigence d'un réalisme (...) des relations en physique confirme ainsi les intuitions de la philosophie de l'individuation de Gilbert Simondon, qui jugeait nécessaire d'accorder à la relation une valeur ontologique pour fonder la «synthèse grandiose de la relativité et des quanta ». (shrink)