The late Stiegler is one of my favorite philosophers, but he is too pessimistic. One good thing does follow from this, however: it drives him to be highly active in his attempt to use thought to forestall the most REAL (not merely delusional, science-fictional obsessions), the most PREDICTABLE dangers of the future, through what is probably one of the most brilliant studies ever undertaken (I still need to assess certain aspects of his proposals) of major scientific findings from the past two centuries.
That said, to take his pessimism as an example, technophobia is unworthy of a scientist (a salute to my friend Arthur on this point). This is not actually inconsistent, since Stiegler was not a scientist: he was a philosopher interested in science, particularly physics and biology.
My objection to his fear of the loss of knowledge is as follows: of course, at a systemic level, within capitalism—the realm of optimization and mindless command-giving characteristic of militarism—the phenomenon he describes does exist. But we can fight it politically and individually, from an anthropological perspective. Do you feel completely dependent on your GPS or smartphone? Very well, then experiment with relearning lost abilities: for example, spend a day on which you have many journeys to make, whether on foot or by car, without these technological aids, so as to redevelop natural mechanisms of orientation. I sometimes do this; it is utterly exhilarating and brings me great joy. Become aware of technology’s advantages and disadvantages and establish a balance suited to your life—but no technophobia! We must take the bull by the horns!
Obviously, our ability to conduct such experiments in everyday life is severely limited by the kind of political and economic system in which we live—namely, capitalism. In short, you are not given the time to undertake such experiments!! You must constantly rush from one place to another, pressed for time: is that really a life? Even if you were imposing this frantic pace upon yourself (self-employment, start-upism), would it be any more of a life? According to Byung-Chul Han, no, because you are in fact exploiting yourself without realizing it: this is what he calls the burnout society. Jean-Luc Marion pays tribute to Jean-Louis Chrétien—peppering his speech along the way with small, class-contemptuous jibes at ordinary minds—this very serious, anti-worldly gentleman who “worked all the time”: of course, what a marvelous example to follow, is he not!!! (I am not criticizing Chrétien here; I am criticizing the kind of discourse Marion adopts in this video.)
There is no shortage of philosophers who have extolled the virtues of leisure, the occasional need for lighthearted spontaneity in work, the pleasure to be found in work, and the need to let things settle!!! Aristotle, Nietzsche, Russell, Chomsky! But Marion has evidently still not grasped this. Spare me the sight of traditional “masculinity”, standing firm in its boots! Nietzsche was clearly not wrong about the priestly aspect of Christianity after all! And Marion calls himself a Nietzschean—do not make me laugh!
Long live Chomsky’s free creative work; let us all fight for it! And let us also learn to unite around shared creative projects.
To return to my suggestion that we take the bull by the horns when it comes to technology, it falls within the scope of one of my most profound current subjects of study: the notion of physiological reorganization (not merely neural reorganization, as one often hears), which is connected to the notion of resilience but goes beyond it—an important point. Learn to reorganize yourselves physiologically; listen to your vital needs; do what is necessary to free yourselves from any alienating hybridizations with technology—but do not develop a phobia of it! Remain its masters, or, better still perhaps, its “friends” (big up to my buddy Jérémy)!
Vitally yours,
Pablo