
Gregory Swer
Related Authors
Catherine Rowett
University of East Anglia
Johannes Zachhuber
University of Oxford
C. Michael Hall
University of Canterbury/Te Whare Wānanga o Waitaha
Sheilagh Ogilvie
University of Oxford
Nicholas Kiersey
University of Texas - Rio Grande Valley
Professor Dimitrios Buhalis
Bournemouth University
Travis Linnemann
Kansas State University
Ernst-Otto Onnasch
Utrecht University
Marcus Morgan
University of Bristol
Stephen Turner
University of South Florida
InterestsView All (53)
Uploads
Papers by Gregory Swer
I argue that employing a phenomenological approach to technology grants us a fresh perspective on the instrumentalism-determinism debate. It enables us to recast the instrumentalist/determinist debate as a debate between technological idealism and materialism, and to ground the instrumentalist and determinist positions in different experiential relations to technology. It also gives us a better grasp of the function of the different critiques of technology, with idealists concerned primarily with the misapplication of technology as a form of knowledge, and materialists with the existential implications of concrete technological relations.
A major problem that faces any attempt to construct a Heideggerian-ecofeminism concerns Heidegger’s reticence regarding gender issues, which stem from his view that Dasein, human beings, are ontologically prior to any sexual difference. This article acknowledges the lacuna in Heidegger’s thought regarding gender, but argues that one can educe a coherent and credible account of gender difference and oppression from Heidegger’s later philosophy without distortion.
The later Heidegger, as he develops his critique of technological modernity, moves beyond the position put forward in Being and Time. In light of his later account of the Gestell, the Enframing, we can see why this was the case. Being and Time, to use the later Heidegger’s terminology, is an “enframed” work. It is an account of the fundamental categories of existence as perceived from within the Enframing and, as such, its account of Dasein and its relation to Being is necessarily skewed. However, Being and Time can still be of considerable use if it is read against itself, in light of later Heideggerian philosophy, as an enframed work. And it is the key contention of this paper that when we do so, such a re-reading leads us to a Heideggerian account of gender. In other words, by retrospectively applying later Heidegger to Being and Time, we arrive at a new understanding of its key concepts, such as ready-to-hand and present-at-hand. These in turn lead us to a Heideggerian account of gender and nature and their intrinsic inter-connection that both captures and accords with key ecofeminist insights. To be more specific, we arrive at an ontologically grounded theory that can be used to provide an account of patriarchy in terms of Dasein’s ontological homelessness and which in turn points the way to a more positive relationship towards Being, physis/nature, and death. In an attempt to demonstrate the compatibility of Heidegger-based ecofeminism with pre-exisiting forms of ecofeminist philosophy, this paper will refer throughout to other ecofeminist philosophers, in particular Susan Griffin and Vandana Shiva. This is not to suggest that these two philosophers are in any way representative of the entirety of ecofeminist philosophy. Indeed, given the near infinite variety of ecofeminist philosophies, this would be a most foolish claim. Rather, this paper holds that Griffin and Shiva are especially useful for elucidating the numerous resonances between ecofeminist philosophy and the philosophy of the later Heidegger. They are also both exemplars of the form of anti-dualist ecofeminist philosophy that this paper endorses.
I argue that employing a phenomenological approach to technology grants us a fresh perspective on the instrumentalism-determinism debate. It enables us to recast the instrumentalist/determinist debate as a debate between technological idealism and materialism, and to ground the instrumentalist and determinist positions in different experiential relations to technology. It also gives us a better grasp of the function of the different critiques of technology, with idealists concerned primarily with the misapplication of technology as a form of knowledge, and materialists with the existential implications of concrete technological relations.
A major problem that faces any attempt to construct a Heideggerian-ecofeminism concerns Heidegger’s reticence regarding gender issues, which stem from his view that Dasein, human beings, are ontologically prior to any sexual difference. This article acknowledges the lacuna in Heidegger’s thought regarding gender, but argues that one can educe a coherent and credible account of gender difference and oppression from Heidegger’s later philosophy without distortion.
The later Heidegger, as he develops his critique of technological modernity, moves beyond the position put forward in Being and Time. In light of his later account of the Gestell, the Enframing, we can see why this was the case. Being and Time, to use the later Heidegger’s terminology, is an “enframed” work. It is an account of the fundamental categories of existence as perceived from within the Enframing and, as such, its account of Dasein and its relation to Being is necessarily skewed. However, Being and Time can still be of considerable use if it is read against itself, in light of later Heideggerian philosophy, as an enframed work. And it is the key contention of this paper that when we do so, such a re-reading leads us to a Heideggerian account of gender. In other words, by retrospectively applying later Heidegger to Being and Time, we arrive at a new understanding of its key concepts, such as ready-to-hand and present-at-hand. These in turn lead us to a Heideggerian account of gender and nature and their intrinsic inter-connection that both captures and accords with key ecofeminist insights. To be more specific, we arrive at an ontologically grounded theory that can be used to provide an account of patriarchy in terms of Dasein’s ontological homelessness and which in turn points the way to a more positive relationship towards Being, physis/nature, and death. In an attempt to demonstrate the compatibility of Heidegger-based ecofeminism with pre-exisiting forms of ecofeminist philosophy, this paper will refer throughout to other ecofeminist philosophers, in particular Susan Griffin and Vandana Shiva. This is not to suggest that these two philosophers are in any way representative of the entirety of ecofeminist philosophy. Indeed, given the near infinite variety of ecofeminist philosophies, this would be a most foolish claim. Rather, this paper holds that Griffin and Shiva are especially useful for elucidating the numerous resonances between ecofeminist philosophy and the philosophy of the later Heidegger. They are also both exemplars of the form of anti-dualist ecofeminist philosophy that this paper endorses.
In addition to detailing the key components of Spengler’s philosophy of science, this paper will draw out the fictionalist implications of his position through comparison with the philosophy of Hans Vaihinger. Spengler’s fictionalism, I suggest, bears enough similarity to Vaihinger’s to suggest the influence of the latter on the former. I shall argue however that Spengler’s commitment to fictionalism is far more radical and thoroughgoing than that put forth by Vaihinger and extends beyond the realm of science to all forms of human activity. In this way it raises the possibility that not only is Spengler’s philosophy of science fictionalist, but that his general philosophy is likewise fictionalist. The consideration of this possibility suggests a radical reinterpretation of Spengler’s philosophy of history, and a possible solution to the interpretative debate over the relativist or positivist nature of Spengler’s philosophy.
themselves to the forefront of mainstream political discourse.
This special issue, titled simply Pandemic politics, is a collection of papers that casts a critical perspective upon the political dimensions of the current pandemic. We have invited papers covering a broad spectrum of pandemic-related topics, especially with the focus on aspects of the pandemic in relation to the Southern hemisphere. The eight papers that made it to this volume are reflective of this broad approach and fall, roughly, into three categories, namely power and mistrust, disaster capitalism, and COVID-19: crisis or opportunity.