Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Philosophy Between Land and Sea

Philosophy Between Land and Sea BRIAN O’KEEFFE Peter Sloterdijk’s In the World Interior of Capital challenges philosophy to propose a theory and a history of globalization. Why has philosophy not done so? Is it because that entails the monstrous self-confi dence of “grand narrative”? Philosophy has been badgered into petits récits—so much the better, perhaps. For grands récits are tainted by tendention: too much overcon- fi dent teleology, too many overblown accounts of “progress” and “destiny.” Postcolonial and feminist critiques have observed that the authors of such narratives are generally European, male, and white. Only a willfully obtuse writer would supply a grand narrative that ignored “the colonialist looting of the world” (Sloterdijk 2014, 4). Preferable, therefore, is a récit that would be “polyvalent, non-totalizing, and, above all, aware of its own perspectival conditionality” (2014, 4). There’s nothing objectionable here, in Sloterdijk’s view, except the assumption that grand narratives are incapable of similar polyvalence and self-awareness. Globalization past and present: this is the grand narrative Sloterdijk proposes. But it’s also a narrative concerning the world, and so Sloterdijk gets down to brass tacks: the world is round. One chapter of the grand narrative there- fore concerns orbs, balls, and circular geometries: “classical ontology was http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png symploke uni_neb

Philosophy Between Land and Sea

symploke , Volume 28 (1) – Nov 24, 2020

Loading next page...
 
/lp/university-of-nebraska-press/philosophy-between-land-and-sea-APDLFvu20a
Publisher
University of Nebraska Press
Copyright
Copyright © symploke
ISSN
1534-0627

Abstract

BRIAN O’KEEFFE Peter Sloterdijk’s In the World Interior of Capital challenges philosophy to propose a theory and a history of globalization. Why has philosophy not done so? Is it because that entails the monstrous self-confi dence of “grand narrative”? Philosophy has been badgered into petits récits—so much the better, perhaps. For grands récits are tainted by tendention: too much overcon- fi dent teleology, too many overblown accounts of “progress” and “destiny.” Postcolonial and feminist critiques have observed that the authors of such narratives are generally European, male, and white. Only a willfully obtuse writer would supply a grand narrative that ignored “the colonialist looting of the world” (Sloterdijk 2014, 4). Preferable, therefore, is a récit that would be “polyvalent, non-totalizing, and, above all, aware of its own perspectival conditionality” (2014, 4). There’s nothing objectionable here, in Sloterdijk’s view, except the assumption that grand narratives are incapable of similar polyvalence and self-awareness. Globalization past and present: this is the grand narrative Sloterdijk proposes. But it’s also a narrative concerning the world, and so Sloterdijk gets down to brass tacks: the world is round. One chapter of the grand narrative there- fore concerns orbs, balls, and circular geometries: “classical ontology was

Journal

symplokeuni_neb

Published: Nov 24, 2020

There are no references for this article.