Resisting the nihilistic reduction of beings to resources: Challenging Heideggerian ontological pluralism

Description

A 20-minute conference paper, delivered at a 3-day conference, "Thinking With Wendy Brown – Democracy in Nihilistic Times”.

Abstract:

Wendy Brown identifies in neoliberalism a danger that Heidegger locates in “technology”: The production of selves as “resources” to be consumed by calculative systems. Part of the solution to nihilism located by Brown’s re-reading of Weber in Nihilistic Times is furthermore echoed by Heideggerian responses to technological monopoly. Where Weber calls for an ethic of responsibility that acts on values while recognising their contingency, Heideggerian post-foundationalists argue that truth, language and action are built on contingent foundations that evolve and can be contested.

Maintaining a Heideggerian ontological pluralism in turn forbids action that tightens monopolies over “unconcealing” entities, as such monopolies would narrow the range of possible truths and language. Reconceived as a democratic principle, this imperative allows rival affirmations, without coalescing mass opinions in a homogenous state. It provides democracy with a principle, while navigating Spinoza and Tocqueville's paradoxes (Brown, 2001).

However, Heidegger’s diagnosis of nihilism is led to a fatalism, hoping that “Being” will reveal new modes of thought. Brown’s account of Weber thereby exceeds Heidegger’s response to nihilism, by emphasising the imperative to act on contingent values. Yet, Weber places the onus for responsible action on charismatic leaders, with Brown noting how the separation of knowledge from politics risks demagogy. María Lugones offers an alternative, maintaining an ontological pluralism, without undermining action. For Lugones, resisting dominant worlds of sense should not look to charismatic leaders, but sideways, in “complex communication” and coalition. This reveals the multiplicity of selves and the worlds of sense that selves inhabit, warning against attachments to “transparent” individuals who homogenise resistant possibilities. Lugones seeks “loving” coalition that invokes action, while remaining like Weber in Brown’s reading: aware of the partiality of conviction.

Period	31 Mar 2025
Held at	Centre for Applied Philosophy, Politics and Ethics
Degree of Recognition	International