Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:48:43.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bio-Technosciences in Philosophy: Challenges and Perspectives for Gender Studies in Philosophy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Susanne Lettow
Susanne Lettow*
Affiliation:
University of Paderborn
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Since the 1960s the bio/technosciences have occupied a central place in philosophical thinking. The paper sets out three theoretical configurations embodying major challenges for today's gender studies in philosophy, since they raise an obstacle, each in its own way, to the discussion on implications of the bio/technosciences in the political field and the area of gender theory: firstly naturalism in the field of the philosophy of science; secondly the paradigm of applied ethics; and thirdly the discourse of philosophical anthropology that has been reactivated in philosophical debates about the bio/technosciences. To conclude, some of the future tasks will be mentioned which fall to gender studies in philosophy.

Type
Articles
Information
Diogenes , Volume 57 , Issue 1 , February 2010 , pp. 127 - 137
Copyright
Copyright © ICPHS 2010

References

Alaimo, S. (2008) ‘Trans-corporeal feminisms and the ethical space of nature,’ in Alaimo, S. and Hekman, S. (eds), Material Feminisms, p. 237–264. Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Alcoff, L. M. and Kittay, E. F. (eds) (2007) The Blackwell Guide to Feminist Philosophy. Malden and Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Block, N. (2003) ‘Neurophilosophy or Philoneuroscience, ’ Science 310: 1328–1329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennett, D.C. (1991) Consciousness Explained. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co.Google Scholar
Franklin, S. (1995) ‘Postmodern Procreation: A Cultural Account of Assisted Reproduction,’ in Ginsburg, F. and Rapp, R. (eds), Conceiving the New World Order. The Global Politics of Reproduction, p. 323–345. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Fraser, N. (1990) ‘Struggle over Needs: Outline of a Socialist-Feminist Critical Theory of Late-Capitalist Political Culture,’ in Women, the State, and Welfare: Historical and Theoretical Perspectives, ed. Gordon, Linda, p. 205–231. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Goebel, B. (2005) ‘Probleme eines philosophischen Naturalismus,’ in B. Goebel, A. M. Hauk, G. Kruip (eds), Probleme des Naturalismus. Philosophische Beiträge, p. 23–42. Paderborn: Mentis.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (2001) Die Zukunft der menschlichen Natur. Auf dem Weg zu einer liberalen Eugenik? Frankfurt/ Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Haraway, D. (1988) ‘Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of a Partial Perspective,’ Feminist Studies 14(3): 575–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonsen, A.R. (1998) The Birth of Bioethics. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keil, G. (2001) ‘Rorty und der Eliminative Materialismus - eine Mesalliance?’ in Schäfer, Th., Tietz, U. and Zill, R. (eds), Hinter den Spiegeln. Beiträge zur Philosophie Richard Rortys mit Erwiderungen von Richard Rorty, p. 56–72. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Keil, G. (2005) ‘Anthropologischer und ethischer Naturalismus,’ in B. Goebel, A.M. Hauk and G. Kruip (eds) Probleme des Naturalismus. Philosophische Beiträge, p. 65–100. Paderborn: Mentis.Google Scholar
Keil, G. and Schnädelbach, H. (2000) ‘Naturalismus’ in G. Keil, and H. Schnädelbach, Naturalismus. Philosophische Beiträge, p. 7–45 Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Klinger, C. (2005) ‘Feministische Theorie zwischen Lektüre und Kritik des philosophischen Kanons,’ in H. Bußmann and R. Hof (eds), Genus. Geschlechterforschung/Gender Studies in den Kultur- und Sozialwissenschaften, p. 329–364. Stuttgart: Kröner.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1994) ‘On Technical Mediation - Philosophy, Sociology, Genealogy,’ Common Knowledge 3(2): 29–64.Google Scholar
Lindemann, H. (2007) ‘Feminist Bioethics: Where We’ve Been, Where We’re Going,’ in Alcoff, L. M. and Kittay, E. F. (eds) The Blackwell Guide to Feminist Philosophy, p. 116–130. Malden and Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
McNeil, M. (2007) Feminist Cultural Studies of Science and Technology. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Metzinger, Th. (1993) Subjekt und Selbstmodell. Die Perspektivität phänomenalen Bewußtseins vor dem Hintergrund einer naturalistischen Theorie mentaler Repräsentation. Paderborn, München, Wien an Zürich: Schoeningh.Google Scholar
Nagl-Docekal, H. (2004) Feminist Philosophy. Boulder and Oxford: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Nicholas, B. (1999) ‘Strategies for Effective Transformation,’ in A. Donchin and L. M. Purdy (eds), Embodying Bioethics. Recent Feminist Advances, p. 239–252. Lanham and Boulder: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1975) ‘Philosophy and our Mental Life,’ in H. Putnam, Mind, Language and Reality. Philosophical Papers. Vol. 2, p. 291–303. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sellars, W. (1963) Science, Perception, and Reality. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sherwin, S. (2001) ‘Feminist Reflections on the Role of Theories in a Global Bioethics,’ in R. Tong, G. Anderson and A. Santos (eds), Globalising Feminist Bioethics. Crosscultural Perspectives, p. 12–26. Boulder and Oxford: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Sloterdijk, P. (2001a) ‘Domestikation des Seins. Die Verdeutlichung der Lichtung,’ in Sloterdijk, P., gerettet, Nicht. Versuche nach Heidegger, p. 142–234. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Sloterdijk, P. (2001b) ‘Regeln für den Menschenpark. Ein Antwortschreiben zu Heideggers Brief über den Humanismus’, in P. Sloterdijk, Nicht gerettet. Versuche nach Heidegger, p. 302–337. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar