I find Stiegler's claim pretty profound. The fact that we use tools for prolonged memory and thought is what makes us human. From this perspective I would also say that - trying to destroy a people's writings and arts, and thus their history - is an absolute crime against humanity.
@@mksybr spider-web and written language are exterior effects of something there is a cognitive basis for, but you find that everywhere (e.g. ants carrying stuff to make an anthill), but They do not really dynamically evolve.
@@ismireghal68 yeah. Anthills have not really changed much over the last few million years. But the structure of human societies have changed drastically In just the past 100 years.
@@swagmundfreud666 yes and they also differ in quality. A writing has no apparent usefullness (now of course its obvious that it had but i mean back then) Your web catches you flies, but a note to your future self... like where the hell did that come from, and why does it evolve so rapidly? Because there are no selective pressures, no threats? I thought selective pressure IS what drives evolution on the other hand when it comes to creative expression you are way better of at evolving that stuff alone in a safe space with a white canvas in front of you than out in a dark forest with predetors where you dont give a fuck about expression because youd rather hide and be efficient. There has to be something in us, a creative drive, that is the reason why even early people made ornaments on their weapons... I like the idea btw. that we interiorized language. Like many signaling cells put into one bigger organism can become a nervous system, many talking humans put into one more evolved mind who interiorizes the outer chatter silently could become inner dialogue, but thats very vague speculation and doesn't account for written language either. But writing could be the alternative to sound for the mind silently having language inside.
How does this channel not have more views, like, and comments?! This is SO valuable! I hope you know how much your work is appreciated. I know I’ll keep coming back for more!
this is soooooo so so useful. I've been trying to use haraway to analyze the type of "vision" created by UAVs but struggled to get to the core of the broader philosophy around her work. Thank you!
OH MY GOD! THANK YOU!!! This sums up a point that I heavily agree with: "You are only creative and free as external and internal stimuli allow you to be". This concept of "freedom" should not have any metaphysical, or some spiritual value. Instead, its existence should be examined at the material lense. We observe freedom, not because we have this inherent quality of being free, but because of the external forces that affect our internal states that allow us to make those choices.
it is the potentiality of freedom that should be taught as metaphysical. When the humans have the material condition the actualization of freedom becomes possible. Metaphysics is important to hold at last if we want to remain humanist. I don't think physicalism can make any case for such a concept.
Well that's not good enough he knows you aren't synthesizing the words its blabber blend and hand language they become hostage then you are free to do as needed then they come out with their politics he is threatening you with his body Mind synthesis that knowledge that isn't properly synthesized it's an affective treatment that obligates you
Being new to Philosophy, a self taught "student", so to speak of two years, this video essay, being the first as well only that I've viewed of your work, have found it amazingly insightful as well as garnering, for me, a new direction or path for my thoughts to pursue, and that's what I've found to be one of the main ideologies or "staples" behind Philosophy, that make it one of, if not "the" most intense intellectual discipline that's available to humanity, your approach is a novel and more insightful way of thought into viewing humanity, reality....etc. Also learning about new Philosophers, other than the well known greats, such as Bernard Stiegler and the other lady whose name I'm drawing a blank on as of right now, I did download her "Cyborg Manifesto" essay and as well, I'm planning on learning as much as I can on Stiegler's Philosophy, due to the fact that his concept that the only thing that gives humans relevance as opposed to all other creatures, is the fact that we've created a way of preserving our thoughts through written history, literature, social media...etc. Great stuff and I'm planning on checking out more of your work, thanks again. Also, where did you receive your education, and who are some of your favorite contemporary Philosophers, and books you recommend for rookie guys such as myself, the ones who've fell in love with this discipline and are wanting to dive deep into it as possible?
Hey James, you're well on your way to being a philosopher with this wall of text, lol. I will say that my approach is not novel, as all I am doing is rehashing and simplifying shit that people may not encounter outside of postgrad programs--glad that's working for you. Maybe someone else has an idea of the type of intro books that you're looking for, but my position is that there aren't shortcuts in real education (and I don't mean academic education either, though that helps). Anthologies with intros to the different authors can be helpful, I use this one amzn.to/37RAYLu when I have to reread something quick. May be worth starting with something like that? Otherwise I would say browse around until you find methods/styles that you connect with, and starting reading who they read, and read others who read them. I read all the comments on my vids (doesn't take long, there aren't a lot) so if you find something elsewhere in the channel that you want more info on then ask away.
I feel like a philosopher who predicted the end of humanism first was Stirner, Stirner labeled humanism as merely another religion that creates alienation. Stirners idea of the creative nothing is also not necessarily opposed to the post humanist mindset as the creative nothing views themselves as inherently nothing as well as the ability to infinitely create. Stirner viewer higher ideas as artificial separations from reality, turning reality into a sacred ideal behold ant to itself as opposed to the individual, Stirner rejects holding these sacred ideals as sacred and instead assimilating what is useful for your own purpose and abandon what harms you, constantly adapting without alienation.
I wonder if anyone has updated Steigler to account for the new discoveries that many other organisms on earth do start with memory and do have ways of recording memory using tools. Humans still are probably exceptional in the extent to which they do this, but I think the more we learn about other plant and animal organisms, the more and more we'll be surprised at the tools and methods they employ.
In the beginning was the Word... (and nope not the World). It also was not necessary to type this down and share it with "the World" but I did it anyway ;)
Finally find someone that explains this well. Human arrogance prevents so many from looking at this. It’s is so obvious once you are willing to think about it. This explanation is lays it out amazingly well. Nietzsche knew this long before the rest of the world.
Well why should I even care about the non human? Okay cool I’m not special but I’m still me there no reason to care about your weird materialistic cult
The key to Deleuze is not to read him literally but to use his texts as tools for your own concepts and thinking. And this of course applies to all philosophers, but Deleuze was quite explicit about this, and therefore intentionally changing the meaning of his concepts from text to text.
I think the way he makes up new terms of confusing. Think of the body without organs as the will (like in Schopenhauer or Nietzsche), and the organs as the contradictory forces of the world (like in Hegel or Marxism). I hope I'm not wrong
Great channel, thanks for the hard work and the attention to detail -btw, it would be great to see one around Technics (from Prometheus to Leroy-Gurhan and Simondon to Stigler). Thanks a lot keep and pushing that rock up the mountain!
i think this is one of my favorite videos on your channel. I love your approach to this technological post humanism. I think its innacurate to say that the transhumanist future will look like "cyborgs" made of non human and human, but it's the fact that humans have always and continure to determine their evolution and entanglement with nature. genetic modification within the human body seems like a machine-like existence when we think about it, but it's actually not as abruptly introduced to us as we imagine, but its the result of the progress we've made up until this point to alter the nature of our bodies. We use surgery and modern medicine to improve our physical wellbeing, but this way of altering our "self" is not as different from the posthumanist future. we have always determined our own nature and our own fate because it is in our nature to do so. the technology we use is not some other worldy- phenomenon, but it is the nature surrounding us that we have utilized to modify our existence.
Stigler is obviously compelling, but i also think about McLuhan who insisted we are essentially the sex organs for machines. Would be interesting to "compare and contrast" the two.
I'm a posthumanist but absolutely despise transhumanism, insomuch that its mainstream conceptions generally don't get out of the anthropocentrism trap.
Posthumanism is so staggeringly broad that no matter how much I look into it I'm still confused. It covers waaaay too much stuff in my opinion - especially things that don't seem like they should fall under the same bracket.
"I think I speak for everyone when I say, 'Huh?!'" - Buffy, vampire slayer If most people don't know about this stuff or understand it, does it matter?
Friedrich Krotz' concept of the historic mediatization process would fit perfectly at the end there to update McLuhan. McLuhan is considered too technologically deterministic in contemporary Media and Communication Science, and mediatization solves that problem. It aknowledges media logics (Altheide & Snow) and affordances that influence us, while still giving humans enough agency to negotiate and influence media and technology.
One rarely hears the name Marx online without an obligatory aside about "discredited" ideas (is there a special definition for that word in a philosophical dictionary?) and millions of corpses left in the wake. What if Heidegger was never referred to as Heidegger, as in this video but as Heidegger the life-long, unrepentant Nazi? This could be pondered in story form, since it's not happening much anywhere else, but who has the energy or time or the drive or the will or is moving along that trajectory? I'm just tossing that frisbee up in the air, not expecting some dog to leap up and chomp down. Or, maybe, Nietzsche can be always referred to as "Nietzsche who died of syphillis".
The 'millions of corpses' is 'black book of communism' nonsense anyway. The numbers are ridiculously exaggerated, and are being slowly and quietly discredited by serious historians. Not to say that that tendency of anti-communist revisionism isn't still there.
Thanks so much for this video, something intellectually stimulating for a change! I need some help and perhaps someone might have a bit of insight here. I'm looking at post humanism as being my theoretical framework because of my research in learning environments. Colleagues have suggested I look at ecologies of practice and Actor Network Theory - I felt that all of these theoretical frameworks were ridiculously similar, if not the same. However, I'm now coming round to the idea that Post Humanism goes much deeper than ANT because ANT predominates the network and does not investigate beyond that. However I'm also considering Ecologies of Practice as a possible theoretical framework. You can see I'm in a bit of a tangle and more so now that you mention at the start of tis video that 'Post humanism encompasses a breadth of theoretical constellations'. Can you please weigh in and provide a steer for me?
I can't give a definite answer, but I just replied to another comment a related answer, and I thought it might be relevant for you: "You might be interested in inhumanism theory as described by Reza Negatistani. The name is misleading, as it's not about being anti-human, but neither is it stereotypically pro-human. Rather, it's complex ambivalent rethinking of the concept of the "human", where reason is an outside irrational -- yes, reason as an irrational natural forced -- that works on and through us constantly deconstructing and reconstructing what it means to be human. Thus, there is no essential essence that characterizes humanity, but that humanity is identified with this force of perpetual development and change."
The central point is a contrast with rationalist phenomenology, which supposes as a premise that the mind is a sort of self-identical set of processes distinct from the rest of the world. Stiegler's point is that what we call our mind is implicated with a long history of technics, all the way back to stone tools. Our minds are historically relative to the particular properties of the non-human objects with which we interact, all the way back to stone tools, but most significantly with the material traces of thought, which is why writing is such an important example.
Now that's a great video. Since you bring it up in the description a bit, what's posthumanism's relationship with transhumanism? Maybe I misunderstand transhumanism, but you say it's pretty humanist itself, where I thought it was more simply the concept of human (usually technological) augmentation. As such I thought posthumanism would be alright with it as long as it had the right outlook on the subject.
Props @Enki, in terms of internet time, we're old friends by now. Posthumanism is a theoretical position that goes back to Nietzsche. Transhumanism is something of an imaginative stance considering what could be technically possible, but they don't reflect on what the conscious subject itself is, and whether or not that is a coherent model. I said transhumanism was humanist because they accept that model and then look to building superbodies and cloudminds. If this capacity would be pursued as a benefit to humanity (as an end) then it might be considered humanistic. If it were supposed to be something humans can just do, so why not? That feels more posthumanist, or even accelerationist. But transhumanism and posthumanism can't be directly compared in my mind, because they don't accept the same premises.
@@PlasticPills I admit, I'm mostly interested in their relationship because I like cyberpunk fiction too much. I think part of me wants to square the circle by thinking Deus Ex is cool while also recognizing the reality of posthumanism. With that in mind. I don't think the humanist standpoint is inherent to transhumanism. If transhuman ideas were to be explored and advanced from a posthuman perspective, wouldn't it create a form of posthuman transhumanism? Sorry for this dumb question
@@PlasticPills by saying that "this capacity would be pursued as a benefit to humanity that can be considered Humanistic"...Then you could say the same to humans inventing writing as a mean to fix memory and important things for living better. This is also a benefit so it might be considered humanist as well. Right?
This is phenomenal. Fantastic introduction to Posthumanism, which is new to me. In-depth, logical, practically presented, exciting, super helpful. Thank you!
Honestly it sometimes still stound anthropocentric, that citation of Nietzsche about the world acquiring colour but we are the colourists shows it. We are still the agents among the "cold indifference of the cosmos". Doesn't that look like a traditional modernist outlook that some will say is the one of natural sciences (Even though that may not be true) ? What about the world being the colourist and giving us colours ? It's a two way process, for sure. I kind of like Latour's views because it acknowledges both that facts are constructed by us, while acknowledging the agentivity of non-human entities too. Well I think that's also found in Deleuze and Harraway, but Nietzsche and Stiegler seem still very confident about human power.
So on point > I didn’t line up with the color quote either > anthropocentricity is the perceptional issue that blocks life force and connection to creating
I think that what he was trying to say is that the mutual relation human-tool has gone way far that we didn't even realize the fact that we were the ones who engaged with "non human" e let mechanisms overwhelm us
Great video but honestly surprised you didn't include Max Stirner who effectively wrote The Unique and Its Property as a response to Ludwig Feuerbach's Essence of Christianity which can be seen as a kind of manifesto for secular humanism. But beyond that, a great deal of Stirner's critiques and concepts are very similar to those in the video (with some arguing that he influenced Nietzsche and was an inspiration for Deleuze). The most explicit example of Stirner's posthumanism in my opinion being this: "But whoever is full of sacred (religious, moral, humane) love loves only the phantasm, the “true human being,” and persecutes with dull relentlessness the individual, the actual human being, under the phlegmatic legal title of proceedings against the “inhuman monster.”" That being said, I can understand that you may consider egoism as more of its own topic. In which case, are you planning to maybe do a video on egoism at some point?
Stirner isn't a post-humanist. He isn't a humanist. If one gets Stirner, he can clearly see that "post-humanism" is merely just another spin of mongolism, and as such they remain within theology, that is, occupied with Spirit. Stirner, on the other side, "gets behind" the Spirit and there finds himself only, just as Ancients found spirit when they got behind the world. Stirner's dialectical triad of finalizing Hegel is unrelated to this petty reorganization of what being human is.
stari haram what ? “Ancients find spirit when they get behind the world” NOOOOoo and this points to a problem in the focus on words which are insufficient at best >>>>> there are different dimensions we exist in that’s as close as we can get now to explaining anything
Hello! Sorry if i am disturbing you with my questions lol. I am thinking about rationalism with your interpretation of stiegler for a while and i am stuck. I am not a native speaker and any of stiegler's work does not translated to my language (turkish btw) i can't understand what is the main problem with rationalism. Is it just essence of rationalism? What is the main problem with rationalism in that sense? Please answer i am stuck :))
Rationalism has two parts. First, that what it is to be human is to have reason, which can discover the true causes of things. Second, that the world is ordered rationally, either because God made it or it's just a lucky accident. So there are two separate entities: mind + world. Stiegler writes that there are not two entities, only one: world. What we call our mind has been shaped by a history of interacting with the world: from making hammers from stone, to making paint from berries, to making writing in wet clay, or scrolls, to dictionaries, maps, architectural drawings, and philosophical treatises. So the mind is not a special substance in humans, it is a pattern of habits formed by a long history of using tools and technics.
From which text is the excerpt of Nietzsche about the invention of the “end”. I tripped on one of your videos yesterday, lol. Helped me clarify some stuff. Awesome work. What are you studying or studied? If I may ask
I noticed a lack of Spinoza reading here. Nietzsche claimed Spinoza could be considered a precursor to him and you know how Deleuze calls Spinoza the prince of philosophers. You can easily make an argument that Spinoza's immanence in Ethics is a precursor of posthumanism which Deleuze utilizes and develops with Guattari. There are already papers about it.
I dig that early characterization of What the fuck is this ____ shit? But Husserl never went to show how consciousness is only an epoch or a misconception like Nietzsche did with the human as exceptional. Husserl thought that you couldn't get rid of experience without throwing out consciousness as well, and so Husserl begins by examining experience and always keeps consciousness in his system. The others a pretty spot on.
He very much reforms the rationalist notion of consciousness. So yea I guess consciousness remains in the system but on an entirely different (phenomenological) ground.
Great vid! Its a lot of difficult theory, and you did it. Thank you! One question though: why is existentialism human exceptionalism? It depends probably on which existentialist you aim, but in my understanding existentialism is all about our attitude towards life in the face of seemingly meaninglessness. This is not necessarily a human trait, but more a product of our capacity to reason. Right? So if lets say a dolphin understands he is thrown in the world he would probably also think his life is absurd and has to deal with that. The reason I ask is because i think existentialism is opens a door for post humanism, but im not sure yet..
Hey benjamin! Great response. My immediate referral is that Sartre wrote "existentialism is a humanism"... the general thought is that there's no "real" meaning in the universe except for what human subjects create. If you accept the posthuman argument, meaning is created all the time, often, everywhere, but modernist humans have restricted its definition to only what matters to us now, when our historicist definition of meaning is as arbitrary as any other
7:49-8:28 The idea of carving yourself out of the world is clinged to as a way forward but comes with a host of problems. "The most important nonfiction versions of self is the desired reputation." - Roy F. Baumeister, The Self Explained (2021) "An ethics in which you realize your individual nature differs from any idea of self-creation. The self with which humans identify is a construction of society and memory. Forming an image of themselves in infancy and childhood, they seek happiness by preserving and strengthening that self-image. But the image they have of themselves is not the reality of their bodies or their lives, and chasing after it can lead not to fulfilment but to self-frustration." - John N. Gray, Feline Philosophy (2020) Could also use a dose of physics: “he forgets that he is himself the world” - Georges Bataille, Theory of Religion (1948)
You really have a point, but it is also important to note that one of the debates of the whole post-humanism/post-humanities mess is that the dialectical nature of historical progression; since it is conceived to be transcendent. For post-humanities, there is no inherent engine, -ie. total liberation of human kind or class struggle as the primary motor of history- but theories borrowing conepts from cybernetics, mathematical models of complexity etc. to disregard the concept of "class". Further reading may include "neo-materialism", who actually includes same post humanists. :)
I will have to confess that my initial reaction was OH HAYUHL NAW, but once I got over the hipster persona there was actually a lot of good information and discussion here. Subscribed. :)
Great video but one nit-picky point: Stiegler's project goes much further than TT1 and the undecidable imbrication of the "who" and "what", largely because he places Derridean differance at the core of this ambiguity (as opposed to the clear-cut humanism of other media scholars like McLuhan). Stiegler has relied in more recent work on the concept of the "non-inhuman", where the double-negative tries to make clear that prematurely deciding the question of the human as "post" or "trans" shirks the burden of thinking itself.
Yep. Ok this was really well done and would take a long time to put together. Well done crew. I’ve been reading anti oepidus today in bafflement, mostly, but this helped a couple of ideas for me. Also, as a designer, art teacher I have become aware, independently, of the texts mentioned, and taught, how technology has driven human endeavours, both regarding tools, meaning these lines in ink on paper indicate symbols which indicate signs which indicate human thought, and yet in time become surrogates for human thought. Also, in art, technologies, such as quarrying new stone or developing tube paint influence methods, also influence content. As the French impressionists painted plein air because of the tube paint and Monet painted “blurry” for a number of reasons also including the experience, the first time in the history of the human, to travel so fast as on a train and therefore see in a observable way movement at that speed. Technology creating human, human inventing technology. All is interrelated and inseparable. The deluezian machines of human or machine, who has hierarchy? It’s all a shifting territories and we create our selves in the moment, in relationship with the multiplicities and across the territories through the flows, meaning both regarding and disregarding context, and in a subjective phenomenological sense - meaning, own your space and produce. ....that’s a beginning.
Is Stiegler's conception of human any different from Marx's idea that human is an objective being, in the sense that its essence belongs outside of it, in the realm of objects? I think he just expanded on this idea he found in 44 Manuscripts
As a Buddhist, there's a lot here that coincides with Buddhism, in particular the impermanence of things and the lack of a persistent self (that special-ness). Then again, as I Buddhist I do not reach the same conclusions to the ideas presented as such. But it is fruit for some very interesting thinking. It is always fascinating to see points of tangency in Western and Eastern philosophies and then where they diverge again after meeting.
Okay i have been reading neurology and its philosophy in a phenomenological context. I found you are right. What i can't understand is how we can decide suicide? Any thoughts or popular work about it that could be translated to Turkish?
Could you make a whole episode on what you say about carving oneself out of the world? Especially what you say about first having essence under a particular stage is interesting - do you mean that we as a species have this essence? Or that we in our lives are able to create one? How exactly would this be a bad thing, if we refrain from using essence as a form of identity - thus making it imovable?
Was doing my posthumanism research & chanced upon this channel. Bro the logo of the pill looks just like your face, in terms of color. It is a complement.
I feel like current (secular) Humanism has already has incorporated many of these things. I mean, I think if you asked a humanist if they think humans are special, they'd say no. The term "Humanism" might not make as much sense now, sort of meaning secular morality and living, but I guess the point is that things like morality have to based on human conclusions, not a gods. Not that humans are special or that animal suffering doesn't matter.
exactly. postmodernism is modernism taken to its logical end. it looks at modernism and 'deconstructs' the framework upon which modernism is built. Just the same as post-structuralism does to structuralism. Look at these philosophical ideas as reactions/counter-arguments/conclusions to the original ideas.
This is my latest parasocial relationship and I am in paralove. Love the way you do a _pace_. Love your use of emoji. And of course, love your distillation of all of that prose. Thank you for this.
Umm For Posthumanism, the emergence of data maps and us being predictable by models does not mean we're moving away from human exceptionalism. In fact, it goes to show how the far reaches of our insatiable striving for self-mastery and domination ended up separating us further and further away from anything not human [and even not some humans!], thereby maintaining or rather, reinforcing human exceptionalism.
You might be interested in inhumanism theory as described by Reza Negatistani. The name is misleading, as it's not about being anti-human, but neither is it stereotypically pro-human. Rather, it's complex ambivalent rethinking of the concept of the "human", where reason is an outside irrational -- yes, reason as an irrational natural forced -- that works on and through us constantly deconstructing and reconstructing what it means to be human. Thus, there is no essential essence that characterizes humanity, but that humanity is identified with this force of perpetual development and change.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
maybe the real Posthumanism was the friends we made a long the way.
I also came here from watching Jreg
@@MarcillaSmith go watch jreg. Or don't. The way I see it is your life will be the same either way.
That's One Piecism lol
Lol
Maybe the real friends was the humans we made along the post.
I find Stiegler's claim pretty profound. The fact that we use tools for prolonged memory and thought is what makes us human. From this perspective I would also say that - trying to destroy a people's writings and arts, and thus their history - is an absolute crime against humanity.
Genocide, perhaps?
Spiders also offload cognitive processes to their tools (as web).
@@mksybr spider-web and written language are exterior effects of something there is a cognitive basis for, but you find that everywhere (e.g. ants carrying stuff to make an anthill), but They do not really dynamically evolve.
@@ismireghal68 yeah. Anthills have not really changed much over the last few million years. But the structure of human societies have changed drastically In just the past 100 years.
@@swagmundfreud666 yes and they also differ in quality. A writing has no apparent usefullness (now of course its obvious that it had but i mean back then) Your web catches you flies, but a note to your future self... like where the hell did that come from, and why does it evolve so rapidly? Because there are no selective pressures, no threats? I thought selective pressure IS what drives evolution on the other hand when it comes to creative expression you are way better of at evolving that stuff alone in a safe space with a white canvas in front of you than out in a dark forest with predetors where you dont give a fuck about expression because youd rather hide and be efficient. There has to be something in us, a creative drive, that is the reason why even early people made ornaments on their weapons...
I like the idea btw. that we interiorized language. Like many signaling cells put into one bigger organism can become a nervous system, many talking humans put into one more evolved mind who interiorizes the outer chatter silently could become inner dialogue, but thats very vague speculation and doesn't account for written language either. But writing could be the alternative to sound for the mind silently having language inside.
A day with new plasticpills is always a good day
Valentine
How does this channel not have more views, like, and comments?! This is SO valuable! I hope you know how much your work is appreciated. I know I’ll keep coming back for more!
this is soooooo so so useful. I've been trying to use haraway to analyze the type of "vision" created by UAVs but struggled to get to the core of the broader philosophy around her work. Thank you!
OH MY GOD! THANK YOU!!! This sums up a point that I heavily agree with: "You are only creative and free as external and internal stimuli allow you to be". This concept of "freedom" should not have any metaphysical, or some spiritual value. Instead, its existence should be examined at the material lense. We observe freedom, not because we have this inherent quality of being free, but because of the external forces that affect our internal states that allow us to make those choices.
it is the potentiality of freedom that should be taught as metaphysical. When the humans have the material condition the actualization of freedom becomes possible. Metaphysics is important to hold at last if we want to remain humanist. I don't think physicalism can make any case for such a concept.
Well that's not good enough he knows you aren't synthesizing the words its blabber blend and hand language they become hostage then you are free to do as needed then they come out with their politics he is threatening you with his body Mind synthesis that knowledge that isn't properly synthesized it's an affective treatment that obligates you
Well that was the best thing I've seen on YT in a while.
Being new to Philosophy, a self taught "student", so to speak of two years, this video essay, being the first as well only that I've viewed of your work, have found it amazingly insightful as well as garnering, for me, a new direction or path for my thoughts to pursue, and that's what I've found to be one of the main ideologies or "staples" behind Philosophy, that make it one of, if not "the" most intense intellectual discipline that's available to humanity, your approach is a novel and more insightful way of thought into viewing humanity, reality....etc. Also learning about new Philosophers, other than the well known greats, such as Bernard Stiegler and the other lady whose name I'm drawing a blank on as of right now, I did download her "Cyborg Manifesto" essay and as well, I'm planning on learning as much as I can on Stiegler's Philosophy, due to the fact that his concept that the only thing that gives humans relevance as opposed to all other creatures, is the fact that we've created a way of preserving our thoughts through written history, literature, social media...etc. Great stuff and I'm planning on checking out more of your work, thanks again. Also, where did you receive your education, and who are some of your favorite contemporary Philosophers, and books you recommend for rookie guys such as myself, the ones who've fell in love with this discipline and are wanting to dive deep into it as possible?
Hey James, you're well on your way to being a philosopher with this wall of text, lol.
I will say that my approach is not novel, as all I am doing is rehashing and simplifying shit that people may not encounter outside of postgrad programs--glad that's working for you.
Maybe someone else has an idea of the type of intro books that you're looking for, but my position is that there aren't shortcuts in real education (and I don't mean academic education either, though that helps). Anthologies with intros to the different authors can be helpful, I use this one amzn.to/37RAYLu when I have to reread something quick. May be worth starting with something like that? Otherwise I would say browse around until you find methods/styles that you connect with, and starting reading who they read, and read others who read them. I read all the comments on my vids (doesn't take long, there aren't a lot) so if you find something elsewhere in the channel that you want more info on then ask away.
I feel like a philosopher who predicted the end of humanism first was Stirner, Stirner labeled humanism as merely another religion that creates alienation. Stirners idea of the creative nothing is also not necessarily opposed to the post humanist mindset as the creative nothing views themselves as inherently nothing as well as the ability to infinitely create. Stirner viewer higher ideas as artificial separations from reality, turning reality into a sacred ideal behold ant to itself as opposed to the individual, Stirner rejects holding these sacred ideals as sacred and instead assimilating what is useful for your own purpose and abandon what harms you, constantly adapting without alienation.
Nestor Makhno hmmmn what’s so horrible about alienation?
I wonder if anyone has updated Steigler to account for the new discoveries that many other organisms on earth do start with memory and do have ways of recording memory using tools. Humans still are probably exceptional in the extent to which they do this, but I think the more we learn about other plant and animal organisms, the more and more we'll be surprised at the tools and methods they employ.
What song was playing at 3:40?
Alright, you got me interested. I'm totally up for a video now about Accelerationism and it's relation with posthumanism. So, uh, pretty please?
Special order coming up for you lol
@@PlasticPills (Not original commenter) Thanks for putting that one up, these vids have formed a really solid series. Newly subbed!
Does anyone know what the painting at 5:22 is called?
thomas doughty, romantic landscape with a temple
You give such wonderful and lucid explanations. These videos are very much needed. Please keep up the good work. Loved your videos.
I love the heart wrenching background music coloring man's freefall into eternal nothingness.
Very poetic of you lol
I have to pause most of your videos several times to scream. Thank you for all the great vids.
In the beginning was the Word... (and nope not the World).
It also was not necessary to type this down and share it with "the World" but I did it anyway ;)
Finally find someone that explains this well. Human arrogance prevents so many from looking at this. It’s is so obvious once you are willing to think about it. This explanation is lays it out amazingly well. Nietzsche knew this long before the rest of the world.
Well why should I even care about the non human? Okay cool I’m not special but I’m still me there no reason to care about your weird materialistic cult
Is it arrogance or just anxiety, the need for controll?
I was on board for most of it but I got very lost in the Deleuze stuff
Sorry, it's pretty hard to summarize deleuze because his shots always change targets. I did try to sum it all up in the end.
The key to Deleuze is not to read him literally but to use his texts as tools for your own concepts and thinking. And this of course applies to all philosophers, but Deleuze was quite explicit about this, and therefore intentionally changing the meaning of his concepts from text to text.
"I got very lost in the Deleuze stuff." Yes. But machines. Also, rhizomes. That is all.
@@IndustrialBonecraft That's as far as I got.
Are machines rhizomatic? Idk. Maybe a stupid question. I hope so.
I think the way he makes up new terms of confusing. Think of the body without organs as the will (like in Schopenhauer or Nietzsche), and the organs as the contradictory forces of the world (like in Hegel or Marxism). I hope I'm not wrong
Great channel, thanks for the hard work and the attention to detail -btw, it would be great to see one around Technics (from Prometheus to Leroy-Gurhan and Simondon to Stigler). Thanks a lot keep and pushing that rock up the mountain!
i think this is one of my favorite videos on your channel. I love your approach to this technological post humanism. I think its innacurate to say that the transhumanist future will look like "cyborgs" made of non human and human, but it's the fact that humans have always and continure to determine their evolution and entanglement with nature. genetic modification within the human body seems like a machine-like existence when we think about it, but it's actually not as abruptly introduced to us as we imagine, but its the result of the progress we've made up until this point to alter the nature of our bodies. We use surgery and modern medicine to improve our physical wellbeing, but this way of altering our "self" is not as different from the posthumanist future. we have always determined our own nature and our own fate because it is in our nature to do so. the technology we use is not some other worldy- phenomenon, but it is the nature surrounding us that we have utilized to modify our existence.
I just finished watching "The Ister" so this was a nice find, thanks.
Thanks a ton for this little crash course! Much appreciated! :)
Why the heck ignoring MAX STIRNER ? . . . isnt it amazing that even Peter Watson rejected Stirner in his book about famous germnans ?
Stigler is obviously compelling, but i also think about McLuhan who insisted we are essentially the sex organs for machines. Would be interesting to "compare and contrast" the two.
I came into the comments to see if anyone mentioned Mcluhan. I'd actually never heard of Stigler but is sounded similar to Mcluhan
I'm a posthumanist but absolutely despise transhumanism, insomuch that its mainstream conceptions generally don't get out of the anthropocentrism trap.
the only part missing in this was reference to Heidegger's Question Concerning Technology. Otherwise, well done with this!
Posthumanism is so staggeringly broad that no matter how much I look into it I'm still confused. It covers waaaay too much stuff in my opinion - especially things that don't seem like they should fall under the same bracket.
What is the music used around the 3:15 mark ? Please 🙏🏼
The song is Ram Ranch by the composer Grant MacDonald.
great video!! what's the music called?
"What is this white woman shit" - that floored me!!! Very good!
the background noise , the desire to sell , the ability to draw attention , to create a being in Being that can question
whats the name of the painting in 5:19 ? Its mezmerizing
thomas doughty, romantic landscape with a temple
This video is special and deserves multiple viewing..
"I think I speak for everyone when I say, 'Huh?!'" - Buffy, vampire slayer
If most people don't know about this stuff or understand it, does it matter?
That would effectively negate all of non-practical philosophy. It just seems very anti-intellectualist really.
@@2tehnik all of practical philosophy too
everyone gets by on natural consciousness
would you classify max stirner as a post-humanist?
Friedrich Krotz' concept of the historic mediatization process would fit perfectly at the end there to update McLuhan. McLuhan is considered too technologically deterministic in contemporary Media and Communication Science, and mediatization solves that problem. It aknowledges media logics (Altheide & Snow) and affordances that influence us, while still giving humans enough agency to negotiate and influence media and technology.
Literally THE BEST CHANNEL❤️
@@vals4207 there are many... I just commented
One rarely hears the name Marx online without an obligatory aside about "discredited" ideas (is there a special definition for that word in a philosophical dictionary?) and millions of corpses left in the wake. What if Heidegger was never referred to as Heidegger, as in this video but as Heidegger the life-long, unrepentant Nazi? This could be pondered in story form, since it's not happening much anywhere else, but who has the energy or time or the drive or the will or is moving along that trajectory? I'm just tossing that frisbee up in the air, not expecting some dog to leap up and chomp down.
Or, maybe, Nietzsche can be always referred to as "Nietzsche who died of syphillis".
The 'millions of corpses' is 'black book of communism' nonsense anyway. The numbers are ridiculously exaggerated, and are being slowly and quietly discredited by serious historians. Not to say that that tendency of anti-communist revisionism isn't still there.
Would anyone recommend a english fictional book to see the post humanism context?
Great stuff pills. Does anyone know the name of the music or band that is playing in the minute 14?
Thanks so much for this video, something intellectually stimulating for a change! I need some help and perhaps someone might have a bit of insight here. I'm looking at post humanism as being my theoretical framework because of my research in learning environments. Colleagues have suggested I look at ecologies of practice and Actor Network Theory - I felt that all of these theoretical frameworks were ridiculously similar, if not the same. However, I'm now coming round to the idea that Post Humanism goes much deeper than ANT because ANT predominates the network and does not investigate beyond that. However I'm also considering Ecologies of Practice as a possible theoretical framework.
You can see I'm in a bit of a tangle and more so now that you mention at the start of tis video that 'Post humanism encompasses a breadth of theoretical constellations'.
Can you please weigh in and provide a steer for me?
I can't give a definite answer, but I just replied to another comment a related answer, and I thought it might be relevant for you:
"You might be interested in inhumanism theory as described by Reza Negatistani. The name is misleading, as it's not about being anti-human, but neither is it stereotypically pro-human. Rather, it's complex ambivalent rethinking of the concept of the "human", where reason is an outside irrational -- yes, reason as an irrational natural forced -- that works on and through us constantly deconstructing and reconstructing what it means to be human. Thus, there is no essential essence that characterizes humanity, but that humanity is identified with this force of perpetual development and change."
Okay these technic works are memories but it is important that how a flint could be a memory-image to particularly us?
The central point is a contrast with rationalist phenomenology, which supposes as a premise that the mind is a sort of self-identical set of processes distinct from the rest of the world. Stiegler's point is that what we call our mind is implicated with a long history of technics, all the way back to stone tools. Our minds are historically relative to the particular properties of the non-human objects with which we interact, all the way back to stone tools, but most significantly with the material traces of thought, which is why writing is such an important example.
@@PlasticPills oh thanks :) i will read stiegler.
Brilliant.Many thanks for doing all the hard work ' reading and organising ' that I was far too lazy to do.
Now that's a great video. Since you bring it up in the description a bit, what's posthumanism's relationship with transhumanism? Maybe I misunderstand transhumanism, but you say it's pretty humanist itself, where I thought it was more simply the concept of human (usually technological) augmentation. As such I thought posthumanism would be alright with it as long as it had the right outlook on the subject.
Props @Enki, in terms of internet time, we're old friends by now.
Posthumanism is a theoretical position that goes back to Nietzsche. Transhumanism is something of an imaginative stance considering what could be technically possible, but they don't reflect on what the conscious subject itself is, and whether or not that is a coherent model. I said transhumanism was humanist because they accept that model and then look to building superbodies and cloudminds. If this capacity would be pursued as a benefit to humanity (as an end) then it might be considered humanistic. If it were supposed to be something humans can just do, so why not? That feels more posthumanist, or even accelerationist. But transhumanism and posthumanism can't be directly compared in my mind, because they don't accept the same premises.
@@PlasticPills I admit, I'm mostly interested in their relationship because I like cyberpunk fiction too much. I think part of me wants to square the circle by thinking Deus Ex is cool while also recognizing the reality of posthumanism.
With that in mind. I don't think the humanist standpoint is inherent to transhumanism. If transhuman ideas were to be explored and advanced from a posthuman perspective, wouldn't it create a form of posthuman transhumanism?
Sorry for this dumb question
@@PlasticPills by saying that "this capacity would be pursued as a benefit to humanity that can be considered Humanistic"...Then you could say the same to humans inventing writing as a mean to fix memory and important things for living better. This is also a benefit so it might be considered humanist as well.
Right?
Which book or essays of Steiglar have these concepts? I wanna read
Your videos are the best, and I'm honestly baffled you get so little views.
I could probably market better, but I'm just glad yall are here!
We can help share! Do a little terrorism to Instagram Influencers...haha!
This is phenomenal. Fantastic introduction to Posthumanism, which is new to me. In-depth, logical, practically presented, exciting, super helpful. Thank you!
Honestly it sometimes still stound anthropocentric, that citation of Nietzsche about the world acquiring colour but we are the colourists shows it. We are still the agents among the "cold indifference of the cosmos". Doesn't that look like a traditional modernist outlook that some will say is the one of natural sciences (Even though that may not be true) ? What about the world being the colourist and giving us colours ? It's a two way process, for sure. I kind of like Latour's views because it acknowledges both that facts are constructed by us, while acknowledging the agentivity of non-human entities too. Well I think that's also found in Deleuze and Harraway, but Nietzsche and Stiegler seem still very confident about human power.
So on point > I didn’t line up with the color quote either > anthropocentricity is the perceptional issue that blocks life force and connection to creating
I think that what he was trying to say is that the mutual relation human-tool has gone way far that we didn't even realize the fact that we were the ones who engaged with "non human" e let mechanisms overwhelm us
could you please explain what balai is?
as in: There are always done human supplements that balai human interdependence with the world.
thank you
Oh that was a fault with the automatic subtitles. It's 'belie'.
Where is that first Nietzsche quote from?
Twilight of the Idols
Do you do your own beats for these videos? They're dope dude
I keep finding gems on this channel. So good
Where does Georges Bastille fit in tho?
Great use of the BwO
Maybe the best video so far
Create content and well done. Sad there are not millions of subscribers
Great video but honestly surprised you didn't include Max Stirner who effectively wrote The Unique and Its Property as a response to Ludwig Feuerbach's Essence of Christianity which can be seen as a kind of manifesto for secular humanism. But beyond that, a great deal of Stirner's critiques and concepts are very similar to those in the video (with some arguing that he influenced Nietzsche and was an inspiration for Deleuze). The most explicit example of Stirner's posthumanism in my opinion being this: "But whoever is full of sacred (religious, moral, humane) love loves only the phantasm, the “true human being,” and persecutes with dull relentlessness the individual, the actual human being, under the phlegmatic legal title of proceedings against the “inhuman monster.”"
That being said, I can understand that you may consider egoism as more of its own topic. In which case, are you planning to maybe do a video on egoism at some point?
Stirner isn't a post-humanist. He isn't a humanist. If one gets Stirner, he can clearly see that "post-humanism" is merely just another spin of mongolism, and as such they remain within theology, that is, occupied with Spirit. Stirner, on the other side, "gets behind" the Spirit and there finds himself only, just as Ancients found spirit when they got behind the world. Stirner's dialectical triad of finalizing Hegel is unrelated to this petty reorganization of what being human is.
stari haram what ? “Ancients find spirit when they get behind the world” NOOOOoo and this points to a problem in the focus on words which are insufficient at best >>>>> there are different dimensions we exist in that’s as close as we can get now to explaining anything
Could you do a video specifically on transhumanism?
Hello! Sorry if i am disturbing you with my questions lol. I am thinking about rationalism with your interpretation of stiegler for a while and i am stuck. I am not a native speaker and any of stiegler's work does not translated to my language (turkish btw) i can't understand what is the main problem with rationalism. Is it just essence of rationalism? What is the main problem with rationalism in that sense? Please answer i am stuck :))
If you can make a video about deleuze and rationalism it would be my way much easier. So please hehe
Rationalism has two parts. First, that what it is to be human is to have reason, which can discover the true causes of things. Second, that the world is ordered rationally, either because God made it or it's just a lucky accident. So there are two separate entities: mind + world. Stiegler writes that there are not two entities, only one: world. What we call our mind has been shaped by a history of interacting with the world: from making hammers from stone, to making paint from berries, to making writing in wet clay, or scrolls, to dictionaries, maps, architectural drawings, and philosophical treatises. So the mind is not a special substance in humans, it is a pattern of habits formed by a long history of using tools and technics.
@@PlasticPills thanks :))
@@PlasticPills hey I had a doubt too.. So is not Posthumanism inherently humanism?
From which text is the excerpt of Nietzsche about the invention of the “end”. I tripped on one of your videos yesterday, lol. Helped me clarify some stuff. Awesome work. What are you studying or studied? If I may ask
Yo. The first quote is from Twilight of the Idols.
I noticed a lack of Spinoza reading here. Nietzsche claimed Spinoza could be considered a precursor to him and you know how Deleuze calls Spinoza the prince of philosophers. You can easily make an argument that Spinoza's immanence in Ethics is a precursor of posthumanism which Deleuze utilizes and develops with Guattari. There are already papers about it.
I dig that early characterization of What the fuck is this ____ shit? But Husserl never went to show how consciousness is only an epoch or a misconception like Nietzsche did with the human as exceptional. Husserl thought that you couldn't get rid of experience without throwing out consciousness as well, and so Husserl begins by examining experience and always keeps consciousness in his system. The others a pretty spot on.
He very much reforms the rationalist notion of consciousness. So yea I guess consciousness remains in the system but on an entirely different (phenomenological) ground.
Great vid! Its a lot of difficult theory, and you did it. Thank you!
One question though: why is existentialism human exceptionalism? It depends probably on which existentialist you aim, but in my understanding existentialism is all about our attitude towards life in the face of seemingly meaninglessness. This is not necessarily a human trait, but more a product of our capacity to reason. Right? So if lets say a dolphin understands he is thrown in the world he would probably also think his life is absurd and has to deal with that.
The reason I ask is because i think existentialism is opens a door for post humanism, but im not sure yet..
Hey benjamin! Great response. My immediate referral is that Sartre wrote "existentialism is a humanism"... the general thought is that there's no "real" meaning in the universe except for what human subjects create. If you accept the posthuman argument, meaning is created all the time, often, everywhere, but modernist humans have restricted its definition to only what matters to us now, when our historicist definition of meaning is as arbitrary as any other
7:49-8:28 The idea of carving yourself out of the world is clinged to as a way forward but comes with a host of problems.
"The most important nonfiction versions of self is the desired reputation."
- Roy F. Baumeister, The Self Explained (2021)
"An ethics in which you realize your individual nature differs from any idea of self-creation. The self with which humans identify is a construction of society and memory. Forming an image of themselves in infancy and childhood, they seek happiness by preserving and strengthening that self-image. But the image they have of themselves is not the reality of their bodies or their lives, and chasing after it can lead not to fulfilment but to self-frustration."
- John N. Gray, Feline Philosophy (2020)
Could also use a dose of physics:
“he forgets that he is himself the world”
- Georges Bataille, Theory of Religion (1948)
A point of discussion, i'd say that the first posthumanist was Max Stirner. :)
You're not the first to say so, but I havent read him, so I have some homework to do. Thanks!
Stirner was absolutely not a posthumanist lmao
This reliance on “our history of technics” and the focus on our material world sounds exactly like something Marx would say.
You really have a point, but it is also important to note that one of the debates of the whole post-humanism/post-humanities mess is that the dialectical nature of historical progression; since it is conceived to be transcendent. For post-humanities, there is no inherent engine, -ie. total liberation of human kind or class struggle as the primary motor of history- but theories borrowing conepts from cybernetics, mathematical models of complexity etc. to disregard the concept of "class". Further reading may include "neo-materialism", who actually includes same post humanists. :)
Is this art and rationality thing connects with anti-oedipus's concepts?
I love you, greetings from Colombia.
I will have to confess that my initial reaction was OH HAYUHL NAW, but once I got over the hipster persona there was actually a lot of good information and discussion here. Subscribed. :)
Hipsters were people too
I have like no time to write a Lit paper on zombies as post humans and now I've disappeared
Great video but one nit-picky point: Stiegler's project goes much further than TT1 and the undecidable imbrication of the "who" and "what", largely because he places Derridean differance at the core of this ambiguity (as opposed to the clear-cut humanism of other media scholars like McLuhan). Stiegler has relied in more recent work on the concept of the "non-inhuman", where the double-negative tries to make clear that prematurely deciding the question of the human as "post" or "trans" shirks the burden of thinking itself.
Lol thanks, it's worth noting, but you gotta know I'm just going post up behind the easy defence: "this is a RUclips video and isn't exhaustive"
@@PlasticPills Totally understand - keep it up!
Trying to explain why I didn’t text back or haven’t given equal effort towards this potential relationship with plastic pills links like
Yep. Ok this was really well done and would take a long time to put together. Well done crew. I’ve been reading anti oepidus today in bafflement, mostly, but this helped a couple of ideas for me. Also, as a designer, art teacher I have become aware, independently, of the texts mentioned, and taught, how technology has driven human endeavours, both regarding tools, meaning these lines in ink on paper indicate symbols which indicate signs which indicate human thought, and yet in time become surrogates for human thought. Also, in art, technologies, such as quarrying new stone or developing tube paint influence methods, also influence content. As the French impressionists painted plein air because of the tube paint and Monet painted “blurry” for a number of reasons also including the experience, the first time in the history of the human, to travel so fast as on a train and therefore see in a observable way movement at that speed. Technology creating human, human inventing technology. All is interrelated and inseparable. The deluezian machines of human or machine, who has hierarchy? It’s all a shifting territories and we create our selves in the moment, in relationship with the multiplicities and across the territories through the flows, meaning both regarding and disregarding context, and in a subjective phenomenological sense - meaning, own your space and produce. ....that’s a beginning.
loved it man, keep making these vids
Okay but what about Max Stirner.
👍👍👍
thanks for the video, it's so informative but the background music was so destructive!
Is Stiegler's conception of human any different from Marx's idea that human is an objective being, in the sense that its essence belongs outside of it, in the realm of objects? I think he just expanded on this idea he found in 44 Manuscripts
This guy makes phil actually fun to watch
you should do a parallel of these thinkers and buddhism
Many thanks to the video! But a little suggestion - the music made me quite difficult to focus on the words themselves.
Spinoza? Oh give me a break Deleuze, Giordano Bruno was the real first posthumanist.
As a Buddhist, there's a lot here that coincides with Buddhism, in particular the impermanence of things and the lack of a persistent self (that special-ness). Then again, as I Buddhist I do not reach the same conclusions to the ideas presented as such. But it is fruit for some very interesting thinking. It is always fascinating to see points of tangency in Western and Eastern philosophies and then where they diverge again after meeting.
Okay i have been reading neurology and its philosophy in a phenomenological context. I found you are right. What i can't understand is how we can decide suicide? Any thoughts or popular work about it that could be translated to Turkish?
Could you make a whole episode on what you say about carving oneself out of the world? Especially what you say about first having essence under a particular stage is interesting - do you mean that we as a species have this essence? Or that we in our lives are able to create one?
How exactly would this be a bad thing, if we refrain from using essence as a form of identity - thus making it imovable?
Was doing my posthumanism research & chanced upon this channel. Bro the logo of the pill looks just like your face, in terms of color. It is a complement.
Is this a Patria Pepe Jacket your wearing?! Looks cool!
I see pics of Nietzsche, Derrida, & Beckett and I'm like: they had great hair.
Bergson is actually respectable
You forgot Sartre; "Existence precedes essence."
I feel like current (secular) Humanism has already has incorporated many of these things.
I mean, I think if you asked a humanist if they think humans are special, they'd say no.
The term "Humanism" might not make as much sense now, sort of meaning secular morality and living, but I guess the point is that things like morality have to based on human conclusions, not a gods. Not that humans are special or that animal suffering doesn't matter.
By analogy, would postmodernism be an undercurrent of modernism that doesn't buy into the hype?
exactly. postmodernism is modernism taken to its logical end. it looks at modernism and 'deconstructs' the framework upon which modernism is built. Just the same as post-structuralism does to structuralism. Look at these philosophical ideas as reactions/counter-arguments/conclusions to the original ideas.
This is my latest parasocial relationship and I am in paralove. Love the way you do a _pace_. Love your use of emoji. And of course, love your distillation of all of that prose. Thank you for this.
So you're cheating on your other parasocials? I am a parasocial monogamist so I hope you're ready to settle down.
@@PlasticPills So entitled. But ok, anything for you
@@PlasticPills Just to run contra to that poster, I don't think many people find the cow noises helpful.
@@watcher8582 I did.
ignores stirner entirely
wait fuck spinoza was before
Loved this video, explains so much in such a short time
Like Mana, cars, lights, books, pictures were given to us by Stiegler (the new God). He wrote a law of commandments.
How do you get memories outside of your lifespan…through the internet…the gap of the tool and the world becomes implicit to the view.
Subtitle in spanish please, my English are so bad
SORRY --SO MUCH EDITED OUT - DELETED - FOR THE BEST I SUPPOSE.
Umm For Posthumanism, the emergence of data maps and us being predictable by models does not mean we're moving away from human exceptionalism. In fact, it goes to show how the far reaches of our insatiable striving for self-mastery and domination ended up separating us further and further away from anything not human [and even not some humans!], thereby maintaining or rather, reinforcing human exceptionalism.
You might be interested in inhumanism theory as described by Reza Negatistani. The name is misleading, as it's not about being anti-human, but neither is it stereotypically pro-human. Rather, it's complex ambivalent rethinking of the concept of the "human", where reason is an outside irrational -- yes, reason as an irrational natural forced -- that works on and through us constantly deconstructing and reconstructing what it means to be human. Thus, there is no essential essence that characterizes humanity, but that humanity is identified with this force of perpetual development and change.