An unexpected philosophy
03
Jul
We have already spoken of a post on the issue of non-transparency raised by
Habermas in an article, and we also briefly quoted the author of the Society of Transparency, Byung-Chul Ham, but now upon receiving the book and opening it I come across an unexpected philosophy, Profound though not finished as any postmodern, but Heideggerian and humanist discourse.
He sees the question of transparency from a new angle, typical of his Eastern culture, reveals the issue with a capital phrase: “I refer to transparency only to corruption and freedom of information are unaware of its size” (Han, 2017, p. 12).
He reveals it as violent on the following page: “The coercion of transparency levels man himself until he becomes a functional turning point in a system. Such is the violence of transparency. “(Page 13)
It reveals immediately why we are victims of this new anathema of modernity: “spontaneity, what is the record of a happening and freedom, traces that constitute life in general, do not carry anything transparent” (idem), and quoting von Humboldt Explains: “… and it would be to attempt against the historical truth of its origin and its transformations to want to banish from it the possibility of these inexplicable phenomena” (Humbold apud Han, page 13).
It does not fail to point out ways, which we have already drawn here for various occasions of otherness, but presents it in a new dress, opposing the society of transparency that does not “allow information or vision gaps”, explains that in the German language “gap” ( Lücke) and “luck” (Glück), citing R. Sennet in his “Respect in a World of Inequality”.
He makes a new phrase suddenly strong: “Love without a gap in vision is pornography,” theme that will return and theme from another book of his “The agony of eros”, another sure theme of this time.
But it does not give this a shallow explanation, affirms that this “positive society” affirming that this society is neither hermeneutic nor dialectical, but “a society that does not admit any negative feeling” (page 16), does not do this But it is my reflection that this is the Platonic function of contemporary idealism.
He affirms that this positive society is not the cause, “but the consequence of an end of the theory (the author’s emphasis), in the authentic sense, which is closer. The theory cannot simply be replaced by positive science “(page 17), in clear reference to the appeals of practicality of contemporary pragmatics.
It then appears in this plan, while pointing out the path that politics draws in this ideal-positive perspective, “Politics is strategic action (again the author’s emphasis). And for this reason, there is a secret sphere of its own. Full transparency paralyzes it “(page 18).
I stop here the analysis, because it is not possible in this space to point out the new paths that the author trails, but only at the beginning of the first chapter can we see the breadth of his analysis.
