Evil is not confined to war or to circumstances in which people are acting under extreme duress. Today it more frequently reveals itself in the everyday insensitivity to the suffering of others, in the inability or refusal to understand them and in the casual turning away of one's ethical gaze. Evil and moral blindness lurk in what we take as normality and in the triviality and banality of everyday life, and not just in the abnormal and exceptional cases. The distinctive kind of moral blindness that characterizes our societies is brilliantly analysed by Zygmunt Bauman and Leonidas Donskis through the concept of adiaphora: the placing of certain acts or categories of human beings outside of the universe of moral obligations and evaluations. Adiaphora implies an attitude of indifference to what is happening in the world -- a moral numbness. In a life where rhythms are dictated by ratings wars and box-office returns, where people are preoccupied with the latest gadgets and forms of gossip, in our 'hurried life' where attention rarely has time to settle on any issue of importance, we are at serious risk of losing our sensitivity to the plight of the other. Only celebrities or media stars can expect to be noticed in a society stuffed with sensational, valueless information. This probing inquiry into the fate of our moral sensibilities will be of great interest to anyone concerned with the most profound changes that are silently shaping the lives of everyone in our contemporary liquid-modern world.
1 有用 Ammonoid 2021-10-25 15:49:48
两种阅读鲍曼的方法:(a)按照Michael Jacobsen概括的“the ambiguity of ambivalence”把握边缘人(例如犹太人、难民和穷人)被依从工具理性逻辑的技术中介所生成而导致的本书终于明确点出的“from the devil to frighteningly normal and sane people”问题;(b)考虑大屠杀&立法者诠释者主题与“流动现代性”之间的断... 两种阅读鲍曼的方法:(a)按照Michael Jacobsen概括的“the ambiguity of ambivalence”把握边缘人(例如犹太人、难民和穷人)被依从工具理性逻辑的技术中介所生成而导致的本书终于明确点出的“from the devil to frighteningly normal and sane people”问题;(b)考虑大屠杀&立法者诠释者主题与“流动现代性”之间的断裂,虽然Jacobsen用游牧者隐喻把这些概念整合起来,但鲍曼的“游牧者”概念本身有巨大的矛盾(例如《流动的现代性》Ch3&Ch5的对比)。这个矛盾和断裂体现在新兴技术的冲击对鲍曼视野中福柯与列维纳斯思想图景里某些模糊的怀疑。本书就体现了鲍曼如何通过躲避这些怀疑而走上了一种折衷(妥协)的道德社会学。 (展开)
1 有用 Ammonoid 2021-10-25 15:49:48
两种阅读鲍曼的方法:(a)按照Michael Jacobsen概括的“the ambiguity of ambivalence”把握边缘人(例如犹太人、难民和穷人)被依从工具理性逻辑的技术中介所生成而导致的本书终于明确点出的“from the devil to frighteningly normal and sane people”问题;(b)考虑大屠杀&立法者诠释者主题与“流动现代性”之间的断... 两种阅读鲍曼的方法:(a)按照Michael Jacobsen概括的“the ambiguity of ambivalence”把握边缘人(例如犹太人、难民和穷人)被依从工具理性逻辑的技术中介所生成而导致的本书终于明确点出的“from the devil to frighteningly normal and sane people”问题;(b)考虑大屠杀&立法者诠释者主题与“流动现代性”之间的断裂,虽然Jacobsen用游牧者隐喻把这些概念整合起来,但鲍曼的“游牧者”概念本身有巨大的矛盾(例如《流动的现代性》Ch3&Ch5的对比)。这个矛盾和断裂体现在新兴技术的冲击对鲍曼视野中福柯与列维纳斯思想图景里某些模糊的怀疑。本书就体现了鲍曼如何通过躲避这些怀疑而走上了一种折衷(妥协)的道德社会学。 (展开)