What is a technical object? At the beginning of Western philosophy, Aristotle contrasted beings formed by nature, which had within themselves a beginning of movement and rest, and man-made objects, which did not have the source of their own production within themselves. This book, the first of three volumes, revises the Aristotelian argument and develops an innovative assessmen...
What is a technical object? At the beginning of Western philosophy, Aristotle contrasted beings formed by nature, which had within themselves a beginning of movement and rest, and man-made objects, which did not have the source of their own production within themselves. This book, the first of three volumes, revises the Aristotelian argument and develops an innovative assessment whereby the technical object can be seen as having an essential, distinct temporality and dynamics of its own. The Aristotelian concept persisted, in one form or another, until Marx, who conceived of the possibility of an evolution of technics. Lodged between mechanics and biology, a technical entity became a complex of heterogeneous forces. In a parallel development, while industrialization was in the process of overthrowing the contemporary order of knowledge as well as contemporary social organization, technology was acquiring a new place in philosophical questioning. Philosophy was for the first time faced with a world in which technical expansion was so widespread that science was becoming more and more subject to the field of instrumentality, with its ends determined by the imperatives of economic struggle or war, and with its epistemic status changing accordingly. The power that emerged from this new relation was unleashed in the course of the two world wars. Working his way through the history of the Aristotelian assessment of technics, the author engages the ideas of a wide range of thinkers--Rousseau, Husserl, and Heidegger, the paleo-ontologist Leroi-Gourhan, the anthropologists Vernant and Detienne, the sociologists Weber and Habermas, and the systems analysts Maturana and Varela.
参考 法语原文本为 Fayard.Stiegler, B. (2018). La technique et le temps : 1. La Faute d Épiméthée. 2. La Désorientation 3. Le Temps du cinéma et la question du mal-être. Fayard 括号内前为中文页码 后为法文原页码 (a, b) 灰色括号引用段内，首排为法语原文...
(展开)
Бu!u
译林出版社2000版
实践与文本
译林出版社2012版
蟾宫
译林出版社2000版
王凿
译林出版社2000版
5 有用 Amushi 2016-09-02 23:41:50
Seriously, Stiegler might very well be a con artist.
3 有用 花也怜侬 2021-12-11 23:48:40
这本书我是中文、英文、法文对照读的，法文原文当然不必说，英文翻译还是不错的，尽管有个别地方会漏译，但不常见；但中译本，读起来简直痛苦，第一个是译者经常意译，这种意译有时符合原意还好，有时简直曲解甚至离题万里；第二个，斯蒂格勒经常会用一些古希腊语还有一些专有名词，比如笛卡尔的普遍科学等等，这些地方译者基本没怎么标注出来，导致中文读起来一头雾水，翻原文才知道本意；还有一些错译就不说了。总之推荐看英译本... 这本书我是中文、英文、法文对照读的，法文原文当然不必说，英文翻译还是不错的，尽管有个别地方会漏译，但不常见；但中译本，读起来简直痛苦，第一个是译者经常意译，这种意译有时符合原意还好，有时简直曲解甚至离题万里；第二个，斯蒂格勒经常会用一些古希腊语还有一些专有名词，比如笛卡尔的普遍科学等等，这些地方译者基本没怎么标注出来，导致中文读起来一头雾水，翻原文才知道本意；还有一些错译就不说了。总之推荐看英译本，懂法语看法文最好。这本基本是斯蒂格勒前期的核心思想和之后他的技术批判的基础，对90年代后人类主义的兴起至关重要。当然，这本书读起来也没那么容易。可能斯蒂格勒跟他老师德里达学的，一种套娃式加东拉西扯式写法，节与节之间嵌套式跳跃，通过解构相关理论家的论述来阐发观点，可以看作一个德里达延异的物质化版本 (展开)
1 有用 丁萌 2015-01-02 23:11:37
读卢梭的部分很精彩，后面谈海德格的…你说是啥就是啥吧
0 有用 FoundObject 2020-02-20 06:54:27
二刷了。Enthnicity 和 Technicity的讨论感觉没有完就结束了。当然这也不是Stiegler的重点。个人认为不是Enthnicity完结了，而是新的Enthnicity出现了。
0 有用 chaosmori 2022-10-10 01:55:59 美国
Ch1 pg1-81
0 有用 张之洞心锁爱📿 2024-02-02 22:53:48 上海
作者很善于用矫饰复杂的语言谈问题，让人得拐几个弯去理解他说的话……中译本有些地方确实翻译得有点木，不过感觉也没办法……
0 有用 souv 2023-07-29 01:01:49 江苏
补
0 有用 chaosmori 2022-10-10 01:55:59 美国
Ch1 pg1-81
3 有用 花也怜侬 2021-12-11 23:48:40
这本书我是中文、英文、法文对照读的，法文原文当然不必说，英文翻译还是不错的，尽管有个别地方会漏译，但不常见；但中译本，读起来简直痛苦，第一个是译者经常意译，这种意译有时符合原意还好，有时简直曲解甚至离题万里；第二个，斯蒂格勒经常会用一些古希腊语还有一些专有名词，比如笛卡尔的普遍科学等等，这些地方译者基本没怎么标注出来，导致中文读起来一头雾水，翻原文才知道本意；还有一些错译就不说了。总之推荐看英译本... 这本书我是中文、英文、法文对照读的，法文原文当然不必说，英文翻译还是不错的，尽管有个别地方会漏译，但不常见；但中译本，读起来简直痛苦，第一个是译者经常意译，这种意译有时符合原意还好，有时简直曲解甚至离题万里；第二个，斯蒂格勒经常会用一些古希腊语还有一些专有名词，比如笛卡尔的普遍科学等等，这些地方译者基本没怎么标注出来，导致中文读起来一头雾水，翻原文才知道本意；还有一些错译就不说了。总之推荐看英译本，懂法语看法文最好。这本基本是斯蒂格勒前期的核心思想和之后他的技术批判的基础，对90年代后人类主义的兴起至关重要。当然，这本书读起来也没那么容易。可能斯蒂格勒跟他老师德里达学的，一种套娃式加东拉西扯式写法，节与节之间嵌套式跳跃，通过解构相关理论家的论述来阐发观点，可以看作一个德里达延异的物质化版本 (展开)
0 有用 Emunah__ 2021-06-24 12:01:41
Stiegler delivers great reading of Heidegger because he doesn't care about what Heidegger really wants to say - 10/10 just on the vibe, no note