Skip to main content

Normative Aesthetics of Vulnerability: The Art of Coping with Vulnerability

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Human Being @ Risk

Part of the book series: Philosophy of Engineering and Technology ((POET,volume 12))

  • 1469 Accesses

Abstract

Usually ethical and political-philosophical discussions do not involve a discussion of aesthetics. The latter is understood as being concerned with matters of beauty and taste, whereas ethics is seen as being about right and wrong or about good and virtue. Yet in this chapter, I will argue that when it comes to evaluating vulnerability transformations and indeed when it comes to thinking about what kinds of humans we want to be, such a sharp distinction between ethics and aesthetics is unfruitful for two main reasons. First, the aesthetics of vulnerability is normative in various ways and therefore deserves its place within a normative anthropology of vulnerability broadly conceived. Second, ethics itself, and therefore also the ethics of vulnerability, can be understood as a kind of art. Thus, it is not only the case that normative anthropology is ‘also’ about beauty; I will argue that it is also and crucially about coping with vulnerability as an art, understood in the sense of a craft or technè, which requires skills. There is not only an extrinsic but also an intrinsic connection between ethics and aesthetics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See http://www.stelarc.va.com.au/

  2. 2.

    See http://www.hansopdebeeck.com/

  3. 3.

    I refer to several senses to counter the contemporary obsession with sight and hearing alone. Levinas is very contemporary in that sense.

  4. 4.

    For example, Koert van Mensvoort has suggested that we could use other things (in our surroundings) as media, such as fountains, plants, or other elements of our environment. See http://www.koert.com/work/

  5. 5.

    Note also the connection with post-Aristotelian ‘good life’ ethics. For example, Epicureans and Stoics had their view on how we should cope with our vulnerability.

  6. 6.

    Kaplan has argued that in the West technology seems ‘fundamental for defining what humans are’ (Kaplan 2004), but we can generalise this to all cultures—which does not mean that there are no cultural differences with regard to this issue. As said, in the West, we seem to have chosen the ‘via negativa’, but it seems that there are other cultures, for example, in the East, which have different anthropologies.

References

  • Arendt, Hannah. 1958. The human condition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coeckelbergh, Mark. 2002. Liberation and passion. Alfter/Bonn: Denkmal Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coeckelbergh, Mark. 2010. Artificial companions: Empathy and vulnerability mirroring in Human-Robot relations. Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology 4(3). Available at http://www.bepress.com/selt/vol4/iss3/art2/

  • De Mul, Jos. 2006. De domesticatie van het noodlot: De wedergeboorte van de tragedie uit de geest van de technologie. Kampen: Klement.

    Google Scholar 

  • Descartes, René. 1637. Discours de la méthode. Trans. L.J. Lafleur. Discourse on method. In Discourse on method and meditations. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, Frédéric. 2004. Who is afraid of the humanoid? Investigating cultural differences in the acceptance of Robots. International Journal of Humanoid Robotics 1(3): 465–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kierkegaard, Søren. 1843. Either/or: A fragment of life, vol. 1. Trans. D.F. Swenson and L.M. Swenson. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1944.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurzweil, Ray. 2005. The singularity is near: When humans transcend biology. New York: Viking/Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mori, Masahiro. 1970. The uncanny valley. Trans. K.F. MacDorman and T. Minato. Energy 7(4):33–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sloterdijk, Peter. 2005. Im Weltinnenraum des Kapitals. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Coeckelbergh, M. (2013). Normative Aesthetics of Vulnerability: The Art of Coping with Vulnerability. In: Human Being @ Risk. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, vol 12. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6025-7_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics