articles |
21.
|
Environmental Philosophy:
Volume >
15 >
Issue: 1
Steven Vogel
Doing without Nature:
On Interpretation and Practice
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
Sorry that he is no longer here to read it, I consider in this paper Scott Cameron’s discussion of my views questioning the value of the concept of “nature” for environmental philosophy. Scott had suggested, based on arguments from hermeneutics, that although we never have access to a nature independent of our interpretations of it, still the existence of such a nature is necessarily presupposed by all such interpretations. I claim in response that if we replace the (idealist) notion of interpretation by the (materialist) one of practice, that presupposition is no longer necessary: the independence required is built into the notion of practice itself, and need not be seen as a characteristic of the world “outside” of us.
|
|
|
22.
|
Environmental Philosophy:
Volume >
15 >
Issue: 1
Sean J. McGrath
In Defense of the Human Difference
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
Against the prevalent trend in eco-criticism which is to deny the human difference, I summon a set of untimely tropes from metaphysics in the interest of advancing an ecological humanism: the difference in kind between human consciousness and animal sensibility; the uniquely human capacity for moral discernment; and the human being’s peculiar freedom from the material conditions of existence. While I agree with eco-critics who argue that anthropocenic nature is not only finite, but sick: sickened by our abuse and neglect, I disagree that this abuse is simply a result of insisting on the human difference (“anthropocentrism”), nor is species egalitarianism the way forward. On the contrary, the eco-collapse, referred to as the sixth great extinction event, is the consequence of a general disavowal of the human’s special call to take responsibility for the relation between the human and the non-human, and only a re-awakening of this responsibility can restore health to anthropocenic nature. The non-human cannot effect this restoration, for that is not its vocation. A difference in vocation is not necessarily a difference in moral worth, and so the human difference does not justify denying the “intrinsic value” of the non-human. Humanity is uniquely responsible both for the mess we are in and for cleaning it up.
|
|
|
book reviews |
23.
|
Environmental Philosophy:
Volume >
15 >
Issue: 1
Abigail Klassen
Eric T. Freyfogle. A Good That Transcends: How US Culture Undermines Environmental Reform
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
24.
|
Environmental Philosophy:
Volume >
15 >
Issue: 1
Dan Liu
Wayne Gabardi. The Next Social Contract: Animals, the Anthropocene, and Biopolitics
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
25.
|
Environmental Philosophy:
Volume >
15 >
Issue: 1
Sam Mickey
Gerard Kuperus. Ecopolitical Homelessness: Defining Place in an Unsettled World
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
26.
|
Environmental Philosophy:
Volume >
15 >
Issue: 1
Sarah-Louise Ruder
Clive Hamilton. Defiant Earth: The Fate of Humans in the Anthropocene
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|
27.
|
Environmental Philosophy:
Volume >
15 >
Issue: 1
Clint Wilson III
Raj Patel and Jason W. Moore. A History of the World in Seven Cheap Things: A Guide to Capitalism, Nature, and the Future of the Planet
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
|
|
|