@article{ART003076587},
author={Sungik Kim},
title={Can Science be Human?: Nonhuman Brain Science and Slavoj Žižek’s Inhuman Reading of the Subject of Science},
journal={탈경계인문학Trans-Humanities},
issn={2092-6081},
year={2024},
volume={17},
number={1},
pages={40-72},
doi={10.22901/trans.2024.17.1.40}
TY - JOUR
AU - Sungik Kim
TI - Can Science be Human?: Nonhuman Brain Science and Slavoj Žižek’s Inhuman Reading of the Subject of Science
JO - 탈경계인문학Trans-Humanities
PY - 2024
VL - 17
IS - 1
PB - Ewha Institute for the Humanities: EIH
SP - 40
EP - 72
SN - 2092-6081
AB - This essay examines ways in which science becomes ehtical in relation to the human. The first is found in Edward Wilson’s concept of consilience, the case in which man as the subject of science aims to achieve the unity of man and nature by way of the rational human understanding of nature. The second is found in today’s brain science which tries to reduce human consciousness to matter, thereby aiming to achieve the nonhuman unity of the human and nature within the realm of the primary nature. The third is found in Slavoj Žižek’s reading of the Cartesian subject of science as a self-destructive instance of death drive which arises from within the scientific logic. The third approach is the other side of the first approach, which pursues the unity of man and nature via Logos, in that it shows how the cogito turns out to be the subject of the unconscious. The third one also differs from the second one, whose nonhuman aspect comes from its purely immanent approach to matter, in that it emphasizes the inhuman side of the cogito by bringing forth the God of the Real from within Logos. The argument of this essay is that science become ethical, not simply when the human and science are reconciled in the name of Logos, but when the existential, which is lost with the advent of science, returns in the form of the inhuman, the God of the Real.
KW - science;the human;brain science;the inhuman;Žižek
DO - 10.22901/trans.2024.17.1.40
ER -
Sungik Kim. (2024). Can Science be Human?: Nonhuman Brain Science and Slavoj Žižek’s Inhuman Reading of the Subject of Science. 탈경계인문학Trans-Humanities, 17(1), 40-72.
Sungik Kim. 2024, "Can Science be Human?: Nonhuman Brain Science and Slavoj Žižek’s Inhuman Reading of the Subject of Science", 탈경계인문학Trans-Humanities, vol.17, no.1 pp.40-72. Available from: doi:10.22901/trans.2024.17.1.40
Sungik Kim "Can Science be Human?: Nonhuman Brain Science and Slavoj Žižek’s Inhuman Reading of the Subject of Science" 탈경계인문학Trans-Humanities 17.1 pp.40-72 (2024) : 40.
Sungik Kim. Can Science be Human?: Nonhuman Brain Science and Slavoj Žižek’s Inhuman Reading of the Subject of Science. 2024; 17(1), 40-72. Available from: doi:10.22901/trans.2024.17.1.40
Sungik Kim. "Can Science be Human?: Nonhuman Brain Science and Slavoj Žižek’s Inhuman Reading of the Subject of Science" 탈경계인문학Trans-Humanities 17, no.1 (2024) : 40-72.doi: 10.22901/trans.2024.17.1.40
Sungik Kim. Can Science be Human?: Nonhuman Brain Science and Slavoj Žižek’s Inhuman Reading of the Subject of Science. 탈경계인문학Trans-Humanities, 17(1), 40-72. doi: 10.22901/trans.2024.17.1.40
Sungik Kim. Can Science be Human?: Nonhuman Brain Science and Slavoj Žižek’s Inhuman Reading of the Subject of Science. 탈경계인문학Trans-Humanities. 2024; 17(1) 40-72. doi: 10.22901/trans.2024.17.1.40
Sungik Kim. Can Science be Human?: Nonhuman Brain Science and Slavoj Žižek’s Inhuman Reading of the Subject of Science. 2024; 17(1), 40-72. Available from: doi:10.22901/trans.2024.17.1.40
Sungik Kim. "Can Science be Human?: Nonhuman Brain Science and Slavoj Žižek’s Inhuman Reading of the Subject of Science" 탈경계인문학Trans-Humanities 17, no.1 (2024) : 40-72.doi: 10.22901/trans.2024.17.1.40
