Chris, it would have been helpful if you provided a definition of what Latour meant by "external nature" which I take to mean discoverable physical reality of which humans are a part.
I asked ChatGPT:
Bruno Latour, a French philosopher, sociologist, and anthropologist, is known for his work in the fields of science and technology studies (STS) and his influential ideas on the relationship between humans and the natural world. Latour's perspective on the concept of "external nature" is deeply intertwined with his broader philosophical and sociological framework, which challenges traditional distinctions between nature and society. His work often blurs the boundaries between what is considered natural and what is considered social or human-made.
Latour argues that the traditional notion of "external nature" as something separate from human society is a misleading and problematic concept. He contends that humans are not passive observers of an external, pre-existing natural world but active participants in shaping and constructing what we understand as nature. In his view, nature is not something "out there" that is independent of human influence but is, instead, a product of human interactions, beliefs, and practices.
Latour's perspective is often associated with his concept of "hybridity" or "hybrid collectives." He suggests that humans and non-human entities (such as technology, animals, and natural elements) are interwoven in complex networks or collectives. These networks include both human and non-human actors, and they shape our understanding of reality.
In essence, Latour challenges the idea that there is a clear and distinct boundary between the natural world and human society. He argues that we should approach the study of nature and society as intertwined and co-constitutive, rather than as separate realms. This perspective has had a significant impact on fields such as environmental studies, sociology, and anthropology, as it encourages a more holistic and relational approach to understanding the complex interactions between humans and the environment.
Although I enjoy the 3-minute reflection (750 word) form of Stranger Worlds, one of the costs of the format is that there is little room for definition of terms. To some extent, I did feel that what was meant by 'external nature' was something you could derive from what was written here - but I do appreciate the shortfalls created by such assumptions. In brief, Latour suggests that we went along for quite some time thinking about nature 'out there' and culture 'here'. This split between nature and society puts nature 'out there', and that is 'external nature' - it is 'external' because we didn't recognise the connectivity between nature and culture, nor the costs of dividing our understanding in this way.
Your version "discoverable physical reality of which humans are a part" is pretty close to the mark. It only misses this idea that human society is also tacitly NOT a part of nature in the standard compromise of 'one nature' and 'multiculturalism'. The same can be felt in talk of 'humans damaging nature' - we are to some extent excluded from 'nature', hence it is 'external' to us (at least in this old metaphysical vision - which still, to be frank, holds quite some sway upon us). Latour argues, both in Politics of Nature and elsewhere, that we have distorted our understanding of both 'nature' and ourselves by splitting reality in this way.
I forgot you were using a 3-minute form and I will keep that in mind.
Speaking of which, I wonder to what extent these various philosophers understood the physics of the brain and how the brain's neural network forms its model of "external nature" and from which all these expression are emitted?
Latour was extremely science literate (and last week's philosopher, Isabelle Stengers, was originally a chemist). Although I think in the context of this particular piece, the substrate for our cognitive models are rather tangential even if, inevitably, the criticism about our tendency to deal in unwarranted absolutes is ultimately a product of the very neural architecture you draw attention to!
Chris, it would have been helpful if you provided a definition of what Latour meant by "external nature" which I take to mean discoverable physical reality of which humans are a part.
I asked ChatGPT:
Bruno Latour, a French philosopher, sociologist, and anthropologist, is known for his work in the fields of science and technology studies (STS) and his influential ideas on the relationship between humans and the natural world. Latour's perspective on the concept of "external nature" is deeply intertwined with his broader philosophical and sociological framework, which challenges traditional distinctions between nature and society. His work often blurs the boundaries between what is considered natural and what is considered social or human-made.
Latour argues that the traditional notion of "external nature" as something separate from human society is a misleading and problematic concept. He contends that humans are not passive observers of an external, pre-existing natural world but active participants in shaping and constructing what we understand as nature. In his view, nature is not something "out there" that is independent of human influence but is, instead, a product of human interactions, beliefs, and practices.
Latour's perspective is often associated with his concept of "hybridity" or "hybrid collectives." He suggests that humans and non-human entities (such as technology, animals, and natural elements) are interwoven in complex networks or collectives. These networks include both human and non-human actors, and they shape our understanding of reality.
In essence, Latour challenges the idea that there is a clear and distinct boundary between the natural world and human society. He argues that we should approach the study of nature and society as intertwined and co-constitutive, rather than as separate realms. This perspective has had a significant impact on fields such as environmental studies, sociology, and anthropology, as it encourages a more holistic and relational approach to understanding the complex interactions between humans and the environment.
Hi Bob,
Although I enjoy the 3-minute reflection (750 word) form of Stranger Worlds, one of the costs of the format is that there is little room for definition of terms. To some extent, I did feel that what was meant by 'external nature' was something you could derive from what was written here - but I do appreciate the shortfalls created by such assumptions. In brief, Latour suggests that we went along for quite some time thinking about nature 'out there' and culture 'here'. This split between nature and society puts nature 'out there', and that is 'external nature' - it is 'external' because we didn't recognise the connectivity between nature and culture, nor the costs of dividing our understanding in this way.
Your version "discoverable physical reality of which humans are a part" is pretty close to the mark. It only misses this idea that human society is also tacitly NOT a part of nature in the standard compromise of 'one nature' and 'multiculturalism'. The same can be felt in talk of 'humans damaging nature' - we are to some extent excluded from 'nature', hence it is 'external' to us (at least in this old metaphysical vision - which still, to be frank, holds quite some sway upon us). Latour argues, both in Politics of Nature and elsewhere, that we have distorted our understanding of both 'nature' and ourselves by splitting reality in this way.
Hope these remarks are helpful!
Chris.
I forgot you were using a 3-minute form and I will keep that in mind.
Speaking of which, I wonder to what extent these various philosophers understood the physics of the brain and how the brain's neural network forms its model of "external nature" and from which all these expression are emitted?
Latour was extremely science literate (and last week's philosopher, Isabelle Stengers, was originally a chemist). Although I think in the context of this particular piece, the substrate for our cognitive models are rather tangential even if, inevitably, the criticism about our tendency to deal in unwarranted absolutes is ultimately a product of the very neural architecture you draw attention to!