Dwelling in the Apocalypse: Capitalist Modernity, Antimodernism, Zombies

The Heideggerian question posed here as “what does it mean to dwell in a global age” leaves open, invites even, the possibility of committing two conceptual mistakes from which, depending on the theoretical universe we inhabit, two separate sets of problems arise.       On the one hand, if the adver...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Hrvoje Tutek
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: University Library System, University of Pittsburgh 2017-09-01
Series:Journal of French and Francophone Philosophy
Online Access:http://jffp.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/jffp/article/view/812
_version_ 1811316028624338944
author Hrvoje Tutek
author_facet Hrvoje Tutek
author_sort Hrvoje Tutek
collection DOAJ
description The Heideggerian question posed here as “what does it mean to dwell in a global age” leaves open, invites even, the possibility of committing two conceptual mistakes from which, depending on the theoretical universe we inhabit, two separate sets of problems arise.       On the one hand, if the adverbial “in a global age” is taken to denote a radical historical caesura between “our age” and the age in which the concept was first deployed, one has to prove that the caesura is indeed not only historically operative but legitimate on an ontological level. This would, however, be a futile attempt: there hardly exists an essential, qualitative difference between the ontological regime of “our global age” and the one sketched in Heidegger's 1954 essay “Building Dwelling Thinking.” We have not been blessed by any epochal turns, despite important switches – to move for a second to a different register—in regimes of accumulation. Thus, it may be concluded, the ontological question about the state of “dwelling in a precarious age” has already been posed and answered by Heidegger himself—from an ontological perspective, he is our contemporary. And of course, to such question there can in fact be only one answer: it is the same “metaphysics” that has precluded the possibility of “dwelling” (initiated a “denial of dwelling” as it is put here) throughout modernity that gave rise to our age as global. But then to avoid the mistake sketched out above and the repetition of an already accomplished analysis, the question as it is posed for us here (“what does it mean to dwell in a global age”) should be taken as a politicization of the original concept, foreign to a puritanically ontological Heideggerian diagnostics, although building on its foundations: what is to be done historically at this moment to enter “dwelling”?
first_indexed 2024-04-13T11:41:40Z
format Article
id doaj.art-5855eb023e904acaa66ab6581764064d
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2155-1162
language English
last_indexed 2024-04-13T11:41:40Z
publishDate 2017-09-01
publisher University Library System, University of Pittsburgh
record_format Article
series Journal of French and Francophone Philosophy
spelling doaj.art-5855eb023e904acaa66ab6581764064d2022-12-22T02:48:18ZengUniversity Library System, University of PittsburghJournal of French and Francophone Philosophy2155-11622017-09-01251274810.5195/jffp.2017.812643Dwelling in the Apocalypse: Capitalist Modernity, Antimodernism, ZombiesHrvoje Tutek0University of ZagrebThe Heideggerian question posed here as “what does it mean to dwell in a global age” leaves open, invites even, the possibility of committing two conceptual mistakes from which, depending on the theoretical universe we inhabit, two separate sets of problems arise.       On the one hand, if the adverbial “in a global age” is taken to denote a radical historical caesura between “our age” and the age in which the concept was first deployed, one has to prove that the caesura is indeed not only historically operative but legitimate on an ontological level. This would, however, be a futile attempt: there hardly exists an essential, qualitative difference between the ontological regime of “our global age” and the one sketched in Heidegger's 1954 essay “Building Dwelling Thinking.” We have not been blessed by any epochal turns, despite important switches – to move for a second to a different register—in regimes of accumulation. Thus, it may be concluded, the ontological question about the state of “dwelling in a precarious age” has already been posed and answered by Heidegger himself—from an ontological perspective, he is our contemporary. And of course, to such question there can in fact be only one answer: it is the same “metaphysics” that has precluded the possibility of “dwelling” (initiated a “denial of dwelling” as it is put here) throughout modernity that gave rise to our age as global. But then to avoid the mistake sketched out above and the repetition of an already accomplished analysis, the question as it is posed for us here (“what does it mean to dwell in a global age”) should be taken as a politicization of the original concept, foreign to a puritanically ontological Heideggerian diagnostics, although building on its foundations: what is to be done historically at this moment to enter “dwelling”?http://jffp.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/jffp/article/view/812
spellingShingle Hrvoje Tutek
Dwelling in the Apocalypse: Capitalist Modernity, Antimodernism, Zombies
Journal of French and Francophone Philosophy
title Dwelling in the Apocalypse: Capitalist Modernity, Antimodernism, Zombies
title_full Dwelling in the Apocalypse: Capitalist Modernity, Antimodernism, Zombies
title_fullStr Dwelling in the Apocalypse: Capitalist Modernity, Antimodernism, Zombies
title_full_unstemmed Dwelling in the Apocalypse: Capitalist Modernity, Antimodernism, Zombies
title_short Dwelling in the Apocalypse: Capitalist Modernity, Antimodernism, Zombies
title_sort dwelling in the apocalypse capitalist modernity antimodernism zombies
url http://jffp.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/jffp/article/view/812
work_keys_str_mv AT hrvojetutek dwellingintheapocalypsecapitalistmodernityantimodernismzombies