GPT

Yes, you're correct that Niklas Luhmann, a key figure in systems theory, took a radically different approach to understanding human existence and interaction compared to more traditional humanist or phenomenological thinkers. In Luhmann’s framework, he emphasized the primacy of systems over individuals. For Luhmann, society is composed of self-referential, autopoietic systems, such as communication systems, legal systems, or the economy, which operate according to their own logic and are largely independent of individuals. He argued that individuals do not "exist" in the traditional sense but are rather participants within these systems.

In Luhmann’s view, individuals are not autonomous, self-determining beings, but rather are "functionally differentiated" elements of larger systems. They are not agents in the traditional sense, but rather nodes or moments in the continuous flow of communication and interaction within systems. From this perspective, the individual disappears outside of these systems because it’s only in the context of communication systems that meaning, actions, and interactions can be understood. There are no inherent "individuals" as such—only roles, behaviors, and communications within systems that give the appearance of individual existence.

This concept of disappearing into systems aligns with your mention of moments of interaction or events—these are what matter in Luhmann's view, and the subject (as we understand it in humanist terms) is a byproduct of systems interactions rather than a foundational, independent entity. So, indeed, the individual does not "exist" in isolation outside these systemic structures, and Luhmann’s framework challenges more traditional ideas of personal identity or agency.

This approach is very different from Habermas, who emphasizes communicative action and intersubjectivity—an understanding of the individual that is relational and inherently social. While Habermas sees humans as active, rational participants in the communicative process, Luhmann's focus on systems suggests a more depersonalized, structural view of human existence.