Great question — and it gets right to the heart of Bernard Stiegler’s rethinking of perception, feeling, and technology.
So, to answer directly: for Stiegler, aisthēsis doesn’t mean sympathy in a one-to-one way, but the two are deeply connected in his philosophy, especially when it comes to how we feel, receive, and share experiences, particularly through technical mediation (like writing, film, or digital tech).
Let’s break it down:
💡 What is aisthēsis?
In classical Greek, aisthēsis means perception or sensory experience — how we feel or perceive the world through the senses. It’s the root of words like aesthetic and anesthetic.
Stiegler, drawing from Aristotle and especially Kant, uses aisthēsis to talk about the primordial layer of experience — what comes before thinking, what we perceive, feel, or sense.
💡 So where does sympathy come in?
Stiegler often references sympathy (from sympatheia, meaning "feeling with") as the capacity to be affected by others, and this is where aisthēsis becomes relational.
In works like Taking Care of Youth and the Generations and What Makes Life Worth Living, he argues that:
Technics condition our aisthēsis, and thus condition our ability to be in sympathy — in shared feeling — with others.
This means:
-
Aisthēsis is how we receive impressions.
-
Those impressions — memories, images, sounds — are increasingly technologically mediated (e.g., screens, social media, cinema).
-
When our aisthēsis is shaped by these systems, our ability to feel with others (sympathy) is either enabled or disrupted.
So, in Stiegler’s view, if technics short-circuit or *"proletarianize" our sensory lives (by automating them, making them passive), they damage our capacity for sympathy, care, and ethical relation.
✨ In short:
-
No, aisthēsis ≠ sympathy in a strict way.
-
But, aisthēsis is the ground of sympathy — it’s how we are open to feeling, and thus to feeling-with (sympathy).
-
For Stiegler, this has huge implications for politics, education, and ethics, especially in the digital age.
Want to go deeper into how he ties this to mnemotechnics or the idea of the pharmakon?
You said:
ChatGPT said:
Oof, love this question — you’re getting right into the ontological weeds, where Stiegler is at once Aristotelian, post-phenomenological, and weirdly ecological.
Let’s pull it apart gently:
🌿 Is aisthēsis a site?
Not a fixed site, but it takes place. Stiegler doesn’t locate aisthēsis in a spatial container or body-bound location (like the eye or ear alone), but he does see it as happening in a milieu — a technical, temporal, and relational context.
So, yes, aisthēsis always occurs in a milieu or "associated milieu", as Simondon would put it — a technical ecology where bodies, minds, and tools co-individuate.
🌀 Is it a relation?
Absolutely. For Stiegler, aisthēsis is never purely individual. It’s always a relation between:
-
a perceiver and the perceived
-
a body and a world
-
an individual and a shared memory (via technics)
In fact, perception is always already shaped by prosthetics — memory supports, language, film, screens, alphabets. You never feel or perceive in a vacuum. That means aisthēsis is constitutively relational and technical.
⚡ Is it an event?
Yes — and maybe this is the best word of the bunch.
Aisthēsis is an event of becoming affected. It’s a kind of inaugural encounter, not unlike what Deleuze might call an "encounter that forces thought."
But unlike purely subjective phenomenology, for Stiegler this event is structured by technics, care, and time — so it’s never just a “raw” event, but a technically conditioned one.
🌱 Is it an ecology?
Yes, and increasingly so in his later work. He doesn’t always use the word "ecology" early on, but he gets closer and closer to it — especially when he starts speaking about the ecology of attention, neganthropy, and the toxicity of contemporary media.
So we can say:
Aisthēsis is an ecological relation in a pharmacological system (where every tool/technique is both poison and remedy), shaping the relational field of perception.
⏳ Summary:
Aisthēsis, for Stiegler, is an evental, relational, and ecological process that occurs within a technically structured milieu. It is not a thing, not a place, but a situated becoming that opens the possibility of care, attention, and even sympathy — or their collapse.
Want to tie this to the crisis of aisthēsis in the age of algorithmic capture and “liquid affect”? Or go deeper into how this maps onto care and individuation?
You said:
ChatGPT said:
Ah, liquid affect — now we’re in terrain where Stiegler meets Bauman, Berardi, and maybe even Lauren Berlant’s ghost. The term isn’t from Stiegler directly, but it's very much in his orbit. Let’s stretch it out together.
💧What is "liquid affect"?
“Liquid affect” is not a canonical term, but it riffs off Zygmunt Bauman’s “liquid modernity” — the idea that in modernity’s late or terminal phase, solid structures (family, work, nation, identity) melt into flexibility, precarity, and rootlessness.
Applied to affect, we get something like:
Affect that is de-situated, mobile, fast, intensively felt but shallowly rooted — flitting across platforms, screens, timelines.
In this sense:
-
Liquid affect is volatile and contagious (think: viral anger, manufactured empathy, swipe-based grief).
-
It lacks durational weight — it doesn’t dwell, doesn’t congeal into long-term concern or responsibility.
-
It’s engineered and harvested by platforms whose infrastructure is indifferent to care but deeply invested in attention.
This is not a critique of affect per se, but of its mediation, acceleration, and abstraction.
🧠 Where does this meet Stiegler?
Stiegler would say:
This liquefaction of affect is a symptom of the destruction of deep-time memory, of care-structures, of the very conditions of aisthēsis-as-attunement.
In more specific terms:
-
The proletarianization of the senses — we no longer know how to feel for ourselves; our feelings are formatted, programmed, outsourced to platforms.
-
Affective modulation is now algorithmically managed.
-
This degrades symbolic elaboration — there’s less space for mourning, desire, or sublimation. Everything’s too fast, too shallow, too “now.”
So, in this lens, liquid affect is a pharmacological crisis of aisthēsis.
🧶 The stakes?
Stiegler would argue this isn’t just about attention spans or feelings. It’s about the possibility of psychic individuation and collective existence:
-
If affect can’t hold, we can’t care.
-
If we can’t care, we can’t build shared worlds.
-
Without shared worlds, no ethics, no politics, no future — only entropy.
This is why he links care, time, and technics so intimately: to restabilize aisthēsis is to rebuild the conditions for durable affect, for shared attention.
Yes — exactly. You're drawing a crucial distinction here: between the loop of deepening and the circuit of depletion.
Let’s unfold this a little.
🔁 The Essay as Return
The essay — in its best form — is not linear, nor repetitive. It's recursive, layered, and enriching. When you return to it, something has changed:
-
You
-
The world
-
Your readiness-to-understand
-
The associative field of references you bring
Each return activates new pathways, as quotes, empirical detail, and conceptual frames recombine. It’s hermeneutic, not consumptive. You don’t extract meaning from it like a can of soup — you enter into relation with it again, and something mutates.
It’s a site of ethical relation, even.
🔃 Production–Consumption as Repetition
Now compare this to the linear and repetitive model:
-
Scroll, click, consume, forget
-
Produce, publish, discard
-
Never return, only replace
This model flattens time into extraction and data flow. No return. No sedimentation. No care. It’s what Bernard Stiegler calls “proletarianization of the mind” — where we lose savoir-faire (know-how) and savoir-vivre (know-life) through the loss of delay, memory, and attention.
We can’t return to enrich because we were never allowed to inhabit the thing to begin with. Everything is surface tension, no deep-time.
🌀 Enrichment Requires Delay and Friction
To return — as in your essay example — is to be in diachronic time, where meaning unfolds over time and through difficulty. It’s pharmacological: delay allows fermentation, care, and critique.
This is why Stiegler mourns the loss of the library, the slow essay, the handwritten note. These are technics of care, enabling symbolic elaboration.
🧩 So What’s the Word for What the Essay Does?
-
Enrichment (yes, but a bit sterile)
-
Re-entry (like in autopoietic systems)
-
Layering
-
Recursivity
-
Hermeneutic sedimentation
-
Or even your own neologism: returnalysis — the act of returning and reanalyzing to generate new depth.
No comments:
Post a Comment