Mith the differentiation of the sciences in the modern age, philosophy has its primacy over explaining of natural things, of natural things, lost. A philosophy of nature that questions the supposed naturalness of natural things in the age of man-made climate change could get new impetus. We are in an age of a quasi-dominated nature that is beginning to impose its own compulsion on society. Contrary to the premise of the predictability of nature, under which the natural sciences have worked so far, nature reveals its own dynamics for which humans are held responsible. Establishing this dynamic substance of nature is a pressing problem, for our actions alter the supposed harmony of things.
At the same time, man-made culture, as the opposite of existing nature, has also become questionable. This outlines the problem of a conference with the somewhat concrete-looking title “Politics of Nature”, to which the Center for Post-Kantian Philosophy of the University of Potsdam had invited in Berlin. As the formula of man-made climate change suggests, the dualistic separation of nature and culture can no longer be maintained. But even a simple, mutual mediation is not enough to explain the natural events we are currently observing: we have initiated things over which we have lost control. In this situation, the conference should investigate the possibility of “nature’s ability to act”. According to the organizers, who feel committed to the dialectic tradition in the sense of a post-Kantian enlightenment, it is time for the question: what does nature want?
Politics as a metaphor for action
Since the tradition of natural philosophy is very old, its theological and cosmological roots cannot easily be cut off. A secular natural philosophy tailored in this way retains wounds. In the completely failed lecture by Oxana Timofeeva, the beauty of uncertain, dreamy thinking rang through in fragmentary voices of ancient philosophy. There is something fundamentally speculative about natural philosophy that cannot be entirely replaced by the positivity of the godless natural sciences.
The contributions gathered around the poles of an alternative: Should we make nature self-sufficient or face the denaturalization of nature? Denaturalization was the buzzword typical of meetings of this kind that no one had heard before and suddenly everyone was using. Contrary to the notion of a purposeful isolation of nature, the concept of denaturalization refers to a human-triggered, irretrievable decomposition process of natural processes, which calls into question the image of nature as its own legislator.
Political matters were discussed very abstractly. Expressions like “politicization of nature” remained vague; in such idioms, politics serves only as an ambiguous metaphor for action. Melanie Sehgal also criticized the conceptual poking around in philosophy as a variety of doing nothing – on the other hand, thinking in large, postulated contexts seems to inspire people and create space for “the political”.
Žižek called for more globalization
Slavoj Žižek’s presentation captivated with its precision. Referring to Georg Lukács, Žižek suggested understanding nature as a social category. He called for more globalization, not less; one should see the energy crisis as an opportunity to get renewable energies moving and to protect nature against the state and the economy. That got to the heart of a few things that the other speakers left rather undetermined. Martin Saar offered a long historical treatise on the dialectic tradition since Hegel, a pure lecture without a concept – apart from the final thought of nature as the totality of all life. Christoph Menke spoke about animality in contrast to humanity, which, in Hegelian-psychoanalytic terms, boiled down to the question of whether nature is sufficient for itself. In contrast, Žižek conveyed an idea of what nature’s politics might be: the search for the decisive actor. Do we want to bet that nature will heal itself, that technology can save us again, that the market will be forced to protect nature through higher taxes, or that we can personally contribute something through our purchasing power?
The panel discussion at the end of the conference was intended to draw practical conclusions from our difficult relationship with nature. The political spectrum was narrow: representatives of the extra-parliamentary opposition, Andreas Malm from Fridays for Future and Rupert Read from Extinction Rebellion, spoke with a sympathizer, the philosopher Eva von Redecker, about property damage as a political protest and about how majorities can be won for climate protection be able. While Malm defended the sabotage, Redecker and Read were more moderate and considered how nature conservation could be made compatible with other civil rights movements. That remained speculative because here, too, there was no term for the meaningful, necessary connection.