Talk:Posthumanism

message: This page needs to be merged with Posthuman. Astudent 06:33 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)
:It no longer does. --Loremaster 02:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In light of the fact that this page no longer talks about transhumanism and/or the transhumanist concept of the posthuman, a merge is no longer necessary. --Loremaster 03:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with Posthuman article?

message: Hello.  This article is in great need of help. To start, posthumanism is not absolutely related to or stemming from humanism. This is the postmodernist perspective only.  I would like to provide some distinct corrections and additional information on posthumanism.  Hayles is a good start.  There needs to be more infomration on the postmodern french philosophers and the counter views to their hegemony.  There also needs to be a wider selection of papers which can be obtained through google.  I plan to add material to this page but I wanted to introduce myself first.  JJRhetorical 20:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Need for improvements

message: There are additional topics to be covered under the "posthuman" rubric.  Please see N. Katherine Hayles "How We Became Posthuman."  It covers in great detail the aspects of the current culture that can be called posthumanist, in that they are explicitly and implicitly juxtaposed with the idea of humanism as proposed by philosophers such as Erasmus of Rotterdam.
:Perhaps we should elaborate more on the posthumanist concept of the posthuman in order to differentiate it from the transhumanist one. --Loremaster 03:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Posthumanism 

message: The following is a text from James Hughes that was forwarded to me which may help clarify this issue once and for all:
--Loremaster 07:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again you are narrowing the contents too tightly.  You seem to be trying too hard to tie posthumansim into transhumanism.  You cannot.  They are different belief systems adopted for different purposes.  My suggestion is to be clear about posthumanism and find substantial papers on the topic. JJRhetorical 20:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you are talking about since it should be obvious that I'm trying to break the tie between posthumanism and transhumanism. --Loremaster 20:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sociologist James Hughes on Transhumanism and Posthumanism

message: this edit is really a comment, since i don't have an account: most every sentence in this article is flawed. Undifferentiated, mostly meaningless period categories are lined up and placed in relations of 'transcending' [puleeze] the one before or 'returning' to something earlier. I go blank with the whole idea and am thankful this term [a tired echo of postmodern] has to date not been seriously taken up in contemporary humanities venues of academia. we  need some fresh theorizations and terms so that we don't kill a subject in its fetal stages. --User  70.247.40.155
:I'm assuming your comment refers to a very old version of the article. However, I've removed the word “transcends”. --Loremaster 13:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure where to place this comment, but here is as good a place as any.  Can someone tell me what Adam Zaretsky's interview page has to do with posthumanism?  First, Adam is an exception bioartist but BioArt has very little to do with posthumanism at this point in time.  Were it otherwise, I would gladly support including Bioartists, but to be perfectly honest, none of the artists mentioned on this page work with posthuman concepts. Thoughts?
38.100.144.240 01:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: What section are refering to exacly? Are you talking about a section in the article or on the talk page? --Loremaster (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  More then that, everything except the Haraway comment appear to be a naked endorsement of the exact topic. In addition, the citation link is dead. At most, it should be in the criticism section of Transhumanism, but I suspect that in a more trafficked article, it would be torn apart for problems of notability, coherence and content. It seems to be nothing more then the unelaborated pretense of an obscure political writer. Recommend migration or deletion. Equilibrium103 (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: Loremaster asked this comment on the "posthuman" discussion site here:
Posthumanism should better not be characterised as an "extension" of humanism. Posthumanism is explicitly antihumanist. Moreover, in Europe the philosophical (postmodernist) posthumanism paved the way for the engineer's posthumanism of the Moravecs, Minskys etc.: Posthumanist philosophers and authors belonged to the first people in Europe who made references to Moravec etc. and included texts by the posthumanist engineers in their publications. One central common feature of both posthumanisms is the idea that machines (including machine intelligences) will become ever more important "actors", and that for this reason the centrality of the human being (as in classical humanism) is an old-fashioned idea. I think it would be better to delete the sentence or to extend the article. (I'm afraid my English is not good enough for doing this myself.)
:I agree. Posthumanism is characterized as a "postmodern critique of humanism" rather than an "extension of humanism". --Loremaster 13:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: On Posthumanism

message: This article claims posthumanism is an emergent philosophy but also a "dominant" philosophy. According to the Emergent philosophy page, emergent philosophies are on the fringe and therefore not dominant. Please clarify and correct. Mjk2357 03:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've corrected the article and removed the contradictory tag. --Loremaster 14:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Mjk2357 19:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: The article says posthumanism is a European philosophy. I am interested in knowing more about this. I was under the impression that posthumanists existed all over the world. Perhaps the article means the posthumanistic movement began in Europe, and if that is what is meant, then I would like to learn more how, where, when and who the people behind it were. Thanks. //Kada 7 Feb 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.241.166.138 (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like all discussion pages, the Talk:Posthumanism page page is for discussing improvements to the Posthumanism article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. That being said, I suggest you read the books listed in the References section. --Loremaster 13:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've edited the article to remove any mention of European continental philosophy until we have a source for it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  European? 

message: This is a highly atypical use of the word "posthumanism". I suggest we move this to posthumanism (philosophy) or somesuch and redirect posthumanism to transhumanism. Evercat (talk) 04:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree. I suggest you read the archived debate on the Talk:Transhumanism page on this subject. --Loremaster (talk) 04:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Page move and redirect

message: It took me a while but I finally got around improving the Posthumanism article (since no one else wanted to do it) by tweaking content and creating a much needed disambiguation section in the lead as well as adding an image and two templates. I'm told Dr. Shannon Bell has read the article and judge that it "reads well". --Loremaster (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: January 2009 improvements

message: Who is interested in working to make the Posthumanism article meet Wikipedia's criteria for a good article? --Loremaster (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be down for this, if I could do some substantial reshaping. Is anyone against harmonizing this page with posthumanism as it's emerged through Hayles, through Wolfe's Posthumanities series, and through a number of recent critical additions/responses (Wolfe, Timothy Morton, and so on)? It seems to me that one problem with the article as it stands is that it somewhat artificially divides "posthumanism" into a bunch of sub-branches with very few references on those sub-branches. Mostly, it seems like it's been written and discussed before there was enough critical consensus about how to even begin defining the subject matter. I'm pretty sure that no one has ever argued that we should divide "posthumanism" along the lines this article does. But surely we can talk about one historical branch coming through cybernetics (discussed by Hayles), the ecological de-centering of the human (not unrelated to the cybernetic through figures like Bateson, obviously), and the poststructuralist/continental decentering of the human (visible in Wolfe and Morton among many others) as three very clear, trackable and citable branches of posthuman thought. Handling the article in that way would certainly clean it up by Wikipedia quality standards, even though it would mean some major re-shaping of what's on the page as it is. I can see where the current divisions come from through some of these debates on the talk page, but they feel pretty dated.  Thoughts? --RedInToothAndClaw (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Towards Good Article Status

message: Should we consider merging the Posthuman section of the Posthumanism article with the Posthuman article (in which we would cleary explain the difference between the posthuman of critical theory and the posthuman of posthumanist/transhumanist speculation)? --Loremaster (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge suggestion

message: --Loremaster (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Technocritic]] [[Dale Carrico]] on posthumanism 

message: This article has been tagged with the technical tag since 2007:
The 2007 version was far too hard to understand, but the current version is just fine, so I am removing the technical tag.  Please discus if you disagree.  Guy Macon  00:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. --Loremaster (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too technical? 

message: I'm a relative newbie and interested in working on this and related pages (e.g. Antihumanism and the other pages that link out from here). I think the list of five items in the first section is a good list of things that should be covered in the article, but I do not think they are in fact "definitions." I think it would be useful to start with a broad, general definition that could then lead into the various aspects of the topic, as represented in part by those five terms. Here is what I propose:
:Posthumanism is a set of ideas, beliefs, and practices responding critically to traditional humanism or to traditional ideas about humanity and the human condition.
As a matter of fact, I just moments ago proposed a similarly words sentence to introduce the article on "Antihumanism." Of course, what follows in the two articles would be very different. 
Given how actively this page is being edited by some very committed members, I did not want to make a change like this without putting it up for discussion first. Mhbroder (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Do it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro sentence? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Posthumanism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071007081149/http://www.machineslikeus.com/cms/interview-hugo-de-garis.html to http://www.machineslikeus.com/cms/interview-hugo-de-garis.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130115125814/http://magazine.ciac.ca/archives/no_23/en/entrevue.htm to http://magazine.ciac.ca/archives/no_23/en/entrevue.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Intro section perhaps needs modifying there are a lot of overdressing definitions and two different case uses of the same word etc. Needs to work at some point.
DocHeuh (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductory section 

message: Covers similar information in this article, but essay-like Roasted (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Klbrain (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Posthumanization]] into [[Posthumanism]]