An interview with Stefan Lorenz Sorgner: a metahumanist philosopher

Received on: Jun. 21, 2021. Approved on: Aug. 17, 2021. Published on: Sep. 17, 2021. Prof. Dr. Stefan Lorenz Sorgner combines two essential attributes: He is one of the brilliant minds of our times, and his specialization is on one of the most relevant discussions on philosophy, Trans/Post/Metahumanism. He received his BA from King’s College/University of London (1997), his MA by thesis from the University of Durham, UK (1998), and his Dr. Phil. from the University of Jena, Germany (2009). In recent years, he taught at the University of Jena (Germany), University of Erfurt (Germany), University of Klagenfurt (Austria), Ewha Woman’s University in Seoul (South Korea) and University of Erlangen-Nürnberg (Germany). Currently, Professor Sorgner is a philosophy professor at John Cabot University in Rome and director and co-founder of the Beyond Humanism Network, Fellow at the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (IEET), Research Fellow at the Ewha Institute for the Humanities at Ewha Woman’s University in Seoul and Visiting Fellow at the Ethics Centre of the Friedrich-Schiller-University in Jena. Besides, he is Editor-in-Chief and Founding Editor of the Journal of Posthuman Studies. His curriculum is profoundly dense and impressive.2

The issue you are raising is an important one indeed. Several different aspects need to be con-   suffering is morally relevant, radical plurality is a wonderful achievement, which always needs to be considered, and that the personal freedom ends when harm gets done directly to another person, whereby the concept of person gets rethought as a hierarchical one, depending on the capacity of suffering of an entity, which needs to be analyzed empirically eventually. Making the claim that personhood and the moral demand not to directly harm another person are contingent nodal points does not mean that these claims should not be effective. They lack epistemological superiority, but I and luckily many people today regard them as plausible. We hold on to these moral demands, and fight for them. Going against morality does not lead you to being punished in the afterlife, but makes you confront sanctions in this world, be it social, institutional or legal sanctions.

Philosophy's Future
If we want certain things to change, then we need to fight for them. We need to become active. We need to form alliances to bring about changes.
So what about the case of abortion? Suffering is morally relevant. Embryos neither possess a nervous system nor a sufficiently developed brain for experiencing suffering. If an entity does not experience pain, then it ought not be considered morally, as there is no moral reason for us doing so. This is not a universally valid insight. However, this is a moral narrative which many people find plausible. It is a narrative I present. In order for it to be effective, alliances need to be realized so that such insights can be appropriately considered in laws. Even if we lack the claim that a moral insight is eternally valid, this does not mean that it is implausible, or that it cannot be effective in the lifeworld.
Actually, I regard it to be a strength that a moral insight is merely a contingent nodal point, as it reduces the violence which goes along with the sacred, the necessary, the valid. Embracing a fictive ethics leads to openness towards others. It is easier to enter into a dialogue, and you have a much less violent stance, if you regard fictive ethics as plausible.
What about anti-science or anti-intellectual movements? Perspectivism does not justify an anti-intellectual or an anti-scientific approach.
Actually, in many cases it is easy to spot a per- Digitalization of the lifeworld also implies that we get upgraded by means of RFID chips which wander into several parts of our bodies so that they can analyze our bodily functions. A predictive maintenance of our health can be realized in this manner. We can be warned of us getting ill, while all our bodily functions are still working properly, in the same way as predictive maintenance works in machines. Sensors tell us that a specific part needs to be replaced, as it can be expected to malfunction in the foreseeable future given the available data.  Why should we do so? I think the answer has to be a personcentric one. It matters to persons, where they live and which report they have with the environment. It is not the case that there is a categorical ontological difference between persons and the environment, but suffering matters.
Using precious soil for digital technologies does not harm the soil. It has consequences for persons.
Forests matter, because they are relevant for persons, whereby the notion of a person should not be an anthropocentric one. The concept of a person should be a hierarchical one, and should depend on the capacity of suffering of entities, as suffering is morally relevant, whereby we need to develop an empirical means for realizing the intensity of suffering of an entity to develop a reliable way of determining personhood. This might not be an approach which is satisfactory in all circumstances, but it is an as-good-as-it-gets ethics, and this is all I am trying to present. If the contingent nodal points, which we stick to, are not plausible anymore, we need to develop new ones.
Political and social institutions are relevant for taking care of a sustainable existence for persons.

8/8
Veritas, Porto Alegre, v. 66, n. 1, p. 1-8, jan.-dez. 2021 | e-41154 These are the institutions which are responsible for making policy decisions concerning such critical issues like climate change. Furthermore, personal actions get altered, if they move away from a self-understanding that they are the coronation of creation, they are the only entities in whom God's divine sparks exists. By embracing a more humble self-understanding, on the basis of which we see ourselves as merely gradually different from all other living entities, we can also alter the way we act. There is not only one golden solution by means of which we can deal with tricky global issues such as climate change. As good--as-it-gets-solutions are what we should aim for.
However, a non-dualistic relational understanding of the world definitely supports measures for realizing paradigm-shifts with respect to providing the background for a sustainable personal flourishing. We are already on the right track. I can hardly wait for our posthuman future to occur.