Sune Frølund

The paper explores Gernot Böhme’s interpretation of the concept of atmosphere as an aesthetical concept of the natural environment, especially of the weather. Böhme takes over the concept of atmosphere from Hermann Schmitz’ body phenomenology in which human feelings are considered to be spatial atmospheres. Böhme integrates atmospheres into his phenomenology of nature by showing that they are bodily sensations of human’s mode of being in their environment. Based on this framework he sketches out a phenomenology of the weather, i.e. a theory of the connection of climate and our mode of being. The perspective of the paper is to employ Böhme’s work with atmospheres in environmental education in general, and, specifi cally, in education concerning climate change.

Educational philosopher Wilfred Carr claims that the formation of philosophy of education in accordance with the theory-centered paradigm of modernist philosophy is responsible for the miserable fact that educational practitioners take no interest in philosophy of education. A real contemporary philosophy of education, Carr suggests, would give up theory and the “foundationalist” idea of seeking a firm ground for practice outside of practice. The paper, firstly, takes up Carr’s debate with Paul Hirst on Carr’s notion of philosophy of education, and, secondly, moves on to inquire the interpretation of Aristotle’s practical philosophy by Hans-Georg Gadamer, whom Carr refers to. Finally, the paper outlines some merits of Gadamer’s hermeneutics that philosophy of education should adapt

The concept of nature is under attack from a number of contemporary researchers on ecology. This seems alarming in light of the current struggle to establish the anthropogenic, i.e., non-natural origin of climate change and mass extinction. This paper selects three examples of ‘nature denial’ by influential writers—Steven Vogel, Timothy Morton, and Bruno Latour—and tries to show that without a concept of nature, their theories are incoherent. Finally, the paper turns to Gernot Böhme for a philosophy of body and nature that can evade the aporias in which the three other writers are entangled.

Existentialism and postmodernism have both abandoned the idea of a human nature. Also, the idea of naturalness as a value for education has been targeted as a blind for conservative ideology. There are, however, good reasons to re-establish a sound concept of human naturalness. First of all, the concept does not seem to have disappeared from common usage, despite all criticism. Secondly, the idea of naturalness seems essential to our sense of ourselves and for the formation of our identities. And finally, the idea is the inevitable basis for the possibility of a radical criticism of society and culture. This paper presents two suggestions for a rehabilitation of the concept of naturalness: Gernot Böhme's phenomenology of body and nature, and Christoph Menke's ‘genealogical reflexion’.

Les géologues ont suggéré de nommer l’époque actuelle « Anthropocène » pour indiquer que les activités humaines ont atteint un impact sur l’environnement qui rivalise avec celui d’événements naturels comme l’érosion des sols, les orbites lunaires, la tectonique des plaques, etc. Il semble évident que le terme n’a de sens que s’il est possible de distinguer les événements anthropiques des événements naturels, c’est-à-dire les êtres humains de la nature. La grande influence de Bruno Latour sur le débat international autour des questions environnementales est indiscutable, mais surprenante si l’on considère qu’il s’est efforcé, au fil des ans, dans ses livres, articles et interviews, de contester le sens même du terme « nature ». Par conséquent, il a minimisé la pertinence du concept pour aborder la situation désastreuse actuelle concernant l’Anthropocène. Dans cet article, l’auteur tente de reconstituer les prises de position changeantes de Latour sur le concept de nature, en s’appuyant sur une sélection de ses œuvres jusqu’à la publication de Où atterrir? Comment s’orienter en politique. Il s’avère que Latour a, dans une certaine mesure, abandonné sa première interprétation constructiviste de la nature comme « fabriquée » et a timidement commencé à accepter l’existence de la nature. Cependant, il n’a jamais défini un concept cohérent de la nature et, par conséquent, n’a pas non plus atteint une position stable sur les questions écologiques fondamentales.

The paper explores Gernot Böhme’s attempt to transform the concept of atmosphere into an aesthetical concept of the natural environment and follows his effort to outline a phenomenology of the weather based on this aesthetics. Böhme’s original project, prompted by a growing environmental concern, was to develop new forms of knowledge of nature to counter what he considered detrimental consequences of a one-sided rationalistic-scientific view of nature. Inspired by Hermann Schmitz’s phenomenology of the body and emotional atmospheres, Böhme developed his aesthetics to be a general theory of sensation and a phenomenology of the environment. His weather phenomenology is yet only a sketch, but, in light of imminent climatic changes, it might prove a sketch worth considering.