Vidya Mary George

Nors Gandhi įprastai vaizduojamas kaip ekocentrizmo šalininkų, o ypač giliosios ekologijos atstovų, tokių kaip Arne Naessas, įkvėpėjas, Ramachandra Guha teigia, kad Gandhi labiau orientavosi į antropocentrizmą. Vietoj bandymo išsiaiškinti, ar Gandhi buvo gilusis ekologas, šiuo straipsniu siekiama apibrėžti jo filosofinės antropologijos pasekmes antropocenui. Remdamiesi Gandhi Kito – įskaitant nežmogiškąją prigimtį – samprata, Gandhi environmentalizmą siūlome traktuoti tarp ekocentrizmo ir antropocentrizmo kaip silpnąją antropocentrizmo formą, kurią galima interpretuoti kaip „rūpestį“, kurioje yra potencialo rūpesčio etikai. Pasitelkiami Gandhi idealai Swadeshi, Swaraj ir Sarvodaya, kurių kontekste aptariama Gandhi aplinkos filosofijos reikšmė ir jos sąsajos su šiuolaikiniais ekologiškai ir socialiai tvarių visuomenių idealais.

This chapter illustrates how the non-resolution of the question of land rights and the constant threat to livelihood from wildlife make indigenous communities in Mhadei Wildlife Sanctuary in Goa live in a space of perpetual threat and conflict with the Forest Department and the criminal justice system. We underscore the need for a robust indigenous civil society as part of the justice design to oversee the implementation of any social legislation involving indigenous communities. We argue that recognising community forest rights would go a long way in facilitating pre-emptive conflict resolution and protecting communities, the land, and the wildlife.

While Gandhi is portrayed as an inspiration for proponents of ecocentrism, specifically Deep Ecologists like Arne Naess, Ramachandra Guha suggests that Gandhi was more concerned with anthropocentrism. Rather than ascertaining whether Gandhi was a Deep Ecologist, this paper aims to determine the implications of his philosophical anthropology for the Anthropocene. Dwelling on Gandhi’s comprehension of the other, including non-human nature, we situate Gandhian environmentalism between ecocentrism and anthropocentrism as a weak form of anthropocentrism that can be interpreted as ‘stewardship’ with the potential for an ethic of care. The Gandhian ideals of Swadeshi, Swaraj, and Sarvodaya are invoked to discuss the significance and alignment of Gandhi’s philosophy of environment to contemporary ideals of ecologically and socially sustainable societies.

The experience of the unheimlich, interpreted by Paul Ricoeur as the sense of otherness in a space, is indescribable in terms of the classic description of home. To generate a new perspective to overcome this “blocked situation,” we reflect on a “heterotopology of home,” i.e., a description of Michel Foucault’s concept of heterotopia (an “other space”) as a metaphor for home. After considering heterotopia as a fluid concept that allows “displacement” to the new situation of home, a heterotopology of home is described by summarizing and analyzing the multitude of past readings of home as heterotopia through Hilde Heynen’s framework. A reflection on the heterotopology of home reinterprets the experience of the heimlich and understanding of selfhood in relation to the unheimlich, as exemplified through Mariana Ortega’s accounts of “hometactics” and “multiplicitous selves” and Georg Simmel’s notion of “the stranger.” In conclusion, we argue that a Foucauldian heterotopology of home overcomes the blocked situation by transforming the perception of home: the experience of the unheimlich becomes describable in the terms of home as heterotopia. In this process, the instances of heterotopia are extended from “other spaces” to spaces of everyday life, also transforming the previous description of heterotopia.

The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology (Crisis) marks the culmination of Husserl’s Genetic Phenomenology and the beginning of a new philosophy of science, one that viewed science not as a fact but as a problem that needed philosophical understanding. For Husserl, the crisis of Galilean Science is born out of the severance of its relation to the life-world and the erroneous identification of “Nature” with its constituted mathematical or quantifiable object. In the phenomenological philosophy of science, science is a tradition formed through human praxis, like any other cultural enterprise. Objectivity in scientific praxis is a regulative principle constituted by the consensus of judgements of the scientific community. The continuity of scientific knowledge shows in its unity of propagated transference of meaning, the sedimentation of which is carried through language. Despite the scientific world being ontologically grounded in the life-world, Husserl sought to preserve the autonomy of both worlds. To fully appreciate the implications of Husserl’s contribution to the philosophy of science, this paper identifies the ‘spatial turn’ that Husserl brought in through his “less mathematical, more physical” notion of life-world with the 90° shift in the social studies of science that Latour proposed. The life-world fuses “Nature” and “Society” as one ontological entity that gives rise to science, moving away from a one-dimensional science that kept the ontology of science grounded in one of those poles alone. Despite the limits of Husserlian phenomenological epistemology, Crisis radically departed from positivism, the then-official philosophy of science, embracing historicity and language to broaden our discourse on science and even coming close to certain later developments in Philosophy of Science. Husserl’s meditations on spatiality also urged a transition to the contemporary understanding of space, opening possibilities of dialogue with Foucault.