Arguing For One Model Of The Human Against Another.edited (2)
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Nairobi *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
AUDITING
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Nov 24, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
6
Uploaded by SuperFieldElk52
Surname 1
Students Name
Professor’s Name
Course Studied
Date
Arguing For One Model Of The Human Against Another: Wynter Vs. Fisher
Aside from each other, philosophers Mark Fisher and Sylvia Wynter have each
contributed their own distinct views on what makes up the human, their ideas represent opposing
views on human nature and the impact of power dynamics in society. Mark Fisher's capitalist
realism hypothesis implies that acceptance and helplessness have created our society in the face
of an unchangeable system. Sylvia Wynter, on the other hand, views humanity through the lens
of the "trans-species subject," emphasizing the need of recognizing our agency and the potential
for radical social transformation. In this research, I will compare and contrast the two
conceptions of the human
in order to gain a more holistic understanding of its make-up. I'll also
explain which model seems to me to be the most promising in terms of explaining the complex
power dynamics at work in our daily lives. My goal in conducting this research is to have a
deeper comprehension of the interplay of power and influence that determines the course of our
lives and the world at large.
Philosophers Mark Fisher and Sylvia Wynter have different takes on some of humanity's
most fundamental features. Capitalist realism, which Fisher characterizes as "the widely accepted
conviction that not only is capitalism the only viable political and economic system, but that it is
today hard even to envisage a coherent alternative to it," underpins Fisher's worldview. Fisher
claims that it is difficult to examine alternatives to the present system because a sense of reality
has become embedded in our culture. He also thinks that the widespread acceptance and feeling
of helplessness in today's society is to blame for people not making the changes that would
Surname 2
greatly enhance their lives. The concept of "the coloniality of being," as formulated by Sylvia
Wynter, is central to her interpretation of the human condition. She claims that colonialism's long
historical experience has shaped what it means to be human, making this theory's premise
plausible. She argues this has resulted in a "coloniality of power" and the "development of a
certain type of subjectivity." According to Wynter, this subjectivity stems from the "power over"
social interaction concept, which casts people in the role of tools for the benefit of colonial
powers. Her thesis is that this has made it so that many individuals mistakenly believe they have
limited talents. Consequently, they feel powerless to make positive changes in their own lives.
Both Mark Fisher and Sylvia Wynter, two prominent philosophers, present opposing
views of the human constitution in their works. When it comes to human perception and
interaction with the environment around them, both models recognize the significance of
historical and contemporary power relations. But the two theories approach these processes and
their effects on us from very different angles. At the core of Fisher's model of capitalist realism is
the premise that a feeling of helplessness and powerlessness has shaped our society in the face of
a system that appears to be unchangeable. He thinks this has made it so that people are powerless
to change their circumstances since they can't even think of any other options.
Conversely, the "trans-species subject" is at the heart of Sylvia Wynter's understanding of
what it is to be human. This concept highlights the fact that individuals can challenge the
dominant forms of oppression and power that shape our daily lives. Wynter thinks that by
harnessing this power, we may create a new way of being in the world that is not predicated on
competing identities but on recognizing our common humanity. Wynter also believes the new
way of being can be used to help shape a society that is more equal and free from oppressive
power relations. She thinks that we can only succeed in this endeavor by recognizing the value of
Surname 3
our past trials and tribulations. The optimistic picture of a better future that may be achieved by
collective action and introspection that Wynter's model paints is what makes it so appealing. The
rainbow represents this vision. Fisher and Wynter's respective anatomical models show two
different perspectives on the human body. In contrast to Fisher's paradigm, which emphasizes
resignation and helplessness, Wynter's concept highlights the potential for change and the agency
of the group as a whole. Those involved in Wynter's model are urged to have a more positive
outlook on the possibility of change, in contrast to Fisher's model, which assumes the status quo
will always be maintained. And although Fisher's approach highlights the individual, Wynter's
model gives more weight to the function of group action and conflict. Both ideas, in the end, are
invaluable for what they reveal about the complex power relations and oppressive structures that
shape our lives and the world around us. Both models shed light on the human condition, but
cannot be swapped out for one another because of the different assumptions and outcomes they
make. The Wynter model emphasizes the importance of being realistic about our talents and the
scope of possible social change, whereas the Fisher model emphasizes the importance of being
realistic about the limits of the system we now operate inside. At the end of the day, both theories
offer intriguing insights into the human construct and have the potential to enhance our
understanding of the world around us.
Mark Fisher and Sylvia Wynter are holding a conversation about the human body's make-
up. The two theories share an appreciation for the importance of power relations to the self-
examination and interpersonal learning processes. Fisher postulates as his primary premise that
modern civilization was born out of a sense of hopelessness and resignation in the face of an
unchangeable system. In contrast, Wynter's concept emphasizes the "power over" approach to
social interaction as a result of colonialism's influence on our self-understanding and how we
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Surname 4
relate to others. Since both models shed light on fundamental questions about the human body
and its functioning, they can be seen as engaging in a mutually beneficial conversation with one
another. Fisher's model emphasizes the need to recognize the limitations of our current system,
whereas Wynter's model lays more stress on the importance of recognizing our own skills and
the potential for meaningful societal change. In the end, both ideas shed light on the human
condition. They can help us learn more about the world around us and the people and places we
come into contact with.
When considering what Mark Fisher and Sylvia Wynter have to say about the
composition of the human body, Wynter's model is more compelling than Fisher's. Wynter's
model is more extensive and nuanced because it considers the historical and contemporary power
dynamics that have formed our view of ourselves and our connections. This is why Wynter's
model is broader and more nuanced. In particular, she contends that the legacy of colonialism has
resulted in a "power over" model of social interaction. In this model, people are viewed as things
that may be utilized for the profit of the colonial powers, and power is exercised over them. This
has led to a situation in which people are often unable to recognize their capacities, leading to a
lack of agency and an inability to create meaningful change in their lives. As a result, the
situation has resulted in a situation in which people often cannot recognize their capacities.
This viewpoint is more convincing than Fisher's model, which is centered on the idea that
a sense of resignation and powerlessness has shaped our society in the face of a system that
appears to be unchangeable. This view is that a sense of resignation and powerlessness has
shaped our society in the face of an unchangeable system. Even though Fisher's model can help
us comprehend the constraints that our present-day system places on us, Wynter's model is more
nuanced and intricate. In particular, it does not consider the historical and contemporary power
Surname 5
dynamics that have shaped our understanding of ourselves and our relationships with each other,
as well as the implications of these dynamics for our lives. These power dynamics have shaped
our understanding of ourselves and our relationships with each other. Overall, Wynter's account
of the coloniality of being and power is more convincing than Fisher's model of capitalist
realism. Wynter's model considers the historical and contemporary power dynamics that have
shaped our understanding of ourselves and our relationships with each other, as well as the
implications that these dynamics have for our lives. These power dynamics have shaped our
understanding of ourselves and our relationships with each other. On the other hand, Fisher's
model needs to consider the complexities of our present circumstances, which is not as
persuasive.
In conclusion, Mark Fisher and Sylvia Wynter offer two distinct views of the composition
of the human body based on their philosophical perspectives. While Fisher's model is centered
on the idea of capitalist realism, which he considers to be the only viable economic and political
system, Wynter's model is more comprehensive, taking into account the historical and
contemporary power dynamics that have shaped our understanding of ourselves and our
relationships with one another. In the end, Wynter's model is more convincing because it not only
considers the constraints imposed by our existing system but also acknowledges the possibility
of meaningful societal change through coordinated action and self-reflection. In this way,
Wynter's model provides a more hopeful perspective of a better future that can be achieved
through collective effort and understanding. In short, while both models provide valuable
insights into the human construct, Wynter's model is ultimately more compelling due to its more
nuanced and comprehensive analysis.
Surname 6
Works Cited
Fisher, Mark.
Capitalist realism: Is there no alternative?
John Hunt Publishing, 2009.
Wynter, Sylvia. "Unsettling the Coloniality of Being/Power/Truth/Freedom: Towards the Human,
After Man, Its Overrepresentation--an Argument."
CR: The New Centennial Review
, vol.
3,
no.
3,
2003,
pp.
257–337,
law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/2432989/Wynter-2003-Unsettling-the-
Coloniality-of-Being.pdf, 10.1353/ncr.2004.0015.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help