Talk:Hans Jonas

Discussion
yeah whats with the picture? is this some kind of joke? --206.172.19.90 21:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There should definitely be a citation on that picture, becuase otherwise it engenders doubtful reactions. - Sam 20:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no translation of "On technology, medicine and ethics", or is there? I think this should be mentioned.

It would be good to separate or designate Jonas's non-English works that are not merely translations but original. JKeck (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting rid of the statement that "Jonas' philosophy was influenced by the process philosophy and process theology of Alfred North Whitehead." It's been up since before March 2008 without any supporting reference, and based on what I've read of and about Jonas, it is dubious at best. JKeck (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In the "Wissenschaft as Personal Experience," Jonas comments that Whitehead was a spur to his own thinking. Still the remark as written seemed to imply a closer influence, so I'm leaving it out. JKeck (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I just removed the dead link (http://www.huma-mg.de/hansjonas_en.html) to the "Short biograhy" (sic). I've retreived the page from the internet archive and it looks useful:

STIFTISCHES HUMANISTISCHES GYMNASIUM

Hans Jonas (1903 – 1993)

His Philosophy
In his most significant work "The Imperative of Responsibility. Ethics for the Technological Age" that sold 200,000 copies all over the world, Hans Jonas describes the necessity of a new ethics which is supposed to ensure the lasting survival of human beings on this planet in the course of the technological age.

In the beginning, Jonas describes the new possibilities that are open to the inhabitants of the civilisation we live in today. He states that modern technology, informed by an everdeeper penetration of nature and propelled by the forces of market and politics, has enhanced human power beyond anything known or even dreamt of before: Today we are able to fly to the moon and back, we shape new life according to the designs of biotechnology, we own an immense amount of mass destruction weapons, waste limited natural resources, gain energy by means we cannot control, and create waste that will remain toxic for centuries.

Jonas says that the way we act today and the perils of such acting are not covered by our traditional ethics anymore.

Up to today all ethics have had a rather short-ranged view: human acting used to be judged by the immediate effects. They all presumed that the effects of our actions are limited. This was sufficient, because the possibilities of mankind were limited. In fact, man was not able to penetrate nature or humankind in a serious way. This has changed.

Jonas says that our traditional system of ethics is not sufficient anymore. Technological possibilities are nowadays so well-developed that they may concern not only the earth as a whole but also the future of our earth. What we are doing today can and will certainly influence and alter the conditions of life for generations to come.

For this reason Jonas developed a new ethics whose fundamental difference to traditional ethics is the temporal dimension: The good or bad of human actions shall not only be decided within the short-term context of the here and now, but within its consequences for the future of the entire humanity, which must in no case be endangered.

His most important demand is: "Act so that the effects of your action are compatible with the permanence of genuine human life." (Imperative of Responsibility)

In order to fulfil this new imperative of responsibility a scientific futurology is required: we have to find out about the long term results of our acting. Of course we will never be able to know about all the consequences of our actions, Jonas however proposes the so called "heuristics of fear". What he wants to say is, that in case we are in doubt on the outcome of an action, we have to favour the worst prediction possible. The prophecy of doom must take priority over the prophecy of bliss: if there is only the slightest possibility that a certain technology may one day endanger the permanence of human life, it is ethically not justifiable to use it today.

As mankind has no right to suicide, the existence of man must never be put on stake. The permanence of genuine human life is the most important good and prior to all other wishes, aims and desires. No one, neither a single person nor a large group nor a state have the right to risk the whole of other people’s interests for his own ambitions. Whatever we may discover, explore or develop, we have to maintain a view which covers the whole of our existence. Whenever technological progress may turn out to become a threat for humankind, or even if there is only a slight possibility that it might one day become dangerous for us, it is not justifiable to maintain it: the security of humankind must be prior to technological progress.

Some people may call Jonas’ ideas and demands naïve: nearly every day we see that individuals, groups or even states consider their own short ranged advantage more important then public welfare: even though we know about the consequences of CO2 for the atmosphere hardly any nation starts fighting the greenhouse effect seriously; even though we know for sure that our oil resources are limited and will be used up in about 50 years we burn more oil then ever before and even though we know about the perils of nuclear weapons we still have enough of them to pulverise all life on earth several times. Sometimes you might start wondering, whether Hans Jonas’ ideas of responsibility were not a tiny little bit too complex for some people.

On the other hand, if you dare a closer look you will find that some parts of our society have in fact changed their attitudes towards accepting more responsibility for humankind: cars use less and less fuel, the USA and Russia just agreed on reducing their nuclear weapons drastically (START II), new ways of gaining energy are being developed, Germany just renounced nuclear power stations, and states in Europe and other parts of the world are getting closer and closer to each other. All this might indicate that mankind might after all accepts its responsibility for itself and its future, which was so urgently demanded by Hans Jonas.

But finally, the only thing we can take for granted after all, is that Hans Jonas obviously did learn a lot at our school.

(Thomas Ebben) Back       HOME

We should try to incorporate some of this material into the article. JKeck (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

First Discussion
LoveMonkey appended the biography with the remark, " Jonas also famously recorded Gershon Scholem's position on Gnosticism with Scholem's statement Gnosticism is "The Greatest case of metaphysical Antisemitism." ". Not sure of the validity of the sentence, but it at least seems grossly out of place following Jonas's death, so I am removing it. JKeck (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

LoveMonkey added a quotations section with one "Quote" from another book:
 * "Jonas describes the typical Gnostic use of biblical material as follows: vilication, parody, caricature, conscious perversion of meaning, wholesale reversal of value-signs, savage degrading of the sacred, and gleefully shocking blashemy.''.

Not sure why this is so important to Jonas that it needs to be highlighted in its own section, so I am removing. If this is an important point, perhaps it could be incorporated organically into the body of the article somehow. Or—even better—we could actually quote Jonas himself on Gnosticism as a way to explicate his ideas of the subject. JKeck (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I noticed that that segment was actually footnoted in the referenced text also, which means that we have an imminent opportunity, which we should seize, to get one step closer to the original. __meco (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Justification for adding quote from Hans Jonas to the article per JKeck
I added the quote due to another editor edit warring on the gnosis article. I added the quote because from the way the article is presented Hans Jonas is implicitly being depicted as a follower of gnosticism. The quote clearly clarifies that he is not. Can you give me examples that Hans Jonas is not a follower of gnosticism, as it appears in the way he is being treated by people that he was one. Does he say he is in his most famous work "The Gnostic Religion"? Why was gnosticism added as a category to his article but not anti-gnosticism? Did Hans Jonas believe that Heidegger was a follower of gnosticism? (Hint: you bet). So Hans Jonas as some one Jewish, did he believe gnosticism to be anti-semitic? Anti-Jewish? What about Nazism and the Thule society do you think Hans Jonas would have called then gnostic? How about Helen Blavatsky? Was she a gnostic who taught about the Aryans? What did Blavasky teach about the Aryans? Isnt this all part of what Hans Jonas lived though? If so why can't that be added to his article? Why is that not appropriate, cause formating and grammar and proper placing is no justification to delete quotes that clarify such a thing about the subject of an article. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * LoveMonkey, thanks for your explanation; now I understand where you are coming from. I agree that Jonas was a strong opponent of Gnosticism (this is actually one of the reasons I love Jonas). And you are definitely correct about the connection between Nazism and occult/gnostic beliefs. You wrote: "I added the quote due to another editor edit warring on the gnosis article." This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a place to wage wars against other points of view, as erroneous as they may be. The truth speaks for itself, and most eloquently if that truth is presented dispassionately. There are a couple problems with your quotation. First, it's not integrated into the article; it's a lone quotation and just seems "tacked on." Second, it's a relatively weak quotation because it's from a secondary source: it presents someone else telling what Jonas thought, when it wouldn't be too much trouble to get an actual quotation from Jonas instead. I think the article as it stands presents Jonas's work on Gnosticism as neutral toward the subject. If you would like to expand on the part on his work on this subject to emphasize his critique of Gnosticism, I would greatly welcome that, as would the rest of Wikipedia community. I hope you can understand why the quotation you've added (including the way you've added it) doesn't fit in with the article. I would appreciate it if you would remove your quotation for the time being and work on enhancing the body of the article, either with original prose, or with a quotation from Jonas. JKeck (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

LoveMonkey's Response to JKeck
LoveMonkey, thanks for your explanation; now I understand where you are coming from. I agree that Jonas was a strong opponent of Gnosticism (this is actually one of the reasons I love Jonas). And you are definitely correct about the connection between Nazism and occult/gnostic beliefs. -- OK formalities out of the way. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC) -- JKeck wrote: You wrote: "I added the quote due to another editor edit warring on the gnosis article." This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a place to wage wars against other points of view, as erroneous as they may be. -- LoveMonkey's response. So if everyone agrees what need is therefore collaboration? Whatever drew me to this article does not dimision the need nor the validity of Han Jonas' quote. Now does it. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC) --- JKeck wrote: The truth speaks for itself, and most eloquently if that truth is presented dispassionately. --- LoveMonkey's response. I will let this comment stand on it's own since it contains a fallacy or two. Your fallacies are your business not mine. --- JKeck wrote: There are a couple problems with your quotation. First, it's not integrated into the article; -- LoveMonkey's response. In the spirit of Wikipedia with is a community based on the idea of collaboration. Please by all means integrate it. Rather then deleting it. If I contest your editing (as you have to me) I will let you know. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC) --- JKeck wrote: it's a lone quotation and just seems "tacked on." -- LoveMonkey's response. This is the Style over substance fallacy which is an underhanded ad hom. Please do not waste my time proding me to satify your esthetic temperament. Collaboration is based on co-operation. This article and this website do not belong to either of us. As such "tacked on" is an invalid critique and I can only percieve it as an form of Ad hominem attack. Dont waste my time. --- JKeck wrote: Second, it's a relatively weak quotation because it's from a secondary source: -- LoveMonkey's response. You can not invalid a source with another fallacy. This one is called the skeptics fallacy. It is a source and there is no reason to consider it a hoax, false, a slander, lie or a fabrication. --- JKeck wrote: it presents someone else telling what Jonas thought, when it wouldn't be too much trouble to get an actual quotation from Jonas instead. -- LoveMonkey's response. It quotes Hans Jonas. --- JKeck wrote: I think -- LoveMonkey's response. How quick you ridicule others opinions as invalid due to being subjective but then interject your subjective opinion. --- JKeck wrote: the article as it stands presents Jonas's work on Gnosticism as neutral toward the subject. -- LoveMonkey's response. WP:NPOV does not state that a point of view is not to be presented. Just that all opposing point of view be properly and portionally represented. If you can present a sourcable point of view against the quote please by all means post it. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC) --- JKeck wrote: If you would like to expand on the part on his work on this subject to emphasize his critique of Gnosticism, I would greatly welcome that, as would the rest of Wikipedia community. -- LoveMonkey's response. Please speak for yourself- as my edit war on the gnosis article showed that what I posted and attributed to Hans Jonas (including his relationship with Eric Voegelin was quite unwelcome. --- JKeck wrote: I hope you can understand why the quotation you've added (including the way you've added it) doesn't fit in with the article. -- LoveMonkey's response. You have provided no examples or technical reasons for your position. As such No I don't understand. --- JKeck wrote: I would appreciate it if you would remove your quotation for the time being and work on enhancing the body of the article, either with original prose, or with a quotation from Jonas. -- LoveMonkey's response. The quote I provided is from Jonas and is sourced and can be validated by administrator here. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear LoveMonkey, I do not understand why you have to make this such a hostile process. I am trying to work with you. This is not supposed to be a war. Collaboration is supposed to be friendly; it is supposed to lead to rational agreement. Rhetorical posturing (e.g. "Now does it[?]", "Your fallacies are your business not mine.") is not the way to foment collegiality.


 * When I said, "the article as it stands presents Jonas's work on Gnosticism as neutral toward the subject" I was not claiming that that was the optimal state for the article, but only that that the article is not advocating Gnosticism, as you seem to imply by your previous comments. You might have seen that I was not advocating this neutrality by simply reflecting that if I were, I would not enjoin you to write Jonas's anti-Gnostic position more clearly into the text.


 * Would you please take some time to read carefully what I wrote and not simply assume an adversarial stance? Further evidence that you did not consider carefully: the many grammatical and spelling mistakes in your response, not to mention the choppy quotation-response style. Would you please be reasonable? I have provided plenty of reasons for my position, but you have not bothered to respond to their substance. At very least you need to explain yourself and not simply assume that I will automatically know your reasoning.


 * The burden is on you to integrate the quotation into the text. It would even be better (but still awkward) to collect a number of quotations about Jonas's positions on various subjects into a section for the end of the article. The quotation only summarizes what Jonas thought; it is not a quotation from Jonas, which is why it is written in the third person and contains no quotation marks to denote a quotation of Jonas.JKeck (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion - If the information in the quotation can be included in the text, it doesn't really matter who does it; either way, the text is improved. At the moment, the quotation is sub-optimal, but it does not seem to be inappropriate (assuming it's broadly true, which I gather isn't in dispute). Certainly, it would be great to expand the section, rather than provide a single quotation. Let's hear more about his opinions, rather than a one sentence summary of them! But we must remember that no page on Wikipedia is a final draft, so something being less than perfect isn't a reason to delete it - it's a reason to improve upon it. Anaxial (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

More on Gnosticism, please!
The current citation describes Hans Jonas'es subjective evaluation of Gnosticism, and I accept it since it is literally true – just imagine the gnostics claiming the serpent in the tree in the Garden of Eden being identical to Jesus, that's what the Gnosticism claims – so it is good, but it is not unique, Plotinus screamed something like "blasphemers and idiots", so Jonas have a mainstream opinion also shared by me.

That said, he also make some formal analysis of Gnosticism that I think is flawed and maybe based on bad and ignorant comparisons between Manicheism (whose connection to Valentinianism is very weak if not nonexistent) and Zoroastrianism. So more is needed on his analysis of Gnosticism for anyone who have read his books on it, please. ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 17:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Photo needed
A picture of Hans Jonas wouldn't hurt. anybody has a free-to-use photo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.159.181.47 (talk) 12:10, December 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, as he is deceased we aren't forced to use a free image. We could use a non-free image. __meco (talk) 12:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I see where the Non-Free policy says that images of people still living are prohibited, but I can't seem to find where it says images of the deceased are okay. JKeck (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 17:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hans Jonas. 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/20090821012532/http://www.sussex.ac.uk/cgjs/1-2-10-15.html to http://www.sussex.ac.uk/cgjs/1-2-10-15.html

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) 17:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)