What do you think?
The Art of Being Posthuman: Who Are We in the 21st Century?
This book offers a comprehensive reflection on the existential condition of the 21st century. A visionary introduction to existential posthumanism, it takes the form of eight meditations of posthuman self-inquiry.
Existential posthumanism embraces the question ‘Who am I?’ in relation 'Where, When, and Why are We?'. This journey of self-discovery engages with a wide range of knowledge and expertise – from ancient paths of wisdom to the latest developments in science and biotechnologies; from Paleolithic times to the futures of radical life extension. The book declutters the habit of being as individuals, as societies, as a species. Letting go of the need for anthropocentric mastery and species-specific ambitions, the reader emerges regenerated. Being posthuman, in the 21st century, entails awareness of from our symbiotic co-evolutions to the rights of Nature; from the geological time of the Anthropocene to the rise of Big Data and artificial intelligence. In ecology, biology, technology and ontology, the manifold paths of posthuman self-realization will reveal that we are all co-creators in the existential our lives are our ultimate works of art.
The Art of Being Posthuman is a self-help guide to navigate our brave new world.
Existential posthumanism embraces the question ‘Who am I?’ in relation 'Where, When, and Why are We?'. This journey of self-discovery engages with a wide range of knowledge and expertise – from ancient paths of wisdom to the latest developments in science and biotechnologies; from Paleolithic times to the futures of radical life extension. The book declutters the habit of being as individuals, as societies, as a species. Letting go of the need for anthropocentric mastery and species-specific ambitions, the reader emerges regenerated. Being posthuman, in the 21st century, entails awareness of from our symbiotic co-evolutions to the rights of Nature; from the geological time of the Anthropocene to the rise of Big Data and artificial intelligence. In ecology, biology, technology and ontology, the manifold paths of posthuman self-realization will reveal that we are all co-creators in the existential our lives are our ultimate works of art.
The Art of Being Posthuman is a self-help guide to navigate our brave new world.
- GenresPhilosophy
240 pages, Hardcover
Published February 21, 2024
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
May 27, 2025
The Art of Being Posthuman by Francesca Ferrando
https://www.amazon.com/Art-Being-Post...
I picked this book up in the philosophy section of the bookstore. My interest was piqued by a previous book I had read read on Transhumanism and the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. The prior book had suggested Transhumanism and similar philosophies might play an important role in the future. As if to underscore that point, this last week has seen the bombing of an in vitro fertilization (IVF) Center by an anti-natalist, someone who thinks that humans giving births to humans is an unmitigated evil.
Ferrando is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at NYU Liberal Studies, Faculty of Arts and Science at the New York University in New York City with degrees in Literature, Philosophy, and Gender Studies. She goes by the pronouns “they/them.” Her main interest is in post-humanism
Ferrando does not offer a concise definition of “post-humanism.” It is clear that Post-humanism (“PH”) does not mean Trans-humanism (“TH”). TH involves transcending human limitations by cybernetic or technical means. PH seems to mean something like “after humanity.” Ferrando defines “existential posthumanism” as “a path of self-enquiry and self-discovery, aimed at full existential awareness.” She defines “Posthuman” as “being brave enough toknow that the human condition is neither our destiny nor our nature but, rather, spatio-temporal manifestations of unlimited material and semiotic possibilities.” Ferrando says that a key idea in her version of PH is “inter-being” (IB) meaning every relation that anything has with everything else. We are inter-being with the bacteria that inhabit us and all other relationships we can envision.
Ferrando takes the inter-being idea to the extent of arguing that we should be less prejudiced against viruses. Viruses make up a substantial part of our DNA, they have been responsible for recombinant genetic changes promoting evolution, and form a large part of our biological matter. Apparently, it matters that we have a prejudice against viruses becomes some of them have a tendency to kill us or make us sick.
This is part of Ferrando’s general polemic against human exceptionalism. Humans have an imperialistic/colonialist attitude against non-human existence, believing ourselves to be special, when clearly we are not. According to Ferrando, although we are still dealing with systemic racism and sexism, we need to take care of “anthropocentrism.” She explains:
Once we are open to reality and able to perceive it as it is – and not as a mere recipient of our projections – anthropocentrism in the 21st century is revealed as a physical and mental dis-ease which is harming us all, as a planet. Healing requires unlearning outdated ways of being human, manifesting an authentic commitment towards multi-species coexistence based on existential awareness.” (p. 25)
Human extinction is a viable solution to the problem of anthropocentrism. Ferrando asks if “human extinction (is) the solution to our planetary crisis?” (p. 53.) Citing philosopher Patricia MacCormack, Ferrando notes that symbolically speaking a species sacrifice resembles the Christian doctrine of self-sacrifice as a the ultimate purifier and observes that “Yes, our self-directed extinction could allow other species eventually to spread and predominate; and yet these other species may also eventually create planetary unbalance and distress.” (p. 53.) Ferrando concludes that self-extinction is probably not the answer:
“How can we become extinct if we are (p)art of the full manifestation? To be (humans) is to (inter-)be: we are not separated from everything else. Energy doesn’t die, it transforms. Humans cannot simply become extinct: to bring real change, we must transform our ways of being. The point is not to give away our primacy – which is a delusion, anyway – but to realize who we are…Rushing the end of the human race would leave some of these dynamics at play: eventually they could (in)form the ways non-human beings may some-day perceive themselves as better than others – for instance in the dreaded AI takeover scenario. Existential awareness resonates through species, planets, and vice versa: we must realize who we are while we are (here). Only if we nourish self-awareness can we reverse anthropogenic habits: the current planetary catastrophe is a mirror of our own existential obfuscations in the micro-macro knowledge of the self.” (p. 53-54.)
So, that is a resounding, “Not yet.” Human beings should delay self-extinction until we leave a better example for the planet. Our reasons for existence is to show proper humility and to be a good example for whatever comes next after our inevitable extinction.
This is quite inspiring stuff.
Of course, it is largely nonsense. What does it mean to say that “existential awareness resonates through species” and planets? How does this resonance work? Do we have evidence of it? Is it pure poetry and moonshine? Are we supposed to guide our policies on such guff?
The book is on this level of fog and meaningless jargon. Ferrando coins words and breaks words into parts to have the parts of words to the real work of argument. She misuses words, such as “ontological.” She writes: “This is the ontological epiphany of relationality, according to which relata and relation are not in competition for primacy; they can only co-emerge in the present moment.” (p. 18.) Put aside the meaningless, mind-numbing jargon, what is an “ontological epiphany of relationality”?
“Ontological” is defined as pertaining to the study of being. One source explains:
“Things that have to do with the nature of being are ontological, like your ontological question about the Loch Ness Monster — do we have to have proof in order for something to exist?”
So, what is an “ontological epiphany”? Something to do with the study of being as it relates to epiphanies? An epiphany that has real existence? Given Ferrando’s indiscriminate use of “ontological” as an adjective, it is not clear that she knows what it means.
It isn’t clear that this is a book of philosophy. Ferrando talks about wisdom a lot, but to her wisdom simply means not having a human-centric state of mind. She frequently mentions how this perspective is required in the 21st Century, but never explains how philosophy is time-dependent. She also has no time for discussing human nature, and the needs of human beings as human beings. It is probably the case that she does not believe that there is a human nature. Humans are not likely to have an essence, and their own desires, needs, or requirements, because they have no essence; they are inter-being and no more important than the bio(me) that lives within them.
What you have in this book is simply Wokeness on steroids. Thus, while it is part of PH wisdom to understand that we are all connected to everything else, that there are limitations in such connections, and that nothing is greater than anything else, all buts are off when it comes to the dreaded “white male.” White males distort and oppress. Children’s books highlight white men, and they shouldn’t. She lauds the cleverness of her four year old niece who questions why we need Santa Claus when we can use Amazon. Ferrando observes: “The old white male human, sliding down the chimney, is no longer appealing: Christmas is every day: Amazon can deliver packages more efficiently.” (p. 116.)
“Old white male human” is so precisely Woke. We can’t have contempt for viruses in Ferrando’s utopia, but “old white male humans” can still be treated with contempt.
While we continue to exist in order to show the computers or the newts a better way – because “existential awareness resonates rhough species” – by giving up our resentments, realizing that anthropocentrism is a disease, and learning humility, but this doesn’t mean that in the meantime the right sort of people can’t nurse their resentments:
“Most humans are unable to act in a spirit of “brotherhood” – more than half of the human population is not male. “Reason” cannot be the discerning point : many humans have been brutalized in the name of “reason.” For instance, in the intersectional histories of colonialism, racism, and sexism, among others, native people, women and non-white humans were considered to lack reason”: this was why legal guardianship and foreign rule – among other dehumanizing practices – were forced upon them.” (p. 138.)
Ferrando advocates decolonizing the colors pink and blue as part of the post-human change in thinking required by the advent of the 21st century. (P. 166.)
The good news is that thinking the right woke thoughts will free us from disease:
“In the 21st century, a consistent percentage of our species still relies on anthropocentric views, which are the root cause of biological diseases, as well as of mental disorders.” (p. 65.)
This stuff is not philosophy; it is a cult. It is also a cult that would probably side with the aliens if they invade the Earth. Ferrando’s view of humanity is jaded: humans are wrecking the planet, biased against viruses, exist only to resonate good thoughts to future species, etc. She asks, could we ever honestly say to an alien species that we come in peace? (p. 108.) Ferrando focuses on the human history of colonialism and imperialism without ever asking, “what about the aliens?” It seems that she would give the benefit of the doubt to the alien invaders in the same way that the cult in “Three Body Problem” works with alien invaders against humanity.
We know where our traitors can be found.
In conclusion, this is not a philosophical work. It confuses assertion with reasoned argument. In fact, it decries reasons and chooses to go with polemic and feelings. It is illogical to the point of silliness.
But it has the capacity to inspire acts of violence.
https://www.amazon.com/Art-Being-Post...
I picked this book up in the philosophy section of the bookstore. My interest was piqued by a previous book I had read read on Transhumanism and the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. The prior book had suggested Transhumanism and similar philosophies might play an important role in the future. As if to underscore that point, this last week has seen the bombing of an in vitro fertilization (IVF) Center by an anti-natalist, someone who thinks that humans giving births to humans is an unmitigated evil.
Ferrando is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at NYU Liberal Studies, Faculty of Arts and Science at the New York University in New York City with degrees in Literature, Philosophy, and Gender Studies. She goes by the pronouns “they/them.” Her main interest is in post-humanism
Ferrando does not offer a concise definition of “post-humanism.” It is clear that Post-humanism (“PH”) does not mean Trans-humanism (“TH”). TH involves transcending human limitations by cybernetic or technical means. PH seems to mean something like “after humanity.” Ferrando defines “existential posthumanism” as “a path of self-enquiry and self-discovery, aimed at full existential awareness.” She defines “Posthuman” as “being brave enough toknow that the human condition is neither our destiny nor our nature but, rather, spatio-temporal manifestations of unlimited material and semiotic possibilities.” Ferrando says that a key idea in her version of PH is “inter-being” (IB) meaning every relation that anything has with everything else. We are inter-being with the bacteria that inhabit us and all other relationships we can envision.
Ferrando takes the inter-being idea to the extent of arguing that we should be less prejudiced against viruses. Viruses make up a substantial part of our DNA, they have been responsible for recombinant genetic changes promoting evolution, and form a large part of our biological matter. Apparently, it matters that we have a prejudice against viruses becomes some of them have a tendency to kill us or make us sick.
This is part of Ferrando’s general polemic against human exceptionalism. Humans have an imperialistic/colonialist attitude against non-human existence, believing ourselves to be special, when clearly we are not. According to Ferrando, although we are still dealing with systemic racism and sexism, we need to take care of “anthropocentrism.” She explains:
Once we are open to reality and able to perceive it as it is – and not as a mere recipient of our projections – anthropocentrism in the 21st century is revealed as a physical and mental dis-ease which is harming us all, as a planet. Healing requires unlearning outdated ways of being human, manifesting an authentic commitment towards multi-species coexistence based on existential awareness.” (p. 25)
Human extinction is a viable solution to the problem of anthropocentrism. Ferrando asks if “human extinction (is) the solution to our planetary crisis?” (p. 53.) Citing philosopher Patricia MacCormack, Ferrando notes that symbolically speaking a species sacrifice resembles the Christian doctrine of self-sacrifice as a the ultimate purifier and observes that “Yes, our self-directed extinction could allow other species eventually to spread and predominate; and yet these other species may also eventually create planetary unbalance and distress.” (p. 53.) Ferrando concludes that self-extinction is probably not the answer:
“How can we become extinct if we are (p)art of the full manifestation? To be (humans) is to (inter-)be: we are not separated from everything else. Energy doesn’t die, it transforms. Humans cannot simply become extinct: to bring real change, we must transform our ways of being. The point is not to give away our primacy – which is a delusion, anyway – but to realize who we are…Rushing the end of the human race would leave some of these dynamics at play: eventually they could (in)form the ways non-human beings may some-day perceive themselves as better than others – for instance in the dreaded AI takeover scenario. Existential awareness resonates through species, planets, and vice versa: we must realize who we are while we are (here). Only if we nourish self-awareness can we reverse anthropogenic habits: the current planetary catastrophe is a mirror of our own existential obfuscations in the micro-macro knowledge of the self.” (p. 53-54.)
So, that is a resounding, “Not yet.” Human beings should delay self-extinction until we leave a better example for the planet. Our reasons for existence is to show proper humility and to be a good example for whatever comes next after our inevitable extinction.
This is quite inspiring stuff.
Of course, it is largely nonsense. What does it mean to say that “existential awareness resonates through species” and planets? How does this resonance work? Do we have evidence of it? Is it pure poetry and moonshine? Are we supposed to guide our policies on such guff?
The book is on this level of fog and meaningless jargon. Ferrando coins words and breaks words into parts to have the parts of words to the real work of argument. She misuses words, such as “ontological.” She writes: “This is the ontological epiphany of relationality, according to which relata and relation are not in competition for primacy; they can only co-emerge in the present moment.” (p. 18.) Put aside the meaningless, mind-numbing jargon, what is an “ontological epiphany of relationality”?
“Ontological” is defined as pertaining to the study of being. One source explains:
“Things that have to do with the nature of being are ontological, like your ontological question about the Loch Ness Monster — do we have to have proof in order for something to exist?”
So, what is an “ontological epiphany”? Something to do with the study of being as it relates to epiphanies? An epiphany that has real existence? Given Ferrando’s indiscriminate use of “ontological” as an adjective, it is not clear that she knows what it means.
It isn’t clear that this is a book of philosophy. Ferrando talks about wisdom a lot, but to her wisdom simply means not having a human-centric state of mind. She frequently mentions how this perspective is required in the 21st Century, but never explains how philosophy is time-dependent. She also has no time for discussing human nature, and the needs of human beings as human beings. It is probably the case that she does not believe that there is a human nature. Humans are not likely to have an essence, and their own desires, needs, or requirements, because they have no essence; they are inter-being and no more important than the bio(me) that lives within them.
What you have in this book is simply Wokeness on steroids. Thus, while it is part of PH wisdom to understand that we are all connected to everything else, that there are limitations in such connections, and that nothing is greater than anything else, all buts are off when it comes to the dreaded “white male.” White males distort and oppress. Children’s books highlight white men, and they shouldn’t. She lauds the cleverness of her four year old niece who questions why we need Santa Claus when we can use Amazon. Ferrando observes: “The old white male human, sliding down the chimney, is no longer appealing: Christmas is every day: Amazon can deliver packages more efficiently.” (p. 116.)
“Old white male human” is so precisely Woke. We can’t have contempt for viruses in Ferrando’s utopia, but “old white male humans” can still be treated with contempt.
While we continue to exist in order to show the computers or the newts a better way – because “existential awareness resonates rhough species” – by giving up our resentments, realizing that anthropocentrism is a disease, and learning humility, but this doesn’t mean that in the meantime the right sort of people can’t nurse their resentments:
“Most humans are unable to act in a spirit of “brotherhood” – more than half of the human population is not male. “Reason” cannot be the discerning point : many humans have been brutalized in the name of “reason.” For instance, in the intersectional histories of colonialism, racism, and sexism, among others, native people, women and non-white humans were considered to lack reason”: this was why legal guardianship and foreign rule – among other dehumanizing practices – were forced upon them.” (p. 138.)
Ferrando advocates decolonizing the colors pink and blue as part of the post-human change in thinking required by the advent of the 21st century. (P. 166.)
The good news is that thinking the right woke thoughts will free us from disease:
“In the 21st century, a consistent percentage of our species still relies on anthropocentric views, which are the root cause of biological diseases, as well as of mental disorders.” (p. 65.)
This stuff is not philosophy; it is a cult. It is also a cult that would probably side with the aliens if they invade the Earth. Ferrando’s view of humanity is jaded: humans are wrecking the planet, biased against viruses, exist only to resonate good thoughts to future species, etc. She asks, could we ever honestly say to an alien species that we come in peace? (p. 108.) Ferrando focuses on the human history of colonialism and imperialism without ever asking, “what about the aliens?” It seems that she would give the benefit of the doubt to the alien invaders in the same way that the cult in “Three Body Problem” works with alien invaders against humanity.
We know where our traitors can be found.
In conclusion, this is not a philosophical work. It confuses assertion with reasoned argument. In fact, it decries reasons and chooses to go with polemic and feelings. It is illogical to the point of silliness.
But it has the capacity to inspire acts of violence.
April 24, 2024
Great book a lot to think about pushing me going from a transhumanists to a Posthumanist in my personal perspective. For more read my full review at : https://www.theplaceholdr.com/p/beyon...
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews