Abstract: How is it possible to account for the double dimension of the “anthropos” of the Anthropocene ? At once both a responsible, historical subject, and a neutral, non-conscious and non-reflexive force? According to Chakrabarty, the “anthropos” has to be considered a geological force; according to Smail, it has to be considered an addicted brain. A subjectivity without being for the former, an emotional and dependent biological and symbolic entity for the latter. As an in between solution, I propose a rereading of the concept of “mentality” proposed by Braudel and his followers from the Annales School. The mental would be intermediarily located between the inorganic and the neural, thus helping to fill the gap between two opposed concepts of history, that are both implied in the current redefinition of ecology.

中文翻译：

---

历史的大脑，或者说，人类世的心态

摘要：如何解释人类世“人类”的双重维度？既是负责任的历史主体，又是中立的、无意识和非反射性的力量？根据 Chakrabarty 的说法，“人类”必须被视为一种地质力量；根据 Smail 的说法，它必须被视为一个上瘾的大脑。前者是一种主观性，后者是一种情感和依赖的生物和象征实体。作为一种介于两者之间的解决方案，我建议重新阅读布罗代尔及其年鉴学派追随者提出的“心态”概念。心理将介于无机和神经之间，从而有助于填补两个对立的历史概念之间的差距，这两个概念都隐含在当前对生态的重新定义中。