I reply to two comments to my paper “Subjectivity and transcendental illusions in the Anthropocene,” by Johannes Schick and Melentie Pandilovski. Schick expands on the possibility that technical objects become “other” in a Levinasian sense, making use of Simondon’s three-layered structure of technical objects. His proposal is to free technical objects and install a different relationship between humankind and technology. I see two major difficulties in Schick's proposal. These difficulties are based on a number of features of current digital technology which make it difficult to enter the proposed ethical relationship with it. A first cluster of difficulties consists of the phenomena of blackboxing, the intimate interwovenness of inventing technologies and profit on all levels of the technical object, and the ownership of and control over technologies. A second cluster revolves around the impossibility of a symmetrical relationship with the hyperobject because of current technology’s hyperobject-like nature. Next I discuss Pandilovski’s comments, where I point out that phenomenology is more encompassing than the study of having conscious experiences, and that phenomenology is essentially a method, rather than a collection of results.

我对Johannes Schick和Melentie Pandilovski撰写的论文“人类世中的主体性和先验幻觉”发表了两点评论。希克利用西蒙登的三层技术对象结构，扩展了在列维纳斯意义上技术对象成为“其他”的可能性。他的建议是释放技术对象，并在人类与技术之间建立不同的关系。我看到席克的建议有两个主要困难。这些困难基于当前数字技术的许多特征，这些特征使得很难与之建立建议的伦理关系。第一类困难包括黑匣子现象，发明技术的紧密交织以及在技术对象的各个层面上的获利，以及技术的所有权和控制权。由于当前技术的类超对象特性，第二类集群围绕与超对象建立对称关系的可能性。接下来，我将讨论潘迪洛夫斯基的评论，在这篇文章中，我指出现象学比具有自觉体验的研究更具笼统性，现象学本质上是一种方法，而不是结果的集合。