Transhuman education: Sloterdijk's reading of Heidegger's Letter on Humanism

Peter Sloterdijk presented a reading of Heidegger's Letter on Humanism at a conference held at Elmau in 1999. Reinterpreting the meaning of humanism in the light of Heidegger's Letter, Sloterdijk focused his presentation on the need to redefine education as a form of genetic ‘taming’ and proposed what seemed to be support for positive eugenics. Although Sloterdijk claimed that he only wanted to open a debate on the issue, he could not have been surprised at the level of opposition this suggestion aroused. In the weeks following, he blamed Habermas for raising this opposition and for refusing to engage with him openly. Although Luis Arenas has chronicled the aftermath of Sloterdijk's paper, it may be of interest to educators to examine how Heidegger's text is presented. What is this new humanism? If Heidegger's new humanism was based on a mystical attitude towards Being, so Sloterdijk's new humanism was to be based on the materialist principles of a biotechnological age. Unlike Heidegger who rejected technology as yet one further example of the forgetfulness of Being, Sloterdijk seems to embrace technology and the enhancement of the human body and mind as the next great step forward in educational theory. Could he possibly be right? Is education in these times a partner or an opponent of the technological enhancement of the human being? This article tries to identify Sloterdijk's disagreements with Heidegger on the question of the human.

The association between parental attitudes and alcohol consumption and adolescent alcohol consumption in Southern Ireland: a cross-sectional study

Background: Alcohol plays a complex role in society. A recent study showed that over half of Irish adults drink hazardously. Adolescents report increased levels of alcohol consumption. Previous research has inferred the influence of the parent on their adolescent. Thus, the aim of the current study was to investigate the association between adolescent alcohol consumption and their parent’s consumption pattern and attitude toward alcohol use in Southern Ireland. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was undertaken in November 2014. This involved distributing a survey to adolescents (n = 982) in their final two years of second level education and at least one of their parents from a local electorate area in Southern Ireland. This survey included: alcohol use, self- reported height and weight, smoking status, mental health and well-being along with attitudinal questions. Chi-square tests and multivariate logistic regression were utilised. Results: A 37 % response rate was achieved. Over one-third (34.2 %) of adolescents and 47 % of parents surveyed reported hazardous drinking. Over 90 % of parents disagreed with allowing their adolescent to get drunk and rejected the idea that getting drunk is part of having fun as an adolescent. The majority (79.5 %) of parents surveyed believed that their alcohol consumption pattern set a good example for their adolescent. Multivariate logistic regression highlights the association between adolescent hazardous alcohol consumption and hazardous drinking by the father. Furthermore either parent permitting their adolescent to drink alcohol on special occasions was associated with hazardous alcohol consumption in the adolescent. Conclusion: The findings of this research notes a liberal attitude to alcohol and increased levels of consumption by the parent are linked to hazardous adolescent drinking behaviour. Future action plans aimed at combatting adolescent hazardous alcohol consumption should also be aimed at tackling parents’ attitudes towards and consumption of alcohol.