David Roden is a Philosopher at the Open University. Interested in eccentric alternatives to humanity and the naturalisation of just about everything. He tweets as @turingcop.

He is author Posthuman Life: Philosophy at the Edge of the Human (Routledge 2014).

Departmental web site.

Lifeboat Foundation web site.

Enemyindustry Philosophy Research

Academia.edu page



2 Responses to About

  1. doug wolens says:

    Check out my feature documentary titled The Singularity. Described by the IEET as “the best documentary about the singularity to date,” it would be great for your forthcoming article: Handbook Posthumanism in Film and Television.

  2. Luke Munn says:

    Hi David,

    Hope you’re doing well. Just spent an afternoon reading through parts of Posthuman Life and some of the discussions on your blog and others. Some really interesting ideas and rigorous critical thinking, which could prove really helpful for a PhD I hope to begin soon. I’m coming from an fine arts/design background, not philosophy, but I had a couple quick questions that I hoped you could answer.

    1. doesn’t the wide human encompass everything?
    i recently read that, apart from a few isolated pockets, the forests of europe have been cultivated for hundreds of years. it would seem that there’s nothing the anthropocene hasn’t touched. feral animals, an example you give, are still instrumentalised as part of tourism programmes, wildlife refuges, etc and commodified precisely as the ‘wild/authentic/natural’. their existence depends on a kind of negative anthropocentric footprint – habitats created by (temporary) deadspace or legislated protected space. so i guess i’m wondering what wouldn’t (or couldn’t) get enveloped in that framework?

    2. isn’t inclusion or exclusion in the WH also a matter of interpretation?
    in chapter 6 you point out the problems with adopting ‘intentionality’ as a property of the posthuman, and how difficult it is to attribute intentions to them. doesn’t the same apply for attempting to interpret what still belongs to the WH and what has successfully ‘detached’ enough from it? esp. within a framework of capitalism, i could easily imagine entities with a more ‘mixed’ ontology and agency, split between anthropocentric/non-anthropocentric aims/intentions, providing for a more symbiotic type relationship. so kinda related to the first question really – is there a ‘dark enough’ phenomenology on the spectrum, ‘weird enough’ to qualify as liminal or marginal, while still circling around the WH cosmos.

    Hope you can provide some insight into these, and again really enjoying some of this (admittedly very challenging) reading! :-)

    Luke Munn


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *