A Philosophy of First Contact: Stanisław Lem and the Myth of Cognitive Universality

Pro-Fil: An Internet Journal of Philosophy 3 (22):65-77 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Within science fiction the topic of ‘first contact’ is a popular theme. How will an encounter with aliens unfold? Will we succeed in communicating with them? Although such questions are present in the background of many science fiction novels, they are not always explicitly dealt with and even if so, often in a poor way. In this article, I will introduce a typology of five dominant types of solutions to the problem of first contact in science fiction works. The first four solutions are the more dominant, but also the least interesting ones. There is a fifth category that addresses the question of first contact in a more interesting way, exemplified by the work of Stanisław Lem. This fifth option defines itself as a critique of the four previous categories, or of their shared assumption of what Lem (1967) has called ‘the myth of cognitive universality’. Lem is sceptical of the common optimism that first contact will always be successful. In books such as Solaris (1961), His Master’s Voice (1967) and Fiasco (1986), humanity makes first contact with an alien phenomenon, but fails to comprehend the phenomenon. Fundamentally, it will be argued that Lem’s work shows that in such an encounter we will typically not only lack the right answers to our questions, but that we also often lack the correct questions: we simply do not have the right categories or instruments to even recognize, let alone meaningfully interrogate, the alien phenomenon. The article ends with an exploration of the implications of Lem’s pessimism and whether it is the most plausible option for first contact. Moreover, the article will draw some lessons for philosophy of science, by exploring the parallel with the confrontation of novel or deviant phenomena in science. Lem’s work is helpful here because it succeeds in articulating what has not always been appreciated in the philosophy of science, namely that the right questions by which to interrogate scientific phenomena are not given, but that their articulation always requires work.

Similar books and articles

Stanisław Wyspiański jako poeta Szkic krytyczny.Stanisław Brzozowski - 2012 - Kronos - metafizyka, kultura, religia 1 (20).
Stanisław Brzozowski i mit nowoczesności.Stanisław Pieróg - 2012 - Kronos - metafizyka, kultura, religia 1 (20).
Stanisław Borzym: A Praise Of Acquiescence.Szymon Wróbel - 2009 - Archiwum Historii Filozofii I Myśli Społecznej 54.
Contact with Reality.Esther L. Meek - 2017 - Tradition and Discovery 43 (3):14-25.
When Eyes Touch.James Laing - 2021 - Philosophers' Imprint 21 (9):1-17.
Stanisław Brzozowski - myśleć radykalnie.Krzysztof Kędziora - 2014 - Hybris. Internetowy Magazyn Filozoficzny 25:047-065.

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-12-27

Downloads
311 (#64,754)

6 months
109 (#39,240)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Massimiliano Simons
Maastricht University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Objectivity.Lorraine Daston & Peter Galison - 2007 - Cambridge, Mass.: Zone Books. Edited by Peter Galison.
Objectivity.Lorraine Daston - 2007 - Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Edited by Peter Galison.
The Differend.Jean-François Lyotard - 1988 - University of Minnesota Press.

View all 11 references / Add more references