SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

vol.48 issue2 author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand



Related links

  • On index processCited by Google
  • On index processSimilars in Google


Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe

On-line version ISSN 2224-7912
Print version ISSN 0041-4751

Tydskr. geesteswet. vol.48 n.2 Pretoria  2008


Die invensie van 'n toekoms I: Oor toekoms, inventiewe denke en taal


The invention of a future 1: On the future, inventive thinking and language



C S de Beer

Departement Inligtingkunde, Universiteit van Pretoria, Pretoria




Die toekoms is onontwykbaar. Mense bly altyd daarmee gekonfronteer. Die uitdagings wat dit stel is ewe onontwykbaar: Wat moet ons daarmee doen? Hoe kan ons ons daarop voorberei? Wat kan gedoen word om dit te verseker? Duidelik stel dit hoë eise aan menslike denke, want geen empiriese hantering van die toekoms is moontlik nie. Deur die eeue het die gedagte van hoop op een of ander wyse gehelp om toekomsverwagtinge te artikuleer, hoop van filosowe, van teoloë, van psigoloë en selfs van rewolusionêres. Die hoop het mense laat voortgaan. Utopiese verwagtinge is gekoester en verkondig. Al hierdie intellektuele oefeninge is menslike denkhandelinge. lets baie besonders word deur die toekoms van die denke gevra en dit vra weer vir 'n spesiale soort denke: allesomvattende denke, verbeeldingryke denke, of eintlik inventiewe denke, geïnspireer deur die noëtiese vermoëns van mense. Hierdie denke, ten einde te floreer en na behore te ontplooi, het taal nodig. Sonder taal sou die denke verstar en die toekoms versper gevind word. Taal help om die toekoms oop te maak, maar dan nie taal as gereedskap nie, maar wel taal as die spreker en denker in en deur mense.

Trefwoorde: Toekoms, hoop, utopie, taal, noëtiese vermoë, refleksie, denke, invensie


The future poses unavoidable challenges to human beings. We have to take on these challenges; we have to confront the future; we have to figure out how to deal with it; we have to develop strategies to secure a sensible future for ourselves. We do not hold the future in our hands. It happens to us and very often in unexpected ways. These ways are most likely different from our plans and scenarios. Many maintain that the future contains something catastrophic and monstrous; thinking about the future is often loaded with despair, not to be separated from a kind of death wish. Despite the despair, the catastrophic, the monstrous and the death wish, human life can only be lived by directing the attention to the future in an imperturbable way.
The significance of empirical data, of the demonstrable, to help us in this endeavour is limited, and so is its value. We must apply our capacity of thought to deal with the challenges. The urgency of thorough reflection can hardly be denied. This urgency is of a conceptual nature before it becomes political or ethical. But then thought and reflection of a specific quality are required. It must be reflection in the sense of comprehensive thinking, or inventive thinking, as the only mode of thinking that is capable of dealing with the complexity and enormity of the challenges. Thought as calculation is insufficient and needs the support and complementary input of thought as reflection, meditation and invention.
An overview of the relevant literature clearly demonstrates the importance of thought and reflection. It becomes abundantly clear that this thinking places hope at the centre of its focus, whether it is hope articulated in terms of philosophy, theology, psychology or even politics and revolution. No single, one-dimensional approach will ever guarantee the future, immaterial of how important guarantees may seem to us and how much we are in need of them. This hope is continuously related to utopian dreams, imaginary expectations and even promising propaganda. It is not only a matter of thinking as a rational issue, but thinking as serious reflection on ethical responsibilities as well. Good thinking is the principle of morality. For the best possible future the best possible thinking is required.
The inescapable directedness towards the future must always be a thoughtful directedness with 'the future as promise' in mind. While the promise is alive the possibilities of inventing a liveable future remains alive. Different approaches of making sense of the future have been considered, the valuable insights in the use and abuse of history with respect to the future can be particularly helpful here, but it seems as if a thoughtful orientation may be the most fruitful. For this to happen, thought of a certain order with a focus on meaningful information, language and life is recommended. The inspiration of thought, emerging from the convergence of a noetic disposition combined with imagination, phantasy and reason, leads to invention. For this reason inventive thinking in general is of decisive importance, but especially when the future is at stake.
This way of thinking cannot be taken for granted; it must be educated in the sense of 'the formation of human thought as invention'. It is important to keep this kind of thinking alive. In order for this kind of thinking to flourish, language is needed. Language in its fullness and not language merely as a handy tool is needed. When language is merely a tool as often happens, then its use becomes mechanical and it exhausts thinking. Exhausted thinking is unable to invent a meaningful future. It can do nothing more than mutilate any expectations regarding the future, disturb all hope, and obfuscate any vision of a possible future. When language is allowed to faint, hope, expectation, destination, and life itself faint as well. This is when 'barbarism of ignorance' takes over in which case dogmatisms, reductionisms, mutilating theories, and ideological distortions pollute all endeavours to invent a future.
Language supports any orientation towards the future, since the future tense, subjunctive and optative, mobilise and organise the future. In this sense language possesses the power of invention. For this reason poetry is important. It uses words to explore many possibilities. Poetry is indeed the thoughtful creation of possibilities. In poetry words are enabled to say as much as possible, to design a future. This is in contrast to ordinary language usage which says the minimum, tries to be 'economical', which very regularly happens in the case of scientific and technical language, as well as in teaching. Such instrumentalisation of language use kills language and is dangerous. Therefore, language in its dynamic fullness, together with comprehensive and inventive thought, must at all costs be kept alive.

Key concepts: Future, hope, Utopia, language, noetic ability, reflection, thought, invention


Full text available only in PDF format. 


Assad, ML. 1999. Reading with Michel Serres: an encounter with time. Albany: SUNY Press.         [ Links ]

Bachelard, G. 1971. The poetics of reverie: childhood, language and the cosmos. Boston: Beacon Press.         [ Links ]

Blanchot, M. 1993. The infinite conversation. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press.         [ Links ]

Bloch, E. 1986. The principle of hope. Cambridge (Ma): The MIT Press.         [ Links ]

Bourdieu, P. 1996. Understanding. Theory, culture and society, 13(2):17-37.         [ Links ]

Bourdieu, P. 2001. Science de la science et réflexivité. Paris: Éditions Raisons d'agir.         [ Links ]

De Beer, C.S. 1984. Tegniek, denke en toekoms. RSA 2000, 6:1-12.         [ Links ]

De Jong, J.M. 1968. Theologie van de hoop, in Discussie over theologie van de hoop, onder redaksie van WD Marsch.Utrecht: Amboboeken.         [ Links ]

Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. 1994. What is philosophy? London: Verso.         [ Links ]

Derrida, J. 1987. Psyché: inventions de l'autre. Paris: Galilée.         [ Links ]

Derrida, J. 1995. Points ... Interviews, 1974 - 1994. Stanford: Stanford University Press.         [ Links ]

Derrida, J. 1996. Archive fever: a Freudian impression. Chicago: Chicago University Press.         [ Links ]

Derrida, J. 2005. Les yeux de la langue. Paris: L'Herne.         [ Links ]

Dupuy, J-P. 1980. Myths of the informational society, in The myths of information: technology and postindustrial culture, edited by K. Woodward. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.         [ Links ]

Dupuy, J-P. 2000. The mechanization of the mind: on the origins of cognitive science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.         [ Links ]

Dupuy, J-P. 2002. Pour une catastrophisme éclairé: quand l'impossible est certain. Paris: Seuil.         [ Links ]

Freire, P. 1994. The pedagogy of hope: reliving pedagogy of the oppressed. London: Continuum.         [ Links ]

Freud, S. 1985. Civilisation, society and religion. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.         [ Links ]

Fromm, E. 1968. The revolution of hope: towards a humanized technology. New York: Harper & Row.         [ Links ]

Fukuyama, F. 2003. Our posthuman future: consequences of the biotechnology revolution. New York: Picador.         [ Links ]

Geyl, P. 1957. Use and abuse of history. New Haven: Yale University Press.         [ Links ]

Godet, M. 2001. Creating futures: scenario planning as a strategic management tool. London: Economica.         [ Links ]

Godet, M. 2004. Le choc de 2006: démographie, croissance, emploi. Pour une société de projets. Paris: Odile Jacob.         [ Links ]

Gray, CH. 2002. Cyborg citizen: politics in the posthuman age. New York: Routledge.         [ Links ]

Guattari, F. 1995. Chaosmosis: an ethico-aesthetic paradigm. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.         [ Links ] Hannah, SA. & Harris, MH. 1999. Inventing the future: information services for a new millennium. Stamford: Ablex.         [ Links ]

Hayles, NK. 1999. How we became posthuman: virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature and informatics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.         [ Links ]

Hayles, NK. 2005. Computing the human. Theory, culture and society, 22(1):131- 151.         [ Links ]

Heidegger, M. 1972. On time and being. New York: Harper & Row.         [ Links ]

Heidegger, M. 1979. Gelatenheid. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Lannoo.         [ Links ]

Henry, M. 1987. La barbarie. Paris: Grasset.         [ Links ]

Henry, M. 1990. Du communisme au capitalisme: théorie d'une catastrophe. Paris: Odile Jacob        [ Links ]

Hottois, G. 1990. Le paradigme bioéthique: une éthique pour la technoscience. Bruxelles: De Boeck- Wesmael.         [ Links ]

Hottois, G. 2000. Technoscience et sagesse? Nantes: Éditions Pleins feux.         [ Links ]

Illich, I. 1973. Tools for conviviality. London: Calder & Boyars.         [ Links ]

Jameson, F. 2005. Archaeologies of the future: the desire called Utopia and other science fictions. London: Verso.         [ Links ]

Jonas, H. 1984. The imperative of responsibility. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.         [ Links ]

Kurzweil, R. 1999. The age of spiritual machines: when computers exceed human intelligence. New York: Penguin Books.         [ Links ]

LeFevre, K.B. 1987. Invention as a social act. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.         [ Links ]

Lévy, P. 1997. Collective intelligence: mankind's emerging world in cyberspace. New York: Plenum Trade.         [ Links ]

Marin, L. 1977. Disneyland: a degenerate utopia, in Glyph I: Johns Hopkins textual studies. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.         [ Links ]

Miskotte, K.H. 1945. Hoofdsom der historie. Nijkerk: Callenbach.         [ Links ]

Moltmann, J. 1964. De theologie van de hoop: studies over de grondslagen en de konsekwenties van een christelijke eschatologie. Utrecht: Amboboeken.         [ Links ]

Moravec, H.P. 1990. Mind children: the future of robot and human intelligence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.         [ Links ]

Morin, E. 1991. La méthode 4: Les idées: leur habitat, leur vie, leurs moeurs, leur organisation. Paris: Seuil.         [ Links ]

Morin, E. 2004. La méthode 6: Éthique. Paris: Seuil.         [ Links ]

Nietzsche, F. 1957. The use and abuse of history. New York: The Liberal Arts Press.         [ Links ]

Passet, 1979. L'économique et le vivant. Paris: Payot.         [ Links ]

Passet, R. 2000. L'Illusion néo-libérale. Paris: Flammarion.         [ Links ]

Prigogine, I. & Stengers, I. 1989. Tussen tijden eeuwigheid: de nieuweplaats van de mens in de natuurwetenschap. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Bert Bakker.         [ Links ]

Rajchman, J. 1991. Truth and eros: Foucault, Lacan, and the question of ethics. London: Routledge.         [ Links ]

Ricoeur, P. 1986. Du texte à l'action. Essais d'herméneutique, II. Paris: Seuil.         [ Links ]

Ricoeur, P. 1991. Reflection and imagination: A Ricoeur Reader, edited by Mario J. Valdés. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.         [ Links ]

Salanskis, J-M. 2003. Herméneutique et cognition. Lille: Presses Universitaires Septentrion.         [ Links ]

Salomon, J-J. 1999. Survivre à la science: une certaine idee du futur. Paris: Albin Michel.         [ Links ]

Sardar, Z. & Ravetz, JR. 1996. Cyberfutures: culture and politics on the information superhighway. London: Pluto Press.         [ Links ]

Serres, M. 1987. Statues. Paris: François Bourin.         [ Links ]

Serres, M. & Latour, B. 1995. Conversations on science, culture and time. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.         [ Links ]

Serres, M. 1997. The troubadour of knowledge. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.         [ Links ]

Steiner, G. 1978. In Bluebeard's castle: some notes towards the redefinition of culture. London: Faber & Faber.         [ Links ]

Steiner, G. 2001. Grammars of creation. London: Faber & Faber.         [ Links ]

Stengers, I. 1997. Power and invention: situating science. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.         [ Links ]

Stengers, I. 2000. The invention of modern science. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.         [ Links ]

Stiegler, B. 1998. Technics and time, 1: The fault of Epimetheus. Stanford: Stanford University Press.         [ Links ]

Stiegler, B. 2003. Aimer, s'aimer, nous aimer. Paris: Galilée.         [ Links ]

Taylor, M.C. 2001. The moment of complexity: emerging network culture. Chicago: Chicago University Press.         [ Links ]

Toffler, A. 1970. Future shock. London: Pan Books.         [ Links ]

Tschumi, B. 1990. Questions of space. London: The Architectural Association.         [ Links ]

Tschumi, B. 1998. Architecture and disjunction. Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press.         [ Links ]

Ulmer, G. 2003. Internet invention: from literacy to electracy. New York: Longman.         [ Links ]



Prof C S de Beer is Emeritus Professor van die Departement Inligtingkunde, Universiteit van Suid-Afrika en is tans Buitengewone Professor in Inligtingkunde aan die Universiteit van Pretoria. Hy het gegradueer in Landbou en Wysbegeerte aan die Universiteite van Pretoria en Parys X. Nanterre, Frankryk. Hy het Inligtingkunde, Kommuni-kasiekunde en Wysbegeerte doseer, navorsing op al hierdie gebiede en verwante subgebiede onderneem, konsultasiewerk gedoen oor kennisbenutting en inligtingverspreiding. Onder sy publikasies tot op datum tel 6 boeke (as outeur), 5 boeke (as redakteur), 75 wetenskaplike artikels en verskeie navorsings-verslae. Hy doen tans ekstensief navorsing oor die Filosofie van Inligting in die wydste moontlike sin van die woord, met besondere klem op die individuele en sosiale implikasies daarvan en hy het 'n beperkte doseeropdrag in Inligtingkunde.

Prof C S de Beer is Professor Emeritus of the Department of Information Science, University of South Africa and is currently Extraordinary Professor in the Department of Information Science at the University of Pretoria. He graduated in Agriculture and Philosophy at the Universities of Pretoria and Paris X. Nanterre, France. He taught Information Science, Communications, and Philosophy, undertook research in all these disciplines and related sub-disciplines, and was involved in consultation work in the area of knowledge utilisation and information dissemination. To date he has published 6 books (as author), 5 books (as editor), 75 scientific articles, and a number of research reports. He is currently engaged in research of the Philosophy of Information in the widest possible sense of the word, with specific attention to its individual and social implications and he has a limited lecturing responsibility in Information Science.

Creative Commons License All the contents of this journal, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License