Stiegler's conception of the technical object, which is undeniably influenced by Simondon, attrib-utes to it a fundamental symbolic function that underpins the political bond. The symbolic misery of the hyper-industrial age arises from a catastrophe of the sensible—specifically, a collapse of the symbolic into the domain of the sensible, reducing it to the audiovisual and mere aisthesis. In contrast, the symbolic demands a transition to the noetic realm, which, according to Stiegler, is made possible through the retentive function of the technical object. In the text, the different forms of retention (primary, secondary, and tertiary) are linked to distinct views of reality: monoscopic, stereoscopic, and telescopic, respectively. It is only through the symbolic function—mediated by the hypomnesic nature of the technical object—that a multidi-mensional view, essential to the noetic and to critique, becomes possible. In the final part of the essay, this geometrical deepening of the relationship to the technical object, rooted in its symbolic function and enabling critique, is interpreted as a “Keplerian revolution.” This revolution is un-derstood as a reformulation of Kant’s Copernican revolution, reconfiguring our conceptual framework through the technical object’s symbolic mediation.

Heidegger’s philosophy has been interpreted as an absolute historicism, unable to point to a unhistorical standpoint from which history can be judged upon. K. Löwith, for instance, has indicated that the cause of this difficulty is to be found in the conception of time: whereas, in Greek thought, time was considered only as a manifestation of the essence, in modern thought time has the tendency to become the essence itself, as that which fulfills itself in time, up to Heidegger’s identification of being and event. What is interesting in my critique is that the conception of time is strictly interwoven with a specific way of conceiving justice and, broadly speaking, ethics. In Plato’s philosophy, justice as measure corresponds to a cyclical and even retrogressive conception of time, the one enounced in the myth of Chronos, in the Politikos. The modern conception of time, spiritualistic and biologistic, is instead cyclical and irreversible, cumulative: its most significant expression is Hegelianism. The existential conception of time, instead, is neither cyclical nor cumulative. By commenting on Heidegger’s Anaximander’s Saying, I wish to show the possibility of conceiving temporality as disjunction (injustice) and only as such capable of producing justice – which I understand as a new possibility of meaning that does not exclude, but carries within itself, emancipation. An ethics of the present developed on the basis of this conception of time – which Heidegger has not completely endorsed – would then be an ethics which accepts as its own ground the discontinuous, yet inventive, dimension of time.