DIFFERENT HUMAN IMAGES AND ANTHROPOLOGICAL COLISSIONS OF POST-MODERNISM EPOСH: BIOPHILOSOPHICAL INTERPRETATION

S. К. Коstyuchkov

Abstract


Purpose. The research is aimed at substantiation of the process of formation of various human images in the postmodernism era in the context of biophilosophy, taking into account the need to find an adequate response to historical challenges and the production of new value orientations reflecting succession of civilization development. Theoretical basis. The author in his theoretical constructs proceeds from the need of taking into account the biophilosophical aspect of postmodern man, as the one who, remaining a representative of the species Homo sapiens, began to dynamically change, losing (weakening) its own natural and functional qualities, acquiring to a large extent the socio-technology-related qualities. The thesis that in the postmodern society the moral and legal foundations of existence of human being, as the subject of actions and responsibility for these actions, practically coincide with the biological foundations is taken as initial argument. New biological knowledge, as well as the related technologies, orient the public consciousness towards production of fundamentally new or modernization of the existing bio-philosophical ideas. The author's vision of the anthropological collision of the Post-Modernism era is caused by the fact that the issues of a postmodern man acquire a special urgency at the end of the ХХ – early XXI century. A progressive disproportion between a human being, whose abilities as a representative of the species Homo sapiens are biologically limited, and the human community, which sees no limits in its information and technological expansion, is of current interest. Originality. The author reveals the key features of the Post-Modernism era, in which a fundamentally different civilizational space originates, and where a new type of person emerges in its internal culture, which is called the postmodern man. The postmodern man was considered through the prism of bio-philosophy. Its interest in man is caused by his or her place in nature, the prospects of development at the individual, population and species levels. Conclusions. In the process of development of bio-philosophy, its research field will be naturally expanded with the use of philosophical means of perception of life as such and filling the bio-philosophy with philosophical and biological issues. In contemporary conditions, the study of the boundaries of biological reality and its previously unknown properties, definition of new horizons of theoretical knowledge in the science of life, the critical rethinking of the concepts of biocentrism and anthropocentrism in the space of modern scientific knowledge, the definition of perspective trends in the study of man, his or her place and role in the planetary being is of great importance.


Keywords


anthropocentrism; biological finalism; bio-philosophy; biocentrism; being; life; organism; Post-Modernism; human nature; ecocidanthropocentrism; biological finalism; biophilosophy; biocentrism; being; life; organism; Post-Modernism; human nature; ecocid

Full Text:

PDF

References


Bauman, Z. (2005). The individualized society. V. L. Inozemtsev (Ed.), Trans. from Engl. Moscow: Logos. (in Russian)

Bazargani, D. T., & Larsari, V. N. (2015). "Postmodernism": Is the Contemporary State of Affairs Correctly Described as "Postmodern"? Journal of Social Issues & Humanities, 3, 89-96. (in English)

Brawn, R. (Ed.). (1995). Postmodern representations: Truth, power, and mimesis in the human sciences and public culture. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois Press. (in English)

Burak, O. S. (2015). Holistic conception of education in formation of holistic personality of postmodern age. Continuing Professional Education: Theory and Practice, 3(44), 52-56. (in Ukrainian)

Craver, C., & Darden, L. (2013). In search of mechanisms: Discoveries across the life sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (in English)

Danylova, T. V. (2012). The problem оf human identity іn postmodern world view. Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research, 2, 16-22. doi: 10.15802/ampr2012/7833 (in Ukrainian)

Fuko, M., & Bolshakov, V. P. (Ed.). (2006). Intellektualy i vlast: Izbrannye politicheskie stati, vystupleniya i intervyu ( P. 3). B. M. Skuratov, Trans. from French. Moscow: Praksis. (in Russian)

Fukuyama, F. (2004). Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. M. B. Levin, Trans. from Engl. Moscow: ACT: LYuKS. (in Russian)

Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Redwood City: Stanford University Press. (in English)

Inglehart, R. (2010). Globalization and postmodern values. The Washington Quarterly, January, 215-228. doi: 10.1162/016366000560665 (in English)

Kalnaya, I. I., & Gorban, A. V. (Eds.). (2011). Grazhdanskoe obshchestvo v epokhu totalnoy globalizatsii: Monografiya. Simferopol: ARIAL. (in Russian)

Kostyuchkov, S. K. (2016). Place and role modern man in planetary existence: Biopolitical interpretation. Future Human Image, 3(6), 53-66. (in Ukrainian)

Koutroufinis, S. A. (2014). The Need for a New Biophilosophy. In S. A. Koutroufinis (Ed.), Life and Process. Towards a New Biophilosophy (pp. 1-35). Berlin: De Gruyter. (in English)

Lazzarato, М. (2005). Biopolitique/Bioéconomie. Multitudes, 22, 51-62. doi: 10.3917/mult.022.0051 (in French)

Lyotard, J.-F. (1998). la condition postmoderne. N. A. Shmatko, Trans. from French. Moscow: Institut eksperimentalnoy sotsiologii; Saint Petersburg: Aleteyya. (in Russian)

Rosenberg, A. (2017). Why Social Science is Biological Science. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 48(3), 341-369. doi: 10.1007/s10838-017-9365-0 (in English)

Rosenberg, A., & McShea, D. (2008). Philosophy of Biology: A Contemporary Introduction. London: Routledge. (in English)

Vernadskiy, V. I. (1988). Neskolko slov o noosfere. In Filosofskie mysli naturalista (pp. 503-510). Moscow: Nauka. (in Russian)

Zinchenko, V. V. (2015). Institutional globalization as a system of integration the phenomenon of the postmodern development. Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research, 8, 74-85. doi: 10.15802/ampr2015/55731 (in Ukrainian)


GOST Style Citations


Бауман, З. Индивидуализированное общество / З. Бауман ; пер. с англ., под ред. В. Л. Иноземцева. – Москва : Логос, 2005. – 390 с.

Bazargani, D. T. "Postmodernism": Is the Contemporary State of Affairs Correctly Described as "Postmodern"? / D. T. Bazargani, V. N. Larsari // Journal of Social Issues & Humanities. – 2015. – Vol. 3, Is. 1. – P. 89–96.

Postmodern representations: Truth power, and mimesis in the human sciences and public culture / Ed. by R. Brawn. – Urbana-Champaign : University of Illinois Press, 1995. – 146 р.

Бурак, О. С. Концепція холістичної освіти у процесі формуванні цілісної особистості постмодерну / О. С. Бурак // Неперервна освіта: теорія і практика. – 2015. – № 3 (44). – С. 52–56.

Craver, C. In search of mechanisms: Discoveries across the life sciences / С. Craver, L. Darden. – Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 2013. – 227 р.

Данилова, Т. В. Проблема людської ідентичності у постмодерній картині світу / Т. В. Данилова // Антропологічні виміри філософських досліджень. – 2012. – Вип. 2. – С. 16–22. doi: 10.15802/ampr2012/7833

Фуко, М. Интеллектуалы и власть: избранные политические статьи, выступления и интервью / М. Фуко ; перевод с фр. Б. М. Скуратова ; под общ. ред. В. П. Большакова. – Москва : Праксис, 2006. – Ч. 3. – 320 с.

Фукуяма, Ф. Наше постчеловеческое будущее: последствия биотехнологической революции / Ф. Фукуяма ; перевод с англ. М. Б. Левина. – Москва : ACT : ЛЮКС, 2004. – 349 с.

Giddens, A. The Consequences of Modernity / A. Giddens. – Redwood City : Stanford University Press, 1990. – 188 р.

Inglehart, R. Globalization and postmodern values / R. Inglehart // The Washington Quarterly. – 2010. – January. – P. 215–228. doi: 10.1162/016366000560665

Гражданское общество в эпоху тотальной глобализации : монография / науч. ред. И. И. Кальной, А. В. Горбань. – Симферополь : АРИАЛ, 2011. – 648 с.

Костючков, С. К. Місце і роль сучасної людини у планетарному бутті: біополітична інтерпретація / С. К. Костючков // Future Human Image. – 2016. – Vol. 3, Is. 6. – P. 53–66.

Koutroufinis, S. A. The Need for a New Biophilosophy / S. A. Koutroufinis // Life and Process. Towards a new Biophilosophy / Ed. by S. A. Koutroufinis. – Berlin : De Gruyter, 2014. – Р. 1–35.

Lazzarato, М. Biopolitique/Bioéconomie / М. Lazzarato // Multitudes. – 2005. – № 22. – P. 51–62. doi: 10.3917/mult.022.0051

Лиотар, Ж.-Ф. Состояние постмодерна / Ж.-Ф. Лиотар ; первод с фр. Н. А. Шматко. – Москва : Институт экспериментальной социологии ; Санкт-Петербург : Алетейя, 1998. – 160 c.

Rosenberg, A. Why Social Science is Biological Science / А. Rosenberg // Journal for General Philosophy of Science. – 2017. – Vol. 48, Is. 3. – Р. 341–369. doi: 10.1007/s10838-017-9365-0

Rosenberg, A. Philosophy of Biology: A Contemporary Introduction / А. Rosenberg, D. McShea. – London : Routledge, 2008. – 240 р.

Вернадский, В. И. Несколько слов о ноосфере / В. И. Вернадский // Вернадский, В. И. Философские мысли натуралиста / Вернадский, В. И. – Москва : Наука, 1988. – C. 503–510.

Зінченко, В. В. Інституційна глобалізація як системне інтеграційне явище постмодерного розвитку / В. В. Зінченко // Антропологічні виміри філософських досліджень. – 2015. – Вип. 8. – С. 74–85. doi: 10.15802/ampr2015/55731





DOI: https://doi.org/10.15802/ampr.v0i13.131967

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.