Биотехнологическое улучшение человека как проблема гуманитарного знания
The collection includes some articles is based on the First All-Russian Conference, Global Future 2045, held in Belgorod University in 2013. The problems of of the current crisis and discusses anthropological scenarios of the development of civilization was held and description.
The article is devoted by discussion some problems of Hhumah Studies. This discussion was held in Belgorod State University
The paper discusses the technical and humanitarian aspects of the thesis of transhumanism about the possibility of copying the mind to a medium and rewriting it repeatedly (digital immortality). It is argued that the nature of the mind implies that it cannot be supported without its functioning, even if recorded, and such functioning (digital life) would inevitably lead to a discrepancy between the copy and the original. The paper further substantiates that the very fact of making such record seems highly unlikely due to the physical restrictions of the world, as well as to the effects of the following natural tendency: technologies would develop not in the direction of the 'copyableness' of the evolving human consciousness, but in the opposite direction of the increasing impossibility of copying the even more complicated mind (i.e. complexity growing faster than the means of precise copying).
Novel biotechnologies drastically enhance human capacities. However, initial optimism concerning new methods of therapy and body modification gradually gives way to fears that technologies can easily get out of hand and alter human nature in an undesirable way. Philosophers approach bioethical discussion from various assumptions and perspectives: while some of them believe that new technologies enhance and better human beings, others are concerned those technological innovations can be perilous. This paper overviews the discussion between utilitarians and bioconservatives on the extent to which human enhancement technologies should be permitted. I suggest an alternative communitarian approach to consider human beings primarily as members of political communities and recognition-seekers. I take the debate on doping legalization in sports to demonstrate how communitarianism doesn’t reject new technologies and still argues for making them work for preservation and flourishing of human communities. All major decisions on regulating biotechnologies should be made by communities themselves in a democratic way and drawing on bioethical expertise.
Transhumanism is the brand-new term, which appears only in the beginning of the 21st century. The adherents of this term consider further development of humanity in a close contact with nanotechnology. People were always interested in how to improve the quality of life and prolong it. Medieval alchemists didn’t find the philosopher’s stone, the Holy Grail is still a legend. The Third Reich scientist’s experiments influenced in the development of medicine, but didn’t reveal the secret of immortality. In the 21st century scientists came more than ever closer to the creation of perfect man with the help of nanotechnology. How do philosophers consider this breakthrough in philosophy of technics?
The article considers the Views of L. N. Tolstoy not only as a representative, but also as a accomplisher of the Enlightenment. A comparison of his philosophy with the ideas of Spinoza and Diderot made it possible to clarify some aspects of the transition to the unique Tolstoy’s religious and philosophical doctrine. The comparison of General and specific features of the three philosophers was subjected to a special analysis. Special attention is paid to the way of thinking, the relation to science and the specifics of the worldview by Tolstoy and Diderot. An important aspect is researched the contradiction between the way of thinking and the way of life of the three philosophers.
Tolstoy's transition from rational perception of life to its religious and existential bases is shown. Tolstoy gradually moves away from the idea of a natural man to the idea of a man, who living the commandments of Christ. Starting from the educational worldview, Tolstoy ended by creation of religious and philosophical doctrine, which were relevant for the 20th century.
This important new book offers the first full-length interpretation of the thought of Martin Heidegger with respect to irony. In a radical reading of Heidegger's major works (from Being and Time through the ‘Rector's Address' and the ‘Letter on Humanism' to ‘The Origin of the Work of Art' and the Spiegel interview), Andrew Haas does not claim that Heidegger is simply being ironic. Rather he argues that Heidegger's writings make such an interpretation possible - perhaps even necessary.
Heidegger begins Being and Time with a quote from Plato, a thinker famous for his insistence upon Socratic irony. The Irony of Heidegger takes seriously the apparently curious decision to introduce the threat of irony even as philosophy begins in earnest to raise the question of the meaning of being. Through a detailed and thorough reading of Heidegger's major texts and the fundamental questions they raise, Haas reveals that one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century can be read with as much irony as earnestness. The Irony of Heidegger attempts to show that the essence of this irony lies in uncertainty, and that the entire project of onto-heno-chrono-phenomenology, therefore needs to be called into question.
The article is concerned with the notions of technology in essays of Ernst and Friedrich Georg Jünger. The special problem of the connection between technology and freedom is discussed in the broader context of the criticism of culture and technocracy discussion in the German intellectual history of the first half of the 20th century.