UDC

141.333

DOI

10.37482/2687-1505-V380

Authors

Olga I. Stavtseva

Cand. Sci. (Philos.), Assoc. Prof., Assoc. Prof. at the Philosophy Department, Pushkin Leningrad State University (address: Peterburgskoe sh. 10, Pushkin, 196605, St. Petersburg, Russia).

e-mail: stavtseva_olga@mail.ru, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0257-3430

Abstract

The article deals with the understanding of man in the Anthropocene epoch. The ideas of E. Bińczyk, A. Cera, and Yuk Hui as well as of posthumanists are considered. The Anthropocene is defined as a modern geological epoch in which technology becomes the main force affecting the biosphere, and its impact is so profound that it threatens the usual existence of the system and, possibly, the planetary system. The realization that humans are not completely able to influence these destructive processes leads to “Anthropocene apathy and melancholy” (E. Bińczyk’s term) and makes post-anthropocentric ideas developed in the philosophical discourse of the 20th – 21st centuries more significant. The Anthropocene can also be understood as a technocene, i.e. an era in which the natural environment is completely replaced by the technical environment. Since technology is a man-made creation, the question is raised about the responsibility of humans as a species towards nature. The topic of responsibility is not new in the understanding of environmental problems and environmental ethics of the 20th century. H. Jonas formulates the principle of responsibility as fundamental to human activity, while viewing responsibility as total and continuous. These qualities have been criticized by modern authors since they can lead to domination and control rather than care and stewardship as principles of action. Post-anthropocentric ideas about man and the world can lead humanity out of the Anthropocene crisis. Post-anthropocentrism consists in recognizing that man is not autonomous from non-human objects, but develops complex relationships with them. The way out of the Anthropocene crisis is not yet another technical innovation that will just aggravate the problems, but a fundamental revision of the ideological foundations that is suggested by post-anthropocentrism. Moreover, it is not only the concepts of being, nature and man that have to be revised, but also the value foundations of human activity, which are associated not with domination and self-affirmation, but with meekness, modesty and respect. Despite the high praise given to posthumanism in the article, the author notes the uncertainty and vagueness of the concept of man developed by posthumanists.

Keywords

posthumanism, post-anthropocentrism, criticism of anthropocentrism, philosophical anthropology, Anthropocene

References

1. Bińczyk E. Epoka człowieka: Retoryka i marazm antropocenu. Warsaw, 2018. 326 p. (Russ. ed.: Binchik E. Epokha cheloveka: ritorika i apatiya antropotsena. Moscow, 2022. 392 p.).
2. Cera A. The Anthropocene or the “End” of the Imperative Responsibility. Pensando Rev. Filos., 2000, vol. 11, no. 24, pp. 31–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.26694/pensando.v11i24
3. Calp A. Anthropocene, Exhausted: Three Possible Endings. Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2019, no. 4, pp. 79–102 (in Russ.). Available at: https://www.nlobooks.ru/magazines/novoe_literaturnoe_obozrenie/158_nlo_4_2019/arti-cle/21367/ (accessed: 19 January 2024).
4. Jonas H. Das Prinzip Verantwortung: Versuch einer Ethik für die technologische Zivilisation. Frankfurt am Main, 1979. 423 p. (Russ. ed.: Yonas G. Printsip otvetstvennosti. Opyt etiki dlya tekhnologicheskoy tsivilizatsii. Moscow, 2004. 394 p.).
5. Heidegger M. Otreshennost’ [Discourse on Thinking]. Heidegger M. Razgovor na proselochnoy doroge [Country Path Conversations]. Moscow, 1991, pp. 102–111.
6. Braidotti R. The Posthuman. Cambridge, 2013. 237 p. (Russ. ed.: Braydotti R. Postchelovek. Moscow, 2021. 408 p.).
7. Ferrando F. Philosophical Posthumanism. London, 2019. 296 p. (Russ. ed.: Ferrando F. Filosofskiy postgumanizm. Moscow, 2022. 360 p.).
8. Herbrechter S. Posthumanism: A Critical Analysis. New York, 2013. 247 p.
9. Wolfe C. What Is Posthumanism? Minneapolis, 2010. 392 p.
10. Haraway D. Tentakulyarnoe myshlenie [Tentacular Thinking]. Kramar M., Sarkisov K. (eds.). Opyty nechelovecheskogo gostepriimstva: Antologiya [Experiences of Non-Human Hospitality: An Ontology]. Moscow, 2018, pp. 180–227.
11. Tsing A. Neposlushnye kraya [Unruly Edges]. Kramar M., Sarkisov K. (eds.). Opyty nechelovecheskogo gostepriimstva: Antologiya [Experiences of Non-Human Hospitality: An Ontology]. Moscow, 2018, pp. 228–251.
12. Barad K. Agentnyy realizm. Kak material’no-diskursivnye praktiki obretayut znachimost’ [Agential Realism: How Material-Discursive Practices Matter]. Kramar M., Sarkisov K. (eds.). Opyty nechelovecheskogo gostepriimstva: Antologiya [Experiences of Non-Human Hospitality: An Ontology]. Moscow, 2018, pp. 42–121.
13. Kriman A.I. The Posthuman Turn to the Post (Non)Human. Voprosy filosofii, 2020, no. 12, pp. 57–67 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21146/0042-8744-2020-12-57-67
14. Martin E. Anti-Anthropologism in Contemporary Western Philosophy. Vestnik Severnogo (Arkticheskogo) federal’nogo universiteta. Ser.: Gumanitarnye i sotsial’nye nauki, 2023, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 104–113. https://doi.org/10.37482/2687-1505-V298
15. Yuk Hui. The Question Concerning Technology in China: An Essay in Cosmotechnics. Falmouth, 2016. 328 p. (Russ. ed.: Yuk Khuey. Vopros o tekhnike v Kitae. Esse o kosmotekhnike. Moscow, 2023. 320 p.).
16. Rushing S. Comparative Humilities: Christian, Contemporary, and Confucian Conceptions of a Political Virtue. Polity, 2013, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 198–222. https://doi.org/10.1057/pol.2013.1
17. Kierkegaard S. Strakh i trepet [Fear and Trembling]. Moscow, 2010. 488 p.
18. Habermas J. Die Zukunft der menschlichen Natur: auf dem Weg zu einer liberalen Eugenik? Frankfurt am Main, 2001. 125 p. (Russ. ed.: Khabermas Yu. Budushchee chelovecheskoy prirody. Na puti k liberal’noy evgenike? Moscow, 2002. 144 p.).
19. Fukuyama F. Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. London, 2002. 256 p. (Russ. ed.: Fukuyama F. Nashe postchelovecheskoe budushchee: Posledstviya biotekhnologicheskoy revolyutsii. Moscow, 2004. 349 p.).