Philosophical studies of the future in the context of postmodern knowledge: theory, methodology
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.57125/FP.2023.09.30.01Keywords:
worldview, anthropocentrism, biocentrism, ecocentrism, technocentrism, synergetics, philosophical methodology of the futureAbstract
The purpose of the article is to highlight the prospects of philosophy in the context of the post-scientific dimension and the formation of new cognitive and value constants of the scientific worldview. The goals of scientific research are focused on reconciling anthropo-bio- and (recently) technocentric concepts in a single philosophical paradigm of ecocentric orientation. With the help of the methods of the analytical cluster, a number of priority areas of the philosophy of the future are formed, in which the roles of humans, nature, and technology are clearly distinguished. The philosophical and methodological approaches define two strategies of interrelations of the key components of the world picture: confrontation (dialectical) and interaction (synergistic). The results of the study point out the need for a philosophical understanding of the problem of “nature” in the context of new socio-cultural conditions associated with the establishment of a post-scientific worldview. The authors propose a new format of interaction between human and natural dimensions, which will be guided by the values of responsibility while ensuring an appropriate level of cognitive activity (with an obvious impact of human activity on the natural world).
An attempt to add an innovative technological element to the usual dichotomy of anthropocentrism and biocentrism should be considered a promising area of research into the post-scientific dimension of the philosophical worldview of the future. Thus, civilisational progress is expected to be characterised by transformational activity, which is intended to outline the guidelines for the coexistence of the main elements of the world order and to form an effective model of human-nature interaction. The philosophy of the future is associated with the ideological and mental support of civilisational progress and a picture of the world in which humans, nature, science, technology, religion, and other elements form a synergistic interaction of development and well-being.
References
Bekh, V., Vashkevych, V., Kravchenko, A., Yaroshenko, A., Akopian, V., & Antonenko, T. (2021). Education as a Way of Human Existence in a Postmodern Society. Postmodern Openings, 12(3), 01–14. https://doi.org/10.18662/po/12.3/324
Bekh, V., Yaroshenko, A., Zhyzhko, T., Ignatyev, V., & Dodonov, R. (2020). Postmodern Picture of Reality of Scientific Knowledge: Evolution by Epistemological Diversity. Postmodern Openings, 11(3), 207–219. https://doi.org/10.18662/po/11.3/208
Bendik-Keymer, J. (2022). Beneficial relations between species & the moral responsibility of wondering. Environmental Politics, 31(2), 320–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2020.1868818
Bhat, R. M., & Kandasamy, S. A. S. (2023). Concepts and Contexts: The Interplay of Philosophy and History in Understanding Human Society. East Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 2(6), 2581–2590. https://doi.org/10.55927/eajmr.v2i6.4052
Bowden, B. G. (2019). Empiricism, epistemology and modern postmodernism: a critique. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, 14(4), 481–497. https://doi.org/10.1108/QROM-02-2019-1726
Cafaro, P. (2022). Climate ethics and population policy: A review of recent philosophical work. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 13(2), e748. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.748
Dobronravova, I., & Sidorenko, L. (2022). Post non-classical synthesis of knowledge in modern biotechnologies. Bulletin of the Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. Philosophy, 1(6), 16–20. https://doi.org/10.17721/2523-4064.2022/6-3/13
Drotianko, L., Abysova, M., Chenbai, N., & Shorina, T. (2020). Post-non-classical science in the age of informatization of society: functional aspect. E3S Web Conferency, 157, 04003. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202015704003
Fell, J., Kuo, P., Greene, T., & Wang, J. (2022). A Biocentric Perspective on HCI Design Research Involving Plants. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 29(5). https://doi.org/10.1145/3512887
Heimann, T. (2019). Bioeconomy and SDGs: Does the bioeconomy support the achievement of the SDGs? Earth’s Future, 7(1), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018ef001014
Holtz, P. (2020). Does postmodernism really entail a disregard for the truth? Similarities and differences in postmodern and critical rationalist conceptualizations of truth, progress, and empirical research methods. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.545959
Honnacker, A. (2020). Pragmatic humanism and the posthumanist challenge: Between biocentrism and the new human being. Contemporary Pragmatism, 17(1), 70–84. https://doi.org/10.1163/18758185-01701005
Javanmardi, E., Liu, S., & Xie, N. (2020). Exploring the philosophical paradigm of grey systems theory as a postmodern theory. Foundations of Science, 25(4), 905–925. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-019-09640-5
Kish, K., Mallery, D., Yahya Haage, G., Melgar-Melgar, R., Burke, M., Orr, C., Smolyar, N. L., Sanniti, S., & Larson, J. (2021). Fostering critical pluralism with systems theory, methods, and heuristics. Ecological Economics: The Journal of the International Society for Ecological Economics, 189(107171), 107171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107171
Kremen, V. H., & Ilin, V. V. (2021). Transformation of the Human Image in the Paradigm of Knowledge Evolution. Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research, 19, 5–14. https://doi.org/10.15802/ampr.v0i19.235953
Lampert, Y. (2020). Teaching the Nature of Science from a Philosophical Perspective. Science & Education, 29, 1417–1439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00149-z
Lean, C. H. (2021). Invasive species and natural function in ecology. Synthese, 198, 9315–9333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-020-02635-x
Lloredo Alix, L. (2023). A post-humanist and anti-capitalist understanding of the rights of nature (with a coda about the commons). Oñati Socio-Legal Series, 13(3), 1003–1035. https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1386
MacClellan, J. (2023). Is Biocentrism Dead? Two Live Problems for Life-Centered Ethics. The Journal of Value Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10790-023-09954-5
Marosan, B. P. (2023). Radical emancipation: The theory of biocentric ecosocialism and the principle of dynamic equilibrium. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 34(2), 107–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2022.2132968
Nerubasska, A., Odesa I. I. Mechnikov National University, Palshkov, K., Maksymchuk, B., Odesa State University of Internal Affairs, & Izmail State University of Humanities. (2020). A systemic philosophical analysis of the contemporary society and the human: New potential. Postmodern Openings, 11(4), 275–292. https://doi.org/10.18662/po/11.4/235
Niang, M. A. (2021). Biocentrism as Magic Realism, Realism, and Hybrid Transculturation: Fatou Diome’s Innovative Fictionalization of Biocentric Characterization through Transnational Testimonials in Kétala. Research in African Literatures, 52(3), 20–40. https://doi.org/10.2979/reseafrilite.52.3.02
Olmedo, C., & Ceberio de León, I. (2022). The Manfred Max-Neef Thinking: A Deep Economy Rooted in the Eco-philosophical Perspective of the Deep Ecology. The Trumpeter, 38(1), 46–71. https://doi.org/10.7202/1095385ar
Osebor, I. (2020). The Relevance of deep ecological principles in Aquatic Crisis: A philosophical Analysis. Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics, 11(2), 42–48. https://doi.org/10.3329/bioethics.v11i2.50392
Peters, M. A., Jandrić, P., & Hayes, S. (2022). Biodigital Philosophy, Technological Convergence, and Postdigital Knowledge Ecologies. In Bioinformational Philosophy and Postdigital Knowledge Ecologies (pp. 3–22). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95006-4_1
Peters, M. A., Jandrić, P., & Hayes, S. (2023). Postdigital-biodigital: An emerging configuration. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 55(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1867108
Pylypenko, S. G. (2021). Philosophical reflections in the challenges of the post-modern society. Revista Amazonia Investiga, 10(48), 81–88. https://doi.org/10.34069/ai/2021.48.12.9
Salter, B., Zhou, Y., Datta, S., & Salter, C. (2016). Bioinformatics and the politics of innovation in the life sciences: Science and the state in the United Kingdom, China, and India. Science, Technology & Human Values, 41(5), 793–826. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243916631022
Schwartz, W. A. (2022). A universe of subjects: Process cosmology and deep ecology. In Palgrave Perspectives on Process Philosophy (pp. 147–170). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81396-3_6
Shabanova, Y. O. (2020). Metamodernism man in the worldview dimension of new cultural paradigm. Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research, 18, 121–131. https://doi.org/10.15802/ampr.v0i18.221402
Silva, M. R. de O., Nascimento, R. C. do, Nunes Sá, U. R., & Bomfim, L. S. V. (2019). Socioecological Status of Human Ecology. International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Science, 6(11), 112–118. https://doi.org/10.22161/ijaers.611.16
Stahl, M. (2022). Bioeconomy from the Perspective of Environmental Ethics. In Lanzerath, D., Schurr, U., Pinsdorf, C., & Stake, M. (Eds.), Bioeconomy and Sustainability (pp. 267–280). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87402-5_16
Stech, F. (2023). Where Heaven Meets Earth: Theological Reflections on Landscape, Social Ecology, Biocentric Spirituality, and Well-Being. In Counted, V., Ramkissoon, H., Captari, L. E., & Cowden, R. G. (Eds.), Place, Spirituality, and Well-Being. Religion, Spirituality and Health: A Social Scientific Approach (pp. 55–67). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39582-6_4
Stucki, S. (2020). Towards a Theory of Legal Animal Rights: Simple and Fundamental Rights. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 40(3), 533–560. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqaa007
Tanasescu, M. (2020). Rights of Nature, Legal Personality, and Indigenous Philosophies. Transnational Environmental Law, 9(3), 429–453. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102520000217
Taylor, B., Chapron, G., Kopnina, H., Orlikowska, E., Gray, J., & Piccolo, J. J. (2020). The need for ecocentrism in biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology, 34, 1089–1096. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13541
Tresca, A. F. (2020). Getting Deep About Deep Ecology. International Relations and Diplomacy, 8(2), 55-62. https://doi.org/10.17265/2328-2134/2020.02.003
Uzunyayla, F. (2020). The Reflections of Debate of the Production, Population and Nature Relations in Macroeconomic Balance to the Biocentric and Sociocentric Ecological Approaches. Fiscaoeconomia, 4(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.25295/fsecon.2020.01.001
Veit, W., & Browning, H. (2021). Perspectival pluralism for animal welfare. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-020-00322-9
Viviani, F. (2023). From anthropocentrism to a cosmopolitan biocentrism: Reflections on animal ethics. Annals of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.23880/aabsc-16000203
Wang, X. (2021). Modern western ecological aesthetics from the perspective of aesthetics. Forest Chemicals Review. https://doi.org/10.17762/jfcr.vi.55
Wienhues, A. (2020). Introducing Ecological Justice. In Ecological Justice and the Extinction Crisis (pp. 1–24). Bristol University Press. https://doi.org/10.51952/9781529208528.ch001
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
