Management of the natural dimension in man: the path of humanistic autopoiesis
PHILOSOPHY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17072/2078-7898/2022-1-108-125Keywords:
man, nature, management, autopoiesis, subject, humanism, humanistic autopoiesis, coevolution, co-determinationAbstract
The article aims to analyze the process of management of natural dimension in man. It is shown that the possibility of such management follows both from the general way of human existence and from the dialectical subordination of the human (social, cultural) dimension and the natural dimension, according to which the latter is included in the former and dependent on it. On the other hand, there exist limits of this management: not the whole nature in man is socially determined, it preserves wide autonomy, subordination to fundamental natural laws. Interaction between the social and the natural is based on reciprocal co-determination, therefore, when managing his natural dimension, man, according to the feedback principle, de facto influences himself. Thus, the problem of preserving human essence, maintaining its holism becomes essential again. The work is novel in that the management of man’s natural dimension is associated with the phenomenon of autopoiesis: man at a new level realizes this tendency of active «self-creation», which is common to the living. At the same time, it is critically important that it will be autopoiesis with a «human face»: this management must be rationally justified, aimed at actualizing the natural potential already inherent in man. The central question is about the subject of control: in the first approximation, it will be an individual, due to the inalienability of his own vital principle, i.e. it will be a kind of self-management. However, this does not negate the presence of supra-individual subjects that would control such management (realize «management of management»), including its anthropological and social acceptability. The presence of strong legal and moral regulators, taking into account the axiological component, as well as the recognition of the fundamental fact that the management of the natural dimension is not a goal itself but a means for a more complete and comprehensive self-realization of man, only part of his holistic autopoiesis, will allow the latter to maintain humanistic orientation.References
Агамбен Д. Открытое. Человек и животное / пер. с итал. и нем. Б.М. Скуратова. М.: РГГУ, 2012. 112 с.
Ананьев Б.Г. Человек как предмет познания. СПб.: Питер, 2001. 288 с.
Бекарев А.М., Пак Г.С. Гуманистическое измерение биорациональности // Вестник Северного (Арктического) федерального университета. Серия: Гуманитарные и социальные науки. 2020. № 2. С. 72–82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37482/2227-6564-v008
Блум Ф., Лейзерсон А., Хофстедтер Л. Мозг, разум и поведение / пер. с англ. Е.З. Годиной. М.: Мир, 1988. 248 с.
Богомягкова Е.С. Поворот к биологии: перспективы развития социологического знания // Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Социология. 2018. Т. 11, вып. 1. С. 35–50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu12.2018.104
Брызгалина Е.В., Киселев В.Н. Эксперт и профан: коммуникативные парадоксы экспертизы и контр-экспертизы // Эпистемология и философия науки. 2020. Т. 57, № 2. С. 33–41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/eps202057218
Бэкон Ф. Новый органон / пер. с лат. Н.А. Федорова // Бэкон Ф. Соч.: в 2 т. М.: Мысль, 1978. Т. 2. С. 7–214.
Внутских А.Ю. Отбор в природе и отбор в обществе: опыт конкретно-всеобщей теории / Перм. гос. ун-т. Пермь, 2006. 335 с.
Внутских А.Ю., Гайшун Р.Н. «Культура vs природа»: философский анализ дискуссии о соотношении биологического и социального уровней организации // Вестник Пермского национального исследовательского политехнического университета. Культура, история, философия, право. 2016. № 1. С. 23–33.
Голдберг У. Управляющий мозг: лобные доли, лидерство и цивилизация / пер. с англ. Д. Бугакова. М.: Смысл, 2003. 335 с.
Гуревич П.С. Проблема целостности человека. М.: Ин-т философии РАН, 2004. 178 с.
Диев В.С. Эпистемологические и методологические аспекты философии управления: неопределенность, риск, принятие решений // Сибирский философский журнал. 2018. Т. 16, № 1. С. 48–64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25205/2541-7517-2018-16-1-48-64
Долгов А.Ю. Генетика и геномная медицина в исследовательских перспективах социальных наук // Журнал исследований социальной политики. 2021. Т. 19, № 3. С. 533–541. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/727-0634-2021-19-3-533-541
Дубровский Д.И. Сознание как «загадка» и «тайна»: к парадоксам «радикального когнитивизма» // Вопросы философии. 2017. № 9. С. 151–161.
Камалиева И.Р. Трансформация социальной нормы в условиях прогресса биотехнологий // Исторические, философские, политические и юридические науки, культурология и искусствоведение. Вопросы теории и практики. 2015. № 10(60), ч. 3. С. 80–83.
Лебедев В.Ю., Федоров А.В. Медикализация современной культуры: ментальные и социобиологические аспекты // Вестник Тверского государственного университета. Серия: Философия. 2016. № 2. С. 47–64.
Лекторский В.А., Труфанова Е.О. Конструктивизм в эпистемологии и науках о человеке // Человек. 2019. Т. 30, вып. 1. С. 102–124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31857/s023620070003025-4
Лепский В.Е. Рефлексивность в управлении социальными системами (философско-методологический анализ) // Философия науки и техники. 2021. Т. 26, № 2. С. 127–147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21146/2413-9084-2021-26-2-127-147
Лешкевич Т.Г. Вектор модификации методологии: социогуманитарное знание конвергирует с постнеклассикой // Вестник Томского государственного университета. 2018. № 427. С. 71–78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17223/15617793/427/9
Лоренц К. Оборотная сторона зеркала / пер. с нем. А.И. Федорова. М.: АСТ, 2021. 576 с.
Мамзин А.С. Природа человека и проблема взаимосвязи биологического и социального // Вестник Ленинградского государственного университета им. А.С. Пушкина. 2015. Т. 2, № 4. С. 56–65.
Матурана У., Варела Ф. Древо познания. Биологические корни человеческого понимания / пер. с англ. Ю.А. Данилова. М.: Прогресс-Традиция, 2001. 224 с.
Мирошниченко М.Д. От глаза лягушки к человеческому сознанию: трансформации неокибернетического проекта в теории аутопоэзиса // Философский журнал. 2020. Т. 13, № 2. С. 126–143. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21146/2072-0726-2020-13-2-126-143
Орлов В.В. Материя, развитие, человек. Пермь: ПГУ, 1974. 398 с.
Павлов И.П. Рефлекс свободы. СПб.: Питер, 2001. 432 с.
Плеснер Х. Ступени органического и человек: введение в философскую антропологию / пер. с нем. А.Г. Гаджикурбанова. М.: РОССПЭН, 2004. 368 с.
Прозументик К.В. Сущностные силы человека: структура и уровни // Философия социальных коммуникаций. 2012. № 4(21). С. 35–43.
Рыбин В.А. Биосоциальность человека: опыт переосмысления в контексте современности // Человек. 2020. Т. 31, № 1. С. 45–60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31857/s023620070008744-5
Сайкина Г.К., Ибрагимова З.З. Концепт «природы человека» как аксиологический принцип // Вестник Пермского университета. Философия. Психология. Социология. 2021. Вып. 3. С. 413–422. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17072/2078-7898/2021-3-413-422
Соколова Е.Т. Утрата Я: клиника или новая культурная норма? // Эпистемология и философия науки. 2014. Т. 41, № 3. С. 191–209.
Спиноза Б. Этика / пер. с лат. Н.А. Иванцова // Спиноза Б. Об усовершенствовании разума: сочинения. М.: ЭКСМО-пресс, 1998. С. 587–844.
Спорник А.П. Механизмы социального управления в глобальном потребительском обществе // Известия Томского политехнического университета. 2010. Т. 317, № 6. С. 174–178.
Судаков К.В. Системная организация психической деятельности // Психологический журнал. 2013. Т. 34, № 6. С. 72–81.
Харари Ю.Н. Homo Deus. Краткая история будущего / пер. с англ. А. Андреева. М.: Синдбад, 2019. 496 с.
Чернова Т.Г. О соотношении свободы и необходимости // Вестник Пермского университета. Философия. Психология. Социология. 2014. Вып. 2(18). С. 20–24.
Шеффер Ж.-М. Конец человеческой исключительности / пер. с фр. С.Н. Зенкина. М.: Новое лит. обозрение, 2010. 392 с.
Ярославцева Е.И. Человек аутопоэзисный в цифровом формате // Человек. 2018. № 2. С. 121–127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7868/s0236200718020104
Arnold F.H. Directed evolution: bringing new chemistry to life // Angewandte Chemie International Edition. 2018. Vol. 57, iss. 16. P. 4143–4148. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201708408
Barilan Y.M. Human dignity, human rights, and responsibility: The new language of global bioethics and biolaw. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2012. 368 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9311.001.0001
Boden M.A. Autopoiesis and life // Cognitive Science Quarterly. 2000. Vol. 1, no. 1. P. 117–145.
Coenen C. Biohacking: New Do-It-Yourself Practices as Technoscientific Work between Freedom and Necessity // Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute Proceedings. 2017. Vol. 1, iss. 3. URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2504-3900/1/3/256(accessed: 12.01.2022). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/is4si-2017-04119
Conrad P. The medicalization of society: On the transformation of human conditions into treatable disorders. N.Y.: JHU Press, 2007. 224 p.
Damasio A.R. Descartes’ error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. N.Y.: G.P. Putnam, 1994. 331 p.
Damasio A.R., Carvalho G.B. The nature of feelings: evolutionary and neurobiological origins // Nature reviews neuroscience. 2013. Vol. 14, iss. 2. P. 143–152. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3403
Esposito R. Bios: Biopolitics and philosophy. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2008. 304 p.
Glannon W. Brain, body, and mind: Neuroethics with a human face. N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2013. 272 p.
Hird M.J. Meeting with the microcosmos // Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. 2010. Vol. 28, iss. 1. P. 36–39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1068/d2706wsc
Luisi P.L. The emergence of life: from chemical origins to synthetic biology. N.Y.: Cambridge University Press, 2019. 478 p.
Nadesan M.H. Governmentality, biopower, and everyday life. N.Y.: Routledge, 2010. 258 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203894620
Pross A. What is life?: How chemistry becomes biology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2016. 224 p.
Rendtorff J.D. Basic ethical principles in European bioethics and biolaw: autonomy, dignity, integrity and vulnerability — towards a foundation of bioethics and biolaw // Medicine, health care and philosophy. 2002. Vol. 5, iss. 3. P. 235–244.
Ridley M., Pierpoint G. Nature via nurture: Genes, experience, and what makes us human. N.Y.: HarperCollins, 2003. 336 p.
Rose N., Abi-Rached J.M. Neuro: The new brain sciences and the management of the mind. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2013. 352 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400846337
Seidl D. Organisational identity and self-transformation: An autopoietic perspective. N.Y.: Routledge, 2016. 208 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315247564
Spitzer M. The mind within the net: Models of learning, thinking, and acting. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2000. 376 p.
Weber A., Varela F.J. Life after Kant: Natural purposes and the autopoietic foundations of biological individuality // Phenomenology and the cognitive sciences. 2002. Vol. 1, iss. 2. P. 97–125.
Wehling P. Biology, citizenship and the government of biomedicine: Exploring the concept of biological citizenship // Governmentality: Current Issues and Future Challenges / ed. by U. Bröckling, S. Krasmann, T. Lemke. N.Y.: Routledge, 2010. P. 225–246.
Wexler B.E. Brain and culture: Neurobiology, ideology, and social change. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2008. 320 p.
Wilson E.O. On human nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004. 288 p.
Zhura V.V., Rudova Yu.V. Corporeal turn in human sciences: contemporary dimensions of the body // Bioethics. 2017. Vol. 19, no. 1. P. 16–20.
References
Agamben, D. (2012). Otkrytoe. Chelovek i zhivotnoe, per. B.M. Skuratova [Opened. Man and animal, trans. by B.M. Skuratov]. Moscow: RSUH Publ., 112 p.
Anan’ev, B.G. (2001). Chelovek kak predmet poznaniya [Man as subject of knowledge]. St. Petersburg: Piter Publ., 288 p.
Arnold, F.H. (2018). Directed evolution: bringing new chemistry to life. Angewandte Chemie International Edition. Vol. 57, iss. 16, pp. 4143–4148. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201708408
Bacon, F. (1978). [New Organon, trans. by N.A. Fedorov]. Sochineniya: v 2 t. [Works: in 2 vols]. Moscow: Mysl’ Publ., vol. 2, pp. 7–214.
Barilan, Y.M. (2012). Human dignity, human rights, and responsibility: The new language of global bioethics and biolaw. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 368 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9311.001.0001
Bekarev, A.M. and Pak, G.S. (2020). [Humanistic dimension of biological rationality]. Vestnik Severnogo (Arkticheskogo) federal’nogo universiteta. Seriya: Gumanitarnye i sotsial’nye nauki [Vestnik of the Northern (Arctic) Federal University. Series: Humanitarian and Social Sciences]. No. 2, pp. 72–82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37482/2227-6564-v008
Blum, F., Leyzerson, A. and Khofstedter, L. (1988). Mozg, razum i povedenie, per. E.Z. Godinoy [Brain, mind and behavior, trans. by E.Z. Godina]. Moscow: Mir Publ., 248 p.
Boden, M.A. (2000). Autopoiesis and life. Cognitive Science Quarterly. Vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 117–145.
Bogomyagkova, E.S. (2018). [A turn to biology: The futere development of sociological knowledge]. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Sotsiologiya [Vestnik of Saint-Petersburg University. Sociology]. Vol. 11, iss. 1, pp. 35–50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu12.2018.104
Bryzgalina, E.V. and Kiselev, V.N. (2020). [Expert and layman: communicative paradoxes of expertise and counter-expertise]. Epistemology & Philosophy of Science. Vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 33–41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/eps202057218
Chernova, T.G. (2014). [On relation of freedom and necessity]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Filosofiya. Psikhologia. Sotsiologia [Perm University Herald. Philosophy. Psychology. Sociology]. Iss. 2(18), pp. 20–24.
Coenen, C. (2017). Biohacking: New do-it-yourself practices as technoscientific work between freedom and necessity. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute Proceedings. Vol. 1, iss. 3. Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/2504-3900/1/3/256(accessed: 12.01.2022). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/is4si-2017-04119
Conrad, P. (2007). The medicalization of society: On the transformation of human conditions into treatable disorders. New York: JHU Press, 224 p.
Damasio, A.R. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: G.P. Putnam Publ., 331 p.
Damasio, A.R. and Carvalho, G.B. (2013). The nature of feelings: evolutionary and neurobiological origins. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. Vol. 14, iss. 2, pp. 143–152. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3403
Diev, V.S. (2018). [Epistemological and methodological aspects of the philosophy of management: uncertainty, risk, decision-making]. Sibirskiy filosofskiy zhurnal [Siberian Journal of Philosophy]. Vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 48–64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25205/2541-7517-2018-16-1-48-64
Dolgov, A.Yu. (2021). [Genetics and genomic medicine research from the social sciences perspectives]. Zhurnal issledovaniy sotsial’noy politiki [The Journal of Social Policy Studies]. Vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 533–541. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/727-0634-2021-19-3-533-541
Dubrovskiy, D.I. (2017). [Consciousness as «riddle» and «mystery»: the paradoxes of «radical cognitivism»]. Voprosy Filosofii. No. 9, pp. 151–161.
Esposito, R. (2008). Bios: Biopolitics and philosophy. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 304 p.
Glannon, W. (2013). Brain, body, and mind: Neuroethics with a human face. New York: Oxford University Press, 272 p.
Goldberg, U. (2003) Upravlyayuschiy mozg: Lobnye doli, liderstvo i tsivilizatsiya, per. D. Bugakova [The executive brain: Frontal lobes and the civilized mind, trans. by D. Bugakov]. Moscow: Smysl Publ., 335 p.
Gurevich, P.S. (2004). Problema tselostnosti cheloveka [Problem of man’s integrity]. Moscow: IP RAS Publ., 178 p.
Harari, Yu.N. (2019). Homo Deus. Kratkaya istoriya budushchego, per. A. Andreeva [Homo Deus. A brief history of tomorrow, trans. by A. Andreev]. Moscow: Sindbad Publ., 496 p.
Hird, M.J. (2010). Meeting with the microcosmos. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. Vol. 28, iss. 1, pp. 36–39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1068/d2706wsc
Kamalieva, I.R. (2015). [Transformation of social norm in the conditions of biotechnologies progress]. Istoricheskie, filosofskie, politicheskie i yuridicheskie nauki, kul’turologiya i iskusstvovedenie. Voprosy teorii i praktiki [Historical, Philosophical, Political and Law Sciences, Culturology and Study of Art. Issues of Theory and Practice]. No. 10(60), pt. 3, pp. 80–83.
Lebedev, V.Yu. and Fedorov, A.V. (2016). [Medicalization of contemporary culture: mental and socio-biological aspects]. Vestnik Tverskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Filosofiya [Vestnik Tver State University. Series: Philosophy]. No. 2, pp. 47–64.
Lektorskiy, V.A. and Trufanova, E.O. (2019). [Constructivism in epistemology and in the humanitarian sciences]. Chelovek[Human Being]. Vol. 30, iss. 1, pp. 102–124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31857/s023620070003025-4
Lepskiy, V.E. (2012). [Reflexivity in social systems control (philosophical and methodological analysis)]. Filosofiya nauki i tekhniki [Philosophy of Science and Technology]. Vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 127–147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21146/2413-9084-2021-26-2-127-147
Leshkevich, T.G. (2018). [The vector of methodology modification: convergence of socio-humanitarian knowledge with post-non-classics]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta [Tomsk State University Journal]. No. 427, pp. 71–78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17223/15617793/427/9
Lorents, K. (2021). Oborotnaya storona zerkala, per. A. Fedorova [Reverse side of mirror, trans. by A. Fedorov]. Moscow: AST Publ., 576 p.
Luisi, P.L. (2019). The emergence of life: from chemical origins to synthetic biology. New York: Cambridge University Press, 478 p.
Mamzin, A.S. (2015). [Human nature and the problem of the relationship of the the biological and the social]. Vestnik Leningradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta im. A.S. Pushkina [Pushkin Leningrad State University Journal]. Vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 56–65.
Maturana, U. and Varela, F. (2001). Drevo poznaniya. Biologicheskie korni chelovecheskogo ponimaniya, per. Yu.A. Danilova[Tree of knowledge. Biological roots of human understanding, trans. by Yu.A. Danilov]. Moscow: Progress-Traditsiya Publ., 224 p.
Miroshnichenko, M.D. (2020). [From a frog’s eye to the human mind: Transformations of the neocybernetic project in the theory of autopoiesis]. Filosofskiy zhurnal [Philosophical Journal]. Vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 126–143. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21146/2072-0726-2020-13-2-126-143
Nadesan, M.H. (2010). Governmentality, biopower, and everyday life. New York: Routledge Publ., 258 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203894620
Orlov, V.V. (1974). Materiya, razvitie, chelovek [Matter, development, man]. Perm: PSU Publ., 398 p.
Pavlov, I.P. (2001). Refleks svobody [Reflex of freedom]. St. Petersburg: Piter Publ., 432 p.
Plessner, H. (2004). Stupeni organicheskogo i chelovek: vvedenie v filosofskuyu antropologiyu, per. A.G. Gadzhikurbanova[Levels of the organic life and the human: An introduction to philosophical anthropology, trans. by A.G. Gadzhikurbanov]. Moscow: ROSSPEN Publ., 368 p.
Pross, A. (2016). What is life? How chemistry becomes biology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 224 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.50-5584
Prozumentik, K.V. (2012). [Essential forces of man: structure and levels]. Filosofiya sotsial’nykh kommunikatsiy [Philosophy of Social Communications]. No. 4(21), pp. 35–43.
Rendtorff, J.D. (2002). Basic ethical principles in European bioethics and biolaw: Autonomy, dignity, integrity and vulnerability — towards a foundation of bioethics and biolaw. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. Vol. 5, iss. 3, pp. 235–244.
Ridley, M. and Pierpoint, G. (2003). Nature via nurture: Genes, experience, and what makes us human. New York: HarperCollins Publ., 336 p.
Rose, N. and Abi-Rached, J.M. (2013). Neuro: The new brain sciences and the management of the mind. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 352 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400846337
Rybin, V.A. (2020). [Human biosociality: The experience of rethinking in the context of modernity]. Chelovek [Human Being]. Vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 45–60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31857/s023620070008744-5
Saykina, G.K. and Ibragimova, Z.Z. (2021). [The concept of «human nature» as an axiological principle]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Filosofiya. Psikhologia. Sotsiologia [Perm University Herald. Philosophy. Psychology. Sociology]. Iss 3, pp. 413–422. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17072/2078-7898/2021-3-413-422
Schaeffer, J.-M. (2010). Konets chelovecheskoy isklyuchitel’nosti, per. S.N. Zenkina [End of human exclusivity, trans. by S.N. Zenkin]. Moscow: Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie Publ., 392 p.
Seidl, D. (2016). Organisational identity and self-transformation: An autopoietic perspective. New York: Routledge Publ., 208 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315247564
Sokolova, E.T. (2014). [Loss of «I»: clinic or new cultural norm?]. Epistemologiya i filosofiya nauki [Epistemology & Philosophy of Science]. Vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 191–209.
Spinoza, B. (1998). [Ethics, trans. by N.A. Ivantsov]. Spinoza B. Ob usovershenstvovanii razuma: Sochineniya [Spinoza B. On improvement of mind: Works]. Moscow: EKSMO-Press, pp. 587–845.
Spitzer, M. (2000). The mind within the net: Models of learning, thinking, and acting. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 376 p.
Spornik, A.P. (2010). [Mechanisms of social management in global consumer society]. Izvestiya Tomskogo politekhnicheskogo universiteta [Bulletin of the Tomsk Polytechnic University]. Vol. 317, no. 6, pp. 174–178.
Sudakov, K.V. (2013). [System organization of psychic activity]. Psikhologicheskiy zhurnal [Psychological Journal]. Vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 72–81.
Vnutskikh, A.Yu. (2006). Otbor v prirode i otbor v obschestve: opyt konkretno-vseobschey teorii [Selection in nature and society: experience of concrete-general theory]. Perm: PSU Publ., 335 p.
Vnutskikh, A.Yu. and Gayshun, R.N. (2016). [«Culture» vs «nature»: philosophical analysis of discussion about correlation of biological and social levels of organization]. Vestnik Permskogo natsional’nogo issledovatel’skogo politekhnicheskogo universiteta. Kul’tura, istoriya, filosofiya, pravo [Bulletin of Perm National Research Polytechnic University. Culture, History, Philosophy, Law]. No. 1, pp. 23–33.
Weber, A. and Varela, F.J. (2002). Life after Kant: Natural purposes and the autopoietic foundations of biological individuality. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences. Vol. 1, iss. 2, pp. 97–125.
Wehling, P. (2010). Biology, citizenship and the government of biomedicine: Exploring the concept of biological citizenship. U. Bröckling, S. Krasmann, T. Lemke (eds.). Governmentality: Current Issues and Future Challenges. New York: Routledge Publ., pp. 225–246.
Wexler, B.E. (2008). Brain and culture: Neurobiology, ideology, and social change. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 320 p.
Wilson, E.O. (2004). On human nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 288 p.
Yaroslavtseva, E.I. (2018). [The autopoietic person in a digital format]. Chelovek [Human Being]. No. 2, pp. 121–127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7868/s0236200718020104
Zhura, V.V. and Rudova, Yu.V. (2017). Corporeal turn in human sciences: contemporary dimensions of the body. Bioethics. Vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 16–20.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Perm University Herald. Philosophy. Psychology. Sociology
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
