Vol 34, No 6 (2023)

The article is dedicated to the study of the role of non-participant observation in the analytical anthropology of Valery Podoroga. Non-participant observation is considered in comparison with the classic method of field anthropology — participant observation. Theoretical objectives and goals of participant observation are formulated, and the general logic of its evolution is identified. The analysis of Malinovsky’s field diaries allows determining significant influence of Western literary tradition on the position of a “participant observer” as well as the fundamental “exclusion” of the anthropologist from the sociocultural context at an early stage of the method development due to the implicit presence of a colonial attitude in the researcher’s outlook. It is emphasized that as the method of participant observation develops, the communicative element increases, which leads to a complete “inclusion” of the researcher in the target sociocultural environment. After that, the role of the method of “participant observation” in Valery Podoroga’s philosophical project is identified, his own opposition between the participant and non-participant types of observation is analyzed, and considerable influence of the phenomenological tradition on the latter is highlighted. The examples provided by Valery Podoroga in his methodological work “Anthropogrammes” (2017) are analyzed. In conclusion, declarative differences as well as similarities of both methods are studied, including the important literary element of both approaches which does not allow considering them as strictly scientific and nomothetic ones but allowing to classify them as ideographic methods. In both cases, the presence of a considerable sociocultural distance between the researcher and the subject of research is identified as a significant characteristic of anthropological experience. Possibilities of a synthesis of both approaches are outlined through separation of the phases of an anthropological study: field study and archive work. The heuristic potential of non-participant observation is identified when determining structural features of the studied commonalities using phenomenological analysis.

The most important problem of modern political philosophy is the loss of politics' independence from other spheres of human activity. Since the beginning of the last century, philosophers have sought to justify the uniqueness of political being and to update the modern political-philosophical vocabulary by redefining the categories of antiquity (e.g. τὸ ᾰ̓γᾰθόν, φῐλία, παρρρησία, etc.). The article is devoted to the approach to the rehabilitation of the political sphere based on the political-philosophical experience of the ancient Greeks. The theoretical basis of the study is H. Arendt's solution of the issue of depoliticization in the context of her reminiscences of the ancient heritage. The author turns to the notion of civic friendship, which largely determines Arendt's contribution to the discussions on the rehabilitation of politics and acts as a practice endowing the community with political potential. On the basis of Arendt's interpretation of the political philosophy of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, the author justifies the appeal to this notion and shows the connection of civic friendship with other categories of ancient thought (truth, opinion, Maieutics). The analysis reveals that the requirement borrowed from Socrates to eliminate truth from the sphere of human affairs puts Arendt's philosophy in opposition to the tradition of political thought, and the use of political-philosophical categories to describe the human lifeworld allows us to consider it as a version of the hermeneutics of the subject. The author concludes that the justification of politics by means of ancient thought has an original anthropological dimension. It consists in the recognition of the significance of political action for the orientation of man in the world and the assertion of his identity in the community.

In the context of the active development and implementation of artificial intelligence systems and robotics in healthcare, the physician-patient relationship is undergoing changes. The transformation of these relations caused by the problems of interrelation of the basic bioethical principles and new approaches to the diagnosis and treatment of diseases is considered. Using concrete examples, new opportunities and risks caused by the widespread use of automation in medicine are revealed. Conflict situations between human norms and algorithms are analyzed. The issues of responsibility for robot errors, as well as privacy and cybersecurity issues are considered. It is noted that by the beginning of the 21st century, there was a need for an ethical assessment of robotics, since technical decisions taken in the design of robots have the potential to directly and significantly affect people's lives. In this regard, roboethics arose, the concept of which is analyzed in the article. The laws of robotics were formulated by I. Asimov and F. Pasquale. At the same time, attention is drawn to the fact that in the field of healthcare, programs should be developed that rely on human strength. The necessity of finding a balance between the automation of medical practice and the maintenance of the humanistic essence of the physician-patient relationship is emphasized. A comparative analysis of the fundamental principles of bioethics and roboethics is carried out. Despite the fact that they have the same goals and values, in roboetics these principles are characterized by a number of features. The principle related only to roboethics — explainability — requires algorithm developers to explain the general rationale and methodology for solving artificial intelligence. In conclusion, it is concluded that medical robotics and artificial intelligence systems provide great prospects for improving diagnosis, treatment and the general level of medical care, but their use raises important ethical issues that need to be addressed. The basic principles of bioethics should be preserved, and roboethics can help to define the framework and standards for the use of robots in medical practice.

Technology is changing human life in every possible way. However, bearing a child came under their influence only in the 20th century, which, together with the changing role of women in society, led to a rethinking of the phenomenon of pregnancy. The article considers how the development of reproductive technologies and their promotion paved the way for the separation of motherhood from bearing children, which began to be understood as a technical process. An analysis of the representation of pregnancy in computer games was also carried out, an emphasis was placed on the desire to ignore or reduce the process of bearing a child, both on the part of the creators of the game and the players. Despite the fact that raising a baby outside the body of a future mother becomes possible due to progress in the field of biomedical technologies justification for this phenomenon is largely due to the increasing virtuality of existence. Introduced in 2022, the EctoLife project integrates the latest reproductive and digital technologies, preparing society to accept virtual play pregnancy, where the baby is raised in an artificial capsule. In a digital society, it is natural to ask for a controlled pregnancy, which occupies a strictly defined place in life, like a capsule in the corner of a room, or in smartphone application, which you can turn to when there is a desire to remember the future baby. As a result, the technical finally replaces the natural: childbearing is built into the technocratic process with unpredictable consequences.

The concept of personality may seem intuitively clear, but it is not easy to define or explain. It is often considered a transcultural and transhistorical universality. However, Marcel Mauss demonstrates that different cultures have varying understandings of what an individual represents. Boethius' definition is considered an important turning point, but how did he arrive at such a definition, and why did it have such a significant impact? Although many researchers have attempted to answer this question, no definitive answer has been found. This article aims to approach an answer by combining two perspectives: historical and philosophical analysis of ideas and textual analysis. That is, оn the one hand, the article shows how the concept of personality arose during Christological and Trinitarian disputes. However, the resulting concept appears abstract, logically inconsistent, and not very applicable to humans. On the other hand, the article analyzes Boethius' texts, their communicative and dialogical direction towards the Other and towards oneself in the face of the Other. It is here that the concept takes on flesh: as Boethius not only explains the concept of personality but also demonstrates how it works.

      

The focus of the article is the question of the possibilities of social interaction at critical moments in history, when interpersonal ties are extremely weakened and people are compelled to withdraw into themselves. Concern for one’s personal security becomes more prominent in human existence when there is a severe lack of freedom. The realm of intersubjective relationships derived from life’s natural environment becomes a zone of ongoing risk. Philosophical reflection frequently turned to this subject and proposed different possibilities after World War II, which made the issue of the breakdown of the public sphere as sharp as possible. Among the first thinkers to focus on the interdependence of the two facets of human life — the existential and the collective — were Hannah Arendt and Albert Camus. “The Banality of Evil”, which Arendt wrote after reporting the trial of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann, and Camus’s “The Plague” are two important twentieth-century writings that are used in the article to show the connections between these topics. “The Plague”, conceived as a kind of monument to the heroes of the French Resistance, marks the transition in Camus’s philosophy from absurdity to rebellion, connecting disparate individuals. In the process of collective struggle against the epidemic, the heroes of the novel establish the so-called space “between”. It is reminiscent of Arendt’s interpretation of the world as a common place of interaction and dialogue that connects all participants and, at the same time, preserves their autonomy. In this context, the Eichmann case is a crime aimed at destroying the plurality that is necessary for the existence of mankind.