ORIGINAL RESEARCH |
https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-11005-0044 |
Traps of Transhumanism and Posthumanism—From Human Being to Nonhuman Being: Affirmation or Negation of Humanity?
Institute of Philosophy, Zagreb, Croatia (retired)
Corresponding Author: Stipe Kutleša, Institute of Philosophy, Zagreb, Croatia, e-mail: stipekutlesa1@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
The paper discusses the very closed movements of transhumanism, posthumanism, and their vision of man and society. After indicating the origins of these movements in their criticism and deviation from humanism, the usual and up-to-now-established definitions of transhumanism and posthumanism and their basic characteristics are discussed. Both movements emphasize the importance of science and technology in human life as a means of managing nature and human life. It is precisely science and technology that is one of the main levers of these movements, which are actually interested in the exclusive exploitation of nature through the application of science and technology. At the center of these movements is the so-called transhuman and posthuman being who is no longer human but a transhumanoid and/or posthumanoid who has no individuality, personality, or freedom. Some criticisms of those movements are also expressed. The author of this article believes that these movements are the greatest evil that has happened to humanity on a global scale so far. He also proposes a completely different definition of transhumanism and posthumanism with an explanation.
How to cite this article: Kutleša S. Traps of Transhumanism and Posthumanism—From Human Being to Nonhuman Being: Affirmation or Negation of Humanity? Sci Arts Relig 2023;2(1–2):45–55.
Source of support: Nil
Conflict of interest: None
Keywords: Humanism, Human being, Ideology, Nonhuman being, Posthumanism, Science, Technology, Transhumanism
The concept of humans is an old topic of Greek philosophy, above all of the so-called anthropological period of Greek philosophy when the center of interest is moved from cosmological problems to anthropological ones. Anthropos (ἄνθρωπος) becomes the main topic of the doctrine of human beings (anthropology). From then until today, the topic of human beings is one of the predominant topics of philosophy and other fields of science. Since humans are natural, social, and spiritual beings, there are different aspects of observing humans, so in this sense, there are different types of anthropology: philosophical, theological, social, medical, etc. Each of them observes humans under a certain aspect without, in principle, entering into other aspects of human beings. When we say human and nonhuman, we mean first of all the ontological aspect of human being, and then the negation of human is denoted as nonhuman, that is, a being that by its essence would not belong to what human is. At the same time, a distinction must be made between the term’s nonhuman and inhuman, whereby the latter term denotes a moral-ethical category; that is, it means not being a moral human but a problematic human. Although the ethical and moral aspect of transhumanism and posthumanism is very important, the ontological component of the possibility of transforming a human into ontological negation stands out here.
HUMANISM, TRANSHUMANISM, AND POSTHUMANISM
In connection with human beings and humanity, we speak of humanism (from the Latin homo, humanus: human). The terms transhumanism and posthumanism emerge from the framework of the term humanism either in the ethical sense or in the ontic and ontological sense. In the ethical sense, transhumanism would mean being on the other side of ethics and morality, which could mean the moral transcendence of humans, that is, being ethically and morally more perfect, and this would bring him spiritually closer to a higher transcendent being, God. But one could think in other categories of morality, such as opposing and rejecting existing moral norms (immoralism), and one can talk about indifference or neutrality towards the ethical-moral sphere (amoralism). Both of these latter tendencies are very widespread in today’s global world. In the ontic and ontological sense, transhumanism would represent the idea of transcending humans as being both in the order of the existence of things and in the order of their cognition.
Humanism is multi-layered and has multiple meanings.1-4 First of all, it is a cultural and historical movement in Italy, which spread to other European countries. This is also the period from the 14th to the 16th century in Europe: In a general sense, humanism is also the aspiration to establish a social order worthy of human beings. In the form of neohumanism, it appeared in Germany at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries and at the beginning of the 20th century as the so-called third humanism. Humanism believes that human is the measure of all things and therefore rejects any type of authority, especially religion. It emphasized an optimistic attitude towards life and advocated freedom of thought and individuality. It was opposed to scholastic philosophy and the achievements of the Middle Ages in general, especially religion, that is, Christianity. New humanism in the 20th century especially emphasizes human dignity.
Posthumanism and transhumanism5-18 are close terms and are often equated. Although they have in common that they observe humans as dynamic beings, they are nevertheless different.19 Posthumanism is not easy to define, but it is often roughly defined as a philosophical theory that describes the present and, even more so, the future world.20 In both transhumanism and posthumanism, it is primarily about humans, but in the sense of transcending humans or what comes after humans. Transhumanism (Latin trans: over, behind, on the other side) would mean something beyond the state of humanity. Posthumanism (Latin post: after) opposes humanism and comes as a critique of humanism. It believes that a human’s future is open and that it can influence it through its actions.19 There are different definitions of transhumanism, depending on the starting point from which the term is defined. Many definitions agree on the basic features of transhumanism and what its goal and purpose are. Transhumanism is spoken of as a philosophy, especially as a type of futuristic philosophy, an intellectual and cultural movement, a new scientific and medical paradigm, etc. Where do most transhumanists and posthumanists come from? It is stated that transhumanists are closer to the so-called analytical tradition in philosophy, and posthumanists are closer to the so-called continental philosophy.
Transhumanism is an intellectual and cultural movement and a technological paradigm whose goal is to transform (in principle improve) the human condition through the use of science and technology with the purpose of changing the physical and mental (intellectual) characteristics of humans. Transhumanism differs from humanism in that it emphasizes the importance of science and technology (technocentrism) as the main tool that enables radical changes in nature and in human life, especially in the radical change of human characteristics and in matters of mortality and immortality. The movement is not limited to medicine but extends to all aspects of life.21,22 But it is also defined as a philosophy that covers a wide range of different philosophical areas. In short, transhumanism deals with the necessity of overcoming humanity’s limitations and/or improving its capabilities.23 The transhumanist agenda is, therefore, primarily about improving the human condition (body, mind, and emotions) and removing undesirable phenomena such as disease, aging, death, and then the reduction or complete elimination of suffering and all undesirable mental states. There is a belief that longevity and even immortality will be achieved with the help of technology. The rapid progress of information technology, biotechnology, artificial intelligence (AI), neuroscience, and nanotechnology has significantly contributed to the growth of transhumanism.24 Transhumanism is also defined as a philosophy that strives to make human life better and ensure the possibility of survival of humans and humanity.25 Thanks to the development of technology, excessive optimism of transhumanists, who refer to the fact that the lifespan of human beings has increased by 50% in the last 3 centuries. It is believed that it can be extended by 100%. And then even longer. Where is the end? Transhumanists believe that transhumanism not only saves the human species from extinction but also ensures the continuous progress of the human race.26 Transhumanism has the pretension that everything that can improve the human condition and experience thanks to technological intervention can be considered transhumanism.
At the center of transhumanism and posthumanism is the so-called posthuman being. It is ...” a possible future being whose basic capabilities so radically exceed the capabilities of present-day humans that by current standards, they are no longer unambiguously human beings.27 Such a being will not only be superior to current humans but will not suffer disease, will not age and nor die. Diseases will be prevented by nanotechnology embedded in humans and thus improve their immune system, that is, resistance to disease. These “improvements” lead to the creation of a completely new species (cyborgization), that is, the creation of completely unknown and hitherto nonexistent assemblies of people and machines. Not everyone agrees that it is about the improvement of humanity.19 By combining humans and technology into one, important anthropological questions are opened. That new being would represent a new biological species, as transhumanists say. It would be a digital entity without a body, a cybernetic organism. It is actually something that is nonhuman; transhumanism, and even more so posthumanism, represents a state of being that can be labeled: as being nonhuman. Transhumanism emphasizes the technological component as important, and some talk about the moment of “singularity,” that is, the point at which machines and humans unite into one.28
Both approaches agree that current humanity is something that needs to be overcome because it is allegedly wrong and traditional. While for humanism, humanity is the basis of human community, posthumanism questions such a way of thinking and acting and believes that humanism is not only a wrong path but also destructive. Human is essentially an animal, and we must not think of ourselves as superior beings because we are part of nature.20 But there is only part of the truth in this transhumanist attitude. Human is also a spiritual being. Posthumanism claims that in our future technological world, it makes no sense to talk about humans as moral beings and even less as the pinnacle of morality.29 While transhumanism believes that it goes beyond the humanist approach by improving humans as a being through science and technology, posthumanism denies human being any privileged status. For it, human is only determined by physical, chemical, and biological properties. Posthumanism tries to resolve the dualism of Descartes’ understanding of res cogitans (thinking thing, that is, rational and spiritual) and res extensa (extensive substance, that is, corporeality). That is why transhumanism and posthumanism believe that they can solve the gap (hiatus) between humans and nonhuman. Posthumanism is also a form of antihumanism. It nullifies a human as a being because it takes away its consciousness. But a human without consciousness is not a human being. Posthuman and transhuman “beings are hardly human at all”.30
Posthumanism does not differentiate between humans, animals, and machines because, so they say, everything in the material world is made of the same building blocks of matter. In other words, organic and inorganic, humans and nonhumans, are not so different.19 Therefore, posthumanism introduces a completely new paradigm, which is a change in anthropology and worldview. In the future world, nothing or almost nothing will be in common with our present world. If AI prevails, as transhumanists and posthumanists hope, then the future of humans as we know it will come into question, as well as the meaning of education and the need for employment and work in general.24
CRITICISM OF TRANSHUMANISM AND POSTHUMANISM
There are several types of criticisms of transhumanism and posthumanism, and it is impossible to cover them all in this paper. I will refer only fragmentarily to some claims of those movements and to some critics. When in transhumanism, it is claimed that the devices that allow humans to move more easily and faster are considered transhumanist inventions, then this is simply a trivialization of transhumanist “achievements”. “It cannot be denied that this transhumanist invention does more good than bad.” No matter how “anti-human” everything looks, perhaps transhumanism will become the discovery that will save us all.”25 The question that can rightly be asked is whether, for example, the invention and use of any device or instrument that increases human abilities and potential can be considered transhumanist achievement. Many inventions can be cited as examples. Is, for example, the invention of glasses that increase a person’s ability to see also a transhumanist invention? The question can be extended to the inventions of means of transportation (cars, trains, vessels, spaceships, etc.), then all kinds of medical and other aids that enable people to perform everyday operations easier and faster. One could really banalize and ask if all the technical means that human uses in their daily life are transhumanism (household appliances, cutlery, electricity, etc.). What are the criteria for something to belong to transhumanism and something not? Should every improvement of human physical and mental capabilities be considered transhumanism? Where is the border between everyday human activity with the help of technique and technology and transhumanism? Or maybe transhumanism pretends to declare everything that exists as transhumanism? It is not a rare case that all previous ideologies have done this.
There has always been a tendency in human nature to improve physical and mental abilities. The progress of physical abilities is best manifested in sports. Records are constantly being broken in all sports. Health is improved by using natural preparations, medicines, etc. Human behavior and other human activities can also be improved. For example, humans used various means to move faster in various situations. This is how many technical inventions were created that enabled faster movement (various means of transport), communication, easier mastering of natural forces, more successful work, etc. Mental abilities can also be improved by some methods. No one has ever considered the production and use of devices, apparatus, machines, sophisticated instruments, or treatment with natural or synthetic drugs as transhumanism. Surgery, for example, is not transhumanism, etc. Transhumanism is not, for example, the use of cars or airplanes for faster movement or prostheses that enable athletes without arms or legs to function almost normally. No one has ever considered these improvements to be transhumanism, regardless of the fact that proponents of transhumanism cite the most common prostheses and other means (although they can be very sophisticated) as an example of expanding human capabilities in some area of activity. After all, all the instruments invented by man in some way represent an extension of man’s abilities: with binoculars, we can observe very distant objects that are not accessible to the ordinary eye. It is similar to a microscope and various other devices. Since the beginning of mankind, medicine has also been aimed at improving human health and quality of life. Has it always been transhumanism?
In order to answer the question of where the border is between everyday human activity with the help of technique and technology and transhumanism, one should return to the philosophical question about the essence of human beings. There is no need to delve deeper into philosophical and anthropological topics, but it can be briefly recalled that human is a physical (material, bodily) but equally (even more fundamental) mental and especially spiritual beings. Technique and technology primarily help a person to improve his physical characteristics (abilities), while the essence of a person remains intact, especially the spiritual component of a person. Namely, a man or woman without one arm or leg (whether he or she was born that way or it is the result of unfortunate life circumstances) is admittedly more or less handicapped, but he or she is still a human being (man or woman) in the full sense of the word, because something has changed in him/her that is accidental, and not the very essence of a human. And all unwanted deviations caused by illness do not change the essence of a human being. His or her genetic structure, and especially his/her spiritual structure, remained mostly the same regardless of the fact that he/she became “technically” more “perfect.” Technology, therefore, did not change the essence of man/woman as a being. At least it couldn’t change it until now. The essence of man/woman is determined and inherent to man/woman, just as the essence of anything is inherent to that particular thing. This is true regardless of whether one believes that a human is a being created by God or is the result of biological evolution or something else. Today, there are real possibilities for changing the essence of human beings. One of the ideologues of the World Economic Forum, Yuval Noah Harari, propagates the program of reshaping humans and the world. He believes that humans and humanity as they represent an obstacle to the new world order. He believes that humanity will achieve its greatest success if it succeeds in hacking human beings. That way, they will be able to manage and manipulate him.31,32
Transhumanism occurs at the moment when a person’s natural and spiritual essence changes. Changing a person’s essence is a procedure that goes against both God and Nature. There are at least two important things that make transhumanism possible in principle. One is, it has already been said, the development of technique and technology, and the other is the idea that God either does not exist or, if he does, created human being imperfect and that human deficiency needs to be fixed. God cannot fix it because he either doesn’t want to or doesn’t know how. After all, God is dead (F. Nietzsche). That is why the role of God should be taken over by a man or, more precisely, a superman (Übermensch), transman, etc. That is why it is probably no coincidence that transhumanists see Nietzsche’s superman as one of the beginnings of their worldview. That is why advocates of transhumanism consider this “movement” to be the embodiment of the most challenging, bravest, most imaginative, and idealistic aspiration of humanity. Transhumanism, according to their belief, wants to help humans by solving the most important, perhaps all, human health problems, primarily physical. Supporters of transhumanism themselves know that there are also negative sides of transhumanism, so in the 1990s, they softened the radicalism of the term transhumanism itself with the term humanity + (humanity plus) (abbreviated H+ or h+).12 This plus means: to reject everything that is characteristic of humans by nature, namely mortality, disease, vulnerability, suffering, fear, and many other disadvantages. Today we know that the possibility and probability of misuse of technology when applied to humans is very high and that technical intervention in the essence of human structure can lead to the disintegration of man as a being. In both cases, that is, transhumanism and H+, human actually ceases to be human and becomes another kind of being. Transhumanism is the end of humans. What would remain of humans would be a kind of humanoid, not a real human as we know him from the beginning to this day. Human is not even humanoid because a human would be secondary to that being, and what AI does with him would prevail.
Not every aspiration for change for the better can be labeled as transhumanism. A natural, organic process for the better is a desirable thing. Refinementing and improving man is the goal of many human actions; that is the goal of every religion. At the same time, the emphasis is not on the physical, bodily component of humans but primarily on the spiritual. This is how we came to the split (hiatus) of man as a being. It seems that today human has become a scientific and technological giant, but spiritually, it remains a dwarf, which means that scientifically, technically, and technologically he has advanced beyond recognition, but spiritually he has stagnated or even regressed so that the split has widened like never before in history the human race. In their reductionism, transhumanists think that man, as he has essentially existed since the beginning of humanity, should be replaced by a new being that would be a hybridization between a posthuman being and a machine and could be called homo postsapiens sapiens.33 Transhumanism is, therefore, a futuristic social movement that wants to create a new “posthuman species” (posthumanoid). Transhumanists speak of a moment when there will be no restrictions on man. This singularity is actually an eschatological point that transhumanists borrow from the theological vocabulary.34 That is why critics of transhumanism call this movement a “strange liberation movement” that seeks to “liberate the human race from its biological limitations.” This means that the natural process of evolution should be taken into one’s own hands, and nature should be managed with the help of technology. It is the old Baconian ideal of modern science. Rapid advances in biotechnology can fascinate us, but the moral threats that follow from these advances are often not visible and difficult to recognize.34 Therefore, transhumanized is actually a kind of cult, a science fiction that attaches great importance to itself. It is a movement on the edge of intellectual development. And it has a claim to “serious philosophy.” It is also a type of fantasy and ideology that “elevates a subjective idea over objective reality.”35 It thus represents a great danger for society. This danger is not only theoretical but has already proven to be disastrous in practice in the form of gender ideology. Also, the emergence of the so-called coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which some consider to be a stumbling block in the consolidation of transhumanism, has shown the ideology of transhumanism.24 It is a means of dehumanization because it is essentially anti-human and inhuman because machines cannot be humane.33 This is how it proved to be a political ideology. Transhumanism is the prevailing ideology of the so-called fourth industrial revolution.
Transhumanism and posthumanism are, therefore, unnatural because they are directed against human nature. According to these movements, the differences between the human and the machine/computer cease, where the biological and the digital merge. Thus, human ceases to be organic being and becomes inorganic, so it is “normal” that it does not even have a gender. That is why it is possible to insist on the nonexistence of differences between the sexes, but it is also possible to decide, opt for the so-called sex and gender. Gender ideology is one of the main features of transhumanism. One of the goals of transhumanism is to erase the differences between the sexes. Then it will be easier to accept a genderless transhuman being. Even the linguistic definitions of human go in this direction; there is no longer he or she, father or mother. It even goes so far as to incorporate the absence of these differences into the legal system of legislation. It also seeks to erase the distinction between mortality and immortality and strives to achieve physical immortality. That idea is not original at all. The elixir of life was sought through many centuries and millennia before transhumanism. In fact, it is about the transhumanist seeing himself as an imitation of God.36 The posthumanist and transhumanist set themself up as a criterion that determines what is good and bad, what is true or false. In this sense, transhumanism and posthumanism are destructive. Spiritually even backward and dark.
How and why did the spiritual stagnation of humanity happen? Without going into details about all the aspects that led and now lead to the dehumanization of humans, it is enough to mention that dehumanization began with the first rebellion against God, but also against a human who, according to Christianity, was created in the image of God, as described in the first pages of the Bible. The image of God is that human are beings of a community (family), that is, a unity of diversity (theological view: one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). But that aspect requires a special review and analysis. Another form of the spiritual fall of humans is manifested in the attempt to assume the role of God by means of abuses of science, technique, and technology. It should be strictly emphasized right away that neither science nor technology is inherently bad. On the contrary, on the first pages of the biblical Book of Genesis, there is a very clear plan for man: “Have many children … and bring it under their control” (Genesis 1:28). But it was not said that a human should subject another human to himself. Humanism has already, in some way, made a move away from God by putting humans in the foreground as the measure of all things. Transhumanism and posthumanism increased that gap, not only from God but also from humans.
In order for transhumanism to appear, a certain period of time had to pass to create the conditions for the possibility of the ontic transformation of a human into a nonhuman. The conditions for this transition were created by various philosophical, worldview, and practical approaches to reality, such as materialism, Marxism, liberalism, scientism, pragmatism, etc. All these directions were reductionist and reduced man as a being to only some or only a form of existence. Materialism essentially does not recognize the existence of spirit and spiritual reality. Science, in its scientific interpretation, has become one of the main levers of transhumanism. Modern science has proven to be a very successful means by which nature and humans can be mastered. One of the fundamental characteristics of that science is the aspiration for a human to dominate nature (Francis Bacon, 16/17th century), but also another human (the will to power, Friedrich Nietzsche, 19th century) by means of it and the techniques created by it. The Faustian feature of modern science and technology is ruling the world and humans. Dr Faust made an alliance with the devil and sold his soul to him. In return, he received the power that consisted of the ability to control humans and all of nature. Since then, science and scientists have been working very successfully on subduing natural forces in order to use them not only for the advancement of human life but, unfortunately, also against humans. But until our time, science and technology were not developed enough to fully realize this desired ideal. Today’s science and technology make this possible to a large extent. Subjecting nature without prudence and with a lot of selfishness has led to many negative consequences that are manifested in violence against nature, which results in the so-called ecological crisis in the broadest sense of the word, and recently a very dangerous threat to man himself as a being in the form of transhumanism and other ideologies that represent the real possibility of cyborgization of man and his dehumanization. But the danger also exists in the denaturalization of nature by destroying air, land, water, and everything that exists in nature.
Scientism and Reductionism22,38-45
Natural sciences have for their subject nature in the broadest sense of the word. When they refer to man (human being), they are not only materialistically oriented but also reductionist because they reduce man only to a natural being. The spiritual dimension of humans is left out either as unimportant or even as nonexistent. In this sense, the natural sciences were close to the materialist, positivist, and pragmatist approaches. Without going deeper into the relationship between science and materialism, let’s mention, without further analysis, that quantum physics called into question the materialistic orientation of natural science.37 Science, therefore, rests on a reductionist paradigm and paradigm of scientism. The term scientism comes from the Latin word Scientia, which means science. Science and scientism should not be equated because they are not synonyms. However, often, unconsciously, these terms are used as synonyms. Scientism is an understanding according to which many, in principle, all, questions can be answered based on the use of scientific methods. The scientific method was primarily the method of the natural sciences. There is a strong belief that the scientific method and the scientific approach to the world are the most important and, according to some, the only way by which man comes to a true understanding of the world. That belief is only belief (or faith), not knowledge, especially not scientific knowledge. It is impossible on the basis of science and its method to confirm or prove that this belief is correct. It is only a useful assumption of scientists, but it is not a scientifically proven statement. Supporters of scientism, however, are convinced that scientism is such an approach according to which scientific knowledge is the only real knowledge; there is actually no other knowledge. Therefore, there is no rational and objective way of research that is not science. Science is actually all knowledge. Thus, science has absorbed all human rationality into itself. There is nothing that is rational without being scientific. This claim of supporters of scientism is exaggerated and unsustainable. Science and reason, that is, rationality, cannot be considered synonymous. Especially if one takes into account scientific reductionism, according to which the real sciences are only natural sciences. There are other forms of rational knowledge that are not natural science. Social sciences and humanities also use a rational approach in their research and arriving at truths. A typical example of an extremely rational approach to reality is a philosophy based on logical conclusions, and logical consistency is entirely rational. Thanks to the scientific method, science has proven to be successful in the study of nature and useful in the application of knowledge in forecasting and managing systems. It is particularly successful in its application to technique and technology. This, however, doesn’t mean anything yet that there is nothing else than what the scientific forecasting method reveals to us. Reality is not so poor that it is reduced to what can only be discovered and explained by science. Does the scientific method condition ontology, or does reality itself suggest, even impose, which methods are suitable for researching reality? Despite successful science and its method, the fact is that science does not have definitive answers to many questions, not even to the so-called scientific questions, although scientific truths are often presented as final and absolute and, therefore, unquestionable truths.
Scientism rests on several pillars: empiricism, positivism, utilitarianism, reductionism, and rationalism. The basis for scientific knowledge of the world is the assumption that factual knowledge is obtained from experience, and with experience is connected to the so-called inductive method, which was already discussed by old philosophers. According to Comte-type positivism, but also the later logical positivism of the 20th century, nothing exists outside the subject area of science. Thus, scientism is a kind of reductionism that reduces the entire reality only to an empirically accessible area of reality. Therefore, all those statements that are not obtained by applying natural scientific methods are completely meaningless. The objects to which such statements would refer do not actually exist; those would simply be fabrication and fiction. Such statements would include statements of metaphysics and religion. According to all positivist approaches, such statements are completely meaningless. From this, one could conclude that questions such as: is there a world outside the natural, material, and physical world, and can we know anything about that world are completely meaningless? Is there such a thing as opinion, belief, mind, desires, meanings, etc.? The scientific interpretation of science starts from the belief that nature can and must be described by countable and measurable quantities, that is, quantitatively. Accurate measurements and calculations are necessary to understand natural processes. The quantitative scientific method is good and useful for science. The question is whether it is absolute. Quantitativeness has become synonymous with objectivity, and what is objective must also be scientific. The expression of this quantitative objectivity is the application of mathematics to nature. Everything in nature should and must be measured, as Galileo imagined long ago, and put into mathematical formulas. The natural world that is scientifically investigated must be not only measurable but also calculable, which means predictable and under control. Everything that does not submit to the scientific method and scientific knowledge loses the status of natural, physical, and material. Can everything in nature and the world be reduced to quantitative quantities? Our daily experience of the world is not primarily quantitative but qualitative. Namely, we have the experience of experiencing colors, sounds, heat, and not the experience of the frequency of these radiations. We are also convinced that things and events have meanings and sense. It is almost impossible to assume that meaning can be measured, expressed in numbers, put in a formula, and calculated. The everyday subjective picture of the world is not compatible with the so-called “scientific,” objective picture of the world that reduces all qualities to quantities so that all properties, such as color, smell, heat, etc., are reduced to the motion of atoms, molecules, and even smaller particles of which we have no sensory experience and are not part of our everyday life. Human thoughts and actions cannot be reduced to particle movements. Human nature, therefore, cannot be described well enough in terms of natural science. So called scientific objectivism cannot be applied to the human mind. A further question is how science explains the moral sphere, the phenomenon of religiosity and human faith, and metaphysical questions.
Scientists can be asked the question: how does scientism justify its supposedly “scientific” claims about God, faith, and religion? What is the scientific evidence for these claims? If scientists insist on science, scientific evidence, etc., then this must also apply to their claims. The scientific view that scientism is true and that all claims must be scientifically verifiable, and this includes empirical verification, means that this must also apply to the scientific claim “scientism is true.” How can the stated claim be proved logically and especially empirically? It can neither be “scientifically” confirmed nor denied that science is the best (even the only) rational way of investigating phenomena in the world. Thus, scientism, in its logical inconsistency, refutes itself. If scientists are not prepared to apply the same arguments to their claims as they apply to their opponents’ claims, then it means that their goal is to discredit rival opinions as untrue as opposed to their own, which are supposedly absolutely true. This kind of approach is more prone to dogmatism and ideology than to science. Thus, scientists, in an effort to defend science and scientificity, came to a nonscientific approach to reality, that is, in dogmatism and ideology and perhaps in some kind of pseudo-religion. Therefore, it is not unexpected that scientists try to refute morality, religion, philosophy, etc., through science. If, for scientism, there are no values, not even morals, then how could religion, morals, and values be justified or rejected with the help of science and in the name of science? Moral rules, which are largely based on religions, are not the conclusions of human reason at all, as David Hume already asserted. Scientists present the evolutionary claim that the human brain was shaped by natural selection and that the human mind, shaped in this way, misleads us when we talk about values, morality, religion, meaning, consciousness, and conscience. Counter question: how, then, in an evolutionarily shaped way, does the human mind not mislead us when it comes to science and scientific theories? It can then be concluded that supporters of scientism are not actually scientists because they do not deal exclusively with science itself, but have created a kind of dogma and ideology out of science. Their scientism does not derive from science at all but from something completely different. It comes from faith in science. That science has taken the place of God means that scientism is a kind of religion, quasi-religion, or pseudo-religion. Belief in science is the greatest humiliation for science itself because science does not ask to believe in it, but quite the opposite, not to believe in it; it is not faith but verification. Science progresses only in this way because old knowledge (let’s call them “dogmas” or even slightly nicer paradigms) is replaced by new ones.
Scientism comes to the fore more in those sciences and professions that are more applicable, and the area of their applicability is more sensitive to them. The most sensitive area is human life and health. That is why medical professions are most susceptible to dogmatism and scientism. The dogmas of the medical profession are declared not only the greatest achievements of medicine but of science in general. Dogmas are relatively easy to accept because of the sensitivity of the application of these dogmas. Science, in the interpretation of scientism, could relatively easily become dogmatic because it is believed in its omnipotence. As the world and man are imperfect, science will help to “repair” and “perfect” man. If man was created by some kind of God, then he did not create him as a perfect being, so the world is not the best of all possible worlds (Leibniz) but rather the worst (Voltaire). That is why science, especially biomedical science, is needed to correct the systematic errors of the Creator. It is known to medical science that the immune system is one of the most perfect systems in the entire universe and that humans are the perfection of the universe in general. However, the recognition of this knowledge would represent a danger to medical dogmas. Dogmatism feeds on pragmatism, which is the usefulness of individuals and groups, their power, and influence. As soon as money entered science and medicine as the main criterion of everything, then science largely ceased to be a search for truth. Instead of truth, pragmatism, and interest prevailed. That is why Ivan Illich says46: “Traders have entered the temple of science.” Around 70 years ago, he protested: “Stop science, save man.” Medicine, unfortunately, already in his time, became not only inhumane but also dangerous to man. Today it is many times more dangerous.
Dogmatic scientism does not really see what the essence of science and scientific research is. Scientific research does not have its foundations in science but in philosophy because the assumptions of science are not examined by science itself but by philosophy. They do not follow science itself, and it is impossible to derive them from it. These assumptions are unscientific. But the results of science themselves, especially their application, go beyond science. Science, therefore, depends on philosophy both when it tries to justify its assumptions and when it needs to interpret the results. Scientism is undoubtedly a wrong and unscientific approach.
MANIPULATION WITH (IN)EQUALITY
Transhumanists call for equality among people. On the one hand, they say that they are advocating that everyone freely decides for themselves about their own cyborgization, and on the other hand, they want to unify all “people,” essentially taking away all individuality (and thus freedom). They propagate supposed equality among humanoids, transhumanoids, and posthumanoids. The question is whether these types of beings are equal and how they can be equal. What would it mean if they were equal when they were different types of beings. A human and a transhuman being, therefore, could not be the same kind of being, just as individual animal and plant species are not the same kind of being. Or as a man and an animal. These are two types of beings, viewed even mechanistically. What equality, then, could there be between humanoids and transhumanoids (or posthumanoids)? They are not equal, but they cannot be equal either, that is, equal in their rights.
The question of equality and inequality is one of the most important questions of political philosophy and real political and social life. In order to use the terms more precisely, equality should be distinguished from having equal rights. We will certainly agree that the very idea of equality is very attractive, and therefore its opposite, inequality, is something we would not like to accept and against which we fight. In modern times, the idea of equality has taken on the meaning of a priori equality, which often leads to confusion and the misconception that everything is equal. Before the modern era, there was a duality (dualism) between equal and unequal. Not everyone was considered equal, either in the social or political sense. And that was the usual point of view. In the modern development of political thought, equality has become the fundamental starting point for the determination of humans. Almost everyone would like a society in which everyone would be equal, in which all differences would disappear. It’s a very attractive but also very superficial way of looking at things. The opposite question could also be asked: why would we want such a society where everyone would be equal? Is such a society even possible? Unfortunately, it is a very common case that people are obsessed with beautiful phrases and do not think about their deeper meaning or are unable to think about them. We were able to convince ourselves of this during the so-called COVID-19 pandemic. And many other terms have acquired “new” meanings. It is similar to the concept of equality and inequality.
The conceptual analysis leads us to something completely different from the usual understanding of the concept of equality. The inequality that exists in nature and in the social sphere must be distinguished. Since man is a natural being, let’s start with nature. In nature, nothing is equal; there is no equality in nature. The old philosopher Heraclitus would say that in nature, all are opposites, so ultimate and maximum differences and that there is a struggle of opposites, and it is because of them that it is possible for natural beings and phenomena to exist. Nature is polar and dual. In nature and by nature, there are extreme opposites: dead and alive (so-called dead and living nature; there is no middle nature), positive and negative electric charge, north and south magnetic poles, warm and cold, light and darkness, etc. The living world has a male and female principle. Opposites are not only opposite but complementary, and from their struggle emerges novelty, new beings, and new phenomena. This can be compared in several ways, one of which is the so-called Hegelian dialectic form of thesis–antithesis–synthesis. It is characteristic of nature that it is always in motion, in change, and this is made possible by its differences, not equality. If the principle of equality ruled in nature, then nature would be impossible. Heat, for example, flows from a warmer body to a colder one. If all points in the thermal field were equal, that is, if they had the same potential, it would not be possible to heat (or cool). If all points in the electromagnetic field had the same potential, that is, if there was no potential difference, current could not flow from one place to another. Even objects could not fall if all points in the gravitational field were of equal potential. There are many examples. All changes in nature occur precisely thanks to the difference in potential, that is, thanks to inequality and the existence of differences. Equality would exist only at absolute zero, where there is no movement of the smallest particles, where everything, metaphorically speaking, is frozen. Such a world would be unchanging, and nature is exactly the opposite, with constant movement and change, as the ancient Greek etymology of the word says: phyein means to grow, to appear; hence the name physis.
However, human is not only a natural but also a spiritual being. And that is what defines a human being most of all. Man lives in society; he is a social being, a being of a community (family, tribe, people, nation, and then the whole of humanity). Man differs from man both as a natural and as a social being. Natural or physical inequalities between people include inequalities in gender, age, physical predispositions, skin color, intelligence, etc., and social inequalities are manifested as differences in power, material wealth, status/position in society, etc. People, therefore, are not equal by nature. Equality can, of course, be established according to some other criterion, legal, political, economic, etc. But then, it is not called equality, but equal rights. And that is not the same. Political equality would mean that all citizens have equal political rights and freedom of speech, conscience, association, etc.; legal equality would be if the same laws and equal criteria of justice were applied to everyone; economic equality would include equal wealth for all members of society; social equality presupposes equal opportunities to develop abilities, etc. Equal rights, that is, equality does not come from nature, that is, that people are supposedly equal by nature, but from the far more important fact that all people are simply people with all their differences, whether as God’s creatures either as beings created by evolution or in some third way (as anyone believes). God did not create people equal, but he gave them the same freedom and the same human dignity according to which they, as different, can and should be equal. What’s wrong with people being different? What would the world look like if all people were completely equal: only men or only women, only children or only old people, etc.? On the first pages of the Bible, it is said that God created male and female (Genesis 1:27). There is no intersex. You don’t even need to be a religious fanatic; you don’t even need to be a believer to understand and accept how nature works.
The idea of equality is related to the idea of justice. It is fair that different people have, at least potentially, equal opportunities and rights. Equality further includes freedom. Freedom is a spiritual category. Inanimate material beings cannot be free. They cannot be free or completely equal beings because they do not have their own uniqueness and individual indivisibility or individuality. Individuals are individuals precisely because they cannot be reduced to someone else with all possible similarities to others. A human is also a person, and being a person is the highest category that can be attributed to humans. This distinguishes him from all other beings. An automaton, robot, or cyborg cannot be an individual or a person. A robot is mechanically composed of parts and can be disassembled into these parts, but a person as a person cannot. My, your, his specific “part” cannot be incorporated into someone else, nor can someone else’s “part” be incorporated into me, you, him. By “part,” I do not mean mechanical and medical organ transplantation but something much more. We are what we are according to the specifics that are unique and unrepeatable. No one has ever existed, nor can there exist, like “I,” “you,” “he,” etc. Each person is an original, not a copy. Copies can be, for example, robots or cyborgs. They can be duplicated (more precisely, someone else can duplicate them, i.e., produce them as identical copies) but not reproduce. Even at the level of physics, there is a theory of emergence that opposes reductionism,47 and it says something like this: the whole is not simply a mechanical set or assembly of its parts. The whole is much more than that. Therefore, it has other properties. This is especially evident at the level of biology, psychology, and spiritual reality. A person48 is more than a collection of atoms, something more than matter. Plants, animals, and still life cannot be persons.
Given the above, equality is an ideological construct, and as an ideology, it is a distorted awareness of the reality that presents itself as correct, that is, it is a lie that plays the truth and imposes itself on others as the truth, then equality is also a lie that wants to be the truth. Therefore, it is clear that the term “equality” is inappropriate for what most people mean by it. The seemingly appealing idea of equality is actually an ideological obfuscation mantra and a dogma that must not be questioned. The largest number of people are inclined to dogmatism, that is, absolute agreement in the matter of some imposed pseudo-dogma. Such a consensus is the result of conformity, and this is again the result of intellectual laziness. Many people in the era of the so-called pandemic were misled, and it is possible that many will be misled by the new moves of the Great Reset or technological communism. The degree of delusion does not depend on the intellectual capacity of the individual but on his wisdom. Let us remind you that knowledge and wisdom are not one and the same. Wisdom includes prudence and the moral sphere. That’s why people with less formal education can be wiser than educated people. The Bible says: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and set aside the understanding of the scholars. So then, where does that leave the wise? or the scholars? or the skillful debaters of this world?” (1 Cor 1:19–20).
Given that transhumanism and posthumanism destroy the concept of a person as a spiritual category that includes the idea of wholeness, rational nature, individuality (individuality), incommunicableness, unity (originality), substantiality, independence, diversity (inequality), etc., they are inhuman ways of thinking and actions. A cyborg, a robot, or a machine cannot be a person or have dignity. Only a person has dignity, and only a person has freedom. Therefore, the idea of equality represents one of the biggest lies and deceptions. One could, thanks to his freedom, refuse to be equal. A robot can’t do that. Even a transhumanoid will not be able to do that because he will not have freedom either and will be controlled like a robot. Therefore, there can be no equality for either, simply because there is no freedom. This leads to the seemingly paradoxical conclusion that equality destroys any idea of “having the same right.” On the other hand, “have equal rights” does not follow from equality but, on the contrary, from inequality. Only those who are different, which means unequal, can have equal rights.
The question that can be asked regarding transhumanism, posthumanism, or any ideology is: what are the chances of ideologies succeeding? Judging by history, ideologies caused a lot of harm, but in the end, they failed. It is very likely that the ideologies of transhumanism and posthumanism will also fail, but until then, they can do a lot of harm to humanity. In their unreasonable desire to transform humans into another kind of being, transhumanists can disfigure humanity through biotechnological intervention. The question is whether transhumanists even understand what they are doing and what they want. Do they understand what is the essence of human beings and what is good at all? And do they want good for man and humanity?
CONCLUSION
From all that has been said, the conclusion emerges that the “usual” definitions of transhumanism and posthumanism need to be changed. That is why I offer my own definition without going into the specifics of one or the other of these movements because they are very close to each other. As every possible definition is limited (the very name of the definition says so), so is the one I propose. But it seems to me that it reflects much more the essence of the phenomenon of transhumanism and posthumanism than the existing definitions. First, I give a definition and then an explanation.
Transhumanism and posthumanism are anti-natural, anti-human, and anti-God, exclusively ideological globalist movements created at the end of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century with the aim of destroying nature, all natural beings and man in the form they have been known to us since the beginning of the human race, using scientific, technical and technological achievements of humanity, medicine, and politics, whereby manipulations, hiding the truth and promoting lies, control of nature (water, air, soil, plants and animals, food, solar energy, etc.) are used systematically and programmed, which in practice results in totalitarian ways of thinking and behavior and leads society into slavery without freedom and without identity of individuals who become one transhuman being called humanity.
Already from the so-called classical definitions, it can be seen that the movements of transhumanism and posthumanism are neither scientific nor philosophical movements nor a futuristic philosophy, but, on the contrary, are anti-scientific, pseudo-philosophical even though they refer to science. The movement does not understand the true essence of science but instrumentalizes it for its own purposes, emphasizing only its reductionist character and its pragmatic side. The movement is not even a philosophy because it does not care about the whole truth and wisdom. In its etymological basis, philosophy should be understood as a primordial love (aspiration, striving) for wisdom. Transhumanism and posthumanism have nothing in common with wisdom; on the contrary, they show repulsion and contempt, even hatred for wisdom, and a desire for knowledge, which has an exclusively instrumental role of control. That is why these movements could be called misanthrophilia (love or tendency to hate man) or philocontrollism (love of control, management, and being ruled by others). In the philosophical sense, transhumanism, with all its attributes, is mostly supported by the so-called analytical philosophers. Like any ideology (and even pseudo-religion), transhumanism and posthumanism have the pretension of comprehensiveness, that is, the expansion of their territory to everything existing and everything imaginable. In its practical implementation, the movement promotes and practices totalitarian behavior and tyranny. This shows the so-called the COVID-19 pandemic, which the transhumanists themselves (YN Harari) say has helped and strengthened the transhumanist movement. But transhumanism did not achieve its ultimate goal with that. COVID-19 is only the initial phase of realizing the movement’s ideals and ideas. Furthermore, it is difficult to accept the claim that the movement advocates for nature and man, for human health, increasing abilities (physical and mental) to make him better and happier, but quite the opposite: it destroys nature (air, water, soil, plants, and animals) and man, taking away his freedom, individuality, personality, and creative abilities. A transhuman and posthuman being is no longer a human being, so it can no longer have peculiarities (typical of every human being), personality, freedom, or even intelligence. What is called AI is actually not creative human intelligence but directed “intelligence” from some center of power and knowledge. A transhumanoid will have no need for learning, knowledge, education, or creativity because it will all be “served” to him. He will not even be a special being, but only a cog in a big machine, a transhumanistic super-being (overman, Übermensch, superman, etc.) which transhumanistically can be called the so-called humanity. But also, wider than that because transhumanists also claim space/universe. That’s why they talk about inhabiting other planets. It is not true that transhumanists and posthumanists strive for truth and science. For them, science is only an instrument of conquest, increase, and maintenance of power in accordance with the idea of Bacon from the 17th century about the subjugation of nature to human needs. Transhumanists have gone one step further and want to subjugate man as well as nature. Thus, they are truly worthy collaborators of Faust, eugenics, and all their practical implementations in the history of the human race. Transhumanists and posthumanists are at the same time supporters of scientism, reductionists, pragmatists, and anti-personalists and have made a dogma out of science, especially medical science, and therefore they are dogmatists. Transhumanists and posthumanists are only their successors who continue more radically and systematically on all these ideas and their practical implementation. Ultimately, transhumanists and posthumanists are anti-humanists because they fight against humanism and supposedly overcome it. Although humanism was already a movement of the affirmation of man in all its aspects, which sought to achieve betterment for man and humanity through human forces, it was also a departure from the transcendent being: God. It was, in a way, the anti-God, but it kept the positive trait that it tried to be human both in the ethical-moral and ontological sense. Transhumanism and posthumanism have also broken that limit, so they are not only anti-God but also anti-human and anti-natural. They have “convinced” a large number of scientists and almost all politicians with their ideas, and they are still trying to convince as many people as possible. They justify all this by claiming that even before, people were striving for the same goals that transhumanists strive for, but they could not achieve them because they did not have the technical capabilities to do so. Now that the technical possibilities exist, transhumanism will continue to do evil under the pretext of doing good. It is by far the greatest evil that humanity has experienced on a global scale.
REFERENCES
1. Copson A, Grayling AC, editors. The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Humanism. Wiley Blackwell; 2015. Accessed July 5, 2023.
2. Pinn AB, editor. The Oxford Handbook of Humanism. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2019. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/book/36311. Accessed July 5, 2023.
3. Kraye J, editor. The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Humanism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1996. Available from: https://books.google.hr/books?id=Nyi9_Y4375YC&redir_esc=y. Accessed July 5, 2023.
4. Faber R, Rudolph E, editors. Humanismus in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck; 2002. Available from: https://www.mohrsiebeck.com/buch/humanismus-in-geschichte-und-gegenwart-9783161477119?no_cache=1. Accessed July 5, 2023.
5. Badmington N, editor. Posthumanism. Bloomsbury; 2000.
6. Braidotti R. Posthuman Knowledge. Polity Press, Cambridge; 2019.
7. Fukuyama F. Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York; 2003.
8. Herbrechter S. Posthumanism: A Critical Analysis. Bloomsbury; 2013.
9. Adorno FP. The Transhumanist Movement. New York: Palgrave MacMillan; 2021.
10. Bostrom N. Transhumanism: The World’s Most Dangerous Idea? [Accessed 2023, July 5]. Available from: https://nickbostrom.com/papers/dangerous.
11. Fukuyama F. Transhumanism. [Accessed 2023, July 5]. Available from: https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/23/transhumanism/
12. Hansell GR, Grassie W, editors. H+/-: Transhumanism and Its Critics. Metanexus Institute, Philadelphia; 2011.
13. More M, editor. The Transhumanist Reader: Classical and Contemporary Essays on the Science, Technology, and Philosophy of the Human Future. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester; 2013.
14. Lee N, editor. The Transhumanism Handbook. Springer, Cham; 2020.
15. Humanity Plus. The Transhumanist Declaration. Available from: https://www.humanityplus.org/the-transhumanist-declaration [accessed 2023, July 5].
16. Habermas J. The Future of Human Nature. Polity Press; 2003.
17. Kurzweil R. The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. Viking Press, New York; 2005 (Penguin Books 2006).
18. Ranisch R, Sorgner SL, editors. Post and Transhumanism: An Introduction. Peter Lang, Frankfurt na Majni; 2014.
19. Perleo. What is Posthumanism? Available from: https://www.perleo.com/knowledge/study-guides/what-is-posthumanism/ [accessed 2023, July 5].
20. The Collector. Posthumanism: Philosophy of the 21st Century. Available from: https://www.thecollector.com/posthumanism-philosophy-of-the-21st-century/ [accessed 2023, July 5].
21. Bostrom N. Transhumanistic Values. Available from: https://nickbostrom.com/ethics/values [accessed 2023, July 5].
22. Big Think. Transhumanism: Savior of Humanity or False Prophecy? Available from: https://bigthink.com/the-future/transhumanism-savior-humanity-false-prophecy/ [accessed 2023, July 5].
23. Hoejme P. Should We Fear the Future? The Philosophy of Transhumanism. Available from: https://www.thecollector.com/philosophy-of-transhumanism/ [accessed 2023, July 5].
24. Graziani V. Transhumanism in the Age of ChatGPT: Five Thoughts from Transhumanist Zoltan Istvan. Available from: https://www.su.org/blog/transhumanism-in-the-age-of-chatgpt-five-thoughts-from-transhumanist-zoltan-istavan [accessed 2023, July 5].
25. The Collector. 5 Ways Transhumanism Is Changing Our Lives. Available from: https://www.thecollector.com/5-ways-transhumanism-is-changing-our-lives/ [accessed 2023, July 5].
26. Walker M. Ship of Fools: Why Transhumanism Is the Best Bet to Prevent the Extinction of Civilization. In: Hansell GR, Grassie W, editors. H± Transhumanism and its Critics. Metanexus Institute, Philadelphia; 2011. pp. 94–112. Available from: https://www.academia.edu/37370109/H_TransHumanism_and_Its_Critics [accessed 2023, July 5].
27. Bostrom N. The Transhumanist FAQ: v 2.1. World Transhumanist Association. Available from: [URL if available]. [Accessed 2023, July 5].
28. Kurzweil R. The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. Penguin Books; 2006.
29. Ethics Centre. Ethics Explainer: Posthumanism. Available from: https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-post-humanism/ [accessed 2023, July 5].
30. Bakewell S. Sarah Bakewell on Posthumanism, Transhumanism, and What it Actually Means to Be “Human.” LitHub. Available from: https://lithub.com/sarah-bakewell-on-posthumanism-transhumanism-and-what-it-actually-means-to-be-human/ [accessed 2023, July 5].
31. Harari YN. Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow. HarperCollins Publisher, New York; 2017.
32. Schwab K. The Fourth Industrial Revolution. World Economic Forum, Geneva; 2016.
33. Giesen KG. Transhumanism as a Dominant Ideology of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Journal international de bioéthique et d’éthique des sciences. Issue 3-4, 2018, pp. 189-203. Available from: https://www.cairn-int.info/journal-international-de-bioethique-et-d-ethique-des-sciences-2018-3-page-189.htm [accessed 2023, July 6].
34. Bailey R. Transhumanism: The Most Dangerous Idea? Reason. Available from: https://reason.com/2004/08/25/transhumanism-the-most-dangero/ [accessed 2023, July 6].
35. Smith JW. We’re Seeing the First Wave of Applied Transhumanism. Evolution News & Science Today. Available from: https://evolutionnews.org/2023/04/were-seeing-the-first-wave-of-applied-transhumanism/ [accessed 2023, July 6].
36. Krüger O. Virtual Immortality: God, Evolution, and the Singularity in Post and Transhumanism. Transcript Verlag, Bielefeld; 2021.
37. Heisenberg W. Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science. Minkowski Institute Press, Montreal; 2022.
38. Achinstein PA. The Nature of Explanation. Oxford University Press, New York; 1983.
39. Balzer W, Pearce CP, Schmidt HJ (eds). Reduction in Science: Structure, Examples, Philosophical Problems. Springer; 1984.
40. Kim J, Beckermann A, Flohr H (eds). Emergence or Reduction? Essays on the Prospects of Nonreductive Physicalism. W. de Gruyter, New York; 1992.
41. Esfeld MA, Sachse C. Conservative Reductionism. Routledge, London; 2011.
42. Wuketits FM, Hoyningen-Huene P (eds). Reductionism and Systems Theory in the Life Sciences: Some Problems and Perspectives. Springer; 1989.
43. Sachse C. Reductionism in the Philosophy of Science. Ontos-Verlag, Frankfurt/M; 2007.
44. Van Riel R. The Concept of Reduction. Springer, Dordrecht; 2014.
45. de Ridder J, Peels R, van Woudenberg R (eds). Scientism: Prospects and Problems. Oxford University Press, New York; 2018. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190462758.001.0001
46. Illich I. Medical Nemesis: The Expropriation of Health. Pantheon Books, New York; 1976.
47. Disciplinarity in Science and Religion, Curtea Veche, Bucharest, 2008. [Accessed 2023, July 9].
48. Rourke TR, Rourke RAC. A Theory of Personalism. Lexington Books; 2007.
________________________
© The Author(s). 2023 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and non-commercial reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.