Etica & Politica / Ethics & Politics (2019) XXI/2

Scarica il FullText

CONTENTS / SOMMARIO


Monographica
THE HUMAN MEASURE. PERSPECTIVES ON HUMANISM



Biancu Stefano

The Human Measure and the (Impossible?) Legacy of Humanism. Guest Editor’s Preface

Hösle Vittorio

Fondazioni filosofiche di un futuro umanesimo

Information on the Journal

Cormier Stéphane

L’humaine mesure ou l’institution des registres catégoriels de l’humain et du non humain

Nouzille Philippe

Uomo, macchina, animale

Lafontaine Céline

Mon corps, mon capital. La bioéconomie et les nouvelles frontières du corps humain

Beneduce Chiara

Personalized Medicine and Complexio. “What is Human?” as a Medical Question

Lesch Walter

Un’etica dell’immigrazione alla ricercar della misura umana

Abbate Fabrizia

Debunking Fake Humanities. Critical Reasoning from Ovid to Roboethics

Saccenti Riccardo

Un umanesimo della crisi. Legge naturale e cristianesimo in Ernst Troeltsch

Drapało Kamila

Martha Nussbaum’s Non-Anthropocentric Philosophy?

Simeoni Francesca

Animal e impersonnel: sull’umano in Simone Weil

Luppi Roberto

Persona e relazione nel pensiero del giovane Rawls






Focus
ON POLITICAL PRAGMATISM


Frega Roberto

Bringing Character Back In: From Republican Virtues to Democratic Habits

Çelik Raṣit

Rawls and Dewey on Democracy, Pluralism, and the Person






Symposium I
Carmine Di Martino, Viventi umani e non umani. Tecnica, linguaggio, memoria


Cera Agostino

Tecnica e antropogenesi tra organologia e istituzionalità

Nardelli Elena

Tecnica, linguaggio e autopoiesi dell’umano. Un dialogo con Paul Alsberg

Parravicini Andrea

Tecnica e linguaggio alle soglie dell’umano. Riflessioni al crocevia tra filosofia ed evoluzione

Polidori Fabio

Siamo sempre sott’occhio

Rasini Vallori

A proposito di viventi umani e non umani

Russo Marco

Diventare se stessi. Bildungsroman e antropologia

Di Martino Carmine

Pensare filosoficamente le trasformazioni. Provando a rispondere di un testo






Symposium II
Paolo Bettineschi, L'oggetto buono dell'Io. Etica e filosofia delle relazioni oggettuali


Bagetto Luca

L’angoscia del concetto

Biasini Alessandro

I limiti del modello del dominio come patologia etica fondamentale

Da Re Antonio

Il desiderio riparatore

Saccardi Francesca

L’io, l’apparire e il problema dell’intersoggettività

Bettineschi Paolo

Filosofia delle relazioni oggettuali ed etica della riparazione. Difesa e sviluppo della teoria mediante il dialogo con i critici


Varia


Accarino Bruno

Sulle tracce del conservatorismo: immagini della decadenza nella filosofia kantiana della storia

Andrade Julio A.

A Levinasian Reconceptalization of Supererogation

Anzalone Mariafilomena

Riformare la medicina, ripensare la soggettività. Viktor von Weizsäcker e l’antropologia filosofica di Max Scheler

De Mori Barbara, Normando Simona

Is ‘history’ repeating itself? The case of fish and arthropods’ sentience and welfare

Firenze Antonino

Dalla zoe al bios. Normalizzazione antropologica e naturalizzazione delle gerarchie sociali in Aristotele

Liebsch Burkhard

The livability of a political life. On the paradigmatic case of violent economization between moral economy and debt enslavement

Marrone Pierpaolo

Sul cognitivismo non metafisico di Parfit

Sánchez Madrid Nuria

Hegel ante la pobreza: la economía de mercado y el derecho como fuerzas contrapuestas

Slongo Paolo

Leggi e regolazione in Montesquieu


INFORMATION ON THE JOURNAL

Browse

Recent Submissions

Now showing 1 - 5 of 37
  • Publication
    Personalized Medicine and Complexio. “What is Human?” as a Medical Question
    (EUT Edizioni Università di Trieste, 2019)
    Beneduce, Chiara
    In this paper, I show the parallelism between the Galenic concept of “complexion” (complexio, in Latin) as it was used in the medieval medical and natural-philosophical texts and the current concept of “personalized medicine”. I this way, I point out to what extent the parallelism between personalized medicine and the medieval notion of “complexion” is nowadays relevant to inquire the proprium of the “human” in a bio-medical framework. For, the medieval notion of “complexion” as “substantial quality” optimally worked as to deal with the problem of reconciling the “case-by-case” approach of medicine with the need of a unified bio-medical account of the “human”. Against the background of this reasoning, I further suggest that a mesoscopic perspective on the living organisms, as the one entailed by the concept of “complexion” and used in current scenarios of Systems Biology, could be advantageous to the bio-medical investigations on “what is human”.In this paper, I show the parallelism between the Galenic concept of “complexion” (complexio, in Latin) as it was used in the medieval medical and natural-philosophical texts and the current concept of “personalized medicine”. I this way, I point out to what extent the parallelism between personalized medicine and the medieval notion of “complexion” is nowadays relevant to inquire the proprium of the “human” in a bio-medical framework. For, the medieval notion of “complexion” as “substantial quality” optimally worked as to deal with the problem of reconciling the “case-by-case” approach of medicine with the need of a unified bio-medical account of the “human”. Against the background of this reasoning, I further suggest that a mesoscopic perspective on the living organisms, as the one entailed by the concept of “complexion” and used in current scenarios of Systems Biology, could be advantageous to the bio-medical investigations on “what is human”.In this paper, I show the parallelism between the Galenic concept of “complexion” (complexio, in Latin) as it was used in the medieval medical and natural-philosophical texts and the current concept of “personalized medicine”. I this way, I point out to what extent the parallelism between personalized medicine and the medieval notion of “complexion” is nowadays relevant to inquire the proprium of the “human” in a bio-medical framework. For, the medieval notion of “complexion” as “substantial quality” optimally worked as to deal with the problem of reconciling the “case-by-case” approach of medicine with the need of a unified bio-medical account of the “human”. Against the background of this reasoning, I further suggest that a mesoscopic perspective on the living organisms, as the one entailed by the concept of “complexion” and used in current scenarios of Systems Biology, could be advantageous to the bio-medical investigations on “what is human”.
      238  321
  • Publication
    Uomo, macchina, animale
    (EUT Edizioni Università di Trieste, 2019)
    Nouzille, Philippe
    The question of the relationship between human beings and machines, developed today by transhumanism, is often thought of in terms of an increase. But where does this increase begin? Is there something like a “natural” human being, free from any increase? The path followed in this paper, first through Bergson’s reflection on instinct and intelligence and on tools and organs, then through a reflection on education and human adaptability as a form of increase, with the possible separation of human being from its biological condition, and finally through a reading of La Mettrie’s works about man as a machine, questions the models of the cyborg or the replicant andThe question of the relationship between human beings and machines, developed today by transhumanism, is often thought of in terms of an increase. But where does this increase begin? Is there something like a “natural” human being, free from any increase? The path followed in this paper, first through Bergson’s reflection on instinct and intelligence and on tools and organs, then through a reflection on education and human adaptability as a form of increase, with the possible separation of human being from its biological condition, and finally through a reading of La Mettrie’s works about man as a machine, questions the models of the cyborg or the replicant andThe question of the relationship between human beings and machines, developed today by transhumanism, is often thought of in terms of an increase. But where does this increase begin? Is there something like a “natural” human being, free from any increase? The path followed in this paper, first through Bergson’s reflection on instinct and intelligence and on tools and organs, then through a reflection on education and human adaptability as a form of increase, with the possible separation of human being from its biological condition, and finally through a reading of La Mettrie’s works about man as a machine, questions the models of the cyborg or the replicant and
      221  292
  • Publication
    L’humaine mesure ou l’institution des registres catégoriels de l’humain et du non humain
    (EUT Edizioni Università di Trieste, 2019)
    Cormier, Stéphane
    Which do we conceptualize like Human in opposition to non Human? The institution of “large shares” or “The Great Divide”, in terms of categories between the Human one and the non Human one, is far from to be always established in various times and Human spaces, such as we generally think it. This apparently natural institution, even expresses, appears after examination much less obviates that we thought it traditionally. For this reason, it constitutes an object of intellectual investigations of choice for many traditional knowledge such anthropology, the history, philosophy, theology, but also for the whole of contemporary sciences. Because, this category institution questions the identity even the EC what we indicate like human, and consequently, like nonhuman. Indeed, about what and which precisely speak us when it is question of Human or the Human ones, about humanity in generic term? What do we seek to describe and qualify under the registers of Human and non Human? Which are the non Human, of the binarism category ones presupposed which institute the registers of conceptual dualism Human/humanity/inhumanity? What do we seek to think in the idea of one “beyond the human one”, which the latter institutes a differentialism between the beings or entities or contrary, seeks with the indifférencier as in certain news of anthropology who challenges any anthropocentrée & humanistic design? Most traditional definitions tend to affirm that this we claim to conceptualize & to subsume under the concept of “Human” constitutes something like a certain exception in the order of the alive one. What is it exactly of this alleged “human exception”? What does it recover precisely? In addition, to answer the interrogation: “That are the non Human ones and which is the human ones? ”, does not have anything manifesto apart from this we can crudely observe and who allows us to or not retain, more or less, certain features of appearance and the behavior. We could also answer in a provocative and relativistic way: “With each one its Human and its non Human, its humanity and its nonhumanity”, according to the configurations which we institute to return account of the whole of the interactions that we let us have or not with our multiple, material & immaterial, visible & invisible environments! There thus do not exist standards which would tend in manner more or less final and universal to govern the uses category of Human and of the Human one. For these reasons, the challenge of our short communication will be to expose presupposed and reasons of such an interest category, conceptual and descriptive fundamentally Human for the non Human one which gives an account of the multiple forms of the institution of human the versus the nonhuman one, while founding, in addition, a whole range of beings or of entities going from the one with the other, thus questioning the imaginary and real bases of our multidimensional assignments in category terms, of identity, anybody, cognitive faculties, various heritages, sensitivity, etc.Which do we conceptualize like Human in opposition to non Human? The institution of “large shares” or “The Great Divide”, in terms of categories between the Human one and the non Human one, is far from to be always established in various times and Human spaces, such as we generally think it. This apparently natural institution, even expresses, appears after examination much less obviates that we thought it traditionally. For this reason, it constitutes an object of intellectual investigations of choice for many traditional knowledge such anthropology, the history, philosophy, theology, but also for the whole of contemporary sciences. Because, this category institution questions the identity even the EC what we indicate like human, and consequently, like nonhuman. Indeed, about what and which precisely speak us when it is question of Human or the Human ones, about humanity in generic term? What do we seek to describe and qualify under the registers of Human and non Human? Which are the non Human, of the binarism category ones presupposed which institute the registers of conceptual dualism Human/humanity/inhumanity? What do we seek to think in the idea of one “beyond the human one”, which the latter institutes a differentialism between the beings or entities or contrary, seeks with the indifférencier as in certain news of anthropology who challenges any anthropocentrée & humanistic design? Most traditional definitions tend to affirm that this we claim to conceptualize & to subsume under the concept of “Human” constitutes something like a certain exception in the order of the alive one. What is it exactly of this alleged “human exception”? What does it recover precisely? In addition, to answer the interrogation: “That are the non Human ones and which is the human ones? ”, does not have anything manifesto apart from this we can crudely observe and who allows us to or not retain, more or less, certain features of appearance and the behavior. We could also answer in a provocative and relativistic way: “With each one its Human and its non Human, its humanity and its nonhumanity”, according to the configurations which we institute to return account of the whole of the interactions that we let us have or not with our multiple, material & immaterial, visible & invisible environments! There thus do not exist standards which would tend in manner more or less final and universal to govern the uses category of Human and of the Human one. For these reasons, the challenge of our short communication will be to expose presupposed and reasons of such an interest category, conceptual and descriptive fundamentally Human for the non Human one which gives an account of the multiple forms of the institution of human the versus the nonhuman one, while founding, in addition, a whole range of beings or of entities going from the one with the other, thus questioning the imaginary and real bases of our multidimensional assignments in category terms, of identity, anybody, cognitive faculties, various heritages, sensitivity, etc.Which do we conceptualize like Human in opposition to non Human? The institution of “large shares” or “The Great Divide”, in terms of categories between the Human one and the non Human one, is far from to be always established in various times and Human spaces, such as we generally think it. This apparently natural institution, even expresses, appears after examination much less obviates that we thought it traditionally. For this reason, it constitutes an object of intellectual investigations of choice for many traditional knowledge such anthropology, the history, philosophy, theology, but also for the whole of contemporary sciences. Because, this category institution questions the identity even the EC what we indicate like human, and consequently, like nonhuman. Indeed, about what and which precisely speak us when it is question of Human or the Human ones, about humanity in generic term? What do we seek to describe and qualify under the registers of Human and non Human? Which are the non Human, of the binarism category ones presupposed which institute the registers of conceptual dualism Human/humanity/inhumanity? What do we seek to think in the idea of one “beyond the human one”, which the latter institutes a differentialism between the beings or entities or contrary, seeks with the indifférencier as in certain news of anthropology who challenges any anthropocentrée & humanistic design? Most traditional definitions tend to affirm that this we claim to conceptualize & to subsume under the concept of “Human” constitutes something like a certain exception in the order of the alive one. What is it exactly of this alleged “human exception”? What does it recover precisely? In addition, to answer the interrogation: “That are the non Human ones and which is the human ones? ”, does not have anything manifesto apart from this we can crudely observe and who allows us to or not retain, more or less, certain features of appearance and the behavior. We could also answer in a provocative and relativistic way: “With each one its Human and its non Human, its humanity and its nonhumanity”, according to the configurations which we institute to return account of the whole of the interactions that we let us have or not with our multiple, material & immaterial, visible & invisible environments! There thus do not exist standards which would tend in manner more or less final and universal to govern the uses category of Human and of the Human one. For these reasons, the challenge of our short communication will be to expose presupposed and reasons of such an interest category, conceptual and descriptive fundamentally Human for the non Human one which gives an account of the multiple forms of the institution of human the versus the nonhuman one, while founding, in addition, a whole range of beings or of entities going from the one with the other, thus questioning the imaginary and real bases of our multidimensional assignments in category terms, of identity, anybody, cognitive faculties, various heritages, sensitivity, etc.
      307  160
  • Publication
    Mon corps, mon capital. La bioéconomie et les nouvelles frontières du corps humain
    (EUT Edizioni Università di Trieste, 2019)
    Lafontaine, Céline
    In a world tainted by the cult of perfect health and the biomedicalization of identity, the value attributed to individual life appears to come increasingly from individuals’ capacity to maintain— and even enhance—their biological “capital.” The valorization of “life itself” in the bioeconomy fosters a representation of the body as capital. Stemming from the notion of human capital developed by Gary Becker, the conception of the body as capital is dissociable from the bioeconomy, the ultimate stage of globalized capitalism. Not only does the bioeconomy model dictate all neoliberal politics in innovation and research implemented since the early 1980s, it is redefining the very foundations of citizenship. Maintaining and extending health is therefore seen as an investment that increases individuals’ social “value.” This concept of the body as capital is evident in the development of private umbilical cord blood stem cell banks that encourage parents to invest in their children’s biological capital. It also shows up in the phenomenon of medical tourism. This article presents a theoretical analysis of the concept of body capital via two phenomena: the development of private cord blood banks, medical tourism, and translational medicine.In a world tainted by the cult of perfect health and the biomedicalization of identity, the value attributed to individual life appears to come increasingly from individuals’ capacity to maintain— and even enhance—their biological “capital.” The valorization of “life itself” in the bioeconomy fosters a representation of the body as capital. Stemming from the notion of human capital developed by Gary Becker, the conception of the body as capital is dissociable from the bioeconomy, the ultimate stage of globalized capitalism. Not only does the bioeconomy model dictate all neoliberal politics in innovation and research implemented since the early 1980s, it is redefining the very foundations of citizenship. Maintaining and extending health is therefore seen as an investment that increases individuals’ social “value.” This concept of the body as capital is evident in the development of private umbilical cord blood stem cell banks that encourage parents to invest in their children’s biological capital. It also shows up in the phenomenon of medical tourism. This article presents a theoretical analysis of the concept of body capital via two phenomena: the development of private cord blood banks, medical tourism, and translational medicine.In a world tainted by the cult of perfect health and the biomedicalization of identity, the value attributed to individual life appears to come increasingly from individuals’ capacity to maintain— and even enhance—their biological “capital.” The valorization of “life itself” in the bioeconomy fosters a representation of the body as capital. Stemming from the notion of human capital developed by Gary Becker, the conception of the body as capital is dissociable from the bioeconomy, the ultimate stage of globalized capitalism. Not only does the bioeconomy model dictate all neoliberal politics in innovation and research implemented since the early 1980s, it is redefining the very foundations of citizenship. Maintaining and extending health is therefore seen as an investment that increases individuals’ social “value.” This concept of the body as capital is evident in the development of private umbilical cord blood stem cell banks that encourage parents to invest in their children’s biological capital. It also shows up in the phenomenon of medical tourism. This article presents a theoretical analysis of the concept of body capital via two phenomena: the development of private cord blood banks, medical tourism, and translational medicine.
      328  470
  • Publication
    Dalla zoe al bios. Normalizzazione antropologica e naturalizzazione delle gerarchie sociali in Aristotele
    (EUT Edizioni Università di Trieste, 2019)
    Firenze, Antonino
    This paper will show how the normalization of the forms of life that governs the political anthropology of Aristotle leads to a naturalization of the social hierarchies typical of the polis of his time. Toward this end, the first part of this paper highlights how in the Politics, the realization of the rational-political nature of Man implies the necessary declension of life (zoe) toward the living well (eu zen) of the polis. Subsequently, the paper will focus on how this living well, which characterizes the political form of life (bios politikos), relates to the condition of autarkeia, conceived by Aristotle not so much in the sense of economic and material or juridical and political selfsufficiency, but rather as the teleological realization of human nature. Finally, we will show that in the Nicomachean Ethics the Stagirite conceives of the nexus between the autarkeia and happiness and the living well as an ontological prerogative exclusive to the good man (spoudaios), thereby justifying his anthropological and moral superiority over other naturally subaltern forms of life.
      401  204