author: Valentyn Blazhko
Relevance of the research. In the current context of global environmental crisis, the significance of environmental ethics is increasingly emphasized. It functions as a paradigm that regards nature as a subject endowed with moral status. This approach requires not only acknowledging the existing problems, but also cultivating human environmental conduct grounded in ethical principles. The application of the existential category of “suffering” in the context of human–Earth relations enables a shift from the geopolitical to the geoanthropological dimension. This is precisely the urgent task of contemporary philosophy: to restore the severed connection between nature and the human being. Human awareness of the consequences of their own actions and the capacity to empathize with the Earth as a living environment give rise to ecological self-awareness, which makes it possible to enact practices of care, empathy, and responsibility.
Problem statement. Suffering is one of the fundamental phenomena of human existence that remains constantly at the center of philosophical inquiry. Within the framework of the existentialist approach, the problem of suffering appears as a key category, since the main focus is placed on the human being as a subject who experiences the contradictions of their own existence. However, such an approach often leads to an artificial autonomy of the human, as a result of which nature and the Earth are pushed into the background of philosophical reflection, thereby reinforcing anthropocentric appeals.
Analysis of recent research and publications. In recent years, there has been a noticeable increase of interest in the humanities and philosophical thought in rethinking the role of the Earth. This approach gives rise to a new philosophical orientation in which the Earth is considered a participant in human history and culture. Philosophers such as M. Eliade have emphasized the sacred dimension of the Earth in religious representations, while M. Heidegger introduces the notion of Bodenständigkeit (“rootedness”), which highlights the profound connection between the human being and the place of their existence. One such approach is formulated in the Gaia hypothesis by J. Lovelock; within this same paradigm, T. Morton [12] develops his notion of the “hyperobject” to describe large-scale ecological phenomena, including the Earth itself. Within the framework of contemporary philosophical paradigms, the focus shifts to aspects such as the existential of suffering and care as a philosophical principle (Y. Andros, S. Krylova, N. Khamitov), which indicates a shift in emphasis—towards the convergence of fundamental ontology and anthropological responsibility.
Research task. The aim of this article is to offer a philosophical interpretation of the relationship between the human being and the Earth through the existential of “suffering.” This approach makes it possible, first, to address the symbolic meaning of the Earth as an archetype of both personal and collective human identity, which conditions the consolidation of the nation; and second, to trace the interrelation between the image of the Earth in cultural imagination and the principles of ecological consciousness.
Main material presentation. In contemporary philosophical thought, the Earth emerges as a multidimensional ontological structure that shapes human identity and determines the modes of human existence. The Earth is considered not only as a physical environment, but as a subject of symbolic, spiritual, and ethical dimensions. Within this context, the existential of suffering enables the interpretation of the human–Earth interaction as an act of co-experiencing. The shift in focus from geopolitics to geoanthropology signifies a rethinking of the “human–Earth” relationship as one of mutual responsibility rather than domination. The transition to an existential understanding of the Earth requires abandoning instrumental visions in favor of care and ethical responsibility. In this context, the formation of ecological consciousness appears as a necessary condition for the harmonious coexistence of the human being with the planet.
Conclusions. Geopolitics, which throughout the twentieth century remained the dominant paradigm, is increasingly losing its relevance. Its emphasis on territorial and resource-based aspects of power reduced the Earth to a mere object of exploitation or an arena of geopolitical conflicts. At the same time, contemporary research increasingly turns to the anthropological dimension of the Earth, treating it as a subject affected by human activity. This approach calls for a radical rethinking of the conception of the Earth: from a passive object to an active subject to which existential categories–such as the category of suffering–may be applied. In light of the ecological crisis, the metaphor of the Earth’s suffering acquires particular significance, as it reveals the mechanisms of human alienation from nature and the consequences of such alienation. The development of the concept of soliumpoietics offers an alternative vision grounded in the principles of reciprocity, care, and responsibility, which may serve as a basis for overcoming the ecological crisis.
Keywords: suffering, Earth, geoanthropology, ecological consciousness, care, ethics, subjectivity of nature, ecology.
References:
- Eliade, M 2001. Svyashchene i myrs’ke (The Sacred and the Profane), transl. from German by H. Kyorian, Kyiv : Osnovy, 116 s.
- Horban, HO 2003, Deyaki aspekty formuvannya ekolohichnoyi svidomosti u vyshchomu navchal’nomu zakladi (Some Aspects of the Formation of Ecological Consciousness in Higher Education), Available from : <http://www.ecopsy.com.ua/data/zbirki/2003_01/sb01_12.pdf >. [24 April 2025].
- Lypa, Yu 2023. ‘Heopolitychni oriientyry novoyi Ukrayiny. Ukrayinskyy natsionalizm. Osnovy ideolohiyi (Geopolitical Guidelines of New Ukraine. Ukrainian Nationalism. Fundamentals of Ideology)’, ed. O. Odnorozhenko, Kyiv : Vydavnytstvo Marka Velyka, pp. 65–81.
- Malynovs’kyi, AT 2022, ‘Romantychna istoriozofiya A. Mitskevycha. Emotsiyi, prostir, imperiya (Romantic Historiography of A. Mickiewicz. Emotions, Space, Empire)’. Kyivski polonistychni studiyi, T. 38, s. 11–23.
- Morozov, A 2014, ‘“Inshyy” yak tsentral’na problema etyky E. Levinas (The “Other” as Central Problem in the Ethics of E. Levinas)’. Skhid, No. 2, 158–162.
- Pylypenko, SH 2020, Zemlya u filosofs’komu postneklasychnomu dyskursi: monohrafiya (Earth in the Post-Nonclassical Philosophical Discourse: a Monograph), Kharkiv : FOP Panov A. M., 316 s.
- Pohorielov, OF & Karpenko, MV 2024, ‘Antropnyi pryntsyp struktury svitohlyadu (The Anthropic Principle in the Structure of Worldview)’. Epistemological Studies in Philosophy, Social and Political Sciences, T. 7, No. 2, s. 100–106.
- Lovelock, JE 1979. Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 157 p.
- LeVasseur, T 2024. ‘The Soil is Alive: Cultivating Human Presence Towards the Ground Below Our Feet’. Open Cultural Studies. 8. Article 0010. Available from : <https://doi.org/10.1515/culture-2024-0010>. [24 April 2025].
- McElwee, P 2021. ‘The Role of Soils in Learning and Inspiration, Physical and Psychological Experiences, and in Supporting Identities’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 376(1834), 20200184. Available from : <https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0184>. [24 April 2025].
- Metcalf, R 2012. ‘Rethinking ‘Bodenständigkeit’ in the Technological Age’. Research in Phenomenology, No 42, pp. 49–66. Available from : <https://doi.org/10.1163/156916412X628748>. [24 April 2025].
- Morton, T 2013. Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the End of the World. Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press, 236 p. (Posthumanities; vol. 27).
- Ruse, M 2013. The Gaia Hypothesis: Science On a Pagan Planet. Chicago and London : University of Chicago Press, xiv + 251 p.
