author: Olga Kyvliuk
Relevance of the research. The phenomena of globalization, digitalization, virtualization, and technogenesis transform not only the existential conditions of human existence but also the very foundations of its ontology. In the context of 21st-century philosophical discourse, the traditional concept of the human as a rational, autonomous, and integral being appears in need of essential reconsideration. In light of the latest technological advancements – such as bioengineering, artificial intelligence, and digital simulations of reality – human identity increasingly appears as fragmented, technically mediated, contingent, and so on.
Problem statement. The new ontological landscape deepens disparities in social, digital, and intellectual equality, necessitating the formation of digital ethics, research into technological justice, the evolution of consciousness, autonomy in the world of algorithms, rethinking identity, and changes in the axiological dimension. These issues bring to the forefront transhumanist and posthumanist concepts that propose alternative visions of the future of human subjectivity – from the enhancement of human capabilities to transcending the very boundaries of the “human.”
Analysis of recent research and publications. Theories of trans- and posthumanism, as subjects of philosophical conceptualization, continue to attract the attention of contemporary scholars who explore these issues using interdisciplinary methodological approaches in a multicultural dimension. Transhumanism, beginning with the well-known futurist F. Esfandiary and Max More, is studied by J. Huberman, S. L. Sorgner, N. Bostrom, A. Koss, and L. Gots. Posthumanist theories are described in the works of D. Haraway, K. N. Hayles, R. Braidotti, F. Ferrando, C. Daigle, N. Zahurska, O. Bazaluk, and other philosophers. The human being as an unfinished project through the expansion of the possibilities of the body and mind was studied by: S. Fuller, F. Rana and K. Samples, E. Cruz, J. Savulescu, E. Mia, etc.
Research task. To outline the philosophical contours of trans- and posthumanism in the context of their differences concerning the evolutionary concept of “Human 2.0.”
Main material presentation. The interpretation of transhumanism and posthumanism in the context of forming the “Human 2.0” model reveals conceptual multidirectionality and semantic tension between these approaches. Within philosophical discourse, they often appear as thesis and antithesis, debating the ontological and value status of the human in the age of technological acceleration. In certain analytical paradigms, trans- and posthumanism are viewed as complementary models of human evolution that transcend traditional anthropology. At the same time, other interpretations highlight an essential opposition between them: transhumanism functions as a techno-optimistic ideal of the enhanced human of the future, focusing on maximizing cognitive, physical, and moral capacities through bioengineering interventions; posthumanism, by contrast, represents a critical deconstruction of anthropocentrism, challenging the idea of the human as the sole bearer of reason, agency, and value.
Conclusions. The reconceptualization of human existence within trans- and posthumanist paradigms opens new horizons for understanding the phenomenon of “Human 2.0” as a project of radical anthropotransformation. This project balances between the axiological imperative to preserve humanistic foundations (dignity, autonomy, moral responsibility) and the techno-optimistic vision of human enhancement through bio-, neuro-, and digital technologies. This creates a methodological basis for the development of trans- and posthumanist concepts capable of encompassing the complexity of changes occurring at the intersection of the humanities, technogenesis, bioengineering, global thinking, and interdisciplinarity.
Keywords: human, transhumanism, posthumanism, anthropocentrism, globalization, digitalization, technologies.
References:
- Beykvell, S 2025.Lyudyni pid sylu. Simsot rokiv humanistychnoho vilʹnodumstva, dopytlyvosti ta nadiyi (Man's Power. Seven Hundred Years of Humanistic Freethinking, Curiosity and Hope), per. z anhl. Voytka, YA, KH.: Vivat, 560 s.
- Zahursʹka, N 2018. ‘Speculative posthumanism: naturalization and vitalization’, Visnyk Kharkivsʹkoho natsionalʹnoho universytetu imeni V.N. Karazina, Seriya “ Filosofsʹki perypetiyi”, Vyp. 59, C. 25–31. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.26565/2226-0994-2018-59-3> [28 Berezen 2025].
- Kyvlyuk, OP 2024. ‘Trans·humanizm ta posthumanizm: refleksiya suchasnoho napryamku filosofsʹko-antropolohichnoyi teoriyi (Transhumanism and posthumanism: reflection of the modern direction of philosophical and anthropological theory)’, V Akademichni Chytannya pamʺyati H.I. Volynky: filosofiya, nauka ta osvita: nauk.-prak. konferentsiya (Kyyiv, 1 travnya 2024), za red.: Andrushchenko, VP, Rusakova, SS & Honcharenko, KS, Lʹviv-Tounʹ: Liha-Press, S. 104-107.
- Kharari, YUN 2023. Homo Deus. Za lashtunkamy maybutnʹoho (Homo Deus. Behind the Scenes of the Future), per. z anhl. Demʼyanchuk, O, 4-te vyd., Kyyiv: Vyd-vo Bukshef, 512 c.
- Kheylz, NK 2013, Yak my staly postlyudstvom. Virtualʹni tila v kibernetytsi, literaturi ta informatytsi (How We Became Posthuman. Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature and Informatics), per. Maricheva, YE, Kyyiv: Vyd-vo Nika-Tsentr, 426 s.
- Bostrom, N 2008. ‘Letter from Utopia’, Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology, 2(1), рр. 1-7. Available from: <https://nickbostrom.com/utopia> [28 March 2025].
- Braidotti, R 2013, The Posthuman, Polity Press, 229 p.
- Dobrodum, O & Kyvliuk, O 2021. ‘Transhumanism and Posthumanism: Reflection of the Human Civilization Future’ Philosophy and Cosmology, Volume 26, рр.77-89. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.29202/phil-cosm/26/6> [28 March 2025].
- Fereidoun, ME 1978. Optimism One, Popular Library, p. 172.
- Fuller, S 2011. Humanity 2.0: What it Means to be Human Past, Present and Future, Palgrave Macmillan London, p. 265.
- Haraway, D 1985. A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century. 33 p.
