The Human Being and the Technical Cosmos

In the article, technology is considered a special form of being that goes beyond utilitarian and instrumental understanding and forms a new ontological space. This space is described as a technocosmos or metacosmos: an autonomous and self-generating reality in which technologies do not merely serve human needs but begin to constitute their own logic of existence, incorporating human beings into new forms of co-existence with technology. The key methodological principle of the study is a comparison of two ideas: technē as art, craft, practical knowledge, and transformative skill, and kosmos as the harmonious integrity of the world. This dichotomy reveals the tension between technological rationality, focused on efficiency, scalability, and reproducibility, and vital rationality, rooted in the diversity, unpredictability, and organic interconnectedness of all living things. The concept of the technical metacosmos is developed through an analogy with J. von Uexküll’s biosemiotics: just as a living organism forms and inhabits its own Umwelt, technology generates specific connections, structures, and processes. In these spheres, the subject is no longer only the human being but also a complex actor-network in the spirit of B. Latour’s actor-network theory, in which artificial agents, algorithms, and infrastructures participate in networks of action. From the perspective of the philosophy of technology, the metacosmos is a space in which a new subjectivity is formed: a subject capable of acting not only through biological corporeality but also through technologically extended agency in digital, virtual, and hybrid environments. This expanded subjectivity calls earlier forms of human autonomy into question and requires a revision of ontological foundations, whereby technology ceases to be “dead” in relation to the “living” (D. Strassberg) and becomes an environment for self-development. Particular attention is paid to the technological challenges of our time: artificial intelligence, biotechnology, virtual and augmented reality, and predictive analytics systems, which transform social institutions, economic models, and the structure of human experience. In this context, the article discusses the limits of control over technology, ethical risks, and the need to institutionalize humanities-informed technology assessment designed to evaluate not only the consequences of technology use but also, more importantly, the goals of developing particular technologies. Thus, the article proposes a philosophical model of the metacosmos as a new horizon of being, in which technology becomes both a condition and a test for human subjectivity, while technological rationality turns from an instrument into a form of the ontological self-determination of human civilization.

1. Asmolov A.G., Shekhter E.D., & Chernorizov A.M. (2018) Preadaptation to Uncertainty: Unpredictable Routes of Evolution. Moscow: Akropol’ (in Russian).

2. Babbage Ch. (2009) On the Economy of Machinery and Manufactures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

3. Ball M. (2022) The Metaverse: And How It Will Revolutionize Everything. New York: W.W. Norton. (Eds.) The Human Being as an Open Integrity (pp. 319–327). Novosibirsk: Akademizdat (in Russian).

4. Belobragina A.S. (2023) Transhumanism and Posthumanism: Two Paths towards the Posthuman. Economic and Social-Humanitarian Studies. No. 3 (39), pp. 136–143 (in Russian).

5. Berns G. (2024) The Self Delusion: What Neuroscience Says about Our Self-Perception. Moscow: Alpina Non-Fiction (Russian translation).

6. Bohm D. (1980) Wholeness and the Implicate Order. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

7. Clark A. (2003) Natural-Born Cyborgs: Minds, Technologies, and the Future of Human Intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

8. Damasio A. (2010) Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain. New York: Pantheon.

9. Dessauer F. (2024) Man and Cosmos: Essay. The Debate on Technology (Vol. 1, A.Yu. Nesterov, Trans.). Samara: Mudraya cherepakha (Russian translation).

10. Efimov A.R. (2019) Do Chatbots Dream of Androids? Prospects for the Technological Development of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics. Russian Journal of Philosophical Sciences. Vol. 62, no. 7, pp. 73–95 (in Russian).

11. Ferrando F. (2022) Philosophical Posthumanism. Moscow: HSE Publishing House (Russian translation).

12. Floridi L. & Sanders J.W. (2004) On the Morality of Artificial Agents. Minds and Machines. Vol. 14, pp. 349–379.

13. Floridi L. (2023) The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence: Principles, Challenges, and Opportunities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

14. Harari Yu.N. (2019) 21 Lessons for the 21st Century. Moscow: Sindbad (Russian translation).

15. Henrich D. (2018) Thinking and Self-Being: Readings on Subjectivity (A.K. Sudakov, Trans.; M.M. Belyaev, Ed.). Moscow: Ves’ Mir (Russian translation).

16. Hofstadter D. (2022) I Am a Strange Loop (E. Konstantinova, Trans.). Moscow: AST (Russian translation).

17. Hui Y. (2024) Art and Cosmotechnics (A.V. Smolyak, Trans.; V.A. Matveenko, Ed.). Moscow: AST (Russian translation).

18. Kant I. (1966) Critique of Judgment. In: Works in 6 Volumes (Vol. 5). Moscow: Mysl’ (Russian translation).

19. Kapp E. (2015) Grundlinien einer Philosophie der Technik. Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Cultur aus neuen Gesichtspunkten. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag (in German).

20. Karpunin V.A. (2004) Will to Be: The Ontological Impulse. Saint Petersburg: Aletheia (in Russian).

21. Latour B. (2014) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Moscow: HSE Publishing House (Russian translation).

22. Lisenkova A.A. (2022) Digital Identity: Freedom of Fragmentation and Discreteness or Dangerous Integrity. In: Kiyashchenko L.P. & Sidorova T.A. (Eds.) The Human Being as an Open Integrity (pp. 319–327). Novosibirsk: Akademizdat (in Russian).

23. Marx K. (1958) Speech at the Anniversary of The People’s Paper, Delivered in London on April 14, 1856. In: Marx K. & Engels F., Works (2nd ed., Vol. 12, pp. 3–5). Moscow: Politizdat (in Russian).

24. Millar J. (2015) Technology as Moral Proxy: Autonomy and Paternalism by Design. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine. Vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 47–55.

25. Nesterov A.Yu. (2023) F. Dessauer’s Ontological Pluralism. Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science. No. 71, pp. 119–127 (in Russian).

26. Nesterov A.Yu. (2024) Friedrich Dessauer’s Philosophy of Technology. In: F. Dessauer, Man and Cosmos: Essay. The Debate on Technology (Vol. 1, pp. 6–18). Samara: Mudraya сherepakha (in Russian).

27. Pogosyan G.A. & Pogosyan R.M. (2023) Digital Transit to the Metasociety: The Intervention of Artificial Intelligence. Social Innovations and Social Sciences. No. 4 (13), pp. 22–33 (in Russian).

28. Searle J.R. (1980) Minds, Brains, and Programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 417–424.

29. Shatkin M.A. (2023) Socio-Philosophical Aspects of Generative Artificial Intelligence Development. Izvestiya of Saratov University. Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy. Vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 414–418 (in Russian).

30. Shipovalova L.V. & Dudnik S.I. (Eds.) (2020) Philosophical Analytics of the Digital Age. Saint Petersburg: Saint Petersburg State University Press (in Russian).

31. Soldatova G.U., Chigarkova S.V., & Ilyukhina S.N. (2024) Metamorphoses of the Identity of the Augmented Human: From the Digital Donor to the Digital Centaur. Social Psychology and Society. Vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 40–57 (in Russian).

32. Strassberg D. (2025) The Mythology of the Machine: A History of the Mechanisms That Frighten and Fascinate Us. Moscow: AST (Russian translation).

33. Tulchinskii G.L. (2013) Rationality and the Other Rationality of Responsibility. In: Rationality and Culture (pp. 121–136). Saint Petersburg: Aletheia (in Russian).

34. Uexküll J. von (2025) A Foray into the Worlds of Animals and Humans. A Theory of Meaning. Moscow: Ad Marginem Press (Russian translation).