IMAGES OF MENTAL VISUALIZATION IN BIOETHICS
DOI: 10.23951/2312-7899-2021-3-140-152
The article provides a brief outline of the antinomic nature of bioethical discourse and the possibilities of its geometric visualization. Two visualization options are considered. The first is associated with the representation of a particular situation as a system of polarities, which in turn is modeled in the framework of a vector model. In the simplest case, the thesis and the antithesis are considered as two orthogonal vectors P1 and P2, and the synthesis is considered as their vector sum S = P1+P2. In this case, we can also introduce a more quantitative estimate of the “measure of multidimensionality” M(P) of the polar system – as the magnitude of the projection of its vector representation P on the sum vector S, i.e. M(P) = (P,es), where es = S/|S| is the unit vector of the vector S, and (P,es) is the scalar product of the vectors P and es. Using these constructs, the author analyzes one example from bioethics related to the clash of the principles of mercy and truthfulness (the problem of “lying for salvation”). An act (action or omission) is interpreted as a kind of an operator on events that transforms some events into others. It is assumed that the subject considers various possibilities in their actions and chooses those that maximize a particular value measure of the subject, in our case, the measure M(P) of the vector projection of the polar vector P of the situation on the sum vector S – the vector of synthesis of basic polarities. The second version of visualization is related to the concept of antinomies – such contradictions that are not formal logical errors – in bioethics. In contrast to errors, in antinomies, both the thesis and the antithesis have their moment of justification within the framework of certain conditions. The concept “antinome” is also used; it is the logical subject of antinomy, which is predicated by the thesis and the antithesis of antinomy. Antinomy reductions correspond to two extreme aspects of the antinome, which are called its “reducts” – by analogy with the reduction of the wave function in quantum mechanics. Various examples of antinomes are given: bioets, globolocs, and holomers. In bioets, one reduct expresses the biological (bioreduct) definition of the antinome, another the ethical (ethoreduct) one. In globolocs, global (globoreduct) and local (locoreduct) types of reducts are distinguished: the former expresses more global (universal) ethical definitions, the latter more local ones, related to the values and norms of a particular local community. Finally, holomers are a kind of antinomes in which the definitions of the whole (holoreduct) and the part (meroreduct) are antinomically connected. They are interpreted as multidimensional mental objects in some generalized space, so that their extreme aspects (antinomy reductions) can be represented as generalized projections of a more multidimensional state within certain constricted conditions (reduction intervals). In this case, it is possible to geometrically visualize such states as, for example, three-dimensional objects in space, through which antinomes can be modeled, and their reducts as two-dimensional projections of a three-dimensional body on certain projection planes (intervals of reducts). In this case, one of the central tasks of bioethics is to determine the boundaries of the demarcation of some intervals from others. For example, in solving the problem of abortion and the status of the human embryo, such a demarcation is expressed in the search for a time point that would separate the phase of a more biological definition (bioreduct) of the embryo from its more ethical state (ethoreduct). In conclusion, the author suggests that bioethical problems are connected with the idea of mental multidimensionality, which forms the basis of a possible visualization as an interpretation of mental multidimensionality in its vector representation.
Keywords: antinomy, antinome, bioethics, bioets, visualization, geometrism
References:
Bryzgalina, E. V. (2018). Actual social and philosophical contexts of identification of human corporeality. Psikhicheskoe zdorov’e, 16(6), 77–81. (In Russian).
Chambers, T. (2015). The fiction of bioethics. Taylor & Francis Ltd.
Cohen, S. (2019). The logic of the interaction between beneficence and respect for autonomy. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 22(2), 297–304.
Denes, A. (2006). Notes on a visual philosophy. Hyperion, 1(3). http://www.nietzschecircle.com/Visual_Philosophy_Denes.pdf (Accessed: 25.03.2021).
Gorbuleva, M. S., Melik-Gaykazyan, I. V., & Pervushina, N. A. (2020). Pedagogical bioethics initiatives. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii – Higher Education in Russia, 29(6), 122–128. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2020-6-122-128
Grebenshchikova, E. G., & Tishchenko, P. D. (2020). Digitized Future of Medicine: Challenges for Bioethics. Filosofskie nauki – Russian Journal of Philosophical Sciences, 63(2), 83–103. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.30727/0235-1188-2020-63-2-83-103
Healy, K. & Moody, J. (2004). Data Visualization in Sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 105–128.
Keitsch, M. M., & Reichl, V. (2010). Visual Philosophy: An Approach Towards Interpreting and Mediating Philosophical Ideas Through Visualization. Copenhagen Working Papers on Design, 1, 89–90.
Kleinman, A. (2016). Concepts and a model for the comparison of medical systems as cultural systems. Sotsiologiya vlasti – Sociology of Power, 28(1), 208–232. (In Russian).
Makulin, A. V. (2016b). Science and philosophy of the modern times in the grip of “cellular power” of tables: Models, metaphors, analogies. Obshchestvo: filosofiya, istoriya, kul’tura – Society: Philosophy, History, Culture, 1, 30–34. (In Russian).
Makulin, A. V. (2016a). Vizualizatsiya filosofii i tsifrovaya viziosofiya [Visualization of philosophy and digital visiosophy]. Vestnik Severnogo (Arkticheskogo) federal’nogo universiteta. Seriya “Gumanitarnye i sotsial’nye nauki” – Vestnik of Northern (Arctic) Federal University. Series “Humanitarian and Social Sciences”, 3, 62–72.
Melik-Gaykazyan, I. V. (2018). Diagnosis of bioethics models. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filosofiya. Sotsiologiya. Politologiya – Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science, 45, 75–82. (In Russian). http://dx.doi.org/10.17223/1998863X/45/8
Melik-Gaykazyan, I. V., & Meshcheryakova, T. V. (2015). The Hippocratic oath: The transformation of its semantics and the revival of its pragmatics. Scholae. Filosofskoe antikovedenie i klassicheskaya traditsiya – Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition, 9(1), 35–44. (In Russian).
Mescheryakova, T. V., Melik-Gaykazyan, I. V., Melik-Gaykazyan, M. V., & Kirilenko, B. O. (2016). Place of bioethics in knowledge management in the information society. Vision 2020: Innovation Management, Development Sustainability, and Competitive Economic Growth. Proceedings of the 28th International Business Information Management Association Conference. pp. 2187–2191.
Moiseev, V. I. (2007). Bioetika – nauka o bioetakh [Bioethics – the science of bioethicists]. Trudnyy patsient: zhurnal dlya vrachey, 5(1), 55–58.
Moiseev, V. I. (2011). Transnauchnye izmereniya bioetiki [Trans-scientific aspects of bioethics]. In F. G. Maylenova (Ed.), Bioetika i gumanitarnaya ekspertiza [Bioethics and humanitarian expert examination] (vol 5, pp. 87–107). Institute of Philosophy, RAS.
Moiseev, V. I. (2014). Ot bioetiki k ontoetike: tendentsiya ontologizatsii etiki [From bioethics to ontoethics: The tendency to the ontologization of ethics]. In P. D. Tishchenko (Ed.), Gumanitarnye orientiry nauchnogo poznaniya: sbornik statey. K 70-letiyu B.G. Yudina [Humanitarian guidelines of scientific knowledge: A collection of articles to the 70th anniversary of B. G. Yudin] (pp. 120–128). Navigator.
Moiseev, V. I. (2018a). Ocherki po filosofii neovseedinstva: Opyt matematicheskogo prochteniya filosofii. Aksiologiya. Logika. Fenomenologiya [Essays on the philosophy of neo-all-unity: An experience of mathematical reading of philosophy. Axiology. Logic. Phenomenology]. LENAND.
Moiseev, V. I. (2018b). R-analiz i problema modelirovaniya organicheskoy formy [R-analysis and the problem of organic form modeling]. SCVRT2018 Proceedings of the International Conference. 20–23 November 2018. TsarGrad, Moscow Oblast, Russia. pp. 339–346. Institute of Physical and Technical Informatics.
Moiseev, V. I. (2018c). Ot bioetiki k biofilosofii [From bioethics to biophilosophy]. Filosofskie problemy biologii i meditsiny: Vypusk 12: Mezhdu bioetikoy i biofilosofiey [Philosophical problems of biology and medicine: Issue 12: Between bioethics and biophilosophy]. Conference Proceedings. pp. 4–8. Sotsial’no-gumanitarnye znaniya.
Moiseev, V. I. (2019). R-geometriya: osnovnye idei [R-geometry: Basic ideas]. SCVRT2019. Proceedings of the International Conference. 13 November 2019. Pushchino, Moscow Oblast. pp. 36–41. Nizhny Novgorod State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering.
Moiseev, V. I., & Moiseeva, O. N. (2021). Bioetika. V 2-kh tt. [Bioethics. In 2 vols]. Vol. 1. GEOTAR-Media.
Moiseyev, V. (2020). To R-geometry of plants. CPT2020. The 8th International Scientific Conference on Computing in Physics and Technology Proceedings. Part 1. pp. 24–29.
Prokof’ev, A. V. (2019). Morality, probability, and risk. Filosofskiy zhurnal – Philosophy Journal, 12(2), 5‒19. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.21146/2072-0726-2019-12-2-5-19
Razin, A. V. (2017). The basic ethical programs and decision-making in biomedical ethics. Vedomosti prikladnoy etiki – Semestrial Papers of Applied Ethics, 50, 51–66. (In Russian).
Shevchenko, S. Yu., & Shestak, A. G. (2019). Normative and descriptive uncertainty in genomic medicine. Gorizonty gumanitarnogo znaniya, 1, 120–130. (In Russian). http://dx.doi.org/10.17805/ggz.2019.1.7
Sula, C. A., & Dean, W. (2014). Visualization of historical knowledge structures: An analysis of the bibliography of philosophy. http://dharchive.org/paper/DH2014/Poster-248.xml (Accessed: 25.03.2021).
Tishchenko, P. D., & Yudin, B. G. (2015). Finest hour of philosophy. Voprosy filosofii, 12, 198–203. (In Russian).
Yudin, B. G. (2011). Human being as a subject to technological interventions. Chelovek, 3, 5–20. (In Russian).
Yudin, B. G. (2016). Technoscience and “human enhancement”. Epistemologiya i filosofiya nauki – Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, XLVIII(2), 18–27. (In Russian).
( 412.89 kB ) 
( 399.18 kB )
Issue: 3, 2021
Series of issue: Issue 3
Rubric: ARTICLES
Pages: 140 — 152
Downloads: 761