Search

Throughout its evolution, every theory usually faces certain challenges that prove its vitality. The discourse of rights, as a theoretical conception aimed at its explanation and foundation, is not exempt from the permanent task aimed at responding to these challenges. This essay analyzes the risks that are considered most decisive and pressing for the discourse of rights. To this end, three current challenges to the theory of rights are studied and three responses to them are suggested. Eleaticism, particularism and posthumanism are considered the main challenges facing reflection on rights today. The response to these attitudes is constituted by historicism, universalism and humanism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper aims to show the opposition between the Humanist cultural tradition and the main theses currently defended by Posthumanism. The structure of the paper is built upon the corresponding answers provided by both trends to the three main philosophical questions: How do we know reality? What are the world and life, and how are they explained? What is the best way to live one’s life? Gnoseology (or theory of knowledge), Ontology, and Deontology or Ethics have respectively tried to provide answers for such questions. Certain ambiguities of the Posthumanist dehumanizing project are also addressed. The paper concludes with an exposition of the arguments that justify the continuity of Humanist values, principles, and rights, updated according to the demands of our time. This paper aims to show the opposition between the Humanist cultural tradition and the main theses currently defended by Posthumanism. The structure of the paper is built upon the corresponding answers provided by both trends to the three main philosophical questions: How do we know reality? What are the world and life, and how are they explained? What is the best way to live one’s life? Gnoseology (or theory of knowledge), Ontology, and Deontology or Ethics have respectively tried to provide answers for such questions. Certain ambiguities of the Posthumanist dehumanizing project are also addressed. The paper concludes with an exposition of the arguments that justify the continuity of Humanist values, principles, and rights, updated according to the demands of our time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]