The pursuit of “restrictive” enhancement: A phenomenological argument

References

• Barth, K. 2002. Protestant Theology in the Nineteenth Century. Berlin: Eerdmans.
   Google Scholar
• Barton, N., and L. Partridge. 2000. “Limits to natural selection.” BioEssays 22(12): 1075–1084. doi:10.1002/1521-1878(200012)22:12<1075::AID-BIES5>3.0.CO;2-M
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bostrom, N., and A. Sandberg. 2009. “The wisdom of nature: An evolutionary heuristic for human enhancement.” In: Human Enhancement, edited by J. Savulescu and N. Bostrom, 375–416. New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780199299720.003.0019
   Google Scholar
• Buchanan, A. 2011a. Better than Human: The Promise and Perils of Enhancing Ourselves. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Buchanan, A. 2011b. Beyond Humanity? The Ethics of Biomedical Enhancement. New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199587810.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Carman, T. 2008. Merleau-Ponty. New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203461853
   Google Scholar
• Clites, T. R., M. J. Carty, J. B. Ullauri, M. E. Carney, L. M. Mooney, J. Duval, S. S. Srinivasan, and H. M. Herr. 2018. “Proprioception from a neurally controlled lower-extremity prosthesis.” Science Translational Medicine 10(443): eaap8373. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.aap8373
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Preester, H. 2011. “Technology and the body: The (im)possibilities of re-embodiment.” Foundations of Science 16(2-3): 119–137. doi:10.1007/s10699-010-9188-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Preester, H., and M. Tsakiris. 2009. “Body-extension versus body-incorporation: Is there a need for a body-model?” Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 8(3): 307–319. doi:10.1007/s11097-009-9121-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fusar-Poli, P., and G. Stanghellini. 2009. “Maurice Merleau-Ponty and the ‘embodied subjectivity’ (1908-61).” Medical Anthropology Quarterly 23(2): 91–93. doi:10.1111/j.1548-1387.2009.01048.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giubilini, A., and S. Sanyal. 2016. “Challenging human enhancement.” In: The Ethics of Human Enhancement: Understanding the Debate, edited by S. Clarke, J. Savulescu, C. A. J. Coady, A. Giubilini, and S. Sanyal, 1–24. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198754855.003.0001
   Google Scholar
• Gyngell, C., and M. J. Selgelid. 2016. “Human enhancement: Conceptual clarity and moral significance.” In: The Ethics of Human Enhancement: Understanding the Debate, edited by S. Clarke, J. Savulescu, C. A. J. Coady, A. Giubilini, and S. Sanyal, 111–126. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198754855.003.0008
   Google Scholar
• Hamilton, M. 2006. “Elective performance enhancement surgery for athletes: Should it be resisted?.” Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis. Gymnica 36(2): 39–46. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Elective-performance-enhancement-surgery-for-Should-Hamilton/b27d266d214837b48426eb95a66ac0f56932d854
   Google Scholar
• Harari, Y. N. 2017. Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow. London: Penguin Random House. doi:10.17104/9783406704024
   Google Scholar
• Holm, S., and M. McNamee. 2011. “Physical enhancement: What baseline, whose judgment?” In: Enhancing Human Capacities, edited by J. Savulescu, R. ter Meulen, and G. Kahane, 291–303. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. doi:10.1002/9781444393552.ch21
   Google Scholar
• Langer, M. M. 1989. Merleau-Ponty’s Phenomenology of Perception: A Guide and Commentary. London: The Macmillan Press Ltd. doi:10.1007/978-1-349-19761-3
   Google Scholar
• Leder, D. 1990. The Absent Body. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Marshall, G. J. 2008. A Guide to Merleau-Ponty’s Phenomenology of Perception. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Merleau-Ponty, M. 1981. Phenomenology of Perception, Trans. C. Smith. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Miah, A. 2011. “Physical enhancement: The state of the art.” In: Enhancing Human Capacities, edited by J. Savulescua, R. ter Meulen, and G. Kahane, 266–273. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. doi:10.1002/9781444393552.ch19
   Google Scholar
• Mills, F. B. 2013. “A phenomenological approach to psychoprosthetics.” Disability and Rehabilitation 35(9): 785–791. doi:10.3109/09638288.2012.708819
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moran, D. 2000. Introduction to Phenomenology. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Murray, C. D. 2004. “An interpretative phenomenological analysis of the embodiment of artificial limbs.” Disability and Rehabilitation 26(16): 963–973. doi:10.1080/09638280410001696764
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pielli, L., and J. Zlatev. 2020. “The cyborg body: Potentials and limits of a body with prosthetic limbs.” Cognitive Semiotics 13(2): 1–30. doi:10.1515/cogsem-2020-2033
   Google Scholar
• Powell, R., and A. Buchanan. 2011. “Breaking evolution’s chains: The promise of enhancement by design.” In: Enhancing Human Capacities, edited by J. Savulescu, R. ter Meulen, and G. Kahane, 49–67. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. doi:10.1002/9781444393552.ch4
   Google Scholar
• Rossouw, H. W., and A. A. Van Niekerk. 1990. Merleau-Ponty’s notion of perception. Stellenbosch University: Unpublished class notes.
   Google Scholar
• Sandel, M. J. 2007. The Case against Perfection. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. doi:10.4159/9780674043060
   Google Scholar
• Savulescu, J. 2005. “New breeds of humans: The moral obligation to enhance.” Reproductive Biomedicine Online 10(1): 36–39. doi:10.1016/S1472-6483(10)62202-X
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Slatman, J. 2016. “Is it possible to “incorporate” a scar? Revisiting a basic concept in phenomenology.” Human Studies 39(3): 347–363. doi:10.1007/s10746-015-9372-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sobchack, V. 2010. “Living a ‘phantom limb’: On the phenomenology of bodily integrity.” Body & Society 16(3): 51–67. doi:10.1177/1357034X10373407
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spurling, L. 1977. Phenomenology and the Social World: The philosophy of Merleau-Ponty and its relation to the social sciences. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• The Medical Futurist. 2020. “The future of prosthetics depends on A.I.” https://medicalfuturist.com/the-future-of-prosthetics-depends-on-a-i/
   Google Scholar
• Van Niekerk, A. A. 2014. “Biomedical enhancement and the pursuit of mastery and perfection: A critique of the views of Michael Sandel.” South African Journal of Philosophy 33(2): 155–165. doi:10.1080/02580136.2014.923697
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar