Xueli Yao

Purpose. This article aims to study ways of reconsidering the naive and optimistic view of technology in contemporary philosophical literature. Theoretical basis. The research draws on the concepts of phenomenology and philosophical anthropology. Originality. The focus of critical reflection is on negative trends in technological development that pose a threat to humanity’s survival. In this context, the in-depth study of philosophical questions about what technology is and what it means to be human becomes particularly relevant. Naive interpretations often suggest that technology plays a central role in shaping human identity. For instance, Marxism embodies this idea, viewing the level of technological development (tools and means of production) as both a primary factor in historical human formation and a measure of social progress. Naivety also manifests in the belief that radical global change is justified. However, as modern scholars of the history of philosophy and philosophy of technology convincingly argue, these views are superficial and rely on partial readings of classical texts. Today, the recognition of non-technical factors – such as language, rituals, and play – in human development is widely accepted and productive. A deeper understanding of current technological interpretations opens new perspectives for exploring humans’ role in culture and exploring human responsibility. Conclusions. In modern times, the most urgent issue is how people’s relationship with technology is evolving. This is reflected in growing uncertainty and fear. Modern researchers warn that the naive reception of technology as a tool results in disconnecting technology from culture, philosophy, and ethics. The emancipation of technical rationality from value-based one, breaking the link between philosophy and science, truth and goodness, is particularly troubling. Consequently, there is an urgent need to find ways to humanize technology, beginning with a fundamental rethink of the technomorphic view that defines humans as tool makers. The marginalization of humans stems from the dominance of ideas portraying technology as an external tool. Recognizing the importance of language, rituals, and play in human development is both profound and justified. The notion that technology is a means to realize human essence – that is, working on oneself (psyche) – remains compelling. Moving beyond naive views of technology and developing sound philosophical frameworks is a crucial step towards understanding human nature and discovering one’s purpose in the universe. A detailed exploration of this concept will be the subject of the next publication.

_Purpose._ This article aims to study ways of reconsidering the naive and optimistic view of technology in contemporary philosophical literature. _Theoretical basis._ The research draws on the concepts of phenomenology and philosophical anthropology. _Originality._ The focus of critical reflection is on negative trends in technological development that pose a threat to humanity’s survival. In this context, the in-depth study of philosophical questions about what technology is and what it means to be human becomes particularly relevant. Naive interpretations often suggest that technology plays a central role in shaping human identity. For instance, Marxism embodies this idea, viewing the level of technological development (tools and means of production) as both a primary factor in historical human formation and a measure of social progress. Naivety also manifests in the belief that radical global change is justified. However, as modern scholars of the history of philosophy and philosophy of technology convincingly argue, these views are superficial and rely on partial readings of classical texts. Today, the recognition of non-technical factors – such as language, rituals, and play – in human development is widely accepted and productive. A deeper understanding of current technological interpretations opens new perspectives for exploring humans’ role in culture and exploring human responsibility. _Conclusions._ In modern times, the most urgent issue is how people’s relationship with technology is evolving. This is reflected in growing uncertainty and fear. Modern researchers warn that the naive reception of technology as a tool results in disconnecting technology from culture, philosophy, and ethics. The emancipation of technical rationality from value-based one, breaking the link between philosophy and science, truth and goodness, is particularly troubling. Consequently, there is an urgent need to find ways to humanize technology, beginning with a fundamental rethink of the technomorphic view that defines humans as tool makers. The marginalization of humans stems from the dominance of ideas portraying technology as an external tool. Recognizing the importance of language, rituals, and play in human development is both profound and justified. The notion that technology is a means to realize human essence – that is, working on oneself (psyche) – remains compelling. Moving beyond naive views of technology and developing sound philosophical frameworks is a crucial step towards understanding human nature and discovering one’s purpose in the universe. A detailed exploration of this concept will be the subject of the next publication.

The experience of loss of agency is one of the reasons for clients to go for psychotherapy. Enhancing clients’ agency has been considered a fundamental factor for successful treatment in psychiatry and psychotherapy, yet few studies have investigated the interactional realization of how therapists do this in authentic psychotherapeutic encounters. Drawing on audio-recorded talk-in-interaction between clients and psychotherapists in cognitive behavioral therapy encounters at a mental health center in China, this paper uses the method of conversation analysis to demonstrate how therapists ascribe agency positions to clients by issuing formulations of what the clients have just said. Two types of formulation were identified: affirmative formulations and challenging formulations. In the first type, the therapists highlight the positive aspect of the clients’ description of their experiences and ascribe an agentic position to the clients. In the second, the therapists challenge the clients’ implausible views and their non-agentic positioning of themselves. This study shows that the therapists’ formulation could be employed to manage the epistemic difficulties associated with claiming knowledge about the clients’ inner states and assessing their feelings. In this sense, the formulation is a robust interactional device in negotiating epistemic problems in addressing the clients’ experiences and promoting their agency in therapy. However, it is noteworthy that in the challenging formulation, therapists claim privileged access to the clients’ knowledge domain and challenge their prior epistemic status, which might run the risk of engendering clients’ resistance.

Using the method of conversation analysis, this article examines an interactional practice through which psychiatric practitioners exhibit knowledge about their patients’ problems, symptoms, or experiences in psychiatric outpatient consultations. This practice is referred to as ‘my side telling’. The data were from audio recordings of 55 psychiatric outpatient visits to four psychiatrists in China. In the data, the psychiatrists employ ‘my side telling’ within larger sequences of talk where psychiatrists solicit their patients to elaborate on their problems or experiences, treating prior answers of the patients as unsatisfactory. Based on empirical study of the data, it is argued that ‘my side telling’ in psychiatry is not merely used to elicit information. Rather, through facing patients with facts or evidence which the psychiatrists got from other sources, it acquires a confrontative function and may be employed as a tool to test the patients’ sense of reality and willingness to talk about their experiences. Thus, it is shown to work towards assessing patients for possible psychiatric conditions and forming diagnostic hypotheses. I further argue that ‘my side telling’ allows the psychiatrists to achieve a balance between respecting the patients’ rights to report their own experiences and influencing the directions in which the information is reported.