Philosophy of Science

Abstract This article, adopting a theoretical approach grounded in Foucauldian discourse analysis, examines the conceptual foundations of feminist art therapy. Within Michel Foucault’s framework, discourse is not merely a collection of language and concepts, but a truth-producing system through which power/knowledge relations construct subjects, bodies, and therapeutic norms. From this perspective, therapy in classical approaches often functions as a disciplinary technology, and through mechanisms of normalization, stabilizes the treatable subject within the truth regime of mental health. In contrast, feminist art therapy, with its emphasis on women’s lived experience, embodiment, and suppressed narratives, creates the possibility of resistance against this dominant subjectification. By posing the question of how feminist art therapy, within a Foucauldian discourse-analytic framework, redefines therapy as a field of resistance, this article demonstrates that in this approach, art, as a discursive and cultural practice, goes beyond being an instrument of individual healing and becomes a space for the representation of the body, the production of alternative narratives, and the reclamation of agency for the female subject. The theoretical findings of the study indicate that feminist art therapy, in a Foucauldian reading, defines therapy not as a reading, defines therapy not as a return to normativity, but as a multilayered process of resistance, meaning-making, and the transformation of the dominant truth regime. Keywords: Foucauldian discourse analysis, feminist art therapy, power/knowledge, embodiment and subjectification, redefinition of therapy and resistance. Extended Abstract Introduction This article develops a theoretical, Foucauldian discourse-analytic reading of feminist art therapy, examining how this approach redefines the very concept of “therapy.” Contemporary art therapy remains, in many of its classical formulations, embedded within normalizing discourses of mental health that frame therapeutic success as a return to a socially sanctioned “normal” state. Building on Michel Foucault’s account of discourse as a truth-producing system, the study argues that therapy cannot be understood as a neutral or purely psychological practice; rather, it is constituted within relations of power/knowledge that regulate bodies, subjects, and therapeutic norms. Feminist art therapy, by centering women’s embodiment, lived experience, and previously silenced narratives, opens a space of resistance to this dominant mode of subject formation. The central research question asks how feminist art therapy, read through a Foucauldian discourse-analytic lens, redefines therapy as a field of resistance rather than normalization. The guiding hypothesis holds that, by critiquing the truth-regime of classical/modern therapy, feminist art therapy reconceives treatment not as conformity to a norm but as a multilayered process of producing alternative narratives, representing the body, and reclaiming female subjectivity. Materials and Methods This is a theoretical-analytical study rather than an empirical one. Its material consists of theoretical and scholarly texts: key works by Michel Foucault on power/knowledge, subjectification, normalization, and the “truth regime” (notably The Archaeology of Knowledge, Discipline and Punish, and The History of Sexuality), together with the foundational and contemporary literature on feminist art therapy, particularly the work of Susan Hogan, alongside recent related studies. The analysis proceeds in three stages: first, Foucauldian discourse-analytic concepts — power/knowledge, subjectification, and normalization — are outlined and set against classical conceptions of therapy; second, feminist art therapy is examined as a discourse of resistance and body politics through this same framework; third, the theoretical implications of this redefinition are drawn out for art therapy and interdisciplinary art research. Discussion andResults The analysis shows that classical art therapy, despite its humanistic aims of emotional expression and psychological well-being, cannot be separated from the power/knowledge network Foucault describes: it operates within a therapeutic truth regime that determines which forms of suffering are legitimate, which emotions merit expression, and which subjects are recognized as “treatable.” In this configuration, art therapy functions as a disciplinary technology that returns individuals to a socially normative state, effectively reproducing rather than questioning existing structures of power — especially with respect to gendered bodies, which have historically been subject to control and medicalization. Feminist art therapy emerges, by contrast, as an alternative discourse. Rather than treating the female body as an object of correction, it positions the body as a site of political contestation and resistance. Drawing on Hogan’s clinical and theoretical work, the study illustrates how practices such as collage, imagery, and embodied performance allow women to reconstruct imposed gendered narratives, shifting authority from the therapist’s interpretation to the voice of the subject herself. Where classical therapy relies on a confessional model — in which the subject discloses an “inner truth” for expert interpretation — feminist art therapy replaces confession with symbolic and visual meaning-making, enabling non-confessional forms of self-narration. The discussion further develops the notion of empowerment as a discursive and political achievement rather than a merely psychological one: it entails producing a different truth about the body, suffering, identity, and desire. The female subject moves from being an object of diagnosis to becoming an active narrator and agent, capable of contesting the therapeutic truth regime itself. The paper situates this shift within broader debates in visual and cultural studies, arguing that art is never a neutral or apolitical medium but is itself constitutive of regimes of seeing and knowing. Read alongside contemporary theorizations of the body as simultaneously discursive and material, this reframing extends Foucault’s account of biopower into the domain of art-based practice, suggesting that therapeutic encounters are always also sites of epistemic and political negotiation over what counts as suffering, health, and recovery. Conclusion The study concludes that therapy, viewed through a Foucauldian lens, cannot be reduced to an individual, neutral, or purely psychological process; it is always embedded in power/knowledge relations and truth regimes. Feminist art therapy challenges the therapeutic truth regime through three interrelated mechanisms: replacing the therapist’s interpretive authority with the subject’s own narrative agency; employing a visual, symbolic language that escapes the logic of confession; and foregrounding the female body as a site of resistance rather than an object requiring correction. Consequently, feminist art therapy should be understood not merely as a clinical technique but as a discursive and political field that redefines therapy as a multilayered process of resistance, meaning-making, and transformation of the dominant truth regime, with significant implications for future interdisciplinary art and therapy research.

Abstract Paul Joseph Salomon Benacerraf, a professor of the philosophy of mathematics at Princeton University, passed away in 2025 at the age of 93. By raising a number of fundamental questions, he transformed the philosophy of mathematics from a primarily logical enterprise into a profound epistemological and metaphysical inquiry. His papers are widely regarded as among the most influential works in twentieth-century philosophy of mathematics and played a pivotal role in the emergence and development of mathematical structuralism. This paper examines the two articles that brought him international recognition and briefly reviews the reactions they elicited from other philosophers. Benacerraf argued that numbers lack an intrinsic identity independent of the mathematical structures in which they occur; what matters is the “role” they occupy within a numerical structure. He also formulated a challenge that later became known as the “Benacerraf Problem”: how is it possible for human beings to have knowledge of abstract mathematical objects. Keywords: numbers; the Benacerraf problem; mathematical epistemology; structuralism. Extended Abstract Introduction Paul Benacerraf is widely recognized as one of the most influential philosophers of mathematics in the twentieth century. His work fundamentally reshaped philosophical debates by shifting attention from the logical foundations of mathematics to deeper epistemological and metaphysical questions. Rather than asking merely what mathematical objects are, Benacerraf challenged philosophers to explain how human beings can possess knowledge of abstract mathematical entities. The present study examines Benacerraf's philosophical contributions through an analytical review of his two landmark papers, “What Numbers Could Not Be (1965)” and “Mathematical Truth (1973)”, which transformed contemporary philosophy of mathematics. The article also reviews the intellectual responses of later philosophers and evaluates Benacerraf's lasting influence on mathematical structuralism. Special attention is devoted to his rejection of the intrinsic identity of numbers and to the epistemological challenge that has become known as the “Benacerraf Problem”. By exploring these ideas, the study demonstrates how Benacerraf redirected philosophical inquiry from the ontology of numbers toward the nature and possibility of mathematical knowledge. Materials and Methods This research adopts a qualitative and analytical approach based on documentary and philosophical analysis. The primary sources consist of Benacerraf's seminal papers published in 1965 and 1973, supplemented by his edited volume with Hilary Putnam and major secondary literature written by contemporary philosophers of mathematics, including Stewart Shapiro, Michael Resnik, Hartry Field, Penelope Maddy, Charles Parsons, Mark Colyvan, Øystein Linnebo, Gideon Rosen, and others. The study systematically examines Benacerraf's principal arguments concerning the ontology of numbers, structuralism, and mathematical epistemology. It also compares his views with major philosophical schools, including Platonism, Logicism, Formalism, Intuitionism, Nominalism, and Structuralism. Furthermore, the historical development of his ideas and their influence on subsequent philosophical debates are investigated through a critical review of published scholarly literature and citation records. The research method is therefore interpretative rather than empirical, aiming to reconstruct Benacerraf's arguments, assess their logical coherence, and evaluate their philosophical significance within the broader development of modern philosophy of mathematics. Discussion and Results The analysis demonstrates that Benacerraf introduced two revolutionary arguments that continue to shape contemporary philosophy of mathematics. In his “1965 paper”, he criticized the traditional identification of numbers with particular sets. By comparing the set-theoretical constructions proposed by John von Neumann and Ernst Zermelo, he argued that equally valid mathematical systems assign different set-theoretic identities to the same numbers. Since no principled reason exists for preferring one representation over another, numbers cannot possess unique intrinsic identities. Their significance lies solely in the structural positions they occupy within mathematical systems. This conclusion provided one of the strongest philosophical motivations for mathematical structuralism, according to which mathematical objects are defined relationally rather than independently. The second major contribution emerged in his “1973 paper”, where Benacerraf shifted philosophical attention from ontology to epistemology. He argued that an adequate philosophy of mathematics must satisfy both semantic and epistemological requirements. While Platonism successfully explains the objectivity and necessity of mathematical truths, it fails to explain how finite human beings can acquire knowledge of causally inert abstract objects. Conversely, nominalist or formalist approaches often provide more plausible accounts of mathematical knowledge but struggle to explain the apparent objectivity and truth of mathematics. This tension became known as the Benacerraf Problem and remains one of the central unresolved issues in contemporary philosophy. The study further shows that Benacerraf's work generated extensive philosophical debate. Structuralists such as Stewart Shapiro expanded his relational conception of mathematical objects by providing more elaborate theories of mathematical structures. Nominalists, including Hartry Field, attempted to eliminate commitment to abstract mathematical entities altogether, while naturalists such as Penelope Maddy questioned Benacerraf's assumption that mathematical knowledge requires causal interaction. Other philosophers, including Charles Parsons, Mark Colyvan, Gideon Rosen, and Øystein Linnebo, proposed alternative responses addressing either the ontological or epistemological dimensions of the problem. Despite these diverse approaches, none has achieved universal acceptance, confirming the enduring philosophical significance of Benacerraf's challenge. The article also emphasizes Benacerraf's broader intellectual legacy. Although he published relatively few papers, his writings have received thousands of scholarly citations and fundamentally redirected research in philosophy of mathematics, influencing debates in metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of language, and philosophy of science. His ideas contributed significantly to the emergence of modern mathematical structuralism and continue to serve as reference points in contemporary discussions concerning mathematical realism and abstract objects. Conclusion This study concludes that Paul Benacerraf transformed the philosophy of mathematics by demonstrating that questions concerning the identity of mathematical objects cannot be separated from questions concerning mathematical knowledge. His rejection of the intrinsic identity of numbers provided a powerful philosophical foundation for structuralism, while his epistemological challenge exposed significant weaknesses in both realist and anti-realist accounts of mathematics. The Benacerraf Problem continues to resist definitive resolution because no existing philosophical theory simultaneously offers a fully satisfactory account of both the truth and the knowability of mathematics. Consequently, Benacerraf's work remains central to contemporary philosophical inquiry and continues to inspire new approaches to ontology, epistemology, and the foundations of mathematics. His contributions represent a lasting shift from viewing mathematics merely as a formal logical discipline toward understanding it as a profound philosophical investigation into the nature of abstract knowledge and human cognition.

Abstract The study of the certainty and inexorability of mathematical theorems is one of the important topics in the philosophy of mathematics. Various schools such as logicism, intuitionism, Platonism and naturalism have tried to present theories on this subject. These schools usually seek the foundation for mathematics in order to justify the certainty of mathematical theorems and logic. This has always been accompanied by numerous failures. In this article, we try to examine this issue from Wittgenstein's point of view. That is, instead of asking "What is the foundation of logic and mathematics?" we ask "Why does mathematics need the foundation?". Therefore, we first examine foundationalism. Then we show that mathematics is a language-game. In this regard, we examine geometry and logic as two language-games in mathematics. Finally, we show that, according to Wittgenstein's philosophy, the certainty and inexorability of a valid inference or a correct calculation comes from the practical procedure of inference and calculation. Keywords Wittgenstein, practice, philosophy of mathematics, language-game, foundationalism Extended Abstract 1. Introduction The question “Where does the certainty of logical and mathematical propositions come from?” has been the central preoccupation of the philosophy of mathematics. Logicism (Frege, Russell) sought to reduce mathematics to logic, thereby grounding its certainty in the apparent indubitability of logical truths. Intuitionism (Brouwer) located the foundation in basic mental constructions, arguing that mathematical objects are products of intuitive temporal processes. Platonism posits a mind‑independent realm of abstract entities, making mathematical truth a matter of discovery rather than invention. Naturalism treats mathematics as continuous with empirical science, justifying its claims through their overall role in successful theories. Despite their differences, these schools share a foundationalist assumption: that the certainty of mathematics must be justified by appealing to a privileged class of basic, self‑evident beliefs or entities. However, as we show, each programme faces insurmountable difficulties—regress problems, circularity, or the inability to account for the actual practices of mathematicians. This paper, therefore, proposes a radical shift: instead of seeking a foundation, we investigate why mathematics is thought to need one. Drawing on Wittgenstein’s later philosophy, we argue that the search for a foundation is itself a grammatical misunderstanding. Mathematics, like any language‑game, is not a structure built upon a base; it is an activity embedded in our form of life. Its certainty is not derived from something external but is exhibited in the way we use its rules. Our aim is to articulate this practice‑based view and to show how it resolves the puzzle of mathematical necessity without metaphysical commitments. 2. Materials and Methods This study is a philosophical analysis, not an empirical experiment. Our method consists of a critical reinterpretation of Wittgenstein’s later works, primarily Philosophical Investigations, Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics, and On Certainty, combined with a historical and comparative examination of foundationalist projects. We adopt the following conceptual tools: · Language‑game: we treat mathematics as a multiplicity of language‑games, each with its own vocabulary and rules. A language‑game is a rule‑governed activity that is learned and practiced in a community. · Rule‑following: we analyse the notion that obeying a rule is a practice. A rule cannot be a private mental object; it is publicly taught, learned, and applied in repeated situations. · Grammar: we distinguish between empirical propositions (which can be true or false) and grammatical rules (which determine what counts as a meaningful statement and what counts as a valid inference). Questions about the truth of rules are category mistakes. To illustrate our method, we examine two case studies: 1. Geometry as a language‑game: we reconstruct Hilbert’s axiomatic method as a paradigmatic example. Hilbert’s primitive terms (point, line, plane) receive their meaning solely through the axioms, which function as rules for manipulating symbols. By changing a single axiom (the parallel postulate), we obtain new, consistent language‑games (Euclidean vs. hyperbolic geometry). This shows that geometry is not about a pre‑existing spatial reality but about a formal system whose “truth” is replaced by consistency and usability. 2. Logic as a language‑game: we analyse propositional logic, with its vocabulary (sentence letters, connectives) and rules (modus ponens, double negation, non‑contradiction). We argue that logical rules are not discovered a priori but are constitutive of what we call “reasoning”. They are part of the normative framework of our inferential practices. Additionally, we employ comparative anthropological data (Lévy‑Bruhl on the Ipon tribe; counting practices in the Torres Strait) to demonstrate that alternative inferential and computational practices exist, which suggests that our logical and mathematical rules are contingent upon our social forms of life rather than being universally necessary. 3. Discussion and Results Our analysis reveals that foundationalism fails because it mistakes the grammatical status of rules for the propositional status of factual claims. When we ask for the justification of modus ponens or of the principle of non‑contradiction, we are trying to measure our measuring rod. The certainty of these rules is not a property of their correspondence with reality; it is a reflection of their role as standards of correctness within the practice of inference. Wittgenstein explicitly states: “Inference is part of a language‑game. And the person who makes logical inferences follows certain instructions that have been given to him in learning the language‑game” (RFM, p. 378). Thus, the “hardness” of logic is not a metaphysical necessity but a pragmatic one: we call something “valid inference” only if it conforms to these rules. This is analogous to using a metre stick: we cannot question the correctness of the metre stick itself in the same way we question the length of a table, because the metre stick is the standard by which correctness is determined. The two case studies support this conclusion. In geometry, the shift from Euclidean to non‑Euclidean systems shows that no axiom is intrinsically certain; its role is determined by the game we choose to play. The consistency of the system is all that matters for internal validity. In logic, the law of non‑contradiction is not a high‑level empirical generalisation; it is a rule that tells us when to stop playing—it signals that a contradiction has arisen and we cannot continue with the same moves. As Wittgenstein notes, “Contradiction can only occur among the rules of a game” (Notebooks, p. 321). Its force is not ontological but procedural. Our anthropological examples further illustrate that alternative practices are entirely coherent within their own contexts. The Ipon tribe do not infer death from a wound in the way we do; they invoke sorcery. This does not mean they are irrational; they are following a different set of rules for explanation. The Torres Strait counting method is not an inferior version of our arithmetic; it is a different practical technique for enumeration. These examples underscore that what we call “necessary” is only necessary relative to the practices we have adopted. There is no trans‑cultural, trans‑historical foundation for arithmetic or logic; there is only the practical skill and shared training that enable us to count and infer in the ways we do. Consequently, the certainty of a valid inference or a correct calculation derives from our trust in the practice—our confidence, built through repeated successful applications, that following the rules will lead to a determinate outcome. This is not a blind faith but a trained ability. As Wittgenstein puts it: “I examine the proof and then accept its result. That is simply what we do. This is a custom and a practice among us, or a fact of our natural history” (RFM, p. 61). The “inexorability” of mathematics is therefore not a property of the propositions themselves but of our commitment to the practice. 4. Conclusion We conclude that the traditional foundationalist project for mathematics is misconceived. The later Wittgenstein offers a viable alternative: mathematics is a language‑game, and its rules are not in need of external justification because they are constitutive of the activity of reasoning and calculating. The certainty and inexorability that we attribute to mathematical and logical propositions arise from the grammatical role these rules play within the practical procedure (practice) of inference and computation. This certainty is a form of practical trust and skill, not a reflection of metaphysical necessity. Our analysis shows: 1. The demand for a foundation stems from a grammatical error: confusing a rule with a proposition that can be true or false. 2. Hilbert’s axiomatic geometry and classical logic are best understood as language‑games with their own internal standards of correctness; these standards are arbitrary in the sense that they could be different, but they are not arbitrary in the sense that they are freely chosen by individuals—they are embedded in our shared forms of life. 3. The “hardness” of logic and mathematics is the hardness of the practice itself; it is the result of our training and the social consensus that sustains the practice. 4. We do not need a foundation to justify mathematics; we need a clarification of its grammar. The task of philosophy is not to reform or justify mathematics but to describe what mathematicians actually do and how their practices hang together. In sum, the paper provides a robust Wittgensteinian response to the problem of mathematical certainty, showing that the practice‑based approach dissolves the classical foundationalist anxieties without reducing mathematics to mere convention. It invites philosophers and mathematicians to abandon the search for an indubitable ground and instead to appreciate the rich, dynamic, and socially embedded character of mathematical activity.

Abstract Drawing on Daniel Dennett’s intentional stance, Christian List advances a pragmatist framework according to which any system—human or artificial—that satisfies three macro-level conditions—intentional agency, alternative possibilities, and causal control—may be ascribed free will, even in the absence of phenomenal consciousness. Employing conceptual analysis and engaging with prominent critiques in the philosophical literature—including Robert Kane’s account of the origination problem, Nancey Murphy and Warren Brown’s critiques of downward causation and emergence, and empirical findings by Eddy Nahmias on the role of P. F. Strawson’s reactive attitudes in free will ascription—this paper argues that List’s framework suffers from a structural ambiguity in distinguishing between “functional autonomy” and “responsibility-grounding free will.” Reducing free will to mere “explanatory sufficiency” not only results in conceptual inflation but also opens the door to “algorithmic responsibility evasion,” whereby developers and institutions may deflect accountability by appealing to the system’s agency. In response, the paper proposes a three-level framework that distinguishes functional autonomy (Level 1), robust free will (Level 2), and moral responsibility (Level 3), and introduces a threshold condition for robust free will: the capacity to revise one’s ultimate ends in light of evaluative commitments. This condition presupposes phenomenal consciousness and P. F. Strawson-style reactive attitudes, thereby clarifying why no contemporary artificial system—even the most advanced language models—possesses robust free will. By resolving the ambiguity in List’s account, the proposed distinction carries important normative implications for AI ethics, legal responsibility, and technology policy.

Abstract About two decades ago, “The Gap of Responsibility” as a problem was firstly introduced by Matthias for referring to an ethical challenge of AI. Due to their ability to learn, AI technologies are able to function beyond the control and anticipation of designers and users. Matthias argues that in this case, the necessary and sufficient conditions of responsibility wouldn’t be satisfied neither for designers, nor for users. And that is the gap of responsibility. The problem of responsibility gap has invited many researchers to explore for solutions. There is significant divergence among current accounts of responsibility gap, which mainly results from their basic theoretical assumptions. In this paper, we categorize the responses to three approaches: dissolving the problem, filling the gap by attributing responsibility to AI, and filling the gap by attributing responsibility to human agents. By analyzing the social and practical aspects of the concept of responsibility, we defend a compound, contextual, and gradual notion of responsibility. On this basis, we claim that two first approaches are not successful, due to being grounded on the poor concepts of responsibility. Hence, the third approach is more plausible. Moreover, since in the familiar cases of responsibility gap we fill the gap through revising social roles, in the case of AI-based responsibility gap we can follow the similar solution too, as suggested in some works of the third approach. Finally, we discuss some of remained challenges for the third approach.

Abstract A social subject, such as the university, is involved in a wide range of issues, and social research on the university is conducted to address them. In the studies, multiple methods are used, each of which can examine the university only from a specific perspective and with an emphasis on specific concepts. Government sponsors and industrial investors, who are only interested in some of the university's functions, also support only the research they are interested in, thereby leading to the more “valuable”, more prominent, and more strengthened concepts that are important to those investors and sponsors outside the university. The result of such a process is the destruction of the university's internal norms and, as a consequence, scientific and financial misconduct. For decades, critical theory scholars have been concerned with this issue: the importance of considering the totality of a social issue rather than addressing only a specific aspect. The present article, by describing the methodology of critical theory, and by presenting a discussion of Iranian university-related researches, claims that Iranian traditional (positivistic) researches, by highlighting some interests of specific groups, and eliminating public considerations, such as ideas related to the ethics of science, may lead to the weakening of the functioning, or even the collapse, of the institution of science and the university.

Abstract In science and technology studies, the agency of technology has largely been confined to its role in rearranging social relations and human–nonhuman networks, while its influence on the selection and transformation of theoretical frameworks has received far less attention. Through a case study of blockchain studies as an emerging technology, and by introducing the concept of the “theory–technology dialectic,” this paper demonstrates that technology can play a role in shaping, modifying, and displacing the theories researchers employ. The arguments of this paper show that no single theoretical framework is capable of explaining all dimensions of emerging technologies such as blockchain, and researchers are compelled to draw simultaneously on diverse theories. This situation reflects a kind of “theoretical flexibility” when confronting complex technologies. Ultimately, the paper proposes “theoretical assemblage” as a methodological strategy for studying emerging technologies and points to its Methodological implications for the field of technology studies.

Abstract This research offers a critical analysis of Scientism as an epistemological stance in which science is elevated from a means of understanding nature to the ultimate criterion of all truth. The central problem is that scientism, by extending beyond the methodological limits of the empirical sciences, claims epistemic exclusivity and fundamentally calls into question the domains of metaphysics, ethics, religion, and the humanities. The article’s main finding is that scientism is realized at three levels: (1) scientific naturalism, which reduces reality to observable nature; (2) methodological exclusivism, which regards only the method of the natural sciences as valid for acquiring knowledge; and (3) scientific Imperialism, which sees science as the sole authority capable of answering all human questions. It is shown that these levels rest on three pillars: reductionism(reducing complex phenomena to physical components), Darwinism (biological explanation of all behaviors and beliefs), and the naturalization of normativity (reducing ethics and values to evolutionary processes). The study further shows that the consequences of scientism are chain-like: it begins with the denial of metaphysics and theology, leads to the erosion of the foundations of normative ethics, and ultimately ends in the denial of human distinctiveness from nature and the collapse of the humanities. In the end, the article’s key conclusion is that scientism is not merely an epistemological error, but a path from the denial of God to the denial of human beings—a trajectory that threatens the philosophical, ethical, and anthropological foundations of civilization.

Abstract This paper critically re-examines Herbert Marcuse’s key concepts—false needs, technological rationality, and repressive desublimation—within the context of contemporary digital platform consumption. While Marcuse never directly addressed marketing or consumer behavior, his framework offers a powerful lens for understanding how algorithmic systems engineer desire, attention, and identity. The study reconstructs these concepts by integrating them with contemporary theories of surveillance capitalism, algorithmic culture, and platform studies. The findings reveal that false needs are no longer merely imposed from above but are interactively reproduced through user-algorithm feedback loops, a process termed "interactive reproduction." Technological rationality evolves into "algorithmic rationality," characterized by a fundamental black-box opacity, dynamic adaptability, and the internalization of surveillance through gamification. The analysis identifies six critical gaps in Marcuse’s framework, including the difficulty of distinguishing true from false needs, a passive conception of the subject, and Eurocentrism. Despite these limitations, the paper argues that a critically reconstructed Marcuse remains indispensable for illuminating how platform consumption narrows the horizon of desire and precludes imagining alternatives. The study concludes by proposing six future research agendas, including the development of multidimensional tools for measuring false needs, algorithmic ethnography, and the study of platform cooperatives as forms of resistance.

Abstract "Human nature" has been investigated by scientists from various evolutionary perspectives. We consider the views of some scientists from sociobiological, evolutionary psychology, cultural evolution, niche construction, behavioral ecology, and developmental systems perspectives. Philosophers after scientists analyzed "human nature." We consider the views of four philosophers. These views show that the concept of "human nature" is highly controversial, and some even defend its elimination. We propose "disciplined comprehensive" theory of human nature. According to this theory "human nature" is a philosophical concept. Descriptive and explanatory human natures are disciplined comprehensive sets of traits. Different scientific disciplines describe and explain different aspects of human nature, investigate its limiting function and examine cultural influence on it.