Pour une onto-anthropotechnie de la sphère humaine. La question de l'interdit technologique au prisme d’une lecture phénoménologique du transhumanisme.

The discussion about the extent to which technology structures the human sphere is nowadays severely hampered by the popularization of mythological (Promethean threat, etc.) or narrative analogies (threat of AI, cyborg, etc.). Many authors who have questioned the essence of technology in detail have come to divide it into two categories, roughly summarized as (post)modern technology and ancient technology, thus evacuating the formal quality of technology. The feeling of anxiety that our societies experience in front of the autonomy and empowerment of technology would be explained by the ontological discontinuity of the human-technology relations. Isn't transhumanism, incidentally, the concrete embodiment of this rupture? Our thesis postulates that in order to correctly interpret the emergence of phenomena such as transhumanism, we need a philosophical reading of the phenomenon of technique. Now, a philosophical reading of the technique is only possible by questioning the anthropological and ontological roots of technology itself. Our intention to use philosophy to tackle this complex and highly mediatized issue of transhumanism leads us to reinvest pre-existing and absolutely fundamental metaphysical questions regarding the relationship between technology and human beings. We have chosen to take a phenomenological approach to better understand transhumanism, in order to outline the metaphysical issues at stake in our technical imaginary, as well as to serve as a new entry point to the question of technology itself. The eidetic reduction allows us to identify the internal divergences of transhumanism in order to express a minimal discourse, the desire to improve the human being through technology. This dialogue can from then on be assumed by the philosophy of technology and serve as a revealing phenomenon, while taking part in a major discussion that is still ongoing. In spite of the cultural and anthropological evolution of technology and its objects, we defend the hypothesis that there is no rupture between a modern technology and an ancient one, and that the emergence or the solidification of forms of contemporary technical imaginaries contributes to the ontological sphere of human existence. Our purpose is to return to the questions that technology raises towards the being of the human, instead of staying at the human that raises questions about the impact of science and technology. The transhumanism is considered as a starting point to the question of technology, which allows to reinstate the human-technology relations in the temporality of a continuous evolution, and induces a renewed and plastic adaptation of the human being to his environment. Our first part introduces the conceptual framework of the understanding of the technical object, as an object embedded in human mediations. We question this object from familiar landmarks, between mechanism and finalism, gesture and mediation, organ and tool. This allows us to determine some phenomenological aspects regarding body unity and the relation between "paraphernalia" and technical object. These defining elements are embodied in the analysis of contemporary techno-scientific objects, which determines the convergences and divergences between the mode of existence of technical objects and the one of emerging objects, in order to induce the possibility of a formal continuity in the ontology of the technical object. It is then necessary to question the relationship of the human being to his materiality, and thus his relationship to his milieu and temporality. Our second part aims at revitalizing the phenomenology of the dwelling through anthropology, in order to bring technology into play at the center of the human experience. We put our technical milieu back at the center of an epistemology that focuses on the notions of intention, invention and imagination, in order to reconstruct the relation of technology to human virtuality and to propose an analysis of the evolution of technology outside the ontic framework of human historicity. This apparent independence of technology requires us to question the reasons behind the feeling of threat that contemporary technology gives rise to. Our third part reshapes the rational and irrational dangers of which technique is the scapegoat by placing them outside the essence of technology itself. We start from a metaphysics of the substance of worldly objects which locates these concrete perils within the framework of the anthropological evolution of production modes and technical progress. We present these elements as the symptom of the transition from a humanist imaginary to a form of technical imaginary. This transition participates in a redefinition of the humanism that is able to overcome the technological ban and to testify of the cultural reality of technology. The emblematic example of these new technical imaginaries is the emergence of transhumanism. The fourth part thus extends these concrete questionings by focusing on the way in which transhumanism reclaims the metaphysical stakes of our materiality. It is based on the transhumanist conception of the human body through the difference therapy/enhancement, which reveals the invariant of the body phenomenon and revitalizes the truly disruptive viewpoints of transhumanism on immortality. They contrast with the existential relation of the human to finitude, considered as a structuring horizon of time. The opening of finitude to new temporalities invites us to question the way in which transhumanism brings into play the thought of eschatology and transcendence as a measure of lived time. Therefore, our fifth and last part questions the notion of transhumanist Grand Narrative in the light of emblematic technical myths, in order to unveil the metapoetics of imaginaries that support transhumanist and anti-transhumanist discourses. We locate the mythification of transhumanism in a more general eschatological and temporal process, taking into account the chosen recourse of transhumanist movements to technophilic optimism. These interrogations allow us to reinvest our analyses of the milieu and temporality to synthesize the continuistic evolutionism that makes transhumanism a consistent and metaphysical vector of the technical organization of the human sphere.