Transformation of Semantic Dimensions of the Concept of Attention in the Contemporary Information Society

: 27-32
Received: January 10, 2020
Accepted: March 29, 2020
Lviv Polytechnic National University
Lviv Polytechnic National University

In this article, authors focus on the concept of attention, which is presented in the discourse of history of philosophy, undergoes transformation in the contemporary society under the influence of information technologies. Authors argue that from the Antiquity until the 20th century the philosophical interpretation of attention was presented as care for oneself. In contemporary society, due to the powerful development of information technologies, superfluous information, superficial perception, lack of concentration, and reflection, attention transforms into a valuable resource in the spheres of economy, politics, information wars etc.

Existential characteristics of attention are substituted by operational and functionalist ones, which counterbalance the features of human being. The study is based on etymological, historical, and comparative approaches, which made it possible to understand more deeply the concept of attention due to its three key characteristics: concentration, care for oneself, and self-absorption.

“Aufmerksamkeit, die”. (n.d). In Digitale Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache.  Retrieved from Ga2En9mflI

Bakhtina, H. (2011). Informatization of Society and the Problem of “Clip Thinking”. [In Ukrainian].  Kiev Polytechnic, 2, 2-4. Retrieved from

Bosker, B. (2016). The Binge Breaker. The Atlantic, November Issue. Отримано з

Chambers’ Etymological Dictionary of the English Language. (1874). London: W. & R. Chambers

Dictionary of the Ukrainian Language. (1979). [In Ukrainian]. In 11 Volumes.  Vol. 10. Kyiv: Naukova Dumka. Retrieved from

Encyclopedic Dictionary of Philosophy. (2002). [In Ukrainian]. Kyiv: Abrys.

Etymological Dictionary of Ukrainian Language. (2012). In 7 Volumes.  Vol. 6.  [in Ukrainian].  Kyiv: Naukova dumka. 

Gülensoy, T. (2007) Türkiye türkçesindeki Türkçe sözcüklerin köken bilgisi sözlüğü. Ankara: Türk Dil kurumu.

Heidegger, M. (1967).  Sein und Zeit. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.

Kluge, F. (2011). Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Plato. (1999). Fedon. In Dialogues, 234-292. [In Ukrainian]. Kyiv: Osnovy.

Rosin, V. (2006). How One Can Think of the Human Body, or on the threshold of the anthropological revolution. [In Russian]. Philosophical Sciences, 5, 33-54. Retrieved from

Shevtsov, A. (2019). Theories of Attention. [In Russian]. Ivanovo: Roshcha.

St. Augustine. (1999). Confession. [In Ukrainian].  Kyiv: Basics.

Stiegler,  B. (2010). The Age of De-Proletarianisation. Art and Teaching Art in Post-Consumerist Culture. Amsterdam: ELIA.

Thompson, N. (2018). When Tech Knows You Better Than You Know Yourself. Wired, 10th April. Retrieved from

Toffler,  A. (1970). Future Shock. New York:  A Bantam Book.

Waldenfels B. (2012 ). In Search of Attention. [In Russian]. Topos, 2, 62-77.

Waldenfels, B. (2004). Phänomenologie der Aufmerksamkeit. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.

Williams, J. (2018a). Stand Out of Our Light: Freedom and Resistance in the Attention Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Williams, J. (2018b). Technology is driving us to distraction. The Guardian, 27th May. Retrieved from https:// 27/world-distraction-demands-new-focus