  The paper discusses the problem of demarcation between the dimensions of
natural and the human sciences in contemporary cosmology. In spite of a common
presumption that cosmology is a natural science, the specificity of its alleged
subject matter, that is the universe as a whole, makes cosmology fundamentally
different from other natural sciences. The reason is that in cosmology the
subject of cosmological research and its "object" are in a certain sense
inseparable. Any study of the universe involves two opposite perspectives which
can be described as "a-cosmic" and "cosmic", egocentric and non-egocentric.
Cosmology involves two languages, namely that of physical causality (pertaining
to the natural sciences) and that of intentionality (pertaining to the human
sciences). On the one hand the universe can be seen as a product of discursive
reason, that is as an abstract "physical" entity unfolding in space and time.
On the other hand the universe can be experienced through our participation in,
or communion with the world understood as the natural context of living beings.
This dichotomy between reason and experience, abstract construction and
concrete participation, originates in the essence of human persons understood
as unities of the corporeal and spiritual. On account of this dichotomy it is
hard to set up a strict line of demarcation between the elements of the human
and the natural sciences in cosmology. This confirms the intuition that any
realistic world view is incomplete without a knowledge of what it means to
exist as a human being. Conversely it is likewise impossible to understand
human existence without considering its natural setting, that is the universe.
We conclude that anthropology is incomplete without cosmology and vice versa.

General Physics