Philosophical anthropology. Gurevich P.S.
Tutorial. 2nd ed., erased. M.: Omega-L Publishing House, 2010. - 607 pp. ISBN 978-5-370-01371-3
The textbook covers various types of philosophical and anthropological teachings, reveals the spectrum philosophical problems of man, represents philosophical anthropology as an independent discipline. Philosophical anthropology studies human nature, meaning and value human life, the drama of human relationships. The structure of the textbook consists of issues of taxonomy of anthropological ideas, anthropological catastrophe, anthropogenesis, human subjectivity and personalistic tradition. The publication contains test questions, topics for independent work and tests. A miracle of life or a cog?
"Anthropological turn"
Spectrum of worldviews
Theocentrism
Nature-centrism
Sociocentrism
Knowledgecentrism
Anthropocentrism as a philosophical position
Anthropocentrism among other centrisms
The man inside the mythology
Socrates - the founder of human philosophy
Stoic "Equanimity"
Personalistic tradition
Subject of philosophical anthropology
"Thinking Reed"
The crisis of anthropocentrism
Man as a problem
The concept of philosophical anthropology
Kant: “Man. there is the final goal" (philosophical anthropology as a specific field of knowledge)
M. Scheler: “Man is something so vast.” (philosophical anthropology as a philosophical direction)
S. Grof: “Man is a boundless continent of the unconscious”
Systematics of anthropological teachings.
God, mind, nature
Scheler's typology
New human images
Spectrum of anthropological ideas
Mystical revelation.
Religious anthropology
Scientific ideas
Philosophical anthropology and concrete sciences
Lawgiver of reason.
Dispute of the Wise Men
The position of the philosopher is tragic
Specificity of philosophy
Anthropological disaster.
Modern apocalypse
The fragility of life
Psychological resources
The uniqueness of man.
Stepchildren of evolution
Noble machine
The phenomenon of communication
Man playing
The most eccentric creature
Alien specimen
Fear Instinct
Instinct of aggressiveness
Sexual instinct
Human eccentricity
Human Origins
Human Creation: Theological Version
“Animal” and “man” (C. Darwin, K. Marx and F. Engels)
“Superanimal” and man: the concept of B.F. Porshneva
An animal that has experienced remorse (
3. Freud)
E. Kassirer: “Man is a symbolic animal”
Human existence
Being as the meaning of existing
Human existence
Existential interpretation human existence
Human existence, freedom and responsibility
Non-existence, death, immortality
Life is a person's way of being
Life as the deepest philosophical symbol
The meaning of life and reverence for it
Modes of human existence
Hedonism
Being and having
The benefits of human life
Self-development adventure
Courage to be
Destructive as a mystery
The phenomenon of aggressiveness
K. Lorenz: man is a mass murderer.
Psychoanalysis on aggressiveness
Benign aggressiveness
Human spirituality
What is value?
Hierarchy of values
The value of work. Asceticism and hedonism
Collapse of the work ethic
Lack of spirituality
Human passions
Francis Bacon: the nature of passion.
Rene Descartes: passions of the soul
Adam Smith: typology of passion
Erich Fromm: “Passion is born of the drama of human existence”
Individual and individuality
Personality
Individualism and personalism
Individualism and egoism
Personality or community?
Costs of personalism
Humanism and dehumanization of the world
Glorification of Man
Types of humanism
Humanism as a movement
Dehumanization of the world
Is an "ism" necessary?
The uniqueness of life
Life is a precious gift
Reverence for life
Transpersonal experience
Overcoming Death
Meaning of life
Freud: “happiness lies in pleasure”
Moral meaning of life
The idea of happiness
Logotherapy and its ideological positions
Body-mental-spiritual whole.
Psychological content of the problem of “meaning”
Three categories of values
The problem of the meaning of life in Russian philosophy
Love is a deep existential experience.
Love as a subject of philosophical comprehension
Eros as human passion
Images of love in different eras
The drama of human existence
Mysteries of ancient civilizations
Origin of love
Sin and repentance in paganism
The relationship between paganism and Christianity
Agape is brotherly love.
Romantic and carnal love
Religious Ecstasy and Worldly Feeling
The phenomenon of torment
A special state of mind.
Philosophical understanding of suffering
The True Purpose of Suffering
Christian version of suffering
God's Ethics
Is it possible to understand suffering?
A. Schopenhauer about the suffering of the world
Unhappiness as a rule of life
The torment of our existence
Existential version of suffering
Loneliness
Human defenselessness
One of the deepest existential
The phenomenon of death
The theme of death in mythological consciousness
Totemism and veneration of ancestors
Egyptians and Tibetans about death
Ancient and medieval views on death.
Interpretation of death by the great men of Antiquity
The theme of death in the Middle Ages
Idealization and romanticization of death
Freudian interpretation of Eros and Thanatos
The origin of the idea of Thanatos
Freud on the attitude towards death of primitive man
War as a social phenomenon
Is the fear of death real?
Complex of images and symbols
Interpretation of death in modern philosophy
Neo-Freudianism about death
Analytical psychology about death
Existential psychoanalysis about life and death
Transpersonal psychology about the phenomenon of death
Death and Immortality
Fear as an experience
Futuroshock
Understanding Fear
Existentialism is about fear.
The phenomenon of fear in Russian philosophy
Fear as a mental phenomenon
Phenomenology of fear
Deep attraction
Unreasonable and “baseless” fear
Fear and Trembling
Psychoanalysis about fear
The phenomenon of anxiety
The Roots of Anxiety
Embodied patterns of fear
Transpersonal psychology about the nature of fear
The sting of fear - anxiety
Fear as Passion
Name index
Pavel Semenovich Gurevich – specialist in philosophical anthropology, psychoanalysis, philosophy of culture and modern Western philosophy; Doctor of Philology and Doctor of Philosophy, Professor. Born in Ulan-Ude (Buryatia). In 1955 he graduated from the Faculty of History and Philology of the Ural University.
In 1962–1965 he studied at graduate school at Moscow State University. Since 1970, he has worked at the USSR Academy of Sciences, first at the Scientific Council on Problems of Foreign Ideological Currents, and since 1984 at the Institute of Philosophy, currently head of the “History of Anthropological Teachings” sector, dean of the Faculty of Psychology at the Moscow State Technological Academy. Doctoral dissertation in philosophy – “Man as an object of socio-philosophical analysis” (1991).
Editor-in-chief of the magazine "Archetype", member of the editorial board of the magazine "Philosophical Sciences" and "Bulletin of the Psychoanalytic Society". About 40 books of philosophical classics were published under the editorship of Gurevich and with his prefaces, including the philosophical works of N.A. Berdyaev, M. Buber, W. James, E. Freud, K. Jung, K. Jaspers and others. He published eight volumes of the works of E. Fromm.
As a compiler and executive editor, Gurevich prepared anthologies on the philosophy of technology “The New Technocratic Wave in the West” (Moscow, 1986), on philosophical anthropology – “The Problem of Man in Western Philosophy” (Moscow, 1988), “Man. Thinkers past and present on his life, death and immortality. Ancient world- the era of Enlightenment" (M., 1991), "Man. Thinkers past and present on his life, death and immortality. XIX century" (M., 1995), "The Phenomenon of Man" (M., 1993), "This is a man. Anthropology" (M., 1995), on general issues of philosophy - "The World of Philosophy" (Vol. 1–2. M., 1991; jointly with V.I. Stolyarov), "Mass Psychoanalytic Encyclopedia" (M., 1998 ), “Culturology” (M., 2000). P. Gurevich also owns textbooks for secondary schools, including “Man. IX class.” (M., 1995, 1997), “Philosophical Dictionary” (M., 1997), “Methodological Guide to Philosophy” (M., 1997), “Social Science” (M., 1999).
From 1970 to 1984 P.S. Gurevich dealt with the mass ideological processes of Western society. He put forward the idea that social mythology is a specific phenomenon born of the entrance of the masses into the historical arena. He showed that in modern conditions propaganda takes on the functions of ideology; they revealed the diversity of ideological processes. Gurevich's thoughts that the process of ideologization is constantly being replaced by another phenomenon - re-ideologization - have gained recognition.
In the second half of the 80s, Gurevich developed a number of ideas dedicated to the mystical spiritual tradition; expanded the number of features that are inherent in mystical experience, showed that mystical experience is in the foundation of all religions. He presented the mystical spiritual tradition as an integral component of culture. Gurevich proved that mysticism never disappears, but is constantly present in the thickness of culture. He also conducted a comparative analysis of mystical traditions.
In books and articles devoted to the philosophy of culture, Gurevich developed a number of new ideas - the idea of the forum nature of cultures, i.e. their equal representation, the universality of the total spiritual experience, the role of counterculture in the development of culture. The difference between a subculture, according to Gurevich, is that counterculture is the proclamation of a new spiritual paradigm.
Gurevich also examined the relationship between fundamentalism and modernism, showing their internal connection, elitist and mass, esoteric and profane. Important ideas about the specificity, structure and structure of culture are presented. Gurevich defined the philosophy of culture, analyzed its genesis and history. One of Gurevich's ideas is that phenomena born of culture do not die, but are reborn again and again in culture.
In the works of the 90s, Gurevich examined the semiotic nature of culture, its symbolic forms. Gurevich also showed that philosophy should be considered not as a form of scientific knowledge, but as a sovereign, specific way of comprehending reality. Gurevich presented philosophical anthropology as an independent field of philosophical knowledge, a philosophical direction and a specific method of understanding the world. He substantiates the idea of an “anthropological turn” in philosophy, reveals the ideological meaning of the concepts of “nature” and “essence” of man. He also developed the question of the types of anthropological teachings, of human subjectivity, of the personalistic tradition, of the modes of human existence. In his works on psychology, Gurevich explored the problem of the relationship between philosophy and psychology, explored the psychology of groups and crowds, as well as the phenomenon of destructiveness. He contributed to the development of Reichian and Jungian typologies.
The book “Clinical Psychology” shows that schizophrenia, manic-depressive psychosis and involutional (presenile) depression are not associated with organic damage at all. An experience seems crazy when it goes beyond the limits of our average, common sense, i.e. generally accepted meaning. However, this does not mean that this feeling does not reflect some other reality. A significant place in Gurevich's psychological works is occupied by problems of psychosexual development, psychological characteristics of people and ways of their adaptation to the world, archetypes of collective consciousness. Gurevich analyzed the specifics of humanitarian knowledge.
P. Gurevich was elected president of the Moscow Interregional Psychoanalytic Association, vice-president of the Academy of Humanitarian Studies, full member of the International Academy of Informatization, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, New York Academy of Sciences, Academy of Pedagogy and Social Sciences.
Current page: 1 (book has 21 pages in total)
Philosophical anthropology
Systems approach
Dmitry Atlanov
© Dmitry Atlanov, 2015
Created in the intellectual publishing system Ridero.ru
Introduction
Modern natural sciences and humanities require a significantly more meaningful understanding of man. Obviously, this is due to the needs of science and society. We can say that we are in the stage of an anthropological boom, which is unfolding before our eyes. The reasons for the emergence of such a boom are associated with a growing understanding that the previous methods and approaches established in science and other intellectual practices have exhausted themselves, and humanity as a whole faces the need to rebuild the ways and methods of its interaction with the world.
First of all, this is due to the exhaustion of the possibilities of the “linear” way of thinking that had dominated for a long time. This “linear” methodology is very effective in situations where we are talking about reducing an integral phenomenon or process to a limited set of functions, a mechanism. Whenever a specific phenomenon can be subsumed under a general law, we will, as a rule, be dealing with a number of conditional assumptions. In reality, all the assumptions that are introduced by the theory lead to the fact that the behavior of the real system is strikingly different from that prescribed by the theory. Understanding this has long been a banal general idea in the “practical” natural sciences - engineering, experimental physics and chemistry and others, in which any professional is provided with a thick reference book with empirically identified correction factors.
However, there is a very important area of knowledge in which the principles of linear thinking as an intellectual paradigm turned out to be initially flawed and have not been overcome to this day. Moreover, the creation of those very directories of correction factors is almost impossible due to the high complexity of the objects. This is the field of human sciences. “Whatever specific problem of anthropology we take, trying to solve it using the same methodological means that we use when designing and repairing watches ends in failure.
As soon as we are faced with severe multifactorial diseases<…>then, when we find ourselves in zones of fundamental nonlinearity, we understand that it is procedurally impossible in principle to cope with them by acting linearly. The subject of our research may lie in another area - economics, conflictology, pedagogy. And here linear methods of analyzing and correcting the situation turn out to be ineffective. And the point is not that linear technologies are good or bad, but that they are arbitrary, aimed at analyzing peripheral dynamics and influencing them. When the center of gravity moves deeper into the spheres of nonlinearity, they act either on the basis of arbitrary and general reasoning, or by selecting control factors, which in principle cannot give sustainable and repeatable success. The reason is the lack of means of working in the field of nonlinearity" 1
Minchenkov A.V., Elpidiforov N.B. Methods of structural psychosomatics. – St. Petersburg: “Yuventa”, M.: Institute of General Humanitarian Research, 2001. P.4.
The authors of the above statement draw this conclusion based on the material of psychosomatics, but they themselves, and many others, understand that we are talking about problems of a general theoretical and, more broadly, general methodological paradigmatic level.
This is a fundamental problem and difficulty, the unresolution of which limits the possibilities of both anthropology as a whole, as a set of general and particular sciences about man, and philosophical anthropology, as a discipline designed to assimilate and postulate paradigmatic generalizations. Thus, the modern stage of development of ideas about the world involves overcoming isolation, linearity and associated reductionism when describing complex nonequilibrium systems. This fully applies to the human problem.
Due to the fact that the question of the method of anthropology has not been resolved, it turns out to be impossible to satisfactorily define and even describe the subject of this science, to give the concept of man.
Let's define the positions. Why anthropology and why now and here. If we understand anthropology as the doctrine of man as a whole, then we will have to admit that by the beginning of the 21st century, humanity still does not have at least a relatively detailed doctrine of man, which would be sufficiently general in nature and could be used in the construction of particular theories and hypotheses . At the same time, there is a well-developed mass of specific factual material accumulated in the natural and human sciences and, with a greater or lesser degree of effectiveness, comprehended within the framework of these same special sciences. But at the same time, there is no generally accepted understanding of the essence of man, and although attempts to achieve such an understanding have been made throughout the history of world philosophy, nevertheless, to this day, there is no general teaching about man.
Moreover, the systemic crisis experienced by Russia forces us to especially carefully comprehend both traditional concepts and value constructs that have developed in our intellectual space, as well as newly formed and borrowed models associated with the active process of intercivilizational and intercultural interaction and dialogue. Axiology, as a doctrine of value constructs and preferences, in turn, is impossible without a general idea of man as such. It is impossible to build a system of values without a clear understanding of whose values these are. Any knowledge that claims to be scientific is based on a certain set of intellectual propositions that are accepted a priori and, in the course of the development of the discipline, are subject to revision and redefinition. Philosophical anthropology, which took shape as an independent branch of philosophical knowledge only in the twentieth century, to this day does not have its own axiomatics and the sum of categories that would define its subject with sufficient completeness, unless one considers as such rather abstract ideas about the body, soul and spirit of man. It is this circumstance that forces some authors to deny philosophical anthropology an independent status, or to consider it as a section of the history of philosophy devoted to changes in views on man among various philosophers. In part, this uncertain position of anthropology in Russian literature is generated by its rapid development. Almost over the past 15 years, the general scientific community has been bombarded with a mass of anthropological literature, quite heterogeneous in content. At the same time, both the texts of the “classics” of philosophical anthropology, such as M. Scheler, A. Gehlen, E. Rothacker and many others, and the original works of domestic thinkers, often working in different research paradigms, such as classical, and non-classical directions. Moreover, this stream of publications coincided in time both with the period of development and rapid development of various directions of philosophizing in our country, and with the period of complex ideological transformations, both in the mass and professional consciousness.
Due to the fact that the question of the method of anthropology still remains open, it turns out to be impossible to theoretically fully and accurately define and even describe the subject of this science, to formulate the essential concept of man.
The relevance of the research topic is determined by the fact that in the course of the widespread introduction of new and revival of old anthropological ideas, the need for methodological generalization and the search for a common basis for constructive interdisciplinary dialogue is becoming actualized. We can say that we are in the stage of an anthropological boom, which is unfolding before our eyes. The reasons for the emergence of such a boom are associated with a growing understanding that the previous methods and approaches established in science and other intellectual practices have exhausted themselves, and humanity as a whole faces the need to rebuild the ways and methods of its interaction with the world. This requires a revision of previous methodological approaches to understanding man as a systemic subject of research.
First of all, this is due to the exhaustion of the possibilities of the “linear” way of thinking, which is effective in reducing an integral phenomenon or process to a limited set of functions, to a mechanism. In the same “cases when we are faced with complexly organized nonlinear processes and multi-level systems, this methodology turns out to be ineffective.
This fundamental problem is determined by the fact that in the course of the widespread introduction of new and revival of old anthropological ideas, the need to find a common basis for interdisciplinary dialogue, which can and should take place within the framework of philosophical anthropology as a discipline denoting fundamental approaches acceptable both for private scientific disciplines, is becoming actual. as well as for broad philosophical generalizations.
From a review of modern publications it is clear that the difficulties in self-determination of philosophical anthropology as an independent field of human knowledge are associated, not least of all, with the uncertainty of the very subject of this discipline. Man must be specifically considered anew as a subject of philosophical anthropology. This, in turn, is due to the need to revise previous methodological approaches to defining a person.
It is obvious that for a fruitful movement in this direction, for the introduction of a new methodology into the human sciences, the unification of the humanitarian and natural science paradigms, the category “man” itself must be examined.
Despite the rapid development of anthropological research, many aspects remain not fully disclosed, and, moreover, precisely because of the rapid growth in the number of studies, there is a growing need for a deeper study of the methodological problems of anthropology for a deeper understanding of its discourse.
The object of research is the concept of “man”, its understanding in philosophical anthropology, content structure, interconnection and correlation of its constituent elements.
The subject of the study is the internal relationships of the “human” system, the content and structure of the concepts used in its description.
The methodology is developed based on: logical-philosophical research processes of thinking, theory of concepts, general theory of systems, works of classics of philosophical anthropology of the 20th century, psychology of thinking, neuropsychology, personality psychology.
Some starting points that led to the writing of this work:
1. The concept of “person” has a clear hierarchical structure, which can be described using modern theoretical apparatus.
2. Man as a subject of philosophical anthropology appears as a system of concepts that are subject to the requirements of the general theory of systems and the logic of real thinking.
3. The structural features of the concept “person” make it possible to assimilate the achievements of modern natural science with humanitarian issues.
The theoretical significance of the study lies in the fact that it examines the methodological aspects of the formation of the concept of “man” and makes proposals for the logical development of anthropological methodology. In this study, the methodology of systems analysis and general systems theory, well developed for the natural sciences and practical disciplines, are applied to solving problems in the humanities. This opens the way to further deeper development and improvement of human theory.
Practical significance. The results obtained can be useful in solving anthropological problems, in resolving many issues in private anthropological research, psychology, and other humanitarian disciplines, for example, when considering questions about the relationship and interdependence between processes traditionally attributed to the field of physiology and phenomena of the cultural world. The resulting implicit (axiomatic) definition of a person allows us to constructively assess the situation in philosophical anthropology and correctly determine the areas and subjects of special anthropological sciences.
This work highlights the structure and shows the content of the subject of philosophical anthropology. The content structure of previously somewhat abstractly defined concepts has also been discovered: “body”, “soul”, “spirit”, which allows them to be more strictly defined in scientific research.
Philosophical pluralism, as the simultaneous existence of many ideas belonging to both classical and non-classical methods of philosophizing, leads to an extremely heterogeneous understanding of man in the modern domestic theoretical field. It is necessary to examine it at least in fragments, if only in order to determine both the state of this field and the trends in its development.
The domestic tradition of interpreting the concept of man in the last decades of the twentieth century is largely based on Marxist philosophy due to well-known historical circumstances. There is a large volume of literature here that has not lost its relevance to this day, for example, the philosophical and anthropological works of I. T. Frolov, B. T. Grigoryan, M. V. Demin and many others 2
Frolov I. T. Human prospects. – M.: 1983; Grigoryan B. T. Philosophy about the essence of man. – M. 1973; Demin M.V. Problems of personality theory (socio-philosophical aspect). – M., 1977.
Despite the fact that the long-term violent exploitation of Marxist ideas in Russian literature of the twentieth century caused a kind of idiosyncrasy towards Marxism in a number of thinkers, this period in the development of human philosophy still needs to be comprehended.
The second group of publications, immediately following the first, are works devoted to attempts to one way or another concretize and systematize views on man. The most common method of systematization is methodological. The grounds for such a division were indicated by Max Scheler. In accordance with his concept, three main types of worldview are distinguished: Judeo-Christian, Greek-ancient, and modern natural science. Accordingly, he identified anthropology: theological, philosophical, scientific (natural science) 3
Scheler M. The position of man in Space // Selected works, – M.: Gnosis, 1994, P. 133.
It is easy to notice that these are all directions that have developed primarily in European culture. Other national types of philosophizing will give us an even greater variety of approaches. Thus, already before Scheler and only in the European intellectual tradition, at least three anthropologies were formed - religious, philosophical, scientific. The time that has passed since Scheler wrote his works has added social and cultural anthropology to these three. In the last third of the twentieth century, psychological and educational anthropology also began to claim independent status. These are all directions based, first of all, on differences in method, although the subject of consideration in them became more and more different, losing its holistic definition. At the same time, within the framework of a single method, for example, scientific anthropology, medical, sports and other anthropologies began to acquire increasing autonomy, in which a person is defined differently and as a subject of consideration.
In Russian literature, V. S. Barulin proposed his own versions of the classification of human sciences and movements within philosophical anthropology 4
Barulin V. S. Social and philosophical anthropology: general principles of social and philosophical anthropology. M., 1994.
V. G. Borzenkov 5
Borzenkov V. G., Yudin B. G. Man as an object of complex interdisciplinary research: methodological aspects. // Personality. Culture. Society. v.4. Issue 3-4; Borzenkov V. G. Life and values. Towards the justification of modern naturalism // Life as a value. M. 2000.
P. S. Gurevich 6
Gurevich P. S. Philosophical anthropology. – M. 1998 Gurevich, P. S. Philosophical comprehension of man: problems, trends and new topics in philosophical anthropology / P. S. Gurevich. – Germany, Saarbrucken: LAP LAMBER Academic Publishing, 2011; Gurevich P. S. Philosophical interpretation of man: a monograph / P. S. Gurevich. – M.: Center for Humanitarian Initiatives, 2012.
B.V. Markov 7
Markov B.V. Philosophical anthropology. – St. Petersburg: Lan, 1997; Markov B.V. Signs of existence. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2011; Markov B.V. Signs and people: anthropology of interpersonal communication. (Ser. “The Word of Existence”).. - St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2011; Markov B.V. Philosophy of language and communication. Man in the world of sounds and images. – Saarbrucken/ Germany: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing, 2011; Markov B.V. Philosophical anthropology Uch. allowance, UMO stamp. SPb., Peter. 2008.
B. G. Yudin, and many others. Among the latest generalizing works, one can name a number of textbooks on philosophical anthropology 8
Philosophical anthropology. Textbook / ed. S. A. Lebedeva. – M.: ICC “Akademkniga”, 2005; Gubin V.D., Nekrasova E.A. Philosophical anthropology. – M.: 2000.
Various publishing houses regularly publish thematic collections and monographs devoted to the anthropological aspects of the work of individual thinkers. 9
Egorova I.V. Philosophical anthropology of Erich Fromm. – M.: 2002; Burkhanova R.A., Lyubutin K.N. Classical philosophical anthropology. I. Kant and L. Feuerbach. Ekaterinburg, 2002.
Over the past 20 years, the Russian Academy of Sciences has been publishing, under the editorship of B. G. Yudin, a special anthropological journal “Man”, entirely devoted to anthropological topics in its various aspects.
All this leads to the conclusion that anthropological research is relevant and in demand today.
At the intersections of the methods of philosophical anthropology itself with the methods of other natural science and humanitarian approaches, so-called regional anthropologies began to form. This is a conditional name; rather, we are talking about the anthropologization of sociology, psychology, history and pedagogy:
Social anthropology is based not on the study of empirical objects, as in science, and not on the construction of intellectual constructs, as in philosophy, but on the study of the real structures of society and, on the basis of this, the formation of certain ideas about man. It was formed on the border of sociology, ethnography and general anthropology as a discipline within which the cultural and historical originality is studied social institutions operating in different ethnic groups. Currently, more specific aspects of social anthropology are beginning to be positioned, for example, political anthropology or “anthropology of power” 10
Anthropology of Power. Collection of works. vol. vol. 1-2. – St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University Publishing House, 2006.
Psychological anthropology is an intensively developing domestic tradition. Already starting with the works of the classic of Russian psychology S. L. Rubinstein, a philosopher of basic education, in whose works the question was fundamentally raised about the need to redefine man in the world and, accordingly, to revise the subject and method of psychology, 11
Rubinstein. S. L. Being and consciousness. On the place of the psyche in the universal interconnection of phenomena. – M.: 1957; Problems of general psychology. M. 1973.
And works by B. G. Ananyev 12
Ananyev B. G. On the problems of modern human knowledge. – M.: 1977.
In psychology, the question of the need to redefine man as an object has constantly been raised. It is recognized that the development of psychology as a particular science is impossible without defining the general concept of man. Today, these same questions are raised in one form or another by many domestic authors, for example, V. B. Bratus 13
Bratus B.S. On the problem of man in psychology. // Questions of psychology, 2000, No. 3.
V. I. Slobodchikov and V. N. Isaev 14
Slobodchikov V.I., Isaev E.N. Anthropological principle in developmental psychology // Questions of psychologists 1998, No. 6.
The works of which raise the question of the need to search in psychology for new foundations for humans.
At the same time, in Russian psychology the question of building a specifically humanitarian psychology is being raised, the understanding is growing that psychology, in addition to strengthening the arsenal and methodology of natural science knowledge, must somehow introduce humanitarian technologies into its arsenal and move from considering individual phenomena of the human psyche to considering holistic human existence. At the same time, the need for a more strict separation of the concepts of personality and man is clearly postulated. In foreign thought, psychological anthropology was constituted as an independent scientific direction. In the fundamental review of English-language literature on psychological anthropology, carried out by S. V. Lurie, both the development of psychological anthropology itself and the contribution of each individual author to the formation of this discipline throughout the 20th century are examined in detail. 15
Lurie S.V. Psychological anthropology: history, current state, prospects. – M.: Academic project: Alma Mater, 2005.
Along with the understanding of the need to find a more adequate definition of personality, in psychology there is a growing understanding of the impossibility of performing this work within the framework of previous methodological and methodological approaches. In this regard, within the framework of psychology, attempts are being made to assimilate relatively new methodological approaches, in particular, systems theory and systems methodology 16
Kossov B. B. Personality: current problems of a systems approach. // Questions of psychology, 1998/4.
At the same time, the question naturally arises of how it is possible to combine heterogeneous tools of cognition in the study of a single subject.
Religious anthropology. Here attempts are made to build a model of man based on a synthesis of theological and philosophical approaches. In Russian literature, these are, first of all, attempts to build Orthodox anthropology. Here we can point to the works of S. S. Khoruzhy, who tried to synthesize the experience of Orthodoxy with modern views on man, then this project was transformed into an interesting attempt to build a synergistic anthropology 17
Khoruzhy S.S. The concept of the perfect man in the perspective of hesychast anthropology // Perfect man: theology and philosophy of image. – M.: Institute of Oriental Studies RAS, Valens, 1997; Khoruzhy S.S. Lantern of Diogenes. A critical retrospective of European anthropology. – M.: Institute of Philosophy, Theology and History of St. Thomas, 2010.
; O. I. Genisaretsky, working at the intersection of philosophical anthropology, Orthodox anthropology, and cultural methodology 18
Genisaretsky O.I. Cultural and anthropological perspective // Other. Reader on Russian self-awareness. – M.: Republic, 1995.
; R. B. Vvedensky, synthesizing psychological approaches with Orthodoxy 19
Vvedensky R. B. Foundations Christian anthropology// Beginnings of Christian psychology. – M.: RGGI, 1995
Collective collections of works by theologians and philosophers 20
Orthodox teaching about man. Selected articles. – Klin, Christian life, 2002; Anthropological synthesis: religion, philosophy, education. – St. Petersburg: Publishing house RKhGI, 2001.
Historical anthropology positions itself as a discipline that looks at the different types of personality that existed in different eras, different ways of being human, patterns of behavior and ways of being. There are a large number of different models depending on the approaches of the authors, respectively, different historical anthropology. It is assumed that historically there is no single human nature or that it changes and evolves in a certain way 21
Clix F. Awakening thinking. At the origins of human intelligence. – M. Progress 1983; Historical anthropology. Foreign anthropology in reviews and abstracts. – M.: RSUH, 1996; Gurevich A. Ya. The image of man in the Middle Ages. – M.: Nauka, 1985; Gurevich A. Ya. Death as a problem of historical anthropology: about a new direction in foreign historiography. // Odysseus. Man in history. – M.: Nauka, 1989; Kolesov V.V. The world of man in words Ancient Rus'. – L.: Leningrad State University Publishing House, 1986; Khoruzhy S.S. Man Cartesius. // Points. Puncta. – M, 2004. No. 1-2 P.61-121.
Pedagogical anthropology develops in close connection with comparative pedagogy and aims to find and demonstrate the ethnocultural foundations for the development of educational projects and the implementation of educational programs. Depending on ideas about the nature of man and the driving forces of his development, various pedagogies are constructed. In connection with attempts to reform the education system in Russia, the number of publications devoted to the search for the foundations of a new pedagogy has increased. Naturally, due to the impossibility of solving pedagogical issues in connection with new tasks without defining man as a subject, researchers turn to the consideration of anthropological issues 22
Ogurtsov A.P. Pedagogical anthropology: searches and prospects. // Man, 2002, No. 1-3; Meshcheryakov B. G., Meshcheryakov N. A. Introduction to human science. – M. Pedagogy, 1994; Meshcheryakov B. G. Psychological problems of anthropologization of education // Questions of psychology. 1996, no. 1; Shchedrovitsky P. G. Essays on the philosophy of education. M. 1993; Smirnov S.A. Education in a non-classical cultural situation: in search of new models // Concepts of philosophy of education and modern anthropology. – Novosibirsk, 2001; Smirnov S.A. On the issue of a new educational paradigm. // Discourse, 1996, No. 2.
Currently, a special branch of knowledge “studies the educational process in all its volume and diversity, in relation to all stages of a person’s life path,” is beginning to be positioned. Semantically and terminologically it would be correct to call it “educalogy” or anthropogogy.” 23
Ginetsinsky V.I., Mohammed Awad. On the question of the system of principles of modern anthropogogy. // Psychological and social work in modern society: problems and solutions. – SPB.: SPbGIPSR, 2004, P.7.
But here, too, the general conclusion sounds something like this: “The difficulty of the essential definition of education is further complicated by the fact that philosophical anthropology has not yet decided on its own “subject” - man.” 24
Romanenko I. B. Western European paradigms of education. // Anthropological synthesis: religion, philosophy, education. – St. Petersburg: Publishing house RKhGI, 2001, p. 63.
A separate group should include works devoted to special aspects of philosophical anthropology, analysis of certain aspects of human essence and human existence, for example, the phenomenon of play 25
Demidov A. B. Phenomena of human existence. – Minsk: Econompress, 1999.
The phenomenon of physicality 26
Gazarova E. E. Psychology of physicality - M.: Institute of General Humanitarian Research, 2002; Podoroga V. A. Phenomenology of the body. Introduction to Philosophical Anthropology. – M.: Ad marginem. 1995; Podoroga V. A. Expression and meaning. – M.: Ad marginem. 1995; Krutkin V. L. Ontology of human corporeality. – Izhevsk, 1993; Kon I. S. The male body as an erotic object // Man, 2000, No. 6.
Or considering the problem of self-awareness as a defining moment for the formation of a person 27
Gartsev M. A. The problem of self-awareness in west European philosophy. - M. 1987.; Skvortsov L.V. Culture of self-awareness. – M., 1989; Mikhailov F. T. Social consciousness and individual consciousness. – M. 1990; Self-awareness: mine and ours. M., 1997; Kornilov S.V. Philosophy of self-awareness and creativity, - M.: 1998; Ivanov O. E. Self-awareness as the basis of metaphysics. – St. Petersburg, 2001.
Here it is necessary to say about works in which attempts are made to consider the problems of philosophical anthropology as such, as an independent science, its definition in relation to, for example, psychology 28
Schultz P. Philosophical anthropology. Introduction for students of psychology. – Novosibirsk: NSU, 1996.
There is an absolutely boundless mass of publications here, both foreign and domestic authors.
The abundance of anthropological publications, often based on a variety of methodological principles, offering a variety of starting points as a basis for defining a person, leads to the fact that in this polyphonic chorus we get lost general subject research - man. Before comparing different views with each other, it is necessary to at least bring them to a single subject.
Many authors trying to resolve particular issues of anthropological research are faced with the uncertainty of the very subject of anthropology, including philosophical anthropology, and are forced to attempt to form a general concept of man, based on the premises of particular anthropological disciplines. “According to many authors, anthropology is still in search of its subject” 29
Smirnov S. A. Modern anthropology. // Man, 2003, No. 4. P.86.
In this regard, there are constant attempts to find some new form of justification for philosophical anthropology as an independent discipline, to comprehend its current situation and offer options for further development. Professionals are increasingly aware of the essence of existing problems in philosophical anthropology and are trying to offer some solutions 30
Bakshutov V.K. Philosophical anthropology: A change of paradigms. – Ekaterinburg, 1998; Revich I.M. Humanity as a philosophical and anthropological problem. – Khabarovsk 2001; Fedorov Yu. M. Summa of Anthropology. Cosmo-anthropo-socio-natural genesis of Man. – Novosibirsk, NSU, 1995; Obukhov V.L., Zobov R.A., Sugakova L.I., Sitnikov V.L. Fundamentals of human studies. Man as a microcosm. – St. Petersburg: 2001.
“Today's anthropological thought is going through a difficult period. In her situation, uncertainty, crisis, and crisis moments have a double meaning: they cover both her subject - anthropological reality - and her understanding of this subject.
The essence of the “crisis of the subject” lies in the revealed enormous instability of a person, the possibility of any radical changes with him, in his susceptibility to some unknown, perhaps catastrophic dynamics.
The essence of the “crisis of understanding” ... is that all existing general anthropological theories and concepts cannot explain the emerging phenomena of ongoing processes. Moreover, the very basic concepts on which these theories were built turn out to be unsuitable, primarily the fundamental concepts of the “essence of man” and “man as a subject” that underlay the European understanding of man. As a result, the language in which this understanding is expressed inevitably becomes unacceptable: the discourse of classical European metaphysics.
All this ... means that the urgent need is to move towards some new formulation of the problem of man.” 31
Khoruzhy S.S. Irreplaceable anthropocontour. 1. Contours of Pre-Kantian Man. // Questions of Philosophy, 2005, No. 1, P.52.
“It’s time to explain that our persistent attention to the concept of man as a whole, to the fate of this concept, is not generated by an academic predilection for completeness, for taking into account all the smallest details. ... The point is completely different. A model that does not have a complete image of its object, does not know its full outlines, contours, is heuristically defective, and this defect is very significant practically...
When a model fails, requires revision or complete replacement, only a complete image of an object, that is, the concept of a person as a whole, can provide guidance for the search for a new model, and become a guide in this search. Otherwise, if there is no such image, a person does not know what he can and cannot expect from himself, what he is capable of and what he is not capable of; and he finds himself disoriented, defenseless from the unknown - himself. The anthropological situation today reveals precisely this case.” 32
Khoruzhy S.S. Irreplaceable anthropocontour. 2 Kant's anthropotopics. // Questions of Philosophy, 2005, No. 2, P. 100.
Attempts to resolve the crisis in philosophical anthropology are also being made by analyzing the situation “from the inside,” with proposals for a more thorough or in-depth analysis of individual aspects of man or the development of the theme of nature or the essence of man, in its various variants, for example, in the following statement: “The depth is becoming increasingly clear anthropological crisis associated with the loss of the idea of man as highest value On the one side. On the other hand, the need to search for new ways to develop anthropological knowledge is more acutely realized. One of the promising directions seems to be the consideration of anthropological problems in the context of cultural dynamics and the identification of patterns of development of self-awareness.” 33
Rudzit I. A. The phenomenon of human self-awareness in the dynamics of culture. Abstract of the dissertation. – St. Petersburg. Publishing house of Leningrad State University named after. A. S. Pushkina, 2006., P. 3.
At the same time, there are proposals to subject philosophical anthropology itself to critical analysis as a scientific discipline or direction of philosophical thought: “Philosophical anthropology can be understood as the impossibility of thought to think itself. And since no one wants to admit this, philosophical anthropology is presented as knowledge of how man is represented in various philosophical reasoning.<…..>Philosophical anthropology cannot be presented as a generalization of some anthropology. Because it's stupid. After all, anthropology is a science. And it can be generalized using science. And if philosophical anthropology is a science, then it must have a subject, method, language, etc. Philosophy is sophia. She has one nature. Anthropology is logos. She has a different nature. Philosophical anthropology is a product of the combination of different natures. This is some kind of centaur. Semi-philosophy. Semi-science. That which, by its incompleteness, by its “sex,” can be misleading.
So, the very understanding of the phenomenon of philosophical anthropology depends on the answer to the question: is philosophy a science or not? 34
Girenok F.I. Anthropological configurations of philosophy. //Philosophy of Science. – Vol. 8: Synergetics of human-dimensional reality. – M., 2002, pp. 375-376.
Thus, the question of determining the status of philosophical anthropology initially appears as ambiguous and forces us to reconsider the very foundations of philosophizing. Since other, non-European, methods of philosophizing do not have such a problem, it is obvious that this problem is associated with a certain method, an axiomatic set, a categorical apparatus, which determined both the fundamental metaphysical nature of European philosophy and the fundamental exclusion of man from the question. It is obvious that the possibility of a new anthropological synthesis is unlikely to be realized without considering the very foundations of philosophy. “Philosophy was initially interpreted as a person’s concern for himself, for his cultural development. The founders of this approach were the ancient Greeks, who understood philosophy as an “organon” - a set of means and practices of self-care. Foucault called such means and practices “techniques of the self.” He identified three basic practices of such care: “dietetic” (caring for the home, one’s daily life), “economics” (caring for material life and the material environment), “eroticism” (caring for another person, love for another). In this sense, it is necessary to talk about the restoration of the tasks of “first philosophy”, lost after Aristotle, which philosophy periodically recalls in times of crisis, that is, in the situation of “postmodernity”, the emergence of a new human project. In the classical philosophical tradition, thinking about being was important. Philosophy came from the idea of substance, but thereby philosophy gradually became impersonal, inhuman.
In the non-classical paradigm, the philosopher comes from the individual, from the author of the act of philosophizing. This is possible when fixing a new situation, a “after” situation. In this situation there is no single world and there is no single world, there is a world of worlds. There is no ready-made world, but there is a constant creation of worlds, a pulsation of worlds. The philosopher creates his own world of concepts and lives in it.” 35
Smirnov S. A. Modern anthropology // Man, 2003, No. 5, P. 84.
Various authors assess in different ways both the possibility of finding a common view of man and the very possibility of developing philosophical anthropology. These estimates range from completely pessimistic to equally completely optimistic. There are also radical positions, for example M.K. Mamardashvili believed that there is no independent problem of man in philosophy 36
Mamardashvili M.K. The problem of man in philosophy // About the human in man. – M., Politizdat 1991.
V.V. Bibikhin shared the same point of view 37
Bibikhin V.V. New Renaissance. – M.: Science. Progress-Tradition, 1998.
More modern authors propose to change the very formulation of the problem: “ Classical age philosophy is over and a posthuman project is expected, which focuses on the themes of personality, persona, technology of personal growth, and self-determination. The time has come to talk about posthuman personology" 38
Tulchinsky G. A. Posthuman personology. New perspectives on freedom and rationality. – St. Petersburg: Aletheya, 2002.
“There is a change in human nature, or rather in human natures. A person goes beyond the limits of his biosomatics. This implies the need for a certain new system of knowledge - humanology, which, unlike anthropology, embraces different types and ways of human existence. The current of transhumanism or posthuman studies in English-language literature. Humanology is a new synthesis of the theory and practice of transforming human nature through the process of man creating artificial forms of his own life and mind. We need a new human idea" 39
Epstein M.A. Humanology. Outlines of a new discipline.// Human Sciences, Almanac. Issue 21. – St. Petersburg: 2002.
Here are also attempts to propose a consideration of the problem of man from the position of modern approaches that have developed, first of all, in the natural sciences, to raise the concept of man to other foundations: “The study of the life activity of human beings according to the relatively new parameters “energy and” information” requires the development of a new scientific direction.” eniological anthropology»» 40
Batalov A. A. Towards a philosophical justification of eniological anthropology // Problems and hypotheses. Issue 4. – Ekaterinburg, USMA, 2002, pp. 7 -14.
An example of a pessimistic assessment of the prospects of philosophical anthropology: “The man did not die. The dominance of one of the projects of man, long recognized as the main and only one, the project of the rational man, the man of the Enlightenment, has ended. On the agenda is a dialogue of human projects. From this point of view, one should not talk about human nature alone. There is no point in looking for its essence alone. The recognition of the idea of peace is followed by the recognition of human worlds. Human nature is diverse. There is no one idea of a person. There are different projects of a person.
The science about the essence and essential structure of man, about his basic relationships: to nature, society, other people, himself, about his origin, about the social and metaphysical foundations of his existence, about the basic categories and laws of his existence... Philosophical Encyclopedia
1) a special philosophical discipline dealing with human issues. As such, it was actively constituted during the last quarter of the 20th century. through the absorption of one’s own themes from the general philosophical discourse (in which it... History of Philosophy: Encyclopedia
See PHILOSOPHICAL ANTHROPOLOGY. Antinazi. Encyclopedia of Sociology, 2009 ... Encyclopedia of Sociology
- ☼ in in a broad sense the doctrine of the nature (essence) of man; in a narrow movement in Western philosophy of the 20th century, mainly German. Ancient philosophy insists on the identity of man with the universal cosmic substance. Is man a “small world?”... Encyclopedia of Cultural Studies
PHILOSOPHICAL ANTHROPOLOGY- (German: Philosophische Anthropologie). In modern philosophy term "F. A." used in two meanings. In a broad sense, it collectively and individually refers to philosophical teachings about man as a whole (regardless of what he called his... ... Great psychological encyclopedia
Modern encyclopedia
In a broad sense, the doctrine of the nature (essence) of man; in a narrow idealistic movement in Western European philosophy of the 20th century, predominantly German, founded in the 1920s. M. Scheler and H. Plesner. It came largely from ideas... ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary
Philosophical anthropology- PHILOSOPHICAL ANTHROPOLOGY, in a broad sense, the doctrine of the nature (essence) of man; in a narrow movement in Western European philosophy of the 20th century, predominantly German, founded in the 20s. M. Scheler and H. Plesner. It came largely from ideas... Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary
- (from philosophy and anthropology; philosophy of man) in a broad sense philosophical doctrine about the nature and essence of man; in a narrow direction (school) in Western European philosophy (mainly German) of the first half of the 20th century, coming from ... ... Wikipedia
- (from philosophy and anthropology; philosophy of man) in a broad sense, the philosophical doctrine of the nature and essence of man; in a narrow direction (school) in Western European philosophy (mainly German) of the first half of the 20th century, coming from ... ... Wikipedia
PHILOSOPHICAL ANTHROPOLOGY- In the broadest sense of the word, a philosophical doctrine about man, his essence and nature. In this understanding, a variety of philosophical movements, presenting different ways of understanding man and the human world, are at the same time different... ... Modern Western philosophy. encyclopedic Dictionary