Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of philosophy, Izhevsk State Technical University named after M.T. Kalashnikov

Candidate of Philosophical Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of philosophy, Izhevsk State Technical University named after M.T. Kalashnikov

The article is devoted to one of the most important manifestations of human culture – anthropocentrism. The main approaches to the phenomenon of anthropocentrism in modern philosophical concepts are considered. Among them, the authors identify four key systems of relationships, through which the essence of this phenomenon is revealed: man and nature, man and society, man and God, man and the universe. The most important characteristics of anthropocentrism in these systems are determined. An emphasis is placed on the axiological and epistemological aspects of anthropocentrism as anthropological ethics. The authors consider it as a universal principle by which a person retains his ontology and identity at any point of space. Attention is drawn to the fact that the opposing positions in the assessment of anthropocentrism by contemporary thinkers are a reflection of its antagonistic nature. 

Keywords: anthropocentrism, anthroposociomorphism, ecological ethics, anthropic principle, mass culture, technocentrism.

References

1. Apresyan, R.G. The moral and philosophical meaning of the dilemma anthropocentrism and nonanthropocentrism / R.G. Apresyan // Ethical thought. – 2010. – Vol.10. – pp. 5-10.

2. Butorskay, N.V. Anthropocentrism as a category of modern linguistics / N.V. Butorskay // Questions of psycholinguistics. – 2004. – Vol. 2. – pp. 18-25.

3. Vershkov, A.V. Anthropocentrism and modernity / A.V. Vershkov//Actual problems of the humanities and natural sciences. – 2014. – Vol. 5-1. – pp. 309-315.

4. Golubev, V.S. Anthropocentrism and biocentrism: an attempt to compare / V.S. Golubev // Man. – 1996. – Vol. 3. – pp. 187-189.

5. Kryazh, I.V. From anthropocentrism to biocentrism: the possibility of a paradigm shift / I.V. Kryazh // Philosophy of ecological education/ under gen. ed. I.K. Liseeva. – Moscow: Progress-Tradition, 2001. – pp. 379-384.

6. Losev, A.F. Aesthetics of the Renaissance / A.F. Losev. – Moscow: Thought, 1982. – 623 p.

7. Plesner, Ch. The steps are organic and human. Introduction to philosophical anthropology / Ch. Plesner // Human problems in Western philosophy: translations/ under gen. ed. U.N. Popova. – Moscow: Progress, 1988. – pp. 36-151.

8. Samochvalova, V.I. Man and the World: Problems of Anthropocentrism / V.I. Samochvalova //Philosophical Sciences. – 1992. – Vol. 3. – pp. 161-167.

9. Shishkina, A.A. Is anthropocentrism the base for technicism or antitechnicism? / A.A. Shishkina // Historical, Philosophical, Political and Legal Sciences, Culturology and Study of Art. Questions of theory and practice. – Tambov: Certificate. – 2015. – Vol. 3 (53): in 3 parts. Part I. – pp. 205-207.

10. Shishkina, A.A. Main types of modern environmental ethics: anthropocentrism and biocentrism / A.A. Shishkina // Historical, Philosophical, Political and Legal Sciences, Culturology and Study of Art. Questions of theory and practice. – Tambov: Certificate. – 2014. – Vol. 6 (44): in 2 parts. Part I. – pp. 202-204.

11. Uait, T.I. People and dolphins: something about anthropocentrism in applied environmental ethics / T.I. Uait // Man. – 2017. – Vol. 5. – pp. 53-67.

12. Fromm, E. The art of love / E. Fromm. – Moscow: AST: AST MOSCOW, 2009. – 220 p.