UDC: 141.319.8
https://doi.org/10.25198/2077-7175-2024-5-126
EDN: EFIVXE


viewing

PHILOSOPHICAL EXPERIENCE OF SEARCHING FOR ANTHROPOLOGICAL STRATEGIES IN THE CONTEXT OF RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHY AND CHRISTIAN ANTHROPOLOGY

O. N. Malakhova
Udmurt State Agricultural University, Izhevsk, Russia
e-mail: olgamlkhv19@gmail.com

Abstract. The article discusses the topic of perspective for philosophical-anthropological research. Three directions of a possible philosophical-anthropological strategy are presented: anthroposocioecological, cultural-immunological, post-humanistic. These different directions are united by posing the question of a person in the aspect of his personality’s development. For all their advantages, a significant drawback is that they do not use the capabilities and traditions of the Russian religious and philosophical heritage to solve this problem. Therefore, the methodology of our research is based on an existential-anthropological approach: it allows to consider the object of study through the prism of the essential foundations of human existence and includes the methodology of Russian religious philosophy. To solve research problems, a complex of general scientific methods were used: description, analysis, comparison, synthesis, deduction, induction.

As a result of the research, we come to the conclusion that the question of man in the philosophical thought of the last century was resolved in the context of removing methodological contradictions in the classical research tradition, based on the principles of subject-object dichotomy, anthropocentrism and rationalism, since it is not resolved the contradiction between the world of essential human values and the world of everyday life: they remain unharmonized. This characterizes the projects of the last century, as well as most modern ones. It is argued that the discrepancy between scientific approaches and principles of studying man in its entirety has become the main reason for the research crisis. The solution is seen in turning to the idea of man as an holistic, complexly organized and developing system, presenting man as the «likeness of God» in building research within the framework of moral-ontological and dialogue approaches, and using the method of dialectics, the principles of integrity, theocentricity and dynamism. It is believed that the development of anthropological discourse is possible through an appeal to religious philosophy in its domestic tradition, synergetic anthropology, and the tradition of Orthodox Christian thought about man.

Key words: dialectics, culture, methodology, synergetic anthropology, philosophical anthropology, principle of holism.

Cite as: Malakhova, O. N. (2024) [Philosophical experience of searching for anthropological strategies in the context of religious philosophy and Christian anthropology]. Intellekt. Innovacii. Investicii [Intellect. Innovations. Investments]. Vol. 5, pp. 126–135. – https://doi.org/10.25198/2077-7175-2024-5-126.


References

  1. Varava, V. V. (2023) [Temptation of ethics and trial of conscience: features of Russian moral philosophy]. Filosofskie nauki [Philosophical Sciences]. Vol. 66. No 2, pp. 48–61. – https://doi.org/10.30727/0235-1188-2022-66-2-48-61. – EDN: XOFQJK. (In Russ.).
  2. Wittgenstein, L. (1994) Filosofskie raboty v 2 c [Philosophical works in 2 parts]. Vol. 1. M.: Ggnosis, 612 p. (In Russ., transl. from German).
  3. Gagarin, A. S., Novopashin, S. A. (2022) [The posthuman concept: the problem of subjectivity and existential foundations of human being]. Vestnik Omskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta. Gumanitarnye issledovanija [Bulletin of Omsk State Pedagogical University. Humanities studies]. Vol. 2 (35), pp. 9–14. – https://doi.org/10.36809/2309-9380-2022-35-9-14. – EDN: GAWMKR. (In Russ.).
  4. Gadamer, G.–G. (1988) Istina i metod. Osnovy filosofskoj germenevtiki [Truth and Method. Fundamentals of philosophical hermeneutics]. M.: Progress, 704 p. (In Russ., transl. from German).
  5. Girenok, F. I. (2023) [Homo hallucinatas: the idea of double inversion in the study of man]. Filosofskie nauki [Philosophical Sciences]. Vol. 66. No 2, pp. 7–25. – https://doi.org/10.30727/0235-1188-2022-66-2-7-25. – EDN: SHBFXV. (In Russ.).
  6. Husserl, E. (1998) Kartezianskie razmyshlenija [Cartesian reflections]. SPb.: Science, 315 p. (In Russ., transl. from German).
  7. Darensky, V. Yu. (2018) Paradigma preobrazhenija cheloveka v russkoj filosofii XX veka [Paradigm of transformation in Russian philosophy of the 20th century]. SPb.: Aleteya, 328 p. (In Russ.).
  8. Dorofeev, D. Y. (2019) [Problematization of modern philosophical anthropology and prospects for its development]. Diskurs [Discourse]. Vol. 5. No 6, pp. 16–28. – https://doi.org/10.32603/2412-8562-2019-5-6-16-28. – EDN: AQEGVI. (In Russ.).
  9. Dorofeev, D. Y. (2022) [Philosophical anthropology of authentic and non–authentic: modern problematization of human person and way of life]. Filosofija. Zhurnal Vysshej shkoly jekonomiki. [Philosophy. Journal of the Higher School of Economics]. Vol. 6. No 3, pp. 127–154. – https://doi.org/10.17323/2587-8719-2022-3-127-154. – EDN: XTBPCK. (In Russ.).
  10. Dorofeev, D. Y. (2023) [Man as a visual message: semiotics and aesthetics of the human image]. Praksema. Problemy vizual’noj semiotiki [Praxema. Problems of visual semiotics]. Vol. 1 (35), pp. 48–77. – https://doi.org/10.23951/2312-7899-2023-1-48-77. – EDN: XGRTHK. (In Russ.).
  11. Ilyin, I. A. (1998) Put’ k ochevidnosti: Sochinenija [The path to obviousness: Essays]. M.: EKSMO–press, 192 p. (In Russ.).
  12. Kireevsky, I. V. (1979) Kritika i jestetika [Criticism and aesthetics]. M.: Art, 439 p. (In Russ.).
  13. Kolomiets, G. G., Parusimova Ya. V. (2023) [On the relevance of antroposocioecological approach in philosophical anthropology and philosophy of civilizational process]. Intellekt. Innovacii. Investicii [Intelligent. Innovation. Investments]. Vol. 1, pp. 64–72. – https://doi.org/10.25198/2077-7175-2023-1-64. – EDN: AFKYPG. (In Russ.).
  14. Kosilova, E. V. (2019) [Paradigms of subjectivity on the topic center-periphery]. Voprosy filosofii [Questions of philosophy]. Vol. 10, pp. 110–121. – https://doi.org/10.31857/S004287440007167-8. – EDN: QSGUQC. (In Russ.).
  15. Mar Ishaq of Nineveh (Saint Isaac the Syrian) (2016) Kniga o voshozhdenii inoka: Pervoe sobranie (traktaty I–VI) [The book about the rise of a monk: First collection (memre I–VI)]. M.: YASK, 584 p. (In Russ., transl. from Syriac, Arabic, Greek).
  16. Markov, B. V. (2023) [Anthropological risks of biosocial technologies]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Serija 7: Filosofija [Bulletin of Moscow University. Episode 7: Philosophy]. Vol. 47. No 2, pp. 88–105. – https://doi.org/10.55959/MSU0201-7385-7-2023-2-88-105. – EDN: ADAQXS. (In Russ.).
  17. Markov, B. V. (2023) [Messianic anthropology]. Filosofskie nauki [Philosophical Sciences]. Vol. 66. No 2, pp. 26–47. – https://doi.org/10.30727/0235-1188-2022-66-2-26-47. – EDN: UOHRDP. (In Russ.).
  18. Markov, B. V. (2023) Politicheskaja immunologija [Political immunology]. M.: Avenue, 144 p. – https://doi.org/10.31085/9785392329038-2021-144. – EDN: FPBEKF. (In Russ.).
  19. Pavliuchenkov, N. N. (2019) [The conception of crisis and ways to overcoming it in P. A. Florensky`s works]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Svjato–Tihonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Serija 1: Bogoslovie. Filosofija. Religiovedenie [Bulletin of the Orthodox St. Tikhon’s Humanitarian University. Episode 1: Theology. Philosophy. Religious Studies.]. Vol. 84, pp. 77–93. – https://doi.org/10.15382/sturI201984.77-93. – EDN: DSEPBI. (In Russ.).
  20. Pluzhnikova, N. N. (2021) [Man and technology: a new anthropological turn in culture]. Intellekt. Innovacii. Investicii [Intelligent. Innovation. Investments]. Vol. 6, pp. 123–128. – https://doi.org/10.25198/2077-7175-2021-6-123. – EDN: URVXRS. (In Russ.).
  21. Ponosov, F. N. (2010) Gnoseologicheskij rjad – forma vzaimosvjazi istiny i zabluzhdenija v poznanii [The gnoseological series – a form of the correlation between truth and delusion in the cognition]. Izhevsk: IzGSHA, 336 p. – EDN: QBBMMH. (In Russ.).
  22. Rostova, N. N. (2022) Mjagkaja sila postgumanizma. Chto nam meshaet myslit’ po–russki? [The soft power of posthumanism. What prevents us from thinking in Russian?]. M.: Avenue, 184 p. – EDN: DUUKHS. (In Russ.).
  23. Smirnov, S. A. (2017) [The anthropological turn: its meaning and lessons]. Filosofija i kul’tura [Philosophy and Сulture]. Vol. 2, pp. 23–35. – EDN: YGFXEH. (In Russ.).
  24. Solovyev, V. S. (1988) Krizis zapadnoi fi losofii v 2 t [Crisis of Western Philosophy in 2 volumes]. V. 2. M.: Thought, pp. 3–138. (In Russ.).
  25. Stepin, V. S. (2011) Civilizacija i kul’tura [Civilization and culture]. SPb.: St. Petersburg Humanitarian University of Trade Unions, 407 p. – EDN: QOMXIL. (In Russ.).
  26. Florensky, P. A. (1990) Sochinenija v dvukh tomakh. Tom 2. U vodorazdelov mysli [Essays. Volume 2. At the watershed of thought]. M.: Truth, 448 p. (In Russ.).
  27. Freud, Z. (2001) Po tu storonu principa udovol’stvija [Beyond the pleasure principle]. Kharkiv: Folio; M.: AST, 616 p. (In Russ.).
  28. Foucault, M. (1999) Nadzirat’ i nakazyvat’. Rozhdenie tjur’my [Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison]. M.: Ad Marginem, 478 p. (In Russ., transl. from French).
  29. Sheler, M. (1988) Problema cheloveka v zapadnoj filosofii [The problem of man in Western philosophy]. M.: Progress, pp. 31–95. (In Russ., transl. from English, German, French).
  30. Habermas, J. (2002) [Moral consciousness and communicative action]. SPb.: Science, 385 p. (In Russ., transl. from German).
  31. Heidegger, M. (2002) Bytie i vremja [Being and time]. 2nd ed., revised. SPb.: Science, 451 p. (In Russ., transl. from German).
  32. Khoruzhy, S. S. (2000) [On the anthropological model of the third millennium]. Vestnik Rossijskogo gumanitarnogo nauchnogo fonda [Bulletin of the Russian Humanitarian Scientific Foundation]. Vol. 3, pp. 18–36. – EDN: GGTUFE. (In Russ.).
  33. Ferrando, F. (2019) Philosophical Posthumanism. London: Blumsbury Academic, 296 p. (In Eng.).