Content changes in modern philosophical anthropology

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Content changes in modern philosophical anthropology

In recent years it is observed increasing interest towards different kinds of anthropological research. The rapid increase of the number of publications on this topic created a situation which is one of the famous scientists called unexpected [14, s. 490]. This situation eventually led to the realization of the need to review more or less established ideas of a man which appeared in the previous anthropological literature. As one of the first attempts to carry out such a review can be called book by N. Grigorieva [2], in which the author tries to define those trends that influenced the shifts in philosophical and anthropological problems after the Second World War and the consequences of these influences. It is noteworthy the significant impact on contemporary anthropological studies of philosophical avant-garde ideas, especially - of philosophical postmodernist thesis of the «death of man», the «death of the subject», «post-corporeity», «post-personality» and «post-human» [see: 8; 11; 15]. Thanks to modern innovations in anthropological issue classical philosophical anthropology somewhat receded into the shadow, not so much investigations today works directly aiming to identify and comprehend these kinds of shift. Therefore, the purpose of this article is sufficiently complete coverage of the changes that took place and take place in the modern understanding of man, especially - within a philosophical anthropology, but also in other contemporary research areas dedicated to man.

Special studies show that the term «anthropology» appears in the XVI century [history of the term and its content modification see: 9, p. 13-14] first in the meaning close to medicine and almost exclusively with biological context: in 1502 was published book of M. Hundt «Anthropology about dignity, nature and properties of man and about the elements, parts and limbs of human body». From 1533 (H. Kapell's «Anthropology, or reflection on human's nature») attention to psychological component was added to this point of view, that finally was fastened in the understanding of the man in the epoch of the Enlightenment. However, already in developed mythologies of different cultural regions was attended the desire to understand the man. Here we can see the beginning of future competitive positions in the conceptual understanding of man: totemism and hylozoism connected man with the natural world, and creationism explains its existence and certain manifestations with the idea of the creation of man by God or gods. In XVIII - early XIX century in Western philosophy dominated the concepts that considered the man in the context of attributive characteristics of the universe, that is, as a manifestation of the fundamental properties of the world - or energy (activism), or substantial (materialism, naturalism, spiritualism), or as surpassed of natural cosmic being. At the same time begins quite active development of so-called physical anthropology, and in the nineteenth century M. Shtirner, L. Feuerbach, S. Kierkegaard and to some extent - Friedrich Nietzsche considered the problem of man such that occupies a leading position in philosophy. However, a noticeable jolt to the growing interest in the problems of man gave representatives of philosophical anthropology (M. Sheler, A. Helen, E. Rothaker, H. Plesner), that though originated in the era of non-classical philosophy, can be considered as a classic in relation to contemporary philosophical human studies. Existentialism, personalism, Freudianism and new-Freudianism join to philosophical anthropology in excitation of interest to human studies. Yet in the 20 - 30 years of the twentieth century appeared a number of specific sciences aimed at the study of man: a cognitive psychology, cognitive anthropology, social anthropology, cultural anthropology, and finally, historical anthropology [see: 1; 10, pp. 8-10; 13, pp. 20-24; 5]; all these sciences, according to some scientist's opinion, must become parts of complex sociocultural anthropology, whose range extends from a purely empirical science to philosophical anthropology, and also must include religious philosophy, metaphysics and modern human spiritualism.

In our view, the attempt to include philosophical anthropology to the socio-cultural anthropology is not entirely justified, but, rather, can be justified only by certain research tasks, and just when we want to describe the whole horizon of contemporary anthropological studies. If we shall ask questions about which areas of anthropological research allow us to see the whole problem field of anthropology in unity through its first principles, and to find out what problems of modern anthropology are dominant and promising, to philosophical anthropology should be given a special place, because only it can actually perform these tasks. And the need to respect exactly this angle in anthropological research has been and remains the main condition of successful cognition in general. Especially for philosophical anthropology presents a challenge that at the end of the XX-XXI century real changes in state and manifestations of human led to significant shifts in anthropological research problems caused by a number of factors, including the influence of certain of philosophical postmodernism ideas. What exactly are these changes and what is their significance?

First of all it is necessary to notice the shift «to the pole of naturalness» [2, p. 6-7] in the focus of anthropological issue. A number of current researches demonstrate the need to recognize a much larger man's dependence on natural basis: in the era of the modern treatments in humans at the first place were put human rationality and creativity, and in our time, emphasis is placed on man's base, natural beginnings. Therefore it is advisable to talk about basic anthropic characteristics of a person only thanks to which a person is able to take social, cultural, epistemological and cognitive properties and provide the status of a full member of socio-cultural process [7, p. 21-23].

Secondly, the notion of post-human in our time became widespread and became the item of discussions. Different scientists put in this notion quite different meanings: on the one hand, it is a trend of loss by modern humans to some extent the features of that person, which was mostly described by philosophers of the Enlihgtenment and was supplemented and corrected by philosophers, scientists and writers in later times, and, on the other hand, - about the significant transformation that they undergo a person as a result of the introduction of modern technologies of medicine, genetic engineering, transplantation, use of psychotropic drugs and newest information devices [3]. One of the contemporary authors submit these changes in next way: «Either our bodies constitute a vital part of who we are, or, they are like other technological artefacts, tools for the realization of human intentions, which in this scenario necessarily is situated in the mind. If the former, one's virtual presence is an extension of one's body in the sense that it progressively serves the functions previously reserved for physical bodies. If the latter, however, our biological bodies might just be serving as containers for our identities and intentions, in which case it makes sense for the self to now be upgrading to a more sophisticated container, using a machine as an upgraded, alternate tool to the physical body. This is already happening to some extent and is likely to continue in the same direction» [16, p. 11]. Disturbance with this situation was expressed in the report at a commission of bioethics at the US president [17]. As a result of the aforementioned trends and practices sacramental question arises: is there any limit of modifications to the natural man, that we must not overcome, and if we shall pass it we shall get some product of technology constructing and a completely artificial entity? In other words: is there something in a man, the presence of which is a prerequisite for its existence in the human status and with the loss of what that status is clearly lost? - It is clear that these questions are principal or fundamental for the understanding and cognition of the man.

Thirdly, in modern anthropological studies often is talked about the tendencies of the people loss of their subjective characteristics: in a crazy array of information, at the space of intersection of many social factors and circumstances, feeling the pressure of the phenomena of globalization and multiculturalism, a person more and more is losing the ability to make justifiable choices. Amid frantic pace of social dynamics and huge scale of social life events man is lost (or compressed), as B. Paskal said, the «hardly noticeable mote» and involuntarily experiences mental confusion, helplessness, his own insignificance. His orientation in the world is under the influence of random factors, and is even more influenced by advertising, social, and political manipulation, specially designed information technology, etc. The inner center in modern man that appeared as a source of subjectivity, the source of unauthorized activity is like atrophied. This picture of the human condition in contemporary society, taken together with the noticeable trends of the future, unwittingly makes us talk about a new kind of social totalitarianism, which includes technological and manipulative totalitarianism. In our time it is already possible using information networks to gather and bring to the protests tens of thousands of people who do not adequately understand the nature of these actions, as well as their role and position in implementation of these actions.

The thesis about the «death of the subject» is proposed in somehow other considerations, typical for representatives of postmodernism: as culture creation lost its resources nowadays, it means that it is fundamentally impossible to create something really new. Moreover, the culture is actually created not so much by the subject but by the previous cultural forms, genres and traditions, so the ability to write poetry in a certain style is generated by the presence of previous cultural models. This determination of cultural process acted before also, but today, when we are dealing with a culture of N-level layers, the subject finally becomes a fiction or agent of a process [6, s. 321-323].

Fourth, we note that in given outlined trends and changes within philosophical anthropology is actively discussed the problem of its transition from the social paradigm in the treatment of human nature to natural or natural biological one [14, s. 501]. These paradigms according to consideration of some authors are opposite to each other, but we think it should be talked about what accents dominate in considerations about factors of man's formation. It seems that even supporters of natural-biological dominant in this process (for example, proponents of eugenics) did not reject the fact that man as human being lives and deploys its vitality in the socio-cultural environment and, therefore, recognize the role of social factors in that we call human nature. Among the supporters of social dominance in shaping of people were those who proclaimed the radical thesis on exclusively social nature of man, but they can't doubt the fact that in order to become a man, we must first be born as a man and state of it.

Fifth, already in the thirties of the twentieth century a number of thinkers have noted occurrence of the mankind in a sharp spiritual crisis [12, s. 23]. In the content of the above-mentioned changes in the contemporary situation of man and the understanding of it by philosophers and scientists the problems of spirituality unfortunately did not fully appear: actively were discusses medical, technological, finally - social and political problems. What is meant when we are talking about spirituality? In the foreground are, in most cases, the issues of religion: is modern man devoted to religious purity, morals and virtue? A positive answer is rather doubtful. Moreover, access to information and opportunities to join to certain cults and confessions puts a person in relation to religion in a position of uncertainty, relativism, skepticism. Religion in modern society increasingly looks like something exotic, but not vital matter. We know that some modern theologians believe that man is inherent in religion, and this can lead man in the bosom of a certain religion, but religious feelings may remain as common sense. If we agree with this statement, we have to recognize that modern man has no inherent desire to reflect on the problem of his own religion, to ponder something that it may demand from a person and incite to do something.

Spirituality is also associated with the human desire for self-improvement, with his interest in spiritual self-perfection, to develop a sustainable system of life beliefs. It also connected with values the nature of which for a long time was associated with systems of social life [4, s. 107-110]. However, in the context of recognition of the important role of basic anthropological characteristics in shaping of human life we should take into account the fact that a person can't be completely reduced to social structures and functions. That's why is very important to make difference between the values that they can be called valyutative values and are connected with social relations, and values of existential kind that can be called dyhnitative values - values of human dignity. In our opinion, decisive importance should be given to the latter kind of the values, because these values are closely connected with self-knowledge and self-improvement.

To the field of human spiritual interests is also included the desire to cultural activity, to creation, but for contemporary culture there is characteristically separation between art, morality and the human desire for self-improvement. Contemporary art is called pointless just because here are represented: schematism, individual elements of artistic form and composition, disgraceful activity and pursuit of leadership or profits. There is no doubt that traditional naturalistic art receded into the past, but this does not mean that a person can get aesthetic pleasure from the results of its deconstruction. Moreover, culture in general and art especially must enter a man into space of experience of the human self-statement, but this role isn't almost peculiar for contemporary art. Thus, contemporary art leaves man in the field of destroyed and dissectioned art forms of the past epochs and is unable to awaken in man the spiritual aspirations. Is there any way out of the situation, in which the modern man is? Can the modern anthropology tell to man some directions of way out?

In our opinion, there are two important points, consideration of which could open the justified prospect not only for theoretical and conceptual solution of contemporary problems of man, but also contribute to the optimization of real social practices aimed at humans. First of all, the acquisitions of Eastern philosophy should be actively involved into the process of understanding of such fundamental anthropological phenomena as the Self. The beginning, which moves human actions, can be comprehended only as «self» or «the Self» - transcendent, manifested and represented through immanent. Self is the epicenter of the human person, and there is no doubt that if we remove the Self from the human nature, we shall get anything but not human. In our opinion, only the Self is the central and fundamental part of a person which indicates the extreme limit of possible modifications of human nature with the help of technological innovations. Can be the self inherent in modified or robotic systems that mimic human? - In our view, definitely not, that's why researchers attention should be concentrated on understanding of essence of the Self. In the identifying and cognition of the Self Eastern philosophy was and remains undeveloped resource for Western philosophy. Secondly, in our opinion, it is theoretically important in modern anthropological studies take to consideration the ideas and peculiarities of Eastern-European philosophizing which implies confession of argument «Ad Hominim» and active use of methods of spiritual self-absorbing. To Eastern European heritage philosophy belongs philosophical and ideological legacy of Kievan Rus, Polish messianic philosophy, philosophy of G. Skovoroda, the philosophy of Russian religious renaissance. This, we believe, is an important intellectual resource for understanding of contemporary anthropological situation and its positive practical solutions.

There is no doubt that activation in the field of modern anthropological research is taking place in our time due to certain changes in the life of man and leads to disturbance concerning his current state and prospects of gradual loss of its essential features and their implications. The authors believe that the focus of researchers must be connected with drill-understanding of the phenomenon of human self, with using of the achievements of Eastern and Eastern European philosophy, and that can perform a heuristic role in solution of these problems.

References

human anthropological philosophy

1. Vol'f K. Antropologiya: Istoriya, kul'tura, filosofiya / Kristof Vol'f. Per. s nem. G. Hajdarovoj. - SPb.: Izd-vo S.-Peterb. un-ta, 2008. - 280 s.

2. Grigor'eva N. Evolyuciya antropologicheskih idej v evropejskoj kul'ture vtoroj poloviyn 1920-1940-h gg. (Rossiya, Germaniya, Franciya): Monografiya [Tekst] / N. Grigor'eva. - SPb.: ID «Petropolis», 2008. - 344 s.

3. Gurevich P.S. Kto on takoj - chelovek? / P.S. Gurevich // «Filosofiya i kul'tura», 2015, №6. - S. 797-801.

4. Joas H. Vozniknovenie cennostej / H. Joas. Per. s nem. K.G. Timofeevoj. - SPb.: Aletejya, 2013. - 312 s.

5. Krom M.M. Istoricheskaya antropologiya [Tekst] / M.M. Krom. 2-e izd., ispr., dop. - SPb.: «Dmitrij Bulanin», 2004. - 168 s.

6. Luk'yanec' V.S., Sobol' O.M. Filosofskij postmodern: Navchal'nij posibnik loya vikladachiv, aspirantiv, studentiv vuziv, yaki specializuyut'sya v galuzi gumanitarnih disciplin / V.S. Luk'yanec', O.M. Sobol'. - K.: Abris, 1998. - 352 s. Smert' sub'єkta - S. 321-323.

7. Petrushenko V. Filosofiya siogodni: stan, trivogi ta prognozy / V. Petrushenko // Suchasne buttya filosofi'i [Tekst]: materiali vseukra'inskih filosofskih chitan, 25 listopada 2011 r., m. Dnipropetrovsk. - Dn.: Nac. girnichij un-tet, 2012. - 155 s. - S. 11-23.

8. Postchelovecheskaya personologiya. Postchelovechnost // Proektivnyj filosofskij slovar: Novye terminy i poniatiia / Pod red. G.L. Tulchinskogo i M.N. Epshtejna. - SPb.: Aletejya, 2003. - 512 s. - (Seriya «Tela mysli»). - S. 310-318.

9. Roginskij Ya. Ya., Levin M.G. Antropologiya. Uchebnoe posobie / Ya. Ya. Roginskij, M.G Levin. 3-e izd., pererab. i dop. - M.: Vysshaya shkola, 1978. - 528 s. - S. 17-18.

10. Socioku'turnaia antropologiia: Istoriia, teoriia i metodologiia: Enciklopedicheskij slovar / Pod red. Yu.M. Reznika. - M.: Akademicheskij proekt, Kultura; Kirov: Konstanta, 2012. - 1000 s. (Summa, Enciklopediya kulturologii). - S. 8-10.

11. Tulchinskij G.L. Postchelovecheskaya personologiya. Novye perspektivy svobody i racionalnosti / G.L. Tulchinskij. - SPb.: Aletejya, 2002. - 677 s. - (Tela mysli).

12. Shvejcer A. Blagogovenie pered zhizniu / A. Shvejcer. Per. s nem. Sost. i posleslovie A.A. Gusejnova; Obshch. Red. A.A. Gusejnova i M.G. Selezneva. - M.: Progress, 1992. - 576 s. - S. 23.

13. Eriksen T.H. Chto takoe antropologiya? [Tekst]: ucheb. posobie / T.H. Ehriksen. Per. s angl. A.I. Karasevoj; pod nauch. Red. Zh.V. Korminoj; predisl. Zh.V. Korminoj; Nac. issled. un-t «Vysshaia shkola ehkonomiki». - M., Izd - vo Vysshej shkoly ehkonomiki, 2014. - 238, [2] s. - (Perevodnye uchebniki VSHEH). - S. 20-24.

14. Yudin B.G. Sovremennye diskussii o prirode cheloveka: konstruktivizm protiv naturalizma / B.G. Yudin // Filosofiya prirody segodnia. Redaktory I.K. Liseev, V. Lugovskij. Per. s polskogo V.L. Vasyukov, E.N. Shulga. - M.: «Kanon+» ROOI «Reabilitaciya», 2009. - 512 s. - S. 490 - 507. - S. 490.

15. Axtell Guy. A Post-Humanist Paradox? / Guy Axtell // Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 4, no. 9 (2015): 66-68.

16. Gui Angela. Extended Personal Identity in the 21st Century / Angela Gui // Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 4, no 11 (2015): 8-14.

17. PCBE Transcripts (March 6, 2003). Session 3. - Режим доступу: http://www.bioethics.gov

Размещено на Allbest.ru