У дисертаційній роботі вперше в українській соціогуманітарній науці
розкрито методологічну своєрідність історико-філософського дослідження
феномена особистості та показано, що актуальне та практично орієнтоване
історико-філософське дослідження проблеми особистості потребує широкого
використання феноменологічного методу. Він дає можливість розглянути
особистість в її самоочевидності й тим самим закласти підвалини для
впорядкування та модернізації понятійно-категоріального апарату сучасної
соціогуманітарної науки. Вона стане плідним теоретичним фундаментом для
практичної діяльності та самовизначення людини, експлікуючи особистість
через її здатність до діалогічного спілкування з Іншим. Поряд з вказаним у
дисертації запропоновано всебічну історико-філософську ретроспекцію
розвитку антропологічної проблематики та окреслено своєрідність
особистісного самовизначення людини в різні історичні періоди.
The dissertation work, for the first time in the Ukrainian socio-humanitarian
science, has unfolded the methodological originality of the historical and
philosophical study of the personality problem and has manifested that an actual and
practically oriented historical and philosophical study of the personality problem
requires a wide application of the phenomenological method. It makes it possible to
consider the personality in his/her self-evidence and thereby lay the foundations for
the organization and modernization of the conceptual and categorical apparatus of
modern socio-humanitarian science. It would become a fruitful theoretical foundation
for practical activity and self-determination of a person, expressing personality
through his/her ability for dialogical communication with the Other.
Along with the above, the dissertation proposes a comprehensive historical and
philosophical retrospection of the development of anthropological problems and
outlines the originality of a person and independent self-determination in different
historical periods. For example, in the process of substantiating the anthropological
nature of the myth, the inner desire of man to co-create the world in unity with
natural forces was revealed. This not only gave man a special status in the world and
determined his further purpose – it was invariably associated with his separation from
the natural whole (including the natural collective) and the creation of a unique
human world. This intention found its development and conceptual design in ancient
Greek philosophy. Here, the uniqueness and originality of a person were inextricably
linked with his ability to use the mind – to think. In its perspective, this led to the
literal separation of man from the natural world by the walls of the city, life in which was ordered by reason. Of course, the ancient Greek attempts to show the uniqueness
of man were associated with fencing off from the external natural world, so here it
was only about the difference between man and non-man, and the question of the
uniqueness and freedom of each person was not yet on the agenda.
Significant changes in human self-determination did not occur in the Middle
Ages and the Renaissance. Despite the apparent differences in life and thinking in
these epochs, man's self-determination took place on the general conceptual basis of
the doctrine of man as the image of God. Proceeding from this, a person, as before,
remained involved in some higher instance, as a result of which he becomes a
derivative, and therefore must and even is doomed to fulfill the purpose given to him.
Despite the irresistible inner desire of logocentric discourse to free man
(subject) from the power of nature, God, religious tradition, the anthropological
program proposed in modern times had a bright religious character. This program
developed and affirmed the idea of a single human nature, which is realized in the
process of ascent to its metaphysical essence – Ratio. In other words, the modern
anthropological program, as well as the religious one in its time, required a person to
realize his life vocation – the ascent to the Truth, which is revealed in the process of
thinking. The explication of this representation into the concrete historical dimension
of social existence necessarily predetermined the assertion of various forms of
inequality that enslaved a person, not giving him the opportunity to reveal his inner
potential.
The repressive nature of the modern program of self-determination of man as a
person became the cause of its radical revision and depreciation of the basic standards
and norms by the theorists of Postmodernity. In contrast to it, they propose to be from
the repressive in its essential interpretation of a person who in a specific historical
dimension is represented by a person with a certain value-motivational core, and
assert absolute freedom of personal expression.
