An Anthropological Turn in Philosophy: Anthropology vs Ontology | Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta – Tomsk State University Journal. 2020. № 456. DOI: 10.17223/15617793/456/10

An Anthropological Turn in Philosophy: Anthropology vs Ontology

The article analyzes the phenomenon of an anthropological turn in the humanities. The topic is acutely relevant since new directions of thought emerge in philosophy: non-human anthropologies, anthropologies of hybrids and cyborgs, trans-humanistic projects. The author points to the insufficiency of understanding the anthropological turn only as a mutual interdisciplinary interest of anthropology and other sciences. In the article, the anthropological turn is referred to as a configuration of philosophy, in which the question of human determines the question of being. The article is divided into three semantic blocks. In the first block, the author substantiates why Immanuel Kant is considered the culprit of the anthropological style of thinking in philosophy. Kant's radicalism consists in the fact that he made the question "What is human?" the main one for philosophy and made all other questions conform to it. Such a move provoked a sharp reaction from subsequent thinkers. In the second block, the reaction of the major philosophers of the twentieth century to Kant's gesture is studied in detail. The author explores in detail the position of Michel Foucault, who accused Kant of imposing anthropological sleep on philosophy and urged philosophy to be purified from human by ontology. Then the author analyzes the position of Martin Heidegger, who built his project of fundamental ontology and proved why anthropology could not serve as the basis of philosophy. Finally, the author turns to Martin Buber, who criticized both Kant and Heidegger's interpretation of Kant's philosophy and offered a new holistic knowledge of human, which, in relation to philosophy as a whole, is regional. In the third block, the author examines the role of the question of human in modern philosophy. The author identifies two trends: post-humanism and post-cosmism. Within the framework of the first trend, there is a conceptual displacement of the theme of human from philosophy. The question of human is made meaningless through the removal of ontological boundaries separating human from the world. Philosophy begins to understand itself as an ontology. In connection with this trend, the author turns to speculative realism, object-oriented philosophy, and non-human anthropology. In the framework of post-cosmism, on the contrary, philosophy sees its origins in anthropology. The question of human for it determines the question of being and truth. In connection with this trend, the author refers to the idea of post-Heideggerian style of thinking.

Download file
Counter downloads: 144

Keywords

человек, философская антропология, философия, посткосмизм, постгуманизм, И. Кант, М. Хайдеггер, М. Фуко, нечеловеческая антропология, спекулятивный реализм, human, philosophical anthropology, philosophy, post-cosmism, post-humanism, Kant, Heidegger, Foucault, non-human anthropology, speculative realism

Authors

NameOrganizationE-mail
Rostova Natalya N.Lomonosov Moscow State Universitynnrostova@yandex.ru
Всего: 1

References

Марков Б.В. Антропологический поворот в философии ХХ века // Очерки социальной антропологии / отв. ред. В.В. Шаронов. СПб. : Петрополис, 1995. С. 18-29.
Гумбрехт Х.У. Как «антропологический поворот» может затронуть гуманитарные науки? // НЛО. 2012. № 2. URL: https://magazines.gorky. media/nlo/2012/2/kak-antropologicheskij-povorot-mozhet-zatronut-gumanitamye-nauki.html
Поселягин Н. Антропологический поворот в российских гуманитарных науках // НЛО. 2012. № 1. URL: https://magazines.gorky.media/ nlo/2012/1/antropologicheskij-povorot-v-rossijskih-gumanitarnyh-naukah.html
Гиренок Ф.И. Философские основания нечеловеческой антропологии // Вопросы философии и психологии. 2019. № 6 (1). С. 8-13.
Кастру Э.В. де. Каннибальские метафизики. Рубежи постструктурной антропологии. М. : Ад Маргинем Пресс, 2017. 200 с.
Симондон Ж. Два урока о животном и человеке. М. : Изд-во Грюндриссе, 2016. 140 с.
Шеффер Ж.-М. Конец человеческой исключительности. М. : Новое литературное обозрение, 2010. 392 с.
Кант И. Логика // Кант И. Трактаты и письма. М. : Наука, 1980. С. 319-444.
Интервью А. Бадью с М. Фуко 1965 года. URL: https://theoryandpractice.ru/posts/5556-cheloveka-na-samom-dele-ne-sushchestvuet-mishelfuko-o-tom-chto-takoe-psikhologiya
Фуко М. Слова и вещи. СПб. : A-cad, 1994. 408 с.
Хайдеггер М. Кант и проблема метафизики. URL: https://heidegger.ru/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Кант-и-проблема-метафизики.docx
Хайдеггер М. Размышления II-VI (Черные тетради 1931-1938). М. : Изд-во Ин-та Гайдара, 2016. 584 с.
Бубер М. Проблема человека // Бубер М. Два образа веры. М. : Республика, 1994. 464 с.
Нанси Ж.-Л. Сегодня // Ad Marginem'93. Ежегодник Лаборатории постклассических исследований ИФ РАН. М. : Ad Marginem, 1994. С. 148-164.
Харман Г. Четвероякий объект: Метафизика вещей после Хайдеггера. Пермь : Гиле Пресс, 2015. 152 с.
Мейясу К. После конечности: Эссе о необходимости контингентности. Екатеринбург; Москва : Кабинетный ученый, 2015. 196 с.
Гиренок Ф.И. Кант, Хайдеггер и проблема метафизики // Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Философия. 2013. № 2. С. 86-96.
 An Anthropological Turn in Philosophy: Anthropology vs Ontology | Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta – Tomsk State University Journal. 2020. № 456. DOI: 10.17223/15617793/456/10

An Anthropological Turn in Philosophy: Anthropology vs Ontology | Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta – Tomsk State University Journal. 2020. № 456. DOI: 10.17223/15617793/456/10

Download full-text version
Counter downloads: 1275