On Two Philosophical Strategies in Human Research

The article explores two strategies of modern philosophy for human research. The author connects the first strategy with Martin Heidegger's philosophy and the second with the philosophy of Jacque Derrida. Heidegger refers to human existence and calls this approach cosmological; Derrida relates man to the sphere of subjectivity and calls his approach hauntology. Heidegger justifies his approach as follows: Since Immanuel Kant, when discussing freedom, correlates it with causality and calls this correlation cosmological, in this approach, Heidegger sees a tendency of bringing freedom closer to nature that Kant did not implement. There is causality and necessity in nature. There is also freedom as the basis of natural causation in it. Heidegger rejects what Kant referred to as productive imagination a priori as something subjective and constructs a new concept - "understanding of being". This concept clearly shows that man has nothing to do with understanding. Understanding in Heidegger is one of the ways of unfolding being. In turn, Derrida opposes this approach. On the contrary, he speaks of the limitation of being, since Heidegger refers to it only as the present, the existing. Derrida expands the concept of being by including the absent in it. Thus, Derrida formulates, as he says, a more fundamental problem that covers both what exists and what does not exist, but is given to man. He calls a ghost something that does not exist, but is given to man. Hauntology, according to Derrida, erases, in the Hegelian sense, the theory of being and is the newest prospect in human research. The article criticizes the logic of Heidegger's reasoning, which turns a "tiny part of the universe" called "man" into a huge quantity that exceeds the size of God. The author supports Derrida's call for scientists to enter into a "conversation with ghosts". The article pays special attention to the problem of correlation of objects of internal experience with objects of feelings, and also discusses the ways in which objects of time are given to man. According to the author, the critique of Fukuyama's philosophy, as well as the interpretation of subjective time proposed by Derrida, is of undoubted interest. The article concludes that Heidegger makes anthropology a derivative of ontology, and Derrida, on the contrary, makes ontology dependent on hauntology.

Keywords

Authors

References