Abstract
A contemporary man is now more and more recognizing the necessity of the anthropological practice of the art of being himself. The main sphere of the research conducted in social science and the humanities in the second half of the 20th – the beginning of the 21st centuries was dedicated to problematization, apology, assertion and exercises related to practices of the self. The topic of the anthropological practices (social, spiritual, psychological, somatic, and art practices) permeates the works by E. Fromm, L. Binswanger, P. Ricoeur, P. Hadot, M. de Certeau, M. Foucault, V. Bibikhin, Yu. Lotman, S. Averintsev, and S. Khoruzhy. Reaching the level of the anthropological practices is seen in this article as salvation from alienation, loneliness, and violence as a “second breath” for a better and more dignified life. However, together with the expansion of the topic of the anthropological practices, the comprehension of their multiplicity and multidimensionality we are faced with the arising problem of the impossibility of these practices, their fragility and excessiveness. The originality of this paper lies in the research of the problem of the impossible possibility of the anthropological practices, their fragility and excessiveness. Consequently, we can acknowledge that the problematics of the anthropological practices has an antinomic character and the “resolution” of the problems is possible within the bounds of an existential event on the edge between its possibility and impossibility. It’s also important to consider that the anthropological practices facilitate the self-renewal of the social, the transcendence of alienation, and the transformation of everything that is impersonal towards a man and fallen away from him. The social as the human can begin, be initiated, and realized but it cannot last forever, it is temporary, event-bound and situation-bound, and principally heteronomous.
Highlights
an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License
С. Как обходиться без бытия, или механика Латона // Вопросы философии
Summary
Вопрос сущности и смысла антропологических практик имеет фундаментальное значение не только в плане осознания их оснований и форм (это значительный прорыв в понимании динамики человеческого рода для социально-гуманитарных наук), но и в плане выстраивания иной цивилизационной конфигурации современного мира. Карсавина дает основание для современной антропологической парадигмы уже тем, что не гипостазирует развитие, не объективирует его в отчужденной от человеческого рода форме. 81], а высшей задачей исторического творчества человеческого рода как субъекта истории может быть опыт синергии, опыт со-творчества Богу или отказ от развития себя как сложности, причастной сложности бытия, социума, Другого.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
More From: Izvestiya of Saratov University. New Series. Series: Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.