Rakstu krājumi "Filosofiskā antropoloģija"

Permanent URI for this community

http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/15529

Browse

Browsing Rakstu krājumi "Filosofiskā antropoloģija" by Author "Rubene, Māra"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Cilvēks un franču filosofiskā antropoloģija starp Polu Rikēru un Mišelu Fuko
    (Rīgas Stradiņa universitāte, 2024) Rubene, Māra
    In her article “The Human Being and French Philosophical Anthropology between Paul Ricoeur and Michel Foucault”, Māra Rubene not only focuses on the ideas of the best-known philosophers, but also provides a broader insight into the 20th century tradition of philosophical anthropology, including Latvia. The author first identifies the period of the 1920s and 1930s, when the concept of philosophical anthropology took on a modern shape, coming to the fore at the intersection of philosophical debates, explaining human life, the human world, and human nature. In the 1960s and 1970s, debates about man were particularly heated, seeking answers to the questions: what happened? Why did it happen? How could it have happened? These questions were still present after the Second World War. The third period in the development of French philosophical anthropology dates back to the first decades of the 21st century, which, according to scholars, is characterised by a “recovery of courage”, when “after the death of man, his disappearance or his end”, the “category of anthropology” is once again addressed. Philosophical anthropology is understood in a wide range of terms, from the “doctrine of human nature” and transdisciplinary study of human plurality in what is termed historical anthropology, to collective designation of individual philosophical fields, while at the same time “resisting a single definition”. Philosophical anthropology focuses on the question of the possibilities of man and the human, social and natural sciences, which also means answering questions about the foundations and interrelationships of these sciences. Paul Ricoeur asks rhetorically: why do I pose the human problem as a milieu problem? Ricoeur doubts that the concept of finitude, which has received so much attention, could be promoted as central to philosophical anthropology; instead, he proposes to speak of a triad, namely finitude-infinity and mediation. In Ricoeur’s philosophical anthropology, the human desire to be, finitude, is turned towards the miracle of birth, the beginning of an ever-new life; towards the continuation of life rather than existence towards death. Māra Rubene also looks at Michel Foucault’s anthropological insights, stressing that already in one of Foucault’s first philosophical texts, preserved for the course “Human Cognition and Transcendental Reflection” at the University of Lille in 1952, Foucault addressed the anthropological theme in the 19th century works by Kant, Hegel, Feuerbach, Marx, Dilthey and Nietzsche. Foucault argues that in philosophical anthropology the fourth question “What is man?” does not mean an answer to the question “What is the truth of human existence”, but rather “How can human beings respond to truth”. Philosophy must return to the question already posed by the ancient Greek philosophers of what is a good life and must build on those forces which ensure our ability and power to resist its assimilation to a thing, its transformation into a mechanism. Foucault’s insights on the art of life and the aesthetics of existence must be seen precisely in this light.