Philosophical anthropology proceeds from understanding the essence of man as a fundamentally open, unfinished entity in its formation. But it was just such a formation that the representatives of philosophical anthropology understood differently: some saw certain stages, stages of such formation, some distinguished certain classification types, and only in recent decades more and more anthropologists have drawn attention to multiple identities as anthropological characteristics of man. Anthropology, in this case, seeks objective, mainly natural, grounds for such a plurality: the splitting of subjectivity, for example, should not appear as an accursedness of chance, a psychiatric anomaly, but on the contrary - as a hidden mechanism, which gives the appearance of singularity to the surface of consciousness. Such a fundamentality of the anthropological approach is determined by most of its advantages, but it is precisely it that explains certain limits and even, in a sense, shortcomings, to identify which called philosophical anthropology - in any case, as the basic theory and methodology of the study of multiple identity of the individual.Life is heterogeneous, and therefore identity can not be homogeneous - as long as it is the identity of the living person, and not its image, created by the researchers as a certain codified version of the interpretation of this personality.Modern anthropologists, such as the French researchers Philippe Descola and Jean-Marie Schaeffer, focus on the specificity, certainty of human existence more than on its openness, uncertainty. For Descola the question is in defining of certain types of sociality that create the preconditions for the formation of different types of human identity. While Schaeffer goes much further and criticizes the metaphysical foundations of the monologue definition of human nature as the false in its basis, it is the false thesis of the exclusivity of man among all living forms.Deskola sees basic natural certainty of human peculiarities, but only takes into account existing and past versions of human identity. Future versions of human identity should also be taken into account, but this is somewhat problematic on a biological basis. Biology can only capture new versions of personality identity, but it is unlikely that they can be foreseen. However, everything that can be said about human identity has once arisen, that is, it just never existed. If Schaeffer’s critique of metaphysics and phenomenology is perfect in its orientation to the present and the past, then it clearly breaks down about the future. However, in the future, one can hardly expect the negation of most of the existing biological characteristics of a person – rather, we should talk about their very gradual, piecemeal improvement.Returning to the original contrasting theories of personality and the theory of social systems, it can be argued that theories of personality, which tend to humanitarian, interpretive interpretation of values, are closer to transcendentalist version of philosophical anthropology; however, the naturalistic version represented by Schaeffer, corresponds to the functional demands of social system theories and more rigid and invariant approaches of social sciences. Despite all the achievements of the natural sciences, one shouldn’t forget that they only realize the possibilities of actually proving counter-factual values that humanities give them. Thus, dehumanization of modern science does not appear as a world trend, but only as another challenge to the humanities. They have experienced a great number of such challenges – and giving each time new impetus for the development of natural sciences.Contradiction of transcendental and naturalistic approaches within the framework of philosophical anthropology should be regarded as somewhat conditional. In particular, both approaches provide sufficient grounds for substantiating the multiple identity of the individual. However, each of these approaches emphasizes the other aspect of the multiple identity of the individual: the transcendental one – the ability to create new versions of the identity of the person in the future, and the naturalistic one – on the classification, combinatorial opportunity to consider multiple identities in its actual diversity.
MANIPULAÇÃO GENÉTICA E A CRISE DA IDENTIDADE MODERNA: TAYLOR, DENNETT E O “NATURALISMO TARDIO”
