Open Access
Access granted
Subscription Access
Vol 36, No 3 (2025)
The Philosophical Anthropology Program of the School of Philosophy and Cultural Studies of the National Research University Higher School of Economics is 15
In the Mirror of Theories
Čelovek. 2025;36(3):7-12
7-12
The Time of Man in the Philosophy of N.A. Berdyaev: Image and Meaning
Abstract
The article examines the peculiarities of N.A. Berdyaev’s philosophical and anthropological concept. Its constructive and semantic element is the problem of human existence in history and eternity. Berdyaev presents his philosophy as an experience of insight into the reality of the free spirit, symbolized by the historical and cultural process. In the Meaning of Creativity Berdyaev will interpret man in a religious and metaphysical way, in the Meaning of History he will formulate a thoughtful eschatological concept of the philosophy of history. The Russian thinker will develop the theme of human time and metahistory in the main books of the 1930s and 40s, which demonstrate the process of building an existentially colored system of Berdyaev’s eschatological metaphysics. All the problems that were significant during the period when he actively supported the socio-political and religious-philosophical disputes of the Russian intelligentsia, after the revolution, Berdyaev will solve from the point of view of the spiritual meaning of the historical process and cultural creativity of man. The article analyzes Berdyaev’s characteristic rethinking of the individual and social mode of human existence in a metaphysical and eschatological perspective, in which the time of personal existence is interpreted by the philosopher as a personal, historical and metahistorical Apocalypse. The thesis is put forward that Berdyaev’s statement about the creative contribution of man to the metahistorical process has an ethical meaning and is a moral and volitional overcoming of the crisis of Christianity philosophically comprehended by him. According to Berdyaev, the expression of this crisis was the Russian revolution, world wars, testifying to the rejection of modern society and man from following the path of God-manhood. According to the author, Berdyaev’s discourse on the time of human existence provides an opportunity to discuss the metaphysical turn in the history of philosophical anthropology and its ontological, ethical and philosophical-historical consequences.
Čelovek. 2025;36(3):13-29
13-29
The Third Space of Social Events
Abstract
The article discusses the concept of the third space, which appears in the works of postcolonial researcher Homi Bhabha and geographer Edward Soji, with a primary focus on the former. His arguments do not form a coherent concept, but they allow for new steps in various research areas. First, the idea of a single and homogeneous political nation is problematized. It is rooted in tradition, but does not work well in the situation of postcolonial crisis, when streams of people with their own ideas about history, territorial borders, nation and culture rush to former metropolises. There is a clash of old concepts of class struggle and opposition to colonialism with new trends, including feminism and postcolonialism. The ideas of strong social “things” such as states, nations, classes, which have a single homogeneous space and time, history and borders, are blurred. The issue rests not only on the struggle of grand narratives, but also on small ones, events of utterance, constantly occurring in social life. This becomes the reason for the development and significant adjustment of the theory of social events, previously proposed by the author. In the new version, the theory speaks more about the struggle that really takes place in social life, the conflict of micro-narratives that prevents the formation of a stable community of observers, including those who create a solidary discursive community, narrating about logically connected events that form a fixed pattern of sociality.
Čelovek. 2025;36(3):30-47
30-47
Theoretical Foundations of the Philosophical Anthropology Concept of V.V. Rozanov
Abstract
In the academic environment there is a widespread prescription of V.V. Rozanov’s work as incoherent and unsystematic. This assessment is due to the lack of study of Rozanov’s early theoretical work (“Study of the idea of happiness as the idea of the supreme beginning of human life”, “On Understanding”). However, these works define the theoretical and methodological attitudes of the author, which are preserved and developed by him throughout his further creative work. The anthropological aspects of Rozanov’s work have been studied in more detail in Rozanov studies, but the omission of the ideological continuity of theoretical attitudes does not allow us to systematically reconstruct the author’s views. The article is devoted to the study of theoretical and methodological foundations of Rozanov’s work in the cross-section of which the general anthropological connotations in the three periods of his work (theoretical, publicistic, artistic and aesthetic) are systematically revealed. The first part of the article examines the early theoretical stage of Rozanov’s work, characterized by the development of the basic theoretical and methodological apparatus. The second part shows how Rozanov’s problematics are refracted and developed in the author’s publicistic work, focused on the appeal to the sensual forms of worldview. The third part studies the specifics of Rozanov’s artistic creativity in the context of previously developed theoretical settings. As a result, the author comes to the conclusion that the horizon of all of Rozanov’s work is anthropological problematics, which consists in the existential understanding of man.
Čelovek. 2025;36(3):48-63
48-63
The Problem of Human Being in Vyacheslav Ivanov’s Religious and Philosophical Works
Abstract
The article proposes a hypothesis that work of the symbolist philosopher Vyacheslav I. Ivanov contains an original religious and anthropological concept with which all the themes of his religious and philosophical works are correlated. The author examines the evolution of human understanding in the works of Vyacheslav I. Ivanov, starting with the historical study “The Hellenic Religion of the Suffering God” and ending with later texts. The author shows that the first attempts to raise the question of man and formulate a preliminary answer to it are already found in Ivanov’s research on the ancient cult of Dionysus. His further anthropological developments are largely based on his early ideas and do not contradict them. It is shown what role religion plays in the self-determination of the individual. Special attention in the article is paid to one of the most mysterious works of Ivanov — the poem “Chelovek”. The article considers the problem of self-awareness in the context of Russian philosophy of the end of the XIX century. It is shown that the ideas formulated by V. Ivanov in the poem about the essence of human being take into account the context but are not reduced to any of the existing theories. The dialectic of the relationship between I and Thou is considered as the basis of the human self. The article also touches the problem of love and its role in the relationship between the Self and the Other. In addition, the author examines one of the main symbols in Ivanov’s thesaurus — the symbol of the guest — and comes to the conclusion that the task of the symbolist is to turn over the classical modern concept of the subject and shift the emphasis from the Self to the Other.
Čelovek. 2025;36(3):64-78
64-78
Scientific research
The Space of Dialogue and the Time of Choice
Abstract
Dialogue and сhoice are humanity building tools, an optic that allows to talk about freedom as the possibility of сhoice to be non-self-identical, which is reflected in the humanistic dialogue nature. These are values setting the moral continuum, marking its digital disintegration. Their riskogenic nature determines the formation of the horizon of the concept of “axiological risk” through the possibility of delegating one’s own responsibility and diffusion of dialogue. The authors suggest a parallel between the Kantian optics of “space — time” and the optics of “dialogue — choice”. Choice is the inner experience, making us feel temporality with a special acuteness, dialogue is a form of external sensuality, the space of dialogue is a locality where the оther acts as a pledge of partial objectification of the inner world. Considering binary relations of “space as a form of external sensuality — dialogue” and “time as a form of internal sensuality — moral choice”, authors note a possible process of digital destruction of these parallels. The externalization of moral choice during its delegation leads to the annihilation of the highest value — life/death, determined by the acuteness of choice due to its oneness. Virtuality eliminates the randomness that shapes dialogue. The risk of choice delegating articulates the attempt of time elimination, the fear of responsibility, which is removed during the delegation. By denying time (choice), the subject seeks salvation in space (dialogue), which also can no longer be constructed. In this connection, the authors introduce the concept of “the effect of moral immortality”, which means the rejection of the inimitability of an act, and, consequently, the possibility of acting on behalf of the source of morality without being the bearer of the latter — without needing one’s own “face”.
Čelovek. 2025;36(3):79-96
79-96
The Evolutionary Significance of Identity and the Prospects for Its Development in the Global Communicative Environment
Abstract
Adstract. The article raises the question of the evolutionary significance of human identity and the prospects for its transformation in the context of the formation of a global communicative environment. The study is grounded in contemporary understandings of the evolution of consciousness and cultural practices within the fields of neurophysiology, anthropology, and philosophy. It examines the pivotal role of communication, which, in the early stages of evolution, contributed to human survival and the development of cognitive abilities. Over time, communication enabled the formation of stable social structures through cultural practices such as rituals and intergroup cooperation. With the advancement of technology, the processes shaping identity have accelerated, bringing new challenges: disorganization, increased social entropy, and the threat of losing cultural uniqueness. This framework conceptualizes human identity, informed by contemporary scientific achievements, as a systemic organizational principle. Identity emerges through communication, ensures the stability of the system throughout life, and facilitates the continuity of knowledge transfer in cultural development. Furthermore, its influence can surpass natural reactions, shaping human choices and enabling the exercise of free will. Particular attention is given to the tension between the acceleration of communication processes and the need to maintain stable cultural rhythms that underpin social cohesion. The conclusion emphasizes the importance of a philosophical analysis of the prospects for human evolution, including the development of ethical principles for harmonizing technology with cultural traditions. Thus, the article proposes a philosophical interpretation of identity from the perspective of contemporary science, highlighting its necessity for fostering harmonious interaction between humans and technology in a globalized world.
Čelovek. 2025;36(3):97-116
97-116
The Impact of Digitalization on the Knowledge of the World and on Human Self-Awareness. Works by the Winners of the Philosophical Essay Competition of the RAS Institute of Philosophy
Man in the digital range of differences and repetitions
Abstract
The article considers the phenomenon of digitalization in the context of the fashion system and the logic of consumption. Modern achievements of technological progress are controlled by big capital and subject to the laws of advertising, which leads to the expansion of secondary non-functional systems. Existing in the coordinates of consumption, technology makes timid steps to satisfy the characteristic features of modernity: the desires for speed, acceleration, and differentiation. It formalizes the everyday habits of man and makes them dependent on consumption. The private and the public compete, seducing both the individual consumer and entire institutions with technology, promising the optimization of time and resources. In this way, digital reality manages to absorb and transform all areas of society, from the economy and leisure to the urban environment and human relations. Digital reality becomes total in anthropological dimension, which means that the need for analog and manual production becomes an element of the game of difference and repetition necessary for the existence of a fashion system. Perhaps as long as our fantasies of progress remain within the simple needs of comfort and pleasure, cinema will continue to paint us a bleak picture of the future as punishment for wasted human potential. However, a way out can be found in the public use of technology to call for self-reflection.
Čelovek. 2025;36(3):117-131
117-131
The Art of Artificial Intelligence in the Perspective of Philosophical Anthropology: How Have Creative Machines Influenced Human Self-Awareness?
Abstract
This paper aims to clarify the understanding of the significance of artificial intelligence (AI) art from the perspective of philosophical anthropology and explain how AI art may influence human self-consciousness. Currently, with the advancements of related technologies, generative AI is widely used in artistic creation, and already has attracted attention from the art community and researchers. However, there are many debates surrounding these works. One key issue is AI’s creativity itself: traditional understanding of art asserts that AI cannot possess creativity, yet experiments have already shown that people cannot distinguish between artworks created by AI and those by human artists. Many contemporary philosophers believe that creativity is not exclusively a human trait, thus there are no barriers to recognizing AI as an art creator. The author of this paper believes that the issue of AI’s creativity cannot be simply solved and it does not simply help us understand AI art better at all. Therefore, the author seeks to develop F.I. Girenok’s philosophical anthropology in a direction that focuses on our hallucinations and hallucenosises, which will help us better understand the artistic nature of AI creations and their impact on our self-consciousness.
Čelovek. 2025;36(3):132-143
132-143
Social practices
Subject in Bioethics: Individual and Collective
Abstract
The problem of collective and individual subjectivity in bioethics is examined. Although full recognition of the subject in bioethics occurs through a commitment to self-determination already at the beginning of the 20th century, it cannot be said that the creation of bioethical subjectivity can be considered complete. The purpose of the study is to analyze the opposition between the collective and individual subject in bioethics. To solve this problem, the genesis of the concept of subjectivity in bioethics and its adaptation to modern biomedical technologies are considered. Traditionally in the medicine the subject was appropriated to both physical and intellectual manipulations under the guarantee of the doctor’s virtuous intention. The recognition of the distinction between autonomy and the benevolent intention to restoring health occurs as a result of the increasing importance of subjectivity, which changes the very content of medicine from the virtue of providing assistance and saving human life to the recognition of an active subject who independently determines his own good, using critical thinking and personal experience. The assumption is substantiated that the subjective approach based on autonomy (self-determination) can be considered in two modes — as critical, based on reflection, and trusting, based on following and empathizing with collective values that receive representation in the collective subject, as well as on the distinction between the concepts of autonomy and freedom in bioethics. Collective and individual subjectivities are structurally rather related, through opposites, since they use authentication as a way of procedurally organizing action. The individual subject always retains substantivist autonomy, which allows him to build and reconfigure collective forms of autonomy, using his innate freedom. The stability of collective subjectivity is based on trust and empathy; without these conditions, collective subjectivity disintegrates. The distinction between freedom and autonomy in modern bioethics allows us to describe the subject simultaneously as a collective and individual actor.
Čelovek. 2025;36(3):144-162
144-162
Times. Morals. Characters
“Plato, Too, Advised Us... to Imprison the Akhmatovas of His Day”: An Unknown Polemic Between A. Kozhev and N. Berdyaev on Creative Freedom in the Context of Post-War Soviet Censorship
Abstract
The article that precedes the publication of Alexandre Kojève’s text “On creative freedom and the souls’fabrication. Response to Professor N.A. Berdyaev” explores a little-known polemic between a famous interpreter of Hegel and an eminent Russian thinker on the topic of creative freedom, which was triggered by the postwar Soviet campaign to combat the absence of ideas and apolitics in art (“Zdanovism”). The historical context preceding the philosophers’ works (Berdyaev’s article “On Creative Freedom and the Fabrication of Souls” and Kojève’s manuscript “Response to Professor N.A. Berdyaev”) is reconstructed: the resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) on the magazines “Zvezda” and “Leningrad” and the theses of A.A. Zhdanov’s report for Leningrad writers are examined. The leading role of Stalin in the Soviet cultural program after the war is emphasized (in view of Kojève’s Stalinist sympathies, this fact is recognized as particularly important). We reconstruct Berdyaev’s arguments against the practice of Soviet censorship (the unity of freedom and creativity, the incomparability of the human soul with factory production, the primacy of spiritual life, the threat of creative sterility), the origins of which can be found in Berdyaev’s pre-emigrant work. Kojève’s counter-arguments (the primacy of the production basis, the fact that works of art were created in less free epochs of the past, the compatibility of creative originality with social order) are reproduced. It is pointed out that they go back to his early publications in the pro-Soviet journal “Eurasia” (“Philosophy and the Communistic Party”), in which Soviet censorship was justified in the name of a “new culture of the future”. It is noted that the factor explaining Kojève’s harsh reaction to Berdyaev’s text is the fact that it was published at the height of the anti-Soviet campaign in the Western press. It has been argued that the fundamental reason for Kojève’s exasperation is that the polemic with Berdyaev was for Kojeve an episode in his critique of intellectuals (“intelligent animals”) who evade work and struggle through “creativity”. The conclusion argues that the most significant distinction in the positions of Berdyaev and Kojève is the difference in their attitude to creativity (supreme and godlike spiritual activity / sublimated and ahistorical form of “desire for recognition”). It is also hypothesized that Kojève did not publish his text because he feared that publicly expressing a pro-Soviet position in those years could turn into the end of his newly begun political career in France.
Čelovek. 2025;36(3):163-180
163-180
On Creative Freedom and the Fabrication of Souls. (Reply to Prof. N.A. Berdyaev)
Abstract
Текст «О творческой свободе и фабрикации душ. (Ответ проф. Н.А. Бердяеву)», написанный Александром Кожевом, вероятно, в конце 1946 года, впервые публикуется на русском языке. Он является критическим ответом известного интерпретатора Гегеля на статью Николая Бердяева «О творческой свободе и фабрикации душ», опубликованную 4 октября 1946 года в 73-м номере эмигрантской парижской газеты «Русские новости». Работа русского философа представляла собой негативный комментарий по поводу деятельности советского правительства, в августе 1946-го года подвергшего осуждению творчество Анны Ахматовой и Михаила Зощенко. Выступая в роли защитника СССР, Кожев подвергает в своем тексте резкой критике бердяевскую апологию свободного творчества. Частично воспроизводя аргументацию Бердяева против практики советской цензуры, он приводит несколько контраргументов (первичность производственного базиса, факт создания произведений искусства в менее свободных эпохах прошлого, совместимость творческого своеобразия с социальным заказом), призванных доказать обоснованность действий правительства Советского Союза. В сопровождающей публикацию вступительной статье описывается исторический контекст, окружающий написание работ Бердяева и Кожева, и характеризуется место реплики последнего в контексте остального кожевовского творчества.
Čelovek. 2025;36(3):181-191
181-191