Cilvēks un franču filosofiskā antropoloģija starp Polu Rikēru un Mišelu Fuko

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. / Māra Rubene savā rakstā “Cilvēks un franču filosofiskā antropoloģija starp Polu Rikēru un Mišelu Fuko” vispirms izdala 20. gadsimta 20.–30. gadu periodu, kad filosofiskās antropoloģijas jēdziens iegūst modernas aprises, izvirzoties filosofisko diskusiju krustpunktā, skaidrojot cilvēka dzīvi, cilvēka pasauli, cilvēka būtību. Divdesmitā gadsimta 60.–70. gados īpaši karstas diskusijas par cilvēku norisinās, meklējot atbildi uz jautājumiem, kuri joprojām ir klātesoši pēc Otrā pasaules kara. Kas notika? Kāpēc tas notika? Kā tas varēja notikt? Trešais periods franču filosofiskās antropoloģijas attīstīšanā ir datējams ar 21. gadsimta pirmajām desmitgadēm, kas, pēc pētnieku teiktā, esot raksturojams ar “drosmes atgūšanu”, kad “pēc cilvēka nāves, viņa izzušanas vai gala” atkal norisinoties pievēršanās “antropoloģijas kategorijai”. Filosofiskās antropoloģijas uzmanības centrā ir jautājums par cilvēku un cilvēkzinātņu, sociālo un dabaszinātņu iespējām, kas nozīmē atbildēt arī par šo zinātņu pamatojumu un savstarpējām attiecībām. Filosofijai ir jāatgriežas pie seno grieķu filosofiskā jautājuma par to, kas ir laba dzīve, un jābalsta tie spēki, kuri nodrošina mūsu spēju un spēkus pretoties tās pielīdzināšanai lietai, pārvēršanai mehānismā. Šajā aspektā ir jāskata Fuko atziņas par dzīves mākslu un eksistences estētiku, uzsver M. Rubene. Atslēgvārdi: Filosofiskā antropoloģija; protoposthumānisms; cilvēka problēma; P. Rikērs; M. Fuko.