COMMUNICATION LEVELS OF THE INDIVIDUAL
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15802/ampr.v0i16.150217Keywords:
"I", personality, communication, worldview, metaphysics, Other, evolutionismAbstract
Purpose. The article deals with the problem of mutual perception of individuals, which implies the analysis of the anthropological prerequisites for the study of interpersonal communication. The work emphasizes the need to identify the gnoseological lacuna of the possibility and relevance of knowing someone else’s "I". As well as the need to point out implicit metaphysical attitudes, universal for many worldviews, which are implicitly included in the theory of personal communication. Theoretical basis. The author proceeds from the logical consequences of the evolutionary premise in anthropology. He compares the psychophysical goals of the interpersonal communication task with its ideological theory, monitors the impossibility of the realizing the communication level declared in the consciousness. As an opposite evolutionary premise, the author cites the postulates of the "philosophy of dialogue" by F. Rosenzweig, F. Ebner, M. Buber, and others. The correlation of these philosophical positions reveals the inconsistency of materialistic reduction in anthropology. Originality. The author identifies four levels of communication: background, obstacle, function and dialogue. He represents the rationale for the fact that the first three levels do not need the existence of an individual "I". The first three levels leave the existential "I" unnecessary and therefore unclaimed. The philosophy of dialogue with the Other raises an equally important question about the conditions for the possibility of a metaphysical continuum in ontology, and in turn, suggests the acceptance of a philosophical premise about God as the space of subjectivity in the "I-You" dialogue. Conclusions. Philosophical understanding of the communication of two existential "I" demanded in communication is possible only within the framework of religious discourse. The phenomenal consciousness can enter into communication with a specific other phenomenal consciousness only when there is a metaphysical space between them, allowing for the possibility of communication of such a level. The materialistic conditioning by the human evolutionary needs in all its conceivable forms produces a reduction of the communicative inquiry, which makes the mutual perception of the two "I" impossible. In this psychophysiological anthropological model, there is no space for the possibility of a dialogue of individuals.References
Carlsson, U. (2018). Tragedy and Resentment. Mind, 127(508), 1169-1191. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzx014 (in English)
Curren, R. (2019). Wisdom and the Origins of Moral Knowledge. In E. Grimi (Ed.), Virtue Ethics: Retrospect and Prospect (pp. 67-80). Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15860-6_6 (in English)
Frolova, M. I. (Ed.). (2018). Institut cheloveka: Ideya i realnost. Moscow: LENAND. (in Russian)
Grimi, E. (Ed.). (2019). Virtue Ethics: Retrospect and Prospect. Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15860-6 (in English)
Inyushina, I. A. (2017). The formation of culture of philosophical thinking: M. K. Mamardashvili’s ideas in the context of contemporary philosophical praxis. Philosophical Thought, 5, 62-67. doi: https://doi.org/10.7256/2409-8728.2017.5.22913 (in Russian)
Koshelskaya, T. V., Muravyova, O. I., & Mareeva, L. V. (2018). Communication as a central phenomenon of contemporary anthropological concepts. Siberian Journal of Psychology, 67, 77-88. doi: https://doi.org/10.17223/17267080/67/6 (in Russian)
Pinker, S. (2018). Chistyy list. Priroda cheloveka. Kto i pochemu otkazyvaetsya priznavat ee segodnya. Moscow: Alpina non-fikshn. (in Russian)
Ridley, M. (2016). Proiskhozhdenie altruizma i dobrodeteli. Moscow: Eksmo. (in Russian)
Rusakov, S. S. (2019). Conceptual-categorical apparatus in social philosophy of M. K. Mamardashvili. Philosophical Thought, 1, 44-49. doi: https://doi.org/10.25136/2409-8728.2019.1.27477 (in Russian)
Saenko, A. V. (2018). Specificity of the notions of the language of philosophy according to G. Deleuze, F. Guattari and M. K. Mamardashvili. Philosophical Thought, 9, 1-10. doi: https://doi.org/10.25136/2409-8728.2018.9.27237 (in Russian)
Slobodchikov, V. I., & Isayev, Y. I. (2000). Osnovy psikhologicheskoy antropologii. Psikhologiya razvitiya cheloveka. Razvitie subektivnoy realnosti v ontogeneze. Moscow: Shkolnaya Pressa. (in Russian)
Smirnov, I. I. (2018). Criticism of metaphysics and post-secular paradigm. Philosophy and Culture, 8, 1-13. doi: https://doi.org/10.7256/2454-0757.2018.8.27106 (in Russian)
Smirnov, S. A. (2017). Antropologiya i psikhologiya: Vzglyad na cheloveka. Vstrechnyy vyzov. Mir psikhologii, 4(92), 185-197. (in Russian)
Waal, F. B. M. d. (2018). Moral bez relihii. V poshukakh liudskoho u prymativ. Kharkiv: Klub Simeinoho Dozvillia. (in Ukrainian)
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2019 Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).