Reference:
Shchuplenkov N.O., Shchuplenkov O.V..
Subjectivity as the Integral Mental and Philosophical Characteristic of Human
// Psychologist. – 2013. – ¹ 9.
– P. 51-82.
DOI: 10.7256/2306-0425.2013.9.10671.
DOI: 10.7256/2306-0425.2013.9.10671
Read the article
Abstract: In this article the term "subject" is understood as the person, the carrier of such qualities as autonomy, a protivopostavlennost to the world as to object, self-determination, activity, internal integrity and indivisibility. Strictly speaking, such understanding is fair only for the European new temporary model of the subject, only within which became possible ïîÿâëåíèåòåðìèíà "subject" and attributing to it values habitual to us today. In medieval outlook couldn't appear neither such category, nor similar interpretation of the person.Compliance of Cartesian interpretation to current trends of philosophical thought is disputable also: after all already I. Kant the "Copernican turn" introduces considerable amendments in this model. In early works of the nonclassical period of philosophizing the Cartesian model of the subject is exposed to sharper criticism. And, at last, the statement for "death of the subject", for the first time explicitly formulated by M. Foucault in work "Words and things. The archeology of the humanities" (1966) and become some kind of slogan of post-modernist philosophy, raises a question of refusal of the category "subject". So, each historical era "creates" the own subject, filling with new meanings the same Cartesian category "subject". Moreover, in "ïðîêðóñòîâî a bed" this category we try to squeeze also ideas of the person, for example, eras of Antiquity or the Middle Ages.Thus, the category "subject" only with great reserve can be used for the characteristic of other eras or cultures. However, if we also can't call rightfully, for example, the Christian of an era of the Middle Ages "subject" in modern sense, whether we can claim, what it at all didn't possess to some extent "subject qualities"? Obviously, isn't present – perhaps, it would mean that he wasn't also a person. Thus probably it is necessary to talk not about insolvency of the category "subject" in general, but it is rather about transfer of research interest from the static category "subject" fixing concrete historical type of "subject", on the category expressing a certain quality – "ability to be the subject". And this quality can already be to some extent inherent in the person of any historical era. In this role the category "subjectivity" also can act. Such approach will allow to reflect rather correctly historical dynamics of the category "subject", designating not "subject", but degree of expressiveness of a certain quality in different historical ïåðèîäûèëè in different cultures.The statement about that somebody possesses quality "subjectivity", doesn't give any instructions on that, about the subject in what understanding there is a speech. If to accept an assumption that subjectivity is the immanent characteristic of the person, and its form (types, paradigms) can change in historical and geographical prospect, it can be presented as variable, nominally inherent in any culture or an era, but actually accepting different values.
Keywords: the other, innovative activities, personality, mentality, knowledge, social and political discourse, subject, subjectivity, human, the other
References:
Anti-Edip: Kapitalizm i shizofreniya / Zhil' Delez, Feliks Gvattari; per. s frants. i poslesl. D. Kralechkina; nauch.red. V. Kuznetsov. Ekaterinburg: U-Faktoriya, 2008. 672 s.
Bakhtin M.M. Estetika slovesnogo tvorchestva. M., 1979. S.312.
Bibliya. Vetkhiy i Novyy zavety. Sinodal'nyy perevod. Bibleyskaya entsiklopediya arkh. Nikifora. (Prit. 14:10).
Ginger S., Ginger A. Geshtal't – terapiya kontakta / Per. s fr. E. V. Prosvetinoy. SPb.: Spetsial'naya Literatura, 1999. 287 s.
Gusserl' E. Kartezianskie imitatsii / per. s nem. V.M. Molchanova. M„ 2010. 229 s.
Gusserl' E. Krizis evropeyskikh nauk i transtsendental'naya fenomenologiya / E. Gusserl' // Filosofiya kak strogaya nauka. Novocherkassk: SAGUNA, 1994. S. 49–100.
Gusserl' E. Sobr. soch.: v 3 t. / per. s nem. V. M. Molchanova. M.: DIK, 2001. T. 3 (1): Logicheskie issledovaniya. – 471 s.
Delez Zh. Peregovory. 1972-1990. SPb.: Nauka, 2004. S. 122.
D'yakov A. V. O morfologii Drugogo v filosofskoy komparativistike // Khora. M., 2009. ¹ 1. S. 135–138.
Kalinenko V.K. Grani