Abstract

Primary most researchers mark the anthropological orientation of philosophical and natural-science discourse of the XX of century. Traditionally beginning of this process is contacted with the names of М. Scheler, A. Gehlen, H. Plessner, by a selection by them from actually philosophical knowledge and the formation of philosophical anthropology within the framework of western culture. The Russian and Ukrainian scientists insist on two poles of anthropological researches in the first half of «century of catastrophes», grounding a thesis about simultaneous birth of modern anthropological idea in a Western and Russian philosophy, in works of S. Frank and P. Florenskiy. A lot of research works it is possible conditionally enough to differentiate on two opposite directions. The first establishes an «anthropological crisis», caused by fundamental contradictions of life of modern man; the second one proclaims a «modern anthropological turn». However analytical review shows a maximum variety, ambiguousness and contradiction of research interpretations, both in regard to the declared definitions and in regard to their richness of content. The modern researchers of philosophical anthropology, coming from the content and methodological points of view, distinguish classic and nonclassical anthropology. Classic anthropology answer for a question «What is a man that»? And nonclassical anthropology sees a problem in that a man is not «something». Thus, the nonclassical anthropology renounces the essential understanding of man, proving absence for him to essence as such – invariant and obligatory. Thus, modern philosophical-anthropological discourse actively develops both in classic and the nonclassical paradigm. Anthropological problem is comprehended as presentation and formulation of image of man of the future, and also those anthropological actions, which can lead to him.