The paper analyses such polysemantic terms as “subject”, “individual”, “personality”, and which form sincretic notions, e.g. “subjectivity of personality”, “multisubjectivity of personality”, etc.
The author claims that he was unable to find in the works of other authors meaningful connections between the concepts of «subject» and «personality». The concept of «subject» is used in such a wide meaning that its content potential is close to zero. It highlights the complexity of understanding the subject, and provides evidence of the difficulties that the author finds in the works of the leading philosophers and psychologists who are concerned with the issue of personality. As a result, the author concludes that the analysis of the different forms of reflexivity and, their base practices are the theory of psychology of the subject.
The second term of the triad – the individual or the individuality, is both the subject and the subject matter and objective of an infinite number of studies. At the same time the concepts of «subject» and «personality» are not congruent to the concept of «individual», although many attempts to define or describe the personalityare repelled by the notion of individual. The phenomenon of personality expresses a rather late result of human development.
The interpretation of these terms by G.G. Shpet, S.L. Rubinshtein, B.M. Teplov, A.N. Leontiev, etc. is refurbished. The author believes the main issue of psychological research is personality. On the ontological plane,there are two notions of personality: down — to the subject — to a function or a collection of functions; and up — to the personality — to an ideal, to the limit of self-construction, to spirituality and freedom.
An important feature of the present stage of human knowledge development is the introducing psychology in the spiritual context. An interest in the scientific community to such spiritual and psychological realities as subjectivity, individuality, personality, “spiritual I” consciousness, conscience, human morality is increasing. These concepts are united by the fact that they do not fit in the objectively oriented areas of psychology that study the general properties and regularities of mental functioning. To consider them properly we have to differentiate the diverse scientific types and processes for obtaining psychological knowledge.
The paper presents a historical and methodological review of studies on the problem of human psychology. We identified and analyzed methodological orientations of psychological human anthropology: theocentric, and sociocentric personcentric. For each of them we found certain philosophical and ideological concepts that define the fundamental principle of human in man, which were fruitfully absorbed by psychology and allowed to deploy the relevant areas of research.
Correlation of sociocentric and personcentric scientific approaches allows to raise the issue of insufficient research of theocentric methodology for the problem of human psychology. Psychological anthropology is an implementation of theocentric methodology at the present stage of rational psychological knowledge development.
Psychological anthropology has become a new methodological platform endowed with considerable heuristic potential.
The content of psychological anthropology is a description of the phenomena of the inner world of a human individual, revealing the bases and conditions for the development of subjective reality in the ontogeny. The article defines the basic categories and formulated the basic provisions of the psychological anthropology. We justified a new interpretation of the principle of development in psychology. The results of structural and content analysis of human subjectivity, normative models, marginal quality, and the superordinate form of human existence are presented.