The paper is dedicated to the 115th birthday of P.Ya.Galperin, the classic of national psychology (1902-2017). The purpose of the paper is to showP.Ya.Galperin’s contribution to fundamental and practiceoriented science, and alsoto revealthe link between these two approaches sides in his scientific heritage. The gist of his innovative psychological theory is disclosed. The key methodological principlesare highlighted: understanding of the scope and method of psychological science; psychophysical issue, i.e. the nature of psyche and the mental world; a psychophysiological problem, the issue of the relationship between psychology and physiology; the issue of human instincts in connection with historical social nature of consciousness; the notion of linguistic consciousness and the relation of language and thought; the principle of unity of history and theory in scientific knowledge. Terminological work carried out by P. Ya.Galperin is analyzed. The introduction of new concepts enriches and makes the conceptual apparatus of psychological sciencemore precise. The necessity to reveal each methodological provision to solve practical problemsis mentioned. The unity of theoretical and practical aspects in psychological theory developed by P. Ya. Galperin, its authentic nature and relation to the culturalhistorical psychology of L.S.Vygotsky, activity concepts of S.L. Rubinstein and A.N. Leontiev are shown. There are several directions in which the method of gradual development of mental functions and concepts organizes the process of teaching and learning, the mechanisms of perceptionand simultaneous mental processes, the phenomena of Jean Piaget are explained. To sum up, the inexhaustible possibilities of the practical use of the theory of P.Ya. Galperin in all areas of individual experience.

In his work, the author compares and analyzes such concepts as human, person, personality, entity, individual, and self. He considers the views of major philosophers and psychologists of the past on these concepts. There are ideas of P. Florensky, A. Losev, G. Shpet, L. Rubinstein, L .Bozhovich, A .Leontiev, S. Freud and other scientists writing on the content, functions, origin and value of the psychological phenomena mentioned above. The views of a person, individual, and Self have undergone dramatic changes over time. Russian philosophers wrote about the impossibility to define the individual, they considered it a myth, miracle, mystery, and at the same time limit of self-construction or self-creation. Russian psychologists dropped the concept of individual below the concept of personality, and even equated with the subject. In addition, for a while the identity was considered a product of the collective. The notion of Self is considered in a similar way. It is either identified with the subject or object, or it is said to propagate using vegetative means, or like the individual may manifest properties of a soluble substance. However, the Self is recognized to be characterized by generating creative abilities and functions. Psychoanalysts first considered Self as a mental institution, then as a main authority or substructure of personality. S.Freud builds a topology of the following structure: Ego, Super-Ego, Id, each of them performing their own functions and keeping their own energy. S. Freud spoke about the historical implications of mental acts. Considerable attention is paid to the origin of Self. The development of the Self does not occur automatically, and there are concepts put forward by the psychoanalysts and psychologists.

The author emphasizes that the paper compares psychological approaches to personality and psychoanalytic approaches to the Self. In psychology, we are dealing with a person (a person?) without Self. In psychoanalysis, we are dealing with Self, but without personality. Both psychologists and psychoanalysts tend to reduce the Self to the individual, subject, representative, or mere body.