УДК 17

ISSN 2227-7242 (Print), ISSN 2304-9685 (Online)

Антропологічні виміри філософських досліджень, 2020, Вип. 17

Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research, 2020, NO 17


UDC 17.035.1:171


1*National Pedagogical Dragomanov University (Kyiv, Ukraine), e-mail natamrinska@gmail.com,
ORCID 0000-0001-7958-9118



Purpose of the article is to establish the role of egoism in the life of a person faced with a disability situation, as a moment of self-determination in an existential crisis. I set the task to evaluate the influence of egoism and find out its significance in the prospect of the person’s further existence in the conditions of disability using the philosophical anthropology based on the meta-anthropology principle. Theoretical basis. Based on the fact that the role of egoism is perceived by public opinion as a vice and entails the absorption by a person of the benefits intended for others, I find them inappropriate for a person in a situation of disability. Taking into account the concepts of ego of altruism and altruistic egoism, which partially justify the positive influence of egoism, are only a product of the symbiotic interaction of altruism and egoism. The combination of egoism with altruism cannot reveal the essence of the crisis for a person in a disability situation. In a situation of disability, a person cannot synthesize altruism, as part of the egoism symbiosis. Methodological system in the study of the positive role of egoism, the modern theory of meta-anthropology by Nazip Khamitov is used. The theory that divides the being of a person into various types (ordinary, ultimate, and being beyond the bounds) is able to most fully structure the concept of egoism in the being of a person who has disability. Originality. I made an attempt to prove the positive role of egoism in a situation related to the body transformation into new conditions. The analysis of evidence of the need for the egoism development, as a function capable of actualizing a person in the formed crisis circumstances is carried out. A theory about the need for egoism to get a person out of the existential crisis situation (ultimate being) in which he stays due to a disability situation was proposed. Conclusions. I show that taking care of oneself (egoism) is a balancing factor for a person, as opposing a fatally unfair situation in which a person has received disability. Rational egoism is able to bring a person out of ultimate being and allow him to transform into a new, changed reality.

Keywords: egoism; egoaltruism; ordinary being; ultimate being; being beyond the bounds; person; disability


I consider disability as an injury that significantly changed the physical characteristics of the body. Such a person cannot live a former life. The new being of disability entails a crisis state of mind, leading a person to an existential rethinking of his role in life and the search for new goals.

First, a person in a disability situation loses the integrity of his inner egoism. If we consider disability as a tragedy, and a person with disability as a tragic personality, can egoism exist without an external social assessment and influence?

New factors affecting a person create an existential shock. They lead to the need to transform his own fear for life into the egoism. The only sense is life and the variant of its saving – egoism.


Based on the foregoing, the aim of the article is to identify the positive meaning of "rational egoism" with respect to philosophical meta-anthropology and to identify a way out of the crisis of ultimate being.

Analysis of recent research and publications

I analyzed the latest publications on egoism, concluded that this topic has not been studied enough, especially in situations of disability. But I was interested in several publications of recent years. I would like to note an article on the topic of socio-psychological adaptation in individuals with a predominance of egoistic qualities in the study of the social, psychological and philosophical aspects of egoism (Gayvoronskaya, 2012). Avdeeva (2013) conducted research on the issues of "rational self-love" and a positive attitude towards egoism, as an ethics supporting solidarity. She outlined a number of factors characterizing the egoist as a person prone to domination. A. V. Filatov conducted a study in ethical standards of egoistic thinking and matters of morality. His work on the history of philosophy is based on a study of the works of Lev Shestov and provides an opportunity to look at egoism as a state of deep personal tragedy (Filatov, 2011). Lisa Downing (2019) conducted gender morality issues including egoistic manifestations according to the feminist theory. She first divided egoism into female and male. I also highlighted a chapter on egoism and egocentrism in the concept of virtue from Philip J. Ivanhoe (2018).

Several articles on medical psychology, which are indirectly related to the topic of my work, open up the medical and psychological criteria of self-care as a mechanism for overcoming the disease (Antonova, & Kuznetsova, 2017). Objective understanding of personality reflection in the moments of self-organization (Sizikova, 2019). Objective information on the fundamental principles of the egoism mechanism in the concept of "particularly-universal" (Koromyslov, 2019). A systematic analysis based on the cultural-historical method, which makes it possible to understand "emotional egoism" as a contradiction between the moral value of a person and the social significance of an individual (Kuznetsov, 2017). Analysis of egoism and altruism in the representation of biological sciences using the role of philosophical metaphysics within the framework of the project "Categorical opposition "altruism-egoism" in the moral and ethical discourse of our time" (transl. by N. M.) (Maksimenko, Zenets, & Varova, 2018). But all these works do not fully reflect set task and are far from philosophical anthropology, so I had to turn to earlier works in the field of egoism, altruism and the spheres influencing these internal qualities of a person.

Trying to consider egoism in a disability situation, calling it "limited rational egoism", I found confirmations of my thoughts from the philosophers Arthur Schopenhauer, Friedrich Nietzsche, Nikolai Chernyshevsky, Rudolf Steiner, Paul Tillich, and Michel Foucault. In this context, let me quote Arthur Schopenhauer’s (2014) statement which I completely agree with: "I and egoism are one: if the latter disappears, then, in fact, there is no longer the former" (transl. by N. M.) (p. 120). Chernyshevsky takes the constant of "rational egoism" as a basis and relies on the French materialists, emphasizing the importance of egoism in social significance as the pursuit of the common good. For me, in this study, his quote, which explains the position of the last century and remains relevant to this day, becomes important. He writes: "a person does what is more pleasant for him to do; he is guided by a calculation that tells him to give up less profit or less pleasure for more profit, more pleasure" (transl. by N. M.) (Chernyshevsky, 1974, p. 116).

Nikolai Chernyshevsky goes deeper into the social perspective and formulates the position of personal good relating it. The disclosure of such a view makes all people a priori egoists, but at the same time, one does not deepen into the egoism essence and the person himself, as it is less significant in comparison with the field of society. In modern studies, egoism is rather related to the field of psychology, to social philosophy or ethics, or is rethought in the works of anthropologists of the past.

Statement of basic materials

Rudolf Steiner (2007) believes that man is egoism in its purest form with all its power and strength directed towards himself (p. 173). What I cannot disagree with. In other words, a person is full of his personal egoism, he knows himself how and what he needs, morality and dogma only tie him. Therefore, I support Steiner’s position in the dispute with Chernyshevsky, when he speaks of internal egoism as the core of human being, believing that the destruction of the self can come only from an external factor, which destroys the concept of the egoist and, accordingly, stops him.

Friedrich Nietzsche, who back in the 19th century connected egoism and ego, in my opinion, he thereby indicated that egoism is an integral part of any thinking being. He wrote: "There can be nothing else but egoism, that for people whose ego becomes weak and fluid, the power of great love is weakened, that the most loving are primarily due to the power of their ego …" (transl. by N. M.) (Nietzsche, 2005, p. 213). It should be borne in mind that in Nietzsche, the egoism disclosure is accepted as a blessing, but is fully attainable only if the person is growing up as a person, which I also agree with. However, in the topic under study, the fact of renewal, i.e. change habitual lifestyle, habitual body integrity can be considered as a person’s growing up.

The topic of egoism, considered by many authors, loses prime cause of "self-care" and is turned into a unity of altruism and egoism. A similar search for symbiosis is described by Hans Selye (1979), who introduces the phrase "altruistic egoism", thereby indicating the impossibility of the existence of egoism in its pure form (p. 21). Or the same concept is hidden by another definition of "egoaltruism" in the work of Yuriy Ryurikov (1990, p. 57). But in this case, I understand the thoughts of the authors as the fact that they perceive egoism as a benefit to the person. Moreover, the benefit from egoism is impossible without sympathy or an external factor of influence. The concepts introduced by Hans Selye and Y. Ryurikov, in my opinion, should be interpreted as the opportunity for the manifestation of altruism to maintain alternative egoism in another. Thus, these concepts refer to social relations. They are positive in every sense, but these are not manifestations of internal egoism in its pure form, which the author of the article is trying to consider.

Egoism, blocked by the criteria of social morality, eventually either becomes a miserable model of itself, or develops into a synthesis form in the examples of "altruistic egoism or egoaltruism". As writes about the egoism globalization, with whom I would like to disagree: "the difference in the action levels of solidarity and egoism was probably one of the reasons that provided the possibility of a long and relatively peaceful coexistence for two mutually exclusive concepts" (transl. by N. M.) (Avdeeva, 2013, p. 130). In this case, egoism and selfishness, which are completely different in structure and manifestations, should be divided within the framework of social influence. Reflections of Philip J. Ivanhoe (2018), which say that the model of moral motivation is much stronger than the model of self-sacrifice, support my position on egoism and selfishness. Egoism, in the social model of values, is turned into altruism with some benefit for the individual and loses the essence of its highest purpose as "self-care", leaving for this only the consequences of the altruism projected into the outside.

We can make intermediate conclusions that altruism is "rational egoism", and we cannot reveal egoism in its pure form in socially dependent individuals. So does it exist outside of society, are there any examples of its manifestation without additional leverages? Yes, such egoism is egoism of overcoming oneself or "limited rational egoism", that is, egoism without egoistic manifestations, limited by one person, without violating the boundaries of others.

Egoism with disabilities – in my understanding, this is egoism that does not go beyond the possible harm to others for their own good. Such egoism cannot exist due to the infringement of the "rational egoism" of the other. Thus, I separate egoism and selfishness in different categories. From a logical point of view, egoism as a medium for the development of one’s "ego" in the concept of one’s own attitude towards oneself must not violate the objectivity of the internal essence of the personality itself.

Rational egoism goes beyond the boundaries of natural egoism and is based on reason, as a censor of an act, not relying on its impulsiveness. Thus, the status of "limited rational egoism" is a symbiosis of the moral and egoistic qualities of the individual himself, regardless of morality, and it is directed inward, not outward. "Limited egoism" is "existential egoism". As an example, we can cite the following thesis: "I will do what I want to increase my own self-esteem and for my own good without the help of other people" (Bazaluk, & Blazhevych, 2015). In simple words, I will choose the best, until I am limited by internal morality and guided by internal self-respect within the framework of my needs.

Such an example is very visible in a metropolis, as a choice. A selfish model of behavior comes down to the principle: "I will take a very convenient parking spot, which is beneficial to me regardless of the convenience of those around me". And egoism in its pure form, but without selfish manifestation, looks like this: "I will take a very convenient parking spot, leaving the opportunity for the convenience of others". Seemingly, the difference itself is not great, but if one thinks about it, it is huge. Both one act and the second is a manifestation of egoism, but in the second act, a person is more affected not by external factors of morality, but by the internal limitations of his selfishness.

Therefore, I talk about "rational limited egoism" using the word "limited", which in Ukrainian and Russian corresponds to the well-known definition of a person with disabilities, where he is characterized as a physically limited person. This concept perfectly describes the problem under consideration and gives an understanding that egoism is limited to one person outside of society, and at the same time does not produce altruism and cannot be supported by "egoaltruism" or "altruistic egoism". Egoism is limited both by definition and by the essence of its magnitude. It should also be called "limited" because it is possible in this form only within the framework of ultimate being, during periods of crisis and existential experience, choice, assessment or reassessment of one’s essence – in other layers of being, it does not have such limitations.

At present, egoism is characterized by behavioral principles. An individual outside of society will not suspect that he is egoist. The transformation of egoism into the basic values of the individual himself during crisis changes becomes a necessary instrument for self-awareness. This is evidenced by the theory called by Michel Foucault (1998) as "self-care", and the state of disability is a vivid example of this type of egoism, as the only straw using which you can get out of a tragic state without losing your inner core.

First, let me make it clear that I consider the situation of a tragic state, disability, which, in my opinion, has basic indicators in the meta-anthropological vector of perception, as "being on the edge". In the theory of meta-anthropology, N. V. Khamitov identifies three main dimensions of human being: ordinary being, ultimate being and being beyond the bounds. He emphasizes that ultimate being, "being-on-the-edge is a rebellion against the social assignment of human life, a breakthrough to freedom" and clarifies that ultimate being is possible only in an existential crisis. "Existence", the author writes, "means the tragic discord of the I and the world around us, the growing contradiction between them" (transl. by N. M.) (Khamitov, 2017, p. 111).

Considering the situation with acquired disability as a fate, one should determine the place and position of the individual in the context of the meta-anthropological paradigm.

In the study, disability is a tragic accident that has led to the loss of bodily harmony, the full realization of the possibility of death and the subsequent search for a new meaning in life. Fatal accident becomes determining factor of being for several years, and possibly for life. This definition puts the disabled person in the framework of ultimate being or the tragic boundary into which a person plunges instantly. It is not thoughts, not anxieties, not external alienation that immerse him in an existential state, but fate, which creates a precedent for deepening into existence. The horror and despair that befell a disabled person disorient him in the field of everyday (ordinary) life, creating voids: the loss of life meaning on a personal plane, the absence of a role in the society structure.

All this moves him from ordinary to ultimate being. Such tragic changes for a disabled person bordering on non-existence, "void and loss of meaning are the essence of the expression of non-existence, threatening the spiritual life of a person. Human finiteness implies such a threat, and alienation is its actualization" (transl. by N. M.) (Tillich, 1995, p. 38). This is how Paul Tillich describes and explains this, which I completely agree with, but I emphasize that non-existence leaves him in the framework of ultimate being with a gaping void of despair. Keeping to the traditions of atomism, we can accept that "non-existence" is a void. Then there can be no sense in void and the possibility of resolving the situation reaches an impasse.

Thus, in my opinion, and the personal experience of a person with a disability, a disabled person experiencing the tragedy of what is happening, depreciates himself. Using the metaphor of Paul Wayne, which Foucault successfully noticed, a person is in a state of aquarium. His own internal and external problems are completely separated from the outside world, and he looks at it like a fish in aquarium that he recalls (Bernini, 2015, p. 45).

Being in this state and rethinking not only the meaning of the new existence, but himself as a new person, he reacquaints with himself and learns to live in a new body. At that moment, "limited rational egoism" becomes an assistant and the only mentor in defining oneself as a significant element of the universe. Creates, builds himself new, his essence, culture, values, which coincides with the conclusions of M. Foucault: "(a situation) in which internal relations with oneself were strengthened and revalued and the importance of attitude to oneself was increased" (transl. by N. M.). Thus, the principle of "care of the self" by M. Foucault (1998) most fully reveals the existence of a person’s need for himself and is interpreted, in my opinion, very clearly defining such a need as "the art of existence (techne tou biou) in its various forms …" (transl. by N. M.) (p. 51).

Creating the concept of meta-anthropology, N. V. Khamitov (2017) suggested that a person cannot be constantly on the same level of being, and his life is divided into certain segments. Each person, being in one of the types of being, periodically goes beyond its limits under the influence of the circumstances of the outside world. The state of existential crisis can keep an ordinary person in ultimate being for the period of transformation, to rethink the tragic contradictions. A disabled person, with the receipt of a new body can be in the ultimate state most of his life. Moving into the ordinary or beyond the bound being may not be attainable for him.

In such immersions in a tragic reality or a state of existential crisis, a person stays for a long time. The formation of a new reality for him is possible through the acceptance of himself and through love for himself, for a new body, for new circumstances of life and for new ways of realizing his egoism. We find a similar personality description of Lev Shestov in the discussion of F. M. Dostoevskiy’s underground man, when he characterizes a person in a crisis, who already through his denials gives rise to the tragedy of rejection. Lev Shestov’s (2016) quote, in my opinion, emphasizes the tragedy of disability and its impact on humans: "no social reorganization will drive out tragedies from life and, apparently, the time has come not to deny suffering as some kind of fictitious reality one can get rid of using the magic word "it should not be", but accept them, acknowledge and, perhaps, finally understand" (transl. by N. M.) (p. 60).

Life has created such contradictions, raising them to a paradox. In this paradox, egoism exists as the salvation of one’s inner world in the awareness of the injustice of being. A person realizes that it is completely impossible to live in the old way, he needs to create not only the concept of personal egoism, but also his own egoistic being in the framework of real life. The deepest prerequisite to provoke egoism is, first of all, the materiality of existence itself, which in the new body has to be rethought and form being for one’s own needs. As correctly indicated, "the key 'category' in the construction of egoism is denial, expressed in the alienation of a person, his self-absorption and focus on his own interests, beyond understanding their dialectical connection with the interests of society as a whole" (transl. by N. M.) (Koromyslov, 2019, p. 52). This confirms the inevitability of being of a person with disability outside the objectivity of the world around him.

As V. L. Lekhcier (2007) notes: "The meaning of pain and illness is 'compulsion to interrogation' not as another form of speech, but as a hopeless ontological state associated with personality traits … this state and experience is accompanied by a radical interrogation regarding one’s own existence and being in general" (transl. by N. M.) (p. 48). And I will add that it is the relationship with pain that creates the space of ultimate being. The goal in this case, for a person with disabilities, is to preserve his essence as a person and redefine his life goals. Physical pain that fills the space does not allow you to love your body. The body, which has changed its form, hurts the mind, and the mind refuses to accept reality as the source of being. A person is immersed in a state of apathy and dislike for himself, the way out of this state is egoism, as a manifestation of an internal essence. A person becomes a little child who does not understand the environment; only two things are important to him: who he is and why he is here. And all this lies in the realm of anxiety.

Paul Tillich considers three types of anxieties and divides them into classes – anxiety of non-existence, anxiety of lack of meaning and anxiety of guilt. He says that not all kinds of anxieties (although they may be present in a person) will be expressed simultaneously (Tillich, 1995, p. 46). In a situation of disability, a person is faced with all three types of anxieties, moreover, in hypertrophied form. The only way out of this situation is egoism, as an incentive for existence, considering it a stage of overcoming the disease, and I agree with these reasonings: "it is the rethinking of one’s life and values that can motivate a person to fight and defeat a disease that is even considered to be fatal" (transl. by N. M.) (Antonova, & Kuznetsova, 2017, p. 466).

Thus, "limited rational egoism" acts as a step for overcoming the tragic crisis of a person in a situation of disability. But how long can a person remain in "existential egoism?" In answer to this question, it can be assumed that in such a pure form egoism cannot exist forever, it will also leave the framework of ultimate being and will be transformed into other types of egoistic awareness. In the concept of tragic accident, egoism becomes necessary for the simple survival of a person. Later, when it is transferred to the being beyond the bounds, egoism can be transformed into altruism, and in everyday life, into consumer egoism. Let us consider these transitions.

Sooner or later, a person will need social communication and integration. In my opinion, "rational egoism" has its transformations in the field of ordinary being. If we take as the basis that ordinary being is a routine space of daily life, then existential egoism becomes the egoism of consumerism and acquires bright features of selfishness. Acceptance of benefits from others to the detriment of the needs of others and neglecting their desires. In this case, a person becomes a kind of vampire who takes away the goods necessary for him to the detriment of society and the environment. The sociocultural system is not able to create a rebuff because the principles of humanism and tolerance are proclaimed in society. Moreover, a person with a disability having already left the framework of ultimate being continues to enjoy the benefits of the transformation that has happened to him. We often encounter squalid personalities with minimal physicality changes, e.g. lack of arm or leg, begging, or using their position to gain profit.

The second negative factor in ordinary being may be the manifestation of ressentiment, thereby egoistic manifestations become detrimental not only to the environment, but also to the person himself in his limited abilities. As described V. V. Kuznetsov (2017), with whom I cannot disagree: "ressentiment manifests itself as a complex of envy, hatred, umbrage and revengefulness towards other individuals who are more successful in implementing the law of existential egoism" (transl. by N. M.) (p. 95). In the same way, ordinary being creates dangerous prerequisites for a person to stop being in the existential state of "limited egoism" and to enter a state of negation. A person walks out of anxieties through physical or spiritual doping, turning to religious movements or alcohol abuse. All this creates the illusion of the world’s acceptance of man in his new state. The return into ordinary being without proper internal transformation brings problems both for the person himself and for the surrounding people, relatives and the society as a whole. Only a sufficient immersion in one’s inner world with a new transformation of the body and rethinking one’s anxieties and fears, as well as accepting oneself as a new person, is able to carry out painless integration into ordinary being. As trite as this sounds, but love yourself new. Based on the statistical facts of the WHO, almost 30 million people are addicted to drugs, and suicide is the second leading cause of death among young people (Lozovoy, & Ponedilok, 2018, p. 34). The author of the article sees the reason for this as a lowering the value of their life with increasing self-absorption. The solution to the problem cannot lie in the usual fields of knowledge and should consist in the development of a philosophical and anthropological system in the construction of new values for a person faced with a crisis. Only a concept of rethinking and new paradigms at the level of social and spiritual education and self-development can lead a person out of a crisis.

To rise one notch, to the being beyond the bounds, as to the creative space of awareness from ultimate being, is possible only if one immerses one’s egoism in interconnection with the laws of the environment. Human behavior should be more flexible and requiring integration of a person into processes. I should note and agree with Lisa Downing (2019) that a woman is more adaptive and able to experience more gently the conditions of a personal crisis, which the author calls "self-sufficient egoism" (p. 20). But this topic requires a deeper immersion in gender differences.

A vivid example of life in a disability situation for me is Stephen Hawking. Despite the progressive disease that befell him, all his life he was a man living a decent life and having achieved great success in his field. It is an example of this person that creates understanding of how one can be completely dependent on others and be beneficial for everyone at the same time. "Limited egoism" makes it possible to transform into altruism.

Answering the question posed at the beginning of the work can there be egoism in its purest form, without the influence of society and what forms it has, I conclude: such egoism exist, it is a way of survival within the framework of ultimate being as "limited rational egoism" of a person. And it is egoism that allows a person to grow in its manifestations in the fight against various types of anxieties and overcome the consequences of disability.


For the first time, meta-anthropology is used as an anthropological analysis tool for a person in a disability situation. I attempted to prove the need for egoism in a situation related to the transformation of the body into new conditions. The need to develop egoism as a function capable of actualizing a person in the circumstances of being disabled. The necessity of egoism to overcome the situation of existential crisis (ultimate being), in which a person is due to a disability situation, is also proved.


In social culture, egoism does not have unambiguous structure and tends to transform into various synthetic forms: "egoaltruism" or "altruistic egoism". As a positive quality, egoism in the pure form is possible only in the structure of ultimate being.

For a disability situation, egoism becomes an incentive in the struggle for the formation of a new I and is positive:

Egoism of an individual in a disability situation is always expressed in the formula of "self-care".

Egoism is the only way out of the existence of anxiety, and in this case, it should be designated as "limited rational egoism".

In the future, it is planned to consider in detail and stage by stage the manifestations of egoism at all meta-anthropological levels, connecting the classification by personality type and gender characteristics.


Antonova, V. M., & Kuznetsova M. N. (2017). Zabota o sebe kak mekhanizm preodoleniya bolezni. Bulletin of Medical Internet Conferences, 7(1), 466-467. (in Russian)

Avdeeva, I. A. (2013). Globalnaya etika i lokalnyy egoizm. Filosofiya i obshchestvo, 1, 128-135. (in Russian)

Bazaluk, O., & Blazhevych, T. (2015). Modern Basics Philosophy of Education. Future Human Image, 2(5), 93-100. (in Russian)

Bernini, L. (2015). Zolotye rybki, filosofy i akrobatika mysli : Nevozmozhnost etiki Mishelya Fuko. My vse v zabote postoyannoy… Kontseptsiya zaboty o sebe v istorii pedagogiki i kultury: Materialy mezhdunarodnoy konferentsii pamyati filosofa, sotsiologa, psikhologa G. V. Ivanchenko (1965–2009), September 9-11, 2015, Moscow, 43-54. (in Russian)

Chernyshevsky, N. G. (1974). Sobranie sochineniy (Vol. 4). Moscow: Pravda. (in Russian)

Downing, L. (2019). Selfish Women. London: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780429285349 (in English)

Filatov, A. V. (2011). Lev Shestov – Egoism as Important Feature of Tragic Personality. Tambov University Review, 2(94), 256-259. (in Russian)

Foucault, M. (1998). Histoire de la sexualite-III: Le souci de soi. Moscow: Refl-buk. (in Russian)

Gayvoronskaya, A. A. (2012). Specifics socially-psychological adaptation from expressiveness of installation on altruism/egoism. Perm University Herald, 4(12), 81-84. (in Russian)

Ivanhoe, P. J. (2018). Selfishness and Self-Centeredness. In Oneness: East Asian Conceptions of Virtue, Happiness, and How We Are All Connected. Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190840518.003.0004
(in English)

Khamitov, N. (2017). Filosofiya: Bytie. Chelovek. Mir: Kurs lektsiy. Kyiv: KNT. (in Ukrainian)

Koromyslov, V. V. (2019). Approach to research of egoism from perspective of specific all-general development theory. International Research Journal, 1(79), 51-53. DOI: 10.23670/irj.2019.79.1.038
(in Russian)

Kuznetsov, V. V. (2017). Dignity as a fundamental principle of culture or as a manifestation of the law of the "existential self". St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University Journal. Humanities and Social Sciences, 8(3), 90-100. DOI: 10.18721/JHSS.8309 (in Russian)

Lekhcier, V. L. (2007). Bol i perekhodnost: Nabrosok ekzistentsialnoy algoditsei. Voprosy filosofii, 12, 41-49. (in Russian)

Lozovoy, V. O., & Ponedilok, A. I. (2018). Failure as one of the personality self-destruction factors. The Bulletin of Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University. Series: Philosophy, Philosophy of Law, Political Science, Sociology, 3(38), 31-42. DOI: 10.21564/2075-7190.38.139947 (in Ukrainian)

Maksimenko, L. A., Zenets, N. G., & Varova, N. L. (2018). Biological metaphysical scientism in addressing the issue of altruism and egoism. Vestnik Tomskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta, 427, 79-90. DOI: 10.17223/15617793/427/10 (in Russian)

Nietzsche, F. (2005). Volya k vlasti. Opyt pereotsenki vsekh tsennostey. Moscow: Kulturnaya revolyutsiya.
(in Russian)

Ryurikov, Y. B. (1990). Med i yad lyubvi. Moscow: Molodaya Gvardiya. (in Russian)

Schopenhauer, A. (2014). Metafizika polovoy lyubvi. St. Petersburg: Azbuka. (in Russian)

Selye, H. (1979). Stress bez distressa. Moscow: Progress. (in Russian)

Shestov, L. I. (2016). Рrо et contra. St. Petersburg: RKhGA. (in Russian)

Sizikova, T. E. (2019). The influence of polymodality of reflection on personality self-organization. Science for Education Today, 9(1), 57-75. DOI: 10.15293/2658-6762.1901.04 (in Russian)

Steiner, R. (2007). Egoizm v filosofii. Moscow: Evidentis. (in Russian)

Tillich, P. (1995). The courage to be. T. I. Vevyurko, Trans. In P. Tillich, Izbrannoe: Teologiya kultury (pp.7-131). Moscow: Yurist. (in Russian)


Антонова В. М., Кузнецова М. Н. Забота о себе как механизм преодоления болезни. Бюллетень медицинских Интернет-конференций. 2017. Т. 7. № 1. С. 466–467.

Авдеева И. А. Глобальная этика и локальный эгоизм. Философия и общество. 2013. № 1. C. 128–135.

Bazaluk O., Blazhevych T. Modern Basics Philosophy of Education. Future Human Image. 2015. Vol. 2. Iss. 5. P. 93–100.

Бернини Л. Золотые рыбки, философы и акробатика мысли: невозможность этики Мишеля Фуко. Мы все в заботе постоянной… Концепция заботы о себе в истории педагогики и культуры. Материалы
междунар. конф. памяти философа, социолога, психолога Г. В. Иванченко (1965–2009) (Москва,
9–11 сент. 2015 г.). Москва, 2015. С. 43–54.

Чернышевский Н. Г. Собрание сочинений : в 5 т. Москва : Правда, 1974. Т. 4. 526 c.

Downing L. Selfish Women. London : Routledge, 2019. 176 p. DOI: 10.4324/9780429285349

Филатов А. В. Лев Шестов – эгоизм как важнейшая черта трагической личности. Вестник Тамбовского университета. 2011. № 2(94). С. 256–259.

Фуко М. История сексуальности – III: Забота о себе. Москва : Рефл-бук, 1998. 283 c.

Гайворонская А. А. Специфика социально-психологической адаптации от выраженности установки на
альтруизм/эгоизм. Вестник Пермского университета. 2012. Вып. 4(12). С. 81–84.

Ivanhoe P. J. Selfishness and Self-Centeredness. Oneness: East Asian Conceptions of Virtue, Happiness, and How We Are All Connected. Oxford University Press, 2018. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190840518.003.0004

Хамитов Н. Философия: Бытие. Человек. Мир : курс лекций. Киев : КНТ, 2017. 268 c.

Коромыслов В. В. Подход к исследованию эгоизма с позиции конкретно-всеобщей теории развития.
Международный научно-исследовательский журнал. 2019. № 1(79). С. 51–53. DOI: 10.23670/irj.2019.79.1.038

Кузнецов В. В. Достоинство как первопринцип культуры или как проявление закона "экзистенциального эгоизма". Научно-технические ведомости СПбГПУ. Гуманитарные и общественные науки. 2017. Т. 8. № 3. C. 90–100. DOI: 10.18721/JHSS.8309

Лехциер В. Л. Боль и переходность: набросок экзистенциальной альгодицеи. Вопросы философии. 2007. № 12. С.41–49

Лозовой В. О., Понеділок А. І. Бездуховність як один із факторів саморуйнації особистості. Вісник Націо­нального юридичного університету імені Ярослава Мудрого. Серія: філософія, філософія права, політологія, соціологія. 2018. T. 3. 38. С. 31–42. DOI: 10.21564/2075-7190.38.139947

Максименко Л. А., Зенец Н. Г., Варова Н. Л. Биологический метафизический сциентизм в решении проблемы альтруизма и эгоизма. Вестник Томского государственного университета. 2018. № 427.
С. 79–90. DOI: 10.17223/15617793/427/10

Ницше Ф. Воля к власти. Опыт переоценки всех ценностей. Москва : Культурная революция, 2005. 880 c.

Рюриков Ю. Б. Мед и яд любви. Москва : Молодая Гвардия, 1990. 448 c.

Шопенгауэр А. Метафизика половой любви. Санкт-Петербург : Азбука, 2014. 224 c.

Селье Г. Стресс без дистресса. Москва : Прогресс, 1979. 128 c.

Шестов Л. И. Рrо et contra. Санкт-Петербург : РХГА, 2016. 719 c.

Сизикова Т. Э. Влияние полимодальности рефлексии на самоорганизацию личности. Science for Education Today. 2019. T. 9. № 1. P. 57–75. DOI: 10.15293/2658-6762.1901.04

Штайнер Р. Эгоизм в философии. Москва : Эвидентис, 2007. 182 c.

Тиллих П. Мужество быть / пер. Т. И. Вевюрко. Избранное: Теология культуры. Москва : Юрист, 1995. С. 7–131.

Н. А. Мринська1*

1*Національний педагогічний університет імені М. П. Драгоманова (Київ, Україна), ел. пошта natamrinska@gmail.com, ORCID 0000-0001-7958-9118



Мета статті – встановити роль егоїзму в житті людини, що зіткнулася з ситуацією інвалідності, як моментом самовизначення в екзистенційній кризі. Я ставлю завдання – з допомогою філософської антропології за принципом метаантропології оцінити вплив егоїзму і з’ясувати його значимість в перспективі подальшого буття особистості в умовах інвалідності. Теоретичний базис. Ґрунтуючись на тому, що роль егоїзму сприймається громадською думкою, як порок, і тягне за собою поглинання особистістю благ, призначених для інших, я знаходжу їх невідповідними стосовно людини в ситуації інвалідності. Я беру до уваги концепції "егоальтруїзму" та "альтруїстичного егоїзму", що лише частково обґрунтовують позитивний вплив егоїзму і є продуктом симбіотичного впливу альтруїзму й егоїзму. Поєднання егоїзму з альтруїзмом не можуть розкрити суть кризи для людини, що потрапила в ситуація інвалідності. У ситуації інвалідності людина не може синтезувати альтруїзм, як частину симбіозу егоїзму. Методологічною системою в дослідженні позитивної ролі егоїзму використовується сучасна теорія метаантропології Назіпа Хамітова. Теорія, що розділяє буття людини на різні типи (буденне, граничне і позамежне), здатна найбільш повно структурувати поняття егоїзму в бутті людини, що зазнала інвалідності. Наукова новизна. Мною зроблено спробу довести позитивну роль егоїзму в ситуації, що пов'язана з трансформацією тіла в нові умови. Проведено аналіз доказів необхідності розвитку егоїзму як функції, що здатна актуалізувати людину в сформованих обставинах кризи. Також висунута теорія про необхідність егоїзму для виходу із ситуації екзистенціальної кризи (граничного буття), в якому людина перебуває через ситуацію інвалідності. Висновки. Я показую, що турбота про себе (егоїзм) є врівноважуючим фактором для людини, як протиставлення фатально-несправедливій ситуації, в якій людина отримала інвалідність. Розумний егоїзм здатний вивести людину із граничного буття й дозволити трансформуватися в новій, зміненій реальності.

Ключові слова: егоїзм; егоальтруізм; буденне буття; граничне буття; метаграничне буття; людина;


1*Национальный педагогический университет имени М. П. Драгоманова (Киев, Украина), эл. почта natamrinska@gmail.com, ORCID 0000-0001-7958-9118




Цель статьи – установить роль эгоизма в жизни человека, столкнувшегося с ситуацией инвалидности, как момента самоопределения в экзистенциальном кризисе. Я ставлю задачу – с помощью философской антропологии по принципу метаантропологии оценить влияние эгоизма и выяснить его значимость в перспективе дальнейшего бытия личности в условиях инвалидности. Теоретический базис. Основываясь на том, что роль эгоизма воспринимается общественным мнением, как порок, и влечет за собой поглощение личностью благ, предназначенных для других, я нахожу их несоответствующими применительно к человеку в ситуации инвалидности. Я принимаю во внимание концепции "эгоальтруизма" и "альтруистического эгоизма", которые лишь частично обосновывают положительное влияние эгоизма и являются продуктом симбиотического взаимодействия альтруизма и эгоизма. Соединение эгоизма с альтруизмом не могут раскрыть суть кризиса для человека, попавшего в ситуацию инвалидности. В ситуации инвалидности человек не может синтезировать альтруизм, как часть симбиоза эгоизма. Методологической системой в исследовании положительной роли эгоизма используется современная теория метаантропологии Назипа Хамитова. Теория, разделяющая бытие человека на различные типы (обыденное, предельное и запредельное), способна наиболее полно структурировать понятие эгоизма в бытие человека, получившего инвалидность. Научная новизна. Мною предпринята попытка доказать положительную роль эгоизма в ситуации, связанной с трансформацией тела в новые условия. Проведен анализ доказательства необходимости развития эгоизма как функции, способной актуализировать человека в сформированных обстоятельствах кризиса. Также выдвинута теория о необходимости эгоизма для выхода из ситуации экзистенциального кризиса (предельного бытия), в котором человек пребывает из-за ситуации инвалидности. Выводы. Я показываю, что забота о себе (эгоизм) есть уравновешивающий фактор для человека, как противопоставление фатально-несправедливой ситуации, в которой человек получил инвалидность. Разумный эгоизм способен вывести человека из предельного бытия и позволить трансформироваться в новой, измененной реальности.

Ключевые слова: эгоизм; эгоальтруизм; обыденное бытие; предельное бытие; запредельное бытие;
человек; инвалидность

Received: 20.12.2019

Accepted: 06.05.2020

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International

doi: 10.15802/ampr.v0i17.193983
© N. A. Mrinskaya, 2020

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.