The paper attempts at answering the question of the way philosophical means can make the Orthodox concept of personality clear, and what the corresponding philosophical resources are. A theological concept of personality is not equal to a philosophical one. Orthodox understanding of personality relies on a specific religious ontology not identical to classical Greek ontology. The concepts of J.-L. Nansy and E. Levinas prove that Orthodox understanding of personality is structurally in agreement with the ontology of jointness, which means that ethics dominates over ontology. The author came to the following conclusions: 1. There is structural similarity and “natural” or “ontological” difference between the Orthodox ontology of personality and the philosophical ontology of jointness. From a theological point of view Personality belongs to a different, infinite order of being. Jointnes, on the other hand, is limited by principal finitude. 2. The Orthodox concept of personality is anti-representative and performative. Its content becomes evident through direct religious practices. The notion of personality as an image following from the ontology of jointness also demands immediate ethical attitude up to understanding the fundamental commonness of him or herself and the Other. Fundamental commonness as infinite limit of ethical attitude, that is why Levinas tells about Other 's epiphany. 3. Religious ontology of Personality can be understood by analogy with the ontology of jointness, and the Orthodox concept of Personality can be considered by analogy with ultimate intensification of ethical attitude. Thus, “ethical attitude” in understanding the Personality phenomenon can be a kind of “prejudice”. The notion of prejudice in hermeneutics does not mean an incorrect judgment, on the contrary, it means positive possibility of an event of understanding if to view it as “preunderstanding”.

Smirnov Aleksey Evgenyevich, Doctor of Sciences (Philosophy), Professor, Department of Philosophy and Methodology of Science, History Faculty, Irkutsk State University, 1, K. Marx st., Irkutsk, 664003, Russian Federation, e-mail: aesmir@mail.ru

Smirnov A.E. Philosophical Resources of Understanding the Concept of “Personality” in Orthodox Anthropology. The Bulletin of Irkutsk State University. Series Political Science and Religion Studies, 2020, vol. 32, pp. 96-106. https://doi.org/10.26516/2073-3380.2020.32.96 (in Russian)

1. Davydenko O.D. Katihizis: Vvedenie v dogmaticheskoe bogoslovie: kurs lekcij [Introduction to dogmatic theology: course of lectures]. Moscow, PSTGU Publ., 2019, 232 p. (in Russian).
2. ZHeleznov A. Traktat ob etike [Tracts on ethics]. Moscow, Ekaterinburg, Kabinetnyj uchenyj Publ., 2018, 204 p. (in Russian).
3. Ziziulas I. Obshchenie i inakovost'. Novye ocherki o lichnosti i cerkvi [Communication and Infanticide. New Essays on Personality and Church]. Moscow, BBI Publ., 2012, 407 p. (in Russian).
4. Kerimov T. H. Ontologiya kak onto-teologiya i orientiry ee preodoleniya [Ontology as onto-theology and guidelines of its overcoming]. The Bulletin of Irkutsk State University. Series Political Science and Religion Studies, 2015, no 14, pp. 106-113. (in Russian).
5. Kuraev A. Vyzov ekumenizma Challenge of Ecumenism Challenge of Ecumenism [Challenge of Ecumenism]. Moscow, Piar-Press Publ., 2019, 560 p. (in Russian).
6. Levinas E. Izbrannoe. Totalnost i Beskonechnoe [Totality and Infinite]. Moscow, Saint-Pitersburg. Universitetskaya kniga Publ., 2000, 416 p. (in Russian).
7. Nansi ZH.-L. Bytie edinichnoe mnozhestvennoe [Being a single plural]. Minsk, Logvinov Publ., 2004, 272 p. (in Russian).
8.  Sapronov P. A. Slovar klyuchesyh ponyatij hristianskogo bogosloviya [Dictionary of cranial concepts of Christian theology]. Saint-Pitersburg, Gumanitarnaya akademiya Publ., 2020, 480 p. (in Russian).