Personalism and personalisms. History and meanings.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Authors
The article deals with the history of the idea of person and of the personcentered philosophies. In fact, the personalism is a "plural" concept from both synchronic and diachronic point of views. This pluralistic characterisation is evident today, when the human person is central not only in religion-inspired philosophies, but also in some lay ones as well as in some psychological and social sciences.
According to the Author, the different forms of personalism can be reduced to two main trends: humanistic (ontological or ethical) and naturalistic (functionalistic or analytic). Such a distinction is effective also in the field of bioethics in place of others that come out questionable, as lay/religious, quality/ sacredness of life, and availability/no-availability of life approaches.
Facing with the different use of the term person, the Author supports the opportunity to keep it - even if it has determined a certain equivocalness - but on condition that to qualifying the different approaches, in such a way as to promote both being conscious of actual conflict of visions and the utility of a comparison among these rival theories. Only if we will pinpoint the differences and the similes of the different approaches, it will be possible to converse among them. In Author's opinion, the answer to the anthropological demand must be found on the theme of the person. Such a request is impelling, from theoretical and ethical point of view, after the seasons of modern anthropocentrism and post-modern anti-humanism.
Downloads
Citations
