Abstract: The subject of this research is the nature and sources of the lust for power as anthropological phenomenon that reveals a special dimension of life of any human being. It is claimed that the attractiveness of power is not dictated by the amenities or resources, accessibility of which promises the privilege of the status of supremacy. Moreover, power is interpreted as a burden aggravated by fear, responsibility, narrowing the personality, serving as a source of inner conflicts. At the same time, the author the position that the irrational magnetism of power is justified by its passionate nature, rooted in the in-depth layers of human psyche, tight interweaving with the relevant processes of establishment and increasing personal strength, as well as consolidating of vitality. Lust for power appears as the concentration of energy of self-esteem, demonstrates the tendency towards transgression of personal limits. The research is conducted within the framework of philosophical anthropology. The author leans on the theoretical messages of the philosophy of life, concept of will to power by F. Nietzsche. Special attention is given to the expansive character of manifestation of the lust for power. A conclusion is made that having the dynamic nature, power is forced to constantly augment its might, overcome antagonism, and tirelessly overreach itself, otherwise, it will lose the win positions. However, in such implacable expansion of power that has achieved the level of any rebuke, in constant chase for extending the territories within power also hides the threat to its existence.

Abstract: The subject of this research is the hunger for power, its origins, and ways of manifestation. Lust for power is viewed as a universal, inseparable quality of human nature. It is stated that each individual initially possesses the autocratic potential, but its fulfillment depends on the path selected for self-realization: actual growth of strength, creative activity, formation of authority, or creation of simulacrum, phantom nature of power expressed in authoritarianism, use of seizure of power, compulsion and oppression as an instrument of acquisition of power. The main method of this study lies in comparing the authoritative and authoritarian types of power and determination of the essential differences. The author applies the principles and approaches of philosophical anthropology, social philosophy, and psychoanalysis. The conclusion is made that the insurmountable lust for power evolves due to the blocked realization of the initial autocratic potential. Authority from the power is not passion, but represents a task, horizon for the development of personal qualities. It enters the field of constant struggle for self-determination due to the inevitable burden of authoritarianism.

Abstract: The subject of the research is the phenomenon of the will to power as a peculiar passionate beginning of human nature. The appearance of power is caused by the social need because society cannot do without a governor, however, the phenomenon of leadership cannot be reduced to the will to power. It is rooted in the depths of human soul and appears as some kind of response to the existential need to be united wih the surrounding world and to overcome the feeling of incompleteness. Human mind fails to fight against the lust for power and to make the desire for power rational. In her research Rakhmanovskaya has used methods and principles of philosophical anthropology, social philosophy and psychoanalytical approach. The novelty of the present research is caused by the fact that the author views the phenomenon of the lust for power as a drainless passion and universal need of human which is at the same time supported and encourged by the society. It is noted that the will to power is in many ways caused by the inability to establish good emotional contacts with others and the failure to develop personal traits for the benefit of the illusion of superiority. At the end of the article the author concludes that the power mania does not only deprive of freedom and establishes dictatorship but also conquers the one who has the love for power, impoverishes his personality and his feelings. 
 

Abstract: The author disputes the common belief that Friedrich Nietzsche was an atheist, and follows how his religious motives come from the main ideas of his philosophy, and the idea of the Will to Power is the most important of them. Special attention is paid to Nietzsche's attitude to a philosopher as the one who can see the world without falsification and simplification and enjoy a god-creating instinct. Nietzsche was fiercelly critical of all religions and considered them as the manifestation of decadence. However the religious motives accompanied all his creative work. The research is mainly based on the analysis of “Beyond Good and Evil” as well as other works of the philosopher. The author holds the opinion that Nietzsche denied the content of  the main religions but didn't deny the possibility of religion itself. Nietzche viewed the Dionysus symbolics as the core of a new religion. These symbolics put a human being with his passions and instincts in the center, eliminate transcendence and confirms the idea of Super Man as the possibility of a human being to create his own God inside.

Abstract: This research is devoted to internal freedom and its links with social determinants. The author compared the views of Nikolay Berdyaev and Erich Fromm and made a conclusion that the Russian philosopher was deeper in the problem by virtue of religious basis of his humanism. Berdyaev believes that freedom comes from Ungrund. It has no foundation but it is a foundation of everything. Freedom for him is the clue for any anthropological philosophizing. He denies any social determination of freedom as it appears to be personal challenge, but this challenge might be rejected nevertheless. The paradox is that freedom is much concerned with restrictions. Especially self-restrictions distinguish freedom from self-will; allow person to get free of everything useless, alien and destruction. The author considers the phenomenon of freedom and self-will in terms of good and evil, investigates relationship between freedom and responsibility. Research methods of historical and philosophical analysis, historic comparison and philosophical anthropology are used in the article. The phenomenon of freedom has taken place in the works of many philosophers and each time it presented new meanings and aspects. In this research however it appears as internal freedom which has  an internal sense of personality but not social relationships as a source.