The development of the concept of personality: from individuality to autonomy

Potapov Maksim Yurievich Postgraduate student; Tver State Technical University 170001, Russia, Tver region, Tver, The first Krasnaya Sloboda lane, 3, p. 6, sq. 236 maksim-potapov-98@yandex.ru

Introduction

Today, many thinkers almost unconditionally recognize the understanding of the individual as a kind of creative unit of social life, possessing a certain independence and capable, based on their own motives, desires, and ideas, of changing not only their environment — both social and natural, but also themselves. However, such an understanding did not immediately take shape in the history of philosophy, it was preceded by ancient cosmocentric, medieval theocentric and Renaissance anthropocentric variations of understanding the place and role of man in the universe. Complementary to the historical and philosophical development of the concept of personality, the ideas of its rights, responsibilities and morally proper behavior underwent changes (which is quite natural).

The ancient thought about man as a whole corresponded to the cosmocentric worldview approach, according to which man, like everything around him, is included in a certain universal order (cosmos): on the one hand, he is determined in his actions by this order, on the other hand, as part of the organic integrity is extremely important to it and is capable of comprehensive research the "macrocosm" through philosophical immersion into the "microcosm", i.e. into oneself, into one's essence — this, it seems, was the main idea expressed by the Socratic creed "Know thyself". The Middle Ages brought a new understanding of personality, based on the idea of the possibility of human theosis and endowing the latter with qualities that ensure his immeasurable superiority over the surrounding natural world. During the Renaissance, a cardinal turn was made in the understanding of personality, which consisted in the assertion of its autonomy, the theoretical basis for this understanding was summed up by the philosophers of the New Age and the Enlightenment. Let's analyze in more detail these transformations, which have generally defined the modern concept of personality.

Will, mind and feelings

In antiquity, the problem of personality was considered through the prism of philosophical, ethical and metaphysical concepts, but the term "personality" was not used in the modern sense. Instead, ancient thinkers operated with concepts that, although not identical to the modern self, nevertheless affected aspects of self-awareness, individuality and human nature. Thus, in classical Latin, the concept of "person" was used, which meant, first of all, "mask" and was "the central concept of Roman jurisprudence, designating a person as an individual occupying a specific position in society" ^{[1, p. 400]}.

One of the first philosophical approaches to understanding human nature is the Platonic concept of the soul. In his dialogue Gorgias, Plato likens the human soul to the image of a heavenly chariot with a charioteer, under the control of which there are two horses. One horse is responsible for the sensual (or passionate) component of the soul, the second for the rational, and the charioteer, in turn, is a volitional principle, since it is from the will of a person, according to Plato, which horse will be dominant. Plato argues that reason must prevail over passions in order to achieve harmony and virtue. When the charioteer (will) is able to guide both horses (reason and passion), the soul reaches a state of inner balance, which, in turn, allows the individual to realize his potential as a rational being. However, if passion takes over, it leads to chaos and moral errors, which emphasizes the importance of self-awareness and self-management. In this context, Plato focuses on the need for the education of reason and the formation of virtues as key components in human development.

It seems that in Plato's understanding, personality is an exceptionally intangible set of qualities, which, nevertheless, is unique for each individual. This raises the important question of whether the bodily shell can be considered a part of the personality, given that the physical appearance of a person is also largely individual in nature? In Plato's philosophy, the body and the soul are considered as two different, albeit interrelated entities. Plato states: "The soul, as I believe, is what really exists" ^[2], emphasizing at the same time that the soul represents the highest reality, while the body is only a material and changeable component of human existence. The soul is understood by him as the true essence of man, possessing immortality and capable of knowing eternal truths. On the contrary, the body, being subject to change and destruction, cannot be a true reflection of human individuality. Plato states in the dialogue "The State": "The body is the shadow of the soul, and the soul is the truth" ^[3]. Thus, the Platonic concept assumes that personality is not determined by physical condition or appearance, but is rooted in an immortal soul that strives for truth and virtue. Nevertheless, one cannot ignore the fact that the body can influence the perception of a person from both himself and society. A person's appearance and physical characteristics can serve as indicators of his inner state, but Plato emphasizes that the true value of a person lies not in his bodily shell, but in his spiritual content.

When thinking about the image of the heavenly chariot, the question arises: would it not be more appropriate to consider the three aspects or "parts" of the soul not as its essence, but as tools or abilities that we use in our existence? With this understanding, we ourselves remain invisible, because in the process of self-observation we perceive only the key elements of our being in their activity, which Plato expresses through the three components of the harness. These tools have a significant reverse effect on us, shaping our motivation and actions. The soul, as a self-moving principle, is a pure ability that forms its reality through the interaction of these three sides, each of which pulls us in different directions. Moreover, each of these parts can be used for both good and evil, and this highlights the complexity and versatility of human nature. In this context, the soul appears to us as a driving force, and it "moves" (or controls), in a moral sense, our choices, our actions, and in a physical sense, our actions and our body. In this regard, it is already difficult to agree with Plato's position, according to which the body is not a part of the personality, because it reflects all the external results of the activity of the very charioteer driving the celestial chariot.

As previously noted, Plato argues that the mind must control the passions in order to achieve a state of harmony and virtue. These states, in fact, are perceived by Plato as the ultimate and only goal of human existence. It is logical to assume that reason, will and passions are tools inherent in every person from birth. Controlling one's passions thus becomes not just a necessary skill, but also a direct, as well as the only way to achieve virtue. Just as a skilled blacksmith shapes metal in accordance with the intended shape, so a person who subordinates his passions to reason creates his personality, striving for the highest goal — virtue. Plato not only argues that virtue is the highest goal, but also points out the need for active work on oneself, in the process of which the mind becomes not only a counselor, but also a creator, forming human individuality.

What exactly is virtue in the Platonic system? Plato argues that virtue is knowledge, he formulates in the dialogue "Protagoras": "Virtue is knowledge, and therefore, if someone does evil, he does it only out of ignorance" ^[4]. But knowing what exactly Plato means? For the thinker, knowledge is associated with an understanding of eternal truths and forms that are the basis of moral behavior. He argues that true knowledge is the knowledge of goodness, which allows an individual to act in accordance with the highest moral standards. This knowledge is not only theoretical, but requires practical application, which makes it an integral part of a virtuous existence. This emphasizes that virtue in Platonic philosophy is not a static state, but a dynamic process that requires a person to constantly improve himself and strive for truth.

Unlike Plato, who views personality through the prism of ideal forms and eternal truths, Aristotle forms an idea of it, which focuses on empirical experience and close interaction with the outside world ^[5]. He argues that virtue is a state that allows a person to perform his function, while emphasizing that human individuality is shaped through the practice of virtues. Aristotle considers virtue not as an end goal, but as a practical quality that helps a person act correctly and effectively in various life situations. He emphasizes that virtue is a middle state between extremes, and that the development of virtues takes place in the context of practical experience and social interactions. For him, virtue is a means by which an individual can achieve a state of well-being and harmony in life.

As you can see, Plato and Aristotle offer different approaches to understanding virtue: for Plato, it is the highest goal and ideal, whereas for Aristotle it is a practical tool that allows you to realize happiness and a full—fledged existence. It may seem that Plato did not have a social context for the formation of a personality at all, its whole essence for him consisted, as indicated above, in a continuous struggle with his passions. However, Plato still has a social aspect, although it is expressed differently from Aristotle. In Plato's philosophy, personality and society are interconnected, but the emphasis is on ideal forms and justice as the highest values that must be realized in society. Plato sees the individual as part of a broader social structure, where each person fulfills his role in an ideal state. Plato argues that a just society is possible only if each individual realizes and performs his function corresponding to his nature. Unlike Aristotle, who focuses on empirical experience and factual, narrower and more individual social interactions, Plato focuses more on figuring out how ideal forms and justice should determine the structure of an entire society and the behavior of individuals. The social aspect in Plato's philosophy is more focused not on individual action in order to achieve personal happiness, but on joint efforts aimed at the common good and the creation of an ideal state. Aristotle's approach, which focuses on active social interaction as a means to achieve individual happiness, seems to us more personal and relevant in the context of modern ideas about personality and its role in society.

In his treatise "The Soul", Aristotle explores the nature of the human soul, its functions and relationship with the body ^[6]. The philosopher considers the soul as the principle of life, which determines the activity and essence of living organisms. He divides it into three levels: plant, animal and intelligent, which allows him to analyze various aspects of human life and behavior. The philosopher argues that the soul is not a separate entity, but a form of the body, which emphasizes their relationship. In this context, soul and body cannot exist without each other; a body without a soul is dead, and a soul without a body cannot realize its functions. This understanding of the soul allows Aristotle to consider a person as an integral being in which the physical and mental aspects are interconnected and influence each other. Unlike Plato's concept, where the soul is considered as a separate and higher reality, and the body as only a temporary shell, Aristotelian discourse focuses our attention on empirical experience and the real conditions of human existence. Aristotle emphasizes that the development of individuality occurs through active human interaction with the outside world and other people, which makes his approach more relevant for understanding human nature.

At the same time, despite the significant differences, two key features can be identified that unite the concepts of Plato and Aristotle. The first feature is the desire of the individual for a single life goal, which varies depending on the views of one or another philosopher, but remains central to their teachings. Plato focuses on virtue as the highest goal of human life, considering it as a necessary condition for achieving an ideal society and harmony of the soul. Aristotle, in turn, connects personal development with the concept of eudaimonia — a state of well—being achieved through the practice of virtues, arguing that "happiness is the ultimate goal of human life" ^{[6, p. 37]}. The second feature is that ancient philosophers, although they offer different interpretations of the concept of the soul, nevertheless emphasize the uniqueness and individuality of each person. Plato with his concept of the eternal soul and Aristotle with his understanding of the soul as a form of the body, both focus on the importance of individual existence, on its role in social life.

"... in the image... and in the likeness..." (Gen. 1:26)

The Christian worldview brought new meanings to the understanding of man, it elevated him above the surrounding natural world, proclaiming the presence in him of the image and likeness of the absolute God himself, thereby distinguishing man from all creation. Moreover, the idea of the incarnation of God in a human body, of the "incarnation" of the Supreme Personality in the human person of Jesus Christ, opened up new perspectives for considering the purpose of all human nature. As Athanasius the Great wrote: "God became man so that man would become god" ^[7], meaning the creation of man not by essence, not by nature, but by grace, by the Creator's good gift to man. But even the created nature of people in this context received its highest goal. V. I. Nesmelov explained the meaning of the Christian idea of deification (theosis) in this way: "... the human personality by its nature is a real image of a truly existing God, and therefore, in the conditions of its limited existence, it can strive not only to protect and maintain its physical life, but also to reveal itself in the sensory world as a living image of an invisible God" ^{[8, p. 254]}.

The Ecumenical Councils radically transformed the ancient understanding of human personality. At the I and II (triadological) and III and IV (Christological) Councils, the concept of "hypostasis" (person, or person proper) was actively formed, its difference from the ancient concept of "usia" (nature, essence) was thought out. In his famous work "The Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith", Rev. John of Damascus explained this difference in the following way: "So, the essence, as a species, is general; and the person is private. However, it is private not because it has [one] part of nature, but [the other] part does not, but because it, as indivisible, is private in number [...] persons ... do not differ from each other in essence, but by accidents, which are characteristic of their properties; but characteristic the properties of the face, not the nature. For a person is defined as an entity together with random features; so that a person has what is common, along with what is special, also an independent being; the essence does not exist independently, but is contemplated in persons" ^{[9, pp. 249-250]}.

Protopresbyter John Meyendorff once accurately noted: the central theme (or, as he wrote, intuition) of all Byzantine theology was the belief that "human nature is not a static, "closed", autonomous entity, but a dynamic reality, determined in its existence by its relationship to God" ^{[10, p. 8]}. The essential difference between the ancient and the new, Christian understanding of man is fixed in the following words of V. N. Lossky: "Man's connection with the universe turns out to be overturned in comparison with ancient concepts: instead of "de-individualizing", "cosmizing", and thus dissolving into some impersonal divinity, the absolutely personal nature of the relationship A person's love for a personal God should give him the opportunity to “personalize" the world. It is no longer man who is saved by the universe, but the universe by man..." ^{[11, p. 499]}. The idea of the theosis of man extends to the theosis of nature, which is possible in the case of a free positive response of man to the divine call (the "synergy" of God and man as personalities).

The increasing influence of Christianity led to the fact that philosophical ideas became dependent on theological teachings. Christianity has proposed a new interpretation of human nature, focusing on sinfulness, redemption and divine design. In fact, the historical space of the Middle Ages was located between two key moments that determined the period of existence of all living things: between the creation of the world and the Last Judgment. In the mind of a Christian, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ became the most important event dividing history into two parts, which served as a starting point for every fact of human history ^[12]. According to V. A. According to Shkuratov, this created a system of medieval macro-time, which was extremely heterogeneous and multi-layered, consisting of several interconnected scales. All the events of earthly life here fit into the general theological scheme of the world process. According to the teachings of St. Augustine, history is divided into six epochs: 1) from the creation of Adam to the flood; 2) from the flood to Abraham; 3) from Abraham to David; 4) from David to the Babylonian captivity; 5) from the Babylonian captivity to the Birth of Christ and 6) from the Birth of Christ to the end of the world. The consciousness of a medieval man is saturated with the idea of the historicity of the world. Time, as he perceives it, moves from the act of creation through successive moments of Sacred History to completion and return to eternity, just as the life of an individual steadily goes from birth to death ^[13].

St. Augustine focused his attention on the fact that only in God can a person find true satisfaction and joy, and this is contrasted with temporary pleasures that lead to spiritual emptiness ^[14]. Thomas Aquinas, developing the ideas of Augustine, argued that "the highest goal of man is not earthly pleasures, but divine grace and eternal salvation" ^{[15, p. 560]}. He emphasized that true happiness is achieved through a virtuous life and the pursuit of God, and not through the satisfaction of bodily desires. This position contradicted the ancient traditions in general, which emphasized the achievement of individual happiness as the ultimate goal of a person. However, it cannot be said that medieval philosophy completely severed ties with this tradition, since it actively used the categorical and conceptual apparatus, methodology and some ideas developed by ancient philosophy, including about understanding the human soul. Thus, Thomas Aquinas argued that a person created in the image of God has both free will and reason, therefore, is able to make his moral choice. He also focused on the fact that the human mind is able to know the truth and strive for good, and this is an important aspect of its essence.

S. S. Neretina rightly points out that in the Middle Ages the inner world of a personality was formed, which consists of two main elements: spontaneity and a norm perceived as a duty. The inner world of a personality is a unity of these two aspects, in which each of them performs its own unique role. Spontaneity can be considered as a space for self—expression, in which an individual has the opportunity to express his inner aspirations, desires and creative potential; duty is also a temporary aspect, since it requires a person to take into account both the sequence of his actions and their consequences in the context of time and history. Duty not only defines moral norms, but also embeds a person in a broader context where every action matters. The relationship between spontaneity and duty creates a special dynamic within the personality, where spontaneity is determined by the essence of a person, and duty is his hypostasis ^{[16, p. 3]}.

Hypostasis, being a key concept of Christian theology, is important for understanding the nature of personality and its relationship with the divine. In a triadological context, hypostasis denotes an individual essence or personality within the divine nature. In the doctrine of the Trinity, each of the three hypostases — the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit — represents a separate person, possessing full divinity, but at the same time united in its essence. In medieval philosophy, the concept of hypostasis became central to the description of human nature and its connection with the divine. In the context of Christian anthropology, the concept of hypostasis as a prototype of the divine in each person emphasizes that all people are created in the image and likeness of God, and this makes each person unique. Thus, St. John of Damascus states: "... man, being created in the image of God, is the living image of God on earth" ^{[17, p. 414]}. In this case, the personality is considered not as an isolated unit, but as part of a single divine plan, where each individual hypostasis, despite its unique characteristics, strives for unity with God. Thus, it is not an end in itself, but a path to the divine, where each person, as a hypostasis, reflects the divine principle and strives to realize God's plan for the world. Personality is not an autonomous entity, it is formed and develops in the process of interaction, synergy with both God and other people. In other words, Christian anthropology focuses on the unity and interdependence of all created beings conditioned by the providence of the Creator.

The autonomy of spiritual aspirations

According to K. V. Bandurovsky: "The new concept of personality, developed in medieval philosophy (which, however, did not eliminate other meanings — legal, grammatical, theatrical), referred primarily to God, and then man was thought of as a person created in the image and likeness of God... The medieval theocentric concept of personality was replaced in philosophy and the culture of the Renaissance is anthropocentric: the personality has become identified with a bright, multifaceted personality capable of achieving anything he wants" ^{[1, p. 401]}. The Renaissance era, covering the XIV–XVII centuries, became a time of significant changes in the philosophical and cultural understanding of personality, this period was characterized by a transition from a medieval worldview based on theocentrism to anthropocentrism, in which man and his individual characteristics became the center of attention.

The humanist Francesco Petrarch, in his work On Remedies against the Vicissitudes of Fate, analyzed the unique role of philosophy, emphasizing that its task is not to serve as a scholastic supplement to theology, but to explore human nature. He argued that philosophy should combine questions of knowledge with moral aspects, focusing on the nobility of man, which is achieved through creativity and awareness of his divine destiny, manifested in active activity on earth. Petrarch believed that genuine knowledge is related to human experience, he noted: "What one should hope for in divine affairs, we will leave this question to the angels, among whom even the highest ones fell under its weight. The celestials should discuss the heavenly, and we should discuss the human, and perhaps it would be wiser not to start this steep and dangerous path at all than to stop in the middle of it" ^[18].

In his works, Erasmus of Rotterdam criticized not only church dogmas, church corruption, lack of inner piety, but also the social shortcomings of his time. He argued that "education is the key to a true understanding of human nature" ^[19], emphasizing that personal development is impossible without intellectual growth. Erasmus called for a humanistic education that would include the study of classical texts, rhetoric, and philosophy in order to form a more fulfilling personality. His ideas on the need for moral and intellectual education became the basis for educational reforms that had a significant impact on European culture. In turn, Nikolai Kuzansky argued that true knowledge begins with awareness of one's own limitations and ignorance. Like Socrates, the thinker emphasizes that the human mind cannot fully comprehend the divine essence or the absolute truth, which leads to the need for humility and openness to new knowledge: "True knowledge is the knowledge that we know nothing" ^[20]. Kuzansky uses the ancient concept of man, refracted through the Christian tradition, as a microcosm that reflects the macrocosm universe. He argues that man, being created in the image and likeness of God, is a small world in which all aspects of the divine plan are enclosed. This idea of the relationship between man and the universe emphasizes the uniqueness of human nature and the ability of the individual to self-awareness. Kuzansky writes: "Man is the one who can know the world and God, and in this knowledge he becomes the likeness of God" ^[20]. This concept also implies that the study of nature and the world around us is an important step towards understanding oneself and one's place in the divine order. Rationalism is emerging in the philosophy of Kuzansky, however, the thinker considers faith as the primary basis of any knowledge, while not in its fideistic, but in its epistemological aspect, emphasizing the importance of faith in the process of cognition. Despite the idea of Divine providence vividly expressed in the works of Nikolai Kuzansky, his philosophy demonstrates a clear development of anthropocentric views, he emphasizes that a person with reason and free will is able not only to perceive, but also to interpret reality, which makes him an active participant in the process of cognition. Here, in our opinion, there is a shift in emphasis from the divine to the human: the individual's personal efforts and aspirations become central in the search for truth.

Thus, the idea of freedom of choice is gradually becoming the cornerstone of a new understanding of human nature, according to which a person is no longer an object of divine design, but an active subject capable of independently shaping his own destiny. Scientific achievements of the Renaissance had a significant impact on the transformation of ideas about the human personality, contributing to the formation of a new paradigmatic view of the essence of man and his place in space. This period can be considered as a kind of crossroads between medieval theocentric ideas and new anthropocentric views, according to which personality begins to be perceived as a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that includes both individual and universal aspects of human existence. Unlike the medieval approach, in which the individual was considered primarily as a creation of God, the Renaissance focuses on the importance of the human mind, free will and the ability to express oneself. During this period, the personality appears as a unique individual with inner peace, emotional depth and creative potential, capable of self-knowledge and reflection, which allows a person to realize his divine nature and place in the world. At the same time, this period is not the final point in the realization of human essence, but represents the beginning of a cognitive process that is increasingly inclined to anthropocentric views, despite the long-standing ideas about divine influence.

In the philosophy of Modern times, complex and systematic approaches to the concept of personality were formed, associated with the emergence of social and legal theories, in which the anthropocentric picture of the world was further developed. Philosophers of this period, such as Rene Descartes, John Locke and Immanuel Kant, made a significant contribution to the formation of new aspects of understanding personality, describing it primarily as an autonomous subject capable of independent rational thinking and self-awareness, relying on which a person is able to independently cognize and change the world around her. Descartes, asserting "Cogito, ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I exist" ^[21]), emphasized the importance of self-awareness as the basis of human essence, and this opened the way to understanding personality as an active agent in cognition and legal relations. John Locke, in turn, developed the concept of personality, linking it with the concept of consciousness and memory. He wrote: "Personality is what makes a person who he is, and it depends on his consciousness" ^[22]. Locke emphasized that personality is formed through experience and perception, pointing to its dynamic nature. This understanding of the individual as a conscious subject will become the basis for further reflections on natural law, where the individual's personal rights and freedoms were considered as inalienable and natural. Immanuel Kant summed up a peculiar result of the final consolidation of the anthropocentric position in the scientific consciousness, authoritatively arguing not only the autonomy of the individual in moral terms, but also its constitutive role in the process of cognition, while believing that thereby he commits a "Copernican revolution" in cognitive theories. The thinker argued that his position has a fundamental novelty, because if earlier concepts had to conform to their objects, now "on the contrary, objects, i.e., what is the same thing, experience, which serves as the only source of knowledge of objects (as data), is consistent with these concepts" ^{[23, p. 21]}.

L. A. Tikhomirov, like any religious philosopher who remained in his work on theocentric positions, describes in the following way the "algorithm" according to which the movement of modern and enlightenment thought towards anthropocentric beliefs took place, emphasizing the autonomy of the individual, but at the same time preserving the idea of its dynamic and creative character. He writes that the human spirit, being free by nature, at the same time comes from God, and therefore is closely connected with Him and can only live normally by maintaining a close connection with the Absolute Personality, thanks to which we can correctly speak about the absoluteness of the aspirations of our spirit. When a person consciously breaks the connection with the "Source of his spiritual life", he creates a "false feeling" of his own autonomy; at the same time, he sees well that the "demands of the absolute" are not instilled in him by the world at all, not by relative earthly nature, in which there is nothing absolute, as a result of which it "seems to him that that these absolute, spiritual aspirations are born in him, are generated by him. Therefore, he is, as it were, the beginning, the source of spiritual aspirations, which are dearest to him in the world. In this respect, He is above the world, independent of the world, "autonomous"..." ^{[24, p. 44]}.

In further philosophical thought, the concept of personality was modified, and even transformed, and in different directions. Among other things, apersonalist concepts arose, regardless of which camp — idealistic or materialistic — the philosopher who formulated them belonged to. So, G. V. F. Hegel argued that the human personality is not autonomous, that the individual is formed in the context of social relations, the historical process and the general spirit (Volksgeist). The philosopher wrote: "True freedom does not consist in arbitrary choice, but in the awareness of oneself as part of the whole" ^{[25, p. 490]}. For Hegel, personality becomes an integral part of a dialectical process in which individual actions and aspirations are in constant interaction with historical forces and social structures. Similarly, Karl Marx, speaking about the "historical personality", emphasized that an individual as a historical agent cannot be completely free in his choice, since his actions and opportunities are determined both by the socio-economic conditions of his time and by class affiliation, which emphasized the secondary importance of individual choice in the light of historical determinism. In this context, a person can only slow down or accelerate the necessary social changes, but cannot radically change them.

However, from Modern times and the Enlightenment up to the present day, the general orientation of philosophical thought, expressed in the increasing recognition and development of the idea of personal autonomy that arose during the Renaissance anthropocentric turn, has been preserved. Modern authors consider personality primarily as an autonomous subject, but at the same time, it is included in a complex system of social relations as a source of creative activity and, to one degree or another, a free actor influencing changes in the social and natural environment.

Conclusion

It should be noted that even a brief analysis of the philosophical trends of the XX-XXI centuries, which represented the personality in different ways, cannot be done within the framework of this article, since it requires careful consideration of many concepts, which often do not agree well with each other. Nevertheless, an in-depth analysis of such concepts, which requires the involvement of specialists from various fields of social and humanitarian knowledge, is still necessary, if only because transhumanistic ideas about personality are actively developing these days, on the one hand, it would seem, opening up wide prospects for understanding the possibilities of improving human abilities with the help of technology, including artificial intelligence, genetic engineering and cybernetics. On the other hand, transhumanism raises important questions about how technological advances can affect the understanding of identity and self-awareness, as well as how these changes affect our perception of personality. Transhumanism calls into question traditional ideas about what it means to be a person and what the boundaries of her legal personality are. However, in our opinion, a simple denial of the philosophical tradition of understanding personality cannot be constructive; breaking the "link of time", it inevitably entails cognitive errors that threaten negative consequences. It should be about the further development of the concept of personality, a development that takes into account the technological realities of our time.

The concepts of personality in the history of philosophy demonstrate the complex interaction between individual, collective, socio-historical aspects of human existence. Today, understanding personality is becoming even more difficult, including both individual, collective, historical, and technological aspects. Personality is considered not only as an autonomous subject capable of self-awareness and rational choice, but also as a result of interaction with technological systems and socio-cultural contexts. In this regard, modern interpretations of the concept of personality, in our opinion, should represent a constructive synthesis of various historical and philosophical approaches, defining personality as a dynamic, contextualized entity formed at the intersection of individual choice, social structures and technological changes. Thus, these interpretations will not only reflect the evolution of ideas about personality from antiquity to our time, but also open up new horizons for its understanding.