Abstract
<jats:p>The article examines the evolution of the anthropological approach, the original idea of which belongs to I. Kant. Kant formulated the key dilemma of anthropology: studying humans as natural beings subject to the laws of natural science and as free individuals acting within the horizon of humanitarian knowledge. The author argues that for a long time this contradiction hindered the development of anthropology as a cohesive discipline. The resolution of Kant's task was facilitated by two factors: the emergence of "mediators" (semiotics, history, axiology, psychology) that connect natural and personal interpretations, and the crisis of modern European culture, which brought to the forefront the search for new forms of individual existence. The anthropological approach would not have materialized if, by the beginning of the 20th century, philosophy and humanitarian practices (especially literature) had not reflected (represented) the human being in its natural manifestations and conscious (voluntary) actions. St. Augustine in "Confessions" already discusses these two sides of human existence: some actions are performed effortlessly, while others, despite one's desire, encounter resistance from the individual. Special attention is given to the methodology of anthropological research. Through the analysis of the life and creativity of A.S. Pushkin (the reconstruction of the poet's spiritual upheaval), the author demonstrates that the anthropological approach requires the construction of the image of the "individual person," a dialogical strategy, and objectification based on the humanitarian methodologies of W. Dilthey and M. Bakhtin. The second case—studying the phenomenon of qigong—reveals the specificity of anthropological thinking through the analysis of semiotic schemes and the concept of "pyramids of realities." The author argues that the understanding of a person in qigong is formed not so much scientifically as through schemes (channels, qi energy) that transform the corporeality and personality of the practitioner. In conclusion, the author affirms the pluralism of anthropological concepts, proposing their own sociocultural and semiotic model, where the understanding of a person emerges at the intersection of research and constructivist strategies.</jats:p>