THE ROLE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ANTHROPOCENTRIC APPROACH IN THE FORMATION OF COGNITIVE ACTIVITY

Аннотация

В данной статье анализируются научно-теоретические основы и практическое значение принципа антропоцентризма в формировании познавательной деятельности. Взгляды, в центре которых находится человек, определяют активную роль субъекта в процессе познания. В статье освещается формирование познавательной активности с антропоцентрической точки зрения через индивидуальный опыт, социальную среду и язык. Также раскрываются функции языка в процессе познания, понимание через концепты и механизмы мышления. Результаты научных исследований показывают важную роль человеческого фактора в познавательной деятельности и демонстрируютантропоцентризмкак методологическую основу системы знаний. Ключевые слова: Антропоцентризм,познавательная деятельность,человеческийфактор, концепт,языкимышление,субъективность,когнитивная лингвистика page2310 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ISSN:2692-5206,ImpactFactor:12,23 AmericanAcademicpublishers,volume05,issue06,2025 Journal: https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai The first ideas about anthropocentrism appeared during the Renaissance, although many researchers trace its roots back to antiquity. This worldview marked the beginning of the subject-object scheme of human cognition. The entire philosophy and culture of the Renaissance centered on recognizing human dignity, the right to free development, and the expression of human capabilities. A new criterion for evaluating social relations—humanism— was established.In anthropocentrism, the reflection, measurement, and interpretation of external and internal reality are inextricably linked to human consciousness and thinking, as well as to one’s relationship with the world. In general, this may be described as the anthropocentrism of subjective reality.Since language is anthropocentric and designed for humans, the entire linguistic categorization of objects and phenomena in the external world is directed toward human individuality. The idea that linguistic capacity is inherently individual first appeared in the works of Wilhelm von Humboldt. The German philosopher and linguist considered language to be an intermediary link between humans and the surrounding world. According to him, the study of language is subordinated to the human goal of self-understanding and of relating to everything observed or hidden in the world. For Humboldt, language is a type of activitythat transforms theexternal world intoadomain of human consciousness. Many ideas and concepts of modern linguistics were developed by V.V. Vinogradov, who consistently focused on phenomena connected to the manifestation of the human factor within language. He introduced the concept of the "linguistic personality" and began its investigation through the language of literary texts. At present, identifying the various features of the language system is not thesoleor ultimateaim of linguisticanalysis. It has become increasingly important to study linguistic phenomena in close relation to human beings and their cognitive processes. After all, humans perceive the world and their spiritual-practical activities through cognition. Anthropocentrism should be regarded as a paradigm that thoroughly explores the issue of “the person within language.” It can be stated that "behind every text stands a linguistic personality who possesses the language system." This individual becomes the starting point for linguistic analysis, shaping its direction, purpose, and interpretation. The anthropocentric paradigm places the human being at the center, treating language as a key attribute and integral part of human identity. One cannot imagine a person outside of language, or divorced from the linguistic competence necessary for producing and understanding texts. Texts created by humans are inherently individual and therefore egocentric in nature—because behind every word stands a person marked by their unique life experiences, perspectives, and cultural background. A number of studies have raised the question: “Can anthropocentrism be considered the main paradigm of linguistics at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st century?” To answer this, scholars turn to the term “scientific paradigm,” exploring how it is used to describe the current state of linguistic science. The term paradigm was introduced by Ferdinand de Saussure to denote a system of forms of a word—that is, the cross-sectional structure of language including inflections and derivations. This term laid the groundwork for the emergence of new paradigms in scientific knowledge, later reflected in the works of American scholar Thomas Kuhn. In his 1962 book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn explored the deep connections between scientific development and societal change, formulating the concept of the “scientific community” as the subject of logical activity. According to Kuhn, such a community operates under a shared set of assumptions—its paradigm—which researchers may accept without question.