Anthropological dialogue of E. Fromm with Z. Freud and other Western philosophers (modern methodological conceptualization)

Along with reading the works of philosophers of the past and reflecting on their logic and content, it is important for modern humanities to identify the difference in their standpoints on the fundamental issues of human existence. The given article addresses these issues exemplified by the dialogue in letters between E. Fromm and Z. Freud. It investigates the difference between the two philosophers' views on the problems of rationalism and irrationalism, free will, good and evil in human nature, the specificity of human aggressiveness, and the relationship between the conscious and the unconscious. The article also examines the similarities and differences in the ways the thinkers approach the problem of human fear, the role of childhood in a person's adult life, manifestations of narcissism, the correlation of biological and social factors in the process of character formation, the nature of dreams in their works. In most cases, Fromm's position, focused on "libidinal charm", is recognized by Fromm as limited and supplemented by spirituality and sociality. At the same time, in a number of cases, Fromm's criticism is mild, and sometimes it shows strong, justified disagreement with Freud. It is noted that the dialogue of thinkers is interesting as highly intellectual communication on universal human issues, clearly reflecting the personal and scientific portraits of the authors for a modern researcher in the field of psychology, philosophy, sociology, and theoretical and practical education. There is a stated methodological value of the dialogue in question: through the opportunity offered to a reader to identify the correctness of the methods used: a) meaningful comparison of scientific positions; b) interpretation of quotes of the criticized opponent; c) defining the opponent's consideration as incomplete, unreasonably narrow, not reflecting the magnitude of the object under consideration; d) exposing the narrowed analysis perspective of the criticized author in a new integrity; e) analysis of the possibilities of applying the law of the excluded middle to particular cases; f) the possibility, based on a logical-meaningful synthesis, to identify those problems that have escaped the notice of the criticizing author.