From the author: Download our books on psychotherapy for free here: World psychotherapy is going through a stage of accumulation of new methods, the formation of schools, concepts, and technologies. And every new method, new school that declares itself in psychotherapy is included in this large “piggy bank” of methods. In recent years, it has often been reported that there are already more than 700 methods of psychotherapy in the world [7] and all of them claim to be effective. Thus, according to E. Wagner (1999), empirical psychotherapeutic studies have shown that different therapeutic approaches lead to the same results [2]. Most modern problems of psychiatry and psychotherapy reflect the problems of the global crisis of humanity and are expressed in the lack of unity of views and approaches to human problems (lack of unity , nationalism, divisions, growth of prejudices, etc.) [4]. In clinical psychology, a crisis is detected both in the flow of new psychotherapeutic forms, the so-called “psychoboom” (Bach u. Molter 1976), and in the basic questions of the concept of illness, the participation and meaning of diagnosis, as well as the influence of therapeutic actions (e.g. Frank 1961) [16]. Bühler has long expressed this regarding a similar state of the problem in psychology as follows: “So many psychologies as today, so many approaches with their own point of view have never existed at the same time” [11]. Using Kuhn's terminology (Kuhn 1967), Keupp (1974) even speaks in this regard of a “paradigm crisis” in certain areas of psychotherapy [16]. In the absence of a single, generally accepted theory of personality, a unified understanding of the patterns of its functioning, disorders and restoration of this functioning in modern medicine, there may be different concepts of psychotherapy [6]. From a psychotherapeutic point of view, in this regard, the question of seeing a person (the image of a person) acquires special significance and, based on its influence on interpersonal relationships, can be designated as issue No. 1 of today's psychotherapy and psychiatry, since all other tasks stem from this ( Hagehuelsman H., 1987). Often, techniques and theories on the principle of “good technique is better than bad science” are considered more important than the underlying approach to a person in this method [9]. The most important variable in the psychotherapeutic process is not the technique, but the person who applies this technique, that is the psychotherapist himself (Strupp HH, 1960). And the most important factor of the therapist is his worldview or image of a person. The psychotherapist sees the client through the glasses of his theoretical constructs [2], and the goals and objectives of psychotherapy for various diseases are determined by the author’s theoretical orientation regarding the nature and mechanisms of these disorders [6]. The fundamental properties of human nature include the fact that human actions and the motives for these actions are determined not by reality itself, but by the ideas about this reality that a given person has. Therefore, despite the objective truth of the proposition that every person has an internal, inherent value, people who do not realize this fact deeply enough act as if they do not possess this value [12]. Dedication to any particular therapeutic system is an important component in the mental picture of the psychotherapist [17]. H. A. Gomes de Araujo (1975) emphasized: “Whatever direction we give to psychotherapy, whatever school or method we adhere to, the structure of the therapeutic relationship will be based, directly or indirectly, precisely or presumably, on the value system assigned to it.” In any treatment of neuroses or psychotic reactions, a value system is necessarily present, even if the patient and therapist are not aware of it [15]. At the same time, theoretical concepts in psychotherapy do not serve as an unambiguous and detailed definition of therapeutic practice, but serve as heuristics for solving problems and finding solutions [2]. V.V. Makarov (2001) alsocalls the therapist the most important and expensive “of what is in therapy,” emphasizing that a real therapist is one who, along with mastery of techniques, has achieved a meta-view of therapy and psychology. Anyone who has not yet achieved a generalized worldview understanding cannot yet be called a real therapist [7]. Based on the fact that the therapist’s participation in the effectiveness of therapy is usually the greatest, he is the obvious and, in fact, often the only specific representative of the psychotherapeutic direction. It is the point of connection between the image of a person through psychological theory and therapy theory with the patient himself. This is revealed in his personal attitude as a person, his competence as a practicing researcher, and in his professional treatment of clients [16]. The image of a person (the concept of a person, the vision or dignity of a person) is almost never found in modern developments in therapy research. At best, individual symptoms or groups of people combined by some method are given in order to “then state how good it is to be able to eliminate certain symptoms or help get rid of stigmatic symptoms in certain groups of people” (Pauls and Walter 1980). In addition, the term “human image” is not clearly understood in different countries. Only in Germany there is a very specific word “Menschenbild” - denoting the image of a person. In Russian, the most appropriate term is “the concept of a person” or “the image of a person.” So, not only from the point of view of humanistic psychology, there is a danger that “with the help of psychotherapy, increasingly generalized “data - if - then”, taken out of the individual semantic context, are accumulated - and senselessly applied - in practice leading to an uncertain risk. “Some practical and theoretical concepts of various psychotherapeutic schools are based on elements of knowledge, the quality of which is at least questionable and they therefore have the character of myths rather than genuine achievements” (Herzog 1982) [16]. In general terms, K. Jaspers pointed out the psychological danger of distorting the image of a person: “... the distortion of the image of a person leads to the distortion of the person himself. For the image of a person, which we consider true, itself becomes a factor in our life. It predetermines the nature of our treatment of ourselves and other people, our attitude towards life and the choice of tasks” [13]. According to the Swiss Charter of Psychotherapy, “... any psychotherapeutic school must possess both anthropological theory (the image of a person) and the theory of treatment techniques” [1]. In response to such views, the following requirement was postulated: “Given the general consensus of the fundamental influence of the image of man on the creation of psychological theories, it is highly desirable that such a model of the person of the scientist and/or scientific society should be presented, at a minimum, in mainstream publications or clarified in relevant literature references” (cited from Buechler Ch., Allen M., 1973) [14]. Traditional psychiatry and psychotherapy base their view of man on psychopathology. The subject of this vision is diseases or disorders. The goal of treatment is to eliminate the disease, which is comparable to surgical removal of the affected organ [10]. At the same time, preventive medicine and psychotherapy need methods that take into account not only disorders, but also a person’s abilities and opportunities for development [8]. A first step towards this would be to consider what type of theory is useful for psychotherapy [11]. Agreeing with G.L. Isurina (1993), “revolutionary changes” in psychotherapy occurred following the emergence of new psychological theories, concepts of personality, which, based on certain philosophical approaches, influenced not only psychotherapeutic practice, but also other types of human activity (in particular, literature and art), since they are based on a new look at human nature and new ways to understand it [5]. To summarize we can say,that “personality theory should encourage, rather than restrict, a person’s efforts to understand himself” (Bischoff LJ, 1983). Neither the integration of schools, nor the devaluation or exclusion of differences in methods can lead to the fruitful development of psychotherapy. Only the exchange of the knowledge that it gains from the relevant methods and their theories regarding the image of the person (anthropological theories), their treatment techniques and teachings on therapeutic intervention, while respecting the differences of other approaches, can move us forward [1]. According to this hypothesis, until the contrary is proven, all the different branches of psychotherapy should be considered as valuable - because they offer a well-formulated theory of method that brings their theory of therapeutic intervention, the doctrine of disease and anthropological theory (the image of man, theory of man) into good order. formulated correspondence, and since they can support their statements regarding the effectiveness of the method with arguments based on documented cases, they will satisfy views that go beyond the narrow framework of these directions (Buchmann R., Schlegel M., Vetter I., 1999) [1] .Psychotherapeutic research, which tries to comprehend a person in his subjective perception and unique experience, must seek its starting point where a person is truly himself in his essence, where he belongs to himself [3]. K. Jaspers emphasized that psychotherapy cannot turn into a “doctrine of world concepts.” But in its structure it needs standards as universal as possible [15]. Therefore, the main idea of ​​psychotherapeutic phenomenological research is to offer psychotherapists a point of view that will enable them to see a person without the framework that already determines in advance what this person might suffer from, in order to apply the appropriate technique over time [3]. List literature: 1. Buchman R., Schlegel M., Vetter J. The meaning of the Swiss Charter of Psychotherapy. Psychotherapy: a new science of man / Under. ed. A. Pritz. – Academic project, Moscow 1999, Business book, Yekaterinburg 1999. 2. Wagner E. Psychotherapy as a science, different from medicine. Psychotherapy: a new science of man / Under. ed. A. Pritz. – Academic project, Moscow 1999, Business book, Yekaterinburg 1999. 3. Wolfram E.M. Phenomenological research in psychotherapy: A method for gaining knowledge from experience. Psychotherapy: a new science of man / Under. ed. A. Pritz. – Academic project, Moscow 1999, Business book, Yekaterinburg 1999. 4. Goncharov M.A. Positive vision of a person in psychotherapeutic practice // Positum. – 2001. - No. 1 – P. 36-45.5. Isurina G.L. Can positive psychotherapy be considered a “revolution” in psychiatric practice? // Review of Psychiatry and Medical Psychology named after. V.M. Bekhterev. – 1993 (2), pp. 58-596. Karvasarsky B.D. Psychotherapy. – M.: Medicine, 1985 – 303 p.7. Makarov V.V. Psychotherapy of the new century. – M., Academic project, 2001.8. Pezeshkian N. Psychosomatics and positive psychotherapy: Trans. with him. – M. Medicine, 1996. – 464 p.9. Pezeshkian H. Positive psychotherapy as a transcultural approach in Russian psychotherapy: Diss. in the form of a scientific report for the degree of Doctor of Medicine. Sciences/ St. Petersburg Research Institute named after V.M. Bekhterev. - St. Petersburg, 1998. – 83 p. 10. Psychotherapeutic Encyclopedia / Ed. B.D. Karvasarsky. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2000. – 752 p. 11. Slunetsko T. Monotony or diversity in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy: a new science of man / Under. ed. A. Pritz. - Academic project, Moscow 1999, Business book, Yekaterinburg 1999. 12. Hatcher W. Ethics of authentic relationships: Peru from English - St. Petersburg: Edinenie, 1999. - 155 p.13. Jaspers K. The meaning and purpose of history. M.: Politizdat 1991, pp. 448-44914. Buehler C., Allen M. Einfuehrung in die Humanistische Psychologie. - Klett, Stuttgart: 1973.15. Gomes de Araujo HA What is Psychotherapy//What is Psychotherapy? S.Karger-Basel-Munchen-Paris-London-New York-Sydney. 1977