Man in the world of culture.

1. The concept of "culture". Culture as a sphere of socialization and inculturation of the individual.
2. Man as a creator and creation of culture.
3. Culture and civilization. Features of the information-technical type of civilization.
4. Medical culture: concept, features and forms of existence.

Culture is a special supernatural world artificially created by man. Culture is called the second nature of man. A person lives in two forms of being: in the world of culture and in the world of nature (but there is still society). Culture is usually defined as a complex system of material and spiritual values ​​that have been created by mankind throughout the history of its existence. From this definition it follows that culture is the result of human activity. Culture includes not only values, but also goals and ideals. They are directed to the future and are a factor that activates a person in his development.

In relation to a person, culture is a special world in which the process of socialization and inculturation is carried out, i.e. only in the world of culture does a person become a person.

Socialization is the process of assimilation by a person of social norms, rules and principles. Socialization allows a person to actively exist in the system of social ties and relationships.

Enculturation is the process of assimilation by a person of cultural norms, rules, principles. If socialization is universal, then inculturation is local, that is, social norms are the same everywhere, cultural norms are local, so it can be very difficult for a person to join, and even more so to learn a different culture.

Culture forms a person, it seems to live in him. Researchers of the philosophy of culture note that culture exists in three forms of objectivity:

1. Material: the human body, things, the organization of people.

2. Spiritual: knowledge, values ​​of consciousness, ideals.

3. Artistic image.

The body is a "preparation for culture." The corporeality of a person reflects certain cultural standards.

The human body acts as a certain system. Physicality reflects ethnic, professional culture, subcultures (especially youth). Somatic culture was especially valued in antiquity and the Renaissance, where the beauty of the human body was associated with health.

Things - the objective world created by man - also acts in the form of a sign: it reflects the values, goals and ideals of culture. It is things that keep the memory of past generations. Thanks to the objective world of culture, it performs the function of broadcasting social experience. A toy and a game are of great importance in human culture, because, created specifically for children, a toy acts as a model of an adult’s thing, and through a toy and a game, the child enters the world of culture.

Organization. Culture organizes the human world: it is normative; man obeys its rules. Outside of culture, social bonds and relationships are destroyed.

Forms of spiritual objectivity.

Knowledge comes first. The knowledge system is complex and varied. This includes ordinary knowledge, and scientific, deviant, rational faith, etc. Thanks to knowledge, a person creates the world of culture, but we obtain this knowledge on the basis of our sociocultural experience.

value consciousness. Life in culture forms a certain system of values ​​in the mind of a person, their hierarchy is different, but each person develops the highest value, priority; vital values ​​(life, integrity); moral, aesthetic, legal. Values ​​are determined by culture and, at the same time, are a factor in its development. The system of values ​​is determined by various factors and changes with difficulty.

Ideals are formed in the mind of a person; he cannot live without ideals. Even human fantasies are culturally significant: it is known that the fantastic ideas of the past find practical expression today. Fantasies and ideals are a projection of the future culture.

The artistic image is implausible, it is born in the head of the artist, but it is reflected in it through the fiction of the features of culture. The author experiences the artistic image, but the value of the image is that it retains the memory of the past. "Anna Karenina" - a novel about Everyday life, this is fiction, but plausible.

That. culture is both a creation of man and a creator, and it lives in man.

Culture and civilization are the basic concepts social philosophy. The relationship between these concepts has been controversial. So, some researchers identified culture and civilization, others attributed the concept of "culture" to the spiritual sphere, the concept of "civilization" - to the material. Still others believed that culture is the criterion of civilization. In modern science, it is customary to define civilization as a certain level of social development, which is characterized by achievements in both the spiritual and material spheres. Based on this definition, culture can indeed be considered the criterion of civilization.

In science, it is customary to distinguish various types of civilization. The criteria here are the achievements of culture. Distinguish civilizations:

1. Pre-written

2. Written

3. Informational.

Civilization activity is actively used as a criterion for distinguishing:

1. Civilization based on manual labor

2. Industrial type ( VIII - XIX centuries)

3. Industrial (con XIX - XX centuries)

4. Post-industrial, or information technology.

Another criterion is historical:

1. Ancient world

2. Middle Ages

3. New and Newest time

4. Modernity

Still - civilizations of the West and the East.

The main thing in this question is the connection of civilization with the achievement of culture.

In modern times, a new information-technical type of civilization is being formed. The main value of the culture of this type of civilization is knowledge and information technology. Character traits:

1. The system of values ​​and goals is changing. If the past post-industrial civilization was aimed at creating the means of production, then the information technology civilization was aimed at creating information technologies.
2. It is globalizing.
3. Strengthening communication links.
4. Formation of a single socio-economic, political, educational, etc. space.
5. The disappearance of the individuality of cultures. There is a trend towards uniformity.
6. Creation of technologies that allow solving many social problems: environmental, health-related, population rage, demographic, etc.

"Medical Culture"- a rather complex concept, extremely broad, which includes, as structural elements, the professional culture of a doctor, the culture of health (valeological), somatic, physical.

Medical culture concerns not only doctors, but the entire population, i.e. health care consumers. In general, medical culture can be defined as a system of values, goals, norms, rules, principles that are formed on the basis of human activities aimed at preserving his health. In other words, MK is the result of our health care activities.

Like any culture, MC manifests itself in the forms of material, spiritual and artistic image. MC in relation to a person and society performs a number of functions:

1. Preservation of the values ​​of health and life.

2. Managerial: both society and a person can manage their own health through this culture.

3. Value-oriented: MC orients a person in the world of his values.

4. Integrative-communication.

5. Socialization, inculturation of personality

6. Translation of experience

7. Social memory

The activation of MC in modern society is associated with the process of medicalization of culture - the involvement of medicine in various spheres of life. It was in antiquity, the Renaissance, Modern times, and is now.

1. Introduction ______________________________________ page 2

2. The role of culture in the socialization of the individual.

Inculturization and its problems __________________ page 3

3. Personality as a value and value world of personality __p. 8

4. Human corporeality and culture _______________ page 13

5. Literature ____________________________________ p. 17

1. Introduction

The relevance of the research topic is due, first of all, to the fact that modern technogenic civilization has significantly increased the crisis phenomena in the field of culture, exacerbated the historical confrontation and confrontation in this area. Many thinkers of the 20th century note that there are trends in the degradation of culture in society: the spread of anti-values, the loss of moral guidelines and ideals, the dehumanization of almost the entire spectrum of human life. The alienation of a person from traditions, ideals, norms and values, on the basis of which a cultural personality can be formed and self-formed, is becoming more and more obvious. The phenomenon that has spread throughout society has deeply affected the youth subculture, which is rapidly transforming into an anti-culture, which leads to an increase in social tension, creates prerequisites for the emergence and escalation of violence, destruction, confrontation, both among young people and between generations. This situation indicates that the process of human formation is increasingly influenced by polar phenomena in relation to humanistic values ​​and culture.

In this regard, the relevance of the conceptual and theoretical analysis of the origins, processes, mechanisms, essence, existence of culture and anti-culture and their role in the socialization of the individual increases. The concept of "culture" in the culturological literature is given much attention: it is sufficiently detailed and deeply developed in epistemological and ontological terms.

The inconsistency of modern civilizational processes, which, on the one hand, are characterized by dehumanization, and, on the other hand, an increase in the role of the subjective potential of a person, actualizes the importance of analyzing the socialization of the individual, which currently presents a variety of concepts, approaches and models of this process.

2. The role of culture in the socialization of the individual. Inculturization and its problems.

Cultural regulation, carried out in the implementation of norms, values ​​and meanings, occurs through their introduction into the structure of the behavior and activities of individuals, through their accustoming to social roles and normative behavior, the assimilation of positive motivations, familiarization with generally significant values. These mechanisms constitute the process of socialization, the important components of which are education, communication and self-awareness. Socialization is supported by special institutions (family, school, labor collectives, informal groups) and internal mechanisms of the personality itself.

Already at birth, an individual receives a social status arising from the status of his family, parents. The birth of a child thus has not only a biological or demographic aspect, but also a sociocultural one. That is why in all cultures, soon after birth, various kinds of rituals are performed, which mean the initiation of the child into the culture of a given team and society. The status of birth is so important that an individual remains assigned to some of its aspects all his life (ethnicity, class, caste). And, of course, the individual remains "assigned" culturally to his biological characteristics: sex, race. As he grows up, the individual is included in more and more new areas of communication. These transitions capture critical milestones life path of a person and are accompanied by the corresponding cultural "metas" and signs (birthdays, going to school, coming of age, conscription into the army, marriage). "Meta" are fixed with memorable gifts, which implies their long-term storage. For example, photography is a common form of recording socially significant roles and relationships between individuals.

However, it is impossible to reduce the socializing function of culture only to the stages of preparation for life. Culture is one of the most important factors in the structuring of society, as necessary as economic or political mechanisms. If in the economy the basis of relations is property, in politics - power, then in culture such a basis is norms, values ​​and meanings. As the socio-cultural environment becomes more complex, the mechanism of socialization and its cultural support become more and more diverse.

Cultural norms and meanings determine both the place of each social stratum or group and the distance separating these strata. Types of activity, economic occupations, status gradations, ranks and positions have not only their own economic, social or professional content, but also symbolic, shaped through certain cultural attributes and meanings.

Significant carriers of social status can be various factors: kinship, ethnic and social origin, wealth, education, personal achievements in the professional sphere, life experience, science, art. Status forms of culture are preserved in any society, albeit in a weakened or transformed form. Status symbols are important in the bureaucracy, where positions, ranks, etiquette are important factors in the organization.

In stable social structures, status symbols can be maintained in a stable state for a long time, making out permanent gradations between estates, ranks, steps of the bureaucratic hierarchy. In a mobile society, on the one hand, there is a gradual “leakage” of symbols of prestige from top to bottom, but on the other hand, the higher class again and again forms symbolic barriers that shape the social distance between the upper, middle and lower strata. This mechanism is purposefully used by businesses working to increase the status consciousness of consumers, forming new needs and tastes.

The process of socialization is interconnected with the process of inculturation. They are very close in their content, but you can not mix them.

Socialization means preparing a person for life in modern society. In whatever country he leaves for a while, or moves forever, he must have elementary ideas about the social structure of society, the distribution of people by class, ways of earning money and the distribution of roles in the family, the basics of a market economy and the political structure of the state, civil rights.

Enculturation denotes the process of mastering by a person the traditions and norms of behavior in a particular culture. Culture in developed countries is more specific than social structure. It is more difficult to adapt to it, fully engage and get used to it. An adult emigrant who left Russia for America learns the social laws of life quite quickly, but it is much more difficult for him to assimilate foreign cultural norms and customs. Russian physicist, programmer or engineer, having a high qualification recognized abroad, for a short time learns the duties corresponding to his new position. After a month or two, he copes with professional duties no worse than a Native American. But sometimes he fails to get used to a foreign culture, to feel it with his own, and after many years.

Thus, adaptation to the social order of life in a foreign country is faster than inculturation - adaptation to foreign values, traditions and customs.

Adaptation also occurs during socialization and inculturation. In the first case, the individual adapts to social conditions of life, in the second - to cultural ones. With socialization, adaptation is easy and fast, with inculturation - heavy and slow.

When a person is asked: “Who are you?”, From the point of view of socialization, he must answer: “I am a professor, scientist, engineer, head of the family.” But from the point of view of inculturation, he is obliged to name his cultural and national identity: "I am Russian."

At the individual level, the process of inculturation is expressed in everyday communication with their own kind - relatives, friends, acquaintances or unfamiliar representatives of the same culture, from whom the child consciously and unconsciously learns how to behave in various life situations, how to evaluate events, meet guests, react to certain signs of attention and signals.

Enculturation or learning of a culture occurs in several ways. It can happen directly when a parent teaches a child to be grateful for a gift, or indirectly when the same child observes how people behave in similar situations. Thus, direct utterance or indirect observation are two important ways of enculturation. A person changes his behavior only when he is told how to act, and when he observes how others behave in similar situations. Often people say one thing and act differently. In these situations, the individual becomes disoriented and the process of inculturation becomes more difficult.

Even the simplest procedure that we do many times every day, namely eating, from the point of view of cultural studies, is a set of postures and gestures endowed with different meanings and meanings in different cultures. Culture teaches us what, when and how to eat.

Socialization - growing into society, the formation of a social person. The final process of socialization is personality.

Inculturation - fusion with culture, the formation of a well-educated person. The end result of inculturation is an intellectual.

You can be very socialized and completely uncultured. The "new Russians" are an example of an excellent adaptation to the social reality that changed in the 90s, people who know how to find a way out of any situation, who know all the moves in this life. This is the result of excellent socialization. However, for the most part, the “new Russians” are completely uncultured people. They don't care about human values and Christian commandments (up to "you shall not kill"), on etiquette. Thus, two processes - inculturation and socialization - develop according to different laws. At the same age, there is a maximum of socialization and a minimum of inculturation, and vice versa. Inculturation reaches its maximum in old age, while socialization - in youth and maturity, and then most often decreases, less often - remains at the same level.

The processes of socialization and inculturation can go in one direction, or they can develop in opposite directions. Their phases may coincide, but may differ significantly. When both processes coincide, i.e. go in the same direction, it is possible to build a single continuum "socialization - inculturation".

The continuum shows how cultural and social potential increases or decreases in different types of people. The minimum rate of inculturation and socialization in the so-called feral people - human cubs raised among wolves and other animals. Returning to society, they are not able to adapt to it and soon die. The average values ​​of inculturation and socialization have children brought up in orphanages and boarding schools. As adults and leaving the institution, they are ill-equipped to live fully in a large society. They do not have much of what children in ordinary families receive. Intelligent people have the highest potential. The elite of society, as a rule, consists of them. These are socially active and culturally established people.

Socialization is associated with the assimilation of some mandatory cultural minimum, which includes the assimilation of basic social roles, language norms, and national character traits. The term "inculturation" implies a broader phenomenon, namely, the familiarization of the individual with everything. cultural heritage humanity: not only to their national culture but also to the culture of other peoples. We are talking about mastering foreign languages, forming a broad outlook, knowledge world history. So, inculturation means the acquisition of a broad humanitarian culture.

3. Personality as a value and value world of personality.

The most important factor determining the functioning of culture, its carrier is the personality. In her behavior and inner world, those customs, norms and values ​​that are part of the culture work or do not work, undergo various kinds of transformation, become individualized. Personality in culture is often seen as the bearer of accepted norms and values ​​that dominate in a given society. But this is only a basic characteristic of an individual inscribed in the general system of regulation. Actually, the personal beginning is formed through the mechanisms of choosing one or another type of behavior, values ​​and meanings in this generally accepted system. For this choice, the individual is responsible, taking on the costs of risk and success in achievements.

In Russian culture, the word "personality" is used to denote either an individual person, a bearer of social characteristics, or a set of properties inherent in a given person and constituting his individuality.

The properties of an individual are not limited to his social or cultural affiliation. There is also the inner world of the individual, in which objective factors find different refraction. On the one hand, culture forms one or another type of personality, and on the other hand, a person introduces his requirements and interests into norms, needs and behavioral patterns. Without referring to personal factors, we will not be able to explain the real functioning of the norms and values ​​inherent in culture and those deviations from the norms that are inevitable in real life.

Each culture and each social system in its own way forms a person, giving him the features of a generally accepted standard or diversity that is acceptable within a certain culture, the cultural environment of any community.

The degree of individualization varies greatly in different cultural environments, and not all societies have a developed idea of ​​personality.

Sociocultural factors of individual behavior are revealed when considering the roles that are accepted for each subculture of a given community. In the role description, any social group appears in the form of certain positions: class (entrepreneur or employee), professional (worker, farmer, military, scientist), family (husband, wife, children). But each person can combine several roles, varying them depending on the cycle of activity, situation or personal inclination (lazy or diligent student). Thus, the individual appears as a fragmentary and partial personality, as a bearer of different roles related to different spheres and types of culture.

In cultural terms, the problem of mastering and combining roles reveals a lot in social life, forms the character and identity of social groups, nations and individuals. It turns out to be extremely important in communication between representatives of different groups, for social mobility that changes the position of groups and individuals. In more developed cultures, it is the emergence of individuality that enhances the differentiation of life and its enrichment. However, the attitude towards it is radically different depending on the cultural-historical type.

The formation of personality in the history of culture requires two prerequisites. Firstly, some internal value orientation is needed, an attitude towards the intrinsic value of the “I”, its inner world, which does not coincide with the requirements of the outside world, and sometimes opposes them. This separation was fixed in the culture different ways. Even from ancient culture, the concept of fate passes into European culture as an inevitable property of every person, over which he, in the final analysis, has no power. In Christianity, the concept of the soul acquires special significance, as the essential and individual property of a person, combining in itself some divine principle and personal choice that determines the state and final prospects of individual life. But certain analogues of fate and soul can be found in every developed culture, and only a detailed comparison of cultures shows the degree of similarity and difference between them.

Secondly, this is internal separation and independence, the ability to resist the generally accepted should be restrained by the rules of behavior, role prescriptions, so as not to undermine the integrity of the socio-cultural environment. Therefore, such inner independence can be expressed in the secrecy of the individual, doublethink and hypocrisy. In the history of society for a long time there was a struggle between the generally accepted principles of morality and manifestations of personal initiative. The phenomenon of hypocrisy is increasingly manifesting itself as the right of an individual to be accountable only to himself. Only gradually did tolerance, and even indifference, to inside life of a person, however, provided that he does not clearly violate the legal code.

The European cultural tradition affirms a person as an autonomous subject of activity, emphasizes, first of all, his unity, integrity, identity of the “I” in all its manifestations. On the contrary, in Eastern cultures, role functions are largely overlapped by the self-awareness of the individual. A person is aware of himself and is perceived by others depending on the environment or sphere in which he acts at a given period of time. Here, a person is considered primarily as the focus of particular obligations and responsibilities arising from his belonging to the family, community, clan, religious community and state.

In the classical Chinese tradition, the subordination of a person to legal norms and the suppression of his "I" by him was considered the highest virtue. Confucian principles asserted the need to limit emotions, the strict control of the mind over feelings, and the ability to express one's experiences in a strictly defined, accepted form. The relation of the individual to society in the classical Indian tradition was different. In philosophical systems, the human "I" turned out to be conditioned not by any specific reasons, but by the reality of a superpersonal spirit, in relation to which the corporeal and empirical "I" is a temporary and transient phenomenon. In addition, belief in karma, as in a series of transmigration of souls, makes the existence of each individual conditional, deprives him of independent value. The individual achieves self-realization through the denial of his empirical nature by breaking all concrete ties with other people, society, the world and his deeds. Only in the European-American culture did the personal principle receive the status of unconditionality, insubordination to other regulatory principles (sacred principles, holiness of enduring values, Holy Scripture, obligatory ideology). The stability of the inner world does not depend on any external authorities, since the individual finds in himself those unconditional principles that help him to endure in any circumstances and give them meaning, relying on his own judgment, guided by a sense of responsibility in his activities and actions. A synonym for such an understanding of personality is individualism as an attitude to the self-significance of a unique human life and the highest value of the interests of an individual. In this case, the opposition "individualism-collectivism" arises and priority is given to the first principle, although limited by internal moral principles and legal norms.

In the conversation about individualism, the main emphasis is on the self-worth of the individual, on his freedom and autonomy, on his right and his real opportunity to determine his own interests and directions of his activity, on his responsibility for his own destiny and the well-being of his family, on the ability of the individual to actively exercise independence. , initiative, enterprise.

The emergence and formation of such an orientation, its transformation into a mass-recognized one, actively influencing the fate of society, is associated with a complex and multidimensional set of social processes. Thus, the formation of individualism cannot be understood apart from the process of development of free, in principle, open to all members of society, individual entrepreneurship, free market relations and the forms of competition corresponding to these relations. Also important is the relationship of the historical fate of individualism with the process of creating forms of democracy that allow the individual to some extent influence the procedures for adopting laws and social decisions, with the process of establishing basic human rights and political freedoms.

The experience of our country shows that a one-sided emphasis on collectivism, which is understood as the total domination of the view, where the individual is only an element, a function, a link in a social organization, only a participant in a collective, organized and institutionalized action, only an object of centralized control, contributes not only to a drop in efficiency and dynamism in the development of society, but also the establishment of authoritarianism and bureaucracy, the dominance of administrative-command methods. This turns into disorganization and uncontrollability of society, collective irresponsibility, selfishness, anarchism.

Modernity requires an alternative to this - a dialectical combination of collective, effective, rational and democratically organized action with the presence on a mass scale of an individual with autonomy, independence, initiative, able to determine and express their interests and influence the process of social decision-making.

4. Human corporeality and culture

In any culture, human corporality forms an important value sphere. Bodily characteristics are not only the property of anthropological research and measurements (body shape, height, physical signs). Of course, on these grounds we can distinguish between racial and ethnic determinants of individuality. However, in many respects the human body and the whole bodily culture, i.e. behavior and relationships associated with the somatic characteristics of a person form socio-cultural factors. The "cultural body" is, as it were, built on top of the anthropological and social body, correcting the mechanisms of life support. The image of the "body self" correlates with cultural orientations, ideas of dignity, strength, beauty, physical dexterity, social and cultural relevance or originality.

However, ideas about normative or ideal corporality differ strikingly from one another in different cultures. Even with a superficial acquaintance with the history of culture, one can see the physicality of ancient characters full of life and energy. In ancient Greece, it was the human body that was the bearer of ideal beauty, physical strength and dexterity, although any external threat could deform this body. But this canon was replaced, and the crucified body of the suffering God became the central symbol of European culture. In the Renaissance, the ideal bodies of gods, goddesses, heroes, embodying various bodily virtues, are again replicated. And again, the Reformation sharply separated the highly valuable spiritual being and the sinful bodily principle in man, subject to criticism, contempt or regret. Man was divided into incorporeal spirituality, linked to the eternal salvation of the soul, and non-spiritual corporeality, which distinguishes man by its frailty. In the era of European absolutism, a person was considered beautiful, destined for idleness, although he was busy with gallant games. In the bourgeois era, a tendency is being established to combine physical virtues, intelligence and spiritual beauty. Again, in art, a man and a woman in full bloom are valued above all else. The rehabilitation of the human body in the European culture of the 20th century gave rise to various directions and schools of cultivation of the somatic principle in man. The most common form has become a sport that absorbs the attention, time and money of a huge number of people. However, it should be borne in mind that a distinctive characteristic of all sports is the division into direct participants and spectators - fans. And if the former are really included in the practice of bodily culture, then the latter join it only indirectly and far from always for the actual sporting purposes.

IN modern world a unified world sports culture has prevailed, based on international rivalry, Olympic and other competitions, in which athletes of the most different countries. Nevertheless, outside this unity, the traditional cultivation of some national sports schools (martial arts, horse riding among the peoples of nomadic cultures) remains.

The concept of "corporality" naturally correlates with the theme of eros and sex. In different cultures, this or that distance is drawn between these spheres. Sexual relations are largely influenced by social factors, the most important of which is the ever-existing division of labor between the sexes in family responsibilities and professional activities. Differences in the nature of socialization, starting from early childhood and throughout life, and the cultural distance between the sexes are a characteristic feature of all cultures. In almost all cultures of the pre-industrial period and up to a mature industrial society, a woman was assigned a subordinate position, limited both in legal terms and cultural norms and values. The mechanism for maintaining such relations included a diverse set of influences - education, moral norms and legal principles. But, of course, an important factor was the aestheticization of the corresponding signs of behavior, spiritual qualities that correlated with the ideal or model of a man or woman. The situation changes in the 20th century with the development of mass culture and the weakening of all social barriers.

Love, as one of the most powerful factors in human relations, was a constant subject of regulation through a system of moral norms, law and religion. To streamline love, to introduce it into social frameworks, to prevent the affective side of love from violating the principles of normativity - such was the important task of any sociocultural system. But at the same time, every society not only allowed, but also cultivated in certain spheres and forms love relationship giving them an appropriate axiological form. Ideal platonic love for the Madonna or for the Beautiful Lady, not only devoid of corporeality, but also not expecting a response; romantic love in unusual conditions and for an unusual object; gallant adventures of aristocratic loafers; harem routines of Asian rulers; the love affairs of adventurers, sentimental petty-bourgeois love; a love breakdown in a realistically depicted life - all these options provided endless plots for fiction and found a place for themselves in life, giving it great variety.

Today, much is changing in the culture itself, in our attitude to gender issues. Sex as a cultural phenomenon requires dispassionate consideration. If some researchers interpret the cultivation of sex and the eroticization of modern life as evil, as evidence of the decline of Western culture, then others, on the contrary, see in these processes symbols of a new morality, free from taboos, from inhibition.

We must not forget that the sex and body of a person, along with morality, family, personality, are universals that determined the development of the human spirit and culture. As universals, they cannot be substantially transformed or, moreover, eliminated. Today, however, there is a dangerous tendency to experiment with these universals (genetic engineering, cloning, experiments in sex and sex, experiments with the psyche). The destruction of universals can lead (as one of the possible scenarios), for example, to the appearance of monster people or even the death of our spirituality and civilization. Probably, what is needed today is not calls for freedom in the field of sex and sexual needs, but a serious policy in the field of sexual, or rather, love culture. It is culture! And Russia has its own serious tradition. Suffice it to recall our literature and poetry (from Pushkin to Pasternak), the work of our philosophers from the beginning of the 20th century, and modern ones, who deeply and comprehensively discussed the topic of love and Russian eros. The demand of the day is the creation of a new, culturally appropriate concept of love.

5. References

1. Alekseeva V. G. Value orientations as a factor in the life and development of the individual // Psychological Journal - 1994. - V. 5. - No. 5

2. Antilogova LN Psychological mechanisms of development of the moral consciousness of the individual. - Omsk, 1999

3. Borisova L. G., Solodova G. S. Sociology of personality. Novosibirsk, 1997

4. Vygotsky L. S. Development of personality and worldview of a child // Psychology of personality. Texts / Ed. Yu. B. Gippenreiter, A. A. Puzyreya. - M.: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 1982.

5. Golovakha E. I. Life perspective and value orientations of the personality // Personality psychology in the works of domestic psychologists. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2000

6. Ilyin V.I. Theory of consumption. - M, 2002

7. Leontiev D. A. Inner world of personality // Psychology of personality in the works of domestic psychologists. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2000

8. Platonov K. K. Structure and development of personality. M.: Nauka, 1996

9. Psychology // ed. doc. psychol. sciences Allahverdova V.M. – M.: Prospekt, 1999

10. Development of the child's personality // ed. Kolominsky Ya.L. - M .: Psychology and Pedagogy, 1997

11. Shevardin N.I. Psychodiagnostics and personality correction - M .: VLADOS, 1999

12. Yanitsky M. S. Personal value orientations as a dynamic system. - Kemerovo: Kuzbassvuzizdat, 2000

Chapter 2.3 Philosophy of the symbolic world of man. Man in the world of culture

Philosophy of language

In the previous chapter, the inner world of man was considered. The holistic attitude of man to the world acted as a certain tendency for man to go beyond his own boundaries. But such an exit was not carried out. The inner world of a person remained his purely personal affair, mysterious and unknown to others. However, a person does not exist in isolation from other people, the world. Therefore, he manifests his inner personal life, symbolizes it in phenomena suitable for this. Language, work, culture - all this forms of symbolic being person; they are accessible not only to their creators, but also to all those who understand their meaning. In the course of historical development, man significantly increased the scale of his symbolic activity, so now it is time to talk about the symbolic world of man, his second, non-natural homeland (the first is the human psyche). Our immediate task includes a philosophical analysis of the symbolic world of man. And we will begin this analysis with language, one of the most important components of the symbolic world of man. The philosophy of the symbolic world of man is a natural continuation of the philosophical anthropology of man.

Encyclopedias give a variety of definitions of the language, there are not even hundreds of them, but thousands. Language is considered as an expression of the inner spiritual world of a person, as a means of communication and information storage, as a system of signs, as an oral and written speech activity. The structural units of the language are words and sentences, texts made up of them. The logic of a language is formed by its syntax (grammar), the meaning of a language is its semantics, and the practical meaning of a language acts as pragmatics. We note again that language is a symbolic expression in the sound and writing of the mental life of man. Brief historical reference will allow us to better understand the phenomenon of language.

Mythological consciousness does not share the words and the reality they call. Here, of course, there is a lot of scope for the magic of the word.

For philosophers of antiquity one of the most important problems was the question of the relationship between the name and the named reality. Socrates and Plato believed that the name was not established arbitrarily, "not as we please," but by nature. But what does "by nature" mean? For Plato, the name first of all imitates the essence. The Stoics believed that in language a person imitates the world around him. The Epicureans suggested that language arose from the involuntary expression of emotions in sound. Democritus considered language to be a form of social contract. Ancient philosophers were well aware that there is a connection between the word, the image that it expresses, and the object.

Christian theologians, believed that the ability of language was granted to man by God. IN Old Testament it is said that Adam gave a name to all living beings. Language is included in rather rigid forms of the divine universe.

In the new time, in accordance with the general attitude towards thinking as the essence of human existence, the language is subjected to a logical analysis that clarifies its content. Language expresses concepts, and it is itself a means of thinking. Attempts are being made to construct a universal language to which other languages ​​could be reduced. Leibniz's efforts in this direction made it possible to outline the ways of developing mathematical logic. Now it is very rarely believed that the sound of a word should have something in common with its objective meaning. Words are considered as signs of objects or their mental images.

IN early XIX V. the philosophy of language is being productively developed by the German philosopher and linguist W. Humboldt. Language is understood by him as a continuous spiritual creativity. "... The language of the people is its spirit, and the spirit of the people is its language." Language is a "living organism", the source and soil of spiritual activity. In relation to the subject, the language has independence. Much later, in the middle of the 20th century, the idea of ​​the independence of language will receive a paradoxical formulation from M. Heidegter: not a person speaks, but a language speaks to a person.

For E. Cassirer, language is a symbolic form of self-unfolding of the spirit, but as such it differs from the spirit and acts as an independent being. The idea of ​​the difference between language and the psyche will subsequently receive numerous confirmations. On an intuitive level, it is fixed by expressions like: "I know, but I cannot express." It is well known that the most eloquent orators fail to express in words all the richness of their spiritual life.

In neopositivism, language is subjected to a carefully prepared furious logical attack. According to Russell, just as the planets do not know that they move according to Kepler's laws, so many people, using words, do not know their meanings. Accuracy in a word is a practically unattainable ideal, but one must strive steadily towards it. In neopositivism, language has become the most important subject philosophical inquiry, which is designed to eliminate the imperfection of natural language. For this purpose logic is used. It is believed that the application of logic and other formalized means to the analysis of a natural language does not violate its vitality. But it turned out that this path is far from being as harmless as it seems.

In the program of verificationism (checking the truth of assumptions), everything seemed clear enough. The truth of the assumptions can be tested. natural language can be thought of as a set of sentences. Meaningless sentences are eliminated from the context of the language. There are objects and processes, they correspond to words connected in sentences.

But the coherent concept of truth introduces significant adjustments to the picture outlined. Words have meaning in the context of a system of words, i.e. in the context of the language as a whole. We will not understand the meaning of the word "necessity" without understanding the meaning of the words "cause" and "effect", but the meaning of the words "cause" and "effect" is also guided by the meaning of some other words.

The pragmatic concept of truth introduces additional features into the picture of language. Truth is revealed through practice; Accordingly, the meaning of the word is clarified in the process of its application. Wittgenstein, who thought deeply about this circumstance, believes that philosophy should protect against the misuse of words. Speaking, according to the late Wittgenstein, is a form of life, of activity. "The meaning of a word is its use in language." But the use can be very different, which means that the word "must have a whole family of meanings." Each time speaking acts as a new game of finding out new meanings of words. That a word has not one but many meanings is well known from dictionaries. Russian philosopher and mathematician V.V. Nalimov proposed to explain the meanings of language constructions by some probability functions that describe with what degree of probability this or that meaning of a word is used. Such a seemingly simple sentence allows us to explain many linguistic facts. It is known that when learning a foreign language, it is easier to speak it than to learn to understand others, and among the latter, it is easier to understand those who know no more than you. It is clear why this is happening. To speak the language, it is enough to know the main, frequently used meanings of words. To understand others, you must already know all the meanings of the words that the interlocutor uses, but this most often occurs when the interlocutor is oriented in the language no better than you. Therefore, it is by no means accidental that a student studying, for example, English language understands the students of the group in which he is studying better than the teacher teaching English in the group; accordingly, often a student understands his teacher better than a native of England. The synonymy of words explains many jokes based on the ambiguous use of the same word.

It was not without difficulty that the writer of these lines was explained in his distant childhood that "the great great Stalin" was small in stature. It's funny, but even adults are surprised to learn that the growth of each of the four leaders - Napoleon, Lenin, Stalin and Hitler - did not exceed 163 cm.

The given historical overview allowed us to get acquainted with various ways of understanding the language. It allows you to move on to generalizations.

First of all, we note that the language has a denoting function, its words and sentences often designate a certain object or process. But the implementation of this function should not be simplified. The poet Mandelstam very accurately characterizes the word: “A living word does not mean an object, but freely chooses, as if for housing, one or another objective significance, materiality, a sweet body. And the word wanders around the thing freely, like the soul around an abandoned, but not forgotten body ". A person is not able to designate objects directly, with a simple cavalry swoop. The word is the result of man's complex inner life; what exactly it means, it turns out only gradually. But in the subject-procedural world, everything is intertwined, therefore, what is denoted by a word turns out to be polysemantic, and the word itself, accordingly, is polymorphic.

Language is an expression, a symbolization of the inner, spiritual life of man. This is again true, but this feature of the language should not be taken lightly. The fact is that for each person the language is already predetermined by society, and it dictates the conditions for the implementation of the act of speaking (or writing). Speaking is the transformation of possibility into activity, but under conditions that are determined by the specificity of the language used. Speaking is the subject's appeal to other subjects, and it is they who determine the conditions of speaking and writing in the accepted form. by this language community. For the subject, language is given as an a priori structure, which he is free to dispose of, but he cannot cancel it. Thus, language is a symbolization of the inner spiritual world of people in a special form - individual-social. Thanks to this form, communication between subjects is carried out.

Language has a social nature. This, strictly speaking, means one thing: each subject must be expressed in a generally valid form, which, of course, dictates some restrictions. What these restrictions are depends on the specifics of the language being used. So that these restrictions are not excessive, the norms adopted in natural languages ​​are rather "soft", mobile. It is already clear from this that the fight against the indefiniteness of linguistic expressions, which seems so appropriate, should not be carried to the point of turning language into an unnecessarily rigid structure.

Another theme of the philosophy of language is its liveliness, vitality. It is no coincidence that Mandelstam used the expression "living word." Natural language symbolizes all aspects of a person's spiritual life, from sensory-cognitive to sensory-emotional, from mental to eidetic. The richness and diversity of language is a direct continuation of the richness of a person's psychological life. Pushkin rightly asserted: "And I aroused good feelings with my lyre." Exactly, language awakens not only thoughts, but also feelings and eidoses. By the way, pay attention to the very precise expression of Pushkin "awakened" (excited). Through language, one subject excites in another the impulses of his spiritual life. The desire of the speaker is obvious - he who has ears, let him hear. But will he hear? For example, not loving loving?

One of the most important functions of natural language is communicative. Language communication involves: establishing contact between persons, encouraging the speaker to listen to his partner, the ability to understand each other. As you know, the process of language communication is very complex. The famous poem by F.I. Tyutchev is not famous by chance - it points to the difficulties of language communication:

How can the heart express itself?

How can someone else understand you?

Will he understand how you live?

Thought spoken is a lie.

Blowing up you will disturb the keys,

Eat them - and be silent.

The linguistic construction implies, along with the translation of the spiritual life of the speaker (or writer) into the sphere of language, the perception of what was said by the listener, the reader, the entry of the narration into the psyche of the latter. The speaker "aims" at the listener, and the listener, in turn, wants (or does not want) to "catch" the thought, feeling, eidos of his interlocutor. In some cases, people understand each other perfectly, in others, understanding comes after dialogue, discussion, mutual "grinding". Linguistic understanding requires consistency between the language of the speaker and the language of the listener.

Unity and diversity of languages. Metalanguage. formalized language. Machine languages. The sign form of the language. Philosophy as language

From the Bible it is known that angry with the audacity of people who intended after global flood build a tower in Babylon to heaven, God "mixed their languages" so that people no longer understand each other. Indeed, the diversity of languages ​​complicates the mutual understanding of people. However, and this is somewhat surprising, the diversity of languages ​​is an indispensable feature of people's lives. Even if all people agreed to speak the international languages ​​Volapuk (created by the German Schleyer) and Esperanto (created by the Pole Zamenhof), nevertheless, the diversity of languages ​​would not be eliminated. There would remain a distinction between natural and artificial, formalized and machine languages.

Metalanguage- this is the language on the basis of which the study of another language is carried out, the latter is called objective language. From the point of view of a person who speaks Russian and learns English, Russian is a metalanguage, and English acts as an object language. In our presentation, we constantly use the metaphilosophical language, that is, the categories of metaphilosophy. So, in the previous paragraph, the nature of natural language was considered on the basis of such categories as possibility, symbol. The branch of mathematical logic devoted to the foundations of mathematics is called metamathematics, and it functions as a metamathematical language. The relation between the metalanguage and the object language is realized in the process of translation. Translation is a kind of interpretation. It certainly does not come down to simply replacing each individual word with its correlate from the corresponding dictionary. This is very clear in the translation of the verses. First, a subscript is obtained. But this is not yet a poetic translation, because the interlinear does not reproduce the poetic image. Additional efforts will be required, not just a translator, but a poet-translator, before an adequate translation is achieved. It has been noticed that an adequate translation is, as a rule, more voluminous than the original. In the language of the researcher, it often takes several words to translate one foreign word. Metalanguages ​​are widely used in science, here they express, fix knowledge of the most general nature. The language of philosophy is a meta-language of maximum generality; all educated people are forced to use it.

Along with natural artificial languages ​​created by humans to solve specific problems. These include languages ​​of science, machine languages, jargons, Esperanto. Formalized and machine languages ​​began to play a particularly significant role in the conditions of the scientific and technological revolution.

Formalized languages are logical or mathematical calculations. Unlike natural language, a formalized language uses logical and mathematical signs; any kind of ambiguity and absurdity are excluded as far as possible, formulas are widely used. A well-known specialist in the field of mathematical logic, A. Church, emphasized that a formalized language is needed to track the logical form. The great logician G. Frege, comparing the calculus he created with the natural language, compared the microscope with the human eye. In solving some problems, the eye has an advantage, in solving others, the microscope. Like a microscope, logical calculus is useful only in some cases, where a person is dealing with a logical form.

When evaluating the importance of formalized languages, extremes often take place: their importance is either underestimated or overestimated. Now everything more scientists believe that even thinking is not represented in formalized languages ​​in all its richness. Obviously, for the logical reproduction of thinking, many formalized languages ​​are required. It is equally obvious that formalized languages ​​are not very suitable for expressing the sensory-emotional and eidetic sides of the human spiritual world. The same applies to human creativity. But, on the other hand, the successful use of formalized languages ​​shows that human activity, psychological and objective, has a much more logical and mathematical nature than it seemed before. Therefore, the use of formalized languages ​​brings new benefits to a person, especially if this use is machined. Machine the language makes it possible to write programs of algorithms and the content of information stored in huge volumes in the memory devices of computers. If a bicycle, a motorcycle, a rocket allow a person to increase the speed of his movement, then the computer, respectively, allows a person to increase the amount of his memory and enhance his computing abilities. The computer does not have a psyche, it only models its structure, its characteristic connections. Let's summarize. The spiritual, mental life of a person is symbolized in many languages, each of which expresses a certain side, regularity, feature of this life. Languages ​​are projected onto each other - language interpretations arise, mutual understanding of people, the Babylonian pandemonium of languages ​​is eliminated.

Language in its sound and graphic forms is mainly represented by conventional signs of human mental activity. If the subject speaks or writes, then he translates into signs, "signifies" his spiritual world and thereby makes it accessible to other people. The one who perceives speech and writing translates the meaning of signs into the state of his psyche. Thus, language as a process at each of its stages is symbolization. From this point of view, the language of people is not limited to the system of signs. The system of signs is only an intermediate stage in the process of the functioning of the language, its temporary abode, which the interlocutors visit out of necessity and tend to leave as quickly as possible.

natural language was a brilliant invention of mankind: it turns out that it is possible to extract and process information about objects, operating directly not with them, but with their signs. Thus began a grandiose revolution, which is gaining momentum. The signs turned out to be very convenient for their use in communication, in cognitive activity, in science. Signs are generalized, they can be used by different people in different situations. The use of formalized languages ​​allows obtaining information in a compact form and, most importantly, effectively saving time. Signs, by virtue of their material nature, are convenient for machine processing, for the development technical systems connections. The most developed modern countries, such as Japan, the USA, Germany, are often called the information society. Here the use of sign systems is more efficient than in other countries. One of the main directions in the development of modern man is associated with his sign-symbolic activity. This circumstance largely explains why modern philosophy is by necessity a linguistic (linguistic) philosophy.

Philosophy is often characterized as a form of consciousness. But philosophy is also a language, a form of linguistic activity. The philosopher is engaged in sign-symbolic activity no less than representatives of other sciences. The language of philosophy in relation to any language is often used as a metalanguage. The reason is clear. The language of philosophy deals with the most general features of the universe; it is convenient to consider the particular and the singular from the standpoint of the general. Philosophy is a metalanguage in relation to both physics and mathematics, as well as to logic and mathematics. But, on the other hand, the language of philosophy can also be subjected to research, for example, from the standpoint of the language of logic. In this case, logic plays the role of a metalanguage, and philosophy has the meaning of the studied (objective) language. In science, there is something like the law of wrapping languages: each language looks in the mirror of another. Natural languages ​​take an active part in wrapping languages.

When the neopositivists applied logic to the analysis of natural language, they found there ... logic. Natural language remained natural language, but it was given a clearer logical form. Not without amazement, logicians and mathematicians discovered that the "exact" languages ​​they create in the throes and anxieties of creativity are always surrounded by the inevitable "noise" of natural language. Natural language is driven out the door, and he looks out the window. Something similar happens with the philosophical language - it is irremovable.

Philosophy of culture. What is culture? Culture and civilization

The extremely complex process of symbolization by a person of his primordially human capabilities and forces is characterized by various categories, among them such the most important ones as culture, civilization, practice. The terms "culture", "civilization" are often used interchangeably. In this case, it is usually emphasized that culture as a specific human way of being differs from the being of animals. Culture is not inherited biologically, but through socialization, such as through learning. The designation of the same category by two different terms is inappropriate. We believe that there is a significant difference between the categories of culture and civilization.

Civilization and culture- Words of Latin origin. Civilized - civil, state. Cultural - educated, educated, developed, revered, cultivated. Already in the origin of the words "culture" and "civilization" one can see a certain difference, which received its formalization in the categories of culture and civilization, introduced into everyday life. philosophical thought in the second half of the XVIII century. Civilization is all of humanity in all its richness, including symbolic manifestations. Culture is the achievement of civilization, the most perfect in it, the triumph of the human.

As for language, it is a component of civilization. Only by his achievements and perfection does he reach the realm of culture. An analysis of the nature of language, which has revealed many specific and characteristic features of the symbolic, greatly facilitates our analysis of the nature of civilization and culture. Such an analysis is necessary. Events in the XX century. often they do not develop at all as we would like, sunrises are replaced by sunsets, ups and downs, and each time in these metamorphoses, culture and the internal content of civilization play an almost decisive role. A person's striving for perfection requires knowledge of the phenomena of culture and civilization. When a society is bad, its hopes are connected with culture (and what else can you hope for?).

The original definition of culture expresses its symbolic character. Culture - this is the otherness of the human spirit, represented in sound, electromagnetic and other waves, in nuclear reactors, in a word, in signs. Already here the first collisions, the origins of ups and downs, various kinds of crises arise. Culture not only connects, but also separates the inner and outer world of a person. Russian philosopher and literary critic MM. Bakhtin emphasized that culture does not have its own territory. In our context, this means that it constantly rushes between the human spirit and its signs, finding only a temporary home in one of these two regions. If E. Cassirer assessed the symbolic nature of culture as its obligatory property and, therefore, not subject to critical perception, then the intuitivist A. Bergson sharply criticized such a position. He insisted that the philosophical act consists in overcoming symbolic forms, after which only a purely intuitive comprehension of the subject and, in general, real life are possible. The symbolic nature of culture, however, cannot be canceled by anyone. Critics of Bergson point to the possibility of oblivion of man in the symbolic products of culture and civilization. This will not happen if culture is realized as a full-fledged dialogue. MM. Bakhtin did not tire of emphasizing dialogue character culture.

At the stage of its transition from the inner world of man to the outer world, civilization appears as a set of signs, culture - as special sign, work, perfection. The noise of the orchestra is not yet culture, although it is already Civilization. We encounter culture when we listen to Tchaikovsky or Beethoven, read Pushkin, contemplate Rublev's icons, watch the world's best artists play, use modern technology. Culture is a skill, the highest qualification, in it the author-master shows himself. And in front of him is the viewer, the listener, who may not understand the meaning of the work of culture. Culture outside communication dies, it, among other things, is communication.

Culture as communication is realized only if it is generally significant, that is, it does not remain a purely personal matter of its creator. New collisions are hidden in the general significance of culture. As the most perfect achievement of civilization, culture is not equally accessible to everyone. Culture has general significance only for the circle of people who understand it, it is not universal and not universal. The higher the level of culture, the smaller the proportion of members of society who understand it.. Every civilization is proud of its culture, but it is unable to make it its true foundation, foundation. The social pyramid in its reliance on culture is extremely unstable, because its base is few compared to its upper part. This is very reminiscent of the situation with a geometric body placed on its tip: balancing, if possible, is only for a short period of time.

In fact, the very creation of culture is the source of one of global problems modernity: separation of culture from the broad masses. Last Available Mass culture, the value of which is enormous both in a positive and negative sense. In relation to real culture, mass culture is a marginal phenomenon, that is, it is on the edge of culture.

Culture as a dialogue will take place only when the triumph of the human takes place not only on the side of the author, but also on the side of those who perceive his creations. It is well known that this triumph may not be. Culture is the triumph of not just a person, but humanity, but this is what an enlightened, educated - and only - subject is sometimes deprived of.

Culture is always creativity, activity, the value attitude of a person towards himself and others according to the laws of truth, beauty and goodness. The truth above has already been the subject of philosophical analysis, now it's the turn of beauty.

Aesthetics. beauty and beauty

The human world includes beauty, it is intuitively clear to everyone. Every person is capable of love, and for the most part they love the beautiful, the beautiful, the sublime. And accordingly, many, to put it mildly, do not like the ugly and base. However, a naive-intuitive understanding of the world of beauty is not enough for a confident orientation in it. Here, as usual in problematic situations, there is a need for good philosophy. Interestingly, until the middle of the XVIII century. philosophers did not attach due importance to the sphere of beauty. Philosophers of antiquity, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, considered independent sections of philosophy, for example, logic and ethics, but not aesthetics. Why?

The Greek word "aestheticos" means "pertaining to feelings". But feeling was considered just a moment of cognitive or practical activity. When it was found out that the world of the sensual-emotional has not only a subordinate, but also an independent meaning, then the time of aesthetics has come, within the framework of which such values ​​as beauty and beauty receive their understanding. Founder of aesthetics Baumgarten defined beauty as the perfection of the sensual, and art as the embodiment of beauty. The category of the beautiful concretizes the category of beauty, because it is more specific, explicitly includes elements of comparison: something is not just beautiful, but very beautiful, beautiful and as far as possible from the ugly, the antipode of the beautiful. Emphasizing the originality of aesthetic perception, Kant characterized it as "expediency without purpose." Aesthetic judgment is not interested in anything else, it has an independent value. In human life, the aesthetic principle has its own special niche.

Where and how does the aesthetic exist? The simplest answer to this question is as follows: aesthetic, and this includes beauty, this is a property of an object. Such an answer from the point of view of understanding the symbolic, symbolic nature of the aesthetic is rather naive. Being included in the process of symbolization, the aesthetic unites, connects the subject with the object, the spiritual with the corporeal. Both "naturalists" who consider aesthetic properties to belong to objects, and those who reduce the aesthetic to the perceptions of the individual, are mistaken. The secret of the aesthetic lies in the amazing consistency of the "face" of the object with the inner emotional-figurative life of a person. In his aesthetic attitude to nature, to others and to himself, a person constantly checks everything for humanity, looking for proportions that would organically connect him with the external environment.

If we turn to the subjective side of the aesthetic principle, then the first thing to do is to attribute it to one of the departments of a person's mental life. What is aesthetic? Feeling, emotion, pleasure, thought, eidos, value? It turns out that none of the above can be excluded from the aesthetic phenomenon, one can only single out the dominant moments. In the subjective-aesthetic, the sensual-emotional dominates, and not the mental, which in this case has a subordinate meaning. At the same time, the aesthetic has no place outside of a holistic and living unity, the fullness of experience, which means that it is an eidos. The aesthetic in the form of beauty, the beautiful, is the promise of happiness.

The value character of the aesthetic is especially clearly manifested in the ratio of beauty and ugliness in it, and they are far from being different. Man strives not for the ugly and base, but for the beautiful and sublime.. Deprive the world of the aesthetically positive, and you will lose much more than half of your sense perception.

In an effort to multiply and develop the world, first of all, the beautiful, the beautiful, a person turns to art. Art, as already noted, is the embodiment of beauty, which, of course, implies the creation of the latter.

The expression of beauty can be sound, light, substance, movement, rhythm, human body, word, thought, feeling. As you know, there are many types of art: architecture, sculpture, literature, theater, music, choreography, cinema, circus, applied and decorative arts. Every time the bearer of beauty is something, for example, in the case of music, the sounds that are extracted by musicians through musical instruments. The well-known line of the Russian romance reads: “Oh, if only I could express in sound all the power of my suffering…” Art is the ability to express oneself according to the signs of beauty. Danish philosopher XIX V. S. Kierkegaard gave a figurative description of the poet: his lips are arranged in such a way that even a groan turns into beautiful music. Beauty, the beautiful can be expressed not only in something purely material, but also, for example, in thought. So, in science, evidence is highly valued, that is, the beauty of thinking, thoughts. Feelings are also beautiful if they lead to positive value experiences. There are countless examples of this, from the love of Romeo and Juliet to the courage of a warrior defending his homeland.

For a designer, engineer, technician, it is very important to see the similarities and differences between, on the one hand, a work of art and, on the other hand, a technical artifact, i.e., a technical product or device. The Greek "techne" means art, craftsmanship. Both the artist and the technician are skilled craftsmen, although the goals of their work and creativity do not coincide. The purpose of a work of art is to function as a symbol of beauty, beauty; the purpose of a technical artifact is its usefulness to humans. It cannot be ruled out that in some cases a technical product is also a work of art, but this is far from always the case. At the same time, any technical artifact does not fall out of the aesthetic world. Moreover, as it turned out, the usefulness of a technical product does not oppose its aesthetic merits, but forms a unity with it that is peculiar, but desirable for a person. Awareness of this fact led to the development of design, artistic construction of objects, including technology. The word "design" is of English origin and very well captures the essence of technical aesthetics. It consists of the root stem "zain" (= sign, symbol) and the prefix "di" (= separation). The designer carries out various symbolic activities. He translates his spiritual world into technical signs relevant to technology users. For a designer, technology is not just pieces of iron, but a symbol of beauty, beauty. He, presumably, deeply understands that, although the expressive possibilities of technology do not always allow achieving the perfection of works of art, in the aesthetic sense, it is the latter that are the ideal of technology. Philosophy opens access to understanding the aesthetic merits of the world, including technology.

Philosophy of practice. What is practice?

Symbolizing himself, man acts, he is an active being. The Greek word "praktikos" means active, active. Respectively practice is human activity.

Everything that appears as human activity is practice. Language, culture and its many components are varieties of practice. Thinking, experiencing, eideting also belong to practice. But for example, eideting is a very degenerate case of practice, when the means and the result are reduced to the use of the possibilities of the subject himself. Often, practice is understood as material practice, that is, such an activity where the material objective world is the means and result. But material practice is also just one kind of practice.

IN ancient society the burden of physical labor was the lot of slaves. Even art was treated with contempt. The contemplation of the sage was considered the highest form of activity. A contemplative attitude to reality moves the problem of practice into the human mind. The doctrine of practice (praxeology) acts as ethics, the doctrine of virtue. Ethics - characteristic both ancient and ancient Indian philosophy. A tradition of ethical understanding of practice runs through the entire world philosophy.

Christianity initially considered labor as a curse imposed by God on man. The main form of activity is associated with serving God, and this is, first of all, prayer and everything connected with it.

IN new time in the struggle against scholasticism, the practical orientation of philosophy was emphasized by English philosophers (Bacon, Hobbes, Locke). The desire to create a philosophy that has application in life is based on the power of reason. In the entire philosophy of modern times, mental activity is considered as a true form of activity.

Kant introduces gradations of reason: theoretical reason contemplates the world of things; only practical reason overcomes the boundaries of a contemplative attitude towards objects, and therefore it takes precedence over theoretical reason. Practical reason acts as a will, and practice as a morally just act. Practice is characterized by Kant in the categories of purpose, freedom, will, morality. Hegel takes a decisive step to free practice from the subjective attitude. He turns his attention to the category of remedy. The means, according to Hegel, has an advantage over the goal, namely, "the universality of existence." The subjective is singular, but the means is universal. For Hegel, labor is the self-generation of man, but it implements the logic not of man, not of the means of production, but of the absolute spirit. The absolute spirit as a whole is realized in its abstract moments in theory and practice. Practice is higher than theoretical knowledge, because it has the dignity not only of universality, but also of reality. The Hegelian priorities of the objective over the subjective, the practical over the theoretical, the means over the end, are closely related to Marxism, which Gramsci, the Italian philosopher and politician, called the philosophy of practice.

For many areas of Western philosophy of the XX century. practice is the activity of an individual, understood as a volitional (pragmatism), rational (neopositivism) being, realizing his freedom in the project and choice (Sartre). In Husserl's philosophy, practice contains all forms of human activity, from which, however, philosophical analysis singles out pure knowledge, theory. It is this knowledge that becomes the subject of analysis. For Heidegger, "being-in-the-world" of a person is a way of dealing with things. The sphere of socio-practical has an inauthentic being, in it are the sources of the crisis of mankind.

So, let's sum up the consideration of practice in various philosophical directions. (The category of practice is understood in a broad and narrow sense, either as any human activity, or as his exclusively objective activity. The author hopes that the well-known ambiguity of terms has become something self-evident for the reader. Such is the specificity of the language of philosophy.

Practice has structure; the structural elements of practice are: 1) purpose; 2) expedient activity; 3) means of practice; 4) the object of practical action; 5) the result of the action.

The goal is inherent in the subject or group of people. A goal is a subjective image of a desired future. This is what certain actions are taken for. It is not necessary to think that the ultimate goal is necessarily reduced to some specific subjects. The goal can also be an ideal, the pursuit of which is not limited by any limit. The philosophical doctrine of purpose is called teleology. Practice is the activity of a person pursuing his goals. Therefore, it is a purposeful activity.

This activity itself is a symbol of purpose. Here the subject inevitably meets with nature, which recognizes not good wishes, but strength. Man opposes nature as a force of nature. In nature, man fulfills his purpose. Anything that is used to achieve a goal is called means of practice. This is not only machines, tools, but also the knowledge and life experience of people.

Activity, as Marx put it, dies out in the product. The goal is being fulfilled. A realized goal is no longer a goal. Possibility turned into reality; practical action has exhausted itself. The relay race of practical actions forms a person's practice, his active life.

At the stage of achievement result practice, the subject has the opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of his actions, all those emotional and rational moments that accompanied them. Practice becomes a criterion of truth, not always final and exhaustive, but nevertheless always making it possible to make the assessment of truth detailed and meaningful. Practice is not the only criterion of truth, but one of the main ones. In the Theses on Feuerbach, the young Marx wrote: "In practice, a person must prove the truth, that is, the reality and power, the this-worldliness of his thinking."

In the structure of practice, there are many relatively independent moments, the meaning of which is not the same. This is reflected in the specific philosophical teachings. When Kantians analyze practice, they proceed from the activity of the subject. Marxists shift the emphasis to the means of practice, attaching special importance to them. Meanwhile, practice is a single whole, everything is interconnected here. It is not always generally appropriate to "break" the practice into its specific moments and establish subordination between them.

Practice, like everything else in the world, exists in more or less developed forms. Practice is not only social production, but also any human activity. For example, the process of individual thinking is also a practice. Not only a worker and an engineer take part in the practice, but also a politician and a scientist, in short, every person. Non-practice is not mental or any other intellectual activity, but the absence of activity in its specific human qualities. If natural processes are not involved in the sphere of human activity, then they do not belong to the sphere of practice. It is often said that it is necessary to bridge the gap between theory and practice, it turns out that theory contradicts practice. The other point of view is that there is nothing more practical than a good theory. The urgent task is not to overcome the imaginary gap between theory and practice, but to develop practice and increase its effectiveness. A good practitioner is the subject, the society that operates effectively.

As for the forms of practice, there are quite a lot of them in accordance with the structure of human activity. There is the practice of economic, political, social, spiritual life, the practice of art and science, language practice, etc. Philosophy considers practice in a categorical way, from the standpoint of that common thing that is inherent in all forms of practice.

The theme of practice is very closely and organically connected with the problems of morality. If a person acts, then for what? Kant's famous question is: "What is the purpose of man?"

For Plato practice is a morally good and, moreover, beautiful activity. The free will of a person, the Stoics of antiquity believed, is embodied in virtue.

According to Christianity man's activity is ordained by God and permeated with his goodness. God embodies the highest good. God leads a person to good, but in order to successfully move along this path, one must overcome various kinds of temptations.

According to Bacon and the philosophy of modern times, practical activity should be aimed at alleviating the calamities of human existence and achieving good goals, especially harmony between people (Locke).

Kant goes further: he considers that the highest achievement of practical action is by no means the striving for good goals, but the realization of the main moral law. The problem of purpose is solved in the sphere not of what is, but in the sphere of what should be. In this regard, numerous axiological (value) problems arise.

IN Marxism the historical pace of practice is understood as the realization of the dialectic of good and evil. The Marxist program for the reorganization of the world is aimed at achieving communist ideals, and they, they say, are of a social and ethical nature.

Husserl concerned that practice leads to forgetting the original realities of life, to which one must constantly return in order to avoid a comprehensive crisis. It is only in this case that practice achieves its true aims.

As we can see, there are influential traditions in philosophy regarding practice as the achievement of good ends. Most often, philosophers are not inclined to understand practice in line with narrow practicality, the desire to extract direct material benefits from everything. The interest of philosophers is clearly aimed at the realization of universal values, and this is good:. The thesis "the ends justify the means" was criticized by Kant, Hegel, and Marx. The use of unwholesome means inevitably leads to the achievement of unwholesome ends.

Good. Three ethics. Personality, problems of freedom and responsibility

There is a special section of philosophy, ethics, within which the problem of good and evil is considered in detail. The term "ethics" Aristotle formed from the Greek word "ethos", which is translated into Russian as a custom, character. Modern ethics knows many concepts, the main ones being the ethics of virtue, the ethics of duty and the ethics of values.

Key Ideas virtue ethics developed by Aristotle. Virtues are understood as such personality traits, realizing which a person does good. It is believed that, acting in accordance with their virtues, a person inevitably turns out to be moral. Evil is associated with the scarcity of virtues. According to Aristotle, the main virtues are: wisdom, prudence, courage, justice. The famous English mathematician and philosopher B. Russell offered his list of virtues: optimism, courage (the ability to defend one's convictions), intelligence. The latest authors (they call themselves neo-Aristotelians not without pride) especially often point to such virtues as rationality, tolerance (tolerance for other people's opinions), sociability, justice, love of freedom.

In contrast to virtue ethics, Kant developed ethics of duty. According to Kant, the ideal of virtue, of course, can lead to good, but it also happens to lead to evil, namely, when it is disposed of by one in whose veins "the cold blood of a villain" flows. Why does it happen this way? Because in the virtues good has found its partial and relative, not complete expression. The decisive, fundamental criterion of goodness can only be that which is good without any reservations and restrictions. Moral laws, maxims such as "Do not kill", "Do not lie", "Do not use a person as a means", "Do not steal" turn out to be the criteria for goodness. The surest guarantee against an evil deed is not virtues, but moral maxims that have a general, universal, obligatory, formal, a priori and transcendental character.

The ethics of duty has numerous supporters in our day, however, many criticize it for a certain detachment from life and a penchant for dogmas. In this regard, it has developed ethics of values, according to which there are only relative values, relative good. And besides, values ​​must be counted, calculated, only in this way can ethical chimeras be avoided. The most significant representatives of the ethics of values ​​are English utilitarianism and American pragmatism.

Topic 11 Philosophy of the Greco-Roman world as the basis of Christian culture History of philosophy as the spiritual history of mankind When considering the history of philosophy, one should remember Hegel's position that the history of philosophy is an epoch expressed in thought. It will help

IV. Man in the World 1. Christianity is based in its metaphysics on the fact of the Incarnation - it is the Incarnation that reveals the special position of man in the world. Man is the sarah of infiniti and even more, the sarah of Dei, only in man could Absolute Being be united with

7. Noospheric man as a form of "humanization" of man in the XXI century. From a “human harmonist” to a harmonious spiritual and moral system The prefix “with” in the word “conscience” plays a role similar to that which is inherent in it in the word “complicity”. The person "having

CHAPTER X. MAN AND THE THREE WORLDS When different traditional triplicities are compared with one another, one can indeed correlate term with term, but being careful not to conclude from this that the corresponding terms are necessarily identical even in the case when

CHAPTER SIX. THEMATIC EXPOSITION OF THE PROBLEM OF THE WORLD THROUGH CONSIDERATION OF THE THESIS “THE MAN IS FORMING THE WORLD” § 64. The first features of the phenomenon of the world: the disclosure of the existent as the existent and “how”; relation to being as giving and not giving of being (relation-to..., self-retention, selfhood) When,

Chapter 10 MAN AND HIS BEING IN THE WORLD We have analyzed the problem of being in its essence, in the dynamics of the development of beings. It follows from the very definition of being that the highest link in the chain of developing being (at the level of the living systems of the planet) is man. It is a special phenomenon.

Chapter 10 Philosophy: The Making of a Rational Culture If you execute me, they will call me wise for real. And if you let me die in peace, I will soon be forgotten. Socrates What is philosophy? We have defined mythology as a system of two levels: figurative,

Philosophical understanding of the world and a person - in - the world "image of the world" as a way of knowing a person and the world - style of thinking as a characteristic of individual consciousness - two types of philosophizing - "classical" and "non-classical" philosophizing - "aesthetic

Chapter 5 Management of matters. Types and forms of life. Animals and the brain. Progenitor of man, man, society Let people think they are in control and they will be in control. William Peni "He who rules must see people as they are and things as they are."

1.3 Personality and society. Man in the world of culture

The relationship between society and the individual is expressed in their dichotomy, as well as in relative independence. This ratio represents both the whole and the part. Individual and society are different. Personality is the unity of a physical living organism and consciousness. Society is a set of individuals interconnected by goals, tasks of life, interests, a way of organizing life, etc. The personality has a carrier of consciousness - the brain. Society does not have a material carrier of consciousness. Social consciousness functions on the basis of communication and activity of individuals and their spirituality. Personality is the unity of physical and social qualities, physical and spiritual culture. Society is the bearer of social qualities, as well as material and spiritual culture, the culture of various subjects. A personality has its own inner world, closed to other people and rather local. The spirituality of a society is an expression, first of all, of the typical in spiritual world its members. It is usually open-ended.

Personality functions and develops according to its own laws. The progress and regress of society express other laws. Personality as a person is physically finite, it is characterized by a cycle of life. Society will exist on the planet as long as the natural and social conditions for its normal functioning and development are preserved. These and other differences characterize the relative independence of the individual and society.

The patterns of interaction between the individual and society include:

Firstly, the determining influence of the social environment on the formation of personality, mediated by the inner mental world of a person.

Secondly, the active reverse influence of the individual on the social environment, social relations, mediated by the functional structure of the individual.

Thirdly, the formation and development of social relations occurs in the process and on the basis of human activity.

Fourthly, the dependence of the formation of consciousness and creative activity of the individual on the nature of life, on the richness of its actual relationships with other people.

Fifthly, the unity of communication and the isolation of the individual with the leading role of communication both in the process of its formation and in public life.

The relationship between the individual and society in the process of historical development has changed significantly. In ancient societies, the individual was dependent on the tribal team, on the tribe, and also on nature. This hindered the process of individual development and socialization of the individual. Slave-owning societies were accompanied by active processes of social division of labor. There was a differentiation of people's interests and their value orientations. But personal dependence on slave owners did not allow either slaves, slave owners, or free poor citizens to actively develop the process of understanding their “I”.

The Middle Ages determined the relationship between the individual and society by the agricultural and craft community, feudal property and religion. The meaning of life was associated with the desire for God, deliverance from sinfulness. The social activity of the individual was low. Often it was suppressed by religion if it contradicted the symbols and dogmatics of religion. The Renaissance proclaimed anthropocentrism and humanism as the main principles of interaction between the individual and society, but soon their utopian nature, the impossibility of being implemented in practice, was discovered.

New time approved the freedom of the individual: economic, social, political and spiritual. A person received ample opportunities for the manifestation of his abilities and abilities in society. But the socialization of the individual and his creative activity began to be largely determined by private property, individual selfish interests, the desire for profit, political and moral hypocrisy, and bureaucracy. Modern society is striving for the establishment of a personality corresponding to the human status in a person. Much attention is paid to the proclamation of the rights and freedoms of the individual, guarantees of their implementation in practice. Questions about the duties and responsibilities of the individual to himself, nature and society are less discussed. The moral and legal regulation of the interaction between the individual and society, the individual and the state, interpersonal communication and behavior requires significant improvement.

Summarizing the above, we can say that in each historical era there was a special set of conditions that determined the social type of a person and the nature of his relationship with society. Historically, there have been three main types of relationships between man and society:

1. Relationships of personal dependence (characteristic of a pre-industrial society).

2. Relations of material dependence and personal independence.

They arise with the formation of an industrial society.

3. Relationships of free individuals that are formed in a post-industrial society.

Thus, having a typical physiological and social organization, a person carries out his life activity in society mainly on the basis of consciousness. A typical personality characteristic is supplemented by signs of differences between people. The totality of personality characteristics expresses its individuality. People have common features that make it possible to distinguish them from animals. But each person is unique, unique in his individuality. At the same time, the history of mankind appears as a process of the formation of human freedom and comprehension by him of the meaning of life, as a process of ever greater development of the essential forces of the individual.

Man, as a biosocial being, stands, as it were, at the junction of two worlds, two types objective reality. On the one hand, being a biological organism, man is an integral part of nature. And in this aspect, a person is subject to natural laws. On the other hand, through labor activity, a person creates "social nature", a human society governed by specific socio-historical laws. Contradictions arise between these two series of qualitatively different regularities: between natural instincts and the norms of human society; the remnants of "zoological individualism" and the social, collective essence of man; between the desire to use the materials and products of nature for social needs as widely as possible and the need for a sparing, careful attitude to nature, etc.

Culture initially just acts as a way and measure of mastering the external nature of man with the aim of his comprehensive development. Going beyond the framework of external (natural) necessity in the creation of cultural values, a person acts as a creative being, giving new forms of movement and the nature of reality and social. And in this capacity, culture acts in the same way as the degree of realization of human freedom. In history, cultural achievements were significant insofar as a person, his material and spiritual needs were put at the forefront. And in this sense, the history of culture looks like the history of a continuous search for this universal measure of human development, which would not be one-sidedly shackled by natural and social necessity, where nature and society would be proportionate.

In general, if we do not take into account the diverse nuances of the content of various cultural traditions, then the form of their transmission reveals a common essential feature - the desire of a person to perpetuate the unique properties of his personality, to pass it on to descendants using the means developed by culture. As a natural being, man, like any other living organism, is doomed to develop according to the same cycle: birth - life - death. For here it is subject to cruel determinism, a natural chain of circumstances that leaves no room for free goal-setting of circumstances, which means that it is devoid of any meaning. Culture breaks the natural boundaries of human existence and provides it with immortality, which is impossible in the natural order of things - social immortality, and with it - the meaningfulness of the historical development of man. Thus, culture performs a constructive function in relation to a person and his being, objectifying not just the limited goals of a person, but the fundamental goals associated with his own perfection as a universal, infinite being. And here we have in mind the development of not just the generic essence of man, which is embodied in all, without exception, public objects material and spiritual activities. History knows an infinite number of examples when the improvement of the human race took place in a contradictory and even dramatic way: the development of needs, the achievement of a certain degree of freedom of some social groups was often achieved at the expense of depriving others of the free development.

Historically, the first, classic example of such an evolution of mankind was probably Ancient Greece, which gave an example of an unprecedented rise in the human spirit, freedom based on slavery. As already noted, culture cannot be identified with all activities and all their products. Therefore, fixing only the generic characteristics of a person is not enough for its understanding. Culture acts primarily as the development of human individuality, personality, embodying universal goals and aspirations, universal meaning.

Each culture forms a person in its own way, giving him general qualities or individual traits that are acceptable within a certain cultural environment. The degree of individualization is not the same in different cultures, and not all societies have a developed idea of ​​personality.

The personal principle, the idea of ​​personality as an independent subject of social relations, relying on its own forces, to one degree or another, exists in every developed culture. However, there is a difference in the status of the personal principle and its content in different cultures. Let's dwell on some aspects of this problem.

In Eastern cultures, a person realizes and perceives himself largely depending on the environment in which he given time is valid. Here, a person is considered primarily as the focus of private obligations and responsibilities arising from his belonging to a family, community, clan, religious community and state.

In the classical Chinese cultural tradition, the subordination of a person to the specified general norms and the suppression of his "I" by him was considered the highest virtue. Confucian principles, in particular, affirmed the need for limiting emotions, strict control of the mind over feelings, and the ability to express one's experiences in a strictly defined form. With the dominance of official bureaucracy, the natural way to get around this requirement was to move away from practical social activities into the secluded monastic life in Zen monasteries. The developed system of psychophysical training gave a feeling of self-dissolution in the universal whole.

The relation of the individual to society in the classical Indian cultural tradition looked somewhat different. Here the human "I" turned out to be conditioned not by any specific circumstances, but by the reality of the superpersonal spirit, in relation to which the bodily "I" is a temporary and transient phenomenon. Belief in karma as a series of transmigration of souls makes the existence of each individual conditional, deprives him of independent value. The individual achieves self-realization through the denial of his bodily nature, by breaking all concrete ties with other people, society, the world and his deeds.

On the contrary, the European cultural tradition affirms a person as an autonomous subject of activity, emphasizes, first of all, his unity, integrity, identity of the “I” in all its manifestations.

Only in the European-American culture did the personal principle receive the status of unconditionality, insubordination to other regulatory principles (ritual principles, the holiness of the enduring values ​​of Holy Scripture, universally binding ideology, etc.). At the same time, the stability of the inner world of the individual does not depend on any external authorities, since in himself the individual supposedly finds those unconditional principles that help him to withstand any circumstances and give them meaning, based on his own judgment, guided by a sense of responsibility in organizing his activities. Such an understanding of personality is manifested in individualism as an attitude to the self-significance of a unique human life and the highest value of the interests of an individual. In this case, the opposition "individualism - collectivism" arises, and priority is given to the first principle, although limited by the internal moral principles of the individual and legal norms.

At the same time, the long clarification of the principles of the activity of an individual who defends his interests in the world of competition, which took place in Western civilization, led to a significant deepening of the cultural problem of the individual, showed all its complexity and ambiguity.

Liberal-optimistic views, for example, opened the way to anarchist willfulness and, at the same time, to social conflicts. It turned out that each individual is not an independent Robinson, but a member of one or another team - professional, territorial or national, a member of one or another public organization through which he can defend his interests. In addition, it turned out that the individual with his freedom of choice is not his own master. It can rather be compared with a grain of sand in a sea of ​​sand, it is an object of advertising and propaganda. His role is practically determined entirely by his place in society.

Such a difference in personality types is present not only at the level of cultural concepts, but also permeates the main spheres of culture. In Western films, such as those shown on the mass screen, a real superman always acts alone, demonstrating an individual will to win, regardless of moral restrictions. In the East, judging by the same kind of films, they go into battle for the company, gather comrades-in-arms or friends, assuming in advance that "you can be killed, but we will win." This is how participants in collective action are assembled in Japanese, Chinese or Indian films. And even having shown his highest individual qualities in martial arts, the hero dedicates his achievements to his group, clan or people.

A specific approach to this problem has developed in recent history, Russian culture. The collective "we" swallowed up the individual "I", imposed on him common, mass thoughts and interests. The propagandized ideal of equality deprived everyone and everything of personal security and personal responsibility. This prevented a person from fully opening up and realizing himself, building his deep personal structure. Of particular harm was the cultivated dogmatic view of the collective, "in all cases and always invariably right," when the final word is always with the majority. At the same time, it was consciously or unconsciously forgotten that the collective often follows the already well-known, beaten, stereotyped path, that its opinion is inevitably averaged, while a deep and extraordinary personality strives to search for a new, unusual, daring, has a significant supply of the original. It is with great difficulty that an understanding of the true value of the human personality, its individual, unique voice, the idea of ​​the responsibility of one person for the whole world enters our public consciousness.

At the same time, one should take into account the fact that a person who was born, educated, lived for so many years in a certain cultural environment, carries it in himself as part of himself. This means that not only the system "adjusts" him to himself, but he himself "adjusts" to the system. That is why, in different cultures, the performance of the same role, for example, the role of a father, requires a person to have different behavioral manifestations, orientation to different norms. The way of realization of the role is set by the external environment for a person, which is usually divided into macro- and microenvironment. In reality, all processes of social interaction unfold at the level of the microenvironment, that immediate social environment, where general cultural norms and requirements are refracted into specific rules of behavior, where a special hierarchy of values ​​and preferences is formed, both general social and specifically cultural.

Thus, in the process of assimilation of the culture of society, a certain social adaptation of the individual to the specific conditions of being in the existing socio-cultural environment takes place. Culture provides a person with the opportunity to live, act and develop in a society of his own kind. A person who has mastered the culture of the society in which he lives is “armed” with schemes and principles of behavior in typical, standard situations, has certain social attitudes and features of a direct reflection of social reality.

For the life practice of the individual, as it affects the actions of the individual himself. These thoughts about what type of knowledge and science are discussed in philosophical anthropology, I want to explain on the example of the "founding father" of philosophical anthropology of the twentieth century, Max Scheler. Even if at first it seems that Scheler understands the question of the essence of man as a descriptive question, in the future it becomes ...

mean the historical path of philosophical anthropology and its emergence as a special philosophical discipline. Since this introduction is addressed primarily to students of psychology, I want to briefly and also in a historical aspect consider the relationship of psychology and philosophical anthropology. At the same time, from the very beginning it is necessary to pay attention to the fact that today it is downright risky to talk about "psychology". This...

They take the question beyond the scope of the appointment, the competence of philosophy. If there is any "limitless" discipline in the study of man, then it is, apparently, anthropology, taken in its entirety. Today, this volume, along with philosophical anthropology, also includes historical, religious (theological), social, political, natural-biological (natural science), environmental, ...

Regarding the last postulate, it should be noted that it is dictated by the psychotherapeutic orientation of Frankl's activity, but is also useful from the point of view of philosophical anthropology. Summing up the results of the section, one should point out the significant characteristics of the category of the meaning of life, as well as the relationship between the individual and the social in determining the meaning of life. To the most defining features of the researched...

Philosophy of culture- a direction in philosophy that arose as a result of the fact that society began to be considered as an integrity in the unity of various aspects, and culture often considers an internal connection with the spiritual world of a person, which is undoubtedly of interest to philosophy.

The philosophy of culture is a part of culture that differs from the latter in that it considers culture as a whole.

culture can be defined as the totality of all types of creative activity of a person and society, as well as the results of this activity, embodied in material and spiritual values.

Since the sphere of culture includes the results of human activity (certain material values, extremely diverse in their material form) and the methods, means, methods of human activity itself, which are also very diverse and have not only a material, but also a spiritual form, they distinguish between material culture and spiritual culture.

material culture covers a very wide range of things, among which, in fact, the whole life of both each individual person and society as a whole flows. Under the material culture is understood the totality of any material values ​​ever created by mankind throughout its history and preserved to this day. Material culture includes tools and means of production, equipment, technology; culture of work and production; the material side of life; the material side of the environment.

TO spiritual culture includes the sphere of production, distribution and consumption of the most diverse spiritual values. The field of spiritual culture includes all the results of the spiritual activity of mankind: science, philosophy, art, morality, politics, law, education, religion, the sphere of leadership and management of society. Spiritual culture also includes relevant institutions and organizations (scientific institutes, universities, schools, theaters, museums, libraries, concert halls, etc.), which together ensure the functioning of spiritual culture.

The division of culture into spiritual and material is relative. Very often it is impossible to unambiguously attribute certain phenomena to the field of material or spiritual culture. Some of their facets belong to material culture, others to spiritual culture. So, in particular, the manufacture of tools or any objects that satisfy the material needs of people and society (and these are elements of material culture) is impossible without the participation of human thought, so this process also belongs to the sphere of spiritual culture.

Philosophy of culture, man in the world of culture. - concept and types. Classification and features of the category "Philosophy of culture, man in the world of culture." 2015, 2017-2018.