Man as a subject of study. Man as a subject of study of anatomy and physiology

There are a large number of philosophical concepts of "man". In sociology and psychology there are no fewer different points view of the "man" and attempts to more or less detailed description of its various properties and qualities. All this knowledge, as we have already said, cannot satisfy pedagogy and, when compared with each other, does not withstand mutual criticism. Analysis and classification of these concepts and points of view, as well as an explanation of why they do not and cannot provide knowledge that satisfies pedagogy, is a matter of special and very extensive research, far beyond the scope of this article. We cannot enter into a discussion of this topic, even in the roughest approximation, and we will go in a fundamentally different way: we will introduce, based on certain methodological grounds (they will become clear a little later), three polar representations that are essentially fictitious and do not correspond to any of those real concepts that were in the history of philosophy and sciences, but are very convenient for the description we need of the current real scientific and cognitive situation.

According to the first of these ideas, "man" is an element of the social system, a "particle" of a single and integral organism of mankind, living and functioning according to the laws of this whole. With this approach, the “first” objective reality is not individual people, but the whole human system, the whole "leviathan"; individual people can be singled out as objects and can be considered only in relation to this whole, as its “particles”, its organs or “cogs”.

In the extreme case, this view reduces humanity to polystructure, reproducing, that is, preserving and developing, despite the continuous change of human material, and individual people - to places in this structure, which has only functional properties generated by intersecting connections and relationships in them. True, then - and this is quite natural - machines, sign systems, "second nature", etc. turn out to be the same constitutive elements of humanity as people themselves; the latter act as only one type material content places, equal with respect to the system with all others. Therefore, it is not surprising that in different time the same (or similar) places in the social structure are filled with different material: now people take the places of "animals", as was the case with slaves in Ancient Rome, then "machines" are put in the places of "animals" and "people" or, conversely, people to the places of "cars". And it is easy to see that, for all its paradoxical nature, this idea captures such generally recognized aspects of social life that are not described or explained by other ideas.

The second representation, on the contrary, considers the first objective reality individual person; it endows it with properties drawn from empirical analysis and considers it as a very complex independent organism, bearing in itself all the specific properties of the "human". Humanity as a whole then turns out to be nothing more than a multitude of people interacting with each other. In other words, each individual person in this approach is a molecule, and the whole of humanity resembles a gas formed from chaotically and unorganized moving particles. Naturally, the laws of the existence of mankind should be considered here as the result of the joint behavior and interaction of individuals, in the limiting case, as one or another superposition of the laws of their private life.

These two representations of "man" oppose each other on the same logical basis. The first is built by moving from an empirically described whole to its constituent elements, but in this case the elements themselves cannot be obtained - they do not appear - and only the functional structure of the whole remains, only the "lattice" of connections and the functions created by them; in particular, in this way it is never possible to explain the person as a person, his activity, which does not obey the laws of the whole in which he, it would seem, lives, his opposition and confrontation with this whole. The second representation is built by moving from elements already endowed with certain "external" properties, in particular from the "personality" of an individual, to the whole, which must be assembled, built of these elements, but at the same time it is never possible to obtain such a structure of the whole and such a system of organizations that form it, which would correspond to the empirically observed phenomena of social life, in particular, it is not possible to explain and derive production, culture, social organizations and institutions society, and because of this, the empirically described "personality" itself remains inexplicable.

While differing in the above points, the two views coincide in that they do not describe or explain internal "material" structure individual people and at the same time do not at all raise the question of connections and relationships between

1) the "internal" device of this material,

2) "external" properties of individuals as elements of the social whole and

3) the nature of the structure of this whole.

Since the significance of biological material in human life is indisputable from an empirical point of view, and the first two theoretical ideas do not take it into account, this quite naturally gives rise to a third idea that opposes them, which sees in a person first of all biological being, « animal”, although social, but by its origin is still an animal, retaining even now its biological nature, providing its mental life and all social connections and functions.

Pointing to the existence of a third parameter involved in the definition of "man", and its indisputable importance in explaining all the mechanisms and patterns of human existence, this point of view, like the first two, cannot explain the connections and relationships between the biological substratum of a person, his psyche and social human structures; it only postulates the necessity of the existence of such connections and relationships, but so far has not confirmed them in any way and has not characterized them in any way.

So, there are three polar representations of "man".

One depicts him as a biological being, a material with a certain functional structure, in the form "bioid",

the second sees in a person only an element of a rigidly organized social system of mankind, which does not have any freedom and independence, faceless and impersonal " individual" (in the limit - purely " functional place" in system),

the third depicts a person as a separate and independent molecule, endowed with a psyche and consciousness, abilities for a certain behavior and culture, independently developing and entering into connection with other similar molecules, in the form of a free and sovereign " personalities».

Each of these representations identifies and describes some real properties of a person, but takes only one side, without its connections and dependencies with other sides. Therefore, each of them turns out to be very incomplete and limited, and cannot give a holistic view of a person. Meanwhile, the requirements of "integrity" and "completeness" of theoretical ideas about a person follow not so much even from theoretical considerations and logical principles, but from the needs of modern practice and engineering. So, in particular, each of the above-mentioned ideas of a person is not enough for the purposes of pedagogical work, but at the same time, a purely mechanical combination of them with each other cannot help her, because the essence of pedagogical work lies in the formation of certain mental abilities of the individual, which corresponded would be those connections and relationships within which this person must live in society, and for this to form certain functional structures on the "bioid", that is, on the biological material of a person. In other words, the teacher must practically work simultaneously on all three “sections” of a person, and for this he must have scientific knowledge in which the correspondences between the parameters related to these three “sections” will be recorded.

But this means, as we have already said, that pedagogy requires such scientific knowledge about a person that would unite all three ideas about a person described above, would synthesize them into one multilateral and specific theoretical knowledge. Such is the task that pedagogy poses to the "academic" sciences of "man."

But today the theoretical movement cannot solve it, because there are no means and methods of analysis necessary for this. The problem has to be solved first at the methodological level, working out the means for the subsequent theoretical movement, in particular at the level methodologies systematically-structural research [Genisaret 1965a, Shchedrovitsky 1965 d].

From this position, the problems of synthesizing polar theoretical concepts described above appear in a different form - as problems building such structural human models, in which there would be

1) three groups of characteristics are organically linked (see Scheme 1): structural ties S(I, k) of the enclosing system, « external functions» F(I, k) of the element of the system and « structural morphology» i of the element (five groups of characteristics, if we represent the structural morphology of the element as a system of functional connections s(p, q) immersed on the material mp) and at the same time

2) additional requirements arising from the specific nature of a person are satisfied, in particular, the ability for the same element to occupy different “places” of the structure, as is usually the case in society, the ability to separate from the system, to exist outside it (in any case, outside it certain relationships and connections), resist it and rebuild it.

Scheme 1

Probably, it can be argued that today there are no common means and methods for solving these problems, even at the methodological level.

But the matter is further complicated by the fact that empirical and theoretical knowledge, historically developed in the sciences of "man" and "human" - in philosophy, sociology, logic, psychology, linguistics, etc. - were built according to other categorical schemes and do not correspond to pure forms of characteristics of a system-structural object; in its objective sense, this knowledge corresponds to the content that we want to single out and organize in the new synthetic knowledge about a person, but this content is framed in such categorical schemes that do not correspond to the new task and the necessary form of synthesis of past knowledge in one new knowledge. Therefore, when solving the above problem, firstly, it will be necessary to carry out a preliminary cleaning and analysis of all specialized subject knowledge in order to identify the categories on which they were built and correlate them with all specific and non-specific categories of system-structural research, and secondly, one will have to reckon with the available means and methods of these sciences, which have carried out the decomposition of “man” not in accordance with the aspects and levels of system-structural analysis, but in accordance with the historical vicissitudes of the formation of their subjects of study.

The historical development of knowledge about a person, taken both in aggregate and in individual subjects, has its own necessary logic and patterns. Usually they are expressed in the formula: "From the phenomenon to the essence." To make this principle operational and working in specific research on the history of science, it is necessary to build images of the relevant knowledge and subjects of study, present them in the form organisms" or " machines» science [Shchedrovitsky, Sadovsky 1964 h; Probl. research structures... 1967] and show how these organismic systems develop, while machine-like ones are rebuilt, giving rise to new knowledge about a person, new models and concepts [Probl. research structures... 1967: 129-189]. In this case, it will be necessary to reconstruct and depict in special diagrams all the elements of the systems of sciences and scientific subjects: empirical material with which many researchers deal Problems and tasks that they put funds that they use (including here concepts, models and operating systems), as well as methodological instructions, in accordance with which they carry out the procedures of scientific analysis [Probl. research structures... 1967: 105-189].

Trying to implement this program, we inevitably encounter a number of difficulties. First of all, unclear object of study which the researchers we are considering dealt with, because they always started from different empirical material, which means that they did not deal with identical objects at all and, most importantly, “saw” them in different ways and built their analysis procedures in accordance with this vision . Therefore, a logical researcher who describes the development of knowledge has to not only depict all the elements of cognitive situations and "machines" of scientific knowledge, but - and this is again the main thing - to proceed from the results of the entire process and recreate (in fact even create) on the basis of them a special fiction. - ontological schema object of study.

This construction, introduced by the logical researcher to explain the processes of cognition, generalizes and synthesizes a set of cognitive acts carried out by different researchers on various empirical material, and in its subject acts as a formal equivalent of that vision of the object of study, which the researchers whose work it describes, existed as a special content of consciousness and was determined by the whole structure of the “machine” they used (although, first of all, by the means available in it).

After the ontological picture has been built, the logical researcher, in his analysis and presentation of the material, performs a trick known as dual knowledge schemes: he claims that real the object of study was exactly the way it is presented in the ontological scheme, and after that it begins to relate to it and evaluate with respect to it everything that really existed in cognitive situations - both the empirical material as manifestations of this object, and the means that correspond to it (because it was they who set the appropriate vision of the object), and the procedures, and knowledge that this object should “reflect”. In short, the ontological scheme of the object of study becomes that construction in the subject of logic, which in one way or another characterizes all elements of the cognitive situations considered by him, and therefore, at a rough level, a comparative analysis and evaluation of different knowledge systems can be carried out in the form of a comparison and evaluation of the ontological schemes corresponding to them.

Using this technique, let us outline some characteristic moments in the development of knowledge about a person that are important for us in this context.

The first knowledge, no doubt, arises in the practice of everyday communication between people and on the basis of related observations. Already here, no doubt, the difference between “externally distinguished” elements of behavior, on the one hand, and “internal”, hidden, unknown to others and known only to oneself elements, on the other hand, is fixed.

To obtain knowledge of these two types, different methods are used: 1) observation and analysis of objectively given manifestations of one's own and others' behavior, and 2) introspective analysis of the content of one's own consciousness.

Correspondences and connections are established between the characteristics of "external" and "internal" in behavior and activity. This procedure was described as the principle of research by T. Hobbes: “... Due to the similarity of the thoughts and passions of one person with the thoughts and passions of another, anyone who will look inside himself and consider what he is doing when he thinks, supposes, reasons, hopes, fears etc., and for what motives he does this, he will read and know what the thoughts and passions of all other people are under similar conditions ... Although when observing the actions of people we can sometimes discover their intentions, however, to do this without comparison with our own intentions and without distinguishing all the circumstances that can change the matter, it’s like deciphering without a key ... But he who has to control a whole people must, reading in himself, know not this or that individual person but the human race. And although this is difficult to do, more difficult than to learn any language or branch of knowledge, nevertheless, after I have stated what I read in myself in a methodical and clear form, it will only remain for others to consider whether they find it. the same is true in ourselves. For this kind of objects of knowledge do not admit of any other proof. Hobbes 1965, vol. 2: 48-49]. One way or approximately the way Hobbes describes it, a person was once very long ago singled out as an empirical object of observation and analysis, and so, on the basis of a very complex reflective procedure, including the moment of introspection, the first knowledge about him was formed. They syncretically combined the characteristics of external manifestations of behavior (characteristics of actions) with the characteristics of the contents of consciousness (goals, desires, object-interpreted meaning of knowledge, etc.).

The use of such knowledge in the practice of communication did not cause difficulties and did not create any problems. Only much later, in special situations that we do not analyze now, the methodological and actually philosophical question was posed: “What is a person?”, which laid the foundation for the formation of philosophical, and then scientific subjects. It is important to emphasize that this question was raised not in relation to really existing people, but in relation to the knowledge about them that existed at that time, and required the creation of such general idea of ​​a person or such models of it, which would explain the nature of existing knowledge and remove the contradictions that arose in them (compare this with our reasoning about the conditions for the emergence of the concepts of "change" and "development" in the seventh part of the article).

The nature and origin of such situations, which give rise to the philosophical or “metaphysical” question of what constitutes the object under study, have already been described in a number of our works [ Shchedrovitsky 1964 a, 1958 a]; therefore, we will not dwell on this here and emphasize only some points that are especially important for what follows.

In order for a question to be raised about already existing knowledge, oriented towards a new representation of the object, this knowledge must necessarily become objects of a special operation, different from simply referring them to the object. If this happens and new forms of operation appear, then in knowledge, due to this, “forms” opposed to “content” will have to stand out, and several different forms, placed side by side and interpreted as forms of knowledge about one object, will have to be compared with each other and evaluated. from the point of view of their adequacy to the object hypothetically assumed in this comparison. As a result, either one of the already existing forms, or some newly created form of knowledge will have to receive reality index, or, in other words, act as an image most object is a person. Typically, these are new forms, because they must unite and remove in themselves all the properties of a person revealed by this time (cf. this with our reasoning about model configurator in the fourth part of the article).

This condition imposed very strict requirements on the nature and structure of such images of a person. The difficulty was primarily in the fact that in one image, as we have already said, it was necessary to combine characteristics of two types - external and internal. In addition, the external characteristics themselves were established and could be established only in the relationship of a person to something else (to the environment, objects, other people), but at the same time they had to be introduced as special entities characterizing not the relationship as such, but only the person himself as an element of this relationship; in the same way, internal characteristics had to be introduced as separate and independent entities, but in such a way that they explained the nature and properties of external characteristics. Therefore, all human models, despite the many differences between them, had to fix in their structure the fact and necessity of two transitions:

1) the transition from changes made by a person in the objects around him to the objects themselves actions, activities, behavior or relationships human and

2) the transition from actions, activities, behavior, relationships of a person to his " internal structure and potencies", which were called" abilities" and " relations».

This means that all models had to depict a person in his behavior and activities, in his relationships and connections with the environment, taken from the point of view of the changes that a person makes in the environment due to these relationships and connections.

It is important to pay attention to the fact that both the first group of entities (“actions”, “relationships”, “behavior”) and the second (“abilities” and “relationships”), from the point of view of directly fixed empirical manifestations of a person, are fictions: the first entities are introduced on the basis of directly fixed changes in the objects transformed by the activity, but must be fundamentally different from these changes themselves as very special essence, while the latter are introduced on an even greater mediation, based on a set of actions, relationships, etc., but should fundamentally differ from them as characteristics of completely different properties and aspects of the object. At the same time, the more mediations there are and the farther we go from the immediate reality of empirical manifestations, the more profound and accurate characteristics of a person we get.

Now, if we restrict ourselves to the roughest approximation, we can single out five main schemes according to which the models of “man” were built and are being built in science (Scheme 2).

Scheme 2

(1) The interaction of the subject with the objects surrounding him. Here, subjects and objects are first introduced independently of each other and are characterized either by attributive or functional properties, but always regardless of the interaction in which they are then placed. In fact, with this approach, subjects and objects from the point of view of the future relationship are completely equal; the subject is only an object of a special type.

This scheme has been used in the explanation of "man" by many authors, but, probably, it is developed by J. Piaget in the most detailed and detailed way. What paradoxes and difficulties the consistent deployment of this scheme leads to in explaining human behavior and development is shown in the special works of N.I. Nepomnyashchaya [ Nepomniachtchaya 1964c, 1965, 1966c]).

(2) The relationship of the organism with the environment. Here the two members of the relation are already unequal; the subject is primary and initial, the environment is given in relation to it as something having this or that significance for the body. In the limiting case, we can say that there is not even a relationship here, but there is one whole and one object - an organism in the environment; in fact, this means that the environment, as it were, enters into the structure of the organism itself.

This scheme has not really been used to explain a person, because from a methodological point of view it is very complex and has not yet been sufficiently developed; this methodological complexity, in fact, suspended the use of this scheme in biology, where it, no doubt, should be one of the main ones.

(3) Actions of the subject-actor in relation to the objects surrounding him. Here, too, in essence, there is no relationship in the exact sense of the word, but there is one complex object - the acting subject; objects, if they are given, are included in the schemes and structures of the actions themselves, turn out to be elements of these structures. This circuit is rarely used on its own, but is often used in conjunction with other circuits as a component of them. It is from this scheme that one most often proceeds to descriptions of object transformations performed by means of actions, or to a description of operations with objects, and, conversely, from descriptions of object transformations and operations to descriptions of the subject's actions.

(4) The relationship of free partnership of one subject-personality with others. This is a variant of the interaction of the subject with objects for those cases when the objects are at the same time the subjects of the action. Each of them is introduced at first independently of the others and is characterized by some attributive or functional properties, regardless of the system of relationships in which they will then be placed and which will be considered.

This representation of "man" is now most widely used in the sociological theory of groups and collectives.

(5) Participation of a "man" as an "organ" in the functioning of the system, of which he is an element. Here the only object will be the structure of the system that includes the element we are considering; the element itself is introduced already in a secondary way on the basis of its relations to the whole and to other elements of the system; these relations are given by means of functional opposition on the already introduced structure of the whole. An element of a system, by definition, cannot exist separately from the system and in the same way cannot be characterized without regard to it.

Each of these schemes requires for its deployment a special methodological apparatus of system-structural analysis. The difference between them extends literally to everything - to the principles of analysis and processing of empirical data, to the order in which the parts of the model and the properties related to them are considered, to the schemes for constructing different "entities" that turn these schemes into ideal objects, to the schemes for connecting and combining properties related to to different layers of object description, etc.

A special place among all the methodological problems that arise here is occupied by the problems defining boundaries the subject of study and the ideal object included in it. They contain two aspects: 1) defining the structural boundaries of the object on the graphically represented scheme itself and 2) setting the set of properties that turns this scheme into a form of expression of an ideal object and constitutes the reality of study, the laws of which we are looking for. It is easy to see that depending on how we solve these problems, we will define and define “man” in completely different ways.

So, for example, if we choose the first model, in which a person is considered as a subject interacting with the objects around him, then, whether we consciously want it or not, we will have to limit the person to what is depicted by a shaded circle on the corresponding interaction diagram, and this means - only the internal properties of this element. The relationship of interaction itself and the changes produced by the subject in objects will inevitably be considered only as external manifestations of a person, largely random, depending on the situation, and in any case not being its constitutive components. The idea of ​​the properties that characterize a person, and the order of their analysis, will be completely different if we choose the fifth model. Here, the main and initial process will be the functioning of the system, the element of which is a person, the determining factors will be the external functional characteristics of this element - its necessary behavior or activity, and internal properties, both functional and material, will be derived from external ones.

We have given these cursory considerations only in order to clarify and make more visible the thesis that each of the above models, on the one hand, presupposes its own special methodological apparatus of analysis, which still needs to be developed, and, on the other hand, sets a completely special ideal idea. "man". Each of them has its own empirical and theoretical foundations, each grasps some aspect of real human existence. Orientation to all these schemes, and not to any one of them, has its justification not only in the "principle of tolerance" in relation to different models and ontological schemes, but also in the fact that a real person has a lot of different relationships to his environment. and to humanity in general.

Such a conclusion does not remove the need to configure all these views and models. But do it in one theoretical model now, as we have already said, is practically impossible. Therefore, in order to avoid eclecticism, we have only one way: to develop schemes within the framework of the methodology that determine the natural and necessary sequence of using these models in solving various practical and engineering problems, in particular, problems of pedagogical design. In constructing these schemes, we must take into account three directly given and one hidden grounds:

firstly, with the general methodological and logical principles of the analysis of systemic hierarchical objects;

secondly, with the picture of the vision of the object, which is given by the practical or engineering work we have chosen;

thirdly, with the relations between the subject contents of the models we unite and,

finally, the fourth, hidden basis, with the possibility of meaningful interpretation of the methodological scheme of the entire area of ​​the object, which we create when moving from one model to another (Scheme 3).

Scheme 3

The listed reasons are sufficient to outline a completely strict sequence of consideration of various aspects and aspects of the object.

So, in general methodology of system-structural research exists principle that when describing the processes of functioning organismically or machine-represented objects, analysis should begin with a description buildings systems, embracing selected object, from its network connections go to the description of the functions of each individual element (one of them or several, according to the conditions of the problem, is the object we are studying), and then already determine " internal» ( functional or morphological) the structure of the elements so that it corresponds to their functions and "external" connections (see diagram 1; in more detail and more accurately, the methodological principles operating in this area are set out in [ Shchedrovitsky 1965 d; Genisaret 1965 a]).

If there were only one structural representation of a “man”, then we would act in accordance with the stated principle, “impose” the existing structural scheme on the empirical material accumulated by different sciences, and in this way connect it within the framework of one scheme.

But the sciences that exist now, one way or another describing "man", were built, as we have already said, on the basis of different systemic representations of the object (Scheme 2), and all these representations are fair and legitimate in the sense that they correctly grasp some " sides" of the object. Therefore, the above principle alone is not enough to construct a methodological scheme that could unite the empirical material of all the sciences involved. Supplementing it, we must conduct a special comparison of all these systemic representations, taking into account their subject content. At the same time, special generalizing subject representations are used (if they already exist) or developed during the comparison itself, on the one hand, and methodological and logical principles that characterize possible relationships between structural models of this type, on the other hand.

In this case, you have to do both. As the initial generalizing subject representations, we use schemes and ontological pictures of the theory of activity (see the second part of the article, as well as [ Shchedrovitsky 1964 b, 1966 i, 1967a; Lefevre, Shchedrovitsky, Yudin 1967 g; Lefebvre 1965a; Man... 1966]) and fragments of sociological ideas developed on their basis. But they are clearly not enough to justify the solution of the task, and therefore at the same time we have to introduce a lot of purely "working" and local assumptions regarding the subject and logical dependencies between the compared schemes.

Without setting out now the concrete steps of such a comparison - this would require a lot of space - we will present its results in the form in which they appear after the first and extremely rough analysis. This will be an enumeration of the main systems that form different subjects of study and are related to each other,

firstly, by the relations “abstractconcrete” [ Zinoviev 1954],

Secondly, relations "wholeparts",

thirdly, by the “configuring model-projection” and “projection-projection” relations (see Part IV);

the organization of systems within the framework of one scheme will be determined by the structure of their numbering and additional indications of the dependence of the deployment of some systems on the availability and deployment of others.

(1) A system that describes the main schemes and patterns of social reproduction.

(1.1) A system that describes the abstract patterns of development of reproduction structures.

(2) A system that describes a social whole as a "mass" activity with various elements included in it, including individuals (depends on (1)).

(2.1) Functioning of "mass" activity.

(2.2) The development of "mass" activities.

(3) A system that describes the social whole as the interaction of many individuals (it is not possible to establish a connection with (1)).

(4) Systems describing individual units of activity, their coordination and subordination in various areas of "mass" activity (depends on (2), (5), (6), (8), (9), (10), (11 )).

(5) Systems describing various forms of social organization of “mass” activity, i.e. "social institutions".

(6) Systems describing different forms of culture, regulating activity and its social organization (depends on (1), (2), (4), (5), (7), (8), (9), (10) ).

(6.1) Structural-semiotic description.

(6.2) Phenomenological description.

(7) Systems describing different forms of "behavior" of individual individuals (depends on (3), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12); implicitly determined by (4), (5), (6)).

(8) Systems describing the association of individuals into groups, collectives, etc. (depends on (7), (9), (10), (11), (12); (4), (5), (6) is implicitly defined.

(9) Systems describing the organization of individuals into strata, classes, etc. (depends on (4), (5), (6), (8), (10), (11)).

(10) Systems describing the "personality" of a person and different types of "personality" (depends on (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (11), (12) ).

(11) Systems describing the structure of "consciousness" and its main components, as well as different types of "consciousness" (depends on (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), ( ten)).

(12) Systems describing the human psyche (depends on (4), (6), (7), (10), (11) .

The subjects of study outlined in this list do not correspond either to the abstract models presented in Scheme 2 or to the subjects of the sciences that exist today. it exemplary project main theoretical systems, which can be built based on representations of the theory of activity and general methodology of system-structural studies, and must be constructed if we want to have a fairly complete systemic description of the "person".

After this set of subjects of study (or another, but similar in function) is given, we can consider and evaluate the ontological schemes and knowledge of all already existing sciences in relation to it.

So, for example, considering in this regard sociology, we can find out that from the moment of its inception, it was focused on the analysis and depiction of the relationships and forms of behavior of people within social systems and their constituent groups, but was really able to single out and somehow describe only social organizations and cultural norms that determine people's behavior, and change of both in the course of history.

Only very recently has it been possible to isolate small groups and personality structure as special subjects of study, and thus lay the foundation for research in the field of the so-called social psychology. Considering in this way logic we can find out that in its origins it proceeded from the scheme of human activity with the objects surrounding it, but, in fact, it stopped at the description of the transformations of signs produced in the process of mental activity, and although in the future it constantly raised the question of human operations and actions, through which these transformations were made, but was really interested only in the rules that normalized these transformations, and never went beyond that.

Ethics unlike logic, it proceeded from the scheme of a person’s free partnership with other people, but remained, in fact, in the same layer of “external” manifestations as logic, although it no longer represented them as operations or actions, but as relationships with others people and has always revealed and described only what normalized these relationships and the behavior of people when they were established.

Psychology in contrast to logic and ethics, from the very beginning it proceeded from the concept of an isolated individual and his behavior; connected by a phenomenological analysis of the contents of consciousness, it nevertheless, as a science, was formed on the questions of the next layer: what "internal" factors - "strengths", "abilities", "relationships", etc. - determine and determine those acts of behavior and activities of people that we observe. Only at the beginning of our century was the question of describing the "behavior" of individuals (behaviorism and reactology) really raised for the first time, and since the 1920s, of describing the actions and activities of an individual (Soviet and French psychology). Thus, the development of a number of new items from our list was initiated.

We have named only some of the existing sciences and characterized them in the most rough form. But it would be possible to take any other one and, developing the appropriate procedures for correlating, and if necessary, rebuilding the planned list, establish correspondences between it and all the sciences that in one way or another relate to “man”. As a result, we will get a fairly rich system that combines all existing knowledge about the object we have selected.

After such a system has been built, albeit in the most schematic and non-detailed form, it is necessary to take the next step and consider it from the point of view of the tasks of pedagogical design. At the same time, we will have to, as it were, “cut out” in this system that sequence of knowledge, both existing and being developed anew, which could provide a scientific justification for the pedagogical design of a person.

There is no need to specifically prove that the implementation of the stated research program is a very complicated matter, involving a lot of special methodological and theoretical studies. Until they have been carried out and the subjects of study outlined above have not been built, we have only one thing left to do - to use the already existing scientific knowledge about "man" in solving pedagogical problems proper, and where they do not exist, to use the methods of existing sciences to obtain new knowledge and in the course of this work (pedagogical in its tasks and meaning) to criticize existing scientific ideas and formulate tasks for their improvement and restructuring.

If, moreover, we keep in mind the task of creating a new system of subjects and proceed from its already outlined plan, then, in fact, these studies will give us a concrete empirical embodiment of that work on the restructuring of the system of sciences about "man", which is necessary for pedagogy.

Let us consider from this point of view the structural ideas about “man” and “human”, which are now set by the main sciences in this area - sociology, logic, psychology, and evaluate their possibilities in substantiating pedagogical design. At the same time, we will not strive for a complete and systematic description - such an analysis would go far beyond the scope of this work - but we will state everything in terms of possible methodological illustrations to explain the basic provision on combining knowledge and methods from different sciences in the system of pedagogical engineering and pedagogical research .

The problems associated with the study of man are the most difficult in social anthropology. Firstly, because the whole richness of the ties between man and society becomes its subject.

Secondly, this direction is relevant in leveling out the imbalance that has developed as a result of the long domination of Marxist methodology. A person revealed himself through society, was only a means for solving social problems, and the determination of the measure of his value depended entirely on the effectiveness of his social functioning.

And finally, thirdly, human research within the framework of the emerging discipline, they imply liberation from the principles and attitudes that have developed in philosophy in the last century. Since these principles act not always consciously, but always tangible in the results of human knowledge, we should name them.

First principle — overcoming the analytical fragmentation of a person as a subject of research. All that mass of special information about a person that comes from biology, physiology, medicine, ethnography, chemistry, physics and other similar sources, all this information creates the illusion of an amazing advancement of science and philosophy. However, analytically obtained information, despite a convincing quantitative increase, does not make a person more understandable.

The benefits of specialization have reached their limits. This is experienced not only by philosophy and human science in the broad sense, but also by individual sciences. Medicine, which divided man into spheres of specialized knowledge, has accumulated a great experience of failures from the inability to treat the whole person. But what is even more dangerous in this analytical dissection of man is that it has also penetrated into philosophy, the purpose of which is synthesis and generalization. Instead of holding big world and a holistic person, specialists appeared - experts on one topic. The desire for scientific similarity, which constituted a whole era in philosophy, taught not only the rigor and thoroughness of the conclusion. It exacerbated the troubles associated with analytic-pragmatic and specialized knowledge of the world.

That's why subject of social anthropology is whole person moreover, in interaction with society and its institutions, taking into account the ontological foundation of a person. None of the social functions can be understood without including human nature in the field of study. Moreover, in the future it is not only general information, but also the study of the individual diversity of people, the inclusion of which in social development can constitute an entire era in its significance.

Of course, when studying a person, social anthropology uses a wide range of information. But one cannot but agree with M. Scheler, who wrote that the 20th century, oversaturated with information, has lost the very idea of ​​man.

Another principle , present in all human studies, is original human image without which no anthropological study can do.

Civilization, with its characteristic specialization, created an environment for the formation of man - functions that dictated the development of some individual properties at the expense of others. Competitiveness and competitiveness imparted great tension to this process, the concentration of forces gave amazing results. As a result, an image arose - the ghost of a man of extraordinary breadth and power. The Guinness Book is only a symptom and an extreme limit. Everything that a person can do (swim the English Channel, jump to a height of more than three meters, stay under water for 10 minutes, know fifteen languages, not to mention the range of properties demanded by professionalization), was recorded in human capabilities and created something like an ideal horizon. his aspirations.

The changes that follow all the achievements of man remained, as it were, behind the scenes and belonged to phenomena that were not of decisive importance. How absurd it would seem today to argue like: the sport of achievement makes athletes disabled, so down with the sport of achievement. The sport of competition and victory seems inevitable, first of all, because it is typical for a society built according to the laws of the market, its features simply more clearly demonstrate the final consequences. Therefore, we can conclude: the idol of success at any cost turns society into a place of constant deformation of a person according to the laws of the market.

Today, one of the most important problems of social anthropology is the development of concepts and the definition limit, measure of a person , in other words, a person in his fragility, vulnerability and destructibility long before physical death. That is, third principle human research - search for the limit, the measure of man

The study of this topic helps to understand all the many forms of deviant behavior that can be seen as a consequence of the same cause, which operates along with others and sometimes dominates the explanation of flight and the resulting tension.

Fourth principle human research - new orientation . The presence of what is constantly existing in a person, as historically changeable, is the basis for studying the problem of a person not only in the past, but also in the present with the whole set of its most complex contradictions and conflicts of our time. In this case, knowledge of new phenomena and processes is important.

The fifth principle of knowledge is the rigor and thoroughness of judgments. This is necessary in order to avoid a distorted approach to a person. It does not complete a series of principles that impede knowledge, but it is of great importance precisely in human knowledge. The successes of natural science, technological progress, the creation of a dense artificial environment around a person formed a kind of model of cognition, which has successfully worked and is still working.

This model has entered our consciousness as a requirement for great rigor and solidity of judgments. She demanded empirical grounds for the conclusion, verification of the acquired knowledge, methodologically secured objectivity, overcoming subjectivity. To explain a phenomenon means to find the cause that gives rise to it; it means giving it a precise definition that separates it from other phenomena of the world; it means to enumerate the stable properties of the phenomenon, etc.

All this was fully attributed to man, and much of his behavior was explained. It took a long time to understand that the special thing that distinguished man from inert matter and animals remained outside the explanation.

Human- a phenomenon not of an object-thing series, it cannot be explained by objective reasons, it does not fit into uniformity, but exists in a wide range of many states and levels.

Human fundamentally not complete in any of its qualities. All these and other features of a person that cannot be studied using traditional natural scientific methods are studied by social anthropology.

The way out to a person as a holistic and specific being traditionally began with the study of his nature. However, access to nature from the point of view of social anthropology has its own characteristics and content.

Man is defined as a biosocial being. It - general position. However, there are a number of significant clarifications about the participation of nature in the formation of man.

First. The whole history of mankind, as well as the history of the formation of an individual person, reveals rather complex relationship between human nature and its concrete historical reality. The theory and practice of education turn out to be aimed at limiting and transforming the natural impulses of a person.

It suffices to trace the direction of ethical norms and recommendations, as it becomes obvious: a natural given, which develops over time, runs into the prohibitive and protective function of culture. This means that nature cannot be called the ultimate foundation of man. Unprovoked cases of human education in the lair of the beast give reason to conclude: nature does not carry the future of man and does not guarantee its formation in every newborn.

Second. Nature plays the most important role of providing conditions. For example, attempts to raise a child of a chimpanzee together with a child in the same conditions led to different results and made it possible to draw a line between the nature of man and the nature of animals close to him: the nature of the newborn carries the possibility of man. But this is not a potency, which is naturally revealed over time in a set of properties of this type. Only under appropriate conditions (social environment in concrete historical certainty) the natural possibility of man turns into reality. This applies not only to the ability to think abstractly and create symbolic equivalents of objects and relationships. Even walking upright is problematic and not complete without training.

The complexity of the relationship between man and nature is expressed, in particular, in the fact that mankind in its formation relied not only on the most complex mental abilities (complex conditioned reflex connections, memory, preservation of experience, search reflexes), but also on those features that cannot be called favorable from the point of view of biological forms of adaptation. It's about the amazing unpreparedness newborn, which distinguishes him from a baby chimpanzee, for example. A sign that threatens the existence of a species, unpreparedness, low specialization, and hence the plasticity of natural material - all this provided a high degree learning and ability to adapt to changing conditions. Based on this, many anthropologists have come to the conclusion that it is to childhood that we owe the history of mankind.

Third. The nature of man within the framework of socio-anthropological interest has another meaning, which is constantly felt in the functioning of society. The possibility of becoming a man is not the only one. She carries within herself possibility of not being human . Nature, on the basis of which man is formed, is a womb in which he often hides from the difficulties of human existence. This possibility of retreating into a vegetative, animal state with a survival orientation is no less represented in the experience of people than the possibility of a human solution to risky life situations.

Participation of nature in social functioning has several directions.

Nature as the limit, within which search for the maximum possibilities of being . The study of the destruction of these limits, beyond which there is the destruction of man and environment, in our days becomes an urgent task - the negative experience accumulated by mankind is too great.

Nature matters in the organization of social life and as a foundation for multiplicity of ways individualization human. In this case, we are talking about polymorphism within the species, that is, about the natural originality that each person has from birth. The features of each are involved in all forms of activity, but have not yet become the subject of special study.

In a totalitarian society of strict control, only superpowers could win their own special path of development, the rest were subjected to disciplinary equalization.

Within the framework of social anthropology, the possibility opens up of studying and using individual originality for the interests of society and, most importantly, for the interests of each person.

The influence and participation of nature is so great that they have tried and are still trying to explain man. Much can be understood in a person "through a monkey", revealing their similarity and closeness in the world of life. However, such reductions cannot explain the originality that constitutes the essence of man.

In this regard, it is possible to conclusions (definitions):

Man, as a specific form of life, as a special connection with the surrounding world, as specific abilities in transforming the environment, does not have its own nature. The whole subtlety of a person's connection with his natural foundation lies in the fact that, being a necessary condition for a person's life, it does not give rise to it as its function, moreover, it "resists" a person. It can be said even more sharply that a person, existing within the limits of his nature, turns out to be, as it were, artificial in relation to it and carries a person with great difficulty and at any moment can not hold him, succumbing to purely natural impulses. This does not exclude the possibility that nature can be a model for man and not everything has yet been clarified in the relationship between man and his natural foundation;

At the same time, any natural property of a person bears the trace of social influences: becoming human, it turns out to be socially transformed, in whatever form this may take place.

All material culture, every word, every symbol or tool and household items play the role of material for humanizing each newly born and turning the evolution of a species into the history of mankind. The role of social factors as a defining moment in history has been analyzed in sufficient detail.

Today, the influence of these factors refers to the real ones, and their significance both in the life of society and in the formation of a person cannot be considered otherwise. how foundation, determining 1all major manifestations of life. This is a special form of determination that transforms the primary dependencies created by natural connections into others - social ones.

Everything that exists in the social environment as determining factors is created by people, is the result of the objectification of their activity, the objective equivalent of their creativity, the material embodiment of their discoveries.

Sure to explain social development in terms of individual purposeful action is impossible. On the one hand, we have before us an aggregate person, behind whom is the summation of efforts that do not fit into the framework of a conscious directed action. Integration, accumulation, continuity include an element of the elemental, spontaneously acting, objective, similar to what we find in nature. But there is a difference: the human search is always the search for maximum life support opportunities in cash conditions. It informs what is happening in society directed character.

Orientation ensuring life and the formation of man define the following social factors:

Individual creativity. Everything that happens is the result of individual creativity. It is necessary to separate this creativity from natural-impulsive actions, to find the necessary conditions for creativity and its human characteristics.

material culture. The conditions and structures of society lead to real change. The circumstances of inscribing individual efforts in the social context, the role of leveling traditions and the rigidity of the existing material culture - all this affects the formation of a person. Therefore, social anthropology is built, as it were, at the intersection of two forms of causality: one comes from a person, his creativity, the degree of inclusion and interest; the other comes from society, existing conditions and opportunities. Without combining these two forms of causality, it is impossible to solve either the problem of man or the problem of managing the development of society. There is a third component - nature.

Nature and society, interacting with each other, show all their importance in the formation of man and the impossibility of calling either one or the other the ultimate foundation of man.

Interpersonal communication. Its importance is well known, but in the problem under discussion we are faced with another very important relationship: the human and the human can be formed, retained and preserved only in conditions of continuous direct and indirect communication between people.

The experience of forced or forced isolation tells us that a person can only remain conscious if he exists in contact with other people. The timing of a mental breakdown is not the same for different people, but isolation and subsequent mental destruction turned out to be tightly connected.

This can be made quite reasonable. conclusion: what we call a man, as a special version of being and connection with the world, has humanity as its basis - people united different forms of communication .

This is not easy to see in a world of excessive and forced communication. Only extreme conditions can make it possible to determine the true meaning of communication as necessary condition formation and preservation of man.

1 Determining - mutually conditioning.

These three groups of factors are the most important, however, are not sufficient to explain man. And the process of transforming one's own nature, and creativity, and communication - all this requires the presence of internal abilities, without which the possibility of a person's realization will not turn into reality. These abilities can be called the spiritual potency of a person.

In conditions when the successes of natural science have made it possible to trace the action of the mental forces of a person, no one will seriously doubt the presence of this potency. Another thing is to explain it.

Various concepts offer their own explanation.

Naturalistic theories determine human spiritual abilities only as a high degree of development of qualities characteristic of living nature. This position is quite convincing. The discovered similarity of man with related forms of animals, the growing idea in our minds about the complexity of the mental life of higher animals - all these are quite strong arguments.

Another thing is also obvious - a lot can be explained by these considerations, except for that specific attitude to the world, which is characteristic only of man. This refers to the creation of a language, to the construction of a symbolic world, a meaningful stay in which for each of the people is as important as the ability to use material culture.

Art, religion, philosophy, science and the world of moral obligation allow us to draw a conclusion about what is special in a person. The ability of a person to be responsible for what is not included in the zone of personal interest proves the presence of his spiritual potential. Its recognition as potency does not mean that we can put it on a par with those that are determined by the nature of the species and are realized as they mature.

The fundamental difference is that spiritual development is not comparable with the objective processes that take place in the human body, bypassing his will. It is the result of directed efforts and requires great effort. Spirituality It is represented in the experience of different people to varying degrees: from almost zero to becoming the main characteristic of a person. The guilt and responsibility of some side by side with the complete irresponsibility of others. Complete immersion in one's interests, the satisfaction of which at any cost becomes the goal - this is a possible and quite common form of life. It is about such people that one can say: “There are no stars above their heads, and they can no longer despise themselves.”

Spirituality- a rather subtle matter, and it is not so easy to notice, since in society there are other forms of upsurge and achievement in much more obvious and convincing forms for many people. But for social anthropology its definition means understanding a lot in economics and politics, art and philosophy. In other words - spirituality is present in all forms of social life and its study is mandatory.

Of course, this is not a tradition for the social sciences; their subject matter has always been more weighty material phenomena and circumstances. This is on the one hand.

On the other hand, the explanation of everything that happens as laziness and dishonesty of people means to fall into the other extreme and move away from the truth. Therefore, the isolation of the problem of this contradiction in social anthropology is necessary.

In social life, a person participates in many forms of activity, and his actual role varies in a wide range of meanings. Forms of being of the same person replace each other.

The principles of connecting the external and the internal in these forms of life are different and little studied, but by their nature they cannot be indifferent to social anthropology.

Social anthropology, without losing sight of man, must develop ideas about the structure of society, which represents the entire range of the study of man - from small to large.

Each of the concepts that we use to designate a person must be strictly comprehended. This applies not only to the usual concepts: a person, personality, individual, individuality, but also to the concepts: a total person, a person as a statistical unit, a historical person, a leader, etc.

Aggregate person- this is a methodologically conditional method of studying the properties of a person in the experience of many and different people. In this aspect, it is possible to study a person as a historically accumulated quality.

Human, deployed in a historical and spatial context, is an interesting topic and quite relevant. Another is revealed if we take a statistical average person, which is always present in the creation of social institutions or the organization of social movements. Revealing himself as a statistically manifested quality, a person becomes a subject social anthropology research.

The subject of research in this case is the society, its individual characteristics. Whatever statistical phenomenon in a person's life we ​​take, the reasons must be sought in the general conditions in which he found himself. Many shortcomings of a person, becoming statistical, make us look for causes and circumstances that destroy a person in external causes in relation to his will. How can one not remember at the same time A. Voznesensky, who said that all progress is reactionary if a person collapses.

A great or historical personality, the concepts of a leader and a performer presuppose the preservation and development of the most complex topic of measuring a person in a person. This theme has never left the history of philosophy, just as it does not leave the practice of social life. It has retained its relevance in our time, being a very important topic in social anthropology.

MAN AS A SUBJECT OF KNOWLEDGE

Know yourself...

Socrates

Man as a subject of philosophy

Man is an eternal mystery. It seems that we know everything about him, but it is worth thinking about - and the abyss of the incomprehensible, inexplicable opens up. And as long as a person lives, he is doomed to the knowledge of himself, because no matter how beginningless and endless the world is, the most important thing in it for a person is himself.

Why is human knowledge necessary?"In order to live. The more we learn about each other, the easier it is to find a common language, to avoid conflicts. The more we know about our body, the easier it is to rid it of diseases. The better we understand our soul, the more successful we control our desires and actions.Recognizing a person, we simultaneously comprehend the laws of nature, because in him, as in the highest manifestation of life on Earth, all its diversity is reflected.

But a person has something that is not found anywhere else in nature, consciousness. And, penetrating into its secrets, we will learn not only about our capabilities, about our future, but also about the cosmic unity of the mind, not yet understood. After all, man embodies not only the laws of the Earth, but also the Cosmos.

.Is it possible to know a person to the end? No, a person will never know himself completely. In order to obtain comprehensive knowledge about a system, one must go beyond its framework, look at it, as it were, from above. Man cannot go beyond himself. He studies himself, as it were, "piece by piece", but some part of himself is always excluded from the field of observation, first of all, that which observes.

A person is always more than his knowledge of himself. With the development of science, new means of human knowledge appear. But no matter how perfect they are, people themselves invent them, so programs are used

The use of these means is limited by the level of intellectual maturity of a person.

Is it possible to fully understand a person? BUT now that's another question. How often people cannot explain their own actions! How often we know what this or that person will do, but we cannot explain where this knowledge came from! How often do we feel the pain and joy of others, without even thinking about the nature of these ideas.

But the fact is that not everything in a person lends itself to a rational explanation. Many connections, even in the body, not to mention the emotional-sensory sphere, the subconscious, do not fit into any logical laws and cannot be expressed in words. Therefore, few people learn, need it feel. All this together is called understanding. And we can safely say that each person is able to understand himself and the other. Until the end? Nobody knows this, because in understanding it is fixed holistic idea of ​​a person.

Whole does not mean everything. Integrity is the internal unity of an object, its autonomy, independence, differentiation from the environment, as well as the object itself, which has such properties. In philosophy, the concept of integrity approaches the concept of essence. Thus, the task of a holistic perception of a person can be interpreted as the task of comprehending his essence.

The difference between the philosophy of man and other sciences that study him is that it combines the most common knowledge about a person with an intuitive comprehension of his essence. Philosophy must not merely study man, it must worry his.

Man as a subject of specific sciences

Man is studied by many sciences. This is not surprising, because people are very interesting in themselves. But these sciences are sufficiently isolated from each other, each of them has as its object only one side in the diversity of human manifestations. However, for a holistic view of a person, knowledge obtained by specific sciences is necessary.

What are these sciences and how do they represent a person? Let's name some of them.

Anthropology- the science of the origin and evolution of man, the formation of human races and normal variations in the physiological structure of man. It was formed as a science in the middle of the 19th century .. morphology, the theory of anthropogenesis, racial studies stand out in it.

Human biology and a complex of biomedical disciplines lin study physiological, biochemical, genetic factors

ry, affecting the variations and structure of the human body. Medicine, strictly speaking, is not a science. This is a complex of scientific disciplines and a field of practical activity aimed at maintaining and strengthening people's health, preventing and treating diseases. It was developed empirically, ahead of the theory ( scientific medicine) begins in the middle of the 19th century. There is no holistic concept of man in medicine.

Psychology(general, age, social, medical, etc.) - the science of the mental reflection of reality in the process of human activity and animal behavior. Reliable knowledge about mental activity is possible only on the basis of a good experimental base, although there was a stage in the history of psychology when contemplation was the main method. As a science, psychology was formed in the middle of the 19th century, although the teachings of the psychological sense are of an ancient nature.

Social sciencies is a complex of disciplines that study the social manifestations of a person. These are sociology, political science, jurisprudence, ethics, aesthetics, economic sciences (not all), etc. Each of them focuses on a particular area of ​​human activity. The beginning of the structuring of social theories can be considered the middle of the 19th century. (the emergence of positive sociology).

When characterizing the complex of human sciences, it immediately becomes clear that each of them takes only a certain section of human existence, without considering the person as a whole. Interestingly, all of them are structured as scientific disciplines in the middle of the 19th century. But that's where the similarity ends. Interdisciplinary links between the human sciences are extremely poorly developed.

One involuntarily recalls the parable of the blind men who were asked to tell what an elephant is. One touched the elephant's leg and said, "This is a pillar." Another took hold of the tail and said, "This is a rope." The third felt the trunk and remarked: "This is a pipe." So it is in the human sciences. A psychologist will say about a person: it is a soul. The teacher will notice that a person is an object of education. And many doctors so until the end of their lives and believe that a person- it's sick.

What is the place of the human sciences in the structure of knowledge? Human sciences in our time claim to be the leader in the system of scientific knowledge.

It should be noted here that in different periods of history, the role of leader was performed by different disciplines. Initially, it was mechanics (New Time), then physics and chemistry (beginning of the 20th century), then biology and the entire cycle of biological disciplines came to the fore (this situation continues to this day), but at present, human sciences are gaining more and more priority. disciplines, the range of which is constantly expanding. What is it with

related? First of all, with the objective need of society, which we will talk about later, as well as with the fact that these sciences have accumulated quite a lot of material that needs to be generalized.

Why is there no such generalization yet? As already mentioned, a person will never know himself to the end. But even if it is impossible to fully know a person, then it is possible and necessary to have a holistic view, made up of the data that we have.

And here new difficulties arise. First, it is the lack of empirical data in some sciences. So, for example, human genetics is a field of knowledge where empirical data have been accumulating for decades, so the questions posed by some scientists will have to be answered by their grandchildren.

Secondly, the formation of a holistic view of man is hampered by the uneven development of the particular sciences. The colossal material accumulated, for example, by anthropology and ethnography, sometimes lies without movement, because it needs to be interpreted in terms of human biology, and it is only just beginning to develop. Let us recall, at least, the information on human biology that is contained in the course of general biology of a medical university and compare their volume with the knowledge from the courses of history or cultural studies, which are studied in parallel.

Thirdly, in order to form a holistic view of a person, a certain methodological base is needed. We have already said that you can approach the creation of a portrait of a person in different ways. But what is the correct approach? Which one will bring the most success? This has not yet been clarified.

Go to a person "from nature" or "from the spirit"? To look at it as a part of the Cosmos, or consider itself a microcosm?

To add up a picture from the data of individual life or from the general that is inherent in each generation? These questions can only be answered with clear methodological guidelines. That is why the philosophical synthesis of knowledge about man is preferable. But on the basis of what philosophical system is it possible? Apparently, there should be a separate system, namely - philosophy of man.

VI. Inspection during the transition to subject education, in the 5th grade (e 11-12 years old).

A. Tapeworms that use humans as their definitive host

A. Determination of the number of red blood cells in human blood

Actinomycetes. Features of morphology and ultrastructure. Similarities to mushrooms and differences from mushrooms. Methods of microscopic study.

Anatomical and physiological features of the formation

Human needs.

Man as a subject of study of anatomy and physiology.

Human anatomy and physiology- the main subjects of theoretical and practical training of health workers.

Anatomy- the science of the form, structure and development of the body. The main method of anatomy was the dissection of the corpse (anatemne - dissection). Human anatomy studies the shape and structure of the human body and its organs.

Physiology studies the functions and processes of the body, their relationship.

Anatomy and Physiology- components of biology, belong to the biomedical sciences. Anatomy and physiology - the theoretical foundation of clinical disciplines. The fundamental basis of medicine is the study of the human body. “Anatomy in alliance with physiology is the queen of medicine” (Hippocrates). The human body is an integral system, all parts of which are interconnected and with the environment.

In the early stages of the development of anatomy, only a description of the organs of the human body, which were observed during the autopsy of corpses, was carried out, so descriptive anatomy. At the beginning of the 20th century, there was systematic anatomy, because The body began to be studied by organ systems. During surgical interventions, it was necessary to accurately determine the location of organs, so there appeared topographic anatomy. Taking into account the requests of the artists stood out plastic anatomy A that describes the external forms. Then formed functional anatomy, because organs and systems began to be considered in relation to their functions. The section that studies the motor apparatus gave rise to dynamic anatomy. Age anatomy studies the changes in organs and tissues in connection with age. Comparative studies the similarities and differences between humans and animals. Since the invention of the microscope, microscopic anatomy.

1. descriptive

2. systematic

3. topographic

4. plastic

5. functional

6. dynamic

7. age

8. comparative

9. microscopic

10. pathological

Anatomy methods:

1. Dissection, autopsy, dissection on the corpse with a scalpel on the corpse.

2. Observation, examination of the body with the naked eye - macroscopic anatomy.

3. Microscopic examination - microscopic anatomy.

4. With the help of technical means (X-rays, endoscopy).

5. The method of injection of dyes into organs.

6. Method of corrosion (dissolution of tissues and vessels, the cavities of which were filled with insoluble masses).

Physiology- experimental science. For experiments, methods of irritation, removal, organ transplantation, fistulas are used.

The father of physiology is Sechenov (the transfer of gases through the blood, the theory of fatigue, leisure, central inhibition, reflex activity of the brain).

Sections of physiology:

1. medical

2. age (gerontology)

3. physiology of labor

4. sports physiology

5. nutritional physiology

6. physiology of extreme conditions

7. pathophysiology

The main methods of physiology are: experiment and observation. The experiment (experiment) can be acute, chronic and without surgical intervention.

1. Acute - vivisection (live cutting) - Harvey 1628. About 200 million experimental animals died at the hands of experimenters.

2. Chronic - Basov 1842 - long time study the function of the body. First performed on a dog (gastric fistula).

3. Without surgical intervention - the 20th century - registration of electrical potentials of working organs. Receiving information simultaneously from many bodies.

These sections study a healthy person - normal anatomy and physiology .

Human is a biosocial being. organism - a biological system endowed with intelligence. The laws of life (self-renewal, self-reproduction, self-regulation) are inherent in a person. These regularities are implemented with the help of the processes of metabolism and energy, irritability, heredity and homeostasis - relatively dynamic constancy of the internal environment of the body. The human body is multilevel:

molecular

cellular

tissue

organ

systemic

The relationship in the body is achieved through nervous and humoral regulation. A person constantly has new needs. Ways to satisfy them: self-satisfaction or with outside help.

Mechanisms of self-satisfaction:

congenital (changes in metabolism, the work of internal organs)

Acquired (conscious behavior, mental reactions)

Needs Satisfaction Structures:

1. executive (respiratory, digestive, excretory)

2. regulatory (nervous and endocrine)

The human body is divided into parts:

torso

limbs

Organ system- a group of organs similar in origin, structure and functions. Organs are located in cavities filled with fluid. They communicate with the external environment.

A set of anatomical terms that determine the position of organs in the body and their direction - anatomical nomenclature .

Conditionally carried out in the human body lines and planes:

1. frontal(parallel to the line of the forehead) - (frons - forehead) - frontalis, a plane oriented from right to left, vertical, respectively, the plane of the forehead, perpendicular to the sagittal

2. sagittal(perpendicular to the line of the forehead) - (lat. sagitta - arrow) - sagittalis, vertically cuts the body from front to back. Also called the median plane (divides the human body into right and left halves).

3. horizontal- (horizontalis) a plane perpendicular to the frontal and sagittal

4. medial(passes through the middle of the body) - medialis

Organs characterize with respect to axes and planes.

To indicate the location of organs in relation to the horizontal plane, the following terms are used:

1. upper- superior (cranialis - upper, cranial, cranial - from lat. cranium - skull)

2. lower- inferior (caudalis - lower, tail, caudal - from lat. cauda - tail)

In relation to the frontal plane:

1. ventral- from lat. venter - belly, (anterior, abdominal) - ventralis

2. dorsal- from lat. dorsum - back, (rear, dorsal) - dorsalis

3. front- anterior

4. rear- posterior

Relative to other planes:

5. medial th (closer to the median line) - medialis (middle, medial, lying closer to the median plane)

7. longitudinal- longitudinalis

8. transverse- transverse

9. average- medium

10.intermediate th - intermedius

To refer to parts of a limb the following terms are used:

1. proximal(located closer to the body, to the beginning of the limb) - proximalis

In addition, terms such as:

right- dexter

left- sinister

surface- superficialis

deep- profundus

internal, inside- internus

outer, outside- externus

bending- flexio

extension- extensio

lead e - abductio

cast- adductio

vertical- verticalis

rotation- rotation

Body type(in Greek - habitus) is a set of features of the structure, shape, size and ratio of individual parts of the human body.

Since the time of Hippocrates, there are three main body types:

1. Dolichomorphic type - characterized by high growth, poorly developed skeleton and muscles, low fat deposition.

2. Mesomorphic type - characterized by medium height, well-developed skeleton and muscles, large facial features with a large chin, weak deposition of subcutaneous fat.

3. Brachymorphic type - characterized by medium or short stature, short neck and large head size, short limbs, broad chest and a tendency to deposit subcutaneous fat.

The body shape is associated not only with differences in the structure of organs accessible to external examination and palpation (bones, muscles, subcutaneous fatty tissue), but also causes a different position, shape and size of internal organs. Thus, a brachymorphic physique corresponds to such features as a high position of the diaphragm, a horizontal position of the heart, an oblique position of the stomach, a high position of the caecum, a long small intestine (6–8 m), a short mesentery of the small, transverse colon and sigmoid colon. The dolichomorphic physique corresponds to such signs as a low position of the diaphragm, a vertical position of the heart, an elongated stomach, a low position of the caecum, a long mesentery of the small, transverse colon and sigmoid intestine, and a short small intestine (4–5 m).

The physique has pronounced age and gender characteristics.

In the process of body growth, there is a relative decrease in the size of the head and torso and an increase in the length of the neck and limbs. A certain ratio of body proportions is characteristic of each age group, from the moment of birth to old age.

Gender differences in physique are associated with the development of the skeleton of muscles and subcutaneous fatty tissue. The body of men is large, with a narrow pelvis and a wide shoulder girdle. The woman's body is shorter, the pelvis is wider, and the shoulder girdle is narrower.

Man as an object of knowledge

Introduction

AnanievBoris Gerasimovich, Soviet psychologist, full member of the APS of the USSR (1968), since 1967 Dean of the Faculty of Psychology of Leningrad University. Graduated from Gorsky pedagogical institute(Ordzhonikidze, 1928) and graduate school at the Institute for the Study of the Brain. V.M. Bekhterev (1930). The main works are devoted to the study of sensations, the transition from sensory cognition to thought, inner speech, as well as issues of developmental, differential and applied psychology.

The book of an outstanding Russian psychologist, founder of the St. Petersburg School of Psychology Boris Gerasimovich Ananiev (1907-1972) is devoted to psychological problems that are of fundamental importance for the development of the entire system of human sciences. The author pays attention to the study of the main characteristics of a person as an individual, personality and individuality in connection with the phylogeny and history of mankind. Issues of psychophysiology, human evolution and genetic methods of human cognition are highlighted in a special section.

1. The problem of man in modern science

.1 Variety of approaches to the study of man and differentiation of scientific disciplines

modern science increasingly covers the diverse relationships and connections of man with the world (abiotic and biotic factors of nature? man; society and its historical development? man; man? technology; man? culture; man and society ? earth and space).

Differentiation of scientific disciplines:

The first of these is age physiology and morphology.

The second special discipline of modern times is sexology.

The third scientific discipline of modern times is somatology.

The fourth scientific discipline - typology of higher nervous activity.

Among the new disciplines of the humanities that are of the greatest importance for general theory human knowledge, it should be noted ergonomics

Quite remarkable is the emergence of a special discipline about sign systems (both linguistic and non-linguistic) - semiotics.

Of the new disciplines, it should be noted axiology- the science of the values ​​of life and culture, exploring the important aspects of the spiritual development of society and man, the content of the inner world of the individual and its value orientations

1.2 Philosophical generalization of knowledge about a person and integration of scientific disciplines

In any of the problems of human science, the interaction of natural science, psychology and social sciences is based on the philosophical doctrine of man. Already at present, the interaction of the sciences related to natural science, on the one hand, and social science, on the other, serves the cause of integrating knowledge about a person (for the purposes of education, scientific organization of labor, etc.). The increasing scale of such integration in solving new problems, for example, space exploration or human adaptation to deep-sea diving, etc. is instructive. With every important step technological progress and scientific discovery, new human relationships arise that require legal and moral regulation, spiritual values ​​are transformed, including human qualities, including mental and physical health. Even transplantation of organs (for example, the heart), the relationship of the donor and the recipient in modern surgical operations become a moral, legal and philosophical problem related to the meaning and value human life for society. The integration of heterogeneous scientific knowledge about man can be fully realized only at the level of the Marxist-Leninist philosophical doctrine of man, which reveals the dialectics of nature and society.

2. Formation of the system of human knowledge

.1 Preliminary remarks

The beginnings of the scientific study of man were laid in natural philosophy, natural science and medicine. knowledge of nature,the material world surrounding man and human knowledge,which stands out from nature and opposes it, but at the same time is one of its most remarkable phenomena, have always developed interconnectedly, although very contradictory. Anthropocentrism characterized natural philosophy and the past history of natural science to the same extent as geocentrism.

One of the main centers is the problem of man as a biological species Homo sapiens.Over the past century, this focus, or center, of human studies has become more and more extensive and interdisciplinary. Younger, but no less diverse, is the second center, which unites scientific disciplines that study humanity.Already in our century, two new scientific centers - ontogenetics of a person as an individualand personalistics, the study of man as a person.As a result of the synthesis of many disciplines and teachings, two more special centers are formed - the study of man as subjectAnd How individuality.The intersection of many lines of communication between these centers of scientific knowledge of man and the formation of a number of its content structures must be taken into account in order to understand how, in modern conditions, objectively develops a system of human knowledge that provides holistic knowledgeabout a human. However, before analyzing these communication lines and their intersections in a certain system that is in the process of formation, it is necessary to consider in more detail the interdisciplinary composition of each of the main centers of modern human knowledge.

2.2 Homo sapiens sciences

Human nature cannot be understood outside the general and consistently developing picture of the evolution of the animal world. To the same extent, it is impossible to build this picture without man, who is the highest link and the last stage of biological evolution8. These banal provisions have to be mentioned due to the fact that attempts are still often made to isolate anthropology from general biology, vertebrate zoology and other biological disciplines and to consider anthropological problems only in the plane of replacing biological laws with social ones. Even more often one has to face the tendency of biologists to either exclude anthropology and even primatology from the system of animal sciences, or to dissolve them in theriology.

.3 Human Sciences

The system of human sciences is not limited to the range of special social sciences.The question of the subject of sociology and its relation to other sciences, with which we began, is a more particular question of the problem under consideration about system of human sciences, including sciences of different classes and categories, including applied and natural sciences(for example, physical geography). The theoretical and methodological unification of all these sciences is becoming possible in our time on the basis of historical materialism. We can only build some hypothetical model of that system of human sciences, the formation of which is one of the most important indicators of the progress of modern human knowledge as a whole.

As in the system of the sciences of Homo sapiens discussed above, in the system of the sciences of humanity there are core problems around which interdisciplinary connections are concentrated. The general organization of these problems, the range of which is exceptionally wide, is determined by the historical character of the social life of mankind.

.4 Scientific study of nature-human and human-nature relationships

Previously, we considered the position of the "nature-man" problem in the system of biological sciences, evaluating this connection only phylogenetically. Modern science has achieved fundamental success in understanding the laws of biological evolution and the phylogenetic roots of anthropogenesis. Man, as a product of biological evolution, and its highest stage, has been comprehensively studied by natural science. However, this type of connection "nature-man" does not yet exhaust the entire complex of connections between man and nature, of which he is a microparticle. Therefore, natural science deals with man not only in biology, but also in other, more general sciences about nature, including geology and geochemistry, geophysics, and many other branches of physics, not counting biophysics and molecular biology. These more general connections between man and nature have become the subject of scientific research relatively recently, and among the scientists whose merit is the formulation of such problems, the largest geochemist of our time, V.I. Vernadsky and one of the largest modern geologists and paleontologists P. Teilhard de Chardin.

.5 Sciences about man as an individual and his ontogeny

The phenomena of human ontogenetic evolution are age and sex, constitutional and neurodynamic105 properties, the interrelations between which determine more complex formations of an individual: the structure of needs and sensorimotor organization. Aggregate the most important properties of the individual and their complex formations appears in the most integrative form in the form of temperament and inclinations that make up the natural basis of the personality106. The relationship of these properties of the individual is varied. So, for example, temperament is not a property of an individual organ (its reactivity), much less individual cells (including neurons). This phenomenon is an integral derivative of the entire structure of the individual, the effect of the cumulative action of his more general properties.

.6 Sciences about man as a subject

With the modern differentiation of sciences importance has a precise definition of the subject of each of them, i.e. known phenomena of reality and their properties, although, at the same time, the relativity of the boundaries separating related sciences and the relationship between the studied phenomena are becoming more and more obvious. However, an extended interpretation of some concepts means something more than recognition of the relativity of boundaries and the interconnection of phenomena, since it leads to a general shift in the perspective lines of scientific knowledge. Earlier we pointed out that an extended interpretation of personality leads to the identification with it of the whole complex of the most complex phenomena associated with the concept of "man". Less generalized is the identification of concepts "personality-subject".Of course there is personality. object and subject of the historical process, object and subject of social relations, subject and object of communication,Finally, and most importantly, subject of social behavior- the bearer of moral consciousness.

. Ontogeny and the life path of a person

.1 Contradictions of individual development and its heterochrony

The individual development of a person, like any other organism, is ontogeny with a phylogenetic program embedded in it. The normal duration of human life and the successive change of stages or phases of individual development are strictly determined by this program and the species characteristics of Homo sapiens. Conception, birth, maturation, maturity, aging, old age are the main moments in the formation of the integrity of the human body. In human ontogenesis, many contradictions arise and are overcome between heredity and the environment, various regulators of vital activity (humoral and nervous, cortico-reticular and cortical, primary and secondary signal), different systems, organs and tissues in the integral structure of the body. One of the essential manifestations of the internal contradictions of ontogenetic evolution should be considered irregularitydevelopment of various systems and their regulators.

The formation of individuality and the unified direction of development of the individual, personality and subject in the general structure of a person determined by it, stabilize this structure and are important factors in high vitality and longevity.

.2 Ontogenetic evolution and human lifespan

The phase flow of a holistic life cycle, covering the process of individual development from birth to death, is successive change of moments of formation,evolution and involution of the individual. This unfolding chain of change is one of the fundamental effects of the irreversibility of time, the operation of the "arrow of time". Total life expectancyhow the first characteristic of age is complemented by its second characteristic - irreversible phase changeindividual development, and then the third - duration of each individual phase.

.3 Age (“transverse”) slices and a longitudinal method for studying human ontogenetic evolution

Modern science studies a person by many methods using signaling, registration and computer science. Thus, for example, only one psychological science uses numerous observational, experimental, praximetric, diagnostic and mathematical methods. However, to study the characteristics of individual development, a special organization of the complex of these methods is needed by combining the method of the so-called age-related “cross-sectional” sections (Cross-Sectional) with the “longitudinal” method

.4 Age periodization of the human life cycle

To understand the life cycle of a person, it is necessary to determine the successive change of development states, the unidirectionality and irreversibility of life time, i.e. topologicalcharacteristic of this period. At the same time, one should take into account the duration of the existence of an individual, determined by the total life expectancy of all individuals of a given species, - metriccharacteristics of the life cycle and its individual moments. Both of these characteristics are presented, for example, in the latest age periodization scheme adopted at one of the international symposiums.

In anthropology and psychophysiology, pediatrics and gerontology, more special classifications of periods of growth and maturation, on the one hand, and involutionary periods, on the other, are more often used.

.5 Ontogenetic evolution of human psychophysiological functions

The formation of a person as a personality and a subject of activity in specific socio-historical conditions is of a phase nature: it unfolds along certain cycles and stages of the life development of a person as an individual. Of particular importance in this regard is the ontogenetic evolution of psychophysiological functions. human brain- the material substratum of consciousness. Each of these functions has its own history of development in the ontogenetic evolution of the brain. This does not mean, however, that the entire course and content of man's mental activity are determined by such an evolution. Modern psychology distinguishes heterogeneous phenomena in mental activity: functions, processes, states, personality traits.Of central importance for reflecting objective reality, orientation in it and regulation of actions are mental processes(perception, memory, thinking, emotions, etc.), which are probabilistic in nature and depend on many factors, one of which is age.

.6 The life path of a person - the history of the personality and the subject of activity

Historical time, like all social development, of which it is one of the parameters, is a factor of paramount importance for the individual development of man. All events of this development (biographical dates) are always relative to the historical time measurement system. Events in the life of an individual people and of all mankind (political, economic, cultural, technical transformations and social conflicts caused by the class struggle, scientific discoveries, etc.) determine the dates of historical time and specific systems of its reference.

The choice of a profession, the value orientation to one or another sphere of public life, the ideals and goals that in the most general form determine social behavior and relations on the threshold of independent activity - all these are separate moments that characterize the beginning of an independent life in society. First of all, it is start of independent professional activity.According to V. Shevchuk, the ratio of the starting point to various periods of adolescence, youth and maturity is as follows: in the period of 11-20 years - 12.5%; 21-30 years old - 66%; 31-40 years old - 17.4%, etc. All in all, the start of creative activity coincides withmost powerful a period of independent inclusion in public life.

Sexual dimorphism and psychophysiological evolution of man

.1 Sexual dimorphism in human ontogenetic evolution

Sexual dimorphism covers both the earliest and most late periods human life, not limited to periods of puberty and puberty, i.e. refers to the constant characteristics of human ontogenetic evolution, changing only in terms of intensity (increasing or weakening sexual dimorphism).

.2 Sexual differentiation of human sensorimotor functions

We have referred only to some functional characteristics in which the factor of sexual dimorphism manifests itself in a certain way, if we consider the macroperiods of ontogenetic evolution in order to compare experimental data on sensory-perceptual, psychomotor and speech functions of behavior with them. Let's start this discussion with data on visual acuity. Under the leadership of E.F. Rybalko L.V. Saulina studied the age characteristics of visual acuity in preschool children (from 4 to 7 years old); its data confirmed the previously established position that by the age of seven years the norm of visual acuity of an adult is already achieved, and in binocular vision the visual acuity of children even exceeds this norm.

New in the study by L.V. Saulina was the analysis of various factors, including sexual dimorphism. Analysis of variance showed the statistical significance of the data obtained in relation to gender differences

5. The ratio of age-sex and neurodynamic properties of a person in his individual development

.1 From the background

Age and individual-typical variants of human neurodynamics constitute, as it were, the most direct, phenomenal picture of human behavior in real life. Therefore, with the emergence of objective psychology (“psycho-reflexology”, and then “reflexology”), V.M. Bekhterev, a “genetic”, or age-related, theory of the development of behavior arose, and then individual reflexology, the beginning of which was laid by the studies of V.N. Myasishchev and his collaborators, devoted to the problem of types of the human nervous system. The typological (neurodynamic) characteristic of childhood and adolescence was first formulated by G.N. Sorokhtin, who also made an attempt to establish correlations between neurodynamic and constitutional types of development.

.2 The ratio of age-sex and neurodynamic properties during growth and maturation

Started by B.M. Teplov, and then V.S. Merlin and other psychophysiological studies of human neurodynamic types, based on the achievements of the neurodynamic typology of animals, amounted to new stage in the development of the doctrine of the types of the human nervous system, fundamentally different from the neurotypological developments of the 20-30s. In these studies, the structure and dynamics of the main general properties of the nervous system, multivaluedly realized in various types mental activity of a person.

The psychological data included the results of tests of Rorschach, Bourdon, Kraepelin, etc., on the basis of which conclusions were made about working capacity, personality reactions to stress, situations and relationships, about the attitude and emotional-volitional properties of the personality.

.3 The ratio of age-sex and neurodynamic properties during aging

Factors of age and gender are overlapped by an individual typological factor, which is important already in the period of early childhood. Moreover, the individual-typological factor is important for understanding involutionary processes, which is still given insufficient attention in gerontology. The exception is the works of the Romanian gerontologist and geriatrician K.I. Parkhon, who was specifically involved in the definition of the typological (neurodynamic) factor in the aging process.

.4 Toward a typology of aging

Age-related phenomena of a decrease in cortical reactivity manifest themselves with varying degrees of intensity, depending on the combination of factors of the non-irodynamic type and sexual dimorphism. Some indications on this score are available in the latest physiological research.

Changes in the degree of mobility of nervous processes are no less important than changes in the strength parameter - the weakness of these processes.

In the process of aging, not only a violation of the complex response was observed, but also a change in the properties of nervous processes, namely: weakening of inhibition and inertness of the predominantly excitatory process ...The inertness of the excitation process in senile people is manifested in the difficulty of developing conditioned reflexes and their extinction.

6 Personality, subject of activity, individuality

.1 Social situations of personality development and its status

Personality is a social individual, object and subject of the historical process. Therefore, in the characteristics of the individual, the social essence of a person is most fully revealed, which determines all the phenomena of human development, including natural features. K. Marx wrote about this essence: “But the essence of a person is not an abstract inherent in a separate individual. In its reality, it is the totality of all social relations. The historical-materialistic understanding of the essence of man and social development formed the basis for the scientific study of the laws of development of all human properties, among which the personality occupies a leading position.

The formation and development of the personality is determined by the totality of the conditions of social existence in a given historical era. Personality - an objectmany economic, political, legal, moral and other influences on a person of society at the moment of his historical development, therefore, at a given stage of development of a given socio-economic formation, in a certain country with its national composition.

.2 Public functions - roles and value orientations of the individual

The study of personality startswith the definition of its status, while the personality itself is considered as the cumulative effect of social situations of development, as an object of influence of various social structures and historical processes. However, even when studying the status of a personality, it is found that as it forms and develops, the measure of its activityin maintaining or transforming one's own status depending on the social community (class, stratum, group) to which it belongs. The active, subjective side of the status appears in the form of the position of the individual, which she occupies in the conditions of a certain status. On this feature of the combination in the human personality object and subject propertiespaid attention both in sociology and psychology. Positionpersonality as a subject of social behavior and diverse social activities is a complex system personality relationships(to society as a whole and to the communities to which it belongs, to labor, people, to itself), installationsand motivesby which it is guided in its activities, goalsand values,to which this activity is directed. This whole complex system of subjective properties is realized in a certain complex public functions- roles,performed by a person in given social situations of development.

.3 Personality structure

Consideration of the status, social functions and roles, goals of activity and value orientations of an individual makes it possible to understand both its dependence on specific social structures and the activity of the individual himself in the general process of functioning of certain social (for example, industrial) formations. Modern psychology is penetrating more and more deeply into the connection that exists between interindividual structurethe social whole to which the individual belongs, and intra-individual structure the personality itself.

6.4 Stakeholder structure

Labor as production material life society is of universal importance, since through this activity are created: a) an artificial habitat, i.e. a set of conditions vital for a person; b) the production of consumer goods that ensure the reproduction of life; c) the production of means of production that ensure technical and social progress; d) the production of man himself as a subject of labor and all his other activities in society. The structure of labor as the main activity consists of the interaction of a person as a subject of labor with the object of labor through guns,which is the most mobile, changing (improving) and active structural part of this activity.

.5 Approaches to the problem of human individuality

In our work, an attempt was made to distinguish between the properties of a person as individual, personalityand subject of activity,constituting a single historical nature of man. Understanding the social determination of all these properties and the unity of their material mechanisms makes it possible to explain the genesis of mental functions, processes, states, tendencies and potentials of a person, to explore his inner world with the objective means of modern science.

Each of these groups of human properties is a system, openoutside world. In the constant and active interaction of man with the world - nature / society - its individual development is carried out. Exchangesubstances, information energy and even human properties themselves in this process of interaction has a universal character for human being and consciousness. It is on this postulate that the scientific conviction in the objective cognizability of subjective phenomena and the effective possibility of managing the process of human development is based.

Conclusion

This work was carried out to summarize the aspects of all chapters and paragraphs in an abbreviated form.

On the basis of the work done, we can state with full confidence that the publication "Man as an Object of Knowledge" is extremely useful for the formation of a broad psychological thinking of future students and specialists, for understanding the features of development domestic psychology, to choose a strategy for its development.

Bibliography

personality human knowledge sexual dimorphism

1.Ananiev B.G. Man as an object of knowledge - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2001. - 288 p. - (Series "Masters of Psychology")

Tutoring

Need help learning a topic?

Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Submit an application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.