Man as a subject of scientific study. Man as a subject of study of various fields of knowledge
LECTURE 2.
MAN AS A SUBJECT OF PEDAGOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY.
The object of pedagogical anthropology is the relationship between man and man, and the subject is the child. In order to understand this object and penetrate into this subject, it is necessary first of all to understand what a person is, what his nature is. That is why for pedagogical anthropology "man" is one of the basic concepts. It is important for her to have the most complete picture of a person, as this will give an adequate idea of the child and the upbringing that corresponds to his nature.
Man has been the subject of study of many sciences for many centuries. The information accumulated about him during this time is colossal. But it not only does not reduce the number of questions connected with the penetration into the essence of human nature, but also multiplies these questions. It does not lead to a single concept of man that satisfies everyone. And as before, various sciences, including those that have just emerged, find in man their “field of activity”, their aspect, discover something in him that was hitherto unknown, and in their own way determine what a person is.
A person is so diverse, “polyphonic” that different sciences discover in him directly opposite human properties and focus on them. So, if for economics he is a rationally thinking being, then for psychology in many respects he is irrational. History regards him as the "author", the subject of certain historical events, and pedagogy - as an object of care, help, support. Sociology is interested in him as a creature with invariant behavior, and for genetics - as a programmed creature. For cybernetics, he is a universal robot; for chemistry, he is a set of specific chemical compounds.
The options for aspects of the study of man are endless, they multiply all the time. But at the same time, today it is becoming more and more obvious: a person is a super-complex, inexhaustible, largely mysterious subject of knowledge; full comprehension of it (a task set at the dawn of the existence of anthropology) is in principle impossible.
There are a number of explanations for this. For example, this: the study of a person is carried out by the person himself, and for this reason alone it cannot be either complete or objective. Another explanation is based on the fact that the collective concept of a person cannot be formed, as from pieces, from materials of observations, studies of individual specific people. Even if there are many. They also say that the part of a person's life that can be studied does not exhaust the whole person. “Man cannot be reduced to the empirical being of an empirical subject. A person is always greater than himself, for he is a part of something larger, a wider whole, a transcendental world ”(G. P. Shchedrovitsky). They also point to the fact that the information received about a person in different centuries cannot be combined into one whole, because humanity is different in different eras, just as each person is to a large extent different in different periods of his life.
And yet the image of a person, the depth and volume of ideas about him are being improved from century to century.
Let's try to outline the outline of the modern idea of a person, which is formed in the analysis of data obtained by various sciences. At the same time, the term “man” itself will be used by us as a collective one, that is, denoting not some specific, single person, but a generalized representative of Homo sapiens.
Like all living things, a person is active, i.e., is able to selectively reflect, perceive, respond to any irritations and influences, has, in the words of F. Engels, "an independent force of reaction."
It is plastic, that is, it has high adaptive abilities to changing living conditions while maintaining specific features.
He is a dynamic, developing being: certain changes occur in the organs, systems, human brain both over the centuries and in the course of the life of each person. Moreover, according to modern science, the process of development of Homo sapiens is not complete, the possibilities of man to change have not been exhausted.
Like all living things, a person organically belongs to the nature of the Earth and the Cosmos, with which he constantly exchanges substances and energies. It is obvious that man is an integral part of the biosphere, flora and fauna of the Earth, reveals in himself signs of animal and plant life. For example, the latest discoveries of paleontology and molecular biology show that the genetic codes of humans and monkeys differ by only 1-2% (while the anatomical differences are about 70%). The proximity of man to the animal world is especially evident. That is why a person often identifies himself with certain animals in myths and fairy tales. That is why philosophers sometimes consider man as an animal: poetic (Aristotle), laughing (Rabelais), tragic (Schopenhauer), tool-producing, deceitful...
And yet, man is not just a higher animal, not just the crown of the development of the nature of the Earth. He, according to the definition of the Russian philosopher I. A. Ilyin, is “all-nature”. “He organizes, concentrates and concentrates everything that is contained in the most distant nebulae and in the nearest microorganisms, embracing all this with his spirit in knowledge and perception.”
The organic belonging of man to the Cosmos is confirmed by the data of such sciences, seemingly far from man, as coke chemistry, astrophysics, etc. In this regard, we recall the statement of N. A. Berdyaev: “Man understands the Universe because they have one nature.”
Man is the main "geological-forming factor of the biosphere" (according to V. I. Vernadsky). He is not just one of the fragments of the Universe, one of the ordinary elements of the plant and animal world. He is the most significant element of this world. With its appearance, the nature of the Earth has changed in many ways, and today man determines the state of the Cosmos. At the same time, man is always a being, largely dependent on cosmic and natural phenomena and conditions. Modern man understands that the nature mutilated by him threatens the existence of mankind, destroys it, and the understanding of nature, the establishment of a dynamic balance with it, facilitates and decorates the life of mankind, makes a person a more complete and productive being.
SOCIALITY AND REASONABILITY OF HUMAN
Man is not only a cosmic, natural being. He is a socio-historical being. One of its most important characteristics is sociality. Let's consider this statement.
Just as organically as to the Cosmos and the nature of the Earth, a person belongs to society, to the human community. The very emergence of Homo sapiens, according to modern science, is due to the transformation of a herd of anthropoids, where biological laws ruled, into a human society, where moral laws acted. The specific features of man as a species have developed under the influence of precisely the social way of life. The most important conditions for the preservation and development of both the Homo sapiens species and the individual were the observance of moral taboos and the adherence to the sociocultural experience of previous generations.
The importance of society for each individual person is also enormous, since it is not a mechanical addition of individual individuals, but the integration of people into a single social organism. “The first of the first conditions of human life is another person. Other people are the centers around which the human world is organized. The attitude towards another person, towards people is the main fabric of human life, its core, ”wrote S. L. Rubinshtein. Yana can be revealed only through an attitude towards oneself (it is no coincidence that Narcissus in ancient myth is an unfortunate creature). A person develops only by “looking” (K. Marx) into another person.
Any person is impossible without society, without joint activity and communication with other people. Each person (and many generations of people) is ideally represented in other people and takes an ideal part in them (V. A. Petrovsky). Even without a real opportunity to live among people, a person manifests himself as a member of “his own”, referential for him, community. He is guided (not always consciously) by his values, beliefs, norms and rules. He uses speech, knowledge, skills, habitual forms of behavior that arose in society long before his appearance in it and were transferred to him. His memories and dreams are also filled with pictures that have social meaning.
It was in society that a person was able to realize the potential opportunities given to him by the Cosmos and earthly nature. Thus, the activity of a person as a living being has turned into a socially significant ability for productive activity, for the preservation and creation of culture. Dynamism and plasticity - in the ability to focus on another, to change in his presence, to experience empathy. Readiness for the perception of human speech - in sociability, in the ability for a constructive dialogue, for the exchange of ideas, values, experience, knowledge, etc.
It was the socio-historical way of being that made the primordial human being a rational being.
Under rationality, pedagogical anthropology, following K. D. Ushinsky, understands what is characteristic only of a person - the ability to realize not only the world, but also oneself in it:
Your being in time and space;
The ability to fix one's awareness of the world and oneself;
The desire for introspection, self-criticism, self-esteem, goal-setting and planning of one's life, i.e. self-awareness, reflection.
Intelligence is innate in man. Thanks to her, he is able to set goals, philosophize, look for the meaning of life, strive for happiness. Thanks to her, he is able to improve himself, educate and change the world around him according to his own ideas about the valuable and ideal (being, man, etc.). It largely determines the development of the arbitrariness of mental processes, the improvement of the human will.
Intelligence helps a person to act contrary to his organic needs, biological rhythms (suppress hunger, work actively at night, live in weightlessness, etc.). It sometimes forces a person to mask his individual properties (manifestations of temperament, gender, etc.). It gives strength to overcome the fear of death (remember, for example, infectious disease doctors who experimented on themselves). This ability to cope with instinct, to consciously go against the natural principle in oneself, against one's body, is a specific feature of a person.
SPIRITUALITY AND HUMAN CREATIVITY
A specific feature of a person is his spirituality. Spirituality is characteristic of all people as a universal initial need for orientation towards higher values. Whether the spirituality of a person is a consequence of his socio-historical existence, or is it evidence of his divine origin, this issue is still debatable. However, the very existence of the named feature as a purely human phenomenon is undeniable.
Indeed, only a person is characterized by insatiable needs for new knowledge, in the search for truth, in special activities to create non-material values, in life in conscience and justice. Only a person is able to live in the non-material, unreal world: in the world of art, in an imaginary past or future. Only a person is able to work for pleasure and enjoy hard work if it is free, has a personal or socially significant meaning. Only a person tends to experience such states that are difficult to determine on a rational level, such as shame, responsibility, self-esteem, repentance, etc. Only a person is able to believe in ideals, in himself, in a better future, in goodness, in God. Only a person is able to love, and not be limited only to sex. Only man is capable of self-sacrifice and self-restraint.
Being reasonable and spiritual, living in society, a person could not help but become a creative being. The creativity of a person is also found in his ability to create something new in all spheres of his life, including art, and in sensitivity to it. It manifests itself daily in what V. A. Petrovsky calls “the ability to freely and responsibly go beyond the boundaries of the pre-established” (starting from curiosity and ending with social innovations). It manifests itself in the unpredictability of behavior not only of individuals, but also of social groups and entire nations.
It is the socio-historical way of being, spirituality and creativity that make a person a real force, the most significant component not only of society, but also of the Universe.
INTEGRITY AND CONTRADICTION OF HUMAN
Another global characteristic of a person is his integrity. As L. Feuerbach noted, a person is “a living creature, characterized by the unity of material, sensual, spiritual and rational-effective being”. Modern researchers emphasize such a feature of the integrity of a person as "holographic": in any manifestation of a person, in each of his properties, organ and system, the whole person is volumetrically represented. For example, in any emotional manifestation of a person, the state of his physical and mental health, the development of will and intellect, genetic characteristics and adherence to certain values and meanings, etc.
The most obvious is the physical integrity of the human body (any scratch causes the whole organism to react as a whole), but it does not exhaust the integrity of a person - a super-complex being. The integrity of a person is manifested, for example, in the fact that his physiological, anatomical, mental properties are not only adequate to each other, but are interconnected, mutually determine, mutually condition each other.
Man is a being, the only one of all living beings inseparably, organically linking his biological and social essence, his rationality and spirituality. Both the biology of man, and his sociality, and rationality, and spirituality are historical: they are determined by the history of mankind (as well as an individual person). And the very history of a species (and of any person) is social and biological at the same time, therefore the biological manifests itself in forms that largely depend on the history of mankind, the type of a particular society, and the characteristics of the culture of a particular community.
As an integral being, a person is always at the same time in the position of both subject and object (not only any situation of social and personal life, communication, activity, but also culture, space, time, upbringing).
Reason and feeling, emotions and intellect, rational and irrational being are interconnected in a person. He always exists both "here and now" and "there and then", his present is inextricably linked with the past and future. His ideas about the future are determined by the impressions and experiences of past and present life. And the very imaginary idea of the future affects the real behavior in the present, and sometimes the reassessment of the past. Being different at different periods of his life, a person at the same time is the same representative of the human race all his life. His conscious, unconscious and superconscious (creative intuition, according to P. Simonov) being are interdependent, adequate to each other.
In human life, the processes of integration and differentiation of the psyche, behavior, self-consciousness are interconnected. For example, it is known that the development of the ability to distinguish more and more shades of color (differentiation) is associated with an increase in the ability to recreate the image of the whole object from one seen detail (integration).
In every person, a deep unity of individual (common to mankind as a species), typical (peculiar to a certain group of people) and unique (characteristic only for this person) properties. Each person always manifests himself simultaneously as an organism, and as a person, and as an individuality. Indeed, a being that has individuality but is completely devoid of an organism is not only not a person, but a phantom. The idea that the body, personality, individuality are concepts that fix different levels of human development, which is very common in the pedagogical consciousness, is incorrect. In man as an integral being, these hypostases are side by side, interconnected, mutually controlled.
Each individual person as an organism is the carrier of a certain genotype, the keeper (or destroyer) of the human gene pool, therefore human health is one of the universal values.
From the point of view of pedagogical anthropology, it is important to understand that the human body is fundamentally different from other living organisms. And it's not just anatomical and physiological features. And not that the human body is synergistic (non-equilibrium): its activity includes both chaotic and ordered processes, and the younger the body, the more chaotic the system it is, the more randomly it acts. (By the way, it is important for the teacher to understand the following: the chaotic functioning of the child's body allows him to more easily adapt to changes in living conditions, plastically adapt to the unpredictable behavior of the external environment, act in a wider range of conditions. The orderliness of physiological processes that occurs with age violates the synergy of the body, and this leads to aging, destruction, disease.)
Something else is more essential: the functioning of the human body is integrally connected with the spirituality, rationality, and sociality of a person. In fact, the physical state of the human body depends on the human word, on the “strength of the spirit”, and at the same time, the physical state of a person affects his psychological, emotional state, and functioning in society.
The human body from birth (and perhaps long before it) needs a human way of life, human forms of being, communication with other people, mastery of the word and is ready for them.
The physical appearance of a person reflects social processes, the state of culture and the characteristics of a particular system of education.
Each individual person as a member of society is a person, i.e.:
A participant in joint and at the same time divided labor and the bearer of a certain system of relations;
The spokesman and at the same time the executor of generally accepted requirements and restrictions;
The bearer of social roles and statuses that are significant for others and for himself;
Supporter of a certain way of life.
To be a person, i.e., a carrier of sociality, is an inalienable property, a natural innate specific characteristic of a person.
In the same way, it is innate in man to be an individual, that is, a being unlike others. This dissimilarity is found both at the physiological and psychological levels (individual individuality), and at the level of behavior, social interaction, self-realization (personal, creative individuality). Thus, individuality integrates the characteristics of the organism and personality of a particular person. If individual dissimilarity (eye color, type of nervous activity, etc.), as a rule, is quite obvious and depends little on the person himself and the life around him, then personal dissimilarity is always the result of his conscious efforts and interaction with the environment. Both individuality are socially significant manifestations of a person.
The deep, organic, unique integrity of a person largely determines his super-complexity both as a real phenomenon and as a subject of scientific study, which has already been discussed above. It is reflected in works of art dedicated to man and in scientific theories. In particular, in concepts that link together I, It and above?; ego and aliperego; internal positions "child", "adult", "parent", etc.
A peculiar expression of the integrity of man is his inconsistency. N. A. Berdyaev wrote that a person can know himself “from above and below”, from the divine principle and from the demonic principle in himself. “And he can do this because he is a dual and contradictory being, a highly polarized being, godlike and bestial. High and low, free and slave, capable of rising and falling, of great love and sacrifice, and of great cruelty and boundless selfishness ”(Berdyaev N.A. On slavery and freedom of man. Experience of personalistic philosophy. - Paris, 1939. - C . 19).
It is possible to fix a number of the most interesting, purely human contradictions inherent in its nature. Thus, being a material being, a person cannot live only in the material world. Belonging to objective reality, a person at any moment of his conscious being is able to go beyond everything that is actually given to him, to distance himself from his real being, to plunge into the inner “virtual” reality that belongs only to him. The world of dreams and fantasies, memories and projects, myths and games, ideals and values is so significant for a person that he is ready to give the most precious thing for them - his life and the lives of other people. The influence of the external world is always organically combined with the full-fledged influence on a person of his inner world, created by imagination and perceived as reality. Sometimes the interaction of the real and imaginary spaces of a person's being is harmonious, balanced. Sometimes one prevails over the other, or there is a tragic sense of the mutual exclusion of these two sides of his life. But both worlds are always necessary for a person, he always lives in both of them.
It is common for a person to live simultaneously both according to rational laws and according to the laws of conscience, goodness and beauty, and they often not only do not coincide, but directly contradict each other. Being determined by social conditions and circumstances, it is focused on following social stereotypes and attitudes even in complete solitude, at the same time it always retains its autonomy. In fact, no person is ever completely absorbed by society, does not "dissolve" in it. Even in the harshest social conditions, in closed societies, a person retains at least a minimum of independence of his reactions, assessments, actions, a minimum of the ability to self-regulate, to the autonomy of his existence, his inner world, a minimum of dissimilarity to others. No conditions can deprive a person of the inner freedom that he acquires in his imagination, creativity, and dreams.
Freedom is one of the highest human values, forever associated with happiness. For her sake, a person is able to give up even his inalienable right to life. But the achievement of complete independence from other people, from responsibility to them and for them, from duties and makes a person lonely and unhappy.
A person is aware of his “insignificance” before the universe, natural elements, social cataclysms, fate ... And at the same time, there are no people who would not have self-esteem, the humiliation of this feeling is extremely painfully perceived by all people: children and old people, weak and sick , socially dependent and oppressed.
Communication is vital for a person, and at the same time he strives for solitude, and it also turns out to be very important for his full development.
Human development is subject to certain laws, but the importance of chances is no less great, therefore the result of the development process can never be completely predictable.
A person is both a routine and creative creature: he shows creativity and tends to stereotypes, habits occupy a large place in his life.
Form start
He is a being to a certain extent conservative, striving to preserve the traditional world, and at the same time revolutionary, destroying the foundations, remaking the world for new ideas, “for himself”. Able to adapt to changing conditions of life and at the same time to show "non-adaptive activity" (V. A. Petrovsky).
This list of contradictions organically inherent in humanity is, of course, incomplete. But still, he shows that a person is ambivalent, that the contradictions of a person are largely due to his complex nature: both biosocial and spiritually rational, they are the essence of man. A person is strong in his contradictions, although sometimes they cause him considerable trouble. It can be assumed that the "harmonious development of man" will never lead to a complete smoothing of essential contradictions, to the emasculation of human essence.
A CHILD AS A HUMAN
All of the listed species features are inherent in a person from birth. Each child is whole, each is connected with the Cosmos, earthly nature and society. He is born as a biological organism, an individual, a member of society, a potential bearer of culture, a creator of interpersonal relationships.
But children show their human nature in a slightly different way than adults.
Children are more sensitive to cosmic and natural phenomena, and the possibilities of their intervention in the earthly and cosmic nature are minimal. At the same time, children are as active as possible in mastering the environment and creating the inner world, themselves. Since the child's body is more chaotic and plastic, it has the highest level of ability to change, that is, it is the most dynamic. The predominance in childhood of those mental processes that are associated not with the cerebral cortex, but with other brain structures, provides a much greater impressionability, immediacy, emotionality, the child's inability to self-analysis at the beginning of life and its rapid deployment as the brain matures. Due to mental characteristics and lack of life experience, scientific knowledge, a child is more committed than an adult to an imaginary world, to play. But this does not mean that an adult is smarter than a child or that the inner world of an adult is much poorer than a child's. Estimates in this situation are generally inappropriate, since the psyche of a child is simply different than the psyche of an adult.
The spirituality of a child is manifested in the ability to enjoy human (moral) behavior, love close people, believe in goodness and justice, focus on the ideal and follow it more or less productively; in sensitivity to art; in curiosity and cognitive activity.
The creativity of a child is so diverse, its manifestations are so obvious to everyone, the power of imagination over rationality is so great that sometimes the ability to create is mistakenly attributed only to childhood and therefore the child’s creative manifestations are not taken seriously.
The child much more clearly demonstrates both sociality and the organic interconnection of different hypostases of a person. Indeed, the behavior of personal characteristics and even the physical appearance and health of the child are dependent not only and not so much on the characteristics of his internal, innate potential, but on external conditions: on the demand for certain qualities and abilities by others; from the recognition of adults; from a favorable position in the system of relations with significant people; from the saturation of the space of his life with communication, impressions, creative activity.
A child, like an adult, can say about himself in the words of G. R. Derzhavin:
I am the connection of the worlds that exist everywhere.
I am the extreme degree of matter.
I am the center of the living
The trait of the initial Deity.
I'm rotting in the ashes,
I command thunder with my mind.
I am a king, I am a slave
I am a worm, I am God!
Thus, we can say that "child" is a synonym for the word "person". A child is a cosmobio-psycho-socio-cultural, plastic creature that is in intensive development; actively mastering and creating socio-historical experience and culture; self-improving in space and time; having a relatively rich spiritual life; manifesting itself as an organic, albeit contradictory, integrity.
So, having considered the specific features of a person, we can answer the question: what is the nature of the child, which the great teachers of the past called for orientation. It is the same as the nature of the species Homo sapiens. A child, like an adult, is organically inherent in both biosociality, and rationality, and spirituality, and integrity, and inconsistency, and creativity.
Thus, the equivalence and equality of the child and the adult are objectively justified.
For pedagogical anthropology, it is important not only to know the individual characteristics of childhood, but to understand that the nature of the child makes him extremely sensitive, responsive to the influences of upbringing, environment.
Such an approach to the child makes it possible to consciously and systematically apply anthropological knowledge in pedagogy, effectively solve the problems of upbringing and education of the child, based on his nature.
Philosophical understanding of man is associated with certain difficulties. Thinking about a person, the researcher is limited both by the level of natural scientific knowledge of his time, and by the conditions of the historical or everyday situation, and by his own political predilections. All of the above in one way or another affects the philosophical interpretation of a person. Therefore, modern social philosophy, studying the problems of man, is interested not only in the problems of man proper, but also in other things forever. topical issue, which V.S. Barulin called "the conjugation of man and philosophy."
1. Man as an object of scientific knowledge
The relationship between philosophy and man, as well as the socio-philosophical problem as a whole, has historically changed and developed. At the same time, two parameters of the evolution of philosophy can be distinguished in the history of philosophy:
1) The degree of understanding of the human problem as a methodologically initial principle of philosophizing. In other words, how much a philosopher realizes that it is a person who is the center, criterion and the highest goal of all philosophizing, how important this principle is.
2) The degree of philosophical understanding of the person himself, his being, his meaning of existence, his interests and goals. In other words, to what extent a person has become a separate and special subject of philosophical reflection, with what theoretical depth, with what degree of involvement of all means of philosophical analysis, he is considered.
Thus, the problem of man has always been at the center of philosophical research: no matter what problems philosophy deals with, man has always been the most important problem for it.
The modern German scientist E. Cassirer singled out four historical periods in the history of the study of man:
1) the study of man by metaphysics (antiquity).
2) the study of man by theology (Middle Ages),
3) the study of man by mathematics and mechanics (New time).
4) the study of man by biology.
To study a person as a very complex object of scientific knowledge, philosophical thought has developed a number of concepts that allow a fairly complete and detailed answer to the question of the essence and nature of man, the meaning of his existence.
First of all, man is the highest level of living organisms on earth, the subject of socio-historical activity and culture. concept man - concept generic, expressing common features the human race, the socialized man. This concept combines the biological and general social features of a person.
To study an individual in philosophy and other sciences, the concept of "individual" is used. Individuality refers to the original, unique features and qualities inherent in this individual.
Personality is the social qualities of an individual acquired by him in the process of education and self-education, spiritual and practical activities and interaction with society. Personality has primarily spiritual qualities. Personality is not given to a person from outside, it can be formed only by him. The true personality is not a frozen phenomenon, it is all dynamic. Personality is always creativity, victory and defeat, search and acquisition, overcoming slavery and gaining freedom.
Personality always bears the stamp of a particular era. The modern personality is characterized by a high level of education, social activity, pragmatism and heuristics, purposefulness. A modern person is a person who has mastered democratic and universal values and ideals. He does not separate his fate from the fate of his people and society as a whole.
By nature, man is an active, active being. To a large extent, he himself creates his own life and destiny, he is the author of history and the world of culture. Activity in its various forms (labor, politics, knowledge, education, etc.) is a way of human existence as a person, the creator of a new world. In the course of it, he changes not only the world around him, but also his own nature. All the qualities and abilities of people are of a concrete historical nature, i.e. they change in the course of activity. In this regard, K. Marx noticed that all five external senses of a person were created by the history of labor and industry. Thanks to activity, a person is a plastic, flexible creature. He is an eternal unfinished opportunity, he is always in search and in action, in a breakthrough of his restless spiritual and physical energy.
A person has a mechanism of not only biological, but also social inheritance. Social inheritance is carried out in society in the course of socialization. Socialization is the process of personality formation, which occurs primarily with the help of education as a special type of activity.
Man has a collective way of life. Only within the framework of such activity can he form and develop his qualities. The richness of a person's mind and emotional world, the breadth of his views, interests and needs largely depend on the breadth of his communication and interaction with other people.
A person also has a number of other qualities. People know how to create tools and constantly improve them. They are able, based on the norms of morality, to regulate their own relationships.
The philosophical view of the problem of man as an object of knowledge has changed over time. trace evolution philosophical views per person can be from a very early time. Over the entire period, views on the position of man and his place in the system of knowledge of philosophy have changed significantly, transformed and evolved. At the same time, views on the place of man changed in accordance with the general change in philosophical views on everything that exists, never getting out of the general flow of philosophical thought.
The definitions of the nature and essence of man presented in world philosophy can be systematized in different ways. Let us dwell on the option that distinguishes between three approaches:
subjectivist (a person is, first of all, his inner, subjective world);
objectivist (man is a product and bearer of the external, objective conditions of his existence);
synthesizing (man is the unity of internal subjectivity and external objectivity).
The followers of these approaches either share the concepts of "nature" and "essence" of a person, or they do not. In the first case, human nature is understood as the originality, specificity of a person as a living being, and essence is its defining, leading, integrating basis.
In philosophical doctrine, there are three levels of the concept of "man":
1. man in general as the personification of the human race in
in general, a generic being (an example is the phrase "man is a king
nature");
2. concrete historical man (primitive man
3. a person taken separately as an individual.
It is also necessary to specify the concept of "personality" is determined depending on the approach to the nature and essence of man. In modern domestic philosophy, following the tradition of Marxism, a person is a person as a social being, since his essence is reduced to sociality. In the currents that connect the essence with spirituality, a person is a person as a spiritual, rational being, etc. In other words, a person is not understood as " outstanding person", but the essential characteristic of a person. Personality can also be considered as a personality in general, a specific historical personality, and the personality of a single person.
Individuality is a holistic originality, the originality of an individual, in contrast to typicality, generality.
2. The problem of the beginning of man. The essence of the theory of anthroposociogenesis
There is a biosocial problem in the philosophical study of man. She has great importance for the practice of education, since it characterizes the nature of man.
The biosocial problem is the problem of the correlation and interaction of the social and biological, acquired and inherited, "cultural" and "wild" in man.
Under the biological in a person, it is customary to understand the anatomy of his body, the physiological processes in it. The biological forms the natural forces of man as a living being. The biological affects the individuality of a person, the development of some of his abilities: observation, forms of reaction to the outside world. All these forces are transmitted from parents and give a person the very possibility of existence in the world.
Under the social in a person, philosophy understands, first of all, his ability to think and act practically. This includes spirituality, and attitude to the outside world, citizenship. All this together constitutes the social forces of man. They are acquired by him in society through the mechanisms of socialization, i.e. initiation to the world of culture as a crystallization of the spiritual and practical experience of mankind, and are realized in the course of a variety of activities.
There are three positions on the question of the relationship between the social and the biological.
The first approach is a biological interpretation of a person (S. Freud, F. Galton). The main in a person is proposed to be considered his natural qualities. Everything that is in the behavior and actions of people - all this is due to their hereditary genetic data.
The second approach is predominantly a sociological interpretation of a person (T. More, T. Campanella). Its supporters either completely deny the biological principle in man, or clearly underestimate its significance.
The third approach in solving the biosocial problem tries to avoid the above mentioned extremes. This position is characterized by the desire to consider a person as a complex synthesis, an interweaving of biological and social principles. It is recognized that "man simultaneously lives according to the laws of two worlds: natural and social". But it is emphasized that the basic qualities (the ability to think and act practically) still have a social origin.
In the twentieth century the biological principle in a person changes very quickly under the active influence of adverse social, technological and environmental factors. These changes are increasingly negative.
Natural in a person is a necessary condition for the development of social qualities in an individual. The essence of the biosocial problem is that a person, in order to remain a person, must preserve his biological nature as the basis of existence. The task is to combine the natural and the social in a person, to bring them into a state of agreement and harmony.
The essential forces of a person create all the necessary subjective possibilities for him to be free, i.e. act in the world as you wish. They allow him to put himself and the world under reasonable control, stand out from this world and expand the scope of his own activities. It is in this opportunity to be free that the origins of all the triumphs and tragedies of man, all his ups and downs, are rooted.
Consider the main points and essence of the theory of anthroposociogenesis. First, let's define the term "anthroposociogenesis".
Anthroposociogenesis is a dual process of the formation of a person (anthropogenesis) and the formation of society (sociogenesis).
The problems of anthropogenesis began to be studied in the 18th century. Until that time, the idea prevailed that man and nations have always been and are such as they were created by the creator. However, the idea of development, evolution, including in relation to man and society, was gradually affirmed in science, culture, and public consciousness.
In the middle of the 18th century, C. Linnaeus laid the foundation for the scientific idea of the origin of man. In his "System of Nature" (1735) he attributed man to the animal world, placing him in his classification next to the great apes. In the 18th century, scientific primatology was also born; so, in 1766, J. Buffon's scientific work on the orangutan appeared. The Dutch anatomist P. Camper showed a deep similarity in the structure of the main organs of humans and animals.
In the XVIII - the first half of the XIX century, archaeologists, paleontologists, ethnographers accumulated a large amount of empirical material, which formed the basis of the theory of anthropogenesis. An important role was played by the research of the French archaeologist Boucher de Pert. In the 40-50s. In the 19th century, he was looking for stone tools and proved that they were used by primitive man, who lived simultaneously with the mammoth, etc. These discoveries refuted biblical chronology and met with stormy resistance. Only in the 60s. XIX century Boucher de Perth's ideas were recognized in science.
However, even Lamarck did not dare to bring to its logical conclusion the idea of the evolution of animals and man and deny the role of God in the origin of man (in his Philosophy of Zoology, he wrote about a different origin of man than only from animals).
Darwin's ideas played a revolutionary role in the theory of anthropogenesis. He wrote: "He who does not look, like a savage, at the phenomena of nature as something incoherent, can no longer think that man was the fruit of a separate act of creation."
Man is both a biological being and a social being, therefore anthropogenesis is inextricably linked with sociogenesis, representing in fact a single process of anthroposociogenesis.
Thus, we can say that anthroposociogenesis is the process of historical and evolutionary formation of the physical type of a person, the initial development of his labor activity, speech, and society.
Anthroposociogenesis is a transition from a biological form of the movement of matter to a socially organized one, its content is the emergence and formation of social patterns, the restructuring and change of the driving forces of development that determined the direction of evolution. This complex general theoretical problem requires a synthesis of the achievements of various sciences for its solution. The central issue of anthroposociogenesis is the problem of driving forces and patterns. Since the driving forces of evolution are not fixed, they can only be studied in action, that is, at the moment, on the basis of extrapolation. The general picture of anthropogenesis is reconstructed on the basis of incomplete data both geographically (the vast expanses of Asia and Africa remain unexplored) and chronologically, the gaps in which are filled in by more or less probable hypotheses. The defect in information stems from the singularity of the finds in each of the localities. Individuals are very different from each other, and only relying on data on many individuals can one obtain a group portrait of a local group.
The latest paleoanthropological data testify to the multidirectional and uneven process of hominization, during which individual elements of the hominid complex can be traced already in the most ancient fossils, and the formation of later variants of the consolidation of sapiens characters could have occurred for a long time in parallel in different territories. In modern interpretations of paleanthropological materials, the morphological criterion still remains the main one, but with further progress in biochemical and genetic studies, the role of the genotypic principle will increase in the taxonomy of hominids.
Anthroposociogenesis is a transitional state of matter. Any transitional state is a link in the chain of development of an object or phenomenon, where the signs of a new quality are not yet clearly expressed, have not shown themselves as an opposite in relation to the old quality, have not come into conflict with it. There are two approaches to the problem of patterns of transition states:
1) Transitional states are determined by a set of laws of both the original and higher forms of motion, provided that each of the laws of its nature and its area of influence is preserved. From these positions, anthroposociogenesis is seen as a process controlled by laws that are different in nature: social (labor activity) and biological (natural selection);
2) There are special patterns of the transition period as specific patterns of anthroposociogenesis.
Due to the lack of direct data on the nature of social relations in the initial era of human history, one can only rely on indirect data. But even if direct data (remains of people and traces of their activity) can be interpreted in different ways, then this applies even more so to indirect data (data of physiology, ethology and ethnography). Any more or less detailed reconstruction of the process of sociogenesis is inevitably hypothetical.
In conditions when there is little data and all of them are indirect, the general theoretical provisions that guide the researcher are of paramount importance. That is, when solving the problem of anthroposociogenesis and its driving forces, contact with the field of philosophical categories and general laws of the universe is inevitable.
3. Essence of human existence
Throughout the history of mankind, people constantly ask themselves: why do we live? A person who wants to consciously relate to himself and to the world around him will always be interested in the meaning of his existence and everything that exists. Does a person's life have any meaning? If so, what is the meaning of life and what does it consist of, does it have an abstract universal content or is it a unique characteristic of the life of each person?
Unlike other living beings, man is aware of his own life. The relation of man as a conscious being to his life and to himself is expressed in the meaning and purpose of his life. "The meaning of life is a perceived value (values), to which a person subordinates his life, for the sake of which he sets and realizes life goals." It has a functional value character, it arises only for those who do not "just live", but reflect, feel that they need to live for something. Meaning is an element of the value-motivational sphere of a person's spiritual life.
Philosophers approach the understanding of this issue and, accordingly, its solution from two different positions: from the point of view of a single person and a person as a generic being, humanity.
In the first understanding, the meaning of life is an element of the unique inner spiritual life of the individual, something that he himself formulates for himself, regardless of the prevailing systems of social values. From these positions it is impossible to speak of a single meaning of life for all. Each individual discovers it in his own thoughts and on his own experience, building his own hierarchy of values.
A. Camus, in whose work the question of the meaning of life has taken a central place, solves it paradoxically: arguing that the world is absurd, chaotic, and therefore belief in the meaning of life is also absurd, he still finds the meaning of life in rebellion against the absurd. Answering the question of what life in an absurd world means, he writes: “Nothing but indifference to the future and the desire to exhaust everything that is given. Belief in the meaning of life always implies a scale of values, choice, preference. Belief in the absurd, by definition, teaches us directly opposite"; "Experiencing your life, your rebellion, your freedom as fully as possible means to live, and to the fullest"; "Rebellion is confidence in the overwhelming power of fate, but without the humility that usually accompanies it ... This rebellion gives life a price."
This position is also characteristic of other existentialist philosophers. They associate the destiny of man, true human existence, with the fullness of experience. own life, with the search for and manifestation of a unique "personal self" through rebellion, struggle, love, suffering, soaring in thought, creativity, the joy of self-realization.
An existential understanding of the meaning of life opposes the aspirations to impose a realm of truth and meaning "finally discovered" by someone. “These saviors,” wrote the Russian philosopher S. L. Frank, “as we now see, immensely exaggerated in their blind hatred the evil of the past, the evil of all the empirical, already realized, surrounding life, and just as much exaggerated in their blind pride their own mental and moral powers.
Awareness of the meaning of existence is a continuous work to comprehend and rethink the values for which a person lives. The search process goes in parallel with its implementation, as a result of which there is a reassessment of values, a reshaping of the original goals and meanings. A person seeks to bring his activity in line with them or changes the goals and meanings themselves.
At the same time, the meaning of human existence also exists as a phenomenon of consciousness of the human race. His searches represent the second aspect of understanding the question, what is the meaning of life. They were prepared by the long process of human evolution, the development of the reflective ability of his thinking, the formation of self-consciousness. Historically, the first form of awareness of the problem of the meaning of human existence, why he is needed, were religious ideas. In the future, philosophy became their companion and opponent.
Religious philosophy has retained the greatest fidelity to the search for the abstract-universal meaning of human life. It connects the meaning of human life with the contemplation and embodiment of the divine principle of man in faith, in striving for superhuman holiness, in communion with truth and the highest good. According to V.S. Solovyov "the meaning of life cannot coincide with the arbitrary and changeable requirements of each of the countless individuals of the human race."
Despite the fact that religious philosophy has traditionally paid the greatest attention to the search for an abstract universal meaning of human life, it would be a mistake to deny the contribution of atheistic thinkers. Thus, in Marxist philosophy, the meaning of human life is seen in the self-realization of the essential forces of man through his active transformative activity. The philosopher-psychoanalyst E. Fromm has a similar position: "the meaning of life is in the development of humanity: reason, the humanity of freedom of thought."
The two considered aspects of resolving the issue of the meaning of life are not antagonistic. They complement each other, revealing different facets of this issue.
The question of the meaning of existence is also the question of the meaning of human death, of his immortality. The meaning of life is determined not only in relation to actuality, but also in relation to eternal time, in which there is no longer a physically living individual. To understand the meaning of existence is to determine one's place in the eternal stream of changes. If a person did not leave a shadow after his life, then his life in relation to eternity was only illusory.
The problem of the meaning of human existence and death will never lose its relevance. For mankind, accelerating its movement to technical and informational heights, it is especially urgent.
conclusions
The conjugation of man and philosophy is an expression of the essence of philosophical culture. Philosophical culture is a form of self-knowledge of a person, his worldview and value orientation in the world. Therefore, a person is always at the base of philosophical orientation, he acts both as its natural-humanitarian prerequisite and as a natural goal, the super-task of philosophy.
In other words, man is both the subject and the object of philosophical knowledge. Whatever specific questions philosophy may deal with at one stage or another of its development, it is always permeated by real human life and striving to solve pressing human problems. This connection of philosophy with man, his needs and interests is constant and enduring.
Man is not just a biological animal or an absolutely social person. Man is a unique combination of biological and social characteristics inherent only to him and no one else among the living beings inhabiting the earth. Man is a biosocial being and an attempt to reject one of his original principles will eventually lead to the collapse of the personality: one cannot forever avoid "animal" desires, and just as forever one cannot live "like an animal".
Asking myself the question: why I was born and live on earth, I cannot give a definite answer. What comes to mind in the first place, then immediately swept aside after some sound reflection on these reasons. I admit that they are wrong and cannot be a serious answer to this question. But the more I think about the answer to this question, the more I understand that I do not know him for sure, just as others did not know before me, just as they will not know for a long time after me.
Literature
1. Berdyaev N. A. On the appointment of a person // Philosophical Sciences, 1999, No. 2.
2. Erygin A. E. Fundamentals of philosophy: textbook. - M .: "Publishing house Dashkov and K", 2006.
3. Efimov Yu.I. Philosophical problems of the theory of anthroposociogenesis. L.: Nauka, 1981.
4. Krapivensky S.E. General course of philosophy. - Volgograd: Volgogradsky Publishing House state university, 1998.
5. Solopov E. F. Philosophy. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2004.
6. Philosophy / Ed. Tsaregorodtseva G.I. - M .: "Publishing House Dashkov and K", 2003.
7. Philosophy: a course of lectures: a textbook for universities / Ed. V.L. Kalashnikov. – M.: VLADOS, 2002.
8. Frank S. L. The meaning of life // Questions of Philosophy. 1990, no. 6.
9. Khrustalev Yu.M. General course of philosophy. – M.: Infra-M, 2004.
10. Dictionary social science terms. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 1999.
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. This is a 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 the destruction of man and the environment, is becoming an urgent task today - the negative experience accumulated by mankind is too great.
Nature matters in the organization of social life and as a basis 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 foundation - 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.
its remoteness from the ordinary, ordinary in life, from what is considered to be the norm in people's life.
An important characteristic of loneliness is that it is accompanied by the disintegration of the integrity of a person, the presence of his "I" between the body (earth) and spirit (heaven).
The loneliness of a person largely depends on the extent to which he realizes his own existence in the reality surrounding him. It is easier for a dependent person who does not feel his own vital viability to accept the world around him. But any independence comes from the opposition of a person to the surrounding reality, sometimes to the whole world, which (generates) a real threat of loneliness in this own reality created by a person. Loneliness can manifest
lyatsya both in a positive and negative sense. Unfortunately, consideration of this aspect of the problem is beyond the scope of this article.
Bibliographic list
1. Berdyaev N.A. About man, his freedom and spirituality. Selected works. - M.: Flinta, 1999. -S. 216-217.
2. Demidov A.B. Phenomena of human existence. - Minsk: Ekonompress, 1999. - S. 48-49.
3. Marx K., Engels F. From early works. - M.: State publishing house of political literature, 1956. - S. 589-590.
4. Pascal B. Judgments and aphorisms. - M.: Politizdat, 1990. - S. 192, 208.
5. Engels F. Origin of private property, family and state. - M.: Politizdat, 1986. - S. 239.
Tuman-Nikiforov Arkady Anatolievich
PhD in Philosophy Krasnoyarsk State agricultural university
ATuman-Nikiforo [email protected] atandex. en
Tuman-Nikiforova Irina Olegovna
Candidate of Historical Sciences Krasnoyarsk State Institute of Trade and Economics
[email protected]уandex.ru
ESSENCE OF HUMAN AS AN OBJECT OF STUDY OF SCIENCE
The article is devoted to the consideration of the current state of the study of the essence of man. Comprehension of the essence of the subject is the task of science. Modern philosophical anthropology often operates with the image of a person without essence, which leads to a number of errors in social practice. The author's definition of the essence of man as a combination of biological, social and spiritual qualities is given.
Key words: essence, phenomenon, nature, person, system.
Starting to study a person and the meaning of his life, it is required to reveal by. concepts of "nature" and "essence" of man. These concepts have not received an unambiguous interpretation. Some authors use the concepts of "nature" and "essence" as synonyms, others, on the contrary, separate them, and at the same time, both of them often interpret what is behind these concepts in different ways. Man is studied by many sciences. But most of them, including philosophy, have a vague idea of what the nature and essence of man are. Meanwhile, “essence is the internal content of an object, expressed in the unity of all the diverse and contradictory forms of its being; phenomenon - this or that detection (expression)
object, external forms of its existence. In thinking, the categories “essence” and “phenomenon” express the transition from the diversity of the present forms of an object to its internal content and unity - to the concept. Comprehension of the essence of the subject is the task of science. It is impossible to fully study and comprehend a person without comprehending his essence, which implies the search for an adequate definition.
There is every reason to agree with V.I. Derevyanko, who writes that neither philosophical anthropology nor other sciences that study a person have a sufficiently clear idea of what the essence of a person is and what it consists of, and some anthropologists believe that it does not need to be looked for, since it is not -
© Tuman-Nikiforov A.A., Tuman-Nikiforova I.O., 2011
the perceptibility of his essence is the most important quality of a person. Of course, this cannot be considered normal. Science must give a definition of the essence of man, and this should not be done by private sciences, but by philosophy, this is its epistemological and methodological functions.
Turning in the study of any subject from the diversity of its available forms to its inner content and unity, we pass to its essence. It can be concluded that the essence of an object is what distinguishes this object from other objects, i.e. the totality of its main defining qualities that make it precisely this, and not another subject. What qualities distinguish and delimit a person? In our opinion, these qualities are divided into biological, social and spiritual. The essence is not the object itself, taken in its entirety, but the essence does not exist separately from the concrete object, “in it”, “before it”, “above it” or “behind it”. At the same time, the category of essence is not a creation of the human intellect, a category of consciousness, as some believe, but only reflects an objective reality, an objectively existing set of the main distinctive qualities of an object.
So J. Shchepansky writes: “The human essence is an idea, a creation of the intellect, something like goodness, justice, truth. Human essence is the ideal representation of a person. She is a collection of ideal traits." One cannot agree with this. Goodness, justice, truth are not just creations of the intellect, but social and ethical categories. They are formulated by consciousness, through their awareness, comprehension and cognition, but exist independently of it, in social relations. The essence of the category is not only social, but, first of all, ontological and epistemological. At the same time, the essence and the ideal are two different things. Striving for the realization of the ideal, incl. to the realization of the ideal of man, is really inherent in the essence of man, but at the same time, many people do not strive for any ideal, lead a “half-vegetative”, “half-animal” existence, but by no means cease to be people in their essence.
The human essence is a set of not ideal, but real, main distinguishing qualities of a person. The essence of man is the unity of three principles: biological, social
and spiritual. Man, therefore, is a bio-socio-spiritual phenomenon. All other qualities and properties of a person can be explained either as a more particular case of one of the three common components, or as a manifestation of their complex interaction. All the qualities and properties of a person are thus brought into a system consisting of three main subsystems, as well as various relationships and connections between them.
The fact that the essence of the category is epistemological does not cause much discussion. But is essence really a category not only epistemological, but also ontological? “Essence is the inner content of an object, expressed in the unity of all the diverse and contradictory forms of its being; phenomenon, this or that discovery (expression) of an object, external forms of its existence. This definition must be fully accepted. It follows from this that the essence is connected with the existence of the object "in itself", with the noumenal existence of the object, regardless of whether it is perceived by the cognizing subject, discovered or not. With the phenomenal existence of an object, with its discovery and perception, with its self-expression “for us”, and not just “in itself”, it is precisely the phenomenon, and not the essence as such, that is connected. From this it would be quite possible to draw the following conclusion: the essence is just not an epistemological category, it is associated with the noumenal being of the object “in itself”, and the epistemological category is a phenomenon that is a reflection and comprehension of the essence by the consciousness of the cognizing subject and is based on the discovery of the object, its perception and understanding. The object, being revealed to the consciousness of the subject, is the subject of knowledge, and being not manifested, it is simply an object of nature, an element of being that exists on its own, outside and independently of the consciousness of the subject, but at the same time has its own unique essence, which makes it exactly that. and not another subject.
It is impossible to reduce this conclusion for only one reason: overcoming the metaphysical opposition of essence and phenomenon, Hegel argued that essence is, and phenomenon is the phenomenon of essence. Therefore, both the essence and the phenomenon, considered in their inseparable unity with each other, should be considered as both ontological and epistemological categories.
logical. “Essence and phenomenon are universal objective characteristics of the objective world; in the process of cognition, they act as steps in the comprehension of the object. In the first part, essence and phenomenon are characterized as ontological categories, in the second - as epistemological. Both of these are correct. “Theoretical knowledge of the essence of an object is connected with the disclosure of the laws of its development”, but this development unfolds on its own, regardless of consciousness, i.e. in ontological reality. "Ontology ... a branch of philosophy that studies ... the most general essences and categories of beings" . It also follows from this that any entity, incl. the essence of a person, a category, first of all, ontological, because man, his nature and essence, are among the most general categories of beings, and the very indication that “ontology studies the most general essences” indicates that essence is an ontological category. However, the epistemological one too: “The laws of thought and the laws of being coincide in their content: the dialectic of concepts is a reflection of the dialectical movement of the real world. The categories of materialistic dialectics have an ontological content and at the same time perform epistemological functions: reflecting the objective world, they serve as steps for its cognition. As we can see, even in the traditional understanding of ontology as “the doctrine of being as such”, essence should be considered as a category, first of all, ontological, and already in the second place - epistemological. However, we interpret ontology not as a doctrine of being, but as a doctrine (part of philosophy) of nature, bringing ontology closer not to metaphysics, but to natural philosophy.
Detailed substantiations of such an author's understanding are the subject of a separate study, but the essence is as follows. In our opinion, the category "being as such" is a theoretical abstraction and can be understood differently only within the framework of idealistic philosophy. Practical, real being are: “being of things”, “being of objects and phenomena (including “being of mental phenomena”)”, “being of nature”, “being of society”, “being of a person”, etc. However, the basis of the foundations of any form of being is the "being of nature", without which all other forms of being are impossible. Of course, the "being of society", "the being of man" and non-
which other forms are not wholly and completely reducible to the being of nature, are relatively independent (“out of nature”) from it, but at the same time are impossible in isolation from it. The being of nature, or, in other words, nature itself as such, is the basis of society, man, and everything else. Therefore, within the framework of materialistic philosophy, the question “what does it mean to be (“what is it to be?”)” actually means the question of the rootedness of this or that object or phenomenon in nature, about their place in the system of nature. The understanding of essence as an ontological category does not contradict the established understanding of ontology, but fits even more into our author's understanding: an essence is a set of those defining qualities that an object possesses "by nature", i.e. which he acquires in the process of formation and development. This process itself (regardless of whether it is social or spiritual) is in any case inscribed in other (including natural) processes, is an integral part of the system of nature, and without the existence of nature would be absolutely impossible.
The essence of a person (in contrast to the nature of a person) is what distinguishes a person from all other objects and phenomena, i.e. the totality of its main, defining qualities. A similar understanding of the essence is found in S.S. Batenin (however, he calls it nature, which once again testifies to a fair amount of confusion that reigns in the field of understanding the nature and essence of man): “The nature of a person is everything in which and in what a person is different from all other creatures, which characterizes the features of his being » . But does a person have an essence (in this sense)? After all, some philosophers oppose the use of the term "man in general", insist that people differ from each other much more than from a rhinoceros, that there are no such main, defining qualities that all people would have in general, but only those that define the essence of a given individual, but not "man in general".
M.L. Khorkov, following M. Scheler, opposes attempts to define the essence of a person, emphasizing that it is precisely indefinability that is precisely the essence of a person, which is dual in nature: the essence of a person as an individual and the essence of a person as a species, a member of the community. Where is the duality here? A member of a community is an individual,
Bulletin of KSU im. ON THE. Nekrasov ♦ № 2, 2011
a species also consists of a sum of individuals. And in all these cases, a person (an individual, a member of a community, a species) is a biosocio-spiritual being. The evolution of the individual (socialization and inculturation) really differs from the evolution of the species (sociogenesis and cultural genesis), but at the same time is directly related to it (socialization is a direct consequence of sociogenesis, and inculturation - cultural genesis).
“Modern philosophical anthropology operates with the image of a person without essence in the traditional metaphysical sense of the word. Man today is seen as an irreducible, non-predetermined, inexpressible, irreplaceable, inimitable, transcending being. Reason in the sense of rationality is no longer considered a defining characteristic of a person. Some researchers consider this state of affairs to be quite normal and are in no hurry to define the essence of a person: “To reveal the nature of a person through his essential definition is like putting a ball through the eye of a needle. The eye of the needle requires the destruction of the integrity of the ball, rolling it into a straight thread and dismembering the latter into separate parts, which makes the ball disappear. This is exactly what we do with a person as a most complex system, when we reduce the process of his comprehension to some essential definitions: through the body (Feuerbach), through the unconscious (Freud), through social relations (Marx), through personal will (Nietzsche), through reason (Hegel), through emotional experiences (existentialism), etc. As a result, the person as a whole disappears. The modern approach, trying to restore integrity to a person, declares him a cosmo-biopsy-social being. But this application remains an empty declaration, because the summation of the components (even essential ones) does not give integrity. The way of linking the attributive characteristics of a person into an organic whole remains unclear.
There is no doubt that man is a complex system. This is its essential definition. It is only required to clarify what elements (subsystems) this system consists of and how these elements are connected (method of connection) into a single whole. Man is the most complex biosocio-spiritual system, a combination of biological (natural, hereditary), social (acquired in society, in the process of socialization) and spiritual (self-educated, self-development).
tyh, self-educated) qualities, consisting of three main subsystems (biological, social and spiritual), which are in internal unity and interpenetration into each other. The essence of man in the unity of the biological, social and spiritual is that he is a bio-socio-spiritual being. Although the remark of G.G. Pronina that "the method of linking the attributive characteristics of a person into an organic whole remains unclear." Therefore, research in this area will certainly continue, but it is after an unambiguous definition of the nature and essence of man that these studies can reach a new level of comprehension of man and the meaning of his life. Using the category of “essence”, together with its unambiguous, clear and precise definition, philosophical and other sciences will finally be able to more effectively approach the comprehension of all other, diverse and contradictory, manifestations of a person, because a phenomenon (manifestation) is a phenomenon of the essence of an object.
Bibliographic list
1. Batenin S.S. Man in his history. - L .: Publishing house Len. un-ta, 1976. - 296 p.
2. Derevyanko V.I. Human science in the system of knowledge about man and nature. [Electronic resource]. - Access mode: http://ocheloveke.narod.ru/
3. Nevvazhay I.D. From a reasonable person to a lying person // Man in modern philosophical concepts: Proceedings of the Third International Scientific Conference, Volgograd, September 14-17, 2004: In 2 volumes - Vol. 1. - Volgograd: PRINT, 2004. - C .95-99.
4. Pronina G.G. Ontological aspect of the problem of human integrity // Man in modern philosophical. - T. 1. - S. 171-175.
5. Tuman-Nikiforov A.A., Tuman-Nikiforova I. O. Nature and essence of man. - Krasnoyarsk: Krasnoyarsk. state trade-econ. in-t. 2008. - 232 p.
6. Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary / Ed. L.F. Ilyichev. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1983. - 840 p.
7. Khorkov M.L. Philosophical anthropology of Max Scheler: theme and project // Man in modern philosophical. - T. 2. - S. 524-528.
8. Shestov L.I. On the scales of Job: A journey through the souls. - Paris: YMCA-PRESS, 1975. - 412 p.
9. Shchepansky Ya. About a person and society. -M.: INION AN SSSR, 1990. - 174 p.
Modern science studies a person, firstly, as a representative of a biological species; secondly, he is regarded as a member of society; thirdly, it is studied as a subject of objective activity; fourthly, the patterns of development of a particular person are studied (see Fig. 1).
Picture 1. The structure of the concept of "individuality" (according to B. G. Ananiev)
The history of the formation of the concept of "Man". The beginning of a purposeful study of man as a biological species can be considered the works of Carl Linnaeus, who singled him out as an independent species of Homo sapiens in the order of primates. The idea of considering man as an element of living nature was a kind of turning point in the study of man.
Anthropology is a special science of man as a special biological species.
The structure of modern anthropology includes three main sections: human morphology(study of individual variability of the physical type, age stages - from the early stages of embryonic development to old age inclusive, sexual dimorphism, changes physical development person under the influence of various conditions of life and activity), the doctrine of anthropogenesis(on the change in the nature of the nearest ancestor of man and of man himself during the Quaternary period), consisting of primate science, evolutionary human anatomy and paleoanthropology (studying fossil forms of man) and racial science.
In addition to anthropology, there are other related sciences that study humans as a biological species. For example, the physical type of a Human as its general somatic organization is studied by such natural sciences as human anatomy and physiology, biophysics and biochemistry, psychophysiology, and neuropsychology. A special place in this series is occupied by medicine, which includes numerous sections.
The doctrine of anthropogenesis - the origin and development of man - is also associated with the sciences that study biological evolution on Earth, since human nature cannot be understood outside the general and consistently developing process of evolution of the animal world. Paleontology, embryology, as well as comparative physiology and comparative biochemistry can be attributed to this group of sciences.
It should be emphasized that particular disciplines played an important role in the development of the doctrine of anthropogenesis. Among them, first of all, it is necessary to include the physiology of higher nervous activity. Thanks to I.P. Pavlov, who showed great interest in certain genetic problems of higher nervous activity, the physiology of higher nervous activity of anthropoids became the most formed department of comparative physiology.
A huge role in understanding the development of man as a biological species is played by comparative psychology, which combines zoopsychology and general psychology person. The beginning of experimental studies of primates in zoopsychology was laid scientific work such scientists as V. Koehler and N. N. Ladygina-Kots. Thanks to the successes of zoopsychology, many of the mechanisms of human behavior and the patterns of his mental development have become clear.
There are sciences that are in direct contact with the doctrine of anthropogenesis, but play a significant role in its development. These include genetics and archeology. A special place is occupied by paleolinguistics, which studies the origin of the language, its sound means and control mechanisms. The origin of language is one of the central moments of sociogenesis, and the origin of speech is the central moment of anthropogenesis, since articulate speech is one; one of the main differences between humans and animals.
It should be noted that the social sciences are closely connected with the problem of anthropogenesis (sociogenesis). These include paleosociology, which studies the formation of human society, and the history of primitive culture.
Thus, a person as a representative of a biological species is the object of study of many sciences, including psychology. On fig. 2 presents the classification of B. G. Ananiev of the main problems and sciences of Homo sapiens . Anthropology occupies a central place among the sciences that study the origin and development of man as an independent biological species. At some stage of biological development, a person was isolated from the animal world (the borderline stage of “anthro-hugenesis-sociogenesis”), and in human evolution the action of natural selection, based on biological expediency and survival of individuals and species most adapted to the natural environment, ceased. With the transition of man from the animal world to the social one, with his transformation into a biosocial being, the laws of natural selection were replaced by qualitatively different laws of development.
The question of why and how the transition of a person from the animal world to the social one took place is central in the sciences that study anthropogenesis, and so far there is no unambiguous answer to it. There are several points of view on this problem. One of them is based on the following assumption: as a result of a mutation, the human brain turned into a super brain, which allowed a person to stand out from the animal world and create a society. P. Shoshar adheres to this point of view. According to this point of view, in historical time, the organic development of the brain is impossible due to its mutational origin.
Figure 2. Sciences that study a person as a biological object
There is another point of view, which is based on the assumption that the organic development of the brain and the development of man as a species led to qualitative structural changes in the brain, after which development began to be carried out according to other laws that differ from the laws of natural selection. But just because the body and brain remain largely unchanged does not mean that there is no development. The studies of I. A. Stankevich testify that structural changes occur in the human brain, progressive development of various parts of the hemisphere, the isolation of new convolutions, and the formation of new furrows are observed. Therefore, the question of whether a person will change can be answered in the affirmative. However, these evolutionary changes will mainly concern the social conditions of human life and his personal development, and biological changes in the species Homo sapiens will be of secondary importance.
Thus, man as a social being, as a member of society, is no less interesting for science, since the modern development of man as a species Homo sapiens is no longer carried out according to the laws of biological survival, but according to the laws of social development.
The problem of sociogenesis cannot be considered outside the social sciences. The list of these sciences is very long. They can be divided into several groups depending on the phenomena they study or are associated with. For example, the sciences associated with art, with technological progress, with education.
In turn, according to the degree of generalization of the approach to the study of human society, these sciences can be divided into two groups: sciences that consider the development of society as a whole, in the interaction of all its elements, and sciences that study certain aspects of the development of human society. From the point of view of this classification of sciences, humanity is an integral entity that develops according to its own laws and, at the same time, a multitude of individuals. Therefore, all social sciences can be attributed either to the sciences of human society, or to the sciences of man as an element of society. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that in this classification there is no sufficiently clear line between different sciences, since many social sciences can be associated both with the study of society as a whole and with the study of an individual.
Ananiev believes that the system of sciences about humanity (human society) should include the sciences about the productive forces of society, the sciences about the settlement and composition of humanity, the sciences about production and social relations, about culture, art and science itself as a system of knowledge, the sciences about the forms of society at various stages of its development. It is necessary to highlight the sciences that study the interaction of man with nature and mankind with the natural environment. An interesting point of view, which adhered to on this issue.
V. I. Vernadsky is the creator of the biogeochemical theory, in which he singled out two opposite biogeochemical functions that are in interaction and are associated with the history of free oxygen - the O 2 molecule. These are the functions of oxidation and reduction. On the one hand, they are associated with the provision of respiration and reproduction, and on the other hand, with the destruction of dead organisms. According to Vernadsky, man and mankind are inextricably linked with the biosphere - a certain part of the planet on which they live, since they are geologically naturally connected with the material and energy structure of the Earth.
Man is inseparable from nature, but unlike animals, he has an activity aimed at transforming the natural environment in order to ensure optimal conditions for life and activity. In this case, we are talking about the emergence of the noosphere.
The concept of "noosphere" was introduced by Le Roy together with Teilhard de Chardin in 1927. They were based on the biogeochemical theory set forth by Vernadsky in 1922-1923. at the Sorbonne. According to Vernadsky, the noosphere, or "thinking layer", is a new geological phenomenon on our planet. In it, for the first time, man appears as the largest geological force capable of transforming the planet.
There are sciences, the subject of which is a specific person. This category may include the sciences of ontogeny - developmental process of the individual organism. Within the framework of this direction, gender, age, constitutional and neurodynamic features of a person are studied. In addition, there are sciences about the personality and its life path, within the framework of which the motives of human activity, his worldview and value orientations, relations with the outside world are studied.
It should be borne in mind that all sciences or scientific areas that study a person are closely interconnected and together give a holistic view of a person and human society. However, whichever of the directions is considered, to one degree or another, it represents various sections of psychology. This is not accidental, since the phenomena studied by psychology largely determine the activity of a person as a biosocial being.
Thus, a person is a multifaceted phenomenon. His research should be holistic. Therefore, it is no coincidence that one of the main methodological concepts used to study a person is the concept of a systematic approach. It reflects the systemic nature of the world order.
Figure 3 Scheme of the general structure of a person, the development of his properties, internal and external relationships.
H.s. - Homo sapiens (reasonable man, biological species); o - ontogeny; c - socialization; and - life path; l - personality; and - individual; Ying - individuality (From: Psychology: Textbook. / Under the editorship of A. A. Krylov. - M .: Prospekt, 1999.)
In accordance with the above concept, any system exists because there is a system-forming factor. In the system of sciences that study man, such a factor is the man himself, and it is necessary to study it in all its variety of manifestations and connections with the outside world, since only in this case it is possible to get a complete picture of man and the laws of his social and biological development. The figure shows a diagram of the structural organization of a person, as well as his internal and external relationships.