The moral aspect in the structure of the existence of society. Philosophical understanding of the category of being. The purpose of man: the purpose and meaning of life

AXIOLOGY(from Greek αξια - value and λόγος - word) is a philosophical discipline that studies the essence, types and functions of values. Each area of human existence corresponds to certain values.

For the first time, the question of values was raised by Socrates, who made it the main point of his worldview concept and formulated it in the form of a reasoning about what is good for a person. According to Socrates, a good is a realized value or utility. Thus, value and usefulness are the two main characteristics of being.
The beginning of axiology as philosophical science traditionally attributed to the teachings of I. Kant, who first raised the question of values as something that matters proper and freedom. Allocation of A. as an independent philosophical problem in the late XIX - early XX century. was associated with the need to resolve some complex philosophical issues (the impossibility of eliminating evaluative moments from mental activity, revising the justification of ethical criteria, the connection of the cognitive process not only with the intellect, but also with the will, for which values are of great importance, etc.) .

The formation of axiological problems as the cornerstone of philosophical constructions took place at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century. In the philosophy of A. Schopenhauer, W. Dilthey, S. Kierkegaard and other thinkers, the basic values of European civilization as a whole were questioned, and F. Nietzsche proposed a global program of "reassessment of all values". Since that time, the development of philosophy has been determined by the so-called. axiological turn. At one time, this turn made possible the anthropological and existential turns in the philosophizing of the 20th century. The leading questions of axiology: the condition for the possibility of assessments, their criteria, the place of values in the structure of being, the objectivity and subjectivity of values, the correlation of different systems of values among themselves.

In all numerous objects and phenomena become values, and this unites their relationship to man. All of them are aimed at the benefit of a person, at his approval in life. This is the main feature of values.
Such a concept reveals only one aspect of values - the objectivist one. Adherents of this position think that the source of values is God, nature, culture (history). Thus, the representative of objective idealism, neo-Thomism and German philosophy, who used the phenomenological method of E. Husserl in the field of ethics, culture, religion, Max Scheller (1874-1928) argued that God initially determined a certain scale of values, and a person only needs to adequately realize it and not reject it. Materialists defined values as coming from nature. In their view, the nature of things and the nature of man determine the fact that many things are of value to man. On the example of the initial foundations of the philosophy of objectivism in modern times, the idea of natural human rights was formulated, which declared the main values of bourgeois society (the right to life, freedom, the results of one's own work), despite the fact that idealists derived this type of law from the theory of the existence of God, and materialists are from nature. This idea is considered a vivid manifestation of objectivism. It proclaims natural rights to be eternal, truly existing, independent of human consciousness and the will of legislators.
Objectivist conceptions of values do not take into account the subject, his consciousness. According to this definition, for example, a clean atmosphere, health are considered values indifferently, whether a person understands this or not. In the subjectivist aspect, value largely depends on the consciousness of the subject, since it is considered only that which the subject appreciates, in relation to which he feels its importance.

To begin with, psychologism adheres to the position of subjectivism - a trend whose representatives determine values through the mental states of the subject. This phenomenon has long become a fairly well-known fact, even the sophists defined a person, considered at the level of mental interests, as the measure of all things - usefulness, justice, and so on. The theory of naturalistic psychologism (Meinong, Perry, Dewey, Lewis) boils down to the fact that the source of values is reduced to biopsychologically interpreted human needs, and values can be empirically fixed in the role of many facts. One of the most influential in this regard is the idea of the founder of pragmatism, the American philosopher Charles-Sanders Pierce, who considered value as a fact that satisfies a person's need. But this view is not shared by all philosophers. For example, the German thinker Franz Brentano (1838-1917) believed that a person insistently demands something, something that is of value to him. According to him, value determines necessity.

Objectivist conceptions of values do not take into account the subject, his consciousness. According to this definition, clean air, health are values, regardless of whether a person is aware of it or not. In the subjectivist aspect, value depends on the consciousness of the subject, since it is considered only that which the subject appreciates, to which he attaches importance.
The position of subjectivism is held, first of all, by psychologism - a trend whose representatives determine values through the mental states of the subject. As you know, even the sophists proclaimed a person, considered at the level of mental interests, the measure of all things - usefulness, justice, etc. The theory of naturalistic psychologism (Meinong, Perry, Dewey, Lewis) boils down to the fact that the source of values lies in the biopsychologically interpreted human needs, and the values themselves can be empirically fixed as certain facts. One of the most influential among modern psychologists is the concept of the founder of pragmatism, the American philosopher Charles-Sanders Pierce, who considered value as something that satisfies a person's need. However, this view is not shared by all philosophers. For example, the German thinker Franz Brentano (1838-1917) believed that a person requires something that is of value to him. According to him, value determines need.

Unlike representatives of psychologism, I. Kant, neo-Kantinians consider transcendental consciousness as a subject - consciousness taken from the point of view of the most general laws of its functioning (not specific consciousness, but consciousness in general). Such a direction as transcendentalism was developed in the Baden school of neo-Kantianism by the German philosophers Wilhelm Windelband (1848-1915) and Heinrich Rickert (1863-1936) - based on the Kantian delimitation of existing being (existing) and proper (what should be). The basis of this neo-Kantinian conception is the idea of value as an ideal being, correlated not with empirical, but with “pure”, as well as transcendental consciousness. Being impeccable, values do not depend much on human needs and desires.

According to them, it is impossible to deduce what is proper from the existing (existing being), in other words, from what is, it is impossible to deduce what should be. In life, moral people are unhappy from time to time, immoral people are happy. Because of this, the requirement to "be moral" cannot be based on the facts of life. Despite this, values must somehow correlate with reality. For this reason, we need to either idealize empirical consciousness, attributing normativity to it, or develop the idea of a “logos”, some superhuman basis on which values are based.

Weber developed the neo-Kantian idea of value as a norm, the way of being of which is considered to be significance for the subject, and used it to interpret social action. Then, in the school of structural-functional analysis (Talcott Parsons), the term value gets generalized methodological sense as a way of identifying and describing social relations and institutions: a social system of any size can offer the presence of many values shared by all its members.

Personalistic ontologism develops the last of the two possibilities mentioned above, connected with the idea of "logos" (Scheler). The reality of value is due, according to Scheller, "to the timeless axiological series in God", an imperfect reflection of which is the structure of the human personality. The type of a person is determined by his inherent hierarchy of values, which forms the ontological basis of a person. Nikolai Hartman in this context raised the question of the importance of the autonomization of values and the liberation of axiology from religious premises.
Many thinkers think that values are considered the product of culture and history. This idea has acquired the name of cultural-historical relativism. In their opinion, values (or rather, the fact that later began to be considered as the presence of value) are formed in special cultural and historical conditions. They are not considered eternal and existing for a long time, however, as regards the consciousness of an individual, they acquire an objective character. For example, the cost of a product, despite the fact that it is a product of a person's conscious activity, does not depend on his consciousness, but is determined by the operation of economic laws. It is not considered unchanged, and at each time has a different value. This theory is associated with the name of Dilthey, who promoted the idea of axiological pluralism, in other words, the idea of a plurality of equal value systems that depend on the cultural-historical context and are known during the analysis of this type of contexts. Such views were also held by Hegel, Marx, Mannheim and others.

The phenomenological idea of values is considered close to neo-Kantinian. Its most striking representative, the German philosopher E. Husserl and his followers, argued that values are constituted (performed) by a transcendental subject, but they form their own sphere of values, which acquires an objective character. Just like mathematical objects, values have an eternal and unchanging character (in this case, their opinion is close to objective idealism). The fact that the same value is interpreted differently at different times, according to phenomenologists, does not contradict its immutable and eternal character. Thus, phenomenology tries with all its might to reconcile historicism, the variability of values, and the assertion of their eternal and unchanging character.

Modern axiology is distinguished by a pluralism of directions and concepts: the value relativism of postmodernism, comparative philosophy, hermeneutics, the philosophy and sociology of knowledge, the philosophy and sociology of education, etc. It largely determines not only the theoretical, but also the spiritual and practical attitude to the world and to man, the meaning its existence, ideals and imperatives of human existence.

Being is one of the main philosophical categories. The study of being is carried out in such a "branch" philosophical knowledge like an ontology. The life-oriented orientation of philosophy, in essence, puts the problem of being at the center of any philosophical concept. However, attempts to reveal the content of this category are faced with great difficulties: at first glance, it is too broad and vague. On this basis, some thinkers believed that the category of being is an "empty" abstraction. Hegel wrote: "For thought, there can be nothing more insignificant in its content than being." F. Engels, arguing with the German philosopher E. Dühring, also believed that the category of being can do little to help us in explaining the unity of the world, the direction of its development. However, in the 20th century, an "ontological turn" is planned, philosophers call for the return of the category of being to its true meaning. How is the rehabilitation of the idea of being consistent with close attention to the inner world of a person, his individual characteristics, the structures of his mental activity?

The content of being philosophical category different from the common understanding. The being of everyday life is everything that exists: individual things, people, ideas, words. Is it important for a philosopher to find out what it is to "be", to exist? Is the existence of words different from the existence of ideas, and the existence of ideas from the existence of things? Whose kind of existence is more solid? How to explain the existence of separate things - "from themselves", or to look for the basis of their existence in something else - in the beginning, the absolute idea? Does such an Absolute Existence exist, independent of anyone or anything, determining the existence of all other things, and can a person cognize it? And, finally, the most important thing: what are the features of human existence, what are its connections with the Absolute Being, what are the possibilities for strengthening and improving one's being? The basic desire to "be", as we have seen, is the main "vital prerequisite" for the existence of philosophy. Philosophy is a search for forms of human involvement in Absolute Being, fixing oneself in being. Ultimately, the question of being is a question of overcoming non-existence, of life and death.

The concept of being is closely connected with the concept of substance. The concept of substance (from Latin substantia - essence) has two aspects:

1. Substance is something that exists "by itself" and does not depend on anything else for its existence.
2. Substance is the fundamental principle; the existence of all other things depends on its existence.

From these two definitions it is clear that the content of the concepts of being and substance are in contact. At the same time, the content of the concept of substance is more articulated, the explanatory function of the concept of "substance", in contrast to "being", is clear. "Naturally" the content of one concept is replaced by another: speaking of being, we most often speak of the fundamental principle of the world, of substance. Further concretization leads to the fact that philosophers begin to speak of being as something quite definite - a spiritual or material-material principle. So the question of being as a question of the meaning of human existence is replaced by the question of the origin of all that exists. A person turns into a simple "consequence" of a material or spiritual principle.

Ordinary consciousness perceives the terms "to be", "to exist", "to be in cash" as synonyms. Philosophy, on the other hand, uses the terms "to be", "being" to denote not just existence, but that which guarantees existence. Therefore, the word "being" acquires a special meaning in philosophy, which can be understood only by turning to consideration from the historical and philosophical positions to the problems of being.

For the first time the term "being" was introduced into philosophy ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides to designate and at the same time solve one real problem of his time in the 4th century.

BC. people began to lose faith in the traditional gods of Olympus, mythology was increasingly regarded as fiction. Thus, the foundations and norms of the world, the main reality of which were gods and traditions, collapsed. The world, the Cosmos no longer touched solid, reliable: everything became shaky and shapeless, unstable. Man lost his vital support. In the depths of human consciousness, despair arose, a doubt that sees no way out of the impasse. We needed a way out to something solid and reliable.

People needed faith in a new force.

Philosophy, in the person of Parmenides, realized the current situation, which turned into a tragedy for human existence, i.e. existence. To designate an existential life situation and ways to overcome it, Parmenides introduced the concept and problems of being into philosophy. Thus, the problem of being was the answer of philosophy to the needs and demands of the ancient era.

How does Parmenides characterize the being? Being is what exists beyond the world of sensible things, and this is thought. By asserting that being is thought, he had in mind

Not the subjective thought of a person, but the Logos - cosmic mind. Being is one and invariable, absolutely, has no division into subject and object within itself, it is all possible fullness of perfection. Defining being as a true being, Parmenides taught that it did not arise, is indestructible, unique, motionless, endless in time.

The Greek understanding of being as an essential, immutable, immovable being determined for many centuries the trends in the spiritual development of Europe. This focus on the search for the ultimate foundations for the existence of the world and man was a characteristic feature of both ancient and medieval philosophy.

Outstanding philosopher of the twentieth century. M. Heidegger, who devoted 40 years of his life to the problem of being, argued that the question of being and its solution by Parmenides predetermined the fate of the Western world.

The theme of being has been central to metaphysics since antiquity. For Thomas Aquinas God and he alone is being as such, authentic. Everything else created by him has an inauthentic being.

Philosophers of modern times generally associate the problem of being only with man, denying objectivity to being. Thus, Descartes argued that the act of thinking - I think - is the simplest and most self-evident basis for the existence of man and the world. He made thought a being, and declared man to be the creator of thought. This meant that being had become subjective. Heidegger put it this way: "The Being of beings has become subjectivity." Later Kant wrote about being dependent on knowledge. Representatives of empirio-criticism saw the only existential basis in human sensations, while existentialists directly declared that man and he alone is the true and ultimate being.

Philosophers, who in modern times considered the problem of being from objective positions, were divided into two camps - into idealists and materialists. Representatives of idealistic philosophy were characterized by the spread of the concept of being not only and even not so much to matter, but to consciousness, the spiritual. For example, N. Hartmann in the twentieth century. understood life as a spiritual being.

French materialists considered nature as a real being. For Marx, nature and society enter into being.

The specific attitude of Russian philosophy to the problem of being has its origins in the Orthodox religion. It is being in God that is the essence of Russian religiosity, which determines the philosophical solution to the problem of being. The spiritual creativity of Russian thinkers (both secular and religious) was aimed at understanding the deepest ontological, existential sources human life.

If in the New Age the transformation of the ancient idea of the objectivity of being, its transformation into the subjective, began, then in the twentieth century. this process has deepened. Now even God has become dependent on the a priori inner attitude of man in search of the unconditional. The rejection of any kind of substantiality has become the norm of philosophizing in the twentieth century.

20th century was marked by a crusade against reason. Speaking against reason, the thinkers expressed the growing awareness in society of the meaninglessness and unsupported existence. Having abandoned God (“God is dead” - Nietzsche), no longer relying on reason, a man of the twentieth century. left alone with his body. The cult of the body began, which is a sign of paganism, or rather neo-paganism.

Changing worldview in the twentieth century. entailed not only a new formulation of the question of being, but also a revision of the style and norms of intellectual activity. Thus, the philosophy of postmodern demanded the Heraclitean version of being as becoming, which influenced the established forms of philosophizing. Being has come to be regarded as becoming. The philosophy of postmodernity, relying on the idea of being as becoming, has taken on the task of showing, objectifying the thought that is in the process of becoming. A new attitude to being is associated with deep worldview shifts taking place in the minds of modern people.

The philosophical doctrine of being is ontology (from the Greek "ontos" - being and "logos" - doctrine). Being can be defined as the universal, universal and unique ability to exist, which any reality possesses. Being is opposed to non-being, which indicates the absence of anything. The concept of "being" is the central initial category in philosophical reflection world, through which all other concepts are defined - matter, movement, space, time, consciousness, etc. The beginning of cognition is the fixation of a certain being, then there is a deepening into being, the discovery of its independence.

The world appears before a person as a holistic formation, which includes many things, processes, phenomena and states of human individuals. We call all this universal being, which is subdivided into natural being and social being. Natural being is understood as those states of nature that existed before man and exist outside of his activity. A characteristic feature of this being is objectivity and its primacy in relation to other forms of being. Social being is being produced by man in the course of his purposeful activity. The derivative of the material-substrate being is the ideal being, the world of mental and spiritual.

Along with the named types of being, the following basic forms of being are distinguished: actual objective being, potential being and value being. If, when defining the first two forms of being, it is meant that certain objects, processes, phenomena, properties and relations either exist in reality itself or are in a “possibility”, i.e. can arise, as, for example, a plant from a seed, then, in relation to values and value relations, they simply record their existence.

The forms of being are also singled out according to the attributes of matter, noting that there are spatial being and temporal being, according to the forms of the movement of matter - physical being, chemical being, biological being, social being.

Other approaches to the selection of forms of being are also possible, in particular, one that is based on the fact that the universal connections of being are manifested only through connections

between singular beings. On this basis, it is advisable to single out the following different, but also interconnected basic forms of being:

1. the existence of things, processes, which in turn is divided into: the existence of things, processes, states of nature, the existence of nature as a whole and the existence of things and processes produced by man;
2. human being, which is subdivided into human being in the world of things and specifically human being;
3. spiritual (ideal) being, which is divided into individualized spiritual and objectified (non-individual) spiritual;
4. social being, which is divided into individual being (the being of an individual in modern society and the process of its history) and the being of society.

Representatives of various philosophical trends singled out different types and forms of being and gave them their own interpretation. Idealists created a model of being, in which the role of the existential principle was assigned to the spiritual. It is from it, in their opinion, that formality, systemic order, expediency and development in nature should come.

Keywords

HUMAN BEING / VALUES / PERSONALITY / SPIRITUAL CULTURE / SOCIETY OF MASS CONSUMPTION/ IDEOLOGY / BEING OF A HUMAN BEING / VALUES / PERSONALITY / SPIRITUAL CULTURE / SOCIETY OF MASS CONSUMPTION / IDEOLOGY

annotation scientific article on philosophy, ethics, religious studies, author of scientific work - Konstantinov Dmitry Vladimirovich, Kholomeev Alexey Gennadievich

Three aspects of human nature (biological, social and spiritual) necessary for its existence are considered. It is shown that the phenomena that make up the sphere of the spiritual are human-creating values that are not reduced to biological or social and cannot be an object of possession. Therefore, the promoted popular culture values of total possession can become destructive for a person.

The axiological aspects of the being of a human being: human-creating and human-destroying values

Understanding the question of the being as a question of the basis that allow to be, the authors consider the being of a human being as an objective basis or a necessary condition of human existence. Philosophers from different schools of thought try to find such a basis in biological, social or spiritual aspects of human life. If to consider a human being from the biological point of view, the similarity between humans and animals is nevertheless much larger than the difference. Besides, it is obvious that human life cannot be reduced only to the activity of a human body, although without it life is impossible. In turn, the social milieu, in which the individual exists, also does not play a crucial role in their formation as a human in every sense of the word. consequent, bases that allow a human being to be should be looked for in the spiritual. The spiritual is something self-based, it appears in a human being neither from nature nor from society. It is possible to attribute to the spiritual the spheres of conscience, thought, empathy, good and other similar phenomena playing the role of human-creating values . The spiritual being of a human being is inseparably connected with the spiritual culture of society. Artifacts (texts) of spiritual culture first of all are intended to help humans to keep themselves in the spiritual space. At that, in the empirical reality, a human cannot be always good, honest, fair, etc. It would be equivalent to transcending a human to a superhuman (divine) state. However, a human can be truly alive only through the aspiration to the superhuman. The personality is born in such an aspiration. Personality is something that forces humans to seek the order in their life on their own basis. At the same time spiritual culture is very vulnerable and susceptible to all changes, including negative. In particular, the spiritual formation of personality now endures a decisive influence of the mass culture which is based on the ideology of total possession. If any ideology occupies the entire space of human life, this life does not leave place for human-creating values , because they are shielded by ideological schemes. These schemes present a human with ready values which are given as the only true guidance. Values of the society of mass consumption often play the role of such guidance today. It is they that can be destructive for a human because they shield the true spiritual values which cannot be the object of possession and consumption.

The text of the scientific work on the topic "Axiological aspects of human existence: human-creating and human-destroying values"

Bulletin of Tomskoy state university. 2015. No. 390. S. 54-59. B0! 10.17223/15617793/390/10

UDC ::316.752

D.V. Konstantinov, A.G. Kholomeev

AXIOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF HUMAN BEING: HUMAN-CREATING AND HUMAN-DESTROYING VALUES

Three aspects of human nature (biological, social and spiritual) necessary for its existence are considered. It is shown that the phenomena that make up the sphere of the spiritual are human-creating values that are not reduced to biological or social and cannot be an object of possession. Therefore, the values of total possession propagated by mass culture can become destructive for a person. Key words: human existence; values; personality; spiritual culture; mass consumer society; ideology.

Introduction

M.K. Mamardashvili, characterizing modern European philosophy, emphasizes that it, by and large, is an attempt “in a new situation of reason to give a person new means that allow him to live in a new world, such means that in traditional philosophy are not given." Without going into details, we note that under the "new situation of the mind" here we should understand the current situation in contemporary culture an attitude through which the life of a person in the world really becomes problematic, since the person himself becomes problematic. We will try to reveal the reasons for such problematicness through an appeal to the axiological aspects of human existence.

human being

In this article, we are talking about values based on the ontology of a person. The concept of being and, in particular, the being of a person in philosophy is not unambiguous1, and therefore we will try to clarify our own position first. For this, it is appropriate to refer to the works of M. Heidegger. Heidegger considers being as "that which determines being as being, that in view of which being, no matter how it is comprehended, is always already understood" . In turn, this interpretation, according to Heidegger, goes back to the philosophy of Heraclitus. Commenting on the phrase of Heraclitus “one (is) everything”, Heidegger emphasizes: “Speaking more strictly, Being is being. At the same time, "is" is a transitive verb and means "collected". Being collects beings as beings ”(our italics. - D.K., A.Kh.). Proceeding from such an understanding of being, we speak of the being of a person as an objective basis or a necessary condition for the existence of a person. Thus, human existence is what allows a person to be a person at the first step, to collect the human in himself, and at a possible second step - to realize himself as a person, to look at himself as if from a third person, or from the outside.

So, there is a phenomenon of human states in the world, and the question of how such states are possible will be an ontological question. Thus, the question posed implies that the existence of man as man needs a certain foundation. Next, we will consider three aspects of the essence of human

Lovec, who are trying to imagine what the basis is, as a rule, giving priority to one side. These aspects will be biological, social and spiritual in man. Let's take a closer look at each of them.

Hardly anyone will try to challenge the fact that the human body at the physiological level functions according to biological laws. By nature, a person is endowed with a certain set of sensory organs, has a certain life expectancy, etc. All these naturally given features that distinguish a person from any other living being, M. K. Mamardashvili, M. K. Petrov and other authors denote by the term " human dimension ”(for more on this, see:). In general, we can say that the concept of "human dimension" characterizes the limitations that inevitably arise when we consider a person in the discourse of biology. Indeed, man is finite: he is born and dies; he has just such (and not another) body, there are certain vital biological needs; his sense organs are arranged in a specific way, etc. This, in turn, means that a person can do something (see, perceive, understand, etc.), but cannot do something in principle. I.S. To illustrate this, Alekseev carries out a kind of mental experiment: “Let's imagine a hypothetical “non-geocentric” subject (not a person!), whose object characteristics ... are significantly different from the corresponding characteristics of a person. While a person has a height of about 102 cm and lives for about 102 years, let our hypothetical subject have a body size of the order of, say, 10100 cm and a lifetime of about 10100 years, respectively.<...>So, it seems to us quite obvious that in the world of objects-things of such a subject there will be neither our atoms, nor mountains, nor even planets and stars, because they simply cannot figure in his "non-geocentric" practical activity, acting as its invariants (recall that, according to modern data, the age solar system does not exceed 1010 years, and the size of the Metagalaxy is about 1026 cm). On the other hand, his external world will contain such (objective in relation to him) objects-things with which we cannot (due to our objective nature) deal with in our practical activity and which therefore "do not exist for us" . Indeed, the hypothetical "non-

geocentric” subject of cognition by I. S. Alekseev is incommensurable with such parameters of the world around us as the age of the solar system and the size of the Metagalaxy. But in the same way, man is incommensurable with them. Therefore, in the words of T. Nagel, it is quite possible to believe that there are facts that cannot be represented or comprehended by people, even if humanity as a species lived forever - simply because our structure does not allow us to operate with the necessary for this concept."

Can we assume, based on what was said earlier, that biology is capable of revealing the specifics of the human phenomenon? It seems that the answer here will be negative. Despite the fact that a person is a very specific and even unique living being, the similarities between a person and an animal from the point of view of biology are still much more than differences. As rightly pointed out by N.M. Careful, the natural needs of a person are "manifestations of that instinct of life that are characteristic of man, as well as the entire genus of the animal world." In other words, to understand the specifics of a person, considering him at the biological level is not enough. That is why we can agree with M. Heidegger, who says the following: “If physiology and physiological chemistry are able to study a person in the natural scientific plan as an organism, then this is by no means proof that in such an “organic”, that is, in a scientifically explained body, rests the human being. This is no more successful than the opinion that the essence of natural phenomena lies in atomic energy. Indeed, human life broad sense This word cannot be reduced only to the activity of the human body, even if it is impossible without it.

If the foundations of the human cannot be found in the biological, then perhaps they should be sought in the social? Indeed, such attempts have been repeatedly made in history. philosophical thought(and are still being done). At the same time, sociality is most often interpreted in a broader sense as something inextricably linked with culture (see, for example:). In a narrower sense of the word, the term "social" implies the presence of certain supra-individual structures, social institutions. One of the functions of social institutions is the function of socialization, the inclusion of a person in the system of social relations. Socialization allows a person to successfully identify himself in society and interact with other people in it.

It is worth clarifying that the social environment in which an individual was born and raised does not necessarily play a decisive role in his development as a person in the full sense of the word. However, it is obvious that outside the society of a full-fledged person, i.e. personality cannot be formed (examples of feral people demonstrate this very clearly). But at the same time, in society, there is often a suppression of the personal principle in a person - that principle, which we just associate with spirituality. Thus, the person

constantly coming face to face with the interests of other people, sometimes he is forced to overcome pressure from society, trying to maintain his inner "I".

In addition to the biological and social aspects, there is a certain special dimension in a person, which we have designated by the term "spirituality". It should be noted that it is extremely difficult to talk about the spiritual in a person, as well as to give any exhaustive and satisfactory definition of spirituality. Therefore, we will not give such definitions, nor will we try to create our own. Instead, let's try to identify a number of phenomena that constitute, in our opinion, the sphere of the spiritual. These include conscience, thought, empathy, kindness, etc. We argue that all such phenomena are autonomous enough to separate them into a separate sphere (the sphere of the spiritual), contrary to the common tradition of reducing the spiritual or to the natural (sociobiology)2, or social 3. In other words, among the possible approaches to the so-called problem of psycho-physiological dualism (it seems that such a name is not entirely successful, if we distinguish between the psyche and consciousness), anti-reductionist positions are closer to us4. We will try to explain the reasons for this in more detail below.

First, we note that being is objective, that is, does not depend on man. The set of sense organs that he possesses does not depend on a person, a person does not choose the society in which he is born, but the moment of awakening does not depend on a person (on his desire or unwillingness, upbringing, social status, etc.) such as love or conscience. This is a kind of aspiration that suddenly appears from nowhere and which a person is no longer able to cancel (but, however, it can be screened). Even the event of understanding (thought) is not completely subject to the will and desire of a person - no one can say when a person will understand something (and whether he will understand at all), despite all his possible attempts to achieve understanding and clarity.

Secondly, a person always looks at the world only through the prism of his spiritual (mental) states, since he cannot leave the limits of his consciousness. Nothing can be given to a person, bypassing his consciousness. T. Nagel notes that, to be completely honest, it is impossible to assert with certainty even the presence of consciousness in another person, since “the only internal experience really available to us is our own”. In other words, the act of interaction between man and the world is further an indecomposable act. The division into subject and object is an abstraction that is convenient for a scientist, but not for a philosopher. The philosopher must be aware that such a division is possible as a purely theoretical construction after the proportionality between man and the world has taken place, expressed in the fact that we are already irrevocably in the world and can look at it with our human eyes and understand it in a human way. Therefore, it seems not entirely correct to look for the cause of a person’s spiritual states only in external conditions.

influences, natural or social. This is true, if only because the very concept of the external turns out to be problematic.

The spiritual being of a person is inextricably linked with the spiritual culture of society, which includes primarily (but not only) science, art, philosophy, etc.5 Artifacts (texts) of spiritual culture, in addition to possible utilitarian significance, are primarily intended to help a person collect yourself as a person. In other words, a person, in order to stay in the spiritual sphere, needs, according to the definition of M.K. Mamardashvili, in "amplifiers or amplifying attachments to our mental, mental and other capabilities" . But even with the presence of such amplifiers, a fully assembled person in empirical reality never happens. Complete concentration would be tantamount to going beyond the human to a superhuman (divine) state. However, a person can be truly alive only in striving for the superhuman. That is why a person is always a possible person, this, in the words of V.D. Gubin, is “a metaphor for himself”. True culture, in turn, should be oriented towards a possible person, which in fact means that a person has the opportunity to be a person. We can say that under the true culture, we follow M.K. Mamardashvili, we understand one that is capable of supporting “a system of detachments from specific meanings and contents, creating a space for realization and a chance for a thought that began at moment A to be a thought at the next moment B. Or the human state that began at moment A, at moment B could be a human state. True, Mamardashvili himself calls such a supporting system civilization, but we prefer to call it culture, distinguishing, following I. Kant, culture and civilization.

So, in order to remain human, a person must constantly be in the creative process, each time rethinking and creating himself anew. It is in this process that personality emerges. Personal - this is what makes a person strive to streamline his life on his own grounds. So, for example, a personal act of observing the law (breaking the law is the destruction of order in society, and at the same time in the soul of the one who violated the law) does not imply following the tradition (everyone observes, including me) and not the fear of punishment, but some kind of inner conviction that the law you just have to follow. IN this case a person does not talk about the fact that the law is actually unfair (we note that, being outside the space of the law, it is meaningless to talk about its fairness or injustice), does not try to find excuses and loopholes in order not to comply with it. He observes the law because it is the law, and only through the observance of the law is it possible for lawfulness to exist in society. The personal, therefore, is related to the foundations of culture (culture is impossible without the personal), but at the same time, it does not derive from cultural contents.

sya. It is important to understand that culture does not guarantee the human (the First and Second World Wars showed this), although it itself appears in the aspiration to the human. Moreover, culture can degenerate, lose its human-creating significance, although at first glance this may not be so noticeable if civilization is preserved as the outer shell of cultural phenomena.

Thus, questioning about the being of a person is actually the task of searching for those grounds that allow a person to be. Philosophers of various schools and trends are trying to find these foundations in the biological, social or spiritual aspects of human life. We, in turn, give priority here to the spiritual principle in man, which is not reducible to biological or social. Moreover, such irreducibility often leads to conflicts and contradictions. In this context, in our opinion, the conflict between the social and the spiritual is especially important, since it is society, being in continuous dynamics, that is able to violate and rebuild the value framework of the individual, to replace human-creating values with human-destroying ones. As a result, a “situation of uncertainty” (the term of M. K. Mamardashvili) may arise, in which a person can no longer be a person. As M. K. Mamardashvili himself notes, a person in such a situation turns into a zombie, and his life into an absurd existence. Next, we will try to explain this in more detail.

Human values

Before characterizing human-creating and human-destroying values, we need to reveal the very concept of value. It is very difficult to give a precise definition of value. At first glance, values are purely subjective. We do not deny that values are always connected in one way or another with the social environment in which the individual is located, they are formed by society. But at the same time, a specific set of values of a particular person is always subjective. This is pointed out, for example, by L.V. Baeva: “Values are an ideal phenomenon, a feature of which, unlike material objects, is belonging to subjective perception and consciousness. When we say that some objects or relations have value for us, this does not mean that they are of the same value for other individuals. In addition, values are not frozen, they interact with each other, transform, being in constant dynamics. Thus, a person, forming the value basis of his life, constantly overcomes the path from the particular to the general and vice versa. It transforms the values of society, giving them its own meaning. The very same social environment in relation to the individual has a relatively random character. It can dominate him or, on the contrary, give the necessary freedom and space for living thought.

Despite this, we argue that those human-creating values that allow a person to collect himself in the space of the personal are objective. The subjectivity of value here is excluded by the fact that in fact such values constitute the ultimate (ontological) foundations of the human. Such are the previously mentioned phenomena that form the sphere of the spiritual existence of man. The problem of such values for a philosopher, according to M.K. Mamardashvili, - “... this is not a problem of a person's belief in ideals, higher values. It's ... it's about something else - about the participation of a person with his effort in real life, different from ours, in real life, some ontological abstractions of the order or the so-called higher, or perfect, objects. As such a "perfect object" one can take, for example, conscience. Obviously, in empirical reality it is impossible to meet a person with an absolutely clear conscience. However, each empirically recorded act of an act of conscience assumes that conscience already exists, and is all at once in this act. After all, conscience cannot exist to some greater or lesser degree; it either exists in its entirety, or it does not exist at all. Moreover, the situation when there is a conscience is not the result of a generalization of any previous experience of a person, conscience is not set in the form of an ideal. Even if you try to set the ideal of conscience, then no real action will necessarily follow from the knowledge of this ideal. In addition, ideals can be different, but conscience is one - it cannot be said that every person has some kind of conscience of his own. Similarly, goodness is one - one not in content, but in the fact of its presence in the world. Any empirical act of virtue is possible (whatever it may be expressed in) because good already exists. In this sense, conscience, goodness, etc. phenomena are objective, i.e. are not created by man and are not the result of his reflection or theoretical generalizations. A person can only try by his own effort to preserve in himself the state of being in conscience, goodness, etc.

We have said before that the self-creative effort of man must be supported by culture. However, spiritual culture is very vulnerable and susceptible to all changes, including negative ones. It is very easy to break it and give it a different direction. This seems to us relevant for the present time, when the process of the spiritual formation of the individual is experiencing a decisive influence on the part of mass culture, which is built on the ideology of all-possession. Any ideology is a necessary moment social life It is meant to bring people together. However, problems arise when ideology seeks to occupy the entire space of human life. In this case, there is no place left for human-creating values in a person's life, since they are shielded by ideological schemes6. These schemes present a person with ready-made values, presented as the only true guidelines. Today, the values of a mass consumer society are most often used as such guidelines. Just they can

be destructive for a person, since they screen those genuine spiritual values that cannot be an object of possession and consumption - one cannot have a thought or conscience like owning a thing (for more details, see). The specific mechanisms of such screening may look different (we will consider some of them below), but they all lead to the fact that a person eventually risks turning into an impersonal creature, obsessed with only one desire - to have and consume. Here we see the replacement of the model of existence "to be" by "to have", according to E. Fromm.

One of the blocking spiritual mechanisms is the elevation of the possession of biologically or socially given goods to the rank of absolute value. Satisfaction of biological needs is necessary for the life of the human body. On the one hand, it unites a person with an animal. On the other hand, a person in the process of personal development is constantly trying to overcome his animal essence. This is a certain paradox and, in our opinion, one of the problems of modern society. Popular culture presents sexuality, cult human body as values expressing the ideal modern man(although corporality is already more of a social phenomenon than a biological one). As a result, a person often ceases to be perceived as a person, he becomes simply an object of sexual consumption, a thing.

In turn, social values are also undergoing a number of changes. The dynamic development of science and technology, the growth of well-being gave people the opportunity to mass involvement in all areas public life, be it politics or sports, art or education. On the one hand, this trend allowed almost every person to touch the sacred, to see what was available only to the elite. On the other hand, this was the reason for the emergence of such phenomena as the "average" person and the mass. The mass production of goods, both necessary and completely unnecessary for life, brought society to new way development - the path of consumption. The danger of such a path is that a person as a person is not perceived by society, now he is evaluated by the amount of material goods that he can afford. It is this indicator that becomes one of the key when it comes to the social status of an individual. In pursuit of a higher position in society, a person is depersonalized, reduced only to consumption imposed from outside by the social environment. Indeed, the pace of development of society is so great that a person does not even have time to think about what he needs in life - economists and marketers decide for him.

Mass culture has also reassessed the spiritual values of a person, encroaching on the inner world of the individual. Now they are directly trying to make the spiritual an object of consumption, which actually leads to its rebirth into another scheme that shields the human. So, for example, the true significance of education (especially higher education) lies in

developing the ability to create and retain, as far as possible, a space of concentration, i.e. the space in which living human states are possible (events of thought, conscience, etc.). However, in modern conditions, education is gradually ceasing to fulfill this function. Having become accessible to many, education has become a kind of conveyor of knowledge, acting as a commodity. Each person can have the set of knowledge that he wants. People consume knowledge that can be bought anytime, anywhere. In this regard, E. Fromm rightly notes: “Students focused on “possession”, listening to lectures, perceive words, catch logical connections and general meaning; they try to make as detailed notes as possible so that they can then memorize the notes and pass the exam. But they do not think about the content, about their attitude to this material, it does not become part of the student's own thoughts.

Conclusion

It should be noted that a person is not something given and guaranteed, a person is a speed

more a process than a result. In this process of constant becoming, a person needs that ultimate (ontological) foundation that gives him the opportunity to be. It is pointless to look for such a foundation only in the biological or social sphere, it necessarily implies the presence in a person’s life of those spiritual values that allow the human not to be destroyed. However, it is precisely these values that must be supported by true culture that in modern society often turn out to be shielded by all sorts of ideological schemes. In particular, society today is trying to universally introduce the ideology of consumption, affecting all spheres of human life. It is very difficult for a person in such a situation to distinguish real human-creating values from false and often destructive values of all-possession, since the latter are presented as necessary for life. That is why man today is in potential danger of being broken by mass culture and losing his humanity.

NOTES

1 To verify this, it is enough to refer, for example, to the corresponding article in the New Philosophical Encyclopedia.

2 For sociobiology, see for example: .

3 See, for example: . Although E.K. Vagimov speaks here of three dimensions of human existence - biological, mental (identifying it with the spiritual) and social - in fact, he puts an equal sign between the mental and the social. Personality, in his opinion, is the result of socialization.

4 An overview of possible conceptual approaches to the problem of psychophysiological dualism is given by K. Ludwig.

5 The division of culture into material and spiritual seems to be rather arbitrary, given that any object created by man bears the imprint of the inner world of its creator. Therefore, further we will use the term "culture", assuming that we are talking about the spiritual aspect of culture.

6 An example of the operation of such schemes is given by F.M. Dostoevsky in The Idiot. Prince Myshkin, during his first visit to the family of General Epanchin, tells about a woman named Marie, whom public opinion considered unworthy, who had sinned. This did not allow others to see her need and suffering - the ideological scheme blocked the human-creating mechanism of compassion. And only children, who are not yet so deeply involved in social relations, relatively easily managed to overcome the influence of ideology in themselves and see a person in an unfortunate person. For the rest, including even Marie herself, the opportunity to see this was closed.

LITERATURE

1. Mamardashvili M.K. Essay on modern European philosophy. SPb. : ABC; Azbuka-Atticus, 2012. 608 p.

2. HeideggerM. Being and time. Kharkov: Folio, 2003. 503 p.

3. HeideggerM. What is it - philosophy? // Questions of Philosophy. 1993. No. 8. S. 113-123.

4. Konstantinov D.V. Human Being and Human Dimension // Omsk Scientific Bulletin. 2010. No. 6 (92). pp. 82-85.

5. Alekseev I.S. The concept of complementarity: historical and methodological analysis. M. : Nauka, 1978. 276 p.

6. Nagel T. What Is It Like to Be a Bat? // The Philosophical Review. 1974 Vol. 83, No. 4. P. 435-450.

7. Berezhnoy N.M. Man and his needs. M. : Forum, 2000. 159 p.

8. Heidegger M. Letter about humanism // The problem of man in Western philosophy. M. : Progress, 1988. S. 314-356.

9. Mamardashvili M.K. Introduction to Philosophy // Philosophical Readings. SPb. : Azbuka-klassika, 2002. S. 7-170.

10. Nagel T. What Does It All Mean? A Very Short Introduction to Philosophy. N.Y. ; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987. 101 p.

11. Mamardashvili M. K. Lectures on ancient philosophy. M. : Agraf, 1998. 320 p.

12. Gubin V.D. About real and imaginary existence // Content of education: ideas and experience. M., 2001. S. 46-55. URL: http://agnuz.info/app/webroot/library/76/305/ (Accessed 08/18/2014).

13. Mamardashvili M.K. Consciousness and civilization // As I understand philosophy. 2nd ed., rev. and additional M. : Progress-Culture, 1992. S. 107-121.

14. Baeva L.V. Values of a Changing World: An Existential Axiology of History. Astrakhan: ASU Publishing House, 2004. 275 p. URL: http://aspu.ru/images/File/ilil/Bayeva_tzennosti_izmen_mira.pdf (date of access: 09/14/2014).

15. Mamardashvili M. K. Kantian variations. M. : Agraf, 2002. 320 p.

16. Konstantinov D.V. Dystopias: the future without a person // Bulletin of the Tomsk State University. 2013. No. 366. S. 42-48.

17. Fromm E. To have or to be? // Forgotten language. To have or to be? M. : ACT, 2009. S. 209-430.

18. Bugueva N.A. Human corporality as a socio-cultural phenomenon // Bulletin of the Chelyabinsk State University. 2007. No. 16. S. 66-71.

19. Ortega y Gasset X. Revolt of the masses. M. : AST, 2002. S. 11-207.

20. Gaidenko P.P. Genesis // New philosophical encyclopedia: in 4 vols. M. : Thought, 2010. T. 1. S. 337-345.

21. Komarov M.S. Sociobiology and the problem of man // Questions of Philosophy. 1985. No. 4. S. 129-137.

22. Vagimov E.K. Man like philosophical problem// Challenges of modernity and philosophy: materials of the round table dedicated to the Day

philosophy of UNESCO. Bishkek, 2004, pp. 57-68.

23. Ludwig K. The Mind-Body Problem: An Overview // The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Mind. Oxford: Blackwell, 2003. P. 1-46.

24. Kant I. The idea of universal history in the world-civil plan // Collected works: in 8 vols. M .: Choro, 1994. T. 8. S. 12-28.

The article was presented by the scientific editorial board "Philosophy, sociology, political science" October 02, 2014

THE AXIOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF THE BEING OF A HUMAN BEING: HUMAN-CREATING AND HUMAN-DESTROYING VALUES

Tomsk State University Journal, 2015, 390, pp. 54-59. DOI 10.17223/15617793/390/10

Konstantinov Dmitrii V., Kholomeev Alexei G. Siberian State University of Physical Culture and Sports (Omsk, Russian Federation). Email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Keywords: being of a human being; values; personality; spiritual culture; society of mass consumption; ideology.

Understanding the question of the being as a question of the basis that allow to be, the authors consider the being of a human being as an objective basis or a necessary condition of human existence. Philosophers from different schools of thought try to find such a basis in biological, social or spiritual aspects of human life. If to consider a human being from the biological point of view, the similarity between humans and animals is nevertheless much larger than the difference. Besides, it is obvious that human life cannot be reduced only to the activity of a human body, although without it life is impossible. In turn, the social milieu, in which the individual exists, also does not play a crucial role in their formation as a human in every sense of the word. consequent, bases that allow a human being to be should be looked for in the spiritual. The spiritual is something self-based, it appears in a human being neither from nature nor from society. It is possible to attribute to the spiritual the spheres of conscience, thought, empathy, good and other similar phenomena playing the role of human-creating values. The spiritual being of a human being is inseparably connected with the spiritual culture of society. Artifacts (texts) of spiritual culture first of all are intended to help humans to keep themselves in the spiritual space. At that, in the empirical reality, a human cannot be always good, honest, fair, etc. It would be equivalent to transcending a human to a superhuman (divine) state. However, a human can be truly alive only through the aspiration to the superhuman. The personality is born in such an aspiration. Personality is something that forces humans to seek the order in their life on their own basis. At the same time spiritual culture is very vulnerable and susceptible to all changes, including negative. In particular, the spiritual formation of personality now endures a decisive influence of the mass culture which is based on the ideology of total possession. If any ideology occupies the entire space of human life, this life does not leave place for human-creating values, because they are shielded by ideological schemes. These schemes present a human with ready values which are given as the only true guidance. Values of the society of mass consumption often play the role of such guidance today. It is they that can be destructive for a human because they shield the true spiritual values which cannot be the object of possession and consumption.

1. Mamardashvili M.K. Ocherk sovremennoy evropeyskoy filosofii. St. Petersburg: Azbuka; Azbuka-Attikus

Publ., 2012. 608 p.

2. Heidegger M. Bytie i vremya. Kharkov: Folio Publ., 2003. 503 p.

3. Heidegger M. What eto takoe - filosofiya? . Voprosy filosofii, 1993, no. 8, pp. 113-123.

4. Konstantinov D.V. human existence and human dimension. Omskiy nauchnyy vestnik - Omsk Scientific Bulletin, 2010, no. 6 (92), pp. 82-85. (In

5. Alekseev I.S. Kontseptsiya dopolnitel "nosti: istoriko-metodologicheskiy analiz. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1978. 276 p.

6. Nagel T. What Is It Like to Be a Bat? The Philosophical Review, 1974, vol. 83, no. 4, pp. 435-450.

7. Berezhnoy N.M. Chelovek i egopotrebnosti. Moscow: Forum Publ., 2000. 159 p.

8. Heidegger M. Pis "mo o gumanizme. In: Popova Yu.N. (ed.) Problema cheloveka v zapadnoy filosofii. Moscow: Progress Publ., 1988, pp. 314-356.

9. Mamardashvili M.K. Philosophical readings. St. Petersburg: Azbuka-klassika Publ., 2002, pp. 7-170.

10. Nagel T. What Does It All Mean? A Very Short Introduction to Philosophy. N.Y.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987. 101 p.

11. Mamardashvili M.K. Lektsiipo antichnoy filosofii. Moscow: Agraf Publ., 1998. 320 p.

12. Gubin V.D. O real "nom i mnimom sushchestvovanii. In: Soderzhanie obrazovaniya: idei i opyt. Moscow, 2001, pp. 46-55. Available from: http://agnuz.info/app/webroot/library/76/305/. ( Accessed: 18th August 2014).

13. Mamardashvili M.K. Kakyaponimayufilosofiyu. 2nd edition. Moscow: Progress-Kul "tura Publ., 1992, pp. 107-121.

14. Baeva L.V. Tsennosti izmenyayushchegosya mira: ekzistentsial"naya aksiologiya istorii. Astrakhan: ASU Publ., 2004. 275 p. Available from: http://aspu.ru/images/File/ilil/Bayeva_tzennosti_izmen_mira.pdf. (Accessed: 14th September 2014).

15. Mamardashvili M.K. Kantian variatsii. Moscow: Agraf Publ., 2002. 320 p.

16. Konstantinov D.V. Anti-utopias: the future without man. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta - Tomsk State University Journal, 2013, no. 366, pp. 42-48. (In Russian).

17. Fromm E. Zabytyy yazyk. Havet" or by"? . Moscow: AST Publ., 2009, pp. 209-430.

18. Bugueva N.A. Human embodiment as a sociocultural phenomenon. Vestnik Chelyabinsk state university, 2007, no. 16, pp. 6671.

19. Ortega y Gasset J. Vosstanie mass. Moscow: AST Publ., 2002, pp. 11-207.

20. Gaydenko P.P. Bytie. In: Novaya filosofskaya entsiklopediya: v 4 t. . Moscow: Mysl" Publ., 2010. Vol. 1, pp. 337-345.

21. Komarov M.S. Sotsiobiologiya i problema cheloveka. Voprosy filosofii, 1985, no. 4, pp. 129-137.

22. Vagimov E.K. Chelovek as filosofskaya problema. In: Vyzovy sovremennosti i filosofiya: materialy kruglogo stola, posvyashchennogo Dnyu filosofii YuNESKO. Bishkek, 2004, pp. 57-68.

23. Ludwig K. The Mind-Body Problem: An Overview. In: The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Mind. Oxford: Blackwell, 2003, pp. 1-46.

24. Kant I. Sobranie essay. V8t. . Moscow: Choro Publ., 1994. Vol. 8, pp. 12-28.

Activity as a way of human existence.

Creative activity of man.

The purpose of man: the purpose and meaning of life.

1. Essence and forms of human existence.

Genesis - existence and that which guarantees existence, the state of development.

Existential problems in philosophy took shape in a special philosophical discipline ontology(the doctrine of being, its forms, attributes and principles). For the first time this term was introduced in 1613 by R. Goklenius.

Basic forms of being:

Being the processes of nature, as well as things produced by man, i.e. natural and "second, humanized" nature;

human being;

Spiritual being - the world of the state of human consciousness and the objectified content of thinking (books, paintings, statues), other fruits of human spiritual activity;

Being social - breaks up into the being of an individual in nature and history and the being of society;

So, man, nature, spirituality and sociality are the main forms of being.

The definition of the specifics of human existence is possible through the allocation of different dimensions of the person himself.

The Individual Aspect of Being Human involves considering the period of an individual's life, limited by dates of birth and death. The primary prerequisite for human existence is the life of his body. From the fact of the existence of a person as a living body, it follows that he is subject to the laws of heredity, which cannot be canceled. This sets us up for careful handling of the natural and biological potential of a person. To give life to the spirit, it is necessary to provide life to the body. In all civilized countries the right to life is enshrined legally.

The Personal Aspect of Human Being- inclusion of a person in culture. An individual becomes a socially significant person in the course of socialization, through language and communication, development and replenishment of the treasury of human culture. Psychologist A.Leontievsky called human activity a “unit of life”. The concept of "individual" acts as a prerequisite for the concept of "personality", and individual being - as the basis for the existence of personality. Therefore, a baby can become a person only in the environment of other people. In the future, the egoism of bodily needs is blocked by the actions and actions of a cultivated person. A person is able to control and regulate his needs, satisfying them not just in accordance with nature, but in accordance with socio-historically fixed norms.

The social aspect of human existence is understood as the life of society associated with activities, the production of material goods and includes a variety of relationships that people enter into in the process of life. Social being is an ontology of social life. Social being arises together with the formation of human society and exists relatively independent of the individual consciousness of each individual. Social being is an objective social reality, it is primary in relation to the consciousness of an individual and a generation.

With its existence, humanity actively influences the world and itself. It is man who is able to cognize not only being as a whole, but also his own being-in-the-world. Realizing the existence of the world and oneself as part of a single existence, a person simultaneously realizes the greatest responsibility for the existence of the human race.

2. Activity as a way of human existence.

a) feature human activity;

Unlike animals, human activity is not only adaptive, but also transformative;

People do not have an innate program of activity, they cannot pass it on to their descendants genetically. A person independently and during his lifetime develops programs of his activity, selecting the best options and passing them on to his descendants. A person creates an objective world as a result of the objectification of his abilities;

Human activity makes biological existence social. Unlike animals that live in the natural environment, people live in a social environment, which is the result of their conscious labor activity; whole line connections and relationships. Thus, man, being a producing being, carrying out his activities, creates a new reality;

Human activity is characterized by goal-setting and it is expedient;

b) the structure of human activity;

Motive Purpose

Subject Actions+Means Object Result

Motive - the motivating cause of human behavior and actions, arising under the influence of the needs and interests of a person and representing an image representing an image of a person's desired good.

Need - a perceived need for something. Needs are divided into primary (physiological), secondary (social, prestigious), ideal (spiritual). All these types of needs interact with each other.

The American psychologist A. Maslow identified the following basic needs:

* physiological (food, breathing, reproduction of the species, clothing, housing, rest, etc., etc.);

* existential (security of existence, constancy of living conditions, job security, confidence in the future);

* social (communication, social connections, care and attention, joint activities);

* prestigious (self-respect, respect and recognition of others, achievement of success, career);

* spiritual (self-actualization, self-expression, self-improvement, search for the meaning of life);

Social attitudes - the general orientation of a person to a certain social object, expressing a predisposition to act in a certain way (setting on a family, on work);

Beliefs - these are stable views on the world, ideals and principles, as well as the desire to bring them to life through their actions and deeds;

Interests - what is important at the moment;

Classification of activities according to M. Weber depending on motives (see lecture No. 3).

c) the diversity of human activity;

See lecture number 3.

Labor activity - This is a type of human activity that is aimed at achieving a practically useful result. It is carried out under the influence of necessity and, ultimately, transforms the person himself, improving him as a subject of labor activity and as a person.

A game - a type of human activity focused not so much on the result as on the process itself. A feature of the game is its duality: on the one hand, the player performs a real action, on the other hand, many moments of this activity are conditional. The role of the game in human life is great, because. it is a school of life for children. The convention of the game makes it related to art.

3.Creative human activity.

Creation - activity that generates something qualitatively new, which has never existed before.

Creation - it is the cognitive and active ability of a person to create qualitatively new material and spiritual values.

The science that studies creativity is called heuristic.

Creativity manifests itself in various fields, but creativity is most clearly manifested in art, science and technology.

Structure of creativity:

Imagination + Fantasy + Intuition + Unconscious

Imagination allows you to anticipate possible changes.

Fantasy- building an image or a visual model and a result, when information about the conditions and means of achieving the goal is not enough.

intuition - knowledge, conditions, the receipt of which is not realized.

Unconscious = talent or inspiration.

But no discovery happens in a vacuum. This may be preceded by years of painstaking work (“Inspiration is such a guest who does not like to visit the lazy” P.I. Tchaikovsky).

Stages of creativity:

Awareness of the problem, formulation of the problem;

Collection and study of information;

Switching to other tasks or activities: the problem goes into the subconscious;

Illumination: the problem is solved from an unexpected angle, the solution is found where at first it was not looked for;

Validation: It can be logical or experimental;

Evaluation of the novelty of the found solution;

4. The purpose of man: the purpose and meaning of life.

The main distinguishing feature of a person is the ability to be aware of himself and what he is doing, to think about what is happening and analyze his actions.

life choice - it is a preference given by the individual to a certain way of satisfying his needs and a certain way of self-giving. Life choices are influenced by upbringing, education, social structure. But the choice of life depends not only on society, in it the free will of a person is exercised, internal motives and values are manifested. Life choice expresses the amateur activity of a person, his creative attitude to the world.

Lifestyle - these are forms of human life activity typical of a historically specific society. The way of life is formed under the influence of socio-economic, cultural and natural conditions of a person. The concept of "way of life" reflects the stable features of the life and activities of certain groups of people and individuals.

Types of lifestyle: slave, feudal, rural, urban, bohemian, labor, passive, sports.

Meaning of life - a concept inherent in any developed worldview system, which justifies and interprets the moral norms and values inherent in this system, shows in the name of what the activity prescribed by them is necessary.

The problem of the meaning of life is one of the most important and complex (“The secret of human existence is not only to live, but in what to live for” F.M. Dostoevsky).

Hedonistic meaning of life associated with pleasure (Aristippus, Epicurus).

Ascetic meaning of life in the suppression of sensual inclinations and desires (Diogenes).

The humble and stoic meaning of life - humility, subordination, steadfastness before the inevitability of fate (Jesus Christ).

religious meaning life selfless service to God.

Effectively humanistic meaning of life - realization of the inner potential of a person, active identification of his integral nature.

A person can only bring meaning to his life and this happens through self-knowledge and self-realization.

self-knowledge is one of the types of human cognitive activity. This knowledge is aimed at the inner world of a person, at his own "I".

Socrates identified the problem of self-knowledge as the most important problem of human life. (“Know yourself and you will know the whole world”).

Self-realization - it is the fulfillment of human potential.

The difficulties of self-realization are connected with the fact that a person does not always manage to realize the real content of his abilities, on the one hand, and on the other hand, a person may not find a social need for his abilities, knowledge and talent. And only with a harmonious combination of personal capabilities and social needs does a person self-realize.

Aspect No. 1. Man

Man - is the highest stage of evolution of the world around us as a whole. Nature endowed this creature with great opportunities and considerable potential for their realization.
The ability of a person (people) to think rationally is a huge achievement in development. "Creation of two arms and two legs" - the top of the creative universe, "Masterpiece", written by a true artist - Nature.
No matter how much we praise ourselves in dominating everything that surrounds us, but this will not make us better in reality. The right of a higher being gives us power over everything that we see, and the rationality of using this power depends on all of us as a whole.
Assuming further development a person, as a species, seems to me personally somewhat gloomy, due to the development of the entire civilization "in the wrong direction." What does "in the wrong direction" mean in my understanding? The question is not difficult, I believe that the entire development of the human race is pre-programmed (I won’t explain by whom?, How? And under what circumstances, we will come to this ourselves, but a little lower), that is, a “program for the sequence of actions and their performance" - not in the literal sense, of course, but the essence does not change fundamentally. I do not want to say that all wars, catastrophes, misfortunes and troubles of people were predetermined in advance - hardly. This refers to the gradual development from a bacterium to a highly developed organism that stood above everything that surrounds it.
So why "not in that direction"? I think so, because a person will conquer himself, will outlive in the end. The desire for self-destruction has long been openly manifested in many actions of human society. But let's not talk about it now - it will remain as food for your logical conclusions and conclusions.

Aspect #2. Morality, faith and religion

What do you think would happen to the human race if there were no typical laws of morality, morality? I think the answer is simple - self-destruction.
Example: You are at home and relaxing after a hard day at work. Your good neighbor is pounding on the wall with a hammer: - "Boom - Boom - Boom." Your actions - you will most likely warn him not to knock, maybe once, maybe twice, but in the end, if he does not understand, you will cause him physical harm - right? You just crush his skull with his own hammer without any remorse and mental consequences. If there is no morality and simple human laws about the understanding of good and evil in the world around him, there will be nothing.
How did morality and the simplest laws about human understanding of the nature of evil and good originate? Many believe that such things could be laid down by nature at the initial level of development - already a rational being. Thus - this is an instinctive phenomenon of self-preservation, the most important phenomenon, please note in evolution.
But if - this is the "effect" of the impact on a person by a person in particular Religion. What if a great influence: the combination of faith and the instinctive fear of death that led to the creation of religion, led to the birth of true moral laws humanity.
Religion - This is the spiritual development of mankind, based on the fear of the inevitable unknown. Let me explain: In ancient times, a person thought a lot about the question of the existence of life and death, birth, and the blessings of nature. All this desire for "knowledge" does not lead to any factual evidence, except for logical conclusions. Brief examples of such arguments:

1) There is something from above that controls us and carries out its own judgment on those who do not act as it is necessary for someone or something (in this case, this is the upper authority, the church, etc.).
2) There is a certain divine body that reigns in heaven, which created everything living (animal, man) and non-living (earth, space).
3) Creation of an image of the "soul" inside the body shell, which, as a result of death, falls into certain places in heaven or earth. Also, some arguments from other religions - suggest the resettlement of the "soul" in other living or inanimate objects.

Thus, since ancient times, man believed that death is not the final stage in existence. As a result of these imaginary relations "man - god", a religion arose (at the same time, there is not one and there are many deities).
My opinion:
It is religiosity and potential belief in something that will give them hope that after the fact of physical death, there is some transition to some kind of continuation. It was this "blind" faith that created the basic laws of morality and morality. And I'll say thank you, thank you for saving us from destroying ourselves.
Regarding deities, images, as well as about actual persons in history (Jesus, prophets, etc.) - all this is mostly an inflammation of consciousness, an unshakable desire to worship something from above that can save their souls after death. This creates a decent number of religions (Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, etc., etc.).
Modern scientists are people of high intellectual development, many of them will agree with my opinion. Not only because they are based on the world-famous and "in principle" proven conclusions and the basis of the theory of evolution, but also because of the possession of their own conscious thinking that is not imposed by anyone (nothing).
A person is not only unable to understand (comprehend) what has ever created him and the world around him, but also at least roughly imagine "WHO" or "WHAT" it can be.
All these "guesses" of his lead to the creation of a religion as a whole, as a worship of a higher mind (creator, god, supreme, etc.).

Aspect #3: Creation Theories

Is the “THAT” that created us material at all? Or was it ever material at all? Is it possible that this "THAT" is not a living being. What created "THAT", what created us? Is the world eternal? (but how?, if according to our earthly laws: "There is nothing eternal (infinite)" and "Nothing arises from anywhere and goes nowhere"), or our laws did not work somewhere, many millions of years ago, when life appeared ? What if what contributed to our creation sacrificed itself for us and no longer exists? What if we are not alone, but our potential "Creators" are still plowing the expanses of space, somewhere millions of kilometers away from us? What if our world (perhaps like millions of other worlds) and the surrounding space are just a kind of "Crystal Ball" in
someone's hands?

You may say that all these "theories" are ridiculous, you will be partly right. Each theory has the right to exist until the fact is proven. I don’t think that I myself will only come up with these words, most likely, someone has already said it. And as you know, almost everything has its exceptions.
A person (Scientist) - can thoroughly assert what has already happened on our planet with you, what once happened. I mean: that modern science proves a fact, then a person can assert as a fact: "Yes it was, it took place." For example, the existence of huge creatures (dinosaurs) millions of years ago is a fact, scientifically proven and can take place. But for example, where is the proof that "only 2000 years ago" God existed and died in the flesh? How to prove that in fact there is a god Christ or a god Buddha? Yes, yes, exactly - the logical thinking of a normal person, I can only prove one thing! Religion(s) and god(s) are just one of many theories just like the one above.
To be honest, I'm not an atheist, but I'm not a sincere believer either. I believe in evolution and scientifically proven events and facts. I, like the rest of the people on the planet, cannot even imagine: "How everything appeared", it remains for me, like the rest, to believe in one of the many theories or how Alternative option: "do not believe in anything and do not even think about it - never."
And none of you thought: What if everything we aspire to, our essence of existence, our development - as a result, after many, many years (if we still exist) will reach its climax, logical conclusion and open the curtain (prove a fact) over the Great secret of the universe? What will happen then?
Again, only theories: Humanity will perish? Will we become the rulers of the entire universe and over everything? Will we be on the same level as the creator(s)? Will our mind explode from within due to the inability to accept (understand) this truth?
Do you think it's ridiculous again? And again you are right...

Help on Tele2, tariffs, questions