Social philosophy about the relationship between the individual and society. Social philosophy about the relationship between the individual and society Ways of human existence

The word “personality” refers to the appearance, the social role that a person plays in society. In German, English, and French, “personality” means a person, a person. In the Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language, edited by D.N. Ushakov’s personality is characterized as the human I, as an individuality that is the bearer of individual social and psychological properties. In the meaning of the word “personality”, two aspects can be distinguished: firstly, the discrepancy between a person’s own characteristics and the content of the role he plays; secondly, the social typicality of the portrayed character, his openness to other people.

You can give a list of the most important personality criteria:

1) individuality;
2) integrity;
3) responsibility;
4) subjectivity;
5) genetic heritage, social experience and life biography.

The ancient understanding of personality reflects the social nature of a person who, like an actor, plays one or another role in society. The Romans have a word persona was necessarily used indicating a certain social function (head of the family, king, judge, etc.). Personality, by its original meaning, is a certain social role or function of a person.

In the Christian tradition, man is interpreted as a “likeness” of the personality of God, deformed by original sin. The first person was God, who is a role model. In the Renaissance, a person is qualified as a free, self-sufficient individual with self-awareness and a desire for self-realization. In German classical philosophy, personality is understood as an individual endowed with reason, a desire for freedom and subordinating himself to the moral law. In Marxism, personality is defined as a stable system of socially significant abilities. The role turns into a calling, a mission, merging with the personality. In particular, the mission of the proletariat is both the destruction of the bourgeoisie and self-abolition. In modern philosophy (personalism, existentialism, philosophical anthropology), personality is considered as a process of self-design, self-integration, self-reflection, occurring within the framework of communication between the Self and the Other.

The concept of personality begins to play a particularly important role when it is complemented by the quality of individuality. Previously, the word “individual” meant approximately the same thing as the word “individual” means in relation to one or another living creature. In the modern sense, the concept of individuality developed in the Renaissance and was based on the formation of market relations, into which a person was drawn as a separate commodity producer, competing with others. The concept is also very important autonomy - independence, which is a product of the philosophy of modern times and an expression of the independence of a person freed from the oppression of religious traditions. It is thanks to reason that a person can exist as an individual and at the same time enter into moral relations with other people. In particular, the concept of duty explained how the individual, forced by the economy into selfish behavior, nevertheless remained a moral being. In modern society, the problem is the search identity in the increasing diversity of life practices, the harmony of individualization and unification in the life process.

Concept of Self was used in transcendental philosophy, where the Self was synonymous with the universal subject, and the other with the object of appropriation. The new problematization of personality is caused by the development of ethnomethodology and cultural anthropology, which operate with the concept of the alien. Hence, in philosophy, the other is understood as something alien that lives not only outside, but also inside the personality, thereby providing the possibility of its self-change.

A person’s realization is related to the opportunities that the social system provides him. A person can make a free choice, but it is one thing to choose between a victim or an executioner, and quite another to choose between the variety of professions, positions and activities that are available to a person in a highly developed democratic society. Personality in philosophy is explored in search of the meaning of life, understanding one’s own destiny, thinking about life and death, and the ability to act freely. In the sociological literature, a role approach to defining personality is adopted. In one or another social structure, a person plays a role prescribed by institutions. Being a father or a leader of an enterprise means fulfilling certain requirements and behaving in accordance with generally accepted ideas about a father or leader. The role approach should be regarded not as a final answer to the question of the human mystery, but as a working definition that captures the features of our existence.

Each of us, being a unique and unique being, participates in life as a socially useful person. Fulfilling social roles does not automatically turn a person into a cog or function of the social system. Unlike acting, playing a social role is what is called life. Therefore, people associate their human qualities, feelings, experiences, hopes with the conscientious performance of their roles. Moreover, the rules are such that they can be followed by everyone in their own way. Freedom is determined not only by the choice between duty and desire, but also by the ways in which formal rules are applied to specific circumstances. The sociological concept of personality turns out to be useful in explaining social dynamics and the possibility of moving up the social ladder. Previously, it was complicated by many class and social barriers. Modern society stimulates development not only within the group, but also the transition from one layer to another. The most important factor in social mobility is education.

The concept of personality in psychology denotes the existence of a person as a member of society, a representative of a certain social group. Close to the concept of “personality,” the concepts of “individual” and “subject” in the strict sense are not synonymous, because they mean different levels of organization of a person’s subjective reality. In theory L. S. Vygotsky the unnatural, historical principle in man is emphasized. Personality is not an innate state, it arises as a result of cultural development. According to L.Ya. Leontiev, personality is a quality that is acquired in society, in relationships with other people.

If in philosophy the center of personality was considered to be consciousness, identified with the mind, which, like a master, controlled mental affects and bodily desires, then in psychoanalysis deep layers of personality were revealed. On the one hand, it is dominated by the social superconscious - social and moral norms, which Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, called the Super-I. On the other hand, a person experiences pressure from sensory-bodily desires (Freud calls their system the Id), which the mind seeks to suppress, but as a result it only achieves “repressing” them into the subconscious. As a result, human behavior turns out to be so complex that this has given rise to talk about the “neurotic personality of the 20th century.”

West Ural Institute

economics and law

non-state educational institution

license No. 24 – 0153

in philosophy

on the topic: “Personality and society. The concept of personality, its freedom and responsibility.”

Completed by: 1st year student

specializations

“Finance and Credit”

Shipilovskikh I. B.

Checked by: Kaidalov V. A.

Perm, 2000

INTRODUCTION

What is philosophy?

Philosophy is a person’s search and finding of answers to the main questions of his existence.

Indeed, throughout his life a person asks questions that concern him and seeks answers to them. But, unfortunately, it does not always find them.

And in the process of finding answers, a person uses such a science as philosophy. In general, philosophy is currently increasingly “conquering” our society. In any industry, people use this science, they think, reflect and make decisions based on it.

In my opinion, nowadays philosophy has become freer, since man has become freer. This is expressed in the fact that in past centuries not every person could defend his ideas and views in society, since he did not occupy a worthy position in society or was simply a slave.

At this time, everyone can express their opinion, they will listen to it and accept it, because a person has the right to his own opinion.

Every person likes to philosophize, but not everyone is a philosopher. True philosophers at all times and epochs took upon themselves the function of clarifying the problems of existence, each time anew raising the question of what a person is, how he should live, what to focus on, how to behave in society.

Currently, there are a lot of books on philosophy, the authors of which set themselves the task of reaching the world level of philosophical knowledge, considering new problems and their solutions characteristic of modern philosophy, bringing data to people in a more accessible form, attracting their attention to problems emerging in society and throughout the world.

This work examines issues of personality and society; concept of personality; her freedoms and responsibilities.

THE CONCEPT OF PERSONALITY.

The concept of personality is one of the most complex in human science. In Russian, the term “lik” has long been used to describe the image of a face on an icon. In European languages, the word “personality” goes back to the Latin concept of “persona,” which meant the mask of an actor in the theater, a social role and a person as a kind of holistic being. In eastern languages, such as Chinese or Japanese, the word “personality” is associated not only with a person’s face, but even more so with his body. In the European tradition, the face is considered in opposition to its body, since the face symbolizes the human soul, and Chinese thinking is characterized by the concept of “vitality, which includes both the physical and spiritual qualities of the individual.”

There are currently four theories of personality:

Biologicalization – according to this theory, each personality is formed and develops in accordance with its innate qualities and characteristics, the social environment does not play a special role in this.

Sociologizing – personality is a product that is fully formed only in the course of social experience; biological heredity does not play a significant role in this.

Freud's psychoanalytic theory – personality is a set of desires, impulses, instincts.

Freud outlined the following personality structure:

A) " Eid ” (“it”) is the unconscious behavior of the individual, these are instincts, needs that the individual is not aware of.

b) “ Ego ” (“I”) is a person’s awareness of himself, his desires and needs.

V) " Superego ” – a person’s awareness of the norms and rules of society.

From Freud's theory we can draw the following conclusion: personality is a contradictory creature. The conflict between unconscious behavior and social norms contributes to self-realization and personal development .

Idonic theory of G. Jung – personality is a system of reactions to various stimuli of the external environment. The main motive of human behavior is the desire to obtain pleasure or avoid troubles, suffering and pain.

This means that a person’s behavior can be controlled by offering one or another reward for certain actions.

Well, you can argue with each of the theories or refute it, but for sure each of the theories is built on real facts.

It is impossible to immediately consider a person as a personality, since there is such a concept as “personality formation” from which we can conclude that personality is formed in the process of life and is not acquired at birth.

So, let's trace the path from birth to the formation of personality.

The first stage is man.

You can say “a man was born,” meaning some kind of human being, but did not highlight certain characteristics. Human - this is a general concept, it is a set of physiological and psychological characteristics that distinguish a human being from other living beings.

The second stage is the individual.

Individual - this is a specific representative of the human race (the issue of individual and personality is discussed in paragraph 2).

The third stage is individuality.

Individuality - this is a set of physical, mental, external characteristics that distinguish one individual from another. In the process of growth, a child develops a character that depends on the external and internal world. Depending on these factors, the child grows up calm or unbalanced (mental characteristics), healthy or sick (physical characteristics), beautiful or with defects (external characteristics).

And finally fourth stage– personality.

Personality - this is the social essence of a person, a set of social characteristics that appear in the course of social experience.

Personality is formed and develops in the process of its life activity, i.e. certain social experience is acquired.

I would like to highlight the following factors of personality development (need is a social experience):

Biological heredity – it creates the initial difference between the individual and other members of society, creates additional opportunities or restrictions for the development of certain personality qualities.

Physical environment – means that the characteristics of people’s behavior are largely determined by the characteristics of the climate, the geographical space of natural resources, and the organization of space.

Society culture – i.e. Each society gives all its representatives special cultural patterns, language, values that other societies cannot offer.

Group Experience – as a result of interaction and communication with other people, a person masters many social roles, and also forms his own “I-image”, which appears as a result of the assessments of others.

Personalized experience is a set of feelings, emotions, impressions, events, experiences experienced by a person. The individual experience is unique and inimitable.

INDIVIDUAL AND PERSONALITY.

In the previous paragraph we have already touched on this issue. I would like to cover it more extensively, because... “personality and individual are opposite both in volume and content. The concept of “individual” does not capture any special or individual properties of a person, therefore in terms of obsession it is very poor, but in terms of volume it is equally rich, for each person is an individual. Personality is a concept very rich in content, including not only general and special characteristics, but also individual, unique properties of a person.” [IN. I. Lavrinenko, p. 483].

First of all, the question arises: when a personality is born, what contributes or hinders this? Obviously, the term “personality” is not applicable to a newborn child, although all people are born as individuals and as individuals. By the latter we mean that every newborn child has his entire prehistory imprinted in a unique way. This also applies to the innate characteristics of biochemical reactions, physiological parameters, the readiness of the brain to perceive the outside world, etc.

Already in the mother's belly the child feels it. The mother enters into a relationship with him, connects him with the world, prepares the prerequisites for his connections with the future environment. It develops a nervous system, and the embryo reacts to pain by moving away from the light directed at the mother’s belly. Later, the organ of taste appears, the embryo begins to hear loud screams, “gets scared”, “gets angry”, reacts to words and caresses, to the mother’s mood. In other words, many of the prerequisites for personal development are laid already in the prenatal period.

The “birth crisis” has not only physiological significance, but largely determines the parameters of the mental activity of an adult.

Consequently, a newborn is already a bright individual, and every day of his life increases the need for diverse reactions to the world around him. By crying and screaming, the child lets you know about his unmet needs. The child’s individuality increases by the age of two, at which time interest in the world and the development of one’s own “I” increases. It is during this period that the first features of personal behavior appear, when the child finds himself in situations of free choice.

Further development of personality is associated with the “passage” of other age periods and, on the other hand, with the developmental characteristics of girls and boys, girls and boys. Age, gender, profession, social circle, era - all this shapes personality. There may be ups and downs along the path of life; the milestones in life are separation from the parental family, creating your own, having children, etc.

So, the formation of personality occurs in the process of people assimilating the experience and value orientations of a given society, which is called socialization .

Berdyaev I.A. wrote: “As the image and likeness of God, man is a person. A person must be distinguished from an individual. Personality is a category spiritual and religious , the individual is a category naturalistic-biological . The individual is part of nature and society. A person cannot be part of something...” [Berdyaev I.A., p. 21]. However, it is difficult to agree with his statement, since it leads to the denial of the social character and social conditioning of the individual.

The willpower and fortitude of an individual, her moral goodness and purity cannot be realized in any other way than in real practical activity and in certain social conditions. A person’s actions are the most important factor characterizing a person - these are not words, but deeds of a person, and even in the Holy Scriptures it is no coincidence that they speak of rewarding “each according to his deeds.” And when it comes to real actions, a person understands how difficult and difficult it is to be an individual, to be free, honest, and principled.

“And if an individual really considers himself a person or strives to be one, he must be responsible, and not only in his thoughts, but above all in his actions, and this is always a heavy burden.” [IN. I. Lavrichenko, p. 487].

TYPES AND TYPES OF PERSONALITY.

In the textbook “Philosophy” edited by Doctor of Philosophy V.P. Kokhanovsky distinguishes three types of personality and four personality types, which I want to reveal in more detail.

So, there are physical, social and spiritual personalities.

Physical personality or physical self - this is the body, or the bodily organization of a person, the most stable component of the personality, based on bodily properties and self-perceptions. The body is not only the first “object” for cognition, but also an essential component of a person’s personal world, both helping and hindering in the processes of communication. The physical personality can also include clothes, home, works of manual and intellectual labor - decorations of his life, collections, letters, manuscripts. Based on these elements, you can tell a lot about a person and his hobbies. Recognize a creative personality immediately. Protecting yourself, your body, your identity, as well as your immediate environment, is one of the oldest personal qualities of a person both in the history of society and in the history of the individual. As G. Heine said: every person is “a whole world, born and dies with him.”

Social personality develops in communication with people, starting with the primary forms of communication between mother and child. In fact, it appears as a system of a person’s social roles in different groups, the opinion of which he values. All forms of self-affirmation in profession, social activities, friendship, love, rivalry, etc. form the social structure of the individual. Psychologists note that satisfaction or dissatisfaction with oneself is entirely determined by a fraction in which the numerator expresses our actual success, and the denominator expresses our aspirations.

As the numerator increases and the denominator decreases, the fraction will increase. On this occasion, T. Carlyle said: “Equate your claims to zero and the whole world will be at your feet.”

And, finally, the spiritual personality constitutes that invisible core, the core of our “I”, on which everything rests. These are internal spiritual states that reflect the desire for certain spiritual values and ideals. Sooner or later, every person, at least at certain moments in life, begins to think about the meaning of his existence and spiritual development. A person's spirituality is not something external, it is not acquired through education or imitation even by the best example.

Often, spirituality not only “holds” the personality, but is also the highest good, the supreme integrity, in the name of which they sometimes sacrifice their lives. B. Pascal’s famous expression about man as a “thinking reed” emphasizes the strength of spirit, even under the harshest conditions of life. Moreover, history provides many examples when intense spiritual life was the key to not only physical survival, but also active longevity. People who preserved their spiritual world, as a rule, survived in conditions of hard labor and concentration camps.

The distinction between physical, social and spiritual personality is rather conditional. All these aspects of personality form a system, each element of which can acquire dominant significance at different stages of a person’s life. There are known periods of intense care for one’s body and its functions, stages of expansion and enrichment of social connections, and peaks of powerful spiritual activity. At the same time, illnesses, difficult trials, age, etc. can change the structure of the personality, leading to a kind of “splitting” or degradation.

Also, there are several major social personality types:

The first type is “ figures " These include: fishermen, hunters, artisans, warriors, farmers, workers, engineers, geologists, doctors, teachers, managers, etc. For them, the main thing is active action, changing the world and other people, as well as themselves. They live by work, finding the highest satisfaction in it, even if its fruits are not so noticeable. There has always been a need for such individuals - these people are active, know their worth, have self-esteem, and are aware of the extent of their responsibility for themselves, for their family, for their people. Evangelist Luke also quoted the words of Christ: “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few.”

Second type - thinkers . These people, according to Pythagoras, come into the world not to compete and trade, but to watch and reflect. The image of a sage, a thinker who embodied the traditions of the family and its historical memory, has always enjoyed enormous authority. Buddha and Zarathustra, Moses and Pythagoras, Solomon and Lao Tzu, Confucius and Mahavira Jina, Christ and Muhammad were considered either messengers of the gods or were themselves deified. Reflections on the world, its origin, man, personality, freedom, etc. require a lot of strength and, to some extent, courage. Therefore, the fates of many outstanding thinkers of the past and present are tragic, because “no prophet is accepted in his Fatherland.”

Third type - people of feelings and emotions who acutely feel how the “crack of the world” (G. Heine) passes through their hearts. First of all, these are figures of literature and art, whose brilliant insights often outstrip the most daring scientific forecasts and prophecies of the sages. It is known, for example, that the poet A. Bely, back in 1921, wrote poems that mentioned the atomic bomb, and his great contemporary A. Blok heard the “music” of the revolution long before it began. There are many such examples and they indicate that the power of intuition of great poets and artists borders on miracles.

Perhaps many people see the beauty of nature, but it is very difficult to describe it the way the poet does. The poet, like a magician, describes, for example, a maple leaf as a living person, feeling and living.

And how an artist, choosing a palette of colors, creates miracles on canvas, and shows that, like, for example, the sea lives, rejoices, and is sad.

Indeed, this personality type works wonders.

Fourth type - humanists and devotees , characterized by a heightened sense of feeling the mental state of another person, seem to “feel” into him, alleviating mental and physical suffering. Their strength lies in faith in their destiny, in love for people and all living things, in active action. They made mercy their life's work. A. Schweitzer, F.P. Haase, A. Dunon, Mother Teresa, Jesus Christ and thousands of their followers in history and our reality are living examples of serving people, regardless of their race, nation, age, gender, condition, origin, religion and other characteristics.

Everyone knows that Jesus Christ, who did not know all the people, but knew that they believed, was crucified in the name of humanity, sacrificing himself.

The Gospel commandment: “Love your neighbor as yourself” is directly embodied in their activities. “Hurry to do good,” this life motto of the Russian doctor and humanist of the 11th century F. P. Haas symbolizes the degree of such individuals.

In modern society, all four personality types are found, either with a certain pronounced characteristic, or including some part of other personality types. It cannot be said that a certain person does not belong to any of the types, this is wrong, because perhaps in every person there is a doer, a thinker, an emotional, sensual, a humanist and an ascetic.

4. THREE ETHICS.

There is a special section of philosophy - ethics , within which the problem of good and evil is examined in detail. Ethics is translated into Russian as custom, character.

The main concepts in modern ethics are ethics of virtue, ethics of duty And ethics of values .

The main ideas of virtue ethics were developed by Aristotle. Virtue is understood as such personal qualities, by realizing which a person realizes goodness.

Having virtue, generating goodness, a person is considered to be moral. Evil is associated with the scarcity of virtues.

According to Aristotle, the cardinal virtues are: wisdom, prudence, courage and justice .

The famous English mathematician and philosopher B. Russell offered his list of virtues: optimism, courage (ability to defend one’s beliefs) intelligence. Newest authors especially often point out such virtues as reasonableness, tolerance (tolerance of other people's opinions), communication skills, fairness, love of freedom.

In contrast to virtue ethics, Kant developed an ethics of duty. He believed that the ideal of virtue can certainly lead to good, but it can also lead to evil - when it is wielded by someone in whose veins flows the “cold blood of a villain.” This happens because in virtues goodness has found its particular and relative, but not complete expression. The criteria for goodness are moral laws, such as “Do not kill”, “Do not lie”, “Do not use a person as a means”, “Do not steal”. “The most important guarantee against an evil act is not virtues, but those that have universal, universal, obligatory, formal, a priori (experiential knowledge that gives a formalized, universal and necessary character) and moral maxims.” [IN. A. Kanke, p. 227].

An ethics of values was developed, according to which there are only relative values, relative goodness. The most significant varieties of value ethics are English utilitarianism and American pragmatism.

English utilitarianism was developed by A. Smith, I. Bentham, and J. S. Mill. The Latin term “utilitas” means benefit, benefit. Within the framework of utilitarianism, the most important criterion of goodness is the achievement of benefit in accordance with Bentham’s famous formula: “The greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.” Bentham understood utility itself as pleasure in the absence of pain.

In American pragmatism (C. Pierce, W. James, J. Dune, etc.), moral good appears as the achievement of success, which is linked to the resolution of a specific problem situation, with appropriate practical methods. Pragmatists, more explicitly than utilitarians, insist that values are the result of human activity.

Each of the three ethics has both disadvantages and advantages. Virtue ethics focuses on understanding the moral character of an individual, duty ethics puts moral laws first, and value ethics considers human existence in the world. All this is very relevant. Therefore, the main task is to combine the strengths of all three ethics.

“Modernity, with its crisis symptoms, poses quite difficult challenges for ethics. On the one hand, these symptoms clearly indicate the loss of a decisive link, which, according to the famous humanist A. Schweitzer, is the ethical principle. On the other hand, the famous philosophers German M. Heidegger and Frenchman J. F. Lyotard tend to oppose aesthetic spontaneity to ethics. According to Lyotard, the modern world is fragmented, fragmented, multi-valued, and the search for ethical unity will inevitably lead to a new totalitarianism. And therefore, old-fashioned ethical intuitions are replaced by the sublime, the truly ethical. Our Russian reality is characterized by a particularly inattentive, detached attitude towards ethics, which is often considered the prerogative of teachers and priests, but not of strong men.” [IN. A. Kanke, p. 228]

Currently, the problems of ethics are being developed by the most authoritative philosophers and scientists. The work they do is considered both relevant and noble.

One of the new ethical ideas is related to the problem of the relationship between freedom and responsibility of the individual.

5. FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PERSON.

Liberty - this is one of the main philosophical categories that characterize the essence of man and his existence, consisting in the individual’s ability to think and act in accordance with his ideas and desires, and not as a result of external or internal coercion.

The philosophy of human freedom has been the subject of reflection by many philosophers and scientists, such as Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Sartre, Jaspers, Berdyaev, Soloviev, etc.

For example, the French existentialist J.P. Sartre did not make a distinction between human existence and his freedom. “To be free,” he wrote, “means to be damned for being—freedom.” His famous expression: “We are sentenced to freedom.” According to Sartre, a person is in a certain situation within which he must make an appropriate choice. Any kind of external coercion cannot abolish a person’s freedom, because he always has a field of possibilities for his choice. For Sartre, freedom is an absolute value.

Philologists believe that the term “ Liberty ” goes back to the Sanskrit root meaning “ Darling " “Live free or die” is the motto of the American state of New Hampshire, which contains quite a deep content.

An essential characteristic of freedom is internal certainty. F. M. Dostoevsky, rightly, remarked on this matter: “A person needs only one independent desire, no matter what this independence costs and what it leads to.” A person will not accept any social system if it does not take into account the benefits of a person being an individual and having the freedom to realize it.

There are several models of the relationship between the individual and society regarding freedom and its attributes.

Firstly, most often this is a relationship of struggle for freedom, when a person enters into open conflict with society, achieving his goals at any cost. But this is a very difficult and dangerous path, it is fraught with the fact that a person can lose all other human qualities and, having become involved in the struggle for freedom, fall into even worse slavery.

Secondly, this is an escape from the world, when a person is unable to find freedom among people, when a person runs to a monastery, to a monastery, to himself, to his “world”, in order to find a way of free self-realization there.

Third, a person adapts to the world, sacrificing something of his desire to gain freedom, going into voluntary submission, in order to gain a new level of freedom in a modified form.

It is, of course, possible that there may be a certain coincidence of the interests of the individual and society in gaining freedom, which finds expression in countries with developed forms of democracy. If earlier freedom was perceived as the absence of coercion on the part of the state, then by the middle of the 20th century it became obvious that the concept of freedom should be supplemented by the idea of regulating the activities of people. The essence of the matter is that the state should do this not by methods of violence and coercion, but with the help of an economic mechanism and strict observance of human rights.

In 1789, the French National Assembly adopted the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, which declared that “the purpose of every political union is the preservation of the natural and inalienable rights of man. These rights are: freedom, property, security And resistance to oppression " It should be especially emphasized that human rights arise at birth, and are not some kind of gift. Moreover, even the fetus in the womb already has a number of human rights, is protected by law, and in religious ethics, already at the moment of conception, human flesh becomes sacred, and its destruction (abortion) is considered murder.

I would like to consider the question of human value. It must be emphasized that this concept is universal and cannot be reduced to the “usefulness” of a person for society. Attempts to divide a person into “necessary” and “unnecessary” are vicious in their essence, because their implementation gives rise to arbitrariness, leading to the degradation of both man and society. The value of a human person is, in principle, greater than what a given person says or does. It cannot be reduced to work or creativity, to recognition from society or a group of people. The value of a person is incommensurable only with the fruits of his activity. Leaving behind things, children, a person cannot be reduced to the amount of this inheritance.

There are two concepts of responsibility: classical And non-classical .

According to the classical concept, the subject of an action is responsible for its consequences. As a bearer of responsibility, he must be independent and free. The subject of the action must be able to foresee the consequences of his actions, and this is only possible when he acts independently, and not as a “cog”. Finally, he must answer to someone: to the court, to his superior, to God, or to his own conscience. One has to answer for what they have done, for the consequences of actions that put their subject in the position of an accused. Ethics of Responsibility – ethics of action; if there is no action, there is no responsibility. This ethics can be called the ethics of constructiveness, i.e. the subject constructs his actions; the nature of the actions is not initially specified.

Non-classical concept responsibility lies in the fact that the subject acts as a member of a group where, due to the division of functions, it is, in principle, impossible to foresee his actions. Here the classical concept loses its applicability, because the subject of action is now initially responsible not for the failures of his actions within the framework of a given organizational structure, but for the assigned task, for the success of the latter. Despite all the uncertainties, the subject solves the problem of properly organizing the matter, managing the progress of its implementation; responsibility is now associated with the norms and functions of a democratic society, and not with the absolute freedom of man.

Classic concept corresponds to the concept of freedom of the subject. The non-classical concept of responsibility has its parallel in a free society with demands that everyone has to reckon with.

The non-classical concept is full of problematic aspects. One of the problems is the problem of division of responsibility. Imagine a group of people doing a common cause. It is necessary to determine the degree of responsibility of each subject of the action. Many philosophers and scientists are racking their brains; they understand that in modern society it is impossible to save efforts on developing actual responsibility.

At the turn of the 20th – 21st centuries, the world is entering a period of amazing change, when many traditional ways of human existence will require significant correction. They predict an increase in the phenomena of instability of many physical and biological processes, and an increase in the phenomenon of unpredictability of social and psychological phenomena.

In these conditions, being an individual is not a good wish, but a requirement for the development of man and humanity. Taking on the burden of personality and universal human problems is the only way to survive and further improve a person. It involves the development of the highest degree of responsibility.

CONCLUSION

Perhaps each philosopher understands personality in his own way, but they all agree on one thing. A personality is a formed person who has his own life, his own beliefs, his own views, his own individual character, his own principles, etc.

I would like to give several examples of statements by various philosophers about personality.

Bishop Augustine the Blessed (354 – 430), who paid strong attention to medieval philosophy, solves two major problems: personality dynamics And dynamics of human history. His work “Confession” is a study of a person’s self-awareness and psychological states. It describes the inner world of a person from infancy to the establishment of a person as a Christian. He is disgusted by any violence against the individual: from violence against a child at school to state violence. Augustine puts forward the problem of individual freedom. He believed that subjectively a person acts freely, but everything he does is done by God through him. And the existence of God can be deduced from human self-awareness, from the self-reliability of human thinking. Augustine showed the role of self-awareness for the individual. After all, I am a closed, intimate being that is separated from the outside world and even “closed” from it. [IN AND. Lavrinenko, p. 45]

The social and philosophical views of Thomas Aquinas, who is considered the creator of Catholic theology and the systematizer of scholasticism, deserve attention. He argued that personality is “the noblest phenomenon in all rational nature.” It is characterized intellect, feeling And by will . The intellect has superiority over the will. However, he places knowledge of God lower than love for him, i.e. feelings can surpass reason if they relate not to ordinary things, but to God. [IN AND. Lavrinenko, p. 46]

An important part of the work of A.I. Herzen - the theme of personality. The value of any personality lies in a reasonable and morally free “action” in which a person achieves his real existence. But personality is not only the crown of nature, but also “the pinnacle of the historical world.” There is an interaction between the individual and the social environment: the individual is created by the environment and events, but the consequences bear its imprint. [IN AND. Lavrinenko, p. 148].

At the center of Mikhailovsky’s social and philosophical concept is the idea of personality, the development and integrity of which is the measure, goal and ideal of historical progress. For him, personality is the “measure of all things,” therefore the alienation of the individual, which turns him into an appendage of society, must necessarily be overcome. [IN AND. Lavrinenko, p. 151].

Leontyev K. N. Advocates for a bright personality type. For him, extremes are more important than the middle and grayness. On homogeneous soil, on equality, on simplification, he writes, geniuses and original thinkers are not born. [IN AND. Lavrinenko, p. 157].

In addition to these statements, there are many others, because every philosopher tries to explain any question that arises in a person. And all people, not even philosophers, try to explain for themselves everything that can be explained in one way or another.

There are many disputes and disagreements about this, but not a single philosopher gives what he believes.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Philosophy: Textbook / Edited by Doctor of Philosophy, Professor V. I. Lavrinenko - 2nd edition - Moscow: Lawyer, 1998

Philosophy: Textbook / Edited by Doctor of Philosophy V. P. Kokhanovsky - Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix, 1997.

Philosophy: Historical and systematic course: textbook for universities - 3rd edition - Moscow: Logos Publishing Corporation, 2000.

Notes on sociology and political science.

Personality and society

1. Personality and society

1.1 Personality as a social projection of a person

1.2 Historical personality types

1.3 Ways of human existence

List of sources used

1. Personality and society

1.1. Personality as a social projection of a person

In primitive society, due to the lack of differentiation of social functions, an individual could not become a full-fledged individual. The further development of society led to the fact that man increasingly stood out from the direct fusion with the clan and with nature, carried out diverse social functions and thereby developed personal civic qualities.

Social history appears as a phase transition with fluctuations of varying amplitudes of impact on local aspects of social life. In this transition, the process of personality formation is:

a) the moment of universality of forms of movement;

b) manifestation of the unfolding of the phenomenon of a living being, the ability of reflection at the level of consciousness;

c) expression of the quality of the object-subject of the social form of movement of matter, which includes spirituality.

So, personality is considered in the system of interaction of natural and social forms of movement of matter, formed under the influence of the social environment, as well as a person’s own efforts.

Each society forms its own type of personality, which operates in certain socio-economic, socio-cultural and psychological situations. In the primitive unstructured system, people lived from the extraction of their livelihood, were merged with nature and absorbed into the community. However, even then there was not complete homogeneity: leaders, elders, etc. stood out. In antagonistic societies, a gap arises between natural conditions, production conditions and the existence of people, and the isolation of the individual from nature and from other people increases. The formation of private interests and private property, at the same time, gave rise to a complexly structured society and contributed to the formation of a full-fledged personality. P. Golbach, N.A. Berdyaev, I.A. Ilyin saw the connection between private property and human nature, with the principle of personality. In addition to its positive role in the life of society, especially in the formation of personality, private property leads to a coarsening of incentives for activity when morality is identified with pragmatism.

Personal development was also facilitated by the formation of civil society. English and French materialists of the 18th century. in civil society they saw a set of social relations, an environment in which the activities of individuals take place, possessing natural rights, sovereignty, inviolable private life and realizing their interests. Currently, civil society usually means a society of its free members in the form of voluntary associations of citizens, with a high level of economic, social, spiritual and moral indicators, which, together with the state, implement developed legal relations.

The influence of typical reasons that determine the role of the individual is designated by the term “situation factor.”

By K. Jaspers, a situation means events that define the historical uniqueness of a certain human destiny, shaping its joys and hopes, as well as pain points. The situation characterizes not so much a natural-lawful, but more a semantic reality, which brings benefit or harm to the empirical existence of a particular individual, opens up opportunities or poses obstacles. The philosopher identified universal, typical situations and historically specific, one-time situations. In a broader sense of the word, the “situation factor” consists of the characteristics of the environment in which a person operates (ecological situation, social system, the nature of traditions, characteristics of civilizational-formational time, etc.), the state in which society is at a certain moment (stable, unstable, ascending, descending, etc.). Of course, the characteristics of the individual functioning in a certain situation matter. After all, each person lives in the world of his own mental reality, relatively independent of the environment. In a situation, a person realizes his greatness and at the same time his limitations, recognizes the presence of other selves and the need for dialogue with them.

Various variations appear in human behavior.

In the weathervane-adaptive scenario, a person thinks and acts unprincipled, voluntarily submitting to circumstances and social fashion. When the situation and power change, the opportunist is potentially ready to change his views and serve a new “idol-god”, a different doctrine.

In the conservative-traditionalist version, an individual with insufficient creative potential is not able to respond flexibly to changing circumstances and is captive of old dogmas, stubbornly clinging to outdated “principles.”

This position cannot be identified with personally independent behavior (third option). I. Kant grasped the advantages of autonomous human behavior, free from addictions and temporary circumstances, but at the same time underestimated the objective conditionality of human actions.

When analyzing the fourth option, we proceed from the fact that in the process of anthroposociogenesis, stability (expressed through the ideological “core”, beliefs) and flexibility (the ability to respond to new things, adjust one’s beliefs within a certain range) are formed in a person. At the same time, a person maintains integrity in the most important ideological issues, without betraying his inner self, and at the same time creatively responds to the realities of life.

The relationship between the individual and the social environment ideally fits into the formula: search (of the individual) - proposals (of society) - choice (of the individual from what is offered by society). The autonomy and responsibility of an individual are manifested both in the process of comprehending proposals (“social orders”), conditions, requirements imposed by society (each person understands these requests and requirements subjectively, selectively, in accordance with his ideas about what is proper, valuable, good), and and in the course of fulfilling her social roles. In general, personality is an individual projection of society, and the adaptation of the personality to the environment and its active influence on the environment act as a moment of self-realization of the individual.

Personality is a concept that reflects the social nature of a person, considering him as a bearer of an individual principle (interests, abilities, aspirations, self-knowledge, etc.), self-revealing in social relations, communication and objective activity. The acquisition of social traits by a person (in the course of socialization, the performance of socially significant functions under the influence of the social environment) occurs on the basis of his biopsychological inclinations. Therefore, heredity plays a certain role in the formation of personality.

A person is not born an individual, but becomes one in the process of socialization. Socialization means: a) a person’s mastery of a system of social norms and values, social needs; b) the real inclusion of the individual in public life, the process of endowing people with social properties. “Socialization,” according to K. Marx, “is not the mechanical imposition of a ready-made social form on the individual. The individual, acting as an object of socialization, is at the same time the subject of social activity, the creator of social forms.” Socialization of a person is, first of all, internal self-deepening, a dialogue between a person and himself (“I - I”), which forms self-awareness. The relationships “I - you”, “I - we”, “I - humanity”, “I am nature”, “I am second nature”, “I am the universe” form moral feelings (love, friendship, hatred, etc. .), various value systems, ideas of national, class, state pride, group solidarity, social justice, socio-philosophical, historical, environmental, futurological and other reflections, atheistic and religious reasoning about the meaning of life and death, ideas about a responsible attitude towards oneself and everything around us, in general, is determined by the norms of behavior and activity of people.

Socialization occurs not only in the context of communication (in the form of imitation, learning, etc.), but also indirectly, through elements of culture (language, myth, art, religion, etc.). It acts as the most important mechanism for the reproduction of the subject of the socio-historical process, ensures continuity in the development of culture and civilization, supports the relatively conflict-free existence of society through the adaptation of the individual to the environment and the introduction of generally valid norms of legitimate behavior into the content of his consciousness.

The most important forms of socialization are: customs, traditions, state legal norms, language. Through these forms, human upbringing, training and activities are carried out. Personality is manifested through properties: ability to work, consciousness and language, freedom and responsibility, direction and uniqueness, character and temperament.

Individual personality development is not infinite, it is ascending and descending. Biological development is measured by the state of metabolism and body functions. Social age is determined by the level of social development, depends on the individual’s mastery of a set of social roles, on the subjective internal representation of the individual about the degree of his development. Mental development is determined by the level of mental, emotional, etc. personality development (for example, A. Schopenhauer believed that intelligence, having reached its culmination point, declines). A person is not only capable of acquiring personality traits, but also of losing them.

Social philosophy examines the problems of human and social development in their dialectical interconnectedness and interdependence. Philosophical problems of personality include: definition of personality; forms of interdependence of personal and social self-determination; trends and prospects for changes in personality and society, analysis of the main approaches to its study existing in the history of philosophy.

Personality is a synthetic concept that denotes an object that no science can have a monopoly on. Personality is a relatively late concept. Literally, it comes from the word "mask", meaning a mask worn by ancient Greek actors. This understanding of personality emphasized the social conditioning of human nature and its definition through a place or role in society (king, slave, poet). Later, the concept of personality includes the idea of human individuality. The word “individual” originally had an exclusively biological meaning and denoted a separate “individual” as a representative of a biological species.

In the modern sense, the concept of individuality developed in the philosophy of the Enlightenment, during the era of the formation of market relations, when, on the one hand, any person acted as a separate, “indivisible”, autonomous entrepreneur, on the other hand, he had specific and unique traits of biography, character and behavior. Our everyday language, which has more intuitive wisdom than theoretical constructs, uses the word “personality” to describe an integral characteristic of a person. Personality is individuality in communication; this definition most clearly shows the interrelation and interdependence of personal and social self-determination. Thus, the content of the concept of personality clearly expresses three key components: individuality, social role, communication process.

In the general history of the study of personality by various humanities, several approaches have emerged. The most important of them: philosophical and literary approach - the study of personality primarily in interaction with society; clinical approach - study of norms, pathologies and anomalies in personality development; psychological experimental approach - determination of dominant personality traits, complexes that determine the psyche and behavior. In addition, it should be noted the influence on the philosophical understanding of personality of such global problems of psychological science as the role of heredity and environment, conscious and unconscious in the formation of the personal psyche and behavior. The problem of personality in the modern world is also caused by the difficulty of coordinating socio-economic realities and ethical and psychological requirements for a person, hence K. Horney’s concept of “the neurotic personality of our time” that has become a household name.

In the history of the development of human sciences natural science And humanitarian approaches were fundamentally different. For a long time, these two approaches were absolutized and sometimes stimulated, but more often hindered each other’s development. But both of them had to answer the main question: thanks to what did man, who as a biological being is weak and vulnerable, was able to successfully compete with animals, and later became the most powerful force on earth? Meanwhile, the fact that man is a historical, social and cultural being allows us to understand that his “nature” is not something given, but is constructed differently in each culture. The recognition that everything that people can do is a product of cultural development, upbringing and education allows us to overcome the one-sidedness of reducing man to an animal, and the study of the forms of animal life by biology, ethnology, and zoopsychology concretizes and meaningfully enriches philosophical ideas about the unity of the world.

Awareness duality of human nature forms the foundation of modern human sciences. Any concept of man is based on the presence of natural and social in him and the existence of double determination, biological and cultural, for almost all mental and behavioral acts. A holistic image of a person is formed as the sum of his knowledge of natural science (biology, medicine, etc.) and humanitarian knowledge (sociology, philosophy, history, cultural studies). And, for example, psychology as a science generally cannot be classified unambiguously as natural science or humanities knowledge without an analysis of specific schools and directions. Despite the apparent fundamental difference, natural science and humanities use the same scale to analyze a person, which is the mind and society. Only natural science considers human society alongside the community of ants or baboons, and the mind as a kind of animal psyche, while philosophy believes that culture and spirituality contrast man with the animal world. The task of modern science is to fit man into the development of nature without understating or exaggerating his fundamental originality, in order to rethink his generic essence.

Of course, social life is not an exclusive feature of people; moreover, we generally cannot find a form of human behavior that could not be found in the animal world. Swans die of love, elephants take care of the elderly, and whales commit suicide. Consequently, the human must be sought not in a separate quality characteristic only of this species, but in the integral, holistic, hierarchical, dynamic unity of life forms. Historically, the first thing in both ontogenesis and phylogenesis is that a person, even the most primitive, does not have ready-made instincts or programs in order to live a human life. Being unfinished by nature, he realizes himself in culture and carries out even the simplest acts of life not instinctively, but according to social models. Hence the variety of forms of economy, family and communication. Where almost any animal needs to “learn” in order to survive, but it is a representative of its species from birth, a person needs to be formed, he needs to become a person in the process of experiencing individual and collective life.

Incompleteness, the fundamental incompleteness of life, is the same characteristic of the essence of humanity as the duality of human nature. Hence, the most important process that shapes and determines personality is socialization. Society constantly creates and recreates special social institutions in which the formation and functioning of the human personality takes place. These institutions: the state, the education system, marriage, the army, etc. are different in their tasks, structure and methods of activity, but they are all created by society for its development and for human reproduction. The process of socialization can be conditionally divided into personal, internal self-determination, which includes the search for identity or the solution to the question: who am I; and external social self-determination as the search for one’s place in social reality. Socialization flows through a person’s entire life and is closely related to age and gender life cycles: that is, it includes the assimilation of social rules, the search and assertion of oneself in a social role, and then the individual turns from an object of social protection and education into a subject of social actions and is capable of creating and changing social norms and patterns of behavior.

It can be argued that society is determined by the type or types of personality, its components or cultivated by it, and in the same way personality is determined by the character of the society in which it develops. The concept of social identity reflects the fact that each person, firstly, knows his place in social reality, corresponding to gender, age, status, opportunities and abilities, and secondly, he has an idea, formed through the corresponding social institutions, about the tasks, which she will have to solve in this place, and the “framework” of an individual’s success is embedded in the definition of a given social place. Social institutions, social norms and rules of behavior regulate social activity and consciousness. Having determined his social “I,” a person also forms an idea of how he wants and should, and how he does not want and should not be in this place. Thus, social identity means determining one’s place and role in social reality, one’s social functions corresponding to the place and role, as well as one’s social claims expressed in a social ideal. Social self-identification carried out in the process of joining the group. Society is an integral system with a hierarchical, dynamic structure, and social stratification and social mobility of society, in turn, represent models of possible personal roles, types and behavior options.

In society there is always a certain concept of the norm of personal development. At the same time, personal and social ideas about the norm and social ideals do not coincide. What is normal for society is what contributes to its preservation at this stage, and what is ideal is what further embodies public interests at the moment. For example, in a society where market relations are cultivated, it is natural and normal for a person to worry about his income, but the ideal person is someone who can independently, without public support, receive and maintain this high income. Normal are those who live in step with society, without lagging behind and without getting ahead. From the point of view of individual development, regardless of the social structure, to live normally means to live happily, it means to live in abundance and have opportunities for individual development in all areas.

Personal and social development also differ in relation to individuality: society is interested in following given patterns as much as possible, the individual feels the need to affirm his own uniqueness. From the point of view of society, a conformist is normal, and from the point of view of personality, a person is normal who is able to act differently from everyone else, while maintaining his individuality. The dialectical contradiction between personality and society can be expressed as a contradiction between individualization and unification. Society strives for the unification of personal self-determination in accordance with its structure, and the individual strives for maximum disclosure of his own individuality. A society's ability to resolve this contradiction determines its potential for self-development.

The most important element connecting the individual and society is needs, norms, values and ideals. Here we observe the interaction of several realities. Firstly, we can conditionally talk about the interdependence of personal and social ideals and their coincidence or divergence. The connecting link here is the group as an exponent and condition of personal social self-determination. Secondly, needs, interests, values and ideals exist both at the level of theoretical consciousness and in everyday life, and are also in dialectical contradiction. Thirdly, the norms and values of the groups to which an individual belongs may contradict each other.

A developing person, in the process of socialization, acquires character traits, forms a will, and ultimately makes his life. The dynamics of society determines a change in life orientations: a worker person or an entrepreneur person assume different forms of life. Changing heroes, idols and idols leads to changes in clothing, apartment furnishings, vocabulary, and hobbies. Changing the concept of prestigious or non-prestigious professions affects the hierarchy of groups that are significant in public opinion.

At the same time, society experiences no less strong pressure from the individual. We don’t know who exactly comes up with jokes, spreads gossip, dictates how one should behave at weddings or funerals, but these must be specific people with names and faces, thanks to whom society becomes different. Both in the case of a tough struggle to preserve tradition, and in a situation of revolutionary changes, social layers, groups and individuals arise that personify ideas. We can say that these are the heroes from whom social ideals are “written”, these are revolutionaries whose names and faces are associated in the minds of the masses with their interests. These are cultural figures who, with their works, set models of everyday behavior, form habits and tastes, what is called the level of mass culture. It is known that until the end of the 20th century. The modeling of tastes and behavior was mainly dealt with by literature; today it has been significantly replaced by cinema and television. Individuals considered outstanding change, and society changes accordingly.

Classical society was very strict regarding the rules and norms by which people had to build their lives. Modern fashion, literature, cinema, and the press, which seem to satisfy all tastes and needs, actually set stereotypes of thoughts and actions that are no less rigid. But still, the collapse of a uniform system of life allows us to introduce greater opportunities for individual creativity. Since information is no longer the property of a few, cultural figures cannot ignore the real needs of the cultural consumer. Thus, the increasing differentiation of society leads to an increase in the role of the individual in the creation of his everyday life and culture. On the one hand, it seems that the number of outstanding personalities, prophets, psychics, TV presenters or athletes is increasing and their impact on minds and souls is growing, on the other hand, it is their multitude that creates the possibility of free choice and, therefore, increases the degree of personal freedom.

Social philosophy has always separately considered the issue about the role of personality in history. A historical figure as a person, firstly, embodies social ideas, secondly, unites social groups around himself, and thirdly, thanks to the peculiarities of his personal biography and character, he ensures the creation of the “originality of the current moment.” Historical figures undoubtedly exist, but the reasons for their appearance and influence on public life are not mystical in nature, but can be studied in the context of the culture of a given society. In the novel “War and Peace,” L. Tolstoy showed that the contribution of an individual to history depends not only on individual character traits (the contrast between Kutuzov and Napoleon), but also on the volume and content of social connections. The more opportunities a particular person has to influence the activities of social institutions and the destinies of other people, the sooner he can contribute to progress or stagnation, the growth of culture or the decline of morals.

Thus, it can be stated that the individual and society are considered in social philosophy as dialectical opposites. In modern society, the main problem of the individual remains the search for identity in the increasing diversity of life practices. The main problem of society is the creation of social institutions that ensure harmony of individualization and unification in the life process.

Personality and society

1. Personality and society

1.1 Personality as a social projection of a person

1.2 Historical personality types

1.3 Ways of human existence

List of sources used

1. Personality and society

1.1. Personality as a social projection of a person

Social history appears as a phase transition with fluctuations of varying amplitudes of impact on local aspects of social life. In this transition, the process of personality formation is:

a) the moment of universality of forms of movement;

b) manifestation of the unfolding of the phenomenon of a living being, the ability of reflection at the level of consciousness;

c) expression of the quality of the object-subject of the social form of movement of matter, which includes spirituality.

The influence of typical reasons that determine the role of the individual is designated by the term “situation factor.”

Various variations appear in human behavior.

1.2. Historical personality types

The diversity of people does not exclude the possibility of discerning certain types of similarities in accordance with social parameters:

1) belonging of individuals to a certain field of activity, i.e. to the social type of division of labor;

2) division of people according to their relationship to the means of production;

3) the subordination of people to national and cultural conditions.

The bearers of social relations develop certain class, national and other personality traits.

The modern understanding of personality in the post-non-classical picture of the world combines unifying (averaging) and individualizing tendencies. Unifying typologies are based on various criteria and, accordingly, there are socio-historical, social-class, socio-demographic, socio-ethnic, socio-professional, social-role typologies, etc. In Marxism, the basis for identifying specific types of sociality that form personality types is the formational division of history. The modern civilizational paradigm allows us to reveal a more universal typology of personality.

In every historical era, in addition to the dominant ones, there are transitional forms of sociality and personality types. The dynamism of the world, its constant incompleteness determine the flexibility of the individual, his going beyond the boundaries of the social type. Integrative processes in society blur the socio-national qualities of personality types. Social differentiation preserves the specificity of socio-ethnic communities.

In addition to social science, there are socio-psychological personality types. Hippocrates also divided people into choleric, sanguine, phlegmatic and melancholic.

In the philosophical and psychological literature, the division of people into introverts and extroverts has become widespread. An introvert is focused on his inner world; he often tends to have an analytical perception of the world. An extrovert is aimed at the outside world, its synthetic nature. I.V. Kireevsky distinguished between “external” (the set of social roles from the standpoint of social psychology) and “internal” (the set of human abilities: love for God, helping one’s neighbor, feeling guilt, shame, compassion, etc.) person. The American philosopher D. Riesman identified a “traditionally oriented”, “internally oriented”, externally oriented” and “autonomous personality”.

Since the 70s XX century Socionics is developing - the science of human capabilities and relationships between people. Depending on personality types (“Dumas”, “Hugo”, “Balzac”, “Don Quixote”, “Napoleon”, “Yesenin”, “Zhukov”, “Oblomov”, “Manilov”, “Plyushkin”, etc.) d.) relationships between people develop in different ways - ranging from comfort to conflict.

In socionics, specific images are hidden behind conventional, symbolic names. For example, the Zhukov type has strong managerial and organizational abilities. Personalities of the “Oblomov” type are passive, not inclined to commit actions, deeds, the “Manilov” type - “hover in the clouds”, the “Plyushkin” type - are overly thrifty, misers. People of the “Napoleon” type know how to manipulate the feelings of other people, are energetic, and have developed willpower.

Let us give another classification of social personality types.

For individual doers (artisans, farmers, workers, teachers, managers, etc.), the main thing is action, changing the world and other people, including oneself.

Thinkers come into the world to look and think (Pythagoras). These are sages, prophets, chroniclers, outstanding scientists.

The third type is people of feelings and emotions - primarily representatives of literature and art, whose brilliant insights sometimes outstrip scientific forecasts and prophecies of sages.

The fourth type - humanists and ascetics, are distinguished by a heightened sense of feeling the mental state of other people, love their neighbor as themselves (according to the Gospel commandment), and rush to do good.

According to M. Weber, expressed in his work “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” (1905), Protestantism, aimed at prudence and increasing the wealth of human worldly activity, laid the foundations of work ethics and rationalism, which formed the core of the new European entrepreneurial personality type. E. Fromm identified a personality with a market orientation as a special type. Such a personality in the modern understanding is a product of industrial society, a product of the cult of mass consumption. There is probably an opposite type of personality who does not accept the market with reason and feelings. Both of these personality types have both advantages and disadvantages. A market-type personality is proactive, aimed at innovation and private entrepreneurial success. However, excessive pragmatism impoverishes a person’s spiritual world. A person of a non-market type is focused on general humanistic, environmental, spiritual values and at the same time is sometimes divorced from the real problems of life, sometimes prefers idleness and some laziness instead of hard work, and hopes for state patronage.

Probably, we can also talk about a personality type that is formed depending on the nature of the political regime in society.

A totalitarian regime is characterized by:

a) general regulation of spheres of human life (for example, limiting the number of children in a family);

b) social anonymity (a consequence of excessive nationalization of public life), leading to a person’s loss of his important life functions, which generates passivity and suppresses the individual’s natural impulses;

c) the cult of power, which has become the highest value;

d) the willingness of people to cede freedom to social security, dependency, hence human irresponsibility.

The totalitarian personality type is characterized by: an enthusiastic attitude towards power; mythologization of reality; excessive enthusiasm; faith in the simplicity of the world (white - black, friends - enemies); faith in miracles; absolutization of order.

The primary value of a liberal society is respect for freedom. A person of the liberal type is characterized by: dialogue with the authorities, the desire for uniqueness, personal responsibility, realism in relation to reality and one’s own capabilities and position, genuine activity in increasing one’s status in society.

Our modern society is at a transitional stage of development. Hence - mixed personality traits, where elements of market and non-market, totalitarian and liberal types are intertwined. In general, the boundaries between social, ethnic and psychological communities of people are fluid.

1.3 Ways of human existence

It was previously noted that the most important forms of human existence are labor, thinking, speech, morality, will, objective practical activity, the practice of social creation, political activity, and self-creation. One of the modes of human existence is alienation.

Separate fragments of the idea of alienation are found in ancient philosophy (Plato), in the philosophy of modern times (T. Hobbes, J.-J. Rousseau, C.A. Saint-Simon). In German classical philosophy, alienation is identified as an independent object of study. G. Hegel demonstrated that in the act of alienation there is not only “loss”, but also “appropriation”. The problem of alienation was thoroughly explored by the classics of Marxism and representatives of anthropological trends in philosophy.

The social state where people exist as functions and things dominate the creator was analyzed in detail by K. Marx in Capital and his preparatory works. Also noted are such areas as the alienation of society and man from nature, the alienation of a person from another person. M. Heidegger believed that alienation is a form of human existence in the impersonal world of everyday life. E. Fromm associated alienation with the transformation of a person into a “thing”, with an escape from freedom.

In general, the phenomenon of alienation characterizes a situation when, firstly, what is created by man somehow opposes him, i.e. a contradictory communication develops between the Self and the non-Self; secondly, when any phenomena and relationships in the distorted consciousness of people turn into something other than what they are in themselves.

In modern philosophical thought, alienation is mainly viewed through the prism of the processes of dehumanization of society, leading to the “dehumanization” of the individual, the loss of the sense of Self, which results in the emergence of a soulless and impersonal Megamachine, i.e. extremely rationalized, technocratic social organization. M. Buber named three spheres of alienation: the field of technology (man has become an appendage of machines), the sphere of economy (the process of production and consumption of goods is out of human control) and the field of politics (man is at the mercy of irrational forces)130. State and public institutions are portrayed as forces hostile to man. The source of this situation is seen in the dominance of the ideals of rationalism*, the cult of science and technology. The gap between people's ability to produce through scientific technology and their ability to control it has widened.

Separation from the person created by him is objective. This is expressed, first of all, in the nature of the activity, the mechanism of which includes goal-setting, objectification, and obtaining final results, which indicates the potential ability to isolate under the conditions of the social division of labor.

Experience has shown that the lower the level of productive forces, the stronger the alienation. The poor development of the tools of labor places the entire burden of production on a person, due to his physical and nervous overstrain, giving rise to technological alienation. In this case, a person acts as an appendage of some means of labor or some production function.

With a forced, non-economic organization of labor (in a barracks-type society), production and consumption are separated, leading to economic alienation.

The political basis of alienation is associated with the activities of the state, when opportunities are created for the formation of an apparatus whose interests are opposed to society and are aimed at ensuring its internal protective mechanisms, which reduces the possibilities for self-correction of social development.

Alienation is accompanied by subjective experiences of a person’s powerlessness over the results of his activities. In states of uncertainty and instability (economic, political), a person is psychologically deprived of a sense of his significance, the meaning of life, confusion and disappointment arise. At the same time, interpersonal connections are destroyed, rationality in the behavior of some people is weakened and the role of instincts increases.

Alienation in the technological, economic and socio-political spheres is complemented by alienation in spiritual life. One of the forms of spiritual alienation is the loss of historical memory. Alienation in spiritual culture, starting from the last third of the 20th century, became possible because the signs and systems of symbols that were created to explain and understand the world around people became, as some scientists believe, an impenetrable wall, fencing people off from reality. Some signs are interpreted with the help of others, so the human mind is doomed to remain in a vicious circle of artificial interpretations.

Overcoming negative forms of alienation is rooted in social progress. Enlighteners of the 18th century. and Marxists associated progress with a gradual softening of exploitation methods, with a tendency towards the complete emancipation of the worker. The salvation and worthy future of humanity is in a society in which a person breaks out of the alienated state of spontaneous processes (but also while maintaining positive spontaneity as naturalness) or a totalitarian system, and finds conditions for the realization of his individuality against the general background of collectivity. In modern conditions, when the share of the “information” product significantly exceeds the share of the material product, there is an increasing tendency to use, first of all, human capabilities as a developer of new systems, a controller, an operator, and an adjuster. Overcoming the rejection of man from his creations is also due to the fact that the level of systemicity in the world economy is increasing; Along with the presence of natural self-correcting, largely chaotic, processes, political regulatory mechanisms are being restored. Overcoming political alienation is carried out in various forms: the creation of production committees, independent public commissions at enterprises and institutions, and the development of various forms of mutual assistance. This leads to the formation of a “participatory society”, citizens’ self-awareness of their role in the state, and increased personal responsibility for themselves and for affairs in society.

Alienation in its entirety cannot be eliminated, because it, along with its negative aspects, is a normal characteristic of a person and testifies to his abilities for self-expression and dedication. In general, alienation is dual: it promotes a person’s self-expression and at the same time depersonalizes him. In the course of the renewal of society, new problems and difficulties, new variants of alienation will always arise in any social system.

One of the parameters of human existence is fear. It lies at the basis of life: the very struggle for existence, survival presupposes fear. The feeling of fear in critical situations mobilizes the forces of a living organism. M. Heidegger distinguishes two types of fear: as a reaction to a specific threat and fear (horror) of life as such. Against the background of constant tension in the context of accelerating social processes, many people develop self-doubt, which in some cases paralyzes the ability to analyze what is happening. In modern conditions, a new fear has arisen - of virtual reality: a person’s fear of dissolving in an artificial environment created by himself.

In human biological existence, fear is a warning signal, and in social existence, fear can strengthen social bonds. He made possible the emergence of culture - through prohibitions, the establishment of authorities, and the formation of cults.

ON THE. Berdyaev viewed human existence through suffering. It, like fear, is connected not only with the animal side of human existence, but also with its spirituality (A. Spengler). In Christianity, suffering acts as divine punishment for sins. For A. Schopenhauer, the basis of morality is compassion, in which selfish motives are overcome. Suffering is a means to the greatness of the soul (F. Nietzsche).

There are two main sources of suffering: external socio-material (suffering from social oppression, national suppression, exploitation, disease, lack of rights for all people to work, education, housing, and generally a decent existence) and internal spiritual, associated with tragic foundations life. In space, in people, in the nature of the Earth, M. Scheler believed in his work “The Position of Man in Space,” there is tragedy as the most important moment of existence. Man suffers from the fact that he contains within himself a striving for infinity and eternity, but is placed in limited conditions of existence in the world.

The forms of suffering are diverse: from the expectation of death, suffering from love and jealousy, conflicts, from wounded pride, failures, disappointments, sometimes from a lack of understanding of one’s own purpose, suffering from a meaningless accident, violence, pain.

Without pain (not only physical, but also spiritual and moral), people would slide to the level of self-satisfied half-animals. People resort to various means of overcoming suffering: some are ready to lose their individuality, suppress consciousness (through drugs, alcohol, meaningless hobbies, etc.). At the same time, suffering for a person becomes a source of positive emotions, self-expression, and self-improvement.

The universal side of the human psyche is fantasy, associated with intuition, inherent in feeling and thought. Fantasy fills a person with fear or hope, “inspires” activity, is present in projects for the future, is hidden in every ideal and idol, and determines our attitude towards life and death. Fantasy acts both as a dangerous activity (a spiritual drug that takes you into the world of dreams, Manila dreams) and as a blessed asset of a person (it elevates a person above the dull, often standard everyday life, and stimulates creativity).

Play, which connects reality and the imaginary, is closely related to fantasy. The roots of cults, religion, myths, and various types of artistic creativity go back to the game. The game has become a form of free self-expression of a person, not associated with the achievement of any utilitarian goal that brings pleasure. According to the theory of K. Gross, play is an unintentional self-learning of the body, especially necessary for a person at an early age. J. Huizinga compares play with ritual, cult, carnival, holiday, and sport. Following G. Marcuse, Huizinga contrasts the natural-game principle with authoritarian external coercion, including those associated with the technization and politicization of society. In the concept of the “playing person” he saw the implementation of the idea of freedom of choice, “self-possibility”. In the game there is an exit from the material world into the world of signs - symbols, metaphors, and through it - into the world of culture. Game is a shortened and generalized expression of social relations. A person must choose: “to be nothing or to play” (J.-P. Sartre).

A game is a relaxed activity in a real and imaginary situation according to certain rules. The subjective purpose of the game, its motive is in the process of activity itself, which brings pleasure, and the objective meaning of the game lies in the formation and training of the physical and spiritual abilities necessary for the implementation of various types of activities and human life. Labor as a combination of physical and intellectual forces, captivating the worker with its content and method of execution, becomes a game. At the same time, work as intense tension is not a game. Professional competition in the so-called “big sport” is a game and, to an even greater extent, the work of a professional athlete.

One of the fundamental properties of a human being is love. The ancient Indian Vedas and ancient Greek philosophy (Hesiod, Empedocles) regarded love as a cosmic principle through which the Universe is pacified and united. The formation and existence of society, F. Voltaire emphasized, is impossible without a person’s love for himself and love for others. On the basis of love, passions arise - the “springs” and “gears” of social mechanisms that unite people and extract from the depths of the earth the weight of art and pleasure. For N. Hartmann, love is the giving of meaning to a person’s existence.

Love stands at the very origins of human existence, ensuring his mental security and balance. In interpersonal relationships, love is expressed through the discovery of the individuality of another person, the experience of his uniqueness, inexhaustible depth. Love is the desire for a deep inner union with a loved one, for mutual fusion, in which, however, each side retains its individuality. In a love relationship, personality traits such as care, responsibility, and respect develop. Love, according to B.C. Solovyov, this is a phenomenon in which the divine-human essence of personality is most adequately manifested. Such love acts as a synthesis of natural (natural) and intellectual (spiritual) love; in it the unity of spontaneous strength and a sense of all-humanity, universality is achieved.

3. Freud believed that all human life is determined by two instincts - love and death. Sexual energy, inherited by man from the animal state, determines all development. The offspring of the urge to death, which shares dominance over the world with eros, is the instinct of aggression. The question of the fate of the human race depends on whether the development of culture and to what extent will be able to curb the urge of aggression and self-destruction.

A person is not satisfied with a culture that curbs his freedom, including sexual freedom, and does not give him the opportunity to fully satisfy his sexual impulses. But it is precisely this inability of sexual desire to give complete satisfaction that, according to Freud, becomes the source of the greatest cultural achievements, for sexual energy passes into cultural activity, is embodied in creativity, politics, science, etc.

Love, Freud believes, remains fundamentally animal, as it has been from time immemorial. Love attractions are difficult to cultivate. This position of 3. Freud reveals an underestimation of the social component of love. Sex as a cultural phenomenon of gender relations in its original biological dimension (the instinct of procreation) presupposes the social - communication, communication, etc. Sex combines physiology (biology) and cultural engagement (sociality). Culture not only infringes on love life, but also complicates it, makes it more beautiful, refined, subtle, and spiritual. Socialization transforms animal passion into human love.

In addition to individual selective love, there is love in general for nature, the animal and plant world, and for humanity.

So, human existence is multifaceted. Man, noted M. Scheler, is in a certain sense everything.

List of sources used

personality society behavior

1. Alekseev P.V. Philosophy /Alekseev P.V., Panin A.V. 3rd ed., revised. and additional - M.: TK Welby, Prospect, 2005. - 608 p.

2. Spirkin A.G. Philosophy / Spirkin A.G. 2nd ed. - M.: Gardariki, 2006. - 736 p.

3. Philosophy: Textbook / Vishnevsky M.I. - Minsk: Higher School, 2008. - 480 p.

4. Kalmykov V.N. Philosophy: Textbook / V.N. Kalmykov - Mn.: Vysh. school, 2008. – 431 p.

Social philosophy about the relationship between the individual and society. Social philosophy about the relationship between the individual and society Ways of human existence

How to assess your English level?

How to read a plot to quarrel and separate two people