1 concept of being and its aspects. Philosophical meaning of the problem of being

Lecture 10. The problem of being in philosophy

The concept of “being” was introduced into philosophy by Parmenides back in the 6th century. BC and since then it has become one of the most important categories of philosophy, expressing the problem of the existence of reality in its most general form.

The initial prerequisite for human life is the recognition that the world exists. But, having recognized the existence of the world, we involuntarily raise the question of its past and future. And here different answers are possible. Some philosophers argued that the world has always been, is and always will be. Others, agreeing with this position, believed that the world has a beginning and an end in time and space. In other words, the idea of the existence of the world as a whole was combined in philosophy with the thesis of either the transitory or enduring existence of the world.

The problem of being includes several interrelated aspects. The first aspect consists in the unity of the enduring existence of nature as a whole and the transitory existence of individual things and processes of nature, having a beginning and an end in time and space

The second aspect shows that the world in the process of existence forms an inextricable unity, a universal integrity, i.e. the principle of existence is equally possessed by nature, society, man, thoughts, ideas.

The third aspect is related to the fact that the world as a whole and everything that exists in it is a reality that has an internal logic of its existence and actually precedes the consciousness and actions of people.

In philosophy, two meanings of being have developed. In the narrow sense of the word, it is an objective world that exists independently of human consciousness. Being in this meaning is identified with the concept of “matter”. In the broad sense of the word, being is everything that exists: matter, consciousness, feelings and fantasies of people.

There are four main forms of existence: the existence of things, the existence of man, the existence of the spiritual, the existence of the social.

The existence of things. Historically, the first prerequisite for the existence of people has been and remains the things and processes of nature that exist outside and independently of human consciousness and activity. Nature is the environment in which man has been formed over thousands of years. The formation of man took place in the process of increasingly complex labor activity, during which a whole world of things was created, called by K. Marx “second nature”. In the form of its existence, the “second nature” is in many ways similar to the first, from which it is born, and in essence it has the most important distinctive features. First of all, their existence is associated with the process of objectification and deobjectification.

Objectification is a process during which the knowledge, skills, abilities, and social experience of the person creating it are transferred to the object’s nature. As a result, the object of nature is transformed in accordance with the current needs of people and the method of satisfying them.

Disobjectification is the process of transferring to a person the social qualities inherent in the product of labor, thanks to which the object satisfies a specific need.

Objects of “second nature” embody human labor and knowledge. To master a subject, each person must have an idea of their purpose, operating principle, design features, etc. The main difference between the existence of things created by man and the existence of natural things is that their existence is a socio-historical existence, carried out in the process of objective and practical activity of people.

Human existence. It is divided into human existence in the world of things and specific human existence. The doctrine of human existence answers first of all the question of how exactly a person exists. The primary prerequisite for human existence is the existence of his body as an object of nature, subject to the laws of biological evolution and in need of satisfying necessary needs. A person must first of all have food, clothing, shelter, because without this human existence is generally impossible.

The existence of an individual person is a dialectical unity of body and spirit. On the one hand, the functioning of the human body is closely related to the activity of the brain and nervous system, on the other hand, a healthy body creates a good basis for improving thinking, developing spiritual activity and satisfying spiritual needs. At the same time, it is also well known how great the role can be human spirit in maintaining human physical strength.

It is important to note that the existence of man as a thinking and feeling thing was one of the prerequisites that prompted man to engage in productive activity and communication. Nature did not provide people with everything necessary for a normal existence and they were forced to unite to produce the items necessary to satisfy constantly emerging needs.

In reality, there is a concrete, individual person who can be considered as a thinking and feeling thing, like a natural body. And at the same time, a person exists as an individual, as a representative of the human race, located at a given stage of its development. At the same time, man also exists as a socio-historical being, as a subject and object of human history. Human existence is objective in relation to the consciousness of individual people and even entire generations. However, the existence of people is by no means absolutely independent of consciousness. It is the unity of the natural and spiritual, individual and generic, personal and social. Human existence, according to Marx, is the real process of people’s lives, their activity to satisfy their needs. The primacy among all types of activity belongs to labor activity, labor.

Being spiritual. The spiritual includes processes of consciousness and the unconscious, norms and principles of human communication, knowledge materialized in natural and artificial languages. There is a distinction between individualized spirituality, the existence of which is inseparable from the specific life activity of the individual, and objectified spirituality, which can exist separately from the individual and his activity.

The individualized existence of the spiritual includes consciousness, self-consciousness and the unconscious. The individualized spiritual is not divorced from the evolution of being as a whole; it does not exist separately from the life activity of the individual. Individualized spirituality in its essence is a special type of spirituality, also conditioned by the existence of society and the development of history.

The specificity of the objectified spiritual lies in the fact that its elements (ideas, ideals, norms, values, languages, etc.) are able to be preserved, improved and freely move in social space and time.

Being social. The existence of the social is divided into the existence of an individual person in society and the process of history and the existence of society as a social phenomenon.

Each individual person does not live in isolation, but at the same time is a member of some specific social formation and enters into diverse connections and relationships with other individuals. In the course of his life, he constantly influences the people around him and, in turn, is influenced by other individuals, social groups and institutions. Man, on the one hand, is an object of the historical process, constantly being involved in diverse historical events, and on the other hand, he is increasingly becoming a subject of historical action, consciously intervening in historical events in order to influence the course of history in accordance with his needs and interests .

The existence of society includes socio-economic and political processes occurring in society, social, economic, political relations of individuals, groups, classes. The existence of society finds its expression in interstate and civil wars, socio-economic and political reforms, in transitions from one stage of social organization to another.

The beginnings of science appeared in Ancient China and Ancient India. Almost all natural sciences come from mythology. Before astronomy was born, there was astrology, the object of which was the location of the stars. Ancient astrologers deified the planets and celestial bodies. Already during the time of Babylonian astrology, some patterns in the movement of stars were discovered, which later entered into astronomy.

Not all practical knowledge can be called science. Magic, witchcraft is a set of ideas and rituals based on the belief in the possibility of influencing people, objects and phenomena of the surrounding world through supernatural means. The whole system of magic does not consist of positive injunctions alone. She talks not only about what to do, but also about what not to do. The totality of positive instructions constitutes witchcraft, the totality of negative instructions constitutes taboo. The savage is sure that if he does such and such, some consequences will inevitably occur in accordance with one of these laws. Magic gives a person a series of ready-made ritual acts and standard beliefs, formalized by a certain practical and mental technique.

Real science, even in its rudimentary forms in which it finds expression in the primitive knowledge of primitive people, is based on the everyday and universal experience of human life, on the victories that man wins over nature in the struggle for his existence and safety, on observation, the results of which are rationally formulated. Magic is based on the specific experience of special emotional states in which a person observes not nature, but himself, in which the truth is not comprehended by the mind, but is revealed in the play of feelings that envelop a person. Science stands on the conviction of the universal validity of experience, practical effort and reason; magic is based on the belief that human hope may not come true, desire may not come true.

In the theory of knowledge, the central place is given to logic, in the theory of magic - the association of ideas under the influence of desires. Research shows that rational and magical knowledge belong to different cultural traditions, to different social conditions and types of activity, and these differences were clearly recognized by the people of primitive societies. Rational knowledge is not accessible to the uninitiated, magical knowledge enters the realm of the sacred, and mastering it requires initiation into the sacraments of ritual and the fulfillment of taboos.

What are the cultural and historical foundations of the processes that erase the methodological differences between science and pseudoscience and deprive scientific and technological progress of its cultural significance? Here, in a crisis, the contours of a culture may emerge in which objectivity and rationality are not formative elements at all.

Can science do without pseudoscience? Opinions vary. Some believe that just as flowers grow from rubbish, so truth is born from quasi-genuine opinions. Without the naive common sense inherent in philosophical mass creativity, neither Hegel nor Heidegger are born. But there is another reasoning. If it is possible to demarcate between science and pseudoscience, then why are there any need for red herrings, false tunics, and delusional pseudoscientists? It is necessary to more clearly define the criteria that are inherent in science and scientific knowledge. B.I. Pruzhinin writes that “the situational readiness of the mind to cross its own boundaries actualizes in modern European culture completely different cultural and social structures than those that in their time gave birth to science and which made and are making the scientific mind necessary for the person of this culture."

B.I. Pruzhinin does not act as a persecutor of pseudoscience. He tries to understand its epistemological foundations and even raises the question of what a culture could be like in which science and pseudoscience become indistinguishable. We remember the fascination with the position of P. Feyerabend, who to a certain extent stunned the philosophical community by arguing that the opposition between astrology and respectable science rests on more than dubious epistemological foundations. But how to mark the actual boundary between them? The self-elimination of philosophy from the field of formation of the methodological consciousness of science results in the blurring of subject boundaries between the philosophy of science, social history science, social psychology, cognitive sociology of science, etc. Postpositivism-oriented science research loses the status of philosophical and methodological consciousness of science as a cultural phenomenon.

Knowledge, in essence, i.e. precisely as knowledge, it is a reflection of objective reality, independent of knowledge. Meanwhile, indeed today in scientific research phenomena of knowledge (psychological, cognitive and even special methodological) such concepts as “tacit knowledge”, “unconscious knowledge” are often used. We are talking about the functioning of knowledge either completely outside of reflection, i.e. outside the conscious distinction between knowledge and reality, or in the context of weakened versions of the reflective consciousness of this distinction.

It is clear that the path to knowledge is not direct, automatically given, and easily fits into obvious cause-and-effect relationships. Any piece of knowledge presupposes a “fringe” of more or less explicit and implicit, more or less conscious or generally unconscious assumptions, assumptions, and certainties. But one should not weaken the essential characteristics of knowledge on this basis.

Science was not born immediately. The beginnings of science appeared in Ancient China and India. Almost all natural sciences, as already noted, went through a mythological stage. We encounter the idea of general patterns in nature already in Babylonian astrology, which discovered a number of patterns in the movement of the heavenly bodies. It combined mathematical language with purely mythological concepts.

According to E. Cassirer, science is the last step in human mental development; it can be called the highest and most specific achievement of human culture. This latest and most sophisticated product could only appear under special conditions.

Even the very concept of science in this specific sense, Cassirer notes, has existed only since the time of the great ancient Greek thinkers - the Pythagoreans and atomists, Plato and Aristotle. But even this concept became vague and forgotten in subsequent centuries. During the Renaissance, it was rediscovered and restored to its rights. And after this new discovery, the triumph of science seemed more complete and undoubted. No other force modern world cannot, notes Cassirer, compare with the power of scientific thought. And it continues to be the last chapter in the history of mankind and the most important subject of human philosophy. Aspects of the existence of science - the generation of new knowledge, a social institution, a special sphere of culture.

The category of being is of great importance both in philosophy and in life. The content of the problem of being includes reflections on the world and its existence. The term “Universe” refers to the entire vast world, from elementary particles to metagalaxies. On philosophical language the word "Universe" can mean existence or creation.

Throughout the entire historical and philosophical process, in all philosophical schools and directions, the question of the structure of the universe was considered. The initial concept on the basis of which the philosophical picture of the world is built is the category of being. Being is the broadest, and therefore the most abstract, concept.

Since antiquity, there have been attempts to limit the scope of this concept. Some philosophers naturalized the concept of being. For example, the concept of Parmenides, according to which being is a “sphere of spheres,” something motionless, self-identical, which contains all of nature. Or in Heraclitus - as something constantly becoming. The opposite position tried to idealize the concept of being, for example, in Plato. For existentialists, being is limited to the individual existence of a person. The philosophical concept of being does not tolerate any limitation. Let us consider what meaning philosophy puts into the concept of being.

First of all, the term “to be” means to be present, to exist. Recognition of the fact of the existence of diverse things in the surrounding world, nature and society, and man himself is the first prerequisite for the formation of a picture of the universe. From this follows the second aspect of the problem of being, which has a significant impact on the formation of a person’s worldview. Being exists, that is, something exists as a reality and a person must constantly reckon with this reality.

The third aspect of the problem of being is associated with the recognition of the unity of the universe. A man in his everyday life, practical activity comes to the conclusion about his community with other people, the existence of nature. But at the same time, the differences that exist between people and things, between nature and society are no less obvious to him. And naturally, the question arises about the possibility of a universal (that is, common) to all phenomena of the surrounding world. The answer to this question is also naturally connected with the recognition of being. All the diversity of natural and spiritual phenomena is united by the fact that they exist, despite the difference in the forms of their existence. And it is precisely thanks to the fact of their existence that they form the integral unity of the world.

Based on the category of being in philosophy, the most general characteristic of the universe is given: everything that exists is the world to which we belong. Thus the world has existence. He is. The existence of the world is a prerequisite for its unity. For there must first be peace before one can speak of its unity. It acts as the total reality and unity of nature and man, material existence and the human spirit.

There are 4 main forms of existence:

1. the first form is the existence of things, processes and natural phenomena.

2. second form - human existence

3. third form – the existence of the spiritual (ideal)

4. fourth form – being social

First form. The existence of things, processes and natural phenomena, which in turn are divided into:

» the existence of objects of primary nature;

» the existence of things and processes created by man himself.

The essence is this: the existence of objects, objects of nature itself, is primary. They exist objectively, that is, independently of man - this is the fundamental difference between nature as a special form of being. The formation of a person determines the formation of objects of a secondary nature. Moreover, these objects enrich objects of primary nature. And they differ from objects of primary nature in that they have a special purpose. The difference between the existence of “secondary nature” and the existence of natural things is not only the difference between the artificial (man-made) and the natural. The main difference is that the existence of “second nature” is a socio-historical, civilized existence. Between the first and second nature, not only unity and interconnection are revealed, but also differences.

Second form. Human existence, which is divided into:

» human existence in the world of things (“a thing among things”);

"specific human existence.

The essence: a person is “a thing among things.” Man is a thing because he is finite, like other things and bodies of nature. The difference between a person as a thing and other things is in his sensitivity and rationality. On this basis, specific human existence is formed.

The specificity of human existence is characterized by the interaction of three existential dimensions:

1) man as a thinking and feeling thing;

2) man as the pinnacle of the development of nature, a representative of the biological type;

3) man as a socio-historical being.

Third form. The existence of the spiritual (ideal), which is divided into:

» individualized spiritual being;

» objectified (non-individual) spiritual.

Individualized spiritual being is the result of the activity of consciousness and, in general, the spiritual activity of a particular person. It exists and is based on the internal experience of people. Objectified spiritual being - it is formed and exists outside of individuals, in the bosom of culture. The specificity of individualized forms of spiritual existence lies in the fact that they arise and disappear with an individual person. Those of them that are transformed into a second non-individualized spiritual form are preserved.

So being is general concept, the most general thing, which is formed by abstracting from the differences between nature and spirit, the individual and society. We are looking for commonality between all phenomena and processes of reality. And this generality is contained in the category of being - a category reflecting the fact of the objective existence of the world.

54. Philosophical concept of matter
Understanding who created the world, what underlies the world has always worried people. Answering these questions, philosophers formed two main philosophical directions:
“materialism” - those who believe that the world exists due to the evolution of nature, and “idealism”, which believe that ideas originally existed, and the world is the embodiment of these ideas.
And today one of the pressing problems is the “concept of matter” because she is one of the leaders methodological principles natural science research.
The concept of matter in ancient times
The concept of matter is one of the fundamental concepts of philosophy and natural science. Like other scientific concepts, it has its own history.
In each historical era, the content of the concept of matter was determined by the level of development of scientific knowledge about the world.
It should be pointed out that the initial ideas about matter arose already in ancient times. Based on everyday experience and observations, ancient materialists suggested that all phenomena around our world have some kind of fundamental principle, an unchanging and indestructible material substance. The substances are: water, air, fire and aineron (undefined substance).
The ancient Greeks spoke about the unlimited divisibility of matter. Thus, according to Anaxagoras, the world is a collection of an infinite number of particles - homeomeries, each of which, in turn, consists of an inexhaustible number of even smaller homeomeries, etc. without end. It was believed that any of these particles contained all the properties of the material world.
Heraclitus of Ephesus considered fire to be the fundamental principle of all things. By the way, fire in Heraclitus is also an image of perpetual motion. “This cosmos,” he argued, “is the same for everyone, was not created by any of the gods and none of the people, but it always was, is and will be an eternally living fire, gradually flaring up and gradually dying out.”
It must be emphasized that in ancient Greek philosophy develops religiously - idealistic understanding matter. Thus, the objective idealist Plato divided reality into the world of ideas and the world of sensory things. The true substance, the root cause of the world, in his opinion, is the “world of ideas”, i.e. world mind god. Matter is an inert, passive mass that is generated and set in motion by a higher spiritual principle, which constitutes its essence.
Note that in the XII-XIII centuries. A new understanding of matter is emerging, from the passive ideas of the ancients. During this period, mathematical, natural and social sciences broke away from philosophy and developed as independent branches. Atomistic ideas predominate in views on matter. Matter is identified with substance consisting of indivisible atoms. Matter is attributed such properties as extension, impenetrability, and inertia. Weight is constant mechanical mass.
The metaphysical understanding of matter was criticized by the founders of dialectical materialism. On the inadmissibility of identifying matter with substance and on the futility of the search for the fundamental principle of all specific items pointed out in particular by F. Engils in his work “Dialectics of Nature”. He believed that atoms are not the simplest, smallest particles of matter; they have a complex structure. Matter, Engils emphasized, “is something other than the totality of matter from which this concept is abstracted, and words such as matter and motion are nothing more than abbreviations in which we cover, in a unique way, their general properties, many different sensory perceived things.”
Definition of matter V.I. Lenin
In the work “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism” V.I. Lenin gave scientific definition matter, which is the result of a generalization of the main achievements of natural science of that period “matter is a philosophical category to designate objective reality, which is copied, photographed, displayed by our sensations, existing independently of them” V.I. Lenin, first of all, emphasizes the objectivity of the existence of matter, its independence from human sensations and consciousness in general.
It is quite obvious that Lenin’s understanding of the essence of matter is fundamentally different from the metaphysical one.
Matter is not reducible V.I. Lenin only refers to material phenomena and processes that are perceived by human senses directly or with the help of instruments; it embraces all objective reality without any restrictions, i.e. not only already known phenomena of reality, but also those that can be discovered and studied in the future.
Matter, therefore, is everything that exists outside the consciousness of man, independent of him, as an objective reality. Not only material objects and physical fields are material, but also production relations in society, since they arise and develop in the process of material production, regardless of people’s consciousness.
The thesis that matter disappeared in connection with new discoveries in physics was rightfully challenged by V.I. Lenin, who defended philosophical materialism. Characterizing the true meaning of the expression “matter has disappeared,” V.I. Lenin shows that it is not matter that disappears, but the limit to which we knew matter, that the disappearance of matter, which some scientists and philosophers talk about, has no relation to the philosophical concept about matter, because the philosophical concept (term) matter cannot be confused with natural scientific ideas about the material world. With the development of natural science, one scientific idea of the world (matter) is replaced by another, deeper and more thorough. However, such a change in specific scientific ideas cannot refute the meaning and significance of the philosophical concept (category) “matter,” which serves to designate the objective reality given to a person in his sensations and existing independently of them.
V.I. Lenin also reveals the reasons for the widespread spread of “physical” idealism among natural scientists. Many physicists, he notes, were confused because they did not master dialectics; they mixed physical ideas about the structure and properties of matter, which change as we penetrate into the depths of matter, with the philosophical concept of matter, reflecting the unchanging property of matter to be an objective reality, to exist outside of our consciousness. In this regard, V.I. Lenin considers it necessary to distinguish between the philosophical understanding of matter and physical ideas about its properties and structure, emphasizing that physical ideas do not concern the entire objective reality, but only its individual aspects.
Lenin's definition of matter played an important role in the criticism of "physical" idealism and metaphysics. Being the basis of a scientific worldview, it reveals the real nature of the material world, equips us with scientific ideas about it, is the foundation for generalizing scientific data, shows the inconsistency of modern idealism, metaphysics, agnosticism, and serves as a weapon in the fight against them. This is the ideological significance of Lenin’s definition of matter.
Considering matter as a philosophical category denoting objective reality, V.I. Lenin thereby continues the materialist line in philosophy. In his definition there is no subsuming of the category “matter” under a broader concept, because such a concept simply does not exist. In this sense of the Withdrawal, “matter” and “objective reality” are synonyms. Matter is contrasted with consciousness, while objectivity is emphasized, as the independence of its existence from consciousness. It is this property: to exist before, outside and independently of consciousness that determines the meaning of the purpose of the philosophical-materialistic idea of matter. The philosophical interpretation of matter has the attribute of universality and denotes all objective reality. With this understanding of matter, there is and cannot be any reference to the physical properties of matter, knowledge of which is relative.

In light of the above, it is quite obvious that the role of defining the concept of matter, understanding the latter as inexhaustible for constructing scientific picture world, solving the problem of reality and cognizability of objects and phenomena of the micro and mega world.
Matter is eternal, uncreated and indestructible. It has always and everywhere existed, and will always and everywhere exist.

The category of being is of great importance both in philosophy and in life. The content of the problem of being includes reflections on the world, ᴇᴦο existence. The term “Universe” refers to the entire vast world, from elementary particles to metagalaxies. In philosophical language, the word “Universe” can mean existence or the universe.

The third aspect of the problem of being is associated with the recognition of the unity of the universe. A person in his daily life and practical activities comes to the conclusion about his community with other people and the existence of nature. But at the same time, the differences that exist between people and things, between nature and society are no less obvious to him. And naturally, the question arises about the possibility of a universal (that is, common) to all phenomena of the surrounding world. The answer to this question is also naturally connected with the recognition of being. All the diversity of natural and spiritual phenomena is united by the fact that they exist, despite the difference in the forms of their existence. And it is precisely thanks to the fact of their existence that they form the integral unity of the world.

On the basis of the category of being in philosophy, the most general characteristic of the universe is given: everything that exists is the world to which we belong. Thus the world has existence. He is. The existence of the world is a prerequisite for unity. For there must first be peace before one can speak of unity. It acts as the total reality and unity of nature and man, material existence and the human spirit.

The concept of being, its aspects and basic forms - concept and types. Classification and features of the category "The concept of being, its aspects and main forms" 2015, 2017-2018.

Keywords

HUMAN BEING / VALUES / PERSONALITY / SPIRITUAL CULTURE / MASS CONSUMPTION SOCIETY/ 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 the scientific work - Dmitry Vladimirovich Konstantinov, Alexey Gennadievich Kholomeev

Three aspects of human nature (biological, social and spiritual) necessary for his existence are considered. It is shown that the phenomena that make up the sphere of spirituality are human-creating values that cannot be reduced to the 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. Consequently, 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 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 always be 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 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.

Text of scientific work on the topic “Axiological aspects of human existence: man-creating and man-destructive values”

Bulletin of Tomsk State University. 2015. No. 390. pp. 54-59. B0! 10.17223/15617793/390/10

UDC ::316.752

D.V. Konstantinov, A.G. Kholomeev

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

Three aspects of human nature (biological, social and spiritual) necessary for his existence are considered. It is shown that the phenomena that make up the sphere of spirituality are human-creating values that cannot be reduced to the biological or social and cannot be an object of possession. Therefore, the values of total possession promoted 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, represents an attempt “in a new situation of the mind to give a person new means that allow him to live in a new world, such means that are not given in traditional philosophy.” Without going into details, we note that the “new situation of the mind” here should be understood as the attitude that has developed in modern culture, thanks to which a person’s life in the world really becomes problematic, since the person himself becomes problematic. We will try to reveal the reasons for this problematic nature by turning to the axiological aspects of human existence.

Human existence

In this article we are talking about values based on human ontology. The concept of existence and, in particular, the existence of man in philosophy is not unambiguous1, and therefore we will try to first clarify our own position. To do this, it is appropriate to turn 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 conceptualized, is always already understood.” In turn, this interpretation, according to Heidegger, goes back to the philosophy of Heraclitus. Commenting on Heraclitus’s phrase “one (is) everything,” Heidegger emphasizes: “To put it more strictly, Being is being. Moreover, “is” is a transitive verb and means “collected.” Being collects beings as beings” (our italics - D.K., A.Kh.). Based on this understanding of existence, we talk about human existence as an objective basis or a necessary condition for human existence. Thus, human existence is what allows a person, at the first step, to be a person, to collect the human in himself, and at a possible second step, to realize that he is a human being, 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 ontological question is to ask how such states are possible. Thus, the question posed implies that the existence of man as a man requires a certain foundation. Next we will look at three aspects of the essence of human beings:

people who try to imagine what the basis is, usually giving priority to one side. These aspects will be the biological, social and spiritual in a person. Let's take a closer look at each of them.

Hardly anyone will try to dispute 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 creature are designated by M. K. Mamardashvili, M. K. Petrov and other authors with the term “ human dimension" (for more details, 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 exactly this (and not another) body, he has certain vital biological needs; his sense organs are structured 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 thought 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 about 102 years, let our hypothetical subject have body dimensions of the order of, say, 10100 cm and a life time of about 10100 years, respectively.<...>So, it seems quite obvious to us that in the world of objects-things such a subject will not have our atoms, mountains, or even planets and stars, because they simply cannot appear in his “non-geocentric” practical activity, acting as its invariants (let us recall that, according to modern data, the age of the Solar System does not exceed 1010 years, and the size of the Metagalaxy is about 1026 cm). But his outside world will contain such (objective in relation to it) objects-things with which we cannot (due to our objective nature) engage in our practical activity and which therefore “do not exist for us”.” Indeed, the hypothetical “non-

I. S. Alekseev’s geocentric” subject of knowledge is incommensurable with such parameters of the world around us as the age of the Solar System and the size of the Metagalaxy. But man is just as incommensurate 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 concepts."

Can we assume, based on what was said earlier, that biology is capable of revealing the specifics of human phenomena? 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 humans and animals from a biological point of view are still much greater than the differences. As N.M. rightly points out. Berezhnaya, the natural needs of man are “manifestations of that instinct of life that are characteristic of man, as well as the entire species 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 sciences as an organism, then this is not at all proof that in such an “organic”, that is, in a scientifically explained body, the human being rests. This is no better than the opinion that atomic energy contains the essence natural phenomena". Indeed, human life in the broad sense of the word is not limited 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 made repeatedly in the history of philosophical thought (and are still being made). 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 and 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 - the principle that we associate with spirituality. Thus, the person

Constantly coming face to face with the interests of other people, he is sometimes forced to overcome pressure from society, trying to preserve his inner “I”.

In addition to biological and social aspects, there is a certain special dimension in a person, which we designated by the term “spirituality”. Let us note that it is extremely difficult to talk about the spiritual in a person, as well as to give any comprehensive and satisfactory definition of spirituality. Therefore, we will not provide such definitions, nor will we try to create our own. Instead, let's try to identify a number of phenomena that, in our opinion, constitute the sphere of the spiritual. These include conscience, thought, empathy, goodness, etc. We argue that all such phenomena are sufficiently autonomous to be separated 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 to the social3. In other words, among the possible approaches to the so-called problem of psychophysiological dualism (it seems that such a name is not entirely appropriate 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, let us note that being is objective, that is, it 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 reluctance, upbringing, social status, etc.) , for example 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 (or whether he will understand it 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 without passing through 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 accessible to us is our own.” In other words, the act of interaction between man and the world is a further indecomposable act. The division into subject and object is an abstraction, 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 commensurability of man and the world has occurred, 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.

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

The spiritual existence 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 meaning, are primarily intended to help a person collect yourself as a person. In other words, in order to stay in the spiritual sphere, a person needs, according to M.K. Mamardashvili, in “amplifiers or amplifying attachments to our psychic, mental and other capabilities.” But even with such amplifiers, a person in empirical reality is never fully assembled. Full composure 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 is, in the words of V.D. Gubin, “a metaphor for oneself.” True culture, in turn, should precisely 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 true culture we follow M.K. Mamardashvili understand one that is capable of supporting “a system of detachments from specific meanings and contents, creating a space of realization and a chance for a thought that began at moment A to be a thought at the next moment B.” Or the human condition, which began at moment A, at moment B could be the human condition." Mamardashvili himself, however, calls such a supporting system civilization, but we prefer to call it culture, following I. Kant, distinguishing between culture and civilization.

So, in order for a person to remain human, he must constantly be in a creative process, each time rethinking and creating himself anew. It is in this process that personality emerges. Personality is what makes a person strive to organize his life on his own grounds. So, for example, the personal act of observing the law (violation of the law is the destruction of order both in society and at the same time in the soul of the person who broke the law) does not imply following tradition (everyone follows it, including me) and not the fear of punishment, but a certain inner conviction that the law you just need to comply. IN in this case a person does not argue that the law is actually unjust (note that, being outside the space of the law, it is pointless to talk about its fairness or injustice), does not try to find excuses and loopholes not to comply with it. He observes the law because it is the law and only through compliance with the law is it possible for the rule of law to exist in society. The personal, thus, is related to the foundations of culture (without the personal, culture is impossible), but at the same time it does not derive from cultural contents.

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

Thus, questioning the existence of a person is actually the task of searching for those foundations that allow a person to be. Philosophers of various schools and directions try 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 cannot be reduced to the 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 capable of disrupting and rebuilding the value framework of the individual, replacing human-creating values with human-destructive ones. As a result, a “situation of uncertainty” may arise (the term of M.K. Mamardashvili), in which a person can no longer be human. As M.K. Mamardashvili himself notes, a person in such a situation turns into a zombie, and his life into an absurd existence. Below we will try to explain this in more detail.

Human values

Before we characterize man-creating and man-destructive values, we need to reveal the concept of value itself. It is very difficult to give an exact definition of value. At first glance, values are purely subjective. We do not deny that values are always somehow connected with the social environment in which the individual is located; they are formed by society. But at the same time, the specific set of values of a person is always subjective. This is noted, for example, by L.V. Baeva: “Values are an ideal phenomenon, the peculiarity of which, unlike material objects, is that they belong to subjective perception and consciousness. When we say that certain objects or relationships have value for us, this does not mean that they have 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 back. It transforms the values of society, giving them its own meaning. The social environment itself in relation to the individual has a relatively random character. It can dominate him or, on the contrary, give him 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 is excluded here by the fact that in fact such values constitute the ultimate (ontological) foundations of humanity. These are the previously mentioned phenomena that form the sphere of human spiritual existence. The problem of this kind of values for a philosopher, according to the observation of M.K. Mamardashvili, “...this is not a problem of a person’s faith in ideals, highest values. We are talking... about something else - about the participation of a person with his effort in real life, different from ours, in the real life of some ontological abstractions of order or so-called higher, or perfect, objects.” As such a “perfect object” we can take, for example, conscience. It is obvious that in empirical reality it is impossible to meet a person with an absolutely clear conscience. However, every empirically recorded act of action according to conscience presupposes that conscience already exists, and is all at once in this action. After all, conscience cannot exist to some greater or lesser degree; it is either all there, or it is not there at all. Moreover, the situation when there is conscience is not the result of a generalization of any previous human experience; conscience is not given in the form of an ideal. Even if you try to set the ideal of conscience, then from the knowledge of this ideal no real action will necessarily follow. In addition, ideals can be different, but the conscience is the same - it cannot be said that each person has his own conscience. Likewise, good is one - one not in content, but in the fact of its presence in the world. Any empirical act of virtue is possible (no matter what it may be expressed in) because goodness 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, through his own effort, to maintain within himself a state of being in conscience, goodness, etc.

We have said earlier 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 spiritual formation of the individual is undergoing a decisive influence from mass culture, which is built on the ideology of all-possession. Any ideology is a necessary moment social life, it is designed to unite people. However, problems arise when ideology seeks to occupy the entire space of human life. In this case, there is no longer room for human-creating values in a person’s life, since they are screened out by ideological schemes6. These schemes present a person with ready-made values, presented as the only true guidelines. Today, such guidelines are most often the values of a mass consumer society. They are the ones who can

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

One of the mechanisms blocking the spiritual 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 functioning of the human body. On the one hand, this makes humans and animals related. On the other hand, in the process of personal development, a person constantly tries to overcome his animal essence. This is a certain paradox and, in our opinion, one of the problems of modern society. Mass culture presents sexuality and the cult of the human body as values that express the ideal of modern man (although physicality is already more 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 and the growth of prosperity have given people the opportunity for mass involvement in all spheres of 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 accessible only to the elite. On the other hand, this became the reason for the emergence of such phenomena as the “average” person and the masses. Mass production of goods, both necessary and completely unnecessary for life, led society to a new path of development - the path of consumption. The danger of this path is that a person as an individual is not perceived by society; now he is assessed by the amount of material goods that he can afford. It is this indicator that becomes one of the key ones when it comes to the social status of an individual. In the pursuit of a higher position in society, a person is depersonalized, reduced only to consumption imposed from the 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 re-evaluated the spiritual values of man, 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 degeneration into another scheme that screens out the human. For example, the true significance of education (especially higher education) lies in

developing the ability to create and maintain within oneself, as far as possible, a space of concentration, i.e. that 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 turned into a kind of conveyor of knowledge acting as a commodity. Each person can have the set of knowledge they want. People consume knowledge that can be purchased anytime, anywhere. In this regard, E. Fromm rightly notes: “Students oriented toward “possession,” while listening to lectures, perceive words, grasp logical connections and general meaning; they try to take as detailed notes as possible so that they can then memorize the notes and pass the exam. But they don’t 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

process rather than the result. In this process of constant becoming, a person needs that ultimate (ontological) foundation that gives him the opportunity to be. It makes no sense to look for such a basis only in the biological or social sphere; it necessarily implies the presence in a person’s life of those spiritual values that allow humanity not to be destroyed. However, it is precisely these values that must be supported by a true culture, in modern society often find themselves 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. This is why man today is in potential danger of being broken by mass culture and losing his humanity.

NOTES

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

2 On sociobiology, see, for example: .

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

4 A review 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 quite arbitrary, given that any object created by man bears the imprint inner world its creator. Therefore, further we will use the term “culture”, assuming that we are talking about spiritual aspect culture.

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

LITERATURE

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

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

3. Heidegger M. What is philosophy? // Questions of philosophy. 1993. No. 8. P. 113-123.

4. Konstantinov D.V. Human existence 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 on Humanism // The Problem of Man in Western Philosophy. M.: Progress, 1988. P. 314-356.

9. Mamardashvili M.K. Introduction to philosophy // Philosophical readings. St. Petersburg : ABC-classics, 2002. P. 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 // Contents of education: ideas and experience. M., 2001. P. 46-55. URL: http://agnuz.info/app/webroot/library/76/305/ (access date: 08/18/2014).

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

14. Baeva L.V. Values of a changing world: existential axiology of history. Astrakhan: ASU Publishing House, 2004. 275 p. URL: http://aspu.ru/images/File/ilil/Bayeva_tzennosti_izmen_mira.pdf (access date: 09.14.2014).

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

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

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

18. Bugueva N.A. Human corporeality as a sociocultural phenomenon // Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University. 2007. No. 16. P. 66-71.

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

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

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

22. Vagimov E.K. Man as a 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 volumes. M.: Choro, 1994. T. 8. pp. 12-28.

The article was presented by the scientific editorial office “Philosophy, Sociology, Political Science” on October 2, 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

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 humanizme. In: Popova Yu.N. (ed.) Problema cheloveka v zapadnoy filosofii. Moscow: Progress Publ., 1988, pp. 314-356.

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

10. Nagel T. What Does ItAll 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. Kantianskie 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. Imet" or byt"? . 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. Sotsiobiology i problema cheloveka. Voprosy filosofii, 1985, no. 4, pp. 129-137.

22. Vagimov E.K. Chelovek kak 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 sochineniy. V8 t. . Moscow: Choro Publ., 1994. Vol. 8, pp. 12-28.

1 concept of being and its aspects. Philosophical meaning of the problem of being

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

Related topics scientific works on philosophy, ethics, religious studies, the author of the scientific work is Dmitry Vladimirovich Konstantinov, Alexey Gennadievich Kholomeev

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

Text of scientific work on the topic “Axiological aspects of human existence: man-creating and man-destructive values”