Man and the world as a subject of philosophy. Man and the world as the main theme of philosophical reflections

Despite the actual moratorium, disputes over the justification for the use of the death penalty in Russia have not subsided so far. They flare up especially strongly after the next cruel and high-profile murders. We will not discuss whether the death penalty is necessary in our country or not. We will simply consider the main arguments for and against such a punishment. Let everyone draw their own conclusions.

"FOR": Fair punishment.

Proponents of the death penalty use arguments to support their views, most of which have been put forward for many years and centuries ago. Since the death penalty excludes the repetition of a crime, such a punishment serves as a protection for a society that has the right to self-defense. Society has the right to take the life of someone who has taken the life of another, otherwise the lynching may come into effect. I would like to quote on this occasion from the speech of the deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation V. Semago: "Aren't you afraid that if someone's life was taken away, then his relatives will simply take on the function and mission of executing the sentence, which, according to in their opinion, will it be fair?.. If the state does not take upon itself the function of avenging a crime, then this unties the hands of a person"

There are people who cannot be corrected, while the application of the death penalty to them is a necessary measure. Another argument is that the content of the criminal requires considerable budget funds, which negatively affects public opinion. For example, according to the Estonian press, the maintenance and supervision of one prisoner costs the taxpayer 7,700 kroons per month.

The American criminologist W. Rekless formulated 4 main provisions in defense of the death penalty:

Correspondence of punishment with a crime, the principle of talion;

Punishment as atonement for guilt, the offender must suffer in order to atone for his sin;

Punishment - intimidation of others, reminding them that the same thing can happen to them if they break the laws;

Punishment as protection of the interests of society.

Another American criminologist E. Sutherland formulated 5 such reasons:

The death penalty is a more effective crime prevention tool than other forms of punishment;

It is more economical than imprisonment;

It is necessary to prevent the lynching of the criminal;

The death penalty frees society from defective individuals;

It is more reliable than life imprisonment for persons convicted of premeditated murder, because the latter may be subject to amnesty.

Winston Churchill, occupying in the 40s. Minister of the Interior, said that while he respects those wishing to abolish the death penalty and replace it with life imprisonment, this measure is not more humane, since it "dooms to many years of terrible deprivation and suffering of the mind and soul of those whom they wanted to do good." One cannot but agree with this statement. It is not yet known which is more humane - the death penalty or life imprisonment. I remember a report from the death row of one of the Russian prisons. Those sentenced to death received a pardon, many repented of their deeds, but all turned to the president with a request to carry out the sentence. “It’s better to be shot right away than to toil in a cage for the rest of your life,” one of them commented on his request. There are also many cases of suicide by prisoners who were announced the decision to replace the death penalty with life imprisonment.

The need to use the death penalty is also expressed by some textbooks of Criminal Law, for example: "Inclusion of the death penalty within strictly limited limits both in terms of the number of crimes and categories of convicts, taking into account the current high level of crime, which also tends to grow, the presence of an organized and professional crime, mafia structures that have covered many spheres of society and the state, it is quite justified and vital. The death penalty, of course, cannot be aimed at correcting the guilty, but performs the tasks of restoring social justice and preventing the commission of crimes by the convict and other unstable persons."

The most emotional point of view in defense of the death penalty is expressed by the writer A. Kuleshov. Here are some of his quotes. "Those who advocate the abolition of the death penalty are stubbornly silent, for which this exceptional measure of punishment is being imposed. Let's be honest with ourselves. When we are told about a person who has taken the life of another person (many, a child), what feelings do we have? .. With I can hardly imagine a person who will exclaim: “To execute such a person? What are you? How can we take his life! Where is the humanity? Where is philanthropy?" However, in abstract conversations, some people exclaim just like that. Here, great emphasis is placed on the opinion of ordinary citizens, whose legal rights are violated. Undoubtedly, most of people will require the execution of such a criminal, since the power of anger in people is great. This brings to mind the recent trial in Ukraine of a mercenary killer who has more than 50 victims, including women, children and even infants. He killed in order to steal a few kilograms of sugar or other supplies of people, and children along with adults. And although a moratorium was imposed on the death penalty in Ukraine, the court sentenced him to this particular measure of punishment, fearing that the criminal would be lynched right in the courtroom.

Regarding judicial errors, A. Kuleshov speaks as follows: “You should not be guided only by this principle. According to this logic, complex operations should be abandoned, dooming patients to death, because a doctor can make a mistake or stop space exploration, because designers and engineers can make mistakes. There may be mistakes in the case, and it is not clear why the possibility of their occurrence should be stopped in the question of the application of the death penalty. Of course, the death sentence must be pronounced after a thorough investigation and trial, guarantees of the correctness of decisions are needed, but it is impossible to refuse the death penalty in general. " I agree that additional conditions are needed to confirm the verdict. However, not every deprivation of the life of another deserves execution, there are a lot of circumstances, interpretations and patterns of behavior. "Let me remind you of the well-known paradox: to shoot a person, including a foreigner, is a crime, to shoot him during a war with his state is a duty." Another, fairly weighty argument is about the self-defense of society, to which every member of it has the right. If the court acquits a person who killed in self-defense, then "why is there so much controversy when society does this?" I believe that disputes arise because there is no person specifically responsible for this, the state and society hardly fit into this category. I would like to end this section with a quote from the same A. Kuleshov, which, in my opinion, expresses the point of view of members of that society, whose rights and freedoms are infringed by the criminal. "There is not always hope for correction and redemption. The severity of the deed is too great. That's when the death penalty is applied. There are those from whom society should get rid of as incurable diseases. Malignant tumors must be removed, not cherished. an encroachment on human life, because those who commit such crimes are not people. These are creatures that should not have a place on earth. Ridding the world of them is true humanity. In relation to people."

A. Kuleshov, writer.

In general, I am for the humanization of the system of punishments, but still I think that the most terrible crimes - monstrous, cynical - deserve the death penalty. Such criminals cannot be corrected and punished, because there is no punishment commensurate with their guilt. Such people have no right to live on earth. After all, it would never occur to anyone to lock in a cage poisonous snake or a tarantula in the hope that in 15 years they will turn into, say, a snake or a cockchafer.

AI Solzhenitsyn on the abolition of the death penalty.

The famous Russian writer, Nobel Prize winner Alexander Solzhenitsyn believes that Russia can put an end to terrorism only by lifting the moratorium on the death penalty.

"There are times when the death penalty is needed to save the society, the state. But in Russia now the question is exactly like this," Solzhenitsyn said. According to him, Chechnya continues to be "an unfinished chapter of Russian history, its heavy political problem." Chechen fighters who manage to be captured "laugh at the Russian court" because they know that there will be no death penalty. The terrorists hope that by declaring a moratorium on the execution of death sentences, Russia "cannot be found guilty before Strasbourg, PACE," the writer noted. He stressed that the wave of terror in our country is growing, while in Europe, which "dictates us the abolition of the death penalty, they did not know such severe trials as Russia has gone through."

Lawyer-political scientist S. Ya. Ulitsky on the problem of the death penalty.

Part 1 of Article 20 of the Russian Constitution proclaims the right to life. But the exercise of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen, as rightly stated in Article 17 (part 3) of the Constitution, should not violate the rights and freedoms of other persons. And if a person deliberately takes the lives of other people, then guaranteeing the killer the right to life is not always justified. That is why the Constitution allows for the death penalty. However, in recent years, the courts have practically ceased to appoint her. Why? Entering the Council of Europe in 1996, Russia undertook to abolish the death penalty within three years. But Boris Yeltsin could not fail to understand that neither the State Duma nor the Federation Council would most likely agree to this. Then they decided to use the Constitutional Court. Well, his role here, figuratively speaking, was predetermined by the prima donna. The Constitutional Court put a brake on the use of the death penalty. Personally, I am not inclined to deify the court, even if it is "Constitutional". I am convinced that if we do not stop the inflating of the cult of the court and do not strengthen public control over the administration of justice, the results will be very deplorable. Come on, dear readers, let's figure it out together whether Russia needs to return to the use of the death penalty.

Part 2 of Article 20 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation provides that the death penalty may be established by federal law "for especially grave crimes against life, when the accused is granted the right to have his case heard by a jury." At the same time, the Constitution does not exclude the possibility of establishing by federal law cases when the guilty person can be sentenced to death without giving him the right to demand the participation of jurors in the consideration of the case. After all, the Constitution nowhere says that the death penalty can only be imposed by a jury. This means that the participation of the jury here is only one of the variants of the legal composition of the court allowed by the Constitution. In fact, part 2 of article 20 of the Constitution is designed for both peacetime and wartime, it is also designed for the possibility of visiting court sessions in a combat situation (part 3 of article 56 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation).

But trial by jury requires calling in each case at least 20 assessors and selecting 12 of them to participate in a particular case (Articles 434, 438 and 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). And if we agree with the Constitutional Court that only a jury can impose the death penalty, it is difficult to understand how this can be implemented at the front. Where is there to look for and gather jurors: in the trenches, in dugouts, or in general anywhere on the battlefield? However, the Constitutional Court clarified that the Constitution allegedly allows the death penalty to be imposed only by jury trials. And since they have not been created everywhere in the country, then, according to the Constitutional Court, it is now completely impossible to sentence to death, even where there is a jury trial. Well, there are strange dreams, but in reality it is stranger! But after all, we must not forget that the jury in our country operates only as an experiment, and even then in nine regions. In the 80s, including Primorye, it is not. The prospects for the extension of the jury throughout Russia, in my opinion, are illusory. Experience so far shows that this is not only an expensive, but also a very complex and inefficient form of legal proceedings. Yet other courts are bound by the opinion of the Constitutional Court. The question arises: is it possible to reconsider this opinion? Unfortunately not yet. Article 79, part 2 of the Law "On the Constitutional Court" does not allow review of decisions taken by the Constitutional Court, even if the court itself is convinced of its mistake. It turns out, in my opinion, some kind of nonsense. The Constitution can be changed, but the decision of the Constitutional Court cannot. So, first of all, we need to correct this order. But only the Federal Assembly of Russia has the right to do this. Until it adopts an appropriate amendment to the Law "On the Constitutional Court", the discussion in the State Duma of the issue of resuming the use of the death penalty will, in my opinion, be empty talk. The death penalty is known in the legislation of many countries of the world. Now it is actively used by more than 90 states. These include our closest neighbors: Japan, China, North and South Korea. The death penalty is provided for by US federal law and the laws of 38 states. In America, the death penalty can be used not only for murder, but also for some other crimes, such as treason and rape.

The world is one and diverse - there is nothing in the world but moving matter. There is no other world but the world of infinite matter moving in time and space. The material world, nature is an infinite variety of objects, bodies, phenomena and processes. This is inorganic nature, the organic world, society in all their inexhaustible richness and diversity. The diversity of the world lies in the qualitative difference between material things and processes, in the variety of forms of motion of matter. At the same time, the qualitative diversity of the world, the diversity of forms of material movement exists in unity. The real unity of the world consists in its materiality. The unity of the world and its diversity are in a dialectical relationship, they are internally and inextricably linked, a single matter does not exist otherwise than in qualitatively diverse forms, the entire diversity of the world is the diversity of forms of a single matter, a single material world. All the data of science and practice convincingly confirm the unity of the material world. Philosophy is a theoretically formulated worldview. This is a system of the most general views on the world, a person's place in it, an understanding of the various forms of a person's relationship to the world. Philosophy differs from other forms of worldview not so much in its subject matter, but in the way it is comprehended, the degree of intellectual development of problems and methods of approach to them. Therefore, when defining philosophy, the concepts of a theoretical worldview and a system of views are used. In the worldview there are always two opposite angles of view: the direction of consciousness "outside" - the formation of a picture of the world, the universe, and, on the other hand, its appeal "inside" - to the person himself, the desire to understand his essence, place, purpose in the natural and social world. A person is distinguished by the ability to think, to know, to love and hate, to rejoice and grieve, to hope, to desire, to feel a sense of duty, pangs of conscience, etc. Various relationships these angles of view permeate all philosophy. Philosophical worldview as if bipolar: its semantic “nodes” are the world and man. What is essential for philosophical thinking is not a separate consideration of these opposites, but their constant correlation. Various problems philosophical outlook are aimed at understanding the forms of their interaction, at understanding the relationship of man to the world. This large multifaceted problem "the world - man", in fact, acts as a universal one and can be considered as a general formula, an abstract expression of almost any philosophical problem. That is why it can, in a certain sense, be called the fundamental question of philosophy. Central to the collision philosophical views occupies the question of the relation of consciousness to being, or, in other words, of the relation of the ideal to the material. When we talk about consciousness, ideal, we mean nothing but our thoughts, experiences, feelings. When it comes to being, material, then this includes everything that exists objectively, regardless of our consciousness, i.e. things and objects of the external world, phenomena and processes occurring in nature and society. In philosophical understanding, the ideal (consciousness) and material (being) are the broadest scientific concepts(categories) that reflect the most common and at the same time opposite properties objects, phenomena and processes of the world. The question of the relationship between consciousness and being, spirit and nature is the main question of philosophy. From the solution of this issue, ultimately, depends the interpretation of all other problems that determine the philosophical outlook on nature, society, and, therefore, on man himself. When considering the fundamental question of philosophy, it is very important to distinguish between its two sides. First, what is primary - ideal or material? This or that answer to this question plays the most important role in philosophy, because to be primary means to exist before the secondary, to precede it, ultimately, to determine it. Secondly, can a person cognize the world around him, the laws of development of nature and society? The essence of this side of the main question of philosophy is to clarify the ability of human thinking to correctly reflect objective reality. Solving the main question, philosophers divided into two large camps, depending on what they take as the source - material or ideal. Those philosophers who recognize matter, being, nature as primary, and consciousness, thinking, spirit as secondary, represent a philosophical direction called materialistic. In philosophy, there is also an idealistic direction opposite to the materialistic one. Philosophers-idealists recognize the beginning of all existing consciousness, thinking, spirit, i.e. perfect. There is another solution to the main question of philosophy - dualism, which believes that the material and spiritual sides exist separately from one another as independent entities. The question of the relation of thinking to being has a second side - the question of the cognizability of the world: can a person cognize the world around him? Idealistic philosophy, as a rule, denies the possibility of knowing the world. The first question with which philosophical knowledge began: what is the world in which we live? In essence, it is equivalent to the question: what do we know about the world? Philosophy is not the only area of ​​knowledge designed to answer this question. Over the centuries, his solution included all new areas of special scientific knowledge and practices. At the same time, special cognitive functions fell to the lot of philosophy. In different historical epochs they took different kind, but still some stable common features remained. The formation of philosophy, along with the emergence of mathematics, marked the birth in ancient Greek culture a completely new phenomenon - the first mature forms of theoretical thinking. Some other areas of knowledge reached theoretical maturity much later and, moreover, in different time. Philosophical knowledge of the world had its own requirements. Unlike other types of theoretical knowledge (in mathematics, natural science), philosophy acts as a universal theoretical knowledge. According to Aristotle, the special sciences are occupied with the study of specific types of being, philosophy takes upon itself the knowledge of the most general principles, the beginning of all things. In the knowledge of the world philosophers different eras turned to the solution of such problems that either temporarily, in a certain historical period, or fundamentally, forever, turned out to be beyond the field of understanding, the competence of individual sciences. It can be seen that in all philosophical questions there is a correlation "the world - man". It is difficult to answer questions related to the problem of the cognizability of the world in a straightforward manner - such is the nature of philosophy.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Introduction

3. Man and the world in the philosophy and culture of the Ancient East

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

In the system of extremely diverse knowledge about the world around us important place occupies philosophy. Having originated in ancient times, it has gone through a centuries-old path of development, during which a variety of philosophical schools and currents arose and existed. The word "philosophy" Greek origin and literally means "love of wisdom". Philosophy is a system of views on the reality around us, a system of the most general concepts about the world and the place of man in it. Since its inception, it has sought to find out what the world is like as a whole, to understand the nature of man himself, to determine what place he occupies in society, whether his mind can penetrate the secrets of the universe, to know and turn the powerful forces of nature for the benefit of people. Philosophy thus poses the most general and at the same time very important, fundamental questions that determine a person's approach to the most diverse areas of life and knowledge. To all these questions, philosophers gave very different, and even mutually exclusive answers. The struggle between materialism and idealism, the formation and development in this struggle of a progressive, materialistic line, is the law of the entire centuries-old development of philosophy. The struggle of materialism against idealism expressed the struggle of the progressive classes of society against the reactionary classes. V ancient times philosophy existed in China and India. In the VMM-VM centuries. BC. philosophy originated in ancient greece where she reached high development. In the Middle Ages, philosophy as an independent science did not exist; it was part of theology. XV-XVI centuries mark the beginning of a decisive turn from medieval scholasticism to experimental research. The growth of capitalist relations, industry and trade, the great geographical and astronomical discoveries and achievements in other areas of natural science led to the emergence of a new worldview based on empirical knowledge. Thanks to the discoveries of Copernicus, Galileo, Giordano Bruno, science has taken a huge step forward. Path philosophical reflection world is very complex. Cognition always includes particles of fantasy.

1. World and man. The fundamental question of philosophy

The world is one and diverse - there is nothing in the world but moving matter. There is no other world but the world of infinite matter moving in time and space. The material world, nature is an infinite variety of objects, bodies, phenomena and processes. This is inorganic nature, the organic world, society in all their inexhaustible richness and diversity. The diversity of the world lies in the qualitative difference between material things and processes, in the variety of forms of motion of matter. At the same time, the qualitative diversity of the world, the diversity of forms of material movement exists in unity. The real unity of the world consists in its materiality. The unity of the world and its diversity are in a dialectical relationship, they are internally and inextricably linked, a single matter does not exist otherwise than in qualitatively diverse forms, the entire diversity of the world is the diversity of forms of a single matter, a single material world. All the data of science and practice convincingly confirm the unity of the material world. Philosophy is a theoretically formulated worldview. This is a system of the most general views on the world, a person's place in it, an understanding of the various forms of a person's relationship to the world. Philosophy differs from other forms of worldview not so much in its subject matter, but in the way it is comprehended, the degree of intellectual development of problems and methods of approach to them. Therefore, when defining philosophy, the concepts of a theoretical worldview and a system of views are used. In the worldview there are always two opposite angles of view: the direction of consciousness "outside" - the formation of a picture of the world, the universe, and, on the other hand, its appeal "inside" - to the person himself, the desire to understand his essence, place, purpose in the natural and social world. A person is distinguished by the ability to think, to know, to love and hate, to rejoice and grieve, to hope, to desire, to feel a sense of duty, pangs of conscience, etc. The various relationships of these angles of vision permeate the whole of philosophy. The philosophical worldview is, as it were, bipolar: its semantic "nodes" are the world and man. What is essential for philosophical thinking is not a separate consideration of these opposites, but their constant correlation. Various problems of the philosophical worldview are aimed at understanding the forms of their interaction, at understanding the relationship of man to the world. This large multifaceted problem "the world - man", in fact, acts as a universal one and can be considered as a general formula, an abstract expression of almost any philosophical problem. That is why it can, in a certain sense, be called the fundamental question of philosophy. Central to the clash of philosophical views is the question of the relation of consciousness to being, or, in other words, of the relation of the ideal to the material. When we talk about consciousness, ideal, we mean nothing but our thoughts, experiences, feelings. When it comes to being, material, then this includes everything that exists objectively, regardless of our consciousness, i.e. things and objects of the external world, phenomena and processes occurring in nature and society. In philosophical understanding, ideal (consciousness) and material (being) are the broadest scientific concepts (categories) that reflect the most general and at the same time opposite properties of objects, phenomena and processes of the world. The question of the relationship between consciousness and being, spirit and nature is the main question of philosophy. From the solution of this issue, ultimately, depends the interpretation of all other problems that determine the philosophical outlook on nature, society, and, therefore, on man himself. When considering the fundamental question of philosophy, it is very important to distinguish between its two sides. First, what is primary - ideal or material? This or that answer to this question plays the most important role in philosophy, because to be primary means to exist before the secondary, to precede it, ultimately, to determine it. Secondly, can a person cognize the world around him, the laws of development of nature and society? The essence of this side of the main question of philosophy is to clarify the ability of human thinking to correctly reflect objective reality. Solving the main question, philosophers divided into two large camps, depending on what they take as the source - material or ideal. Those philosophers who recognize matter, being, nature as primary, and consciousness, thinking, spirit as secondary, represent a philosophical direction called materialistic. In philosophy, there is also an idealistic direction opposite to the materialistic one. Philosophers-idealists recognize the beginning of all existing consciousness, thinking, spirit, i.e. perfect. There is another solution to the main question of philosophy - dualism, which believes that the material and spiritual sides exist separately from one another as independent entities. The question of the relation of thinking to being has a second side - the question of the cognizability of the world: can a person cognize the world around him? Idealistic philosophy, as a rule, denies the possibility of knowing the world. The first question with which philosophical knowledge began: what is the world in which we live? In essence, it is equivalent to the question: what do we know about the world? Philosophy is not the only area of ​​knowledge designed to answer this question. Over the centuries, ever new areas of special scientific knowledge and practice have been included in its solution. At the same time, special cognitive functions fell to the lot of philosophy. In different historical epochs, they took on a different form, but still some stable common features were preserved. The formation of philosophy, along with the emergence of mathematics, marked the birth of a completely new phenomenon in ancient Greek culture - the first mature forms of theoretical thinking. Some other areas of knowledge reached theoretical maturity much later and, moreover, at different times. Philosophical knowledge of the world had its own requirements. Unlike other types of theoretical knowledge (in mathematics, natural science), philosophy acts as a universal theoretical knowledge. According to Aristotle, special sciences are engaged in the study of specific types of being, philosophy takes upon itself the knowledge of the most general principles, the beginnings of all things. In cognition of the world, philosophers of different eras turned to solving such problems that either temporarily, in a certain historical period, or fundamentally, forever, turned out to be beyond the field of understanding, the competence of individual sciences. It can be seen that in all philosophical questions there is a correlation "the world - man". It is difficult to answer questions related to the problem of the cognizability of the world in a straightforward manner - such is the nature of philosophy.

2. Man's relation to the world as a subject of philosophy

Philosophy as historical type worldview appears last, after mythology and religion. Philosophy solves the main question of the worldview (about the relation of a person to the world) in a theoretical form (ie, the theoretical justification of the worldview). This means that a new type of rationality has emerged that does not require a human or supernatural component. Philosophy is interested in itself objectively existing world without a human role in it. In the philosophical worldview there are always two opposite angles of view: 1) the direction of consciousness "outside" - the formation of one or another picture of the world, the universe; and 2) his appeal "inside" - to the man himself, the desire to understand his essence, his place in the natural and social world. Moreover, a person here appears not as a part of the world in a number of other things, but as a being of a special kind (by the definition of R. Descartes, a thing that thinks, suffers, etc.). It is distinguished from everything else by the ability to think, to know, to love and hate, to rejoice and grieve, and so on. The "poles" that create the "field of tension" of philosophical thought are the world "external" in relation to human consciousness and the "inner" world - psychological, spiritual life. The various correlations of these "worlds" permeate the whole of philosophy. Philosophical worldview is, as it were, bipolar: its semantic "nodes" are the world and man. What is essential for philosophical thought is not a separate consideration of these poles, but their constant correlation. Unlike other forms of worldview in the philosophical worldview, such a polarity is theoretically pointed, it appears most clearly, and forms the basis of all reflections. Various problems of the philosophical worldview, located in the "field of force" between these poles, are "charged", aimed at understanding the forms of their interaction, at understanding the relationship of man to the world. The problem "the world - man", in fact, acts as a universal one and can be considered as an abstract expression of almost any philosophical problem. That is why it can, in a certain sense, be called the fundamental question of philosophy. The main question of philosophy captures the ontological and epistemological relationship of matter and consciousness. This question is fundamental because without it there can be no philosophizing. Other problems become philosophical only because they can be viewed through the prism of man's ontological and epistemological relationship to being. This question is also the main one because, depending on the answer to its ontological part, two main, fundamentally different general orientations in the world are formed: materialism and idealism. The main question of philosophy, as noted in the literature, is not only a “litmus paper” with which one can distinguish scientific materialism from idealism and agnosticism; it becomes at the same time a means of orienting man in the world. The study of the relationship between being and consciousness is a condition without which a person will not be able to develop his attitude to the world, will not be able to navigate in it. characteristic feature philosophical problems is their eternity. This means that philosophy deals with problems that at all times retain their significance. Human thought constantly rethinks them in the light of new experience. These are the following philosophical questions: 1) about the relationship between spirit and matter (spirit is primary for idealists, matter for materialists); 2) the cognizability of the world (epistemological optimists believe that the world is cognizable, objective truth is available human mind; agnostics believe that the world of entities is fundamentally unknowable; skeptics believe that the world is not cognizable, and if we are cognizable, then not completely); 3) the question of the origins of being (monism - either matter or spirit; dualism - both; pluralism - being has many bases).

2. Man and the world in the philosophy and culture of the Ancient East

Middle of the 1st millennium BC. e. - that milestone in the history of the development of mankind, at which in the three centers of ancient civilization - China, India and Greece - philosophy practically simultaneously arises. The commonality of the genesis does not exclude ways of forming a systematized philosophical knowledge in various centers of ancient civilization. In India, this path ran through opposition to Brahminism, which assimilated tribal beliefs and customs, preserved a significant part of the Vedic ritual, recorded in the four Samhitas, or Vedas ("Veda" - knowledge), collections of hymns in honor of the gods. Each Veda was later overgrown with brahmana (commentary), and even later with aranyakas ("forest books" intended for hermits) and, finally, upanishads ("sitting at the teacher's feet"). The first evidence of an independent systematic presentation of Indian philosophy was the sutras (sayings, aphorisms), VII-VI century BC. e. Until modern times, Indian philosophy has practically developed exclusively in line with the six classical darshan systems (Vedanta, Sankhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Mimansa), oriented towards the authority of the Vedas, and unorthodox currents: Lokayata, Jainism, Buddhism. The Vedantists defended the monistic model of the world, according to which Brahman is the ideal One, the cause of the world. Sanhyaikas and yogis tended towards dualism: they recognized the unmanifested prakriti, possessing undefinable guna elements. The Lokayatikas or Charvakas, the Indian materialists, maintained that there were four "great essences" inherent in the beginning: earth, water, air, and fire. Representatives of the Nyayas and especially the Vaisheshikas were among the ancient atomists (atoms create a moral image of the world, realizing the moral law of dharma). The position of Buddhism was in the middle in the sense that, according to it, the universe was presented as an endless process of separate elements of matter and spirit, appearing and disappearing, without real personalities and without permanent substance. In many ways, the formation of ancient Chinese philosophy was similar. Whereas in India numerous philosophical schools were in one way or another connected with Vedism, in China they were in contact with Confucian orthodoxy (rival schools of Taoism, Mohism, and Legalism). Ancient myths describe the origin of the cosmos in no other way than by analogy with biological birth. The Indians had a marriage combination of heaven and earth. In the imagination of the Chinese, two spirits were born from the formless darkness, ordering the world: the male spirit yang began to rule the sky, and the female yin - the earth. Gradually, the ordering of chaos and the organization of the universe begin to be attributed to the “first man”. In Vedic myths, this is the thousand-headed, thousand-armed Purusha. The mind or spirit of which gave birth to the moon, eyes - the sun, mouth - fire, breath - wind. Purusha is not only a model of society, but also of a human community with the earliest social hierarchy, manifested in the division into "varnas"; From the mouth of the Purusha came the priests (Brahmins), from the hands - the warriors, from the thighs - the merchants, from the feet all the rest (Shudras). Similarly, in Chinese mythology, the origin is associated with the supernatural man Pansu. Turning to the rational understanding of the causality of the world in various manifestations of its constancy and variability, a person had to see his place in a new way, the purpose in which it also reflects the specifics of the social structure of ancient Asian society: centralized despotism and the rural community. In China, a single "great beginning" is deified in the Sky - "Tian". In the Shi Jing (Canon of Poems), Heaven is the universal progenitor and great ruler: it gives birth to the human race and gives the rule of life: the sovereign must be the sovereign, the dignitary-dignitary, the father-father ... Confucianism, which laid the ideological foundation of Chinese society from ancient times, put forward as a cornerstone of social organization - whether - norm, rule, ceremonial. Li assumed the maintenance of forever rank-hierarchical differences. In India, Brahma, who forms the real and the unreal, is not only the "eternal creator" of beings, but also determines for all the names, type of activity (karma) and a special position. He is credited with the establishment of caste division ("Laws of Manu"), the highest position in which is occupied by the Brahmins. V Ancient China Near ethical concept Confucianism, focused on maintaining the harmony of a person with society, there was a Taoist “exit” beyond the limits of society into space, to feel oneself not as a cog in a powerful state mechanism, but as a microcosm. The caste system in ancient India rigidly determined a person, leaving no hope for the possibility of getting rid of suffering in a different way than the path of rebirth. Hence the path of asceticism and mystical search in the Blagavad Gita, developed even more in Buddhism. Climbing along the path of human perfection in Buddhism ends with the state of nirvana (an indefinite ultimate goal - nirvana - a huge meaning, there is no end to perfection). Fluctuating between two extremes: substantiating the social status of morality by belittling a real individual or affirming a specific individual by ignoring social essence morality was a universal characteristic of the ancient era. However, the peculiarities of the social life of the ancient Asian society had an unfavorable effect on the development of individual freedom. This, in turn, determined the further development of philosophical thought, which for centuries remained in the closed space of traditional mental structures, was mainly occupied with commenting and interpretation.

4. The problem of man in modern philosophy

Since time immemorial, man has been the object of philosophical reflection. This is evidenced by the oldest sources of Indian and Chinese philosophy, especially the sources of philosophy ancient Greece. It was here that the well-known call was formulated: "Man, know yourself, and you will know the Universe and the Gods!" It reflected the complexity and depth of the human problem. Knowing himself, man gains freedom; before him the secrets of the Universe are revealed, and he becomes on a par with the Gods. But this has not happened yet, despite the fact that thousands of years of history have passed. Man was and remains a mystery to himself. There are grounds for asserting that the problem of man, like any truly philosophical problem, is an open and unfinished problem that we only need to solve, but do not need to solve completely. Kantian question: "What is a man?" remains relevant. In the history of philosophical thought, various human problems are known for research. Some philosophers tried (and are trying now) to discover some unchanging nature of man (his essence). At the same time, they proceed from the idea that such knowledge will make it possible to explain the origin of people's thoughts and actions and thereby indicate to them the "formula of happiness." But among these philosophers there is no unity, for each of them sees as an essence what the other does not see, and thus complete discord reigns here. Suffice it to say that in the Middle Ages the essence of man was seen in his soul turned to God; in the epoch of modern times, B. Pascal defined a person as a "thinking reed"; Enlightenment philosophers of the 18th century saw the essence of man in his mind; L. Feuerbach pointed to a religion based on love; K. Marx defined a person as social being- a product of social development, etc. Following this path, philosophers discovered more and more facets of human nature, but this did not lead to a clarification of the picture, but rather complicated it. Another approach to the study of human nature can be conditionally called historical. It is based on the study of the monuments of the material and spiritual culture of the distant past and allows us to present a person as a historically developing being from its lower forms to its higher ones, i.e. modern. The stimulus for such a vision of man was given by the theory of evolution of Ch. Darwin. K. Marx occupies a prominent place among the representatives of this approach. Another approach explains the nature of a person by the influence of cultural factors on him and is called culturological. It is, to one degree or another, characteristic of many philosophers, which will be discussed in our lecture. A number of researchers point out important side human nature, namely, that during historical development a person carries out self-development, i.e. he "creates" himself (S. Kierkegaard, K. Marx, W. James, A. Bergson, Teilhard de Chardin). He is the creator not only of himself, but also of his own history. Thus man is historical and transient in time; he is not born "reasonable", but becomes so throughout the life and history of the human race. There are other approaches, you can read more about them in the work of E. Fromm and R. Hierau "Preface to the anthology" Human Nature "(see the list of references at the end of the lecture). Before proceeding to the presentation of specific issues, we will make one terminological explanation. We are talking about the fact that the philosophy of man in the specialized literature is called philosophical anthropology (from the Greek. anthropos - man and logos - teaching.) This term is used in this lecture.

Conclusion

man philosophy being

Philosophy is sometimes understood as some kind of abstract knowledge, extremely remote from reality. Everyday life. Nothing is further from the truth than such a judgment. On the contrary, it is in life that the most serious, deepest problems of philosophy originate, it is here that the main field of its interests lies; everything else, down to the most abstract concepts and categories, down to the most cunning mental constructions, is ultimately nothing more than a means for comprehending life's realities in their interconnection, in all their fullness, depth and inconsistency. At the same time, it is important to bear in mind that, in terms of scientific philosophy to comprehend reality does not at all mean simply to reconcile and agree with it in everything. Philosophy involves a critical attitude to reality, to what is becoming obsolete and obsolete, and at the same time - a search in the very reality, in its contradictions, and not in thinking about it, of the possibilities, means and directions for its change and development. The transformation of reality, practice, is the sphere where only philosophical problems can be resolved, where the reality and power of human thinking are revealed. An appeal to the history of philosophical thought shows that the theme of man is, firstly, enduring. Secondly, it is comprehended from various ideological positions, due to concrete historical and other reasons. Thirdly, in the history of philosophy, questions about the essence and nature of man, the meaning of his existence, remain unchanged. In essence, the history of anthropology is the history of understanding the process of separating a person from the outside world (antiquity), opposing him (Renaissance) and, finally, merging with him, gaining unity (Russian religious philosophy and other teachings).

Bibliography

1) Golubintsev V.O., Dantsev A.A. Philosophy for technical universities - Rostov-on-Don, 2010

2) Serik Myrzaly. Philosophy. - Almaty, 2008.

3) Shchitsko V.L., Sharakpaeva G.D., Dzharkinbaev E.E. Philosophy. Lecture notes for all specialties. - Almaty 2010.

4) Losev A.F. Philosophy, mythology, culture. - M., 1991.

5) The World of Philosophy in Brief.- M., 1991.

Hosted on Allbest.ru

Similar Documents

The essence of philosophy, its subject and place in the culture and life of man and society. The two sides of the main question of philosophy are ontological and epistemological. Man and his place in the universe from the point of view of philosophy. Main categories scientific picture peace.

control work, added 12/30/2009


The main themes of philosophical reflections and trends in philosophy. The fundamental question of philosophy. Essence of philosophy according to Georg Simmel. Philosophy as a science. The struggle between materialism and idealism in philosophical currents. Simmel's theory on the history of philosophy.

term paper, added 10/19/2008


The structure of philosophical knowledge and the functions of philosophy. Characteristic features of the main philosophical directions. The main question of philosophy is the question of the relation of thinking to being, its epistemological side. Who needs philosophy. Features of the philosopher's activity.

presentation, added 07/17/2012


Manifold philosophical schools and directions. Basic and basic sets of problems. The question of the relation of thinking to being as the fundamental question of philosophy. The opposite of material and ideal. Correlation between objective and real world.

test, added 01/04/2011


Characteristics of the concept of consciousness in philosophy. The problem of consciousness as one of the most difficult and mysterious. The relation of human consciousness to his being, the question of the inclusion of a person with consciousness in the world. Individual and supra-individual consciousness.

abstract, added 05/19/2009


The formation of philosophical views of N.A. Berdyaev. Characterization of freedom as a primary and fundamental reality, penetrating into all spheres of life - the cosmos, society and man himself. Analysis of the doctrine of "community". The concept of man in philosophy.

abstract, added 09/10/2014


Definition of the subject of philosophy by thinkers of different eras, a variety of approaches. The fundamental question of philosophy. Differentiation of philosophical methods. Functions of philosophy and their dialectical relationship. The nature of the problem of being. Correlation between philosophy and economics.

control work, added 11/10/2009


The considered problem of man in philosophy is humanistic and general cultural. The humanistic function of philosophy. The problem of the meaning of life. Man's relation to the world. The ideal epicurean man (sage). Conjugation of man with the world, nature, mind.

term paper, added 05/20/2004


Philosophical outlook, its structure. The fundamental question of philosophy. Functions of philosophy, its purpose. Philosophy in the system of culture. Philosophy and science: relationship and difference of functions. The nature of philosophical problems. Characteristics of the main philosophical schools.

cheat sheet, added 07/10/2013


Man as a subject of study of philosophy. Developments philosophical anthropology. The dominance of the labor theory of anthroposociogenesis in dialectical materialistic philosophy. The unity of the natural and the social in man. Spirituality and the problem of the meaning of life.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Federal State Educational Institution

Higher professional education

MOSCOW STATE UNIVERSITY

MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGIES NAMED AFTER G.K. RAZUMOVSKY

Law Institute

Department of Humanities and Social and Economic Sciences

Test

By discipline: "______________________"

On the topic of:___________________________________________

Performed):

Student (ka) ___ course

Forms of study

specialty 030501

Branch city _____________

record book cipher _____

_________________________

Scientific adviser:

________________________

(academic degree, position)

________________________

Moscow 2011

Introduction

Man as a problem for himself

The unity of the natural, social and spiritual in man.

Man as individuality and personality. The problem of the meaning of human existence.

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

What is a person? What is its nature, essence, purpose? What is meaning and value? human life? What are the cardinal problems of human existence? How is the fate of humanism today? What is the specificity of the philosophical comprehension of man? These and other similar questions that determine the content of philosophical and anthropological thought are at the center of attention of many scientists today.

Towards a philosophical reflection on man in still more motivated by worldview and cognitive factors. Modern biology, psychology, cultural studies, history, ethnography have accumulated a lot of conflicting information that requires generalization and philosophical reflection.

Man as a problem for himself

A person turns out to be a problem for himself when he asks himself a question about the meaning of his own existence, the boundaries of his being, about the difference from his own kind, from all living beings. It is only by problematizing the foundations of one's own life that a person really becomes a person. Socrates' "know thyself" is not a call to solve some, albeit difficult, problem that has an answer at the end of the problem book, but an attitude to constantly ask this question, to keep it in the horizon of one's whole life.

The problem of man is not a purely theoretical problem, for reflection on which time is carved out at leisure; it is a practical, vital problem. Finding himself in a critical situation, each time a person "chooses" himself, decides the question of the meaning of his existence. As soon as he stops thinking about it, he ceases to be a person, turns into a thing, freezes within certain boundaries, grows together with a certain social role forever banished from the world of free choice. The crowning achievement of such "reification" of a person is an inscription on a gravestone, identifying a person with a certain profession, nationality, scientific title. Contrary to the thought of G. Heine, who wrote that a whole universe rests under each slab, we read: "Here rests an honored doctor, or an internationalist warrior, or a laureate of the State Prize ..." However, according to A. Camus, one cannot definitively award even the Nobel Prize, thereby recognizing his absolute right to possess genius

Thus, the problem of man as a practical problem has always been and will always be before each of us: at certain moments of life, a person problems his existence, determines the meaning of his life, chooses the direction of his life path. However, although a person always chooses, there is a peculiar "technique" for a person to problematize his own existence - philosophy. It is philosophy that organizes the "space of choice" by a person of himself; it, as it were, offers developed philosophical thought over the centuries, various systems of value coordinates of humanity.

Philosophy leaves the final choice of the "image of humanity" to man himself. Therefore, it cannot dictate to a person what he should be. Philosophy cannot be reduced to the science of what is, to a simple statement of what a person "really" is like. Philosophy as a "technique" of man's thinking about himself is a form of theoretical knowledge about the possible. True, philosophers often succumbed to the temptation to give a final answer to eternal philosophical questions, they began to speak not from the standpoint of the possible, but from the standpoint of the proper and the real. In this case, philosophy turned from a technique of free choice into a form of the philosopher's personal life-meaning choice. The philosopher as the bearer of theoretical "pure" reason and the philosopher as the bearer of "practical" reason merged into one. The successes of science and technology in the study and construction of man make it possible to speak of a positivist version of the "idea of ​​man." The long domination of the socialist idea in a certain part of the globe fixes in the consciousness of mankind that variant of the "idea of ​​man", which is a combination of naturalism and the idea of ​​the universal power of reason.

The clash in the mind of a person of the 20th century of various "ideas of a person" led to the actualization of the problem of a person as a theoretical and practical problem. “There was a time,” notes the modern Swiss philosopher E. Aggazy, “when one of the most serious tasks of philosophy was considered to be the proof of the existence of God; apparently, it is already difficult to doubt that in our time the most important task of philosophy is to prove the existence of man”

The unity of the natural, social and spiritual in man

It is no less obvious that the biological and social aspects human being are precisely the parties, inextricably linked with each other, forming a contradictory unity. But in this case, there must be a certain force capable of combining in a person his natural and social qualities, a force that becomes a backbone in his real existence. Perhaps the most remarkable invention of the human race, culture, plays such a role. Man is understood, therefore, not as a purely natural being, and not as a purely social, and not as a biosocial "centaur", but as a tripartite being - bio-socio-cultural. If a person is, as it is clear from what has been said, a tripartite system - a bio-socio-cultural one, then his study implies: Cognition of the integrity of human existence in the unity of its essence and existence, in the isomorphism of its phylogenesis and ontogenesis, in the dialectic of the general (universal), special ( personal, unique) such is the purpose of philosophical anthropology; its problematic field is the integral being of a person, his place in the world, his attitude to nature, society, culture, to another and to himself, the meaning of his existence on earth;

Knowledge of each three parties being - biological, social, cultural - in its relative independence; we are talking, therefore, firstly, about the study of how the laws of nature manifest themselves in human life at all its levels (generic, group and individual) and in all aspects (structural, functional and evolutionary) - such is the problematic field of biological (in particular , medical) anthropology; we are talking, secondly, about the study of the relationship between man and society - this is the content of social anthropology, the problem field of which is determined by what society gives to a person and what he gives to society, how society creates conditions for the coexistence and collective activity of people and how they create and recreate their social existence; we are talking, thirdly, about the study of the interaction between man and culture - this is the content of cultural anthropology; its problematics are the principles of the creation by man of the “second nature” as the “world of man”, the “noosphere”, the artificial habitat, and the ways of the creation of man by culture.

Of course, all three anthropological disciplines and the underlying philosophical anthropology at certain points intersect, overlap each other, but even in those sections in which the theoretical originality of each is revealed, they exchange information, participate in complex, interdisciplinary solutions to related problems. The third level of scientific human knowledge is determined by the need to isolate various specific aspects, properties, processes of human life and activity for the sake of their in-depth knowledge, because it requires specific methods; such are the specific medical sciences, psychology, pedagogy, ethics, and so on. - there is no need to enumerate all these branches of knowledge, especially since the development of scientific thought is continuously expanding - and will expand in the future - the circle of private branches of human knowledge; There is, finally, one more anthropological science in its essence, which occupies a special place in this sphere of knowledge - let's call it the "anthropology of art"; however, as a relatively independent discipline, it takes only the first steps, remaining in most cases dissolved in art history. And here it would be appropriate to touch on the topic of spirituality. In the era of totalitarian revaluation of values, one of the most urgent problems of any community is the formation of a single spiritual space. Spirituality is a rather subtle matter, and it is not so easy to notice it, because. in society, there are other forms of upsurge and achievement in much more visible and convincing forms for many people.

Man as individuality and personality. The problem of the meaning of human existence.

A personality is a human individual taken in terms of his social qualities (views, abilities, needs, interests, moral convictions, etc.). It is a dynamic, relatively stable holistic system of intellectual, socio-cultural and moral-volitional qualities of a person, expressed in the individual characteristics of his consciousness and activity. "... The essence of a “special personality,” wrote K. Marx, “is not her beard, not her blood, not her abstract physical nature, but her social quality ... ". The social qualities of a person are manifested in her actions, deeds, in her attitude towards other people. By these outwardly manifested actions, as well as through questionnaires, tests and self-observation, one can to a certain extent judge the inner world of a person, his spiritual and moral qualities. The internal content of the personality is not the result of the mechanical introduction of various external influences into its consciousness, but the result of its internal work, in the process of which the external, having passed through the subjectivity of the personality, is processed, mastered and applied by it in practical activities. The system of social qualities educated and independently developed by the individual that has developed in this way manifests itself in a subjective form (ideas, values, interests, orientation, etc.), reflecting the interaction of the individual with the surrounding objective world. The concept of personality characterizes a person as an active subject of social relations. At the same time, each person is not only a subject, but also an object of activity, a set of functions (roles) that he performs due to the existing division of labor, belonging to a particular class or social group with their ideology and psychology. The nature of the individual's worldview, formed by the social environment, upbringing and self-education, is one of its most important qualities, its "core". The worldview of the individual largely determines the direction and characteristics of all socially significant decisions and actions.

If by its essence the personality is social, then by the way of its existence it is individual. Individuality is a unique, original way of being of a particular person as a subject of independent activity, an individual form of human social life. It expresses the individual's own world, his special life path, which in its content is determined by social conditions, and in origin, structure and form is of an individual character. The essence of individuality is revealed in the identity of a particular individual, his ability to be himself. The important role of natural inclinations, inborn features in its development is mediated by social factors. Individuality is the unity of the unique and universal properties of a person, an integral system that is formed in the process of dialectical interaction of its qualities - general, typical (general human natural-anthropological and social characteristics), special (concrete historical, formational) and single (unique bodily and spiritual and mental characteristics). As the historical development of human labor activity, there is an increasing differentiation of human relations and individuals, the individualization of a person and his relations in various areas of life activity develops. Marxism-Leninism emphasizes the greatest value of individuality, the development of which plays important role in the history of mankind as one of the necessary conditions for its progress.

In the natural-science-biological sense, the concept of life is identical to the concept of an organic phenomenon. Life, according to E. S. Russell, is fundamentally different from an organic phenomenon in its orientation, in particular: 1) the termination of an action with the achievement of a goal; 2) continuation of the action if the goal is not achieved; 3) the possibility of varying methods or the ability to combine them in case of failure; at the same time, stereotyped behavior focuses on the normal, usual, and adapted - on the unusual; 4) limiting, but not defining, directed behavior by external conditions (eg, cell division or reproduction despite lack of matter or nutrition). An explanation of such behavior from a causal-mechanical point of view is impossible; indicating the boundary between organic and inorganic matter is also not enough for this.

Life in the metaphysical sense is the main motive of thinking contemplating the world as the content of human experience, life's destiny in general. Here questions are raised about the meaning, value and purpose of life, and the answers to them are given from the point of view of the main existing worldview premises.

Psychologically, life is characterized by its natural orderliness. Modern Gestalt psychology (Gestalt theory) rejects both the causal-mechanical and vitalistic explanations of the living, since both of them proceed from the principle of disorder in the natural, which must be transformed into order or a functioning organism only through the action of special forces.

From a historical and cultural point of view, life in the sense of “spiritual or spiritual life” means the presence and operation of ideas throughout world history; ideological content of thoughts and actions. Of particular importance here is the use of the natural science concept of life to explain spiritual and historical phenomena.

From a biographical point of view, "the life of one person" is all of his body-soul-spiritual formation, behavior and fate in the world, from birth to death.

It is difficult to immediately decide which approach is closest to my idea of ​​life. But, perhaps, a comparison of the concepts of life with the concept of the meaning of the word "meaning" (so to speak, "the meaning of meaning") will help to a greater extent determine our attitude to the ideas about the meaning of life of philosophers of the 20th century.

Meaning is the ideal content, idea, essence, purpose, ultimate goal (value) of something, the encyclopedic dictionary defines.

The definition of "meaning" does not lead to a clearer understanding of life and especially its meaning. Of course, that such a category should be considered in connection with a person. Human beings are studied by philosophical anthropology. The essence of the anthropological approach, or the anthropological principle, in philosophy, apart from its specific historical forms and to highlight its most essential and common features, comes down to an attempt to determine the foundations and spheres of "properly human" being, human individuality, the subjective and creative capabilities of a person, to make it a "measure of all things", to explain from it and through it as its own nature, and the meaning and meaning of the world around.

Philosophical anthropology does not bypass the question of the meaning of life. Different philosophical teachings answer it differently. But nevertheless, even in educational literature The authors write that despite the constant attention and the abundance of points of view, today this issue remains open and there is no reason to believe that it can be solved absolutely.

Conclusion

Some thinkers saw the essence of philosophy in the search for truth, others in concealing it, distorting it, adapting it to their respective interests; some fixed their eyes on the sky, others on the earth; some turn to God, others to man; some argue that philosophy is self-sufficient, others say that it should serve the society and the individual, and so on.

All this proves that philosophy is distinguished by a variety of approaches to its own subject and testifies to its pluralistic (multiple) character. This was especially clearly manifested in the second half of the 19th - 20th centuries, when a multitude of philosophical schools and trends of the most diverse nature arose, the subject of study of which are the diverse aspects of being, cognition, man and human existence.

At this time, the pluralistic and anti-dogmatic nature of philosophical knowledge, its irreducibility to any one, even a very authoritative philosophical paradigm, is clearly confirmed.

Bibliography

The World of Philosophy: A Reading Book. In 2 hours - M .: Politizdat, 1991. Part II

Cassirer E. Experience about a person: an introduction to the philosophy of human culture. // The problem of a person in Western philosophy. – M.: Progress, 1988

Barulin V.S. Social Philosophy. Proc. allowance. In 2 hours - M .: MGU, 1994.

History of Philosophy. / Ed. V.M. Mapelman and E.M. Penkov. – M.: PRIOR, 1997.

Kanke V.A. Philosophy. – M.: Logos, 1999.

1. Problem human in history philosophy (2)

   Abstract >> Philosophy

   Philosophical interpretation human. So contemporary social philosophy, studying Problems human, is interested not only in problems human, but...

2. Problem human in history philosophy (1)

   Coursework >> Philosophy

   ... Problems human in history philosophy, in particular, in Socrates, in Confucianism, in Chan Buddhism, according to the works of various contemporary... to the artist. Person and nature Problem human in ancient Chinese philosophy occurs along with philosophy and on every...

3. Problem human in Antique philosophy

   Abstract >> Philosophy

   Uniquely original and extremely instructive. Problem human in ancient philosophy - problem multidimensional, not having a common uniform ... it is impossible with contemporary development of historical science. Conclusion Considering