Man is by nature a political creature. Man by nature is a political being (School essays)

(Anthology of world philosophy. M., 1969. T.1. P. 465-475.)

A fully completed community, consisting of several villages, forms a state. Its purpose is completely self-sufficient: the state arises for the needs of life, but it exists for the sake of achieving a good life. It follows that every state is a product of natural origin and that in this respect it is likened to primary communications - the family and the village; it is the completion of them.

The state is a product natural development and man by nature is a political being (from Greek polis- a city-state with its surrounding territory) ; whoever lives outside the state is either a superman or a creature underdeveloped in moral terms... The position that man is a being involved in the state (the synonym “public” can be used here) life in to a greater extent than all kinds of animals living in herds, it is clear from the following: man alone of all living creatures is gifted with speech, with the help of which he is able to express what is useful and what is harmful, as well as what is fair and what is unjust. This property of people, which distinguishes them from other living beings, leads to the fact that only man is capable of sensory perception concepts such as good and evil, justice and injustice, etc. And the totality of all this creates the basis of the family and the state.

The nature of the state comes before the nature of the family and the individual: it is necessary that the whole precede its part. Destroy a living being as a whole, and it will have neither legs nor arms, only their name will remain... If an individual is unable to enter into communication or does not feel the need for anything, he no longer constitutes an element of the state, becoming either an animal or deity.

Nature has instilled in all people the desire for state communication, and the first one who organized this communication did humanity the greatest good. A person who has found his completion in the state is the most perfect of creations, and, conversely, a person who lives outside the law and rights occupies the most pitiful place in the world. For lawlessness based on armed force is the most severe. Nature has given man a weapon - intellectual and moral strength - but he can use this weapon in the opposite direction; therefore, a person without moral principles turns out to be the most wicked and wild creature, base in his sexual and taste instincts. The concept of justice is connected with the idea of ​​the state, since law, which serves as a criterion of justice, is the regulating norm of political communication.

Having understood what elements the state consists of, we must first talk about the organization of the family: after all, each state is made up of individual families. The family, in turn, consists of elements, the totality of which constitutes the subject of its organization. The original and smallest parts of the family are master and slave, husband and wife, father and children. The relationship between the three indicated paired elements can be characterized as follows: 1) dominion (the relationship between master and slave), 2) marital (the relationship between husband and wife; cohabitation between husband and wife does not have a special term for its designation) and 3) paternal (the relationship between father and children ). According to some, the power of a master over a slave is a kind of science, similar to the science of family organization, the state and royal power. On the contrary, according to others, the very idea of ​​​​the power of a master over a slave is an unnatural idea; only the difference between a free person and a slave is determined by legal provisions, but by nature itself no such difference exists. That is why the master’s power over the slave, as based on violence, contradicts the principle of justice.

Dominion and subordination are not only necessary things, but also useful ones. Already immediately from the moment of birth, some creatures differ in the sense that some of them are, as it were, destined for subordination, others for dominion. Many varieties exist in states of domination and submission; however, the higher the subordinates stand, the more perfect is the power over them. After all, the higher the master stands, the more perfect the work he performs: where one side rules and the other submits, there can only be talk of any kind of work. The element of dominion and the element of subordination are reflected in everything that, being composed of several parts, continuously connected with one another, constitutes one whole. This is a general law of nature, and, as such, animate beings are subject to it. Every animate being consists primarily of soul and body; The soul by its nature is a ruling principle, the body is a subordinate principle...

In every animate being one can discern despotic power (the power of a master over a slave) and political power (the power of a statesman over a citizen). If the soul rules over the body with despotic power, then the mind rules over all our aspirations with political power. From this it clearly follows how natural and beneficial it is for the body to be subordinate to the soul, and for the part of the soul subject to affects to be subordinate to the mind and the rational element of the soul, and, conversely, what harm always results from an equal or reverse ratio. The same situation remains in force in the relation of a man to a woman: a man is by nature stronger, a woman is weaker, and so the man rules, and the woman is subordinate. The same principle must inevitably prevail throughout humanity. Those people who differ from other people to such a strong degree, in which the soul differs from the body, and man from the animal (and this happens with all those whose activity consists in the use of their physical powers, and this is the best that they can give ), - those people are slaves by nature; their best destiny is to be subject to despotic power. A slave by nature is one who can belong to another (he belongs to another because he is capable of this) and who is so endowed with reason that he only perceives his instructions, but does not himself possess reason.

Nature has arranged it in such a way that the physical organization free people different from the physical organization of slaves: the latter have a powerful body, suitable for performing the necessary physical labor, while free people stand upright and are not capable of performing this kind of work; but they are suitable for political life, and this latter, in turn, is distributed among them for activities in war and peacetime. What happens, however, is often the opposite: some free people are free only in their physical organization, others are free only in their mental organization. Be that as it may, it is obvious in any case that some people are free by nature, others are slaves, and it is both useful and fair for the latter to be slaves.

The bad use of power does not benefit either the master or the slave: after all, what is useful for the part is also useful for the whole, what is useful for the body is also useful for the soul; and the slave is a kind of part of the master, as if an animated and separated part of his body. Therefore, between the slave and the master there is a certain community of interests and mutual friendliness, since the relationship between them rests on natural principles; in the same case, when these relations are not regulated in the indicated way, but are based on law and violence, the opposite phenomenon occurs.

From the previous discussions it is also obvious that the power of a master in the family, on the one hand, and the power of a political figure in the state, on the other, as well as all types of power in general, are not identical: the power of a political figure is power over those who are free by nature, power the master over slaves in the family is power over slaves by nature. The power of a master over a slave in a family is a monarchy (for every family is ruled monarchically by its master), while the power of a politician is power over people who are free and equal. The master is not the one who rules on the basis of any science, but the one who rules by virtue of his natural properties, just as both a slave and a free person are considered such by virtue of their natural properties.

The science of master's power does not contain anything great or sublime; its task is to show that a slave must be able to perform, and a master must be able to command. And those of the masters who are given the opportunity to avoid these troubles transfer their responsibilities for supervising the slaves to the manager, while they themselves engage in politics or philosophy.

Since the form of government is the same as the political system, the latter being personified by the supreme power in the state, it inevitably follows that this supreme power must be in the hands of either one, or a few, or the majority. And when one person, or a few, or a majority rule, guided by the public good, naturally, such forms of government are correct forms, and those forms in which the personal interests of either one person, or a few, or the majority are taken into account are deviations from the correct ones. After all, one of two things must be recognized: either the persons participating in state communication are not citizens, or, if they are citizens, then they must take part in the common good. Monarchical government, which has in mind the general benefit, we usually call royal power; the power of a few, but more than one - by the aristocracy (or because in in this case the best rule, or because the government has in mind the highest good of the state and its constituent elements); and when the majority rules in the interests of the common good, then we use a designation common to all forms of government in general - polity. And such a distinction is logically correct: one person or a few can stand out for their virtue, but for the majority to succeed in any virtue is already a difficult matter; this one is easiest highest degree perfection can manifest itself among the majority in relation to military valor, since the latter is found precisely among the masses. That is why in the polity the highest supreme power is concentrated in the hands of the military class; it is precisely this power that is exercised by those who have the right to own weapons. Deviations from the indicated correct forms of government are as follows: deviation from royal power - tyranny, from aristocracy - oligarchy, from polity - democracy. In essence, tyranny is the same monarchical power, but having in mind the interests of one ruler; the oligarchy looks after the interests of the wealthy classes; democracy – interests of the disadvantaged classes; None of these deviating forms of government have any general benefit in mind.

In general, everywhere the cause of indignation is the lack of equality, as soon as this latter turns out to be inconsistent in relation to persons in unequal positions; after all, lifelong royal power is inequality, as long as it is exercised over persons who stand in an equal position in relation to the king. And in general, in order to achieve equality, indignation arises.

Equality is of two kinds: equality (simply) in quantity and equality in dignity... In general, it is a mistake to strive to carry out both types of equality everywhere from its absolute point of view. And the proof of this is the result of such aspiration: not a single form of government structure based on the principles of this kind of absolute equality remains stable... Be that as it may, a democratic system is more secure and less likely to entail internal disturbances than an oligarchic system. In oligarchies lurk the seeds of two kinds of troubles: discord between the oligarchs and, in addition, their disagreements with the people; in democracies there is only one type of indignation - namely, indignation against the oligarchy; The people - and this should be emphasized - will not rebel against themselves. Moreover, a polity based on the dominance of the middle element is closer to democracy than to oligarchy, and polity, of all the forms of government we have mentioned, enjoys the greatest security.

The majority believes that a happy state must certainly be large in size. But even if this opinion is true, it is still perplexing which state should be considered large and which small. The size of a state is measured by the number of its population; But rather, you need to pay attention not to quantity, but to quality. After all, the state also has its own tasks, and therefore the greatest state should be recognized as one that is able to fulfill these tasks in the best possible way... Experience shows, however, how difficult, not to say impossible, to give a correctly logical organization to an overly populous state; at least we see that all those states that are famous for their excellent organization do not allow their population to increase excessively. This is clear based on logical considerations: the law intends to ensure a certain kind of order; a good law must obviously mean to give good order; is it too much? large number Can some order be introduced? This would be a matter of divine power, which in this case is also the power that unites everything. The beautiful usually finds its embodiment in quantity and space; therefore, that state in which size and order are united should be considered the most beautiful.

Firstly, he is an active person, and then an individuality, not like others; secondly, personality is a socially active subject of history, and not an object public life, which is acted upon; thirdly, personality is a social, class, specific historical concept.

IN different times by person was meant people of noble position. In primitive society, this is the elder of the clan, the leader of the tribe. She could be a slave owner, but not a slave, a large feudal lord, a noble nobleman, but not a serf.

In the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries, progressive economists and sociologists drew attention to the social groups of the bourgeois and proletarians, revealing the illegality of the complete depersonalization of the working class and the recognition of only the bourgeois owner as a person.

From the pages of political and sociological works, types of personalities appear before the reader in at least three aspects: 1. Personality is a sociological product of the active process of individual development. This process begins with a meeting with the first significant person for the child (usually the mother or father) and ends, as a rule, with the biological death of the individual himself. These two stages are not opposite to each other in a single process, they are interconnected. In the course of socialization and personalization, the child learns various rules relating to society and the cultural values ​​prevailing in it.

2. The individual is a representative of a social status group, class, ethnic group, elite. Acts as a performer of a certain political role: voter, parliamentarian, member of the government, political party, local government, etc.

3. The personality acts as a bearer of spiritual values. At the same time, she not only assimilates knowledge and spiritual values, but creates for herself and other people something that did not exist before.

In a word, personality is a social concept, more precisely socio-historical and complex. A person is not born a personality, he becomes one. This process begins from an early age. The way a person enters life and what his attitude towards the rules of society and its people depends decisively on how childhood, adolescence, and youth are.

The concept of “personality” differs from the concept of “individuality”. An individual is a separate representative of the human race, the particular from the general; most important characteristics genders are also characteristic of the individual. The concepts of “individual”, “personality” and “person” are of the same order, but not identical. They should be distinguished, but not opposed. Both of these concepts passed through long history and in the enrichment of their content they reflected the principles that occur in class societies. This approach will be discussed further.

The structure and direction of the individual’s social action. The most educated people of Ancient Greece - the Sophists - first addressed this issue. More than others at social relations in the Greek city-states of the second half of the 5th century BC, Protagoras focused on reasoning about personality. In his interpretation, a person always expressed himself as a representative of one or another historical era. At the same time, the personality manifested itself in its own individual traits and form.

In relation to ancient Greece Plato proposed the ideal personality structure. In his book “The State” the main author’s motive is the selection and education of rulers and their assistants from among the aristocrats for the ideal Greek society - the state.

Farmers and artisans in such a society were assigned the role of producers material goods. Law enforcement officers and security forces were called upon to protect the state. All institutions of such a state, church institutions, were called upon to cultivate piety in citizens. The spread of “dishonest views,” wrote Plato, has a detrimental effect on citizens, especially young people, is a source of unrest and arbitrariness, and leads to the violation of legal and moral norms.” Plato called for severe punishment of the “wicked.”

The Platonic state was to be headed by 37 rulers elected by the state through multi-stage elections. Not all citizens could participate in their election, but only aristocrats and law enforcement officers. The age of the rulers ranged from 50 to 70 years. Staying in power was limited to twenty years. On the eve of the elections, candidates were subjected to “dokamasia” - a kind of test of loyalty to the authorities.

The ruling elite in bourgeois states, like the slave-owning feudal aristocracy, in fact does not form and do not allow broad layers of ordinary citizens to power. IN Russian Federation Moreover, representatives of the lower classes are consistently forced out of local power structures. Social features The ruling elites reduce ordinary citizens to participation in elections to federal and local government structures.

If we assume that only a part of people are personalities, then an insoluble problem arises of the criteria for the individual’s transition to personality. Considering each person as an individual, we mean the indisputable fact that the individual, with all his originality and uniqueness, is the bearer of certain common features, which exist objectively, and because of this, a criterion of objectivity appears.

Some authors continue to identify the concept of “personality” and the concept of “person”. In reality, every person is a person and every person is a person. In everyday life, substitution of these concepts is allowed. Although in a scientific context they perform different tasks.

Man is a creature, as is known, on the one hand, political-social and, on the other hand, biological-physiological, that is, he belongs to the animal world. As for personality, this concept clearly expresses the individual uniqueness of the socio-historical existence of a person. Hence the unequivocal conclusion: a person is not born as a person, he becomes a person. The only question is what kind of person he is. Moreover, no one can assign or take away the title of a person (good or bad). People can only judge what kind of personality has been formed.

Throughout the history of mankind, a huge number of events have happened on the planet, and in all cases they were led by different individuals: talented or mediocre, brilliant or limited, progressive or reactionary, strong-willed or weak-willed.

Finding himself, by chance or necessity, at the head of a state, army, political party or popular movement, a person can have different influences on the course or outcome of historical events. Therefore, society is not indifferent to what kind of person comes to lead the state. It is obvious that only an intelligent, educated and progressive person can accelerate historical events. In Napoleon Bonaparte, the French, for example, saw such a person. On Brumaire 18 (November 9), 1799, with loyal people, Bonaparte carried out a coup d'état, overthrew the Directory and achieved unlimited power. In 1804, he declared himself emperor and continued to follow the path destined for him, winning victory after victory in Europe.

In 1812 he went to war against Russia and lost. In 1815, Waterloo was added to Borodino and Leipzig - the final humiliation of his personality. As a result, Napoleon was crushed and destroyed morally. The monarchs of Europe forced him to abdicate the throne a second time and exiled him to the island of St. Helena, where he died on May 5, 1821. From the above it follows that no matter how brilliant a person may be, he is called upon to be guided by objective laws in his actions.

Goethe associated Napoleon's military and political success with the harmony of his relations with ordinary Frenchmen. They followed him, as they follow anyone who inspires them with confidence in achieving their own goals.

Since in history the decisive and determining principle is not the individual or the crowd, but the people, the individual always depends on the people. The mass, as a rule, is not socially structured and is distinguished in society solely by psychological characteristics. It is heterogeneous. It identifies various groups of people who often act as active bearers of social principles and change the behavior of the crowd. Such people are called elite (from French - best, chosen, chosen). There are many definitions of elite. 1. Community groups, consisting of persons occupying a leading position in the main spheres of life. 2. People with power, etc. Leaders are identified and formed from the elite. In the historical process, they, like individuals, play a creative role. Nowadays it is no longer the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, but democratic leaders and the elite that claim the role of almost the only subject of action in society.

Modern ideologists write about the passivity of many layers of Russian society. The famous theater figure M. Zakharov, in one of his articles, reproached Russian voters for their inability to be active in elections: “... a hereditary slave happily absorbs into his genetics the behavioral norms of a slave father and a slave grandfather, having freed himself from slavery, he can only become a slave " Other well-known newspaper publications say that our people have not yet learned to treat elections with the necessary responsibility.

Socialization and its institutions. In Aristotle’s interpretation, the concept of “personal socialization” is expressed in the following formula: “The most useful laws will not bring any benefit if citizens are not accustomed to the state order and brought up in its spirit.” In the late 50s - early sixties of the last century, the overall concept of “personal socialization” was expounded in the works of D. Easton, G. Almond, S. Verba, G. Haymon and others. Ten years later, the concept came into use among sociologists and political scientists in the Russian Federation.

Sociological surveys in 1987-1988. teachers of historical disciplines testified that in families and preschool institutions no more attention was paid to socialization than in the United States. According to respondents, this happens because parents do not know their genealogies beyond their grandparents.

Meanwhile, rare families lacked various kinds of “relics.” In 82.6% of families there were albums, photographs of close and distant ancestors, in 65.3% of families orders, medals, certificates of honor, and various things that belonged to previous generations were preserved; in 29.1% of families - letters from the fronts of the civil and Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945. wars, newspaper clippings and magazines with stories about the military and labor exploits of parents and grandparents.

Of some interest are the answers to the question: “What moral qualities of grandparents and more distant ancestors do your parents and relatives tell you about? More than 60% answered that it was about hard work; 64.2% - about kindness, humanity, decency; 18.5% - about intransigence towards lies and falsehood; 13.2% - about courage, heroism, patriotism. All this and more could be the subject of family conversation, especially with children of primary school age.

The population groups surveyed were not sufficiently familiar with their family history. Only 22% knew the history of their city, village, town. All these facts testified to the underestimation of family preschool patriotic education using local history materials.

The second group of means of socialization consists not so much of family conversations as of institutions of school and vocational training from 6-7 years old to about 17-18 years old. School programs were intended to instill in adolescents and young men the basic knowledge of national history, social science disciplines. During the period of study in secondary educational institutions, schoolchildren achieve mental maturity, acquire basic social qualities, that is, they complete the preparatory phase for entering a larger working and social life.

Level Russian education in the 1980s it was determined by what basic schooling the younger generation received. In Russia, the share of all workers with secondary specialized and general secondary education was about 60% at the end of the 80s. In the cities - capitals of the union republics, it is even higher - 70 percent. In terms of the level of general education, young people not only did not lag behind, but even surpassed workers in many other European countries.

The importance of education as one of the means social development It was always huge. Transition to the 90s of the twentieth century. Russian society towards production with a market economy demanded that workers and employees better understand the essence of the changes taking place and protect their social interests in the labor market.

What changes took place in the structure of socialization of young people and the adult part of the population in the 90s of the twentieth century? Comprehensive school fell further and further behind the needs of the socio-economic and cultural development of students. Based on this soviet government made a decision in 1987 to improve curricula, programs and textbooks, to begin computerizing the school, etc.

In the early 90s, a new stage of school reform began. Its implementation was determined by the market reforms that were taking place in society, and the school in this regard had to follow a new stage. The Law of the Russian Federation “On Education” of 1992 placed at the center of state policy: humanism, accessibility, secular character state education system, freedom and pluralism, democracy in school management, depoliticization of school education. This law declared the sphere of democratic socialization of school education a priority. But the implementation of school reform was hampered by the conditions of the socio-economic crisis of the 90s.

Deviant behavior of young people. Each social formation, through its agents of socialization, sets for itself ideals and means of achieving them. Deviations from developed standards and norms can vary. Depending on what social group it occurs in. Social deviation is also punished by law in different ways. Accordingly, there are several theories of deviant behavior. Each of them explains the reasons for deviation in its own way.

The immediate causes of antisocial acts in a specific manifestation lie in the subjective factor, and above all in the microenvironment and inner world personality. The differences between conditions and causes are relative. Conditions themselves cannot directly give rise to deviant behavior, but only accompany its causes. The presence of appropriate conditions means that, in principle, the possibility of violations of community norms cannot be excluded, and reasons are one of the options for using it to directly induce deviant behavior. Conditions and causes taken together form full picture deviations from social norms.

The problem of crime in Russia, as well as in the world, has two aspects: the first poses a threat to personal safety (up to 70% of young citizens do not feel safe on the streets, every third person claims that he personally or his relatives and friends have found themselves in the role of a crime victim); the second is a distortion of legal consciousness, drawing young people into criminal communities, and the growth of youth crime.

In the crime statistics for 2003, a new column appeared - “terrorism”. In January 2003 alone, 630 such facts were registered. Crime in Russia has thus taken the form of a kind of war between criminals and society. Its results indicate that the criminals are winning so far. World statistics show that if in the world the number of crimes has increased fourfold over the past 10 years, then in the Russian Federation it has doubled. Russia has caught up with America in the increase in crime over the past 10 years.

In the given Russian field of social division, a high proportion was occupied by young people of different ages. During the 90s of the last century, the proportion of convicts under the age of 30 almost doubled.

According to the sociological center of the Russian Ministry of Education, in 2002 there were about 6.5 million people in society who used narcotic drugs with varying frequencies. Of these, about 2 million people became drug addicts. As noted by the Minister of Education of the Russian Federation V. Filippov, about 60% of drug addicts are children and youth aged 11 to 24 years. Moreover, in the third millennium, along with drug consumption, the scale of the introduction of children and youth to tobacco products is rapidly growing.

Personalities, including extraordinary ones, are not born. The human individual becomes it under the influence of the social environment, in the process of growing up and communicating in the family, with peers in kindergarten, at school, in secondary and higher education. educational institution, youth unions and other forms of social action.

The formation of personality is largely determined by natural and geographical conditions. The totality of the social environment and environmental conditions determine the transformation of the human individual into a personality, into an intelligently active subject of the historical process.

Mikhail SHILOBOD, Doctor of Historical Sciences

IN this statement Aristotle raises the problem of people's participation in their political life. I agree with the opinion of the author of the quote. Indeed, in modern society people, regardless of their life position, participate in the political life of the state. Even while practicing absenteeism, a political behavior characterized by inaction, people remain susceptible to political influence. After all, their indifference does not give them the right not to obey the current government. People have many ways to influence the political environment.

One of the most common forms of people's participation in social and political life is elections. Elections are the process of forming government bodies through public voting. It is thanks to elections that people can change the direction of government policy. By electing someone to a leading position, people show their political influence. Another form of political influence is rallies. A rally is a mass gathering of people to discuss political issues. Rallies allow people to draw the attention of authorities to specific social problems and require their solution.

An example showing the political essence of a person is the 1996 presidential election in the Russian Federation. The nineties were certainly difficult for Russia. It was time big changes During this period, the political situation within the country completely changed. To replace Soviet power democratic power has arrived. The first step towards building a democratic state was free democratic elections. People could independently choose the political elite - people occupying dominant positions in power structures. By voting for candidates, people directly participated in the political life of the country.

Another example is my life experience. Today the situation in Russia is quite turbulent. The statements of opposition leader Alexei Navalny caused a great resonance in society. People go to rallies to protest the existing government. My friend was at one of these rallies and even planned to organize a rally in his city. Isn't this an indicator of political interest? By going to rallies, people show their interest in the future of this country.

In conclusion, we can say that people cannot do without politics. The state is unthinkable without society, and society without politics. People are not able to completely isolate themselves from politics, because politics affects all spheres of public life.

I agree ancient Greek philosopher. His statement is completely true. After all, it is impossible to imagine a person without politics!

In his words, Aristotle wanted to convey to people the idea that man, unlike animals, is a thinking being, who, in addition to bodily benefits, also requires spiritual benefits, since man is the result of a long biological, social, cultural evolution.

That is, a person does not limit himself only, for example, to eating food, he needs communication with his own kind and free thinking. Man, by nature, has always tried to think, bypassing all prohibitions. For example, let's remember religious beliefs, God forbade man to pick an apple in the Garden of Eden, but man violated this prohibition, the very first in his history.

In modern society, in all countries without exception, authorities, pursuing certain political goals, impose all sorts of prohibitions on people, but there are always and everywhere those “dissidents” who believe that the laws are not written for them and violate the rules.

Like-minded people unite in parties, each party is a political force. For example, in the Russian Federation there are political parties that support the country's leadership. The main party, following the same course as the country's leadership, is the democratic party - United Russia, but, as in any other country, there are other parties that proclaim different Political Views– Communist Party of the Russian Federation LDPR, Yabloko and others.

Thus, we see that a person is truly a political being, since he participates in all political events, regardless of his desire, because every person, being a citizen of a country, already participates in its political affairs.