What is your attitude towards reflection? Diversity of ways and forms of social development
Ancient Greek poet Hesiod(VIII-VII centuries BC) wrote about five stages in the life of mankind. The first stage was the “golden age”, when people lived easily and carelessly, the second was the “silver age”, when the decline of morality and piety began. So, sinking lower and lower, people found themselves in the “Iron Age”, when evil and violence reign everywhere, and justice is trampled under foot.
Unlike Hesiod, the ancient Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle viewed history as a cyclical cycle, repeating the same stages.
And in the 18th century. French philosopher and educator Jean Antoine Condorcet(1743-1794) wrote that history presents a picture of continuous change, a picture of the progress of the human mind. “Observations of what man has been and what he has now become will help us,” wrote Condorcet, “to find means of securing and accelerating the new successes for which his nature allows him to hope.”
PROGRESS AND REGRESSION
The direction of development, which is characterized by a transition from lower to higher, from less perfect to more perfect, is called in science progress(a word of Latin origin meaning literally “to move forward”). The concept of progress is opposite to the concept regression. Regression is characterized by movement from higher to lower, processes of degradation, and a return to obsolete forms and structures.
The idea of progress, which Condorcet substantiated, was developed by many thinkers in the future. At the same time, they revealed new aspects of it. This belief in progress was also adopted by Karl Marx, who believed that humanity was moving toward ever greater development of production and man himself.
The 19th and 20th centuries were marked by turbulent events that provided new information for thinking about progress and regression in the life of society. In the 20th century Philosophical and sociological theories appeared that abandoned the optimistic view of the development of society, according to which a bright future will inevitably come sooner or later. The Spanish philosopher X. Ortega y Gasset (1883-1955) wrote about the idea of progress: “Because people allowed this idea to cloud their reason, they let go of the reins of history, lost vigilance and dexterity, and life slipped out of their hands, stopped submitting to them.” Instead of the idea of progress, various philosophers offer theories of cyclical circulation, pessimistic ideas of the “end of history”, global environmental, energy and nuclear disasters.
So, which path is society taking - the path of progress or regression? People's idea of the future depends on the answer to this question: does it bring a better life or does it not promise anything good?
CONTRADICTION OF PROGRESS
Let us recall the facts from the history of the 19th-20th centuries: revolutions were often followed by counter-revolutions, reforms by counter-reforms, radical changes in the political structure by the restoration of the old order. (Think about what examples from national or world history can illustrate this idea.)
If we tried to depict the progress of mankind graphically, what we would get is not an ascending straight line, but a broken line, reflecting the ups and downs, the ebbs and flows in the struggle of social forces, accelerated movement forward and giant leaps back. There have been periods in the history of different countries when reaction triumphed, when the progressive forces of society were persecuted, when reason was suppressed by the forces of obscurantism. You already know, for example, what disasters fascism brought to Europe: the death of millions, the enslavement of many peoples, the destruction of centers of culture, bonfires from the books of the greatest thinkers and artists, the inculcation of misanthropic morality, the cult of brute force.
But it’s not just about such breaks in history. Society is a complex organism in which different “bodies” function (enterprises, associations of people, government institutions, etc.), various processes (economic, political, spiritual, etc.) occur simultaneously, and various human activities unfold. These parts of one social organism, these processes, various types of activity are interconnected and at the same time may not coincide in their development. Moreover, individual processes and changes occurring in different areas of society can be multidirectional, that is, progress in one area may be accompanied by regression in another.
Thus, throughout history, the progress of technology is clearly visible: from stone tools to iron ones, from hand tools to machines, from the use of the muscular power of humans and animals to steam engines, electric generators, nuclear power plants, from transportation by pack animals to cars, high-speed trains, airplanes, spaceships, from wooden abacus with dominoes to powerful computers.
But the progress of technology, the development of industry, chemicalization and other changes in the field of production have led to the destruction of nature, to irreparable damage to the human environment, and to the undermining of the natural foundations of the existence of society. Thus, progress in one area was accompanied by regression in another. The process of historical development of society is contradictory: both progressive and regressive changes can be found in it.
The progress of science and technology has had mixed consequences. Discoveries in the field of nuclear physics made it possible not only to obtain a new source of energy, but also to create powerful atomic weapons. The use of computer technology has not only unusually expanded the possibilities of creative work, but also caused new diseases associated with long-term, continuous work at the display: visual impairment, mental disorders associated with additional mental stress.
The growth of large cities, the complication of production, the acceleration of the rhythm of life - all this has increased the load on the human body, created stress and, as a consequence, pathologies of the nervous system and vascular diseases. Along with the greatest achievements of the human spirit, the world is experiencing an erosion of cultural and spiritual values, drug addiction, alcoholism, and crime are spreading.
Humanity has to pay a high price for progress. The conveniences of city life are paid for by the “diseases of urbanization”: traffic fatigue, polluted air, street noise and their consequences - stress, respiratory diseases, etc.; ease of travel in a car - overcrowded city highways and traffic jams.
Attempts to speed up progress sometimes come at a prohibitive cost. Our country in the 20-30s. XX century took first place in Europe in terms of production volumes of a number of the most important industrial products. Industrialization was carried out at an accelerated pace, the mechanization of agriculture began, and the level of literacy of the population increased. These achievements had a downside: millions of people who became victims of severe famine, hundreds of thousands of families expelled from their places of habitual residence, millions of repressed people, and the subordination of people’s lives to total regulation and control.
How to evaluate these contradictory processes? Are positive changes that come at such a high cost progressive? With such ambiguity of change, is it possible to talk about social progress as a whole? To do this, it is necessary to establish what is the general criterion of progress, which changes in society should be assessed as progressive and which should not.
PROGRESS CRITERIA
A. Condorcet, like other French educators, considered the development of the mind to be a criterion of progress. Utopian socialists put forward a moral criterion of progress. Thus, Saint-Simon believed, for example, that society should adopt a form of organization that would lead to the implementation of the moral principle: all people should treat each other as brothers. Contemporary of the utopian socialists, German philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Schelling(1775-1854) wrote that the solution to the question of historical progress is complicated by the fact that supporters and opponents of the belief in the perfectibility of mankind are completely confused in disputes about the criteria of progress. Some talk about the progress of mankind in the field of morality, others about the progress of science and technology, which, as Schelling wrote, from a historical point of view is rather a regression. He proposed his own solution to the problem: only a gradual approach to a legal structure can serve as a criterion for establishing the historical progress of the human race.
Another point of view on social progress belongs to the German philosopher G. Hegel (1770-1831). He saw the criterion of progress in the consciousness of freedom. As the consciousness of freedom grows, society develops progressively.
As we see, the question of the criterion of progress occupied the great minds of the New Age, but did not find a solution. The disadvantage of all attempts to solve this problem was that in all cases only one line (or one side, or one sphere) of social development was considered as a criterion. Reason, morality, science, technology, legal order, and the consciousness of freedom - all these are very important indicators, but not universal, not covering human life and society as a whole.
In our time, philosophers also hold different views on the criterion of social progress. Let's look at some of them.
One point of view is that the highest and universal objective criterion of social progress is the development of productive forces, including the development of man himself. It is argued that the direction of the historical process is determined by the growth and improvement of the productive forces of society, including the means of labor, the degree of man’s mastery of the forces of nature, and the possibility of using them as the basis of human life. The origins of all human life activities lie in social production. According to this criterion, those social relations are recognized as progressive, which correspond to the level of productive forces and open up the greatest scope for their development, the growth of labor productivity, and human development. Man is considered as the main thing in the productive forces, therefore their development is understood from this point of view and as the development of the wealth of human nature.
This position has been criticized from another point of view. Just as it is impossible to find a universal criterion of progress only in social consciousness (in the development of reason, morality, consciousness of freedom), so it cannot be found in the sphere of material production (technology, economic relations). History has provided examples of countries where a high level of material production was combined with the degradation of spiritual culture. In order to overcome the one-sidedness of criteria that reflect the state of only one sphere of social life, it is necessary to find a concept that would characterize the essence of human life and activity. In this capacity, philosophers propose the concept of freedom.
Freedom, as you already know, is characterized not only by knowledge, the absence of which makes a person subjectively unfree, but also by the presence of conditions for its implementation. A decision made on the basis of free choice is also necessary. Finally, funds are also required, as well as actions aimed at implementing the decision made. Let us also recall that the freedom of one person should not be achieved by infringing on the freedom of another person. This restriction of freedom is of a social and moral nature.
Liberty acts as a necessary condition for the self-realization of the individual. It arises when a person has knowledge about his abilities, about the opportunities that society gives him, about the methods of activity in which he can realize himself. The wider the opportunities created by society, the freer a person is, the more options for activities in which his strengths will be revealed. But in the process of multifaceted activity, the multilateral development of the person himself also occurs, and the spiritual wealth of the individual grows.
So, according to this point of view, the criterion of social progress is the measure of freedom that society is able to provide to the individual, the degree of individual freedom guaranteed by society. The free development of a person in a free society also means the revelation of his truly human qualities - intellectual, creative, moral. This statement brings us to consider another perspective on social progress.
As we have seen, we cannot limit ourselves to characterizing man as an active being. He is also a rational and social being. Only with this in mind can we talk about the human in man, about humanity. But the development of human qualities depends on people's living conditions. The more fully the various needs of a person for food, clothing, housing, transport services, and in the spiritual field are satisfied, the more moral the relations between people become, the more accessible to a person the most diverse types of economic and political, spiritual and material activities become. The more favorable the conditions for the development of a person’s physical, intellectual, mental strength, his moral qualities, the wider the scope for the development of individual properties inherent in each individual person. The more humane the living conditions, the more opportunities there are for the development of humanity in a person: reason, morality, creative powers.
Humanity, the recognition of man as the highest value, is expressed by the word “humanism”. From the above, we can draw a conclusion about a universal criterion of social progress: that which contributes to the rise of humanism is progressive.
Now that we have laid out the different views on the criterion of historical progress, consider which view gives you a more reliable way of assessing the changes taking place in society.
DIVERSITY OF PATHS AND FORMS OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Social progress in those created in the 18th-19th centuries. in the works of J. Condorcet, G. Hegel, K. Marx and other philosophers was understood as a natural movement along a single main path for all humanity. On the contrary, in the concept of local civilizations, progress is seen to occur in different civilizations in different ways.
If you take a mental look at the course of world history, you will notice many similarities in the development of different countries and peoples. Primitive society was everywhere replaced by a state-governed society. Feudal fragmentation was replaced by centralized monarchies. Bourgeois revolutions took place in many countries. Colonial empires collapsed and dozens of independent states emerged in their place. You yourself could continue listing similar events and processes that took place in different countries, on different continents. This similarity reveals the unity of the historical process, a certain identity of successive orders, the common destinies of different countries and peoples.
At the same time, the specific paths of development of individual countries and peoples are diverse. There are no peoples, countries, states with the same history. The diversity of concrete historical processes is caused by differences in natural conditions, the specifics of the economy, the uniqueness of spiritual culture, the peculiarities of the way of life, and many other factors. Does this mean that each country is predetermined by its own development option and that it is the only possible one? Historical experience shows that under certain conditions, various options for solving pressing problems are possible, a choice of methods, forms, and paths for further development is possible, i.e., a historical alternative. Alternative options are often offered by certain groups of society and various political forces.
Let us remember that during the preparation of the Peasant Reform carried out in Russia in 1861, different social forces proposed different forms of implementing changes in the life of the country. Some defended the revolutionary path, others - the reformist one. But among the latter there was no unity. Several reform options were proposed.
And in 1917-1918. A new alternative arose before Russia: either a democratic republic, one of the symbols of which was a popularly elected Constituent Assembly, or a republic of Soviets led by the Bolsheviks.
In each case, a choice was made. This choice is made by statesmen, ruling elites, and the masses, depending on the balance of power and influence of each of the subjects of history.
Any country, any people at certain moments in history are faced with a fateful choice, and its history is carried out in the process of realizing this choice.
The variety of ways and forms of social development is unlimited. It is included within the framework of certain trends in historical development.
So, for example, we saw that the abolition of outdated serfdom was possible both in the form of a revolution and in the form of reforms carried out by the state. And the urgent need to accelerate economic growth in different countries was carried out either by attracting new and new natural resources, i.e. extensively, or by introducing new equipment and technology, improving the skills of workers, based on increased labor productivity, i.e. intensive way. Different countries or the same country may use different options for implementing the same type of changes.
Thus, the historical process, in which general trends manifest themselves - the unity of diverse social development, creates the possibility of choice, on which the uniqueness of the paths and forms of further movement of a given country depends. This speaks to the historical responsibility of those who make this choice.
Basic concepts: social progress, regression, multivariate social development.
Terms: historical alternative, criterion of progress.
1. Try to evaluate the reforms of the 60-70s from the standpoint of a universal criterion of progress. XIX century in Russia. Can they be called progressive? What about the politics of the 80s? Give reasons for your position.
2. Think about whether the activities of Peter I, Napoleon Bonaparte, P. A. Stolypin are progressive. Give reasons for your assessment.
3. To which of the points of view on progress presented in the paragraph does the position of the Florentine historian F. Guicciardini (1483-1540) belong: “The affairs of the past illuminate the future, for the world has always been the same: everything that is and will be has already it was at another time, the former returns, only under different names and in a different coloring; but not everyone recognizes it, but only the wise who carefully observes and ponders it”?
4. Think about whether the attitude of the two Russian philosophers quoted below to the idea of progress differs.
A. I. Herzen (1812-1870): “Our whole great significance... lies in the fact that while we are alive... we are still ourselves, and not dolls appointed to suffer progress or embody some crazy idea. We should be proud of the fact that we are not threads or needles in the hands of fate, sewing the motley fabric of history.”
G. V. Plekhanov (1856-1918): “People make their history not at all in order to walk along a predetermined path of progress, and not because they must obey the laws of some abstract evolution. They do it in an effort to satisfy their needs.”
Compare these statements with the material presented in the text of the paragraph and, based on historical knowledge, express your point of view.
5. Some scientists studying modern social development drew attention to phenomena that they called the “barbarization” of society. They included a decline in the level of culture, in particular language, a weakening of moral regulators, legal nihilism, an increase in crime, drug addiction and other similar processes. How would you rate these phenomena? What is their impact on society? Do these trends determine the nature of the development of society in the foreseeable future? Give reasons for your answer.
6. Soviet philosopher M. Mamardashvili (1930-1990) wrote: “The final meaning of the universe or the final meaning of history is part of human destiny. And human destiny is the following: to be fulfilled as a Human. Become Human." How is this philosopher’s thought related to the idea of progress?
| Let's work with the source |
Russian philosopher N.A. Berdyaev about progress.
Progress turns every human generation, every human face, every era of history into a means and instrument for the final goal - the perfection, power and bliss of the future humanity, in which none of us will have a share. The positive idea of progress is internally unacceptable, religiously and morally unacceptable, because the nature of this idea is such that it makes it impossible to resolve the torment of life, the resolution of tragic contradictions and conflicts for the entire human race, for all human generations, for all times, for everyone ever living people with their suffering fate. This teaching knowingly and consciously asserts that for a huge mass, an infinite mass of human generations and for an infinite series of times and eras, there is only death and the grave. They lived in an imperfect, suffering state, full of contradictions, and only somewhere at the top of historical life does a generation of lucky people finally appear, on the decayed bones of all previous generations, which will climb to the top and for which the highest fullness of life, the highest bliss and perfection. All generations are only a means for the realization of this blissful life of this happy generation of the chosen ones, which must appear in some future unknown and alien to us.
Questions and tasks: 1) How do the views on progress presented in this document differ from the views expressed in the paragraph? 2) What is your attitude to the thoughts of N. A. Berdyaev? 3) Which of all the points of view on progress presented in the materials of the paragraph is most attractive to you? 4) Why does the title of this paragraph begin with the word “problem”?
| There is some debate about this |
Is it possible to achieve simultaneous progress in various spheres of society? Sometimes they point out the incompatibility of certain changes, each of which is recognized as progressive. For example, an increase in production, on which the material well-being of the population depends, and at the same time an improvement in the environmental situation, on which people’s health depends. Or the increasing environment of a person with various technical devices that make his work and life easier, and at the same time - the enrichment of spiritual life, which requires the rise of humanitarian culture. The experience of the past century has shown that these, as well as many other progressive changes in the field of science, technology, economics, social relations, education, etc. cannot be implemented together. What should I do?
§ 16. Freedom in human activity
Personal freedom in its various manifestations is today the most important value of civilized humanity. The importance of freedom for human self-realization was understood in ancient times. The desire for freedom, liberation from the shackles of despotism and arbitrariness has permeated the entire history of mankind. This has manifested itself with particular force in New and Contemporary times. All revolutions wrote the word “freedom” on their banners. Few political leaders and revolutionary leaders did not vow to lead the masses they led to true freedom. But although the overwhelming majority declared themselves to be unconditional supporters and defenders of individual freedom, the meaning attached to this concept was different.
The category of freedom is one of the central ones in the philosophical quests of humanity. And just as politicians paint this concept in different colors, often subordinating it to their specific political goals, so philosophers approach its understanding from different positions.
Let's try to understand the diversity of these interpretations.
WHY IS ABSOLUTE FREEDOM IMPOSSIBLE
No matter how much people strive for freedom, they understand that there cannot be absolute, unlimited freedom. First of all, because complete freedom for one would mean arbitrariness in relation to the other. For example, someone wanted to listen to loud music at night. By turning on the tape recorder at full power, the man fulfilled his desire and acted freely. But his freedom in this case infringed on the right of many others to get a good night's sleep.
That is why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, where all articles are devoted to the rights and freedoms of the individual, the latter, which contains a mention of responsibilities, states that in the exercise of his rights and freedoms, each person should be subject only to such restrictions as are intended to ensure recognition and respect the rights of others.
Arguing about the impossibility of absolute freedom, let us pay attention to one more aspect of the issue. Such freedom would mean unlimited choice for a person, which would put him in an extremely difficult position in making a decision. The expression “Buridan’s donkey” is widely known. The French philosopher Buridan spoke about a donkey that was placed between two identical and equidistant armfuls of hay. Unable to decide which armful to prefer, the donkey died of hunger. Even earlier, Dante described a similar situation, but he spoke not about donkeys, but about people: “Placed between two dishes, equally distant and equally attractive, a person would rather die than, having absolute freedom, take one of them into his mouth.”
A person cannot be absolutely free. And one of the limiters here is the rights and freedoms of other people.
FREEDOM AS A COgnized NECESSITY
This is how many philosophers interpreted freedom - B. Spinoza, G. Hegel, F. Engels. What is behind this formula, which has become almost an aphorism? There are forces in the world that act immutably, inevitably. These forces also influence human activity. If this necessity is not comprehended, not realized by a person, he is its slave; if it is known, then the person acquires “the ability to make a decision with knowledge of the matter.” This is where his free will is expressed.
But what are these forces, what is the nature of necessity? There are different answers to this question. Some see God's providence here. Everything is predetermined for them. What then is human freedom? She's gone. “God’s foreknowledge and omnipotence are diametrically opposed to our free will. Everyone will be forced to accept the inevitable consequence: we do nothing of our own free will, but everything happens out of necessity. Thus, we do nothing by free will, but everything depends on the foreknowledge of God,” said the religious reformer Luther. This position is defended by supporters of absolute predestination. In contrast to this view, other religious figures suggest the following interpretation of the relationship between Divine predestination and human freedom: “God designed the Universe in such a way that all creation would have the great gift of freedom. Freedom first of all means the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and a choice given independently, based on one’s own decision. Of course, God can destroy evil and death in an instant. But at the same time He would at the same time deprive the world and freedom. The world itself must return to God, since it itself has departed from Him.”
The concept of “necessity” may have another meaning. Necessity, a number of philosophers believe, exists in nature and society in the form of objective, i.e., independent of human consciousness, laws. In other words, necessity is an expression of a natural, objectively determined course of events. Supporters of this position, unlike fatalists, of course, do not believe that everything in the world, especially in public life, is rigidly and unambiguously determined; they do not deny the existence of accidents. But the general natural line of development, deviated by chance in one direction or another, will still make its way. Let's look at some examples. It is known that earthquakes periodically occur in seismic zones. People who are unaware of this circumstance or ignore it when building their homes in this area may be victims of a dangerous element. In the same case, when this fact is taken into account during the construction, for example, of earthquake-resistant buildings, the likelihood of risk will sharply decrease.
In a generalized form, the presented position can be expressed in the words of F. Engels: “Freedom does not lie in imaginary independence from the laws of nature, but in the knowledge of these laws and in the ability, based on this knowledge, to systematically force the laws of nature to act for certain purposes.”
Thus, the interpretation of freedom as a recognized necessity presupposes a person’s comprehension and consideration of the objective limits of his activity, as well as the expansion of these limits due to the development of knowledge and the enrichment of experience.
FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY
Let's consider another situation. Modern society provides a person with a variety of means to help get rid of a depressed state. Among them there are those (alcohol, drugs) that inexorably destroy the human body. When making his choice, a person who knows about such a danger can neglect it, but then he will inevitably face retribution, and he will have to pay with the most precious things - his own health, and sometimes life.
In other words, a truly free person will not be a slave to his momentary moods and passions. He will choose a healthy lifestyle. In this case, in addition to the perceived danger, a person is encouraged to act one way and not another by certain social conditions. There are norms of morality and law, traditions and public opinion. It is under their influence that a model of “proper behavior” is formed. Taking into account these rules, a person acts and acts, makes certain decisions.
A person’s deviation from established social norms causes, as you already know, a certain reaction from society. Negative deviation causes social sanctions, i.e. punishment for disapproved actions. Such punishment is also called a person’s responsibility for his activities and its consequences. (Remember in what cases criminal, administrative, financial and other types of liability arise.)
But the concept of “responsibility” is associated not only with external forms of influence on a person; responsibility is the most important internal regulator of his activities. Then we talk about a sense of responsibility, duty. It manifests itself primarily in a person’s conscious readiness to follow established norms, evaluate his actions in terms of their consequences for others, and accept sanctions in case of violations.
As psychologists' research shows, most people tend to accept responsibility for their actions. However, situations arise when the sense of responsibility becomes dull. Thus, a person in a crowd is capable of such actions - offensive shouts, resistance to law enforcement officials, various manifestations of cruelty and aggression that he would never have committed in a different situation. In this case, the influence is exerted not only by the massiveness of the speeches, but primarily by the anonymous nature of people’s activities. At such moments, internal constraints are weakened and concerns about public evaluation are reduced. By forming a sense of responsibility in oneself, a person protects himself from deindividuation, i.e., becoming a faceless being with reduced self-awareness.
"FREEDOM FROM" OR "FREEDOM FOR"
Let's think about what kind of person we usually consider free. The first thing that comes to mind is someone who is not forced to do anything, is not forced to do what he does not want, and is not under the pressure of circumstances. “Today I am free because I don’t have to run to a tutor”; “I want to rent an apartment in order to free myself from the care of my parents and finally feel free” - one can cite many more phrases and statements in which exactly this understanding of freedom is manifested.
However, philosophers believe that this is only the starting point of freedom. True liberation begins with self-restraint. “Freedom for” is good will, subject to the moral law. Man, through free effort, is prevented from evil and turns to good. I. Kant believed that such free choice stands above natural necessity.
Thus, we have moved from considering external restrictions on freedom to internal prohibitions that a person sets for himself. “Neither praise nor blame, nor honor nor punishment will be fair if the soul does not have the ability to strive and resist and if the vice is involuntary,” asserted the Christian theologian of the 3rd century.
The main thing is not what the external circumstances of a person’s life are. Another thing is more important: how they are refracted in his consciousness, how a person projects himself into the world, what goals he sets for himself, what meaning and meaning he gives to the surrounding reality. This is what predetermines the choice from a variety of possible behavior options. From this, some modern philosophers conclude: human activity cannot receive its goals from the outside, nothing external to consciousness can motivate it, man is completely free in his inner life.
A truly free person himself chooses not only an action, but also its reasons, the general principles of his actions, which acquire the character of convictions. Such a person, even in conditions of progressive degeneration of the human race or with the complete stability of a despotic or totalitarian regime in his country, will not reach a state of spiritual decline and will act as if the principles he defends will certainly triumph in the future.
Critics of this position believe that if everyone seeks the basis of their behavior only in accordance with their own motives, without taking into account generally accepted restrictions and prohibitions, then society will lose its integrity and chaos will await people: instead of the desired freedom, they will receive complete arbitrariness.
What is your point of view? Which of these positions and why do you think is correct?
WHAT IS A FREE SOCIETY
So, you have seen how differently, and sometimes diametrically opposed, the concept of “freedom” is interpreted. Reflecting on different approaches, accepting some and unconditionally rejecting others, we agree that a truly free
Man and freedom in the philosophy of N.A. Berdyaev
man freedom philosophical
Introduction
1. The problem of freedom in philosophy
2. Formation of philosophical views of N.A. Berdyaev
3. Man and freedom in the philosophy of N.A. Berdyaev
Conclusion
Application
Introduction
Nikolai Aleksandrovich Berdyaev (1874-1948) is the most famous Russian religious philosopher of the 20th century in the world. While in exile, he wrote books that brought him world fame: “The New Middle Ages. Reflections on the fate of Russia and Europe" (1924); “About the appointment of a person. Experience of Paradoxical Ethics" (1931); “About slavery and human freedom. Experience of personalistic philosophy" (1939); “The Origins and Meaning of Russian Communism” (1937); “The Russian Idea” (1946), etc. In 1947, he was awarded the title of honorary doctor of the University of Cambridge (before him, two other great figures of Russian culture were awarded this honor - I. S. Turgenev and P. I. Tchaikovsky). Berdyaev's worldview is a personalistic variety of existential philosophy, that is, the philosophy of human existence. Problems of personality, freedom and creativity, the meaning of life and death have always been at the center of his philosophical reflections. According to Berdyaev, “personality is generally more primary than being,” being is the embodiment of causality, necessity, passivity, spirit is a free, active, creative principle. Personality is primarily a category of religious consciousness, and therefore the manifestation of human essence, its uniqueness and originality can only be understood in its relation to God.
The central category of Berdyaev's philosophizing is the concept of freedom. Freedom is interpreted by him not as an innate, natural or social ability of a person, but as a primary and fundamental reality that penetrates into all spheres of existence - space, society and man himself. Freedom is primary, unpreconditioned and unfounded. To explain its essence, Berdyaev uses the concept of Ungrund (groundlessness, abyss), belonging to the German mystic of the 17th century. Jacob Boehme, interpreting it, however, in his own way. Boehme taught about the Ungrund as the “dark principle” of God, explaining the torment of the world, the origin of evil. Berdyaev insists that Ungrund is a state of the abyss, “pre-existence,” “nothingness,” which already has freedom. It precedes God, is connected with God. God, in turn, from pre-existent freedom creates the world and man, who has freedom and therefore is fundamentally equal to God in creativity and independent of him.
According to Berdyaev, man, as the bearer of original freedom, is the bearer of novelty, the addition of being, reality, good or evil. Human freedom lies precisely in the creativity of good and evil, and not at all in the choice between them. Since man was born from pre-existential freedom and himself has freedom (in this he is equal to God), the philosopher’s task is to substantiate not theodicy (justification of the existence of God), but anthropodicy (justification of man). For Berdyaev, “the search for meaning is more primary than the search for salvation.” Therefore, his Christian ideas exist in an indispensable environment and in conjunction with philosophical personalism.
Religious personalism is supplemented by Berdyaev with the doctrine of “community” - a metaphysical and mystical variety of collectivism, developed, in his opinion, by Russian folk life and philosophical thought, starting with the Slavophiles. “Community” is contrasted with the created theory and practice of individualism, the modern dehumanized machine civilization of the West.
1. The problem of freedom in philosophy
The problem of freedom in philosophy is conceptualized, as a rule, in relation to man and his behavior (freedom in nature was conceptualized as an accident, as an “unknown necessity”). It was developed in such philosophical problems as free will and human responsibility, the possibilities of being free, and the understanding of freedom as a force regulating social relations. No philosophical problem, probably, has had such a great social and political resonance in the history of society as the problem of freedom.
For an individual, the possession of freedom is a historical, social and moral imperative (command), a criterion of his individuality and the level of development of society. Arbitrary restriction of individual freedom, strict regulation of his consciousness and behavior, reduction of a person to a kind of simple “tool” in social and technological systems causes damage to both the individual and society. Ultimately, it is thanks to individual freedom that society acquires the ability not only to adapt to the existing natural and social circumstances of the surrounding reality, but also to transform them in accordance with its goals. The specific material carrier of freedom, its subject, is always the individual, and, accordingly, the communities in which he is included - nations, social groups, classes.
In the history of philosophy, freedom has traditionally been considered in its relationship with necessity. Necessity itself was perceived, as a rule, in the form of fate, fate, predestination, commanding a person’s actions and denying the freedom of his will. Perhaps the most expressive embodiment of this understanding of necessity was found in the Latin proverb - “fate guides the one who accepts it, and drags the one who resists it.” The opposition of the concepts of “freedom” and “necessity” as philosophical antinomies, the denial or replacement of one of them by the other, has been a stumbling block for thinkers for over two thousand years, who have never found a satisfactory solution to the problem. “The old, but ever new question about freedom and necessity arose before the idealists of the 19th century, just as it arose before the metaphysicians of the previous century, just as it arose decisively before all philosophers who asked questions about the relationship of being to thinking” (Plekhanov).
A philosophical solution to the problem of freedom and necessity, their relationship in the activity and behavior of an individual, is of great practical importance for assessing all the actions of people. Neither morality nor law can get around this problem, because without recognizing the freedom of the individual, there can be no talk about his moral and legal responsibility for his actions. If people do not have freedom, but act only out of necessity, then the question of their responsibility for their behavior becomes meaningless, and “reward according to deserts” turns into either arbitrariness or a lottery.
The solution to the antinomy “freedom or necessity” in the history of philosophy depended on which direction certain philosophers gravitated towards - essentialism (from the Latin essentia - essence) or existentialism (from the Latin existentia - existence), that is, on what was primary for them, the original - essence or existence. For those who adhered to the first direction, freedom was just a manifestation, a concrete embodiment of necessity with occasional deviations from it; Those who adhered to the second direction considered freedom as the primary reality of human life, while they treated necessity as an abstract concept. In existence, a person acquires essence; before existence, there is no higher nature (man is a possibility) and purpose (predestination) of a person.
Freedom of choice occupies the same central place in social progress as natural selection occupies in biological evolution, namely: both of them play the role of the main driving factor in progressive development, only in the first case - of society, in the second - of living nature. At the same time, there is an important, fundamental difference in the mechanism of their action: in the process natural selection a biological individual is subject to the laws of evolution, the survival of the fittest environment organisms, while freedom of choice presupposes that a social individual, a personality, acts as a subject of the social process, perceiving the achievements of the material and spiritual culture of mankind. During natural selection, the biological advantages of individuals are passed on only to their immediate descendants. Thanks to the freedom of choice, the achievements of individuals in a variety of fields of activity - the accumulation of knowledge, invention, practical experience, moral and spiritual values - can potentially be perceived by all people who have access to them.
Regarding the problem of “free will” - the possibility of a person’s self-determination in his actions, there have traditionally been endless debates in philosophy, going on since the time of Socrates (whether the will is subordinate to something outside it or self-positing, self-moving, contains the source of movement, or does it come from outside ). They were specially called vital importance this problem, its central position in ideas about the individual as a subject of moral and creative activity. The contradiction in solving the problem was the following: if each action is strictly defined and cannot be other than what it is, then it cannot be blamed or given credit. But, on the other hand, the idea of will as a “final cause” of moral action that is not conditioned in advance presupposes a break in the causal series of phenomena, which contradicts the need for a scientific (logical, justified) explanation.
In accordance with the two sides of this antinomy, in the interpretation of free will, mainly two philosophical positions emerged: determinism (from the Latin determinatio - determination, causation), which defends the causal conditionality of the will, and indeterminism, which rejects it. According to the factors (physical, mental, spiritual) recognized as the cause of volitional acts, among philosophical deterministic concepts it is customary to distinguish between “geometric”, or mechanical, determinism (Spinoza, Hobbes) and a less strict one - mental, or psychological determinism (T. Lipps). The most consistent example. indeterminism can be served by the teachings of Fichte and Maine de Biran. However, indeterminism, taken to its logical end, rests on the “freedom of indifference”, the equal possibility of two opposite decisions, which leads to paralysis of the will (the “Buridan’s donkey” case: the inability to choose from two equal alternatives) and absolute randomness of choice. Therefore, the type of eclectic (mixed) doctrine turned out to be predominant in the history of philosophy. This is Kant's dualism. As a rational being belonging to the intelligible (intelligible) world, man, according to Kant, has free will (in moral life, in determining his behavior). But in the empirical (natural, experimental) world, where natural necessity dominates, he is not free in his choice, and his will is causally determined. Schelling's concept also bears traces of such duality: on the one hand, he defines freedom as an internal necessity, on the other, he recognizes the self-positing nature of the initial choice. The latter nevertheless prevails in Schelling: “Man is placed at the top, where he has in himself a source of free movement both to good and to evil: the connection of principles in him is not necessary, but free, he is at a crossroads, whatever he chooses is the decision will be his act" ("Philosophical studies on the essence of human freedom. The dialectical formulation of the problem of freedom and necessity in philosophy was most clearly expressed by Spinoza and Hegel (“freedom is a conscious necessity”). But Hegel, proclaiming freedom of will, essentially endows it not man, but the “world spirit” (absolute idea), embodying the “pure” concept of free will.
In idealistic philosophy of the late 19th and 20th centuries. among the tendencies in the interpretation of free will, voluntaristic (will is the basis of everything) and personalistic (personal) indeterminism prevails, and a positivist attitude to circumvent this problem is also widespread. In Bergson, for example, both of these tendencies are intertwined. In his defense of free will, he refers to the organic integrity and uniqueness of mental states, which cannot be decomposed into individual elements and, according to Bergson, are not causally determined. Windelbandt considers volitional acts in some cases as causally determined, in others as free.
The problem of free will is at the center of attention of atheistic existentialism (Sartre, Camus), which sees in man, rooted in “nothing” (absolute openness of being, possibility, potentiality), the bearer of absolute freedom, opposing to the outside world, actually reducing free will to self-will, “freedom of indifference,” turning into rebellion.
In religious teachings, the question of free will, without which religious ethics is impossible, is resolved in terms of human self-determination in relation to the action of God, described in terms of grace and divine providence. Attempts to resolve the contradiction between the omnipotence of the highest will and the independence of man sometimes took opposite forms in various movements of religious philosophy (for example, among Calvinists in Protestantism). The extreme versions of the doctrine of predestination, which place the human personality in absolute dependence on supernatural power, constitute, together with naturalistic determinism and with the pagan belief in fate, the main set of concepts of fatalism.
Considering freedom to be a generic feature of man, representatives of dialectical materialism saw in it a distinctive feature inherent both to humanity as a whole and to the individual: “The first people to stand out from the animal kingdom were, in all essentials, as unfree as the animals themselves) - but each a step forward on the path of culture was a step towards freedom" (Engels).
2. Formation of philosophical views of N.A. Berdyaev
The spiritual evolution of Nikolai Aleksandrovich Berdyaev went from legal Marxism , when he (along with other Marxists) opposed the ideology of populism, towards a religious worldview.
Nikolai Aleksandrovich Berdyaev was born in Kyiv in 1874 into an aristocratic family. He studied at the Kiev Cadet Corps, in 1894 he entered the Faculty of Science of Kyiv University, then transferred to the Faculty of Law. Systematic studies of Berdyaev’s philosophy began at the university under the leadership of G.I. Chelpanova. At the same time, he became involved in social democratic work, becoming a propagandist of Marxism, for which, during the defeat of the Kyiv Union of Struggle for the Liberation of the Working Class in 1898 he was arrested and expelled from the university. In a work published in 1901 Subjectivism and individualism in social philosophy. Critical study about N.K. Mikhailovsky there was a turn towards idealism, consolidated by Berdyaev’s participation in the collection Problems of idealism in 1902. From 1901 to 1903, the writer was in administrative exile, where he moved away from social democracy and joined the liberal Liberation Union . The reason for Berdyaev’s break with Marxism was his rejection of the idea of dictatorship and revolutionary violence, disagreement with the fact that historical truth depends on class ideology, on anyone’s interests. In contrast to these statements, he emphasizes that objective (absolute) truth exists independently of class (empirical) consciousness and can only be revealed to a person to one degree or another - depending on his life experience and value systems. But, without accepting the Marxist philosophy of history, postulating an a priori system of logical conditions of knowledge and moral norms, he did not deny the sociological significance of Marxism.
His departure from legal Marxism happened quite painlessly: Berdyaev, according to the impressions of his contemporaries, was never a fanatic of any one idea, one cult. What distinguished him was insane extravagance mind, which often caused the most serious criticism. Shestov, for example, sneers at the rapid evolution of his views: As soon as he leaves any system of ideas for the sake of a new one, he no longer finds anything worthy of attention in his former ideological wealth. Everything is old, rags, useless... He became a Christian before he learned to clearly pronounce all the words of the creed . But even having taken the position of Christianity, he was looking not for faith, but for knowledge; in his religious life he wanted to preserve the freedom of search, the freedom of creativity.
In 1908, Berdyaev moved to Moscow, where he took part in various collections. Finding your own philosophical justification neo-Christianity ended with books Philosophy of freedom (1911) and, in particular, The meaning of creativity. The experience of justifying a person (1916), which he valued as the first expression of the independence of his religious philosophy. 1st World War was perceived by Berdyaev as the end of the humanistic period of history with the dominance of Western European cultures and the beginning of the predominance of new historical forces, primarily Russia, fulfilling the mission of the Christian unification of humanity (which he wrote about in the collection The fate of Russia , 1918). Berdyaev welcomed the popular character of the February Revolution and carried out extensive propaganda work to prevent Bolshevization revolutionary process in order to direct it towards the channel of socio-political evolution . He regarded the October Revolution as a national catastrophe. During the Soviet period of his life, Berdyaev created the Free Academy of Spiritual Culture in Moscow, where he lectured on philosophy, including the problems of religious philosophy of history, which formed the basis of the book The meaning of the story.
In 1922, Berdyaev, along with other prominent figures of Russian culture, was forcibly expelled from the country. In 1922 - 1924 he lived in Berlin. Publication of his essay New Middle Ages. Reflections on the fate of Russia and Europe (1924) brought Berdyaev European fame. In 1924, Berdyaev moved to Clamart near Paris, where he lived until the end of his days. In conditions of emigration, the main themes in his work are ethics, religion, philosophy of history and philosophy of personality. The writer conducted active creative, socio-cultural, editorial and publishing work, was involved in various socio-political and socio-church discussions in the emigrant environment, and in his work brought into contact Russian and Western European philosophical thought. He defends in his works the primacy of the individual over society, primacy of freedom over being . Sharply criticizing the ideology and practice of Bolshevism for anti-democracy and totalitarianism, Berdyaev did not consider Russian communism a random phenomenon. He saw its origins and meaning in the depths of national history, in the elements and freemen Russian life, ultimately - in the messianic destiny of Russia, seeking, he has not yet found Kingdom of God , called to great sacrifices in the name of the true unity of humanity.
During World War II, Berdyaev took a clearly expressed patriotic position, and after the victory over Germany he hoped for some democratization of spiritual life in the USSR, which caused a negative reaction from the irreconcilable emigration. In 1947, Berdyaev was awarded the title of Doctor of Cambridge University.
IN Self-knowledge Berdyaev notes the connection between his creativity, philosophical views and life events, since, according to the writer, creative thought can never be abstract; it is inextricably linked with life, it is determined by life . He's writing: I survived three wars, two of which can be called world wars, two revolutions in Russia... I experienced the spiritual renaissance of the early 20th century, then Russian communism, the crisis of world culture, the revolution in Germany, the collapse of France... I survived exile, and exile mine is not over. I suffered painfully through the terrible war against Russia. And I still don’t know how the world upheaval will end. There were too many events for the philosopher. ...And at the same time, I have never been a political person. I related to a lot... but I didn’t belong to anything deeply... with the exception of my creativity. I have always been an anarchist on spiritual grounds and individualist.
While in forced emigration, Berdyaev continues to consider himself a Russian philosopher. He's writing: Despite the Western element in me, I feel that I belong to the Russian intelligentsia, which was searching for the truth. I inherit the traditions of Slavophiles and Westerners, Chaadaev and Khomyakov, Herzen and Belinsky, even Bakunin and Chernyshevsky, despite the difference in worldviews, and most of all Dostoevsky and L. Tolstoy, Vl. Solovyov and N. Fedorov. I am a Russian thinker and writer.
N.A. Berdyaev is an unrighteous judge who “is not afraid of God and is not ashamed of people.” He rains all his thunder on racism and nationalism. To them he attributes primordial evil and eternal hatred and finds no forgiveness for them. “Racism is worse than communism in the sense that its ideology includes eternal hatred, while communism affirms hatred as a path, as a method of struggle, but its final ideal does not imply hatred.” In this tirade, completely demagogic and devoid of even a remote relation to the philosophy of history, the actual state of affairs is so distorted that an irresistible assumption arises in the reader’s mind about Mr. Berdyaev’s deliberate deviation from the truth. In fact, he should know very well that the communist ideal is an impersonal individual, entering as a simple number into the “anthill of bipeds.” Such a transformation can be achieved only by declaring a consistent and irreconcilable war on the “eternal in man.” "Das Ewige in Menschen" - in the words of Max Scheler. Declaring war on the “eternal in man” is an eternal war with man. The communist Bukharin said that the ideal of communism is the “collective superman.” Nietzsche must have suffocated from the stench that emanates from the ugly, cadaverous caricature of his great idea. Berdyaev quite likes this stench, and he is ready to accept it as the desired antidote for the extermination of National Socialism, which he hates. He deliberately turns a blind eye to the fact that modern nationalisms, no matter how crude and severe their manifestations (German National Socialism is far from their worst form), are only a legitimate reaction to communism, which represents the only true war of extermination declared on humanity. face N.A. Berdyaev is so in love with the “Christian symbolism of the hammer and sickle” (as he once put it) that he forgives the communists for the actual bloody war with Christianity, a war that set itself the goal of the complete extermination of not only Christianity, but the very idea of God. Berdyaev does not want to see that the communists, like corpse worms, breed in the bloody wounds of war, that their love of peace, which he takes seriously and “in the gospel way,” is disgusting and vulgar hypocrisy, intended for the “poor in spirit” (not in the gospel way) ), as well as for that category of people about which one can say in the words of the poet: “Oh, it’s not difficult to deceive me, I myself am glad to be deceived”...
You can, perhaps, deceive yourself - although this is not a philosophical matter at all, but why deceive others? Why instill in them the idea that “the ultimate ideal of communism does not imply hatred” - while the communists themselves declared eternal war on the very idea of love, for “God is love.” After all, this conscious and public deviation from the truth, persistently carried out by N.A. Berdyaev for more than one year, cannot be of any philosophical or theological interest. Is this really the most vulgar policy, trying to use the “Christian symbolism of the hammer and sickle” as a defensive pro-communist device - and getting into the awkward position of the famous lady who married Taras to Bulba? Or, perhaps, this is the snobbery so fashionable in some salons in Europe and America - and here it is appropriate, instead of any criticism, the exclamation of one of Dostoevsky’s heroes: “It’s good for you, spoiled people, everything is ready!” Especially when N.A. Berdyaev declares that “emigration hates revolution, because it consists of privileged classes that have lost their position and their wealth” - the same truth as “the Christian symbolism of the hammer and sickle”! Reproaching emigration for hostility to the revolution and communism, he is silent about the fact that pro-communism and Sovietophilism are the worst form of emigrant snobbery, which in any case will have to be recognized by N.A. Berdyaev. In Russia there is neither pro-communism nor Sovietophilism, but only the most severe form of revolutionary tyranny, in comparison with which any form of government, including National Socialism, is paradise. But N.A. Berdyaev is so concerned about the “Christian” salvation of souls from the dangers of reaction that for an indefinite period of time he sanctions the formula: “better than Solovki and the Cheka.” This is the true content of Berdyaev’s literary, “philosophical” and lecture fabrications.
Man and freedom in the philosophy of N.A. Berdyaev
Nikolai Aleksandrovich Berdyaev (1874 - 1948) is the most prominent representative of Russian idealistic philosophy of the twentieth century.
Berdyaev himself defined his philosophy as philosophy of the subject, philosophy of spirit, philosophy of freedom, dualistic-pluralistic philosophy, creative-dynamic philosophy... . The opposition between spirit and nature, according to Berdyaev, is the main one. Spirit is the subject, creativity, nature is immobility and passive duration, the object. The main element in this opposition is the subject, to the point that, according to Berdyaev, the objective world does not exist in itself, but depends on the will of the subject, is the result of the exteriorization of his personal state: I don't believe in the strength of the so-called objective world, the world of nature and history... there is only an objectification of reality generated by a certain orientation of the spirit . This does not mean that Berdyaev was a solipsist, he argued that the world- this is just a complex of elements created by the imagination of the subject. Nature, in which necessity reigns and freedom is suppressed, where the personal, the particular is absorbed by the universal, was generated by evil, sin. Some researchers believe that Berdyaev - one of the founders of the philosophy of existentialism. In his opinion, being is not primary, it is only a characteristic existence - the process of creative individual life of the spirit.
One of the most important in Berdyaev’s philosophy is the category of freedom. Freedom, in his opinion, was not created by God. Following the German mystic philosopher of the 17th century. Jacob Boehme, Berdyaev believes that its source is primary chaos, nothingness. Therefore, God has no power over freedom, ruling only over the created world, being. Berdyaev accepts the principle of theodicy, argues that, as a result, God is not responsible for evil in the world, he cannot foresee the actions of people with free will and only contributes to the will becoming good.
Berdyaev distinguishes two types of freedom: primary irrational freedom, potential freedom, which determines the pride of the spirit and, as a result, its falling away from God, which as a result leads to the slavery of the individual in the world of nature, objective reality, in society, where a person, in order to successfully coexist with its other members, must follow the moral standards constructed by society, thereby there is no real freedom; And the second freedom, rational freedom, freedom in truth and goodness... freedom in God and received from God . The spirit conquers nature, regaining unity with God, and the spiritual integrity of the individual is restored.
The concept of personality is also important for Berdyaev; he shares the concepts personality And Human , individual . Man is God's creation, the image and likeness of God, the intersection point of two worlds - the spiritual and the natural. Personality is a category religious-spiritual , spiritualistic, is a person’s creative ability, the implementation of which means movement towards God. Personality preserves communication with the spiritual world and can penetrate world of freedom in direct spiritual experience, which is intuition in nature.
Man, according to Berdyaev, is by nature a social being, history is his way of life, therefore Berdyaev pays great attention to the philosophy of history. In its development, humanity has gone through several stages of understanding history. An early understanding of history was characteristic of Greek philosophy, which recognized itself as inextricably linked with society and nature and viewed the movement of history as a cycle. Then, with the emergence of the principle of historicism in Western European philosophy of the Renaissance and especially the Enlightenment, a new interpretation of history as progressive development appears. Its highest expression is economic materialism Marx. In fact, according to Berdyaev, there is a special spiritual existence of history, and in order to understand it, it is necessary to comprehend this historical, as... to the depths of my history, as to the depths of my destiny. I must place myself in historical destiny and historical destiny in my own human depth.
History is determined by three forces: God, fate and human freedom. The meaning of the historical process is the struggle of good against irrational freedom: during the period of the latter’s dominance, reality begins to return to the original chaos, the process of decay begins, the fall of faith, the loss of people’s unifying spiritual center of life and the era of revolutions begins. Creative periods of history come after revolutions that bring destruction.
Widely known book The meaning of the story Berdyaev wrote in 1936. In it he emphasizes that although the creative period of history begins again after an era of upheaval, his slogan becomes the liberation of human creative powers, that is, the emphasis is placed not on divine, but on purely human creativity. However, man, rejecting the high principle of the divine, is exposed to the danger of new slavery, this time in the face economic socialism , which affirms the forced service of the individual to society in the name of satisfying material needs. The only kind of socialism that Berdyaev can accept is personalist socialism , recognizing the highest values of the human person and his right to achieve the fullness of life.
Berdyaev outlined his thoughts on the fate of Russia and its place in the historical process in the book Origins and meaning of Russian communism , published in 1937. Russia, by its geographical and spiritual position, is located between East and West, and the Russian mentality is characterized by a combination of opposite principles: despotism and anarchy, nationalism and the universal spirit, prone to panhumanity , compassion and the tendency to cause suffering. But its most characteristic feature is the idea of messianism, the search for the true kingdom of God, conditioned by belonging to Orthodoxy. Berdyaev identifies five periods in the history of Russia, or five Russias : Kyiv Russia, Russia of the Tatar period, Moscow Russia, Peter's Russia, imperial Russia and, finally, the new Soviet Russia, where specific, Russian communism, due to the peculiarities of the Russian national character, won.
Among the philosophers of the Russian diaspora, Berdyaev’s work was the most significant; he made the most significant contribution to the development of ontology and epistemology, philosophical anthropology and ethics.
Conclusion
Berdyaev's philosophy of history is imbued with eschatological motives. Considering three types of time (cosmic, historical and existential, or metahistorical), he is concerned with predicting how “metahistory enters history”, justifying the approaching end of history. These motives were especially evident in his latest works.
Berdyaev's works contained criticism of socialist transformations in Soviet Russia. However, he simultaneously acted as a critic of capitalism and bourgeois society. Humanism as a product of Western civilization, Berdyaev believed, completed full cycle of its development and grew into its opposite. Modern humanism is tending toward the “kingdom of Antichrist,” as evidenced by the inhumane events of the 20th century. - world wars, revolutions, social conflicts.
It is important to note that Berdyaev acted abroad as a patriot, a representative of Russian culture, an opponent various forms Russophobia. He is the author of in-depth studies dedicated to A. S. Khomyakov, K. N. Leontiev, F. M. Dostoevsky.
Bibliography
1.Matyash, T.P. Philosophy of Science: Tutorial for graduate students and applicants / T.P. Metyash. - M., 2007. - 148 p.
2.Moiseev, V.I. Philosophy and methodology of science / V.I. Moiseev. - M., 2005. - Access mode: #"justify">Appendix A
1) The main idea of the text, or the main idea of the author.
At the center of Berdyaev’s research is the problem of man, his freedom, creativity and purpose, for the mystery of being, he believes, is hidden precisely in man. “The basic, original problem is the problem of man, human knowledge, human freedom, human domination. The riddle of knowledge and the solution to existence are hidden in man. It is man who is that mysterious creature in the world from the world of the inexplicable, through which only a breakthrough to being itself is possible. Man is the bearer of meaning, although man is at the same time a fallen being in whom meaning has been desecrated. But a fall is possible only from a height, and the very fall of a person is a sign of his height, his greatness. Even in his fall, he retains the stamp of his high position, and in him is all the possibility of a higher life, the possibility of knowledge rising above the nonsense of the world...
The philosopher writes that “the problem of man cannot be replaced by either the problem of the subject, transcendental consciousness, or the problem of the soul, psychological consciousness, or the problem of the spirit, or the problem of ideal values, the idea of goodness, truth, beauty, etc...”
The problem of man, as Berdyaev writes, is completely insoluble if he is considered from nature and only in relation to nature. Man can only be understood in his relationship to God. You cannot understand a person from a toga that is higher than him. To solve a person’s problem, it is necessary to somehow approach the infinite, to stand next to God. Therefore, the problem of man in Berdyaev’s philosophy was solved through religious consciousness, through his relationship to God. In all theologies, the philosopher believes, there is an anthropological part “Philosophical anthropology in the real sense of the word does not exist. But there has always been religious anthropology.” In his work “On the Purpose of Man” he distinguishes between Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox anthropology.
3) Write out the main points, statements, sentences from the text (7 - 8 pcs.)
1. Freedom in nature was conceptualized as an accident, as an “unknown necessity”
Creative thought can never be abstract; it is inextricably linked with life, it is determined by life
Racism is worse than communism in the sense that its ideology includes eternal hatred, while communism affirms hatred as a path, as a method of struggle, but its final ideal does not imply hatred.
I don't believe in the strength of the so-called objective world, the world of nature and history... there is only an objectification of reality generated by a certain orientation of the spirit.
To comprehend this historical, as... to the depths of my history, as to the depths of my destiny. I must place myself in historical destiny and historical destiny in my own human depth.
Man is by nature a social being, history is his way of life.
The problem of man cannot be replaced by either the problem of the subject, transcendental consciousness, or the problem of the soul, psychological consciousness, or the problem of the spirit, or the problem of ideal values, the idea of goodness, truth, beauty, etc.
Berdyaev is one of the most important representatives of Russian philosophy. The essence of Berdyaev’s philosophy is “knowledge of the meaning of existence through the subject,” i.e. person. The starting point of his philosophy is the superiority of freedom over being. Along with it are such concepts as creativity, personality, spirit, God. Being is revealed in man through man.
The main problem of Berdyaev's philosophy is the meaning of human existence and, in connection with it, the meaning of existence as a whole.
Freedom as one of the main philosophical categories characterizes the essence of man and his existence. In Berdyaev, the idea of personal freedom is colored by tragedy and determination to carry out a “revolution of the spirit”, experiences of loneliness and an impulse towards all-conquering conciliarity, a sense of the fallenness of existence and history and faith in the transformative and saving power of human freedom.
Berdyaev’s creativity is not the transition of the power of the creator to another state and thereby the weakening of the previous state - creativity is the creation of new power from something that has never existed, which did not exist before. And every creative act is essentially creativity out of nothing, i.e. the creation of new power, rather than the change and redistribution of the old. In every creative act there is absolute profit, growth.
It is difficult to write about Berdyaev - a number of circumstances prevent this... The specificity of Berdyaev’s own work is an unusually wide range of problems addressed, a sharply expressed individuality of style, in which philosopher and publicist, thinker and artist compete with each other. Berdyaev's prose - bright, nervous, at times almost paragraph-free, with many repetitions, with a return to what was said - is capable of exciting and irritating. We must also take into account Berdyaev’s extraordinary fertility; according to N. Poltoratsky, “for Berdyaev, writing was like a physical need.” This explains why assessments of Berdyaev’s work in historical and philosophical studies are far from ambiguous. Recognition of his services to Russian and world philosophy is coupled with a reproach for the fact that he was a prisoner of his various “passions” and “irrational movements.”
Berdyaev was constantly under the power of his quests. The deepest thing about him was connected with his ethical searches, with his journalistic themes; all his metaphysical talent manifested itself with enormous power. In this area, Berdyaev rightfully had global significance; his voice was listened to all over the world. Berdyaev's most significant contribution to the dialectics of Russian and world thought was determined by his philosophical constructs in the sphere of morality. Berdyaev's ideas had a significant influence on the development of French existentialism and personalism.
Tags: Man and freedom in the philosophy of N.A. Berdyaev Abstract Philosophy
reproduced Berdyaev’s words without reference:“The entire course of human culture, the entire development of world philosophy leads to the realization that the universal truth is revealed only to the universal consciousness, i.e. to the conciliar church consciousness... Only to the universal church consciousness are the secrets of life and existence revealed.” Then he closed the quotes and continued: The fierce enemy Antichrist knows this! He knows and therefore attacks our Church, first of all, inside and outside, crushing the consciousness of the Russian people with various fake imitations of ideological points of view. Russia has a mission to be a stronghold of Christian culture in a world falling into an anti-Christian abyss. Our differences of opinion should lead to the Truth of Christ, to its conciliar discovery in the creative process of knowledge of God, and we skimp on trifles at the suggestion of our fierce Sodomite Western enemies. Without the church's conciliar universal self-awareness, we Russians will perish under the rubble of Western anti-Christian civilization.
All this pretentious splendor prompted me to write the following:
Berdyaev Nikolai Aleksandrovich (1874, Kyiv - 1948, Paris), a famous philosopher of the Russian diaspora, publicist, personal philosopher, creator of “eschatological metaphysics”, one of those thinkers for whom the principle of Socrates was preserved: the unity of the philosopher’s way of life and his philosophy. He was born into a noble family, studied at Kiev University, was expelled for organizing unrest and deported to Vologda. Twice punished by the tsarist government for sympathizing with Marxism, twice arrested Soviet power for antipathy towards him. Expelled from the USSR in 1922, he lived first in Berlin, then in Paris.
Main works: “Philosophy of Freedom” (1911), “The Fate of Russia” (1918), “The Meaning of Creativity” (1916), “The Meaning of History” (1923), “Philosophy of Inequality. Letters to Enemies... (1923), “The Origins and Meaning of Russian Communism” (1937), “Russian Idea” (1946), “Self-Knowledge” (1949).
Berdyaev and Solovyov are classified as irrationalists, since they place intuition, understood as “the perception of Truth by the heart,” above reason. Berdyaev is not interested in either the theory of knowledge or ontology. He writes: “I have read many books on logic. But I must admit that logic never had any meaning for me and taught me nothing. My ways of learning have always been different.” And further: “I do not have what is called thoughtful discursive inferential thinking, there is no systematic, logically connected thought, evidence... I am an exclusively intuitive-synthetic thinker. I undoubtedly have God’s gift to immediately understand the connection of everything separate, partial with the whole, with the meaning of the world.” Berdyaev challenges the dominance of reason and material interest. The center of Berdyaev’s interests is the problem of human improvement and the problem of the meaning of life. He reconsidered the relationship between morality and freedom in Christianity, believing that “freedom is pre-eternal to the world.” God created the world when freedom already existed, and therefore God does not bear any responsibility for human affairs. This removes the problem of theodicy and responsibility for good and evil falls entirely on man, who himself creates the world of his culture and hierarchy of values. Moral consciousness is a creative consciousness, but freedom places enormous responsibility on a person. It's hard to disagree with the latter.
Berdyaev creates the image of God-Humanity as a dream and symbol of human possibilities. Truth is not the result of knowledge, but a breakthrough of the spirit into the realm of essences, the revelation of spiritual meanings, which should lead God-manhood to the creation of the Kingdom of God. The main subject of philosophy is a person solving the riddle of his own existence. Berdyaev criticizes materialist philosophy, or rather its primitive appearance, which he painted for himself, descending from the heights of Platonism. He criticizes the “spiritual slavery” of a person who absolutizes the empirical world and freely (and without evidence) creates his eschatological metaphysics.
A collection of journalistic essays by Berdyaev, “The Fate of Russia,” was published in 1918 and became his last book published in his homeland. Just at this time, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk revealed the collapse of his prophecies that “prophetic Russia must move from waiting to creation” and “rush to the city of God, to the end, to the transformation of the world.” Berdyaev opposes national messianism and writes: “Russia is not called to well-being, to physical and spiritual well-being... It does not have the gift of creating an average culture, and in this it is deeply different from Western countries” / p. 25/. Berdyaev writes “about the eternal womanhood in the Russian soul,” and even speaks out against the dark irrational principle in Russian statehood and church life. “This intoxicated decay” makes him anxious.
In his work “The Meaning of Creativity,” Berdyaev writes: “Philosophy is art, not science... because it is creativity... Philosophy does not require and does not allow any scientific, logical justification or justification.” (The meaning of creativity. //Philosophy of creativity, culture and art. M., 1994. T.1. P. 53, 61.). It turns out that science is not creativity, but in philosophy, say what you want, as long as it’s coherent? This thesis is not only incorrect, it is harmful, especially for those beginning to study philosophy. Berdyaev wrote about himself that he was not able to reason consistently and logically, he created each of his thoughts separately from others, he had a lot of repetitions and contradictions.
In the book “The Meaning of History,” his focus is on the philosophy of history as “a kind of mystery.” It “exists only because there is Christ at its core,” “To Him comes and from Him comes the Divine, passionate movement and the world’s human passionate movement. Without Christ it would not exist."... And so many times with rearrangement of words. (A significant influence on Berdyaev during his youthful exile in Vologda in 1898-99 was exerted by the philosopher-theologian S.N. Bulgakov, who even derived economics from original sin. See Bulgakov S.N. Non-evening light. Contemplation and speculation. M, 1994. pp. 304-305).
In his work “The Russian Idea” (1946), Berdyaev argues that the Slavic race has not yet occupied the position in the world that the Latin or German race occupied. But this will change after the war, the spirit of Russia will take a great-power position, it will cease to be provincial and will become universal, not eastern, but not western either. But this requires creative efforts of the national mind and will. The Russian idea is global messianism, the idea of the brotherhood of man. Berdyaev identifies five periods in the history of Russia: Kievan Rus, Russia of the times Tatar yoke, Moscow, Peter's, Soviet Russia. But the Russia of the future is also possible. The worst, “most Asian-Tatar” period, in his opinion, was the period of the Muscovite Kingdom; the Kiev period and the period of the Tatar yoke were better, since they had more freedom.
In “The Origins...” the author discusses the communist worldview, which, as he rightly believes, is based on communal and patriarchal traditions and social disorder. Berdyaev wrote that “the autocracy of the people is the most terrible autocracy, because in it a person depends on unenlightened numbers, on the dark instincts of the masses,” but in “Istoki” he glorifies the Russian community as a special spiritual quality of the Russian people, believes that it is characterized by a religious messianic spirit. the idea of the Kingdom of God, which turned into the idea of Russian communism. Communism is also a religion with the sacred scripture of Marx-Engels, the messiah - the proletariat, the church organization - the Communist Party, the apostles - members of the Central Committee, the Inquisition - the Cheka... The militant atheism of the Bolsheviks is simply jealous expression of intolerance towards others religions posing a threat to communist monotheism. According to Berdyaev, there was a “perversion of the Russian quest for the kingdom of truth by the will to power.” He is convinced that the main lie of communism is not social, but spiritual. The true Russian idea “is the idea of communitarianism and brotherhood of people and peoples.” It’s a good idea, and it’s clear why Lenin, who needed a world revolution, wrote about Berdyaev: “This is someone who should be demolished not only in the special philosophical field” (PSS., vol. 46, p. 135).
Humanity, the recognition of man as the highest value, is expressed by the word “humanism”. From the above, we can draw a conclusion about a universal criterion of social progress: that which contributes to the rise of humanism is progressive.
Now that we have laid out the different views on the criterion of historical progress, consider which view gives you a more reliable way of assessing the changes taking place in society.
DIVERSITY OF PATHS AND FORMS OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Social progress in those created in the 18th-19th centuries. in the works of J. Condorcet, G. Hegel, K. Marx and other philosophers was understood as a natural movement along a single main path for all humanity. On the contrary, in the concept of local civilizations, progress is seen to occur in different civilizations in different ways.
If you take a mental look at the course of world history, you will notice many similarities in the development of different countries and peoples. Primitive society was everywhere replaced by a state-governed society. Feudal fragmentation was replaced by centralized monarchies. Bourgeois revolutions took place in many countries. Colonial empires collapsed and dozens of independent states emerged in their place. You yourself could continue listing similar events and processes that took place in different countries, on different continents. This similarity reveals the unity of the historical process, a certain identity of successive orders, the common destinies of different countries and peoples.
At the same time, the specific paths of development of individual countries and peoples are diverse. There are no peoples, countries, states with the same history. The diversity of concrete historical processes is caused by differences in natural conditions, the specifics of the economy, the uniqueness of spiritual culture, the peculiarities of the way of life, and many other factors. Does this mean that each country is predetermined by its own development option and that it is the only possible one? Historical experience shows that under certain conditions, various options for solving pressing problems are possible, a choice of methods, forms, and paths for further development is possible, i.e., a historical alternative. Alternative options are often offered by certain groups of society and various political forces.
Let us remember that during the preparation of the Peasant Reform carried out in Russia in 1861, different social forces proposed different forms of implementing changes in the life of the country. Some defended the revolutionary path, others - the reformist one. But among the latter there was no unity. Several reform options were proposed.
And in 1917-1918. A new alternative arose before Russia: either a democratic republic, one of the symbols of which was a popularly elected Constituent Assembly, or a republic of Soviets led by the Bolsheviks.
In each case, a choice was made. This choice is made by statesmen, ruling elites, and the masses, depending on the balance of power and influence of each of the subjects of history.
Any country, any people at certain moments in history are faced with a fateful choice, and its history is carried out in the process of realizing this choice.
The variety of ways and forms of social development is unlimited. It is included within the framework of certain trends in historical development.
So, for example, we saw that the abolition of outdated serfdom was possible both in the form of a revolution and in the form of reforms carried out by the state. And the urgent need to accelerate economic growth in different countries was carried out either by attracting new and new natural resources, i.e. extensively, or by introducing new equipment and technology, improving the skills of workers, based on increased labor productivity, i.e. intensive way. Different countries or the same country may use different options for implementing the same type of changes.
Thus, the historical process, in which general trends manifest themselves - the unity of diverse social development, creates the possibility of choice, on which the uniqueness of the paths and forms of further movement of a given country depends. This speaks to the historical responsibility of those who make this choice.
Basic concepts: social progress, regression, multivariate social development.
Terms: historical alternative, criterion of progress.
1. Try to evaluate the reforms of the 60-70s from the standpoint of a universal criterion of progress. XIX century in Russia. Can they be called progressive? What about the politics of the 80s? Give reasons for your position.
2. Think about whether the activities of Peter I, Napoleon Bonaparte, P. A. Stolypin are progressive. Give reasons for your assessment.
3. To which of the points of view on progress presented in the paragraph does the position of the Florentine historian F. Guicciardini (1483-1540) belong: “The affairs of the past illuminate the future, for the world has always been the same: everything that is and will be has already it was at another time, the former returns, only under different names and in a different coloring; but not everyone recognizes it, but only the wise who carefully observes and ponders it”?
4. Think about whether the attitude of the two Russian philosophers quoted below to the idea of progress differs.
A. I. Herzen (1812-1870): “Our whole great significance... lies in the fact that while we are alive... we are still ourselves, and not dolls appointed to suffer progress or embody some crazy idea. We should be proud of the fact that we are not threads or needles in the hands of fate, sewing the motley fabric of history.”
G. V. Plekhanov (1856-1918): “People make their history not at all in order to walk along a predetermined path of progress, and not because they must obey the laws of some abstract evolution. They do it in an effort to satisfy their needs.”
Compare these statements with the material presented in the text of the paragraph and, based on historical knowledge, express your point of view.
5. Some scientists studying modern social development drew attention to phenomena that they called the “barbarization” of society. They included a decline in the level of culture, in particular language, a weakening of moral regulators, legal nihilism, an increase in crime, drug addiction and other similar processes. How would you rate these phenomena? What is their impact on society? Do these trends determine the nature of the development of society in the foreseeable future? Give reasons for your answer.
6. Soviet philosopher M. Mamardashvili (1930-1990) wrote: “The final meaning of the universe or the final meaning of history is part of human destiny. And human destiny is the following: to be fulfilled as a Human. Become Human." How is this philosopher’s thought related to the idea of progress?
| Let's work with the source |
Russian philosopher N.A. Berdyaev about progress.
Progress turns every human generation, every human face, every era of history into a means and instrument for the final goal - the perfection, power and bliss of the future humanity, in which none of us will have a share. The positive idea of progress is internally unacceptable, religiously and morally unacceptable, because the nature of this idea is such that it makes it impossible to resolve the torment of life, the resolution of tragic contradictions and conflicts for the entire human race, for all human generations, for all times, for everyone ever living people with their suffering fate. This teaching knowingly and consciously asserts that for a huge mass, an infinite mass of human generations and for an infinite series of times and eras, there is only death and the grave. They lived in an imperfect, suffering state, full of contradictions, and only somewhere at the top of historical life does a generation of lucky people finally appear, on the decayed bones of all previous generations, which will climb to the top and for which the highest fullness of life, the highest bliss and perfection. All generations are only a means for the realization of this blissful life of this happy generation of the chosen ones, which must appear in some future unknown and alien to us.
Questions and tasks:
1) How do the views on progress presented in this document differ from the views expressed in the paragraph?
2) What is your attitude to the thoughts of N. A. Berdyaev?
3) Which of all the points of view on progress presented in the materials of the paragraph is most attractive to you?
4) Why does the title of this paragraph begin with the word “problem”?
| There is some debate about this |
Is it possible to achieve simultaneous progress in various spheres of society? Sometimes they point out the incompatibility of certain changes, each of which is recognized as progressive. For example, an increase in production, on which the material well-being of the population depends, and at the same time an improvement in the environmental situation, on which people’s health depends. Or the increasing environment of a person with various technical devices that make his work and life easier, and at the same time - the enrichment of spiritual life, which requires the rise of humanitarian culture. The experience of the past century has shown that these, as well as many other progressive changes in the field of science, technology, economics, social relations, education, etc. cannot be implemented together. What should I do?
§ 16. Freedom in human activity
Personal freedom in its various manifestations is today the most important value of civilized humanity. The importance of freedom for human self-realization was understood in ancient times. The desire for freedom, liberation from the shackles of despotism and arbitrariness has permeated the entire history of mankind. This has manifested itself with particular force in New and Contemporary times. All revolutions wrote the word “freedom” on their banners. Few political leaders and revolutionary leaders did not vow to lead the masses they led to true freedom. But although the overwhelming majority declared themselves to be unconditional supporters and defenders of individual freedom, the meaning attached to this concept was different.
The category of freedom is one of the central ones in the philosophical quests of humanity. And just as politicians paint this concept in different colors, often subordinating it to their specific political goals, so philosophers approach its understanding from different positions.
Let's try to understand the diversity of these interpretations.
WHY IS ABSOLUTE FREEDOM IMPOSSIBLE
No matter how much people strive for freedom, they understand that there cannot be absolute, unlimited freedom. First of all, because complete freedom for one would mean arbitrariness in relation to the other. For example, someone wanted to listen to loud music at night. By turning on the tape recorder at full power, the man fulfilled his desire and acted freely. But his freedom in this case infringed on the right of many others to get a good night's sleep.
That is why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, where all articles are devoted to the rights and freedoms of the individual, the latter, which contains a mention of responsibilities, states that in the exercise of his rights and freedoms, each person should be subject only to such restrictions as are intended to ensure recognition and respect the rights of others.
Arguing about the impossibility of absolute freedom, let us pay attention to one more aspect of the issue. Such freedom would mean unlimited choice for a person, which would put him in an extremely difficult position in making a decision. The expression “Buridan’s donkey” is widely known. The French philosopher Buridan spoke about a donkey that was placed between two identical and equidistant armfuls of hay. Unable to decide which armful to prefer, the donkey died of hunger. Even earlier, Dante described a similar situation, but he spoke not about donkeys, but about people: “Placed between two dishes, equally distant and equally attractive, a person would rather die than, having absolute freedom, take one of them into his mouth.”
A person cannot be absolutely free. And one of the limiters here is the rights and freedoms of other people.
FREEDOM AS A COgnized NECESSITY
This is how many philosophers interpreted freedom - B. Spinoza, G. Hegel, F. Engels. What is behind this formula, which has become almost an aphorism? There are forces in the world that act immutably, inevitably. These forces also influence human activity. If this necessity is not comprehended, not realized by a person, he is its slave; if it is known, then the person acquires “the ability to make a decision with knowledge of the matter.” This is where his free will is expressed.
But what are these forces, what is the nature of necessity? There are different answers to this question. Some see God's providence here. Everything is predetermined for them. What then is human freedom? She's gone. “God’s foreknowledge and omnipotence are diametrically opposed to our free will. Everyone will be forced to accept the inevitable consequence: we do nothing of our own free will, but everything happens out of necessity. Thus, we do nothing by free will, but everything depends on the foreknowledge of God,” said the religious reformer Luther. This position is defended by supporters of absolute predestination. In contrast to this view, other religious figures suggest the following interpretation of the relationship between Divine predestination and human freedom: “God designed the Universe in such a way that all creation would have the great gift of freedom. Freedom first of all means the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and a choice given independently, based on one’s own decision. Of course, God can destroy evil and death in an instant. But at the same time He would at the same time deprive the world and freedom. The world itself must return to God, since it itself has departed from Him.”
The concept of “necessity” may have another meaning. Necessity, a number of philosophers believe, exists in nature and society in the form of objective, i.e., independent of human consciousness, laws. In other words, necessity is an expression of a natural, objectively determined course of events. Supporters of this position, unlike fatalists, of course, do not believe that everything in the world, especially in public life, is rigidly and unambiguously determined; they do not deny the existence of accidents. But the general natural line of development, deviated by chance in one direction or another, will still make its way. Let's look at some examples. It is known that earthquakes periodically occur in seismic zones. People who are unaware of this circumstance or ignore it when building their homes in this area may be victims of a dangerous element. In the same case, when this fact is taken into account during the construction, for example, of earthquake-resistant buildings, the likelihood of risk will sharply decrease.
In a generalized form, the presented position can be expressed in the words of F. Engels: “Freedom does not lie in imaginary independence from the laws of nature, but in the knowledge of these laws and in the ability, based on this knowledge, to systematically force the laws of nature to act for certain purposes.”
Thus, the interpretation of freedom as a recognized necessity presupposes a person’s comprehension and consideration of the objective limits of his activity, as well as the expansion of these limits due to the development of knowledge and the enrichment of experience.
FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY
Let's consider another situation. Modern society provides a person with a variety of means to help get rid of a depressed state. Among them there are those (alcohol, drugs) that inexorably destroy the human body. When making his choice, a person who knows about such a danger can neglect it, but then he will inevitably face retribution, and he will have to pay with the most precious things - his own health, and sometimes life.
In other words, a truly free person will not be a slave to his momentary moods and passions. He will choose a healthy lifestyle. In this case, in addition to the perceived danger, a person is encouraged to act one way and not another by certain social conditions. There are norms of morality and law, traditions and public opinion. It is under their influence that a model of “proper behavior” is formed. Taking into account these rules, a person acts and acts, makes certain decisions.
A person’s deviation from established social norms causes, as you already know, a certain reaction from society. Negative deviation causes social sanctions, i.e. punishment for disapproved actions. Such punishment is also called a person’s responsibility for his activities and its consequences. (Remember in what cases criminal, administrative, financial and other types of liability arise.)
But the concept of “responsibility” is associated not only with external forms of influence on a person; responsibility is the most important internal regulator of his activities. Then we talk about a sense of responsibility, duty. It manifests itself primarily in a person’s conscious readiness to follow established norms, evaluate his actions in terms of their consequences for others, and accept sanctions in case of violations.
As psychologists' research shows, most people tend to accept responsibility for their actions. However, situations arise when the sense of responsibility becomes dull. Thus, a person in a crowd is capable of such actions - offensive shouts, resistance to law enforcement officials, various manifestations of cruelty and aggression that he would never have committed in a different situation. In this case, the influence is exerted not only by the massiveness of the speeches, but primarily by the anonymous nature of people’s activities. At such moments, internal constraints are weakened and concerns about public evaluation are reduced. By forming a sense of responsibility in oneself, a person protects himself from deindividuation, i.e., becoming a faceless being with reduced self-awareness.
"FREEDOM FROM" OR "FREEDOM FOR"
Let's think about what kind of person we usually consider free. The first thing that comes to mind is someone who is not forced to do anything, is not forced to do what he does not want, and is not under the pressure of circumstances. “Today I am free because I don’t have to run to a tutor”; “I want to rent an apartment in order to free myself from the care of my parents and finally feel free” - one can cite many more phrases and statements in which exactly this understanding of freedom is manifested.
However, philosophers believe that this is only the starting point of freedom. True liberation begins with self-restraint. “Freedom for” is good will, subject to the moral law. Man, through free effort, is prevented from evil and turns to good. I. Kant believed that such free choice stands above natural necessity.
Thus, we have moved from considering external restrictions on freedom to internal prohibitions that a person sets for himself. “Neither praise nor blame, nor honor nor punishment will be fair if the soul does not have the ability to strive and resist and if the vice is involuntary,” asserted the Christian theologian of the 3rd century.
The main thing is not what the external circumstances of a person’s life are. Another thing is more important: how they are refracted in his consciousness, how a person projects himself into the world, what goals he sets for himself, what meaning and meaning he gives to the surrounding reality. This is what predetermines the choice from a variety of possible behavior options. From this, some modern philosophers conclude: human activity cannot receive its goals from the outside, nothing external to consciousness can motivate it, man is completely free in his inner life.
A truly free person himself chooses not only an action, but also its reasons, the general principles of his actions, which acquire the character of convictions. Such a person, even in conditions of progressive degeneration of the human race or with the complete stability of a despotic or totalitarian regime in his country, will not reach a state of spiritual decline and will act as if the principles he defends will certainly triumph in the future.
Critics of this position believe that if everyone seeks the basis of their behavior only in accordance with their own motives, without taking into account generally accepted restrictions and prohibitions, then society will lose its integrity and chaos will await people: instead of the desired freedom, they will receive complete arbitrariness.
What is your point of view? Which of these positions and why do you think is correct?
WHAT IS A FREE SOCIETY
So, you have seen how differently, and sometimes diametrically opposed, the concept of “freedom” is interpreted. Reflecting on different approaches, accepting some and unconditionally rejecting others, we agree that truly free activity cannot exist in the absence of choice. Freedom means the state of a person who is able to act in all important matters on the basis of choice.
What kind of society can provide such a choice?
It is obvious that societies where arbitrariness and tyranny of individuals or groups of the population dominate, where the rule of law is violated, where the state exercises complete (total) control over the lives of its fellow citizens, cannot in any way be classified as free.
Does this mean that only a society where state intervention in the life of an individual will be minimal will be free? There are many supporters of this point of view.
In the economic sphere of such a society, free enterprise based on the principles of competition reigns; in the political sphere, there is a diversity of political parties, political pluralism, and democratic principles of government. This is a free-thinking society. And the point here is not that everyone has the right to say or write whatever they want, but that any idea can be discussed. This process of interaction between people with different knowledge and different points of view is the basis for the development of thought. People's lives are regulated only by democratically accepted laws and generally accepted moral standards.
“All that society and the state can do is to promote freedom, not allowing monopolism in any area of life. Free from government interference, free to act as they please, individuals will prosper and their lives will be happy,” wrote one American politician.
However, not everyone accepts this model of a free society. Some scientists and politicians, expressing the sentiments of a certain part of the population, believe that such unlimited individualism is not good for people. True freedom involves more than just government non-interference in people's lives. Self-realization of a person is based not only on individual, but also on joint experience, a joint search for solutions, and the creation of a common good. Therefore, freedom is complemented by cooperation, responsibility, justice, i.e. all those values that society must provide.
Thus, supporters of this concept believe that the role of society is more significant than they try to imagine. By uniting into a community, people acquire not only new values, but also collective protection, which is sometimes extremely necessary for them.
The state must also play a certain regulatory role. It not only creates and maintains institutions that guarantee the freedom of citizens, but must also take care of a more equal distribution of income and prevent a deepening of the gap between rich and poor. The ideal of freedom must be complemented by the ideal of social justice.
It is also important that citizens themselves guarantee each other’s freedom by conscientiously performing their civic duties.
Thus, the situation of choice develops not only in the “space” of each person’s personal life. As you already know, it also arises at the level of society as a whole. This is especially evident in the so-called transitional eras. According to a number of researchers, such eras potentially contain a whole range of directions - alternatives - for further development. Which of them will be supported, for example, by the country’s leadership, can significantly affect the life of the entire society. So the choice in this case is associated with a very high responsibility. Examples of such situations and the consequences of decisions made have been preserved for us by the history of the distant and recent past.
Basic concepts: freedom, freedom of choice, necessity, responsibility, free society.
Terms: deindividuation, predestination.
1. What arguments can be used to support the conclusion about the impossibility of absolute, unlimited human freedom in society?
2. Which of the two statements below do you think is more true?
“Our life is a line that we must, at the behest of nature, describe on the surface of the globe, without being able to move away from it for a single moment.” “The course of things seems inevitable only to those who have betrayed their convictions. History itself can neither force a person nor draw him into a dirty business. Man carries the whole weight of the world on his shoulders: he is responsible for the world and himself.”
3. How do you understand the expression “Freedom is a choice”?
4. Can you support the following statement with specific facts: “During the period of modern European history, the general direction of development was the liberation of the individual from various kinds of norms and regulations that constrained his daily life activities”?
5. Which of the following definitions of the concept of “freedom” do you think is the most accurate:
1) freedom is the absence of any barriers and hindrances;
2) freedom is the conscious adherence to necessity;
3) freedom (free will) is not self-will, which can lead to any actions, but regularity, constancy, inexorability in the implementation of moral requirements by a person;
4) freedom is a conscious possibility of historical creativity?
6. Describe the various models of a free society. What are your ideas about such a society?
7. Do you agree with the statement “It is impossible to live in society and be free from society”? Justify your position.
8. Famous thinker of the 19th century. argued that “legally recognized freedom exists in the state in the form of law... Laws are positive, clear, universal norms in which freedom acquires an impersonal, theoretical existence independent of the arbitrariness of an individual. The code of laws is the bible of freedom of nations.” Comment on this statement.
9. Sometimes freedom is understood as permissiveness. In a social sense, this means complete independence from any norms or restrictions. At the beginning of the 20th century. in Russian villages they sang the following ditty:
What consequences can this interpretation of freedom lead to? Concretize your reasoning with examples.
| Work with the source |
Read an excerpt from the work of modern American social psychologist E. Aronson.
