Socio-historical activities and culture. Man arose on Earth during a long and uneven evolutionary process - anthropogenesis, many stages of which are not completely clear. It is believed that 8-5 million years ago, African monkeys split into 2 branches: one led to apes (chimpanzees, etc.), the other led to the first hominids (australopithecines, who had a bipedal gait). Probably ok. 2 million years ago, Australopithecines gave rise to the genus “man” (Homo), the first representative of which many scientists consider “homo habilis” - its fossil remains are found along with the most ancient stone tools (the so-called Olduvai culture). OK. 1.6-1.5 million years ago this species was replaced in the East. Africa by Homo erectus. Representatives of this species (archanthropus, paleoanthropus) differing in their morphological features and degree of development began to spread from tropical Africa throughout the continent, as well as in Europe and Asia. There is no consensus in science regarding the time, place of origin and immediate ancestors of modern humans - Homo sapiens. One hypothesis is that it originated in Africa ca. 200 thousand years ago and then displaced more ancient people everywhere; according to another, the formation of “homo sapiens” (so-called sapientation) occurred gradually in different parts of the planet. OK. 40 thousand years ago, at the turn of the Upper Paleolithic, “Homo sapiens” became the only representative of the hominid family and populated almost the entire Earth. As a biological species, humans have many common characteristics with mammals, primarily primates. Specific features of man that sharply distinguish him from the animal world: upright posture, high brain development, thinking and articulate speech. A person learns and changes the world and himself, creates culture and his own history. The essence of man, his origin and purpose, man's place in the world have been and remain the central problems of philosophy, religion, science and art.
Big Encyclopedic Dictionary. 2000 .
Synonyms:See what “MAN” is in other dictionaries:
MAN, person, meaning. pl. used people (cheloveki obsolete and humorous, indirect man, people, etc. only in combination with quantitative words), husband. 1. A living creature, unlike an animal, possessing the gift of speech and thought and the ability to create and... ... Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary
The main theme of philosophy, the central problem of all philosophies. schools and trends, inexhaustible due to its endless complexity, providing food for a wide variety of interpretations and interpretations. Ch., according to B. Pascal, is a chimera, unprecedented,... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia
This is a mortal God. Hermes Trismegistus Man is just a reed, the weakest of nature's creatures, but he is a thinking reed. To destroy it, you don’t need the entire Universe: just a breath of wind, a drop of water. But even if it destroys him... ... Consolidated encyclopedia of aphorisms
Husband. each of the people; the highest of earthly creatures, gifted with reason, free will and verbal speech. The awakening (instinct) of an animal, a combination of the lowest degree of reason and will, replaces for him these gifts, scattered in man and even eternally arguing... ... Dahl's Explanatory Dictionary
Publication History Publisher Marvel Comics Debut X Men vol. 1 #1 (September 1963) Authors Stan Lee Jack Kirby Characteristics Position Good Full name ... Wikipedia
Person, personality, husband, person, person, individual (individual), individuality; mortal. Mn. h.: people, people, people, public. Lunch for twelve persons (twelve couverts). Hunters are an unscrupulous people. Not a single soul. Man, give me a glass of wine! ... Dictionary of synonyms
A special kind of being, the creator of historical development, culture, the subject of social creativity. Ch. a biosocial creature, genetically related to other forms of life, separated from them due to the ability to produce tools, possessing ... Encyclopedia of Cultural Studies
The Man Who Laughs Victor Hugo. The man who laughs = L Homme qui rit. 1860. “The Man Who Laughs” (French: L Homme qui rit) is one of the most famous novels by Victor Hugo, written in the 60s of the 19th century. Contents 1... ...Wikipedia
History Publisher Marvel Comics Debut X Men #1 (September 1963) Author(s) Stan Lee, Jack Kirby ... Wikipedia
HUMAN. The word čełovĕkъ (cf. čьlovĕkъ, človĕkъ) is compared with Lithuanian. kíltis and kiltís genus (cf. kílti to rise, to arise; kélmas tree trunk) and vaikas boy, son, lit. zhem. vaĩkis servant, other Prussian. wayklís son, waix servant.… … History of words
MAN, a social being with consciousness, intelligence; subject of social historical activity and culture. Man arose on Earth during a long and uneven evolutionary process of anthropogenesis, many stages of which up to... ... Modern encyclopedia
English man/person; German Mensch. The highest stage of development of living organisms on Earth, a subject of social historical activity and culture. Ch. appeared on Earth as a result of a complex and long historical-evolutionary process. Homo sapiens (reasonable man) - no later than 40 thousand years ago. Ch. is a dual being - natural and social.
Great definition
Incomplete definition ↓
HUMAN
MAN, a social being, will distinguish. a feature of which is consciousness formed on the basis of social and labor activity.
Ch. appeared on Earth as a result of a complex and long process. process of historical and evolutionary development - anthropogenesis and is biologically closely connected by its roots with the animal world. In zoological taxonomy, the species of Homo sapiens belongs to the family of hominids (Hominidae), order of primates (Primates), class of mammals (Mammalia). Ch.'s body has many features in common with mammals, including two pairs of limbs, a closed circulatory system, a constant body temperature, a well-developed nervous system and sensory organs. Among modern primates Ch. is closest to African. great apes - gorillas and especially chimpanzees. This is evidenced by numerous compare the data. anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, immunology, molecular biology, etc. Specifics of biol. Ch.'s organization is, first of all, uprightness and upright posture, free upper limbs, which in the process of evolution turned into a unique organ of labor, high development of the brain, especially those areas of its neocortex that are associated with labor activity, the formation of a second signaling system and articulate speech. The total area of the human neocortex is about 4000 cm2.
Probably, the early stages of the formation of hominids were closely related to tropical, forest-steppe and steppe regions. Later, Ch. spread widely across the Earth, populating even deserts, polar regions, and high-mountain regions (see Anthropogenesis). All modern. people belong to the same species, within which several species are distinguished. basic race The species Homo sapiens represents a set of populations that, when mixed, produce fertile offspring and reveal, therefore, variability (polymorphism) of its morphofunctional organization. Adaptive polymorphism is biologically beneficial for the species, because it increases its overall fitness due to genetically different. forms that have a certain benefits in different conditions (see Human Genetics). At the same time, all groups of modern humanity are at the same high level of development of their biol. organizations. Individual variability of biol. Human organizations are characterized by constitutional types. The main ones are described in various ways. groups of humanity, but the ratios are determined. types can vary significantly. For example, the “elongated type” is more common among the Bedouins of the Libyan Desert and among the aborigines of Australia. On the contrary, a “stocky build” is typical for some variants of the Arctic. race (Eskimos). It is assumed that these body features give the body its definition. benefits in maintaining physiol. functions in hot (or cold) climates, primarily functions related to thermoregulation. Such adaptations can be observed within the range. races and ethnic groups of Ch., they are environmentally friendly. (zonal) location. Morphol. and physiol. adaptations at the population level are most pronounced in extreme, sometimes contrasting ecologies. conditions - in northern, equatorial, high-mountain and other regions. These include, for example, a decrease in the ratio of body mass to surface area and a decrease in the so-called. basic metabolism (characterize the energy expenditure of the body) from sowing. districts to the equatorial ones, an increase in hemoglobin content in the blood of highland inhabitants, etc. However, the adaptive types of modern. Ch. are not specialized environmentally friendly. forms. They reflect only certain trends towards changes in morphophysiol. characteristics within the species Homo sapiens.
Unlike animals, Ch. retains its fundamentals. species morphofunctional characteristics regardless of natural conditions of existence due to labor social history. activities. Specific A feature of Ch.’s relationship with the environment is also his creation of a fundamentally new form of adaptation, in the course of which Ch. changes the environment, and at the same time changes in societies occur. relationships between people; this process is carried out without restructuring the morphofunctional organization. In general, maintaining optimal biol. and socially useful activities in extreme environmental conditions is an important criterion for the effectiveness of Ch.’s adaptation processes.
As a result, it lasts. Ch.’s impact on the surrounding nature has created a new, “artificial” habitat, which, in turn, also significantly influences various aspects of Ch.’s life. This process is of particular importance in the conditions of scientific and technical. revolution, demographic explosion and urbanization. From ser. 20th century The question of the relationship between humanity and the natural environment became more acute and relevant, which led to the creation of a complex science - human ecology.
For all modern groups. Ch. typically has an unambiguous direction of sexual differences (dimorphism), a uniform type of growth and development. Sexual dimorphism manifests itself in morphol. signs (general body size, proportions, body composition, tissue structure, etc.), and in a number of physiol., biochemical. and psychol. characteristics. Specific a feature of individual human development that was formed in anthropogenesis is a long period of childhood with a relatively low growth rate and a pronounced growth spurt in connection with puberty. There may be group and especially individual variations in the rate of development. The latter are detected within any group of developing (or aging) individuals, differing in their morphophysiol. parameters - biol. age. Biol. the age of an individual is expressed through avg. chronological the age of that age group, the cut it corresponds to in terms of its biol level. organizations. As indicators of biol. age are usually used diff. criteria that assess the state of the leading systems of the body - neurohormonal, cardiovascular, musculoskeletal system, dental system, etc. These indicators can change more or less synchronously (harmoniously) or, on the contrary, asynchronously, showing tendencies towards acceleration (see Acceleration) or developmental delay. On the rate of development (aging) and biol. age is influenced by many factors, especially genetic and socio-economic, and to a lesser extent environmental factors (climatic, etc.). Variations in the pace of development exist not only at the individual level, but also at the population level, as well as across epochs. Epochal changes in some biol traits. Black organizations have been traced mainly over the past 100 years (the so-called secular trend - a secular trend). Such characteristics, in addition to the rate of development, include general body size, massiveness of the skeleton, head shape, as well as the structure of morbidity, life expectancy of one generation, etc. These fluctuations in biol. characteristics occur within the Homo sapiens species complex; some of them were defined in prehistoric times. era and have a cyclical character. To explain such phenomena, many are involved. factors, including variations in solar activity and the strength of the Earth's geomagnetic field, genetic processes in modern populations (mixing, heterosis), socio-economic. influence, etc.
E. N. Khrisanfova.
The formation of Ch. took place in the course of a complex process of interaction between biol. and social factors, which was reflected in the understanding of the essence of humanity in different eras. This understanding was formed in the constant struggle of extremes in the views of philosophers, sociologists, biologists, and physicians, who exaggerated either the biological or the social principle in the nature of Ch. The biological is an integral part of the essence of Ch., however, that special thing that characterizes Ch. as a person is formed first total social factors, i.e. the system of societies. relations, among which the most important type belongs to the method of producing material goods characteristic of society. Emphasizing this circumstance, K. Marx wrote ´... the essence of man is not an abstraction inherent in an individual. In its reality, it is the totality of all social relations´ (Marx K. and Engels F., Works, vol. 3, p. 3). Being the result of natural and social development, Ch. cannot be correctly understood in its essence with a one-sided approach exclusively from biol. or social positions. Marxist theory emphasizes the thesis of the integral nature of man, with social factors playing a leading role, and biol. the beginning is presented in a significantly transformed form. With this approach, the biological and the social are not absolutely opposed to each other, but are considered in a systemic unity. Marx explained the characteristic bourgeoisie. theory of separation of the biological from the social conditions of alienation in relations between people generated by private property. In this case, the unity of human nature is torn into opposite, mutually exclusive entities. Marx wrote about this: “... eating, drinking, sexual intercourse, etc. are also truly human functions. But in abstraction, which separates them from the circle of other human activity and turns them into the last and only final goals, they are of an animal nature´ (Marx K. and Engels F., From early works, M. 1956, p. 569). Ch. the factor in the transformation of an animal into humanity was labor, and any attempt to consider humanity in isolation from this factor inevitably leads to the biologization of the social, to metaphysical. reducing Ch. to the level of an animal.
Ch. is not only a universal subject of activity and the creator of all material and spiritual values, he himself ultimately constitutes Ch. value and purpose of development of society. However, in class antagonistic. society, this goal cannot be fully realized. Moreover, in the process of exploitation, capital becomes a means of achieving alien goals of the owner of the means of production. Only with the creation of conditions of social equality does the possibility arise directly. implementation of humanistic goals of societies. development: for the first time, society consciously makes humanity the goal of its development in all the diversity of its needs, implementing a program of comprehensive and harmonious. formation of personality in accordance with the ideals of goodness and justice. It's going to end. a leap from an animal state to a truly human one, “... from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom” (Marx K. and Engels F., Works, vol. 20, p. 295). Along with the elimination of social conditions of alienation, starting with socialism, the eternal contradiction between the individual and society, which reaches extreme forms under capitalism, is overcome. Communism means the restoration of the organic unity of the individual and society, characteristic of the pre-class period of human history, but at a higher level of development.
E. V. Girusov.
Engels F., Anti-Dühring, Marx K. and Engels F., Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 20; Marx K. and Engels F., German ideology, ibid., vol. 3, theirs, From early works., M. 1956, pp. 563-67, 596, 601-02, The relationship between the biological and the social in man, M. 1975, Biological and social in human development, M. 1977, Man. Medical and biological data, trans. from English, M. 1977, Karsaevskaya T.V., Progress of society and problems of holistic biosocial development of modern man, M. 1978, Tarasov K. E., Chernenko E. K., Social determinism of human biology, M. 1979, Methodological problems of studying of man in Marxist philosophy, L., 1979, Human biology, trans. from English, M. 1979; Mazhuga P. M., Khrisanfova E. N., Problems of human biology, K., 1980; Belyaev D.K., Modern science and problems of human research, in the book: Library “Philosophy and modern natural science”, v. 2, M. 1982.
Great definition
Incomplete definition ↓
a creature that embodies the highest stage of development of life on Earth, a subject of socio-historical activity. As a subject and product of labor activity in society, it is a system where the physical and mental, genetically determined and formed in life, natural and social form an indissoluble unity. Psychology studies the human psyche and its development (-> sociogenesis), his individual psychological characteristics (-> individuality; personality), the roles he plays in social life, his activities and communication. Almost all psychology is addressed to the problem of man as an individual involved in social connections, his development in the processes of training and education, his formation in activity and communication.
Human
Modern man belongs to the order of primates, to the suborder of anthropoids, to the genus Homo (man) and to the species sapiens (reasonable). Can be considered as a social being, possessing a complexly organized brain and articulate speech, capable of producing and using tools.
HUMAN
a subject of the historical process of development of material and spiritual culture on Earth, a biosocial being, genetically related to other forms of life, separated from them thanks to the ability to produce tools, possessing articulate speech, thinking and consciousness. In engineering psychology, Ch. is considered as a personality, as a subject of labor, as an individual. Ch. as a person acts as a bearer of certain social relations, is characterized by these relations and their reflection in his consciousness and activity. In the personality structure, three aspects of analysis or three groups of personality properties are distinguished. The first of them - the sociology of personality covers the totality of a person’s relationships to individual groups of society, to the norms and values of both a separate group and society as a whole. In the sociological analysis of personality, the concepts of values, roles and positions are fundamental. The second aspect of personality characterizes the totality of relationships of an individual in a specific group and includes the topology of groups. This aspect can be called socio-psychological or the aspect of group relationships. And, finally, the third aspect concerns the volitional qualities of the individual, the characteristics of the will as a general regulator of the activities of the Ch. Ch. as a subject of labor is considered as a representative of a certain profession that arose in the course of the social division of labor, as a bearer of a set of professional qualities and skills of one kind or another. In this regard, human activity is also considered from the point of view of its role in social production, which is a system of types of private human activity (for example, camera work). In order to work in a specific area of production, a person must have a set of qualities that ensure the implementation of a given activity. Some of these qualities may be initially inherent in a person as a subject of labor, while others may be formed in the process of professional training and professionalization of a person. Ch. as an individual is considered as a biological being, a representative of the biological species Homo sapiens. In this regard, it represents the biological basis of a person’s personal and professional qualities. In the structure of Ch. as an individual, two groups of properties can be distinguished: 1) properties of human systems that determine the physical qualities of the individual; 2) properties of human systems that regulate his behavior in the external environment. Among this group of properties, the properties of the nervous system and especially the higher nervous activity of humans are of particular importance. When considering Ch. as an individual, the problem of individual differences between people is also important. When studying them, there are two main approaches - analytical and synthetic. The three considered aspects of the study and description of human resources are essential for understanding the activities of the operator in the control system. Therefore, the set of concepts characterizing the operator should cover his personal, professional and individual characteristics. In other words, as noted by B.F. Lomov, an urgent necessity when solving problems of engineering psychology is to consider a number not just as an operator, but first of all to study and consider the operator as a number, taking into account the totality of all its properties. The originality of a particular person as an individual, a personality, and a subject of labor characterizes his individuality, which, as B. G. Ananyev noted, “can only be understood as the unity and interconnection of his properties as a person and a subject of activity, in the structure of which certain properties of a person function as individual."
Human
Common Slavic, presumably from “chelo” - top, elevation and “vek” - strength. The original meaning is defined as “possessing full strength, an adult male”) - 1. any member of the species Homo sapiens; 2. any member of that species is masculine; 3. a living being with thinking, speech, and the ability to create tools and use them in the process of social labor; 4. personality as the embodiment of high moral and intellectual properties; 5. in Russia before 1917 - a courtyard servant or generally a landowner serf servant; 6. a fundamental category of philosophy, which is “the semantic center of almost any philosophical system,” man is “always simultaneously a microcosm, microtheos and microsocium.” According to Scheler, “man is, in a certain sense, everything.” In modern naturalism, 2 models of man are considered: a) the biologizing model, according to which man is an analogue of a complex organism (positivism, neobehaviorism, bioethics, etc.); b) a dead-end model of the development of biological systems, considering a person as a “failed animal”, doomed by his biological inferiority to search for “unnatural” ways of existence (Freudianism, philosophical anthropology). As some followers of I.P. Pavlov’s school once said, “man is an animal spoiled by the second signal system.” The existential approach is characterized by the actualization of individual human existence in its fundamental irreducibility to any general laws and patterns external to it and with the primacy of the absolute uniqueness and authenticity of human existence (existentialism, phenomenology, personalism). The sociologizing approach (Marxism, structuralism) is focused on considering a person in the context of broad social connections (“in reality, the essence of a person is the totality of all social relations” - K. Marx, “man is a political animal”, etc.). The modern philosophical situation regarding the doctrine of man is now described as a deeply crisis, which has turned out to be completely incapable of synthesizing the continuously growing volume of diverse knowledge about man and creating a holistic view of him, according to which only a final judgment can be made about his value for the world around him. The main paradox of modern science seems to be that, as knowledge accumulates, man seems to be an increasingly mysterious creature, and it becomes more and more obvious that the fate of human community and culture, or, as pessimists think, time depends on the solution of this particular problem. the fulfillment of apocalyptic prophecies about the end of the present cycle of civilization.
Human (Homo sapiens)
One of the species of the animal kingdom with a highly developed brain, articulate speech and consciousness, complex social organization and special organized labor activity. By nature, man is a unique integral biosocial being who, having inherited the biological mechanisms of life from his evolutionary ancestors, acquired social status as a phenomenon. In ensuring Ch.'s health, its biological (as a result of the struggle for existence) is in conflict with the social (corresponding to the laws of culture, religion, law, etc., requiring respect for other people).
Man has undergone a process of complex biological, cultural and social evolution. Its essential feature is activity that involves awareness of personal and social needs, setting goals and their implementation. In various types of activities, a person’s transformative skills are honed, knowledge of the surrounding world and oneself is deepened, and science, technology, and technology are developed.
Man creates all the riches of civilization, but he himself finds himself dependent on them, faced with worsening global problems. Awareness and practical steps towards preserving and developing the main thing - the spiritual culture of man and society, ideas about benefit, truth, goodness, beauty, justice - come to the fore. In understanding the highest values, the deep essence of man and society is revealed, their relationships are outlined, and the meaning of being is revealed.
Essence of Man
The set of features and characteristics that distinguish it from other living beings is called human nature. The list of such special qualities can be endlessly long. Freedom, spirituality, faith, imagination and fantasy, laughter, awareness of one’s mortality and many other properties and qualities are often added to reason, work, language, and morality. The main quality of a person, his “deep core” is called the essence of man. Let's consider some essential definitions of a person.
Social animal. This is what the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BC) called a person, who believed that a person realizes his essence only in social life, entering into economic, political, and cultural relations with other people. Moreover, not only a person is a product of society, but also society is a product of human activity.
A reasonable man. This definition also goes back to Aristotle. Man, in his opinion, is distinguished from the animal kingdom by his ability to think logically, to be aware of himself, his needs and the world around him. After the advent of the biological classification, Homo sapiens became the standard designation for modern humans.
A creative person. An animal creates something in accordance with a program given by instinct (for example, a spider weaves a web), and a person is able to create something completely new according to programs created by himself. A person actively produces, creates, and his activity is purposeful and has a value meaning. In this understanding, man became a man when he made the first tool.
A man playing. Not a single type of cultural activity is complete without gaming components - justice, war, philosophy, art, etc. It was not only work that made a person human, but also free play time, where he could realize fantasies, develop imagination, create artistic values, communicate, and voluntarily accept general rules.
A religious man. A person has the ability to give sacred meaning to surrounding phenomena, endow them with special meaning, and believe in the supernatural. All known societies, including the most primitive ones, have belief systems of one kind or another.
Some theories see human inferiority and insufficiency. The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) called it sick animals, emphasizing the weakness of man, his lack of initiative, gregariousness, the need for submission and false ideals. Nietzsche viewed the history of society as the gradual degeneration of man. Some social scientists talk about the irrationality of man, since his behavior leads to the destruction of the habitat, the accumulation of weapons, overpopulation, and man-made disasters.
Human nature is so multifaceted that it is necessary to talk about the fundamental uncertainty and indefinability of man. In this regard, Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky (1821-1881) best described the essence of man: “ Man is a mystery..."
Development of views on the essence of man
Man as a thinking and active being originated and developed in unity with other people, being a member of society. Outside society, the existence and development of man and the satisfaction of material and spiritual needs are impossible. But every person and any society as a whole lives not only according to social laws. They grew out of nature, are part of it, obey its laws, and must take care of its conservation. Coordination, unity, harmony of social and natural principles are the immutable laws of the existence of man and society.
Understanding the meaning of human history, the current state of society and the prospects for its further evolution is impossible without insight into the essence, natures) of man himself.
Man is studied by various sciences: biology, anthropology, physiology, medicine, psychology, logic, political science, ethics, economics, jurisprudence, etc. But none of them individually, nor their sum can determine the essence of man as a special representative of nature, the world, Universe. The essence is revealed through analysis and generalization of all the main sides and aspects of human existence. That is why the problem of man appears as one of the main, if not the central problem, existing throughout the history of world philosophical and sociological thought. It is especially actualized during critical periods in the development of society, when the most acute question arises about the meaning of existence of both society and each person. This is exactly the period our national history is going through today.
The thinkers of Ancient India imagined man as a part of the cosmos, connected with him both physically and spiritually, subject to general laws dictated by world mind(Brahmin). Man and his soul submit to the order of the cycle of life (samsara), the law of retribution (karma). For the great Chinese thinker Confucius, human development was determined by the divine sky, guiding people’s morality along the path of humanity, respect, deference, justice, fulfilling the requirements of etiquette, etc.
Many philosophers of Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome connected the life path of a person with cosmic predestination. The destiny of man was considered to be the conquest of the world the order of things. Fatalistic ideas sounded most clearly in the philosophical works of the Stoics (Zeno, Seneca, Marcus Aurelius). Turn to knowledge own essence man is associated with the ideas of the sophists. Their representative Protagoras stated that “man is the measure of all things.” Socrates proclaimed the principle “know thyself.”
In ancient times, different approaches were outlined to understanding the relationship between the physical and spiritual nature of man. If in the East the body and soul of a person were considered organically connected, for example, spiritual development presupposed special physical exercises, a lifestyle, etc., then in Ancient Greece the soul and body were considered as special forms of being. According to Plato, the human soul is immortal, it lives in the world of ideas, settles in the body for a certain period, and after the death of the body returns to its ideal abode. Aristotle tried to “reconcile” both sides
we of human existence, declaring man a “rational animal.”
Under the conditions of the medieval dominance of religion, man was considered as a special being, created “in the image and likeness” of God, elevated above the world and endowed with free will(Augustine the Blessed, Thomas Aquinas). But a person, using free will, commits sins, and a sinful person must constantly worry about the upcoming higher judgment, considering his earthly existence as temporary, not the main thing, as just preparation for an ideal eternal life. Submission to Divine law was declared a necessary form of social life.
The Renaissance raised the question of self-worth, self-worth human existence, its physical and spiritual beauty, creative purpose (N. Kuzansky, M. Montaigne).
Modern times brought philosophical reasoning to the forefront educational human abilities (F. Bacon, R. Descartes). The human mind and science were considered the main engines of social progress.
The ideologists of the Enlightenment (Voltaire, D. Diderot) tied together the mind and morality of man, brought to the fore humanistic approach to resolving social problems.
In German classical philosophy, man became the central object of study. I. Kant tried to establish man as independent the beginning, the source of one’s own cognitive and practical activity. The initial principle of his behavior in society was considered to be an innate moral command - to act in such a way that a person’s actions could serve as a standard of universal legislation. In the philosophy of G. W. F. Hegel, man is subject to the action of the all-encompassing absolute reason dictating laws to nature and society. L. Feuerbach asserted the intrinsic value of human existence as a natural being, guided love to other people.
However, already at that time the dangers associated with an uncritical attitude to the growth of the possibilities of knowledge and science were realized. The essence of man began to contact irrational“extra-rational” factors: the will to live (A. Schopenhauer); will to power (F. Nietzsche); life impulse (A. Bergson); intimate and mystical self-knowledge (J. Gilson, J. Maritain, J. P. Sartre); unconscious instincts (3. Freud); etc.
Marxism (K. Marx, F. Engels, V. I. Lenin) brought to the fore the socio-economic, class side of the person. The economic position of a person in society, determined primarily by the form of ownership of the means of production, was declared to be decisive for the social, political, and spiritual preferences of the individual. The meaning of human life was seen in defending certain class interests, serving the ideals of socialism and communism.
In the history of Russian philosophy, there are two main approaches to the problem of man. The first approach has a materialistic and revolutionary orientation, associated with the ideas of a radical transformation of Russian reality (V. G. Belinsky, A. I. Herzen, N. G. Chernyshevsky). The second approach is of a religious nature, aimed at improving the world in accordance with the ideals of Christianity (F. M. Dostoevsky, L. II. Tolstoy, V. S. Solovyov, II. A. Berdyaev). In modern conditions, philosophy shtset options associations efforts of different philosophical views on the nature of man and his relationship with society in order to determine the most effective strategies for the survival of mankind in the face of global threats - environmental, moral, military, etc. The problems of the cosmic, universal essence of man and humanity are of concern. In this regard, attention to scientific research on anthroposociogenesis is increasing.
What is Human? Meaning and interpretation of the word chelovek, definition of the term
1) Man- - English man/person; German Mensch. The highest stage of development of living organisms on Earth, a subject of social historical activity and culture. Ch. appeared on Earth as a result of a complex and long historical-evolutionary process. Homo sapiens (reasonable man) - no later than 40 thousand years ago. Ch. is a dual being - natural and social.
2) Man - - the highest stage of development of living organisms on Earth, subject of social-historical. activities and culture. In contrast to other living beings, Ch. is ultimately a product of his own material and spiritual activity with all his social qualities (see) and his consciousness. Ch. is not only a product of societies. existence (circumstances and upbringing), but also society itself. being is the result of human activity. Ch. creates the conditions of his own life activity, which, in turn, actively influence his socialization (see), determine not only the nature and content of his activity, but also his attitude to these conditions themselves. Since the living conditions of Ch. or his societies. being is changed by him, then, in order for these conditions (social being) to become truly human, so that a person can begin to live a full social life. life, the person himself must be educated. Educating people means consciously managing the process of internalizing the goals of societies. development, or social goals (see), as values that determine the direction, nature and content of its practical. activities. K. Marx’s position that by changing one’s social being, a person changes himself and thereby creates himself as a social being, implies that the best method of education will be ineffective until it is consistent with the prevailing conditions of social. beings, which must be changed first. Philosophy K. Marx's materialism proceeds from the fact that humanity is not only an object of influence of the surrounding world, but also its subject, i.e., it is a great creative force that changes the surrounding world - nature, society and thinking in accordance with cognizable social . goals aimed at creating conditions for their social. life (or your social existence). Ch. as a unique biological. The species Homo sapiens arose 2 million years ago as a result of a long process of formation of the society, which at the same time was also the period of formation of humanity, i.e., as a result of anthroposociogenesis. By its nature, Ch. is a holistic biosocial. creature. The social in Ch. is not opposed to the biological and does not stem from the biological. Already from birth, Ch. receives such a bodily organization, in which the possibility of its universal social and active development is initially programmed. This means that “social life” does not create anew a human being in each person. nature. It affirms and develops specifically human beings socialized back in anthropogenesis. quality. The essence of humanity, according to K. Marx, is the totality of all societies. relationships. But it would be a mistake to reduce all the richness of Ch.’s existence to just societies. relationships. The definition of the essence of humanity is intended to reflect only those stable connections and relationships that determine the internal logic of the development of humanity. The totality of specific social, biological. and psychological Ch.'s qualities are expressed in the diverse aspects of its existence. HELL. Naletova.
3) Man- - the highest level of development of living organisms on Earth, a subject of socio-historical activity and culture.
4) Man - - a fundamental category of philosophy, which is the semantic center of almost any philosophical system. The complexity of the philosophical definition of Ch. lies in the impossibility of unambiguously subsuming it under any broader generic concept (for example, nature, God or society), since Ch. is always simultaneously a microcosm, microtheos and microsocium. Thus, the philosophical comprehension of Ch. always unfolds not simply through the reconstruction of its essential characteristics, but through the comprehension of its existence in the world, the human world, where “Ch. is, in a certain sense, everything” (Scheler -). Within the framework of the history of philosophy, humanity has traditionally been understood in the unity of its basic modes such as body, soul and spirit. At the same time, the body appears simultaneously as an element of nature, in accordance with the interpretation of which we can talk about its main images in the history of philosophy and science (microcosm, mechanism and organism), and as the human body itself, defined not only through its biological characteristics (non-specialization, " hominid triad ", etc.), but also through a special spectrum of such exclusively human feelings and states as shame, laughter, crying, etc. The soul can also be understood from two main perspectives: firstly, as the vital center of the body, “breath” (“prana”, “psyche”), which is the force that, being itself immortal, outlines the period of bodily existence (its main existentials are here - this is life, death, love); secondly, as an existential principle that individualizes humanity in society and is described in philosophy through the problems of free will, freedom, creativity, and play. The spirit embodies the fundamental essential idea of “humanity” as such, where the specific feature of humanity in the time of Aristotle was associated primarily with the properties of rationality (humanity as a “reasonable animal”) and sociality (“humanity is a political animal”). At the same time, the concept of spirit reflects not only the phenomenon of “spirituality” as an integrative principle of culture and society, but also the personal characteristics of an individual person, where the personal is characterized through the individual embodiment of socially significant qualities, refracted in the focus of “I”, self-awareness. It should be remembered, however, that the separation of body, soul and spirit, carried out within the framework of philosophical analysis, does not reveal all the essential features of a person. A specific person is almost always an exception to the general rule, a unique integrity, where in individual personal experience it is quite difficult to differentiate the bodily , mental and spiritual levels. The idea of personality, as well as the problem of Ch., does not take shape in philosophy and culture right away. For the philosophy of antiquity and the Ancient East, Ch. is, first of all, a fragment of nature, the essence of which is determined by the impersonal world spirit or mind (atman, logos, idea, etc.), and its life path is determined by the laws of fate. At the same time, already at the stage of ancient philosophy, it is possible to record some significant differences in the understanding of Ch. between the East and the West. The East did not know the sharp opposition between body and soul that took shape in Western philosophy and culture. For the Eastern tradition, Ch. is always an organic, but rather short-term connection of cosmic elements, where the soul and body are not just interconnected, but mutually determine each other in the natural wheel of samsara, and where the possible path of salvation and union with atman or Tao involves special exercises of the soul and the body as a whole. In Western philosophy, starting with Plato, the dilemma of soul and body is emphasized. Ch. in Plato appears as an initially dual being, with his body belonging to the vain world of natural processes, and with his rational soul nostalgic for the lost cosmic harmony and eternal ideas. An alternative to Plato in antiquity was Aristotle, who substantiated Ch.'s rootedness in nature, the main potencies of which he most perfectly embodies in the vegetative and sensitive parts of his soul. Considering the soul as the entelechy of the body, Aristotle, in contrast to Plato, reconciled Ch. not only with the natural world, but also with himself, orienting him towards achieving happiness in specific empirical experience, and not in the cosmic wanderings of the soul. Medieval philosophy, having proclaimed humanity “the image and likeness of God,” for the first time in the history of culture established the value status of the individual, endowing him with free will and elevating him above the world of natural necessity and fate. At the same time, for the first time in Augustine, Ch. is really problematized: one’s own soul, reflecting the inscrutability of divine providence, becomes a riddle and a secret for Ch. The philosophy of this time largely acquires an introverted, confessional character, where, through the awareness of a unique personal experience, thinkers sought to comprehend the general laws of human existence. The central theme in Ch.’s description here becomes the phenomenon of sinfulness, which peculiarly sharpened the dualism of soul and body, in the interpretation of which both Platonic and Aristotelian versions were reproduced, associated either with the absolute opposition of soul and body, or with the recognition of their mutual correlation. The revival is significant because it justifies the self-sufficient value of Ch. and his earthly life, which determined the philosophy and ideology of humanism. Ch. is actualized here without the correlation with the deity, which was indispensable for the Middle Ages; in fact, he himself is likened to God in his creative capabilities. Just like in antiquity, the Renaissance is characterized as a microcosm, but not absorbed by the macrocosm, but organically absorbing its basic properties and qualities. In the philosophy and culture of modern times, in accordance with the Cartesian idea of the cogito, there is an emphasis on self-consciousness and the associated processes of individualization of the individual. At the same time, Ch. loses Renaissance universalism and harmony, the diversity of his abilities is reduced to the mind, while the body is mechanized and obeys universal natural laws. The knowledge of law and necessity outlines the boundaries of human freedom, however, despite the special powers of reason, the human race of this time is set primarily as a passive principle, being, in fact, a derivative of external circumstances, a separate atom in the natural and social mechanisms that determine its behavior. The substantiation of Ch.'s creative status in the history of philosophy is associated primarily with romanticism and German transcendental-critical philosophy. The Romantics emphasized the irrational nature of freedom through which human genius reaches the heights of inspiration and creativity. German transcendental-critical philosophy, through the idea of a transcendental subject, substantiated the world-creating capabilities of the human mind (I. Kant, I. G. Fichte), the cultural and historical engagement of human consciousness (G. Hegel). L. Feuerbach characterized the potential of sensuality in creating truly human connections and relationships. For non-classical philosophy of the second half of the 19th and 20th centuries. characterized by a kind of anthropological reorientation associated with the awareness of the crisis of human existence, the identification of its ontological “homelessness” and rootlessness, the recognition of its creative capabilities and the simultaneous understanding of the inevitable limitations and destructiveness of its claims. The interpretation of the problem of Ch. is carried out here in the context of such basic approaches as naturalizing, existential and sociological. Modern naturalism is implemented in two main versions: 1) biologizing models of humanity, which describe it by analogy with other complex organisms, the continuation and development of which are society and humanity. (positivism, neo-behaviorism, bioethics, etc.); 2) versions of Ch., going back to the “philosophy of life,” as a “failed animal,” doomed by his biological inferiority to search for “unnatural” ways of existence (Freudianism, philosophical anthropology). The existential approach in modern philosophy is characterized by the actualization of individual human existence in its fundamental irreducibility to any general laws and patterns external to it. The absolute uniqueness and authenticity of human existence is found here in a situation of existential freedom, which simultaneously pushes humanity away from the world of impersonal existence and reveals to it the true, intimate meanings of being (existentialism, phenomenology, personalism). The sociologizing approach (Marxism, structuralism) is focused on considering humanity in the context of broader social connections, the product of which it is. The credo of this trend can be expressed by the famous Marxian phrase that “in its reality, the essence of Ch... is the totality of all social relations.” Marxism views humanity primarily as an active subject and historically: in the process of objective and practical activity, humanity transforms nature and itself. Structuralist concepts of humanity analyze it in the context of fundamental social structures (political, ideological, semantic, etc.), of which it acts as a separate element and function, without in any way claiming their possible transformation. The modern philosophical situation is characterized by a peculiar crisis of the traditional problem of Ch., which is due, on the one hand, to the recognition of the impossibility of creating a holistic model of Ch. capable of synthesizing the main philosophical and scientific achievements (the most recent attempt of this kind was made within the framework of philosophical anthropology). It is significant that disappointment in the constructive possibilities of philosophy occurs against the background of a fairly rapid development of more applied sciences about humanity (psychology, sociology, cultural studies, ethnography, linguistics, etc.). On the other hand, one of the slogans of postmodern philosophy was the idea of the “death of the subject,” the dissolution of humanity in vital, technical, semantic and other processes. At the same time, it is difficult to imagine the existence of philosophy without its central problem, which is the problem of Ch., and it is obvious that the modern crisis situation only precedes new options for comprehending the nature and essence of Ch., associated with new faces of culture and philosophy. also: Humanism, Self-consciousness, Superman, Philosophical anthropology, Scheler. E.V. Khomich
Human
English man/person; German Mensch. The highest stage of development of living organisms on Earth, a subject of social historical activity and culture. Ch. appeared on Earth as a result of a complex and long historical-evolutionary process. Homo sapiens (reasonable man) - no later than 40 thousand years ago. Ch. is a dual being - natural and social.
The highest stage of development of living organisms on Earth, subject of social-historical. activities and culture. In contrast to other living beings, Ch. is ultimately a product of his own material and spiritual activity with all his social qualities (see) and his consciousness. Ch. is not only a product of societies. existence (circumstances and upbringing), but also society itself. being is the result of human activity. Ch. creates the conditions of his own life activity, which, in turn, actively influence his socialization (see), determine not only the nature and content of his activity, but also his attitude to these conditions themselves. Since the living conditions of Ch. or his societies. being is changed by him, then, in order for these conditions (social being) to become truly human, so that a person can begin to live a full social life. life, the person himself must be educated. Educating people means consciously managing the process of internalizing the goals of societies. development, or social goals (see), as values that determine the direction, nature and content of its practical. activities. K. Marx’s position that by changing one’s social being, a person changes himself and thereby creates himself as a social being, implies that the best method of education will be ineffective until it is consistent with the prevailing conditions of social. beings, which must be changed first. Philosophy K. Marx's materialism proceeds from the fact that humanity is not only an object of influence of the surrounding world, but also its subject, i.e., it is a great creative force that changes the surrounding world - nature, society and thinking in accordance with cognizable social . goals aimed at creating conditions for their social. life (or your social existence). Ch. as a unique biological. The species Homo sapiens arose 2 million years ago as a result of a long process of formation of the society, which at the same time was also the period of formation of humanity, i.e., as a result of anthroposociogenesis. By its nature, Ch. is a holistic biosocial. creature. The social in Ch. is not opposed to the biological and does not stem from the biological. Already from birth, Ch. receives such a bodily organization, in which the possibility of its universal social and active development is initially programmed. This means that “social life” does not create anew a human being in each person. nature. It affirms and develops specifically human beings socialized back in anthropogenesis. quality. The essence of humanity, according to K. Marx, is the totality of all societies. relationships. But it would be a mistake to reduce all the richness of Ch.’s existence to just societies. relationships. The definition of the essence of humanity is intended to reflect only those stable connections and relationships that determine the internal logic of the development of humanity. The totality of specific social, biological. and psychological Ch.'s qualities are expressed in the diverse aspects of its existence. HELL. Naletova.
The highest stage of development of living organisms on Earth, a subject of socio-historical activity and culture.
A fundamental category of philosophy, which is the semantic center of almost any philosophical system. The complexity of the philosophical definition of Ch. lies in the impossibility of unambiguously subsuming it under any broader generic concept (for example, nature, God or society), since Ch. is always simultaneously a microcosm, microtheos and microsocium. Thus, the philosophical comprehension of Ch. always unfolds not simply through the reconstruction of its essential characteristics, but through the comprehension of its existence in the world, the human world, where “Ch. is, in a certain sense, everything” (Scheler -). Within the framework of the history of philosophy, humanity has traditionally been understood in the unity of its basic modes such as body, soul and spirit. At the same time, the body appears simultaneously as an element of nature, in accordance with the interpretation of which we can talk about its main images in the history of philosophy and science (microcosm, mechanism and organism), and as the human body itself, defined not only through its biological characteristics (non-specialization, " hominid triad ", etc.), but also through a special spectrum of such exclusively human feelings and states as shame, laughter, crying, etc. The soul can also be understood from two main perspectives: firstly, as the vital center of the body, “breath” (“prana”, “psyche”), which is the force that, being itself immortal, outlines the period of bodily existence (its main existentials are here - this is life, death, love); secondly, as an existential principle that individualizes humanity in society and is described in philosophy through the problems of free will, freedom, creativity, and play. The spirit embodies the fundamental essential idea of “humanity” as such, where the specific feature of humanity in the time of Aristotle was associated primarily with the properties of rationality (humanity as a “reasonable animal”) and sociality (“humanity is a political animal”). At the same time, the concept of spirit reflects not only the phenomenon of “spirituality” as an integrative principle of culture and society, but also the personal characteristics of an individual person, where the personal is characterized through the individual embodiment of socially significant qualities, refracted in the focus of “I”, self-awareness. It should be remembered, however, that the separation of body, soul and spirit, carried out within the framework of philosophical analysis, does not reveal all the essential features of a person. A specific person is almost always an exception to the general rule, a unique integrity, where in individual personal experience it is quite difficult to differentiate the bodily , mental and spiritual levels. The idea of personality, as well as the problem of Ch., does not take shape in philosophy and culture right away. For the philosophy of antiquity and the Ancient East, Ch. is, first of all, a fragment of nature, the essence of which is determined by the impersonal world spirit or mind (atman, logos, idea, etc.), and its life path is determined by the laws of fate. At the same time, already at the stage of ancient philosophy, it is possible to record some significant differences in the understanding of Ch. between the East and the West. The East did not know the sharp opposition between body and soul that took shape in Western philosophy and culture. For the Eastern tradition, Ch. is always an organic, but rather short-term connection of cosmic elements, where the soul and body are not just interconnected, but mutually determine each other in the natural wheel of samsara, and where the possible path of salvation and union with atman or Tao involves special exercises of the soul and the body as a whole. In Western philosophy, starting with Plato, the dilemma of soul and body is emphasized. Ch. in Plato appears as an initially dual being, with his body belonging to the vain world of natural processes, and with his rational soul nostalgic for the lost cosmic harmony and eternal ideas. An alternative to Plato in antiquity was Aristotle, who substantiated Ch.’s rootedness in nature, the main potencies of which he most perfectly embodies in the vegetative and sensitive parts of his soul. Considering the soul as the entelechy of the body, Aristotle, in contrast to Plato, reconciled Ch. not only with the natural world, but also with himself, orienting him towards achieving happiness in specific empirical experience, and not in the cosmic wanderings of the soul. Medieval philosophy, having proclaimed humanity “the image and likeness of God,” for the first time in the history of culture established the value status of the individual, endowing him with free will and elevating him above the world of natural necessity and fate. At the same time, for the first time in Augustine, Ch. is really problematized: one’s own soul, reflecting the inscrutability of divine providence, becomes a riddle and a secret for Ch. The philosophy of this time largely acquires an introverted, confessional character, where, through the awareness of a unique personal experience, thinkers sought to comprehend the general laws of human existence. The central theme in Ch.’s description here becomes the phenomenon of sinfulness, which peculiarly sharpened the dualism of soul and body, in the interpretation of which both Platonic and Aristotelian versions were reproduced, associated either with the absolute opposition of soul and body, or with the recognition of their mutual correlation. The revival is significant because it justifies the self-sufficient value of Ch. and his earthly life, which determined the philosophy and ideology of humanism. Ch. is actualized here without the correlation with the deity, which was indispensable for the Middle Ages; in fact, he himself is likened to God in his creative capabilities. Just like in antiquity, the Renaissance is characterized as a microcosm, but not absorbed by the macrocosm, but organically absorbing its basic properties and qualities. In the philosophy and culture of modern times, in accordance with the Cartesian idea of the cogito, there is an emphasis on self-consciousness and the associated processes of individualization of the individual. At the same time, Ch. loses Renaissance universalism and harmony, the diversity of his abilities is reduced to the mind, while the body is mechanized and obeys universal natural laws. The knowledge of law and necessity outlines the boundaries of human freedom, however, despite the special powers of reason, the human race of this time is set primarily as a passive principle, being, in fact, a derivative of external circumstances, a separate atom in the natural and social mechanisms that determine its behavior. The substantiation of Ch.'s creative status in the history of philosophy is associated primarily with romanticism and German transcendental-critical philosophy. The Romantics emphasized the irrational nature of freedom through which human genius reaches the heights of inspiration and creativity. German transcendental-critical philosophy, through the idea of a transcendental subject, substantiated the world-creating capabilities of the human mind (I. Kant, I. G. Fichte), the cultural and historical engagement of human consciousness (G. Hegel). L. Feuerbach characterized the potential of sensuality in creating truly human connections and relationships. For non-classical philosophy of the second half of the 19th and 20th centuries. characterized by a kind of anthropological reorientation associated with the awareness of the crisis of human existence, the identification of its ontological “homelessness” and rootlessness, the recognition of its creative capabilities and the simultaneous understanding of the inevitable limitations and destructiveness of its claims. The interpretation of the problem of Ch. is carried out here in the context of such basic approaches as naturalizing, existential and sociological. Modern naturalism is implemented in two main versions: 1) biologizing models of humanity, which describe it by analogy with other complex organisms, the continuation and development of which are society and humanity. (positivism, neo-behaviorism, bioethics, etc.); 2) versions of Ch., going back to the “philosophy of life,” as a “failed animal,” doomed by his biological inferiority to search for “unnatural” ways of existence (Freudianism, philosophical anthropology). The existential approach in modern philosophy is characterized by the actualization of individual human existence in its fundamental irreducibility to any general laws and patterns external to it. The absolute uniqueness and authenticity of human existence is found here in a situation of existential freedom, which simultaneously pushes humanity away from the world of impersonal existence and reveals to it the true, intimate meanings of being (existentialism, phenomenology, personalism). The sociologizing approach (Marxism, structuralism) is focused on considering humanity in the context of broader social connections, the product of which it is. The credo of this trend can be expressed by the famous Marxian phrase that “in its reality, the essence of Ch... is the totality of all social relations.” Marxism views humanity primarily as an active subject and historically: in the process of objective and practical activity, humanity transforms nature and itself. Structuralist concepts of humanity analyze it in the context of fundamental social structures (political, ideological, semantic, etc.), of which it acts as a separate element and function, without in any way claiming their possible transformation. The modern philosophical situation is characterized by a peculiar crisis of the traditional problem of Ch., which is due, on the one hand, to the recognition of the impossibility of creating a holistic model of Ch. capable of synthesizing the main philosophical and scientific achievements (the most recent attempt of this kind was made within the framework of philosophical anthropology). It is significant that disappointment in the constructive possibilities of philosophy occurs against the background of a fairly rapid development of more applied sciences about humanity (psychology, sociology, cultural studies, ethnography, linguistics, etc.). On the other hand, one of the slogans of postmodern philosophy was the idea of the “death of the subject,” the dissolution of humanity in vital, technical, semantic and other processes. At the same time, it is difficult to imagine the existence of philosophy without its central problem, which is the problem of Ch., and it is obvious that the modern crisis situation only precedes new options for comprehending the nature and essence of Ch., associated with new faces of culture and philosophy. also: Humanism, Self-consciousness, Superman, Philosophical anthropology, Scheler. E.V. Khomich
