Philosophical understanding of life. Philosophical comprehension of technology Philosophical comprehension

1. Philosophical understanding of the problem

Human society is part of nature. And it doesn't need much proof. After all, natural chemical, biological and other processes take place in the body of each person. The human body acts as a natural basis for its social activities in the field of production, politics, science, culture, etc.

As a rule, natural processes occurring in society acquire a social form, and natural, primarily biological, patterns act as biosocial ones. This can be said about the satisfaction of people's natural needs for food, warmth, procreation, and others. All of them are satisfied in a social form with the help of appropriately prepared food (almost every nation has its own “kitchen”), a built dwelling, most often meeting certain aesthetic criteria, and also with the help of socially organized family communication. Biosocial laws express the mutual influence of biological and social principles in the development of society.

The role of nature in the life of society has always been significant, because it acts as a natural basis for its existence and development. People satisfy many of their needs at the expense of nature, primarily the external natural environment. There is a so-called exchange of substances between man and nature - a necessary condition for the existence of man and society. The development of any society, of all mankind is included in the process of development of nature, in constant interaction with it, and, ultimately, in the existence of the Universe.

The organic connection between man and nature makes it necessary to fully take into account natural factors in the development of society. That is why nature has always been the object of attention of philosophers and philosophical reflection. Eternal philosophical questions are to clarify the interaction of man and his natural environment, the relationship of man and society to space. Universe. These questions worried the philosophers of antiquity and modern times, they also worry modern philosophers. Philosophy poses and in its own way solves such questions as the interaction of natural (material) and spiritual principles in the development of man and society, the relationship between nature and human culture. Important philosophical questions are how the nature of the interaction between society and nature changes at different stages of the historical development of man and what is the nature of their interaction in the modern era. In this regard, a number of environmental and demographic problems arise, which will be discussed.

On the one hand, it is wrong to oppose society and nature, for example, by reducing the development of society exclusively to the development of consciousness, including the consciousness of individuals, the “intellectual evolution of mankind” (O. Comte), or to the self-development of the world spirit (Hegel), etc. e. The development of society is carried out in the process of people's activities and the improvement of their social relations. At the same time, this is the development of individual individuals who satisfy most of their needs, including spiritual ones, at the expense of nature. So the presence of consciousness, the spiritual principle in man and society does not prove their independence or autonomy in relation to nature. Organic connection with nature has been and remains a fundamental regularity in the development of society. It manifests itself not only in the field of meeting the needs of people, but, above all, in the functioning of social production, and ultimately in the development of all material and spiritual culture. So, without interaction with nature, society cannot exist and develop. Their artificial break and metaphysical opposition are far-fetched, untrue.

On the other hand, it would be wrong to represent society only as a part of nature and ignore its specific features. Such an identification is explained by the characterization of people only as natural beings with equally natural connections between themselves, as well as between them and the environment. Their social ties, which they enter into in the process of production, family, household, political and other activities, are not taken into account. Ultimately, the social content of people's social practice, on the basis of which their social and individual consciousness arises and develops, is ignored.

The presence in people of not only natural, but also social properties, primarily the ability to think and carry out conscious labor and other activities, qualitatively distinguishes them from other natural beings and makes them perceive them and society as a whole as a specific part of nature. This avoids their identification. Both in individuals and in society, natural, primarily biological, and social qualities are combined. Therefore, modern philosophy interprets man as a biosocial being, and a number of objective laws of the development of society (concerning, for example, the functioning of the family, population growth, etc.) as biosocial. All this emphasizes the interconnection in the development of man and society of biological and social principles.

Coming out of the bosom of nature, as its highest and specific manifestation, society does not lose its ties with it, although it significantly changes their character. The connections of people with nature are carried out mainly on the basis of and within the framework of their social activities, primarily production, related to the field of material and spiritual production.

Nature has been and remains a natural environment and a prerequisite for the existence and development of society. Its natural environment primarily includes the earth's landscape, including mountains, plains, fields, forests, as well as rivers, lakes, seas, oceans, etc. All this constitutes the so-called geographical environment of people's lives. However, the natural environment is not limited to this. It also includes the bowels of the earth, the atmosphere and space, and ultimately all the natural conditions of human life and the development of society - from the microcosm to the macro- and mega-world.

The importance for society of both inanimate and animate nature is increasing. Living nature makes up the biosphere of the Earth: flora and fauna, the existence of which is objectively necessary for the existence of man and society.

Assessing the importance of nature in the life of society, some thinkers came to the conclusion that it completely determines its development. Pointing to the harmony and beauty of nature, one of the representatives of philosophical romanticism, J. J. Rousseau, argued that the separation of mankind from nature and its transition to civilization (which he characterized as vicious) is the source of all the troubles and misfortunes of people. The preservation of organic unity with nature is the key to the well-being of society, each person. The truth and value of judgments about the unity of society and nature are especially clear to us today.

The decisive role of nature in the development of society was pointed out by the ancient thinker Herodoti, thinkers of the New Age C. Montesquieu, A. Turgot, and others. The latter developed views that came to be known as geographical determinism. Its essence lies in the assertion that nature, which is interpreted as the geographical environment of the life of society, acts as the main cause of the phenomena occurring in society. It determines not only the direction of the economic life of people, but also their mental make-up, temperament, character, customs and mores, aesthetic views and even forms of government and legislation, in a word, their entire social and personal life. So, C. Montesquieu argued that the climate, soils and geographical position of the country are the reason for the existence of various forms of state power and legislation, determine the psychology of people and the warehouse of their character. He wrote that "the peoples of hot climates are timid like old men, the peoples of cold climates are brave like youths." In his opinion, the climate and geographical environment determine the "character of the mind and passion of the heart", which inevitably affects the psychology of people, the nature of their art, customs and laws.

Geographical determinism first appeared as an anti-religious doctrine, seeking to prove the earthly origin of social order. However, over time, it was reborn into the so-called geopolitics, i.e. the theory and political doctrine, according to which the main condition for the development of a country is the expansion of its territory, living space, and spheres of its vital interests. This approach brings geopolitics closer to racist and fascist doctrines.

Of course, nature, including the geographical environment, has one or another influence on the economic, political and spiritual development of society. However, they are much more influenced by the practical activities of people, guided by their needs, interests, goals and ideals. Nevertheless, the role of nature in all areas of activity of modern mankind is very significant and is constantly increasing.

The degree of society's influence on nature is also increasing, especially in the last century in connection with the rapid development of science and technology. This shows the strengthening of the influence of the human mind on different areas of nature - from the microcosm to the megaworld. The habitat of mankind in the broadest sense becomes the environment for the active influence of the human mind - the noosphere (from the Greek noos - mind, mind). Thus, the biosphere as a sphere of living nature, which includes human society, under its influence turns into a noosphere, the limits of which expand many times and are determined each time by the limits of penetration into the nature of the human mind.

It must be said that the concept of the noosphere was introduced in the 20s. of our century, the French scientist E. Leroy (1870-1954). At the origins of the concept of the noosphere are the works of the great Russian scientist V. I. Vernadsky (1863-1945) and the French thinker P. Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955). They showed that the modern era is a fundamentally new nature of the interaction between society and nature. We are talking about a more active than ever, the penetration of mankind into the secrets of nature and the mastery of its laws. As a result, it is increasingly placed at the service of man and at the same time requires protection from incompetent interference in its processes. The human mind is considered as a specific component of the natural world, the importance of which is constantly growing.

V. I. Vernadsky believed that as the connection between society and nature becomes deeper and more organic, human history more and more coincides with the history of nature, and vice versa, the history of nature more and more coincides with the history of mankind, experiences the increasing influence of the latter . And it must be said that the state of peace and the harmonious relations of people in society are more favorable not only for society itself, but also for nature than wars or social and interethnic conflicts.

The concept of the noosphere characterizes society in all its relationships with nature, reveals their social, scientific, technical and moral aspects, points to the scientific foundations of morality, democracy and humanism. Its main goal is to determine the scientific and moral principles for achieving harmonious relations between society and nature.

Based on the use of the energy and matter of nature, the practical application of its laws, the world of modern civilization has been created, which has become the most important part of the noosphere. This world, not without reason, is called "second nature", because the objects of civilization are most often the material of nature, exposed to human labor. As a result, they acquire properties and forms due to which they can satisfy the needs of people. Modern civilization, being the most dynamic element of the noosphere, expands and qualitatively improves its impact on nature. This, however, does not mean that the results of this impact are always positive.

This text is an introductory piece.

Category " communication has a significant history of scientific reflection in philosophy. Consideration of the system of views on the problem of communication from the point of view of philosophical understanding of the communicative process will allow not only to determine the main approaches to the study of the essence of communication, but mainly to identify the main "vectors" that determine communication as a phenomenon, the role of communication in human life, which is the main task of analyzing the philosophical material and its further use in the professional activities of a journalist. The theoretical vision of the concept of "communication" will allow reaching the practical use of the mechanisms of communication in journalism.

The problem of communication has not developed in a straight line in the history of philosophy. Rather, this process could be called a zigzag, each “parabolic” jump of which occurred at the moments when a person “climbed” onto the “pedestal” of history. In many ways, it was interest in a person that became that “Archimedean” point (V. Dilthey), which determined the philosophical understanding of the characteristic features and characteristics of communication, the establishment of its genetic links with the processes of development and self-development of the personality, with its activity.

Interest in communication arose in the classical period antiquity (Socrates, Plato), when there was a shift in emphasis towards "holistic plastic perception of man." Such a vision made it possible to draw the attention of philosophers to communication as "a kind of unity of souls." Communication-dialogue during this period becomes “ standard form of mutually educational human contacts"(S.T. Wyman). This was due, first of all, to a new understanding of the process of communication, which was perceived as a "problematic, conceptual" somersault "that allows one to break through to the birth of truth through immersion in the" semantic abyss ". Availability " a single syntactic field: I am the subject, you are the predicate" allowed the participants in communication to help the birth of truth in the Other through mutual understanding through mutual overcoming”(as defined by S.T. Wyman). This predetermined the dialogic construction of the Other, its interchange taking place in a certain communicative mode.

This approach to the definition of truth allowed in the course of communication "to be born a new being", "something-essence", unthinkable before the conversation. This understanding of communication was an innovative step in the history of philosophy and culture on the way to modern understanding. dialogue as " a complex phenomenon that produces a completely special, unpredictable semantic essence before the dialogue”, as defined by M.M. Bakhtin, V.S. Bibler, G.G. Gadamer, E. Fromm and others).

At the same time, it was also important that ancient philosophers perceived communication as “mutual educational” contacts, during which it is possible to educate oneself as a person capable of constant self-development and self-improvement.

However, the perception of communication by ancient philosophers solely as intellectual, based only on the transfer of opinions and knowledge, was far from complete, fragmentary, and did not fully determine the essence of communication in the system of human relationships.

A new understanding of human communication is associated with the era Renaissance and the formation of humanism, with a period when the human being was perceived as a special microcosm, pulling the world around him (P. Mirandola, N. Kuzansky), as a “model of the world” (Leonardo da Vinci). The proclamation of the “expansionism” of a person entailed an artistic study of human communication in the works of D. Alighieri, G. Boccaccio, F. Petrarch and others. love, and supported by the principles of kindness, equality of all people, harmony proclaimed by G. Manetti, M. Ficino, F. Patrici and others.

Such an approach to a person contributed to the first touch (M. Luther, J. Calvin, W. Zwingli, L. Villa, etc.) to what is today called "communicative ethics", "rational ethics of discourse", which includes the following aspects, which are relevant for the modern understanding of communication:

- "attitude" and "attitude" to the world of the interlocutor;

Trust-understanding ("hermeneutic") attitude towards another;

Possibility of diverse opinions (pluralism);

- "persuasion with the help of various arguments";

Rational organization of the discussion;

- "listening" (penetration) to the meaning of what was said;

Alignment of interests;

- "dialectical" discussion of the subject, etc.

However, the omnipresence of the inner world of a person largely obscured from the philosophers of the Renaissance the relationship of a person to a person (determining the essence of communication), which, if they were considered, was only cognitive, crowned with an “act of divine creation”.

Late XIX - early XX centuries. marked by a new "surge" of interest in communication, which is associated with an increase in faith in man, in the moral and humanistic principle, the revival of the ideal of a strong and free personality - the ideal of antiquity and the Renaissance. "Troublemakers" (A. Schopenhauer, S. Kierkegaard, F. Nietzsche) asserted the self-worth of a person as "once a miracle happened" (F. Nietzsche), saw in him the strength for self-liberation. “We all carry hidden gardens in ourselves ... and we are all ... like volcanoes, for which the hour of their eruption will still come” (F. Nietzsche). The choice of oneself, one's unique and unrepeatable Self can only be made by a “truly religious person” (S. Kierkegaard), a “superman” (F. Nietzsche), capable of creating a new human community that unites people moving towards each other. " What bonds are the strongest? What bonds are almost inseparable? People of a highly chosen breed will have duties - the reverence that is inherent in youth, and tenderness for everything that has been revered and worthy since ancient times, gratitude for the soil from which they grew, the hand that led them, the temple in which they learned to worship ... "(from the book "History of Philosophy: West - Russia - East (book three: Philosophy of the XIX - XX centuries). - M .: "Greco-Latin Cabinet" by Yu.A. Shichalin, 1999). It is precisely such bonds, according to philosophers, that should determine the value of a person through the ideas of others about him, through the aspirations to see I through You in the process of communication and interaction.

The problem of communication as such was not considered by these philosophers, but they put forward an important idea concerning the foundations of the system of relationships and communication between people. In relations with another person, according to A. Schopenhauer, primacy should be given to morality, expressed in the phenomena of compassion, justice and philanthropy: “ In contact with each person, do not give him an objective assessment in accordance with his value and dignity ... but take into account only his suffering, his need ... - then you will feel constant kinship and sympathy for him ... you will feel for him the very compassion that that alone is agape (love) to which the gospel calls"(A. Schopenhauer). Such a vision of a person was important, but not sufficient to determine the essence of communication in the system of relationships between people.

In the "Russian spiritual renaissance", in the works of the religious and cosmological direction (V.S. Solovyov, N.A. Berdyaev, V.V. Zenkovsky, N.O. Lossky, etc.), Man was also affirmed in his unity with the cosmos and nature. Proclaiming the primacy of the individual over society, religious philosophers emphasized the human desire not for self-isolation and self-contemplation, but for “ opening into the universe, to filling with universal content, to communication with everything"(N. Berdyaev). Communication, in their opinion, is “some primary quality, a fundamental feature of every consciousness” (N. Lossky).

However, it should be noted that when speaking of man as "some great world - a microcosm", religious philosophers often did not see him as a figure in history, preferring God. It followed from this that communication between people was not considered by them as an independent problem. But due to its significance, they could not help touching it, because they understood that only in the communication of a person with a person can be realized - "all-unity": " I call true pan-unity such in which the unity exists not at the expense of all or to the detriment of them, but for the benefit of all."(V. Solovyov).

In connection with such an understanding of Man, religious philosophers saw in communication:

The principle of spiritual changes in the personality of those who communicate (N.A. Berdyaev);

The way of knowing the other in the process of "feeling" - the direct perception of "someone else's pain", which cannot become an "experience" of the person who fixes it, but can enter the horizon of "consciousness as an object of observation", influencing those who communicate, causing a spiritual movement in them (Н .O. Lossky);

The condition for the growth of unity (N.A. Berdyaev, N.O. Lossky), spiritual, primary and indecomposable unity, internal unity (S.L. Frank), the birth of “cathedralism” (V. Rozanov), the formation of synthesis (D. Merezhkovsky ), "collectivist" connection (A.A. Meyer) of people.

The merit of this period of history is that in the place of a person as a cognizing subject comes a “holistic person”, interest in the study of which is still observed.

Understanding the integrity of a person in philosophy helps in many ways to comprehend the role of communication in the process of human life. Thus, the representative of Christian anthropology, the Slavophile I.V. Kireevsky, believed that the integrity of a person should be defined as "anthropological integrity", as "psychophysiological and social certainty", in which natural and internal meanings interact with a functional role. Modern researchers adhere to a similar position: A.N. Leontiev presents a person as a holistic formation of a special kind, V.S. Polikarpov defines a person as a “cosmobiopsychosocial phenomenon”, V.S. Lednev - as a personality, acting in the unity of all its properties and aspects, Ya. Shchepansky - as an integral integrity of biogenic, psychogenic and sociogenic elements, V.P. Kaznacheev - as an integral "cosmoplanetary phenomenon", Yu.G. Volkov - as "as an integrating factor of human nature", who believe that it is the personality " fuses into a single whole the cosmic, biological, mental, social and cultural aspects of human nature».

Such an understanding helps to understand a person as a multi-level phenomenon, similar to the Universe, one of the components of which is a person as a social being. From here it is possible to isolate the connection between a person and society, i.e. approach the problem of human relations and the role of communication in their formation. Russian philosophers, who perceive a person as a microcosm, considered a person to be a special procedural whole, the existence and formation of which is impossible without his contacts with the outside world.

In modern science, an understanding of the integrity of a person has developed as a kind of complex structure, interpreted by researchers in different ways. So, A.A. Bogdanov perceives a person as "a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts." A.S. Mamzin substantiates the complexity of the relationships between the parts of the whole and believes that the nature of human integrity is multi-qualitative and multi-level. V.N. Sagatovsky develops a holistic concept of a multidimensional person. T.P. Malkova and M.A. Frolov characterize a person as a systemic whole, in which "... interaction and mutual influence of nature, society and culture gives rise to new qualities". Despite the ambiguity of approaches to understanding a person as a holistic, structurally and hierarchically complex system of a high level of organization, built on the principle of interaction between internal and external manifestations, the idea of developing the integrity of a person through the implementation of his contacts with the outside world and other people is clearly traced (see table 1) .

Table 1 - Semantic approaches of philosophers to communication through the understanding of a Human

Historical and philosophical period	Brief description of the essence of man	Understanding Communication
Ancient philosophy of the classical period (Socratic period) (Socrates, Plato).	Holistic, plastic perception of a person.	Communication is a dialogue as a complex phenomenon that produces a very special, unpredictable semantic essence before the dialogue - a standard form of mutually educational human contacts.
Philosophy of the Renaissance (J. Manetti, M. Ficino, M. Luther, L. Villa, etc.).	Man as a special microcosm, "model of the world".	Communication as a sensory-reasonable model based on the humanistic principles of freedom, love, kindness, equality, etc.
Philosophy of Modern Times (XVII century) (F. Bacon, J. Locke, B. Spinoza, T. Hobbes and others).	Man is recognized as a social being - the subject of knowledge.	Communication as a means of knowing other people and the world around
Philosophy of the XVIII-XIX centuries. (I. Goethe, I.F. Schiller, F.W. Schelling, I. Kant, J.G. Fichte, L. Feuerbach and others).	Man as the highest value is considered in accordance with the moral principles of freedom and other humanistic values.	Communication as an "arena" for the fulfillment of the moral law.
Philosophy of the late 19th - early 20th centuries: Philosophy of "troublemakers" (F. Nietzsche, A. Schopenhauer, S. Kierkegaard and others). "Russian spiritual renaissance" - regilio-cosmological direction (V.S. Solovyov, N.A. Berdyaev, V.V. Zenkovsky, N.O. Losky and others).	Man as a strong free personality. A holistic man was affirmed as a microcosm in unity with the Cosmos and nature, but preference was given to God; in man they did not see the figure of history.	The problem of communication as such was not considered, but the ethical categorical imperative, expressed in the phenomena of compassion, justice, and philanthropy, was taken as the basis for relationships and communication between people. Communication was not considered as an independent problem, although communication was recognized as necessary for the implementation of "all-unity".
Domestic philosophy of the twentieth century (V.N. Sagatovsky, A.A. Bogdanov, A.S. Mamzin, Yu.G. Volkov, V.S. Polikarpov, etc.).	Man as "anthropological integrity", as "psychophysiological and social certainty"	Communication as a necessary need that exists in the system of subject-subject relations.

Considering the first question "Society as a system. Concepts of society: naturalistic, idealistic, dialectical-materialistic" it should be noted that the subject of social philosophy is society, taken as an integral system, as well as the laws of functioning and development of society.

Society arose as a result of a complex process of the formation of a person, his separation from nature, and can be considered as a subsystem of objective reality, which has a certain specificity.

The concept of "society" is one of the central problems of social philosophy. The most common in modern science is the following definition.

Society- a system of relationships between people, arising as a result of their joint life. This is a system of activity and life of people united by the territory of residence, era, traditions and culture.

Society It is a necessary and natural form of human life together. Human nature makes people live with each other. Outside of society, the reproduction of human life is impossible. In addition to the people themselves, society reproduces the basic relationships and connections between them, as well as the means of satisfying their material and spiritual needs.

The Latin verb "socio" means "to unite, unite, start a joint work." Hence the concepts of "social" and "public"; "society" and "society" are equivalent.

Historically, in addition to society, there are other communities of people. These are, for example, a family, a people - a large group of people connected by a common language and culture, a nation - an association of people based on economic, national-linguistic, cultural and political-territorial proximity, a state - a form of organizing the life of peoples and nations based on law. and power.

In the history of philosophy, different approaches to understanding society have evolved (see Diagram 80).

In ancient philosophy, the emergence of society is explained by the natural need of people to live together, and society, which was synonymous with the concepts of "hostel", "community", was considered as part of nature. In the Middle Ages, the concept of society disappears, being replaced by the concepts of "state", "country", "people". The idea of society as an independent sphere of being, which has specific features of existence, different from the existence of nature and man, was formed only in modern times. Prior to this, philosophical teachings considered either anthropological problems, or only certain aspects of social life: ethical, political, economic, etc.

The formation of sociological problems is attributed to the philosophical teachings of the Enlightenment (XVII-XVIII centuries). Since that time, history has been viewed not as a sequence of events isolated from each other, but as a natural course of interdependent social processes. Since the beginning of the XIX century. society becomes an independent object of study. The first systematized doctrine of society was Hegel's philosophy of history. Hegel considered society (civil society) as a sphere of "comprehensive interweaving of the dependencies of all on all." Even more specifically, society as an independent object of study was stated in the positive philosophy of O. Kosh, within which, in 1839, Comte proclaimed the creation of a new science - the science of society, sociology.

Most philosophers recognize that society is an objectively existing system which has its own characteristic features (integrity, self-sufficiency, self-development, etc.).

The main elements of society considered as a system are spheres.

The main areas of society are:

economic (creation of wealth);
social (building connections between people);
political (society management);
spiritual (creation and preservation of spiritual values); The economic sphere is the area of economic activity of society, the area of creation of wealth.

The economic sphere includes such important components as material needs, economic benefits (goods) that satisfy these needs, economic resources (sources of production of goods), business entities (individuals or organizations).

Social sphere- this is the area of the emergence and functioning of relations between social groups of people.

The social system consists of social groups (social communities), social ties, social institutions (forms in which the most significant social ties are carried out), social norms (rules of social behavior), values of social culture.

Political sphere- this is the area of realization between people of relations of power and subordination, the area of \u200b\u200bmanaging society.

The main elements of the political system of society are: political organizations and institutions (the state, political parties, public organizations, the media), norms of political behavior and political culture, political ideologies.

The main element of the political system of society is the state.

spiritual realm- this is the area of creation and development of spiritual values.

The main element of the spiritual sphere is spiritual values that exist in the form of ideas and receive their material embodiment in the form of language, works of art, etc.

The economic, social and political subsystems of society are studied respectively by economics, sociology and political science. The spiritual sphere is studied within the framework of philosophical disciplines (ethics, aesthetics, religious studies).

Society is an integral system with a material basis. Various relationships are formed in it, which are closely intertwined with each other and which have one or another effect on each other. Rather conditionally, social relations can be represented by such a scheme (see scheme 81).

A look at the history of mankind allows us to note the fact that society is constantly changing. "Where are we from and where are we going, what to expect from the present and the future" - these are the eternal themes of philosophers' reflections on society and its history.

Dialectics considers society in a state of change, that is, it studies it as a process. A process is a sequential change in the state of an object. The socio-historical process is a consistent change in the states of society.

If social events line up in an irreversible series of causes and effects and have a direction, then we can talk about the development of society. Social philosophy uses the concepts of process and regress to characterize the direction of development.

Progress- this is the progressive upward development of society, which is a transition to more advanced forms.

Regression- this is a downward development, which is a return to former social forms.

There is no consensus among philosophers about which of the types of development of society is the main one.

The main forms of social development are evolution and revolution. Evolution is a process of gradual change, and revolution is a sudden transition from one state to another.

In modern philosophy, sociology and cultural studies, the concept of "society" is often used along with the concepts of "culture" and "civilization". From our point of view, these concepts are not the same. Society as a living developing organism can be represented as a combination of various social relations. Culture is completely different.

There is no universal definition of "culture". The concept of "culture" (from the Latin cultura cultivation, processing) was originally associated with "well done". The original form of culture is human labor along with its results.

Culture is a combination of various types and methods of material and spiritual activity, together with their results, which expresses the essential forces of man.

There are material and spiritual cultures. The first covers the production, exchange and distribution of material goods; the second is spiritual production: the production of ideas, ideals, knowledge, objects of art, traditions and customs, moral and legal norms (see diagram 82).

Material culture is an indicator of the level of practical development of nature by man.

spiritual culture- it is, first of all, the treasures of all the riches of the human spirit and mind.

Quite often, culture is divided into Western and Eastern. And this has its advantages, since in this case it will be possible to focus on the fundamental characteristics of the culture of each group. However, at the end of the 20th century, there is a clear tendency to search> common in different types of cultures, there is a process of developing a dialogue of cultures, which fully meets the requirements of today.

Within the framework of this dialogue, opposing ideas inherent in the culture of the West (individualism, rationalism, activity-bone), on the one hand, and ideas characteristic of the culture of the East (impersonal society, self-improvement of man, intuitionism and passive "non-action"), on the other hand, interact. Let's turn to the scheme (see scheme 83).

Studying the question "Global problems of our time and ways to solve them", one should pay attention to the fact that these problems are problems of a universal scale.

In the modern era, there is a globalization of the problems of mankind. Their relevance is associated with a number of factors: the acceleration of social development processes; increase in anthropogenic impact on nature; reduction of natural resources; the ultimate aggravation of the survival of mankind; the all-penetrating influence of modern technical means and mass media, etc.

The global problems of mankind are understood as a complex of the most acute socio-natural contradictions affecting the world as a whole, and with it individual regions and countries. Global problems should be distinguished from regional, local and private.

Global problems- these are problems that cover the whole world and pose a threat to the existence of civilization. It is impossible to solve them by the forces of one state or even a group of states. Here, world cooperation is needed on the basis of full equality, respect, the sovereignty of each participant, the fulfillment of the obligations assumed, the norms of international law.

The immediate cause of global problems is the predominance of spontaneity in the management of natural and social processes, consumer attitude to natural values.

The system of global problems has a concrete historical character. Their exacerbation can cause a crisis of civilization. Today, more than ever, the possibility of a total (universal) destruction of civilization, an irreversible disruption of the mechanisms of the biospheric processes of the Earth and near-Earth space has arisen.

Let us list and briefly formulate the most important of the global problems.

1. The problem of urbanization. The growth of cities and settlements has led to significant changes in the Earth, a reduction in the number of some species, an increase in the number of others, including those harmful to humans and the national economy. How can these violations be compensated?
2. The problem of the demographic crisis. The essence of the problem is the following: will further population growth lead to irreversible destructive consequences for humanity and the biosphere?
3. The problem of the commodity crisis. Here is the essence of the problem - will the growth in the use of raw materials (both organic and mineral) lead to its exhaustion?
4. The problem of the energy crisis - will not all sources of energy available to mankind be exhausted as a result of scientific and technological progress and the extensive development of production?
5. The problem of the ecological crisis - can the growth of mankind and scientific and technological progress irreversibly destroy the Earth's biosphere?

There are a number of other global problems that are components of the above - the problem of global warming, the destruction of the ozone layer, the spread of especially dangerous diseases, etc. Classification of global problems:

1. The first group consists of problems that are associated with relations between the main social communities of mankind, i.e. between groups of states. These problems should be called intersocial. These include the problem of preventing war and ensuring peace, as well as the establishment of a just international economic order.
2. The second group combines problems that are generated by the interaction of society and nature. They are associated with the limited ability of the environment to endure anthropogenic loads, ira such problems as the provision of energy, fuel, fresh water, clean air, etc. This group also includes the problem of protecting nature from irreversible changes of a negative nature, the rational development of the world's oceans and outer space.
3. The third irrynny global problems are those associated with the system of man-society. They directly concern the individual and depend on the ability of society to provide real opportunities for the development of the individual.

All global problems of our time can be divided into three groups (see diagram 84).

Major global problems.

As a rule, natural processes occurring in society acquire a social form, and natural, primarily biological, patterns act as biosocial ones. This can be said about the satisfaction of people's natural needs for food, warmth, procreation, etc. All of them are satisfied in a social form with the help of properly prepared food (almost every nation has its own "kitchen"), a built dwelling, most often meeting certain aesthetic criteria, as well as through socially organized family communication. Biosocial laws express the mutual influence of biological and social principles in the development of society.

The organic connection between man and nature makes it necessary to fully take into account natural factors in the development of society. That is why nature has always been the object of attention of philosophers and philosophical reflection. Eternal philosophical questions are to clarify the interaction of man and his natural habitat, the relationship of man and society to the cosmos, the universe. These questions worried the philosophers of antiquity and modern times, they also worry modern philosophers. Philosophy poses and in its own way solves such questions as the interaction of natural (material) and spiritual principles in the development of man and society, the relationship between nature and human culture. Important philosophical questions are how the nature of the interaction between society and nature changes at different stages of the historical development of man and what is the nature of their interaction in the modern era. In this regard, a number of environmental and demographic problems arise, which will be discussed.

On the one hand, it is wrong to oppose society and nature, for example, reducing the development of society exclusively to the development of consciousness, including the consciousness of individual people, the “intellectual evolution of mankind” (O. Comte), or to the self-development of the world spirit (Hegel), etc. d. The development of society is carried out in the process of people's activities and the improvement of their social relations. At the same time, the ego is the development of individual individuals who satisfy most of their needs, including spiritual ones, at the expense of nature. So the presence of consciousness, the spiritual principle in man and society does not prove their independence or autonomy in relation to nature. Organic connection with nature has been and remains a fundamental regularity in the development of society. It manifests itself not only in the area of meeting the needs of people, but, above all, in the functioning of social production, and ultimately in the development of all material and spiritual culture. So, without interaction with nature, society cannot exist and develop. Their artificial break and metaphysical opposition are far-fetched, untrue.

The presence of people not only natural, but also social properties, primarily the ability to think and carry out conscious labor and other activities, qualitatively distinguishes them from other natural beings and makes them perceive them and society as a whole as a specific part of nature. This avoids their identification. Both in individuals and in society, natural, primarily biological, and social qualities are combined. Therefore, modern philosophy interprets man as a biosocial being, and a number of objective laws of the development of society (concerning, for example, the functioning of the family, population growth, etc.) as biosocial. All this emphasizes the interconnection in the development of man and society of biological and social principles.

Nature has been and remains a natural environment and a prerequisite for the existence and development of society. Its natural environment includes primarily the earthly landscape, including mountains, plains, fields, forests, as well as rivers, lakes, seas, oceans, etc. All this constitutes the so-called geographical environment people's lives. However habitat is not limited to this. It also includes the bowels of the earth, the atmosphere and space, and ultimately all the natural conditions of people's lives and the development of society - from the micro- to the macro- and mega-world.

The importance for society of both inanimate and animate nature is increasing. Wildlife is Earth's biosphere: flora and fauna, the existence of which is objectively necessary for the existence of man and society.

Assessing the importance of nature in the life of society, some thinkers came to the conclusion that it completely determines its development. Pointing to the harmony and beauty of nature, one of the representatives of philosophical romanticism J.-J. Rousseau argued that the separation of mankind from nature and its transition to civilization (which he characterized as vicious) is the source of all the misfortunes and misfortunes of people. The preservation of organic unity with nature is the key to the well-being of society, each person. The truth and value of judgments about the unity of society and nature are especially clear to us today.

The decisive role of nature in the development of society was pointed out by the ancient thinker Herodotus and the modern thinkers C. Montesquieu, A. Turgot, and others. The latter developed views that came to be known as geographical determinism. Its essence lies in the assertion that nature, which is interpreted as the geographical environment of the life of society, acts as the main cause of the phenomena occurring in society. It determines not only the direction of the economic life of people, but also their mental make-up, temperament, character, customs and mores, aesthetic views and even forms of government and legislation, in a word, their entire social and personal life. So, C. Montesquieu argued that the climate, soils and geographical position of the country are the reason for the existence of various forms of state power and legislation, determine the psychology of people and the warehouse of their character. He wrote that "the peoples of hot climates are timid like old men, the peoples of cold climates are brave like young men." In his opinion, the climate and geographical environment determine the "character of the mind and passion of the heart", which inevitably affects the psychology of people, the nature of their art, customs and laws.

Geographical determinism first appeared as an anti-religious doctrine, seeking to prove the earthly origin of social order. However, over time, he was reborn into the so-called geopolitics, i.e. theory and political doctrine, according to which the main condition for the development of a country is the expansion of its territory, living space, spheres of its vital interests. This approach brings geopolitics closer to racist and fascist doctrines.

The degree of society's influence on nature is also increasing, especially in the last century due to the rapid development of science and technology. This shows the strengthening of the influence of the human mind on different areas of nature - from the micro to the mega world. The habitat of mankind in the broadest sense becomes the environment for the active influence of the human mind - noosphere(from Greek. noos mind, intelligence). Thus, the biosphere as a sphere of living nature, which includes human society, under its influence turns into a noosphere, the limits of which expand many times and are determined each time by the limits of penetration into the nature of the human mind.

It must be said that the concept of the noosphere was introduced in the 20s. 20th century French scientist E. Leroy(1870-1954). At the origins of the concept of the noosphere are the works of the great Russian scientist V. I. Vernadsky(1863-1945) and French thinker P. Teilhard de Chardin(1881 - 1955). They showed that the modern era is a fundamentally new nature of the interaction between society and nature. We are talking about a more active than ever, the penetration of mankind into the secrets of nature and the mastery of its laws. As a result, it is increasingly placed at the service of man and at the same time requires protection from incompetent interference in its processes. The human mind is considered as a specific component of the natural world, the importance of which is constantly growing.

V. I. Vernadsky believed that, as the connection between society and nature becomes deeper and more organic, human history more and more coincides with the history of nature, and vice versa, the history of nature more and more coincides with the history of mankind, experiences the increasing influence of the latter . And it must be said that the state of peace and the harmonious relations of people in society are more favorable not only for society itself, but also for nature than wars or social and interethnic conflicts.

Montesquieu Sh. L. About the spirit of laws // Him. Selected works. Moscow: Politizdat, 1955. S. 350.
There.

The separation of mental labor from physical, on the one hand, mythology and the accumulation of empirical knowledge, on the other hand, as well as the desire of man to comprehend his own essence, contributed to the emergence of a common holistic view of the world and man's place in it - philosophy. A fundamentally different type of worldview is emerging, comprehending in a different way the ideas about the world and man that have developed in mythology and religion, and at the same time developing fundamentally different ways of understanding and solving worldview problems. A feature of the philosophical worldview has become abstract-conceptual, and not sensory-figurative, as in other types of worldview, the form mastery of reality.

But the difference between a philosophical worldview and a mythological and religious one is not in form, but in content mastery of reality. It already distinguishes between the natural and social world, the human mode of action and the manifestation of natural forces and phenomena. This became possible due to the accumulation of mathematical, physical and astronomical knowledge, the advent of the calendar and the spread of writing. If the previous historical types of worldview can be defined as experience a man of reality and his being in it, then the philosophical worldview is meditation man about the existing, there is self-comprehension.

If a person wants to understand the meaning of his life, he does not turn to scientific treatises. Scientific knowledge can explain a lot to him, but it is not through this knowledge that he will move towards his ideals. Οʜᴎ lie in a different plane. Comprehension of the meaning of life is an essential characteristic of philosophical knowledge. Philosophy enables a person to find himself in the boundless ocean of events, to deeply realize not only the external, but also his own spiritual world, to comprehend what his purpose is in the stream of being. No other science teaches what one must be in order to be human.

The idea has been preserved that the ancient Greek thinker Pythagoras was the first person who called himself a “philosopher”, indicating that a person should not overestimate his ability to achieve wisdom, only love for wisdom, the desire for it corresponds to every living being. And until now, we understand this ancient Greek word as the love of wisdom (phileo - love, sophia - wisdom).

The highest ideal of knowledge and behavior was associated with the concept of wisdom in ancient Greek philosophy. There is not a single significant philosopher who has not contributed to the understanding of the concept of ʼʼwisdomʼʼ. ʼʼUnder wisdom, - wrote Rene Descartes, - it is customary to understand not only prudence in business, but also perfect knowledge of everything that a person can know: this is the knowledge that ĸᴏᴛᴏᴩᴏᴇ directs life itself, serves to preserve health, and is also a discovery in all sciencesʼʼ (Descartes R. Selected Works. - M., 1950. - P. 411).

The epistemological, ethical and existential characteristics of wisdom, which were formed historically, are preserved in our time and cannot be discounted. The desire for an integrative idea of the phenomenon of wisdom led to its understanding as a desire for intellectual comprehension of the essence of the world.

Philosophical and theoretical transformation of the fundamental worldview problem is the main question of philosophy, in which the relation "man - the world" is transformed into the relation "spirit - body", "consciousness - nature", "thinking - being". This or that solution of this question forms the basis of philosophical doctrine. In the history of philosophy, there are several options for solving the problem of the relationship between the material and the spiritual, which is the first side of the main issue of philosophy. Moreover, all of them are either monistic (based on the recognition of one principle of the world), or dualistic (based on the recognition of two principles of the world). Yes, and philosophical monism is heterogeneous. Throughout the existence of philosophical knowledge, he acted as materialism and as idealism in its two varieties: objective and subjective. Materialism proceeds from the recognition of the primacy of the material principle. Idealism declares the spiritual to be primary, determining. At the same time, idealists differ in its interpretation. Some believe that the spiritual principle, which predetermines everything that happens in the world of phenomena, exists in the form of human consciousness, sensations, perceptions, ideas. These are subjective idealists. Others represent this spiritual in the form of nobody's, the so-called absolute consciousness, spirit, pure idea, etc. These are objective idealists.

The main question of philosophy includes, in addition to the question of the primacy of the material and spiritual, also the question of the cognitive attitude of man to the world. Materialists consider the knowledge of the world as a reflection in the human mind of a reality independent of it. Idealists, on the other hand, oppose the theory of reflection, interpret cognitive activity either as a combination of sensory data, or as the construction of objects of knowledge through a priori (pre-experimental) categories, or as a purely logical process of obtaining new conclusions from existing axioms and assumptions.

The question of how the world works, what connections and relations exist between objects and phenomena, processes, what laws characterize this world in terms of movement and development deserves due attention. In other words - the question of the general structure of the world and the state in which the latter is.

This question has found its solution in two basic concepts - dialectical and metaphysical. Dialectics- the concept according to which the world in its structure is a single whole, where everything is interconnected and interdependent, and from the point of view of the state - it is in motion, development.

According to metaphysics, the world in its structure is a set of objects, phenomena, processes that are not interconnected by mutual transitions. As regards the state of the world, metaphysics recognizes movement and development only within limited limits, as decrease and increase, as repetition.

Solving the problem of the general structure of the world, which includes both a person and the state in which he is, is a relatively independent issue. It can be solved in principle in the same way with a different approach to the main question of philosophy. That is, materialism must be metaphysical and dialectical. Similarly, idealism must be both metaphysical and dialectical.

Consequently, materialism and idealism, metaphysics and dialectics are different ways of revealing the relation ʼʼman – worldʼʼ. This attitude is a universal problem for all epochs of human history - from the emergence of man and until his existence ceases. Although at each stage of history it is filled with specific content and is perceived differently, its comprehension is an extremely important condition for the life of society in its progressive development.

The types and methods of philosophical understanding of the world are determined by general philosophical paradigms (a paradigm is an initial conceptual scheme, a model for posing problems and solving them, research methods that prevail over a certain historical period in the scientific community).

It is they who focus attention on certain aspects of eternal philosophical problems. Such paradigms of philosophizing include the paradigm of ontologism and the paradigm of epistemologism. Οʜᴎ are found in any historical type of philosophy, while one of them is able to play a dominant role.

The paradigm of ontologism orients a person in cognition and activity to the world outside of a person, to the world not only objective, but also absolute, with which a person must coordinate both his mind and his goals and values.

The paradigm of epistemologism originates in ancient Greek philosophy, but really develops in modern times on the basis of the thesis of René Descartes ʼʼI think, therefore I amʼʼ. It focuses on the justification of the reliability of scientific knowledge. Under its influence, such features of modern European culture as rationalism, technologism, operationalism, pragmatism developed.

In the second half of the 19th century, a new paradigm developed, as if combining ontological and epistemological principles. It focuses on the vision of reality, which is neither pure being nor pure thinking. This paradigm turned philosophers towards man. She also showed the inaccessibility of the cognition by the mind of the unique and only being of a person as a person and put philosophy in front of the extremely important search for an object that would represent the existence of a person and would be accessible to the human mind. Culture is such a being. A new paradigm of philosophical thinking is being born.

§ 4. Subject and structure of philosophical knowledge.

The problem of the relationship between thinking and being is the core of philosophical theories. The main aspects of this problem allow us to comprehend the subject and structure of philosophy.

What is the subject of philosophy in itself, without comparing it with science, art, politics? It historically changed in close connection with the development of all aspects of the spiritual life of society, with the development of science and philosophical thought itself.

As already mentioned, the birth of philosophy historically coincides with the emergence of the rudiments of scientific knowledge, with the formation of the need for theoretical research. Philosophy actually developed as the first historical form of theoretical knowledge. Initially, philosophy answered questions that had already been posed by mythology and religion. At the same time, she already had a different way of solving these issues, it was based on a theoretical analysis of these issues consistent with logic and practice.

The first thinkers of the ancient world sought mainly to understand the origin of diverse natural phenomena. But already at that time, the demarcation between the individual areas of emerging knowledge began. Mathematics, medicine, astronomy, etc. stand out. Along with the limitation of the range of problems that philosophy dealt with, there was also a development, deepening, enrichment of philosophical ideas proper, various philosophical theories and trends arose. Such philosophical disciplines were formed as ontology - the doctrine of being, or the essence of everything that exists; epistemology - the theory of knowledge; logic - the sphere of scientific knowledge about the forms of the correct, ᴛ.ᴇ. coherent, consistent, evidence-based thinking; philosophy of history; ethics; aesthetics.

Starting from the Renaissance, and especially in the 17th-18th centuries, the process of delimitation between philosophy and the special sciences has been taking place at a somewhat accelerated pace. Mechanics, physics, and then chemistry, biology, jurisprudence, political economy become independent branches of scientific knowledge. This progressive division of labor in the field of scientific knowledge qualitatively changes the role and place of philosophy in the system of sciences, its relationship with the private sciences. Philosophy no longer deals with the solution of special problems of mechanics, physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, law, etc., but acquires its own range of problems. It explores the extremely general characteristics of both the person himself and the conditions of his life, and the world in which he lives.

The subject of philosophy includes the universal in material existence and the universal, characterizing the integral being of man. But the subject of philosophy differs to an even greater extent from the subject of the particular sciences, which study material being and man, in that it represents a special relation of man to the world, of the world to man.

Philosophy is knowledge about the world and about the relationship of man to this world. The problems of philosophy are projected onto the universal in the "world - man" system, which is the subject of philosophical knowledge. Οʜᴎ themselves are universal, limiting - limiting for a person's being, for his general program of activity, for all human culture. The problems of the philosophical worldview cover the world as a whole, the life of a person as a whole, the attitude of a person to the world as a whole. There are no broader problems than ideological ones (according to their significance for human activity).

Philosophical problems directly related to the fundamental questions of human existence are of an invariant and eternal nature, and, moreover, "eternal and unchanging" solutions to these problems are often offered. At the same time, just as everything living develops in a continuous process of self-renewal of its basic forms, so "eternal" philosophical problems find their life in the constant reproduction of their solutions based on new achievements of real knowledge and transformations in human social life.

The main way to solve philosophical problems is theoretical thinking, based on the total experience of a person, on the achievements of all sciences and culture in general.

The integrity, systemic nature of the subject of philosophy determines its complex, multi-level, multi-aspect structure, which can be represented as follows:

Philosophical Sciences	Subject of study	Subfunctions	An aspect of the basic question of philosophy
Ontology	objective reality	ontological	How is a person with his consciousness possible in this world?
social philosophy	Subject (society)	sociological	How do social consciousness and social being correlate?
Philosophical anthropology	Subject (person)	Humanitarian	How do individual consciousness and the being of nature and society relate?
Gnos-geology	cognitive attitude	epistemological	How is adequate knowledge possible?
Praxeology	transformation	Praxeological	How is an effective transformation of the world possible?
Ethics	Communication	ethical	How is moral communication possible?
Axiology	Value-oriented activity	Axiological	How is it possible to realize values, the key life meanings of a person?
Aesthetics	Aesthetic exploration	aesthetic	How is it possible to work according to the laws of beauty?

In various philosophical systems, these disciplines are expressed to varying degrees, are related to each other in different ways, acquire different content and direction.

As for the methods by which philosophy studies its subject, they are reduced to the means of obtaining knowledge. The question of the method of philosophical knowledge is ϶ᴛᴏ and the question of the very possibility of solving philosophical problems scientifically.

As is known, the problem of the method of philosophical cognition arose in modern times, when the inefficiency of applying special scientific methods to solving traditional philosophical problems was realized. “Until now,” Hegel wrote, “philosophy has not yet found its method. It looks with envy at the system for constructing mathematics, borrowing from it its method or the methods of those sciences that were only a mixture based on the experience of positions ... or came out from the difficulty that they simply discarded this method "(Hegel G.W.F. Science of Logic. - M., 1970. - P. 107).

The search for a philosophical method in the second half of the 19th century took the form of a demand for the rejection of philosophy from traditional worldview problems. It was a reaction to the real contradictions of philosophical knowledge while abstracting from the socio-practical nature of its foundation. The real task was to realize the connection between the method of philosophical knowledge and its social purpose.

Regardless of the specific historical form of manifestation of the philosophical method and its awareness, what it has in common is that it is a special theoretical activity to generalize and comprehend all the available experience of cognition and practice. This is what is commonly called philosophical reflection (reflection (from late Latin reflexion - turning back) - the principle of human thinking, directing it to comprehend its own forms and prerequisites), the specific historical content of which is determined by the level of development of social historical practice. Historically established forms of philosophical reflection are dialectics and metaphysics, which in their specific historical content determine the methodological orientation of philosophical knowledge.

§ 5. The place of philosophy in the general system of knowledge and life of man and society.

Philosophy is such a system of understanding and explaining the world and man's place in it, which is based on science, is concretized and developed along with science, and itself has an active influence on the development of science.

Disputes around the problem of the scientific nature of philosophy are still ongoing. The following points of view are widely accepted:

1) Philosophy - ϶ᴛᴏ the science of the universal laws of nature, society, knowledge, or: philosophy - ϶ᴛᴏ the science of the methods and forms of cognition, that is, the methodology of science;

2) Philosophy - ϶ᴛᴏ is not a science, it is a worldview (a certain type of worldview, different, for example, from religious and mythological);

3) Philosophy - ϶ᴛᴏ and science, and worldview, that is, philosophy performs in culture, in the spiritual life of society, the functions of science and the functions of worldview.

It is possible to solve the problem of the relationship between philosophy and science, to determine the role of philosophy in human life, in the spiritual culture of society, only in a broad socio-historical context, that is, not from the point of view of any particular philosophical school, but from the point of view of the entire history of culture and philosophy, through the prism of the totality of philosophical knowledge, the role of philosophy, its influence on the development of science and knowledge.

Philosophy strives for scientific knowledge of the world, but at the same time it tries to express the interests of the subject (classes) as much as possible. Philosophy as a system of ideas about the world (as a whole) is involved in a class society in ideology and politics. The consequence of this is, according to scientists, increased confrontation between individual philosophical trends. Since philosophy turns out to be associated with ideology, there is an ideological side to its content, and philosophy can be considered related (in this aspect) to ideology.

In the history of philosophy, scientism and ideolologism supplanted each other, but this circumstance in no way canceled either the orientation of philosophy towards the achievement of truth, or the possibility of full or partial coincidence of this orientation with the interests of the social subject. At the same time, philosophy should not be carried away by an ideological role. "As an integrative center of all sciences and as the embodiment of a systematic approach to all of humanity, to the entire biosphere, philosophy must be universal and meet the interests of society," writes Academician of the International Academy of Informatization R.F. Abdeev. The universal positions of philosophy do not exclude a negative attitude towards leaders-dictators, social inequality, exploitation, oppression and political violence.

The scientific form of philosophy is not necessarily the best or the only correct one. In the case of reducing philosophy only to science, natural questions arise: "Was L. N. Tolstoy a philosopher? Can F. M. Dostoevsky be considered a philosopher?" Both great writers raised and often posed for the first time the most important philosophical problems. The content of philosophical knowledge, and indeed the process of philosophical knowledge itself, includes components specific to fiction and art (See: Philosophy. Experience of artistic comprehension. - Stavropol: SSU Publishing House, 1998).

A very significant part of philosophical knowledge is aesthetic ideas. The creation of a philosophical picture of the world presupposes that its creators have a sense of beauty, harmony, and belonging to the world. The philosophical picture of the world also contains an aesthetic attitude to the world. The creativity of A. Camus, N. Roerich, M. Čiurlionis, R. Tagore, I.V. Goethe.

Philosophical problems are the most important part of various religious teachings. At the same time, one cannot put an equal sign between philosophy and religion, since the latter is not reduced to philosophical reflections. Suffice it to point to ritualism as an essential component of any religion.

Not all poets and writers turned to philosophical problems in their works, and there is not a single work of art entirely devoted to solving philosophical problems. Nevertheless, religion and fiction have played and are playing a huge role in philosophy. The interweaving of literature, art, philosophy and religion has taken place throughout the history of philosophy up to the present day.

So, functioning in the system of culture of society, philosophy develops the theoretical foundations of the worldview, axiological problems, the logical and methodological foundations of science. In the context of the growing differentiation of scientific knowledge, philosophy takes an active part in integration processes, in the synthesis of the achievements of individual sciences into a single picture of the world.

The social significance of philosophy as the living soul of culture, the quintessence of the era, is expressed in its functions. The cognitive function of philosophy is that, by orienting a person to comprehend the nature and essence of the world, the nature and essence of the person himself, the general structure of the world, the connections and laws of its development, it provides an increment of new knowledge about the world, man, connections and laws and influences for every area of human activity. This influence is manifested in the fact that philosophical knowledge acquires the meaning of a universal method of cognizing reality, and also in the fact that knowledge in any field ultimately represents various aspects of understanding the relationship "man - world".

The ideological function of philosophy is manifested in the fact that, arming people with knowledge about the world and man, about his place in the world and the possibilities of his knowledge and transformation, it influences the formation of life attitudes, the awareness of social subjects of the goals and meaning of life.

The methodological function of philosophy essentially lies in the fact that it provides for all forms of social consciousness the initial, fundamental principles, the application of which determines the general direction of the approach to understanding reality, the direction of cognitive and practical activities. At the same time, it should be remembered that the universal principles of thinking studied by philosophy do not unambiguously determine the line of creative search for truth. Being universal, they are a necessary condition for solving various specific problems, but they do not replace special private scientific methods, but are concretized by them.

Τᴀᴋᴎᴍ ᴏϬᴩᴀᴈᴏᴍ, philosophy not only gives a unified understanding of the phenomena occurring in the world, but also develops a general method of cognition, which is a set of interrelated principles or requirements formulated on the basis of universal laws discovered in reality and in cognition and which are a conclusion from the history of the development of social knowledge.

The role of philosophy especially increases at the turning points of history during periods of revolutionary change, when a person poses eternal questions about his essence, about the meaning of life, and the prospects for social progress.

Solving the global problems of our time requires extraordinary solutions, democracy and courage in thinking, courage in analyzing the past, present, and prospects for the future. It is hardly possible to constructively solve these problems without a well-known philosophical culture. It is philosophical knowledge, which is characterized by constant search, doubt, criticism, that contributes to the formation of a thinking, creative, humanistically active person.

The study of philosophy is an extremely important condition for the formation of a person as an active subject of social activity, the creator of the world, his being, the creator of his happiness.

Only by comprehending his socially active function can an individual realize who he is, what place he occupies in the life of society, and rise to self-consciousness. Philosophy sees its purpose in cultivating the need and ability to be human. “Like a fertile field,” Cicero wrote, “without cultivation it will not give a harvest, so the soul. And the cultivation of the soul - ϶ᴛᴏ is philosophy. - only those seeds that, when ripe, bring a bountiful harvest. (Cicero. Selected Works. - M., 1975. - P.252).

Literature

Belov M.V. Philosophy as it is. - Perm, 1996.

Ilyenkov E.V. Philosophy and culture. - M., 1991.

Kalinin B.A., Petushkova N.E. Russian philosophy in the university course. Tutorial. - Stavropol, 1995.

Kosarev A. Philosophy of myth. - M., 2000 ..

Losœev A.F. Philosophy. Mythology. culture. - M., 1991.

Mamardashvili M.K. As I understand philosophy. - M., 1990.

Ortega - and - Gasset H. What is philosophy M., 1991.

Tormasov B.A. Philosophers and Philosophy. - M., 1998.

Philosophy and worldview. - M., 1990.

Jaspers K. The meaning and purpose of history. - M., 1991.