home Cell phones About the place of man in the modern world, his role in the creation or destruction of this world. Philosophy for graduate students

About the place of man in the modern world, his role in the creation or destruction of this world. Philosophy for graduate students

The difference between society and culture reveals its definition as a set of human-created values. The world of culture is the world of material and ideal spiritual values, i.e. the world is an object of material and ideal taken in its relation to man, a world filled with human meanings. The interpretation of culture as a value system limits culture from nature and at the same time does not allow it to be identified with society. With this approach, culture appears as a certain aspect of society, thereby clarifying its social nature, but at the same time the important problem of the relationship between culture and society is not removed. A person perceives culture selectively under the influence of preferences determined by many circumstances. And only on the basis of this culture that he has internalized is he able to develop further. As a subject of culture, he brings something new into it. The relationship between the development and creativity of culture contains a lot of problems and contradictions. To understand them, it is necessary to at least in general analyze the problem of cultural development. Demographic and energy problems and the task of providing food for the Earth's population go far beyond the boundaries of individual social systems and acquire a global civilizational character. All humanity faces a common goal - to preserve civilization and ensure its own survival. It also follows that the fundamental differences in the world's social systems do not negate the concepts of human civilization, modern civilization. earthly civilization, which must be protected from nuclear destruction by the common efforts of all peoples.

Death is the natural end of all living things. Life is a form of existence of matter that arises under certain conditions at the moment of its formation. Man differs from all other living beings most of all in that throughout his entire individual life he never achieves the “goals” of tribal, historical life; in this sense, he is a constantly unrealized adequate being. The person is not satisfied with the situation. And this dissatisfaction contains within itself the reasons for creative activity that are not contained in its immediate motives. Therefore, the calling, the task of every person is to comprehensively develop all his abilities and, to the extent possible, make his personal contribution to history, to the progress of society and its culture. This is the meaning of the life of an individual, which she realizes through society, but this is also the meaning of the life of society and humanity as a whole. Buddhism: a person lives in order to break the chain of rebirths and never be reborn again. Christianity is the ascent of man to God. Man's primary mission is characterized as saving, testing, and edifying. Islam: a person lives in order to be resurrected later. Medieval F. - theocentrism; in the Bible one of the main problems is life after death. Human life is torture. Then the era of rationalism - man the mechanism - is mortal. The task is not to die prematurely, to maximize your resource; and then the era of enlightenment - mortal - be guided by all values (!) - encourages activity. F. existence is the main problem of death and immortality. The practical meaning of the problem: determines the system of values and directions of behavior. In the life of every normal person, sooner or later there will come a moment when he wonders about the finitude of his individual existence. (What if it’s better not to think about it?). Man is the only creature that is aware of its mortality (is it?). The first reaction following the realization of one's mortality may be a feeling of hopelessness and confusion. Overcoming this feeling, a person is burdened with the knowledge of impending death, which becomes fundamental in the subsequent spiritual development of a person. The presence of such knowledge in a person’s spiritual experience explains the urgency with which he faces the question of the meaning and purpose of life. In this regard, questions often appear on the pages of philosophical literature: does human life have any meaning and value? Is life worth living? If the answer is positive, the following points of view exist: the meaning of life is in harmony with one’s own nature and satisfaction of needs, in obtaining pleasure and joy, in developing creative abilities and working for the good of society. And finally, one can come across the view that the meaning of life is in existence itself. This diversity of views indicates how contradictory assessments of the purpose of life are.

Since ancient times, man has been trying to understand his place in the world. This problem is one of the key ones, since, perhaps, without understanding his place in the world, a person cannot understand the meaning of his existence. Many philosophers have tried to comprehend this problem, which also touches on the issue of the laws of nature. Or rather, their relationship, i.e., man and the laws of nature, as well as interaction.

This interaction is manifested in the fact that man cannot exist without nature, without natural phenomena. Having planted wheat, or rye, or barley, or some other agricultural crop or plant, a person always hopes to get a very good harvest. But it is impossible to get it without rain, that is, without the manifestation of the power of nature.

What else is the interaction between man and nature? “Help” from nature has already been described a little higher. A person’s “help” lies in the fact that he should not litter his environment, but, on the contrary, should treat nature with care. Various environmental organizations are very actively involved in this, both locally and internationally. Unfortunately, the works of these organizations do not have a very strong impact on the situation. The environment around us will be polluted until each individual person understands that the situation in the world depends on his actions.

This relationship between man and the world can be divided into two parts:

1) human substrate system;

2) the substrate system of the world.

In turn, these two systems are also divided into four subsystems:

1) ontological system;

2) epistemological system;

3) axiological system;

4) praxeological system.

Now let's look at these subsystems in more detail:

1) ontological system, that is, the doctrine of being as such.

In relation to the man-world system, it looks like this: man exists only thanks to nature. Nature is the god of man. If she wants, there will be a drought, floods will begin and the entire human harvest will perish. Or it could be quite the opposite: there will be a bumper harvest;

2) epistemological system. This system consists of scientific knowledge of an object, i.e. nature. Knowledge of the physical laws of nature is the key to it;

3) axiological system . The term "axiology" comes from the Greek word axios, i.e. valuable. This system establishes gradations, that is, a division between means and ends;

4) praxeological system . Praxeology comes from the Greek words praxis - business, activity, action, and logos - science. This system is associated with sociological research. Praxeology deals with the study of various fields of science from the point of view of their effectiveness.

2. Basic concepts highlighting the place of man in the world

There are several concepts that highlight a person’s place in the world. But they all meet certain criteria and, most importantly, answer the following two questions:

1) can a person comprehend all the laws of the world order and the universe? And also when asked if he needs it;

2) how should a person behave with nature, what strategy should he develop for his behavior?

These two key questions each have their own character: the first question has an epistemological character, and the second one has a practical and ethical character.

First concept. The first concept states that a person can and even must know all the laws of the universe. He will need this knowledge of the laws of nature in order to be guided by them in his future life. This knowledge is acquired by a person “accidentally”, rather, even unconsciously. Observing a certain phenomenon, seeing its result, a person draws his strictly logical conclusions. And he sees the presence of strict cause-and-effect relationships between the phenomenon and the resulting consequence. Now, having such knowledge, a person will act in a way that will be more profitable for him.

It is on the basis of this concept that theoretical ideas about man and his place in the world in philosophy, religion, etc. were created. It is also reflected in many famous scientist-philosophers. In particular, it can be found in B. Spinoza, B. Pascal, R. Descartes. But that's not all. The concept developed further, it was refracted and is already found in a new form in Kant, Hegel and Feuerbach. For them it is more complex. A simpler interpretation of this concept is found in Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx and throughout Marxist philosophy.

But this theory can be found not only among philosophers: many world religions are based on it. But only those religions that are based on obedience to the commandments of God (Islam, etc.).

Second concept. The essence of the second concept of the worldview of man and his place in the world is that a person cannot change anything, even if he perfectly knows all the laws of nature. Simply put, a person is a piece of wood carried by a wave. The sliver can be washed ashore by the surf; the current can drive it into the middle of the sea; the sliver may even sink. Man has no power over either nature or his destiny.

In the history of cultural studies one can find many examples confirming this concept. For example, the well-known myth of Oedipus. Oedipus learned that sooner or later he would kill his own father and marry his own mother. He is trying with all his might to escape from this, he does not want the fulfillment of what was destined for him by fate. But you can't beat fate. All the actions of Oedipus, aimed at preventing the fulfillment of what was intended for him by fate, on the contrary, bring this closer.

The philosopher Ecclesiastes generally called all human activity nothing more than “vanity of vanities.” He believed that man is too weak, too insignificant and therefore he will not be able to resist all the objective laws of the universe. Something similar can be seen in Christianity. This world religion claims that God’s will stands above everything, and man, no matter how hard he tries, cannot decide or do anything on his own (Christ directly says that a person cannot even change the color of his hair from black to white and vice versa). The salvation of a person, according to Christianity, also does not depend on the person himself - everything is the will of God. The main thing, according to Christianity, is:

1) believe in the existence of God;

2) keep all the commandments of God.

3. Three groups of ideas about man’s place in the world

In the history of culture, as a rule, there are three groups of ideas about the place of man in the world.

1. Fatalism. The essence of fatalism is that nothing depends on a person. And since nothing depends on a person, it means that there is no point in undertaking anything. There is only one thing left to do: go with the flow, and wherever it takes you.

Fatalism is inherent to a greater extent in the countries of the Near and Middle East. It is no coincidence that the eastern peoples had so many folk proverbs on the theme of fatalism. Probably the most famous Eastern phrase on this topic: we are all in the hands of Allah. It emphasizes that the Almighty does whatever He pleases with us.

The word “hand” plays a particularly symbolic role here. What can you do with your hand? You can stroke it with your hand, or you can hit it hard with your hand. Moreover, it is not the hand that decides what to do, but the one to whom it belongs. And this decision is not made without reason, but must be provoked by some actions or inaction.

That's why eastern peoples have such a mentality. They pray much more often than Christians. With their constant appeal to Allah they emphasize:

1) your respect, love for him;

2) that they are ready for any trials and hardships that Allah sends them.

2. The second group can be called moderate fatalism.

Moderate fatalism is that although a person understands that he cannot change anything through his actions, he still continues to do something. Moreover, moderate fatalism is more common than absolute fatalism. Most likely, the reason for this prevalence lies in the fact that a person does not lose hope for the best, for a favorable outcome for him. Such examples are found both in fiction and in real life.

For example, in the novel “The Plague” by A. Camus, people are fighting a plague epidemic. They continue their struggle, despite the fact that their efforts are ineffective. In reality, every person has such an experience. For example, students have many superstitions that relate to passing an exam (putting your record book under your pillow; the day before the exam, wearing the shirt you are going to wear for the exam for a while; never showing your record book to anyone, etc.). However, these measures will be ineffective if you come across a very difficult ticket that you know the worst. In this case, you have to rely only on your knowledge.

3. The third group is associated with intuition (or with the sixth sense) of a person.

How often does a person do not what his mind tells him, but what his intuition tells him? Constantly. Almost all scientific discoveries have been made using intuition. This group assumes complete freedom of human action. It doesn't matter that our intuition often fails us. The main thing is that the person acted exactly as he wanted, and not as he should have.

In literature you can find heroes who either act on the basis of intuition or in accordance with strict logic. An example of the first hero is Natasha Rostova from L. N. Tolstoy’s novel “War and Peace.” Often she acts as something internal tells her. Without pity, she orders that all carts be emptied of household items. She orders the carts to be given to the wounded. Many other characters in the novel who do not participate in hostilities simply do not pay attention to the number of crippled people they encounter. As a result, the reader understands the correctness of Natasha’s action. Natasha commits such actions throughout the novel.

An example of the second type of hero, that is, a hero who relies only on strict logic, can be called Sherlock Holmes. The great detective solves the most complicated crimes that happen. He explains everything with strict logic. Moreover, his clarifying questions at first seem meaningless and irrelevant. Spending long hours solving problems, Holmes builds the most accurate logical chain.

The phenomenon of man as an object of philosophical analysis.
Modern society is an integral and interconnected world.
Man in the modern world.

Key concepts:

The absolute idea is the main category of Hegel's philosophy, meaning unconditional universality.
Anthropocentrism is a philosophical concept according to which man is the center and highest goal of the worldview.
Global problems are a set of problems on the solution of which the future of humanity depends.
Humanism is a system of views that recognizes the intrinsic value of man.
Space is a philosophical characteristic of the world as a structurally organized and ordered whole.
Cosmocentrism is a philosophical concept according to which the world is conceived as a unity of nature and man. The development of this unity is carried out from chaos to space in order to explode into new chaos.
Microcosm and macrocosm - small and large world. In other words, man and the Universe.
Alienation is the process of depersonalization of a person and the personification of social relations, turning them into a hostile force dominating a person.
Paradigm is a theory (canon) adopted as a model (model) for solving problematic problems.
The Club of Rome is an international public organization created in 1968 with the aim of studying global problems of our time.
Freedom is the state of a person, his ability to act in accordance with his interests and goals.
Scientism is a view according to which scientific knowledge is considered the highest cultural value and a self-sufficient guideline for human life.
Theocentrism is a philosophical concept based on the doctrine of the divine origin of the world and its control.
Futurology is a set of ideas about the future of humanity.
Man is a subject of socio-historical activity and culture. The question of its essence, origin and purpose is the main problem of philosophy.

1. The phenomenon of man as an object of philosophical analysis

Thomas Kuhn, a specialist in the field of philosophy of science, owns the concept of the paradigmatic development of science. There is a certain “disciplinary matrix”. It provides a successful solution to existing problems using known methods and means. As for exceptions, they initially confirm the rule, and then explode both the rule and the “matrix”, providing a transition to a new paradigm.

It seems that this pattern of development is also inherent in philosophy, the concepts of which take on the character of the paradigm of cosmocentrism, theocentrism, anthropocentrism, scientism, the triumph of politics, etc.

In each paradigm, the phenomenon of man was considered, but, as the English philosopher F. Bacon would say, the problem of man was considered through the prism of the idol (ghost) of the “cave” of his time. Despite the obvious methodological error, this position has its ontological rootedness, for man is the “man of the century.” And in every era this “brow” is unique and inimitable.

In the conditions of Ancient India, it was focused on achieving nirvana through renunciation of everything earthly, on the reunification of “atman” (soul) with “brahman” (cosmic spiritual principle).

The traditional society of Ancient China orients a person towards inaction, which is better than activity without measure. A person must submit to the general flow of life, remembering that the earth obeys the laws of heaven, and heaven obeys Tao as the true being of the world. Everything begins from the existence of the world and everything returns to it, and it is better for a person to follow the Tao than to show dubious activity.

Ancient Greece continued the tradition of cosmocentrism, viewing man and the world as a single whole. Man is part of the cosmos, its microcosm. True, later a tendency towards anthropocentrism develops.

With the Sophists and Socrates, a new culture is being formed, which urgently requires self-knowledge of a person who claims to be the “measure of all things.” The new culture orients a person towards understanding and mastering the world, taking into account human needs, considering a person as a natural being.

This is a creature of human childhood. It undergoes its socialization through the “culture of shame.” In its most generalized form, this feeling of shame is presented in the Greek heroic epic. (See: Homer. Iliad).

Fear of shame, fear of seeming ridiculous determined the behavior of the ancient Greek in society, aimed at being the best among many. Hence the thirst for championship, which found its expression in the organization and holding of the Olympic Games starting in 776 BC. e. The achieved victory is just the first step towards new success.

It seems that the ancient Greek knew no other pleasure than doing his duty. For him, idle inaction is as unpleasant as the most tedious work. (See: Thucydides. History. L., 1981).

The ancient Greeks, as children of humanity, left a noticeable mark on history, for they had power over... their nature. But, being limited only by their nature, they had no future.

In the Middle Ages, theocentrism took the place of cosmocentrism. This paradigm assigns man the role of God's mediator on earth. Man is a spiritual being, striving for the other world. The theocentric paradigm contrasts the “culture of shame” with the “culture of guilt.” This culture presupposes a different value system - a court of conscience, independent of the court of the crowd. Within the framework of this culture, the individual is guided not by public opinion, but by the recognition of his guilt before God, by his repentance. His perspective depends not on society, but on the individual: heaven or hell. Theocentrism shapes individuality. And in this sense, the Middle Ages are superior to antiquity as much as youth is superior to childhood.

During the Renaissance, the concept of anthropocentrism supersedes theocentrism. Man is viewed in his earthly destiny. He is capable of self-creativity. Thanks to this ability, a person can overcome his species limitations, be part of the world, but a special part. The ability for self-creativity and imitation ensured the evolution of man from an animal state to a creature with a claim to fulfill a special purpose in this world.

In his “Speech on the Dignity of Man,” the Renaissance thinker Giovanni Pico della Mirandola notes: “Then God agreed that man is a creation of an indefinite pattern, and, placing him at the center of the world, said: “We do not give you, O Adam, neither ours.” place, no specific pattern, no special duty, so that you have the place, the person, and the duty of your own free will, according to your will and your decision.” (Aesthetics of the Renaissance. In 2 vols. M., 1981. T. 1. P. 249) =

Man is free to choose his fate in this world. He can rise to transcendental heights or descend to a bestial state. A person chooses and is responsible for this choice.

In the era of the Reformation (16th century in Western Europe), when considering a person, attention to his activity increased. Human activity is seen as a sign of God's chosenness. Man lives not to eat (in this case he is no different from an animal), but to work. Only in work can he find himself, express his true essence, and fulfill himself.

In the Age of Enlightenment, Faith gives way to Reason. Relying on reason, a person must realize his natural rights in this world. But “cave capitalism” with its triple fetishization of goods, money and capital has led man to alienation from everything, everyone and himself. And although the crises of society and man are still ahead, and the German classics already logically substantiate the need for God, otherwise chaos will overwhelm the world , and the person will lose himself.

God appears as the “Absolute Idea,” and man’s purpose is to contribute in every possible way to its self-development. This reveals both the expediency and necessity of human activity, including his social activity.

L. Feuerbach protests against this interpretation of man's relationship to God. From the position of anthropological materialism, he declares God to be the prototype of man, and tries to consider the essence of the latter as a derivative of nature.

Critically overcoming his sympathies, K. Marx (the young Marx was a Hegelian and Feuerbachian) strengthens anthropological materialism, filling it with social content. Man is viewed not as a natural being, but as a social being, as a set of social relations, as a faceless and abstract being.

This conclusion was quite consistent with a person in commodity production, where everything is bought and everything is sold, where a person is turned into a productive force, a one-dimensional being, a production function.

The transformation of a person into a social function entails the loss of humanity. The latter facilitates the inversion of a person from a goal into a means of implementing any social project.

Nostalgia for humanity found its expression in the Russian religious philosophy of affinity, conciliarity and sophistry. In order to find himself and have his own future, a person must comprehend his kinship with nature, find conciliarity (unity) with the world and show sophia (wisdom) in his actions. Only in this case will a person be able to question the scheme of the New Age “man is a wolf to man” and realize the formula “man is God to man”.

An unconventional view of the human problem can also be seen in Western philosophy. Its spokesman was S. Kierkegaard. Being a frantic fighter for the purity and authenticity of religion, speaking as an opponent of bourgeois self-righteous hypocrisy and an opponent of the Hegelian concept of the essence of man, the Danish philosopher preferred content to form, the essence of man - his existence. According to Kierkegaard, existence is richer than essence. Only in existence is the uniqueness and originality of human life revealed. (See: S. Kierkegaard. Fear and Trembling. M., 1593).

In the philosophy of existentialism, the category of “existence” will become the starting point for constructing the concept of man as a self-designing being. A person chooses and implements the project of his existence. But this choice is associated with anxiety about the correctness of the action taken. A person experiences powerlessness due to the lack of a point of support in this contradictory world, and experiences despair from actions that do not provide hope for the fulfillment of his desires. (See: Sartre J.-P. Existentialism is humanism // Twilight of the Gods. M., 1989).

The problem of choice and responsibility, anxiety and respect for the “being of the world” brings Russian religious philosophy and the philosophy of existentialism closer together. And this is not accidental, because at the origins of existentialism stood not only S. Kierkegaard, but also F. M. Dostoevsky and N. A. Berdyaev.

An interesting turn in views on human problems is demonstrated by 3. Freud. His model of man is a structurally organized unity of “I”, “super-I” and “It”, where “It” is the area of unconscious drives, “super-I” is a set of standards for proper behavior, and “I” is the area of constant tension and experiences. The “I” is between a rock and a hard place, between the lust of the basic “It” and the severity of the superstructural “super-ego”. The latter also appears in two guises, as “the voice of conscience” and “the feeling of guilt.”

The “unhappy self” is forced to adapt, to seek a compromise between spontaneous drives and the demands of reality, experiencing constant dissatisfaction.

Since Sigmund Freud worked with psychopathology, the extrapolation of his conclusions to a “healthy” person raises reasonable doubts, although it makes us think about the problem of conflict leading to neuroses.

Neo-Freudianism turned out to be more optimistic than classical psychoanalysis. The conflict situation can be partly avoided by choosing the meaning of life with an orientation toward “to be.” (See: Fromm E. To have or to be? M., 1986; Aka. Anatomy of human destructiveness. M., 1994).

To avoid the either-or scheme, a person himself must find his own meaning in life. This is doubly necessary when man has severed his natural ties with nature. Nature no longer dictates what man should do, and he himself does not know what he needs. (See: Frankl V. Man in Search of Meaning. M., 1990).

An original approach to the problem of man is demonstrated by the philosophical anthropology of M. Sheller and G. Plesner. From their point of view, human nature is eccentric. A person has lost his selfhood and, because of this, is “sentenced” to an eternal search for himself. (See: Problems of Man in Western Philosophy. M., 1988).

Developing the ideas of philosophical anthropology, E. Fromm notes that since man came out of the natural world, the road to this world is already closed to him. All that remains is to move forward, overcoming uncertainty and keeping the hope of finding harmony with the natural world and the world of society, realizing the optimal relationship in the “microcosm and macrocosm” system. (See: Fromm E. The Art of Loving. M., 1991). And the first president of the Club of Rome, Aurelio Peccei, will add: “... creating conditions for a gradual and targeted change in human nature, as a prerequisite for preventing a global environmental catastrophe.” (Peccei A. Human qualities. M., 1985).

Summing up the historical and philosophical analysis of the human problem, we can draw the following conclusions:

Firstly, a person maintains his mystery, initiating many versions. Although the concept of human evolution from an animal state to a creature with a claim to fulfill a special purpose in the world seems preferable.
Secondly, the entire history of mankind directly and indirectly testifies that man is a borderline being. He is born by nature. He owes his formation to society, his development - only to himself.
Thirdly, the human tendency to imitate in conditions of eccentric nature had far-reaching consequences. She changed the very way of its existence and implementation.
Fourthly, man is the only creature capable of going beyond his limits, looking at himself from the outside, carrying out introspection and editing his behavior. He is able to start from real existence, project the ideal ought of his “I” and implement this project in the practice of his life, declaring himself as subject and object, director and actor, architect and judge.
Fifthly, the distinctive feature of a person is his essential strength, his sociality and ability to engage in purposeful activity. But the main quality of a person is his humanity: shame and conscience; compassion as solidarity, but not pity; reverence for nature, for life.
Sixth, man as a kind of integrity, open to the world, includes such components as the level of the natural (biological); spiritual level; level of social (public); the generic (universal) level and the cosmic level.
The natural principle is represented by a specific state of the organism with its inherent inclinations.
The spiritual principle is represented by reflection,” the ability to consciousness, the correlation of knowledge about oneself and knowledge about the world.
The social principle is determined by the system of social relations in which a person is included.
The ancestral origin is determined by the universal human gene pool and the information memory of past generations.
The cosmic principle is represented by those cycles and rhythms that the Earth, the Galaxy, the Universe and... man follow.
All five principles in their unity create a person’s unique individuality, where internal inclinations and external factors are melted, where his essential forces are formed: will, feelings, intellect.
Seventh, as history shows, being human has never been easy. It is similar to the image of the mythical Phoenix bird, which burns itself in order to be reborn from the ashes, the same bird and a different one.

2. Modern society is an integral and interconnected world

The history of mankind is the history of the relationship between society and nature. Several fateful stages of this relationship can be identified. Each of them had its own qualitative certainty. This is the Neolithic revolution associated with the emergence of agriculture and the transition from an appropriating economy to a producing one; the industrial revolution as the transition from craft to machine, the creation of industry; scientific and technological revolution as a transition to the formation of a new material and technical base of society.

From a technological point of view, this stage of the relationship between society and nature determined the essential features of the 20th century. Among them, a worthy place is occupied by the development of electricity and the atom, space and technotronic communication. All these characteristics are successfully combined in the concept of “post-industrial society”.

American sociologist and futurist Daniel Bell, in his works “Welcoming the Year 2000”, as well as “The Coming Post-Industrial Society”, expressed the opinion that the further development of science and technology excludes the problem of social revolution from the life of society, and “industrial society”, the driving force of which was automation production, as well as the intensive use of natural resources, will enter a new stage of social reality - “post-industrial society”.

A new society will be formed on the basis of the development of science and the active use of scientific knowledge. It will establish new social relations.

The distinctive features of “post-industrial society,” according to Bell, are: the transition from the production of goods to a service economy; occupation of a dominant position in the management of society by a social group of professional technocrats and “great scientists”; widespread dissemination of “intellectual technology” (informatics, computerization) and the possibilities of self-developing technological growth with the widespread development of theoretical knowledge.

Daniel Bell outlined his concept in 1968-1973. In fact, his concept laid the foundations of the World Federation for Future Research, uniting scientists from different countries and different areas of focus. The subject of research by these scientists was the reality of the present, for the present is not only the result of all previous history, but also the cradle of the future.

The present turned out to be very contradictory. This circumstance split futurology into two wings - “social pessimism” and “technological optimism”.

Optimists believe that post-industrial society will provide a transition to a new civilization built on the principles of humanism and optimization of capitalism. (See: New technocratic wave in the West. M., 1986).

Pessimists prove the inevitability of the catastrophe of Western civilization, and with it the whole world, in the face of an uncontrollable scientific and technological revolution. From their point of view, the scientific and technological revolution, developing science and technology, improving industry, destroys nature, calls into question the achievements of culture, gives rise to violence and a general crisis of humanity.

The Club of Rome occupies a special place in futurology. This is a scientific association of scientists, politicians and businessmen in Europe, created in 1968 on the initiative of the Italian economist and public figure Aurelio Peccei. Within the framework of this international public organization, a number of research projects have been developed aimed at identifying the main trends in world development, taken in dynamics.

Scientists were tasked with systematically studying the global problems faced by human civilization at the present stage of its development in order to determine the prospects for the development of humanity in the 21st century.

A group of scientists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (USA), led by D. Meadows, studied the behavior of the “global world model” in the interval of two hundred years, from 1900 to 2100. The starting point of the analysis was the assumption that changes in the main variables of systems, including the level of development of industry and agriculture, the state of population and reserves of natural resources, and the degree of environmental pollution, occur within the framework of existing trends. The calculations made showed that in this case a global crisis of humanity is inevitable, since the growth of industrial production and population comes into actual conflict with the limited nature of natural resources. This contradiction is intensified by the ever-increasing environmental pollution.

The published report “The Limits to Growth” contributed to the awakening of mass consciousness, fascinated by the technocratic idylls of conflict-free development of the society of the future, causing increased interest in the global problems of our time. Under the influence of the published report, “the little man was able to see with his own eyes the world labyrinths where humanity wandered, entangled in dark problems.” (Peccei A. Human qualities. M., 1985. P. 152).

The first global modeling model was followed by others, including the World Order Models Project Program. Each new model was built taking into account accumulated experience, the probabilistic state of the world and the playback of various options for society's reaction to existing trends in its development through the prism of sociocultural preferences. In contrast to the futurological constructions of R. Aron, G. Kahn, D. Bell, A. Tofler and others, the developers of global modeling of the world were guided not by prediction, but by answers about the behavior of the system under study. They are unanimous in their desire to identify alternatives for world development, rather than predict the future, which is of very dubious value. Hence the general guideline “think globally, act locally.” (See: Leibin V.M. Foreign global studies: problems and contradictions. M., 1988).

The conducted research formed the basis of the international congress “Global problems of our time and prospects for the development of mankind” (Rio de Janeiro, 1992), the participants of which were unanimous that the world at the turn of the 21st century. will be less stable and more vulnerable in both environmental and socio-economic terms. Overpopulation, shortages of food and raw materials, lack of energy resources, a widening gap between “rich” and “poor” states, desertification, destruction of the ozone layer, the disappearance of a number of representatives of flora and fauna - all this can affect the state of society as an integral and interconnected world in the 21st century c., unless changes are made to the existing strategy for its development. This forecast was confirmed 5 years later at a special session of the UN (June 1997).

What principles should form the basis of a new strategy for the development of the world?

Firstly, the development of the world should be focused not on human needs and their satisfaction, but on improving the internal qualities of a person.
Secondly, the time has come to “civilize” the mind. Reason without goodness and wisdom, not correlated with the moral foundations of human existence, its universal human values, can only be a force of destruction, and not a force of creation.
Thirdly, the time has come for man to realize his affinity with nature, and therefore, to realize the responsibility of each person for all life on earth, to realize not only his dependence on nature, but also the dependence of nature both on society and on the individual . These are not abstract commandments or moral sermons, but the only condition for the survival of man and nature.

An idea must be formed in the minds of people that could unite all earthlings into one whole. Such an idea can only be the idea of “harmony”. Social evolution must be in harmony with his biological evolution.

The need to resolve global problems dictates the abandonment of group, national and regional interests, and the transition to universal human interests. The latter indicate that the human race has a single foundation with nature. The technological principle of thinking must give way to the biosphere, and in the future, the noosphere, focused on restoring the broken cycle of circulation of matter and energy in the biosphere, ensuring biological stability and noospheric balance.

The noosphere closes the chain of three evolutionary streams: biological, social and cosmic - and requires man and society to be guided in their relationship with the world by the principle of co-evolution. (See: Philosophy of Nature: Co-evolutionary Strategy. M., 1995).

The essence of the principle of coevolution is to eliminate the false dualism of society and nature, to ensure their monistic development, taking into account the requirements of the noospheric imperative. We are talking about the formation of a new paradigm for the development of society, capable of not only diagnosing the state of global problems, but also solving them on fundamentally different grounds, different from those available to technogenic civilization.

It seems that the end of the 20th century marks the emergence of planetary ethics with its principle of personal responsibility for all living things and the rejection of the idea of anthropocentrism, which was so clearly expressed by the ancient thinker Protagoras in his famous thesis “Man is the measure of all things.” Today urgently requires, instead of this thesis, to declare a new one: “Life is the measure of all things.” It is from the position of this new thesis that the intrinsic value of any work of nature should be considered.

Planetary ethics urgently requires a restructuring of consciousness towards getting rid of voluntary or involuntary arrogance in relation to nature. This position may seem too imperative, but it carries with it the moment of truth. The relationship of a person to the world turns into the relationship of the world to a person. By destroying nature, man destroys himself.

At the turn of the 21st century. humanity must solve a dilemma for itself: commit suicide or live, not forgetting that nature and the human race have a single foundation, and society as a whole is a contradictory, but integral and interconnected world.

From the point of view of the sociocultural approach, the modern world represents a diversity of countries, peoples and states. This is a kind of mosaic of worlds in the world. They coexist in a single physical space and time. In socio-economic and socio-political terms, their interests sometimes overlap, but in general they retain their spiritual “extraterritoriality”.

At the level of cultural interconnection, two trends can be traced: a) dialogue of cultures, in the process of which not only rapprochement occurs, but also facts of cultural expansion take place; b) cultural tightness, closedness, usually based on religious or national fundamentalism.

The second trend not only carries with it the opportunity to preserve the culture of a particular existence, but also carries with it the danger of cultural disunity; the break in the horizontal aspects of continuity opens the way to cultural and then political confrontation. An example of the latter in the recent past were the concepts of Eurocentrism, and in the present - the theory of Negritude and the so-called Islamic fundamentalism. The latter began with the idea of pan-Islamism (the unity of all Muslims) and the Islamic Renaissance (a return to the traditional values of Muslim culture and the rejection of dialogue and continuity with European culture), and ended with doubts about the appropriateness of international law, which in practice means their non-recognition, and sometimes violation (trampling).

The problem of the West and the East, the problem of dialogue between cultures, is another problem at the turn of the 21st century, which requires a wise and balanced solution with a full sense of responsibility for peace on Earth.

From the point of view of the socio-political approach, the modern world is also characterized by interconnection, which, alas, is far from integrity and harmony. Uneven economic development and division into “rich” and “poor” states give rise to national and religious egoism and split the world into military blocs and political alliances. And this is a real problem at the turn of the 21st century. also requires a wise decision based on awareness of the dilemma “to be or not to be?” and its decision in favor of “to be.”

3. Man in the modern world

The process of human evolution lasted for tens of thousands of years. The 20th century entered the history of mankind as a dynamic era, which is characterized by: a) the complication of social reality, which is expressed in the steady ascent of humanity from lower forms of social organization to higher ones; b) increasing the pace of development. In other words, the acceleration of the rhythm of history due to the information boom; c) self-knowledge and self-improvement of a person, which is reflected in the success of the theory and practice of the Institute of the Brain, biotechnology and genetic engineering; d) information and biological revolution.

And with all this, the mystery of the human “I” and its consciousness remains. He continues to ask: what will the coming day bring us? Will this be his finest hour or his last moment?

In raising these questions, it is not the circumstances that are to blame, but the person himself. The position of man on Earth has changed dramatically. Having gone through a long path of evolution, modern man has turned the planet into his undivided empire. The fate of all existing forms of life is directly dependent on what man does or does not do. He became the man of the century.

The main question of the 21st century. - this is a question of survival. Will homo sapiens be able to place additional billions of their own kind on Earth, providing for their needs and desires? What other life forms will fall victim to humans? How will his historical ascent end? Questions remain open given the unique human ability to “think the best and follow the worst.”

A person has two programs - instinctive and sociocultural, which determines his borderline nature. In terms of his physicality and physiological functions, man belongs to nature. But sociality dictates different rules of behavior for him. These two programs, as P.S. Gurevich wittily noted: “...like demons, they pull a person in different directions.” (About the Human in Man. M., 1991, p. 268). A person strives for good, but his actions often turn into evil. He strives to dominate circumstances, not noticing that he is becoming a slave to his desire.

The fear of losing what he already has affects a person and his relationships with other people no less destructively than the thirst to possess what he does not yet have.

The clashes of people due to the desire to better settle in this world are very similar to the natural struggle for existence in the animal world. But an attempt to resolve conflicts according to the law of Nature turns into the tragedy of the loss of humanity in man. Having lost his original homeland-nature, man is doomed to an eternal search for himself, to the eternal formation and overcoming of himself. By maintaining the uncertainty of his “I,” a person also preserves his unpredictability. But one thing is clear: only man is responsible for all his actions and fundamental changes on Earth.

Mastering nature and transforming himself, man created artificial nature, his habitat. Man-made technology has become the main factor of change on Earth. It powerfully entered the system of relations “nature-man-society”, declaring itself not only as a relatively independent, but sometimes uncontrollable force. Suffice it to recall the Chernobyl phenomenon.

The demon of technology has created conditions where a person is not only unable to control anthropogenic processes, but cannot even realize and adequately assess the consequences of everything that is happening.

The splitting of the atom, deciphering the genetic code and other discoveries lifted the curtain on the mystery of life. With the help of science, technology and technology, man has brought the realm of fantasy closer to the boundaries of the real. The problem of the “biocyborg” has already left the pages of science fiction literature. There are all the prerequisites for biotechnology and genetic engineering to become leading industries.

Man mastered the technical means of moving in physical space, built roads, erected dams, invented a computer, went into space, and mastered the ability to change himself. Man has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate that his brain contains an astronomical number of neurons and their connections, which allows one person to store in his mind the store of information accumulated by all of humanity. (See: About the human in man. P. 113).

By adapting, man began to transform. Defending himself, he began to attack. From a defensive position he moved to the position of a dictator. XXI century man meets as the leader of the evolutionary process. However, he is not yet ready to take responsibility for life on Earth. It seems that he has not yet fully realized that life is the highest value. The person also did not realize the extent of the expansion of his responsibilities. To this day, Plato's problem of achieving harmony between individual virtue and social justice remains an unresolved problem. And today, without any stretch, we can repeat the words of Seneca that “we spend most of our lives on bad deeds, a considerable part on idleness, and our whole life on the wrong things.” (Seneca. Moral letters. M., 1977. P. 5).

Global problems did not arise on their own. They, as a result of anthropogenic activity, indicate that man had the dexterity to “steal fire from the gods,” but did not have enough wisdom to use it for good. Technical power without wisdom has made man an extremely dangerous creature, because he wields power without having any idea of the limits and possibilities of its use. It seems that man still has not understood that by destroying nature, he destroys himself and has come close to the dilemma: change his behavior or disappear from the face of the earth.

In order to change, he must acquire the full measure of humanity: shame and conscience, duty and compassion, imbued with “reverence for being,” “reverence for life.”

The authors of this text can be reproached that they violate the stated principle of the concreteness of truth and that in a separate village in a separate region nothing like this is observed in the behavior of Ivanov’s neighbor. We want to answer our unlucky opponents with one phrase: “Thank God that there are pleasant exceptions. But in this case we are talking about existing trends. You shouldn’t pretend that they don’t exist, because they shouldn’t exist.”

In the ancient world, man, in his desire to merge with the cosmos, lived according to the principle “here and only now,” believing that the past no longer exists and the future does not yet exist. This attitude towards life had no prospects, although in some respects people of classical spirituality had gone far ahead compared to people of the late 20th century. (See: Rozhansky I.D. Ancient man // About the human in man. M., 1991. P. 282-298).

Ancient society gives way to medieval reality, focused on a better life in... the other world. And yet it was a noticeable step forward. A person receives a spiritual dimension of his essence, acquires a strategic guideline by which he verifies the direction of his life and the nature of his activity.

The Renaissance era powerfully declares the earthly destiny of man, the freedom to choose his future. True, it later turned out that this choice was without a choice. The Renaissance, as the era of initial accumulation of capital, included a mechanism of socio-economic alienation. Private property has transformed from a system of ensuring the sovereignty of citizens and the basis of their self-expression into a system of self-sufficiency. The dominance of private ownership of the means of production led to the fetishization of goods, money and capital. Under these conditions, a person turns into an object of purchase and sale. His life becomes a pseudo-life. All the wealth of a person, his unique uniqueness comes down to the sum of knowledge, skills and predisposition to perform a certain job. Under these conditions, a person turns into a function of social production. His life is accompanied by a set of such forms of psychological experience of alienation as meaninglessness and powerlessness, disorganization and a feeling of loneliness; rejection of key social values and the use of socially disapproved means; self-detachment, pseudo-subjectivity and the painful state of being an outsider.

The volume of the presented text and its methodological focus do not allow us to decipher and describe in detail each state of this “gentleman’s set”. Reader, try to do this yourself by simulating this or that state and closing it on yourself. You will see that each component of this “set” calls into question the normal existence of a person, his prospects. Only the loss of the meaning of life “switches off” a person from human existence, dooms him to be anything but a human. In conditions of one-dimensionality, being in the status of a social function, a person very quickly turns into a “burnt-out candle.”

Alienation becomes a reality where the mediator of a person’s life from a system of his support turns into a system of self-sufficiency, personifying existing social relations and turning a person into an object of manipulation.

Is it possible, if not to eliminate, then at least to weaken this or that type of alienation, this or that form of experience, or is this eternal damnation the fate of man?

Alienation is a pattern of society at a certain stage of its development. It has objective conditionality. Therefore, it is incorrect to raise the question of eliminating the pattern, but it is possible to raise the question of eliminating the forms of its manifestation both on a mass and individual basis. This conclusion is confirmed by examples of preserving one’s “I” even in conditions of total alienation of a person from property, from power and from culture. For these examples to become a mass phenomenon, people must accept the new foundations of culture.

The world does not need a culture of confrontation (Self and non-Self), not a war of all against all, not a physical struggle for existence in conditions where “man is a wolf to man,” but a culture of dialogue, mutual understanding, mutual acceptance of the individual and society, society and nature in the “nature-man-society” system.

Only by eliminating the expansion of society in relation to nature, which turns into expansion in relation to man, by ensuring harmony between individual virtue and social justice, will society provide the conditions for eliminating odious forms of alienation, and then man will gain his integrity, become a peace in the world, declare himself in system "microcosm - macrocosm".

No less relevant is the problem of human self-alienation. It takes place where a specific person, within the framework of his worldview, adapts values that are alien to him. The combination of incomplete knowledge about the world and about oneself with a false value standard leads to the acceptance not of an ideal, but of an idol and those means of its implementation that form a special psychological attitude towards the world. In the course of implementing this relationship, a person does not express himself, but defends and affirms not just alien, but sometimes alien principles that directly or indirectly destroy the personality of this person.

Conditions of self-alienation arise when an individual is deprived of his past, when he does not have the opportunity to identify and realize the values of his family, his ethnic group, and finally, universal human values. Is this form of alienation surmountable? Yes, if an individual masters the accumulated knowledge, skills, and values, remembering that each person is a connecting link in the relay of generations, a living connection between the past and the future of humanity.

The ancient philosopher Democritus viewed education as an adornment for the happy and a refuge for the unfortunate, for knowledge helps to turn even evil into good. “Deep water poses the risk of drowning. But this danger can be avoided by learning to swim,” he said.

The source of suffering and discomfort is uncertainty, ignorance or false knowledge and quasi-values. Removing uncertainty through real knowledge and genuine values provides real peace and happiness, breaks the vicious circle of self-alienation, and returns a person’s self-worth.

The main goal of education is to master the measure of true usefulness, for happy is not the one who has a lot, but the one who knows a lot. The real ability for self-knowledge, self-development and self-improvement is a kind of immunity against self-alienation; it is one of the factors in preserving one’s “I” even in conditions of total alienation.

Reader! Try to meet the 21st century with an open view of Hope, Faith and Love, treat the world from the position of the principle of co-evolution, build your attitude towards the world according to the canons of Goodness, Reason and Beauty.

Remember that the highest value of the world is life, and the measure of this value is time.

Test questions and assignments:

Why did relying only on reason cast doubt on the prospects for further development of humanity?
Give a comment to the statement: “The stupidity of smart people with a clear head and a narrow outlook has given rise to many disasters.”
What problems are considered global, is there a relationship between them?
Is the opposition of everything artificial to everything natural a problem of the future or is it an already established modern global problem?
What is the meaning of the concept of “post-industrial society”?
Assess the Club of Rome and the World Order Models Project Program, clarify their advantages and disadvantages.
Try to imagine your model of the future world.
What is the goal of the so-called “planetary” worldview?
Analyze the "to be or have" dilemma and identify possible solutions.
What real opportunities do the media offer?
What role should the guidelines of Goodness and Beauty play in the process of modeling the future?
Define alienation and decipher its probable states.
What causes alienation and what is its cause?
What needs to be done to overcome this or that form of alienation?
What is your ideal in life? Do you think it is possible to implement it using socially disapproved means, remembering that “there is no winner”?

Literature:

Andreev I. L. Origin of man and society. M., 1982.
Batenin S.S. Man in his history. L., 1976.
Bern E. Games that people play. People who play games. St. Petersburg, 1992.
Grigoryan V. T. Man, his position and calling. M., 1986.
Gumilev L.N. Ethnosphere: history of people and history of nature. M., 1993.
Dubinin N.P. What is a person? M., 1983.
Efimov Yu. I. Philosophical problems of anthroposociogenesis. L., 1981.
Kaznacheev V.P., Spirin E.A. Cosmos-floating phenomenon of man. Novosibirsk, 1991.
Camus A. The rebellious man. M., 1990.
Culture, man and picture of the world. M., 1987.
Kuusi Pekka. Our human world. M., 1988.
Leibin V. M. Foreign global studies: problems and contradictions. M., 1988.
Marx K. Economic and philosophical manuscripts // Marx K., Engels F. Works. T. 42.
New technocratic wave in the West. M., 1986.
Noosphere: the spiritual world of man. L., 1986.
About the human in man. M., 1991.
Peccei A. Human qualities. M., 1980.
The problem of man in Western philosophy. M., 1988.
Sergeants V. F., Grechany V. V. Man as a subject of philosophical and natural science knowledge. L., 1980.
Twilight of the Gods. M., 1989.
Chardin T. de. Human phenomenon. M., 1987.
Tugarinov V.P. Nature, civilization, man. L., 1978.
Philosophy of nature: co-evolutionary strategy. M., 1995.
Frankl V. Man in Search of Meaning. M., 1990.
Fromm E. To have or to be? M., 1987.
Fromm E. Anatomy of human destructiveness. M., 1994.
Man in the system of sciences. M., 1989.
Man: Thinkers past and present on his life, death and immortality. Book 1-2. M., 1991, 1994.

The inhuman world in which modern man lives forces everyone to wage a constant struggle with external and internal factors. What happens around an ordinary person sometimes becomes incomprehensible and leads to a feeling of constant discomfort.

Daily Sprint

Psychologists and psychiatrists of all stripes have noted a sharp surge in anxiety, self-doubt and a huge number of different phobias among the average representative of our society.

The life of a modern person passes at a frantic pace, so there is simply no time to relax and escape from numerous everyday problems. The vicious circle of running a marathon at sprint speed forces people to race against themselves. Intensification leads to insomnia, stress, nervous breakdowns and illnesses, which has become a fundamental trend in the post-information age.

Information pressure

The second problem that modern man cannot solve is the abundance of information. A stream of various data falls on everyone simultaneously from all possible sources - the Internet, mass media, press. This makes critical perception impossible, since internal “filters” cannot cope with such pressure. As a result, the individual cannot operate with real facts and data, since he is unable to separate fiction and lies from reality.

Dehumanization of relationships

A person in modern society is forced to constantly face alienation, which manifests itself not only in work, but also in interpersonal relationships.

Constant manipulation of human consciousness by the media, politicians and public institutions has led to the dehumanization of relationships. The alienation zone that has formed between people makes it difficult to communicate, to look for friends or a soul mate, and attempts at rapprochement by strangers are very often perceived as something completely inappropriate. The third problem of 21st century society - dehumanization - is reflected in popular culture, the linguistic environment and art.

Problems of social culture

The problems of modern man are inseparable from deformations in society itself and create a closed spiral.

Cultural ouroboros causes people to withdraw even more into themselves and move away from other individuals. Contemporary art - literature, painting, music and cinema - can be considered a typical expression of the processes of degradation of public self-awareness.

Films and books about nothing, musical works without harmony and rhythm are presented as the greatest achievements of civilization, full of sacred knowledge and deep meaning, incomprehensible to the majority.

Crisis of values

The value world of each individual can change several times during his life, but in the 21st century this process has become too fast. The result of constant changes is constant crises, which do not always lead to a happy ending.

The eschatological notes that creep into the term “crisis of values” do not mean a complete and absolute end, but they make us think about the direction in which the path should be taken. Modern man is in a permanent state of crisis from the moment he grows up, since the world around him is changing much faster than the prevailing ideas about it.

A person in the modern world is forced to drag out a rather miserable existence: thoughtless adherence to ideals, trends and certain styles, which leads to the inability to develop one’s own point of view and one’s position in relation to events and processes.

The widespread chaos and entropy that reigns around should not be frightening or cause hysteria, since change is natural and normal if there is something constant.

Where and from where is the world heading?

The development of modern man and his main paths were predetermined long before our time. Culturologists name several turning points, the result of which was modern society and people in the modern world.

Creationism, which fell in an unequal battle under the pressure of adherents of atheology, brought very unexpected results - a widespread decline in morals. Cynicism and criticism, which have become the norm of behavior and thinking since the Renaissance, are considered a kind of “rules of good manners” for moderns and elders.

Science in itself is not the raison d'être of society and is unable to answer some questions. To achieve harmony and balance, adherents of the scientific approach should be more humane, since the unresolved problems of our time cannot be described and solved like an equation with several unknowns.

Rationalization of reality sometimes does not allow us to see anything more than numbers, concepts and facts, which do not leave room for many important things.

Instincts versus reason

The main motives for the activities of society are considered to be the inheritance from distant and wild ancestors who once lived in caves. Modern man is just as tied to biological rhythms and solar cycles as he was a million years ago. An anthropocentric civilization only creates the illusion of control over the elements and one’s own nature.

The payback for such deception comes in the form of personal dysfunction. It is impossible to control every element of the system always and everywhere, because even your own body cannot be ordered to stop aging or change its proportions.

Scientific, political and social institutions are vying with each other about new victories that will certainly help humanity grow blooming gardens on distant planets. However, modern man, armed with all the achievements of the last millennium, is not able to cope with a common runny nose, like 100, 500 and 2000 years ago.

Who is to blame and what to do?

No one in particular is to blame for the substitution of values and everyone is guilty. Modern human rights are both respected and not respected precisely because of this distortion - you can have an opinion, but you cannot express it, you can love something, but you cannot mention it.

Stupid Ouroboros, constantly chewing his own tail, will one day choke, and then there will be complete harmony and world peace in the Universe. However, if this does not happen in the foreseeable future, future generations will at least have hope for the best.

In the second half of the 20th century. profound changes have occurred in society: man himself and his place in the world have changed. We can conclude that a new society is being formed. It is called post-industrial, information, technotronic, postmodern, etc.

The main ideas of post-industrial society are outlined by the American sociologist D. Bell. Another representative of American sociology, M. Castellier, in characterizing modern society, focuses primarily on its informational nature. One way or another, the authors emphasize the transition to a new period in the history of modern civilization, which was caused by changes in the economy, social life, politics and the spiritual sphere. These changes were so significant that they led to a crisis in the previous development model. Happened in the middle of the 20th century. The scientific and technological revolution changed the structure of production - information technology took first place in importance.

According to Bell, the post-industrial, information society differs from the previous industrial society mainly in two parameters:

1) theoretical knowledge acquires a central role;

2) The service sector is expanding in relation to the “producing economy”. This means that there has been a fundamental shift in the ratio of three sectors of the economy: primary (extractive-

industry and agriculture), secondary (manufacturing industries and construction), tertiary (services). This latter took the leading position.

The basis of post-industrial society is the unprecedented influence of science on production. If industrial society relies on various types of energy and machine technology, then post-industrial society relies on intellectual technologies, its main resource being knowledge and information.

Information in society has always played a special role. It is known that experience accumulated in a long process could not be transmitted genetically, so society became increasingly interested in preserving and transmitting knowledge, i.e. social information. The development of information connections has made society, like any living, self-developing, self-regulating system, more resistant to environmental influences, and has streamlined the connections within it. Since information in society is, first of all, knowledge (but not all that humanity has, but only that part of it that is used for orientation, for active action), it serves as a necessary link in the management of systems in order to preserve and qualitative specificity, improve and development. The more received information the system processes, the higher its overall organization and operating efficiency, thereby expanding the possibilities for its regulation.

In modern society, information has become an extremely important resource. Society is embarking on the path of informatization: a systemic and activity-based process of mastering information as a resource for development (and management) with the help of computer science with the aim of progressing civilization. Informatization of society does not simply mean computerization, it is a new level of life activity of each individual and society as a whole, in which the interaction of computer science and society is carried out on the basis of the study of laws and trends.

Thus, the information society is characterized by a state when society masters information flows and arrays that determine social development. The main and main form of social development on a global scale is information-intensive all-round intensification. On this basis, the global unity of the entire civilization develops. A major role was played by the creation of the Internet, then the merger of global media and computer communications into multimedia, covering all spheres of human life. A new information technology paradigm has been created, which, having changed the economy, entailed radical changes in public administration.

The features of post-industrialism were largely determined by the era that arose in the 16th–17th centuries. Western European civilization, having now received deeper development. This:

high rates of development. Society has switched to an intensive path of development;

a fundamental change in the value system: innovation itself, originality, became a value. In addition, personal autonomy occupies one of the highest places in the hierarchy of values. A person can change his corporate connections, join different

social communities and cultural traditions, especially as education becomes more accessible;

as never before, the manifestation of the essence of man as an active being who is in a transformative relationship with the world. The activity-active ideal of man’s relationship with nature has also spread to the sphere of social relations (struggle, revolutionary changes in society, etc.);

a different vision of nature - by learning the laws of nature, society puts them under its control.

Therefore, scientificity has acquired special significance as the basis for further progress. At the same time, the problem of the capabilities of science also arises, especially at the present time. The thing is

that the very development of technogenic civilization has approached critical milestones that marked the boundaries of this type of civilizational growth. With the advent of global problems, problems of human survival arose, problems of preserving personality and the biological foundations of human existence in conditions when the threat of the destructive influence of modern technogenesis on human biology is becoming more and more clear. Anti-scientist concepts hold science and its technological applications responsible for growing global problems. They come out with demands to limit and even freeze scientific and technological progress; in essence, this means a return to traditional societies.

The role of technology in modern society is also contradictory. On the one hand, fulfilling a social function, it complements and expands human capabilities. Its significance is so great that it gives rise to a certain state of worldview - technocracy.

Technocratism absolutizes the role of technical ideas and principles of technical knowledge, extending them to other spheres of human activity, and believes that the leading place in modern society belongs to technical specialists.

On the other hand, the penetration of the principles of technical design into all areas of human life creates a threat to man himself, his identity. A kind of “technical state” is emerging, in which all priorities, and even the very fate of society, are left to the scientific and technical elite. Social and political norms and laws are replaced by the laws of things created by civilization itself. Therefore, there is an increase in society technical alarmism– panic in front of technology.

Literature

2. Philosophy / Ed. A.F. Zotova et al. - M., 2003. - Section. 5, ch. 7.

Topic 9.2. PROBLEMS OF HUMAN POST-INDUSTRIALISM

The progressive influence of science and technology in modern society leaves a deep imprint on the very nature of human existence. Radical changes - changes in the conditions of people's participation in the system of productive forces, in the nature of work, in the structure of human relationships - are often carried out in a direction that can disrupt the historical continuity in the development of society. There is an impression of a deepening gap between traditional, historically established culture and the technical dimension of modern civilization. It is this circumstance that representatives of such a movement as cultural criticism(K. Jaspers, M. Heidegger, J. Habermas, etc.). They analyze the modern era from the point of view of spiritual losses caused by the exclusive assertion of “technical civilization”.

As a characteristic situation for modern times, the contradiction is noted between the historically established humanistic belief in the capabilities of man, in his creativity, autonomy of will and activity and the fact of the determination of the thoughts and lifestyle of people by scientific and technical civilization. Moreover, these forms of dependence are multiplying, fragmenting, and becoming less and less obvious. The break with the natural environment, the liberation of man from the power of the elements led to the power of the artificial environment over him. Natural moral and emotional reactions, personal experiences, etc. are suppressed.

Today technology is no longer only a capacitor of mechanical force, it is also a social, human technology. The power of technology over minds has expanded to the manipulation of mental life in general, including the unconscious. Technologicalization of the entire sphere of life is taking place. With the use of technical means and criteria in the most diverse areas of human public and private life, the engineering of human motives is spreading in society. As noted

German philosopher M. Mayer, a person’s whole life turns into a technical or technological complex, consisting of the technology of happiness, the technology of acquiring material wealth, the technology of communication between people, the technology of love relationships, the technology of achieving influence and power, the technology of education.

If the technologization of these spheres of life only indirectly turns a person into an object, cultivating his greater passivity (but still leaving him the appearance of independence), then technology, which includes possible types of psychotechnics, already poses a direct threat to personal identity. G. Marcel, for example, calls this technology “techniques of dehumanization.” E. Fromm argues that currently, human manipulation finds its most complete expression in psychological science.

The problem of human interaction with nature has also shown itself in a new light. As it turned out, the dependence of man on nature exists along with the inverse dependence of nature on man. The increasingly intensive consumption of natural resources with the help of technical means has significantly undermined the natural foundations of life: the intensity of production is increasing, and the amount of waste from economic activities is also increasing. Social production, taking 100 units of a substance from nature, uses 3–4, and throws 96 units into nature in the form of toxic substances and waste. This has created a tense and, in many cases, crisis situation in the interaction between man and nature. About 100 biological species go extinct on Earth every year. The rate of decline in biological diversity indicates a genuine environmental catastrophe. Over the past 66 million years, this is the largest period of extinction of animals and plants. The biological state of man himself has changed: heart disease, cancer, etc. have increased sharply.

For the current existence of man, these problems are extremely serious, so the connection “nature - technology - man” requires a new understanding. Thus, the German philosopher Habermas, trying to solve the problem, in his theory of society distinguishes two levels of social structure: the institutional framework and the technical “subsystem” subordinate to them. The model of society is built on the distinction between “goals” and “means”, on the strict subordination of the “instrumental” to the social. Desirable guidelines for further development are developed at the social level, and then move into the sphere of technical implementation. Each of the spheres, according to Habermas, has fundamentally different development possibilities. In “technical” terms, the path of society is a linear process, its limit is “the organization of society like an automaton,” i.e. dead end. He connects the possibilities of social progress with the social sphere. Habermas in his theory, as it were, breaks society, protecting the socio-cultural life of society from technical expansion by isolating the sphere of labor. His compatriot H. Shelsky rejects the thesis about the separation of the social from the “instrumental”, since in modern conditions every technical problem and every technical achievement immediately becomes social, affecting relations between people. Man is not at all confronted by the technical world as something alien, external; he has long been dealing exclusively with his own creation. A man of technogenic civilization is not an object, but a subject, a creator. However, a technically oriented mind acts as an end in itself, since the interest of the era is focused on the constructive genius of the mind, on the technical capabilities of the intellect. In this regard, Shelsky traces the spirit of scientism and technocratism.

The existing and deepening problems of modern man lead to an exacerbation of social contradictions and conflicts.

The economic crisis of the 70s of the last century forced us to reconsider the economic and social policies of the state, which received its name as the transition to industrialism.

Ä. Bell notes the positive aspects of the changes taking place:

innovative nature of production;

the growing role of education and knowledge, its transformation into a “collective good”;

subordination of the economic to the social and cultural;

approval of the class of knowledge carriers as the main one;

transformation of the ethos of science into the ethos of the whole society;

dominance of relationships between people, rather than between people and nature, etc.

However, already in the 1980s, neoliberalism in the economy, carried out by the state, led to a new aggravation of contradictions. The expansion of privatization, strengthening the power of private capital and, accordingly, reducing the role of the state created difficulties in social policy, increased

rising unemployment, increased social inequality. The new society began to qualify not only as a society of knowledge, information, services, but also as a society of risk, threats, fear, and dangers. This is facilitated by the growing globalization in the modern world.

Consequently, we can say that post-industrialism, based on scientific and technological advances, still does not solve the problems facing modern man. Indeed, the capabilities of society have expanded and its development has accelerated, the human world has radically changed, but the task is for humanity to realize the consequences of its capabilities and proceed, first of all, from the principle of humanism.

Literature

1. Philosophy / Ed. V.V. Mironov. – M., 2005. – Section. VII, ch. 3.

2. Philosophy / Ed. T.I. Kokhanovskaya. – Rostov-on-Don, 2003. – Gë. 13, p. 3.

Topic 9.3. GLOBAL PROBLEMS OF MODERN TIME

Global problems mean universal problems affecting the lives of all humanity. This is a set of vitally important problems of humanity, on the solution of which further social progress in the modern era depends.

Under the influence of technogenic transformations, modern civilization itself has changed; its impact on the world is so great that we have the right to talk about global problems. Vital problems have existed before in the history of society, but they were of a local and regional nature. In the modern era, they have acquired a planetary character, since humanity currently represents a single system based on a single economic and political life. Global problems are generated by history itself, namely, by the colossally increased technical means of human influence on nature and the enormous scale of its economic activity, which has upset the balance of nature and man.

The uneven development of countries in the world community has also led to problems of a global socio-political nature.

In addition, the unevenness of development manifests itself in the fact that the technological power of mankind exceeds the level of social organization it has achieved. Political thinking has clearly lagged behind political activity, and the motivations for the activities of the bulk of people and their moral values have not reached the requirements of modern times.

These are some of the reasons for the global problems facing modern society. These include:

1) prevention of global thermonuclear war, creation of a nuclear-free, non-violent world providing peaceful conditions for social existence;

2) overcoming the environmental crisis generated by the catastrophic human invasion of the biosphere, accompanied by pollution of the natural environment;

3) bridging the growing gap between economic and socio-spiritual development between developed industrial countries and developing ones;

4) ensuring the economic development of humanity with the necessary resources;

5) limiting rapid population growth (demographic explosion), which complicates socio-economic progress. As well as a decline in the birth rate in developed countries;

6) timely anticipation and prevention of various kinds of negative consequences scientific and technological progress and rational, effective use of its achievements

for the purpose of preserving the human race.

Home and life. Psychology. Technique. State. Finance. Health. Internet