Structure of culture (material and spiritual)
Such a large number of definitions is explained by the fact that the structure of culture is complex, multifunctional and multifaceted, as it includes the education system, science, literature, art, religion, etc.
The cultural process is the accumulation by society of material and spiritual values, the layering of eras, times and peoples fused together. This is human activity, relying on the left heritage of 1200 generations of our kind, fertilizing and transmitting this heritage to those who will replace those currently living.
Culture can be divided into two main types - material and spiritual, which are closely interrelated.
Material culture includes: the culture of labor and material production; culture of life; topos culture, i.e. place of residence (home, house, village, city); culture of attitude towards one's own body; Physical Culture. Spiritual culture includes cognitive (intellectual) culture; moral; artistic; legal; pedagogical. We should not forget that spiritual culture also includes worship, veneration, honor, and cult. First of all - a religious cult. In ancient times, man was constantly surrounded by gods: he met them in the field and in the grove, in the greenery of trees, in shady grottoes and river pools, but the gods lived both in the city and in a person’s house, they protected city laws and the safety of citizens.
Material culture satisfies the needs of people with its material content, while spiritual culture not only satisfies the flesh, but also develops abilities. It follows from this that the more a person develops spiritually, the more he changes material culture.
It is human nature to decorate our everyday life, and therefore objects of material culture in most cases are aesthetically designed and not only help our body to exist, but also delight the soul. For example, you can drink water straight from the tap, or from a crystal wine glass. This means that the spiritual side is always present in a person’s works. Cultural objects can belong to material and spiritual culture at the same time. For example, in works of architecture, decorative - applied arts. Both the house and the palace serve as housing, and the temple at various historical periods was not only a place for religious ceremonies, but also a meeting place, a repository of valuables, and even a classroom.
Another important point is that cultural objects can change their main purpose during the course of their existence. For example, using furniture and clothing that have become museum exhibits, one can study the life and customs of a certain era.
In turn, each component of spiritual culture can be structured. For example, religion - Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, etc.; science - humanitarian and technical, which can also be structured in more detail; art - decorative, plastic, easel, etc.
Basic functions of culture
Culture performs many functions: educational, social, educational, etc. There are three main functions that allow society to exist for a long time historical period, enter modern age- it is educational, informative, communicative.
The first - cognitive function - is knowledge of the world, country, society, or some phenomenon, self-knowledge (education, upbringing). This function concentrates the experience of many generations of people, the ability to accumulate a wealth of knowledge about the world and thereby create favorable opportunities for its knowledge and development. We can say that a society is intellectual to the extent that knowledge is used in the cultural gene pool of humanity. All types of society living on earth today differ primarily in this type. Some of them show amazing ability through culture, take all the best that people have accumulated and put it at their service. For example, Japan shows enormous abilities in many areas of science, technology, and production. Others still live in tribes and are unable to use the cognitive functions of culture, dooming themselves to social anemia and backwardness.
The second - informative - is the accumulation, preservation and transmission of cultural information from generation to generation, from one country to another, from civilization to civilization, acting as a person’s social memory. Therefore, it is important not only to preserve cultural values, but also convey them.
The third is communicative - means of transmitting cultural information, remote cognition. Culture is a sign system that must be understood or be able to decipher. This means that without understanding the specific language of the world of music, painting, sculpture, architecture, theater, philosophy, etc. it is impossible to understand their content. The same applies to the language of physics, chemistry, mathematics and other natural sciences, which have their own sign systems.
Culture as an integral system is usually divided into two forms: material and spiritual, which corresponds to two main types of production - material and spiritual. Material culture covers the entire sphere of human material and production activity and its results: tools, housing, everyday items, clothing, means of transport, etc. Spiritual culture includes the sphere of spiritual production and its results, i.e. sphere of consciousness - science, morality, education and enlightenment, law, philosophy, art, literature, folklore, religion, etc. This should include the relationships of people with each other, with themselves and with nature, which develop in the process of producing products of material and spiritual activity.
It has already been said that culture-forming activity can be of two types: creative and reproductive. The first creates new cultural values, the second only reproduces and replicates them. Sometimes this kind of activity, aimed at mechanical repetition of the products of someone else's mind and feelings, is also classified as spiritual production. This is incorrect, because it is not simply the replication of ideas or works of art, but their creation, the enrichment of culture through the efforts of a human creator. Thus, a teacher or university professor who mindlessly repeats other people’s thoughts and does not add anything of his own to them will be engaged not in creative, but in reproductive work, just like printing paintings by I.I. in huge quantities on candy wrappers. Shishkin’s “Morning in a Pine Forest” is by no means a spiritual production or spiritual culture.
That is why, when comparing different eras human history or a country by level of culture, then the main Criterion is taken, first of all, not from the quantitative aspect of the artistic or scientific products existing there, but from its national uniqueness and qualitative characteristics. Nowadays one can easily imagine a country that has “absorbed” and used many of the achievements of other peoples, but has not given the world anything “of its own” and nothing new. "Mass culture" - shining example how the desire for imitation and quantity at the expense of originality and quality deprives culture of a national face and turns it into its opposite - anticulture.
The division of culture into material and spiritual only at first glance seems quite clear and indisputable. A more attentive approach to the problem raises a number of questions: where, for example, should we include highly artistic household items, masterpieces of architecture or clothing? Do production relations and labor culture - the most important components of any industrial production - belong to the material or spiritual sphere? Many researchers classify them as material culture.
Therefore, another approach to distinguishing the two hypostases of culture is possible: the first is associated with the creative transformation of the surrounding nature into material products of human labor, i.e. into everything that has a material substance, but was created not by nature or God, but by the genius of man and his labor activity. In this case, the sphere of material culture will become the entire “humanized” part of the objectively existing world, the “second Universe”, which can be seen, touched, or at least felt. In this latter case, the smell of perfume, for example, will be fundamentally different from the smell of a rose, because perfume is created by man.
In contrast to material culture understood in this way, its purely spiritual manifestations have no substance and are associated primarily not with the transformation of the environment into material objects, but with the transformation of the inner world, the “soul” of a person or an entire people and its social existence. Simplifying and schematizing the question somewhat, we can say that spiritual culture is an idea, and material culture is its objectified embodiment. In real life, spiritual and material cultures are practically inseparable. Thus, a book or a painting, on the one hand, is material, on the other, spiritual, since it has a certain ideological, moral and aesthetic content. Even music materializes in the feet. In other words, there is no object of purely material culture, no matter how primitive it may seem, that does not have a “spiritual” element, just as there cannot be a product of spiritual culture that is unable to materialize. However, it is easy to imagine that in the absence of writing, an unmaterialized spiritual culture can exist in the form of folklore, passed on from generation to generation. The inextricable unity of the spiritual and material principles in culture, with the determining role of the former, is clearly expressed even in the famous Marxist formula: “ideas become material force when they take possession of the masses.”
Speaking about the unity of material and spiritual culture and at the same time without denying their different nature, one cannot help but ask the question: how does this unity manifest itself at different stages of human development? Is it becoming more organic, close and productive or, on the contrary, are the material and spiritual life of a person (and society) separated from one another? In other words, is the division of society into “priests” and “producers”, into people of culture and people-cogs, into personalities and individuals, intensifying? Or another, related question: do a person’s abilities to implement the ideas that arise in him increase, i.e. the possibility of their transformation into “material force”? It seems that there can be only one answer: with the development of society, its democratization, the growth of technical capabilities for reproducing and transmitting cultural products in time and space, the unity of the material and spiritual principles in it becomes more and more tangible and brings impressive results. Nowadays there is no longer such a confrontation between the “priests” and mere mortals as there was in ancient times; such fierce battles between science and religion as in the recent past; such a sharp division into the spiritual “elite” and the anonymous masses, as was observed at the beginning of the 20th century. Everywhere, at least in the most civilized countries, the number of individuals is growing at the expense of the mass of individuals, producers of culture at the expense of its passive consumers.
True, the spread of culture and the growth in the number of cultural people are coming not without internal contradictions. After all, “observed” spiritual culture usually serves to satisfy certain material needs of its owner, who often does not even imagine the spiritual content of this or that object belonging to him. It is enough to imagine the mansion of some illiterate nouveau riche, filled with paintings by great artists, or the most valuable library of a modern tradesman who has not opened a single book in his entire life. After all, many people hoard works of art and literature not because of their aesthetic value, but because of their market value. Fortunately, culture lives and breathes at the expense of millions of unmercenaries, primarily among the intelligentsia, with wretched angles or empty apartments, but keeping in their hearts and memories the spiritual riches of the whole world! Speaking about the spiritual culture of a particular people at a certain moment in its history, one should not directly connect it either with the standard of living of a given society or with its material production, because there is such a thing as cultural heritage. US culture is by no means richer than Russian, French or Italian, behind which greatness is still felt Ancient Rome. This once again proves that genuine culture, unlike machine civilization, does not develop overnight, but is the product of a very long development.
Each of us has needs that can be divided into spiritual and material. To do this, it is enough to recall the pyramid of the famous psychologist Maslow, in which the lower (need for food, sex, air, etc.) and higher human desires (the desire to be a respected person, the desire for self-affirmation, a sense of security, comfort and etc.). To satisfy all of the above, in the process of historical development of mankind, classifications of a cultural nature were formed, including material culture.
What is material culture?
Let us recall that material culture is the environment surrounding a person. Every day, thanks to the work of everyone, it is updated and improved. This gives rise to a new standard of living, as a result of which the demands of society change.
Types of material culture include:
- Animals. This category includes not only livestock, but also decorative breeds of cats, birds, dogs, etc. However, cheetahs do not belong to this species because they live in the wild and have not been subjected to the process of deliberate interbreeding with other species of their own kind. And cats and dogs, the development of whose nature has been invaded by man, are representatives of material culture. Also, one of these reasons is that their gene pool and appearance have been changed.
- Plants. The number of new varieties increases every year. Man achieves this through selection.
- The soil. This is the top layer of the earth, by fertilizing which every farmer strives to get a bountiful harvest. True, in the race for money, environmental indicators are sometimes ignored, and as a result, the earth is filled with harmful bacteria and viruses.
- Building. No less important achievement Material culture is considered to be structures, architecture, which is created with the help of human labor. The culture of buildings includes real estate, which is constantly being improved, and thereby improving the standard of living of people.
- Equipment, tools. With their help, a person simplifies his work and spends two or more times less time on achieving something. This, in turn, significantly saves his life time.
- Transport. This category, like the previous one, is aimed at improving living standards. For example, earlier, when many traders went to China to buy silk, it took at least a year to get from the USA to this country. Nowadays it’s enough just to buy a plane ticket and you don’t have to wait 360 days.
- Means of communication. The area includes a miracle of technology Cell phones, World Wide Web, radio, mail.
Features of material culture
It should be noted that the distinctive quality of this type of culture is the variety of objects created by human labor, which help to adapt to changeable conditions as quickly as possible. 
environmental and social conditions. In addition, each nation has its own material features, characteristic specifically for a certain ethnic group.
The relationship between material and spiritual culture
One of the main intermediaries between the spiritual and material worlds is money. So, they can be spent on purchasing much-needed food, clothes that help you stay warm in the frosty winter, or simply interior elements. It all depends on the desire of the person and his capabilities. Using this market equivalent, one can purchase a ticket to a seminar at which a person will increase the level of his knowledge, which is already spiritual culture, or he can go to the theater.
With all the diversity of typologies of human needs, what is common to them is the identification of two types of needs - material and spiritual. Material needs are the needs of the human body - food, housing, clothing, etc. Spiritual needs are the needs of the human spirit. The main ones are associated with the desire for the highest values of culture, which are truth, goodness, beauty, mutual understanding.
In accordance with the distinction between the spiritual and material needs of a person, culture can also be divided into two types - material and spiritual. The first is related to the satisfaction of material needs, the second - spiritual.
Each of them, in turn, can be divided into several spheres, in accordance with the diversity of both material and, especially, spiritual needs.
Thus, material culture is divided into physical culture and household.
The function of physical culture is cultivation, i.e., in accordance with the original meaning of the word “culture,” - cultivation, processing, improvement of the human body.
The functions of everyday culture are to satisfy human needs for food, housing, clothing and other items, without which the very physical existence of a person is impossible. Thanks to everyday culture, adaptation of man and society to the surrounding nature is carried out. This leads to significant differences in the everyday culture of different peoples.
Spiritual culture is also divided into a number of spheres - art, science, religion, etc., each of which satisfies certain spiritual needs and, in accordance with this, is concentrated around certain main values.
The question of the possibility of dividing culture into material and spiritual is hotly debated. Many thinkers believe that the concept of “material culture” is absurd and similar to such concepts as “fried water”, “hot ice”, etc. At the same time, they refer, firstly, to the fact that in culture there are no spheres, not related in one way or another to spirituality, and, secondly, to the fact that in all spheres of culture the spiritual principle plays a decisive, dominant role.
It should be noted that the truth of each of these provisions cannot be disputed.
Indeed, everything in culture is permeated with spirituality. Let's take physical education, for example. It would seem that the name itself speaks of its belonging to material culture. However, cultivating healthy, beautiful body requires great knowledge, developed aesthetic needs and other qualities depending on the level of spiritual culture of the individual and society. The same can be said about everyday culture. All its components - the culture of clothing, the culture of food, the culture of housing - are densely saturated with spirituality. By the way a person is dressed, how he eats, and the decoration of his home, one can get a complete picture of his spiritual appearance.
However, in order to draw a conclusion about the meaninglessness or, conversely, the legitimacy of the concept “material culture”, one more circumstance must be taken into account. It was already discussed above, when it was said that the distinction between material and spiritual culture is made on a functional basis. In accordance with this, it makes sense to single out material culture as an element of the cultural system, since it basic function is to satisfy material needs - a healthy body, food, clothing, housing.
This is its difference from spiritual culture, the main function of which is to satisfy spiritual needs - in truth, goodness, beauty, etc.
It is the difference between spiritual and material culture that allows us to talk about how widely and how spiritual culture is represented in material culture, about how spiritualized material culture is.
Thus, despite the fact that everything in culture is indeed permeated with spirituality, the distinction between material and spiritual culture on a functional basis still makes sense. However, we must not forget that it is very conditional.
Another argument that opponents of the concept of “material culture” cite, as mentioned above, is that the spiritual principle plays a decisive role in culture. As is easy to see, this argument takes the conversation to a different logical plane. Here we are not talking about the legitimacy of the concept of “material culture”, but about What in culture is primary - the spiritual or material principle, spiritual or material culture.
It should be noted that this is a matter of principle. In the recent past, during the years of the dominance of Marxism, often dogmatized and distorted, most Russian thinkers considered it their duty to assert that material culture was primary in relation to spiritual culture. This, they believed, necessarily follows from the fundamental principle of materialist philosophy, according to which matter is primary in relation to consciousness, being determines consciousness, social being determines social consciousness.
However, supporters of this point of view forgot or did not know that the classics of Marxism-Leninism themselves did not formulate the initial principles of materialist philosophy so categorically. Firstly, they never tired of saying that matter is primary in relation to consciousness... ultimately, in the world-building sense of the word. If we consider individual fragments of existence, human activity, for example, we will see that here consciousness is primary in relation to matter. Secondly, the classics of Marxism-Leninism considered their philosophy not just materialist, but dialectical-materialist. According to the principles of dialectics, the defined element (in this case, spirit, spirituality, consciousness) has an active reverse effect on the defining element (in this case, matter, material existence). It is quite legitimate to assume that this influence intensifies and becomes primary in certain areas of existence, in certain eras.
Thus, even from the point of view of Marxism, the thesis about the primacy of material culture in relation to spiritual culture did not seem indisputable and unambiguous. Now, when theoretical thought has freed itself from the shackles of dogmatism, it looks like a clear anachronism.
In resolving the issue of the primacy of spiritual or material culture, the decisive role is played not so much by arguments of a logical nature, that is, conclusions from some general principles, but by the history of culture itself. She convinces that culture as a whole has always been and should be built in accordance with the hierarchy of spiritual values.
The conclusion about the primacy of spiritual culture is of fundamental importance, since it allows us to talk about the programming function of culture in the development of society.
Everyday culture
The close intertwining of spiritual and material cultures, the impossibility of strictly separating one from the other, has given rise to the need to consider as an independent formation that layer of culture where the interpenetration of the spiritual and material makes itself felt especially acutely. This education was called the “culture of everyday life.” Scientific interest in it arose relatively recently. The history of the study of everyday culture can be divided into three stages.
The first of them began in the middle of the 19th century. and was associated with the works of such authors as A. Tereshchenko, N. I. Kostomarov, I. E. Zabelin and others.
Modern researcher V.D. Leleko identifies the following areas of study of everyday culture in the works of the above-mentioned authors:
Macro- and microhabitat: nature, city, village, home (its connection with environment And inner space, including interior, furniture, utensils, etc.);
The body and care for its natural and sociocultural functions: nutrition, exercise, hygiene, healing, costume;
Personally and socially significant moments in a person’s life, ritually formalized birth (baptism), creation of a family (wedding), death (funeral);
Family, family relationships;
Interpersonal relationships in other micro social groups ah (professional, religious, etc.);
Leisure: games, entertainment, family and public holidays and rituals.
The next stage of research into everyday life is associated with the publication of a book by the Dutch historian and cultural scientist Johan Huizinga (1872 – 1945). “Autumn of the Middle Ages” and the emergence in France of the so-called “Annals school” (formed around the journal “Annals of Economic and Social History, published since 1929) led by Marc Bloch (1886 – 1944) and Lucien de Febvre (1878 – 1956) .
J. Huizinga's brilliant book reveals a vivid panorama Everyday life people of different classes who lived in the era late Middle Ages. It should be noted that the research proceeded approximately in the directions discussed above.
As for the Annales school, an idea of its methodology can be obtained, for example, from the book of one of its representatives, E. Le Roy Laderie, “Montogayu. Occitan village" (1294 - 1324).
As the third stage in the study of everyday life, we can consider the period when it became the subject philosophical understanding. Martin Heidegger (1889 – 1976) especially clearly emphasized the importance of everyday life, defining it as “presence in one’s being.” Thus, he linked together the concepts of “everyday life” and “being,” which before him were considered incomparable, diverse and of different orders.
In our country, the culture of everyday life has attracted close attention not only researchers, but also the general public in the 90s of the XX century. Currently, the discipline “Everyday Culture” is included in the federal component of the State educational standard in the specialty “Cultural Studies”. This can be seen as crucial moment, in which the tendency towards the humanization of our society was manifested.
It should be noted that until recently the attitude towards the culture of everyday life in our country was best case scenario inattentive, at worst - negative. On this occasion, P. Ya. Chaadaev noted with bitterness: “There is truly something cynical in this indifference to the blessings of life, which some of us take credit for.” This was due to many circumstances, among which an important role was played by a kind of prejudice, which consisted in the opposition of everyday life, which meant everyday life, and being. At the same time, it was believed that a person striving for the heights of spiritual culture not only has the right, but almost an obligation to look down on everyday life. Is it true, catchphrase A. S. Pushkin: “You can be a smart person and think about the beauty of your nails” was and is widely circulated, but it didn’t go beyond “nails.” The “nonexistence” of the Russian intelligentsia is a widely known phenomenon. Therefore, the position of M. Heidegger, who connected everyday life with being, as discussed above, is of fundamental importance. Indeed, everyday life is one of the main realities of human existence, “nearby existence.” And without a neighbor, as we know, there is no distant one.
The significance of everyday life lies in the fact that in this area the two-way nature of the interaction between man and culture is most clearly manifested: man creates culture, culture creates man. The point is that housing, clothing, daily routine, etc., i.e., everything that is quite obviously the result of people’s activities, has the ability to have an active reverse effect on them. W. Churchill’s formula is widely known: “First we arrange our home, and then our home arranges us.”
Accordingly, a shabby, poorly equipped home makes inner world its occupant is equally shabby and poorly maintained. And vice versa, a house, in the creation of which love and the desire for beauty are invested, harmonizes the spiritual world of those who created it.
The same can be said about clothes. In practice, every person has the opportunity to make sure that in one clothing he feels like a being who has nothing to hope for in this world, and in another, on the contrary, he feels the ability to conquer heights. The commercial price of the item does not matter.
A special role in a person’s life is played by relationships with the “inner circle” of people - relatives, neighbors, co-workers. The hysterical or rude tone of communication, the “authors” of which are all its participants, boomerangs back to them in the form of mental disorder and even physical illness. And vice versa, friendly, benevolent communication results in mental health and a feeling of joy in life.
Thus, everyday life is one of the main areas of manifestation of human creative activity, on the one hand, and the human-creative power of culture itself, on the other. Not everyone goes to the theater, museums, or libraries, but everyone has to deal with everyday life. Therefore, managerial influence on culture can consist not only in improving the work of those organizations that are commonly called “cultural institutions,” but also in cleaning the streets, renovating houses, planting trees, etc.
So, the theoretical understanding of the category “everyday culture” is very important. It made it possible to “reconcile” spiritual and material culture, showing that with the leading role of spiritual culture, material culture has the ability to have an active reverse influence.
It is in the sphere of everyday culture that the “power of things” and at the same time the “power of the spirit” over them is clearly demonstrated.
Spheres of culture
Morality
One of the most important needs of society is regulation and ordering of relations between people. This is also the most important need of every individual, since life in a chaotic society, where everyone strives to satisfy their own interests, regardless of the interests of others, is impossible. Therefore, one of the oldest and most important areas of spiritual culture is morality. Its function is to regulate relationships between people. In the sphere of morality, not only are rules and norms for the interaction of people developed and formulated, but also ways are developed to reward those who obediently follow them or, on the contrary, to punish those who violate them.
The highest value of this sphere of culture is goodness.
When asked what is good, people of different cultures answer differently. However, already in ancient times, attempts were made to identify norms of universal morality. One such attempt is the famous 10 biblical commandments.
The question of universal human morality is still one of the most pressing. The answer to it, as well as to others that are equally important in a practical sense, can be given by theory and cultural history.
The emergence of morality coincides in time with the emergence of culture, since moral regulation is regulation not in accordance with human biological instincts, but often contrary to them.
In the sphere of morality, the main issue of social regulation and, therefore, the main issue of culture is resolved - who is another person for a person. So, if he acts as an impersonal member of the collective, then we have primitive collectivist morality, if a member of the polis - polis, civil morality, if a servant of God - religious morality, if a means of achieving his own benefit - individualistic morality, if the highest value - truly humanistic morality.
The content of all other spheres of culture is built in accordance with moral values and norms. Therefore, morality is the core sphere of any type of culture.
In the synergetic aspect, morality appears as a cultural attractor, i.e., a subsystem around which an order is “tied” that determines the state of the system as a whole.
Communication
Direct interpersonal spiritual communication is among the most ancient in origin spheres of spiritual culture. It must be borne in mind that communication as such is an aspect of all spheres of cultural and social life. It can be direct and indirect. For example, when a group of friends and acquaintances communicate with each other (talking, singing songs, etc.) - this is direct communication. When the same friends communicate via the Internet, this is indirect communication. The artist communicates with the viewer, the writer with the reader - both through their works. This is also indirect communication.
This section will focus on direct interpersonal spiritual communication.
The primary importance of communication as a sphere of culture is associated with its main function, social in its meaning, - ensuring the integrity of society and individual groups. The anthropological function of communication is that it satisfies the most important human need - the need for another person. In accordance with this, the main value that participants in communication strive to possess is mutual understanding. If it is absent, then communication does not fulfill either its social or anthropological function.
Achieving mutual understanding allows communication to perform another anthropological function - hedonistic. L. Tolstoy called the pleasure received from communication “dinner from the intangible side.” An important anthropological function of communication is also the cultivation of human emotions, primarily moral feelings.
True, art also performs this same function, but it does this by other means specific to it. There is a complementary relationship between communication and art: a person cultivated by art, on the one hand, is enriched as a subject of communication, and on the other, a sociable person is more open to art, more receptive to it; In addition, art itself is one of the most powerful means of communication, and communication, being one of the most complex types of creativity, in which intuition, imagination, fantasy, and imaginative thinking (the ability to grasp the image of an interlocutor and create your own image) play an important role, is true seen as a kind of art.
Communication is an important factor in the spiritual development of the individual also because it allows one to satisfy the need for self-affirmation. It has been established that for some socio-demographic groups (for example, adolescents) this need prevails over others, and the dominant way to satisfy it is direct communication with peers.
The most important anthroposocial function of communication is the socialization of the younger generation in communication with peers.
Finally, spiritual interpersonal communication also performs an informational function, but it is perhaps the least characteristic of it: other types of communication and other spheres of culture perform this function more successfully.
Upbringing and education
One of the most important areas of culture, allowing culture to fulfill its life-supporting functions, is upbringing the younger generation. People paid attention to this already at the earliest stages of their development.
Researchers of primitive society note that even among tribes that are the most primitive in terms of development in comparison with all the relict tribes and nationalities known to us, the education of youth is one of the three most important general tribal affairs, the first of which is providing food and protecting the inhabited area and feeding areas.
Let's think about this: the ancient people already understood that raising the younger generation is just as important as providing food and protecting the territory that can serve as a source of this food. In other words, the ancients already understood that the tribe would die if it did not properly educate the younger generation, just as it would die without food.
So, raising the younger generation is one of the most important areas of culture, performing life-supporting functions.
The function of education is to reproduce the person needed by this particular community. This refers to the entire set of basic human traits and qualities, that is, a person in his integrity. Education, therefore, is that sphere of culture where the anthropological structure of a given culture becomes visible, since in it the requirements imposed on a person by a given culture, that is, certain human standards, are enclosed in a system of rules and regulations that have a varied, but always a fairly definite form.
Common to all historical, regional, national types education is that the main integral value of this sphere of culture is compliance with certain requirements, the totality of which is built on the idea of a certain type of person needed by a given society. And since various societies differ significantly from one another because they live in different conditions, have different story etc., then the requirements for the person needed by a given society also differ. Accordingly, the values characteristic of education as a cultural sphere also differ.
For example, in a society with an object paradigm, i.e. where a person is thought of mainly as an object of external influences - the state, church, family, etc., the most important value of education is obedience, i.e. obedient execution of orders, rules, regulations, following traditions, repeating patterns.
In a society with a subjective paradigm, i.e., where a person is considered primarily as a subject, i.e., a source of activity, thoughtless obedience cannot be a value. These are initiative, responsibility, and a creative approach to business. But since no society can live without following certain rules, conscious discipline and self-discipline become a value.
The attitude towards other essential human forces and their combination with each other varies in the same way. The forms and institutions of education also vary.
Education As a sphere of culture, it has much more modest tasks than education. Its function is the transfer of knowledge necessary for a person as a member of a given community.
Thus, if education deals with the person as a whole, then the function of education is the cultivation of only one of the essential forces of man - the one that we have designated by the term “rational”. It includes such components as the ability to think, the ability to act rationally, i.e. expediently, and, finally, knowledge. Based on this, we can conclude that education is correctly viewed as Part education, since a complete person is impossible without such an essential force as rationality.
However, the increase in the volume of knowledge that each subsequent generation had to acquire in comparison with the previous one led to the separation of education from upbringing and, moreover, to the derogation of the role of upbringing.
This trend became especially noticeable by the middle of the 20th century, and at the same time its disastrous consequences became especially noticeable. They were expressed in the one-sided, one-sided development of man - hypertrophy of the rational principle in him, and in the form of wretched rationalism with a purely utilitarian bias, and atrophy of the emotional principle, reaching the point of complete insensibility. The result of this is moral deafness, since morality is not only knowledge about the rules of behavior, but also a moral feeling, and this requires a developed emotional sphere. In this regard, the most urgent task of our time is the synthesis of upbringing and education. It is possible only if the main goal and value of this dual system becomes an integral person in the fullness of the development of his essential powers.
Mythology and religion
One of the oldest spheres of culture is religion (from lat. religare- connection). Many researchers even believe that this is the most ancient sphere of culture.
Two arguments are usually given in favor of this point of view. One of them is logical-etymological. It is associated with a certain interpretation of the concept of “culture” and a certain idea of the etymological origin and meaning of the word “culture” itself. Thus, supporters of this point of view believe that religion is the most important sphere of culture, expressing its essence. In their opinion, if there is no religion, then there is no culture. And they consider the word “culture” itself to be derived from the word “cult,” which denotes a phenomenon inextricably linked with religion.
Thus, etymology, i.e. the very origin of the word, serves for supporters of this point of view as confirmation of the starting position of their cultural concept.
It should be borne in mind that not only the interpretation of the essence of religion, but also the interpretation of the etymological meaning of the word “culture” is in this case very controversial. As is known, the overwhelming majority of researchers associate the etymological meaning of the word “culture” not with the word “cult”, but with the words “processing”, “cultivation”, “improvement”.
Another argument in favor of the idea of religion as the oldest sphere of culture is historical. Supporters of this point of view argue that irreligious peoples have never existed and do not exist.
Historical arguments are refuted by historical facts, they say that religion, which requires quite high level The development of consciousness was preceded by myth, or rather myths, in connection with which this sphere of culture is called mythology, meaning that the myths of any culture are united into a certain system, that is, they have their own logos.
So what is myth and how does it differ from religion?
Mythology. The main feature of the myth is syncretism. All researchers of primitive mythology (A.F. Losev, F.H. Cassidy, M.I. Steblin-Kamensky, E.M. Meletinsky, E.F. Golosovker, etc.) unanimously note such features of the content of the myth as indivisibility in between reality and fantasy, subject and object, nature and man, individual and collective, material and spiritual. Myth, therefore, is a reflection of underdevelopment and, accordingly, unawareness of social and cultural contradictions. And in this it is fundamentally different from religion, which arises when these contradictions begin to appear and be realized, and represents an illusory way of resolving them.
The cultural function of myth is that it gave primitive man a ready-made form for his worldview and worldview. The main function of myth is “social and practical, aimed at ensuring the unity and integrity of the team.” Myth could fulfill this function due to the fact that it is “a product of the collective and is an expression of collective unity, universality and integrity.”
Since in myth there is no distinction between the real and the fantastic, it does not contain the problem of faith and unbelief, faith and knowledge, so tragically realized by religion. Myth does not form any ideal, its principle is “what was, was, what is, is,” and, therefore, there is no problem of conformity to the ideal. Finally, myth is impersonal: individuality in it is completely dissolved in spontaneous collective force, which means that there is no problem of personal responsibility, personal guilt.
Religion. The first sociocultural phenomenon that required professionalization of activity for its functioning was religion. It arose in the process of development of mythological consciousness as its derivative, later and qualitatively higher stage. If myth is a reflection of the underdevelopment and unawareness of social and cultural contradictions, then religion, on the contrary, appears when these contradictions already take place and begin to be recognized. One of the first signs of religious consciousness is the absence of mythological syncretism of subject and object. Realizing the contradiction between subject and object, in particular, between man and the nature surrounding him, religion resolves it in favor of external forces independent of man, which thus become the subject (deity), and man is conceived as the object of their influence.
The absence of a primitive ideological anarchism in understanding the relationship between subject and object is a sign of even the most primitive religions. More developed religions rise to the awareness of other contradictions of human existence.
Religion performs the same functions as myth. The main one among them is integrative, i.e. the unification of certain communities around common gods. It should be taken into account that the integrative function of religion should not be absolutized: rallying around one’s gods or God often leads to separation from those who profess a different faith and worship other gods.
Another important function of religion, which it inherited from myth, is worldview. But religion also performs this function differently from myth. A more developed religious worldview covers a wider sphere of reality and includes a solution to the problem of man’s place in the world around him and his capabilities.
On the basis of myth, as has already been shown, not only a solution, but also a formulation of this problem is impossible. However, the functions of religion compared to myth have expanded significantly.
In addition to the functions that myth performed (and performs), religion began to perform a number of more important functions.
One of them is the function of consecrating moral norms. The status of “holy, sacred” in any culture is given to the highest values of that culture. Thus, the sanctification of moral norms is giving them the status of the highest value. In addition, the sanctification of moral norms on a religious basis makes it possible to refer to God as the source of moral instructions, as an omnipresent and omniscient observer of how they are fulfilled, and as the supreme judge who pronounces his verdict on moral transgressions (“God is your judge.” !”), and, finally, as the executor of his sentences (to heaven or hell).
Thus, the religious basis makes moral norms unusually effective and imperative. Moreover, there is a very strong belief that morality cannot exist at all without a religious basis. “If there is no God, then everything is permitted.”
Religion also successfully performs an aesthetic function. Architecture and interior decoration of the temple, musical accompaniment divine services, the clothing of priests and parishioners - all this is rich, imbued with beauty and therefore produces an extraordinary aesthetic effect.
Religion also successfully performs a communicative function, that is, the function of communication. At the same time, it is capable of significantly expanding the social circle of each individual: it includes not only parishioners of a particular church, but also fellow believers - compatriots, fellow believers living in other countries, all previous generations of people who professed one or another religion, and finally, every religion gives a person an absolutely perfect communication partner (or partners) - the god (or gods) of this religion - to whom one can turn with prayer and be quite confident that it will be heard and understood.
The psychotherapeutic function of religion is also connected with this - turning to God heals mental illnesses and helps to cope with internal disorder.
The variety of functions of religion is closely related to its essence, deeply revealed by L. Feuerbach, a philosopher whose work is the final stage in the development of German classical philosophy.
In his works, and first of all, in his most famous work, “The Essence of Christianity,” L. Feuerbach showed that the god of any religion is the ideal of man, as he appears to people of a particular era, a particular culture, this or that people. Therefore, the gods are endowed with such features as power or even omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence. In fact, these are traits that people themselves would like to have and which they possess, but only ideally, and not in real life.
Thus, according to L. Feuerbach, people seem to tear off, alienate their own essence from themselves, lift it to heaven and worship it.
Based on this idea of L. Feuerbach, the diversity of religions can be explained, since it is associated with the diversity of ideals of human perfection, characteristic of different peoples and depending on the conditions of their life and the historical path they have traversed. Therefore, fulfilling the functions of religions in all their rich spectrum is possible only in relation to believers. As for non-believers and atheists, it is obligatory for them to respect the feelings of believers, to understand the deep cultural roots of religion and the diversity of its functions.
In addition, every cultured person must understand that there are no good or bad religions, but there are people who are capable of distorting the original principles of any religious teaching beyond recognition and thereby turning it into a weapon of hostility and separation of peoples.
Art
Art in its developed forms is a vast field human activity, a powerful focus of values, without which it is impossible to imagine culture. The specificity of the anthropological function of art is that it cultivates the emotional component of human spirituality, that is, it influences his feelings.
This determines the social function of art: it gives society a “feeling person.” A person deprived of the ability to feel cannot be not only a full-fledged producer, but also a full-fledged consumer of cultural values, since value consciousness has dual nature- emotional-rational or rational-emotional. This is especially important in the sphere of morality: an insensitive person is flawed as a subject of moral activity, since the stimulus for moral activity is not so much knowledge of moral norms, but moral feelings: compassion, love, aversion to evil, etc. Thus, the low level of development of emotionality as a component of human spirituality weakens the impact of such a powerful regulator of social life as morality.
The role of art is also great in the functioning of other spheres of culture - communication, education, religion, etc., etc.
Thus, the social function of art lies in the fact that it is one of the powerful factors in the self-regulation of social life, the action of which is determined by its focus on the emotional sphere of human spirituality.
The specificity of art from a semiotic point of view is that it uses the language of artistic images, which represent a model of a particular phenomenon in its entirety. An integral feature of an artistic image is its emotional intensity, which distinguishes it from models used in science. Thanks to the peculiarities of artistic images, a person who perceives a work of literature, as it were, “sees” what is narrated in it. As for works of fine art, the very purpose of which is to give a visible image of a particular phenomenon, here too the role of the artistic image is to help a person see the invisible. Thus, a drawing of a flower in a biology textbook gives an accurate idea of the shape of the flower, its color (if the drawing is colored). And the drawing of a flower made by the artist allows you to “see” the author’s experiences, his joy or sadness, admiration for the beauty of the flower and awe at its fragility and defenselessness, etc., etc.
The general cultural function of art is to provide a visible image of a particular culture, and, above all, a visible image of a person of a given specific culture, in all his forms and situations. This does not mean that art only reflects or records “what is.” Since any culture is impossible without ideals that orient people towards “what is needed”, “what should be”, what they should strive for, then art is impossible without this ideal component. Therefore, the references of the authors of “chernukha” and “porn” to the fact that “such is life” only indicate that they do not understand the purpose of art.
IN axiological aspect art is also very specific. The main value cultivated in the field of art is beauty. It is one of the system-forming values of any culture. And in accordance with this, one of the most important functions of art is to provide a visible standard of beauty. However, ideas about beauty in different cultures differ significantly: what is considered beautiful from the point of view of one culture may be perceived as ugly in another. Therefore, the standard of beauty presented in the art of one people can at least cause bewilderment on the part of another culture.
At the same time, in understanding beauty different peoples there is something in common. It lies in bringing the concept of “beauty” closer to the concept of “harmony”. However, new difficulties arise here. They lie in the fact that the concept of “harmony” is no less ambiguous than the concept of “beauty”, and thus, instead of an equation with one unknown, we get an equation with two unknowns.
To solve it, it is useful to turn to the etymological meaning of the word “harmony”. It is characteristic that originally in ancient Greek it meant “scrapes.” It is in this specific meaning that it is used, for example, in the Odyssey: Odysseus, building a ship, trims it with “nails” and “harmonies.” Thus, harmony was thought of by the ancient Greeks as a kind of way of firmly connecting various parts into something holistic, organic. As is known, they saw an example of harmony in the human body. They also thought of it as an example of beauty.
This understanding of beauty and harmony is one of the fundamental ideas of Russian cultural philosophy. Thus, the outstanding Russian thinker K. N. Leontiev wrote that “the fundamental law of beauty is diversity in unity.” Beauty understood in this way is identical to harmony, and harmony, according to K. N. Leontiev, “is not a peaceful unison, but a fruitful, fraught with creativity, and at times brutal struggle.”
Russian thinkers are credited with developing another category, denoting one of the most important values cultivated in the field of art - this is true. N.K. Mikhailovsky, one of the rulers of the thoughts of Russian youth in the last third of the 19th century, noted that Russian word“truth” in its entirety of meaning cannot be translated into any other language. At the same time, as N.K. Mikhailovsky noted, there are two main meanings, the combination of which gives an approximate idea of what people of Russian culture understand by the word “truth.”
One of these meanings is “truth-truth.” It corresponds to the concept of “truth”, which can be defined as knowledge that corresponds to reality. This understanding of truth reflects the moment of objectivity as an integral feature, in the absence of which it ceases to be such.
Another meaning of the concept “truth” is “truth-justice”. In this understanding of truth, in contrast to the first, the moment of subjectivity, a relationship from the standpoint of justice, which includes a personal attitude, is reflected. In the absence of this moment, the truth also ceases to be the truth and remains only the truth.
This idea of Russian philosophy seems to have enduring significance for understanding the axiological specificity of art. Apparently, it would be correct to consider not only beauty, but also truth as one of the system-forming values cultivated in the field of art. What is meant here is, first of all, the truth of human feelings.
Understanding the semiotic and axiological specifics of art allows us to better understand how exactly art performs its main anthropological, general cultural and social functions, which was discussed at the beginning of this section.
Art also performs a number of other functions, which are also performed by other spheres of culture. The specificity of art lies in this case in the way these functions are performed.
So, art fulfills cognitive function. It is more typical for another sphere of culture - science. But art makes it possible to learn and see what is inaccessible to science. Thus, the novel in verse by A. S. Pushkin “Eugene Onegin” is rightfully considered an encyclopedia of Russian life in the first third of the 19th century, O. Balzac’s epic “The Human Comedy” is an encyclopedia of French life of approximately the same period, D. Galsworthy’s novel “The Forsyte Saga” " - an encyclopedia of English life late XIX– beginning of the 20th century. etc. But, as mentioned above, art not only reflects reality, but also constructs new, its own worlds in accordance with the ideals of beauty, goodness, truth. Hence the constructive-programming function of art.
Art is one of essential means intercultural and intracultural communication and thus performs a communicative function, often more successfully than other means of communication. This is due to the fact that the language of images is more understandable than other cultural languages. For example, art of a particular people gives an idea of the ideal of beauty that the people of this culture are guided by, and of the problems that concern them, and even of ways to solve these problems.
Art is also an effective means of education. Standards of behavior, presented in artistic form in works of art, have a very great educational impact precisely because of their appeal to human feelings. Negative images that turn a person away from unworthy behavior have no less impact. The educational function of art is also built on the fact that in figurative and artistic form it gives a picture of the intense, at times tragic struggle between good and evil, the arena of which is not only the world as a whole, but also the soul of each individual person.
The function of socialization and acculturation of the individual performed by art is also of great importance. It is carried out due to the fact that art in an artistic and figurative form gives a person an idea of the set of social roles existing in society, the requirements placed on them, the basic values and norms of a given culture.
We must also not forget about the hedonistic function of art. The pleasure that a person receives from perceiving a highly artistic work of art is unparalleled.
The closely related relaxation and entertainment functions of art are also of great importance.
Unfortunately, in modern culture There is a tendency that all the variety of functions of art comes down to relaxation and entertainment. This is especially characteristic of mass culture - the most simplified, primitivized version of mass culture.
To perform all the diverse functions of art, professionals working in this sphere of culture develop and apply various methods and techniques. Their combination at one or another stage of development of a particular culture forms a kind of systemic unity, which is called the artistic method.
This or that artistic method is characterized by the following main distinctive features.
Firstly, a certain certainty of the content of artistic works made in accordance with one method or another. This feature of the artistic method is directly related to the basic value attitudes of a particular culture, the semantic centers of which are, as has been repeatedly said above, the ideal of a person, characteristic of a particular culture, at a particular stage of its development. In addition to this substantive moment, which is objective in relation to the artist himself, different artistic methods are characterized by different degrees of inclusion in the content of the work of the subjective moment, that is, the personal position of the artist, his attitude to the values and ideals prevailing in society.
Another distinctive feature of a particular artistic method is a set of certain formal features characteristic of expressing the content of a work of art.
It should be noted that the unity of form and content is one of the universal laws of existence. Its effect is especially clearly manifested in all cultural phenomena. But it has a special, unprecedented significance in art.
Since the impact on human feelings is carried out primarily through the form of the work, the form is often perceived as something independent, and the content of the work as something secondary.
However, this is not the case. Despite all the enormous significance that the form of a work of art has, it still depends primarily on its content. In figurative form, this dependence of form on the content of a work of art was wonderfully expressed by K. N. Leontiev, already quoted by us, when he noted that form is an expression of the internal despotism of the idea.
But the peculiarity of a work of art, if it is art, is that under the yoke of the “despotic power” of the content, the form does not become a slave, but retains its active role and complements the content, making it full-blooded, vital and bright, which ensures its impact on the feelings of the listener , viewer, reader, etc.
The set of formal features characteristic of a particular movement in the art of a certain era or for the work of a particular artist is called style. However, one should not think that the concept of “style” is associated only with form. It is quite understandable that given the special role that form plays in work of art, and the specificity of its connection with content, the concept of “style” cannot but include the idea of substantive moments characteristic of a particular style. However, taking into account all these considerations, it should still be emphasized that the cognitive and methodological significance of the concept of “artistic style” is due to the fact that, to a somewhat greater extent than the concept of “artistic method,” it focuses attention on the form of works of art, rather than on their content.
It should be noted that the concept of “style” is applicable not only in art. For example, you often hear the expression: “Man is style.” It also applies to culture as a whole. In this case, they talk about “cultural style,” meaning those semantic accents that are characteristic of the concept of “style” in general. They lie in the fact that, as mentioned above, it allows us to pay primary attention to the formal features of a particular phenomenon, without ignoring its content.
Returning to art, it must be said that within the framework of a particular artistic method, different styles can coexist.
“Artistic method” is a very capacious concept that allows us to most meaningfully characterize the most important features of art as an element of the culture of a particular people, a particular era, a particular stage of development.
Another, no less capacious concept that can serve as a tool for analyzing the state of art is the concept of “artistic picture of the world.” It includes the idea of the “image of the world”, which is created by the collective efforts of artists of a particular culture. Unlike the scientific picture of the world, which remained “deserted” for a long period of development of science, in the artistic picture of the world created in the art of all times and peoples, man has always been at the center. However, its relationship to the world and the relationship of the world to man, the very image of the world and the image of man in different artistic pictures of the world appear differently, and this serves as one of the most important sources of knowledge of a particular culture.
The science
Science is a relatively young sphere of culture. Its function is to provide individuals and society with knowledge about the objective laws of the surrounding reality. The source of knowledge is not only science, but also other areas human life, which provide knowledge about many useful and necessary things.
Scientific knowledge differs from other types of knowledge precisely in that it is knowledge about laws, i.e., necessary, repeating connections between things, processes, phenomena, while everyday knowledge is knowledge about individual phenomena, processes, things, etc. .
In addition, scientific knowledge differs from non-scientific types of knowledge in that it is systemic in nature, that is, its individual elements are interconnected and interdependent, while non-scientific knowledge is often fragmented.
In addition to knowledge about laws, science includes knowledge about methods for obtaining and testing the truth of knowledge.
Finally, scientific knowledge is knowledge about problems, that is, about unsolved problems that arise in a particular field of science. However, it would be wrong to define science only as a special kind of knowledge. A special kind of knowledge is the goal and result of the functioning of science, and the means to achieve this goal is a special kind of human activity. Thus, science as a sphere of culture represents the unity of a special kind of knowledge and activities to obtain this knowledge.
The axiological specificity of science lies in the fact that the highest value of this sphere of culture is true, objective knowledge corresponding to reality.
In the field of science, the side of human activity that is designated by the concept of “rationality” is especially clearly manifested. It is defined as a set of methods and results of optimizing human activity in accordance with the goals set. It follows that the anthropological function of science is to cultivate human rationality. This is the functional difference between science and art, which is designed to cultivate human emotionality.
On this basis, we can conclude that art and science are complementary and that there is no point in arguing about what is more necessary - science or art. But it is important to keep in mind that the prerogative of cultivating human rationality does not belong only to science.
Different spheres of human activity also have their own rationality, in connection with which we can talk about a rational element in morality, art, politics, etc. In all these spheres there is specificity in setting goals, choosing means, and evaluating the results of activities. It is in this regard that one can raise the question of the specifics of scientific rationality. However, it is important to keep in mind that scientific rationality is, firstly, a characteristic of human activity within the framework of science as a sphere of culture and, secondly, a side of human activity in any other areas where the use of science is possible: for example, in politics there is its own rationality, regardless of whether science is used there; if science is used, then this gives the right to talk not only about rationality in politics, but also about scientific rationality in politics.
So, scientific rationality differs from other types of rationality in that its basis is knowledge about the objective laws of reality. Obtaining such knowledge is the goal of human activity in the field of science. The means to achieve the goal are also specific - they are combined into the concept of “scientific methodology”.
Criterion of truth scientific knowledge, like knowledge in general, is practice. However, in science there is a specific type of practice - a scientific experiment. Its meaning lies in the fact that in order to verify the truth of his assumptions, the researcher, on the basis of his knowledge about the objective laws of a particular area of reality, creates artificial conditions. If, under these conditions, the objects under study behave in a pre-predicted manner, then the likelihood of recognizing the original statements as true increases.
But in science there are no truths established once and for all; in science everything is always tested, questioned and criticized. Scientific thinking is fundamentally opposed to dogmatism.
Thus, scientific rationality differs from all other types of rationality in terms of goals, means, methods of verifying the results obtained, and the type of thinking that serves it. However, it is important to keep in mind that scientific rationality is not something immutable, given once and for all, established. It was the cultural approach to the analysis of science that made it possible to see that science changes and develops along with the change and development of culture as a whole. In connection with the above, we can talk about different types science and about different types of scientific rationality.
To see this, you need to take a short excursion into the history of science.
Science as an independent sphere of culture declared itself only in modern times. Therefore, some researchers consider it possible to assert that the history of science begins with the 17th century, and previous periods should be considered prehistory. As we have seen, this kind of view has some basis.
Be that as it may, since the 17th century. the fact of the existence of science should be recognized as indisputable. Moreover, in modern European culture science gradually took a dominant place. This is due to the fact that branches of production, fertilized by science, through technology, provide immeasurably greater profits compared to those that science ignores. Thus, the impetus for the development of science comes from society, or more precisely, from the economy.
However, this fully applies only to certain stages of the development of science. Meanwhile, science, like modern European culture as a whole, is evolving.
Thus, until recently, it was generally accepted to distinguish two periods in the development of modern European science: classical and non-classical. The famous Russian philosopher V.S. Stepin, who fruitfully studies science in a cultural context, proposed and quite reasonably distinguish not two, but three periods: classical, non-classical and post-non-classical science. The basis of periodization is differences in ideals and norms scientific research, scientific picture of the world, philosophical principles scientific activity, connection with practice. All this, taken together, is the basis for distinguishing three types of scientific rationality - classical, non-classical and post-non-classical.
Among the ideals and norms of scientific research, V. S. Stepin highlights such an aspect of science as its orientation towards the object or subject of research. Accordingly, it is stated that classical science focuses attention only on the object and brackets everything that relates to the subject and means of activity. Non-classical science is characterized by the idea of the relativity of an object to the means and operations of activity. Finally, post-non-classical science “takes into account the correlation of knowledge on an object not only with the means, but also with the value-goal structures of activity.” Thanks to the inclusion of the axiological moment in science, which was previously considered fundamentally deaxiological, a new, “humanized” methodology emerges.
The question may arise whether there is a discrepancy between the logic of human development and the logic of the history of science. Thus, speaking about the development of the essential forces of man in capitalist society, we stated that it followed the line of subject - object - the search for a synthesis of the subject and object. But in science, it seems, things happened exactly the opposite: orientation to the object of study, then to the subject, and now, again, the search for a synthesis between compliance with the object and the value orientations of the subject. If you look deeper, you can see that there are no discrepancies between these two lines. After all, the orientation of classical science towards the object of research was nothing more than a manifestation of the unshakable faith that man is an omnipotent subject of knowledge, fully capable of unraveling God’s plan in the structure of the world. The transition to non-classical science in this sense can be considered as a person’s renunciation of his scientific pride and coming to the conviction that a person can understand the world “to the extent”. And finally, post-non-classical science poses the problem of synthesizing two previously identified trends: orientation towards scientific objectivity, and inclusion of a value-based, i.e. subjective component in all elements of scientific activity.
The evolution of scientific methodology was and is manifested not only in changes in the orientation of scientific activity towards an object or subject, but also in other directions. Thus, classical science considered mathematics and physics and, accordingly, mathematical methods as its models. Non-classical science has reached “epistemological anarchism”, based on the belief that the process of cognition is a field of application of various creativity, or rather, the arbitrariness of the cognizing object.
Post-non-classical science is trying to follow the path of combining the principle of pluralism of methods with the principle of scientific accuracy, which, however, is also understood in a completely new way. As K. A. Svasyan rightly notes, “the cultural cosmos is a gradation of methods, each of which has the right to self-determination without forced comparison with excellent students in the physics and mathematics service.”
Regarding the question of the orientation of science towards practice, it should be emphasized that a purely pragmatic approach to science was a general cultural phenomenon for modern times. It was characteristic of both scientists and philosophers themselves. Notable in this regard are the words of T. Hobbes: “Knowledge is only the path to power. Theorems (which in geometry are the way of investigation) serve only to solve problems. And all speculation ultimately has as its goal some action or practical success.”
Cartesian analytical philosophy also had a pragmatic orientation. Emphasizing this circumstance, V.N. Katasonov notes: “Newton in this sense, despite his polemics with Descartes, says the same thing: in geometry the main structure. Descartes claims to give a kind of “canon” of these constructions. Newton prefers to maintain “free hands,” but also focuses on the pragmatics of geometry. The ancient understanding of geometry is re-emphasized: contemplation is relegated to the background. Its “lower” part, “associated with crafts”... the geometry of constructions comes to the fore.” V.N. Katasonov rightly sees a connection between this phenomenon and all other aspects of modern culture. "The new geometry was inseparable from new culture, a new, emerging formation, a new person,” he emphasizes. And further: F. Bacon’s “New Organon” and G. Galileo’s experimental method, and T. Campanella’s “social engineering”, and the indomitable will of P. Corneille’s dramatic heroes - all testified to the birth of a new man, active, active, re P a g e the world of today.”
Non-classical science has given rise to a certain “fronde” among scientists regarding the principle of pragmatism. It was at this time that statements like the well-known statement that science is a way to satisfy the curiosity of a scientist at the expense of the state appear.
Post-non-classical science poses the problem of purifying the principle of connection between scientific activity and practice from narrow utilitarianism, into which it often degenerates. This is due to the need not only for a broader, humanistic understanding of practice, but also for its actual humanization. And this goes far beyond the boundaries of science.
As for the analysis of the process of development of science of modern and recent times in the light of the culturological category “scientific picture of the world”, it will give us another triad. Thus, classical science corresponds to a mechanical picture of the world, non-classical science is characterized by a plurality of pictures of the world - along with the physical, biological, chemical, etc. appear. Post-non-classical science strives for their synthesis and the creation of a single, holistic picture of the historical development of nature, society and man himself. This inclusion of man in the scientific picture of the world is perhaps the most striking manifestation of the changes taking place in modern science: the “deserted” picture of the world becomes an anachronism for her.
The process of changing the philosophical foundations of science of new and modern times is also triadic: classical science is based on metaphysical philosophy, non-classical science not only pays tribute, but also exaggerates the principle of relativity, post-non-classical science strives to synthesize the rigor of analysis, which is based on the principles of metaphysical philosophy, with flexibility of thinking, mobility and breadth views derived from the principle of relativity.
Along with what was discussed above, in Russian literature There is another point of view on the periodization of the history of science, in accordance with other principles. It was proposed by G.N. Volkov, substantiated in a number of his works published in the 60s - 80s of the 20th century, but did not find wide response and support either then or now. Meanwhile, his approach seems to highlight important features and characteristics of science.
G.N. Volkov proposes to consider as a criterion for periodization the orientation of science towards man or towards other goals located outside of man. Accordingly, he distinguishes three periods of development of science: the first - from the emergence of science in Ancient Greece until the 17th century, the second - from the beginning of the 17th century. until the middle of the 20th century, the third - from the middle of the 20th century. Until now.
The first period is characterized by the orientation of science towards man. Science seeks to explain to man logo, i.e., the laws of the world around him. The second period in the development of science is characterized by the orientation of science towards technology. The sciences of the physical and mathematical cycle act as leaders, the methods of these sciences are absolutized, and science is dehumanized. In the third period of the development of science, a reorientation of science begins from technology back to man. This is expressed in the increasing role of the humanities and the humanization of scientific methodology in general, in the expansion of the range of methods used and the increasing role of the value element in the process of obtaining, especially in the process of applying scientific knowledge.
As is easy to see, in the periodization of G.N. Volkov there are certain similarities with the periodization of V.S. Stepin. More precisely, it can be noted that different approaches to the periodization of the history of science, which make it possible to highlight different aspects of this process, nevertheless ultimately give similar results, which apparently indicates the reliability of these results.
In particular, in the characteristics of the third period of development of science (according to the theory of G.N. Volkov), similarities with classical science are revealed. In G.N. Volkov’s characterization of the modern period of development of science, one can discern the features of post-non-classical science with its humanizing methodology.
To summarize, it should be said that the third stage in the development of science of modern and contemporary times, associated with its deep humanization, is just beginning; the contours of the new science are still barely outlined. The principle of scientism, which consists in the fetishization of the norms and ideals of classical science and their transformation into general cultural norms, is still one of the most important factors shaping the modern cultural situation in Western countries. This creates tension in the relationship between science and other spheres of culture.
Philosophy
One of the most important areas of culture is philosophy (from the Greek. filo- I love, sophos- wisdom). Since its inception, it has performed and continues to perform a number of functions. Some of them can only be accomplished by philosophy; the other part can be accomplished together with other spheres of culture, but in other ways, accessible only to philosophy.
The most important cultural and anthropological function of philosophy is worldview. Philosophy satisfies a person’s need for a holistic idea of the world around him and man’s place in it. Before the advent of philosophy, this need was satisfied by mythology and religion. But neither one nor the other provided an explanation or substantiation of ideological positions, did not answer the questions “why?”, “Why?” and whether other views and other solutions to worldview problems are possible. The desire to provide answers to these questions led to the emergence of philosophy.
Related information.
Culture is divided into material and spiritual. It is important here not to confuse it with objects, cultural items. St. Basil's Cathedral, the Bolshoi Theater, etc. are cultural objects, but here is their qualitative description: who, when, where, with what, etc. -- culture. The violin is a musical instrument, an object of culture, and the Stradivarius violin is an object of culture of the 16th century. Performed on it musical composition- a subject of spiritual culture, but who, how, when, where, etc., i.e. its qualitative characteristic is culture. At the same time, spiritual culture is inextricably linked with material culture. Any objects or phenomena of material culture are based on a project, embody certain knowledge and become values, satisfying human needs. In other words, material culture is always the embodiment of a certain part of spiritual culture. But spiritual culture can only exist if it is materialized, objectified, and has received one or another material embodiment. Any book, painting, musical composition, like other works of art that are part of spiritual culture, need a material carrier - paper, canvas, paints, musical instruments, etc.
Moreover, it is often difficult to understand what type of culture - material or spiritual - a particular object or phenomenon belongs to. Thus, we will most likely classify any piece of furniture as material culture. But if we are talking about a 300-year-old chest of drawers exhibited in a museum, we should talk about it as an object of spiritual culture. A book, an indisputable object of spiritual culture, can be used to light a stove. But if cultural objects can change their purpose, then criteria must be introduced to distinguish between objects of material and spiritual culture. In this capacity, one can use an assessment of the meaning and purpose of an object: an object or phenomenon that satisfies the primary (biological) needs of a person belongs to material culture; if it satisfies secondary needs associated with the development of human abilities, it is considered an object of spiritual culture.
Between material and spiritual culture there are transitional forms - signs that represent something different from what they themselves are, although this content does not relate to spiritual culture. The most famous form of sign is money, as well as various coupons, tokens, receipts, etc., used by people to indicate payment for all kinds of services. Thus, money - the general market equivalent - can be spent on buying food or clothing (material culture) or purchasing a ticket to a theater or museum (spiritual culture). In other words, money acts as a universal intermediary between objects of material and spiritual culture in modern society. But there is a serious danger in this, since money equalizes these objects among themselves, depersonalizing objects of spiritual culture. At the same time, many people have the illusion that everything has its price, that everything can be bought. In this case, money divides people and degrades the spiritual side of life.
Removing a lapel from yourself and your loved ones How to remove a lapel from money
Major Arcana Tarot Tower: the meaning of the upright and inverted card
Removing a lapel from yourself and your loved ones How to remove a lapel from money
Major Arcana Tarot Tower: the meaning of the upright and inverted card
Unction - a sacrament that heals soul and body