The Russian philosopher of the 19th century V. S. Soloviev defined man as a social being. This means that the highest ideals of existence, goals and credo of life do not lie in his personal fate and well-being, but are aimed at the social destinies of all mankind. In the understanding of the author, social destinies most likely mean one thing - the priority of collective tasks over individual values and needs. This begs the quite logical question: “What is natural and social in man?” Does it make sense in his life? But, unfortunately, there is no single understanding of the process of becoming a person. This is a problem of many sciences studying such issues.
Natural and social in man: the problem of anthroposociogenesis
Anthroposociogenesis is the science of the formation and development of man. The term is deciphered as follows: "anthropos" - a person, "socio" - society, "genesis" - development. This scientific direction studies the natural and social in man. Anthroposociogenesis also explores the role of the collective and society in this process. The main mystery of the individual, from the point of view of science, is the unity of the natural, social and spiritual in man.
Theories of origin
- The first theory is theological. It implies the influence of higher divine powers and the emergence of man "from nothing", "by the will of the supernatural." This so-called unscientific theory.
- The second theory is the transformation of anthropoids into people. She appeared with the release in the XIX century of the book of C. Darwin "The Origin of Man and Sexual Selection." His work was supplemented by F. Engels in the book "The Role of Labor in the Process of Transformation of a Monkey into a Man." Of course, now there is a lot of criticism against them. The stages of evolution are not completely clear, many questions related to genetic changes are not explained, etc. So far the so-called transition link has not been found - then this theory would have received irrefutable evidence and became a postulate. But one thing is certain - this is the first scientific interpretation explaining the undivine origin. Her influence on humanity was simply overwhelming. No one had ever dared to challenge religion by completely denying it. But the theory ignored the natural and social in man and their close relationship. That is, in fact, equated him with an animal.
- The third theory is biosocial concepts. According to her, it is recognized that man is a social natural being. Adherents of the theory believe that society had no less influence on the appearance of a rational person than natural factors. The concepts of biosocial development have emerged from the apparent inconsistencies of Darwinism. Labor, natural factors, of course, very strongly influenced the formation of personality, but social manifestations could not be ignored. For example, the development of labor activity and the appearance of tools went along with the improvement of speech, the manifestation of consciousness, and moral perception. And most importantly - qualitative changes in one, led to similar metamorphoses in another aspect. This is so obvious from historical research that it is not even clear which factor prevails - natural or social.
But what is natural and social in man? Social studies provide an explanation for this issue.
One of the manifestations of this concept is the desire for a philosophical understanding of the world, the search for the meaning of life. Why, for what are we living for? Each, of course, will individually answer this question. Depending on the culture, intelligence, traditions. But the most important thing in which social is manifested in a person is the awareness of belonging to the human race, to its unity on the planet. Each individuality is only a small grain in the system of society. Unity is manifested not only in interaction with each other, but also with nature, the biosphere, the planet. Individuals in society must live in harmony with each other, as well as with the world around them. It is in this that the natural and the social are in man.
The problem of the meaning of life
There is no unity on this issue. There are two basic concepts around which various points of view are formed.
- The first is the attachment of the meaning of life to earthly existence.
- The second is removed from the world, arguing that earthly life is fleeting. This concept connects the meaning of life with values that are not related to the habitation of people on earth.
There are many points of view on this problem, ranging from ancient philosophers to modern scholars.
Pre-Christian interpretations
Pre-Christian scholars, such as Aristotle, who lived in the 4th century BC, tied the meaning of life to happiness. But this concept is purely individual. So, according to pundits, some see him in virtues, others in prudence, and others in wisdom.
Medieval interpretations
The thinkers of the Middle Ages tied the meaning of life to a complete knowledge of the divine powers, the highest wisdom of the Creator. The methods of mastering this doctrine should be the Bible, the church and church books, the divine revelations of saints, etc. It is important to know that the study of applied exact sciences was interpreted as immersion in darkness and ignorance. It was also believed that the passion for science is antisocial.
Modern followers of medieval postulates
In fairness, it is worth noting that so far this direction has many followers. As examples of the destructive development of science and technology are such discoveries as atomic and hydrogen bombs. It is known that they are able to completely destroy the planet in a few minutes. Also, industrial development and automation poisons the environment, making life unsuitable for living. The consequence of this can be considered a climate violation, a pole shift, a deviation of the planet from the axis, etc. The highest happiness, the meaning of life for the followers of this concept is harmony with each other, with nature. The main goal is to save the Earth for future generations, abandoning everything destructive.
Renaissance
Philosophers of this period, vivid representatives of which were scholars of the German school, believed that the meaning of human existence is contained in moral quests, self-development and self-knowledge. These are the thinkers I. Kant and G. Hegel. They argued that until we learn to understand ourselves, our essence, we can never understand the world around us. They did not deny the divine powers, but tied them to the inner unknown being of man. Until he learns to live in harmony with himself, he will not be able to be in harmony with society and the world around him. For example, the categorical imperative of I. Kant gives an understanding of this. His main tenets are as follows:
- do not do to people what you do not want them to do to you;
- treat others as you want to be treated.
The great philosopher argued that man must understand the world through the prism of his own feelings. His ideas are very close to religious covenants. For example, “Do not judge, but let us not be judged” and other expressions of scripture have the same orientation.
Summary
So what is natural and social in man? It can be briefly answered as follows: this is an awareness of the meaning of life, existence in harmony with oneself, humanity and the surrounding nature.