Stages of human development. Education as a process of becoming a person Why there is no common understanding of the human process

28.10.2021 -

HUMAN NATURE SOCIAL STUDY LESSON IN 10 GRADE - BASIC LEVEL MOU ILYINSKAYA SOSH. MEDIA TEACHER RNOV EVGENIY BORISOVYCH. [email protected] EN

LESSON OBJECTIVES 1. WHAT IS THE MYSTERY OF MAN? 2. WHY THERE IS NO SINGLE UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROCESS OF HUMAN FORMATION? 3. IS THERE A MEANING IN HUMAN LIFE? 4. WHAT PROBLEMS ARE THE HUMAN SCIENCES RESEARCHING?

BASIC CONCEPTS OF CONCEPTS: ANTHROPOGENESIS, BIOSOCIAL NATURE OF HUMAN, MEANING OF LIFE, GENOME, DNA, MICROCOS, MACROCOSMOS

REPETITION IS THE “MOTHER OF LEARNING” WHAT IS SOCIETY? RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PEOPLE? THE CENTRAL FIGURE OF SOCIETY? DIFFERENCE HUMAN FROM ANIMALS? FEATURES OF THE SOCIAL SYSTEM. NEEDS SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS

THE MYSTERY OF MAN THE CENTRAL PROBLEM OF PHILOSOPHY: WHAT IS MAN?

MAN AS A PRODUCT OF BIOLOGICAL, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL EVOLUTION. MAN IN ANCIENT ORIGIN OF MAN – FROM NOTHING, BY THE WILL OF THE GODS, BY THE WILL OF NATURE. THE SCIENTIFIC ORIGIN OF MAN - ANTHROPOGENESIS IS ASSOCIATED WITH CH. DARWIN IN THE 19th C. “The ORIGIN OF HUMAN. . » AND «ROLE OF LABOR…» in the 20th century. THESE IDEAS MADE THE CONCEPT OF HUMAN BIOSOCIAL NATURE.

MAN AS A PRODUCT OF BIOLOGICAL, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL EVOLUTION. HUMAN CURRENTLY RESEARCH IN THE PROCESS OF HUMAN FORMATION GOES ON THREE MAIN DIRECTIONS: 1. GEOLOGICAL, 2. BIOLOGICAL-GENETIC, 3. BIOLOGICAL-SOCIAL.

PROCESS OF FORMATION OF THE HUMAN. RAMAPITEK (14 - 20 ML) AUSTRALAPITEK (5- 8 ML) HOMO HABILIS MAN SKILLED (2 ML) HOMO ERECTUS - (1-1.3 ML) HOMO SAPIENS150 THOUSAND - 200 THOUSAND. CRO-Magnon (40 - 50 thousand) THE DOMINANT FACTOR OF LABOR IN THE FORMATION OF HUMAN UST DROPPED THE PLACE OF MULTIFACTORITY OF THE REASONS FOR THE APPEARANCE OF HUMAN RATIONALE

PURPOSE AND MEANING OF LIFE THE MEANING OF LIFE IS ONLY AN ACTIVITY OF A HUMAN SUBJECTIVE SIDE: WHY, FOR WHAT FOR WHAT MAN LIVES OBJECTIVE: UNITY OF HUMAN WITH EVERYTHING LIVING. TWO APPROACHES TO THE PROBLEM OF THE MEANING OF HUMAN LIFE: 1. THE MEANING OF LIFE IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE MORAL ESTABLISHMENTS OF HUMAN EARTHLY EXISTENCE. 2. IN ANOTHER - WITH VALUES NOT RELATED TO EARTHLY LIFE.

POINTS OF VIEW OF PHILOSOPHERS. ARISTOTEL'S DESIRE FOR HAPPINESS REVIVAL IS THE MEANING OF LIFE IN HUMAN EXISTENCE. KANT AND GEGEL - 17 - 18 V. - THE MEANING OF LIFE WITH MORAL SEARCH AND SELF-KNOWLEDGE E. FROMM - 20V. -FOR ONE MEANING OF LIFE - TO TAKE, FOR OTHERS - TO CREATE, TO GIVE

POINTS OF VIEW OF PHILOSOPHERS. S. L. FRANK - 1887- 1950 THE MEANING OF LIFE IN SPIRITUAL FREEDOM AND CREATIVITY N. N. TRUBNIKOV - 1929-1983 - THE MEANING OF LIFE IN THE PROCESS OF LIFE ITSELF IN BIOLOGICAL RELATIONS HUMAN IS DEATH, FINITE, BUT SOCIAL AND SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS BUT IS THIS ENOUGH FOR A PERSON?

Man's essence of a person is considered in four dimensions: biological - anatomical and physiological structure of lebiology, genetics of medicine mental - study of the inner world of a person - psychology social and human behavior, social psychology, sociology of personality and groups, law, political science and T. D. Space - UNDERSTANDING OF MAN'S RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE UNIVERSE TSIOLKOVSKY, VERNADSKY, CHIZHEVSKY - THE CONNECTION OF THE MICROWORLD AND THE MACROWORLD.

TASKS AND QUESTIONS. 1. WORK WITH PRACTICAL CONCLUSIONS. P. 32. 2. READ THE DOCUMENT - SELECT THE MAIN IDEA.

USED LITERATURE SOCIAL STUDY: STUDY. FOR STUDENTS 10 CL. OF GENERAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS: BASIC LEVEL, ED. L. N. BOGOLYUBOVA - 2 ED. - M.: ENLIGHTENMENT. 2006.

Lesson 2

28.10.2013 15643 0

General! The person is very necessary.

He can fly and he can kill.

But it has one drawback:

He can think.

B. Brecht

Goals: to expand students' knowledge about the views on the origin of man; to form the concepts of "man", "individual", "personality", "society"; develop the ability to analyze information from different sources; educate the desire to realize their communication skills.

Tun lesson: lesson learning new material.

During the classes

I. Organizational moment

(The teacher tells the topic and objectives of the lesson.)

In this lesson, we'll cover the following questions:

1. The concept of anthropogenesis.

2. Basic theories of the origin of man.

3. Man as a product of biological, social, cultural evolution.

II. Checking homework

(The teacher asks 2-3 students about their favorite aphorism and collects the lists according to the homework.)

In modern science, there are over 800 disciplines that study man and society. Read the compiled list of such sciences. (/.Human anatomy and physiology are studied by biology, genetics, and medicine. 2. Mental processes, memory, will, character, etc. are the subject of psychology research. 3. The life of people in the distant past, in our time and in the future - story. 4. Behavior in society, place and role in the community - sociology, cultural studies, pedagogy.

5. The ability and degree of influence on political processes, relationships with the state and power - political science.

6. The most general laws of development of nature, society and human knowledge - philosophy.)

Despite the many scientific disciplines, in the origin and nature of man, society is still a lot of controversial and unknown. The philosopher I. Kant claims that the question “what is a person?” is the hardest question in science. At the end of the lesson, try to give a value judgment whether the great philosopher I. Kant is right.

III. Exploring a new topic

1. The concept of anthropogenesis

The first man appeared on earth about 2.5-3 million years ago. Together with the first people, human society inevitably arose. Naturally, the question of the causes of this phenomenon has always interested people. Science has accumulated a huge amount of factual material related to this problem, and such concepts as anthropogenesis (the process of forming a person), sociogenesis (the period of the formation of human society), anthroposociogenesis (the formation of a person and society) have been introduced into scientific circulation.

The relationship between man and animals is undeniable. Scientists came to this conclusion in the 18th century, and in the 19th century. Charles Robert Darwin proved that the distant ancestors of man were anthropoids (great apes). But between them and people of the species to which you and I belong and which is called Homo sapiens (A reasonable person), there is a long transition period, which ended about 35-40 thousand years ago.

It was a period of transformation of an animal into a human (anthropogenesis) and at the same time the formation of human society (sociogenesis). How exactly this process went can be judged by the bone remains, which are studied by paleoanthropology and archeology. But the main question of anthroposociogenesis - what was its driving force - does not have an unambiguous and generally accepted answer.

When did man appear on earth?

What is the name of the science that studies history from the results of excavations?

What do you know about Darwin's theory?

2. Basic theories of the origin of man

Until now, the theory of divine origin, or theological, has many adherents. Let's remember the biblical story. Within five days, God created light and peace. On the sixth day God created man:

26. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.

27. And God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said to them: Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.

The Koran, the holy book of Muslims, says that Allah created the world with the help of the life-giving word "kun" ("be"). The creation of heaven and earth took two days. It took four days to create what is on Earth. All this was created by God for man, so that he prospered and glorified the name of God. God created the first man from the dust of the earth, “from ringing clay” (sura

15, verse 26). God "created him with a better constitution and breathed soul into him."

In Judaism, God is the creator of all things. Brahma created Brahmins (priests) from his mouth, Kshatriyas (warriors) from his hands, Vaishyas from his thighs, Shudras from his feet. Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, Shudras are the four main castes of Indian society.

All peoples of the world have their own legends about the creation of the world and man by higher powers.

Modern Christian theology calls for an allegorical interpretation of these stories. For example, "day" is not one day, but the allegorical name of an entire era, a large period in the history of the Earth. At the same time, some theologians do not deny the origin of man from ape-like ancestors, but believe that evolution was directed by Divine Providence. God also endowed the ape-man with a soul and thereby created a real person, and initially it was only one pair of people - Adam and Eve.

Some recent studies by scientists in the field of genetics partly confirmed this assumption. It is quite possible that mankind actually descended from one pair of people. Only man and apes have AIDS (the first man contracted the disease from a monkey in Central Africa); they have the same symptoms of infection and the course of pneumonia.

At the same time, skeptical scientists do not want to attribute everything to the activities of supernatural forces and are trying to find the natural causes of the origin of man.

The third group of scientists, denying religious interpretations, is trying to combine science and the most fantastic assumptions.

The development of astronautics, the popularity of science fiction, the inability of science to immediately answer many important questions, the interest in paranormal events - all this contributed to the emergence of the ufological theory (from UFO - the English abbreviation for UFO). The essence of the theory is the assumption of the settlement of the Earth by aliens from outer space.

Man almost simultaneously appeared in Central Europe, North America and Southeast Asia, that is, in regions separated by very large distances. On the walls of the Temple of the Sun in Central America, ancient images of aircraft similar to modern spaceships were found. And the mysterious giant geometric shapes that periodically appear on the fields of Great Britain? Legendary Marina Popovich claims that astronauts observed UFOs...

The ufological concept experienced a boom after the publication in 1968 of the book by the Swiss Erich von Daniken "Memories of the Future", which was later made into a film of the same name. However, so far there is no direct and indisputable evidence of the presence of aliens on Earth. Some astrophysicists put forward a hypothesis about the uniqueness of life on Earth, its uniqueness.

The author of the cultural-communicative theory is the American social philosopher Lewis Mumford. He is convinced that man has preserved and developed his biological nature due to the orientation of his energy towards the creation of cultural (symbolic) forms of expression and communication, towards the creation of an artificial habitat.

Natural-science (materialistic) theories are associated primarily with the names of C. Darwin and F. Engels.

By the beginning of the XIX century. in botany and zoology, a vast amount of factual material was accumulated, which needed to be systematized. A new evolutionary theory was needed, and it was created. This was done by Charles Robert Darwin. In 1859 he published The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races (Breeds, Forms) in the Struggle for Life. The main scientific merit of Darwin is that he identified the driving factor of evolution - natural selection: the preservation, the survival of the fittest organisms in the struggle for existence. This struggle is due to the almost unlimited ability of organisms to reproduce ("geometric progression of reproduction") and the limited space for their existence. Darwin extended the idea of the evolution of the organic world to man: man as a biological species has a natural origin and is genetically related to higher mammals.

Natural selection is based on variation and heredity. But Darwin's theory did not answer the question why man differs from monkeys in upright posture, developed forelimbs, and a large brain volume.

Adherents of the labor theory agreed that the appearance of the above differences was due to the systematic activity in the manufacture and use of tools, first primitive, and then more and more perfect. The first to try to prove this was the French scientist Boucher de Pert. "Labor made a man out of a monkey" - this is the main conclusion of F. Engels in his scientific work "The role of labor in the process of turning a monkey into a man."

According to Engels, it was under the influence of labor activity and the manufacture of labor tools that such qualitative characteristics of a person as consciousness, speech, creativity (the ability to be creative) were formed, and various forms of human community developed.

Today there are facts that cannot be explained by this theory. For example, tool making skills are not written in the genes. Each new generation learns again the skills of labor activity. Consequently, these skills cannot affect the change in the biological appearance of a person. The finds of the remains of the most ancient human ancestors are more ancient than the first found tools. This means that a person first acquired a “human appearance”, and only then began to engage in tool activities. Higher primates often use sticks and stones as auxiliary tools, but only human ancestors took the path of evolution, and monkeys remained monkeys ...

The anomaly theory was put forward as early as 1903 by the Russian biologist Ilya Ilyich Mechnikov in his book "Etudes on the Nature of Man". Mechnikov writes: “From the sum of all known data, we have the right to conclude that man represents a halt in the development of the anthropoid ape of an earlier era. He is something like a monkey "freak" not from an aesthetic, but purely from a zoological point of view. Man can be regarded as the "extraordinary" child of the great apes, a child born with a much more developed brain and mind than his parents ... An abnormally large brain, enclosed in a voluminous skull, allowed the rapid development of mental abilities much more powerful than in parents and in the parent species in general ... We know that sometimes extraordinary children are born, differing from their parents in some new, very developed abilities ... We have to admit that some types of organisms do not undergo slow development, but appear suddenly, and that in this case nature makes a significant leap. Man probably owes his origin to a similar phenomenon.

However, the anomaly theory was not widely used at that time.

In the 60s. 20th century the situation has changed. Data have accumulated on the impact on a person and even on his genetic code of magnetic anomalies and fluctuations in solar activity. A radiation anomaly has been discovered on the alleged ancestral home of mankind. As a result of volcanic activity several million years ago, the earth's crust broke up in the places of occurrence of uranium ores and the radiation background increased. The monkeys living in this area may have given birth to various mutants, including those who were physically weak, but had a relatively large brain. Trying to survive, the mutants began to use different tools and probably evolved to modern man. But there are no facts that absolutely confirm these assumptions.

Thus, the mystery of the origin of man is still very far from being solved.

Which theory do you think is the most convincing? Justify your choice.

Additional material

1. Many scientists have studied the behavior of chimpanzees. Under experimental conditions, chimpanzees discovered the ability to choose sticks of a certain section in order to open boxes like a key and take fruits hidden in them. The same monkeys took out high-hanging fruits, having previously built a stand from boxes for this.

The great Russian physiologist I.P. Pavlov singled out monkeys among other animals. Thanks to four grasping limbs, monkeys develop more diverse relationships with the environment. This, in turn, develops muscular sense, touch, vision; monkeys see objects in volume and color.

Important experiments with chimpanzees were carried out by a Soviet zoopsychologist

N.N. Ladygina-Kots. In full view of the animal, a candy was placed in the tube, which could not be pulled out with the fingers. But when the chimpanzee was given a board, he separated a chip from it with his teeth and pushed the candy out of the tube with it.

No less interesting are observations of chimpanzees in the rainforest.

The American researcher J. Goodall has repeatedly seen in East Africa how a chimpanzee pulled a reed out of the ground and stuck it into a termite nest: when alarmed insects crawled onto the reed, the chimpanzee licked them and ate them. Observations suggest that some modern monkeys, in certain natural conditions, use stones and sticks to get food, to protect themselves. Orangutans, gorillas and many other monkeys undoubtedly have a predisposition to this.

In the forest, on the trees, monkeys practically do not need tools and are used very rarely. But when a monkey encounters difficulties in captivity, he sometimes makes an attempt to overcome them with the help of certain objects as tools.

2. Evidence of the relationship between humans and animals

Since ancient times, people have been interested in the question of the origin of man. The first scientific evidence of the similarity of man with great apes is contained in the descriptions of travelers of the 17th-18th centuries. It is known that C. Linnaeus in his "System of the Animal World" (1735) determined the place of man in the group of primates. The similarity between humans and other primates testified to their common origin. Therefore, Zh.B. Lamarck, in his book Philosophy of Zoology (1809), was the first to suggest the origin of man from ape-like ancestors who switched from climbing trees to bipedal walking on the ground. Perhaps, moving on two legs among tall grassy plants allowed them to better survey the surroundings and detect enemies earlier, and the hands freed from the support served to pick up and hold the cubs while fleeing...

The striking similarity of early childhood development between humans and higher mammals is proved by unique cases of raising children in herds (prides) of animals. Such “mowglis”, who got into animal families in infancy and were fed by female animals, develop quite safely until adolescence.

The greatest similarity exists between man and the higher narrow-nosed, or anthropoid, monkeys (chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan and gibbon). The maximum number of common features is noted in humans and African primates - chimpanzees and gorillas. A striking similarity exists among them in the structure and functioning of internal organs. The fingers of anthropoids, like those of humans, have flat nails. Higher primates and humans have a similar structure of dental systems, hearing organs, including auricles, vision, and facial muscles.

Primates also have four blood types and blood cells are not destroyed by mutual transfusion of the corresponding blood types. Baby monkeys, like human babies, are born helpless. For a long time they need to be fed with milk and mother's care ... Human genes coincide with chimpanzee genes by 95%.

3. Adam and Eve never met

Komsomolskaya Pravda, together with National Geographic Russia magazine, continues to study the pedigree of Russian celebrities. They participate in a unique international Genographic project. Now genetic scientists around the world are collecting DNA samples from people of different races and nationalities. The project began in 2005. The scientific leader is population geneticist Spencer Wells. Here is what he told correspondents of Komsomolskaya Pravda: “All people on Earth had one foremother.”

Any person is similar to his parents, but is not their exact copy. Because a child receives half of its genes from its father and half from its mother at conception, an entirely new chain of genes is born. But there is a link in this chain that has remained unchanged for many tens of thousands of years. Scientists called it "mitochondrial DNA". It is present in both men and women. But it is transmitted exclusively through the female line. For example, mitochondrial DNA from a mother will pass unchanged to her son and daughter.

But the children of the son will no longer have this DNA, but the daughter will “pass it on” to her children in complete safety. So scientists on the female line can restore the great-great-great-grandmothers of any person to the most ancient times.

“An amazing thing was discovered,” says Spencer Wells. Geneticists have found that all people living today ascend through the female line to one woman. Scientists call it "mitochondrial Eve." And she lived in Africa about 150-170 thousand years ago.”

No religion! Our Eve was not at all the first woman on the planet. After all Homo sapiens arose about 200 thousand years ago. And yet, despite the fact that people had already existed for about 30 thousand years by the time of the birth of Eve, she is unique, since only her descendants have survived from that time to the present day. There are no "children" of other women, contemporaries of Eve.

The mother line can break for several reasons. A woman may not have children, or she may only have boys (who do not pass on her mitochondrial DNA to future generations). It can become a victim of a catastrophe, for example, a volcanic eruption, flood, famine, become the prey of predators...

“Why Eve was lucky is not clear,” says Wells. “Perhaps simple luck, perhaps something more.”

And one more riddle. Approximately 150 thousand years ago, during the life of our Eve, there was, as scientists say, a big leap in the intellectual abilities of people. They got speech. People have gained the ability to plan actions and carry them out jointly. And this helped them to quickly develop new territories and, as a result, defeat the Neanderthals in the competition.

Geneticists tried to calculate the progenitor of the male half, "Adam". After all, another link in the genetic chain, the Y-chromosome, is passed from father to son unchanged. But for men, as usual, it turned out to be more difficult - "Adamov" experts found several. The oldest of them lived about 100 thousand years ago, which is 50 thousand years later than "Eve", and, alas, could not meet her.

It turns out that we have a common “mother”, and “fathers” are different.”

4. Sergey Lukyanenko: a descendant of the Vikings

Its first ancestors were discovered "only" 50 thousand years ago. After 5 thousand years, they left Africa together for the Middle East. Then they moved into the dense forests of Europe. And there, 25 thousand years ago, they became the founders of a new culture. Scientists suggest that the people of this particular group were the first to introduce the concept of religion into their lives. At their sites, archaeologists often find figures of magnificent women with a fat belly. These small sculptures, which are called Venus, the size of a palm, could serve as a symbol of well-being and happiness.

Venus was used as amulets, but it is possible that they also depicted goddesses.

And when, 15,000 years ago, the ice sheets in most of Europe began to melt, the science fiction writer's ancestors went to Northern Europe, reaching Scandinavia as well. And already their descendants - the Vikings - in our era inspired fear throughout Europe. The raids of horned warriors can explain the fact that scientists have found similar genes in the population of southern France and the British Isles. The kids loved to have fun.

By the way, according to one version, Rurik is the ancestor of the dynasty of the great princes of Kiev, and then Moscow Russia, also a native of Scandinavia. Isn't it Rurikovich the author of "Patrols"?

The line of man separated from the trunk common with monkeys not earlier than 10 and not later than 6 million years ago. The first representatives of the genus Homo appeared about 2 million years ago, and modern man - no later than 50 thousand years ago. The oldest traces of labor activity date back to 2.5 - 2.8 million years (tools from Ethiopia). Many populations of Homo sapiens did not replace each other sequentially, but lived simultaneously, fighting for existence and destroying the weaker ones.

Three stages are distinguished in the evolution of a person (Homo) (in addition, some scientists also distinguish the species Homo habilis - a skilled person into a separate species):

1. The oldest people, which include Pithecanthropus, Sinanthropus and Heidelberg man (Homo erectus).

2. Ancient people - Neanderthals (the first representatives of the Homo sapiens species).

3. Modern (new) people, including fossil Cro-Magnons and modern people (the species is a reasonable person - Homo sapiens).

Thus, the next after Australopithecus in the evolutionary ladder is already the first person, the first representative of the Homo genus. This is a skilled man (Homo habilis). In 1960, the English anthropologist Louis Leakey found in the Oldowai Gorge (Tanzania), next to the remains of a skilled man, the most ancient tools created by human hands. I must say that even a primitive stone ax looks the same next to them as an electric saw next to a stone axe. These tools are just pebbles split at a certain angle, slightly pointed. (In nature, such splits of stone do not occur.) The age of the Oldowan pebble culture, as scientists called it, is about 2.5 million years.

Man made discoveries and created tools, and these tools changed man himself, had a decisive influence on his evolution. For example, the use of fire made it possible to radically lighten the human skull and reduce its weight. Cooked food, unlike raw food, did not require such powerful muscles to chew it, and the weaker muscles no longer needed the parietal crest to attach to the skull. The tribes that made the best tools (like later more advanced civilizations) defeated the tribes lagging behind in their development and forced them into a barren area. The manufacture of more advanced tools complicated the internal relationships in the tribe, required greater development and brain size.

The pebble tools of a skilled man were gradually replaced by hand axes (stones chipped on both sides), and then by scrapers and tips.

Another branch of the evolution of the Homo genus, which, according to biologists, is higher than a skilled man, is the erect man (Homo erectus). The oldest people lived 2 million - 500 thousand years ago. This species includes Pithecanthropus (in Latin - ape-man), Sinanthropus (Chinese man - his remains were found in China) and some other subspecies.

Pithecanthropus is an ape-man. The remains were first discovered on about. Java in 1891 by E. Dubois, and then in a number of other places. Pithecanthropes walked on two legs, their brain volume increased. A low forehead, powerful brow ridges, a half-bent body with abundant hair - all this pointed to their recent (monkey) past.

Sinanthropus, whose remains were found in 1927 - 1937. in a cave near Beijing, in many respects similar to Pithecanthropus, this is a geographical version of Homo erectus.

They are often referred to as ape people. The upright man no longer ran in a panic from the fire, like all other animals, but he himself bred it (however, there is an assumption that a skilled man already kept the fire in smoldering stumps and termite mounds); not only split, but also hewn stones, used processed antelope skulls as dishes. The clothes of a skilled man, apparently, were the skins of dead animals. His right hand was more developed than his left. He probably spoke primitive articulate speech. Perhaps, from afar, he could be mistaken for a modern person.

The main factor in the evolution of ancient people was natural selection.

Ancient people characterize the next stage of anthropogenesis, when social factors also begin to play a role in evolution: labor activity in the groups they lived in, a joint struggle for life and the development of intellect. These include Neanderthals, whose remains were found in Europe, Asia, and Africa. They got their name from the place of the first discovery in the valley of the river. Neander (Germany). Neanderthals lived in the Ice Age 200 - 35 thousand years ago in caves, where they constantly kept fire, dressed in skins. Neanderthal labor tools are much more perfect and have some specialization: knives, scrapers, percussion tools. The shape of the jaw testified to articulate speech. Neanderthals lived in groups of 50 to 100 people. Men collectively hunted, women and children gathered edible roots and fruits, old men made tools. The last Neanderthals lived among the first modern people, and then they were finally forced out by them. Some scientists consider Neanderthals a dead-end branch of hominin evolution that did not participate in the formation of modern man.

Modern people. The emergence of people of the modern physical type occurred relatively recently, about 50 thousand years ago. Their remains have been found in Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia. In the grotto of Cro-Magnon (France), several skeletons of fossil people of the modern type were discovered at once, who were called Cro-Magnons. They possessed all the complex of physical features that characterizes a modern person: articulate speech, as indicated by a developed chin protrusion; the construction of dwellings, the first rudiments of art (rock paintings), clothing, jewelry, perfect bone and stone tools, the first tamed animals - all indicate that this is a real person, completely isolated from his animal-like ancestors. Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons and modern people form one species - Homo sapiens - reasonable man; this species was formed no later than 100 - 40 thousand years ago.

In the evolution of the Cro-Magnons, social factors were of great importance, the role of education and the transfer of experience grew immeasurably.

Today, most scientists adhere to the theory of the African origin of man and believe that the future winner in the evolutionary race arose in Southeast Africa about 200 thousand years ago and settled from there throughout the planet.

Since man came out of Africa, it would seem that it goes without saying that our distant African ancestors were similar to the modern inhabitants of this continent. However, some researchers believe that the first people who appeared in Africa were closer to the Mongoloids.

The Mongoloid race has a number of archaic features, in particular in the structure of the teeth, which are characteristic of Neanderthals and Homo erectus (Human erectus). Populations of the Mongoloid type are highly adaptable to various habitat conditions, from the arctic tundra to equatorial humid forests, while children of the Negroid race in high latitudes with a lack of vitamin D quickly develop bone diseases, rickets, i.e. they are specialized to conditions of high insolation. If the first people had been like modern Africans, it is doubtful that they would have been able to successfully carry out migrations around the globe. However, this view is disputed by most anthropologists.

The concept of African ancestry is contrasted with the concept of multi-regional ancestry, which suggests that our ancestral species Homo erectus evolved into Homo sapiens independently at different points on the globe.

Homo erectus appeared in Africa about 1.8 million years ago. He made the stone tools found by palaeontologists, and possibly even better bamboo tools. However, after millions of years, no trace remains of bamboo. Over several hundred thousand years, Homo erectus spread first through the Middle East, then into Europe and to the Pacific Ocean. The formation of Homo sapiens on the basis of the Pithecanthropus led to the coexistence of late forms of Neanderthals and the emerging small groups of modern people for several thousand years. The process of replacing the old species with a new one was quite lengthy and, consequently, complex.

Human evolution. In 2 books. Book 1. Monkeys, bones and genes.

Extremely interesting, informative, written in beautiful language, understandable to any literate person. Plus the author's humor, with no simplification and flattening. Popular, in the best sense of the word, presentation, without sacrificing content!

Alexander Markov's book is a very fascinating story about the origin and structure of man, based on the latest research in anthropology, genetics and evolutionary psychology. The two-volume "Human Evolution" answers many questions that have long interested Homo sapiens. What does it mean to be human? When and why did we become human? In what ways are we superior to our neighbors on the planet, and in what ways are we inferior to them? And how can we better use our main difference and dignity - a huge, complex brain? One way is to read this book thoughtfully.

Alexander Markov - Doctor of Biological Sciences, Leading Researcher at the Paleontological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. His book on the evolution of living beings, The Birth of Complexity (2010), has become an event in non-fiction literature and has been widely acclaimed by readers.

Human evolution. In 2 books. Book 2. Monkeys, neurons and the soul.

An absolutely amazing book. Even more interesting than the first part. The author managed to tell simply and with humor about everything that science has achieved in areas of biology that are very far from ordinary people, and even in completely new disciplines, such as, for example, evolutionary religious studies.

Great book, reads like a detective story.

Evolution. The triumph of the idea. Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea

The evolution of life over four billion years is a majestic narrative full of conspiracy, intrigue, surprise and death. Matt Ridley, author of The Genome.

An amazing book. Here is not only about Darwin himself and his theory, but, even more importantly, about the development of Darwinism. About how modern science represents evolution today. What Darwin was wrong about and what he is clearly right about. A lot is becoming clear. Recommended. A big plus of the book is good paper and easy to read font.

One of today's finest scientific journalists, with his characteristic thoroughness, intelligibility and unfailing humor, gives a complete overview of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution in the light of today's ideas and scientific discoveries.

This book gives an understanding not only of the main provisions of the theory of Charles Darwin, but tells about the latest research on the processes of evolution. Shows how modern science expands and deepens the theoretical legacy of the great scientist. In the book before us, simply and majestically, the whole history of evolution is revealed, a process that still, like several billion years ago, drives the entire world around us.

A book for everyone who seeks to find answers to eternal questions: Why do disputes about the origin of life and man on Earth continue to this day? What was behind the ideas of the great man, painfully paving the way for new knowledge in a conservative society? How do evolutionary biologists put forward and test their hypotheses, and why do they categorically disagree with creationist arguments? In search of an answer to these questions, the reader makes many amazing discoveries about the life of animals, birds and insects, which make one think about human mores and ethics, about the place and purpose of man in the Universe.

continuation

5. NATURE AND ESSENCE OF MAN

“It is clear that human nature does not fit into certain external images of a person. Its true essence is the fullness of life in the spirit, surpassing all givenness and therefore accessible only to symbolic expression.

(V. Malyavin. Russia between East and West: the third way? 1995)

“Human nature is what each of us has in common with all people, with the human race; that which distinguishes us from all other forms of life. Not everything in a person is reducible to his nature, he also has personal dignity.

(V. Vasilenko. Brief Religious and Philosophical Dictionary. 1996)

« 3.3. Philosophy and science of modern and modern times. The infinite or divine essence is the spiritual essence of man ... ". With this phrase, F.L. Feuerbach expresses one of the most important provisions of esoteric philosophy, with which he was not familiar. A position that had many adherents from the most ancient times, from Buddhists and Orphics to Boehme and the New Wave Theosophists. He rightly notes that a person has a spiritual nature, which was "taken away" from him, however, like medieval theologians, he does not draw a clear line between actual and potential human qualities.

(Ableev S.R. Fundamental philosophical foundations
concepts of human cosmic evolution: essence,
origin and historical development. Part III-b. Tula. 2000)

The category "essence" is a scientific abstraction that reflects the qualitative specifics of the subject, its most important, main properties that determine its changes. The essence of a person is revealed in the special nature of objective activity, in the process of which there is a dialectical interaction of the creative forces of a person with natural material and a given socio-economic structure. The real image of a person (his reality) is not reduced to the category of essence, since it includes not only his generic essence, but also concrete historical existence.

(Nature, essence and existence of man.
// V.V.Mironov. Philosophy. Textbook for universities.)

“The nature of man is a concept that characterizes man in his highest, final state and ultimate goal. Philosophers of antiquity (Lao Tzu, Confucius, Socrates, Democritus, Plato, Aristotle) distinguish the main essential qualities in human nature - intelligence and morality, and the ultimate goal - virtue and happiness. In medieval philosophy, these qualities and goals are interpreted as given. God creates man in his own image and likeness, but the divine nature of man can be realized if man follows the example of life, death and the posthumous resurrection of Christ.

(Lymar A.T. Philosophy. Practical guide. 2004)

“Human nature is the genetically predetermined features of behavior, thinking and inclinations of a person as a biological species. It includes both what came to us from our animal past, as well as newly acquired features that were formed in the history of human civilization itself ... The higher nature grows in a person from the lower and becomes something independent.
Is human nature positive? Modern psychological trends in relation to views on human nature sometimes adhere to diametrically opposed views. One of the main disputes is the dispute about whether human nature is good (aimed at good), humane, constructive. Approximately a quarter of specialists are convinced that human nature is positive, a quarter that human nature is negative, a quarter believes that people are born with different natures, the last quarter considers it generally pointless to consider this issue ...
The second nature is that which has become internal and completely natural for a person, just as natural as genetically given. If a girl at a young age allowed herself complete freedom of elemental emotions and practiced this with her soul every day for two decades, her unbridled emotionality became her natural, second nature. If another girl was once impressed by the beauty of her movements and for many years honed the beauty and nobility of her movements at the ballet school every day, then the nobility of her movements and royal posture also became her second nature.

(A. Kruglov. Human nature.
Encyclopedia of practical psychology. website "Psychologos".)

« Chapter 7. The social nature of man. 1. Sociological understanding of man. What is man, what is his nature or essence? Ancient philosophers tried to answer this question, which involved them in endless disputes. In the end, Plato, wanting to put an end to these disputes, defined man as a two-legged, featherless creature. Of all living beings, bipeds are only birds and men; but the birds are covered with feathers; thus, only humans are bipedal featherless. The direction of such a definition is obvious: one does not need to endlessly delve into the essence of a person; to define it, it is enough to indicate some simple sign of it that distinguishes and delimits a person from all other living beings.
Among the various modern approaches to the analysis of human nature, two polar approaches can be distinguished: the sociological interpretation of man and his anthropological interpretation. Between these two opposite understandings are placed various intermediate interpretations of man.
4. Human nature and history. The sociological understanding of man does not imply, as already mentioned, any changes in his nature. This nature has remained constant since prehistoric times, and with the change of society, the essence of man changes, which is a simple reflection of the system of social relations.
From the point of view of the anthropological understanding of man, his nature is historical. It does not remain constant, but changes with the course of history. Man is an unfinished being, he is in the process of albeit slow, but constant becoming, and now it is impossible to predict what he will be like in a fairly distant future. The formation of a person largely depends on himself. It is not predetermined by any historical laws. It cannot be said, in particular, that it leads to the inevitable emergence of a communist "superman" capable of limiting his needs to a natural minimum, free from envy, vanity, pride and other "birthmarks" of a man of capitalist society.

(Ivin A.A. Fundamentals of social philosophy.
Textbook for universities. M. Higher school. 2005)

« 3. Human nature. What is the riddle of man? Why is there no common understanding of the process of becoming a person? Is there meaning in human life? What are the problems of the human sciences? One of the central problems of philosophy is the problem of man. This riddle worried scientists, thinkers, artists of all eras. Disputes about a person are not completed even today and are unlikely to end ever. Moreover, in order to emphasize the philosophical aspect of the problem, the question about a person sounds exactly like this: what is a person? The German philosopher I. Fichte (1762-1814) believed that the concept of “man” refers not to a single person, but to the entire human race: it is impossible to analyze the properties of an individual person, taken by himself, outside of his relations with other people, i.e. . outside of society.
Man as a product of biological, social and cultural evolution. To understand the essence of a person, first of all, it is necessary to understand how he appeared, brilliant guesses, together with beautiful legends, tell about the appearance of a person from “nothing”, by the will of the gods or “by the will” of nature ...
The purpose and meaning of human life. A distinctive feature of a person can be recognized as his desire for a philosophical understanding of the world and himself. The search for the meaning of life is a purely human occupation ...
In the history of philosophy, two fundamentally different approaches to the problem of the meaning of human life can be distinguished. In one case, the meaning of life is associated with the moral institutions of man's earthly existence. In the other, with values that are not directly related to earthly life, which in itself is fleeting and finite ...
In other words, the meaning of life is revealed in the process of this life, although finite, but not useless. A person's life continues in his children, grandchildren, in subsequent generations, in their traditions, etc. A person creates various objects, tools, certain structures of social life, cultural works, scientific works, makes new discoveries, etc. The essence of a person is expressed in creativity, in which he asserts himself and through which he ensures his social existence and longer than that of an individual.
Practical conclusions.… 4. Remember that a person is an open system, many questions do not have a clear answer, but the very search for answers to the mysteries of human nature is an exciting activity for a thinking being. If you are interested in the problems of the essence of man, the meaning of his life, refer to the works of philosophers. But, reflecting on the eternal philosophical riddles, do not forget about personal responsibility for the preservation, development and enhancement of the human in yourself.

(Social science. Grade 10: a textbook for educational institutions.
A basic level of. / Ed. L.N. Bogolyubova. M. Enlightenment. 2009)

“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7). Many of our contemporaries believe that humans evolved from the lowest forms of animal life and are the result of natural processes that lasted billions of years. The theory of evolution is still popular in science, but this view is not consistent with the Bible.
As you know, people are subject to degeneration, and this is one of the confirmations of the biblical teaching about human nature. Man - the crown of God's Creation - was not called to life by the word of the Creator. Bowing down, God Himself, with His own hands sculpted him from the dust of the earth. Even the most outstanding sculptor would never have been able to create such a wonderful work. But the Lord created not a lifeless sculpture, but a living person endowed with the ability to think, create and grow in glory. The loving Creator bestowed upon man the joy of fellowship by creating "for him a helper corresponding to him." So “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him: male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). God created all living beings “according to their kind” (Gen. 1:21, 24, 25). And only man was created in the image of the Lord of the Universe, and not in the likeness of the inhabitants of the animal world. From the genealogies placed in the Bible, it is clear that all generations of people who lived after Adam and Eve descended from this couple. We all have the same nature, which indicates our genetic or genealogical unity. The Apostle Paul said: “From one blood He (God) made the whole human race to dwell on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26).
unity of human nature. When God formed man from the elements of the earth, all the organs of the human body were perfect, but lifeless. Then God breathed His breath into this inanimate matter, and "man became a living soul." The Biblical formula is quite simple: the dust of the earth + the breath of life = a living being, or a living soul. It is important to note that in the message about Creation there is not a single hint that a person received a soul - some kind of separate substance, which, during Creation, united with the human body. The word soul comes from the Hebrew word nefesh, which means "to breathe." This word in the Bible refers to a person who has become a living being. Body and soul are an indivisible whole. The soul has no consciousness that exists outside the body. Moreover, nowhere in the Bible is there any indication that the soul, as a conscious entity, gives life to the body. If the Hebrew word nefesh, translated as soul, denotes a person, the Old Testament Hebrew word ruach, translated as spirit, implies the spark of life, the energy that is necessary for human existence. It symbolizes the Divine power that calls human beings to life. So, according to the Bible, we see that human nature is an indivisible whole. The body, soul and spirit are in such close interpenetration that the spiritual, mental and physical abilities of a person are inextricably linked and dependent on each other. In the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, the apostle Paul writes: “May the God of peace Himself sanctify you in all its fullness, and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved without blemish at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Thessalonians 5:23).” .

(The nature of man.).

“There is no clear predetermined human nature. We are not born with prejudice, intolerance, or malice; they develop from our life experiences. We should not engage in meaningless discussions about the innate depravity of human nature, but should investigate the behavior of people that has changed throughout the history of mankind (otherwise, we would still be living in caves).
Behavior is just as subject to external influences as is everything else in the physical universe. Nowadays, the science of human behavior has not advanced much, because it focuses mainly on the person, and not enough on the external conditions that "create" the personality. You can't isolate the factors responsible for behavior just by studying personality. On the contrary, we must study the culture in which a person was brought up. The difference between a Native American, a thief and a banker is not in their genes, but rather a reflection of the environment in which they grew up.
A Chinese child will not learn to speak Chinese any faster than an American child will learn English. If the impact of society on a person is sufficiently studied, then it is possible to speak with confidence about the environment from which a person came out. The degree of influence of the social environment is observed in language, facial expressions and movements.
Human behavior is natural and is made up of many interacting changeable factors in the surrounding world. The social environment includes the family in which a person grew up, parental care (or lack thereof), financial well-being, the information environment - TV, books, radio, the Internet, education, orthodox religious views, the individual's social circle, as well as many other factors.
In general, social values depend on the existing social system and subcultures within it. Unfortunately or fortunately, social systems tend to perpetuate themselves with all their good and bad points. Whether we realize it or not, most people are manipulated by the media and government agencies that shape the "agenda". And this, in turn, shapes our behavior, hopes and values. Our ideas of what is right and wrong, our vision of morality, are also part of our cultural heritage and experience. This method of control does not require the use of physical force, and it is so successful that few people notice or feel the manipulation.
Many people think that greed is part of human nature. Due to the fact that people lived in oppression and under the threat of oppression for centuries, personality traits such as greed and admiration for those who amassed a fortune through crime, extravagance, etc. have developed. These traits have accompanied us for centuries, and many of us thought that it was just human nature and that it could not be changed. But look at this example: if golden rain falls from the sky for a week, then the oppressed people will rush into the streets to fill their houses with gold. If the rain of gold continues for years, they will sweep the gold out of their homes and throw away their golden rings. In a world of abundance and peace of mind, many negative personality traits will no longer dominate.”

(Human nature.)

“In the view of L. Feuerbach, the “highest, absolute” essence of a person consists in reason (thinking), feeling (heart) and will, i.e. it is predetermined in advance, before the birth of man by his biological nature, and therefore is eternally given, unchanged.
According to K. Marx, the essence of a person is expressed in the totality of those social relations into which he enters in his objective activity, i.e. in what is also given before the birth of each given person. Unlike Feuerbach, Marx believed that this essence is not inside, but outside the individual, is not a constant natural given, but socio-historical, which "is modified in each historically given epoch."
For the existentialist J.P. Sartre, the essence of a person is inextricably linked with freedom of choice, it is not “natural” or “divine”, not predetermined in advance, but acts as a result of a person’s individual life. The existence of individuals, their life process, necessarily precedes their essence. This view, however, is not shared by all existentialists. A. Camus, for example, believes that existence does not precede essence, but, on the contrary, essence precedes existence. The essence of man, according to Camus, is present as a necessary beginning in any becoming existence, it serves as a condition for its very possibility and constantly manifests itself in it (in the form of beginnings, demands for justice, freedom, and other moral values).
In R. Descartes, the essence of a person is expressed in his ability to think. In the view of D. Hume, human nature, being the subject of "moral philosophy", is determined by the fact that a person is a rational, social and active being. According to I. Kant, the essence of man lies in his spirituality. In J.-G. Fichte and G. Hegel, this essence is equivalent to self-knowledge. From the point of view of the German philosopher and writer F. Schlegel, the essence of man is freedom. In A. Schopenhauer it is identical to the will. According to B.A. Bakunin, the “essence and nature” of a person consists in his creative energy and invincible inner strength, and the development of the human essence of society lies in the development of the freedom of all people who make up society. According to the Austrian psychologist W. Frankl, the creator of logotherapy, the essence of human existence is responsibility to life. In the opinion of F. Nietzsche, and to a large extent A. Schopenhauer, it lies entirely and completely in the natural processes of his biological, physiological and mental life, obeying the needs, drives, needs and will of instincts, which by their nature are not shameful and not evil , which are tamed by civilization.
However, the essence of a person can be approached in a different way, defining it more specifically: a person is a being endowed by society and nature with such qualities that are necessary for free, creative activity and have a certain concrete historical character. In a trend, in the esoteric sense, the named activity is more and more connected with such essential features, human properties as wisdom, justice, moral responsibility, beauty, love. Moreover, love is associated here with the primary and most acute need of a person to affirm his existence in his unique individuality, in free will and, at the same time, as an affirmation of the existence of the uniqueness of another and the need to know his essence.

(Philosophy in questions and answers. What is the essence of man?)

“It is human nature in its specificity that makes man a cultural being. Being a cultural being means:
a) to be an insufficient being;
b) be a creative being.
The insufficiency, Herder wrote, lies in the fact that man, deprived of the unmistakable instincts characteristic of the animal, is the most helpless of all living beings. He does not have a dark innate instinct that draws him into his own element, and even "his" element does not exist. Smell does not lead him to the herbs that are needed to overcome the disease, mechanical skill does not prompt him to build a nest ... etc. In other words, of all living beings, man is the most unadapted to life.
But it is precisely this lack of original fitness that makes him a creative being. In order to make up for his own insufficiency, missing abilities, a person produces culture. Culture here is instrumental in nature, it turns out to be an instrument of adaptation to nature and the conquest of nature. With the help of culture, a person takes possession of the environment, subjugates it to himself, puts it at the service, adapts it to meet needs.
If we express the same ideas in the language of modern anthropology, we can say that man, unlike other living beings, is devoid of specific species reactions. In animals, reactions to environmental stimuli are formed according to instinctive programs specific to each species. These programs do not exist in humans. Therefore, it seems to fall out of nature, which provided other species with specific species-specific programs for responding to stimuli of a species-specific environment.
Since human survival is not guaranteed by nature itself, it becomes a practical task for him, and the environment and himself in it become the subject of constant reflection. A person is forced to analyze his environment, to single out those elements that are necessary to satisfy his instinctive needs (in animals, needs and means of satisfying them are initially coordinated). This is how values are assigned to the elements of the environment; value orientation makes behavior meaningful and understandable both for the acting individual and for the observer.
It was this kind of meaningful behavior that was the source of culture, because everything that became the result of such meaningful, meaning-oriented behavior was itself meaningful and contained meanings that other individuals could already focus on. This is how the “second nature” was created, i.e. cultural environment, which has become a specific species environment for the species homo sapiens.
Looking ahead, we note that the phrase "second nature" has a metaphorical character. Each person is born in a world of ready-made meanings that make up the objects of his cultural environment. Therefore, he considers them as objective realities, equal in their ontological status to the realities of nature. In fact, they are meaningful realities and as such are conditioned in their existence by human activity and human behavior. They are cultural realities, cultural things, cultural objects. Everything by which and in which a person lives - from myth to modern technical devices, from poetry to fundamental social institutions - all these are cultural realities that were born from meaningful social behavior and have meaning for every human being. Society as a whole is also a cultural institution, because it is based on meaningful behavior, and not on the instinctive response inherent in the animal world.

(Culture and human nature.)

“The nature and essence of a person is a philosophical concept that denotes the essential characteristics of a person that distinguish him and are not reducible to all other forms and kinds of being, or his natural properties, to one degree or another inherent in all people. The essence of man according to Aristotle is those of his properties that cannot be changed so that he does not cease to be himself. Philosophy, anthropology, evolutionary psychology, sociobiology, and theology are engaged in the study and interpretation of human nature at different levels of generalization. However, among researchers there is no consensus not only about the nature of human nature, but also about the presence of human nature as such.
In philosophy, a single and unambiguous definition of man and his nature does not exist. In a broad sense, a person can be described as a being with will, intelligence, higher feelings, the ability to communicate and work.
Kant, proceeding from the understanding of natural necessity and moral freedom, distinguishes anthropology into "physiological" and "pragmatic". The first explores "... what nature makes of a person ...", the second - "... what he, as a freely acting being, does or can and should make of himself."
The synthesis of the positions of modern biology (man? K is a representative of the species of a rational person) and Marxism (“... the essence of a person is not an abstract inherent in a separate individual. In its reality, it is the totality of all social relations”) leads to an understanding of a person as a subject of historical and social cultural activity, which is a unity of social and biological nature.
According to the concepts of materialism, a person consists only of the tissues that make up his flesh, yet the abstract components attributed to a person, along with the ability to actively reflect reality, are the result of a complex organization of the processes of these tissues. In esotericism and many religions, a person is defined as an entity that combines the “subtle” (soul, ethereal body, monad, aura) with the “dense” (body) of the body.
In the Ancient Indian Tradition, a person is characterized by a short-term, but organic combination of elements, when the soul and body are closely interconnected in the natural wheel of samsara. Only a person can strive for liberation from empirical existence and find harmony in nirvana, using spiritual practices that involve exercises for the soul and body.
Democritus, like many ancient thinkers, considered man to be a microcosm. Plato imagined man as a being divided into material (body) and ideal (soul) beginnings. Aristotle viewed the soul and body as two aspects of a single reality. The human soul in the writings of Augustine becomes a mystery, a mystery to man himself. The body in the philosophy of modern times is considered as a machine, and the soul is identified with consciousness.
According to many religious traditions, man is a divine creation. In the Abrahamic religions, priority is given to the spiritual principle: “... a person occupies such a high place among God's creations, is like a true citizen of two worlds - visible and invisible - as the union of the Creator with the creature, the temple of the Divine and therefore the crown of creation, then this is the only and proper reason that in his spiritual nature the Most High deigned to introduce the feeling or thought of His infinite Divinity, which is placed in his spirit and serves as an everlasting source, attracting him to his highest center.
On the contrary, from the point of view of evolutionary teaching, human behavior, like other animals, is part of its species characteristics, is due to the evolutionary development of man as a species, and has analogues in closely related species. A long period of childhood is necessary for a person to assimilate large volumes of extragenetic information necessary for extended abstract thinking, speech and socialization by a highly developed human brain.

(Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.)

« 3. Nature, essence and existence of man. The category "essence" is a scientific abstraction that reflects the qualitative specifics of the subject, its most important, main properties that determine its changes. The essence of a person is revealed in the special nature of objective activity, in the process of which there is a dialectical interaction of the creative forces of a person with natural material and a given socio-economic structure. The real image of a person (his reality) is not reduced to the category of essence, since it includes not only his generic essence, but also his concrete historical existence.
The category of existence denotes the existence of an empirical individual in his daily life. Hence the importance of the concept of "everyday". It is at the level of everyday life that a deep interconnection of all types of human behavior, his existence and abilities with the development of human culture is revealed. Existence is richer than essence. It includes not only the manifestation of the essential forces of a person, but also the diversity of his specific social, biological, moral, psychological qualities. The existence of a person is a form of manifestation of his essence. Only the unity of essence and existence forms the reality of man.
In addition to the above categories, the concept of "human nature" deserves attention. In the XX century. it was either identified with the essence of man, or its need was completely questioned. However, the progress of biological sciences, the study of the neural structure of the brain and the human genome make us take a fresh look at this concept. At the center of the discussions is the question of whether human nature exists as something structured and unchanging under all influences, or whether it has a mobile, plastic character.
The famous American philosopher F. Fukuyama in the book “Our posthuman future: the conditions of the biotechnological revolution” (2002) believes that human nature exists and that it “ensures the sustainable continuity of our existence as a species. It is this, together with religion, that defines our most fundamental values.” In his opinion, human nature is “the sum of behavior and typical species characteristics, due to genetic, and not environmental factors.” Another American scientist, S. Pinker, interprets human nature as "a set of emotions, motives and cognitive abilities that are common to all individuals with a normal nervous system."
From these definitions of human nature it follows that the psychological characteristics of the human individual are determined by his biologically inherited properties. Meanwhile, many scientists believe that the brain itself predetermines not certain abilities, but only the possibility of forming these abilities. In other words, biologically inherited properties, although important, are only one of the conditions for the formation of human mental functions and abilities.
In recent years, the point of view has prevailed, according to which the concepts of “human nature” and “human essence”, for all their proximity and interconnectedness, should not be identified. The first concept reflects both the natural and social qualities of a person. The second concept does not reflect the totality of its social, biological and psychological qualities, but the most significant, stable connections, relationships that underlie human nature. Therefore, the concept of “human nature” is broader and richer than the concept of “human essence”.
A number of general human qualities can be attributed to the concept of human nature: the ability for creative activity, the manifestation of emotions, the formation of moral values, the desire for beauty (aesthetic perception of reality), etc. At the same time, it should be emphasized that there is no eternal, unchanging human nature, as a certain uniquely formulated set of unchanging qualities. All history testifies to the ongoing certain changes in the nature of man, his "openness to the world."

(Mironov V.V. Philosophy: a textbook for universities. 2005)

“Man by nature is a multidimensional and mysterious phenomenon that hides the secret of all the most beautiful things in the world. It is this idea that N.A. Berdyaev pursues in a number of his works, noting that man is the greatest mystery in the world, and even today he would like to know “who he is, where he came from and where he is going.” The same opinion is shared by another thinker of the 20th century. M. Buber, persistently emphasizing: a person is mysterious, inexplicable, he is a kind of mystery worthy of surprise. From time immemorial, a person knows about himself that he is an object worthy of the closest attention, but it is precisely this object in its entirety, with everything that is in it, that he is just afraid to start.
E. Cassirer in the book “What is a person. The experience of the philosophy of human culture" asserts that the problem of man is the "Archimedean point" of the philosophy of knowledge, and one can agree with this. Until now, there is no clarity as to what is the nature of man, which determines his essence.
Philosophical anthropology traditionally understands human nature as a structurally organized set of the most important features and properties (qualities) that characterize a person as a special kind of living being. Among the most important attributes, most researchers include: consciousness, labor and the ability of a person to communicate with their own kind. It is suggested that human nature is one, inexhaustible and changeable (plastic), always has a specific historical character.
There are other approaches to understanding this problem. A number of researchers consider the specifics of human nature through the analysis of such categories as "spirituality", "creativity", "freedom". There is some truth in this, since the properties associated with the concept of a person and his nature can be social in color and express something common that is inherent in all people, of course, equally and in the degree of their manifestation, depending on ethical and cultural characteristics, social status, age, etc.
At the same time, when revealing the nature of a person, one should take into account to a greater extent his biological determinant, which is invariant in its development and does not lend itself to such variability as social traits inherent in a person, acquired with experience and historical practice. From the point of view of the biological organization of a person, his nature can only change as a result of biological evolution, or as a result of interference with his genome or brain structures. Such approaches to solving these problems are now taking place, but in their consequences they look very problematic. And since human nature cannot be changed through further biological evolution, the only way to change it is self-transformation on the basis of changing society itself.
In modern philosophical literature, human nature is often understood as its essence, which is hardly correct. Such a shift in concepts is unacceptable, since when revealing the essence of a person, the main attention is paid to the manifestations in him of not purely natural (biological), but creative principles, his desire to create, transform the world around him, create a new reality that does not exist in natural nature (“second , artificial nature"), and himself. Without creativity, a person is nothing in socio-cultural terms, a being that has not yet overcome its original animal state. Creativity is universal: all people create and they create everywhere, in all “cells” of their existence. Through his essence, a person expresses and defines himself, creates his being in the world around him, pushes the boundaries of existence. Only through creativity can a person arrange his life "humanly", i.e. by the standards of high standards. Consideration of the essence of man is multidimensional and may include various research areas.
As an extremely general concept, a person expresses a single substantial essence that unites people regardless of their belonging to specific historical types of social systems and their social communities. The priority areas in revealing its essence are not class values, but general humanistic values aimed at solving the global problems of our time, primarily war and peace, overcoming the economic crisis, etc.”

(The concept of man, the nature of man and his essential features. Humanitarian portal PSYERA.RU)

“Man and woman were created in the ‘image and likeness’ of God as beings endowed with individuality, power and freedom to think and act. The body, mind and spirit of each of them was an indivisible whole, and although people were created as free beings, their life depended on God. However, by not listening to God, our forefathers rejected their spiritual dependence on Him and lost the high position they held before God...
The biblical account of Creation is invaluable for a correct understanding of human nature. In an effort to emphasize the unity of the human being, the Bible portrays it as a whole. What, then, is the relationship between the soul and the spirit to human nature?
As we have already mentioned, the word “soul” in the Old Testament is translated from the Hebrew word “ne-fesh”… In the New Testament, the Hebrew word “nefesh” corresponds to the Greek word “psyche”. It is used in relation to the life of animals, as well as humans ...<…>. So, we found out that sometimes "nefesh" and "psyuhe" mean the whole person; in other cases, they reflect the characteristics of his personality, for example, attachments, feelings, desires. However, it does not follow from this that man was created from two separate and independent parts. Body and soul are not separated. Together they form an indivisible whole. The soul has no consciousness that exists outside the body. Nowhere in the Bible is there any indication that the soul as a conscious entity gives life to the body.
According to the Bible, human nature is a single whole. But we do not find a clear description of the relationship between the body, soul and spirit. Sometimes soul and spirit are interchangeable. Note the parallel use of these words in Mary's doxology at the annunciation: "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior" (Luke 1:4b, 47). For example, Jesus, speaking of man, referred to the body and soul (see Matt. 10:28), while the apostle Paul referred to the body and spirit (see 1 Cor. 7:34). In the first case, the word soul refers to the highest human abilities, perhaps the mind, through which a person communicates with God. In another, these same higher abilities are called the spirit. In both cases, the body includes both the physical and emotional aspects of the personality.
The epistles of the Apostle Paul usually speak of the unity of body and spirit. But he also mentions the triple unity. Here is what he writes: “May the God of peace Himself sanctify you in all its fullness, and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved without blemish at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thessalonians 5:23).
What Paul meant by his wish was that none of the aspects of personality he enumerated should be excluded from the process of sanctification. In this case, the word spirit is used in the sense of the intellect and thinking with which man is endowed and through which God can communicate with us through the Holy Spirit (cf. Rom. 8:14-16): yours, that you may know that (is) the will of God, which is good, acceptable, and perfect” (Rom. 12:2). The concept of the soul, if it is mentioned separately from the spirit, as in this case, can denote instincts, emotions and desires. This sphere of human nature must also be sanctified.
It is clear that each person is an indivisible whole. The body, soul and spirit are in such close interpenetration that the spiritual, mental and physical abilities of a person are inextricably linked and dependent on each other. The lack of one will certainly affect the other. The influence that mind, soul, and body have on each other makes each of us realize how great our responsibility to God is. He has made it our responsibility to take care of our mind, soul, and body and to improve our abilities. And this is one of the most important links in the process of restoring the image of God in man.
Man, created by God, was not much inferior to the angels in his perfection (see Heb. 2:7). This suggests that he was endowed with outstanding mental and spiritual gifts. Being created in the image of God, man was given the opportunity to express his love and loyalty to the Creator. He, like God, had freedom of choice - the freedom to think and act in accordance with moral criteria. Only a free person is able to fully know the love of God and reveal it in his character (see 1 John 4:8). Perfecting and developing, man would more and more reflect in himself the image of God. Love for God with all your heart, soul and mind, and love for other people as for yourself, was to become the essence and meaning of being (see Matt. 22:36-40). It is these relationships that make us human in the full sense of the word. People who carry and develop in themselves the image of God, the harmony of His Kingdom.
So, the evil that we see in human nature is not something that has entered into it from outside (like a bacillus of evil), it sits initially in a person - this is a distortion of all human properties. They acquired this painful appearance, this painful state; everything fell into disarray when a person severed his living connection with God.
It is very sad that all thinkers and philosophers, scientific and political figures, writers and representatives of all kinds of intellectual projects, in solving their problems, in building their theories, do not recognize the true essence of human nature as it really is. For them, the very question of human nature, as it were, does not exist. Yet it is the root, the center of all human problems.

(Kim Gritsenko. Human nature. 10.05.05)

« The nature of man and his essence. From the point of view of the substantialist approach to man, which seeks to find an unchanging basis for his existence, unchanging "human qualities", "the essence of man" and "human nature" are concepts of the same order. However, if together with the outstanding thinkers of the XX century. try to overcome the substantialist understanding of man, then the difference between these two concepts will become obvious.
The concept of human nature is extremely broad, with its help it is possible to describe not only the greatness and strength of a person, but also his weakness, limitations. Human nature is a unity of material and spiritual, natural and social, unique in its inconsistency. However, with the help of this concept, we can only see the tragic inconsistency of "human, too human" being. The dominant principle in man, the prospects of man remain hidden for us. Human nature is the situation in which each person finds himself, these are his “starting conditions”. M. Scheler himself, like other representatives of philosophical anthropology (M. Landmann, A. Gehlen and others), tends to recognize the bodily and spiritual nature of man. A person cannot "jump" beyond the limits of his bodily organization, "forget" about it. There is no normativity in the concept of human nature, it characterizes a person from the point of view of "existing".
Man is able to realize the inconsistency of his nature, to understand that he belongs to conflicting worlds - the world of freedom and the world of necessity. Man, as E. Fromm wrote, is both inside and outside of nature, he "for the first time is a life that is aware of itself." A person does not feel at home in any of the worlds, he is both a beast and an angel, both body and soul. Awareness of his own conflict makes him lonely and full of fear. According to the Spanish philosopher J. Ortega y Gasset, a person is “an embodied problem, a continuous and very risky adventure ...”.
Of all the creatures in the universe, man is the only one who is not sure what he is. A person may cease to be human, but even when he acts cruelly, he does it in a human way. Humanity is a moral characteristic of a person, it differs from the concept of human. The human is life given together with its awareness. Of all living beings, wrote the Russian philosopher Vl. Solovyov, only man realizes that he is mortal.
So, the nature of man is a contradiction, immanent (that is, intrinsic) to human existence. But human nature also presupposes the awareness of this contradiction as one's own internal conflict and the desire to overcome it. According to E. Fromm, this is not a theoretical desire, it is a need to overcome loneliness, often at the cost of abandoning one side of one's "nature".
But man is not doomed to follow this path. There is another answer, another way - "progressive". This is the path of being itself, on which a person acquires his essence. The essence of man is the path of creativity, self-sacrifice, intense self-awareness. In the Christian worldview, the human essence is the image of God. E. Fromm expresses the essence of man in the concept of being as opposed to possession. For K. Marx, the essence of a person is a universal attitude to the world, the ability to be “everything”. For Ortega y Gasset, the essence of a person is a constant risk, danger, a constant going beyond oneself, a person’s ability to transcend, to destroy a stable image of the “I”, this is not a “material” being. A thing is always identical to itself. A person can become anyone. “It is natural for a person to want to be better and more,” wrote Vl. Solovyov, “than he really is, it is natural for him to gravitate toward the ideal of the superman. If he really wants it, then he can, and if he can, then he must. But isn't it nonsense to be better, higher, more than one's reality? Yes, this is nonsense for the animal, since for him reality is that which makes him and owns him; but a person, although he is also a product of a reality already given, that existed before him, at the same time can influence it from within, and, consequently, this reality of his is in one way or another, to one degree or another, what he himself does ... ”( Solovyov V. The idea of the superman. Solovyov V. S. Works in 2 volumes T. I. M. 1989. P. 613).
Thus, the essence of man is the result of his free choice from the two possibilities that are provided to him by his own existence, his "nature". Is it possible to say that in every individual there is a human essence? I think this is an incorrect expression. Having recognized this question as legitimate, we will be forced to answer another: is it possible to say that in one individual there is “more of a person”, and in another - less? “The essence of man” is a concept from the world of due, it is an attractive image of the superman, it is the image of God. Even Marx's, it would seem, quite mundane definition of the essence of man as a set of social relations ("Theses on Feuerbach"), upon closer examination, reveals ideal normativity, inaccessibility for full and final embodiment. How can an individual person embody in his final life the simplicity and monolithic nature of life in a primitive community, the hierarchization of the relations of a class society, the dynamism of capitalist relations, the spirit of cooperation of socialism? Of all earthly beings, Vl. Soloviev noted, one person is able to critically evaluate the very way of his being, as not corresponding to what should be. The essence of a person, accordingly, is that “human image” that can become a value orientation of an individual who freely makes his life choice. The essence of a person is not a collection of certain qualities that a certain individual can take possession of forever.

(G.G. Kirilenko, E.V. Shevtsov. Philosophy. Higher education. M. Eksmo. 2003)

“Human nature is a concept that expresses the natural generation of a person, his kinship, closeness with everything that exists, and above all, with“ life in general ”, as well as the whole variety of human manifestations that distinguish a person from all other forms of being and living. Human nature was often identified with human essence, which was reduced to rationality, consciousness, morality, language, symbolism, objective activity, will to power, unconsciously libidinal foundations, play, creativity, freedom, attitude towards death, religiosity ... The mutual exclusivity of these signs is not allows you to find the unambiguous “essence” of a person without losing the living diversity, to establish integrity, unity, without turning a person into an object external to himself, into a kind of dissected exhibit, a one-dimensional being. The "essence" of man cannot be torn out of his "existence." Existence, one's own life, vital activity, living-experience - the substance of man, his natural foundation. Vital activity goes into “life in general”, into vital, bodily “zoo”-structures, i.e. turns out to be a product and continuation of the Universe, Nature; but it also covers the whole variety of actually human manifestations, accomplishments, incarnations, the whole sphere where a person “just lives”, where he “leads his life” (X. Plesner); and, finally, it again enters “being-in-general”, highlighting it, rushes towards the Universe. Vital activity, existence, existence (and at the same time "existence", i.e. a gap, a breakthrough into being, revelation) is exactly what is called human nature. The nature of man includes the following aspects: the origin of man; man's place in the series of life; actual human existence...
The nature of man as proper human being is revealed from human existence, from life activity. An elementary phenomenon of human life is a pre-logical (or metalogical), pre-theoretical premonition of life, a manifestation of one’s existence, which is difficult to express verbally, but can be conditionally fixed by the formula “I exist” (“I am”, “I live”, “I am alive”) . The phenomenon of “I exist” is an “irreflexive starting point” of a person’s life, in which “I” and “existence” are not yet divided, everything is pulled together into a unity of self-existence, into a folded potentiality of possible unfoldings of an individual’s life.
Traditionally, in this natural basis, three elements of human identity are distinguished: physicality, soulfulness, spirituality.
The body is first of all "flesh" - the dense, obvious basis of our existence. As “flesh”, “substantiality”, people are one with the world, with its flesh and substance. The human body is a separated, formed flesh, which not only goes out into the outside world, but also turns out to be the bearer of its own inner world and its own Self. bottom, limb, "perishability", but at the same time "body" - "whole", i.e. rootedness of human integrity, self-identity. The human body is not anonymous, but "one's own body", singled out among "other bodies". The body turns out to be not just a vital, but a vital and semantic basis of self-existence and comprehension of the world - “the body that understands”. The body is not only an external expression of a person's identity, but also an "inner landscape" in which "I exist." In this case, self-existence in the form of "spiritual life", "inner mental world" or "soul" of a person comes to the fore. This is a special inner reality, inaccessible to external observation, a hidden inner world, fundamentally inexpressible to the end in an external way. Although goals, motives, plans, projects, aspirations are rooted here, without which there are no actions, behavior, actions. The spiritual world is fundamentally unique, unrepeatable and incommunicable to another, and therefore “lonely”, non-public. This world, as it were, does not exist, it does not have any special place in the body, it is a “non-existent country”. It can be a land of imagination, dreams, fantasies, illusions. But this reality “does not exist” for others, for the individual it is the true center of being, the true “being-in-itself”. The spiritual world is not fenced off from the outside world. Impressions, experiences, perceptions indicate a connection with the outside world, that the soul listens to the outside world; consciousness is fundamentally intentional, i.e. directed at something else, it is always “consciousness about” something else. The soul is multifaceted. The psychic sphere includes the unconscious, and consciousness, and sensory-emotional, and rational; and images and will, reflected and reflection, consciousness of the other and self-consciousness. Various manifestations of the spiritual world can come into conflict, confront, giving rise to mental illness, anxiety, but also forcing a person to change, look for himself and make himself.
The soul is relatively autonomous, but not separated from the body. If the body is the “shell” of the soul, then it also turns out to be its “appearance”, embodies the soul, expresses it and takes shape on its own. A person's own inimitable and unique face appears, he becomes a personality. The personality is called the center of the spirit in the individual (M. Scheler and others), "the embodied face" (P. Florensky and others). This is already a manifestation of spiritual self-existence, the spiritual hypostasis of human nature.
If the body is outwardly representable, and the soul is the inner world, then the “spirit” implies the connection of one’s own and the other, “meeting”, “revelation”, the news of the other (ultimately - about the transcendental, universal, about the Universe, the Absolute, “being in general "). Being perceived by the individual, the "message" finds a response, becomes "conscience" and, finally, "conscience" - a proper human, individual state. On the basis of spirituality, there is an idea of the unity of all things, as well as the unity of the human world. Co-existence with another and with other people takes shape in a "joint world" (X. Plesner).
"Body - soul - spirit" in their unity constitute the abstract nature of man, common to all people at all times. In fact, human nature is transformed and modified in the cultural, historical and social existence of people, depends on living conditions, on orientation, value-semantic attitudes, on ways of coexistence with other people and on the self-identification of individuals.

(Myasnikova L.A., Kemerov V. Philosophical Encyclopedia. Panprint. 1998)

“There is an opinion that the nature of man is the same as the nature of animals. But in the social, human environment, problems arise that have fallen on humanity in the course of the development of the Mind, the formation of thinking, especially abstract thinking. These problems, called Bede's problems by Lorenz, have three main sources: weaponry, intraspecific selection, and the dizzying pace of development.
It is unlikely that anyone will deny that a person is diverse in its manifestations and essence. This is the first postulate from which I proceed in this work. And the second - in a person there is a lot, a lot of the animal, and first of all - aggressiveness. I think that this second postulate will find many supporters and, perhaps, more opponents and opponents.
Human nature has always interested thinkers and continues to interest until now. What is she like? What is at its core? The Chinese philosopher Mencius believed that a person initially has a “good” nature and he does evil only under duress. Another thinker (also Chinese) Xun Tzu holds the opposite point of view - "man has an evil nature." Who is right?
Starting with the ancient Greek philosophers, it is generally accepted that there is something in a person that makes up his essence. This "something" is called "human nature". With this nature, a person tries to explain all his activities: to justify and explain lies and meanness, greed and fraud, violence and evil. The specificity of "human nature" is explained by the anatomical and physiological structure of a person and has its own mental and physical uniqueness. The deepest roots of human essence are revealed by a complex complex of psychology, ethology, sociology and biology.
Nature creates, never violating its own laws. What can you say about a person. All living things on our planet developed and formed in the conditions of a natural struggle for existence. And, first of all, in the conditions of competition between the closest relatives. The struggle between representatives of different species, in particular between "predators and their victims", never leads to the complete destruction of the victim; some balance is always established between them, which is beneficial for both. If someone directly threatens the existence of a species, it is not a "devourer", but a competitor from the same species. The clash between predator and prey is not a fight at all. The paw strike with which the lion knocks down his prey is similar in form to that with which he beats the opponent, but the internal origins of the behavior of the hunter and the fighter are completely different. “The buffalo causes no more aggressiveness in him than an appetizing turkey in me,” says K. Lorenz (1994).
K. Lorenz considers intraspecific aggression to be the most serious danger that threatens humanity in the current conditions of cultural, historical and technical development. Selection "misses a second-rate construction, ... he, having lost his way, comes to a disastrous dead end." This always happens in those cases where selection is directed solely by the competition of congeners, without connection with an extraspecific environment.
Brilliant! Man no longer competes with anyone but himself. So it “eats” its own kind! K. Lorenz recalls the joke of his teacher O. Heinroth: "After the wings of the pheasant - argus, the pace of work of people of Western civilization is the most stupid product of intraspecific selection." From my point of view, this joke sounds very serious. Indeed, it is impossible not to notice that the "West" leads to the regression of man. Modern industrial society is the clearest example of irrational development, imposed, moreover, as an example to follow by many developing countries and peoples. Development occurs solely due to competition between fellow species. The aggressive behavior of modern man develops into an absurd grotesque. Moreover, this aggressiveness, like an evil inheritance, sits in the blood of people and is the result of intraspecific selection ...
My task is not a detailed analysis of all theoretical teachings about the essence and nature of man, and, in the context of the study of aggressiveness, teachings about social and normative representations. Therefore, we will focus only on some of them that have a certain cognitive interest.
Even in ancient times it was said that a person is born rational, and therefore a free spirit; he is born with the desire to bring good to this world. They argued that a person is born kind and reasonable, and if negative inclinations develop in him, then the reason for this is negative circumstances, upbringing and examples.
It should be emphasized that there is something in common between all ancient teachings of historical significance - these are mythological (divine) ideas about the origin of life, man, human relationships, nature and society. More primitive ideas of primitive, pre-general society later developed into more developed and developed, religiously colored and religiously nourished views of early class societies. Among all the ancient peoples (both existing and extinct) - Egyptians, Sumerians, Khets, Assyrians, Chinese, Hindus, Jews, Greeks, Armenians and others - all human activity was regulated and declared either by the gods or their proteges. In other words, human nature was understood by the ancients as predetermined from above, that is, by God. The “Laws of Manu” (the ancient Indian code of laws) says very clearly and clearly: “What quality he established for everyone at creation - evil or harmlessness, gentleness or cruelty, dharma or adharma (rights or wrongs), truth or falsehood - then entered into it by itself. In the same set of laws, the concept of “dharma” is presented dialectically, reflecting its variability over time, that is, from one era to another, from one moral foundation to another, etc.
As a biological being, a natural person, of course, obeys natural laws (according to F. Aquinas). But, being at the same time a social being, in other words, a rational and active being (Homo Sapiens and Homo Faber), he constantly violates the laws of natural development. From the point of view of C. Montesquieu (1955), this happens due to the limitations of the human mind, as well as the susceptibility of the mind to the influence of passions, emotions and delusions, which are the main cause of social deviations.
No matter how criticized in our time (and especially in our post-Soviet society) ideas of a communist (socialist) persuasion, one cannot but note the brilliant idea expressed by the French social utopian Fourier. Criticizing all previous eras and societies, he noted that humanity still has not understood for itself the meaning of the "divinely pre-established social code." The main meaning of this code is the recognition of the natural properties and passions of man as the engine of the social process from disorder to harmony. Brilliantly said!"

(The essence and nature of man.)

Lesson in social science on the topic "Human nature"
Purpose: to consider the essence of man as the creator and bearer of culture; reveal the main factors and stages of the formation of modern man; to get acquainted with the main approaches to determining the meaning of life.
Subject: social science.

Date: "____" ____.20___

Teacher: Khamatgaleev E.R.

Message about the topic and purpose of the lesson.

Activation of educational activities.

What is the riddle of man? Why is there no common understanding of the process of becoming a person? Is there meaning in human life? What are the problems of the human sciences?

Presentation of the program material.

Storytelling with elements of conversation

One of the central problems of philosophy is the problem of man. This riddle worried scientists, thinkers, artists of all eras. Disputes about a person are not completed even today and are unlikely to end ever. Moreover, to emphasize the philosophical aspect of the problem, the question about a person sounds exactly like this: what is a person? The German philosopher I. Fichte (1762-1814) believed that the concept of "man" refers not to a single person, but to the entire human race: it is impossible to analyze the properties of an individual person, taken by himself, outside of his relations with other people, i.e. .out of society.
Man as a product of biological, social and cultural evolution
To understand the essence of man, first of all, it is necessary to understand how he appeared. Brilliant conjectures, together with beautiful legends, tell about the appearance of a person from "nothing", by the will of the gods or "by the will" of nature.

Scientific study of the origin of man (anthropogenesis) was established in the 19th century. the publication of Charles Darwin's book "The Origin of Man and Sexual Selection", in which for the first time the idea was expressed of the origin of man and great apes from a common ancestor. Another factor of anthropogenesis was revealed by F. Engels in his work “The role of labor in the process of transformation of a monkey into a man”, where he substantiated the position that it was labor that was the decisive factor in the evolutionary transformation of an ancient human ancestor into a social and culture-creating being. In the XX century. these ideas constituted the concept of the biosocial nature of man.

Today, research into the process of becoming a person goes in three main directions. The first connects anthropogenesis with the development of geological processes, comparing the stages of human evolution with the stages of the evolution of the earth's crust, thus establishing the missing links in the process of the emergence of a modern type of man. The second direction explores the biological prerequisites and genetic mechanisms of the evolution of human human ancestors in accordance with the stages of formation of their distinctive human properties (upright walking, use of the forelimbs as natural "tools of production", the development of speech and thinking, complex forms of labor activity and social). The third direction deals with the refinement of the general theory of anthropogenesis as a complex, complex process, carried out on the basis of close interaction of biological and social factors.

According to modern concepts, the beginning of the process of becoming a person refers to the appearance of Ramapithecus (14-20 million years ago) - a creature that steadily switched to a lifestyle in the savannas with the systematic use of tools. Australopithecus appeared 5-8 million years ago, widely using selected and partly worked out tools. From them, about 2 million years ago, the first representative of the genus Homo – Homo habilis, or a skilled person. View Homoerectus, Homo erectus, appears 1-1.3 million years ago. He had a brain volume in the range of 800-1200 cm 3 (the brain volume of a modern person is 1200-1600 cm 3), he knew how to make quite perfect hunting tools, he mastered fire, which allowed him to switch to boiled food, and, apparently, he had speech. His direct descendant became homo sapiens, or Homo sapiens (150-200 thousand years ago). This human ancestor at the stage of Cro-Magnon man (40-50 thousand years ago) has already quite approached the modern one not only in external physical appearance, but also in terms of intelligence, in the ability to organize collective forms of labor activity, build dwellings, make clothes, use highly developed speech, as well as by interest in the beautiful, the ability to experience a feeling of compassion for one's neighbor, etc.

As for the general theory of anthropogenesis, its basis throughout the 20th century. was the idea of the special role of labor activity as a leading factor in the formation of man and human society. But over time, this idea also underwent changes, the main of which was associated with the awareness of a whole range of conditions in which tool activity and labor were considered in interaction with the development of speech, human consciousness, with the process of forming moral ideas, folding mythology, ritual practice, etc. Only all together these factors ensure social development and are embodied in culture.
The purpose and meaning of human life
A distinctive feature of a person can be recognized as his desire for a philosophical understanding of the world and himself. Search the meaning of life purely human occupation.

subjective side of the question: why, for what does a person live? - does not have an unambiguous solution, everyone decides it individually, depending on traditions, culture, worldview, and sometimes on specific life circumstances. But every person is a part of the human race. Awareness of the unity of man and mankind with all life on the planet, with its biosphere and with potentially possible life forms in the Universe is of great ideological significance and makes the problem of the meaning of life objective, i.e., independent of the person.

In the history of philosophy, two fundamentally different approaches to the problem of the meaning of human life can be distinguished. In one case, the meaning of life is associated with the moral institutions of man's earthly existence. In the other, with values that are not directly related to earthly life, which in itself is fleeting and finite.

Without pretending to be the only correct answer, we invite you to reflect on the eternal questions yourself, having become acquainted with the points of view of some philosophers.

The tradition of relating the purpose of life to the concept of “happiness” is as old as philosophy itself. Aristotle in the 4th century BC e. noted that virtue seems to be one happiness, prudence to another, and well-known wisdom to another. At the same time, everyone strives for happiness.

The philosophy of the Renaissance sought the meaning of life in human existence itself.

And classical German philosophy in the person of I. Kant (1724-1804) and G. Hegel (1770-1831) connected the meaning of human life with moral quest, self-development and self-knowledge of the human spirit.

In the XX century. also searched for answers to the painful questions of life. E. Fromm (1900-1980) believed that some people are focused on "possession" and for them the meaning of life is to have, to take. The meaning of the life of others is in “being”, it is important for them to love, create, give, sacrifice themselves. Only by serving people, they can fully realize themselves.

The Russian philosopher S. L. Frank (1877-1950) wrote: “Meaning is the rational realization of life, and not the course of starry hours, meaning is the true discovery and satisfaction of the secret depths of our “I”, and our “I” is unthinkable outside of freedom, because freedom ... requires the possibility of our own initiative, and the latter suggests ... that there is a need for creativity, for spiritual power, for overcoming obstacles. The path of life is "the path of struggle and renunciation - the struggle of the Meaning of life against its meaninglessness, the renunciation of blindness and emptiness for the sake of the light and richness of life." It is the spiritual freedom and creativity of a person that gives hope for understanding the meaning of his life.

A different point of view on the meaning of life and its purpose was expressed by another of our compatriots - N. N. Trubnikov (1929-1983). He wrote: “finally love this life, yours, the only one, for there will never be another ... Love it, and you will easily learn to love that other, someone else’s life, so brotherly intertwined with yours, also the only … Do not be afraid to die, having lived. Be afraid to die without knowing life, without loving it and without serving it. And for this, remember death, because only a constant thought about death, about the limit of life will help you not to forget about the ultimate value of life. In other words, the meaning of life is revealed in the process of this life, although finite, but not useless.

Man like biological individual being mortal. It is not an exception to material, including biological, systems. At the same time, the individual has the possibility of eternal, i.e. relatively infinite, existence in another - social relation. Since the human race exists, to the extent (in terms of time) a person can exist. A person's life continues in his children, grandchildren, in subsequent generations, in their traditions, etc. A person creates various objects, tools, certain structures of social life, works of culture, scientific works, makes new discoveries, etc. The essence of a person is expressed in creativity, in which he asserts himself and through which he ensures his social and longer existence than that of an individual.

Human Sciences
The question of the essence of man is most often considered in four main dimensions: biological, mental, social and cosmic.

Under biological refers to the anatomical and physiological structure, features of genetics, the main processes that determine the functioning of the human body. These human properties are studied by various branches of biology and medicine. In recent years, genetics has achieved especially noticeable results, including in deciphering the human genome - the totality of all the genetic information of the human body, encrypted in the DNA structure. On the one hand, the development of biology and medicine gives hope for the liberation of man from many previously incurable diseases. And on the other hand, it gives rise to new philosophical and ethical problems associated with changing traditional ideas about life and death, the essence of man, his specific properties.

Mental - synonymous with the inner world of man. It covers conscious and unconscious processes, intellect, will, memory, character, temperament, emotions, etc. Psychology deals with the knowledge of the mental. One of the main problems of this area of knowledge is the study of the inner world of a person in all its multidimensionality, complexity and inconsistency.

Social in man studies a whole complex of sciences. Human behavior is dealt with by social psychology, the sociology of the individual and groups. Man is society in miniature. It reflects the whole society with its inherent states in a “folded” (concentrated) form. Therefore, it is safe to say that the social sciences, in the final analysis, study man.

Since human life is unthinkable without the diverse world of culture - mythology, religion, art, science, philosophy, law, politics, mysticism, it becomes obvious that one of the main subjects of cultural studies is also a person.

Space - another direction of human knowledge. Philosophical understanding of the problem of man is closely connected with the problem of his relationship with the Universe. Already in the distant past, thinkers considered man as a microcosm within the macrocosm. This connection between man and the universe has always been embodied in myths, religion, astrology, philosophy, and scientific theories. Ideas about the influence of cosmic processes on man were expressed by K. E. Tsiolkovsky, V. I. Vernadsky, A. L. Chizhevsky. No one today doubts the dependence of life on the processes taking place in the Universe. The rhythms of the Cosmos influence the dynamics of changes in the biofields of plants, animals and humans. A close relationship of rhythms in the macro- and microworld is revealed. The exacerbation of environmental problems brought a person to the need to realize himself as a particle of the noosphere.

However, despite the fact that the word “anthropology” sounds in many names of modern fields of knowledge (cultural anthropology, social anthropology, political anthropology, even poetic anthropology), modern sciences have not yet developed a common approach to understanding the basic mysteries of man. But more and more often voices are heard about the need to create a special science of man, no matter how it is called - general human science, theoretical anthropology, or simply the science of man.

Practical conclusions.

Even in ancient times, the principle of philosophical knowledge "Know thyself!" was formulated. To implement this principle, it is useful to remember that man is a historical being. Each of us, as it were, “stands on the shoulders” of many generations of our ancestors. Man is responsible for life on Earth and the future of mankind.
There is a lot of inhuman, cruel, terrible things in the modern world. It is all the more important to realize the significance of a person, to understand the meaning of life, to choose worthy goals, to consciously make a choice of a life path, to understand which position is closer to you: to be or to have? What is it worth living for, and what should you try to avoid in order to preserve a person in yourself?
Today it is not uncommon to hear that a person is going through a crisis, he is preparing his own death. Therefore, it is especially important to understand that human life is valuable in itself, and the prospect of humanity lies in the development of the individual in harmony with nature, society and one's own inner world.
Remember that a person is an open system, many questions do not have a clear answer, but the very search for answers to the mysteries of human nature is an exciting activity for a thinking being. If you are interested in the problems of the essence of man, the meaning of his life, refer to the works of philosophers. But, reflecting on the eternal philosophical riddles, do not forget about personal responsibility for the preservation, development and enhancement of the human in oneself.
Keep in mind that human science is a promising area for the development of science. There is a place for a variety of your gifts and talents.

Document.

From the work of the Russian philosopher S. L. Franka"Meaning of life".

... The question of the meaning of life excites and torments in the depths of the soul of every person. A person can for a while, and even for a very long time, completely forget about it, plunge headlong or into the everyday interests of today, into material concerns about preserving life, about wealth, contentment and earthly successes, or into any superpersonal passions and "deeds" - into politics, the struggle of parties, etc. - but life is already so arranged that even the most stupid, fat-swelling or spiritually sleeping person cannot completely and forever brush it aside: the inevitable fact of the approach of death and its inevitable harbingers - aging and disease, the fact of dying, transient disappearance, immersion in the irretrievable past of our entire life with all the illusory significance of its interests - this fact is for every person a formidable and persistent reminder of the unresolved, put aside question about the meaning of life. This question is not a "theoretical question", not the subject of an idle mental game; this question is the question of life itself, it is just as terrible - and, in fact, even more terrible than the question of a piece of bread to satisfy hunger in severe need. Truly, this is the question of bread to nourish us and water to quench our thirst. Chekhov somewhere describes a man who, living all his life with everyday interests in a provincial town, like all other people, lied and pretended, "played a role" in "society", was busy with "business", immersed in petty intrigues and worries - and suddenly, unexpectedly, one night, wakes up with a heavy heartbeat and in a cold sweat. What happened? Something terrible happened - life passed, and there was no life, because there was and is no meaning in it!

And yet, the vast majority of people consider it necessary to dismiss this question, hide from it, and find the greatest wisdom in life in such "ostrich politics."
Questions and tasks for the document

Why does the question of the meaning of life, according to the philosopher, excite and torment a person? Why can't anyone dismiss this question?
What qualities of a person is associated with the desire to find the meaning of life?
How are the question of the meaning of life and human mortality related? Why is this question "non-theoretical"? Where do you see its practical orientation?
Do you know the story of A.P. Chekhov, to which the author of the above fragment refers?
Why do many people still consider it necessary to brush aside the eternal question about the meaning of life? What are the limitations of the "ostrich policy"?

Questions for self-examination.

Why, addressing the essence of man, we ask what is a man, and not who is a man?
What theories laid the foundation for the scientific study of anthropogenesis? Describe their main content.
Expand the main stages of the formation of a modern type of person.
What is the essence of man as the creator and bearer of culture?
What are the main (essential) distinguishing features of a person?
List the factors of human development that are possible only in society. What can you add to the textbook list?
Describe the main approaches to determining the meaning of life.
What problems in the study of man can be attributed to the eternal, and which - to the actual?

Tasks.

Make a systematizing table "The meaning and purpose of human life in the views of philosophers." If you wish, you can supplement the list of names of scientists who were looking for an answer to this eternal question. For the necessary information, refer to the philosophical dictionary, textbooks on philosophy, look on the Internet.
What is the philosophical meaning of the following statement by I. I. Mechnikov: “A gardener or cattle breeder does not stop before the given nature of the plants or animals that occupy them, but modifies them according to need. In the same way, a scientist-philosopher should not look at modern human nature as something unshakable, but should change it for the good of people”? What is your attitude to this point of view?
How would you explain the fact that many natural scientists, along with their studies in specific sciences, turned to general philosophical reflections on human nature? How are the natural sciences related to philosophical anthropology?
Prepare a report on one of the sciences that study man. Suggest a plan for such a message, formulate questions for the audience.

Thoughts of the wise.

"Man can be defined as an animal that is ashamed."

V. S. Solovyov (1853-1900), Russian philosopher

The final part.

Evaluation of student responses.
Homework: read §3 "Human Nature" (pp. 28-35); complete tasks with 35.

Stages of human development. Education as a process of becoming a person Why there is no common understanding of the human process

Recent Entries