Why there is no common understanding of the process of human restoration. The origin of man: a modern problematic situation in archeology and ways to resolve it. What will we do with the received material?

Anthroposociogenesis- a historically long process of the formation of a person from a biological being into a social and cultural one - represents the unity of two parallel processes: anthropogenesis (the formation of man) and sociogenesis (development of society).

The main historical and evolutionary forms of anthropogenesis include

australopithecines,
Homo habilis,
Homo erectus,
Neanderthals and
Cro-Magnons.

Each of them is divided into several subspecies. In addition, archaeologists have found many such remains that are difficult to classify, and therefore they fall into independent or intermediate subspecies.

There is no unity among scientists in understanding the beginning and end of anthropogenesis. Some scientists start anthropogenesis from the most ancient fossil forms of hominids and move the border back 6-7 million years ago. Others propose to extend the concept of anthropogenesis not to all hominids, but only to the first people (primal people), in the name of which Homo is present. Then the account should begin with the habilis, who replaced the australopithecines about 2.2-2.5 million years ago. Still others call the first people archanthropes (Pithecanthropes, Sinanthropes, Atlanthropes, etc.), who replaced the Habilis, about 1.6 million ago. Thus, the lower limit varies from 7 to 1.6 million years ago.

Scientific discussions about the boundaries of anthroposociogenesis, although they look like a dispute about numbers, are more of a conceptual nature: who should be considered the first person (Homo)? Is it necessary to limit this process only to human-like forms, or to extend it also to ape-like ancestors, assuming that man did not appear suddenly, but went through a very long and complex evolution?

In a broad sense, anthropogenesis is the totality of all historical and evolutionary forms of hominids before the appearance of Homo sapiens sapiens. Sociogenesis - a set of prehistoric forms of society up to the appearance of the first society-states (antiquity).

The upper limit of anthroposociogenesis in Russian literature is considered to be the period of 35-40 thousand years ago, i.e. the Upper Paleolithic, when the emerging people (primal people) and the forming society (primary society) were replaced by ready-made, formed people and a ready-made, formed human society. Thus, the history of mankind is primarily divided into two main periods: 1) the history of pra-society (prehistory) and 2) the history of human society itself.

Most researchers tend to believe that with the advent of Homo sapiens sapiens both anthropogenesis and sociogenesis ended simultaneously. Thus, a single process of anthropogenesis ended 30-40 thousand years ago. Around this time, the Cro-Magnon man appears and the emergence of art occurs.

Paleoanthropology continues to make discoveries and constantly makes adjustments to the existing schemes. In particular, the linear scheme of anthropogenesis, leading from ape to man, was replaced by a bush-like one, which includes several evolutionary lines developing in parallel and independently of each other, including dead-end, hominids, standing at the Australopithecus level of development and at the level of early Homo.

Anthropogenesis based on bone remains is studied by physical and biological anthropology, sociogenesis is studied by social and cultural anthropology based on archaeological artifacts and living tribes. We are more interested in sociogenesis, less in anthropogenesis.

Comparison of DNA sequences shows that the closest living relatives of humans are two species of chimpanzee (common and bonobo). The phylogenetic line with which the origin of modern man is connected separated from other hominids 6-7 million years ago. Other representatives of this line (mainly Australopithecus and a number of species of the genus Homo) have not survived to the present.

The birthplace of man, as Charles Darwin suggested, is Africa. Modern achievements of paleoanthropology and scientific discoveries of recent years prove the correctness of the "monocentrists". In contrast, "polycentrists" argue that man could have arisen independently in different places and at different times.

Modern genetics strongly speaks out in favor of "monocentrism". In 2009, American scientists led by S. Tishkoff, having studied the genetic diversity of the peoples of Africa, found that the most ancient branch that experienced the least amount of mixing, as previously assumed, is the genetic cluster to which the Bushmen and other peoples who speak Khoisan belong. languages. Apparently, they are the branch that is closest to the common ancestors of all modern humanity.

From Africa in ancient times, two exoduses were noted, the historical time of which is still being specified by science. According to some data, the first exit took place about 135-115 thousand years ago, the second exit - 90-85 thousand years ago. Other scientists argue that 50-70 thousand years ago a small wave of migration from Africa reached the shores of Western Asia. Still others are sure that the first wave of settlement of erectus outside Africa happened 1.75 million years ago, and sapiens - 115-135 thousand years ago.

Biological evolution has given man a unique tool - the brain, capable of capturing the most incredible combinations of sounds, and the larynx, capable of producing them. It is known that in the early primate Afarensis the volume of the skull is about 500, in Habilis Australopithecus - about 700, in Pithecanthropus - 900, in Homo erectus it is increased to about 900-1000, in Sinanthropus - about 1200, in Neanderthal - up to 1400, in Cro-Magnon - about 1600 cm 3. Thus, during anthropogenesis, the size of the human brain has tripled. Considering that during the same period the average height of a person and the circumference of his chest increased by only 20-40%, then an increase in brain volume by 200% suggests that the development of the brain was the driving force of evolution.

During biological evolution and anthropogenesis, the number of nerve cells in the brain increased from 1 billion in apes to 100 billion in modern humans. The same quantitative changes occur during the life of one person - from the embryo to the morphological maturation of the brain.

It is known that in primates the brain of an infant reaches 70% of the brain of an adult, another 30% are recruited over the next few months of life. In humans, things are different: a child's brain is only 20% of the size of an adult, and the growth process ends only by 23 years. The German anthropologist Svante Paabo proved that humans are distinguished from monkeys by the activity of the genes responsible for building the brain. In humans, these genes are 5 times more active.

A sharp increase in the brain leads to an increase in energy costs. The maintenance of the brain takes 60% of all the energy used by a newborn baby. In adults, expenses are reduced to 25%, but this is still prohibitive compared to the higher apes (8%). Homo erectus compensated for energy losses by increasing the proportion of meat in the diet, and his descendants - by cooking on fire, which undoubtedly increased the quality and caloric content of food.

The intensive development of the central nervous system had a profound impact not only on the human environment, but also on the world population: in 1000 it was about 300 million, by 1900, that is, 9 centuries later, it had increased to 1, 5 billion, and in 2000 this figure exceeded 6 billion. Thus, only in the 20th century. The world population is increasing by 4.5 billion people. Mark Stoneking, having studied various DNA variants of 120 people of different races, came to the conclusion that the population size in the Pleistocene was about 18 thousand people.

In general, anthropogenesis was accompanied by the following revolutionary changes in the anatomy of hominids: structural transformations of the brain, an increase in the brain cavity and brain, the development of bipedal locomotion (bipedalism), the development of a prehensile hand, drooping of the larynx and hyoid bone, a decrease in the size of canines, the appearance of the menstrual cycle, reduction most of the hairline. Thanks to the universality of speech capabilities, man has created languages of very different complexity and of various types. Language became a kind of vehicle of civilization: thanks to it, information was transmitted, created, recorded, duplicated, translated, etc.

The longest period of history is occupied by the ancient Stone Age - the Paleolithic. It lasted about 2 million years. At this time, two global processes take place: the formation of a person (anthropogenesis) and the formation of society (sociogenesis). Early Paleolithic - the period of anthropogenesis, late Paleolithic - the period of sociogenesis. Society is born at the moment when biological evolution is replaced by cultural evolution, when the instrumental activity of the prehuman is replaced by the labor activity of man.

Social evolution, or sociogenesis, begins 40 thousand years ago with the advent of the tribal system. According to experts, the genus arose at the turn of the early and late Paleolithic. It was at this time that the modern type of man was born. The dominance of the biological laws of natural selection is ending. Humans spread across all climatic zones of the Earth. Clothes, housing and a hearth appear, the climate becomes constant. The genus is a disciplined and organized team that has created permanent living conditions. From now on, the main thing was not adaptation to the environment, but adaptation to the laws and norms of the collective.

Socialization in the true sense of the word begins. In the human brain of that historical period, it was precisely those areas that were associated with social life that were most developed. They regulated relationships and inhibited the manifestations of zoological individualism.

The period of unarmed activity lasted a very long time. If we take into account the earliest forms of ancient man discovered today, about 6-7 million years, and the appearance of the first tools, which happened 2.2 million years ago, then it lasted at least 5 million years, i.e. much longer than all subsequent civilization.

Evidence suggests that evolution ended with the end of the last glacier. If a person of the Upper Paleolithic is cut, combed and dressed in modern clothes, then he is unlikely to be distinguished from us. Labor and the consciousness generated by it helped the emerging man not only to adapt to the wild nature, but also to adapt it to his needs. Anthropogenesis is a continuous thread of history leading from skillful man To reasonable man. Such is Pithecanthropus, an ape-man who lived about 0.5 million years ago. Behind him, Sinanthropus and Heidelberg man go up the evolutionary ladder. Even higher are the Neanderthals, who had articulate speech and lived in groups of 50-100 people. They dressed in skins, widely used fire.

Neanderthals, like sapiens, went through "bottlenecks" - periods of sharp decline in numbers, followed by periods of rapid expansion. The last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans, according to genetic data, lived about 600-800 thousand years ago. It has been practically proven that among modern people there are no descendants of Neanderthals in the direct maternal line.

Approximately 50 thousand years ago, as science recently considered, Cro-Magnon man appeared on Earth, outwardly almost indistinguishable from our contemporaries. He tamed animals, took the first steps in the field of agriculture, knew pottery, knew how to drill, grind. It was Homo sapiens . Today, the time of its appearance is constantly pushed back into the depths of centuries. Prior to the discovery in Afar (Ethiopia) in 2003 of two skulls, the age of the earliest remains of the ancestors of Homo Sapiens known to science ranged from 130 to 100 thousand years. Now the lower limit of the appearance of modern man (he was called “Homo sapiens idaltu”) has been pushed back by 160 thousand years. Skulls belong to a later stage of development than Neanderthals. They testify that early humans appeared in Africa even before the last Neanderthal disappeared from Europe. The excavations carried out by T. White show that modern people coexisted simultaneously with the Neanderthals and first appeared in Africa, and not simultaneously in different parts of the globe. In 1967, in the south of Ethiopia, an expedition led by the Kenyan paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey found ancient human remains, whose age was then determined at 130 thousand years. And in 2005 they were analyzed again, and it turned out that in fact the age of the ancient Homo Sapiens is 195 thousand years. Genetic studies show that modern man could have appeared 150-200 thousand years ago.

The end of anthropogenesis means that the appeared speech (language), wedged between it and the environment, accelerated the break with nature. For the first time, cultural evolution, which began 40 thousand years ago, began to overtake biological evolution: instinct and emotions were balanced by custom and thought. It was speech that was the basis of collective activity, on which, in turn, depended which groups of primitive people were destined to survive in the struggle for existence, and which - to perish. Thus, those who possessed more developed speech systematically emerged victorious from this struggle, which gave an evolutionary advantage to individuals with a more developed brain and thereby contributed to its accelerated growth.

The problem of the origin of man is one of the leading topics in archeology. The study of Paleolithic monuments for almost two centuries has been carried out primarily under the sign of resolving questions of the origin and ancient stages of human development. Over the past time, a huge amount of factual material has been accumulated and numerous aspects of this complex and difficult to understand process have been studied. Nevertheless, it should be noted that in the study of anthropogenesis in archeology, there has not yet been a consensus on some even key issues. These contradictions are clearly manifested when the data of archeology are considered in combination with the conclusions of other scientific disciplines dealing with this problem. A situation has arisen that requires a detailed analysis of the problem in order to find ways to resolve it.

First of all, it is necessary to highlight the main question: how this problem is solved in modern archeology. To get a clear and well-founded answer, it is necessary to consider a number of particular questions: what is the essence of anthropogenesis and what are the philosophical and ideological principles for solving the problem; to what extent they are used in the formation of archeological conclusions; when and under the influence of what factors the existing inconsistency in views developed; and finally, what are the prerequisites for getting out of the current situation and creating on this basis a logically ordered scientific concept. Getting answers to the questions posed involves both ontological and epistemological analysis of archaeological knowledge on the issues raised; for it is necessary to consider not only the conclusions contained in it, but also the methods of obtaining them and how the process of the formation of man and society took place, how a new social form of the movement of matter arose in the development of the organic world. This problem has a complex interdisciplinary character, because the study of man in his genetic origins requires the joint efforts of representatives of many scientific disciplines, both social and natural sciences. Man, human activity, the world of man - universal categories that reveal the specifics of social life and its qualitative differences from biological life - that is why the problem of anthropogenesis has a pronounced ideological coloring. The foregoing determines the important role of the methodological aspects of the problem not only in comprehending specific scientific facts, but also in determining the very nature of scientific research, in highlighting the core issues at one stage or another in the development of science that require a primary solution. The philosophical and methodological formulation of the problem of anthropogenesis makes it possible to overcome the narrowly specialized approaches inherent in individual scientific disciplines in solving problems that are interdisciplinary in content and thereby ensure their full participation in the formation of integral knowledge.

Since its inception, archeology has been actively involved in the study of the antiquity of human society, because only archeology considers the objective world generated by a new social form of existence of life as a direct object of its study. In addition, in the process of expeditionary research, archaeologists extract not only material archaeological materials, but also anthropological sources that allow us to restore the process of the formation of the human body, therefore, its physical and mental properties necessary for the implementation of social life.

The problem of anthropogenesis belongs to the theoretical problems of a high abstract level. It requires considering a person not in the context of the diversity of his concrete historical forms of existence, but as a universal subject of history, a carrier of social life activity that is qualitatively different from biological. This specificity creates significant cognitive difficulties for an archaeologist working in the field of anthropogenesis. Archeology is a social scientific discipline, but an archaeologist, being a social scientist, must go beyond social science when solving these issues, because in this case we are talking not so much about social development as such, but about the process of its emergence based on the achievements of the biological form of development of the organic world. In addition, behind individual archaeological complexes, which are considered in archeology primarily from the point of view of their local and regional features, the archaeologist must see and evaluate the general, universal, necessary characteristics and correlate them with the conclusions of other specific sciences that study this problem from their specific side. . In other words, an archaeologist involved in the theory of anthropogenesis must go beyond the usual archeological techniques and methods for evaluating sources, overcome the temptation to become isolated within the framework of a concrete historical assessment of facts that are unacceptable for theoretical research.

The analysis of archaeological knowledge on the problem of anthropogenesis can be productive if several conditions are met. The most important of them is a clear understanding of the essence of anthropogenesis, the specific place that knowledge about it occupies in the system of sciences.

Anthropogenesis is the origin of man. Therefore, in order to answer the question about the essence of anthropogenesis, it is necessary to answer the question: what is a person, what is his essence? The essence of man is thus a constructive principle of the theory of anthropogenesis. The dialectical-materialist methodology considers a person as a biosocial being, subject in its development to the action of both biological and social laws, emphasizing, however, that the latter are the main, leading, determining factors in the development of man and society. By nature, man is a biosocial being, but his main essence is social.

When determining the social essence of a person, the question arises: from what positions should we evaluate it? After all, man in his historical movement does not remain unchanged; it develops, improving and enriching its social essence. Consequently, the essence of man must be determined in the context of his universal differences from biological beings, which manifest themselves at all stages of the historical development of man. In determining the essence of a person, those characteristics should appear that are characteristic not only of a person of the present and past, but also of a person of the future. In Marxist-Leninist philosophy, the essence of man is seen as the totality of all social relations that unite people into society. Thus, when solving questions of the genesis of man, he is considered in his universality, as a subject of social history, as a being qualitatively different from biological beings. With this approach, scientific research does not go beyond the strict framework of theoretical research, i.e. search for universal patterns, it does not involve temporal, regional and local features that play an important role when tasks of a specific historical nature are solved on the basis of theoretical knowledge.

Man - the carrier of a qualitatively new, in comparison with the biological, social life. Having stood out from the animal kingdom, retaining his belonging to the organic world, man, in the course of his own development, went beyond the biological and created a qualitatively different, suprabiological world of his existence. Man, on the one hand, characterizes the highest stage in the development of living matter, and on the other hand, is a being whose essential forces are determined by suprabiological factors.

The initial principle, a single basis that allows us to consider a person as a natural and highest stage in the evolution of living matter and at the same time as a product of one’s own historical development, is work - an expedient, conscious subject-practical activity aimed at processing the substance of nature into a form of consumption suitable for a person, which is carried out with the help of specially made tools - tools. If Marxism considers labor as the basis of a person's social being, his social essence, but the formation of a person is the formation of labor. That is why the Marxist concept of the origin of man was called the labor theory of anthropogenesis. In the course of this process, not only labor and its attributes - consciousness, language, collectivity - are formed, but also the person himself - his physical and mental properties, allowing him to carry out social life. Being formed, labor forms its subject - a person who is a conscious and collective being, i.e. social. This is the essence of the well-known phrase of F. Engels: “... labor created man himself” (Marx, Engels, vol. 20, p. 486). Here, as in the entire work “The Role of Labor in the Transformation of Apes into Humans,” we mean not labor in its broader sense, which includes the so-called instinctive labor of animals, but proper human labor. To be convinced of this once again, it is enough to think about the content of the phrase of K. Marx: “... world history is nothing more than the generation of man by human (our detente. - S.S.) labor” (Marx, Engels, vol. 42, p. 127). It is necessary to pay special attention to this circumstance for the reason that in specific sciences, and above all in modern archeology, the above words of F. Engels are often given a completely different meaning: they are interpreted as an indication that human labor arose first, which then in its development created from the biological predecessor of the man himself.

So, the Marxist position that the natural in man is a product of history, that it is mediated by the social - this is the philosophical and worldview basis that allows you to overcome scientific errors and build a reliable conceptual basis for solving the problems of the genesis and historical development of man. Marxist philosophy upholds a monistic understanding of man, considers his physical and mental nature in unity. The unity of history and nature in the development of man stems from the dialectical-materialist unity of the laws of nature and society. The monistic understanding of man is the realization of the theoretical position that the highest social form of the movement of matter includes the lower ones - physical, chemical, and also biological, but already in a transformed form. That is why the biological in man is mediated by the social. This conclusion is the greatest achievement of Marxism, it for the first time radically eliminated the psycho-physiological and socio-biological dualism in the study of man, his present, past and future prospects. “It is on the basis of such an understanding that historical materialism solves the problem of anthropogenesis and sociogenesis in their unity” (Ananiev, 1977, p. 19).

The monism of man is the starting point of any analysis of the facts in questions of the origin of man, regardless of what scientific disciplines they concern. The unity of man and labor in his history determines approaches to elucidating the very mechanism of the origin of man on the basis of specific scientific facts. Without a doubt, M.B. Turovsky was right when he wrote: “... the dialectic of the Marxist theory of anthropogenesis lies in the fact that if labor created a person, then a person, and only he, created labor” (Turovsky, 1963, p. 57).

This is the explanation of the most important principles of the labor theory of anthropogenesis - the principle of labor and the principle of integrity. The leading role of labor in anthropogenesis lies in the fact that, forming itself as the basis of the life of a new social type, it subjugates the spheres of physical and mental development of our distant ancestors and, on this basis, forms the person himself, his specific physical and mental properties. Thanks to labor, the emerging new factors of organization of living matter, unknown in the biological world, grow together into an inseparable unity - a social system. Labor in the process of anthropogenesis plays the role of a backbone factor, it forms the entire social complex: consciousness, language, social ties, social psychology, etc. (Shinkaruk, Molchanov, Khoroshilov, 1973, p. 29).

In works on anthropogenesis, labor is often considered one-sidedly - as a process of obtaining the vital benefits necessary for a person. But, being such, it is at the same time a socially forming process, constantly recreating not only material and spiritual benefits, but also social ties between people. That is why the formation of labor must also be assessed as a process of the formation of sociality. The formation of society and the formation of labor are different aspects of the same process.

In the theory of Marxism, social development is seen as development that is systemic in nature. Behind the historical regularities, the dialectical materialist methodology sees the regularities of the replacement of some social systems by others. Anthropogenesis is the formation of a social system of the highest level, which includes more private systems. Labor activity, means of labor, production, the productive forces of society, consciousness, collectivity also have a systemic character, therefore the formation of a person and society cannot be considered outside the formation of systemic relationships of various levels and spheres of social development.

Anthropogenesis is a transitional period between the animal and man, a long evolutionary process during which a new social quality is formed.

The justification of the transitional nature of anthropogenesis is based on the philosophical category of becoming and finds an explanation in the dialectic of the discontinuous and the continuous. The emergence of sociality meant a leap, i.e. a break in the gradual development of living matter. The transitional state connects the biological and social forms of its development and thus provides a dialectical understanding of anthropogenesis as a leap and as a single evolutionary process (Tovmasyan, 1972, p. 16).
Thus, the principle of transition in the theory of anthropogenesis follows from the very essence of the dialectical-materialist understanding of development in nature and society.

A new form of motion of matter cannot arise suddenly; any new is preceded by the maturation of the premises of the new in the depths of the old quality, the emergence of the genetically original elements of the new, the enrichment of their content and forms, leading to the final denial of the old and the complete dominance of the new. The substantiation of the transitional period in the theory of anthropogenesis belongs to F. Engels. “... Having recognized the origin of man from the animal kingdom,” he wrote, “it is necessary to allow such a transitional state” (Marx, Engels, vol. 21, p. 29). In accordance with this, he spoke of transitional beings, which he called developing people (ibid., vol. 20, pp. 487, 489, 492).

Understanding the transitivity of anthropogenesis puts forward the need to single out not only transitional beings according to the structure of the body, but also transitional types of their life activity. At the same time, it should be emphasized that transitional beings, i.e. emerging people cannot be reduced either to the original animal forms, or to a finished, formed person (Batenin, 1976, pp. 56, 57). “Transitional beings,” writes Il. Andreev, “can no longer be classified as monkeys, just as they cannot be recognized as “ready-made people.” The primitive herd was not an animal herd, but it was not yet a proper social cell, to which it had to go through a huge evolutionary path” (Andreev, 1982, p. 184). The content of the vital activity of transitional beings is the formation of social forms of life. “Becoming a man,” noted M.B. Turovsky, “is an animal involved in a non-biological relationship. Therefore, the main content of anthropogenesis is the alteration of its animal nature” (Turovsky, 1963, p. 68).

The principles of labor, integrity, and transience can in no way be considered as one of the many theoretical positions for assessing the facts of anthropogenesis. This is a single initial methodological basis for the systematic development of the problem, it follows from the worldview and scientific potential of Marxism in matters of human knowledge. Consistency is the main condition for building truly scientific knowledge, which is why the methodological solutions to the problem of anthropogenesis represent an inseparable unity of theoretical foundations that are an integral part of Marxist methodology. The use of these principles cannot be half-hearted or inconsistent. They are interconnected and interdependent, and only under the condition of their comprehensive and consistent use as methodological means of considering the facts of all sciences studying the problem of anthropogenesis, progress in the study of all components of the process of human origin is possible.

The specificity of anthropogenesis determines the place that the science of the origin of man occupies in the system of scientific knowledge. Since anthropogenesis is a transitional period between the animal kingdom and human society, in which biological and social patterns are organically intertwined, the labor theory of anthropogenesis belongs to the scientific disciplines of a transitional nature. “This theory determines the transition of the process of development from the stage of nature to the stage of man as a thinking and social being. Thanks to this theory, the most important objective basis was found in order to organically, at the same time, dialectically connect the two main branches of scientific knowledge - natural science and humanitarian knowledge. Thus, the task of a general theoretical synthesis of all sciences in general was fulfilled” (Kedrov, 1985, p. 89). This objective basis, as already emphasized, is labor, only in it the natural turns into the social.

In modern science, two conceptual approaches have developed to explain the prehistory of mankind. The evolutionary-biological approach sets as its task the solution of the problem within the boundaries and means of the natural science theory. The social and labor approach solves the problem on the basis of the search for the genetic foundations of sociality, in the center of which lies labor. But in order to obtain a holistic knowledge about a person as the highest result of the natural development of living matter and a product of one's own history, it is necessary to combine both approaches, and this is possible only if one goes beyond each of them and combines them on the basis of higher-level methodological approaches, which were written about higher. With such a formulation of the problem, the focus is not on the biological prerequisites for the formation of a person and not on its social consequences, but on the very mechanism of this process (Ivanov, 1979, pp. 64, 65, 94).

The specific transitional position of the theory of anthropogenesis in the system of sciences poses a number of serious methodological requirements for every researcher, including every archaeologist.

In order to implement such a broad approach to the consideration of the source, it is necessary to take into account not only the diversity of the social, but also the diversity of the biological, not to be confined within the narrow framework of this particular science for these purposes, but strive to master the facts and methods of other sciences, i.e. to the combination of these two dialectically opposite approaches to the assessment of factual material. In other words, it is necessary to master the interdisciplinary level of the study of the problem. Philosophy is called upon to play an integrating role in this. Without the development and practical application of the philosophical aspects of the problem, it is not possible to reveal the mechanism of anthropogenesis. Ignoring the philosophical essence of the problem of human origin leads to the substitution of theoretical reconstructions of the interdisciplinary level for specific scientific reconstructions of either a biological or social science nature, which in themselves are not able to answer the main question: how did the emergence of the social on the basis of the highest achievements of the biological.

These are, in the most general form, methodological approaches to the study of the problem of the origin of man, from which follow the tasks facing the specific sciences dealing with this problem.

In conclusion, a few words about terminology. In recent years, in explaining the origin of man, in addition to the term anthropogenesis, the term sociogenesis has been widely used. Sociogenesis refers to the formation of social factors and social ties. It is used when, in a particular study, the issues of the formation of a person as a biological species remain outside the field of view of the study. For this reason, the term anthropogenesis by some researchers acquires a new, much narrower content - the formation of the structure of the human body, i.e. his somatic features. Under these conditions, in order to designate the process of becoming a person in the unity of his biological and social characteristics, a new term has been introduced into scientific circulation - anthroposociogenesis.

In this section, we do not use the term anthroposociogenesis, and here is why. Marxist methodology upholds the active essence of man. She, as emphasized by K. Marx, "... is the totality of all social relations" (Marx, Engels, vol. 3, p. 3). Man does not exist outside of his social characteristics. The monistic understanding of man, the unity of the biological and social in him, require a single term to denote his historical origin. The term anthropogenesis fulfills just such a semantic load. Anthropogenesis includes sociogenesis as a necessary and important moment. Sociogenesis is thus one of the aspects of anthropogenesis. With this approach, the use of the term anthroposociogenesis turns out to be redundant. As for the process of formation of the bodily properties of a person as one of the moments of the integral process of becoming a person, it is advisable for him to use the term human morphogenesis.

The Russian philosopher of the 19th century, V.S. Solovyov, defined man as a social being. This means that the highest ideals of existence, goals, are not in his personal fate and well-being, but are aimed at the social fate of all mankind. In the author's understanding, social destinies most likely mean one thing - the priority of collective tasks over individual values and needs. This raises a completely logical question: “what is natural and social in a person?” Is there any meaning in his life? But, unfortunately, there is no common understanding of the process. This is the problem of many sciences that study such issues.

Natural and social in man: the problem of anthroposociogenesis

Anthroposociogenesis is the science of the formation and development of man. The term is deciphered as follows: "anthropos" - a person, "socio" - society, "genesis" - development. This scientific direction studies the natural and social in man. Anthroposociogenesis also explores the role of the collective and society in this process. The main mystery of the individual, from the point of view of science, is the unity of the natural, social and spiritual in man.

Origin theories

The first theory is theological. It implies the influence of higher divine powers and the emergence of a person “out of nothing”, “by the will of the supernatural”. This so-called unscientific theory.
The second theory is the transformation of great apes into humans. It appeared with the publication in the 19th century of Charles Darwin's book The Origin of Man and Sexual Selection. His work was supplemented by F. Engels in the book "The role of labor in the process of turning a monkey into a man." Of course, now there is a lot of criticism against them. The stages of evolution are not completely clear, many issues related to genetic changes have not been explained, etc. The so-called transitional link has not yet been found - then this theory would receive irrefutable evidence and become a postulate. But one thing is certain - this is the first scientific interpretation that explains the non-divine origin. Its impact on humanity was simply stunning. No one before had dared to challenge religion by completely rejecting it. But the theory ignored the natural and the social in man and their close relationship. That is, in fact, equated it with an animal.
The third theory is biosocial concepts. According to it, it is recognized that man is a social natural being. Adherents of the theory believe that society had no less influence on the emergence of a reasonable person than natural factors. Concepts of biosocial development appeared on the obvious inconsistencies of Darwinism. Labor, natural factors, of course, greatly influenced the formation of the personality, but social manifestations could not be ignored either. For example, the development of labor activity and the appearance of tools went simultaneously with the improvement of speech, the manifestation of consciousness, and moral perception. And most importantly, qualitative changes in one aspect led to similar metamorphoses in another aspect. This is so obvious from historical studies that it is not even clear which factor prevails - natural or social.

But what is natural and social in man? Social science provides an explanation for this question.

One of the manifestations of this concept is the desire for a philosophical understanding of the world, the search for the meaning of life. Why, what do we live for? Everyone, of course, will answer individually to this question. Depending on culture, intelligence, traditions. But the most important thing in which the social in a person is manifested is the awareness of belonging to the human race, to its unity on the planet. Each individual is only a small particle in the system of society. Unity is manifested not only in interaction with each other, but also with nature, the biosphere, the planet. Individuals in a society must live in harmony with each other, as well as with the surrounding world. This is precisely what is natural and social in man.

The problem of the meaning of life

There is no unity on this issue. There are two basic concepts around which different points of view are formed.

The first is the attachment of the meaning of life to earthly existence.
The second one is removed from the world, arguing that earthly life is fleeting. This concept connects the meaning of life with values that are not related to human habitation on earth.

There are many points of view on this problem, ranging from ancient philosophers to modern scientists.

Pre-Christian interpretations

Pre-Christian scholars such as Aristotle, who lived in the 4th century BC, tied the meaning of life to finding happiness. But this concept is purely individual. So, according to pundits, some see him in virtue, others in prudence, and still others in wisdom.

Medieval interpretations

The thinkers of the Middle Ages tied the meaning of life to the full knowledge of the divine forces, the highest wisdom of the Creator. The methods of mastering this doctrine should be the Bible, the church and church books, the divine revelations of saints, etc. It is important to know that the study of applied exact sciences was interpreted as immersion in darkness and ignorance. It was also believed that the passion for science is antisocial.

Modern followers of medieval postulates

In fairness, it should be noted that this direction still has many followers. As examples of the destructiveness of the development of science and technology, such discoveries as the atomic and hydrogen bombs serve. It is known that they are capable of completely destroying the planet in a few minutes. Also, the development of industry and automation poisons the environment, making life uninhabitable. The consequence of this can be considered a violation of the climate, displacement of the poles, deviation of the planet from the axis, etc. The highest happiness, the meaning of life for the followers of this concept is harmony with each other, with nature. The main goal is to save the Earth for future generations, abandoning everything destructive.

Renaissance

Philosophers of this period, prominent representatives of which were scientists of the German school, believed that the meaning of human existence is contained in moral quest, self-development and self-knowledge. These are the thinkers I. Kant and G. Hegel. They argued that until we learn to understand ourselves, our essence, we will never be able to understand the world around us. They did not deny divine powers, but tied them to the inner unknown. Until he learns to live in harmony with himself, he will not be able to be in harmony with society and the world around him. For example, I. Kant gives an understanding of this. Its main postulates are as follows:

do not do to people what you do not want them to do to you;
Treat others the way you want to be treated.

The great philosopher argued that a person must understand the world through the prism of his own feelings. His ideas are very close to religious precepts. For example, "Judge not lest you be judged" and other expressions of the Holy Scriptures are of the same direction.

Results

So, what is natural and social in man? Briefly, you can answer this: it is an awareness of the meaning of life, existence in harmony with oneself, humanity and the surrounding nature.

The riddle of man lies in the fact that there is still no common understanding of the process of becoming a man. There is a lot of discussion about the definition of human nature, and many sciences are devoted to this complex and multifaceted topic.

Man as a product of biological, social and cultural evolution

The unambiguous definition of human nature has been of concern to many scientists, thinkers and artists for many centuries. And at the moment it is customary to talk about a person as a product of biological, social and cultural evolution.

The most important question that concerns the nature of man and which people have been asking for a long time is where did man come from on Earth? There are many theories, some of them seem fantastic, some can be logically confirmed, but there is still no clear answer.

A lot of studies have been created about a person as a result of biological evolution. The most famous of these is Darwin's suggestion that man and apes are descended from a common ancestor. And Engels substantiated that labor became a decisive factor in the transformation of man from a monkey into a social and cultural being with consciousness.

These are the main points of the biosocial concept of human nature. It was the idea that labor activity allowed a person to evolve became the main one in the theory of anthropogenesis in the 20th century.

Over the course of the century, the theory has changed, and points related to other elements of human development have been added to it. The labor activity of a person has already been considered in interaction with the consciousness of a person, the development of his speech, ritual practice and the gradual formation of certain moral ideas.

It was the combination of these factors that ensured social development, and human development, as a result of cultural, social and biological evolution.

The purpose and meaning of human life

Man has always strived to comprehend the meaning of his own life, and this search is an individual process for everyone. This is due to the fact that a person is able to comprehensively comprehend the world around him, and sooner or later he comes to comprehend the main element of this world - to himself.

And it is paradoxical that such a global question does not have and will never have an unambiguous answer. In philosophy there are two approaches to the question of the purpose of human life. First lies in the moral institutions of the earthly existence of man. Second- these are values that cannot be directly connected with earthly existence.

Each historical epoch has a certain worldview on the account of the purpose of human life. Aristotle argued that each person strives for happiness, but does so in different ways and finds happiness in different things.

Hegel and Kant saw the goal of life in self-development and self-knowledge. And Fromm said that the meaning of human life embodies the principle of "possession".

The search for the meaning of human life always plays an important role in different areas of life - they are reflected in many art forms and spiritual teachings.

Human Sciences

A whole complex of sciences studies different aspects of man. Basically, a person is studied in four main dimensions - social, cosmic, biological and mental.

1. There is no single process of development of human history, only specific local civilizations evolve.

2. There is no rigid relationship between civilizations. Only the components of civilization itself are rigidly interconnected.

A. Toynbee builds his analysis of the development of society, based on the idea of cyclical development. The cycle denotes a successive transition from the stage of genesis, as the period of the birth of civilization, to the stage of growth, followed by a breakdown and then disintegration. A. Toynbee's designation of the phases of the "full life cycle" of a local civilization is filled with specific content. Thus, the phase of growth is a period of progressive development of civilization. The fracture characterizes the space-time interval within which the decline of civilization begins. The cycle is crowned by the disintegration phase - the period of decomposition of civilization, ending with its death.

In the main work of A. Toynbee, the twelve-volume "Study of History", a special part is devoted to each of the four phases of the cycle. The successive transition from one stage of the evolution of a civilization of a local type to another is a process of functioning of the latter.

As the main characteristic of the disintegration stage, Arnold Joseph Toynbee considered the split of society into three groups: the ruling minority, the internal proletariat and the external proletariat. At the same time, the activities of each of these groups are carried out thanks to the assistance of specific organizational structures. For the ruling minority, this is the "universal state", understood quite traditionally. At this stage of the evolution of civilization, the internal proletariat creates a "universal religion and church" (this is the most important social structure in A. Toynbee's theory), and the external one creates "barbarian military gangs."

The stage of disintegration is characterized not only by a social split, but also by a deeper "split of the soul" of the representatives of a given civilization. In social life, there are four possible ways to escape from the "unbearable reality." The first is characterized by the desire to return the past, the supporters of the second path strive for revolution. The third way focuses on the "withdrawal" from reality (in particular, by means of Buddhism). Each of the selected directions is only a partial solution to the problem of the destructive effect of disintegration. Only "universal religion and the church" can save mankind, which has entered the disintegration phase.

CULTURE AND CIVILIZATION.

It is known that there are disputes around the meaning of the words "culture" and "civilization", sometimes becoming acute, and rarely anyone confuses these words when the context is unambiguous, although sometimes it is quite legitimate to use them as synonyms: they are so closely intertwined. But between them there is not only a similarity, but also a difference, in some aspects reaching even a hostile opposite. And in fact: it is unlikely that anyone with a subtle linguistic instinct will attribute, for example, the works of Homer, Shakespeare, Pushkin, Tolstoy and Dostoevsky to the phenomena of civilization, and atomic bombs and other means of destroying people - to the phenomena of culture, although both - the work of the mind and human hands.

I. Kant was the first to introduce the difference between culture and civilization, which significantly clarified this problem. Previously, culture, in contrast to nature, was understood as everything created by man. So, posed the question, for example, I.G. Herder, although even then it was clear that a person does a lot in his work, not just badly, but even quite badly. Later, views on culture arose that likened it to an ideally functioning system and professional skill, but did not take into account what is professional, i.e. with great skill, others can kill people, but no one will call this atrocity a cultural phenomenon. It was Kant who solved this problem, and it was brilliantly simple. He defined culture as that and only that which serves the good of people or which is humanistic in its essence: there is no true culture outside of humanism and spirituality.

Based on your understanding of the essence of culture. Kant clearly contrasted the "culture of skill" with the "culture of "education", and he called the purely external, "technical" type of culture civilization. The far-sighted genius of the thinker foresaw the rapid development of civilization and perceived this with alarm, speaking of the separation of civilization from forward is much slower than civilization. This obviously pernicious disproportion brings with it many troubles to the peoples of the world: civilization, taken without a spiritual dimension, gives rise to the danger of the technical self-destruction of mankind. There is an amazing similarity between culture and nature: the creations of nature are just as organic in their structure that strikes our imagination, as well as culture.After all, society is a kind of extremely complex kind of organism - meaning the organic unity of the society, which is an amazing similarity, of course, with a clear essential difference.

There is no doubt that one should distinguish between culture and civilization. According to Kant, civilization begins with the establishment by man of the rules of human life and human behavior. A civilized person is a person who will not cause trouble to another person, he necessarily takes him into account. A civilized person is polite, courteous, tactful, amiable, considerate, respects the person in the other. Kant connects culture with the moral categorical imperative, which has practical force and determines human actions not by generally accepted norms, oriented primarily to the mind, but by the moral foundations of the person himself, his conscience. (7*)

This approach of Kant to consideration of the problem of culture and civilization is interesting and relevant. In our society today there is a loss of civility in behavior, in communication between people, the problem of human culture and society has become acute.

Often the concept of "civilization" denotes the entire human culture or the current stage of its development. In socio-philosophical literature, civilization was the stage of human history following barbarism. This idea was adhered to by G. L. Morgan and F. Engels. The triad "savagery - barbarism - civilization" remains one of the preferred concepts of social progress to this day. At the same time, definitions such as "European civilization", "American civilization", "Russian civilization" are quite common in the literature... and North American, Far Eastern, Arab Muslim, Indian, Tropical African, Latin American. The basis for this, obviously, is the corresponding level of development of the productive forces, the proximity of the language, the commonality of everyday culture, the quality of life.

As mentioned above, the term "civilization" largely coincides in meaning with the concept of "culture". If the first, having arisen in the 18th century, fixed the cultivation of a person in the system of state structure, a rationally arranged society, then the second since antiquity meant the formation, education of the human soul, curbing passions. In other words, the concept of "civilization" in a certain sense absorbed the concept of "culture", leaving behind it that which relates to the formation of a personal, creative principle in human activity. At the same time, the concept of "civilization" was assigned, as one of its definitions, a characteristic of the material side of human activity. For example, in the culturological concept of O. Spengler, presented in his book "The Decline of Europe", the transition from culture to civilization is considered as a transition from creativity to sterility, from living development to ossification, from lofty aspirations to meaningless routine work. For civilization as a stage of degeneration of culture is characterized by the dominance of the intellect, without soul and heart. Civilization as a whole is culture, but devoid of its content, devoid of soul. All that remains of culture is an empty shell, which acquires a self-contained meaning.

Culture dies after the soul has realized all its possibilities - through peoples, languages, creeds, art, state, science, etc. Culture, according to Spengler, is the external manifestation of the soul of the people. By civilization, he understands the last, final stage of the existence of any culture, when a huge congestion of people arises in big cities, technology develops, art is degraded, the people turn into a "faceless mass". Civilization, according to Spengler, is an era of spiritual decline.

According to Spengler, civilization is the latest stage in the development of a single culture, which is seen as "the logical stage, completion and outcome of culture."

In the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron (vol. 38) we read the following: “Civilization is the state of the people, which it has achieved thanks to the development of society, life in society and which is characterized by a distance from the original situation and social relations and a high development of the spiritual side. This is worldly word usage .. The definition of the concept of civilization, the establishment of its factors and the assessment of the meaning comes from a general worldview and is an expression of his philosophical and historical views ... The closest in meaning is the word "culture" ". Further, D. Karinsky (the author of this extensive article) notes that the main content of history should be cultural history or the history of civilization, and defines the structure of civilization (or culture) as follows: 1) material life, everything that serves a person to satisfy his physical needs; 2) public life (family, class organizations, associations, state and law); 3) spiritual culture (religion, morality, art, philosophy and science). He also points to the main questions or the study of civilization: 1) the starting point of its development; 2) the laws by which the development of civilization takes place; 3) factors of this development and their interaction; 4) characteristics of changes in the spiritual and physical nature of man with the development of civilization; 5) what is the purpose of civilization.

These were the basic ideas about civilization at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. Social transformations and scientific achievements of the 20th century introduced a lot of new things in the understanding of civilization, which began to be seen as the integrity of the economic, social class, political and spiritual spheres of society within certain spatial and temporal boundaries. This integrity is expressed in the presence of stable relationships between the spheres, determined by the action of economic and social laws.

The question of the relationship between culture and civilization seems to be rather confusing due to the fact that they largely overlap each other. Representatives of English-language literature appeal more to the concept of "civilization" (the beginning of this tradition was laid by A. Ferguson), and German authors, starting with I. Herder, to the concept of "culture".

In domestic literature, as early as the beginning of the 19th century, the concept of "culture" was not used at all, replacing it with arguments about enlightenment, upbringing, education, and civilization. Russian social thought began to use the concept of "culture" in the context of discussions about civilization somewhere in the second half of the 19th century. It is enough to turn to P.L. Lavrov's "Historical Letters" or the famous book "Russia and Europe" by N.Ya. Danilevsky. So, for example, P.L. Lavrov wrote: "As soon as the work of thought on the basis of culture determined social life by the requirements of science, art and morality, then culture passed into civilization, and human history began" (8*).

At present, the question under consideration concerns, as a rule, which aspects of culture and civilization are the subject of joint analysis. For example, from the standpoint of cultural analysis, the mode of production is an economic factor of culture and a sphere for the development of various elements of material and spiritual (science) culture. And from the perspective of civilizational analysis, the mode of production appears as the material basis for the existence and development of civilization - local or global. “The essential content of the concepts of “civilization” and “culture” in a certain environment,” N. Ya. Bromley wrote, “is superimposed on one another. So, in ordinary, everyday usage, when we say “civilized person,” we mean cultural. When we say /"civilized society", we assume that we are talking about a society that has a certain level of cultural development.

Thus, the concepts of "civilization" and "culture" are often used and perceived as equivalent, interchangeable. Is it legal? I think so. For culture in its broadest sense is civilization.

However, it does not follow that one term can completely replace another. Or, let's say, civilization has no essential difference in relation to culture (or vice versa).

When we say "civilization", we mean the whole interconnection of the indicators of a given society. When we say "culture", we can talk about spiritual culture, material culture, or both. Here special explanations are required - what kind of culture do we have in mind" (9 *).

Agreeing with the position expressed by N. Ya. Bromley, it should be noted that it is also necessary to take into account the culture of human relations. So, speaking, for example, of a cultured person, we mean his upbringing, education, spirituality, due to the culture available in society (literature, art, science, morality, religion). When it comes to a civilized person, society, the focus is on how the state structure, social institutions, ideology, generated by a certain mode of production, provide cultural life. In other words, a cultured person is the creator and consumer of the available material and spiritual culture. A civilized person is, firstly, a person who does not belong to the stage of savagery or barbarism, and secondly, he personifies the norms of the state, civil structure of society, including those regulating the place and role of culture in it.

In the history of mankind, it is customary to distinguish the following main types of civilizations: 1) ancient Eastern (Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Ancient China, Ancient India, etc.); 2) antique; 3) medieval; 4) industrial; 5) modern oriental; 6) Russian.

Between these civilizations, successive ties can be identified, leading, ultimately, to the universal civilization of the modern era. This point of view takes place in the scientific literature, in which one can find judgments about the birth of a single planetary civilization and indications of the formation of universally significant values. However, this development cannot be represented in a simplistic way. Futurological thought just sees contradictions in civilizational development: the establishment of a universal way of life, on the one hand, and the deepening of cultural rationalism as a reaction to the massive export of Western culture in various regions, on the other. Particularly noteworthy is the question of what role the computer revolution plays in the development of modern civilization, transforming not only the sphere of material production, but also all spheres of human life. Today there are a large number of cultural concepts. These are the concepts of structural anthropological concepts. These are the concepts of structural anthropology by K. Levi-Stress, and also the concepts of neo-Freudians, existentialists, the English writer and philosopher C. Snow, etc.

Many culturological concepts prove the impossibility of culture and civilization of the West and East, substantiate the technological determination of culture and civilization.

Knowledge of the problem of civilization will help to understand the rapprochement of the cultures of the West and the East, the North and the South, Asia, Africa, Europe, Latin America. After all, this rapprochement is a real process that has acquired enormous practical significance for the whole world and for every person. Hundreds of thousands of people migrate, finding themselves in new value systems that they have to master. And the question of how to master the material and spiritual values of another people is far from an idle question.

CONCLUSIONS.

1. The problems of culture, by the very objective course of social development, increasingly began to come to the fore in the implementation of social transformations, acquiring unprecedented acuteness.

Many cultural issues have an international and even global dimension. The current century is full of threats to culture. The problems of "mass culture", spirituality and lack of spirituality are acute. The interaction, dialogue, mutual understanding of different cultures, including the relations between modern Western culture and traditional cultures of the developing countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, are becoming increasingly important. Thus, interest in questions of the theory of culture has deep practical grounds.

When studying history and predicting the future, social philosophy can no longer do without taking into account the cultural component of the socio-historical process. And this opens up a wide field for a variety of cultural studies.

2. No less relevant is the issue of civilization. Civilization includes a man-transformed, cultural, historical nature and the means of this transformation, a man who has mastered the culture and is able to live and act in the cultivated environment of his habitat, as well as a set of social relations as forms of the social organization of culture that ensure its existence and continuation.

The correct approach to the problem allows us to more clearly understand the nature of many global problems as contradictions of modern civilization as a whole. Pollution of the environment with production and consumption waste, predatory attitude to natural resources, irrational nature management have created a deeply controversial environmental situation, which has become one of the most acute global problems of civilization, the solution (or at least mitigation) of which requires the combined efforts of all members of the world community. Demographic and energy problems, the tasks of providing food for the growing population of the Earth, go far beyond the boundaries of individual social systems and acquire a global, all-civilizational character. All mankind has a common goal - to preserve civilization, to ensure their own survival.

3. Around the meaning of the words "culture" and "civilization" there are disputes, sometimes acquiring a sharp character. Sometimes it is quite legitimate to use them as synonyms: they are so closely intertwined. But between them there is not only a similarity, but also a difference, in some aspects reaching even a hostile opposite.

Often the concept of "civilization" denotes the entire human culture or the current stage of its development. At the same time, definitions such as "European civilization", "American civilization", "Russian civilization" are quite common in the literature. This emphasizes the uniqueness of regional cultures.

As N. Ya. Bromley says, “the essential content of the concepts of “civilization” and “culture” in a certain environment is superimposed on one another. So, in ordinary, everyday usage, when we say “civilized person”, we mean cultural. we say "civilized society", we assume that we are talking about a society that has a certain level of cultural development.

Thus, the concepts of "civilization" and "culture" are often used and perceived as equivalent, interchangeable. And this is justified, because culture in its broadest sense is a civilization. However, it does not follow that one term can completely replace another. Or, let's say, civilization has no essential difference in relation to culture (or vice versa).

In the temporal dimension, culture is more voluminous than civilization, since it embraces the cultural heritage of a man of savagery and barbarity. In the spatial dimension, it is obviously more correct to say that civilization is a combination of many cultures.

According to Kant, civilization begins with the establishment by man of the rules of human life and human behavior. Kant connects culture with the moral categorical imperative, which has practical force and determines human actions not by generally accepted norms, oriented primarily to the mind, but by the moral foundations of the person himself, his conscience.

O. Spengler considers the transition from culture to civilization as a transition from creativity to sterility, from living development to ossification, from lofty aspirations to meaningless routine work. For civilization as a stage of degeneration of culture is characterized by the dominance of the intellect, without soul and heart. Civilization as a whole is culture, but devoid of its content, devoid of soul. All that remains of culture is an empty shell, which acquires a self-contained meaning.

APPLICATION.

Kroeber A., Klachon K. Culture: the image of concepts and definitions. M., 1964

Montesquieu Sh. Selected Works. M., 1955. S. 737

Kant I. Works: In 6 vols. M., 1966. V.5. P.211.

Cit. Quoted from: Hagen-Thorn N.I. Volfila: Free Philosophical Association in Leningrad in 1920 - 1922. // Question. philosophy 1990. No. 4. S. 104

See, for example: Zlobin N.S. Culture and public

progress. Moscow, 1980, pp. 45, 46, 54, 56.

Mezhuev.V.M. Culture as a problem of philosophy // Culture, man and picture of the world. M., 1987. S.328.

Kant I. Works: In 6 vols. M., 1963 -1966. T.2. S. 192, 204.

Lavrov P.L. Historical letters // Intelligentsia. Power. People / Ed. L.I. Novikova. M., 1993. P.58.

Bromley N.Ya. Civilization in the system of public structures // Civilizations. Issue 2 / Ed. M.A.Barga. M., 1993. S.235.

LITERATURE.

1. Introduction to philosophy: A textbook for universities. At 2 hours 4.2 / Frolov I.T., Arab-Ogly E.A., Arefieva G.S. and others - M.:

Politizdat, 1989. - 639 p.

2. Kant I. Works: In 6 vol. M., 1966. V.5./G2.

3. Kefeli I.F. Culture and Civilization // Social and Political Journal, 1995. No. 4, p. 122 - 127.

4. Brief philosophical encyclopedic dictionary. -M.: Ed. group "Progress" - "Encyclopedia", 1994. - 570 p.

5. Kroeber A., Klakhohn K. Culture: the image of concepts and definitions. M., 1964

6. Moiseeva A.P., Kolodiy N.A. etc. Civilizational approach to the development of society. / Philosophy: Course of lectures:

Proc. allowance for university students / Mosk. in-t national. and region, relations; Scientific leadership ed. coll. doc. philosophy Sciences V.L.Kalashnikov. - M.: Humanit. ed. center VLADOS, 1997.-384 p.

7. Polishchuk V.I. Culturology: Textbook. - M.:

Gardarika, 1998. - 446 p.

8. Spirkin A.G. Philosophy: Textbook. - M.: Gardariki. 1999- 816s.

9. Chertikhin V.E. Man and culture. / Philosophy. Basic ideas and principles: Popul. essay /Under the total. ed. A.I. Rakitova. - 2nd ed., revised, and additional. - M.:

Politizdat, 1990. - 378 p.

10. Shapovalov V.F. Fundamentals of philosophy. From classics to modernity: Proc. allowance for universities. - M.:

"FAIR-PRESS", 1998. - 576 p.

11. Philosophical encyclopedic dictionary / comp. S.S. Aver^ishchev, E.A. Arab-Ogly, M.F. Ilyichev and others - 2nd ed. M .: "Soviet Encyclopedia", 1989 - 815 p.

12. Philosophy: Textbook / Ed. prof. V.N. Lavoinenko-p - 2nd ed., corrected. and additional - M.: Jurist, 1998. - 520 p.

13. Philosophical encyclopedic dictionary. M.:

INFRA-M, 1999. - 576 p.

1* - see application

Society. At the level of civilizations, the broadest cultural unities of people and the most common social and cultural differences between them stand out. As for the relationship between the concepts of "culture" and "civilization", there are three positions in the scientific literature on this issue: identification, opposition and interdependence. Initially, these terms were used as synonyms. More philosophers...

Which stems solely from respect for the moral law, and not only from an empirical inclination to fulfill it. The philosophy of culture of the 20th century is even more characterized by the "breeding" of the concepts of culture and civilization. Culture continues to be a symbol of the positive in the development of mankind, civilization in most cases receives a neutral assessment, and not rarely and sharply ...

Mira, interpreted human existence as the fulfillment by people of the commandments of God the Creator, as adherence to the letter and spirit of the Holy Scriptures. Consequently, during this period, culture and civilization in the reflective consciousness were not separated. The correlation of culture and civilization (not a reflection of this relationship, but it itself) was identified for the first time when, in the Renaissance, culture began to be associated with individual ...

As knowledge and awareness of new objects, and with them the will that formed them. that is, the will refers to one structural level of Being, and its awareness - to the next, higher level. Let's move on to the concepts of culture and civilization With the definition of the concept of culture, everything is quite unambiguous and definite. "In a broad sense, culture is a set of manifestations of life, achievements and ...