The problem of the relationship between an individual worldview and an unconscious ontological identity is a problem of the maturity and integrity of a person's personality.
From the book "Psychological Deontology"
The problem of the relationship between an individual worldview and an unconscious ontological identity is a problem of the maturity and integrity of a person's personality. If the problem of unconscious ontological identity can be formulated as a problem of existential belonging to reality in the understanding of it by any religious system, or vice versa, an unconscious negative denial of this reality or its aspects, then the problem of conscious ontological identity is the problem of conscious identification of oneself with the group-bearer of the model of self-consciousness any orientation system.
In the previous chapters of the book, an attempt was made to show that conscience, as the central moral organ of the personality, is at the same time the inner core of the personality and the bearer of the moral law acquired through identification with the model of self-consciousness of the cultural community. The dynamics of conscience is possible, both in the direction of approaching the universal model of moral self-consciousness (the universal morality of love), and in the direction of moving away from this model in the direction of decomposition and degradation.
O. Pflederer considers the assertion that morality and religion were originally separated as an incredible delusion. All serious researchers of antiquity recognize that human civilization grew out of religious faith and worship. This connection is carried out through the reality to which the person belongs, with the being in which he is identified. “The feeling of connection with the common deity of a certain social group was the original basis of moral and social consolidation, the source of social order and civilization. The consecration of the family was born out of a cult. The hearth was a home altar, the head of the family was a priest who served the household god on behalf of the family ”(Pflederer O., 2000, p. 447).
The problem of reality, ontology, in which human existence is rooted, is already a problem of philosophical anthropology. This is one of the "terrible skeletons hidden in the philosopher's closet", in the words of W. James (James W., 2000, p. 27). However, as the review of the origins of a person's morality shows, it is the type of reality and the eschatological meaning of a person's stay in this reality that is associated with the motivation of the person's moral behavior. To understand this motivation within the framework of a specific ethical model, it is necessary to imagine the type of reality that is characteristic of the corresponding system of orientation. Due to the general complexity of the problem, within the framework of the psychological study of morality, one can only touch on the common features of the types of reality of the main "systems of orientation and worship" associated with the Christian paradigm as a source of a universal ethical model of love. Such systems, which Christianity met at its beginning, and which later accompanied it as parallel existing systems of views, are ancient views on the world and man and the Old Testament worldview.
An interesting analysis of the historical types of conscience was carried out by A. A. Stolyarov on the example of the era of antiquity (Stolyarov A. A., 1999, p. 74).
A. A. Stolyarov, as already mentioned in the fourth chapter, proceeds from the fact that conscience is, first of all, awareness of an intention or act as proper or not proper. The subject of emotional experience (not necessarily negative) is already the result of this awareness. Stolyarov conditionally calls the subject side of the internal law the sphere of conscience. This scope may be wider or narrower, depending on the type of moral law internalized. He believes that it is possible to imagine as many different basic types of conscience as there are types of moral law (Stolyarov A.A., p.77). The change in the types of moral law that dominated in antiquity (and hence the types of moral consciousness in general) was a direct consequence of the social and cultural evolution of ancient society.
As far as it was internal, what types of laws were considered moral and accepted by the individual as regulative norms of behavior, this was summed up in the concept of conscience.
For researchers, the question is controversial: were the Greeks familiar with the concept of conscience in the sense that is generally accepted today? The term conscietia appeared relatively late and meant primarily knowledge of obligatory moral norms - which, according to F. Zucker, was not identical with their internal assimilation, since the latter should have been expressed in remorse associated with the emotional experience of guilt. The absence of repentance, in turn, convincingly indicates that the inner consciousness of objective norms was alien and practically unfamiliar to the ancients (Stolyarov A.A., 1999, p. 75). But A.A. Stolyarov does not agree with this understanding of the ancient conscience. He believes that this really does not look like conscience, if conscience in the Christian sense is taken as the standard of conscience. He agrees with F. Zucker that it is necessary to base on the definition of the historical content of the term conscience, which gradually changed its meaning depending on the cultural and historical context.
Stolyarov in his work clarifies the meanings of the concept of "conscience" in antiquity. What should be considered conscience? He believes that it is necessary to separate the concepts of conscience and repentance, and let conscience remain conscience, and repentance repentance, although they are connected. He identifies four types of worldview systems in antiquity according to the main types of values in each of the historical periods and the corresponding moral laws:
1) worldview based on epic values;
2) on the basis of polis values;
3) on the basis of natural and space values;
4)
based on "ascetic" values. The first, historically earliest type is a worldview based on epic (archaic) values.
The epic consciousness is characterized by the principle of achieving personal good with the prevailing criterion of success/failure. Two key concepts stand out here: personal valor as a combination of individual merits and public recognition of this valor. The owner of full-fledged valor/recognition was called a valiant husband. Valor, from Homer onwards, was meant as such subjective virtues that are sufficient to achieve the proper result in any business (with a minimum of attention to means). For the Homeric hero, the end, the maintenance of his recognition, justified the means. The only circumstance that somehow humbled the arbitrariness of the hero was public opinion that sanctioned his prowess. If society for some reason was not able to curb the hero, the interests of the latter de facto received public sanction.
Thus, personal (albeit socially recognized) well-being in any business became the goal and duty, and the only principle accepted into the maxim of behavior was the principle of subjective arbitrariness, which could only be limited by another arbitrariness from the outside. Two very significant conclusions follow from this (Stolyarov A.A., 1999, p. 78).
The main damage that the Homeric individual could suffer is the loss of public recognition of valor. At the same time, the infringement of someone else's prowess was directed against a specific person or persons, but not against the law. Any action aimed at maintaining one's valor (although associated with damage to another person) not only did not violate the moral law, but, on the contrary, was prescribed to them. Thus, in accordance with the moral law of the epic type, any act for the sake of preserving the reputation of a valiant husband does not contain anything reprehensible, especially if it is crowned with success. Retribution on the part of the victim follows only when he is able to respond. But the actions of the offender and the avenger testify only to the violation of a certain status quo and do not contain anything immoral. Blood feud for the epic consciousness was no less moral than all other actions, even if it was necessary to go to the murder for the sake of valor. For example, Odysseus kills suitors so that his valor does not suffer damage, i.e. shame and dishonor. The relatives of the dead, of course, must take revenge on Odysseus, for it would already be dishonorable for them not to do this. In this case, all hostile actions will be moral in exactly the same degree. There is no crime, no criminals, and the concept of guilt is not applicable to the sphere of epic morality. (P.79)
The disgraced, devoid of valor, the hero felt shame for his unworthy and therefore immoral position. Shame is the emotional reaction of the epic conscience, which defended the reputation of the hero and reacted only to its loss. E. Dodds called the epic culture "the culture of shame", he argued that "Homer's man received the highest satisfaction not from a clear conscience, but from public recognition. Possession of full-fledged valor (time) meant for the hero a clear and calm conscience: he realized that he had done everything possible to maintain his reputation (Ibid., p. 79).
The moral law of epic consciousness protected the right of individual arbitrariness " strong personality". The goal, duty and main virtue of the epic hero was the unconditional exercise of his individual right (even to the detriment of another person). Retribution occurs here not according to the law of conscience, but according to the law of cosmic order. Epic asceticism, if asceticism is understood as an exercise in every virtue, is therefore visibly material in nature. Thus, the specificity of the epico-archaic type of conscience lies in the fact that the moral law prescribes to observe one's interest as fully as possible, and the conscience sensitively reacts to its violation.
The second type of ancient worldview is based on polis values.
Over time, value norms began to come to the fore, designed to be a defense against the arbitrariness of a “strong personality” and guarantee retributive justice. This role was played by the values of the classical period, which embodied the idea that it is not the arbitrariness of a private individual, a right that has a state-public character, is a desirable norm of life. Justice becomes a new goal, a new duty and the main virtue, and the law of state law, which protects any individual from unlimited arbitrariness, becomes the main moral law.
The main change is not even that justice becomes a necessary component of the dignity of a valiant husband. Within certain limits, it was already desirable for the epic hero. The meaning of the reassessment of values is that justice alone is no longer enough for its bearer to be called "fair".
Virtue and self-interest began to diverge sharply. The state nature of the new values manifested itself most clearly in Socrates-Plato. The moral antagonists of Socrates in the early Platonic dialogues are the sophists who defended the old epic values. Callicles, who has absorbed the Odyssey syndrome, openly proclaims the right of a strong personality, for whom to suffer injustice is much worse and more shameful than to inflict it (Stolyarov A.A., 1999, p. 81). Socrates, on the contrary, argues that to suffer injustice is an incomparably lesser evil. Causing injustice is an immoral act, a crime, an obvious and undeniable guilt. The behavior of Socrates in prison, which fully corresponded to his convictions, was completely shameful from the point of view of the morality of epic values. But the duty and goal of Socrates was the observance of the right of the state, which Socrates considered impossible to violate in his favor. Socrates makes obedience to the law, as the embodiment of justice, his principle. This is his unconditional duty and his ultimate goal, breaking the law is internally unacceptable for Socrates. It is this principle that is for him an internalized law. Thus, justice acquires a qualitatively different character (compared to the old values). The criterion is not the arbitrariness of the heroic individual, finally formalized by the sophists in the characteristic statement "man is the measure of all things" and not even the principle of retribution, but based on the knowledge of good and evil absolute truth law. Justice, according to Democritus, consists in doing what is right. It is not so much the actual violation of the law that is worthy of condemnation, but the secret desire to violate it. It is not good not to commit injustice, but not even to desire it. One who refrains from committing injustice only under compulsion. Or out of fear of retribution, almost certainly secretly going to sin (Ibid., p. 84).
A courageous and sane person is rightfully considered one who acts properly in conscience and conscience. Offenses should be abstained from a sense of duty. You should be ashamed of yourself more than others. Evil cannot be done, even if you are alone and no one knows about it. One law must be established for the soul: "do not do anything that is not proper." A person who has evil deeds in his soul is tormented by fear.
Virtue, filled with civic content and no longer identical with personal gain, should in itself serve as a reward. The moral law, which also has a civil character, forces the individual to limit his arbitrariness in favor of the state, that is, fellow citizens. This is duty and purpose par excellence and a matter of conscience. A. Stolyarov believes that this type of moral law is associated with the emergence and development of the classical policy, and owes its origin to the historically arisen need to morally sanction the policy system. Aristotle, the universal mind of antiquity, has already come close to the next stage in the development of the ancient conscience. In Aristotle, an internal feeling of repentance, shame is considered a sign of the inappropriateness of an act.
The third type of conscience A. Stolyarov calls "natural-space".
From the end of the 4th century, antiquity enters the era of Hellenism. The crisis and destruction of the polis system, and with it the polis values, gives rise to the need for new moral guidelines that could help a person who suddenly finds himself a citizen of huge world empires. The new values are addressed to the individual, most of whose social functions have been usurped by the state system torn from him. The whole world is open to the citizen of the state, but purely state justice loses its significance, since it no longer depends on the direct influence of politically active individuals, and the natural human side of existence comes to the fore. At the same time, the ideals and images of the polis culture became an integral part of the later value worldview systems (Stolyarov A.A., 1999, p. 85).
Already Aristotle came close to the idea of a universal natural law of justice, valid for all people and prescribing to observe the right of every person as a rational being. Private public laws have the character of external coercion, and unjust people may observe them for fear of punishment. The general law, which Aristotle partially identifies with the unwritten law, is observed from the fullness of moral conviction.
Among the Cynics, the Epicureans, and the Stoics, the achievement of natural ends becomes the prime duty. The sage of Epicurus should strive for non-anxiety (ataraxia). Among the Cynics, and especially among the Stoics, life according to nature becomes the duty and ultimate goal and basic virtue. The law of nature completely determines the content of the moral law that prescribes this or that virtue. The duty of the Stoic sage is to pursue the only natural goal - serenity. Thus, the right of the subject becomes his natural right.
Justice, also acquiring a natural character, forces us to recognize the same and equal right for every rational natural subject. Right and everything worthy must be pursued for its own sake. The natural unwritten law is the measure of right and injustice. And it consists in “giving back to everyone according to their dignity” (Ibid., p. 86). For the violation of this law, a person pays, first of all, not according to an external court, but according to his conscience.
If “only punishment, and not nature, should have kept a person from iniquity, then what anxiety could torment the wicked who have ceased to fear execution?” All people are neighbors by nature, therefore a just and honest husband should help the weak as a brother by nature, even if there are no witnesses or judges.
At the same time, one should not think that a sage helping his neighbor has as his goal his good. Natural justice boils down to the golden rule of morality: do not do to another what you do not want to suffer yourself. The goal of the sage is abstract natural justice as the basic virtue: he helps his neighbor for the sake of perfecting his own virtue, which is required by the internal natural law.
Cosmopolitan pathos in the ethical system based on natural and cosmic values reaches the highest limits: a person is just a particle of the world policy, the law of which becomes the law of nature. The goal of self-improvement of a person living according to nature is the maximum liberation from irrational impulses, primarily from sensual pleasures, from all kinds of desires and fear of death. It is this perfection of the rational "leading principle" that testifies to the purity of moral consciousness. Therefore, Epictetus directly states: “I am concerned only with mine, which is not subject to interference and is naturally free. This is the essence of goodness for me. And let everything else be as it will be - it makes no difference to me ”(quoted from: ibid.). Since the good of the neighbor is not in the power of the sage, it is in him the highest degree the vice of the neighbor and in general everything that happens to him is also indifferent. The conscience of the sage stands guard over "mine" - that god who notices all the movements of his soul. Only a person who cares about the purity of his virtue can be called a person of good conscience (Ibid., p. 87).
The fourth type of values according to A. Stolyarov's classification is ascetic values.
At the same time, he notes that the classification of values proposed by him is to some extent conditional. In this sense, the selection of the ascetic type of moral consciousness is even more conditional. Each of the above types of values implies a corresponding austerity. In this case, by ascetic values, he understands the virtue of piety and, in general, everything that relates to the veneration of a deity. Such asceticism to some extent accompanies any of the above types of values, but hardly noticeable in epic times, paramount among the Pythagoreans, clearly visible in Plato and the Stoics, it reaches its apogee in the Neoplatonists. The goal of A. Stolyarov is to describe what was common to all the numerous schools of this period. As an example, he uses the work of Porfiry "Letter to Markella", which is a typical example of a Neoplatonic moral and instructive treatise (Stolyarov A.A., 1999, p. 88). This treatise contains statements and instructions on the following points:
A) purpose.The veneration of God is expressed in the assimilation of one's thoughts to God. The soul of the sage is most in line with the deity. A wise man honors God even by silence, while a foolish person insults him even by offering a sacrifice. "A man worthy of God is himself divine." Consequently, the highest goal and duty of the sage is perhaps a more complete assimilation to a deity.
B) Funds.
Likeness to a deity is achieved through the exercise of virtue, which boils down to purification from the passions and vices that accompany them. And in general, to a feasible liberation from the bodily. A carnal person for Porfiry is a synonym for an atheist. A vicious person does not dare to talk about the divine. God cannot be deceived: he is a witness to all the deeds of a person who is ashamed of his gaze. Thus, the goal is typologically similar to the goal of the Stoics. However, instead of living according to nature, formally, likeness to a deity is required. In the first place again is the perfection of one's own virtue. The seeming parallel, according to A. Stolyarov, betrays the anti-Christian position of Porfiry. At the same time, at first glance, it seems that philanthropy is proclaimed the main duty and goal, similarly, there is a Christian position. This is evidenced by a quotation from Porphyry: “He who has done injustice to at least one person, of course, does not honor God. Consider that the basis of piety is philanthropy (philanthropy). However, Stolyarov carefully analyzes the content of the concept of philanthropy in Porfiry's treatise "On abstinence from animal food." "Natural law requires that personal existence and well-being is not maintained at the expense of injustice done to another being." If this rule is observed in relation to any unreasonable being, this is justice (an opinion that goes back to Empedocles and Pythagoras). If it is observed in relation to a person, this is philanthropy. Accordingly, he concludes that the principle of philanthropy does not extend beyond the golden rule of morality, and philanthropy pursues as a goal only the natural right of the neighbor, but not his good (Ibid., p. 89).
UDK 140.8"652" Oleg Nikolaevich Banizhe independent researcher, Moscow
BODY
AND ANTIQUE WORLD VIEW
Annotation:
The article discusses the status of corporality in ancient culture and worldview. An original interpretation of Greek anthropocentrism is given. The uniqueness of the understanding of corporality in the era of antiquity is substantiated in the light of the subsequent European anthropological tradition.
Keywords:
antiquity, myth, philosophy, microcosm, macrocosm, physicality, sculpture.
Banizhe Oleg Nikolayevich Independent Researcher, Moscow
CORPORALITY AND ANTIQUE WORLDVIEW
The article considers the status of corporality in the ancient art and worldview. The original interpretation of the Greek anthropocentrism is given. The author justifies the uniqueness of corporality understanding during the antiquity era in the context of the subsequent European anthropological tradition.
antiquity, myth, philosophy, microcosm, macrocosm, corporality, sculpture.
Introduction. Man as a bodily being belongs to the physical, biological, social and cultural-historical world. A person acquires his identity in all these dimensions. From the first steps of awareness of one's identity, a person acquires awareness of himself in relation to the world. The relation "I - the World" is played out as subjective-objective. The world as a complex system is comprehended by a person in the process of bodily interaction with him. However, in the humanities, with rare exceptions, there is a tendency to ignore the corporeality. Perhaps this is characteristic of the Western philosophical and socio-humanitarian tradition. It is likely that this situation was influenced by Christianity. But in the humanities, worldview guidelines play the role of methodological principles. But even in the Western humanitarian tradition, the marginality of corporality was not always present. The ancient worldview - philosophy, religion, art, myth - has corporality as a basic ontological category. In this article, we consider the concepts of "body" and "corporality" in the ancient worldview and culture.
The research materials are written sources of ancient Greek culture - myths, philosophical texts, as well as comments and critical articles of domestic and foreign scientists on this topic, which are in the public domain. A special role in the consideration of the topic is played by the works of A.F. Losev on ancient mythology and aesthetics. We also used the materials of the discussion in philosophy and cultural studies on the topic of the relationship between the spiritual and the corporeal in its various aspects.
Results. Any ideological system has as its central counterpoint the ratio of a stable “image of the Self”, coordinated with the “image of the world”. In the ancient worldview, this topic is universally fixed in the form of the problem of the relationship between macrocosm and microcosm. The macrocosm is the world as a whole, nature. The microcosm is a person, a personality. The ancient worldview is cosmological. However, it would be a perfect mistake to substitute the modern understanding of the Cosmos instead of the ancient one. A.F. Losev explains: “The ancient Greek worldview is the vision and touch of the world as a body. Here everything comes down to living bodies... Gods are perfect and beautiful bodies. People are bodies. Space is a living body. The number is the body. Just as corporeal and stationary is music.
The ancient worldview is sculptural, in it both the personality, and the gods, and the Cosmos are corporeal. Failure to understand this sometimes leads to unhistorical confusion. Thus, the vast majority of textbooks are replete with statements that atomism as a scientific hypothesis arose in antiquity. However, the atoms of Democritus and Epicurus have nothing to do with the natural-scientific atomism of the 18th-19th centuries. As A.F. Losev, the atoms of ancient philosophers are corporeal in essence and in configuration. Like any other corporeality, the corporeality of atoms is the unity of soul and body. A well-known researcher of antiquity explains this point as follows: “Since this body is not just an ordinary human body, with its weakness, illness and death, it must be an ideal body. This is a body in which there is nothing but the spirit. And this is such a spirit in which there is nothing but the body. This is complete interpenetration.
SOCIETY: PHILOSOPHY, HISTORY, CULTURE (2015, no. 6)
spirit and body, the absolute balance of spiritual and physical. Hence, the ancient body with dialectical necessity turns out to be a human body, and the basic intuition of antiquity with dialectical necessity turns out to be a sculptural intuition.
This sculptural hypothesis is true, from our point of view, for the representatives of the ancient classics - Plato, Aristotle.
In Plato's theory, objects arise in the course of the emanation of ideas. According to Aristotle, objects are the result of the combination of passive, formless matter and active, ideal form. The form of forms and the prime mover is God. The form of personal certainty is the soul, it is the beginning of bodily and spiritual life, it is the driving, formal and target reason.
Aristotle himself reveals the secret of his terminology. To do this, he turns to a technological metaphor. He likens the process of shaping to the activity of an artisan. Recall that the sculptors in ancient Greece were professional craftsmen. Just as a sculptor or potter obtains an object by shaping marble or clay, so does God. It is the source of images of things, giving formless matter a certain expedient form (form, idea).
The basic explanatory principle also corresponds to the concept of the world as a set of bodily forms. It is the genealogical principle. However, it may be objected that Aristotle already proclaims the principles of logic, proof, the definition of which he gives in the Ethics. On this occasion, we can say that different principles coexist in the views and texts of Aristotle. This is quite explicable by the fact that the logic of mental forms grows out of the "logic" of natural forms, from the "logic" of living nature. Our assertion is etymologically confirmed to some extent. The ancient term tehne (art, craft, profession) goes back genetically to the word ticto (tec) - I give birth. Since the formation of policies, this term has been working in an environment of homogeneous terms: physis - nature (from phyo - I give birth, I produce), gignomai (I am born, become, become). Initially, activity is considered even terminologically as the principle of generation. However, the principle of generation is gradually being replaced by technological content. The way to transform genealogical thinking into logical thinking was the recognition of labor (activity) as a generative principle.
The main problem of the ancient worldview is the problem of the relationship between the macrocosm and the microcosm. The ancient citizen is an atomized free individual, but only within the framework of the policy. For only a citizen of the policy is a private owner and in this sense a self-sufficient person. Plato in "The State" constructs a model of an ideal state. In his construction, he tends to complete isomorphism. The social structure of an ideal state is similar to the structure of the soul, which has three parts: rational, suffering and desiring. The cosmos (polis) and the individual are inseparable. Man, according to Aristotle, is a political (read "polis") animal. The task of the individual is to find harmony in the political and natural Cosmos. A.F. Losev develops this idea based on the logic of corporeality as follows: “Ancient socio-political, ethical, aesthetic-pedagogical and other theories aim to educate an earthly and corporeal person, whose life is completely limited by his life on Earth and in the body, but they want to make such a person biologically beautiful and noble, as much as possible similar to the carefree and immortal Olympians, so that the Heaven of the Greeks is the same Earth, but only given in all the nobility and purity of its sculpture.
The problem of harmony is important both on a cosmic and individual scale. Proportionality, proportionality, ideal beauty are an intention not only in relation to the Cosmos, but also in relation to the individual in the form of the ideal of kalokagatiya. The ancient worldview, in contrast to the subsequent Western tradition, does not know the opposition of the soul and body. In this, both ancient mythology and ancient philosophy are united.
Agreeing in many respects with the ideas of A.F. Losev, at the same time, we do not believe that the problem of education and worldview issues were purely aesthetic in nature. As we have already pointed out, the most important art of antiquity - sculpture - was considered not as an artistic activity, but as a craft. But this does not diminish the role of sculpture.
The sculptural nature of the ancient worldview is, from our point of view, evidence of its anthropocentrism. On a cosmic scale, this is expressed by the dominance of the ancient gods and titans. In Aristotle's physics, a geocentric astronomical model of the Universe is also implemented, which is more consistent with human visual astronomical observations. "Space", according to Aristotle, as the place occupied by a thing, is also borrowed from everyday human experience. Consequently, the sculptural approach is a visually perceived and sensually tangible principle of the anthropocentrism of the Greek worldview. That's why
one can agree with A.F. Losev that ancient dialectics in the form of Platonic ideas or Aristotle's doctrine of forms and matter is a rationalized anthropocentrism translated into the language of philosophical categories, born from a "sculptural" worldview.
On the other hand, only a hero could be awarded a herm or a sculpture. It was the hero who approached the ideal, became immortal with the help of the image. The person was honored with a portrait image with the help of his sculptural doubling. At the same time, it was not considered that the body was honored with the image; personality was conceived in the unity of its bodily figurativeness and worldview. The exaltation of the hero equated him and his deed with an event of a cosmic, universal scale.
Thus, the ancient citizen was conceived in the unity of his spiritual and bodily certainty. Ancient mythology and the philosophy of corporality were the ideological means of educating a citizen of the polis. With the help of mythology or philosophy, the bodily social atom achieved isomorphism with the Cosmos and acquired a state of cosmic harmony.
1. Merleau-Ponty M. Phenomenologie de la perception. Paris, 1987. P. 235.
2. Gritsenko V.P. On marginal themes and conceptual gaps in modern philosophy // DiskursPI. Issue. 5: The Discourse of Identity / ed. O.F. Rusakova. Yekaterinburg, 2005, pp. 179-182.
3. Carlson Yu.V. Corporeality and its expression in different cultures [Electronic resource] // Portal of psychological publications PsyJournals.ru. URL: http://psyjoumals.ru/psytel2009/issue/40819_full.shtml (accessed 05.11.2015).
4. Logos of the living and the hermeneutics of corporality. M., 2005. 720 p.
5. Vasiliev V.V. Difficult problem of consciousness. M., 2009. 272 p.
6. Losev A.F. Essays on ancient symbolism and mythology [electronic resource] // PSYLIB: Psychological library "Self-knowledge and self-development". URL: www.psylib.org.ua/books/lose000/txt005.htm (date of access: 06.11.2015).
Protagoras directs his relativism and skepticism against any dogmatism, including against religious. That book “On the Gods”, for which Protagoras suffered so much in Athens, began with the words: “About the gods, I cannot know either that they exist, or that they do not exist, or what they look like. For many things hinder to know (this): both the vagueness [of the question] and the brevity of human life. However, Protagoras believed that it was better to believe in the gods than not to believe in them.
The skeptic Timon of Phlius wrote about this in his satirical Sillas:
From the sophists. They wanted to burn his books,
For he wrote that he does not know the gods, he cannot
Determine what they are and who by nature.
The truth was on his side. But it's good
It did not serve him, and he fled, so that in the bowels of Hades
Do not immerse yourself after drinking Socrates' cold cup.
Unlike Protagoras, who, adjoining the Ionian tradition, developed the relativistic doctrine of the relativity of knowledge on the example of a mainly sensory level of cognition, Gorgias, adjoining the Italian tradition, based his relativism not so much on the subjectivity of the testimony of the sense organs, but on those difficulties in which falls into the mind, trying to build a consistent worldview at the level of philosophical categories and concepts (being and non-being, being and thinking, one and many, thinking and word, etc.). And if Protagoras taught that everything is true (for as it seems to anyone, it is so), then Gorgias taught that everything is false.
The very title of the main work of Gorgias - "On Nature, or On the Non-Existent" - emphasized the difference between the position of Gorgias and the position of his contemporary Eleatus Melissa, expressed in his work "On Nature, or On the Existing". Unlike the Eleatics, who identified speech, thinking, and being and denied non-being, Gorgias (continuing, however, their rationalistic line) tore speech from thinking, and thinking from being. He taught that nothing exists, and if it exists, it is incomprehensible, and if it is comprehensible, then it is inexpressible and inexplicable (for another person).
Speaking about the fact that nothing exists, Gorgias did not mean by this to say that there is non-existence. “Nothing exists” meant for him the assertion that it is impossible to prove either that non-being exists, or that being exists, or that being and non-being exist together. In matters of law and morality, Gorgias is a relativist. Like all sophists, Gorgias taught that moral values and legal norms are conditional, that they are artificial constructions of people who do not always take into account nature.
Little is known about Hippias. Plato portrayed the sophist Hippias in two of his dialogues: Hippias the Greater and Hippias the Lesser. Hating the sophists, Plato presented Hippias as a self-confident, pompous, unprincipled and talkative person, overly concerned about his appearance and defeating ignorant people with omniscience, aplomb and outwardly brilliant speeches. Hippias boasts to Socrates that a short time He earned a lot of money from his teaching.
However, in the dialogue “Protagoras”, where some other sophists are depicted along with Protagoras, Hippias is depicted as a scientist surrounded by students who “questioned Hippias about nature and various astronomical, celestial phenomena, and he, sitting in an armchair, sorted out with each of them and discussed their questions. But, unfortunately, nothing can be learned about these issues from this dialogue. We see only the opposition of Hippias the naturalist to Protagoras the social activist, who despises the sciences of nature and boasts that he does not teach them, but only teaches virtue. In fact, Hippias was engaged in astronomy, music, geometry. He found a geometric definition of a curve. He taught the art of developing memory - mnemonics. Hippias himself could memorize fifty words in the order in which they were called to him. He studied grammar and art criticism.
However, nothing has survived from the writings of Hippias. Only his words are known, and even then in the presentation of Plato, in which Hippias, like some other sophists, begins to distinguish between nature and society, until now merging in the minds of the first philosophers (in Heraclitus, the laws of society are the same logos as the laws of nature). Hippias contrasts the laws of society with the laws of nature. He says in Plato's Protagora: "the law ... ruling over people, forces them to do many things that are contrary to nature."
Little is known about the sophist Prodicus. In "Protagoras" Socrates compares Prodicus with Tantalus, calls his wisdom from ancient times divine, and he himself is wise. However, Socrates' praise of Prodicus is ironic. In another dialogue of Plato “Cratylus”, Socrates ridicules the greed of this sophist, who taught differently for 50 drachmas than for one (for this price poor Socrates listened to Prodicus). In Theaetetus (another dialogue of Plato) Socrates refers his not-so-serious students to Prodicus.
Prodik dealt with problems of language. Before philosophizing, one must learn to use words correctly. Therefore, developing synonymy, he clarified the meaning of words, distinguished shades in synonyms (for example, "courage" and "courage"). In the Protagoras dialogue, Prodicus, when discussing the meaning of some lines from Simonides' poem, says that in them Simonides scolds Pittacus for not being able to distinguish words correctly. In Plato's dialogue "Phaedrus" Prodik takes credit for the fact that "only he found what the art of speeches consists in: they should not be long or short, but in moderation." In this, Prodik differed from another sophist - Gorgias, who on each subject had either short or lengthy speeches ready.
Prodik, like Protagoras, dealt with the problem of the origin and essence of religion, for which he received the nickname "godless". In fact, “Prodicus ... puts all sacred action in a person and mysteries, and sacraments in connection with the benefits of agriculture, believing that from here people got both the (very) idea of the gods, and all kinds of piety.” Sextus Empiricus cites the words of Prodicus: “The ancients called the sun, the moon, rivers, springs, and in general everything useful for our life gods for the benefits received from them, as, for example, the Egyptians called the Nile.” Further, Sextus Empiricus continues: "And therefore bread was called Demeter, wine - Dionysus, water - Poseidon, fire - Hephaestus, and so on all that is beneficial." Thus, Prodicus, trying to scientifically explain the origin of belief in the gods, thought that religion arises from the fact that people worshiped natural phenomena that were useful to them.
Speaking of senior sophists, it is impossible not to mention the original ethical views of the sophist Antiphon. For Antiphon, as for Hippias, the dictates of nature and the demands of the law are antagonistic. The source of all troubles is that laws force people to act contrary to their nature. “[In actions contrary to nature] lies [the reason] that people suffer more when they could suffer less, and experience less pleasure when they could enjoy more, and feel unhappy when they can not be so” . And this is all because "many [prescriptions recognized] as fair by law are hostile to [human] nature." Here, by justice, Antiphon understands the desire not to violate the laws of the state in which you are a citizen. From the antagonism of law and nature, Antiphon concludes that a person must be two-faced and, pretending that he follows the laws of society and the state, follow nature, which, unlike people, cannot be deceived: “A person will derive the most benefit for himself if he is in the presence of witnesses will observe the laws, honoring them highly, remaining alone, without witnesses, [will follow] the laws of nature. For the prescriptions of laws are arbitrary (artificial), [the decrees of] nature are necessary.
Antiphon also explains why it is impossible not to follow nature and why it is possible to deceive the state: “the prescriptions of laws are the result of an agreement (contract of people), and not arising by themselves [creations of nature], the dictates of nature are self-arisen innate principles, and not the product of an agreement between people between themselves". Thus, Antiphon is the founder of the contractual theory of the origin of the state. Ethics Antiphon defined as the art of being carefree.
The opposition of what exists by nature to what is established by people allowed Antiphon to raise the question of the origin of slavery. For Antiphon, slavery is a social institution that is contrary to nature. The words of Antiphon have come down to us that “by nature we are all equal in every respect, moreover [equally] both barbarians and Hellenes.” Antiphon substantiates this idea, pointing out that "all people have the same needs by nature", that "we all [equally] breathe air through our mouths and we all [equally] eat with our hands." Antiphon's doctrine of the natural equality of people ran counter to the dominant ideology in ancient Greece - the ideology of the slave-owning formation. They say that when Antiphon set his slaves free, and he himself entered into marriage with his former slave, he was declared insane and deprived of civil rights.
2. Junior Sophists
Of the younger sophists, who were already active at the end of the 5th - beginning of the 4th century. BC e., the most interesting are Alcides, Trasimachus, Critias and Callicles.
One of the students of Gorgias, the younger sophist Alcidamus, further developed Antiphon's teaching on the equality of people and the unnaturalness of slavery. If Antiphon spoke about the equality of Hellenes and barbarians by nature, then Alcides - that there are no slaves at all. At the same time, Alcidamus refers not only to nature, but also to the authority of God: "God created everyone free, nature did not create anyone a slave."
Trasimachus came from Bithynia, from the city of Chalcedon. According to Cicero, Trasimachus was the first to invent the correct warehouse of prose speech. He possessed an amazing gift for words and went down in the history of ancient rhetoric as an orator, "clear, subtle, resourceful, able to say what he wants, both briefly and very extensively."
Worldview and culture of antiquity
Antiquity differs from the East in that here from the very beginning it was known that people are unequal. An expensive slave is treated well, protected. A cheap slave can be tortured or killed. A slave is a body, but not a spirit. The soul is a high quality and can only be owned by a free Hellene. Work in such conditions requires a complex management system. The slave owner is simply obliged to be active and amateur. Since the work of the slave owner is unique, it gives rise to a unique culture.
The mystery of antiquity lies in the fact that the highest spiritual culture arose on the basis of primitive production.
The immortal monument of ancient culture are the works of Homer "Iliad" and "Odyssey". It can be said about the philosophical views of Homer that he was entirely on the basis of mythology. He did not ask himself the philosophical question of the origin of the world. Such questions were first put forward by Hesiod (7th century BC), a peasant poet. He outlined the myths as a whole, describing the genealogy and ups and downs in the host of the Olympian gods. The "pedigree of the gods" begins like this: in the beginning there was Chaos. From it the Earth (Gaia) was born. Together with the Earth, Eros and Erebus are born - the beginning of darkness in general and Night - self-determined darkness. From the marriage of Erebus and Night, Ether is born - light in general and Day - a certain light. Gaia gives birth to Heaven - the visible vault of heaven, as well as mountains and the deep sea. Such is the Theogony, that is, the origin of the world. After this, the genealogy of the gods begins - from the marriage of Gaia and Uranus (Earth and Sky). The poet leads us to the last generation of the gods, the descendants of Zeus, the “Olympians”, then describes the romantic streak of the gods entering into intimacy with earthly women who give birth to the heroes that Homer’s poems narrate about - this is an intoxicatingly fantastic series of amorous adventures of the gods.
Gradually, the mythological way of thinking began to be filled with rational content and corresponding forms of thinking: the power of generalizing and analytical thinking increased, science and philosophy were born, concepts and categories of the philosophical mind proper arose, and the process of transition from myth to Logos took place.
This text is an introductory piece. From the book History of Philosophy author Skirbekk GunnarScience in Antiquity We have already noted that in antiquity the dividing line between philosophy and science was rather fluid. Nevertheless, we have so far focused on philosophical ideas. Now we will focus on the emergence and development of a number of basic
From the book History of Medieval Philosophy author Copleston FrederickWomen Scientists in Antiquity In antiquity, with a few exceptions (such as the school of Epicurus), women did not have access to philosophical and scientific research. However, in Alexandria, the center of scholarship in late antiquity, an outstanding female scientist Hypatia worked (Hypatia). She is
From the book Philosopher's Stone of Homeopathy author Simeonova Natalya Konstantinovna From the book The concept of "revolution" in philosophy and social sciences: Problems, ideas, concepts author Zavalko Grigory Alekseevich From the book Cheat Sheets on Philosophy author Nyukhtilin VictorLet's look into the era of Antiquity and the Renaissance Let's take a look at the Renaissance and even earlier, antique, and gradually come to the period when Hahnemann lived and worked. Perhaps we will be able to shed light on how its amazingly effective
From the book Sociology of Art. Reader author Team of authorsThe problem of revolutions in the history of Antiquity The first class formation in Soviet history was recognized as slave-owning. This made it difficult to see the most obvious revolution in the pre-capitalist period - the emergence of ancient society, mistaken for a more developed society.
From the book Results of Millennium Development, Vol. I-II author Losev Alexey Fyodorovich45. Culture and spiritual life of society. Culture as a determining condition for the formation and development of an individual Culture is the sum of the material, creative and spiritual achievements of a people or group of peoples. The concept of culture is multifaceted and includes both global
From the book Philosophy: Lecture Notes author Olshevskaya NatalyaChapter I From Antiquity to Modern Times
From the book Culture and Ethics author Schweitzer Albert5. Mythology in antiquity is genuine realism for antiquity itself. In order for our definition of ancient aesthetics as ancient mythology to be completely clear, it must be borne in mind that ancient thinkers understood their myths by no means what modern Europeans understand.
From the book Encyclopedic Exposition of Masonic, Hermetic, Kabbalistic and Rosicrucian Symbolic Philosophy author Hall Manly PalmerThe worldview and culture of antiquity Antiquity differs from the East in that it was known from the very beginning that people are unequal. An expensive slave is treated well, protected. A cheap slave can be tortured or killed. A slave is a body, but not a spirit. The soul is of high quality and can be
From the book Selected Works author Natorp PaulV. CULTURE AND WORLD VIEW The great task of the spirit is the creation of a world outlook. In the worldview of the era, they find the rationale for its ideas, beliefs and deeds. Only by coming to a culture-creative worldview will we be capable of the ideas, beliefs, and deeds necessary to flourish.
From the book Understanding Processes the author Tevosyan Mikhail From the book Art and Communication author Basin Evgeny YakovlevichThe culture of the people and the culture of the individual Six lectures Foreword The culture of the people and the culture of the individual - for many these are different concepts, like heaven and earth. The best people of our time strive to achieve only the first or only the second. The starting point of these lectures
From the book Cheese and Worms. A picture of the world of a miller who lived in the 16th century author Ginzburg CarloChapter 23 Culture as the basis for the interaction of species and forms of life. Qualities and abilities of the individual. Ethics, morality, physical culture, intellect, morality, spirituality and other qualities of a person. The world of illusions and fantasies Typography, if it contributed more
From the author's bookChapter I. Aesthetics of antiquity Aesthetic ideas and ideas, interest in the communicative problems of art, apparently, arose in the countries of the Ancient East (Babylon, Egypt). However, these problems have received a clear theoretical expression mainly in
Initially, the Egyptian religion was a complex of ideas and ideas common to all the people, but which took different forms in different areas. Even in prehistoric times, in various religious centers, priests began to make attempts to build theological systems in order to unite popular ideas.
The most remarkable was the system of Iliopol priests. Here the god of the sun, under the name of Tuma and Ra, was recognized as the creator of the universe. He was placed at the head of the system and the deities of neighboring areas were recognized as his children and creations. From him, for example, Shu and his female complement Tefnut were produced - gods who personified the sky and moisture, and, in turn, gave life to another pair of gods - Kebu and Nut. From here began a complete cosmogony, with a cycle of myths.
According to the ancient common
Scandinavian mythology represents an independently and richly developed branch of Germanic mythology, which, in turn, in its main features goes back to the Proto-Indo-European.
Scandinavian mythology took shape in its current form in the Viking Age - in the 9th-10th centuries. Myths at that time were performed by court singers-skalds, who created images of new deities, changed the already existing mythological ideas of the ancient Scandinavians. The fact is that as the Christian religion spread in the north of Europe, old beliefs were modified and lost. Scandinavian myths would have been lost if it were not for Snorri Sturluson, who lived in the 13th century, to bring them into a system and create the Younger Edda, which is a textbook of mythology for the Scandinavian peoples.
The influence of other mythologies on the myths of the Scandinavians was so great that there are 12 supreme deities, as in ancient Greek mythology. In addition, the influence of Christianity on the mythology of the Scandinavians is strong: the story of Baldr reflects the story of Christ in connection with the legend of the death of Achilles; the god Loki is nothing more than the medieval Lucifer, who adopted winged sandals from Mercury; some legends about Hercules were reflected on Tope; the cosmogonic myths expressed in the Broadcasting of the Völva (Völospo, the first song of the Elder Edda) were formed at a later time from elements that retain the features of Babylonian cosmology, etc.
In other words, the Scandinavian myths in their pure original form have practically not survived to our time. Scandinavian mythology for the most part represents the later literary processing of ancient myths under the influence of cultures and religions of different peoples, and above all the Romans.
Norse mythology is best preserved in Germanic folklore. But here, too, foreign influences were not avoided. Only 4 most ancient deities are clearly distinguished: the god of sky and light Tiwaz (Scand. Tur, German Zîo), the thunder god Thonaraz (Scand. Thòrr, German Donar), the wind god Wôdanaz (Scand. Odhinn, German Wuotan), the goddess of the earth and fertility Frîja (Scand. Frigg, German Frîja).
The religion and mythology of the Slavs was composed of the deification of the forces of nature and the cult of ancestors. The only supreme god, the "creator of lightning", among the Slavs was Perun. The concept of the thunder god merged among the Slavs with the concept of the sky in general (namely, the moving, cloudy sky), the personification of which some scientists see in Svarog. Other higher gods were considered the sons of Svarog - the Svarozhichs. These gods were the sun and fire.
The sun was deified under the name of Dazhbog, as well as Khors. The guardian of the herds, the god of livestock, Veles or Volos, was also originally a solar god. All these names of the supreme god are very ancient and were used by all Slavs.
Common Slavic ideas about the highest god received further development from individual Slavic tribes, new, more definite and more bizarre forms. So, among the Baltic Slavs, Svyatovit was considered the highest god. In the cities of Shchetin and Volin, the same god was called Triglav. In the city of Retre, his name is Radegost, and in Czech and Polish legends he appears under the name Krok or Krak.
Ancient Greek and Roman mythology is based on the belief of man that the nature around him is animated and inspired. The ancient Greeks and ancient Romans were afraid of the gods, they were afraid of everything that concerned the afterlife. This fear explains the widespread worship of the gods, the offering of numerous sacrifices, the desire to earn the protection and favor of the gods.
The ancient Hellenes created the gods, trying to explain the natural world, the birth and death of man. Ancient gods were created by man in his image and likeness. The gods were like people in almost everything: they lived on Mount Olympus, they had families, they, like people, were good and evil, envious and greedy, fell in love and were jealous. The world of the gods reflected all the relationships that were in the world of people.
The gods differed from humans only in that they were immortal. The gods, according to the ancient man, lived next to people, they were often among people. Some gods even entered into marital relations with people. The gods were not above man, but with man. The gods controlled the natural elements: Zeus - lightning and thunderstorms, Poseidon - water, Aeolus - winds. Some gods had power over human feelings: Aphrodite - the goddess of love, Erinyes - the goddess of revenge.
The word "myth" is Greek. It means story, story. Myths are the oldest stories about the origin of the world and man, about the first ancestors of man, about how the existing order of things arose, about gods and heroes, about the origin of life.
Myths played a decisive role in the life of primitive man. Ancient man's knowledge of the world was extremely small. People had a need to somehow explain why there is a change of day and night, why the seasons change, why it rains or there is unbearable heat, why some animals attack people, while others are afraid of humans, etc. In an attempt to give an explanation for the phenomena of the surrounding world, a person developed myths that explained what was happening.
The myths reflected the peculiarity of the consciousness of primitive man, who perceived the world around him as divine, spiritualized. Nature was perceived as a space inhabited by various spirits and deities, and in an earlier era, people identified trees, stones, animals, weather phenomena with spirits, with gods. For people, a tree was the spirit of the forest, and in animals a person saw patron spirits or, conversely, spirits that were hostile to him.
The spirituality of nature, as a way of human perception of the world, is reflected in myths that are overflowing with various gods and spirits.
Myths for primitive man were not just entertaining stories about the origin and structure of the world. Myths were sacred stories that were recited as part of a specific ritual. The very process of telling myths was already a ritual. The myth for the primitive man was not only a way of explaining the surrounding world, but also a means of transferring the accumulated experience and knowledge, which were passed down from generation to generation in the form of a ritual. The elders in the form of myths taught the young how to perceive and explain the world around them, how to act in a given situation, what deities and spirits should be prayed to and what would happen if something was done wrong.
So, the myth in the primitive agricultural society was a way of explaining and knowing the world around and a means of accumulating and transmitting life experience, value ideas, customs of the tribe, nationality from generation to generation.