Philosophical understanding of the specifics of social cognition. The concept of society

For a long time, the analysis of science and scientific knowledge was carried out according to the "model" of natural and mathematical knowledge. The characteristics of the latter were considered characteristic of science as a whole, as such, which is especially clearly expressed in scientism. AT last years sharply increased interest in social (humanitarian) knowledge, which is regarded as one of the original types of scientific knowledge. When talking about it, two aspects of it should be kept in mind:

• any knowledge in each of its forms is always social, since it is a social product, and is determined by cultural and historical reasons;
• one of the types of scientific knowledge, which has social (public) phenomena and processes as its subject, is society as a whole or its individual aspects (economics, politics, the spiritual sphere, various individual formations, etc.).

In this study, both the reduction of the social to the natural, in particular, attempts to explain social processes only by the laws of mechanics (“mechanism”) or biology (“biologism”), and the opposition of the natural and the social, up to their complete break, are unacceptable.

The specificity of social (humanitarian) knowledge is manifested in the following main points:

The subject of social cognition -- man's world and not just a thing as such. And this means that this subject has a subjective dimension, it includes a person as “the author and performer of his own drama”, which he also knows. Humanitarian knowledge deals with society, social relations, where material and ideal, objective and subjective, conscious and spontaneous, etc. are closely intertwined, where people express their interests, set and realize certain goals, etc. Usually this is primarily a subject-subjective knowledge.

Social cognition is focused primarily on processes, i.e. to the development of social phenomena. The main interest here is dynamics, not statics, because society is practically devoid of stationary, unchanging states. Therefore, the main principle of its study at all levels is historicism, which was formulated much earlier in the humanities than in natural sciences, although even here, especially in the 21st century. He plays an extremely important role.

In social cognition, exclusive attention is paid to the individual, individual (even unique), but on the basis of a concrete-general, regular.

Social cognition is always value-semantic development and reproduction human being, which is always meaningful being. The concept of "meaning" is very complex and multifaceted. As Heidegger said, meaning is “to what and for the sake of what”. And M. Weber believed that the most important task of the humanities is to establish "whether there is a meaning in this world and whether there is a meaning to exist in this world." But in resolving this issue, religion and philosophy, and not natural science, should help, because it does not raise such questions.

Social cognition is inextricably and constantly connected with objective values ​​(assessment of phenomena from the point of view of good and evil, fair and unfair, etc.) and "subjective" (attitude, views, norms, goals, etc.). They point to the humanly significant and cultural role of certain phenomena of reality. Such, in particular, are the political, ideological, moral convictions of a person, his attachments, principles and motives of behavior, etc. All these and similar moments are included in the process of social research and inevitably affect the content of knowledge obtained in this process.

Of great importance in social cognition is the procedure of understanding as an introduction to meaning. human activity and how to make sense. Understanding is just connected with immersion in the world of meanings of another person, comprehension and interpretation of his thoughts and experiences. Understanding as a real movement of meaning occurs in the conditions of communication, it is not separated from self-understanding and occurs in the element of language.

Understanding- one of the key concepts of hermeneutics - one of the modern trends Western philosophy. As one of its founders wrote, German philosopher X. Gadamer, the “fundamental truth, the soul” of hermeneutics is this: the truth cannot be known and communicated by someone alone. It is necessary to maintain a dialogue in every possible way, to give a voice to a dissident as well.

Social cognition has a textual nature, i.e. between the object and the subject of social cognition are written sources (chronicles, documents, etc.) and archaeological sources. In other words, there is a reflection of reflection: social reality appears in texts, in sign-symbolic expression.

The nature of the relationship between the object and the subject of social cognition is very complex and very indirect. Here, the connection with social reality usually occurs through sources - historical (texts, chronicles, documents, etc.) and archaeological (material remains of the past). If the natural sciences are aimed at things, their properties and relations, then the humanities are aimed at texts that are expressed in a certain sign form and which have meaning, meaning, value. The textual nature of social cognition is its characteristic feature.

A feature of social cognition is its primary focus on the "qualitative coloring of events." The phenomenon is investigated mainly from the side of quality, not quantity. Therefore, the proportion of quantitative methods in social cognition is much less than in the sciences of the natural and mathematical cycle. However, here, too, the processes of mathematization, computerization, formalization of knowledge, etc. are increasingly being deployed.

In social cognition, one cannot use a microscope, or chemical reagents, and even more so the most complex scientific equipment - all this should be replaced by the “power of abstraction”. Therefore, the role of thinking, its forms, principles and methods is exceptionally great here. If in natural science the form of comprehension of an object is a monologue (because "nature is silent"), then in humanitarian knowledge it is a dialogue (of personalities, texts, cultures, etc.). The dialogical nature of social cognition is most fully expressed in the procedures understanding. It is precisely connected with immersion in the “world of meanings” of another subject, comprehension and interpretation (interpretation) of his feelings, thoughts and aspirations.

In social cognition, a "good" philosophy and a correct method play an extremely important role. Only their deep knowledge and skillful application allows one to adequately comprehend the complex, contradictory, purely dialectical nature of social phenomena and processes, the nature of thinking, its forms and principles, their permeation with value-worldview components and their influence on the results of cognition, meaning-life orientations of people, features dialogue (inconceivable without the formulation and resolution of contradictions-problems), etc.

The difference between the sciences of nature and the sciences of culture was analyzed in detail in the previous chapters, so we will only briefly formulate some of the features of research work in the social sphere, identified by modern philosophical thought.

1. The subject of social cognition – sphere of human activity (sphere of social ) in its various forms and manifestations. This is the unity of the objective (social laws) and the subjective (individual interests, goals, intentions, etc.). Humanitarian knowledge is knowledge about an integral system of subjective reality, both individual ("the world of man") and collective ("the world of society"). Wherein social facility considered both statically and dynamically.

The most important goal of social cognition is developmental research social phenomena, revealing the laws, causes and sources of this development. In this aspect, significant temporal differences are revealed in the development of the object and the theory of social and humanitarian knowledge.

The situation is typical for natural science: the subject does not change significantly, and its theoretical knowledge develops quite quickly. So, the terms of the evolution of the Galaxy are extremely long in comparison with the terms of knowledge of this evolution by people.

Situation characteristic of social cognition: the terms of the development of the subject are comparable with the terms of the development of the theory, so evolution scientific knowledge reflects the evolution of the object. For theories social work this is especially important, since the results of theoretical activity in this area directly affect the development of the social work system. In this regard, it is of particular importance here principle of historicism namely, the consideration of social phenomena in the process of their genesis, development and transformation.

2. Social cognition focuses on the study of the single, unique, individual, while relying on the results of the study of the general, natural. G. Hegel showed that the phenomenon is richer than the law, because it contains the moment of a self-moving form, something that is not covered by the law, which is always "narrow, incomplete, approximate."

There are objective laws in society, the identification of which is the most important task of social cognition, but these are “laws-trends” that are rather difficult to “isolate” from the subject of social cognition. This explains the difficulties of generalization and generalization in social cognition. Man (as well as society as a whole) is a complex unity of the rational and the irrational, the general and the unique. At the same time, the uniqueness of socio-historical phenomena does not "cancel" the need to identify general, natural in this sphere: every individual is in one way or another general, and every unique includes an element of the universal.

Difficulties in structuring and typifying humanitarian material make it difficult to unify and categorize it. Many researchers distinguish two layers of the language potential of the humanities:

• - the first is a collective fund of social science, intended for explanations,
• - the second - terminological arsenal of the theory of culture, anthropology, psychology, etc., intended for hermeneutical activity.

At the same time, the apparatus of natural language is widely used in social science.

3. The subject of cognition is constantly included in the subject of social cognition, and one cannot get rid of such a presence, therefore one of the most important tasks of social cognition is to understand someone else's "I" (and, to a certain extent, one's own "I") as another subject, as a subjective-active principle.

At the same time, in social cognition there is a complex, very indirect the nature of the relationship between the object and the subject. In the process of social cognition there is a "reflection of reflection"; these are "thoughts about thoughts", "experiencing experiences", "words about words", "texts about texts". M. M. Bakhtin noted that the text is the primary given of any humanitarian discipline: "The spirit (both one's own and someone else's) cannot be given as a thing (a direct object of the natural sciences), but only in symbolic expression, realization in texts and for oneself, and for another."

Due to the textual nature of social cognition special place in the humanities takes semiotic (from Greek. semeion - sign, sign) problematic. Sign - a material object (phenomenon, event), acting as a representative of some other object (properties, relations). The sign is used to acquire, store and process messages (information, knowledge). Symbol (from Greek. symbolon - sign, identification mark) - the ideal content of both signs and other material things and processes. The meaning of the symbol really exists only inside human communication. It is the concepts of "text", "sign", "meaning", "symbol", "language", "speech" that determine the features of both the object of social cognition and its methods.

Social and humanitarian knowledge acts as a value-semantic development and reproduction of human existence. The categories "meaning" and "values" are key to understanding the specifics of social cognition. The great German philosopher M. Heidegger believed that "to understand the direction in which a thing is already moving by itself means to see its meaning. In understanding such a meaning is the essence of understanding. Understanding means more than just knowledge."

Since the object of humanitarian knowledge exists in the space of human meanings, values, social knowledge is inextricably linked with values ​​with meaningful aspects of both the social object and the social subject. Values ​​are the social characteristics of objects that reveal their significance for a person and society (good, good and evil, beautiful and ugly, etc.).

M. Weber emphasizes the role of values ​​in social cognition: "What becomes the subject of research and how deeply this research penetrates into the endless interweaving of causal connections is determined by the value ideas that prevail at a given time and in the thinking of a given scientist." Values ​​determine both the specifics of the methods of cognition and the originality of the method of formation of concepts and norms of thinking that guides the scientist.

5. The specificity of the methodology of social cognition is associated with the procedure of understanding. Understanding is fundamental to hermeneutics as the theory and practice of interpreting texts. Due to the symbolic nature of social life, the concept of "Text" (as a set of signs that have meaning and meaning) turns out to be universal as a characteristic of the processes and results of human activity in various fields.

Understanding should not be identified with cognition, as happens in everyday knowledge(“to understand means to express in the logic of concepts”) or to confuse it with the procedure of explanation. Understanding is connected with comprehension, with immersion in the "world of meanings" of another person, comprehension and interpretation of his thoughts and experiences. Understanding is the search for meaning: only that which makes sense can be understood.

6. Social cognition explores primarily the qualitative side of the reality under study. Due to the specifics of the mechanism of social laws (including, along with rationalized ones, a system of irrational components), the proportion of quantitative methods here is much less than in the natural sciences. However, even here the processes of mathematization and formalization of knowledge are activated. Thus, the system of mathematical methods is widely used in applied sociology, psychology, statistics, etc.

The comprehensive introduction of mathematical methods into social cognition is hindered by the individualization (often uniqueness) of social objects; the presence of diverse subjective factors; polysemanticity and incompleteness of meanings, their dynamism, etc.

• 7. Specific relationship between empirical and theoretical levels in social cognition. In social cognition, the possibilities of a social experiment are limited, and empirical methods are used in a kind of refraction: surveys, questioning, testing, model experiments, often aimed at identifying value, semantic connections of a person with the world. The importance of methods of getting used to, empathy, understanding methods, etc. is very great here.
• 8. On lack of generally accepted paradigms in the social sciences noted the outstanding logician and philosopher of our time G. X. von Wright: "In sociology there is no universally recognized paradigms, and this is the feature that distinguishes it from natural science.<...>

It is not uncommon to speak of the inevitability of "theoretical anarchism" in the humanities, for there is no "only true theory" here. For these sciences, the norm is the plurality of competing concepts and theoretical models of social reality, as well as the possibility of free choice of any of them.

There is another point of view. So, L. V. Topchiy polyparadigmality social theories does not consider it a positive characteristic and argues that "the theory of social work in Russia is perhaps the only social discipline that does not have a common (generally recognized) theoretical paradigm of social work."

9. Growing need for practical contributions from the humanities. Since the social reality in modern society(social institutions, social relations, social ideas and theories) increasingly is being constructed the social sciences are increasingly becoming a direct social force. Their recommendations are necessary for implementation in various spheres of society: in the economy and practical politics, in the management of social processes, in the spheres of culture, education, etc. The creative development of the theory of social work plays a particularly important role for the optimal "construction" of social policy and the national system of social work.

Society - 1) in the broadest sense of the word, it is a combination of all types of interaction and forms of association of people that have developed historically; 2) in a narrow sense - a historically specific type of social system, a certain form of social relations. 3) a group of persons united by common moral and ethical norms (foundations) [source not specified 115 days].

In a number of species of living organisms, individual individuals do not have the necessary abilities or properties to ensure their material life (consumption of matter, accumulation of matter, reproduction). Such living organisms form communities, temporary or permanent, to ensure their material life. There are communities that actually represent a single organism: a swarm, an anthill, etc. In them, there is a division between members of the community of biological functions. Individuals of such organisms outside the community die. There are temporary communities, flocks, herds, as a rule, individuals solve this or that problem without forming strong ties. There are communities called populations. As a rule, they are formed in a limited area. A common property of all communities is the task of preserving this type of living organism.

The human community is called society. It is characterized by the fact that members of the community occupy a certain territory, conduct joint collective productive activities. There is a distribution of the jointly produced product in the community.

Society is a society that is characterized by the production and social division of labor. Society can be characterized by many features: for example, by nationality: French, Russian, German; according to state and cultural characteristics, according to territorial and temporal, according to the mode of production, etc. In the history of social philosophy, the following paradigms for interpreting society can be distinguished:

Identification of society with the organism and an attempt to explain social life by biological laws. In the 20th century, the concept of organicism fell out of favor;

The concept of society as a product of an arbitrary agreement of individuals (see Social contract, Rousseau, Jean-Jacques);

Anthropological principle of considering society and man as part of nature (Spinoza, Diderot, etc.). Only a society that corresponded to the true, high, unchanging nature of man was recognized as worthy of existence. In modern conditions, the most complete substantiation of philosophical anthropology is given by Scheler;

The theory of social action that arose in the 20s of the XX century (Understanding sociology). According to this theory, the basis of social relations is the establishment of "meaning" (understanding) of the intentions and goals of each other's actions. The main thing in the interaction between people is their awareness of common goals and objectives and that the action is adequately understood by other participants in the social relationship;

Functionalist approach (Parsons, Merton). Society is seen as a system.

Holistic approach. Society is considered as an integral cyclic system, functioning naturally on the basis of both a linear state control mechanism using internal energy-information resources, and external non-linear coordination of a certain structure (cathedral society) with an influx of external energy.

Human knowledge is subject to general laws. However, the features of the object of knowledge determine its specificity. There are character traits and social knowledge, which is inherent in social philosophy. It should, of course, be borne in mind that in the strict sense of the word, all knowledge has a social, social character. However, in this context, we are talking about social cognition proper, in the narrow sense of the word, when it is expressed in a system of knowledge about society at its various levels and in various aspects.

The specificity of this type of cognition lies primarily in the fact that the object here is the activity of the subjects of cognition themselves. That is, people themselves are both subjects of knowledge and real actors. In addition, the object of cognition is also the interaction between the object and the subject of cognition. In other words, in contrast to the sciences of nature, technical and other sciences, in the very object of social cognition, its subject is also initially present.

Further, society and man, on the one hand, act as part of nature. On the other hand, these are the creations of both society itself and man himself, the objectified results of their activities. Both social and individual forces operate in society, both material and ideal, objective and subjective factors; in it, both feelings, passions, and reason matter; both conscious and unconscious, rational and irrational aspects of human life. Within society itself, its various structures and elements seek to satisfy their own needs, interests, and goals. This complexity of social life, its diversity and heterogeneity determine the complexity and difficulty of social cognition and its specificity in relation to other types of cognition.

To the difficulties of social cognition, explained by objective reasons, i.e., reasons that have grounds in the specifics of the object, there are also difficulties associated with the subject of cognition. Ultimately, such a subject is the person himself, although he is involved in public relations and scientific communities, but he has his own individual experience and intellect, interests and values, needs and passions, etc. Thus, when characterizing social cognition, one should also keep in mind its personal factor.

Finally, it is necessary to note the socio-historical conditionality of social cognition, including the level of development of the material and spiritual life of society, its social structure and the interests that dominate it.

A specific combination of all these factors and aspects of the specifics of social cognition determines the diversity of points of view and theories that explain the development and functioning of social life. At the same time, this specificity largely determines the nature and characteristics of various aspects of social cognition: ontological, epistemological, and value (axiological).

1. The ontological (from the Greek on (ontos) - being) side of social cognition concerns the explanation of the existence of society, the laws and trends of its functioning and development. At the same time, it also affects such a subject of social life as a person, to the extent that he is included in the system of social relations. In the aspect under consideration, the above complexity of social life, as well as its dynamism, in combination with the personal element of social cognition, are the objective basis for the diversity of points of view on the issue of the essence of people's social existence.2. The epistemological (from the Greek gnosis - knowledge) side of social cognition is connected with the peculiarities of this cognition itself, primarily with the question of whether it is capable of formulating its own laws and categories and whether it has them at all. In other words, we are talking about whether social cognition can claim the truth and have the status of science? The answer to this question largely depends on the position of the scientist on the ontological problem of social cognition, that is, on whether the objective existence of society and the presence of objective laws in it are recognized. As in cognition in general, in social cognition, ontology largely determines epistemology.3. In addition to the ontological and epistemological aspects of social cognition, there is also a value-axiological side of it (from the Greek axios - valuable), which plays an important role in understanding its specifics, since any knowledge, and especially social, is associated with certain value patterns, addictions and interests of various knowing subjects. The value approach manifests itself from the very beginning of cognition - from the choice of the object of study. This choice is made by a specific subject with his life and cognitive experience, individual goals and objectives. In addition, value prerequisites and priorities largely determine not only the choice of the object of cognition, but also its forms and methods, as well as the specifics of interpreting the results of social cognition.

The way the researcher sees the object, what he comprehends in it and how he evaluates it, follows from the value prerequisites of cognition. The difference in value positions determines the difference in the results and conclusions of knowledge.

Human knowledge is subject to general laws. However, the features of the object of knowledge determine its specificity. Social cognition, which is inherent in social philosophy, has its own characteristic features. It should, of course, be borne in mind that in the strict sense of the word, all knowledge has a social, social character. However, in this context, we are talking about social cognition proper, in the narrow sense of the word, when it is expressed in a system of knowledge about society at its various levels and in various aspects.
The specificity of this type of cognition lies primarily in the fact that the object here is the activity of the subjects of cognition themselves. That is, people themselves are both subjects of knowledge and real actors. In addition, the object of cognition is also the interaction between the object and the subject of cognition. In other words, in contrast to the sciences of nature, technical and other sciences, in the very object of social cognition, its subject is also initially present.
Further, society and man, on the one hand, act as part of nature. On the other hand, these are the creations of both society itself and man himself, the objectified results of their activities. Both social and individual forces operate in society, both material and ideal, objective and subjective factors; in it, both feelings, passions, and reason matter; both conscious and unconscious, rational and irrational aspects of human life. Within society itself, its various structures and elements seek to satisfy their own needs, interests, and goals. This complexity of social life, its diversity and heterogeneity determine the complexity and difficulty of social cognition and its specificity in relation to other types of cognition.
To the difficulties of social cognition, explained by objective reasons, i.e., reasons that have grounds in the specifics of the object, there are also difficulties associated with the subject of cognition. Ultimately, such a subject is the person himself, although he is involved in public relations and scientific communities, but he has his own individual experience and intellect, interests and values, needs and passions, etc. Thus, when characterizing social cognition, one should also keep in mind its personal factor.
Finally, it is necessary to note the socio-historical conditionality of social cognition, including the level of development of the material and spiritual life of society, its social structure and the interests that dominate it.
A specific combination of all these factors and aspects of the specifics of social cognition determines the diversity of points of view and theories that explain the development and functioning of social life. At the same time, this specificity largely determines the nature and characteristics of various aspects of social cognition: ontological, epistemological, and value (axiological).
1.ontological(from the Greek on (ontos) - being) the side of social cognition concerns the explanation of the existence of society, the laws and trends of its functioning and development. At the same time, it also affects such a subject of social life as a person, to the extent that he is included in the system of social relations. In the aspect under consideration, the above complexity of social life, as well as its dynamism, in combination with the personal element of social cognition, are the objective basis for the diversity of points of view on the essence of people's social existence.
That this is indeed so is evidenced both by the history of social cognition itself and by its current state. Suffice it to note that various authors take such heterogeneous factors as the basis of the existence of society and human activity, such as the idea of ​​justice (Plato), the divine plan (Augustine the Blessed), absolute reason (Hegel), the economic factor (K. Marx), the struggle of the "instinct of life "and" death instinct "(eros and thanatos) among themselves and with civilization (3. Freud), "relics" (V. Pareto), "social character" (E. Fromm), "folk spirit" (M. Latsarius, X. Steinthal), geographical environment (Sh. Montesquieu, P. Chaadaev).
Each of these points of view, and many more could be named, reflects one or another side of the existence of society. However, the task of social science, which is social philosophy, does not consist in simply fixing various kinds of factors of social life, but in discovering the objective patterns and trends of its functioning and development. But here we are faced with the main question when it comes to social cognition: do these objective laws and tendencies exist in society?
From the answer to it follows the answer about the possibility of social science itself. If objective laws of social life exist, then, consequently, a social science is also possible. If there are no such laws in society, then there can be no scientific knowledge about society, because science deals with laws. There is no unambiguous answer to this question today.
Pointing to the complexity of social cognition and its object, for example, such followers of I. Kant as W. Windelband and G. Rickert argued that there are no objective laws in society and cannot be, because here all phenomena are individual, unique, and, consequently, there are no objective laws in society that fix only stable, necessary and recurring connections between phenomena and processes. The followers of the neo-Kantians went even further and declared that that society itself exists only as our idea of ​​it, as a "world of concepts", and not as an objective reality. Representatives of this point of view essentially identify the object (in this case society and social phenomena in general) and the results of social cognition.
In fact human society(like the person himself) has an objective, primarily natural, basis. It also arises and develops objectively, that is, regardless of who cognizes it and how, regardless of the specific subject of cognition. Otherwise, there would be no general line of development in history at all.
This, of course, does not mean that the development of social knowledge does not affect the development of society at all. However, when considering this issue, it is important to see the dialectical interaction of the object and subject of cognition, the leading role of the main objective factors in the development of society. It is also necessary to highlight the patterns that arise as a result of the action of these factors.
These main objective social factors underlying any society include, first of all, the level and nature of the economic development of society, the material interests and needs of people. Not only an individual, but the whole of humanity, before engaging in knowledge, satisfying their spiritual needs, must satisfy their primary, material needs. Certain social, political and ideological structures also arise only on a certain economic basis. For example, the modern political structure of society could not have arisen in a primitive economy. Although, of course, one cannot deny the mutual influence of various factors on community development, starting from the geographical environment and ending with subjective ideas about the world.
2.epistemological(from the Greek gnosis - knowledge) the side of social cognition is connected with the features of this cognition itself, primarily with the question of whether it is able to formulate its own laws and categories and whether it has them at all. In other words, we are talking about whether social cognition can claim the truth and have the status of science? The answer to this question largely depends on the position of the scientist on the ontological problem of social cognition, that is, on whether the objective existence of society and the presence of objective laws in it are recognized. As in cognition in general, in social cognition, ontology largely determines epistemology.
The epistemological side of social cognition also includes the solution of such problems:
- how is the knowledge of social phenomena carried out;
- what are the possibilities of their knowledge and what are the boundaries of knowledge;
- the role of social practice in social cognition and the importance in this of the personal experience of the cognizing subject;
- the role of various kinds of sociological research and social experiments in social cognition.
An important issue is the possibility human mind in the knowledge of the spiritual world of man and society, the culture of certain peoples. In this regard, there are problems of the possibilities of logical and intuitive knowledge phenomena of public life, including the psychological states of large groups of people as manifestations of their mass consciousness. The problems of the so-called "common sense" and mythological thinking are not without meaning in relation to the analysis of the phenomena of social life and their understanding.
3. In addition to the ontological and epistemological aspects of social cognition, there is also value - axiological its side (from the Greek axios - valuable), which plays an important role in understanding its specificity, since any knowledge, and especially social, is associated with certain value patterns, preferences and interests of various cognizing subjects. The value approach manifests itself from the very beginning of knowledge - from the choice of the object of study. This choice is made by a specific subject with his life and cognitive experience, individual goals and objectives. In addition, value prerequisites and priorities largely determine not only the choice of the object of cognition, but also its forms and methods, as well as the specifics of interpreting the results of social cognition.
The way the researcher sees the object, what he comprehends in it and how he evaluates it, follows from the value prerequisites of cognition. The difference in value positions determines the difference in the results and conclusions of knowledge.
In connection with what has been said, the question arises: what then is to be done with objective truth? After all, values ​​are ultimately personified, have a personal character. The answer to this question is ambiguous for different authors. Some believe that the existence of a value element in social cognition is incompatible with the recognition of the social sciences. Others take the opposite view. It seems that the latter are right.
Indeed, the value approach itself is inherent not only in social cognition, the "sciences of culture", but also in all cognition, including the "sciences of nature". However, on this basis, no one denies the existence of the latter. Actual same side showing compatibility value aspect social cognition with social science, lies in the fact that this science explores primarily the objective laws and trends in the development of society. And in this regard, the value prerequisites will not determine the development and functioning of the object of study of various social phenomena, but only the nature and specifics of the study itself. The object itself remains the same, regardless of how we know it and whether we know it at all.
Thus, the value side of social cognition does not at all deny the possibility of scientific cognition of society and the existence of social sciences. Moreover, it contributes to the consideration of society, individual social phenomena in different aspects and from different positions. Thus, a more concrete, multilateral and complete description of social phenomena occurs and, consequently, a more scientific explanation social life. The main thing is to reveal the inner essence and pattern of development of social phenomena and processes on the basis of different points of view and approaches, positions and opinions, which is the main task of the social sciences.
The ontological, epistemological and axiological aspects of social cognition are closely interconnected, forming an integral structure of people's cognitive activity.

3. Main tasks and ways of formation rule of law in Ukraine An important stage in the formation of independence of Ukraine, the development of signs of its independent statehood was the adoption by the Supreme Council of Ukraine on June 28, 1996 of the Constitution of Ukraine. How political and legal an act of extreme importance and long-term effect, it represents the foundation of not only modern, but also future democratic transformations in public relations, the basis for the formation of the legal system of Ukrainian civil society, a social, legal state, and its national legislation. It can be argued that the fundamental constitutional foundations of the legal field of the economic and political functioning of society, the relationship between the state, society and the person (person, citizen) have been laid. As the Basic Law of Ukraine, the Constitution not only outlines the contours of a civilized social, rule of law state and acts as the main source of current lawmaking, but also legally consolidates such democratic values ​​and principles that will still need to be introduced into the practice of national lawmaking and law enforcement. This, firstly, determines the main features and characteristics of the process of direct implementation of democratic legal ideas and norms of the Constitution into the life of Ukrainian society, since the degree of real democracy of any constitution can only be verified through the practical application of its norms. Secondly, this predetermines the relevance of developing a new paradigm of domestic legal science, its jurisprudence and state studies. It is known that at one time the social function of Soviet legal science was reduced by the authorities primarily to supporting and protecting the interests of the state, and jurisprudence carefully professed, mainly, a normative approach to law, considering it only as an element of the superstructure, integral to the state, the product and tool of the latter. , the basis and instrument for the implementation of class domination in state forms. Marxist-Leninist teaching proceeded from the interpretation of the state as an apparatus of class domination and suppression. Hence the derivatives were the ideas that law is freedom, the law of the ruling class, which received its expression in legal form; law is a form of expression for the use of violence, and the like. The point of view is fair that just the identification in theory and legal practice of law exclusively with the norms that are issued by state bodies is nothing more than one of the signs of a totalitarian political regime, the elevation of the state over society, the humiliation of democracy. And it must be admitted that the legal legacy of the Soviet period has not yet been overcome, when the law legally consolidated the actual dictatorship of the state party nomenklatura, the dominance of administrative-command methods of management in the economy and the legitimate basis of the totalitarian regime in society. The conceptual core of the modern legal paradigm should be the definition of the priority place and role of a person and a citizen in civil law and state-power relations, as well as in the system of legal categories, understanding the state as a political function of civil society, which should exercise real control over public life, and law as a specific function of law and the state. Hence, a qualitatively new legal understanding is needed, an awareness of the complex nature of the dialectical relationship between law and law, the compliance of the latter with moral requirements. As for the constructive-critical study and practical use of world experience in the legal development of a democratic society in the formation of the national paradigm of law, it undoubtedly deserves attention. However, it should be borne in mind that specific historical legal facts, events, and the like should be looked at only as possible analogues, options for solving certain social problems that have already been implemented by one measure or another. Legal concepts that are used in legal science and practice are as unstable in their essence and content as mobile, dynamic real life processes. Therefore, as it turns out, it is incorrect with scientific point from a pragmatic point of view, both to “modernize” the history of law and draw conclusions about the events of the distant past on the basis of the legal views of the late 20th century, modern ideas about good and evil, and blindly transfer old and foreign legal experience and knowledge to modern national soil, not having decided on the specific features of the specific historical legal state of our society. In this understanding, it can be argued that Hegel was right when he wrote: “... Experience and history teach that peoples and governments have never learned anything from history and have not acted in accordance with the teachings that could be received from it. In each epoch such special circumstances arise that each epoch is such an individual state that in this epoch it is necessary and possible to take only such decisions as follow precisely from this state... The pale memories of the past have no power against vitality and freedom. modernity". It is impossible to compensate for the absence in Ukraine of a real democratic socio-cultural, legal environment by an attempt to derive and apply legal categories and concepts not from their own legal experience, but from the scientific and practical experience of developed democracies, where the historical natural evolutionary development of market relations was synchronously correlated with the formation of civil society and the rule of law state, corresponding to the level of development. At the same time, it is incorrect to refer to the export estimates of Western legal scholars, whose knowledge and experience are based on research on legal relations and problems that are far from adequate to the essence, content and characteristics of social relations and problems of the transition period in Ukraine. New social realities require not just the administrative and political abolition of the former Soviet law, reform, improvement of the system inherited from former USSR legal system. It is known that, in principle, it is possible to reform or modernize (improve external manifestations, signs of an object) any social object of transformation only if it has the potential for positive development in its basic structure, and does not represent (as in our case) a disintegrating social cultural matter that has not stood the historical test of time. Today, we should talk about replacing, on the basis of the Constitution of Ukraine, the inherited system of law, the transformation of all components of the legal system, their relationships: legal culture and consciousness, ideology, legal science, legal policy and legal practice, and the like. And, of course, we should talk about creating a qualitatively new system of national legislation, about increasing the role of the law-making process in the life of society and the functioning of the state. In this regard, it is appropriate to listen to the words of Professor of Law, Academician of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences B. Kistyakovsky, who back in 1909, analyzing the essence of the process of law formation, emphasized that “the old law cannot simply be abolished, since its abolition has effect only then when it is replaced by a new right. On the contrary, the simple abolition of the old right only leads to the fact that it does not seem to work temporarily, but then it is restored in all its strength. The fixing by the legislator in the Constitution of Ukraine of the foundations of democratic social freedoms in society, gives rise to the need not only to expand the legal space, develop organizational and legal mechanisms for their implementation, create not just “quantitatively new” legislation, but “qualitatively new” - legal legislation, its system, which would meet the general needs of the Ukrainian people in the democratic political and economic development of society. In this system, each law should not only be organically connected with others, but also meet both the objective needs of social life and, most importantly, the real possibilities of satisfying them, should not only take into account the priorities of universal legal values, but also the characteristics of the national, cultural and social -class nature of social relations, should include the achievements of legal science and legislative technology.

Conclusion

Thus, at present, the rule of law acts more as a constitutional principle, a slogan and has not yet received its full implementation in any country. Closer than others to the implementation of this idea in practice came, for example, such states as Germany, France, Switzerland, the United States and others. The current Ukrainian society is still far from achieving the ideals of the rule of law, but it is necessary to move in this direction. Overcoming various difficulties and obstacles, Ukraine will find its own image of a legal state that will correspond to its history, traditions and culture, which will allow it to become a truly free democratic society. In conclusion, it should be noted that the idea of ​​a rule of law arose and was formed several centuries ago. For a long time, the theoretical and practical side of the formation of a rule of law state was polished. The greatest success in building a rule of law state was achieved by countries where, along with the equal existence of forms of ownership, a developed civil society was formed. From the point of view of the theory of state and law, the rule of law has a clearly defined definition, features, common features, foundations and factors of existence. Thus, the rule of law is a democratic state where the rule of law, the rule of law, the equality of all before the law and an independent court are ensured, where human rights and freedoms are recognized and guaranteed, and where the organization is based state power the principle of separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers. At present, the foundations for the formation of a rule of law state have been laid and are developing in Ukraine. But in the practical implementation of the proclaimed idea, there are many objective and subjective reasons that hinder the formation of a rule of law state in Ukraine. Objective reasons, first of all, are due to the historically established legal culture, features of the national character. The subjective reasons are determined by the political lack of will and corruption of the country's leadership at all levels. However, building a legal state in Ukraine is possible. This process will take many years, but only with the consolidation of all the creative forces of society and with a responsible civil position of each person.

Comprehensive development of the individual is such a development of the wealth of social culture, with which the work of each member of the society turns into a holistic activity, into amateur activity (Communist labor), and each person becomes an amateur and creative person. This is possible only as a result of overcoming such a social division of labor, which disfigures a person, turns him into an executor of a narrow labor function assigned to him, thereby making him one-sided, “partial”. Characterizing communism as a society that presupposes the development of "individuals into integral individuals", Marx and Engels emphasized that this is not an arbitrary utopian ideal, but a real resolution of the real contradictions of the division of labor system (vol. 3, pp. 68-69). Under capitalism, the splitting and fragmentation of human activity has created a mass of professional occupations, devoid not only of creativity, but in general of any content and meaning. Functions of this kind (for example, formal bureaucratic ones), generated by antagonistic social relations, represent those aspects of labor that are incompatible with the activities of a holistic, communist person, subject and creator of social relations. Overcoming these aspects of human activity, turning it into a meaningful and creative process does not mean at all that each person must be able to and know everything that other people can and know, which is the property of the society as a whole. Indeed, this is impossible: the progress of the productive forces gives rise to a proliferating wealth of specialization. But under communism, this will be a specialization of activity, in which there is no separation between physical and mental, performing and managerial labor, as well as professional consolidation of occupations, the opposition between working and free (more precisely, provided at individual disposal) time, the gap between cognitive, artistic and moral culture. This is achieved not by a mechanical combination and concentration in one person of all and any labor functions, specialties, etc., but by the development of a genuine all-roundness of a person, which makes independent administrative-control, distribution, security, etc. functions unnecessary, standing above the people. The person himself, in the process of labor, masters these functions, including them in his integral activity as auxiliary functions, thereby becoming a universal and creative subject. If even under capitalism large-scale industry, the overflow of capital, etc. factors require “the greatest possible versatility of the workers” (Marx K., Engels F., vol. 23, p. 499), then the communist formation requires not just versatility, but integrity, harmonious development of man. Main the principle of communism "is the complete and free development of each individual" (K. Marx, F. Engels, vol. 23, p. 605).

INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY

The problem of man in philosophy. Concepts: "person", "personality", individuality.

Dialectics of the relationship between the social environment and personality. Social and biological in individual human development and in antisocial behavior.

Historical necessity and individual freedom. Freedom and responsibility, rights and obligations of the individual.

The question of the nature (essence) of man, his origin and purpose, the place of man in the world is one of the main problems in the history of philosophical thought.

The problem of man was indicated, albeit in an undeveloped form, already in philosophy ancient world. In this era, cosmocentrism dominated as a type of philosophical thinking. Everything that exists was considered as a single and immense Cosmos, and man was thought of as its organic part. It was assumed that a person is not free, because the world huge and mysterious, and often hostile. The ideal existence of a person is to live in harmony with this world.

In almost all ancient philosophical thought, wisdom was discussed as the ability of a person to live in harmony with nature, the Cosmos. At this time, the foundations of humanism were laid - an ideological trend that considers a person as a unique being, the highest value and goal of society.

In the philosophy of the Middle Ages, theocentrism dominated as a type of worldview, represented in all forms of social consciousness of that era. God was considered at that time the center of the universe, and man was only one of his many creations.

The meaning of human life consists in comprehending the divine, approaching it, and thereby saving oneself. Man does not believe in himself, he believes in God.

The philosophy of the Middle Ages, to a greater extent than the ancient one, drew attention to the inner (spiritual) world of man. Thus, the prerequisites were created for the separation of man from the external (natural) world and the gradual opposition to it.

Unlike the Middle Ages, the philosophy of the Renaissance turned a person into an object of worship, worship. At this time, anthropocentrism was established as a specific type of philosophical worldview, a transition was made from a religious to a secular understanding of man. The humanistic orientation of philosophy laid down in antiquity was revived. The philosophy of the Renaissance affirmed the idea of ​​the omnipotence and omnipotence of man.

The Renaissance, with its spirit of anthropocentrism, not only raised man above the rest of the living world, but also sowed in him the seeds of pride and boundless individualism. Along with the philosophical thought of that time emphasized that man is a product of the surrounding nature, and not the result of his own activity.

In general, the philosophical anthropology of the Renaissance is characterized by the opposition of man to nature. Man is placed above nature.

In the philosophy of modern times, a person was studied from the standpoint of a mechanism as a philosophical worldview. It was believed that man, like the outside world, is also a mechanism, a complex machine. This machine is a product of nature, the fruit of its long evolution. The main quality in a person is his intelligence. Man's calling is to change the world with the power of knowledge.

In German classical philosophy, an activity approach to understanding a person was established. He was studied as an exclusively spiritual being, the creator of history and the world of culture (I. Herder, I. Kant, G. Hegel, I. Fichte). The history of society was considered as the history of the formation of the freedom of the human race through its activities. The ultimate goal of history is humanism as a state of humanity, overcoming alienation and gaining freedom. I.Kant founded anthropology - the doctrine of man. Hegel shared Kant's anthropology, strove for the knowledge of a holistic person, his spiritual nature. L. Feuerbach made man the subject of his philosophy, created a human religion.

Classical Marxism considered a person in the context of the totality of social relations and the history of mankind. The central ideas of Marxism are the idea of ​​human sociality, social entity man, understood materialistically and concretely historically (the essence of man is the totality of social relations).

Russian religious philosophy everything is anthropological in its content, it is addressed primarily to the human soul. God and man, the meaning of history, good and evil - all these are the most important topics for this philosophy. The main problem for her is the improvement of man. Russian religious philosophy has always called a person to asceticism and the search for truth, to self-improvement and the acquisition of high morality, expressed in conscience.

The highest vocation of a person is to create and transform this world, to bring love, beauty, goodness, and other high spiritual and moral values ​​into it. Russian philosophy has always been morally oriented, so it was very interested in the theme of freedom and human creativity. She raised and resolved questions about the meaning of life, death and immortality of man. Ultimately, she saw the vocation of man in achieving harmony in the world by overcoming selfishness, multiplying love for all living things.

In foreign philosophy of the twentieth century. also took place big interest to the subject of man. important place in modern philosophy the topic of global problems of modern civilization and the human condition in connection with the crisis situation in the world took over.

In the 20s-30s of the twentieth century. in Western Europe Existentialism arose as a "philosophy of human existence." The main theme in this philosophy was the theme of human existence in the alienated world of social relations. The existentialists taught that a person is doomed to be free if he does not want to die as a person, spiritually. The world and a person have a future only if a person finds the strength in himself not to die, but to create this world, making it more humane.

Modern scientific philosophy, a systematic, scientific, integrated approach operates with a variety of scientific knowledge about a person. But the synthesis of scientific knowledge does not give an image of a whole person, an understanding of his living substance. Man is not only a material and social system that can be studied and measured, but a spiritual universe, a unique world governed by values ​​and meanings, which omnipotent science fails to detect.

An appeal to the history of philosophical thought shows that the theme of man is, firstly, enduring. Secondly, it is comprehended from various ideological positions, due to specific historical and other reasons. Thirdly, questions about the essence and nature of man, the meaning of his existence, remain unchanged in the history of philosophy.

To study a person as a very complex object of scientific knowledge, philosophical thought has developed a number of concepts that allow a fairly complete and detailed answer to the question of the essence and nature of man, the meaning of his existence.

First of all, man is the highest level of living organisms on earth, the subject of socio-historical activity and culture. concept man - concept generic, expressing the common features of the human race, a socialized person. This concept combines the biological and general social features of a person.

To study an individual in philosophy and other sciences, the concept of "individual" is used. Individuality refers to the original, unique features and qualities inherent in this individual.

Personality is the social qualities of an individual acquired by him in the process of education and self-education, spiritual and practical activities and interaction with society. Personality has primarily spiritual qualities. Personality is not given to a person from outside, it can be formed only by him. The true personality is not a frozen phenomenon, it is all dynamic. Personality is always creativity, victory and defeat, search and acquisition, overcoming slavery and gaining freedom.

Personality always bears the stamp of a particular era. The modern personality is characterized by a high level of education, social activity, pragmatism and heuristics, purposefulness. Modern man is a man who has mastered democratic and human values and ideals. He does not separate his fate from the fate of his people and society as a whole.

By nature, man is an active, active being. To a large extent, he creates own life and fate, he is the author of history and the world of culture. Activity in its various forms (labor, politics, knowledge, education, etc.) is a way of human existence as a person, the creator of a new world. In the course of it, he changes not only the world around him, but also his own nature. All the qualities and abilities of people are of a concrete historical nature, i.e. they change in the course of activity. In this regard, K. Marx noticed that all five external senses of a person were created by the history of labor and industry. Thanks to activity, a person is a plastic, flexible creature. He is eternal an unfinished opportunity, he is always in search and in action, in a breakthrough of his restless spiritual and physical energy.

A person has a mechanism of not only biological, but also social inheritance. Social inheritance is carried out in society in the course of socialization. Socialization is the process of becoming a person, which occurs primarily with the help of education as a special type of activity.

Man has a collective way of life. Only within the framework of such activity can he form and develop his qualities. The richness of a person's mind and emotional world, the breadth of his views, interests and needs largely depend on the breadth of his communication and interaction with other people.

A person also has a number of other qualities. People know how to create tools and constantly improve them. They are able, based on the norms of morality, to regulate their own relationships.

There is also a biosocial problem in the philosophical study of man. She has great importance for the practice of education, since it characterizes the nature of man.

The biosocial problem is the problem of the correlation and interaction of the social and biological, acquired and inherited, "cultural" and "wild" in man.

Under the biological in a person, it is customary to understand the anatomy of his body, the physiological processes in it. The biological forms the natural forces of man as a living being. The biological affects the individuality of a person, the development of some of his abilities - observation, forms of reaction to the outside world. All these forces are transmitted from parents and give a person the very possibility of existence in the world.

Under the social in a person, philosophy understands, first of all, his ability to think and act practically. This includes spirituality, and attitude to the outside world, citizenship. All this together constitutes the social forces of man. They are acquired by him in society through the mechanisms of socialization, i.e. familiarization with the world of culture as a crystallization of the spiritual and practical experience of mankind, and are realized in the course of a variety of activities.

There are three positions on the question of the relationship between the social and the biological.

The first approach is a biological interpretation of a person (S. Freud, F. Galton). The main in a person is proposed to be considered his natural qualities. Everything that is in the behavior and actions of people - all this is due to their hereditary genetic data.

The second approach is predominantly a sociological interpretation of a person (T. More, T. Campanella). Its supporters either completely deny the biological principle in man, or clearly underestimate its significance.

The third approach in solving the biosocial problem tries to avoid the above mentioned extremes. This position is characterized by the desire to consider a person as a complex synthesis, an interweaving of biological and social principles. It is recognized that a person simultaneously lives according to the laws of two worlds - natural and social. But it is emphasized that the basic qualities (the ability to think and act practically) still have a social origin.

In the twentieth century the biological principle in a person changes very quickly under the active influence of adverse social, technological and environmental factors. These changes are increasingly negative.

Natural in man necessary condition development in the individual of his social qualities. The essence of the biosocial problem is that a person, in order to remain a person, must preserve his biological nature as the basis of existence. The task is to combine the natural and the social in a person, to bring them into a state of agreement and harmony.

The essential forces of a person create all the necessary subjective possibilities for him to be free, i.e. act in the world as you please. They allow him to put himself and the world under reasonable control, stand out from this world and expand the scope of his own activities. It is in this opportunity to be free that the origins of all the triumphs and tragedies of man, all his ups and downs are rooted.

Freedom was considered in correlation with necessity (laws), with arbitrariness, anarchy, equality and justice. The range of human freedoms was also studied: political, economic, spiritual, cognitive and other freedom. The positive outcome of these reflections is that freedom cannot be a purely negative, empty concept, an arbitrary choice, a fact that violates the laws of nature and social life.

By the logic of his existence and the nature of his own activity, each person is immersed in the flow of history. The existence of a person in this stream is contradictory, ambiguous. Man is free and unfree.

A person is not free, because there is an external world that persistently dictates to people the choice of forms and methods of activity, their sequence. He is not free, since there are always restrictions on his activity - the level of physical strength and mental abilities, technical capabilities, the nature of the social system, etc. He is not free also because there is the so-called alienation of man, which manifests itself at all times and exists in various forms.

Alienation means that the products of human activity get out of his control and turn into an external force beyond his control. Alienation means alienation, the appearance of the world and even its hostility. Alienation is, as it were, the loss of the world by man and the transformation of this world into an inhuman world. The problem of alienation is an eternal problem for human society.

However, the person is free. Freedom is a person's independent control of his own destiny, the choice of his life path. In short, freedom is non-slavery, the emancipation of man. It means his liberation from the dictates of external forces and circumstances, both natural and social. Freedom implies the ability to act in accordance with one's interests and ideas.

Freedom is a fundamental value for a person, but it must have limits. Otherwise, it will turn into arbitrariness, self-will and anarchy, into tyranny and violence against other people, i.e. into negative freedom. The boundaries of freedom are the interests of another person, social groups and society as a whole, as well as nature as the natural basis for the existence of society.

If the interests of the individual and society coincide in gaining freedom, the concept of freedom should be supplemented by the idea of ​​regulating people's activities. The state should do this not by means of violence and coercion, but with the help of an economic mechanism and strict observance of human rights. The state is obliged to guarantee the observance of human rights, recognizing that the value of the human person is higher than any values ​​of a nation, class, group of people, etc. This is a guarantee against totalitarian suppression of human rights. Ignoring or belittling the rights of the individual leads to inevitable degradation, both of the individual and society.

Freedom is impossible without the responsibility and duty of a person to the world in which he exists. Responsibility is the inevitable price of freedom, the payment for it. Freedom requires from a person reason, morality and will, without which it will inevitably degenerate into arbitrariness and violence against other people, into the destruction of the surrounding world. The measure of a person's responsibility is always specific, within the limits of his competence and range of possibilities.

Culture is material and spiritual values. By value is meant the definition of one or another object of material or spiritual reality, highlighting its positive or negative value for man and mankind. Real facts, events, properties are not only perceived, cognized by us, but also evaluated, causing in us a feeling of participation, admiration, love, or, on the contrary, a feeling of hatred or contempt. These various pleasures and displeasures constitute precisely what is called taste, such as: good, pleasant, beautiful, delicate, tender, graceful, noble, majestic, sublime, hidden, sacred, etc. We, for example, experience pleasure at “the sight of an object useful to us, we call it good; when it gives us pleasure to contemplate an object devoid of immediate utility, we call it beautiful. This or that thing has a certain value in our eyes due not only to its objective properties, but also to our attitude towards it, which integrates both the perception of these properties and the peculiarities of our tastes.

Thus, it can be said that value-it is a subjective-objective reality. That is why, arguing that they don’t argue about tastes, people actually argue about them all their lives, defending the right to priority and objectivity of their own taste. Everyone calls pleasant what gives him pleasure, beautiful - what he only likes, good - what he appreciates, approves, that is, what he sees as an objective value. Needless to say how significant value judgments for a reasonable orientation of a person in life.

Each thing involved in the circulation of public and private life or created by a person, in addition to its physical, also has a social being: it performs a human function historically assigned to it and therefore has a social value, for example, a table is not just a board resting on four legs, but the thing, sitting behind which, people eat or work. Values ​​are not only material, but also spiritual: works of art, achievements of science, philosophy, moral standards, etc. The concept of value expresses the social essence of the existence of material and spiritual culture. If something material or spiritual acts as a value, this means that it is somehow included in the conditions of the social life of the individual, performs a certain function in its relationship with nature and social reality. People constantly evaluate everything they deal with in terms of their tastes, needs, interests. Our attitude to the world is always evaluative. And this assessment can be objective, correct, progressive or false, reactionary. In our worldview scientific knowledge world and the value attitude towards it are inseparable unity. Thus, the concept of value is inseparable from the concept of culture.

The social purpose of science is to facilitate the life and work of people, to increase the reasonable power of society over nature, to contribute to the improvement of social relations, the harmonization of the human personality. Modern science, thanks to its discoveries and inventions, has done a lot to make life and work easier for people. Scientific discoveries and inventions have led to an increase in labor productivity and an increase in the mass of goods. But the treasures of science have not yet brought happiness to the same extent to all people. "Science is a double-edged almighty weapon, which, depending on whose hands it is in, can serve either to the happiness and good of people, or to their death." Science without man is powerless; moreover, science without man is aimless. It is necessary not only to promote the development of the sciences themselves, their mutual enrichment and greater practical returns, but also to ensure that their achievements are adequately perceived by a person whose development of social activity is a decisive condition for social progress. Most discoveries and inventions have two sides - fruitful and destructive - and because of this, they are fraught with great opportunities and dangers. It all depends on who and how they will be used.

1 Vavilov SI. Collected works. M., 1956. T. 3. S. 607.

I. Kant, being himself an outstanding scientist, treated both science and scientists with restraint and criticism. Following J.J. Rousseau, he saw the contradiction of social, including scientific progress, he was afraid of the accumulation of knowledge without taking into account whether they bring benefits to a person. History shows that even at a time when the gloomy consequences of scientific discoveries were not so obvious, individual thinkers felt the fatal danger lurking in them. Deep reflections are suggested by the thought expressed by the brothers E. and J. Goncourt: “It was said that Vertelot predicted that after a hundred years of scientific development, a person will know what an atom is and will be able to moderate the sunlight at will, extinguish it and re-ignite it Claude Bernard, for his part, declared that after a hundred years of study of physiology, it would be possible to manage human life and create people. We did not object, but we think that when the world comes to this, the old white-bearded God will descend to earth, with a bunch of keys, and will say to mankind: "Gentlemen, we close!" .

2 E. Goncourt and J. de. A diary. M., 1964. T. 1. S. 623.

Until recently, scientists did not think about the dramatic and tragic consequences of their discoveries. Each increment of scientific knowledge was regarded as a blessing and was justified in advance. After Hiroshima, the situation changed: the problem of moral value arose scientific discovery, which can be used to harm humanity. It turned out that truth does not exist outside of goodness, outside of value criteria. Aesthetically developed person they open up more. A new understanding of truth arose: truth is not just reliable knowledge, but something more. He who advances in the sciences, but lags behind in morality, goes more backward than forward.

Mankind is now at a turning point in its history, when the solution of a truly Hamletian question depends on it: to be or not to be? A fatal challenge for the fate of mankind was such a level of knowledge, mastery and "control" of man over nature, which made it possible to detonate an atomic bomb, thereby opening up the ominous prospect of a suicidal nuclear missile world war and giving rise to an arch-global (among other global problems that have already been faced by mankind) problem - the problem of war and peace. Not only good, but also evil developed in the world. Unfortunately, evil is being perfected and under certain conditions turns out to be, in the words of A. Toynbee, Moloch, devouring an increasing and increasing share of the increasing products of human industry and intellect in the process of collecting an increasing duty from life and happiness.

In other words, the progressive development of science inevitably gives rise to many problems that are of a vital, moral nature.

1 How can ethics get past the problem of cloning, especially if they are trying to implement this idea on a person. This not only detracts, but grossly offends human dignity. Shakespeare's words about man are involuntarily recalled: "The beauty of the universe! The crown of all living things!" God created man not as a guinea pig, but as his likeness, and all attempts to clone him are a grave sin against the sacred gift, before the proud light of the universe in an endless variety of never-repeatable uniqueness. It would be not only dramatic but tragic if people both spiritually and physically would be on the same face. Imagine that the biochemists, in alliance with the medical profession, find a way to self-appointedly regulate the birth of children at will. This mechanism is given by nature and cannot be replaced by self-will: I want only boys, and now only girls. What can happen with human intervention in this process? Most likely, complete chaos: either an overabundance of boys, then girls. The mind of nature strictly preserves the balance of the sexes - both in the animal world and in the social world. Apparently, the secrets of life must be kept not only by the security agencies, but also by all prudent-minded humanity from scientific and technical fanatics with a badly directed interest. After all, apparently, there are also morally justified, i.e. wise ways of using the achievements of science, including genetic engineering, to maintain human health, extend, within the limits of the possible, his life, and much more, rather than mechanical stamping of the same type of "doll people".

Involuntarily, the words of A.I. Herzen that we stand on the edge of an abyss and see how it crumbles, and we will not find a harbor except in ourselves, in the consciousness of our freedom. One can only add - reasonably directed and responsible before the fate of man and mankind.