Kabaeva ZH.A

Doctor of Philosophy, Professor, KazNPU named after Abai.

Kaldibay K.K.

PhD Student of Philosophy, KazNPU named after Abai.

Abdrassilov T.K.

PhD Student of Philosophy, KazNU named after Al-Farabi.

Aspects of security awareness.

Abstract.

  Safety is an important issue. There are various institutions for a certain security is something different magazines available for security. Knowledge of security is increasing, but in spite of this, there are still many gaps in the understanding of security. This article attempts to show some of them, these approaches have posed character. The possibility of using different approaches in the study of security, the importance of the transition from a substantial level of knowledge of the theoretical level of safety and to his philosophical reflection.

Keywords: security, risk, value, formal - logical approach, philosophical analysis.

Along with specific special sciences have their philosophy, which act as a philosophical reflection on science. These include biology and philosophy of biology, mathematics, and philosophy of mathematics, etc.

By analogy, we can ask about the theory of security and safety philosophy that will allow them to approach a better understanding, the understanding of the problem. Now the pressing question of creating a theory of security. Statement of the same issue of the safety philosophy might look premature. Here is the view that a complete system - the philosophical doctrine of the security is not created, but on the way to this, studies and the results obtained by the ontological, epistemological and axiological aspects of security are considered socially - philosophical aspects of security, etc. "With increased its role, particularly in the social being, it requires careful attention not only specific and interdisciplinary research, but also the philosophical and methodological and socio-philosophical" [1, 42].

Philosophical approach means finding the underlying reason. According to logic and the theory must be security and safety philosophy. If this position is correct, then what to do? First, create a theory safety and then safety philosophy, or vice versa, or go in parallel. Of heightened security concerns in our unstable time, probably almost a theory of security and its philosophical inquiry will proceed in parallel, although it is clear that the possibility of a more complete safety philosophy can be carried out after the establishment of the theory of security.

Philosophical aspects, philosophical emphasis, philosophical approaches, etc., in short, must be activated philosophical reflection. There is an opinion that philosophy in culture vulnerable. Maybe so. For one of the reasons for this include the fact that in-depth studies are not demanded by society. Vulnerable - the vulnerable position in philosophy, but also the most worthy. If the philosophical study conducted on the essential level, and if the cultural system has enough of the different social institutions that can understand this, then it is an abstract interpretation helps to solve the problem. In this case, this means, in practice, improving safety, reducing the risk. Philosophical approach helps to better appreciate, understand. This is important. Of course, at the same time it is important to have specific knowledge, skills, livelihood security, safety. Philosophical understanding of security - a kind of "skeleton" of the problem, and the "body" is the safety of the infinite system of things for people.

We need to talk about human security, family, home, business, profession, state, and so on. Such an approach is understandable, it is natural. Ultimately, these are reduced to security to human security. What is human security? Suppose that the response in a specific cut, to a certain extent given not only to the question, but on the above issues questions. Such thousands and thousands, and they are interesting and relevant, so they will always be in front of people. "How safe do business?", "How to protect a house?" Etc. And for all of these issues, one is the following: all of them in general will be the answers to the "how." All of them will be the safety of something. Responses to them, to a greater extent, will have a pragmatic recommendations. We can say that the answers to them will have a character recipes. Now you are getting. Today, the level of knowledge about security is more meaningful empirical character. So should be, but it is important to go beyond comprehension; draw a historical analogy. According to the history of knowledge, as is known, knowledge of ancient Egypt had empirical informative. And the fact that the ancient Egyptians had a fairly extensive knowledge in various fields of knowledge, little would disagree. Proof is obvious: the pyramids and other knowledge of the Egyptians had one thing in common: they are a response to the question "how". How to measure, how to do, how to weigh how to find the area of how to find the volume, etc. This knowledge was necessary, useful, relevant, and they were empirically - receptor, substantial character. This was the initial required level of knowledge, where knowledge is extracted. With " deterritorization " knowledge of the Egyptians were in a completely different environment (ancient Greece) and, as it turned out, they did not meet demands of Greek society that was established cognitive field "immanence." Knowledge of the Egyptians were in a cognitive "pot", in which the vector of cognitive effort was not aimed at finding an answer to the question "how", as in ancient Egypt.

Here the general direction of the cognitive process was directed at finding an answer to the question "why". It should be noted that the search for answers to this question is allowed to appear natural philosophy, the first theory of the "Elements" of Euclid, the latter containing definitions, axioms, idealized and abstract entities, etc. Mathematical knowledge is built in a logically coherent system output - according to the rules of formal logic - knowledge of the axioms. Obtained proven status, is a scientific knowledge, that is has the characteristics of necessity and universality. Mathematical knowledge to take its rightful place in the field of knowledge and for centuries represented and represents the ideal knowledge to other areas of knowledge. This knowledge is fundamentally different from the knowledge of the Egyptians. Here there was a transition of knowledge to a higher level of understanding. In the history of the development of knowledge, a new level, close to the ideal. There was the first theory in which knowledge has been furnished proof. A new theoretical knowledge. You can focus on that ideal. Similarly, talking about security, we can agree that the current knowledge of security in general have the same characteristics that were inherent knowledge of the Egyptians. Now the important transition to a higher level of understanding, knowledge of security clearance. The transition to a theoretical level - is a complex, the multivariable, multidimensional approach. Towards this, the next important step is to question what is "security" itself ? It may be noted some of the approaches to find the answer to this question. Concerning the definition of security, it needs to be abstract, idealized, and the need to have all the characteristics of universality, etc. On the way to the definition of security to mark such an important aspect.

In ancient times, people understand this: there are five trees, 5 houses, 5 apples, etc., but he did not know what 5. That for us is quite clear: the number 5. There was just 5, there were 5 of something. And, as noted, the man who was first separated from the five trees, five of the houses, five of apples, etc. was a brilliant man. In humans, as in the subject of knowledge, there was a number 5. Considered together with something like 5 "5 that - that ', and then they are separated from each other and there is 5. There is a new object of study - number. The man in the knowledge transferred to the new frontier, and it is on - and large means that the evolution of understanding has moved to a higher level than before it. V this case appeared as a category of knowledge, as something that is part of the object of knowledge. By analogy, to get closer to the definition of "security", it is important to separate "what security - that" most of "security", as separate "5 of something" from the most 5. This means that in thinking about security will be possible to move to a higher level than it was before. Need a shift from "a certain security that - that" to the most "security." By and large, many of the existing institutions, journals security deal with "security certain something" that has the nature of the receptor, and the very "safe" must have different characteristics. The definition of security must include in itself that - the general characteristic of the security of different something. Here you can talk about the different degrees of abstraction. Further, we note the other approaches to the analysis of security problems. Formal - logical approach. "Security" is associated with "danger". You can go to them as an abstract one-sidedness. Security threat lies in danger. Security risk to be found in the field of risk. Risk of fundamental security. Danger everywhere. Danger - as a denial of security, then the danger can be seen in the context of the nature of denial. It is important to reduce the danger to increase security. Salvation always comes to the fore with the threat of danger. Salvation itself refers to values. Salvation - is to avoid the risk, or to reduce it to a minimum. Denial is a denial of the one-sidedness of other unilateral. For there is something that - that particular, are dangerous or safe. If approached strictly as in formal logic: "A" or "not - A", that is no third option, then this approach for something safe and dangerous are complementary to each other. There is an additional danger to safety. And conversely, there is an additional security to danger. Together, they form a whole, which consists of two disjoint subsets with space for security, there is no room for risk, and vice versa, where the danger, there is no security. Once again it must be emphasized that this separation of danger and safety possible in formal-logical approach. With synergistic approaches and other functional relationship between them will look - different.

Axiological approach Security belongs to the domain of the value priorities of man, society. Anything considered, first of all, from a position of safety. Security is a value of the first importance, so the scale of the hierarchy of values security should be on one of the first places. Security is high for the value of anything and one. Any of us, choosing, buying something, first drew attention to its security. It is safer, more valuable. Sometimes awareness of this society is inadequate. As noted, after the September 9, 2001 in the scale of values of American society came to the fore safety, shifting freedom. In the affluent society of high safety significance clearly visible, which is made possible through a more secure existence of a stable society. Factor for the stability of society is safe. Negative indicators on security threats to society are increasing, many researchers agree that they can get to the middle of the twenty-first century. When in danger, it is important to enhancing security. The man should be sure of their safety. Modern industrial society people live in a developed and rapidly changing high-tech system of things, so it will be more secure if it is most developed intelligence. This situation is more likely, may have thesis status (requires justification). It is important to note that the "selfish thinking, typical of many modern people, in addition to moral, has a logical flaw: it lacks consistency and depth. On the contrary, those who have, you the high culture theory of systems thinking, better prepared to understand and address the pressing problems across both the country and the planet. It is easier to understand and accept the principles of a morality that corresponds more real responsibility of modern man "[2, 37]. Knowledge, understanding risk - this is a security enhancement. Mastery of the security means having knowledge that is rational - pragmatic. It is therefore important as the comprehension of security, and specific knowledge of the security thing, especially knowledge of the "Safety Instructions."

There is a famous passage in the Lotus Sūtra -- the Parable of the Burning House – which compares the Buddha to a wise parent who, seeing that the house his children are in is ablaze, ponders how best to lead them to safety. The children, being engrossed in their games, do not realize the danger they are in and are reluctant to leave. The Buddha, therefore, promises the

children that new toys await them outside, and the excited [3, 61].

All people on the planet is built, developed, provided security for the person in the context of an enabling environment for human life. So, in this article of the many approaches to security are:

a) the way the definition of "security", one of which is the selection of the "security of which - the" same "security" as such;

b) understanding of the "something specific security" has the character of the receptor, in contrast to the "security", which should have features such as a necessity, universality, etc.;

c) formal - logical approach to safety analysis means looking at the "danger" and "security" as a whole, in which these subsets are disjoint in applying dialectical - logic, probabilistic logic ratio and other safety hazards and will have different characteristics.

Study of the problem of security requires different approaches, as well as more in-depth theoretical and philosophical studies.

References:

1. A .L Romanovich: Development and security of socio-natural systems: philosophical and methodological analysis : A .L Romanovich Dissertation 09.00.08. - M., 2003. -418p.

2. Rychkova, L. Educational programs and strategy of social development [Text] / L. Rychkova / / Aima mater. - 2003. - № 7. - p. 35 - 37.

3 . Book Title: Buddhism: A Very Short Introduction. Contributors: Damien Keown - author.Publisher: Oxford University Press. Place of Publication: Oxford. Publication Year: 1996. p: 61