ФИЛОСОФИЯ. Социальная философия

Doctor of Philosophy, professor R.Yu. Rakhmatullin

Bashkir state agrarian university, Russia

Society and Personality

In philosophy and psychology, there is a difference between "man" and "personality". Man – this is an anthropological category. Personality – characteristic of a person as a social being. It is an essential part of society, without which no social life [1]. The historical process is a conglomeration of action pursuing their goal of people. It turns out that each of us makes history. But – to what extent? On the planet Earth is now home to more than 7 billion people. If we imagine the direction of movement of history as the general line of the 7 billion of forces, the contribution of the individual to society would be so small that they can be neglected. Wants to or not separate individual story to move in the desired direction to them, the event will still develop in its own way. In this sense, it can be argued about the objectivity of social laws are independent of the will and desires of individuals. This assumption, E. Bernstein said that it makes no sense to apply the action to change society if the social revolution would happen anyway. Bismarck said: We cannot make history; we must wait until she did. We will not make fruit ripening that will put them under a lamp; and if we pluck them immature, will only prevent their growth and spoil it. Objecting to Bismarck, G. Plekhanov wrote that history is not made by itself it is a product of both objective and subjective factors. This conclusion he comes after analyzing the issue of freedom of the individual in society. Really, what kind of freedom in society could be if the objective laws of society? I want to or not, society will develop in its own way, but I still submit, go with the flow of the river of history. Solving the problem is in the definition of Plekhanov freedom given to Spinoza: "Freedom is the recognition of necessity". Personality is so free in a certain situation, how full of his knowledge of the situation. A man who does not know the laws of life in prison and customs of its inhabitants, less free in this institution than recidivist thief, for whom "the prison - his own mother". Investigator who has worked on his specialty five years, feels at work more freely than a young professional who is engaged in this work, only five weeks. Of course, and convicted, and the investigator depend on the situation in which they currently reside. Therefore, we can only talk about the power of human freedom. Личность не может быть абсолютно свободной. Identity can not be absolutely free. Even a tyrant who has seemingly unlimited power depends on the fighting efficiency of the army, the state of its state budget, etc. Live in society and be free from society, said Marx.

From all this we have the following conclusion: a free man can strongly influence the course of social development. Why? Because he knows how events will unfold. A man who knows, for example, of the impending catastrophe, can warn people and make less significant impact of the disaster. If German politicians late 1920-s knew about the negative consequences of National Socialism, maybe there would be no World War II. In this sense, it can be argued that a person can influence the course of history. A great man is seeing the consequences of events better than others, so he is great.

Some ideas Plekhanov to some extent consistent with the opinion of the famous philosophers of the twentieth century H. Ortega y Gasset and K. Jaspers. They see no reason impending doom of European culture that guide society in democratic states are increasingly moving from aristocrats to people "crowd". K. Jaspers writes that initiation of statesmen, politicians, the crowd was in the twentieth century universal norm. When it is thought that the mass has a mind of a higher order than an individual. "Some have suggested that the mass lead somewhere and that truth is to know this and act accordingly. Meanwhile the masses themselves do not possess the properties of the individual; they do not know and do not want anything, they lack content and are an instrument of the one who flatters their common psychological impulses and passions. People in weight can easily lose your head, indulge in intoxicating opportunity to become just another, follow the Pied Piper, which plunge them into the abyss of hell; can arise from such conditions in which the foolish masses will interact with manipulated tyrants" [2, p. 193].

Ortega y Gasset says that people are always divided into two types – revolutionaries and the townsfolk. First demanding for themselves, their distinctive qualities – duty and morality. The second "do not require any special efforts themselves. For them to live - so do not change, always be what they are, they do not understand those who seek self-improvement; a man adrift like a cork" [3, p. 44]. And now the townsfolk, taking advantage of democracy, decided to run society."A characteristic feature of the present moment is that mediocrity, knowing that she mediocrity, has the nerve to claim everywhere and all impose their right to mediocrity", – wrote Ortega y Gasset [3, p. 47]. People who do not have special qualities to people management that focus on low morale and aesthetic standards that are now in power, because they are mass.

Thus, the objective laws are formed as a result of pursuing their goals subjects. Then the direction of history depends on the nature of the values and goals of the subjects of history. If a society prevail animals aspirations and spirituality are not held in high esteem, then such a society for its members builds a hell on earth, fire which may be covered by other nations.

Conclusion: The role of the individual in society and is determined by objective conditions and subjective characteristics of the person. Good knowledge of the individual situation in the society, objective laws of social process makes it possible to more effectively influence the course of her social development.

References:

1. Rakhmatullin R.Yu. Sufi Anthropology // Islamic Studies. 2013. 1. P. 64-74.

1. Jaspers K. The origins of the story and its purpose. M., 1991.

2. Ortega y Gasset H. Dehumanization of Art and other works. M., 1991.