Science in traditional and technogenic societies, the innovative nature of scientific activity. The specifics of scientific knowledge

Object and subject. We must honestly admit that modern work, contrary to the latest trends, has not yet become the first vital human need. At the same time, production acts as the most important component of the general conditions of human life.

One of the forms of human self-realization is labor activity, the specific place that this person occupies in the system of social division of labor, the nature of the operations performed by him.

A person enters the production process in two guises - as an object and as a subject.

As an object, a person is found in factory and factory buildings, next to tanks and equipment, because his labor force is one of the main factors of production. At the same time, one should also notice the reverse effect that production itself has on a person, shaping his experience and replenishing the relevant knowledge.

Production imposes specific requirements on the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the workforce.

On the quantitative side, the labor force is characterized by the total number of people employed in the national economy (including by industry), as well as the number of various categories of workers, and the sex and age ratio. At the enterprise level, the length of the working day, week, etc. matters.

On the qualitative side - the level of qualification of the employee, the state of his physical health, educational and cultural level. Such characteristics of an employee as responsibility and conscientiousness, discipline and enterprise have always been important. Being largely features of the moral order, they are nevertheless determined by economic conditions, real production relations, as well as modern processes that form and replenish "human capital".

Qualitative and quantitative discrepancy between the labor force as a factor of production can arise in any national economy. Its partial manifestation can be, for example, a high proportion of manual workers and the availability of vacancies that require trained specialists, or a low national level of labor discipline, as well as understaffing of new modern industries.

The general correspondence of the main factors of production is expressed by the production function known to us: Q \u003d f (L; K).

Two main forms of inclusion of a person in labor activity should be distinguished.

The first is his characterization as an individual worker. When using primitive tools, the worker from beginning to end performs the entire set of operations for the manufacture of the product. In this case, individual work dominates. Each worker (manufacturer) can say: "This is the product of my individual labor." At the same time, it is clearly seen that one has to deal with a single worker.

With the development and deepening of the division of labor, the formation of a system of social division of labor, when the worker's labor activity becomes only a part of the total labor to create a product, the individual worker turns into an element of the total worker.

The total worker is a combined working staff whose members are directly involved in a single production process, creating economic benefits and performing the functions of labor fixed in an appropriate way.

The most important stages on the way to the formation of the total worker were simple cooperation, manufactory and factory (machine production).

The formation of the total worker is completed with the transition to machine production.

At the stage of modern scientific and technological revolution, this process is further developed.

Thus, the boundaries and composition of the total worker have noticeably expanded.

The deepening of the social division of labor has led to the fact that the composition of the modern total worker, along with the traditional categories of workers, employees and engineering and technical workers, should include workers in science and information, services and spiritual production. The skill composition of workers is changing, the share of highly qualified workers is increasing and the share of low-skilled labor is decreasing. In the developed countries of the world, there is a tendency to reduce the total number and proportion of industrial workers.

Scientific and technological progress causes a change in the content of labor activity. Thus, the automation and computerization of production, the creation of unmanned technologies give rise to a situation where the functions of direct control of the tools of labor are transferred to the machine itself. In the structure of labor costs, the share of mental labor is growing, its dynamism and intensity are increasing. The human worker sets in motion an ever-increasing volume of materialized labor. It is no coincidence that in the real sector of the economy the cost of one job doubles every 10-15 years.

On the other hand, each worker acts as a subject of production relations.

Of particular importance is the way of combining capital and labor, means of production and labor, objective and subjective factors of production. Depending on the nature of production relations, on the place of the worker in the system of relations of appropriation, a social type of worker is formed. Dominance in the economic activities of the slave owner means that the worker can act only as a slave. If the feudal lord dominates, this means that his worker is in serfdom.

Modern production is characterized by the dominance of relations between the employer and the employee. This is a historically special class of labor relations. An employee is personally free. Using his property for labor power, but being deprived of other permanent sources of subsistence, the worker is forced to enter into such employment relations. Alienated for him are the means of production, the conditions of production, the product itself. At the same time, modern management systems tend to overcome or at least mitigate the alienation of property, labor and management. The socialization of property and management is developing, which makes it possible to use the intellectual and heuristic types of energy of hired labor, to maintain an optimal social microclimate in production (see Section 6.4).

Economic man. Modern production needs the activity of not just a person, but an economic person.

Economic man experiences rare limitations of the factors of production, strives to achieve great results at lower costs, does not consider production as a pleasant walk in the spring garden. An economic person has to constantly make a choice between goals and means to achieve them, make responsible decisions and risk his own well-being, give up one good in favor of another good, that is, bear the opportunity cost of adapting to appropriate circumstances.

The concept of "economic man" as opposed to the "traditional" or patriarchal man was put forward by the English economists A. Smith and D. Ricardo. Economic man constantly strives to improve his position, guided by his own economic interests. Therefore, economic man chooses a type of activity that would allow him to appropriate more value through exchange. But, striving for his own benefit, economic man involuntarily acts for the benefit of the whole society.

I. Bentham emphasized that "calculable rationalism" is inherent in an economic person - the ability to calculate all actions leading to well-being. A. Wagner singled out “the feeling of a lack of goods and the desire to eliminate it” as the main property of such a person. Man's economic activity was believed to be governed by the desire for profit and the fear of want, the sense of honor and the fear of shame, the hope for approval and the fear of punishment.

Therefore, an economic person is a rational subject of production relations, thinking prospectively, since obtaining additional benefits in the future always requires the rejection of the consumption of certain benefits today.

Achieving the proper quality of working life presupposes the existence of fair and proper remuneration for work, as well as safe working conditions for life and health. The quality of working life depends on the degree of self-expression of a working person, on the opportunities to develop abilities. These processes reflect the establishment of labor democracy and legal security, the availability of opportunities for professional growth. For an economic person, labor activity occupies a worthy place in his life, which is enhanced by the awareness of the need for labor activity and the social usefulness of the work performed.

In anticipation of future benefits, modern economic man invests in "human capital" (see Chapter 3).

The quality of working life largely determines the quality of human life. Economic man is not only a producer, but also a consumer. An economic person is interested in the level of satisfaction of his needs, their composition, and the prospects for their own development. The main parameters of the quality of life are: health;

the level of consumption of food, clothing, etc.; education, employment, employment and working conditions; housing conditions, social security, clothing; rest and free time; human rights (53).

Economic man, being the subject of production relations, has a developed value orientation.

Production and labor management. The most important component of modern technical, organizational and economic relations is management.

Initially, the owner-capitalist monopolized all basic business functions, including management. But at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, under the influence of the growth in the scale of production, the complication of equipment and technology, management stands out as a special kind of labor activity. Based on the corresponding theoretical developments, the science of production management is formed. Following A. Marshall, management is considered as a special factor of production.

Management acts as an activity that involves the achievement of coordination of joint actions in order to optimally combine the factors of production.

F. Taylor interpreted management as "the art of knowing exactly what needs to be done and how to do it in the best and cheapest way."

There are four main functions of management (management) in production:

a) foresight, which involves the development of a program of action to achieve the strategic goal;

b) organization of actions, which involves the definition and creation of a material base, the formation of the most appropriate organizational structure;

c) coordination, or coordination, of the actions of many participants in the production, which involves the unification of the efforts of the relevant employees and structures into a single whole;

d) control, which involves determining the compliance with the reality of the given order, measuring the quantity and quality of the work done, the presence of feedback between the manager and the managed.

In the complex of management theories, two main paradigms can be distinguished - the old and the new.

In the old or "rational" paradigm, every entrepreneurial firm is seen as a "closed system." It is believed that the success of the company depends primarily on internal factors. The following are defined as the main problems of production management: specialization, control, discipline and diligence, social microclimate, labor productivity and economy. With this structural approach, the basis for the success of the company is seen in skillfully distributing duties and powers among the staff.

From the standpoint of the new paradigm, the entrepreneurial firm is seen as an "open system". Therefore, when organizing intra-company or intra-production relations, special measures are provided to reduce resistance to change, to develop staff readiness for high risk. With this behavioral approach, the focus is always on the person, his interests and moods.

One of the main factors of production is labor.

Therefore, labor management is the central problem of modern management. Moreover, it is labor that directly needs organization and management. Methods and means of labor management do not remain unchanged. A direct impact on the accepted model of labor management is always exerted by: a) the level of development of productive forces, the nature of the technology used; b) forms of ownership and mechanisms for its implementation; c) the method of realizing the ownership of labor power; d) the concept of management that dominates the national economy; e) accumulated experience.

Economic theory highlights the following historical types labor management:

a) handicraft, which is characterized by a process of enhanced division of labor, the emergence of a partial worker, the acquisition of skills to obey a single team and discipline, the dominance of manual labor, the reduction of wages to a living wage;

b) technocratic, which is characterized by the maximum division of labor, the separation of executive and organizational functions, strict forms of control over personnel; the isolation of managerial labor as a special variety, as well as the widespread use of machines;

c) innovative, or modern, type, when the emphasis is on increasing the creative and organizational activity of the staff, on the use of a highly skilled workforce endowed with "human capital", as well as group forms of labor organization in a flexible production environment that focuses on changing needs and effective demand .

In the conditions of scientific and technological progress, special developments in the field of labor management appear: F. Taylor, T. Emerson, F. Gilbreth, etc.

Gradually, economic and social aspects are strengthened in labor management. The worker is seen less and less as a mere appendage of the machine. When developing modern models of labor management, the value of the recommendations of psychologists and sociologists increases. At the same time, external state regulation of labor relations is being strengthened (overtime, minimum wage, unemployment insurance, labor protection and safety, retirement conditions).

Technocratic concepts that strengthened the alienation of labor and thus came into conflict with scientific and technological progress are receding into the background. Technocrats view man as a lazy creature that has a negative attitude towards work. Therefore, it must be urged on, threatened with punishments, etc. On the contrary, the idea that people like attractive work is defended from innovative positions. They strive for independence, they need respect and benevolence, signs of attention and approval of their activities. Therefore, it is necessary to abandon petty care and to develop "human relations" in production in every possible way.

As a result, various models of innovative management are being developed (“compressed work week”, “sharing in profits”, co-management, team work, “quality circles”). Functional cost accounting or internal entrepreneurship (intrapreneurship), as well as temporary labor collectives, which are created to solve a specific problem, are widely used. With successful results, such temporary labor collectives receive additional material and financial resources, and some of them acquire the status of venture formations or independent units.

In passing, we note that many of these effective "innovations" have been proposed since the 60s for implementation by domestic economists and production organizers. But under the conditions of state socialism, they either did not receive proper distribution, or were formalized beyond recognition by the dominant administrative-command system.

It is not so rare today that such thoroughly simplified innovations are offered by the West, often as a special kind of "humanitarian" aid.

Salary. Wage. For many entrepreneurial firms, labor costs are a major part of production costs. In addition, the procedure for using labor as an economic resource differs significantly from other factors of production. So, an employee can quit of his own free will, acquire another profession and abandon his previous job. It should also be taken into account that the conditions of the labor force are always strictly regulated by national legislation.

These and other circumstances make it necessary to take a particularly careful approach to the organization of the recruitment and use of labor force.

When applying for a job, a questionnaire is used, an interview is conducted in order not only to collect the necessary information, but also to acquaint the candidate with the workplace.

Of particular importance is the preparation of the candidate - the ability to perform specific work, that is, to apply knowledge in practice, as well as his education. The most important element management of the workforce is the assessment of the execution of tasks and orders, which is necessary to differentiate wages and improve incentives. At the same time, it is important to identify the parameters for reducing the existing staff turnover. In many cases, some turnover is either inevitable (retirement, relocation, etc.) or expedient (an influx of new people with new ideas). But still, an overestimated turnover of labor negatively affects productivity, increases the costs of preparing the labor force and adapting it to a particular workplace.

The key task of labor management is the organization of an effective system of remuneration. At the same time, the economic interests of both employers (profitability and profitability of production) and employees (conditions for the reproduction of labor force) are affected.

The position that a person occupies in society depends not only on the extent of his involvement in the ownership of the means of production, but also on his position in the labor market, on the level of this kind of income.

A little later, in the course "Microeconomics", we will carefully analyze the patterns of functioning of the labor market.

In the meantime, let us note that wages act as a kind of converted form of the price of hired labor power.

This means that, even before entering the market, before the meeting between the employer and the employee, the value, or value, of the labor force is already determined in the conditions of the household. The fact is that one of the main functions of wages is reproduction. Wages are designed to ensure the emergence of conditions sufficient for the acquisition of the necessary economic goods or consumer goods and the restoration of the ability to work.

Following the classical school economic theory Let's highlight the main factors that determine the cost of labor or the national level of wages: 1)

natural and climatic conditions; 2)

historical and cultural traditions; 3)

spending on education and training (formation of "human capital"); 4)

the cost of raising children in the family as potential carriers of the future workforce; 5)

the level of labor intensity; 7)

labor productivity in sectors of the national economy that supply commodities needed by households.

At different times and different countries each of these factors affects differently. But we note that the first six positions listed above directly determine the composition and volume of a kind of "consumer basket". Such a formation is directly affected by the universal law of the rise of the needs of man and society, of course - against the general background of socio-economic progress.

As for the last factor (labor productivity), it allows you to translate the volume and weight of the consumer basket into monetary terms. In the next chapter, in the analysis of cost, it will be shown that an increase in labor productivity contributes to a decrease in the cost, or price, of an economic good. With an increase in labor productivity, there is a prerequisite for reducing the cost of consumer goods, following a decrease in the total costs associated with their production. Consequently, due to this, it becomes possible to determine the value, or price, of labor power in less monetary terms.

In addition to the reproductive function, wages as an economic category also perform another equally important function - stimulating.

A high salary allows you to expand the range of candidates when filling vacancies and hope for a reduction in staff turnover. But on my own high salary still does not guarantee high labor productivity, strong production discipline. In some cases, wage fluctuations can be offset by other social conditions.

In general, in the field of labor management and in the organization of the salary system, an entrepreneurial company pursues several important tasks:

a) hiring a trained and disciplined workforce;

b) stimulation of labor productivity, achievement of its high quality.

As the main forms of salary, we single out:

a) time wages

b) piecework wages;

c) combined forms or systems.

Each form (or system) of wages has its advantages and disadvantages.

Thus, a time wage, with a low hourly wage, forces the employee (on his own initiative) to look for ways to lengthen his working day, that is, to look for additional earnings in order to ensure a decent level of existence. At the same time, with time wages, the intensity of labor remains outside direct control. To a large extent, this problem is automatically mitigated by the use of modern equipment and technology that can set the desired rhythm of the labor process. Time wages are widely used when it is necessary, first of all, to mobilize not the physical, but the intellectual abilities of the employee.

Piecework wages, on the contrary, make it unnecessary to control the intensity of labor, develop individual independence, and increase competition between workers performing the same operation. At the same time, it needs a substantiated subsystem of labor rationing.

In order to develop responsibility for the final results of work, brigade remuneration systems are used, as well as chord and other forms and systems of remuneration.

Income integration. For a long time distribution systems were built in such a way that in reality the diffusion of income dominated. This meant that the owner of each specific factor of production appropriated only a part of the newly created value (net income) in a certain economic form. As such, one can distinguish, for example, wages, profit or surplus value, land rent, as well as entrepreneurial income, loan interest.

At the same time, the economic interests of the employee were strictly limited to his salary, the entrepreneur - profit, or entrepreneurial income, etc.

In modern conditions, something opposite is observed - the active integration of income. Thus, the personal annual income of a worker may consist of his salary (function of a part-time worker), dividend (income from shares of an enterprise or other joint-stock companies), as well as a personal bonus (a special quality of “human capital”) or received taking into account the final result of the work of the entire company , for example, for a year. In the latter case, the participation of an employee in the distribution and appropriation of a part of the company's profit is already clearly visible.

Even stronger for the employee, participation in profits is realized through the appropriation of dividends on the acquired shares of the enterprise. As for the entrepreneur, being the director of an enterprise, he claims the salary of an administrator and the corresponding types of profit, and speaking in other nominations, he claims dividends, a share in capital, etc.

As a result, such a system of income integration, taking into account the equal use of all factors of production, acts as a real economic force capable of establishing a balance of interests of the subjects of production relations.

Therefore, it often makes no sense for an employee to seek a direct increase in the current salary at any cost. Especially if its labor force as a factor of production is already highly valued. After all, an unreasonable increase in the current salary reduces net profit, stock returns, reduces the company's ability to invest, and in the end - all this can jeopardize employment stability, that is, the future of a particular workplace.

The actual level of wages is the business of the entrepreneurial firm itself, of course - within the corridor of "economic freedom" adopted in the country. National (general) agreements, including agreements between employers, trade unions and the government, restrictions on the part of the state, as well as recommendations from political parties, etc., as a rule, relate to the minimum wage, the level of the first category tariff rate, less often - regulation of the average national level wages or women's wages.

Technocracy. A special place in the management structure of modern production is occupied by technocracy - the "general management" of enterprises, firms, and their associations.

These blue-collar workers openly monopolize the production management function. Moreover, as a rule, they are not the owners of this or that enterprise. In relation to the upper echelon of management and to the owner himself, technocracy acts as a performer. Its place in the division of labor is determined by the position and "human capital" - specific knowledge of engineering, technology and economics of production.

According to its socio-economic status, the technocracy acts as hired highly qualified personnel entering the highest levels of property management.

In essence, the technocracy (administration of the enterprise, a team of managers) on behalf of and with the consent of the owner of the capital only performs the function of managing the property complex, the finances of the enterprise. Direct or indirect deprivation of the technocracy of the functions of entrepreneurship or restrictions of this kind always increase tension in relations with the owner.

In turn, the technocracy in every possible way limits the participation of other layers of hired personnel in the management of production, and tends to ignore the social problems of production. For the technocrat, the employee acts as a cog in the techno-social system. Absoluteized technocratic thinking is free from the categories of morality, conscience and human experience.

Technocratic thinking is always a serious obstacle to reform, which provides for the restriction of the powers of "blue collars". With great readiness, the technocracy is ready to support proposals for the decentralization of production and all other measures that contribute to the preservation of technocratic traditions. She is also an opponent of the broad democratization of economic processes, since democracy and glasnost put blue-collar workers under public control.

Such basic features of technocracy should be taken into account when reforming the administrative-command economy. Failure to comply with the interests of technocracy during the transition period from an administrative to a market economy can provoke a permanent redistribution of property.

The technocratic concept of labor management, generated by the characteristics of large-scale machine production, is characterized by the maximum separation of executive labor from organizational labor. It should be borne in mind that modern production involves the use of special technical and economic knowledge, professional methods of organization and management. We must also see that the level of professionalism in modern management is constantly rising.

At the same time, management today is not only technocratic coordination, but also the realization of humanistic values ​​in the labor process (trust, freedom, respect for the individual, self-realization of a person as a generic being). Therefore, the constructions of D. Mikegregor (the concept of "U"), F. Herzberg (the theory of "motivational hygiene"), as well as R. Blake, J. Mouton (the theory of "stress balance") and their numerous modern followers are gaining strength, where the idea of ​​the possibility of such work, which would bring satisfaction, is defended.

Socially-oriented management displaces frankly technocratic schemes and develops the thesis of "participation of management", that is, the importance of including personnel in the management process, starting from the workplace, in the form of "quality circles", "teams of enthusiasts", then production co-management and etc.

Thus, the democratization of management relations has an objective character. This obliges us to form an organizational and corporate culture, taking into account modern standards. Renovation of the production management system on a democratic basis is of particular importance in a constantly changing market environment.

Choice of management model. When determining the production management model, a structural analysis of management relations is of particular value. Solving this scientific and practical problem, it is necessary to highlight the organizational, technical, economic and social aspects.

In the first case - the organizational and technical aspect - management manifests itself as a separate function of joint work. Its content is the coordination of the labor activity of the total worker. Management is called upon to establish consistency between individual work, to coordinate the activities of the constituent elements of a single production organism. When performing this function, specific knowledge is required in the field of technology, organization of production and marketing of products, collection and processing of economic information.

The organizational and technical aspect of management concerns, first of all, the management of things, technological processes. In the spirit of technocratic traditions, the worker is perceived as an element of the production mechanism or productive forces. The components are the issues of technology and control over its observance, ensuring the rhythm of production, organizing material flows within the enterprise, the optimal combination of production factors, issuing production tasks and monitoring their implementation, as well as labor discipline. The management decisions that are made need to be updated daily.

The second (economic) aspect of management involves the interpretation of management as a direct function of the owner, and in some cases as a special object of appropriation. Management acts as the most important point in the system of appropriation and implementation of economic interests and raises questions at the enterprise level about the profile of production, the scale of development and investment, the attraction of borrowed funds (loan capital), the degree of participation of the enterprise in integration processes, the procedure for the formation and distribution of income.

The third (social) aspect of management is associated with the social side of the realization of ownership of the means of production and labor. It concerns, first of all, issues of wages, employment, working conditions, environmental safety of production, as well as the ability to mobilize the human factor, create an optimal microclimate, take into account the influence of national mentality and traditions, religion, etc.

Of course, the key decisions on the economic and social aspects of management should be made by the owner of the factors of production. Sufficiently broad powers for technocracy are usually presented when coordinating technical and organizational relationships. That part of the technocracy that is directly involved in the preparation of strategic decisions should be under the control of the owner.

The innovative model of modern management involves the development of industrial co-management (self-management), which is associated with the desire to “humanize” production relations, mobilize the subjective factor of economic growth, and form the economic consciousness of the modern type among workers.

Production co-management solves the problems of creating an optimal social microclimate in production through the development of collegiality, entrepreneurship and social partnership, as well as the introduction of corporate (joint-stock) varieties of private ownership of the means of production. To do this, an appropriate infrastructure for production co-management is created (governing bodies, the right to participate in planning and management, the election of members of the directorate, the right to receive information about the state of affairs, certification of middle-level managers, civilized regulation of labor disputes). Today it turns out that the prestige of the company, the conditions for the reproduction of capital, the quality of products, etc., directly depend on the socio-economic realization of the labor force as a factor of production. At the same time, the fate of the worker, his personal prestige also depend on the economic and financial position firms.

§ 1. Object

A further modification of the interconversion of the ideal and the material is the dialectic of subject and object, the analysis of which in its pure form is a necessary stage of ascent.

Problem subject - object throughout the history of philosophy and sociology has been the subject of extensive discussion. A great many works are dedicated to her. A lot of points of view have been expressed about it: it would not be a mistake to say that there was not and is not a philosopher, a sociologist who in one way or another did not express his attitude towards her. And this is not accidental, because this problem is that sphere of theoretical thinking, which, as if in focus, reflects the interests of parties in philosophy, where all the roads of the struggle of materialism and idealism, dialectics and metaphysics lead, and therefore, ultimately, the struggle of social classes, groups.

Therefore, the problem has not lost its relevance today. Moreover, in the era of scientific and technological progress and fundamental social transformations in the lives of peoples, it is gaining more relevance and vitality every day, and therefore it is still a subject even more widely and actively discussed by both Marxists and non-Marxists. Marxist authors. At the same time, the needs of the continuously developing material practice and scientific knowledge brought to the fore not only new aspects of this problem and not only the solution of one or another of its moments, a “piece”, but the whole, urgently gave rise to the need, firstly, synthesis in the highest unity of abstract definitions, ascent to the concrete; secondly, a clear, definite and resolute application of the principle interconversionscheniya subject and object, which is actually the essence of the dialectical-materialistic solution of the problem.

The subject-object problem expressed the solution of the fundamental question of philosophy by the materialists and idealists. Although in- ancient philosophy there is no direct formulation of it yet, but there are elements of representation about it. The line of Democritus proceeded from a naive-materialistic, and the line of Plato from a naive-idealistic view of the world. Materialists understood the materiality of the world as an object and saw it in one or another sensually concrete beginning (Thales - in water, Heraclitus - in fire, etc.) - Moreover, this very beginning (or root cause) acts as the subject of changes in all things . In Heraclitus, for example, man-subject coincides with objective substance. Fate, necessity and reason are identical. God is an eternal periodic fire, fate, that is, the mind that creates everything from opposites. Everything depends on fate, which coincides with necessity. According to Democritus, a person is a microcosm and there is nothing else in it except atoms, a person dissolves in the elements of the necessary movement of atoms. Consequently, here the subject and object are not yet divided, they are merged into one.

Sophists make the first attempt to consider man as an independent problem. They believe that the laws of man cannot be completely reduced to the laws of the cosmos - the gods, but they must be explained from human nature. Protagoras' position is characteristic in this respect: Man is the measure of all things."Socrates takes a further step towards the study of man, requires to know his soul, consciousness, mind. He will tell about the idea of ​​"daimonia", by which he understands reason, his own conscience, common sense. “Socrates is aware that he,” writes Marx, “is the bearer of the daimonium ... but he does not withdraw into himself, he is the bearer not of the divine, but of the human image; Socrates turns out to be not mysterious, but clear and bright, not a prophet, but a sociable person.

At Plato the world of ideas, existing forever, being an object, at the same time acts as the subject of all changes, the creator of the world of "shadows". Man is made up of two substances: soul and body. The soul belongs to the world of ideas, while the body is a manifestation of the world of ideas. Man is thus the bearer of the spirit.

Aristotle makes a further attempt at dividing the problem and considering the object and subject separately. In his understanding, matter is the object towards which the form is directed. Matter-object is inert, passive, not actual, it is only a possibility, while the form-subject is the carrier of activity, effectiveness, it is actual. It is the substance, the root cause and the primary source of changes in matter, the transformation of possibility into reality. Only the free have the dignity of the subject-human. Slave not. man, but a speaking tool. Man is a political being. Society is a single entity.

Against the point of view of the fusion of man and society, the individualism of the Stoics, skeptics, and Epicureans is directed, who believed that the universal dominates the individual, who can receive the highest satisfaction only in solitude.

An important contribution to the solution of the problem was made by pre-Marxist materialism. Defending his materialistic view of the world, he emphasized its objective character, the existence of an object independent of consciousness. In his understanding, the object is the objective world, and, consequently, the object of knowledge.

So, bacon believed that the subject of science can only be matter (nature) and its properties. The answers to the questions put forward by science must be sought "...not in the cells of the human mind", but in nature itself. The object is primary, exists objectively, eternally. Unlike Aristotle, he does not deprive matter of internal activity, but considers it as an active, active principle that generates the diversity of its objective forms and forces. Whatever the original matter, it must necessarily be clothed in a certain form, endowed with certain definite properties, and arranged in such a way that every kind of force, quality, content, action and natural movement can be its consequence and its product.

Bacon believed that matter was originally objectively characterized by primary "forms" inseparable from matter, which are the source of "nature" or "nature", i.e., the physical properties of bodies. For Bacon, the primary forms of matter are living, individualizing, inherent in it, creating specific differences in the essence of force. Bacon tries to prove that, in addition to mechanical, there are other types of motion, of which there are 19. He tries not to reduce all manifestations of matter to one mechanical relationship, as the later materialists-mechanists do, but sees in matter the ability to comprehensive development, such as aspiration, vitality, tension, torment, etc. Bacon as its first creator, materialism, - wrote K. Marx, - still harbors in itself in a naive form the germs of all-round development. Matter smiles with its poetic-sensual brilliance to the whole person.

Thus, in Bacon's materialism, in a spontaneous form, there is the idea that not only a person is a subject, but also matter (nature) itself, since the latter itself is a means to qualitative changes.

In philosophy Descartes the subject is definitely opposed to the object. In his understanding, the subject is the inner world of consciousness, the main content of which is innate ideas, consisting of innate concepts (the concepts of being, extension, figures, etc.) and of innate axioms, which are the connection of the first. (Nothing can arise from nothing, a thinking subject cannot but exist if he thinks, “I think, therefore I exist, etc.). The object, on the other hand, is an external objective reality, matter, which he identifies with space, since only the latter does not depend on consciousness. All the diversity of natural phenomena is explained by mechanical movement, which is impossible without an external push (God), being the universal cause of movement. This dualism underlies the decision and the question of the subject - a person. The latter is the connection between the soulless bodily (natural) mechanism and the thinking soul. The task of knowledge is to invent means for the domination of man (the thinking soul) over nature.

Spinoza, developing further the ideas of Descartes, overcame his dualism about material and spiritual substances. Locke developed the doctrine of primary and secondary qualities. Leibniz argued that God is not the source of innate ideas, and so on. That is why Marx wrote: “Mechanistic French materialism joined the physics of Descartes as opposed to his metaphysics. His students were anti-metaphysics by profession, namely physics…. The metaphysics of the seventeenth century, whose main representative in France was Descartes, had materialism as its antagonist from the day of its birth. Materialism opposed Descartes in the person of Gassendi, who restored Epicurean materialism. French and English materialism has always maintained a close connection with Democritus and Epicurus. Cartesian metaphysics met another opponent in the person of the English materialist Hobbes.

In essence, Spinoza's atheistic position - "matter is the cause of itself" (Causa Sui) contains a deep idea that matter is the only and infinite substance - the source of origin and change of all its modes, excluding the presence of any other beginning. The object and subject, therefore, in Spinoza is the identity of God and nature, which is the eternal and infinite holistic substance, which is not only the source of modes, but also of unchanging human nature. Considering man as part of nature, he considers him from the side of his body and soul. The latter is a particle of the infinite mind of God, which consists of a set of ideas and is directed to the body (object). Moreover, these opposites are mutually independent of each other, since they are due to two independent attributes of a single substance. The cognitive activity of a person goes through a number of stages: sensory cognition (opinion), which is very limited and always contains delusion; rational knowledge (understanding), which is the source of reliable truths; intuition, which is higher intelligence, the basis of reliable knowledge.

A significant step forward in the study of the problem was made by Diderot, Holbach, Helvetius, La Mettrie, Lomonosov, Radishchev, Feuerbach, Herzen, Chernyshevsky and other pre-Marxist materialists. Enlighteners of the 18th and 19th centuries, expressing the interests of developing capitalism, preached the ideal of a developed subject - the individual. The latter is the goal, and society is the means to achieve this goal. Society, the state is the product of an agreement between individuals. Considering man as a material being, they at the same time essentially identify him with nature, explain human essence from the laws of mechanics ("Man-machine" La Mettrie and others) or reduce it to psychophysiology (Feuerbach).

In understanding Feuerbach, man differs from the animal in that the animal is limited in the way of his existence, and the man is not limited and universal. Therefore, man is the only universal and highest subject of philosophy. Recognizing the materiality of the human body, he did not see the materiality of society: for him, on the one hand, nature exists, and on the other, consciousness as a product of the same nature. In this form he carries out the principle of his anthropological materialism, in essence the principle of naturalism.

But his anthropologism proceeds from the biological, and not from the social essence of man, being thus an idealism "above". He sees the sociality of man only in the ethical relationship I And You. Sexual love is the basis of all human relationships and relationships, and the desire for I and You is the driving force for happiness, the unity of the human will. According to Engels, love is everywhere and always in Feuerbach's miracle worker, which must help out of all the difficulties of practical life - and this in a society divided into classes with diametrically opposed interests!

Hegel's idealism was criticized for understanding the essence of man as "pure thinking", Feuerbach, however, could not oppose him with a consistently materialistic solution to the problem, since his man is an abstract individual, a set of sensory-perceived biological qualities and properties. In other words, Feuerbach did not at all overcome idealism in understanding the essence of man, and he himself became a prisoner of idealism. It does not reach real, really existing people, but stops at the abstraction "man" and confines itself to recognizing a real, individual, bodily man in the realm of feelings. Actual social relations are thus replaced by the concepts of "kind" and interindividual communication. But man is not an abstract being lurking somewhere outside the world, and so on. state, moreover, in the sense that it is a historical product, the result of the activity of a whole series of generations, each of which stood on the shoulders of the previous one, continued to develop its industry and its mode of communication and modified its social order in accordance with changing needs. Even objects of the simplest "sensory certainty" are given to him only thanks to social development, thanks to industry and trade relations" 4.

Speaking of Feuerbach's idealism in understanding the subject, man, Engels wrote: “In form he is realistic, he takes man as the point of departure; but the world in which this man lives is out of the question, and therefore his man remains constantly the same abstract man who appears in the philosophy of religion. This man was not born from his mother's womb: he, like a butterfly from a chrysalis, flew out of God monotheistic religions. That is why he does not live in a real, historically developed and historically determined world. Although he is in communion with other people, each of them is as abstract as he is.

On the whole, pre-Marxist materialism “put too much pressure” on nature as an object, emphasizing the primacy, activity, and decisive role of nature, which was due to historical conditions and the need for methods of struggle of this materialism against idealism, mysticism.

At the same time, as mentioned above, this materialism not only did not deny the subjective factor of consciousness, but even exaggerated, inflated it, considering ideal motive forces, i.e., consciousness as the only driving force in evolution. public life. He explained social events, processes, phenomena, facts, actions, relationships, etc. from consciousness, considering the latter to be the root cause of the development of society. Even the most progressive materialists of the past, such as the French materialists of the eighteenth century, Feuerbach and the Russian revolutionary democrats, were materialists "below" but idealists "above". In the historical field, F. Engels wrote, the old materialism betrays itself, considering the ideal driving forces acting as the final causes of events, instead of investigating what lies behind them, what are the driving forces of these driving forces. The inconsistency lies not in the recognition of existence, ideal these motives, but in what they dwell on they do not go further to the motive causes of these ideal motive forces. This, in fact, is the historical limitation of the old materialism, striving for truth and preparing for its discovery.

Summing up the consideration of the views of pre-Marxist materialists on the problem of "subject-object", it is necessary to note the following: 1) They understood the essence of man as a "genus", as an abstract inherent in a single individual, and not as a combination public relations; 2) The subject was understood as an individual, isolated person; 3) They did not see the most important thing in social life - the material and production activity of people, the decisive role of revolutionary practical activity, and therefore they did not understand the real source of the activity of consciousness. The latter was considered only as a product of nature itself, and not as a product of man changing nature, that is, not as a product of socio-historical practice; 4) They did not see the dialectics of the material and the ideal, the interaction of the subject and the object was understood as the impact of the object, nature on the subject, which is a passive appendage of the object; 5) They did not cover precisely the actions of the masses of the population, did not see their decisive role in history; 6) Society was understood as a random accumulation of events, facts, etc., they did not see in it a need, a pattern.

These shortcomings of pre-Marxist materialism, its limitations, gave rise to another extreme - an exorbitant exaggeration of the role of the subject, its absolutization, its hypostatization by subjective idealists (Berkeley, Hume, Mach, etc.), who reject the objective character of the material world, and all the problem of subject-object is completely transferred to the consciousness of the subject.

In Kant's understanding, man is a combination of the world of nature and the world of freedom. In the first world, he is subject to natural necessity; in the second, he is a morally self-determined being. Therefore, Kant's anthropology considers man from two points of view: physiological, which examines him, that nature makes a man, and pragmatic, which explores what what does he do as a freely acting beingor can and should make of himself. Man is the main object in the world, for he is his own final goal.

The real subject of cognition for Kant is a kind of transcendental consciousness, standing above the individual consciousness of a person as a finite subject, which is opposed by a finite, limited object of cognition. Speaking against the "epistemological robinsonade", Kant, however, did not understand the decisive role of socio-historical practice in cognition, which led him to dualism. This dualism was expressed in the fact that the subject and the external "thing in itself" in Kant simply oppose each other, without interpenetrating, without passing into each other. Moreover, the external object is not for the subject in general an object of knowledge. For Kant, the act of constructing the objective world by the subject takes place in some supersensible, otherworldly spheres of the real natural world.

Fichte developing Kant's subjectivism, eliminates his dualism "from the right". He completely derives the entire material world-object from the active activity of the subject, which he understands as a combination of various mental states. Thus, the initial category in Fichte's philosophy is active human activity. However, he considers it as an absolute, undetermined, unconditioned active mental activity, which from itself generates the subject - a set of states of the subject. Pure "I" as a universal human consciousness in the process of action posits both itself and its opposite - "not I" (object).

Deep thoughts about the relationship "subject-object" expressed by Hegel. Criticizing the romantic individualism of the old materialism, as well as Kant and the subjective idealists, he points out that the incompatibility of the personal ideal with reality is explained only by the subjectivity of this ideal. What is true in these ideals is preserved in practical activity; it is only the untrue, the empty abstractions that man must get rid of. The latter is not an isolated monad, but a moment of the universal, which realizes not subjective goals, but objective ones. Being and essence are the moments of the formation of a concept, which is a stage of both nature and spirit. Logical forms as forms of the concept constitute the living spirit of the real.

The goal turned out to be the third term in relation to the mechanism and chemism: it is their truth. Since it itself is still within the sphere of objectivity, it is still affected by externality as such, and it is confronted by some objective world with which it is related. On this side, with the conditional relation being considered, which is an external relation, mechanical causality still appears, to which chemism is generally to be included, but appears as subordinate to it, as holy in itself.

Commenting on these thoughts of Hegel, V. I. Lenin writes: “The laws of the external world, nature, subdivided into mechanical and chemical (this is very important), are the basis expedient human activity .

Man in his practical activity has the objective world before him, depends on it, determines his activity by it.

From this side, from the side of practical (goal-setting) human activity, the mechanical (and chemical) causality of the world (nature) is, as it were, something external, as if secondary, as if covered up.

According to Hegel, reason is as cunning as it is powerful, cunning consists in general in mediating activity, which, by conditioning the interaction and mutual processing of objects according to their nature, without direct interference in this process, fulfills its goal.

Further, commenting on Hegel’s hesitations regarding the fact that “in his tools a person has power over external nature, while for his own purposes he is rather subordinate to it,” V. I. Lenin writes: “Historical materialism as one of the applications and developments of brilliant ideas - grains, in the embryo available in Hegel" 7.

True thoughts were expressed by Hegel also about practice as a criterion of truth, which was also highly valued by the classics of Marxism. "Marx, consequently, directly adjoins Hegel, introducing the criterion of practice into the theory of knowledge" 8.

Thus, Hegel's merit in the historical field lies in the fact that he tries to understand the development of society as a necessary, natural process. He criticizes those who consider the opinion, the will of kings, legislators, etc., to be the decisive force in the development of human society, who represent society as a random, chaotic accumulation of events, facts, etc.

By sharply criticizing the dualism of object and subject, which is characteristic of "rational metaphysics", Hegel puts forward the concept of the identity of these opposites. The basis of reality, according to Hegel, is the self-development of the absolute spirit, which is an absolute subject, which has itself as an object. The subject exists only in so far as it is an eternal becoming, movement. The absolute spirit as an absolute subject - the object does not exist outside the process of self-development.

The subject, according to Hegel, does not exist outside the activity of a social person in the cognition and transformation of the surrounding world and himself. The Phenomenology of Spirit is devoted to the substantiation of this position. "The greatness of the Hegelian "Fenomenology" and its final result - the dialectic of negativity as a driving and generating principle, - Marger wrote in this connection, - lies ... in the fact that Hegel considers the self-generation of man as a process, considers objectification as deobjectification, as self-alienation and the removal of this self-alienation , in that he, therefore, grasps the essence labor and understands objective man, true, because real, man as the result of his own labor... He sees labor as essence as the self-affirming essence of man" 9.

Although Hegel, according to Marx, knows and recognizes only one type of labor - namely, abstract-spiritual labor, he correctly emphasizes the connection between the cognitive and practical activities of social man.

However, at the same time, he mystifies real connections and relationships, considers the main driving force behind the development of society to be the “world mind”, the “absolute spirit”, which, in his opinion, is the bearer of historical necessity, the only real concreteness. Everything else is abstract, metaphysical. For Hegel, man is the subject of spiritual activity, creating the world of human culture. He is not an individual at all, as materialists understand, but the bearer of universal consciousness, reason, spirit. He is a "humanized idea" - an absolute spirit that has returned to itself through other being.

Hegel understands the development of the "world mind" as an ascent from the abstract to the concrete. Having discovered this logical law of development for the first time, he applies it to the phenomena of consciousness, to "spirit". The absolute spirit ascends to itself through a series of steps, representing a number of its abstract manifestations - mechanism, chemistry and organism. Becoming concrete, it manifests itself in society. The economic life of society is also an abstract manifestation of the spirit. Separate individuals operate in this sphere, entering into certain relations with each other in order to preserve their individuality. But here the abstract form of consciousness dominates - reason, which is not concrete. True, it contains opposites, but the latter remain themselves and are not a source of development. Development is provided by legal activity. But law is a manifestation of a higher essence - a purposeful will. The state is a concrete, higher reality, the reality of the general will, the image and reality of reason. All material culture Society, according to Hegel, is a product of the development of the spirit, a concept or a form of its manifestation.

Thus, in Hegelian philosophy, despite the historical understanding of the subject, the latter turns out to be nothing other than the absolute idea standing above the individual, positing itself at the same time as an absolute object.

It is extremely important in this regard to emphasize that if the classics of Marxism critically overcame the limited understanding of man by past philosophers, including Hegel, and materialistically rethinking the correct thoughts, grains, created a holistic scientific theory of man-subject and object, then modern philosophers, especially the existentialists, and even earlier the latter's predecessor, Kierkegaard, sharply criticize all past philosophy, especially Hegelian, "from the right", rejecting everything reasonable that is contained in the philosophy of the past in order to preach a consistently irrationalistic individualistic anthropology.

Thus, speaking out against the Hegelian understanding of man as a moment of manifestation of a universal, absolute spirit, Kierkegaard believes that man should not be determined by anything, but should be absolutely free in choice and absolutely self-determined. Only in unconditional independence from all connections and external relations a person can become a personality, acquires the absoluteness of his individual choice and is responsible for his actions. The decisive condition for achieving this goal is the will of an absolutely isolated person. Reason is not only not a value, spiritual wealth, but rather an evil that destroys and disfigures the authenticity of a person.

This indeterministic, irrationalistic conception of man is further developed by contemporary existentialists. The general content of the anthropology of all existentialism is a person who is absolutely isolated from this world, abandoned by everyone and everything, left alone with himself, desperate, having lost faith, yearning and dying.

If we ignore the external form of expression and proceed from the content, then the diversity of pre-Marxist and modern non-Marxist anthropological concepts of man in their essence can be reduced to the following main directions:

• I.Biological. Man is considered as a natural-biological phenomenon, his social essence is rejected, just as the laws of the development of society are absolutely identified with the laws of the development of nature.
• II.Objectively idealistic. A person is considered as a moment of manifestation of the mystical absolute idea, and the laws of the development of society are manifestations of the laws of the absolute idea. In other words, the essence of man is mystified thinking.
• III.Subjective-idealistic. Human society and man are derived from the consciousness or will of the individual, from the absolute Self, and the laws of the development of society are considered as manifestations of this consciousness.
• IV.Dualistic. Its essence lies in the fact that a person is considered as a unity of natural and social, physical and spiritual: “on the one hand, on the other hand”;
• v.Theological. These are the teachings about the first man as a divine being, the anthropology of Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, etc., the essence of which is the divine origin of man, human society, as well as the divine laws of their development.

Of course, all these directions differ not only from each other, but within each of them one can find any number of distinguishing features of one concept from another, one point of view from another. However, these differences are not significant, they do not change their essence. And the essence is one - idealistic. All these directions represent various varieties and modifications of the idealistic understanding of both society and the laws of its development, as well as the individual, the individual, the individual.

In the light of all that has been said, the great enduring significance of the world-historical revolution that Marxism accomplished in understanding both the object and the subject becomes more understandable. The discovery by Marxism of a materialistic understanding of society was also the key to the discovery of the dialectic of object and subject. The object, whatever its further definitions, is the opposite of the subject, is what the subject's activity is directed at, is what processes, assimilates the subject and from which the latter builds his body. Since the object is something involved in the activity of the subject, it is not identical with nature. The latter is eternal, boundless, etc., objective reality, which is an object only by those aspects of itself that are involved in the process of subjectivation, in the process of the subject's activity. It is the practical and cognitive activity of the subject that is the criterion, or better to say that side, that line that separates the object from nature. Of course, this sphere will continuously expand and deepen. However, outside this sphere, beyond this boundary, the question of what happens in the rest of nature remains always open. "Nature, taken abstractly, in isolation, fixed in isolation from man, is nothing for man" 10. "

However, it is necessary to make a reservation here: as shown above, in the history of philosophy, the object was often identified with nature, and idealism, in particular Machism, while denying objective reality object - nature, adhered to the thesis: "without a subject there is no object", which was rightly and decisively opposed by materialists, especially V. I. Lenin in the book "Materialism and Empirio-Criticism".

By object we mean not nature as such, but an object human activity, which can be one or another side of both the material and the ideal, involved in the process of this activity. Thus, for example, Marx wrote that with the liquidation of capitalism, “workers, as subjects, use the means of production as an object to produce wealth for ourselves.” 11 It follows that human activity is possible as an identity of opposites - object and subject, and in this sense these concepts are impossible without each other.

Nature, which exists by itself outside of this activity, has nothing to do with the subject-object relation and is not an object at all. There is an object-subject relationship relation. And therefore, it, like any relation, must have two sides, which are impossible without each other. Consequently, there is no object without a subject and, conversely, the subject is impossible, and therefore unthinkable, without the object and the object without the subject. In the subject-object relation, the object of activity (which will be shown in detail below) is not only natural, but also social; even more than that - not only material, but also ideal. That is why reasoning such as that something is only an object and the other is only a subject has nothing to do with dialectical materialism. Such an abstraction simply does not creatively repeat the opinion of pre-Marxist materialism, which just took reality only in the form of an object, and consciousness in the form of a subject. Unfortunately, there are still authors who turn their erroneous judgments into truth by referring to the classics of Marxism. And in this case, it was not without it.

§ 2. Subject

Great principle dialectical materialism- the materialistic understanding of history is the basis for a truly scientific solution to the problem of the subject - man, over which the best minds of mankind have been unsuccessfully breaking their heads for centuries and millennia.

In the philosophy of Marxism, for the first time, a real subject becomes a social person who carries out material production. Not an isolated individual, "epistemological Robinson", not an absolute idea, but a person who produces in society and only therefore cognizes reality. Only such an understanding is truly scientific.

At the same time, as Marx pointed out, “it is especially necessary to avoid again opposing “society”, as an abstraction, to the individual. Individual is a social being. Therefore, every manifestation of his life - even if it does not appear in an immediate form collective, done together with others, manifestations of life, is a manifestation and affirmation public life" 12.

Society is a higher, concrete generalization of the material world (not nature, as is sometimes claimed), characterized primarily by the interaction of people in the course of their labor activity. Labor as an expedient activity is a historically and logically decisive condition not only for society as a whole, but also for an individual human individual, the line that separates, distinguishes man from everything the rest of the world. Labor is the essence main contentsociety. As Marx wrote, labor as an expedient sensual activity as useful labor is a condition for the existence of people independent of any social forms, an eternal, natural necessity; without it, the exchange of substances between man and nature would not be possible, i.e., there would be no human life itself is possible.

Hence, scientific explanation The genesis and evolution of society can be given only on the basis of its essence, from labor, labor activity of people, their social being. People can be distinguished from each other by anything, but they themselves begin to differ from animals as soon as they begin to produce, to work. “Labor is first of all a process taking place between man and nature, a process in which man, through his own activity, mediates, regulates and controls the metabolism between himself and nature. He himself opposes the substance of nature as a force of nature. In order to appropriate the substance of nature in a form suitable for his own life, he sets in motion the natural forces belonging to his body: arms and legs, head and fingers. Acting through this movement on the external nature and changing it, he at the same time changes his own nature. He develops the forces dormant in it and subordinates the play of these forces to his own power ”and“ At the end of the labor process, a result is obtained that was already in the beginning of this process in the mind of a person, that is, ideally. Man not only changes the form of what is given by nature; in what is given by nature, he realizes at the same time his conscious goal, which, like a law, determines the method and nature of his actions and to which he must subordinate his will.

In this regard, it should first be emphatically emphasized the social essence of man. This must be done because the erroneous opinion is widespread even in our literature that “man is a unity of the natural social self”, that “man is a complex biosocial being”, etc. Supporters of this opinion get stuck on a purely empirical, rational: level and do not want to ascend to the mind. They have before them an empirical fact: mechanical, physical, chemical, biological regularities function in man. And based on this fact, they conclude that a person is “a unity of the natural and the social”, a “bio-social being”.

However, firstly, one must be consistent and declare that a person is not only a complex “biosocial”, but a “mechanical-physical-chemical-biosocial being”. Secondly, if the "bio" contains the lower forms, then why does the social not contain the lower forms; otherwise what is the meaning of this "bio-social". Thirdly, the lower form is contained in the higher not mechanically and does not constitute "autonomy" in it, but enters into it in a remelted, sublated form. This means that nature exists in man, in a sublated form, that is, it has been turned into sociality. Consequently, the essence of man is social. from all sides. Man is not, on one side, a man, but on the other, something else, but on all sides, a man. Previously, it was repeatedly emphasized that the essence is contradictory, but there is no dualism of the essence. But now we are forced to say this again, because the criticized opinion “dilutes” the social essence of a person with natural, drags back to dualistic anthropology, draws a line of sophistry, which, simply speaking, leads to the loss of the essence of a person.

Nature is not man, it is not human society. It by itself does not create anything human. The human is created by man, and only by him. Human, social is a product, the result of people's labor activity. Man is this "permanent presupposition of human history, is also its permanent product and result, and premise man appears only as his own product and result.” 14. Various social functions are successive ways of people's life activity, which are based on labor production activity.

Society is a dialectical, objective, necessary, natural process that develops according to its own social, public objective laws, and not according to the laws of nature or the hybrid "nature - society". While proving the objective nature of society and its laws, Marxism did not deny the role of consciousness, since labor, as was said, is not an activity in general, but a purposeful activity. Consequently, in society the material and the ideal are inseparable. But in this unity of the material and ideal aspects of society, material life, the production of material goods is the objective existence of society, the content, sources, and basis of its ideal life. It is not the consciousness of people that determines their being, as was asserted before Marxism and is affirmed today by bourgeois apologetics, but, on the contrary, their social being determines their consciousness. This famous position of Marx, which means a radical change in the views on society, does not at all diminish the role and significance of consciousness, as the critics of Marxism think, but only indicates that social being is primary, that it is the decisive, defining side of society, its essence. , and consciousness is secondary, derived from it, its reflection. It is in the atom sense that Marx defines society as a set of material, production relations, without denying the ideological phenomena that rise above them, which also, of course, enter into the concept of society.

At the same time, having substantiated the materialist understanding of history and the decisive role of the mode of production in the life of society, Marxism also discovered the laws of its development. Whatever the action of numerous ideal motive forces and strivings, even such as passion, ambition, hatred, whims of various kinds, etc., no matter how history may seem to us the realm of chance - all this does not eliminate the natural character of development society. All its events and facts are subject to hidden, internal objective laws of its development.

Further. Society is not once and for all a given, immobile, moreover, a chaotic accumulation of things, ideas, and is not simply a sum of people, as metaphysicians think. It is a single social organism developing dialectically, according to its own objective laws, having its own history, its own stages of development qualitatively different from each other, conditioned by its own dialectics.

Changes in the whole of social life are ultimately brought about by changes in the mode of production; changes in the mode of production are caused by changes in the productive forces, and in the productive forces they change primarily guns labor. “Acquiring new productive forces,” wrote K. Marx, “people change their mode of production, and with a change in the mode of production, the way they provide for their life, they change all their social relations. A hand mill gives you a company with an overlord at the head, a steam mill gives you a company with an industrial capitalist.

The instrumental activity of people is the decisive source, the cause of both the emergence of society and all its changes. Improvement, the development of tools, in the end always led to profound changes in social life. Thus, for example, the transition from a primitive society to a slave-owning society was due to the transition from stone tools to metal ones. Only on the basis of the development of tools of labor in the bowels of the primitive system could labor productivity reach a level that made it possible to obtain a surplus of products, and at the same time the possibility arises alienation from the worker of a part of the product produced, the opportunity for some people to live off the labor of others. Under certain conditions of the social division of labor this possibility becomes a reality. New relations arise between people - relations of private ownership of the means of production, relations alienation. The replacement of the former relations of people based on public property with new, slaveholding relations based on private property meant the emergence and establishment of social classes, relations of inequality of property, exploitation of man by man, domination and subordination, enmity and antagonism, “war of all Against everyone".

The improvement of the instruments of labor and the growth of labor productivity within the framework of the slaveholding system lead to the fact that the existing social relations begin to retard the development of the productive forces. At this stage, an objective possibility arises of attaching slaves to the land, the implementation of which meant the transition of society from a slave-owning state to a feudal one.

Further improvement of the tools of labor within the framework of feudalism, the transition from handicraft and manual labor to manufactory, then to machine production, the appearance of a mechanical weaving machine, a spinning machine, at the same time a further growth in the social division of labor, in particular, the technical division of labor within the enterprise, the emergence of a new type of worker, etc. - all this caused the industrial revolution and raised the question of the abolition of feudal relations of production. The latter, under the weight of the overgrown productive forces, began to collapse and were forced out by new, capitalist social relations. This process meant the transition of society from feudalism to capitalism.

Society as a self-improving, self-developing system has not only changed, but is also changing and will continue to change.

At the same time, changes in society do not mean the loss of the essence of man, as is sometimes believed. Nowadays, especially in connection with scientific and technological progress, you can think of all kinds of thoughts. They even agree to the point of absurdity that intensive changes in the tools of labor and technology will eventually lead to the disappearance of the social essence of a person, since it will not be a person who will work, but “thinking”, “reasonable”, etc. machines that it is as if a person is already turning into a “subsystem”, etc., etc.

However, fantasy is fantasy, and the scientific truth is that intensive changes in technology, social life as a whole, have led and will lead to its enrichment, concretization, its more comprehensive and full-blooded development. Society is that universal, which is not abstract, but concrete, one that contains the wealth of the separate, special, individual. This universal, with each new step of ascent, is enriched, filled with new content, becomes more concrete, more meaningful, because every time it absorbs the richness of the individual, special. Each human individual, being a manifestation of the universal, transfers his last content to this by his life activity, at the same time being a form, a way of his being, development, he himself is enriched by this universal.

Summarizing what has been said, we can derive the following definition of a person. In this case, first of all, one should proceed from the fact that the concept of a person is ambiguous. At least two of its aspects are known: a) man is a society, humanity; b) a person is a separate individual, a person. Although both aspects express the same essence, yet their dialectic is the dialectic of the general and the separate, the individual.

Man is the highest state of the material world, characterized by the following specific features or traits.

1. The essence of man-society is the totality of all social relations. The individual man is the manifestation, the bearer of this essence. This is a first order abstraction.
2. The first - and main - modification of this abstraction is ability to dotools. Production, reproduction, improvement of labor tools - the basis, the basis of all other social relations.
3. On this basis, the production and reproduction of all other means of production.
4. Production and reproduction of industrial and individual consumption items.
5. Production and reproduction of all material relations in the process of production, exchange, distribution, consumption - in the unity of the components of the material sphere of interaction between members of society.
6. Production and reproduction of the spiritual life of society. Consciousness, purposeful activity.
7. Verbal language or articulate speech is the immediate reality of consciousness.
8. Production and reproduction of the entire system of social relations, the entire system of material and spiritual culture generally.
9. The continuation of the race, conditioned by all this, is the reproduction of the people themselves.

These are, in our opinion, character traits definition of a person. In this regard, it is necessary to make the following remark. When we say that the individual man is a manifestation of the universal, the man-society, this should not be understood in the sense that he is a passive, inert "case", which is only busy waiting until other people "stuff" it. culture created by society. Of course not man active subject. Although he cannot fully embody material and spiritual culture, he nevertheless embodies it depending on certain historical conditions, that is, especially, specifically and. in turn, this enriches the universal, introduces something unique into the general material and spiritual culture of mankind.

At the same time, neither the subject nor the object can be fully understood.project outside the process, outside their mutual transformation. Reason shows its weakness when it declares something to be an object, and another to be a subject, and does not ascend to their essence. He analyzes these opposites as different, petrified, frozen (giving, of course, some of them abstract definitions), but at the same time does not explore how the object becomes the subject, and the subject becomes the object, does not go back to their synthesis, but gets stuck at the entrance to the dialectic of subject and object. Meanwhile, the main thing is not that there are such opposites - their recognition is not yet a complete departure from the framework of the metaphysical method of consideration - but that these opposites are mutually transformed into each other.

§ 3. Mutual transformation of object and subject

The relationship between object and subject is a continuous process of their mutual transformation. The whole history of mankind is the history of this mutual transformation. But, since, although this is a fact, but, unfortunately, still not realized, it is necessary to dwell on this side of the problem in more detail.

1. The first true abstraction in this regard is the thought of pre-Marxist materialists (Bacon, Spinoza, etc.) that matter itself is the cause of its changes - Causa sui. This form of expression of the materialistic view of the world was directed against all mysticism. Having rethought these essentially atheistic propositions in a dialectical-materialistic way, Marx put forward the proposition that matter itself is the subject of all its changes, of course, in the Marxist understanding of the subject of its changes. In the understanding of Marx, matter is not reduced to nature, human society is also matter, the highest state of matter. Moreover, it develops dialectically. Consequently, for Marx, matter is a more concrete concept, rich in content, than for the old materialism.
   However, despite the historical limitations of the latter, his merit lies in the fact that he, one way or another, in the very matter-nature, discovers its own forces, causes, laws of its changes, consciously rejecting any mysticism, idealism, god, creator, etc. , e. Therefore, the position Causa sui or matter is the subject of its changes played an extremely important role in the struggle of materialism against idealism, and in the development of a scientific understanding of matter itself.
2. However, this position is not only forte of the old materialism, but also its weak side, since it stopped at this essentially true, but meager abstraction and did not go further, where it investigated neither the individual man, nor the man-society, as they are in themselves. This shortcoming was eliminated by Marx, who gave a comprehensive scientific study of modern bourgeois society and, on the basis of this, worked out the general laws of the development of society. According to Marx, the subject is primarily human society as a whole, which, by its practical and cognitive activity turns the natural into an object of change, realizing its own purpose in this. The object and the subject are identical, because they do not exist without each other, they mutually determine, penetrate each other and mutually transform into each other. But they are different at the same time. This difference in this aspect of the object-subject relationship is as follows: in contrast to the laws of the object-nature, which are blind necessity, the laws of society are a necessary, essential, conscious, expedient activity of people. Genetically, the laws of nature, which have now become an object, functioned without the active objective activity of people, without the use of tools, while social laws are the activity of people with the use of tools made by people themselves. Both the laws of the object-nature and the laws of the society-subject are objective character, do not depend on the will and consciousness of people, however the laws of societythere is an expedientactivityof people. This means that if the laws of the object-nature existed before people, without people, without their creativity, then the laws of society do not exist without people, without their activity, but are their actions, their creativity. People, as Marx said, are both authors and performers of their own drama. This thesis is directed against fatalism, against the underestimation of the role of the people themselves, who create their own history.

External alien forces that oppose society are transformed in the process of production into intra-social forces and means. And since production is a continuous process, the transformation of external natural resources into an object and further into raw materials, and consequently into internal elements of the productive forces, is also a continuous process.

“So, in the process of labor, human activity with the help of means of labor causes a predetermined change in the object of labor. The process fades into the product. ... Labor united with the object of labor. Labor is embodied in the object, and the object is processed. What appeared on the side of the worker in the form of activity (Unruhe) now appears on the side of the product in the form of a quiescent property (ruhende Eigenschaft), a form of being.

All this means that the labor process is primarily the transformation of an object into a subject. At the same time, it is at the same time the transformation of the subject into an object. As mentioned earlier, the mutual transformation of opposites is not movement in a vicious circle, but is an ascent, enrichment. By its activity, the subject, changing, processing the object, firstly, and transfers all its content into it, objectification of the subject occurs. Labor is always an expenditure of physical, mental, intellectual, etc. forces, abilities of a person. The latter, in order to produce, change the object, sets in motion the natural forces belonging to his body: arms, legs, head and fingers. Secondly, the change of an object by the subject is a change not only of the object, but also a change of the subject itself - this is actually one and the same process, one and the same relation. Thirdly, by its continuous activity, the subject just as continuously expands and deepens the object of its activity. In other words, the activity of the subject is the change of the object. Thus, the process of subjectification of the object and objectification of the subject is the internal content of the subject-object relationship.

Literature

1. M a r k s K., Engels F. Works. T. 42. WITH. 135.
2. T and m. T. 2. S. 142-143.
3. T and m. S. 140.
4. T and m e. T. 3. S. 42.
5. There. T. 21. S. 295.
6. Lenin V.I. Full. coll. op. T. 29. S. 169-170
7. T and m. S. 172.
8. T and m. S. 193.
9. M a r k s K., Engels F. From early works. M., 1956. S. 627.
10. Marx K., Engels F. Soch T. 42. C 596; T 4 C 593; T. 3. S. 16.
11. T and m. T. 26. Part 2. S. 644.
12. T and m. T. 42. S. 590.
13. There. T. 23. S. 188-189.
14. T and m. T. 26. Part 3. S. 516.
15. T and m. T. 4. S. 133.
16. T and m. T. 23. S. 191 - 192.

Here, in particular, in what aphorisms it was expressed: Knowledge is power (Bacon); People stop thinking when they stop reading (Didero); Fear of the possibility of error should not turn us away from the search for truth (Helvetius); The honest remain fools, and the rogues triumph. Opinions rule the world (French materialists of the 18th century); The honor of the Russian people demands that it be shown with particularity and sharpness in the sciences. (Lomonosov); A happy era will be when ambition begins to see greatness and glory in the acquisition of new knowledge and leaves the impure sources with which it tried to quench its thirst. Enough honors Alexander Ram! Long live only Archimedes (Saint-Simon); True knowledge does not lead to self-satisfaction, but creates an ever-increasing desire to move forward (Robert Owen).

Chapter first.

PLACE AND ROLE OF HUMAN

IN SYSTEM

MODERN PRODUCTION FORCES

The unsatisfactory state of modern Western theoretical thought is noted by those bourgeois researchers who have become acutely aware of the need for a holistic philosophical approach to the problems of man, technology, culture, and to determine their historical perspective. Thus, the well-known West German sociologist X. Shelsky writes: “It is not surprising if, over time, a sociologist, tired of empiricism, of questions about what a neurosis is or what automation and mass media mean for society, asks the question: what is behind the phenomena, what can be be considered the "common denominator" of the era?

At present, when, in the conditions of scientific and technological progress, the problem of man is more than ever connected with his position in the sphere of productive forces, one would expect a convincing analysis of this problem from the philosophical and sociological literature, based on the data of the science of labor. Meanwhile, in the bulk of this literature, predominantly technocratically oriented, as well as publications in the field of industrial sociology of these years, the question of human subjectivity is simply not raised. Although the rapid development of scientific and technological progress and the accompanying it are recorded in this literature, it tacitly (and indifferently) assumes that everything relating to a person remains the same, not to consider that the role of his individual activity in the production process has naturally diminished, and the functions turned out to be closer than before. associated with mechanized (or automated) technology.

Stating as an obvious fact the refusal of bourgeois sociology from large-scale theoretical constructions, the lack of ideological significance, the desire to touch on the prospects for the future for a person in the emerging new conditions, Shelsky noted: “With the decline of progressive optimism, our thought has become surprisingly blind to the future; gone from the scene are political, philosophical, social and moral utopias, unless they paint the nightmares of the future. The future is no longer the subject of big utopias; only certain branches of literature and scientific knowledge".

Indeed, only a few representatives of bourgeois industrial sociology have demonstrated in their studies a tendency to illuminate the new situation of man, combining philosophical and cultural aspects with sociological ones, placing the studied phenomena in the historical and cultural perspective of the past and future, in the general context of the evolution of labor, culture, human subjectivity. Meanwhile, without such a perspective, it is impossible to seek a philosophical understanding of the key problems of the dialectics of interaction between man and technology, put on the agenda by the rapid development of scientific and technological revolution. These include: anthropological and cultural characteristics of modern industrial labor, automation and its significance for humans, the increased share of scientific and technical creativity and its impact on society, the specifics of the modern era and the relationship of mankind to the cultural and historical past, as well as many others.

An important milestone in the study of automation problems was the book "Automation: its economic and social consequences", published in 1956 by F. Pollock, one of the founders of the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research and the most prominent, progressive representatives of the school. Pollock's book is the result of an in-depth study by the author of the introduction of automation in the United States.

Interest in essential (and far-reaching) changes in the nature of human labor in the new conditions, deep concern about the possibility of its further dehumanization under existing social structures and, at the same time, the strengthening of the social positions of technocracy gravitating towards elitism and totalitarianism, the danger of further bureaucratization of society, the militarization of the economy - these are the main the ideas of Pollock's book. Pollock sharply criticizes the widespread technocratic position, according to which automation, being just another phase of technological development, does not represent anything qualitatively new. He exposes the ideological underpinnings of an argument designed to prove that automation does not pose new social problems and is simply a continuation of capitalist rationalization and mechanization of production.

For the first time in history, Pollock emphasizes, humanity is given the opportunity to get rid of the slavery of oppressive labor, and not only in developed countries, but in the relatively near future throughout the world. However, the way automation is implemented, under the twin pressures of competition and militarization, gives reason to fear that only the technocratic elite, the "hierarchy of automation" itself, will take advantage of progress (and in many respects problematic). If automation becomes widespread in a market economy, the structure of society, Pollock believes, is likely to become like an authoritarian army hierarchy.

Pollock's book, which summarizes a huge amount of factual material, is permeated from beginning to end with doubts about the possibility of realizing the benefits promised by automation in the conditions of anarchy of production and competition of interests of private entrepreneurs. Pollock does not rule out that the danger of alienation inherent in wage labor may be exacerbated by the very nature of automation. The experience of meaningless labor in the conveyor system of "rationalized production," he writes, has left its mark on all modern life; automation may have similar effects.

In certain respects, automation, requiring especially strict coordination and regulation of the actions of personnel, increasing responsibility with even greater alienation from the production process itself, requiring exceptional concentration of attention (because a delay will stop the work of a colossal complex), can subjugate a person in the labor process even more. Depersonalization, the loss in the conditions of capitalist production of the meaning of the whole, which is no longer captured by those who perform the functions of a controller and who find themselves “outside” the gigantic production mechanism, disastrous inaction for a person with an unprecedented strain of attention “in the void”, enslaving, alien to man rhythm of automated production - these are the features that cause frank fears of Western sociologists.

Automation exacerbates some of the development trends that are perceived as crisis, namely: a person, no matter what properties of him - intellect, creative imagination, etc. - the most complex technology of the automation era appeals to, is aware of himself involved in the circle of production, subordinate to the imposed rhythm. Meanwhile, it appeals precisely to these features: although the automatic system, emphasizes R. Rikhta, is more original than a machine, and is capable of subjugating a person even more under certain conditions, nevertheless, it does not imply direct service by a mass of people; Potentially, it brings to life the intensive development of human forces, objectifies the growing demands on subjectivity.

1. Stages of formation of technical knowledge. Interrelation of natural and technical sciences.

2. Correlation between theoretical and empirical in technical sciences. Forms of scientific and technical knowledge. Methodology of scientific and technical knowledge.

3. The emergence and development of engineering activities. Place and role of engineering in modern society.

4. Types of engineering activities. Engineering thinking.

1. What stages did technical knowledge go through in its development?

2. What impact did natural science have on the formation of technical sciences?

3. Specify the general and special features of the interaction between the theoretical and empirical in science in general and in technoscience? What is the role of industrial practice in technical sciences?

4. What do you know about the disciplinary organization of technical sciences?

5. Name the main forms of scientific and technical knowledge and identify their specific features in comparison with the forms of natural science knowledge.

6. Compare the methodology of technical knowledge and design in relation to general scientific methodology.

7. Name the main problematic areas of communication between technical and social sciences and the humanities. What is the significance of philosophical principles in technical sciences?

8. What are the features of the development of society associated with the emergence of the engineering profession and its mass distribution?

9. What is the essence and main functions of the engineering profession? What are the aspects of its connection with production and science?

10. What classical and non-classical types of engineering activity do you know? What is the essence of each of them?

11. What are the prospects for the development of system engineering and sociotechnical design?

12. What are the ways to increase the prestige of the engineering profession in modern society?

13. What are the basic requirements for the personality of an engineer.

14. What are the strengths and weak sides engineering thinking?

15. How do you understand the meaning of the thesis about the "dialectic of engineering creativity"?

1. Gorokhov, V.G. Scientific engineering education: convergence of Russian and German experience / V.G. Gorokhov // Higher education in Russia. - 2012. - No. 11. - P. 138-148.

2. Gorokhov, V.G. Technical sciences: history and theory: the history of science from a philosophical point of view / V.G. Gorokhov. – M.: Logos, 2012. – 511 p.

3. Gusev, S.S. Interaction of cognitive processes in scientific and technical creativity / S.S. Gusev. - L .: Science. Leningrad branch, 1989. - 127 p.

4. Ivanov, B.I. Formation and development of technical sciences / B.I. Ivanov, V.V. Cheshev. - L .: Science. Leningrad branch, 1977. - 263 p.

5. Kochetkov, V.V. The ethos of creativity and the status of an engineer in a post-industrial society: a socio-philosophical analysis / V.V. Kochetkov, E.L. Kochetkova
// Questions of Philosophy. - 2013. - No. 7. - P. 3-12.

6. Lerner, P.S. Philosophy of the engineering profession / PS Lerner // School and production. - 2005. - No. 2. - S. 11-15.

7. Muravyov, E.M. Types of technical knowledge and features of their assimilation
// School and production. - 1999. - No. 1. - S. 23-26.

8. Nikitaev, V.V. From the philosophy of technology - to the philosophy of engineering / V.V. Nikitaev // Questions of Philosophy. - 2013. - No. 3. - S. 68-79.

9. Oreshnikov I.M. Philosophy of technology and engineering activity: study guide / I.M. Oreshnikov. - Ufa: UGNTU Publishing House, 2008. - 119 p.

10. Polovinkin, A.I. Fundamentals of engineering creativity: textbook / A.I. Polovinkin. – Ed. 3rd, sr. - St. Petersburg: Lan, 2007. - 360 p.

11. Ursul, A.D. Engineering sciences and integrative processes: philosophical aspects/ A.D. Ursul, E.P. Semenyuk, V.P. Miller. - Chisinau: Shtiintsa, 1987. - 255 p.

12. Philosophy of mathematics and technical sciences: a textbook for students, applicants and graduate students of technical specialties / ed. ed. S.A. Lebedev. - M.: Academic project, 2006. - 777 p.

13. Philosophical questions of technical knowledge: collection of articles / otv. ed. N.T. Abramov. – M.: Nauka, 1984. – 295 p.

14. Shapovalov E.A. Society and engineer: philosophical and sociological problems of engineering activities / E.A. Shapovalov. - L .: Publishing House of Leningrad State University, 1984. - 183 p.

15. Shubas, M.L. Engineering thinking and scientific and technical progress: style of thinking, picture of the world, outlook / M.L. Shubas. - Vilnius: Mintis, 1982. - 173 p.

Basic concepts of the topic

Technoknowledge, paradigm, technosphere, technical law, technical theory, applied science, technical epistemology, information technology, engineering, invention, design, design, engineering research, systems engineering, sociotechnical design, status of an engineer, engineering thinking.

Topic 4. TECHNOLOGY IN THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL AND SOCIO-CULTURAL DIMENSIONS

1.

2. Axiology of technology and its humanistic ideal. Directions of humanization and ethization of technical activity.

3. The role of technology in the history of human civilization.

4. Information- technogenic civilization: features and contradictions.

5. Environmental and social problems of scientific and technical progress, ways to overcome them.

Control questions and tasks

1. What aspects of human physicality and spirituality are changing under the influence of modern technologies?

2. What does the thesis about the humanitarian ambivalence of technology mean?

3. What is "technical reality"?

4. Point out examples of contradictory anthropological consequences of technological progress?

5. Are moral standards the shackles of technological progress? What if the value of free technical experiment conflicts with the value of personal integrity?

6. What is the significance of humanitarian culture for a technical specialist?

7. What are the main principles of engineering ethics?

8. What is the social responsibility of an engineer?

9. What are the socio-cultural aspects technical revolutions?

10. How does modern society differ from all previous ones in economic, political, social and spiritual terms?

11. Show the connection between the features of modern civilization and the growth of global environmental and social problems.

12. Give the most common arguments for and against scientism and technical optimism.

13. Point out examples of inconsistency in the socio-cultural consequences of technological progress?

14. What achievements of scientific and technological progress would humanity need to give up?

15. What are the ways to overcome the crisis of technogenic civilization?

Literature for additional reading

1. Alekseeva, I.Yu. "Techno-people" against "post-people": NBICS-revolutions and the future of man / I.Yu. Alekseeva, V.I. Arshinov, V.V. Chekletsov // Questions of Philosophy. - 2013. - No. 3. - S. 12-21.

2. Behmann, G. Socio-philosophical and methodological problems of dealing with technological risks in modern society: (debates about technological risks in modern Western literature) / G. Behmann // Questions of Philosophy. - 2012. - No. 7. - P. 120-132; No. 8. - S. 127-136.

3. Voitov, V.A. Unexpected scientific and technical problems of the modern stage of scientific and technological progress / V.A. Voitov, E.M. Mirsky // Social sciences and modernity. - 2012. - No. 2. - P. 144-154.

4. Gorokhov, V.G. Nanoethics: the meaning of scientific, technical and economic ethics in modern society / V.G. Gorokhov // Questions of Philosophy. - 2008. - No. 10. - P. 33-49.

5. Grunvald, A. The role of social and humanitarian knowledge in the interdisciplinary assessment of scientific and technological development / A. Grunvald // Questions of Philosophy. - 2011. - No. 2. - P. 115-126.

6. Dombinskaya, M.G. Ethics of an engineer - where and where? / M.G. Dombinska
// Energy: economics, technology, ecology. - 2009. - No. 2. - S. 60-66.

7. Zverevich, V.V. Information society in virtual and social reality. What kind of society is this and how does it exist in these realities? / V.V. Zverevich // Scientific and technical libraries. - 2013. - No. 6. - P. 84-103; No. 7. - S. 54-75.

8. Kaisarova, Zh.E. Eotechnical epoch and its historical and cultural role in the formation of technogenic civilization / Zh.E. Kaisarova // Questions of cultural studies. - 2012. - No. 1. - S. 20-26.

9. Kornai, J. Innovations and dynamism: the relationship between systems and technical progress / J. Kornai // Questions of Economics. - 2012. - No. 4. - P. 4-31.

10. Letov, O.V. Social studies of science and technology / O.V. Letov // Questions of Philosophy. - 2010. - No. 3. - S. 12-21.

11. Mironov, A.V. Science, technique and technology: techno-ethical aspect / A.V. Mironov // Bulletin of Moscow University. – Ser.7, Philosophy. - 2006. - No. 1. - S. 26-41.

12. Motroshilova, N.V. Scientific and technical innovations and their civilizational prerequisites / N.V. Motroshilova // Philosophy of knowledge: to the anniversary of L.A. Mikeshina: collection. stat. - M., 2010. - S. 66-95.

13. Oleinikov Yu.V. Social aspect of modern technical and technological modernization / Yu.V. Oleinikov // Philosophical sciences. - 2010. - No. 9. - P. 37-49.

14. Popkova, N.V. Anthropology of technology: Problems, approaches, perspectives / N.V. Popkov. – M.: Librokom, 2012. – 360 p.

15. Trubitsyn, D.V. Industrialism as technological determinism in the concept of modernization: a critical analysis / D.V. Trubitsyn // Questions of Philosophy. - 2012. - No. 3. - S. 59-71.

Basic concepts of the topic

Personality, value, technical reality, anthropology of technology, axiology of technology, consciousness, ambivalence of technology, humanization, intelligentsia, technoethics, spirituality, humanitarization of technoknowledge, technocracy, ecology, technogenic civilization, virtual reality, information society, social technology, sustainable development.

Annex 1.

TOPICS OF CONTROL WORKS

1. The evolution of the concept of "technology" in the history of scientific and philosophical thought.

2. Technical and non-technical: the problem of correlation.

3. Types of technology and their classification.

4. Philosophy of technology in the system of culture.

5. Interdisciplinary aspects of the philosophy of technology.

6. Problem field modern philosophy technology.

7. Philosophy of technology in the educational space as a means of forming the general competencies of students.

8. The problem of technology in the heritage of ancient philosophy.

9. The beginnings of the ontology of technology in classical philosophy(T. Hobbes, R. Descartes, J. La Mettrie and others).

10. The concept of "conquest of nature" by the thinkers of the Enlightenment and its significance for modern civilization.

11. Philosophical engineers (Ernst Hartig, Johann Beckmann, Franz Relo, Alois Riedler).

12. The problem of technology in the social theories of Marxism.

13. Materialistic concepts of technological determinism. Concepts of technological optimism (D. Galbraith, W. Rostow, Z. Brzezinski and others)

14. Religious-idealistic and theological concepts of technology.

15. The problem of technology in philosophical anthropology and existentialism.

16. Information and epistemological concepts of the philosophy of technology (A. Diemer, H. Skolimovsky, T. Stonier, A. Etzioni and others).

17. Technique as an instrument of totalitarian control (T. Adorno, M. Horkheimer, J. Ellul, J. Deleuze and others).

18. Questions of the philosophy of technology in Russian materialistic and religious-idealistic philosophy of the late XIX - early XX century. (N.F. Fedorov, P.K. Engelmeyer, N.A. Berdyaev, P.A. Florensky and others).

19. The philosophy of technology in the USSR and modern Russia: main achievements.

20. Historical evolution of the relationship between technology and science in the history of the development of society.

21. Criteria and a new understanding of scientific and technological progress in the concept of sustainable development.

22. The predictive role of scientific knowledge. The role of science and technology in overcoming modern global crises.

23. Technique and technology of the Stone Age.

24. The origins of technical revolutions in the culture of ancient civilizations.

25. Archimedes and the development of technology.

26. Technical achievements of the Middle Ages.

27. Understanding the role of technical activity in the Renaissance. Technical inventions of Leonardo da Vinci.

28. Technical practice and its role in the development of experimental natural science in the 17th - 18th centuries.

29. Technical and technological revolutions in human history.

30. Industrial revolution of the 19th century.

31. Technical and technological boom of the 19th - early 20th centuries.

32. Scientific and technological revolution: main stages and directions.

33. Modern technologies, their significance and prospects.

34. Natural and technical sciences: the problem of correlation.

35. Scientific and technical theory in their relationship: philosophical and methodological aspects. The main types of technical theory.

36. Development of system and cybernetic representations in technical knowledge.

37. Methodological problems of technical sciences.

38. The technical factor in modern science.

39. Mathematization of scientific and technical knowledge.

40. Worldview function of scientific and technical knowledge.

41. Philosophical and methodological aspects of technical theory.

42. Technoscience within the framework of the synergetic paradigm.

43. The problem of creativity in technical knowledge.

44. Technical picture of the world.

45. System-integrative trends in modern technical sciences.

46. The role of information and computer technologies in scientific and technical research.

47. Scientific and engineering activities: similarities and differences.

48. The origins of engineering in pre-industrial civilizations.

49. Formation and development of engineering education in the XVIII - XIX centuries.

50. Dissemination of technical knowledge and engineering in Russia.

51. Technical and engineering culture: essence, structure, functions.

52. Social roles and functions of engineering.

53. Modern structure of the engineering profession.

54. Engineering creativity.

55. Scientific and technical intelligentsia, its place and role in modern Russia.

56. Technical reality as a manifestation of human existence.

57. Humanitarian ambivalence of technology.

58. The problem of "technology and morality" in Russian philosophy.

59. The role of the humanitarian intelligentsia in overcoming the spiritual crisis and the humanization of technical activity.

60. Humanitarian assessment of technologies: problems of expertise and diagnostics.

61. Technology as a way of objectifying spirituality.

62. Technical creativity and human freedom.

63. Philosophy of artificial intelligence.

64. The problem of personality in the information society.

65. The ethics of a scientist and the ethics of an engineer: the problem of interconnection.

66. Technical aesthetics: philosophical aspects.

67. Problems of humanization and humanitarization of the higher technical school and engineering education.

68. Technical progress and economic types of society.

69. Technique and technoscience in futurological theories.

70. The problem of antinomy of socio-cultural and technical in philosophical thought.

71. Contradictions of technogenic civilization.

72. Information security in the information society.

73. Scientific and technological progress and the theory of sustainable development.

74. Socio-ecological expertise of scientific, technical and economic projects.

75. Social technologies.

76. Technological progress and the state: the problem of mutual influence.

77. Technique and art.

78. Network society and virtual reality.

79. Internet as an instrument of new social technologies.

80. Technical development and cultural progress: ways to overcome the crisis of modern technogenic civilization.

Appendix 2

QUESTIONS FOR OFFSET

1. The concept of technology. Philosophy of technology, its subject, structure and functions.

2. Science as a sphere of human activity and its philosophical understanding. Interrelation of science and technology.

3. Causes and patterns of technical progress. Technological progress in traditional societies.

4. Scientific and technological progress in the New and Newest time. The main directions of scientific and technological revolution.

5. Philosophy of technology, its subject, the history of its origin (until the end of the 19th century).

6. The main directions and concepts of the philosophy of technology of the XX-beginning of the XXI century.

7. Scientific and technical knowledge: features, classification, levels. The relationship of technical sciences with the main branches of scientific knowledge.

8. Forms of scientific and technical knowledge. Methodology of technical sciences.

9. Engineering activity: essence, functions and types. Engineering thinking.

10. Man as an object and subject of technological progress. Technical reality and the crisis of modern man.

11. Humanization of technology. Engineering ethics and professional responsibility of a specialist.

12. Technique as a factor of socio-cultural development. The main features of modern civilization. Ecological and social problems of NTP.

Annex 3.

Scientific and technological progress and life activity of people.

Approaching the turn of the XX and XXI centuries. Humanity is subjecting to analysis and reassessment much of what determined its development over the last decades of the ending century. What should be taken into the new century and the new millennium, and what should be discarded, what needs changes or reorientation of values.

Never before has mankind been so close to the fatal line, and the question is - to be or not to be? - has never sounded so literal as a last warning to the minds of people and at the same time as a test of their ability to overcome the accumulating difficulties of the world order. Science and technology, scientific and technological progress, being the greatest achievements of our time, are the most concretized expression human mind, which means that together with him they are also subjected to such a test.

What happened here in the 20th century and what is the state of science and technology today, what do they promise and what threaten peoples in the future? These are concrete, practical questions that inevitably acquire a political dimension.

Even relatively recently - just half a century ago, science functioned, as it were, with the processes that developed in the sphere of production, without affecting the social foundations of people's life. Despite some brilliant achievements in the natural sciences, scientific research in the eyes of many remained an occupation whose importance could be given credit, but which could not be included on a large scale in the sphere of business interests. Accordingly, the activities of scientists continued to be perceived traditionally - only as incomprehensible to wide circles the work of loners, busy contemplating natural phenomena. The situation changed after the first nuclear device was detonated at Los Alamo. It became obvious that even the most abstract sections of science are closely connected with socio-economic life, with politics.

However, the direct influence of science on the affairs of people, unprecedented before, is revealed, of course, not only in the fact that the question of life or death of mankind has been opened as a result of its military application; her voice is heard by the public not only through atomic explosions. The nature of this influence makes itself felt directly in the sphere of creation, in Everyday life population. What consequences this will have for the individual himself and the society in which we live, and what real, urgent social and human problems arise in connection with this today. If you try to briefly answer the questions posed and thereby determine the main social problem, the answer may sound like this: the higher the level of production technology and all human activity, the higher should be the degree of development of society, the person himself in their interaction with nature.

A similar conclusion was made long ago: a deep interconnection between the development of science and technology and social transformations, as well as the development of man, his culture, including his attitude to nature, was revealed. What is new about the new type of development of science and technology? It exacerbates the problems that have arisen here to the limit, requiring precisely high contact: new technology with society, man, nature, and this is no longer only a vital necessity, but also an indispensable condition for both the effective use of this technology and the very existence of society, man, nature. . This problem is of great importance in modern conditions, since how it is solved depends on the construction of a strategy for scientific and technological progress as a force that can either threaten or promote the development of man and civilization. And here the idols of technocracy get in the way of understanding the humanistic orientation of science.

There is a certain logic in exactly what principles are being brought to the fore at the moment, what is really opposed to them, and what is an imaginary alternative. This logic is determined by the objective and subjective factors of social development in their connection with progress and technology.

The current situation can be briefly summarized as follows. The ultimate tension of human thought, concentrated in modern science, as if came into contact with its "anti-world" - with the perverting power of inhuman social relations, with the sphere of false consciousness alienated from true science, striving to be mass and it would seem that there can be only one result - public explosion. But it does not occur, or in any case, it is expressed, albeit in rather sharp, but limited forms. This is so, firstly, because the specialization of science has gone too far for any contact with the realm of the alienated mass consciousness could affect the deep, so to speak, essential forces of science; secondly, because trends have appeared that have a "calming effect" and among them, not the last (if not the first) role is played by those material goods that turned out to be directly related to the successes of science and technology and significantly influenced the growth of public mass consumption.

These latest trends were not slow to take shape, if not theoretically, then at least ideologically - in the corresponding technocratic concepts that absolutize the significance of science and technology in the life of society, arguing that they transform it directly and directly bypassing social factors.

In 1949, J. Fourastier's book "The Great Hope of the 20th Century" was published, which became the banner of bourgeois-reformist technocracy. According to Fourastier, intensive technical and scientific development opens up the possibility of evolution towards the creation of a so-called "scientific society" freed from the burden of political, social, religious and other antagonisms. Science and technology in this coming society will become the basis of the life activity not only of the social organism as a whole, but equally of the individual individuals that make up this whole. Fourastier's "Computer Utopia" has been hailed as "The Greatest Hope of the 20th Century". In his later works, the French author argues that the task of science is to make it impossible for the existence of an outdated value system and lay the foundation for a new one, and this, I think, will be associated with the emergence of a new cosmic religion, which will be a healing principle that permeates the entire fabric the coming "scientific society". This reconstruction is carried out, according to Fourastier, by adherents of science, more precisely, by theologians, "imbued with a scientific-experimental spirit and familiar with the greatest achievements of science."

Such is the result of J. Fourastier's reasoning, unexpected at first glance, and natural for technocratic thinking. Fourastier was one of the first to draw the attention of the world community to contemporary issues called global, including the problem of man and his future in connection with the development of science and technology. However, in the case of Fourastier, the regularity of the transition of technocratic thinking from immoderate optimism to pessimism, from exaggerated hope to disappointment, from absolutization of science to doubt in its capabilities and even to religious faith is clearly visible.

The views of J. Fourastier are a kind of source of many other technocratic views. This can be seen by referring to the samples of technocratic thinking, presented, in particular, in the work of the American sociologist D. Bell, who speaks of the coming "new society", built structurally and functionally in direct dependence on science and technology. D. Bell believes that in this, as he called it, post-industrial society, ultimately different types of scientific knowledge used in the economy are decisive, and therefore the organization of science becomes the main problem. In accordance with this, Bell's "post-industrial society" is characterized by a new social structure based not on property relations, but on knowledge and qualifications. In the book "Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism" - Bell brings the previously proclaimed ideas to a gap between the economy and culture in accordance with the concept of "disunity of spheres".

There are many supporters of the line of "technocratic thinking", who believe that the impact of science and technology on man and society, especially in the most developed countries of the world, is becoming strong source modern changes. Thus, Z. Brzezinski in his book "Between Two Centuries" argues that post-industrial society becomes a technotronic society as a result of the direct influence of technology and electronics on various aspects of society's life, its customs, social structure and spiritual values. Although Z. Brzezinski, like many other supporters of technocratic ideas, constantly talked about global social changes, in fact, he uses references to the development of science and technology only to prove the ability of society to preserve itself in the face of changes taking place in the world.

Technocratic tendencies have been clearly developed by G. Kahn and W. Brown: "The Next 200 Years. A Scenario for America and the World." Touching on the question of the role and significance of science and technology (are they forces of good or evil), the authors talk about the "Faustian deal" that supposedly exists between humanity and science and technology. Having gained power with the help of science and technology, humanity exposes itself to the danger that lies in them. The authors, however, oppose the implementation of a policy aimed at stopping or slowing down scientific and technological progress. On the contrary, they consider it necessary in individual cases to accelerate this development, while maintaining caution and vigilance in order to prevent or reduce possible adverse effects. As the authors believe, at the same time, in the future, in the course of the emergence of a relatively complete "super-industrial economy", the multilateral development trend Western culture will be expressed in continuous economic growth, technological improvements, rationalism and the elimination of prejudices, and finally in an open classless society where the belief that only people and human life are absolutely sacred will be established.

IN Western philosophy more and more, there is a desire to avoid the popularization of technocracy. K. Jaspers notes that the Promethean interest in technology has almost disappeared in Europe. Rejecting the notion of the "demonism" of technology, K. Japers believes that it is aimed at transforming the person himself in the course of the transformation of a person's labor activity. Moreover, in his opinion, the entire future fate of a person depends on the way in which he subjugates the consequences of scientific and technological development. According to Jasper, "technology is only a means, it is not good in itself. It all depends on what a person makes of it, what it serves, in what conditions he puts it. The whole question is what kind of person will subordinate it to himself, how will he show he himself with its help Technique does not depend on what can be achieved by it, it is only a toy in the hands of man.

K. Jaspers formulated a clear program, which in particular concerns new technology that can radically change the structure of human activity. The use of "high technologies" creates a fundamentally new situation in the sphere of production, everyday life, recreation, and in many respects changes the worldview and psychology of people.

Turning to the social problems that arise in connection with the use of new technology, British researchers are a member of the National Council for economic development J. Benson and sociologist J. Moid believe that "rapid technological changes unfolding in a free market entail excessive economic, social, personal costs on the part of the part of society that is least able to withstand them."

The consequences of scientific and technological progress at one time gave rise to various technocratic theories in the West. Their essence boiled down to the idea that the general technization of life is capable of solving all social problems. The concept of a "post-industrial" society (D. Bell and others) has become widespread, according to which the organizers of science and technology (managers) will manage the society, and scientific centers will become the determining factor in the development of social life. The fallacy of its main provisions lies in the absolutization, hypertrophy of the role of science and technology in society, in the unlawful transfer of organizational functions from one, narrow sphere to the whole of society as a whole; here the whole is replaced by one of its constituent parts. Neither technology nor science alone is capable of solving complex political problems. We must not forget that technology is only a part of the productive forces, and not the most important one at that. Man, as the main productive force of society, completely fell out of sight of the supporters of this concept. This is her main misconception.

IN last years the directly opposite concepts of technophobia, that is, the fear of an all-pervading and all-consuming power of technology, have also become widespread. A person feels like a helpless toy in the "iron grip" of scientific and technological progress. From this point of view, scientific and technological progress takes on such proportions that it threatens to get out of control of society and become a formidable destructive force of civilization, capable of causing irreparable harm to nature, both to the human environment and to man himself. Undoubtedly, this causes alarm for all mankind, but it should not take on the character of an inevitable fatal force, because in this way the significance of the rational principles inherent in humanity itself is involuntarily diminished.