For me, there is no doubt that our thinking proceeds mainly bypassing symbols (words) and, moreover, unconsciously.

A. Einstein.

The unconscious is implicitly involved in all cognitive activity carried out by consciousness. Consciousness is powerless to cognize anything if it does not rely on the unconscious.

Already on psychophysiological level there is a congenital cognitive need , the highest evolutionary offspring of which, over time, becomes scientific creativity.

This need manifests itself, according to the figurative expression of Academician V. Engelhardt, as imperiously as the need of a bird to sing or the desire of a fish to rise against the flow of a turbulent river: “... by its nature, this instinct is closest to the instinct of satisfying hunger. Only here we are talking about the removal of hunger, not physical, but spiritual. It is no coincidence that the poets felt and reflected this in their creations. The spiritual thirst that torments Pushkin's "prophet" is directly akin to the intellectual hunger of a scientist. " .

The cognitive need for new information, not reducible to the search for food, a sexual object, or the means for building a “dwelling,” was observed by ethologists in special experiments with animals.

The simplest forms of cognitive activity of living beings have only one value orientation - survival.

Elementary cognitive activity at the unconscious level associated with modeling conditions environment, manifests itself in the simplest acts advance reflection. The well-known Russian scientist P.K. Anokhin developed the concept of an acceptor of the results of an action. The latter is a kind of informational equivalent of the expected result, retrieved from memory in the process of "decision-making"; it influences the motor activity of the organism and compares the result with its “anticipatory reflection”.

Significant role in cognitive processes at deeply unconscious level some are playing archetypal installation. One of the most important among them is characterized by anthropomorphism. Exerting its influence on "higher" (in terms of level) cognitive processes, anthropomorphism generates certain features of the mythological, religious, scientific-theoretical, everyday-practical worldview, natural and artificial languages, works of art and cultural phenomena.

On subconscious the level of cognitive activity is based primarily on unconscious sensations, perceptions and representation... One of the reasons that they remain in the subconscious sphere and do not penetrate into consciousness may lie in their energetic weakness (they turn out to be below the consciously fixed level). The reason may be that they qualitatively do not correspond to the “receiving code” or the input channel of consciousness (for example, our organ of vision does not allow us to consciously fix the ultraviolet and infrared part of the spectrum, although it is directly adjacent to the visible part of the electromagnetic range; however, the unconscious receives information from a wider range of waves than consciousness ).

At the same time, on a subconscious level, there is value selection received and processed information. This is well confirmed by the following experiments. A series of inscriptions is skipped at such a high speed that the subject does not have time to read them. But when inscriptions appear that deeply affect a person, he, without seeing them, nevertheless reacts to them (as evidenced by a galvanic skin reaction).

Of particular interest are the so-called “distortions of semantic perception” (from Latin. Distorsio - dislocation), indicating that there is a constant bias in assessments of the content of texts and the position of their author. With sufficient closeness of the positions of the author and the recipient, the latter believes that there is a complete coincidence (“assimilation effect”). If there are significant discrepancies, he is ready to exaggerate them even more ("contrast effect"). One of the first such effects were studied by M. Sheriff and K. Hoveland, who revealed that they are in many respects similar to the illusions of perception caused by a fixed attitude.

The cognitive process, like other mental processes, consists of a set of necessary sequential elementary stages, "steps" (sometimes the term is used to express this circumstance "Microgeny"). This is how the considered aspect of cognitive activity is illustrated by the famous American psychiatrist S. Arieti. If you ask an educated person who is the author of "Hamlet", the answer immediately follows: "-Shakespeare." The respondent consciously fixes only the stimulating question itself and his answer to it. Many of the “steps” that led him to a relatively quick response remain hidden. And nevertheless, there was an active unconscious search for the right answer. However, if you ask the same question to a person with some mental disabilities, either extremely tired and half asleep, or intoxicated with alcohol, or completely absorbed in some other occupation, then in response you can hear, say, “Chekhov” or “Sophocles”. The mistake made is not complete, but only partial: after all, the unconscious search for the correct answer has nevertheless brought it to the level of writers.

Creativity appears tertiary process based on unpredictable and incredible combinations of primitive mental processes (including those that Freud called primary) and normal processes obeying formal logic(including those that Freud called secondary). The enumeration of all conceivable combinations and the rejection of all unsuitable ones proceeds mainly unconsciously, and the correct combination is reflected in consciousness like a flash of lightning (Arieti S., The realm of the unconscious in the cognitive school of psychoanalysis // Unconscious: In 4 volumes - Tbilisi. - T.3, 1978. .53) .

It is this (seemingly instantaneous) emergence of a hitherto elusive cognitive result that is cognitive intuition, which we considered in connection with the mutual transitions of the irrational and the rational. We will return to it a little later, discussing the joint cognitive activity of consciousness and subconsciousness.

Concerning preconsciousness , then it resembles dimly lit areas of a room (“dark consciousness”): it is enough to direct the “ray” of attention there, as the picture becomes clear and becomes conscious. A person absorbed in reflections may not notice what is happening around. But it is enough for him to wake up from his deep thoughtfulness, and consciousness will open its windows to the world around him ...

Consciousness , carrying out cognitive functions, acts primarily as thinking, which logically and demonstratively reproduces the processes and phenomena under study, using a natural conceptual-verbal language or specialized artificial languages. Average value of information, processed consciously, is much higher than the average value of information fully processed at one unconscious level. Consciousness is distinguished by the highest selectivity in the selection of processed information (and the more cultured a person is, the more vividly this ability is expressed to distinguish the main from the non-main, the important from the unimportant). In addition, consciousness is more focused on the new than the unconscious. The unconscious mainly processes familiar information and is much worse at distinguishing the meaningful from the insignificant.

Is it possible that information immediately appears in consciousness, completely bypassing the unconscious? We think that even the most abstract and strictly logically formalized information cannot completely bypass the unconscious. Indeed, upon entering the human psyche, it will necessarily be compared (by assimilation, distinction, associativity, etc.) with other information that is already stored in long-term and operative memory. And this happens mostly unconsciously.

Quite often, the following stages of cognitive-search activity are distinguished, showing a deep connection between the conscious and the unconscious in it:

1. The accumulation of knowledge and skills necessary to clarify and formulate the problem (a clear and correct statement of the latter half guarantees the final successful solution).

2. Concentrated attempts to solve, as well as searches for additional information.

3. "Incubation" period: temporary withdrawal from the problem, switching to other activities.

4. Insight (insight): a “logical leap” in finding a solution that does not unambiguously follow from initial premises or situational conditions.

5. Validation and final clarifications. (See the works of Dewey, Wallace, Arnheim, A. N. Luke, and others.)

Let's consider in more detail joint cognitive performance consciousness and subconscious realized thanks to cognitive intuition... Even Pascal contrasted rational thought and intuition (predictive insight). He saw the true source of knowledge in the latter, symbolically personifying the heart for him; it is intuition that is able to instantly grasp the innermost essence of things and achieve their integral synthetic comprehension.

However, what is known in the process of intuitive comprehension still needs to be translated into the language of generally valid scientific concepts, principles, theoretical descriptions. Only in this way does intuitive insight become scientific knowledge and receive the possibility of further development.

On the other hand, intuitive “revelations” do not fall from the sky. In order for a creative search to be successful and intuitive insight to come to the rescue, it seems to us that at least the following conditions play an important role:

1) reliable, valuable and diverse information regarding the problem under study;

2) possession of effective "cognitive technologies" - methods of information processing, a significant part of which has passed into automatic skills; 3) great interest in getting the result.

At the conscious level, the cognitive process can be both involuntary and specially organized. That is why there is an opportunity to some extent to control the joint actions of the conscious and unconscious in the cognitive process.

According to Bertrand Russell, he suddenly discovered that when he has to work on a very difficult topic, the most reliable way is to think intensely about it for a few hours or days, and then “give the order” to the subconscious. “After a few months, consciously returning to this topic again, I always find that the job is done. Before discovering this method, I usually spent the same months in excruciating anxiety, since no progress was made. My anxiety did not speed up the decision at all, it still came on time, but the months spent in anxiety were wasted, although I could have used them for other useful things. " (See M. Moltz I am I, or How to become happy. M., 1991, p. 83-84).

Cognitive activity is not limited to the sphere of rational scientific research. It also includes such types of knowledge as everyday-practical, ethical, aesthetic, etc. Each of them has its own specifics.

Ernst Cassirer spoke of cognition as language, how myth And How art.

He stated that all these are not just mirrors that only reflect the pictures of external or internal being given to them. Rather, they themselves are light sources, both necessary for vision and formative.

In addition, as you know, thought in art is immediate (it figuratively shows, and not logically proves).

We have yet to consider the specific features of aesthetic activity and artistic creation.

In the meantime, let us return to the most developed form of cognition - scientific cognition.

It seems to us that cognitive creativity is characterized by the ability not to avoid emerging logical and epistemological contradictions, but, on the contrary, to concentrate the main attention on them. As a rule, contradictions are removed at a higher (deeper) essential level through synthesis, which opens a previously unknown one face of diversity ...

A talented person solves such problems better than so many people. Genius, as you know, solves problems that no one else has seen or solved.

It is curious that in crisis or critical situations, a person's consciousness begins to resemble unconscious mental activity in the nature of its actions. It tries to become multidimensional, while simultaneously playing out many “scenarios” of possible actions in a rapidly and ambiguously changing situation. The inconsistency is no longer experienced as sharply as in "normal times."

Peculiar supraconscious the level of cognitive activity suggests to take into account M.G. Yaroshevsky. With the categorical regulation of mental activity, the individual “connects” to the forms of the logic of the development of science that are independent of his consciousness. “The difference between supraconscious activity and other forms of mental regulation is that it integrates the personal and the transpersonal in the form of subject-logical, moreover, such subject-logical, which has not yet been defended in science, but is being formed in this historical period. The scientist's creative thought captures the “required future” of science, the “future” call ”(Yaroshevsky MG History of psychology. - M., 1985, p. 21-22).

We have no doubts that it is important to distinguish subconscious and superconscious intuition. The first fertilizes a person's consciousness with new valuable information, born without his active direct participation. Although the mind is working on solving a certain problem, a lot of other problems - large and small - constantly distract its attention. Therefore, the result obtained at the subconscious level comes from there into consciousness unexpectedly.

Superconscious intuition is another matter. It requires absolutely complete involvement in the creative search process. the whole whole person.

Products subconscious intuition become guesswork filling the gaps in our knowledge and relying to a large extent on past experience and routine enumeration of possible options (this is the kind of intuition that was discussed in S. Arieti's reasoning). The fruits of superconscious intuition, it seems to us, are qualitatively different. It brings fundamentally new knowledge that is in no way deduced from previous experience and generally accepted paradigms. Perhaps Sartre's expression can be applied to this new knowledge, saying that they are not projection, they project(they are not a prediction of previous paradigms, but a project of a new one).

Perhaps cognition at the level of superconsciousness has a non-algorithmic nature. “The essence of creative thinking is not reduced to an algorithm, it manifests itself primarily in breaking old and creating new algorithms, in the implementation of thinking in a way that is different from algorithmic procedures. A non-algorithmic model is a model of thinking as an activity, in which the processes of goal formation, sense formation, motive formation, expressing its creative nature, unfold ” (Psychology.Dictionary M., 1990, p. 314).

Doesn't creative intuition break the historical continuity in science and culture? Far from it! She refuses not from the past, but from the past understanding of the past (and everything connected with it), offering a completely new, deeper understanding. This new understanding has greater universality, it includes the previous understanding as its “special case” (the well-known “principle of correspondence” comes into force). Therefore, the connection between the past and the present only grows, receiving a deeper and more universal justification.

However, the desire to see on physiological level not only elementary forms of cognitive activity, but also a special instinct " scientific creativity ”. It seems to me that in this case the essential difference between prerequisites and subsequent the result these prerequisites.

One of the most fruitful interpretations (in information theory) of the value of information expresses it through the increment in the probability of achieving a goal.

The same Einstein, who highly appreciated intuition, noted that intuitive conclusions based on direct observation cannot always be trusted. (Einstein A., Infeld L., p. 4).

("PASSION OF THE WESTERN MIND")

When, in the twentieth century, Nietzsche declared that there are no facts - there are only interpretations, he simultaneously summed up all the critical philosophy inherited from the eighteenth century and pointed out the promising tasks of deep psychology in the twentieth century. In Western thought, the idea that some unconscious element of consciousness exerts a decisive influence on human perception, cognition and behavior has long been making its way, but Freud was destined to make it the center of attention and the subject of modern intellectual interests. Freud had a surprisingly multifaceted role in the unfolding of the Copernican revolution. On the one hand, as stated in the famous passage at the end of the eighteenth of his "Introductory Lectures", psychoanalysis served as the third sensitive blow to the naive self-esteem of man (the first blow was Copernicus's heliocentric theory, the second - Darwin's theory of evolution). For psychoanalysis has aggravated previous discoveries that the Earth is not the center of the Universe and man is not the focus and crown of creation, a new discovery that even the human mind, his "ego", his most precious sensation, which allows him to consider himself a conscious and intelligent "I" - just a recent stratification, prematurely developing from the primitive element "it" and by no means even being the master of his house. Having made such an epoch-making discovery regarding the unconscious dominants of human experience, Freud took its rightful place in the Copernican "genealogy" of modern thought, which with each new "tribe" made the status of a person more and more precarious. And again, like Copernicus and Kant, only on a completely new level, Freud came to the fundamental conclusion that the apparent reality of the objective world is determined by the unconscious of the subject.

However, Freud's insight also became a double-edged sword, and, in a very important sense, Freud's teachings marked a decisive turn in the trajectory that cognition took. For the discovery of the unconscious destroyed the old boundaries of interpretation. As Descartes believed, and after him - the British empiricists-Cartesians, the primary given in human experience is not the material world, not the sensory transformations of this world, but human experience itself; and psychoanalysis laid the foundation for the systematic study of the human soul - this repository of all experience and knowledge. From Descartes to Locke, Berkeley and Hume, and then Kant, the progress of epistemology increasingly depended on the analysis of the human mind and its role in the act of cognition. In the light of the achievements of the path already traversed, as well as the further step taken by Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and others, the analytical task put forward by Freud gradually emerged. The modern psychological imperative - to reveal the unconscious - coincides exactly with the modern epistemological imperative - to discover the root principles of mental organization.

However, if Freud highlighted the problem, then Jung saw the most important philosophical consequences that were a consequence of the discoveries of depth psychology. This was partly because Jung was more experienced in epistemology than Freud, since he was fond of Kant and critical philosophy from his youth (even in the 1930s, Jung diligently read Karl Popper, which was a surprise to many Jungians). In part, it is also because Jung was less committed to 19th-century scientism than Freud. But above all, Jung had a much more open and deep experience, which helped him to open the wide field in which depth psychology operated. As Joseph Campbell put it, Freud was fishing while sitting on a whale: he did not notice what was nearby. Of course, "the big is seen at a distance," and we all depend on our successors, because only they can cross the chalk line we have drawn.

So, it was Jung who recognized that critical philosophy, in his own words, is "the mother of modern psychology." Kant was right that human experience is not atomistic, as Hume believed, but, on the contrary, is permeated with a priori structures - and at the same time, the formulation that Kant gave to these structures reflects his unconditional belief in Newtonian physics and therefore is inevitably narrow and simplifies a lot. In some ways, Kant's understanding of reason was limited by his bias in favor of Newton, just as Freud's understanding was limited by his bias in favor of Darwin. Jung, having experienced a more powerful influence of the manifestations of the human psyche - both his own and someone else's - went to the end the path indicated by Kant and Freud, until he discovered in this search his Holy Grail: these were universal archetypes, which in their power and the most complex diversity has always accompanied man, being decisive in human experience.

Among the discoveries of Freud - the Oedipus complex, Id and Superego ("It" and "Super-I"), Eros and Thanatos (Love and Death): he recognized instincts mainly in the form of archetypes. However, it misfired in the tightest corners, as the dust of reductionist tension clouded his eyes. With the advent of Jung, the symbolic polysemy of archetypes was fully revealed to the world, and the river of Freud's "personal unconscious", which contained mainly repressed impulses caused by various life traumas and the struggle of the ego with instincts, finally poured into the ocean of the collective unconscious, where archetypes that are not as much the result of suppression as the original foundation of the soul itself. Consistently removing the veils from the unconscious, depth psychology has formulated in a new way this epistemological riddle, first recognized by Kant; if Freud approached it biasedly and shortsightedly, then Jung managed to achieve incomparably more conscious and all-embracing comprehension.

But what is the real nature of these archetypes, what is this collective unconscious, and what is their impact on the modern scientific worldview? Although Jung's theory of archetypes greatly enriched and deepened the modern understanding of the psyche, in a certain respect it could only be seen as an intensification of Kantian epistemological alienation. Over the years, Jung, demonstrating loyalty to Kant, repeatedly emphasized that the discovery of archetypes is the result of an empirical study of psychological phenomena and, therefore, does not entail indispensable metaphysical conclusions. The study of the mind brings knowledge about the mind, and not about the world outside the mind. And in this sense, archetypes are psychological, and therefore partly subjective. Like Kant's a priori formal categories, they structure human experience without providing the human mind with direct knowledge of reality outside itself; they are inherited structures or dispositions that precede human experience and determine its character, but it cannot be argued that they themselves are external to human consciousness. Perhaps they are just distorting lenses from among those that stand between the human mind and true knowledge of the world. Or perhaps they are just deep models of human projection.

But, of course, Jung's idea was much more complex, and over the course of his long and rich intellectual life, his concept of archetypes underwent a significant evolution. The usual - still the most famous - notion of Jung's archetypes is based on the writings of Jung, relating to the middle period of his work, when his worldview was still dominated by the ideas of the Cartesian-Kantian sense of nature and its disconnection from the outside world. Meanwhile, in later works, namely, in connection with the study of the principle of simultaneity, Jung began to move to a concept in which archetypes were considered as independent semantic models, probably inherent in both consciousness and matter, and giving them an internal structure: then there is this concept, as it were, nullified the old subject-object dichotomy of the New Age. In this interpretation, archetypes appear more mysterious than a priori categories: their ontological status is unclear, they are hardly reducible to any one dimension and rather resemble the original - platonic and non-Platonic - ideas about archetypes. Some aspects of this late Jungian concept were adopted - not without brilliance and excitement - by James Hillman and the school of archetype psychology, who developed a "postmodern Jungian perspective; they recognized the primacy of the soul and imagination, as well as the irreducible psychic reality and power of archetypes, however, unlike late Jung, in every possible way avoided any metaphysical or theological statements, preferring the full acceptance of the psyche-soul in all its infinite wealth and diversity.

However, the most significant epistemologically significant event in the recent history of depth psychology and the most important achievement in this area since the time of Freud and Jung were the works of Stanislav Grof, who over the past three decades not only substantiated the revolutionary psychodynamic theory, but also made several major conclusions that had a great resonance in many other areas of knowledge, including in philosophy. Surely many readers - especially in Europe and California - are familiar with the works of Grof, nevertheless, I will cite them here. summary... Grof started as a psychiatrist-psychoanalyst, and initially the soil on which his ideas grew was the doctrine of Freud yes, not Jung. However, fate decreed in such a way that his professional take-off was his assertion of Jung's views on archetypes at a new level, as well as their reduction into a harmonious synthesis with Freud's biological and biographical perspective - however, this affected the deep layers of the psyche, about which Freud, probably, and did not know.

Grof's discovery was based on his observations in the process of conducting psychoanalytic research: first in Prague, then in Maryland, at the National Institute of Mental Health, where the subjects took strong psychoactive substances, LSD, and a little later were subjected to a number of powerful non-narcotic therapeutic effects that released unconscious processes. Grof came to the conclusion that the subjects participating in these experiments seek to explore the unconscious, plunging into ever greater depths each time, and in the course of such research, a consistent chain of sensations, marked by extreme complexity and tension, invariably arises. In the initial stages, the subjects usually moved back to the past - to ever earlier experiences and life traumas, to the emergence of the Oedipus complex, to the basics of hygiene, to the earliest infant impressions, right up to the cradle - which, on the whole, developed into a quite clear from the point of view of Freudian psychoanalytic principles, the picture and, apparently, represented something like laboratory confirmation of Freud's theories. However, further, after the various complexes of memories were identified and collected together, the subjects invariably strove to move in the same direction even further in order to "relive" the extremely intense process of biological birth.

Although this process took place on a clearly biological level, it had a distinct imprint of some archetypal series, amazing in its strength and significance. Subjects reported that at this level the sensations had an intensity that surpassed all imaginable limits of possible experience. These sensations arose extremely chaotically, very difficult to overlap each other, but in this complex flow Grof managed to catch a rather clear sequence: the movement was directed from the initial state of undivided unity with the mother's womb - to the feeling of unexpected falling away and separation from the primary organic unity, to desperate - "not to the stomach, but to death" - the fight against convulsive contractions of the walls of the uterus and the birth canal, and, finally, to the feeling of its complete destruction. This was followed almost immediately by a sudden sensation of absolute liberation, which was usually perceived as a physical birth, but also as a spiritual rebirth, and the first and the second were incomprehensibly and mysteriously connected with each other.

It must be said here that for ten years I lived in Big Sur, California, where I led scientific programs at the Esalen Institute, and during all these years, almost all types of therapy and personal transformation went through Esalen. In terms of therapeutic efficacy, Grof's method turned out to be stronger than others: none of them stood comparison with him. However, the price had to be paid too high, in a sense too high: a person experienced his own birth anew, falling into the grip of the deepest existential and spiritual crisis, accompanied by severe physical agony, an unbearable feeling of suffocation and pressure, the ultimate narrowing of mental horizons, a sense of hopeless alienation and extreme meaninglessness life, the feeling of approaching irreversible insanity, and, finally, a crushing blow from the meeting with death, when everything disappears - both in the physical and psychological, and in the mental, and in the spiritual sense. However, then, having brought together all the links of this long chain of experiences, the subjects invariably reported that they had experienced an extraordinary expansion of horizons, a radical change in ideas about the nature of reality, a feeling of sudden awakening, a feeling of their inextricable connection with the Universe, and all this was accompanied by a deep sense of psychological healing. and spiritual liberation. A little later, in these and subsequent experiments, the subjects reported that they had access to memories of prenatal, intrauterine existence, which usually appears closely associated with archetypal prototypes of paradise, mystical union with nature, with a deity or with the Great Mother Goddess, with dissolution of "ego" in ecstatic union with the Universe, with immersion in the abyss of the transcendent One and other forms of mystical unified sensation. Freud called the revelations, the appearance of which he observed at this level of perception, "oceanic feeling" - however, Freud referred to him only the experiences of a nursing infant experiencing a feeling of unity with his nursing mother: this is, as it were, a weakened version of the spontaneously primitive undivided consciousness in the intrauterine state ...

In terms of psychotherapy, Grof discovered that the deepest source of all psychological symptoms and suffering lies far beneath the layers of childhood trauma and other life events: this is the experience of birth itself, in which the experience of facing death is inextricably intertwined. In the event of a successful completion of the experiment, the person's long-standing problems of the psychoanalytic order completely disappeared, including those symptoms and conditions that had previously stubbornly resisted any therapeutic influences. It should be emphasized here that this "perinatal" (that is, accompanying birth) chain of experiences, as a rule, was seen at several levels at once, but it almost always contained a tense somatic element. The physical catharsis that accompanied the secondary experience of birth trauma proved to be extraordinarily powerful: this clearly indicated the reason for the comparative ineffectiveness of most psychoanalytic forms of therapy, based mainly on verbal stimulation and barely touching the surface. Perinatal experiences identified by Grof were, on the contrary, literal, spontaneous. They appeared only when the ego's usual capacity for control was overcome - either through the use of some catalytic psychoactive substance or therapeutic technique, or through the involuntary power of the unconscious.

At the same time, these experiences turned out to be deeply archetypal in nature. Indeed, faced with this perinatal chain, the subjects began to constantly feel that nature itself - including the human body - is a vessel and container of the archetypal, that natural processes are archetypal processes: both Freud and Jung - only from different sides. In a sense, Grof's research has more clearly identified the biological origins of Jung's archetypes, while also more clearly identifying the archetypal origins of Freud's instincts. The collision of birth and death in this series, apparently, represents a kind of intersection point between different dimensions, where the biological meets the archetypal, the Freudian with Jung's, the biographical with the collective, the personal with the interpersonal, the body with the spirit. Looking back at the evolution of psychoanalysis, we can say that it gradually pushed Freud's biological-biographical perspective to ever earlier periods of individual human life - until, upon reaching the moment of birth, this strategy overturned the edifice of orthodox reductionism built by Freud and indicated psychoanalytic ideas new way to a more complex and expanded ontology of human experience. As a result, such an understanding of the psyche arose, which, like the very experience of the perinatal chain, turned out to be irreducible and multidimensional.

The many discoveries generated by Grof's research could be discussed here: that male sexism is rooted in unconscious fear. female body doomed to give birth; that the roots of the Oedipus complex lie in a much earlier, initial struggle against the contracting walls of the uterus and the suffocating birth canal (which is perceived as a kind of punitive act) in order to restore the lost union with the nourishing mother's womb; regarding the therapeutic value of facing death; regarding the roots of such special psychopathological conditions as depression, phobias, obsessive-compulsive neurosis, sexual disorders, sadomasochism, mania, suicide, drug addiction, various psychotic states, as well as such collective psychological disorders as the thirst for destruction and war and totalitarianism. One could also discuss the magnificent, much clarifying synthesis that Grof achieved in his psychodynamic theory, bringing together not only the ideas of Freud and Jung, but also the ideas of Reich, Rank, Adler, Ferenczi, Klein, Fairbairn, Winnicott, Erickson, Maslow, Perls, Lana. However, we are not interested in psychotherapy, but in philosophy, and if the field of perinatal research has become a decisive threshold for therapeutic transformation, then it turned out to be no less important for philosophy and cultural studies. Therefore, in discussing this topic, I will limit myself to those special conclusions and consequences that the current epistemological situation owes to Grof. In this context, some generalizations based on clinical evidence are of particular importance.

First, the archetypal chain that permeates perinatal phenomena - from the uterus, then in the birth canal and up to birth - was felt primarily as a powerful dialectic; movement from the initial state of undivided unity to a shaky state of suppression, collision and contradiction, accompanied by a feeling of separation, division and alienation, and, finally, progress through the stage of complete disappearance to an unexpected redemptive liberation, which carried both the overcoming and the completion of this intermediate alienated state, restoring the original unity, but at a completely new level, where all the achievements of the trajectory traversed were preserved.

Secondly, this archetypal dialectic was often experienced simultaneously both at the individual level and - even more tangibly - at the collective level, so that the movement from initial unity through alienation to liberating resolution was experienced as, for example, the evolution of an entire culture or humanity as a whole - not only as the birth of a specific child from a specific mother, but also as the birth of Homo sapiens from the bosom of nature. The personal and the interpersonal are present here equally, being indissolubly linked together, so that ontogeny not only repeats phylogeny, but, in a certain sense, "flows" into it, like a river.

And thirdly, this archetypal dialectic was experienced and fixed much more often in several dimensions at once - in the physical, psychological, intellectual, spiritual - than in any one of them, and sometimes all of them were present simultaneously in some complex combination. As Grof emphasized, the clinical evidence does not at all suggest that this perinatal chain should simply be reduced to birth trauma: rather, the biological process of birth itself appears to be an expression of a more general, deeper archetypal process that can manifest itself in many dimensions. So:

From point of view physics, The perinatal chain was experienced as a period of biological pregnancy and as birth, and the movement proceeded from a symbiotic union with an all-encompassing nourishing womb, through a gradual increase in complexity and isolation within this uterus, to a collision with the contractions of the womb, with the birth canal, and, finally, to birth itself.

From point of view psychology, here there was a movement from the initial state of undivided consciousness "do-I" to the state of increasing isolation and separation of the "I" from the world, increasing existential alienation, and, finally, to the feeling of death of the "Ego", which was followed by a psychological rebirth; often all this was associated with the experience of life: from the womb of childhood - through the labors and torments of mature life and the suffocation of old age - to the meeting with death.

On religious level, this chain of experiences took on a great variety of guises, but mainly Judeo-Christian symbolism prevailed: movement from the primordial Garden of Eden, through the Fall, through exile into the world separated from the Divine, into the world of suffering and mortality, to the redemptive crucifixion and resurrection, carrying with itself the reunification of the human with the Divine. On the individual level, the experience of this perinatal chain strongly resembled the initiations of the ancient mystery religions associated with death and rebirth (in fact, they, apparently, were largely identical).

Finally, on philosophical level, this experience was comprehensible, relatively speaking, in neoplatonic-Hegelian-Nietzschean concepts, as dialectical development from the initial archetypal Unity, through emanation into matter with increasing complexity, plurality and isolation, through a state of absolute alienation - "the death of God" as in Hegelian and in the Nietzschean sense - to the dramatic Aufhebung *, to the synthesis and reunification with self-sufficient Being, in which the trajectory of the individual path disappears and ends.

* Cancellation, abolition; completion. - German

This multilevel empirical chain is of great importance for many areas of knowledge, but here it is necessary to focus on epistemological conclusions that seem to be especially important for the modern intellectual situation. For the opening perspective creates the impression that the fundamental subject-object dichtomania that reigned in modern consciousness, which determined and was the essence modern consciousness, and was taken as an absolute given and as the basis of any "realistic" view and the basis of alienation, - is rooted in a special archetypal state associated with the untreated trauma of human birth, where the original consciousness of undivided organic unity with the mother, or partipation mystique * nature, was displaced, open and lost. Both at the individual and collective levels, one can see here the source of the deepest duality of modern thinking: between man and nature, between mind and matter, between “I” and the other, between experience and reality - this inescapable feeling of a lonely “ego” hopelessly lost in the thicket of the outside world that surrounded him on all sides. Here and the painful disunity with the eternal and all-embracing bosom of nature, and the development of human self-consciousness, and the loss of connection with the fundamental principle of being, and the expulsion from Eden, and the entry into the dimension of time, history and matter, and the "disenchantment" of the cosmos, and the feeling of complete immersion in a hostile a world of impersonal forces. Here is the feeling of the Universe as something extremely indifferent, hostile, impenetrable. Here is a convulsive desire to escape from the power of nature, to subjugate and enslave natural forces, even to take revenge on nature. Here is the primitive fear of losing power and domination, based on the all-consuming horror of imminent death, which inevitably accompanies the exit of the individual ego from the primary integrity. But most of all here is a deep sense of ontological and epistemological disconnection between the human "I" and the world.

* Mysterious involvement. - fr.

This strongest sense of disunity is then elevated to the legitimate rank of the interpretative principle of modern thinking. It is no coincidence that Descartes - the man who first formulated the definition of the modern individual rational "I" - was the first to formulate the definition of the mechanistic Cosmos of the Copernican revolution. The main a priori categories and premises of modern science with its conviction that an independent external world must certainly be subjected to research from an independent human mind, with its choice of impersonal mechanistic explanations, with its denial of spirituality in the Cosmos and any internal meaning or purpose in nature, with its demand for an unambiguous and literal interpretation of the world of phenomena - were the key to the worldview of the disenchanted and alienated. As Hillman emphasized:

"The evidence that we collect to support the hypothesis, and the rhetoric that we use to prove it, are already part of the archetypal constellation within which we ourselves are ... So the" objective "idea that we find in the location of the data is at the same time" subjective "the idea by which we see this data."

From similar positions, the Cartesian-Kantian philosophical views that reigned in modern thinking, filled and spurred modern scientific achievements, reflect the dominance of a powerful archetypal form (Gestalt), a certain empirical template, according to which human consciousness is "sifted" and then "sculpted" - and in such a way that as a result, reality appears impenetrable , literal, objective and alien. The Cartesian-Kantian paradigm both expresses and affirms such a state of consciousness in which the voice of the deep unifying principles of reality is systematically muffled, the world loses its spell, and the human "ego" remains alone. Such a worldview is, so to speak, a metaphysical and epistemological "box" - a hermetically sealed system that reflected the contraction in the process of archetypal birth. This is nothing more than a deliberate and elaborate expression of a special archetypal sphere, within which human consciousness is reliably locked - as if it existed inside some kind of solipsist bubble.

Of course, there is a bitter irony in all this: after all, it is when modern thinking, finally believing that it has managed to completely free itself from all anthropomorphic projections, strenuously upholds the model of an unreasonable, mechanistic and impersonal world, - it is then that it turns out that this world, more than ever, is a selective construction of the human mind. The human mind has eliminated any manifestations of consciousness everywhere, removed meaning and purpose from everywhere, declaring its exclusive right to them, then projected a certain machine onto the world. As Rupert Sheldrake pointed out, this is the most anthropomorphic projection: a "man-made" machine, assembled by the man himself, a monster, which in nature does not exist at all. In this case, what modern thinking is projected onto the world - or, more precisely, what it has extracted from the world through its projection - turned out to be its own impersonal heartlessness.

However, depth psychology - this extraordinarily prolific tradition established by Freud and Jung - had a difficult fate to provide modern thinking with access to archetypal forces and realities, designed to reunite the separate "I" with the rest of the world, destroying the old dualism of the worldview. Indeed, now, looking back, one would like to say that it is depth psychology was destined bring modern thinking to the realization of these realities: if the kingdom of archetypes refused to be recognized by philosophy, religion, and science belonging to a high culture, then it should have appeared again from below - from the "underworld" of the soul. As L.L. White noted, the idea of ​​the subconscious first arose in the time of Descartes and since then, having begun its ascent to Freud, has played an increasingly prominent role. And when, at the dawn of the 20th century, Freud published his book "The Interpretation of Dreams", he prefaced it with a line from Virgil as an epigraph, where everything was so clearly said: "Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo" *. Retribution is inevitable - and if not from above, then from below.

* "The highest are not able to soften the gods, I appeal to the underground." - lat.

Thus, the modern state of consciousness begins as a Promethean movement towards the liberation of man, towards independence from the encompassing natural principle, towards isolation from the collective element, but this Cartesian-Kantian state gradually and irresistibly turns into a Kafkaesian-Beckett state of complete existential loneliness and absurdity - unbearable " double knot ", leading to destructive madness. And again, the existential "double knot" exactly reflects the position of the baby inside the mother's womb: at first he is symbiotically connected with the womb that feeds him, he grows and develops inside this womb, he is the beloved focus of the all-embracing world, and now he is suddenly expelled by this world, rejected by this womb, abandoned, crushed, suffocated and vomited, finding himself in a state of extreme confusion and mortal anxiety, in an inexplicable and incongruous position, leaving him in a traumatically high tension.

At the same time, the complete experience of this "double knot", this dialectic between unity, on the one hand, and birth pangs and subject-object dichotomy, on the other, unexpectedly generates a third state: the redemptive reunification of the detached "I" with the universal fundamental principle. The born child falls into the arms of the mother, the liberated hero makes an ascent from the underworld in order to return home after his long odyssey. There is a reconciliation of the individual and the universal. Now it is clear: suffering, alienation and death are necessary for birth, for the creation of "I": O Felix Cupla *. The position, which previously seemed completely incomprehensible, is now recognized as a necessary link in the chain, since its wide context is more than clear. The wound from the break with Being is healed. The world begins to reopen, clothed with its original charm. The formation of a separate independent "I" has already been accomplished, and now the "I" again clung to the sources of its being.

· Oh happy wine; oh blessed sin. - lat.

Translated by T.A. Azarkovich

http: // psylib .org .ua / books / tarna 01 / txt 12.htm # 2

Indeed, Freud proceeded from the fact that, like the physical, the psychic should not really be exactly as it appears to us. Reality is one thing, and the idea of ​​it is another. The perception of mental reality by consciousness is one thing, and unconscious mental processes that are the object of consciousness is another. Therefore, the psychoanalyst is faced with a difficult question: how is cognition of the unconscious psychic possible, if, in essence, it is as unknown to a person as the reality of the external world?

Freud was aware that the disclosure of the content
harnessing the unconscious is a difficult task. However, he believed that, as in the case of cognition of material reality, when comprehending psychic reality, it is necessary to make adjustments to external perception
her. Even Kant said that perception is not identical with what is perceived, and on the basis of this he distinguished between the thing “in itself” and “for itself”. Freud did not seek to comprehend the essence of such subtleties. But he proceeded from the fact that adjustments to internal perception is a feasible matter and, in principle, possible, since, as he believed, understanding an internal object is to some extent even easier than knowing an external object.

Of course, one can disagree with some of Freud's statements, especially since, as real practice shows, cognition of the inner world of a person turns out to be a more difficult matter than cognition of the material reality surrounding him. It is no coincidence that in the 20th century, thanks to scientific and technical knowledge, it was possible to find the key to discovering many secrets of the surrounding world, which cannot be said about comprehending the secrets of the human soul. However, such an optimistic mood of Freud in relation to the possibilities of cognition of the unconscious mental was explained by the fact that psychoanalytic views about the repressed unconscious included a very definite, although, perhaps, at first glance, a strange attitude. According to this attitude, such processes can occur in the human psyche that, in essence, are known to him, although he seems to know nothing about them.

Those who denied the unconscious often asked quite reasonable questions. How can we talk about something that we are not aware of? How can one judge the unconscious at all if it is not the subject of consciousness? How, in principle, is it possible to know what is beyond consciousness? These questions demanded an answer, and many thinkers racked their brains to no avail. The difficulties associated with the very approach to solving these issues gave rise to such a mentality, according to which a reasonable way out of the situation consisted in refusing to recognize the unconscious as such.

Freud was not happy with this situation. Having recognized the psychic status of reality for the unconscious, he could not ignore all these questions, which in one way or another boiled down to considering how and how one can cognize what escapes the consciousness of a person. And he began to comprehend the question of cognition of the unconscious from elementary things, from general considerations about knowledge as such.

Like his predecessors, Freud proceeded from the fact that all human knowledge is somehow connected with consciousness. As a matter of fact, knowledge always acts as consciousness. In turn, this means that the unconscious can be cognized only through becoming conscious. "Even the unconscious," Freud emphasized, "we can only know by turning it into a conscious one." But the traditional psychology of consciousness either ignored the unconscious, or, at best, admitted it as something so demonic that was subject to condemnation rather than knowledge. In contrast to the psychology of consciousness, psychoanalysis not only appeals to the unconscious mental, but also seeks to make it an object of cognition.

Before Freud, for whom the unconscious psychic became important subject knowledge, the question inevitably arose: how is it possible to transform the unconscious into conscious if it is not consciousness in itself, and what does it mean to make something conscious? It can be assumed that the unconscious processes taking place in the depths of the human psyche themselves reach the surface of consciousness, or, conversely, consciousness in some elusive way breaks through to them. But such an assumption does not contribute to the answer to the question posed, since both possibilities do not reflect the real state of affairs. After all, only preconscious processes can reach consciousness, and even then a person needs to make considerable efforts to ensure that this happens. For the repressed unconscious, the road to consciousness is closed. Consciousness, too, cannot master the repressed unconscious, since it does not know what, why and where it has been repressed. It looks like a dead end.

To get out of the impasse, Freud tried to find some other possibility of transferring internal processes to a sphere where the scope for their awareness was opened. Such an opportunity presented itself to him in connection with the found solution, similar to the one that Hegel spoke of in his time. The German philosopher once expressed a witty idea, according to which the answer to the questions that remain unanswered is that the questions themselves must be posed differently. Without referring to Hegel, Freud did just that. He reformulated the question of how anything becomes conscious. It becomes more expedient for him to pose the question of how something can become preconscious.

Freud correlated the preconscious with the verbal expression of unconscious ideas, so the answer to the reformulated question did not cause any difficulties. It sounded in such a way that something becomes preconscious through connection with the corresponding verbal representations. Now it was only necessary to answer the question of how the repressed could become preconscious. But here the direct analytical work was brought to the fore, with the help of which the necessary conditions for the emergence of mediating links that contribute to the transition from the repressed unconscious to the preconscious.

In general, Freud tried in his own way to answer the tricky question about the possibilities of awareness of the unconscious. For him, conscious, preconscious and unconscious representations were not "records" of the same content in different mental systems. The first included subject representations, designed in an appropriate verbal way. The second is the possibility of entering into a connection between subject and verbal representations. Still others are material that remains unknown, that is, unknown, and consists of some object representations. Proceeding from this, the process of cognition of the unconscious in psychoanalysis is transferred from the sphere of consciousness to the area of ​​the preconscious.

In fact, we are talking about the translation of the repressed unconscious not into consciousness, but into the preconscious. The implementation of this translation is assumed through specially developed psychoanalytic techniques, when a person's consciousness seems to remain in its place, the unconscious does not rise directly to the level of the conscious, but the preconscious system becomes the most active, within which there is a real possibility of transforming the repressed unconscious into the preconscious.

Thus, in the classical psychoanalysis of Freud, the cognition of the unconscious is correlated with the possibilities of meeting object representations with linguistic constructions expressed in verbal form. Hence the importance in the theory and practice of psychoanalysis, which is attached to the role of language and linguistic constructions in revealing the content characteristics of the unconscious. In the process of a psychoanalytic session, a dialogue takes place between the analyst and the patient, where language turns and speech constructions serve as the initial basis for penetrating into the depths of the unconscious. However, specific difficulties arise here, due to the fact that the unconscious has not only a different, different, different from consciousness logic, but also its own language. The unconscious broadcasts in a language that is incomprehensible to the uninitiated. Without knowledge of this "foreign" language of the unconscious, one cannot count on cognition of the unconscious mental. The specific language of the unconscious is especially clearly manifested in human dreams, where various images and plots are imbued with symbolism. This symbolic language of the unconscious needs to be deciphered, which is not such a simple task, the implementation of which presupposes a person's acquaintance with an ancient culture, where the language of symbols was an important part of human life.

Aware of the difficulties directly related to the cognition of the unconscious, Freud paid considerable attention both to the disclosure of the symbolic language of the unconscious and to comprehending the possibilities of translating the repressed unconscious into the sphere of the preconscious. In the process of further consideration of the theory and practice of psychoanalysis, it will be necessary to specifically address the issue of the symbolic language of the unconscious, since this issue is really important and essential in understanding psychoanalysis as such. For now, it is enough to emphasize that Freud proposed such a specific interpretation of the nature of verbal representations, thanks to which they allowed the logical possibility of understanding the unconscious through preconscious mediating links. - The fact is that Freud put forward the postulate about verbal representations as some traces of memories. In his understanding, any word is ultimately nothing more than a remnant of the memory of a previously heard word. In accordance with this, classical psychoanalysis was based on the recognition of the presence in a person of such knowledge, which, in general, he has, but about which he himself knows nothing. While possessing a certain amount of knowledge, the individual is nevertheless not aware of it until the chain of memories of real events and experiences of the past is restored, which once took place in the life of an individual person or in the history of the development of the human race.

From the point of view of Freud, only that which was once already conscious perception can become conscious. Obviously, with such an understanding, cognition of the unconscious becomes, in fact, a recollection, restoration of previously existing knowledge in a person's memory. The process of cognizing the unconscious turns out to be a kind of resurrection of knowledge-memories, the fragmentary components of which are in the preconscious, but the deep content of which is repressed due to a person's unwillingness or inability to recognize his aspirations and desires in the symbolic language of the unconscious, often associated with some hidden demonic forces , alien to the individual as a social, cultural and moral being.

With this approach of Freud to the possibility of cognizing the unconscious, his reflections on the need to restore previous memories in a person's memory in their essential aspects reproduce the Platonic concept of anamnesis. And this is indeed so, since in the interpretation of this issue there are striking similarities between the psychoanalytic hypotheses of Freud and the philosophical ideas of Plato.

As you know, the ancient Greek thinker believed that a vague knowledge is embedded in the human soul, which only needs to be recalled, making it an object of consciousness. This was the basis for his concept of human cognition of the surrounding world. For Plato, knowing something first of all meant remembering, restoring knowledge belonging to a person. Freud adhered to similar views, who believed that knowledge is possible thanks to traces of memories. Plato proceeded from the fact that a person who does not know anything has correct opinion about what he doesn't know. Freud reproduced the same idea almost literally. In any case, he emphasized that, although a person does not always know about the phenomena contained in the depths of his psyche, nevertheless, they, in essence, are known to him.

Plato's concept of cognition was based on recalling knowledge that existed in the form of a priori given ideas. In the classical psychoanalysis of Freud, the cognition of the unconscious was correlated with the phylogenetic heritage of mankind, with phylogenetically inherited schemes, under the influence of which life phenomena were lined up in a certain order. In both cases, it was a question of very similar, if not more, similar positions. Another thing is that these positions were not identical to each other. There were also some differences between them. Thus, Plato proceeded from the premise of the existence of an objective world soul, the material world of which is reflected in the human soul in ideal images. Freud, on the other hand, focused on object representations expressed in the symbolic language of the unconscious, behind which were hidden phylogenetic structural formations that arose in the process of the evolutionary development of the human race.

Attention has already been drawn to the fact that the topical, dynamic and structural consideration of the unconscious mental has led, on the one hand, to a deeper understanding of the relationship between consciousness and the unconscious, and on the other, to the ambiguity of the term "unconscious" used in psychoanalysis. Freud's reflections on the possibility of cognizing the unconscious partly clarified the question of how, in principle, the transition from the repressed unconscious through the preconscious to the sphere of consciousness is carried out, and at the same time contributed to the ambiguity of the interpretation of the unconscious mental. And this is precisely so, since the unconscious itself began to correlate not only with ontogeny (human development), but also with phylogeny (the development of the human race). This understanding of the unconscious was reflected in the work of Freud "Totem and Taboo" (1913), which showed the similarities between the psychology of primitive man subject to herd instincts, and the psychology of a neurotic who is at the mercy of his own drives and desires.

Attention should also be paid to the fact that the ambiguity of the concept of "unconscious" in psychoanalysis has caused certain difficulties associated with the final results of cognition of the unconscious mental. It is not so much about the transfer of the unconscious into consciousness, but about the limits of psychoanalysis in identifying the essence of unconsciousness as such. Indeed, in the final analysis, Freud's research and therapeutic activities were aimed at revealing the initial components of the unconscious, namely those deep drives, the impossibility of realization and satisfaction of which led, as a rule, to the emergence of neuroses in the state of cognizing psychoanalysis. Then it gives way to biological research. "

The only thing that psychoanalysis can still claim is, perhaps, to comprehend how legitimate it is to talk about unconscious drives in general. Indeed, Freud's merit consisted in the isolation and study of the unconscious psychic. The analysis of this unconscious inevitably led to the identification of the most significant unconscious drives for the development and life of a person. Initially (before 1915), Freud believed that these are sexual drives (libidinal) and self drives (drives for self-preservation). Then, with the study of narcissism, he showed that sexual desires can be directed not only to an external object, but also to one's own I. Sexual energy (libido) is able to be directed not only outside, but also inside. Based on this, Freud introduced the concepts of object and narcissistic libido. Previously put forward by him sexual drives began to be considered in terms of object libido, and drives for self-preservation - as I-libido, or love for oneself. And finally, in the 1920s (work "Beyond the Pleasure Principle") Freud correlated sexual drives with the drive for life, and the drives of the I with the drive for death. Thus, he formulated and put forward the concept according to which a person manifests two main drives - the drive for life (Eros) and the drive for death (Thanatos).

Since Freud's ideas about human drives are an important part of his doctrine of the unconscious, it makes sense to briefly consider this issue before I move on to illuminating the limits of psychoanalysis in the knowledge of the unconscious.

In general terms, we can say that attraction is the unconscious striving of a person to satisfy his needs. Freud, who first used this concept in Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality (1905), distinguished between instinct (Instinkt) and attraction (Trieb). By instinct, he understood biologically inherited animal behavior, and by attraction - the psychic representation of the somatic source of irritation.

Paying special attention to the sexual desire, Freud singled out the sexual object, that is, the person to which this attraction is directed, and the sexual goal, that is, the action to perform which the attraction pushes. He supplemented the psychoanalytic understanding of the object, purpose and source of attraction with the corresponding ideas about the power of attraction. To quantify sexual desire, Freud used the concept of "libido" as a kind of force or energy that contributes to the measurement of sexual arousal. Libido directs a person's sexual activity and allows one to describe in economic terms the processes occurring in the human psyche, including those associated with neurotic diseases.

In his work "Attractions and Their Fates" (1915), Freud deepened his understanding of drives, emphasizing that the goal of the drive is to achieve satisfaction, and the object is the one through which the drive can achieve its goal. According to his views, attraction is influenced by three polarities: biological polarity, which includes an active and passive attitude to the world; real - implying division into a subject and an object, I and the external world; economic - based on the polarity of pleasure (pleasure) and displeasure. As for the fate of drives, in his opinion, there are several possible ways of their development. Attraction can turn into its opposite (the transformation of love into hate and vice versa). It can appeal to the personality itself when the focus on the object is replaced by the person's attitude towards himself. Attraction can be inhibited, that is, ready to retreat from the object and purpose. And finally, attraction is capable of sublimation, that is, of modification of the goal and change of the object, in which social assessment is taken into account.

In his 1932 (1933) introductory lectures on psychoanalysis, Freud summarized his views on the life of drives. In light of these generalizations, the psychoanalytic understanding of drives took on the following form:

a) attraction is different from irritation, it comes from a source of irritation inside the body and acts as a constant force;

b) when considering the drive in it, you can distinguish
source, object and goal, where the source of attraction is the state of excitement in the body, and the goal is the elimination of this excitement;

c) attraction becomes mentally effective on
paths from source to target;

d) mentally effective attraction has a certain amount of energy (libido);

e) the attitude of the drive to the goal and the object allows for
exchange of the latter, they can be replaced by other targets
mi and objects, including socially acceptable (sublimation);

f) one can distinguish between drives that are delayed on the way to
goals and lingers on the path to satisfaction;

g) there is a difference between drives that serve the sexual function and drives for self-preservation (hunger and thirst), and the former are characterized by plasticity, substitutability and detachment, while
while the latter are adamant and urgent.

In sadism and masochism, there is a fusion of two types of drives. Sadism is an outward attraction to external destruction. Masochism, aside from the erotic component, is the drive for self-destruction. The latter (the drive for self-destruction) can be considered an expression of the drive for death, which leads the living to an inorganic state.

The theory of drives put forward by Freud caused an ambiguous reaction from psychologists, philosophers, doctors, including psychoanalysts. Many of them criticized the metapsychological (based on the general theory of the human psyche) ideas about human drives. Freud himself repeatedly emphasized that drives constitute an area of ​​research in which it is difficult to navigate and it is not easy to achieve a clear understanding. So, initially the concept of "attraction" was introduced by him to delimit the soul from the bodily. However, later he had to say that drives govern not only mental, but also vegetative life. Ultimately, Freud recognized that drive is a rather obscure, but irreplaceable concept in psychology and that drives and their transformations are the final point accessible to psychoanalytic knowledge.

As you know, among psychologists, philosophers and physiologists, the second half of the XIX For centuries, there have been discussions about whether there are unconscious ideas, inferences, drives, actions. Some of them believed that one can only talk about unconscious ideas, but there is no need to introduce the concept of "unconscious inferences." Others recognized the legitimacy of both. Still others, on the contrary, generally denied the existence of any form of the unconscious.

Like some researchers, Freud also raised the question of whether there are unconscious feelings, sensations, drives. It would seem, given that in psychoanalysis the unconscious mental was considered as an important and necessary hypothesis, such a formulation of the question looked more than strange. After all, the initial theoretical postulates and the final results of Freud's research and therapeutic work coincided in one thing - in the recognition of unconscious drives as the main determinants of human activity. And nevertheless, he posed the question: how legitimate is it to talk about unconscious drives? Moreover, as may not be paradoxical at first glance, Freud's answer to this question was completely unexpected. Whatever it was, he emphasized that there are no unconscious affects and in relation to drives one can hardly speak of any opposition between the conscious and the unconscious.

Why did Freud come to such a conclusion? How can all this be correlated with his recognition of the unconscious psychic? What role did his reflections on the limits of psychoanalysis in the cognition of the unconscious play in his views on human drives? And finally, why did he question the question of the existence of unconscious drives, which, it would seem, crossed out his doctrine of the unconscious?

In fact, Freud did not intend to renounce his psychoanalytic doctrine of the unconscious psychic. On the contrary, all his research and therapeutic efforts were focused on identifying the unconscious and the possibilities of translating it into consciousness. However, the consideration of the unconscious mental in the cognitive plan forced Freud not only to recognize the limitations of psychoanalysis in cognizing the unconscious, but also to turn to clarify the meaning that is usually invested in the concept of "unconscious attraction".

The specificity of the issues discussed by Freud was that, in his deep conviction, the researcher can deal not so much with the drives themselves as with certain ideas about them. According to this understanding, all reasoning about drives, from the point of view of their consciousness and unconsciousness, are nothing more than conditional. Emphasizing this circumstance, Freud wrote: “I really think that the opposite of the conscious and the unconscious does not find application in relation to attraction. Attraction can never be an object of consciousness, it can only be a representation that reflects this attraction in consciousness. But even in the unconscious, the drive can be reflected only with the help of representation ... And if we are still talking about unconscious drive, or repressed drive, then this is only a harmless negligence of expression. By this we can understand only such an attraction, which is reflected in the psyche by an unconscious representation, and nothing else is meant by this. "

Thus, although Freud constantly appealed to the concept of "unconscious attraction", it was, in fact, about an unconscious representation. This kind of ambiguity is characteristic of classical psychoanalysis. And it is no coincidence that Freud's doctrine of the unconscious, mental and basic human drives met with such discrepancies on the part of his followers, not to mention critical opponents, which led to the emergence of multidirectional tendencies within the psychoanalytic movement.

The "harmless carelessness of expression" that Freud spoke of was actually not so harmless. They had far-reaching consequences. And the point is not only that the multiple meanings of the concept of "unconscious" and the ambiguity in the interpretation of human drives often affected the interpretation of psychoanalysis as such. More importantly, behind all the ambiguities and omissions concerning the conceptual apparatus of psychoanalysis, there was a heuristic and substantial limitation, which ultimately complicates the cognition and understanding of the unconscious. Another thing is that it was a really unusually difficult area of ​​research and the practical use of knowledge in clinical practice, which did credit to any scientist and analyst if he made some progress towards the study of the unconscious psychic. Freud was no exception in this regard. On the contrary, he was one of those who not only raised fundamental questions regarding the nature and possibility of cognition of the unconscious, but also outlined certain paths, following which allowed him to follow; and other psychoanalysts to make a contribution to the study of the unconscious.

In understanding the problem of the unconscious mental, Freud put forward several ideas that turned out to be important for the theory and practice of psychoanalysis. In addition to the distinctions he made between the conscious, preconscious and repressed unconscious, as well as the recognition of the "third" unrepressed unconscious (superego), he examined the properties and qualities of unconscious processes.

Unconscious in a broad sense - a set of mental processes, operations and states that are not represented in the consciousness of the subject. In a number of psychological theories the unconscious is a special sphere of the mental or a system of processes that are qualitatively different from the phenomena of consciousness. The term "Unconscious" is also used to characterize individual and group behavior, the actual goals and consequences of which are not realized.

The concept of the unconscious was first clearly formulated by Leibniz, who interpreted it as a low form of mental activity lying beyond the threshold of conscious representations. The first attempt at a materialistic explanation of the unconscious was undertaken by D. Gartley, who linked it with the activity of the nervous system.

At the beginning of the 19th century, the psychological study of the Unconscious itself began. The dynamic characteristic of the latter was introduced by Herbart (1824), according to which incompatible ideas can come into conflict with each other, and the weaker ones are forced out of consciousness, but continue to influence it without losing their dynamic properties. A new stimulus in the study of the unconscious was given by work in the field of psychopathology, where, for the purpose of therapy, specific methods of influencing the unconscious (hypnosis) began to be used. The studies of the French psychological school made it possible to reveal a mental activity other than conscious, not realized by the patient. Freud continued this line, who presented the unconscious in the form of a powerful irrational force, an antagonistic activity of consciousness. Unconscious drives according to Freud can be identified and brought under the control of consciousness using the technique of psychoanalysis. Jung, in addition to the personal unconscious, introduced the concept of the collective unconscious.

In the 20th century, a powerful philosophical school of psychoanalysis emerged and now exists, which specifically deals with the relationship between consciousness and the sphere of the unconscious. Unconscious is what is called that rarely falls under the rational-logical "ray", remains beyond the bounds of awareness. Unconsciousness includes the mechanisms of regulation of the body, our movements and actions, contains stereotypes of behavior that we habitually follow, emotional and value attitudes. It acts as a receptacle for what, for various reasons, we wish to forget. Between consciousness and unconsciousness, however, there is no insurmountable barrier, and together they constitute the inner world that each of us possesses.

The unconscious is a form of mental reflection in which the image of reality and the subject's attitude to this reality are presented as one undivided whole: unlike consciousness in the unconscious, the reflected reality merges with the experiences of the subject. As a result, in the unconscious there is no voluntary control of the actions carried out by the subject and a reflexive assessment of their results. The lack of understanding of the image of reality from the subject's relationship to it is manifested in such features of the unconscious as insensitivity to contradictions and the timeless nature of the unconscious - the past, present, future coexist and are not in relation to the linear irreversibility of the sequence. The unconscious finds its expression in the forms of the child's cognition of reality, in intuitions, affects, etc., as well as in aspirations, feelings and actions, the motivating causes of which are not recognized by the person.

In general, 4 classes of manifestations of unconsciousness are distinguished in psychology:

1) Supra-individual subconscious phenomena assimilated by the subject as a member of one or another social group samples of behavior typical for a given community, the influence of which on its activity is not actually realized by the subject and is not controlled (imitation).

2) Unconscious stimuli of activity - the motives and semantic attitudes of the personality. According to Freud, this is a "dynamic repressed unconscious", encompassing unrealized drives, which, due to their conflict with social norms, are expelled from consciousness and form latent affective complexes, predispositions to actions that actively affect the life of the individual and are manifested in indirect symbolic forms (humor, slips, dreams). Such phenomena of the unconscious in interpersonal relationships, as empathy (direct feeling), projection (not consciously endowing a person with his own properties), etc.

3) Unconscious operational attitudes and stereotypes of automated behavior. They arise in the process of solving various problems and draw on past experience.

4) Unconscious sub-sensory perception: when studying the thresholds of sensation of the range of a person's sensitivity, facts of influence on such stimuli were found that he could not give a report about.

The Austrian psychiatrist and philosopher Z. Freud paid special attention to the question of the nature of the unconscious. He expressed a number of important provisions on the sphere of the unconscious:

“Being conscious is primarily a purely descriptive term that relies on the most immediate and reliable perception. Experience further shows us that a psychic element, such as a representation, is usually not permanently conscious. On the contrary, it is characteristic that the state of consciousness passes quickly; representation in this moment the conscious, in the next instant, ceases to be such, but it can again become conscious under certain, easily attainable conditions. What it was in the interim period, we do not know; we can say that it was latent (latent), meaning that it was capable of becoming conscious at any moment. If we say that it was unconscious, we will also give the correct description. This unconscious in such a case coincides with the latent or potentially conscious ...

Thus, we obtain the concept of the unconscious from the doctrine of repression. We regard the repressed as a typical example of the unconscious. We see, however, that there is a double unconscious: the latent, but capable of becoming conscious, and the repressed, which by itself and without further can not become conscious ... The latent unconscious, which is such only in a descriptive, but not in a dynamic sense, is called us preconscious; we apply the term "unconscious" only to the repressed dynamic unconscious; thus, we now have three terms: "conscious" ( Bw), "Preconscious" ( Vbw) and "unconscious" (Ubw) ".

In general terms, the human psyche seems to Freud split into two opposing spheres conscious and unconscious, which represent the essential characteristics of a person. But in the Freudian personality structure, both of these spheres are not represented equally: he considered the unconscious to be the central component that constitutes the essence of the human psyche, and the conscious - only a special instance, built on top of the unconscious. The conscious, according to Freud, owes its origin to the unconscious and "crystallizes" from it in the process of the development of the psyche. Therefore, according to Freud, the conscious is not the essence of the psyche, but only such a quality that "may or may not join its other qualities."

Freud created personality model appears as a combination of three elements:

·"It"(Id) - a deep layer of unconscious drives, mental "self", the basis of an active individual, which is guided only by the "principle of pleasure" regardless of social reality, and sometimes in spite of it;

·"I AM"(Ego) - the sphere of the conscious, an intermediary between "It" and the outside world, including natural and social institutions, comparing the activity of "It" with the "principle of reality", expediency and external necessity;

· "Super - I"(Super - Ego) - an intrapersonal conscience, a kind of censorship, a critical instance that arises as a mediator between "It" and "I" due to the insolubility of the conflict between them, the inability of the "I" to curb unconscious impulses and subordinate them to the requirements of the "reality principle" ...

Trying to penetrate into the mechanisms of the human psyche, Freud proceeds from the fact that its deep, natural layer ("It") functions according to an arbitrarily chosen program getting the most pleasure... But since, in satisfying his passions, the individual is faced with an external reality that opposes the "It", the "I" stands out in him, striving to curb unconscious drives and direct them into the channel of socially approved behavior. "It" subtly, but imperiously dictates its terms "I".

As the obedient servant of unconscious instincts, the "I" tries to maintain its good agreement with "It" and the outside world. He does not always succeed, therefore a new instance is formed in him - "Super - I" or "Ideal - I", which reigns over "I" as a conscience or an unconscious feeling of guilt. "Super - I", as it were, is the highest being in man, reflecting the commandments, social prohibitions, the power of parents and authorities. According to its position and functions in the human psyche, the "Super - I" is called upon to sublimate unconscious drives and in this sense, as it were, solidarizes with the "I". But in terms of its content, "Super - I" is closer to "It" and even opposes "I", as an attorney of the inner world of "It", which can lead to a conflict situation leading to disturbances in the human psyche. Thus, Freud's "I" appears in the form of an "unfortunate creature" which, like a locator, is forced to turn in one direction or the other in order to be in friendly agreement with both "It" and with the "Super - I"

The task of psychoanalysis, as formulated by Freud, is to transfer the unconscious material of the human psyche into the field of consciousness and subordinate it to its goals. In this sense, Freud was an optimist, since he believed in the ability to become aware of the unconscious, which he expressed most vividly in the formula: "Where there was" It ", there must be" I "". All his analytical activities were aimed at ensuring that, as the nature of the unconscious was revealed, a person could master his passions and consciously control them in real life.

At the same time, Z. Freud exaggerated the significance of the unconscious, giving it a leading role, arguing that it supposedly determines both consciousness and all human behavior, and he attached particular importance to innate instincts and drives, the core of which he considered the sexual instinct. While not agreeing with such an absolutization of the place of the unconscious in human life, it would be wrong to underestimate and even more so to deny its role in the knowledge and behavior of people.

One of the first critics of Freud's theoretical postulates was the Swiss psychiatrist Carl Gustav Jung, who until 1913 shared the basic ideas of his teacher. The essence of Jung's disagreement with Freud boiled down to understanding the nature of the unconscious. Jung believed that Freud illegally reduced all human activity to a biologically inherited sexual instinct, while human instincts are not biological, but entirely symbolic nature... He suggested that symbolism is an integral part of the psyche itself, and that the unconscious develops certain forms or ideas that are schematic in nature and form the basis of all human representations. These forms do not have internal content, but are, according to Jung, formal elements capable of taking shape in a concrete representation only when they penetrate the conscious level of the psyche. Jung gives the selected formal elements of the psyche a special name "archetypes", which are, as it were, immanently inherent in the entire human race.

"Archetypes", according to Jung, represent formal patterns of behavior or symbolic images, on the basis of which concrete, content-filled images are formed that correspond in real life to stereotypes of a person's conscious activity. "An archetype is, in essence, an unconscious content that changes when it becomes conscious and perceived, and uses the colors of the individual consciousness in which it manifests itself." (K. Jung).

Unlike Freud, who viewed the unconscious as the main element of the psyche of an individual, Jung made a clear differentiation between " individual" and " collective unconscious". "Individual unconscious"(or, as Jung also calls it, "personal, personal unconscious") reflects the personal experience of an individual and consists of experiences that were once conscious, but lost their conscious character due to oblivion or suppression.

One of the central concepts of Jung's "analytical psychology", "collective unconscious", represents the hidden traces of the memory of the human past: racial and national history, as well as prehuman animal existence. This is a common human experience characteristic of all races and nationalities. It is the" collective unconscious "that is the reservoir where all the" archetypes "are concentrated. "The collective unconscious is the mind of our ancient ancestors, the way they thought and felt, the way they perceived life and the world, gods and human beings." C. G. Jung

Jung introduced the concept of "archetype" and "collective unconscious" in order to consider the nature of the unconscious not in biological terms, but in terms of symbolic designation and schematic design of structural representations of man.

However, Jung did not manage to get rid of the biological approach to the unconscious, which he, in fact, opposed in his polemic with Freud. Both "archetypes" and "collective unconscious" ultimately turn out to be internal products of the human psyche, representing the hereditary forms and ideas of the entire human race. The difference between the theoretical constructions of Freud and Jung is that the hereditary and, therefore, biological material for Freud was the instincts themselves, which predetermine the motives of human activity, and for Jung - the forms, ideas, typical events of behavior. The mechanism of biological predetermination and heredity is preserved in both cases, although it operates at different levels of the human psyche.

The unconscious itself has three main levels... TO the first refers to the unconscious mental control of a person over the life of his body, the coordination of functions, the satisfaction of the simplest needs and requirements. Second, a higher level of the unconscious is processes and states that can be realized within the limits of consciousness, but can move into the sphere of the unconscious and be carried out automatically, etc. Finally, third, highest level the unconscious manifests itself in artistic, scientific, philosophical intuition, which plays an important role in the processes of creativity. The unconscious at this level is closely intertwined with consciousness, with the creative energy of the senses and human mind.

For the self-awareness of the individual, this information turns out to be "closed", but it exists, enters the brain, is processed, and many actions are carried out on its basis. Unconscious reflection, playing an auxiliary role, frees consciousness for the implementation of the most important, creative functions. So, we perform many habitual actions without control of consciousness, unconsciously, and consciousness, freed from solving these problems, can be directed to other objects.

Question 7. Philosophy of Aristotle, the doctrine of matter and form, knowledge, ethical views.

Question 8. Philosophy of the Hellenistic era. Epicurus and his school. Stoicism and Skepticism. Neoplatonism.

Question 9. Features of medieval philosophy. Patristics: Teachings of St. Augustine. Scholasticism: The Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas.

Question 10: Philosophy of the Renaissance Pantheism and dialectics in the teachings of N. Kuzansky and J. Bruno.

Question 11 Philosophy of the 18th-18th centuries Solution of the problem of cognition in the philosophy of modern times: empiricism and rationalism (F. Bacon, R. Descartes).

Question 12. The doctrine of substance and its attributes in the philosophy of modern times (R. Descartes, B. Spinoza, G. Leibniz).

Question 18: Philosophy of Marxism, its historical destinies. Marxist philosophy in Russia.

Question 19: The originality of Russian philosophy, the stages of its development. Russian philosophy of the 18th century: Lomonosov, Radishchev.

Question 20. Slavophiles (A.S. Khomyakov, I.V. Kireevsky) and Westernizers: philosophical and socio-political views.

Question 21. Russian materialistic philosophy of the x1x century. A.I.Herzen, N.G. Chernyshevsky.

Question 22. Russian religious philosophy. Philosophy of All-Unity V.S. Solovyov. Religious existentialism and social philosophy of N.A. Berdyaev.

Question 23. Positivism, its historical forms. Neopositivism.

Question 24. The main ideas of the philosophy of post-positivism (K. Popper, T. Kuhn, P. Feyerabend). The influence of post-positivism on modern philosophy.

Question 25. Philosophical hermeneutics as a methodology of social and humanitarian (legal) sciences

Question 26. Philosophy of Schopenhauer. Its development in the philosophy of life (F. Nietzsche)

Question 27. The doctrine of the unconscious h. Freud. Neo-Freudianism.

Question 29. Genesis. Its basic forms. The solution to the problem of being. This or that philosophical reasoning leaves the concept of being, for example, as its content is inexhaustible.

Question 32. Philosophical and scientific concepts of space and time.

Question 33. The concept of consciousness, its origin, essence and structure. Social nature and activity of consciousness.

Question 34. The nature of the unconscious, its main manifestations. Mental activity as a unity of the conscious and the unconscious.

Question 35. Human being. The ratio of the natural and the social in the historical and individual development of a person. The essence of biologizing and sociologizing concepts.

Question 37. Truth and delusion. Objective and subjective, absolute and relative, abstract and concrete in truth.

Question 38. Philosophical concepts of truth. The problem of the criteria of truth.

Question 39. The concept of methods of cognition. Classification of methods. Empirical and theoretical methods of cognition. Methodology of law.

Question 40. Scientific knowledge and its specificity. Empirical and theoretical level of scientific knowledge.

Question 41 Metaphysics and dialectics as philosophical methods of cognition. Basic principles and laws of dialectics.

Question 42. Categories of the singular, o6chero and special, their role in cognition.

Question 43. System. Structure, element, their relationship. The essence of the systems approach.

Question 44. Categories of content and form. Content and form in law.

Question 45. Categories of cause and effect. The problem of causality in forensic research.

Question 46. Necessity and accident. The importance of these categories for establishing legal liability.

Question 47. Essence and phenomenon, their contradictory relationship.

Question 48. Categories of possibility and reality. Types of opportunities. The role of the subjective factor in the transformation of opportunity into reality.

Question 49. Nature and society, the stages of their interaction.

Question 50. Environmental and demographic problems in modern society, the role of law in their solution.

Question 51. Social relations (economic, political, social, spiritual), their characteristics and role in society.

Question 52. A person in the system of social relations. Personality concept. Personality as a subject and object of social relations.

Question 53. The problem of historical necessity and individual freedom. Freedom and responsibility of the individual.

Question 54. The essence and purpose of man. The problem of preserving human individuality in the modern world.

Question 55. Public and individual consciousness. The structure of public consciousness.

Question56. Specificity of political and legal consciousness, their interdependence and social determination.

Question 57. Moral consciousness. The contradictory unity of moral and legal consciousness.

Question 58. Aesthetic consciousness, its relationship with other forms of social consciousness. The role of art in the life of society.

Question 59. Religion and religious consciousness. Freedom of conscience.

Question 60. Society as a historical process. Historical process concepts.

Question 34. The nature of the unconscious, its main manifestations. Mental activity as a unity of the conscious and the unconscious.

The concepts of "psyche" and "consciousness" are not identical. Broader is the concept of "psyche" - a set of sensations, perceptions, memory, thinking, attention, feelings, will, ie. the totality of his inner world, which is different from the world of things.

"Psyche" includes unconscious phenomena and processes. These are dreams, slips of the tongue, slips of the tongue, purely automatically performed actions, loss of completeness of orientation in time and space, some pathological phenomena (delirium, hallucinations, illusions), etc. The unconscious is the lowest level of the human psyche. It is a complex phenomenon, “other” consciousness (unconscious, subconscious, preconscious). The unconscious is those phenomena, processes, properties and states that affect human behavior, but are not realized by him. The unconscious occupies a large place in his spiritual life. In fact, all human actions turn out to be a combination of the conscious and the unconscious.

The problem of the unconscious was addressed in the history of philosophy by Plato, Descartes, Leibniz, Schelling, etc. However, the most widespread and influential concepts of the unconscious were created in the twentieth century by the Austrian psychologist and psychiatrist Sigmund Freud and the Swiss psychologist Carl Gustav Jung.

According to Freud, the unconscious plays a major role in human life. "I" is not the master of my own house. " A person's consciousness is forced to be content with miserable information about what is happening in his mental life unconsciously, and what in reality often motivates his actions. The psyche, according to his concept, has the following structure:

1) It is a "boiling cauldron of passions", unrestrained primitive bodily instincts and drives (sexual and aggressive); It is wholly subordinated to the pleasure principle; all his power is controlled by "libido" - the psychic energy of sexual desires, that is. sexual instinct.

2) The Conscious I is an intermediary between It and the Super-I, trying to satisfy the needs of It and the requirements of the Super-I, to come to the necessary agreement between them.

3) The superego is a system of moral norms and social prohibitions for the id, performing the role of an internal censor.

Unwanted attraction can be:

1) displaced into the unconscious uncharged, driven into the farthest corners of the psyche, which leads to latent and explicit aggression, depression and neuroses; or

2) sublimated (sublimation - elevation) i.e. switched to goals that are socially and culturally acceptable (higher) and morally approved (creativity, science, self-development and self-improvement of a person, etc.).

That. the whole human life according to Z. Freud is an endless struggle with unconscious drives.

Question 35. Human being. The ratio of the natural and the social in the historical and individual development of a person. The essence of biologizing and sociologizing concepts.

Being is a philosophical category denoting existence, reality. Accordingly, being is possessed not only by natural phenomena, but also by man, the spheres of his activity. The world of thinking beings and everything created by them is included in the sphere of being. Basic forms of being:

1) Being of the processes of nature, as well as things produced by man.

2) Being a person.

3) Spiritual being.

4) Social being.

Man is a representative of Homo sapiens, genetically related to other forms of living, endowed with reason, reflection, speech, the ability to create tools. Man is a living system representing the unity of three components:

4) biological (anatomical and physiological inclinations, type of nervous system, gender and age characteristics, etc.)

5) mental (feelings, imagination, memory, thinking, will, character, etc.)

6) social (worldview, values, knowledge and skills, etc.)

He is an integral being - he combines the physical, mental and spiritual principles; universal - capable of any kind of activity; unique - open to the world, inimitable, free, creative, striving for self-improvement and self-overcoming. If scientists do not have doubts about the last two characteristics, then fierce disputes have been and are being conducted regarding the integrity.

An individual person is a part of living nature, he is unique due to his biological characteristics (genetic code, weight, height, temperament, etc.). However, he can become a human only in society: being cut off from society, for example, in an infant society, a human being develops as a biological individual, but irrevocably loses the ability to become a full-fledged person (mastering speech, communication skills, learning to work, intellectual activity is also inaccessible to him ). Undoubtedly, man is by nature both a biological and a social being. But what is the ratio of these two principles, whether one of them is decisive - this is the subject of scientific discussions. There are two main approaches to solving this problem: biologizing and sociologizing. Each of which, absolutizes some one nature (biological or social) of a person.

Supporters of biologic concepts seek to explain a person based only on his biological principle, and completely ignore the influence of society or the individual's own choice. Sociobiology in the twentieth century. focuses on genetic inheritance. Human behavior, just like that of an animal, is genetically determined and no one can overcome the influence of their heredity, no matter how bad or good it may be (society is not a helper here either). Racist concepts, declare the superiority of some people over others on the basis of belonging to the "higher" or "lower" races, which was clearly manifested in the fascist ideology, which called for "racial purity" and "racial hygiene.

Sociologizing concepts, on the contrary, absolutize the influence of society on the formation of a person. What is the social environment that surrounds a person, so is he himself. In it, as in a mirror, the vices of society or its virtues are reflected. The imperfection of social relations and improper upbringing makes a person evil. This is the attitude of all social utopianism, from the Age of Enlightenment to Karl Marx, and its embodiment in reality - socialism. However, in reality it turned out to be more complicated. Not only the genetic characteristics of a given individual are not taken into account, but also a conscious free choice of values ​​and the direction of life movement, which is often completely inexplicable (and opposite) by the surrounding social environment.

In the formation of the human personality, both biological inclinations, and social education and personal choice (I) play an important role. None of these three factors modern science does not name it as defining. Everything is important and necessary. Man is an integral system, open to the world and opportunities.

Question 36. The problem of the cognizability of the world and its solution in philosophy. Sensual and rational cognition. The limitations of sensationalism, rationalism and irrationalism. The problem of the cognizability of the world is one of the most important in philosophy. It stood as central in Ancient Greece, in the Middle Ages and the New Time (Kant, Hegel), this problem arose especially acutely in our century (Frank, Hartmann, Wittgenstein). Throughout the development of philosophy, various approaches and directions have collided in it: epistemological optimism and agnosticism, sensationalism and rationalism, discursivism (logoism) and intuitionism, etc. The problem itself: "Is the world cognizable, and if cognizable, how much?" grew not out of idle curiosity, but out of real difficulties of cognition. The area of ​​external manifestation of the essence of things is reflected by the organs of the senses, but the reliability of their information in many cases is doubtful or generally incorrect. One of the trends in epistemology is agnosticism. Its specificity lies in the advancement and substantiation of the position that the essence of objects (material and spiritual) is unknowable. Initially, this position, when philosophical knowledge had not yet finally broken with the concept of gods, concerned the gods, and then natural things. The ancient Greek philosopher Protagoras (c. 490 - 420 BC) doubted the existence of the gods. In relation to natural phenomena, he substantiated the view according to which “as it seems, so it is”. Different people have different understandings and different assessments of phenomena, therefore “man is the measure of all things”. The essence of things themselves, hidden by their manifestations, a person is generally incapable of comprehending. The ancient Greek philosopher Pyrrho (360 - 270 BC) believed that one should refrain from penetrating into the depths of things. His rationale is not devoid of interest. Pyrrho believed that man strives for happiness. Happiness, in his opinion, consists of two components: 1) the absence of suffering and 2) equanimity. The state of equanimity, serenity is attainable in cognition, but not by everyone. Sensory perceptions are valid. If something seems bitter or sweet to me, then the corresponding statement will be true. Misconceptions arise when we try to move from a phenomenon to its basis, essence. Nothing can be said to truly exist, and no way of knowing can be recognized as true or false. The very essence is constantly changing. Any assertion about any subject can be matched with equal right by a contradictory assertion.