What does organic mean in psychology. Organic and inorganic human body

The system of biological sciences that studies man

Man is studied by a whole complex of biological and social sciences. Since man is, first of all, a biological being, priority belongs to biological disciplines:

• the structure of human cells is studied by cytology,
• structure and function of tissues - histology,
• structure and functions of organs - anatomy and physiology,
• development - embryology,
• patterns of heredity - genetics, etc.

It is the biological sciences that are the theoretical basis for such practical disciplines as medicine, hygiene, psychology, human ecology, etc. Closely adjacent to biological disciplines are social ones - history, sociology, etc.

Remark 1

The main goal of the human sciences is to predict the prospects for the successful development of man and society in the future. But it is the biological sciences that make it possible to determine the location of a person in the system of the organic world and the path of evolution of a person as a biological species.

The evolutionary path of human development

Consider the emergence and development of man from the point of view of the history of the development of the Earth. The geological history of our planet is conditionally divided into five eras:

• archean,
• Proterozoic
• Paleozoic
• Mesozoic
• Cenozoic.

Each era is conditionally divided into smaller periods of time - periods. Now we live in the so-called anthropogenic or Quaternary period. This is the shortest period in the history of the Earth. It lasts for the last $2$ million years. It is with this period that the history of the emergence and development of man and human society is connected.

There are several points of view on the emergence and development of man - from scientific and materialistic to frankly fantastic. We will get acquainted with the scientific point of view. Today, the generally accepted scheme of the origin of man looks something like this.

Reasons for changing the appearance of man in the course of evolution

The modern man appeared about $40 thousand years ago. Great apes have evolved to adapt to the environmental changes taking place on Earth. At first, these were purely biological changes. So, thanks to upright walking, the forelimbs of great apes were freed, which diversified their movements. It became easier to get food, to defend against enemies. This gave advantages in the struggle for existence in comparison with similar species that did not have such signs.

The perception of the surrounding world by the sense organs favored the development of the brain. Increased not only the mass and volume of the brain. The ability to control movements and provide meaningful behavior developed. The herd way of life contributed to the exchange of experience and communication.

A significant step forward in human development was the transition from communication with simple sounds to the development of speech. The experience acquired in the process of labor activity, a person could pass on from generation to generation. This contributed to the development of thinking.

Certain relationships were established in the community of primitive people. Thus, the foundations of human social development were laid. With the development of crafts, the emergence of states in man, the social factor became increasingly important for development. This led to the transformation of man from a purely biological species into a biosocial species - Homo sapiens. Therefore, a person today is not only an object of wildlife, but also a social (social) being. This means that human life is subject to both biological and social laws.

Definition 1

The process of emergence and formation of a person is called anthropogenesis .

Man as an integral part of living nature

The organic world in the past and now, despite its great diversity, is the result of a single evolutionary process on our planet Earth. Man is no exception. Therefore, a person should be considered based on the general biological laws of the development of wildlife.

Man, as a biological species, occupies the following systematic position:

• type - chordates,
• subtype - Vertebrates,
• class - Mammals,
• squad - Primates,
• family - hominids,
• genus - Human
• species - Homo sapiens.

O. s. - a clinical diagnostic label for a complex of symptoms detected during a mental examination. status and attributed, directly or indirectly, to impairment of brain structure or function. DSM-IV American Psychiatric Assoc. a distinction is made between organic brain syndromes and organic mental. disorders. Organic brain syndrome is a descriptive label that indicates a certain mental complex. and behavioral symptoms associated with brain dysfunction, but without reference to a specific etiology. Organic psychic. disorder means both a specific organic syndrome and a specific etiological factor.

It should be remembered that there are a number of points implied in this distinction. First, there is no single symptom or symptom complex, to-ry would be exceptionally typical for brain dysfunction. The brain is an extremely complex organ, and disruption of its functioning can manifest itself in a myriad of psychol. and behavioral disorders. In addition, the same etiological factor (for example, traumatic brain injury, tumor, stroke) can manifest itself in completely different ways in different individuals, depending on the location and extent of brain damage, whether the damage is acute or chronic, on age, premorbid personality structure and general health of the patient.

Secondly, the organic brain syndrome is not a neurological, but a behavioral construct. The insufficient account of this distinction can in nek-ry cases lead to an erroneous assumption that dysfunction of a brain and O. of page. being interconnected.

Further, although many organic symptomatic manifestations (hallucinations, organic affective syndrome, etc.) are similar to those in "functional" mental. violations, eg. schizophrenia and endogenous affective disorders, they differ in that they directly correlate with specific transient or permanent cerebral dysfunction. Differentiation between organic and functional disorders is a complex process, probably reflecting rather the limitations of our modern. knowledge about the relationship between behavior and brain function than reality.

Thus, the diagnosis of an organic or functional syndrome largely depends on the ability to identify a known or suspected organic etiological factor.

Specific organic syndromes

The DSM-IV provides 10 main. OS: delirium, dementia, amnestic syndrome, organic hallucinosis, organic delusional syndrome, organic affective syndrome, organic personality disorder syndrome, intoxication syndrome, withdrawal syndrome, and atypical or mixed organic cerebral syndrome. The specific symptoms that add up to each of the syndromes vary from one individual to another and even in the same patient over time. In addition, the same patient may experience several. syndromes at the same time. The diagnosis is made on the basis of the symptoms that dominate the clinical picture at the time of the mental examination. status, and involves an assessment of the general orientation of the patient, memory, intelligence functions, emotional stability, internal reality and social. behavior.

See also Alzheimer's disease, Brain damage, CNS mental and behavioral disorders, Computed tomography, Huntington's chorea, Minimal cerebral dysfunction, Multiple sclerosis

Other related news:

Change in personality or cognitive ability due to organic brain damage, not related to frontal lobe syndrome

Only in society does his natural being

is for him his human being...

That concreteness, that unity of diverse phenomena, within which a person really exists as something whole, is, as mentioned above, an "ensemble of social relations." From beginning to end, personality is a phenomenon of social nature, social origin. The brain, on the other hand, is only a material organ, with the help of which the personality is realized in the organic body of a person, turning this body into an obedient, easily controlled tool, an instrument of one’s (and not the brain’s) life activity. In the functions of the brain, a completely different phenomenon manifests itself, its activity, than the brain itself, namely the personality. And only in this way, and not vice versa, as happens with reductionists who see in personal-psychic phenomena an external manifestation of the work of the brain.

Let us analyze this circumstance in somewhat more detail, bearing in mind in advance an objection of this kind: why, they say, oppose one thesis to another? Is the statement according to which the individual psyche is nothing but the totality of the “mental functions of the brain”, the totality of manifestations determined by its structure, really so untrue? As long as the physiologist remains a physiologist, that is, as long as he is interested in the brain and not in the personality, he must reason in this way. And this is quite understandable: if you study the brain, then you are interested in everything else only insofar as the structure and operation of the brain is manifested in this rest in one way or another. But if your goal is to study personality, then you should look at the brain as one of the organs with the help of which the personality is realized, which is a much more complex formation than the brain and even than the entire set of organs that form the living body of an individual.

The physiologist investigates everything that happens inside the organic body of the individual, inside the biological unit. And this is his monopoly. And in order to understand what a person is, it is necessary to study the organization of the entire set of human relations of a specific human individuality to all other similar individuals, that is, a dynamic ensemble of people connected by mutual ties that always and everywhere have a socio-historical, and not a natural character. . The mystery of the human personality for centuries remained a mystery to scientific thinking because they were looking for its solution not at all where this personality really exists. In the wrong space at all: either in the space of the heart, then in the space of the “pineal gland”, then in general outside of space, then in a special “transcendental” space, in a special incorporeal ether of the “spirit”.

And it existed and exists in quite real space - in the very space where mountains and rivers, stone axes and synchrophasotrons, huts and skyscrapers, railways and telephone lines are located, where electromagnetic and acoustic waves propagate. In a word, this refers to the space where all those things are located, about which and through which the body of a person is connected with the body of another person “as if in one body”, as B. Spinoza once said, in one “ensemble”, as K. Marx preferred to say, into one cultural and historical formation, as we say today, into a “body” created not by nature, but by the labor of people who transform this nature into their own “inorganic body”.

Thus, the “body” of a person acting as a person is his organic body, along with those artificial organs that he creates from the substance of external nature, “lengthening” and repeatedly strengthening the natural organs of his body and thereby complicating and diversifying his mutual relations. with other individuals, manifestations of their "essence".

Personality not only exists, but is born for the first time precisely as a “knot” that is tied in a network of mutual relations that arise between individuals in the process of collective activity (labor) about things created and created by labor.

And the brain, as an organ that directly realizes a person, manifests itself as such only where it actually performs the function of managing the “ensemble” of human-to-human relations, mediated through things created by a person for a person, that is, where it turns into an organ of a person’s relations to a person. , or, in other words, man to himself.

Personality is the totality of a person's relationship to himself as to some kind of "other" - the relationship of "I" to himself as to some kind of "NOT-I". Therefore, its “body” is not a separate body of an individual of the “homo sapiens” species, but at least two such bodies - “I” and “YOU”, united, as it were, into one body by social and human ties, relationships, relationships.

Inside the body of an individual individual, there really is not a personality, but only its one-sided ("abstract") projection on the screen of biology, carried out by the dynamics of nervous processes. And what in everyday life (and in the allegedly materialistic tradition) is called "personality" or "soul" is not a person in a truly materialistic sense, but only her one-sided and not always adequate self-feeling, her self-consciousness, her conceit, her opinion about itself, and not itself as such.

As such, it is not inside a single body, but just outside it, in the system of real relationships of a given single body with another similar body through things that are in the space between them and close them “as if into one body”, controlled “as if one soul." At the same time, it is certainly through things, and not in their natural determinateness, but in that certainty that is given to them by the collective labor of people, that is, it has a purely social (and therefore historically changing) nature.

Understood in this way, personality is by no means a theoretical abstraction, but a material-tangible reality. This is the “corporeal organization” of that collective body (“ensemble of social relations”), of which each separate human individual is a part and “organ”.

Personality in general is a single expression of the life activity of the “ensemble of social relations in general”. A given personality is a single expression of that necessarily limited totality of these relations (not all), by which it is directly connected with other (with some, but not with all) individuals - the "organs" of this collective "body", the body of the human race.

The difference between the "essence" and "existence" of the human individuality (personality, "I") is not at all the difference between the "abstract-general" that is characteristic of "all" individuals (more precisely, each of them, taken separately), and individual deviations-variations from this "abstract-general". This is the difference between the totality of social relations (which is the "essence of man in general") and the local zone of these relations in which a particular individual exists, that limited totality to which he is linked directly, through direct contacts.

Indirectly, through an infinite number of relationships, every individual on the globe is really connected with every other, even with one with whom he has never directly come into contact and never will come into contact. Peter knows Ivan, Ivan knows Thomas, Thomas knows Yerema, and although Peter does not know Yerema, nevertheless they are indirectly - through Ivan and Thomas - connected with each other both by direct and feedback. And that is why they are specific particles - "organs" of the same collective body, the same social ensemble - the organism, and not at all because each of them has a sum of identical, each of them separately inherent features.

The understanding of the Marxist solution to the problem of the “essence of man”, the essence of human individuality (personality, “soul”) is precisely hindered by the archaic logic of thinking, according to which the “essence” of all people should be the same, namely the biological similarity of the structure of their bodies, and the "differences" between them are determined by individual variations of this biological nature.

In order to put an end to the dualism of the biosocial explanation of the personality and the psyche in general, one must first of all say goodbye to this outdated logic, with its understanding of the relationship of "essence" to individual "existence" (to "existence") and accept the directly opposite logic of thinking. The one that was developed and used by K. Marx.

According to Marx's logic, the "essence" of each individual is seen not in their abstract similarity, but, on the contrary, in their concrete totality, in the "body" of the real ensemble of their mutual relations, mediated in many ways by things. The “existence” of each individual individual is understood not as a “concrete distortion” of this abstract “essence”, but, on the contrary, as an abstract-partial realization of this concrete essence, as its fragment, as its manifestation, as its incomplete and therefore inadequate embodiment in the organic the body of each individual. Personality here is understood quite materialistically, quite materially-bodily - as a real bodily-material set of material-corporeal relations that connect a given individual with any other such individual by cultural-historical, and not natural-natural ties.

With such an understanding of personality, not only the need disappears, but the very possibility of explaining the uniqueness of human individuality by the uniqueness of its biological individuality, by the peculiarities of the morphology of its organic body. On the contrary, the features of the actually given morphology of the body here will have to be explained by the features of its socio-historical status, social causes, the features of those relationships in the system in which the given personality was formed. Only on this path can one find an answer to the question of how and why the same biological unit can become such or another personality, acquire such or directly opposite personality traits, why the “composition” of a personality is not and cannot be set in advance, but all the more clear.

Marxist logic obliges one to follow a course of thought that is the opposite of that which follows from the notion of the biological predestination of all personality traits, supposedly only revealed (and not arising!) In the field of social relations with other people and things. Namely, the totality of real, material-corporeal features of those relations in which the individual body of a person is placed is also found inside his individual body, in the form of the originality of those dynamic "cerebral structures", their individually unique concrete combination, which should be considered as a morphophysiological projection personality, but not as a person.

Only on this path can the dualism of “soul” and “body” be removed materialistically: there is and cannot be any relationship between the “soul” and “body” of a person, because this is - directly - one and the same, only in its different projections, in its two different dimensions; "animated body" - a set ("ensemble") of completely bodily-material processes carried out by this body.

Personality is not inside the “body of an individual”, but inside the “body of a person”, which cannot be reduced to the body of a given individual, is not limited to its framework, but is a “body” much more complex and spatially wider, including in its morphology all those artificial “ organs” that man has created and continues to create (tools and machines, words and books, telephone networks and radio and television channels of communication between individuals of the human race), that is, all that “common body” within which individual individuals function as its living organs.

This “body” (its internal division, its internal organization, its specificity) must be considered in order to understand each of its individual organs in its living functioning, in the aggregate of its direct and feedback connections with other similar living organs, while the connections are quite objective. , bodily-material, and not at all those ephemeral "spiritual relations", in the system of which any idealistically oriented psychology (personalism, existentialism, etc.) has always tried and tries to consider the personality.

This is how personality is born.?

The object, as being for man, as the objective being of man, is at the same time the existence of man for another man, his human relation to another person, the social relation of man to man.

K. Marx

In 1844, speaking about the future materialistic psychology - about a science that had not yet been created at that time, K. Marx wrote that it was “the history of industry and the existing objective existence of industry that are an open book of human essential forces, which sensually appeared before us human psychology” and that “the kind of psychology for which this book, i.e. it is precisely the most tangible, most accessible part of history that is sensuously closed, cannot become a truly meaningful and real science.

Considering the personality as a purely social unit, as a concrete ensemble of the social qualities of human individuality, psychology is obliged to abstract from the relationship of the personality to those things that do not have an internally necessary relation to it, and to investigate only relations-connections that mediate the personality with itself, that is, one person with another like person. The "external thing" in this study must be taken into account only insofar as it turns out to be a mediating link between two (at least) human individuals.

As an example of such an "external thing" one can point to the word - a form of communication created by man for man ("for himself"). But the word is far from being the only, and not even the first, of such forms. The first (both in essence and in time) are those direct forms of communication that are tied up between individuals in acts of collective labor, jointly carried out operations for the manufacture of the necessary thing. This latter acts in this case as an intermediate link between the two individuals who make it, or at least jointly use it.

Thus, a human relationship always presupposes, on the one hand, a thing created by a person for a person, and, on the other hand, another person who relates humanly to this thing, and through it to another person. And human individuality exists only where one organic human body is in a special - social - relation to itself, mediated through relation to another similar body with the help of an artificially created "organ", "external thing" - with the help of an instrument of communication.

Only within such a system consisting of "three bodies" is it possible to manifest the unique and mysterious ability of a person "to relate to himself as to some other", that is, the emergence of a personality, a specifically human individuality. Where such a system of "three bodies" does not exist, there is only biological individuality, there is only a natural prerequisite for the birth of human individuality, but in no case is it itself as such.

Morphologically, the need for the appearance of human individuality in a single biological body of an individual of the species "homo sapiens" is not "built-in", it is not genetically provided. It is "embedded" only in a more complex and extensive "body" - in the collective "body of the human race." In relation to the organism of an individual person, therefore, it appears as an "external" necessity, pressing on him "from the outside" and completely forcibly transforming his body in such a way that it would never have been transformed by itself.

Biologically (anatomically-physiologically) the human individual is not intended even to walk upright. Left to its own devices, the child will never get up and walk. Even this has to be taught. For a child's body, learning to walk is an excruciatingly difficult act, because there is no need dictated to him "from within", but there is a forcible change in his innate morphophysiology, produced "from outside".

Left to itself, the child's organism would remain a purely biological organism - an animal. Human development proceeds as a process of displacement of functions organically "embedded" in biology (since they are still preserved) by fundamentally different functions - ways of life, the totality of which is "embedded" in the morphology and physiology of the collective "genus body".

The child is forced to stand up on its hind limbs, not at all because of any biologically justified expediency, not because two limbs are better adapted for movement. The child is forced to upright posture precisely in order (and only in order) to free his forelimbs from "unworthy" work for labor, that is, for functions imposed by the conditions of culture, the forms of objects created by man for man, and the need to manipulate these objects humanly.

Biologically (anatomically and physiologically, structurally and functionally), the human forelimbs are not designed at all so that they can hold a spoon or a pencil, fasten buttons or touch the keys of a piano. Morphologically, they are not intended for this in advance. And that is why they are able to take on the execution of any type (method) of work. Freedom from any mode of functioning “built into” their morphology beforehand constitutes their morphological advantage, due to which the forelimbs of a newborn can be developed into organs of human activity, can turn into human hands.

The same is with the articulation apparatus, and with the organs of vision. From birth, they are not organs of the human personality, human life. They can only become, become such, and only in the process of their human, socio-historical (in the "body of culture") programmed way of use.

But as the organs of the individual's body turn into organs of human vital activity, the personality itself arises as an individual set of human-functional organs. In this sense, the process of the emergence of personality acts as a process of transformation of biologically given material by the forces of social reality that exists before, outside and completely independent of this material.

Sometimes this process is called "socialization of the individual." In our opinion, this name is unfortunate, because it already suggests that a person somehow exists even before his “socialization”. In fact, it is not the personality that is “socialized”, but the natural body of the newborn, which has yet to turn into a personality in the process of this “socialization”, that is, the personality has yet to arise. And the act of her birth does not coincide either in time or in essence with the act of birth of the human body, with the day of the physical appearance of a person into the world.

Since the baby's body is included in the totality of human relations from the first minutes, he is potentially already a person. Potentially, but not actual, because other people “treat” him as a human being, but he does not treat them. Human relations, in the system of which the baby's body is included, here are not yet mutual in nature. They are one-sided, because the child remains for a long time the object of human actions directed at him, but he himself does not yet act as their subject. He is swaddled, he is bathed, he is fed, he is given water, but he does not dress, he does not bathe, he does not eat and drink. He “relates” to everything around him not yet as a person, but only as a living organic body, which has yet to turn into a “body of a personality”, into a system of organs of a personality as a social unit. In fact, he has not yet separated from the mother's body, even biologically, although the umbilical cord that physically connects him to the mother's body has already been cut with a surgeon's knife (note, in a human way, not teeth).

A child will become a personality - a social unit, a subject, a bearer of social and human activity - only there and then, where and when he himself begins to perform this activity. At first with the help of an adult, and then without it.

We emphasize once again that without exception, all human methods of activity directed at another person and at any other object, the child learns from the outside. “From within” not a single, even the most trifling, specifically human action arises, because only those functions of the human body (and the brain, in particular) are programmed in the genes that provide a purely biological existence, but not its social-human form.

Personality arises when an individual begins independently, as a subject, to carry out external activities according to the norms and standards set for him from the outside - by the culture in the bosom of which he wakes up to human life, to human activity. As long as human activity is directed at him, and he remains its object, individuality, which he, of course, already possesses, is not yet human individuality. And only insofar as the child learns, adopting from other people, human ways of relating to things, inside his organic body, specifically human organs arise, form, form, neurodynamic “structures” are tied up that control his specifically human activity (including that nervous apparatus that controls the movements of the muscles that allow the child to stand on two legs), that is, the structures that realize the personality.

Thus, a function given from the outside creates (forms) an organ corresponding to itself, the “morphology” necessary for its implementation - precisely such, and not any other connections between neurons, precisely such, and not other “drawings” of their mutual direct and feedback. Therefore, any of the "drawings" is possible, depending on what functions the human body has to perform in the outside world, in the world outside of its skull and skin. And the mobile “morphology” of the brain (more precisely, the cortex and its relationships with other departments) will develop exactly as required by external necessity, the conditions of a person’s external activity, that specific set of relations of a given individual to other individuals, within which this individual found himself immediately after his birth, by that “ensemble of social ties” that immediately turned him into his “living organ”, immediately placed him in that system of relations that forces him to act this way and not otherwise.

We are talking, of course, about those “cerebral structures” that implement the personal (specifically human) functions of an individual, his mental functions, and not about those structures morphologically built into the brain body that control blood circulation, digestion, gas exchange, thermoregulation, and the work of the endocrine system. and other physiological processes occurring inside the body of the individual.

From this it is clear that the materialist approach to mental activity consists in the understanding that it is determined in its course not by the structure of the brain, but by the system of social relations of man to man, mediated through the things of the external world created and created by man for man.

This gives us the right to insist on the thesis according to which in the body of the individual the person fulfills himself, realizes himself, realizes himself as a social formation (“essence”) fundamentally different from his body and brain, namely, the totality (“ensemble”) of real, sensual -objective, through things implemented relations of a given individual to another individual (to other individuals).

These relations can only be relations of activity, relations of active interaction between individuals. It is precisely because of the mutual nature of such relations that a situation arises when the active action of an individual, directed at another individual, rebounds back to him, "reflects" from the other individual as from a kind of obstacle, and thereby turns from an action directed at the "other" into an action directed (indirectly through the "other") at oneself.

"Organic Man" by Anatoly Makarov (LG, 12.12.12).

Commentary on the article by Anatoly Makarov "On whom hope rests" (Literary newspaper No. 50 dated 12/12/2012; my nickname on the LG website is Sergey Viktorovich Kopylov).

The most irresistible accusation against a society that is mired in all mortal sins, daily showing the most vile examples of human deeds, is the accusation that it (society) has lost its moral foundations. The denunciation is followed by calls for the restoration of true morality, for the observance of decency, honesty, and human dignity.
Appeals to morality, to virtue, to altruism, etc. are distributed incessantly in all discussions, in all forums, in all articles exposing social vices. __

Everything seems to be correct? But these people do not understand that they expose and try to deal with the symptoms of the disease, and not with its causes, they do not realize that morality is a derivative of deeper phenomena, which alone determine the true essence of social development with all its morality and morality. The symptoms of the disease can at best be drowned out, driven inside, made less manifest, but they cannot be eliminated without finally defeating the cause of the disease.

The morality of a person, his moral qualities are formed in the process of his socialization under the influence of the totality of the relations surrounding him, associated with his active participation in them. You can't tell a person to be moral. A person ALWAYS acts in accordance with his own interests, therefore, only by forming and regulating these interests can a moral person be educated.__

When we, following K. Marx, repeat that the essence of a person is not an abstract inherent in an individual, but is a set of social relations (in which this person exists), we mean that a person’s morality is determined by this set. That is why the morality of people belonging to societies at different stages of development (or brought up in different social, ethnic conditions) is so different. What is acceptable to some is completely unacceptable to others. This is what causes acute social conflicts and contradictions.__

It is these most important provisions of the science of psychology that are consigned to oblivion. It must be said that this understanding was not very well perceived by our intelligentsia before, due to its biased attitude towards materialism and its enthusiasm for various kinds of idealistic trends in psychology. __

Of the totality of material social relations in which a person is immersed and which form his moral qualities, the main ones are economic relations that determine the nature of his production activity, which directly affects the material well-being of a person and his family. For him, this is the main thing, without which a person cannot exist. Calling a person to be moral being poor and hungry is the height of immorality and hypocrisy. Here is how Ludwig Feuerbach wrote about this: “If you don’t have nutrients in your body due to hunger and poverty, then there is no food for morality in your head, in your feelings and in your heart.”__

But maybe there are people who are not susceptible to success, to a worthy existence, to the attributes of social well-being? Such an "organically honest man ... of honor and conscience, immune to luxury", about which Anatoly Makarov writes with such pathos.__

Indeed, before engaging in science, art, religion, raising children, etc., one must drink, eat, dress, have a home. And all this should correspond to the ideas about these necessary vital needs that have developed at the moment in the society in which a person lives. If everyone lives in shacks, you can be content with a shack, because this will not affect your social status in any way. Moreover, this is what happens. For if a person does not know about the existence of a different quality of housing, other conditions of life, he does not apply for them. __

But if everyone around lives in palaces, and you live in a shack, then, as they say now, cognitive dissonance arises, forcing a person to act in order to change the situation. “In palaces they think differently than in huts,” writes L. Feuerbach.__

Dissatisfaction with one's financial situation, arising from the realization of one's wretchedness, makes a person act to change it. All his feelings and thoughts are directed to achieving the appropriate social status, to the acquisition of appropriate material goods.__

And, of course, not the best human qualities are formed in a person humiliated by his low social status. Envy, cruelty, anger, etc. appear. And these negative qualities inevitably manifest themselves if a person does not see ways to change his status, his financial situation. __

But Anatoly Makarov refers negative human manifestations to a special group of people, apparently considering these qualities as innate (which does not at all correspond to modern scientific ideas about the biological essence of man). He believes that "to live beautifully was the best for crooks and thieves, in whatever field they used their skills." And he is unaware that such (crooks and thieves) in the conditions of the ongoing liberal-bourgeois policy were quite decent and honest citizens before that. __

Achieve maximum well-being, "take everything from life" that is possible - a property of human nature, brought up by centuries of market relations. The ways to achieve this maximum will be very different for a long time to come, including immoral ones. __ Thus, the presence of immorality in society (and it is not abstract, but manifested through the activities of individuals) is an objective reality, which can only be combated by changing the very structure of social relations in which a person acts.__

Mountains of books have been written about crimes generated by market (bourgeois, private property) relations. Moreover, the very essence of these immoral relations (exploitation, economic dependence, etc.) has been proven. But the ball is still ruled by the owners of the means of production (a tiny minority), who not only own what is produced and how, but also have the necessary power to keep the rest of society (the vast majority) within the necessary framework of subordination and non-resistance. __

That is why Anatoly Makarov’s “simple idea” about the existence of a whole layer of people (of whom a bureaucracy should be formed) who “do not take bribes, do not extort kickbacks, do not encroach on the state treasury”, people of “honor and conscience”, is a complete utopia , testifying to the author's misunderstanding of the essence of social development. In a bourgeois society, immorality and everything connected with it (corruption, crime, etc., etc.) is an immanently inherent phenomenon that is reproduced daily and hourly. Capable of limiting (no more than that) only by harsh, draconian laws and methods. __

In modern Russia, for about 25 years now, liberal-bourgeois ideology and politics (including economic ones) have dominated, which leave practically no hope for changes in the moral state of society. On the contrary, the situation is only getting worse. Today, the essence and meaning of Shakespeare's 66th sonnet are more relevant than ever. __

That is why Anatoly Makarov is fundamentally wrong when he writes: “any most productive economic doctrine will be powerless if decency and honesty are lost in society, that disregard for disinterestedness will compromise the most pragmatic idea that it would be nice, at least once in your life, to try to rule Russia through conscience. In any case, do not forget about conscience.

This is just another timid call to those in power about the need to remember conscience, honesty, etc., of which there have been countless in history. Only these calls did not change anything, except, perhaps, to improve the material situation of the caller. __

Under socialism, with all its shortcomings, problems, etc. there was not even a fraction of that immorality that captivated and enveloped the entire Russian society. Property inequality has given rise to the corresponding social vices and will continue to do so.__

It is impossible to cultivate honesty and decency on a vicious basis. One cannot but agree with B.I. Sotnikov: “Bourgeois society is, of course, a dead end direction of development ...”.__

Modern Russian society is immoral also because the very transition to market relations was made absolutely immoral. The geopolitical catastrophe of the collapse of the USSR led to a gigantic unfair (immoral) redistribution of property in favor of a narrow group of people. And today, after 25 years, this has become especially clear. Only a solution to this problem can affect the nature of social relations that can positively affect the moral atmosphere of society. It is upon this that all our hope rests.

What is the place of man in the system of the organic world? This question, it would seem, has been answered for a long time, which is increasingly disputed and subjected to revision.

The place of man in the system of the organic world

Briefly, we can say that the place of man is strictly defined in the classification of the organic world. He is a representative of the animal kingdom. The table shows its key ranks in the hierarchy of the biological world:

There are several groups of evidence that man is an animal and descended from them.

Animal origin of man

In favor of this they say:

Comparative anatomical evidence: a similar structure of cells, the location of organs, rudiments and atavisms in humans.

Embryological evidence: inside the womb at the initial stage of development, the baby is similar to the cubs of some animals. This is called Baer's law, and, in short, he postulates: the younger the embryo, the less specific features it has.

Physiological similarity (breathing, nutrition, etc.) of a person and an animal.

Similar chromosomal apparatus.

There are physiological features of the human species, which testify that the place of man in the system of the organic world among animals:

Upright posture, arched foot, developed muscles of the lower extremities.

The structure of the spine with 4 bends.

Movable hands.

The volume of the brain and, accordingly, the high organization of behavior.

binocular vision.

Fertility is limited: one female normally bears one fetus.

All these specific and physiological features brought man to a new stage of evolution.

Anthropogenesis and the formation of mankind

Anthropogenesis (part of the evolution that led to the emergence of man) began with hominins. Human society acquired the right to be called that and ceased to be a herd about 50 thousand years ago, when neoanthropes (Cro-Magnons) formed a new species of Homo sapiens.

The subsequent development of people began to determine the social, economic and religious laws. Progress began to go contrary to biological nature. To be a member of society, one cannot behave like a beast and obey instincts. The place and features of man in the system of the organic world turned out to be such that the very right to be called a biological species was called into question.

What distinguishes a person from the organic world

There are a number of highly developed organisms (for example, elephants or dolphins), what makes a person stand out from their background? High social component of people's life: their creative function, knowledge, work, consciousness, speech. All this makes the place of man in the system of the organic world beyond the usual limits available to other animals.

Fundamental differences between man and the organic world

The place of man in the system of the organic world and his biosocial nature sometimes contradict each other. A person does not behave like an animal in several cases:

1. He has abstract thinking.
2. Family planning, not uncontrolled reproduction, according to instinct.
3. Consciousness (not just a highly developed brain, like dolphins, for example, not only a big brain in every sense of the word).
4. Speech.
5. Man is part of society. People coexist in their artificially created habitat.

These five points reflect the social nature of man.

Abstract thinking

Abstract thinking is a human ability. Thanks to him, the place of man in the system of the modern organic world is unique. After a series of repetitions of certain actions and their consequences, many animals (especially primates) demonstrate imaginative thinking. They are able to remember the image, especially if they are hungry, but you need to imagine food. But the next step, abstract thinking, is not available to them. They are not capable of imagining and remembering, drawing a conclusion and highlighting a generalizing sign of what does not exist, what cannot be touched or smelled.

Accumulation of experience, abstract conclusions, the ability to find ways out of various situations, analyze and, based on this, make decisions and take actions, reason, generalize concepts - the privilege of people.

This article does not aim to analyze in detail the concept of abstract thinking, but it is worth giving an example of what abyss separates one of the closest relatives, chimpanzee monkeys, from people. They belong to the hominin family. A characteristic experiment on them was carried out in the laboratory. I.P. Pavlov in Koltushi near St. Petersburg.

The chimpanzee Rafael had to feast on the fire burning before eating on the ledge of the shelf. He quickly learned to use for this purpose a cup and water, which was offered to him in a tank and other containers. Then on the lake, on two rafts connected by a shaky crossing, they put food on one (as always behind the fire), and on the other a cup and a tank of water. From time to time, the chimpanzee preferred to make a difficult crossing to scoop up in a tank, but ignored a whole lake of water. It became clear that he could not generalize this concept. Water for him is tied to the image of the tank. In fairness to Raphael, it is worth adding that when the water was removed from the tank, in the end, albeit by accident, he scooped up water from the lake and, having put out the fire, got a treat.

creation

The place of man in the system of the organic world is already the whole planet. People do not live strictly within the boundaries of the place of birth, but adjust the chosen place of life to suit their needs. And this is not always the most comfortable living environment. But people are transforming it. This is the simplest creation, responsible for covering the urgent needs, but which arose as a result of a conscious choice of life in an unsuitable environment. People are literally going against biological selection. They do not look for the easiest habitats, but adapt very unsuitable ones.

There is creative creation. The desire to leave a mark on history, to influence the world around us, and not just to feed oneself.

Speech

Another sign of abstract human thinking is speech. Even its very possibility. When certain natural phenomena are assigned a specific (and, by the way, abstract) concept - a word and its semantic meaning. It is not directly related to how and what the senses perceive in a particular period of time here and now. The image that each person forms about objects, of course, carries information-memories about weight, temperature and other associations. But with the help of words, non-existent objects are also described, those that cannot be touched with hands. Favorite examples of scientists are love or mathematical terms. How to describe the concept of seven?

Man is just a highly evolved animal

This problematic issue. Evidence of the animal nature and the origin of man is considered. According to biology, the place of man in the system of the organic world. There are anthropological factors that to some extent explain how physiological characteristics as a result could influence the formation of a highly developed individual and human society. But there is a long series of social factors that put a person on another level. Is it possible to speak of a separate fifth kingdom of the organic world? Or continue to put forward theories on the topic: where did our family come from? Is the soul a matter separate from the body, or are they physiological processes that mimic consciousness, but remain chemistry?

To reconcile opposites, it is customary to talk about the biosocial nature of man.

The school curriculum has not yet moved away from a strict focus on evolution. Teachers of biology and zoology do not always correctly emphasize that Darwin only put forward a theory. It is popular, but not supported by hard evidence. On the contrary, there are still many questions, white spots and arguments against it.

Although the basic postulates of this theory are an obligatory part of the school curriculum, and it is necessary to know them in order to be an educated person with a broad outlook. But what speaks against the theory of the origin of species, except that the social nature of man is pronounced, and thinking is unique?

Darwin's theory of the origin of species: the main arguments against

As Darwin himself and his contemporaries argued: the idea of ​​evolution was in those days in the air. The genius of the most famous naturalist, the author of The Origin of Species, lies in the fact that he formulated how the big comes from the small in billions of years. It is not the strongest who survive, but the most adapted to the constant changes in the environment. This is the shorthand for natural selection.

Opponents of Darwinism turn to the concept of irreducible complexity. In the process of evolution, many organisms could not gradually form (due to mutations) the advantages that they have at a given stage of development and thanks to which they survived in a certain habitat, in other words, they underwent natural selection.

Another main argument against the theory of evolution is the informational complexity of chromosomes and, as a consequence, of the DNA molecule. Such an ordered and long chain could not have been obtained by chance, even in billions of billions of years. In addition, with the enormous age of the Earth and the discovered fossils dating from very different periods, a sufficient number of missing links, transitional life forms, which the theory of evolution assumes in large volume between all species, have not been found.

The question of origin is most closely connected with the place of man in the system of the organic world and his role. Perhaps it is the social component of people's lives that determines. It imposes on humanity responsibility for the entire biosphere. The role, place of a person in the system of the organic world is not given to him in vain - to protect and reasonably dispose of the planet, regardless of whether people are part of an ecosystem, or simply similar to other biological organisms, but have a higher origin and purpose of existence.