A person gets to know the world, society and himself with one goal - to know the truth. What is truth, how to determine that this or that knowledge is true, what are the criteria of truth? This is what this article is about.
What is truth
There are several definitions of truth. Here are some of them.
- Truth is knowledge that corresponds to the subject of knowledge.
- Truth is a truthful, objective reflection of reality in human consciousness.
Absolute and relative truth
Absolute truth - This is a person’s complete, exhaustive knowledge of something. This knowledge will not be refuted or supplemented with the development of science.
Examples: a person is mortal, two and two are four.
Relative truth - this is knowledge that will be replenished with the development of science, since it is still incomplete and does not fully reveal the essence of phenomena, objects, etc. This happens due to the fact that at this stage of human development, science cannot yet reach the ultimate essence of the subject being studied.
Example: first people discovered that substances consist of molecules, then of atoms, then of electrons, etc. As we see, at every stage of the development of science, the idea of an atom was true, but incomplete, that is, relative.
Difference between absolute and relative truth is how fully a particular phenomenon or object has been studied.
Remember: absolute truth was always first relative. Relative truth can become absolute with the development of science.
Are there two truths?
No, there are no two truths . There may be several points of view on the subject being studied, but the truth is always the same.
What is the opposite of truth?
The opposite of truth is error.
Misconception - this is knowledge that does not correspond to the subject of knowledge, but is accepted as truth. A scientist believes that his knowledge about a subject is true, although he is mistaken.
Remember: lie- Not is the opposite of truth.
Lie is a category of morality. It is characterized by the fact that the truth is hidden for some purpose, although it is known. Z delusion same - this is not a lie, but a sincere belief that knowledge is true (for example, communism is a delusion, such a society cannot exist in the life of mankind, but entire generations of Soviet people sincerely believed in it).
Objective and subjective truth
Objective truth - this is the content of human knowledge that exists in reality and does not depend on a person, on his level of knowledge. This is the whole world that exists around.
For example, much in the world, in the Universe, exists in reality, although humanity has not yet known it, perhaps it will never know it, but it all exists, an objective truth.
Subjective truth - this is the knowledge acquired by humanity as a result of its cognitive activity, this is everything in reality that has passed through the consciousness of man and is understood by him.
Remember: Objective truth is not always subjective, and subjective truth is always objective.
Criteria of truth
Criteria– this is a word of foreign origin, translated from Greek kriterion - a measure for evaluation. Thus, the criteria of truth are the grounds that will allow one to be convinced of the truth, accuracy of knowledge, in accordance with its subject of knowledge.
Criteria of truth
- Sensual experience - the simplest and most reliable criterion of truth. How to determine if an apple is tasty - try it; how to understand that music is beautiful - listen to it; How to make sure that the color of the leaves is green - look at them.
- Theoretical information about the subject of knowledge, that is, theory . Many objects are not amenable to sensory perception. We will never be able to see, for example, the Big Bang, as a result of which the Universe was formed. In this case, theoretical study and logical conclusions will help to recognize the truth.
Theoretical criteria of truth:
- Compliance with logical laws
- Correspondence of truth to those laws that were discovered by people earlier
- Simplicity of formulation, economy of expression
- Practice. This criterion is also very effective, since the truth of knowledge is proven by practical means .(There will be a separate article about practice, follow the publications)
Thus, the main goal of any knowledge is to establish the truth. This is exactly what scientists do, this is what each of us is trying to achieve in life: know the truth , no matter what she touches.
Throughout their existence, people try to answer many questions about the structure and organization of our world. Scientists are constantly making new discoveries and are getting closer to the truth every day, unraveling the mysteries of the structure of the Universe. What is absolute and relative truth? How are they different? Will people ever be able to achieve absolute truth in the theory of knowledge?
The concept and criteria of truth
In various fields of science, scientists give many definitions of truth. Thus, in philosophy, this concept is interpreted as the correspondence of the image of an object formed by human consciousness to its real existence, regardless of our thinking.
In logic, truth is understood as judgments and conclusions that are sufficiently complete and correct. There should be no contradictions or inconsistencies in them.
In the exact sciences, the essence of truth is interpreted as the goal of scientific knowledge, as well as the coincidence of existing knowledge with real knowledge. It is of great value, allows you to solve practical and theoretical problems, substantiate and confirm the conclusions obtained.
The problem of what is considered true and what is not arose as long ago as this concept itself. The main criterion for truth is the ability to confirm a theory in practice. This could be a logical proof, an experiment, or an experiment. This criterion, of course, cannot be a one hundred percent guarantee of the truth of the theory, since practice is tied to a specific historical period and is improved and transformed over time.
Absolute truth. Examples and signs
In philosophy, absolute truth is understood as a certain knowledge about our world that cannot be refuted or disputed. It is exhaustive and the only true one. Absolute truth can only be established experimentally or with the help of theoretical justifications and evidence. It must necessarily correspond to the world around us.
Very often the concept of absolute truth is confused with eternal truths. Examples of the latter: a dog is an animal, the sky is blue, birds can fly. Eternal truths apply only to a particular fact. For complex systems, as well as for understanding the whole world as a whole, they are not suitable.
Does absolute truth exist?
Disputes between scientists about the nature of truth have been going on since the birth of philosophy. In science, there are several opinions about whether absolute and relative truth exist.
According to one of them, everything in our world is relative and depends on the perception of reality by each individual person. Absolute truth is never achievable, because it is impossible for humanity to know exactly all the secrets of the universe. First of all, this is due to the limited capabilities of our consciousness, as well as the insufficient development of the level of science and technology.
From the position of other philosophers, on the contrary, everything is absolute. However, this does not apply to knowledge of the structure of the world as a whole, but to specific facts. For example, theorems and axioms proven by scientists are considered the absolute truth, but they do not provide answers to all questions of humanity.
Most philosophers adhere to the point of view that absolute truth is made up of many relative ones. An example of such a situation is when, over time, a certain scientific fact is gradually improved and supplemented with new knowledge. At present, it is impossible to achieve absolute truth in the study of our world. However, there will probably come a time when the progress of mankind will reach such a level that all relative knowledge is summed up and forms a holistic picture that reveals all the secrets of our Universe.
Relative truth
Due to the fact that a person is limited in the methods and forms of knowledge, he cannot always obtain complete information about the things that interest him. The meaning of relative truth is that it is incomplete, approximate knowledge of people about a particular object that requires clarification. In the process of evolution, new research methods, as well as more modern instruments for measurements and calculations, become available to humans. It is precisely in the accuracy of knowledge that the main difference between relative truth and absolute truth lies.
Relative truth exists in a specific time period. It depends on the place and period in which the knowledge was obtained, historical conditions and other factors that may influence the accuracy of the result. Also, relative truth is determined by the perception of reality by the particular person conducting the research.
Examples of relative truth
An example of a relative truth that depends on the location of the subject is the following fact: a person claims that it is cold outside. For him, this is the seemingly absolute truth. But people in another part of the planet are hot at this time. Therefore, when we say that it is cold outside, we only mean a specific place, which means this truth is relative.
From the point of view of human perception of reality, we can also give the example of weather. The same air temperature can be tolerated and felt differently by different people. Some will say that +10 degrees is cold, but for others it is quite warm weather.
Over time, relative truth is gradually transformed and supplemented. For example, a few centuries ago tuberculosis was considered an incurable disease, and people who contracted it were doomed. At that time, the mortality of this disease was not in doubt. Now humanity has learned to fight tuberculosis and completely cure those who are sick. Thus, with the development of science and the change of historical eras, ideas about the absoluteness and relativity of truth in this matter have changed.
The concept of objective truth
For any science, it is important to obtain data that reliably reflects reality. Objective truth refers to knowledge that does not depend on the desire, will and other personal characteristics of a person. They are stated and recorded without the influence of the opinion of the research subject on the result obtained.
Objective and absolute truth are not the same thing. These concepts are completely unrelated to each other. Both absolute and relative truth can be objective. Even incomplete, not fully proven knowledge can be objective if it is obtained in compliance with all necessary conditions.
Subjective truth
Many people believe in various signs and omens. However, support from the majority does not at all mean objectivity of knowledge. Human superstitions have no scientific proof, which means they are subjective truth. The usefulness and significance of information, practical applicability and other interests of people cannot act as a criterion of objectivity.
Subjective truth is a person’s personal opinion about a particular situation, which does not have significant evidence. We have all heard the expression “Everyone has their own truth.” It is precisely this that fully relates to subjective truth.
Lies and delusions as the opposite of truth
Anything that is not true is considered false. Absolute and relative truth are opposite concepts for lies and delusions, meaning the discrepancy between the reality of certain knowledge or beliefs of a person.
The difference between delusion and lies lies in the intentionality and awareness of their application. If a person, knowing that he is wrong, proves his point of view to everyone, he is telling a lie. If someone sincerely considers his opinion to be correct, but in fact it is not, then he is simply mistaken.
Thus, only in the fight against lies and delusion can absolute truth be achieved. Examples of such situations are found everywhere in history. Thus, approaching the solution to the mystery of the structure of our Universe, scientists rejected various versions that were considered absolutely true in ancient times, but in fact turned out to be delusions.
Philosophical truth. Its development in dynamics
Modern scientists understand truth as a continuous dynamic process on the path to absolute knowledge. At the same time, at the moment, in a broad sense, truth should be objective and relative. The main problem becomes the ability to distinguish it from delusion.
Despite the sharp leap in human development over the last century, our methods of cognition still remain quite primitive, not allowing people to get closer to the absolute truth. However, by consistently moving towards the goal, on time and completely eliminating misconceptions, perhaps someday we will be able to learn all the secrets of our Universe.
Absolute and relative truth are important categories in the conceptual apparatus of dialectical-materialist teaching.
They serve as a reflection of the dialectical nature of cognition, interpret the achievability
The world around a person, which opens in knowledge and is subject to transformation, is distinguished by the properties of inexhaustibility and infinity.
The peculiarity of its structure is its extreme complexity.
His interactions, relationships and connections are limitless.
When trying to describe and understand these properties and features, problems arise that have been around for many millennia.
They are connected with the fact that not a single researcher has been able to express all the richness of the world in any description since the beginning of time.
At the same time, in many vivid and deep testimonies one can find magnificent descriptions of the partially known side of the world.
Dialectics recognizes that truth is, beyond any doubt, objective. It is in this quality that it (the truth) is known.
However, on the path of knowledge a very specific question arises: “What is the relationship between the two things that are subject to knowledge: absolute and relative?”
The answer should give an idea of how exactly the truth is learned: instantly and holistically, immediately and completely, or, on the contrary, located in time, in parts, gradually and progressively?
By providing such an answer, philosophy reminds us that the human mind in different situations penetrates into the understanding of reality to different depths. Knowledge corresponds to reality with varying degrees of accuracy.
Some reflect reality in its entirety. Others do this only partly.
Every single person, as well as every single generation, is limited in knowledge. Limiting factors are historical conditions, a certain level of development of technology and technology in experiments, science and production at various stages of their development.
For these reasons, human knowledge at any arbitrarily taken segment of historical development appears in the form of relative truth.
Relative truth is knowledge that does not fully correspond to reality.
Such a truth is only a relatively true reflection of an object that is independent of humanity.
Reflects reality extremely accurately. It is not just objective, but completely objective.
Relative truth, in principle, cannot claim to reflect the world in its entirety.
Is it possible to demand from absolute truth such cognition that relative truth is incapable of?
To answer this question correctly, one must remember that many provisions of materialist dialectics contain contradictions.
On the one hand, absolute truth could be known as a holistic and complete phenomenon in all its manifestations and in full versatility. After all, things are completely knowable, and the capacity of human knowledge is limitless.
But on the other hand, the very presence of relative truth complicates the possibility of knowing absolute truth. After all, relative truth precedes absolute truth whenever knowledge is placed in certain, specific conditions.
However, in this case, can the knowledge of absolute truth even take place?
Simultaneously and comprehensively, completely and in all its versatility - no.
In the cognitive process, which is endless - undoubtedly, yes.
The development of more and more new aspects, links, and truth occurs as one approaches it with scientific achievements.
The relativity of truth is the driving force in history.
In the knowledge of relative truths, people come to know the absolute truth. This is precisely the essence of progress.
In philosophy, there are several basic concepts, among which it is worth highlighting, first of all, the definition of the absolute itself, as well as the relative. Turning to dictionaries and reference books, we can identify the most capacious definition, which is the following concept: truth is a proven statement accepted as truth; correspondence to reality. What are examples of relative truth?
What is truth
This is primarily a process that is characterized by the perception or awareness of an object or phenomenon to its fullest extent. Some people are inclined to argue that it does not exist in principle - there is only the surrounding reality, objects, views, judgments or phenomena. Nevertheless, it is unified, but in its environment some key aspects can be distinguished:
- Relative.
- Objective.
- Absolute.
Of course, the development of any science presupposes the achievement of an absolute ideal, truth, but this is unlikely, since each new discovery provokes even more questions and disputes. So, for example, a statement like “gold is a metal” is true only if gold really is a metal.
What is absolute truth
To begin with, it is worth defining the concept of objective truth, which is expressed as follows - understanding and perception of knowledge that does not depend on any particular person, group of people, civilization and society. What is the main difference between absolute truth and relative or objective truth?
Absolute is:
- Exhaustive, fully verified knowledge about a person, subject, object or phenomenon that cannot be refuted in any way.
- Adequate and conscious reproduction by the subject of a certain object, the presentation of the subject as he exists in reality, regardless of the person’s opinion and his consciousness.
- The definition of the infinity of our knowledge, a kind of limit to which all humanity strives.
Many argue that absolute truth does not exist as such. Supporters of this view are inclined to believe that everything is relative; as such, actual reality simply cannot exist. Nevertheless, some examples of absolute truth can be given: scientific laws or the facts of human birth.
What is relative truth
Examples of relative truth eloquently characterize the very definition of the concept. So, in ancient times, people believed that the atom was indivisible, in the 20th century scientists were inclined to believe that the atom consists of electrons, and now they have studied and know for sure that the atom consists of a huge number of tiny particles and their number is constantly increasing. Everyone creates an eloquent idea of the relativity of the real.
Based on this, we can draw conclusions about what relative truth actually is:
- This is knowledge (definition) that fully corresponds to a certain level of human development, but is distinguished by not entirely verified facts or evidence.
- Designation of the borderline or final moments of human knowledge of the world, the approximation of knowledge about the surrounding reality.
- A statement or knowledge that depends on certain conditions (time, historical events, place and other circumstances).
Examples of relative truth
Does absolute truth have a right to exist? To answer this question, it is worth considering a very simple example. So, the expression “planet Earth has the shape of a geoid” can easily be classified as a statement of absolute truth. After all, our planet actually has this shape. The question is: is this expression knowledge? Can this statement give an ignorant person an idea of the shape of the planet? Most likely not. It is much more effective to imagine the Earth in the shape of a ball or ellipsoid. Thus, examples of relative truth make it possible to identify the main criteria and characteristics of the most important components of philosophical concepts.
Criteria
How to distinguish absolute or relative truth from error or fiction.
Respond to the laws of logic? What is the determining factor? For these purposes, there are special concepts that allow us to determine the plausibility of a particular statement. So, the criterion of truth is that which allows us to certify the truth, distinguish it from error, and identify where the truth is and where it is fiction. The criteria are internal and external. What requirements must they meet:
- Express yourself in a simple and concise manner.
- Comply with fundamental laws.
- Be applicable in practice.
- Comply with scientific laws.
First of all, practice is human activity aimed at transforming the surrounding reality.
Modern concept and its key aspects
Absolute, relative, objective truth are concepts that have clear differences from each other. In the modern definition of truth, scientists include the following aspects: spiritual and subjective reality, the result of knowledge, as well as truth as a cognitive process.
The concreteness of truth deserves special attention - it cannot be abstract. Truth always relates to some time and place. the pursuit of the ideal and the search for truth will always excite philosophers and scientists. Humanity must strive for knowledge and improvement.
Relative truth is incomplete, limited knowledge about the world. Due to the infinity of the world, the historical limitations of human knowledge, the achieved knowledge about the world and man is always incomplete and inaccurate. The relativity of knowledge should, in particular, be seen in the fact that it is always related to certain conditions, place and time.
Any knowledge, due to its specificity, is always relative.
Absolute truth is complete and accurate knowledge of a subject, this is knowledge about the infinite world as a whole, in all its infinite richness and diversity.
Absolute truth is made up of relative ones, but the sum of relative truths is infinite, therefore, absolute truth is unattainable. Man is constantly approaching the absolute truth, but he will never reach it, because the world is constantly changing. Knowledge of absolute truth would stop the process of knowledge.
Dialectics of concrete, relative, objective and absolute truth.
True knowledge, like the objective world itself, develops according to the laws of dialectics. In the Middle Ages, people believed that the sun and planets revolved around the Earth. Was it a lie or the truth? The fact that a person observed the movement while on the ground led to a false conclusion. Here we can see the dependence of our knowledge on the subject of knowledge. Copernicus argued that the sun was the center of the planetary system. Here the proportion of objective content is greater, but not everything corresponded to objective reality. Kepler showed that the planets revolve around the sun not in circles, but in ellipses. This was even truer, more certain knowledge. From these examples it is clear that objective truth develops historically. With each new discovery its completeness increases.
The form of expression of objective truth, depending on specific historical conditions, is called relative. The entire development of human knowledge, including science, is a constant replacement of some relative truths by others, more fully and accurately expressing the objective truth.
Is it possible to achieve absolute truth? Agnostics answer in the negative, saying that in the process of cognition we deal only with relative truths. And the more complex the phenomenon, the more difficult it is to know the absolute truth. And yet it exists, each relative truth is a step that brings us closer to this goal.
Thus, relative and absolute truths are just different levels of objective truth. The higher the level of our knowledge, the closer we get to the absolute truth. But this process can last indefinitely. This constant process is the most important manifestation of dialectics in the process of cognition.
Truth and error.
I. Truth is an adequate, correct reflection of reality. The value of knowledge is determined by the measure of its truth. Achieving true knowledge is a complex and contradictory process. Naturally, it is possible to obtain different results along this path. A researcher, if we are talking about the search for scientific truth, can not only come to the true result, but also take the wrong path and be mistaken. Therefore, there is no once and for all established line between truth and error. The search for truth is an open process; it contains various possibilities, including the possibility of incorrect, erroneous assessments of what is happening.
Misconception is such knowledge that does not correspond to the essence of the object being cognized, but is recognized as true knowledge. This is a constant element of the development of science. People unconsciously accept this fact, that is, they proceed from empirical experiences. An illustrative example of a fallacy is the Sun moving around the Earth in the pre-Copernican period.
Delusion is not an absolute fiction, a play of the imagination, a figment of fantasy. Misconceptions also reflect, albeit one-sidedly, objective reality; they have a real source, since any fiction contains threads of reality.
Reasons for the objective occurrence of misconceptions:
1) Historical practice, namely, the level of development of science at that time, inadequately perceived facts, their erroneous interpretation. Often, truth becomes a fallacy if the boundaries of truth are not taken into account and one or another true concept extends to all spheres of reality. Misconception can also result from incorrect information.
2) Freedom of choice in research methods. That is, the subject itself imposes a method, a method of research, for example, you cannot study inflation using the method of sensory cognition.
A misconception differs from a lie in that it is unintentional.
In general, error is a natural moment of the cognitive process and is dialectically related to truth. It is necessary to take into account the possibility of misconceptions, without exaggerating or absoluteizing them. Exaggerating the place of errors in knowledge can lead to skepticism and relativism. The outstanding Russian physicist, Nobel Prize laureate P.L. Kapitsa noted: “...errors are a dialectical way of searching for truth. One should never exaggerate their harm and reduce their benefits.”
Therefore, truth is opposed not so much by error as by falsehood as a deliberate elevation to the rank of truth.
As the practice of mankind has shown, delusion is an integral element of the search for truth. While one discovers the truth, a hundred will remain in error. And in this sense, error represents unwanted, but legitimate costs on the path to achieving the truth.
II. Scientific knowledge is inherently impossible without clashes of different opinions and beliefs, just as it is impossible without errors. Errors are often made during observation, measurement, calculations, judgments, and assessments.
Error.
An error is a discrepancy between knowledge and reality.
Unlike a delusion, an error is realized and committed for subjective reasons:
1) Low qualification of the specialist, 2) Inattention, 3) Haste.
Lie.
III. Lie. Deception. This is a deliberate distortion of reality. That is, the statement that the Sun, and not the Earth, rotates, from the point of view of modern astronomy is false.
Feature: The lie is targeted (either they deceive an individual or the whole society).
Here, knowledge is intentionally or unintentionally, unconsciously distorted, since such distortion turns out to be useful for certain social groups and individuals to achieve group and personal goals, maintain power, achieve victory over an enemy, or justify their own activities. First of all, this concerns knowledge related to socio-historical reality and directly affecting issues of worldview, ideology, politics, etc.
A lie can be either a fabrication about something that did not happen, or a deliberate concealment of something that did happen. The source of lies can also be logically incorrect thinking.
For example, the company “Ivanov and Company” advertises a product that attacks pathogenic bacteria, but at the same time is silent about the contraindications of this product. As a result, the harm from taking this medicine outweighs the benefits; NPP designers hid the possibility of the Chernobyl effect, and not just a few, but hundreds of thousands of people are already suffering.
There are:
1) Blatant lies, that is, intentional. She is the closest thing to deception.
2) Lies of silence, concealment.
3) Half-truth, part is true, but not all. Sometimes it is done intentionally, sometimes unconsciously (perhaps out of ignorance).
Unlike delusion, lying is a moral and legal phenomenon, and therefore the attitude towards lies should be different from that towards delusion.
Truth and truth.
IV. Truth is a person’s conviction in the truth, it is the correspondence of the subject’s statements to his thoughts. Truth is based on truth, but is not reduced to it. That is, there may be one truth, but everyone has their own truth. And the truth is not always an adequate expression of the whole truth. It can act as a special case of truth.
They say that Solomon, after listening to the parties involved in the dispute, declared that each of them was right. He is right as the bearer of his truth.
The problem of the relationship between truth and truth is solved through determining the measure of truth. So, from the point of view of a soldier or officer of the federal troops, the war in Chechnya is a defense of the integrity of Russia. And it is true. From the point of view of a Chechen, the war in Chechnya is the defense of his home. And this is also true. But in both cases this is part of the truth. As for the complete truth, the Chechen phenomenon of confrontation is a commercial war of profit for some and impoverishment for others, dubious happiness for some and inconsolable grief for others.
Social philosophy
Society.
Society – 1) a social form of matter, the substrate functional unit of which is man.
2) a part of the material world isolated from nature, representing the historically developing life activity of people.
3) a complex group of people, united by various types of social connections, determined for a given society by the specific features of existence.
Society as a system consists of spheres of public life.
Human.
Man is a material-social being, a unit of society with an individual social essence. The essence of a person lies in generic characteristics - work and intelligence.
Essential powers of man. 2 concepts:
1) universal; 2) social.
Essence is the most essential, most important thing in an object, its qualitative distinctive characteristic. In general philosophical terms: man is a social universal material being. Social - a person has supernatural properties; universal - all properties of the world are inherent to man. In socio-philosophical terms: man is a social material generic being (similar to the universal BUT the concept of generic reveals that a person has inherent properties that each individual possesses: in every person the human race is represented. In a sense, the individual and the race are identical.).
Essence (difference from nature).
1. Unity of the generic and the individual.
2. Manifests itself in the special existence of man: the production of his own life, generic individual essence through the transformation of nature. The unity of man with the world and with other individuals is revealed.
Entity levels:
I. Actual (real): work, thought (consciousness), communication, freedom and responsibility, individuality and collectivity.
II. Potential. There is an opportunity that can be realized. These are: abilities and needs (to the current level).
The essence of man is divided into:
a) people are biosocial beings - this is not correct, we are physical-chemical-biological beings.
b) why are the 2 principles social and biological equal? This is not so.
2) A person is a subject, a person is both thinking and action, a being, matter can also be designated as a subject, a person is also an object, i.e. what its essence is directed towards. (The most correct definition of Orlov). Man is a being who produces himself and his own essence. Chel is a substance, because he is the cause of himself. Man is a social being. He cannot exist alone. Human essence is the unity of the generic and the individual. The generic is what is characteristic of every person, of all humanity as a whole. We have generic traits that exist only through real individuals. THAT. the essence of people is individuated, it has two sides: subsubstantial and relational
3) Many Soviet philosophers said that the essence of man is the totality of all general relations - Marx wrote this - incorrectly. A person is an objective being, a substance and + people communicate, this is a set of relationships, but not separately - all together - gives us the essence of a person.
The problem of social substrate and social functions. A person has his own functions (work, consciousness, communication) and these functions are carried out by the substrate. The human, social substrate is me, you, we, he, she, they. In the essence of man there is social being and social consciousness (consciousness of society). Social existence is the coexistence of individuals, real life processes. It is not perceived by the senses. Its understanding is only at a theoretical level. In social existence there are 2 sides: 1-we ourselves - has a social quality.
The 2-material elements of society are transformed natural elements included in the elements of society (buildings, cars...), but there is no composite social quality here, they are either phenomena. only because material elements are associated with people.
The crisis nature of human existence has aggravated three fundamental questions of human existence - about the essence of man, the method and meaning of his existence, and the prospects for further development.
Individual.
An individual is a single representative of the human race (can be distinguished by generic characteristics - primitive communal, etc.).
What determines the nature of social relations - the individual or society?
1) The individual himself creates his own social circumstance;
2) A person depends on social circumstances.
There are 2 opposing definitions of an Individual:
The individual is considered as an individual, as a unique person.
An individual is like a person in general.
Both definitions are one-sided and insufficient. It is necessary to develop a 3rd ODA covering the previous two. An individual as a collection of individuals or people. Or as the unity of the general and all the diversity of the special.
Society is people and their relationships with each other. Society and people are united into one whole by human activity in various forms, and above all material and production. The question arises whether the individual determines the nature of society's life or whether society determines the characteristics of the individual. The formulation of the question is incorrect, -> let's introduce the 3rd formula: people create social circumstances to the same extent as social circumstances create people, i.e. people create etc. and ourselves. Personality is understood as a person who is not like other people (in everyday life). It is necessary to give others positive ODA. Firstly, each individual is a person. Each person is a certain unity of the general and diversity of the particular. The closer a person is to his humanity, the higher his personal potential. The greater the diversity of human abilities represented in an individual, the higher his personal potential. A born child is an individual, but not a human individuality (personality), which is determined by the independence of being in society. The individual and society are in a dialectically interconnected relationship. They cannot be opposed, because The individual is a social being and every manifestation of his life is a manifestation of societies. life. But it is also impossible to identify the Individual and the Social, because Each individual can also act as an original individual.
Personality.
Personality is the integration of socially significant qualities realized in an individual in a certain way.
If the concept of individuality brings human activity to the level of originality and uniqueness, versatility and harmony, naturalness and ease, then the concept of personality emphasizes the conscious-volitional principle in it. The more an individual deserves the right to be called a person, the more clearly he understands the motives of his behavior and the more strictly he controls it, subordinating it to a single life strategy.
The word “personality” (from the Latin persona) originally meant a mask worn by an actor in the ancient theater (cf. Russian “lichina”). Then it came to mean the actor himself and his role (character). Among the Romans, the word “persona” was used only to indicate a certain social function, role, role (personality of the father, personality of the king, judge, prosecutor, etc.). Having turned into a term, into a general expression, the word “personality” significantly changed its meaning and even began to express something opposite to what was meant by it in ancient times. A personality is a person who does not play the role he has chosen, and is not in any sense a “actor.” The social role (say, the role of healer, researcher, artist, teacher, father) is taken absolutely seriously by him; he takes it upon himself as a mission, like a cross - freely, but with a willingness to bear the fullness of the responsibility associated with this role.
The concept of personality makes sense only in a system of social mutual recognition, only where we can talk about a social role and a set of roles. At the same time, however, it does not presuppose the originality and diversity of the latter, but, first of all, the individual’s specific understanding of his role, an internal attitude towards it, free and interested (or vice versa - forced and formal) performance of it.
A person as an individual expresses himself in productive actions, and his actions interest us only to the extent that they receive an organic objective embodiment. The opposite can be said about personality: it is actions that are interesting in it. The very achievements of the individual (for example, labor achievements, discoveries, creative successes) are interpreted by us primarily as actions, that is, deliberate, voluntary behavioral acts. A personality is the initiator of a sequential series of life events, or, as M. M. Bakhtin accurately defined it, “the subject of action.” The dignity of a person is determined not so much by how much a person has succeeded, whether he has succeeded or not, but by what he has taken responsibility for, what he allows himself to impute.
The semantic similarity of the terms “individuality” and “personality” leads to the fact that they are often used as unambiguous, replacing each other. At the same time (and this is the main thing), the concepts of individuality and personality capture different aspects of human self-construction.
The essence of this difference is already captured in ordinary language. We tend to associate the word “individuality” with such epithets as “bright” and “original.” About personality we would like to say “strong”, “energetic”, “independent”. In individuality we note its originality, in personality it is rather independence, or, as psychologist S. L. Rubinstein wrote, “a person is an individuality due to the presence of special, individual, unique properties... a person is a person because he has his own face" and because even in the most difficult trials of life he does not lose this face.
Related information.
