GENERAL AND INDIVIDUAL IN PSYCHIC
INTEGRAL AND PARTIAL DESCRIPTION OF HUMAN PSYCHOLOGY
As a result of studying this chapter, the student must:
• what is a complex study of a person;
• levels, rules, ways of building psychological characteristics;
be able to
• analyze the mapping of the human psyche;
• the skills of interpreting personal behavior.
Complex knowledge of man
Rare psychological research today does not address the problem of integrity and partiality (partiality) of a person. Many judgments, private remarks, common goodwill were expressed. However, what is it really about? "The desire for a holistic, integral study of man in all the richness of his natural and social being," write M. Ya. Bobrov and O.T. Korosteleva, "gave rise to two opposite tendencies in modern science: on the one hand, the process of a very broad interdisciplinary synthesis , uniting the efforts of representatives of various fields of scientific knowledge, and on the other - periodically renewed attempts to create a completely new science about man, whose laws could be reduced to all previously developed in the framework of other disciplines n .
What is it said about here? On the need for a comprehensive knowledge of man. But this problem was posed by Kant. A systematically stated doctrine offering knowledge of a person (anthropology) can be constructed from a physiological or pragmatic point of view. " But is the person whole? After all, it is possible to study objects that are fundamentally non-integral in a complex, versatile way. To which category should you include a person?
How to ...
Tired of looking for a solution?Get Your ESSAY Now!
Many authors, referring to this problem, postulate the integrity of a person, without even subjecting this topic to philosophical reflection. More write about the meaning of the problem itself, rather than its essence. It is asserted that without solving the problem of human integrity it is impossible to solve questions about the meaning and value of human life, about the destiny of man, about the nature and essence of his inner world. This idea in the most general form is difficult to challenge. Of course, in order to understand the correlation of social and biological, individual and social, individual and national in a person, a relatively clear answer to the question of whether the person is integral is needed.
The complexity of man as a special kind of being does not at all indicate that man is integral. Let us turn to the example of H. Nemesky's work "On the Nature of Man". "The Creator," he wrote, "not only united the being of the singularities, but also coordinated all the one with the other (among themselves) accordingly. For just as in every living being connected the insensitive with the sensible, the bones, the fat, the hair, and the like, with sensitive nerves, flesh and the like, and from both and from the other formed a complex living being, and accomplished it not only complex, but (at the same time) and single. "
However, if this or that creation is one, does this mean that it is integral? I. Kant defines the whole as a phenomenon that is not part of an even greater whole of the same kind. If we talk about man as a cosmoplanetary phenomenon, it is quite obvious that he, while maintaining his autonomy as a living being, is at the same time connected with the macrocosm. Is the macro world part of a whole of the same kind? Or is it more correct to regard man as an isolated being? It is well known that the idea of a man as a small world (microcosm), located in the big world (macrocosm), about their parallelism and isomorphism, is one of the oldest natural philosophical concepts. This is evidenced by the cosmogonic mythology of the "universal man" (the Indian Purusha in the Vedas, the Scandinavian Imir in the "Edda", the Chinese Pan-Gu).
The first problem that arises in this series is the relationship between the part and the whole. The connectedness and independence of the parts therefore can not exclude each other, that they belong to different spheres. The connection of parts as a whole stems from their inner kinship in a higher idea or form of being, and their independence is realized in the independence of peripheral discoveries. Hence, in the opinion of the United States philosopher V. Shmakov, antinomy of extreme importance follows: every part, living an independent life of a part, at the same time lives and the general life of the whole.
In fact, every organ of the human body turns out to be so independent (even the heart) that it can sometimes survive the death of a living being and be transferred to another body. If, therefore, the autonomy of individual organs must be recognized as fully proven, then their simultaneous connection is no less obvious. In fact, a separate cell of the human body has independence, is born, develops and dies, is a tiny individual being, but at the same time only a negligible part of the body. But this same cell is integral with respect to the constituent molecules, the number of which is measured by many hundreds of millions. "
Ready to make your order?Get your great paper now
But after all, all these arguments are true first of all and in relation to the animal. Meanwhile, a person is unique. "He brought into the world some element alien to the animal world, but what this element is is still not completely clear. From the somatic point of view, man is one of the species of animals; and yet even his body is unique - not only due to his ability to erect and some other properties, but also thanks to a special constitution that distinguishes man from other animals and gives him more opportunities due to less developed specialization. In addition, a man is distinguished by the ability to use the body for expressive purposes ... From time immemorial, freedom, reflection, spirit was considered to be inseparable qualities of a person.
On the one hand, there is no such particular that would not be subject to change under the influence of other particulars or the whole; on the other hand, there is no whole that does not consist of particulars. The whole is that imperceptible, at first glance, foundation that governs all the particulars, limits them and determines the ways and nature of our understanding of the whole. But here it is important to emphasize that when speaking of the integrity of a person, we mean the correlation of cells and organs, but we distinguish in a person a number of independent wholes.
First, as Jaspers emphasizes, the instantaneous whole, within which the experienced phenomenon appears, is a state of consciousness at a given moment in time. The totality of abilities depends on the integrating ability of the whole organism; if we talk about thinking, then this "consciousness in general" or the fundamental function, or the form in which the psychic life proceeds at a given moment in time; the aggregate capacity for thinking is called the intellect. Somatic analysis presupposes the unity of body and soul (in the form of integral neurological, hormonal and morphological structures). For the psychology of expressive manifestations, the whole is the language of human nature, characterized by the so-called level of development (level of form). The world in which a person lives and the spirit of his culture and era are those wholenesses within which a person acts and creates.
Secondly, we can talk about the totality of psychologically understandable connections - this is a character (personality). Thirdly, the totality of human interrelations as a social and historical being is in the objective forms inherent in the society in which this person lives and the culture to which he belongs; this set reveals itself in the spirit of time, nation, state, mass.
So, reviewing this series of fundamental integrity after Jaspers, we first of all draw attention to their diversity. None of them is the whole as such; they are all nothing more than relative integrity in a series of other relative wholes. However, in the history of philosophy, there was often a desire to absolutize individual integrity. Of course, any absolutization contains an element of truth. However, this methodologically leads to errors.
In the dissertation of V.T. Filatov, some of these relative wholes are considered. This is the definite value of his work. However, he did not escape the basic methodological error and tried to build a model of absolute, all-together integrity. Let's see what results this led to. In the work of the researcher it is said that the theoretical necessity of interpreting a person as a whole proceeds from his dualism, from belonging to two worlds: natural, finite, and spiritual, infinite. However, this dualism is just indicative of the inability of a person. How can the duality of a person, the dualism inherent in him, lead to interpreting a person as an entity? Probably, we can say that a person is fundamentally impotent? Otherwise, we get a paradox: we talk about the complexity of a person, his belonging to two worlds and immediately postulate the integrity of a person.
"Man is a two-natured creature," Shmakov writes. The author of this textbook already had to write about the fact that the complexity of the object does not exclude its integrity. The world is contradictory, but it is one. Man is complex, but he is a kind of special. However, then it turns out that all objects are complete. We do not have a criterion that would allow us to distinguish two classes of phenomena - holistic and non-integral. Neither complexity, nor internal rupture, nor bi-naturalness, nor weak integration can be regarded as such.
Meanwhile, in United States philosophy, we meet with constant attempts to answer the question, what is integrity is phenomenal. VS Soloviev emphasized that the natural, organic connection of all beings, as parts of one whole, is an expression of the natural and obvious solidarity of all that exists. But the philosopher showed that "as not every combination of molecules forms an organic cell, and not every cluster of cells is a living thing." Therefore, integrity is not a property, not an attribute, but a specific view that allows us to find the common, connected, indissoluble. One and the same reality can be described, apparently, through qualitative diversity, irreducibility, difference, but at the same time as ontological integrity. The setting of the question is dictated by research optics.
Let's consider some typical examples, when the relative integrity is certainly absolutized. The instant whole is taken for something final. For example, the whole psyche is reduced to only one consciousness. The totality of abilities is declared to be the only objective reality, the only subject of scientific research. Somatopsychic unity is identified with reality as such. Peace and spirit suddenly turn out to be those absolutes, participation in which is identical with the psychic life. The sum of characterological qualities is declared the essence of the soul, and the totality of psychologically understandable connections is postulated as its being. The soul is seen only as an epiphenomenon of events occurring in the brain.
It is about such relative integrity that Jaspers wrote: "All these examples of absolutization proved their error. It is enough to look at them closely to make sure that none of the listed wholes can be identified with the "human" as such. The knowledge of an individual is comparable to swimming in the endless sea in search of an unknown continent: every time we approach the shore or an island, we learn something new, but we should declare this or that intermediate point the ultimate goal of the whole journey, as a way to new knowledge for we are closed. Theories are like shallows; we run into them and get stuck, never reaching the sought-after land. Therefore, we have always sought to understand the limits beyond which the methods of investigating relative integrity lose their validity. Different integrity - these are nothing more than individual perspectives of the "human" or particular aspects of it.General psychopathology. P. 897.}}.
In this case, it is legitimate to raise the question of what constitutes the highest, absolute integrity of the "human". Is it composed of many relative wholes? Or is it just an empty phrase, beyond which there is no objective reality?
Also We Can Offer!
- Argumentative essay
- Best college essays
- Buy custom essays online
- Buy essay online
- Cheap essay
- Cheap essay writing service
- Cheap writing service
- College essay
- College essay introduction
- College essay writing service
- Compare and contrast essay
- Custom essay
- Custom essay writing service
- Custom essays writing services
- Death penalty essay
- Do my essay
- Essay about love
- Essay about yourself
- Essay help
- Essay writing help
- Essay writing service reviews
- Essays online
- Fast food essay
- George orwell essays
- Human rights essay
- Narrative essay
- Pay to write essay
- Personal essay for college
- Personal narrative essay
- Persuasive writing
- Write my essay
- Write my essay for me cheap
- Writing a scholarship essay