its discontinuous renewal, in the infinity of centuries the path along which he followed, the steps that he took, striving for truth or happiness. "Observing what man was, and what he has become at present, will help us," wrote Condorcet, "to find the means to ensure and accelerate the new successes that his nature allows him to hope for."
So, Condorcet sees the historical process as the path of social progress, in the center of which is the ascending development of the human mind. Hegel considered progress not only as a principle of reason, but also as a principle of world events. This belief in progress was also adopted by K. Marx, who believed that mankind is moving towards an ever greater mastery of nature, the development of production and the man himself.
X I X - X X centuries were marked by turbulent events, which gave new "information for thought" about progress and regression in the life of society. In the XX century. sociological theories appeared that abandoned the optimistic view of the development of society, characteristic of the ideas of progress. Instead, they offer the theory of a cyclical cycle, pessimistic ideas of the "end of history", global ecological, energy and nuclear disasters. One of the points of view on the issue of progress was put forward by the philosopher and sociologist Karl Popper (born 1902), who wrote: “If we think that history is progressing or that we are forced to progress, then we make the same mistake as those who believe that history has a meaning that can be discovered in it, and not given to it. After all, to progress means to move towards a certain goal that exists for us as for human beings. This is impossible for history. Only we, human individuals, can progress, and we can do this by protecting and strengthening those democratic institutions on which freedom, and at the same time, progress depends. We will achieve great success in this if we become more aware of the fact that progress depends on us, on our vigilance, on our efforts, on the clarity of our concept regarding our goals and a realistic choice of such goals. "
CONTRADICTION TO PROGRESS
Let us recall the facts from the history of the 10th - 10th centuries: revolutions were often followed by counterrevolutions, reforms were followed by counterreforms, and radical changes in the political structure were followed by the restoration of the old order. (Think about what examples from Russian or world history can be used to illustrate this idea.)
If we tried to depict the progress of mankind graphically, then we would get not an ascending straight line, but a broken line, reflecting the ups and downs, ebb and flow in the struggle of social forces, accelerated forward movement and giant leaps back. In the history of different countries there have been
suppressed by the forces of obscurantism. You already know, for example, what calamities fascism brought to Europe: the death of millions, the enslavement of many peoples, the destruction of cultural centers, bonfires from the books of the greatest thinkers and artists, the imposition of a misanthropic morality, the cult of brute force.
But it’s not just such breaks in history. Society is a complex organism in which various "organs" function (enterprises, associations of people, government agencies, etc.), various processes (economic, political, spiritual, etc.) take place simultaneously, and various activities of people unfold. ... All these parts of one social organism, all these processes, various types of activity are in mutual connection and, at the same time, may not coincide in their development. Moreover, individual processes, changes occurring in different areas of society's life, can be multidirectional, that is, progress in one area may be accompanied by regression in another.
So, throughout history, the progress of technology is clearly traced: from stone tools to iron, from hand tools to machines, from the use of the muscular power of humans and animals to steam engines, electric generators, nuclear power plants, from transporting pack animals to cars, high-speed trains, airplanes, to space ships, from wooden accounts with knuckles to powerful computers.
But the progress of technology, the development of industry, chemicalization and other changes in the field of production led to the destruction of nature, to irreparable damage to the human environment, to the undermining of the natural foundations of the existence of society. Thus, progress in one area has been accompanied by regression in another.
The progress of science and technology has had mixed consequences. The discoveries in the field of nuclear physics made it possible not only to obtain a new source of energy, but also to create a powerful atomic weapon. The use of computer technology not only enormously expanded the possibilities of creative work, but also entailed new diseases associated with prolonged non-
intermittent work at the display: visual impairment, mental abnormalities associated with additional mental stress.
The growth of large cities, the need to stay on highways on a daily basis, the complication of production and the rhythms of life in everyday life - all this increased the load on the human body, gave rise to stress and, as a consequence, pathologies of the nervous system, vascular diseases. An increase in production opportunities, an improvement in living conditions for large masses of people is accompanied by the spread of drug addiction, alcoholism, and crime. Along with the greatest achievements of the human spirit in the world, there is an erosion of cultural and spiritual values.
It turns out that humanity has to pay a high price for progress. The conveniences of urban life are paid for by “diseases of urbanization”: traffic fatigue, polluted air, street noise and their consequences - stress, respiratory diseases, etc .; convenience of movement in a car - congestion of city highways, traffic jams.
Attempts to speed up progress sometimes come at prohibitive costs. Our country in the 20-30s. XX century came out on top in Europe in terms of production of a number of the most important industrial products. Industrialization was carried out at an accelerated rate, the mechanization of agriculture began, and the level of literacy of the population rose. These achievements had a downside: millions of people who became victims of severe famine, hundreds of thousands of families expelled from their places of habitual residence, millions of repressed, the subordination of the life of all people to total regulation and control.
How can these contradictory processes be assessed? Are the positive changes that come with such a high price progressive? With such ambiguity of changes, is it possible to talk about social progress as a whole? To do this, it is necessary to establish what is the general criterion of progress, which changes in society should be assessed as progressive, and which are not.
CRITERIA FOR PROGRESS
We have already seen that A. Condorcet (like other French enlighteners) considered the development of reason as the criterion of progress. Utopian socialists put forward a moral criterion
progress. Saint-Simon believed, for example, that society should take a form of organization that would lead to the implementation of the moral principle: all people should treat each other like brothers. Contemporary of the socialists-uto pistov German philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Schelling(1775-1854) wrote that the solution of the issue of historical progress is complicated by the fact that the supporters and opponents of the belief in the improvement of mankind are completely entangled in disputes about the criteria of progress. Some talk about the progress of mankind in the field of morality, others about the progress of science and technology, which, as Schelling wrote, from a historical point of view is rather a regression, and offered its own solution to the problem: the criterion in establishing the historical progress of the human race can only serve gradual approach to the legal structure.
Another point of view on social progress belongs to G. Hegel. He saw the criterion of progress in the knowledge of freedom. As the consciousness of freedom grows, society develops progressively.
As you can see, the question of the criterion of progress occupied the great minds of modern times, but did not find a solution. The drawback of all attempts to solve this problem was that in all cases only one line (or one
the development of freedom - all these are very important indicators, but not universal, they do not cover the life of a person and society as a whole.
In our time, philosophers also adhere to different views on the criterion of social progress. Let's consider some of them.
One of the currently existing points of view is that the highest and universal objective criterion of social progress is the development of the productive forces, including the development of the person himself. It is argued that the direction of the historical process is due to the growth and improvement of the productive forces of society, including the means of labor, the degree of man's mastery of the forces of nature, the possibility of using them as the basis for the life of man's activity. The sources of all human activity lie in social production. According to this criterion, those social relations are recognized as progressive, which correspond to the level of productive forces and open the greatest scope for their development, growth of productivity.
ty labor, human development. Man is considered here as the main thing in the productive forces, therefore, their development is understood from this point of view and as the development of the wealth of human nature.
This position has been criticized from a different point of view. Just as it is impossible to find a universal criterion of progress only in social consciousness (in the development of reason, morality, consciousness of freedom), so it cannot be found in the sphere of material production (technology, economic relations). History has provided examples of countries where a high level of material production was combined with the degradation of spiritual culture. In order to overcome the one-sidedness of the criteria reflecting the state of only one sphere of the life of society, it is necessary to find a concept that would characterize the essence of human life and activity. In this capacity, philosophers offer the concept of freedom.
Freedom, as you already know, is characterized not only by knowledge, the absence of which makes a person subjectively not free, but also by the presence of conditions for its realization. A free choice decision is also required. Finally, funds are also required, as well as actions aimed at implementing the adopted decision. Let us also remind that the freedom of one person should not be achieved by infringing on the freedom of another person. This limitation of freedom is of a social and moral nature.
At the very beginning of this book, we talked about the meaning of human life: it lies in self-realization, self-realization of the individual. So, freedom acts as a necessary condition for self-realization. Indeed, self-fulfillment is possible if a person has knowledge about his abilities, the possibilities that society gives him, about the ways of activity in which he can realize himself. The wider the opportunities created by society, the freer the person, the more options for activities in which his potential will be revealed. But in the process of multifaceted activity, a multifaceted development of the person himself takes place, the spiritual wealth of the individual grows.
So according to this point of view criterion of social
stance of individual freedom. The free development of a person in a free society also means the disclosure of his truly human qualities - intellectual, creative, moral. This statement leads us to consider another point of view of social progress.
As we have seen, one cannot confine oneself to the characterization of a person as an active being. He is also a rational and social being. Only with this in mind can we talk about the human in man, about humanity. But the development of human qualities depends on the living conditions of people. The more fully the various needs of a person in food, clothing, housing, transport services, his needs in the spiritual sphere are satisfied, the more moral relations between people become, the more accessible to a person are the most diverse types of economic and political, spiritual and material activities. The more favorable the conditions for the development of the physical, intellectual, mental powers of a person, his moral foundations, the wider the scope for the development of individual qualities inherent in each individual person. Shortly speaking, the more humane the living conditions, the pain
Humanity, the recognition of a person as the highest value is expressed by the word "humanism". From the above, we can draw a conclusion about the universal criterion of social progress:
that which contributes to the elevation of humanism is progressive.
Now that we have outlined different views on the criterion of historical progress, consider which viewpoint provides you with a more reliable way of assessing the changes taking place in society.
PROGRESSIVE FORCES
Applying the criterion of progress to the historical process, at each of its stages we single out those social forces that we call progression. Let's remember that, studying the revolution of the XVIII century. in France and the war of independence in the North American states, we called the bourgeoisie a progressive force. It was the representatives of this class who created the documents that embodied the major step of mankind towards freedom. The Declaration of Independence of 1776, drawn up in a republican and democratic spirit, fixed the right of people to life, freedom, equality, and the pursuit of happiness. The 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen said: "People are born and remain free and equal in rights." It spoke of the natural and inalienable human rights of freedom, property, security and resistance to oppression.
From the middle of the XIX century. many public figures considered the working class to be the main progressive force of society. And in sa-
In fact, the hands of the workers created modern production, lifted cities and transport routes, and created numerous benefits that people need. The struggle of the workers prompted the ruling circles in many countries to expand political freedoms and access to cultural values.
In the XX century. some thinkers defended the thesis of the special, progressive role of the intelligentsia. Undoubtedly, to the intellect, knowledge, creative efforts of this social force, mankind owes many great discoveries and inventions, spiritual values that made man more independent in his inner life and freer in relation to natural and social conditions.
The division into progressive and reactionary classes of society, progressive and reactionary social systems has become widespread. However, many scholars and public figures now consider this approach obsolete. The line of demarcation of the forces of progress and reac tion has largely ceased to coincide with the boundaries of countries and classes in the form in which they have developed historically. Supporters of reforms in countries that have broken with a totalitarian past, diverse social and political forces around the world, fighting for the survival of mankind, for eliminating the threat of nuclear death, ending regional military conflicts, overcoming the disadvantage of two thirds of humanity living in countries that have escaped colonial oppression, for equal international cooperation in solving global problems of humanity, for the observance of human rights and freedoms.
Opponents of progress are forces that incite social, national, and racial conflicts, striving to curtail human rights and freedoms, acting from the standpoint of national egoism, group privileges, the cult of power and profit at any cost. These are all those who achieve their goals, seeing a person as a means to achieve them.
Applying the universal criterion of progress, we can evaluate the activities of individuals, groups, parties as progressive or directed against progress. In short, progressive is activity aimed at the realization of humanistic ideals, focused on humanistic values, the approval of which in life means the development of society in the direction of an ever more perfect organization.
Basic concepts
Progress. Regression. Progress criteria.
Progressive forces. Reactionary forces.
QUESTIONS FOR SELF-TEST
What points of view on the issue of progress have been expressed by philosophers in the past and in our time?
What is the contradictory nature of progress?
What criteria for progress were proposed by thinkers of different eras? What are their "pros" and "cons"?
4 Why the humanistic criterion of progress can be considered
to be complex, overcoming the one-sided character of other criteria?
1 Compare the progress criteria proposed by the
new thinkers. Do they contradict each other? Argument your opinion.
2 Compare two statements of L. N. Tolstoy. How are you
do you think there is a contradiction between them? Explain your point of view.
“This world is not a joke, not a vale of testing only and a transition to a better, eternal world, but this is one of the eternal worlds,
living with us and for those who will live in it after us ”. “The law of progress, or improvement, is written in the soul of every person and is transferred into history only as a result of delusion. Remaining personal, this law is
3 Try from the standpoint of the universal criterion for
progress to evaluate the reforms of the 60-70s. XIX century. in Russia. Can they be called progressive? And what about the politics of the 80s? Give reasons for your position.
Poleon Bonaparte, P. A. Stolypin. Argument your assessment.
5 Which of the points of view presented in the paragraph
the position of the Florentine historian F. Guicciardini (1483-1540) is related to progress: “The affairs of the past illuminate the future, for the world has always been the same: everything that is and will be already in another time, the former is returning, only under other names and in a different window; but not everyone recognizes it, but only the wise, who carefully observes and ponders it ”?
6 Philosopher of the XX century. M. Mamardashvili wrote: “The final
the meaning of the universe or the ultimate meaning of history is part of human destiny. And the human destiny is as follows: to be fulfilled as a Human. Become Human ". How is this thought of a philosopher related to the idea of progress?
7 Think about what ideas of the topic under study can be illustrated by the following facts: from 1868 to 1980, many countries of the world signed a number of treaties, which are called documents on international humanitarian law - conventions prohibiting the use of asphyxiant, poisonous gases and bacteriological means, on the protection of civilians in time of war, as well as other documents containing prohibitions on the use of weapons and methods of conducting military operations capable of inflicting unnecessary destruction or excessive suffering, kill and injure prisoners; demands to help the wounded and sick, including those who fell into the power of the enemy, etc. Why such
are the norms called humanitarian law?
THE WISE SAY
"Progress consists in more and more predominance of reason over the animal law of struggle."
L. N. TOLSTOY (1828-1910), Russian writer
"Changing, maintaining, or continuing, I am, - this is what truly constitutes a normal human life and, consequently, progress."
P. LEROU (1797-1871), French philosopher
BRIEF CONCLUSIONS TO THE CHAPTER
Ancient greek poet Hesiod(VIII-VII centuries BC) wrote about five stages in the life of mankind. The first stage was the "golden age", when people lived easily and carelessly, the second - the "silver age", when morality and piety began to decline. So, sinking lower and lower, people found themselves in the "Iron Age", when evil and violence reign everywhere, and justice is violated.
Unlike Hesiod, the ancient Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle viewed history as a cyclical cycle repeating the same stages.
And in the 18th century. French educational philosopher Jean Antoine Condorcet(1743-1794) wrote that history presents a picture of continuous changes, a picture of the progress of the human mind. "Observing what man was, and what he has become at present, will help us," wrote Condorcet, "to find the means to ensure and accelerate the new successes that his nature allows him to hope for."
PROGRESS AND REGRESS
The direction of development, which is characterized by the transition from lower to higher, from less perfect to more perfect, is called in science progress(a word of Latin origin, literally meaning "moving forward"). The concept of progress is the opposite of the concept regression. Regression is characterized by a movement from higher to lower, degradation processes, a return to obsolete forms and structures.
The idea of progress, which was substantiated by Condorcet, was developed by many thinkers in the future. In doing so, they revealed new aspects of it. This belief in progress was also adopted by Karl Marx, who believed that mankind is moving towards an ever greater development of production and of man himself.
XIX-XX centuries were marked by turbulent events that gave new information for thinking about progress and regression in the life of society. In the XX century. philosophical and sociological theories appeared, which abandoned the optimistic view of the development of society, according to which a bright future will surely come sooner or later. The Spanish philosopher X. Ortega y Gasset (1883-1955) wrote about the idea of progress: “Since people allowed this idea to overshadow their reason, they let go of the reins of history, lost their vigilance and dexterity, and life slipped out of their hands, stopped obeying them. " Instead of the idea of progress, various philosophers offer theories of a cyclical cycle, pessimistic ideas of the "end of history", global ecological, energy and nuclear disasters.
So, which path is the society going - along the path of progress or regression? The answer to this question will determine people's idea of the future: does it bring a better life or does it not bode well?
CONTRADICTION TO PROGRESS
Let us recall facts from the history of the 19th-20th centuries: revolutions were often followed by counter-revolutions, reforms were followed by counter-reforms, and radical changes in the political structure were followed by the restoration of the old order. (Think about what examples from Russian or general history can illustrate this idea.)
If we tried to depict the progress of mankind graphically, then we would not get an ascending straight line, but a broken line, reflecting the ups and downs, ebb and flow in the struggle of social forces, accelerated forward movement and giant leaps back. There have been periods in the history of different countries when reaction triumphed, when progressive forces of society were persecuted, when reason was suppressed by the forces of obscurantism. You already know, for example, what disasters fascism brought to Europe: the death of millions, the enslavement of many peoples, the destruction of cultural centers, bonfires from the books of the greatest thinkers and artists, the imposition of a man-hating morality, the cult of brute force.
But it’s not just such breaks in history. Society is a complex organism in which various "bodies" function (enterprises, associations of people, government agencies, etc.), various processes (economic, political, spiritual, etc.) occur simultaneously, and various activities of people unfold. These parts of one social organism, these processes, various types of activity are in mutual connection and, at the same time, may not coincide in their development. Moreover, individual processes, changes occurring in different areas of society's life can be multidirectional, that is, progress in one area may be accompanied by regression in another.
So, throughout history, the progress of technology is clearly traced: from stone tools to iron, from hand tools to machines, from the use of the muscular power of humans and animals to steam engines, electric generators, nuclear power plants, from transportation on pack animals to cars, high-speed trains, airplanes, spaceships, from wooden bills with knuckles to powerful computers.
But the progress of technology, the development of industry, chemicalization and other changes in the field of production have led to the destruction of nature, to irreparable damage to the human environment, to the undermining of the natural foundations of the existence of society. Thus, progress in one area was accompanied by regression in another. The process of the historical development of society is contradictory: it is possible to find in it both progressive changes and regressive ones.
The progress of science and technology has had mixed consequences. The discoveries in the field of nuclear physics made it possible not only to obtain a new source of energy, but also to create a powerful atomic weapon. The use of computer technology not only greatly expanded the possibilities of creative work, but also caused new diseases associated with prolonged, continuous work at the display: visual impairment, mental deviations associated with additional mental stress.
The growth of large cities, the complication of production, the acceleration of the rhythm of life - all this increased the load on the human body, gave rise to stress and, as a result, the pathology of the nervous system, vascular diseases. Along with the greatest achievements of the human spirit in the world, there is an erosion of cultural and spiritual values, drug addiction, alcoholism, and crime are spreading.
Humanity has to pay a high price for progress. The conveniences of urban life are paid for by "diseases of urbanization": traffic fatigue, polluted air, street noise and their consequences - stress, respiratory diseases, etc .; ease of movement in a car - congestion of city highways, traffic jams.
Trying to speed up progress sometimes comes at a prohibitive cost. Our country in the 20-30s. XX century came out on the volume of production of a number of the most important industrial products on the first place in Europe. Industrialization was carried out at an accelerated pace, the mechanization of agriculture began, the level of literacy of the population rose. These achievements had a downside: millions of people who became victims of severe famine, hundreds of thousands of families expelled from their places of habitual residence, millions of repressed, the subordination of people's lives to total regulation and control.
How can these contradictory processes be assessed? Are positive changes that come with such a high price progressive? With such ambiguity of changes, is it possible to talk about social progress as a whole? To do this, it is necessary to establish what is the general criterion of progress, which changes in society should be assessed as progressive, and which are not.
CRITERIA FOR PROGRESS
A. Condorcet, like other French enlighteners, considered the development of reason as the criterion of progress. The utopian socialists put forward a moral criterion for progress. So, Saint-Simon believed, for example, that society should take a form of organization that would lead to the implementation of the moral principle: all people should treat each other like brothers. A contemporary of the utopian socialists German philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Schelling(1775-1854) wrote that the solution of the issue of historical progress is complicated by the fact that the supporters and opponents of the belief in the improvement of mankind are completely entangled in disputes about the criteria of progress. Some talk about the progress of mankind in the field of morality, others - about the progress of science and technology, which, as Schelling wrote, is more of a regression from a historical point of view. He offered his own solution to the problem: only a gradual approximation to the legal structure can serve as a criterion in establishing the historical progress of the human race.
Another point of view on social progress belongs to the German philosopher G. Hegel (1770-1831). He saw the criterion of progress in the consciousness of freedom. As the consciousness of freedom grows, society develops progressively.
As you can see, the question of the criterion of progress occupied the great minds of modern times, but did not find a solution. The disadvantage of all attempts to solve this problem was that in all cases only one line (or one side, or one sphere) of social development was considered as a criterion. And reason, and morality, and science, and technology, and legal order, and the consciousness of freedom - all these indicators are very important, but not universal, not covering the life of a person and society as a whole.
In our time, philosophers also adhere to different views on the criterion of social progress. Let's take a look at some of them.
One of the points of view is that the highest and universal objective criterion of social progress is the development of the productive forces, including the development of man himself. It is argued that the direction of the historical process is due to the growth and improvement of the productive forces of society, including the means of labor, the degree of man's mastery of the forces of nature, the possibility of their use as the basis of human life. The origins of all human activity lie in social production. According to this criterion, those social relations are recognized as progressive, which correspond to the level of productive forces and open the greatest scope for their development, growth of labor productivity, and human development. Man is considered as the main thing in the productive forces, therefore their development is understood from this point of view and as the development of the wealth of human nature.
This position has been criticized from a different point of view. Just as it is impossible to find a universal criterion of progress only in social consciousness (in the development of reason, morality, consciousness of freedom), so it cannot be found in the sphere of material production (technology, economic relations). History has provided examples of countries where a high level of material production was combined with the degradation of spiritual culture. To overcome the one-sidedness of the criteria reflecting the state of only one sphere of the life of society, it is necessary to find a concept that would characterize the essence of human life and activity. In this capacity, philosophers offer the concept of freedom.
Freedom, as you already know, is characterized not only by knowledge, the absence of which makes a person subjectively unfree, but also by the presence of conditions for its realization. A decision made on the basis of free choice is also required. Finally, funds are also required, as well as actions aimed at implementing the adopted decision. Let us also recall that the freedom of one person should not be achieved by infringing on the freedom of another person. This restriction of freedom is of a social and moral nature.
freedom acts as a necessary condition for the self-realization of the individual. It arises when a person has knowledge about his abilities, about the opportunities that society gives him, about the ways of activities in which he can realize himself. The wider the opportunities created by society, the freer a person is, the more options for activities in which his powers will unfold. But in the process of multifaceted activity, the multifaceted development of the person himself takes place, the spiritual wealth of the individual grows.
So, according to this point of view, the criterion of social progress is the measure of freedom that society is able to provide to the individual, the degree of individual freedom guaranteed by society. The free development of a person in a free society also means the disclosure of his truly human qualities - intellectual, creative, moral. This statement leads us to consider another point of view of social progress.
As we have seen, one cannot confine oneself to the characterization of man as an active being. He is also a rational and social being. Only with this in mind can we talk about the human in the person, about humanity. But the development of human qualities depends on the living conditions of people. The more fully the various needs of a person in food, clothing, housing, transport services, in the spiritual sphere are satisfied, the more moral relations between people become, the more accessible to a person are made the most diverse types of economic and political, spiritual and material activities. The more favorable the conditions for the development of physical, intellectual, mental powers of a person, his moral qualities, the wider the scope for the development of individual properties inherent in each individual person. The more humane the conditions of life, the more opportunities for human development in a person: reason, morality, creative powers.
Humanity, the recognition of a person as the highest value is expressed by the word "humanism". From the above, we can draw a conclusion about the universal criterion of social progress: progressive is that which contributes to the rise of humanism.
Now that we have outlined different views on the criterion of historical progress, consider which viewpoint gives you a more reliable way of assessing the changes taking place in society.
VARIETY OF WAYS AND FORMS OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Social progress in the created in the XVIII-XIX centuries. In the works of J. Condorcet, G. Hegel, K. Marx and other philosophers, it was understood as a natural movement along the main path that is common for all mankind. On the contrary, in the concept of local civilizations, progress is seen as progressing in different civilizations in different ways.
If you mentally take a look at the course of world history, you will notice a lot in common in the development of different countries and peoples. The primitive society was everywhere replaced by a society ruled by the state. Feudal fragmentation was replaced by centralized monarchies. Bourgeois revolutions have taken place in many countries. Colonial empires collapsed, and dozens of independent states arose in their place. You yourself could continue listing similar events and processes that took place in different countries, on different continents. This similarity reveals the unity of the historical process, a certain identity of successive orders, the commonality of the destinies of different countries and peoples.
At the same time, the specific ways of development of individual countries and peoples are diverse. There are no peoples, countries, states with the same history. The variety of specific historical processes is caused by the difference in natural conditions, and the specifics of the economy, and the originality of spiritual culture, and the peculiarities of the way of life, and many other factors. Does this mean that each country has its own development scenario predetermined and it is the only possible one? Historical experience indicates that under certain conditions, various options for solving urgent problems are possible, a choice of methods, forms, ways of further development is possible, that is, a historical alternative. Alternative options are often offered by certain groups of society, various political forces.
Let us recall that in the preparation of the Peasant Reform, carried out in Russia in 1861, different social forces proposed different forms of making changes in the life of the country. Some defended the revolutionary path, others the reformist path. But there was no unity among the latter. Several reform options have been proposed.
And in 1917-1918. a new alternative arose before Russia: either a democratic republic, one of the symbols of which was the popularly elected Constituent Assembly, or a republic of Soviets headed by the Bolsheviks.
In each case, a choice was made. Such a choice is made by statesmen, ruling elites, and the masses, depending on the balance of forces and influence of each of the subjects of history.
Any country, any nation at certain moments in history is faced with a fateful choice, and its history is carried out in the process of realizing this choice.
The variety of ways and forms of social development is not limitless. It is included in the framework of certain trends in historical development.
For example, we saw that the elimination of obsolete serfdom was possible both in the form of a revolution and in the form of reforms carried out by the state. And the urgent need to accelerate economic growth in different countries was fulfilled either by attracting new and new natural resources, that is, in an extensive way, or by introducing new equipment and technology, improving the qualifications of workers, based on the growth of labor productivity, that is, by intensive by. Different countries or the same country can use different options for implementing the same type of changes.
Thus, the historical process, in which general tendencies are manifested - the unity of diverse social development, creates the possibility of choice, on which the originality of the ways and forms of further movement of a given country depends. This speaks to the historical responsibility of those who make this choice.
Basic concepts: social progress, regression, multivariate social development.
Terms: historical alternative, criterion of progress.
1. Try from the standpoint of a universal criterion of progress to evaluate the reforms of the 60-70s. XIX century. in Russia. Can they be called progressive? And what about the politics of the 80s? Give reasons for your position.
2. Think about whether the activities of Peter I, Napoleon Bonaparte, PA Stolypin are progressive. Give reasons for your assessment.
3. Which of the points of view on progress presented in the paragraph refers to the position of the Florentine historian F. Guicciardini (1483-1540): it was at a different time, the former is returning, only under different names and in a different color; but not everyone recognizes it, but only the wise, who carefully observes and ponders it ”?
4. Consider whether the attitude of the two Russian philosophers quoted below to the idea of progress differs.
A. I. Herzen (1812-1870): “All our great significance ... lies in the fact that while we are alive ... we are still ourselves, and not dolls assigned to suffer progress or embody some crazy idea. We should be proud of the fact that we are not threads or needles in the hands of a fate that sews the motley fabric of history. "
G.V. Plekhanov (1856-1918): “People make their history not at all in order to walk along a predetermined path of progress, and not because they have to obey the laws of some abstract evolution. They do it in an effort to satisfy their needs. "
Compare these statements with the material stated in the text of the paragraph and, relying on historical knowledge, express your point of view.
5. Some scholars studying modern social development have drawn attention to the phenomena that they called the "barbarization" of society. They attributed to them a decline in the level of culture, in particular language, a weakening of moral regulators, legal nihilism, an increase in crime, drug addiction and other similar processes. How would you rate these phenomena? What is their impact on society? Do these trends determine the nature of the development of society in the foreseeable future? Argument your answer.
6. The Soviet philosopher M. Mamardashvili (1930-1990) wrote: “The final meaning of the universe or the final meaning of history is part of human destiny. And the human destiny is as follows: to be fulfilled as a Human. Become Human ". How is this thought of a philosopher related to the idea of progress?
| Let's work with the source |
Russian philosopher N. A. Berdyaev on progress.
Progress turns every human generation, every human face, every epoch of history into a means and instrument for the ultimate goal - the perfection, power and bliss of the coming humanity, in which none of us will have a lot. The positive idea of progress is internally unacceptable, religiously and morally unacceptable, because the nature of this idea is such that it makes it impossible to resolve the torment of life, to resolve tragic contradictions and conflicts for the entire human race, for all human generations, for all times, for all ever living people with their suffering fate. This teaching knowingly and consciously asserts that for a huge mass, an endless mass of human generations and for an endless series of times and eras, there is only death and the grave. They lived in an imperfect, suffering, full of contradictions state, and only somewhere at the top of historical life, finally, on the decayed bones of all previous generations, does such a generation of lucky people appear, which will climb to the top and for which the highest fullness of life, the highest bliss and perfection. All generations are only a means for the realization of this blissful life of this happy generation of the chosen ones, which must appear in some unknown and alien future for us.
Questions and tasks: 1) What is the difference between the views on progress presented in this document and the views set out in the paragraph? 2) What is your attitude to the reflections of N.A. Berdyaev? 3) Which of all the points of view on progress presented in the materials of the paragraph is the most attractive to you? 4) Why does the title of this paragraph start with the word "problem"?
| They argue about it |
Is it possible to achieve simultaneous progress in various spheres of society? Sometimes they indicate the incompatibility of some changes, each of which is recognized as progressive. For example, the growth of production, on which the material well-being of the population depends, and the improvement of the ecological situation, on which the health of people depends. Or the growing environment of a person with various technical devices that facilitate his work and life, and at the same time - the enrichment of spiritual life, requiring the rise of humanitarian culture. The experience of the past century has shown that the named, like many other progressive, changes in science, technology, economics, social relations, education, etc. cannot be implemented together. How to be?
Section 16. Freedom in human activities
Freedom of the individual in its various manifestations is today the most important value of civilized humanity. The importance of freedom for human self-realization was comprehended in ancient times. The striving for freedom, liberation from the fetters of despotism, arbitrariness permeated the entire history of mankind. This manifested itself with particular force in the New and Modern Times. All revolutions have written the word "freedom" on their banners. Few of the political leaders and revolutionary leaders did not vow to lead the masses under their leadership to true freedom. But although the overwhelming majority declared themselves as unconditional supporters and defenders of individual freedom, the meaning put into this concept was different.
The category of freedom is one of the central and in the philosophical searches of mankind. And just as politicians paint this concept in different colors, often subordinating it to their specific political goals, so philosophers approach its interpretation from different positions.
Let's try to understand the variety of these interpretations.
WHY ABSOLUTE FREEDOM IS IMPOSSIBLE
No matter how people strive for freedom, they understand that there can be no absolute, unlimited freedom. First of all, because the complete freedom of one would mean arbitrariness in relation to the other. For example, someone wanted to listen to loud music at night. Having turned on the tape recorder at full power, the person fulfilled his desire, acted freely. But his freedom in this case infringed the right of many others to get a good night's sleep.
That is why in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, where all articles are devoted to the rights and freedoms of the individual, in the latter, which contains a mention of obligations, it is said that in the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone should be subject only to such restrictions that are aimed at ensuring recognition and respect. the rights of others.
Arguing about the impossibility of absolute freedom, let us turn our attention to one more side of the issue. Such freedom would mean an unlimited choice for a person, which would put him in an extremely difficult position in making a decision. The expression "Buridan's donkey" is widely known. The French philosopher Buridan told about a donkey that was placed between two identical and equidistant bundles of hay. Not deciding which armful to prefer, the donkey died of hunger. Even earlier, Dante described a similar situation, but he spoke not about donkeys, but about people: "Put between two dishes, equally distant and equally attractive, a person would rather die than, having absolute freedom, take one of them in his mouth."
A person cannot be absolutely free. And one of the restraints here is the rights and freedoms of other people.
FREEDOM AS A RECOGNIZED NECESSITY
This is how many philosophers interpreted freedom - B. Spinoza, G. Hegel, F. Engels. What is behind this formula, which has become almost an aphorism? There are forces in the world that act irrevocably, inevitably. These forces also affect human activity. If this necessity is not comprehended, not comprehended by a person, he is her slave; if it is cognized, then the person acquires "the ability to make a decision with knowledge of the matter." This is where his free will is expressed.
But what are these forces, what is the nature of necessity? Different answers are given to this question. Some see God's providence here. Everything is predetermined by him. What, then, does the freedom of man consist in? She's gone. “The foreknowledge and omnipotence of God are diametrically opposed to our free will. Everyone will be forced to accept the inevitable consequence: we do nothing of our own free will, but everything happens by necessity. Thus, we do nothing of our free will, but everything depends on the foreknowledge of God, ”the religious reformer Luther argued. This position is defended by the advocates of absolute predestination. In contrast to this view, other religious leaders suggest the following interpretation of the relationship between Divine predestination and human freedom: “God conceived the Universe so that all creation would have a great gift - freedom. Freedom primarily means the ability to choose between good and evil, and a choice given independently, on the basis of one's own decision. Of course, God can destroy evil and death in an instant. But at the same time He would deprive the world and freedom at the same time. The world itself must return to God, since it itself has departed from Him. "
The concept of "necessity" may have a different meaning. Necessity, according to a number of philosophers, exists in nature and society in the form of objective, that is, independent of human consciousness, laws. In other words, necessity is an expression of the natural, objectively conditioned course of the development of events. Supporters of this position, unlike fatalists, of course, do not believe that everything in the world, especially in public life, is rigidly and unambiguously defined, they do not deny the existence of accidents. But the general, regular line of development, rejected by chance in one direction or the other, will still make its way. Let's take a look at some examples. It is known that earthquakes periodically occur in seismic zones. People who do not know this circumstance or ignore it, building their homes in this area, can be victims of a dangerous element. In the same case, when this fact is taken into account in the construction of, for example, earthquake-resistant buildings, the risk probability will sharply decrease.
In a generalized form, the presented position can be expressed in the words of F. Engels: "Freedom does not lie in the imaginary independence from the laws of nature, but in the knowledge of these laws and in the ability based on this knowledge to systematically force the laws of nature to act for specific purposes."
Thus, the interpretation of freedom as a cognized necessity presupposes a person's comprehension and consideration of the objective limits of his activity, as well as the expansion of these limits due to the development of knowledge, enrichment of experience.
FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY
Let's consider one more situation. Modern society provides a person with a variety of tools to help get rid of an oppressed, depressive state. Among them there are those (alcohol, drugs) that inexorably destroy the human body. Making his choice, a person who knows about such a danger can neglect it, but then he will inevitably face reckoning, and he will have to pay the most expensive - his own health, and sometimes life.
In other words, a truly free person will not be a slave to his momentary moods and addictions. He will choose a healthy lifestyle. In this case, in addition to the perceived danger, a person is encouraged to act in this way, and not otherwise, and certain social conditions. There are norms of morality and law, traditions and public opinion. It is under their influence that a model of "proper behavior" is formed. Taking these rules into account, a person acts and acts, makes certain decisions.
A person's deviation from established social norms causes, as you already know, a certain reaction from society. Negative deviation causes social sanctions, that is, punishment for disapproved actions. Such punishment is also called the responsibility of a person for his activities and its consequences. (Remember in what cases criminal, administrative, material and other types of liability arise.)
But the concept of "responsibility" is associated not only with external forms of influence on a person, responsibility is the most important internal regulator of his activities. Then we are talking about a sense of responsibility, duty. It manifests itself primarily in the conscious readiness of a person to follow established norms, to evaluate their actions in terms of their consequences for others, to take sanctions in case of violations.
As research by psychologists shows, most people tend to take responsibility for their actions. However, situations arise when the sense of responsibility is dulled. So, a person in a crowd is capable of such actions - offensive shouts, resistance to representatives of the law and order, various manifestations of cruelty and aggression that he would never have committed in a different environment. In this case, the influence is exerted not only by the massiveness of the performances, but primarily by the anonymous nature of people's activities. At such times, internal constraints are loosened, and anxiety about public judgment diminishes. By forming a sense of responsibility in himself, a person protects himself from deindividualization, that is, turning into a faceless being with low self-awareness.
"FREEDOM FROM" OR "FREEDOM TO"
Think about what kind of person we usually consider free. The first thing that comes to mind is someone who is not forced to do anything, is not forced to do what he does not want, over whom there is no oppression of circumstances. “Today I am free because I don’t need to run to the tutor”; “I want to rent an apartment in order to free myself from the care of my parents and feel free at last” - you can cite many more phrases and sayings in which just such an understanding of freedom is manifested.
However, philosophers believe that this is only the starting point of freedom. True liberation begins with self-restraint. “Freedom for” is good will, subject to moral law. Man by free effort is prevented from evil and turns to good. I. Kant believed that such a free choice is above natural necessity.
Thus, you and I have moved from considering external restrictions on freedom to internal prohibitions that a person sets for himself. "No praise, no blame, no honor, no punishment will be just if the soul does not have the ability to strive and resist, and if vice is involuntary," the Christian theologian of the 3rd c.
The main thing is not what the external circumstances of a person's life are. Another thing is more important: how they are refracted in his mind, how a person projects himself into the world, what goals he sets for himself, what meaning and significance he attaches to the surrounding reality. This is what determines the choice from a variety of possible options for behavior. From this, some modern philosophers conclude: human activity cannot receive its goal from the outside, nothing external in relation to consciousness can motivate it, a person is completely free in his inner life.
A truly free person himself chooses not only an act, but also its grounds, the general principles of his actions, which acquire the character of convictions. Such a person, even in the conditions of the progressive degeneration of the human race or with the complete stability of a despotic or totalitarian regime in his country, will not reach a state of spiritual decline and will act as if the principles he defended will surely triumph in the future.
Critics of this position believe that if everyone looks for the foundations of their behavior only in accordance with their own motives, without taking into account the generally accepted restrictions and prohibitions, then society will lose its integrity and chaos awaits people: instead of the desired freedom, they will receive complete arbitrariness.
What is your point of view? Which of these positions and why do you find it correct?
WHAT IS A FREE SOCIETY
A. Condorcet, like other French enlighteners, considered the development of reason as the criterion of progress. The utopian socialists put forward a moral criterion for progress. So, Saint-Simon believed, for example, that society should take a form of organization that would lead to the implementation of the moral principle: all people should treat each other like brothers. A contemporary of the utopian socialists German philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Schelling(1775-1854) wrote that the solution of the issue of historical progress is complicated by the fact that the supporters and opponents of the belief in the improvement of mankind are completely entangled in disputes about the criteria of progress. Some talk about the progress of mankind in the field of morality, others - about the progress of science and technology, which, as Schelling wrote, is more of a regression from a historical point of view. He offered his own solution to the problem: only a gradual approximation to the legal structure can serve as a criterion in establishing the historical progress of the human race.
Another point of view on social progress belongs to the German philosopher G. Hegel (1770-1831). He saw the criterion of progress in the consciousness of freedom. As the consciousness of freedom grows, society develops progressively.
As you can see, the question of the criterion of progress occupied the great minds of modern times, but did not find a solution. The disadvantage of all attempts to solve this problem was that in all cases only one line (or one side, or one sphere) of social development was considered as a criterion. And reason, and morality, and science, and technology, and legal order, and the consciousness of freedom - all these indicators are very important, but not universal, not covering the life of a person and society as a whole.
In our time, philosophers also adhere to different views on the criterion of social progress. Let's take a look at some of them.
One of the points of view is that the highest and universal objective criterion of social progress is development of productive forces, including the development of the person himself... It is argued that the direction of the historical process is due to the growth and improvement of the productive forces of society, including the means of labor, the degree of man's mastery of the forces of nature, the possibility of their use as the basis of human life. The origins of all human activity lie in social production. According to this criterion, those social relations are recognized as progressive, which correspond to the level of productive forces and open the greatest scope for their development, growth of labor productivity, and human development. Man is considered as the main thing in the productive forces, therefore their development is understood from this point of view and as the development of the wealth of human nature.
This position has been criticized from a different point of view. Just as it is impossible to find a universal criterion of progress only in social consciousness (in the development of reason, morality, consciousness of freedom), so it cannot be found in the sphere of material production (technology, economic relations). History has provided examples of countries where a high level of material production was combined with the degradation of spiritual culture. To overcome the one-sidedness of the criteria reflecting the state of only one sphere of the life of society, it is necessary to find a concept that would characterize the essence of human life and activity. In this capacity, philosophers offer the concept of freedom.
Freedom, as you already know, is characterized not only by knowledge, the absence of which makes a person subjectively unfree, but also by the presence of conditions for its realization. A decision made on the basis of free choice is also required. Finally, funds are also required, as well as actions aimed at implementing the adopted decision. Let us also recall that the freedom of one person should not be achieved by infringing on the freedom of another person. This restriction of freedom is of a social and moral nature.
freedom acts as a necessary condition for the self-realization of the individual. It arises when a person has knowledge about his abilities, about the opportunities that society gives him, about the ways of activities in which he can realize himself. The wider the opportunities created by society, the freer a person is, the more options for activities in which his powers will unfold. But in the process of multifaceted activity, the multifaceted development of the person himself takes place, the spiritual wealth of the individual grows.
So, according to this point of view, the criterion of social progress is the measure of freedom that society is able to provide to the individual, the degree of individual freedom guaranteed by society. The free development of a person in a free society also means the disclosure of his truly human qualities - intellectual, creative, moral. This statement leads us to consider another point of view of social progress.
As we have seen, one cannot confine oneself to the characterization of man as an active being. He is also a rational and social being. Only with this in mind can we talk about the human in the person, about humanity. But the development of human qualities depends on the living conditions of people. The more fully the various needs of a person in food, clothing, housing, transport services, in the spiritual sphere are satisfied, the more moral relations between people become, the more accessible to a person are made the most diverse types of economic and political, spiritual and material activities. The more favorable the conditions for the development of physical, intellectual, mental powers of a person, his moral qualities, the wider the scope for the development of individual properties inherent in each individual person. The more humane the conditions of life, the more opportunities for human development in a person: reason, morality, creative powers.
Humanity, the recognition of a person as the highest value is expressed by the word "humanism". From the above, we can draw a conclusion about the universal criterion of social progress: progressive is that which contributes to the rise of humanism.
Now that we have outlined different views on the criterion of historical progress, consider which viewpoint gives you a more reliable way of assessing the changes taking place in society.
Social progress in the created in the XVIII - XIX centuries. In the works of J. Condorcet, G. Hegel, K. Marx and other philosophers, it was understood as a natural movement along the main path that is common for all mankind. On the contrary, in the concept of local civilizations, progress is seen as progressing in different civilizations in different ways. If you mentally take a look at the course of world history, you will notice a lot in common in the development of different countries and peoples. The primitive society was everywhere replaced by a society ruled by the state. Feudal fragmentation was replaced by centralized monarchies. Bourgeois revolutions have taken place in many countries. Colonial empires collapsed, and dozens of independent states arose in their place. You yourself could continue listing similar events and processes that took place in different countries, on different continents. This similarity reveals the unity of the historical process, a certain identity of successive orders, the commonality of the destinies of different countries and peoples. At the same time, the specific ways of development of individual countries and peoples are diverse.
There are no peoples, countries, states with the same history. The variety of specific historical processes is caused by the difference in natural conditions, and the specifics of the economy, and the originality of spiritual culture, and the peculiarities of the way of life, and many other factors. Does this mean that each country has its own development scenario predetermined and it is the only possible one? Historical experience indicates that under certain conditions, various options for solving urgent problems are possible, a choice of methods, forms, ways of further development is possible, that is, a historical alternative. Alternative options are often offered by certain groups of society, various political forces. Let us recall that in the preparation of the Peasant Reform, carried out in Russia in 1861, different social forces proposed different forms of making changes in the life of the country. Some defended the revolutionary path, others the reformist path. But there was no unity among the latter. Several reform options have been proposed. And in 1917-1918. a new alternative arose before Russia: either a democratic republic, one of the symbols of which was the popularly elected Constituent Assembly, or a republic of Soviets headed by the Bolsheviks. In each case, a choice was made. Such a choice is made by statesmen, ruling elites, and the masses, depending on the balance of forces and influence of each of the subjects of history. Any country, any nation at certain moments in history is faced with a fateful choice, and its history is carried out in the process of realizing this choice. The variety of ways and forms of social development is not limitless. It is included in the framework of certain trends in historical development.
For example, we saw that the elimination of obsolete serfdom was possible both in the form of a revolution and in the form of reforms carried out by the state. And the urgent need to accelerate economic growth in different countries was fulfilled either by attracting new and new natural resources, that is, in an extensive way, or by introducing new equipment and technology, improving the qualifications of workers, based on the growth of labor productivity, that is, by intensive by. Different countries or the same country can use different options for implementing the same type of changes. Thus, the historical process, in which general tendencies are manifested - the unity of diverse social development, creates the possibility of choice, on which the originality of the ways and forms of further movement of a given country depends. This speaks to the historical responsibility of those who make this choice. Basic concepts: social progress, regression, multivariate social development. Terms: historical alternative, criterion of progress.
Check yourself
1) What does the word "progress" mean? 2) How can the diversity of views on progress be explained? 3) What is the inconsistency of social progress? 4) What criteria for progress have been put forward in the past? What are their limitations? 5) What criterion of progress can be recognized as universal? What are its advantages? 6) Why are the ways and forms of social development diverse? 7) What is the meaning of the expression "the unity of diverse social development"?
Think, discuss, do
1. Try from the standpoint of a universal criterion of progress to evaluate the reforms of the 60s and 70s. XIX century. in Russia. Can they be called progressive? And what about the politics of the 80s? Give reasons for your position. 2. Think about whether the activities of Peter I, Napoleon Bonaparte, PA Stolypin are progressive. Give reasons for your assessment. 3. Which of the points of view on progress presented in the paragraph refers to the position of the Florentine historian F. Guicciardini (1483-1540): it was already at another time, the former is returning, only under different names and in a different color; but not everyone recognizes it, but only the wise, who carefully observes and ponders it ”? 4. Consider whether the attitude of the two Russian philosophers quoted below to the idea of progress differs. A. I. Herzen (1812-1870): “All our great significance ... lies in the fact that while we are alive ... we are still ourselves, and not dolls assigned to suffer progress or to embody some crazy idea. We should be proud of the fact that we are not threads or needles in the hands of a fate that sews the motley fabric of history. " G.V. Plekhanov (1856-1918): “People make their history not at all in order to march along a predetermined path of progress, and not because they must obey the laws of some kind of abstract evolution. They do it in an effort to satisfy their needs. " Compare these statements with the material stated in the text of the paragraph and, relying on historical knowledge, express your point of view. 5. Some scholars studying modern social development have drawn attention to the phenomena that they called the "barbarization" of society. They attributed to them a decline in the level of culture, in particular language, a weakening of moral regulators, legal nihilism, an increase in crime, drug addiction and other similar processes. How would you rate these phenomena? What is their impact on society? Do these trends determine the nature of the development of society in the foreseeable future? Argument your answer. 6. The Soviet philosopher M. Mamardashvili (1930-1990) wrote: “The final meaning of the universe or the final meaning of history is part of human destiny. And the human destiny is as follows: to be fulfilled as a Human. Become Human ". How is this thought of a philosopher related to the idea of progress?
Let's work with the source
Russian philosopher N. A. Berdyaev on progress.
Progress turns every human generation, every human face, every epoch of history into a means and instrument for the ultimate goal - the perfection, power and bliss of the coming humanity, in which none of us will have a lot. The positive idea of progress is internally unacceptable, religiously and morally unacceptable, because the nature of this idea is such that it makes it impossible to resolve the torment of life, to resolve tragic contradictions and conflicts for the entire human race, for all human generations, for all times, for all ever living people with their suffering fate. This teaching knowingly and consciously asserts that for a huge mass, an endless mass of human generations and for an endless series of times and eras, there is only death and the grave. They lived in an imperfect, suffering, full of contradictions state, and only somewhere at the top of historical life, finally, on the decayed bones of all previous generations, does such a generation of lucky people appear, which will climb to the top and for which the highest fullness of life, the highest bliss and perfection. All generations are only a means for the realization of this blissful life of this happy generation of the chosen ones, which must appear in some unknown and alien future for us. Questions and tasks: 1) What is the difference between the views on progress presented in this document and the views set out in the paragraph? 2) What is your attitude to the reflections of N.A. Berdyaev? 3) Which of all the points of view on progress presented in the materials of the paragraph is the most attractive to you? 4) Why does the title of this paragraph start with the word "problem"?
They argue about it
Is it possible to achieve simultaneous progress in various spheres of society? Sometimes they indicate the incompatibility of some changes, each of which is recognized as progressive. For example, the growth of production, on which the material well-being of the population depends, and the improvement of the ecological situation, on which the health of people depends. Or the growing environment of a person with various technical devices that facilitate his work and life, and at the same time - the enrichment of spiritual life, requiring the rise of humanitarian culture. The experience of the past century has shown that the named, like many other progressive, changes in science, technology, economics, social relations, education, etc. cannot be implemented together. How to be?
In the vast literature on social progress, there is currently no single answer to the main question: what is the general sociological criterion of social progress?
A relatively small number of authors argue that the very formulation of the question of a single criterion of social progress is meaningless, since human society is a complex organism, the development of which is carried out along different lines, which makes it impossible to formulate a single criterion. Most of the authors consider it possible to formulate a single general sociological criterion of social progress. However, even in the very formulation of such a criterion, there are significant discrepancies.
Condorcet (like other French enlighteners) considered the development of reason as the criterion of progress. The utopian socialists put forward a moral criterion for progress. Saint-Simon believed, for example, that society should take a form of organization that would lead to the implementation of the moral principle: all people should treat each other like brothers. A contemporary of the utopian socialists, the German philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Schelling (1775-1854) wrote that the solution of the issue of historical progress is complicated by the fact that the supporters and opponents of the belief in the improvement of humanity are completely entangled in disputes about the criteria of progress. Some talk about the progress of mankind in the field of morality, others - about the progress of science and technology, which, as Schelling wrote, is more of a regression from a historical point of view, and offered his own solution to the problem: only a gradual approximation can serve as a criterion in establishing the historical progress of the human race. to the legal device. Another point of view on social progress belongs to G. Hegel. He saw the criterion of progress in the consciousness of freedom. As the consciousness of freedom grows, society develops progressively.
As you can see, the question of the criterion of progress occupied the great minds of modern times, but did not find a solution. The disadvantage of all attempts to overcome this task was that in all cases only one line (or one side, or one sphere) of social development was considered as a criterion. And reason, and morality, and science, and technology, and legal order, and the consciousness of freedom - all these indicators are very important, but not universal, not covering the life of a person and society as a whole.
The dominant idea of unlimited progress inevitably led to the seemingly only possible solution to the problem; the main, if not the only, criterion of social progress can only be the development of material production, which ultimately predetermines the change in all other aspects and spheres of society. Among Marxists, this conclusion was repeatedly insisted by V.I.Lenin, who back in 1908 called for considering the interests of the development of productive forces as the highest criterion of progress. After October, Lenin returned to this definition and emphasized that the state of the productive forces is the main criterion of all social development, since each subsequent socio-economic formation finally conquered the previous one due precisely to the fact that it opened up more space for the development of productive forces, achieved a higher productivity of social labor.
A serious argument in favor of this position is that the very history of mankind begins with the manufacture of tools and exists due to the continuity in the development of productive forces.
It is noteworthy that the conclusion about the state and level of development of the productive forces as the general criterion of progress was shared by the opponents of Marxism - technicians, on the one hand, and scientists, on the other. A legitimate question arises: how could the concept of Marxism (i.e., materialism) and scientism (i.e., idealism) converge at one point? The logic of this convergence is as follows. The scientist discovers social progress, first of all, in the development of scientific knowledge, but scientific knowledge acquires the highest meaning only when it is realized in practice, and above all in material production.
In the process of the ideological confrontation between the two systems, which was still receding into the past, technicians used the thesis about productive forces as the general criterion of social progress to prove the superiority of the West, which was and is going ahead in this indicator. The disadvantage of this criterion is that the assessment of production forces involves taking into account their number, nature, the level of development achieved and the associated labor productivity, the ability to grow, which is very important when comparing different countries and stages of historical development. For example, the number of manufacturing forces in modern India is greater than in South Korea, and their quality is lower.
If we take the development of productive forces as a criterion for progress; their assessment in dynamics, this presupposes a comparison no longer from the point of view of the greater or lesser development of the productive forces, but from the point of view of the course, the speed of their development. But in this case, the question arises as to what period should be taken for comparison.
Some philosophers believe that all difficulties will be overcome if we take the method of production of material goods as a general sociological criterion of social progress. A weighty argument in favor of this position is that the foundation of social progress is the development of the mode of production as a whole, that, taking into account the state and growth of productive forces, as well as the nature of production relations, it is possible to show much more fully the progressive nature of one formation in relation to another.
Far from denying that the transition from one mode of production to another, more progressive, underlies progress in a number of other areas, opponents of this point of view almost always note that the main question remains unresolved: how to determine the very progressiveness of this new method of production.
Rightly believing that human society is, first of all, a developing community of people, another group of philosophers puts forward the development of man himself as a general sociological criterion of social progress. It is indisputable that the course of human history really testifies to the development of people who make up human society, their social and individual forces, abilities, inclinations. The advantage of this approach is that it allows you to measure social progress by the progressive development of the very subjects of historical creativity - people.
The most important criterion of progress is the level of humanism in society, i.e. the position of the personality in it: the degree of its economic, political and social liberation; the level of satisfaction of her material and spiritual needs; the state of her psychophysical and social health. According to this point of view, the criterion of social progress is the measure of freedom that society is able to provide to the individual, the degree of individual freedom guaranteed by society. The free development of a person in a free society also means the disclosure of his truly human qualities - intellectual, creative, moral. The development of human qualities depends on the living conditions of people. The more fully the various needs of a person in food, clothing, housing, transport services, his needs in the spiritual field are satisfied, the more moral relations between people become, the more accessible to a person are the most diverse types of economic and political, spiritual and material activities. The more favorable the conditions for the development of physical, intellectual, mental powers of a person, his moral foundations, the wider the scope for the development of individual qualities inherent in each individual person. In short, the more humane the conditions of life, the more opportunities for human development in a person: reason, morality, creative powers.
Let us note, by the way, that within this structured indicator it is possible and necessary to single out one indicator, which in fact unites all the others. This, in my opinion, is the average life expectancy. And if it is 10-12 years less in a given country than in the group of developed countries, and besides, it shows a tendency to further decrease, the question of the degree of progressiveness of this country should also be resolved accordingly. For, as one of the famous poets said, "all progress is reactionary if a person collapses."
The level of humanism of society as an integrative criterion (that is, passing through itself and absorbing changes in literally all spheres of society's life) criterion incorporates the criteria discussed above. Each subsequent formational and civilizational stage is also more progressive in terms of personality - it expands the range of rights and freedoms of the individual, entails the development of his needs and the improvement of his abilities. Suffice it to compare in this respect the status of a slave and a serf, a serf and a wage laborer under capitalism. At first, it may seem that the slave-owning formation, which marked the beginning of the era of exploitation of man by man, stands apart in this respect. But, as F. Engels explained, even for a slave, not to mention free ones, slavery was a personal progress: if earlier a prisoner was killed or eaten, now he was left to live.
So, the content of social progress was, is and will be the "humanization of man" achieved through the contradictory development of his natural and social forces, ie, productive forces and the entire gamut of social relations. From the above, we can draw a conclusion about the universal criterion of social progress: progressive is that which contributes to the rise of humanism.
