Outcasts
Marginals - the designation of individuals and groups located on the outskirts, on the sidelines, or simply outside the framework of the main structural divisions characteristic of a given society or the prevailing sociocultural norms and traditions ...
The marginal situation... is the source of a new perception and understanding of the universe and society,... forms of intellectual, artistic and religious creativity. …Many renewing generations in the spiritual history of mankind (world religions, great philosophical systems and scientific concepts, new forms of artistic representation of the world) owe their appearance to marginal personalities and sociocultural environments.
Technological, social and cultural shifts of the last decades have given the problem of marginality a qualitatively new outline. Urbanization, mass migrations, intensive interaction between the bearers of heterogeneous ethno-cultural and religious traditions, the erosion of age-old cultural barriers, the influence of mass media on the population - all this has led to the fact that the marginal status has become modern world not so much an exception as the norm for the existence of millions and millions of people. At the turn of the 70-80s. ... a turbulent process of the formation of so-called informal social movements began in the world - educational, environmental, human rights, cultural, religious, compatriotic, charitable, etc. - movements, the meaning of which is largely connected with the connection of marginalized groups to modern and public life ...
However, there is a problem that presents a difficulty for modern democratic consciousness: how to protect society from those marginal groups that adopt totalitarian and misanthropic ideologies? And at the same time - how not to make these groups the object of preventive lawless violence ... There is no unambiguous answer to this question. The antidote here can only be the growth of humanistic culture and democratic legal consciousness, the development of principles and concepts of human dignity in society, as well as a deep philosophical and scientific understanding of those social problems that give rise to anti-democratic forms of consciousness.
(E.Rashkovsky)
1. What two features of marginal groups does the author highlight?
Formulate your own definition of marginal.
Answer:
1) two features, such as marginals
Do not belong to a particular social group of a given society;
They found themselves outside the framework of the prevailing socio-cultural norms and traditions;
2) own definition, for example: marginals - individuals (or social groups) occupying an intermediate position between stable communities (who have lost their former social status, deprived of the opportunity to do their usual business, forced to adapt to a new socio-cultural environment).
Another correct definition can be formulated.
Answer:
1) outcasts adjoin, but do not belong to a certain social group of a given society;
2) their behavior does not correspond to the norms accepted in society;
3) they are placed by social development on the verge of two cultures that differ in their traditions.
Answer:
1) five reasons (urbanization, mass migration, intensive interaction between carriers of heterogeneous ethnocultural and religious traditions, erosion of age-old cultural and religious traditions, erosion of age-old cultural barriers, the impact of mass media on the population);
one of the reasons is illustrated by an example. Say, in the 20-30s of the twentieth century. In the course of industrialization and urbanization in the USSR, new workers, yesterday's peasants, came to construction sites, factories, factories, transport, as they were then called. Many of them did not have the skills of industrial labor, did not represent the features of urban life.
Industrial enterprises, urban culture and urban lifestyle remained alien and sometimes hostile to yesterday's cultivators.
4. The author writes about the danger to society of marginal groups that adopt totalitarian and misanthropic ideologies. Name two such ideologies and explain what is the social danger of each of them.
Answer:
1) two ideologies are named, for example
2) an explanation of their public danger. For example, supporters of the racist theory believed that in nature there is an iron law of the perniciousness of mixing species.
Mixing (metization) leads to degradation and interferes with the formation of higher forms of life. During natural selection weaker, racially inferior beings must perish.
The Nazis transferred this primitive Darwinism to human society, considering races to be natural biological species. Hence the conclusion was drawn about the need for racial hygiene for the purification and revival of the German Aryan race with the help of the people's community of people of German blood and the German spirit in a strong, free state. Inferior races were subject to subjugation or destruction.
The coming to power of the Nazis in Germany in the 30s. xx c.
It led to the so-called new order and extremely harsh means of its establishment (total, including ideological, mass terror; chauvinism; xenophobia turning into genocide in relation to alien national and social groups, to the hostile values of civilization), which ultimately led to the outbreak of the Second World War.
5. Name any three characteristics of society as a dynamic system.
Answers:
1) integrity
2) consists of interconnected elements;
3) elements change over time;
4) changes the nature of the relationship between systems;
5) the system as a whole is changing
6. Give three examples illustrating the constitutional provision on secular
character of the modern Russian state
Answer:
1) the relationship between the school and the church (prohibition of work in the state
School of the clergy, prohibited religious propaganda in the school);
2) equality of all confessions in Russian Federation(equal access to receive
Education, equal guarantees in observance of rights)
7. A human child at the time of birth, according to the apt expression of A. Pieron, is not
Man, but only<кандидат в человека>.
Explain what A. Pieron meant by naming the child<кандидатом в человека>
(make three sentences).
Answer:
1) the definition of a person as a cultural being (public, social),
And not only biological;
2) explain the differences in concepts<индивид>, <индивидуальность>, <личность>;
3) an indication of the role of socialization (education, training, communication with other people)
In the development of personality;
4) the judgment that speech (consciousness, thinking) a person can develop only in
Communication with other people (only in society).
8. You are instructed to prepare a detailed answer on the topic<Право в системе
Social norms>. Make a plan according to which you will
Light up this topic.
Answer:
1) a system of social norms;
2) signs of legal norms;
3) differences between law and other types of social norms;
4) law and morality.
1) philosophy-<Человек имеет значение для общества лишь постольку, поскольку
He serves him>. (A. France)
2) Social psychology-<Вершина нас самих, венец нашей оригинальности –
Not our individuality, but our personality>. (P. Teilhard de Chardin)
3) economy-<Инфляция- золотое время для возврата долгов>. (K. Melikhan)
4) Sociology-<Кто умеет справиться с конфликтами путем их признания, берет
Under your control the rhythm of history>. (R. Dahrendorf)
5) Political science-<Когда правит тиран, народ молчит, а законы не действуют>.
6) Jurisprudence-<Я вижу близкую гибель того государство, где закон не имеет силы
And is under someone's authority>. (Plato)
Bernard Werber
How often can one hear from people a phrase that they understand or even realize something, while all their further actions and reasoning clearly show that they do not really have this understanding. But it's one thing not to understand something and know about it, and quite another to mistakenly think that you understand it. In the latter case, a person deceives himself and does not even know about it. And in the end, this leads to the fact that he closes himself from information that is useful to him, simply ceasing to pay his attention to it and analyze it. So that this does not happen, so that each of us really understands what he wants to understand and what he needs to understand, I decided to write this article in which I will explain to you, dear readers, what a true understanding of something should be, no matter what, and how to get there.
What is confusing understanding?
First, friends, let's find out with you what understanding is not, but what it is often confused with. And many people confuse understanding with a good memory and with what is commonly called obvious things, common truths, in general, with what everyone knows very well. But understanding has practically nothing to do with memory. Of course, you need to remember something from what you understand, but remembering any information in itself does not lead to understanding. The same can be said about the so-called obvious things, which sometimes only seem obvious, but few people properly understand them, and about common truths that can be on everyone’s lips and on the tongue, and everyone can throw abstruse phrases or words, while not being able to properly explain them. In other words, everything that is in your memory and that you have heard many times - you may not necessarily understand well. Although it will seem to you that you understand this, since this information is familiar to you.
It is clear that when a thought is often expressed to you, you memorize it so well that you begin to consider it your own. People in such cases usually say that they have heard about it many times, therefore they do not consider the thought repeated for the hundred and first time to be important. But if you ask them to explain this idea, ask them to tell them about how you can come to it, what consequences follow from it, what conclusions can be drawn based on it, then here not every person can say something intelligible. That is, if you understand a thought, develop it. And if you just remember it - this is not understanding, friends. Behavior is the same way. If you understand something, you will definitely adjust your behavior in accordance with your understanding. And if a person says that he understands something, but acts contrary to this understanding, thereby stepping on the same rake and thus harming himself, then what kind of understanding is this. My favorite example here is responsibility. We have all heard many times that in order to solve almost all life problems, a person must first of all take responsibility for his life. A hackneyed thought, isn't it? This is the so-called common truth, which many people know about. To know something they know, but how many people understand it? How many people take responsibility for their lives in order to gain a sense of freedom and with its help begin to solve their problems and achieve any life goals? Not many, do you agree? Well, at the same time they say that they understand this idea.
So friends, please remember - if you have heard something many times or remember something very well - this does not mean that you understand it. Below we will find out what it means to really understand something.
What is understanding?
Now let's answer the question - what is understanding? If you look into dictionary Ozhegov, it will be said there that understanding is the ability of a person to comprehend, comprehend the content, meaning and meaning of something. That sounds good. But what does it mean to comprehend? How to comprehend the content, meaning, meaning of something? What needs to be done for this? Let's figure it out.
If we talk about comprehending the content of something, then here we are talking about the analysis of this something, that is, about decomposing it into its component parts, in order to study its construction. So you can learn a lot. Even one thought, if you think about it, has a connection with other thoughts, from which it is formed. Some element of its design is the main one, other elements are secondary, but they are all connected with each other. Therefore, in order to comprehend the content of something, one must understand what it consists of and what it depends on. No thought is born out of the blue, it is always a response to some kind of stimulus that determines its meaning. Here, understanding what caused the appearance of this or that thought, this is if we are talking about a thought, and also knowing what constituent parts it consists of, you will be able to comprehend its content.
When we talk about the meaning of something, it is important to understand what functions it has, the meaning of which we want to understand. It doesn't matter if it's a device, natural phenomenon or about the same human thought - we must find out what it is intended for, what work it performs, what goals it pursues, what functions it has. For example, a pencil is not just a lead in a wooden frame, from the point of view of its design, you can say so about it, it is also what it is intended for. What is the main function of a pencil? What is it for? To write, draw, right? From this point of view, from the point of view of its functionality, we are thinking about it in this case in order to understand what it is. Human thought also has different functions and a specific purpose. Some thoughts make people feel good, others feel bad, some encourage them to act, others, on the contrary, force them to give up. That's when you see, know, or at least assume the purpose for which a person shares his thoughts with other people, in particular with you, you can understand these thoughts and understand the person himself. Why and why did he write, say, show something? - You need to ask yourself this question every time you want to understand another person - his words, deeds, thoughts, dreams, desires. Look for the cause that caused something and look for the purpose that something or someone is pursuing in order to understand where something comes from and where it goes.
As for comprehending the meaning of something, here I think it is important to understand what role does what we want to understand play in the system in which it exists. Well, by system we can understand how some kind of limited environment in which someone or something exists and who or what we want to understand, and in general our whole world. Well, for example, we want to understand why earthquakes occur, and for this we need to find out not only what causes them, the same tectonic processes, but also what they are for, that is, what role in the life of the planet earthquakes play? After all, nothing happens just like that, everything has its purpose, its task, its purpose, its role. When we understand what exactly this role is, and why the system needs it, we comprehend the meaning of this something. Well, speaking of understanding something, we bring all these things together. That is, we study something, be it a material object or some kind of thought, from the point of view of how it is arranged and how all the elements of its construction depend on each other, then what functions it, as a whole, has, and what functions the parts of which it consists have. And also we need to know what role this something plays, within the framework of both the whole system, by which we can understand our whole world, and within the framework of that subsystem, that is, some limited environment in which that something exists. Then we will be able to say that we really understand this something, whether it be a material object or some kind of phenomenon, or a thought expressed or written by someone, an idea.
Everything in this world also has its own life cycle, which fits the above model of understanding something. Therefore, in order to fully understand what we want to understand, we definitely need to look at it in the context of time, and not just as something that happens or exists exclusively here and now. Let's take, for example, a human thought - how do you know that you understand it? You can decompose it into its constituent parts, you can define the words of which it consists, you can connect these words with some objects and processes that they mean. All this will allow you to understand what is at stake, but will not give you an understanding of the thought itself, as one of the elements of a huge matrix of thoughts, which probably has no end. And without this, understanding someone's thought more holistically and broadly, you will not be able to understand its nature, because for this you must study the causal relationship of which it is a part, in order to find out from what other thoughts it was formed, or it is better to say when and why she was born. And, which is also very important, you need to develop this thought - to continue, so to speak, its life in order to fit it into the system of other thoughts and into the general picture of the world, and thus bring it to the point where it becomes irrelevant, unnecessary, that is, until her death. Thoughts are born, live and die, leaving behind the results of those deeds that people did, guided by these thoughts. Some thoughts, as we know, live for a very long time, one might even say forever. And this is also not accidental, you see. Thus, having studied someone else's thought, you can easily create on its basis your own, unique thought in your own way, which will have the same meaning, but a different form. By this you will prove to yourself, and if necessary, to other people, that you understood someone else's thought, someone else's idea, because you were able to use it to create something of your own.
Therefore, if you want to understand something very well, try to describe, explain, retell it in your own words, so you can find, see, study everything that is written above. After all, the design of something can be described in your own words, right? Not in vain various words and concepts there are many definitions, and all of them can be correct in their own way, depending on what properties of these concepts they reflect. And the functions of something - some kind of thought, material object, phenomenon, can also be represented differently, in your own way, drawing analogies with other thoughts, objects or phenomena, depending on what exactly you tried to understand. And you can even find a new meaning in something already known, if you try, because the world is so mysterious that we will always learn something new about what we already know well. This is the ability to explain something in your own words, I call understanding. In general, when we convey something in our own words, well, or try to convey, of course, without distorting the meaning of the information, we better see all the components and connections between them that make up our message, or the thought that we convey other people. Understanding, as I said, is very well facilitated by the ability to draw analogies between what you want to understand with something similar in meaning. Moreover, the more detailed this analogy is, the better you will be able to understand something. After all, the more similarities and differences we see in various things, the deeper our understanding of them becomes.
What hinders understanding
A person's understanding of something is usually hindered by his strong attitudes about it. People do not like to change their established opinion about something that they already seem to know and understand, according to different reasons, including because of laziness. It's so easy to stick to one single point of view about something or someone, without bothering to think about it. In general, I'll tell you, rooted attitudes are a trap for a person. The rationality of a person, I believe, is determined precisely by his ability to change his mind about something, as he receives new information. Conversely, if a person does not want to change his beliefs, regardless of the evidence provided to him that his beliefs are wrong, this is a sign of unreasonableness. Bone thinking, habits, adherence to one's attitudes, beliefs, fanaticism, blind faith in something - all this is evidence of unreason. People have always suffered because of this and will continue to suffer until they change. In this case, the problem lies not in the inability, but in the unwillingness of a person to understand something. And this, mind you, causes great harm, first of all, to himself, and often to people dependent on him.
Haste and fuss - also very much interfere with understanding! This is one of the most serious problems of our time. People have no time, not only to understand something, but to live in general. This is especially noticeable in big cities. This is real madness - everyone is in a hurry somewhere, everyone is doing something all the time, everyone, well, or almost everyone, talks a lot and listens little - the brain does not work at all in such cases - it simply reflects everything that it receives from the outside world . As a result, people listen but do not hear, look but do not see, know but do not understand. And all because they simply have no time to hear something, no time to see something, no time to understand something. They have to hurry, they have things to do, many things that they think are important to them. People today are forced to compete with each other - they are forced to do this so that they can survive, so that they can provide themselves with a good life, so they need to work hard, very hard. But why and for whom they work - they do not understand. They also do not understand that for a good life it is not at all necessary to compete with someone, there are other ways to a better life are, first of all, their own ways. After all, competing with someone means playing someone else's game, on someone else's field and by someone else's rules, while you can play your own game, by your own rules and on your own territory. Just for this you need to come up with this game. But how to do it, or rather, when to do it? - Once. People are so busy, they are playing someone else's game. And those people who once came up with their own game and played it well, who became the first in something, managed to achieve great success in life. The rest are forced to compete because they imitate rather than create. And they do not have the opportunity to escape from this trap, because they do not have time to understand how life works, what rules exist in it, how to play by these rules and whether it is necessary to do this at all. Hurry and fuss is their way of life, and this is a real punishment for them.
Perception also determines how well a person can understand something. Different people they perceive the same information differently, they perceive reality differently, they perceive themselves and other people differently, and consequently, they understand all these things differently. Perception itself depends on many factors - starting with the quality of the information received and ending with the education each individual person has. But I want to say the main thing - the wrong, inadequate perception of reality by a person is a serious problem that must be solved with the help of specialists. For wrong perception leads to wrong understanding, and wrong understanding leads to wrong decisions and wrong actions. Well, accordingly, a person makes mistakes, because of which he has problems, both small and very serious.
In general, it should be noted that many people today do not even know what they want, because they simply do not think about it. After all, they are not used to this - to think about the meaning of their lives and about the correctness or incorrectness of what they do. And they are not used to it because most of them are simply not taught to think too much about something - they are taught to respond, to react, to perform, to imitate, but not to think. For good performance, for good service, people are rewarded, and for bad performance, respectively, they are punished. So a person learns mainly how to behave in such a way that he is rewarded more often and punished less often. And to think about your life, about what you need in it and what you don’t, means to bear responsibility for it yourself and to reward and punish yourself. People would be happy to do it if they were taught to do it. But our society lives by different rules, so this approach to teaching and educating a person in it is not very popular. But, you must admit, friends, if most of us, within the framework of the standard education system, are not taught to think, and to think correctly, efficiently, efficiently, and about the things we need, this does not mean that we cannot teach ourselves this. We can teach ourselves whatever we want.
So understanding is not only the desire and ability to understand something, for which a person needs to learn to think very well, it is also an opportunity to think about the need for understanding. And this possibility largely depends on the social environment in which a person lives. After all, the fact is that a person may not understand something and not even guess about it, or think that he does not need to understand anything. But, you see, in order to decide what we need and what we don't, we need to learn about what exists in general, what exists in this world, from which we can choose. Therefore, it is extremely important that in the life of each of us a kind of guide, teacher, mentor, or in the form of some kind of source useful information, or, which is more desirable, in the face smart person that will lead us out of the darkness and help us find the need for understanding. I think that we all, to one degree or another, are such guides, teachers, mentors for each other, since we all can teach each other something.
? Expand, by comparing them with each other, the following reasoning - Schopenhauer and Kant - about genius:
“Since the quick perception of relations according to the law of causality and motivation constitutes, in fact, a practical mind, and ingenious knowledge is not directed to relations, then a smart person, since and while he is smart, cannot be a genius, and a genius, since and as long as he is a genius, can't be smart." (A. Schopenhauer)
“Genius should be completely opposed to the spirit of imitation ... Since teaching is nothing but imitation, then the greatest ability, susceptibility as such cannot be considered genius.” (I. Kant)
? Why do you think, according to Kant’s apt expression, “genius himself cannot describe or scientifically substantiate how he creates his work - he gives rules like nature»?
¨ ? Genius creates tastes - “for beautiful art, i.e. to create beautiful objects, a genius is required ”(I. Kant), but at the same time “taste ... is the discipline (education) of a genius; she greatly clips his wings and makes him well-behaved and refined; At the same time, taste exercises guidance over the genius, indicating to him what and to what extent he can spread, while remaining expedient. (I. Kant) - How can you resolve this seeming contradiction?
W The fundamental characteristic of genius is the ability to creativity. I ask you to get acquainted with the thoughts about the work of the philosopher of precisely “creativity”, - Berdyaev, - and draw your own conclusions:
“My freedom and my creativity is obedience to the sacred will of God… human creativity, the continuation of the creation of the world is not self-will and rebellion, but is obedience to God, bringing to God all the strength of one’s spirit…”
“True creativity involves asceticism, purification and sacrifice… But creativity itself is no longer humility and asceticism, but inspiration and ecstasy…”
“Creativity cannot be in its own name, in the name of a human… creativity in its own name can never stay in the middle human sphere, it (then) inevitably turns into creativity in the name of another, false god…”
“Creativity is also a manifestation of love, uniting and enlightening eros… Love is creativity. This is how the commandment of Christ about Love for God and man is fulfilled ... "
“Creativity is transcendence, a way out of human isolation and limitations… Poetic creativity is already transcending…”
“Inside, in the depths, creativity always comes from freedom, the same thing that seems to us to be development happens only outside, in a horizontal line, is projected onto the plane. Development is an exoteric category…”
“Consciousness of oneself is creativity of oneself… Cognition is not only recollection, knowledge is also creativity…”
“Personality presupposes creativity and struggle for oneself… the realization of personality presupposes self-restraint, free submission to the super-personal, creativity of super-personal values, going out of oneself into another…”
“The meaning of human existence is the realization of personality, qualitative elevation and ascent, the achievement of truth, truth, beauty, i.e. creation…"
“Creativity is divine inspiration, communion with God… creativity is the pinnacle of divine creation… Genuine creativity is religious doing… the creativity of a genius is a feat, it has its own asceticism, its own holiness…”
“True creativity cannot be the triumph of the individual, creativity always crosses the boundaries of individuality, it is ecclesiastical in essence, it is communion with the soul of the world…”
“Philosophy is creativity, not adaptation and obedience…”
“Creativity is the transition of non-being into being through an act of freedom…”
“Creativity is religion itself. Creative experience is a special religious experience and path, creative ecstasy is a shock to the whole human being, an exit to another world. Creative experience is as religious as prayer…”
? Why do you think genuine creativity in Russia always has a “conservative” basis?
? Intuitive insight, insight (insight) is one of the brightest properties of a genius; how do you understand the following, "creative" definition of intuition: "Intuition is the creativity of meaning, the light flashing in the darkness." (N.A. Berdyaev)
? Consider Girenck's reasoning about creativity: “At the moment of creation, it is impossible to distinguish the voice of the Holy Spirit from other spirits. Creativity only begins at the moment when this difference is lost, i.e. the artist is in a state where he does not see the difference between God and the Devil.
? Explain Spengler's reasoning: productive power of the head of the family.
¨ Dictionary
Monad(from the Greek monaV - “one”) - in the philosophy of Leibniz (and before him, in antiquity - by Pythagoras): substance as a singularity, transcendental (and transcendental) inflection (inflection) of the surface of being.
Singularity(from lat. singularis - "lonely", "separate") - in physics: a point in space-time, in which space-time is curved to infinity; in philosophy - strangeness, "monad", singularity, bending cultural space and time around itself in its own image and likeness, peculiarity.
Intensity point- a kind of analogue of the concept of "singularity", with the slight difference that it denotes, rather, one or another internal, "sinularity" of a person, i.e. what a person's being is especially directed towards, in relation to which it is especially tense, the internal meanings of his existence, values.
transcending(from lat. transcendo - “to pass”) - an exit to another to your usual horizon, an opportunity to think differently.
¨ Literature
1. Berdyaev N.A. Philosophy of freedom. The meaning of creativity. - M., 1989.
2. Weininger O. Gender and character. - M., 1994.
3. Kant I. Criticism of the ability of judgment. - M., 1994.
4. Lombroso C. Genius and insanity. - M., 1990.
5. Rozanov V.V. Beauty in nature and its meaning // Rozanov V.V. Nature and history. - M., 2008.
6. Syndrome of a genius. Collection. - M., 2009.
Topic 7. Some original philosophical concepts of culture
7.1. Culture is like a game. Huizinga's concept
Aeon plays like a child; The child is king. (Heraclitus)
Why are you wicked ones surprised? Isn't it better to play with these children than to do business with you?
(Heraclitus - to ruling people)
D The Dutch philosopher of culture Johan Huizinga deduces culture as a game. The game is a cultural phenomenon. Culture, according to Huizinga, is a game, carried out as a game. Huizinga's main work is Homo ludens (Man playing). Those. a distinctive property, and even, rather, here, already the essence, of a person is a game. Huizinga himself writes that any human activity ends up being a game. What we call "play" in animals, by analogy with humans, is not play in the full sense of the word, but only the appearance of the latter.
Human play is a consequence of the ontological excess of man, his creative essence and freedom. Man, playing, creates. The child, building in the game a symbolic, “miniature” world of adults, creates it himself, anew, according to his own plan, imagination, imagination game. The game of imagination is exclusively human. And it, this imagination, creates the symbolic universe, culture, myth, art, etiquette, ritual, etc.
Huizinga defines the game as a free, spontaneous activity carried out in a certain place and time, without material benefit, according to certain rules, with a specific purpose; and it is the game that gives rise to what are called human communities, social groups that live in accordance with their own rules and thus differ from other groupings and communities.
The game, in principle, is impossible without rules. And breaking the rules leads to the destruction of the game. The opposite of play is violence. Violence destroys the rules, it is the destruction of the rules; destroying freedom, its possibility, it kills the imagination and the imaginary, plunges us to the "inhuman" surface, overthrows us from the heights of freedom.
Indeed, the game can develop, as freedom and in freedom, only under certain rules. Any cultural phenomenon, be it a ritual, ritual, sporting event, etc., is, in fact, a kind of game. And to the extent that it is a game, to the extent that it exists as such, to the extent that it has value. The game is like a flash of eternity in a person.
To the extent that a person fell into seriousness - he became especially seriously preoccupied with some vital thing - to the extent that he hid from himself the very dimension of "human", creative, one might even say "divine", - he reduced himself to the surface of the object that he put directly as "serious" and thus began to worship him as an idol, lost his freedom, became a slave to necessity.
Therefore, the game, initially, in cultures has a sacred, sacred meaning - it transfers a person, reduced by necessity to ordinary things, to their “seriousness” and surface, into the sphere of the sublime, sacred, introducing to the fact that momentary and vain things considered serious are by no means worthy of "seriousness". The game is the educator of man.
Play educates a person not only in the sense we have said; the game educates and in more simple form. The child, through play, having in his soul that excess of energy, creativity, growth necessary for it, not only adapts, imitating (through play mimesis) to the world of adults, their mythology, but also actively builds his symbolic world in that world.
In antiquity, the word "culture", like education, paideia, and the game - paidia - "paydia", have the same stem - paiV - "child". And in this sense, Nietzsche writes very well about the "three transformations" of the human spirit, where the highest, last, third "transformation" is the "child" - the personification of becoming, purity, creativity, the Game. Indeed, the first "transformation" is defined by Nietzsche through the image of the "camel", i.e. a creature on which everyone loads and carries anything, a creature that personifies routine, slave labor, an essentially “inhuman” existence, devoid of any spiritual, creative dimension; “camel” is a creature pressed into “seriousness”, everyday life, without any possibility of escaping into freedom; the second "transformation" - "lion" - a predator, "master", which, of course, rises above the "camel", but in one way or another is "attached" to it, like a master to his slave, like a predator to his prey, and nothing more, perhaps slightly, slightly touches on freedom, and if he is capable of any kind of game, then only to play with the “victim”, around the “victim”; but the “child” is, indeed, freedom. And culture, like paydeia, is why paydia is an educative game, education for the game, the sacred game, education through the game. For, as we have already said, every etiquette, ritual, morality, initiation is a game. And her, this game, "sacred seriousness" is an order of magnitude higher than any "seriousness of the serious." The sphere of play, the sacred play, is precisely the sphere of the human.
Another thing is that the game, having created some kind of cultural phenomenon, a social institution, often leaves behind only an empty and frozen form of this creativity - for example, empty formal "rules" - and turns into not only its own atavism - "serious", but even in its opposite: violence.
The child is a possibility, an excess possibility of reality; an adult is already, in many respects, the absence of this “opportunity”, he has already frozen, “has become”, and is not capable of spontaneous play, where pure play prevails over the rules, but only such a game, at least where the primacy of rules reigns.
At the same time, Huizinga clearly distinguishes between “play” and “playfulness”: play is something that is more serious than serious, it is sacredness, it is something that is imbued with the ultimate creative tone, full of values; playfulness, on the contrary, is something extremely frivolous, superficial; and in this sense, there is a problem of confusion of concepts and understanding under the "game" of what, in essence, it is more correct to call "fun", "playfulness"; and this is fundamentally wrong.
Every human activity has dialectical components in it. process" and " result". So, in the game - the process, as far as the game is the game, one way or another dominates the result. The game is, first of all, the enjoyment of the process itself (as, for example, the romantics wrote about art). To the extent that in any activity the result prevails over the process, to the extent less game as such. The result, of course, is also important. But the process - in the game - is more important, more primary. And if there is pleasure - spiritual and bodily - from the process itself - there will be a corresponding result; in the broadest sense, culture itself. The absolute dominance of the result is the reduction of the game, again, to the surface of "seriousness", necessity, and the surface of pure violence, i.e. downfall of culture. In a completely pragmatic world, there is not and cannot be a game; there is no and cannot be culture. Play is a dimension of freedom, the sphere of its possibility.
That is why Huizinga writes that in his contemporary culture (the first half of the 20th century) there is less and less play, and, therefore, there is less and less culture, culture degenerates, turns into its simulation (“false game”, according to Huizinge).
? Huizinga defines culture from three perspectives: a) as a balance of spiritual material values, b) as containing a certain aspiration (“culture is a direction and it is always directed towards some ideal ... the ideal of the community”) and c) as power over nature, - and when this "power" is turned by a person on himself, it is acquired as a duty - and so: try to reunite this step-by-step outline of culture with its positing, the same Huizinga, as a game.
? How do you understand the famous aphorism: “What is our life? - the game"?
? Why should a cultured person (in Japanese culture), as Huizinga notes, not say "I heard you loved?" but "I heard you played love?" Do you think?
What significance do you think the following thesis has in Japanese samurai culture: “what ordinary person Seriously, for a Noble Husband it's just a game"?
? Thematic questions:
1) How do you understand Schiller's thesis that a person, when playing, reveals his essence?
2) Expand Huizinga's thesis that play shapes human culture to a greater extent than work.
3) How do you understand Huizinga's idea that any "game under compulsion" is only an imitation of a game?
4) How do you understand the idea of the German philosopher Gadamer that the subject of the game is the game itself?
5) Comment on the definition of the game by Benveniste: "A game is any ordered activity that contains its goal in itself and does not seek to usefully change reality."
6) Comment on Girenk's thesis that "the world in which the authentic is forbidden and the new is allowed, I call the game."
D The French philosopher Caillua distinguishes 4 types in the Game:
1. "Game-dizziness" - a "pure" game, creating, along the way, its own rules and removing them in the next moment, "pure becoming"; the ideal type of this game is "God's buffoon", a person "in the spirit", a singular body, pure spontaneous movement.
2. Game-imitation - a game in a mimetic space, within a certain, improvised or given scene; play as a reproduction of the signs of the Other - in accordance with a certain mimetic pattern, the center, this Other; the ideal type of this game is an actor playing a role.
3. Game-competition - a game in the agonal space; a game that involves overcoming the Other, or oneself as this Other - if the player plays with himself, his present state; the ideal type of this game is a sports game.
4. "Game of chance" - this type of game takes place in various "gambling games" where a certain number of "chips" or "field" falls out, a ball on a roulette wheel, and this type of game includes what is called "chance" , "accident" or, conversely, "good luck"; the ideal type of this game is "His Majesty Chance".
P.S. Often the above types of play take place in life in a rather mixed form and in a “pure” form they occur, if at all, extremely rarely.
? What kind of game do you think, to one degree or another, your studies at the university? Justify your answer.
? Why do you think modern sports "games" are becoming less and games, but something else?
? Consider Plato's thoughts on play and education:
“Our children’s games should comply as much as possible with the laws, because if they become disorderly and the children do not follow the rules, it is impossible to raise serious, law-abiding citizens out of them ... If children play properly from the very beginning, then thanks to the musical art they will get used to to legality, and in complete contrast to other children, this habit will constantly strengthen in them and affect everything, even contribute to the correction of the state, if something was wrong in it.
“A free-born person should not study a single science slavishly ... knowledge forcibly implanted into the soul is fragile ... Therefore, my friend, feed your children with sciences not by force, but playfully, so that you can better observe the natural inclinations of everyone.”
? How do you understand the following thoughts of Baudrillard about the game:
“The game, the game sphere in general, reveals to us the passion of the rule, the mind-bogglingness of the rule, the power that comes not from desire, but from ceremonial ... The only principle of the game is that the choice of the rule frees us from the law in the game.”
"The immorality of the game: we act without believing in what we are doing, without mediating by our belief the bewitching brilliance of purely conventional signs and a rule devoid of any foundation ... the player ... wants to seduce the Law itself."
“The game does not rely on the principle of reality. But it is no more based on the principle of pleasure. Its only driving force is the charm of the rule and the sphere it describes.
"The underlying hypothesis of the game is that chance does not exist ... the game turns out to be an enterprise to seduce chance."
“The game is not becoming, it does not belong to the system of desire and has nothing to do with nomadism ... Cyclic and renewable - such is its inherent form ... eternal return - its rule ... The ecstasy of a looped case, a prisoner of the same finally resolved series - such is the ideal fantasy games: to see how, under the attacks of the challenge, the same thing falls out again and again, repeating itself over and over again and abolishing both chance and law at once.
“The game is a system without contradictions, without internal negativity. Therefore, it is difficult to make fun of her. The game cannot be parodied because the whole organization is parody. The rule plays the role of a parodic simulacrum.
"Electronic games are a soft drug, they are consumed in the same way, accompanied by the same somnambulistic absence and the same tactile euphoria."
¨ Dictionary
Agon(Greek agwn) - competition, struggle, competition.
Spontaneity(French spontane - spontaneous, lat. sponte - by itself) - self-movement, creativity "out of nothing", free activity.
Romanticism– ideological paradigm in the art of the late XVIII – early XIX centuries, characterized by a special, open and sublime attitude to beauty, free creativity, myth; in late romanticism, a peculiar ironic attitude to reality appears; the main representatives of romanticism are Schiller, Goethe, Novalis, A. and F. Schlegel, Hölderlin, Byron, Zhukovsky, partly Lermontov, and others; in the ordinary sense, a romantic is an enthusiastic, in love, partly naive, but bright, looking at life, a person who believes in beauty.
existential vacuum- the inner spiritual and spiritual emptiness of a person, acutely experienced or languishing.
Aeon(Greek aiwn) is a very polysemic word, depending on the context and discourse, it can mean “time-event”, “eternity”, “age”, “spiritual level”, “life”, etc.
¨ Bibliographic list
1. Gadamer H. G. Truth and method. - M., 1992.
2. Kayua R. Myth and man. Man and the sacred. - M., 2003.
3. Nietzsche, F. Thus Spoke Zarathustra // Nietzsche F. Op. in 2 vols., v.2. - M., 1990.
5. Huizinga, J. Homo ludens. - M., 1992.
6. Schiller, F. Letters on the aesthetic education of a person // Schiller, F. Sob. op. in 6 vols., v.6. – M.: 1957.
7.2. Concepts of Freud (psychoanalytic) and Jung
He who goes to himself runs the risk of meeting himself ... (K. G. Jung)
D Viennese psychologist Sigmund (Sigismund Shlomo) Freud approached culture as a kind of mental patient, and as not just a psychologist, but the creator of his own psychoanalytic method of research and treatment of patients and, first of all, patients with hysteria. And the fact that culture is not just sick, but is itself a certain disease, was for Freud an undoubted thing. Culture, like religion, as, of course, art and morality, according to Freud, is a consequence of psychological trauma, human complexes.
Freud postulates two axiomatic theses: a) man is a being, first of all and to the greatest extent, unconscious: consciousness ("I") is only a thin film on the surface of the chaotic whirlpool of the unconscious, which determines the actions and speech of a person, and consists of a set of repressed drives and instincts - and all this repression is carried out by what is called "culture", and itself is the essence of this "culture"; b) this unconscious is through and through sexual the unconscious, and therefore all human culture, is essentially a machine of repression, of repression of sexuality (this thesis includes what is called "pansexualism" and the "repressive hypothesis").
The fundamental structure of the psyche, which forms a person as a "cultural", i.e. carrying out such a displacement is Metaphor of the Father ("Oedipus Complex") based on a catastrophic primal experience baby a break with the mother, more precisely with the mother's breast, with which he, the child, as a "good object", constitutes, in fact, a single whole, and this separation from the source of life and pleasure, practically, from a part of himself, creates that on the one hand, an ontological, and on the other, psychological, crack, the trace of the experience of which subsequently forms the Oedipus complex as the basis of culture.
The child's primary experience of such a gap can, from the point of view of psychoanalysis, be called the schizoid-paranoid stage - the child falls into a state of hopeless isolation, total Fear, which can be expressed in the language of an "adult" following words: "this is an inevitable death, the mother ("good object") will never come," - this is absolute loneliness and a kind of complete "God-forsakenness".
The next stage of this experience can be characterized as a manic-depressive stage: “the mother left, but she returned, therefore, she must return again, but, suddenly, she will not return? ...” Ie. the child already “knows”, has developed a “conditioned reflex”, a primitive “idea” about the “cyclical nature of the universe”, that the mother will return, that he will again find unity with her, his hunger will be satisfied, his loneliness is not absolute, but, suddenly, not ... This is a stage of endless anxiety, fear and, nevertheless, still indefinite uncertainty.
These two stages, however, to some extent, taking place in the life of a person, a child, with the corresponding changes, are comparable with the stages of development human society, are the stages of the triumph of fetishism and matricentrism in the worldview.
The next stage is the oedipal stage, as psychoanalysts call it. This is the period in which the experience of this abandonment is a) removed by the child’s primary awareness of himself as a separate whole, separate from the mother, and b) the inescapable experience of separation from the mother focuses on the figure of the “Father” (his “metaphor”) as that which unceremoniously tears him, the child, with his mother.
The Oedipal stage - in terms of the cultural development of society, is the era of turning to patriarchy: the appearance of the individual - once, and power as such, possible only over the individual, but again erased by it - two.
This initial experience of primary separation from "mother nature" inevitably forms a common for all people complex, – i.e. a series of ideas connected by one strong affect, according to Freud - and this complex is decisive for the formation of both a person and the whole culture, a complex expressed in the desire to rule over the mother and eliminate the power of the father; the role of the figure of the Father, for example, can be "god", "leader" or something of the same kind; and at the same time, the opposite trend is even stronger: the eternal human desire to submit, to erase oneself anew, which has roots in the same “complex”, raises this projected figure, “god”, into an object of worship, including in the form of “ deification" of power, ruler.
Freud and his followers call the described affect associated with the Oedipus complex “love”, but it is probably more accurate to call it “power”, “striving for power”, because what kind of love is this: it is already a desire for power and nothing more. And the Oedipus complex, one might say, is inferiority complex; more precisely, only a special case of an inferiority complex - the main source of the desire for power.
But back to Freud. At the oedipal stage of the development of the child (and humanity), the child (man) begins to try to master his "second half", his mother, "nature", which now and then undeservedly leaves him, and which he therefore wants to tame, master - in order to be completely and always merged with it, to be happy and so on, to overcome this primary crack of his existence, disturbing and disturbing him, to gain integrity and, most importantly, to eliminate his “rival” – anyone who falls under the scope of the “Father metaphor” definition. And the process of this "mastery", in all its very ambivalent spectrum, is, according to Freud, culture, expressed in magical, symbolic scenes and acts.
Freud describes well such activity, the primary cultural one, by describing the child's play "fort\da" - when he, Freud, observed a child, first throwing a certain toy on a string away from himself, and then pulling it back to himself, while making sounds , similar to the words fort ("forward") and "da" ("here", "here"): forward / backward. That is, as Freud interprets this game, a child who does not want his mother to leave him, but is by no means able to prevent her leaving, through this game symbolically takes possession of his mother, her departure and return; when he wants, he symbolically returns her, and at the same time he can let her go himself, in order to once again experience the pleasure of power over her, her return: to pull the toy to himself.
And this is the primary meaning of culture: the mastery, symbolic, magical nature, "mother nature", from the bosom of which a person is initially thrown out, unlike all other living beings, broken with her, and therefore forced to compensate with culture, symbolism, this ontological gaping , total fear and uncertainty.
The primary desire to exercise one's power, according to Freud, to pour out libido, is frustrated a) by the reality principle, by natural and social external conditions, and b) by cultural reality, internalized in the individual, into the gap of his break with the "mother", "nature", as own complex Oedipus, - in this sense, culture is an instrument, a technique and a trace of the suppression of human desires for pleasure, i.e. a kind of power; at the same time, the individual desire, which is also a striving for power, stumbles upon this imperious, both external and internal, structure called culture - and, as a derivative of this structure, occurs " sublimation"human erotic inclinations, in line with the same culture, the creation of it, its values: a person, sort of like a slave, works for his master, culture, for its domination. Vicious circle of power.
However, Freud called what we call here "the desire for power" - "sexual attraction", however, if we try to understand at least a little the essence of the phenomena described by Freud, for example, the same "Oedipus complex", then we will soon understand that the whole Freudian " sexuality" is nothing more than a desire for power and pleasure from the embodiment of this power - a by-product of which, however, by no means always, is "sexual discharge". Pure sexual desire (let's conditionally call it "eros"), already always appears in Freud in his distorted and alienated form - as the desire for possession, the desire for power, and by no means pure eros.
The way in which this "dominant" process is enjoyed in the first place can be either sadistic or masochistic; however, and different cultures can be interpreted in terms of the key strategies of their being and getting “pleasure”: “Faustian” culture, for example, is a more “sadistic” culture, Russian is more “masochistic”, etc. In the first case: the pleasure of power over another, in the second - a greater rapture from experiencing the power and violence of another over you.
The subject of the psychoanalyst's research is the patient's speech; and this speech is, first of all, speech - "free association" - about dreams; Dreams, according to Freud, are "the heavenly gates to the unconscious." Where this speech goes astray, strays and swindles, tries to bypass some of its own "pitfalls" - there, then, a certain complex "lies", the key to the disease. Dream images are the basis of mythological images; the principles by which these images are formed are condensation (metaphor, similarity) and displacement (metonymy, contiguity); and one of critical issues psychoanalysis - to understand by what principle, here and now, the tie of both the dream and the speech about this and the same dream of the patient (or the whole culture) winds: metaphorical or metonymic. This also includes Freud's well-known study of various kinds of "reservations", "clothes", "slips of the tongue".
? Thematic questions:
1) Read the myth and tragedies about Oedipus. How do you understand this myth?
2) Read and interpret the myth and tragedies of Electra (eg Aeschylus "The Choephors", Sophocles "Electra", Sartre "The Flies"). Interpret it.
3) Read and interpret the myth of Narcissus (see "narcissism"); How can you interpret it in light of the Freudian concept?
4) In the light of the above, comment on the definition of culture by the neo-Freudian (follower of the teachings of Freud) Marcuse: “Culture is the methodical sacrifice of libido, its forced switching to social useful forms activity and self-expression.
5) How do you understand Berdyaev’s thought regarding the “oedipal complex”: “Oedipus’s incest, union with his mother was the limit of horror. In it, a person, as it were, returns to where he came from, i.e. denies the fact of birth, rebels against the law of tribal life”?
6) Consider Baudrillard's refutation of psychoanalysis: "Psychoanalysis, imagining that it deals with the diseases of desire and sex, is actually dealing with diseases of temptation ... To be deprived of temptation is the only possible castration."
D Unlike Freud, the Swiss psychologist and philosopher Carl Gustav Jung a) asserts that the psychic energy of a person is not exclusively “sexual” energy, but is an energy of a deeper order, which can only be expressed both as sexual, and as the will to power, and as artistic creativity etc., and b) postulates the unconscious "collective", i.e. which is not only the repressed "deposits" of the urges of the mental life of an individual person, but, in addition, the totality of the previous experience of mankind in the form of the so-called archetypes, i.e. paradigms (models-samples) of creating symbols and images - artistic, mythological, religious, dreaming, etc. Culture, in this sense, is defined as a kind of expression, actualization, objectification of archetypes.
Jung believes that there are several archetypes in the human psyche, in particular - Anima, Animus, Self, Shadow, Persona.
Anima(lat. Anima - soul) - the paradigm of "woman" in the human soul; it can be expressed as Muse, Eternal Feminine, Eternal Feminine, determine the "choice of object" (object of love) man; since everything repressed by culture is deposited in the a priori (i.e., original) form of the Anima, in a man everything is “feminine” first of all, then the unconscious of a man, to a greater extent, turns out to be feminine, under the “rule” of the Anima, and in women, on the contrary - male (under the "power" of the Animus);
Jung himself writes the following about Anime:
“The anima has a passion for everything that is unconscious, dark, ambiguous and indefinite in a woman, for her vanity, coldness, helplessness, inconsistency ...”
The anima is the archetype of vitality. Life itself reveals itself to a man as Anima… And the secret of a woman is that the source of life for her is the Animus, which she takes for Eros…”
The anima is always a priori moods, reactions, impulses, everything that is psychically spontaneous. She lives from herself and makes us alive…”
“That which does not belong to the male “I” is, apparently, female ... Everything related to Anime is numinous, i.e. definitely significant, dangerous, taboo, magical… Anima is conservative.”
“Anima appeared to ancient man either as a goddess or as a witch; medieval man replaced the goddess with a heavenly mistress or church; the desymbolized world led first to unhealthy sentimentality, and then to the aggravation of moral conflicts... The anima is found mainly in projections onto the opposite sex, relations with which become magically complicated...”
“In anima possession, for example, the patient tries to castrate himself in order to turn into a woman, or, on the contrary, is afraid that something like that will be done to him.”
animus(lat. Animus - spirit, rational soul) - a prototype, the form of a model of a man in a person's soul; can be expressed as the personification of the masculine principle, "knight", "hero".
Here is what Jung writes about the animus:
« natural function Animus (as well as Anima) - to dwell between the individual consciousness and the collective unconscious ... Animus and Anima must function as a bridge or door that leads to images of the collective unconscious ... "
“The animus prefers to project itself onto some kind of “spiritual” authorities and all kinds of “heroes” (including singers, artists and athletes). The anima has a predilection for everything that is unconscious, dark, ambiguous and indefinite in a woman, for her ambiguity, for her vanity, coldness, helplessness, inconsistency ... In the process of individuation in relation to the Ego-consciousness, they can act as a kind of feminine manifestation in a man and the masculine is in the woman. The anima seeks to connect, the animus desires to be different, stand out and know…”
"This (animus) is the archetype of meaning, just as the anima represents the archetype of life."
A person- an archetype, the personification of the “mask” of a person, the form of his “social face”, as if detached from the “owner”, or replacing him with himself, and now turning to him with his own “face”.
“The person is a kind of intermediate state between the Ego-consciousness and the objects of the external world… the person should be a kind of bridge to this world…”
“A person is what a person is not in reality, but at the same time what he himself, as well as others, considers himself.”
Self- the key archetype of the human psyche, his true Personality, the personification of his Unity with himself, self-identity; Selfhood is much deeper than the superficial human "I", which a person, perhaps, often does not even know about, but which, unconsciously, holds him and reminds him of self-identity; Selfhood can be expressed, in dreams, for example, in the images of an old man, God.
Mandala(Quadtern) is an archetype, largely related to the Self, representing the personification, a symbol of the unity of the universe, its perception in the form of a quadruple (four cardinal points, four dimensions, four Gospels, the image of a cross, swastika, etc.), as something integral, systemic.
Shadow- an archetype that embodies the inside of a person, his “dark” side, what a person, consciously or unconsciously, is trying to displace, hide from himself, a certain “terrible truth” about himself, a kind of compensation for a person’s “day life”, its looking glass.
"The shadow personifies everything that a person refuses to recognize in himself."
“Meeting with oneself means first of all meeting with one's own Shadow; it is a gorge, a narrow entrance, and one who plunges into a deep source cannot remain in this painful narrowness.
? Thematic questions:
1) Give examples from the literature in which the archetypes of the Shadow or the Person are personified in one way or another.
2) Expand, in the matchmaking of the above, the ancient myth of Eros and Psyche.
3) Open, in this aspect, Yesenin's poem "The Black Man".
4) The personification of which archetype, in your opinion, is more realized in Dostoevsky's story "The Double": Persons or Shadows?
5) From the point of view of the archetype of the Self, reveal the essence of Chekhov's story "The Black Monk".
6) Give examples of the representation of Anima in Russian poetry.
7) How do you understand the following remarks by Jung:
"The main danger lies in the temptation to succumb to the enchanting influence of archetypes";
"I say 'unconscious', but I could just as well say 'God', 'demon', something mythological";
“Incest is loaded with religious content ... sexuality mattered to me, as an expression of a certain chthonic spirit - the evil guise of a god”;
“Everything that irritates us in others allows us to understand ourselves”;
"Primitive darkness is involved in a deep maternal mystery ... the desire to see the light is the desire to gain consciousness."
8) Try to compare and contrast the concepts of "pra-symbol" in Spengler and "archetype" in Jung.
W The reasoning of Jung and other philosophers about archetype; try to understand them in the light of what you have learned:
"The archetype is an explanatory description of Plato's eidoV." (C.G. Jung)
“Archetypes are determined not by content, but by form, and even then it is very conditional ... this form can be likened to the axial system of a crystal ... the archetype itself is empty and purely formal, nothing more than facultas praeformandi (the ability to form), a kind of a priori possibility of shaping.” (C.G. Jung)
"The true nature of the archetype cannot be realized, it is transcendent." (C.G. Jung)
“An archetype ... is an image whose roots are in the deepest unconscious ... an image that lives a life that is not our personal and which can only be studied in accordance with some psychological archeology .... Archetypes are moving symbols.” (G. Bashlyar)
“Archetypes… are a series of images summing up the experience of previous generations in relation to typical situations, i.e. in circumstances not applicable to one single individual, but capable of imposing themselves on any person. (R. Desoyle)
¨ Dictionary
Ambivalence(from the Latin ambo - "both" and valentia - "strength") - the multidirectionality of feelings, aspirations: "you both want and prick" (fear mixed with desire, for example).
Unconscious- in Freud's psychoanalysis: a reservoir, a sump of unfulfilled desires, unsatisfied hopes and other repressed "sexuality", "moving chaos", and striving to splash out in one way or another, to break the thin film of "consciousness", "embodied". The first scheme of the psyche, according to Freud, included the "unconscious - preconscious - consciousness", later it looked like this: "It (the unconscious) - I (Consciousness) - Superego (trace, sediment of the Oedipus complex)".
castration complex- in Freud's psychoanalysis: the primary collision of the child with what adults call the difference between the sexes: the child, faced with the presence / absence of the penis, is forced in order to solve the terrible “mystery” and thereby overcome the phobias that have arisen in connection with this (for example, “to lose penis") or envy, builds, in fantasy, some myth - an explanation of the unknown; the fantasy caused by this complex is a vivid example of the production of any mythology; The castration complex is a variation of the inferiority complex.
Elektra complex- in Freud's psychoanalysis: the girl's unconscious attraction to her father as the owner of the phallus, that is to say, power, compensating for her own inferiority, the desire to "possess the owner", and therefore - her negative attitude towards her mother, as a "rival"; the Electra complex is more superficial and not as universal as the Oedipus complex, more, if you like, "cultural", not so primary.
Libido(lat. libido - “desire”, “sexual desire”) - the mental energy of sexual desire; "Libido ... we call this term the energy of such drives that deal with everything that can be covered by the word" love "." (Z. Freud)
Mandala- in Jung's analytical psychology: the key symbol, the matrix of the integrity of the universe - a circle with an inscribed cross (in a dynamic image - a swastika); the principal model of the Mandala is 3+1, consisting of three "ordinary" parts and one "strange" one; another variant of the expression of the Mandala is Quaternity (Quadternity); however, the internal structure of the mandala may be different, more geometrically multiple; “The mandala is a symbol of individuation…” (C.G. Jung)
narcissism- in Freud's psychoanalysis: the fixation of a person's libido on himself; in a broad sense - “love for oneself beloved”, a passion for narcissism; there is primary narcissism, - and the stage of development of the child, subsequent anal and oral and preceding the brilliant (in accordance with the zone of fixation of pleasure at a particular stage of development), - and a mental trauma that occurred during this period of development, "programming" a person for the rest of his life “admire oneself” – turning into secondary narcissism; narcissism should be clearly distinguished from selfishness. Culture, in this sense, can even be imagined as a mirror in which a person admires himself.
Sublimation(from Latin sublimes - high, sublime, towering) - the process of transferring the energy of a person's impersonal "sexual" desires into the energy of personal creativity.
frustration(lat. frustratio - “deception”, “vain expectation”) - restriction, delay in the implementation of any attraction, desire, due to some objective circumstances, determined here and now by the impossibility
Eros- in Freud's psychoanalysis: attraction to life; the opposite of Eros Thanatos(Greek qanatoV - death) - unconscious attraction to death; on the other hand, Eros, in Freud, often turns out to be ambivalent (dual, oppositely directed) and manifests itself as destruction, self-destruction, death drive - this largely comes from that confusion in the understanding of Love and Power, as is the case in Freud's attitude; and the striving for power is, of course, to a large extent the effect of the death drive.
¨ The French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan proposed his own, rather original and bringing "to mind" Freud's concept, a "philological" interpretation of the above scheme of the psyche, where "It - I - SuperI" are defined as "real - imaginary - symbolic"; " real”- the unconscious, repressed, which is fundamentally inexpressible in language, but always already “structured as a linguistic activity”; " imaginary"- an individual form of representation of the "real" in the Self; " symbolic"- an internalized system of cultural symbols, signs that determines the behavior and actions of a person.
? « Mirror stage”, according to Lacan, there is a period in the life of a child when he realizes himself as “I”, i.e. a being that has an integral unity, mental and bodily: others, addressing it as an individual being, simultaneously posit it in it as a singularity, and alienate it from itself as another, i.e. created by others, imposing on him his cultural model ("symbolic"). Compare the “mirror stage” and the myth of Narcissus as a symbol and process of human cultivation.
¨ Bibliographic list
