12 подписчиков

CULTURE AND WILDLIFE

2 октября 20192 окт 2019

3 мин

Оглавление

Nature is one of the main opposition to philosophy, culturology, and cultural sociology. Opposition "C. - P." is a prerequisite for the division of all sciences into the sciences of culture (C.) and the sciences of nature (P.), it lies at the heart of the definition of the subject of culturology and the subject of sociology C. In the most general way, C. can be characterized as all that is created by the hands and minds of man in the process of his historical life, respectively, P. - it is all existing and not created by man. K. represents something that would not and would not be able to continue without the constant effort and support of the individual; P. - something that is not the result of human activity and can exist independently of it. It is obvious that with the expansion of the sphere, K.'s sphere of P.'s is shrinking accordingly; if K.'s sphere becomes thinner, shrinking and dies out, the sphere of natural is expanding.
K. includes material and spiritual parts. K. includes buildings, machines, canals, objects of everyday life, etc., as well as ideas, values, religions, scientific theories, norms, traditions, rules of grammar and ritual, etc. K. is in constant dynamics, it changes radically from epoch to epoch. This means that the concept of P., as opposed to the concept of K., is constantly changing. A broad understanding of K. as the opposite of P. is necessary when discussing the general problems of formation and development of K. and, in particular, the problem of P.'s vision as specific K. This understanding is, in a sense, classical, although it is not the only possibility. G. Rickert also insisted that the concept of P. can be more precisely defined only through the notion of K. opposite to him: "The products of nature are those that grow freely from the earth. The products of culture produce a field that man has ploughed and sown. Consequently, nature is the totality of everything that has arisen by itself, was born and given to its own growth. The opposite of nature in this sense is the culture, as that which is either directly created by man, acting in accordance with his assessed goals, or it has existed before, at least consciously nurtured by him for the sake of the value associated with it. In a similar way, K. later defined P. A. Sorokin: "In the broadest sense, culture means the totality of what is created or modified by the conscious or unconscious activity of two or more individuals, interacting with each other or influencing each other's behavior.
А. Kröber and K. Cluckhon tried to analyze and classify the concepts and definitions of K. All known definitions of K., (more than 150 in their review) are divided into six main types (from A to F), most of which are divided into subtypes. In particular, the so-called descriptive definitions belong to type A, an example of which can be the definition of E. Taylor: "Culture, or civilization, is knowledge, arts, morality, laws, customs and some other abilities and habits learned by a person as a member of society. It is obvious that this is a very narrow definition, covering only a part of the spiritual K. Narrow is the definition of K. as a socially inherited set of methods of activity and beliefs (type B, "historical definitions"). Another extremely narrow definition is based on the idea of a way of life: C. is a set of standardized beliefs and practices (type C. "normative definitions"). Structural "definitions" are also narrow, e.g: K. is a combination of scientific behavior and behavioral results, the components of which are divided and inherited by members of a given society.

Nature is one of the main opposition to philosophy, culturology, and cultural sociology. Opposition "C. - P." is a prerequisite for the division of all sciences into the sciences of culture (C.) and the sciences of nature (P.), it lies at the heart of the definition of the subject of culturology and the subject of sociology C. In the most general way, C. can be characterized as all that is created by the hands and minds of man in the process of his historical life, respectively, P. - it is all existing and not created by man. K. represents something that would not and would not be able to continue without the constant effort and support of the individual; P. - something that is not the result of human activity and can exist independently of it. It is obvious that with the expansion of the sphere, K.'s sphere of P.'s is shrinking accordingly; if K.'s sphere becomes thinner, shrinking and dies out, the sphere of natural is expanding.

K. includes material and spiritual parts. K. includes buildings, machines, canals, objects of everyday life, etc., as well as ideas, values, religions, scientific theories, norms, traditions, rules of grammar and ritual, etc. K. is in constant dynamics, it changes radically from epoch to epoch. This means that the concept of P., as opposed to the concept of K., is constantly changing.
A broad understanding of K. as the opposite of P. is necessary when discussing the general problems of formation and development of K. and, in particular, the problem of P.'s vision as specific K. This understanding is, in a sense, classical, although it is not the only possibility.
G. Rickert also insisted that the concept of P. can be more precisely defined only through the notion of K. opposite to him: "The products of nature are those that grow freely from the earth. The products of culture produce a field that man has ploughed and sown. Consequently, nature is the totality of everything that has arisen by itself, was born and given to its own growth. The opposite of nature in this sense is the culture, as that which is either directly created by man, acting in accordance with his assessed goals, or it has existed before, at least consciously nurtured by him for the sake of the value associated with it. In a similar way, K. later defined P. A. Sorokin: "In the broadest sense, culture means the totality of what is created or modified by the conscious or unconscious activity of two or more individuals, interacting with each other or influencing each other's behavior.

А. Kröber and K. Cluckhon tried to analyze and classify the concepts and definitions of K. All known definitions of K., (more than 150 in their review) are divided into six main types (from A to F), most of which are divided into subtypes. In particular, the so-called descriptive definitions belong to type A, an example of which can be the definition of E. Taylor: "Culture, or civilization, is knowledge, arts, morality, laws, customs and some other abilities and habits learned by a person as a member of society. It is obvious that this is a very narrow definition, covering only a part of the spiritual K. Narrow is the definition of K. as a socially inherited set of methods of activity and beliefs (type B, "historical definitions"). Another extremely narrow definition is based on the idea of a way of life: C. is a set of standardized beliefs and practices (type C. "normative definitions"). Structural "definitions" are also narrow, e.g: K. is a combination of scientific behavior and behavioral results, the components of which are divided and inherited by members of a given society.

All these definitions refer only to the spiritual K. and in no way affect the material K., with which the former is always inextricably linked. For example, science is not only a system of ideas and methods of their justification, but also a set of those, sometimes extremely complex devices and instruments, without which scientific research is impossible; painting and sculpture are, among other things, certain material objects, etc.
Definitions of type: C. is what distinguishes a human being from an animal, or: C. is the result of the organization of human-specific symbolization ability (types F-IV and F-III) are simply unclear.
Of course, it is not a question of the fact that the definitions of K. given and similar to them are useless. They can be quite useful in some narrow contexts, when discussing individual aspects of K... that do not affect K. as a single interrelated whole. The situation here is similar to attempts to define, for example, a person. There are dozens of definitions of the concept of "human being", but there is no single correct and applicable in all circumstances definition of this concept.