In ancient times, King Pygmalion lived on the island of Cyprus. He was disgusted by the immoral behavior of women, and he decided never to marry, live in solitude and devote himself to art. However, even in his loneliness, he dreamed of an ideal woman and embodied his dream in an ivory statue. None of the living women could compare with her beauty. Pygmalion often admired his creation and fell in love with her. He brought gifts to the statue, decorated it with jewels and dressed it as if it were alive. Once, on the feast of the goddess Aphrodite, Pygmalion brought a rich sacrifice to the altar of the temple and made a timid request: if possible, make a beautiful statue of his wife. And then a miracle happened. When Pygmalion returned home, his Galatea came to life...

Rationality

What is the origin of culture? Reason, human passion, prayerful disposition or indomitable vital impulse? Culture is inclusive. One can imagine its content as a diverse arsenal of information. This point of view is proposed in the article by A.S. Carmina 1. The author reduces culture to

1 Philosophy of culture in the information society: problems and prospects // Vestnik RFO. 2005. No. 2.

1 Philosophy of Culture in the Information Society: Decree. ed. S. 51.

M. Weber considered the capitalist economy an example of rationality. She was estimated by him as the realm of accounting, calculation and costing. The German scientist studied various types of economy - ancient Greek and Roman, economic forms of the Ancient East. Each of these types of economy cultivated private enterprise, developed money circulation. However, only under capitalism did a principle appear that the previous economy did not know - the principle of profitability. We are talking about profitability, which characterizes the indicator of efficient production.

The German sociologist analyzes in his works the connection between Christianity and rationalism characteristic of Western culture. He shows that even medieval Christian asceticism (i.e., abstinence) had features in the West that distinguished it, say, from Eastern Christian. (An ascetic is a person who refuses luxury and is content with the most necessary, leads a strict lifestyle.)

When a person intends to become an ascetic, he may leave the noisy city and go to distant places. In the East, this usually happened in a loose pattern. There were no rules specially designed for the ascetic. He could behave spontaneously, i.e. spontaneously. To a certain extent, we can say that such a person acted spontaneously, not knowing in advance what would happen to him and how he should prepare himself for all kinds of restrictions.

However, in Europe there was no such planlessness in the name of self-torture. Austerity has become a systematically developed method of a rational way of life. Special rules helped a person overcome the natural state, free himself from the power of dark urges and put his actions under constant control. So the monk turned from a free ascetic into a worker in the service of the Kingdom of God.

Protestantism is one of the main trends in Christianity, which arose during the Reformation of the 16th century. as a protest against the Roman Catholic Church, Weber shows, turned asceticism into a worldly affair. She demanded an orderly, planned way of life. This is how a sober, practical consciousness is born, which teaches a person to extinguish his emotional impulses and follow the voice of reason, the call of deeds in everything.

One of the ideologists of Protestantism Jean Calvin(1509-1564) even created the doctrine of the original predestination of man. Everyone can receive a sign, whether he will be saved after death or perish. This sign will be the course of his earthly affairs. If he succeeds in purely practical undertakings, be it craft, trade, private enterprise, then, therefore, he is God's chosen one.

All these Protestant subtleties freed a person from natural inclinations, passions, hobbies. It is clear that here we are dealing with a cultural phenomenon, which is based on reason, on a rational comprehension of the world.

If you ask a European what is the main quality that distinguishes a person from an animal, he will surely say: mind, consciousness. Such an answer would seem strange, for example, to an African. He would give preference to emotions, the plasticity of the body, but by no means to the mind, not to the mind. Here is what Leopold Senghor, one of the Negritude theorists, writes, for example. He notes that the Negro-African personality (unlike the Hellenic-European) has special feelings of intuition, empathy, imagery and rhythm (the formula: "emotion belongs to the Negro, and the mind belongs to the Hellenic"), and therefore the Negro-African and Hellenic-European cultures are fundamentally different. Here is what he writes: “The African Negro, figuratively speaking, is locked in his black skin. He lives in the primeval night and, above all, does not separate himself from the object: from a tree or a stone, a person or an animal, a phenomenon of nature or society. He does not keep the object at a distance, does not subject it to analysis. Having received an impression, he takes a living object in his palm, like a blind man, not at all trying to fix it or kill it. He twists it in sensitive fingers this way and that, feels it, feels it. The African Negro is one of those creatures that were created on the third day of creation: a pure sensory field. He knows the "other" on a subjective level, by the very tips of the antennae, if we take insects for comparison. And at this moment, the movement of emotions captures him to the depths of his soul and carries him away in a centrifugal flow from the subject to the object along the waves generated by the “other”. Rationality was developing in the same way in European culture, in contrast to African.”

In ancient philosophy, man was called homo sapiens. The cult of reason is the core European culture. In the Middle Ages

this trend continued to develop. The medieval hermit, as has been said, had many stringent requirements, which subjected his life to strict regulations. “A characteristic feature of Western monasticism,” writes M. Weber, “is the attitude to labor as a hygienic-ascetic means, and the importance of labor grows in the Cistercian charter, which was distinguished by the greatest simplicity. Unlike the mendicant monks in India, in the West the mendicant monks soon after their appearance were placed at the service of the ecclesiastical hierarchy and rational means: the systematic caritas(mercy), which in the West has become a rational "enterprise", to sermons and trials of heretics. Finally, the Jesuit order completely abandoned the unhygienic prohibitions of ancient asceticism and established a rational discipline” 1 .

Thus, the principle of rationality was formed in European culture. Rationality (from lat. rationalis - reasonable, ratio - reason) - the principle of reasonableness, based on reason, adequate to the criteria of reason.

According to many culturologists, the rational can be considered as a universal category, covering pure logic in classical and modern thinking, and even some forms of mystical experience. However, this thesis about the almost all-encompassing meaning of the concept of "rationality" requires critical consideration, since it is possible to outline some typological approaches to the disclosure of the cultural content of this category, which to a certain extent oppose each other.

Firstly, rationality is understood as a method of cognition of reality, which is based on reason. This central meaning goes back to the Latin root ratio. Rationalization, speaking in one form or another, is a universal property inherent in various aspects of human activity.

Secondly, rationality is interpreted by many culturologists as a kind of structure that has internal features and laws. In this direction of reasoning, the scientific thinking of the morning

1 M. Weber's works on the sociology of religion and culture. Issue. 2. M., 1991. S. 203.

maintains its monopoly on rationality. Probably, reason in this case ceases to be the defining characteristic of the rational. We are talking about a specific orderliness inherent in various forms of spiritual activity, including non-scientific ones. This is a special organization, logic is already opposed to structurelessness, randomness, fundamental "inexpressibility". At the same time, that spiritual experience that is not amenable to orderliness and intellect can be attributed to irrationality.

Thirdly, rationality is identified with a certain principle, an attributive property of civilization. It is assumed that cultural characteristics, traits of peoples who develop analytical and affected principles in the course of their life, are able to develop certain civilizational signs. K.G. Jung divided civilizations into "rational" and "affective". In this sense, many culturologists for the analysis of various types of civilization proposed such characteristics as dynamism and static, extroversion and introversion, optimism and fatalism, rationalism and mysticism as modes of Western and Eastern cultures.

The concept of "rationality" is key for M. Weber, so it is important to emphasize that in his works on the sociology of religion, the German scientist tried to identify the socio-cultural foundations and boundaries of rationality.

Irrational

Can culture include irrational content? Irrationalism - from lat. irrationalis- unreasonable. The traditional idea of ​​culture suggests that this phenomenon is born as a result of conscious purposeful human activity. How, in this context, can something that is not subject to reason settle in culture?

When V.M. Mezhuev in the book "The Idea of ​​Culture" shows the birth of the philosophy of culture, he connects the formation of this block of knowledge with overcoming everything irrational in the social life of mankind. At the same time, he emphasizes

the role of philosophy in the comprehension of culture. “The rejection of philosophy,” writes V. Mezhuev, “is tantamount from this point of view to the denial of one's own existence in culture, which is different from the existence of other people and peoples. It is fraught with either a rollback to archaic forms of cultural self-identification (myths, religion, traditional rituals and customs), or complete dissolution in the impersonal world of scientific concepts and technical devices. The cultural function of philosophy is that it protects European man from two dangers that threaten him: his archaization (return to pre-scientific forms of consciousness) and depersonalization as a result of a purely formal rationalization of his thinking and life.

From this reasoning follows not only an assessment that allows the philosopher to reveal the specifics of myth or science. This task is, in my opinion, the goal of the philosophy of culture. However, it even speaks of the danger of these forms of social consciousness, one of which entails the archaization of consciousness, and the other depersonalization. It goes without saying that philosophy arose as a result of overcoming myth as a form of world comprehension. But this does not mean at all that the myth has lost its cultural and philosophical significance and has become a formidable harbinger of archaism.

The author of the book expresses in this case one of the versions of cultural-philosophical thinking, which can be called rationalistic, rational, Eurocentric. Approximately such a way of thinking was inherent in 3. Freud, who believed that in culture there is a progressive movement from archaic forms of consciousness to more significant and modern ones - to science and philosophy.

But the cultural-philosophical concept of K.G. Jung, for example, is completely different. It comes from anthropological premises. The irrational, the unconscious is the backbone of the human psyche. The further people go from this basic foundation, the worse for humanity. Therefore, the danger, from Jung's point of view, is precisely the "disenchantment of the world", neglect of archaic forms of consciousness.

1 Mezhuev V.M. The idea of ​​culture. Essays on the philosophy of culture. M., 2006. S. 28.

The paradox of the concept built by V.M. Mezhuev, lies in the fact that the ideal of the philosophy of culture, which he finally designated as being born in a painful struggle, ultimate philosophical mobilization, ultimately “serves” itself. Following the author, we can restore the history of the formation of the philosophy of culture. But the experience of reflection gained does not allow us to proceed to the analysis of specific cultural phenomena. What can a cultural philosopher say about myth, about religion as specific forms of cultural existence, if they are immediately qualified as dangerous, dragging us back, providing only regression in the history of spiritual life.

The hidden trend of this version of cultural philosophy is the desire to clear the space for philosophy by eliminating all sorts of irrational cultural phenomena. But such an approach bleeds the comprehension of culture. It reveals itself only where there is a tension of thought, ratio, and will completely disappear in the area where there are other possibilities of cultural creation associated with instinct, feeling, mystical insight, imagination, the unconscious.

The spectrum of culture is inexhaustible, and it is not limited to rationality, reasonableness. Weber emphasized that rationality is the fate of European culture. But there are other cultures on Earth that are far from rationality. If the philosophy of culture, which arose in the depths of European consciousness, is called upon to analyze only one's own experience and does not try to pay attention to the specifics of other cultures, then it loses its advantage over cultural studies. Culturology points us to the multi-layered nature of culture, to its multi-composition. It is not very good if the philosophy of culture leaves this material outside the scope of its reflection.

A huge layer of culture, including European, is the unconscious, irrational. Of course, we can ignore this fact and try to rationalize the irrational forms of culture. But isn't it more expedient to agree that the significant content of any culture grows out of the magma of the unconscious? Doesn't this oblige us to interpret the specifics of these non-conceptual forms of cultural practice?

Magic as a cultural phenomenon

Let's try to dwell on such a cultural phenomenon as magic. M. Weber shows that magic is also rationalistic in a certain sense. After all, it is usually aimed at achieving specific goals. With the help of magic, you can ensure a successful hunt or a rich harvest. In this sense, magical action approaches rational action. However, both are aimed at mastering the world, the forces of nature. Weber believed that this could also explain the origin of art.

But here is another idea of ​​magic, which L. Senghor evaluates: “This is a world that lies beyond the visible world of external manifestations. The latter is rational only because it can be seen and measured. For the African negro, the moment of magic is more real than the visible world: it is sub-real. He is animated by the invisible forces that govern the universe; their characteristic feature is that they are harmoniously related to each other, as well as to visible objects, or manifestations" 1 .

In magic, the visible is the manifestation of the invisible. Senghor illustrates his idea with the following example. The mother, after several years of separation, sees her son again. He, a student who has returned from France, is overwhelmed by the feeling that he is suddenly thrown from the real world of today into the world to the "French presence". The student's mother embrace emotions. The woman touches her son's face, feels him like a blind woman, or as if she wants to get enough of him. Her body reacts: she cries and dances the dance of return, the dance of possessing her returned son. And the maternal uncle, a full member of the family, for he has the same blood as his mother, accompanies the dance, clapping his hands. Mother ceases to be part of the modern world, she belongs to the mystical, mythical Ancient world, which is part of the world of dreams. She believes in this world because now she lives in it and is obsessed with it.

In the interpretation of magic, L. Senghor proceeds from the fact that cosmic forces are hidden behind specific objects that animate the real world, endowing it with color and rhythm, life.

1 Senghor L. Negritude: the psychology of the African Negro // Culturology: Reader / comp. P.S. Gurevich. M., 2000. S. 537.

new and feeling. The African Negro is emotionally touched not so much by the outward appearance of an object as by its deepest reality, not so much by a sign as by a feeling. “This means,” he writes, “that emotion, which at first glance is perceived as a failure of consciousness, is, on the contrary, an ascent of consciousness to a higher state of wisdom” 1 . An emotional, not a rational attitude to the world determines all the cultural values ​​of the African Negro: religion, social structures, art, and most importantly, the genius of his language.

Archetypes of culture

But in the bowels of culture, one can easily find the warmth of the soul, spontaneous attraction, vital impulse. Russian philosopher Mikhail Gershenzon ( 1869-1925) in his work "Golfstrom" talks about the "solid, liquid and gaseous state of the spirit" 2 . In other words, M. Gershenzon wants to show that not only the mind can become an impulse for cultural creativity. The instrumental cunning of the mind does not always turn out to be the universal source of culture.

Culture as a phenomenon is multi-tiered. If we talk about the external side of the matter, the products of human activity are objectified and embodied in it. However, this process of spiritual creation least of all resembles the mechanical increment of more and more new manifestations of human activity. In culture, a living nerve, deep filling, full-flowing movement of life-giving transformation are palpable. The image of the Gulf Stream - warm currents in the northern part of the Atlantic Ocean - was used by M. Gershenzon to metaphorically express powerful shifts in culture.

Culture can hardly be considered as an arithmetic increment of more and more new spiritual states. The prototypes of culture, born in antiquity, often retain no less significant content than modern creations of culture. According to Gershenzon, in the multiple period of development that preceded our culture, all

1 Senghor L. Decree. op. S. 530.

2 Gershenzon M. Gulfstrem // Faces of Culture: Almanac. T. 1. M., 1995. S. 7.

significant human experience. “Primitive wisdom,” he writes, “contained all religions and all science. She was like a muddy lump of protoplasm, teeming with life, like a tow (the fibrous part of flax, hemp. - P. G.), from where man will spin the threads of his separate knowledge until the end of time” 1 .

According to Gershenzon, in the once mysterious depths of the spirit, eternal currents were born from the ancestors to us and further into the future. He brings together two names - the ancient philosopher Heraclitus(c. 544-483 BC) and Pushkin. It would seem that what is in common between the lover of wisdom (as philosophers were called in antiquity), who despised the experience of sensory knowledge, and the work of a Russian poet? What can provide a spiritual roll call of the two giants? Comparison, the ability to seem artificial, if you stay at the level of a descriptive interpretation of culture. However, it has its own metaphysics. Phenomenal discoveries of culture can come through the comprehension of the original internal foundations of spiritual creation.

Heraclitus, if we talk about his work in modern language, for the first time discovered the cosmic prerequisites of culture. He presented this phenomenon as something coming from the universe. At the same time, cosmogony (from the Greek “creation of the world”) and psychology were reduced by the ancient philosopher to one principle, substance and spirit were considered identity, not a coincidence of one or the other, but the unity of a third, common to both.

Following Gershenzon, we are entering the world of metaphor, i.e. endless imagery. Culture expresses itself in the language of origins. Cosmic movement, inaccessible to sensory perception, Heraclitus conditionally calls fire. In full, we are not talking about the material elements. This fire is metaphysical, allegorical. Movement is implied, but not in the Newtonian sense. This is the eternal rebirth and extinction, the measure of the ever-living flame.

The world is not a frozen given, it is in the process of tireless life-giving transformation. But there is also an endless series of descending degrees: from the strongest heat to zero. In this context, culture is perceived as

1 Gerihenson M. Decree. op. S. 8.

spontaneous, unfettered expression of spiritual heat. It grows out of chaos, out of the depths of a person's sharpened, hard-to-saturate inclinations. Culture, therefore, is a reflection of the depths of the human spirit. What does this mean? Culture is not only rational, it is analytical. It absorbs human passions, secret intentions and desires.

Culture is spontaneous, open to all winds. It is akin to chaos, because it is washed by underground waters. There is no hard foresight in it. At the same time, culture is not blind. Spiritual transformation in it is subject to the secret harmony of the universe. Cosmology (the doctrine of the cosmos) in Heraclitus smoothly turns into anthropology (that is, the doctrine of man). A person is also forever "flowing". The soul itself, to the extent of its heating up and cooling down, forms the body.

So, culture is created not only by analytical calculation, as a result of man's tool cunning. She is a product of the human soul, human heat. This, generally speaking, explains a lot about the nature of culture. Its architectonics (regularities of the structure) is not the embodiment of thought. Irrational content also emerges in culture. An example is the very phenomenon of the unconscious...

The Phenomenon of the Unconscious

The unconscious is the sphere of mental life, which is realized without the participation of consciousness, does not have the sign of consciousness and mainly determines the actions of people. The ancient Eastern philosophical schools already guessed about the multi-layered nature of the human psyche: Tibetan Buddhism, Kundalini yoga, in which the image of a “rising snake” symbolizes psychic energy passing through psychic centers (chakras). In European philosophy, the idea of ​​a multi-layered psyche developed gradually. Yes, the French philosopher Rene Descartes(1596-1650) believed that consciousness and psyche are one and the same. It was believed that outside of consciousness, only the physiological activity of the brain can take place. However, a different philosophical idea gradually matured. Not everything that happens in our soul, in our inner world, penetrates into the mind.

The idea of ​​the unconscious was first proposed by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz(1646-1716). He assessed the unconscious as the lowest form of mental activity, which lies beyond the limits of conscious ideas, towering like islands above the ocean of dark perceptions. I. Kant connected the unconscious with the problem of intuition, i.e. with the direct acquisition of knowledge in the form of conjecture without evidence and logic. Arthur Schopenhauer(1788-1860) considered the unconscious as a spontaneous vital principle, a many-sided manifestation of the will in the world. A special role in the creation of the philosophy of the unconscious belongs to I. Herbart(1776-1841) and E. Hartmann(1842-1906). According to Hartmann, who considered the basis of existence to be the unconscious spiritual principle - the world will and that the unconscious gives each creature what it needs for its preservation and for which its conscious thinking is not enough, for example, for a person - instincts for understanding sensory perception, for the formation of language and society and much more. It preserves the inheritance through sexual desire and maternal love, ennobles them through choice in sexual love, and leads the human race in history to the goal of its eventual perfection. The unconscious, with its sensations in the small, as well as in the great, contributes to the conscious process of thinking and directs a person in mysticism to a premonition of higher, supersensible feelings, unities. It endows people with a sense of beauty and the ability of artistic creativity.

Before Sigmund Freud(1856-1939) researchers believed; that the unconscious content in the human psyche crystallizes in consciousness and then is forced out of it. Freud has priority in discovering the unconscious as an autonomous, impersonal beginning of the human soul, independent of consciousness: "Everything that is repressed is unconscious, but not everything that is unconscious is repressed" 1 . The unconscious interferes intensively in human life. According to Freud, the idea that our actions are guided by "I" is nothing more than an illusion. In fact, they are dominated by a natural impersonal principle, which forms the unconscious basis of our soul, i.e. psyche.

1 Freud 3. I and It // 3. Freud. Psychology of the unconscious: Sat. prod. M., 1989. S. 428.

The division of the psyche into conscious and unconscious is the basic premise of psychoanalysis. Freud calls the unconscious beginning "It". In his understanding, "It" has a purely natural origin. All the primary drives of man are concentrated in it: sexual desires, the drive to death, which, when turned outward, turns out to be a desire for destruction. The human "I" is struggling, according to Freud, trying to survive in the world of nature and society. However, the impulses of the individual run into the reckless force of the id. If the "I" tries to adapt to the objective, real conditions of life, then the "It" is guided by the principle of pleasure. This is how an irreconcilable struggle is born between "I" and "It" 1 . Meanwhile, in psychoanalytic technique, means have been found by which one can stop the action of the resisting force of the "It" and make these representations conscious. The state in which the latter were before awareness is called repression by Freud, and the force that led to the repression and maintained it is felt during analytic work as resistance.

We find a different interpretation of the unconscious in Carl Gustav Jung(1875-1961). This force is no longer regarded as a purely natural phenomenon. The unconscious was born at the origins of human history in collective mental experience. Therefore, we can talk about the cultural genesis of the unconscious. Jung defines the unconscious as a purely psychological concept. It covers all those mental contents or processes that are not realized, i.e. not perceptibly related to our ego. The unconscious is no longer valued as the result of the repressive activity of consciousness (Freud). Jung interprets the unconscious as something specific and creative, as a kind of psychic primary reality, the main source of basic motives and archetypes of experience common to all people. Under the archetype, Jung means a prototype, a structural element of the collective unconscious, which underlies all mental processes and experiences. The collective unconscious is inherent in every nation, ethnic group and humanity as a whole and forms

1 Freud 3. Decree. op. S. 432.

his creative spirit, feelings and values. This is a kind of crystallization of the primary spiritual experience of mankind. “An immensely ancient psychic principle forms the basis of our mind, just as the structure of our body goes back to the general anatomical structure of mammals” 1 .

Although the collective unconscious is a cultural phenomenon, it is transmitted from generation to generation through biological mechanisms. However, there is no biological simplification here. The archetypes of the collective unconscious are not in themselves identical to cultural images or symbols. An archetype is not so much an image as a kind of fundamental experience, a specific aspiration of the human psyche, which in itself is devoid of any objectivity. The archetype is the first meaning that invisibly organizes and directs the life of our soul. The most ancient, initial form of mental experience is a myth, therefore all archetypes are somehow connected with mythological images and experiences. Myth lies at the basis of the human soul, including the soul of modern man - this is Jung's conclusion. It is the myth that gives a person a sense of unity with the fundamental principles of life, brings the soul into agreement with its unconscious archetypes 2 .

The unconscious is a completely independent, independent sphere of the human psyche, although it continuously interacts with consciousness. At the same time, the individual consciousness of a person does not have at its disposal any means by which it could comprehend the essence of the unconscious. It can be assimilated by consciousness only in symbolic forms, i.e. in the form in which it appears in dreams, fantasies, creativity and traditional mythological images.

A new impetus for the development of the ideas of the unconscious was given by the work of the modern American researcher S. Grof. He introduced the concept of "specific memory constellations" (SCS) - some persistent standards, streams of visions that are found in the patient's psyche during experiments. The scientist distinguishes four types of mirages, or visions, each of which has its own origins and a special nature.

1 Jung K.G. Archetype and symbol. M., 1991. S. 64.

2 Ibid. S. 73.

The first associated with the abstract, or aesthetic, experience of a given person. For example, he sees unusual color spots, their shapes and tones change, pictures of fantastic and exotic landscapes, impenetrable jungles, lush bamboo thickets, tropical islands, Siberian taiga or underwater accumulations of algae and coral reefs are born. Quite often, abstract geometric constructions or architectural standards appear in his visions, which form the basis of all dynamic color changes. Visions of this type indicate that the psychological states of a person are embodied in aesthetic images. This kaleidoscope, although it does not capture the realm of the unconscious, is in itself impressive and multifaceted, reflecting aesthetic intuitions.

Second a group of visions - those that express a particular biographical experience. As the poet said: "... it was with me ...". In form it is very reminiscent of dreams, and the images are drawn mainly from the individual unconscious. A person, as it were, re-experiences some events of his own life. It can be pleasant childhood impressions or bitter feelings that once left a mark on the psyche. In general, during psychoanalytic sessions, patients often return to their childhood. This type of vision is well known to psychoanalysis. They are caused by psychoanalytic experiences, i.e. those feelings that develop, change form, gravitate towards full realization. A bizarre interweaving of love and hate, altruism and selfishness, compassion and cruelty. Pictures born in the mind of the patient help to understand the nature of these feelings.

Third the type of visions does not fit into the framework of established views in psychology. The discovery of their nature is a kind of sensation. They discover something unexpected. It turns out that the stay of the fetus in the mother's womb is associated for the baby with indelible and versatile psychological phenomena. It can be assumed that it is more rich and tragic than earthly existence... The fact of the coming of a baby is comprehended in existential terms. The newborn child experiences the deepest crisis. In its deepest manifestations, birth turns out to be typologically close to death.

Physical pain, agony is akin to the birth process. This is a critical aspect of human existence. The fetus is expelled from the mother's womb. All previous biological ties are broken. As a result of an emotional and physical encounter with death, profound changes occur in the psyche of the fetus: feelings of fear and danger to life arise. In the depths of the subconscious, archetypal images are laid: for example, a mirage of a furnace, a whirlpool that draws you into its abysses; the image of a monster, a dragon, swallowing prey. These states are fixed in the experience of hallucinatory visions when a person becomes an adult. In the mystical spiritual tradition, they correspond to such symbols as the lost paradise, the fall of an angel, the descent into the underworld, into grottoes, wandering in labyrinths.

And last, fourth type of vision. In a psychoanalytic session, a person sees pictures that have nothing to do with his own experience at all. He recalls himself as a Mongol cavalryman, a galley slave, an Australian hunter, a Spanish grandee. This experience can rather be called transpersonal, i.e. relating to the total common property of all mankind.

Nameless phenomena

The best evidence of the irrational in culture can be such phenomena that have no authors, are nameless. This applies to tradition, myths, fairy tales, epic tales. In ancient cultures, people sang, danced, and practiced magic. So they had music. Did someone compose it? “Nobody composed ancient melodies,” composer Vladimir Martynov replies. - These are musical archetypes, they were born from the collective unconscious. Ritual spring invocation on three notes or the Gregorian antiphon cannot be invented by an individual. You cannot name the one who created the swastika or the wheel. If a new musical model arose, it was explained by divine revelation or attributed to a cultural hero” 1 .

1 "All the music has already been written." Interview with composer Vladimir Martynov // Arguments and Facts. 2003. No. 22. P. 17.

During a trip to Africa, K.G. Jung observed primitive tribes. He drew attention to a peculiar ritual performed by the inhabitants of an East African village. They joyfully greeted the rising of the Sun and the appearance of the Moon. First, the natives raised their palms to their mouths and blew on them, then stretched their hands to the luminary. Jung wondered what these actions expressed. However, none of them could answer this question.

Jung had his own idea of ​​this ritual. First, he came to the conclusion that these people are close to nature. Secondly, the breath personifies the spiritual substance, the soul. Local residents offered their souls to God, but did not even know about it. But is it possible? According to Jung, undoubtedly, because the inhabitants of the East African village really did not know what they were doing and why, for what purpose. These actions, therefore, expressed part of their way of life. Probably, the ant does exactly the same when he collects blades of grass, but is not able to explain what is the meaning of these actions. It seemed to Jung that such a mythological consciousness of primitive people could serve as an analogue or rather a variant collective unconscious. This term was introduced by K.G. Jung.

Our individual consciousness is a superstructure over the collective unconscious. As a rule, its influence on consciousness is imperceptible. Only occasionally does it affect our dreams, and if this happens, then it brings us dreams of rare and wonderful beauty, full of mysterious wisdom or demonic horror. People often hide such dreams as an expensive secret, and they are right about that. These dreams are of great importance for the mental equilibrium of a culture. Such dreams are a kind of spiritual experience that resists any attempt at rationalization. To the same extent, many cultural phenomena born in the depths of the collective unconscious can hardly be explained by reason.

Jung, in Analytical Psychology and Education, recounts the dream of a young theology student. The student dreamed that he was standing in front of a sacred image called the "white master", his teacher. He knew that he was his student. The teacher was wearing a long black dress. was kind and

noble, and the student felt deep respect for him. But then another image arose - the “black master”, who was dressed in white. And he, too, was beautiful and radiant, and the seated one was amazed at this. The Black Master obviously wanted to speak to the master, but the latter hesitated. And then the black magician began to tell a story about how he found the lost keys to paradise, but did not know what to do with them. He also said that the king of the country in which he lived was looking for a suitable grave for himself. Suddenly, by chance, his subjects unearthed an old sarcophagus that contained the remains of a deceased young woman. The king ordered the sarcophagus to be opened, the remains to be thrown out, and the empty sarcophagus to be closed again in order to save it for later use. But as soon as the remains were taken out and exposed to sunlight, the essence of the one to whom they belonged changed, namely: the young woman turned into a black horse that galloped into the desert. The black magician pursued her through the desert, and there, after overcoming difficulties, he found the lost keys. On this, the black magician ended his story. The white magician remained silent, and that was the end of the dream.

This dream, according to Jung, differs from an ordinary dream in that it has the value of an unusually important spiritual experience. Views on dreams have varied greatly from century to century, from culture to culture. In ancient times, it was believed that dreams are real events that happen to the soul, deprived of a bodily shell in a dream. There was an opinion that dreams are inspired by God or evil forces. Many see in dreams an expression of irrational passions or, on the contrary, an expression of the highest thoughts and moral forces.

Dreams play a huge role in culture. AT ancient japan dream cultivation was widely practiced in both Buddhist and Shinto temples. Some Buddhist temples were known as dream oracles. To see a mystical dream, one had to make a pilgrimage to a holy place. In Islamic culture, the prophet Mohammed always attached great importance to his dreams and encouraged his followers to share their dreams with him. It is believed that most of the Qur'an was written down from his words, heard by him in a dream 1 .

1 Beskova I.A. The nature of dreams (epistemological analysis). M. 2005. S. 22.

In the works of A.A. Penzin explores how the role of lighting and law enforcement techniques at night is historically transformed in the Enlightenment, specific reactions to these processes in culture (romanticism, religious and mystical phenomena, the effects of night and sleep in art) are noted. With the help of new technologies, the phenomenon of the night is not excluded in an absolute sense. It is also included in the social and cultural space in a new capacity, in the form of an increasingly mass nightlife that takes the place of night sleep. The processes of constituting the subjects of nightlife (artistic and intellectual bohemia), as well as the development of images of sleep and nightlife in the art and philosophy of the 20th century 1 are traced.

In cultural studies, the assumption of a certain synthetic unity is built, which precedes the cultural, social or existential modalities of cultural experience.

Literature

Beskova I. A. The nature of dreams (epistemological analysis). M., 2005.

Gershenzon M. Gulfstrem // Faces of Culture: Almanac. T. 1. M., 1995.

Mezhuev V.M. The idea of ​​culture. Essays on the philosophy of culture. M., 2006.

Penzin A.A.

Senghor L. Negritude: the psychology of the African Negro // Culturology: Reader / comp. P.S. Gurevich. M., 2000. S. 528-539.

Jung K.G. Archetype and symbol. M., 1991.

1 See: Penzin A.A. Sleepers // Art magazine. 2001. No. 32. S. 91-93.

Introduction

Rational in the study of culture

Irrational in the study of culture. The ratio of rational and irrational

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

In the history of mankind, the study of culture itself is engaged in almost the entire time of the existence of culture itself. But at a certain stage, the question arose of the position from which researchers approach the study of this area of ​​human activity. This was due to the fact that with a fairly rich development of culture, the researchers studying it did not find understanding with each other. Thus, the task of a special appeal to the methods of studying cultural space was revealed.

In modern scientific literature on cultural studies, they often talk about approaches to the study of culture, but there is no unity, both terminological, in the designation of approaches, and meaningful, in their semantic content.

According to the Brief Philosophical Encyclopedia, a method (from the Greek methodos - path, research, tracking) is a way to achieve a specific goal, a set of techniques or operations for practical or theoretical mastering of reality. Accordingly, in the field of studying culture, methods "should be understood as a set of analytical techniques, operations and procedures used in the analysis of culture and, to a certain extent, constructing the subject of cultural research."

Most authors call culturology an integrative field of knowledge that incorporates the results of research in a number of disciplinary areas (social and cultural anthropology, ethnography, sociology, psychology, linguistics, history, etc.). Of course, not only research results are used, but also methods. In the process of culturological analysis, specific methods of different disciplines, as a rule, are used selectively, taking into account their ability to solve analytical problems of a culturological plan. Often they are applied not as formal operations and procedures, but as approaches in social or humanitarian research. This gives grounds to talk about a certain transformation of disciplinary methods into something more than just a method, and about their special integration within the framework of cultural studies.

Cultural approach is a broader concept than a method. Method - only a certain set of actions, operations, procedures carried out by the researcher. Method is a means of knowledge. This is the answer to the question: how to know? And the culturological approach first answers the question: what should be learned? - That is, one or another culturological approach singles out a certain subject area in such a complex object of study as culture, on which attention is focused. Although, of course, in the approach, in its very name, as a rule, the nature of the methods that it uses primarily for the study of a given subject area is laid down.

Culturology is a humanitarian science. The methodology of humanitarian knowledge occupies a special place in the methodology of science. In particular, in the methodology of the humanities, an important place is given to the question of the relationship between the rational and the irrational in the study of a particular humanitarian field.

For cultural studies as an integrative field of knowledge, the question of rational and irrational in the study of culture is important.

The purpose of this work is: to consider rational and irrational approaches to the study of culture.

1. Rational in the study of culture

We can already meet scientific research in certain areas in the spiritual heritage of such cultures as the culture of Ancient Egypt, Babylon, Ancient China and ancient india. Rather, it was only a small amount of knowledge, mainly associated with the solution of certain mathematical and geometric problems (although mathematics and geometry proper did not yet exist as independent sciences). You can find here and some information about the world around. True, all these constructions were largely unscientific, intuitive and random. And, accordingly, there could be no talk of a serious scientific methodological basis for such research.

The first serious claim to develop a scientific methodology for understanding the world was made by the Greeks. Of course, here we have not yet discussed the creation of the direct methods of the humanities: knowledge about man and culture was dissolved in the ontological constructions of ancient thinkers. Next came the process of developing criteria for the actual scientific activity.

Among these criteria for us is special meaning criterion of rationality. It allows us to separate the rational from the irrational not only in content, but also in the methodology of study, including culture. This criterion was already in Greek constructions, in the very rationality of philosophizing.

The origins of rationalism are associated with Socrates, who laid the foundations for the formation of the concept and critical reflection. A no less significant contribution to the development of rationalism was made by formal logic, the laws of which were formulated by Aristotle. Aristotelian formal logic is based on three laws: identity (A=A), contradiction (and is not not-A), and the excluded middle (A is either B or not-B). The first of the classical laws of rationalism was formulated by Aristotle: "... It is impossible that the same thing at the same time be inherent in the same thing in the same respect."

Among the later philosophers, I. Kant should be especially singled out, who spoke, although perhaps not the first, about mathematics as a criterion for the scientific nature of any science.

In modern times, the experiment began to be used as a tool for scientific research, and the role of experimental knowledge and analytical methods for comprehending empirical material was highly appreciated (Leonardo da Vinci, Francis Bacon). Typical for the rational-epistemological approach is the following analytical technique: "To understand individual phenomena, we must pull them out of the general connection and consider them in isolation, and in this case, the changing movements appear before us - one as a cause, the other as a consequence." But such a method is not suitable for understanding living organisms, and even more so spiritual phenomena. This was understood by F. Schleiermacher and W. Dilthey.

The term "rationality" is interpreted in modern science in different senses. First, rationality is a method of knowing the world, based on reason; secondly, rationality is understood as structurality, organized according to unambiguous internal laws; thirdly, rationality is comprehended as expediency; fourthly, rationality is interpreted as objectivity.

Rational, - according to N. S. Mudragei, - is, first of all, “logically substantiated, theoretically conscious, systematized knowledge of the subject, discursive thoughts about which are expressed strictly in concepts. In this sense, any subject of reflection can be called rationalized insofar as it is processed by a logical-categorical apparatus, mastered in a mental-cognitive way.

S.F. Oduev distinguishes three types of rationalism:

) preclassical (philosophy of antiquity from Aristotle to the Enlightenment);

) classical (from Descartes to Hegel);

) postclassical (from positivism to psychoanalysis, structuralism, critical realism). At the same time, he singles out three aspects in rationalism: epistemological, axiological and ontological.

Rationalism in the knowledge of culture, according to scientists, is experiencing a crisis today. S. F. Oduev considers the following reasons for the crisis of rationalism:

the self-confidence and pride of rationalism, which claimed to be the complete embodiment of reality in the cognizing consciousness (epistemological narcissism);

the contradiction between the methodology of the natural and human sciences (which was recognized in the 19th century), the division of labor in science, the lack of demand for dialectics (formalism);

exaggeration of the role of rational ways and social harmony (epistemological fetishism).

The reductionist model of the rational approach assumes:

a) any whole can be decomposed into separate elements with their specific properties;

b) knowledge of the characteristics of these elements makes it possible to judge the role of elements in the composition of the whole and, thus, to understand the whole;

c) the world is considered as a hierarchy of systems, where the systems of the underlying level are elements of the overlying system.

The criteria of scientificity within the framework of the classical paradigm are associated with the "Cartesian ideal of science", which included ontological principles:

universality and immutability of order in nature;

the inertia of matter and the activity of consciousness, the source of rational activity;

consciousness (I) is immanent to the individual;

and methodological:

the general as a subject of science;

general validity of the laws of natural science;

mathematization of knowledge as an ideal;

priority of quantitative and experimental methods, reductionism (explaining the general based on the analysis of its parts).

A typical expression of this paradigm, according to V. V. Pivoev, is the worldview and methodological position of I. Newton: “Absolute, true mathematical time in itself and in its very essence, without any relation to anything external, flows evenly and differently called duration.

Relative, apparent or ordinary time is either exact or changeable, comprehended by the senses, external, performed through some kind of movement, a measure of duration, used in everyday life instead of true mathematical time, such as: hour, day, month, year.

Absolute space in its very essence, regardless of anything external, always remains the same and immovable.

The relative is its measure, or some limited movable part, which is determined by our senses according to its position relative to certain bodies, and which in everyday life is taken for immovable space.

In accordance with this understanding, the main features of the rationalistic method in philosophy developed, which turned it into a “servant” of science:

monism in the understanding of truth;

the idea of ​​the unambiguous determination of cause-and-effect relationships;

assessment of experimental knowledge as unreliable (empiricists, on the contrary, considered only experimental knowledge reliable);

identification of scientific and logical;

optimism and faith in the omnipotence of rationalized reason, which is the source and criterion of truth.

Thus, in understanding the rational, the fundamental importance is, firstly, the unambiguous relationship of causes and effects. Secondly, awareness, accountability to reason, reason. Thirdly, the spirit of rationalism is the spirit of critical reflection, the categorical imperative of total doubt.

In the European philosophical tradition since the time of Cicero, “reason” and “reason” have been identified, denoted by one word ratio, which was interpreted, on the one hand, as “account, accounting, report, sum, total, number, benefit, interest, reason”, and on the other hand, as “a subject of reflection, a problem, a way, a technique, a method, an opportunity, a path, a basis, a motive, a conclusion, a conclusion, a teaching, a system, a theory, a science, a school.”

The need for rationalism is connected with the tasks of practical activity. Rationalistic methods are good where it is necessary to study the quantitative characteristics of an object, but they are less fruitful for studying the qualitative aspects, of which there are a lot in the field of culture.

For science, unambiguity is often a direct path to errors. In real life, every action causes not only opposition, but also side effects that can ultimately nullify the planned result or lead to the opposite ending.

The founder of cybernetics, Norbert Wiener, warned against primitive unambiguity in understanding the world: “... The world is a kind of organism, fixed not so rigidly that a slight change in any part of it immediately deprives it of its inherent features, and not so freely that any an event could happen as easily and simply as any other.

Since antiquity, aporias and logical paradoxes have been known that are insoluble for formal logic. The author of the logical paradox "liar" is Eubulides from Miletus. When a person says, “I am lying,” it is impossible to decide whether the person is lying or telling the truth. This paradox made a huge impression on the ancient Greeks, they say that a certain Philip of Kos even committed suicide, desperate to solve this problem.

In the Middle Ages, this setting of this paradox was popular:

What Plato said is false, Socrates declared.

What Socrates said is true, Plato confirmed.

A difficult question for rationalist determinism is the Buridan donkey paradox: if a donkey is placed between two identical bundles of hay at an equal distance from it, then it can starve to death, because its will will not receive an impulse to choose one or another armful.

B. Russell gives a paradox about the village barber: “The village barber shaves all those and only those inhabitants of his village who do not shave themselves. Should he shave himself?

Such a logic of combining the incompatible in one respect, the connection of the incompatible, was known to the ancient Chinese, it is called "paradoxical", or irrational, logic.

A well-known proverb states that "truth is born in disputes." But this is usually understood in the sense that someone's point of view must be recognized as the only true one and accepted by everyone as the truth. Therefore, each participant usually sees the task of participating in a dispute in the need to prove that his point of view is the very desired “truth”. But if the task of the dispute is understood in this way, then the ability to psychologically suppress opponents, to shout louder and more witty to ridicule opposing points of view, it is this ability that V.I. Lenin, who was known as an active debater, will be of decisive importance. This ability is also distinguished by some modern figures of politics and culture. In fact, an ambiguous truth is born in a dispute, the task of the dispute is to compare different points of view and discover the multidimensionality of the problem. Understanding the complexity and versatility of the problem is the real truth.

Thus, rationalistic methods should be used where it is necessary to investigate the quantitative characteristics of an object, but they are less fruitful for studying the qualitative aspects, and there are many such aspects in culture.

2. Irrational in the study of culture. The ratio of rational and irrational

rationalism culture

The irrational, in the most general sense, is beyond reason, illogical and non-intellectual, incommensurable with rational thinking or even contradicting it. Yu.N.Davydov points out the following historical types irrationality:

) romantic irrationality as a reaction to enlightenment rationalism;

) the irrationality of Kierkegaard and Schopenhauer as a reaction to Hegelian rationalism and “panlogism;

) the irrationalism of the "philosophy of life" as a reaction to natural scientific rationalism;

) the irrationalism of the philosophy of the early 20th century as a general reaction to rationalism.

There is a significant omission in this historical typology - it is built from the point of view of rationalism and does not take into account that the original mythological worldview was irrational, rationalism arose later in response to the requirements of practical activity.

According to the successful definition of G. Rickert, irrationalism is "understanding the boundaries of rational knowledge." Irrational means the absence of an unambiguous causation or its non-detection, as well as the fundamental or temporary uncontrollability of consciousness, reason.

T.I. Oizerman pointed out that rationality is often understood as expediency, and then irrationality is interpreted as “irrational” and “inexpedient”, in fact, irrationality is still expedient, although these goals to which it is subordinated are not obvious, hidden in the depths unconscious.

Another caveat concerns unambiguity-ambiguity. Classical science considered unambiguity to be its ideal, in modern science this ideal has faded slightly, polysemy and ambiguity (for example, in the form of indeterminism) are often quite logically acceptable, they fit perfectly into the modern picture of the world. Dialectical contradiction, antinomy, complementarity, etc. can serve as an example.

Mythological consciousness is also such a polysemantic phenomenon.

Are analysis, self-observation, reflection of irrational phenomena of consciousness possible? It is difficult to answer this question unambiguously.

According to K. Gödel's theorem on the incompleteness of sufficiently rich formal systems, "there are statements in such systems, the truth or falsity of which is unprovable and irrefutable within the framework of these systems."

From this we can conclude that "the universe cannot be described in one formal language with a finite number of axioms." And yet, as P.A. Florensky emphasized, “we must not, we dare not cover up the contradiction with the test of our philosophemes! Let the contradiction remain deep as it is. If the cognizable world is cracked, and we cannot actually destroy its cracks, then we should not cover them. If the mind of the cognizer is fragmented, if it is not a monolithic piece; if it contradicts itself, we must again not pretend that it does not exist. The powerless effort of the human mind to reconcile contradictions, the sluggish attempt to exert itself is long overdue with a cheerful recognition of contradictions.

The juxtaposition of one point of view with another in dialogue yields two-dimensional truth. The more points of view on the problem are taken into account, the more versatile is the truth as knowledge about the subject. We will get multidimensional, but not absolute truth.

Continuing the reflections of V. Dilthey and G. Rickert on the distinction between the methods of natural and human sciences, M. M. Bakhtin wrote: “... the subject as such cannot be perceived and studied as a thing, because as a subject he cannot, remaining a subject, become mute, consequently, its cognition can only be dialogical. Because dialogue is a fruitful form of development of humanitarian knowledge: “An idea begins to live, that is, to form, develop, find and update its verbal expression, generate new ideas, only entering into significant dialogical relations with other foreign ideas.

Human thought becomes a true thought, that is, an idea, only under conditions of living contact with someone else's thought, embodied in someone else's voice, that is, in someone else's consciousness expressed in the word. At the point of this contact of voices-consciousnesses, an idea is born and lives.

Bearing in mind the methodology of the humanities, M. M. Bakhtin wrote: philosophy “begins where exact science ends and other science begins. It can be defined as the metalanguage of all sciences (and all kinds of cognition and consciousness)." Indeed, philosophy is the methodology of knowledge, but not only and not so much of natural science as knowledge of the humanities. Accuracy and depth in the humanities, as emphasized by M. M. Bakhtin, have a significantly different meaning than in the natural ones. “The limit of accuracy in the natural sciences is identification (A=A). In the humanities, accuracy is overcoming the alienness of the alien without turning it into purely one's own.

The neo-Kantian Heinrich Rickert believed that "the method is the path leading to the goal." The method of natural science is "generalizing", reducing the truth to the "general", the method of history is "individualizing", seeing the truth in the concrete. And cognition, in his opinion, is not so much a reflection as a transformation, and, moreover, to a large extent, a simplification of reality. “Reality can become rational only through the abstract separation of heterogeneity and continuity. A continuous medium can be embraced by a concept only if it is homogeneous; but a heterogeneous environment can be comprehended in a concept only if we make cuts in it, as it were, i.e. subject to the transformation of its continuity into discontinuity.

In this way, two paths for the formation of concepts are opened up for science. We shape the heterogeneous continuity contained in any reality either into a homogeneous continuity or into a homogeneous discontinuity. Since such a formulation is possible, and reality can, of course, be called rational itself. It is irrational only for cognition, which wants to display it without any transformation and design. And from this it follows that "the goal of science is to bring all objects under general concepts, if possible the concepts of law."

As G. Rickert rightly noted, conceptual cognition “kills” life, logicalizes it, dissects it into separate parts that have little in common with life. “We should never think that we have captured living life itself with the concepts of philosophy, but, as philosophers, we can only set ourselves the task of approaching life as much as is compatible with the essence of philosophizing in concepts.” Irrationalism, according to G. Rickert, is "an understanding of the limits of rational knowledge."

Understanding is clarification, correlation with the system of established relations of meanings, that is, the introduction of new knowledge into the knowledge system.

Understanding is an intellectual "mastering", mastering by the subject of some object. Ways of understanding are determined by its object: scientific understanding with the help of concepts, artistic - artistic images.

When we ask questions in the process of researching and comprehending an object, the difference in methodologies is easily manifested: the rational-epistemological approach requires an answer to the questions: what is it? What does it look like and how does it differ from the already known? Irrational - axiological raises questions: Why? For what? How can it be used? What is the value of an object as a means of satisfying human needs?

Rationalism promised to teach man to "scientifically" and "rationally" manage the world. Irrationalism is not going to rule the world rationally. Its task is to determine the target settings and value orientations, in accordance with which it will be possible to draw up flexible programs that allow one to reorganize depending on the changing situation.

"Axiological irrationalism" does not call for the rejection of rationalism, but proposes to reject its claims to the absolute. Rational is only the mechanism that executes the program embedded in it. Even if the robot has a choice, it makes it in accordance with the criteria and conditions of choice laid down in it. Rationality is reasonable only within certain limits (practical activity, technology, production), beyond which it becomes unreasonable. So, a person, based on his interpretation of the good, tries to help other people contrary to their understanding of the good and value. For example, Russian populist socialists dreamed of making the Russian people happy by building a socialist society for them, but, ironically, “they wanted the best, but it turned out as always.” Philosophical rationalism and science aspire to monism as an ideal and obligatory requirement, for the sake of which rationalistic philosophy struggled for centuries with any form of irrationalism.

A reasonable compromise was proposed by M.M. Bakhtin in the form of the idea of ​​dialogue, the possibility of dialogic complementarity of rational and irrational ways of mastering the world. The concept of "ambivalence", dialectics, complementarity and "binarity" can be correlated with the idea of ​​dialogue. According to the definition of Yu.M. Lotman, “ambivalence is the removal of the opposite. And the statement remains true when the main thesis is replaced by the opposite.

This has been confirmed in a number of discoveries in the field of human social existence. This is the principle of the binarity of social systems by E. Durkheim. Domestic historian A.M. Zolotarev discovered binarity in social organization primitive society. V.P. Alekseev investigated the right-left symmetry of living organisms. This symmetry begins at the level of protein molecules and pervades all living things.

A. Bergson acted in the same direction. He explored two forms of knowledge, two ways of understanding the world - intellectual and intuitive. “Intuition and intellect represent two opposite directions of the work of consciousness. Intuition goes in the direction of life itself, while intellect goes in the opposite direction, and therefore it is quite natural that it turns out to be subordinate to the movement of matter. These are not two phases, higher and lower, but two parallel, complementary aspects of mastering the world, based on the activity of the left and right hemispheres of the brain. Analysis is a function of intellect (left hemisphere), synthesis is a function of intuition (right hemisphere).

Therefore, rationalism and irrationalism need not be opposed

supply (and absolutize any of them), but look for channels and ways of their interaction. This ensures a greater completeness of the development of the world. The rational approach implements analytical, differentiating accuracy, the irrational one - integrity, syntheticity.

Philosophy must overcome the one-sidedness of the rational-epistemological point of view of the world, supplement it with an irrational-value methodological setting and program. As V.V. Nalimov rightly writes, thanks to the union of the rational and the irrational, new prospects for the philosophical exploration of the world will open up.

The approach of V.V. Nalimov himself is to “make rationalism more sophisticated and flexible - to combine it with the personal principle, which finds its manifestation in meanings that are not covered by rationalistic constructions.”

According to Norbert Wiener, the main advantage of a person, in comparison with computers and robots, is “the ability of the brain to operate with vaguely defined concepts. In such cases, computers, at least at present, are almost incapable of self-programming. Meanwhile, our brain freely perceives poems, novels, pictures, the content of which any computer would have to reject as something amorphous. In other words, our advantage over robots lies in irrationality, in the ability to act and think irrationally, in rational thinking it is difficult for us to compete with them, they will give us a significant head start, but in the sphere of the irrational it is still difficult for them to navigate.

But when they master it, that's when they will be serious rivals for us, and the situations of the "Terminator" will become a reality.

Rational and irrational are not only opposite, but also complementary paradigms that have their own characteristics, possibilities and specifics. For the modern understanding of the mind, it is necessary to abandon the traditional identification of rationality and reason, the mind is the unity of the rational and the irrational. And this interaction is especially important when understanding complex phenomena. modern culture. To study complex phenomena, M.S. Kagan suggests relying on the principles of synergetics: firstly, self-motivation for the development of a complex phenomenon; secondly, the alternation of the states of chaos and harmony, the change of styles, the dominant of the rational and the irrational, the wave structure of the dynamics of complex processes; thirdly, the non-linearity of development.

As an example of an irrational approach, one can cite the phenomenon of axiology, the logic of value conditioning, the dependence of our ideas about the world on our interests. As the French thinker Blaise Pascal rightly noted, "our self-interest is another wonderful tool with which we gouge out our own eyes with pleasure."

The human mind is not only rational. It includes two complementary sides: rational and irrational. Here is what the Spanish writer and philosopher Miguel de Unamuno wrote about the irrationality of the mind: “Reason is a terrible thing. He strives for death, as memory - for stability ... Identity, which is death, is the aspiration of the mind. He seeks death, for life eludes him; he wants to freeze, to immobilize the fleeting stream in order to fix it. To analyze the body means to kill it and dissect it in the intellect. Science is a graveyard of dead ideas... Even poetry feeds on corpses. My own thoughts, torn off at least once from their roots in the heart, transplanted onto this paper and frozen on it in an unchanged form, are the corpses of thoughts. How, under these conditions, will the mind tell about the revelation of life? This is a tragic struggle, this is the essence of tragedy: the struggle of life against reason.

Hence the fear of irrationality, which can subjugate the mind, is understandable.

An important role in humanitarian knowledge is played by reflection - the ability of consciousness to focus on itself and make itself the subject of reflection, that is, not just to know, but to know what you know. However, reflection can have two essentially different forms. In natural science knowledge - critical (or negative) reflection, or epistemological reflection, aimed at solving the problems of verification, checking the reliability of the knowledge received. In the spiritual sphere, in particular in the mythological consciousness, it is an emotionally positive (non-critical) reflection, or self-assessment, aimed at a positive, encouraging self-determination and self-affirmation of a person.

The most important methods of humanitarian knowledge and understanding of the world include: insight (enlightenment), hermeneutic, symbolic, mythological, holistic, existential, non-causal (synchronous), functional-axiological, system-synthesizing, synergistic, teleological, psychoanalytic, phenomenological, dialectical, irrational - an intuitive method.

Thus, the rational and the irrational are not only opposite, but also complementary paradigms, which have their own characteristics, possibilities and specifics. For the modern understanding of the mind, it is necessary to abandon the traditional identification of rationality and reason, the mind is the unity of the rational and the irrational. And this interaction is especially important when comprehending the complex phenomena of modern culture.

Conclusion

Rational and irrational in the study of culture are complementary paradigms that have their own characteristics, possibilities and specifics.

The rational is characterized by the following features: unequivocal causality, determination; objective reliability, verifiability; adequate translatability and translation into other languages; discursiveness, awareness; connection with the quantitative characteristics of objects; discreteness, discontinuity; connection with the functions of the left hemisphere of the brain. Rational is used to comprehend the material and technical sphere and expresses mainly the spatial characteristics of the object.

The irrational is characterized by the following: ambiguous conditionality, synchronicity; subjective reliability, verifiability; incomplete broadcastability, translation with a remainder, co-creation; incomplete awareness, intuitiveness; connection with the qualitative characteristics of objects; continuity, continuity; connection with the functions of the right hemisphere of the brain. The irrational is used to comprehend the spiritual and humanitarian sphere and expresses mainly the temporal characteristics of the object.

It is necessary to abandon the traditional identification of rationality and reason, reason is the unity of the rational and the irrational. And this interaction is especially important when comprehending the complex phenomena of modern culture.

Bibliography

Aristotle. Cit.: V 4 t. M., 1975. T. 1.

3. Ivanov S. A. Methods of studying culture: Textbook. - Veliky Novgorod: NovGU im. Yaroslav the Wise, 2002.

4. Kagan M. S. Philosophy of culture. SPb., 1996.

Brief philosophical encyclopedia. Moscow: Progress, 2004.

Cultural studies of the XX century. Dictionary. St. Petersburg: University book, 1997.

Mudragey N. S. Rational and irrational - a philosophical problem (reading A. Schopenhauer) // Questions of Philosophy.- 1994.- No. 9. pp. 23 - 28.

Oduev S. F. Metamorphoses of irrationalism. Irrationalism in German Philosophy of the 19th-20th Centuries. Issue. 1-2. M., 1997.

Pascal B. Thoughts M., 1994.

Pivoev V. M. Rational and irrational in the methodology of humanitarian knowledge // M. M. Bakhtin and problems of the methodology of humanitarian knowledge. Sat. scientific articles. Petrozavodsk: Petrozavodsk State University Press, 2000.

Rozov M. A. On two aspects of the problem of reductionism. Pushchino, 1986.

Tutoring

Need help learning a topic?

Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Submit an application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

Tatyana Nikolaevna Prokofieva.

(From the book "Algebra and Geometry of Human Relations")

Function classes

In accordance with the dominant functions, Jung divided all psychological types into two classes: rational(thinking and feeling) and irrational(intuitive and sensing).

Definitions

Rational types- as mind-oriented traditions - tend to live with the decision made, to have a firm opinion (own or accepted). They are not inclined to change it, they usually have a stable firm position in any situation. If circumstances change, rationals need time to get used to them, get used to them, rebuild plans, make a new decision. Living with a decision - logical or ethical - that's main feature rational types. Whether this decision is successful or unsuccessful depends on intelligence, upbringing, etc., but it must be accepted.

These types in Myers-Briggs typology called judging or reasoning.

Irrational types- as focused on direct perception, in their view of the world - they strive to see new opportunities, to catch their feelings. Sometimes they are not in a hurry to make a decision, they observe, they collect information. If the situation changes, irrationals react to it faster than rationals, since they are more open to accepting new things.

AT Myers-Briggs typology these types are called perceivers.

Recall that Aushra Augustinavichute also calls these types schizotymes and cyclothymes, according to the theory of E. Kretschmer.
Indeed, at irrationals life cycles, ups and downs are more pronounced.
Life rationals usually more even, systematic, without pronounced cycles.

A. Augustinavichute writes about it this way:
"Why cyclothymes seem impulsive, and were even called irrational by C. G. Jung? Because their movements, actions and emotions are always the result of some feelings, some state of mind. A response to a feeling of comfort, discomfort, calmness, or uncertainty. Cyclothymes do not react to actions and emotions, but to the feelings caused by these actions. Therefore, their reactions are smooth, adapted to the situation, but not premeditated.
schizotymes react to an emotion with an emotion, to an act by an act, immediately. React intelligently and thoughtfully. Therefore, they seem more strict, decisive, "rational", their movements are faster and more angular, their emotions are sharper and colder.
Feeling for schizotyme- a consequence of an act, not its cause ... cyclothyma actions are impulsive, are an adaptation to the real situation and their own feelings.
It can be said that cyclothyme acts when he needs to get out of some situation, some state, and schizotim- on the contrary, when you need to create some kind of state, some kind of well-being. For example, cyclothyme cooks food to end the unpleasant feeling of hunger, and schizothyme cooks food in order to get a pleasant feeling of satiety as a result. Interestingly, the feeling of hunger on the mood of cyclothyme is much stronger than on the mood of schizotim: hungry schizotim can calmly wait longer than cyclothym. .

Rational tend to plan their lives, if something violates their plans, then they feel discomfort. It happens that a rational person has already planned in the morning what he will cook for dinner.
Irrational will think about what to cook when he wants to eat, trust plans less, it happens that every day starts a new life.
If you would like to invite rational to the cinema, you need to warn him in advance so that he has time to tune in, irrational it’s better to say: “let’s go now,” otherwise his plans may change several times before the campaign. If rational many days before the exam, he can distribute the material and study something all the days, irrational will still learn everything in the last day or two. In connection with all that has been said, irrationals one may get the impression that they are optional people, but this is not so. Irrational somewhat more difficult than rational, to fulfill consistently all the obligatory things one after another, but to remember your obligations and fulfill them is a property of a developed, educated person, and not a type of personality. Here one should not confuse typological and universal properties.

N. R. Yakushina compared irrational types with irrational numbers, which are difficult to calculate. She notes that rational difficult situations focus on one thing, change not so much the system of argumentation as the strength of the onslaught. The irrational ones are in the mode of "scanning", searching.

The maximum creative upsurge in the irrational occurs when it is necessary to find a way out of difficulties, moral or monetary. These are specialists in getting out of a ripe situation.

Rational - specialists in entering the situation, they are characterized by advance preparation.

Driving force rational- the mind, they often think, lay out on the shelves, and the driving force irrational- impression, they more often trust sensations, vision of opportunities.

Rational types have, as a rule, one goal. They always have a wide range of methods by which they achieve their goal..

Sometimes several methods are used in parallel, and new ones are invented. Any new goal requires development in the form of the invention of several ways to achieve it, therefore it is accepted with difficulty. It takes time to switch to it. If the goal has been achieved or has lost relevance, for example, caring for a grown child, and another goal has not yet been assimilated and has not acquired ways to achieve it, then a feeling may appear meaninglessness existence, a person can feel unnecessary, worthless. Loss of purpose causes confusion.

Irrational types set themselves many goals, easily switching from one to another, excluding some and including others. Goals are classified, revised, changed for various reasons. The methods of achieving them are unconscious and direct. A person tries to achieve several goals in one way. He likes to do several things "at the same time."

He sees and tries not to miss the by-products of his activities. A sense of helplessness may appear if the available means fail to "cover" the main array of existing goals.

In other words, for rational- if there is a goal, then it must certainly be achieved, for this, methods are invented. Rationals more likely to show consistency and purposefulness. For irrational there are always many goals, some one will achieve, "did not catch up, so warmed up." There is no need to invent methods: you cannot invent for all goals at once. Because of this irrational seem less collected than rational not disciplined enough. But it is not so. Irrational work no less than rational, and their work is no less productive. Rational approach to life is no better irrational, discipline itself is not yet a guarantee of success, attention to life in all its manifestations is also necessary. Each approach is successful in its own way. Here everyone chooses for himself.

Characteristically, when asked if you have a dream, rational replies with certainty that there is. While irrational will think, remember, can say that there are several of them, but so that “one, but fiery passion”, usually does not happen.

It is also noticed that irrational can easily read several books in parallel, or one, but from the end.

V. V. Gulenko notes such features rationals: uniformity in work, movements somewhat mechanistic, predictability of reactions, fixed at the achieved level. Rationals more consistent than irrationals, express the idea more coherently. And here are the characteristics irrationals: movements are smoother, as if there is no rigid core, undulating internal rhythm, naturalness, plasticity, reactions depend on the emotional state. Irrationals not fanatical, pick up new trends, talking about something, can be distracted by associations.

Table 6 Differences between rationals and irrationals

Rational depresses the expectation of the event, he prefers planned actions. As a last resort, one can say about his position: "Not by washing, so by rolling."
Irrational depresses the daily and systematic execution of obligatory actions that do not necessarily lead to good luck and at the same time distract attention, make it difficult to notice changes in the situation.

Misunderstanding can even rest on this: one believes that it is imperative to work at a desk, and forces the other to do the same. And he writes beautifully on his knee, the table depresses him, deprives him of inspiration. It’s just that to each his own, you should not impose your methods on anyone, otherwise one seems uncollected to the other, and the second to the first is a bore.

External differences between rationals and irrationals

A. Augustinavichute writes about the external differences between these types: “Schizotim from cyclothym can be distinguished to some extent by addition and especially by movements. Shizotimam if they even gain excess weight, there is some dryness. cyclotimam and when they are thin - the softness and roundness of the lines. Especially the softness of the lines of the face. As far as movements are concerned, schizotymes they are fixed. From angular and jumpy to as if sliding. However, in the "sliding" one feels stiffness, it is inflexible. At cyclothyma the movements are soft, always more or less impulsive". The same can be said about facial expressions and emotions: emotions cyclothyma much more impulsive, less controllable than emotions schizotyme.

N. R. Yakushina notes the features of speech rationals and irrationals. Rational they speak, as if they are laying them out on the shelves, they state thoughts sequentially, discrete words, a clear rhythm of speech. Irrational they speak more smoothly, smoothly, change the pace of speech, can jump from one thought to another. There are more rationals among radio and television announcers.

External differences between rationals and irrationals are clearly visible in the portraits:

Rice. 7. I. N. Kramskoy. Unknown Fig.8. E. Manet. Berthe Morisot

Features of compatibility of rational and irrational types

Rationality - irrationality non-complementary feature. The difference in this parameter is perceived most acutely: people of these types differ from each other in thinking, behavior, and lifestyle. Partners often lack mutual understanding, their ways of existence on earth are too different. In the extreme version, one can say about the position of the irrational: "Fate will come, it will find it on the stove." Such a position is incomprehensible to the rational, he may not have time to understand that this is his fate, quickly orient himself and grab his blue bird.

Fruitful cooperation is possible when both appreciate that both high susceptibility and consistency in the implementation of plans are needed for business. At the same time, partners need mutual respect, sufficient freedom and lack of pressure on each other. Relations between such different people will develop very well when they have a common goal. They can be united by an important matter for both, or an idea, or a mutual desire for the joys of life, or ensuring well-being and prosperity - the goals can be different, how many people, so many opinions. It is important here that the goal is common. The couple turns out to be very effective in achieving it, as one will choose the methods leading to success, and the other will try to see the opportunities that open up.

Here it is appropriate to talk about patterns in education and self-education. A pair of rational functions (logic - ethics) is guided by the norms developed by society. This is necessary for the transfer of experience accumulated in society. Irrational functions (intuition - sensorics) are focused directly on the world so that a person does not lose touch with reality. Both rational and irrational approaches are necessary for humanity. We need both the transfer of experience (so as not to repeat mistakes), and the perception of the new (for development). For the survival of each biological species, both the mechanism of heredity and the mechanism of variability are necessary. Therefore, although the signs of rationality - irrationality are not complementary for specific people, both of them are necessary for society, one cannot exist without the other, this would lead to disastrous consequences.

However, each person must choose his own path in life, understand what exactly it is valuable for, not blindly trust someone else's experience, not focus only on the dogmas of teachers and educators. If we draw an analogy with "Puzzle", then, of course, it is easier to assemble a picture according to a template, you feel more confident. But in life, the template is always from the past. The future may have a completely different pattern in mind. And it is important for us not to lose ourselves, not to miss our opportunities and to fully reveal our own individuality.

Activities for rationals and irrationals

Characteristic concepts for signs of rationality - irrationality

Besides:

Rational: order, hierarchy, prepare, deliberately, indisputably, deliberately, inertia, paradigm, obvious, organized, above, as previously stated, as promised, sum up, prescription, reserve, burdened, continuity, preparation, "measure seven times", conservative, traditions, verified, prepare a decision, draw a conclusion.

Irrational: adventure, suddenly, at the same time, incidentally, in passing, in spite of, meaning also sporadic, splash, insight, explosive character, improvisation, impromptu, resourcefulness, ignite, brainstorm, frivolous, innovative, generation, image changeable.