The bases of Philosophy- the tutorial..pdf

feeling of wholeness within the individual as one based upon empathy and characterized by the expression "we."

The most important spheres of this intimate association and co-operation— though by no means the only ones—are the family, the play group of children, and the neighborhood or community group of elders. These are practically universal, belonging to all times and all stages of development; and are accordingly a chief basis of what is universal in human nature and human ideals.

These groups, then, are springs of life, not only for the individual but for social institutions. They are only in part moulded by special traditions, and, in a larger degree, express a universal nature. The religion or government of other civilizations may seem alien to us, but the children or the family group wear the common life, and with them we can always make ourselves at home.

The view here maintained is that human nature is not something existing separately in the individual, but a group-nature or primary phase of society, a relatively simple and general condition of the social mind. It is something more, on the one hand, than the mere instinct that is born in us—though that enters into it— and something less, on the other, than the more elaborate development of ideas and sentiments that makes up institutions. It is the nature which is developed and expressed in those simple, face-to-face groups that are somewhat alike in all societies; groups of the family, the playground, and the neighborhood. In the essential similarity of these is to be found the basis, in experience, for similar ideas and sentiments in the human mind. Man does not have it at birth; he cannot acquire it except through fellowship, and it decays in isolation.

However, the notion of intimate and face-to-face association can be somewhat misleading. American sociologist Ellsworth Faris (1874-1953) suggested that Cooley's theory of the functions of primary relationships was correct but that his definition of them was inappropriate. Individuals need not face one another intimately to sustain a feeling of mutual identification and co-operation, nor do we find a sense of "we" in all face-to-face situations. Family members communicating by letter over vast distances may be engaged in a primary relationship, though they do not physically confront one another. Interaction between a robber and a bank clerk, a prostitute and her client, or individuals involved in a debate is physically intimate, but it is often far from primary. A primary relationship is one in which persons are uniquely related to one another in personal, informal, and total ways.

Sociologists use the concept, secondary relationships, to refer to those situations of interaction between individuals which do not possess primary attributes. Primary and secondary relationships can be thought of as representing dichotomous ends of a continuum representing all kinds of human relationships. At the primary end we find personal, informal, and total interaction; at the secondary end we find impersonal, formal, and partial interaction. Most relationships in the empirical world are a combination of these various aspects, being at the same time to some degree primary and secondary. However, like all scientific concepts, these are idealized types which make analysis of the empirical world clearer.

41

The primary relationship is personal in that it meets the individual's deepest and most meaningful needs. It is an informal situation where one is accepted as a total person, not for a special or particularized purpose. In primary situations we feel free to discuss our fears, hates, loves, and antagonisms. We are not bound by rigid rules and specified forms of conduct, and we are relatively free to experiment with a full range of human emotions in our interactions with others. In primary situations, we are accepted by others for what we are as total personalities, and, we, in turn, accept and treat others on the same basis.

Secondary relationships are situations in which the individual's personal needs are of little consequence or concern. They are highly formalized patterns of interaction with specific duties and obligations rather rigidly prescribed. Free expression of human emotions is not permitted to play a significant part in the interaction between individuals. Since each individual in the secondary situation must follow prescribed rules for behavior, he is important only as a partial self, only for the particular contribution which he is expected to make to that situation.

It’s the fundamental importance of both primary and secondary relationships to the maintenance of social life. Neither is good nor bad, desirable nor undesirable. A judgment about the value of these relationships depends entirely upon the nature of the social situation. Secondary relationships during a game or in the classroom help the teacher, student, and team member to perform more effectively their special tasks. They help maintain a kind of "democratic" process for the good of the individuals involved. If team members and opponents should respond to one another during a game in only primary ways, this form of intimate interaction could endanger the playing of the game. One might not throw a ball to another, knowing that the latter had a sore hand or was afraid to catch it. In the classroom, primary interaction would make it difficult, if not impossible, for the teacher to judge the academic capabilities of his students rationally. His grading would be affected by his personal attachments, positive and negative, to particular students.

On the other hand, the strength and persistence of society as a whole depends upon primary relationships. Recent studies of the performance of soldiers during battle indicate that a strong sense of attachment to one's buddies is the most important social factor in making an effective fighting man. The soldier feels committed to protecting the group, not just himself, in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. He performs great acts of heroism when he is willing to give his life to save others. If he does not feel this "we" commitment, he may run, hide, or engage in some other form of individualistic "I" action, which will be detrimental to the group. The battle and the war could be lost as a result. In addition, it is through this total commitment and attachment that the individual feels his strongest sense of being a fully social being. He feels important and necessary to others. This feeling provides him with the strength to face threatening situations. Durkheim's egoistic suicide results when individuals no longer feel this larger sense of social self, and, therefore, do not feel required or socially compelled to face severe situations bravely. Thus primary relationships relate the individual to society while, at the same time, protecting both from adversity.

42

Primary relationships are most likely to develop in certain groups. We can refer to these as primary groups. Such groups are likely to be small enough and longlasting enough for intimate bonds to build up between interacting persons. A circle of friends who have much in common over a period of time can become a primary group and serve many of the fundamental human needs for belonging, security, and meaningful communication. Membership in a friendship group tends to be voluntary and to make possible a relationship of equals where there is, relatively speaking, no one in authority over others. This is often a peer group wherein members are of the same age and of similar interests.

One of the best examples of a primary group, however, is a well-integrated family. It is not made up of persons equal in age and authority since parents must take major responsibility. It is not entered into voluntarily on the part of the children. Nevertheless, the family is a group which can make possible the most profound emotional ties and evoke the deepest feelings of both love and hate, both harmony and hostility. Since it is such a basic group, we will make references to the family at many points throughout this book. At this juncture, it will be sufficient to single out

from his first family and in most cases moves very soon into his own marriage and

his own family in a new location, often quite removed from the kinfolk. We refer to the latter as the small family because each husband and wife leave the kinship unit to set up their own household and live within the nuclear unit. The small family is called the conjugal unit (husband-wife-children), and the large family is known as the consanguine unit (several nuclear units associated in the

relationships may or may not be strong in a pre-modern kinship group and yet the family is usually held together permanently by social and economic expectations.

have nowhere to go apart from the family. In addition, divorce may be considered

which husband and wife freely select each other on the basis of love. Thus, if the relationship abides after marriage, there are strong ties within the conjugal family. If love becomes disappointing in the marriage, divorce may follow as each individual is capable of going it alone and there are fewer and fewer social stigmas attached to divorcees.

43

Not only is there variation in the character of family ties but ambivalent feelings are bound to occur in the intimacy of any primary group. Close friends or close family members have strong feelings of love and resentment or even hate. When these feelings occur at the same time in the same person, we refer to them as ambivalence. Husband and wife who love each other most of the time can enter into violent disputes. They feel so strongly about each other and have so much invested that they experience strong emotions, both positive and negative. Similarly, parents and children are ambivalent. Children are utterly dependent upon parents for a long period of time. Responsible parents meet their many needs and a bond of love emerges between them. Thus, there is mutual fulfillment of needs in the family group. At the same time, tensions develop in the best of families.

Sigmund Freud hypothesized that some of the love-hate feelings are due to rivalries between the sexes in the family. The son resents the father because both son and father are rivals for the mother's love. Freud called this rivalry the Oedipus Complex and implied that it could be found in all human families. His hypothesis has been modified, however, by anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowsky whose studies revealed that hostility within the family appears to stem in large part from the necessity of child discipline. Freud was right when he found almost inevitable hostility between father and son in the Western family (Europe for the most part), but, according to Malinowsky, hostility was due not to sex rivalry but to the fact that the father was disciplinarian and exercised authority over the child. To be disciplined and made to conform to group norms of what is right and wrong is painful for the child and resentments build up against the person who must say "No, no."

Malinowsky submitted as evidence for his counterhypothesis the fact that in other societies, where the father does not discipline his child, little father-son rivalry seems to exist. For example, with the Australian aborigines, the uncle in the kinship group exercises authority over the child and he is the one who is resented. The father in this matriarchal family system works with his family of orientation and merely visits and enjoys his own wife and children. It follows that when families differ in structure from the father-centered family of Western societies to mother-centered families in other parts of the world, love-hate relationships within the family differ also.

Control questions:

1.How can you explain the concept “self”?

2.How do you understand the concept “society”?

3.What is the interaction between self and society?

4.Can you show the difference between primary and secondary relationships?

5.What is the connection between family and society?

44

LECTURE 7: ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL SPHERES OF SOCIETY

1.The concept of production.

2.The productive forces and the relations of production.

3.The concept “state” in society development.

4.The political system in the state.

Economic sphere of society

Production, as is generally known, represents the human labour activity aimed at creating the means of satisfying their requirements in food, housing, clothes and so on. The general idea of production is concretized in the scientific concept of the mode of production, which characterizes its historical forms and stages of development. Any mode of production of material goods represents the historically determined unity of two inseparably bond aspects: the productive forces and the relations of production.

The productive forces include the instruments and means of production, and also the working people who put them into operation. The conversion of natural materials into goods which satisfy human needs is always effected through people's action upon the objects of labour by means of the instruments they have made. The productive forces of human labour are made up of the material factor (instruments, machinery, technology) and the personal factor (production experience, knowledge and skills, workers).

The historical development of each nation is inseparably linked with such natural geographical conditions as soil, climate, natural routes of communication, land features, mineral resources, the vegetable and animal world. The combination of two factors—the geographical environment and the social structure—accelerates or slows down the development of the productive forces, and determines the division of labour and specialization in agriculture and industry, transport and power engineering. The natural conditions influence the distribution of the productive forces and the degree of the inclusion of forces and nature objects into the production of material goods. However, the social basis of production and national wealth isn’t determined by the natural environment but by the development of the social individual, man himself.

The point is that the material and personal factors of productive forces aren’t identical in their role. The nature objects coming under man's purposeful labour activity are passive. The material basis of any production is the sum total of means of labour as the materialized results of the practical energy expended by several human generations. It is always people who put the means of labour, instruments and machines into operation and control them. The workers with their production skills, knowledge and experience of using the means of labour constitute the determining factor of production, and the chief productive force.

The high value of the human element of productive forces doesn’t mean that we should underestimate the role of the instruments of labour and technology. The system of the instruments of production is the factor which determines the utilization of the objects and properties of nature, the character of labour activity and the

45

productivity of labour. The instruments and means of production are the objective indicator of the level which man has achieved in his controlling over nature, and also they give rise to the technical and economic relations. Provided the means of labour and the skills of workers are basically similar, the productive forces of society depend on the level of the technical organization of labour processes, the rational employment of the workers and the means of labour, its division, specialization and cooperation. The character of the technological, organizational, and managerial relationships is determined not only by the level of development of material and personal factors within the productive forces but, first, by the prevailing economic relations.

Whereas the productive forces reflect the social relations existing between society and nature and the degree of human controlling over the elements of nature, the relations of production comprise those social relations which are essential to the functioning and development of production. Putting the means of production into operation presupposes that they are united with the labour forces. The relations of production are made up the social connections which appear between people in tie process of production, distribution, exchange and consumption of material goods.

Obviously, the production relations are diverse and vary with changes in the means of labour and the producers themselves. The most important among these relations are the relations between ownerships and the means of production, the relations of exchange of human activity and the relations of distribution.

The ownership or non-ownership of the instruments and means of production by various social groups and classes predetermines the types of human activity and the process of exchange of its results, and also the distribution of material goods production. Moreover, social or private ownership inevitably evokes, respectively, the production relations of cooperation and mutual help or the relations of economic dependence, domination and subjection.

Since the production relations of people are inherited by each subsequent generation together with the existing productive forces, they are material, i.e. are being shaped independently of people's will and desires. This explains the key place held by the material, production relations in any specific society. The objective economic relations acting as the indispensable form of people's individual activity, serve as a basis for all other social relations. It certainly does not follow that, for instance, the relations of domination and subjection are inevitable and eternal, for both the productive forces and the relations of production are in constant change.

The internal source for constant changes in and development of the productive forces is the interaction within their framework of material and personal factors, instruments and people. With the accumulation of production experience, knowledge and skills, people improve the available means of labour and create new ones. In their turn, the new means of labour enrich the production skills and technique, increase labour productivity and the efficiency of instruments and technology. This permanent improvement of the means of labour and the producers of material goods themselves brings about the historical progress of the productive forces.

The concrete relations of production arise under the influence of the level of development and character of the productive forces. Within the framework of a

46

certain mode of production, the production relations intensify the process of selfdevelopment of the productive forces. The newly arising production relations usually stimulate the productive forces for a certain period of time corresponding to the requirements of their development. The dynamic character of the productive forces and the relative stability of the relations of production together generate the discrepancies and contradictions between them which tend to deepen.

The interaction between the productive forces and the relations of production indicates their historical need to replace the obsolete production relations, which have become a brake on the development of production. Thus the old restrictive form of production relations gives way to a new form corresponding to the character and level of the progressing productive forces. Such an interaction of the productive forces and production relations is clearly traced throughout human history, beginning with primitive society.

To sum up this study of such concepts as productive forces, production relations and the mode of production we may draw a few general conclusions. First, the existence and development of human society is determined neither by supernatural forces, nor by the will and desires of outstanding individuals but by the emergence and development of the production and reproduction of material goods.

Second, material production itself changes and develops owing to its intrinsic law-governed regularities, its internal sources of self-development. On these grounds, philosophical science identifies the determining role of the productive forces in the development of the mode of production, and the active role of production relations in the development of productive forces.

Third, the replacement of one mode of production by another constitutes the economic basis, human independent in the natural historical movement of certain stages in human progress. The natural historical process of human development is the subject of the universal law of the correspondence the production relations to the character and level of development of the productive forces.

Fourth, although each specific society is characterized primarily by its intrinsic mode of production, it represents as a complex social organism where its elements form its structure, that is, its social organization.

Political sphere of society

The history of mankind shows that society is a social organism which is constantly growing and developing. As economic, national and other social relations are progressing, the structure of social life becomes more complex. Society is capable not only change its structure, but also develop in the direction of selforganization, self-regulation and self-government. Social power as a centre of selfgovernment in a social system comes out in different historical forms.

The primitive nature of social division of labour, the absence of class interests and coincidence of socio-economic human interests under the primitive-communal system pre-determined stateless forms of social self-government. Social power belonged to all members in primitive group which temporarily trusted necessary functions of managing some collective activities and social processes to their elected representatives.

47

As a result of social and class differentiation in societies based on private ownership new elements of the social structure—political social relations— appeared. Political relations are derived from the economic basis, social relations of which objectively take shape between nations and states. Political relations express the socio-economic interests of social groups.

Due to private property and growing economic domination the ruling group gradually acquires the material possibility to organize its own rule and management and to submit the whole of society to its will. At first, subordination of the traditional institutions of society serves this aim. Among them are councils of the elders, cult and religious organizations and organizational forms of tribal, family, clan and caste communities. The regulation of social life and social management acquires political character and social power acquires political form, the form of the state.

Thus, the state is an organization of the political power of the ruling group. Previously, social power corresponded to the people themselves, expressed the community of socio-economic requirements and interests of early human collectives. The state form of social power, while alienating itself from society, is called upon to defend the interests of the ruling group and keep others in submission.

In theological conception is maintained that the state is a divine origin: "power comes from God". Patriarchal theory of the state bases on the family and tribal relations, on blood kinship relations, and not on the territorial or economic ties. Some ideologists try to justify the existence of the state by psychological theory. According to it, people are helpless, weak-willed and passive and need constant guidance by active, strong-willed and energetic men. At present, typical definition of the state is "the state is a legally organized nation".

From its emergence the state is characterized by essential distinctive features. First, the emergence of public power with special groups of people dictating their will and ensuring political oppression and spiritual enslavement with the help of such means as the apparatus of officials, the army, legal, punitive and other bodies which are typical for the state. These component parts and instruments of public power appeared in place of the force of traditions, customs and habits which used to regulate the behavior and notions of the individuals in clan collectives.

Secondly, the state unites its subjects territorially, instead of the basis of blood relationship. Territorial boundaries contribute to the government protection of the political and economic interests of the ruling group. Within these bounds is manifested such a feature of state organization as permanent taxes from the population which are used for maintaining the apparatus of state power.

Along with these basic functions, the state more or less actively regulates interpersonal relations between citizens and strives to govern not only individuals, but also social groups and when it is convenient and advantageous to the ruling class. The concrete essence and correlation of the functions change in different types and forms of the state. The concept of the state form includes the forms of government, the state structure and political regimes. The existence of various forms of state power and state structure and their changes within the framework of one and the same type do not alter the essence of the state.

48

The slave-owning type of the state existed in the form of slave-owning democracy (that included only free citizens, not slaves); aristocratic slave-owning republic; monarchy (despotic state). Under feudalism power and government were organized in the form of the sovereignty of large possessions, feuds and principalities, feudal monarchy, absolute monarchy, aristocratic city-republics (free cities). Most characteristic of the present rule are parliamentary or presidential republics, although there exist parliamentary monarchies limited by constitutions. By their structure both monarchy and republic can have the form of an unitary state, and the form of federation and confederation.

Political regimes are understood as the sum total of methods and exercised the dictatorship of the ruling class in concrete historical conditions. Political regimes serve as indicators of how the political system of a given state is functioning and what possibilities are available to implement the civil rights and freedoms proclaimed by the ruling class.

Political standards, together with political relations emerging on the concrete economic basis, as well as political ideologies reflecting them, are the component parts of the political system of society. However, the nucleus of the political system is concentrated in the state, its apparatus and those political organizations and institutions which formulate and implement policies and regulate political relations. The concept of the political system includes different structural elements. Firstly, political institutions - the state, political parties and organizations. Secondly, communication relations which connect citizens, communities and social groups with political power, the centre of the regulation of vital activities. Thirdly, legal and political standards, traditions, the ethical standards of political life, and, fourthly, political ideology and legal consciousness which used as the means of political guidance.

The first principal specific feature of the political system is its priority over other spheres of society, due to the exercise of power compulsory for the whole society. The concept of power is the main characteristic of the political system in contrast, for example, to the economic system where the principal thing is the idea of property. The second specific feature is its dependence on the economic, social and cultural spheres of society. Political system is a superstructure which nature is ultimately determined by society's economic basis, its social structure. The third specific feature is the high activity of its special apparatus, the mechanism of impact on the whole society, the right and opportunity to guide and regulate its entire activity. The fourth specific feature is the relative independence of its structure elements: the state apparatus, parties, social institutions, and special legal and political standards.

These features can be referred to political systems of various types. They have a concrete social content in each economic structure, at each stage of its development. Power, politics, government are the main parameters of the political system. The concept of the state is used in two meanings: in a narrow sense the state is an institution of the political system having an apparatus of coercion at its disposal; and in a broad sense, this is an official manifestation of the whole society. In the latter instance the concept of the state is used as a synonym of the political system.

49

The concept of political system is broader than that of the state in a generally accepted (narrow) meaning of the word. It is also broader than the concept of political organization of society, although the latter is the most essential element of the political system. It is precisely through political organizations that the basic aims and tasks of society are advanced, and the determination of a political course, the formation of political and legal standards and the mobilization of its citizens proceed. But political system cannot be reduced to political class organizations only. Real political life and political relations are much broader than the activities of political organizations. They include, apart from political and legal standards, the political relations of various social communities characterizing the functioning of the political system and its interaction with other systems.

Control questions:

1.How do you understand the concept “mode of production”?

2.What is the interaction of productive forces and the relations of productions?

3.What is the concept “state”?

4.Could you explain the structure of the political system?

LECTURE 8: ETHICS AS A PHILOSOPHY STRUCTURE ELEMENT

1.The concept of morals.

2.Ethics as a branch of philosophy.

3.Ethics in its historical development.

Ethics (Greek ethika, from ethos, “character,” “custom”), principles or standards of human conduct, sometimes called morals (Latin mores, “customs”), and, by extension, the study of such principles, sometimes called moral philosophy. This article is concerned with ethics chiefly in the latter sense and is confined to that of Western civilization, although every culture has developed an ethic of its own.

Ethics, as a branch of philosophy, is considered a normative science, because it is concerned with norms of human conduct, as distinguished from the formal sciences, such as mathematics and logic, and the empirical sciences, such as chemistry and physics. The empirical social sciences, however, including psychology, impinge to some extent on the concerns of ethics in that they study social behaviour. For example, the social sciences frequently attempt to determine the relation of particular ethical principles to social behaviour and to investigate the cultural conditions that contribute to the formation of such principles.

Philosophers have attempted to determine goodness in conduct according to two chief principles, and have considered certain types of conduct either good in themselves or good because they conform to a particular moral standard. The former implies a final value, or summum bonum, which is desirable in itself and not merely as a means to an end. In the history of ethics there are three principal standards of conduct, each of which has been proposed as the highest good: happiness or pleasure; duty, virtue, or obligation; and perfection, the fullest harmonious development of human potential.

50