In what country was Mayakovsky born? The death of Mayakovsky: the tragic ending of the poet. Birth and family

Kant's ethics, which is commonly called the ethics of duty, is a doctrine of morality set forth in his works “Critique of Practical Reason” and “Metaphysics of Morals.”

The main concept of his ethics is will - the ability that allows you to select means to achieve certain goals. Kant called the will the handmaiden of reason. He raised the question of the existence free will. Arbitrary will is the most autonomous in appearance, but it is not free in its own form. Autonomous will compels in itself, acts from conformity with the law (form of law), and can be called duty. The human will acts according to principles, and not because of reasons, not because of, but in spite of.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau said that man is by nature good. Immanuel Kant responded to this by saying that man is not by nature, and it would be even more logical to say that he is evil.

Kant is looking for an answer to the question: what is morality, goodness? Trying to answer it, he tries to divide actions into good and evil. At the same time, when performing good deeds, a person is guided by his own will, he is guided by a certain motive, evil ones are aimed at achieving some goal. However, we never know the motives of others, so any ethics that tries to find motives for behavior is doomed to failure. There are no good and evil deeds, motives, people. The only good thing is good will, it is good in itself, because it alone is a pure form. Good will is also lawful.

The only thing we can say about a moral act is that it is autonomous, that is, it is a duty for its own sake. A person should be moral not for the sake of own interests, but for the sake of morality itself, and to be virtuous only for the sake of virtue itself. A person is obliged to fulfill his moral duty good behavior. He should not do good deeds because of the peculiarities of his character, but solely out of a sense of duty, he must overcome his inclinations and desires for this. Only such a person can be called moral, and not one who is inclined by nature to good deeds.

In general, Kant believed that a person's moral actions can be determined by three factors: duty, inclination and fear. Duty is a requirement arising from reason that determines our duties towards ourselves and others, as well as towards humanity as a whole. An inclination is a need, the satisfaction of which brings us pleasure or benefit. Fear is a feeling that tells us that the consequence of an event will be displeasure or harm. Kant believed that reason is self-legal (autonomous), and, therefore, in its practical application it itself gives the laws of human actions. Therefore, according to Kant, it is moral to obey the dictates of reason, the form of which is the categorical imperative, to which all principles of morality go back, and this is duty.

Ticket 25

“Practical principles” Kant calls the general determinations of the will, subordinate to which there are many particular practical rules. For example, general rule- take care of your own health - you can specify: go in for sports; eat in moderation, in accordance with your age; avoid excessive lusts, etc.

Kant divides practical principles on maxims and imperatives.

« Maxima is the subjective principle of volition", relating to to individuals, and not to all together. For example, the maxim “to avenge every injury done” presupposes a corresponding type of character that does not want to suffer an insult; or in a formulation closer to us: be more cunning than the offender.

Imperatives , on the contrary, are objective practical principles that are significant for everyone: “The idea of ​​an objective principle, insofar as it is compulsory for the will, is called the dictate of reason, and the formula of the will is called an imperative.” These commands, or oughts, are rules expressing the objective necessity of action.

If the mind could always direct the will, then all actions would be impeccable (which in fact is not the case due to the interference of emotional and empirical factors, which almost always corrupt the will).

Eat two types of imperatives: hypothetical and categorical. Imperative hypothetical , if it determines the will subject to the presence of certain goals. For example, “if you want to succeed, work hard to learn”, “if you want to become a champion, pump up your muscles”, or “if you want a carefree old age, learn to save”, etc. These imperatives have objective force for everyone who is interested in precisely these goals: to have or not to have, to desire or not to desire. They relate to the will, which means their objectivity and necessity are conditioned. Hypothetical imperatives act as a) rules of sophistication when referred to certain purposes; b) precautionary advice, such as, for example, in the search for happiness with an element of uncertainty, or: “be polite to others”, “try to be benevolent, suppress the egoist in yourself”

Categorical the imperative, on the contrary, determines the will not in terms of a specific desired goal, but simply the will as such, regardless of effects. Not “if you want, you must”, but “you must simply because you must” - this is the formula of the imperative as a categorical prescription. Only categorical imperatives are unconditional as practical law for a being that recognizes itself as intelligent. You can never know in advance whether this or that goal will be achieved or not, it doesn’t matter; All that matters is the pure will to act according to a rule recognized as law.

Categorical imperatives These are moral laws, universally necessary, but not in the sense in which natural laws are necessary. The latter cannot be circumvented, but moral laws may not be realized, for the human will is subject not only to reason, but also to sensual whims, when the will deviates, therefore moral laws are imperative and express an obligation ( german word mussen - natural necessity, as opposed to sollen - moral duty). An example of the first can be the maxim “people must die”, the prescription of the second type is “all people, as rational beings, must testify to the truth.”

Formulations

· “Act in such a way that the maxim of your will can always become the principle of universal legislation.”

· “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, both in your own person and in the person of everyone else, as an end, and never treat it only as a means.”

· “Act according to such a maxim, which at the same time can itself become a universal law.”

The similarity of formulations is obvious, but if the first emphasizes the will, then the third emphasizes the law. This means that we are not only subordinate, but the law itself is nothing more than the fruit of our rationality, therefore, it depends on us: what people are, such are the laws. With our mind and will we prescribe laws for ourselves for immediate execution. Hence the autonomy of the moral law, a question that Kant raised with maximum logical rigor.

Ticket 26

Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit. Self-development of the spirit. Knowledge and freedom.

Hegel created a classical philosophical system within the framework of German classical philosophy, which explained the entire universe, everything that exists, from a single beginning. One of Hegel's main works was “Phenomenology of Spirit”.

Philosophical system Hegel's theory consisted of a system and a method. main idea, which inspired Hegel - Fichte's conceptual system (the primary is a certain spirit, which, being active, realizes its freedom, alienating itself in certain results of its activity, and the results of this activity appear as frozen freedom of the spirit, as a necessity in which the original freedom crystallizes. ) The basis of Hegel’s system is the Absolute Spirit, which is everything, it contains all the diversity of the spirit. But initially this spirit is Spirit in itself; it does not know what it is. The task of the Spirit is self-knowledge in order to become a spirit for itself. (For example, let’s take a child who does not know his potential. And in order to understand who he really is, he needs to realize himself, to produce fruits through his activities).

The absolute spirit, being a spirit in itself, tries to become a spirit for itself, which occurs due to the development of the spirit, its “self-discovery”. The first stage in which the absolute spirit is realized is nature, then society and the third stage: human thinking. Society and human thinking are aimed at development, and the criterion for the development of society is the increasing role of freedom in it. Developmental thinking: emergence various forms public consciousness, such as morality, law, science. Philosophy according to Hegel is the pinnacle of the development of the human spirit. The system of the universe according to Hegel is built on the fact that the Absolute spirit realizes itself in natural world, society and human thinking, and through development human thinking comes to self-knowledge.

According to Hegel's philosophy, the self-development of the spirit (human consciousness) goes through three successive, progressive stages: subjective spirit, objective spirit and absolute spirit

The method of Hegel's philosophy is dialectics. (Dialectics as a general theory of development). That is, Hegel’s method is dialectical.

According to Hegel, the main form of knowledge is the concept. That is, there was a shift in emphasis from intuition to concepts, in which he reconsidered the very essence of the concept, which he understood as a detailed understanding of the essence of the matter. If you think in concepts, based on contradictions, you can comprehend the truth. Reason for Hegel is represented as the ability to comprehend and resolve contradictions.

According to Hegel, freedom as known objective necessity, as the ability to make appropriate decisions knowledgeably. Freedom is, first of all, the desire to realize one’s dreams, the desire to do anything that is necessary for one’s own “I” and for the human soul. But the most important goal is to get it. To have the right to freedom, the right to perform certain actions. That is why man was created for it from the very beginning. Freedom is the substance of the spirit, Hegel declares.

Ticket 27

"Dominion" and "slavery". Their importance for self-awareness

Hegel says that our consciousness finally rises to a form that is the opposition of two consciousnesses, that is, it is not consciousness and passive things (what is the subject of the dialectical), but the interaction of two spontaneous, independent consciousnesses endowed with freedom. And here the relationship between them is not knowledge, but recognition. And the logic of recognition is completely different from the logic of knowledge.

According to Hegel, self-consciousness, opposed to another consciousness, can think of itself only through the recognition of another, that is, as if in a mirror. And therefore self-awareness in the sense of recognition works as a limitation.

Self-consciousness is, first of all, simple being-for-itself, equal to itself, thanks to the exclusion of everything else from itself. This is a special form of knowledge that arises as a result of the confrontation of two consciousnesses. Self-consciousness is in itself and for itself because and due to the fact that it is in itself and for itself for some other self-consciousness, i.e. it exists only as something recognized.

The nature of theoretical knowledge is that a person says what is this thing in itself and it is passive, but man is the bearer of free spontaneous will. And as a result of this, knowledge of another is something other than knowledge in theoretical terms, because the other, as free, can never be a means for us, but always only an end. However, to know another means to know oneself, and to know oneself means to exclude everything else from oneself. A person perceives another only as an alter ego of himself; he excludes everything else from himself.

However, since recognition is a different form of knowledge, knowledge not related to space and time, it is an attempt to exclude from oneself everything that is private and random. The specificity of recognition is to show oneself not connected with any specific existence, not connected with the general singularity of existence in general, not connected with life. (i.e., as Kant said, to lay down a principle).

One of the two opposing consciousnesses, which finds out that it is important for it to be not connected with life, is ready to put its life on the line for the sake of its principles, and the second consciousness turns out to be tied more to life than to principles, more pragmatic. Thus, there are two opposing types of consciousness: “domination” - independent consciousness, for which being-for-itself is the essence, and “slavery” - non-independent, for which life or being for some other is the essence.

Dialectic of "master" and "slave".

At first it seems that the share of the serving consciousness, however, falls to the side of an insignificant relationship with the thing, since the thing retains its independence in this. But consumption only destroys. However, if all other things “the master can consume by consuming them,” then the “slave” is the only thing that can be consumed only by attaching it to labor. Labor, on the contrary, is inhibited desire, delayed disappearance, in other words, it forms. For the master, the direct relationship becomes, through mediation, a pure negation of the thing, or consumption. Through work, the serving consciousness comes to itself.

This formative action is at the same time the singularity or pure being-for-itself of consciousness, which now, in work directed outward, enters the element of constancy; the working consciousness, therefore, comes in this way to the contemplation of independent being as itself.