кандидат философских наук, доцент
Андижанский Государственный университет,
PhD, assist. of Prof.,
Andijan State University,
Понятие личности в элитологии
Аннотация: В данной статье рассматриваются различные аспекты изучения личности в элитологии.
Ключевые слова: личность, элитология, персонализм, эгалитаризм, элитологический персонализм.
The concept of person in the elitology
Summary: Different aspects of studying of person in the elitology are considered.
Keywords and phrases: person, Elitology, personalism, egalitarism, elitological personalism.
The concept of person in the elitology
In the center of traditional personalism always there was a problem of the person. Two kinds of personalism understand this problem from the opposite points of view: a) “egalitarian personalism” (this expanded, to be exact mass understanding of the term “person”) – the most important theoretical working out here is the analysis of “genesis of the person” and b) “elite personalism” – at the heart of this direction is the so-called doctrine of elite consciousness studying the nature of the outstanding person and leaning against philosophical tradition of Plato, F. Nietzsche, E.Fromm, E.Ilyenkov, etc.
Elitological personalism is a component of anthropological elitology and analyzes those intellectual problems of elite (meritocracy, spirit aristocracy) which most full characterize bases of an inner world of the person which activity represents universal values. “Elitology” and “Personalism” unite for the first time here to create a joint picture of spiritual growth of the outstanding person, to glance in the world of high ideas of such person and to understand that from her it represents actually. Thus “elitological personalism” is as though a core of all anthropological elitology, that central problem which as much as possible opens its maintenance.
Between two these kinds of personalism is an internal communication which is expressed that a subject of elitology the person becomes only as a result of end of psychological genesis of the person i.e. when it is possible to tell about him really that he is the outstanding person while egalitarism is occupied by studying of the genesis process. Thus, egalitarism is engaged in the analysis of quantitative changes of the individual consciousness, and elitology – the analysis of its qualitative condition. The last can possess two tendencies: a) to a new stage of genesis of the already qualitatively taken place person in “superperson” – self-development, elitopedagogics, ethics of spiritual perfection etc. («Sanctity» when the adherent arises on new spiritual heights of the person which can be simply inaccessible to consciousness of a society and not clear in a consequence of it, to anybody is a classical example to it, except for only selected circle – elite) and to b) “dual personality” on 1) analytical activity and 2) on creative stagnation (absence of synthesis) – a classical example here can be destiny of such outstanding person as F.W.J.Schelling who having taken place peak of the creative activity and glory, last years the life suffered from absence in him of “new ideas”, – he was a member of Academy, gave popular enough lectures which however, didn’t differ former originality. Earlier developed by him the genius theory, completely explained his late creative stagnation. Thus, three problems make a genetic circle of elitological personalism: a) personification problem, b) problem of the person as spiritual selectness and c) genius problem.
It is considered that the term “personalism has used for the first time by F. Schleiermacher in «Speech about religion to the educated people, its despising» (1799). As a philosophical direction personalism has arisen in the end of the XIX-th century in Russia (N.Berdyaev, L.Shestov, N.Lossky) and in the USA (B.Bowne, J.Royce), and then in 30th in France (E.Mounier, J. Lacroix).
Basically we can consider that personalism is a version of elitology when it absolutizes the person which problem always stood in center of the science about elite. However itself personalism extremely inconsistently adheres to elitological point of view in the approach to finding-out of essence of the person nature by it. So, for example, E.Mounier presumed to speak openly simultaneously to itself about originality and exclusiveness of the person and then to do awkward passages towards certain “democratization” of personalism: “Personalism, – he says, – isn’t ethics of “great people”, aristocratism of a new kind, which would be engaged in selection of the most outstanding psychological or spiritual achievements to transform their carriers into haughty and lonely geniuses of mankind. As it is known, – he admits – F. Nietzsche ‘s position was such. The large quantity of empty and vain, but declarations full general contempt has been said since then from his name. But if the person carries out itself, directing to the values staying in infinity, it appears called to extraordinary in the most ordinary life. However this extraordinarity doesn’t separate it from other people since each person has such calling. As Syoren Kierkegaard who sometimes nevertheless ran into temptation of an extreme measure writes, “the person rather unusual is the real ordinary person”
It, however, didn’t prevent E.Mounier to declare earlier several lines that “the higher private life is life of an exception, owing to the exclusiveness reaching inaccessible tops”. And more: “To be the person and to be original are the concepts which have strongly affirmed in language as synonyms. The original – tell about strongly pronounced individuality. In opinion of the cultural person of our epoch difference frequently turns to predominating value of the person”. E.Mounier consider that by the definition the person is that doesn’t repeat, though both persons and gestures of people, constantly getting off on some “platitude”, hopelessly copy each other. Easier to copy the ordinary person. More difficult, and sometimes it is simply impossible, to copy outstanding person. That doesn’t give in to copying is the person. According to E.Mounier, the person possesses invincible passion which burns in it like divine fire. But such people are very rare. The majority prefers independence to enslavement and the safety, financially secure vegetative life to vicissitudes of life. The new shape of the person essence is its freedom, and the free person is a person whom the world asks also which answers. The free person is person responsible. “Personalistical tendency, – tells J.Lacroix, – matters for any person who wants to promote the blessing of all mankind”. “The word “personalistical”, – writes P. Ricœur, – concerns all civilization, comprises civilization problem. Personalism on the origin is the pedagogics of public life connected with awakening of the person”. Speech, thus, goes about educational function of personalistic philosophy, about problems of “civilization” value.
Representatives of personalism assert that the higher act of the person is to agree on suffering and death for that not to betray the human beginning. The person begins, writes G.Marcel, in the moment when I find consciousness of that “I am something more, than my life”. The person is something “resistant to the account; personal being is a generosity. Overcoming by the person itself, – confirms K.Jaspers, is not only projection, it is as an eminence, “surpassing”. The personal being is the being, created to surpass itself.
Personalism is compelled to address constantly to an elite problem for the elite consciousness is the most adequate and actual object of research of the person nature. Moreover, personalism more often happens is compelled to adhere to the elite concept of the person as its main criterion is such concept as personification, i.e. research in most cases of spiritual heritage of “mighty of the earth”. In this plan the analysis of human personification of weight for personalism is less valuable, than the person of elite and in this sense about personalism we can tell as about elitology of person.
Now we must tell about elitological theory of person. In the scientific literature on this theme exists to 100 definitions of the person concept which number every year increases. Each of these definitions has the advantage both the lacks, and each researcher has the right to select for himself any of them, being guided thus by authority, common sense or simply sympathy for that or for other author. Finally, the problem of the person will simply sink in this sea of pluralism, nearly without having cleared us the nature of this Sphinx. For this purpose, what to understand this scientific chaos, we should find the most significant for the given problem parameters, those dominants on which we could be guided in further.
Such domination for us becomes elitarism, to be exact elitaristic point of view on the person problem. We should approach to the person problem of both from the point of view of its genesis, and from the point of view of its completeness. The first position is expressed by the analysis of structure of consciousness of the subject and first of all it “claims on a recognition” (by V.S.Mukhina), the second – in personification, i.e. in what this genesis basically should have its end (by A.V.Petrovsky).
As the person can consider himself everyone, but not everyone can be valid the person. On a question, “who is the person?” is possible to give absolutely unequivocal and simple answer: “When we speak about genesis of the person the person should be that individual in whom in the completeness this process has received end”. In what this completeness is shown? The answer – in personification. And proper response of “public” to claim to a recognition of the subject of the person can be acknowledgement to this conclusion.
The last representatives of elitarist position (E.V.Ilyenkov, E.Fromm) offered narrow enough (and owing to it already elite) definition of this concept from which number all are automatically excluded those who on those or other parameters doesn’t take place this rigid selection. Then this selection naturally (i.e. more objectively) the looks completeness of the person investigated by us more adequately. The elitology position of the person problem is reduced, thus, to that narrowed extremely thesis to which frameworks the only especially gifted person who capable to personification and was recognized in it from some number of persons which have apprehended its idea gets.
Requirement of the person to be the person is expressed that he unconsciousness aspires to continue himself, having transferred being of his I to other person and to share that with it a part of the inner world. There is that Petrovsky names personification which isn’t possible without the vigorous activity of the person. Activity also is the basic way and unique effective way to become the person. Activity, to be exact activity as creativity, also makes a basis of that the psychology names genesis of the person.
Thereupon we should divide a psychological stage of development of the person (described already enough in the psychological literature) and, we name it, a metaphysical stage which first of all will be connected with elitisation of individuality (as already developed psychological person). Carried by Elitology of consciousnesses in the category of branch theories of elite the personalist conception of philosophy can render us invaluable service in a substantiation of the elite doctrine of the person. We take as an example one not quite elite at first sight the statement of French personalist E.Mounier: “I am the person already at the bare level of the existence; incarnate existence, without depersonalizing me, is the intrinsic factor of my personal originality”. As, jealous critics of elitaristic conception of the person will tell to us how elitarists can carry personalism to the category of “branch theories of elite “if its representatives make such openly liberal statements?
The answer is simple. Everyone reading it, is inclined to perceive read on himself. A usual reflection! But. E.Mounier it writes not about all of us, and is exclusive about himself. Yes, his I is the person already at the bare level of its development! His, but not yours! E.Mounier by right can be carried by us to intellectual elite of a society, and he can, therefore dare to make similar statements. Perhaps, for he is E.Mounier – the person of elite. The person for it possesses personification, an example to that – the phrase read by you.
The elitaristic point of view on a problem of the person consists that the person is only that (already restriction directed on hierarchy) who is the personification carrier who is capable to splash out the advantage from himself and to become a significant valuable reference point (again a selectness) for other individualities capable of its perception which by means of this perception too become after he persons or find out a strongly pronounced potentiality to this transformation.
Thus: the person is the individuality which has objectively received the adequate answer to its subjective claim on recognition. Without it, i.e. in the absence of the adequate objective answer to a valuable call of the subject, for us there will be a pseudo-person – individuality with the overestimated criteria of the self-appraisal, got a false idea and is “person” only for himself. The phenomenon of the pseudo-person and connected with it the “pseudo-elite” phenomenon meets it in practice much more often, than the original person allocated with the certificate of personification. Therefore at the expanded interpretation of concept of the person those whom we just have now defined as the pseudo-person and those whom in narrow, i.e. elite understanding, will be the person with an adequate estimation of claim on a recognition expressed in the form of personification will enter into it also. The similar condition of things is simply inadmissible, as egalitirised is obvious not the compatible qualities hierarchically different from each other so that we have the right to speak about them as about absolutely various phenomena.
 Lossky V. N. Sketches of mystical divinity of the Eastern Church. Dogmatic divinity. Мoscow, 1991. S.18-19
 See: Schelling F.W.J. Compositions. In 2 p. Мoscow, 1989. P.1. S.481
 See: Karabushchenko P. L. Elitological personalism. Astrakhan. 1995
 See: Vdovina I.S. French personalism (1932 — 1982). Мoscow, 1990
 Mounier E. Personalism. Мoscow, 1993. S.63
 Ibid. S.62, 63
 La personnflisme aujourd’hui // Nouvelle critique. P., 1973. № 61, P.21-22
 Ricoeur P. L’histoire et verite. P., 1955. P.106, 107
 Mounier E. Personalism. Мoscow, 1993. S.68, 79, 80, 81, 82
 See: Mukhina V. S. Problems of genesis of the person. Мoscow, 1985; Mukhina V. S. Age psychology. Мoscow, 1998. С.58-74; Petrovsky A.V., Petrovsky V.A. Individ and its requirement to be the person// Questions of philosophy. № 3. 1982
 Mounier E. Personalism. Мoscow, 1993. S.33
652 total views, 2 views today