Fundamental science and culture. Science and religion

Federal agency of Education

State Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education Russian State Professional –

Pedagogical University

Institute of economics and management

Test

at the rate "Culturologists"

on this topic: "Culture and Science"

Completed by: student gr. Br – 315 with EU m

Shestakova V.V.

Checked: _________________________

Yekaterinburg city

INTRODUCTION

1. CULTURE: DEFINITION AND MEANING

1.1. Culture as an activity

1.2. Different meanings of the concept “culture”

1.3. Culture structure

2. THE PLACE OF SCIENCE IN THE CULTURAL SYSTEM

2.1. Specifics of science

2.2. The formation of science

2.3. Institutionalization of science

2.4. Science and technology

CONCLUSION

LIST OF REFERENCES USED

INTRODUCTION

“Culture” in modern humanitarian knowledge - open category. In the broadest sense, Culture is understood as opposition to Nature. Nature and Culture are related as “natural” and “artificial”. According to the famous American sociologist of Russian origin Pitirim Sorokin (1889 - 1968), culture is a “supernatural” phenomenon. Science, arising from the natural cultural need of man to understand the surrounding reality, becomes one of the most effective mechanisms for “man’s exit” from the natural world into the artificial (i.e. cultural) world or the transformation of the natural world in accordance with his needs into cultural reality.

1. Culture as an activity

The category “culture” denotes the content public life and human activities, which are biologically non-inherited, artificial, human-made objects (artifacts). Culture refers to organized collections of material objects, ideas and images; technologies for their manufacture and operation; sustainable connections between people and ways to regulate them; evaluative criteria available in society. It is created by the people themselves built environment existence and self-realization, a source of regulation of social interaction and behavior.”

Thus, culture can be represented in the unity of its three inextricably linked aspects: the methods of human sociocultural activity, the results of this activity and the degree of development of the individual.

Sociocultural activities human includes economic, political, artistic, religious, scientific, moral, legal, technical and industrial, communicative, environmental, etc. These types of activities are common to all cultures at all times. However, the forms and methods of sociocultural activity are not the same in different cultures and cultural eras (technical level of cultures of ancient civilizations, antiquity, the Middle Ages, modernity; modes of transport, methods of metal processing, clothing manufacturing technology, etc.). In this sense, culture acts as a system of extrabiological acquired and extrabiological inherited forms of human activity that are improved in the sociocultural process.

Technological aspect culture occupies a significant place in it. Depending on the types of objects they are aimed at creating, technologies are divided, firstly, into producing and transmitting symbols, and secondly, into creating physical objects, and thirdly, on the organizing systems of social interaction.

In the course of improving methods of activity, the formation, functioning and development of human personalities . Moreover, the individual simultaneously acts, firstly, as an object of cultural influence, that is, he assimilates culture in the process of his activity; secondly, a subject of cultural creativity, since in one form or another it is included in the process of creating culture; and thirdly, the individual is the bearer and exponent of cultural values, since his life activity unfolds in a certain cultural environment.

The material and spiritual results of sociocultural activity appear not only as certain achievements (values), but also as the negative consequences of this activity (environmental disasters, genocide, military disasters, etc.). The history of culture is a history not only of acquisitions, but also of losses. Culture presents both progressive and reactionary phenomena. Moreover, the basis for assessment changes over time, and the values themselves are devalued.

The results of human activity are manifested both in specialized areas of culture, where specific values are accumulated, and at the level of everyday culture, the culture of everyday life. We can say that the existence of culture is realized, as it were, on two levels: high, special, elite, and ordinary, everyday, mass. The culture of humanity manifests itself in unity and diversity. The differences between cultures that have ever existed and those that exist today are due, in particular, to spatiotemporal characteristics that give rise to a variety of life forms of individual peoples.

1.2. Different meanings of the concept “culture” ”

The concept of culture can be used in several meanings. Firstly, it can serve to designate any culturally specific -historical community, characterized by certain spatiotemporal parameters (primitive culture, culture of Ancient Egypt, culture of the Renaissance, culture Central Asia and so on.). Secondly, the term culture is used to specificity designations life forms of individual peoples(ethnic cultures). Thirdly, culture can be understood as some generalization, model, built according to a certain principle. Cultural models are created by researchers as a kind of ideal types for the purpose of a deeper study of culture based on generalization historical material, identifying forms of cultural life and its elements. They are often used in crop classification. In this sense, the term culture was used by J. Bachofen, N. Ya. Danilevsky, O. Spengler, M. Weber, A. Toynbee, P. Sorokin and others. Cultural models can be created not only at the level of the whole, but also at the level of elements: political culture, legal culture, artistic culture, professional culture, etc.

We can talk about integrity culture in the sense that it is a purely human phenomenon, that is, developing together with man and thanks to his creative efforts. People, precisely because they are people, at all times and, despite all the differences in the natural and geographical environment, pose the same questions to themselves, try to solve the same problems, arranging their life on Earth. Revealing the secrets of nature, the search for the meaning of life, creative impulses, the desire for harmony in human relationships, common to all times and peoples - this is not a complete list of the foundations on which the integrity of culture and the unity of the world socio-cultural process are based.

During this process there are changes in the culture itself. Its value basis is updated, becomes more flexible, new meanings and images are formed, language develops, etc. Over time, the sources of culture change, they are recognized by each new generation as deeper and more ancient, they are sacralized, that is, sanctified by religious tradition, their continuity is preserved.

In addition, over time, differentiation occurs within a culture, as a result of which its separate spheres arise, requiring new means of self-expression, new spiritual and practical experience. This is how painting, music, theater, architecture, philosophy, and science were born. Today we are also witnessing the differentiation of culture: new types of art are being born - holography, light music, computer graphics; new industries are emerging scientific knowledge.

In this sense, culture acts as a mechanism for consistent development, consolidation and transmission of values, as a balance of combining continuous modernization with an extremely high degree of continuity. Moreover, conservation is an immutable law of civilization, which determines the natural historicity of human activity.

Culture is a phenomenon organic to the life of humanity, its meaning is determined by the creative efforts of man to create a “new world”, “second nature”, or, as the Russian scientist Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky (1863 - 1945) believed, the “noosphere”, that is, the human sphere thoughts and minds, not subject to decay and death.

1.3. Culture structure

In accordance with modern ideas, the following structure of culture can be outlined.

In a single field of culture, two levels are distinguished: specialized and ordinary. Specialized level is divided into cumulative (where professional sociocultural experience is concentrated, accumulated, and the values of society are accumulated), and translational. Based on the anthropological model of man, on cumulative level, culture acts as an interconnection of elements, each of which is a consequence of a person’s predisposition to certain activities. These include: economic culture, political culture, legal culture, philosophical culture, religious culture, scientific and technical culture, artistic culture. Each of these elements at the cumulative level corresponds to an element of culture at ordinary level. They are closely interconnected and influence each other. Economic culture corresponds to housekeeping and maintaining a family budget; political - morals and customs; legal - morality; philosophy - everyday worldview; religions - superstitions and prejudices, folk beliefs; scientific and technical culture - practical technologies; artistic culture - everyday aesthetics (folk architecture, the art of home decoration). On translational level There is interaction between the cumulative and everyday levels; these are, as it were, certain communication channels through which cultural information is exchanged.

INTRODUCTION

Culture as a phenomenon is older and broader than science. Science, by its origin, is a sociocultural organism created by humanity in the process of its historical development. At the beginning, it functioned within the framework of mythology, religion, philosophy, art, labor activity, that is, within the framework of culture, understood in the broad sense of the word. Then it separated and began to acquire its own characteristics, develop its own laws, its own culture.

Modern science arose in Europe during the 15th-17th centuries. Being a special form of knowledge of the world and its transformation, science has formed an understanding of what the world, nature is, and how a person can and should relate to them. The main features of the scientific worldview, in contrast to the mythological, religious, aesthetic, etc. is the attitude towards nature as a set of natural events and processes, causally determined, occurring without the participation of forces and beings in them, not amenable to mathematical formalization.

People did not always perceive nature this way - antiquity and the Middle Ages “spiritualized” it, populating it with many creatures acting according to their own will and desire (Poseidon, Zeus, Perun, etc.), and, therefore, unpredictable. Therefore, it is wrong to think that the idea of nature as a mechanism, of its lawfulness, of the dominance of the causality of the physical-mechanical property in it is the result of reflection in the knowledge of nature as it is in itself. If this were so, people at all times, in all cultures, would have the same picture of the world - scientific, i.e. similar to the one that formed in Europe in modern times.

How does science differ from ordinary consciousness? Indeed, in their daily lives, people also study nature and the processes occurring in it. Science, in contrast to everyday knowledge, is oriented towards the search for essence, truth, i.e. that which does not lie on the surface of phenomena and processes is not given directly to the senses, moreover, it is hidden from them. It is impossible to penetrate into the essence of things through simple observation, generalization of facts, etc. Special procedures are required for transforming real objects into ideal ones that exist only in thought. For example, in nature there is no absolutely black body, a material point. Both are ideal objects, i.e. objects “constructed” by thought and adapted by it for their specific activity. The ability of thinking to work with ideal models was discovered back in Ancient Greece. The world of ideal structures is theoretical world. It is transformed, it is worked with only in thought and with the help of thought. For example, you can imagine in your mind that there is a world in which the resistance that arises when the surface of one body rubs against the surface of another has become infinitesimal. Having constructed such a world, one can then establish the laws that will operate in it. Precisely theoretically, i.e. mentally, having constructed such an ideal world, G. Galileo discovered the law of inertia known to us. Any science, therefore, is carried out through mental (rational) activity.

Definition of science

Science is an extremely complex, multidimensional and multi-level phenomenon. There are many definitions of science that reveal the content of this term:

Forms of human knowledge, component spiritual culture of society;

A special sphere of purposeful human activity, which includes scientists, with their knowledge and abilities, scientific institutions and has the task of research, based on certain methods of cognition, of the objective laws of the development of nature, society and thinking in order to foresee and transform reality in the interests of society;

System of concepts about phenomena and laws of reality;

A system of all practice-tested knowledge that is common product development of society;

Certain Kind social activities people, which was formed in the process of historical development and is aimed at understanding the laws of reality in the interests of practice;

A form of social consciousness, a reflection of reality in the public consciousness;

The final experience of humanity in a concentrated form, elements of the spiritual culture of all humanity, many historical eras and classes, as well as a method of foresight and active comprehension based on theoretical analysis of the phenomena of objective reality for the subsequent use of the results obtained in practice;

A system of knowledge in which ideological, philosophical, foundations and conclusions are an integral mandatory element.

All the given definitions of science indicate its vital role in culture, as already mentioned, the formation of science within culture is a long and complex process. Let's trace its main stages.

The relationship between man and nature is dual: on the one hand, he is part of it, and on the other, man confronts nature as a unique being capable of comprehending the principles of himself and nature. In the history of mankind, there is clearly an evolution from an “inclusive” understanding of nature to an “opposite” one.

The origin of science, the main features of European scientific thinking.

Anthropogenesis and the alienation of man from nature are interconnected processes. Their essential stage was the emergence of consciousness. Consciousness contrasted man with the world around him both objectively and subjectively. And it was precisely the subjective (self-conscious) opposition of man to nature that acted as a boundary in the relationship between MAN and the WORLD.

The archaic model of the universe is characterized by the perception of the world as a whole - a system of interconnected, interdependent, interdependent phenomena and processes, and these relationships are more sensual than rational. The world is in a precarious balance, the violation of which brings about the most catastrophic consequences. Therefore, any human action requires, as it were, a counterbalancing (compensating) reaction. This, in particular, is reflected in the need for certain magical actions that accompany any stage of the life of primitive communities.

In archaic cultures, man is understood literally as a part of a great natural organism, conceived as living and divine. The deep unity of man and nature is reflected in myths and rituals, which act as a symbolic attempt by man to indicate community with nature. Science here is, in principle, impossible, since technology is defined as “technology of chance” (J. Ortega y Gasset).

The emergence of craft technology and the beginnings of science changes man's relationship to nature. Social needs stimulate the emergence of astronomy, geodesy, and other areas of study of nature based on quantitative methods. However, in pre-Greek cultures, science is still closely intertwined with myth and does not rise to a critical understanding of reality. Only within the framework of ancient Greek sophistry (Protagoras, Prodicus, Hippias, etc.) was the myth subjected to radical criticism - the understanding was reached that everything must find justification in the Logos.

At its beginning, philosophy, noted V.S. Bibler, is a criticism of myth. Philosophy does not criticize particulars: it is all a “culture of doubt” both in existing logic and in the very criteria of truth. Philosophy has a significant influence on the formation of a new principle of worldview - rationality. This is how the discursive scientific method is born. Already Plato, identifying the epistemological specificity of knowledge in contrast to subjective conviction such as opinion, declared the conditions of the first to be rational, and the conditions of the second to be sensual. Thus, perhaps, boars, an understanding of the differences between scientific (“ideational”) and non-scientific (“felt”) truth arose.

However, the similarity of some constructions of modern science with ancient ones does not give reason to believe that science arose during this period. In the ancient view, the distinction between the sacred and the profane was firmly preserved, mathematical methods for studying nature were used sporadically (mainly in astronomy), and there was no systematic experiment. This determined the fact that science and technology in Ancient Greece did not have a significant impact on each other - they developed in parallel. Figure legendary Archimedes represents the exception that only confirms the correctness of the above thesis. Unlike subsequent science, which replaced substance with function, Greek metaphysics (represented by Plato and Aristotle) considered the subject of study to be the universal, manifested in the specific. Antiquity did not oppose Nature to man, in contrast to the Cartesian understanding of nature of the New Age, which dialectically contrasted thought and matter.

The prerequisites for classical European science are Christianity and Cartesian (coming from Descartes) philosophy. Christian monotheism (monotheism) made it possible to transform faith into a system of constant natural laws. Moreover, no other type of monotheism, except Christian, could create modern modern European science, since no other religion is so anthropocentric. By giving man a central place, asserting that once God became man, Christianity also stimulated inversion: man not only can, but must turn into God. For modern times, such a replacement of God by man has become very common. Already in the philosophy of Nicholas of Cusa (XV century Germany), the idea is held that by creating, man imitates the divine act of creation, and if Cusan is talking about the creation of mathematical entities, then later it was believed that not only the world of mathematical entities, but and the natural world is also created by man. The principle of verum-factum (I believe the facts) stimulated the understanding that by experimenting, man himself, as it were, creates nature.

If early antiquity was characterized by poeticization of nature, then ancient antiquity was characterized by an increasingly indifferent attitude, even an arrogant attitude towards it. According to A.I. Herzen, medieval scholasticism despised nature so much that it could not study it. “The scholastics considered nature a vile slave, ready to fulfill the willful whim of man, to indulge all unclean impulses, to tear him away from higher life, and, at the same time, they were afraid of its secret demonic influence... Scientific studies at this time acquired a purely bookish character, which they did not have in the Ancient World: whoever wanted to know opened a book, but turned away from life and nature.”

When the idea of a world of things independent of man and knowledge of the laws of this world, then, and not earlier, science is established, which becomes the dominant form of knowledge to this day. It is born in the bosom of European rationalism of the New Age, as mentioned above. The basic principles of new European activism can be traced back to the philosophy of R. Bacon (13th century). The “New Organon” (F. Bacon, 17th century) and the Reformation prepared the ground on which activism gradually became the leading form of Western European thought. Moreover, the area of religion is also no exception here: the penetration of activism reveals itself in Protestant theology and Protestant ethics. Unlike eastern tradition, based on the mystical-contemplative idea of man as a vessel of God, Protestantism considers man an instrument of divine providence, while especially emphasizing the rationality and civil state of the individual. “Thus, Protestantism tore man out of the ideas of the Catholic dogma about organic connection personality with the existing order of things and laid the foundation for a new worldview.”

In modern times, the MAN-NATURE relationship is transformed into a SUBJECT-OBJECT relationship. From now on, man is presented as a cognizing and acting principle (subject), and nature - as an object to be known and used. Activist utilitarianism believes that with the advent of man, nature splits into subject and object, which are both separated and connected through instrumental activity. From this moment, the movement of thought is carried out “in a rut of differentiation with the decomposition of activity into an object and method, the world res extensa and res cogitans of the whole - into foundations with a description of the functions and behavior of the initially elementary units.” Descartes' philosophy was essentially a radical absolutization of subjectivity, where subjectivity, through reflection, isolates itself from the world. It is the Cartesian teaching, both based on it and the resulting attitude towards natural reality, that largely determines the current situation of the global crisis of humanity, since nature, as res extensa, was sharply opposed to res cogitans.

It must be emphasized that in this view, man himself was posited as the boundary between res cogitans and res extensa, the former meaning only human consciousness. The physical nature of man is ranked as the second. The philosophy of Descartes argued that nature outside of man is devoid of subjectivity; in his opinion, both plants and animals are some kind of machines that do not have an inner world.

It was this understanding of the relationship between man and nature that predetermined the successes of modern natural science, because it swept aside ethical doubts about experiments on animals. But even more significant seems to be the fact that outside of human nature they have ceased to assume the presence of a mathematically inexhaustible remainder of subjective mental life, which resides in the sphere of quality and is therefore not subject to quantitative analysis. M. Heidegger noted in this regard: “The natural scientific method of representation explores nature as a calculable system of forces. Modern physics is not an experimental science because it uses instruments to establish facts about nature, but, on the contrary: since physics, and even as a pure theory, forces nature to present itself as a calculatedly predictable system of forces, an experiment is set up, namely, to establish that whether and how nature represented in this way makes itself felt.”

One of the main features of scientific knowledge - the subordination of quality to quantity - can be traced already in the Cartesian idea. New time overcomes man's emotional relationship with nature and turns the latter into a mathematized res extensa. Regardless of the worldview of the scientist, classical science thinks materialistically, because it believes material world things independent of man. The logic of science and modern European “ common sense”explains the one through the many, reduces temporal relations to spatial ones, process to structure, goal to functions. And this is nothing more than materialistic logic.

Reflecting the world in its materiality and development, science forms a single interconnected, developing system of knowledge about its laws. At the same time, it is divided into many branches of knowledge (special sciences), which differ from each other in what aspect of reality they study. According to the subject and method of cognition, one can distinguish the sciences of nature - natural science and society - social science (humanities, social sciences), knowledge, thinking - (epistemology, logic, etc.) A separate group consists of technical sciences. In turn, each group of sciences can be subjected to more detailed division.

Science as a social institution

During this process, firstly, the social institution of science is formed with its inherent system of values and norms, and, secondly, in one form or another, a correspondence is established between this system and the normative value system of culture. This correspondence, generally speaking, is never complete, so institutional tensions and conflicts always arise between science and society (which can be expressed, for example, in the fact that the dominant cultural values in society make certain areas of research that are feasible from the point of view of existing knowledge prohibited). scientific potential). At the same time, a situation of open and irreconcilable contradictions between these two systems of norms and values is impossible. The Social Institute of Science simply will not be formed and cannot exist in a culture whose value core is incompatible with the specific values of science.

From the above it follows that a serious change in the fundamental values of culture cannot but affect the normative and value structures of science (as, indeed, of any other sociocultural institution). These structures are also subject to changes, the direction and nature of which depend not only on the value core of culture, but also on previously formed values and norms of science.

In a word, changes in science are not an exceptional phenomenon, but rather, on the contrary, they are something quite common. It is necessary to take into account the fact that science, by historical standards, is a rather young social institution, moreover, an institution whose key values are continuous renewal. The normative requirement and internal motive of a scientist’s activity is the creation of new knowledge, the search for new problems and solutions, new methods. Because of this alone, conflicts between science and society themselves seem to be the norm, and therefore the task is not to prevent such conflicts, but to create mechanisms that allow them to be controlled and kept within certain limits. This presupposes a certain degree of flexibility in the normative and value structures of the culture in which the social institution of science exists and develops.

CONTRADICTION OF SCIENCE AND CULTURE

Scientific and technological progress and personality development.

As we realize the disproportionality of scientific and technological progress and further personal development, pessimistic views of the world and critical notes regarding the achievements of science and technology are growing. Apparently, as V. Bibler notes, “angry that reason cannot be reduced to a cognizing mind - in the twentieth century this is becoming more and more obvious - we abandon reason in general, rushing into some purely existential, irrational, ecstatic utopias " The changes taking place in the mass consciousness resemble the movements of a large pendulum, swinging from the highly raised mark “knowledge is power” to the exact opposite line - “the intellect is sick.” At the same time, quite often they try to substantiate the direct cause of the crisis of humanity by the crisis of science, which is focused mainly on material values, and not on the problems of meaning in life. Thus, in the philosophy of French existentialism, scientific and technological progress was debunked as opposing the intrinsic value of the individual, and in the philosophy of E. Husserl, the question of the crisis of science itself was raised.

In his work “The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology,” Husserl noted that, unlike the Renaissance, modern sciences are closed in considering problems that are not related to humanistic values human culture, have lost the main thing, namely, their ideological basis. Husserl's criticism was directed primarily against positivism, which substantiated the need for a strict search for scientific truth, detached from problems of meaning in life.

Under the influence of the methodology of positivism, philosophy turned out to be incapable of solving one of its main tasks, namely, to comprehend and introduce humanistic cultural values into science. This has led to the oblivion of the vital world of culture as the semantic foundation of science, as a result of which the modern scientist concentrates attention exclusively on the correlation between objects, ignoring his own subjective-semantic connections with them.

The absolutization of positivism, pure science, ultimately results in a person’s loss of understanding of his purpose in the world, of his essence as a subject of history and culture. A pessimistic worldview is connected with this, which, according to Husserl, indicates a crisis of “European sciences” and “European humanity.” Thus, from spirituality Western civilization humanistic ideals and values supplied by philosophy are emasculated; “European sciences” are turning into tools, deprived of responsibility for the fate of humanity.

Implemented in technology, science, of course, acts as a powerful tool for mastering the material projection of the world. However, by displacing, pushing to the periphery other forms of mastering reality, by secularizing religion, science lays claim to universality and thereby goes beyond the framework of material relations.

The absolutization of science limits thinking, initiates Homo scientificus (scientific man), who begins to treat the world exclusively as a world of manipulated, utilized objects. Bazarov’s credo: “Nature is not a temple, but a workshop. The person in it is a worker,” is the main motto of an entire historical era. “Increasing intellectualization and rationalization does not mean an increase in knowledge about the living conditions in which one has to exist. It means something else: people know or believe in something that you just have to want, and you can find out at any time, that, therefore, in principle there are no mysterious, incalculable forces that operate here, that, on the contrary, all things can master by calculation. The latter, in turn, means that the world is disenchanted.

Radical transformations of the essence of human productive activity based on the displacement of living labor by intellectualization and rationalization of life occurred in the process of transforming science into a direct technological force. If earlier, the production of material goods was characterized by routine, science influenced only its material elements, then today the replacement of mechanization with automation, freeing man from the role of an agent of technology, has extended the influence of science to the personal elements of production. The significance of the impact of science on the process of modernizing the technical base of production is much larger and does not come down to a simple replacement of human forces with natural ones. The point is to develop science into immediate “practical wealth.”

In the modern era, the creation of goods depends on functioning capacities, and not on living labor. Today we can state the emergence of a fundamentally new type of interaction between science and production: production is becoming knowledge-intensive, science is becoming industrial.

If in previous eras the applied orientation of science did not manifest itself systematically and was in its infancy, then, starting from the second half of the 20th century, the scientific and technological revolution manifested itself as a transition to an intensive type of development through rationally sanctioned industrialization and social modernization, active innovation policy . As V.V. Ilyin notes, starting from the 50s of the twentieth century, “acute social needs constituted the strengthening of efficient energy-intensive machine production, functioning in the rhythm of permanent utilization of knowledge. Until this moment, in the strict sense of the word, science as a sphere of social employment acted separately, purposefully, without focusing on the interests of industry, without satisfying its orders and demands.”

As Horkheimer and Adorno showed, due to the initial “totalitarian” aspirations of science and rationality in general, the scientific and technological revolution acts as a process that embraces all of science, and not just its “applied spheres,” all technology, and not just its most developed areas, where it is possible to use the latest scientific discoveries, and, in addition, the entire economy, all human behavior - the whole world human consciousness and self-awareness. In their opinion, the scientific and technological revolution traces its prehistory back to pre-mythological times, with only its culmination occurring in the mid-twentieth century. Scientific and technological revolution represents a universal process of total mediation by the “enlightened” mind of all human relations to nature, to himself and to his own kind, which is realized as a process of general “sterilization” of nature and man’s production of himself in the likeness of Goethe’s “homunculus”. Scientific and technological revolution is thus presented as a systematically holistic phenomenon, excluding, as untenable, attempts at its fragmentary consideration and assessment.

It is necessary to emphasize the contradictory nature of modern scientific and technological revolution: it marks the end of the natural era and the beginning of the artificial-technological era, the beginning of a new civilizational stage. K. Jaspers figuratively designated this stage as the “second Promethean era,” comparing it in terms of the significance and scale of the unfolding transformations with the era of “the formation of the basic constitutive properties of human existence,” the formation of man “as a species with all its usual inclinations and properties,” an era in which which laid the foundation of human existence, its essential basis, through “the use of fire and tools”, “the appearance of speech”, “the ways of forming a person’s violence against himself” (taboo), “the formation of groups and communities”, etc.

In addition, the scientific and technological revolution makes societies extremely dynamic systems, stimulating radical changes in social connections and forms of human communications. Changes in the type of cultural transfers lead to unprecedented expansion information space, bringing it to planetary limits, to a dialogue of interpenetration and mutual influence of cultures. In modern industrial societies there is a pronounced layer of innovations that constantly hack and rebuild cultural tradition, thereby complicating the processes of socialization, inculturation and human adaptation to the constantly changing conditions and demands of life, causing an increase in people’s social insecurity. The complication and intensification of sociocultural reality initiates the threatening scale of the modern personality crisis, leads to social tension, and an increase in the number of marginal layers of society.

The cultural meaning of techncratism and technocratic thinking.

The compass for science must be culture, understood and accepted not only as the ancestor of science, not only as something long past or hastily created momentarily, but as immortal, i.e. a continuously reproducing, ongoing present. Culture must be understood as an ongoing process, as an intense connection between the past, present and future. Such an intense connection can exist through the efforts of the mind, intense and at the same time free conscious action, the passions of the soul, connecting all three of these colors of time in the living space of the individual and society.

Culture is the language that unites humanity. This statement belongs to the Russian philosopher and theologian Fr. Pavel Florensky. Note: language unites humanity, and not the scientific world, which is a smaller part of it. Certainly, the most important task science consists in creating a language for describing one or another part of the objective or sociocultural world, which, from the point of view of a free scientist, deserves attention. But the scientist addresses himself to colleagues, to professionals, and not to humanity. When he changes the address, unfortunately, it turns out to be too late: Carthage has already been destroyed. Culture is an environment that grows and nourishes personality. Is it possible to say the same about science without sinning against the truth? A. Einstein said that if careerists and other unethical people are removed from the Temple of Science, this Temple will be greatly emptied. Doing science in itself does not automatically ensure personal growth: it is advisable to become a person before you become a scientist. This is one of the necessary conditions of that to become a real scientist, and not a functionary in science or from science.

Culture is productive existence. It is productive, not destructive, constructive, not destructive. It’s not for nothing that they say in Russia: “To break is not to build.” Therefore, culture is work, and its acquisition is no less work. B. Pasternak that culture does not rush into the arms of the first person it meets. Culture embodies not only labor, but also the human spirit, and for science (especially applied science), for technology, talent is enough, which, as we know, does not coincide with the spirit. Of course, in science and technology, as in other spheres of human activity, for example, in knighthood or monasticism, personalities are forged and the human spirit is formed.

Science and technology have today become the source of many global problems of our time, the solution of which humanity is still far from solving. Such problems also include problems of culture and education. The paradox is that to solve these problems, humanity is forced to turn to the same science. But rather, we must turn not to the same, but to another, better, humane, cultural science. However, is there such a thing, and if not, then on what grounds should it be built? So far, calls to strengthen ties between the natural, technical and human sciences, including Ilya Prigozhin’s call to make all sciences humanities, are not very effective. The traditions of technicism are too strong, pushing science onto the path of thoughtless and even insane knowledge and changing the world. Now technocentric orientations have permeated not only the technical and natural sciences, but even the humanities. Technocratic thinking has become the main tool of modern science.

The prehistory of technicism can be traced from the Platonists’ philosophical concept of the Demiurge to the biblical tradition, but technicalism itself appears as a spiritual phenomenon much later. Its foundations were laid in the Renaissance with its poeticization of the human creator, improving the divine world order with his technological power. Modern times implemented these principles in the ontological and anthropological constructions of mechanism, and the twentieth century - in the field of sociology and political science. P.V. Palievsky wrote well about the inorganic nature of the thesis of the re-creation of nature: “And they re-create, little caring about the fact that having cut this natural “imperfection” into functions, it cannot be composed and collected in its former living quality. Anyone who thinks that it is still possible to assemble - you just have to find out “how it’s done” - is mistaken: a person (and in general everything natural) is not a doll, precisely because the secret of its production has no beginning; one can only more or less successfully reproduce what is now known and recognized, i.e. from the outside to cut and sew some semblance of a movement growing from within; sometimes it is very close, to the point of indistinguishability, to make something that moves, even speaks, etc., having all the functions except one - the presence in it of all the wealth of the world.”

A striking description of technicism as the likening of reality to a complex of technical devices is given in the article by G. Sinchenko, N. Nikolaenko, V. Shkarupa “From technicism to eco-reason.” The authors note that from a psychological point of view, technicalism focuses professional pride, enthusiasm, “guild” cohesion of the certified descendants of Archimedes and at the same time “carries the gene of “professional cretinism” of a priori disdain and deafness to alternative, and simply non-engineering standards and traditions.”

The doctrine of technicalism is based on the position that the world will be saved by engineering care: “The God of technicalism is the great engineer. The world he created is a promised land for the human engineer: it embraces everything as an object or means of engineering action, which for the first time gives things their true meaning... The evolution of this doctrine was predetermined by the miraculous transformation of the hard-working Cinderella of technology into the dazzling queen of material exchange.”

Technocratic thinking is not an integral feature of representatives of science in general and technical knowledge in particular. It can be characteristic of a politician, a representative of the arts, a humanist, a subject teacher, and an educator. Technocratic thinking is a worldview, the essential features of which are the primacy of means over ends, ends over meaning and universal human interests, meaning over being and the realities of the modern world, technology (including psychothetics) over man, his values, and culture. Technocratic thinking is Reason, to which Reason and Wisdom are alien. For technocratic thinking there are no categories of morality, conscience, human experience and dignity.

An essential feature of technocratic thinking is the view of a person as a trainable, programmable component of the system, as an object of a wide variety of manipulations, and not as a person, who is characterized not only by the activity itself, but also by freedom in relation to the possible space of activities. Technocratic thinking quite well programs its inherent subjectivism, which, in turn, lies behind certain social interests.

Technocratic thinking cannot be identified with the thinking of scientists or technicians. Technocratic thinking is rather a prototype of artificial intelligence. Although the latter does not exist yet, technocratic thinking is already a reality, and there is a danger that the artificial intelligence created on the basis of its means will be even more terrible, especially if it, in all its sterility, becomes a prototype of human thinking. Now technocratic thinking is losing the scale that should characterize any form of human activity - man himself - and forgets that man is the measure of all things. Science and especially technology have risen above man, ceased to be a means, but became the meaning and goal. Technocratic thinking, being spiritually empty, has a devastating effect on culture, destroys the soul of a scientist, and deforms the Spirit of science.

Under the influence of the modern scientific and technological revolution, the volumes and scales of goal-setting human activity are expanding, which causes a fundamental change in reality: two forms of the objective process - nature and human activity - are gradually synthesized, merging into one. Today it has become obvious that scientific and technical activity is steadily being drawn into natural cycles, and nature into the process of scientific and technical activity. It can be stated that humanity has approached the threshold beyond which objectively embodied knowledge replaces the biosphere with the noosphere, the world of technical artifacts. “The gigantic world created by man not only stunned us, but at times made a downright frightening impression. Clusters of interconnected human and natural systems and subsystems - with all the diversity that they acquired in different areas - turned out to be directly or indirectly connected with each other. And their network entangled the entire planet, forcing it to serve practical purposes. Any damage or disruption in one of these systems can easily spread to others, sometimes becoming epidemic in nature,”

The culprit of the catastrophic situation in which humanity finds itself is the cultivated new European type of rationality. There is more irrationality than rationality human actions, there is technological idiocy and rationality without reason, rationality is insane. The discrepancy between the target and value types of rationality underlies the crisis processes of the modern era. The power that humanity possesses today, and which it did not previously have, increasingly persistently raises the question of bringing the values and goals of social cultural development.

CONCLUSION

Thus, the role of science in culture is assessed differently. On the one hand, science allowed man to go into space, make a “green revolution, feed many hungry people in developing countries, and created such powerful amplifiers human intelligence, like computers. On the other hand, the consequences of scientific activity are the Chernobyl disaster, the development of weapons of mass destruction and a number of environmental disasters that befell humans.

There is no clear answer to the question of what science is - good or evil. Science can be both, depending on whose hands it is in and for what purposes its results are used. If its results are used by competent, highly moral people, then science is good. The consequences of scientific activity also depend on moral qualities and on their knowledge and skills.

List of used literature

1. Bibler V. Civilization and culture. M.1993.

2. Budov A.I. Protestantism and Orthodoxy as forms of self-awareness in culture // Comprehension of culture. M. RICK. 1995

3. Weber M. Science as a calling and profession.// World through culture. Issue 2, MSTU, M., 1995.

4. Herzen A.I. Collected works in 30 volumes. T.3. M., 1954.

5. Ilyin V.V. Theory of knowledge. Epistepology. M. MSU, 1994.

6. Science in the mirror of XX philosophy. M., 1992

Scientific progress; Cognitive and sociocultural aspects. M. 1993.

8. Palievsky P.V. Literature and theory. M. 1979.

9. Peccei A. Human qualities. M. 1980, p.40

10. Sinchenko G., Nikolaenko N., Shkarupa V. From technitism to eco-reason. // Alma mater. No. 1 1991

11. Stepin V.S., Kuznetsova L.F. Scientific picture of the world in the culture of technogenic civilization. M. 1992.

12. Heidegger M. Question about technology. //Heidegger M. Time and Being. M.1993.

13. K. Jaspers. The origins of history and its purpose. // The meaning and purpose of history. M.1993.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation

State educational institution higher professional education

"Vladimir State University"

Rabstract

Discipline: Concepttions modern natural science

Tema: “Science and culture”

Vladimir 2011

Introduction

1. The formation of science

2. Institutionalization of science

3. Science and technology

4. Science how open form culture

Conclusion

Introduction

For example, what distinguishes it from art, as another important element of culture, is the desire for logical, maximally generalized, objective knowledge. Art is often characterized as “thinking in images,” while science is “thinking in concepts.” Thus, they emphasize that art is based on the sensory-imaginative side of human creative abilities, and science is based on the conceptual-intellectual side. This does not mean that there are impassable boundaries between science and art, as well as between science and other cultural phenomena.

1. The formation of science

As shown modern research, this position can be expressed in the strict formula of the exponential law, which characterizes the increase in certain parameters of science since the 17th century. Thus, the volume of scientific activity doubles approximately every 10-15 years, which is reflected in the accelerating growth of the number of scientific discoveries and scientific information, as well as the number of people professionally involved in science. According to UNESCO, over the past 50 years the annual increase in the number of scientific workers has been 7%, while the overall population has grown by only 1.7% per year. As a result, the number of living scientists and scientific workers is over 90% of total number scientists throughout the history of science.

The development of science is characterized by a cumulative nature: at each historical stage it summarizes its past achievements in a concentrated form, and each result of science is an integral part of its general fund; it is not crossed out by subsequent advances in knowledge, but is only rethought and clarified. The continuity of science ensures its functioning as special type“cultural memory” of humanity, theoretically crystallizing the past experience of knowledge and mastery of its laws.

Each specific structure scientific thinking after its approval, it opens the way to the extensive development of knowledge, to its extension to new spheres of reality. However, the accumulation of new material that cannot be explained on the basis of existing schemes, forces us to look for new, intensive ways and developments of science, which leads from time to time to scientific revolutions, that is, a radical change in the main components of the content structure of science, to the promotion of new principles of knowledge, categories and methods of science. The alternation of extensive and revolutionary periods of development is characteristic of both science in general and for its individual branches.

The entire history of science is permeated by a complex combination of processes of differentiation and integration: the development of new areas of reality and the deepening of knowledge leads to the differentiation of science, to its fragmentation into increasingly specialized areas of knowledge; at the same time, the need for a synthesis of knowledge is constantly expressed in the tendency towards the integration of science. Initially, new branches of science were formed according to subject attribute- in accordance with the involvement in the process of cognition of new areas and aspects of reality. For modern science, the transition to a problem orientation is becoming increasingly characteristic, when new areas of knowledge arise in connection with the promotion of certain theoretical or practical problems. Important integrating functions in relation to individual branches of science are performed by philosophy, as well as such scientific disciplines as mathematics, logic, cybernetics, which equip science with a system of unified methods.

Scientific disciplines, which in their totality form the system of science as a whole, can very conditionally be divided into three large groups- natural, socio-humanitarian and technical, differing in their subjects and methods. Along with traditional research conducted within any one branch of science, the problematic nature of the orientation of modern science has given rise to the widespread development of interdisciplinary and comprehensive research carried out by means of various scientific disciplines, the specific combination of which is determined by the nature of the relevant problems. An example of this is the study of environmental problems located at the crossroads of technical, biological sciences, soil science, geography, geology, medicine, economics, mathematics, etc.

Problems of this kind that arise in connection with the solution of major economic and social problems are typical of modern science. According to their focus, according to their direct relation to practical activities, science is usually divided into fundamental and applied. The task of fundamental sciences is to understand the laws governing the behavior and interaction of the basic structures of nature and culture. These laws are studied in “ pure form” regardless of their possible use. Immediate goal applied sciences- application of the results of fundamental sciences to solve not only cognitive, but also social and practical problems. Usually, basic sciences are ahead of applied ones in their development, creating a theoretical foundation for them.

In science, we can distinguish empirical and theoretical levels of research and organization of knowledge. Elements of empirical knowledge are facts obtained through observations and experiments and stating the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the objects and phenomena being studied. Stable connections between empirical characteristics are expressed in empirical laws, often of a probabilistic nature. The theoretical level of scientific knowledge presupposes the discovery of laws that provide the possibility of an idealized description and explanation of empirical phenomena. The formation of the theoretical level of science leads to a qualitative change in the empirical level.

All theoretical disciplines, one way or another, have their historical roots in practical experience. However, in the course of the development of individual sciences, purely theoretical ones are discovered (for example, mathematics), returning to experience only in the sphere of their practical applications.

2 . Institutionalization of science

The formation of science as a socio-cultural institution occurred in the 17th and 18th centuries, when the first scientific societies and academies were formed in Europe, and the publication of scientific journals began. At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries there arose new way scientific organizations - large scientific institutes and laboratories with powerful technical base, which brings scientific activity closer to the forms of modern industrial labor. Modern science becomes more and more deeply connected with other institutionalized elements of culture, permeating not only production, but also politics, administrative activities, etc. Until the end of the 19th century, science played a supporting role in relation to, for example, production. Then the development of science begins to outstrip the development of technology and production, and a single complex “SCIENCE-TECHNOLOGY-PRODUCTION” takes shape, in which science plays a leading role.

3 . Science and technology

Science of the 20th century is characterized by a strong and close relationship with technology, which is the basis of the modern scientific and technological revolution, defined by many researchers as the main cultural dominant of our era. The new level of interaction between science and technology in the twentieth century not only led to the fact that new technology occurs as a by-product basic research, but also determined the formation of various technical theories. The general cultural purpose of technology is to free man from the “embraces” of nature, to gain him freedom and some independence from nature. But, having freed himself from strict natural necessity, man in its place, in general, imperceptibly for himself, put strict technical necessity, finding himself in captivity of unforeseen side effects technical environment, such as deterioration environment, lack of resources, etc. We are forced to adapt to the laws of the functioning of technical devices, associated, for example, with the division of labor, rationing, punctuality, shift work, and put up with the environmental consequences of their impact. Advances in technology, especially modern technology, require an inevitable price to be paid for.

Technology, replacing human labor and leading to increased productivity, gives rise to the problem of organizing leisure time and unemployment. We pay for the comfort of our homes through the disunity of people. Achieving mobility with the help of personal transport is purchased at the price of noise pollution, the inconvenience of cities and ruined nature. Medical technology, significantly increasing life expectancy, puts developing countries facing the problem of population explosion. Technology that makes it possible to interfere with hereditary nature creates a threat to human individuality, human dignity and the uniqueness of the individual.

By influencing the intellectual and spiritual life of the individual (and society), modern computerization intensifies mental work and increases the “resolving power” of the human brain. But the increasing rationalization of labor, production and all human life with the help modern technology is fraught with the monopolization of computer rationalism, which is expressed in the progression of the external rationality of life at the expense of the internal, due to a decrease in the autonomy and depth of human intelligence, due to the gap between reason and reason. “Algebroization”, “algorithmization” of the style of thinking, based on formal logical methods of forming concepts on which the operation of a modern computer rests, is ensured by the transformation of the mind into a cybernetic, pragmatically oriented mind, losing the figurative, emotional coloring of thinking and communication.

As a consequence of this, the deformation of spiritual communication and spiritual connections is increasing: spiritual values are increasingly turning into bare anonymous information, designed for the average consumer and leveling personal and individual perception. Global computerization is fraught with the danger of losing dialogical communication with other people, giving rise to a “deficit of humanity,” the emergence of early psychological aging of society and human loneliness, and even a decrease in physical health.

There is no doubt that computer technology plays a significant role in professional development person, has a great influence on the general cultural development of the individual: it promotes the growth of creativity in work and knowledge, develops initiative, moral responsibility, increases the intellectual wealth of the individual, sharpens people’s understanding of the meaning of their life and the purpose of man in society and in the universal world. But it is also true that it carries a threat of spiritual one-sidedness, expressed in the formation of a technocratic type of personality.

4 . Onscience as an open form of culture

From the fact that science is aimed at criticizing comfort, it follows that ideas about the world formed on its basis can be qualified, at least in a tendency, as inhuman and thereby, in a certain sense, as inhuman. There is something scary in science for a person merged with his comfortable world. Even the ancients felt the danger of knowledge. Solomon said “he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.” Pre-scientific culture tried to prevent man from penetrating into the endless layers of reality, to hide the knowledge already acquired in a narrow subculture of priests. Knowledge exceeding a certain limit acceptable in the corresponding culture brought discomfort. The relative weakness of reproductive capabilities did not allow adequately respond to new knowledge, build an effective program of reproduction. Against this background, the movement of science was an act of unheard-of courage, an attempt to enter hell, to move further and deeper into it. But other forms of culture, especially art, took the path of creating a different comfort. Avant-gardeism and modernism constantly stormed the historically established boundaries of the comfortable world. Science, by the very fact of its existence, opens up the immobility of the comfortable world, with streams of novelty that are disorganizing for this world; what was understandable yesterday becomes incomprehensible; what was considered safe yesterday is a threat to man. . It turned out that it was dangerous to use lead cups; the ancients did not know this, and this ignorance, according to some experts, greatly damaged Ancient Rome. Recently it became known that seemingly harmless electromagnetic fields are dangerous for humans. Areas that scientists regard as fraught with earthquakes are spreading across maps of the earth. Modern science seems to be sophisticated in looking for these dangers literally everywhere. Their continuous discoveries do not make life emotionally more enjoyable. There is, however, a reverse process. It turned out that the demon who is constantly trying to harm everyone is an illusion, as is the danger from the “evil eye”, from a cat crossing the road, etc.

The closedness of comfortable ideas carries with it the threat of being at the mercy of illusions, the inertia of history that has come to us from the past, perhaps comfortable, but, alas, no longer for us, not for today’s world. Here humanity is faced with a fundamental problem, on the constant daily solution of which the existence of people depends. The discrepancy between two comfortable pictures of the world permeates the way of life, reproduction, making any decisions, forming any meanings, sometimes giving rise to fantastic hybrids. A person can follow medical recommendations and at the same time indulge in superstitions. This desire to follow two contradictory friend each other, possibly mutually exclusive, mutually destructive programs of activity can give rise to dangerous streams of disorganization.

The discrepancies between programs can be profound. For an addict, the world of drugs is comfortable. But positive knowledge says that drugs bring death, that is, this is the world that is uncomfortable. The arguments of science do not convince drug addicts not because they have others with scientific point views are more convincing. Drug addicts and scientists are oriented to different cultural bases. Drug addicts follow their emotional preferences, which have arisen as a result of mastering certain established subcultures. In science, following logic subject knowledge with coercive force, forms conclusions that the behavior of a drug addict is incompatible with the value of life.

Mutually exclusive ideas about comfort can become the basis for massive violent clashes. A recent example: in South Korea annual income per capita has increased from $87 to $10,000 since 1962. From the point of view of common sense, this should have sharply increased the level of mass comfort. In reality, however, a powerful mass student movement, not stopping at violence, demands immediate unification with a hungry, poor, totalitarian North Korea. The comfortable world of these people is associated not with a better life according to our ideas, but with a worse life. However, there is no need to go to other countries for examples. Russia made a similar choice in 1917, taking the path of implementing a pre-market equalization program for solving problems.

The debate about the fate of Russia up to this day occurs between those who put forward ancient cultural values and those who base their reasoning on world science and its logic. In other words, the parties to this dispute are based on different cultural foundations. And its resolution is possible only through the correlation, interpenetration of these foundations, the removal of their opposition through dialogue. The entire human world, the more complex and dynamic it is, the more it is woven from such inconsistencies. They can be in the nature of differences, antinomies, contradictions, conflicts, a split between previously established comfort and truth, between comfort and the ability to survive, to create programs that ensure survival.

Science is not only trying to replace one comfortable world with another. It also changes the very principle of dividing the world into comfortable and uncomfortable. A comfortable world is seen as an active one, a comfortable reality is an intense search for the opportunity to live in this world, constantly confronting dangers with increasing persistence and skill. The world ceases to be viewed as given, ready-made, closed, just as a sphere of adaptation. Its ability to withstand dangers comes to the fore. Comfortable is our open ability to identify dangers and bravely confront them.

Science breaks with the old morality, which carries a program for the reproduction of some absolute. This gave rise to the French mathematician A. Poincaré to say that “science is beyond morality.” The description of the world in the concepts of science occurs in an objective modality, that is, the meaning formed by science correlates with a non-subjective object. The scientist describes the trajectory of the comet objectively and impartially, even if it should crash into the earth and destroy humanity. The doctor can rejoice if he has made the correct diagnosis, even if the disease does not bode well for the patient. He is concerned about the correctness of his calculations, objectivity, and the predictive potential of his knowledge. This seems to indicate that Poincare is right. However, science carries its own morality, which places adherence to the logic of scientific research above the values of a pre-existing culture, political factors, personal relationships, etc. This principle was expressed in the famous phrase of Aristotle. Plato is my friend, but the truth is dearer." It follows that it is comfortable for science to follow some abstract logic of knowledge, the logic of the subject, and not sympathy, self-interest, or social pressure.

Science is characterized by the fact that previously hidden dangers are continuously revealed and an attempt is made to bring them under control. The difference between a comfortable and uncomfortable world here is relative, probabilistic, and changes not only under the influence of new factors, but also as a result of the development of people’s ability to withstand dangers. The paradox of the increasing influence of science is that, despite the destructiveness of science for static comfortable pictures of the world, its development, nevertheless, coincides with the progress of humanism. Much has been written about how science is the culprit of modern ills. It creates weapons of mass destruction, equipment that destroys, poisons the environment, etc. Defenders of this point of view unwittingly turn science into a special subject next to man. In reality, science is only a form of human self-expression, his creative forces. It is a form of manifestation of humanism in the sense that it is a cumulative process that accumulates programs for the development of human creative powers, the ability to form new layers of knowledge that are aimed at overcoming the dangers that threaten people, originating far from the sphere of reality that is today subject to man. Science fights against dangers in man himself, both at the level of physiology and against disorganization of thinking. This struggle will never achieve complete final victory, but it is a process that must keep pace with the growth of dangers in all forms. This requires constant self-development, openness in knowledge, and creativity from a person.

Of course, the real history of science is full of compromises, attempts to combine new ideas with old ones, to form hybrids. The relationship between science and religion is only an aspect of this story. Some scientists died under the blows of traditionalists, for example D. Bruno, others compromised under pain of death, for example G. Galileo, others prostituted science in the name of state ideology, for example Soviet social scientists under conditions of terror. Another group reduced science to the level of ordinary comfortable consciousness, fearing its discomfort. Among them we can point to the “people's academician” T. Lysenko. People of this type naively believed that science was a more effective means for the limitless expansion of the previously established comfortable world, its further improvement, something like the Bolshevik “march from victory to victory.” In reality, science is really aimed at expanding the sphere of a comfortable world, but paradoxically it does this through revealing the real discomfort of the world that was considered comfortable. In other words, science can indeed achieve victories, but not in the field of comfortable, established, closed traditionalism. The danger, however, lies in the fact that from the destruction of comfort to the victory over the emerging danger, time passes, perhaps indefinitely. This circumstance fuels pessimism in the assessment of science.

It is worthy of surprise - they were not stoned, they were not sent to camps as violators of comfort, where they best case scenario could be re-educated traditional forms labor, historically associated with traditional ideas about comfort. The reason that science survived even in the face of the explosion of traditionalism is a special and very instructive topic. It is only important to note that science in countries where traditionalism had reached maturity could rely on the growth social needs in expanding the step of novelty, in more effective solutions. In countries where archaic layers of traditionalism predominated, science was sometimes interpreted as a function of a totem, of certain sages who became familiar with the sacred. Nevertheless, science has formed a new open model of culture, new reproduction programs, and has identified new ways to create a comfortable world.

The duality of our ideas about the world goes far beyond the problems of forming the duality of thought and social organization. It also covers the duality of programs, which ultimately turns into the duality of social forms

Conclusion

knowledge science duality culture

Thus, the functioning of science as an element of culture is determined by various factors of both cultural and natural origin. Science itself, as a result of its historical development, turns into a culture-forming factor in the development of humanity, which carries contradictory consequences: the acceleration of cultural and civilizational processes, on the one hand, and the spiritual devastation of culture, on the other. That's why Special attention Today we should pay attention to the most important problem of the humanization of science, which is widely discussed in the world press.

Posted on Allbest.ru

Similar documents

Essence, main functions and subject of science. Methodology and methods of science. Science and other areas of culture. Criteria for scientific knowledge. Characteristics and features Sciences.

abstract, added 12/29/2002

Concept, meaning and main types of culture. The role and place of culture in human life. The development of culture in conjunction with religion, science and art. The essence of artistic culture. The meaning of science and scientific activity. Myth as a special form of culture.

test, added 04/13/2015

Features of the development of Russian culture in the 18th century. The rise of cultural and economic development of Russia in the era of Peter the Great. Prerequisites for the development of science. Directions in the development of literature and theater. Painting and architecture. Transformation of court life.

abstract, added 11/17/2010

The concept and origin of science, the main stages of its formation within culture and the contradictions between them. Leading features of European scientific thinking. Scientific and technological progress and personal development. The cultural meaning of technocratic thinking.

abstract, added 05/16/2009

A study of economic, political and social conditions for the development of Russian culture in the 18th century. Characteristics of the features of science, education, literature and theater. The flourishing of Russian painting. New trends in architecture. Culture of the Oryol region.

course work, added 01/14/2015

Origin of the word "culture" in Russia. Diversity of definitions of culture. Science of cultural studies and humanities. The essence of the doctrine of the internal structure of culture. Main cultural schools. The role of culture in interethnic relations.

test, added 02/07/2011

Science as a cultural phenomenon, its dual nature, distinctive features from other types of spiritual culture and requirements. Isolation in aesthetic consciousness of feeling, taste and ideal. Aesthetic activity as the embodiment of aesthetic consciousness.

abstract, added 07/24/2011

Intensive development of culture and science in the 17th-18th centuries. Manifestation of rationalism in all aspects of activity. Interest in understanding inner world person, manifested in artistic creativity. The formation of the values of the European Enlightenment.

abstract, added 05/09/2011

Socio-economic development of Russia in the second half of the 18th - mid-19th centuries. Changes in the social structure of society. Education, science and technology, culture, social thought, transport, architecture, agriculture, industry.

course work, added 11/16/2008

Factors that influenced the development of culture during the reign of Peter I. New phenomena in culture (theater, music, literature) of Peter’s time. Enlightenment and school in the first quarter of the 18th century. Development of science. Socio-political and economic life.

Question No. 3.Culture and science

Cultural Research has deep philosophical roots(philosophy of history, philosophy of culture). In addition, it attracts the attention of representatives of other sciences, primarily archeology, ethnography, psychology, history, and sociology.

Cultural studies is a relatively young science. It emerged as a special scientific discipline only at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. Prior to this, the study of the problems of the difference between what exists independently of man - nature - and what is created by man - culture - was carried out within the framework of philosophical knowledge of being, the world and man in the world.

Culture as a specific subject of study began to attract the attention of philosophers and historians only from the 18th century. It was at that time that the integrity of the world created by man is comprehended. Awareness of the complementarity of the energies of the three spiritual abilities of man - mind, will and feelings- realized in such fruits of human activity as science, morality and art, led to the identification of an integral field of human activity - culture.

However, only in the 20th century. There are attempts to implement the increasingly recognized need and possibility of special interdisciplinary research of culture. Culturology is still in its infancy, clarifying its subject and methods; its appearance as a scientific discipline has not yet acquired theoretical maturity.

As an independent branch of humanitarian knowledge, cultural studies now acts as a kind of introduction to the study of all humanities, lays the foundations for their understanding.

Cultural studies- comprehensive humanities, the object of study of which is culture as an integrity, as a specific function and modality of human existence.

Science interacts in complex ways with other cultural phenomena that perform the functions of understanding the world.

science is capable of generating a certain type of ideology, influencing the worldview of large groups of the population.

characteristic features that distinguish science from other related cultural phenomena:

Science is universal: on the one hand, it is characterized by the desire to explore the world in all its diversity, on the other, its data are true for the entire universe under the conditions under which it was obtained by the researcher.

Science is fragmented– it studies not being as a whole, but various components or parameters of reality; in the structure of science itself, this feature is revealed through its division into special scientific disciplines.

Science is universally valid– its data is equally reliable for all people, regardless of their national, social and cultural background.

Science is impersonal– the individual characteristics of a scientist cannot in any way affect the results of scientific research.

Science is systematic– it represents a certain system, a structure that has a certain internal logic.

Science is fundamentally incomplete– the basis of the worldview characteristic of our culture is the belief in the boundlessness of scientific knowledge.

Science is continuous– new knowledge is always connected in a certain way with previous knowledge. Not a single position arises in science out of nowhere, even if it is formulated as a criticism of previous theories.

Science is critical– doubt is one of the basic principles of modern science; in science there are no such provisions, even among the most fundamental ones, that cannot be subjected to verification and revision.

Science is reliable– its data can and should be verified according to certain rules formulated in it.

Science is non-moral– scientific truths themselves are neutral in a moral and ethical sense. Only those actions that a scientist takes to obtain data or the application of the results of scientific research are subject to moral evaluation.

Science is rational: it operates on empirical data. Science is based on experimental data, the results of the influence of phenomena of objective reality on our sense organs, directly or through instruments), but operates on the basis of rational procedures and laws of logic (i.e., by means of reason, science rises above the level of research of a specific object or phenomenon and creates generalized concepts, concepts, theories).

Science is sensory– verification of the results of scientific research is carried out empirically, by means of sensory perception, and only on this basis are they recognized as completely reliable.

We can talk about scientific culture as a specific area or sphere of culture in which the content and purpose of the activities of all subjects is to understand the world together with society and man on the basis of empirical data and rational forms of knowledge.

Structure of cultural knowledge

1.Fundamental(theoretical) cultural studies.

- studies culture with the aim of theoretical and historical knowledge of this phenomenon, develops a categorical apparatus and research methods

- philosophy of culture-considers culture as a whole

2.Historical cultural studies.

- diachronic cross-section of culture, including her past and present.

It studies specific historical types of cultures, their events and achievements from the point of view of the realization of the meanings of culture, the achievement of its goals, the macrodynamics of the generation and functioning of “social conventions” of the collective life of people, as well as the cultural and historical typology of communities.

- Facts and values of cultural history provide material for isolating, describing and explaining specific historical features of cultural development

Provide identifying archetypes modern culture and understanding it as the result of historical development.

3.Applied cultural studies.

It is focused on the use of fundamental knowledge about culture for the purpose of forecasting, designing and regulating current cultural processes, on the development of special technologies for transmitting cultural experience and mechanisms for achieving a level of development of certain forms of social practice that corresponds to cultural norms.

The most important element of cultural studies as a system of knowledge is knowledge about the objectified results of cultural activity in their dynamics, the mechanisms for transmitting cultural skills from person to person.

Scientific disciplines:

cultural anthropology - the science of culture as a set of material objects, ideas, values, concepts and behavior patterns in all forms of its manifestation and at all historical stages of its development

social anthropology explores the formation of man as a social being, as well as the basic structures and institutions that contribute to the process of human socialization.

psychology of culture studies the individual characteristics of a person’s relationship to culture, the uniqueness of a person’s spiritual world, and cultural and historical personality types.

sociology of culture studies the functioning of culture in society, trends in cultural development manifested in the consciousness and behavior of various social groups

linguoculturology studies national cultures through the characteristics of language.

history of cultural studies

INTRODUCTION

1. CULTURE: DEFINITION AND MEANING

1.1. Culture as an activity

1.2. Different meanings of the concept “culture”

1.3. Culture structure

2. THE PLACE OF SCIENCE IN THE CULTURAL SYSTEM

2.1. Specifics of science

2.2. The formation of science

2.3. Institutionalization of science

2.4. Science and technology

CONCLUSION

LIST OF REFERENCES USED

INTRODUCTION

“Culture” in modern humanitarian knowledge - open category. In the broadest sense, Culture is understood as opposition to Nature. Nature and Culture are related as “natural” and “artificial”. According to the famous American sociologist of Russian origin Pitirim Sorokin (1889 – 1968), culture is a “supernatural” phenomenon. Science, arising from the natural cultural need of man to understand the surrounding reality, becomes one of the most effective mechanisms for “man’s exit” from the natural world into the artificial (i.e. cultural) world or the transformation of the natural world in accordance with his needs into cultural reality.

1. Culture as an activity

The category “culture” denotes the content of social life and human activity, which are biologically non-inherited, artificial, human-created objects (artifacts). Culture refers to organized collections of material objects, ideas and images; technologies for their manufacture and operation; sustainable connections between people and ways to regulate them; evaluative criteria available in society. This is an artificial environment of existence and self-realization created by people themselves, a source of regulation of social interaction and behavior.”

Technological aspect culture occupies a significant place in it. Depending on the types of objects they are aimed at creating, technologies are divided, firstly, into producing and transmitting symbols, secondly, into creating physical objects, and thirdly, into organizing systems of social interaction.

1.2. Different meanings of the concept “culture” ”

The concept of culture can be used in several meanings. Firstly, it can serve to designate any culturally specific -historical community, characterized by certain spatiotemporal parameters (primitive culture, the culture of Ancient Egypt, the culture of the Renaissance, the culture of Central Asia, etc.). Secondly, the term culture is used to specificity designations life forms of individual peoples(ethnic cultures). Thirdly, culture can be understood as some generalization, model, built according to a certain principle. Cultural models are created by researchers as certain ideal types for the purpose of a more in-depth study of culture based on the generalization of historical material, identifying the forms of cultural life and its elements. They are often used in crop classification. In this sense, the term culture was used by J. Bachofen, N. Ya. Danilevsky, O. Spengler, M. Weber, A. Toynbee, P. Sorokin and others. Cultural models can be created not only at the level of the whole, but also at the level of elements: political culture, legal culture, artistic culture, professional culture, etc.

Culture is a phenomenon organic to the life of humanity, its meaning is determined by the creative efforts of man to create a “new world”, “second nature”, or, as the Russian scientist Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky (1863 – 1945) believed, the “noosphere”, that is, the human sphere thoughts and minds, not subject to decay and death.

1.3. Culture structure

In accordance with modern ideas, the following structure of culture can be outlined.

In a single field of culture, two levels are distinguished: specialized and ordinary. Specialized level is divided into cumulative (where professional sociocultural experience is concentrated, accumulated, and the values of society are accumulated), and translational. Based on the anthropological model of man, on cumulative At the level, culture acts as an interconnection of elements, each of which is a consequence of a person’s predisposition to a certain activity. These include: economic culture, political culture, legal culture, philosophical culture, religious culture, scientific and technical culture, artistic culture. Each of these elements at the cumulative level corresponds to an element of culture at ordinary level. They are closely interconnected and influence each other. Economic culture corresponds to housekeeping and maintaining a family budget; political - morals and customs; legal - morality; philosophy - everyday worldview; religions - superstitions and prejudices, folk beliefs; scientific and technical culture – practical technologies; artistic culture - everyday aesthetics (folk architecture, the art of home decoration). On translational level There is interaction between the cumulative and everyday levels; these are, as it were, certain communication channels through which cultural information is exchanged.

Between the cumulative and ordinary levels there are certain communication channels carried out through the translational level: the sphere of education, where concentrated traditions and values of each element of culture are transmitted (transmitted) to subsequent generations; facilities mass communication(QMS) - television, radio, print - where interaction takes place between “high” values and the values of everyday life, norms, traditions, works of art and mass culture; social institutions, cultural institutions, where concentrated knowledge about culture and cultural values are accessible to the general public (libraries, museums, theaters, etc.).

The development of technogenic civilization has expanded man's ability to comprehend real world, new ways of transmitting culture have emerged. In this regard, the problem has become urgent elitist and mass culture . The concept of “elitism” of culture was developed by F. Nietzsche, T. Eliot, H. Ortega y Gasset and others. F. Nietzsche tied up cultural creativity in abundance vitality, and the creation of spiritual values - with the activities of aristocrats, a caste of “supermen”. American cultural scientist T. Eliot , depending on the degree of awareness of culture, distinguished two levels in its vertical section: the highest and the lowest, understanding by culture a certain way of life, which only a select few - the “elite” - can lead. Spanish cultural scientist H. Ortega y Gasset in his works “Revolt of the Masses”, “Art in the Present and the Past”, “Dehumanization of Art”, he put forward the concept of mass society and mass culture, contrasting the spiritual elite that creates culture with the ideologically and culturally separated masses: “The peculiarity of our time is that the ordinary souls, not deceived about their own mediocrity, fearlessly assert their right to it and impose it on everyone and everywhere... The mass crushes everything that is different, remarkable, personal and better... The world was usually a heterogeneous unity of the masses and independent minorities. Today the whole world is becoming a mass.” In modern industrial society Mass culture- a concept that characterizes the features of the production of cultural values designed for mass consumption and subordinate to it, by analogy with the conveyor belt industry, as its goal. If elite culture is oriented towards a select, intellectual public, mass culture orients the spiritual and material values it disseminates towards the “average” level of development of mass consumers.

Speaking about the structure of culture, it is necessary to keep in mind that it is a system, the unity of the elements that form it. The dominant features of each element form the so-called “ core ”culture, which represents a non-antagonistic, stable integrity of leading value orientations. The “core” of culture acts as its fundamental principle, which is expressed in science, art, philosophy, ethics, religion, law, the main forms of economic, political and social organization, in its mentality and way of life. The specificity of the “core” of a particular culture depends on the hierarchy of its constituent values. Thus, the structure of culture can be represented as a division into a central “core” and the so-called “ periphery ” (outer layers). If the core provides stability and stability, then the periphery is more prone to innovation and is characterized by relatively less stability. The value orientation of a culture can change depending on a number of factors, which include economic conditions, ethical standards, aesthetic ideals and the criterion of convenience. For example, modern culture is often called a society of general consumption, since these value bases are brought to the forefront of sociocultural life.

Every element of culture in various ways connected with its other elements. There is a wide variety of types of such connections in culture. Firstly, culture is systemically formed, integrated through specific organizations, institutions and public opinion, between which there are both material and spiritual connections, realized through “material” (exchange of goods, cultural values) and information exchange. Secondly, at a higher level of integration, culture appears as the interrelation and interaction of its functional elements such as beliefs, traditions, norms, forms of production and distribution, etc. If the phenomenological approach prevailed in cultural studies of the 19th century, then in the 20th century the structural-functional interpretation of culture prevails.

2. The place of science in the cultural system

2.1. Specifics of science

Science, as follows from all of the above, is the most important element of culture. Science includes both specific activities to obtain new knowledge and the result of this activity - the sum of the scientific knowledge obtained to date, which together form a scientific picture of the world. The immediate goals of science are the description, explanation and prediction of processes and phenomena of reality. The result of scientific activity, as a rule, is presented in the form of theoretical descriptions, technological process diagrams, summaries of experimental data, formulas, etc. and so on. Unlike other types of activity, where the result is known in advance, science provides an increase in knowledge, i.e. its result is fundamentally unconventional. For example, what distinguishes it from art, as another important element of culture, is the desire for logical, maximally generalized, objective knowledge. Art is often characterized as “thinking in images,” while science is “thinking in concepts.” Thus, they emphasize that art is based on the sensory-imaginative side of human creative abilities, and science is based on the conceptual-intellectual side. This does not mean that there are impassable boundaries between science and art, as well as between science and other cultural phenomena.

2.2. The formation of science

Although elements of scientific knowledge began to form in more ancient cultures (Sumerians, Egypt, China, India), the emergence of science dates back to the 6th century BC, when the first theoretical systems arose in Ancient Greece (Thales, Democritus), and appropriate conditions arose . The formation of science required criticism and destruction of mythological systems and a sufficiently high level of culture, which made it possible for systematic knowledge by science. More than two thousand years of history of the development of science reveals a number of general patterns and trends in its development. “Science moves forward in proportion to the mass of knowledge inherited from previous generations,” wrote F. Engels. As modern research has shown, this position can be expressed in the strict formula of the exponential law, which characterizes the increase in certain parameters of science since the 17th century. Thus, the volume of scientific activity doubles approximately every 10-15 years, which is reflected in the accelerating growth of the number of scientific discoveries and scientific information, as well as the number of people professionally involved in science. According to UNESCO, over the past 50 years the annual increase in the number of scientific workers has been 7%, while the overall population has grown by only 1.7% per year. As a result, the number of living scientists and scientific workers is over 90% of the total number of scientists in the entire history of science.

The development of science is characterized by a cumulative nature: at each historical stage it summarizes its past achievements in a concentrated form, and each result of science is an integral part of its general fund; it is not crossed out by subsequent advances in knowledge, but is only rethought and clarified. The continuity of science ensures its functioning as a special type of “cultural memory” of humanity, theoretically crystallizing the past experience of knowledge and mastery of its laws.

The process of development of science finds its expression not only in the increase in the amount of accumulated positive knowledge. It also affects the entire structure of science. At each historical stage, science uses a certain set of cognitive forms - fundamental categories and concepts, methods, principles, explanation schemes, i.e. everything that unites the concept of thinking style. For example, ancient thinking is characterized by observation as the main way of obtaining knowledge; the science of modern times is based on experiment and the dominance of an analytical approach that directs thinking to the search for the simplest, further indecomposable primary elements of the reality under study; modern science is characterized by the desire for a holistic, multilateral coverage of the objects being studied. Each specific structure of scientific thinking, after its approval, opens the way to the extensive development of knowledge, to its extension to new spheres of reality. However, the accumulation of new material that cannot be explained on the basis of existing schemes forces us to look for new, intensive ways and developments of science, which leads from time to time to scientific revolutions, i.e. a radical change in the main components of the content structure of science, to the promotion of new principles of knowledge, categories and methods of science The alternation of extensive and revolutionary periods of development is typical both for science as a whole and for its individual branches.

The entire history of science is permeated by a complex combination of processes of differentiation and integration: the development of new areas of reality and the deepening of knowledge leads to the differentiation of science, to its fragmentation into increasingly specialized areas of knowledge; at the same time, the need for a synthesis of knowledge is constantly expressed in the tendency towards the integration of science. Initially, new branches of science were formed on a subject basis - in accordance with the involvement in the process of cognition of new areas and aspects of reality. For modern science, the transition to a problem orientation is becoming increasingly characteristic, when new areas of knowledge arise in connection with the promotion of certain theoretical or practical problems.

Important integrating functions in relation to individual branches of science are performed by philosophy, as well as such scientific disciplines as mathematics, logic, cybernetics, which equip science with a system of unified methods.

Along with traditional research carried out within the framework of any one branch of science, the problematic nature of the orientation of modern science has given rise to the widespread development of interdisciplinary and complex research carried out through various scientific disciplines, the specific combination of which is determined by the nature of the relevant problems. An example of this is the study of problems of nature conservation, located at the crossroads of technical, biological sciences, soil science, geography, geology, medicine, economics, mathematics, etc. Problems of this kind that arise in connection with the solution of major economic and social problems are typical of modern science.

According to their focus, according to their direct relation to practical activities, science is usually divided into fundamental and applied. The task of fundamental sciences is to understand the laws governing the behavior and interaction of the basic structures of nature and culture. These laws are studied in their “pure form” without regard to their possible use. The immediate goal of applied sciences is to apply the results of fundamental sciences to solve not only cognitive, but also social and practical problems. As a rule, fundamental sciences are ahead of applied sciences in their development, creating a theoretical foundation for them.

All theoretical disciplines, in one way or another, have their historical roots in practical experience. However, in the course of the development of individual sciences, purely theoretical ones are discovered (for example, mathematics), returning to experience only in the sphere of their practical applications.

2.3. Institutionalization of science

The formation of science as a socio-cultural institution occurred in the 17th and 18th centuries, when the first scientific societies and academies were formed in Europe, and the publication of scientific journals began. At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, a new way of organizing science emerged - large scientific institutes and laboratories with a powerful technical base, which brings scientific activity closer to the forms of modern industrial labor. Modern science is becoming more and more deeply connected with other institutionalized elements of culture, permeating not only production, but also politics, administrative activities, etc. Until the end of the 19th century, science played a supporting role in relation to, for example, production. Then the development of science begins to outstrip the development of technology and production, and a single complex “SCIENCE-TECHNOLOGY-PRODUCTION” takes shape, in which science plays a leading role.

2.4. Science and technology

The general cultural purpose of technology is to free man from the “embraces” of nature, to gain him freedom and some independence from nature. But, having freed himself from strict natural necessity, man in its place, in general, imperceptibly for himself, put a strict technical necessity, being captured by the unforeseen side effects of the technical environment, such as deterioration of the environment, lack of resources, etc. We are forced adapt to the laws of the functioning of technical devices, associated, for example, with the division of labor, rationing, punctuality, shift work, and come to terms with the environmental consequences of their impact. Advances in technology, especially modern technology, require an inevitable price to be paid for.

Technology, replacing human labor and leading to increased productivity, gives rise to the problem of organizing leisure time and unemployment. We pay for the comfort of our homes through the disunity of people. Achieving mobility with the help of personal transport is purchased at the price of noise pollution, the inconvenience of cities and ruined nature. Medical technology, significantly increasing life expectancy, poses developing countries with the problem of a population explosion.

Technology that makes it possible to interfere with hereditary nature creates a threat to human individuality, human dignity and the uniqueness of the individual. By influencing the intellectual and spiritual life of the individual (and society), modern computerization intensifies mental work and increases the “resolving power” of the human brain. But the increasing rationalization of labor, production and the entire life of a person with the help of modern technology is fraught with the monopolization of computer rationalism, which is expressed in the progression of the external rationality of life at the expense of the internal one, due to a decrease in the autonomy and depth of human intelligence, due to the gap between reason and reason. “Algebroization”, “algorithmization” of the style of thinking, based on formal logical methods of forming concepts on which the operation of a modern computer rests, is ensured by the transformation of the mind into a cybernetic, pragmatically oriented mind, losing the figurative, emotional coloring of thinking and communication.

Global computerization is fraught with the danger of losing dialogical communication with other people, giving rise to a “deficit of humanity,” the emergence of early psychological aging of society and human loneliness, and even a decrease in physical health.

There is no doubt that computer technology plays a significant role in a person’s professional development and has a great influence on the general cultural development of the individual: it promotes the growth of creativity in work and knowledge, develops initiative, moral responsibility, increases the intellectual wealth of the individual, sharpens people’s understanding of the meaning of their life and purpose man in society and in the universal world. But it is also true that it carries a threat of spiritual one-sidedness, expressed in the formation of a technocratic type of personality.