The problem of man is one of the most important for all philosophy. But it is especially relevant during critical periods in the development of history, when the most acute question arises about the meaning and purpose of existence not only of an individual, but also of the entire society. This is exactly the period our national history is going through. However, in order to more fully understand the current state of philosophical anthropology, it is necessary to familiarize yourself with historical sketch its development and the results that were achieved within the history of philosophy.
Philosophy of the Ancient East about man.
The first ideas about man arise long before philosophy itself. On initial stages In history, people have mythological and religious forms of self-awareness. In legends, tales, and myths, an understanding of the nature, purpose and meaning of man and his existence is revealed. The crystallization of the philosophical understanding of man occurs precisely on the basis of the concepts, ideas, images and concepts embedded in them and in the dialogue between the emerging philosophy and mythology. It is in this way that the first teachings about man arose in the states of the Ancient East.
Ancient Indian philosophy of man is presented primarily in the monument of ancient Indian literature - the Vedas, which simultaneously express a mythological, religious and philosophical worldview. There is an increased interest in man in the texts adjacent to the Vedas - the Upanishads. They reveal the problems of human morality, as well as ways and means of liberating him from the world of objects and passions. A person is considered the more perfect and moral the more he achieves success in the matter of such liberation. The latter, in turn, is carried out through the dissolution of the individual soul (atman) in the world soul, in the universal principle of the world (brahman).
Man in the philosophy of Ancient India is thought of as a part of the world soul. In the doctrine of the transmigration of souls (samsara), the border between living beings (plants, animals, humans) and gods turns out to be passable and mobile. But it is important to note that only man has the desire for freedom, for getting rid of passions and the fetters of empirical existence with its law of samsara-karma. This is the pathos of the Upanishads.
The Upanishads had a huge influence on the development of the entire philosophy of man in India. In particular, their influence on the teachings of Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Samkhya, and yoga is great. This influence also affected the views of the famous Indian philosopher M.K. Gandhi.
The philosophy of Ancient China also created an original teaching about man. One of its most significant representatives, Confucius, developed the concept of “heaven,” which means not only a part of nature, but also the highest spiritual force that determines the development of the world and man. But at the center of his philosophy is not the sky, not the natural world in general, but man, his earthly life and existence, i.e. it is anthropocentric in nature.
Concerned about the decay of his contemporary society, Confucius pays attention primarily to human moral behavior. He wrote that endowed by heaven with certain ethical qualities, a person is obliged to act in accordance with the moral law - Tao and improve these qualities in the learning process. The goal of training is to achieve the level of an “ideal man,” a “noble man” (junzi), the concept of which was first developed by Confucius. To approach the Junzi, one must follow a set of ethical principles. The central place among them belongs to the concept of ren (humanity, humanity, love for people), which expresses the law of ideal relations between people in the family and the state in accordance with the rule “don’t do to people what you don’t wish for yourself.” This rule, as a moral imperative, will be found in different versions later in the teachings of the “seven wise men” in Ancient Greece, in the Bible, in Kant, in Vl. Solovyov and others. Special attention Confucius emphasizes the principle of xiao (filial piety and respect for parents and elders), which is the basis of other virtues and the most effective method of governing a country, considered as “ big family" He also paid considerable attention to such principles of behavior as (etiquette), and (justice), etc.
Along with the teachings of Confucius and his followers, another direction should be noted in ancient Chinese philosophy - Taoism. Its founder is Lao Tzu. The initial idea of Taoism is the doctrine of Tao (path, road) - this is an invisible, omnipresent, natural and spontaneous law of nature, society, behavior, etc. thinking individual person. A person must follow the principle of Tao in his life, i.e. his behavior must be consistent with the nature of man and the universe. If the principle of Tao is observed, inaction is possible, non-action, which nevertheless leads to complete freedom, happiness and prosperity.
Characterizing the ancient Eastern philosophy of man, we note that its most important feature is the orientation of the individual towards an extremely respectful and humane attitude towards both the social and natural world. At the same time, this philosophical tradition is focused on improving the inner world of man. The improvement of social life, orders, morals, management, etc. is associated primarily with a change in the individual and his adaptation to society, and not with a change in the external world and circumstances. Man himself determines the paths of his own improvement and is his own god and savior. We must not forget that a characteristic feature of philosophical anthropology is transcendentalism - man, his world and fate are certainly associated with the transcendental (beyond) world.
The philosophy of man of the Ancient East had a huge influence on the subsequent development of teachings about man, as well as on the formation of a way of life, a way of thinking, cultural patterns and traditions of the countries of the East. The social and individual consciousness of people in these countries is still influenced by the patterns, ideas and ideas formulated in that distant period.
The problem of man in philosophy Ancient Greece.
Ancient Greece laid the foundation for the Western European philosophical tradition in general and philosophical anthropology in particular. According to ancient Greek philosophy, initially man does not exist on his own, but only in a system of certain relations, perceived as absolute order and cosmos. With all his natural and social environment, neighbors and polis, inanimate and animate objects, animals and gods, he lives in a single, inseparable world. Even the gods, who are also inside the cosmos, are real actors for people. The very concept of space here has a human meaning; at the same time, man is thought of as part of the cosmos, as a microcosm, which is a reflection of the macrocosm, understood as a living organism. These are precisely the views on man of the representatives of the Milesian school, who take the position of hylozoism, i.e. who denied the boundary between living and inanimate and believed in the universal animation of the universe.
The turn to anthropological issues proper is associated with the critical and educational activities of the Sophists and the creator of philosophical ethics, Socrates.
The original principle of the Sophists, formulated by their leader Protagoras, is as follows: “The measure of all things is man; those that exist, that they exist, and those that do not, that they do not exist.”
In the concept of the sophists, attention should be paid primarily to three points:
Relativism and subjectivism in the understanding of such ethical phenomena as goodness, virtue, justice, etc.;
They introduce man into existence as the main character;
For the first time, they fill the process of cognition with existential meaning and substantiate the existential nature of truth.
For Socrates, the main interest is the inner world of man, his soul and virtues. He first substantiates the principle of ethical rationalism, arguing that “virtue is knowledge.” Therefore, a person who knows what goodness and justice are will not act badly and unfairly. The task of man is precisely to always strive for moral perfection on the basis of knowledge of the truth. And first of all, it comes down to knowing oneself, one’s moral essence and its implementation.
Throughout his life, Socrates tried to realize the moral pathos of his philosophy of man, and his death itself, when he abandoned life for the sake of establishing justice, was the apotheosis of his moral philosophy.
Democritus is a representative of materialistic monism in the doctrine of man. Man, according to Democritus, is a part of nature, and, like all nature, he consists of atoms. The human soul is made up of atoms. Along with the death of the body, the soul is also destroyed. In contrast to such a vulgar materialistic view of the human soul, his ethical concept is more delicate. The goal of life, according to him, is happiness, but it does not come down to bodily pleasures and selfishness. Happiness is, first of all, a joyful and good mood - euthumia. The most important condition it is a measure that the mind helps a person to observe. As Democritus argued, “to desire excessively is appropriate for a child, not a husband,” but a courageous person is one who is stronger than his passions.
Unlike Democritus, Plato takes the position of anthropological dualism of soul and body. But it is the soul that is the substance that makes a person human, and the body is considered as matter hostile to it. Therefore, the general characteristics of a person, his purpose and social status depend on the quality of the soul. In the first place in the hierarchy of souls is the soul of the philosopher, in the last place is the soul of the tyrant. This is explained by the fact that the philosopher’s soul is the wisest and most receptive to knowledge, and this is the main thing in characterizing the essence of man and his difference from animals.
The human soul constantly gravitates towards the transcendental world of ideas; it is eternal, but the body is mortal. This doctrine of the dual character of man influenced medieval religious teaching about him. According to Plato, the unity and opposition of soul and body contains the eternal tragedy of human existence. Corporality puts a person in animal world, the soul elevates him above this world, the body is matter, nature, while the soul is directed into the world of ideas. Later, this tragedy will become one of the significant moments of Russian religious philosophical anthropology.
In Aristotle's concept, man is considered as a social, state, political being. And this social nature of man distinguishes him from animals, and from “morally underdeveloped creatures,” and from “superman.” On this occasion, he writes that “one who is not able to enter into communication or, considering himself a self-sufficient being, does not feel the need for anything, no longer constitutes an element of the state, becoming either an animal or a deity.”
Another distinctive feature of a person is his rationality, “a person is, first of all, a mind.” Thus, man, according to Aristotle, is a social animal endowed with reason. Sociality and intelligence are two main characteristics that distinguish it from an animal.
It should be added to this that Aristotle comes close to formulating the position about the active essence of man. He, in particular, writes that a person’s virtuous life is manifested in activity, which contains the only possibility of self-realization of the individual.
A new side of philosophical anthropologism is revealed in the era of the decomposition of ancient Greek society. What comes to the fore here are human problems associated with social and moral decline, the loss of existential values and the meaning of people’s lives. In this situation, the intellectual and therapeutic function of philosophy comes to the fore, i.e. that function that V. Frankl called logotherapeutic. It is especially clearly expressed in the teachings of Epicurus, who argued that just as medicine helps treat a person’s body, philosophy should help treat his soul. In terms of the relationship between the individual and society, Epicurus stands on the positions of methodological and socio-ethical individualism. The starting point for considering society and man is the individual. Society is only a means to satisfy the needs of an individual, his desires and benefits.
In conclusion, we note that ancient Greek philosophical anthropology, like ancient Eastern, bears the stamp of mythology and religion and develops in direct dialogue with them.
Just as the ancient Eastern philosophy of man had a huge influence on all its subsequent development within the Eastern tradition, ancient Greek philosophical anthropology is the beginning and source of the Western European tradition in the philosophy of man.
Medieval Christian concept of man.
In the Middle Ages, man was seen primarily as part of the world order established by God. And the idea of himself, as expressed in Christianity, comes down to the fact that man is “the image and likeness of God.” But according to this point of view, in reality this person is internally divided due to his fall, therefore he is considered as a unity of divine and human nature, which finds its expression in the person of Christ. Since everyone initially possesses a divine nature, he has the possibility of internal communion with divine “grace” and thereby becoming a “superman.” In this sense, the concept of superman is often developed in Russian religious philosophy.
Socially, in the Middle Ages, man was proclaimed a passive participant in the divine order and was a created being and insignificant in relation to God. Unlike the ancient gods, who were, as it were, akin to man, the Christian god stands above nature and man, and is their transcendent creator and creative principle. the main task for a person is to join God and find salvation on the day of the Last Judgment. Therefore, the entire drama of human history is expressed in the paradigm: the Fall - Redemption. And every person is called to realize this by measuring his actions with God. In Christianity, everyone is responsible for themselves before God.
A prominent representative of medieval Christian philosophy is Augustine the Blessed. Not only his ontology and doctrine of God as an absolute being, but also his doctrine of man takes a lot from Plato. Man is the opposite of soul and body, which are independent. However, it is the soul that makes a person human. This is his own, immanent substance. What Augustine brings new to this issue is the development of the human personality, which he discusses in the Confessions. It presents an autobiographical study that describes the internal development of the author as a person. Here we find psychological introspection, and a demonstration of the contradictory nature of personality development, and an indication of the dark abysses of the soul. Augustine's teaching influenced the subsequent formation of existentialism, whose representatives consider him as their predecessor.
Unlike Augustine, Thomas Aquinas uses the philosophy of Aristotle to substantiate the Christian doctrine of man. Man is an intermediate creature between animals and angels. It represents the unity of soul and body, but it is the soul that is the “engine” of the body and determines the essence of man. Unlike Augustine, for whom the soul is independent of the body and identical with man, for Thomas Aquinas man is a personal unity of both. Soul is not material substance, but receives its final realization only through the body.
Man in Renaissance philosophy.
Philosophical anthropology of the Renaissance was shaped by emerging capitalist attitudes, scientific knowledge and new culture, called humanism.
If the religious philosophy of the Middle Ages solved the problem of man in a mystical way, then the philosophy of the Renaissance (Renaissance) puts man on an earthly basis and on this basis tries to solve his problems. In contrast to the doctrine of the original sinfulness of man, it affirms his natural desire for goodness, happiness and harmony. Humanism and anthropocentrism are organically inherent in it. In the philosophy of this period, God is not completely denied. But, despite pantheism, philosophers make their sign not of him, but of man. All philosophy turns out to be imbued with the pathos of humanism, human autonomy, and faith in his limitless possibilities.
Thus, according to Pico della Mirandola (1463-1494), a person occupies central place in the universe. This happens because he is involved in everything earthly and heavenly. He rejects astral determinism in favor of human free will. Freedom of choice and Creative skills determine that everyone himself is the creator of his own happiness or misfortune and is capable of reaching both an animal state and rising to a god-like being.
In the philosophical anthropology of this period, one can already quite clearly hear the motives of approaching individualism, egoism and utilitarianism associated with emerging capitalist social relations and the dominance of private interest. Thus, Lorenzo Balla (1406 - 1457) clearly states that prudence and justice come down to the benefit of the individual, one’s own interests should come first, and the homeland should come last. And in general, in his opinion, the most glorious saying “there is a homeland for me, where it is good” retains its force.
Man of the New Time in European Philosophy.
The influence of the dominance of private interest on ideas about a person, the motives of his behavior and life attitudes are clearly expressed in the concept of T. Hobbes. In contrast to Aristotle, he argues that man by nature is not a social being. On the contrary, “man is a wolf to man” (homo homini lupus est), and “war of all against all” is the natural state of society. His methodological individualism and nominalism are closely related to sociological and ethical individualism. The deep basis of this state is the general competition between people in the conditions of new economic relations. He himself writes in this regard:
Human life can be compared to a race... the only goal and the only reward for each participant is to be ahead of their competitors.
The influence of the development of science on ideas about man and the anthropological rationalism determined by it are clearly revealed in the philosophical views of B. Pascal, who argued that all the greatness and dignity of man “is in his ability to think.”
However, R. Descartes is rightfully considered the founder of modern European rationalism in general and anthropological rationalism in particular. According to him, thinking is the only reliable evidence of human existence, which follows from his fundamental thesis: “I think, therefore I exist” (“cogito ergo sum”). In addition, the philosopher observed an anthropological dualism of soul and body, viewing them as two substances of different quality, which were of great importance for the development of the psychophysical problem. According to Descartes, the body is a kind of machine, while the mind acts on it and, in turn, is influenced by it.
This mechanistic view of man, viewed as a machine, became widespread during this period. The banner of such a concept can be the title of J. La Mettrie’s work, “Man-Machine,” which presents the point of view of mechanistic materialism on man. According to him, there is only a single material substance, and the human body is a self-winding machine, like a clockwork.
A similar view is characteristic of all French materialists of the 18th century. (Holbach, Helvetius, Diderot).
Another distinctive feature of their philosophical anthropology is the consideration of man as a product of nature, absolutely determined by its laws, so that he “cannot, even in thought, leave nature.” Standing on the principles of consistent mechanistic determinism, they, of course, could not in any way recognize human free will. Another characteristic feature of these thinkers was that, criticizing Christian dogma about the original sinfulness of man, they argued that man by nature is initially good and not sinful.
German classical philosophy
The founder of German classical philosophy, I. Kant, puts man at the center of philosophical research. For him the question “What is a person?” is the fundamental question of philosophy, and man himself is “the most important subject in the world.” Like Descartes, Kant takes the position of anthropological dualism, but his dualism is not a dualism of soul and body, but a moral-natural dualism. Man, according to Kant, on the one hand, belongs to natural necessity, and on the other, to moral freedom and absolute values. As an integral part of the sensory world of phenomena, it is subject to necessity, but as a bearer of spirituality, it is free. But Kant assigns the main role to human moral activity.
Kant strives to establish man as an autonomous and independent principle and legislator of his theoretical and practical activity. In this case, the initial principle of behavior should be a categorical imperative - a formal internal command, a requirement based on the fact that every personality is an end in itself and self-sufficient and therefore should not be considered in any case as a means of achieving any even very good goals.
Man, Kant writes, is “evil by nature,” but at the same time he also has the inclinations of goodness. The task of moral education is to enable good inclinations to prevail over a person’s inherent inclination to evil. Although evil initially predominates, the inclinations of good make themselves felt in the form of a feeling of guilt that takes possession of people. Therefore, a normal person, according to Kant, is “never free from guilt,” which forms the basis of morality. A person who is always right and who always has a clear conscience, such a person, cannot be moral. The main difference between humans and other creatures is self-awareness. From this fact follows egoism as a natural property of man, but the philosopher opposes egoism, no matter in what forms it manifests itself.
Hegel's anthropological concept, like his entire philosophy, is imbued with rationalism. The very difference between man and animal lies primarily in thinking, which imparts humanity to everything human. He is with greatest strength expressed the position about man as a subject of spiritual activity and a bearer of universally valid spirit and mind. Personality, in contrast to the individual, begins only with a person’s awareness of himself as an “infinite, universal and free” being. Socially, his teaching clearly expresses methodological and sociological collectivism, that is, the principle of the priority of the social whole over the individual. In contrast to German idealism, the materialist L. Feuerbach affirms the intrinsic value and significance of a living, empirical person, whom he understands, first of all, as a part of nature, a sensory-bodily being. The anthropological principle, which is the core of his entire philosophy, presupposes precisely this understanding of man. Feuerbach's anthropological monism is directed against the idealistic understanding of man and the dualism of soul and body and is associated with the affirmation of a materialistic view of his nature. But Feuerbach understands man himself too abstractly. His person finds himself isolated from real social connections, relationships and activities. The basis of his philosophical anthropology is the relationship between I and You, and the relationship between a man and a woman is especially important in this regard.
Anthropological problem in Russian philosophy.
In the history of Russian philosophy, two main directions concerning man can be distinguished in Russian philosophy:
1) materialist teachings of revolutionary democrats (Belinsky, Herzen, Chernyshevsky, etc.);
2) the concepts of representatives of religious philosophy (Fedorov, Vl. Solovyov, Berdyaev, etc.).
In the development of philosophical views of V.G. Belinsky, the problem of man gradually acquires paramount importance. In a letter to Botkin dated March 1, 1841, he notes that “the fate of the subject, the individual, the personality is more important than the fate of the whole world.” At the same time, he connects the achievement of personal freedom and independence with social transformations, arguing that they are possible only in a society “based on truth and valor.” The justification and affirmation of the need for the development of personality and its protection lead Belinsky to criticize capitalism and religion and defend the ideas of utopian socialism and atheism.
The defense of the ideas of “Russian socialism” based on the need to liberate the working person, first of all the “peasant,” was undertaken by A.I. Herzen. His anthropology is rationalistic: man emerged from the “animal sleep” precisely thanks to reason. And the greater the correspondence between mind and activity, the more free he feels. On the issue of personality formation, he took the position of its interaction with the social environment. In particular, he wrote that personality “is created by the environment and events, but events are also carried out by individuals and bear their stamp; there’s interaction here.”
In the work “Anthropological principle in philosophy” N.G. Chernyshevsky affirms the natural-monistic essence of man. Man is the highest product of nature. Chernyshevsky's views were influenced by the teachings of Feuerbach, and many of the latter's shortcomings are also characteristic of Chernyshevsky. Although, unlike Feuerbach, he introduces into the doctrine of man social aspects human existence, in particular, connects the solution to the human problem with the transformation of society on a socialist basis. Like all representatives of the naturalistic direction of human philosophy, he also has a naturalistic interpretation of human spiritual activity.
In the concepts of Russian religious philosophers, anthropological issues occupy a central place. This especially applies to the period of development of Russian philosophy, starting with F.M. Dostoevsky, who is an existential thinker and made a significant contribution to the development of this direction. And although representatives of this direction constantly turn to God, the focus of their attention is on man, his purpose and fate. Berdyaev’s words about Dostoevsky: “His thought is occupied with anthropology, not theology,” can be attributed to many representatives of Russian religious philosophy.
At the heart of the doctrine of man in Russian religious philosophy is the question of the nature and essence of man. Its solution is often seen along the path of dualism of soul and body, freedom and necessity, good and evil, divine and earthly. Thus, Dostoevsky’s anthropological views are based on the premise that man in his deepest essence contains two polar principles - God and the devil, good and evil, which manifest themselves especially strongly when a person is “set free.”
This tragic contradiction of two principles in man lies at the basis of Vl.’s philosophical anthropology. Solovyova.
Man, he writes, combines in himself all kinds of opposites, which all boil down to one great opposition between the unconditional and the conditional, between the absolute and eternal essence and the transitory phenomenon or appearance. Man is both a deity and a nonentity.
To no lesser extent, this problem of soul and body is reflected in the philosophy of N.A. Berdyaev, who notes: Man is a microcosm and microtheos. He was created in the image and likeness of God. But at the same time, man is a natural and limited being. There is duality in man: man is the intersection point of two worlds, he reflects in himself the higher world and the lower world... As a carnal being, he is connected with the entire cycle of world life, and as a spiritual being, he is connected with the spiritual world and with God.”
Due to this initial division and dualism of man, his fate turns out to be tragic in its very essence.
The whole tragedy of life, writes Berdyaev, comes from the collision of the finite and the infinite, the temporary and the eternal, from the discrepancy between man as a spiritual being and man as a natural being living in the natural world.
From the point of view of representatives of this direction, the main thing for a person is the spiritual, divine substance, and the true meaning of a person and his existence lies in connecting a person with God. In Russian religious philosophy, the question about man organically turns into a divine question, and the question about God into a human one. Man reveals his true essence in God, and God manifests himself in man. Hence one of the central problems of this direction is the problem of the God-man, or superman. Unlike the concept of Nietzsche, for whom the superman is a man-god, in Russian philosophy the superman is a god-man. Her anthropology is of a purely humanistic nature, asserting the superiority of good over evil and God over the devil.
The problem of man in the history of philosophy
What is a person? A question that is not as easy to answer as it seems at first glance. The famous Russian philosopher A.A. Bogdanov wrote: “For the average person, “man” is not at all a mystery, not a “damned question,” but simply a living fact of his philistine experience: “man” is himself and other ordinary people, and that’s all, who has sufficient similarity with them... For a metaphysical philosopher, “man” is a great mystery... - this is a being endowed with reason, “moral freedom,” “striving for the absolute,” and similar sublime properties...”
Philosophical understanding of man is associated with certain difficulties. When thinking about a person, the researcher is limited by the level of natural scientific knowledge of his time, and by the conditions of the historical or everyday situation, and by his own political preferences. All of the above in one way or another influences the philosophical interpretation of a person. Therefore, modern social philosophy, studying human problems, is interested not only in human problems itself, but also in another ever-present problem, which V.S. Barulin called “the connection between man and philosophy.”
The connection between man and philosophy is an expression of the essence of philosophical culture. Philosophical culture is a form of human self-knowledge, his worldview and value orientation in the world. Therefore, man is always at the basis of philosophical orientation; he acts both as its natural-humanitarian prerequisite and as natural goal, the super-task of philosophy. In other words, as noted above, a person is both a subject and an object philosophical knowledge. Whatever specific questions No matter how philosophy deals at one or another stage of its development, it is always permeated by real human life and the desire to solve pressing human problems. This connection of philosophy with man, his needs and interests is constant and enduring.
The relationship between philosophy and man, as well as the socio-philosophical problem as a whole, has historically changed and developed. At the same time, in the history of philosophy two parameters of the evolution of philosophy can be distinguished:
1) The degree of understanding of the human problem as a methodologically initial principle of philosophizing. In other words, to the extent that a philosopher realizes that it is man who is the center, criterion and highest goal of all philosophizing, how important this principle is.
2) The degree of philosophical understanding of man himself, his existence, his meaning of existence, his interests and goals. In other words, to what extent has man become a separate and special subject of philosophical reflection, with what theoretical depth, with what degree of involvement of all means? philosophical analysis it is being considered.
Thus, the problem of man has always been at the center of philosophical research: no matter what problems philosophy deals with, man has always been the most important problem for it.
The modern German scientist E. Cassirer identified four historical periods in the history of human studies:
1) the study of man by metaphysics (antiquity).
2) the study of man by theology (the Middle Ages),
3) the study of man by mathematics and mechanics (Modern times).
4) the study of human biology.
The first ideas about man arise long before the advent of philosophy - in mythological and religious consciousness. At the same time, in the beliefs of ancient people, man, as a specific object of consideration, is not yet distinguished from his surroundings. natural world, but represents only a “younger relative” of natural objects. This is most clearly manifested in totemism - a form of primitive beliefs that consists in the worship of plants and animals with which there is supposedly a blood relationship and which are the supernatural patrons of the clan or tribe.
The first philosophical views on the problem of man can be considered the conclusions that emerged in ancient Eastern philosophy. However, we should not forget that in Ancient Egypt the philosophical worldview had not yet separated from ordinary knowledge, in Ancient India, philosophy merged with a religious worldview, and in Ancient China it was inseparable from the moral form of social consciousness.
The most important feature of ancient Eastern philosophy was its characteristic “erasure” of the personal principle, its “facelessness” and subordination to the universal. Here the universal “I” prevails over the individual “I”. If the ancient Latins were characterized by the expression “I and you” (“ego et tu”), then in India and China they preferred to say “we”, because each “I” was thought of as a continuation of another “I”. The ancient Eastern worldview tried to identify and unite man and natural processes. Each person was valued not on his own, but only because he was part of this unity. The goal and meaning of life was the achievement of the highest wisdom, combined with the truth of the Greatest. “Just as a mirror, cleansed of dust, shines brightly, so the bodily (being), having seen the true (nature) of atman, becomes united, reaches the goal and gets rid of sadness” (Ancient Indian Philosophy. M., 1972. P. 250.).
Merging with eternity, which in one form or another is characteristic of all ancient Eastern philosophy, does not imply activity in the realization of the personal principle. Similarity to the eternal and unchanging absolute presupposes staticity, unconditional adherence to tradition and a person’s orientation toward respectful and careful attitude to the outside world, both natural and social. At the same time, the need to improve the inner world of man was especially emphasized. In ancient times, one of the foundations of the eastern way of life appeared - the requirement for a person to adapt to society, the state, the senior in rank or age.
Ancient philosophy shaped the main Western European approaches to identifying man as a separate and special philosophical problem. Western philosophy originates in Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome. Already in Ionian natural philosophy (6-5 centuries BC) the first attempt was made to determine the place of man in the world. Alcmaeon of Croton was the first to define man as a creature that differs from other animals in that only it is capable of understanding, while others, although they perceive, do not understand.
According to the views of Protagoras (5th century BC), man is by nature naked, barefoot, undressed and unarmed. He can support himself only thanks to the Promethean fire, the skillful wisdom bestowed by Athena, and the social order handed down by Zeus, based on modesty and justice. These human qualities develop through the constant desire to overcome need (Xenophanes) and achieve abundance (Democritus).
And one more important feature of ancient philosophy. Having formulated the principle of a reasonable worldview, she came to the discovery of man as an independent value and recognized his right to activity and initiative. This made it possible, in the words of A.F. Losev, “to develop one’s inner well-being, to delve deeper into one’s own personality and to make all questions of the objective world order secondary for oneself” (Losev A.F. History of Ancient Aesthetics: Early Hellenism. M., 1979 . P. 12.), which is clearly demonstrated by the Sophists, Epicureans, but above all by Socrates.
Socrates is rightfully considered the founder not only of Western European philosophy of man, but also the founder of ethics. He was primarily interested in the inner world of man, his soul and virtues. Socrates came to the conclusion that “virtue is knowledge,” therefore a person needs to know the essence of goodness and justice and then he will not commit bad deeds. The doctrine of the human soul and mind occupies a central place in Socratic philosophy, and self-knowledge of man appears in it as the main goal of philosophy.
The great student of Socrates, Plato, came up with the idea that man is not just a unity of soul and body, but that it is the soul that is the substance that makes a person human. The general characteristics of a person depend on the quality of the soul. In his opinion, there is a “hierarchy of souls”, in which the soul of the philosopher is in first place, and the soul of the tyrant is in last place. What is the reason for such a strange arrangement of souls? The fact is that the soul of a philosopher is closest to wisdom and receptive to knowledge. And these are precisely the main, essential features of a person that distinguish him from an animal.
As for the definition of a person associated with the name of Plato as a two-legged animal without feathers, it most likely does not belong to Plato, but was only attributed to him by subsequent rumor.
The next step in the philosophical comprehension of man was made by Aristotle. For him, ethics and politics form single complex“philosophy of humanity,” which studies practical activities and human behavior. Aristotle's most important achievement in the philosophical understanding of man is associated with the justification of his social characteristics. The phrase of the ancient thinker became famous: “Man is a social animal.” Man is a living being who is destined to live in a state. He is able to direct his mind to both good and evil; he lives in society and is governed by laws.
The Western European Middle Ages were marked by the strongest influence of the Christian worldview on all aspects of people's lives, especially on spiritual life, which was inseparable from religious worldview. Theocentrism was the main characteristic feature of the philosophy of the Middle Ages, and philosophy was in the position of “the handmaiden of theology” and substantiated the idea of the sinful essence of man.
One of the largest representatives of early Christian theology, Augustine the Blessed, stated: “Man did not become like the devil because he has flesh, which the devil does not have, but because he lives on his own, that is, according to man. For the devil wanted to live on his own, when he did not stand in the truth... So, when a person lives according to man, and not according to God, he is like the devil" (Anthology of World Philosophy: In 4 vols. Vol. 1. Part 2. M., 1969. With .600.). From this premise, only one conclusion inevitably followed. One cannot allow a person to live “according to man.” This will inevitably destroy him, for he will give him over to the power of the devil. There is a dark abyss hidden in man, and the confessor is obliged to help lost souls find true path, strictly guiding them according to the authority of Holy Scripture.
In everyday consciousness, the medieval period of development of European society is often perceived as a time of obscurantism, serfdom of the peasantry, fires of the Inquisition, etc. To a certain extent this is true. But one cannot ignore the fact that a religious and philosophical view of a person sets a fairly high level of assessment of his essence, life activity, and purpose in the world. This is not the vast, incomprehensible, and therefore often terrifying cosmos of antiquity, but God, understood as the bearer of deep moral truths, the standard of creativity and virtue. Therefore, in medieval philosophy, the problem of man was posed in a new, broader way. She included in her field of attention the spirituality and meaningfulness of human life, as well as its sublimity above empirical everyday life. Thus, St. Augustine attached decisive importance to man not to intellect, but to will, not to theory, but to love, not to knowledge, but to faith, not to rationality, but to living hope.
One of the features of social thought, and with it philosophy, of the Renaissance is anthropocentrism. The center of any research - be it literature, painting, sculpture or philosophical treatises - becomes a person. The naturalistic and religious orientation of philosophical research is giving way to an anthropocentric one.
The philosophy of modern times is formed under the influence of the development of capitalist relations and the flourishing of sciences, primarily mechanics, physics, and mathematics, which opened the way to a rational interpretation of human essence. The achievements of the exact sciences were reflected in a unique view of the human body as a specific machine that is wound up similarly to a clockwork (French philosophy of the 18th century - J. O. La Mettrie, P. Holbach, C. A. Helvetius, D. Diderot).
But perhaps the most interesting and significant contribution to the philosophical understanding of man was made by the German philosopher I. Kant. His name is associated with the formation of one of the first anthropological programs in the history of philosophy. I. Kant proceeded from the understanding of man as a being belonging to two worlds at the same time - the world of natural necessity and the world of moral freedom. He distinguished anthropology in “physiological” and “pragmatic” respects. The first explores what nature makes of a person, the second - what a person, as a freely acting being, does or can and should make of himself.
Listing the main questions of philosophy, I. Kant concludes them with the question: what is a person? In his opinion, it is this question that unites all the other basic questions of philosophy.
In the philosophy of man of the 19th century, several features can be distinguished:
1) deepening the study of human spirituality, attention to his inner world, his feelings and experiences (S. Kierkegaard, W. Dilthey, F. Nietzsche);
2) the formation of a holistic view of social life, the relationship between society and man (O. Comte, G. Spencer, K. Marx);
3) the anti-metaphysical orientation of the concepts of man emerging from the mid-19th century. This feature needs to be explained. Many philosophers of this time had the idea that metaphysics and religion are secondary cultural phenomena, derived from primary foundations, so traditional philosophical problems become unnecessary. The human sciences that emerged in the mid-nineteenth century (psychology, sociology, biological theory of evolution) made the previous philosophical image speculative (rational, speculative), devoid of experimental foundations and practical value.
One of the characteristic features of Russian philosophy of the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries is also attention to man and anthropocentrism. Two directions are clearly distinguished here: materialistic and idealistic, secular and religious. The materialist direction is represented by revolutionary democrats and, above all, V.G. Belinsky and N.G. Chernyshevsky, the idealist direction is associated with the names of V. Solovyov, N.A. Berdyaev and a number of other thinkers.
In the twentieth century, the development of philosophical and philosophical-sociological problems of man acquired new intensity and developed in many directions: existentialism, Freudianism, neo-Freudianism, philosophical anthropology.
Freudianism and neo-Freudianism had a great influence on the development of philosophical studies of man. Here, however, it is necessary to emphasize the fallacy of the often encountered opinion, according to which neo-Freudianism is a movement of modern followers of the Austrian psychiatrist S. Freud. Neo-Freudianism is a philosophical and psychological movement that has dissociated itself from orthodox Freudianism. It was formed in the USA in the 30s, as an attempt to soften Freud’s conclusions that shocked the “respectable public”. Thanks to Freudianism and neo-Freudianism, many phenomena of social and individual life that were previously completely incomprehensible received a rational explanation. Having discovered the important role of the unconscious in the life of both an individual and the whole society, Freudianism made it possible to present a comprehensive picture of human social life on many levels.
In the twentieth century, a special branch of philosophical knowledge emerged, which emerged in Germany in the 1920s and deals with the study of man. It was called philosophical anthropology. Its founder was the German philosopher Max Scheler, and a significant contribution to further development contributed by G. Plessner, A. Gehlen and a number of other researchers. The emergence of philosophical anthropology as a special doctrine about man was a unique result of the increase in philosophical knowledge of man. In 1928, M. Scheler wrote: “The questions: “What is man and what is his position in existence?” - occupied me from the moment of my awakening philosophical consciousness and seemed more significant and central than any other philosophical question" (Sheler M. The position of man in space // Selected works. M., 1994. P.194). Scheler developed an extensive program of philosophical knowledge of man in the fullness of his existence. Philosophical anthropology, in his opinion, should combine the concrete scientific study of various aspects and spheres of human existence with a holistic philosophical comprehension of it. Therefore, according to Scheler, philosophical anthropology is the science of the metaphysical origin of man, of his physical, spiritual and mental principles in the world, of the forces and potentialities that move him and which he sets in motion.
The basis for the conclusions of philosophical anthropology was F. Nietzsche’s general guesses that man is not biological perfection, man is something failed, biologically defective. However, modern philosophical anthropology is a complex and contradictory phenomenon in which many schools coexist, competing with each other, and often presenting such opposing opinions that it is very difficult to identify anything in common in them other than attention to man.
A special page in the history of philosophy is the philosophy of Marxism. K. Marx deserves the credit for speaking out against the metaphysical study of the problem of man. We will dwell in more detail on the Marxist conclusions somewhat below, but for now we will limit ourselves to the correct, in our opinion, characteristic given to Marx’s contribution to the philosophy of man: “In some ways, the methodological influence of the social philosophy of Marxism on the understanding of man is similar to the influence of Christian doctrine. There also at the same time "new guidelines, horizons for understanding man and his connection with God were opened, and boundaries were immediately established - again in connection with God. So the social philosophy of Marxism, having opened new horizons for understanding man in his social life, declared these same horizons to be their limits" ( Barulin V.S. Social-philosophical anthropology. General principles of social-philosophical anthropology. M., 1994. pp. 23-24.).
For modern study philosophical problems The XVIII World Philosophical Congress, held in 1988 in Great Britain, was of decisive importance to man. It raised the idea of the urgent need for a critical analysis of traditional ideas about human nature. At the same time, it has been repeatedly noted that it is impossible to give an exhaustive definition of the essence (nature) of man.
In modern literature, an attempt is made to give a comprehensive analysis of man as a socio-natural, cosmoplanetary being, in which the cosmic, biological, mental, social and cultural aspects of the individual are combined into a single whole.
Real name: Yuvachev Daniil Ivanovich. Born on December 17 (30), 1905 in St. Petersburg, died on February 2, 1942 in Leningrad. Russian writer and poet.
Your main pseudonym "Daniil Kharms" Daniel came up with school years(around 1921-1922). This pseudonym he signed first school notebooks. Later pseudonym became official name(It is known that Kharms Yuvachev-Kharms first signed his passport in pencil, and then legalized his pseudonym - Kharms).
About the origin pseudonym researchers are still arguing. Many literary scholars have repeatedly made attempts to decipher in their own way pseudonym writer, putting forward many versions of his origin, finding sources in English, German, French, Hebrew, Sanskrit. (For example, some elevate his false surname "Harms" to the French “charme” - “charm, charm”, some to the English “harm” - “harm”).
But the most common version is that pseudonym inspired by the beloved Conan Doyle and associated with the name of Sherlock Holmes, since Holmes and Kharms- surnames are consonant. Also, the reason for this version was the descriptions mentioned by memoirists of Kharms’ manner of dressing like a “London dandy.” In the few photographs Kharms easily recognizable by his indispensable pipe and style of clothing (he wore short gray socks, gray stockings and a large gray cap).
In addition to the main pseudonym Daniil Kharms used over 40 more pseudonyms(exact number unknown): DCH, Daniel Charms, Daniel, Daniil Sharpener (Kharms), DaNiil Kharms, Daniil Kharms School of Chinari Vzir Zaumi, School of Chinar Vzir Zaumi Daniil Kharms, D. Kh., Chinar Daniil Ivanovich Kharms, D. Kharms, D.I. Kharms, D. Bash, Daniil Horms, Daniil Kharms, Khoerms, Daniel Haarms, Daniil Haarms, Daniil Protoplast, Dan. Kharms, (Yaroneya), Kharms, Daniil Dandan, Dan. Kharms, (Yaroneya), Kharms, Daniil Dandan, Dandan, Daniil Ivanovich Kharms, D. Kharms-Shardam, Daniil Shardam, Shardam, Daniil Kharms-Shardam, Vanya Mokhov, Karl Ivanovich Shusterling, Charms, Daniil Charms, Harmonius; Faith, Hope, Love, Sofia; Haarms, D., Daniil, Daniil Ivanovich Dukon- Kharms, A. Sushko, Writer Kolpakov, etc.
The reason is so frequent changes name Kharms explained it quite simply. He believed that a constant name brings misfortune. This is evidenced by the following diary entry Kharms from December 23, 1936: “Yesterday dad told me that as long as I am Kharms, I will be haunted by needs.” And in order to avoid misfortunes, Kharms took himself a new one every time. pseudonym. Most of them formed from the first pseudonym. For example: Daniil Ivanovich Kharms, D. Kharms, D.I. Kharms, Daniil Horms, Daniil Kharms, Khoerms, Daniel Haarms, Daniil Haarms, DCH, Daniel Charms, Daniel, DaNiil Kharms and etc.
Such pseudonyms, as Daniil Kharms School of plane trees Vzir zaumi, School of plane trees Vzir Zaumi Daniil Kharms, Chinar Daniil Ivanovich Kharms testify to the desire Kharms to emphasize his belonging to the then new left “trend”.
Nicknames Shardam Kharms-Shardam, Daniil Shardam, Shardam, Daniil Kharms-Shardam are consonant with Sherlock Holmes.
Nicknames Vanya Mokhov, Karl Ivanovich Shusterling, Writer Kolpakov, A. Sushko, D. Bash - these are the so-called “children’s” pseudonyms of Kharms, which are distinguished by their special “liberty” in their education.
Nickname“Faith, Hope, Love, Sophia” - Christian Turner “faith - hope - love” supplemented with “sophia”, i.e. wisdom.
Was born D. Harms in St. Petersburg, with which his whole life was connected. I studied here and started writing my first poems here. He entered literature as a professional poet in the mid-1920s, when some of his poems appeared in almanacs.
Kharms was one of the founders literary group OBERIU (Association of Real Art), which included poets A.Vvedensky, N.Zabolotsky, Yu.Vladimirov and others, who used the techniques of alogism, absurdity, and grotesque. In 1927, Kharms' play "Elizabeth to You" was staged on the stage of the House of Press. Kharms read his works at meetings with the public, his poems and stories were distributed in manuscripts. In 1930, the activities of OBERIU as a “formalist association” were prohibited. Marshak, appreciating talent Kharms, attracted him to work with children's literature. Since 1928, Kharms published poems for children in the magazines "Chizh" and "Hedgehog". Several children's books have also been published, including such well-known ones as “Ivan Ivanovich Samovar”, “The Game”, “Million”.
Spare parts for passenger cars in Chekhov.
D. Harms was arrested on August 23, 1941, and died on February 2, 1942 while in a psychiatric hospital. His name was erased from Soviet literature, and only in 1956 were his works rehabilitated. In the 1960s, his books were republished, and the play “Elizabeth to You” returned to theater repertoires.
Biography
KHARMS, DANIIL IVANOVICH (real name Yuvachev) (1905−1942), Russian poet, prose writer, playwright. Born on December 17 (30), 1905 in St. Petersburg. His father, who was a naval officer brought to trial in 1883 for complicity in Narodnaya Volya terror, spent four years in solitary confinement and more than ten years in hard labor, where, apparently, he experienced a religious conversion: along with the memoir books Eight Years on Sakhalin ( 1901) and Shlisselburg Fortress(1907) he published mystical treatises Between the World and the Monastery (1903), Secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven (1910), etc. Kharms’s mother, a noblewoman, was in charge of a shelter for former convicts in St. Petersburg in the 1900s. Kharms studied at the St. Petersburg privileged German school(Peterschule), where he acquired a thorough knowledge of German and English. In 1924 he entered the Leningrad Electrical Technical College, from where a year later he was expelled for “poor attendance” and “inactivity in community service" Since then, he devoted himself entirely to writing and lived exclusively from literary earnings. The diversified self-education that accompanied writing, with a special emphasis on philosophy and psychology, as evidenced by his diary, proceeded extremely intensively.
Initially, he felt in himself the “power of poetry” and chose poetry as his field, the concept of which was determined by him under the influence of the poet A. V. Tufanov (1877−1941), an admirer and successor of V. V. Khlebnikov, author of the book To Zaumi (1924 ) and the founder (in March 1925) of the Order of Zaumnikov, the core of which included Kharms, who took for himself the title “Look at the Zaumi.” Through Tufanov he became close to A. Vvedensky, a student of the more orthodox “Khlebnikovite” poet and admirer of A. Kruchenykh I.G. Terentyev (1892−1937), creator of a number of propaganda plays, including the “updating” stage adaptation of The Inspector General, parodied in The Twelve Chairs by I. Ilf and E. Petrov. Kharms had a strong friendship with Vvedensky, who, sometimes without special reasons, took on the role of mentor to Kharms. However, the direction of their creativity, related in terms of verbal searches, is fundamentally different from beginning to end: in Vvedensky a didactic attitude arises and remains, while in Kharms a playful one predominates. This is evidenced by his first known poetic texts: Kika with Koka, Vanka Vstanka, the grooms say the earth was invented and the poem Mikhail.
Vvedensky provided Kharms new circle constant communication, introducing him to his friends L. Lipavsky and Y. Druskin, graduates of the philosophical department of the faculty social sciences, who refused to renounce their teacher, the prominent Russian philosopher N. O. Lossky, expelled from the USSR in 1922, and tried to develop his ideas of the intrinsic value of the individual and intuitive knowledge. Their views certainly influenced Kharms’s worldview; for more than 15 years they were Kharms’s first listeners and connoisseurs; during the blockade, Druskin miraculously saved his works.
Back in 1922, Vvedensky, Lipavsky and Druskin founded Triple Alliance and began to call themselves “plane trees”; in 1925 they were joined by Kharms, who from “zira zaumi” became “plane-gazer” and quickly gained scandalous fame in the circles of avant-garde writers under his newly invented pseudonym, which became plural English word"harm" - "misfortune". Subsequently, he signed his works for children in other ways (Charms, Shardam, etc.), but never used his own surname. The pseudonym was also enshrined in the introductory questionnaire of the All-Russian Union of Poets, where Kharms was accepted in March 1926 on the basis of the submitted poetic works, two of which (An Incident on the Railway and Poem by Peter Yashkin - a communist) were published in the Union's small-circulation collections. Apart from them, until the end of the 1980s, only one “adult” work by Kharms was published in the USSR - the poem Maria Comes Out, Taking a Bow (Sat. Poetry Day, 1965).
As a member of the literary association, Kharms received the opportunity to read his poems, but took advantage of it only once, in October 1926 - other attempts were in vain. The playful beginning of his poems stimulated their dramatization and stage performance: in 1926, together with Vvedensky, he prepared a synthetic performance of the avant-garde theater "Radix" My mother is all in a watch, but things did not go beyond rehearsals. Kharms met K. Malevich, and the head of Suprematism gave him his book God will not be thrown off with the inscription “Go and stop progress.” Kharms read his poem On the Death of Kazimir Malevich at a memorial service for the artist in 1936. Kharms’s attraction to dramatic form was expressed in the dialogization of many poems (Temptation, Paw, Revenge, etc.), as well as in the creation of the Comedy of the City of St. Petersburg and the first predominantly prose work - a play by Elizaveta Bam, presented on January 24, 1928 at the only evening of the “Union of Real Art” (OBERIU), which, in addition to Kharms and Vvedensky, included N. Zabolotsky, K. Vaginov and I. Bakhterev and which N. Oleinikov joined - with him Kharms developed a special closeness. The association was unstable, lasted less than three years (1927−1930), and Kharms’s active participation in it was rather external, and did not in any way affect his creative principles. The characterization given to him by Zabolotsky, the compiler of the OBERIU manifesto, is vague: “a poet and playwright whose attention is focused not on a static figure, but on the collision of a number of objects, on their relationships.” At the end of 1927, Oleinikov and B. Zhitkov organized the “Association of Writers of Children’s Literature” and invited Kharms to it; from 1928 to 1941 he constantly collaborated in the children's magazines "Hedgehog", "Chizh", "Cricket" and "Oktyabryata", during which time he published about 20 children's books. These works are a natural offshoot of Kharms’s work and provide a kind of outlet for his playful element, but, as his diaries and letters testify, they were written exclusively for earning money (since the mid-1930s, more than meager) and special significance the author did not give them any credit. They were published through the efforts of S. Ya. Marshak, the attitude of leading critics towards them, starting with the article in Pravda (1929) Against hack work in children's literature, was unequivocal. This is probably why the pseudonym had to be constantly varied and changed. The Smena newspaper regarded his unpublished works in April 1930 as “the poetry of the class enemy.” The article became a harbinger of Kharms’ arrest at the end of 1931, qualifying his literary activities as “ demolition work"and "counter-revolutionary activities" and exile to Kursk. In 1932 he managed to return to Leningrad. The nature of his work is changing: poetry fades into the background and fewer and fewer poems are written (the last completed poems date back to the beginning of 1938), while prose works (with the exception of the story The Old Woman, a creation of a small genre) multiply and become cyclical (Incidents, Scenes, etc. ). On the spot lyrical hero- an entertainer, ringleader, visionary and miracle worker - a deliberately naive narrator-observer appears, impartial to the point of cynicism. Fantasy and everyday grotesque reveal the cruel and delusional absurdity of “unattractive reality” (from diaries), and the effect of terrifying authenticity is created thanks to the scrupulous accuracy of details, gestures, and verbal facial expressions. In unison with diary entries (“the days of my death have come,” etc.) latest stories(Knights, Falling, Interference, Rehabilitation) are imbued with a feeling of complete hopelessness, the omnipotence of crazy tyranny, cruelty and vulgarity. In August 1941, Kharms was arrested for “defeatist statements.” Kharms's works, even those published, remained in complete oblivion until the early 1960s, when a collection of his carefully selected children's poems, Game (1962), was published. After this, for about 20 years they tried to give him the image of a cheerful eccentric, a mass entertainer for children, which was completely inconsistent with his “adult” works. Since 1978, his collected works, prepared on the basis of saved manuscripts by M. Meilach and W. Erl, have been published in Germany. By the mid-1990s, Kharms firmly occupied the place of one of the main representatives of Russian literary literature of the 1920–1930s, essentially opposing Soviet literature. Kharms died in Leningrad on February 2, 1942 - in custody, from exhaustion.
Daniil Ivanovich Kharms (Yuvachev), (December 30, 1905 - February 2, 1942) - famous poet and prose writer, playwright and wonderful children's writer. He chose a pseudonym for himself very early and began writing early. He was an active participant in the Association of Real Art (OBERIU).r> Daniil Yuvachev was born in St. Petersburg in the family of Ivan Yuvachev, a revolutionary exiled to hard labor, and Nadezhda Yuvacheva. The parents were familiar with many famous writers at that time. p> 1915-1918 – high school Main German School; 1922-1924 – Children's and rural unified labor school; 1924 - Leningrad Electrical Technical School; 1926 - expulsion; March 5, 1928 - marriage to Esther Rusakova, Kharms dedicated many works and diary entries to her in the period from 1925 to 1932. The relationship was difficult, and in 1932 they divorced by mutual consent. 1928 - 1941 - actively collaborates with children's magazines, writes a lot of children's works, collaborates with Marshak; He has written more than 20 children's books. On July 16, 1934, Kharms marries Marina Malich and does not part with her until the very end; August 23, 1941 - arrest (false accusation of spreading “slanderous and defeatist sentiments”) based on the denunciation of Antonina Oranzhireeva (NKVD agent); Psychiatric clinic "Crosses" - in order not to be shot, the writer feigns madness. p>
He was arrested for the second time and again sent to a psychiatric hospital.r> He died on February 2, 1942 from exhaustion during the terrible siege of Leningrad. p>
On July 25, 1960, at the request of Kharms’ sister, his case was reviewed, he himself was found innocent and was rehabilitated, and his books were republished. p>
Today Kharms is called one of the most avant-garde, extraordinary and paradoxical writers of the 20th century. p>
The biography of Daniil Kharms begins when the first Russian revolution mercilessly destroyed human destinies, and ends in a terrible time Leningrad blockade, - misunderstood, crossed out political regime, betrayed by those whom he considered friends...
At the time of his birth, our hero was not yet Kharms. His name was Daniil Ivanovich Yuvachev. He was born in St. Petersburg on December 30, 1905.
Subsequently, Kharms loved to talk about this moment in the genre of phantasmagoria: “I was born in the reeds. Like a mouse. My mother gave birth to me and put me in the water. And I swam. Some kind of fish with four whiskers on its nose was circling around me. I started crying. Suddenly we saw porridge floating on the water. We ate this porridge and started laughing. We had a lot of fun..."
From the first day of his life, Daniel was immersed in concentrated solution love and severity. The source of the first was mother Nadezhda Ivanovna Kolyubakina, a comforter for women who survived imprisonment, a noblewoman by birth. Strictness came from his father, Ivan Pavlovich Yuvachev, an ex-People's Will, who miraculously escaped hanging, and was cleansed of revolutionary sentiments. At his behest, his son learned German and English languages, read a lot of smart books, was trained in applied sciences.
At the Petrishule real school, Daniil was known as good student, no stranger to pranks, for example, he loved to play the unfortunate “orphan” in front of the teacher in order to avoid punishment. His first one dates back to approximately the same period. literary experience- a funny fairy tale. He wrote it for his 4-year-old sister Natalia, early death which became the first strong shock for the future poet.
The bright time of childhood was cut short - the year 1917 struck. After long journeys around the country, the Yuvachevs returned to St. Petersburg, which became Petrograd. Daniil worked at the Botkin Hospital, studied at the Children's Village labor school and wrote the first poems, which were more like a pile of nonsense. My father, raised on Pushkin and Lermontov, was horrified. To those around him, the young man seemed quite grown up.
What was especially striking was his reluctance to be “like everyone else.” Daniil stood out for his originality in clothing and oddities in behavior. And, it seems, he personified himself with someone else, but this “someone” had so many names that it was easy to get confused in them. The most important of them appeared on the flyleaf of one of the Bibles - “Harms” (from English “harm”). There are several versions of its origin. According to one of them, he was “suggested” to the writer by Sherlock Holmes, whom he admired from the age of 12.
At that time, everything “English” interested him: at the age of 17, Daniil attracted the attention of young girls with a “ceremonial suit” with a hint of English style: a brown jacket with light specks, golf trousers, long socks and yellow high-soled boots. This “stylistic madness” was crowned by a pipe in the corner of his mouth that did not know fire.
Daniil Kharms - Biography personal life
His “loves” can tell a lot about a person. Daniil Ivanovich’s absolute “love” was women - curvaceous, witty, with a sense of humor. He married the beautiful Esther Rusakova early, and although the relationship was difficult (he cheated on her, she was jealous), he remained with her tender feelings. In 1937, she was sentenced to five years in the camps and died in Magadan a year later.
Second official wife became Marina Malich, a more patient and calm woman. Thanks to her and Kharms’s friend Yakov Druskin, we can read today notebooks writer, his early and rare works.
WITH early years Kharms gravitated toward Westernism. One of his favorite pranks was to “play a foreigner.”
He radiated an inexplicable magnetism, although photographs from those years showed a rough-hewn face with heavy brow ridges and piercingly light eyes hidden deeply beneath them. The mouth, like an overturned crescent, gave the face the expression of a tragic theatrical mask. Despite this, Kharms was known as a sparkling joker.
One of the writer’s friends told how in the spring of 1924 he visited Daniil. He suggested taking a walk along Nevsky, but before that he went into the barn, grabbed a table leg, then asked a friend to paint his face - he painted circles, triangles and others on the poet’s face geometric objects. “Write down what passersby say,” said Kharms, and they went for a walk. Most passersby shied away from the strange couple, but Daniel liked it.
If the pranks were intended to be expressive means rebellious soul of an avant-garde writer, then “playing schizophrenic” in 1939 had a vital important goal: avoid conscription military service and escape from persecution by the OGPU. It noticed Kharms back in the fall of 1924 after speaking at an evening dedicated to creativity Gumilyov. Then they just “talked” with him.
And on December 10, 1931, everything was serious: arrest, investigative actions, brutal torture. As a result, Kharms “confessed” to anti-Soviet activities - he spoke about his “sins”: writing hacky children’s works, creating literary movement called “zaum” and attempts to restore the former political system, while diligently indicating all “appearances, names, passwords.” He was sentenced to three years in a concentration camp. My father saved me - the concentration camp was replaced with exile in Kursk.
Returning to Leningrad, Kharms found the ranks of yesterday’s friends considerably thinned: some died, others were imprisoned, some managed to escape abroad. He felt that the end was near, but continued to live to the fullest: falling in love with all the curvaceous women, writing poetry, often for children, only for which he was reasonably paid. It’s funny that Kharms didn’t particularly like children, but they simply adored him. When he appeared on stage at the Leningrad Palace of Pioneers, he warmed up the audience with real tricks. This caused a flurry of delight.
In 1941 they came for him again. Kharms knew: it was not a matter of the denunciation that Antonina Oranzhireeva, Anna Akhmatova’s closest friend and official OGPU informant, wrote against him. He himself, his “avant-gardeism,” his reluctance to keep pace with the others - that’s what drove those others to fury. And they will not rest as long as he is alive.
Daniel's father died, there was no one to stand up for the writer, many friends turned away from him, remembering him " confessions" He could have been shot, but a “played” diagnosis came to their aid - schizophrenia. It is impossible to imagine a more terrible departure: to him, the descendant noble family, an extraordinary, talented person, was treated like a criminal. They were forced to go through physical and mental humiliation...
To the prisoners of “Krestov”, as well as to all residents besieged Leningrad, relied on 150 grams of bread per day. In the icy cell of the prison hospital, the hunted, exhausted and helpless Kharms waited in line to be transported to Kazan, where the mentally ill were “treated.” But they simply forgot about him, like other prisoners of the “Crosses”, during these terrible blockade days - they stopped feeding him, thereby dooming him to painful death.
The cardiogram of Daniil Ivanovich Yuvachev-Kharms straightened out on February 2, 1942. The cold body of the one-of-a-kind poet was found a few days later, lying alone on the floor of a hospital cell.
Only in 1960 did some changes occur in his biography: by a resolution of the Leningrad prosecutor's office, Kharms was found not guilty, his case was closed for lack of evidence of a crime, and he himself was rehabilitated.