Philosophy about the meaning of human existence
Introduction
There are many concepts that raise the question of the meaning of existence, but three of the most famous stand out.
The first is existence for the sake of self-realization, the second is existence for the sake of social service and, finally, the third is existence for the sake of improving the spirit. It is clear that the second concept identifies the actual infinity (from a spiritual point of view) of the existence of humanity; it largely reflects the ideas of humanists about existence for the benefit of others. It is not clear what the first concept leads to, since through complete self-realization the pace of progress of mankind only increases, although perhaps this can be seen as the shortest path to some extreme point of existence, which, for example, can be considered nirvana. But, most likely, the state of nirvana can be attributed to the third concept - existence for the sake of improving the spirit. According to Buddhism, man (not in the literal sense of the word) is given seven material lives on earth from above, during which he must achieve maximum improvement of his spirit. After passing through seven circles of life, a person returns to the world of lower matter - inanimate nature - in the case of a far from ideal state of soul, or, otherwise, rises to a higher astral world.
Each religion defines its own meaning of human existence. Many philosophers, psychologists and other scientists tried in their works to explain the meaning of human existence.
The purpose of this work is to study the problem of the meaning of human existence in the works of E. Fromm and W. Frankl.
Tasks:
* consider the problems of human existence in philosophy;
* study the problem of the meaning of human existence in the works of E. Fromm;
* study the problem of the meaning of human existence in the works of V. Frankl.
Problems of human existence in philosophical “anthropology”
Man as an object of philosophical understanding
Concepts of man are divided into two groups: objectivist, subjectivist.
Objectivist concepts view man as a being who is essentially dependent on the objective spheres and principles of the cosmos, nature, society, historical necessity, the world mind - or God.
Subjectivist concepts consider a person as a being wholly or mostly autonomous and free from the objective spheres of nature, and therefore the existence of the world and man is known from the person himself, from the subjective “I”, through the deep spheres of a person’s inner individual life.
The extremes of the objectivist and subjectivist approaches are overcome in the synthetic concept of man: “philosophical anthropology”, Marxist philosophy.
Philosophical anthropology is a section of philosophical knowledge devoted to a comprehensive consideration of the problem of man. The term “philosophical anthropology” is assigned to the modern philosophical school, the main representatives of which were the German philosophers M. Scheler, A. Gehlen, G. Plessner, E. Rothgacker and others.
The essence of man is the “anthropological dualism of spirit and life.” Life is common to man and the rest of the organic world. During the evolution of the organic world, the formation and evolution of the mental principle takes place: sensations, instincts, associative memory, practical intelligence. Therefore, a natural person at birth, in principle, does not differ from an animal. But there is an essential difference between man and the rest of the animal world - this difference is due to the presence of a spirit in man. The basic characteristic of the human spirit is “openness to the world,” i.e. a person overcomes the limitations of the environment, goes out into the open world, realizes the qualitative existence of objects in their objective existence. The most important components of the human spirit: the ability to intellectually understand the world (“a priori vision”) and an emotional and sensory attitude towards the world (love). The human spirit is personal.
A. Gehlen draws attention to the biological inadaptability and insufficiency of man (the human body has no protection from the weather, from enemies, the acuity of feelings is inferior to the acuity of feelings and the strength of animals), and in order to survive, a person is forced to become an “acting being” (perform actions, create tools labor, grow your own food, etc.). The main principle of human existence is the “principle of liberation from burdens” - the process of overcoming the physical limitations of one’s body, creating auxiliary cultural means that ensure the survival and existence of a person. The result of this process is the formation of man as a cultural being, and the basis of culture (“the second nature of man”) is the spiritual principle,
G. Plessner believes that humans differ from animals in their “eccentric position,” i.e. a person is able to separate his “I” from his physical existence, is able to realize his spiritual uniqueness, and realize himself as a person. The eccentric position specifies:
* structure of a person’s inner world;
* basic ways of realizing human existence, forms of a person’s relationship to existence, basic anthropological laws of human life:
Law 1: “A person must make himself what he is.” A person can live only by himself, managing his life. He carries out this management on the basis of the creation of a second nature - cultural creativity.
Law 2: “A person’s cognitive attitude to the world is mediated by his “I”, therefore a person has a distance in relation to the world.”
3rd law: “The law of a utopian place is the law of a person’s lack of rootedness in being, his uncertainty, doubt, which prompts a person to endlessly search for a stable existence.” The lack of rooting of a person in being gives rise to anxiety, awareness of the randomness and insignificance of his existence, the search for such a basis of the world that is not subject to randomness, which is absolute being, God[1].
Philosophy about the meaning of human existence
The question of the meaning of life is the question of whether life is worth living? And if it’s still worth it, then what is there to live for? People have long wondered about this question, trying to find the logic of their lives.
Awareness of the meaning of life, as its main value, is historical in nature. Each era, to one degree or another, influenced the meaning of a person’s life. It is no coincidence that the progressive minds of mankind understand it so differently: the meaning is in struggle (V. Belinsky, P. Beaumarchais), in action, in movement (J.-J. Rousseau), in improving oneself and society (I.G. Fichte), in serving society (N.S. Leskov), in enriching humanity with knowledge (D. Diderot).
There are various approaches to solving the problem of meaning in life, of which the following can be distinguished:
* the meaning of life is in its spiritual foundations, in life itself;
* the meaning of life is taken beyond the boundaries of life itself;
* the meaning of life is brought by the person himself into his life;
* there is no meaning to life.
Within the first approach, there is a religious version. The meaning of human life was given by God already at the moment of human creation. Having created man in his own image, he endowed him with free will. And the meaning of a person’s life is to achieve a given similarity with God. And therefore, man does not remake the world, much less create it himself, but acts only in participation in God’s creativity, improving himself and improving the world. The meaning of human life is to preserve and purify one’s immortal soul.
Philosophy considers the moral meaning of human life in the process of improving its spiritual foundations and its social essence on the principles of good. “The meaning of life is in finding goodness” (V.S. Solovyov).
The meaning is contained in life itself, but, unlike the religious point of view, it is argued here that a person finds the meaning of life in it himself. V. Frankl, for example, argues that everything has meaning, but it must be found, it cannot be created, because only subjective meaning can be created, regardless of life circumstances, and therefore meaning must and can be found. Conscience will help a person with this. The meaning of life consists of situational, specific meanings that are individual, just as life itself is individual. Based on situational meaning, a person outlines and solves situational problems of every day or even hour. There is also the meaning of history and the super-meaning of the existence of the Universe.
The second approach takes the meaning of life beyond the limits of a person’s specific life; there is an extrapolation of the meaning of human existence to the progress of mankind, for the good and happiness of future generations, in the name of the bright ideals of goodness and justice.
All of the above is the highest meaning and end in itself, while each human generation and each person now living acts as a means to achieve this goal.
From the point of view of supporters of the third approach, life in itself has no meaning, but a person himself brings it into his life. Man, as a conscious and volitional being, creates this meaning in his own ways. But a will that ignores the objective conditions of human existence and imposes its own meaning turns into voluntarism, subjectivism and can lead to the collapse of meaning, existential emptiness and even death.
From the mouth of a modern young man you can hear that the meaning of his life lies in pleasure, joy, and happiness. But pleasure is only a consequence of our aspirations, and not its goal. Even I. Kant argued that pleasure does not act as the goal of moral action, but is the consequence to which it leads. And if people were guided only by the principle of pleasure, then this would lead to a complete devaluation of moral actions, since the actions of two people, one of whom spent money on gluttony, and the other on charity, would be equivalent, since the consequence of both is pleasure.
The denial of the meaning of life has repeatedly manifested itself in the history of philosophical thought: even in ancient times, King Solomon’s aphorism “All is vanity” emphasized the meaninglessness of existence. In modern philosophy, representatives of existentialism argue that the world is chaotic and absurd, and human existence is absurd and meaningless[2].
But still, attempts to find the meaning of human life have prevailed in the history of human thought:
* the meaning of life is in its aesthetic side, in achieving what is majestic, beautiful and strong in it, in achieving superhuman greatness (F. Nietzsche);
* the meaning of life is in love, in the pursuit of the good of what is outside of man, in the desire for harmony and unity of people (L.N. Tolstoy);
* the meaning of life is to achieve a certain human ideal;
* the meaning of life is to maximize assistance in solving the problems of social development and comprehensive development of the individual (Marxism).
The realized meaning of life, which has value not only for the living person, but also for society, frees a person from the fear of death, helps to meet it calmly, with dignity and a sense of fulfilled duty.
The problem of death and immortality
Despite the diversity of points of view, in most teachings life is interpreted as a moment allotted to a person to prepare for death. Surprisingly, the death of a person and his possible immortality have always been given more attention than the path of life itself.
Death of a man
Death is the complete cessation of biological and physiological processes in a living organism. From a philosophical position, this definition is not sufficient. This phenomenon is absolutely inevitable and unpredictable, so it always bears the imprint of mystery and mysticism. People have always been afraid of the unknown, so philosophers, studying the essence of death, looked for a way to rid humanity of fear.
The study of the problem of death in philosophy can be divided into 3 periods:
Ancient Egyptian beliefs, Buddhism, and the treatises of Socrates and Plato express the idea of an “afterlife.” Tibetan monks did not consider the death of man as the absolute end of existence. They believed in the transition to a new cycle, in reincarnation. Most thinkers have written that death is a natural stage of the life cycle , which is pointless to fear. The death of a person was seen as a benefit necessary for the continuation of life on Earth.
In the era of the development of Christianity, the philosophical understanding of death has changed dramatically. The idea of “doomsday” spread. The moment of death was identified with the “hour of reckoning.” After death, a sinful person inevitably went to hell, and a pious person to heaven.
When scientists gained enough knowledge from the field of biology and natural history, ideas about the afterlife and possible resurrection began to be rejected. The study of death began to be approached from a rationalistic point of view. The death of an individual was seen as a natural change in human existence.
Ideas about eternal existence
Immortality is eternal, unceasing existence. From a natural scientific point of view, it is impossible to achieve such a state. Nevertheless, reasoning on this topic was found among all ancient peoples.
The Greeks and Jews understood immortality as the transition of the human soul after death to the “kingdom of shadows.” In ancient India and Egypt they believed in the transmigration of souls. Judaism speaks of the resurrection of the dead. In ancient and eastern philosophy, immortality is a reward for a worthy life.
Materialists categorically deny the existence of the soul, so they did not consider such a concept as eternal life. However, philosophers of the XIX-XX centuries. They believed that immortality could be achieved through the legacy left behind, that is, through descendants and created works of art.
