Any person can be called an individual. This is a separate person, which applies specifically to the class of manual, has a certain structure of the body, functionality and capabilities. An individual man is called from birth, so this concept refers to everyone. It should be considered how socialized is evolving and comes.

The Internet log site considers all its readers individuals, but reached its own level of individuality and personal growth. As an individual is a person and individuality, one should also consider, since these are different concepts.

Who is an individual?

Individual is an individual from the genus Homo Sapiens, which can be attributed to people. It has a certain set of genetic and biological characteristics. As its development, it acquires social, personal and individual qualities.

Individuals are absolutely all people who are born from a female person. Only from the fact that people have different characters and views on the world, does not make them animals or reptiles. Here you just need to have a certain genetic set, which makes a creature by a person on the appearance and functionality of its body.

Individuals all people are born. However, as its growth, individuals become personalities. This is already due to the conditions in which a person develops and acquires its individual qualities and features. Personality does not cancel that a person remains an individual.

The concept of individual

The concept of an individual can be used in two cases:

1. When a person refers to a certain type of living beings. All people are born individuals, since they have genetically and biologically possess all the characteristics that make them similar to people. Everyone who has such a set of biological characteristics is an individual.
2. When a person belongs to a specific group, but they make it a separate unit. The group consists of individual individuals. Each individual is a group if it includes several people. However, the Group does not make an individual to an empty place, it continues to remain an individual who affects the formation and development of the group or can leave it at all.

Thus, the individual is a biological being of a human kind, which wears a certain biological and social set of qualities. It is active, biologically programmed and social.

A different concept of "individual" can be defined as a "separate person." Absolutely any person is an individual, despite the fact that it has its own set of genetic qualities and personal characteristics. Despite the differences in appearance, behavior and character, absolutely any person who has common characteristic qualities is an individual from birth and to death.

In psychology, the term Individual is often used, which may mean not only a separate person, but also a certain set of its qualities, a separate unit of a particular group.

Social Individual

Human young is the most defenseless and needy assistance. If animals quickly pass the stage from the moment of their birth before self-preparation of food, then the human cub requires years to achieve their growing up. It is all this period that he is surrounded by parental care, the care of other people who not only take care of him, but also teach, bring up, that is, they form him as a person.

The individual is born with a separate individual, however, due to the inability to satisfy all its needs from birth and forced need for the help of parents, a person is social. He grows in the family, then falls into specific social groups, communicates to society as a whole and begins to participate in his life. A man from birth is social, even if it does not have all the skills of communication.

Individual initially communicates at the level of gestures, facial expressions and intonation. At the same level, adults communicate with it, because the child only understands this. However, in the future, the individual learns speech, writing defined behavior, which allows him to more accurately express his thoughts and needs.

The individual enters the society, regardless of his desire, as it cares and raises him. Without society, a person would not have survived. At the same time, society would not exist if there were no individuals.

Social Individual becomes as much as he influenced the education and training, through which his society holds (in the face of parents at first, and then also educators, teachers, media, etc.). The individual acquires social skills under the influence of society in which he grows. The state has certain regulations that differ from the mains that are farming in other countries. That is why different peoples differ in their manners, traditions and views on the world, continuing to form the same individuals from the new children who are themselves different from other nationalities.

In the process of learning and education, a person learns speech. This makes non-verbal communication with secondary, but it does not completely exclude it. One of the methods of learning is the consolidation: by promoting or punishment, parents or society demonstrate what behavior is acceptable, and from what should be refused because it is believed.

Individual is born with unconditional reflexes. However, the upbringing is aimed at the formation of conditional reflexes - when a person is trained in certain rituals, behavior, manners.

Socialization of the individual is carried out primarily in the family. It is the parents who tell the child about how he must behave, what qualities to have, what skills to study and what to know, which corresponds to the regulations and traditions that are in society. Parents prepare their child to public life, which often happens through the imitation of the kid to her mother and dad. In other words, the child is watching parents and copies their behavior. However, he can choose not only good and strengths of their behavior, but also bad, weak.

The second institution of socialization of the individual is a school that is deprived of an emotional sphere, but makes a person to know the world, receive knowledge, get acquainted with what success and failure. This is a kind of environment where the child is already being involved in social life, which will be not so favorable for him as his parents.

The third institution becomes peers with which the child contacts. It is friends who correct parenting parents make it more social, showing the pros and cons of all the skills of the child. Contacting with children, the child is forced to join those areas that were not represented by parents, as well as to change their worldview, expand it, to adjust.

Also, the media affect the development of an individual. However, they are already becoming the last link.

Individual behavior

Behavior is the activity of a person under the conditions in which it is located. It can be conscious and unconscious, adjustable, to be influenced by the circumstances or go beyond their limits. Behavior varies depending on human speech learning, thinking, new knowledge and even skills.

Behavior always has the causes of their appearance. Causes are those events or circumstances that preceded its occurrence.

Conduct always has a goal. Not always a person can put it consciously, but the actions are always targeted. Basically, their main task is to satisfy the needs of the individual. If a person does not consciously put this goal, then it is formed automatically on the basis of that dissatisfaction that occurs in the situation and causes to act. Motivation is just born here - the desire to satisfy your needs that are not yet implemented.

There is separate virtual behavior that occurred only with the advent of computer technologies and the Internet. It is characterized by its narrative, fake and theatricality.

Individual - Personality - Individuality

Three concepts that belong to the person are: individual, personality and individuality:

1. Individual is a biological creature from a man's kind.
2. "This is a social person who has certain social skills, performs a certain social work, occupies a specific social role.
3. Individuality is the uniqueness of the image of a particular person who differs from other people with their qualities and skills, knowledge and manners.

Individual and personality is not the same thing. A person is born by an individual, but the person is not yet, because it does not have social skills, knowledge and does not even show any qualities of character.

However, personality and individuality interact together, although they do not unite into a single concept. Individual character traits form a person. At the same time, the person is exclusively a social being. To be a person, you need to have any social skills and occupy a social position. At the same time, individual traits of nature can be formed regardless of whether a person is in society or exists in itself.

All three concepts are undoubtedly intertwined:

1. A person is born by an individual who possesses all the possibilities and predispositions that will contribute to the formation of individual qualities and social skills.
2. Through education and admission to social life, a person becomes a person.
3. By education, self-education, training, falling into different situations, experiments and other factors form various characteristics of the character and behavior manner, which make a person with individuality, unlike other people.

Individual and group

A group is a union of several individuals, which are still different by their individual features. They are united by a common goal, which forces them to interact and perform one overall activity.

Individual as if dissolved in the group, becoming part of it (although in fact he continues to be a separate person). He speaks on behalf of the group, not from his face. It interacts with other individuals of this group, depending on the routine of the behavior, which is encouraged in the team. Each occupies a certain position, only under certain conditions being capable of changing it.

The group dictates an individual, how to behave and what to do what to allow himself and what to refuse. At the same time, the individual can get out of the group at any time. It is also able to influence the development of the group, its formation and change, if it is in its forces.

The person is in the group, because he is trying to solve some specific problems with the help of other people. At the same time, the Group has specific goals to achieve joint efforts to be able to further enjoy all the privileges of the group.

Individual development

Personality development happens:

1. Biological - development and change of anatomy-physiological properties.
2. Mental - changes in the structure of the psyche.
3. Personal - changes under the action of upbringing and socialization.

All types of development occur gradually, affecting each other. All of them suggest the formation of new qualities that a person will use to accomplish actions and achieve goals.

Who is an individual in the end?

Individual is eventually called every person who is born in a human image. The personality is becoming as its development and socialization, as well as individual features are purchased as far as life.

The concepts of "man", "Individivid", "Individuality", "Personality"

In the psychological science of the category of man, individual, personality, individuality refers to the basic categories. The problem of personality is central in modern psychology, and this is not by chance, the most important theoretical task is to detect the objective foundations of those psychological properties that characterize a person as an individual as individuality and as a person.

Personality - the main mystery of the human world, his mystery, fascinating the thought and feeling of a ponderous person, on the other hand, working concept, actively used in the business language of almost all professions, in everyday communication. All this configures us to perceive this phenomenon, and work with the system of concepts in which it is reflected, it is necessary for respectful and professionally competently.

Figure 1 - System of Personal Concepts

A person is born already by man. Concept humanis the widest, it is the main, initial element of this structure, without which there is no social Action, links and interactions, nor social relations, communities and groups, nor social institutions and organizations.

Human - This is a socio-biological creature, embodying the highest level in the evolution of life and is a subject of social and historical activities and communication.

The main characteristics of a person:

The particular structure of the body;

Ability to work;

The presence of consciousness.

The concept of "man" is used as an extremely general concept for the characteristics of universal qualities inherent in all people and abilities. Using this concept, psychologists emphasize that a person is biological (natural) and social The creature at the same time, which has its own livelihood affects the environment.

The basis and point of reference indicated analysis human as a sociopriety phenomenon.

Natural human development vector: view in the biological classification of the evolution of life on earth; Natural creature relating to the class of mammals; View - Primates; Classification categorization - Homo Sapiens.

A person as a creature belonging to society, mankind, represents humanity, and in this his essence. Humanity (human genus, the human world) is a special, historically developing social, socio-psychological and spiritual community, which is different from all other material systems on the planet inherent in the method of vital activity.

The main socio-psychological characteristics of this method of vital activity - the mechanism "itself ...": self-organization, self-knowledge, self-consciousness, self-regulation, self-development, self-duration, etc.

Man as a separate representative of humanity is determined by the concept of "individual".

Individual - a single representative of the human race, a specific carrier of all psychophysical and social traits of humanity.

General characteristics of the individual:

The integrity of the psychophysical organization of the body;

Resistance to the surrounding reality;

Activity.

Individual is a biological organism, a carrier of the general hypothetical hereditary properties of this biological species. The process of such internal "felting" is well known, he was celebrated Ch. Darwin ...

Individual is primarily genotypical education. But the individual is not only the formation of genotypic, its formation continues, as is known, in the ontogenesis, in a lotume. Therefore, the characteristic of the individual also includes properties and integrations, folding ontogenetically. We are talking On the "alloys" arising innate and acquired reactions, the change in the subject matter of the needs, on the emerging dominants of behavior.

The most general rule is that the higher the ladder of biological evolution, the more difficult the vital manifestations of individuals and their organization are becoming more pronounced, the differences in their inborn and ingeniously acquired features are becoming pronounced, especially since that, if you can express it, Individuals are individualized.

In a number of these concepts, the personality is a narrower concept and emphasizes the social essence of man. Otherwise, we can say that individual - This is a "concrete person" from birth to death.

Individual - The initial state of a person in phylogenetic and ontogenetic development. Personality The same is considered as the result of the development of the individual, the embodiment of human qualities itself.

Personality is the social essence of man. The word "personality" in English comes from the word "person". Initially, it marked the masks who put on the actors during the theater representation in an ancient Greek drama. Thus, from the very beginning to the concept of "personality", an external surface social image was included, which takes a person when she plays certain life roles - a certain "linkey", a public person facing others. It follows that the concept of "personality" is primarily associated with the social essence of man.

Personality - This is a specific person who is a carrier of consciousness capable of knowledge, experiences, the transformation of the surrounding world and building certain relations with this world and with the world of other personalities.

Personality is considered as an embodiment in a particular social qualities that are purchased in the process of activity and communicating with other individuals.

A person is not born, the personality becomes.

Therefore, we are not talking about the identity of the newborn or about the identity of the baby, although the features of individuality are manifested in the early steps of ontogenesis, no less bright than in the later age-related stages.

Personality is a relatively late product of the socio-historical and ontogenetic development of a person ...

The concepts of personality and individuality are close to meaning. Individuality is one of the parties of the person, so it is more difficult to determine the concept of "individuality", because In addition to personal features that are the main components of individuality, it includes biological, physiological and other human features.

Individuality - A combination of the psychological characteristics of a person who makes it a peculiarity and his difference from other people.

You can give the following identity definition.

Individuality - This is a specific person who differs from other people a unique combination of mental, physiological and social features that are manifested in behavior, activities and communication.

If the individual is a person in the fact of his birth, then the individuality is developing and modified in the process of its livelihoods.

Individuality is manifested in the features of temperament, character, habits, as cognitive processes (i.e. in thinking, memory, imagination, etc.). With the help of the concept of "individuality", the uniqueness and uniqueness of each person are most often emphasized. On the other hand, in the individuality, we meet the qualities of the individual and the individual properties that everyone has, but have a different degree of severity and form combinations.

All individual qualities are manifested in various ways of behavior, activities, communication. The person will become a person when the social factor of his activity starts to improve, that is, that side of her side, which is aimed at society. Therefore, social relations are the foundation of the personality, but only those implemented in activities.

Realizing itself as a person, determining its place in society and the life path (fate), a person becomes individuality, acquires dignity and freedom, which allows you to distinguish it to any other personality, allocate it among others.

The specifics of social living conditions and the image of human activity determines the features of its individual characteristics and properties. All people have certain mental features, views, customs and feelings, each of us has differences in the cognitive sector of the person, which will determine our individuality.

The psychological structure of the individual is a holistic model, a system of qualities and properties, which fully characterizes the psychological features of the person (person, individual) (Fig. 2).

Figure 2 - Man - Individual - Individuality - Personality

[from lat. Individuum - indivisible], the concept denoting the representative of K.L. Groups, C-ry has separate independent existence and characteristic features, due to the presence of a to-ry, it cannot be identified with other representatives of the same group. In the process of historical development of the concept of "Individual", anthropological and psychological significance was added to its initial logical and physical significance, which made this concept very important and relevant to Novoevrop. Philosophy of man, ethics, aesthetics, social and political philosophy. In Sovr. Philosophy and psychology The concept of "Individual" is used primarily towards a person. Individual is every specific person as a single representative of the entire population of people (in the biological sense - the type of Homo Sapiens), which has only one inherent properties and qualities, as well as characterized by the integrity of mental life and self-consciousness. Starting from the late ancient philosophy, the concept of "Individual" in relation to reasonable beings (man, angel, God) was developed in close connection with the concept of "personality" (Greek. Πρόσωπον, lat. Persona, in Christian triadology and Christology also face), however -The philosophers and theologians did not coincide with him in meaning.

The origin and development of the concept of "Individual" (ἄἄομον) in ancient philosophy

Lat. The word individua (individuals), in the terminological value, for the first time in Cicero (I century. Before R. Kh.) (See: Cicero. De Fato. 18, 22, 23; Idem. De Fin. Bon. et Mal. I 6 . 17-18; Idem. De Natura DEORUM. I 66), was originally used to transfer the term ἄτομα introduced in Greek. Philosophical language by democrites and other atomists. As part of the latter's teachings, this concept was used to designate the smallest indivisible "elements" (στοιχεῖα), infinite in the number and not perceived by the feelings, which, along with the "void" (κενόν), a democritus considered the first reasons for all things that arise (see, for example: DK . 67A32; 68A1). According to Diogen Lanertsky, Democritis taught, "that the beginning of all - atoms and emptiness" (DIOG. Laert. IX 44). According to the testimony of Aristotle in the treatise "On the emergence and destruction", Democritis and Levkipp said that "all ... [things] consist of indivisible bodies (ἐκ σωμάτων ἀδιαιρέτων), infinite in quantity and forms, and differ from each other, and Also the position and order of these [items] "(ARIST. de Generalat. et corrupt. I 1. 314a); In the treatise "On the sky", Aristotle also mentioned that Democritis and Levkipp "claim that the primary values \u200b\u200bin the number of infinite, in terms of indivisible, it does not arise from one, from a lot - one, but everything is generated by their combination and interlacing" (IDEM. DE Cael. III 4. 303A).

As can be seen from the treatise "About man", Albert Great, who had an unprecedented for the Middle Ages, was known (apparently, through the treatise "On the soul" of Aristotle), the original Greek. The word ἄτομον (lat. Atomus) in that meaning, in which it was found in the writings of Democrit and Levkippa, that is, as the designation of indivisible particles, of which is all existing. In particular, he noticed that, according to democritus, "the soul substance consists of fiery spherical atoms; From the indivisibility (AB indivisibilitate) atoms, it has a disembodimentality, from roundness - mobility, and from fire - warm and ease "(Ibid. I 3. 1). This teaching Albert found unsatisfactory, and the term "atom" itself, identified with the term "point" (punctum), was used by it only in the specified narrow value and did not correlate with the LAT. Analogue individuum.

The concept of "individual" was considered by Alberta both in logical and on the ontological sense. Logical consideration was built on traditions. The Aristotelian idea of \u200b\u200bpredication: I. This is what is not predicated, i.e. does not affect anything other than one particular thing. At the same time, even about such a thing I. affects the special sense of indirect prediction, or notation. In this regard, Albert introduced an important distinction between the concept of "Individual", used in a broad sense (Individuum Vagum), and the concept of "individual" used in a narrow, or a concrete sense (Individuum Certum). The idea of \u200b\u200ba special kind of single, which is simultaneously common to other things, was probably borrowed by Albert in Ibn Sina (Avicenna), to-ry wrote about "single (Singulare) wide and incomplete (INCERTUM) sense" (see .: Avicenna. Liber Primus Naturalium: Tractatus Primus: De Causis et Principiis Naturalium / Ed. S. Van Riet. Louvain; Leiden, 1992. P. 12-13). According to Albert, "Individual in a broad sense" can affect many, however, it affects not as an individual, but as a view: "Individual in a strict sense (Individuum Certum) does not affect anything but about one single and Indeed [things] ... Whereas Individuum Vagum) affects many things, but does not affect the individual, but the type attack. "(Albert. Magn. De Praedicab. 4. 7). According to Albert's thought, it is individual, for example, the name "man", used not in relation to people in general, but in relation to a specific person who can directly indicate. Individual in a broad sense is also the name of Socrates, which can be applicable to MN. I., not being with the view for them. The transition from I. In the broad sense to I. in a strict sense, according to Albert, through the maximum accurate task of special axillating personal characteristics I. (Proprietates Accidentales). Referring to Boeation (a similar reasoning of the latter, see: Boetius. Comm. In Porphyr. // PL. 64. col. 114), Albert highlighted 7 personal characteristics, combined to-rye unique for each I. and can not be common in 2 Different and. Propria forma, personal face (Figura), personal relationship (Parentela), personal name (Nominatio), Personal Fatherland (Patria), Personal Time (Tempus) and Personal Place (Locus). Albert emphasized that these are not some overall axes that can be abstructed from the thing, but its characteristics at the moment and in this place, asking her unique existence: "All this cannot be abstracted from this thing, since [ There is] How exactly that is exactly here it is now (Per Hoc Et Hic Et Nunc) "(Albert. Magn. De Praedicab. 4. 7).

Albert paid special attention to the relationship of I. as private and species as common. With reference to Boeotia, Albert taught that all Genesis I. was concluded in the form to which they belong: "The view, as the Boeation says, is a complete being (Totum ESE) for individuals" (IBIDEM). At the same time, the species is not divided into I. as components; According to Albert, it is necessary to go rather about the involvement of I. View: I. Refines the type "As something single, according to everyday being and strength (Potestatem)", "they" have a view and are involved in him "(in Se Habentia Speciem et Participantia - IBIDEM). In the other place Albert speaks of the form of both the "essential similarity", which exists between I. (Ibid. 4. 2). This essential similarity, according to Albert, is given by "General Nature" (Natura Communis), whereas differ from each other by I. One species due to matter, and therefore they can be called "private [things] defined in matter" (Particularia in Materia Determinata - IBIDEM). T. Oh., Albert clearly postulates the essential superiority of the overall over private, since the essential being of the latter is entirely determined by its generic nature.

The entire relationship system of various terms relating to the relation of common and private in things is built by Albert in the comments to the "Central Comments" of Peter Lombardsky: "For the lower [things] there are four [names], namely: the thing of nature (RES Naturae), the subject, Suppose, individual, the fifth [name] is added to them as reasonable to them, namely the person. Under the thing of nature, we understand the addition (compositum) from the matter and shape ... Suppose the attitude towards the common nature, which he obeys as non-communicable. The subject ... There is a real, full of in itself, which makes it an opportunity to exist in it ... The individual there is something that has individualizing accentias (Accidentia Individuantia). The personality in relation to reasonable nature indicates the unwanted ... "(Albert. Magn. In Sent. I 26. 4). Albert specifically stipulates that the concepts of "individual" and "singleness" in relation to God the ancient church writers were not used and can only be used conditionally: "Individual and a single sense are used in relation to divine subjects (in Divinis)" (IBIDEM; more about The ratio of the concepts of "Individual" and "Personality" by Albert, see: Anzulewicz H. Grundlagen von Individuum und Individualität in der Anthropologie Des Albertus Magnus // Individuum und Individualität Im Mittelarlter. 1996. S. 124-160).

The doctrine of I. Roger Bacon (ɨ after 1290) in MN. Parts are similar to Albert's teachings, however, for a number of positions between these authors there was a serious controversy reflected in their writings. In the Treatise "Communia Naturalium" (general physics), Bacon noted the most fundamental point of discrepancies: according to Albert and its like-minded people, individuality is formed by means of type and acceding accedecies. Bacon, on the contrary, believed that every I. Since the emergence, it has an individuality, that is, "the individual, since he is an individual, in nature, has true being and its essence before it arises universal, and therefore neither [self] is universal, None added to it does not produce individuals "(Rogerus Baconus. Communia Naturalium // Idem. Opera Hactenus Inedita. Oxf., 1910. Vol. 2. P. 99). For Beckon I. It seems to be a unique creation of God, which in itself contains the foundations and began its individuality: "Principa Propria), which are in the essence of the individual, create it" (IBIDEM). By virtue of such uniqueness I., on Bekon, has a special value in the universe: "Nature is secretly acting in things, so that this [concrete] man is born, a person is born [in general]; This is the reason that one individual surpasses all the universals of the world. For the universal is nothing but a ratio (Convenientia) of many individuals "(IBID. P. 94). It is noteworthy that the value of I. is justified by Bacon theologically, through the appeal to the idea of \u200b\u200bthe divine fishery about the world, which is not aimed at the "man at all", but always on a specific ("single") person: "God created this world not for a universal person. but for single personalities; He created and redeemed the human genus not for the sake of a universal person, but for the sake of single personalities; Glory is presented not to a universal person, but selected personalities whose number is accurate. And it is clear from this that the unit is incomparably better than universal "(Ibid. P. 95). The installation on the primacy and uniqueness of the Bacon is firmly declared by Bacon. Later was perceived by John Duns to the cattle and the Okokom, sought more carefully to reveal the internal structure of individuality.

The transfer of the accent from the essential analysis of the concept of "Individual" for consideration of it in the framework of an individual's teaching (i.e., on the possibility, criteria and conditions of individual existence), the alberta of the Great and R. Bacon has already become more enhanced in the subsequent medieval. philosophy. At the same time, when analyzing specific issues related to various aspects of an individual, the ideas about I. and individuality were specified and deepened. At the same time, the consideration of the corresponding issues correlated with theological objectives, when the concept of "Individual" was used in solving. Throughout the XIII century. A steady range of issues was formed, when considering which the appeal to the analysis of the meanings of individuality was inevitable. These questions were primarily: the problem of the logical-ontological ratio of the general and private, the problem of the concept of "personality" in relation to God and man, the problem of knowledge of individual things, as well as specific theological issues about the method of existence of two nature in one hypostasis (or one person) Jesus Christ and about the method of liberation in the Eucharist (see: Portalupi E. Das Lexicon Der Individualität Bei Thomas Von Aquin // Individuum undIvidualität Im Mittelar. 1996. S. 61-62).

All designated aspects of the teachings of I. To one degree or another were developed in the compositions of the Thomas of Aquinas (1225-1274), a very frequently used term "individual" and the terms derived from it. Following the current tradition, Thomas differed I. in the general sense, the "name of the second intention", i.e., the general concept of I., applied to each particular I., and I. in the narrow sense of the "first intention", that is, Any single thing: "The individual can be denoted by doubly: either by the name of the second intensity (Per Nomen Secundae Intentionis), which are the names of the" Individual "or" single "(Singulare), which are not a single thing (Rem Singularem), but the intention of unity ( INTENIONEM SINGULARITATIS), or by the name of the first intention, which means [Self], the one that is converted to the intention of private Being (PARTICULARITATIS) (Thom. Aquin. In Sent. I 23. 1. 3). Fome was known to Greek. The origin of the term "Individual": So, leading the word PSP. John Damaskina that Christ took the human nature ἐν ἀτόμῳ, Thomas explains everywhere: "That is, in the individual" (ID EST in Individuo; See: Thom. Aquin. In Sent. II 16. 1. 3; Ibid. III 5. 3. 3; Ibid. III 6. 1. 1; Idem. SUM. TH. III 2. 5). In this regard, according to the Thomas, the most common and lying meaning of the meaning of the concept of "individual" is something simple and indivisible, the opposite of composite and complex: complex shares "up to individuals" (USQUE AD INDIVIDUA), and themselves are no longer divided ( Idem. Senentia Libri Politicorum. I 1. 8). In a narrower sense, also associated with the idea of \u200b\u200bindivisibility, I. There is something "What is separated (Divisum) from all other things that exists or may exist in the same form, but in itself there is as indivisible (in SE Indivisum Existens)" (IDEM. IN SENT. IV 12. 1. 1); "Inseparable (indistinctum) in itself, but separated (Distinctum) from others" (Idem. Sum. Th. I 29. 4). Some researchers saw in such a double characteristic of the separation of different and unit (singular), which is not in explicit form in a clear form in a foma. According to R. Panikkara, the principle of singleness is based on external factors and serves to distinguish one thing from the other, while the principle of individuality is based in the internal arrangement of a thing capable of self-identity, and therefore "singularity is numerical quality, and individuality has an ontological character "(Panikkar. 1975. P. 161-162). The fundamental property of all I. is "non-communicability" (incommunicabilitas - Thom. Aquin. QUAESTIONES DISPUTATAE DE POTENTIA. 9. 6), Following. What I. cannot be "in many ways" (in multis, in pluribus) and has unique and unique spatio-temporal characteristics (HIC ET NUNC).

Ontologically, the special position of individuals is given by the fact that, according to the Fome, only they possess "unconditional being": "There is no unconditional being (Simpliciter ESSE), except for [Genesis] individuals" (Thom. Aquin. In Sent. I 23. 1. 1 ). In this sense, the individuality is identified by the Foma with unity: "All anything, how much it possesses, has [also] Unity and Individuality" (IDEM. Responsio DE 108 ARTICULIS AD Magistrum Ioannem De Vercellis. 108). Individuality is also inextricably linked to the relevant (and not a mental or potential) existence of a thing: according to the belly, every I. must be "relevant to the ENS ACTU) or by itself, or in something else" (Idem. In Sent. IV 12. 1. 1). According to Thomas, all existing - individually, even universals have a real exement so far, as they are individualized in concrete things: "Universals have existence in the things of nature not as universals, but only in accordance with how individualized" (IDEM. Quaestiones Disputatae de Anima . one).

The question of individual accidents was raised by Foma due to the teachings on the liberation occurring in the sacrament of the Eucharist. According to the traditional idea, the thomas agreed with K-ryym, the exciderations receive their individual existence due to the substance or subject, with the K-fish they are connected (see, for example: Idem. SUM. TH. I 29. 1). However, in the case of Eucharistic liberation, the substance (entity) changes, and the excidens remain the same. Explaining the apparent contradiction, Thomas noted that an individual anchival can occur not only by the essence of the subject, but also through a special "measured quantity" (Quantitas Dimensiva), which becomes a subject of accedecies (IBID. III 77. 2).

When considering the question of whether it is possible to assume that in Christ two hatters or two individuals, Thomas clarified the meaning of the concept of "individual" in relation to something, which is a different, more complex thing. According to the Fome, "like this hand is called an individual, or a single, or private and human nature in Christ there is an individual, single or private" (IDEM. IN SENT. III 6. 1. 1). T. about., Believed Thomas, any parts of the complex things that can be thought of as possessing their own existence may be called individuals in a broad sense. Continuing reasoning, Thomas noticed that such terms as "personality" ("face"), "IPOST", "Suppose", "The Thing of Nature" may relate exclusively to independently existing things (PER SE Subsistentia), while the terms " Individual "," single "," private "can relate to both things that exist independently and to things that exist as components of anything other. Therefore, I concluded a from, we can speak in different senses and about one, and about two (or many) I. In Christ: "We say that there is an individual's hyposta; Consequently, since the unity of [Naturally], it was accomplished in an individual, it was accomplished in an individual, so in this sense we can say that in Christ one individual, however, in a different sense there are two or many individuals in it ... "( IBIDEM). In the "amount against the pagans" of Thomas corrected the concept of "full individual" (individuum completum), applied to substances, with the concepts of "personality" and "hypostas" used in the same sense, but in relation to exclusively "reasonable nature" (Natura Intellectualis) (IDEM. SUM. CONTR GENT. IV 48. 2). As thomas believed, individual and private "more accurate and perfect way" is found among the "reasonable substances" (in Substantiais RationalIbus), which is intended to have "power over its action" (Dominium Sui Actus), so it was for the designation of these special things An individual name was introduced - "Personality" (Persona) (see: Idem. Sum. Th. I 29. 1). Reasonable I. differ from unreasonable among other things and the fact that the fishery of God in relation to reasonable I. acts separately in relation to everyone, whereas in relation to unreasonable it acts "according to the form" (see: Idem. SUM. CONTR GENT. III. 111-113).

A special important reservoir in the dedicated individuality reflections of the Thomas is a gnoseological analysis of individual, i.e., questions about the cognition of individual things (both by a person and God) and the mechanisms of such knowledge. Since, according to Fome, material individual things cannot be directly accessible to reason, every I. is first perceived by feelings and is transformed into a special image, or the presentation is "fantasy." Then, on the basis of the totality of fantashes, the active mind creates a general concept, the intelligence itself can work with K-Ry. T about., I. As such do not mind mind and cannot be an object of accurate scientific knowledge: "Individuals ... do not fall under the consideration of the species; There is no understanding (Intelluctus) of them, but only a sense (Sensus) "(Thom. Aquin. Sentencia Super Meteora). However, in a number of texts, Thomas spoke of special, indirect identity I., which exists due to the connection of the mind and "mental force" (VIS COGITATIVA), which processes and summarizes the single data of the senses (more on the knowledge of the unit according to the bench, see: Klubertanz GP St. Thomas And The Knowledge of the Singulars // The New Scholasticism. 1952. Vol. 26. P. 135-166; B é RUB É. 1964. P. 41-61).

From the 2nd floor. XIII century The question of I. is almost completely shifted to the area of \u200b\u200bindemnitation disputes and the principle of individualization. Although most medieval. The authors claimed that when considering this complex of problems, they rely on the teachings of Aristotle, Sovr. Researchers allocate several. Sustainable positions regarding the principle of individualization, with difficulty consistent with each other. Considerable attention to various aspects of the problem of individuals were given in their writings such thinkers of this time as Heinrich Gentsky, John Duns Cattle, Herfru from Phontena, Peter Aureoli, John Baintorp, Jacob from Viterbo, Richard from Middleton, Heinrich from Harkley, Walter Barley, and others. (See Art. individual). One of the most important private issues devoted to individuals, but internally related to the understanding of Nature I., was the question of the individuality of "separated substances", that is,, in relation to Christ. creed, angels. Significant distribution in the XIII century. Received the position of the Foma Aquinas, according to the roma for angels, devoid of individualizing matter, I. identical to the form, so each angel is simultaneously separate I. and a special look. However, this teaching of the Thoma challenged MN. The theologists who saw in him the echoes of the views Avicenna, in accordance with K-Rya, the angels have divine nature. In particular, Heinrich Gentsky dedicated to the theme of the Angelic Individuality of several. There were vast "questions", in Kykh, tried to prove that the minimity of individuality to matter or form leads to theological problems, and therefore the recent foundation of all individuality should recognize God creating single things and gives them a unique individual existence (see: Brown SF Henry Of Ghent // Individuation In Scholasticism. 1994. P. 195-219). Apparently, under the influence of Heinrich theses that God cannot multiply the individuals within the species without the help of matter, they were included as a heretical in the list of delusions, published in 1277 by the Paris Bishop Etienne Tampie (see: Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis. P. , 1889. Vol. 1. P. 548-549).

An important role in the development of medieval. The teachings about I. played the emergency and its followers submitted in the writings of Duns and its followers from considering the issues of individual and I. within the boundaries of the Aristotelian dichotomy of matter and form. According to Duns, the cattle, from a variety of different characteristics of the individuality, dedicated to its time by researchers of this problem, is the most important is the initial characteristic of "indivisibility". At the same time, he focused on the distinction between the "integral" parts (PARTES INTEGRALES) and the "subjective" parts (PARTES subjectivae) things. Obviously, any person can be divided into some parts: eg, you can separate your feet from the body or soul from the body. All parts resulting from such a division, the essence of the integral parts of a person, i.e., parts included in it as a whole and outside of this whole person are not. The divisibility for such parts does not at all prevents anyone to be uniquely unique I. Individual, K-paradis characterizes the individual, indicates the impossibility of dividing the individual visiting on the subjective parts, i.e., on such parts, which would be the same Thedest is a dividious whole. So, one person will never be able to divide into 2 full-fledged people - that is why, according to Duns, he can rightly be called I. In general, an individual is any single thing, it is impossible to divide by 2 and more the same in the essence of things. The cause of individuality, according to Duns, cattle, is united and unique to each existing. He called this reason a "positive reality" (Realitas Positiva), "Positive List" (Entitas Positiva), "Individual Difference" (Diffirentia Individualis), as well as received. Wide dissemination by the term "etiability" (haecceitas). It is thanks to the Etosity I., possessing common nature, can be distinguished from each other. At the same time, the protesons cannot be reduced to either the matter or form, but rather is a combination of existential reality of a particular thing. According to Duns cattle, the concept of "individual" is the most common concept for describing the individual data, which applies to all of nature and is then narrows in the concepts of "Suppose" and "Personality": "As [the concept]" Individual "is used in relation to all nature So "Suppose" - as applied to the nature of the substantial, and the "personality" - in relation to the nature of reasonable "(Ioan. D. Scot. Ordinatio. I 23. 1). According to Duns, live, every I. connects the general and own and the uniqueness of such a compound specifies the uniqueness of I. : "Any individual has a species nature of integer (integraliter) ... But in addition to the species nature [individuals], individual forms also have, thanks to which they are formally different and which do not belong to the definition of the species" (Idem. In Met. VII 13). The uniqueness of I. and individual differences makes it impossible for a person to draw up their definition: "We cannot determine the individual, but not by its fault, but because of our weakness," (ibidem), that is, after. The limitations of human cognitive abilities (a detailed presentation of these and others. Aspects of the teachings of Duns cattle about I. See: Wolter AB John Duns Scotus // Individuation in Scholasticism. 1994. P. 271-298; Sondag G. Introduction // DUNS SCOT. LE PRINCIPE D "INDIVIDUATION. P., 2005. P. 7-69; Noone TB Universals and Individuation // The Cambridge Companion to Duns Scotus / Ed. Th. Williams. Camb., 2003. P. 100-128; Gracia JJE Individuality And The Individuating Entity in Scotus "S Ordinatio: An ontological Characterization // John Duns Scotus: Metaphysics and Ethics / Ed. L. Honnefelder et al. Leiden, 1996. P. 229-249).

The position of Okkama, guided by the ideas of Duns cattle, but largely radically radically analyzed them, is characterized by postulation of the primacy of individual and single things and the denial of the actual existence of any general concepts. The question of how the thing becomes an individual, was declared a pseudo-stage - things are created as individual by God and are available to a person exclusively as customized: "Any single thing in itself (SE IPSA) is a single thing" (Guillelmus de Ockham. Ordinatio. I 2. 6 // IDEM. Opera Theological. St. Bonaventure, 1967. Vol. 1. P. 196). Therefore, the explanations require not the fact of the existence of I., intuitively obvious for everyone, but only the question of the relationship of I. with common concepts, K-ry decided by the Occake Nominal: Any general concept is only a conditional name, or a "Universal Concept", which is generated by man ry denotes a set of individual things. Unlike Duns of Cattle, which considered that the actuality of things ultimately depends on the constituting of their divine will, the Okka argued that every thing is naturally individual, there is "from it yourself" (DE SE HAEC - IBID. P. 224). Besides, he focused on individuality as non-communicable individual qualities, claiming that if you take 2 I., then "there will be nothing in both the same in both, but everything that is in one, of course, is absolutely not in itself What is in the other "(ibid. P. 212). The nominal idea of \u200b\u200bI. was also manifested in the theory of knowledge of Okkama: according to his teaching, any knowledge begins with intuitive knowledge of an individual thing, while the knowledge of each thing is unique, so I knew one thing can not use this knowledge to acquire knowledge about other things. A person must begin every time with intuitive appeal to individual and cannot rely on his conditional generalizations.

In connection with this approach to the issue of I. For OKKAM, the task was to give a logically accurate description of I. and the terminuses related to individuals. According to OKKAM, within the framework of logic, the concept of "individual" can have 3 applications. In the 1st, most general sense, I. is called everything that is "one in terms of the number of things, and not many things" (Guillelmus de Ockham. Summa Logicae. I 19 // Idem. Opera Philosophica. St. Bonaventure, 1974. Vol. 1). In this sense and universals can be individual, since every universal formally has one name, which means it is in the ontological sense, and one thing: "Any universal is one single thing" (UNA Res Singularis - Ibid. I 14). In the 2nd sense of I. called every existing thing in the outside thing, the "thing outside the soul" (RES EXTRA ANIMAM), K-paradium is characterized by its unit. Such a thing, according to OKKAM, cannot "be familiar to anything", that is, can not talk about anything. It is in this sense that I. is called Aristotelian "First Substance" (IBIDEM). Finally, in the 3rd (strictly logical) sense of I.- "own sign one" (Proprium Signum Uni). This sign, according to OKKAM, is the "disturbed term" (Terminus Discertus, the later authors also used the expression "single term" - Terminus Singularis), i.e. the term applicable to a single thing and not applicable to others. It was to such a sign by the Okka who belonged to the words of Porphyrian that I. affects one and only thing (see: IBIDEM). Inside the last sense of individuality (I. as a sign), the Okkka conducted another triple division: individual signs are divided into names of their own (Nomen Proprium, eg, Socrates, Plato), index pronouns (Pronomen demonstrativum, for example: "That's it", with Note on a specific thing) and index pronouns connected to the general name (Pronomen Demonstrativum Sumptum Cum Aliquo Termino Communi; For example: "This person, this horse) (IBIDEM; WIR. Also: Maurer AA William of Ockham // Individuation in Scholasticism. 1994. P. 388-389).

Among the representatives of the late scholasticization period of the Counseloration of a lot of attention to the issues of I. and the individuality was given to Francisco Suarez (1548-1617). Having dedicated the 5th of the "metaphysical arguments" (Disputations Metaphysicae, 1597) the issue of individuality and individual, Suarez, as part of this study, proposed a certain generalization of scholastic views on I. The concept of "individuality" at Suarez is closely connected with the fundamental metaphysical concept of "unity"; Describing the individuality, Suarez usually used the expression "Individual Unity" (UNITAS INDIVIDUALIS). The decisive sign of individual existing, according to Suarez, is non-consciousness, so individual and private is primarily something opposing the universal and general: "General or universal is called that in the same sense (Communicatur) is reported to many or detected in many ways; one in the same number, single (singulare) or individual called the existence, which is one in such a way that according to the concept of essential, according to which it is called one, it is incubated a lot, whether in the sense of something lower and subject to it, whether in The meaning of a lot having the same concept "(suarez. DISP. Met. V 1. 2). T. about., In order to consider something I., it is enough to fulfill only one condition: it must be unborn. Suarez did not share the meeting at MN. Skolastov presentation of individuality, according to a to-ration condition for the existence of individual existing, is the difference from something else. Individual unity by nature is more primary for a thing than her difference from other things, but this difference is an internal and inevitable consequence of individuality of things. For the teachings of Suarez, all things of this world are the essence of the individuals: "All things that are actually actually existing, or that exist directly (immediate) or may exist [directly], essence [things] single (singulares) and individual" (ibid. V 1 . four). An indication of the "immediacy" and "relevance" of existence allows Suarez to exclude from this thesis about the individuality of any universals (eg, "man", "animal", "white", "long", etc.), which do not exist By yourself, but they are found only in other things. Individuality, according to Suarez, is applied even on God: "The divine nature is one in such a way that it cannot be multiplied or shared into many of themselves such nature; Consequently, it is a single individual and single nature "(IBID. V 1. 6). Individuality and singleness of all things are so fundamental that "even the absolute government of God, the currently existing real essence can be deprived of individuality and units" (IBID. V 1. 5). Since the unity as Transcendentality is reversible with the Being, the individuality is identified by Suarez with the "Entitas". There really really means to be individual (a more detailed presentation of Suarez's representations about individuality See: Gracia JJE Francis Suárz // Individuation in Scholasticism. 1994. P. 475-510; Idem. Introduction // Su Á Rez. On Individuation: Metaphysical Disputation V: INDIVIDUAL UNITY AND ITS PRINCIPLE / TRANSL. JJE Gracia. Milwaukee, 1982. P. 1-27).

The concepts of "Individual" and "Individuality" in the New Eurchateing Philosophy (XVI-XX centuries)

The transition from the theocentric to the anthropocentric worldview, characteristic of the Renaissance of the Renaissance Philosophical Schools, was not reflected in the ideas of thinkers of this period about I. Already in late Scholastics, the movement from the perception of individuality as a logical category to "peering" into a specific I., in every unique and unique person. In the thinkers of the Renaissance, the human personality and its singleness becomes absolute values, based on the second only and can be understood in general. The essence of this transition process is expressed in the polemically pointed, but in essence the right statement of Ya. Burkhardt (1818-1897): "In the Middle Ages, both parties of consciousness - a person facing the world and to his inner life - they were as if under some common cover, in Greza and meadrem ... A person learned himself only as a part of race, people, party, corporations, families or any other form of community. In Italy, this cover is first dispelled; There is an objective vision of the state and an objective attitude towards him, as well as to the world at all; At the same time, with full strength declares a subjective beginning, a person becomes a spiritual individual and knows such "(Burckhardt J. Die Cultur der Renaissance in Italien. Basel, 1860. S. 131). Individuality in the Renaissance Epoch becomes a direct fact of life, so scientific analysis of this category is largely replaced by various forms of its immediate existence and manifestation. The place I. in space in the revival philosophers is not so much comprehended how much is constituted, therefore such areas of individual activity, as politics, art, craft, and so on to the fore. (See Read more: Cassirer. 2000; Gurevich. 2005).

The trends inherent in the revival of the general tendency to absolutize I. were reflected in the relig. Thinking the founders of Protestantism. In writings M. Luther (1483-1546), J. Calvina (1509-1564) and others. Protestant. Theologists traditions. Catholic. The idea of \u200b\u200bthe religion based on the authority of the bias. The Scriptures and Traditions of the Church is replaced by the doctrine of religion as a personal relationship between human I. and God. Since each I. should not be in his Relig. Life rely on K.L. The authority, except for the authority of God and its own conscience, the authority of the church and pastoral teaching is minimized. This leads to the formation of "radical religious individualism", the essence of which, according to E. Treillach (1865-1923), is that each I. is considered a unique way "the irrelevant authorities approved from God" (see) .: TroeLTSch E. Luther und Die Moderne Welt // Idem. Kritische GesamTausGabe. B.; NY, 2001; BD. 8. S. 73). Each I. Before God, there is a unique way and has a unique relationship with him, so in Protestant, a rethinking religion is in many ways it becomes unlocuting, but a dividing and separate start.

Medieval connection. Paradigm of understanding I. With some Renaissance trends, characteristic of Nikolai Kuzansky (1401-1464). Nikolay Kuzansky took traditions. The correlation of I. and the species (kind): "Birth ... There are only ... in specific species, and species - only in specific individuals who are alone and exist relevant" ( Nikolay Kuzansky. About the scientist of ignorance // He. Cit. M., 1979. T. 1. P. 144). At the same time, I. is recognized only by a small and imperfect part of the universe, incapable of covering it entirely: "No individuals can reach their own genus and universal: after all, even between the individuals of the same type, there will be a difference in the degree of perfection, so That none will reach all available for this type of perfection, when more perfection it would be unthinkable, and on the other hand, it is impossible before the imperfect individual so that it is impossible to submit more imperfect "(ibid). At the same time, each I., according to Nikolay Kuzansky, in itself is harmonious and perfect: "In no individual, the beginning of individuals cannot be combined in the same harmonic proportion, as in another: each in itself is the only and possible extent for it" ( Ibid. P. 146). At the same time, in each form, and above all in human form, there are always individuals, in certain relations more advanced and outstanding out of the total. However, an affordable judgment about this is limited, because Dr. I. can never be able to be fully and always remains something mysterious and mysterious: "[We] cannot know at least one of all "(Ibid. P. 147). Every I., according to Nikolai Kuzansky, unique, how uniquely and uniquely uniquely, everything is unique: "As the only one is unique as possible, so, after it, the uniqueness of the world is the uniqueness, then the uniqueness of the species, then the uniqueness of individuals, of which everyone also unique; Everyone enjoys this very uniqueness, which in it so much that he is unique "(he. Hunt for wisdom // He. Op. M., 1980. T. 2. P. 381). These uniqueness and the uniqueness of all stem from God as "a single cause of all the only one, which gives all the uniqueness," this is the reason "neither, nor part; nor an individual; Neither it, nor then; Never named "(ibid).

In the compositions of G. V. Leibnitsa (1646-1716) The term "Individual" on the one hand is closely associated with a logical tradition ascending to Aristotle, and with the other Parties, endowed with some new meanings and characteristics caused by the metaphysical system of Leibnia - Monadology . Defining the ratio of I. and the species for Aristotelian tradition, determining the Aristotelian tradition: "Individuals ... a low-end is that it cannot be distinguished by the essential definition (Per Essentialia)" (Leibniz GW Table de Définition // Opuscules et Fragments Inédits de Leibniz / Ed. L. Couturat. P., 1903. Hildesheim, 1988R. P. 498). The leadership of the new idea of \u200b\u200bI. The leibness was the desire to overcome the clearance present in the above definition between the latter (i.e. the least common) view and I. According to Leibnitsa, the clarification of the concept is an infinite process, as a result of which I. and the concept is applied On a friend and essentially coincide. Conducting an analogy with a mathematical calculus of infinitely small, leibies believed that the concept should be differentiated up to the difference between a thing between the thing and the concept be "less than any given value" (Idem. Generales Inquisititiones de Analysi Notionum et Veritatum // Ibid. P. 376- 377). Based on this, Leibniz spread at all on any substance, the teachings of the Thomas of Aquinas that each angel is at the same time I. and the view: "The fact that Saint Thoma argued against angels or intelligentsia (namely, in this case, every individual is the lowest View), true for all substances "(IDEM. Discours de métaphysique // Idem. Philosophische Schriften: BD. 4: 1677 - Juni 1690: TL. BB, 1999. S. 1541; Wed: Thom. Aquin. Sum. TH. I 50. 4). By virtue of this, according to Leibnitsa, I. differ from each other not only materially, but also formally, or conceptual (see: Individuum, Individualität. 1976. S. 310-311).

Consideration of the concept and I. How logically commensurate magnitudes allowed the leibher to produce a kind of logical coup: instead of saying in accordance with the tradition, the individual substances differing only in the number fall under general concepts, or ideas, leibies, it chose to assert that universal is contained or lies in Special and one, thereby largely taking the ideas of ancient and medieval. realism on the nature of the universal. According to Leibnitsa, "[The concept]" Animal "contains more individuals than [the concept]" man ", but [the concept]" man "contains more ideas or formalities (Formalités), the first has more samples, the second is greater than the levels of reality (Degrés de Realité) ... "(Leibniz GW Nouveaux Essais Sur L" Entendment Humain // Idem. Philosophische Schriften. 1962. BD. 6. S. 486). Allocation of specific "individual concepts" as vertices of a logical hierarchy, replaced abstract teaching About I., located outside of this hierarchy and devoid of their own concept, marked the transition of the leibher from extensional to intensive logic.

Although "individual concepts" are a kind of mediator between the logic and metaphysics, in the purely metaphysical contexts of the leibyans, it was usually used not the concept of "individual", but the expression "individual substance". At the same time, the "individual concept", according to Leibnitsa, there is a complete display of the "individual substance". The latter was nominally determined by them as follows: "... when several predicates are attributed to the same subject, and this subject is not attributed to any other, then it can be called an individual substance" (Idem. Discours de Métaphysique. S. 1540). For a real, rather than formal definition of an individual substance, in a leibher, it is necessary to take into account that "the term of the subject should always contain the terms of the predicate", by virtue of the individual substance contains in itself "the basis and meaning of all predicates who may truly affect it "(IBIDEM). According to an explanation of the leibice, this means that the individual substance contains in itself and in itself reflects "the prints of what happened to it, signs that it will occur with it and even traces of all what is happening in the union" (IBIDEM). However, according to Leibnitsa, "Only one God is able to recognize them" (ibidem), so "we cannot have the knowledge of individuals and find a way of accurate identification of individuality of each thing" (Idem. Nouveaux Essais Sur L "Entendment Humain. S. 289 ). Since "Individuality Contributes Infinity" (IBIDEM), the human end discursive analysis is not able to comprehend the "contingent or actual truth" of individual things and facts (IDEM. LA MONADOLOGIE. 33 // IDEM. Opera Philosophica Omnia. B., 1840. BD. 1/2. P. 707). Complete concept (Completa Notio) I. Always includes an infinite number of existential facts, which is why it cannot be exhaustively engaged by the final human mind, And it is contained only in the "vision" (Visio) of God. In the Later Essays, the Labitsa Individual Substance is identified with the monad and is endowed with all the principal properties of the latter: indivisibility, independence, freedom, autonomous Astyia, etc.

The ideas of the Leibnia got very widespread in it. School philosophy XVIII - NAC. XIX century, however, at the same time at MN. The authors are scheduled for pronounced tendencies of the abandonment of a strictly metaphysical and logical idea of \u200b\u200bI. So, school logic did not go beyond the limits of the Labinitian ideas about and.; For example, H. Wolf (1679-1754) suggested the following definition: "Ens Singulare), or an individual, there is something that comprehensively (Omni Mode) is defined" (Wolff CHR. Philosophia Prima, Sive OnTologia. Francofurti; Lipsiae , 1736. P. 188), in fact, following the teachings of Leibnitsa about "full concept." However, it has. Romantics are formed by ideas about I., closely related to amplifying in the 2nd floor. XVIII century anthropology of this concept, with a tendency to its preferential use in relation to man. I. G. G. Gerder (1744-1803) Annuality is announced by the "deepest basis" of human existence (see: Herder JG Vom Erkennen und Empfinden Der Menschlichen Seele. Riga, 1778. S. 55), however, the basis is mysterious and incomprehensible, to which Indicate the famous words I. V. Goethe (1749-1832): "Individuum Est Ineffabile" (see the letter Götte I. K. Lafater from 20 Sep. 1780: Goethes Briefe Und Briefe An Goethe. Münch., 1988. BD. 1. S. 325). These words are a secularized version of Christ. The provisions on the inexpressibility of God, the place of which, a number of thinkers of the new time begins to occupy human I. in the compositions of the MN. it. Romantics, in particular F. Schlegel (1772-1829), reborn ideas about I. As a microcosm, which encloses the entire university: "The person has a microcosm, the characteristic of the individual is connected by the Characteristics of the University" (Kritische Friedrich-Schlegel -Ausgabe / ED . E. BEHLER. MÜnch., 1958. BD. 18. S. 229). It is true: the world is also there I. (Die Welt Ein Individuum IST - IBID. 1958. BD. 12. S. 42). Like World I., and the human I. is constantly developing and changing, "the individual there is some permanent formation" (IBIDEM), therefore it cannot be strictly scientifically defined and "grasped" only in intuitive creative comprehension: "Every individuality is poetic" ( Ibid. BD. 18. S. 253); "For each individual there is an infinite multitude of real definitions" (IBID. 1958. BD. 2. S. 177). Romantics were erased by traditions. Contrasting individual and universal: the idea was interpreted as an individual, and I. was considered as a "personalized idea" (see : Ibid. S. 265). Schlegel is noticeable of pronounced individualistic motives, reflecting the tendency to absolutize human individuality: the formation and development of their own individuality was considered by him as "Higher vocation", "a certain divine egoism" (Göttlichen Egoismus - Ibid. Bd. 18. S. 134). V. Gumboldt (1767-1835) presented a similar understanding of individuality (1767-1835), who wrote that "every individuality is manifested in a certain desire (Treib)" (Humboldt W., Von. Werke / Hrsg. A. Flitner, K. Giel. Darmstadt , 1981. BD. 3. S. 199), which is human strength (Kraft), connecting a person with the comprehensive and transformed world around them. The individuality formed in cooperation with the world is "idea displayed in reality" (IBID. S. 198). This idea is no longer understood as an opportunity, but as a real reality (Tatsache), which has its own foundation itself, and therefore identified with freedom: "Freedom is nothing but ... the unhindered effect of genuine strength things" (ibid. BD. 2. S. 338). At the same time, Humboldt did a special emphasis on the fact that the human I. cannot exist and develop "as a separate creature", but needs spiritual interaction with other I., which is actually carried out primarily due to speech that is and the means of expressing individuality , and a means of communication of various individualities (more about I. It. Romantics. See: Behler E. Die Konzeption der Individualität in der Frühromantik // Denken der Individualität. 1995. S. 121-150).

Philosophical reflection and partly denial of submissions of him. Romantics about I. It is possible in various forms to detect in the writings I. G. Fichte (1762-1814) and G. V. F. Hegel (1770-1831), the general motive of the second in the teaching about I. is the postulation of the General of the Universal Over the individual. At the same time, the very ratio of universal and individual interpret is different. In the preface to the "care of" Fichte, the philosophy described his philosophy as a "system, beginning, end and the whole essence of which is that the individuality is theoretically forgotten and practically refuted" (Fichte JG Sämtliche Werke. B., 1845. BD. 1. S . 516-517). However, to refute the individuality, it was necessary to indicate a certain concept of individuality, which determined the need for its existence. According to Fichte, individuality is necessary as "condition of self-consciousness" (IBID. 1845. BD. 3. S. 8). In the "Summary of Natural Law" and "System of Moralism" Fichte noted that the "final reasonable creature" could not exist and realize himself isolated from other sensible creatures. According to Fichte, "I controvers myself to another reasonable creature, and it opposes himself to me; And this means - I as an individual with a relationship with him, and it as an individual relates himself to me. Because of this, an understanding of itself as an individual there is a condition of self (Ichheit) "(IBID. 1845. BD. 2. S. 221). According to the teachings of Fichte, each I. is characterized by a unique and characteristic of this I. "Manifestation of Freedom" (Äußerung Der Freiheit - Ibid. Bd. 3. S. 42). Freedom manifests itself primarily in "free action" (Freie Handlung), the individuality is formed and determined. Fichte emphasized the dynamic nature of human individuality, K-paradium is not more than once and forever established, but there is a constantly changing reflection of human existence: "At every moment of my existence (existenz) ... I am who who I do myself with the help of freedom; I am so precisely because I do it like that "(Ibid. 1845. BD. 4. S. 222). However, according to Fichte, the difference between all I. does not have something positive; On the contrary, the mind requires the equalization of individual differences. "The Highest Law of Humanness (Menschheit)", according to Fichte, is that all the deposits in each I. are developed "uniformly" (Gleichförmig), which means: "All different reasonable creatures must transform and become uniform with respect to each other. "(IBID. 1845. BD. 6. S. 314). By virtue of this, the marginal goal of any society Fichte announced a "complete similarity (Gleichheit) of all its members (Mitglieder)" (IBID. S. 315). In later works of Fichte, the ratio of individual and universal interpreted also through the ratio of I. and the genus (Gattung). At the same time, the individuality is declared "recklessness" or "nerazumami" (VernunFtlose) in relation to the genus, so "reasonable life" should be that I. "Forgot himself in kind," brought his life "Sacrificing the life of the whole" (Ibid . 1846. BD. 7. S. 35). Later, similar ideas developed in the early philosophical work F. V. Y. Shelling (1775-1854). According to Shelling, "Every individual individual and perfectly and perfectly expresses (Vollkommen) expresses the concept of the genus; Each individual [Individual] implements the ideal of a kind of "(Schelling F. W. J. Sämtliche Werke. Stuttg., 1856. ABT. 1. BD. 1. S. 471). Shelling has particularly noted that the advantage of the genus before I. is due to the continuous existence of the kind: "The individual should seem to the means, the purpose of nature; Individual is the transient, and the genus is "(IBID. BD. 3. S. 51).

In late works, Ficht, in addition to the idea of \u200b\u200bthe individuality denoting "exclusively personal sensual existence of an individual," the concept of "ideal personality" is found. This individuality is a form of manifestation of a certain "eternal idea", it is in no way determined by sensual individuality, but destroys it (see: Fichte J. G. Sämtliche Werke. Bd. 7. S. 69). In essence, this individuality is not "I", but "we", that is, collective intelligence. According to Ficht, "in the world nothing depends on what ... Der Einzelne thinks or does not think," but only at the same time individual and collective "we, as a kind of common (Gemeine), dissolved in the concept, absolutely forgotten our Individual personalities and mercy of thinking "(IBID. S. 239), - only such" we "is a genuine reasonable subject of thinking and action. At the early Schelling, this "we" is identified with the family, which allows him to say: "All my actions should be sent as an extreme goal of something that can be realized not through one individual, but only through the whole kind", therefore " The individual acts in history, but the genus "(Schelling FWJ Sämtliche Werke. Stuttg., 1858. ABT. 1. BD. 3. S. 596-597).

According to Hegel, various aspects and form of manifestation of individuality are forced to consider its concept within different sciences. Nature philosophy (Naturphilosophie) deals with real manifestations of individuality; The philosophy of religion and philosophy of history investigate the history of individuality, in particular the historical formation of "endless and absolute value" of an individual-personal spirit (Hegel G. Vorlesungen Über Die Geschichte der Philosophie // Idem. Werke / Hrsg. E. MOLDENHAUER, KM MICHEL. FR. / M., 1969-1971. BD. 18. S. 68); Aesthetics are engaged in the "excellent personality" of the ideal; etc. However, the concepts of "Individual" and "Individuality" themselves, according to Hegel, should be considered in the "science of logic" (more on the logical aspect of Gegel's teachings about I. See: Individuum, Individualität. 1976. S. 317-319 ). Hegel used the concept of "Individual" not in the limited anthropological sense to its time, i.e., he did not reduce him to human I., but retained the old Labinitian meaning of the individuality as unity in the set and I. as an "nature atom." According to Hegel, I. is characterized by the fact that all of its parts are "associated with a certain true unity (EINS)." At the same time, individuality differs from " simple order, orderliness (arrangement) and external interconnection of parts "(Hegel G. Die Wissenschaft der Logik // Idem. Werke. BD. 6. S. 424). Non-definition (BestimmTheit) I. There are first of all "in itself and for myself, a certain certainty", "immanent form", "self-determining principle" (IBIDEM). Inside the logic, individuality manifests itself as a concept, more precisely, as "substance released as a concept", which is "the cause of itself" (Ibid. S. 251). At the same time, in its unit, excluding other I. and opposing themselves with general, I. There is only a "negative unity". On the contrary, as the moment of concept, the individual is closed with universal (genus) and a special (species sign), as a result of which the individual becomes "depth in which the concept" (Ibid. S. 297). T. about., Individual is justified in its existence only where it is destroyed in mind.

Theoretical representations of Hegel on individuality affected its social and political teachings. According to him, the single people themselves form only the set I., the shapeless mass, the activities of the Qior are determined by elementary needs and are essentially unreasonable. Only a few I. are able to stand out from the total mass, but they also act on their own will and desire, but are able to stand out due to the subordination by their own individuality by the universal rally of the world spirit. It is from such an idea of \u200b\u200bthe role of individuality, the well-known statement of Hegel about manifested in the history of "tricks": "Private in most cases is too small compared to universal: individuals are sacrificed and circumscribed on death. The idea pays tribute to cash and fraternity is not from itself, but from the passions of individuals "(Hegel G. Vorlesungen Über Die Philosophie der Geschichte // ibid. Bd. 12. S. 49). In general, Hegel also binds to the moral (Sittliche) opposing the arbitrariness of individuals. The highest form of moral in the area of \u200b\u200bthe objective spirit, according to Hegel's thought, is the state-in, to-rye removes individual in general.

The criticism of the absolutization of universal in Hegel was consistently carried out in the writings of S. Kirkegor (1813-1855). His doctrine of individuality that continues the traditions of him. Romanticism and developing individualistic trends of Protestantism, occupies a special place in the history of this problem in the 1st floor. XIX century In reflections on the individual and unit, Kirkegor proceeded from the fact that the actual one is more important than the abstract and speculatively created speculative entities. Life, on the thought of Kirkegore, does not develop according to dialectical laws, but there is a chain of paradoxes, the defiantly of the order of mind. The most important of such paradoxes is the permanent relig. The faith is the fact that a single person (Enkelte, the synonym for the term "Individual") "is located exactly as a part in the absolute relation to the absolute (ET ABSOLUT FORHOLD TIL DET ABSOLUTE)" (Kierkegaard S. Frygt OG BæVEN // Idem. SAMLEDE VæRKER / ED . PP ROHDE ET Al. København, 1962-1964. UDG. 5. S. 102). Diagelika Hegel, according to Kirkebor, is powerless to explain I., existing before God and entering direct personal relationships. The infinite significance of each specific I., "Little I" (Lille JEG), in Kirkegorer, can be realized only thanks to Christianity: "[Christianity] seeks to make every individual individual forever blissful and ... within this individual it implies endless interest in his Own bliss "(IDEM. AFSLUTTENDE UVIDENSKABELIG EFTERSKRIFT TIL DE PHILOSOPHISKE SMULER // IBID. UDG. 9. S. 18-19). It is an active desire for such bliss "absolutely transforms the existence of an individual" (IBID. UDG. 10. S. 82). This desire simultaneously turns the genuine dialectics of the infinite and final: "Existing [Individual] is endless and finite ... If ... Bliss becomes the highest blessing for him, this means that inside it all end elements once and for all are reduced to what Anyway will have to refuse, building the attitude towards perpetual bliss "(Ibid. S. 85). T., seriously, perceived Christianity transforms all existence I., but no one can judge the depth of this transformation, "with the exception of the individual himself in the depths of his soul (Med Sig Selv)" (IBID. S. 87). Ultimately, according to Kirkegore, I. must "destroy himself", but not in the sense of Hegelian identification of himself with universal, and in the sense of mystical subordination of his individuality to the personal absolute: I. must go through "self-destruction", because "the individual the individual falls Down, in your own relationship with God "(IBID. S. 229). As Kirkegor wrote, "God becomes the basis, only when everything else was removed on this way, when everything is removed, and above all the individual himself in his limb, in his uprising against God" (see: ibidem).

Kirkegor also offered his own interpretation of the relationship of I. and the genus (SLæGT), which there is not an abstract universal, but livelihood of individuals. This interpretation of Kirkegore is closely conjugated with Christ. The teaching on primary sin, which is both generic, and its own sin, I. According to Kirkegore, "for every moment the individual is both and native" (Idem. Begrebet Angest // SAMLEDE VæRKER. 1962-1964. UDG. 6 . S. 124). The relationship of I. and the kind is the relationship existential and historical relationship: "No individual can be indifferent to the history of the genus, just as the genus is not sensible to the history of any individual" (IBIDEM). The contradiction between I. and the family, according to Kirkegore, should not be removed like Hegel, but constantly sharpened in the "historical movement", since any "Individual is constantly starting at first ... and thereby he starts the story again" (IBIDEM).

Characteristic for it. Romanticism absolutization I. as a free and independent reasonable figure with uniqueness and originality (EIGENTLICHKEIT), was brought to a maximum of some thinners attributable to individualism as a philosophical direction, which significantly spread to Europe. philosophy of the XIX-XX centuries.

The term "individualism" (Franz. Individualisme; it. Individualismus) originated in Franz. Thoughts in the analysis of the ideological content of the Epoch of Enlightenment and the socio-political events of the French revolution 1789-1799. Conservative thinkers precisely in the absolutization of individual will and the diminishing of the idea of \u200b\u200bthe public good seen the source of political upheavals. Catholic. Publicist J. De Mester (1753-1821) noted that public order fluctuates in its reasons, since in Europe it became too much freedom and too little religion "(Maistre J., DE. Oeuvres Complètes. Lyon, 1884-1887. T . 2. P. 342). According to de Mostru, it is the "deep and frightening division of the minds, the infinite fragmentation of all exercises, political Protestantism" lead to "absolute individualism" (IBID. 1886. T. 14. P. 286). Dr. Franz. Catholic, F. R. De Lamenne (1782-1854), argued that individualism is a public manifestation of philosophical absolutization I. Enlightenment philosophers proclaimed that the mind and. - "This is his law, his truth is his justice." In their opinion, "to impose an obligation on the individual, which he himself does not impose on himself in his thinking and will means to violate the most sacred of his rights." It was due to the power of dissemination in society such ideas it turned out that "no legislation is impossible, no power." Individualism, according to Lamenne, "destroys the idea of \u200b\u200bobedience and duties," so as a result there is nothing, except for the "terrifying mixing of interests, passions and various opinions" (Lamennais FR, DE. Oeuvres Complètes. P., 1836-1837. T . 9. P. 17-18).

If in conservative Catholic. Franz. Lit-re The term "individualism" became the designation of the root of all public caregivers, then the liberal and revolutionary writers of France and Germany, on the contrary, proudly called themselves individualists and defended individualism as a way of relationship between society and man. So, M. Stinner (1806-1856), individualism was directly identified with extreme egoism and was reduced to anarchic rebellion against society. In KN. "The only and his property" (Der Einzige und Sein Eigentum, 1844) Stirner wrote: "To me, Egoist, there is no business to the good of" human society "; I am not sacrificing for him, I only use it; And so that it may be completely used to use it, I turn him into my property and in his creation, that is, I destroy him and rank in his place of the Union of Egoists "(Stirner M. Der Einzige und Sein Eigentum. Stuttg., 1991. S. 196). In more moderate authors, individualism was often identified with the individuality and indicated the need for each human I. to independently develop its own abilities. At the same time, I. and the society were not opposed, but were confirmed by complementary and interacting realities (details about the history and various meanings of the term "individualism" see: Lukes S. The Meanings of "Individualism" // Journal of the History of Ideas. 1971. Vol . 32. N 1. P. 45-66; Idem. Individualism. Oxf., 1973).

Negative reaction to those spread to the 1st floor. XIX century Individual mood is reflected in the writings of A. Shopenhauer (1788-1860). Based on the teachings about the world will, Schopenhauer highlighted various levels of the existence of individuality in the natural world: "Any person can be considered ... as a special particular and characteristic manifestation of will, in animals, this individual character is generally absent ... and its trail disappears To a greater extent in plants that are still further from the person. " In the field of inorganic nature, "every individuality completely disappears" (Schopenhauer A. Die Wille Wille Und Vorstellung // Idem. Sämtliche Werke / Hrsg. A. Hübscher. Wiesbaden, 1966. BD. 2. S. 156-157). However, according to Schopenhauer, although the individuality is an integral part of a person who is asked by his will, the individuality is not identical to the will, and therefore refers to the field of phenomena, it is "the transient manifestation of will" (Ibid. S. 242). Following I. Kanta, Schopenhauer argued that the individuality as a phenomenon is constituted by space and time as a priori forms of sensual contemplation that determine the possibility of many and differences. According to Schopenhauer, "the will is manifested in a variety of individuals", while "the thing in itself" this will is one, and not multiple, and therefore not individual. The will is present in each I. "Bally and inseparable", so every knowing I. with the need "is aware of himself as a holistic will to life", as "in-to-being (ANSICH) of the world itself," as a microcosm equal to the Macrocosm (Ibid. S. 391-392). Like an individual will, an individual representation is only a phenomenon, i.e. the world is not in its essence, but in its existence for an individual knowledgeing of the subject. At the same time, a person has "the immediate consciousness that everything ... worlds exist only in our submission, only as modifications of the eternal subject of pure knowledge" (Ibid. S. 242). If a person is removed from his individuality and forgets about her, he is aware of himself with such a subject of knowledge, the Khopenhauer also called the "Eternal Okom of the World, which ... looks from any living being" (Ibid. Bd. 3. S. 424) . This knowledge is always self-identical, it is "the same thing, the carrier (TRÄger) of the world and unchanged ideas," whereas I., it is because of its individuality, endowed with incomplete and vague knowledge, "has only single things and is the same Transient, like them "(IBIDEM). Since the individuality of the knowledge, making it imperfect, is determined by the individuality of consciousness, a pure subject of knowledge, which is no longer there is a phenomenon, but there is a "thing in itself", is formed due to the "lack of individuality" and "abolition of consciousness" (IBID. S. 370) . Therefore, pure knowledge is something unconscious, which is "on the other side of the cognition", "empty nothing", which "boils as the last goal above all virtues and bliss" (Ibid. Bd. 2. S. 487). Based on this marginal purpose, Schopenhauer gave a negative assessment of human individuality: "In its foundation ... Any individual is only a special form of misconception (IRRTHUM), misconduct (FEHLTRITT), something that would be better not to be." Therefore, the "genuine goal of life" is that a person removes himself from the individuality of consciousness and knowledge and dissolved in a single unconscious subject (IBID. BD. 3. S. 563).

Diametrically opposite t. On I. and his position in the world was developed by F. Nietzsche (1844-1900). For Nietzsche independence I. Universal, and his subordination is universal only "ways" that need to be destroyed. I. Nietzsche is interpreted primarily as a manifestation of creative will: "Individual is always new and creates a new one" (Nietzske F. Werke: Kritische GasamtausGabe / Hrsg. G. Colli, M. Montinari. B.; NY, 1977. Abt. 7. BD . 1. S. 705). It is this creative nature that I. is determined by his opposition to the Universal Law, whether in the moral or in the legal sense. According to Nietzsche, I. must creatively overcome his timidity before universal, if it remains, then only as a general limit goal. This goal of Nietzsche saw in overcoming the person himself as a natural species, achieved thanks to the creative effort of individuals: "Doesn't it be ... Any individual to be an attempt to achieve a higher kind than a person, exactly thanks to its most individual?" (IBID. 1971. ABT. 5. BD. 1. S. 567). Based on this, Nietzsche proclaimed his own Morality, the task of K-Roy - "more and more to take his universal character and separate him," making it "incomprehensible to others" (IBIDEM). In the place of mankind, as the limiting goal of the activities of a particular person, Nietzsche has an individuality, interpreted in its development as something overcoming the person himself and makes it superhorecom. Since the individuality is most pronounced in the will to power, and the latter is primarily the struggle with Dr. I., in the interpretation of individuality, Nietzsche sounds and utopian-anarchic motives: "The highest degree of individuality will be achieved when everyone, like hermit, in the highest Anarchy will establish their own state "(IBID. S. 539). The "eyelid anarchy", according to Nietzsche, there are the "century of the most spiritual and most free individuals" (IBID. 1973. ABT. 5. BD. 2. S. 350), fully implementing its own independence (more on the development and change in Nietzsche's ideas about and . And the individuality in different periods of creativity, see: Nabais N. The Individual and Individuality in Nietzsche // A Companion to Nietzsche / Ed. K. Ansell-Pearson. Oxf., 2006. P. 76-94).

From the 2nd floor. XIX century Theoretical interest in the question of I. and about the concept of individuality is inferior in philosophy the place of problematization of the very fact of the individual existence of a person in all the variety of his physical and spiritual life. Although ascending to the leibher and the finally decorated by Hegel, the idea of \u200b\u200bI. as the constituted initial and unconditional self-determination and free self-consciousness, I., and less perceived as an independent monad, as self-sufficient, remained widely common and practically generally accepted. The at the central theme of philosophical reflections about the individuality of I. to other I., that is, the actual, and not the theoretical relationship of the individual, identified with each specific person, and the universal, embodied in society and state.

A rather radical idea of \u200b\u200bthe interdependence of the particular human I. and society as a totality of I. was carried out in the philosophical and socio-political writings of K. Marx (1818-1883). According to Marx, "the first condition for any history of mankind is naturally the existence of living human individuals" (MARX K. Die Deutsche Ideological // Marx-Engels- Werke. B., 1969. BD. 3. S. 20-21). However, the natural device, the "bodily organization" of these I. implies the need for their relationship with the outside world. Individuality is formed primarily by the natural circumstances of human existence, however, it is further formed more complex public and social relations. Human being in his real existence, according to Marx, there is no "abstraction related to a separate individual", but the "ensemble of public relations" (Idem. Thesen Über Feuerbach // Ibid. S. 534), "Human World, State, Society" (Idem. Zur Kritik der Hegelschen Rechtphilosophie // MARX-ENGELS- Werke. B., 1976. BD. 1. S. 378). The Company is not formed from independent and autonomous I., but "expresses a set of relationships and relations in which individuals are each other" (Idem. Grundrisse der Kritik Der Politischen Ökonomie. B., 1953. S. 176). Public relations are formed by individuals and in turn form individuals, therefore, it is in the field of social relations that the Marxist ideology called to K-Rom, seeing the method of practical abolition of "non-free" and "oppression", reigning in a bourgeois society .

Attempts to offer a slender system for the ratio of individual and universal were made in the philosophy of Neokantians. P. Natorp (1854-1924) highlighted several areas, in which individual and universal relationships are built on various schemes. In philosophy, as well as in general, in the theoretical knowledge, "Individual remains subject to the laws of the general,"; In ethics, there is a "strict equilibrium of general and individual"; Finally, in aesthetics there is a "full revolution of relations in common and individual", that is, the individual here has an unconditional advantage over the universal (Natorp P. Philosophie, IHR Problem und Ihre Probleme: Einführung in Den Kritischen Idealismus. Gött., 1911. S . 104-105). Rickert (1863-1936) saw in the natural sciences the area of \u200b\u200bdomination of universal concepts, while humanitarian sciences, in particular the story, deal with individual. At the same time, the individual is endowed with value and meaning with t. Universal (see: Rickert H. Die Grenzen der Naturwissenschaftlichen Begriffsbildung. Tüb.; LPZ., 1902).

During the XX century. in zap. Philosophy continued research of issues of I. and individuality from various tons. Relations of I. and Society, the historical fate of I. and the structures of the individual existence of each individual person were considered in the works of the city of Zimmel, M. Heidegger, K. Yaspers, J. P. Sartra, M. Marseille, G. Ghadamer, E. Levinas and others. Antinomy of individual and general (collective) were developed in detail both in the writings of Marxist philosophers and in the writings of their opponents. A serious contribution to the analysis of the social and political nature I. introduced philosophical and sociological studies of K. Popper, T. Adorno, K. Schmitt. The various structures of the relationship between specific I. received coverage in the writings of representatives of the philosophy of dialogue, existential philosophy and psychology: K. Levitov, M. Bubra, K. G. Yunga, E. Fromma, M. Tinissen. Within the framework of philosophical anthropology, M. Sheer was raised the question of the relationship of I. and space as a whole, actively discussed and the Council. philosophers. In the 2nd floor. XX century in Anglo-amer. Analytical philosophy has emerged trends towards deanthropology of the concept of "Individual", which again acquired a logical and linguistic sense from representatives of this philosophical direction.

The concept of "individual" in Orthodox theology

In Sovr. Justice. Theology The concept of "Individual" is used relatively rare, most often - in a polemical opposition to the concepts of "personality" and "face". The most solid attempt of such opposition is presented in Article V. N. Lossky (1903-1958) "theological concept of a human person." According to Lossky, any anthropology of the individual should be based on the basis of Christology, i.e., relate to the church teaching about the person of Jesus Christ and check this teaching. Lossky argued that the notion of "individual" there is no place for either triadology, nor in Christology: "In the Troic Curric University ... The concept of" Ipostaska "is not equal to the concept of" individual "and" Divine "is not a certain" individual substance "of the Divine Nature" ( Lossky. 2000. P. 293). I. was understood as Lossky as something limited, crushing nature and opposed the concept of "Ipostaska", which expresses simultaneously and the general and private. Human hyposta, according to the thought of Lossky, "is not known to the level of individual nature, or substances" (ibid. P. 294). Recognizing, "that in the language of theologians (i.e. church writers of patriastic and medieval. Epoch.- D.S.) - and Eastern, and Western" - the term "human personality" coincides with the term "human individual", Lossky considered, What can not be stopped on this statement and should "find another ... an understanding of the person", which can no longer be identical to the concept of "individual" (ibid. P. 295). Personality should not be understood as part of the "complex individual nature of a person", as "the highest quality of an individual, the quality of his perfection as a creature created in the image of God" (ibid. P. 299, 298). According to Lossky, the personality can be defined only apoophobically, as "human incorruptibility to [its] nature" (ibid. P. 299). I. The thoughts of Lossky, there is something fragmented, deprived of existential kiss. The identification of the personality and I. can only "defeat the nature" and "to reduce the person to the level of closed being of private substances" (ibid. P. 302).

Criticism of identification identity and I. Greek was also held. Justice. Theologian and publicist John (Ziziulas), Mitre. Pergammy (born in 1931). According to Mitre. John, the concept of "personality" cannot be reduced "to the aggregate of natural, psychological or moral qualities, which in a certain sense" contain "in the human individual" (Ziziolas J. Being As Communion: Studies in Personhood and The Church. Crestwood (NY) , 1985. P. 47). In their works Metro. John subjected to a tough criticism of individualism philosophy, which considers the freedom of I., understood as self-sufficient, self-governing and unlimited ego. The task of a Christian Miter. John sees in overcoming "his own" self "and in the" becoming correlated being ", as a result of which a person becomes" not an individual, but a person, that is, ecstatic judicial (EK-Static Being) ", to-ry It cannot be considered from the point of view of its limits "(IBID. P. 226). According to Miter. John, "Being a person ... differs from being an individual or" personality ", as the personality cannot be submitted by itself, but only inside its relationship" (Ibid. P. 105). Every personality in the sense of division, according to Mitre. John, abolished by the fact of the life and resurrection of Christ, whom "it is impossible to imagine as an individual" (IBID. P. 136), i.e., beyond his connection with the Church - Body of Christ. Therefore, human individuality should also be removed in the church, in personal communication with Dr. Persons: "There is no true being without communication (Communion)" (Ibid. P. 18)

Although the argument caused by Lossky and Miter. John (Ziziulas), is largely true and deserves attention, in assessing the ratio of the concepts of "personality" and "individuals" it is impossible not to take into account the fact that, as the analysis of patristic statements, personality and individuality is not perceived in the patriaristic era as incompatible and opposite categories. The contradiction and incompatibility between them arise only if one of them is taken in the classical philosophical-theological sense, and the other is interpreted on the basis of his understanding in Novoevrop. philosophy. In this regard, the tasks of systematizing the ideas about I. and the individuality of the ancient church writers and the correlation of these ideas with their ideas about the individual and with various teachings about I. and the individual who developed in Novoevrop will be particularly important. philosophy. An example of such an analysis can be the work of L. Turchesku (Turcescu. 2002).

"Individual" in the writings of the eastern fathers of the church and church writers

The concepts of "individual" and "individual" (indivisible, ἄτομος, ἀμέριστος) are found in Greek. Patristic lit-rely rarely; They are used in tradition. The philosophical sense, and in relation to the concepts of "Ipostaska" and "face" typical of theological constructions.

St. Father's father-rising comparison of I. as a private with a genus and kind as common to Aristotle. Feodorite, EP. Kirki, wrote: "According to ... the teachings of fathers, what a difference has a common (τὸ κοινόν) relative to the private (τὸ ἴδιον) or a genus in relation to the form or individual (τὸ ἄτομον), the same difference has an essence relative to the hypostasis "(Theodoret. Eranist. P. 64). The concept of "individual" relates here with characteristic for Vost. Christ. Theology teaching about the hypostasis as an independent individual judgment. Similar thought is traced in attributed to Leontia by the Byzantine Op. "On sects": "[Fathers] are called a hypo region or a person (πρόσωπον) that philosophers call the indivisible essence (ἄτομον οὐσίαν)" (Leont. BYZ. DE SECT. 1 // PG. 86. Col. 1193), however There is some terminological confusion: "indivisible essence" turns out to be identical and perceived as something single, while traditions. For the patristic lit-ry there was an idea of \u200b\u200bthe essence as general. However, taking into account the fact that in this essay the "individualized" entity says, these words may be understood as a continuation of the first entity-upward aristotle (private, individual) and the second entity (general). It is in this sense that a comparison of the terms "Essence", "IPOST", "PERSON" and "INDIVID" is carried out in the treatise "to Hellym, on the basis of general concepts" SVT. Gregory, EP. Nis. According to SVT Gregory, "If someone says, what we call Peter, Paul and Walk in three partial entities (οὐσίας μερικάς), which obviously means private (ἰδικάς) [entities] ... He must understand that ... we do not mean anything except [what any of them is an individual (ἄτομον), that is, the personality (πρόσωπον) "(GREG. NYSS. AD GRAEC. // GNO. Vol. 3 (1). P. 23). According to the statement of SVT. Gregory in this treatise, I. Related with the view just as essence correlates with the hypostasia; Moreover, the knowledge of the individual and knowledge of the species in things is carried out in various informative acts in various orientation: "It is obvious that not the same kind (εἶδος) and an individual, that is, the essence and hyposta; For, when it says about something individual, that is, about the hypostasis, it directly sends the thought of listening to the search [of someone] with curly hair, blue eyes, son, father and this; When it is said about the form, that is, about the essence, it serves as the knowledge of an animal reasonable, mortal capable of understanding and knowledge, or an animal of an unreasonable, mortal who can join and the like "(IBID. P. 31; cf. Also: Turcescu. 2002).

Church writers knew the Aristotelian doctrine of individual properties, or signs that are not identical to individual entity: "We are correctly saying that this is an indivisible essence, for the church writers of the indivisibility of delivering (τὰ ἄτομα τῶν συμβεηότων) did not call any face nor and the hypostasia (Leont . Byz. DE SECT. 1 // PG. 86. Col. 1193). In attached SVT. Cyril, Archpiece. Alexandrian, treatise "On Trinity" I. Along with the hypostasia and face (personality) refers to the category of "private" (περιεχόμενα): "Private ... called individuals, and hypostasis, and faces. And the individuals are called, because there are never dismissions or divisions with them "(Cyr. Alex. (PS.). De Trinit. 13 // PG. 77. Col. 1149). In the SVT attributed. Athanasia, Archpiece. Alexandrian, dialogues "About the Holy Trinity" also emphasize the difference between the "essence" as a common and "individual" as private: "Anomea: it means humanity (ἀνθρωπότης) does not exist independently (ὑφέστηκεν)? Orthodox: Of course, so if it is cleared in individuals (ἐν ἀτόμοις). Anomea: But isn't it then IP IT? Orthodox: I have already said if it is cleared in individuals. Anomea: What is an individual and what is humanity? Orthodox: Individual is our own hyposta (ἡ καθ ἕκαστον ὑπόστασις), and humanity is the commonality of the essence (ἡῆς ὐὐσίας κοινότης) "(Alex. (PS.). DE S. Trinit. // pg. 28. Col. 1141).

The total result of the holy reception of the philosophical concept "Individual" was tested. John Damascus in the "Philosophical Chapters" "Source of Knowledge". In ch. 11 of this work, named "On Individual", PRP. John highlighted 4 meaning of the word "individual" (τὸ ἄτομον): "The individual is called what does not dissect and is not divided, as, for example: point (ἡ στιυμὴ), a moment (τὸ νῦν), one (ἡἡάςάς), such things are called Also inflictable (ἄποσα). An individual is called and difficult to reflect, that is, with difficulty disseminated, for example: diamond and similar. The individual is called a view that does not produce already on other species, that is, the lowest appearance (τὸ εἰδικώτατον εἶδος), for example: a person, a horse, etc. Individual in his own sense (κυρίως) is called that although it can be separated, but after division does not preserve its initial species (οὐ σῴῴει δὲ μετὰ τὴν τομὴν τὸ πρῶτον εἶδος); For example, Peter can be divided into a soul and body, but neither the soul itself is not already full (τέλειος) or a full Peter nor the body. In this [last] sense, the sense is talking about the individual philosophers, namely that it denotes the hypostatic, [based] on the entity (τὴν ὑπόστασιν ἐπ τῆς οὐσίας) "(Ioan. Damasc. Dialact. 11). PS John also testifies to the well-established patristic tradition to perceive the terms "IPOST", "face" and "individual" as synonyms: "single (τὸ μερικὸν) are also [t. e. Holy fathers] were called an individual, face, hat, for example Peter, Paul "(Ibid. 31); "It should be ... to know that the holy fathers" Ipostaska "," face "and" individual "denoted the same thing, namely, that, consisting of essence and delivering [properties] (ἐξ ὐΣίας Συμβεηότων), exists In itself and independently (ὑφιστάμενον), differs in the number and expresses such, for example, Paul, Peter, such a horse "(IBID. 44).

Similar understanding of the relationship of I. and Ipostasi can also be traced from the Monophizite authors of the VI. In the treatise "About one hundred yeres" PPP. John Damascina is a fragment of the composition of the "Arbitration Judge" of John Filopona, in the 7th ch. The latter, with reference to the previous church and philosophical tradition, offers a detailed explanation of the relation of the common and private, as well as the philosophical concept of the "Individual" and theological term "IPOSTE": "When a living being is divided into a reasonable and unreasonable, and reasonable in turn - On a person, angel and demon, then the individual is called what each of these last species is divided: a person, for example, on Peter and Paul, Angel - Let's say, at Gabriel and Mikhail and each of the rest of the angels, because each of these creatures impossible to be divided into others, while maintaining its nature. After all, the division of a person per soul and the body leads to the destruction of the whole living being. Therefore, peripatetics are usually called such creatures by individuals. The church doctrine called them hypostatas, since they have a genus and the species receive existence, because, although a living being, for example, at least a person, of which the first is a generic concept, and the second - species, have their own definition of being, but they have existence only Individuals, i.e. in Peter and Paul: Outside they do not exist, "(Ioan. Damasc. de Haer. 83; see also: Lang Um John Philoponus and The Controversies Over Chalcedon In The Sixth Century: A Stud. And Transl . Of the Arbiter. Leuven, 2001. P. 190-191).

The identification of the concept of "Individual" with the concepts of "Ipostaska" and "face" was reflected in the Trinitarian theology Vost. church writers. So, in the SVT attributable. Cyril, Archpiece. Alexandrian, treatise "About Trinity" says: "... We confess one essence in the Divine, one nature, one form, but three individuals, three hatches, three persons who are learned from the corresponding characteristic features, that is, their own properties" (Cyr. Alex. (PS.). De Trinit. 13 // PG. 77. Col. 1149). According to the PP John Damaskina, as applied to St. Trinitz, as in other cases, "IPOSTE indicates an individual (ἡπόστασις ἄτομον Δηλοῖ), i.e. Father, Son, Holy Spirit ..." (Ioan. Damasc. De Fide Orth. III four).

Finally, the concept of "individual" was used by ne-fish Vost. Church writers in relation to Jesus Christ. So, SVT. Gregory, EP. Nissky, arguing about the sacrament of incarnation, asked: "The human nature is little and limited, and the deity is infinitely - how can the infinite one can be an individual?" - and answered it that "the Deity, although it was in man, was not subject to any restriction" (Greg. NYSS. OR. CATECH. 10). Later, the term "individual" was used by the PRP. John Damaskin, when considering the question of what sense, the word of human nature speaks about the perception of the word of human nature: "God, the word, embodied, did not perceive the human nature, examined by one just as agreed ... or deed in the form (ἐν ῷῷ εἴδει) ... but [perceived] that [nature], which is in an individual (ἐν ἀτόμῳ) and which is identical to the form (τὴν ὐὐτὴν οὖσαν τῷ εἴδει) ... However, it is not such that it would exist in itself, at the beginning became an individual and would be perceived , but [he perceived nature,] the IPOSC (IOAN. Damasc. De Fide Orth. III 11).

In the Latin Theological Tradition

the concept of "individuality" was already used at the turn of the II and III century. TERTULLYM, however, in most part, in the technical sense of inefficiencies and the inseparalness of something (see: TERTULL. DE Poenit. 5, 15; Idem. De Monog. 5). For example, intense the prayer of the Lord, TERTULLYAN wrote: "... asking bread pressing, we ask for an eternal stay in Christ and inseparable (Individuittem) from his body" (Idem. De Orat. 6). In the similar meaning, Terertullian consumed the concept of "indivisibility" and when considering the trophic issues, speaking that the son "inseparable and inseparable (Individuum et inseparatum) from the Father" (Idem. Adv. Prax. 18, 19, 23). Schshmch. Cyprian, EP. Carthaginsky, having the same meaning, the concept of "indivisibility" was often used in relation to the church, which is "unity of unrequited and indivisible (INSEPARABILIS ATQUE INDIVIDUAE)" (Cypr. Carth. Ep. 69. 4).

The philosophical meaning of the concept of "Individual" becomes well-known Latin church writers only in IV century. And for the first time, an essay of the Quiz Maria "Adversus Arium" (against Aria) is found, the author speaks of God: "Esse Universale Et Supra Universale (ESSE Universale Et Supra Universale) receives his own Genesis, [but already divided] for childbirth and views and individuals "(mar. vict. ADV. AR. I 34). An interesting understanding of I., apparently borrowed from Greek. Aristotle's commentators are found in the Quiz Op. "Explanations in Ciceronis Rhetoricam" (explanations for the "rhetoric" of Cicero): "Individual is what is shown to the outline and what you can show your finger" (Idem. Explanations in Ciceronis Rhetoricam // Rhetores Latini Minores / Ed. C. Halm. 1863 . P. 212).

However, the quiz and the subsequent lat. Church writers up to Boeation The concept of "Individual" in his philosophical sense did not receive the spread. The only noticeable precedent of the philosophical use of this term in Lat. Patriotics is the place of the Troice treatise BLZH. Augustine, EP. Hipponsky (354-430). Considering here the triadological terminology, BLZH. Augustine highlighted various meanings in which the terms "nature", "Essentia" (Essentia), "Substance", "Face" and others can be used, and, in particular, he noted that the "name of a substance or face" may mean "not like, and something single and individual (Singulare Atque Individuum) ", and in this case, the substance or a person will say" not as it is said about a person [in general], that is, as something general (Commune) for everyone people, but as they say about this (HIC) man, i.e., for example, about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or someone as a friend, to whom, as on the present, can be specified with a finger "(Aug. de Trinit. VII 6). T. about., I. is a single creature, the independent existence of which can be fixed in perception. It is the existence and perception of a single and individual BLI. Augustine considered the basis for the formation of common species concepts, which, in the case of a person, he connected not only with a generic-species logical structure, but also with the natural-material unity of the human race. He noticed: "... there is no species that goes beyond its individuals to cover something else. For if I begin to determine that there is a person (and this is a species name), any single people who are individuals will be contained in this very definition, and will not belong to it anything else that there is no man "(IBIDEM). At the same time, the concept of "Individual", associated with quantitative unity, apparently was recognized by the BLI. Augustine is not suitable for triadological constructions and no more innocence in the treatise.

T about., With rare exceptions, the category "Individuality" is used by the lat. fathers only in the usual meaning of the indivisibility of anything on the components. It is in such a value that the adjective "individual" (indivisible) was often applied to St. Trinity, as an analogue of Greek. The term ἀΔιαίρετος in the sustainable expression "Individua Trinitas" (inseparable Trinity - see, for example: AUG. EP. 188. 3; IDEM. CONTR MAXIM. Arian. // PL. 42. Col. 770; Beda. In MARC. III 10; Idem. In Luc. III 10, IV 11; V 18).

Lit.: Cassirer E. Individuum und Kosmos In Der Philosophie Des Renaissance. Lpz.; B., 1927 (Rus. Pen.: Cassirer E. Individual and Cosmos in the Revival Philosophy // He. Select: Individual and Cosmos. M.; St. Petersburg, 2000. P. 7-206); Preiswerk A. Das Einzelne Bei Platon und Aristoteles. Lpz., 1939; Alfieri V. E. Atomos Idea: L "ORIGINE DEL CONCETTO DELL" ATOMO NEL PENSIERO GRECO. Florenz, 1953; Kaulbach F. Atom Und Individuum: Studien Zu Heimsoeths Abhandlung "Atom, Seeele, Monade" // Zschr. f. Philos. Forschung. 1963. BD. 17. N 1. P. 3-41; Rist J. M. Forms of Individuals In Plotinus // CQ. N. S. 1963. Vol. 13. N 2. P. 223-231; Wade F. ABELARD AND INDIVIDUALITY // Die Metaphysik Im Mittelalter, IHR Ursprung Und Ihre Bedeutung: Vortr. DES 2. INTERN. Kongr. Für Mittelalterliche Philosophie, Köln, 31. Aug. - 6. Sept. 1961 / HRSG. P. Wilpert. B., N. Y., 1963. S. 165-171; B É RUB É C. LA Connaissance De L "Individuel Au Moyen âge. Montréal, 1964; Blumenthal HJ Did Plotinus Believe in Ideas of Individuals? // phronesis. 1966. Vol. 11. P. 61-88; Mamo PS Forms of INDIVIDUALS IN THE ENNEADS // IBID. 1969/1970. Vol. 14/15. N 2. P. 77-96; Barrington J. Individuals in Aristotle "S Categories // IBID. 1971/1972. Vol. 16/17. N 2. P. 107-123; Pieper A. individuum // Handbuch Philosophischer Grundbegriffe. Münch., 1973. BD. 2. S. 728-737; Annas J. Individuals in Aristotle "Categories": Two Queries // Phronesis. 1974. Vol. 19. N 1-2. P. 146-152; Panikkar R. Singularity and Individuality: The Double Principle of Individuation // Revue INTERN. DE Philosophie. 1975. T. 29. P. 141-166; INDIVIDUUM, INDVIDUALITÄT // HWPH. 1976. BD. 4. S. 300-323; B Ö HLE R. DER BEGRIFF DES INDIVIDUMS BEI LEIBNIZ. Meisenheim, 1978; BYNUM CW DID THE TWELFTH CENTURY DISCOVER THE INDIVIDUAL? // JECCLH. 1980. Vol. 31. N 1. P. 1-17; Stead G. Ch. Individual Personality In Origen and The Cappadocian Father M // Arché E Telos: L "ANTROPOLOGIA DI Origene E Di Gregorio di Nissa: Analisi Storico-Religiosa: ATTI Del Colloquio, Milano, 17-19 Maggio 1979 / Ed. U. Bianchi, H. Crouzel. MIL., 1981. P. 170-196; Gracia J. J. E. INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM OF INDIVIDUATION IN THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES. Münch.; W., 1984; IDEM. Individuality: An Essay on the Foundations of Metaphysics. Albany, 1988; Martine B. J. Individuals and Individuality. Albany, 1984; Frede M. Individuals in Aristotle // Idem. Essays in Ancient Philosophy. Minneapolis, 1987. P. 49-71; Janke W. individuum, Individualismus // TRE. 1987. BD. 16. S. 117-124; Morris C. The Discovery of The Individual, 1050-1200. Toronto, 19872; Soto Bruna M. J. INDIVIDUO Y UNIDAD: LA Substancia Individual Según Leibniz. Pamplona, \u200b\u200b1988; Vaysse Jm L "Oubli du Singulier: Individuation, Individualité, Individu // Kairos. Toulouse, 1991. T. 2. P. 187-221; INDIVIDUATION IN SCHOLASTICISM: THE LATER MIDDLE AGES AND THE COUNTER-REFORMATION (1150-1650) / ED. JJE Gracia. Albany, 1994; Denken der Individualität: FS Für J. Simon Zum 65. Geburtstag / HRSG. TS HOFFMANN, S. MAJETSCHAK. B.; NY, 1995; McCabe Mm Plato "s individuals. PrinceTon, 1994; Rijk L. M., DE. Ockham "s Horror of the Universal: An Assessment of His View Of Individuality // Mediaevalia: Textos E Estudos. 1995. Vol. 7/8. P. 473-497; SIEP L. Individuality in Hegel" S Phenomenology of Spirit // The Modern Subject / Ed. K. Ameriks et al. Albany, 1995. P. 131-148; Graeser A. Individualität undIviduelle Form Als Problem in Der Philosophie Der Spätantike und Desur Frühen Mittelalters // Museum Helveticum. 1996. Vol. 53. N 2. P. 187-196; Individuum und Individualität Im mittelarlter / HRSG. J. A. AERTSEN, A. Speer. B.; N. Y., 1996. (Miscellanea Mediaevalia; 24); DE SOUSA R. INDIVIDUAL NATURES // Philosophia. 1998. Vol. 26. N 1/2. P. 3-21; Tabarroni A. Individual or Individualism: Scotus and Francis of Assisi // Franciscian Studies. 1998. Vol. 55. P. 239-251; Morel P.-M. INDIVIDUALITÉ ET IMATITÉ DE L "CAHIERS PHILOSOPHIQUES DE STRASBOURG. 1999. T. 8: Plotin. P. 53-66; Baktin L. M. European person alone with him: Essays on cultural and historical grounds and limits Personal self-consciousness. M., 2000; Lossky V.N. Theological concept of human person / lane. with Franz.: V. A. Roshikovova // He's the same. Theology and Horion. M., 2000. P. 289-302; GILL ML Individuals and Individuation in Aristotle // Unity, Identity, And Explanation in Aristotle "S Metaphysics / ED. Th. Scaltsas et al. OXF., 2001. P. 55-71; Wood R. E. Individuals, Universals, and Capacity // Review of Metaphysics. 2001. Vol. 54. N 3. P. 507-528; Cross R. Individual Natures In The Christology of Leontius of Byzantium // JECS. 2002. Vol. 10. P. 245-266; Frandsen H. V. SUR L "ONGATIVE: INDIVIDU ET UNIRERS CHEZ DENYS L" ARÉOPAGITE // THÉOLOGIE NÉGATIVE / ED. M. M. Olivetti. Padova, 2002. P. 515-523; TourseScu L. "Person" Versus "Individual" and other Modern Misreadings of Gregory of Nyssa // Modern Theology. 2002. Vol. 18. N 4. P. 527-539; Gurevich A. Ya. Human personality in medieval Europe: a real or false problem? // Personal development. M., 2003. No. 1. P. 24-30; № 2. P. 29-40; He is Individual and society on the medieval West. M., 2005; Bedos-Rezak B. M., Iogna-Prat D. L "INDIVIDU AU MOYEN ÂGE: INDIVIDUATION ET INDIVIDUALISATION AVANT LA MODERNITÉ. P., 2005; Di Bella S. The Science of the Individual: Leibniz" S Ontology of Individual Substance. Dordrecht, 2005; Neretina S. V., Cucumbers A. P. Ways to universal. St. Petersburg, 2006; Schiller H.-E. Das Individuum Im WidersPruch: Zur Theoriegeschichte des Modern Individualismus. B., 2006.

D. V. Smirnov

Human personality is an object of studying many humanities, such as psychology, philosophy, sociology. The concept of "man", "Individual", "Personality" is often found both in scientific and in everyday language. In everyday life, these words consider synonyms, but in fact everyone has its own semantic shade. Let's try more about it.

Concept - man, individual, personality

The word "man" sounds with the designation of abilities and the traits inherent in all. It emphasizes the existence of a special community - human kind, different from other inherent in the way of vital activity. It is thanks to him at all stages of its development, everywhere and always retains a certain status.

The definition of "Individual Man" denotes the existence of a separate specific representative of mankind. Who is it? Individual man is a unity of human genus, a certain carrier of psychological and social traits inherent in the whole human community. Under them implies will, mind, their own interests and needs. In this sense, the individual is a concrete person.

In this context, biological factors are not considered (gender, age, physical characteristics, temperament), as well as social differences. But, of course, it is impossible to take this data at all. After all, the differences between the child and adult, the primitive savage and our contemporary are quite obvious.

Thus, the definition of the concept of "individual" includes a set of characteristics and traits for which each person is different from the other. At the same time, the differences between completely different levels - from neurophysiological and biochemical to socio-psychological.

What is a person

The dynamics of human development at various points (historical and own) characterizes the concept of "personality". Individual at the same time - the starting point for the development of the personality, its initial state. Thus, the personality is the most complete embodiment of all

As a social subject, the personality is inherent autonomy, the desire to a certain extent to oppose itself to society and gain independence from society. This suggests self-consciousness, mental control skills, ability to analytical activities and evaluate itself.

All these qualities make up the basis of life position. This is the basic principle of behavior based on social and ideological installations, values \u200b\u200band ideals. The value of these regulatory factors in life explains the theory of self-regulation of human behavior in society.

Fundamentals of personality development

Each author is their interpretation of the person. But almost any definition of "personality", "Individual", "Individuality" is based on one of the two polar views. One of them states that personality is formed and subjected to further changes depending on congenital qualities and data, the influence of the social environment is minimized.

Representatives of the opposite position almost completely reject the congenital factor and prefer to consider the personality as a product social Development. Perhaps both points of view are extremes.

The classic identity definition implies that man, individual, personality has a specific qual qualities necessary for him as a product of social development. It is expected of entry in the way of communication and conscious activities. According to this approach, the biological organism becomes a person only due to social and cultural experience. Moreover, an influence on the formation of individual traits - the set of temperament, innate abilities and predispositions is allowed.

As we grow up

Consider how a person is formed, an individual, personality. What directly affects the growth process? There are several such prerequisites.

Biological factor. Hereditary man is the same material that will later be formed in a human individual. This factor in itself does not create personality, as social experience and cultural heritage cannot be transferred with genes. But it is required to take into account as a source of an infinite variety of characters, temperaments, the inconsistencies and the cause of possible social constraints.

Physical environmental conditions. Part of the researchers give them paramount importance. But, as you know, in the same geographical conditions there are absolutely different types Personality, and similar general mutual signs are observed in completely different.

Public culture forming a certain number of the corresponding basic types of personality. The defined cultural experience serves as a common property of mankind.

Experience, both group and unique (subjective). This is the most important factor of its formation arising in the process of socialization.

What is social socialization

A complex of values, installations, antipathy sympathies, goals and behavior patterns, a person achieves due to the phenomenon of socialization. This is the process of assimilation by the Individual norms and samples of the behavior of its group necessary for functioning in society.

Socialization concerns all parties to upbringing, learning and attachment to culture. She participates in it, with whom the individual is facing in the family, everyday life, kindergarten and school, sees on TV, etc. In this case, the process of personal formation takes three consecutive stages:

1. Children imitate adults and copy their behavior.

2. Children play and try on different roles.

3. In group activities, they begin to understand the expectations facing them from others.

When it happens

Most psychologists believe that the process of socialization is not limited to child age and lasts a lifetime. Lays the basics of personal values. And as applied to adults, this process involves changing the external behavior and acquiring the necessary skills.

According to one of theories, children's myths are taken in the process of socialization of adults, for example, about the inviolability of authority or their own superconduration. Gradually, on the basis of the experience gained, the individual is formed, the definition of which is given above.

Communication in the group and the appropriate experience makes it possible to adjust the unique internal attitudes of the person with general qualities characteristic of its social environment.

As it happens

At the beginning of life, a person has not yet aware that he is an individual, and his personality is in its infancy. Separation from the physical and social world continues throughout life. Accumulating social experience, it forms the image of his "I" by comparing myself with others.

Proof of what personality is not simply an automatically developing combination of natural deposits, serve as well-known science cases of education of a person in social isolation, for example, in animal environment. The studies of the psyche of such "Mowgli" showed that they do not have ideas about their own "I" as a separate being in a number of similar.

What is the founded personal experience

"Social Mirror" constantly before each of us. In childhood, when evaluating its own abilities, a person is based on the opinion of the nearest environment, with age - on the estimates of competent specialists. A mature man understands that he is an individual, and his personality is unique.

It is impossible to underestimate the influence of personal experience. That is why children brought up in one family are very different. They have similar group experience (but not identical). In addition to family, children communicate in an external environment and with different people. Even twins with one set of genes cannot be constantly in absolutely the same conditions, meet with the same people and test identical emotions.

That is why each personal experience is unique. According to the statements of psychoanalysts, certain incidents that occurred with people may well be critical, asking the tonality of subsequent emotional reactions.

What is a social role

Under this concept implies a way of human behavior in accordance with generally accepted norms of interpersonal relationships, depending on the existing status in the system. The process of socializing the personality implies the development of social roles as a way to integrate a person in society.

The concept of social role implies role-playing expectations - what is expected from the individual according to the "rules" of a particular role. Another basic concept here is all that man exercises according to his role. Society in this case takes on the control function.

Individual and society are associated with the existence of various institutions - from law enforcement agencies to public opinion. Social sanctions system applies to "disapproving". The most minor of them are condemnation and public censure, more stringent - measures of violent suppression.

Individual - Definition of Social Status

Under social status is a position (rank) of an individual in the structure of the group or the group itself in a number of other formations. The behavior that is expected from the carrier of a certain social status, and is the essence of his social role. Different statuses have children and adults, women and men, military personnel and civilian. Each person is a carrier of many different status, according to which it builds their behavior in various situations.

Through the training of roles, cultural norms are absorbed. Acceptable for one status can be completely unsuitable for another. That is, socialization is the most important process of learning adopted in society methods and methods of interactions, as a result of which society receives its adequate member.

The ability to fulfill the most important roles are acquired, begins with childhood. Most of this process occurs at an unconscious level rather painless. Children participate in games, help parents, liefly in family conversations, read and watch various stories. Their "game" roles help in the future the role to take on real and understand the reactions of others.

About prescribed status

The society is very difficult, and the agreed functioning of all its institutions is possible only in the event of strict observance by people of its own duties regulated by intragroup relations. The simplest way to achieve this is the classification of all diverse human activities on a huge number of prescribed roles and the teaching of each individual from an early age to perform a certain set of them, "put" by status.

Passing primary role training in childhood, a person appoints himself prescribed roles according to the chosen criterion. His code name is "the rules for achieving success." The universal basis for the production of such a criterion in society is the floor and age of man. Other defining factors - nationality, race, religious or class affiliation.

Despite the unconscious nature of role learning, it is powerful and real, for example, separate training for many years boys and girls leads to great differences between them in maturity in terms of abilities, preferences and ways to express emotions.

What is the achieved status

This is a social position, fixed by individual choice and competition. If part of the status is appointed by a group or society, the individual qualities of the individual or its ability are not taken into account, the achieved status is the result of abilities, perseverance, diligence, personality execution, as well as some fraction of luck.

In primitive (or traditional) societies, statuses are almost always prescribed, and directly depends on birth. In modern society, personality has greater degree freedom.

Winners have people showing the greatest abilities and flexibility. Those who failed to "find themselves" and adapt to new roles are uncompetitive.

What they differ

The achieved and prescribed statuses have a fundamental difference, nevertheless intersect and interact. The individual is almost impossible to improve or somehow change its own position in society, where most of the statuses are prescribed. Socialization is not associated with the expectation of the status change. But if hereditary factors do not play a fundamental role, a person is difficult to reconcile low status, having the opportunity to show personal abilities

When the status is fighting and possibly conditionally equal, the causes of the lack of success are exceptionally personal incompetence and the absence of abilities. In the society of "equal capabilities", this postulate assimilates any individual. The definition of failure as its own insolvency hurts for human self-esteem. But even in this case, the person finds ways to increase the status using various benefits and preferential rights.

If the role is the behavior expected from the individual in the case of a specific status, then role behavior is actual. It differs from the one that is expected to mostly - from role interpretation to possible conflicts with others. That is why there are no two individuals, equally fulfilling the same role.

Individual, Individual (Lat. individuum - indivisible) - a separate organism that exists independently, in particular a person, personality, a single representative of the human race.

The concept of "Individual" is closely related to the concepts of "human body", "personality", "subjectivity", "individuality" and "spirituality", which are used to designate the combination of qualities, the abilities of a separate person, the essential levels of human development in ontogenesis

Individual appears on the upper border of the period of stable development of the human body as a result of the crisis of one year. Instead of the former complete symbiosis, the confluence of the child and adult, two appear - the child and adult. Thus, the exit from the crisis of one year is the beginning of the one-year period of individual development - smooth, long-term changes, the birth of an individual "order" from the organizational "chaos", which is manifested in the elementary manifestations of differentiation and integration of mental processes, psycho-physiological self-organization at various stages of sensitivity, functional Self-organization of the formation of cerebral architectonics, the creation of individual-typological properties and constitutional typology in its human manifestations. There is a final distinction for a child of the subject and social medium, the experiences of psycho-physiological states in the form of desires, aspirations and the like. Childhood crisis (5.5-7.5 years) completes the individual stage in the development of the child, becomes simultaneously the beginning of the Personal stage.

Sources

• Cheka M.-L. BUT. Distille People Yak Result of Diendantsіаї та Tu Xbіrcі's psychic procession / zbіrnik Naukoviki Pratsya Issist Institute of Psychology ІMENІ G. S. Kostyaka Narn Ukraine "Problems of Zagalno, such a teacher's psychologist." - K., 2003. T. 5. Ch. 2. - P. 284-297.
• _Ndivіd // Pharmaceutical Encyclopedia

8. The ratio of the concepts of "man", "Personality", "Individual", individuality. Personality category in modern psychology.

Today, psychology interprets the person as a socio-psychological education, which is formed through a person's life in society. A person as a public creature acquires new (personal) quality when it comes into relations with other people and these relationships become "forming" his personality. The individual at the moment of birth has no these acquired (personal) qualities.

Insofar as personality most often define as a person in the aggregate of its social, acquired qualities, This means that there are no personal features of a person who are naturally determined and do not depend on his life in society. Persons do not include the psychological qualities of a person who characterize his cognitive processes or an individual activity style, with the exception of those that manifest themselves in relations to people in society. The concept of "personality" usually includes such properties that are more or less stable and indicate a person's individuality, determining its features for people and. Acts.

By definition R.S. Nova, personality is a person taken in the system of such his psychological characteristicswhich are socially determined, manifest themselves in public relations and relationships, are sustainable and determine the moral actions of a person who are essential for himself and others.

Along with the concept of "personality", the terms "man", "Individual", "Individuality" are used. Content, these concepts are interwinded among themselves. That is why the analysis of each of these concepts, their ratio with the concept of "personality" will make it possible to more fully reveal the latter (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3. The ratio of the scope of the concepts of "man", "Individual" and "Individuality"

with the concept of "personality"

Human - This is a generic concept pointing to the class attitude to the highest level of the development of wildlife - to human race. The concept of "man" approves the genetic predetermination of the development of actually human signs and qualities.

Specific human abilities and properties (speech, consciousness, labor activity, etc.) are not transmitted to people in the order of biological heredity, but are formed in a lotume, in the process of learning the culture created by the preceding generations. No personal experience man cannot lead to him independently formed logical thinking and concepts of concepts. Participating in labor and various forms Public activities, people develop in themselves those specific human abilities that have already formed in humanity. As a living being, a person obeys basic biological and physiological laws as the social and laws of the development of society.

Individual - This is a single representative of the "Homo Sapiens" species. As individuals, people differ from each other not only by morphological features (such as growth, corporal constitution and eye color), but also psychological properties (abilities, temperament, emotionality).

Individuality - This is the unity of the unique personal properties of a particular person. This is the originality of his psycho-physiological structure (type of temperament, physical and mental features, intelligence, worldview, life experience).

With all the multi-faceted concept of "individuality", it is primarily indicating human spiritual qualities. The essential definition of individuality is connected not so much with the concepts of "feature", "uniqueness", as with the concepts of "integrity", "unity", "originality", "authorship", "own way of life." The essence of individuality is associated with the identity of the individual, its ability to be oneself, to be independent and independent.

The ratio of individuality and personality is determined by the fact that these are two ways of human being, two of its various definitions. The incomprehension of these concepts manifests itself, in particular, in the fact that there are two different processes of the formation of personality and individuality.

The formation of the personality is the process of human socialization, which is to master their generic, public essence. This development is always carried out in the specific historical circumstances of human life. The formation of a person is associated with the adoption of social functions developed in society and roles, social norms and rules of behavior, with the formation of skills to build relations with other people. An formed personality is a subject of free, independent and responsible behavior in society.

The formation of individuality is the process of individualization of the object. Individualization is the process of self-determination and separation of the individual, its alliance from the community, the design of its separateness, uniqueness and uniqueness. An individual identity is a distinctive, actively and creatively manifesting themselves in life.

In the concepts of "personality" and "individuality", various sides are recorded, different measurements of the spiritual essence of a person. The essence of this difference is well pronounced in the language. With the word "personality" usually use such epithets as "strong", "energetic", "independent", thereby emphasizing its activity in the eyes of others. We are often talking about the individuality: "bright", "unique", "creative", having in mind the quality of an independent entity.

The concept of personality has three different understanding: the widest way, average and narrow understanding. Personality in the very wide Understanding is that internally distinguishes one person from another, a list of all its psychological properties, it is an indifference. Personality B. intermediate, average Understanding is a social entity, social individual, a collection of social and personal roles. Personality in the very narrow understanding - This is a cultural entity, self. This is a person who is building and controlling his life, a person as a responsible subject of will. Major psychological personality theories Personality - First of all, the contemporary of a certain era and this defines many of its socio-psychological properties. In one or another era, personality occupies a certain position in the class structure of society. Personality belonging to a particular class is another basic determination, with which the position of the personality in society is directly connected.

/ OtVetnye_otvety / Finished Replies My / Ready / 27 Personality

Question 27. Various interpretations of the concept of personality in psychology. The ratio of concepts: individual, personality, personality.

In the psychology, the diversity of coexisting approaches to personality problems can be divided into two classes. In the framework of one, the concept is considered practically as a synonym for a subject of mental activity in general, i.e. Announced "the final and most complex object of psychology." As part of another, the concept of personality is considered in its specific content. Here is the task of deliberate the concept of personality from other comparable to it in terms of volume and content, in particular, to degrade from the concepts of "temperament" and "character".

Approaches to personality in domestic psychology.

A. Mezishchev, Smirnov, Malyshev, etc. Personality is a relationship system, relationships are the components of the structure. For example, meatishchev argued that the personality as a social product is determined primarily by the social value of the orientation (i.e., the dominant property subordinating other and determining the human life path "). The level of personality is expressed by the degree of its consciousness, ideological wealth, etc., and the like.

If the dominant attitude covers all sides of the personality, it is characterized by integrity. The disadvantage of this kind of understanding of the person is fuzziness, multi-consciousness.

B. Ananev, Platonov, Merlin ... Personality is not the whole person, but only his social qualities, it is not just a subject of activity. The main components of the personality structure are "some abstract spiritual education." Ananyev believed that any individual is becoming a person to the extent that he begins to be consciously defined. The personality is characterized by a combination of public relations and their position in society. S.L. Rubinstein. Personality is a combination of internal conditions through which external influences are refracted. This definition adhere to many researchers, but it is too general.

Approaches to personality in foreign psychology.

Psychoanalysis. Z. Freud: Personality includes 3 structural components: ID (instinctive identity core, obeys the principle of pleasure), the ego (rational part of the individual, the principle of reality), the super ego (formed the latter, this is the moral side of the person). The development of the personality corresponds to the psychosexual development of a person. Stages: oral, anal, phallic, (complexes: Oedips, Electra), latent, genital. Mature personality - capable and seeking to work to create something useful and valuable, able to love another person "for the sake of himself."

Individual psychology. A. Adler: People try to compensate for the sense of their own inferiority, which was tested in childhood. Hence the struggle for superiority (or desire for power). Such impulses are present in each person. To achieve its fictitious goals, a person produces his unique lifestyle (the most clearly manifests itself in solving three tasks: work, friendship and love). The formation of a person affects the order of birth. The last design of the personality is social interest (the internal tendency of a person to participate in the creation of an ideal society). The degree of its severity is an indicator of psychological health.

Analytical psychology. K.G.Yung: Personality consists of 3 interacting structures: the ego (all that a person is aware of), personal unconscious (all depressed and complexes), a collective unconscious (consists of archetypes, in which the entire experience of humanity is concluded). Personality can achieve equilibrium deprive as a result of a long process of psychological maturation (individual), when a person can recognize all the hidden and ignorable sides of their own personality both in the unconscious and conscious levels.

Neofreedism. E. Erickson, E. From, K. Gorni. The special importance of the ego and its functions is attached. Erickson: The ego is an autonomous structure, in its development there are 8 universal stages. E.From: Social and cultural factors are especially affected by the person.

Disposional psychology. Talport, R. Bakertel, Aisenk. People have some sustainable internal qualities that persist over time in various situations. Olport (the first put forward the theory of personality damnation): Personality is a dynamic organization of those internal mental processes that determine the behavior characteristic of it and thinking.

Behaviorism. B.Synner: Personality is the result of the interaction of the individual (with its life experience) and the environment. The behavior is deterministic, predictable and controlled by the environment. The idea of \u200b\u200binternal autonomous factors is rejected as the causes of human actions, as well as a physiological and genetic explanation of behavior.

Socio-cognitive direction. A.Bandura, J. Lotter. Personality - the result of the interaction of behavior and environmental factors; Cognitive components play a central role. Rotter considered the person through the prism of the locus of control.

Cognitive psychology. J. Celly is the theory of personal constructs (models of the world), the system of which forms a person. To explain the motivation, no special concepts are needed, the main thing is how a person explains any event.

Humanistic psychology. A. Oil: Personality is determined through the needs hierarchy.

Phenomenological approach. K. Rogers: Behavior can be understood from the point of view of subjective experiences. The only reality is a personal world of human experiences, this is a person. I am a central place.

Interpretations of the concept of personality as a ratio of types of subjects.

1. Types of subjects

FROM Account is a generic concept, the basic psychological category, covers all the names named. Activities are the interaction of external and internal conditions. External - the world around us, social relations, internal conditions - subject. SUBJECT(from Lat. Subjectus - underlying at the bottom), a carrier of objective and practical activity and knowledge (individual or social Group), the source of activity aimed at the object. It is part of various subject areas. Such major areas can be distinguished 3: nature, society, culture.

A) The natural entity is a subject of active and flexible adaptation to environmental changes based on the experience gained in biological evolution.

B) A social entity is a subject of assigning and properly applying conscious collective ideas, ways of behavior in this society.

C) Cultural subject - a subject of independent and responsible solutions to its own problems on the basis of universal (universal) norms.

The scope of the identity of the type of subjects included in it.

In modern psychology, the word "personality" is used in different volumes. The scope of concept has at least three options.

1st option. Personality is understood widespread, all three subjects together. Personality - Synonym The concept of a subject (according to S.L. Rubinshnina).

2nd option. The concept of "personality" includes a combination of subjects B and B. This option in domestic psychology belongs to A.N. Lyontiev. The person is primarily a social concept, and the one who is a natural subject is called individual. In world psychology, the 2nd version of the concept of personality is brightly presented in the concept of A. A. Adler.

3rd option. Personality in the exact, narrow sense there is only a subject of culture (B). Personality - only the subject, the decisive problems itself and responsible for their decisions. Social subject here Social Individual, natural - natural organism. In world psychology, this option dates back to the archetype of the Selflessness of the Jung - the central among the rest. When considering a person in a narrow sense, critical moments are covered. life path A person requiring independent solving its own problems, responsible choice, as a result of which the formation, awareness and transformation of the motivational sphere occurs. Then the person should be distinguished from the individual, meaning not only the natural person, but also a representative of a particular society - a social individual: in its cultural development, the person may not coincide with the carrier of concrete considerable public institutions.

The ratio of concepts Individual, personality and individuality.

Psychological science uses different concepts to reflect certain sides of the subject: individual, personality, individuality.

When we talk about a separate subject, as representatives of the species - we call it an individual. Concept individual expresses indivisibility, integrity and features of a particular subject. Individual as integrity (systemic nature of links between diverse functions and mechanisms that implement the life relationship) is a product of biological evolution, genotypical education. When the concept is allocated, the individual is responsible for the question - in which this man Like all other people, i.e. What unites it with other people. But the formation of an individual occurs in ontogenesis, in full swing. Therefore, the characteristic of the individual includes alloys of congenital and acquired reactions. Introducing a product of phylogenetic and ontogenetic development in certain external conditions, a product of life development, interaction with the environment.

Individual properties of man

The morphological and physiological features of the human body and closely with them related psychological features:

Constitution of the body, sexual dimorphism, age features, the properties of the CNS, the asymmetry of the BP of the brain, etc.

Temperament is a set of properties that determine the formal dynamic features of activity;

Character - a set of sustainable properties of the individual, in which ways of its behavior and emotional reaction methods are expressed.

Plugs - anatomical and physiological prerequisites

Abilities are the individual psychological features of a person who express its readiness to master certain types of activities and to their successful implementation.

Personality \u003d Individual : This is a special quality that is purchased by an individual in society in the aggregate relations, public in nature, in which the individual is involved. The individual does not generate a person, is not its base and determinant, but is a prerequisite background I and the necessary condition for its existence.

Individuality - A person characterized by his socially significant differences from others (specific person). Individuality is manifested in each of these subjects: natural personality - physical health, beauty, natural strength, physique, etc.; Social Individuality - the degree of individual mastering of accepted norms, ways of behavior in society, the depth of professional knowledge, etc.; Cultural personality. The features of a person as individuality can manifest itself in the peculiarities of temperament, character, interests, needs, abilities. Individuality of the individual emphasize the special inherent in the human quality, express its high level of its development.

Personality: Mustically motivational, volitional and cognitive.

Give the definition of the terms Individuality and personality What do they fly away?

George Firsov.

Individual (from lat. Individuum - indivisible):
individual, separately existing living organism (plant or animal), including a separate person as a representative of the human race;
Separate person, carrier of human development;
In the literature it is possible to use the words "Individual", or "individual" in an ironic sense.

Individuality (from Lat. Individuum - indivisible, individual) - a set of characteristic features and properties that distinguish one individual from another; The originality of the psyche and personality of the individual, its uniqueness, uniqueness. Individuality is manifested in the features of temperament, character, in the specifics of interests, the qualities of perceptual processes.

Personality is a concept developed to display the social nature of a person, considering it as a subject of sociocultural life, determining it as a carrier of an individual principle, self-discrepancing in contexts of social relations, communication and objective activities. Under the "Personality" understand: 1) a human individual as a subject of relations and conscious activities ("face" - in the broad sense of the word) or 2) a sustainable system of socially significant features characterizing the individual as a member of a society or community. Although these two concepts are a person as a person's integrity (Lat. Persona) and the personality as its social and psychological appearance (Lat. Regusalitas) - Terminologically distinguishable, they are sometimes used as synonyms.