The meaning of life is one of the fundamental human values. This is the most difficult to define in terms of content, the most "ideal" value. (Here it is necessary to clarify what is the difference and the connection between the concepts of value and meaning, which are often put side by side. In our opinion, value expresses the formal side of the target relationship, and meaning - meaningful. The concept of value establishes the very fact of the positive or negative significance of the subject for the subject The concept of meaning expresses the inner content of the relationship between a means and a goal, answers the question for what purpose a given means exists or is used).

The idea of \u200b\u200bthe autonomy of spiritual values \u200b\u200bis reflected in the interpretation of the meaning of human life as being outside it. In this case, life is understood as a means of achieving some "higher", in comparison with its own, goals. For example, the Russian religious philosopher A. Vvedensky comes to this conclusion in his work "Conditions for the admissibility of faith in the meaning of life" (1) on the basis of a logical analysis of the word "meaning". Finding out the generally accepted meaning of this term, the author notes that the meaning of any thing is its purpose, its actual suitability to serve as a means to achieve a certain goal. Since the goal does not coincide with the means, it is not in the thing itself, but outside it, then the goal of life is outside life as a means for achieving it. “Either human life has absolutely no meaning,” writes Vvedensky, “or its meaning consists in its purpose and actual suitability for the implementation of such a goal that lies outside the boundaries of human life” (1, p. 100). The author considers this goal to be the posthumous existence of the personality, i.e. immortality.

To substantiate his point of view, Vvedensky gives another argument: the goals of human life can be different, and not every goal is capable of giving meaning to a given thing as a means of achieving it, but only one that has value in our eyes. And the more valuable the goal, the more meaning there is in the thing appointed and suitable for achieving it. Since all human goals in life have only relative value, it is necessary to have a supreme, absolutely valuable goal that gives meaning to all other goals. Such a goal can only be outside of human life. This is a posthumous personal existence bestowed on man by God. Belief in immortality is, according to Vvedensky, the main condition for the admissibility of belief in the meaning of life (1, p. 101).

The paradox, not noticed by the author, is that the “absolutely valuable goal” is just not a value, has no meaning and, therefore, cannot give meaning to other goals. After all, meaning (or value), according to Vvedensky's own definition, is the ability of a thing to be a real means to achieve a goal, while an absolute goal cannot be such a means. Meaning and value is possessed only by the relative and, first of all, by the life and activity of a person, the goals set by him - precisely because of its relativity. Even God is not the Absolute, since, according to the Christian doctrine, he creates the world and man and subsequently continues to bestow on man the highest bliss in his posthumous existence, i.e. acts as a "means" to achieve certain goals. Otherwise, the existence of God would be meaningless.

Realizing the meaninglessness of absolute values \u200b\u200bin themselves, the meaninglessness of an objective cold good, even the most perfect one, but abstracted from human life, S.L. Frank finds a way out in combining the highest absolute good (truth, goodness, beauty) with our own life. make it a boon to us. “The highest good ...,” he writes, “cannot be anything other than life itself, but not life as a meaningless flowing process and an eternal striving for something else, but life as an eternal rest of bliss, as self-aware and self-experiencing. fullness of self-satisfaction ”. “Life in good, or good life, or good as life — this is the goal of our aspirations” (2, p. 517). But this is possible, according to the author, only if it is an absolute good, i.e. God does exist. Then our empirical life, which is really not an end in itself, but eternally striving for something higher, will merge into the divine life, become a part of it and thereby acquire meaning (2, p. 521).

The idea that human life itself cannot be meaningful, but must serve something outside of it, was expressed in domestic Marxist literature. This supreme goal was, of course, not God, but, for example, society or future generations, the progress of matter or the harmonization of the cosmos, etc. It is generally accepted that if people worked only to satisfy their human needs, their life would be a meaningless "vanity of vanity." The mistake in this is that the very word "life" is understood in the meaning of only the physical, biological existence of an individual, which is opposed to the spiritual side of his life. At the same time, one gets the impression that the biological has a completely different purpose than the spiritual, that it is aimed at the self-preservation of man as a living system, and spiritual life supposedly pursues some special goal.

It is necessary to emphasize once again that human life cannot be reduced to a purely biological existence, it includes all forms of life. Therefore, both the spiritual and biological spheres with all their attributes are included in the concept under consideration as its constituent parts. The opposition of the spiritual to the biological (bodily) is nothing more than a dualistic approach, the division of a person into two parts. “If we continue to count,” I.I. Khomich, - that the spiritual life of a person and his physical existence are things that have nothing in common with each other, that the great ideals for the sake of which a person can sacrifice his physical existence are not included in the capacious concept of "human life", we will always repeat mistakes our predecessors ”(3, p. 41).

In the previous presentation, we showed that the spiritual and the material in a person are in unity, that the spirit is as material as the body (in the ontological aspect), that the highest spiritual needs of a person, which were customarily associated only with his social essence, have deep biological grounds. In connection with the issue under consideration, I would like to add that the very need for meaning is also rooted in human nature. This is evidenced by modern philosophical and psychological research. For example, V. Frankl notes that a person's loss of the meaning of life leads to the formation of an "existential vacuum" and, as a result, to crime, mental illness and suicide (4). E. Fromm believes that preserving a system of values \u200b\u200bfor a person is his first vital interest. A person needs not only physical, but also mental conditions to survive. He must maintain some mental balance in order to maintain the ability to perform his functions. For a person, everything that contributes to mental comfort is just as important in the sense of life as that which serves bodily comfort. And the very first vital interest is in maintaining its value system. The ability to act, and, ultimately, awareness of oneself as a person depends on it. If a person discovers ideas that cast doubt on his own value orientations, he will perceive them as a threat to his vital interests (5). In his other work, Fromm shows the fundamental human need for meaning and service (6).

Consequently, when we say that a person lives and acts to satisfy his needs, we mean all his fundamental needs, not only physiological, but also spiritual, including the need for meaning and service. A person's going beyond the limits of present existence (self-transcendence) means going not beyond the limits of life in general, but only beyond the limits of life "in oneself" - to the world, to other people. Life for others is at the same time a person's life for himself. Without self-transcendence and service, there is no self-realization, therefore, there is no meaning, as E. Fromm, V. Frankl, and S. L. Frank speak very definitely about. The highest spiritual values \u200b\u200bthat a person serves are also not outside his life, but in it itself, stemming from his own needs, conditioned by his nature. This idea is clearly expressed by V. Rozanov, who, unlike A. Vvedensky and S. Frank, was able to substantiate the existence of meaning and values \u200b\u200bwithout resorting to the idea of \u200b\u200bthe Absolute, Supermind, God, etc. “Whatever he (man - MZ) strives for in history, whatever he looks for in his personal life, this is an aspiration, this quest has an embryo in him,” V. Rozanov writes in his work “The Human Purpose life "(7, p. 43). The author draws such a conclusion based on the analysis of human nature.

According to Rozanov, “the deepest essence of this nature, more important than the fact that it is reasonable, that it is moral or free, lies in the fact that it is potential - in all its composition, in all directions, in reason, as well as in feeling, as in the will ”(7, p. 43). Everything in human nature is active and strives towards the realization of its purpose - self-disclosure and growth of the human spirit, towards the completion of the plan, which is already implicit in it. This completion is the true goal of man, but its origins are contained in the structure of his soul, in his subjective reality. To the initial elements of human nature, in accordance with which his further development takes place, Rozanov refers to the desire to know the truth, the effort to preserve freedom and the desire for good. From them follow the ideals that a person serves and that give meaning to his life. Thus, the highest spiritual values \u200b\u200bare not introduced into a person's life from the outside, but grow out of his natural inclinations, and the meaning of his life is in the realization of his own nature, the fullest realization of his human purpose, which is possible only in the process of his life and constitutes the content of this life. ... “There are no goals higher and further than those,” writes V. Rozanov, “which he knows about himself, which he wears in

to its nature ”(7, p. 62).

Realizing his own nature and realizing his human purpose, man does not cease to be a living being. His needs and interests, goals and values \u200b\u200bare not limited to the spiritual sphere. Not only "self-disclosure and growth of the human spirit", as V. Rozanov writes, but also physical and social development constitute the content and meaning of human life. For example, according to A. Maslow, there are five basic human needs: 1) physiological needs - for food, water, clothing, etc., the satisfaction of which ensures the existence of an individual as a living organism, a biological being; 2) the need for social protection (a guaranteed future, the strength of existing institutions, norms and ideals of society, personal security, etc.). It is interesting that one of the manifestations of this need Maslow considers the desire to have a religion or philosophy that would "bring into the system" the world and determine our place in it, ie. need for meaning. 3) The need for community or belonging, i.e.

E. in love, sympathy, friendship, participation and other forms of human intimacy. Lack of love and friendship painfully affects a person, deprives him of meaning in life. 4) The need for respect and self-respect. A person needs to be appreciated - for example, for skill, competence, responsibility, to recognize his merits, his irreplaceability, etc. At the same time, it is important for him to respect himself, to have a sense of his own dignity, to believe in his uniqueness, to feel that you are busy with a necessary and useful business, you take a worthy place in life. Satisfying this need also brings meaning to a person's life. 5) The need for self-realization, i.e. in the self-affirmation of a person through the realization of all his abilities and talents. A person at this level strives to become everything that he can and, according to his inner, free motivation, should become. This is an ideal that a person never achieves, but the very desire for which is the meaning of his life (8).

As can be seen from this classification, Maslow does not distinguish spiritual needs as independent ones, since each need contains a spiritual component, spiritual goals and values. It makes sense to satisfy all human needs, including physiological ones, because only on their basis is it possible to satisfy his other needs. Activities aimed at meeting human needs, striving for values \u200b\u200bthat express them, and constitute the meaning and content of human life. Thus, not some Absolute isolated from life, but the individual human life itself carries meaning. At the same time, it contains both the relative and the absolute. This ontological position is the basis of the well-known moral requirement, according to which, a person's personality can never be only a means, but always must also be an end. Therefore, it is impossible to admit any purpose of human life in which people themselves would not take part, and which would not coincide with the interests of the human person. If we assume the goal of life outside life, then we will have to consider human life as a means to achieve this goal.

Trying to refute this argument, A. Vvedensky in the article that we considered above, notes that the logic and logical connection of concepts is always the same force, whether they lead us to moral or immoral conclusions (1, p. 103). He has in mind the generally accepted definition of meaning as the purpose of a thing as a means to achieve some goal outside the thing. But is the logical connection of concepts established by Vvedensky really destroyed if we agree with the assertion that the meaning of human life is not outside of it, but in itself? The contradiction between a logical argument, on the one hand, and all the others, on the other, can only be resolved dialectically. The dialectic of means and ends consists, in particular, in the fact that they can pass into each other. In addition, not only the means for some end have meaning, but also the ends themselves, or rather ends in themselves - these are both ends and means at the same time. Life as a totality contains both the means and the ends of a person, is both a means and an end. On the one hand, a person is born and lives in order to work, create and do good to other people, and on the other -

he works, creates and does good to others in the name of preserving and developing his own life. Human life is the highest value and an end in itself. This follows from the nature of man as a living being.

As you know, all the activity of a living is aimed at self-preservation. And man is no exception. While engaged in the realization of great ideas, people nevertheless eat, sleep, dress, satisfy all other material and spiritual needs every day, that is, regardless of their will, they obey the action of the basic law - the law of striving for life. The law of biotaxis (from Latin bias - life and Greek taxis - thrust, gravitation, movement) determines the vital activity of all living beings living on Earth (3, p. 67). Depending on the scope of its action, on the level of organization of living systems, it has various forms of manifestation. For example, it has long been noted that many protozoa exhibit a craving for heat. This phenomenon is called "thermotaxis". The desire of organisms for certain chemicals was called "chemotaxis", the gravitation of plants to light - "heliotaxis", etc. In the animal world, this law manifests itself in the form of various instincts. All existing taxis, all instincts, as well as many other phenomena of the same kind, are only partial manifestations of one universal law. Thus, the desire for life is universal and is the fundamental law of life, including for a person. Consequently, self-preservation is the ultimate goal of man as a living system. It follows that the statement “the meaning of life is in life itself” is fair and at the same time does not logically conflict with the definition of the concept “meaning”.

As we have already noted, everything that is a need for a person makes sense, big or small. However, it is necessary to distinguish between less and more complex needs and, accordingly, less and more important values \u200b\u200band meanings. Their hierarchy is not only ontological, but also axiological. In the classification of A. G. Maslow, considered above, this subordination logic is clearly visible. The satisfaction of higher needs has as its prerequisite the satisfaction of the needs of simpler ones, which is quite justified and understandable. The American psychologist classifies the first four basic human needs as the "kingdom of necessity" (Marx), considering them the needs of a lack, a certain need. Talents and abilities, which make up the complex of human self-realization, A.G. Maslow considers as the needs of growth, i.e. as more complex and higher needs. This is already the "kingdom of freedom", which, according to Marx, begins where the work dictated by need and external expediency stops, therefore, lying on the other side of the sphere of material production proper. It is there that the development of human forces begins, which is an end in itself, the true kingdom of freedom, which, however, can flourish only on this kingdom of necessity, as on its basis (9).

In Russian literature, it is also customary to distinguish between higher and lower needs and values. “When the question of the meaning of life is raised,” writes, for example, G.N. Gumnitsky, - usually they do not mean all the variety of tasks that arise before a person, but only the most important of them. Asking for what a person lives, they mean that the meaning of life is not in physical existence, not in meeting the simplest needs, but in something higher, which is the main thing in life ”(10, p. 14-15). The author proposes to distinguish between the general meaning of life and the main one. The general meaning of life includes everything human - both the highest and most complex, and the simplest and most ordinary. Nothing should be excluded from the content of life, considered as devoid of any meaning. The main meaning of life is historically specific and changeable, but it always includes socially significant tasks and goals that are embodied in the system of values \u200b\u200bthat objectively exist in a given society. These goals and values, being imperatives in relation to the individual, at the same time act as life guidelines for the people themselves, since a person is a social being. The desire to realize the highest values \u200b\u200bfills a person's life with meaning and at the same time is a condition for his self-realization and the achievement of personal happiness (10, p. 15-16).

Although spiritual values \u200b\u200barise as a means of providing material, derived from them, they also acquire an independent meaning, become values \u200b\u200bin themselves. On the other hand, material values, being initially self-values, also become means of ensuring spiritual values. In extreme conditions, when it comes to physical survival, material values \u200b\u200bbecome a priority. But under favorable conditions, normal in the modern sense, all values \u200b\u200bare equal in the sense that they are values \u200b\u200bin themselves and essential elements of the system of human values. Ontologically, one cannot assume that some of these elements are higher and others are lower. The axiological assessment depends on the starting point. For example, one cannot say in general terms that taking care of spiritual food is more important than of bodily food, although for some people this may be so. It is incorrect to pose the question: was it better before, when there was no freedom of thought and speech, but everyone was full, or now, when there is freedom, but many live from hand to mouth? Both are bad. It is normal for a thriving economy and an enabling environment for all to be combined with political and intellectual freedom.

Finishing this topic, I would like to cite an excerpt from L. Feuerbach's "The Question of Immortality from the Point of View of Anthropology", where he criticizes Christian ideas about the purpose of man and substantiates the existence of the meaning of life in life itself. His arguments are so simple and convincing that they do not need any additions or comments.

“Man is a creature of nature, therefore it has just as little special, that is, a superterrestrial, superhuman purpose, just as an animal has a super animal purpose, and a plant has a super plant purpose. Any creature is intended only for what it is for: an animal is assigned to be an animal, a plant is to be a plant, a person is to be a human. Every creature has the aim of its existence is its immediate existence; every being has attained its destination by attaining existence. Existence, being, is perfection, is a fulfilled purpose. Life is an independent being. The vegetable being, therefore, has achieved its purpose by acting as what it is, namely, as the vegetable being; a sentient being in that it acts as a sentient being; a conscious being in that it acts as a conscious being. . Speaking in human language, nature has no intentions, except to live ”(11, p. 245-246).

Notes: 1.

Vvedensky A. Conditions for the admissibility of faith in the meaning of life // Meaning of life: Anthology. M., 1994.2.

Frank S.L. The meaning of life // Ibid. 3.

Khomich I.I. Man is a living system. Minsk, 1989.4.

Frankl V. Man in search of meaning. M., 1990.5.

Fromm E. Anatomy of human destructiveness. M., 1994.6.

Fromm E. Psychoanalysis and Religion // Twilight of the Gods. M., 1989.7.

V.V. Rozanov The purpose of human life // The meaning of life: Anthology. M., 1994.8.

See: A. Maslow, Motivation and Personality. SPb, 1999.9.

See: K. Marx, F. Engels Works. 2nd ed. T. 42.10.

Gumnitsky G.N. The meaning of life, happiness, morality. M., 1981.

Feuerbach L. Works: In 2 volumes. M., 1995.Vol. 1.

Questions and tasks 1.

Which of the above concepts of the meaning of life seems the most attractive to you? 2.

Read the relevant work (or excerpts from it) of your chosen author, appreciate the depth and persuasiveness of the argumentation proposed in it. 3.

Find additional arguments in favor of your chosen concept.

Considering the issue, it is pertinent to identify how this problem was viewed in different eras. A number of interpreters of the problem have tried to reduce the value of the intrinsic value of human life by calling for self-denial and sacrifice in the name of future generations. But a person should be happy not in someone else's life, but in his own life. Happy not at the expense of others or to the detriment of others. The essence of the problem is succinctly expressed in the form of the question: "Why live?" There is, writes the French philosopher A. Camus, only one fundamental question of philosophy. It is a question of whether or not life is worth living. Everything else - whether the world has three dimensions, whether the mind is guided by nine or twelve categories - is secondary. Among the many approaches to solving this complex problem, several can be distinguished.

The adherents of the philosophy of hedonism and eudemonism, today, as well as many centuries ago, assert as the meaning of life and its highest goal: the first - the achievement of maximum pleasures, the second - the achievement of happiness. Supporters of utilitarianism believe that the achievement of benefits, benefits, success is precisely the meaning of human life. Proponents of pragmatism argue that the goal of life justifies any means of achieving it.

In the modern Christian Orthodox tradition, it is proclaimed: "man has no limits to his human nature." If God is a free spiritual person, then man must become the same. Man always has the opportunity to become more and more godlike. Not alteration of the world on the basis of good, but the cultivation of substantial good in oneself. The perfection of human nature within the nature of God turns out to be a source of joy and freedom.

Supporters of materialistic ideas believe that the development of man and mankind is determined by their internal logic of self-development. The destiny of man has nothing to do with some kind of world mind, absolute or god. In the materialistic tradition, the meaning of life is seen in the self-development of a person, in the improvement of his essential forces, abilities and needs. This process is due to previous development and has a specific historical real content.

Therefore, the category "meaning of life" can be defined as a regulatory concept inherent in any developed worldview system, which justifies and interprets the moral norms and values \u200b\u200binherent in this system, shows what the prescribed activity is necessary for.

The meaning of life is a philosophical category that reflects a long-term, stable, which has become an inner conviction of the individual, which has a social and personal value, a task that is realized in his social activity. This task is determined by the system of social relations, the goals and interests of society and the free choice of the individual.

It is impossible to find the meaning of life for all times and peoples, since, along with universal, eternal truths, it includes something specific - the aspirations of people of each given era. The meaning of life is revealed to each person in a different way. The content of the goal of life changes not only depending on the historical conditions of a person's being, but also on his age characteristics: in youth, goals are one, in maturity and old age they are different. Only we ourselves, consciously or spontaneously, intentionally or involuntarily, by the very means of our being, give it meaning and, thereby, choose and create our human essence. "Only we and no one else", writes the talented philosopher NN Trubnikov in his book "The Time of Human Being".

The meaning of life is an independent, conscious choice of those values \u200b\u200bthat (according to E. Fromm) orient a person not towards having (an attitude towards having), but towards being (an attitude towards using all human potencies). The meaning of life is in the self-realization of the individual, in the person's need to create, give, share with others, sacrifice himself for the sake of others. And the more significant a person is, the more she has an impact on the people around her. The meaning of life is to improve yourself, to improve the world around you.

These general ideas about the meaning of life should be transformed into the meaning of life of each individual person, conditioned by objective circumstances and his individual qualities.

Introduction

One of the traditional problems of philosophy is the determination of a person's place in life, the meaning of his being.

The relevance of the research topic is related to the fact that the question of the meaning and purpose of life has been at the center of the social and individual consciousness of sane people for many centuries. Questions about the meaning of life have been and are still being asked by people, putting forward competing hypotheses, philosophical, theological and religious explanations. The need to seek, find, understand and experience the meaning of one's being in a number of similar and other creatures is the basis of a person's spiritual being. At the same time, it is important that the problem is not limited to the acquisition of the meaning of life, the person still has to implement it 11, p.3.

The purpose of the study is to identify the specifics of the meaning of human life in the 18th - 19th centuries, as well as in the context of global problems of our time (20th century). The presented goal is concretized and achieved in solving interrelated research tasks, including the following:

give a definition to the concepts "meaning of life", "purpose of life", as well as identify their differences, describe the search for the meaning of life by a person, reflect the relationship between the meaning of life and fate;

consider understanding the meaning of life in classical German and modern Western philosophy;

describe the meaning of human existence in the modern world.

The topic of the abstract is a priority area that develops in accordance with modern realities and continues the world history of philosophy.

According to this work, the problem of the meaning of life has been investigated in German classical and modern Western philosophy. Philosophers of the 18th and 19th centuries and XX century. have done a tremendous job of substantiating their concepts and solving the problem of the meaning of life. Was this abstract based on the works of I. Kant? "Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morality" by G. Hegel? "Phenomenology of Spirit", I. Fichte? “The facts of consciousness. The appointment of a person. Science study ", L. Feuerbach? "Thoughts about death and immortality", "The essence of Christianity", M. Heidegger? "Being and Time", K. Jaspers? "The Spiritual Situation of Time".

The meaning of life as a philosophical problem

The meaning of human life is philosophical reflections on the purpose and purpose of such a person's gift as life. Meaning of life? the perceived value to which a person subordinates his life, for the sake of which he sets and strives to achieve the goals set by him, depending on the events and circumstances that affect life. At the same time, this is a regulatory concept that helps a person to live his years with dignity and meaning. Any developed worldview system has its own ideas about what life is and what its meaning is 6, p.3.

The concept of the meaning of life. The purpose of life. Search for the meaning of life. The fate of man

Meaning of life? a philosophical and spiritual problem related to the definition of the ultimate goal of existence, the purpose of mankind, man as a biological species, one of the main worldview concepts, which is of great importance for the formation of the spiritual and moral appearance of the individual.

The question of the meaning of life can also be understood as a subjective assessment of the life lived and the correspondence of the results achieved to the original intentions, as a person's understanding of the content and direction of his life, his place in the world, as the problem of a person's impact on the surrounding reality and the setting by a person of goals that go beyond his life ... In this case, the need to find answers to the following questions is implied:

“What are life values?”;

"What is the purpose of (someone's) life?" (or the most common goal of human life as such, of a person in general);

"Why (for what) should I live?"

Considering this issue, one should clearly distinguish between the concepts of “meaning of life” and “purpose of life”. When a person is faced with the goal of becoming, for example, a doctor, scientist, engineer, then there is still no answer to the question that worries him about the meaning of life (in any case, the answer is felt by him only intuitively, in a purely emotional way). A person in his thoughts goes further: why do you need to become a doctor, engineer, scientist? Thus, if the goal indicates what a person is striving for, then the meaning of life speaks of why he does it.

The goal "sets" the integrity of the activity. If this is the goal of life, then it determines the integrity of life. In a person who does not have a goal of life, life is not realized as an organic whole in the biosocial, i.e., human sense. “A life without a goal is a man without a head,” says popular wisdom.

Not every person sets a goal of life for himself, but if he does, then this person assumes it as a purposeful activity.

In real life, there is a whole tree of goals. The purpose of life is the main or general purpose of life. In addition to it, there are either subordinate, intermediate, or secondary goals.

Subordinate and intermediate goals are goals, the implementation of which opens the way to the main goal of life, brings you closer to it.

Side or parallel goals are goals that form the entire "kitchen" of life, and determine the full harmonious development of a person. In their sum, they are no less important than the main goal of life (for example, the goal of strengthening health by means of physical culture, building a house, various hobbies, hobbies). In some situations, a conflict arises between the main purpose of life and secondary goals. This conflict can end either with the victory of the main goal of life, or the victory of the secondary goals.

The main goal of life is a goal, the implementation of which justifies the life of a person as a whole, as a person, a subject who stands somewhere on a par with society, realizing his goals as the goals of a person in general or the goals of a particular community of people. In the main goal of life, according to the logic of things, the aspirations of a person as an individual and the goals of society merge together.

The problem of determining the purpose of life is close to the problem of choosing a profession. Moreover, the first is, as a rule, a continuation of the second. Chance, necessity, external circumstances, incentives, and internal impulses, motives "participate" in the formation of the goal of life.

In some cases, it also happens that a person does not stop at choosing any one goal in life (a vivid example: two lives of A.P. Borodin as a composer and a chemist).

If a goal is set, then it becomes a law of activity, a categorical imperative, a necessity to which a person subordinates his will.

Thus, one can see two sides of conscious life: goal-setting (searching for a goal, choosing a goal) and purposefulness (purposefulness, movement towards a goal, or rather, from goal to result). Both sides are equally important to a person.

While realizing the importance of the goal and the goal-setting and purposefulness associated with it, one should not, however, make it absolute. Life in a sense is a unity of purpose and aimlessness, that is, a unity of organization and disorganization, work and rest, tension and relaxation. Purposelessness is realized primarily in the fact that, along with the main goal of life, there are many side goals. The search and realization of a secondary goal (and at the same time a distraction from the main goal) can be interpreted as aimlessness. They say that you can't work all the time, think about one thing, that you need to distract yourself, have fun, relax, relieve stress, switch to another type of activity. It is no accident that modern man pays more and more attention to side activities, hobbies, intuitively realizing that the stress of labor, the main goal, the main business of life can simply destroy him.

It should also be borne in mind that a person's life does not always proceed at the level of goal-setting and the realization of goals. A person can perform expedient actions, bypassing the stage of goal-setting, purely instinctively, unconsciously. For example, the need for rest, sleep can be "realized" in the form of a goal (search for an overnight stay, etc.) or directly - a person quietly fell asleep in the subway. Or such an example: when a person accidentally touches a hot object with his hand, then he pulls it back - here an expedient action is performed, but there is no goal-setting and conscious striving for a goal.

When does the need for goal setting arise? Probably when there is some obstacle between the need and its satisfaction (not very large, but not very small), or to satisfy the need, you need to perform complex orienting actions.

As for the question of finding the meaning of life, is the striving for it characteristic of all people? it is an innate and natural quality inherent in each of us. Often it remains deeply hidden in the subconscious, and it can be difficult for us to explain and clearly articulate what, in fact, we are striving for and what we want to understand. The search for meaning by each person is the main force of his life, and not a "secondary rationalization" of instinctive drives. When there is no sense in a person's actions and actions, this automatically affects the quality of his life itself. The absence of the meaning of life or the inability to realize it gives rise to a person in a state of existential vacuum, neurosis associated with apathy, depression and loss of interest in life.

The meaning of life is available to anyone, regardless of gender, age, intelligence, education, character, environment and religious beliefs. However, the accumulation of meaning is not a matter of knowledge, but of vocation. It is not a person who raises questions about the meaning of his life, but life raises this question before him, and a person has to answer it daily and hourly, not with words, but with actions. The meaning is not subjective and a person does not invent it, but finds it in the world and objective reality. That is why it acts for a person as an imperative that requires its implementation.

The Austrian psychologist W. Frankl introduces the concept of values, which allows one to generalize the possible ways through which a person can make his life meaningful. First, with the help of what we give to life (in the sense of our creative work). Second, through what we take from the world (in the sense of experiencing values). And thirdly, thanks to the position we take in relation to destiny, which we are unable to change. According to this opinion, three groups of values \u200b\u200bare distinguished: the value of creativity, the value of experience and the value of the relationship.

The realization of the meaning of life is an imperative necessity for a person due to the finiteness, limitation and irreversibility of a person's being in the world, the impossibility of postponing something for later, the uniqueness of the possibilities that each specific situation presents to a person. The meaning is unique and specific because it must and can be realized only by the person himself and only when he reaches an understanding of what could satisfy his own need for meaning. A person is able to live and even die to save his ideals and values. Thus, realizing the meaning of his life, a person thereby realizes himself.

Considering the problem of the meaning of human life, it is necessary to note the totality of all events and circumstances that primarily affect being human, people (fate).

Ideas about the meaning of life are formed in the process of people's activities and depend on their social status, the content of the problems being solved, the way of life, worldview, and a specific historical situation. In favorable conditions, a person can see the meaning of his life in achieving happiness and well-being. In a hostile environment of existence, life can lose its value and meaning for him.

Man has embodied his attempts to distinguish the possible from the impossible, the desired from the actual, the probable from the inevitable in the image of fate.

Human life is the material into which fate embodies its decrees, this is the "empiricism of fate." The mode of action of fate, its embodiment of human life can be different.

Fate can act as an absolute predetermination of all events in human life, all of his actions: what happened must have happened. Or in another way: what will happen to you will surely happen. This is how fate is understood in a fairy tale, where the hero can see in a magic mirror the entire course of his future life.

Fate can also be viewed as the main tendency of life, which makes its way through the confusion of accidents, the whimsicality of human actions. Best of all, this form of being fate manifests itself in fate as a person's character.

The image of fate embodies various forms of a person's experience of the limitations of his freedom. According to the Jewish philosopher M. Buber, "freedom and fate are entrusted to each other and embrace each other ...". You can humbly accept your lot, you can try to deceive fate, openly fight with it, know it. But all attempts to build your life path, as it were, aside from the road of fate, usually end in failure. The most basic question of a person's relationship with fate (in the question of the possibility of overcoming it) already contains an assessment of fate as a misfortune. Ultimately, all attempts to overcome fate are a rejection of being, a struggle with non-being. The complete predetermination of human existence is non-being: everything that is alien to me, not dependent on me, is not me, not my being, non-being. It is no coincidence that the theme of death is inseparable from the theme of fate.

From the point of view of non-being, all life events turn out to be unimportant, insignificant. The main task of fate-nothingness opposing man? absorb it. Therefore, death is the only significant "fateful" event. What happens in the interval between birth and death (life itself) is unimportant, illusory from the point of view of nonexistence. All events are compressed to a nonspatial point on the thread of life.

Having accepted the point of view of "non-being", having submitted to fate, a person perceives his life as nothing more than an absolute nonsense, where all events are equal or have no meaning. In this case, a person's life path is not illuminated by the goal and higher values. Fate as non-being deprives being of meaningfulness. Life as a meaningful and complete whole ceases to exist: this is not my conceived life, not I am its author.

Only one feeling of unwillingness to submit to fate preserves the line that separates non-being from being. Hamlet's question itself: to be or not to be, to bend over or to defeat her in confrontation is already a form of affirming being.

Does the desire to cheat fate, "playing" with fate imperceptibly change the characteristics of fate itself? she is "humanized." Man is no longer confronted by fate as a blind and inevitable fate, but fate-chance. Chance is a "pseudonym for freedom." With such a fate-chance can be negotiated, it can be deceived. Man is arguing with fate. In this case, the feeling of a foregone conclusion is lost, the tragic touch in the relationship between a person and his fate disappears. “Fortune can be kicked like a woman? wrote Machiavelli,? she is just as capricious and capricious. " Finally, the person himself can take on the role of fate-chance. Lermontov called Napoleon "The husband of rock", N. Berdyaev wrote about Lenin as a "man of fate". The tragic opposition of being - non-being disappears. Fate turns out to be the material to which a person gives the desired form by his actions. The path of life and destiny change places: a person, by his own deeds, with his own hands, creates his own destiny. A person, by his successful and cunning actions, transforms fate-chance into fate as a person's plan for himself.

This is how the second basic meaning of the concept of fate is revealed. Fate is not only the external conditioning of human life, but also the connectedness, the completeness of human existence, its "logic". Destiny, understood in this way, is no longer identical with misfortune; it can also be happy.

Fate is not a rudiment of an ancient worldview - it is a necessary element of our spiritual world, a kind of symbol of man's relationship with the world. Fate turns out to be an element of our very being: a person performs certain actions in relation to fate: he fights against it, obeys, resigns himself, plays. This is not a fight against fiction, human ideas about fate, included in real life, acquire a modus, a quality of reality. Fate symbolizes that aspect of reality that is vital for a person. In other words, such phenomena as death, time, eternity, freedom, a person cannot master otherwise than in the form of fate. Fate, therefore, is a necessary element of the human "order of life", the life world, in which reality is given together with its awareness. This is not the world of the theorist, this is the world of human actions, choices, decisions.

Different ideas about fate - as in inevitable fate, the logic of character, the inner completeness of human existence, a person's plan for himself - are realized in different ways in different worlds of life.

The life world does not have strict contours, clear and conscious semantic structuredness; it is a kind of spiritual and material integrity in which the image of the world is not separated from its prototype.

Its main feature is a clear awareness of the goal, and thereby awareness of oneself, one's needs. The entire natural world of immediate vitality is, as it were, recreated, constructed anew, rationalized. A person's mental gaze turns to himself. As a result, the original, vital needs lose their immediacy, are corrected, "corrected" and thereby fade away, passed through the furnace of the mind. A second contradiction arises - in the relation of the individual to himself.

So, at first glance, a simple attitude underlying the world of the goal opens up a whole spectrum of possible ways of being in this world: from a fanatical desire to achieve a goal that subjugates a person entirely, does not allow to think, stop, look around, to doubts that have grown to the size of the entire Universe. , immersion in the endless search for the foundations of their own life, paralyzing any purposeful activity.

The world of the goal carries in itself the seeds of self-destruction, it is just as dangerous for man as the world of immediate vitality.

The supposed day of the fulfillment of all desires must inevitably turn out to be the day of the disappearance of human individuality, of everything that a person has acquired in the process of moving towards the goal. No wonder the image of death awaiting a person at the end of his life's journey leading to the fulfillment of desires is so characteristic of European culture. The main condition for defending oneself is the unattainability of the goal, the constant movement towards it as an attempt to unite the world of human subjectivity and the external world, doomed to failure in advance. Man is constantly between two necessities, eluding the clutches of fate. The larger the goal, the more destructive for a person its implementation. Stopping is also death, the collapse of the world, which is based on the activity of moving towards the goal.

What is the meaning of human life? Many people at all times have pondered this question. For some, the problem of the meaning of a person's life does not exist as such, someone sees the essence of being in money, someone in children, someone in work, etc. Naturally, the greats of this world also puzzled over this issue: writers, philosophers, psychologists. They devoted years to this, wrote treatises, studied the works of their predecessors, etc. What did they say about this? What did you see the meaning of life and the purpose of man? Let's get acquainted with some points of view, perhaps this will contribute to the formation of our own vision of the problem.

About the question as a whole

So, what is the meaning Both Eastern sages and philosophers of absolutely different times tried to find the only correct answer to this posed question, but in vain. Every thinking person can also face this problem, and if we are not able to find the right solution, then we will try to at least speculate and understand the topic a little. How to get as close as possible to the answer to the question of what is the point in human life? To do this, you need to determine for yourself the purpose, the purpose of your existence. Depending on what you want to achieve in a certain period, the meaning of a person's life will also change. This is easy to understand with an example. If at the age of 20 you firmly decided to make a lot of money for yourself, that is, you set such a task for yourself, then with each successful deal, the feeling that being is filled with meaning will only grow. However, after 15-20 years, you will realize that you worked hard at the expense of your personal life, health, etc. Then all these years may seem, if not senselessly lived, then only partially meaningful. What conclusion can be drawn in this case? That a person's life should have a goal (in this case, meaning), albeit a passing one.

Can you live without meaning?

If a person is devoid of meaning, it means that he has no intrinsic motivation, and this makes him weak. Lack of purpose does not allow you to take your own destiny into your own hands, resist adversity and difficulties, strive for something, etc. A person without the meaning of life is easily manageable, since he does not have his own opinion, ambitions, life criteria. In such cases, their desires are replaced by others, as a result of which individuality suffers, hidden talents and abilities do not appear. Psychologists say that if a person does not want or cannot find his own path, purpose, goal, then this leads to neuroses, depression, alcoholism, drug addiction, suicide. Therefore, each person should seek the meaning of his life, even if unconsciously, to strive for something, wait for something, etc.

What is meant by the meaning of life in philosophy?

Philosophy about the meaning of human life can tell us a lot, so this question has always been in the first place for this science and its admirers and followers. For thousands of years, philosophers have created some ideals to which one had to strive, some laws of existence, which contained the answer to the eternal question.

1. If, for example, we talk about ancient philosophy, then Epicurus saw the goal of being in getting pleasure, Aristotle - in achieving happiness through cognition of the world and thinking, Diogenes - in striving for inner peace, in denying family and art.

2. To the question of what is the meaning of human life, the philosophy of the Middle Ages gave the following answer: one should honor ancestors, accept the religious views of the time, pass all this to posterity.

3. Representatives of philosophy of the 19-20 centuries also had their own view of the problem. Irrationalists saw the essence of being in a constant struggle with death, suffering; existentialists believed that the meaning of a person's life depends on himself; the positivists, however, considered this problem completely meaningless, since it was expressed linguistically.

Interpretation from the point of view of religion

Each historical epoch poses tasks and problems for society, the solution of which most directly affects how a person understands his destiny. Since living conditions, cultural, social needs change, it is natural that a person's views on all issues also change. However, people have never abandoned the desire to find that unique, so to speak, universal meaning of life, which would be suitable for any stratum of society, for each period of time. This same desire is reflected in all religions, among which Christianity is especially worth noting. The problem of the meaning of human life is considered by Christianity as inseparable from the doctrine of the creation of the world, of God, of the Fall, the sacrifice of Jesus, and the salvation of the soul. That is, all these questions are seen on the same plane, respectively, the essence of being is presented outside of life itself.

The idea of \u200b\u200ba "spiritual elite"

Philosophy, or rather, some of its followers, considered the meaning of human life from another interesting point of view. At a certain time, such ideas about this problem became widespread, which cultivated the ideas of the "spiritual elite" designed to protect all of humanity from degeneration by introducing it to cultural and spiritual values. So, for example, Nietzsche believed that the essence of life is to constantly be born geniuses, talented personalities who would raise the common people to their level, depriving them of the feeling of orphanhood. K. Jaspers shared the same point of view. He was convinced that the representatives of the spiritual aristocracy should be the yardstick, the model for all other people.

What does hedonism say about this?

The founders of this doctrine are the ancient Greek philosophers Epicurus and Aristippus. The latter argued that both bodily and spiritual pleasure is a good for the individual, which should be positively assessed, respectively, displeasure is bad. And the more desirable the pleasure will be, the stronger it is. Epicurus's doctrine on this issue has become a household name. He said that all living things are drawn to pleasure, and any person strives for the same. However, he receives not only sensual, bodily pleasure, but also spiritual.

Utilitarian theory

This type of hedonism was developed mainly by the philosophers Bentham and Mill. The first, like Epicurus, was sure that the meaning of life and the happiness of a person is only in obtaining pleasure and striving for it and in avoiding torment and suffering. He also believed that the criterion of benefit could mathematically calculate a particular kind of pleasure or displeasure. And by composing their balance, we can find out which act will be bad, which will be good. Mill, who gave the name to the flow, wrote that if any action contributes to happiness, then it automatically becomes positive. And so that he would not be accused of selfishness, the philosopher said that it is important not only the happiness of the person himself, but also of those around him.

Objections to hedonism

Yes, there were, and quite a few. The essence of the objection boils down to the fact that hedonists and utilitarians see the meaning of human life in the pursuit of pleasure. However, as life experience shows, a person, performing an act, does not always think where it will lead: to happiness or grief. Moreover, people deliberately do things that are obviously associated with hard work, torture, death, in order to achieve those goals that are far from personal benefit. Each personality is unique. What is happiness for one is torment for another.

Kant deeply criticized hedonism. He said that the happiness that hedonists speak about is a very conditional concept. It seems to everyone differently. The meaning and value of human life, according to Kant, lies in the desire of everyone to develop goodwill in themselves. This is the only way to achieve perfection, to fulfill. Having the will, the person will strive for those actions that are responsible for its purpose.

The meaning of human life in the literature of Tolstoy L.N.

The great writer not only pondered, but even tormented over this issue. In the end, Tolstoy came to the conclusion that the purpose of life is only in the self-improvement of the individual. He was also sure that the meaning of existence of one individual cannot be sought separately from others, from society as a whole. Tolstoy said that in order to live honestly, one must constantly struggle, torn, get confused, because calm is meanness. That is why the negative part of the soul seeks peace, but it does not understand that the achievement of the desired is associated with the loss of everything that is good and good in a person.

The meaning of human life in philosophy was interpreted in different ways, it happened depending on many reasons, the course of a particular time. If we consider the teachings of such a great writer and philosopher as Tolstoy, then it says the following. Before deciding the question of the purpose of existence, it is necessary to understand what life is. He went over all the definitions of life known then, but they did not satisfy him, since they reduced everything only to biological existence. However, human life, according to Tolstoy, is impossible without moral, moral aspects. Thus, the moralist transfers the essence of life into the moral sphere. After that, Tolstoy turned to both sociology and religion in the hope of finding that single meaning that was intended for everyone, but all was in vain.

What is said about this in domestic and foreign literature?

In this area, the number of approaches to this problem and opinions is no less than in philosophy. Although many writers also acted as philosophers, they talked about the eternal.

So, one of the oldest is the concept of Ecclesiastes. It talks about the vanity and insignificance of human existence. According to Ecclesiastes, life is nonsense, nonsense, nonsense. And such components of being as work, power, love, wealth, have no meaning. This is the same as chasing the wind. In general, he believed that human life has no meaning.

The Russian philosopher Kudryavtsev in his monograph put forward the idea that each person independently fills being with meaning. He insists only that everyone sees the goal only in the "high", and not in the "low" (money, pleasure, etc.)

The Russian thinker Dostoevsky, who constantly “unraveled” the secrets of the human soul, believed that the meaning of human life is in his morality.

The meaning of being in psychology

Freud, for example, believed that the main thing in life is to be happy, to receive maximum pleasure and enjoyment. Only these things are self-evident, but a person who thinks about the meaning of life is mentally ill. But his student, E. Fromm, believed that one cannot live without meaning. You need to consciously reach out to everything positive and fill your being. In the teachings of V. Frankl, this concept is given the main place. According to his theory, under no circumstances in life can a person fail to see the goals of existence. And you can find meaning in three ways: in action, in experience, in the presence of a certain position to life circumstances.

Is there really meaning in human life?

In this article, we consider such an eternally existing issue as the problem of the meaning of human life. Philosophy on this score gives more than one answer, some options are presented above. But each of us at least once, but thought about the meaningfulness of our own being. For example, according to sociologists, approximately 70% of the world's inhabitants live in constant fear and anxiety. As it turned out, they were not looking for the meaning of their existence, but simply wanted to survive. And for what? And that fussy and anxious rhythm of life is a consequence of the unwillingness to understand this issue, at least for oneself. No matter how we hide, the problem still exists. Writers, philosophers, thinkers were looking for answers. If you analyze all the results, you can come to three conclusions. Let's try to find the meaning and we?

The first judgment: there is no sense and cannot be

This means that any attempt to find a goal is a delusion, a dead end, self-deception. This theory was adhered to by many philosophers, including Jean-Paul Sartre, who said that if death is ahead of us all, then there is no point in life, because all problems will remain unresolved. A. Pushkin and Omar Khayyam were also disappointed and dissatisfied in their search for truth. It should be said that such a position of accepting the meaninglessness of life is very cruel, not every person is even capable of experiencing it. Much in human nature opposes this opinion. On this occasion, the next point.

Second judgment: there is a meaning, but everyone has their own

Admirers of this opinion believe that there is a meaning, or rather, it should be, so we must come up with it. This stage implies an important step - a person stops running from himself, he must admit that being cannot be meaningless. In this position, the person is more frank with himself. If a question appears again and again, then it will not be possible to brush it off or hide. Please note that if we recognize such a concept as meaninglessness, by the same token we prove the legitimacy and right to existence of that very meaning. It's all good. However, representatives of this opinion, even recognizing and accepting the question, could not find a universal answer. Then everything went according to the principle "once you admit it, think for yourself." There are many roads in life, you can choose any of them. Schelling said that happy is the one who has a goal and sees in this the meaning of all life. A person with such a position will try to find meaning in all phenomena, events that happen to him. Someone will turn to material enrichment, someone - to success in sports, someone - to the family. Now it turns out that there is no universal meaning, which means that all those “meanings” are what? Just tricks to cover up meaninglessness? And if, nevertheless, there is a common meaning for everyone, then where to look for it? Let's move on to the third point.

Third judgment

And it sounds like this: there is a meaning in our existence, it can even be cognized, but only after you know the one who created this being. Here the question will already be relevant not about what is the meaning of a person's life, but about why he is looking for it. So I lost it. The logic is simple. By committing a sin, a person has lost God. And you don't need to invent the meaning here yourself, you just need to cognize the Creator again. Even a philosopher and a convinced atheist said that if you exclude the existence of God from the very beginning, then there is nothing to look for meaning at all, it will not exist. A bold decision for an atheist.

Most common answers

If you ask a person about the meaning of his existence, he will most likely give one of the following answers. Let's take a closer look at them.

In procreation.If you answer the question about the meaning of life in this way, then you are showing the nakedness of your soul. Do you live for the children? To train them, to put them on their feet? And what's next? Then, when the children grow up and leave the cozy nest? You will say that you will teach your grandchildren. Why? So that they, in turn, also do not have goals in life, but go in a vicious circle? Procreation is one of the tasks, but it is not universal.

At work.For many people, future plans are related to their careers. You will work, but for what? Feeding your family, getting dressed? Yes, but this is not enough. How to realize yourself? Not enough either. Even ancient philosophers argued that work will not please for a long time if there is no general meaning in life.

In wealth.Many people believe that saving money is the main happiness in life. It becomes a thrill. But in order to live fully, you do not need countless treasures. It turns out that making money constantly for the sake of money is pointless. Especially if a person does not understand why he needs wealth. Money can only be a tool for realizing its meaning, purpose.

In existence for someone.This is already more full of meaning, although it is similar to the paragraph about children. Of course, taking care of someone is grace, it is the right choice, but not enough for self-realization.

What to do, how to find the answer?

If, nevertheless, the question posed does not give you rest, then the answer should be sought in yourself. In this review, we briefly reviewed some of the philosophical, psychological, and religious aspects of the problem. Even if you read such literature for days and study all the theories, it is far from the fact that you will 100% agree with something and take it as a guide to action.

If you decide to find the meaning of your life, it means that something does not suit you in the present state of affairs. However, be careful: time goes by, it won't wait for you to find something. Most people try to realize themselves in the above directions. Please, if you like it, it brings pleasure, then who will forbid it? On the other hand, who said that it is impossible, that it is not true, that we have no right to live like this (for children, for loved ones, etc.)? Everyone chooses his own path, his destiny. Maybe you shouldn't look for him? If something is prepared, will it come anyway, without unnecessary effort on the part of a person? Who knows, maybe it's true. And do not be surprised if you see the meaning of life as different in every segment of your existence. This is normal. The nature of man in general is such that he constantly doubts something. The main thing is to be filled, like a vessel, to do something, to devote your life to something.

ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT UNDER THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF BELARUS

Institute of Management Personnel

Department of Philosophical Sciences

Specialty: Public administration and economics

COURSE WORK

on the topic: The problem of the meaning of life in philosophy

1st year student, group GUE-4

Svyatskaya E. D

Leader

professor, candidate of philosophical sciences

associate Professor Kasperovich G.I

Minsk, 2010

INTRODUCTION

1.1 The meaning of life

1.2 "Ideal types" of philosophical self-perception of man

2. Fate and the search for the meaning of life

2.1 Fate and life path

2.2 Searching for the meaning of life

3. Freedom and creativity as existential orientations

CONCLUSION

Bibliography

INTRODUCTION

The realization that a person lives only once and death is inevitable raises the question of the meaning of life with all sharpness. The problem of the meaning of life is important for every person. Nietzsche argued: "If there is a Why to live, you can endure any How", and he was right.

Undoubtedly, many modern philosophers are right, asserting that the choice of the meaning of life depends on many factors - objective and subjective. Objective factors include the socio-economic conditions prevailing in society, the political and legal system functioning in it, the prevailing worldview, the prevailing political regime, the state of war and peace, etc. Subjective personality traits - will, character, prudence, practicality, etc. play a significant role in choosing the meaning of life.

A person turns out to be a problem for himself when he asks himself a question about the meaning of his own existence, the boundaries of his being, about the difference from his own kind, from all living beings. Only by problematizing the foundations of his own life does a person really become a person.

The problem of man is not a purely theoretical problem, for reflection on which time is carved out at leisure. This is a practical, vital problem. Finding himself in a critical situation, a person each time "chooses" himself, decides the question of the meaning of his existence. As soon as he stops thinking about it, he ceases to be a person, turns into a thing, freezes within certain boundaries, merges with a certain social role, is forever expelled from the world of free choice. The problem of man as a practical problem has always stood and will stand before each of us: at certain moments of his life a man problematizes his existence, determines the meaning of his life, chooses the direction of his life path.

However, although it is always the person himself who chooses, there is a kind of "technique" of problematization by a person of his own existence - philosophy. It is philosophy that organizes the “space of choice” by a person of himself; it, as it were, offers various systems of value coordinates of humanity developed by philosophical thought over the centuries.

Philosophy leaves the final choice of the "image of humanity" for the person himself. Therefore, she cannot dictate to a person what he should be. Philosophy cannot be reduced to the science of existence - to a simple statement of what a person is “in reality”. Philosophy as a "technique" of thinking about oneself is a form of theoretical knowledge about the possible.

1. The meaning of life and its value: diversity of understanding

1.1 The meaning of life

The meaning of life has to do with the question "What to live for?" And not with the question of how to sustain life. The attitude of a person as a conscious, thinking creature to his life and to himself is reflected in the meaning and purpose of his life. The meaning of life is a perceived value to which a person subordinates his life, for the sake of which he sets and strives to achieve life goals.

So what is the meaning of life? This question has always stood before philosophers, and the answer to it was considered from two different positions: from the point of view of an individual person and a person as a representative of humanity.

In the first understanding, the meaning of life is an element of the unique spiritual life of an individual, the fact that he forms himself independently of the systems of social values \u200b\u200bprevailing in society. From these positions, one cannot speak of a single sense of life for all. Each individual discovers it in his own thoughts and, based on his own experience, builds his own hierarchy of values. At the same time, the meaning of life also exists as a phenomenon of consciousness of the human race. His search was prepared by a long process of human evolution, the development of the reflexive ability of his thinking, the formation of consciousness.

Religious philosophy has retained the greatest loyalty to the search for an abstract universal meaning of human life. She connects the meaning of human life with the contemplation and embodiment of the divine principle in man, the striving for superhuman sanctity, the communion with the truth and the highest good. The Russian religious philosopher S. Frank believed that the world in itself is meaningless and blind, just as the outer life of a person is also meaningless. But the human mind is already a breakthrough of meaninglessness. The inner spiritual life of a person, which S. Frank called true being, has a meaning. It is accessible only to a soul experiencing anxiety, anguish, dissatisfaction, “search for meaning”. In order for a person to discover the meaning of life for himself, two conditions are needed: “firstly, the existence of God as the absolute basis for the power of good, reason and eternity, as a guarantee and triumph over the forces of evil, meaninglessness and corruption, and, secondly, opportunities for me personally, in my weak and short life, of communion with God ”- wrote S. Frank.

A person is interested not only in the truth, which would represent the object as it is in itself, but in the meaning of the object for a person, to satisfy his needs. In this regard, a person evaluates the facts of his life according to their significance, realizes a value attitude towards the world. The specificity of a person is precisely the value attitude towards the world. A value is for a person everything that has a certain significance for him, personal or social meaning. We deal with value when it comes to the native, holy, preferred, dear, perfect, when we praise and scold, admire and resent, recognize and deny.

All people have values, but not always the same.

The word "value" was already well known to the ancient Greeks.

In antiquity, there was no clear understanding of the originality of a person in the world. A modern philosopher would say: "Let's clearly define what is an idea as truth, as a concept, and what is an idea as a value, as an ideal." But in antiquity they philosophized differently, here truth and value are not separated from each other quite strictly.

In the philosophy of the Middle Ages, it was believed that man exists in the name of God, and not God for man. We can say that it was about the values \u200b\u200bof God.

In modern times, philosophers singled out reason as the main feature of man. An overwhelming interest in truth obscured the problem of value. Kant took a decisive step towards it, he "divorced" truth, beauty and good. Reason is concerned with truth, and value, as the followers of Kant considered, reason, more precisely, reasonable will. By the twentieth century, all the conditions for the development of the doctrine of value had developed.

The philosophical trends of the twentieth century bring the problem of values \u200b\u200bto the fore. It is important that in all modern philosophical trends, value is understood in the same way, at least in one respect.

There is no value only where a person is indifferent to something, is not interested in the differences between truth and error, beautiful and ugly, good and evil.

Value theories are theories about the meaning of life: great philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, Descartes, Spinoza and many others had clear ideas about what life is best, and, therefore, the most meaningful.

Among the various value forms of the human psyche, will, self-regulation by the subject of his activity, manifested as purposefulness, decisiveness, and self-control, is of paramount importance. According to Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, will takes the first place among all values.

In the world of human value orientations, faith, the act of accepting something as value-positive, is of lasting importance. Faith is preceded by doubt, which is translated into faith as a result of philosophical analysis.

M. Scheler put forward five "ideal types" of philosophical self-perception of a person, which constitute the "space of choice" of oneself, provided by the entire history of philosophy to an individual. Scheler does not connect them simply with stages of philosophical thought. All of them have the right to exist in our time, they all find a response in the human soul to this day.

The first "idea of \u200b\u200bman", according to Scheler, is the idea of \u200b\u200breligious faith as the essence of man. From this point of view, the true history of the human soul is its divine origin, the fall, and future salvation. Christianity with its doctrine of Sonship of God ascribes to man a "metacosmic" meaning, raising him above nature. But the solid divine basis of human existence comes into conflict with the earthly form of human existence. Hence - the feeling of breaking, the nightmare of original sin, the burden of man with the natural, fear of everything earthly.

The second ideal type is the type of homosapiens, a person as a carrier of reason. Logos, consciousness, spirit elevate man above all that exists already among the Greeks of the classical period. Man carries a divine active principle, which is absent in the rest of nature. This beginning in man is akin to the Divine Logos, it does not change depending on the circumstances, era. These teachings, according to Scheler, could be both theistic (considering God as a perfect person beyond the world), and pantheistic, dissolving God in the world. Intertwining with the first image of a person, this idea takes over the mass consciousness so much that it becomes self-evident, a person begins to relate to himself only as a mouthpiece of reason, identical to morality and beauty.