What characterizes development. Development definition

DEVELOPMENT

As a characteristic of objects with a more or less complex structure, the process of R. is distinguished by definition. structure (mechanism). Viewed from this t. Sp. it is primarily a collection of a number of system components involved in the process. Some of these components play the role of forming the process, others - its conditions. The process generators answering the question "what is developing?" Represent the starting point of the process; the generators answering the question "what is developing into?" are the result of the process. Both are central, leading components of the process R. laconically expressing the essence of transformations in the object in the process of R., and at the same time a "vector" indicating the direction of these transformations. The conditions of the process are those of its components, to-rye ensure the transformation of the starting point into the result. They differ from the so-called. concretely-historian. conditions for the flow of R.; the latter are associated either with the external features of the developing object, or with factors lying outside of it, related to its interaction with "neighboring" systems, and determine the specific form of the process.

R. is not any change in the structure of an object, but only a so-called, qualitative change. "... Development is obviously not a simple, universal and eternal growth, increase (decrease), etc." (Lenin V.I., Soch., Vol. 38, p. 251). The structure of an object is characterized by three points: the number of components (in this sense, two-term, three-term, generally n-term structures are distinguished), the order of their arrangement (for example, linear and circular structures) and the nature of the relationship between them (for example, structures are reversible, where all elements are "equal" and irreversible, where there is a relationship of "dominance" and "subordination" between the elements). Qualities. The nature of changes in the process of R. is expressed in the fact that R. is a transition from the structure of one quality (characterized by one quantity, order, and nature of the dependence of the components) to the structure of another quality (characterized by a different quantity or order, or the nature of the dependence of the components). Consequently, the process of R. does not coincide only with changes in the number of structural components of an object (simple growth or decrease in their number) and therefore cannot be depicted as a movement from a structure with n elements to a structure with n + 1 or with n - 1 elements. In the process of R., structural elements can not only arise, but also disappear, so that in the definition. their number may remain constant. Also the qualities. a change in the structure, the appearance of new components in it can take place without a visible increase in the number of elements, due to the redistribution of old elements, a change in the nature of relations between them, etc. The main thing, due to the systemic nature of the developing object, is the appearance (disappearance) in its structure of K.-L. the component is never equal only to the quantities. growth (decrease) does not mean a simple addition (subtraction) of "one", but leads to the emergence of many new connections and relationships, to the transformation of old ties, etc. accompanied by more or less serious substantial or functional. transformation of the entire mass of components within the system as a whole. The structure of the object at the starting point of R. and the object as a result of R. are defined. the states of the developing object, limited in time, i.e. historical. states. Thus, R.'s process, taken from t. Sp. its mechanism as a whole, there are a number of historical. states of the object in their connections, transitions from one to another, from the previous to the next.

The most important characteristic of R. is time. R. proceeds in time. At the same time, the concept of "the course of time" is not identical with the concept of "process R." This is indicated by the fact that, within certain limits, the passage of time is not accompanied by qualities. changes in the object, and the fact that at the same time intervals different objects are able to travel in their R. different "distances" and vice versa: for the passage of similar "distances" different objects require different time. In other words, the R. of an object is not a function of the objective course of time as such, but of the vital activity of the object itself. In contrast to the phenomena of motion, changes, which can be caused by the action of forces external to a moving object, R. is an object - a process, the source of which is contained in the developing object itself. A process of this kind is described, for example, by Marx in relation to the currency of money from a commodity (see Capital, vol. 1, 1955, p. 94). R. arises as a result of contradictions, the struggle of the new and the old, the struggle of "contradictory, interconnected, opposite tendencies" inherent in objects "of nature (and of spirit and society, including ) ", overcoming them, transforming them into new contradictions. "Development is" of "opposites" (V. I. Lenin, Soch., Vol. 38, p. 358).

R.'s process is characterized by a wide variety of specific types and forms. This is due to both the general nature of the developing objects (inorganic, biological, social, etc.), and the greater or lesser complexity of their structure. In particular, R. can take the form of the transformation of one object into another (for example, "labor turns from a tool into a machine ..." - see K. Marx, Capital, vol. 1, p. 377), differentiation of the object (cf. . the process of divergence in biology), the subordination of one system to another and their transformation (cf. the process of assimilation in the sociology of culture), etc. etc. There are two forms of R.: evolutionary and revolutionary (see Evolution and Revolution). The first R. is a slow, gradual, often hidden from the eye changes in the structure of an object, they are called quantities. changes. The second form of R. is sudden, abrupt, abrupt, so-called. qualities. changes in the structure of the object associated with radical transformations in its entire structure. Between these two forms of R. there is a complex dialectic. connection. Evolution prepares the revolution, leads to it and ends with it. In turn, the new quality acquired by the object again leads to the stage of slow quantities. savings. Thus, each process is dialectical. the unity of the discontinuous and the continuous, and vice versa.

R. is further characterized by definition. focus. The transition from one state of an object to another is not a repetition of the past, it is not a movement in a circle, although historically the later stages include many moments inherent in the previous stages. R. coincides with the act. movement to a more developed and perfect or with movement in the opposite direction. In this sense, they speak of the progressive and regressive directions in the object's R., of the ascending and descending lines of its R. (see Progress, Regression). R. of matter and consciousness, taken as a whole, is distinguished by an unconditional progressive direction, there is an endless movement along an ascending spiral, a contradictory movement, including retreats, backtracking, but on the whole going from simple forms to complex forms, from lower, primitive systems, to higher, highly organized systems.

R.'s idea finds expression in the principle of historicism and is one of the most leading in the entire history of philosophy, natural science, and social science. In its original naive form, it was already formulated in ancient philosophy by Heraclitus: "... everything exists and at the same time does not exist, since everything flows, everything is constantly changing, everything is in a constant process of emergence and disappearance" (Engels F., Anti-Dühring, 1966, p. 16). Aristotle, Descartes, Spinoza, Kant, Lomonosov, Rousseau, Diderot, Fichte, Hegel, Herzen, Saint-Simon, K.F. Wolf, Laplace, Copernicus, Lyell, Mayer, Darwin, Mendeleev, Timiryazev made a huge contribution to R.'s analysis , Weisman and many others. other philosophers, natural scientists and sociologists of the past. In the history of thinking, as in the present. science, there are two fundamentally different views of R. - and the dialectical (see V. I. Lenin, Soch., vol. 38, p. 358).

His highest expression is dialectical. approach to R. reaches in the dialectic system. materialism, where the idea of R., constituting the main methodological. principle, for the first time receives its all-round, and R. itself is analyzed for the first time as natures. a process proceeding on the basis of objective laws (see ibid., vol. 21, p. 38). Formulating DOS. the laws of dialectics, which are the laws of R., dialectical. at the same time gives the method of scientific. analysis of R.'s processes, their reproduction in thinking.

Lit .: Kushner P.I., Sketch of R. societies. forms, 7th ed., M., 1929; Asmus V.F., Essays on the history of dialectics in new philosophy,, M. - L., 1930; his, Dialectics of Kant, 2nd ed., M., 1930; him, Marx and the bourgeois. historicism, M. - L., 1933; Kedrov B.M., On quantities. and qualities. changes in nature, [M.], 1946; his, Denial of negation, Μ., 1957; his, On the ratio of forms of motion of matter in nature, M., 1958; R.'s problems in nature and society. [Sat. Art.], M. - L., 1958; Rubinstein S. L., About thinking and ways of its research, M., 1958; Lem G., On the transition from an old quality to a new one in societies. R., M., 1958; Schaff Α., The Objective Nature of the Laws of History, trans. from Polish., M., 1959; Melyukhin S.T., On dialectics of R. inorganic. nature, M., 1960; Grushin B. Α., Essays on the Logic of Historical. research, M., 1961; Bogomolov A.S., The idea of R. in the bourgeois. philosophy of the 19th and 20th centuries, M., 1962. See also lit. at Art. Dialectics, Unity and struggle of opposites, Transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones, Denial of negation law, Progress.

B. Grushin. Moscow.

Philosophical Encyclopedia. In 5 volumes - M .: Soviet encyclopedia. Edited by F. V. Konstantinov. 1960-1970 .

DEVELOPMENT

DEVELOPMENT - the highest type of movement and changes in nature and society, associated with the transition from one quality, state to another, from the old to the new. Any development is characterized by specific objects, structure (mechanism), source, forms and direction.

In accordance with the recognition of the diversity of forms of existence of matter and consciousness, the development of inorganic matter (its physical and chemical forms), organic matter (its biological form), social matter (its socio-economic and political forms) and consciousness (such forms as science , morality, ideology, legal consciousness, religion, etc.). At the same time, all these different types of development are characterized by a number of essential common points and features concerning, first of all, the specifics of the developing objects themselves. If the process of change captures any objects, any of their sides, then the development process is far from every change in an object, but only one that is associated with transformations in the internal structure of an object, in its structure, which is a set of elements, relations and dependencies. Therefore, in the material and the spiritual world, where all, without exception, objects and phenomena are in a state of constant movement, change, development can only be spoken about in relation to objects with one or another (simple or complex) systemic structure.

Being a property of only systemic objects, the development process itself is distinguished by a certain structure (mechanism). Considered from this point of view, it represents a certain kind of connection between the totality of the components of the system participating in the process. Some of these components play the role of forming the process, others - its conditions. The generators of the process, answering the question “what is developing?”, Represent the starting point of the process, the generators, answering the question “into what is developing?”, Are the result of the process. If the development mechanism is likened to an aggregate of different-sized and multidirectional forces, then the “segment of a straight line” connecting the starting point with the result of the process will be just the result, the sum of all these forces, the shortest distance, most succinctly expressing the essence of the transformations taking place in the object, and at the same time a vector indicating the direction of these transformations. Process conditions are those constituents of the object that ensure the transformation of the starting point into the result, facilitating or preventing such a transformation. As part of the development mechanism, they should be distinguished from the so-called. specific historical conditions of the process, which are associated with the external circumstances of the "life" of the object and determine the external form of the course of development.

Development is not everything, but only the so-called. a qualitative change in the structure of the object. Considering that any is characterized by three parameters: the number of its components; by the order of their arrangement relative to each other (compare, for example, linear and circular structures) and the nature of the dependencies between them (compare, for example, structures with different types of relations along the line “dominance - subordination”), then development will mean a transition structures of one quality (with one quantity, order and type of dependencies of components) to a structure of another quality (with a different number, order and type of dependencies of components). Consequently, the process of development does not coincide only with a change (increase or decrease) in the number of elements of the object's structure and therefore cannot be depicted as a movement from a structure with I elements to a structure with I and I elements. In the process of development, structural elements can not only arise, but also disappear, so that, within certain limits, their total number can remain constant. In addition, a qualitative change in the structure, the appearance of new components in it can take place without a visible increase in their number, for example, due to a change in the functions of old elements, the nature of relations between them, etc. The main thing, due to the systemic nature of the developing object , - the appearance or disappearance of any component in its structure is never equal to only a quantitative change, a simple addition or subtraction of “one”, but leads to the emergence of many new connections and dependencies, to the transformation of old ones, etc. accompanied by a more or less serious substantial and / or functional transformation of the entire mass of components within the system as a whole.

The structures of the object at the initial and final points of development are certain states of the developing object, limited in time, that is, historical states. Consequently, the process of development, taken from the point of view of its mechanism as a whole, is a series of historical states of an object in their transitions from one to another, from the previous to the next. This means that development takes place in time. At the same time, it is not identical with the concept of “the passage of time”. And because, within certain limits, the flow of time may not be accompanied by qualitative changes in the object (compare situations when “time has stopped”), and because at the same time intervals different objects can pass in their development unequal “distances” ... In other words, the development of an object is not a function of the objective course of time as such, but the vital activity of the object itself. Unlike movement, changes that can be caused by the action of forces external to the moving object, development is the self-movement of the object - an immanent process, the source of which lies in the developing object itself. According to Hegelian and Marxist philosophy, development is a product of the struggle of opposites, the struggle of new and old components of an object and is a process of overcoming, “removing” some contradictions and replacing them with other, new ones.

Development processes are characterized by a wide variety of specific types and forms. This is due to both the different general nature of the developing objects (for example, biological and social), and the greater or lesser complexity of their structure. In particular, development can take the form of the transformation of one object into another (cf. the transition of the political system of society from totalitarianism to democracy), differentiation of the object (cf. the process of divergence in biology), the subordination of one object to another (cf. the process of assimilation in the history of culture) and etc. At the limit high level generalization among all development processes traditionally distinguish between two interrelated forms: evolution and revolution. The first is slow, gradual, often hidden from the eye, changes in the structure of the object; the second are sudden, abrupt, abrupt changes. Moreover, according to the same traditional understanding of things, evolution often prepares a revolution, leads to it and ends with it; but, on the contrary, is replaced by new evolutionary changes. However, this dichotomy is quite obvious. In any case, the latest historical transformations in Russia do not fit into it. In this regard, the named forms of development should be supplemented, apparently, with one more, which marks a qualitative change not only in the structure of an object, but in its very deepest nature, its essence. In the life of society, this is a change in historical civilizations, long-term processes of change, including both evolutionary and revolutionary forms and therefore cannot be equated with either one or the other as such.

Finally, every development has one direction or another. The transition from one state of an object to another is not an endless repetition of the past, it is not a movement in a circle, although historically the later stages in the life of an object, as, include many moments inherent in the previous stages. According to its dominant vector, development can coincide with a forward movement towards a more developed and perfect state of an object or with movement in an opposite direction. In this sense, they talk about the progressive and regressive development of an object, or about the ascending and descending lines of its development. According to the concepts prevailing in philosophy, the development of matter and consciousness, taken as a whole, is an endless movement along an ascending spiral, a movement, although contradictory, including retreats, returning back, but in principle, it differs more in a progressive direction - it goes from simple forms to complex forms, from lower, primitive systems to higher, highly organized systems. At the same time, some do not share such views, opposing them with the ideas of the historical cycle (A. Toynbee) or the eschatological picture of the “end of the world” (O. Huxley). The idea of development finds its expression in the principle of historicism and, in this regard, is one of the central ideas in the history of philosophy, natural science and social science.

What is the development process?

Excerpt from the Essay "Byzantism and Slavism"

Chapter VI. What is the development process?

Now I have to leave for the time being the Islavians, and our Russian Byzantine rule, and I am very far from my main subject.

I will try, however, as far as I can, to be brief.

I will ask myself first of all: what does the word "development" mean in general? It is not for nothing that it is used incessantly in our time. The human mind in this respect is probably on a good road; He applies, perhaps very correctly, an idea developed by the real, natural sciences to the life of the mental, historical life of individuals and societies.

They say incessantly: "Development of the mind, science, developing people, developed man, development of literacy, laws of historical development, further development of our institutions" etc.

This is all good. However, there are also errors; it is with a careful analysis that we see that the word development is sometimes used to denote completely dissimilar processes or states. So, for example, a developed person is often used in the sense of a scientist, well-read or educated person. But this is not the same at all. An educated, well-formed, diversely developed person and a scientist are different concepts. Faust is a developed man, and Wagner UGethe is a scientist, newly undeveloped.

Another example. The development of literacy among the people seems to me a completely inappropriate expression.

The spread, the spread of literacy is another matter. The spread of literacy, the spread of drunkenness, the spread of cholera, the spread of good manners, sobriety, thrift, the spread of railways, etc. All these phenomena represent to us the spill of something homogeneous, common, simple.

The idea of development actually corresponds to those real, exact sciences, from which it was transferred to the historical area, to a certain complex process and, we note, quite often completely opposite to the process of spreading, spilling, a process as if hostile to this last process.

Looking closer at the manifestations of organic life, from the observation of which this idea of development was taken, we will see that the process of development in this organic life means this:

The gradual ascent of the simplest to the most complex, gradual individualization, isolation, from one side, of the surrounding world, and from the other - originating herbial organisms, from all similar herbial phenomena.

A gradual course of colorlessness, from the simplicity of originality and complexity.

The gradual complication of the elements of the constituent, the increase in the wealth of the internal and at the same time the gradual strengthening of unity.

So the highest point of development not only in organic bodies, but in general in organic phenomena is highest degree complexity, united by a kind of internal despotic unity.

The very growth of grass, wood, animal, etc. there is already a complication; only when we say "growth," we mean primarily the quantitative aspect, not the qualitative aspect, not so much a change in shape as a change in size.

The content with growth is quantitatively complicated. The grass, let’s say, has not yet grown to flowers, niplod, but it has risen, grown, it means that if we did not notice any internal (microscopic), external, visible to the eye, morphological change, enrichment; But we still have the right to say that the grass has become more complex, because the number of cells and fibers has multiplied.

Moreover, close observation shows that in the process of development there is always an incessant, at least some kind of change in form, both in particular (for example, in size, in the form of the cells and fibers themselves), and in general (that is, that completely new features appear, hitherto unprecedented in the picture of the whole. organism).

Also in the development of the animal body, and in the development of the human body, and even in the development of the human spirit, character.

I said: not only whole organisms, but all organic processes, and all parts of organisms, in a word, all organic phenomena are subject to the same law.

Take, for example, a picture of a disease.

(I am afraid here of reproaching the backwardness and detail of what others are ready to consider as an ordinary assimilation. The assimilation does not only color speech, it also makes the main subject more accessible and clear, if it is briefly appropriate. Long, tedious assimilations only confuse and distract thought. much more than an assimilation: I have a pretense to offer something like a hypothesis for a social or historical science... Whether I'm right or wrong, whether I have expressed my point or not is another matter. I just want to warn you that the point here is inconsistencies, and the desire to point out to NATO that the laws of the development and fall of states, apparently, in general, are not homogeneous only with the laws organic world, but in general with the laws of the origin, existence and the bele (Enstehen, Oasem und Vergehen) of all that exists that is available to us. Everyone knows that the state is falling, but how? What are the signs? Are there such dire signs now? Who? Here is the goal! (Author's note, 1874)).

Let's say - pneumonia. It begins for the most part simply, so simple that it cannot be strictly distinguished at the beginning from a simple cold, from bronchitis, from pleuri-tis and many other dangerous and destructive diseases. Malaise, fever, chest or side pain, cough. If at that moment a person died from something else (for example, if he was shot), then we would find very few changes in the lungs, very few differences from other lungs. The disease is undeveloped, it is not complicated yet, and therefore, it is not individualized and powerful (it is not yet dangerous, it is not lethal, it is still not very influential). The more complex the picture becomes, the more diverse distinctive features, the easier it is to individualize, classify, separate, and, on the other hand, the stronger and more influential it is. The old signs still remain: fever, pain, fever, weakness, cough, suffocation, etc., but there are still new ones: sputum, stained, depending on the case, of a brick-like dolymone color. Listening gives, finally, the specific ronchus crepitans. Then a moment comes when the picture is most complex: the aqueous part of the lungs is a simple ronchus subcrepitans, characteristic of other processes, other ronchus crepitans (similar to the gentle crackling of hair that we will rub slowly around the ear), in the third place listening to the chest gives bronchial breathing souffle tubaire, like or a tube: this is a hepatitisation of the lungs, the air does not pass at all. Finally, it may happen that next to this there will be an inar, a cave, and then we will hear and see more new phenomena, we will meet an even more complex picture. The same will give us the disclosures: 1) strength, 2) complexity, 3) individualization.

If the matter is to the victory of the disease, then, on the contrary, the picture of the organism itself is simplified, either suddenly, or gradually.

If it comes to recovery, the complexity and variety of symptoms that made up the picture of the disease, little by little diminish. The phlegm becomes more common (less individualized); wheezing becomes more common, similar to other coughs; the fever subsides, hepatitis is resolved, that is, the lungs become more uniform and monotonous again.

If it comes to death, the simplification of the organism begins. The dying, last hours of all the dying are more similar, simpler than the middle of the disease. Then comes death, which, it was said long ago, equals everyone. A picture of a corpse is less complex than a picture of a living organism; together, everything gradually merges, seeps out, liquids freeze, dense tissues loosen, all body colors merge into a greenish-brown one. Soon it will be very difficult to distinguish a corpse from another corpse. Then simplification and confusion component parts continuing, they pass more and more in the process of decomposition, disintegration, dissolution, spilling of the environment. The soft parts of the corpse, decaying, decomposing into their chemical constituents, reach the extreme inorganic simplicity of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, spill around the world, spread. The bones, due to the greater strength of the internal cohesion of lime, which constitutes their basis, survive everything else, but, under favorable conditions, they soon disintegrate, at first start, and all inorganic and impersonal dust.

So, in order for us to take the developed, illnesses (an organic complex and one process), or a living, flowering body (a complex one organism), we will see one thing that the decomposition and death of the second (organism) and the destruction of the first (process) are preceded by phenomena: simplification of the constituent parts, a decrease in the number of signs , a weakening of unity, strength and mixing together. Everything gradually goes down, gets in the way, merges, and then it already disintegrates and doesn’t, passing over something common, something that already exists and does not exist for itself.

Before the final death, the individualization of both parts and the whole weakens. The perishing becomes more iodine internally, and closer to the surrounding world, more closely related, close to it phenomena (i.e. freer).

Thus, the testicles of all females are internally uncomplicated, and closer to the mother's organism than the embryos will be, initially with other animals and plant initial cells.

Different animal embryos, separate from the testicles, already have more microscopic differences from each other, they are already less similar. Uterine ripe fruits are even more heterogeneous and even more separate. This is because they are more complex, more united, i.e. more developed.

Babies, children are even more complex and heterogeneous; adolescents, adults, dryness after falling, even more developed. In them there is more and more (in terms of the degree of development) complexity and internal unity, and therefore more distinctive features, more separateness, independence of the environment, more originality, originality.

And this, we repeat, applies not only to organisms, but also to parts, to systems (nervous, circulatory, etc.), apparatus (digestive, respiratory, etc.); refers to normal and pathological processes; even iktem to ideal, scientific, collective units, which are called species, genus, class, etc. The higher the developmental species, genus, class, the more diverse the divisions (parts, their components), the collective, the whole is still quite unified naturally. Thus, a pet dog is a highly developed animal; that is why the division of mammals, which is known as the domestic dog, is a very complete division, having an extremely wide variety of representatives. The genus of cats (in a broad sense), four-armed (monkeys), vertebrates in general, for all their extraordinary diversity, represent an extraordinary unity of the general plan. These are all departments of highly developed animals, very rich in zoological content, individualized, rich in traits.

The same thing can be observed in plant organisms, processes, organs and plant classification by departments, collecting units.

Everything is simple at first, then complicated, then it is simplified for the second time, at first equalizing and mixing internally, then becoming even more simplified by the falling away of parts and general decomposition, before the transition to the extraorganic “Nirvana”.

Upon further reflection, we will see that this triune process is characteristic not only of the world, which is called properly organic, but, perhaps, of the entire existing space and time. Perhaps it is inherent in heavenly bodies, and the history of the development of their mineral crust, and their human characters; it is clear in the development of arts, schools of painting, musical and architectural styles, in philosophical systems, in the history of religions and, finally, in the life of tribes, state organisms and entire cultural worlds.

I can not expand here for a long time and develop my thought in detail. I will limit myself to just a few brief examples and explanations. For example, for a celestial body:

a) period of initial simplicity: molten heavenly body, monotonous, liquid; b) the middle period, that state, which can be called generally a blossoming complexity: a planet covered with crust, water, continents, vegetation, inhabited, variegated; c) a period of secondary simplicity, cooled down or again, due to a catastrophe, a molten body, etc.

We will also notice the history of art: a) the period of initial simplicity: cyclopean buildings, cone-shaped tombs of the Etruscans (which probably served as the initial model for the domes and generally for the round lines of developed Roman architecture), the huts of Russian peasants, the Doric order, etc., epic songs of primitive tribes ; music of the wild, original icon painting, popular prints, etc. b) a period of blossoming complexity: the Parthenon, the temple of Ephesian Diana (in which there were even statues on the columns), Strasbourg, Reims, Milan cathedrals, St. Peter, St. Mark, Roman great buildings, Sophocles, Shakespeare, Dante, Byron, Raphael , Michelangelo, etc .; c) the period of mixing, transition to secondary simplification, decline, replacement by others: all buildings of transitional eras, Romanesque style (before the beginning of the Gothic and the fall of the Roman), all current utilitarian buildings, barracks, hospitals, schools, stations railways etc. In architecture, unity is what is called style. Blooming eras, buildings are varied in terms of style; there is no non-eclectic confusion, non-mediocre senile simplicity. In poetry, too: Sophocles, Aeschylus and Euripides — all of the same style; afterwards everything, on the one hand, mixes eclectically and coldly, falls and falls.

An example of the secondary simplification of all former European styles is the modern realism of literary art. There is something in us eclectic (that is, mixed), and humiliated, quantitatively fallen, flat. Typical representatives of the great styles of poetry are all extremely dissimilar to each other: they have an extremely large amount of inner content, many distinctive features, a lot of individuality. In them there is a lot of total that belongs to the age (content), total that belongs to themselves, to their personality, to that unity of the personal spirit, which they put into a variety of content. These are: Dante, Shakespeare, Cornel, Racine, Byron, Walter Scott, Goethe, Schiller.

At the present time, especially after the 48th year, everything is mixed with each other: the general style is the absence of style and the absence of subjective spirit, love, feeling. Dickens in England and Georges Sand in France (I'm talking about old things), no matter how different they are from each other, they were both the last representatives of a complex unity, strength, wealth, warmth. The realism of simple observation is already poorer, simpler, because there is no longer an author, no personality, no inspiration, therefore it is more vulgar, more democratic, more accessible to any mediocre person who writes and reads.

The present objective, impersonal general realism is a secondary mixing simplification, followed by the lukewarm objectivity of Goethe, Walter Scott, Dickens and the former Georges Sand, nothing else.

The vulgar, open-source fashion, the madrigals and the epic of the last century were a similar simplification, a degradation of the previous French classicism, the high classicism of the Cornelis, Racines and Moliere.

In the history of philosophy, too: a) primitive simplicity: simple sayings of folk wisdom, simple initial systems(Thales, etc.); b) blooming complexity: Socrates, Plato, Stoics, Epicureans, Pythagoras, Spinoza, Leibniz, Descartes, Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel; c) secondary simplification, mixing and disappearance, the transition is completely different: eclectics, impersonal mixers of all times (Cousin); then phenomenal realism, rejecting abstract philosophy, metaphysics: materialists, deists, atheists. Realism is very simple, because it is even a system, only a method, a way: it is the death of the previous systems. Materialism is undoubtedly a system, but, of course, the simplest one, for nothing can be simpler more rudely, more uncomplicated than to say that all matter and that there is no God, niduh, nibs immortality of the soul, because we are invisible and touch our hands. Nowadays, this secondary simplification of philosophy is available not only to educated youths, standing still, to their flights, to the degree of primitive simplicity, to the degree of unripe apples, or to cyclopean seminarians, but even to Parisian workers, tavern lackeys, etc. Materialism almost always accompanies realism; although realism itself still lacks the rights of ninaatheism, nina-materialism. Realism rejects every system, every metaphysics; realism is despair, self-emasculation, that is why it is simplification! On the other hand, the materialistic conclusions are still not correct.

Materialism, on its side, is the last of the systems last era: it reigns until techpor, while the same realism fails to firmly say its skeptical word to it. Revival usually follows skepticism and realism: some people go to new ideal systems and others are a fiery twist of religion. It was so in antiquity; so it was at the beginning of our century after the realism and materialism of the eighteenth century.

Imetaphysics and religion remain real forces, real, invincible needs of mankind.

State organisms and entire cultures of the world are subject to the same law. Iunih is very clear about these three periods: 1) primary simplicity, 2) oppressive complexity, and 3) secondary mixing simplification. I will repeat them separately, further.

Everyone knows that many factors can affect human development in all areas. All people grow up in individual conditions, the totality of which determines character traits the personality of each of us.

Man and personality

Concepts such as personality and person have a number of differences. A person is called from birth, this is more a material characteristic. But personality, in its essence, is a more complex concept. As a result of the development of a person, his formation as a person in society takes place.

Personality- this is the moral side of a person, which implies all the variety of qualities and values of an individual.

To form personal qualities family, kindergartens and schools, social circle, interests, financial capabilities and many other factors, which will be discussed in more detail later, have an impact.

The process of forming a person's personality

Naturally, the beginning of the formation of a person's personality begins, first of all, with the family. The upbringing and influence of parents in to a greater extent are reflected in the actions and thoughts of the child. Therefore, raising young mothers and fathers should be approached responsibly and purposefully.

- this is such a quantitative and qualitative change in material and ideal objects, which is characterized by directionality, regularities and irreversibility.
From this definition it is clear that the concepts "development" and "movement" are not synonyms, they are not identical. If development is always movement, then not every movement is development. The simple mechanical movement of objects in space, of course, is movement, but this is not development. Chemical reactions such as oxidation are not developmental.
But the changes that occur over time with a newborn child are undoubtedly a development. In the same way, the development is also the changes taking place in society in a particular historical period.
Development in its direction can be progressive (transition from lower to higher, from simple to complex) or regressive (transition from higher to lower, degradation).
There are other criteria for progress and regression: the transition from less diverse to more diverse (N. Mikhailovsky); from systems with less information to systems with more information (A. Ursul) and others. Naturally, in relation to regression, these processes will proceed in the opposite direction.
Progress and regression are not isolated from each other. Any progressive changes are accompanied by regressive ones and vice versa. In this case, the direction of development is determined by which of these two trends will prevail in a particular situation. With all the costs of cultural development, for example, a progressive tendency prevails in it. The development of the ecological situation in the world is a regressive trend, which, according to many famous scientists, has reached a critical point and can become a dominant in the interaction of society and nature.
The emergence of qualitatively new opportunities in the material system that did not exist before, as a rule, testifies to the irreversibility of development. In other words, qualitatively different relations, structural connections and functions that have arisen at one stage or another of the development of the system, in principle, guarantee that the system will not spontaneously return to its original level.
Development is also characterized by the properties of novelty and continuity. The novelty is manifested in the fact that a material object, when passing from one qualitative state to another, acquires such properties that it did not previously possess. Continuity consists in the fact that this object in its new qualitative state preserves certain elements of the old system, certain aspects of its structural organization. The ability to preserve in a new state, to one degree or another, the initial state of a given system determines the very possibility of development.
Thus, it can be stated that these essential signs of development in their totality make it possible to distinguish this type of change from any other types of changes, be it a mechanical movement, a closed cycle or multidirectional disordered changes in the social environment.
Development is not limited to the sphere of only material phenomena. It is not only matter that develops. With the process of progressive development of mankind, human consciousness develops, science, social consciousness as a whole develops. Moreover, the development of spiritual reality can occur relatively independently of its material carrier. The development of the spiritual sphere of the individual can outstrip the physical development of a person or, conversely, lag behind him. A similar situation is typical for society as a whole: public consciousness can "lead" material production, contribute to its progressive development, or it can slow down, restrain its development.
Thus, we can say that development occurs in all areas of both objective and subjective reality, it is inherent in nature, society and consciousness.
A deep development of the essence of development and its various problems finds expression in the doctrine, which is called dialectics. Translated from Greek, this term means "the art of having a conversation" or "the art of arguing." Dialectics as the ability to conduct a dialogue, polemize, find a common point of view as a result of a clash of opposing opinions was highly valued in Ancient Greece.
Subsequently, the term "dialectics" began to be used in relation to the doctrine of the most general laws of development. In this sense, it is used at the present time.
Dialectics in its today's understanding can be represented as a certain system of categories associated with the basic laws of development. This system can be viewed either as a reflection of the objective relationships of reality, as a definition of being and its universal forms, or, conversely, as the foundation, the beginning of the material world.
Dialectics is a theory and method of cognizing reality, used to explain and understand the laws of nature and society.
All philosophical theories of the beginnings of life in Ancient Greece were built initially dialogically. The water of Thales, for all its irreducibility to ordinary water, nevertheless pulls the diversity of existence to something definitely special. Thales' disciple Anaximander speaks of apeiron - infinite and indefinable through any particular. In the beginning there was something that determines everything, but itself is not determined through anything - such is the meaning of his antithesis to Thales's thesis. Anaximenes tries in the air as a spirit that animates, nourishes all that exists (and thus forms it), to find as a synthesis something third, primordial, just as solid, but not as vague as apeiron, and not as definite as the water of Thales. Pythagoras uses paired categories and numbers, which, through the unity of their opposite to each other, form the harmony of the Cosmos. Heraclitus is convinced that the path of counter movement of different states and forms of fire as the basis of the foundations of the physical world is predetermined by the Logos - the creative word, that is, by the very meaning of being. Among the Eleatics, the discontinuous and the continuous, the part and the whole, the divisible and the indivisible, also claim to be the beginning of their interdetermination, their indissolubility in a single foundation.
One of the characteristics of ancient culture can be considered the cult of controversy, which found itself in theatrical and political creativity. Sophists honed in dialogue with students their ability to prove the truth of each of the opposites. This period saw the flourishing of the culture of meaningful dialogue when solving purely theoretical and, above all, philosophical problems.
Dialectics - the ability of cognitive thinking to argue with oneself in the dialogue of thinkers - was realized precisely as a method of searching for a common generic principle for particular opposite meanings of one concept. Socrates viewed dialectics as the art of discovering truth through the collision of opposing opinions, a way of conducting an academic conversation leading to true definitions of concepts. However, dialectics has not yet appeared as a natural and necessary form of theoretical thinking in general, allowing one to clearly express and resolve contradictions in the content of the thinkable by searching for their common root (their identity), their common kind. Although the philosophers of antiquity divided the imaginary world, perceived by man, and the true world, this division did not yet pose the problem of the true path to truth - the problem of the universal method (form) of theoretical thinking. The illusion of opinions about the world, for early dialecticians, was primarily associated with the limited perceptual capabilities of the senses, with the weakness of the mind in front of age-old prejudices, with the tendency of people to wishful thinking, etc., which later F. Bacon would call the ghosts of the cave, kind , market and theater. Contradictions in judgments were not associated with the objectively contradictory formation and development of the processes of everything in reality.
The philosophers of the Middle Ages were faced with the task of identifying the initial foundations in seemingly well-founded, but contradictory statements about principles and principles, about sensory experience and reason, about the passions of the soul, about the nature of light, about true knowledge and delusion, about the transcendental and transcendental , about will and representation, about being and time, about words and things. In Eastern philosophy, the opposite of a wise contemplation of the eternal meaning of being to vain action in the transitory world is revealed.
Since antiquity, the greatest difficulty for thinking was, first of all, direct semantic contradictions with the initial interdependence of "paired" universal categories of thinking. In the Middle Ages, internal dialogism of thinking was perceived not only as a norm for theoretical thinking, but also as its problem, requiring a special solution for its solution. mental form, rules and canon. Socratic dialogue remained this form for a long time. During this period, dialectics was not called the universal productive way of philosophizing, as it established itself in the formation and the first steps of the development of theoretical activity, but an academic subject designed to teach young scholastics to conduct a dialogue according to all the rules of the art of double-edged thought, which exclude the emotional disorder of an everyday dispute. The rules were that opposite statements about a particular subject (thesis and antithesis) should not contain contradictions in the definition and other errors against the rules of Aristotle's logic. This strengthened the conviction, radically opposite to the initial formula of theoretical consciousness: to think truly means to think consistently, formally infallibly, for in the thinkable (in nature, created by the plan of God) there are no errors or contradictions. The imperfect human mind is mistaken. Contradiction in statements - the first and main feature his fallibility. The "dialectics" of the dispute is designed to reveal errors either in the statements of one of the disputants, or in the statements of both. Thus, the logic of thinking about contradictions in statements and logical consequences from them and the logic of theoretical (primarily philosophical) thinking about the internal contradictions of the thinkable were clearly divorced.
In modern times, science, as a new form of theoretical activity, has set itself the goal of not ordinary empirical, but actually theoretical knowledge about the invariants of natural processes. The immediate subject of this knowledge is the methods, means and forms of determining these invariants: mechanics, astronomy, the beginnings of chemistry, medicine, etc. In medieval universities, a number of deep theoretical hypotheses were prepared about the properties of substances and forces of nature, manifesting themselves with convincing constancy in regularly repeating interactions natural phenomena... At the same time, fundamental problems were formulated that did not coincide with the problems of scientific knowledge. For example, the discussion by realists and nominalists of the problem of the existence of universals (universal in the name and in real life) grew into the 17th – 18th centuries. into the problem of the cognitive correlation of the truths of theoretical thinking (reason) and sensory experience with substances and forces of nature. Empiricists and rationalists continued the dialogue between realists and nominalists with a radically different type of social awareness of the historical reality of being. Along with the immutable truths of Holy Scripture and the texts of the Church Fathers, no less immutable general knowledge about the space and time of natural processes appeared.
The original dialectical essence of the theory as a "dialogue of thinkers" stubbornly demanded a search for real ontological prerequisites for the genesis of the unity of fundamentally incompatible opposites. This search found its logical embodiment in the antinomies of pure reason I. Kant, in the throwing of philosophical thought from the extreme of pure spiritualism to the extreme of vulgar materialism, in the constant exacerbation of the confrontation between empiricism and rationalism, rationality and irrationality.
In the philosophical tradition, there are three basic laws of dialectics that explain the development of the world. Each of them characterizes its own side of development. The first law of dialectics - the law of unity and struggle of opposites reveals in development its cause, source (therefore it is called the main one). The basis of any development, from the point of view of this law, is the struggle of opposite sides, tendencies of this or that process, phenomenon. When characterizing the operation of this law, it is necessary to refer to the categories of identity, difference, opposition, contradiction. Identity is a category that expresses the equality of an object to itself or several objects to each other. Difference is a category that expresses the relationship of inequality of an object to itself or objects to each other. Opposite is a category that reflects the relationship of such sides of an object or objects with each other, which are fundamentally different from each other. Contradiction is a process of mutual penetration and mutual negation of opposites. The category of contradiction is central to this law. The law implies that true real opposites are constantly in a state of interpenetration, that they are moving, interconnected and interacting tendencies and moments. The indissoluble interconnection and interpenetration of opposites are expressed in the fact that each of them, as its opposite, has not just some other, but its own other opposite and exists as such only insofar as this opposite of it exists. The interpenetration of opposites can be demonstrated by the example of such phenomena as magnetism and electricity. “The North Pole in a magnet cannot exist without the South Pole. If we cut the magnet into two halves, then we will not have it in one piece North Pole, and in the other - southern. Likewise, in electricity, positive and negative electricity are not two different, separately existing fluids ”(Hegel. Works. Vol. 1. P. 205). Another inalienable aspect of dialectical contradiction is the mutual negation of parties and tendencies. That is why the sides of a single whole are opposites, they are not only in a state of interconnection, interdependence, but also mutual negation, mutual exclusion, mutual repulsion. Opposites in any form of their concrete unity are in a state of continuous movement and such interaction with each other, which leads to their mutual transitions into each other, to the development of interpenetrating opposites, mutually presupposing one another and at the same time fighting, denying each other. It is this kind of relationship of opposites that is called contradictions in philosophy. Contradictions are the inner basis for the development of the world.
Development can be viewed as a process of formation, exacerbation and resolution of contradictions. Each object initially exists as an identity to itself, which contains certain differences. At the beginning, the differences are insignificant, then they turn into significant ones and, finally, they pass into opposites. Opposites, in this case, reflect the relationship of such parties inherent in any object, which are equally different from each other, but by their actions and functions simultaneously condition and exclude each other. The development of opposites reaches the stage of contradiction, which is fixed by the moment of unity and struggle of opposites. This stage of the formation of a contradiction, which is characterized by a conflict, an acute confrontation of the parties, is resolved by the transition of opposites not only to each other, but also in more tall forms development of the subject. The resolution of any conflict of contradictions is a leap, a qualitative change of the given object, its transformation into a qualitatively different object, the denial of the old object by the new object, the emergence of new, different contradictions inherent in the object of a new quality.
The second law of dialectics - the law of transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones - describes the mechanism of self-development. Quality is the inner certainty of an object, a phenomenon that characterizes an object or phenomenon as a whole. The qualitative uniqueness of objects, phenomena appears, first of all, as their specificity, originality, uniqueness, as what distinguishes a given object from another. The quality of any object or phenomenon is determined through its properties. The properties of an object are its ability to relate in a certain way, interact with other objects. That is, properties are manifested in the relationship between objects, phenomena, etc. The properties themselves do not exist. The deep basis of properties is the quality of an object, that is, a property is a manifestation of quality in one of the many relationships of a given thing to other things. Quality acts as the internal basis of all the properties inherent in a given thing, but this internal basis is manifested only when this object interacts with other objects. The number of properties for each object is theoretically infinite, because in the system of universal interaction, an infinite number of interactions are possible. Quantity is defined as a certainty external to being, relatively indifferent to this or that thing. For example, a house remains what it is, regardless of whether it is more or less, etc. At the same time, quality and quantity are interpenetrating opposites and there is no quality without quantitative characteristics, just as there is no quantity absolutely devoid of qualitative certainty. The immediate concrete unity of quality and quantity, a qualitatively defined quantity, is expressed in the category of measure. Measure is the unity of the qualitative and quantitative definiteness of an object, an indicator that a certain range of quantitative characteristics can correspond to the same quality. Consequently, the concept of measure shows that not every quality belongs to, but only certain quantitative values. The limiting quantitative values that a given quality can take, the boundaries of the quantitative intervals within which it exists, are called the boundaries of the measure. Certain objects and phenomena can change - decrease or increase - in quantitative terms, but if these quantitative changes occur within the boundaries of a specific measure for each object and phenomenon, then their quality remains the same, unchanged. If such a decrease or increase goes beyond the boundaries, goes beyond the limits of its measure, then this will necessarily lead to a change in quality: quantity will go over into a new quality. So, for example, “the degree of water temperature at first does not have any effect on its droplet-liquid state, but then, with an increase or decrease in temperature, a point is reached at which this state of adhesion qualitatively changes, and the water passes from one side to steam, and , on the other - into the ice ”(Hegel. Works. Vol. 1. P. 186). The transition from quantity to quality also has an inverse process, expressed by this law, namely, the transition from quality to quantity. These mutual transitions are an endless process, which consists in the fact that quantity, passing into quality, by no means denies quality in general, but only denies this definition quality, which is simultaneously replaced by another quality. This newly formed quality means a new measure, that is, a new concrete unity of quality and quantity, which makes possible a further quantitative change of the new quality and the transition from quantity to quality.
The transition from one measure to another, from one quality to another, always occurs as a result of an interruption of a gradual quantitative change, as a result of a leap. A jump is a general form of transition from one qualitative state to another. A leap is a complex dialectical state of the unity of being and non-being, which means that the old quality is no longer there, and the new quality is not yet, and at the same time, the former quality is still there, and the new is already there. A leap is a state of struggle between the new and the old, the withering away of the old qualitative determinations and their replacement with new qualitative states. There is no other kind of transition from one qualitative state to another other than a jump. However, a leap can take on an infinite variety of forms in accordance with the specifics of one or another qualitative certainty.
The third law of dialectics - the law of negation of negation reflects the general result and direction of the development process. Any negation means the destruction of the old quality by the new, the transition from one qualitative state to another. However, denial is not just the destruction of the old with the new. It has a dialectical nature. This dialectical nature is manifested in the fact that negation is a unity of three main points: 1) overcoming the old; 2) continuity in development; 3) approval of a new one. Denial of denial in a double form includes these three points and characterizes the cyclical nature of development. This cyclicality, first of all, is associated with the passage of three stages in the development process: the statement or position (thesis), the denial or opposition of this statement - (antithesis) and, finally, the denial of negation, the removal of opposites (synthesis). This essential aspect of the operation of the law - the denial of negation - can be demonstrated both at the abstract level, the level of the movement of pure thought, and by concrete examples. The process of denial of negation as a logical process develops in such a way that thought is first posited, then opposed to itself and, finally, is replaced by a synthesizing higher thought, in which the struggle of the previous thoughts, which it has removed, as opposites, is the driving force further development logical process. At the level of nature, the operation of this law is revealed by the example of plant growth. For example, a grain of oats thrown into the ground grows into a stem that denies this grain. After some time, the stem begins to spike and gives new grain, but already in tenfold or more size. The denial of denial has occurred. Hegel attaches importance to this triple rhythm, but does not reduce the cyclical nature of this "triad." The main thing in this cyclicality is that in development there is a repetition of the past, a return to the initial state, "supposedly to the old", but on a fundamentally different quality basis... Therefore, the development process is progressive. Progressiveness and repetition give cyclicity a spiral shape. This means that the development process is not a straight line, but an ascending line, which necessarily includes a return, “supposedly to the old,” and passing to a new, higher level. Each new step is richer in its content, since it includes all the best that was accumulated at the previous step. This process is designated in Hegelian philosophy by the term "withdrawal". Thus, the development process is characterized by the progressive movement of an expanding spiral.
When considering the categories of movement and development, the question of the causes of phenomena and events in the changing world necessarily arises.
test questions
1. What is the meaning of the concept of "movement"? What are the main characteristics of the movement?
2. What forms of movement can be distinguished?
3. Is the social form movement in physical and vice versa?
4. It is known that, in principle, a mathematical description of the movement of air microparticles that occurs during communication is possible. Then it is quite possible to assume that the mathematical model of air vibrations caused by the speech of one person, in general terms, may coincide with the mathematical model of the movement of air, which is generated by the speech of another person. Is it possible, on the basis of such a coincidence of mathematical models, to assert that the content of the speech of these people coincides?
5. Are the concepts of movement and development identical? Give a definition of the concept of "development".
6. Under the influence of certain conditions, there is a transition of a substance from one of its states to another: for example, metals when heated from solid state turn into liquid. At a temperature of about 2500 degrees and a pressure of 10 billion pascals, graphite turns into diamond. Can we talk about development in these cases?
7. What are the specific characteristics of development?
8. Give a comparative description of progressive and regressive development.
9. What is the meaning of dialectics?

Development of a person's character: features, conditions and main factors

03.04.2015

Snezhana Ivanova

What has the greatest influence on the development of a person's character? What factors play a leading role in this process?

The problems associated with the formation and development of a person's character were of interest to ancient philosophers, medieval scientists, and modern psychologists and psychoanalysts. All of them tried to find answers to many questions related to the characteristics of character development: what has the greatest influence on the development of a person's character, what factors play a leading role in this process, what conditions are decisive in its formation.

In order to understand what influences the formation and development of character, you must first separate these concepts. So, development is understood as a process that is aimed at certain changes (qualitative and quantitative). In psychology, development is considered as a complex involutionary-evolutionary forward movement, during which various changes occur in a person (in his behavior, activity, personality, intellectual and emotional-volitional sphere), and these changes can be both progressive and regressive. ... Character development, like any development, is a process of the emergence of changes (irreversible, directed and regular), which lead to the appearance of qualitative, structural and quantitative transformations of its features and manifestation features.

Unlike development, formation is understood as a purposeful and clearly organized mastery of a person with certain, sufficiently stable qualities, features and traits that are necessary for successful implementation. different types activities. As for the formation of character, in this case we mean the process of formation of sufficiently stable traits (psychological formations) and all this happens due to the influence of various conditions, which are objective and are created precisely for this purpose. These conditions are created specifically so that, as a result of repeated repetition of actions and deeds, they are subsequently consolidated and transferred into the so-called typical model of human behavior.

Psychological features of character development

The character develops and forms throughout the individual life path a person under the influence of various conditions. The process of upbringing and active activity person, work and work, society and interpersonal contacts, personal orientation and position. But scientists did not come to this conclusion immediately, because for quite a long time it was believed that only his innate features affect the development of a person's character.

For many ancient philosophers, the basis for the formation of character was human innateness. For example, Socrates, said that it is not in human power to be good or bad, but Aristotle noted that virtue or vice are innate properties. Only the philosophers of the modern era began to think about the fact that, in addition to innateness, there are other factors that affect the characteristics of character development. A significant contribution to the study of the process of character development was made by Immanuel Kant who saw him in two planes:

physical character (given to a person only by nature, conditioned by the inclinations and temperament);
moral character (or internal), which is formed under the influence of external factors of behavior.

German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, Unlike I. Kant, gave preference to the idea of innateness and immutability of a person's character, which has a strict certainty in all its manifestations and it is impossible to change it, since it depends on time and space. The philosopher was sure that neither external factors nor the upbringing process in any way affect the characteristics of character development (according to him, all this is incapable of turning a callous person into a more sensual and compassionate person).

The idea of heredity as the leading factor determining the development of character belonged to the English philosopher Herbert Spencer... By character he understood a certain human experience, which was bequeathed by ancestors. The philosopher emphasized that over time and under the influence of the environment, the character of descendants can change, but this takes a lot of time (at least several centuries).

Ideas became a turning point in understanding the essence of development and character formation. John Locke, who defended the concept of education. It was in upbringing that the scientist saw the leading and most powerful factor in the development of a person's character (although he was not overlooked and natural character children, their inclinations and abilities). J. Locke noticed that a person's behavior and the manifestation of his character depends on motives (which are one of the components of the orientation of the personality). The main thing that Locke came to is that the psychophysical nature of a person and external conditions appear in the unity of their influence on the characteristics of character development.

In the past 100 years, psychologists (both practitioners and theorists) have increasingly insisted that innate features (the biological principle in a person) are not a priority in the formation and development of character. They are subject to a greater extent to external conditions of influence and the process of education (in this case, it is education that is given the leading importance, since it is called the most important social factor, which determines the entire process of character development). According to many scientists, the formation and development of character depends on a number of educational influences on a person:

through physical education;
through labor education;
through moral and ethical education;
through education in the learning process;
using a personal example;
through the cultivation of habits;
thanks to self-education and self-development.

Stages of character development

The character of a person develops from the first days of his life and undergoes various changes throughout his life path. At the very beginning (infancy and early age), the leading factor is the imitation of the behavior and actions of adults, in preschool and primary school age, along with heredity, upbringing affects the formation and development of character, and in adolescence The self-education of the individual takes the reins of government in this process. It should be noted that the character can be purposefully and consciously changed and improved by the person himself (this happens due to changes in social behavior of a person, in social activities, in communication and interpersonal interaction), and all these changes can occur at any age stage of a person's life.

For the first time, serious attempts to identify the main stages of character development were undertaken by the famous Austrian psychologist and psychiatrist, the founder of psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud (Freud)... He identified 5 main stages (or stages) of the formation of a person's character: oral (first year of life), anal (period from 1 year to 3 years), phallic (3-5 years), latent (from 6 years to the onset of sexual development) and genital (starting from adolescence and ending with the death of a person). The stages of character formation proposed by Freud are described in the table

Stages of human character development according to Z. Freud

In psychology, it is customary to divide the stages of character development into age periods, each of which has its own leading factors and conditions for its formation. So, the character begins to form from the first days of the life of a tiny creature - a baby. At this age, direct emotional communication with parents is important for a child, thanks to which all his mental processes (both cognitive and emotional-volitional) and properties (including character) develop. That is why at this age, not only caring for him is important for the baby, but also the love and affection of the parents.

At an early age and preschool period, the child mainly studies the behavior patterns of the surrounding adults by imitating them. Therefore, during this period, the character is formed not only due to the innate characteristics of children (brain function, features of GNI), but also through direct learning (in a playful way) with subsequent emotional reinforcement (praise, approval, support). The main condition for character development is the social environment (family, preschool educational institution, social contacts in the systems "adult-child", "child-child", "adult-adult").

It should be emphasized that the primary ones are laid precisely at preschool age, therefore, trust, openness and kindness in communicating with babies are very important (a child, imitating, applies these traits in his behavior, and adults should reinforce them with a reward / punishment system). Among the very first character traits that are laid at this age, it is worth highlighting:

kindness / selfishness;
responsiveness / indifference;
sociability / isolation;
neatness / slovenliness;
hard work / laziness.

The next stage of character formation is junior school age... At this time, new features appear and previously formed ones can be corrected. Of particular importance here is the assessment of a child's actions and actions by adults, because it is in this way that he is formed. In the elementary grades, children develop such character traits as responsibility, punctuality, perseverance, accuracy, hard work, etc. The process itself and the conditions of the child's learning have the greatest influence on whether the previously formed traits will be fixed or destroyed.

In adolescence, the moral and ethical development of the child actively occurs, which in turn significantly affects the formation and development of character. At this time, volitional traits are developing more actively. And in early adolescence (high school students) are formed. Here, a special influence on the development of character is exerted by:

personal attitude of a person to others, to himself;
self-esteem and self-confidence;
mass media and the global Internet.

At this stage of development of the character, its main features are practically already formed, in the future they are consolidated or they are replaced and some transformation.

Regardless of what stage of character development a person is at, this process is necessarily influenced by the information field, namely:

opinion and judgment of other people;
personal example of significant people and their actions (the same applies to negative forms of behavior as a variant of what is unacceptable);
books (or rather, the actions and deeds of the heroes described in them);
film, television and media;
cultural and ideological development of society, state.

In the adult life of a person, the formation of character does not stop, but passes to a new, more meaningful stage. So, there is a consolidation of more rational character traits and those that are necessary to achieve success both in the family and at work (responsibility, endurance, dedication, perseverance, perseverance, etc.).

The main factors of character development

In order to understand what factors have the greatest influence on the formation and development of character, it is necessary to distinguish between the concepts of "factors" and "conditions". Factors mean certain levers of influence (these are special driving forces or "engine") on the process of character formation, and conditions are those circumstances in which the process of development itself takes place.

Among scientists there has always been a kind of "war" for the priority factors of character development, because at different times representatives of different psychological trends tried to defend their point of view on this problem. For example, V.S. Soloviev I saw the main condition for the formation of a "moral" character in unity, as well as in the constant interaction of natural conditions and the environment, and I.A. Ilyin he singled out family and school among the main factors. Founder of Pedagogical Anthropology K. D. Ushinsky argued that the main factors in the development of character and its formation are the social environment, the features of the upbringing process and the active activity of the person himself.

P.F. Kapterev identified three categories of factors that shape character:

natural (temperament, structural features of the body, gender, etc., that is, all those that are given to man by nature and practically do not change);
cultural (the influence of society, family, school, profession, state structure and the level of social development);
personal factor (self-education, self-development, self-improvement of the personality, that is, when a person is the author of himself).

Also worth paying attention to ideas I.A. Sikorsky, who identified the following factors in the development of the child's character:

educational environment (family);
positive atmosphere (cheerful mood and good spirits);
location (praise, approval, support, trust);
congenital features of the neuropsychic organization.

Analyzing all the factors that affect the development of a person's character, it is necessary to recall that highest value they have in childhood, adolescence and adolescence. And it is in childhood according to P.F. Lesgaft, personality development is influenced by:

all those sensations that the child experiences;
the emotional excitement that he is experiencing;
people who surround him;
the type of activity that he performs (a special place is occupied by labor, as the most serious and consistent work).

Thus, the character of a person is determined by many factors, various conditions and objective circumstances of the life path of the person himself, but these circumstances are created and changed as a result of actions, behavior and activities of a person. Therefore, we can safely say that a person himself takes an active part in the development and formation of his character and he himself should be responsible for all his actions and deeds.