Статья посвящена философской экспертизе понятия >ненависть<. При этом ненависть рассматривается не только как индивидуальное чувство, но и как социальное явление. Автор озабочен разрастанием ненависти в мировом и отечественном пространстве и пытается показать, что этот грозный симптом чреват непоправимыми последствиями. В исследовании проводится анализ исторических бедствий, продиктованных кипящей ненавистью. Ненависть выступает как возбудитель общественных потрясений. Автор также задумывается над тем, как понизить градус взаимного неприятия, чтобы ненавистнические настроения не оставили после себя выжженное поле рассудочности, накипь дурных аффектов и не породили бы эффект бумеранга. Методы, использованные в статье, связаны с феноменологией социального мышления. Автор опирается на отдельные высказывания философов о ненависти, чтобы создать целостный, гештальтный портрет данного эмоционального состояния. Он использует также положения психоанализа об амбивалентности человеческих чувств, раскрывая вслед за Шекспиром гнев, который скрывается в любви, и нежность, служащую покровом любви. Новизна подхода заключается в том, что ни в философских, ни в этических словарях нет статей, специально посвящённых этому эмоциональному состоянию. Показано, что ненависть является неустранимой чертой человеческой природы. Опираясь на работы Сенеки, Ф. Ницше, Э. Фромма, Ж.-П. Сартра, а также примеры из мировой и отечественной истории, автор раскрывает различные грани данного феномена, его социальные, психологические и антропологические корни.
The theory of the decline of Western Civilization offered by L. Mumford in the >Condition of Man< is criticized as ignoring the historical framework offered by Marxism. He is a typical representative of the liberal school of critics of Western capitalism. The hallmark of the approach of this school of bourgeois humanism, measurement of the scientific-technical revolution by means of anthropological abstractions, tends to stress parallels between man and machines and machines and nature. The views of B. F. Skinner and Erich FROMM are also criticized in this perspective. The basic shortcoming of bourgeois humanism, the views of some of whose representatives have been summarized, is that it tries to evade a concrete answer to the social contradictions from which the symptoms it notices arise and deceives itself with theories of gradual >humanization<. From bourgeois humanists to ultraleft critics, attempts to measure social progress in antropological terms is basically a reflection of anxiety over the fate of capitalism. The psychological make up of the middle and petty bourgeoisie is such that even when it claims to be concerned over issues of social welfare and justice it continues to identify itself with the interests of the ruling class. Therefore, it is forced to deflect its criticisms from the social economic reality which causes the conditions against which it complains. S. Karganovic
Presented is a critical analysis of E. FROMM's The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness (London, 1974), with respect to his contradictory approach to the question of the biological foundation of psychology and his abuse of quotations of and references to Marx. In FROMM's own critical analysis of K. Lorenz, S. Freud, and B. F. Skinner, he presents persuasive arguments based on impressive data from different modern sciences, against the instinctive and mechanistic theories of human nature. But when establishing his own position, he draws the same biologically based conclusions as his opponents, although he expresses them in different terms. Furthermore, in attempting to make Marx an ally of his own views, he succeeds only in misquoting or misconstruing Marx: he quotes Marx only in order to compliment him or when the quote is neutral with respect to his own ideas, or when actually citing Marx in support of his own views, he gives his own, rather imprecise interpretation of Marx.
В статье рассматриваются истоки, предпосылки и содержание политико-правовых представлений Эриха Фромма. Раскрывается понимание Э.Фроммом эволюции правосоциального характера личности, высшей ступенью в которой мыслитель считает революционный, отмечая, что революционер - это не бунтарь, вечно недовольный властью, а личность, которая стремится на основании радикально-гуманистических правовых идей переустроить общество.
The teachings of S. Freud have penetrated, in their various versions, into every pore of American culture, though not all partisans of psychoanalysis recognize the validity of the >Freudian ethic.< However, the admission that psychoanalysis pays attention to human values was made by one of its greatest theoreticians, H. Hartman. Additional confirmations of the presumed moralistic character of psychoanalysis, in spite of the insistence of its founder or rigorous scientific premises, are made by P. Rieff in >The Mind of the Moralist,< and E. FROMM in >Sigmund Freud's Mission,< (no publication information available). These attempts to formulate an ethical content in Freud's work contradict his persistent refusal to make value judgments himself. The variations in the interpretation of Freud in America are a reflection of the pluralism born of the social contradictions of US society. At the same time, the broad influence exercised by psychoanalysis over the American intelligentsia is such that American social science attempts to solve many of its tasks using the language and concepts of psychoanalysis.
God the Creator and Creation by Man. Theological Speculations on the Eve of the Basle Assembly
(1989)
The successes of socialism are more notable when compared to the profound crisis of international capitalism and its spiritual degradation. The West is currently struggling with problems of implementing high technology, often capable of effecting substantial economic and social transformations. Special attention is given to the concept of technocracy. Many bourgeois social scientists, eg, Leslie White, have pointed toward the absolute role of science and technology in determining the social system. Both optimistic and pessimistic appraisals are offered by contemporary bourgeois scholars, including Ellul, Douglas, FROMM, Mamford, Toffler, Drucker, Wiener, and Bell.
A review of Sotsialnaia filosofiia Frankfurtskoi shkoly: kriticheskie ocherki ( The Social Philosophy of the Frankfurt School: The Critical Essays, Moskva-Mysl, Praga-Svoboda, 1975). This is the first fundamental attempt in Soviet philosophical literature to analyze one of the most influential schools in modern bourgeois philosophy. H. Marcuse, E. FROMM, T. Adorno, Horkheimer, Habermas, and K. Offe are the main representatives of this school. The chronological identification of the school, consisting of three phases in its development, is considered to be successful. Criticism of Czechoslovak and Jugoslav revisionists is praised. The criticism of left rebel H. Marcuse is overly simplified. His revolution, changes in his views, and the substantial contradiction in his last works should have played a more important part in the book. The main success of the book is in its ability to demonstrate the small bourgeois character of the Frankfurt school, the subjective and idealistic principles of its theories, and total bankruptcy of its guidelines.
An essay on the correlation of culture and morals, presented from the Marxist standpoint, with a critique of contemporary bourgeois philosophical theories; intuitivist ethics (G. E. Moore, C. D. Broad, E. S. Ewing, B. Blanchard, E. Hall); logical postivism and linguistic analysis (C. Stevenson, A. Ayer, P. G. Nowell-Smith); existentialism (J.-P. Sartre, K. Jaspers); abstract humanism (Erich FROMM and Charles Reich); neoprotestantism (K. Barth, R. Niebuhr, P. Tillich, and others). These theories take a nonhistorical, nonclass approach to culture and civilization. An awareness of the alienation of man in present-day capitalist society and of the pernicious effects of industrialization and scientific and technological advances on human beings and their environment has produced deep pessimism among many bourgeois philosophers. The most vivid negative concepts of culture and civilization have been set forth in the works of Y. Ellul and L. Mumford. While all of the above authors have produced excellent exposes of capitalist society, they have reached an impasse and see no way out except rejection of scientific and technological progress. The Marxist approach to the interrelation of culture and morals is a concrete-historical one. Marxism does not reject universal moral criteria in human relations. On the contrary, he stresses their significance, but objects to the blurring of the class nature of morals, and to regarding abstract moral principles as the magic solution to all problems. Considerable attention is given to the meaning and development of culture in socialist and communist societies, where the socioeconomic conditions foster the harmonious development of man. Assertions that communists believe in moral nihilism, that the end justifies the means, and that moral values are relative are vigorously denied, and Lenin, Marx, and Engels are quoted to prove that positive ends must be achieved by positive means. Maoist practice is termed as an example of the end justifies the means policy.