The concept of culture reflects society in social-activity and positive-value aspects. Initially, the term culture meant the cultivation and cultivation of land. In the 17th century, this term received its modern meaning: this is a world created by man, a world of man-made nature.
1. Culture (value approach) is a set of material and spiritual values created by man, ensuring the satisfaction of needs. 2. Culture (activity approach) – 1) a system of methods of activity, 2) a system of means of activity, 3) a set of results of activity. 3. Culture – everything that is created by man (the foundation is the material part of culture; algorithms of activity). The largest complex is civilization, which is often identified with culture. In some cases this is true, but they are not always synonymous. Civilization is understood by scientists in two meanings. In the first case, civilization denotes the historical era that replaced barbarism. In the second case, civilization is associated with a geographical place, implying local, regional and global civilizations, such as Eastern and Western civilizations. They differ in economic structure and culture, which includes a specific understanding of the meaning of life, the justice of fate, and the role of leisure work. Eastern and Western civilizations differ precisely in these fundamental features. They rest on specific values, philosophy, principles of life and way of the world. And within the framework of such global concepts, specific differences between people in behavior, manner of dressing, and types of housing are formed. The word civilization comes from the Latin civilis - civil, state, which in the Middle Ages had a legal meaning related to judicial practice. Then its meaning expanded. “Civilized” began to be called a person who knew how to behave well, and “to civilize” meant to make one well-mannered and polite, sociable and amiable. For a long time, culture and civilization were identified. The first to distinguish between the two concepts was the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, and at the beginning of the twentieth century, another German philosopher, Oswald Spengler, in his famous work “The Decline of Europe” completely contrasted them. Civilization appeared to him as the highest stage of culture, at which its final decline occurs. “Culture is a civilization that has not reached its maturity, its social optimum and has not ensured its growth,” wrote the famous French cultural historian F. Braudel, as if agreeing with the statements of O. Spengler. Why does culture arise? What underlies it and makes its existence possible? Obviously, the possibility of creating artifacts follows from the specifically human ability to create, which presupposes the ability to overcome the natural predetermination of one’s existence. Many animals can create something that looks like culture. Bees build magnificent honeycombs, a spider unerringly makes a web, beavers build dams, that is, they create something that did not exist in nature. But the activities of these creatures are programmed by instinct. They can only create what is inherent in their natural program. The ability to independently and intelligently achieve a goal is manifested very rarely in the animal world and always serves to satisfy specific biological needs. A person, unlike an animal, is able to choose his goals arbitrarily; he is characterized by free goal setting. He can set goals for himself that are not determined by the current situation, and make efforts to achieve them in the distant future. In his activities, he creates more and more new goals, going far beyond the scope of his biological needs. The ability for free goal-setting activity is a specific property, a generic difference of a person, thanks to which he can create an artificial habitat for himself at will. Man, therefore, from the very beginning is a cultural being, artificially organizing his life. Culture appears along with man, and man appears together with culture.
More on the topic The phenomenon of culture. Man in the world of culture. The relationship between the concepts of culture and civilization:
- GLOBAL PROBLEMS OF MODERN TIME AND THE PROBLEM OF GLOBALIZATION
- 8. Natural philosophy and cosmocentrism of ancient philosophy (“Pre-Socratics”). Sophists and Socrates.
- 41. Society as a developing system. Evolution and revolution in social dynamics. Main factors of socio-historical development. The problem of the subject and the driving forces of history.
1.3 Personality and society. Man in the world of culture
The relationship between society and the individual is expressed in their dichotomy, as well as in their relative independence. This ratio represents both the whole and the part. Individuals and society have differences. Personality is the unity of a physical living organism and consciousness. Society is a collection of individuals connected by goals, life tasks, interests, way of organizing life, etc. Personality has a carrier of consciousness - the brain. Society does not have a material carrier of consciousness. Social consciousness functions on the basis of communication and activity of individuals and their spirituality. Personality is the unity of physical and social qualities, physical and spiritual culture. Society is the bearer of social qualities, as well as material and spiritual culture, the culture of various subjects. A personality has its own inner world, closed to other people and quite local. The spirituality of a society is, first of all, an expression of what is typical in the spiritual world of its members. As a rule, it is open in nature.
Personality functions and develops according to its own laws. Progress and regression of society are expressed by other laws. Personality as a person is physically finite; it is characterized by a life cycle. Society will exist on the planet as long as the natural and social conditions for its normal functioning and development are preserved. These and other differences characterize the relative independence of the individual and society.
The patterns of interaction between the individual and society include:
Firstly, the determining influence of the social environment on the formation of personality, mediated by the inner mental world of a person.
Secondly, the active reverse influence of the individual on the social environment, social relations, mediated by the functional structure of the individual.
Thirdly, the formation and development of social relations occurs in the process and on the basis of human activity.
Fourthly, the dependence of the formation of consciousness and creative activity of an individual on the nature of his life activity, on the richness of his actual relationships with other people.
Fifthly, the unity of communication and isolation of the individual with the leading role of communication both in the process of its formation and in public life.
The relationship between the individual and society has changed significantly in the process of historical development. In ancient societies, the individual was dependent on the clan group, on the tribe, and also on nature. This hindered the process of individual development and socialization of the individual. Slave-owning societies were accompanied by active processes of social division of labor. A differentiation of people's interests and their value orientations has arisen. But personal dependence on slave owners did not allow either slaves, slave owners, or free poor citizens to actively develop the process of understanding their “I”.
The Middle Ages determined the relationship between the individual and society through the agricultural and craft communities, feudal property and religion. The meaning of life was associated with the desire for God and deliverance from sinfulness. The social activity of the individual was low. Often it was suppressed by religion if it contradicted the symbols and dogma of the religion. The Renaissance proclaimed anthropocentrism and humanism as the main principles of interaction between the individual and society, but their utopian nature and impossibility of implementation in practice were soon revealed.
New times have established individual freedom: economic, social, political and spiritual. A person has received ample opportunities to demonstrate his capabilities and abilities in society. But the socialization of the individual and his creative activity began to be largely determined by private property, individual egoistic interests, the desire for profit, political and moral hypocrisy, and bureaucracy. Modern society strives to establish a personality status that corresponds to the human nature of a person. Much attention is paid to the proclamation of individual rights and freedoms and guarantees of their implementation in practice. Less discussed are questions about the duties and responsibilities of the individual to himself, nature and society. The moral and legal regulation of interaction between the individual and society, the individual and the state, interpersonal communication and behavior requires significant improvement.
Summarizing the above, we can say that in each historical era there was a special set of conditions that determined the social type of a person and the nature of his relationship with society. Historically, three main types of relationships between man and society have developed:
1. Relationships of personal dependence (characteristic of pre-industrial society).
2. Relationships of material dependence and personal independence.
They arise with the formation of industrial society.
3. Relations of free individuals that are formed in a post-industrial society.
Thus, having a standard physiological and social organization, a person carries out his life activities in society primarily on the basis of consciousness. The typical personality characteristic is supplemented by signs of differences between people. The set of characteristics of a person expresses her individuality. Humans have common characteristics that distinguish them from animals. But each person is unique, unique in his individuality. At the same time, the history of mankind appears as a process of the formation of human freedom and comprehension of the meaning of life, as a process of increasing development of the essential forces of the individual.
Man, as a biosocial being, stands, as it were, at the junction of two worlds, two types of objective reality. On the one hand, being a biological organism, man is an integral part of nature. And in this aspect, a person is subject to natural laws. On the other hand, thanks to labor activity, a person creates “social nature,” a human society governed by specific socio-historical laws. Between these two series of qualitatively different patterns, contradictions arise: between natural instincts and the norms of human life; the remnants of “zoological individualism” and the social, collective essence of man; between the desire to use materials and products of nature as widely as possible for public needs and the need for a gentle, careful attitude towards nature, etc.
Culture initially acts as a way and measure of mastering the external nature of man with the aim of his comprehensive development. Going beyond external (natural) necessity in the creation of cultural values, man acts as a creative being, giving new forms of movement both by the nature of reality and the social. And in this capacity, culture acts in the same way as the degree of realization of human freedom. In history, cultural achievements were significant insofar as man and his material and spiritual needs were placed at the forefront. And in this sense, the history of culture looks like the history of a continuous search for this universal measure of human development, which would not be one-sidedly constrained by natural and social necessity, where nature and society would be proportionate.
In general, if we do not take into account the diverse nuances of the content of various cultural traditions, then the form of their transmission reveals a common essential feature - the desire of a person to perpetuate the unique properties of his personality, to transmit it to his descendants with the help of means developed by culture. As a natural being, man, like any other living organism, is doomed to develop according to the same cycle: birth - life - death. For here it is subject to cruel determinism, a natural concatenation of circumstances that leaves no room for free goal-setting of circumstances, and therefore devoid of any meaning. Culture breaks the natural boundaries of human existence and provides him with immortality, which is impossible in the natural order of things - social immortality, and with it the meaningfulness of the historical development of man. Thus, culture performs a constructive function in relation to man and his existence, objectifying not just the limited goals of man, but the fundamental goals associated with his own improvement as a universal, infinite being. What is meant here is the development of more than just the generic essence of man, which is embodied in all social objects of material and spiritual activity without exception. History knows an infinite number of examples when the improvement of the human race occurred in a contradictory and even dramatic way: the development of needs, the achievement of a certain degree of freedom of some social groups was often achieved at the expense of depriving others of the free development.
Historically, the first, classic example of such an evolution of humanity was probably Ancient Greece, which gave an example of the unprecedented rise of the human spirit, freedom, based on slavery. As already noted, culture cannot be identified with all activities and all their products. Therefore, fixing only the generic characteristics of a person is insufficient to understand it. Culture appears primarily as the development of human individuality, a person who embodies universal human goals and aspirations, universal human meaning.
Each culture shapes a person in its own way, giving him general qualities or individual traits that are acceptable within a certain cultural environment. The degree of individualization varies across cultures, and not all societies have a developed idea of personality.
The personal principle, the idea of the individual as an independent subject of social relations, relying on his own strength, to one degree or another, is present in every developed culture. However, there is a difference in the status of the personal principle and its content in different cultures. Let us dwell on some aspects of this problem.
In Eastern cultures, a person realizes and perceives himself largely depending on the environment in which he currently operates. Here, a person is seen primarily as the focus of private obligations and responsibilities arising from his membership in a family, community, clan, religious community and state.
In the classical Chinese cultural tradition, the highest virtue was considered to be the subordination of a person to the specified general norms and the suppression of his “I”. Confucian principles, in particular, asserted the need to limit emotions, strict control of the mind over feelings, and the ability to express one’s experiences in a strictly defined form. In conditions of the dominance of official bureaucracy, the natural way to circumvent this requirement was to withdraw from practical social activities into a solitary monastic life in Zen monasteries. The developed system of psychophysical training gave a feeling of self-dissolution in the universal whole.
The relationship of the individual to society in the classical Indian cultural tradition looked somewhat different. Here the human “I” turned out to be conditioned not by any specific circumstances, but by the reality of the superpersonal spirit, in relation to which the bodily “I” is a temporary and transitory phenomenon. Belief in karma as a series of transmigration of souls makes the existence of each individual conditional and deprives him of independent value. An individual achieves self-realization through the denial of his bodily nature, by breaking all specific connections with other people, society, the world and his actions.
On the contrary, the European cultural tradition affirms man as an autonomous subject of activity, emphasizing, first of all, his unity, integrity, and identity of “I” in all its manifestations.
Only in European-American culture did the personal principle receive the status of unconditionality, non-subordination to other regulatory principles (ritual principles, the holiness of the enduring values of the Holy Scriptures, universally binding ideology, etc.). At the same time, the stability of the individual’s inner world does not depend on any external authorities, since in himself the individual supposedly finds those unconditional principles that help him to withstand in any circumstances and give them meaning, relying on his own judgment, guided by a sense of responsibility in organizing his activities. This understanding of personality is manifested in individualism as an attitude towards the self-significance of a unique human life and the highest value of the interests of an individual. In this case, the opposition “individualism - collectivism” arises, and priority is given to the first principle, although limited by the internal moral principles of the individual and legal norms.
At the same time, the long-term clarification of the principles of activity of an individual who defends his interests in the world of competition that took place in Western civilization led to a significant deepening of the cultural problem of the individual and showed all its complexity and ambiguity.
Liberal optimistic views, for example, opened the way to anarchic self-will and at the same time to social conflicts. It turned out that each individual is not an independent Robinson, but a member of one or another team - professional, territorial or national, a participant in one or another public organization, through which he can defend his interests. In addition, it turned out that the individual, with his freedom of choice, is not his own master. He can rather be compared to a grain of sand in a sea of sand; he is an object of advertising and propaganda. His role is practically determined entirely by his place in society.
This difference in personality types is present not only at the level of cultural concepts, but also permeates the main spheres of culture. In Western films, such as those shown on the mass screen, the real superman always acts alone, demonstrating the individual will to win, regardless of moral restrictions. In the East, judging by the same kind of films, they go into battle for company, gather comrades or friends, assuming in advance that “they may kill you, but we will win.” This is how participants in collective action are assembled in Japanese, Chinese or Indian films. And even having demonstrated his highest individual qualities in martial arts, the hero devotes his achievements to his group, clan or people.
A specific approach to this problem has developed in recent history and Russian culture. The collective “we” absorbed the individual “I” and imposed common, mass thoughts and interests on it. The propagated ideal of equality has deprived everyone of personal security and personal responsibility. This prevented a person from fully opening up and realizing himself, building his deep personal structure. Particularly harmful was the cultivated dogmatic view of the collective, “in all cases and always invariably right,” when the final word always belongs to the majority. At the same time, it was consciously or unconsciously forgotten that the team often follows an already known, well-trodden, template path, that its opinion is inevitably averaged, while a deep and extraordinary personality strives to search for something new, unusual, daring, and has a significant reserve of the original. With great difficulty, our social consciousness includes an understanding of the true value of the human personality, its individual, unique voice, and the idea of the responsibility of one person for the whole world.
At the same time, it should be taken into account that a person who was born, raised, and lived for so many years in a certain cultural environment carries it within himself as part of himself. This means that not only the system “adjusts” him to itself, but he himself “adjusts” to the system. That is why, in different cultures, fulfilling the same role, for example, the role of a father, requires a person to exhibit different behavioral manifestations and focus on different norms. The way a role is implemented is determined by the external environment for a person, which is usually divided into macro- and microenvironment. In reality, all processes of social interaction unfold at the level of the microenvironment, that immediate social environment where general cultural norms and requirements are refracted into specific rules of behavior, where a special hierarchy of values and preferences is formed, both general social and specifically cultural.
Thus, in the process of mastering the culture of society, a certain social adaptation of the individual to the specific conditions of life in the existing sociocultural environment occurs. Culture provides a person with the opportunity to live, act and develop in a society of his own kind. A person who has mastered the culture of the society in which he lives is “armed” with patterns and principles of behavior in typical, standard situations, has certain social attitudes and features of a direct reflection of social reality.
For the life practice of the individual, since it affects the actions of the individual himself. I want to clarify these thoughts regarding what type of knowledge and science we are talking about in philosophical anthropology using the example of the “founding father” of philosophical anthropology of the twentieth century, Max Scheler. Even if at first it seems that Scheler understands the question of the essence of man as a descriptive question, later it becomes...
mean the historical path of philosophical anthropology and its emergence as a special philosophical discipline. Since this introduction is addressed primarily to students of psychology, I want to briefly and also from a historical perspective consider the relationship between psychology and philosophical anthropology. At the same time, from the very beginning you need to pay attention to the fact that today it is downright risky to talk about “psychology”. This...
They take the question beyond the scope and competence of philosophy. If there is any “limitless” discipline in the study of man, it would seem to be anthropology taken in its entirety. Today, this volume, together with philosophical anthropology, also includes historical, religious (theological), social, political, natural-biological (natural science), environmental, ...
Regarding the last postulate, it should be noted that it is dictated by the psychotherapeutic orientation of Frankl’s work, but is also useful from the point of view of philosophical anthropology. To summarize the section, we should point out the significant characteristics of the category of the meaning of life, as well as the relationship between the individual and the social in determining the meaning of life. To the most defining features of the study...
The human world is huge, colorful and diverse - half-
ethics, economics, religion, science, art, etc. All these
spheres of human activity are intertwined and influence
Each other.
In moral culture the reached volume is recorded
society, the level of ideas about good, evil, honor, justice
livability, debt, etc.
Aesthetic culture society includes es-
tical values (beautiful, sublime, tragic and
etc.), methods of their creation and consumption.
Now it is of utmost importance environmental
culture. The dramatic situation that is going through
modern society is largely determined by the catastrophe
ical changes occurring in the natural world in
a result of human activity.
The unity of the world of culture is determined by the integrity of
the latter acting as a complete being. Culture
does not exist outside of its living carrier - man.
Creativity and change are the other side of development
society. The unity of tradition and renewal is universal
nary characteristic of any culture.
The development of culture is a contradictory process. Here
progressive and regressive - two sides of the same honey -
whether. So, which developed initially in Europe, and then
type of scientific and technical technology that has spread throughout the world
cultural culture greatly contributed to the development of freedom of speech
catcher.
3. The role of the concepts of culture and civilization in
knowledge of society
In understanding culture, recently the most ac-
tiiBHo compete with each other two cognitive programs
We. One of them is based on an active approach to
<ультуре как «духовному коду жизнедеятельности людей».
Within cultural approach M. Weber, and for
A. Toynbee considered civilization as a special
sociocultural phenomenon limited to certain
space-time framework, the basis of which is
religion poses.
On track sociological approach special interest
The concept of civilizations is formulated by D. Wilkins, who
transforms the understanding of civilization as a society that characterizes
being a homogeneous culture. He believes that culture
homogeneity is not a sign of civilization -
it can be quite heterogeneous.
From the perspective ethnopsychological approach L. Gumilev
connected the concept of civilization with the characteristics of ethnic
stories.
Another direction of "civilizational studies" is
new, non-cultural reductionist interpretation
tation of the concept of “civilization”.
Globalization was implemented by a variety of me-
khanisms - empires, trading companies, various
ideologies, which created different configurations
tions of peace integrity. At the same time, the process of globalization is progressing
went through several stages: 1) mid-XV - mid-XVIII centuries -
“origin”, 2) mid-18th century - 1870 - “beginning”,
3) 1870 - mid-20th century - “spurt”, 4) from the middle
XX century - “a situation of uncertainty”.
The civilization approach has found wide application in
research on historical and cultural-historical
typologies. In this case it is possible to highlight three approaches to in-
interpretation of the concept "civilization": local-historical-.
skiy, historical-stage and world-historical.
Among the supporters local-historical approach No
unity on the question of how many civilizations there were in the past
shlom and how many of them exist currently.
Within historian-stage approach depending
the choice of certain axiomatic criteria results in
distinguish different types of civilizations.
4. East - West - Russia: civilizational
6.1. The concept of "culture"
Humanity is gifted with a huge variety of cultural values, the core of which is the concept of morality. Values have been key to understanding culture in the past and today, but there is no universal definition of “culture.” Since ancient times, cultural philosophers have viewed culture as an attribute of humanity and humanity in the Universe. Since the second half of the 18th century, culture has been viewed in connection with society, as a phenomenon characterizing the difference between human existence and animals: powerful branches of the intellectual life of mankind appeared - the philosophy of the Enlightenment of the 18th century, German classical idealism and German romanticism. The French enlighteners Voltaire and Diderot view culture as the development of intelligent life, opposed to primitive savagery and barbarism. They were joined by German enlighteners who traced the stages of the triumph of reason and its progress in history (Herder, Lessing). German classical philosophy (Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel) and German romanticism (Schiller, Schlegel) viewed culture as the historical development of human spirituality.
In Russian philosophy, the concept of culture is associated with moral behavior and constant spiritual effort. On the shaky ground of the struggle between good and evil, culture strengthens harmony and life in the world. Connecting to goodness and creating it is one of the purposes of Russian philosophy of the past and present.
In the 19th–20th centuries. a line developed in the philosophy of culture, whose representatives focused attention on the cultural characteristics of various peoples of the world, and culture is considered as a system of values and ideas that determine the social organization of people (Rickert, Cassirer). Spengler, Toynbee, Danilevsky, Sorokin adjoined this line. The concept of culture is enriched by an understanding of material and spiritual values, customs, a variety of languages and symbolic systems.
In fact, a lot of definitions of culture have been formulated in philosophy and philosophy-related disciplines. In anthropology alone there are 164 of them, as A. Kroeber and K. Kluckhorn pointed out. The presence of different definitions of culture presupposes a clarification of the very concept of “culture”.
In modern philosophy, two approaches to understanding culture are influential: activity and axiological. From the point of view of the activity approach, culture is a system established extra-biological programs of human life, ensuring the reproduction and change of social life in all main manifestations, the sphere of free self-realization of the individual. The representative of the activity approach in understanding culture emphasizes not so much the culture of the individual, but the culture of the entire society.
From the point of view of the axiological approach, culture is a set of material and spiritual values created people in historically certain eras, characterizing the level of development of society and man. Representatives of the axiological approach I.T. Frolov and A.G. Spirkin pay attention to the creative and personal aspects of culture, and not to the social one as in the case of the activity approach; emphasize its role in the humanization of society and individuals.
A philosophical interpretation of culture must include an assessment of its content. Distinguishing between spiritual and material values, it is advisable to highlight spiritual and material culture as independent in culture.
The components of spiritual culture are the morality of communication, intellectual and artistic culture, legal, pedagogical, religious culture or free-thinking. Spiritual culture includes morality, philosophy, education, arts, science, law, mentality, religion, the body of knowledge, forms and methods of thinking, methods of activity to create spiritual values.
In the world of culture, material culture occupies a prominent place. It is noticeable, for example, in the everyday life of a person, the attitude towards the surrounding world of artifacts (things created by man), when, along with spiritual values, the material values associated with them are clearly distinguished (from architectural structures to toys that develop the creative abilities of a child or schoolchild). Material culture belongs to the totality of material goods and the means of mastering them. Material culture masters the culture of labor and material production, the culture of everyday life, the culture of the place of residence, the culture of attitude towards one’s own body and physical culture.
According to the philosopher L. Kogan, there are types of culture that cannot be attributed only to material or spiritual culture: economic, political, environmental, aesthetic culture. These are special spiritual and material formations that permeate the cultural system.
The philosophical category “culture” is universal and concerns all people living on the planet. This concept is universal. It covers the most important aspects of human activity and society: education, art, science, production, family life and everyday life, moral communication and other areas. In the activities of socially gifted people, culture arises, forms, consolidates and develops.
Various definitions of the concept “culture” were discussed above. Here we will be based on activity approach in understanding of culture. Within this approach, it is considered as a way of organizing and developing human activity. Culture is a kind of “genotype” of a social organism, which determines its structure and development. It is represented in the products of material and spiritual labor, in social norms and spiritual values, in the relationship of man to nature and between people.
The human world is huge, colorful and diverse - politics, economics, religion, science, art, etc. All these spheres of human activity are intertwined and influence each other. Each sphere is a reflection of the others. One can, of course, consider a person in parts within the political or other sphere.
For example, political culture will include the best methods of political choice and action, values and ideals for the political reorganization of society, optimal forms of social relationships between people in the course of mutual coordination of their interests, etc.
In moral culture the level of ideas achieved by society about good, evil, honor, justice, duty, etc. is recorded. These ideas and norms regulate people’s behavior and characterize social phenomena. By assimilating moral views and principles, an individual transforms them into moral qualities and beliefs.
Aesthetic culture society includes aesthetic values (beautiful, sublime, tragic, etc.), methods of their creation and consumption. The specificity of aesthetic perception lies in the fact that people, their actions, products of activity, natural phenomena are perceived primarily sensually, in their external expressiveness.
Now it is of utmost importance ecological culture.
The dramatic situation that modern society is experiencing is largely due to the catastrophic changes occurring in the natural world as a result of human activity. Ecological culture contains new values and methods of production, political and other activities aimed at preserving the Earth as a unique ecosystem.
The unity of the cultural world is determined by the integrity of the latter, acting as an integral being. Culture does not exist outside of its living carrier -person.
The individual assimilates it through language, education, and live communication. The picture of the world, assessments, values, ways of perceiving nature, time, ideals are laid down in the consciousness of the individual by tradition and, unnoticed by the individual, change in the process of social practice. Biologically, a person is given only an organism that has only certain inclinations and potential capabilities.
It occupies a special place in the world of culture moral, ethical and aesthetic Aspects. Morality regulates the lives of people in a variety of spheres - in everyday life, in the family, at work, in science, in politics, etc. Moral principles and norms contain everything that is of universal significance, which constitutes the culture of interpersonal relations. There are universal, universal human ideas about good and evil, for example, such as “thou shalt not steal,” “thou shalt not kill,” “thou shalt not commit adultery,” others recorded in the Bible. There are group, historically limited ideas about “what is good” and “what is bad.” In any case, the practice of interhuman connections is interpreted as goodness, nobility, and justice.
Sphere of aesthetic attitude is actually comprehensive. Beauty, the beautiful, the harmonious, the elegant—man finds all these values both in nature and in society. Aesthetic perception, aesthetic experience, aesthetic taste are inherent in every person. Of course, the degree of development and perfection of aesthetic culture varies from person to person.
Ideals of beauty have also historically changed. Nevertheless, in society there are certain norms of aesthetic, moral, political, religious, cognitive, and spiritual culture. These norms are an invisible framework that holds the social organism together into a single whole.
Cultural norms there are certain patterns, rules of behavior or actions. They take shape and become established in the everyday consciousness of society. At this level, traditional and then subconscious aspects play a large role in the emergence of cultural norms. Customs and ways of perception have evolved over thousands of years and are passed on from generation to generation. In a revised form, cultural norms are embodied in ideology, ethical teachings, and religious concepts.
Thus, culture contains both stable and changeable moments. Stability, “inertia” in culture -- This tradition: elements of cultural heritage - ideas, values, customs, rituals, ways of perceiving the world, etc. - are preserved and passed on from generation to generation. Traditions exist in all forms spiritual culture.