Introduction

The paper focuses on the conceptual and semantic correlation of the concepts of culture and civilization. It is important for cultural studies, since these concepts in the process of use have acquired many meanings and their use in modern discourse constantly requires clarification. Clarification of concepts is a necessary side of any humanitarian knowledge, since its terminology, unlike natural science, is devoid of rigidly fixed meanings. It is also important to trace the relationship of these terms because their opposition had a great influence on the formation of the subject, thematic area of ​​the sciences of culture, causing the appearance in them in the twentieth century. special problematic field: "culture and civilization". Introduction to cultural studies. Course of lectures / Ed. Yu.N. Solonin, E.G. Sokolov. SPb., 2003. S.34-43

The concepts of "culture" and "civilization"

As independent concepts, both concepts are formed on the ideas of the Enlightenment: the concept of culture - in Germany, the concept of civilization - in France. The term "culture" enters German literature thanks to Pufendorf (1632-1694), who wrote in Latin, but it owes its wide use to another German educator, Alelung, who popularized it by introducing it twice (1774, 1793) into the dictionary of the German language he compiled. , and then in the title of his main work "Experience in the history of the culture of the human race." The term "civilization" came into being with the completion of the French "Encyclopedia" (1751-1772). Both concepts were not given by the language in a finished form, both are the product of artificial word creation, adapted to express a new set of ideas that appeared in European enlightenment thought. The terms "culture" and "civilization" began to denote a special state of society associated with the vigorous activity of a person to improve his own way of being. At the same time, both culture and civilization are interpreted as the result of the development of reason, education and enlightenment. Both concepts were opposed to the natural, natural state of a person and were considered as expressions of the specificity and essence of the human race in general, that is, they fixed not only the very fact of improvement, but also a certain degree of it. Characteristically, the opposition of civilized and uncivilized peoples in France was duplicated in German literature as the opposition of cultured and uncultured peoples. Almost simultaneously, these concepts began to be used in the plural (XVIII century).

The proximity of these concepts was also manifested in the fact that, as a rule, they were used in a very broad, historical context - in abstract discussions about the goals and meaning of human history. Both concepts served the ideas of historicism and progress and, in principle, were set by them. Of course, there were differences related to the differences between the German and French traditions, the specifics of the use of these terms by individual authors, but they are very difficult to isolate and systematize, although such attempts were made, for example, in the work of the French historian Lucien Febvre “Civilization: the evolution of the word and group ideas." In general, these concepts carried the same cognitive, worldview and ideological load.

This led to the fact that very soon a relationship of identity was established between them. The use of the terms "culture" and "civilization" throughout the nineteenth century bears the stamp of this identity. What the French call civilization, the Germans prefer to call culture. In English-language literature, where the concept of civilization appeared earlier, very soon, thanks to German influence, relations of their interchangeability are established. Suffice it to recall the classical definition of culture given by E. Tylor, which laid the foundation for the ethnological interpretation of culture: “Culture, or civilization, in a broad ethnographic sense, is composed in its entirety of knowledge, beliefs, art, morality, laws, customs, and some other abilities and habits, assimilated by man as a member of society" [ 3 ]. This approach continues into the 20th century. The preference for one or another term depends on the scientific school to which the researcher belongs, on the language environment, and personal tastes. It is known, for example, that A. Toynbee, as a sign of conceptual disagreement with O. Spengler, refused to use the concept of culture as the main one. What O. Spengler calls cultures, he called civilizations. Expressions such as "medieval culture" and "medieval civilization", "western culture" and "western civilization" are most often a manifestation of terminological parallelism, although not necessarily.

The delimitation of culture and civilization is first carried out in German literature and is characteristic above all for it. This demarcation is connected with the gradual penetration of the term "civilization" into the German language and with those additional meanings that it generated, coming into direct contact with the concept of culture. A certain possibility for their cultivation was given by the etymology of the words themselves. The word "civilization" ultimately goes back to the Latin civis - citizenship, urban population, citizens, community and civilis - worthy of a citizen, befitting a citizen, courteous, affable, polite. Thanks to this, the word "civilization", despite the variety of its interpretations in the French language, acquired a specific meaning - the essence of the historical achievements of man was reduced primarily to the area of ​​purification of morals, the reign of law and social order. The German word "culture" also goes back to the Latin source, to Cicero's "philosophy is the culture of the soul", where culture means a special spiritual tension and is associated not with the necessary, but with the "excessive" aspects of human activity, with "pure" spirituality, the pursuit of literature, art, philosophy, etc., which is conceived in this previous tradition as the result of individual efforts. Even when definitions appeared and began to dominate, where a new meaning began to be associated with “culture”, opposing it to nature and emphasizing the social nature of human activity, the Ciceronian tradition continued to exist, especially in literature in Latin. We can say that the concept of civilization focused on an apology for the achievements of bourgeois society, and the concept of culture - on the ideal. L. Febvre makes it clear that this delimitation took place in French literature as a delimitation between two understandings of civilization. But at the terminological level, these nuances began to differ primarily in the German language, especially when there are disappointments and doubts about the reality of progress. It was they who ultimately predetermined a new turn in the field of terminological preferences in cultural studies of the late 19th-20th centuries.

Let us dwell briefly on the main approaches to the delimitation of the concepts of "culture" and "civilization" that have developed in European literature.

• 1. One of the first attempts to separate concepts was made already at the end of the 18th century. I. Kant. “Thanks to art and science,” wrote Kant, “we have reached a high level of culture. We are too civilized in the sense of any courtesy and politeness in dealing with each other, but we still lack much to consider us morally perfect. Indeed, the idea of ​​morality belongs to culture, but the application of this idea, which is reduced only to the likeness of the moral in love of honor and in external propriety, constitutes only civilization. Kant contrasts civilization with culture, limiting the latter to the inner perfection of man. In Kant's concept this opposition plays an important role, but is not absolute. Kant still believes in progress and in the possibility of harmonizing the internal and external in human development, in achieving the "highest degree of humanity", which, in his opinion, will be the "ethical state". But in this case, it is important to emphasize the trend of turning culture into a pure idea and considering it exclusively as a sphere of due, which is opposed by all real life in general. This trend, reinforced many times, had (through the neo-Kantians) a great influence on the interpretation of culture and civilization in the 20th century.
• 2. In the progressive and evolutionist literature of the 19th century. a different kind of delimitation played a much greater role. It took a long time to form in the works of the French historian Guizot, the English sociologist and historian Buckle, but finally took shape in the works of the American ethnographer Lewis Morgan. In Morgan's scheme, the term "civilization" is used to divide the cultural-historical process. Civilization completes a number of stages in the formation of primitive society, it is preceded by savagery and barbarism. Savagery, barbarism, civilization - such is the way of development of human culture. Here, the emphasis is completely different from that of Kant. No yearning for culture. Culture is something that all nations already have. All peoples have created a special, artificial habitat, "non-nature". But not all are carriers of civilization. There is, strictly speaking, no opposition between culture and civilization along a certain value scale; it is absurd to raise the question of what is better and what is worse - culture or civilization. But the same attempt to reconcile two approaches to human activity is visible: the scientific approach, which demanded to recognize reality as it is and to agree that there is no fundamental difference between peoples, and the approach that appealed to the ideal and demanded an evaluative attitude to the problem of cultural -historical typology. Only the distribution of concepts was different, which, strange as it may seem, is also understandable.

How is civilization defined within the framework of this version, which has become widespread in the historical literature? F. Engels, who developed it and popularized it in Marxist literature, also turned to it in his work The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. Neither Morgan nor Engels have a strict systematization of signs of civilization; this systematization was first made in the middle of the 20th century, when the famous English archaeologist and cultural historian G. Child (1950) proposed limiting the definition of civilization to ten signs. It was primarily about the signs well known from the works of Morgan and Engels. But some, taking into account the new achievements of historical science, were developed and supplemented. The signs of civilization included: cities, monumental public buildings, taxes or tribute, an intensive economy, including trade, the allocation of specialist artisans, writing and the beginnings of science, developed art, privileged classes and the state. This is a well-known list; it is regularly reproduced in the works of domestic and foreign researchers. Later, in 1958, K. Kluckholm proposed to reduce Child's list to three features: monumental architecture, cities, and writing. It is easy to see that the use of the term "civilization" in this context is etymologically justified to a certain extent.

This version of "culture and civilization" is used not only in studies of early civilizations. It went beyond the limits of proper historical considerations and became commonplace. When we talk about a civilized person, we most often mean a person of a certain level of culture. The same can be said about the use of the term "civilized society". It is a society that meets a certain set of characteristics. The modern evolutionist paradigm isolates these signs, focusing not on historical retrospective, but on the level of culture achieved by modern developed countries. Civilization in such usage is the highest stage in the development of culture, or a set of its highest values. It includes both material and spiritual achievements, considered as the result of the emergence of a broad cultural unity of people. It should be noted that this approach is typical not only for strictly evolutionist versions of culture, but also for authors who value Western values.

3. Consideration of the historical perspective of the development of culture in the concept of the German philosopher O. Spengler (1880-1936) takes a completely different perspective. Here, for the first time, the concepts of culture and civilization clash, acquiring the character of an irreconcilable opposition. We see that this opposition is carried out according to the criterion of external and internal already outlined in German literature, although in Spengler's concept it does not come to the fore. The main problem of the author is the problem of cultural-historical typology, and the delimitation of culture and civilization used by him is usually classified as "historical". But this is a different understanding of history, different from the evolutionist one. There is no civilizing complacency here, no belief in the absolute superiority of one's own epoch over previous epochs and peoples. The main pathos of Spengler's works is the criticism of Eurocentrism and the rejection of the evolutionist scheme of a single line of human development, of the idea of ​​progressive movement in the direction of improvement and progress. In his work The Decline of Europe, Spengler contrasts linear progressive views with the “phenomenon of many powerful cultures” that are equivalent in their capabilities. Each culture, according to Spengler, is a living organism, a “living body of the soul”, which goes through a series of stages characteristic of an organism in its development: birth, childhood, maturity, maturity, old age and death. For simplicity, Spengler often reduces these stages to three: childhood, flowering, and breakdown. Civilization is the final stage in the development of culture, characterizing its breakdown and death. No culture escapes it. It was in the stage of civilization that, according to Spengler, the culture of the West entered.

The separation of culture and civilization, which formally coincides with the previous tradition (civilization is a stage in the development of culture), is saturated in Spengler's concept with a new axiological content. Culture is not just a more general concept that includes civilization. Along with this, an essential definition is given to it, which determined a special plan of reasoning. "Real culture" absorbs, according to Spengler, all manifestations of historical existence, but the sensual, material world of culture is only symbols, expressions of the soul, ideas of culture. Having declared the equality of external and internal factors of culture, Spengler ultimately reduces the essence of culture exclusively to spiritual, internal content. It is on this basis that the concepts of culture and civilization clash. The essence of culture, which manifests itself most fully in the heyday, is opposed to civilization - the stage of decline, when the soul dies.

The problem of correlation between civilization and culture is multifaceted. The complexity of the analysis of this problem is that both concepts - both "civilization" and "culture" - have many meanings. Both of these terms are closely related both in origin and in basic meanings.

Nevertheless, between these concepts there are significant differences in meaning, in their use in certain cases in various contexts:

1. Both "culture" and "civilization" can equally mean the general difference between man and nature, human society and the natural environment.

2. Both concepts can be used as antonyms for the concepts of "savagery", "barbarism", "ignorance", etc.

3. They are used to designate certain historical types of culture, eras in the history of culture, which have a specific geographical reference of cultural forms.

4. Both words can indicate the process of development of mankind, which has passed from life according to the laws of nature to a cultural or civilized state. However, as a rule, culture is thought of as something that arose earlier than civilization.

5. The differences between the meanings of the concepts "culture" and "civilization", the shades of their meaning are largely related to their origin. Since the concept of "culture" comes from the sphere of religion (worship of the gods), pedagogy and philosophy (education, upbringing and training), it is more often applied to the phenomena of the so-called. "spiritual culture": education, science, art, philosophy, religion, morality. The concept of "civilization" originates from the political and legal vocabulary of Ancient Rome, and it was created by the philosophers of the Enlightenment, whose focus was on the social problems of their time. It is not surprising that the word "civilization" usually refers to the phenomena of the so-called. "material culture" and to social life.

It is characteristic that when people talk about "civilized countries", they mean countries with a high level of economic, technical and social development. However, a relatively poor country with a low or medium level of socio-economic development can also be called a “cultural country”, “a country of high culture”.

6. The concept of "civilization" most often refers to the features of the socio-cultural system, and the concept of "culture" - cultural national features, although such word usage is not strict. For example, one speaks of "English culture" and of "European civilization", but it is possible to speak of "European culture" in the same sense.

The concepts of "culture" and "civilization" were not divorced even in antiquity, where culture was seen more as a person following the cosmic order, and not as the result of his creation.

The Middle Ages, having formed a theocentric picture of the world, interpreted human existence as the fulfillment by people of the commandments of God the Creator, as a commitment to the letter and spirit of Holy Scripture. Consequently, during this period, culture and civilization in the minds of man were not separated.

The correlation of culture and civilization was identified for the first time when, in the Renaissance, culture began to be associated with the individual-personal creative potential of a person, and civilization - with the historical process of civil society.

In the Age of Enlightenment, culture was seen as an individual-personal and social-civil arrangement of life, and thus culture and the process of civilizational development overlapped each other. In fact, the term "civilization" was introduced by the French Enlightenment primarily to refer to a civil society in which freedom, justice, and the legal system reign, i.e. to designate some qualitative characteristic of society, the level of its development.

The understanding of culture as an earthly independent process, in contrast to the medieval interpretation of it as a religion given to a person, begins in modern times to form the consciousness of culture as a certain self-consciousness of a person as a subject of history. Culture is filled with the spirit of everyday human existence.

In the works of enlighteners, romantics, representatives of German classical philosophy and aesthetics, the discrepancy between the goals of civilization and culture was recognized as an acute and deepening problem. Ideas were expressed that, winning in quality in the process of material and economic development, a person loses as a person. The growth of technical perfection, the improvement of the material conditions of human life is a natural and desirable goal, but in the process of this trend, a person loses the integrity of his spiritual being, the completeness of relations with the world.

The relationship between the concepts of "culture" and "civilization" in cultural studies is the cornerstone. Both the first and the second concept are distinguished by ambiguity of meanings. In the interpretation of their relationship, there are three main trends: identification, opposition and partial interpenetration. The essence of each of these trends will be determined by the interpretation of the content of these concepts.

The problem of culture and civilization is interpreted differently by various researchers of culture. The concept of "culture" is often interpreted as a synonym for the concept of "civilization". At the same time, civilization means either the totality of the material and spiritual achievements of society in its historical development, or only material culture. In the same way, civilization was opposed to culture, for example, as a soulless material “body” of society, as opposed to culture as a spiritual principle. The interpretation of this concept in a negative sense as a social condition hostile to the humane, human aspects of social life has become widespread.

Thus, Tylor identifies culture and civilization, believing that this is nothing but the totality of the material and spiritual achievements of society. Z. Freud stood on the position of identifying culture and civilization, who believed that both distinguish a person from an animal. M. Weber and A. Toynbee believe that civilization is a special socio-cultural phenomenon, limited by certain spatial and temporal limits, the basis of which is religion.

At the same time, quite often in the social sciences and social philosophy, including A. Toynbee, the concept of civilization is used to characterize a particular society as a socio-cultural entity localized in space and time, or as a fixation of a certain level of technological development.

The opposition of culture and civilization is characteristic of O. Spengler, N. Berdyaev, T. Marcuse. Spengler believes that civilization is a combination of technical and mechanistic elements, and culture is the realm of organic life. Civilization is the final stage in the development of culture, where there is a decline in literature and art.

Civilization is the external world in relation to a person, affecting him and opposing him, and culture is the internal property of a person, which is a symbol of his spiritual wealth. The era of a late, dying culture (or civilization) is characterized by the decline and degradation of religion, philosophy, art and the simultaneous flourishing of machine technology and technology, people management, the desire for comfort, the accumulation of huge human masses in cities, extermination wars. Civilization is a period of decay of the organicity and integrity of culture, foreshadowing its imminent death.

Spengler breeds these concepts purely chronologically, culture for him is replaced by civilization, which leads to its decline and degradation. "Civilization is a totality of extremely external and extremely artificial states; civilization is completion." (Spengler O. Decline of Europe. M., 1933. S. 42.)

N. Berdyaev believed that almost throughout its existence, culture and civilization develop synchronously, with the exception of the source, which made it possible for the philosopher to conclude that civilization was the primacy, since the satisfaction of material needs anticipated the satisfaction of spiritual ones. In the analysis of the relationship between civilization and culture, one can distinguish features of both similarities and differences.

N. Berdyaev reveals, first of all, the differences, emphasizes the special features of both culture and civilization. In his opinion, the spiritual, individual, qualitative, aesthetic, expressive, aristocratic, stably stable, sometimes conservative principle is emphasized in culture, and the material, social-collective, quantitative, replicated, publicly accessible, democratic, pragmatic-utilitarian, dynamic- progressive. The same Berdyaev notes that “civilization always looks like a parvenue (upstart). Her origin is worldly, she was born in a struggle with nature outside of temples and cult. (Berdyaev N.A. About culture. // S.P. Mamontov, A.S. Mamontov. Anthology of cultural thought. M., 1996. P. 195.)

The position of opposing the content essence of civilization and culture is characteristic of T. Marcuse, who believes that civilization is a cold, cruel, everyday reality, and culture is an eternal holiday. At one time, Marcuse wrote: "The spiritual labor of culture is opposed to the material labor of civilization, as the weekday is opposed to the day off, work is opposed to leisure, the realm of necessity is the realm of freedom." (Quoted by: Gurevich PS Philosophy of Culture. M., 1994. S. 27-28) Thus, according to Marcuse, civilization is a cruel necessity, and culture is an ideal, sometimes a utopia. But, in essence, culture as a spiritual phenomenon is not only an illusion, but also a reality.

Spengler, Berdyaev, Marcuse, putting civilization in opposition to culture as antipodal concepts, nevertheless understood that they are interdependent and interdependent. In the scientific literature, there are reasons for trying to equate culture and civilization.

They are due to similarities, which include:

The social nature of their origin. Neither culture nor civilization can exist outside of the human principle.

Civilization and culture is the result of human activity. This is an artificial human habitat, the second nature.

Civilization and culture are the result of satisfying human needs, but in one case predominantly material, and in the other - spiritual.

Civilization and culture are different aspects of social life.

The concept of "civilization" arises in the XVIII century, its use is associated with the name of Holbach. The word "civilization" is of French origin, but originates from the Latin root civilis - civil, state.

There are a number of definitions of "civilization", among which are the following:

Synonymous with culture.

The level and degree of social development.

The era following barbarism.

The period of degradation and decline of culture.

The degree of domination of man and society over nature through the tools of labor and means of production.

A form of social organization and orderliness of the world based on the priority of the development of new technologies.

Currently, the concept of "civilization" is interpreted in three senses: unitary, stadial, local-historical. In a unitary sense, civilization is seen as an ideal for the progressive development of society as a whole. In stadial terms, civilization is understood as special types of this development (singling out agrarian, industrial, post-industrial, cosmogenic, technogenic and anthropogenic). In local-historical - civilizations are called unique historical formations, limited by certain space-time frames.

In line with the culturological approach, civilization is a historical socio-cultural formation, the basis of which is a homogeneous culture; sociological - civilization is understood as a synonym for a social entity that has a common temporal and spatial area; ethnopsychological - the concept of civilization is associated with the peculiarities of ethnic history, and the civilizational criterion is seen in the specifics of the psychology or national character of a particular people.

Thus, civilization and culture coexist together, they are located side by side and, apparently, it is necessary to agree with this and try to understand the points of their contact, interaction and interpenetration. Civilization and culture are inseparable; one cannot exist without the other.

Civilization and culture are the result of human activity to transform nature and man. Civilization allows a person to solve the issue of social organization and orderliness of the surrounding world, and culture - spiritual and value orientation in it. The Russian writer M. Prishvin once remarked that civilization is the power of things, and culture is the connection of people.

For Prishvin, culture is a union of creative individuals, the antithesis of a civilization based on a standard. Both - both culture and civilization, coexist in his view in parallel and consist of different series of values. The first includes "personality - society - creativity - culture", and the second - "reproduction - state - production - civilization". (Prishvin M. Writer's Diary 1931-1932.//October. 1990. No. 1. P. 147.)

The main direction of the influence of culture on civilization is carried out through its humanization and the introduction of awareness of the creative aspect into human activity. Civilization, with its pragmatic attitudes, often crowds culture, squeezing its spiritual space. In different historical periods, culture and civilization, coexisting and interacting, occupied a different share in society. By the 20th century, there is a noticeable tendency to increase the space of civilization in comparison with culture. And at the present time, the question of searching for real mechanisms for their mutually fruitful coexistence is relevant.

In its most general form, civilization is a way of human survival in the world by changing the world. It originates from the creation of tools for labor and hunting, from the conquest of power over fire and the domestication of animals, limiting the influence of natural instincts. The radical leap from animal to man fundamentally changed the whole world for man. Familiar physical objects and phenomena in a new quality have acquired a completely new meaning and meaning. So, for example, fire as an elemental fire and a fire lit at the entrance to a cave are completely different entities; a stick that lies on the ground and a stick that can be used to dig up roots are also different entities. Man has adapted to this world of new entities with the help of civilization, i.e. “fitting”, remaking the world for themselves. Civilization thus ensured man's physical survival in the world.

The concept of "civilization", as well as "culture", up to the present time remains ambiguous both in domestic and foreign literature. This concept has Latin roots. The ancient Romans called a citizen (civis) an inhabitant of a fortress or a polis who had civil (civilis) duties to other people and observed the generally accepted rules of behavior, living together and norms of politeness. Outside the fortress lived barbarians - uncivilized, primitive savages.

Until the 18th century we find only the participle "civilized" or the verb "civilize". The very concept of "civilization" appeared, according to the French historian Lucienne Fevre(1878 - 1956), only in 1766 in the works of encyclopedic philosophers within the framework of the theory of progress they created. Therefore, it carried the imprint of the ideas of the French Enlightenment and was understood as a process of improving society and the state.

The question of the relationship between culture and civilization is multifaceted. The complexity of the analysis of this problem lies in the fact that both of these concepts have many meanings.

In the scientific literature, there are three positions on the relationship between the concepts of "culture" and "civilization":

1. Identification. Initially, these concepts were used as synonyms, no opposition was intended. Even the philosophers of the Enlightenment insisted that only a high culture gives rise to civilization, and civilization, accordingly, is an indicator of cultural development and viability. The same approach can be traced in the works of A. Humboldt and E. Tylor, who used the word "culture" along with the word "civilization", often replacing one word with another. According to 3. Freud, it is culture and civilization that distinguish man from animals.

This position is quite natural, since culture and civilization are similar to each other in many ways. Culture, like civilization, has a social nature, exists only as a result of human activity, forms a "second nature", an artificial human environment that opposes the natural world.

2. Contrasting. This tradition originates in Germany at the end of the 18th century. German philosophers and enlighteners, among whom I. Kant occupies a special place, understood culture as a set of spiritual values. Civilization became synonymous with material culture, a fairly high level of mastery of the forces of nature.

Nevertheless, there are significant differences between the concepts of "culture" and "civilization" both in meaning and in use, which are largely related to their origin. Since the concept of "culture" comes from the sphere of religion ("cult"), pedagogy, philosophy and morality ("paydeya", internal development, education, upbringing, training), it is more often applied to the phenomena of the so-called "spiritual culture": education, science , art, philosophy, religion, morality. The concept of "civilization" originates from the political and legal vocabulary of Ancient Rome and is formed as an independent category by the philosophers of the Enlightenment, who focused on the problems of social life.

The well-known culturological theories of O. Spengler, N. Berdyaev, G. Marcuse and others are built in the spirit of opposition. Thus, in Spengler cultures are compared with living organisms. Because of this, they go through a series of stages in their development - birth, flowering and death. The last, final phase of the development of culture - its decline and death - Spengler calls civilization. Therefore, the characteristic features of civilization for him are: the fall of religious faith, the degeneration of art, the spread of dry rationalism and materialism.

Berdyaev in his works also emphasizes special features in culture and in civilization, although he believes that they develop synchronously. In his opinion, the principles of spirituality, individuality, and aristocracy develop in culture. Culture is characterized by quality, expressiveness, aesthetics, the desire for stability and conservatism. Civilization is connected with the development of the material, social-collective, democratic principle.

According to Marcuse, civilization is a cruel, cold, everyday reality, and culture is an eternal holiday. He contrasted the spiritual labor of culture with the material labor of civilization, just as the weekday is opposed to the holiday, the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom, nature to the spirit.

There is also a point of view, whose supporters distinguish between culture and civilization not from a qualitative point of view, but from an ethnological point of view. At the same time, civilization is considered as a set of cultures at the regional level. Cultures may differ from each other, but at the same time they belong to the same ethnic group. This approach reflects a view of civilization as a process of evolution of cultures towards more complex states.

3. Interdependence. This is the most balanced view of this problem, whose supporters do not close their eyes to the difference between culture and civilization, but study them as interacting and interpenetrating phenomena.

Such an understanding of the problem can be seen in L. Morgan, who singled out three stages in human history - savagery, barbarism and civilization. This view was shared by the founders of Marxism. With this approach, the concept of "culture" is wider than the concept of "civilization", since culture exists as long as humanity itself, and civilization appears only at a certain stage in the development of culture - along with the appearance of the first city-states about 6 thousand years ago.

At present, civilization is most often considered as a state of culture that occurs at a certain historical stage of development (the attributes of civilization are the state, law, cities, money, writing). At the same time, if culture emphasizes the measure of the development of a person, his inner world, spiritual forces, then civilization is primarily embodied in the organization of social life, in the forms of appropriation of cultural values, characterizes the “external”, social being of culture, creates certain conditions for its development. (in line with this approach, agrarian, industrial and post-industrial civilizations are distinguished).

In addition, civilizations are also called unique historical formations, limited by space-time frames and differing in the nature of their relationship to the natural world, society, and man himself. In line with the culturological approach, civilization is seen as a socio-cultural formation, the basis of which is a unique homogeneous culture, which acts as a kind of "crossing" of culture and society.

So, there is neither absolute harmony nor complete incompatibility between civilization and culture. The real connections between them exist in three main forms.

The first of these is genetic, since it is culture that creates civilization and is reflected in it.

The second form of connection is structural and functional, since culture and civilization embody different aspects of human activity, spiritual and material, which are inconceivable without each other.

The third is a dysfunctional connection, when civilization seeks to subjugate culture. At the same time, the values ​​of culture are forgotten and its soul is lost. However, they must be replaced by new values ​​that will become the foundation of a new culture.

Introduction

1. Philosophical culture

Conclusion

Introduction

Relevance. Cultural studies is an emerging discipline, and therefore its relationship with other disciplines, the relationship between its internal components and the approaches used in it needs careful reflection. And the latter, as we know, is a matter of philosophy itself. And the fulfillment of this purpose is the first task of the philosophy of culture. Only on the way to its solution can the current confusion of philosophy, theory and ideology of culture be overcome to some extent. And also, instead of an eclectic intersection, come to their systemic complementarity: each of them is necessary, and together they are necessary and sufficient for a holistic understanding of the phenomenon of culture.

Philosophy considers the essence of culture, i.e. those of its fundamental possibilities that distinguish it from other aspects of human life and constitute the inner basis of all its manifestations.

The philosophy of culture must answer the following basic questions:

what is culture within the framework of human existence as a whole?

what is its correlation and interaction with other attributive (inalienable) characteristics of human existence?

Are there objective criteria for the progressive development of culture, and if so, what are they?

Purpose: to study the problems of interaction between culture and civilization.

generalize theoretical material;

define the main terms;

draw conclusions.

1. Philosophical culture

People are born in the name of perfecting their nature - for the spirit. The measure of the fulfillment of the predestined is the realization of life in the spirit. Life in the spirit, expressing itself through the heart, will be the measure of receiving and acquiring joy and happiness. Thus, through the perfection of the spirit, a person proceeds to another goal - joy and happiness. And if it is said that "joy is wisdom", then the reverse is also true - wisdom is joy. The constructed relationships are given only to indicate the vital need for wisdom for a person who has realized his spirit and the need to live in it. What if you didn't realize? For a person outside the spirit there can be no life in its true understanding. After all, life is alive, fire, which is the basis of the spirit. Needless to say, without awareness of the spirit, a person does not live like a person, but only as a creature, a walking body, commonly called bipedal.

The accumulation of Knowledge necessary for the improvement of the spirit is one of the essential components of wisdom. The creative, creative force that directs this knowledge to the Common Good, called love, will be the second, one with the first, component of wisdom. Wisdom always comes from the Highest, from those who are called Divine mentors, imprinted as Gods, Prophets, Teachers, Elders, Wise Men…

The task of all those who have realized that spiritual perfection, accumulation and development of the spirit can and should occur only with the aspiration and veneration of the Higher Light, will be precisely in the dedication of their whole life to this Light. This is exactly what will be the action and service to Culture as the veneration of Light. The Servant of Culture is always in the forefront of those who will collect the most valuable seeds of Wisdom, scattered and dispersed in centuries and peoples. And it is not enough to find them - it is necessary to collect them into a system, concentrate, compare and correlate. But the main thing is to find for them, these treasures of Knowledge, received from the Wise, a place of application in life. The described sacred action will be philosophy. If philosophy, as a manifestation of love for Wisdom, which means serving it with all the heartfelt reverence for Truth, is directed to its application in the field of Culture, then such a field of human knowledge will be called the Philosophy of Culture.

Like any other philosophy, the Philosophy of Culture can be conditionally divided into two main sections - ontology, in which the main subject of study and consideration will be the question of the worldview of the World Order or Being, and epistemology, which considers the ways and methods of knowing the world order, as well as the ways and methods of human improvement as a spirit in unity with the soul and body, and the whole universe.

The features of the development of society are usually more or less adequately reflected in the features of the development of culture, primarily spiritual. The crisis of European culture of the 20th century, which was written about by famous philosophers and cultural historians, starting with O. Spengler, was reflected in the content of art, morality, and philosophy. Thus, in Western European philosophy, crisis phenomena have been widely expressed in addressing the themes of alienation, fear, death, and so on.

Russian philosopher N.Ya. Danilevsky (1822-1885) gained fame as the author of a general typology of civilizations or cultures. Its essence was associated with the denial of world history and the recognition of the history of only given local cultures.

The German philosopher O. Spengler (1880-1936) tried to give a broader description of civilization, which he understood as a certain final stage in the development of any culture. Inextricably linking this stage with the progress of industry and technology, the degradation of art and literature, the appearance of unprecedented concentrations of people in huge cities, the transformation of peoples into faceless "masses", he revealed European civilization as a concrete indicator of the crisis and death of European culture. According to Spengler, all other peoples inevitably pass through the same stages.

The American sociologist P. Sorokin (1889-1968) came up with the theory of cultural systems. Having singled out three groups of values, each of which is characterized as a special type of worldview inherent in the whole society:

ideal (religious supersystem or superculture), interpreted as the highest;

sensitive (materialistic superculture associated with the predominance of material interest over religious);

idealistic (transition from one of the named types of supersystems to another).

He designated by them special stages in the development of human history. In the modern Western world, sensitive culture, according to Sorokin, tends to its final decline, giving way to a new religious phase. Thus, he tried to put all the diversity of past and present history into the problematic of spiritual values.

All the above-mentioned theories of civilization and culture proceed from the idea of ​​a historical cycle, they describe the history of culture as an alternation of different types of "cultures" that are not genetically related to each other. They limit the content of culture to the ideas, the spirit of the people and the era.

Very interesting are the ideas of Alfred Weber, who divides all the cultures of the Ancient World into "primary" and "secondary". The main characteristics of "primary" cultures are non-historicity, isolation and a certain kind of inertia. "Primary" cultures are regarded as incapable of development and characterized by absolute sacralization of consciousness. He refers to such cultures the great cultures of the East, to which he opposes the "secondary" culture of the West. "Secondary" culture is characterized by conjugation with historical time, the ability to innovate and be creative. Ultimately, according to A. Weber, the culture of the West is more rational than the culture of the East.

The concept of A. Weber was criticized by K. Jaspers. According to the latter, the concepts of "primary" and "secondary" culture are characteristic as stages of cultural development of both the West and the East. Thus, he removed the idea of ​​a cultural confrontation between the West and the East, and questioned the idea of ​​the superiority of Western culture. K. Jaspers believed that the concepts of "primary" and "secondary" culture cannot be reduced to geographical differences. He introduces the concept of "axial time", by which he understands the time of a synchronous breakthrough of Western and Eastern culture and civilization into a fundamentally different dimension of historical being and consciousness. In his opinion, not all ancient cultures, as it were, knew the "axial time". In its significance, "axial time" is comparable to the fact of the formation of man as a rational being. In his history, a person, as it were, is born and lives twice: the first time from birth to the "axial time" - a traditional person; the second time - from the "axial time" to the present - a new man. Historically, the "axial time" falls on the middle of the first millennium BC. At the same time, according to K. Jaspers, the nature and main causes of the "axial time" do not lend themselves to rational recognition.

At the present time, especially in connection with the scientific and technological revolution, the ideas of O. Spengler, N. Berdyaev, and others about a sharp delimitation and opposition of culture and civilization have become very widespread. It is argued that the gap between culture ("higher" spiritual values, religion) and civilization (material values) is insurmountable and invariably deepens. Freudians and existentialists associate the opposition of culture and civilization with the existence of a "natural" lag of spiritual culture from material culture, with an "eternal" contradiction between subject and object, personality and society.

2. Origin of the term "culture"

The word "culture" in the initial sense did not mean any particular subject, state or content. It was associated with the idea of ​​some kind of action, an effort directed at something. This word was used in antiquity with a certain addition: the culture of the spirit, the culture of the mind, etc. In the following, we briefly review the history of this term.

The concept of "culture" is central in cultural studies. This term first appeared in Latin. Poets and Scholars of the Trees Rome used it in their treatises and letters in the sense of "cultivating" something, "processing" something, improving. In classical Latin, the word "cultura" was used in the meaning of agricultural labor - agri cultura. This is protection, care, separation of one from the other, preservation of the selected, creation of conditions for its development, moreover, purposeful.

The Roman statesman and writer Mark Porcius Cato (234-149 BC) wrote a treatise on agriculture. In it, he advises choosing a land plot in the following way: “you need not be lazy and go around the purchased land several times; if the site is good, the more often you examine it, the more you will like it. If you don’t like the site, there will be no good care, i.e. there will be no culture". It follows that originally the word "culture" meant not only cultivation, but also reverence, even worship of something.

The Roman orator and philosopher Cicero (106-43 BC) used the term in relation to spirituality. The ancient Romans used the word "culture" in combination with some object in the genitive case: culture of speech, culture of behavior, etc. For us, too, such phrases as "culture of the mind", "culture of communication", "physical culture" sound quite familiar.

Later, culture began to be understood as humanity, something that distinguishes a person from nature, from a barbaric state. The inhabitants of ancient Hellas and the Romans in antiquity called peoples who were more backward in cultural development barbarians.

In the Middle Ages, more often than the word "culture", the word "cult" was used: the cult of God, the cult of certain ri tuals, cult and culture of chivalry. The concept of "culture" was originally deciphered by Nicholas Roerich. He divided it into two parts: "cult" - veneration and "ur" - light, i.e. reverence for the world; in a figurative sense, culture is the affirmation of the luminiferous principle in the souls of people.

There are many scientists who trace the origin of the word "culture" from the ancient word "cult". They believe that the cult ra is involved in spirituality, including religion. Initial handicap my religion, some consider fetishism - belief in the supernatural properties of inanimate objects, the cult of stones, trees, idols, etc. We meet the remnants of fetishism in temporary religions: the cross in Christianity, the black stone in Islam, etc.

The subject of worship, worship were not only inanimate objects; the sun, moon, stars, storm, thunderstorm, but also parents: under matriarchy - mother, during patriarchy - men. The history of mankind knows a variety of you - in the era of antiquity with objects of religious worship there were gods, temples, heroes, rulers, etc. All these cults and beliefs in this era (the ancient East and antiquity) led in different countries to the creation of all world religions that have survived to this day. About the proximity of culture and religion, according to such Russian philosophers as V.S. Solovyov, N.A. Berdyaev, testifies to the symbolic nature of the culture tours, which she received from cult symbols (dances, prayers, chants and other ritual actions).

The meaning of the concept of "culture" has expanded and enriched over time. So, if in the Middle Ages culture was associated with the personal qualities of a person (the culture of a knight), then in the Renaissance, under personal perfection they begin to understand the humanistic ideal of man. It is embodied in such works of art as "David" by Michelangelo, "Sistine Madonna" by Raphael and others.

Enlighteners of the 17th-18th centuries (Herder in Germany, Mont Tesquier, Voltaire in France) believed that culture manifests Xia in the reasonableness of social orders and political accounts decisions. T. Campanella tried to express this in artistic form in his utopian novel City of the Sun. cult Ra in the understanding of the enlighteners is measured by achievements in the field of science and art. And the purpose of culture is to make people happy.

The French enlighteners of the 18th century understood the history of society as a gradual development from barbarism and ignorance to an enlightened and cultural state. Ignorance is the "mother of all vices", and enlightenment is the highest good and virtue. The cult of reason becomes synonymous with culture.

The reassessment of reason and culture led individual philosophers (Rousseau) to a critical attitude towards culture. Not only J.J. Rousseau, but also philosophers and romantics in Germany saw in modern bourgeois culture those contradictions that hindered the free development of man and his spirituality. The predominance of the material-material, mass, quantitative principle in culture led to the corruption and depravity of morals. The way out is in the moral and aesthetic perfection of the personality (Kant, Schiller). Consequently, culture was understood as an area of ​​human spiritual freedom.

In the nineteenth century, the concept of "culture" becomes a scientific category. It means not only a high level of development of society, but also intersects with such a concept as "civilization". The concept of civilization contained an idea of ​​a new way of life, the essence of which was urbanization tion and the growing role of material and technical culture. The concept of civilization is ambiguous. Many researchers associate with this some kind of cultural community of people who have a certain social stereotype, who have mastered a large, closed space and have received a solid place in the world alignment (Orthodox civilization, ancient civilization, Egyptian, etc.).

In Marxism, the concept of culture is closely connected with fundamental changes in the sphere of material production and from wear in society. According to Marx, the emancipation and development of culture are connected with the practical activity of the proletariat, with the political and cultural revolutions that it must make. A linear path for the development of history is proposed, which is nothing more than a successive series of socio-economic formations, each of which is more culturally developed than the previous one. The development of culture, according to the teachings of Marxism, is a contradictory process of interaction between "two cultures", each of which expresses the interest the aims and aims of the ruling classes. It follows from this that each type of culture is the result of human activity. century and represents a variety of changes in nature and society. Such an active understanding of culture was established in the 20th century.

Culture, according to Zh.P. Sartre, this is the work of man, in it he recognizes himself, and only in this critical mirror can he see his face. A person is cultural to the extent that he participates in social production. At the same time, he not only creates culture, but also turns out to be its real content. With this understanding, tours it can be defined as a way of active human existence.

There are several points of view on the question of the origin of culture, depending on the understanding of its essence.

The activity approach to culture is one of the most evidence-based in the science of culture. It is assumed that the origin of all human and social is connected with the formation of human labor, which made the monkey a man, the herd - a society, and nature - a cultural environment. This theory of the origin of culture was called the tool-labour theory. It is set forth in F. Engels's article "The Role of Labor in the Process of the Transformation of a Monkey into a Man". According to her, a person stood out from the animal world in the process of labor activity. Labor was understood as purposeful activity, which began with the manufacture of tools from stone, bone and wood. According to K. Marx and F. Engels, in the process of labor, people developed consciousness, and with it the need to say something to each other. Thus, speech appeared as a means of communication in joint labor activity. Human activity gave rise to culture, the monkey turned into a man. Indeed, the consequences of the manufacture of tools and the emergence of language are enormous, but the Darwinian theory itself is not recognized by all researchers.

Some scholars (T. Rozzak) believe that magic was the source of culture. Back in the Paleolithic era, when there were no tools, various mystical chants and dances were the expression of the first "human" feelings and determined the essence of human nature. The American culturologist T. Rozzak suggested that the ancient man first spiritually mastered the world as a dreamer, a seeker of meanings, a creator of visions, and then he already became a “creating” person.

He draws the following sequence of stages in the life of a person in a primitive society: at first, a person was visited by various mystical visions caused by the mystery of the world around him, then the first tools of labor appeared, then a person learned to use fire for cooking, then he began to navigate by the stars and worship them, then he tamed animals , became a farmer and, finally, the ruler of nature. The prayerful and enthusiastic perception of life led to the emergence of various religious beliefs (magic, fetishism, totemism, animism), which, according to a number of researchers, preceded the practical development of life in the Paleolithic era.

Another well-known culturologist L. Mumford believes that the tool-labor theory of the development of man and culture is erroneous, because. the actions necessary for the production of elementary tools of labor from stone or wood do not require any significant sharpness of thought. After all, not only humans, but also other biological species create original devices. Beavers have learned to build dams (dams), spiders - to weave cobwebs, ants - to create anthills. Moreover, some biological species turned out to be even more inventive in this than humans. I believe, - the scientist emphasized, - that the opportunity to survive without foreign tools of labor gave the most ancient man sufficient time for the development of those non-material elements of his culture, which greatly enriched his technology.

L. Mumford believes that to consider a person as an animal that makes tools means to miss a significant period of human prehistory, which played a decisive role in the development of his mind. In the beginning, man learned to understand and produce symbols. They, according to the scientist, were the prologue of culture. And the symbols were born from the ability of a person to focus on himself, to make himself something that distinguished him from the world around him.

Russian philosopher P.A. Florensky, who derived the word "culture" from the word "cult" - the worship of the gods, believed that culture has a divine origin. Not in the literal sense of these words, but in the fact that the creation of material tools that are useful for human survival (hammer, saw, pump, etc.) is sacral (sacred), i.e. cultural meaning. Machines and tools, according to Florensky, are not just creations of culture, they are symbols of the era.

These are just some points of view on the genesis of culture, on its origin. Obviously, each of them contains some part of the truth. Labor, in Marxist theory, is seen as a process of interaction between man and nature, in which man changes not only external, but also his own nature. Labor is a way of existence of people, a means and a condition for the natural exchange of substances between man and nature. Tools of labor, and it is hard to deny, also played a significant role in human life. But they cannot fully reveal the secret of the transformation of ape into a man, they cannot explain the secrets of social life.

Therefore, the question of the origin of man in all details is not finally argued. But, despite this, the very phenomenon of culture, its emergence and formation is considered by all theories as a radical shift in the development of man, humanity as a whole and the entire historical process.

3. Correlation and interrelation of the concepts "culture" and "civilization"

Often the concepts of "culture" and "civilization" are treated as synonyms. This is not entirely true, although in some ways the meaning of these concepts intersect. Most often, civilization is understood as the totality of the material and spiritual achievements of society in its historical development and only material culture.

The word "civilization" comes from the Latin "civilis", which means civil, public, state. In the 17th and 18th centuries "civilization" was defined as the opposite of "savagery". In the 19th century, civilization began to be understood not only as a historical process, but also as an already achieved state of society, as a degree of social progress following savagery and barbarity. The most developed civilization was the type of society that had developed by that time in European countries.

Over time, the concept of civilization began to be distinguished from culture. In everyday life, civilization began to be called the totality of material and social benefits delivered to man by the development of social production. There was a tendency to oppose culture and civilization, to consider them as opposites (O. Spengler, G. Marcuse). From this point of view, culture is the internal spiritual content of civilization, and civilization itself is only the outer material shell of culture.

There is no unambiguous definition of civilization, because Different researchers put different meanings into this term. Some scholars equate the concepts of civilization and culture, others consider civilization as a specific cultural entity, and still others separate the concepts of culture and civilization.

In a unitary sense, civilization is regarded as the ideal of the progressive development of humanity as a whole. If civilization is interpreted as a certain historical stage of development, then agrarian, industrial, formational civilization.

In the local-historical sense, civilizations are called unique historical formations limited by space-time frames (for example, ancient, Arabic, Chinese, Egyptian civilization, etc.). The latter point of view was developed by such researchers as N. Danilevsky, O. Spengler, A. Toynbee. The latter developed the theory of "local civi izations", of which there are more than 20.

In addition to those named, these are two Orthodox civilizations (Russian and Byzantine), Iranian, Indian, two Far Eastern, Syrian, Minoan, Sumerian, Hittite, Babylonian, Andean, Mexican, Yucatan, Maya, etc.

As part of the opposition between the concepts of "culture" and "civilization", the latter is defined (according to O. Spengler) as a set of technical and mechanical elements, as concluded telny stage of development of any culture. This stage is characterized by a high level of scientific and technical achievements, and at the same time, the decline of art and literature. So, N.A. Berdyaev wrote about civilization as "the death of the spirit of culture."

From the whole variety of approaches to the study of culture and civilization, we can conclude that the concept of civilization can mean:

the historical process of improving life about society (Holbach);

the way of life of society after leaving the primitive state (Morgan);

the utilitarian-technical side of society, which opposes culture as a sphere of spirituality and creativity (Simmel);

the final phase of the evolution of any type of cul tours, the death of culture (Spengler);

any separate (local) socio-cultural world (Toynbee);

the broadest sociocultural community that Paradise has reached the highest level of human cultural development (Huntington).

In Russian literature, civilization is called not just culture as such, but a society that is characterized by a specific and fairly developed culture.

Civilization presupposes the assimilation of behavior patterns, values, norms, etc.

Culture is a way of mastering achievements. Civilization, in turn, is the realization of a certain type of society in specific historical circumstances, and culture is the attitude towards this type of society based on various spiritual and moral criteria.

The difference between culture and civilization, despite their contradictions, is not absolute, but relative.

Conclusion

Having arisen as a result of a long, centuries-old development of mankind, civilization from the very first stages of its history developed in certain socio-economic forms associated with the existence of various types of state and political regimes, as well as legal systems.

The inconsistency of the development of modern civilization is especially obvious, where, within the framework of individual countries and the world economic system as a whole, a high level of science and modern technologies, the sphere of consumer services and services often coexists with amazing backwardness, poverty and the absence of any obvious signs of civilization itself. Therefore, in the modern world, the concept of "civilized world" implies the existence of uncivilized countries, the relationship of inequality between "civilized and uncivilized peoples."

At the same time, the development of modern civilization is complicated and hampered by global problems, which, under the conditions of the scientific and technological revolution, are increasingly closely associated with deep contradictions between it and the natural environment.

The philosophical (categorical) image of culture reflects it as one of the universal characteristics, as an attribute of human existence. There is no person and society without culture. Another question is whether it is developed or not developed, good or bad, and what are the objective criteria for its evaluation. Alas, there is a culture of the mafia, fundamentalist extremism, fascism, cannibalism and other unpleasant phenomena. Just as they have their own aesthetics and system of morals. We can and must prove that all this is not "authentic" and in this - ideological - sense, there is "anti-culture" and "anti-values". But one should not confuse an assessment from the standpoint of ideals with a description and explanation based on certain philosophical ideas about the nature and structure of culture as a universal attributive characteristic of human existence. I cannot imagine how it is possible, without defining what culture is, what is its place in the system of other attributes of society and man, what is its internal categorical (general) structure, to successfully and systematically study its specific varieties and substantiate the ideals of culture. I believe that whatever the ideals and specific interests of a particular researcher, cultural studies as a whole should proceed from the presence of a certain philosophical basis and honest reflection and justification of the ideals of culture.

Culture is a system of material and spiritual values, forms and results of the development and transformation of reality, which is created in the course of people's creative activity. Along with this broad definition of culture, its essence can also be expressed in another, narrower sociological definition. Culture is what determines the nature of the relationship of people with the historically given circumstances (conditions) of their lives.

In accordance with this understanding of culture, the most important thing in its development, the criterion of its progress, elevation is ultimately expressed in the formation of a person as a person, in the emergence of ever new and more developed social qualities in him, that is, having a pronounced social nature, widely manifesting its human essential powers and, with the course of history, increasingly approaching the ideal of integral, comprehensively developed members of society. Culture in this sense is the cultivation, the development of man's strengths and abilities. This, in essence, is identical to the process of his ever greater social emancipation, the increase in the degree of his real freedom.

philosophy culture civilization

List of used literature

1. Bagdasaryan N.G. "Culturology" - Moscow: Higher School, 2007.

Erasov B.S. Classification of values ​​// B.S. Erasov. Social cultural studies. M.: Aspect-Press, 2006. - S.115-116.

Erasov B.S. Mass society and culture // B.S. Erasov. Social cultural studies. M.: Aspect-Press, 2006. - 522p.

Kravchenko A.I. "Culturology" - Moscow: TK Velby, 2008.288s.

Kelle, V.Zh. Civilization and culture / V.Zh. Kelle. - M.: Knowledge, 2005. - 224 p.

Brief Philosophical Dictionary / edited by A.P. Alekseev. - ed.2nd. - M.: Prospekt, 2006. - 492 p.

Culturology. History of world culture: textbook for universities / under. ed. Prof. A.N. Markova. - M.: UNITI, 2012. - 224 p.

Culturology: Textbook / Compiled and responsible. ed.A. A. Radugin. - M.: Center, 2013. - 304 p.

Mitroshenkov, O.A. Culture and civilization (lectures) / O.A. Mitroshenkov. - M. Gardariki, 2012. - 655 p.

Modern Philosophical Dictionary. - St. Petersburg: Academic project, 2014. - 864 p.

Spirkin, A.G. Philosophy: Textbook / A.G. Spirkin. - M.: Gardariki, 2015. - 736 p.

Utkin, A.I. West and Russia: the history of civilizations: Textbook / A.I. Utkin. - M.: Gardariki, 2010. - 574 p.

Khachaturyan, V.M. History of world civilizations from ancient times to the beginning of the XX century / ed. IN AND. Ukolova. - 2nd ed. - M.: Bustard, 2008. - 400 p.

Tutoring

Need help learning a topic?

Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Submit an application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.