Философия - К-09.20.22
Социология - К-09.10.22
Искусствоведение - К-09.20.22
История - К-09.20.22
Культурология - К-09.20.22
Медицина - К-10.05.22
Педагогика - К-09.10.22
Политология - К-10.05.22
Право - К-09.15.22
Психология - К-09.10.22
Техника - К-10.05.22
Филология - К-09.20.22
Экономика - К-09.10.22
Информатика - К-10.05.22
Экология - К-10.05.22
Религиоведение - К-09.20.22
Научный мультидисциплинарный журнал
русский, английский, чешский
Идёт приём материалов
Информатика Искусствоведение История Культурология Медицина Педагогика Политология Право Психология Религиоведение Социология Техника Филология Философия Экология Экономика
A. T. Jurayev, teacher,
Namangan State University,
Everywhere and all the time, human has been interested in the question of what state is, its secret of existing for a long time. The problem is not only on its genesis, social-cultural motives, but the theories denying even one another, even whether it is necessary or not. The debates on this issue are still intense.
Indeed, this process, especially the idea of liberal-democratism, has intensified as the social project becomes more prevalent than other doctrines. Some politicians, as well as representatives of scientific community, have become sceptical of the current state and its future as a form of social activity.
In fact, although the state and society are not the same thing, but they can be called as two sides of one coin. The society is uniting of many people, with a very high level of social standing, and as a result of the government’s self-identification and cohesion, the it rises to the level of society. It is normal to consider human as a main element of society, and that has already been proven scientifically. According to that, if we approach to house holding politics, science, and education, which are main branches of social life, their relationship with state is become clear.
If we imagined above mentioned ones, there would be some kind of social ‘chain’. This is ‘Human – Socium – Society – State’. In many cases, it has been conceived and interpreted as some straight-line, developing from the bottom up to the tip, replacing each other, even as ‘social-marathon’. We know that as a result of the continues tendency of developing going from bottom to tip, which was dominant idea in science and philosophy for many centuries. According to this principle, at first human beings originated, then for millennium years, they lived half-wild, viz. in ‘pre-history’, they lived vainly, e.g., they did not think about socium, society and state.
Human beings have not changed both mentally and physiologically. The concept of ‘primitive community’ is referred to that period covering millions of years. If it is so, it is difficult to use terms of ‘historical stage’, ‘human’ and ‘collective’ for that period. According to Hobbs, not living, but existing is in meaning of ‘struggle of all against all’ [5, p. 5]. Basing on the theory of ‘linearity’ (linking its forming to Marxism is not correct), it is said in sphere of unchangeable objective mechanic changings, half-wild human-like creatures living in a group, without thinking, ‘made’ a socium, a family, finally a state. It can be said for a long time, those gangs united into family, society, and state. Here, the ‘state’ is considered as a result of long-term natural transformation, its final. It is obvious that the concept of ‘straight line’ of Marxism claims that development is endless straight line process, so one day a state as a social factor, which is not permanent, is destroyed.
The above-mentioned idea is not totally far from being a foolish one. The universe, the get the secrets of humanity, the approach to truth are endless processes. So, every concept on human, mankind, it does not matter if it is true or not, when it is said, is attempt to understand of human and society. It is also a prod for the emergence of a somewhat better idea. However, in the first half of the 20th century, the two world wars proved these kind of anti-human events are not only based economic or political factors, but the factor of human, negative changings in their mind also play a main role. The problem of human is the main problems of philosophy. It is felt that subjective factors (spiritual, mental, sensitive) are more powerful in human thought rather than objective factors, laws acting all things.
This transformation is observed in branches of non-classic and post-classic philosophy such as existentialism and others. Initially, the philosophical transformation leads to make a new approach to human being, to admit their power changing lots of spheres. It has now been confirmed that Darwin’s doctrine on human, individual evolution is merely a personal supposition. This process shows that there is a need for another approach to understanding the world, its elements, particularly, the origin of the state. Views on the role of human in the world, ideas, which were denied by the theory of ‘linearity’ and economical monism, start to return to philosophy. In this regard, one of С. – A. Helvétius’s idea is worth focusing on, which helps to identify some elements in the relationship between ‘Human – State’ system. Human being is both herbivorous and a meat-eating creature. But because of their weakness and being badly-armoured, they become a victim of greedy creatures who are stronger. Man has to be united with other people so that he can get food, or get rid of tigers and lions’ [3, p. 93–94].
In the above-quoted view of the French philosopher, one of the main points we are concerned with is first of all an intimate relationship with one another, an internal need for it and motivation, that is, conscious behaviour (as the creature’s approach is within instinct, i.e. unconscious). It is important here that the individual aspirations become a group aspiration, unifying the common goal - to ensure the security of themselves and each member of the group, and to find a solution to the common problem. For this reason, it was necessary to have a pragmatic element of consciousness and thinking, that was granted only to individual, man.
When the problem of ‘attitude of substance and thought towards mind and universe respectively’ is approached according to above mentioned one, lots of things become clearer.
In this case, it is vital to show French theologian P. T. Chardin’s (1881–1955) idea: ‘Subtle changings (Human’s) morphology causing to extraordinary leaps in all aspects of life… that is a great paradox in human’[4, p. 135]. It is about thought granted to human (in the classical doctrines, it is connected with millenniums), that is why human should take care of themselves, should reach to prosperity, should think how to get it, e.g., being real human.
As we have already said, no matter how powerful the individual is, he can not protect himself. His consciousness make it clear that there is no other way than joining people like him. At the earliest times of socialization, he realizes that he does not associate with others. Here is one important thing to repeat: the social aspects that emerged in the human mind, then become practically started, including the state. The state itself is the result of that social partnership, the result of the collective personality, and the nature of the state is also collectivity. Aristotle stated that ‘human being is a collective creature’, in this case he is right, and even more superior philosophy has not had a second alternative so far.
It is clear we have thought how human beings are, and their features and secrets. The point is that other societies, elements, including the essence of ‘state’, are the result of a person’s aspirations, interests, power and so on. Because all these are humanitarian and human beings, starting from man and returning to him. In particular, according to this methodological point of view, it will be right to approach to the state. The deeper understanding of the nature of human nature, the clearer comprehending insight of the state.
Its emergence, acting as a social reality depend on human’s nature, labour, degree of his outlook. According to this point of view, this general situation is considered as a main issue. The state being the pic of developing of communivity is the last result of that.
If we focus on the fact, that being community and socialising are only character of human, it is necessary to identify main features, factors creating that. In this connection, though it is said to be a different process, it may be worth the attention of Hegel’s view: ‘Outlook will be on the stage of life when soul of nation is free from careless, dormancy, primitive condition and feeling yourself strained’[2, p. 89]. It is about the genesis of outlook, environment, knowing the world is connected with forming mind, the obedience of the person to the social necessity, the need to harmonize, e.g., the phenomenon of totally new outlook. Forming sense of value of collectivity, believing that it is the main thing, create the need for and desire that is acceptable to all. State and statehood come from only nature of state, protecting itself, achieving to political and social aims.
It is a particular importance for human beings to have a second-party side here, i.e., an immanent, ‘organizational’ characteristic of maintaining their own individual plans and interests, but rather fulfilling their dreams through serving the society. This is because they can express their essence – their political and social life, but they can live only with their senses, and they are the ordinary creatures who are deprived to reach to rational degree. Thinking about social relationships branches and its motivation, above mentioned philosopher pays attention on one essential point: ‘Individuals’ activities are characteristic of temporary purpose, private interests... They should be judged according to the aspiration of the individual, but to the extent to which they relate to the general situation, though their contents do not reflect common goals’[1, p. 30–31]. In his philosophy, attitude towards individual basing on its harmonising degree with socium, society is dominant. It is justified to say that this is the ‘socio-genetic code’ of the individual.
The tendency toward collective behaviour as a human socio-genetic code is not itself a political process. It is necessary to control it, and only the state can do that. Nowadays, attitudes towards the society, especially to the state, are clearly reflected in its obvious superiority, that is, the politics of human beings, and the stability can not be achieved without peoples and nations. Collectivity as a form and source of social occur includes statehood and state. Existing of the state is an axiom as collectivity is.
1. Гегель Г. В. История философии // Соч. Т. 8. – С.30-31.
2. Гегель Г. В. Отношение философии к другим областям // Соч. Т. 9. Лекции по истории философии. – М., 1932. – С. 89.
3. Гельвеций К.– А. О человеке // Сочинения в 2-томах. – М., 1974. – С. 93–94.
4. Де Шарден П. Т. Феномен человека. – М., 1987. – С. 135.
5. Исаев И. А. Учредительное насилие: мест и жертвоприношение // История государства и права. – 2018. – № 3. – С. 5.