CC BY
4informatization process the proportion of those who have a rather high educational and professional level is also growing among other age groups of migrants. Therefore countries exporting workforce will increasingly gain the status of societies characterized by a "brain drain" which in the long run will further strengthen their social, economic, scientific and technological backwardness.
In general, the key cause of the intensification of migration processes in the modern world is the further development of globalization trends, which has a significant impact on all spheres of human activity, unbridled dissemination of information and network technologies, the economic backwardness of some regions of the world on the background of the welfare of the developed countries of the "golden billion", overpopulation in economically backward countries in Asia and Africa on the background of reduction of population in developed countries of the west, ecological cataclysms and military conflicts that make some regions of the world unacceptable for living.
In a situation of further strengthening of globalization processes work will steadily be gaining signs of a global resource, the movement of which through labor migration in geographic, social, economic, scientific and technological space will determine the further development of individual countries, groups of countries and humanity as a whole. Under the influence of the fourth technological revolution, automation, robotiza-tion and internetization of production there will be the release of hundreds of thousands of workers and employees who will not only fill up the class of "extra people" in developed countries of the world, but also become a factor in unpredictable labor migration. At the same time, in a situation of informational and economic globalization to the key causes of migration ensuring the social security of a person belongs, which is impossible because of social and economic, political conditions of the countries of migrants' departure and to a large extent guaranteed by the development of the social, economic, political relations of the countries of entry of migrants.
REFERENCES:
1. Bauman Z. The Individualized Society / Per. s angl.; pod red. V. L. Inozemtseva. - M.: Logos, 2005.
- 390 p.
2. CU is Alarmed by Worsening of Climate // Evrobyuleten. - 2006. - № 10. - P. 14.
3. A Salary is in the USA. - Electronic resource. Access mode: https://visasam.ru/emigration/canadausa/zarplata-v-ssha.html
4. Castells M. The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture. - M.: GU VShE, 2000. - 608 p.
5. Massey D. Synthetic Theory of International Migration // The world is in the mirror of international migration: collection of articles / Gl. red. V. A. Iontsev.
- M.: MAKS-PRESS, 2002. - №. 10. - P. 132 - 148.
6. International Economy / Fomishin S. V., Rib-chuk A. V., Rumyantsev A. P. and others. - Lviv: Noviy svit. - 2011. - 446 p.
7. Osnach O. Some Aspects of Determination of Conceptual Principles and Priorities of Migratory Politics of Ukraine // Research of international economy. -2011. - № 2(67). - P. 168. - 177.
8. Pahomov Yu. N. Near and Remote Consequences of International Migration // Socio-economic and ethno-cultural consequences of migration for Ukraine. - K.: NISD, 2011. - P. 155 - 158.
9. Comparison of Middle Salary is in Ukraine and Countries of Africa. - Electronic resource. Access mode: https: //antikor./com.ua/articles/ 137790-porivnj annj a_serednj oj i_zarobitnoj i_ plati_v_ukraj ini_i_kraj inah_afriki
10. Racial Distinctions will be Wiped by Climatic Migration - Scientists. - Electronic resource. Access mode: http: //zik.ua/ru/news/ 2018/09/17/ rasovie razlychyya_sotret_klimatycheskaya_migratsyya_ uchenie_1408181
11. Fedorako A. Migration of Population: Concepts, Reasons, Consequences // Magazine of international law and international relations. - 2012. - №4. -P. 3 - 11.
12. Hantington S. The Clash of Civilizations / S. Hantington. - M.: OOO Izdatelstvo "ATS", 2006. -576p.
13. Skeldon R. Migration and Development: A Global Perspective. Essex: London, Longman, 1997. -253 p.
REVIVAL OF THE RELIGIOUS RESPONSIBILITY AS A FACTOR OF THE MODERN PERSONAL
SPIRITUAL DEVELOPMENT
RogovaE.
PhD in philosophy•Professor of Department of Philosophy, Dnipro Academy of Continuing Education, Dnipro, Ukraine
Abstract
In this article is offered the philosophical analysis of the meaningful aspect of the concept of the «euthynity» from to East-Patristic tradition through the prism of its reactivation in the modern philosophical-educational researches. The analysis is carried out in the context of modern spiritually ethics needs and philosophical and educational thought. For the first time it was grounded that: the basic components of euthynity are a subject (who answers), an instance of responsibility (to whom answers), a measure of responsibility (as answers); euthynity in the transcendent measuring accompanied by sense of appearance before the face of God, task and high calling;
euthynity is characterized by authorship therefore it should be considered in the closest connection with freedom and sense of life. The analysis of concept «euthynity» taking into account its origin from the religious-ethical sphere of East-European culture and marking its impossibility without participation by personality allowed taking step from a Patristic heritage to the modern educational tasks. The approaches to euthynity revival, that are offered in educational experiment by: a) including of existential-religious educational constructs; b) mastering of the spiritually values meaning of Christian culture; c) introduction of Christian-Ethics educational courses. It is determined that the euthynity virtue revival through the means of Christian culture proved to be more effective in comparison with the other two directions of experimental activity. This result can be used as an approbated approach in educational process to the formation of the modern personal responsibility.
Keywords: personal responsibility, East-European Patristic tradition, modern ethics virtue, school educational experiment.
Among the generally valid historical and philosophical concepts that are conterminous to current ethical issues and studied by modern philosophical and educational thought, the spiritual and ethical category of «responsibility» lack significance. Amidst proliferation of discussions on the younger generation's moral and ethical state the fact that one of the main reasons and the basis of behavioral problems is immaturity of ethically significant quality as responsibility in the younger generation's value-ideological and praxeological plane is very little debated. This situation requires development of regulatory tools which in turn needs axiological criteria for rethinking the ratio of individual freedom and responsibility taking into account the achievements of historical and philosophical thought and established traditional spiritual values as a necessary matrix of responsible organization of individual interests in public life. For liability as a form of connection organizing in different types of historical and social relations was always based on such principles which usually had an objective value background.
In the historical and philosophical section, considerable attention was paid to the category of responsibility by M. Weber in the sociocentric «ethics of responsibility» (Weber 1994). Actualization of the continuous personal responsibility as a problem was carried out by M. Bakhtin (e.g. Bakhtin 1994) in the twentieth century. The most important feature of interpreting responsibility according to E. Levinas (Levinas 1999) was to shift the focus from «responsibility to» to «responsibil-ity for». M. Bakhtin also considered responsibility as «responsibility for», however, unlike E. Levinas, it was applied not to the others but himself. Imperative of responsibility for a particular person is formulated in G. Jonas' reflexions (Jonas 2004), and as the ethical measure of act are considered its consequences. Not to give too lengthy list of different approaches to the interpretation of responsibility during the last century E. Belyaeva's opinion, which we completely share, should be mentioned (Belyaeva 2015). Belyaeva states that «Ethics of responsibility» isn't the only formalized course in the history of twentieth century ethics, but is represented by highly diverse authors that characterize it as a new type of moral theory, adequate to the ethical processes of postmodern era.
Analysis of the most significant psychological conditions for the formation of responsibility in the educational realm is given by R. Zozuliak-Sluchik and R.Kostryghin (Zozuliak-Sluchik, Kostryghin 2015).
According to L. Wray-Lake the values of social responsibility in adolescents are formed through compassion and caution which are distinct but complementary phenomena inherited from their parents (Wray-Lake 2010). Experimental study of raising senior pupils' responsibility in the process of student government as a specific issue is considered by N. Golova (Golova 2010). However, rejection of responsibility justification through appeal to metaphysical provisions and perception of it solely by revealing individual human existence specifics contributed to the loss of universal and integral nature of responsibility as an ethical category. In educational realm this was reflected in the loss of responsibility as a value. Mentioned situation and work of V. Sakutin «Metaphysics of responsibility» (Sakutin 2001) with recognition of responsibility inconsistency as authority and understanding of personal responsibility as an infinite spiritual work resulted in this study.
Therefore, the work's purpose is to identify historical and conceptual value of «euthynity» virtue as personal spiritual quality, based on traditional Christian ideas about the practice of forming responsible attitude towards one's own life. Moreover, efficiency analysis of certain philosophical and educational approaches to this trait revival within educational experimental research approbation should be carried out based on this task solution.
Although substantial development period for responsibility ethics completely coincides with the twentieth century, it's source of development to be found in ancient times. Ancient understanding of responsibility associated with freedom was formed in the political context, which became the key to solution for responsibility problem in society. At the same time freedom remained a privilege of few and the definition of responsibility in the general human dimension has not become actualized. Yet, according to Socrates, understanding the criteria of good and evil can make each particular person ethically positive and morally responsible. Socrates believed that in all cases when person is at the crossroads the choice is based on one's own responsibility. Plato connected understanding of responsibility and compliance with the law, from what, in his opinion, responsibility emerges. However, definition of the term "responsibility" is found in Aristotle, who associated this virtue with happiness L activity of soul in the direction of realizing its own benevolence. Moreover, the higher it is in terms of value, the greater is the degree of happiness and responsibility is bigger at the
same time. Epicurus laid the foundation of responsibility for justice, which is a treaty of usefulness 1 neither cause harm nor get. Antique Stoic Cleanthes emphasized that responsibility is inherent in man from birth.
Though these views were mostly superficial and external, there was an understanding that something (idea, law, etc.) determines the extent and scope of responsibility for personal activity forming certain ethical opposition. And these are exactly the views outlined in the era of antiquity that eventually created broad trajectories of spiritual growth throughout the European culture. Specifically in the Christian days it is transformed into Personality somewhat. Traditional responsibility interpreted in the subject-object dimension as a measure of external social sanctions, sense of duty, or as a certain form of accountability in society changes to the value object-subjective understanding. And ethical opposition turns into personally-ethical, dialogical opposition. Discovery of interpersonal relationships which happens in the phenomenon of responsibility belongs to the Holy Scripture. Personally-ethical opposition in all its acuity as responsibility to the Creator is also discovered by the Holy Scripture. To build the right and virtuous relations with the world, person should address a certain Authority which reveals the laws or commandments that regulate these relations. This personally-ethical opposition has three components: I am responsible for someone (something) to the Third.
Generally speaking, the sense of responsibility, according to the Holy Scripture, belongs to primitive manifestations of spirituality. The Spirit is creative energy, It has inherent responsibility for created. Thus, in the Bible God is responsible for Himself and His Creation, emphasizing what He cares about, notes, urges and why, what is acceptable and unacceptable in His view. Absolute freedom of the Creator is combined with absolute responsibility, which also contains an active readiness to fulfill its freely chosen mission not betraying His essence - love. Responsibility for creation appears in the doing which must be fulfilled, so the cross is a phenomenon of absolute love and at the same time absolute responsibility. "Finished" is not only the last word on the cross, it is the last point of responsibility through which any other responsibility is considered.
Christians according to the Scripture are intended to be God-like, which means acquisition of the same properties as the Creator. Responsibility, along with such qualities of God as love, easiness, kindness was originally given to humans by the Creator. Disobedience which led to the fall is an inherently irresponsible act of ancestors towards themselves and Creator. Serious consequences of this act are referred to the next generations. In this context no idea of the Scriptures has greater significance for people than that we remain responsible to the Creator and necessarily the time will come for the last report to Him about used time of earthly life. «He who sows evil, reap evil» (Par.22,8). «What a man sows, that shall he also reaps» (Hal.6,7). «He who sows sparingly shall reap sparingly, and, and he who sows bountifully shall reap also» (2 Kor.9,6).
However, in patristic tradition the category of «responsibility» is not detailed but rather looks implicit to
the main ethical theses. For example, the second century apologist Athenagoras of Athens base his defense of resurrection doctrine on the ethical and eschatologi-cal argument namely that rational nature of man and his responsibility for own actions require the righteous Justice of Heaven. The main guilt to be imposed on man, because, as Athenagoras of Athens (Athenagoras 2013) mentions in sections 18 and 24, person is responsible and accused (unoStKo^) for own actions, as gifted with ability to choose (auBaipexov) between vice and virtue freely. Moral freedom proclaimed in the New Testament and encountered by Gnostics who were attributing the New Testament to another god, needs even greater responsibility and striving to avoid the sin according to St. Irenaeus of Lyons (Irenaeus Lyons 2001). For St. Ignatius of Antioch in Epistle «To the Smirni-ans» (Ignatius of Antioch 2005), the bishop is responsible for everything that happens in his community, especially for the Eucharist implementation. Rev. John of Damascus in «Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith » (Damascene 2000) in the chapters «About what we can control, that is free decision», «Why are we originated with a free will» and «About resurrection» says that responsibility and reckoning for human actions come through the reward of one and the punishment of others. The most important principle pointed out by Prelate Gregory Palamas in Homily 29 (Palamas 1993) when he speaks of the sorrow for committed under God is conviction oneself for own faults and every possible avoidance of transferring responsibility for sins to others.
However, responsibility in patristic and liturgical works is not distinguished as a separate virtue. It can be explained, first of all, by the fact that awareness of responsibility for own actions was perceived as a fact of Christian life, and secondly, the court as a response with reporting always lose their threatening severity for those who have the heart of Christ. But patristic texts still use the term "responsibility". For example, Saint Gregory the Theologian in the Word 32 says: «Both in Divine and human affairs equally the one is not to be convicted, who couldn't do something but must be responsible who did not want to» (rpnyopto^ xo^ 0eoXoyo<; 2018). The person liable to responsibility is characterized as raeu0uvo<; (upeuthynos). In the Word 37, he used the term aveuBuvov (anneuthynon -irresponsible). The Words 4, 15 and 24 directly contain the term euBuvcov (euthinon - responsibility). In the Words 31, 40, 42 we find oi)(h')vac (euthynas J response as reporting) (rpnyoptogro<; 0eoXoyo<; 2018). And St. John Chrysostom in the sixth Word «About priesthood» speaks of the priest's responsibility to correct mistakes of other people using the term euBuvn (eu-thyny). In the same Word responsibility for own duties as accountability is mentioned as euBuve^ (euthynase) (Iraavvou Xpucocxo^ou 2018). Prelate Gregory Palamas in Homily 31 claims that the commandment of God does not lose its relevance for those who submit and wants to live according to it, exonerating from responsibility as a punishment for all our sins marked by the term euBwn (euthyny).
Taking into account the above mentioned facts, «euthynity» should be understood as the person's ethical trait based on honesty, justice, accuracy, reliability and diligence. It is characterized by transcendental orientation towards the Creator through the readiness of individual to be in charge of decision making and its implementation, report on the entrusted, pay for lost, be responsible for the consequences of those actions or inactions that should or could be predicted and choose the form of own actions accepting the consequences of personal choice.
The main components of euthynity are the subject (who is responsible), the authority of responsibility (who is responsible to), the measure of responsibility (how it responds). This, in turn, implies that person must be informed about conditions of action and claimed requirements: dependence of person from something else, which is the determining basis for making decisions and committing acts. Therefore, euthynity should be studied in the closest connection with freedom and meaning of life. In the transcendental dimension, euthynity is accompanied by a sense of attitude, task, and vocation.
Euthynity is characterized by an authorship. For the first time in biblical history, we encounter assigned authorship as an ontological primary responsibility when entrusting heedful care about Eden and naming of animals to the humans. Personal process of euthynity formation is accompanied by the awareness of own destiny, successes or troubles' (when they occur) authorship.
Human as a spiritual being, must be motivated by supreme, superhuman, and soteriological concepts for refraining from the evil deeds. This motivation becomes the formation basis of such a life system when euthynity really begins to act in human life, becomes a responsible consent to the call of God's grace and the practical implementation of this consent, when the person understands responsibility not only for own actions, but inactivity. Thus, the highest form of euthynity is recognition of one's own responsibility towards the Creator. It obeys the main religious purpose of personal salvation, because salvation is impossible without responsibility for one's own choice.
According to Ivan Ilyin, everyone who has not grown up to internal freedom must be brought up to it with a cognitive reflection. Therefore, we believe that euthynity formation should be added to the modern educational and pedagogical sphere with the main content elements structure as following: 1) the subject of responsibility (who is responsible); 2) the authority and the measure of responsibility (to whom the subject is responsible and the degree, extent of this responsibility); 3) the objective grounds for responsibility (for what and in the name of what this subject is responsible). Practically, solution to the responsibility problem is based mainly on detailed analysis of only the first two content elements. Justification of the third component in secular education is usually ignored. But the objective foundations of euthynity are decisive in the personal responsibility genesis.
Existing lack of elaboration of the euthynity formation problem in practical terms was an impetus for
the study of ways to cultivate it in the educational realm based on the theoretical foundations during experimental research work on the topic «Creating a system for the personal axiosphere development on the basis of traditional spiritual values». 42 educational institutions of Dnipropetrovsk region (Ukraine) were involved in the research of proposed topic for the period from 01.09.2013 to 01.09.2020 (scientific supervisor 1 Ph. D. O. G. Rogova). Experimental schools were offered the choice of three directions for realization of tasks related to the formation of personal axiosphere: philosophical and ideological, culture centered and religious-humanistic.
Philosophical and ideological direction of cultivating the personal axiosphere was in the obvious interaction between the phenomenon of education and the way of human life, or human existential. Educational tasks were in the contribution to emergence of self-understanding in the growing personality and awareness of this understanding influence power on the formation of own personality through the acquaintance with religious course of existentialism. This is precisely what allowed offering to educational institutions the cultivation of euthynity component of the personal axiosphere.
The culture centered direction emphasized the need for development of the individual spiritual culture, whose foundations are traditional spiritual values. Such educational institutions were focused on Christian culture, which meant, first of all, universal social and cognitive education, the main content (core) of which is oriented on the realities of the «world of life», combining the properties of supernatural and sacred. Students were offered an acquaintance with Christian culture, which reveals spiritual values in their absolute measurements. It was this, what opened the possibility of cultivating euthynity within the limits of the culture centric orientation.
As Christian ethics can be correlated with student as a source of development which finds its objective measurement and significance by the level of its subjective acceptance, schools were offered teaching of Christian ethics within the religious-humanistic direction, using deep existentialy-significant experiences in the educational process. List of this knowledge introduced the concept of euthynity with an open call to its learning through a real acquaintance with Christian life and elementary understanding of believers' ethic motivations.
After the diagnostic-conceptual and forming stages of the experiment (in the first half of 2015 and 2018), reflection on the current results of experiment was made. Study of the personal axiosphere formation covered a number of indicators, euthynity was also among them. Coordinator of experimental work, representative of administration and class teacher from educational institution were suggested to assess the dynamics of euthynity formation among students of experimental schools on the positions given in Table 1:
The following assessment scale was proposed: the changes are radical; changes of more than 50%; changes by about 50%; changes less than by 50%; subtle changes; no positive changes. The results of survey are summarized in Table 1, where CC is the culture-
centric direction; PI - philosophical and ideological; RH - religious and humanistic.
Table 1
changes are radical (%) changes of more than 50% (%) changes by about 50% (%) changes less than by 50% (%) subtle changes(%) no changes (%)
o o 3 O o 3 o o 3 o o 3 o o 3 o o 3
Awareness of the need for students to act in accordance with social requirements and norms 15 11 10 40 28 46 40 39 32 5 11 10 - 11 2 - - -
Awareness of their responsibility for the student's social role 20 6 5 50 33 42 20 33 29 10 28 19 - - 5 - - -
Consequences prediction of choices, decisions, actions 5 6 7 45 11 14 40 56 47 5 11 27 5 16 5 - - -
Signs of critical skills and control over own actions 5 11 2 30 18 30 55 33 46 10 33 17 - - 5 - 5 -
Signs of consequences analysis of the own actions for other people 5 6 5 20 22 24 55 33 51 15 22 8 5 17 12 - - -
The desire for ethically positive implementatio n of students in society 15 6 7 20 28 37 45 33 37 20 28 17 - 5 2 - - -
Readiness to be responsible for own actions 10 11 5 25 22 37 40 39 39 25 22 17 - 6 2 - - -
Presence of socially responsible activities (family, civil, etc.) 5 16 5 55 28 42 25 28 39 15 28 12 - - 2 - - -
Presence of philanthropical ly responsible activity 30 11 12 40 22 44 25 50 32 - 11 12 5 6 - - - -
Presence of responsibility objective grounds (for what and in the name of what the subject is responsible) 20 6 5 35 17 29 40 43 47 5 28 12 - 6 7 - - -
Conducted questionnaire leads to certain conclusions. If we pay attention to the quality of obtained results (the changes are radical, changes are more than 50%), then roughly equally effective directions appeared in the formation:
- Signs of critical skills and control over own actions: the culture-centric (further - CC) - 35%, religious and humanistic (further - RH) - 35%, philosophical and ideological (further - PI) - 29%;
- Signs of consequences analysis of the own actions for other people: RH-29%, PI - 28%, CC - 25%;
- Awareness of the need for students to act in accordance with social requirements and norms: RH -56% and CC - 55%, PI showed only 39%;
- Philanthropically responsible activity: CC -70% and RH - 66% against 44% for PI;
The culture-centered direction was shown to be a priority in formation:
- Awareness of their responsibility for the student's social role (70%) against 47% RH and 39 % PI;
- Consequences prediction of choices, decisions, actions (50%) against 21% RH and 18% PI;
- Socially responsible activities (60%) against 47% RH and 44% PI;
- Presence of responsibility objective grounds (for what and in the name of what the subject is responsible) (55%) against 34% RH and 23% PI.
Religious and humanistic direction was shown to be a priority in formation:
- The desire for ethically positive implementation of students in society (44%) against 35% CC and 34% PI;
- Readiness to be responsible for own actions (42%) against 35% CC and 33% PI.
Thus, the culture-centered and religious-humanistic directions empirically turned out to be the most powerful in terms of cultivating the trait of euthynity. However, we see somewhat greater effectiveness of the culture-centered approach, which, in our opinion, is connected, firstly, with the secular processes in society that have their reflection in the school, and need to prepare students for a "pure" teaching of Christian-oriented subjects. Secondly, with the lack of professionally trained teachers for the specialty "Christian ethics". Therefore, cultivation of the euthynity virtue by means of culture has proved to be more effective than direct answers to questions within the limits of Christian ethical courses, which the students are not always ready to formulate.
Conducted research allows making a number of conclusions. Formation of personal responsibility is achieved through the «revival of the shrines» because components of spiritual experience are worked out by nations for millennia in the formation process of certain mental and behavioral archetypes. In European and also Ukrainian culture, this archetype is based on the values of Christianity, which are the «genetic basis» of eu-thynity virtue. Hence, human life is penetrated by a deep, stable and faithfully oriented euthynity when it begins in religious consciousness and is further carried on in a spiritually significant position in relation to itself, society, the surrounding world and is expressed in
responsible actions. That is why religion has always been and remains the true source of this spiritual state.
Recognizing that the cultural significance of Christianity today does not require proof, and the centuries-old Christian culture that establishes continuity with the great civilizations of the Ancient World is a valuable asset of all the people of European civilization, we note that cultivating the virtues of euthynity occurs more effectively when educational theory and practice are orientated to Christian culture in the context of internal historical and philosophical traditions in the new socio-cultural contexts.
REFERENCES:
1. Adorno T. Problems of moral philosophy. Moscow, Republic. 239 p., 2000.
2. Athenagoras of Athens. On the resurrection of the dead. Moscow, Siberian Blagozvonnitsa. 96 p., 2013. https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Afinagor Afinskij/o-voskresenii-mertvykh/ Accessed 8/7/2018
3. Bakhtin M.M. Works from the 1920s (Art and Responsibility: Towards a philosophy of action, Author and hero in aesthetic activity, The problem of content, material and form in verbal art). Kiev, Next. 384 p., 1994.
4. Belyaeva E.V. "Ethics of responsibility" as a Non-Classical ethic. Materials of the All-Russian scientific and practical conference with international participation "Ethics in the modern philosophical and cultural perspective" (Ekaterinburg, April 25, 2015), UrFU, Ekaterinburg, pp.115-120, 2015.
5. Damascene John. An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith. (Reprint of the ed., St. Petersburg, 1894). Moscow, Lodja. 464 p., 2000.
6. Golova N.I. Upbringing of Responsibility of Senior Pupils in the Process of Students' Self-government. Abstract of the dissertation for the degree of a candidate of pedagogical sciences (specialty 13.00.07- theory and methodology of education), Ukraine, Nikolaev state Un-ty of V. O. Sukhomlinsky. 20 p., 2010.
7. Ignatius of Antioch, St. (God-Bearer). Epistle to the Smyrnaeans. In: Monuments of Early Christian writing. Moscow, Temple of St. Kosma and Damian at Maroseika, pp.193-199, 2005.
8. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Of "The Five books Against Heresies". In: Blagorazumov N. (ed) Patristic Reader., Moscow, A circle of reading, pp.89-120, 2001.
9. Jonas G. The principle of responsibility. Experience of ethics for technological civilization. Moscow, Airis press. 480 p., 2004.
10. Levinas E. Time and Other; Humanism of the Other. St. Petersburg, Publishing house of the Higher Religious-Philosophical school. 266 p., 1998.
11. Palamas Gregory (St. Archbishop of Thessalonica). Homily 29. In: Homilies. Saratov, Publishing house of the Saratov diocese, pp. 303-312, 2017.
12. Sakutin V.A. Metaphysics of responsibility. Herald of Humanity Institute of FGMA 2, pp. 167-173, 2001.
13. Weber Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Kyiv, Osnovy. 269 p., 1994.
14. Wray-Lake L. The development of social responsibility in adolescence: dynamic socialization, values, and action. Dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 158 p., 2010.
https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/files/final_submissions/3 720 Accessed 7/7/2018
15. Zozuliak-Sluchik R, Kostrygin R. Formation of responsibility in children of the senior school age. Obriyi 1 (40), p. 21-23, 2015.
16. Tpnyôpioç toç BeoXoyoç, ApxiercioKorcoç KœvGxavTivorâoXnÇ Aöyoi.
http://users.uoa.gr/~nektar/orthodoxy/paterikon/g rhgorios_8eologos_logoi.htm#32. H npocßacn éyive cxtç 5/7/2018.
17. rpnyopioç nala^aç, Ay. Odilia eiç x^v Лгтоуаоу тои Етошрой Kaxa xqv 1n Auyoûcxou. http://www.diakonima.gr/2015/08/01/ayioç-ypnyopioç-nala^aç-o ^ilia-GTnv-X/. H npocßacn éyive ctiç 25/7/2018.
18. Iœavvou Хрисостоцои. Лôyoç 'Ektoç nepi Iepœownç http://www.apostoliki-diakonia.gr/gr_main/catehism/theologia_zoi/themata.a sp?cat=patr&contents=contents_PeriIerosinis.asp&ma in=xrysostomos_3&file=page6.htm.
H npöcßacn éyive ctiç 15/7/2018.
EVOLUTIONARY WAY TO SOLVE GLOBAL PROBLEMS
Ulyashkina G.
Moscow Technological College № 24 Teacher of German and English ЭВОЛЮЦИОННЫЙ СПОСОБ РЕШЕНИЯ ГЛОБАЛЬНЫХ ПРОБЛЕМ
Уляшкина Г.В.
г. Москва Технологический колледж № 24 преподаватель немецкого и английского языков
Abstract
Global problems can only be solved by evolution. For this you need to develop the consciousness of people. The existential level of consciousness will allow people to view the planet Earth as a living organism, in which everything is interconnected. The existential level of consciousness will allow people to abandon wars and conflicts. The existential level of consciousness will allow people to build voluntary and equal connections, communication, interaction not only with each other, but also with the natural environment and the inner world of man. Studying the inner world of a person and his connections, communication, interaction with the environment, extending to the most distant stars and galaxies, will allow people to master atmospheric nitrogen nutrition, which will make ordinary food, clothing and home unnecessary
Аннотация
Решить глобальные проблемы можно лишь эволюционным путем. Для этого нужно развивать сознание людей. Экзистенциональный уровень сознания позволит людям рассматривать планету Земля как единый живой организм, в котором всё взаимосвязано. Благодаря экзистенциональному уровню сознания люди откажутся от войн и конфликтов и будут строить добровольные и равноправные связи, общение, взаимодействие не только друг с другом, но и окружающей природной средой и внутренним миром человека. Изучение внутреннего мира человека и его связей, общения, взаимодействия с окружающей природной средой, простирающейся до самых далёких звёзд и галактик, позволит людям в ближайшем будущем освоить атмосферное азотное питание, которое сделает обычную пищу, одежду и дом ненужными.
Keywords: society of the future; atmospheric nitrogen nutrition; consciousness; levels of consciousness; subject-subject relations; global problems; people's health.
Ключевые слова: общество будущего; атмосферное азотное питание; сознание; уровни сознания; субъектно-субъектные связи; глобальные проблемы; здоровье людей.
Человек - дитя Природы, и мать-Природа вправе ожидать от своих детей взаимопонимания, любви и заботы. К сожалению, люди, увлечённые техническим прогрессом, забывают, что Природа развивается циклично, что день не может длиться вечно, что за летом последует зима, что время «разбрасывать камни» (количественное развитие) сменяется временем «собирать камни» (качественное развитие), что у каждого исторического периода есть начало и конец.
Но, если не войны и возникший в результате войн технический прогресс, то где и в какой области человек сможет проявить свою интеллектуаль-
ную силу и реализовать свой творческий потенциал, спрашивают себя и простые, и учёные люди. (Ф. Фукуяма «Конец истории и последний человек») Ответ на этот вопрос можно найти в трудах П.К. Иванова, создавшего учение об эволюции Природы и человека, представителей русского космизма (Н.Ф. Федорова, В.И. Вернадского, К.Э. Циолковского и др.) говорящих о том, что природные условия на планете Земля будут меняться, представителей немецкого экзистенциализма (К. Ясперса, М. Хайдеггера и др.) объясняющих природу трансцендентальных (запредельных) способностей человека.
