Personality, individual, individuality - these concepts are often used as synonyms. And we, without hesitation, replace one with the other, and not only in relation to an adult or any representative of the biological species Homo sapiens. The word “personality” can be heard in a young mother’s story about her newborn baby, and even in the owner’s reasoning about her cat or dog.
In fact, this is too loose a treatment of serious psychological concepts. They are not synonyms and, despite the fact that each of these words denotes a set of human qualities, there are significant differences between them.
Human
Man
This biological and social creature, which is at the highest level in the hierarchy of living organisms on Earth, is a subject of socio-historical activity and culture.
The main characteristic of a person is his conscious, purposeful activity. The concept of “man” is generic, indicates the qualitative difference between people and animals, and serves to characterize the universal qualities and characteristics inherent in all people, which are expressed in the name “homo sapiens”.
Relationship between terms
Based on the definitions of “individual”, “personality” and “person”, their characteristics in society can be represented as a set of certain qualities and traits . Despite significant differences, there is a strong connection between these concepts. At birth, everyone has a set of properties that can be developed and improved, thereby becoming an outstanding personality. And vice versa, if there is an unwillingness to become part of society, the subject degrades, and therefore does not become an individual.
Taken together, all three concepts can be combined with the word “subject”. It is understood as an actively cognizing the world, a purposefully acting individual. He is able to take initiative, be independent, make and implement significant decisions and bear responsibility for this. The inextricable connection between the three concepts is due to the fact that they all relate to a specific biological being.
Individual and personality
Individual
This is a person as a separate representative of one or another social community (as opposed to a team, family, team, social group).
“Individual” means a specific person, a single representative of the human race. “Personality” serves to characterize the social in a person. The term individuality includes those features, the specific, the unique, that distinguishes the individual as a specific person from others (like him).
A person (person) is a person who is the embodiment of specific historical social relations, influencing them to the best of his strength and abilities, depending on the position that the person occupies in society.
In other words, the face shows how each person individually reflects its socially significant features and turns out to be its essence as the totality of all social relations existing in society. Personality, unlike man, is a product not only of nature, but also of society, a subject of social processes. Personality is an established set of human qualities acquired under the influence of the corresponding culture of society, specific social groups and communities to which it belongs and in whose life it is involved. The concept of “personality” is used in relation to each person, since he is the bearer of important features of a particular society. The main thing in personality is not the abstract physical nature, but its social quality.
Man as a subject of specific sciences
MAN AS AN OBJECT OF KNOWLEDGE
Know yourself…
Socrates
Man as a subject of philosophy
Man is an eternal mystery. It seems that we know everything about him, but if we think about it, an abyss of the incomprehensible and inexplicable opens up. And while a person lives, he is doomed to know himself, because no matter how beginningless and endless the world is, the most important thing in it for a person is himself.
Why do we need knowledge about a person?
.”In order to live. The more we learn about each other, the easier it is to find a common language and avoid conflicts. The more we know about our body, the easier it is to rid it of diseases. The better we understand our soul, the more successfully we manage our desires and actions. By getting to know a person, we simultaneously comprehend the laws of nature, because in him, as the highest manifestation of life on Earth, all its diversity is reflected.
But man has something that is not found anywhere else in nature - consciousness. And, penetrating into its secrets, we learn not only about our capabilities, about our future, but also about the as yet unknown cosmic unity of the mind. After all, man embodies not only the laws of the Earth, but also of the Cosmos.
.Is it possible to know a person completely?
No, a person will never fully recognize himself. To gain comprehensive knowledge about a system, you need to go beyond its framework, look at it as if from above. Man cannot go beyond himself. He studies himself, as it were, “piece by piece,” but some part of himself is always excluded from the field of observation, primarily the one that observes.
A person is always more than what he knows about himself. With the development of science, new means of human knowledge appear. But no matter how perfect they are, people themselves invent them, which is why programs are used
The understanding of these means is limited by the level of intellectual maturity of a person.
Is it possible to understand a person completely? A
Now that's another question.
How often people cannot explain their own actions! How often do we know what this or that person will do, but we cannot explain where this knowledge came from! How often do we feel
the pain and joy of others without even thinking about the nature of these ideas.
But the fact is that not everything in a person lends itself to rational explanation. Many connections, even in the body, not to mention the emotional and sensory sphere, the subconscious, do not fit into any logical laws and cannot be expressed in words. Therefore, it is not enough to recognize a person,
you have to feel it
.
All this together is called understanding.
And we can safely say that every person is capable of understanding himself and others. Until the end? Nobody knows this, because understanding captures a holistic idea
Whole doesn't mean everything. Integrity is the internal unity of an object, its autonomy, independence, differentiation from the environment, as well as the object itself, which has such properties. In philosophy, the concept of integrity comes close to the concept of essence. Thus, the task of holistic perception of a person can be interpreted as the task of comprehending his essence.
The difference between human philosophy and other sciences that study it is that it combines the most general knowledge
about a person with an intuitive comprehension of his essence.
Philosophy should not just study man, it should experience
him.
Man as a subject of specific sciences
Many sciences study man. This is not surprising, because people are very interesting in themselves. But these sciences are quite isolated from each other, each of them has as its subject only one side in the diversity of human manifestations. However, for a holistic understanding of man, knowledge obtained by specific sciences is necessary
What kind of sciences are these and how do they represent man?
Let's name some of them.
Anthropology is the science of the origin and evolution of man, the formation of human races, and the normal variations in human physiological structure. It was formed as a science in the middle of the 19th century. It highlights morphology, the theory of anthropogenesis, and racial studies.
Human biology and a complex of biomedical disciplines study physiological, biochemical, genetic factors
ry affecting the variations and structure of the human body. Medicine, strictly speaking, is not a science. This is a complex of scientific disciplines and an area of practical activity aimed at preserving and strengthening people’s health, preventing and treating diseases. It developed experimentally; advances in theory (scientific medicine) began in the mid-19th century. There is no holistic concept of man in medicine.
Psychology (general, developmental, social, medical, etc.) is the science of the mental reflection of reality in the process of human activity and animal behavior. Reliable knowledge about mental activity is possible only on the basis of a good experimental base, although there was a stage in the history of psychology when contemplation was the main method. Psychology as a science was formed in the middle of the 19th century, although psychological teachings are of an ancient nature.
Social sciences are a set of disciplines that study the social manifestations of man. These are sociology, political science, law, ethics, aesthetics, economic sciences (not all), etc. Each of them focuses its attention on a particular area of human activity. The beginning of the structuring of social theories can be considered the middle of the 19th century. (emergence of positive sociology).
When characterizing the complex of human sciences, it immediately becomes clear that each of them takes only a certain cross-section of human existence, without considering man as a whole. Interestingly, they are all structured as scientific disciplines in the mid-19th century. But that's where the similarities end. Interdisciplinary connections between the human sciences are extremely poorly developed.
I can’t help but remember the parable of the blind men who were asked to tell what an elephant is. One touched the elephant's leg and said: "This is a pillar." Another grabbed the tail and said, “This is a rope.” The third felt the trunk and remarked: “This is a pipe.” The same is true in the human sciences. A psychologist will say about a person: this is a soul. The teacher will notice that a person is an object of education. And many doctors believe until the end of their lives that a person
-
this is a patient.
What place do the human sciences occupy in the structure of knowledge?
The human sciences in our time claim to be a leader in the system of scientific knowledge.
It should be noted here that different disciplines have played the role of leadership at different times in history. Initially it was mechanics (New Time), then physics and chemistry (beginning of the 20th century), then biology and the entire cycle of biological disciplines took first place (this situation continues to this day), but nowadays human sciences are gaining increasing priority disciplines, the range of which is constantly expanding. What is it with?
connected? First of all, with the objective need of society, which we will talk about later, and also with the fact that these sciences have accumulated quite a lot of material that needs generalization.
Why is there still no such generalization?
As already mentioned, a person never fully knows himself. But even if it is impossible to fully know a person, then it is possible and necessary to have a holistic view, compiled from the data that we have.
And this is where new difficulties arise. First, there is a lack of empirical data in some sciences. For example, human genetics is a field of knowledge where empirical data has been accumulating for decades, so questions posed by some scientists will have to be answered by their grandchildren.
Secondly, the formation of a holistic idea of man is hampered by the uneven development of particular sciences. The colossal material accumulated, for example, by anthropology and ethnography, sometimes lies without movement, because it needs to be interpreted in terms of human biology, and it is only just beginning to emerge. Let us at least recall the information on human biology that is contained in the general biology course at a medical university and compare its volume with the knowledge from history or cultural studies courses that are studied in parallel.
Lastly, to form a holistic idea of a person, a certain methodological basis is needed. We have already said that you can approach creating a portrait of a person in different ways. But which approach is right? Which one will bring the greatest success? This has not yet been clarified.
Go to a person “from nature” or “from spirit”? Should we look at it as a part of the Cosmos or consider it itself a microcosm?
To put together a picture from the data of an individual life or from what is common to each generation? These questions can only be answered with clear methodological guidelines. That is why the philosophical synthesis of knowledge about man is preferable. But on the basis of what philosophical system is it possible? Apparently, there should be a separate system, namely, the philosophy of man.
Individuality
Individuality
means special specific qualities of nature, society, physiological characteristics that distinguish one person from another.
The term “individuality” means special and specific qualities, natural, social, physiological, psychological, inherited and acquired, that distinguish one person from others, influence on social processes and place in them.
Comparing the concept of individuality with the concepts of man and personality, we can conclude that every individual is a person, and only under the influence of society can he become an individual. At the same time, personality is not only a concrete expression of a person’s individuality, but also the embodiment of socially significant features and characteristics of a given society, its culture, norms and values. The main thing seems to be that the individual is a subject of social groups, communities and social processes, who can form new social formations in accordance with their own interests.
Personal qualities
The definition of “personality” is understood as a specific subject who is distinguished by the ability of cognition, self-awareness, emotional experiences, as well as the ability to influence the world around him and build relationships with other individuals. Psychologists believe that this term refers to anyone who occupies a position in society and is capable of fulfilling a certain role.
Personality cannot be formed outside of society and without connection with it; its main characteristics are the following potentials:
- informative;
- creative;
- communicative;
- value;
- art.
The will of a responsible subject, the ability to control one’s life and build relationships are considered the basis for personal development. These are individuals who understand that natural inclinations cannot control the mind, and a person must consciously guide his own behavior.
For example, a three-year-old child cannot be considered a mature personality. He is not yet aware of why he acted this way and not otherwise, and what consequences his action may lead to. He acts based on his upbringing and habits that he developed in childhood.
It is difficult to call a person who does not have a stable, solid “I” a personality. Many people live in a pattern, mechanically reacting to what is happening in the world around them, and follow exclusively their instincts. If there are adequate habits and their reasonable external manifestations, a decent person appears in society, but without his own “I”.
The formation and definition of a person as an individual is a long process that is associated with:
- with the choice of social roles and functions performed;
- awareness and acceptance of rules and norms of behavior;
- the ability to build relationships and be part of society;
- choose your behavior model responsibly and independently.
It should be understood that in society those who are capable of being different from everyone else always attract attention. But psychologists focus on those features that make this happen. One can always be called a person who knows how to stand out, but not everyone who stands out has the right to be considered a person. Only worthy behavior is the main social characteristic of a subject. Outstanding people have always been distinguished by their determination and willpower, and they are usually perceived as role models.
