INSTRUCTIONS AND PROPHECIES OF THE Blessed MOTHER ALIPIA GOLOSEEVSKY, Kyiv...
category of ethics, reflecting the moral responsibility of a person to himself; inner need to do justice; a system of moral beliefs of the individual and at the same time the ability to apply these beliefs for self-assessment of one's own behavior.
Great Definition
CONSCIENCE
the ability of a person, critically evaluating his actions, thoughts, desires, to realize and experience his inadequacy as his own imperfection. From a cultural and historical point of view, the idea and concept of "S." formed in the process of thinking various mechanisms self-control. Unlike fear (before authority, punishment) and shame (which also reflects a person's awareness of his inconsistency with certain accepted norms), S. is perceived as autonomous. As a moral regulator, it focuses on the fulfillment of perfection and expresses the responsibility of a person to himself as a subject of higher and generally significant (as well as absolute and universal) values. In the most general plan in moral philosophy, S. is interpreted as an "inner voice"; the differences relate to the understanding of the source of this "voice", which is perceived as independent of the "I" of a person or as the voice of his innermost "I", or as "another I". Related to this are various theoretical attitudes regarding the nature of S. 1. S. is a generalized and internalized "voice" of significant others or culture, and its content is culturally and historically changeable. 2. S. expresses a feeling of disagreement of a person with himself and thus represents one of the certificates of personality and self-consciousness of a person; being conscientious, a person is independent of external pressure. 3. S. is interpreted not only metaphorically, but also in essence as "the voice of another"; "by the mouth of S." as if the Universal Law, the highest Truth, speaks. Differences in these attitudes are associated with differences in understanding the content of S. and the role that it plays in the moral life of a person. S. can be interpreted negatively and positively. As a negative S. appears warning, critical, judging. As a positive S., it also appears to encourage care and "determination" (M. Heidegger). The discretion of S. as the voice of God predetermined understanding of it as a call to perfection; accordingly, conscience is perceived by a person as the will to perfection and is the main. manifestation of the inner liberation of the individual. The expression "pure C." in ordinary speech it means a person's awareness of the fulfillment of his obligations or the realization of all his possibilities in this particular situation. In essence, in such cases, it is a matter of dignity. The expression "freedom S." denotes the human right to the independence of the inner spiritual life. In the narrower and more common sense, "freedom S." means freedom of religion. In the moral sense, S. cannot be otherwise than free.
CONSCIENCE
Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary. 2010 .
In other Greek. mythology S. gets fantastic. the image in the form of an image of the Erinyes, the goddesses of damnation, revenge and punishment, pursuing and punishing criminals, but acting as a benefactor (eumenides) in relation to the repentant. In ethics, the problem of personal S. was first posed by Socrates, who considered him the source of morals. judgments of his person (ancient Greek συνείδησις, like Latin conscientia, means both S. and awareness). In this form, Socrates advocated the liberation of the individual from the unconditional power over him of society. and tribal traditions. However, only at the time of S. acquires a great deal in ethics, which reflected the liberation of the individual from the feudal estates, guilds and churches. regulation during the development of bourgeois. relations. The issue of personal S. is one of the focus. in the ideology of the Reformation (Luther's idea that the voice of God is present in the minds of every believer and guides them regardless of the church). Materialist philosophers of the 17th–18th centuries (Locke, Spinoza, Hobbes, and other materialists of the 18th century), denying innate S., turn to its dependence on societies. upbringing, living conditions and interests of the individual. Limiting themselves to stating this dependence, they, like , come to a relativistic interpretation of S. Locke, for example, says that "... if we take a look at people as they are, we will see that in one place some feel pangs of conscience due to the commission or non-commission of acts that others elsewhere consider worthy "(Izbr. filos. proizv., v. 1, M., 1960, p. 99). Holbach expresses a similar one (see "The System of Nature", M., 1940, p. 140). The relativistic interpretation of S., which has an anti-feud among the enlighteners. and anticleric. orientation, proclaiming the freedom of personal S., nevertheless deprives in means. to the extent of S. of her personal, "internal" nature, makes her an object of influence of the state and society as a whole (although the educators do not deny that S. is the prerogative of the individual. Holbach defines S. as an assessment, to-ruyu "... we in our own soul give to our actions "-" Pocket ", M., 1959, p. 172).
In this idealistic developed the idea of an autonomous personality, which, regardless of society, determines morals. law. So, Rousseau believes that the laws of virtue are "written in the hearts of everyone" and to know them it is enough "... to delve into oneself and in the quiet of passions listen to the voice of one's conscience" ("On the influence of sciences on", St. Petersburg, 1908, p. 56). Kant considers truly morals. law for a rational being is only that which gives to itself. The idea of individual autonomy eventually led to a priori. interpretation of S. According to Kant, S. is not something acquired. Everyone, as a moral being, has a conscience from birth. The idea of individual autonomy was expressed even more sharply by Fichte, with t. sp. to-rogo unities. the criterion of morality is the S. "pure I", and the subordination to. external authority - dishonesty. Subsequently, this individualistic S.'s interpretation was taken to the extreme in existentialism, in ethical. the concept of which the universal nature of morals is denied. law: for example, Sartre considers unity. criterion of morality "absolutely free" individual plan, the refusal of a person from "bad faith" in c.-l. objective criteria.
Criticism of the relativistic and subjectivist understanding of S. was already given by Hegel, who at the same time showed the contradictory nature of S. S. t. sp. Hegel, S. "has its truth in the immediate certainty of itself", "determines, based on itself." But this S.'s self-reliance entails an "individual person" who can "give ... his conscientiousness" to any content. Therefore, Hegel points out, S. acquires its own only in "universal self-consciousness" thanks to the "general environment" (society), in which a person is located (see Works, vol. 4, M., 1959, pp. 339–52 ). However, recognizing the priority of societies. consciousness over the personal, Hegel interprets it objectively and idealistically, as the embodiment of the abs. spirit, but its immediate. considers religion to be an expression in the mind of the individual: "So, conscience in the greatness of its superiority over a certain law and any content of duty ... is moral, knowing that the inner voice of its immediate knowledge is the voice of the divine ... This lonely worship is at the same time in essence, the worship of the community ... " (ibid., pp. 351-52).
Feuerbach finds the materialistic the fact that S. appears to a person as the voice of his inner self and at the same time as a voice coming from outside, entering into and condemning his actions with a person. He calls S. the "other I" of man, but points out that this alter does not come from God and does not arise "by a miraculous way of spontaneous generation." “For, as belonging to this community, as a member of this tribe, this people, this era, I do not have in my conscience any special and other criminal statute ... I reproach myself only for what he reproaches me ... or at least he could reproach me if he knew about my actions or he himself became the object of an action worthy of reproach "(Izbr. filos. prod., vol. 1, M., 1955, p. 630).
The Marxist understanding of socialism reveals its social nature and shows it as the conditions for the vital activity of man and his ideological societies. position. “A republican has a different conscience than a royalist, a possessor has a different conscience than a have-not, a thinking person has a different conscience than one who is incapable of thinking” (Marx K., see Marx K. and Engels F., Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 6, p. 140). The sources of personal S.'s collisions should be sought, ultimately, in social contradictions that affect the individual in one way or another and are reflected in his consciousness. Contradictions between the interests of different classes, between societies. and personal interests, between the reflection of socio-historical. the need for the will of societies. institutions and understanding of the private person put before the individual own. choice, alternatives to which constitute the problem of his personal S. It is in this sense that Lenin’s instruction should be understood that “the idea of determinism, establishing the necessity of human actions, in no way destroys either the mind, conscience of a person, or the evaluation of his actions” (Soch. , vol. 1, p. 142). Marxism does not deny the specifically personal nature of socialism; it only reveals its content: the higher the society. development of the individual, her social activity and consciousness, the greater the role played by S. in her life. The conditions for this development of the individual are the elimination of class-antagonistic. relations in society and then communist. relations, as they are approved, legal coercion will gradually give way to morality. influence, and this influence itself will increasingly coincide with the commands of personal S. and therefore, in the overwhelming majority of cases, will be carried out through personal awareness by the individual. "...At human relations in fact, it will be nothing more than a sentence that the guilty pronounces on himself ... In other people, on the contrary, he will meet natural saviors from the punishment that he he imposed on himself ... " (Marx K. and Engels F., Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 2, p. 197).
Lit.: Lenin V.I., On communist morality, M., 1961; Kant I., Critique of practical reason, St. Petersburg, 1908; his, Fundamentals to the metaphysics of morals, M., 1912; Karring G., S. in the light of history, trans. from German, St. Petersburg, 1909; Kropotkin P. A., Ethics, part 1, P.–M., 1922; Hegel G. V. F., Phenomenology of Spirit, Soch., vol. 4, M., 1959, p. 339–61; his own, Philosophy of Law, vol. 7, M.–L., 1934; Sartre J.-P., Existentialism is, M., 1953; Volchenko L. B., Marxist-Leninskaya about S., "VF", 1962, No 2; Arkhangelsky L. M., Categories of Marxist Ethics, Sverdl., 1963; Berbeshkina Z. A., The problem of S. in Marxist-Leninist ethics, M., 1963; Sartre J. P., L "être et le néant, P., 1943; Revers W. J., Charakterprägung und Gewissensbildung, Nürnberg, 1951; Hollenbach J. M., Sein und Gewissen, Baden-Baden, 1954; Das Gewissen des Kindes, Stuttg., 1956; Niebuhr R., An interpretation of Christian ethics, N. Y., 1956; Moral and immoral society, N. Y.–L., 1960; Brunner E., Gott und sein Rebell, Hamb., 1958.
O. Drobnitsky. Moscow.
Philosophical Encyclopedia. In 5 volumes - M .: Soviet Encyclopedia. Edited by F. V. Konstantinov. 1960-1970 .
CONSCIENCE
CONSCIENCE - the ability of a person, critically evaluating himself, to realize and experience his inconsistency with the due - failure to fulfill his duty. Phenomenological manifestations of conscience are internal emotional discomfort (“reproaches, pangs of conscience”), guilt and. From a cultural and historical point of view, the idea and concept of conscience are formed in the process of understanding the various mechanisms of self-control. Unlike fear (before authority, punishment) and shame (which also reflects a person's awareness of his inconsistency with certain accepted norms), conscience is perceived as autonomous. Historically, conscience is rooted in and akin to shame; however, already early attempts to comprehend the experience, which later will be called “conscientious,” testify to the desire to differentiate shame itself and single out as something special “shame in front of oneself” (Democritus, Socrates) - a kind of exteriorized version of that control mechanism that will be called conscience. In ancient Greek mythology, this function was performed by the Erinyes; in “Orestes” by Euripides, it was interpreted as “consciousness of perfect horror”. The corresponding Greek the word - sineidesis (συνειδησιζ] - goes back to the verb ουνείδηνατ, which was used in expressions indicating a person's responsibility to himself for his unholy deeds. Also, the Latin word conscientia (which is a kind of tracing paper from Greek) was used to denote not only consciousness in general , but also consciousness or memories of committed bad deeds or consciousness that evaluates its own actions as worthy or unworthy.
In Christianity, conscience is interpreted as "God's power", as an indicator of moral duty (Rom. 2:15) - first of all, duty to God (1 Pet. 2:19). At the same time, the Apostle Paul speaks of conscience as a value consciousness in general, and thereby recognizes that those who adhere to different faiths have different consciences (1 Cor. 8:7,10), and therefore the conscience needs Christian purification (Heb. 9:14 ) achieved through faith and love. In medieval literature, the deepening of the analysis of the phenomenon of conscience was mediated by the appearance of a special term - sindeiesis - and the formulation of an additional one in relation to the traditional lat. conscientia concepts. In scholastic philosophy, this concept denotes the commanding power of the soul, the inner knowledge of principles, which, in contrast to the “law of reason” (lex rationis), is inspired by God in man. Conscience synderesis, in contrast to conscience-conscientia, that is, a person to evaluate specific actions as good (good) or evil (bad), was interpreted as: a) the ability (or habit) of judging the correctness of actions from the point of view of “original correctness”, a feeling which is preserved in the human soul despite the fall, and b) the ability of the will to commit right action. At the same time, the epistemological of these abilities was interpreted differently (by Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, Duns Scotus). The controversy around this concept revealed the various functions of conscience, more broadly - moral consciousness: awareness of values as the general foundations of behavior and specific actions in which the accepted values are affirmed or violated, that is, the correlation of specific actions with values. The distinction between conscientia and synderesis was preserved in part by early Protestant moral theorists. In many new European teachings, conscience is presented as a cognitive and moral force (reason, intuition, feelings), the fundamental ability of a person to make value judgments, to realize himself as a morally responsible being, intentionally defined in relation to good. For Kant, conscience denotes practical reason in the sense of the medieval concept of synderesis. The development of this line naturally led, within the framework of new European philosophizing, to the formation of a broader concept of moral consciousness (in many languages the word “conscience” is related and consonant with the words denoting “consciousness”, “knowledge”), highlighting its cognitive, imperative and evaluative functions. Along with this, attempts are being made to specify the actual concept of “conscience”. In the most general terms, it is interpreted as an “inner voice”; the differences relate to the understanding of the source of this “voice”, which is perceived either as independent of the “I” of a person, or as the voice of his innermost “I”, or as an “other self”. Related to this are various theoretical attitudes regarding the nature of conscience. 1. Conscience is the generalized and internalized voice of significant others or culture, and its content is culturally and historically fluid; in this vein, conscience can be interpreted as a specific form of shame (T. Hobbes, F. Nietzsche, 3. Freud); in its extreme form, the proposition about the external conditionality of conscience is found in the conclusion that conscience is from the political views or social position of the individual (K. Marx). 2. Conscience expresses a person's feeling of disagreement with himself (J. Locke) and thus acts as one of the certificates of a person's personality and self-consciousness (J. Butler, G. Leibniz). This interpretation is close to the understanding of conscience as the voice of an impartial rational person (J. Rawls). 3. Conscience is not only metaphorically, but also essentially interpreted as “the voice of another”; “through the mouth of conscience”, as it were, the Universal Law, the highest Truth, speaks, this is the voice (“call”) of transcendent forces: the guardian angel (Socrates), God (Augustine), natural law (Locke), the use of Desein (M. Heidegger).
These statements are not completely mutually exclusive. The first focuses on the mechanisms of historical and individual development conscience; in the other two, on the phenomenology of a less and more mature conscience. As a form of moral self-awareness and self-control, conscience expresses a person's awareness of the failure to fulfill his duty, the imperfection of good; in this respect, conscience is associated with feelings of responsibility and duty, and also, to no lesser extent, with the ability to be responsible and fulfill one's duty. Reproaches of conscience indicate to a person his alienation from the ideal and cause a feeling of guilt. In its highest state, conscience means the disappearance of duty in free good will.
These differences are accompanied by differences in understanding the content of conscience and the role it plays in the moral life of a person. Conscience can be interpreted negatively and positively. How does a negative conscience appear reproachful and warning, even frighteningly warning (Nietzsche), critical of the past, judging (Kant). In a positive interpretation, conscience, contrary to popular notions about it, also appears as calling, encouraging care and “determination” (Heidegger). The interpretation of conscience as the voice of God predetermines the understanding of it as a call to perfection; accordingly, conscience is perceived by a person as the will to perfection and is the main manifestation of the inner liberation of the individual. The perfectionistic dominant of conscience in individual moral experience is revealed in such a moral self-puzzling of a person, in which he turns out to be determined precisely in relation to the morally best.
The expressions “clear conscience” or “clear conscience” in ordinary speech denote a person’s awareness of the fulfillment of his obligations or the realization of all his possibilities in this particular situation. In essence, in such cases it is about dignity. The interpretation of the actual phenomenon of “pure conscience” is different in different normative-value contexts. Firstly, a “clear conscience” confirms to the externally oriented mind that it conforms to external requirements, and therefore evokes a sense of well-being and security,
Conscience is a kind of internal censor, controller and judge, inherent only to people. In a person's life, conscience can serve as a guide, help to act in accordance with moral rules. However, first you need to understand what conscience is.
What is the conscience?
To understand what conscience is, one can first turn to psychological and philosophical treatises. Psychologists understand conscience as an internal quality that indicates that a person is aware of his responsibility for a particular act. Philosophers call conscience a moral consciousness that is able to distinguish between good and bad, and induce a person to good deeds.
According to V. Dahl, conscience is a moral inner consciousness, a secret of the soul, in which actions are divided into those worthy of approval or blame, giving birth to love for good and hatred for evil.
A pure and calm conscience happens to a moral person who tries not to deviate from his rules. restless and bad conscience torments such an individual if he has done something unseemly. About a person who does not feel pangs of conscience even when committing very evil deeds, they say that his conscience is sleeping or lost.
How do believers understand conscience?
The term "conscience" appeared with the advent of Christianity, it is of Greek origin and consists of two words: "commonwealth" and "message". Those. in fact, conscience is a form of complicity in society. Believers identify conscience with the Almighty and his voice, which either pleases or punishes. An individual who has no conscience is a person without a soul for them.
What does it mean to have a conscience?
An unclean conscience manifests itself through reproaches, negative experiences, shame, and anxiety. With an absent or poorly developed conscience, a person does not repent when committing evil deeds, and sometimes he does not even realize that he has caused harm to someone by his actions. And, accordingly, he does not feel dissatisfaction with himself, shame and desire to rectify the situation.
The well-known psychologist Z. Freud once expressed an interesting theory of the appearance of conscience in a person. In infancy, the child is extremely dependent on parental feelings, so he very quickly learns important rules for adults, their values and worldview. And all this with the sole purpose of not causing disappointment to parents and not losing love.
Studies have shown that those children grow up more conscientious, to whom, in case of misconduct, adults expressed their grief, and not physically punished, because. such punishment leads to resentment and protest. In adulthood, a person with a conscience experiences, condemns and punishes himself with unseemly acts.
What to do if your conscience hurts?
Believers believe that if a person is tormented by conscience, he needs repentance. You can tell about your sins to the priest, he will listen and help. Unbelievers can confess to their mother or father, they will accept their child by anyone, and will not look at him through the prism of misconduct. If the conscience torments because of the act, as a result of which a person suffered, it is necessary to repent before him.
The forgiveness received will 
a real balm for the soul. To alleviate the torments of conscience and at least partially restore the balance between good and evil, you can do good deeds, prayers, fasting, work for the benefit of other people.
Psychologists advise, in the throes of conscience, not to try to drown them out, but to try to understand what exactly caused the loss of peace of mind. The perfect offense is not always equal to the torment experienced. For example, a girl may worry about losing her virginity before marriage because she was raised that way and is tormented by irrelevant morality. This girl needs to understand that her actions are personal achievements, which were influenced by her life experience.
Numerous examples of heroism and everyday selflessness show that a person is disinterestedly able to imbue other people's interests and fight for them with no less energy than for his hard-earned ones. Here the altruistic nature of man is manifested, strengthened by the awareness of his moral duty. It is these two factors that form the source of the energy of inspiration, spiritual uplift, which make up the spiritual basis of selflessness.
Speaking of inspiration as a source of selfless virtue, let's remember another moral principle: "Everything that you do for others, you do for yourself." What is the satisfaction of a person who acts on inspiration? In the consciousness of the fact that he committed an act dictated by conscience.
Conscience is a moral characteristic inner peace person. Conscience is also a test of good feelings and good deeds, which sometimes contradict personal interests. Imagine that you are driving a car important meeting, your future depends on it, and you can’t be late. And on the road you see a man lying in a pool of blood, apparently hit by a scorcher. The victim needs immediate help; except you, there is no one to give it to. At the same time, no law obliges to immediately help the wounded. You can drive to the nearest traffic police post, report the tragedy and “wash your hands”. So, it's up to your conscience...
Conscience - and the ability of a person to respond to someone else's pain. Is it an innate quality of any person or, like the ability to perceive music, is not inherent in everyone? If we recognize that man is by nature an altruist, then we must also recognize that every person has the natural rudiments of conscience, as well as the ability of a person to hear music. It is another matter that, under the influence of circumstances, such rudiments may not develop or, on the contrary, give healthy shoots. Much depends on the attitude towards the person. If you treat him in an inhumane way, he will most likely respond in kind. And yet, much depends on the person himself, on his inner need to see his own kind in another, the ability to take his place.
Arises new question: is conscience a pure impulse of feelings or is it based on reasonable foundations? The Spanish philosopher Fernando Savater, in his excellent book Discourses on Ethics, formulated similar rationales:
- a) if we want to live humanly, then we cannot be indifferent to others;
- b) it is necessary to constantly analyze whether we are doing what we really want;
- c) we need to develop good taste in moral matters to such an extent that we are kept from immoral acts by a natural feeling of disgust - the same, for example, as from the sight of a dead rat;
- d) we must not evade responsibility for our actions, referring to the fact that we were not free in them.
Now let's return to the moral principle, which we have already met: "Everything that you do for others, you do for yourself." How to understand it? And what satisfaction does a person get from what he does for others, in other words, lives according to his conscience?
Let's remember our example. So you are on the road. In front of you lies a heavily wounded man in a pool of blood. What to do? The clock dispassionately measures the time, which you have less and less to catch a happy turn of fate. “Ah ... - you think, - he will die anyway, and I have my whole life ahead of me and a brilliant chance.” You step on the gas and rush to the meeting point, the time of which cannot be changed. Of course, you are not a monster, and at the very first post of the traffic police you report the victim. You made it to the meeting and thanks to it you succeeded in life: you got a good position and a big salary.
But ... Will you not have a constant feeling of anxiety and distrust of people, because you cannot be sure that if an accident happens to you, someone will help you. Not out of revenge. It's just that everyone will rush about their fateful deeds. How will people around you learn about this story? With caution, distrust, apprehension, even hostility. Even those who rationally find excuses for you will beware. And, of course, the prestige of a new good position will fade. And let's be very practical: your leaders are unlikely to want a new fateful meeting for you. You lost. You have sowed distrust in yourself and in other people both in your soul and in those around you.
Now back to the traffic accident. You see how the wounded suffers, feel his pain, put yourself in his place, or maybe you imagine that one of your relatives or friends could also die here. And it already seems to you that the failed fateful meeting in the face of the tragedy that has unfolded is petty and insignificant. You are seized by that disinterested feeling of empathy, which thinkers called inspiration or, to put it simply, uplifting... You carefully place the wounded man in the back seat...
Yes, you were late for a meeting and lost your seat, but you gained much more: own example that human solidarity is not an empty phrase, kept the hope that, if misfortune happened to you, people would not leave you in trouble. You tested yourself for the strength of the spirit and made sure of it. You have earned the gratitude and respect of the rescued person, his relatives, friends, and those around you in general. And not only gratitude, but also a desire to help you in your difficulties (including, perhaps, with work). Such moral acquisitions are meant by the principle "Everything that you do for others, you do for yourself."
Question
Think about the example given to you. In which situation would you feel happier and more satisfied - in the first or second?
