Gehlen (Gelen) Arnold( German philosopher and sociologist)
Comments for Gehlen (Gelen) Arnold
Biography Gehlen (Gelen) Arnold
(1904-1976) - It. philosopher and sociologist. He studied philosophy in Leipzig and Cologne, student G. Driesch. Since 1934 - Professor. in Leipzig in 1938 - in Cologne, in 1940 - in Vienna. Since 1942 - Professor. sociology at the Graduate School of Management Sciences, since 1962 - Graduate of the. School Aachen. The scientific evolution of G. began with a period of 'absolute phenomenology' in the spirit of Fichte, Hegel, and Herbart ( 'Actions. and inactivated. spirit ', 1931;' The theory of free will ', 1933). Gradually, under the influence of philosophy, English. empiricism and amer. pragmatism (most of all - work, Dewey), his views are becoming less spiritualist ( 'On the concept of experience', 1936, 'Results of Schopenhauer', 1938).
Basic Fixes. composition G. - 'Man. Its nature and its position in the world '. Already in the first year of its appearance (1940) has stood the two editions, all in the life of Mr.. - At least 12 times.
Main for Philosophy. Anthropology G. is the representation of the structure of a human. motivation. In humans, there is no instinct for survival, resulting in a surplus of motivation (which is most clearly illustrated by the movements of humans). The thesis of the dominant unconsciously vital areas and the status of Nietzsche the man, 'as yet undecided animals' served with D. biol. rationale for the specificity. Human Nature. According to GM, the person is 'biologically inadequate' essence, because he lacks the instincts, because it 'incomplete' and 'nezakreplen' in animal biology. organization, and therefore denied the opportunity to exclusively estestv. existence. Man forced to seek non-animal means of reproducing their life history, on-in and its institutions are forms, complementing biol. insufficient human and optimally realizing its aspirations of a semi -.
Bioantropol. predetermination of cultural forms is being developed in the pluralistic. ethics, to-ц¦цЁц+ can be seen as identity. response to the increasing role of intelligence in a human. life. The latter leads to a weakening of instinctive human functions, deprives him of his feelings directly. sliyannosti with the world. G. rejects the appeal to the mind the concept obschechelovech. morality as abstr. humanitarianism and lifeless, devoid of real grounds and pulses. He examines the moral. behavior from two sides: biological - with special. natural science categories; cultural and historical - in this case studying the spiritual essence of a particular product tradition, the concrete-History. situation. His communities conclusion is that cultural and social life - no more than an epiphenomenon of vital reason - human genetic data biol. assumptions and a semi-dispositions and attitudes.
In recent years, Mr.. been developing the concept of social institutions ( 'Primitive man and later culture', 1956, etc.). Because man can not be regarded as a 'thinking thing', and humane. Life needs a guide, then a social institution and is the regulatory agency that directs the actions of people in ODA. channel as well as the instinct of animals sent. Ordering behavior sociocultural institutions based on the assertion that the proposed path of action - the only possible. Basic Fixes. problem of industrial-va r. thought so, deinstitutionalization of the private sphere in comparison with the sphere of public activity.