Dydaktyczne aspekty poznania człowieka jako bio-psychiczno-społeczno-kulturalnej osobowości
Borys I. Palamar1,2, Halyna O. Vaskivska3, Svitlana P. Palamar3
1 State Scientific Enterprise “Scientific Practical Center for Prophylactic and Clinical Medicine” State Management of Affairs Department, Kyiv, Ukraine
2 Bogomolets National Medical University, Kyiv, Ukraine
3 Borys Grinchenko Kyiv University, Kyiv, Ukraine
Modern education, according to leading Ukrainian scientists, requires the development of a new paradigm, which will consider the phenomenon of man holistically. The article describes didactic aspects of cognition of human as a bio-psycho-socio-cultural personality, as social fact, as a phenomenon. For the actualization of the didactic aspects of the problem, the authors used the methods of scientific literature analysis, systemic analysis and generalizations, analysis own practice of didactic and methodological character. Reforming the systems of education and medicine should occur in the context of providing active, creative, productive human life. Practice of system analysis proved that man as a subject of study should be considered as a biological entity, a social being, the bearer of consciousness and culture. A holistic approach to the study of man, viewing him as creatures of the natural (bodily) and social individual (society, culture) and the subject of mental and spiritual (creative and deliberate) activity can reveal its unique originality. The uniqueness of the phenomenon of man as the subject and object of research lies in its indivisibility, which is based on the unity of the laws of nature and society. Therefore, when studying the person should take into account the interests of social and natural Sciences. This once again confirms the idea of the necessity of human studies with the help of a systematic approach, which generates true and holistic view of the person, that involves the development of meta-perception of world and ourselves.
Wiad Lek 2017, 70, 5, 959-963
The personal understanding of the ontopsychological core happens in different dimensions of human existence – biological, mental, social, cultural, because people have bio-psycho-socio-cultural personality. Therefore, according to leading Ukrainian scholars, the modern education requires development of a new paradigm, in which the integrity of a person is not conceived without spiritual improvement and continuous transformations of the inner world, which makes it possible to create a new beginnings. In this context are actuated, the didactic problems of understanding the nature of bio-psycho-socio-cultural personalities of people.
To characterize didactic aspects of understanding the nature of bio-psycho-socio-cultural personalities of people as a social phenomenon.
Materials and Methods
In order to actualize the didactic aspects of the problem we have used the methods of analysis of scientific sources, systematic analysis and generalization, our own works of didactic and methodical nature, results of the conducted empirical studies, interviews and conversations carried out after teaching the elective course “Humanities”, etc.
It was found that psychological science allocated a particular importance to studying people as holistic personalities. International scientists such as M. Verheimer, V. Keller, K. Coffka, K. Levin, F. Krueger, I. Folkelt, explained the personality as a holistic and unique psychological reality. Later, the idea of psychological integrity of a person was developed in the historico-cultural concept of L. S. Vygotsky, in the theoretical work of A. M. Leontiev and S. L. Rubinstein, in the axiological aspects of P. D. Yurkevich, in the humanitarian psychology of A. Maslow, K. Rogers, and also in the works of many modern psychologists – B.G. Anan’eva, A. G. Asmolov, S. D. Maksimenko, K. K. Platonov. American psychologists J. Royce and A. Powell developed a human model as a purpose-oriented super-system, that consists of six subsystems, the most important holistic goal of which is the creation of personal meaning.
An outstanding representative of humanity, the founder of modern medicine, Hippocrates argued, that clear understanding of a person derives from medical art and medicine, according to M. Blokhin – is the first science about humans. Hence, human knowledge for medicine and for pedagogy is a unique interdisciplinary comprehension of the diverse sets of knowledge, about people and their lifestyles.
Fundamental science, as a noumenal tool for understanding reality, produces great convincingly-indisputable methods, the universality of which goes by such a phenomenon as ‘personality’ with its uniqueness and individuality. It may seem that medicine also belongs to a circle of fundamental sciences, as it also seeks to identify and / or develop a specific toolkit for gaining knowledge about people, but it is only concerned with corporeality. Pedagogy, for example, or psychology are also interested in physiological characteristics of a person. However, for them, as well as for medicine, the goal is – individual, personality, uniqueness, phenomenon. Thus, medicine, despite the fact that it has an unsurpassed technological and technological potential, gained during the thousand years of experience of affecting the state of the person, can not solve its immediate tasks, without taking in to the account the integrity of man, the dialectical relationship of the general-special-unique-phenomenal.
So, both the doctor and the teacher should solve various issues, going beyond the scope of their scientific discipline. Such activity of both the doctor and the teacher is nothing less than an interdisciplinary synthesis of solving various humanitarian issues. For an example, we may use such aspect as understanding of the psychology of personality and the art of speaking. The teacher must understand the psychological and physiological state of the child in order to create an effective learning process and to be able to verbally stimulate students in order to awaken the desire to learn.
While performing their professional duties, doctors are often faced with (whether they want it or not) with psychological and ethical problems that need to be resolved with the help of knowledge from various branches of science, including humanitarian disciplines. The doctor’s ability to find the correct words for a particular patient at a certain moment, in the specific circumstances, works phenomenally – the face of the patient in the virtue of medicine and its means of treatment increases dramatically. Therefore, communicative skills for both a teacher and a doctor are equally important and equally inevitable in their professional activities.
In Ethics, questions about the integrity of human beings became increasingly important during the development of theories about comprehensive harmonious improvement of individuals on the way to attainment of their moral ideals. The development of the corresponding model – morally integral person – was conducted by S.F. Anisimov, L. M. Arangelsky, A. T. Drobnitsky, M. Kiselev, L. Kolberg, J. Piaget, A. V. Skrypchenko, S. G. Jacobson and others.
The system analysis has proven that aspects studied separately do not reveal the human personality as a holistic phenomenon. A human, as a subject of research, can be studied using different approaches: as a biological object, a social being, a carrier of consciousness and culture. At the same time, every person is unique and has his/her own individuality. Therefore, it is the diversity of manifestations of man that creates the integrity of humans as natural and social phenomena.
The systemic nature of the knowledge about people implies that there is unity between the object of different sciences, which is a component of the knowledge about humans (a human is simultaneously an object and a subject of the study), methods of these sciences (dialectic, systemic-structural methods of cognition and methods of mathematical statistics, etc.) and conceptual unity.
The process of cognition of a person in the training of future specialists has objective and subjective preconditions. Objective preconditions determine the orientation of science to adequately reflect the reality and gain real knowledge. Since the world is only-begotten, knowledge of it must be presented in unity. All subjects and phenomena belong to the same material world: in which they arise, change and disappear, turning into other objects and phenomena.
The methodological principles of a systematic approach to human knowledge must also be consistent with both the demands of society and the laws of individual development. Relevant questions were developed by such researchers as B. G. Ananiev, V. G. Afanasyev, B. M. Kedrov, I. T. Frolov, who, in particular, noted: «significant prospects open to biological knowledge and its connection with practice in the fields directly addressed to man, his genetics, psychophysiology, structure and activity of his brain [2, p. 30]». In exchange to the differentiation of sciences, their integration comes into being. In connection with this, B. Kedrov wrote that, as a result, a new methodological approach emerges, which still acts with the previous one, when one subject answered one subject and vice versa – this subject only corresponded one science, therefore, the relation between them was strictly unambiguous. Now more and more often it turns out that one subject should be studied simultaneously by many sciences in their interaction; instead, one science should deal not with one of its “own subject”, but with many other objects. Therefore, between studied sciences and subjects, relations vary significantly and are not unambiguous, but multi-valued: one subject at once corresponds to many sciences, and one science answers at once to many different subjects.
Considering the integration of science, V. I. Vernadsky made the following conclusion: «We are increasingly specializing not in sciences, but in the problem. This enables, on the one hand, to deepen into the studied phenomenon, and on the other hand, to expand its coverage from all the points of view [3, p. 54]».
Morphophysiological, genetic, neuro-brain, electrochemical and other processes of the human body provide biological existence. Mental is the inner (spiritual) world of human, and therefore, her conscious, subconscious, unconscious processes, will, character and temperament, memory, etc. Social existence of a person is determined by its position in society (its vital activity in general). As I. I. Mechnikov noted, «it is not enough to know the structure and functions of a human machine: one must still have accurate information about the social life of man [4, p. 271]».
A holistic approach to the study of a person, considering it as a being of the natural (physical) and a social individual (society, culture), the subject of mental and spiritual (creative and conscious) activity can reveal its exceptional uniqueness. As the Russian geneticist M.P. Dubinin has noted, on the basis of a fusion of social and genetic programs, each person becomes a unique human. As soon as we come to the path of biological or social standardization of personality, it will destroy humanity [5, p. 146].
Due to the fact that a person is a non-linear (comprehensive and multidimensional) system, the hierarchy of the respective levels and the connection between them is being actively studied. The historic-cultural view on the development of the psyche (Vygotsky L. S., Leontiev A. M., Luria A. R.) proved that the biological functions of man, in the course of their lives (while they actually become human), are determined by the culture and are able to change radically. Therefore, the psychic system can be considered as a super-system, and the biological – a subsystem.
Problems of a medical nature are not only the problem of medicine itself, or the health care system in general, which actually in not currently experiencing the best times in our country. Its reformation will not lead to anything good, if the spiritual, moral and ethical foundations of the life of each individual, without any exceptions, will continue be ignored. Thus, unjustified transformations in the health care system, that are those, which are not substantiated by theoretical models of medical science, do not correlate with medicine as a scientific form of human knowledge, can direct the missionary thinking of medical workers to the flow of post-industrial rubbish, generated not from love for man, but from the attitude towards humans as means of gaining power.
Medical knowledge is neither less special and nore less delicate way of obtaining a holistic knowledge of a person as a phenomenon than the understanding of humans, their personality and individuality through the psychological and / or pedagogical branches of science. Modern medicine, as a complex system of disciplines, is developing in synergy with such respected sciences, which are looking at philosophical, natural, technical, and humanitarian aspects of human existence. Irrespective to the course of development of medicine, the core of this science should remain in studying such spheres of human existence as socio-biological, philosophic, moral, ethical and psycho-social.
Man is seen as a system with a pyramidal principle of construction (the so-called A. Maslow’s pyramid), singling out, following the ancient Greeks, the lower, physical (from the Greek, soma – body), the middle, the psychic (Greek, psyche – soul), and the apex – the spiritual element (Greek, nous – spirit) is equal. The pyramid is organized according to its laws, it is hierarchical, and the decisive element that sets the regime of the system as a whole is the summit (apex). Interdependencies of elements inside the pyramid obey the laws of harmony, which ensure its dynamic stability and the possibility of development. A. Maslou, considering the system of human needs, sees it divided into hierarchical basic and equivalent meta-needs. Basic needs (physiological, existential, social, personal), according to A. Maslow, are actualized in the specifics of socio-cultural situations and «fading» as their satisfaction and actualization of other basic needs.
Since a person is a part of the world, it is included in it as one of the subsystems; at the same time, in its biological structure, a person has appropriate mini-systems-likeness, which reflects the entire organism. This is, for example, the outer ear, the iris, the skin on the palms and the feet, the changes in the structures of which diagnose the state of health, and influencing them, eliminate deviations, cure illnesses. An elemental mini-system like the body is each of its cells, so you can influence the vital activity of the body at the nanoscale.
Knowledge about a person is characterized by the quality of unity, since it is part of a unified scientific knowledge of the world and relates to it as a part and as a whole, mutually interconnected. Man as an object of research is studied versatile and multifaceted. The peculiarities of each science in particular are determined by the object of research, which is multidimensional, is divided by properties and indicators. This leads to the differentiation of the sciences that explore it. Man as a physiological object is the subject of research in biology. Human mentality is studied in philosophy, sociology and social psychology, and intellectual development – in pedagogy, psychology, etc. The more qualities are distinguished in the object of the study, the more indisputable there is the need to attract knowledge from different fields, and therefore the tendency to combine these knowledge becomes a weight.
Man can be known as a subject as one of the objects in the world of objects, if it is studied by anthropological sciences – biology, sociology, psychology, but man as a deep integrity of the elusive. As an example: «Only one word can cause various reflexes, make someone pale or redden, indulge the glands of the stomach up to a large selection of juices – its all because the word causes different manifestations. Therefore, the word on man commits the same effect as the reflexes of the first signaling system, caused by specific emotional impressions [6, p. 228-229]. «
In an effort to cognize the outworld, people have created many mythological, religious, natural philosophical systems that explain the events of everyday life and the phenomena of nature. In the last three or four centuries, cognition has become a special social activity, and science has joined the most ancient forms of cognition of the world – mythology, religion, art, philosophy.
The history of the development of science convincingly proves that in the beginning there was a man’s knowledge of nature, of the world, of himself. Over time, these cognitive secrets differed in various sciences, which were still divided. There was a «splitting» of a holistic picture into «skewers», which are now called specific sciences and have a narrow orientation, «specialty» and «specificity» which are defended by many scholars-theorists and practitioners-pedagogues.
Today, the need to rethink the content of knowledge of sciences in the context of developing the content of educational subjects came up, syne the educational subject is «a system of theories, laws, principles, postulates, categories, concepts, ideas, methods and facts of the relevant science, which is developed in educational purposes for educational purposes, embodied in a certain part of the educational material that meets the requirements of the curriculum and which must be mastered by students in order to master all the components of the content of education [7, p. 242] ».
In order to cognition the human, F. Bacon combines the science of society, culture and man, as well as philosophical reflections on the nature of man. They are similar «to the branches of a tree that grows out of one trunk [8, p. 210]”. Today, there are a variety of sciences that cognize a person.
The diversity of the human sciences confirms the opinion of B. G. Ananiev that «only in a human, nature and history are united by an infinite number of relationships and dependencies in one object, the nucleus of which is its existence as a person, a subject of practical activity, and cognition [9, p. 316]”.
Ukrainian philosopher V. G. Kremen believes that «being not only a living but conscious and intelligent creature, man was able to control the excess energy, realizing it in the special sphere of his human expression – a versatile creative activity aimed at his own being and himself . Being a truly human phenomenon, determined by the activity of a highly organized brain, and manifestation of the spiritual nature of man, creativity defined the basis and condition of all its further development. The activity at this level reveale the specifics of the «human phenomenon». Such activities are not limited by the orientation on the existing programs of action, whichever they were asked – nature or social. It implies the ability to continuously review and improve the programs underlying it, to continuously «reprogramming», to rearrange their own foundations, and, therefore, can be characterized as an open system [10, p. 117]”.
In general, the theory of education has long debated the question of the relationship between the two types of cognition – scientific and educational. There is a wide range of views on the nature of this relationship – from the recognition of the complete identity of the two forms of intellectual activity to the opposition of the process of learning knowledge to scientific knowledge. These views are systematized by scientists in a certain way:
1) the recognition of the identity of learning processes and scientific knowledge (Bruner J., Raikov S. E., etc.);
2) the breeding of these processes as unconnected, different (Broil L., Grudzov P.N., Lambert R.G., Ugodovsky K.P., etc.);
3) confirmation of unity of both processes with indication of their differences (Alekseev M. M., Aristova L. P., Vilkeev D. V., Danilov M. A., Esipov B. P., Makhmutov M. I., Ogorodnikov I. T., Onyshchuk B. O., Skatkin M. M., Shamova T. I., Shaporinsky C. A., etc.).
We share the views of the last group of scientists, according to whom the distinctive and the common aspects of these processes should be both noted.
The analysis of literature on the correlation of scientific and educational knowledge showed that these processes have a number of general – fundamentally important – moments, that allow to extend the laws of scientific cognition to the educational one in such cases.
Firstly, in each of them a constant interaction of two principles takes place: the object and subject of knowledge, during which the subject opens in the object of knowledge all the new entities, thus expanding their knowledge of it. In scientific knowledge object – the surrounding reality, the subject – a researcher with his activities on the study of the object. In the process of learning the object is the content of knowledge, the subject – a student with his activities on the theoretical and practical development of the object.
Secondly, they have a similar goals: in both cases, people are interested in enriching the perceptions of the environment and their inner world, in revealing the essence of the processes and their laws.
Thirdly, the thinking of a person is an important means of solving cognitive and educational-cognitive tasks.
Obviously, all sciences or scientific fields that study a person are interconnected and altogether give a holistic notion of a person.
Man is unique. Her researchs should have a holistic nature. That is why one of the main methodological concepts used to study a person is the concept of a systematic approach. It reflects the systemic nature of the universe. According to this concept, any system exists because there is a system-forming factor. In the system of sciences, studying a person, such a factor is the man himself, and it is necessary to study him in all the diversity of phenomena and connections with the outside world. Only under such circumstances it is possible to obtain a coherent idea of the person and the laws of its social and biological development.
The methodology of scientific knowledge of phenomena, processes, and facts stimulates self-development of a personality. A self-developing and a self-identified person is integral, and then stereotypes of education can easily be broken by her developed intuition and adequate reflection. We know that man is manifested as: an individual (biological origin: physical existence, natural properties); subject (organizational activity: recognizes in the subject-practical activity); personality (social principle: representative of a society (collective, group), defending its interests, its position among others – such as himself); individuality (collective principle: realization of oneself in co-operation); the universe (spiritual principle: the highest level of development).
The uniqueness of the phenomenon of man as the subject and object of the study lies in its indivisibility, which is based on the unity of the laws of nature and society. That is why in the study of man the interests of social and natural sciences are intersected. This again confirms the idea of the necessity of studying a person precisely with the help of a systematic approach, which forms a true and coherent idea of a person, which involves the development of a meta-analysis of the world and of himself (its not accidentally said «to rise above», «to look at the situation from above», etc.). Such a way of existence and development of personality is associated with the development of reflection – as a way of constructing a moral human life on a new conscious basis with the search for answers to eternal questions.
1. Royce J., Powell A. Individuality and pluralistic images of human nature. Impact, 1985, 2, 46-58.
2. Frolov, IT T. The nature of modern biological knowledge. Questions of Philosophy, 1972, 11, 28-38.
3. Vernadsky, VI I. Scientific thought as a planetary phenomenon. In 2 books Kn. 1: Reflections of the naturalist. Science, Moscow, 1977.
4. Mechnikov II, Etudes of optimism. Science, Moscow, 1988.
5. Dubinin N.P. Social aspects of human genetics. Scientific and technological revolution and man. Science, Moscow, 1977.
6. Glare, Hugo. Investigators of the human body. From Hippocrates to Pavlova [Die Entdecker des Menschen. Von Hippokrates bis Pawlow]. Medgiz, Moscow, 1956.
7. Gershunsky, B.S., Educational and Pedagogical Prognostics. Theory, methodology, practice. Flint; Science, Moscow, 2003.
8. Bacon, F. Works: in 2 t. – T. 1. Moscow, 1971.
9. Ananiev, B.G. On the Problems of Modern Human Knowledge. Science, Moscow, 1977.
10. Kremen, V.G. Philosophy of human-centeredness in the strategies of educational space. Ped opinion, Kyiv, 2009.
Address for correspondence
Borys I. Palamar