Let's start our story about modern painting with the Spanish painter Francisco Goya (1746-1828), whose works are exhibited next to the works of French masters. This artist, standing alone against the bleak background of Spanish art of that time, was the real spiritual father of the painters of the 19th century. They learned from him a deep patriotic feeling and true democracy, an unbridled flight of imagination and comprehension of life. In the Louvre, Goya is represented by only a few, far from major works, but it is impossible not to talk about them, because everything created by the brilliant Spaniard is interesting, talented, amazing. The artist's Louvre paintings are portraits of: Ferdinand Guilmardet - envoy of the French Republic (1798), Perez de Castro - diplomat, later first secretary of the Cortes (1799), Spanish aristocrats - Marquise de la Solana (1792-1794) and Marquise de la Mercedes ( 1799). The images of men emphasize their strong-willed, energetic nature. These are people of action, confidently following their chosen path. Women, on the contrary, are fragile, sad natures. The portrait of the Marquise Solana is a real symphony of black, gray and pink tones. The woman's face is ugly and painful. But with what skill was written a black dress with fringe, a light pink cape on fluffy hair, decorated with a pink bow! White gloves and a gray and yellow fan complete the simple and sophisticated outfit. In his portraits, Goya relied on the best traditions of Spanish painting during its heyday and enriched them.
The Beistegu collection gives an idea of the French portrait of the 19th century. For completeness, several portraits from the old collection of the Louvre were added to it. Jacques Louis David (1748-1825) opens this gallery. The versatility of his talent is evidenced by the portraits of the Ceresia spouses and a self-portrait executed almost simultaneously, in the mid-90s. Madame and Monsieur Ceresia are young and carefree. Their poses convey the naturalness and spontaneity of people relaxing in the lap of nature. The sky covered with light clouds behind the figure of Monsieur Ceresia and a bouquet of wild flowers in Madame’s hands further enhance the feeling of a rural idyll. Delicate white, blue, pink, light yellow tones, smooth curves of lines are full of harmony. This is not a self-portrait. Behind the external calm of the pose - David sits in a chair, holding a palette and brush in his hands - one can discern a tense internal struggle. There is confusion in the brown eyes, the dark hair is in disarray, the asymmetrical face is pale. Even the gray robe with crimson lapels falls around the figure in uneven, restless folds. In the manner of writing there is a temperament that is not typical for the artist. The portrait was painted after the defeat of the revolution of 1789-1794, when a member of the Convention, Robespierre's friend David, was imprisoned. This is a frank conversation with himself of a person painfully repeating the question: what will happen next?
David's student Ingres (1780-1867) inherited his outstanding talent as a portrait painter. It’s easy to see this by looking at the portrait of Bertin Sr. (1832), the founder of the newspaper “Journal de Debates.” An elderly man sits in a chair with his plump hands with short fingers on his knees. Thin lips are tightly compressed, dark gray eyes look confident and piercing. But the power of figurative generalization is such that behind each individual feature of Bertin one can discern the characteristic features of an entire class, that very successful financial bourgeoisie that came to power as a result of the revolution of 1830 and felt like the mistress of the country. So one portrait became a symbol of an entire era. The main means of expression for Ingres has always been the line. Elastic, springy in the portrait of Bertin, she smoothly rounds in the portrait of Madame Rivière and becomes graceful, slow in the portrait of her daughter (both portraits were painted in 1805). Like no one else in the 19th century, Ingres was able to prove the limitless possibilities of linear drawing, combined with almost imperceptible cut-off modeling. The color in his paintings is local, completely subordinated to linear rhythm.
The direct opposite of Ingrou-Eugene Delacroix (1798-1863). Color for him is one of the main artistic means. Look at the portrait of Frederic Chopin (1838). How the combination of dark tones of the suit, reddish background and pale earthy tones of the face enhances the expressiveness of the image. How Chopin’s broad, temperamental style of writing helps to reveal the variability and mobility of Chopin’s appearance. It was not so much the external resemblance that attracted Delacroix as the transmission of inspiration and the intensity of creative search.
David, Ingres, Delacroix... Turning to these painters, you find yourself in the thick of the problems of the 19th century. However, portraiture was not a leading genre in the art of those years. The fate of artists and their attitude towards them were determined by thematic paintings, which were most often painted on large canvases. As if competing, David and Ingres, Gros and Gericault, Delacroix and Courbet chose huge canvases. They can only be exhibited in spacious halls with high ceilings. These are the already mentioned halls Daru, Denon, Mollien. It is best to visit them on a sunny day. On gray winter days, twilight reigns there, and then it is difficult to appreciate the color richness of the paintings, darkened by time. You can go to the Daru, Denon, Mollien halls immediately from the portrait gallery, but it is advisable to start your inspection from the Daru staircase, where the Nike of Samothrace stands. Then the visitor will clearly imagine the change in artistic trends in the first half of the 19th century.
David was the greatest artist of the era of the revolution and the First Empire, a characteristic representative of revolutionary classicism. “In the classically strict traditions of the Roman Republic,” wrote K. Marx, “the gladiators of bourgeois society found the ideals and artistic forms, the illusions they needed in order to hide from themselves the bourgeois-limited content of their struggle, in order to maintain their inspiration at the height of the great historical tragedy" ( K. Marx, F. Engels. Selected Works, vol. 1, p. 213.). When David’s painting on the ancient subject “The Oath of the Horatii” (1784) appeared in one of the pre-revolutionary salons, the French saw in it a direct response to modern events. An old father sending his sons to fight for their homeland, and sons swearing an oath to die but to win - wasn’t this theme consonant with the sentiments of the third estate heading towards revolution? The ancient heroes expressed his thoughts, his confidence in success, his courage and perseverance. The complex experiences expressed in the artist’s self-portrait would be inappropriate here. And David rejects psychologism and individualization. The pathos of his heroes is in solidity and unity - the figures of the three sons merge into one, their arms rise in the same gesture, their feet step in the same way. And the old father? He is also heroic, confident in himself and his sons. Even women do not give in to despair - they are submissive to the will of their father and will do their duty. David literally sculpts human figures in chiaroscuro; the contours are rigid, the volumes are defined, relief is felt everywhere. This feeling of sculpture is not interfered with by local colors - red, white, blue. The painting of David can be compared to a speech delivered from the rostrum of the National Assembly; it resembles a heroic theatrical spectacle, like a patriotic ode.
When the revolution died down and the Empire was proclaimed in the country, Jacques Louis David - the first artist of revolutionary France - became Napoleon's first painter. This had its own pattern, the logic of the bourgeois revolution, which determined the fate of its participants and ideological fighters.
In the same Daru room is the Coronation of Josephine (1805-1807), commissioned from David by Napoleon. It is not the harsh tread of the revolutionary era, but the luxury of the imperial court that is captured on this canvas. The shimmering silks of white women's dresses, the shine of embroidered red velvet cloaks, the shimmer of gold jewelry, the splendor of plumes - everything breathes elation and solemnity. Marshals, clergy, diplomats, court ladies and gentlemen froze in majestic and at the same time tense poses - they depend on the emperor, monitoring the slightest changes in his mood. Napoleon standing on a hill is both the semantic and compositional center of the picture. Over his white silk robe is a dark red robe lined with ermine. There is a golden crown on her short-cropped hair. The face is calm and pale. No emotions are reflected on him. While working on the portrait, David, of course, remembered the words of the emperor: “It is not the accuracy of the features and the spot on the nose that determine the similarity... No one asks whether the portraits of great people are similar. It is enough for their genius to live in them.” Napoleon had every reason to be pleased with the picture. For more than an hour he silently looked at the nine-meter canvas and finally said: “David, I greet you.” Following the emperor’s words, a friendly chorus of praise was heard from those close to him. But “Coronation” is not only a hymn to Napoleon, it is a historical painting by a talented artist. Looking at him carefully, you begin to comprehend the relationships between people hidden at a quick glance, to unravel the tangle of court intrigues... Why is Pope Pius VII so lethargic and weak-willed, while in a separate portrait he is full of dignity and intelligence shines in his eyes? Why does Talleyrand smile sarcastically? David was an excellent portrait painter and saw in a person not just an elegant mannequin, but a certain character. Unwittingly, he revealed the humiliating role of the pope specially summoned to the coronation; he could not ignore the smart Talleyrand, who saw in the ceremony not its external side.
Not far from the "Coronation of Josephine" you can see the works of Antoine Gros (1771-1835), a student of David. Leaving for exile after the Bourbon restoration, David entrusted him with his workshop, and Gro tossed between the desire to follow David’s precepts and the inability to write like a teacher.
One of Gro’s most memorable paintings is “The Plague-Infected in Jaffa” (1804), also associated with the Napoleonic epic. The moment is depicted when Napoleon, wanting to raise the spirit of the army and dispel fears, touches his hand to a plague patient. In the foreground are the dead and seriously ill. They are written with amazing expression. These are strong, beautiful people, in whose images there is something Michelangelo-like. The more tragic their despair and death throes are perceived. Their backs bent, their hands fell, their eyes became bloodshot, their hair scattered. Temperamental strokes of red-brown, gray-blue, green paint increase the tension of the scene. David never painted so broadly, never used such a sharp comparison of plans (in Gros the entire first plan is in shadow, and the second, the main one, is brightly lit), did not turn to a golden, warm tone (the light in his paintings was cold, diffused).
After Gros, you can move on to Theodore Gericault (1791-1824), an artist from whom both the romantics and realists of the 19th century equally followed in their work. His most famous painting is “The Raft of the Medusa” (1818-1819). Its plot is taken from life. On July 2, 1816, the frigate “Medusa” was shipwrecked. One hundred forty-nine people were saved on the raft. The raft rushed across the ocean for eleven days. On the twelfth day only fifteen dying people remained, maddened by hunger and suffering. Géricault depicts the moment when the shipwrecked people notice a sail on the horizon. Despair and indifference turn into hope. Perhaps none of the French artists has revealed such a multifaceted and at the same time holistic theme of the awakening hope. In the foreground, the figure of a father is visible, frozen in a mournful pose over the body of his son. Shocked by grief, he is unable to react to his surroundings. But the viewer's gaze gradually moves from one figure to another and finally stops at the black man who climbed onto the barrel. He is not in strength to stand on the shaky pedestal. The hands of his comrades pick up and support him, as if “pouring” the remnants of their strength into him. And indeed, the figure of the black man does not seem emaciated - his muscular back and arms are full of strength. The dark silhouette appears plastically and elastically against the background of the lightening pink-yellow sky. Man rose above the elements and overcame it. The green-blue waves of the sea calm down in the depths, the dark clouds move to the side. But Gericault’s heroes overcame something more than the elements. Finding themselves in tragic conditions, they passed with honor through despair, disbelief, mutual alienation, everything that could separate them and finally destroy them. People remained people. All of Gericault's work was filled with a passionate faith in the moral strength and beauty of man. As for the artists of the Renaissance, man for Géricault was the measure of everything on earth.
T. Gericault. Raft "Medusa". Fragment. 1818-1819
At the age of 33, Gericault died. Many years later, Delacroix wrote, recalling this sad event: “One of the greatest misfortunes that art could suffer in our era is the death of the amazing Gericault.” In fact, Géricault took over the baton of progressive art in France from the hands of David. Unlike artists of the academic movement, he chose the theme of the painting from modern life, chose an episode that also had political overtones (the opposition blamed the shipwreck on the captain of the Medusa, who received the position through patronage). He painted the canvas based on numerous sketches from life, striving for extreme vitality and concreteness of images, for an emotionally excited expression of feelings.
Géricault's successor was the head of progressive romanticism, Eugene Delacroix. The Louvre collection allows one to become quite familiar with his work. Here is The Chios Massacre (1824), exposing the atrocities of the Turkish conquerors on the Greek island of Chios. Captured Greeks occupy the entire foreground of the composition. Among them are not only men, but also women and children. Before death, people say goodbye and support each other. Particularly memorable are the mad old woman and the dead woman with her child. The old woman’s bony face is pale, her lips are almost bloodless, and there are tears in her eyes with reddened eyelids. Next to her is a dead young mother. Her body, painted in gray-yellow and lilac strokes, is contrasted with the pink, even reddish body of the child. The elegant clothes of the women, contrasting with the deathly pallor and frenzied madness of their faces, seem to speak of how joyful and beautiful life could be.
In general, Delacroix uses contrasts unusually widely: he compares people of different ages, characters, contrasts life and death, despair and perseverance. And in color, which has always been the main means of expression for him, he loves to alternate warm and cold, sonorous and dull tones, achieving amazing richness and versatility of the color scheme. Colors lose their locality, echo and complement each other, change in the shadows and acquire a new shine in the light. Color puts the viewer in a certain mood, excites imagination, helps the artist express thoughts that excite him, and reveal all the wealth of images crowded in his imagination.
Next to the "Chios Massacre" in the Mollien Hall hangs "Freedom on the Barricades", inspired by the 1830 revolution. “I turned to a modern subject, a barricade...” Delacroix wrote to his brother, “and if I didn’t fight for my fatherland, then at least I’ll write for it.” The color scheme of the picture is restrained. By muting the blue, lilac, yellow, and cyan tones, the artist makes the red stripe of the tricolor banner sound especially intense. This main color chord draws attention to the semantic center - the powerful and confident figure of Freedom. She walks through the barricade, carrying people with her: a worker, an intellectual (in his image Delacroix portrayed himself), a Parisian boy, a student... In the distance, the outlines of Notre Dame Cathedral appear from the gunpowder smoke. The picture is like an excited revolutionary song - an appeal. No wonder it was nicknamed “Marseillaise of French painting.”
After "Freedom on the Barricades" Delacroix moved away from modern themes and focused mainly on historical painting. One of the most impressive paintings of this kind is “Entry of the Crusaders into Constantinople” (1840). Red, blue, crimson clothes, decorated with gold and silver embroidery, expensive utensils scattered on the ground, dark green columns with golden capitals convey the luxury and beauty of the East. And in the center is a group of crusaders against the backdrop of a defeated city. The Crusaders are uninvited guests here, trampling the fragrant civilization of the East. They sow despair and death, deaf to the pleas and complaints of the residents. It is impossible to pass by the female figure on the right, it is so boldly, in a new way, it is solved in color. Bluish-lilac shadows in combination with pink convey tenderness, living trepidation of the body, which seems to breathe and vibrate in the light. The faded crimson and bluish tones of the dress create a kind of frame for this magnificent piece of painting. How lifeless and cold the paintings of Ingres (“The Apotheosis of Homer,” “Joan of Arc”) seem next to Delacroix’s paintings. It is not the excited creator who appears in them, but the rational, learned archaeologist.
To appreciate Ingres, you need to see “Odalisque” and “Bather”, exhibited on the third floor. Before us is a completely different Ingres - more sincere and poetic. The flexible naked bodies of young women are tender and reverent, the rhythm of their movements is musical.
The third floor is a kind of accompaniment to the large halls. The visitor again meets David, Ingres, Géricault ("Running of Free Horses"), Delacroix ("Dante and Virgil", sketches "Nude in Stockings", "Shoes", "Interior of the Apartment of Count Morny"). But he sees some artists for the first time. These are those who did not or almost did not paint large canvases: landscape painters of the Barbizon school, genre painters, portrait painters... We have an idea of the realistic direction of French landscape of the 19th century from the collections of Leningrad and Moscow. Camille Corot (1796-1875) and Theodore Rousseau (1812-1867), Jules Dupre (1811-1889) and Charles Daubigny (1817-1878) did not “correct” nature according to accepted models and did not look for unusual effects. They painted their France, everyday and close, in tune with the moods and experiences of the common man. Painters found motifs for paintings in the green forest of Fontainebleau, on the roads and fields in the vicinity of Barbizon, along the banks of the calm or in the shady forests of Ville d'Auvray. Here is a small sketch by T. Rousseau "Cows at a Watering Place" (1852-1855). How does it differ from intelligently composed landscapes by Poussin and Lorrain. There are no scenes, mythological or biblical characters. Just a small swampy lake, a few rickety trees on the shore and cows coming to the water. The dying sun colors the sky, the tops of the trees, and the foreground is already plunging into darkness. Only the lake , as if absorbing the brightness of the day, glows slightly in the twilight. Nature for Rousseau is full of variability. Looking at the sketch, one can easily imagine that a few moments later the golden reflections will go out, a woman will drive the cows home and darkness will envelop a field, a lake, a forest, a village in the distance .
Rousseau painted most of his landscapes in Barbizon, a small village near Paris. Nowadays, the village makes a completely different impression: loud advertisements and cafe signs flash, the silence is broken by car horns and the voices of tourists. But for art lovers, Barbizon will forever remain a quiet corner where French artists first experienced the charm of rural nature.
Unlike the Barbizonians, Corot chose other places in the vicinity of Paris: Ville d'Auvray and Mortefontaine, Mantes and Pierrefonds. Now Ville d'Auvray or Mantes have changed: the trees have grown, the cathedrals have suffered from time and war, the place of the lonely fisherman Corot has been taken by guys with fishing rods, in modern leather jackets. But the artist so subtly captured the peculiarities of the nature of Ile-de-France that even today, a hundred years later, you recognize his favorite corners. In all Corot's landscapes, calm and harmonious, lives the soul of a peaceful artist, in love with dusk and dawn, with the tremulousness of foliage, and with the delicate harmony of architecture. This is the “Bridge at Manta” (1868-1870) from the former Moro-Nelaton collection: greenish grass, dark tree trunks, surrounded here and there by a light cloud of leaves, behind them the smooth surface of the river, reflecting the gray-blue sky and the pinkish-ash bridge, and , finally, the clear spans of the bridge arches and coastal buildings. There is not a single bright spot, the colors imperceptibly transform into each other, now saturated with light, now losing it. And, as always, a small sonorous stroke - a red spot on a fisherman's cap... The Louvre also has magnificent portraits by Corot. Actually, they can’t even be called portraits. Corot's heroines are most often women, internally similar to each other. These are contemplative natures, immersed in a dream. “Woman with a Pearl” (1868-1870) sits in a pose close to “La Gioconda”: her hands are folded on her knees, her head and figure are slightly turned. But her face is concentrated and melancholy, without a mysterious smile. The picture convinces us of the inexhaustible possibilities hidden within the seemingly “unwinning” gray tone. It acquires warm shades from proximity to reds, becomes cold next to blues and light blues, then brightens, then seems almost brown. “Symphony of Gray” emphasizes the softness and balance of the model.
Corot's close friend was the outstanding graphic artist, painter and sculptor Honore Daumier (1808-1879). Their friendship was not hampered by the opposite natures. It is not contemplation, but an active attitude towards the environment that characterizes Daumier’s work. Unfortunately, in the Louvre you cannot fully get acquainted with the artist’s art. During his lifetime he was known only as Count. When in the 20th century French museums wanted to acquire Daumier’s paintings, many of them ended up in foreign museums and private collections. Only with the help of the Society of Friends of the Louvre was it possible to obtain several paintings. Among them are "The Republic of 1848", "The Washerwoman", "Scapin and Crispen".
"Republic" is a sketch submitted to a competition in 1848. Daumier depicted the Republic as a woman feeding and educating her children. She hugged the child with one hand and held a tricolor banner in the other. The figure, painted in warm brownish-golden tones, is full of power and truly monumental. "The Washerwoman" (circa 1860) speaks to the artist's ability to find epic grandeur in everyday life. A laundress, loaded with a bundle of wet linen, slowly rises to the embankment. She leans over to the child and helps him overcome the high steps. Daumier does not seek to talk in detail about his heroine. He creates a generalized image, devoid of everyday life, which organically combines a sad story about hard work, a touching hint about maternal care, and a proud awareness of the strength of a working person. The painting "Scapin and Crispin" (circa 1860) reveals other aspects of Daumier's talent: understanding of human psychology, excellent knowledge of the world of theater. At the back of the stage, theatrical scenery is visible: a painted blue sky and yellow-lilac trees. Against their background, illuminated by the ghostly light of the footlights, Scapin and Crispin, the traditional heroes of Molière’s comedies, are having a dialogue. Scapin, folding his arms over his chest, hidden under wide sleeves, grins venomously. There is something satanic in his face, on which the pink-red reflexes are burning. Crispen, dressed in a black robe, brightened by a white collar, covers his mouth with his hand and whispers in his partner's ear. If you compare “Gilles” by Watteau and “Scapin and Crispin” by Daumier, you can clearly imagine the path of French art over a century and a half. "Gilles" looked at the world with sadness, Daumier's heroes - with bitterness and sarcasm. Through their images, the artist expressed his disappointment in life, hiding “invisible tears” behind their laughter and smile. Turning to Moliere, Cervantes and La Fontaine, Daumier always wrote his own controversial century, finding living features of modernity in immortal heroes.
The work of the second outstanding realist of the 19th century, Jean Francois Millet (1814-1875), is more richly represented in the Louvre. The artist is well acquainted with the hard work and household chores of peasants ("Windwinner", "Gatherers of Ears of Ears", "Churning Butter", "Maternal Cares", "Seamstress"). He looks at rural workers not as an outside observer, but as a person in their midst. After all, Millet himself was the son of a Norman farmer and in his youth helped his father in field work. This attitude towards the peasants to a certain extent determined the artistic features of Millet's style. The images of people in his paintings are majestic and dominate the surrounding nature. In the alternation of figures and leisurely gestures, the rhythmic principle inherent in the labor process is perfectly revealed. Drawing and modeling do the basics, and gentle muted colors enhance the feeling of harmony and silence. The combination of genuine monumentality with poetry and emotionality is the secret of Millet's charm.
Having begun his creative career in Paris, Millet moved to Barbizon in 1849, where he remained until the end of his days. And now his house stands on the Grand Rue, open to visitors. There are many paintings, engravings and drawings in the rooms, but these are mostly uninteresting works by the son and students. Much more impressive is the furnishings of the house, the workshop where the artist’s palette is displayed, the dining room that served as a reception room for friends, the garden in which Millet usually worked in the mornings.
In order to get an idea of the art of the leader of French realism, Courbet (1819-1877), one must again go down from the third floor to the Mollien Hall. Large canvases by Courbet hang here, depicting his contemporaries, and contemporaries who did not accomplish any outstanding deeds, ordinary, unremarkable people. The artist spoke about his range of interests in the painting “Atelier” (1855). In the center of the canvas he depicted himself. He writes about his beloved nature in the province of Franche-Comté. Nearby stands a model who has shed her dress, whose image seems to indicate that Courbet sees the world without embellishment, as it is. The boy watching the artist’s work personifies the curiosity of the people. On the right are Courbet's friends: philosophers, poets, critics, his first assistants and advisers. On the left are the people: a hunter, a merchant, a priest, a worker, a peasant, a beggar woman, who inspire his plebeian muse. Of course, one cannot help but see in this composition a kind of real allegory, a “pictorial manifesto” polemically directed against academicians. Courbet constantly felt himself on the “crest of a wave”, actively intruding into the very thick of the aesthetic and political struggle of his time. When the Commune was proclaimed in Paris in 1871, he became a member of it and headed the Federation of Artists.
Next to the "Atelier" is Courbet's strongest, most impressive painting, "Funeral at Ornani" (1849). The canvas depicts an ordinary funeral. Bearers and honorary citizens of the city in black, a priest, altar boys in white, clerks in bright red cloaks and hats, a gravedigger in a white shirt and green trousers, old men in bluish-gray suits of the late 18th century, women in black dresses and white caps - everyone provincial society, full of self-respect, gathered in front of the open grave. People stand calmly, forming a frieze, echoed in the distance by the outlines of the plateau. Accords of black and white, enlivened by red and green spots, sound solemnly. But everyday, prosaic and even grotesque, mocking notes are woven into the solemn melody. The priest does not speak, but mumbles, the servants are bored, the gravedigger is openly in a hurry, the woman grins slyly... And what are the clerks worth, looking at the drunkards around them with the dull eyes! The tragic and the comic live here side by side. But this is the complexity and contradictory nature of life, a whole layer of which is raised in “Funeral at Ornani.”
Courbet always went from nature. At the same time, like other artists of the 19th century, he carefully studied the heritage of the old masters. His predecessors are not difficult to find in the same Louvre among the Spanish painters of the 17th century. From them the Ornan master learned the laconicism of composition, the sonority of black color, and the richness of writing. In an effort to convey living materiality, Courbet sculpts shapes with color and applies paint in dense layers.
This is clearly visible not only in thematic paintings, but also in landscapes, for example, “The Battle of the Deer” (1861). By different means than in “Funeral at Ornani”, the same tragic and beautiful joy of existence is expressed here. Deer grappled in a mortal duel. The legs rest on the ground, the muzzles lower and rise, the eyes become bloodshot. And behind the animals stand, like the columns of an ancient temple, tree trunks and the light pours victoriously. Whether Courbet depicts a forest thicket, mountain spurs or the sea, everywhere he feels the powerful forces of the natural elements.
Where does this feeling of the flesh of the earth come from? Didn't the artist pick it up in his native land?
The author of these lines had the opportunity to spend some time in Courbet’s homeland in Ornan and its environs. The forests of the Jura still amaze with their power. The trunks of huge trees are entwined with ivy, there are stones covered with soft moss everywhere, babbling streams and waterfalls. Ornan is a quiet provincial town, peacefully located on the banks of the Lu River. Here, right next to the water, there is a house where Courbet lived not only in childhood, but also in his adult years. In the central square, the “Fisherman Statue” is a gift from Courbet Ornani. When the artist joined the Commune, reactionary shopkeepers smashed the statue. Only many years later the monument was restored. A naked teenager stands on a tall grassy pedestal of stones. In his hand is a trident, with which he is going to hit a trout. The sculpture is located near the Fisherman's Cafe, and two- and three-story houses with tiled roofs are lined up around it. The city hall with the Courbet Museum is nearby. Several landscapes and still lifes are collected here; the artist’s pipe, palette and photographs are stored here. But the most impressive is Courbet's Self-Portrait in Prison (1871). A cheerful, plump man turned into a thin prisoner, concentrated, thoughtful. But there is no strain in the image.
Courbet is the last great painter whose paintings hang in the halls of the Louvre. Works by his younger contemporaries, the Impressionists, from the same collection are located in another building.
We have already walked through all the halls of the most famous museum in France. As always, when you leave the museum, you feel tired. After all, paintings and sculptures spoke to the viewer in their own special language - the language of artistic images, and sometimes required long thoughts. There can be no doubt that among the variety of movements, schools, and individuals represented in the Louvre, the visitor found something for himself that will forever leave a deep imprint on his soul. Every person who is not deprived of the ability to see and feel will leave the Louvre spiritually enriched, happy from contact with beauty.
In the Renaissance, the medieval concept of the Divine principle was replaced by rational ideas, from the point of view of which, medieval concepts began to be rethought. Man is thought of not as God’s creature, but as a co-creator with God, placed at the center of the world, who, by his own will, can become both a higher and a lower being.
Divine laws are thought of as natural laws, Divine forces and energies - as hidden natural processes. Nature becomes the source of hidden natural processes. Knowledge not only describes nature, but also tries to comprehend it, identify and establish its laws. The identification of the laws of nature now does not consist only of description, but of describing and constituting them. Nature can now not only be described, but also understood; it becomes fundamentally knowable, and its processes can serve humans. But to use natural forces, you need preliminary knowledge of its laws. Man here acts as the last link of causality, described by Aristotle.
Having learned natural laws, a person can use them to create the “new nature” he needs. As a result, the laws of nature and ancient principles, knowledge, reflection, technical actions, divine reason, space and nature are brought closer together and rethought.
Speaking about the development of technical knowledge during the Renaissance, one cannot help but mention the English philosopher, historian and political figure Francis Bacon(1561 - 1626). It is he who takes the final step, declaring nature the main object of the new science and interpreting nature entirely in the natural modality. For him, nature appears as a necessary condition for practical action that produces a “new nature.” Man can combine objects of nature, but nature produces the final result within itself. Bacon's practical action is inseparable from scientific knowledge. He considers the main calling of man to be the generation and communication of a new nature to a certain object. Bacon considers the task and goal of human knowledge to be the discovery of the form of a given nature, its true difference, the productive essence and sources of natural origin. He combined three parts into one whole - the idea of scientific knowledge, engineering action and nature, as a condition and object of both the first and second. Bacon formed a new understanding of nature as an endless reservoir of materials, forces, energies that a person can use provided that he describes its laws in science. With all this, it is worth understanding that such views were shared only by a small group of scientists of the new formation. Moreover, in those days, even for these scientists, such ideas were perceived, in part, as hypothetical knowledge. It is obvious that from the concept to the implementation of the use of the forces of nature on the basis of science, the distance was quite large. Now it is clear that this was just a plan, and a very bold one; it was unknown whether this plan could be realized.
Along with Bacon, it is impossible to bypass the Italian physicist, mechanic, astronomer, philosopher and mathematician Galileo Galilei(1564 - 1642). His name is associated with the formation of a mechanistic picture of the world.
A distinctive feature of his knowledge is the transformation of experience into an experiment, where the correspondence between theory and natural phenomena was established technically, that is, artificially. Galileo showed that for the use of science to describe the natural processes of nature, not any scientific explanations and knowledge are suitable, but only those that describe the real behavior of natural objects and this description presupposes the projection of a scientific theory onto natural objects. A natural science theory must describe the behavior of ideal objects, but those that correspond to certain real objects. Galileo was interested in precisely that idealization that ensured mastery of natural processes: it described them well (in scientific theory) and allowed them to be controlled (to predict their character, to create the necessary conditions, to launch them practically). Galileo's focus on theory building and, at the same time, engineering research forces him to project the characteristics of models and theoretical relationships onto real objects, i.e. to compare a real object to an ideal one. However, since they are different, Galileo divides the real object in knowledge into two components. One component exactly corresponds to the ideal object, the other differs from it. This second component is considered by Galileo as ideal behavior, distorted by the influence of various factors - the environment, friction, interaction of the body and the inclined plane, etc. Then this second component of the real object, which distinguishes it from the ideal object, decreases so much that it can no longer be taken into account in the experiment. Galileo thinks about the possibility of changing the real object itself in such a way, practically influencing it, that there is no longer a need to change its model, since the object will begin to correspond to it. It was on this path that Galileo achieved success. Unlike the experiments that were carried out by many scientists before Galileo, the experiment assumes, on the one hand, the isolation of an ideal component in a real object, and on the other, the technical transfer of a real object into an ideal state, i.e. fully reflected in theory. It is interesting that Galileo was able to experimentally test only the case where the action of the main resistance forces could not be taken into account. In reality, such a situation did not occur; it was ideal, calculated theoretically, and implemented technically. But it turned out that the future lies precisely in such ideal situations because they opened a new era in human practice - the era of engineering based on science.
Galileo's method of experiment paved the way for the formation of engineering ideas, such as the idea of a mechanism. Galileo determined that such parameters of a body as its volume, weight, speed, surface treatment can be controlled. As a result, Galileo was able to create conditions in which the experimental body behaved strictly in accordance with the theory.
One of the most outstanding philosophers of the New Time was the Frenchman Rene Descartes ( 1596 - 1650). Descartes made an attempt to consider the cosmos as a system gradually developing over time, which, thanks to its own laws, contained elements of dialectics, a historical approach to nature. Elements of dialectics are also contained in his mathematical discoveries. However, in general, his mathematical research (as well as cosmological ideas) is closely related to his metaphysical understanding of nature as a giant mechanism. According to the teachings of Descartes, the method must proceed from an absolutely reliable theoretical position and be universal, unchanging, and equally applicable in all areas of knowledge. This absolutization of the geometric method clearly shows the mechanistic essence of Descartes' philosophy.
Descartes' philosophy contains an important materialist element, namely, a physical theory based on a materialist understanding of nature. The basis of Descartes' physics is the doctrine of matter and motion. Matter is the only substance, the only basis of existence and knowledge.
The basic principles of Descartes' physics are as follows: the universe is material and infinite; matter, although it consists of particles (corpuscles), is nevertheless divisible to infinity; empty space does not exist; the attribute of substance is extension; particles of matter are in motion, which represents a change in their position in space; no forces standing outside of matter itself exist (with the exception of God); matter and motion are indestructible. Based on this, all phenomena are reduced to the movement of material particles, to their mechanical impact on each other during direct contact at the moment of impact and to changes in the shapes of particles. In general, Descartes' mathematical research (as well as cosmological ideas) is closely related to his metaphysical understanding of nature as a gigantic mechanism.
Based on the discoveries of Galileo, Kepler and his own natural science achievements, Descartes tries to substantiate the mechanistic methodology of the science of nature, the logic of mechanistic natural science, considering it as a “universal science”, indicating the path to a correct, fruitful study of all phenomena of the surrounding world.
A distinctive feature of Cartesian physics was the requirement to explain the world based only on matter and motion. Descartes' physics was an attempt to build a comprehensive system of nature on a materialistic, mechanistic basis.
The position about the uncreatability and indestructibility of movement, understood in the sense of a universal mechanical phenomenon, extended to the entire universe and served as a philosophical support for the materialist trend in natural science.
The core of the mechanistic picture of the world can be considered mechanics, developed by the English physicist, astronomer and mathematician Isaac Newton(1642 - 1727). In his works he reveals the methodology and worldview of research. Newton was convinced of the existence of matter, space and time, in the existence of objective laws of the world that are accessible to human knowledge. With his desire to reduce everything to mechanics, Newton supported mechanistic materialism (mechanism). Despite his enormous achievements in the field of natural science, he remained a Christian and took religion very seriously. He believed that “the wisdom of the Lord is revealed equally in the structure of nature and in the sacred books. Studying both is a noble matter.” Newton was the author of "Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Daniel", "Apocalypse", "Chronology". From this we can conclude that for Newton there was no conflict between science and religion; both coexisted in his worldview.
Newton himself characterizes his method of cognition as follows: “To derive two or three general principles of motion from phenomena and then explain how the properties and actions of all corporeal things follow from these obvious principles, which would be a very important step in philosophy, even the causes These principles have not yet been discovered." By principles, Newton means the most general laws underlying physics. This method was later called the method of principles.
Newton established four rules for all research:
1 One should not accept other causes in nature beyond those that are true and sufficient to explain phenomena.
2 The same causes must be attributed to the same phenomena.
3 The properties of the bodies subjected to research, independent and unchangeable during experiments, must be taken as the general properties of material bodies.
4 Laws inductively found from experience must be considered true until they are contradicted by other observations.
Since principles are established through the study of natural phenomena, they initially represent hypotheses, from which, through logical deduction, consequences are obtained that are verifiable in practice. This method of Newton's principles is defined as hypothetico-deductive and is one of the main ones for constructing physical theories.
Many questions and disputes in the history of physics were caused by Newton's views on space and time. Newton proceeds from the fact that in their practice people cognize space and time by measuring spatial relationships between bodies and temporal relationships between processes. Newton calls the concepts of space and time developed in this way relative. He admits that in nature there exist absolute space and time independent of these relations, as empty containers of bodies and events. Space and time, according to Newton, do not depend on matter and material processes, which is not consistent with the concepts of physics of the 20th century. Since Newton’s matter is inert and incapable of self-motion, and empty absolute space is indifferent to matter, he recognizes the “first push,” that is, God, as the primary source of movement.
The crown of the mechanistic picture of the world, considering from the point of view of mechanics, not the world around us, but man himself, can be considered the teachings of the French doctor and materialist philosopher Julien Ofret de La Mettrie (1709 - 1751).
In his work "Man-Machine", he considered the human body as a self-winding machine, similar to a clockwork. Being an adherent of the philosophy of sensualism, La Mettrie placed the material world as the basis of human sensations. He reinforces the objectivity of the existence of the material world by justifying the internal source of its development, the inseparability of movement from material objects. At the same time, La Mettrie considered the essence of movement and matter itself unknowable. As the main problem of philosophy, he identified the relationship between matter and human consciousness. Recognizing the primacy of the material world, La Mettrie defines consciousness and thinking as a property or ability of one of the types of the material world. The basis of these properties is in sensations. A person differs from an animal mainly in quantitative characteristics: the size and structure of the brain (“Man is an animal”). All living beings have the same ability to feel, regardless of their species. He develops this view in the book "Man-Machine". In it, La Mettrie treats a person as a machine, albeit a rather complex one. “Man is such a complex machine that it is absolutely impossible to form a clear idea about him, and, therefore, to give an exact definition.” But a person is significantly different from mechanical devices, since he is a special kind of machine, capable of feeling, thinking, and distinguishing good from evil. “The human body is a self-starting machine, a living embodiment of continuous movement.” A person is a clockwork mechanism, which, however, is wound up not mechanically, but through the entry into the blood of nutritious juice formed from food.
Considering a person to be an incredibly complex machine, La Mettrie still takes risks, and cites various examples as proof. Such as, for example, constriction of the pupils when bright light enters them and, conversely, their expansion in the dark, dysfunction of organs as a result of any disease, poisoning or external influence (trauma).
Regarding more complex processes in the “man-machine”? then they also follow the pattern of reaction to the environment, and correlate with the needs of the body. In his opinion, science has not yet provided a comprehensive picture of the structure and operation of the mechanisms that ensure these processes. La Mettrie understood thinking as a feeling, and considered the concept of soul to be an unnecessary designation for that part of the body that thinks. By identifying thinking with feeling, he thereby defines it as qualitatively homogeneous with the same sensations in animals, differing only quantitatively.
Being one of the first to express thoughts about the possibility of descent from animals, La Mettrie still believed that biological factors alone were not enough for the emergence of man. Language, articulate speech, and education are also necessary for human formation. “Without education, even the best organized mind is deprived of all its value.”
But there is another prerequisite - social life. La Mettrie believes that man by nature is a cunning, treacherous, insidious and extremely dangerous creature, that man is already evil from birth. Virtue is only the result of the education that a person receives in the process of his upbringing and life in society. And the possibilities of education are very great, since it can easily turn a person in one direction or another. At the same time, La Mettrie noted the possibility of innateness of some negative traits in humans.
La Mettrie recognized the soul as an extended, internally active, sentient material substance. Forms of matter are the organic, plant and animal kingdoms (the latter includes humans), between which, in his opinion, there are no qualitative differences. He understood the ability of thinking as the comparison and combination of ideas that arose on the basis of sensations and memory. Being a representative of mechanism, La Mettrie gradually approached the idea of evolution.
Basis: rationalism, anthropocentrism, scientism (absolutization of the role of science in the cultural system), Eurocentrism, standardization of life.
Ortega y Gasset: “We face a radical change in human destiny brought about by the 19th century, 3 factors made the creation of this new world possible: democracy, experimental science, industrialization.”
Science – discoveries in astronomy, geology, biology, chemistry. In total there are more than 8527 scientific discoveries and inventions.
Capitalist industrialization—the industrial revolution—began in England at the end of the 18th century. K ser. 19th century - this is a fait accompli in most European and Northern countries. America. A leap in technological development: Steffenson's locomotive (1814) and the first underground railroad (1863). The era of steam and electricity, telephone and telegraph.
The machine revolution ensured an unprecedented increase in the productivity of labor and the proletarians. Labor and production become an ideal, and soon an idol.
Democracy - Feudal-absolutist regimes were replaced by various forms of constitutional monarchies and parliamentary republics. The formation of bourgeois statehood was accompanied by the formation of politics. parties, the formation of a multi-party system, the development of liberal principles. Reason: the War of Independence of the North American Colonies, the Declaration of Independence and the first breach in the system of colonialism; great Fr. bourgeois revolution (1789-1793) and adopted in 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen; the formation of socialism is the desire to improve the situation of the lower classes and carry out a social revolution.
New principles of life: protection of private property rights, free enterprise, market and competition, the idea of non-interference by the state in the economy (in the economy); recognition of equality in rights and freedoms, free elections of government, the principle of separation of powers - legislative, executive, judicial (in politics); the principle of equality of opportunity with complete rejection of the roughly egalitarian interpretation of society (in the social sphere); in morality - the ideal of a person who owes everything to himself - to work and personal merit, a person striving for enrichment and earthly well-being (and not for another world). Debt is in getting rich, virtue is in frugality, decency is in creditworthiness, the meaning of life is in tireless hard work.
At the same time, the emergence of a new type of bourgeois and a new morality of the rich - frugality and moderation are valued less (luxury is valued), in competition, all means are good - from advertising to outright forgery.
Changes in etiquette - more democratic (it started with the Jacobins - you speak, not you, remove your headdress only during public speeches), then commercial attitudes permeate the etiquette - buyer-seller.
When comparing the pictures of the world of the New Age with the medieval ones, attention is drawn, first of all, to the non-religious nature of the former. Intellectual systems of modern times are an attempt to describe nature, history and culture, relying only on the human mind.
In this case, God is assigned a modest role as the “prime mover of the universe” or the personification of the “moral law”, and such concepts as “natural law”, “movement”, “development”, “evolution”, “progress”, etc. come to the fore. .
Revolution in science of the second half of the 17th century. created a natural scientific picture of the world. This revolution was expressed in a qualitative increase in reliability, accuracy, mathematical validity of scientific and technical knowledge, and in an increase in their practical applicability. Methods for theoretical and experimental research were created and special institutions were formed (scientific and technical societies, academies and institutes) within which scientific knowledge could be reproduced and developed.
The revolution in natural science was initiated by scientists from a number of European countries. Galileo (Italy) discovered many laws of motion and gave final confirmation of the heliocentric system. The mathematical foundation of the new natural science was the work of Pascal and Fermat (France), and especially the creation in 1665-1676. Newton (England) and Leibniz (Germany) methods of differential and integral calculus; Descartes (France) introduced variables, thanks to which mathematics became capable of describing motion; Boyle (England) developed the doctrine of the chemical element. In 1687, Newton, in his “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy,” formulated three laws of motion and the law of gravity, with the help of which he brought into a single system all previously known laws and data. In the 18th century Newton's mechanics became the basis of the natural scientific picture of the world, which derived all forms of motion from the forces of attraction and repulsion.
In the natural sciences of the 19th century. The period of dissemination of the concepts of evolution and self-development of nature has begun. The cosmological interpretation of this idea dates back to the 18th century, when Kant and Laplace created hypotheses about the formation of planets from a gas cloud revolving around the Sun. The teachings of Buffon and Lyell about the evolution of the Earth and the continuous change of the earth's surface played an important role. Theories of development in biology of the 19th century. expressed in the concepts of the evolution of species. The first of them, based on the idea of a direct change in heredity under the influence of external conditions, was proposed by Lamarck (1809). Darwin's doctrine of evolution by natural selection (1859) became an empirically based theory of evolution. The universality of the cellular structure of organisms was established by the German biologist Schwann; in 1865, the Austrian Mendel discovered the laws of heredity and created genetics.
In physics, the largest discoveries of the 19th century. the law of conservation of energy, the discovery of electromagnetic induction and the development of the doctrine of electricity appeared.
The idea of the atomic-molecular structure of matter has received universal recognition. In 1868, the Russian scientist Mendeleev discovered the periodic law of chemical elements.
The distinctive features of modern science were its mathematical and experimental nature, the use of special scientific languages, the collective and sometimes international nature of research, and the inextricable connection between science and technology.
Parallel to the scientific picture of the world and under its influence in the 17th–18th centuries. The philosophy of the Enlightenment develops. In France, this movement was strongest during the period between 1715 and 1789, called the “Age of Enlightenment” and the “Century of Philosophy.” This movement has acquired pan-European proportions: its main representatives in France are Voltaire, Montesquieu, Condillac, Holbach, Diderot, Rousseau, in England - Locke, Mandeville, Hume, in Germany - Lessing, Herder, Kant, in the USA - Franklin, Jefferson.
The Enlightenment emerged as a worldview that claimed to correct man and society according to “natural law.” It is knowable by the human mind and corresponds to the genuine, unspoiled desires of man. Social relations must be brought into harmony with the laws of the environment and human nature. The Enlightenmentists believed that society is characterized by gradual development based on the steady improvement of the human mind.
For educators, ignorance, obscurantism, and religious fanaticism are the main causes of human disasters. In the concept of “God”, most of them saw only the designation of the intelligent first cause of the world, the supreme geometer and architect of the universe. Hence the attempts to create a “religion of reason” or “religion within the limits of reason alone,” a more or less sharp break with the Christian tradition and church organizations, which in La Mettrie, Holbach, Diderot, Helvetius reached open atheism. The moral teaching of the Enlightenment was intended to substantiate individualism, freedom and independence of the individual from restrictions, especially religious ones, so characteristic of the New Age. The Enlightenment call to follow human nature could be understood very broadly: from moderate concepts of “reasonable egoism” to preaching immoralism, vices and crimes as manifestations of the same human nature (Marquis de Sade). One of the spiritual children of the Enlightenment was Napoleon, who once said: “A man like me doesn’t give a damn about the lives of a million people.”
It was within the framework of Enlightenment philosophy that the first serious attempts to analyze culture were made. Particularly interesting in this sense is the work of the German educator Herder, “Ideas for the Philosophy of the History of Mankind.” It conveys the idea of organic development in all of nature, ascending from the inanimate world to man, to his limitlessly improving soul. The human spirit and culture are moving towards humanity, reason, and justice. Herder tries to systematize data from history, psychology, ethnography, and natural sciences in order to give a holistic picture of the evolution of culture.
New time is the era of ideologies. They were necessary to justify revolutions and reforms, class and party politics. From the extraordinary variety of ideological concepts of the 17th–19th centuries. Let's select some of the most significant ones.
Above we mentioned the doctrine of public sovereignty, which was an ideological reflection of the absolutist monarchy and the parliamentary state. An outstanding contribution to its development was made in the 17th century. English philosopher Hobbes. He viewed the state as a human, not a divine institution, which arose on the basis of a social contract. It was preceded by a period when people lived separately, in a state of war of all against all. The state is established to ensure universal peace. As a result of the social contract, the rights of individual citizens who voluntarily limited their freedom were transferred to the sovereign. Hobbes strongly emphasized the role of the state and the monarchy as an absolute sovereign. On the contrary, Rousseau in the 18th century. comes out with sharp criticism of the state, which has arrogated to itself the rights of the people, which has become the cause of social inequality and violence of the rich against the poor. Rousseau proposed the restoration of genuine popular sovereignty in the form of direct democracy.
The most significant ideological and political movement of the 19th century. there was liberalism. It united supporters of a parliamentary state or "rule of law" - a constitutional government based on the division of power between the executive and legislative bodies, ensuring the basic political rights of citizens, including freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly, etc. Throughout the 19th century. liberalism defended the idea of a social order in which the regulation of economic and social relations would be carried out through the mechanisms of competition and the free market, without state intervention. Liberals saw the latter’s only function as protecting the property of citizens and establishing a general framework for free competition between individual entrepreneurs. Liberalism reached its greatest flowering in Great Britain, where its prominent representatives were Mill and Spencer.
The political thought of modern times is also characterized by sharply critical sentiments towards the new European social system and the search for an alternative to it. They reached their most complete expression in the socialist and communist theories of the 17th-19th centuries. The common features of these detailed concepts were demands for complete equality, the destruction of social hierarchy and what it is based on: private property, state, family, religion. In the middle of the 18th century. Meslier, Mably, Morelli came up with projects in France for a communist society that would implement the principles of “perfect equality” of all people. At the beginning of the 19th century. The teachings of Saint-Simon, Fourier, and Owen became widespread, providing for numerous practical measures for the socialist transformation of society using technological advances. In the middle of the 19th century. socialism turns from a circle movement into a mass movement. Marx and Engels played a significant role in this. Marxism claimed the title of “scientific socialism”, which shows the objective need for the transition to a communist society.
In the 19th century Positivism continues the tradition of the Enlightenment. It is based on the idea that all genuine, “positive” (positive) knowledge can be obtained only as a result of individual sciences and their synthetic unification. According to the founder of positivism, Comte, what could be called philosophy comes down to general conclusions from the natural and social sciences. Science does not explain, but only describes natural phenomena and answers not the question “why?”, but the question “how?”. Following the Enlightenment, Comte and his followers in all countries of Europe and beyond expressed their belief in the ability of science for endless development, the unlimited possibilities of science, including the transformation of social life. Thus, the idea of progress is the result of the development of paintings of the New Age (XVII-XIX centuries).
We will conditionally designate the third (in our classification) sociocultural standard of health as anthropocentric . This designation indicates that at the center of the various concepts of health that have arisen on the basis of this standard is found an idea of the highest (spiritual) purpose of man. Depending on how this purpose is understood, various models of a healthy personality are constructed, which can be considered as peculiar variations or modifications of the anthropocentric standard. Examples of such modifications include concepts and models developed within the framework of existential, humanistic and transpersonal psychology. The cultural and historical prerequisites of the anthropocentric standard can be found in such a phenomenon of new European culture as anthropocentrism, which replaced ancient cosmocentrism and medieval theocentrism. As the dominant ideological paradigm, anthropocentrism is revealed in the largest works of the Western spirit of recent centuries - from the humanistic treatises of Renaissance thinkers to the global philosophical concepts of the 20th century (philosophical anthropology of Max Scheler, the theory of the noosphere by V. I. Vernadsky, personalism, etc.). This paradigm is also reflected in a certain type of ideas about human health.
So, the study of the third sociocultural standard, which in its specificity is fundamentally different from the first two, requires an understanding of a special type of worldview that has been emerging in Western culture in modern times, starting with the Renaissance, and presupposes a completely new system of ideas about the World and the position of man in it. We mean, first of all, the humanistic traditions of modern European culture, which represent an alternative to both the harmonious model of the ancient cosmos and the rigid sociological determinism that prevailed in the 19th-20th centuries. A particularly striking contrast is revealed when comparing the ancient and modern European worldviews.
If the ancient worldview is characterized by a kind of “cosmocentrism,” that is, it is built on the first principles of order, consistency, self-limitation and embraces the world as an always ordered, limited whole, having outlines and form, then the picture of the world of the New Age presupposes a radical “opening” of the Universe, going beyond any artificially established boundaries, constant striving into the infinite and unknown . According to R. Guardini, in modern times “the world begins to expand, breaking its boundaries” and turns into infinity. “The will to limit, which determined the previous character of life and creativity, weakens, a new will awakens, for which any expansion of boundaries means liberation” [ibid., p. 255]. A special dynamism , sharply contrasting with the static nature of ancient space; human possibilities seem limitless, and their realization is seen as the purpose and meaning of human existence. Human thought is capable of embracing the infinite Universe; human self-improvement knows no limits, humanity tirelessly overcomes itself, striving for the highest, transcendental, “superhuman” - all these ideas of the New Age, which we find in such different philosophers as Pascal, Kant, Nietzsche, are directly opposite to the ancient ethics of asceticism and self-restraint. “Proportional relationships” give way to “vector quantities”; Purposefulness is valued higher than poise. The general perception of space and time changes: unfolding in infinite space, time ceases to be cyclical and acquires a certain direction, rushing from the past to the future, from the coming of Christ to the end of times, the Last Judgment and Redemption. The appearance of the Son of God becomes the “axis of world history” (Jaspers), the beginning of a fundamentally new calculation of time.
According to Jaspers, in the Christian era, especially in modern times, the situation of human existence becomes “historically determined.” “Epochal consciousness” arises: the era is recognized as “the time of decision” [ibid., p. 290]. This consciousness reveals the difference between its time and any other and, being in it, is inspired by the pathetic belief that thanks to it, imperceptibly or through conscious action, something will be decided [ibid.]. The world is no longer felt as imperishable: nothing is durable anymore, everything raises questions and is drawn into a possible transformation [ibid., p. 298]. The principles of Western man exclude simple repetition in a circle: what is comprehended immediately rationally leads to new possibilities [ibid.]. In the Western worldview there is always the idea of forward movement, development, be it the soul's desire for redemption and reunification with the Creator or the tireless evolution of biological species; The West is alien to numb peace, because it sees the extinction of life. The Universe of the Christian West, which is in the process of continuous transformation, in its most essential characteristics can be contrasted with the ancient cosmos, which tends to maintain balance, constancy and peace. The fundamental differences between the ancient and modern European worldviews (or the Apollonian and Faustian spirits) were identified and described in the monumental work of O. Spengler “The Decline of Europe”. According to Spengler, the primordial symbol or prototype of ancient culture is the (always limited, closed and static) body, while for the West it is an endless space in which the restless Faustian spirit strives to break out beyond any possible limits. In such a renewed space-time, the position of a person changes. He is endowed with the unconditional and indisputable right to live in his subjective world, to independently create his own Universe; according to A. Camus, it can be a Universe of despair or faith, fear or hope, reason or absurdity. The conditions of existence are not set initially and are not entirely determined by the general world order, but largely depend on the subjective attitude and choice, on the general mood of a person and the state of his individual consciousness. The Western European picture of the world has another significant difference from the ancient one: it is anthocentric, focuses on the individual and is characterized by pronounced individualism. This is absolutely opposite to the ancient idea of the position of man in space. In the ancient universe, everything private and individual ultimately submits to the general nature of things, harmoniously being included in a single order of being. The willfulness of an individual, inconsistent with this order, is equated to arbitrariness and crime, and individual existence is recognized as genuine and complete only when it is regulated by such first principles as Logos, universal Justice and the Supreme Good. The mind is not a personal property. Reasonable orderliness of life and the ability to control oneself in the ancient understanding are by no means subjective characteristics, but universal, even universal, since self-control (“self-satisfaction”) is one of the main attributes of the ancient world order as such. And only in the Western consciousness of the New Age does individuality acquire a special status and almost global significance. Subjectivity, with which classical Western science wages an irreconcilable struggle is nevertheless recognized in modern times as an unconditional value. It gradually established itself as a value along with such value guidelines of the New Age as freedom, creativity, and self-knowledge. The eras of the Renaissance, Reformation and Enlightenment, each of which made its own unique contribution to the development of Western thinking, created a very special image of a person establishing a deeply personal relationship with God, actively cognizing and transforming Nature, proudly measuring the microcosm of his own soul with the macrocosm of the Universe.
According to R. Guardini, subjectivity in its specific, Western meaning was almost unknown to both antiquity and the Middle Ages. Since the Renaissance, a completely new sense of self awakens. “Man becomes important to himself; The Self, and first of all the extraordinary, brilliant Self, becomes the criterion of the value of life.” The era of geniuses, extraordinary individuals who realize and realize their calling is coming. Creativity becomes author's, and great people not only refer humanity to the highest laws and first principles, like ancient philosophers, but also represent examples of free self-expression, acting as standards of individuality for their time. “Subjectivity,” writes R. Guardini, “manifests itself, first of all, as a personality, as an image of a person developing on the basis of his own talents and his own initiative. The personality, and especially the great personality, must be understood from itself, and it justifies its actions by its own originality. Ethical standards turn out to be relative next to it. This criterion, discovered in the example of an extraordinary person, is then transferred to man in general, and the ethos of the objectively good and true is replaced by authenticity and integrity” [ibid.]. This understanding of personality, based on the idea of the originality of living individual existence, is not consistent with the adaptation model, in which a person is represented, first of all, in the aspect of his adaptation to the surrounding biosocial environment. In theories of adaptation, we deal primarily with an individual included in biological and social systems and subject to the harsh laws of nature and social life. What is essential here is the correspondence between the individual and the social, the ability to perform certain social functions and harmoniously be included in the social relations corresponding to them. However, in the light of the approach we are studying, individuality is valuable in itself, and it should be considered as an autonomous entity, equivalent to space, nature and society. Exactly “personal will and a sense of independence from the state and space”, according to the philosopher X. Ortega y Gasset, they became the basic principles to which modern Europe owes its existence.
However, the feeling of freedom and personal autonomy in the New Age inevitably leads to awareness of one's own responsibility, which, in this state of affairs, rests entirely with the Subject and which can no longer be transferred to the absolute laws of Nature or Fate. Freedom defines human existence as such, but the concept of freedom changes depending on the degree to which a person recognizes himself as an independent and separate being. For a long time, the individual, already aware of himself as a separate being, remained closely connected with the natural and social environment. These bonds provided a fundamental unity with the world and a sense of security. New time is a time of growing isolation of the individual from his original connections.
The ideology of the new era, based on the myth of endless progress promised by experimental science and industrialization, proclaimed that man was called to become the master of Nature, that he could act better and faster than Nature. The Newtonian-Cartesian paradigm deprived Nature of its sacredness, and labor ceased to be a ritual reproducing the sacred actions of gods and cultural heroes. On the one hand, due to the desacralization of Nature, man found himself free from Predestination and Fate, on the other hand, due to growing independence from external authorities, he lost a strictly defined place in the social hierarchy. Everything now depended not on the guarantees of his traditional status, but on his own efforts. In this sense, he became the master of his fate, but at the same time lost his former sense of confidence and belonging to some community superior to him. Man found himself torn out of the world that satisfied his economic and spiritual needs, and left to his own devices.
Naturally, the total responsibility that falls to his lot is inevitably accompanied by anxiety and self-doubt; a person loses the feeling of initial security and safety in the world, since he does not always manage to find a foothold and guarantees of reliability in himself. As a result, he finds himself faced with a dilemma: either give up freedom and entrust his fate to society (as E. Fromm showed in his work “Flight from Freedom”), or decide to the search for one’s true self and the choice of an individual way of being-in-the-world. The humanistic traditions of the West are designed to support a person's desire for authenticity and responsibility, as opposed to many adaptation theories that are oriented towards normalization and create an image of a person involved in an endless process of adaptation. Therefore, the anthropocentric approach, formed on the basis of new European humanism, is essentially opposite to the theories of social determinism and the normocentrism characteristic of psychiatry.
Exactly the desire for authenticity, for an ideal or a higher goal that lies outside the Subject, makes the personality constantly developing, dynamic; it cannot be reduced to a set of stable traits and qualities, the relationships of which give rise to certain fixed states. Any form that allows one to achieve temporary equilibrium is overcome for the sake of something new, more perfect. Human nature is subject to constant transformation. New and increasingly complex patterns are constantly being discovered in it. This tendency towards constant self-development is akin to the general tendency of evolving life towards higher levels of organization and complexity. Henri Bergson defined this property of life as an all-encompassing creative process in which the evolution of consciousness appears as one of the possible directions of a single vital impulse that creates countless forms of life and creation. Evolving, the Universe does not return to itself, to the balance and peace of the eternal, but constantly creates and overcomes itself. Likewise, human nature constantly overcomes any natural limitations, expanding its capabilities and identifying new horizons of development. This self-organizing system. The desire to expand biological and spiritual capabilities pushes a person to increasingly perfect knowledge and mastery of nature, which is associated in Western consciousness with the idea of progress. Mircea Eliade wrote in this regard: “For almost two centuries, European scientific thought has made unprecedented efforts to explain the world - in order to conquer and change it. From an ideological point of view, the triumph of the scientific idea was expressed not only in the belief in endless progress, but also in the conviction that the more “modern” people are, the closer they are to absolute truth and the more deeply they participate in the process of formation "ideal" person".
This inherent aspiration for a higher ideal in Western man was noted not only by philosophers, but also by scientists and supporters of the natural science paradigm. Thus, I. I. Mechnikov at the dawn of the 20th century wrote in his “Studies of Optimism”: “Humanity should no longer consider the harmonious functioning of all organs as an ideal, this ideal of antiquity, passed on to our times. There is no need to call into action organs that are on the way to atrophy, and many natural signs, perhaps useful to an animal, should disappear in humans. Human nature, capable of change just like the nature of organisms in general, must be modified in accordance with a certain ideal" . It is obvious that such a transformation of man for the sake of embodying the highest ideal presupposes the will to overcome the universal determinism and omnipotence of Nature; Western man tends to evaluate himself as an exception to the basic biological laws and reserves the right to accelerate the pace and change the direction of his natural biological development. He strives to become the ruler of Nature, does not want to be content with what is destined by it, and opposes Nature to Spirit. To rise above one's biological nature, above conditionality and lack of freedom to the heights of the Spirit - this is the vector of development and the meaning of self-determination of Western man. We can say that in its extreme manifestations he is obsessed with a passion for overcoming himself. This pathos of self-transcendence is most clearly expressed in the famous metaphorical statement of F. Nietzsche that the current state of human nature must be overcome, for man is only a “bridge to the Superman.”
Such “evolutionist” ideas, which in the 20th century are unexpectedly replaced by ideas and technologies for the revolutionary transformation of human nature, explain the optimism and “promising” view of the human phenomenon, characteristic of humanistic psychology. Following the spirit of the New Age, humanists consider personality not in the aspect of the predetermination of its current mental states, but in the perspective of its future development and self-improvement.
However, such views on Man and Nature once come into contact with the dark reverse side, the reverse side of existence, and turn into pessimism, despair or melancholy. As Durkheim noted, “pessimism always accompanies limitless aspirations.” Therefore, Goethe's Faust became a character of the New Age - he touched the mysteries of Nature and knew universal sorrow. Awareness of the infinity of world space, the frightening depth of mental life and the absolute freedom of the Spirit gives rise to a special tragic worldview, which Spengler defined as “the loneliness of the Faustian soul.” This is the inevitable price to pay for spiritual autonomy and freedom from the predestined...
So, in modern times, Western humanity erected a new value hierarchy, at the top of which such values of existence as subjectivity, freedom, creativity, development, meaningfulness or authenticity of existence were established. Each of these values occupied a certain area of psychological knowledge about a person, determining the general direction of both speculative and empirically based constructions. For example, subjectivity, freedom and the meaning of existence acted as the main value guidelines in existential psychotherapy; self-realization, development and creativity are the main ideals of humanistic psychology; integrity and integration of transpersonal experience are the highest goals of individual development, according to K. Jung and S. Grof. These psychological schools created independent modifications of the third (“anthropocentric”) standard of health, highlighting and placing certain of its value components at the center of consideration. Taking into account all the discrepancies, it should be recognized that these theories model personal health based on a single reference basis.
Now it is necessary to discuss the revolution in the perception of man that was carried out in existentially oriented psychiatry and psychotherapy, as well as in dialogic models of human existence. We have to find out which approach to a person (in the totality of his healthy and painful manifestations) is most applicable in the light of the “anthropocentric” standard we are studying.