Essay am I a person. Composition "I am a person
People often think and talk about what a person is. It is always interesting and always exciting, because we are all people and we live among people. Yes, everyone has different professions, occupations and positions, everyone performs different tasks. But whoever one of us is, he is, first of all, a person, and only then the bearer of some social function. What is a personality? What are her qualities? To be a person means to retain the ability to navigate in a variety of knowledge and situations and be responsible for one's choice, to preserve one's unique "I". The richer the world and the more difficult life situations, topics more urgent problem freedom to choose one's own life position. A person can preserve his originality, remain himself even in the most difficult conditions, only by remaining an individual. Feels free and at ease modern life one who constantly learns to navigate in it, to choose for himself values that correspond to personal abilities and inclinations and do not contradict the rules of human communication. A person has enormous opportunities for the perception of cultural and spiritual values and for his own self-improvement. To become a person, each person must constantly develop, engage in self-education. And everyone knows this and tries to understand himself, to understand himself, to comprehend himself, to comprehend his inner world. We try to compare ourselves with those around us, correlate personal life with social life, our interest in the world with its interest in ourselves, in order to answer the main of the main questions: what am I? how and why do I live? Have I discovered everything in myself? Each person must educate himself. No one will come and abolish in him malevolence, envy, hypocrisy, greed, fear of responsibility, dishonesty. The main thing in the spiritual culture of the individual can be considered an active, creative attitude to life: nature, society, other people, oneself. We, entering into life, need to know that human culture should not be reduced only to erudition, erudition, although this is very important. Human culture is not difficult to evaluate. Only the active can master culture, active person who discovered all its riches. Art and literature, traditions and customs are very instructive and their knowledge makes life easier. But there is a sign of the spiritual culture of the individual, which is very important - a person's readiness for self-giving and self-sacrifice. Caring for people and striving to help them should become not only kind words, but also good deeds. Throughout life, you need to form and develop in yourself best qualities and overcome those that hinder the disclosure of personality, its self-affirmation in the team. Unfortunately, many believe that individual freedom is the freedom not to adhere to the laws and order established in society. But such behavior instead of benefit brings only harm, and not only the person himself suffers, but also the people around him. Everything happens in life. It is impossible to turn a blind eye to its difficulties, trials, hardships. Each of us has to be disappointed, suffer, lose faith in ourselves, suffer remorse, be guilty and offended for no reason. But you need to learn how to overcome the pain of resentment and injustice and learn from the experience. In overcoming difficulties, character is tempered, life experience is acquired. If a person masters all this, he will be able to choose the right life position, will distinguish the main from the secondary, will bring up willpower in himself. Never forget the enduring values. And it is also very important to learn self-demanding, devotion to work, following duty, loyalty to friendship and opposition to evil, respect for elders and serving one's country. To become a person, everyone needs to carefully peer into themselves and into life. It is very important to cultivate the unity of word and deed in oneself, not to forget that any situation is a kind of school of behavior in life.
I usually spend my summers reading, watching and listening to what I didn’t have time for during school year. After the first course, I still had a cycle of 55 lectures by V. V. Petukhov on general psychology, carefully recommended by your favorite teacher.
In one of the lectures, Valery Viktorovich expounded the concept of the subject. It had a strong influence on my worldview and largely determined my current views on many social problems.
The point is this. Man exists as a natural, social and cultural subject. The natural subject simply adapts to environment, social - appropriates and applies collective experience, and cultural - on the basis of universal norms independently and responsibly solves its own problems. It was proposed to understand the personality as a subject, that is, to expand the content of this concept as much as possible. But then it will be possible to recognize animals as personalities, and yet we so want to amuse our vanity (the crowns of creation, well, well). No, personality is the prerogative of a person.
A. N. Leontiev wrote: "A personality is born twice." When? The first birth of a person occurs precisely when small man, for the first time he obeyed the parental “no”. Then the parents can be congratulated - their little blood has become a social subject who has taken the path of subordinating himself to social norms. In this sense, we are all social subjects. We all obey the prohibitions, laws, requirements that society imposes on us in exchange for a happy existence in it. Many times I heard (and I myself sinned) how people say: “I don’t care about someone else’s opinion”, “I don’t need anyone”, and so on. Now I understand how presumptuous this is. Man does not exist without people. More or less, more or less, but everyone needs a company of their own kind. It is enough just to be among people to be a social subject. I notice behind me how, willy-nilly, it flashes through my head “Why is she looking at me like that? There is something wrong with my face”, how I suppress a smile so that “they don’t think too much” (it just so happens that in Russia it’s not customary to smile for no reason, however, there is always a reason, but only you know about it), as I I “communicate” with people, mentally asking them questions, making compliments. I like to steal a glance at beautiful girls, then tell my friends stories about evil aunts, in short, I need people, without them I can lose an important part of my personality.
But the social subject is not a person, it is still half a person. Here lies the very idea that inspires me.
The world is inhabited by "non-personalities" - social subjects. He exists as a person only in his social group divides the world into "us" and "they". We are good, right, and “they” are bad and wrong, in a word, enemies. The social subject unleashes religious wars. The social subject came up with racism and nationalism and other "charms" of our life with you. With all the ensuing consequences. At the same time, he expresses "his" opinion only when he is in the group. Outside of it, he does not have his own opinion at all, he himself does not exist. And all this is not just a theoretical construct. I also feel my social subject. Once I took the cheapest train ticket. To my surprise, most of the carriage passengers were Indian students. I never considered myself a person who attaches at least some importance to nationality. But nevertheless, I involuntarily shunned them, expected disgusting antics from them and, in general, was not particularly pleased with such a neighborhood. Here it is. This dichotomy is so deeply ingrained in my head that it ceases to be conscious. Our social subject goes deeper and deeper into us, exerting a direct influence on absolutely everything we do, think, feel. The social subject is militant in defending his identity, he believes that his belonging to a social group is already the greatest achievement, and therefore nothing more is required of him. He considers it normal to insult (and not in person, no, except perhaps on a drunken head) representatives of other groups, to consider himself higher, better, more worthy just like that, simply because he is a member of his society. You see these people all the time. Most likely, there are such in your immediate environment. Such people broadcast to us from the screens. Such are brave, flaunt and get excited at mass events. It would be nice to bring more concrete examples but I doubt it. OK. The social subject sticks “We can repeat” on the rear window of the car. He, being a student, for example, of the tower, snorts contemptuously at the sight of, for example, an Ogarevian. He is not confused by the concept of "wrong faith" or "wrong opinion." He likes to fight fans of the other football team. He likes to teach the "younger ones" (I put in quotation marks, because wisdom and age are not always proportional). The social individual trumpets his "we" at every corner, lashing out at others social individuals, also their "we" declaring. So one tries to prove to the other that he is better. Analyzing what is happening, I am more and more imbued with the idea that all the troubles in the world are precisely due to the fact that we are short-lived. But is there an alternative?
Let's return to Alexei Nikolaevich. The second birth of personality is the birth of a cultural subject. And this birth can happen repeatedly. I would call it a periodic awakening of the cultural subject. His birth is the moment, the situation, when a person begins to think with his own, and not with the public head. For a cultural subject, there are no nationalities, classes, statuses, and everything else that the social subject boasts so much about. For him, only man exists. For a cultural subject Golden Rule morality (treat others the way you want to be treated) is not some incomprehensible nonsense from a philosophy textbook, but a completely clear, stable life principle. The cultural subject respects everyone because he respects himself. Raskolnikov's problem is an interesting attempt to declare himself as a cultural subject - to rise above law and religion, to declare his "I". But the question was posed incorrectly from the start. I liked how V. V. Petukhov answered this question: you are a trembling creature, because you have the right. The cultural subject declares his "I", realizing and recognizing the right to the existence of other "I". The cultural subject is busy with himself. Not self-praise and self-admiration, but self-criticism and self-education. He is in no hurry to give advice and teach others to live, guided by the Socratic principle "I know that I know nothing." He is looking for his favorite thing, "looking for himself." The cultural subject does not have enough ready-made, but builds his own philosophy, according to which he lives. In this regard, the example of the Levins from Anna Karenina is very indicative for me. Kitty was brought up and lives in the spirit of Orthodoxy, she feels absolutely comfortable within her group. She is a positive example of a social subject. Constantine, on the other hand, came to Orthodoxy, came to faith meaningfully, having passed through militant atheism, scientific radicalism, formal Orthodoxy. He suffered his philosophy, he got it with the help of colossal moral efforts. And I consider this an achievement, a sign of a cultural subject. The social subject declares his "I" through "we", while the cultural one declares it directly. He recognizes and accepts his imperfection, but struggles with it to the best of his ability. It is the state of struggle, primarily internal, that is, periodically arising situations of personal choice that provoke the birth of a cultural subject, constitute its main feature.
This all sounds somewhat idealistic. The way it is. The cultural subject is the ideal. All people are social subjects that are closer or further away from the cultural subject. It was the cultural subject that became my guide. Such people, of course, do not exist. But there are periodically cultural subjects, that is, those in whom this part of the personality awakens from time to time (in situations of personal choice). Such examples abound in classical literature, I find such people among my teachers, among dead and living figures. As for me, I have a very keen sense of my social subject. My interpersonal relationships leave much to be desired, self-regulation is lame at times. I observe the rudiments of a cultural subject in myself when I notice my mistakes. To notice is, of course, good, but it is so difficult to recognize them, to declare to myself that I have such an unacceptable trait. And even harder to fix it. But I think I'm on the right track.
B.G. Ananiev in his statement raises the problem of the formation of the human personality. According to him, a person becomes a person far from immediately after his biological birth. A lot of time must pass with a certain set of processes so that a full-fledged personality is formed from an individual. In this matter, I adhere to the same point of view and consider it necessary to fully substantiate it.
Personality - a representative of the human species (individual) with a certain set of individual qualities, a formed position in relation to what is happening in various fields of activity, a set of accepted values and capable of making conscious and deliberate actions. In the early stages of his development, a person first lives a completely unconscious life, with almost no control over his body. Biological maturation is accompanied by social maturation, that is, a person, under the influence of upbringing and socialization, absorbs established patterns of behavior, social knowledge and skills, general cultural values, various norms, and so on. The combination of all of the above constitutes a personality. A person as a personality must also have a set of individual, characteristic only for him, qualities, signs, character traits. Naturally, the transition of an individual to a higher social level, that is, becoming a personality, is not a sharp leap. This is a long-term process, the speed of which depends on many factors: the environment, biological inclinations, the situation in the country, the policy of the state in relation to children, the circumstances experienced. That is why the individual becomes a person in different years in different countries. Let me give you a few examples to support my words.
First, an example of the fact that the beginning of the personality occurs much later than the beginning of the individual can be seen in social experience. So, when communicating with a person for a sufficiently long time from the moment of birth, one can trace the gradual formation of a child as a person.
Secondly, in the work of V. Kataev "The Son of the Regiment" one can trace the transition from an individual to a personality for quite a long time. a short time. In this case, this is a vivid example of the influence of the environment on the speed of the process of becoming a person.
Thirdly, the full legal capacity of a person in the Russian Federation comes from the age of 18. By this time, many have completed their secondary education, have sufficient social experience, and have gone through family and social education. The experience of society, legitimized by the rules of law, once again shows that the beginning of the personality comes much later than the beginning of the individual.
Thus, B.G. Ananiev was right when he said that biological birth is far from social birth in terms of time, and the speed of transition to the level of "Personality" depends on a large number factors.
Who is such a person? Not every person can be called that. It is necessary to have a certain set of character traits and spiritual qualities in order to have the right to be called one. You can often hear the phrase "outstanding personality" at the expense of a famous person. But this concept is measured not only by fame. In my opinion, personality is sincere, whole person who lives according to his calling. He was able to identify his inclinations, reveal his talents, overcome his shortcomings and, thanks to this, achieve success in life and be happy.
At the same time, he treats others with respect, does not allow himself a contemptuous and superficial attitude towards them. Sometimes they say “strong personality”, but strength does not mean rigidity. In my opinion, a person needs strength especially in order to be kind, sympathetic, even to be able to give up his own interests for the sake of another person. Concerning famous people then for me a prime example personality is Grigory Skovoroda. This wise man not only understood important truths about life, but he himself lived according to his views. He was who he wanted to be, without humiliating others, and he taught us to do so, because this is the only way to be happy. I believe that there are millions of people among us, worthy of the title personality. Let us know nothing about them. These are people who live a simple life, do what they love, albeit not a prestigious business, who love and respect their loved ones, and do not offend anyone. As for me, I hope that I am on the right track in developing my personality. I try to pay more attention to what I can do, to develop my abilities. It doesn't always work out, but I strive to be more tolerant of the people around me. It seems to me that the golden rule “do unto others as you would like them to do unto you” works in all areas of life and helps you stay on the right path. Therefore, in order to form your personality, you need to constantly develop and improve yourself, look for what brings joy, be sincere and respect others.
The more worthy you bring to other people as a free and independent person, the more you are a Personality. If a person’s inner core has already been formed - and this can be said about almost any adult person, then for a psychologist, personality is the originality of the features and characteristics of a person. For a psychologist, a criminal is a person. Personality with its unique, unique set of features and characteristics. And you differ from the criminal only in a different set ... - this is not bad, although you want more.
But if an ethicist speaks of personality, he speaks of personality with capital letter, and that's about something else. An ethicist calls a personality with a capital letter not those who are special and unique in some way, but those who bring real value to the lives of those around them. We can say this: the more worthy you bring to other people as a free and independent person, the more you are a Personality. How much will you bring to people with your whole life?
And this is already a good question to yourself: “How much of a person am I?” Personality is not a given, but a given. I will propose to see in a person not a given, but a given. Not what we already have, not past merits and sins, but what a person has to do, the task that a person needs to do. Situation: you have passed a psychological test and have reliably recognized your personality traits and characteristics. According to the results, you are not very free, not very independent, very lazy, often cowardly and often vindictive subject with a developed logic. Comparing this with the history of your failures in life, adding the opinion of your boss and neighbors here, you logically came to the conclusion that you are definitely not a Personality and this by all indications does not shine for you. So, what is next? Do what with it?
You are not born a person, you become a person
Make yourself a person. Because a person is a project, not a story. Individuals are not born, individuals are made. Okay, but will there be a moment when we can confidently say, “We did it! Everybody! Mission accomplished!”? Let's be realistic. It is perfectly normal if an accomplished, adult and successful person feels like a worthy person. Even without tests, he knows that he is decent and hardworking, creative and responsible, he is a personality! If being a person is a reward, but there must be rewarded