Zhanar N.

Sagimbayeva
ON THE MEANING OF MAN'S BEING IN THE WORLD

It is known that it is impossible and not enough for human being to have only organic life, i.e. to be within limits of
organic needs. Only presence of the certain meaning can be a justification for man's being. However, it can be noticed
that people for whom meaning of life is in support and provision of their physical existence are not so rare and all their
thoughts and efforts are aimed at it. Certainly, difficulties of our life seem to support such conclusion.
However, if someone thinks that only existence of organic needs can be justification for all actions and deeds of
people, in that case many related only to human being specific features could not be explained. First of all, for simple
organic functions human being does not need to unite with other people and to organise a society. Someone may say that
amalgamation makes people' organic existence easier. In this case gregarious forms of organisation would be enough
because if such organisational forms fully ensure organic needs of even the most advanced animals, then there is no any
inducement for its further improvement.
Human being can be characterized by peculiarity and way of his/her existence in the world as a social being. In
philosophy this kind of definition of human being exists since Aristotle. Explanation of human being's origin as a result of
biological evolution, act of divine creation or some other way does not change this explanation. Society presumes that
every individual as its member, even if he/she was born and raised in society, not genetically or organically inherits all
rights and responsibilities established by this society but learns them in the process of becoming a human being. He/she
learns human way of existence only after birth during the process of upbringing and does not come in the world with this
knowledge or it is not a priori organically present in him/her. Consequently, social relations among people are established
by people themselves without consideration how much such relations are necessary in these conditions and are not already
given in people's essence. That is why social relations in principle could be chosen and that is why people historically
change them although by its biological nature they are almost the same.
People joining in society rather replies to needs of establishment and rooting of certain necessary for people values
and not just to the need of survival even when organic needs are cultivated in this or that cultural environment as a

primary values. It is a big difference when people just satisfy their organic needs without considering it as a way and an
indicator of self-establishment and from another side, when consumption becomes self-value. Relation between human
beings, becoming a basis for establishment and function of human society, means mutual penetration with meaning and
logic of their unity, understanding and living together through peculiarities of each other's life and not self-sufficing
presence of bodies in space and time. Living through each others life is possible not only where people have some
common value but also when their values are opposite. Social community at last is aimed on limitation of the selfsufficing need of organism as a relatively final whole and on establishment of more universal orientations. According to
logic of social community, human being should not exist only for its organic needs but for the values that are prior to
someone's life. Community organization already considers kin and tribe as prior and more valuable than life of a particular
kin member and demands undoubted sacrifice of someone's life for the sake of community preservation. An individual
undoubtedly accepts this orientation, i.e. makes it his/her own personal orientation. At the same time it is impossible to say
that particular life does not have any value for the archaic community. Every life is self-valuable and is a cause of any
value. But preservation of life of the whole is more valuable than preservation of a particular life. Thus social organization
of people is possible where behavior of its individuals is not constantly determined by genetic and biological structure that
is automatically functioning in inducing conditions. Human being correlates his/her existence with existence of the rest of
the world, tries to determine his/her place, meaning of the surrounding world and also his/her meaning in the world
especially because this all is not determined before him and for him by previous conditions and this condition supposes
that people must and forced to define themselves. Organization of individuals into society even if it happens a priori and
subconsciously and somehow semi-automatically is still their decision and defining of their joint Being based on
recognition of community as the highest value that gives meaning to every individual's existence. Objectively, situation
of individual's self-defining in the world creates necessity for defining the meaning of the world of nature, whole organic
life, its independence from the world of people - this all is not only acceptance of the external world existence as a fact but
an assessment of the world and establishment of the corresponding to this assessment relation. This assessment might be
different and depending on its context appears as a certain way of people's attitude to the world and way of their existence
in the world. The fact that human communities are often culturally different not only in different regions but in similar
geographic conditions perhaps could be explained by differences in their relation toward the world. Particularly,

differences between East and West not as geographic parts of the world but as a cultural paradigms consist in a differences
of their relation to the world and to human being itself.
Thus human being is not directly immersed in the external world as its composing part but is in external relation to
it from his special position as an observer and witness and he/she in principle can become on position of the external
world toward him/her and from this position to assess and to be an witness and observer of all that he/she represents
him/herself and of all that happens in the human world.
That is why it is possible to say about human being's relation to the world that he/she can establish or change it by
him/herself because without position in another world and beyond it, human being cannot relate to him/herself as some
external reality and look on him/herself from onlooker view.
It means that values are not given to a human being but chosen by him/her. Therefore values of human
communities are not the same but multi-diverse. They historically change among peoples, communities, the whole
mankind. They are an essence of what individuals view as a meaning of their existence, toward what they are
consciously and in many cases unconsciously aimed, these are what if they presently determine the general
direction of actions and deeds that is indirectly highlight people's actions giving to every individual his in some
way special light. Consequently, values are created by people themselves even if what is considered by them as a
value existed before and without human being because establishment of human being's relation to it with all
recognition of the world's presence as a fact has a value in its content. Human being cannot be absolutely neutral to the
world because in this case world would not exist for him. He/she would be in the world in an involvement status like
animals and would not be standing toward the world in his/her some special relation with his/her individual position as
some other reality equal to this world. But if people create values themselves it does not mean their unreality and nonobjectivity. Human being and people community are the same ontological power as nature, which is testified by growing
positive and especially negative impact on nature. Demands that are coming out of logic of joint collaboration and social
community are objective for every particular member of community because community in very general form presents
identical for everybody value. Such objective value exists independently from its recognition by this or that individual.
In everyday life we see that people's value orientations are different. It especially obvious in complicated society
broken into parts. Even in presence of common values and within their framework, every individual can have different

value orientation and often it is even opposite to these common values. It is consequence of individual's autonomy as a
subject. Thus human being is a subject of his values. As a result, one or another individual sometimes becomes a center
for different and contradictory orientations.
Even individuals who think that they care only about ensuring primary vital needs in limits of organic survival
everywhere find motives lied under the survival interests and to be alive and to make efforts for it becomes a tool and
not a final goal. In this case they promote to themselves and to others demands that are lying far beyond organic needs.
They also consider some actions as just or unjust, good or bad, goodness or evil and these appraisals in the limits of only
organic needs provisions are unnecessary, taking into account behavior of animals. Someone can see it as an example,
when inveterate egoist often tries to cover his self-mercenary actions with quasi-noble reason and operates with the
same categories. As a result of this, very dubious things and even anti-human destructive orientations aimed against
human community and harmony become a value and meaning of existence for such individuals. Such values and
ominous orientations sometimes take possession of not just particular individuals but of the whole ethnic groups and
peoples.
Aspiration to unlimited enrichment, power and domination, violence and expansion can be for individuals value
orientations. There are a lot of examples in the history of mankind. It is full of violence, destruction of peoples and ethnic
groups by others because of collision of their value orientations and worldview paradigms. Making something a
meaning of existence does not necessary become an objectively positive act but usually is perceived as something noble,
sometimes simply as a mission destined to human being, ethnic group, etc. from heaven. That is why it is competent to
speak of a true or false value. Like in cognitive sphere, truthfulness or falsity of the chosen value is not immediately
seen, it could be long centuries of following certain values before their falseness would be found out.
Value accepted by one or another community as a basis of relation to the world composes an internal meaningful
core of their specific culture.
Purpose of philosophy, differently from science, is that in philosophy as was noted before taking into account and
synthesizing socially spiritual experience of the past and the present, its main impulse sent not on a reflection of the
given but on a creation of a proper, worthy way which philosophy tries to ground as a main value and meaning for
human being. Such kind of way might not exist in life. The ultimate goal of science is to create the most exact ideal

picture of the essence of present reality and what consequences, necessary and possible, can be expected from laws, from
this picture's cause-result chains.
The ultimate goal of philosophy is to find and to create image of worthy life independently from this image's existence or
absence in present reality because even when such image is given to human being in life, it might not have a status of
leading and attracting human being value which organises the whole way of his life. Consequently, it needs in grounding
as something high and only worthy in life. That is why philosophy cannot be satisfied by the fact of presence of this or that
in life and it is not enough for philosophy just rightly reflect this fact in its essence. Moreover, it needs to determine place
of one or another event in the life value system. Presence in life does not give value to philosophy if it does not have any
relation to the meaning of human existence. Forms, ways and even intruded paths of man's being in the world if they
worthy him must be grounded, elaborated, justified by philosophy. Not any being but comprehended being is the content
of philosophical reflections because there are a lot of ways of being entering where human being disappears.
For human being especially in his developed status, the ways of worthy Being can be diverse. Essential differences
between philosophical systems and concepts are related with different understanding of these ways, with adherence to
different values and with possibilities of many and at the same time true values of life. Moreover, it resolutely is
connected with degree of human being's and every individual's ownership of his Being, i.e. with level of his subjectivity.
Presence of such main trends as materialism and idealism, metaphysics and dialectics, etc. in history of philosophy gives
firstly evidence about fundamental preference by their creators and successors of totally different and even opposite life
values.
From this should follow totally different relation of philosophy and science to truth and understanding of true.
Because science must reproduce what exists, its properties and laws then truth in its understanding is right reflection of
reality, the most adequate to reality image even in its development. For philosophy because it is aimed on grounding of
certain worthy way of mans being in the world later is something compulsory and not essential even if this compulsory is
present in life but true can be only compulsory true: true way of life, true life style. Here we would like to show following
difference between philosophy and science. In philosophical understanding is also possible mistake. In science at the
present momentum and in the present relation can be only one truth although in the sphere of false can be a multitude of
true as well as false ways.

At the same time the Western philosophy of the 20* century, especially its second half, significantly weakened this
tendency of philosophy and its specifics dissolving in science. The prerequisite of this was a horrible experience endured
and enduring by humanity in this century through many social cataclysms when it was revealed that mankind probably
chose a way not leading people to harmony and consent. Perhaps, an ideal of super-arming to which people are rushed in
their relation with nature and each other with purpose to establish dominance, leads them in final account to the global
catastrophe. What is the meaning of all this? Science does not answer to this question because it is not supposed to. It has
its own burden. For philosophy the tendency to dissolve itself in science, to be lost in it at present time is equal to running
away from its purpose and its duty. This experience shows that progress on way of permanent arming (in the sense of not
only war warms but also knowledge, tools, institutional forms) for domination and constant transformation of everything
put off and condemned moral development of humanity to degradation where the West is a leader. Two world wars,
fascism and totalitarianism, global competition, regional wars currently happening, environment catastrophes are evidences
of a false way humanity has followed. That is why voices calling to harmony sound louder at the end of this century.
This is the deepest problem of philosophy. In this or another way it considers specific nature of human being, way of
man's being in the world and within the framework of human being and the world relation and comprehends its universal
forms. Deep divergence which mark main philosophical trends emanate, consequently, not only from understanding of
way human being should follow and which emanates from his nature, essence, purpose, etc. They also emanate from
subjective level and diversity that are changing with change of human being itself. Materialism and idealism, metaphysics
and dialectic, trends and divergence within these trends tell us not only about how the world is settled (as authors of these
trends thought) but mainly with orientation on what value the human world must be settled.
According to established in the past notion on philosophy it represents the system of the most general, most abstract
definitions and prepositions, with content very distanced from units, personal peculiarity, unique sensual experiences.
Because these notions and prepositions were supposed to comprehend the world in its wholeness they could fix in all
events and forms only what makes them united, identical, etc. According to famous law of formal logic, than more diverse
events are comprehended by definition than less content in it. It is clear that philosophy in this case must be a collection
of the leanest abstractions. It also is a result of understanding of philosophy as "Science of all sciences" and as the only
cognising activity.