# About the origin and manifestation of personality

Юрий Михайлович Низовцев

A person, although separated from nature, but not so much as to lose his animal essence. This essence, more precisely, the animal consciousness, manifests itself to one degree or another in each person in the form of his individuality, whereas the personality of a person is a reflection of his awareness of himself in the world as an self-made subject, sometimes manifesting himself in such a way that it seems - he moves history. There are still disputes on these issues of our existence, although the essence of the matter seems rather clear, and it is shown below.

Keywords: individuality, personality, history, civilization, culture, creativity, consciousness, self-consciousness, dissatisfaction, sensations, information, religion, knowledge.


Although the duality of the human consciousness is not much in doubt at the present time, nevertheless, when characterizing a person, most often they point to his individuality, and personality is remembered mostly when it comes to heroes, as well as outstanding figures of science, culture and great statesmen.

Perhaps for this reason, a theory even arose that it is these personalities, and not anyone or anything else, that are the driving forces of history. In particular, the British writer, historian and philosopher Thomas Carlyle, on the basis of intellectuality, began to preach the cult of heroes: "... world history, the history of what a person has done in this world, is, in my understanding, essentially a story of great people who worked hard here on earth. They, these great people, were the leaders of mankind, educators, models and, in a broad sense, the creators of all that the whole mass of people generally sought to carry out what she wanted to achieve. Everything that has been done in this world represents, in essence, an external material result, the practical realization and embodiment of thoughts that belonged to great people, sent to our world" [1, p. 7].

On the other hand, there is an opinion that this theory is completely false. For example, the outstanding Russian philosopher N. F. Fedorov did not overestimate the role of the personalities in history: "The activities of personalities create not history, but the comedy of world history. The history that individual personalities create according to the principle of historiosophism is the struggle of these personalities for the right to lead the crowd towards a goal, towards an ideal, which serves only as bait to take possession of the people..." [2, part 1, note 9].

Leo Tolstoy further belittled the personalities, who considered great people only instruments of providence, slaves of history: "A person consciously lives for himself, but serves as an unconscious tool for achieving historical, universal goals. A perfect deed, and its action, coinciding in time with millions of actions of other people, acquires historical significance. The higher a person stands on the social ladder, the more connected he is with a large number of people, the more power he has over other people, all the more obvious the predestination and inevitability of his every act... The king is the slave of history. History, that is, the unconscious, general, swarming life of mankind, uses every minute of the life of kings for itself as an instrument for its own purposes" [3].

G. V. Plekhanov tried to combine these views on the role of personality in history on some basis, pointing out the obvious contradiction and shortcomings as actions in the history of some general patterns, so only personalities: "The collision of these two views took the form of the antinomy, the first member of which was general laws, and the second was the activity of personalities. From the point of view of the second member of the antinomy, history seemed to be a simple concatenation of accidents, from the point of view of its first member, it seemed that even individual features of historical events were conditioned by the action of common causes" [4, p. 32].

Trying dialectically to combine certain "immutable laws" with a certain influence on the course of the historical process of personalities, Plekhanov puts the development of productive forces in place of the driving force of the historical process, believing that it is they "... determine successive changes in people's social relations" [ibid, p. 33], but at the same time attributes the influence on the course of historical events to special causes.

These reasons, in his opinion, are "that historical situation in which the development of the productive forces of a given people takes place and which itself was created in the last resort by the development of the same forces among other peoples, that is, by the same common cause" [ibid., p. 33].

However, these researchers of the human souls did not even try to penetrate into their depth, without which it is impossible to solve this problem, which rests on the difference between individuality and personality. And this distinction between one and the other, in turn, depends on the peculiarities of each person's consciousness. Therefore, it makes sense to show where from and why individuality arose, at least in more or less developed living beings, and only then demonstrate its difference from the human personality, which also did not appear out of nowhere, as well as show the connection between individuality and personality, since personality is not capable of forming in isolation from individuality.

At the same time, it is necessary to trace the interaction of individuality and personality, adjacent in each person, as a reflection of the influence of his animal consciousness on self-awareness and vice versa, noting the role of dissatisfaction, always manifested in both forms of human consciousness in this interaction.

The individuality of a living being is determined by its genome and the environment in which the living being is a dynamic component of this environment. Therefore, the main feature of the individuality of any living being is its adaptability, without which the possibility of survival in its own surrounding is absent.

However, individuality is a secondary feature of the interaction of a living being with its surrounding, behind which lies what compels this being to lead an active lifestyle.

The activity of living beings, unlike other objects of beingness, which are subject only to natural laws: conservation laws, the law of non-decreasing entropy, Newton's laws, etc., must be in consciousness - the only difference between living beings and other objects of beingness. Otherwise, the activity of living beings would not differ in any way from the rotation of other objects of beingness, but we do not observe this.

But the activity of living beings must be carried out by something, forcing each living being not to stand still, but to change, reacting to the circumstances of life and the environment, lowering or raising the level of this activity in accordance with in accordance with the current situation.

In essence, the active differs from the passive by the spontaneous desire to change both its surrounding and oneself for the sake of not only survival, but also for a more complete satisfaction of itself in the sensations received, unconsciously developing itself and its kind in generations.

Thus, for any living being, activity manifests itself in permanent dissatisfaction with itself, entailing the creation and destruction of the environment, in the process of which both a change in activity and a change in the carrier of activity itself occur.

This dissatisfaction drives any living being forward, reflected in unaccountable actions to overcome the incessant resistance of the environment in the desire not only to survive, but also to get to where it is warmer, safer, more nutritious.

That is, the action of dissatisfaction of the consciousness of an ordinary living being manifests itself instinctively, without an obvious goal - by trial and error, in its desire for survival, reproduction, comfort and safety. Therefore, a living, or active being strives away from what it has, to where, as it assumes, it is better than this moment, that is, more favorable.

However, ordinary creatures in the form of flora and fauna do not have subjectivity, manifesting themselves in the environment only as dynamic components of the environment that are not conscious of themselves, which, although they act, giving development to this environment, but act instinctively-reflexively, that is, their consciousness is limited to the consumption of sensations, and it does not go beyond the environment, and the development itself turns out to be very slow in comparison with conscious actions. Therefore, such an original type of consciousness can be qualified as the lowest consciousness, the only inherent in all living beings, except for man, who has a certain addition to it.

Similar behavior of all living beings in their more developed representatives is externally manifested in their individuality, the properties of which allow them to better adapt to the environment, for example, without spawning, when the vast majority of eggs die for the sake of procreation.

As a rule, it is less difficult to adapt to the environment in a group.

Therefore, the individuality of a creature has to manifest itself in the herd community of certain creatures, that is, individualism coexists with collectivism.

Under such circumstances, a living being is subject to the trend of survival and obtaining, if possible, pleasant sensations, without trying to understand where and why these sensations come from, that is, they lack reflection, and they do not need an understanding of the current time - this being is unaccountably updrawn in it like chip in a stormy stream, content only with the fact that they have the opportunity, thanks to the dissatisfaction of their own consciousness, to avoid, if possible, death and unpleasant sensations.

In other words, all these beings are tuned to the possibility of "receiving" and not "giving" according to their own understanding of reality, which is limited to their analysis of their own sensations.

The receptivity and ability to analyze the sensations, and, as a consequence, the effectiveness of their activity, is externally manifested in these beings in the individuality characteristic of each of them.

Individuality is being formed on the basis of the genotype, to which is added the impact of the appropriate environment, which is determined by the dissatisfaction of the consciousness of the individual with the existing conditions in relation to nutrition, reproduction and status in the flock or herd.

The very term "individuality" clearly indicates the main property of any individual - its egocentrism, that is, the paramount concern for oneself alone as a being who wants to preserve own sensations, mitigated, however, by the fact that the forced stay of an individual in a group cannot but reflect its attitude to the members of this group, expressed in behavior that is dictated by the group, that is, the collective consciousness.

The consciousness of this more developed individual, for example, a primate, that is, the consciousness of an animal, strives only for nutrition, its own reproduction, possible improvement of its position in the environment and comfort, using such basic properties of its individuality, developed over millions of years of evolution, as quick-wittedness, sensitivity, impressionability, decisiveness, a certain degree of sociability, the ability to pry, as well as dominance, perseverance, cooperation in actions, which in their totality, level and relationships constitute the individuality of the animal consciousness together with its acquired or genetic traits - such as appearance, temperament, adding to them In own niche of existence the life experience, skills, and the behavior acquired in community.

All these properties are present in a person for the simple reason that he is semi-primate.

However, the adjustment to adaptability in person has been supplemented by an adjustment that forces a person to sometimes get out of the flow of sensations, in particular, to the shore of reflections on the essence of this flow, gaining knowledge about the possibilities of selectively changing the course of its flow.

From here arises an understanding of the arrival of sensations in a certain sequence, which is noted by a person by the flow of time from the past to the future through the present, and as a consequence, the limited life span, but, along with that, an understanding of the various possibilities of changing this life for the better, again, due to dissatisfaction with what is.

Thus, this new creature - a person - begins to understand that the sensations can be received not only induced, adapting to their flow, but also selectively, with the help of certain levers of control of the flow of sensations, and in fact, the flow of information, giving the appropriate commands to one"s own organs and using certain improvised means. Thus, gradually, a person comes to the realization that the known flow of sensations is nothing more than the current time of life, which begins and ends in him.

On this new basis of a person's gradual understanding that he is in a time flow - not only a calendar one, but his own - which he is capable of consciously changing, which is externally expressed in constantly changing sensations, thoughts begin to arise in a person's consciousness about changing his life for the better not only by trial and error, but by his own conscious efforts to change the environment, which can extend or, alas, shorten his life, but make it more intense and interesting.

With the emergence of property, some of its owners, having received the free time for thorough reflections on life, began to think not only about its pleasant moments, but also about its meaning.

Culture appeared, technologies began to develop, science arose based on the application of new methods of management, providing surplus product for exchange and development of trade between separate specialized regions.

The relationship of individuals in the state of herd mentality also changed towards the evaluation of their own, personal existence with all the ensuing consequences. That is, a personality began to form with all its negative and positive features, at the basis of which, nevertheless, there was individuality, but the main difference between a personality and an individuality was its desire not only to take, but also consciously, and often selflessly, to give.

It is precisely this positive quality of the aware altruism, reflected in the personality, and the egocentricity of individuality in one and the same person, that began to create, to a greater or lesser extent, a tension, and therefore a motion to resolve the contradiction between them, which was carried out in favor of one or the other, but, in general, moved a person forward in his communities, developing his self-awareness and making social relations more effective and favorable for the development of society.

Be that as it may, but the individuality of a person, behind which his primitive animal consciousness was hidden, closed on sensations, did not go anywhere, and all human life began to flow in the continuous struggles of the individualism of the animal consciousness with the altruism of self-consciousness in the aspiration to receive and give in the course of conscious change of the environment, destroying it and creating new things in it, differing only in the degree of manifestation of dissatisfaction with one or another form of consciousness, which ultimately created the entire social hierarchy.

In the process of development of living beings, the adaptive lowest, or more precisely, the natural form of consciousness undergoes comparatively insignificant changes, since no being is capable of removing its main property - the instinctive aspiration for the survival, based on the original activity of any living being.

The highest consciousness (self-consciousness), which always includes elements of altruism at any level of development of a person, is the radical opposite of natural - egocentric - consciousness.

In the presence of the highest consciousness in the living being, it begins as though to see the light, becoming not so much "poured" in the environment, how many separated from it, and, so it acquires the opportunity to look at it and on oneself from the outside, to appreciate this ratio in attempts consciously to set goals for oneself in view of certain shortcomings in own existence, which, in the opinion of this being, could be overcome, and to try to obtain implementation of the goals in actions.

All this obviously drops out of an instinctive-reflex sphere of action of the lowest consciousness, and even begins to contradict it as the highest consciousness often neglects utilitarian reasons, chasing something to unattainable, but cute for the heart and mind.

It is visible from everything stated that for the living organisms there is only one opportunity to get out of existence as the slaves of sensations - more or less deliberately develop ways to change themselves, namely: at least partially to get rid of the full submission to the environment, i.e. to rise to some extent above it, and thus to gain the opportunity not only to adapt to it, but also to fit it under themselves, wondering at first how best to improve the quality of sensations, and then for autonomous reflections on the meaning of life, its curiosities and own improvement.

Similar opportunity is realized through a person, who, while remaining an animal, or a creature adaptive to the environment, at the same time acquires the ability to consciously influence the environment, thereby raising oneself above it, that is, breaking out oneself of the full adaptive slavery, and getting the opportunity through this conscious impact with the acceleration to develop own consciousness, mainly manifested through the brain, the change of which is directly reflected in the growth of the possibilities of consciousness to influence the environment, which in turn changes the brain structure, and therefore - consciousness.

In other words, a person becomes not a slave to the environment, but to some extent, a master, that is, a personality with its specific and new properties compared to an individuality.

Along the way, a person becomes more savvy that is, inventive. The laziness of primates is replaced by hard work. The ability consciously to correct mistakes develop his self-criticism and responsibility for what he has done. The desire to know the world around him forms curiosity, abstract thinking and develops imagination, which, in turn, causes speech, will and creativity to emerge during the communication.

Labor efforts contribute to the emergence of such personality traits as kindness, friendliness, empathy, compassion, mercy, sacrifice, and this is nothing but selfless care for others, that can be designated as altruism.

Along with that, such properties of individuality as quick-wittedness, sensitivity, impressionability, decisiveness, a certain degree of sociability, the ability to pry, as well as dominance, perseverance, cooperation in actions, characteristic of both every animal and a person, passed by inheritance from the individuality of an animal to the individuality of a person with almost no change.

These characteristics relate specifically to individuality, not personality, in contrast to such properties as conscious diligence or laziness, self-confidence or self-criticism, politeness or rudeness, responsibility or bad faith, conviction or unscrupulousness, which are features of a person's personality, being produced mostly by his mind, which, already being a property of a person's personality, has significant differences from quick-wittedness in its focus not only on nutrition, reproduction and dominance.

However, the main characteristic of personality is altruism, which is opposite to the unchanging egoism of the animal consciousness.

Therefore, it can be stated that in every human consciousness, individuality, which mainly reflects the egoism of animal consciousness, coexists with altruism, which underlies the personality of each person. And both of these sides of the human consciousness, mostly because of the difference in the tasks being solved, fight each other in every possible way, uniting only at critical moments of existence for the sake of survival. And the place of each person in society is determined, as a rule, by the predominance of certain properties of individuality and personality, as well as their level, which was achieved by the corresponding person.

The formation of personality, however, is based on individuality. Therefore, in particular, quick-wittedness (the natural intellect), being a property of a person's individuality, at the same time gives rise to his mind, stubbornness (perseverance) precedes and produces will, remaining also in the consciousness of a person as a feature of his individuality. It differs from the will in that it lacks the goal-setting.

The impact on the personality of individuality and a competitive environment can produce properties in it that contribute to a person taking a place in society that he does not deserve, based on the degree of his mind and abilities.

These personality traits include cunning, hypocrisy, deceit, servility, the use of any, even unworthy means to achieve a profitable or leading position in society.

All this makes the human communities extremely heterogeneous and contradictory, slowing down their development and ultimately leading to collapse, since the capabilities of a person in his communities are quite limited in consuming information flows, and when their volume is excessive for the capabilities of a person within a civilization to perceive these flows, they lead the civilizations to disintegration, but, as a rule, not completely, allowing them to be reborn on the same competitive basis of the dual consciousness.


Bibliography


1. Carlyle T. (1841) On hero, Hero-worship, & the Heroic in History. New York. D. Appleton & Co.

2. Фёдоров Н. Ф. Философия общего дела. 1906. https://predanie.ru

3. Толстой Л. Н. Собрание сочинений в восьми томах. Т. 3, часть 1. М., Лексика. 1996.

4. Плеханов Г. В. Избранные философские произведения в 5-ти тт. Т. 2. М., 1956, с. 300-334.