Conceptualization of basic concepts in the context of state management by development of environmental state

K A Mashnenkov

doi:10.15421/151873

Abstract

The content of concepts «nature», «human nature», «nature of the state» and «nature of society» are analyzed. It is substantiated that the dualistic view of the nature of man and state should be redefined in the context of a broader interpretation of the meaning and scope of the concept of «human nature», from which the concept of «nature of the state» is constructed in a derivative way.It has been shown that statehood is due to centripetal tendencies, the hierarchy of integrative subordination relations in society, and state administration, which may have a coercive character. The nature of society is most clearly represented in local and public self-governance and represents a completely different, centrifugal tendency. The latter, in its extreme manifestations, may even acquire a separatist and autonomous character of statehood. Such a contradiction in the interaction of the state and society, that is, the unity and struggle of centripetal and centrifugal tendencies, inherent in a social organism, originally laid down in the nature of society.It is proved that moving are not only epistemological, subjective limits of understanding of the concepts of «human nature» and «nature of the state». There are also dynamic ontological, objective boundaries described by the above concepts of phenomena, since evolutionarily human nature is not primitive and definitely given by evolution.

Highlights

Доведено, що рухливими є не лише гносеологічні, суб’єктивні межі розуміння концептів «природа людини» та «природа держави»
It is substantiated that the dualistic view of the nature of man and state should be redefined in the context of a broader interpretation of the meaning and scope of the concept of «human nature», from which the concept of «nature of the state» is constructed in a derivative way
It has been shown that statehood is due to centripetal tendencies, the hierarchy of integrative subordination relations in society, and state administration, which may have a coercive character

Summary

Introduction

Що рухливими є не лише гносеологічні, суб’єктивні межі розуміння концептів «природа людини» та «природа держави». Це ставить питання про те, чи відповідає таке довкілля людині як продукту еволюції природи і чи є вже людина людиною. Водночас міждисциплінарний ракурс погляду на викреслену проблему показує, що передумови для державно-управлінського осягнення проблеми концептуалізації феноменів людини, природи, суспільства та держави вже добре визріли.

Results

Conclusion