In this material write about cultural and spiritual values. Value is only the form of the relation to something it means that it “something” in itself doesn't possess valuable characteristics, this is not a value. Such conclusion follows from early treatment of values.
The logic of reasoning of G.Rikkert: a philosophy subject is a world as a whole, or the world as whole. She aspires to develop that is called as outlook. To reflection of I and the world, or otherwise – the subject and object. In mutual relation of I and the world, the subject and object noted by Rikkert, consist of “a world problem”. The given problem supposes two decisions. The first consists in that, proceeding from object, to understand world whole by means of inclusion in it, the subject, the second decision consists in, that, on the contrary, proceeding from the subject to build the world whole. So, Rikkert marks, that there are two opposite outlooks, from which everyone is unilateral and, hence, not true. One is objectivist, another subjectivist. Neither that nor another doesn’t solve an outlook problem, “the concept offered by them about the world, - noted by G. Rikkert, - it is too narrow. Both of them don't leave frameworks of the valid life, but as though wide we thought of life, it nevertheless only a world part. Except life there are still values which importance we want to understand. Only set of life and values make up together that, which deserves a world name» [1].
This is a main provision of G. Rikkert and in general of neo-continians Baden school: the world including the subject and object, not is the whole world, but only its part. Usual people, marks Rikkert, argue as follows. In some objects it is possible to find out the value. Them, also usually name as values. But it is a full mistake. For example, a picture or sculptures are named as value. But whether, a cloth, paints and a varnish of a picture or marble (bronze, a tree, a granite and etc.) – are values? It makes sense, notices Rikkert such objects to name as “blessings” distinguishing them from those values which are contained in these objects. However, value, undoubtedly, somehow connected not only with object, but also with the subject: after all it estimates the object. Then, there is a question: might be that, the act of an estimation and value are the same. So usually also think, marks Rikkert. Consider, therefore that without estimating subject there is no value, as well.
“We, - writes Rikkert, - meet here the one of the most widespread and at the same time confused prejudices in philosophy. Mixed values and estimation meets even there, where a problem of value and concept of the physcological act of the estimating subject, as however, any estimation and any will, in the same way as concept of value and concept of objects in which values are found out”, that is the blessings. However, value for us is always connected with estimations, but they are connected with them, and that is why, it is impossible to identify them with real estimations» [2].
In our opinion, G.Rikkert acts absolutely correct by parting concepts of value and estimations. The estimation can exist and not exist, but existence of value takes place. Value is logically more primary that the estimation acts, and also the estimation, itself. But Rikkert goes further. He writes: “for value as value the question of its existence is deprived from any sense. The value problem is a problem of “the importance” (GELTUNG) values and this question not in any case doesn't coincide with a question on existence of the act of estimation”. The thesis that the question of value existence is deprived from sense and can be hardly accepted. After all, all values are concrete and so concrete the estimation acts: it is estimated, that is, the concrete object corresponds with concrete value. But values change, one appears, others disappear.
But G.Rikkert will disagree with such our judgment. After all he solves a problem of existence of values differently. He writes: “So, the blessings and estimations not a value essence, they represent connection of values with reality. Values thus, don't relate neither to area of objects, nor to area of subjects. They form absolutely independent kingdom lying on that side of the subject and object. If, hence, the world consists of reality and values, then in contradiction of these kingdoms, concludes the world problem. Contradiction it is much more wide than the object and subject contradictions. Subjects together with objects make one part of the world – the reality. They are resisted by other part, as values. The world problem is a problem of mutual relation of both of these parts and their possible unity» [3].
There is a question: what is this sphere, what is a measurement in which values are concentrated? Rikkert warns that the problem of values is insoluble from objectivist positions. Methadirika places values in a certain transcendental area, “the intuitive philosophy” (so Rikkert names philosophy of A. Bergson) places values in area till rational experience, in the immanent. Neither that, nor another, according to Rikkert, isn't capable to create the outlook, which capable to provide objective interpretation of the life meaning. If to search for that kingdom, “which would connect values with reality and that has laid down in a basis of desired outlook, then- marks Rikkert, - it is necessary to understand this unity in the sense, that both areas united in it, remain at the same time untouched in its virginity and feature. We search, thus, for an average kingdom, instead of any special third kingdom which is singly and independent, as values and reality, for these last settle alternative”.
This “average kingdom”, G.Rikkert connects with concept of sense. “The sense of act experience or estimation, - he writes, - not is neither life, nor its value, but hidden in the act of experience value, for value and as both communication and unity of both kingdoms, according to it, we will designate now the third kingdom a sense of kingdom that most to limit it from any life, penetration into this kingdom we will designate also by quite certain word “interpretation” (Deuten), in difference from objective descriptions or explanations (Erklaren) or from subjective understanding (Verstehen) the validity”, “To put it briefly, - explains Rikkert, - the sense inherent in the act of an estimation, on the one hand, not mental life, as it falls outside the limits of simple life, specifying on a kingdom of values. On the other hand, it is not a value, as it only specifies on values. And, at last, thanks to the average position, it connects together both divided kingdoms of values and reality. Correspondence to it and sense of interpretation (Sinndeutung) is not a life establishment, not also an understanding of value, but only seeing the subjective act of estimation from the point of view of its value for value, comprehension of act of an estimation as subjective relation to that possesses the importance. Thus, just as we distinguish three kingdoms: the validity, value and sense, it is necessary to distinguish also three various methods of their comprehension: an explanation, understanding and interpretation” Thus, the world, according to Rikkert, consists of validity subdivided into object and the subject, values and sense.
From all considered we see that Rikkert, first, hasn't explained what is it value, its essence, secondly, didn’t opened the way of existence of values and a place of their concentration; thirdly, to it «x» has added also «y» - hasn't told the sense about which, as well as about values of anything intelligible. His work “About system of values” nothing adds as well.
- Риккерт Г. О понятии философии // Риккерт Г. Науки о природе и науки о культуре. – М.: Республика, – С. 13-42.
- Там же
- Там же