Society of knowledge in the 21st century philosophy. Chapter VII Part Four

In the 20th century, scientific and technological progress continues, reaching unprecedented rates. At the same time, this is an era of major social upheavals on a global scale. Philosophically, the 20th century is marked by a transition to anthropological issues. Two reasons:

1. connected with the development of science itself, namely at the turn of the century the human sciences appeared. Sigmund Freud, Ivan Pavlov, Sechenov enjoyed authority at the turn of the century. Philosophy turns from speculative to scientific.
2. historical reasons. Man shows his qualities in World Wars. The problem of man again became dominant. Irrationalism is growing in human understanding, because reality itself was irrational. The main question is: What is a person? - is put in a new way. A new question arises: What is the relationship between man and technology?

Main anthropological trends and ideas of the 20th century.

1. German philosophical anthropology of the 20th century. Max Scheler ʼʼThe position of man in spaceeʼʼ. Scheler considers 4 worlds: inorganic nature, plant, animal and human - and comes to the conclusion that man is akin to all worlds, the essence of man is the difference between vital impulse and spirit. The vital impulse is stronger than the spirit. The impulse is blind and the spirit is weak. Man is a self-determining being and goes beyond his limits. The human spirit is akin to the cosmic spirit. H. Plesner is trying to create a scientific philosophy of man, based on data from the sciences, primarily biology. The main work is “Stages of the organic and man”. Plesner deduces several laws of existence, one of them is the law of natural artificiality, according to which a person cannot live outside the world created by himself. The second law is the law of mediated immediacy - a person needs some kind of mediators. Eccentricity of a person - the center of a person is outside of him. A. Gelen sees a feature that distinguishes a person from others - lack of specialization, which allows a person to be anyone. Culture as a means of compensation for human biological inability.
2. Neo-Freudianism is another human philosophy. This school has a focus on viewing man as a biological being. All individual characteristics are laid down in childhood. Consider the influence of social factors on human consciousness. Alfred Adler showed that the content of the subconscious is determined by a social inferiority complex. E. Fromm explores the phenomenon of aggressiveness - “Anatomy of human destructiveness”, as well as the phenomenon of love and human freedom. There is a practical beginning, a desire to help a “lost” person. Carl Jung introduces the concept of the collective unconscious, whose field creates the content of culture and religion.

1. Existentialism is the philosophy of human existence. Does not express the intention to build a specific philosophy based on the sciences. It is close to fiction. This direction has become widespread. Representatives: Karl Jaspers, M. Heidegger, Jean Paul Sartre, A. Camus, G. Marcel. Existentialism had the greatest influence on the minds of the mid-20th century. They considered the philosophers of the 19th century, especially Dostoevsky, as their predecessors. Main themes: human freedom, religion, fear, melancholy, feeling of abandonment. Sartre introduced the concept of a “borderline situation” - existence on the verge of life and death. Representatives of existentialism rethink the value of man after the Second World War. Another problem is the interaction between the individual and society; they believe that society is hostile to the individual. A person must be a participant in events. The theme of freedom is considered in relation to the theme of responsibility. Freedom is seen not as a benefit, but as a burden, which a person cannot throw off. Sartre – “Being and Nothingness”, “Nausea”, “The Devil and the Lord God”, “Existentialism - ϶ᴛᴏ humanism”. Camus believes that human existence is absurd. Existentialism has an ambiguous attitude towards religion. There is religious existentialism (Jaspers) and atheistic existentialism (Sartre and Camus). Sartre argues that it is not important for a person whether there is a God or not.

The 20th century provides a wide range of anthropological ideas: from Freudianism to the consideration of man as a purely spiritual being. The influence of Marxism continues.

Throughout the 20th century, keen interest in epistemology remained, and the philosophy of science developed.

The main epistemological directions of the 20th century.

1. Neopositivism. Representatives - L. Wittgenstein, B. Russell. Neopositivism is often called logical and linguistic positivism. What makes it similar to classical positivism is that its representatives consider scientific knowledge to be the only true one, do not believe in philosophical knowledge and believe that all questions come down to scientific proof. Neopositivism offers a method of verification of judgment - verification of any judgment. If the method is applicable, then the judgment makes sense; otherwise, it does not. In the mid-20th century, neopositivism was replaced by postpositivism.
2. Postpositivism. Representatives - K. Popper, I. Lakatos, Thomas Kuhn, P. Feyerabend. They come to the conclusion that philosophy and science are inseparable. All scientific knowledge is relative, subjective and loaded with evidence and theories. Popper proposes the principle of falsificationism - proof of the falsity of a theory.

Philosophy of the late 20th century.

The era of postmodernism is coming. Signs: there is value indifference to hierarchies; game character.
Posted on ref.rf
There is no concept of “reality” in philosophy. All attention is paid to the inner world of the subject. Interest in Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism. Knowledge cannot claim to be true. The main concept is text. “The man is dead” is the slogan. M. Foucault, J. Baudrillard consider certain aspects of existence.

Conclusion: we are seeing a variety of polemics - a departure from classical philosophy; retreat into private images.

Modern directions and rates of development of society represent quite broad prospects for the development of philosophical concepts and philosophy in principle. Perhaps this is precisely why one of the trends of modern philosophy is the unity of its three components: ontology, epistemology, axiology. On the other hand, right now, what is called metatheorizing is no longer happening. The rejection of the so-called “grand theories” is one of the trends in postmodern thought in general, which, it seems to me, no one argues with anymore. Modern philosophy has long ceased to be some way of “understanding everything that exists”: it no longer poses the question of how being is possible in principle and what are the universal laws of its development. Today it is common to talk about trends and patterns. We go further and discover that we are no longer concerned with the problem of the subject; moreover, the mental environment (so to speak) from the end of the 19th century until today has very calmly “dealt with” its own heritage. The Age of Enlightenment with its anthropocentric pathos gave way to “Necrophilia.” We can find this term in the works of E. Fromm, such as: “Flight from Freedom”, “Anatomy of Human Destructiveness”. Presumably, this most clearly began with the famous thesis of F. Nietzsche “God is dead”, then literally at the same time, M. Foucault “denied life” to the subject, R. Barthes “dead” the author, and J. Baudrillard wrote to us about the “end of the social.” Thus, by the end of the 20th century, many central philosophical (and not only) categories will turn into a “dump of outdated concepts.” Philosophy will be deprived of the “Creator”, but at the same time it will continue to exist; man, who is no longer a subject, also remains in the “arena of history”, which in truth will already be historicity and temporality. The idea of ​​progress was also questioned back in the 19th century. As an example, we can again recall F. Nietzsche, who will write that “Progress is a false idea,” in fact, he already saw in “progress” ressentiment, a sign of the decline of modern culture. The events of the twentieth century will finally send the idea of ​​progressive development, in the name of the “common good,” into “oblivion.” Z. Freud in his book “The Discontents of Culture” will ironically note that “the task of creating the world was not to make a person happy.” The conclusion is simple: the philosophy of the twentieth century is the philosophy of crisis, after which there should be something with the prefix “post”. Based on the above framework, the central thesis of our work is that philosophy in the 21st century will become a philosophy of post-transgression.
This thesis can be proven in several ways. We will call the first path the path of historical retrospective. In this case, we would only like to point out that even with the most cursory examination of the periodization of philosophy, one can find that the “core” of philosophical thought at one time or another was a quite tangible “social order”, in the sense that philosophy was engaged in understanding issues which were central to the development of human civilization in general. During the times of ancient philosophy, attempts were made to explain the origin of the world (Thales and others), Plato and Aristotle “laid” the foundations of possible systems of government, the need for which was dictated by changes in the life of society. The philosophy of the Middle Ages, one way or another, served the primacy of religion (scholasticism, patristics). Technological progress, differentiation and complication of political and social life inevitably led “to the decline of the Dark Middle Ages”, “human nature”, man himself had to be placed at the center, made him “the measure of all things”, which was actually done by the Age of Enlightenment. However, this did not solve many problems, such as inequality or the so-called “Hobbesian problem”, which today has finally migrated to sociology in the form of the question “how is society possible”? Today we have answers to the question as a result of which “society is impossible,” which, in essence, is an attempt at transgression, as going beyond this “axial” question. Of course, one can argue that modern trends in philosophy, and science in general, such as: the unity of ontology, knowledge and ethics, the unity of theoretical constructions and applied research, interdisciplinarity work, as they say, in the “reverse direction”, that is, to indicate the limits beyond which the development of society should not go in order to remain “safe”. The only problem is that “building new security systems” provokes dangers that, according to W. Beck, are “qualitatively different from the dangers of past eras.” Science and philosophy, encountering and comprehending these dangers, again and again designate the limits of impossible development, thereby going beyond the limits of itself, not without the help of scientific and technological progress, “provoking” the birth of “new security systems”, the flip side of which is the “new " danger. Having dwelled on these reflections, we note that philosophical and scientific knowledge itself developed transgressively. Being a criticism or apologetics of order, it inevitably went beyond itself, overthrowing its own foundations. The growing problem of transhumanism, as the problem of a person going beyond his own physical limits, by “introducing into himself” various technologies, in which the thesis of F. Nietzsche: “Man is something that must be overcome” is understood too literally, will not remove social contradictions, however, the rapid pace of development of the “transhuman” will raise the question of not only its apologetics, but also its criticism. This is how a program of philosophy of post-transgression will arise, whose task will be to “collapse” the processes of transgression in general.
We will call the second line of argumentation epistemological, and we will consider it very briefly, since from our point of view, the question of the “essence of transgression” is an addition to what was described above. Today it is recognized that philosophy has made a departure from Hegelian dialectics, which in postmodernist discourse is presented, relatively speaking, as a distorted binary. One of the adherents of transgression, M. Foucault, wrote that transgression does not raise the question of the limit of being, but raises the question of the limit and overcoming the limit. If in dialectics, as a result of the resolution of contradictions, something qualitatively new is born and this is the principle of development, then transgression is an exit beyond the limit, but beyond this exit there is nothing. “We are not talking about some kind of general denial, we are talking about an affirmation that does not assert anything.” (M. Foucault) It is significant that the term “transgression” originally appeared in Hegel’s “Phenomenology of Spirit”: and denoted a way to achieve the position of an external observer in relation to the phenomena under consideration. From all this it follows that if dialectics can be positive or negative, then transgression is “free” from such assessments, which does not contradict the Hegelian interpretation of this term. Another question is that if there is nothing “beyond the limit,” then the limit itself may be just a fiction. In practice, this conclusion is only a consequence of dialectics: going beyond oneself, when each limit overcome gives birth to a new one. At the same time, the very principle of overcoming the limit remains purely dialectical: the past limit is denied. In sum, all of the above only indicates that the development of society in general, devoid of a deliberate direction, will not remove social contradictions, just as (neo) Marxism did not remove the problem of objective inequality, but only transferred it to a symbolic plane. Structural poverty, according to J. Baudrillard, is not leveled out from society. The processes of capitalist production and consumption may stimulate the demand for a “transhuman”, but then, if you like, there will be a transition from “quantity” to “quality”; philosophy will have to become: either ethics, which tries to stop the processes of intrusion of the technosphere into social life , or become a “new limit” program, which will be built on the rejection of transgression, and in this sense, the philosophy of transgression will turn into a philosophy of post-transgression.
In conclusion, we note that the answer to the question “What will be the philosophy of the 21st century” was that the philosophy of crisis characteristic of the 20th century is today a philosophy of transgression. The rapid pace of development of techno, nano and other areas by the end of the century will raise the question of the limit of this development, since society is already faced with the problem of its own security in the broadest context. Already today, modern trends in philosophy and science indicate that “development” does not solve problems, but makes it necessary to consider them comprehensively. It is likely that the world today does not need theories of an “ideal society”, but does need research into specific problems. Philosophy responded to this by going beyond its own theorizing. But “the world is still accelerating” and in this sense, philosophy will soon require a new “program of the era”, dictated on the one hand by the public demand for security, on the other – by the logic of its own development. It is now difficult to say whether this philosophy will be apologetic or only critical. Still, it seems to us that with some confidence we can only say that transgression will be replaced by post-transgression. Just like philosophy. (c) Solomin M.S.

Reviews

Wonderful, Maxim, but too tricky.
What kind of security are we talking about? The planet is overpopulated. Almost TEN BILLION (just think about this figure!) are quite large, intelligent, aggressive mammals. For comparison, let's say there are less than two billion canines on Earth. The number of people is comparable only to the number of insects, but the size is incomparable here. A person does not have enough living space - there are not so many places suitable for comfortable living. You can, of course, place a person in permafrost and he will survive there, but the comfort of this survival is a big question. We complain about the development of GMOs, but where can we get enough natural product to feed such a colossal number of people? The lack of external space is accompanied by a limitation of internal space. Under the guise of “security”, systems of total control, systems of manipulating consciousness in the desired direction are being introduced. But the “need” of this direction is momentary, so sooner or later a contradiction arises between yesterday’s, the day before yesterday’s and today’s directions. Consciousness “freezes,” overheats and splashes out in the form of aggression. Multiply the above factors by constant noise, exposure to electromagnetic waves and other effects of civilization and you will get a picture of the apocalypse.

Religion once restrained aggression. And in modern society, puppeteers are trying to appeal to it to curb the chain reaction. However, it is clear that religion is failing. It is impossible to name a single divine miracle described in the religions of any nationality that man could not repeat. Treat the plague? Please! Walk on water? If you please. Feed an entire people with three loaves of bread? Nothing could be simpler. We create life in test tubes, we revive the dead (a person can be in a state of clinical death for up to 20 minutes, essentially dead, and then pumped out). All that's left is to defeat death. Theoretically, even I can imagine how to do this - by cloning and copying consciousness. By the way, it is not a fact that similar experiments are no longer being carried out. Of course, it’s unlikely that anyone will immortalize you and me - not by the flight of a bird. But, say, some sheikh - why not? In the light of this trend, any religion is untenable - why strive for Heaven or Nirvana, if you can create the same thing right on earth - if only there was money.
Thus, we inevitably come to a new cornerstone of existence - Success. Success will provide comfort, health, peace, even immortality. Success at any cost - that's the whole philosophy. Either you or you.
You very accurately noticed the transformation of “quantity” into “quality”. In general, I personally support the “golden billion” theory. I am often asked the question: “Do you yourself plan to get into this billion?” To which I answer with a clear conscience: “Yes, absolutely!” Immediately after this there are accusations of pride: “What are you, a superman?!” Not at all. But to get into the “billion” you don’t need to be super-outstanding - it’s enough to be better than eight others. And offhand I can name about two dozen individuals whom I surpass in all respects. Therefore, I think that I will get into the billion. And you will get there - you are an exceptionally smart and talented person. Our species is called “homo sapiens,” therefore, I believe that as a result of evolution, those who are guided in their actions precisely by reason, and not by instincts, will survive. And the rest will partially perish in endless civil strife for food, and partially degenerate into draft animals. I apologize for my cynicism. And the philosophy of the modern world, in my opinion, will increasingly resemble the feudal one - “Survive”.
With deepest respect

Despite national differences in the development of schools and directions of modern philosophy, the situation at the turn of the XX-XXI centuries. characterized by the presence of general trends associated, first of all, with the attention of the world philosophical community to the challenges of the methodology of philosophizing and the problems of an adequate approach to the analysis of social reality. One of these trends, clearly evident in the second half of the 20th century, is the convergence of schools and trends, or more precisely, methods of philosophical analysis developed within various schools. There is a certain identity between the approaches of phenomenology, deconstructivism, hermeneutic and analytical principles. This trend is reinforced by the unification of philosophical education in the modern globalizing world, which leads to heated discussions about the status and scope of old and new disciplines of the philosophy of philosophical knowledge in general.

Attention to the methodological problems of philosophy gives rise to a tendency to consciously use methodology, which, in turn, leads to the active popularization of this issue. Knowledge of methods and techniques of philosophical analysis becomes a necessary component of general education.

A conscious appeal to one or another methodology, to the standards of a particular school or direction leads to a change in the rules of corporate behavior of philosophers and humanists. One of the leading requirements of professional activity is the recognition on the part of the scientist of his own engagement, the conditionality of his own cognitive interest.

This recognition becomes possible due to the fact that not only in the humanities, but also in the natural sciences, the classical “subject-object” division is being “removed” as a necessary principle of any scientific research. The researcher is viewed as an individual who is obliged to understand the boundaries of his own cultural and historical background, which leads to an active revision of the status of the humanities, their methodology, boundaries and capabilities. Even within the framework of natural science approaches, there is an increasing recognition of the need for various forms of historical and literary education, because ultimately, the natural scientist lives among people and needs knowledge of how to communicate with others and build his own life project.

That is why, as the topics of recent international philosophical forums show, more and more attention is paid to the problems of so-called practical philosophy, namely, topics that are included in the research field of such philosophical disciplines as ethics, philosophy of politics, philosophy of law, social philosophy, philosophy of history. They are joined by new philosophical disciplines related to the understanding of human activity in the field of technology, information, media and communications.

In connection with the political and social transformations of recent decades, the range of practical philosophy includes such topics as the moral consequences of globalization and problems of human identity.

(Philosophy: a textbook for students of higher educational institutions / V.S. Stepin [et al.]. - Minsk: RIVSH, 2006. - 624 p.)

Lecture 4. Philosophy and national identity. Philosophical thought in Belarus

National traditions of philosophizing are part of the world philosophical process, while possessing significant historical and substantive originality. However, the degree of this variability varies. If European national traditions are distinguished primarily by the unique styles of philosophizing, then the traditions that arose in cultures that found themselves on the periphery of the processes of the industrial revolution and the formation of liberal ideology are characterized by thematic features.

As the most important periods in history of philosophical thought in Belarus The following can be distinguished: 1) the spread of the ideas of Renaissance humanism and reformation (XVI-XVII centuries); 2) the predominance of scholastic philosophy (XVII - first half of the XVIII centuries); 3) dissemination of the philosophy of education (second half of the 18th - first half of the 19th centuries); 4) the spread of people's democratic ideologies (second half of the 19th century); 5) development of philosophical thought within the framework of traditional problems of Marxist-Leninist philosophy (20-80s of the XX century); 6) inclusion in the world philosophical process, mastering the ideas of modern Western philosophy.

The beginning of the spread of the ideas of Renaissance humanism in Belarus is associated, first of all, with the activities of Francysk Skaryna(c. 1490-1541). Skaryna saw the Bible as the most important source of enlightenment for the people. Skaryna associated the possibility of improving people's lives with the spread of the spirit of philanthropy. He attached great importance to legal issues. Skaryna distinguished between “innate” (natural) and “written” laws. The natural law is written, “is in the heart of every person,” according to it you need to “do not do to others what you yourself do not want from others.” Because some abused the lack of written laws. it was necessary to establish such for “evil people, who, fearing execution, pacified their courage.”

From the middle of the 16th century. unfolded on the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania Reformation Movement, had a significant influence on public thought. A prominent ideologist of one of the movements of the Reformation - antitrinitarianism- was Symon Budny(1533-1593). He published the Catechism and his translations of biblical texts with a preface and commentary in Belarusian. Essentially, he began to revise and criticize the Holy Scriptures. He rejected the dogma of the divine nature of Christ, calling the assertions that God could be born from his own nature “nonsense of the sophists.” Christ, according to S. Budny, is an outstanding prophet, but still a mortal man. He should not be worshiped as God, and the doctrine of the Trinity is untenable. Along with this, S. Budny denied the dogma of the immortality of the soul. Next, he came to deny God as a person and interpret him as a faceless creative principle. The views of S. Budny already in the 70s of the 16th century. became known far beyond the borders of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. They became the subject of controversy among Western European reformers.

At the end of the 17th century. became the most famous scholastic in Vilna V. Tylkovsky(c. 1624-1695). As a Jesuit writer, he was popular not only in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Some of his works were republished in Latin and in translations in Paris, Vienna, Augsburg and other cities. V. Tylkovsky’s largest work is the nine-volume “Entertaining Philosophy” - a systematic presentation of the teachings of Aristotle as interpreted by Thomas Aquinas. His book in Polish, “Scientific Conversations Containing Almost All Philosophy,” was very popular.

Among the teachers of medieval scholasticism, a professor at Vilnius University stood out M. Smigletsky. His main work, Logic, written in Latin, was in demand in educational institutions in France and England. On the question of universals, which was fundamental for scholastic philosophy, M. Smigletsky adhered to the position of realism. Along with scholastic realism, moderate nominalism also became widespread at the Vilna Academy. His supporters were I. Kimbaras, G. Stanislavski, S. Kruger, K. Wierzbicki.

A notable event of this era was the trial and execution of an atheist Kazimir Lyshchinsky(1634-1689). A nobleman by birth, he received his primary education in Brest, then at the Vilna Academy, and became a teacher in one of the Jesuit schools. Subsequently, he renounced his clergy, returned to the Lyshchitsy estate in the Brest povet, got married and devoted himself to pedagogical, social and scientific activities. He opened a school on his estate and taught there himself. A provocateur sent to Lyshchinsky in 1687 stole part of his treatise “On the Non-Existence of God” and sent it to the Bishop of Vilna. Lyshchinsky was arrested, tried, beheaded and burned at the stake along with the manuscript. Lyshchinsky's treatise, written in Latin and containing 265 sheets, has not reached us, but its contents can be judged from the materials of the trial. The treatise stated that “people... are the creators and creators of gods, and God is not a real entity, but a creation of the mind and, moreover, chimerical; therefore God and chimera are one and the same.” The immaterial beginning of the world does not exist. Lyshchinsky did not believe in the “resurrection of the dead” and the “Last Judgment.”

Left a significant mark on the history of Belarusian and Russian culture Simeon of Polotsk(Samuel Petrovsky-Sitnianovich, 1629-1680). He was born in Polotsk, studied at the Kiev-Mohyla College and the Vilna Jesuit College. Having accepted monasticism in 1656, Simeon became a teacher at the Polotsk fraternal school and became close to supporters of the unity of Belarus with Russia. He argued that the Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian peoples come from a single root - “from the Russian family”; he considered the Belarusians to come from this family, and the Belarusian land as “ancient Russian”. Polotsky believed that the world was created by God. The world is based on two principles - material (earth, water, air and fire) and spiritual. Man is involved in both principles. Like Aristotle, S. Polotsky identified the stages of being: being in general is inherent in all things and beings, everyone exists, but plants, in addition, also have life, animals also have sensitivity, and in addition to that, humans also have intelligence. About cognition, Polotsky expressed thoughts close to Western European sensationalism: the mind of a newborn is like a blank slate, there are no innate ideas, cognition begins with sensations. Nature is like a book that man should study; The existence of God is inaccessible to sensory perception, which means that God cannot be known, but one must believe in him. S. Polotsky highly valued the role of philosophy in people's lives, believing that it heals human morals, teaches a just life, and helps rulers wisely rule the state.

Ideas educational philosophy began to spread in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the second half of the 18th century. A prominent supporter of education was Kazimir Narbut(1738-1807). He was born in the Lida district, began his education in Shchuchin, continued in Vilna, then in Italy, Germany, and France. Narbut left a significant handwritten legacy, including on philosophy, logic, ethics, natural science, etc. He wrote his works in Polish. He published the first logic textbook in Polish in Vilna. Narbut's views on the structure of the world are based on the ideas of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and Kepler. Adopting the position of deism, he sought to liberate philosophy from scholasticism and theology. At the same time, he believed that true knowledge does not contradict religion. In his views on society, K. Narbut adhered to the theory of the social contract.

He played an important role in the dissemination of the ideas of the Enlightenment in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Hieronymus Stroynovsky(1752-1815). In 1799-1806. I. Stroynovsky served as rector of the Vilna Main School, which with his participation was transformed into a University in 1803. In 1785, in Vilna, his work “The Science of Natural and Political Law, Political Economy and the Law of Peoples” was published in Polish, and was widely used as a textbook for students of higher and secondary educational institutions. (In 1809, it was published in Russian translation in St. Petersburg.)

In epistemology, I. Stroinovsky adhered to the position of sensationalism and highly valued the philosophical systems of Locke and Condillac. The social views of I. Stroynovsky are based on the theory of “natural law”.

At the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries. along with educational views, ideas spread romanticism. The influence of romanticism manifested itself in aesthetic views Leon Borovsky. Borovsky was born in Pinsk Povet, studied in Postavy, Vilna. As a supporter of the romantic-poetic perception of life, Borovsky believed that true poetry is more characteristic of the early stage of humanity than the modern one. The romantic views of L. Borovsky aroused his interest in the pagan myths of the Belarusians and Lithuanians. He considered oral folk art to be a model of true poetry.

In 1812, the second higher educational institution on the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the Polotsk Jesuit Academy, opened in Polotsk. In the 20s of the XIX century. teachers of Vilna University and Polotsk Academy conducted polemics on the pages of the Vilna Diary and the Polotsk Monthly. Issues of morality, training, education, attitude to the ideas of the French enlighteners, the peasant question, etc. were discussed. Professors of the Polotsk Jesuit Academy took positions of clericalism and conservatism on these issues.

In 1817-1823, a secret organization operated at Vilnius University "Society of Philomaths"(science lovers). The leading core of the society included: Józef Jezowski, Tomasz Zan, Adam Mickiewicz, Jan Czechet, Franciszek Malewski, Kazimir Piasecki, Mikhail Rukevich, Onufry Pietraszkiewicz, Teodor Lozinski. They proclaimed virtue and work to be the basis of their union. The leading role in the development of the most important program documents of the organization was played by A. Mickiewicz and T. Zahn.

Members of the society declared their goal to be self-improvement and preparation of youth for activities for the benefit of the fatherland. The philomaths considered serfdom and autocracy to be the main obstacle to progress as contrary to natural law and the reason of establishment.

Creativity played a prominent role in the development of Belarusian social thought Vincent Dunin-Martsinkevich(1807-1884).

Dunin-Martsinkevich believed that it was necessary to improve human relations through education and moral education. Literature in the Belarusian language can play an important role in this, which would be understandable to both the landowner and the peasant and would depict an ideal state of life, simple and friendly relations. He preached the fraternal unity of people, the simplicity and “naturalness” of life according to centuries-old patriarchal traditions, contrasting them with the complexity, moral chaos and mutual hostility reigning in the city. Dunin-Martsinkevich considered the Belarusian language to be peasant and common. Belarus did not seem to him independent in national terms. He saw its value in preserving the best of bygone times. The cultural uniqueness of Belarus is determined for Dunin-Martsinkevich by the synthesis of two cultures - noble and folk. The first carries a high level of spirituality, and the second - originality. This unity should determine, according to Dunin-Martsinkevich, the character of the new Belarusian culture.

In the second half of the 19th century. noticeable phenomena in social and political life were the activities Kastus Kalinowski(1838-1864), who published “The Peasant Truth” and preached the ideas of the peasant revolution, communal socialism, and national liberation; populist groups, and the newspaper "Gomon", creativity Frantishka Bogushevich(1840-1900),Yankee Luchins(1851-1897); distribution Marxist ideas.

At the beginning of the 20th century. Newspapers stepped up in the ideological field “Northwestern region, Our share, Our field, Bolshevik newspaper Star. Writers played a major role in the development of Belarusian socio-political thought Aloiza Pashkevich-Tetka (1876-1916), Yanka Kupala(1882-1942), Yakub Kolas(1882-1956), supporters of the idea of ​​national autonomy of the Belarusian people, their enlightenment, community and classlessness (I. Lutskevich, Y. Vereshchat, Burbis), Bolshevik propagandists and organizers M. V. Frunze, A. F. Myasnikov.

In 1921, the work was published in a small edition in Vilna Ignat Abdiralovich(I.V. Kanchevsky, 1896-1923) “To the Ways of Life.” In it, the author reflects on the historical path and cultural identity of Belarusians, who are between East and West and have not taken either side. Belarusians need “their own Belarusian forms of life,” but at the same time they should avoid “Belarusian messianism.”

Systematic research and teaching of philosophy was resumed decades later in Soviet Belarus in 1921 thanks to the establishment of the Belarusian State University and the organization of the department of dialectical materialism and the activities of such philosophers as Vladimir Nikolaevich Ivanovsky(1867-1939) - specialist in the field of philosophy of science, history of philosophy and psychology, an outstanding researcher of cults and worldviews of antiquity Nikolai Mikhailovich Nikolsky(1877-1959), academician of the Academy of Sciences of Belarus (1931), corresponding member of the ANSSSR (1946), famous specialist in the field of history of philosophy Bernard Emmanuilovich Bykhovsky(1898-1980), Georgy Fedorovich Alexandrov(1908-1961), who was the editor and one of the authors of the above-mentioned three-volume History of Philosophy, Vyacheslav Semenovich Stepin(b. 08/19/1934), specialist in the field of theory of knowledge, philosophy and history of science, philosophical anthropology, founder of the Minsk methodological school, within the framework of which the ideas of the philosophical foundations of science were developed, etc.

Lev Iosifovich Petrazhitsky(1867-1931) one of the founders of the psychological theory of law. He was born in the Vitebsk province, graduated from the Vitebsk classical gymnasium. Later he became a professor at St. Petersburg University, and after the revolution he emigrated to Poland and headed the department of sociology at the University of Warsaw. Petrazycki's ideas have had a great influence on modern American sociology of law.

A native of the Vitebsk province and a student of the Vitebsk gymnasium was one of the greatest Russian philosophers Nikolai Onufrievich Lossky(1870-1965).

Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin(1895-1975) worked in Vitebsk for four years (1920-1924): he taught general literature at the Pedagogical Institute and philosophy of music at the Conservatory, gave public lectures, and was engaged in active scientific work. It was during these years that he developed his fundamental ideas, which found expression in the study of Dostoevsky’s work, in the works “Towards the Philosophy of Action”, “Author and Hero in Aesthetic Activity”, “Subject of Morality and Subject of Law”.

Russian philosophy is a distinctive section of world philosophical thought. We present 20 of the greatest Russian thinkers who had the strongest influence on the views of their contemporaries and descendants and on the course of Russian history.

The focus of attention of Russian philosophers, as a rule, is not on abstract metaphysical constructs, but on ethical and religious problems, the concepts of freedom and justice, as well as the question of the role and place of Russia in world history.

Pyotr Yakovlevich Chaadaev (1794–1856)

"Basmanny Philosopher"

“We belong neither to the West nor to the East, we are an exceptional people.”

Pyotr Yakovlevich Chaadaev in his youth was a socialite, a brilliant guards officer. Pushkin and other most remarkable people of the era were proud to know him. Having retired and having made a long trip abroad, he changed and began to lead a life close to a recluse.

Chaadaev spent most of his time in a Moscow house on Novaya Basmannaya, for which he received the nickname “Basmanny Philosopher.”

The publication of his “Philosophical Letters” aroused the wrath of Nicholas I: “Having read the article, I find that its content is a mixture of daring nonsense, worthy of a madman.” Chaadaev was officially declared crazy. Subsequently, the medical supervision was lifted, but on the condition that he “did not dare to write anything.” However, the philosopher wrote “Apology for a Madman,” which remained unpublished for a long time even after his death.

The main theme of Chaadaev’s philosophical works is reflections on the historical fate and role of Russia in world civilization. On the one hand, he was convinced that “we are called upon to solve most of the problems of the social order..., to answer the most important questions that occupy humanity.” On the other hand, he complained that Russia was excommunicated from the world-historical process. Chaadaev saw one of the reasons for this in Orthodoxy and believed that all Christians should unite under the auspices of the Catholic Church. The ultimate goal of history according to Chaadaev is the implementation of the kingdom of God on earth, which he understood as a single, just society. Both Slavophiles and Westerners relied on his concepts.

Alexey Stepanovich Khomyakov (1804–1860)

First Slavophile

“Every nation represents the same living face as every person.”

Alexey Stepanovich Khomyakov was a multifaceted thinker: philosopher, theologian, historian, economist, poet, engineer. Disillusioned with Western civilization, Khomyakov came to the idea of ​​a special path for Russia, and over time became the leader of a new direction of Russian social thought, which was later called Slavophilism. Alexei Stepanovich died during a cholera epidemic, having become infected from the peasants whom he himself treated.

Khomyakov’s main (and, alas, unfinished) philosophical work is “Notes on World History,” nicknamed “Semiramis” by Gogol. In his opinion, every nation has a special historical mission, in which one of the sides of the world Absolute is manifested.

Russia's mission is Orthodoxy, and its historical task is to liberate the world from one-sided development imposed by Western civilization.

Khomyakov believed that every nation can deviate from its mission; this is what happened to Russia due to the reforms of Peter the Great. Now it needs to get rid of its slavish imitation of the West and return to its own path.

Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky (1828–1889)

"Reasonable Egoist"

“People have nonsense in their heads, that’s why they are poor, and pitiful, evil and unhappy; we need to explain to them what the truth is and how they should think and live.”

Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky was born into a priest’s family and studied at a theological seminary. Contemporaries said of him that he was “a man close to holiness.” Despite this, his philosophical views were characterized by extreme materialism. Chernyshevsky was the recognized leader of the revolutionary democrats. In 1862, on an unproven charge, he was arrested, convicted and spent more than twenty years in prison, hard labor and exile. His main work is the novel “What is to be done?” written by him in the Peter and Paul Fortress. He had a huge influence on the youth of that time, in particular on Vladimir Ulyanov, who said that this novel “deeply plowed him.”

The basis of Chernyshevsky’s ethical concept is “reasonable egoism”:

“The individual acts as it is more pleasant for him to act; he is guided by a calculation that orders him to give up less benefit and less pleasure in order to obtain greater benefit and greater pleasure.”

However, from it he draws conclusions about the need for altruism. On the basis of this, Chernyshevsky substantiated the possibility of building a free and fair society on a voluntary basis, where cooperation and mutual assistance reign, not competition.

Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy (1828–1910)

Non-resistance

“Be kind and do not oppose evil with violence.”

For Leo Nikolayevich Tolstoy, the greatest Russian writer, philosophical questions occupied his entire life. Over time, he practically abandoned literary creativity and devoted himself to resolving moral and religious issues. As a result, a new doctrine arose, Tolstoyism. Tolstoy himself believed that in this way he was purifying Christianity from historical distortions and contrasted the moral teaching of Christ with the official religion. His views led to conflicts with secular and spiritual authorities and ended in excommunication.

At the end of his life, Tolstoy made an attempt to live in full accordance with his teachings and secretly left home, but soon died.

The main point of Tolstoy’s teaching is non-resistance to evil through violence. It presupposes pacifism, refusal to perform any government duties and strict vegetarianism. Tolstoy denied the need for state institutions and agreed with the anarchists on this, but believed that the abolition of the state should occur in a natural, non-violent way.

Nikolai Fedorovich Fedorov (1829–1903)

"Moscow Socrates"

“If there is love between sons and fathers, then experience is possible only on the condition of resurrection; sons cannot live without fathers, and therefore they must live only for the resurrection of their fathers - and this is everything.”

Nikolai Fedorovich Fedorov worked almost his entire life as a modest librarian. He lived in a closet, ate bread and tea, and distributed the remaining money to poor students. Possessing encyclopedic knowledge, Fedorov could recommend the right book for almost any specialty. For his modest lifestyle, deep intelligence and extensive knowledge, he was nicknamed “Moscow Socrates”. People of various views spoke with enthusiasm about his personality and his ideas, including Leo Tolstoy, who was proud of the fact that he lived at the same time as Fedorov, and Dostoevsky.

Fedorov is considered the founder of Russian cosmism. His views are presented in a book with the telling title “Philosophy of the Common Cause.” He believed that the main goal of humanity should be the resurrection of all people who have ever lived.

He called his teaching “New Easter”. Moreover, Fedorov understood resurrection and subsequent immortality not only in the spiritual, but also in the physical sense, on the basis of scientific achievements.

To ensure eternal life, it will be necessary to regulate nature, and to resettle all the resurrected people, the exploration of outer space will be required. Apparently, these views influenced Tsiolkovsky, who knew Fedorov in his youth.

Pyotr Alekseevich Kropotkin (1842–1921)

Anarchist Prince

“If you want, as we do, that the complete freedom of the individual and his life be respected, you will inevitably be forced to reject the dominion of man over man, of whatever kind it may be.”

Prince Pyotr Alekseevich Kropotkin was a scion of one of the most noble Russian families. However, he decisively broke with his environment, becoming a revolutionary and the actual creator of the doctrine of anarcho-communism. Kropotkin did not limit himself to revolutionary activities and philosophy: he was a major geographer, and we owe him the term “permafrost.” He left his mark in other sciences. Kropotkin's lifestyle made him one of the highest moral authorities of his time.

Kropotkin dreamed of stateless communism reigning on Earth, because every state is an instrument of violence.

In his opinion, history is a struggle between two traditions: power and freedom. He considered the real engines of progress not competition and the struggle for existence, but mutual assistance and cooperation. Kropotkin accepted Darwin's theory, interpreting it in a unique way not as a struggle between individuals, but as a struggle between species, where the advantage is given to the species within which mutual assistance reigns. He supported his conclusions with numerous examples taken both from the animal world and from human history.

Vladimir Sergeevich Solovyov (1853–1900)

Knight of Sophia

“To properly carry out good, it is necessary to know the truth; in order to do what you should, you need to know what is.”

Vladimir Sergeevich Solovyov, the son of the famous historian, began studying at the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics, but quickly became disillusioned with the natural sciences and switched to philosophy. At the age of 22, he was already giving university lectures on it. However, the measured teaching life was not for him. Solovyov traveled a lot, lived, for the most part, with friends and acquaintances, dressed and ate as he pleased, and had many strange habits. Despite his amorousness and admiration for femininity, he never started a family. Several times he was visited by a vision of Sophia, divine wisdom, the Soul of the world, and these mystical experiences had a strong influence on him. Solovyov was not only a philosopher, but also a poet, and is considered the forerunner of symbolism.

Already the titles of Solovyov’s main philosophical works - “The Justification of Good”, “The Meaning of Love” best characterize the direction of his thought.

The main meaning of love, according to Solovyov, is the creation of a new person, and first of all, this refers to the spiritual, not the physical component.

The philosopher dreamed of the unification of humanity on the basis of Christianity (the path to this lay through the reunification of churches). The ultimate goal of history for him is God-manhood and the final victory of Good. He assigned the leading role in this process to Russia.

Vasily Vasilievich Rozanov (1856–1919)

"The expositor is forever himself"

“Whatever I did, whatever I said or wrote, directly or especially indirectly, I spoke and thought, in fact, only about God.”

Vasily Vasilyevich Rozanov is one of the most controversial Russian thinkers. He believed that for each subject you need to have 1000 points of view, and only then can you grasp the “coordinates of reality.” Sometimes he wrote about the same event under different pseudonyms from opposing positions. This extremely prolific writer and journalist self-described as “an eternal exponent of himself” and loved to describe the smallest movements and fluctuations of his soul.

In his philosophy, Rozanov put himself in the place of a “little religious man” facing the most serious questions. One of the main topics of his thoughts was the problem of gender.

He believed that “the riddle of being is actually the riddle of being being born, that is, that it is the riddle of being being born.” Such attention to sexual issues caused ridicule from his colleagues, and Losev even called him “a master of sexual affairs.”

Konstantin Eduardovich Tsiolkovsky (1857–1935)

Cosmic Seer

“The earth is the cradle of reason, but you can’t live in a cradle forever.”

Konstantin Eduardovich Tsiolkovsky is a great Russian self-taught scientist. As a child, he lost his hearing, but despite this, he continued his education and became a teacher of physics and mathematics. All his life he dreamed of flying into space, and devoted all his free time to experiments and theoretical work on aerodynamics and jet propulsion. He theoretically substantiated the possibility of space flights and indicated the path to their implementation. Konstantin Eduardovich achieved recognition of his ideas only towards the end of his life.

Tsiolkovsky is known primarily as the founder of cosmonautics, a pioneer of rocket technology, but the scientist himself noted that for him “a rocket is a means, not a goal.”

He believed that humanity should master all of outer space, spreading intelligence throughout the Universe. At the same time, higher forms of life “painlessly eliminate” lower ones in order to save them from suffering.

According to Tsiolkovsky, each atom is endowed with sensitivity and the ability to perceive: in inorganic matter it sleeps, and in organic matter it experiences the same joys and sufferings as the organism as a whole. Reason contributes to happiness, therefore, at a high level of development, “all these incarnations subjectively merge into one subjectively continuous beautiful and endless life.” According to Tsiolkovsky, the evolution of humanity continues, and over time it will move into the radiant phase, a purely energetic state, will live in interplanetary space, “know everything and desire nothing.” After this, “the cosmos will turn into great perfection.”

Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky (1863–1945)

Discoverer of the noosphere

“A thinking and working person is the measure of everything. He is a huge planetary phenomenon."

Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky was a type of universal scientist. His scientific interests were extremely broad, from geology to history. Not content with this, he created a new science, biogeochemistry. Vernadsky was no stranger to political activity: he was a prominent member of the Cadet Party, was a member of the State Council, and later of the Provisional Government, was at the forefront of the creation of the Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and was its first president. Despite his non-communist views, he enjoyed great authority in the Soviet Union.

Vernadsky's main achievement as a philosopher is the doctrine of the biosphere, the totality of all life on Earth, and its transition to the stage of the noosphere, the kingdom of reason.

The prerequisites for its emergence are the settlement of humanity throughout the planet, the creation of a unified information system, nationwide governance and the involvement of everyone in scientific activities. Having reached this stage, humanity will be able to control natural processes. These ideas are presented in his work “Scientific Thought as a Planetary Phenomenon.”

Nikolai Onufrievich Lossky (1870–1965)

"Ideal-realist"

“The evil that reigns in our lives can only harm those individuals who are themselves stained with the guilt of selfishness.”

Nikolai Onufrievich Lossky, a famous religious philosopher, was at one time expelled from the gymnasium... for promoting atheism. In his youth, he traveled a lot, studied abroad and even served for some time in the French Foreign Legion. Subsequently, Lossky came to Christianity, and after the revolution, along with many colleagues, he was expelled from Russia for his views. He led a fairly prosperous life abroad, teaching at various universities and enjoying international recognition.

Lossky, one of the founders of intuitionism, called his teaching “ideal-realism.”

According to his concept, the world is a single whole, and man, as an organic part of this world, is able to directly contemplate the object of knowledge “in its inviolable authenticity.”

Formally remaining an Orthodox Christian, Lossky, nevertheless, adhered to the theory of the pre-existence of the soul before birth and its posthumous reincarnation. In addition, he believed that all beings (including the Devil) were subject to resurrection and salvation.

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870–1924)

Philosopher-practitioner

“Human thinking by its nature is capable of giving and gives us absolute truth, which consists of the sum of relative truths.”

There is no point in dwelling in detail on the biography of Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin), it is known to everyone. One has only to note that he was not only a revolutionary and statesman, but also a major philosopher, and his activities stemmed from his philosophical views.

The basis of Lenin's philosophy is dialectical materialism. All our knowledge is a reflection of reality of varying degrees of reliability, and natural sciences and philosophy are inextricably linked. Marxism, in his opinion, is “the legitimate successor of the best that humanity created in the 19th century in the person of German philosophy, English political economy, French socialism.”

The main theme of his philosophical works is the transition from one historical formation to another and the possibility of building a just communist society.

Lenin formulated the classic condition for revolution: “Only when the “bottoms” do not want the old and when the “tops” cannot do the old things, only then can the revolution win.” The most important role in such transitions, in his opinion, belongs not to individuals, but to the advanced class as a whole.

Sergei Nikolaevich Bulgakov (1871–1944)

"Religious materialist"

“Faith is a completely independent ability of the spirit, which is unequally distributed among people. There are talents and geniuses of faith.”

Sergei Nikolaevich Bulgakov was interested in Marxism in his youth. Subsequently, he switched to the position of Christian socialism, and in this capacity he was even elected to the State Duma. During the revolutionary years, Bulgakov came to traditional Orthodoxy and became a priest. However, then, already in exile, he created within the framework of Orthodoxy his own teaching about Sophia, the wisdom of God, condemned by the Moscow Patriarchate.

Bulgakov defined his worldview as “religious materialism.”

At the center of his philosophy is the doctrine of Sophia. The Divine Sophia, through a mystical act, becomes the Created Sophia, the basis of the material world.

The Earth - “all matter, for everything is potentially contained in it” - becomes the Mother of God, ready to receive the Logos and give birth to the God-Man. In this Bulgakov saw the true purpose of matter.

Nicholas Konstantinovich Roerich (1874–1947)

Russian Maharishi

“The heart beats incessantly, and the pulse of thought is also constant. Man either creates or destroys. If thought is energy and it does not decompose, then how responsible humanity is for every thought!”

Nicholas Konstantinovich Roerich in the first half of his life was known mainly as an artist and archaeologist. Over time, he became increasingly interested in the culture and religion of the East. After meeting with a mysterious spiritual teacher, whom Roerich called the “Mahatma of the East,” he began to create his teaching “Agni Yoga.” Roerich became the author of a pact for the protection of cultural property (known as the Roerich Pact), which later formed the basis of the Hague Convention. Roerich spent the last years of his life in India, where he was deeply revered.

In his writings, Roerich tried to combine Western and Eastern esoteric traditions and teachings.

There is a constant struggle in the world between the Hierarchy of Light and the Hierarchy of Darkness. Great philosophers, founders of religions, spiritual teachers are the incarnations of the hierarchs of Light.

A person must strive to move to higher forms of existence, the path to which lies through spiritual self-improvement. Roerich’s teachings pay special attention to the renunciation of not only evil deeds, but also thoughts. The most important means of education is art, which, according to Roerich, will unite humanity.

Nikolai Alexandrovich Berdyaev (1874–1948)

Philosopher of Freedom

“Knowledge is forced, faith is free.”

Nikolai Aleksandrovich Berdyaev, who came from a wealthy family, in his youth adhered to Marxist philosophy, was close to revolutionary circles and even ended up in exile. However, then he returned to Orthodoxy, and the direction that his philosophical thought took can be called religious existentialism. After the revolution, to which he was sympathetic, Berdyaev was expelled from Russia on the “philosophical ship”. Abroad, he was the editor of the philosophical magazine “Put” and united around himself left-wing Christian youth, who, like him, dreamed of combining communist and Christian ideas. Because of such views, he broke up with most of the Russian emigrants. Berdyaev was repeatedly nominated for the Nobel Prize in Literature, but never received it.

Berdyaev himself called his philosophy “the philosophy of freedom.”

According to his views, Freedom is a manifestation of primary chaos, and even God, who created the ordered world, has no power over it.

That is why a person himself is responsible for his actions, and evil comes from himself, and not from God. Another important theme of his quest is the historical path of Russia. He outlined his thoughts about it in the book “Russian Idea”.

Pavel Alexandrovich Florensky (1882–1937)

Priest-scientist

“Man is the sum of the World, an abbreviated summary of it; The world is the revelation of Man, his projection.”

Pavel Aleksandrovich Florensky harmoniously combined studies in natural sciences and deep religious faith. He received a physics and mathematics education, but after graduating from university he decided to become a priest. After the revolution, he had to remember his natural science knowledge and skills. He took part in the development of the GOELRO plan. True, some of his research was of a curious nature: in his work “Imaginaries in Geometry,” he tried to return to the geocentric system of the world and even determined the boundary between heaven and Earth. In 1933, Florensky was arrested. Already in prison, he conducted research on construction in permafrost conditions, and on Solovki he studied the possibilities of using seaweed. Despite his important scientific achievements, Florensky was executed by firing squad in 1937.

Florensky's main philosophical work is “The Pillar and Ground of Truth.” He saw his task as a philosopher in “paving the way to a future integral worldview” that unites science and religion. An important part of Florensky’s philosophical views is name-glorification. He believed that “The Name of God is God; but God is not a name,” and generally gave words a special, sacred meaning.

Ivan Alexandrovich Ilyin (1882–1954)

White ideologue

“The meaning of life is to love, create and pray.”

Ivan Aleksandrovich Ilyin was among those expelled from Russia on the “philosophical ship” in 1922. Abroad, he began to be active politically, and became one of the ideologists of the odious Russian All-Military Union, which set the goal of “liberation of Russia.” Ilyin, who had a negative attitude towards both Bolshevism and bourgeois democracy, openly sympathized with fascism. “What did Hitler do? He stopped the process of Bolshevisation in Germany and thereby rendered the greatest service to Europe,” he wrote in 1933.

After the war, he admitted that Hitler and Mussolini “compromised fascism,” but continued to sympathize with the Francoist and related regimes.

Interest in Ilyin's writings was revived in Russia in the 1990s. His ideas are popular in conservative and religious circles. In 2005, Ilyin’s ashes were transported to their homeland and buried in the Donskoy Monastery in Moscow.

According to Ilyin, philosophy is an empirical science. According to his concept, a person, cognizing the objective world, also cognizes the ideas embedded in it, and, thus, cognizes God. Philosophy and religion are also ways of knowing God through abstract concepts or images. God for Ilyin is the embodiment of truth, love and beauty.

Alexey Fedorovich Losev (1893–1988)

Ancient sage

“It’s not enough for me to live. I also want to understand what life is.”

Alexey Fedorovich Losev was the most prominent Soviet specialist in antiquity. This area of ​​scientific interest was relatively safe at a time when a careless word could be very costly. However, after the publication of the book “Dialectics of Myth,” he ended up on the White Sea Canal for several years.

Losev, a student and follower of Florensky, was a deeply religious man; Together with his wife, they took secret monastic vows.

The philosopher was almost blind, he distinguished only between light and darkness, but this did not stop him from creating about 800 scientific works.

Losev began to speak openly about his philosophical views only towards the end of his long life. Following Florensky, he was a supporter of name-glorification. The name, Logos for him was “the original essence of the world.” Losev’s multi-volume “History of Ancient Aesthetics” forced specialists to take a fresh look at antiquity and classical Greek philosophy.

Alexander Alexandrovich Zinoviev (1922–2006)

Eternal dissident

“We need a dream, hope, utopia. Utopia is a great discovery. If people do not invent a new, seemingly unnecessary utopia, then they will not survive as people.”

Alexander Alexandrovich Zinoviev was a dissident from a young age. While still a student, he joined an anti-Stalinist underground organization and miraculously escaped arrest. Subsequently, when he was already a famous logician and philosopher, he published in the West a satirical book “Yawning Heights,” ridiculing the Soviet system, and was forced to leave the USSR. Once abroad, Zinoviev soon became disillusioned with Western values ​​and began to criticize capitalism, consumer society and globalization no less harshly than socialism in his time. He experienced very hard the processes that began to occur in our country after perestroika, and saw in them, in part, the fault of the dissidents: “They aimed for communism, but ended up in Russia.” At the end of his life, Zinoviev returned to his homeland, considering that he could not “be in the camp of those who are destroying my people and my country.”

In academic circles, Zinoviev is known primarily as an outstanding logician and methodologist of science. However, real fame was brought to him by his artistic and journalistic works, in which he studies the patterns of functioning and development of human society. To describe it, Zinoviev introduced the concept of “human being”: on the one hand, it constitutes a single whole, and on the other, its members have a certain freedom. The human race evolves from pre-society through society to super-society.

The "ideal" Marxist

Evald Vasilievich Ilyenkov (1924–1979)

“True reason is always moral.”

Evald Vasilyevich Ilyenkov was a Marxist by his convictions, but throughout almost his entire scientific career he was criticized for idealism. His book “Dialectics of the Ideal” still causes fierce controversy. He paid a lot of attention to the problems of education and upbringing, believing that school does not teach children to think enough.

Ilyenkov became one of the developers of a methodology for teaching deaf-blind people, using which these people can lead a full life.

In his work “Cosmology of the Spirit,” Ilyenkov gives his own version of the answer about the meaning of life. In his opinion, the main task of intelligent beings is to resist entropy and world chaos. Another important theme of his thoughts was the study of the concept of “ideal”. According to his concept, we study the real world to the extent that it is ideally expressed in our thinking.

The basis of the intellectual potential of society is scientific philosophy, an objective and dialectical view of the world. The problem of scientificity has become acute in the conditions of modern Russia, especially in connection with the “brainless” (according to A. Solzhenitsyn) reforms that destroyed both the economy, statehood, defense, and, to a large extent, the intellectual potential of the country. An attempt to replace scientific philosophy with mysticism, dream philosophy, or religion means undermining the intellectual potential of society. As you know, the main trends in modern world philosophy are positivism, philosophy of life and Marxism. The crux of the problem lies in assessing the scientific significance of these three competing concepts. This requires the development of criteria for scientific philosophy.

On April 12-13, 2000, an interuniversity conference “Scientific philosophy in the 21st century: results and prospects” took place in Perm. Philosophers from Perm, St. Petersburg, Cherepovets, Yekaterinburg, Orenburg, Novosibirsk, Belgorod, and Kurgan took part in the conference. The collection “New Ideas in Philosophy” (Issue 9) was published for the conference. Unfortunately, for financial reasons, many famous philosophers did not come to the conference.

On the problems of the formation of the modern form of scientific philosophy in the 21st century, three main points of view were expressed at the conference. According to Professor V.V. Orlov (Perm), scientific philosophy, in its most fundamental part, is the science of the most general entities: the world, consciousness, man, the essence and meaning of human existence. The most difficult problem of philosophy in the entire history of its existence is how can the essence of the infinite world be understood if man and his experience are always finite? The second most difficult problem facing world philosophical thought is the paradox of development, the emergence of something new. The discovery of a way to comprehend the essence of the infinite world and the solution to the paradox of development are, in our opinion, the two most important discoveries of Marxism in philosophy. The third greatest achievement of Marxist philosophy is the general philosophical concept of man. The essence of man, in its most general and concentrated form, lies in the fact that man is the only essence in the world that produces and creates itself. Man is a concentrated expression of the universal “property” of a material substance to be the “cause of itself.” Man, in a reduced and concentrated form, carries within himself the infinite diversity of the world. Man is a unique unity of the universal, the particular and the individual, the infinite and the finite, a necessary product of the endless development of the world. Due to the accumulative nature of development, human essence is an accumulation, a concentrate of an infinite sequence of essences of the basic forms of matter, of which we currently know the infinite number of physical, chemical, biological and social. The essence of man is integrally social. As the unity of the infinite and the finite, man is capable of endless social progress.

In the second half of the 20th century, the need for a transition to a new form of scientific materialism arose. The concept of this form of dialectical materialism is being developed by a group of philosophers in Perm and is presented in a dozen doctoral dissertations, three dozen monographs, and three series of collections of articles. The traditional content and structure of scientific materialism and dialectics has an abstract and universal character, based on the desire for extremely general provisions. It is based on the concepts of “matter in general”, “development in general”, “laws of development in general”. The concrete-universal theory of development, relying on the abstract-universal as the first stage of theory construction, concentrates its theoretical content around the main core idea of ​​a single natural world process. This approach makes it possible to discover a number of the most important laws and patterns of development: a general pattern of development that determines the sequence of the main forms of matter, including man (society); patterns of correlation between higher and lower forms of matter; patterns of accumulative and convergent development; universal genetic pattern. The specific-general theory also has a number of applications: the theory of the relationship between borderline (fundamental) sciences, the concept of social biology, the concept of the relationship between the mental and physiological, the concept of an expanded system of categories, etc.

The main criteria for the scientific nature of philosophy, according to V.V. Orlov, are: 1) the presence of a sufficient empirical base (the essence of this criterion lies in the semantic, substantive correspondence of the theory to its empirical base);

2) the presence of an adequate research method, which in turn is ultimately determined by theory and, consequently, by the total empirical basis of scientific thinking;

3) the presence of final practical verification, starting with a scientific experiment and ending with socio-historical practice in the known philosophical sense of the term. The criteria for scientificity in philosophy are based on general scientific ones, but include signs of universality and infinity. Based on these criteria, we are able to judge the scientific content and heuristic potential of the main philosophical movements in world philosophy: positivism, philosophy of life and Marxism.

Professor V.D. Komarov (St. Petersburg) believes that the modern form of scientific philosophy, which he defines as “dialectical realism,” is formed as a result of the synthesis of dialectical materialism and Russian religious philosophy. This humanistic philosophy is intended to restore both the intellectual unity of science, philosophy and religion, and the unity of Russian philosophical thought, lost during historical cataclysms.

Professor V.N. Dubrovsky (Cherepovetsk) proposed the concept of four “root” sciences, reflecting the corresponding “aspects” of the external world - social, biological, cosmological and physical. Philosophy is considered as a science about the ways of semantic representation of the phenomenology of concepts (analytical aspect of philosophy), their relationships (relative philosophy) and movement (dynamic philosophy). As a specific element of the scientific field, the author considers the knowledge of processes characteristic of the pre-explosive cosmological vacuum. Emphasizing the “proto-scientific” nature of this knowledge, V.N. Dubrovsky connects the latter with the chaotic nature and irregularity of these processes and, at the same time, is ready to consider the object of this knowledge as a real existence, having a cosmological explication and certain semantics. These features, according to the author, even make it possible to interpret the principles of the functioning of a vacuum as a basis for deducing higher moral principles. Based on the fundamental idea of ​​the unity of all things, objects of the extra-scientific sphere should also be coordinated with objects of the scientific sphere with the appropriate combination of all explicative principles; Accordingly, the author brings to the fore intellectual intuitive judgments, which, in his opinion, constitute the main content of the creative activity of the intellect. The criterion for the scientific nature of philosophy is introduced by the author as follows: “philosophy is scientific if the semantics of concepts, their relationships and their dynamics consistently fit into the entire spectrum of scientific concepts, their relationships and their dynamics.” V. N. Dubrovsky declared the unscientific philosophy of materialism and idealism, as well as the philosophy of Kant, due to the “impossibility” of their central concepts and provisions (“matter”, “spirit”, “thing in itself”).

Philosophers from various cities of Russia spoke at the conference on various aspects of scientific philosophy: V. O. Lobovikov, M. P. Pismanik, V. I. Kornienko, O. A. Barg, Yu. V. Zasyad-Volk, I. V. Gibelev, N. N. Pankov, A. Yu. Vnutskikh, Yu. V. Loskutov, Yu. V. Vasilenko, L. A. Musayelyan, S. G. Fedosin and L. I. Lomakina, students A. A. Koryakin and Yu. V. Zhuravleva.

The traditional discussion also took place at the conference. The main subject of discussion was the criteria for the scientific nature of philosophy. During the discussion, no convincing arguments were made against the thesis that only the concept of dialectical materialism fully meets the criteria of scientificity. Thus, the most difficult problem of philosophy in the entire history of its existence is the problem of the infinity of the world and the finitude of human experience. The failure to resolve this problem lies at the heart of Kant's agnosticism; The entire so-called non-classical philosophy of the 19th-20th centuries followed the same path, including neopositivism, postpositivism, the philosophy of K. Popper, existentialism, etc. From the fact that the world is infinite, and human experience is always finite, the immediate conclusion follows that any philosophical knowledge can only be knowledge of the finite, knowledge of a certain finite part of the world. It follows from this that all philosophical conclusions about the world are obviously false, since the infinite is always infinite and more complex than the finite. Determining the way to comprehend the essence of the infinite world on the basis of “finite human experience” is the most important discovery of dialectical materialism.

The modern form of scientific philosophy, therefore, includes all the positive content of various philosophical movements and fits it into a single general concept. Scientific philosophy acts as a metatheory that resolves the problem of infinity and has predictive capabilities; It differs from traditional materialism and dialectics in its concrete-universal character.