UDC 304.2; 316.7
Olga D. Masloboeva – St. Petersburg State University of Economics, Department of Philosophy, Associate Professor, Ph. D (Philosophy), St. Petersburg, Russia.
E-mail: masloboeva.o@inbox.ru
21, Sadovaya st., St. Petersburg, Russia, 191023,
tel: +7(812)710-57-55.
Abstract
Background: The organizing forms of modern practice are projects. The essence of projective thinking consists in an active type of world outlook, which replaced a contemplate type. This replacement was a result of the industrial revolution of XVIII – XIX centuries, which globalized an influence of man over the world and made his historical responsibility more urgent. The reflection of the world outlook transformation appeared when the problems of ethics were elaborated in the times of classical antiquity. Realizing a historical continuity of the world philosophy thought, the Russian organicism and cosmism being developed from the turn of XVIII – XIX centuries conceptualize projectivity of human activity nowadays. But these processes are scantily explored by theoretical thought.
Results: The author reveals the object and methodology of the Russian cosmism and orginicism which helps to elaborate an active type of world outlook, to show the increasing role of a subjective factor and projectivity of social practice. The categories of ‘active type of world outlook’, ‘subjective factor’, ‘project’, ‘situation’ are defined. The principles of the philosophical and anthropological cosmism project are explained, the basic one among them being the cosmic role of man. Different variants of this project are given. The invariant content of the self-revival conditions of humanity is conceptualized on a new level, this content being formed in the scientific, religious, philosophical, artistic and aesthetical trends of cosmism.
Research implications: Theoretical and methodological content of the research is important for some university courses in philosophy and humanities and for realization of different projects in various spheres of social activity as well.
Conclusions: The character of modern culture is globalized in the philosophic and anthropologic project of the Russian cosmism which tries to solve the apocalyptic alternative by means of synergetic unity of all the elements of spiritual culture (i.e. essentially updated syncretic unity of ancient spiritual culture) and due to understanding of mankind unity in spite of its cultural diversity.
Keywords: contemplate and active tipes of world outlook, classics of antiquity, Russian organicism and cosmism, subjective factor in history, project, modern historical situation.
A modern level of social practice shows “fashion” on projects in all spheres of activity of the social subject: engineering, economic, art and esthetic, educational, etc. That is caused by the need to think globally, but to work locally, i.e. here and now, in concrete existential measurement, for the purpose of implementation of a certain target program. This strategy of activity is generated by the requirement to understand and realize global responsibility of man in the conditions of culture of post-industrial society as a result of the industrial revolution at the turn of XVIII – XIX centuries, which changed radically the place of man in the world. Man always creates something new as, in contrast to the animal, he cannot simply adapt to environment, he changes it. In the conditions of technological civilization this attributive property of man becomes so mature that it starts functioning extremely consciously as a projection of thinking and social practice. In the core of change of thinking and social practice world outlook reorientation always lies.
The industrial revolution led to global world outlook transformation: to change a contemplate type of outlook an active one came into being, whose intrinsic difference consists in the need of acceptance by social subjects of total historical responsibility for results of their own activity. At the beginning of XIX century great minds already studied this world outlook transformation which was only outlined at that time. Contemplate and active world outlooks appeared in the time of antiquity when the greatest philosophers lived. Beginning with Socrates’ dispute and sophists the development of ethics theory logically resulted in its activity aspect. Socrates axiomatically designated ontological aspect of ethics and developed gnosiological one. Then Plato, following his teacher, reflected the social aspect, and Aristotle, called “encyclopedic mind of antiquity”, gave the first classification of the types of virtues and conceptualized the activity aspect of the theory of ethics, which is consolidated by ethics of Epicurus’ freedom. According to Socrates, virtue is knowledge of how to overcome contrast (courage is knowledge how to overcome fear). According to Aristotle’s doctrine, dianoethic virtue is a speculative finding of golden mean between two extremes (courage is an understanding of golden mean between cowardice and reckless bravery), and ethical virtue is an ability to make the corresponding acts (in our example they are courageous acts). Dianoethic virtues, according to Aristotle, are developed by contemplate reasonable part of soul, and ethical by active reasonable part of soul. Aristotle’s ethical doctrine is a theoretical judgment on common sense truth; look before you leap. If man doesn’t understand a difference between cowardice and reckless bravery, and starts trying to make courageous acts in his activity by a method of trial and error, he will hardly outlive them. He will rather die from fear, or will parish from reckless bravery. At the same time Aristotle’s ethics is not only the wisdom acquired in activity of a separate person, but also historical logic of mankind growing up. Before the industrial revolution, during a preindustrial era, the contemplate type of world outlook dominates when the power of human activity was insignificantly low and allowed not to take into consideration its historical consequences. After the industrial revolution, it is the scientific and technological level of social practice which reinforces the active type of the world outlook, the essence of which is conscious acceptance by the social subject of total measure of global historical responsibility for results of his own activity. As a matter of fact, Aristotle’s ethics made the historical forecast of evolution of mankind world outlook. Not by chance, it was Aristotle who first reflected logical instruments of scientific forecasting. In ontology it is “potential” and “actual” being of a thing, which later on will result in a dialectic pair of categories – “opportunity and reality”; in gnosiology it will result in the category of “probability”, as formal logic, according to Aristotle, gives reliable knowledge, and dialectics gives probabilistic one. Ethics of Epicurus freedom consolidated the activity aspect developed by Aristotle as, by the way, all essence of ethics presented by classics of antiquity because freedom is an attribute of man as moral being, i.e. man “is doomed” to freedom and has, at least, two exits from any situation.
Designated by Aristotle , a purely speculative natural transition in the course of man and mankind growing up from contemplate world outlook to active type is spontaneously reproduced in culture of the Renaissance when the flourishing of secular art, technical inventions, great geographical discoveries took place. All this resulted in science centrism in the modern history epoch which prepared the industrial revolution which caused a new level of philosophical reflection concerning the activity phenomenon carried out by the German classical philosophy. Following, first of all, Schelling and reproducing at a new theoretical and methodological level ideas of antique thinkers, the Russian philosophy at the turn of XVIII – XIX centuries in its creative interaction with the German classics developed the active type of world outlook.
The transition from a contemplate type of world outlook to an active one, caused by the industrial revolution, is reflected, first of all, by the German classical philosophy, and then by the Russian organicism and cosmism. N. N. Strakhov, a representative of this trend, designated world outlook transformation rather accurately, having emphasized that the category of “activity” is more complicated than the category of “life” [3, p. 443]. Organicism is formed as a philosophical trend investigating any phenomenon of nature and society as “an organic whole”, functioning as “a substantive agent”. Some initial ideas of organicism were proposed in A. N. Radishchev’s works. The main representatives of this trend are D. M. Vellansky, A. I. Galich, A. A. Grigoryev, V. F. Odoyevsky, N. N. Strakhov, N. Ya. Danilevsky, N. O. Lossky, etc. The organic categories making a theoretical core of the considered doctrine, express the understanding that organisms are “the highest beings of nature, and the highest organism is man himself, microcosm, a measure of all things, the most complicated and most integral of all phenomena” [4, p. 119]. As life is a cosmic factor (even antique thinkers wrote about the animated cosmos) and the process of cosmic and organic evolution is carried out as indivisible one, cosmism results from organicism. The aim of cosmism is the comprehension of cosmic function of man, which is caused by concrete historical requirement to understand globalization of human activity influence in the Universe. The Russian cosmism actually creates the world outlook and theoretical basis of the anthropic principle developed by modern science. The cosmic function of man is revealed in the Russian cosmism in such a way that man from the consequence of substance self-development turns into the reason of its further self-development. This transition corresponds to the weak and strong options of the anthropic principle reflecting the contemplate type of world outlook to the third (“the anthropic principle of participation”) and to the fourth (“the final principle”) options reflecting the active type of world outlook.
Studies of the ideas contained in texts of the Russian organitsists and cosmists of XIX – XX centuries allow to formulate a system of principles of methodology of the philosophical and anthropological project, being expressed in the context of this trend. These are the principles of life omnipresence, integrity, nature orientation, active approach to united natural and social organism, harmony and antinomy [2]. Relevance of understanding of human thinking projectivity and activity is definitely expressed by the distinguished founder of the Russian cosmism – N. F. Fedorov. Criticizing I. Kant’s doctrine for its abstractness, Fedorov proves that “the reason receives neither subjective nor objective essence, but projective one; and in this projective ability theoretical reason and practical reason unite” [5, p. 544]. General and necessary “projection”, as the thinker claims, has to follow “transcendental analytics” as “immanent synthetics” which should not separate psychology from theology and cosmology, i.e. “should not … make cosmology soulless, and psychology – powerless”. Thus, “immanent synthetics or projection” is “merging of will and reason” [5, p. 544].
The reflection of human thinking projectivity and activity in the Russian cosmism seems to be casual. The reflection is caused by characteristics of national mentality manifested in the Russian philosophy. These are “sobornost” (unity), ”sofijnost” (wisdom), practical direction and citizenship. The philosophy in the Russian culture initially existed as “clever deed” and developed firstly in spiritual spheres which have especially been sated with moral problems (fiction, orthodox striving, etc.). Generally speaking, the characteristics mentioned above resulted in searching neither abstract nor theoretical, but “alive” truth, benefit, beauty, due to unity of the word and deed in the creative activity of man.
Transforming orientation of the Russian organicism and cosmism was concentrated on the solution of the problem of overcoming “dualism” of subject and object, i.e. the gap between man and the reality which created him; man who was formed as a result of accumulation of human activity power. Civilization evolution process proceeding, the social subject places between nature and himself a few links: labor tools, energy sources and information technologies. According to representatives of cosmism, first of all, it is necessary to realize that the subject and object are communicating vessels of the universe which are interacting energetically. Opponents of organicism, from the very beginning of its origin, criticized this doctrine for the idea of entire spirituality of the world and its division “into subjective and objective parts” [1, p. 126]. Analyzing a ratio of subjective and objective realities in the context of an active type of world outlook, they both create, in fact, dialectics of subjective and objective factors as a problem of definition of what depends and what does not depend on man in the course of his own activity. Being free purposeful activity based on consciousness, it is the subjective factor that is a power of the theoretical and practical sides of social development junction.
The project is an expedient organization of social subject activity, consisting in aspiration to the situational solution of arising problems and tasks by means of new reality designing on the basis of dialectics of subjective and objective factors. Efficiency of projective activity of man depends directly on the degree of sensibleness of these two factors and their ratio in a concrete historical and being situation. The point of intersection, causing mobility of the border between the circumstances which are in power of the activity subject , and those which do not depend on him, is conditions of activity in its various spheres. Being natural limiters of will freedom of man developing his activity in any field, these conditions are changed by man in the process of experience accumulation and hence the borders of his freedom are extended. Thus, the subjective factor potential is realized as the effect of theoretical and practical reason merging. The projectivity of thinking is born in culture as a result of subjective factor increase and historical transition from the contemplate type of world outlook in traditional society to the active type in industrial and post-industrial society, respectively. The most important characteristic of the modern epoch is its being in situ owing to high mobility of social processes and constant aiming at designing new technologies in all spheres of life realized as project implementation. The situation is the social and natural reality demanding from the social subject an adequate reaction for the purpose of surviving, as minimum, and flourishing, as maximum, i.e. favorable development of the subject. The character of attitude is connected with the requirement to influence actively on a situation result, to form it, instead of staying in a passive expectation or even ignoring the course of events in progress.
The essence of all characteristics of the contemporary historical situation consists in an increased role of a subjective factor. The ratio of subjective and objective factors gains today such a character that the apocalyptic alternative between mankind self-destruction or self-revival at a qualitatively new level is on the agenda. The Russian organicism and cosmism have predictively reflected the future situation of man’s life complicated by his own historical experience in the world. The theoretical, methodological and ideological potential of this philosophical trend based on the principle system, mentioned above, contains the project of creative solution of apocalyptic alternative. Uniqueness of the philosophical and anthropological project of the Russian cosmism is that it has been developed from all main possible world outlooks: scientific, philosophical and religious, artistic and esthetic.
Representatives of the Russian cosmism have developed the following main options of projective activity orientation of the social subject in the conditions of the contemporary historical situation. N. F. Fedorov developed the project of nature regulation the main content of which is in reasonable brotherhood labor activity of mankind for revival of all dead generations as victory of life over death. V. S. Solovyev submitted the embodiment project of Vseedinstvo (the unity of God and man’s soul) and Bogochelovechestvo (the unity of God and mankind). S. N. Bulgakov proved the project of economic activity in cosmos as implementation of God’s testament to “land possession”, to regaining “the rights for nature”, once lost by man, to harnessing mortal elements, to nature humanizing and adoration of himself. V. I. Vernadsky developed the project of transformation of the biosphere into the noosphere as qualitatively new condition of the biosphere supervised by reason. The presented options are, in fact, the integral project of labor and cultural activity, as a whole, of the social subject in cosmos, which is aimed on the creative solution of apocalyptic alternative. The integral basis of projective character of the Russian cosmism is the system of theoretical and methodological principles mentioned above. The necessary condition of mankind self-revival at a qualitatively new level, according to the projective content of the Russian cosmism, is the formation of synergetic unity of all elements of spiritual culture (i.e. essentially updated syncretic unity of ancient spiritual culture). This will allow to overcome a gap between accumulation of scientific and technological power of mankind and level of its spirituality. Understanding of mankind unity, at all its cultural diversity, acts as a sufficient condition.
References
1. Selected Works of Russian Naturalists of the First Half of the XIX Century [Izbrannye proizvedeniya russkikh estestvoispytateley pervoy poloviny XIX veka]. Moscow, Sotszkgiz, 1959, 659 p.
2. Masloboeva O. D. Russian Organicism and Cosmism of the XIX – XX Centuries: Evolution and Actuality [Rossiyskiy organitsizm i kosmizm XIX – XX vekov: evolyutsiya i aktualnost]. Moscow, Academia, 2007, 292 p.
3. Strakhov N. N. World as a Whole: Sketches from the Science of Nature [Mir kak tseloe: Cherty iz nauki o prirode]. Saint Petersburg, Tip. K. Zamyslovskogo, 1872, 506 p.
4. Strakhov N. N. Organic Categories [Organicheskie kategorii]. Voprosy filosofii (Questions of Philosophy), 2009, №5, pp. 116 – 124.
5. Fedorov N. F. Works [Sochineniya]. Moscow, Mysl, 1982, 709 p.
Ссылка на статью:
Masloboeva O. D. Study of the Projective Nature of Man’s Activity: from the Ancient Times to the Modern Russian Organicism and Cosmism // Философия и гуманитарные науки в информационном обществе. – 2013. – № 2. – С. 120–125. URL: http://fikio.ru/?p=749.
© O. D. Masloboeva, 2013
