CC BY
45. Фридлендер Г.М. Примечания // Ф.М. Достоевский. Полное собрание сочинений в тридцати томах / под ред. Г. М. Фридлендера. Л.: Наука, 1972. Т.1.
6. Соломина Н.Н. Примечания // Ф.М. Достоевский. Полное собрание сочинений в тридцати томах / под ред. А.С. Долинина и Е.И. Кийко. Л.: Наука, 1972.
7. Майков В.Н. Литературная критика. Нечто о русской литературе в 1846 году // [Электронный ресурс] / URL: https://arheve.com/read/maykov-vn/nechto-o-russkoy-literature-v-1846-godu-2/9065 // (Дата обращения 07.02.2022).
8. Достоевский Ф.М. Полное собрание сочинений в тридцати томах / под ред. Г. М. Фридлендера. Л.: Наука, 1972.
9. Кийко Е.И. Достоевский и Жорж Санд // Acta Litteraria Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 1982. T. 24 (1-2). P. 65-85.
10. Кийко Е.И. Белинский и Достоевский об утопическом социализме // [Электронный ресурс] / URL: http://lib2.pushkinskijdom.ru/Media/Default/PDF/Dostoevsky/Materialy/Т_14/22_Кийко_234.pdf // (Дата обращения 07.03.2022).
11. Достоевский Ф.М. Собрание сочинений в 15 томах. Л.: Наука. Ленинградское отделение, 1989-1996.
12. Фоменко М.В., Мармазова Т.И., Угрюмова М.В., Фоменко С.А. Историософский анализ проблемы становления категории "Абсолютное" в русской религиозной философии XI-XVIII веков (доуниверситетский период) // Право и практика. 2021. № 1. С. 185-194.
13. Fomenko M.V., Marmazova T.I. Linguophilosophical views on the nature of the language' cultural code // Право и практика. 2021. № 3. С. 137-141.
14. Спивак Павел. О монархизме Ф.М. Достоевского // [Электронный ресурс] / URL: https://proza.ru/2018/01/05/2038 // (Дата обращения 17.03.2022).
15. Достоевский Ф.М. Дневник Писателя 1876. М.: Издательство RUGRAMЯ, 2018. 544 с.
16. Анненский И. Избранное. М.: «Правда», 1987.
References and Sources
1. Pavlovec M.G. Chto chitali sovetskie shkol'niki. Kak provodili uroki literatury nashi roditeli, babushki i dedushki, kakie knigi ih zastavlyali chitat' -i zachem eto bylo nuzhno // Bibliotechnoe delo. 2017. № 20 (302). S. 27-32.
2. Dostoevski) F.M. Dnevnik pisatelya (1873-1881). SPb: Lenizdat, 2001. 735 s.
3. Saraskina L.I. Dostoevskij: Zhizn' zamechatel'nyh lyudej. M.: Molodaya Gvardiya, 2011. 825 s.
4. Nechaeva V.S. Rannij Dostoevskij 1821-1849. M.: «Nauka», 1979. 287 s.
5. Fridlender G.M. Primechaniya // F.M. Dostoevskij. Polnoe sobranie sochinenij v tridcati tomah / pod red. G. M. Fridlendera. L.: Nauka, 1972. T.1.
6. Solomina N.N. Primechaniya // F.M. Dostoevskij. Polnoe sobranie sochinenij v tridcati tomah / pod red. A.S. Dolinina i E.I. Kijko. L.: Nauka, 1972.
7. Majkov V.N. Literaturnaya kritika. Nechto o russkoj literature v 1846 godu // [Elektronnyj resurs] / URL: https://arheve.com/read/maykov-vn/nechto-o-russkoy-literature-v-1846-godu-2/9065 // (Data obrashcheniya 07.02.2022).
8. Dostoevskij F.M. Polnoe sobranie sochinenij v tridcati tomah / pod red. G. M. Fridlendera. L.: Nauka, 1972.
9. Kijko E.I. Dostoevskij i ZHorzh Sand // Acta Litteraria Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 1982. T. 24 (1-2). P. 65-85.
10. Kijko E.I. Belinskij i Dostoevskij ob utopicheskom socializme // [Elektronnyj resurs] / URL: http://lib2.pushkinskijdom.ru/Media/Default/PDF/Dostoevsky/Materialy/T_14/22_Kijko_234.pdf // (Data obrashcheniya 07.03.2022).
11. Dostoevskij F.M. Sobranie sochinenij v 15 tomah. L.: Nauka. Leningradskoe otdelenie, 1989-1996.
12. Fomenko M.V., Marmazova T.I., Ugryumova M.V., Fomenko S.A. Istoriosofskij analiz problemy stanovleniya kategorii "Absolyutnoe" v russkoj religioznoj filosofii XI-XVIII vekov (douniversitetskij period) // Pravo i praktika. 2021. № 1. S. 185-194.
13. Fomenko M.V., Marmazova T.I. Linguophilosophical views on the nature of the language' cultural code // Pravo i praktika. 2021. № 3. S. 137-141.
14. Spivak Pavel. O monarhizme F.M. Dostoevskogo // URL: https://proza.ru/2018/01/05/2038 // (Data obrashcheniya 17.03.2022).
15. Dostoevskij F.M. Dnevnik Pisatelya 1876. M.: Izdatel'stvo RUGRAMYA, 2018. 544 s.
16. Annenskij I. Izbrannoe. M.: «Pravda», 1987.
МАРКИН МАКСИМ ОЛЕГОВИЧ - студент, Российский экономический университет им. Г.В. Плеханова. ФОМЕНКО МАРИНА ВИКТОРОВНА - кандидат философских наук, доцент, кафедра истории и философии, Российский экономический университет им. Г.В. Плеханова (maryfom@mail.ru).
MARKIN, MAXIM O. - Student, Plekhanov Russian University of Economics (max17markin@mail.ru)
FOMENKO, MARINA V. - Ph.D. in Philosophy, Associate Professor, Department of History and Philosophy, Plekhanov Russian University of Economics (maryfom@mail.ru).
УДК 103.3 DOI: 10.24412/2411-2275-2022-1-234-237
БЕЗВЕСЕЛЬНАЯ З.В. ИСТОРИКО-ФИЛОСОФСКИЕ ОСНОВЫ ФОРМИРОВАНИЯ ЭКОЛОГИЧЕСКОЙ
КУЛЬТУРЫ В РОССИИ
Ключевые слова: антропоцентризм, глубинная экология, экологизм, экологический кризис, экофилософия, экологическое мышление, экологическая мудрость.
В статье рассматривается роль духовного начала в процессе формирования экологической культуры в стране и мире. Современная цивилизация нуждается в серьезном переосмыслении и преобразовании на основе экологического мировоззрения. Это мировоззрение станет основой для принципиальных изменений в экономической и политической областях, новый смысл должен обрести научно-технический прогресс. Уважение и любовь к окружающему миру, экологическая духовность явятся гармонизирующей силой создания обществ, ориентированных на единство человека и природы. Это требует серьезного осмысления вопросов о месте человека в мире. Статья посвящена анализу философских предпосылок формирования экологического мировоззрения.
BEZVESELNAYA, Z.V.
HISTORICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS FOR THE FORMATION OF ECOLOGICAL CULTURE IN RUSSIA
Key words: anthropocentrism, deep ecology, ecology, ecological crisis, ecophilosophy, ecological thinking, ecological wisdom.
The author seeks to substantiate the role of the spiritual principle in the process of formation of ecological culture in the country and the world. Modern civilization needs a serious rethinking and transformation based on an ecological outlook. This worldview will become the basis for
fundamental changes in the economic and political fields, scientific and technological progress must acquire a new meaning. Respect and love for the surrounding world, ecological spirituality will be the harmonizing force for the creation of societies oriented towards the unity of man and nature. This requires a serious reflection on the place of man in the world. The article is devoted to the analysis of the philosophical prerequisites for the formation of an ecological worldview.
Throughout the history of philosophy, the question of the place of man in the world and the relationship of man to the world has been defined as central. Reflecting the needs of a person at specific stages of the development of society throughout the history of philosophy, the subject of its research is changing. Modern societies, steadily progressing in the production sector, have come into conflict with nature, threatening the disappearance of not only man, but all life on our planet. Therefore, today there is no topic more important than man and nature. It is safe to say that in relation to this topic, all the rest are secondary. K. Popper wrote: "In my opinion, the greatest scandal in philosophy is that while the natural world is dying everywhere around us - and not only the natural world - philosophers continue to discuss, sometimes cleverly, and sometimes not, the question of whether this world exists" [1, p. 46].
It must be admitted that at the beginning of the 21st century, philosophy in its statements about the essence and purpose of man still strictly follows the traditions of Christian (mainly Western) philosophy, which developed in the Middle Ages and was supplemented at the dawn of capitalism with ideas about man as a conqueror of nature, some kind of creative force, surpassing everything around. However, this old philosophy does not correspond to the changed circumstances of a global scale and requires serious rethinking, primarily from the point of view of anthropology and the doctrine of society [2, pp. 190-194]. Serious criticism of the opposition between man and nature in Christianity in the 19th century was given by F. Engels in Dialectics of Nature. He believed that only a complete revolution in the existing mode of production and, together with it, in the social system, could become a condition for overcoming the existing consumer attitude to nature and the destructive impact on it: "And the more this becomes a fact, the more people will again be not only to feel, but also to be aware of one's unity with nature, and the more impossible will be that ... unnatural idea of the opposition between ... man and nature, which ... has received the highest development in Christianity" [3, p. 496]. As you can see, F. Engels takes positions that consider Christianity as a source of opposition between man and nature, a violation of harmony in the relationship between them, while socio-natural unity, from the point of view of Marxist theorists, has a political and economic conditionality. At the end of the 20th century, the Norwegian ecologist and philosopher A. Ness, who undertook a critical analysis of the Bible regarding the relationship between man and nature, came to the conclusion that the Bible does not contain provisions on the relationship of man to the world, and emphasized that it was the Christian Church that created the worldview basis of the modern ecological crisis [See: 4]. To overcome this situation, the efforts of environmental science alone are clearly not enough, since it cannot tell us anything about the meaning of human presence in the world, as well as the content of environmental ethics.
A radical rethinking of philosophical anthropology must necessarily take place in the direction of abandoning the principle of anthropocentrism and developing the principles of ecologism and biospheric egalitarianism. It will not be possible to protect the planet from the destructive impact of man solely by legal and technological methods. What we need is not episodic environmental measures, or even a system of environmental protection measures, but a fundamental change in the type of society. The most important condition for the worldview of the new society should be the rejection of the consumer attitude to the planet and space, as well as the realization that the Earth is alive and everything on it has a sacred right to life.
Environmental problems are the result of a deep spiritual crisis that has gripped humanity in recent decades. Humanistic ideals have been replaced by the values of unbridled consumption, fragmentation and momentism, which have nothing to do with human wisdom. It is no coincidence that the philosophical (and religious) substantiation of the goals of scientific and technological progress and the endless increase in production is absent today. Philosophical analysis is also required by the idea of scientific and technological progress as the embodiment of human creative potential, and the growth of consumption as the goal of the development of modern societies, and the spiritual lag of humanity from its own scientific and technological achievements.
The principle of anthropocentrism, starting from the New Age, adapted the idea of infinite progress and became its ideological basis. Progress today is a value in itself. However, where is the philosophical
(and religious) substantiation of the humanistic value of scientific and technological progress? In practice, the principle of anthropocentrism, accepted as a dogma, has led to discrimination of nature and animals.
We are called upon to show the destructiveness of this principle in the modern era and the need to replace it with the principle of a humane attitude towards everything that exists in the world.
The central place in the new philosophy is occupied by the problem of man. To realize the world as a whole, to stop separating oneself from nature, to determine one's place in the ecosystem and, as a result, to achieve harmony with the world - this is the goal that the new philosophy sets for every person.
Changes in the relationship between society and nature must begin with a change in the consciousness of the individual. This requires the individual efforts of everyone and, at the same time, helps to overcome individualism. The goal is to expand human consciousness to an ecocentric one. To do this, a person needs an appropriate worldview. Such a worldview is already spontaneously taking shape and is accepted by many enlightened people. Also, ecocentric trends in recent decades are clearly manifested in contemporary art - music and painting.
Is the formation of such a worldview a difficult task for philosophy? Apparently not, since it existed in many ancient societies and exists today in the Buddhist eco-philosophy of wholeness, harmony and unity. "Calm in the one" - this is the basic principle of Indian philosophy.
The philosophical substantiation of the principle of ecologism and biospheric egalitarianism in the twentieth century was given by representatives of deep ecology [See: 5]. But the prerequisites for the formation of this principle are also contained in other philosophical systems, both Western and domestic.
Speaking about the philosophy of modern times, it is necessary to point out the anthropological views of J.-J. Rousseau, who argued that man is a natural being. But the basis for the formation of ecological consciousness was laid by B. Spinoza, who in his research came to the conclusion about the immanence of God and Nature [See: 6]. Man, according to Spinoza, is a part of nature, and not its crown or the center of the universe [See: 7, pp. 323 - 324.]. F. Schelling also had a significant impact on philosophical anthropology, considering the evolution of nature from a purely natural being to a spiritual one. Through the philosophy of nature, Schelling came to objective idealism, having developed a new type of dialectics - the objective dialectics of nature [See: 8.]. The main idea of Schelling's philosophy of nature was poetically expressed by the remarkable Russian poet F.I. Tyutchev, who had much contact with the great German philosopher: "Not what you think, nature:
Not a cast, not a soulless face -It has a soul, it has freedom, It has love, it has language."
Throughout its development, Russian philosophy was characterized by admiration for nature, which found its expression in the ecological ethics of V.S. Solovyov. According to Solovyov's philosophical ecology, the process of interaction between man and nature has three stages. The first stage is the forcible removal from nature of everything that a person considers necessary, the drying up and depletion of lands as a result of predatory inept land use; helplessness of man in opposition to the elements. The second stage is a reasonable seizure, but also a violent one. The third stage is the complete cessation of violence against nature. "Without love for nature, it is impossible for nature itself to carry out the moral organization of material life," the philosopher wrote [9, pp. 311-312]. Blindness of man in relation to nature is stated (but not analyzed) by N.F. Fedorov in his Philosophy of the Common Cause. Apparently, it was N.V. Fedorov stands at the origins of noospheric thinking. Environmental focus has also the teaching of S.N. Bulgakov, set forth in the work "Philosophy of Economics" [See:10]. The author of the "Philosophy of Economics" continues to develop V.S. Solovyov's paradigm of socio-natural relations based on the recognition of the essential unity of man and the natural environment. In contrast to the Marxist position, S.N. Bulgakov, in his approach to the problem of interaction between society and nature, relies on the natural philosophical thesis about their unity, or identity, which, in his opinion, is alien to political economy. Berdyaev considers the problem of the formation of a new, Christian economic attitude to nature in Bulgakov's "Philosophy of Economics" as one of the aspects of the formation of a new religious consciousness. Historian of philosophy V.V. Zenkovsky emphasizes its cosmological orientation. According to Zenkovsky, the problem of anthropology in Bulgakov's philosophy recedes into the background: a person "dissolves" in the natural, cosmic whole.
The theme of the relationship between man and nature sounds especially clearly in the works of N.A. Berdyaev. The significance and relevance of Berdyaev's conclusions regarding the dependence of
man on technology has not been adequately assessed to this day. Technology separates man from nature and man falls into technical-machine dependence. Man becomes an instrument of production and the thing is placed above man. For Berdyaev, technology means a crisis of humanity. Berdyaev emphasized that the deep essence of a person suffers from this, it becomes empty. And most of all suffer people endowed with a "spark of God." "What is the main danger that a machine brings with it to a person, a danger that has already been fully revealed? I don't think it was a danger primarily to the spirit and spiritual life. Machinery and technology inflict terrible defeats on the spiritual life of man, and above all on emotional life, human feelings. The mental-emotional element is dying out in modern civilization" [See: 11]. Man loses the natural rhythm of life. The life of an organism is slower compared to the ever-accelerating pace and aspiration to the future of technical civilization. Thus, man loses his connection with nature, placing between her and himself an artificial environment of technical tools. Berdyaev sees the future of mankind as very difficult, since a person will never give up science and technology, which in themselves are neither good nor bad. It all depends on what meaning the person himself gives to his inventions.
"Philosophy is the word of nature, the word of the mystery of the world, the word of life." According to P.A. Florensky, analytical or rationalistic worldview is not enough to comprehend the riddle of nature. Florensky criticizes the mechanistic opposition of man and nature, the consideration of nature through its constituent parts, which is characteristic of European rationalism, and insists on understanding nature as the embodiment of spirituality. Setting the task of forming integral knowledge, Florensky speaks of knowledge as comprehension. The comprehended nature shows its face, its individuality, which is impossible to know with the help of modern methodology. Florensky raised the question of the mystical and aesthetic comprehension of nature as an individuality, which includes scientific knowledge about the general (the synthesis of cognition and knowledge) [See:12].
In the article offered to readers, it is not possible and does not aim to analyze from the point of view of ecocentrism and environmentalism the works of all domestic philosophers who laid the foundations of ecological thinking. Moreover, even a detailed analysis of the philosophical teachings chosen for this study in the framework of a separate article is impossible.
At the same time, on the basis of this study, we can conclude that Western and Russian philosophy, while remaining generally anthropocentric, over the past century and a half has laid a solid foundation for the transformation of traditional philosophy, as well as the formation of an ecological worldview of the future, the central principle of which should become ecocentrism. In this regard, I would like to note the role of domestic philosophy. Russian philosophers perspicaciously discerned the emerging trend of changes in the nature of the relationship between man and nature and gave a theoretical analysis of the essence of these changes. For contemporary philosophers, this should be the reason for updating the study of the domestic philosophical heritage from the standpoint of environmentalism and ecocentrism [13].
References and Sources
1. Popper Karl R. Objective knowledge. evolutionary approach. M.: Editorial URSS, 2002 (in Russian).
2. Bezveselnaya Z.V. Some Directions and Tasks of the Development of Philosophical Thought on the Threshold of the Ecological Crisis // Law and Practice. No. 1, 2020. Pp. 194-198 (in Russian).
3. Marx K., Engels F.//Complete set of works, V. 20 (in Russian).
4. Naess, A. Ecology, Community and Lifestyle: Outline of an Ecosophy. Translated by D. Rothenberg. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press, 1989.
5. Peter R., Rothenberg D. Wisdom in the open Air: The Norwegian Roots of Deep Ecology. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993.
6. Spinoza B. Theological and political treatise // Selected works; in 2 vols. V. 2. M., 1957 (in Russian).
7. Spinoza. Treatise on the improvement of the mind// Selected works. In 2 vol. M., 1957. V. 2 (in Russian).
8. Schelling F. V. I. Works: in 2 volumes. V. 1. M.: Thought, 1987 (in Russian).
9. Soloviev V.S. Justification for goodness. M.: Respublika, 1996 (in Russian).
10. Bulgakov S.N. Philosophy of economy. Moscow: Yurayt, 2019 (in Russian).
11. Berdyaev N.A. Man and Machine // Questions of Philosophy. 1989. No. 2. Pp. 147-162 (in Russian).
12. Florensky P.A. At the watersheds of thought. Ways and focus (instead of a preface)// Works in 2 volumes. M.: Publishing house "Pravda", 1990. V. 2 (in Russian).
13. Barkova E.V. On the study of the worldview foundations of ecophilosophy // Bulletin of the Oryol State University. Series: New Humanities Research. 2013. No. 1 (30). pp. 180-186 (in Russian).
БЕЗВЕСЕЛЬНАЯ ЗОЯ ВЛАДИМИРОВНА - кандидат философских наук, доцент Российского экономического университета имени Г.В. Плеханова (enzoya@yandex.ru)
BEZVESELNAYA, ZOYA V. - Ph.D. in Philosophy, Associate Professor of the Plekhanov Russian Economic University.
