CC BY
19
УДК 1
Gennadiy P. Menchikov TO BE OR NOT TO BE AND WHY HUMANITY HAS A PROSPECT BEING.
This article attempts to present objections to the quite common position that humanity has no future, and it gives arguments why it is still there. Despite the fact that, indeed, humanity lives in a state of emergency, so-called second axial time in which the anthropological revolution is happening.
Will human evolution continue? Is there the prospect of mankind? And this question is not private and scientific, but supposing a revolution in the basic existence, in the sense of human existence of mankind and every ethnic group. Some of the researchers are looking for an answer; others simply sounding the alarm; third, and there are a lot of them today, give the negative answer to this question. The logic of the last opinions is that humanity violates the principle of natural selection; wittingly or unwittingly the cultural evolution protected the human of biological congestion, which previously eliminated the heavy, weak and slow-moving individuals; physically imperfect people, who a hundred years ago would have died in childhood, now survive and produce offspring, passing their genetic defects to the next generations. The massive migration process contributes to the suspension of evolution. Now, actually none of the groups of the Earth population lives in closed systems, in isolation for rather long time required for its conversion into a new species. Thus, culture and humanism transform from the consequence into the negative cause.
Another part of the researchers, including the author of this article, give a positive answer to this question. Firstly, because the cultural evolution is completed by coevolution. It also produces the natural selection but for cultural reasons. It produces more intelligent, educated, culturally strong, honest and efficient individuals. Because before distributing, selling, stealing away, or robbing something, etc., it must be created, produced, discovered, or constructed. Secondly, migration, inevitably turning to globalization, contributes to the continuing of evolution, transforming the world into an open system, in contrast to the previous isolation it encourages and makes human beings live by the measure of the best groups and individuals, despite of all sorts of simulacra, etc. Globalization is not only a decoration, or cover for someone's hidden intentions, and, according to A.A. Zinoviev, the emerging global super society as another structure of humanity. Third, this point of view is based on a different understanding of the essence of man - on the neo-classical one. According to it, in its essence, everyone is not an animal (even if it is so called rational, political, social, intellectual, making tools animal and so on), but a supernatural, overfunctional and originally cultural individual; man is the subject and object of culture, each in his own way and the level of his development. Fourth, there is another argument which is explicated in the analysis of the problem of anthropogenesis. It means that human being is eternal in the universe: in a scale of infinity of the universe (and not in the relative Earth limb) human being has no origin, because it was, it is and it always will be. The main reason is the current synergetic evidence of infinity of the universe, the universe as an open system.
Key words: neoclassical phylosophy, realistic approach, synergetic picture of the world, culture, natural selection, coevolution, anthropic principe, anthropological revolution, the essence of man, neoclassical humanism.
Г.П.Менчиков.
БЫТЬ ИЛИ НЕ БЫТЬ И ПОЧЕМУ У ЧЕЛОВЕЧЕСТВА ЕСТЬ ПЕРСПЕКТИВА БЫТЬ.
В статье предпринимается попытка представить возражения по поводу достаточно распространенной позиции о том, что у человечества нет будущего и высказать аргументы, почему оно все-таки есть. Несмотря на то, что, действительно, человечество живет в чрезвычайное так называемое второе осевое время, в котором осуществляется антропологический переворот.
Продолжится ли эволюция человека, есть ли у человечества перспектива? И вопрос этот - не частно-научный, а предполагающий переворот в базисных экзистенциях, в самом смысле жизнесуществования человечества, каждого этноса. Некоторая часть исследователей ищут на него посильный ответ; другие просто бьют тревогу; третьи, а их сегодня немало отвечают на этот вопрос отрицательно. Логика рассуждений последних здесь такова, что человечество нарушает принцип естественного отбора - вольно или невольно культурная эволюция защитила человека от биологических перегрузок, которые раньше устраняли плохо соображающих, слабых и мед-лительных особей; физически несовершенные люди, которые сто лет назад погибли бы в детстве, теперь выживают и дают потомство, передавая поколениям свои генетические дефекты. Приостановлению эволюции способствует и миграционный массовый процесс. Сейчас ни одна из групп населения Земли фактически не живет в условиях закрытых систем, в изоляции достаточно длительное время, необходимое для ее превращения в новый вид. Таким образом, культура и гуманизм здесь превращается из следствия в отрицательную причину.
Другая часть исследователей, в том числе и автор данной статьи, отвечают на этот вопрос положительно. Во-первых, потому что культурную эволюцию дополняет коэволюция. А она производит тоже естественный отбор, но уже по культурным соображениям - более умных, образованных, культурно сильных, порядочных и расторопных особей. Поскольку, прежде, чем что-то распределить, продать, украсть,
отобрать, ограбить и т.д. - это нужно еще создать, произвести, открыть, сконструировать. Во-вторых, продолжению эволюции способствует и миграция, превращающаяся неминуемо в глобализацию, превращая мир в открытую систему, в отличие от прошлой изоляции поощряет и заставляет жить человеческий вид по мерке лучших групп, отдельных людей, несмотря на всевозможные симулякры и т.д. Глобализация - это не только декорация или прикрытие чьих-то скрытых замыслов, а, следуя АА.Зиновьеву, формирующееся глобальное сверхобщество как другая структура человечества. В-третьих, такая точка зрения базируется на ином понимании сущности человека - на неоклассическом. В соответствии с ним в своей сущности любой человек - есть никакое не животное (пусть даже так называемое разумное, политическое, общественное, интеллектуальное, делающее орудия труда и так далее), а надприродное, надфункциональное, изначально культурное существо; человек - есть субъект-объект культуры, каждый на свой лад и уровень ее развития. В-четвертых, есть еще один аргумент, который эксплицируется при анализе проблемы антропогенеза. Его суть в том, что человеческий вид в мироздании вечен: в масштабе бесконечности мироздания, (а не относительной конечности Земли), человек как вид не имеет происхождения, поскольку был, есть и будет всегда. Главным доводом является современное синергетическое доказательство бесконечности мироздания, мироздания как открытой системы.
Ключевые слова: неоклассическая философия, реалистический подход, синергетическая картина мира, культура, естественный отбор, коэволюция, антропный принцип, антропологический переворот, сущность человека, неоклассический гуманизм.
Will the evolution of a man continue, how may the future of humanity unfold? This is the greatest vital and sence-making question of the extensive and small-scale human being of each ethnos. Some part of researchers which today make up the majority have a negative answer. This is worth duscission. Why do they think so? The answer to this question according to their point of view is closely connected with the cultural evolution and the humanism as its essence. That's why they believe that the cultural evolution, with humanism and migration being its essence, are doing a serious work. And humanism here is turning from the consequence into the unfavourable reason. Their reasoning is based on the fact that our humanity interferes into the natural selection principle: physically imperfect people, which would have died in their childhood in previous days, are now surviving and siring, handing down their defects to other generations. Not a single population group on Earth has been living in isolation for the time enough to change into the new species. The lifetime of the majority of animals' species is less than 3 million years. The human race as the most rational of all the species can require all its ingenuity to hold out for at least half of this period. But this point of view rests on a confirmation that a human being is considered and is in its basic essence an animal, though rational. It is hard to agree with that.
The other part of scientists, including the author, answer this question positively, on account of the same reasons.
Firstly, we think that the cultural evolution is supplemented with the coevolution. The latest executes natural selection basing on cultural aspect and choosing more intelligent, educated, decent, efficient and culturally stronger individuals. These more cultured people are now surviving more than before and are also siring, handing down their cultural and genetic increment to other generations. Migration also contributes to the continuation of evolution, transferring inevitably into globalization.
Secondly, globalization changes the world into an open system that unlike the previous isolation makes the human race live to measure of the best groups. (But whom or what can we consider "the best"? Under the best groups we understand the ones that decide, even unconsciously, the main philosophical question of correlation of existence and non-existence, transposing it to the question of correlation of life and death in the direction of life, but not death, stabilization. As long as the main criterion, including the questions of good and evil, which everyone of a sound mind will agree with, is that "good is everything that serves life and evil is everything that serves death" [Fromm 1994, 316]. Noone can evade this criterion - an orientation to the life or to the death, no matter in which form this is made and whether it is done deliberately or unconsciously, unless he is being sophistical). In such a way, globalization puts an end to the degradation of humanity which made the human race live to measure of less developed groups under the condition of a group isolation [Ott, Pozzi 2011; Ronchi 2009].
Thirdly, this point of view bases on a different understanding of a human essence - on the neoclassical one. In accordance with it, each individual in his essence is not an animal (even the so-called rational, political, social, intellectual, producing instruments of labour etc.), but above natural, initially cultural creature, the subject and the object of culture. This conclusion is proved mainly by the fact that each one of us is ultimately determined not by the instincts or the environment but by the experience of the meaning of his existence. When an animal has had everything, a human being just starts his life. Here it is important not to mix the "nature" (the origins) and the "essence" (substantiveness) of a man [Menchikov 2006, 228]. If the knife is made of metal it doesn't mean that this knife is metal itself. If a human being comes from the animal universe, he nevertheless is different in his essence. He is a human, not an animal.
Fourthly, there is one more argument which is explicated while analyzing the problem of anthropogenesis. It insists that the human race is eternal in the universe: on the scale of the universe eternity (but not the relative finiteness of the Earth) men as a species do not have its origins as they exist, have existed and will always exist. The
main argument of this point of view is the modern synergetic evidence of the universe eternity. In the eternity of the universe everything changes its state while staying in the eternally self-regulating condition. The "anthropic principle" [Menchikov 2013, 105-116] comes into force. In the "anthropic principle" we speak about different understanding of a human place and role in the universe as compared with precedent "anthropocentrism" and "anthropic approach". Many scientists believe that these three approaches are almost synonymic, while their content is different.
"Anthropocentrism" proceeds from final and lineal worldview which is regulated by something or someone outside the universe. This means that a human being is the centre of universe and the goal of all the events that take place in the world. It also means that a human is brought into this world by some otherworldly way, that's why he is incorporated into its "centre" and exists outside or above the world. This is a stubborn and archaic view on the place and role of a person in this world. From this point of view it was believed for a long time that a person and the world are different guises, the world being an object and a person - a subject and that a person doesn't compose an immanent element of the world. Here hence a person voluntary or involuntary regarded himself as an outside observer. Let s note that not just an observer, but an outside observer. He longed to know "absolute and pure" truth, his behavior was either fatal or egoistic. It especially flourished in the Modern Age with its classic worldview when a person was blinded by his own limitedly understood mind.
In the "anthropologicol approach" some change took place. This approach proceeds from non-classic worldview. A person began to regard himself as existing inside the world, as an internal observer, but still brought into it by some otherworld forces not known why and what for. Consequences are as follows: as he is an observer, he is also a passive narrator; as he is an internal observer, he is also an undirected inhabitant of this world. So, approaches to the place and role of a person in the world were somehow corrected.
In the anthropic principle" we start from principally another synergetic worldview - from infinity, fractality and self-organization of the universe. This means that the world is not created and neither demiurge is possible in it. The essence of a further shift consists in the fact that a person in the world is understood as "already existing" in it, he is immanently "inserted" in "this" world as an internal a) adequate observer, b) inhabitant of this world and c) adequate agent of the world. A person began to be understood as its necessary element which the world cannot do without. Now he is not an "outside observer" or a "little landlord of universe" as if thrown into this world from an exterior. According to the "anthropic principle" we see our world as difficult, complicated to experience it but being here and now, not in the other dimension. In has become understandable that the universe has one "almost improbable peculiarity": universe is like it is because a person is its necessary element. Neither person nor nature can do without each other. On a certain level of natural evolution a person is foreseen by nature as an observer and inhabitant of the universe. There is a certain equality between a person and nature, while a person in the wide sense doesn't necessarily exist only on the Earth and nature is not limited only by our Universe. The "anthropic principle" postulates existence of a person in the universe as naturally determined phenomenon of evolutionary and co-evolutionary processes in the nature. In every place where conditions like ours (earthly) can be developed, there a person is an obligatory element of the world. Fundamental world constants (magneto-electric, gravitational, weak and strong interactions) make it obvious that a person and his human, socio-cultural existence is a cosmic (natural though supernatural) phenomenon but not a otherworldly, godlike or mystical one. Consequently, the "anthropic principle" talks about necessity of a dialog with the open and everlasting universe, but not a arrogant, hierarchic, predatory or slavish relations.
Former "classic person" as an external observer couldn't suppose that the world is so complicated as it is understood now. We have to understand that today we live in conditions, unknown for people of previous epochs. Neither of these epochs can be compared with the scale of changes that has taken place. (Firstly, the people of the Earth have experienced second World War, totalitarian regimes - fascism and false socialism. They have appeared and still exist somewhere, which depreciate the notion of life. Secondly, unprecedented "positive global achievements" - scientific discoveries took place. Thirdly, we observe certain "global problems of modernity": overpopulation of the planet and anthropic crisis; danger of a third world war connected with creation of mass destructive weapons; ecological crisis; terrorism). If some genius mind of previous epochs could foresee such changes and troubles of our mankind, they would have undoubtfully reflect in the other way and give us some wise advise. That's why not any ontological problems of existence and non-existence were present for the person of "classic type". His mentality was hierarchic, some kind of inferiority complex.
Former postmodern "non-classical person" already began to notice the complicated and dynamic nature of the world. But this made him feel not at ease and sometimes resulted in social and socio-cultural hysterics, even necromania.
New "post-postclassical person" facing the problem of to be or not to be on the Earth due to the numerous global problems of modernity and has to remember about this supreme and base question: existence and non-existence. His actions may not eliminate all the Universe, but probably can destroy its part - our Earth with the circumterrestrial environment and the internal observer. That's why this new neoclassical person regards the world within the frames of the fundamental question: existence and/or non-existence, and only then proceeds to the other main philosophic problems.
So, "anthropocentric principle" (do not confuse with the "anthropic'3 postulates central, priviledged position of a person in the Universe which is rather naive. "Anthropological approach" (also not to be confused with "anthropic") suffers torments with the state and role of a person in the world, taking irrational base. "Anthropic principle" sees the
world as it is [Fatenkov 2011], and also establishes certain correlation between fundamental properties of internal universe and existence of life and person in it. But the character of this correlation is different, of definite equality between a person and nature which doesn't suppose exclusiveness or inutility of a human being. "Anthropic principle" postulates that the House of Human Existence is here present space, not supernatural world which demands to be finished building and civilized. So, the whole modern anthropology has changed in the following topics: what is the essence of a person in distinction from his nature; what is his status in this world, not a supernatural one; where and how he can fulfill himself in this world.
Fifthly, though in order to realize it on our planet the mankind has to solve the problem of vitality (to survive). In these conditions possible ways of human surviving are searched [Schelkunov 2001]. The first way is cosmic. It navigates humanity to settle down in the near and distant space as far as artificial environment is developed there. This way is supported by the scientists (V.Vernadsky, KTsiolkovsky) who observe a representative of Homo sapiens as an intermediate ring in the long-term chain of rational creatures. The second way is mutagenicial. This is a process of permanent adaptation of a human organism to the constantly declining conditions of his life by means of mutagenesis in generic scale. The third way is artificially-biospheric. It is connected with possibility for a humanity to build artificial biosphere of the Earth, not dependent on the destructive anthropogenical influence. The fourth way is neo-humanistic. It reckons upon dominance of renewed culture and usage of yet unrevealed reserves of human psychics as well as activation of principally new ways of nervous, psychic, spiritual and cultural regulations of a human life. Through the process and result of creation of the culture as the III-d House of Life this way supposes softening and humanization of the destructive, reforming attitude of the person to the world (society, nature, spiritual sphere).
What are the chances of all these variants to be realized practically? Considering them separately, they are unlikely to take place at all. But seeing them together, within the frames of Great Synthesis, they can be real. It is an integral anthropic way - to build a human "house of existence" which has just started to be built. The solution of this problem is again connected with the problem of humanism, but in its modern neoclassical understanding as the previous one is already exhausted and became in itself one of the greatest global problems. Humanism will be possible when there is another dominant among those who populate the Earth, that is "a culture as the Ill-d house of existence" [Menchikov 2007] or a "spiritual revolution". We have to change ourselves.
Sixthly, nowadays cynical attacks on humanism has strengthened, especially from the part of post-modernism which even tells about its "apparent death". There is no doubt that a man experiences certain suffering, including both existential and social feeling. In fact the second axial age which a mankind is going through, is a painful experience accompanied by the tide of necrophilia including its extreme form - the terrorism. However humanism has not died and it cannot die because it is not someone's desire but an ontological fact and an objective attribute of a human existence. Although its understanding and putting in action depend on a man. We are not going to criticise NBIKC-initiatives (especially since they are heterogeneous) to criticize the dangerous part of the transhumanist utopia, which is, according to F.Fukuyama, one of the most dangerous modern ideas. There is no prospect of a mankind without humanism. But humanism as an idea and practice has a development, therefore it historically corrects its contents without changing its primary essence. Humanism can be classical, non-classical and neoclassical.
Modern neoclassical humanism which is painfully forming now [Saikina 2012; Nikolaeva, Schelkunov, Ivshina 2014; Mediation 2014] is connected with coevolution, with the conversion of a mankind to the "proper culture" stage (from the "barbarism" stage to the "civilization" stage and from the "civilization" stage to the "proper culture" stage) [Menchikov 2005; Toffler 2008; Lepehin 2016]. Those that are not able to change inevitably die. We need to change and will necessarily have to change. A mankind today does not have three roads as an epic hero at the cross-roads, but the two ones - to the culture stage or to the self-destruction. Standing still without making any headway (possessing final weapons of mass destruction) for centuries is no longer possible. It's better to turn to the culture. People miss "the beautiful" again. Transition to the stage of "culture itself' is already happening. "A new form of evolution - the evolution of culture" is being created when "the imprint of our culture" is visible even on human DNA [Zimmer R. 2012]. Man completes the replacement of the instinct of the strengths and weaknesses out of human nature [Kuznetsova TV., Orudzhev Z.M. 2016].
Summary. In such a way, scientists mark that in the modern society "another tendency is observed. If the prevalence of a mass culture conduces to the decay of culture and degeneracy of civilization, another tendency is standing against these processes. It is connected with the rise of a new post-economic civilization, which determines the appe-arance of a new elite based on possessing of knowledge and creative type of labour developing its personal, human potential [Lepehin 2016, 150]. Even "deconstructors of existence" are saying that "we have to finally learn how to live" [Derrida 2005, 145]. Approaching "science intensive economy gives us a chance to fracture the backbone of global poverty" [Toffler 2008, 407], while a neoclassical philosophy, heterarchical thinking , cultural identity and morality are "put in the forefront" [Menchikov, Sharifyllin 2015]. These are our some arguments to the topic.
References
Arshinov V.I., Budanov V.G. The paradigm of complexity and social and humanitarian projection of convergent technologies// Philosophic questions. 2016. №1.
Derrida J. Finally to learn how to live/ / Philosophic questions.2005.№4.
Kiselyov G.S. The world of a man: the blind branch of evolution?// Philosophic questions. 2 007. №4.
Kuznetsova T.V., Orudzhev Z.M. The story and problem of the robot/ / Philosophic questions. 2 016. №1.
Lepehin V.A. Anthropological revolution. Is it twist, turn or revolution?//Filosofskie nauki. 2016.№4. Mediation as a socio-cultural category / /Philosophical sciences. 2014.№4. Menchikov G.P. The basis of anthropology: traditions and innovations. -Kazan, 2006.
Menchikov G.P. New world view and humanism: classical, non-classical and neoclassical // World outlook paradigm in philosophy: humanism - from apologetics to falsification. -Nizhniy Novgorod, 2007. P.13-22.
Menchikov, G.P., 2013. Neoclassical philosophy: essence,content, meaning. Bulletin of the Kazan State University. Vol . 155, Book . Humanitarian Sciences, pp:105-116.
Menchikov G. P. and Sharifullin B.Z. Global Evolutionism and Heterarchical Thinking. The Social Sciences 10 (6): 1250-1254, 2015. ISSN: 1818-5800. © Medwell Journals, 2015.
Menchikov G.P. The logics of the mankind development stages //Philosophy and the future of civilization. IV Russian Philosophic Congress. -M., 2005. V.3. P.93-94.
Menchikov G. P. Determinism of the XXI st century: problems and decisions. M.: Sputnik+, 2015. Neisbit D. Megatrends. M.: AST, Ermak, 2003.
Nikolaeva E.M., Schelkunov M.D., Ivshina O.Y. Phenomenology of consumerism: personal and institutional dimensions. - Kazan: Kazan university, 2014.
Ott M.,& Pozzi F. Towards a new era for Cuitural Heritage Education: Discussing the role of ICT. Computers in Human Behavior 27.2011. P.1365-1371.
Porus V.N. At the edge of a culture (philosophic studies). M., 2008. Ronchi A.M. E-Culture. New York: Springer-Verlag, LLC, 2009.
Saikina G.K.. It is hard to be a person.. .(metaphysical paths of a human being) -Kazan: Kazan university, 2012. Schelkunov M.D. Spirituality and vitality: is anthropological revolution possible?//Phenomenon of a person: spirit, soul, spirituality. Kazan: «In cities and suburbs», 2001. P.19-22. Toffler A. Revolutionary wealth. M., 2008.
Fatenkov A.N. Strategies of the existence apprehension; realism in the polemics with constructiveness and
theory of reflection. / / Questions of philosophy. 2011. №11. P.117-128.
Fromm E. Anatomy of human disruptiveness . -M.,1994.
Fukuyama Fr. Our Posthuman Future. M.:ACT,LUKS, 2004.
Zimmer K. Evolution. The Triumph of Idea. M.: Alpina non-fiktion, 2012.
