Comment to L. Baeva "Values of Age of Pluralism" (in the context of the state of modern philosophy).

Voin                                                                                                            7.12.10

    The article posted on the website of the World Philosophical Forum under the auspices of UNESCO, held in Athens on October 4-8 this year ( It is quite typical of the modern state of philosophy, not only in Russia or Ukraine, but throughout the world. Therefore, analysis of the article will help shed light on this state. This state is important not only for philosophy and philosophers, but also for solving the global problems facing humanity today.
     The main part of the article is devoted to describing the state of modern Western society, rather axiological aspect of this state. Here I do not have significant differences with the author. I just wrote on this subject (for example, in the article "
Проблема ценностей, как проблема выживания человечества") and picture, which depicts L. Baeva, basically coincides with that which I draw, but for today, and many other philosophers. Among the characteristic features of this state, the author refers to "turn to the physicality, hedonism, pluralism, tolerance, irrationalism, and others."
       Among the reasons for this state, the author points to a “
crisis of classical epoch principles monistic in their expression: evidence of Utopian character of developing a perfect person, an entirely constructive sense, “a fair-for-all society” etc. And the fact that "In the 20th century the world and the man faced the threat of destruction, so a number of values, which had been dominating the consciousness and creative activity of people, began to transform and corrupt." And also the fact that «  the 20th century failed to answer the expectations. Two world wars, murderous revolutions, totalitarian regimes, economic and ecological crises showed that sense is not the universal tool to achieve the reign of justice, freedom and prosperity. As a response, the crisis of classical system of values comes: humanism is replaced with antihumanism, progressism - with pluralism, rationalismwith irrationalism. "
    Finally, conclusions and recommendations of the author fit in one paragraph that ends the article:

     What does a list of contemporary values which should be kept in conditions of pluralism and innovatory changes include? First of, moral valuesdisinterested kindness, honor, honesty, respect to life, nonviolence, cognitive valuestruth, knowledge, science, social values- family, kids, love and friendship, Another world vital valueslife, safety, health.”

      I have no objection to values, which the author proposes. But the question is why it is these values and not any others? Or why only these, but not a plus to them any more? Say, it is possible and follows from numerous philippic of the author against the lack of spirituality, to add here spirituality. And many other things can be added. But, let's suppose L. Baeva forget to add spirituality to the list. It happens. Suppose we add and spirituality, and still some values to this list, and all agree on at some sitting to adopt this list on the principle: "Do you respect me? Then take that list." And on another sitting in the same manner will be adopted another list. And even if it is possible to organize a worldwide gathering and to adopt on it in such a way list of values for whole humanity, would it be the guarantee that tomorrow will not turn out that this is the wrong list and to live according to it even worse than before, if not impossible? And then again the question arises, which is still hanging in the air: why is this list? Because this list of values was adopted in the "classical" (a term the author) age and then life was better?
     But L. Baeva herself writes that since the classical era the conditions of human existence has changed and that it is what caused the transition from classical to current hedonistically - plurality - irrational, etc. values. “Monistic" worldviews, within which the proposed L. Baeva values were developed and justified, have collapsed or are shown to be ineffective, globalization has occurred and many others.

And the new system of values, to which L. Baeva opposes, just justified by its adherents with reference to these changes. And its adherents are not just street thugs, drug users, representatives of show business, etc. They are first and foremost representatives of the schools of philosophy that dominated in the 20-th century and are still dominant in the West today: existentialism, Freudianism, post positivism, and many others who "proved" the necessity, accuracy, etc. of hedonism, pluralism, irrationalism and other values, to which L. Baeva opposes. Proved in quotes or no quotes, but at least they reacted to the changes that actually occurred in the world since the "classic era" and tied (correctly or incorrectly) their philosophy, including the system of values to them. L. Baeva, setting out these changes sufficiently with intelligible and colorful language, then completely ignores them and offers the old "classical" system of values as though nothing has since happened, as though she exists in a philosophical vacuum, as if the current value system is just some kind of obsession, nowhere appeared, and not having any reasons for its emergence, or philosophical basis, recognized by most Western philosophers. But philosophy - not a fashion in which you can return to previous a style, without going into the study, but just catching the mood of the masses. After all, classical rationalism, for example, was replaced by irrationality not due to the vagaries of fashion, but because it really had shortcomings that were rightly pointed out by the post positivists. Another thing is that the post positivists made from this the wrong conclusions. But you can not ignoring the facts return just to classical rationalism, which, after his extraordinary triumph of the Enlightenment has lost its position precisely because of the real disadvantages of it. You can and should give the correct explanation of these facts to refute the construction of the post positivists and to formulate and justify a new corrected rationalism. Only then you can shout "Down with the irrational." Otherwise it is demagoguery, profanity solution of the problem, which in practice leads to the triumph of the very values opposes by L. Baeva. In particular, to the triumph of demagoguery over thirst for truth, to the substitution of real science by pseudoscientific chat etc.
     Likewise, you can not just go back to the monistic doctrines, the values of the classical era were based on which. You can not do it, without addressing the question of why these doctrines have lost credibility in their time, why they were not sustainable. And without fixing them properly or building a new doctrine, from which would follow these same values of the classical era, perhaps something changed. Only in such a way we can move forward toward a better life and not hang out in the space of values and moral norms from edge to edge adrift or fashion. Lack of justification of the proposed solutions or pseudo-justification of them in the form of references to any authorities (while other philosophers refer to other authorities and suggest the opposite conclusions) and the use of abstruse terminology is the main drawback of all modern philosophy, making it unable to solve the problems facing humanity today.
     Another drawback - it is the vagueness of concepts, operated by modern philosophers and in particular, by the author of this article. Take, for example, concepts such as "spirituality" and "tolerance." The author does not define nor that, nor another. Of course, if you give a definition of each word, then it will be impossible to finish any work until the end. But there are cases when absolutely necessary to provide a definition, or reader can sense what you write, exactly the opposite. And there is such a case. From the context we can see, that a spirituality L. Baeva understands like something absolutely positive.

 But what about humeynism and in general about religious fanaticism. This is spirituality? As for me it is. It is not hedonism, is not pluralism, it is the willingness to serve a transpersonal God, even to sacrifice life for Him. But this is bad and dangerous spirituality. If you do not give a definition of spirituality and do not define what spirituality is good, and what is bad, in short, if you do not build a theory of spirit and just yell: "Spirituality, spirituality”, then we can push the reader not in the direction in which L. Baeva wants to send him, but in exactly the opposite. And vast majority of people in such chat we push to aversion to spirituality and to philosophy, as such. And to the thought: may be better to go to the pub - it's something simpler and more understandable.
     Similarly, tolerance, which according Baeva is the full negative. If any of tolerance - it's bad, then long live racism, xenophobia, etc. It is necessary again to determine what we must endure, but that should not be tolerated. And do not forget to found why it is tolerated, but it is not tolerated. Otherwise, we get all the same information deluge, flood rubbish, meaningless and useless information, in which we are all going to drown, and against which L. Baeva herself rises.
     Here the reader may ask: Are your calls, Mr.Voin, to the founding of conclusions and rigor of definitions, they are not the same nature as the appeals of L. Baeva and others to spirituality, to the hunger for truth, for kindness, etc.? Is not it the same "agitprop", all had long been sick of which? After all, many screaming
about the need of substantiation of conclusions and the strictness of definitions.

     No, this is not an agitprop, I say. Because I on the basis of my theory of cognition ("Неорационализм", Kiev 1992, Part 1) have formulated a common method of substantiation of scientific theories (Философские исследования № 3,2000; № 1, 2001; № 2, 2002, and a number of articles on the Internet: Until then, this method has existed in the natural science at the stereotype of natural scientific thinking, so do not always enforced strictly enough, which in turn led to the appearance of paradoxes, apparent contradictions and, ultimately, made the concept of the theory uncertain and hollowed out the boundaries between theory and hypothesis in science, even such as physics. And I am not close eye to the phenomena of real science, which drew attention of the post positivists and led to the crisis of classical rationalism. I show the fallacy of part of conclusions of the post positivists, which they have made from these phenomena. In particular, I showed that, despite the fact that, as rightly pointed out by the post positivist, science changes its concepts and conclusions under the transition from one fundamental theory to another, method of founding of all its theories remains unchanged and that provides to the science its special epistemological status and distinguishes real science from pseudoscience. So, I corrected the classical rationalism without sliding at the same time to irrationalism. («Кризис рационалистического мировоззрения и неорационализм» As part of my theory of cognition and a common method of substantiation, I developed a theory of concepts and showed that contrary to the assertion of ontological relativism (Quine and others), science can provide unambiguous definition of its concepts and implement binding them to the experience. Next I showed the possibility of using this method with appropriate adaptation in the humanitarian sphere. Thus, there is a tool that allows you to clear philosophy and other sciences from an endless stream of verbiage.
     On the basis of my approach, I constructed an optimal theory of morality ("
Неорационализм», Part 4, "The problem of justifying morality», which provides reasonable standards of universal ethics, by the way, matching mainly one, adopted in the "classical period", in particular with the rules of Christian morality. And - a theory of spirit («Неорционализм», Part 5). Based on the same approach I showed ("От Моисея до постмодернизма. Движение идеи", Kiev, Феникс, 1999 and, that the cause of the fall of the authority of Christianity (which is one of the "monistic" teachings that have shaped the values of the "classical period"), is a distortion of the teachings by the Church, and gave a reasonable interpretation of the Bible.
     But the widespread acceptance of my approach and in particular the common method of substantiation of scientific theories is inhibited thereby the state of philosophy, to remedy which he designed. My work is simply drowned in a stream of pseudo-philosophical torrent. On the other hand philosophical authorities are not willing to allow the recognition of the common method of substantiation, since it may
show, that works on which they built their own careers are unfounded.

Hosted by uCoz