Comment to L. Baeva
"Values of Age of Pluralism" (in the context of the state of modern philosophy).
The article posted on the website of the World Philosophical Forum under the auspices of UNESCO, held in
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, rationalism – with 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 values – disinterested kindness, honor, honesty, respect to life, nonviolence, cognitive values – truth, knowledge, science, social values- family, kids, love and friendship, Another world vital values – life, safety, health.”
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.
this is not an agitprop, I say. Because I on the basis of my theory of cognition
On the basis of my approach, I constructed an optimal theory of morality ("Неорационализм», Part 4, "The problem of justifying morality» http://philprob.narod.ru/philosophy/Justmoral.htm), 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 http://philprob.narod.ru/philosophy/Mozes2.htm), 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.