Ideology in the modern world

                    A Voin

     I will not explore the question of how various schools of philosophy to define the concept of "ideology". There are many schools, each insists on the absolute nature of it’s definition. But, as I showed in my theory of cognition ("
Неорационализм", Part 1, Kiev, 1992), there are no absolute definitions of the concepts. A definition does not require its recognition in a particular school of philosophy. It requires the correspondence of the problem, which one, who uses this concept, intends to solve. In this paper I understand under the ideology of teaching, and even wider, some over thought, which can be not represented as a teaching. But it sets to the community, which has accepted it, goals and the way of achieving them, and the meanings of core values and gives to the members of the community some convincing justification of all of that. This justification may be a tradition ("Our ancestors lived in such a way and well, thank God, good things of this life had"), religion ("That requires God Almighty and all-knowing") and finally, it may be scientific grounded, or pretending to be a scientific one.
     Before turning to the present state of affairs in this area, I want to take a view of the role played by ideology in the past history of mankind. As Nietzsche wrote (I quote from memory): "The generals redraws the map of the world, entrepreneurs are remaking the world itself, but slowly the world revolves around creators of new values." A value, as mentioned above - one of the main components of the ideology. Of course, in the short (relatively) periods of the history we can not ignore the role of military leaders and entrepreneurs. But globally the course of history, the evolution of human society was determined after all by ideologies.
      Some people on this planet took Christian doctrine (ideology) and their subsequent history, despite the fact that each was his own, as a whole have gone the other way than that people which have not accepted Christianity. And the Christian nations, as well as people, who have taken some time later Islam (religion of the other axis, which came from the same root) after some time began to play a leading role in the world. Then, within the Christian world it is possible schematically and shareware, but acceptable for our task, to trace the chain of ideological transformation. First one was ideology of Renaissance, which was a synthesis of classical and Christian ideologies. Then the Reformation came. Then it was on this path of transformation or evolution of ideologies the rationalist worldview closely associated with modern science was born. And it is the people who went that route are leading in the Christian world and in the world in general, still maintaining that lead to this day. Further along this road there is the ideology of the bourgeois revolutions and democratic market economies. And on the way to today, the ideology of the bourgeois revolutions transformed into a modern liberalism and neo-liberalism and a more or less simultaneously occur among the people, who went this way, the ideologies of Marxism and fascism. And again, the people who went by each of these branches of the main road, even for a short period of time, forging ahead, achieving, if not the absolute hegemony in the world, compete on an equal footing with the people who stayed in the liberal ideology, and superiority over the nations, which remained at a old ideologies.
     The conclusion, for which I have made this brief digression into the history of ideologies is obvious and has in fact formulated above. I repeat, and clarify it. Ideology plays a major role in human history in the long intervals and the people who take the historically correct, proper to time and a new reality ideology, gain an advantage over people with a backward ideology and forging ahead in its development.
     What the situation prevailing today in the world of ideologies and the related situation in the world at large is? Today on the global market of ideologies are suggested quoted and consumed a lot of names of this product. First of all, it is the liberal democratic free market ideology, also known as the West project. Then it is communist, red, also a former Soviet ideology. Then - the religious ideologies of the various religions and denominations, and nationalist, tailored to different nations. Then - all sorts of combinations and eclectic mixture of "pure" ideologies, as a communist market in China, the religious with a free market in Turkey and a number of countries, etc. (Cocktail may consist of three or more "pure" ideologies). Finally - all exotics, such as deceased in the Libya Jumaheriya. But I would argue that in some sense in the long run in the world today compete only two ideologies, it is West
ern and red designs.
      Why only these two and why I do not see, say, the "Islamic Project", the number of supporters and the influence on foreign policy in the world of which today exceeds the communist project? That is because the Islamist project is a purely religious ideology. But all the purely religious, purely nationalist, traditionalist, etc. ideologies are the rudiments of obsolescent. They were the true, progressive, gave strength to the survival of the people in their time, which is already gone forever. This does not mean that in our time in each of these projects are to be found some grain of truth that can be incorporated into new projects - an ideology. But in its pure form in long-term future they are no longer suitable, can not provide long-term prosperity, progress and success. The revival today some of them, above all, Islamic, and some nationalistic and other, such as fascism and communism, is temporarily, and is associated with the crisis experienced by the Western liberal-democratic project. When it's time of troubles, people tend not to seek a new path, which is very difficult and frightening uncertainty, but to seek support in the past, which they strongly idealized, forgetting, turning a blind eye to its severe shortcomings and to the fact that it is already lost in time to the last project, which now in crisis.
      The loss of religious, nationalist, and especially the communist project, of course, is not self-evident. There are many followers of these projects, which are foaming at the mouth will argue with me. For example, economist and blogger Michael Hazin recently has written extensively on this subject, arguing that the loss of red project was not objective due, but a result of errors and even crimes of concrete managers. And that is why the revival of this project is possible and necessary. He was echoed by another economist and blogger Michael Delyagin and many others. And I must admit that the temporary defeat of an ideological project, followed by a return to the arena and the final triumph happened in history and are more the rule than the exception. Suffice it to recall the history of the project of bourgeois democracy itself and almost any other. The Great French Revolution ended with the defeat itself, but its ideology, its project is still some time prevailed. So particular defeat in the struggle of ideologies, in fact, does not prove anything. Still, I insist that the communist ideology and liberal democracy ideology itself, not to mention the purely religious and nationalist, today has outlived and the world, mankind needs today in a new ideology, a new project. Of course, this new project may include elements of the previous ones. But this can not be mix of pieces of these projects, an eclectic mix. This should be a harmonious whole doctrine.
      So why do I still believe that not only traditionalist, nationalist, religious, and even a communist and liberal democratic project have outlived today? The reason for this is justification. From the cursory excursion into the history of ideologies, which I gave above, it is evident that the justification of ideologies has its evolution, its vector orientation. Primary traditionalist ideology based on the limited experience of family, tribe or small nation. Experience which is not only limited but also conceptualized at the level of intuition with only the most vague generalizations, almost at the level as in the animal pack, which also has a kind of simplified "ideology", not conceptualized a set of rules of conduct (law of the jungle).

Even such primitive and primitively grounded ideology gives some benefit to society, for without ideology, society can not exist. Ideology - that is what glues atomic individuals in society.
      At the stage of religious ideologies, especially the monotheistic "axis" religion, ideology assumes the character of the full-scale teaching, yet not scientifically grounded and based only on the authority of God, but with the inclusion of an essential element of rational theorizing. Enough to listen to any modern preacher to make sure that for the confirmation to people of his teachings how to live he not only refers to the Scriptures, but also uses even primitive, but rational logical arguments, starting with the same experience. And in the Scriptures themselves there are many rational by nature builds and pure philosophy. Take, for example the Book of Job from the Old Testament, which is a pure philosophical treatise in the style of Plato's "Dialogues with the Timaeus”. Treatises and controversies of theologians, such as Calvin with his Catholic opponents, also are full of purely rational passages, although using as a starting point of biblical texts.
(See my book "От Моисея до постмодернизма. Движение идеи", Феникс, Киев, 1999). And some theologians wander so far in their rational constructions that there already any relations with the Scripture can not be found. As, for example, Origen does it in some places of his book "Origins." (Look in my book of the same). It is no accident that the rational science of the New Age itself was born in the depths of the Christian religion, in the monasteries and theological universities of the Middle Ages.
      So the natural course of evolution of ideologies to the stage after the occurrence and formation of rational science led to the emergence of modern ideologies, based on purely scientific rational basis (or pretending to be based in such a way). These are the ideology of the bourgeois revolution and Marxism. Fascism, which arose simultaneously (in a large historical scale) with Marxism, is not science-based ideology and even to pretend seriously on that it can not. His attraction to mysticism, the occult and to all these "voices of blood" immediately renders it beyond the purely scientific discourse. That's why I singled out from all the ideologies ideology of the bourgeois revolutions and inherit it a liberal democracy ideology and Marxism. Only they can now claim to scientific validity and to a large extent these claims are not empty (although not entirely). All other ideologies, including religious and nationalist, in the long term can not compete with them, as against the scientific validity of the latter ideologies becomes apparent weakness and shortcomings of earlier ones. Although, as it have place in the case of the evolution of living, these other ideologies do not disappear (or at least not completely disappear all at once) and even in situation of crisis of more advanced ideologies they may temporarily once again to expand the range of their distribution (what we now observe). But it may be a return to a historically short period of time. (It does not mean that national and state and religion have outlived as such).
      It should be noted also that the traditionalist and nationalist ideology does not even pretend to be a universal for all humanity. These are ideologies, so to say, of a narrow purpose for a specific people. That fundamentally limits the range of their distribution. Well, let's say, if the Germans claim to superiority over other nations and, as the consequence, a right to the lands on which these others are now living, then why should this lead to the delight of the others? Furthermore, humanity has long been and now, because of globalization and the emergence and growing importance of global problems (compared to a purely national), needs universal ideology.
For this reason ideologies, that oppose themselves to the general human interest, are doomed in the long run. Narrow-minded nationalism, explicitly or not explicitly, by all means does it. Of course, each nation can add to the universal ideology of its supplements, consistent with its national circumstances, the level of its development, etc. But it must not be contrary to the universal part.
     With regard to religious ideologies represented by the axial religions, they, at least in the past claimed to be universal for all mankind. And Christianity and Islam even today still have not abandoned to spread their belief through propaganda and missionary work. In the past they spread it also by force of arms, based on a deep conviction of the universality of its faith, its truth, its ideology and the usefulness and necessity of spreading it to all mankind. But first, these religions have long recognized the right of each people to remain in their faith and missionary work are no longer serves the purpose of treatment of all mankind in this particular religion, but is rather a variant of the competitive struggle for markets of this “product”. Second, as it mentioned above, the credibility of grounding of religious ideology suffered greatly during this time and its shortcomings began to be seen on the background of rational ideologies. Suffered because of the emergence and growth authority of the rational science, the truth of which, at least seemingly, came into strong conflict with religious one. This applies particularly to the picture of creation and human origins, but not only. Suffered also because contrary to the basic thesis of religious ideology, which states that God is one (in monotheistic religions), and the truth is one, this truth not only appeared to be different in each of these axial religions, but also each of these religions was divided into many denominations, again each with its own truth. All that in the absence of a common language between them and the opportunity to agree which of them is right, based on the recognition of some common objective truth. The more that representatives of a rational science, adhere to different points of view, are able to negotiate between themselves and by the all world community to take some hypothesis as a proven theory. Thus, we again arrive at the fact that today there are only two truly competing with each other and pretending to be science-based ideologies: liberal democracy and Marxist. Why do I think also these two ideologies obsolete and we need for a new ideology?
     From the use of the word "pretending" you can guess that I do not believe these ideologies (Marxism and liberalism) are really scientifically grounded, and indeed it is. The reason for this is that, though the scientific method of grounding already existed in the most rational science, but even today it still exists here only on the level of stereotype of natural scientific thinking and explicitly so far it has not been submitted. This form of its existence was enough to representatives of natural sciences were able (and not without problems) to find common language with each other and eventually by the entire world community to receive some hypothesis as a proven theory and reject all others. But it was not enough to transfer this method in the humanitarian sphere, particularly in the sphere of ideology. Therefore, the grounding of ideologies could be so far only an imitation of scientific justification.

      I pretend that I have completed this method (the general method of substantiation) and presented it explicitly ("Единый метод обоснования научных теорий»; and a number of articles published in philosophical journals and books and in the Internet) and showed the possibility of applying it with appropriate adaptation in the humanitarian sphere. In particular, I used it to analyze the degree of scientificalness of Marxism ("Побритие бороды Карла Маркса или научен ли научный коммунизм", Kiev, 1999) and showed that Marxism is far enough from to be a theory, truly based on science. (Although it must be admitted that it advanced in this direction more than any purely nationalistic or religious ideology).
     I will not expound here again my work on the general method of substantiation or my analysis of the scientific validity of Marxism. Instead, let me remind to the reader the basic underlying principles of Marxism and explore how they look against the backdrop of contemporary reality.

     The belief of the progressive role of the proletariat and as consequence a requirement to establish the hegemony of it by means of the proletarian revolution is central to Marxism. How does Marx found this position? On the fact, that the proletariat creates wealth and the rest of people have no relationship to the process and are parasites. It was still the peasantry, to which Marx too doesn’t refused in the production of wealth, but taking in account the industrial revolution that occurred in his time, truly believed that the peasantry will become proletarian, partly leaving of the ground and turned into industrial workers, partly becoming employees in the ground. That his position (as well as many others) has not been scientifically proven initially, I have shown in the above-mentioned work. But, at least in his time such position could be the earnest mistake. But to err on this matter today, as do Khazin, Delyagin and other heralds of a new renaissance and global triumph of Marxism, is possible only by closing eyes to contemporary reality. Already in Marx's time in the production of material goods were not only the workers and peasants, but also scientists, entrepreneurs, managers, bankers, etc. But in Marx's time was still possible to assume that the main role in this production plays still the proletariat, so to speak, distracting, turning a blind eye to the role of the rest. But today, we do not live in an era of industrial revolution, but in an age which is called the era of information technology. (More precisely it must be called the era of hi-tech). Not only that proportion of the proletariat in the general population is not growing and shrinking, but its role in the production approaches zero. Today there is an increasing number of fully automated plants and even in such industries as construction, where, apparently, the need for brute force of a large number of hired workers is never finished, emerging technologies and machinery, erecting walls without the aid of workers. But even in places using a lot of workers the role of scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, financiers, managers, trade and advertising are much more significant of role of the workers themselves. Suffice it to recall how many production grown in the fields in the Soviet Union died right on the field or in storage because of the ugly-established trade and storage, which in turn was due to the lack of host and smart managers, and eventually due to the notorious hegemony of the proletariat. So, in order to claim that the proletariat is today the main productive force, you just need to have a thick skull. But if he is not the primary productive force, then why should make him a “hegemon” and to establish his dictatorship. By the way, it has never been the “hegemon” in former Soviet Union and the dictatorship of the proletariat was not. The dictatorship of the communist party was only on its behalf, and not even the whole party but its elite “nomenklatura”. From the omnipotence of “nomenklatura” flowed inefficiency of the Soviet economy and low, in comparison with developed countries, standard of living. This is despite the fact that at short distances the planned economy, coupled with the enthusiasm of the masses after the revolution, has not only drawbacks, but also certain advantages over the free market, that allowed to the Soviet Union for a time to compete on equal with West. The real weaknesses of the Western model, derived from the fact that it is not quite scientifically substantiated also contributed to that. I pass to the last.

      A detailed analysis of all the liberal democratic free market ideology can not be, of course, crammed into a single frame of this article. Therefore I confine myself to the individual, so to speak, shock moments. One of the basic provisions of this ideology was the idea that the free market, combined with private ownership of means of production "regulate everything." "Everything will adjust," therefore free market will provide both efficiency of economy (without government intervention) and the equitable distribution of the total product. “The equitable distribution” here is not in the sense of Marx's definition of communism, where "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." But to the sense of Marx's definition of socialism, where "from each according to his ability, to each according to his work" this free market allocation, in principle, does not contradict. Although the understanding and appreciation of the labor contribution of different members of production process in Marx’s and the Western models diverge almost diametrically. Marx generally ignored the ability of the entrepreneur and his labor in the price of the finished product. In the Western model labor of proletarian is not ignored, but is estimated much lower than the contribution of the entrepreneur. And there is a reason. The market is free. If you are dissatisfied with your salary, look for a place where you will receive more, or start a business. Again, freedom is not a trifle. What is the place it should occupy in some optimal or ideal system of values is a separate question, but what it is the value, an important value, no doubt. So initially this basic position of the Western model looks convincing and attractive, and it really does have a great deal of truth. But that is not the whole truth.
     And that it is not the whole truth after a while turned out. When capitalism had passed its initial development phase of the natural market and has entered a phase of monopolies and the onset of the crises, became clear that the market can not regulate everything itself without government interference. Without this intervention, it drives himself to a standstill and its economic effectiveness is over. It was also found that the equity of distribution of the total product, closely related to the unlimited freedom of enterprise and labor market regulatory role in this distribution, without interference of government in it have been quite elusive and hypocritical. Everyone the opportunity to open his business became a purely legal, but in practice, the novice businessman had little chance to compete with the monopolies. Exclusive agreement of monopolists also deprived the labor market of regulatory role in the establishment of a fair wage laborer. All this was, incidentally, the starting point for Marx, who on this basis "bury" capitalism as such.
     However, the "funeral" of capitalism by Marx proved to be premature. The resource life of capitalism and the whole of western ideological project have not been fully exhausted. Ideology was in need of reform and the reform was implemented. It has been realized and recognized that the freedom of market competition can not be unlimited, as well as the distribution of the total product can not be carried out only on the basis of market forces. And in either case must be the controlling influence of the state. But, unlike Marx's model, this influence was suggested by purely economic measures, while maintaining private ownership of means of production and the free market as such. In particular, antitrust laws were adopted, and as a theoretical basis for the control of market forces by state it was adopted Keynesian macroeconomic model. This was a step in the right direction, which allowed the western project to continue at the time of the successful voyage. But the statement that these amendments finally corrected the western project and made it viable for an unlimited time turned out to be premature. The evidence of that are renewed crises and their growth up to the transformation of today's global crisis of the system. Under the system I have in mind here not only the West but also all of humanity, which has been and continues to be led in the past 200 years by democratic free market West, despite the temporary competition of the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany and the resistance of the Third World. A systemic crisis is expressed in the environmental, resource, demographic, informational crises in the growing threat of global nuclear war or self-destruction of humanity as a result of a physical experiment or technological disaster involving the uncontrolled scientific and technical progress, etc.
      The cause of the global systemic crisis of humanity and the last global financial crisis, has not yet ended, but the impending move to new, more profound and unpredictable consequences, is all that the same lack of scientific substantiation of the western project in general and its economic part in particular. The last is seen with the naked eye as in the fact of the inability of the West to cope with this crisis, so in that this crisis was a complete surprise to the rulers of the West and for his research of the economic elite. It is seen also from the presence in the West today not only Keynesian, but a few else macroeconomic theories (monetarism, the theory of rational expectations, etc.), each of which gives the recipes you need to do and their predictions, and the authorities do not know which one to believe and follow. In detail what is the scientific invalidity of the economic part of the western project, I examine in my series of macro-economic articles
(«О цикличности кризисов», «Эволюция кризисов и экономических моделей», «Экономическая ситуация в мире» etc.).
     But not only the economic part of the western project is not justified scientifically. Even worse is the case with its system of values. As part of its economic ideology West, as I say, evolve, al
though not sufficient, but in the right direction. But the system of values of the West only degraded in the transition from the ideology of the bourgeois revolutions to the current neo-liberal one. In the original system of values the freedom of enterprise and political freedom was in the first place, while maintaining reasonable restrictions by law and morality in the sphere of sexual relations and the arts and mass media. Today the first place among the values occupied by the success and enjoyment, and the first place among the freedoms - the freedom in the sexual area, including the right to prostitution, pornography and perversion. The fact, that this evolution is not scientifically based and degrades the quality of life of society as a whole, I show in many of my works, starting with the above-mentioned "Неорационализм." In particular, this evolution is one of the causes of the global systemic crisis and the recent global financial and economic one. The relationship between this system of values and economics, I made out in my paper "Economics and morality" (Conference Proceedings of the World Philosophical Forum, 2010. TheoDone). However, some elements of this relationship are visible to the naked eye. Suffice it to recall the role played by the greed of American bankers and top managers in the financial crisis.
     Another reason of not scientific and unreasonableness of modern liberal ideology (let alone all the others) is a rapid change in today's world, caused by technological change and related processes, for which the evolution of the ideology itself has not kept pace. But if ideology does not take into account changed circumstances, then, even if it has been scientifically proved in the past, it ceases to be such in the new circumstances, does not correspond to them. As shown above, the economic part of the liberal ideology once was reformed under the changed circumstances, and it was good for the stage. But since then there have been more significant changes in economic reality, and although some attempts to take them in account have place in the Western economic science, but the adequate to these changes evolution of economic ideology has not happened yet. In particular, as I showed in a series of my macroeconomic articles, nor Keynesian theory and none of the following for it does not take into account the factor of globalization and the associated getting free of the major corporations under national control with very weak replacement of it by the control of supra-national bodies. Antitrust laws enacted after the Great Depression of 1932 - 37 and then fixed the situation in the economy, now no longer work effectively.
     But the main reason for non-correspondence of the current liberal ideology, as well as Marxist, non- correspondence to new and continuing to change reality is the crisis of rationalist world outlook, which is a common ground for both the Western project and for Marxism. And which also provided them an advantage over previous ideologies: religious, nationalistic, etc. The crisis of the rationalist worldview actually knocked out from under the base of both of these ideologies. Rationalist worldview - a belief in human reason, in its ability to correctly and safely describe the reality around us and running in it processes, which allows us to plan our actions to achieve the desired goals and results, and in such a way really to achieve them. Naturally, the rationalist worldview is closely connected with above mentioned general method of justification of scientific theories, which ensures the reliability of scientific knowledge and the single meaning of its conclusions than any other kind of knowledge does not have. Without the general method of justification, people can not reach agreement which of the competing theories (hypotheses) is true and the conclusions of which theory should be followed in a particular case. So the situation is the same as in the time of the ancient Hebrew prophets, when a prophet told the king: "Start a war and you win, I had a vision," while another said: "Do not start, you will be defeated, I had different vision, and my vision safer". And the king did not have any criteria for which of them he must believe. Today, due to the crisis of the rationalist worldview and adopted by modern Western philosophy point of view that science does not have a general method of substantiation of its theories, the situation in that respects like the old. Only instead of the prophets, we have now experts and scientists which refer in the best case, each to his theory, and more generally they refer to nothing. And as the general method of substantiation is not written explicitly, and even its very existence is denied, then no chance to find out which of the experts with which the theory we must believe in, we do not.
      The causes of the crisis of the rationalist philosophy and numerous unsuccessful attempts to overcome it, I described in the article entitled "
Кризис рационалистического мировоззрения и неорационализм". In a nutshell, they are as follows. The original rationalist outlook, the so-called classical rationalism, ancestors of which were Descartes, Pascal, Bacon and others, along with the proper provisions contained some incorrect. In particular, it was inclined to an absoluteness of scientific knowledge in the spirit of Marx's "reflection of reality." They say that science does not alter the previously acquired knowledge, but only adds to it a new. In fact, through the transition from one fundamental theory to another science simply must change the concepts and conclusions. In the era of classical rationalism, when science has developed within the paradigm of Newtonian mechanics, it was not noticeable. But when Einstein's relativity theory replacing Newtonian mechanics came and the absolute time of Newton in Einstein’s theory has become relative, and speeds, which at the Newton theory were summarizing according to the formula of Galileo, began to do that according to the formula of Lorentz, did not notice it was not possible. And then, finding no proper explanation for this phenomenon, philosophers, so to say, splashed baby with water. They pile up the whole Mont Blanc philosophical theories, starting with existentialism and ending by post positivism, denying the ability of the scientific knowledge to give us reliable knowledge about reality, down to equating science to guesswork (Feyerabend). In particular, they denied the existence of a general method of substantiation of scientific theories and, therefore, the presence of a common language among scientists and their possibility to agree among themselves what is truth and which hypothesis to accept as a theory, which - to discard.
     The negative impact of the crisis of the rationalist world outlook on liberal ideology, as well as impact of it on the whole situation in the world today can not be overestimated.

Above all, this crisis undermined the authority very liberal and Marxist ideologies. After all, unlike, say, religious ideologies, the truth of which are sanctioned by of God's name, the truth of liberalism and Marxism sanctioned by authority of science (as they themselves pretend to be scientific). But if science itself has lost its authority as a reliable source of truth, both of these ideologies also lost it.

      Also discussed above evolution for the worse of the system of values with hypertrophy of the role of freedom in general and in the sexual area in particular and with the setting in the first place among the values of success and pleasure associated with this crisis. Even existentialists starting from the unreliability of scientific knowledge came to the conclusion of the relativity of morality, and that the only real values are the freedom and enjoyment. Their logic was simple and in the situation of crisis of rationalist outlook looked convincing. After all, if our knowledge is relative and unreliable and science has no general method of justification of its theories, any accepted and scientifically grounded morality tomorrow, when the method of justification will be changed, can be recognized as unjustified and will be rejected and replaced by a new one. And what yesterday was considered good, tomorrow it could be considered bad. In this situation it turns out that the only reliable values are the freedom and pleasure. But, to receive pleasure you must be successful man. Therefore success catches first place on the scale of values of liberal society. Another theoretical support of the liberal ideology, regarding the freedoms of the sexual sphere, Freudianism as a purely speculative theory has received the status of science just because there was no recognized general method of substantiation.
     The crisis of the rationalistic outlook affected also on the situation of economic science. As I showed in my work on the general method of substantiation, the non-recognition of this method leads to the erosion of boundaries between theory and hypothesis and to confusion limits of applicability of a theory. And in my macroeconomic works I showed that last financial crisis was caused in no small measure by the use of specific economic theories, such as Keynesian, outside of their applicability.
     But the impact of the crisis of the rationalist world outlook on ideology of liberalism and on the situation in the world today is much broader than above consideration of two directions. Another direction of its negative impact is the reduction in the effectiveness of science itself. Crucial role of science in modern society do not need to explain. It has long been a major factor in the production of wealth. And it continues to grow at an accelerated rate, which hides the fall of effectiveness of modern science. The accelerated development of science today goes on due to even more rapid growth in the number of people involved in it and poured into it capital. And also due to the fact that modern scientists, figuratively speaking, standing on the shoulders of all previous ones and this foundation of science, built by previous generations, is becoming more and more powerful. But effectiveness of the same science per one scientist falls. Because the lack of clear criteria of scientificalness (which only a general method of justification of scientific theories gives) science is fill up with mediocrity, producing only an imitation of science. This has place especially for the humanities. (See my article “
Проблема синтеза гуманитарных и естественных наук" etc.). Reducing the effectiveness of science is supported by ongoing conversations about the need to reform the system of Academy of Sciences in Russia, for example.
      Another direction of the negative impact of the crisis of rationalist worldview on the Western project is a decline in the quality of democracy, which is an essential component of this project. Democracy is not only the electoral right. It is also necessary that elector actually had to choose from, and that those who elect possessed not only a desire to find out whom they should vote, but also had the ability to understand who really can make their life better. Otherwise, they are not demos, but “ohlos”. Once at the dawn of democracy in ancient Greece there was no problem with the "understand". Then a citizen must be only non indifferent and active. But today, thanks to scientific and technical progress, reality in which we live and society itself, and the challenges which it facing became extraordinarily complicated. And not only the masses (not to mention proletarians), but also politicians, from both government and opposition, usually don’t really understand these problems. Thus, it appears that the voter has no real choice, no ability to consciously choose. And democracy is transformed from the power of the people in power of those who manipulates these people more agile. While the manipulators themselves also did not know what they do and what they receive as a result.
     Take for example the problem of building nuclear power plants and related hazards. Former Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko was going to build in Ukraine 30 – 40 new nuclear power plants. And not for to meet the most Ukraine's needs of electricity (Ukraine sells it to the West, and if not, it needs a maximum of one, two stations, not 30-40), but in order to earn on its sales. This is despite the Chernobyl tragedy that happened in the Ukraine namely. Of course, he himself does not understand the problem of safety of nuclear power stations. So the question appears, how could he have to offer such thing in spite of Chernobyl? He just listened to what the scientists say. There are many scientists who oppose the construction of nuclear power plants. But the principal atomist of Ukrainian Academy Bar'yakhtar lobbied for their construction, arguing that it is safe. However, neither Yushchenko nor those who voted in the election for him or against do not understand arguments of Bar'yakhtar nor his opponents. Thus, voting for Yushchenko (or against) the voters in this matter simply poked his finger into the sky. Similarly - the issues of GMOs and others, closely related to the leading edge of modern science.
     But the situation is no better and for the issues which are far from highbrow physics, genetics, and others like them and which are not too worried about overwhelming majority of the people. Economy which associated with quality of life concern for each and everyone here considers himself as expert. But really that everyone understands just if his real wages grew it be compared with the previous month or fell. But what will happen to his salary in a year or more for a given economic policy, neither he nor the government nor the opposition does not understand. Not even, as I showed above, scientists and economists. That means, choosing one or another party with one or another economic program, the voter is also pokes a finger into the sky.
     Effect of crisis of the rationalist world outlook on the functioning of democracy is well illustrated by recent events in Russia. I am referring to demonstrations against election fraud, and in general against Putin. On the one hand, these demonstrations show the awakening of the civil population and such activity is welcome, because without it democracy can not function successfully. But on the other hand, they also show that the level of understanding of problems by non-system opposition (as, indeed, by the system itself and the government) is not enough.

From the outset non formal opposition pressed forward to the peaceful nature of their performances. One lady even wrote online: "Revolutions in Russia can not be, because Russia has a nuclear bomb." I corrected it, you need to write, "revolutions must not to be" for this reason. And now I hear more and more in the programs of radio "Freedom" direct appeals to the revolution. (Not from the commentators, of course, but commentators do not terminate these callings). And the use of force in clashes with the authorities is becoming more and more from both sides. Each accuses the other at the same time that he first started and he is guilty. But if the revolution really will come (in Russia, with its atomic bombs), how then will matter who started it?
     The situation with an understanding of what the opposition (non-system) actually wants is not better. Some accuse Putin because he falls under the West, the other - because he not fast enough falls. Some opposed, because he breeds the oligarchs and feeds them through the people, while others - because he is unjust for the oligarchs and limits their freedom of enterprise. Etc. I'm not talking about the lack of non-system opposition to expanded science-based economic program. Navalniy, however, claimed that he had such program. But, as one journalist said, his program is expressed in 5 sentences. Two of them: you have to be honest and fight corruption. Not a lot better and scientifically grounded are economic programs of the system of opposition and of power, and even of the scientists - economists themselves.
     In this situation the good in itself civic activity threatens to lead to consequences even worse, than it’s absent. But the lack of such activity, thereof, in combination with the lack of new, relevant to our time, ideology may not be the best consequences. (May be only it will be with a little gap in time).
     There are else many ways in which the crisis of the rationalist outlook had a negative impact on the evolution of liberal ideology and the situation in the world today. And those directions which I have already touched upon, as well as an analysis of liberal ideology in general and the situation in the world today can be developed more and more. But for this article, I think this is enough. Those wishing to delve into this area refer to my articles:
«Системный кризис цивилизации», «В мире» and others.
      Thus today we are facing the grand task of creating and adopting a new ideology. I pretend that my philosophy creates a basis for such an ideology. It is clear that a new ideology can be neither traditionalist nor a purely religious and should be scientifically grounded. (Although it may include some elements of tradition and, as I showed in "
Неорационализм", scientific validity is not contrary to the principle of faith in God). So, first of all, it is necessary to overcome the crisis of the rationalist worldview, to refute the arguments of post positivists and other claimed relativity of scientific knowledge, to restore confidence in the scientific validity as such, in the humanitarian sphere, in particular. And it needs to prove that science still has a unified method of justification of it theories and to present this method explicitly. That is what I did. And at the same time I corrected the deficiencies of classical rationalism, and gave a rational explanation of those paradoxes of physics, which led to a crisis of rationalist philosophy, and built new rationalism. A unified method will allow scientists humanitarians to agree among themselves who is right, which will facilitate the task of choosing the right policy to politicians. The implementation of this method in the education system will raise the level of analytical thinking of the population and turn it from manipulated by politicians from the government and the opposition of all sorts “ohlos” in conscious citizens, making a conscious choice.
      On the basis of a unified method of substantiation, I developed the theory of optimal morality ("
Неорационализм" part 4, "The formation of public moral". Conference Proceedings of the World Philosophical Forum. 2010. TheoDone, etc.) and the beginning of the new macroeconomic theory. In particular, I developed a formula economic development without crises («Формула безкризисного развития экономики», «Уточнение формулы безкризисного развития экономики», etc.). The application of this formula allows us to develop the economy of the maximum possible (all else being equal) rates are not blaming the crisis. At the same time it provides a fair distribution of the total product. "Fair" is certainly not in Marx's sense, an independent entrepreneur in which in general has no place in the economy (which is why as a result there is nothing to distribute). But it is much more favorable for the majority of the population than it is today with oligarchic capitalism (or Russian oligarchic bureaucratic).
     It is possible to add to this list also my work on a rational theory of spirit ("
Неорационализм, part 5, etc.). And also – works on the application of a unified method of substantiation to the interpretation of the Scriptures («От Моисея до постмодернизма. Движение идеи», «Герменевтика, etc.). The latter allows you to bridge the gap between scientific and religious justification for the ideology that is particularly important in light of the fact that science is not exterminated faith in God and is unlikely to ever destroy.



Hosted by uCoz