Низовцев Юрий Михайлович : другие произведения.

On the causes of phenomena that inevitably accompany progress

Самиздат: [Регистрация] [Найти] [Рейтинги] [Обсуждения] [Новинки] [Обзоры] [Помощь|Техвопросы]
Ссылки:
Школа кожевенного мастерства: сумки, ремни своими руками Юридические услуги. Круглосуточно
 Ваша оценка:
  • Аннотация:
    The dualistic - the animal consciousness and self-consciousness - of a person determines all consequences of the human activity, which are manifested, on the one hand, in the aspiration to know the world and oneself, reflected in the development of the human self-consciousness and, as a result, in the formation of technology, culture, science, but, on the other hand, - to the persistence of hostility between different communities, layers of communities and specific people, which is reflected in violence, wars, oppression by some others, selfishness, distrust and disunity.
  
  
  Key words: consciousness, self-consciousness, dissatisfaction, person, cognition, inventiveness, power.
  
  Since the human consciousness has two components - the animal consciousness, or more precisely, the primate consciousness, and self-consciousness, it is reasonable to assume that each of these components has its own considerations regarding, respectively, aspirations and ideas, and, as a consequence, thoughts and actions of person.
  A person's awareness that he is currently in the flow of time, and this, in general, short period must be used somehow, to a certain extent distracts him from the adaptability so characteristic of animals, and attracts him to reflections on the fact that he is clearly different from them, and therefore capable of different considerations and behavior.
  The first thing that comes to his mind is to improve the conditions in which he finds himself, and with which he can never be satisfied for the simple reason that it is always possible to find better ones, despite the rather reasonable proverb that the best is the enemy of the good.
  Nevertheless, a person in his communities gradually begins to change his environment.
  In particular, from collecting grains, vegetables, fruits and mushrooms he moves on to growing them, hunting wild animals a person gradually replaces by their domestication.
  For this he needs certain knowledge. And he begins to obtain it in all possible ways, for example, having seen how stones quickly roll down hills, he invents a wheel, having understood that fire both shines and warms, a person invents lamps and stoves, in which he, moreover, begins to cook food, becoming no longer beast-like, but businesslike and more savvy in relation to the invention of this and that.
  Knowledge begins to multiply and it has to be recorded not only in oral form, but also somehow graphically, first with symbols, and then with verbal writing.
  Science emerges.
  At the same time, to a large extent, hostile nature leads him to the idea that it can be defeated not only by his own efforts, but also by calling for help from those forces that made him so quick-witted and smart, and which, if you believe in them, will certainly help him.
  Some considered these forces to be the mighty wind, others - the bright and hot sun, others - the spirits of the mountains, etc.
  Religion emerges.
  Plant growing and construction required more efficient tools than hands. Gradually the stone tools appeared, then the metal ones. Entire technological branches emerged.
  As a result, the labor efficiency increased so much that the population began to grow, and surplus products of labor appeared that could be exchanged.
  Although, it must be said that the excess product did not arise by chance, but as a result of the conscious intervention of individuals and groups of people into their environment, which is how they differ from the animals.
  Trade arose.
  In addition, having taken possession of certain products of labor, it was possible, by selling them, to significantly improve their life and even free themselves from labor by hiring workers or acquiring slaves.
  Thus, the excess product gave rise to the right of ownership, which in turn provided some of the owners with the free time, which could be used in accordance with their interests and abilities.
  All this stimulated not only the development of science and technology, but also caused a desire to decorate everyday life and oneself, standing out from the gray crowd.
  As a result, architecture, painting, verbal balancing and various kinds of performances on platforms in front of the public arose.
  Any business needs to be learned. Therefore, not only craft schools arose, but also academies and universities.
  Thus, people in their communities have become cultured to a certain extent and have moved even further away from the former savagery, that is, they have become civilized.
  The result of this kind of progress was the belief, at least among a significant part of intellectuals, in the omnipotence of reason.
  Accordingly, theories emerged about the possibility of transforming everything that exists into the sphere of reason.
  For example, the famous scientist V. I. Vernadsky asserted the following: "...in the biosphere there is a great geological, perhaps the cosmic force, the planetary action of which is usually not taken into account in ideas about space... This power is the mind of man, the aspiring and organized will of him as a creature of the public" [1].
  The famous physicist I. N. Ostretsov went even further than Vernadsky in his statement: "...the reason is capable of overcoming the conventions of materialistic beingness and therefore there are no limits to its development and improvement" [2, chapter 1.7],
  Ostretsov is quite rightly recognizes that a person has something unknowable within the framework of a known reality (beingness), calling him irrational, which manifests itself only in the interaction of objects. In other words, he recognizes the presence in a person of that invisible and incomprehensible, but the main thing, namely what we call consciousness.
  However, Ostretsov comes to the conclusion that consciousness is immaterial, as well as everything that underlies the materialistic universe on the following basis ":..what is inside the proton? They can answer us: quarks. But quarks cannot exist separately in the material world. This is just a mathematical model, and they are no longer material objects. Thus, the materialistic universe is based on intangible objects "[ibid., Ch. 1.2].
  Similar misconception, on a basis that seems quite convincing, immediately leads Ostretsov to the problem of Nothingness, which he resolves in the traditional way by placing God in Nothingness: "...an individual object cannot arise without the Creator. Therefore, a comprehensive science can only be built on an idealistic basis" [ibid., Ch. 1.2].
  Indeed, physics has reached the limit of cognition of existing beingness in quarks, and consciousness itself should be attributed to irrational, since it seems to be, but is not recorded by instruments in any way.
  All this is so, but only within the framework of beingness, since we do not know what is being done outside it, but only "pure" nothingness cannot be there, since we are in material beingness, and this beingness may well be produced by material objects, but of a different order.
  We know only what is within the limits of our sensations. It is by them that we judge the environment. And the human mind has natural limitations in perceiving information even in the aggregate of all people and therefore is not able to cover everything and everyone, especially if this everything infinite and largely does not depend on people, since it is not they who completely form all this material.
  In addition, several centuries ago, the famous philosopher Hume quite rightly pointed out the inadequacy of such approaches, which consists in the fact that it is impossible to move from what "is" in accordance with only one"s own hypotheses to what "should be so" (the so-called Hume guillotine). That is, this idea of Hume boils down to the fact that what is does not entail what ought: "I have observed that in every ethical theory that I have hitherto encountered, the author has been reasoning for some time in the usual way, establishing the existence of God, or sets forth his observations concerning human affairs, and suddenly, to my surprise, I find that instead of the usual copula used in sentences, namely, "is" or "is not," I do not meet with a single sentence in which "ought" or "ought not" would not be used as a copula. This substitution takes place unnoticed, but nevertheless it is of the utmost importance. Since this "ought" or "ought not" expresses some new relation or assertion, the latter must necessarily be taken into account and explained, and at the same time the basis must be given for what seems quite incomprehensible, namely, how this new relation can be a deduction from others that are completely different from it" [3].
  Indeed, based solely on how the world is structured in accordance with the objects perceived by the sense organs, it is impossible to justify without gross logical errors what people should strive for, since the human sense organs are very limited both in quantity and quality, producing, on the one hand, a one-sided, that is, purely human picture of the surrounding world, and on the other hand, there is no other picture, and it is necessary to seek out a more or less adequate solution to a particular problem through experience in the combination with reflections.
  However, these remarkable scientists and their associates did not take into account that in human consciousness there is such a component as natural (animal) consciousness, due to the presence of which a person is able, like other living beings, to exist and thanks to which his own organism functions.
  And this animal consciousness, adaptive and egocentric by nature, could not help but make into the process of the human development its brutal contribution of this legacy of primates, since it first senses, and then does not reflect, but figures out how to settle down more comfortably in life, eliminating, if possible, everything that interferes.
  In other words, being the heir of the primates, a person could not but retain in his consciousness, along with a number of instincts and reflexes, the desire to the dominate in the community, which gives him many advantages not only in nutrition, but also in satisfying his own increased needs, often inaccessible to most others.
  In addition, the animal consciousness is not separated from self-consciousness by some kind of partition - they operate together. Therefore, to conquer the advantageous position in the community, a person could already not only, like animals, with the help of aggression, the degree and success of which depends both on brute force, or natural quick-wittedness, or from deception of fellow tribesmen and rivals, as well as and from the associative thinking, contributing to the most adequate planning of his actions together unscrupulousness, guile, cunning, treachery, sycophancy, etc.
  All these methods of violence and deceit are still the most effective methods of gaining power, however, if a person"s aggressiveness is inherited from monkey ancestors, then he acquired many other properties not from nature, but due to his awareness of himself as a person in society.
  So, for example, Karl Marx is biased in his assertion that violence is the fruit of social causes and its effect is manifested only in an exploitative society [4], since violence in society is determined primarily by the irremovable influence on human behavior of the aggressive and egocentric animal component of consciousness inherited from primates, and social causes are only an addition to this legacy of ancestors, that is, violence always manifests itself in any society, both in the most well-organized and in the most primitive.
  Naturally, the aggression to solve the problems of obtaining greater benefits from what is available and what is not enough for everyone, manifests itself not only among individuals and their small groups, but also between large communities, and later between states in the form of wars, mainly for resources.
  This fact can be explained only by the fact that the animal component of consciousness, both in individual and collective form, which cannot be removed from any human and any social organism, still forces every person and all their communities to fight for the most comfortable existence, in spite of everything, in which the selfish component of self-consciousness contributes to it, while the undoubted growth of the altruistic component of self-consciousness over several thousand years of the development of civilization could only affect the change in the forms of violence, having softened some of them.
  Perhaps Friedrich Nietzsche was the first to try to substantiate such joyless fact.
  He points out that a person is only a transitional link from the beast to the superman, on who everything ends: "What is a monkey in relation to man? Laughing-stock or excruciating disgrace. And the person for the superman has to be the same: laughing-stock or excruciating disgrace ... The superman - the meaning of the earth [5, v. 1, p. 8].
  However, his superman is, in fact, only a strong-willed and strong intelligent animal, which differs from other living beings, including an ordinary person, by its increased egocentrism and degree of dominance: "For the neighbor" it is a virtue only small people: they say: "one stands the other" and "the hand washes a hand"; they have neither the right nor the strength for your egoism" [5, v. 1, p. 210] ... The most malicious is necessary for the benefit of the superman [5, v. 1, p. 208]. What makes the superman by such - this is mainly the will for power: "But wherever I find the alive, I have heard everywhere about obedience. All living things are something obeying ... In order to the weaker served to the strongest - the will of the strongest induce him for it, which wants to be master over the weaker: he cannot do without this joy ... ...Only where there is life, there is will, but it is not the will to live, but - as I teach - the will to power!" [5, v. 1, p. 82-83].
  That is, Nietzsche has deduced from the original monkey essence of a person that it will ultimately destroy the altruism of his self-consciousness and make him a rational superbeast, ruling over everyone, which in itself is nonsense, but an indicator that the animal component of consciousness is really strong enough to make beast-like creatures out of individual people at certain moments in life, which is what always happened in different historical eras, when people enthusiastically destroyed other people or became cannibals.
  Nietzsche's underestimation of the influence of an altruistic program of self-consciousness on a person affected the fact that he stated with despondency: "Maybe, all of humanity is only one time-limited phase in the development of a certain animal species - so that a person has arisen from a monkey and will again become a monkey ..." [5, v. 1, p. 371].
  Nietzsche was only the first in a line of thinkers. pessimistic about the future of the human race.
  For example, in fact, he was joined by such an excellent world-class specialist in his field of biology related to the study of the brain, S. A. Saveliev. However, he predicted the final destruction of the mind in man already from the position of cerebral sorting (selection): "In just a few million years, cerebral sorting has increased our brain several times and has given it properties, unprecedented for the animal world. The problem is that this trend has already changed and today's artificial selection is aimed at reducing brain mass, which simplifies further socialization and conformism. At the same time, biological selection thrives, it is absolutely indifferent to both the size of the brain and the level of intelligence of its owner. The main value is food and reproductive dominance over other inhabitants of the planet. For these reasons, a safe uniformity of thoughts of the philistines will arise without any total control by the evil uncles with tomographs. The lovely humanity has already created perfect methods of behavioral selection that will destroy our consciousness and destroy the traces of reason without any additional efforts" [6. Preface].
  As you can see, both of these opposing positions of scientists - the endless development of reason or its final destruction - are very interesting and informative in certain moments, but, alas, they are categorically one-sided, which, one must assume, is being viewed even from such a brief overview. And this indicates that one-sidedness, as the conventional classic of Russian humorous literature Kozma Prutkov said, is like a gumboil.
  Thus, consideration of the influence of both components of a person consciousness on his thoughts and actions shows their opposition to each other in terms of the fact that the animal component of consciousness mostly strives to do everything possible for itself even at the expense of destroying the rest, without particularly thinking about it, and self-consciousness in its altruistic component reflects most of all on improving the functioning of the whole society, since it believes that in this case the life of each of its members will also be in the most favorable conditions.
  These components of consciousness are not capable of overpowering each other, since their influence on behavior of a person is based on the action of corresponding programs located in the genome of each cell of the organism.
  For this reason, a person, no matter what he does, will never return to a purely animal state of primacy, and, in the same way, will not become an immaculate, super-intelligent and non-aggressive person in a harmonious society of ideal people.
  
  Bibliography
  
  1. Всемирная энциклопедия. Философия. М., АСТ. Мн. Харвест. Современный литератор. 2001.
  2. Острецов И. Н. Введение в философию ненасильственного развития. Монография. Ростов н/Д. ИП "Комплекс". 2002.
  3. Treatise of Human Nature by David Hume. 1739. V.1 Reprinted from the Original Edition three volumes and edited, with an analytical index, by L. A. Selby Bigge, M. A. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1896).
  4. K. Marx. Manifesto of the Communist Party. Geneva. 1882.
  5. Ф. Ницше. Сочинения в 2 томах. Москва, издательство "Мысль".
  6. Савельев С. А. Церебральный сортинг. Издательство: ВЕДИ. 2016.
  
 Ваша оценка:
Связаться с программистом сайта.

Новые книги авторов СИ, вышедшие из печати:
О.Болдырева "Крадуш. Чужие души" М.Николаев "Вторжение на Землю"

Как попасть в этoт список

Кожевенное мастерство | Сайт "Художники" | Доска об'явлений "Книги"