Pictures of contemporary artists of the world. Pictures of contemporary artists of the world General characteristics of the modern natural-scientific picture of the world

The first decade of the 21st century can be considered a decade of unfulfilled hopes. The grandiose plans and aspirations of the great powers and regional entities have failed. The US plans to build a unipolar world did not come true, the EU lost hope that a “soft” America in the person of Barack Obama would give Europe the opportunity to free itself from American tutelage and take the lead in world politics. China no longer has the will or even the ability to comply with Deng Xiaoping's call to "hide our potential" and "wait for the opportunity." It seems that this "case" has come.

If at the end of the 20th century Washington had some illusions about sole global governance, today the United States, as the state of the highest rank, is losing control over world processes, and its elite is anxiously talking about the ways the American society will survive. It is interesting in such a situation to follow the evolution of the views of the geopolitical planner Z. Brzezinski. This he painted in The Grand Chessboard and other works and speeches “the charms and inevitability of the world order under the auspices of the United States.

In fact, Brzezinski carried out geopolitical planning of the world for the interests of America, or rather the American elite. Let us recall his passages regarding Russia such as: the future world order will be built on the ruins of Russia, at the expense of Russia and against Russia. Mr. Brzezinski paid special attention to Eurasia, since he is an apologist for the thesis of H. Mackieder, that world domination is possible only in the case of domination in Eurasia, and the latter is impossible without domination over Russia. "America is interested in preserving and strengthening the existing pluralism on the map of Eurasia"; ... to ensure "prevention of the emergence of a hostile coalition, and even more so of a state capable of challenging ... In the medium term, the above must give way to the emergence of increasingly important and strategically compatible partners who, under the leadership of America, could help create a trans-Eurasian security system" ( Zb Brzezinski, Grand Chessboard: America's Dominance and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, Moscow, International Relations, 2002, p. 235). What kind of coalition hostile to the United States and what kind of power capable of challenging are we talking about, I think the reader understands: Russia and China in the first place.

But this is what the same Brzezinski says on October 14, 2011 in Normandy at the presentation of the A. Tocqueville Prize to him: “The current United States and the entire Western world are not at all the same as they were before ... The Western world is currently in decline due to lack of will to unity. ("Military Review", http://topwar.ru). Well, one can argue about the will to unity as the main reason for the decline of the West, but the decline of the US and the West is a fait accompli. But through the mouth of Brzezinski speaks the design geopolitics of the West - not a statement of decline, but a renewed geopolitical project of the American and European elites, primarily financial ones. And the essence of this project is the same - the subjugation of all mankind, through the creation of a world government and the expansion of the Atlantic Union at the expense of Russia, Ukraine and Turkey. Brzezinski, in his last statements, betrays a great geopolitical secret: the salvation of the West (as it has happened more than once in history) is impossible without the participation of Russia. And the second secret of Zbigniew: the world is striving for bipolarity along the West-East axis (his phrase is characteristic: the power of the East is constantly growing against the backdrop of the decline of the West). And the West needs Russia to confront the East. But the West is no longer a single whole, these are two different civilizational entities that are in a state of geopolitical confrontation.

main subject

And in this confrontation between national elites, the global financial oligarchy comes to the fore in order to create a single world space with a world government under the rule of money. Nation-states are slowly but steadily losing control of their space. International actors are the world financial oligarchy, based on closed clubs of super-rich people and TNCs, in whose hands the real power is, as well as civilizations of the East and West. But it seems that the transnational community is the leading subject of world processes: with the help of money and network management, it dictates its will to sovereign states. The financial structures that manage global processes and are scattered around the world have several levels. The highest level is the world financial center (MFC) - (today there are 16 of them, in the coming years there will be 22). The middle level is transnational banks (TNB) - (more than 1000). And the last level is the national banks associated with transnational centers.

The most important issue in the formation of the geopolitical structure of the future world is the behavior of the global financial oligarchy (finintern), which has been powerfully influencing the formation of world historical processes for more than two centuries. Today, under its control are: a significant part (more than 70 percent) of the world's monetary resources, precious metals, hydrocarbon raw materials. Up to 80 percent the world's leading media are also controlled by the largest financial institutions and TNCs.

The global network controls the USA, Great Britain, Russia, the EU, through world banks they are approaching the financial system of the PRC in order to establish control over its economy; it also has a system of global bodies governing economic and political processes (the Davos Forum, the G8, the G20, the Bilderberg Club, the World Bank, the IMF, etc.), shadow armed and special forces (private military corporations, terrorist groups), a global drug mafia with an annual turnover of about 1 trillion. dollars. It actually has NATO, OSCE, PACE and other structures at its disposal. The financial oligarchy is persistently implementing the strategy of a monopolar (dispersed) world order based on the omnipotent power of money. The basic basis of the Fintern is still the US Financial Reserve System, the financial groups of the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and the Vatican.

It is difficult to say how this subject of global governance will behave in the process of a cardinal reorganization of the world. One thing is clear: he will not give up his positions without a fight. The contours of his strategy are being read - a world government, the transfer of financial infrastructure to East Asia, the creation of a planetary arc of instability, the establishment of a financial dictatorship. That is, the approval of global financial fascism.

The elites and governments of states become objects of control, and through financial control over them, the state is colonized (financial colonization). In colonial states, the role of the national elite is to carry out the will of the global elite and implement the goals and objectives set for them. To be a "national elite" today means not to associate oneself with the native people, but to be part of the world establishment. The responsibility to the global elite far exceeds the responsibility to one's own people. This means that all their rhetoric about democracy, fair elections, about the political sovereignty of the country is a bait for simpletons.

This means the rejection of democracy as such, because no one elected the world elite. It is co-opted by one or another part of the national elite of any country. And then this "elite" reports not to the people of this country, but to their brothers in the bed, to the global oligarchy. They have nothing to do with the people of the country where they live, their work has its own logic and morality. The “national elite” must renounce entrepreneurial and all other productive activities for the benefit of their own state, and must provide free access for the global usurious elite to the national wealth of the country of residence. The fulfillment of the will of the world financial centers will provide a place in the global financial structures for representatives of the “national oligarchic elites”. And the global elite will be provided with guaranteed profits and total control over the sovereignty of states. To achieve world domination, the world financial centers set themselves the following tasks and stages. first stage. - creating a systemic crisis and instability on the planet. The second is the organization of famine and natural disasters. The third is the formation of public opinion in favor of global anti-crisis management and the formation of a world government.

To expand and deepen the influence of world financial centers, it is necessary to form the image of an enemy in the eyes of the world community. In the past, this was the USSR, today it is Islamic terrorism, Libya, Syria, Iran, and in the short term China may well become. To do this, it will be necessary to create an aggressive anti-Chinese arc around the Celestial Empire.

Civilizational centers of world power and their strategies

World ethno-cultural civilizations (regional-civilizational associations) of East and West still play a secondary role in the formation of planetary processes. At the same time, there is an active formation of geopolitical centers of power on a cultural and civilizational basis. The centers of the first magnitude are North America, Europe, China. There is intense competition between them not only for leadership, but also for survival. At the same time, North America and, to a lesser extent, Europe serve as the “body” of the global financial oligarchy, but they are also waging a “quiet” war at the state level for independence from the financial oligarchy and TNCs (shares “occupy Wall Street”, the Y generation and etc.) India, as a world civilization, is dynamically gaining power, but it is still the second tier, like Japan, Russia, Brazil. The Islamic world is fragmented and lags behind in development, looking for its own civilizational path. Latin America has only just begun civilization building. Africa, with the destruction of M. Gaddafi, will not acquire its originality and independence in development for a long time.

Such a configuration of world forces, the multidirectionality of their actions create a system of contradictions that are difficult to resolve for all mankind.

First Vice-President of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, Doctor of Military Sciences K.V. Sivkov in his article "Estimation of the probability of a world war" identifies 7 main contradictions and disproportions that gave rise to the global systemic crisis of the 21st century:

The contradiction between the growth of production-consumption and the available resources necessary for development, the possibilities of the Earth's ecosystem;

Disproportions in the distribution of industrial capacities and raw materials, which gave rise to a conflict of interest between industrialized countries and countries supplying raw materials;

Contradiction between "poor" developing countries and "rich" industrialized ones;

Contradiction between nations, national elites and transnational elite;

The contradiction between. the volume of the world "financial bubble" and

The scale of the real sector of the world economy;

The contradiction between the huge global financial power of the transnational financial elite and the lack of its political subjectivity;

The contradiction between the lack of spirituality of the “free market”, which generates the power of money, and the spiritual foundations for the existence of various civilizations, which form civilizational differences, which generate the power of ideas (to one degree or another). (Sivkov K.V. Assessment of the probability of a world war // Management of the metropolis. - M., 2009. No. 2).

How is the West trying to “resolve” these contradictions (oligarchy + “national” elites?

First: transfer under the so-called. international control of the most important natural resources and strategic communications. In case of resistance from sovereign states, “color” revolutions are launched on their territories, “democratic” coups, crises, etc. are organized. ) .

Second: the formalization of the governing global structures. Who, for example, created the G8, the G20, the Davos Forum? Who authorized the United States to impose international sanctions, to exercise international "justice"? However, the decisions of these and similar "bodies" are in fact binding on the world community of states.

Other options are also being implemented, such as giving global functions to NATO.

The Strategic Concept of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, adopted by the heads of state and government in Lisbon (November 2010), assigns NATO the right to: “deploy reliable military forces where and when necessary for our security and promote common security in cooperation with our partners worldwide. As the world changes, NATO's core mission will remain the same: to ensure that the alliance remains an unparalleled community of freedom, peace, security and shared values."

But if we discard empty words, then NATO declares the right to control the whole world by military force. Based on the generally accepted postulates of the protection of human rights, the fight against terrorism, nuclear proliferation, drugs, and so on, but in fact, after the adoption of such a concept in the person of NATO, a power tool was legitimized to maintain the power of money, the power of the transnational oligarchy. . But their power will be strong as long as the dollar is strong. As long as most countries in the world are ready to keep their money resources in dollars and settle accounts with each other in American currency, the US and the financial oligarchy will grow fat and rule. Reducing the "territory of the dollar" will inevitably lead to its weakening and a decrease in the influence of its producers on world processes. Changing the philosophy of human life (more spirituality, morality, intelligence - less consumption), respect for nature (harmony with nature) will lead to the collapse of the power of money.

The main objects of geopolitical confrontation are: key (strategically important) areas of the world, strategic communications, global resources. The possession of these objects will largely determine the geopolitical status of civilizations and groups of states, the dynamics of their development, the degree of external and internal security, and the level of sovereignty.

The main sphere of geopolitical struggle in the 21st century is becoming a cultural - civilizational environment and the spiritual sphere. The destruction or absorption of world civilizations, changing their essence, is one of the main tasks of the West and the financial elites. For a controlled world space, a universal world religion is needed, and such is formed in the person of Judeo-Christianity.

The dynamics of civilizational processes allows us to make some predictions and conclusions. Thus, the inability of states to resist the global mafia structures, as a response, gives rise to the entry into the world arena of larger socio-political players - civilizations and civilizational unions. And in this situation, Russia has a historical chance to make its messianic contribution to the construction of a new just world order.

Russia's geopolitical project

Eastern civilizations, primarily China and India, are developing most dynamically and gaining leading positions in world processes. But can they offer humanity an integral world project? It is unlikely, since they themselves compete with each other for resources, for territories of influence. Russia can and must come up with such a project with confidence that it will be supported by the overwhelming majority of the peoples of the world. Because it will be a project expected by mankind: messianic in essence, global in scale, aimed at the survival and development of all peoples of the world - in content. The project of geopolitical intelligence and reason of mankind. It is reason, and not animal pragmatism. Full member of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems I.N. Ostretsov writes: “The intellect, endowed with the properties of the mind, is able to create constructions, the probability of which within the framework of a purely stochastic process is practically equal to zero ... Only the mind, once it has arisen, cannot perish due to the fact that it is able to improve the forms of its existence ... Thus, an absolutely necessary condition for development is the increase in the intellectual part of mankind. (Ostretsov I. Introduction to the philosophy of non-violent development. M., 2009, pp. 57, 61). For Russia itself, this will be a project of restoration of the civilizational essence and transformation, based not on bare pragmatism, but on reasonable principles and the geopolitical potential of the Fatherland. Otherwise, we, Russia, will become a third-rate Asian country (according to Brzezinski), or we will leave the historical process altogether.

To develop and promote the Russian project, first of all, it is necessary to concentrate the scientific potential of the country and master the method of geopolitical analysis, geopolitical forecasting, geopolitical planning of the world. This methodology was mastered many years ago by the Anglo-Saxons, Stalin, the Rothschilds and the Vatican. Today, the Academy of Geopolitical Problems (Russia) also possesses this methodology in collaboration with other social and scientific organizations. The project is proposed to be based on the geopolitical doctrine of Russia, in which:

To give an objective analysis of world processes, to prove the impracticability and catastrophic nature of both Western and mondialist (transnational) projects for humanity;

Reveal the positive potential of human civilization, capable of preserving all the peoples of the world with its reasonable implementation, giving impetus to their comprehensive development;

To reflect the type of civilizational structure desired for Russia (and for all mankind), the geopolitical configuration of the world and the system of principles of behavior of the world community;

Declare Russia's claim to the role of the Eurasian geopolitical center and geopolitical allies of Russia, without naming specific countries and civilizations, but limiting itself only to the principles of determining allied forces and ideological and religious systems;

To offer the world community its own vision of the content and meaning of human existence, the role and functions of the economy and finance, as a means of developing culture, science, education, social communications, and not a means of profit and super-enrichment;

Offer the world an international security system based on the principles of an inter-civilizational balance of power laid down in the renewed UN Charter, which encourages the development of collective security systems, the exclusion of military operations as a means of resolving disputes and conflicts.

Offering mankind a geopolitical project, Russia must also change its essential strategy, again on the basis of intellect and reason. In particular:

Develop your own geopolitical theory of the 21st century (Russian specialists are ready to develop it), where the main subjects of world processes will be not individual states, but civilizations;

Initiate the formation of an intercivilizational community as part of civilizations that disagree with the world order of the "golden billion" (Russia, the CIS countries, China, the Islamic world, Latin America, a number of countries in Western Europe and Africa).

To promote the development of such international organizations as the SCO, BRICS, ASEAN, to establish cooperation with the OIC, the Arab League, Latin America;

To proceed with the formation of a new international financial system (at the first stage closed to the dollar) based on the yuan, ruble, dinar, acu.

Promote the creation of an integrated system of collective security in the format of interaction between the SCO, BRICS, CSTO, ASEAN.
- speed up registration of membership in the SCO of India, Iran, Mongolia, invitation as candidates of Vietnam, Afghanistan, Pakistan; and other countries;

Develop and implement a project of the fourth geopolitical space consisting of: Russia (CIS), India, Iran, Afghanistan, possibly Japan and other countries;

Propose the modernization of the UN and its Security Council, the transfer of their activities to the principle of civilization. (UN Security Council, permanent representatives from Russia (CIS), China, India, countries of Islam, Latin America, Africa, Japan, Europe, North America).

To intensify the unification of efforts within the framework of the CIS (Eurasian Union) SCO, BRICS, to develop breakthrough innovative technologies, especially in the nuclear, nano-molecular and other fields, to develop new security systems.

The philosophical understanding of being is the basis for the formation of pictures of the world. Picture of the world is an image of the surrounding reality, a specific way of perceiving, explaining and comprehending the world around.

There are 4 types of pictures of the world:

1. ordinary picture of the world - the simplest view of the world based on the experience of everyday observation, free from the achievements of science and religious faith.

2. The scientific picture of the world is an image of the surrounding world based on the achievements of science (it will be discussed in detail in lectures No. 13 and 14)

3. the religious picture of the world is a view of the world around from the standpoint of religion, belief in the supernatural (its characteristics are in lectures No. 14 and 15)

4. The philosophical picture of the world is a holistic worldview of the world and the place of man in it (it can be idealistic, metaphysical, materialistic, dialectical, dualistic). The development of the philosophical picture of the world is discussed in detail in lectures No. 1-5.

The main stages in the development of pictures of the world:

Stage 1: until the 17th century - a natural-philosophical picture of the world

Stage 2: XVII-XVIII centuries - a mechanistic picture of the world

Stage 3: XIX - early XX century - electromagnetic picture of the world

Stage 4: the beginning of the 20th - the end of the 20th century - a quantum-relativistic picture

Stage 5: since the end of the twentieth century - a synergetic picture of the world (synergetics is the science of heterogeneous processes).

Of particular interest is the understanding of the history of development and modern analysis of the scientific picture of the world. Scientific picture of the world is a specific way of seeing (an image) of the surrounding reality and its individual elements, based on the achievements of science. In its development, the scientific picture of the world has gone through three main stages: classical, non-classical and post-non-classical.

Classical scientific picture of the world (beforeXIXcentury) comprehends everything that relates to the subject, means, methods and operations of his activity. Here the objective style of thinking dominates, the desire to know the subject in itself, regardless of the conditions of its study.

The classical scientific picture of the world itself changed over time: from antiquity to the end of the Renaissance (end of the 16th century), it was natural philosophy, based on:

a) the experience of ordinary observation, non-interference in the surrounding world, a conscious rejection of the experiment;

b) cosmocentricity, harmony, unity of heavenly and earthly life;

c) primitive knowledge about the world (Earth - a disk or a ball resting on three elephants, etc.);

d) the fusion of man with nature, his inclusion in the world around him (man as a microcosm, and later - the image and likeness of God);

e) cyclicity and repetition of events;

f) the dominance of the elements of chance and the desire of a person to survive in a dangerous and alien world;

g) science is subordinated to religion, since all human life is subordinated to the will of the gods;

h) an agrarian society based on the cultivation of the land.

For the Age of Enlightenment and modern times (XUP - XVIII centuries) it is characteristic mechanistic understanding of reality, whose main ideas are as follows:

a) the decisive factor in the study of the world is the invention of mechanical watches, various transport vehicles and mechanisms, barometer, microscope, magnet, telescope, air pump, etc.;

b) science-centrism in the knowledge of reality, boundless faith in the exceptional power of science (knowledge is power);

c) experimental study of the world;

d) in the center of scientific research - the macrocosm (physical bodies and phenomena);

e) man is an extremely complex living and thinking machine;

f) society as a gigantic mechanism (clock) created and wound up by a great watchmaker (God);

g) industrial society as a consequence of the industrial revolution.

Non-classical scientific picture of the world(2ndhalfXIX - 1sthalf of the XX century) associated with the development of electromagnetic and quantum relativistic theory, rejects the objectivism of classical science and rejects the representation of reality as something independent of the means of cognition, of the subjective factor. It comprehends the relationship between the knowledge of the object and the nature of the means and operations of the activity. Non-classical picture of the world in the second halfXIXand earlyXXc.c. was electromagnetic. which was characterized by the following main ideas:

a) inclusion in the sphere of scientific research of the microworld;

b) consideration of the field (electric, magnetic) as a form of reality;

c) the introduction of the principle of short-range action for the analysis of the interaction of electrical views and elementary particles;

d) understanding of a person as a social (social) being, a representative of a certain social group;

e) analysis of industrial society as a result of scientific and technological progress and increased interdependence of various states and peoples.

For the middleXXcentury is characterized by a quantum-relativistic understanding of the world, which is based on:

a) quantum mechanics, astrophysics, the theory of relativity, the study of intranuclear energy and intranuclear interactions;

b) the object of study is the mega-world and the mini-micro-world;

c) linearity and uniformity of changes in reality;

d) man as a biosocial being;

e) post-industrial society as a consequence of the scientific and technological revolution;

f) confrontation between different states and social systems.

Post-non-classical scientific picture of the world of the endXX-startXXIcentury characterized by the inclusion of subjective activity in the "body of knowledge". It takes into account the correlation of the nature of the acquired knowledge about the object not only with the peculiarity of the means and operations of the subject's activity, but also with its value-target structures. The modern post-non-classical picture of the world is of a synergistic nature and is based on the following ideas:

a) non-linearity, diversity, disorder, unevenness of the world as a complex system and processes of its change and development;

b) the effect of the emergence of stable and self-organizing systems from chaos and disorder, as well as the possibility of their collapse due to imbalance and lack of information;

c) man as a biopsychosocial and cultural being with his own individual inner world unlike other people;

d) information (technotronic) society;

e) convergent development of society;

f) the need for the survival of mankind in the nuclear age and in the face of environmental problems.

Philosophy and modern science allow us to look into the future with a certain degree of certainty. It can be classified:

a) for the immediate future, which is the most predictable, because it is based on the achievements of modern science (approximately the 1st quarter of the 21st century);

b) for the foreseeable future, the degree of probability of which is already lower than in the first case, which dictates greater caution in thinking: the state will not wither away, social disunity will remain, although the economic backwardness of individual states may be somewhat reduced, the gap will narrow to a certain extent between town and country, physical and mental labor (most of the 21st century);

c) for the distant future, which is characterized by a minimum probability and requires maximum caution: there is more ignorance than knowledge, since changes during this period will be carried out on the scientific basis that has developed in the 21st century.

Mankind has always sought to look into its future, to foresee it in order to prepare for possible negative events. Let us recall Plato's "Atlantis", T. Mora's "Utopia", T. Companello's "Sun City", F. Bacon's "New Atlantis", Nostradamus' predictions, Marxist ideas of a brighter future, technocratic and anti-technocratic forecasts of modern Western philosophy. However, today's problems associated with the danger of wars and military conflicts can cross out the optimistic hopes of human civilization. Military science deals with the study of war and armed struggle in order to prevent them and, ideally, expel them from the life of mankind.

Art is constantly evolving, as is the whole world around us. Modern artists of the 21st century and their paintings are not at all like those that existed in the Middle Ages, the Renaissance. New names, materials, genres, ways of expressing talents appear. In this ranking, we will get acquainted with ten innovative artists of our time.

10. Pedro Campos. In tenth place is the Spaniard, whose brush can easily compete with the camera, he paints such realistic canvases. For the most part, he creates still lifes, but it is not so much the themes of his paintings that bring amazing admiration, but the masterful embodiment. Textures, glare, depth, perspective, volume - all this Pedro Campos subordinated to his brush, so that reality, and not fiction, looked at the viewer from the canvas. Without embellishment, without romanticism, only reality, this is the meaning of the genre of photorealism. By the way, the artist acquired his attention to detail and scrupulousness at the work of a restorer.

9. Richard Estes. Another admirer of the photorealism genre, Richard Estes, started with ordinary painting, but later moved on to painting urban landscapes. Today's artists and their creations do not need to adapt to anyone, and that's great, everyone can express themselves the way they want in what they want. As in the case of Pedro Campos, the works of this master can easily be confused with photographs, the city is so similar to the real one. You rarely see people in Estes' paintings, but almost always there are reflections, glare, parallel lines and a perfect, ideal composition. Thus, he does not just copy the urban landscape, but finds perfection in it and tries to show it.

8. Kevin Sloan There are an incredible number of contemporary artists of the 21st century and their paintings, but not every one of them is worth attention. The American Kevin Sloan is worth it, because his works seem to move the viewer into another dimension, a world full of allegories, hidden meanings, metaphorical mysteries. The artist loves to paint animals, because, in his opinion, he gets more freedom in this way than with people to tell the story. Sloane has been creating his “trick reality” with oils for almost 40 years. Very often, clocks appear on the canvases: either an elephant or an octopus look at them; this image can be interpreted as passing time or as the limitations of life. Each picture of Sloan is amazing, I want to unravel what the author wanted to convey to her.

7. Laurent Parcelier. This painter belongs to those contemporary artists of the 21st century, whose paintings were recognized early, even during their studies. Laurent's talent manifested itself in the published albums under the general title "Strange World". He paints in oils, his style is light, gravitates towards realism. A characteristic feature of the artist's works is the abundance of light that seems to be pouring from the canvases. As a rule, he depicts landscapes, some recognizable places. All works are unusually light and airy, filled with sun, freshness, breath.

6. Jeremy Mann A native of San Francisco loved his city, most often depicted it in his paintings. Contemporary artists of the 21st century can draw inspiration for their paintings anywhere: in the rain, wet pavement, neon signs, city lights. Jeremy Mann infuses simple landscapes with mood, history, experimentation with techniques and color choices. Mann's main material is oil.

5. Hans Rudolf Giger. In fifth place is the unique, unique Hans Giger, the creator of Alien from the film of the same name. Today's artists and their works are diverse, but each is brilliant in its own way. This gloomy Swiss does not paint nature and animals, he prefers "biomechanical" painting, in which he succeeded. Some compare the artist with Bosch for the gloominess, the fantasticness of his canvases. Although Giger’s paintings smell of something otherworldly, dangerous, you can’t refuse him in technique, skill: he is attentive to details, correctly selects shades, thinks through everything to the smallest detail.

4. Will Barnet This artist has his own unique author's style, therefore his works are readily accepted by the great museums of the world: the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the National Gallery of Art, the British Museum, the Ashmolean Museum, the Vatican Museum. Contemporary artists of the 21st century and their works, in order to be recognized, must somehow stand out from the rest of the masses. And Will Barnett can do it. His works are graphic and contrasting, he often depicts cats, birds, women. At first glance, Barnett's paintings are simple, but upon further examination, you realize that this simplicity is precisely their genius.

3. Neil Simon. This is one of the contemporary artists of the 21st century, whose works are not as simple as they seem at first glance. Between the plots and the works of Neil Simon, the boundaries seem to be washed away, they flow from one to another, attract the viewer, drag them into the illusory world of the artist. Simon's creations are characterized by bright, saturated colors, which give them energy and strength, and evoke an emotional response. The master loves to play with perspective, the size of objects, with unusual combinations and unexpected shapes. There is a lot of geometry in the artist's works, which is combined with natural landscapes, as if rushing inside, but not destroying, but harmoniously complementing.

2. Igor Morsky. Today's 21st century artist and his paintings are often compared to the great genius Salvador Dali. The works of the Polish master are unpredictable, mysterious, exciting, evoke a vivid emotional response, and in places are insane. Like any other surrealist, he does not seek to show reality as it is, but shows facets that we will never see in life. Most often, the protagonist of Morsky's works is a man with all his fears, passions, and shortcomings. Also, the metaphors of the works of this surrealist often concern power. Of course, this is not the artist whose work you hang over the bed, but the one whose exhibition is definitely worth going to.

1. Yayoi Kusama. So, in the first place of our ranking is a Japanese artist who has achieved incredible success all over the world, despite the fact that she has some mental illnesses. The main "feature" of the artist is polka dots. She covers everything she sees with circles of various shapes and sizes, calling it all nets of infinity. Kusama's interactive exhibitions and installations are a success, because sometimes everyone wants (even if they don't admit it) to be inside the psychedelic world of hallucinations, childish spontaneity, fantasies and colorful circles. Among contemporary artists of the 21st century and their paintings, Yayoi Kusama is the best-selling.

Last time, in the first lecture on this section, we were faced with the problem of such a plan: how is this or that position in science actually justified? Firstly, some basics were once accepted quite arbitrarily: I want it this way or not, everything is here. And then they began to think: why this way and not that way - since it turned out that a lot of different phenomena can be taken as a basis. Then it happened...

If this work does not suit you, there is a list of similar works at the bottom of the page. You can also use the search button

Lecture number 16.

Humanitarian and historical-scientific pictures of the world of the 21st century.

Last time we (in the first lecture on this section) faced the problem of such a plan: how, in fact, is this or that position in science justified? And, taking for consideration the main ideas of the 21st century, to which philosophy came, we found out that there is such a kind of vicious circle: firstly, some basics were once accepted, quite arbitrarily: I want it this way or not, everything is here . This is more typical for the 19th century. And then they began to think: why so, and not that way - since it turned out that a lot of different phenomena can be taken as a basis. Then it turned out that it was necessary to substantiate the foundations. And as soon as you start to justify something, in the end you have a question about the principles of this justification. This is also a kind of basis, and ultimately it can help find the foundations for justification. And this is, in fact, a new round - again the basis. And these foundations need again justification and so on. And it turned out that there is no final justification, that in fact, what we know as a justification is such a circle, a cycle, some foundations, justifications that are constantly updated. And we will hang on to it. Someone doesn't like it. And it turns out that there are no such final foundations. And now, after we figured it out, we face other questions. OK then. But how does this happen in what we consider science?

Objectivity of dynamics and dynamics of objectivity.

Well, now that we have outlined what you should do, we will write in brackets: Vico - Kuhn - Habermas, Comte, Toomey, John von Neumann, Husserl - Feyerabend - John Rawls, Cassirer, Deleuze - Wilson. We will consider the following questions.

First question.

The success and happiness of a personality living in the scientific world in the complex of problems of the philosophy of the humanities.

Here are the following questions:

philosophical questions of logical sciences. The illogicality of logic and the logicality of the illogical.

Here: philosophical problems of mathematical sciences. The non-mathematics of the mathematical and the mathematics of the non-mathematical. As for the metamorphoses of past ideas that live now, that is, these are the ideas of Platonizing Hegelianism, and here we can point out two such different ideas - this is the norm or measure of the true in its creation Verum factum (this is in Latin, it can be translated, but it is still accepted in Latin). Giambattista Vico.

And the second is the ideas of scientific revolutions of Thomas Kuhn. Here: the non-humanitarian nature of the essence of the humanitarian and the humanitarian nature of the essence of the non-humanitarian. And finally, quantitative quality. Here it will be this same Vico, Kuhn and Habermas.

Second question.

Philosophizing about the specifics of economic science. Economic dilemmas and the status of economic theory. There is a lot to say here, but still, we will single out two main ideas. It's like "Aristotle turned inside out" - Auguste Comte and "Nietzsche turned inside out" - this is Toomey, and in the end there will be John von Neumann. And in the end - qualitative quantitative.

Third question.

Philosophical specificity of ethical science.

Moral dilemmas and the status of ethical theory. Anti-Metascience Syndrome.

There are two approaches here: a) the subjectivity of the natural and human sciences in the light of Edmund Husserl's attempt to create philosophy as a rigorous science without presuppositions.

b) Paul Feyerabend's concept of methodological anarchism. John Rawls.

Well, in the end, since we have such a Cartesian Heideggerianism, there will be an objectivity of dynamics. Well, here just Husserl, Feyerabend, Rawls.

Fourth question.

Philosophical aspects of aesthetic science.

Aesthetic dilemmas and the status of aesthetic theory.

Here we single out as the two most important representatives of this idea: Ernst Cassirer (Science as a symbolic form functionally organized in accordance with the principles of a series), and the second thing that can be distinguished is the concepts and sciences of chaos with the uncertainty of starting points by Gilles Deleuze. Well, since this is actually Kantian popperianism, then in the end we will also get the dynamics of objectivity. This is what we will have with Cassirer and Deleuze, and you can even get to Baudrillard that way, which we also once talked about.

And finally, the fifth question.

This is the problem of the mutual transitions between the so-called rigor of the humanities and the so-called precision of the natural sciences.

Well, the conclusion is this - that there has been a revolution in the relationship between a number of concepts, namely, instead of the idea that there is a measure of some kind of truth that leads a person to comprehend and cognize the scientific world, it turns out that it is precisely the measure of freedom and necessity that it is the share of a person. in his activities the basis for scientific. To put it simply, it is not science that gives examples of how to live, but vice versa - as it has developed in history, this is how it is remade into science.

The main goal of today's lecture will be this - I will try to show what kind of philosophical problems of the humanities are and what are their specifics. Why did we decide to do them before we did the natural sciences? The fact is that, in general, when analyzing them, it will become clear what is meant when they say “science”, how the humanities differ from the natural sciences. Secondly, I will try to somehow highlight that the natural science problems of philosophy, they somehow highlight in a special way what the philosophical problems of natural science are, they do not come from the development of the sciences themselves, but from the consequences that this or that science has given. What did it result in? And this is not necessarily found in the area in which the natural scientist assumes.

And thirdly, I will try to show that the difficulty lies primarily in the fact that philosophy and philosophizing cannot be taught. You can only teach a subject, that's the discipline that someone posted on the board, approved by someone and something. But the depths of this or that science, this or that philosophizing or other reasoning is completely different, it's all only in the heads of specific scientists who are dealing with some of their own problems.

So, the first question.

Why are we posing the problem like this now? Look here: The success and happiness of a person living in the scientific world. The fact of the matter is that if you try to understand what is happening in the development, self-creation, self-creation of some individual sciences, then without this, this side, it is simply impossible to understand what is there, what is happening there. Still, as I have already emphasized, whether you like it or not, you can talk about some kind of science in general, about scientificity, historicity, about some kind of history of science, history of history, and so on. We have already said that there are some limits to going into the past, we have already said that we are interested in how this scientific, historical process lives, this is completely different. And that is why everything turned around in philosophy, from the point of view of philosophy, it is very clearly visible: that the point is not that you are some kind of scientist. Firstly, it is not known whether you are a scientist, secondly, it is not known what you are doing there, and secondly, even if you are a genius and do what you need, it is not known what you will succeed. In any case, this is getting more and more attention - that you are an ordinary person, you want to maintain your identity, you strive for success and you want happiness. Not some abstract happiness for someone, somewhere to discover something, but happiness for yourself. You somehow understand it there in your own way. Even if you think that you have no problems, it means that you simply do not realize them. And only if we proceed from this point of view (and we emphasize everywhere that modern philosophizing proceeds from an individual, even sometimes from a single person), then we need to see what the humanities will look like. And then the same with natural ones. That's the crux of the matter. So, first of all, we are faced with the problem of logic and mathematics. In fact, whether we like it or not, there are some .. we call them sciences that are neither natural nor humanitarian. There have been attempts to include natural mathematicians in the faculties, but history shows that this is neither the one nor the other. This is a certain sphere different from such an external division. Studying Heidegger, we have already found out that logic, this is what we call formal or simply the logic of thinking, is a certain form, fixed in some rules that are not necessarily observed, by the way. There is a well-known saying: “of course, twice two, probably, after all, four, but if necessary, then twice two will be a stearin candle.” This is something we distort, so there is some kind of logic. All your classical Western European logic is based on only one principle - this is the principle of identity. A=A. If you analyze all your rules, you will only come to this basis. There are works by Zinoviev that show this. So, after all, what distinguishes Western European thought? This is, roughly speaking, what you are saying: if I took something for something, then in the process of my reasoning I cannot replace it with another. And nothing more. If I have accepted something in such and such a way, then I must keep it, not replace it. Meanwhile, this is not at all necessary. This is just one type of reasoning. It is interesting, so I basically call it strict or precise, but in fact there may be a completely different logic. Here it is believed that a contradiction can be taken as a basis and it will also be well argued. That is, just as there are many mathematicians, there are also many logicians. But in principle, Western European, it is. And so - I'm so learned - it seems to me that if I deviate from it, then I find myself outside the sphere of what is recognized by this scientific community. The same applies to mathematics. Logicians argue that mathematics is only a consequence of these basic provisions that are accepted in logic. In fact, as far as mathematics is concerned, two concepts are accepted there. It was once recognized and believed that mathematics is a reflection of something in reality. This is a well-known point of view. So, I measure, I count the earth, that's where mathematics was born from, it is applicable there. The other concept, it's -- and it's making its way through, is that the whole power of mathematics is that it's an invention of the human mind. That it reflects reality is impossible to prove. And all the most complex problems of mathematics just lead to the fact that this just cannot be substantiated. Well, that's what the square root of minus one really is, no one has yet found this. Well, they are looking. That's when they find it, then it will be interesting. In fact, the strength lies in the fact that here, I admit that there is a point. An abstract point, no one has ever seen it, neither a physicist, nor a chemist, nobody. If I take, I put an end, it will not be a point, it will be a blot. So, I need some ideal units. I take, I abstract. I select some objects, I designate them with points and state that there are one, two, three, four .. an infinite number of points. I found it to be perfect. I recognized that there is a line. I can, of course, say that a line is a ray. But a ray is not a line, a line is an abstraction. As soon as I took some such positions as a basis, then I can do anything with them and all my accuracy will be that I have to count something, multiplying, moving somehow, comparing these points, lines, units, I affirm that I have come to such and such conclusions. But I took the basis arbitrarily. These are axioms, postulates, it is generally unprovable something. I took it and that's it. You will say (many people in science think so) that you cannot take something without justification. It's even possible. And you are always forced to put what is unreasonable as the basis. The hardest part is learning the basics. And therefore, accuracy is achieved precisely by the fact that the original units are divorced from real processes. But if this is so, I can get very interesting conclusions in the field of mathematics, but sooner or later I will have to bring them back to reality: what about converting this point into a blot again, and the line into a ray. Then I can get some result. But that's another question. Therefore, such interesting phenomena arose as all these logical and mathematical processes. Well, here again a number of problems arise: but if this is so, if you need to return, then it turns out that sometimes I can make a more or less decent return to something and count something, and sometimes I can’t. The fact is that what you call real or material exists in two forms. Usually you consider real that which resists you, most often it is in the form of a substance or some kind of processes that you cannot overcome. However, not everything around you comes down to this. You and I once said (but you probably left it out of your attention) that gradually, as I transform the world, a new materiality, created by me, arises around me. She resists me, but she is mine. That is, it is material without a grain of matter. But when you are dealing, say, with money, with some legal documents or laws, but it resists you. you cannot overcome it, but you understand that it is man-made. But it is possible to expand the scope of this material. You don't see much around you, but it exists and it is created by you and it defines you, it is independent of you. And in this regard, a problem arises: on the one hand, there is reality or materiality, which, as it were, does not depend on me at all (later it turns out that it does not exist), and the other depends more, and if there is any materiality around me, another one, which created by me, all sorts of paradoxes arise. On the one hand, it resists me, this other reality created by me, existing in the process of my activity, and on the other hand, it sometimes suddenly helps me and I don’t understand why it suddenly stops resisting and promotes my activity. Moreover, it can generally become independent and independent of me, but somehow still makes me related to its essence. And there is such an intermediate sphere in which all this happens. This is precisely the sphere of the social, the sphere of man, the sphere where he acts. And I, communicating with someone, and somewhere the proportions of my alteration of the world arise. And it turns out that although I single out the subject as I need for today (I can do it involuntarily), I single out it, although I have already done a lot around me. And this subject, it often appears in the form of a so-called thing, which we have also already dealt with. So, it means that the SUBJECT is what I single out, but there is a particular material material that I have mastered, with which I have to deal. And this is what we call an object or a thing, or a real something like that, which we call reality. What do we call this material, special, ultimately social, ultimately humanitarian. And so the modern image of the world is reality. That is, in fact, this is not something that exists outside of me, but something that exists in the process of my activity, my reworking of the world, which does not exist without me (although it can break out and take on a life of its own at some stage) . That is why this problem arises: where is the rational? Where is the reasonable? It turns out that rationalism can be unreasonable, and in general the opposite is true. Therefore, before proceeding to consider what the humanitarian sphere is. If you do not feel it, then it will be completely incomprehensible to you what the humanities are doing after all. These ideas were singled out at one time by Plato, who came up with his ideas there somewhere, which are realized in a person, or Hegel, who came up with the idea that there is some kind of internal logic somewhere. But his logic is not the logic of development, change, it is something already processed by man, the way he remakes nature, the way he remakes society. And this is where such spheres arise where a scientist can do something like that, somehow show his will. These are such object-material reality. Well, as for the present, then the problem of the existence of some kind of reality, which later people took up, but lost their former ideas - this was what Djambatista Vico dealt with. He lived a long time ago, he is the Renaissance. What is interesting about his concept? In that he approaches the modern scientific view from the other side. He started shouting about what then won, at the very beginning of the process of winning a new representation. What does this mean? This means that you start talking about truth as facts. But a fact is not necessarily the way we understand it now - as something that definitely exists. What is a manufactory? Manufactory is the manual production of a variety of goods. Factum is action. And even at the dawn of the New Time, Vico faced this problem. Where are you going? You are replacing the old concept of truth that Plato once had, you are replacing it with a fact, an action. You are now doing this. The fact you are talking about is action. But you forgot that this is an action. But it depends on you, it is your action, the result of your work. And you consider this to be the norm, and you forget about some deep truth and claim that this fact is the truth. This was also noticed by Vico, who predicted all sorts of cycles - he had such an idea about the life of society. And another such representative, who, after this idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthat. that there is some kind of rational development of science, it was created by Thomas Kuhn. What did he say, anyway? These are scientific revolutions. When they talk about scientific revolutions, they first of all fix that such a paradigm shift is taking place. Here is the established paradigm - verum factum - so she goes. To change, something new begins. Is it normal or not? Some say it's ok, some say it's not. But the fact is that Kuhn just introduced irrationality. For him, this change of paradigms is incomprehensibly determined by what, from the outside, not by the logic of science, but by something else. How? Or social events? This is a very interesting statement of the question, but its fixation, its meaning for us is that he raised this question, that what it would seem should be determined by the internal logic of the development of science, and all sorts of mathematical laws, is constantly violated by some external phenomena . Kuhn himself spoke about this in a limited way - it's just that something incomprehensible affects science, irrational in the rational. But the idea is still so consistently, rationally, there is a change from one paradigm to another, and we only need to follow the changes of these paradigms. That was the main idea. Well, he completed all these ideas already in ours, this very our Habermas. His idea is that you need to create a real discourse - serious, reasonable. Well, he is the heir to all Hegelian, Platonic ideas, that is, such a rational one. They are known, he is a representative of this type of rational idealism. His idea is this: in order for everything in life to work out, it is necessary to create conditions for a real, reasonable, normal, communicative, as he calls discourse. People aspire to it, they have it inside. Communicative does not simply mean connecting one person to another. I have something inside me that breaks through me, makes me seek communication with another person. That's what communicative action is. And this can only be realized in a public procedural discourse. But where to get it? This is the main problem, and humanitarian in particular. If I solve it, then everything will become clear to me. How can I achieve something in political life? As in the scientific field, in any field to achieve something. But how to create an opportunity for such a public discourse. It must exist a free man who can reason without any pressure from society. It should be mutual interests and you should argue in free discussions. You must use the information that exists. You must understand that it is necessary to organize a universal world, all sorts of universal ideas, and so on. That is, again, this is such a romantic wish, a story about how it should be. Gradually, the way it is is being replaced by the way it should be, and then there would be a well-organized society, and then it would be possible to work, it would be possible to improve it, to deal with eugenics, and so on. But this is not all. And so the central question arises in all these things. You argue from a qualitative point of view: there is this and that. Is it possible to apply some quantitative measurements to this process? It seemed like, how can Plato apply any quantitative calculations to his ideas? And here it can. The number is the basis - there is such a mystical idea. Hegel also tried to somehow calculate something there. How many planets are there and so on. He said that there should always be a quantitative measurement, then the quantity turns into quality. And quality turns into quantity. In case you forgot, this is one of the laws of Hegelian dialectics in principle. How can we calculate all this? And whenever possible, Habermas begins to apply the methods of statistics to his reasoning, reasoning about some patterns, he considers something. But in principle this is a very limited area. Kuhn also speaks of any such quantitative aspect of the matter. In fact, all these arguments are qualitative. But they form the basis of the humanitarian sphere. Still, the humanities are engaged mainly in qualitative analysis,

at first very limited use of quantitative. But nevertheless, over time, this quantity breaks into this quality and turns it over and creates new circumstances in the humanitarian sphere. This can be shown with various examples, but we will focus only on a few. Here, for example, is considered a humanitarian economy. Well, if we philosophize about the specifics of economic science, then we can come to the following: of course, questions and contradictions constantly arise - what can I achieve in this area? It seems that in economics it is also only about quantity. Nothing like this. Now this sphere has advanced so much, which can be shown not somehow theoretically, but visibly, that the same principles and methods, logical and mathematical, operate there as in other sciences, including the natural ones. There are, of course, some principles, laws, there are phenomena .. It is argued, of course, that there is a theoretical relativity, that it is necessary to create concepts, that there are all sorts of controversial issues, some signs of what the mentality is in the economic sphere, how is it language is active, philology is involved, because everything is understood differently. But the main thing is that it is argued that this is the difference between economic and other sciences, that values ​​and goals become the main thing there. I am not just stating what is happening, I am creating projectives all the time – there is such a concept. Among these abstract ideas there are some more - there should be a hierarchy, efficiency, to some extent I should be responsible, some kind of scientific and technical series. But these are all abstract conversations, but the humanists love to cite the so-called Hume guillotine. This is a comparison of the humanities and natural sciences. So, if in the natural sciences it is more often said about the positive - about what is, then in the humanities - about the normative, about how it should be. Naturalists believe that it is necessary to deal with the objective as much as possible, and in the humanities - that it is subjective. In the natural sciences, a descriptive method works, and in the humanities, a prescriptive one, because it is the humanities that come from man. It is believed that the humanities are closer to art, in the natural sciences the criteria are "true-false", and in the humanities - "good-bad". All this would not be so interesting if it were not possible to show how economic science is moving, absorbing quantitative instead of qualitative analysis. In economic theory, modern researchers distinguish three stages, three revolutions. The first is classical economic theory. You probably remember all this - this is the labor theory of value - that everything is sold according to the amount of labor pledged. Well, this is Adam Smith, Marx developed it - he does not give an analysis of value as such, but gives an analysis of surplus value. There is a certain product on the market that has the property of adding value. This commodity is labor power. It is sold and bought, hence it creates surplus value, and so on. This is a classic. The second revolution is marginalism. These are some limiting characteristics I want to come up with. What? No, says this theory, we should not talk about society in general, but should deal with methodological individualism. It all depends on a certain unit - a person. And as a result, all the same, then if I start from the individual, I have to deal with some kind of average statistical method, apply some weighted methods - so much here, so much here, etc. I suggest some kind of optimal arrangement of the world based on this, from the limit of what a person needs and it turns out that I introduce some kind of mathematization. And here is this method of averages, it turns out that the value of a product is subjective, here is this limiting analysis .. It turns out that the value of a thing is measured by the value of the marginal benefit of this thing for an individual. And if there are units, then immediately the possibility of applying mathematics in this area. But there is the next, third revolution - Keynesianism. Keynes! As you remember, probably from somewhere. Well, what does he say? He invented the subordination of aggregate indicators, roughly speaking - macroeconomic. That's what his idea is. So, he argues that, in principle, not prices, but assumptions, expectations, they are the factor determining the size of production and employment. Not some value of this thing that interests me at the moment, but an expectation, an assumption. Well, he was arguing with Hicks and all sorts of things, but the bottom line is that he was saying - I have to apply methods of some kind to the analysis of how people expect. Well, he came up with an idea. did not complete it.. Therefore, it is believed that there is a fourth revolution - this is the combination of this theory of expected utility of Keynes with the software-game approach of that same John von Neumann. Yes, I expect, but how can I expect? I really don't know anything. And here I am playing with the market. And here begins the application to economic theory of all the laws of game theory. What is it? This is the most complex mechanism. Modern economic theory, it says clearly, what you expect will never work out. But I can somehow calculate in such a way that I take less risk and when it goes wrong, insure in time and whether to adapt and calculate the probability of the least loss. And this is already a purely mathematical problem, and here all the wealth of mathematics and computers is applied. And I say all this, it is something like operator algebra in physics, and this new theory has the same wide possibilities. This also gives the possibility of linear programming, that's all what they are doing now in the economic sciences. Why am I dwelling on this in such detail now? In order to show that in one of the sciences, which is considered to be the humanities, there is a process of introducing quantitative, mathematical methods that change the qualitative analysis, and this in fact pushes us to the fact that there is no significant difference between the humanities and the natural sciences. Another thing, as it is presented historically, why did the natural sciences take the lead in applying quantitative and other exact methods compared to the humanities? But the nature of this is not in them, not in these methods. This is the main idea to be reckoned with. And so here we are faced with another problem. The fact is that this is what happens: it was all expressed in a qualitative sense and with the use of some quantitative indicators a long time ago. By the way, Auguste Comte created the concept of positive sciences, he tried to count something there, but he rested on the fact that it was not about counting and predicting, but about the fact that people do not perceive any rationally positive theories. And he came to the conclusion that it was necessary to create the idea of ​​God. But God should not be some creature, but society. Now, if you create some kind of stele in some society and pray for it. It is also with the society that one must pray for the society. If society is God and pray to him, then maybe something will work out in the social sphere. However, this was just an initial idea, such a big swing, as it were. And most importantly, what later became clear in this regard, the following - that the humanities differ from the natural sciences in that the main thing here is understanding. Not an explanation, not a proof, but an understanding. It was Toomey who was engaged in such ideas, but also, historically, they did not reach such quantitative indicators. And only much later, when everyone began to understand, to imagine that, like the positive sciences, the main thing is like Comte, some kind of understanding needs to be put in the basis.

But in fact, it was all delayed and mathematics only recently began to be applied to the humanities, especially to economics. However, this is not enough, and now we have what we wrote down at the end - a certain amount of quality, it did not go beyond these limits. There must have been some change. So these methodological questions were posed: what is the difference? why quantity works well in some areas, but does not work in other areas and vice versa. What can be said about this. The answer to this question was dealt with by the following representatives, mainly of the ethical sciences. We are not talking about morality here, not about morality, not about morality, but about science, about ethical sciences, which are trying to consciously understand something and create some kind of theory in this regard. Much has been written about this and, of course, there are two fundamental points of view. I want to remind you that there was an Edmund Husserl who tried to free himself from the subjective, tried to free himself from the spirit of subjectivity in the natural sciences, but most of all in the humanities. Because this is where it shows up the most. So this is how such a kind of non-premises should be in science. But how to remove subjectivity in the field of human sciences? It can never be completely removed. Therefore, different methods were invented, somewhere in the depths there must be some phenomena that make up the essence of ethics. They were searched, searched and so on halfway and stopped. Another representative is Paul Feyerabend, he created the concept of methodological anarchism. Well, he's known to be Popper's student. I already said at the last lecture that all these Kuns, Lakatos and Feyerabends are almost all of the same year (well, Feyerabend maybe two years younger), they all studied together and all refracted Popper’s ideas a little differently. How did he break them? Well, he created his concept. It lies in what - we must strive to create theories not those that are recognized and justified by everyone. This is bullshit. He brought the idea of ​​Popper's falsificationism to its logical end: everything will fit, that it is precisely where people do not suspect that the main thing lies. Create theories and justify what everyone rejects, and especially what the scientific community rejects at the moment, because what it claims is obviously false. But what's stopping you from doing all this? And here he has such a thesis - all this - the development of science is hindered by the development of the state. Therefore, its main slogan is that science must be separated from the state, only then it will develop. But in fact, such a complete separation is impossible, especially in fundamental research, because funding is needed. But the idea was put forward - if you want to discover something, you must free yourself from the pressure of the state and its institutions, and only then can you achieve something.

But the main concept of modernity - the ethics of justice - is John Rawls. He created what he himself called moral geometry. He tried to synthesize utilitarianism (something must be useful), intentionivism and Kantianism. What are the principles of justice. This is the principle of freedom and the principle of difference. From his point of view, the principle is that justice should prevail over efficiency and welfare. This is a complex concept, to concentrate it, so to speak, you can push your thought in such a direction. First, freedom must be ensured, and then the principle of distinction, which takes into account the different interests, abilities and capabilities of people. To substantiate this, he introduces a hypothetical initial state of people. It all comes down to honesty, in other words, moral correctness. Justice is expressed in integrity. Analyzing the American state of society (applicable to our society as well), we can formulate the conclusion: society, due to the different interests of individual people, cannot but differ. Moreover, differences are good. If there are no differences in society, it will stop developing. This is the basic idea of ​​the Americans. And this idea - what can I do! is the driving force behind society. But then what about freedom and justice? And justice lies in the fact that there is quality above efficiency. This is charity (“it is necessary to share!”). Here is such a conglomerate of ideas Rawls came up with. But this is a completely acceptable concept for modern ideas of Kantianism, Heideggerianism. I will not talk about this in more detail now, but here we come to the most important thing. Why is quantitative analysis so little and poorly applied in the science of ethics? Yes, because the essence is not in the method, but in the subject that the humanities and natural sciences deal with.

It's not that the natural sciences have some special methods. Quantum mechanics can also be used. Their subject is not the same. In the natural sciences, the subject is such that the rate of its change is incomparable with the rate of change that occurs in a person's life, in comparison with them, they are, as it were, completely unchanged.

We arrive at what is fixed by Deleuze's ideas of science. Science is always reasoning about chaos. We create concepts, but the starting points for them are undefined. The problem with the humanities and ethical sciences is that you can never get the original data with complete certainty. People are always inaccurate, they always consciously or unconsciously lie. And hence the subject matter of these sciences is different. And finally, the last one. About aesthetic science. Here, in general, quantitative analysis is very poorly developed. How can one appreciate beauty, how can one compare works of art? All this is impossible.

Theodor Adorno expressed this succinctly: that the scientific should also be considered in the ensemble of model analysis of negative dialectics.

Hegel says: You can decide! Contradictions lead to something. But negative dialectics says yes, there are contradictions, but it doesn't go beyond that.

The rigor of the humanities - qualitative methods of analysis. Methods of hermeneutics, some others.

And in the natural sciences - quantitative methods. Therefore, they are brought closer to the exact ones. However, there is no accuracy even there - we will discuss this in the next lecture.

In fact, the same methods can be applied both in the humanities and in the natural sciences, and everything is moving towards their mutual penetration and mutual influence. The main difference is in the subject of study.

Everything goes to the point that it is not the measure of truth that determines the freedom of a person, but vice versa - if I am free, then I will be able to understand what objectivity is, what truth is. But we can never possess it, we can only constantly look for it. And only in this sense can we speak of the rigor of the humanities.

Page 6