Філософська спадщина Володимира Вернадського
Loading...
Date
2015
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
ДВНЗ «Київський національний університет імені Вадима Гетьмана»
Abstract
Philosophical legacy of Vladimir Vernadsky — a prominent Russian and Soviet biogeochemists with Ukrainian origin — continues to attract attention so far. The
main attention of this article is paid to the teachings of the historical development
of the biosphere and its natural transition into the noosphere. However, the content of this teaching is largely a distortion; sometimes it even gives the semimystical
connotations that are not near the thinker. The article criticizes the most important components of the philosophical views of Vernadsky. In particular, the author shows a mixture of a pragmatic approach, which V. Vernadky followed in his understanding of the philosophy and the opposition to the essentially positivist views on the methodology of science. His ideas about the originality of philosophy are filled as a form of personal interpretation of the outlook and challenges that are most concerned about man, and are colored by his subjective attitudes. Philosophy in understanding of V.Vernadsky is a speculative activity which aims to develop a logically explabation. In contrast, the scientific knowledge is universal and goes beyond the limitations of individual consciousness, being a product of collective intelligence, facing the elements of life. In essence, science is conceived as a factual knowledge in the form of systematic empirical generalizations. At the same time the study shows the limitations and inconsistencies of this approach, including the own research of the thinker. In particular it is shown that his findings on the eternity of life, inability of transition from inorganic to organic matter are contrary to his own methodological premises.
Special attention is paid to the important question of the logic of science and the
concept of natural body created by V.Vernadsky. Natural body, as he reasonably
believes cannot be expressed as a full concept, as the meaning of the names
pointing to the natural body is not conceptual. One and the same natural body
can be expressed by a plurality of concepts; they are not being exhaustively defined. In his theory of the noosphere, V.Vernadsky develops the idea of controllability of the society based primarily on scientific knowledge and on a scale of human impact on the Earth, in which it becomes the leading geological force. It is noteworthy that V.Vernadsky is an undisputed technocratic optimist. In his understanding of life, the expansion of the noosphere is manifested to the fullest involvement of inert matter in the organic movement. Thus, in the classical
division of natural and cultural Vernadsky sees the primacy of culture, reason as a force that increases the degree of organization of natural bodies.
Дан критический анализ основных философских воззрений В. И. Вернадского. Показана специфика его понимания различий науки и философии, основоположения его эпистемологических взглядов, концепция естественного тела, подвергнута критике последовательность его суждений о вечности жизни. В общей канве философских взглядов мыслителя изложено его учение о переходе биосферы в ноосферу.
Дан критический анализ основных философских воззрений В. И. Вернадского. Показана специфика его понимания различий науки и философии, основоположения его эпистемологических взглядов, концепция естественного тела, подвергнута критике последовательность его суждений о вечности жизни. В общей канве философских взглядов мыслителя изложено его учение о переходе биосферы в ноосферу.
Description
Keywords
noosphere, science, philosophy, natural body, ноосфера, наука, философия, природное тело
Citation
Деркач В. Філософська спадщина Володимира Вернадського / В. Деркач // Університетська кафедра. Культурологія. Аксіологія. Філософія. Етнологія. Дискусії. Рецензії. Анотації : альм. / М-во освіти і науки України ; ДВНЗ "Київ. нац. екон. ун-т ім. В. Гетьмана" ; Ін-т приклад. та проф. етики ; [голов. ред. Ю. Вільчинський]. – Київ : КНЕУ, 2015. – № 4. – С. 121–138.