Deterministic ideas about man in the philosophical works of A.L. Chizhevsky: scientific and religious aspects

Zvonova Ekaterina Evgen'evna ORCID: 0000-0001-6397-5268 PhD in Philosophy Associate professor, Department of Humanities, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenovskiy University); Senior Researcher, Cosmism Research Center, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES) 119048, Russia, Moscow region, Moscow, Trubetskaya str., 8, p. 2 farfelushka@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction

The subject of this article is the scientific and religious aspects of the anthropological determinism of the outstanding cosmist thinker A.L. Chizhevsky, reflected in his philosophical works, the object is the deterministic views of the scientist on man ^[1].

Before proceeding to the main content of the work, we will give a definition of determinism and explain the reason that prompted us to do this, although, it would seem, the corresponding concept refers to the basics of philosophical education.

The definition given by Yu.V. Sachkov in the New Philosophical Encyclopedia seems quite legitimate: "Determinism (from Latin. determino – I define) is the general doctrine of the interrelation and interdependence of phenomena and processes of reality. The concepts of determinism are part of the structure of the scientific method – they aim research at analyzing and revealing the conditions, causes and patterns, any changes in nature, society and thinking. The concepts of causality and regularities form the basis of determinism"^[2]. When we continue to talk about the anthropological determinism of A.L. Chizhevsky, we will talk about a phenomenon relevant to the above definition in relation to a person; in fact, our understanding of determinism does not contradict the "traditional" one.

However, without clarifying what is meant by deterministic views, the reader might have doubts about the "traditionality" and even the appropriateness of using the term "determinism" and its derivatives in characterizing the views of the thinker. As it will become clear from the further content of the article, the anthropological determinism of A.L. Chizhevsky is not just combined with a conviction in the harmonious structure of the world and holistic ideas about reality, but correlates with them, is inseparable from them, therefore, categories that are often "optional" to describe "determinism in general" are used when revealing the content of the deterministic views of a scientist on a person; accordingly It may seem as if we are replacing the concept of determinism with the concepts of harmony or holism. From our point of view, it would be more fair to speak not about the substitution of concepts, but about the limitation, concretization of the concept of determinism, about harmonic and holistic anthropological determinism. But specific varieties of determinism fall under its general concept, so they can be designated by the appropriate term.

The purpose of this study is to clarify a more global issue about the peculiarities of the correlation between scientific and religious worldviews in Russian cosmism. Based on such an explication, it seems possible to identify the grounds for a productive dialogue between science and religion, since Russian cosmism shows how these spheres of human culture can not only "peacefully" coexist, but also mutually enrich each other. At the same time, the myth of the confrontation between scientific and religious worldviews and related philosophical and anthropological concepts, which has developed as a result of a number of historical factors, is still being broadcast, which has a number of negative consequences ^[3]. This determines the relevance of this article.

The scientific novelty of the study is the identification of two varieties of anthropological determinism found in the philosophical works of A. L. Chizhevsky, and the consideration of their compliance with scientific and religious views.

Methodology

The following methods were used in writing the work: analysis of textual sources (including manuscripts of the 1703 fund of the Archive of the Academy of Sciences of the Russian Federation), comparative analysis, analysis, synthesis, generalization, induction and deduction, historical method.

Results

To begin with, we will identify the deterministic views on man reflected in the philosophical works of A. L. Chizhevsky ^[4], then we will try to reveal the aspects of these views corresponding to the research topic.

To date, two works of the scientist on philosophy have been preserved – "The basic principle of the universe. The space system. Problems" ^{[5, 6]} and "Electronic theory and the genesis of forms. The problem" (Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 1703. Op. 1. d. 2. 224 l.). Both of them were written between 1920 and 1921.

In the "Main Beginning", the author tries to identify the "general background", i.e. the general picture of reality, and these attempts refer to the problems associated with determinism and randomness: "Chaos or harmony reigns in the world – this is a question that requires, first of all, a definite answer. Is the universe governed by the laws of chaos or chance, or is it characterized only by harmony and regularity? Or do both manifest themselves together and both chaos and harmony have the same right to their recognition?" ^{[5, p. 106]}

The problem outlined by A. L. Chizhevsky is solved by him in a harmonic and deterministic way. He recognizes electricity as the single physical principle of the universe, and the primary cause acting on it, "shaping" it, is the principium universale circulationis, the universal principle of circulation, the manifestations of which are symmetry and rhythm.  In fact, harmony and determinism are not completely separable from each other as consequences of the "design" that regulates the reality of the principle: order determines harmony, and the presence of cause-and-effect relationships, laws follows from the harmonious ordering of the world: It is not for nothing that A.L. Chizhevsky himself presents "harmony and regularity" as the opposite of "chaos or chance".

Numerous associations with the metaphysical representations of the ancient Greeks come to mind here, first of all, the philosophers of the Milesian school, Platonists and Pythagoreans (it is characteristic that A. L. Chizhevsky calls the law of the world "mathematically pure") and in general supporters of a single "formative" principle determining reality (Nusa, Logos, etc.). Remarkable in this sense also, the cyclical nature of the general law itself – the ancient thinkers were characterized by a circular model of time. The scientist gives a second wind to the problem of finding the origin and reproduces on a new level the intuition of the ancient Greek philosophers that chaos becomes the cosmos through ordering, design, determination. In this context, M. L. Zakharov's judgment seems fair: "From the standpoint of A. L. Chizhevsky's spontaneous naturalistic dialectics, the emergence of order from chaos is a transition from an overcomplicated order, the laws of which science does not yet know, to a state whose laws have already been comprehended" ^{[7, p. 73]}.

As for the philosophical and anthropological views of the thinker reflected in the "Basic Principle", their deterministic nature is associated with his holistic ideas about reality. According to A.L. Chizhevsky, man is not separated from the world as an autonomous, "self-lawful" part, but obeys the principle of circulation common to all reality, defining it through rhythm and symmetry. The thinker gives many examples confirming this point of view (symmetry of the structure of the human body, rhythms of physiological and mental phenomena, creative life).

Sharing the idea of the unity of ontogeny and phylogeny, the scientist "subordinates" to the universal principle of circulation not only individual representatives of the human race, but also this genus itself and humanity. According to A.L. Chizhevsky, the development of mankind is rhythmic, although the repetition of periods does not imply the repetition of the same events unchanged and can be combined with the improvement of mankind. Speaking about the evolution of the human race, the thinker leans towards the logic of movement "in a spiral", trying to combine the principle of Paligenesis and the hope for progress, although he does not dare to judge with confidence about the future that will come after the completion of the proposed great cycle.

The key idea of active evolution, guided by human reason and will, for Russian cosmism, does not develop in the "Basic Beginning of the universe" in any deep and consistent way. Nevertheless, a number of fragments (for example, about the essential importance of the human mind, created by nature for cognition, about the possibility of the upward development of mankind, despite the principium universale circulationis) allow us to assert that A. L. Chizhevsky was close to active evolutionary views.

In the light of the above, the anthropological determinism of the scientist appears less unambiguous, more problematic, and therefore more interesting. If nature determines human development in such a way that it becomes reasonable enough to "decipher" the deterministic program and "rewrite" it, to "redefine" the natural order that defines it, then although the deterministic principle is directly related to the human essence, given the possibility of overcoming it and "reverse" determination, total determinism turns into the possibility of total freedom. Paradoxically, the metaphysical optics of A. L. Chizhevsky, who sought to consider the human being as a manifestation of an impersonal objective order, an object, a "phenomenon", fits in with the approach that is characteristic of representatives of existential philosophy and psychology, who pay attention to the "falling out" of man from the general structure of the world, to his "noumenality".

In "Electronic Theory and the genesis of forms", the scientist explores the emergence of forms of nature (mainly crystals) based on an electrical substrate, reducing the phenomena of nature to the movement of electrons and their interaction. As in the "Main Beginning", A.L. Chizhevsky adheres to a deterministic worldview, develops the ideas of Paligenesis, and pays great attention to symmetry. A fundamentally new subject of interest for understanding the anthropological determinism of the thinker is his views on the development of the species Homo sapiens.

Thus, A.L. Chizhevsky writes: "Based on Haeckel's formula: ontogenesis repeats phylogenesis and supplementing it with another formula: old age and the end of man proves the coming old age and the extinction of mankind, we will come to the conclusion that humanity, both in its individual individuals and as a whole, does not constitute an exception to the general law, to which, apparently, all world processes are subordinated" (Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences 1703. Op. 1. d. 2. L. 166). The scientist fears not only the death of mankind, but also its degeneration.

At the same time, it is curious that universal "dementia" and death in the "Electronic Theory" are justified not only with the help of Haeckel's law, but also through the principle of circulation, which in the "Basic Principle" is combined with the idea of the upward development of Homo sapiens and ensures the immortality of a cyclically renewing cosmos. Obviously, according to A. L. Chizhevsky, the logic of a circular process means a return to the starting point – non-existence, and a return with a repetition of phases of small "distance" from this point.

Since the scientist reduces natural phenomena, in particular, evolution, to changes in electronic configurations, and considers the laws of nature indestructible, he is forced to recognize as "fruitless" and "disastrous" "the attempts of those who believe that under the influence of external physical or moral factors humanity can take several steps forward" (Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences 1703. Op. 1. d. 2. L. 165).

Thus, the peculiarities of A. L. Chizhevsky's ideas about the prospects for the development of the human race are related to the specifics of his anthropological determinism. In the "Electronic Theory", the deterministic view of man is expressed more consistently.

However, it seems that the thinker is hesitating about the future of humanity, because, adhering to the opinion about the effect of a single law on people, he assumes different ways of development for their different communities. A. L. Chizhevsky writes: "As for humanity, in this respect it can be divided into three parts. The first of them is the most extensive type of improving – evolving forward, the second is the type that maintains balance, staying in the status quo, the third type, relatively small in number, should be attributed to the degenerate type" (Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences 1703. Op. 1. d. 2. L. 166).

The scientist admits racist judgments in connection with the "degenerate type" (corresponding views can also be found in the "Basic Principle", but they do not play any significant role there, therefore we do not particularly note them).

The variant of the "differentiated" development of mankind also correlates with the anthropological determinism of the thinker. Being a representative of the classical type of scientific rationality, A.L. Chizhevsky tried not only to exclude subjectivity, the human factor from scientific knowledge, but also, in the name of creating a science about man, to deprive it of subjectivity, objectify it, "catch it in the web of determinism." For this, the scientist is ready to sacrifice not only freedom of will, but also "rights" of a moral order, which are in fact a consequence of the recognition of the "metaphysical dogma of free will" ^{[8, p. 6]}: A. L. Chizhevsky's racist misconceptions are apparently due to the belief in the rigid determinism of man by "objective" factors (for example, the environment and biological nature) and the desire to "learn" it.

However, the anthropological determinism of the thinker does not imply total pessimism: he places great hopes on those who belong to the evolving type, on the "inheritors of the Earth", "who, leaving human nature, should move to a new stage of universal organic evolution and transform into a genuine new or superman, who will be as far away from us as we are from the ape" (Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences 1703. Op. 1. d. 2. L. 171).

Having briefly considered the deterministic ideas about man reflected in the philosophical works of A. L. Chizhevsky, let us proceed to the disclosure of their scientific and religious aspects.

It is advisable to consider the scientific aspect of the anthropological determinism of the thinker through the prism of global evolutionism, a paradigm that claims to be the foundation of the modern scientific picture of the world and was formed under the influence of the theory of the non–stationary Universe, synergetics and the theory of biological evolution, supplemented by the concepts of the biosphere and noosphere developed within the framework of Russian cosmism. It is precisely evolutionary views and a systematic approach to reality, which presupposes a certain understanding of the phenomenon of determinism, that characterize both cosmism and global evolutionism.

For obvious reasons, we should immediately note that the concept of the noosphere, which is a superstructure over the biosphere, developed due to the understanding of the theory of biological evolution, is consistent with the "dialectical" version of A. L. Chizhevsky's deterministic views on man, reflected in the "Basic Beginning of the Universe", and let us proceed to the analysis of the anthropological determinism of the scientist in connection with the ideas about the development of the Universe and synergetics.

The spread of the evolutionary point of view to the Universe has allowed the formation of the doctrine of its expansion; since the 80s of the XX century, the ideas of cosmic evolution have been developed within the framework of the theory of an inflating Universe, prompting the acceptance of global heterogeneity and non-isotropy of reality, which is divided into "mini-universes", locally homogeneous and isotropic areas that can differ in a number of indicators. Such a rethinking of the structure of the world allowed us to look at the human phenomenon in a different way.

So, on the one hand, a person has a reason to feel abandoned without his will, not even into the Universe, but into one of the many universes. On the other hand, in most "mini-universes" highly organized life is impossible, and our existence appears as a kind of "ordinary miracle", a miracle caused by natural causes, the very structure of physical reality. From thinking about "why there is something and not nothing," as M. Mamardashvili would say, and something very complex, for which the whole world actually "worked", the famous anthropic principle is born ^{[9, 10]}.

B. Carter ^{[11, 12]} proposed "weak" and "strong" versions of the anthropic principle. The first is that different values of world constants can be found in the Universe, but it is more likely to observe well-defined values, since it is in the areas of reality characterized by them that observers are most likely to be present. According to the "strong" version of the anthropic principle, the universe must have properties that contribute to the emergence and development of intelligent life. Obviously, the anthropic principle is consistent with cosmistic ideas about active evolution, especially if we are talking about its "strong" formulation.

The evolutionary views of modern science and the anthropic principle allow us to give a certain assessment to the deterministic views of A. L. Chizhevsky on man discussed above. They confirm the validity of the kind of anthropological determinism presented in the "Basic Beginning of the Universe", since we can observe the dialectic described earlier of the total conditionality of the human being by cause-and-effect relationships and his absolute freedom. At the same time, the roughly deterministic approach to the human "Electronic theory and genesis of forms" turns out to be untenable.

Thus, the emergence and development of the human race is predetermined by the evolution of the universe, but the universe is also conditioned by the presence of an intelligent observer. In the context of the principle of active evolution, it is legitimate to interpret this as follows: reality freely gives a person determined by it free will so that he can determine reality for its own good, and not to rise above it. Modern views on cosmic evolution give equal grounds to say that the universe and man have freedom, and that they are determined by each other.

The achievements of synergetics, "sharpened" for the study of the evolution and coevolution of complex systems, allow us to come to similar conclusions about the degree of correspondence to reality of various versions of anthropological determinism presented in the philosophical works of A. L. Chizhevsky, and also eliminate imaginary contradictions that caused the mistakes of the thinker.

The deterministic approach of the scientist to man, as we remember, was largely due to the desire to "learn" the human phenomenon, the antinomy of "science" existing in his mind, correlated with determinism, and human subjectivity, which is the basis of freedom. However, modern researchers have reinterpreted the concepts of determinism and causality in such a way that there is an opportunity for "salvation" of both "science" and "humanity".

Thus, I. Prigozhin considers the behavior of systems at the bifurcation point to be random, and this shows the compatibility of ideas about the incomplete determinacy of the object of study with the use of strict scientific methods.

E. N. Knyazeva and S. P. Kurdyumov speak rather about the interaction of randomness and necessity factors: "Randomness, small fluctuations can really knock you off the chosen path, lead, generally speaking, to complex wanderings through the field of development. But in a sense, at least on simplified mathematical models, you can see the whole field of development paths. All possible paths of the Tao open up as if from a bird's eye view. Then it becomes clear that the branching paths of evolution are limited. Of course, if randomness works, then there are walks, but not any kind, but within a well-defined, deterministic field of possibilities" ^[13].

If A. L. Chizhevsky considered the attempts of those who consider it possible to promote progress by denying the role of the human factor in history to be "fruitless" and "disastrous", then representatives of synergetics claim the following: "Management begins to be based on combining human intervention with the essence of the internal trends of developing systems. Therefore, in a sense, a higher type of determinism appears here, determinism with an understanding of the ambiguity of the future and with the possibility of reaching the desired future. This is determinism, which strengthens the role of man" ^[13].

Turning to the analysis of the religious aspect of A. L. Chizhevsky's deterministic views on the human phenomenon, it should be noted that the antinomy characteristic of the thinker's worldview between "scientific" determinism and human subjectivity refers to the discussions of Christian authors about the relationship between free will and divine grace ^{[14, 15, 16, 17, 18]}. Although the scientist was not religious in the traditional sense of the word, some features of his worldview apparently go back to the Christian roots of Russian cosmism, even if he himself did not realize this (A. L. Chizhevsky could experience the indirect influence of the ideas of N. F. Fedorov through K. E. Tsiolkovsky, who personally knew the "Moscow Socrates"). Perhaps such an influence determined the peculiarities of the anthropological determinism of the thinker. However, the parallels outlined above may also indicate that the content of scientific categories was generally formed under the influence of the Christian tradition. Anyway, the ideal of the "synergistic" interaction of free will and divine grace corresponds to the version of anthropological determinism of the "Basic Principle".

A. L. Chizhevsky's deterministic views on man can also be considered in connection with the concept of cosmic consciousness and related ideas about the cosmic game, which refer to Hinduism. Interestingly, representatives of Living Ethics consider the scientist to be the bearers of the appropriate form of consciousness and the "prophets" of the evolution of the cosmos (for example, his bust is part of the sculptural composition "Messengers of Cosmic Evolution" by A. D. Leonov). A. L. Chizhevsky himself mentions the book by the Canadian psychiatrist R.M. Beck "Cosmic Consciousness. A study of the evolution of the human mind" ^[19] on the pages of "Electronic Theory and the genesis of forms".

R. M. Beck believes that the essential feature of cosmic consciousness is the "consciousness of the cosmos", the order and life of the universe, and argues that it is as much superior to self–consciousness as the latter is a simple consciousness, which, in his opinion, is also present in animals. The researcher predicts the advent of the era of cosmic consciousness; he sees individual carriers of such in people who lived at the time of writing the book. The acquisition of a higher form of consciousness is described by R. M. Beck as a kind of mystical state accompanied by an emotional uplift.

In connection with the study of anthropological determinism by A. L. Chizhevsky, it is of interest to us that the Canadian author considers the following to be a characteristic feature of cosmic consciousness: a person experiencing such an experience loses a sense of belonging to himself, loses a sense of autonomy of will. The concept of the cosmic game associated with cosmic consciousness, which goes back to the Vedantist concepts of Brahma-lila, also assumes the determinism of the Atman by the Brahman ^[20].

If we share the opinion of representatives of Living Ethics about the giftedness of A. L. Chizhevsky with cosmic consciousness, deterministic, "anti-revolutionary" views on a person can be interpreted as a consequence of relevant experience. However, it is impossible to verify such a point of view, and therefore the relevant interpretations are purely speculative. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the "dialectical" version of the scientist's anthropological determinism correlates with the concept of the cosmic game, since Brahma-lila is based precisely on the dialectic of the identity and difference of Atman and Brahman.

Conclusion

So, based on the analysis of the scientific and religious aspects of the considered deterministic ideas of A. L. Chizhevsky about man, the following conclusions can be drawn:

1) the "dialectical" anthropological determinism of the "Basic Principle of the Universe" seems legitimate, in contrast to the roughly deterministic approach to the human phenomenon characteristic of the "Electronic Theory and genesis of Forms";

2) the assessment of the correspondence of two varieties of anthropological determinism found in the philosophical works of the thinker to scientific and religious views allows us to draw the same conclusion about their validity.

A similar vision of a certain complex phenomenon in different discourses indicates that there are many points of contact between them. Nevertheless, to forestall the objections of potential opponents, we emphasize that we do not deny the differences between the ways of obtaining knowledge, which are recognized as "sanctioned" in the context of scientific and religious worldviews. However, these differences do not make science and religion ideologically incompatible and automatically isolated from each other, but provide opportunities for fruitful dialogue ^[21]. We want to believe that this and further research will contribute to its implementation.