Anti-centristism is a philosophical and ideological position. Philosophical directions and schools

Anti-centristism is a philosophical current opposing science. The main idea of adherents is that science should not influence people's lives. She has no place in everyday life, so do not pay so much attention. Why they decided so, from where this happened and how the philosophers view this current, is told in this article.

Everything started with scientism

First, you need to understand what scientism is, and then you can go on to the main topic. Scientism is a special philosophical trend that recognizes science as the highest value. Andre Comte-Sponville, one of the founders of scientism, said that science should be considered as religious dogmas.

Scientists called people who elevated mathematics or physics and said that all sciences should be equal to them. An example of this can be quoted by Rutherford's famous quotation: "There are two kinds of science: physics and collecting stamps."

The philosophical and ideological position of scientism lies in the following postulates:

• Only science is real knowledge.
• All methods that are used in scientific research are applicable to social and humanitarian knowledge.
• Science is able to solve all the problems facing humanity.

Now about the main

In contrast to scientism began to emerge a new philosophical trend, called anti-centristism. In short, this movement, whose founders oppose science. In the framework of anti-civilization, the views on scientific knowledge vary, gaining liberal or critical character.

Initially, anti-centristism was based on forms of cognition that did not involve science (morality, religion, etc.). Today the anti-scientific view criticizes science as such. Another variant of anti-civilization considers the contradiction of scientific and technological progress and says that science should be responsible for all the consequences that are caused by its activities. Therefore, it can be said that antiscymentism is a trend that sees in science the main problem of human development.

Basic views

In general, it is possible to divide antiscymentism into moderate and radical. Moderate antispecialism is not against science as such, but rather against ardent devotees of scientism who believe that scientific methods should be at the heart of everything.

Radical views proclaim the uselessness of science, stipulating this by its hostility to human nature. Scientific and technological progress has two categories of influence: on the one hand, it simplifies a person's life, on the other, leads to mental and cultural degradation. Therefore, scientific imperatives must be exterminated, replaced by other factors of socialization.

Representatives of

Science makes a person's life without spirituality, which has neither a human face nor romance. One of the first who expressed his indignation and scientifically grounded it was Herbert Marcuse. He showed that the variety of human manifestations is suppressed by technocratic parameters. The abundance of overstrains, which a person encounters daily, indicates that the society is in critical condition. Overwhelmed by information flows are not only professionals of technical professions, but also humanities, whose spiritual aspiration is squashed by excessive norms.

In 1950 an interesting theory was put forward by Bertrand Russell, he said that the concept and essence of antisocity is hidden in the hypertrophied development of science, which became the main reason for the loss of humanity and values.

Michael Polanyi once said that scientism can be identified with a church that fetters human thoughts, forcing to hide important beliefs behind the terminological curtain. In turn, antispecialism is the only free flow that allows a person to be himself.

Neo-Kantianism

Anti-centristism is a special teaching, occupying a niche in philosophy. For a long time, philosophy was considered a science, but when the latter separated as an integral unit, its methods began to challenge. Some philosophical schools believed that science prevents a person from developing and thinking extensively, others in some way recognized her merits. Therefore, there were several ambiguous opinions regarding scientific activity.

W. Windelband and G. Ricket were the first representatives of the Baden neo-Kantian school, who interpreted Kant's philosophy from a transcendental and psychological point of view, where he considered the process of socialization of an individual. They defended the position of all-round human development, considering it impossible to consider the process of cognition separately from culture or religion. In this connection, science can not be positioned as a basic source of perception. In the process of development, an important place is occupied by a system of values and norms through which a person studies the world, because he can not free himself from innate subjectivity, and scientific dogmas infringe on him in this regard.

In contrast, Heidegger says that science can not be completely dismissed from the process of socialization in particular and philosophy as a whole. Scientific knowledge is one of the possibilities that allows us to comprehend the essence of being, even in a slightly limited form. Science can not give a full description of everything that is happening in the world, but it is capable of ordering the events that take place.

Existentialism

Existential philosophical schools were guided by the teachings of Karl Jaspers concerning antisocity. He assured that philosophy and science are absolutely incompatible concepts, since they are oriented toward obtaining mutually opposite results. At a time when science is constantly accumulating knowledge, and its latest theories are considered to be the most reliable, philosophy can return to the study of the question that was raised a thousand years ago without a twinge of conscience. Science always looks only forward. It is beyond the power to form the value potential of mankind, since it is oriented exclusively toward the subject.

It is peculiar for a person to feel weak and defenseless before the laws of nature and society, and he depends on the coincidence of circumstances that provoke the emergence of a particular situation. Such situations arise constantly up to infinity, and it is not always possible to rely only on dry knowledge to overcome them.

In everyday life, it is common for a person to forget about such a phenomenon as death. He can forget that he has a moral obligation or responsibility for something. And only getting into various situations, becoming a moral choice, a person understands how much science is powerless in these matters. There is no formula by which you can calculate the percentage of good and evil in a particular story. There is no data that the outcome of events will be shown with absolute certainty, there are no graphs showing the usefulness of rational and irrational thinking for a particular case. Science was created specifically for people to get rid of this kind of torment and master the objective world. This is how Karl Jaspers considered, when he said that antisocialism is one of the basic concepts in philosophy.

Personalism

From the point of view of personalism, science is a confirmation or a negation, while philosophy is an inquiry. Studying antiscientism, the directions of this current, substantiate science as a phenomenon that contradicts harmonious human development, alienating it from being. Personalists say that man and being are one whole, but with the advent of science this unity disappears. Technology of society makes a person struggle with nature, that is, to confront the world of which he is a part. And this chasm, generated by science, makes an individual become part of the empire of inhumanity.

Main theses

Anti-centristism is (in philosophy) a position that challenges the importance of science and its ubiquity. Simply put, philosophers are sure that, in addition to science, there must be other foundations on which a worldview can be formed. In connection with this, it is possible to present several philosophical schools that studied the necessity of science in society.

The first course is Neo-Kantianism. Its representatives believed that science can not be the main and only basis of knowledge of the world, since it infringes on the innate, sensual and emotional needs of man. Completely it is not worth sweeping aside, because scientific knowledge helps to streamline all processes, but it is worth remembering their imperfection.

Existentialists said that science prevents a person from making the right moral choice. Scientific thinking is oriented toward the knowledge of the world of things, but when it comes to choosing between right and wrong, all theorems become meaningless.

The personalists hold the view that science disfigures the natural nature of man. Because man and the world around him are one whole, and science forces him to struggle with nature, that is, with a part of himself.

The result

Anti-centristism is struggling with science in various ways: somewhere it criticizes it, completely refusing to recognize existence, and somewhere demonstrates its imperfection. And it remains to be asked whether science is good or bad. On the one hand, science has helped mankind to survive, but on the other hand it has made it spiritually helpless. Therefore, before choosing between rational judgments and emotions, it is worthwhile to prioritize.