2015.Т.XLV.№3 Эпистемология и философия науки

Citation preview

ÑÎÄÅÐÆÀÍÈÅ [CONTENTS] Editorial Как возможна политическая философия науки? [How Is Political Philosophy of Science Possible?] . . . . . . . . 5 И.Т. Касавин [Ilya Kasavin] Panel Discussion Номотетическое познание в общественных и гуманитарных науках [Nomothetic Cognition in Social Sciences and the Humanities ] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . К.Х. Момджян [Karen Momdzhyan] К вопросу о специфике методов обществознания [On the Specific Character of the Methods of Social Sciences] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . В.С. Кржевов [Vladimir Krzhevov] О специфике гуманитарного познания [On the Specific Character of Humanitarian Knowledge] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . А.Л. Никифоров [Alexander Nikiforov] Возможен ли аномальный социомонизм? [Is Anomalous Sociomonism Possible?] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . А.Ю. Антоновский [Alexander Antonovski] Терминология неокантианцев давно устарела [The Terminology of neo$Kantianism is Obsolete] . . . . . . . . А.А. Аргамакова [Alexandra Argamakova] Ответ на дискуссию [Reply to Critics] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . К.Х. Момджян [Karen Momdzhyan]

16

23

29

33

40

45

Epistemology and Cognition Perspectives of and Challenges for a Social Philosophy of Science: Highlighting the Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Alexander Ruser Анализ реального познания как условие снятия спора конструктивистов и реалистов [An Analysis of Real Cognition as a Condition for Resolving the Controversy between Constructivists and Realists ] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 В.М. Розин [Vadim Rozin]

2

Понятие а priori в философии логического эмпиризма и его первые критики [The Notion of a priori in Logical Empiricism and Its First Critics] . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Т.Д. Соколова [Tatiana Sokolova] Language and Mind Belief Content and Belief State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Alexei Cherniak Философская «языковая игра»: проблема профессиональной коммуникации [“Language Games” in Philosophy: the Problem of Professional Communication] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Е.В. Золотухина'Аболина [Elena Zolotukhinа'Abolina] Case$studies – Science studies Современная культурная нейронаука и природа субъекта познания: логико$эпистемологические измерения [Modern Neuroscience and the Nature of the Subject of Cognition: a Logico$Epistemological Study] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 В.А. Бажанов [Valentin A. Bazhanov] The Notion of Space in Some Modern Physics Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 Ivan A. Karpenko Interdisciplinary Studies Физика и экономика: о принципах сохранения в научно$исследовательских программах [Physics and Economics: On Conservation Principles in Scientific Research Programs] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 А.И. Пигалев [Alexander Pigalev] Исторические и методологические основания развития и восприятия дарвинизма и антидарвинизма [Historical and Methodological Bases of the Development and Perception of Darwinism and Antidarwinism] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 Е.Б. Музрукова, Р.А. Фандо [Elena Muzrukova, Roman Fando] Намерение, действие, ответственность [Intention, Action, Responsibility] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 В.В. Оглезнев [Vitaly Ogleznev] Archive От редактора перевода [Editors Remarks] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 И.Т. Касавин [Ilya Kasavin]

3

Философия индуктивных наук, опирающаяся на их историю. Книга II [The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, Founded upon their History. Book II] . . . . . . . . 211 Уильям Хьюэлл [William Whewell] Book Reviews Эстафета научного поиска [Relay of Scientific Research] . С.В. Пирожкова [Sophia Pirozhkova] Власть под вывеской науки [Power under the Guise of Science] . . . . . . . . . . . Л.А. Тухватулина [Liana Tukhvatulina] Памятка для авторов . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Подписка . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . 242

. . . . 246 . . . 254 . . . 255

Публикуемые материалы прошли процедуру рецензирования и экспертного отбора. Журнал включен в международную базу данных “Philosophy Documentation Center” (с июня 2014 г.) и индексируется в ERIH PLUS (с августа 2015 г.). Журнал включен в перечень периодических изданий, рекомендованных Высшей аттестационной комиссией РФ для публикации материалов кандидатских и докторских диссертационных исследований в области философии, социологии и культурологии (с 1 января 2007 г.). All materials underwent the process of anonymous peer review and were appoved for publication by the Editorial Board. Editor: Ilya Kasavin (Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences (IPh RAS))

Editorial Assistants: Irina Gerasimova (IPh RAS) Petr Kusliy (IPh RAS) Liana Tukhvatulina (IPh RAS)

Editorial Board: Alexandre Antonovski (IPh RAS), Vladimir Arshinov (IPh RAS), Valentin Bazhanov (Ulyanovsk State U), Irina Chernikova (Tomsk State U), Vladimir Filatov (RSUH), Steve Fuller (U of Warwick, Great Britain), Vitaly Gorokhov (IPh RAS), Vladimir Kolpakov (IPh RAS), Natalia Kuznetsova (RSUH), Jennifer Lackey (Northwestern U, USA), Joan Leach (U. of Queensland, Australia), Natalia Martishina (Siberian Transport U), Lyudmila Mikeshina (Moscow State Pedagogical U), Alexander Nikiforov (IPh RAS), Hans Poser (Technische U Berlin, Germany), Vladimir Porus (NRU Higher School of Economics), Sergei Sekundant (Odessa State U, Ukraine), Sergei Schavelev (Kursk State Medical U), Yaroslav Shramko (Kryvyi Rih National U, Ukraine)

International Editorial Council: Piama Gaidenko (IPh RAS, Russia), Abdusalam Guseinov (IPh RAS, Russia), Rom Harre (London School of Economics, Great Britain), Jaakko Hintikka (Boston, USA), Vladislav Lektorski (IPh RAS, Russia), Hans Lenk (U Karlsruhe, Germany), Vladimir Mironov (Moscow state U, Russia), Tom Rockmore (Duquesne U, USA), Vyacheslav Stepin (IPh RAS, Russia)

© Институт философии РАН. Все права защищены, 2015 © ООО «Издательство «КноРус», 2015 © Institute of Philosophy RAS. All rights reserved, 2015 © «KnoRus», 2015

4

EPISTEMOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE · 2015 · Ò. XLV · ¹ 3

К

АК ВОЗМОЖНА ПОЛИТИЧЕСКАЯ ФИЛОСОФИЯ

НАУКИ? Илья Теодорович Ка$ савин – доктор фило софских наук, членкорреспондент РАН, заведующий сек тором социальной эпи стемологии Института философии РАН. Email: [email protected]

H

Cтатья обязана своим названием американскому философу Джозефу Раузу и его книге «Знание и власть. К политической философии науки» [Rouse, 1987]. Имен но в те годы, когда в России философия науки представляла собой тихую гавань, где можно было укрыться от политической и идеологической тематики, на Западе философы науки готовили «политический поворот». Он осознается в форме про блематизации науки с точки зрения ее познавательной автономности, независи мости от истории, культуры, этнической, конфессиональной, гендерной ней тральности, незаинтересованности в собственности и власти. Возникают такие понятия, как «экономика науки», «академический капитализм», «технонаука», «попнаука», «наука как общественное благо», «нечестная наука», отражающие изменение статуса науки в современном обществе. И потому центральная линия рассуждения здесь пролегает в противопоставлении модерна и постмодерна, что в русской традиции приняло форму оппозиции классики и неклассики. Почему сегодня науку не получается мыслить безотносительно ее места в политической системе? Почему способы внешнего и внутреннего управления наукой выходят на первый план? Что это означает для философии науки как дисциплины? При влечь внимание к данным вопросам составляет задачу настоящей статьи. Ключевые слова: философия науки и техники, политический поворот, акаде мический капитализм, когнитивная демократия.

OW IS POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE POSSIBLE?

Ilya Kasavin – doctor of philosophical sciences, correspondentmember of the Russian Academy of Sciences, chair of the Department of Social Epistemology of the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

The article is dedicated dedicated to the analysis of new agenda in the philosophy of science and technology that might be dubbed a “political turn”. It consists in the problematizing science from the point of its cognitive autonomy; independence from history and culture; ethnic, gender and confession neutrality; disinterest in property and power. There are those concepts emerge like “science economy”, “academical capitalism”, “technoscience”, “popscience”, “science as public good”, “fraud science” that reflect the changing social status of science. The main argument confronts modernity and postmodernity, which in Russian tradition takes form of contrasting the classical world view with the nonclassical one. Nowadays science can hardly be studied disregarding its locus within the political system. The means of internal and external science management gain prior significance. All this dramatically transforms the very disciplinary core of science. In the article, the presuppositions and consequences of the political turn are traced and problematized. Key words: philosophy of science and technology, political turn, academical capitalism, public intellectuals, technoscience, popscience, science as public good, science economy, cognitive democracy.

Зарождение политической повестки Политическая философия науки невозможна с точки зрения классиче6 ской науки, провозгласившей отказ от рассмотрения политических и ре6

Editorial

5

È.Ò. ÊÀÑÀÂÈÍ

лигиозных вопросов устами первых членов Лондонского королев6 ского общества. Ситуация постепенно менялась к середине XIX века, когда революция в биологии заставила взглянуть на соотно6 шение науки, мировоззрения и политики по6другому. Атомная бомба окончательно оставила в прошлом все иллюзии по поводу политической нейтральности науки: результаты исследований и их применение уже не могли рассматриваться в отрыве друг от друга. Развитие философии и социологии науки также вело к актуа6 лизации политической проблематики, сменившей идеологиче6 скую нейтральность логического эмпиризма. Это нашло выраже6 ние в названии влиятельнейшей книги Т. Куна «Структура науч6 ных революций». А через пять лет после публикации знаменитой дискуссии между К. Поппером и Т. Куном [Lakatos, Musgrave, eds, 1970] П. Бурдье публикует статью [Bourdieu, 1975], в которой предпринимает решительную попытку сделать из этого выводы и пересмотреть ряд проблем социологии науки. Он заявляет, что официальная социология науки легитимирует тот образ победи6 теля, который создается и пропагандируется научным истеб6 лишментом. Последний (в немалой степени благодаря Куну и его «Структуре научных революций») представляет научное сообще6 ство как особое социальное пространство, где царствуют истина и рациональность и отсутствует внеэпистемическое доминиро6 вание. Французский социолог в противовес Куну разрабатывает понятие «научного поля» (champ scientifique), которое опреде6 ляет как систему объективных отношений между социальными позициями и место конкуренции за научную монополию или ав6 торитет, выступающий как единство научно6дисциплинарного потенциала и социального влияния. Эта дефиниция означает не6 возможность провести четкую границу между чисто научными и чисто социальными условиями научной практики. Борьба за ав6 торитет в науке происходит одновременно в политическом и на6 учном поле. Однако Бурдье по6своему трактует специфику этой борьбы как стравливание производителей знания, которые при этом являются единственными потребителями результатов друг друга. Именно друг друга они хотят убедить в том, что владеют истиной и поэтому достойны власти. Д. Блур в своем варианте «сильной программы» социоло6 гии знания [Bloor, 1976] уже через год несколько расширяет этот тезис, провозглашая принцип симметричности: для пони6 мания успеха или провала, приписывания истинности или лож6 ности конкурирующим высказываниям о знании (knowledge claims) должны использоваться одни и те же типы объясне6 ния, т.е. ссылки на одни и те же типы условий производства

6

ÊÀÊ ÂÎÇÌÎÆÍÀ ÏÎËÈÒÈ×ÅÑÊÀß ÔÈËÎÑÎÔÈß ÍÀÓÊÈ?

знания. Нельзя объяснять успех одной теории ростом ее эмпи6 рического содержания, а провал ее противницы – следовани6 ем ложной идеологии. Отсюда и удачный эксперимент, и логи6 ческий вывод, и политическая конъюнктура, экономический интерес и культурная традиция – это равновозможные основа6 ния для успеха в конкуренции, выступающие в качестве широ6 ко понимаемых социальных условий познания. Блур подвел социологический фундамент под тезис П. Фейерабенда о том, что в науке «все дозволено», и это до основания потрясло стан6 дартную гипотетико6дедуктивную концепцию научного зна6 ния. В аналитической философии науки и возникающей про6 грамме СТС (STS – Science & Technology Studies) стала укоре6 няться мысль о важности изучения всей совокупности условий научной деятельности – вплоть до политических. Решающее влияние на философию науки оказали транс6 формации в организации науки и образования на рубеже XX–XXI вв. В США, Германии, Франции, России наука испробо6 вала самые разные виды автономности, зависимости от госу6 дарства и сотрудничества с ним в организации глобальных технических и социальных проектов, продвижении образова6 тельных стратегий, обеспечении политических трансформа6 ций. В этих странах наука завоевала себе различающийся социальный статус, а разные части системы наука–образова6 ние–техника–экспертиза также по6разному встроены в обще6 ство. Однако все это многообразие не должно затушевывать острую социальную актуальность общей проблемы.

Статус науки в современном обществе Многие социальные институты эволюционируют, сохра6 няя при этом свою значительную роль в общественной жизни. Если вести речь о науке, то ее фундаментальный социальный статус – изобретение относительно недавнего прошлого. Полноценным социальным институтом наука стала не ранее середины XIX в. Это относится к ее роли в системе производ6 ства, хранения и распределения знания в системе образова6 ния, СМИ, промышленности и принятия политико6экономи6 ческих решений. Можно с уверенностью утверждать, что дан6 ный факт зафиксирован философами, выдвинувшими проект новой дисциплины – философии науки (У. Хьюэлл, Е. Дю6 ринг), призванной обосновать новый социальный статус на6 учного исследования. Наука – один из самых молодых соци6 альных институтов и вместе с тем один из наиболее демо6

7

È.Ò. ÊÀÑÀÂÈÍ

кратических и успешных. При этом науку нельзя сводить к совокупности НИИ или научных работников. Социальные функции науки таковы, что сегодня она прони6 кает в самые тайные уголки коллективного и индивидуального существования, претендует на участие во всей жизни совре6 менного человека – от мелкого быта до высокого бытия. На мой взгляд, изменения в социальном статусе и функциях науки свя6 заны со следующими факторами. Во6первых, это конкуренция социальных институтов (в разделе финансовых потоков, влия6 нии на экономику, политику и сознание). Во6вторых, велика роль дифференциации науки – выделения областей «корыстно6 го» и «бескорыстного» любопытства. В6третьих, имеет место противоположный тренд интеграции науки, техники, промыш6 ленности и политики в Большой науке. Наконец, в6четвертых, здесь актуальные дилеммы выносятся на коллективное обсуж6 дение и уравнивают ученых с простыми налогоплательщиками, тем самым вводя науку в публичное пространство. Это противо6 стояние милитаризации и безопасности, роста потребления и экологического кризиса, достоинств и недостатков бионаук, химиокультуры, компьютеризации и проч. Итак, наука становится максимально публичной, конкури6 руя в этом с попкультурой, но при этом ученые настаивают на своем выделенном эпистемическом статусе и особой экс6 пертной функции. Роль науки в развитии современных техно6 логий чрезвычайно велика, но престиж научной деятельности неуклонно снижается. Наука потребляет бюджетные деньги, но ученые не соглашаются работать в «сфере социальных ус6 луг» и отказывают в компетенции чиновникам, назначенным их контролировать. Бо´льшая часть науки сегодня невозможна без технического оборудования и коллективной деятельно6 сти, но нобелевские премии получают отдельные индивиды. Современное бытие науки характеризуется фундаменталь6 ной амбивалентностью; и это есть не столько методологиче6 ская, сколько глобальная социальная проблема.

Политэкономия в СТС В рамках СТС постоянно исследуется политико6экономиче6 ская составляющая науки и техники и одновременно роль науки и техники в современной экономике и политике. Отсюда вырас6 тает особое направление исследований, получившее название «экономика знания» (knowledge economy), или «политическая экономия науки» [Sismondo, 2010]. Термин «экономика знания»

8

ÊÀÊ ÂÎÇÌÎÆÍÀ ÏÎËÈÒÈ×ÅÑÊÀß ÔÈËÎÑÎÔÈß ÍÀÓÊÈ?

[Callon, 2002] обычно относится к экономике, основанной на вы6 сокоразвитом техническом знании. Он же применяется для ха6 рактеристики такого типа экономики, в котором знание является одним из основных продуктов и товаров. Из первого вида эконо6 мики знания вытекает второй, но обратное отношение не являет6 ся необходимым. В новой экономике знания XX и XXI вв. социаль6 ные субъекты рассматривают технические знания как ресурс и пытаются владеть или управлять ими с помощью механизмов интеллектуальной собственности. В бизнес6школах преподают дисциплину «Управление знаниями», обучая тому, как создавать потоки знаний (аналогичные денежным потокам) и как институты и организации могут использовать их наиболее эффективно. В СТС знание рассматривается как своеобразная квази6 реальность, и поэтому значение экономики знания второго рода не утрачивается, даже если реальная экономика являет6 ся нерыночной, основанной на дарении или общественных фондах потребления. Серджио Сисмондо, главный редактор ведущего дисциплинарного журнала «Social Studies of Science», подчеркивает, что в рамках СТС эпистемические и политические процессы не отделяются друг от друга непро6 ходимой стеной [Sismondo, 2010], благодаря чему может проводиться реальное изучение целостных научно6техниче6 ских сообществ, в которых происходят производство, рас6 пределение и потребление знаний.

Наука или технонаука Определению технонауки далеко до удовлетворительно6 го. Сам термин был введен Г. Башляром (1953), популяризи6 рован Ж. Оттуа [Hottois, 1997] и разработан рядом исследо6 вателей, не в последнюю очередь Д. Айди [Ihde, Selinger, 2003] и М. Каллоном [Callon, 1999]. Он предполагает включе6 ние в понятие науки когнитивных факторов (историческое раз6 витие самого знания), социального контекста науки, а также «материальных» элементов (объектов исследования, природ6 ной среды, приборов, инструментов и т.п.). Подобное опреде6 ление, распространенное и в ряде популярных источников, акцентирует в духе известного «онтологического поворота» материальную составляющую науки, которую исследователи всегда и так принимали по умолчанию. Конечно, пора пере6 стать рассматривать науку как «царство чистой мысли», если это кто6то вообще делал. Но ведь и сама материальность от6 нюдь не дает однозначного решения каких6либо проблем. Не

9

È.Ò. ÊÀÑÀÂÈÍ

только «вещи дают сдачи» (Б. Латур), но и они обманывают и подлежат критике, деконструирующей в том числе и суб6 станциалистское понимание природы. Широкое понимание техники как humanity in action [Pitt, 2000] вообще размывает различие между типами научности разных исторических эпох и позволяет применять термин «технонаука» чуть ли не к Архимеду. Однако фактом является то, что разные науки в различной степени связаны с техникой. Социотехнические науки, например, существуют пока в боль6 шей степени как проект, а не как реализация. В гуманитарных науках место техники занимает искусство выражения и аргу6 ментации. Не следует ли ограничить понимание технонауки достаточно большим фрагментом современного комплекса наука–техника–образование–экспертиза, который вместе с тем не исчерпывает современной науки? Этим можно не6 сколько урезонить технократический тренд, который неоп6 равданно навязывается науке в целом.

Академический капитализм Социально6политический тренд в СТС приводит к острой критике капитализма в области науки и образования. Эд Хэ6 кет, главный редактор одного из наиболее рейтинговых жур6 налов в СТС, посвящает свою редакционную статью пробле6 ме академического капитализма. Он использует термин «academic capitalism» для харате6 ристики существования науки и техники в современных США. Так, в науке все шире распространяются отчуждение ученого от результатов его труда, неудовлетворение условиями и са6 мим процессом исследования, и это стало главными темами дискуссий об изменении ценностей и культуры американской университетской жизни. Последние десятилетия растущей концентрации благ и доходов привели к резкой диспропор6 ции. Инвестиции были накоплены очень узким кругом иссле6 довательских организаций, которые безмерно расширили и усилили свое влияние на всем пространстве производства знания и инноваций. В пяти крупнейших университетах (Гар6 вард, Йель, Техас, Стэнфорд, Принстон) произошла внуши6 тельная концентрация капитала: их эндаументы (универси6 тетские фонды) достигли в сумме 110 млрд долларов, что равно объему эндаументов 15 следующих богатейших уни6 верситетов [Hackett, 2014: 636].

10

ÊÀÊ ÂÎÇÌÎÆÍÀ ÏÎËÈÒÈ×ÅÑÊÀß ÔÈËÎÑÎÔÈß ÍÀÓÊÈ?

Хэкет напоминает, что существенная функция демократи6 ческой системы исследований и образования состоит в раз6 витии знания, борьбе с бедностью, повышении благосостоя6 ния и утверждении человеческой свободы и возможностей для обеспечения долгосрочного будущего нашей планеты и ее обитателей. Однако новый американский университет, сформированный в условиях режима академического капи6 тализма, совсем не место для открытого исследования, в ко6 тором демократические и гуманистические ценности направ6 ляют науку и технику на достижение общего блага. Вывод Хэ6 кета неутешителен. Как только академические институты становятся во все большей степени зависимы от привлече6 ния внешнего и аккумуляции внутреннего капитала, они утра6 чивают свободу, цель и способность быть независимой мо6 ральной силой в современном обществе. Деньги не могут быть целью науки и образования!

Популяризация науки Сложность современной науки не в последнюю очередь определяется «техничностью» ее языка, ее теорий и экспери6 ментальных установок. Как же довести эту сложность для обы6 денного сознания обычного человека? Все углубляющийся разрыв между наукой и обществом обесценивает науку в мас6 совом сознании, а последнее попадает в плен лженаучных воз6 зрений, религиозной веры и детских заблуждений. Сисмондо обращает внимание на то, что трудности популяризации науки в немалой степени обязаны непониманию социальной приро6 ды научной деятельности. Она обусловлена профессиональ6 ной культурой и интересами, а ее утверждения и продукты про6 изводны от насквозь социальных процессов. И это контрасти6 рует с обыденным образом науки в популярных изданиях. Причина кроется в «доминантной модели» популяризации нау6 ки: «Наука производит настоящее знание, но оно слишком сложно для широкого понимания. Отсюда и роль медиаторов, переводящих настоящее научное знание в упрощенные вер6 сии для общего потребления. Однако с точки зрения науки вся6 кое упрощение есть искажение. Поэтому популяризация явля6 ется неизбежным злом и ею не следует заниматься работаю6 щим ученым, еще занятым продуктивным исследованием. Научная культура демотивирует ученого в его попытках медиа6 ции и указывает ему на то, как следует осуществлять популя6 ризацию, если он занялся ею. Популяризация загрязняет сфе6

11

È.Ò. ÊÀÑÀÂÈÍ

ру чистого исследования» [Sismondo, 2010:170] и представля6 ет собой «фабрику невежества» (manufacture of ignorance). И все же популяризация науки оказывает обратное влия6 ние на научное исследование. Популярные тексты влияют на науку, потому что едва ли не бо´льшая часть их читателей – это люди, имеющие некоторое отношение к науке. Даже в рамках специальных областей знания статьи цитируются тем чаще, чем больше об этих достижениях пишут в газетах. На деле ме6 жду реальной и популярной наукой существует не разрыв, а континуум, пусть ученые это и отрицают. Сисмондо приво6 дит следующий характерный пример. В 1980–19906х гг. ряд астрономов пропагандировал идею о том, что крупные асте6 роиды представляют существенную угрозу для Земли. Разви6 тие этой идеи в науке было воспринято в культуре и искусстве и привело к созданию соответствующих романов и фильмов. Это в свою очередь сформировало тот самый нарратив, в ко6 тором космическое ядерное оружие служит героическому спасению нашей планеты. А отсюда уже пришло обоснование для разработки ядерного оружия и милитаризации космоса для охраны Земли от астероидов. Итак, поисковое исследование, прикладные разработки и популяризация науки представляют собой звенья одной системы в рамках общественного бытия науки.

Наука как общественное благо С. Фуллер критикует философско6научную ортодоксию [Fuller, 2007], которая онтологизировала стандартную кон6 цепцию науки и посадила на трон научных экспертов – обла6 дателей подлинного знания. Но их авторитет сталкивается в информационном обществе с феноменом распределенно6 го знания (distributed knowledge): только сообщество в целом обладает максимальным знанием и потому способно прини6 мать сбалансированные решения. Мнением налогоплатель6 щика, электората, «человека с улицы» (А. Шюц) не только нельзя пренебречь: оно выходит на авансцену в обществе массового высшего образования, поисковых машин и соци6 альных сетей. И этот же человек имеет право на знание, кото6 рое государство должно обеспечить. Защиту «когнитивной демократии» призван взять на себя «публичный интеллектуал», в котором сливаются воедино по6 литика, философия и наука; его Фуллер противопоставляет «академику» как камерному университетскому профессору

12

ÊÀÊ ÂÎÇÌÎÆÍÀ ÏÎËÈÒÈ×ÅÑÊÀß ÔÈËÎÑÎÔÈß ÍÀÓÊÈ?

[Fuller, 2009]. Время последнего с его системами и трактатами истекло: наступает эпоха, когда нужно живо откликаться на ак6 туальную повестку и самому задавать ее, будируя обществен6 ное мнение интеллектуальными скандалами и памфлетами. Однако не стоит удивляться, когда значительная категория философов и ученых отвергнет такую стратегию. Уж больно она напоминает Дезиньори с его «фельетонным стилем» из ро6 мана Г. Гессе «Игра в бисер». Традиционный образ профессо6 ра вкупе с идеей независимого университета еще далеко не изжит в сознании ученых, потому что фиксирует нечто, сущест6 венно отличающее науку от других форм культуры. В чем же особенность науки как формы сознания, типа деятельности и способа коммуникации? Чтобы политика за6 щиты науки была оправдана, последняя должна иметь dif6 ferentia specifica. Чтобы играть какую6то политическую роль, наука не может не иметь определенной автономии. Послед6 няя востребована в тех случаях, когда нужны новые решения в нестандартных ситуациях. То, что атомный проект нереали6 зуем без выдающихся физиков, понимал даже Сталин. Иначе бы Л. Ландау, арестованный в 1938 г. за реальную борьбу с режимом, не получил бы уже в 1946 г. Сталинской премии. Приходится признать, что специальные знания производятся именно благодаря систематической деятельности ученого, а не фрагментарному интересу дилетанта; в лаборатории, а не на площади; в науке, а не в фейсбуке. Специальные зна6 ния выполняют важную социальную функцию: они фрагмен6 тируют общество, разделяют его на более знающих и менее знающих, создают когнитивные диссонансы, побуждают к проблематизации статус6кво, содержат проекты развития. Тоталитарный режим уничтожает ученых, добиваясь когни6 тивной гомогенности, чем создает условия социальной одно6 родности, делающей протест невозможным. Вплоть до XIX в. европейское общество колебалось между безразличием, недоверием и враждебностью к науке, с одной стороны, и растущим интересом к ней – с другой. Затем почти два века подряд идея науки захватила широкие массы, сли6 лась с идеей техники и университетское образование стало в итоге обычным явлением. В настоящий момент возникает впечатление, что общество пресытилось научным знанием и убедило себя в том, что для благополучной жизни достаточ6 но и его технических приложений. Должно ли тогда прави6 тельство посвящать часть своих ресурсов финансированию фундаментальных исследований? С точки зрения экономики, полагает М. Каллон, наука как таковая является не бизнесом,

13

È.Ò. ÊÀÑÀÂÈÍ

а общественным благом и по этой причине она должна быть защищена от рыночных сил. Однако это требует полного пе6 ресмотра наших привычных способов мышления об общест6 венном благе как о том, что основано на идеале, финансиру6 ется по остаточному принципу и делится на всех поровну. «Наука является общественным благом, но отнюдь не по при6 чине своих внутренних качеств, а лишь потому, что она есть источник социального разнообразия и изменчивости» [Cal6 lon, 1994: 418], – заключает Каллон. Общественное благо – это особая социальная функция.

Итоги В политической проблематике философии науки можно выделить три основные линии: утверждение автономности и политической нейтральности науки как общественного блага в соответствии с гумбольдтовской идеей университета; наука как политический актор в системе свободной конкуренции: эксперты и публичные интеллектуалы как «пятая власть»; наука на службе государства и бизнеса для создания естественных и социальных технологий. Как представляется, это деление соответствует трем основным социальным функциям науки: генерированию природной и социальной картин мира; экспер6 тизе техносоциальных проектов; эпистемическому обеспече6 нию технологического развития. Баланс этих функций – почти недостижимое искусство научной политики. Пренебрежение одной из них в пользу другой превращает науку в глобальную и неразрешимую социальную проблему со всей совокупно6 стью непредсказуемых и драматических последствий.

Библиографический список Bloor, 1976 – Bloor D. Knowledge and Social Imagery. Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 1976. Bourdieu, 1975 – Bourdieu P. La spe´cificite´ du champ scientifique et les conditions sociales du progrÙs de la raison // Sociologie et societies. 1975. Vol. 7, ¹ 1, May. P. 91–118. Bourdieu, 1984 – Bourdieu P. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste PDF. Harvard University Press, 1984. P. 5, 41. Callon, 1994 – Callon M. Is Science a Public Good: Fifth Mullins Lecture. Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 23 March 1993 // Science, Technology, and Human Values. 1994. Vol. 19, ¹ 4. Callon, 1999 – Callon M. The Role of lay People in the Production and Dissemination of Scientific Knowledge // Science, Technology, and Society. 1999. Vol. 4, ¹ 1. P. 81–94.

14

ÊÀÊ ÂÎÇÌÎÆÍÀ ÏÎËÈÒÈ×ÅÑÊÀß ÔÈËÎÑÎÔÈß ÍÀÓÊÈ?

Bourdieu, 1975 – Bourdieu P. La spe´cificite´ du champ scientifique et les conditions sociales du progrÙs de la raison // Sociologie et societies. 1975. Vol. 7, ¹ 1, May. P. 91–118. Bourdieu, 1984 – Bourdieu P. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste PDF. Harvard University Press, 1984. P. 5, 41. Callon, 1994 – Callon M. Is Science a Public Good: Fifth Mullins Lecture. Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 23 March 1993 // Science, Technology, and Human Values. 1994. Vol. 19, ¹ 4. Callon, 1999 – Callon M. The Role of lay People in the Production and Dissemination of Scientific Knowledge // Science, Technology, and Society. 1999. Vol. 4, ¹ 1. P. 81–94. Callon, 2002 – Callon M. From Science as an Economic Activity to Socioeconomics of Scientific Research. The Dynamics of Emergent and Consolidated Techno-economic Networks // P. Mirowski, E. Sent, (eds.). Science Bought and Sold. Essays on the Economics of Science. Chicago ; L. : The University of Chicago Press, 2002. P. 277–317. Fuller, 2007 – Fuller S. New Frontiers in Science and Technology Studies. N.Y. : Polity Press, 2007. Fuller, 2009 – Fuller S. The Sociology of Intellectual Life. L. : Sage, 2009. Hackett, 2014 – Hackett E. Academic Capitalism // Science, Technology and Human Values. 2014. Vol. 39, ¹ 5. Hottois, 1997 – Hottois G. La philosophie des technosciences. Abidjan : Presses des Universite´s de Côte d’Ivoire, 1997. Ihde, Selinger, 2003 – Ihde D., Selinger E. Chasing Technoscience: Matrix for Materiality. Bloomington : Indiana University Press, 2003. Lakatos, Musgrave, 1970 – Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge ; I. Lakatos, A. Musgrave (eds). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1970. Latour, 1983 – Latour B. Give Me a Laboratory and I Will Raise the World // Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science ; K.D. Knorr-Cetina and M. Mulkay (eds). L. : Sage, 1983. Pitt, 2000 – Pitt J. Thinking about Technology. N.Y. : Seven Bridges Press, 2000. Rouse, 1987 – Rouse J. Knowledge and Power: Towards a Political Philosophy of Science. Ithaca : Cornell University Press, 1987. Shapin, 1991 – Shapin S. The Mind is Its Own Place: Science and Solitude in Seventeenth-Century England // Science in Context. 1991. ¹ 4. P. 191–218. Sismondo, 2010 – Sismondo S. An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. Chichester : Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. P. 189–204.

15

EPISTEMOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE · 2015 · Ò. XLV · ¹ 3

Н

ОМОТЕТИЧЕСКОЕ ПОЗНАНИЕ В ОБЩЕСТВЕННЫХ

И ГУМАНИТАРНЫХ НАУКАХ Карен Хачикович Момджян – доктор фи лософских наук, про фессор, заведующий кафедрой социальной философии и филосо фии истории философ ского факультета МГУ им. М.В. Ломоносова. Email: [email protected]

N

В своей статье К.Х. Момджян предлагает аргументы в защиту номотетического по знания в обществознании и приводит доводы против сужения возможностей тако го познания. Необходимость номотетических процедур автор связывает с сущест вованием объективных, необходимых и универсально повторяющихся связей об щественной жизни, превращающих ее в законосообразный процесс, несмотря на наличие свободной человеческой воли. А.Ю. Антоновский, А.А. Аргамакова, В.С. Кржевов, А.Л. Никифоров выдвигают контраргументы, указывают на трудности в интерпретации социальногуманитар ного знания как номотетического, на неприменимость схемы классификации со временных дисциплин посредством схемы номотетическое–идеографическое, ут верждают, что установка на использование разных методов постижения «при роды» и «культуры» влечет ряд противоречий и затруднений и практически неисполнима. Ключевые слова: социальная теория, номотетический метод, свобода воли, ценности, социальная динамика, закономерности общественного развития.

OMOTHETIC COGNITION IN SOCIAL SCIENCES

AND THE HUMANITIES Karen Momdzhyan – prof., Lomonosov Moscow State University, Faculty of Philosophy, Department of Social Philosophy and Philosophy of History.

In his paper Karen Momdzhyan defends the approach according to which the character of social and human sciences is about nomothetic. The author connects the need for nomothetic procedures with the existence of objective, necessary and universally recurring relations of social life, which turn it into a lawgoverned process in spite of the existence of free human will. He builds his argument on the scheme of the nomothetic cognition vs. the ideographic cognition. The nomothetic cognition searches for what is most general and common behind various events whereas the ideographic cognition concentrates on the analysis of what is particular. He argues against the postmodernist attempts to introduce only ideographic research paradigm into cultural and human studies. Key words: social theory, nomothetic method, free will, values, social dynamics, regularities of social development.

Íàïîìíþ, ÷òî òåðìèí «íîìîòåòè÷åñêèé» çàêðåïèëñÿ â ôèëîñîôèè áëàãîäàðÿ Âèëüãåëüìó Âèíäåëüáàíäó, êîòîðûé ïðåäëîæèë êëàññèôèöèðîâàòü íàóêè íå òîëüêî ïî îáúåêòó, íî è ïî «ôîðìàëüíîìó õàðàêòåðó èõ ïîçíàâàòåëüíûõ öåëåé» è ðàçäåëèë èõ íà íîìîòåòè÷åñêèå è èäåîãðàôè÷åñêèå. Íîìîòåòè÷åñêîå ïîçíàíèå îðèåíòèðîâàíî íà ïîèñê îáùåãî, îíî èùåò óñòîé÷èâûå, âîñïðîèçâîäèìûå è ïîâòîðÿþùèåñÿ ñâÿçè ìåæäó ÿâëåíèÿìè è óñòàíàâëèâàåò òåì ñàìûì îíòîëîãè÷åñêèå çàêîíû, êîòîðûì ýòè ÿâëåíèÿ ïîä÷èíÿþòñÿ. Èäåîãðàôè÷åñêîå ïîçíàíèå, íàïðîòèâ, îðèåíòèðîâàíî íà àíàëèç åäèíè÷íîãî è îäíîêðàòíîãî. Îíî èçó÷àåò íå ÿâëåíèÿ, à ñîáûòèÿ, èùåò íå çàêîíû, à íå-

16

Panel Discussion

ÍÎÌÎÒÅÒÈ×ÅÑÊÎÅ ÏÎÇÍÀÍÈÅ

êîòîðûå ñèòóàòèâíûå çàêîíîìåðíîñòè, ò.å. íåñëó÷àéíûå ñâÿçè ìåæäó ïîðîæäàþùåé ïðè÷èíîé è ïîðîæäåííûì ñëåäñòâèåì, ëèøåííûå àòðèáóòà ïîâòîðÿåìîñòè. Äîëãîå âðåìÿ â åâðîïåéñêîì ñîçíàíèè èìåííî íîìîòåòè÷åñêîå ìûøëåíèå ñ÷èòàëîñü ãëàâíûì è èñêëþ÷èòåëüíûì àòðèáóòîì íàó÷íîñòè (íà ýòîì îñíîâàíèè èñòîðè÷åñêîìó ïîçíàíèþ îòêàçûâàëè â ñòàòóñå íàóêè ïîòîìó, ÷òî îíî îáðàùåíî íà åäèíè÷íîå è îäíîêðàòíîå è íå ñïîñîáíî âîñïàðèòü ê ïîçíàíèþ îáùåãî). Ïîçäíåå óñèëèÿìè íåîêàíòèàíöåâ áûëî ïðèçíàíî, ÷òî íàóêà ìîæåò îñòàâàòüñÿ íàóêîé è òîãäà, êîãäà îíà ðåøàåò íîìîòåòè÷åñêèå çàäà÷è, è òîãäà, êîãäà îíà îáñóæäàåò ïðîáëåìû èäåîãðàôè÷åñêèå. Íà ýòîì îñíîâàíèè áûëà ðåàáèëèòèðîâàíà èñòîðèÿ, ïðèçíàííàÿ íàóêîé, íåñìîòðÿ íà òî ÷òî ñóæäåíèÿ î çàêîíàõ èñòîðèè Ðèêêåðò óïîäîáëÿë ñóæäåíèÿì î «äåðåâÿííîì æåëåçå» [Ðèêêåðò, 1902]. Áûëî äîêàçàíî, ÷òî èäåîãðàôè÷åñêèé ìåòîä íå èñêëþ÷àåò ïîèñêîâ âåðèôèöèðóåìîé èñòèíû è ìîæåò ïðèìåíÿòüñÿ íå òîëüêî «íàóêàìè î êóëüòóðå», íî è «íàóêàìè î ïðèðîäå». Êàê ãîâîðèë Âèíäåëüáàíä, áèîëîã èñïîëüçóåò íîìîòåòè÷åñêèé ìåòîä, êîãäà èçó÷àåò çàêîíû æèâîé ïðèðîäû, è èäåîãðàôè÷åñêèé ìåòîä, êîãäà èçó÷àåò èñòîðèþ åå ñòàíîâëåíèÿ. Ýòîò ïàðèòåò íîìîòåòè÷åñêîãî è èäåîãðàôè÷åñêîãî ïîäõîäîâ ïîïûòàëèñü íàðóøèòü ïðåäñòàâèòåëè ñîâðåìåííîãî ïîñòìîäåðíèçìà, ïðåäïðèíÿâøèå òèòàíè÷åñêèå óñèëèÿ, ÷òîáû ïåðåîðèåíòèðîâàòü êàê ìèíèìóì îáùåñòâîçíàíèå è ãóìàíèòàðèñòèêó íà ðåøåíèå èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî èäåîãðàôè÷åñêèõ çàäà÷. Âñå ýòî ñîïðîâîæäàåòñÿ ïîïûòêàìè äèñêðåäèòèðîâàòü íîìîòåòè÷åñêèé ïîäõîä ïîä ôëàãîì áîðüáû ñ ìåòàôèçèêîé, ôîðìàìè êîòîðîé ñ÷èòàþò óíèâåðñàëèçì, ëîãîöåíòðèçì è äðóãèå «ìàñêè äîãìàòèçìà». Îáùåñòâîâåäîâ ïðèçûâàþò îòêàçàòüñÿ îò ýññåíöèàëèñòñêîé ñòðàòåãèè ïîçíàíèÿ è çàìåíèòü ïîèñê «ìåðòâÿùåé âñåîáùíîñòè» íà ðàññìîòðåíèå åäèíè÷íîãî è óíèêàëüíîãî â îáùåñòâåííîé æèçíè. Ê ñ÷àñòüþ, ñòîðîííèêîâ ýòîé ðàçðóøèòåëüíîé èäåè â Åâðîïå ñòàíîâèòñÿ âñå ìåíüøå, íî â Ðîññèè èõ, âèäèìî, íåìàëî (âî âñÿêîì ñëó÷àå ïðîòèâíèê íîìîòåòè÷åñêîé òðàäèöèè â ñîöèàëüíîé ôèëîñîôèè è îáùåé ñîöèîëîãèè, êðèòèêóÿ ìîþ òî÷êó çðåíèÿ, èìåë ñìåëîñòü íàçâàòü ìåíÿ «ïîñëåäíèì èç ìîãèêàí») [Ãðèöàíîâ, 2010]. Êàêèå æå àðãóìåíòû ïðèâîäÿò â ïîëåìèêå ñ íîìîòåòè÷åñêîé ïàðàäèãìîé? Äàâíî è õîðîøî èçâåñòíûå. Ìû âñå ïðåêðàñíî ïîíèìàåì, ÷òî ãëàâíîé ïðè÷èíîé, êîòîðàÿ çàñòàâëÿåò ñîìíåâàòüñÿ â âîçìîæíîñòÿõ íîìîòåòè÷åñêîãî ïîçíàíèÿ â îáùåñòâîçíàíèè, ÿâëÿåòñÿ ñóáñòàíöèàëüíàÿ ñïåöèôèêà ñîöèàëüíîé ðåàëüíîñòè, êà÷åñòâåííî îòëè÷íîé îò ðåàëüíîñòè ïðèðîäíîé. Ýòà ñïåöèôèêà ñâÿçàíà ñ òåì, ÷òî ëþäè, òâîðÿùèå ñîöèàëüíóþ ðåàëüíîñòü, îòëè÷àþòñÿ îò ôèçè÷åñêèõ òåë è áèîëîãè÷åñêèõ îðãàíèçìîâ íàëè÷èåì ñâîáîäû âîëè – ñïîñîáíîñòè âàðüèðîâàòü ïîâåäåí÷åñêèå ðåàêöèè íà áåçàëüòåðíàòèâíûå âîçäåéñò-

17

Ê.Õ. ÌÎÌÄÆßÍ

âèÿ âíåøíåé è âíóòðåííåé ñðåäû. Ñâîáîäà âîëè – ýòî ñàìîèíäóêöèÿ ÷åëîâå÷åñêîãî ñîçíàíèÿ, ò.å. ñïîñîáíîñòü ïñèõèêè âûðàáàòûâàòü òàêèå èíèöèàëüíûå ôàêòîðû ïîâåäåíèÿ, èñòî÷íèêîì êîòîðûõ ÿâëÿåòñÿ ñàìà ïñèõèêà, à íå âíåøíèå ïî îòíîøåíèþ ê íåé óñëîâèÿ.  îòëè÷èå îò êàêîé-íèáóäü êóðèöû, êîòîðàÿ ðóêîâîäñòâóåòñÿ ïðîñòûì ïðàâèëîì «ãîëîäåí – åøü, ñòðàøíî – áåãè, íàõîäèøüñÿ â ïîëîâîì âîçáóæäåíèè – ïðèñòóïàé ê óõàæèâàíèÿì», ÷åëîâåê ñïîñîáåí äåéñòâîâàòü àëüòåðíàòèâíî, ñâîáîäíî âûáèðàòü öåëè ñâîåãî ïîâåäåíèÿ èñõîäÿ ëèáî èç ýìîöèîíàëüíûõ ïðåäïî÷òåíèé, ëèáî ðàññóäî÷íîãî âëå÷åíèÿ ê ïîëüçå, ëèáî ìîòèâîâ äîëæåíñòâîâàíèÿ. Ìíîãèå ôèëîñîôû ñ÷èòàëè è ñ÷èòàþò, ÷òî íàëè÷èå ó ÷åëîâåêà, íàçâàííîãî È.Ã. Ãåðäåðîì «ïåðâûì âîëüíîîòïóùåííèêîì òâîðåíèÿ», ñïîñîáíîñòè èçáåãàòü ïîâåäåí÷åñêîé ïðåäîïðåäåëåííîñòè âûâîäèò ñîöèàëüíûå äåéñòâèÿ çà ðàìêè ôóíäàìåíòàëüíûõ ïðèíöèïîâ äåòåðìèíèçìà, ñîãëàñíî êîòîðûì îäíè è òå æå ïðè÷èíû ïðè îäíèõ è òåõ æå óñëîâèÿõ ïîðîæäàþò îäíè è òå æå ñëåäñòâèÿ. Çàêîíû ñóùåñòâóþò òàì, ãäå ñíàðÿä, âûïóùåííûé èç ïóøêè, íå ìîæåò ïðîñíóòüñÿ â íåëåòíîì íàñòðîåíèè èëè ñàáîòèðîâàòü ñâîé ïîëåò èç ïàöèôèñòñêèõ ïîáóæäåíèé. Ñâîáîäà âîëè äàåò ÷åëîâåêó âîçìîæíîñòü âåñòè ñåáÿ ïî-ðàçíîìó, ÷òî èñêëþ÷àåò, ïî ìûñëè ïîñòìîäåðíèñòîâ, íàëè÷èå óíèâåðñàëüíûõ è áåçàëüòåðíàòèâíûõ çàêîíîâ ÷åëîâå÷åñêîãî ïîâåäåíèÿ.  ðåçóëüòàòå ñîöèàëüíàÿ ðåàëüíîñòü ïðåäñòàåò êàê ñîâîêóïíîñòü óíèêàëüíûõ è íåïîâòîðèìûõ ñîáûòèé, êà÷åñòâåííî îòëè÷íûõ îò ÿâëåíèé ïðèðîäû, ãäå âàðèàòèâíîñòü ïðîÿâëÿåò ñåáÿ íå êàê èíäèâèäóàëüíîñòü, à êàê «ýêçåìïëÿðíîñòü» åäèíîãî. Ñîîòâåòñòâåííî íàó÷íîå èññëåäîâàíèå ñîöèàëüíûõ ïðîöåññîâ â åãî íîìîòåòè÷åñêîé ôîðìå îáúÿâëÿåòñÿ íåîñóùåñòâèìûì. ß ñ÷èòàþ ýòó ïðåçóìïöèþ ïîâåðõíîñòíîé è íåàäåêâàòíîé. Óáåæäåí â òîì, ÷òî íàëè÷èå ó ëþäåé ñâîáîäíîé âîëè íè÷óòü íå ìåøàåò ñóùåñòâîâàíèþ óíèâåðñàëüíûõ çàêîíîâ ÷åëîâå÷åñêîãî ïîâåäåíèÿ, êîòîðûå äîëæíû áûòü îòêðûòû íîìîòåòè÷åñêèì îáùåñòâîçíàíèåì è èñïîëüçîâàíû îáùåñòâîçíàíèåì èäåîãðàôè÷åñêèì. øòå â ñâîå âðåìÿ ãîâîðèë, ÷òî èñòîðèêè òåðïåòü íå ìîãóò óíèâåðñàëèè, íî íå ìîãóò áåç íèõ îáîéòèñü. Åñëè, îáúÿñíÿÿ óíèêàëüíûå ïðè÷èíû Ôðàíöóçñêîé ðåâîëþöèè, âû íå áóäåòå çíàòü îáùåñîöèîëîãè÷åñêèå çàêîíû «ðåâîëþöèè âîîáùå», âàø àíàëèç åäâà ëè áóäåò óáåäèòåëüíûì. Åäèíè÷íûå è íåïîâòîðèìûå ñîáûòèÿ íå ìîãóò áûòü ðåäóöèðîâàíû áåç îñòàòêà ê ñòîÿùèì çà ýòèìè ñîáûòèÿìè ñòðóêòóðàì – óíèâåðñàëüíûì çàêîíàì îáùåñòâåííîé æèçíè, íî îíè íå ìîãóò áûòü ïîíÿòû áåç îáðàùåíèÿ ê ýòèì ñòðóêòóðàì. Îòêóäà æå áåðóòñÿ óíèâåðñàëüíûå çàêîíû îáùåñòâåííîé æèçíè? Äóìàþ, ÷òî èõ ñóùåñòâîâàíèå îáúÿñíÿåòñÿ äâóìÿ ïðè÷èíàìè.

18

ÍÎÌÎÒÅÒÈ×ÅÑÊÎÅ ÏÎÇÍÀÍÈÅ

Ï å ð â à ÿ – ýòî íàëè÷èå óíèâåðñàëüíûõ çàêîíîâ ÷åëîâå÷åñêîãî ïîâåäåíèÿ, ñóùåñòâåííî îãðàíè÷èâàþùèõ ñâîáîäó âîëè, ìåøàþùèõ åé ïðåâðàòèòüñÿ èç ñâîáîäû â ïðîèçâîë. Íàçîâó íåêîòîðûå èç òàêèõ «äèñöèïëèíèðóþùèõ» ÷åëîâåêà ôàêòîðîâ, îãðàíè÷èâàþùèå åãî âûáîð ïðåäçàäàííûìè âàðèàíòàìè. 1. Íèêàêàÿ ñâîáîäà âîëè íå ïîçâîëÿåò íàì «îòìåíÿòü» îáúåêòèâíûå ïðåäçàäàííûå öåëè ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ, ïðèñóùèå íå òîëüêî ÷åëîâåêó, íî è âñåì æèâûì îðãàíèçìàì, ñïîñîáíûì ê ïîâåäåíèþ. Ðå÷ü èäåò îá èíñòèíêòèâíîì ó æèâîòíûõ è èíñòèíêòîïîäîáíîì ó ÷åëîâåêà (òåðìèí Ìàñëîó) âëå÷åíèè ê ñîõðàíåíèþ ôàêòà è (èëè) êà÷åñòâà æèçíè. Ðå÷ü èäåò î ïðèñóùèõ âñåìó æèâîìó èíôîðìàöèîííûõ èìïóëüñàõ ñàìîñîõðàíåíèÿ, èìåþùèõ äåôèöèåíòíûé èëè áûòèéíûé õàðàêòåð. Âñÿêîå æèâîå ñóùåñòâî ñòðåìèòñÿ îáåñïå÷èòü ñâîå áèîëîãè÷åñêîå âûæèâàíèå è îäíîâðåìåííî ñäåëàòü åãî êîìôîðòíûì, ìèíèìèçèðóÿ ñòðàäàíèÿ è ìàêñèìèçèðóÿ óäîâîëüñòâèÿ (â øèðîêîì ïîíèìàíèè óäîâîëüñòâèÿ). Êîíå÷íî, ìû äîëæíû ó÷åñòü, ÷òî â ñèòóàöèÿõ, êîòîðûå ýêçèñòåíöèàëèñòû íàçûâàþò «ïîãðàíè÷íûìè», êîãäà íåëüçÿ îäíîâðåìåííî ñîõðàíÿòü è ôàêò, è êà÷åñòâî æèçíè, ÷åëîâåê ñïîñîáåí ïðåäïî÷åñòü êà÷åñòâî ôàêòó, ò.å. îòêàçàòüñÿ îò æèçíè, íå ñîîòâåòñòâóþùåé åãî ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿì î äîñòîéíîì ñóùåñòâîâàíèè. Íî ýòó ñïåöèôè÷åñêóþ äëÿ ÷åëîâåêà ñïîñîáíîñòü íå ñëåäóåò òðàêòîâàòü êàê îòêàç îò îáúåêòèâíîãî âèäîñïåöèôè÷åñêîãî èìïóëüñà ê ñàìîñîõðàíåíèþ.  ýòîì ïëàíå áîëüøèíñòâî ñàìîóáèéñòâ åñòü ñëåäñòâèå îáúåêòèâíîãî âëå÷åíèÿ ê ñîõðàíåíèþ êà÷åñòâà æèçíè, êîòîðîå äåéñòâóåò â ñèòóàöèÿõ, êîãäà ñìåðòü ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ ÷åëîâåêó ìåíüøåé èç âîçìîæíûõ óòðàò. 2. Åñëè âàì ïðåäïèñàíî ñòðåìèòüñÿ ê ñîõðàíåíèþ ôàêòà è êà÷åñòâà âàøåé æèçíè, âû íå ìîæåòå èãíîðèðîâàòü óñëîâèÿ, ïðè êîòîðûõ ýòà öåëü ñòàíîâèòñÿ äîñòèæèìîé. Èíûìè ñëîâàìè, âû íå ìîæåòå èãíîðèðîâàòü òàêóþ âàæíåéøóþ äåòåðìèíàíòó ïîâåäåíèÿ, êàêîâîé ÿâëÿåòñÿ ñèñòåìà âèäîñïåöèôè÷åñêèõ è èñòîðè÷åñêè íåèçìåííûõ äëÿ ÷åëîâåêà ïîòðåáíîñòåé. Ïîòðåáíîñòü ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé ñâîéñòâî ñóáúåêòà íóæäàòüñÿ â òîì, áåç ÷åãî æèçíü íåâîçìîæíà èëè íåêîìôîðòíà. Ïîòðåáíîñòè âûñòóïàþò â êà÷åñòâå îáúåêòèâíî-ðåàëüíîãî ôàêòîðà äåÿòåëüíîñòè, ñóùåñòâóþùåãî êàê âíåïñèõè÷åñêàÿ ðåàëüíîñòü, íåçàâèñÿùàÿ îò ÷åëîâå÷åñêîé âîëè. ×òîáû íè äåëàë ÷åëîâåê, îí äåëàåò ýòî ðàäè îäíîé èç ñâîèõ ïîòðåáíîñòåé. Ñâîáîäà âîëè ïîçâîëÿåò ÷åëîâåêó ðàíæèðîâàòü ñâîè ïîòðåáíîñòè, îöåíèâàòü èõ êàê ïåðâîñòåïåííûå è âòîðîñòåïåííûå, ïîäëåæàùèå èëè íå ïîäëåæàùèå óäîâëåòâîðåíèþ. Îäíàêî ñàì ôàêò íàëè÷èÿ ïîòðåáíîñòåé, èõ äåòåðìèíèðóþùåãî âîçäåéñòâèÿ íà ïîâåäåíèå ëþäåé è íåèçáåæíîé ïëàòû çà äåïðèâàöèîííûé âûáîð íèêàê íå çàâèñÿò îò ïðåäïî÷òåíèé ñîöèàëüíîãî ñóáúåêòà.

19

Ê.Õ. ÌÎÌÄÆßÍ

3. Íèêàêàÿ ñâîáîäà âîëè íå ïîçâîëÿåò ëþäÿì èçáåæàòü äåòåðìèíèðóþùåãî âîçäåéñòâèÿ, êîòîðîå îêàçûâàåò íà èõ ïîâåäåíèå òàêîé ôàêòîð, êàê îòëè÷íûå îò ïîòðåáíîñòåé èíòåðåñû. Îíè ïðåäñòàâëÿþò ñîáîé ñâîéñòâî ñóáúåêòà íóæäàòüñÿ â îáúåêòàõ-ìåäèàòîðàõ, íåîáõîäèìûõ äëÿ ñîçäàíèÿ è èñïîëüçîâàíèÿ ïðåäìåòà ïîòðåáíîñòè. Òåîðåòè÷åñêè ìû ìîæåì âûäåëèòü ÷åòûðå òèïà òàêèõ èíòåðåñîâ: îðóäèéíûå èíòåðåñû, ïðåäìåòîì êîòîðûõ ÿâëÿþòñÿ âåùè, ò.å. ïðåäìåòû ïðàêòè÷åñêîãî íàçíà÷åíèÿ, ñ ïîìîùüþ êîòîðûõ ëþäè ôèçè÷åñêè èçìåíÿþò ïðèðîäíóþ è ñîöèàëüíóþ ñðåäó ñâîåãî ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ, à òàêæå ñîáñòâåííîå òåëî; èíôîðìàöèîííûå èíòåðåñû, ïðåäìåòîì êîòîðûõ ÿâëÿþòñÿ çíàêîâûå îáúåêòû, ñ ïîìîùüþ êîòîðûõ ëþäè èçìåíÿþò íå ñàì ìèð, à ñâîè ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ î ìèðå è ñïîñîáàõ ïîâåäåíèÿ â íåì; êîììóíèêàòèâíûå èíòåðåñû, ïðåäìåòîì êîòîðûõ ÿâëÿþòñÿ äðóãèå ëþäè, ðàññìîòðåííûå ñ òî÷êè çðåíèÿ ó÷àñòèÿ (èëè íåó÷àñòèÿ) â îñóùåñòâëÿåìîé äåÿòåëüíîñòè; îðãàíèçàöèîííûå èíòåðåñû, ïðåäìåòîì êîòîðûõ ÿâëÿþòñÿ ñâÿçè è îòíîøåíèÿ ìåæäó ëþäüìè, êîòîðûå äîëæíû ñîçäàâàòüñÿ è ðåãóëèðîâàòüñÿ, ÷òîáû êîëëåêòèâíàÿ äåÿòåëüíîñòü èìåëà óïîðÿäî÷åííûé è ýôôåêòèâíûé õàðàêòåð. Èíòåðåñû îêàçûâàþò ìîùíîå ïðèíóäèòåëüíîå âîçäåéñòâèå íà ÷åëîâå÷åñêîå ñîçíàíèå, î ÷åì ñâèäåòåëüñòâóþò ìíîãî÷èñëåííûå ïðèìåðû òîãî, êàê «èäåÿ» íåèçìåííî ïîñðàìëÿëà ñåáÿ, êàê òîëüêî îíà îòäåëÿëàñü îò «èíòåðåñà» [Ìàðêñ, Ýíãåëüñ, 1955: 89]. Ëþäè ìîãóò íå îñîçíàâàòü ñâîè èíòåðåñû, ïðîèçâîëüíî ðàíæèðîâàòü èõ, íî ýòà «ñâîáîäà» íå ÿâëÿåòñÿ áåçíàêàçàííîé, îíà ñòàâèò ïîä óãðîçó ðåàëèçàöèþ îáúåêòèâíûõ öåëåé ñóøåñòâîâàíèÿ, ñîõðàíåíèå ôàêòà è êà÷åñòâà ÷åëîâå÷åñêîé æèçíè. Íàêîíåö, íèêàêàÿ ñâîáîäà âîëè íå îñâîáîæäàåò íàñ îò äåòåðìèíèðóþùåãî âîçäåéñòâèÿ ñî ñòîðîíû èììàíåíòíûõ ïñèõèêå óñòîé÷èâûõ ìîòèâàöîííûõ èíâàðèàíòîâ, êîòîðûå îñíîâûâàþòñÿ ïðåæäå âñåãî íà îñîçíàííûõ èëè íåîñîçíàííûõ øàáëîíàõ êóëüòóðû, óñâîåííûõ â ïðîöåññå ñîöèàëèçàöèè. Ðå÷ü èäåò î äåòåðìèíèðóþùåì âîçäåéñòâèè îáúåêòèâèðîâàííûõ ôîðì èíòåðñóáúåêòèâíîãî ñîçíàíèÿ íà «æèâîå» ñîçíàíèå ÷åëîâå÷åñêèõ èíäèâèäîâ, ÷òî ïðèâîäèò ê ñóùåñòâåííîé óíèôèêàöèè çíàíèé, ìíåíèé, ïðåäïî÷òåíèé è äðóãèõ ïñèõè÷åñêèõ ðåàêöèé. ×åëîâåê, êîòîðîìó íðàâÿòñÿ ñòðîéíûå è äëèííîíîãèå äåâóøêè, äîëæåí ïîìíèòü î òîì, ÷òî åñëè áû îí æèë â ýïîõó Ðóáåíñà, åãî ïðåäïî÷òåíèÿ áûëè áû ñóùåñòâåííî èíûìè.  ðåçóëüòàòå ñîâîêóïíîãî äåéñòâèÿ íàçâàííûõ äåòåðìèíàöèîííûõ ôàêòîðîâ îáëàñòü íåïðåäñêàçóåìîãî äëÿ ñîöèàëüíûõ è ãóìàíèòàðíûõ íàóê îãðàíè÷èâàåòñÿ âàæíûìè äëÿ ÷åëîâåêà, íî íå äëÿ îáùåñòâà ëè÷íîñòíî-èíäèâèäóàëüíûìè ðåàêöèÿìè. Âèíäåëüáàíä ïðàâ: èíäèâèäóàëüíàÿ ñâîáîäà êàê «ïîñëåäíÿÿ è ãëóáî÷àéøàÿ ñóùíîñòü ëè÷íîñòè ïðîòèâèòñÿ àíàëèçó ïîñðåäñòâîì îáùèõ êàòåãîðèé» [Âèíäåëüáàíä, 2007: 351] (õîòÿ ÿ íå ñòàë áû íàçû-

20

ÍÎÌÎÒÅÒÈ×ÅÑÊÎÅ ÏÎÇÍÀÍÈÅ

âàòü ýòó ñâîáîäó «áåñïðè÷èííîñòüþ íàøåãî ñóùåñòâà»). Ýòà îáëàñòü íåïðåäñêàçóåìîãî íå ðàñïðîñòðàíÿåòñÿ íà êîëëåêòèâíîå ïîâåäåíèå ëþäåé, êîòîðîå ïîä÷èíÿåòñÿ îáúåêòèâíûì ñòàòèñòè÷åñêèì çàêîíàì, íèâåëèðóþùèì èíäèâèäóàëüíóþ âàðèàòèâíîñòü.  ò î ð à ÿ ïðè÷èíà ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ îáúåêòèâíûõ çàêîíîâ îáùåñòâåííîé æèçíè ñîñòîèò â òîì, ÷òî ñîöèàëüíàÿ ðåàëüíîñòü âêëþ÷àåò â ñåáÿ íå òîëüêî öåëåíàïðàâëåííûå ÷åëîâå÷åñêèå äåéñòâèÿ, íî è ïîðîæäàåìûå èìè ñîöèàëüíûå ïðîöåññû, êîòîðûå âîçíèêàþò è ðàçâèâàþòñÿ ñïîíòàííî, íåçàâèñèìî îò æåëàíèé è îæèäàíèé ëþäåé. Áóäó÷è ñòèõèéíûìè ïî ñâîåé ïðèðîäå, ýòè ïðîöåññû íå çàâèñÿò îò ñâîáîäíîé ÷åëîâå÷åñêîé âîëè è ïîä÷èíÿþòñÿ çàêîíàì, êîòîðûå íèêàê íå ñâÿçàíû ñ ÷åëîâå÷åñêîé ñóáúåêòèâíîñòüþ. Ïðèìåðîì òàêîãî ðîäà ïðîöåññîâ ìîæåò ñëóæèòü ãåíåçèñ ìíîãèõ ñîöèàëüíûõ ãðóïï, èíñòèòóòîâ è îðãàíèçàöèîííûõ «ôîðì îáùåíèÿ» ëþäåé (ê ïðèìåðó, åâðîïåéñêîãî êàïèòàëèçìà, êîòîðûé â îòëè÷èå îò òåõíè÷åñêèõ èííîâàöèé, ñïîíòàííî ïîðîäèâøèõ åãî, íå ñòðîèëñÿ ïî çàðàíåå ïðîäóìàííîìó «àâòîðñêîìó» ïëàíó). Äðóãèì ïðèìåðîì ïîäîáíûõ ïðîöåññîâ ìîæåò ñëóæèòü ñòàíîâëåíèå ñîâðåìåííîé ýêîíîìè÷åñêîé ãëîáàëèçàöèè (íå ïóòàòü ñ ãëîáàëèçìîì êàê ïîëèòè÷åñêîé äîêòðèíîé). Î÷åâèäíî, ÷òî àíàëèç òàêèõ ïðîöåññîâ, íå çàâèñÿùèõ îò ÷åëîâå÷åñêîé ñóáúåêòèâíîñòè, ìàëî ÷åì îòëè÷àåòñÿ îò àíàëèçà ïðèðîäíûõ ôåíîìåíîâ. Èìåííî ýòî äåëàåò âîçìîæíûì èñïîëüçîâàòü â îáùåñòâåííûõ íàóêàõ (ïðåæäå âñåãî â ýêîíîìè÷åñêèõ äèñöèïëèíàõ) ìåòîäû ñèíåðãåòèêè, ìàòåìàòè÷åñêîãî ìîäåëèðîâàíèÿ è ïðî÷. Ïðîòèâíèêè íîìîòåòè÷åñêîé ïàðàäèãìû ñ÷èòàþò, ÷òî íîìîòåòè÷åñêîå íàó÷íîå ìûøëåíèå â îáùåñòâîçíàíèè íåâîçìîæíî â ñèëó íå òîëüêî îòñóòñòâèÿ óíèâåðñàëüíûõ çàêîíîâ îáùåñòâåííîé æèçíè, íî è íåâîçìîæíîñòè îáðåòåíèÿ ÷åëîâåêîì îáúåêòèâíî-èñòèííîãî çíàíèÿ. Ðå÷ü èäåò î íåèçáåæíîé âîâëå÷åííîñòè ó÷åíîãî â ïðîöåññû, êîòîðûå îí ñòðåìèòñÿ îáúÿñíèòü. Ïîäîáíîå âçàèìîïðîíèêíîâåíèå ñóáúåêòà è îáúåêòà ïîçíàíèÿ âûçûâàåò ó íåêîòîðûõ ôèëîñîôîâ ñîìíåíèÿ â ñïîñîáíîñòè ëþäåé ïðåîäîëåâàòü ñâîþ àíãàæèðîâàííîñòü, ïîíèìàòü ñîöèàëüíóþ ðåàëüíîñòü â ñîáñòâåííîé ëîãèêå åå ðàçâèòèÿ, èñêàòü îáúåêòèâíóþ èñòèíó, íå çàâèñÿùóþ îò öåííîñòíûõ ïðåäïî÷òåíèé èññëåäîâàòåëÿ. Ãëóáîêî óáåæäåí, ÷òî öåííîñòíîå îòíîøåíèå ê ìèðó, íåèçáåæíîå äëÿ ÷åëîâåêà, íå äîëæíî òðàêòîâàòüñÿ êàê àñòðîíîìè÷åñêè íåïðåëîæíàÿ îáðå÷åííîñòü íà ñóáúåêòèâèçì. Ïîëàãàþ, ÷òî òàêàÿ òðàêòîâêà íå òîëüêî îøèáî÷íà, íî è îñêîðáèòåëüíà äëÿ äîñòîèíñòâà ó÷åíîãî, ñïîñîáíîãî îñîçíàâàòü ñâîè ãðàæäàíñêèå ïðåäïî÷òåíèÿ è ñîçíàòåëüíî áëîêèðîâàòü èõ âîçäåéñòâèå íà ðåçóëüòàòû íàó÷íîãî ïîèñêà. Ñïîñîáû òàêîãî êîíòðîëÿ õîðîøî îïèñàíû Ìàêñîì Âåáåðîì, êîòîðûé ïðåäëàãàë ó÷åíîìó îòëè÷àòü ñâîè ìíåíèÿ (ñóáúåêòèâíûå öåííîñòíûå ïðåäïî÷òåíèÿ, êîòîðûå àïðèîðè íå ìîãóò áûòü èñòèííûìè èëè ëîæ-

21

Ê.Õ. ÌÎÌÄÆßÍ

íûìè) îò ñâîèõ çíàíèé (êîòîðûå îñíîâàíû íà âåðèôèöèðóåìûõ ñóæäåíèÿõ èñòèíû). Ñïîñîáíîñòü îòëè÷àòü ìíåíèÿ îò çíàíèé Âåáåð èìåíîâàë «ïðèíöèïîì èíòåëëåêòóàëüíîé ÷åñòíîñòè», êîòîðûì äîëæåí ðóêîâîäñòâîâàòüñÿ ëþáîé óâàæàþùèé ñåáÿ îáùåñòâîâåä èëè ãóìàíèòàðèé.  çàâåðøåíèå õî÷ó ñêàçàòü, ÷òî âîçìîæíîñòü ñòðîãîãî íîìîòåòè÷åñêîãî ïîçíàíèÿ ñîöèàëüíûõ ïðîöåññîâ íå îçíà÷àåò, ÷òî ïîäîáíûé ñïîñîá óñòàíîâëåíèÿ èñòèíû ïðèìåíèì ê ëþáûì âèäàì îáùåñòâîçíàíèÿ è ãóìàíèòàðèñòèêè. Áûëî áû íàèâíî îæèäàòü ïðÿìûõ àíàëîãèé ñ åñòåñòâîçíàíèåì â òàêèõ îáëàñòÿõ, êàê ëèòåðàòóðîâåäåíèå èëè èñòîðèîãðàôèÿ, ãäå ïðèìåíÿþòñÿ àëüòåðíàòèâíûå ïðîöåäóðû ãåðìåíåâòè÷åñêîãî â÷óâñòâîâàíèÿ â ìîòèâû ÷åëîâå÷åñêîãî ïîâåäåíèÿ. Íî áûëî áû ñåðüåçíîé îøèáêîé ðàñïðîñòðàíÿòü îãðàíè÷åíèÿ, ñ êîòîðûìè ñòàëêèâàþòñÿ ïîäîáíûå èíòåðïðåòàöèîííûå äèñöèïëèíû, íà îáùåñòâîçíàíèå â öåëîì, êàê ýòî äåëàþò íåêîòîðûå ñòîðîííèêè ïîñòìîäåðíèçìà, ïðèçûâàþùèå ñîöèàëüíóþ íàóêó îòêàçàòüñÿ îò ýññåíöèàëèñòñêîé ñòðàòåãèè ïîçíàíèÿ. Ïîñëåäîâàòåëüíî ïðîâåäåííûé, òàêîé ïîäõîä ïîãóáèò îáùåñòâîçíàíèå, ïîìåøàåò åìó èãðàòü âàæíåéøóþ îðèåíòàöèîííóþ ðîëü, îáåñïå÷èâàÿ óñïåøíóþ àäàïòàöèþ ÷åëîâå÷åñòâà ê ïîñòîÿííî ìåíÿþùèìñÿ óñëîâèÿì æèçíè. Ýòà ðîëü îñîáî âîçðàñòàåò â ñîâðåìåííóþ ýïîõó, êîãäà ðàçâåÿëàñü íàèâíàÿ óâåðåííîñòü â óæå íàñòóïèâøåì «êîíöå èñòîðèè», êîãäà ÷åëîâå÷åñòâî âíîâü âñòóïàåò â ïîëîñó êðèçèñà, ÷ðåâàòîãî «íåãàðàíòèðîâàííûìè èñõîäàìè».

Библиографический список Âèíäåëüáàíä, 2007 – Âèíäåëüáàíä Â. Ïðåëþäèè. Ì., 2007. Ãðèöàíîâ, 2010 – Ãðèöàíîâ À.À. Ïîñëåäíèé èç ìîãèêàí (çàìåòêè î ñòàòüÿõ Ê.Õ. Ìîìäæÿíà) // Ëè÷íîñòü. Êóëüòóðà. Îáùåñòâî. 2010. Ò. 12, âûï. 2. Ìàðêñ, Ýíãåëüñ, 1955 – Ìàðêñ Ê., Ýíãåëüñ. Ô. Ñâÿòîå ñåìåéñòâî, èëè Êðèòèêà êðèòè÷åñêîé êðèòèêè ïðîòèâ Áðóíî Áàóýðà è êîìïàíèè // Ê. Ìàðêñ, Ô. Ýíãåëüñ. Ñî÷. 2-å èçä. Ò. 2. Ì., 1955. Ðèêêåðò, 1902 – Ðèêêåðò Ã. Ãðàíèöû åñòåñòâåííî-íàó÷íîãî îáðàçîâàíèÿ ïîíÿòèé. Ì., 1902.

22

EPISTEMOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE · 2015 · Ò. XLV · ¹ 3

К

ВОПРОСУ О СПЕЦИФИКЕ МЕТОДОВ

ОБЩЕСТВОЗНАНИЯ

Владимир Сергеевич Кржевов – кандидат философских наук, доцент кафедры социаль ной философии и философии истории МГУ им. М.В. Ломоносова. Email: [email protected]

Vladimir Krzhevov – PhD, Associated professor, departament of social philosophy and philosophy of history, Faculty of Philosophy, Lomonosov Moscow State University.

O

N THE SPECIFIC CHARACTER OF THE METHODS

OF SOCIAL SCIENCES  öåëîì ñîãëàøàÿñü ñ çàÿâëåííîé â ñòàòüå Ê.Õ. Ìîìäæÿíà ïîñòàíîâêîé ïðîáëåìû è îñíîâíûìè àðãóìåíòàìè â îáîñíîâàíèå åå ðåøåíèÿ, âñå æå õîòåëîñü áû óòî÷íèòü ðÿä âàæíûõ ìîìåíòîâ. Ïðåæäå âñåãî ýòî âîïðîñ îá èñòîêàõ äèñêóññèè, ïîñâÿùåííîé îñíîâíûì òèïàì ìåòîäîëîãèè íàó÷íîãî èññëåäîâàíèÿ â ðàçíûõ îáëàñòÿõ ÷åëîâå÷åñêîãî çíàíèÿ [Ðîçîâ, 2008]. Äåëî â òîì, ÷òî, ñîîáðàçóÿñü ñî ñâîèì ïîíèìàíèåì ïðèíöèïîâ ôîðìèðîâàíèÿ íàó÷íîãî çíàíèÿ, íåîêàíòèàíöû, â ÷àñòíîñòè, ðåçêî êðèòè÷åñêè îöåíèâàëè ïîïûòêè ïîçèòèâèñòîâ ðàçðàáîòàòü îñíîâû «ñîöèàëüíîé ôèçèêè». Âàæíåéøèì äîâîäîì ñëóæèëî ïîëîæåíèå î çàâåäîìîé íåàäåêâàòíîñòè ìåòîäîëîãèè åñòåñòâåííûõ íàóê â èññëåäîâàíèè «äåéñòâèòåëüíîñòè êàê êóëüòóðû» (â ñàìîì îáùåì ïëàíå ýòîò ïîäõîä ñëåäîâàë â ðóñëå, çàäàííîì íà÷àëàìè ôèëîñîôèè È. Êàíòà, òðåáîâàâøåé ïîñëåäîâàòåëüíîãî ðàçâåäåíèÿ ñôåð êîìïåòåíöèè «÷èñòîãî» è «ïðàêòè÷åñêîãî» ðàçóìà) [Ðèêêåðò, 1997]. Ñîîòâåòñòâåííî ïðåäëîæåííàÿ íåîêàíòèàíöàìè òðàêòîâêà íîìîòåòè÷åñêîãî è èäåîãðàôè÷åñêîãî ìåòîäîâ áûëà îáóñëîâëåíà íå îäíèì òîëüêî ñòðåìëåíèåì äîêàçàòü ïðàâîìåðíîñòü ïðèìåíåíèÿ èäåîãðàôè÷åñêîãî ìåòîäà â íàó÷íîì ïîñòèæåíèè ìèðà. Ðàçëè÷èå öåëåé òåõ «äâóõ îòäåëüíûõ ðîäîâ ïîçíàâàòåëüíîãî èíòåðåñà», î êîòîðîì øëà ðå÷ü ó Â. Âèíäåëüáàíäà è Ã. Ðèêêåðòà, ñ ñàìîãî íà÷àëà îáîñíîâûâàëîñü ññûëêàìè íà íåêîå îñîáîå êà÷åñòâî òåõ îáúåêòîâ ýòîãî èíòåðåñà, âñå ìíîæåñòâî êîòîðûõ îáíèìàëîñü ïîíÿòèåì «êóëüòóðà». Îäíàêî äàëåå, èñõîäÿ óæå èç äåêëàðèðóåìîé (íî, çàìåòèì, îòíþäü íå î÷åâèäíîé) ïðîòèâîïîëîæíîñòè «ïîíÿòèÿ ïðèðîäû êàê áûòèÿ âåùåé, ïîñêîëüêó îíî îïðåäåëÿåòñÿ îáùèìè çàêîíàìè», è «ïîíÿòèÿ èñòîðèè… ò.å. ïîíÿòèÿ åäèíè÷íîãî áûòèÿ», Ðèêêåðò óòâåðæäàë, ÷òî êàê ðàç â ñèëó ñïåöèôèêè ñïîñîáà âèäåíèÿ «ñâîèõ» îáúåêòîâ «íàóêè î êóëüòóðå» äîëæíû èñïîëüçîâàòü èäåîãðàôè÷åñêèé ìåòîä. Îáîñíîâàíèå ýòîãî òðåáîâàíèÿ ñâÿçûâàëîñü ñ òåì, ÷òî, â î - ï å ð â û õ, «çíà÷åíèå êóëüòóðíîãî ÿâëåíèÿ çàâèñèò òîëüêî îò åãî èíäèâèäóàëüíîé îñîáåííîñòè» è, â î - â ò î -

Panel Discussion

23

Â.Ñ. ÊÐÆÅÂÎÂ

ð û õ, öåííîñòè «ïðèñîåäèíÿþòñÿ ê îáúåêòó» òîëüêî ïîñðåäñòâîì «àêòîâ îöåíèâàíèÿ», ñîâåðøàåìûõ ñóáúåêòîì. Èññëåäîâàíèå ýòèõ àêòîâ è îáóñëîâëåííûõ èìè äåéñòâèé ñîâåðøàåòñÿ èñòîðèêîì ñ èñïîëüçîâàíèåì ìåòîäà «îòíåñåíèÿ ê öåííîñòè». Îäíàêî ïðè ýòîì îãîâàðèâàëîñü, ÷òî èíòåðåñ ó÷åíîãî äîëæåí áûòü îáðàùåí òîëüêî ê òåì ñîáûòèÿì, êîòîðûå çàâåäîìî ðàñöåíèâàþòñÿ èì êàê «âàæíûå è çíà÷èòåëüíûå».  îáùåì ïîòîêå èñòîðè÷åñêîãî áûòèÿ òàêîâûìè ïðèçíàâàëèñü ëèøü òå, ÷òî îïÿòü-òàêè èçâåñòíûì îáðàçîì îòíîñèëèñü ê öåííîñòè: «Òî, ÷òî èíäèôôåðåíòíî ïî îòíîøåíèþ ê öåííîñòè, èñêëþ÷àåòñÿ êàê íåñóùåñòâåííîå» [Ðèêêåðò, 2008]. Ñòðåìÿñü êàê ìîæíî íàäåæíåå îòãîðîäèòü «íàóêè î êóëüòóðå» îò «åñòåñòâîçíàíèÿ», íåîêàíòèàíöû íàñòîé÷èâî ïûòàëèñü ïðîÿñíèòü âñå ýòè, ïðàâäó ñêàçàòü, äîâîëüíî ïóòàíûå óñòàíîâëåíèÿ. Ïóòàíèöà æå ñîçäàâàëàñü òåì, ÷òî «ïðèðîäà» è «êóëüòóðà» ðàññìàòðèâàëèñü òî îíòîëîãè÷åñêè – êàê êà÷åñòâåííî ðàçíûå «ìèðû», òî ýïèñòåìîëîãè÷åñêè – ñ ïîçèöèè ïðèìåíåíèÿ ðàçíûõ ìåòîäîâ èññëåäîâàíèÿ. Âî âòîðîì ñëó÷àå, êàê ñêàçàíî, èìåííî ìåòîä îïðåäåëÿë ñïîñîá âèäåíèÿ îáúåêòîâ, êàêèìè áû îíè íè áûëè. Ïðè ýòîì, ïîâòîðèì åùå ðàç, «êóëüòóðà» âñå æå îïðåäåëÿëàñü èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî îíòîëîãè÷åñêè – êàê «ìèð óíèêàëüíûõ öåííîñòåé», ÷üè îñîáåííîñòè òðåáîâàëè èñïîëüçîâàíèÿ «èäåîãðàôè÷åñêîãî ìåòîäà».  ðàçâèòèå ýòîãî ïîäõîäà áûë ïðåäëîæåí åùå îäèí êðèòåðèé ðàçëè÷åíèÿ äâóõ òèïîâ íàóê. Âñëåä çà Â. Äèëüòååì ïðèíèìàëîñü, ÷òî ðàçíûå îáëàñòè íàó÷íîãî çíàíèÿ ïðåñëåäóþò ñóùåñòâåííî îòëè÷íûå äðóã îò äðóãà öåëè. Òàê, ãëàâíîé çàäà÷åé «íàóê î ïðèðîäå» ïðîâîçãëàøàëñÿ ïîèñê «îáúÿñíåíèÿ» íàáëþäàåìûõ ôåíîìåíîâ. Òàêîâîå äîñòèãàëîñü èõ ïîäâåäåíèåì ïîä ñîîòâåòñòâóþùèé îáùèé çàêîí.  ñâîþ î÷åðåäü «íàóêè î êóëüòóðå», êîëü ñêîðî îíè èçó÷àëè ïîâåäåíèå ìûñëÿùèõ (è îöåíèâàþùèõ) èíäèâèäîâ, èìåëè ñâîåé êîíå÷íîé öåëüþ îáðåñòè «ïîíèìàíèå» ÷åëîâå÷åñêèõ äåéñòâèé. Ïîä÷åðêíåì åùå ðàç, ÷òî ýòè ïîñëåäíèå ìîãëè èçó÷àòüñÿ òàêæå è ñ ïðèìåíåíèåì «íîìîòåòè÷åñêîãî ìåòîäà». Íî òîãäà, ïî ìûñëè Ðèêêåðòà è åãî ïîñëåäîâàòåëåé, òåðÿëàñü ñïåöèôèêà êóëüòóðû, ÷üå êà÷åñòâåííîå ñâîåîáðàçèå, êàê óæå íå ðàç áûëî ñêàçàíî, ñâÿçûâàëîñü èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî ñ ïîíÿòèåì «öåííîñòè». Ñîîáðàçóÿñü ñ ýòèìè ïðàâèëàìè, îñíîâíîå âíèìàíèå ñëåäîâàëî óäåëÿòü ñâÿçè ìåæäó ìîòèâàìè ëþäåé è èõ ïîâåäåíèåì. Òåì ñàìûì ìîòèâàöèÿ ÷åëîâå÷åñêèõ äåéñòâèé ðàññìàòðèâàëàñü êàê ãëàâíàÿ ïðè÷èíà âñåõ èçìåíåíèé â îáùåñòâå è èñòîðèè. «Ñîóäàðåíèå» ìíîæåñòâà óíèêàëüíûõ ïîñòóïêîâ ñîçäàâàëî åäèíóþ öåïü ñîáûòèé, â ñâîèõ çâåíüÿõ è ñî÷ëåíåíèÿõ ïîðîæäàåìóþ âñÿêèé ðàç íåïîâòîðèìîé êîíñòåëëÿöèåé ìíîãèõ è ìíîãèõ ôàêòîðîâ, â ãëàçàõ èñòîðèêà îáëàäàþùèõ òîé èëè èíîé «çíà÷èìîñòüþ»; ýòèì äîïîëíèòåëüíî îáîñíîâûâàëîñü òðåáîâàíèå ïðèìåíÿòü «èäåîãðàôè÷åñêèé ìåòîä». Ðåçóëüòàòîì ñòàíîâèëàñü «ðåêîíñòðóêöèÿ êàóçàëüíûõ ðÿäîâ ñîáûòèé» – ñîçäàâàåìàÿ óñèëèÿìè ó÷åíîãî êàðòèíà (òî÷íåå, íåêèé åå îñîáûì îáðàçîì ñêîíñòðóèðîâàííûé ôðàãìåíò) «èñòîðè÷åñêîé äåéñòâèòåëüíîñòè».

24

Ê ÂÎÏÐÎÑÓ Î ÑÏÅÖÈÔÈÊÅ ÌÅÒÎÄÎÂ ÎÁÙÅÑÒÂÎÇÍÀÍÈß

Âìåñòå ñ òåì Ì. Âåáåð, êàê èçâåñòíî, âïîëíå îïðåäåëåííî îòíîñèë ê ÷èñëó «ïîíèìàþùèõ» íàóê íå òîëüêî èñòîðèþ, íî è ñîöèîëîãèþ, òàêæå ñâîäÿ åå çàäà÷è ê «èñòîëêîâàíèþ» ïîâåäåíèÿ ÷åëîâåêà. Ïî Âåáåðó, êà÷åñòâåííîå ñâîåîáðàçèå îñíîâíîãî îáúåêòà ïîçíàâàòåëüíûõ óñèëèé ó÷åíîãî-ñîöèîëîãà – «ñîöèàëüíîãî äåéñòâèÿ» – îáóñëîâëèâàëîñü ïðåäïîëàãàåìûì íàëè÷èåì â ýòîì ïîñëåäíåì íåêîòîðîãî ñóáúåêòèâíîãî ñìûñëà [Âåáåð, 2006]. Íî ïîñêîëüêó âñå ìíîæåñòâî ñîâåðøàåìûõ ëþäüìè äåéñòâèé íå ïîääàâàëîñü äåòàëüíîìó îïèñàíèþ, â êà÷åñòâå îñíîâíîãî èíñòðóìåíòàðèÿ èññëåäîâàíèÿ ñîöèàëüíîé ðåàëüíîñòè Âåáåð ðàçðàáîòàë òèïîëîãèþ, îñíîâàííóþ íà îáîáùåííûõ õàðàêòåðèñòèêàõ îñíîâíûõ âèäîâ ìîòèâàöèè ÷åëîâå÷åñêîãî ïîâåäåíèÿ. Ñîîòíåñåíèå èçáðàííûõ ïî òåì èëè èíûì îñíîâàíèÿì ýìïèðè÷åñêèõ ôàêòîâ ñ òèïè÷åñêèìè ìîäåëÿìè («èäåàëüíûìè òèïàìè») ñîöèàëüíîãî äåéñòâèÿ, ïî ìûñëè Âåáåðà, êàê ðàç è ïîçâîëÿëî ðåøèòü çàäà÷ó íàó÷íîãî ïîñòèæåíèÿ ñîöèàëüíî-èñòîðè÷åñêèõ ôåíîìåíîâ – «ïîíÿòü» è áëàãîäàðÿ ýòîìó èçâåñòíûì îáðàçîì «èñòîëêîâàòü» íàáëþäàåìûå äåéñòâèÿ. Ïðè ýòîì ïðèíöèïèàëüíî âàæíî, ÷òî â ìåòîäîëîãèè ýòîãî ó÷åíîãî êëþ÷åâóþ ðîëü èãðàëî ïîëîæåíèå î òîì, ÷òî â èñòîðèè ÷åëîâå÷åñòâà èäåéíî-ïîáóäèòåëüíûå ôàêòîðû (íåñîìíåííî, âêëþ÷àþùèå è öåííîñòíûå ïðåäïî÷òåíèÿ) îáðåòàëè ñòàòóñ «íåçàâèñèìîé ïåðåìåííîé»1. Êàê ìîæíî âèäåòü, ïîäõîä Âåáåðà â ñóùíîñòè âõîäèò â íåðàçðåøèìîå ïðîòèâîðå÷èå ñ òåçèñîì Ðèêêåðòà î «íåäîñòàòî÷íîñòè» (à ïî ñóòè î íåïðèìåíèìîñòè) ìåòîäîâ ãåíåðàëèçàöèè â «íàóêàõ î êóëüòóðå» (îíè æå «ïîíèìàþùèå íàóêè»). Ýòîò òåçèñ ñîõðàíÿåò ñèëó òîëüêî â òîì ñëó÷àå, åñëè çàäà÷è ýòèõ íàóê èñ÷åðïûâàþòñÿ îäíèì ëèøü èçó÷åíèåì «öåííîñòíîé ñâÿçè ôàêòîâ». Ññûëêà íà òî, ÷òî èìåííî ñïîñîá ôîðìèðîâàíèÿ ïîíÿòèé îïðåäåëÿåò ìåðó àäåêâàòíîñòè çíàíèÿ, «óäàëÿÿ» èëè, íàïðîòèâ, «ïðèáëèæàÿ» åãî ê äåéñòâèòåëüíîñòè, â íàøè äíè, ñ ðàçâèòèåì òåîðèè èíôîðìàöèè è â ñâåòå íîâûõ çíàíèé î ôóíêöèîíèðîâàíèè ìîçãà ÷åëîâåêà, à òàêæå î åãî ìûøëåíèè ïðàêòè÷åñêè óòðàòèëà ñâîþ óáåäèòåëüíîñòü. Íàðÿäó ñ ýòèì è âîïðåêè îòïðàâíûì ïîëîæåíèÿì íåîêàíòèàíñêîé ýïèñòåìîëîãèè «èñòîðèÿ» êàê îäíî ëèøü îïèñàíèå «äåéñòâèòåëüíîñòè» – íåâàæíî, ïðèðîäíîé èëè ñîöèàëüíîé – íèêàê íå ìîæåò áûòü ïîíÿòà êàê àáñîëþòíàÿ ïðîòèâîïîëîæíîñòü íîìîëîãè÷åñêîìó «åñòåñòâîçíàíèþ». Ïîñëåäíåå îòíþäü íå ìîíîïîëèçèðóåò ìåòîä îáîáùåíèÿ, ïðè åãî ïîñðåäñòâå ñîâåðøàÿ äâèæåíèå «îò äåéñòâèòåëüíîãî ê îáÿçàòåëüíîìó» [Ðèêêåðò, 2008: 225]. È òîò, è äðóãîé ìåòîä ðàâíî íåîáõîäèìû â îáåèõ îáëàñòÿõ íàó÷íîãî çíàíèÿ, äîïîëíÿÿ äðóã äðóãà â «íàóêàõ 1 Íåñìîòðÿ íà ìíîæåñòâî îãîâîðîê è óòî÷íåíèé, ñäåëàííûõ êàê ñàìèì Ì. Âåáåðîì, òàê è åãî ìíîãî÷èñëåííûìè êîììåíòàòîðàìè, ìîæíî ñ äîñòàòî÷íûì îñíîâàíèåì óòâåðæäàòü, ÷òî ýòîò ïðèíöèï âñåãäà áûë îñíîâîïîëàãàþùèì è â ôèëîñîôèè, è â ìåòîäîëîãèè Âåáåðà. Ñì. îá ýòîì: Âåáåð Ì. Ïðîòåñòàíòñêàÿ ýòèêà è äóõ êàïèòàëèçìà // Èçáðàííîå. Ì. : Ðîññïýí, 2006. Ñ. 19–184; Õîçÿéñòâåííàÿ ýòèêà ìèðîâûõ ðåëèãèé // Òàì æå. Ñ. 213–238; Àðîí Ð. Ýòàïû ðàçâèòèÿ ñîöèîëîãè÷åñêîé ìûñëè. Ì. : Ïðîãðåññ : Óíèâåðñ, 1993. Ñ. 489–501, 522–445; Øòîìïêà Ï. Ñîöèîëîãèÿ ñîöèàëüíûõ èçìåíåíèé. Ì. : ÀñïåêòÏðåññ, 1996. Ñ. 345–365.

25

Â.Ñ. ÊÐÆÅÂÎÂ

î êóëüòóðå» òî÷íî òàê æå, êàê è â «íàóêàõ î ïðèðîäå».  ýòîì çàêëþ÷àþòñÿ ïðèíöèï åäèíñòâà íàóêè è îáùíîñòü åå çàäà÷ è ìåòîäîâ. Íè ñâîåîáðàçèå èçó÷àåìûõ îáúåêòîâ, íè âî ìíîãîì îáóñëîâëåííàÿ ýòèì ñâîåîáðàçèåì äèñöèïëèíàðíàÿ ñïåöèàëèçàöèÿ íå îòìåíÿþò ýòîãî ïðèíöèïà. Âìåñòå ñ òåì ïîèñê îáùåãî è ñóùåñòâåííîãî è îáúÿñíåíèå íà ýòîé îñíîâå íàáëþäàåìûõ ôåíîìåíîâ âñå æå ñîñòàâëÿþò ãëàâíóþ öåëü âñÿêîãî íàó÷íîãî ïîñòèæåíèÿ äåéñòâèòåëüíîñòè íåçàâèñèìî îò îñîáåííîñòåé îáúåêòà ïîçíàâàòåëüíûõ èíòåðåñîâ. Äðóãîé ìîìåíò, òðåáóþùèé êðèòè÷åñêîãî êîììåíòàðèÿ, ýòî íåêîòîðûå àñïåêòû òðàêòîâêè Ê.Õ. Ìîìäæÿíîì ïðîáëåìû ïîòðåáíîñòåé ÷åëîâåêà è èõ äåòåðìèíèðóþùåãî âîçäåéñòâèÿ íà åãî ïîâåäåíèå. Ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ, ÷òî, îïðåäåëÿÿ ïîòðåáíîñòü êàê ñâîéñòâî ÷åëîâåêà íóæäàòüñÿ â íåîáõîäèìûõ óñëîâèÿõ ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ, íå ñëåäóåò îäíîâðåìåííî ðàññìàòðèâàòü åå êàê òî, ÷òî îïðåäåëÿåò ïîääåðæàíèå «êîìôîðòíîñòè æèçíè». «Êîìôîðòíîñòü» – ïîíÿòèå â çíà÷èòåëüíîé ìåðå óñëîâíîå, îöåíî÷íîå, ñóáúåêòèâíîå. Ïðèçíàâàÿ, ÷òî ëþäÿì äåéñòâèòåëüíî ïðèñóùå ñòðåìëåíèå ê êîìôîðòíîñòè (èëè áëàãîïîëó÷èþ), ìû âìåñòå ñ òåì íå äîëæíû çàáûâàòü, ÷òî â ñâîèõ êîíêðåòíûõ ñîäåðæàíèÿõ ïîíÿòèÿ, âûðàæàþùèå òàêîå ñòðåìëåíèå, âåñüìà âàðèàòèâíû, ñóùåñòâåííî èçìåíÿÿñü îò ýïîõè ê ýïîõå è îò êóëüòóðû ê êóëüòóðå. Ðàçóìååòñÿ, ðàññìàòðèâàÿ äåéñòâèÿ ëþäåé ïðåäåëüíî ôîðìàëüíî, ìîæíî ñêàçàòü, ÷òî èì âñåãäà ïðèñóùå íåêîå ñòðåìëåíèå «ê áëàãó» – äàæå è òîãäà, êîãäà ñîâåðøàåìûå èìè ïîñòóïêè âûãëÿäÿò ïîëÿðíî ïðîòèâîïîëîæíûìè. Âåäü â ïîíèìàíèè îòäåëüíûõ èíäèâèäîâ «áëàãîì» ìîãóò ñ÷èòàòüñÿ êàê ñóðîâûå ñàìîèñòÿçàíèÿ, òàê è ðîñêîøü, è ïðàçäíûé îáðàç æèçíè. Òåðìèíîì «áëàãî» çäåñü îáîçíà÷àåòñÿ èçâåñòíîå ñîñòîÿíèå ïñèõèêè, êîòîðîå îïèñûâàåòñÿ òàêæå êàê «óäîâëåòâîðåííîñòü», «ñíÿòèå íàïðÿæåíèÿ» è ò.ï. Íî èìåííî ïîýòîìó çàòðóäíèòåëüíî ïðåäñòàâèòü ñåáå, ÷òî, ñâîäÿ âñå ìíîãîîáðàçèå äåÿòåëüíûõ ñîäåðæàíèé ê ñîïóòñòâóþùåìó èì ïñèõè÷åñêîìó ñîñòîÿíèþ, ìû âûÿâèëè íåêóþ îñîáóþ «ïîòðåáíîñòü» – â ñòðîãîì çíà÷åíèè ýòîãî ïîíÿòèÿ, âûðàæàþùåãî íåîáõîäèìîñòü âûïîëíåíèÿ óñëîâèé ïîääåðæàíèÿ æèçíè. Äóìàåòñÿ, ÷òî â ýòîì ïëàíå ñêîðåå ìîæíî ãîâîðèòü îá îáóñëîâëåííîñòè äåéñòâèÿ íåêîòîðûì ñïåöèôè÷åñêèì èíòåðåñîì, ïîñêîëüêó «êîìôîðò» (â ÷åì áû îí íå çàêëþ÷àëñÿ) äîñòèãàåòñÿ ïðè ïîìîùè îïðåäåëåííûõ ñðåäñòâ, ïðèìåíåíèå êîòîðûõ ïîçâîëÿåò ïîëó÷èòü æåëàåìîå. Îòíîøåíèå ñóáúåêòîâ ê òàêèì ñðåäñòâàì, êàê ýòî îòìå÷àåò è ñàì Ê.Õ. Ìîìäæÿí, êàê ðàç è õàðàêòåðèçóåòñÿ ïðè ïîìîùè êàòåãîðèè «èíòåðåñ». Âàæíî åùå è òî, ÷òî èíòåðåñû â îòëè÷èå îò ïîòðåáíîñòåé èñòîðè÷åñêè âàðèàòèâíû, ïîñêîëüêó âàðèàòèâíû è ñàìè ñðåäñòâà, îáåñïå÷èâàþùèå ÷åëîâåêó âîçìîæíîñòü äåÿòåëüíîãî óäîâëåòâîðåíèÿ ïîòðåáíîñòåé. Ýòà âàðèàòèâíîñòü õîðîøî ñîãëàñóåòñÿ ñ ðàçíîîáðàçèåì ïðåäñòàâëåíèé î «áëàãå», ïðèñóùåì òèïè÷åñêè ðàçíûì êóëüòóðàì, îáùíîñòÿì è îòäåëüíûì èíäèâèäàì. Íàêîíåö, íåñêîëüêî ñëîâ îòíîñèòåëüíî ìûøëåíèÿ è åãî ðîëè â ÷åëîâå÷åñêîé äåÿòåëüíîñòè. Äóìàåòñÿ, ÷òî ñâîåîáðàçèå ÷åëîâå÷åñêîãî

26

Ê ÂÎÏÐÎÑÓ Î ÑÏÅÖÈÔÈÊÅ ÌÅÒÎÄÎÂ ÎÁÙÅÑÒÂÎÇÍÀÍÈß

ìèðà – ìèðà ìûñëÿùèõ èíäèâèäîâ, à òàêæå îñîáåííîñòåé åãî èçìåíåíèÿ íå âûíóæäàåò íå òîëüêî ê îòêàçó îò ìåòîäà ãåíåðàëèçàöèè, íî äàæå è ê ñêîëüêî-íèáóäü ñóùåñòâåííîé åãî êîððåêòèðîâêå.  ýòîì îòíîøåíèè äîâîäû Ê.Õ. Ìîìäæÿíà ñîâåðøåííî ñïðàâåäëèâû. Îäíàêî õîòåëîñü áû è â ýòîì ïëàíå óòî÷íèòü êîå-êàêèå ïîçèöèè. Ìûøëåíèå, íåñîìíåííî, ÿâëÿåòñÿ âàæíåéøèì ñïåöèôèçèðóþùèì ïðèçíàêîì äåÿòåëüíîñòè. Îäíàêî îòñþäà íå ñëåäóåò, ÷òî èñêëþ÷èòåëüíîé çàäà÷åé «íàóê î êóëüòóðå» ÿâëÿåòñÿ îáðåòåíèå «ïîíèìàíèÿ», à ãëàâíûì èõ ìåòîäîì – «èñòîëêîâàíèå ïîâåäåíèÿ» ìûñëÿùèõ è îöåíèâàþùèõ èíäèâèäîâ ïîñðåäñòâîì «îòíåñåíèÿ ê öåííîñòè». Ïðè æåëàíèè ìîæíî, êîíå÷íî, ñîñðåäîòî÷èòü èññëåäîâàíèå íà òåõ çàäà÷àõ è ìåòîäàõ, î êîòîðûõ ãîâîðèëè Ðèêêåðò è Âåáåð. Íî òàêîå ñîñðåäîòî÷åíèå ñïîñîáíî îáåñïå÷èòü ëèøü î÷åíü è î÷åíü ñïåöèàëèçèðîâàííîå èçó÷åíèå îäíîãî èç àñïåêòîâ ìíîãîîáðàçíîé ñîöèîêóëüòóðíîé äåéñòâèòåëüíîñòè. Çàìûêàòü åå íàó÷íîå ïîñòèæåíèå â ýòèõ èñêóññòâåííî ñêîíñòðóèðîâàííûõ, ÷ðåçâû÷àéíî óçêèõ ãðàíèöàõ íåò íèêàêèõ îñíîâàíèé.  ñâåòå ñêàçàííîãî ñëåäóåò ïîä÷åðêíóòü, ÷òî â íàøè äíè òåðìèí «êóëüòóðà» î÷åâèäíûì îáðàçîì îòñûëàåò ê áîëåå øèðîêîìó êðóãó èññëåäîâàíèé, îáúåêòîì êîòîðûõ ÿâëÿþòñÿ ðàçëè÷íûå ôîðìû ïðîöåññîâ ñàìîîðãàíèçàöèè (ñàìîïîääåðæàíèÿ) îïðåäåëåííîãî êëàññà îáúåêòîâ. Ñåãîäíÿ áëàãîäàðÿ ðàáîòàì È. Ïðèãîæèíà è åãî ïîñëåäîâàòåëåé ó íàñ åñòü äîñòàòî÷íûå îñíîâàíèÿ ðàññìàòðèâàòü äåÿòåëüíîñòü ÷åëîâåêà êàê ñïåöèôè÷åñêóþ ðàçíîâèäíîñòü òàêèõ ïðîöåññîâ. Èç ýòîé ïåðñïåêòèâû êóëüòóðà â ñâîåì îñíîâíîì ñîäåðæàíèè ïîíèìàåòñÿ êàê îñîáûé ñïîñîá èíôîðìàöèîííîãî ïðîãðàììèðîâàíèÿ äåÿòåëüíîñòè. Òàêîå ïîíèìàíèå, êàê ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ, ïîçâîëÿåò òàêæå ïî-íîâîìó âçãëÿíóòü íà êëàññè÷åñêóþ ôèëîñîôñêóþ ïðîáëåìó «ñâîáîäû âîëè». Ïðè ýòîì âàæíî ïîìíèòü, ÷òî ôèëîñîôñêîå îñìûñëåíèå ýòîé ïðîáëåìû ïðåäïîëàãàåò ìàêñèìàëüíî âûñîêèé óðîâåíü îáîáùåíèÿ – òîò, ãäå ÷åëîâåê ðàññìàòðèâàåòñÿ â ïëàíå ñâîåé «ðîäîâîé ñóùíîñòè». Òàêèì îáðàçîì, çäåñü ðå÷ü èäåò î íåîáõîäèìîé (íå îòìåíÿåìîé è íå èçìåíÿåìîé â ñâîåì ñóùåñòâå) çàâèñèìîñòè ìåæäó ìîòèâàöèåé ÷åëîâå÷åñêèõ äåéñòâèé è òåìè ïîòðåáíîñòÿìè, óäîâëåòâîðåíèå êîòîðûõ îáóñëîâëèâàåò âîçîáíîâëåíèå (âîñïðîèçâîäñòâî) æèçíè ÷åëîâå÷åñêèõ èíäèâèäîâ, îáúåäèíåííûõ â óñòîé÷èâûå ñîîáùåñòâà.  ýòîì ïëàíå ñâîáîäà ÷åëîâåêà ïðåäñòàåò êàê òîëüêî ñâîáîäà âûáîðà âàðèàíòîâ ðåøåíèÿ çàäà÷è ïîääåðæàíèÿ æèçíè. Äðóãèìè ñëîâàìè, íåñîìíåííî ïðèñóùàÿ ÷åëîâåêó ñïîñîáíîñòü «âàðüèðîâàòü ïîâåäåí÷åñêèå ðåàêöèè» ñóùåñòâåííî îãðàíè÷åíà, ïðåáûâàÿ â ñòðîãî î÷åð÷åííîì «êîðèäîðå âîçìîæíîñòåé», ïåðâîíà÷àëüíî çàäàííîì íåîáõîäèìîñòüþ âîñïðîèçâîäñòâà. Íà ýòîì â êîíöå êîíöîâ çèæäåòñÿ ñàìà âîçìîæíîñòü êëàññèôèêàöèè äåéñòâèé, èõ îáúåêòèâíîé îöåíêè êàê «ïðàâèëüíûõ» è «íåïðàâèëüíûõ». È – âîïðåêè Êàíòó – èìåííî îòñþäà ðàçâèâàþòñÿ (è çàòåì ïî õîäó èñòîðèè êîððåêòèðóþòñÿ) âûðàæàåìûå óæå ñðåäñòâàìè ñàìîé êóëüòóðû ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ î «äîëæíîì» è «íåäîëæíîì».

27

Â.Ñ. ÊÐÆÅÂÎÂ

 ñâÿçè ñ ýòèì îáðàùåíèå â îáùåì ðÿäó ê ïðîáëåìå âûáîðà «ìåæäó ôàêòîì è êà÷åñòâîì æèçíè» ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ íå âïîëíå êîððåêòíûì, ïîñêîëüêó â ýòîì ñëó÷àå ðå÷ü èäåò óæå íå î ñâîáîäå êàê ðîäîâîì ñâîéñòâå ÷åëîâåêà, à îá åå èíäèâèäóàëüíûõ ïðîÿâëåíèÿõ, ÷òî íàðóøàåò åäèíñòâî óðîâíÿ èññëåäîâàíèÿ. Íåñîìíåííî, ìîòèâàöèÿ ïîñòóïêîâ îòäåëüíûõ ëþäåé â êàêèõ-òî ñèòóàöèÿõ äåéñòâèòåëüíî ìîæåò áûòü òàêîâà, ÷òî âîëåâûì ðåøåíèåì æèçíü äàííîãî êîíêðåòíîãî èíäèâèäà èëè öåëîé ãðóïïû îêàæåòñÿ èì èëè èìè îáîðâàííîé. Íî äëÿ ôèëîñîôñêîãî ðàññìîòðåíèÿ òàêèå ñèòóàöèè èíòåðåñíû ïðåæäå âñåãî èìåííî êàê îñîáåííûå ïðîÿâëåíèÿ îáùåé ðîäîâîé çàêîíîìåðíîé ñâÿçè ìåæäó ïðîãðàììàìè ñàìîïîääåðæàíèÿ æèçíè ñîîáùåñòâà è íàëè÷íûìè óñëîâèÿìè è îáñòîÿòåëüñòâàìè.  ïðèíöèïå ìîæíî ãîâîðèòü î ñïåöèôè÷åñêîì «îòîáðàæåíèè» â òàêèõ ïðîãðàììàõ ýòèõ óñëîâèé è îáñòîÿòåëüñòâ. Ñîîòâåòñòâåííî çíà÷èòåëüíîå èçìåíåíèå ïîñëåäíèõ íåîáõîäèìî îáóñëîâëèâàåò òðàíñôîðìàöèþ êóëüòóðíûõ óñòàíîâëåíèé, ÷òî è íàáëþäàåòñÿ â «áîëüøèõ ëèíèÿõ èñòîðèè». (Çàìåòèì, ÷òî òîãäà òåçèñ Âåáåðà î «íåçàâèñèìîé ïåðåìåííîé» òåðÿåò ñèëó.) Òåì ñàìûì ÷àñòî ïðèâîäèìûå â äîêàçàòåëüñòâî «ñâîáîäû âîëè» ïðèìåðû âäîõíîâëÿåìîãî «ìîðàëüíûì çàêîíîì» ñàìîïîæåðòâîâàíèÿ äîëæíû ðàññìàòðèâàòüñÿ â êîíòåêñòå ñôîðìèðîâàâøèõñÿ â êóëüòóðå ïðîãðàììíûõ óñòàíîâîê, â èñòîêå êîòîðûõ âñå òà æå íåîáõîäèìîñòü ñàìîñîõðàíåíèÿ, íî íå êàæäîãî îòäåëüíî âçÿòîãî èíäèâèäà, à öåëîãî ñîîáùåñòâà.  ýòîì, äóìàåòñÿ, ñîñòîèò îäíî èç ïðîÿâëåíèé ñóùíîñòè ÷åëîâåêà êàê îáùåñòâåííîãî ñóùåñòâà.

Библиографический список Àðîí, 1993 – Àðîí Ð. Ýòàïû ðàçâèòèÿ ñîöèîëîãè÷åñêîé ìûñëè. Ì. : Ïðîãðåññ : Óíèâåðñ, 1993. Âåáåð, 2006 – Âåáåð Ì. Èçáðàííîå. Ì. : Ðîññïýí, 2006. Ðèêêåðò, 1997 – Ðèêêåðò Ã. Ãðàíèöû îáðàçîâàíèÿ åñòåñòâåííî-íàó÷íûõ ïîíÿòèé. ÑÏá. : Íàóêà, 1997. Ðèêêåðò , 2008 – Ðèêêåðò Ã. Íàóêè î ïðèðîäå è íàóêè î êóëüòóðå. Ì. : Ðåñïóáëèêà, 2008. Ñ. 225. Ðîçîâ, 2008 – Ðîçîâ Í.Ñ. Ñïîð î ìåòîäå, øêîëà Àííàëîâ è ïåðñïåêòèâû ñîöèàëüíî-èñòîðè÷åñêîãî ïîçíàíèÿ // Îáùåñòâåííûå íàóêè è ñîâðåìåííîñòü. 2008. ¹ 1. Øòîìïêà, 1996 – Øòîìïêà Ï. Ñîöèîëîãèÿ ñîöèàëüíûõ èçìåíåíèé. Ì. : ÀñïåêòÏðåññ, 1996.

28

EPISTEMOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE · 2015 · Ò. XLV · ¹ 3

О

СПЕЦИФИКЕ ГУМАНИТАРНОГО ПОЗНАНИЯ

Александр Леонидович Никифоров – док тор философских наук, главный научный сотрудник Института философии РАН. Email: nikiforov[email protected]

O

Alexander Nikiforov – doctor of philosophy, leading researcher of the sector of social epistemology of the Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences.

N THE SPECIFIC CHARACTER

OF HUMANITARIAN KNOWLEDGE

Ìíå ÷ðåçâû÷àéíî ïîíðàâèëàñü ñòàòüÿ Êàðåíà Õà÷èêîâè÷à. Äåéñòâèòåëüíî, óæå íåìíîãî íàäîåëî îáñóæäàòü ïðîáëåìû êâàíòîâîé ìåõàíèêè èëè ñèíåðãåòèêè, ÷åðíûå äûðû èëè Áîëüøîé âçðûâ, òåì áîëåå ÷òî âñå ýòî ñòðàøíî äàëåêî îò ïðîáëåì, êàæäûé äåíü âñòàþùèõ ïåðåä íàìè â ïîâñåäíåâíîé æèçíè. Ñåé÷àñ âûÿñíÿåòñÿ, ÷òî ìû ãîðàçäî áîëüøå çíàåì î çâåçäàõ è ãàëàêòèêàõ, ÷åì î ÷åëîâåêå è ÷åëîâå÷åñêèõ ñîîáùåñòâàõ.  ñîâðåìåííóþ ýïîõó æèçíåííóþ àêòóàëüíîñòü ïðèîáðåòàåò ðàçðàáîòêà íàóê î ÷åëîâåêå, è îáðàùåíèå ïðîô. Ìîìäæÿíà ê àíàëèçó ïðèðîäû ãóìàíèòàðíîãî çíàíèÿ âûçûâàåò îñîáûé èíòåðåñ. Ìíå áëèçîê îñíîâíîé ïàôîñ ñòàòüè Êàðåíà Õà÷èêîâè÷à: ãóìàíèòàðíûå íàóêè íè÷åì íå õóæå è íå íèæå, ÷åì åñòåñòâîçíàíèå, ïðîñòî îíè îáëàäàþò ñâîåé ñïåöèôèêîé, çàäàâàåìîé îáúåêòîì èõ èçó÷åíèÿ – ÷åëîâåêîì, îáëàäàþùèì ñîçíàíèåì è ñâîáîäîé âîëè. Ïðîôåññîð Ìîìäæÿí îòòàëêèâàåòñÿ îò èçâåñòíîãî ðàçäåëåíèÿ íàóê íà íîìîòåòè÷åñêèå, îðèåíòèðóþùèåñÿ íà èçó÷åíèå îáùåãî è îòêðûâàþùèå ïðè÷èííî-ñëåäñòâåííûå çàêîíû, è èäåîãðàôè÷åñêèå, èññëåäóþùèå è îïèñûâàþùèå óíèêàëüíûå îáúåêòû è ñîáûòèÿ. Íàñêîëüêî ÿ ïîíÿë, îí ñòðåìèòñÿ ïîêàçàòü, ÷òî îáùåñòâåííûå è ãóìàíèòàðíûå íàóêè, â ÷àñòíîñòè èñòîðèÿ, òàêæå ÿâëÿþòñÿ íîìîòåòè÷åñêèìè è çäåñü òàêæå âîçìîæíî îòêðûòèå ïðè÷èííûõ çàêîíîâ. Îá ýòîì ñâèäåòåëüñòâóþò è íàçâàíèå åãî ñòàòüè, è âûðàæåíèÿ òèïà «óíèâåðñàëüíûå çàêîíû ÷åëîâå÷åñêîãî ïîâåäåíèÿ» è «óíèâåðñàëüíûå çàêîíû îáùåñòâåííîé æèçíè». Âîçìîæíîñòü ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ è îòêðûòèÿ çàêîíîâ â îáëàñòè îáùåñòâîçíàíèÿ ïðîô. Ìîìäæÿí îáîñíîâûâàåò óêàçàíèåì íà òî, ÷òî õîòÿ ÷åëîâåê è îáëàäàåò ñâîáîäîé âîëè, ñôåðà ýòîé ñâîáîäû íåâåëèêà. Ñâîáîäó ÷åëîâåêà, ãîâîðèò Êàðåí Õà÷èêîâè÷, ñóùåñòâåííî îãðàíè÷èâàþò ïî êðàéíåé ìåðå ÷åòûðå ãðóïïû ôàêòîðîâ: 1) èíñòèíêòû, â ÷àñòíîñòè èíñòèíêò ñàìîñîõðàíåíèÿ; 2) ïîòðåáíîñòè; 3) èíòåðåñû; 4) óñâîåííûå èíäèâèäîì ñòàíäàðòû è ñòåðåîòèïû êóëüòóðû. Ó÷èòûâàÿ âëèÿíèå ýòèõ ôàêòîðîâ, ìîæíî ïðåäñêàçàòü, êàê ïîâåäåò ñåáÿ ÷åëîâåê â òîé èëè èíîé ñèòóàöèè, ò.å. ìîæíî ãîâîðèòü î çàêîíàõ, ðåãóëèðóþùèõ åãî ïîâåäåíèå, òåì áîëåå êîãäà ðå÷ü èäåò î ïîâåäåíèè ãðóïï ëþäåé – ñîöèàëüíûõ ñëîåâ, ñîîáùåñòâ, î êðóïíûõ ñîöèàëüíûõ ñäâèãàõ è ò.ï. Çäåñü ÿ ñ óäîâîëüñòâèåì ñîãëàñèëñÿ áû ñ ïðîô. Ìîìäæÿíîì, íî ñ îäíîé îãîâîðêîé: âñå çàêîíû, îòíîñÿùèåñÿ ê ïîâåäåíèþ îòäåëüíîãî ÷åëîâåêà èëè

Panel Discussion

29

À.Ë. ÍÈÊÈÔÎÐÎÂ

ãðóïï ëþäåé, ìîãóò íîñèòü ëèøü âåðîÿòíîñòíûé, ñòàòèñòè÷åñêèé, ïðèáëèçèòåëüíûé õàðàêòåð; ýòî ñêîðåå çàêîíîìåðíîñòè, òåíäåíöèè, à íå ñòðîãèå çàêîíû. Âîçìîæíî, èìåííî ýòî è èìååò â âèäó ñàì Êàðåí Õà÷èêîâè÷, ãîâîðÿ î «íîìîòåòè÷åñêîì ïîçíàíèè» â îáùåñòâåííûõ íàóêàõ. Ðàçíèöà ìåæäó ñòðîãèìè çàêîíàìè è ïðèáëèçèòåëüíûìè òåíäåíöèÿìè íàèáîëåå î÷åâèäíûì îáðàçîì ïðîÿâëÿåòñÿ â âîçìîæíîñòÿõ ïðåäñêàçàíèÿ. Äåòåðìèíèñòè÷åñêèé çàêîí ïîçâîëÿåò íàì ñ ïîëíîé óâåðåííîñòüþ ïðåäñêàçûâàòü íàñòóïëåíèå ñîáûòèé ïðè ñîîòâåòñòâóþùèõ óñëîâèÿõ: âîäà â ëóæàõ çàìåðçíåò, åñëè òåìïåðàòóðà âîçäóõà îïóñòèòñÿ äî 0 °Ñ; ñòðåëêà êîìïàñà îòêëîíèòñÿ, åñëè ïî íàõîäÿùåìóñÿ ðÿäîì ñ íåé ïðîâîäíèêó ïðîïóñòèòü ýëåêòðè÷åñêèé òîê; òÿæåëûé êàìåíü, áðîøåííûé â ïðóä, óòîíåò è ò.ï. Íî èìåÿ äåëî ñ ëþäüìè, ìû íèêîãäà ñ ïîëíîé óâåðåííîñòüþ íå ìîæåì ïðåäñêàçàòü, êàê ïîâåäåò ñåáÿ ÷åëîâåê èëè äàæå ãðóïïà ëþäåé â òîé èëè èíîé ñèòóàöèè. Ñëåäîâàòåëüíî – ïîêà ïî êðàéíåé ìåðå – â íàóêàõ î ÷åëîâåêå ìîæíî ãîâîðèòü òîëüêî î âåðîÿòíîñòíûõ çàêîíîìåðíîñòÿõ. Íî, óâû, åñòü åùå îäíî îáñòîÿòåëüñòâî, íà êîòîðîå ÿ õîòåë áû îáðàòèòü âíèìàíèå ïðîô. Ìîìäæÿíà è êîòîðîå, êàê ìíå ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ, ñóùåñòâåííî îñëîæíÿåò óñòàíîâëåíèå êàêèõ-ëèáî ñâÿçåé â îáùåñòâåííûõ íàóêàõ, – ýòî ðàçíèöà ìåæäó îïèñàíèÿìè è ôàêòàìè â åñòåñòâîçíàíèè è, ñêàæåì, â èñòîðèè. Âîò, íàïðèìåð, êàê È. Íüþòîí îïèñûâàåò îäèí èç ñâîèõ çíàìåíèòûõ îïûòîâ ïî ðàçëîæåíèþ ñâåòà: «Îïûò 12.  ñåðåäèíå ÷åðíîé áóìàãè ÿ ñäåëàë êðóãëîå îòâåðñòèå îêîëî îäíîé ïÿòîé èëè øåñòîé ÷àñòè äþéìà â äèàìåòðå. ß çàñòàâèë ïàäàòü íà ýòó áóìàãó ñïåêòð îäíîðÿäíîãî ñâåòà… òàêèì îáðàçîì, ÷òî íåêîòîðàÿ ÷àñòü ñâåòà ïðîõîäèëà ÷åðåç îòâåðñòèå â áóìàãå. Ýòó ïðîïóùåííóþ ÷àñòü ñâåòà ÿ ïðåëîìëÿë ïðèçìîé, ïîìåùåííîé çà áóìàãîé, çàñòàâëÿÿ ïàäàòü ïåðïåíäèêóëÿðíî íà áåëóþ áóìàãó íà ðàññòîÿíèè äâóõ èëè òðåõ ôóòîâ îò ïðèçìû; ÿ íàøåë, ÷òî ñïåêòð, îáðàçîâàííûé íà áåëîé áóìàãå ýòèì ñâåòîì, íå áûë óäëèíåííûì, êàê ïðè ïðåëîìëåíèè ñëîæíîãî ñîëíå÷íîãî ñâåòà (â îïûòå òðåòüåì), îí áûë ñîâåðøåííî êðóãëûì…» [Íüþòîí, 1954: 59].  ñâîåì îïèñàíèè Íüþòîí èñïîëüçóåò îáûäåííûé ÿçûê, äîïîëíåííûé íàó÷íûìè òåðìèíàìè (cïåêòð, ïåðåëîìëåíèå è ò.ï.).  åñòåñòâåííûõ íàóêàõ åñòü ïàðàäèãìà (â ñàìîì øèðîêîì ñìûñëå ýòîãî ñëîâà), åñòü îáùåïðèçíàííûé ñëîâàðü íàó÷íûõ òåðìèíîâ, è ëþáîé ó÷åíûé, ïîâòîðèâøèé îïûò Íüþòîíà, äàñò ïðèáëèçèòåëüíî òàêîå æå îïèñàíèå è óñòàíîâèò òîò ôàêò, êîòîðûé óñòàíîâèë Íüþòîí. Òåïåðü ïîñìîòðèì íà îïèñàíèå èñòîðèêîì ñîáûòèé, ïðåäøåñòâîâàâøèõ Êóëèêîâñêîé áèòâå: «Ê ëåòó 1380 ã. Ìàìàé îñíîâàòåëüíî ïîäãîòîâèëñÿ ê ðåøàþùåé ñõâàòêå ñ Ìîñêâîé. Íå íàäåÿñü ïîñëå Âîæè òîëüêî íà ñîáñòâåííûå ñèëû, îí çàêëþ÷èë ñîþç ñ íîâûì âåëèêèì êíÿçåì ëèòîâñêèì ßãàéëîé Îëüãåðäîâè÷åì. Âëàñòü Ìàìàÿ ïðèçíàë Îëåã Èâàíîâè÷ Ðÿçàíñêèé, âèäèìî, æåëàÿ èçáåæàòü íîâîãî ðàçãðîìà ñâîåãî êíÿæåñòâà…» [Ãîðñêèé, 2003: 96].

30

Î ÑÏÅÖÈÔÈÊÅ ÃÓÌÀÍÈÒÀÐÍÎÃÎ ÏÎÇÍÀÍÈß

 ýòîì îïèñàíèè ïîÿâëÿþòñÿ ñëîâà, ñîâåðøåííî ÷óæäûå åñòåñòâîçíàíèþ: «íå íàäåÿñü», «æåëàÿ» è ò.ï. Çäåñü ïðîÿâëÿåòñÿ ïðèíöèïèàëüíàÿ ðàçíèöà â ïðåäìåòå èññëåäîâàíèÿ åñòåñòâåííûõ è îáùåñòâåííûõ íàóê: åñòåñòâåííûå íàóêè îïèñûâàþò ïîâåäåíèå ëèøåííûõ ñîçíàíèÿ îáúåêòîâ, à îáùåñòâåííûå íàóêè îïèñûâàþò ïîâåäåíèå ëþäåé, ðóêîâîäñòâóþùèõñÿ ñâîèìè öåëÿìè, æåëàíèÿìè, ñòðàñòÿìè, êîðî÷å ãîâîðÿ, èíòåíöèîíàëüíîå ïîâåäåíèå. Íî èíòåíöèè äåéñòâóþùèõ ëþäåé íåíàáëþäàåìû â îòëè÷èå îò íàáëþäàåìûõ ÿâëåíèé, îïèñûâàåìûõ åñòåñòâîèñïûòàòåëåì. Ïîýòîìó èñòîðèê äîëæåí ñíà÷àëà ïîíÿòü èõ, ÷òîáû âêëþ÷èòü â ñâîå îïèñàíèå. Ïîíèìàíèå ïðåäïîëàãàåò èíòåðïðåòàöèþ, ò.å. ïðèïèñûâàíèå èíòåíöèé íàáëþäàåìîìó ïîâåäåíèþ. Ñëåäîâàòåëüíî, îïèñàíèå èñòîðèêà âñåãäà âêëþ÷àåò â ñåáÿ èíòåðïðåòàöèþ è óñòàíàâëèâàåìûé èì ôàêò – ýòî âñåãäà èíòåðïðåòèðîâàííîå ïîâåäåíèå, ñîáûòèå, ïðîöåññ. Ðàçíûå èñòîðèêè ìîãóò ïî-ðàçíîìó èíòåðïðåòèðîâàòü îäíè è òå æå äåéñòâèÿ èëè ñîáûòèÿ, à çíà÷èò, ïîëó÷àò ðàçíûå ôàêòû. Ïîýòîìó èñòîðèêè òàê ÷àñòî äàþò âåñüìà îòëè÷íûå äðóã îò äðóãà îïèñàíèÿ îäíèõ è òåõ æå èñòîðè÷åñêèõ ñîáûòèé. Äëÿ òîãî ÷òîáû óâèäåòü ýòî, âîâñå íå îáÿçàòåëüíî ñðàâíèâàòü ñî÷èíåíèÿ èñòîðèêîâ ðàçíûõ ñòðàí èëè ýïîõ. Âîò äâà èçâåñòíûõ îòå÷åñòâåííûõ èñòîðèêà – Å.Â. Òàðëå è À.Ç. Ìàíôðåä, äâà ñïåöèàëèñòà ïî èñòîðèè Ôðàíöèè, ðàáîòàâøèå â îäíî âðåìÿ è â îäíîì èíñòèòóòå, îïèñûâàþò òî, êàê Íàïîëåîí â 1799 ã. ïîêèíóë Åãèïåò è âîçâðàòèëñÿ âî Ôðàíöèþ. Òàðëå ãîâîðèò î òîì, ÷òî Íàïîëåîí, óçíàâ èç ãàçåò, ïîäáðîøåííûõ àíãëè÷àíàìè, îá èòàëüÿíñêîì ïîõîäå À.Â. Ñóâîðîâà, î ðàçëîæåíèè Äèðåêòîðèè, áðîñèëñÿ âî Ôðàíöèþ ñïàñàòü åå îò î÷åðåäíîãî íàøåñòâèÿ. Ìàíôðåä æå ïèøåò î òîì, ÷òî Íàïîëåîí óáåäèëñÿ â áåçíàäåæíîñòè ñâîåãî åãèïåòñêîãî ïîõîäà è ïðîñòî ñáåæàë, áðîñèâ àðìèþ â Åãèïòå. ×òî æå çäåñü áûëî «ôàêòîì»? Êîãäà ìû ãîâîðèì î çàêîíå, òî èìååì â âèäó íåêîòîðóþ ïðè÷èííî-ñëåäñòâåííóþ ñâÿçü ìåæäó ôàêòàìè, ñîáûòèÿìè, ÿâëåíèÿìè. Íî åñëè äàëåêî íå âñåãäà ÿñíî, èìåëî ëè ìåñòî êàêîå-òî ñîáûòèå è ìîæíî ëè íå÷òî ñ÷èòàòü ôàêòîì, òî êàê ìîæíî ãîâîðèòü î ïðè÷èííî-ñëåäñòâåííûõ ñâÿçÿõ ìåæäó íèìè? ×òî ïðîèçîøëî 25 îêòÿáðÿ 1917 ã. â Ïåòðîãðàäå? Êàêîå ñîáûòèå? Îäíè ãîâîðÿò: ýòî áûëà Âåëèêàÿ Îêòÿáðüñêàÿ ñîöèàëèñòè÷åñêàÿ ðåâîëþöèÿ; äðóãèå: Îêòÿáðüñêèé ïåðåâîðîò; òðåòüè: çàõâàò âëàñòè êó÷êîé çàãîâîðùèêîâ; è ò.ä. ×òî ïðîèçîøëî â ïðîøëîì ãîäó â Êèåâå – íàðîäíàÿ ðåâîëþöèÿ? Ôàøèñòñêèé ïåðåâîðîò? Íàñèëüñòâåííîå ñâåðæåíèå ëåãèòèìíîãî ïðàâèòåëüñòâà ãðóïïîé ýêñòðåìèñòîâ, ïîääåðæèâàåìûõ çàðóáåæíûìè ñïåöñëóæáàìè? Åñëè íåÿñíû ñàìè ôàêòû, òî òåì áîëåå íåÿñíû ñâÿçè ìåæäó íèìè. Ïðàâäà, â èçëîæåíèÿõ èñòîðèêîâ ìîæíî âûäåëèòü æåñòêèå ýëåìåíòû, êîòîðûå èñòîðèê ÷åðïàåò ó àðõåîëîãîâ, àñòðîíîìîâ, ãåîãðàôîâ è ïðåäñòàâèòåëåé äðóãèõ íàóê. Òàê ñêàçàòü, «ôèçè÷åñêàÿ» ñòîðîíà ñîáûòèé áóäåò ïðèáëèçèòåëüíî îäèíàêîâà ó âñåõ èñòîðèêîâ. Íî ýòî íå

31

À.Ë. ÍÈÊÈÔÎÐÎÂ

èñòîðèÿ: «Ñêàæåì, âðÿä ëè íàñ âîëíóåò òîò ôàêò, ÷òî îäíàæäû, îêîëî 227 000 ñðåäíèõ ñîëíå÷íûõ ñóòîê íàçàä, ïðèáëèçèòåëüíî íà ïåðåñå÷åíèè 54 ãðàäóñà ñ.ø. è 38 ãðàäóñà â.ä., íà ñðàâíèòåëüíî íåáîëüøîì ó÷àñòêå çåìëè (îê. 9,5 êâ. êì), îãðàíè÷åííîì ñ äâóõ ñòîðîí ðåêàìè, ñîáðàëîñü íåñêîëüêî òûñÿ÷ ïðåäñòàâèòåëåé áèîëîãè÷åñêîãî âèäà Homo sapiens, êîòîðûå â òå÷åíèå íåñêîëüêèõ ÷àñîâ ïðè ïîìîùè ðàçëè÷íûõ ïðèñïîñîáëåíèé óíè÷òîæàëè äðóã äðóãà. Çàòåì îñòàâøèåñÿ â æèâûõ ðàçîøëèñü: îäíà ãðóïïà îòïðàâèëàñü íà þã, äðóãàÿ íà ñåâåð… Ìåæäó òåì èìåííî ýòî è ïðîèñõîäèëî, ïî áîëüøîìó ñ÷åòó, “íà ñàìîì äåëå”, îáúåêòèâíî íà Êóëèêîâîì ïîëå» [Äàíèëåâñêèé, 2001: 5–6]. Êîíå÷íî, íå ýòî âîëíóåò èñòîðèêà, åãî èíòåðåñóþò ìîòèâû, öåëè, ñòðåìëåíèÿ ëþäåé, ñîáðàâøèõñÿ íà ïîëå áðàíè, çíà÷åíèå ýòîãî ñîáûòèÿ äëÿ äàëüíåéøåãî ðàçâèòèÿ Ðóñè. À ðåêîíñòðóêöèÿ âñåõ ýòèõ âåùåé íåèçáåæíî âíîñèò ñóáúåêòèâíûé ýëåìåíò â èñòîðè÷åñêîå îïèñàíèå. Ìîæåò áûòü, îáñóæäåíèå âîçìîæíîñòè íîìîòåòè÷åñêîãî ïîçíàíèÿ â îáùåñòâåííûõ è ãóìàíèòàðíûõ íàóêàõ ñëåäóåò êîíêðåòèçèðîâàòü è îãðàíè÷èâàòüñÿ ðàññìîòðåíèåì îòäåëüíûõ íàóê èëè ñîâîêóïíîñòåé áëèçêèõ íàóê? Ñêàæåì, â ÿçûêîçíàíèè, ëèíãâèñòèêå êàæåòñÿ âïîëíå âîçìîæíûì óñòàíàâëèâàòü äîñòàòî÷íî îïðåäåëåííûå çàêîíîìåðíîñòè. Ïîñìîòðèì, íàïðèìåð, êàê çâó÷èò îäíî è òî æå äðåâíååâðåéñêîå èìÿ â ðàçíûõ ÿçûêàõ: Èîàííåñ (ïî-ãðåêî-âèçàíòèéñêè), Èîãàíí (ïî-íåìåöêè), Õóàí (ïî-èñïàíñêè), Äæîí (ïî-àíãëèéñêè), Èâàí (ïî-ðóññêè), ßí (ïî-ïîëüñêè), Æàí (ïî-ôðàíöóçñêè) è ò.ä. Ôèëîëîã ñêàæåò íàì, ÷òî, ïåðåõîäÿ èç îäíîãî ÿçûêà â äðóãîé, ñëîâà èçìåíÿþòñÿ ñîãëàñíî îïðåäåëåííîìó çàêîíó. Îïèðàÿñü íà ýòîò çàêîí, âû ïî÷òè ñ ïîëíîé óâåðåííîñòüþ ìîæåòå ñêàçàòü, êàê íåêîòîðîå ñëîâî áóäåò çâó÷àòü â òîì èëè èíîì ÿçûêå. Ïî-âèäèìîìó, åñòü è äðóãèå íàóêè î ÷åëîâåêå è åãî äåÿòåëüíîñòè, â êîòîðûõ ìîæíî ãîâîðèòü î çàêîíîìåðíûõ ñâÿçÿõ. È ïîñëåäíåå ñîîáðàæåíèå. ß ïîáàèâàþñü ðàçãîâîðîâ î çàêîíàõ â îáëàñòè îáùåñòâåííûõ íàóê. Âäðóã äåéñòâèòåëüíî ïñèõîëîãàì, ñîöèîëîãàì, ýêîíîìèñòàì îäíàæäû óäàñòñÿ íàéòè çàêîíû, äîñòàòî÷íî æåñòêî óïðàâëÿþùèå ïîâåäåíèåì ëþäåé, ïîçâîëÿþùèå ïî÷òè ñ åñòåñòâåííî-íàó÷íîé òî÷íîñòüþ ïðåäâèäåòü, êàê îíè áóäóò ðåàãèðîâàòü â òîé èëè èíîé ñèòóàöèè?  ñîâðåìåííîì ëèáåðàëüíî-êàïèòàëèñòè÷åñêîì ìèðå, â ýïîõó ïî÷òè ïîëíîãî íðàâñòâåííîãî ðàçëîæåíèÿ îíè òîò÷àñ áóäóò èñïîëüçîâàíû âî çëî – äëÿ ìàíèïóëÿöèè ëþäüìè, ïîëíîãî èõ ïîðàáîùåíèÿ. Ê ñîæàëåíèþ, ñåé÷àñ ýòî – ïî÷òè çàêîí.

Библиографический список Ãîðñêèé, 2003 – Ãîðñêèé À.À. Ìîñêâà – Îðäà. Ì., 2003. Äàíèëåâñêèé, 2001 – Äàíèëåâñêèé È.Í. Ðóññêèå çåìëè ãëàçàìè ñîâðåìåííèêîâ è ïîòîìêîâ (XII–XIV ââ.). Ì., 2001. Íüþòîí, 1954 – Íüþòîí È. Îïòèêà. Ì., 1954.

32

EPISTEMOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE · 2015 · Ò. XLV · ¹ 3

В

ОЗМОЖЕН ЛИ АНОМАЛЬНЫЙ СОЦИОМОНИЗМ?

Александр Юрьевич Антоновский – кандидат философских наук, старший научный сотрудник сектора социальной эпистемологии Института фи лософии РАН. Email: [email protected]

I

Alexander Antonovski – PhD, senior researcher at the departament of social epistemology, Institute of Philosophy, Russian Acamedy of Sciences.

S ANOMALOUS SOCIOMONISM POSSIBLE?

Èäåÿ Ê.Õ. Ìîìäæÿíà, åñëè ïðåäñòàâèòü åå â åäèíîì òåçèñå, ñâîäèòñÿ ê ñëåäóþùåìó: îáùåñòâî, êàê áû åãî íè ïîíèìàòü, íå ìîæåò áûòü âûâåäåíî èç ñôåðû, êîòîðàÿ ðåãóëèðóåòñÿ çàêîíàìè, íå óñòóïàþùèìè â ñâîåé óíèâåðñàëüíîñòè, ïðèíóäèòåëüíîñòè è îáúåêòèâíîñòè êëàññè÷åñêèì ôèçè÷åñêèì çàêîíàì. Ýòîò òåçèñ ìîæíî áûëî áû íàçâàòü àíîìàëüíûì ñîöèîìîíèçìîì: ìîíèçìîì, â òîì ñìûñëå, ÷òî îáùåñòâî íå ïðåäñòàâëÿåò êàêîé-òî ïàðàëëåëüíûé ìèð, ñóùåñòâóþùèé íàðÿäó ñ ôèçè÷åñêèì è ñâîáîäíûé îò êàóçèðóþùèõ èìïóëüñîâ, èñõîäÿùèõ èç ôèçè÷åñêîãî ìèðà. Çà ñâÿçü ñ ýòèì ìèðîì îòâå÷àþò áàçîâûå ïîòðåáíîñòè è êîððåëèðóþùèå ñ íèìè èíòåðåñû1. Àíîìàëüíîñòü ñîöèîìîíèçìà ñâÿçàíà ñ òåì, ÷òî ñîöèàëüíûå çàêîíû (âûðàæàþùèå ñâÿçü ïðè÷èíÿþùàÿ ðåàëüíîñòü–ðåçóëüòèðóþùåå ñîöèàëüíîå äåéñòâèå) âñå-òàêè íå ÿâëÿþòñÿ æåñòêèìè íàñòîëüêî, ÷òîáû íà èõ îñíîâå (ò.å. íà îñíîâå êîíòðôàêòè÷åñêîé ñâÿçè âèäà åñëè À, òî B) ìîæíî áûëî ñî 100%-íîé äîñòîâåðíîñòüþ ïðåäñêàçûâàòü è îáúÿñíÿòü ñîáûòèå B, åñëè èçâåñòíî ñîáûòèå À. Êàê ïèøåò Ê.Õ. Ìîìäæÿí, «åäèíè÷íûå è íåïîâòîðèìûå ñîáûòèÿ íå ìîãóò áûòü ðåäóöèðîâàíû áåç îñòàòêà ê ñòîÿùèì çà ýòèìè ñîáûòèÿìè ñòðóêòóðàì, – óíèâåðñàëüíûì çàêîíàì îáùåñòâåííîé æèçíè, íî îíè íå ìîãóò áûòü ïîíÿòû áåç îáðàùåíèÿ ê ýòèì ñòðóêòóðàì». Ýòî êëþ÷åâîå ïðåäëîæåíèå óêàçûâàåò, ÷òî ñîöèàëüíàÿ òåîðèÿ íå ìîæåò ðåäóöèðîâàòüñÿ ê ôèçèêå.  ýòîì ñîñòîèò àíîìàëüíîñòü ñîöèàëüíîãî. Íî òåì íå ìåíåå ñîöèàëüíî çíà÷èìûå ñîáûòèÿ äîëæíû áûòü âêëþ÷åíû â ôèçè÷åñêóþ îíòîëîãèþ íåîáõîäèìûõ ïðè÷èííî-ñëåäñòâåííûõ ñâÿçåé2. Ïðåèìóùåñòâà òàêîãî ïîäõîäà î÷åâèäíû. Ñîöèàëüíûå ñîáûòèÿ (ñîöèàëüíûå äåéñòâèÿ, êîììóíèêàöèè, ôîðìóëèðîâàíèå èäåé, ïîòðåáíîñòè è èíòåðåñû) íå âûâîäÿòñÿ çà ïðåäåëû ôèçè÷åñêîé è, çíà÷èò, êàóçàëüíî-çàêðûòîé ñèñòå1 Ðå÷ü èäåò î ñîöèîìîíèçìå ñ öåëüþ îòëè÷èòü åãî îò áîëåå óçêîãî ìåíòàëüíîãî ìîíèçìà â òåîðèè ñîçíàíèÿ (âàðèàíò òåîðèè òîæäåñòâà), êîòîðûé íàñòàèâàåò íà òîì æå òåçèñå êàóçàëüíîãî åäèíñòâà è ïðè÷èííîé çàìêíóòîñòè ìèðà ïðèìåíèòåëüíî ê ÷åëîâå÷åñêîìó ñîçíàíèþ [Davidson, 1980].

Panel Discussion

33

À.Þ. ÀÍÒÎÍÎÂÑÊÈÉ

ìû. Âåäü â ïðîòèâíîì ñëó÷àå ê íå íóæäàþùåéñÿ â äîïîëíèòåëüíûõ êàóçàöèÿõ (ò.å. çàêðûòîé) ñèñòåìå ôèçè÷åñêèõ äâèæåíèé è èçìåíåíèé äîáàâëÿëèñü áû êàêèå-òî èçáûòî÷íûå ïðè÷èíû – ãèïîòåòè÷åñêèå ñîöèàëüíûå ôàêòîðû. Íî âåäü âñå ôèçè÷åñêèå äâèæåíèÿ è èçìåíåíèÿ, íå èñêëþ÷àÿ ôàêòè÷åñêèå (ò.å. ìàòåðèàëüíî âûðàæåííûå) äåéñòâèÿ è ñîîáùåíèÿ, äîëæíû ñ äîñòàòî÷íîé óáåäèòåëüíîñòüþ îáúÿñíÿòüñÿ ïðåäøåñòâóþùèìè ôèçè÷åñêèìè äâèæåíèÿìè è èçìåíåíèÿìè. Íåñìîòðÿ íà âñþ ñâîþ ïðèâëåêàòåëüíîñòü, ïîäõîä îáíàðóæèâàåò ÿâíûå ïðîòèâîðå÷èÿ. Êàê ñîâìåñòèòü ñîöèîìîíèçì è àíîìàëèè, èëè, äðóãèìè ñëîâàìè, êàê âîçìîæíû ïðè÷èíû è ñëåäñòâèÿ, ëèøåííûå àòðèáóòà æåñòêîé ïîâòîðÿåìîñòè è óíèâåðñàëüíîé âîñïðîèçâîäèìîñòè, ÷òî è ïðèíÿòî íàçûâàòü çàêîíàìè? Âîçíèêàåò êëàññè÷åñêàÿ ïðîáëåìà: âîçìîæíà ëè ïðè÷èííî-ñëåäñòâåííàÿ ñâÿçü, íå âïèñàííàÿ â îáúÿñíÿþùèé åãî óíèâåðñàëüíûé çàêîí3. Ïðèíöèï ïðè÷èííîñòè, ïîäðàçóìåâàþùèé íîìîëîãèçì (íîìîòåòè÷íîñòü â òåðìèíîëîãèè Ê.Õ. Ìîìäæÿíà è Â. Âèíäåëüáàíäà), è âîçìîæíîñòü àíîìàëèé (æåëàíèå è âîçìîæíîñòü ïîéòè â òåàòð íå âî âñåõ ñëó÷àÿõ ïðèâîäèò ê ïîñåùåíèþ òåàòðà, íàëè÷èå ðåâîëþöèîííîé ñèòóàöèè íå âî âñåõ ñëó÷àÿõ ïðèâîäèò ê ðåâîëþöèè)? Íî êàê ïåðåóáåäèòü ïðàêòèêóþùåãî ó÷åíîãî è ôèëîñîôà íàóêè, óáåæäåííîãî â òîì, ÷òî âåçäå òàì, ãäå åñòü ïðè÷èííîñòü (è íè÷òî íå ïðåïÿòñòâóåò åå ðåàëèçàöèè), åñòü è óíèâåðñàëüíûé çàêîí, âñåãäà âûïîëíÿþùèéñÿ ïðè íàëè÷èè òàêîãî ðîäà ïðè÷èíû è îòñóòñòâèè ïîìåõ? Ïåðâûé êîíòðàðãóìåíò: ïðè÷èííûé àíàëèç îáùåñòâà íå äîëæåí ïðåäïîëàãàòü ðåäóêöèîíèçì ê æèâîòíîé ïðèðîäå. Íî ÷òî æå âûðàæàåò ýòîò íåîáõîäèìûé õàðàêòåð ñîöèàëüíûõ çàêîíîâ è â ÷åì çàêëþ÷àåòñÿ ñâÿçü îáùåñòâà ñ ôèçè÷åñêîé (ïñèõîôèçè÷åñêîé) ðåàëüíîñòüþ? Êàê íè ñòðàííî, íà ýòîò ñòàòóñ, ñîãëàñíî Ê.Õ. Ìîìäæÿíó, ïðåòåíäóåò íå ñîáñòâåííî ñîöèàëüíàÿ ðåãóëÿðíîñòü. Íà ïåðâîì ìåñòå îêàçûâàþòñÿ íåêèå êâàçèáèîëîãè÷åñêèå èìïåðàòèâû – «âëå÷åíèÿ»4. Êîíå÷íî, 2  ýòîì àíîìàëüíûé ñîöèîìîíèçì íè÷åì íå îòëè÷àåòñÿ îò àíîìàëüíîãî ìåíòàëüíîãî ìîíèçìà, ïðèçíàþùåãî, ÷òî ìåíòàëüíûå ñîáûòèÿ âñòóïàþò â ïðè÷èííî-ñëåäñòâåííûå èíòåðàêöèè ñ ôèçè÷åñêèìè ñîáûòèÿìè (æåëàíèå ïîéòè â òåàòð, ïðè÷èíà ôèçè÷åñêîãî ïîñåùåíèÿ òåàòðà, ïîñåùåíèå òåàòðà – ïðè÷èíà ïåðåæèâàíèÿ óäîâîëüñòâèÿ îò ïðîñìîòðà ñïåêòàêëÿ), íî ýòè îáúåêòèâíûå ïðè÷èííî-ñëåäñòâåííûå ñâÿçè íå «ïîêðûâàþòñÿ» æåñòêèì óíèâåðñàëüíî-ïîâòîðÿþùèìñÿ çàêîíîì. 3 Äèñêóññèÿ ðàçâåðíóëàñü, êàê èçâåñòíî, âîêðóã òàê íàçûâàåìîãî covering law model of explanation Ê. Ãåìïåëÿ. Ñàì Ãåìïåëü äîïóñêàë èíûå – íå ïðè÷èííûå (èíäèêàöèîííûå, ñòðóêòóðíûå) çàêîíû. Ìîæíî ñîãëàñèòüñÿ, ÷òî íå âñå çàêîíû îñíîâàíû íà ðåãóëÿðíîì âîñïðîèçâîäñòâå ïðè÷èí è ñëåäñòâèé, íî ñ òåì, ÷òî íå âñå ïðè÷èíû è ñëåäñòâèÿ åñòü âûðàæåíèÿ çàêîíîìåðíîñòè, ñîãëàñèòüñÿ òðóäíåå. 4 «Íèêàêàÿ ñâîáîäà âîëè íå ïîçâîëÿåò íàì “îòìåíÿòü” ïðèñóùèå îáúåêòèâíûå ïðåäçàäàííûå öåëè… ïðèñóùèå íå òîëüêî ÷åëîâåêó, íî è âñåì æèâûì îðãàíèçìàì… Ðå÷ü èäåò îá èíñòèíêòèâíîì ó æèâîòíûõ è èíñòèíêòîïîäîáíîì ó ÷åëîâåêà (òåðìèí Ìàñëîó) âëå÷åíèè ê ñîõðàíåíèþ ôàêòà è (èëè) êà÷åñòâà æèçíè… î ïðèñóùèõ âñåìó æèâîìó èíôîðìàöèîííûõ èìïóëüñàõ ñàìîñîõðàíåíèÿ, èìåþùèõ äåôèöèåíòíûé èëè áûòèéíûé õàðàêòåð. Âñÿêîå æèâîå ñóùåñòâî ñòðåìèòñÿ îáåñïå÷èòü ñâîå áèîëîãè÷åñêîå âûæèâàíèå».

34

ÂÎÇÌÎÆÅÍ ËÈ ÀÍÎÌÀËÜÍÛÉ ÑÎÖÈÎÌÎÍÈÇÌ?

ñ ýòèì ñïîðèòü ñëîæíî. Îáùåñòâî äåéñòâèòåëüíî ìîæåò èíòåðïðåòèðîâàòüñÿ ïîñðåäñòâîì îðãàíèöèñòñêîé ìåòàôîðû, è åìó êàê ñâîåãî ðîäà îðãàíèçìó ïðèñóùå ñâîéñòâî ýêâèôèíàëüíîñòè (Ë. Áåðòàëàíôè). Íî âñå-òàêè ýòî íå îáúÿñíÿåò, ïî÷åìó â ñòàòóñ âåäóùåé ñîöèàëüíîé ðåãóëÿðíîñòè âîçâîäèòñÿ òî, ÷òî ëèøåíî ñïåöèôè÷åñêè ñîöèàëüíîãî ñîäåðæàíèÿ è õàðàêòåðíî äëÿ áèîëîãè÷åñêèõ ñèñòåì? Íà ìîé âçãëÿä, òàêàÿ ðåäóêöèÿ ñîöèàëüíîñòè ê áèîëîãè÷åñêè îïðåäåëåííûì «âëå÷åíèÿì» ïðîèñõîäèò èç ñàìîé (î÷åâèäíî, âîñõîäÿùåé ê èäåå ñîöèàëüíûõ ôàêòîâ â ñìûñëå Ý. Äþðêãåéìà) ñòðóêòóðû àðãóìåíòàöèè àâòîðà. Ýòà àðãóìåíòàöèÿ ñîñòîèò â ñëåäóþùåì: èìåííî òî, ÷òî íàõîäèòñÿ âíå ñîçíàíèÿ è ñôîðìèðîâàëàñü ðàíüøå íåãî (ñòðóêòóðû ðîäñòâà, ñîöèàëüíûå èåðàðõèè, ãðàììàòèêà ÿçûêà, íîðìû ìîðàëè è ò.ä. è ò.ï.), ñ íåîáõîäèìîñòüþ ïðèîáðåòàåò ýòó îáúåêòèâíîñòü (÷èòàé, ñïîñîáíîñòü äåòåðìèíèðîâàòü ëîêàëüíûå ñîáûòèÿ â ëîêàëüíîì ïðîñòðàíñòâå-âðåìåíè èíäèâèäà). ×òî ìîæåò èíäèâèä ïðîòèâ «ñîöèàëüíûõ ôàêòîâ», åñëè åãî âëèÿíèå íå âûõîäèò çà ïðåäåëû ïðîñòðàíñòâà-âðåìåíè åãî æèçíè? À åñëè åãî èíäèâèäóàëüíîå âîçäåéñòâèå (òåêñòû, ðåøåíèÿ) âûõîäèò çà ýòè ïðåäåëû, òî îíî è ñàìî óòðà÷èâàåò èíäèâèäóàëüíîñòü è ïðèîáðåòàåò ñâîéñòâà ñîöèàëüíîãî ôàêòà. Íî òàê ëè ïðîñòà ïðèðîäà êàóçàöèè? Äåéñòâèòåëüíî ëè äèñòèíêöèè âíóòðåííåå/âíåøíåå è ðàííåå/ïîçäíåå (Ä. Þì, îò÷àñòè È. Êàíò) ëåæàò, êàê ïîëàãàë Äþðêãåéì, â îñíîâå äèñòèíêöèè ïðè÷èíà/ñëåäñòâèå? Äåéñòâèòåëüíî ëè áàçîâûå âëå÷åíèÿ, ïîòðåáíîñòè è èíòåðåñû ïîëó÷àþò êàóçàëüíóþ ñèëó è ïðèíóäèòåëüíîñòü èç-çà òîãî, ÷òî â ñâîåì ïðîñòðàíñòâå-âðåìåíè âûõîäÿò çà ïðåäåëû ëîêàëüíîñòè êîíêðåòíîãî èíäèâèäà? Îòðèöàòåëüíî îòâå÷àÿ íà ýòîò âîïðîñ, ÿ ôîðìóëèðóþ âòîðîé êðèòè÷åñêèé àðãóìåíò: â ìèðå ñàìîì ïî ñåáå íåò îäíîçíà÷íî îïðåäåëåííîãî ðàçäåëåíèÿ íà âíóòðåííèå è âíåøíèå äåòåðìèíàöèè èëè êàóçàöèè áåç ó÷åòà íàáëþäàòåëüíûõ ïåðñïåêòèâ òîãî èëè èíîãî íàáëþäàòåëÿ. Ïîýòîìó è ðàññìîòðåíèå âíåøíåé ïðè÷èííîñòè êàê îñíîâàíèå äëÿ ñîöèàëüíûõ çàêîíîâ íå ìîæåò áûòü ïðèíÿòî áåç îãîâîðîê5. Ðàññìîòðèì ýòîò àðãóìåíò áîëåå ïîäðîáíî. Âòîðîé êîíòðàðãóìåíò: ïðè÷èíû è ñëåäñòâèÿ ñóòü àòðèáóöèè, à íå áåññïîðíûå äàííûå íàáëþäåíèÿ. Áåçóñëîâíî, âíåøíèé ìèð êîíêðåòíîãî èíäèâèäà (÷åëîâå÷åñêàÿ ïðèðîäà, ïîòðåáíîñòè, èíòåðåñû) âîçíèê äî è âíå âñÿêîãî êîíêðåòíîãî èíäèâèäà è ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ãîðàçäî áîëåå îáøèðíîå ïîëå â ïðîñòðàíñòâå-âðåìåíè, ïîýòîìó èíäèâèä âûíóæäåí ñ ýòèì ñ÷èòàòüñÿ. Îäíàêî ýòî îáñòîÿòåëüñòâî íèêàê 5 Âíóòðåííÿÿ æèçíü ñîçíàíèÿ äåòåðìèíèðîâàíà èððèòàöèÿìè èç âíåøíåãî ìèðà, íî ýòè èððèòàöèè (òî, ÷òî ïåðåæèâàåòñÿ êàê âíåøíèé ìèð) ïðèñóòñòâóþò èìåííî è òîëüêî âíóòðè ñîçíàíèÿ. Òî, ÷òî îïðåäåëÿåòñÿ êàê âíåøíåå, óæå òàêèì îáðàçîì íàõîäèòñÿ âíóòðè ñîçíàíèÿ, íåâàæíî, èìååò ëè ýòî ôîðìó àêòèâèðóåìûõ íåéðîííûõ àíñàìáëåé èëè ôåíîìåíîëîãè÷åñêèõ ïåðåæèâàíèé.

35

À.Þ. ÀÍÒÎÍÎÂÑÊÈÉ

íå îãðàíè÷èâàåò ïîñëåäíåãî â åãî ñâîáîäíîì ïðèïèñûâàíèè êàóçàëüíîñòè ñâîèì è ÷óæèì äåéñòâèÿì è äåòåðìèíàöèÿì. È ñàì èíäèâèä, è íàáëþäàòåëü ñâîáîäíû èñòîëêîâûâàòü òî èëè èíîå äåéñòâèå ëèáî êàê ëè÷íûé âûáîð, ëèáî êàê äàâëåíèå ñîöèàëüíîé ñðåäû (ñîöèàëüíûé êîíòðîëü), ëèáî êàê ñëåäñòâèå ñâîèõ áèîëîãè÷åñêè çàäàííûõ óñòàíîâîê, ñêàæåì ñòðàõà, èíñòèíêòà ñàìîñîõðàíåíèÿ. Äåëî íå â òîì, ÷òî òàêèõ îáúåêòèâíûõ êàóçàöèé (à çíà÷èò, çàêîíîâ!) íå ñóùåñòâóåò, à â òîì, ÷òî íåò íèêàêîé âîçìîæíîñòè îäíîçíà÷íî óäîñòîâåðèòüñÿ â èñòèííîñòè òåõ èëè èíûõ ïðèïèñûâàåìûõ êàóçàöèé. Çàêîíîìåðíîñòè ïîýòîìó ïðèõîäèòñÿ èñêàòü íå â ñàìèõ êàóçàöèÿõ, à â òèïè÷íîì ïðèïèñûâàíèè (èëè ðàñïðåäåëåíèè) ïðè÷èí. Òàê, ïðåïîäàâàòåëè ñêëîííû ïðèïèñûâàòü óñïåõè ñòóäåíòîâ ñâîåìó ìàñòåðñòâó (èñ÷èñëÿòü âíåøíèì îáðàçîì), à íåóñïåõè ïðèïèñûâàþò (âíóòðåííå) ñàìèì ó÷åíèêàì (áèîëîãè÷åñêè îïðåäåëÿåìîé íåñïîñîáíîñòè îâëàäåòü çíàíèåì, ñ ÷åì ïðåïîäàâàòåëü, î÷åâèäíî, íè÷åãî ïîäåëàòü íå ìîæåò, íåñìîòðÿ íà âñå ñâîå ìàñòåðñòâî, è ò.ä.). Äðóãîé ïðèìåð. Çàäóìàåìñÿ, â ÷åì ïðè÷èíà êðèìèíàëüíûõ àêòîâ, ñêàæåì ïîäæîãîâ? Ïîäæîã ñ (áëèæàéøåé è âíóòðåííåé) òî÷êè çðåíèÿ ñàìîãî ïîäæèãàòåëÿ áóäåò ðàññìîòðåí êàê åãî ëè÷íûé ìîòèâ, îäíîâðåìåííûé ñàìîìó äåéñòâèþ ïðåñòóïíèêà (îïðåäåëÿåòñÿ íàñòîÿùèì). Ñ òî÷êè çðåíèÿ ïîëèöåéñêèõ, ðàññëåäóþùèõ ïîäæîã, ýòîò àêò óæå áóäåò îïðåäåëåí êàê îáóñëîâëåííûé ïðåñòóïíûìè óñòàíîâêàìè è ãàáèòóñîì, ñôîðìèðîâàâøèìèñÿ â ñðåäå âçðîñëåíèÿ è âîñïèòàíèÿ (â íåêîòîðîì ïðîøëîì), èëè, âîçìîæíî, êàê ãåíåòè÷åñêè îïðåäåëåííûé (â ñâîþ î÷åðåäü ïðîøëûì). Íî ñ òî÷êè çðåíèÿ èíîïëàíåòÿí ýòîò ïîäæîã äåòåðìèíèðîâàí â ïðèíöèïèàëüíî èíîé íàáëþäàòåëüíîé ïåðñïåêòèâå – òåì îáñòîÿòåëüñòâîì, ÷òî íà ýòîé ñòðàííîé ïëàíåòå Çåìëÿ åñòü ïîääåðæèâàþùèé ãîðåíèå êèñëîðîä. Íè â îäíîì èç ïðèâåäåííûõ ïðèìåðîâ íå ñóùåñòâóåò ðåñóðñîâ óñòàíîâèòü æåñòêóþ, âåäóùóþ èëè ðåøàþùóþ êàóçàëüíîñòü6. Òðåòèé êîíòðàðãóìåíò: êèáåðíåòè÷åñêàÿ èåðàðõèÿ óðîâíåé îáùåñòâà íå ïðåäïîëàãàåò êëàññè÷åñêèõ ôèçè÷åñêèõ çàêîíîâ. Ýòîò êðèòè÷åñêèé àðãóìåíò ÿ ñâÿçûâàþ ñ òåì, ÷òî îáùåñòâî íå ìîæåò áûòü ðàññìîòðåíî êàê çàêðûòàÿ ôèçè÷åñêàÿ ñèñòåìà ñ îäíîíàïðàâëåííûìè äåòåðìèíàöèÿìè îò ïðè÷èíû ê ñëåäñòâèþ. Îáùåñòâî óñòðîåíî êèáåðíåòè÷åñêè, ò.å. íåêîòîðûì êðóãîâûì îáðàçîì, íà îñíîâå ïîçè6 Ñì. ðàáîòó ïèîíåðà òåîðèè àòðèáóöèé Ôðèöà Õàéäåðà, ïûòàâøåãîñÿ óñòàíîâèòü òèïè÷åñêèå ðàñïðåäåëåíèÿ ïðè÷èí ïîâåäåíèÿ â îáúÿñíåíèÿõ èíäèâèäàìè ñâîèõ äåéñòâèé. Âñÿêèé ðàç èíäèâèä è íàáëþäàòåëü àòðèáóòèðóþò ïðè÷èíû àêòóàëüíîãî ïîâåäåíèÿ ëèáî äèñïîçèöèè (ñâîéñòâà ëè÷íîñòè, ìîòèâû, óñòàíîâêè), ëèáî ñèòóàöèè: ñèòóàòèâíîìó äàâëåíèþ îêðóæàþùåé ñðåäû, áîæåñòâåííîé âîëå, ñîöèàëüíîìó êîíòðîëþ, êóëüòóðíûì íîðìàì è îæèäàíèÿì äðóãèõ è ò.ä. Ïðè ýòîì ñàìè èíäèâèäû ñêëîííû-äå ïðåóâåëè÷èâàòü ðîëü âíóòðåííèõ ôàêòîðîâ (ëè÷íûõ äèñïîçèöèé), à íàáëþäàòåëè ñêëîííû ãèïåðòðîôèðîâàòü çíà÷åíèå âíåøíèõ äåòåðìèíàöèé. Îáúåêòèâíîé ïðè÷èííîñòè çàôèêñèðîâàòü íåëüçÿ, äàæå åñëè äîïóñòèòü åå íàëè÷èå.

36

ÂÎÇÌÎÆÅÍ ËÈ ÀÍÎÌÀËÜÍÛÉ ÑÎÖÈÎÌÎÍÈÇÌ?

òèâíûõ è íåãàòèâíûõ îáðàòíûõ ñâÿçåé – ïðîòèâîïîëîæíûõ, íî ðàâíîïðàâíûõ â ñâîèõ ïðè÷èííî-ñëåäñòâåííûõ ñòàòóñàõ ýíåðãåòè÷åñêèõ è èíôîðìàöèîííûõ ïîòîêîâ. Êàê ôóíêöèîíèðóåò ýòà (â íàèáîëåå àáñòðàêòíîì âèäå, êîíå÷íî) êðóãîâàÿ ìîäåëü âçàèìíûõ ïðè÷èíåíèé? Ýíåðãåòè÷åñêèé ïîòîê, èëè êàíàë âîçäåéñòâèé, íàïðàâëåí îò áèîëîãè÷åñêèõ äèñïîçèöèé (âèòàëüíûõ ïîòðåáíîñòåé) ÷åðåç ëè÷íîñòü è ñîöèàëüíûå íîðìû ê êóëüòóðå, à îáðàòíûé èíôîðìàöèîííûé êàíàë (óïðàâëåíèå) îïðåäåëÿåò äâèæåíèå îò íîðì êóëüòóðû (ñâîåãî ðîäà ïðîãðàìì), ìàíèôåñòèðóþùèõñÿ çàòåì â ñîöèàëüíûõ ðîëÿõ (ìàíèôåñòàöèÿõ ïðîãðàìì), èíäèâèäóàëüíûõ öåëÿõ è, íàêîíåö, â ôèçè÷åñêîì äâèæåíèè ðóê è íîã. Êàê çàäàòü ïðè÷èííî-ñëåäñòâåííûå ñâÿçè â ýòèõ ïðîòèâîïîëîæíî íàïðàâëåííûõ öåïÿõ êàóçàöèé?7  îáîèõ ñëó÷àÿõ ðå÷ü èäåò î êàóçàöèÿõ «ñíèçó» è «ñâåðõó»: ñíèçó – èìïóëüñû, èððèòàöèè èç âíåøíåé ñðåäû, äàþùèå ýíåðãèþ «ñîöèàëüíîìó äâèæåíèþ»; ñâåðõó – íàó÷åíèå, èíôîðìàöèîííîå îáåñïå÷åíèå, öåëåâûå, ðîëåâûå, êóëüòóðíûå îðèåíòèðû.  ýòîé ñòðóêòóðå íåò ìåñòà êëàññè÷åñêèì ïðè÷èííî-ñëåäñòâåííûì îòíîøåíèÿì, à ñëåäîâàòåëüíî, íîìàòåòè÷åñêèì êîððåëÿöèÿì. Âñå êèáåðíåòè÷åñêèå óðîâíè ñëóæàò óñëîâèÿìè èëè îãðàíè÷èòåëÿìè âîçìîæíîñòè äëÿ äðóãèõ, íî íå íîìîòåòè÷åñêîé ñâÿçüþ. Ñëóæèò ëè àëãîðèòì èëè ïðîãðàììà ïðè÷èíîé ôóíêöèîíèðîâàíèÿ àâòîìàòà? Èëè æå ñïåöèôè÷åñêàÿ ìàøèíà (íàïðèìåð, àâòîìàò ïî ïðîäàæå âîäû) òðåáóåò äëÿ ñåáÿ (ò.å. êàóçèðóåò!) ñïåöèôè÷åñêóþ ïðîãðàììó ïî êîððåëÿöèè ïîñòóïàþùèõ äåíåã è âûäà÷å êîêà-êîëû?  ìèðå ñèñòåì, â êèáåðíåòè÷åñêîì ìèðå âçàèìíî íàïðàâëåííûõ ïîòîêîâ ýíåðãèè è èíôîðìàöèè íåò äåòåðìèíàöèé â ñòèëå çàêîíà Áîéëÿ–Ìàðèîòòà, ïî êîòîðîìó óìåíüøåíèå îáúåìà ãàçà (ïðè÷èíà) íåîáõîäèìî êàóçèðóåò óâåëè÷åíèå äàâëåíèÿ (ñëåäñòâèå). Íî â êèáåðíåòè÷åñêèõ îïèñàíèÿõ âñå òåðÿåò ïðè÷èííî-ñëåäñòâåííóþ îäíîçíà÷íîñòü: òåìïåðàòóðà ëè (ò.å. âíåøíèé ôàêòîð ïî îòíîøåíèþ ê òåðìîñòàòó) ÿâëÿåòñÿ ïðè÷èíîé ïåðåêëþ÷åíèÿ ðåæèìîâ òåðìîñòàòà? Èëè ñàìî àâòî7  ýòîì êîíòåêñòå ïîòðåáíîñòè è èíòåðåñû ìîãóò ðàññìàòðèâàòüñÿ êàê òî, ÷òî ïîñòàâëÿåò íåêóþ ýíåðãèþ â ðàñïîðÿæåíèå èíäèâèäîâ, ìîòèâèðóÿ èõ ê ðåàëèçàöèè îäíèõ äåéñòâèé è îòêàçó îò äðóãèõ. Ýòèì çàäàþòñÿ îãðàíè÷èòåëüíûå ðàìêè èíäèâèäóàëüíîãî âûáîðà, íî ýòîò âûáîð âñåãäà îñóùåñòâëÿåòñÿ âíóòðåííèì îáðàçîì. Ïðîáëåìà â òîì, ÷òî ðàìêè, íàêëàäûâàþùèå îãðàíè÷åíèÿ íà äåéñòâèÿ è ìîòèâû, íåëüçÿ ïðèçíàòü çàêîíîì ïðîñòî ïîòîìó, ÷òî âñå íàêëàäûâàåò îãðàíè÷åíèÿ íà âñå. Òîò ðååñòð öåëåé è èíäèâèäóàëüíûõ ìîòèâàöèé, êîòîðûé çàäàåòñÿ íàëè÷èåì ïîòðåáíîñòåé è èíòåðåñîâ, â ñâîþ î÷åðåäü ñëóæèò ýíåðãèåé (ò.å. ôèçè÷åñêèì óñëîâèåì, áåç êîòîðîãî ôàêòè÷åñêîãî äâèæåíèÿ è èçìåíåíèÿ íå ïðîèçîøëî áû) äëÿ èñïîëíåíèÿ ñîöèàëüíûõ ðîëåé. ×òîáû ðîëü (ñêàæåì, ïðåïîäàâàòåëÿ) íîðìàëüíî ïðîèãðûâàëàñü, îíà äîëæíà ïîëó÷èòü èìïóëüñ â öåëåâîé ñòðóêòóðå ñîçíàíèè èíäèâèäà. Íî ñîöèàëüíàÿ ðîëü íå ÿâëÿåòñÿ ïîñëåäíèì ñëåäñòâèåì, à âûïîëíÿåò òàêóþ æå ýíåðãåòè÷åñêî-äâèãàòåëüíóþ ôóíêöèþ â îòíîøåíèè êóëüòóðíûõ ñòàíäàðòîâ, íîðì, öåííîñòåé. Îäíè ëåãèòèìèðóþò (îáóñëîâëèâàþò, «äâèæóò»), äðóãèå, íå âîïëîùåííûå â ñîöèàëüíîé ðîëè, îòìèðàþò. Íî è îáðàòíîå âîçäåéñòâèå êóëüòóðíûõ íîðì â îòíîøåíèè ñîöèàëüíûõ ðîëåé, â ñâîþ î÷åðåäü êîíäèöèîíèðóþùèõ öåëè è ìîòèâû èíäèâèäîâ, ñî ñâîåé ñòîðîíû êîíäèöèîíèðóþùèå äåéñòâèÿ ÷åëîâå÷åñêèõ îðãàíîâ, òîæå ìîæåò îïèñûâàòüñÿ êàê (èíôîðìàöèîííàÿ) ïðè÷èíà.

37

À.Þ. ÀÍÒÎÍÎÂÑÊÈÉ

ìàòè÷åñêîå ïåðåêëþ÷åíèå ðåæèìîâ òåðìîñòàòà (âíóòðåííèé ôàêòîð) ÿâëÿåòñÿ ïðè÷èíîé èçìåíåíèÿ âíåøíåé ñðåäû è òåìïåðàòóðû? Íî âåäü ïðèìåíèòåëüíî ê îáùåñòâó ìû ìîæåì çàäàòüñÿ àíàëîãè÷íûì âîïðîñîì. Ïîòðåáíîñòè è èíòåðåñû êàê ýíåðãåòè÷åñêèå ôàêòîðû, áåçóñëîâíî, ñëóæàò óñëîâèåì (îãðàíè÷èòåëåì) äëÿ ðååñòðà âîçìîæíûõ ìîòèâîâ, ðîëåé è íîðì. Íî è îáðàòíàÿ ïðè÷èííîñòü ñòîëü æå ðåàëüíà: èíôîðìàöèÿ (èäåè, íîðìû, ðîëåâûå ñòàíäàðòû) íåñëó÷àéíûì îáðàçîì êàíàëèçèðóþò ñîöèàëüíóþ ýíåðãèþ (ïîòðåáíîñòè, èíòåðåñû, ìîòèâû). Çàêëþ÷åíèå. Ñîöèàëüíûå ðåãóëÿðíîñòè íå ÿâëÿþòñÿ êîíòðôàêòè÷íûìè. ×òî æå ìîæíî ñïàñòè? Êàêîé ðîä ðåãóëÿðíûõ, ïóñòü è íå óíèâåðñàëüíûõ, çàêîíîâ âîçìîæåí â ÷åëîâå÷åñêîì îáùåæèòèè? Ýòè ðåãóëÿðíîñòè ìîæíî áûëî áû íàçâàòü êâàçèçàêîíàìè, ñóòü êîòîðûõ ñîñòîÿëà áû â îãðàíè÷åíèè ñëó÷àéíîñòåé áåç óñòàíîâëåíèÿ æåñòêèõ ñâÿçåé. Ê òàêîâûì ìîæíî îòíåñòè, íàïðèìåð, ïðèíöèï äâîéíîé êîíòèíãåíöèè8, à òàêæå çàêîíû îáùåé òåîðèè ýâîëþöèè (ìóòàöèè–ñåëåêöèè–çàêðåïëåíèÿ ïðèçíàêîâ), ïðèìåíèìûå è ê ýâîëþöèè ñàìûõ ðàçíûõ ôîðì ñîöèàëüíîñòè9. Íåñìîòðÿ íà ðåãóëÿðíîå âîñïðîèçâåäåíèå ýòèõ ýâîëþöèîííûõ ñòàäèé, ýòî íå ìåíÿåò îáùåãî ñëó÷àéíîãî íàïðàâëåíèÿ ýâîëþöèè, «ïîäîáíî âèäåîôèëüìó, êîòîðûé ïðè êàæäîì ïðîñìîòðå çàâåðøàåòñÿ ïî-ðàçíîìó» [Gould, 1990: 47]. Âñå òàêîãî ðîäà êâàçèçàêîíû, áåçóñëîâíî, âûïîëíÿþò ðîëü îãðàíè÷èòåëÿ ñëó÷àéíîñòåé (âîçìîæíûõ äåéñòâèé, ïåðåæèâàíèé, îæèäàíèé, êîììóíèêàòèâíûõ ñîîáùåíèé è ò.ä.), íî, î÷åâèäíî, íå ÿâëÿþòñÿ íîìîòåòè÷åñêèìè çàêîíàìè ðîäà «äëÿ âñåõ Õ, åñëè Õ îáëàäàåò ñâîéñòâîì À, òî Õ òàêæå îáëàäàåò è ñâîéñòâîì B». Äåëî â òîì, ÷òî çàêîíû åñòåñòâîçíàíèÿ êîíòðôàêòè÷íû, ò.å. ïðåäñòàâëÿþò ñîáîé óñëîâíûå âûñêàçûâàíèÿ, èñòèííûå íåçàâèñèìî îò ôàêòè÷åñêèõ – ðåàëèçóþùèõ ýòè çàêîíû – îáñòîÿòåëüñòâ10. Òàê, çàêîí «Âñå ñîåäèíåíèÿ áàðèÿ ãîðÿò çåëåíûì ïëàìåíåì» áóäåò äåéñòâîâàòü íåçàâèñèìî îò òîãî, ïîäæèãàåì ìû ýòî ñîåäèíåíèå èëè íåò. Îíî äîëæíî ãîðåòü çåëåíûì ïëàìåíåì (âî âñåõ âîçìîæíûõ ìèðàõ è ðåãèîíàõ ïðîñòðàíñòâà-âðåìåíè), òàê êàê ýòî âûòåêàåò èç àòîìíîé ñòðóêòóðû åãî ñîåäèíåíèé. Ñîöèàëüíûå çàêîíû íå ÿâëÿþòñÿ êîíòðôàêòè÷íûìè, âåäü îíè çàâèñÿò îò òîãî, ÷òî ôàêòè÷åñêèå èìååò ìåñòî â äàííîì ïðîñòðàíñòâå 8 ÏÄÊ ïðåäïîëàãàåò îãðàíè÷åíèå âåðîÿòíîñòè â ñëó÷àå «âñòðå÷è» äâóõ è áîëåå ñëó÷àéíûõ ñîáûòèé: åñëè äâà êîðàáëÿ âñòðå÷àþòñÿ â óçêîì çàëèâå, òî, ÷òîáû ðàçîéòèñü, èì ñëåäóåò ìàíåâðèðîâàòü â ðàçíûõ (à íå â îáùåì) íàïðàâëåíèÿõ. Òî æå îòíîñèòñÿ ê êîîðäèíàöèÿì ñâîáîäíûõ èíäèâèäîâ [Parsons, Shils, 1951]. 9 Òàêîâîé ãåíåðàëèçàöèåé ìîæåò âûñòóïèòü ïîñëåäîâàòåëüíîñòü òðåõ ýâîëþöèîííûõ ñòàäèé: èçìåí÷èâîñòü (ñëó÷àéíûå ìóòàöèè – òðàíñôîðìàöèè èíñòèòóòîâ, ðîëåé, íîðì, ïîíÿòèé è ò.ä.), âíóòðåííèé è âíåøíèé îòáîð-ñåëåêöèÿ (òåõ èëè èíûõ «áîëåå óäà÷íûõ» èíñòèòóòîâ è ò.ï.) è, íàêîíåö, çàêðåïëåíèå ýòèõ ôîðì ñîöèàëüíîñòè âî âçàèìîóñòîé÷èâûõ ñèñòåìàõ ðàçäåëåíèÿ òðóäà è êîììóíèêàöèé (îáùåñòâà). 10 Äèñêóññèþ î êîíòðôàêòè÷íîñòè ïîäëèííûõ íàó÷íûõ çàêîíîâ è ñëó÷àéíîé èñòèííîñòè àêöèäåíòàëüíûõ ãåíåðàëèçàöèé ñì.: [Nagel, 1961].

38

ÂÎÇÌÎÆÅÍ ËÈ ÀÍÎÌÀËÜÍÛÉ ÑÎÖÈÎÌÎÍÈÇÌ?

è äàííîì âðåìåíè. Ïðîòåñòàíòñêàÿ ýòèêà íåîáõîäèìî ïîðîæäàëà êàïèòàëèçì, ÿâëÿÿñü îãðàíè÷èòåëåì âîçìîæíîñòåé ðàçâèòèÿ õîçÿéñòâà, íî òîëüêî ïðè äàííûõ óñëîâèÿõ, â äàííîì ðåãèîíå è äàííóþ ýïîõó. Ýòà ñâÿçü ÿâëÿåòñÿ ïðè÷èííî-ñëåäñòâåííîé, èñòèííîé, íî ïðè ýòîì – àêöèäåíòàëüíî-èñòèííîé11. È â ýòîì ñìûñëå óòâåðæäåíèå î ïðèíóäèòåëüíîé ñèëå ïîòðåáíîñòåé è èíòåðåñîâ â îòíîøåíèè èäåé, ðåøåíèé è ò.ä. äåéñòâèòåëüíî ÿâëÿåòñÿ íåîáõîäèìûì îãðàíè÷èòåëåì ñëó÷àéíîãî âûáîðà èíäèâèäà, íî îíî íå ÿâëÿåòñÿ êîíòðôàêòè÷åñêèì, à çíà÷èò – íîìîòåòè÷åñêèì çàêîíîì.

Библиографический список Davidson, 1980 – Davidson D. Essays on Actions and Events. Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1980. Nagel, 1961 – Nagel E. The Structure of Science. N.Y., 1961. Gould, 1990 – Gould S.J. Wonderful Life. The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. N.Y. : Norton, 1990. Parsons, Shils, 1951 – Parsons T., Shils E.A. Toward a General Theory of Action. N.Y., 1951.

11 Òî

åñòü íå íåîáõîäèìîé â ñìûñëå Ñ. Êðèïêå.

39

EPISTEMOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE · 2015 · Ò. XLV · ¹ 3

Т

ЕРМИНОЛОГИЯ НЕОКАНТИАНЦЕВ ДАВНО УСТАРЕЛА

Александра Александровна Аргамакова – кандидат философских наук, внештатный научный сотрудник сектора социальной эпистемологии Института философии РАН. Email: [email protected]

1

Alexandra Argamakova – PhD, visiting research fellow at the department of social epistemology, Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences.

T

HE TERMINOLOGY OF NEOKANTIANISM IS OBSOLETE

Èññëåäîâàòåëè ïî-ïðåæíåìó îáðàùàþòñÿ ê èäåå íîìîòåòè÷åñêîãî è èäåîãðàôè÷åñêîãî ìåòîäîâ ïîçíàíèÿ, è ñîîòâåòñòâóþùèå òåðìèíû ïåðèîäè÷åñêè ïîÿâëÿþòñÿ â çàãîëîâêàõ è òåêñòàõ ðàáîò ïî ìåòîäîëîãèè íàóêè. Ïðè âñåì òîì ñî âðåìåí íåîêàíòèàíöåâ ñëèøêîì ìíîãî âîäû óòåêëî. Íàñêîëüêî èõ òåîðåòè÷åñêèå êîíñòðóêöèè è ÿçûê àêòóàëüíû òåïåðü? Äàæå åñëè ñ ìàññîé îãîâîðîê ìû áóäåì ïðîäîëæàòü àïåëëèðîâàòü ê íîìîòåòè÷åñêîìó è èäåîãðàôè÷åñêîìó ìåòîäàì, èìååòñÿ äîñòàòî÷íîå êîëè÷åñòâî ïðè÷èí îòêàçàòüñÿ îò ñòàðîìîäíîãî äåëåíèÿ íàóê íà èäåîãðàôè÷åñêèå è íîìîòåòè÷åñêèå èñõîäÿ èç èäåè ñîîòâåòñòâóþùèõ ìåòîäàì. Ïîýòîìó çàìûñåë è îñíîâíóþ ìûñëü ñòàòüè Ê.Õ. Ìîìäæÿíà õî÷åòñÿ ïîääåðæàòü, à êðèòèêó Â. Âèíäåëüáàíäà, Ã. Ðèêêåðòà è ïðî÷èõ ïîñëåäîâàòåëåé íåîêàíòèàíñòâà äîïîëíèòü è ðàäèêàëèçèðîâàòü. Ýòèìîëîãèÿ òåðìèíà «íîìîòåòè÷åñêèé» óêàçûâàåò íà åãî ïðîèñõîæäåíèå îò äðåâíåãðå÷åñêîãî nomos, ÷òî îçíà÷àåò «çàêîí». Ê íîìîòåòè÷åñêèì íàóêàì íåîêàíòèàíöû ïðè÷èñëÿëè åñòåñòâåííûå íàóêè áëàãîäàðÿ èõ ñïîñîáíîñòÿì îòêðûâàòü óíèâåðñàëüíûå è îáúåêòèâíûå çàêîíû äåéñòâèòåëüíîãî ìèðà. Èäåîãðàôè÷åñêèå íàóêè, èëè íàóêè î êóëüòóðå, íàîáîðîò, íàïðàâëåíû íà èçó÷åíèå «îñîáåííîãî» è «÷àñòíîãî» (îò ãð. idios), ò.å. ñëó÷àéíûõ ÿâëåíèé ñîöèàëüíîãî è èíäèâèäóàëüíîãî ìèðà, êîòîðûå íå ïîä÷èíÿþòñÿ îáîáùàþùèì ôîðìóëàì â ñèëó ñâîåé ñóáúåêòèâíîé ïðèðîäû. Ïðàêòè÷åñêè âñå ñóùåñòâåííîå î íîìîòåòè÷åñêîì è èäåîãðàôè÷åñêîì ìåòîäàõ ýòèì ñêàçàíî. Íî ñêàçàííîãî îêàçûâàåòñÿ ñëèøêîì ìàëî, ÷òîáû îïèñàòü âñå ìíîãîîáðàçèå ìåòîäîâ, ïðèìåíÿåìûõ â ñîâðåìåííûõ íàóêàõ äëÿ îïèñàíèÿ è îáúÿñíåíèÿ ÿâëåíèé ëþáîé ïðèðîäû. Ê íàñòîÿùåìó ìîìåíòó ëîãèêè è ôèëîñîôû íàóêè ïðîäâèíóëèñü çíà÷èòåëüíî äàëüøå â ìåòîäîëîãè÷åñêîì àíàëèçå, äåëàÿ î÷åâèäíûì ýòîò ôàêò íèùåòû íåîêàíòèàíñòâà. Îïèñàíèþ íîìîòåòè÷åñêîãî ìåòîäà ñîîòâåòñòâóåò äåäóêòèâíî-íîìîëîãè÷åñêàÿ ìîäåëü îáúÿñíåíèÿ, õàðàêòåðíàÿ äëÿ åñòåñòâîçíàíèÿ è óñòàíàâëèâàþ1 Ðàáîòà âûïîëåíà ïðè ïîääåðæêå ÐÍÔ, ïðîåêò ¹ 14-1802227 «Ñîöèàëüíàÿ ôèëîñîôèÿ íàóêè. Ðîññèéñêàÿ ïåðñïåêòèâà».

40

Panel Discussion

ÒÅÐÌÈÍÎËÎÃÈß ÍÅÎÊÀÍÒÈÀÍÖÅÂ ÄÀÂÍÎ ÓÑÒÀÐÅËÀ

ùàÿ ïðè÷èíû ÿâëåíèé ïóòåì èõ ïîäâåäåíèÿ ïîä óíèâåðñàëüíûé çàêîí, â ïðîñòåéøåì âèäå çàïèñûâàþùèéñÿ ôîðìóëîé (õ) (Px  Qx). Ïîä óíèâåðñàëüíîñòüþ çäåñü ïîíèìàåòñÿ íåîáõîäèìàÿ âçàèìîñâÿçü ÿâëåíèé Px è Qx äëÿ êàæäîãî êîíêðåòíîãî òèïà îáúåêòîâ x â ëþáîé òî÷êå ïðîñòðàíñòâà è âðåìåíè ïðè îïðåäåëåííûõ óñëîâèÿõ. Åñëè âçàèìîñâÿçü ÿâëåíèé èìååò ìåñòî òîëüêî â êàêîì-òî ïðîöåíòå ñëó÷àåâ, òî òà æå ôîðìóëà áóäåò îïèñûâàòü äåäóêòèâíî-ñòàòèñòè÷åñêèé çàêîí, î ÷åì áûëî èçâåñòíî åùå ëîãè÷åñêèì ïîçèòèâèñòàì. Ñåé÷àñ äàííûå ìîäåëè àññîöèèðóþò ñ Ê.Ã. Ãåìïåëåì, êîòîðûé ãîâîðèë òàêæå îá èíäóêòèâíî-ñòàòèñòè÷åñêîé ìîäåëè îáúÿñíåíèÿ, èñïîëüçóåìîé â òîì ÷èñëå â ñîöèàëüíûõ íàóêàõ. Ñîâðåìåííàÿ íàó÷íàÿ ëèòåðàòóðà áîãàòà ïîäõîäàìè, ìîäåðíèçèðóþùèìè ìîäåëè Ãåìïåëÿ è ïðåäëàãàþùèìè íîâûå. Ñðåäè íèõ – äåäóêòèâíî-íîìîòåòè÷åñêàÿ ìîäåëü âåðîÿòíîñòíîãî îáúÿñíåíèÿ Ðèàëòîíà, ìîäåëü ñòàòèñòè÷åñêîé çíà÷èìîñòè Óýñëè Ñýëìîíà äëÿ îïèñàíèÿ êàóçàëüíîé ñâÿçè ÿâëåíèé, ïðàãìàòè÷åñêàÿ òåîðèÿ îáúÿñíåíèÿ Áàñ âàí Ôðààññåíà, âîâñå îòêàçûâàþùàÿñÿ îò èäåè óíèâåðñàëüíûõ çàêîíîâ, è ìíîãèå äðóãèå [Glennan, 2006]. Êîãäà íåîêàíòèàíöû ôîðìóëèðîâàëè èäåþ äâóõ ìåòîäîâ è îñíîâûâàëè íà íåé êëàññèôèêàöèþ íàóê, îíè ñòðåìèëèñü ïîêàçàòü ëåãèòèìíîñòü íàóê, íå îòêðûâàþùèõ çàêîíû äåéñòâèòåëüíîãî ìèðà. Äàííîå îáñòîÿòåëüñòâî íå äîëæíî áûëî ëèøàòü òàêèå äèñöèïëèíû íàó÷íîãî ñòàòóñà, ïîòîìó ÷òî èì ïðèïèñûâàëèñü ñïåöèôè÷åñêèé èäåîãðàôè÷åñêèé ìåòîä è ñâîè îñîáåííîñòè èçó÷åíèÿ îáúåêòîâ. Ê íàñòîÿùåìó âðåìåíè ñòàëî ïîíÿòíî, ÷òî íàó÷íîå îáúÿñíåíèå íå îáÿçàòåëüíî âåäåòñÿ ÷åðåç óíèâåðñàëüíûå çàêîíû, õîòÿ ýòîò ñïîñîá âñå åùå ìîæåò ðàññìàòðèâàòüñÿ êàê íàèáîëåå íàó÷íûé è ïîòîìó íàèáîëåå ïðåäïî÷òèòåëüíûé. Ïðèìåíèòåëüíî ê ñîöèàëüíî-ãóìàíèòàðíûì äèñöèïëèíàì ïðîáëåìà óíèâåðñàëüíûõ çàêîíîâ íèêóäà íå äåëàñü, è îá ýòîì íå ïåðåñòàþò ñïîðèòü [Roberts, 2004: 149; Kincaid, 2004: 179]. Âïðî÷åì, ïî ôîðìå çàêîíû ìàëî ÷åì îòëè÷àþòñÿ îò ñëó÷àéíî èñòèííûõ îáîáùåíèé. Êàêèå ñìûñë è çíà÷åíèå ñëåäóåò ïðèäàâàòü èäåå íàó÷íîãî çàêîíà è íåîáõîäèìîé êàóçàëüíîé ñâÿçè ìåæäó ÿâëåíèÿìè – ýòî ñëîæíûé è îáñóæäàåìûé ñïåöèàëèñòàìè ôèëîñîôñêèé âîïðîñ. Ïîêà èäóò ñïîðû, â ðàìêàõ îòäåëüíûõ ñîöèîãóìàíèòàðíûõ äèñöèïëèí ôîðìóëèðóþòñÿ òåîðåòè÷åñêèå ïîëîæåíèÿ, â òîì ÷èñëå íà ÿçûêå ìàòåìàòèêè, ïðåòåíäóþùèå íà ñòàòóñ çàêîíîâ.  ëèíãâèñòèêå, ê ïðèìåðó, ýòî çàêîíû Öèïôà è Õèïñà, â ýêîíîìèêå – çàêîíû ñïðîñà è ïðåäëîæåíèÿ, Îóêåíà, Âàëüðàñà è ò.ä.  ñâÿçè ñ ýòèì ðÿä èññëåäîâàòåëåé íåáåçîñíîâàòåëüíî çàìå÷àåò, ÷òî íå âñå òî ÿâëÿåòñÿ çàêîíîì, ÷òî èì çîâåòñÿ. Ôèêñèðóåìûå òàêèìè «çàêîíàìè» ðåãóëÿðíîñòè â ñîöèàëüíûõ ÿâëåíèÿõ èìåþò ìíîãî÷èñëåííûå èñêëþ÷åíèÿ, êîòîðûå ñëîæíî ïîääàþòñÿ ó÷åòó. Çíà÷èò, íåëüçÿ ÷åòêî îïðåäåëèòü âñå óñëîâèÿ, êîãäà òàêèå «çàêîíû» âûïîëíÿþòñÿ èëè íå âûïîëíÿþòñÿ, è î çàêîíàõ, ïîäîáíûõ òåì, èìåþò ìåñòî â ôèçèêå è äðóãèõ åñòåñòâåííûõ

41

À.À. ÀÐÃÀÌÀÊÎÂÀ

íàóêàõ, çäåñü âåñòè ðå÷ü íå ïðèõîäèòñÿ. Äðóãèå èññëåäîâàòåëè âîçðàæàþò: ôèçè÷åñêèå çàêîíû ôîðìóëèðóþòñÿ äëÿ èäåàëüíûõ óñëîâèé, è íà ïðàêòèêå â èõ äåéñòâèå òîæå ìîãóò âìåøèâàòüñÿ ôàêòîðû, êîòîðûå íåëüçÿ ïðîêîíòðîëèðîâàòü [Kincaid, 2004: 179]. Êàê áû òî íè áûëî, íåëüçÿ îòðèöàòü, ÷òî ñîöèàëüíî-ãóìàíèòàðíûå íàóêè èñïîëüçóþò âàðèàòèâíûå ìîäåëè îáúÿñíåíèÿ è ðàñïîëàãàþò èíñòðóìåíòàðèåì äëÿ îïèñàíèÿ ñòàòèñòè÷åñêèõ çàêîíîìåðíîñòåé, â ïðîòèâíîì ñëó÷àå ïðîãíîçèðîâàíèå, ïëàíèðîâàíèå è óïðàâëåíèå ïðîöåññàìè â ýòîé îáëàñòè íè÷åì íå îòëè÷àëèñü áû îò øàìàíñòâà èëè ãàäàíèÿ íà êîôåéíîé ãóùå. Âñå ýòî ñëàáî óêëàäûâàåòñÿ â íåîêàíòèàíñêóþ êîíöåïöèþ îñîáîãî èíäèâèäóàëèçèðóþùåãî ìåòîäà èçó÷åíèÿ óíèêàëüíûõ ÿâëåíèé, ñóùíîñòíî îòëè÷àþùåãî íàóêè î äóõå îò íàóê î ïðèðîäå. Ñêàçàííîå íå îçíà÷àåò, ÷òî íàòóðàëèçì òîðæåñòâóåò è «ïîíèìàþùèå» ïîäõîäû íå ïðåäñòàâëÿþò èíòåðåñà. Îòñþäà ñëåäóåò òîëüêî òî, ÷òî íåîêàíòèàíñêàÿ ôèëîñîôèÿ íàóêè ñ ñîâðåìåííîé òî÷êè çðåíèÿ êàæåòñÿ óïðîùåííîé. Èñïîëüçóåìûé åþ ïîíÿòèéíûé àïïàðàò íå ïîçâîëÿåò ïðîèçâåñòè äåòàëüíûé àíàëèç ìåòîäîëîãèè íàóêè. Íåîêàíòèàíñêèé ïîäõîä íå ó÷èòûâàåò, âî-ïåðâûõ, ðàçíîîáðàçèå èñïîëüçóåìûõ â ñîöèîãóìàíèòàðíûõ [Koertge, 2006] è åñòåñòâåííî-íàó÷íûõ èññëåäîâàíèÿõ ñõåì îïèñàíèÿ è îáúÿñíåíèÿ ÿâëåíèé, à òàêæå íå ïîçâîëÿåò äåòàëüíî ïðîàíàëèçèðîâàòü ñõîäñòâî è ðàçëè÷èå ýòèõ ñõåì, î ÷åì ãîâîðèëîñü âûøå. Âî-âòîðûõ, îí íå ó÷èòûâàåò ìåòîäîëîãè÷åñêèé ïëþðàëèçì, êîòîðûé íàáëþäàåòñÿ â áîëüøèíñòâå ñîâðåìåííûõ íàóê. Íàìíîãî öåëåñîîáðàçíåå ïðîâîäèòü àíàëèç ìåòîäîëîãèè ñîâðåìåííîé íàóêè â òåðìèíàõ êîëè÷åñòâåííûõ è êà÷åñòâåííûõ ìåòîäîâ, êîòîðûå àêòèâíî èñïîëüçóþòñÿ ñåé÷àñ êàê â åñòåñòâîçíàíèè, òàê è â ãóìàíèòàðèñòèêå. Ýòè ìåòîäû ìíîæåñòâåííû, îíè ïîñòîÿííî ðàçâèâàþòñÿ è ñïîñîáíû îðãàíè÷íî ñî÷åòàòüñÿ â èññëåäîâàíèÿõ.  ñëó÷àå òàêîãî ñî÷åòàíèÿ ìû èìååì äåëî ñî ñìåøàííûìè ìåòîäîëîãè÷åñêèìè ïîäõîäàìè, êîòîðûå ïîäðàçóìåâàþò ñáîð îäíîâðåìåííî êà÷åñòâåííûõ è êîëè÷åñòâåííûõ äàííûõ, èõ îáîáùåíèå, à òàêæå âûáîð ñîîòâåòñòâóþùèõ èññëåäîâàòåëüñêèõ ñòðàòåãèé è òåîðåòè÷åñêîãî êàðêàñà [Creswell, 2013: 4]. Ïðèâåäåì ïðîñòåéøèé ïðèìåð ïðèìåíåíèÿ ñìåøàííîé ìåòîäîëîãèè èç îáëàñòè ìàðêåòèíãà: îöåíèâàÿ ïîïóëÿðíîñòü íîâîé âåðñèè îïåðàöèîííîé ñèñòåìû Windows ñðåäè ïîëüçîâàòåëåé, ìîæíî âçÿòü â ðàññìîòðåíèå ñòàòèñòè÷åñêóþ èíôîðìàöèþ, äàþùóþ êîëè÷åñòâåííûå äàííûå î ïðîöåíòå ïîëüçîâàòåëåé, ïåðåøåäøèõ îò ñòàðîé âåðñèè ê íîâîé, è äîïîëíèòåëüíî ïðîâåñòè îïðîñ êëèåíòîâ, êîòîðûé ïðåäñòàâèò êà÷åñòâåííûå äàííûå î âîñïðèÿòèè íîâûõ õàðàêòåðèñòèê òîâàðà. Ñ÷èòàåòñÿ, ÷òî ñìåøàííàÿ ñòðàòåãèÿ ïîçâîëÿåò èçáåãàòü ìèíóñîâ ÷èñòî êîëè÷åñòâåííîãî èëè ÷èñòî êà÷åñòâåííîãî ïîäõîäà â èññëåäîâàíèÿõ. Ïðèìå÷àòåëüíî è òî, ÷òî ñåé÷àñ ïîÿâëÿþòñÿ ñïåöèàëèçèðîâàííûå

42

ÒÅÐÌÈÍÎËÎÃÈß ÍÅÎÊÀÍÒÈÀÍÖÅÂ ÄÀÂÍÎ ÓÑÒÀÐÅËÀ

æóðíàëû, ïîñâÿùåííûå òåìàòèêå ñìåøàííûõ ïîäõîäîâ3, à òàêæå îðãàíèçàöèè, îáúåäèíÿþùèå ñîîòâåòñòâóþùèõ ñïåöèàëèñòîâ4. Ñïðàâåäëèâîñòè ðàäè îòìåòèì, ÷òî íåîêàíòèàíöû îñîçíàâàëè íåêîòîðûå èç ïåðå÷èñëåííûõ òðóäíîñòåé ñ ñàìîãî íà÷àëà. Ã. Ðèêêåðò ãîâîðèë î ñóùåñòâîâàíèè «ïðîìåæóòî÷íûõ îáëàñòåé» [Ðèêêåðò, 1998: 103–111] èññëåäîâàíèé, â êîòîðûõ íîìîòåòè÷åñêèé è èäåîãðàôè÷åñêèé ìåòîäû âñòðå÷àþòñÿ. Íåñìîòðÿ íà ýòî, Ðèêêåðò áûë óáåæäåí â ñâîåîáðàçèè èäåîãðàôè÷åñêèõ íàóê è èõ ñïîñîáà èçó÷åíèÿ äåéñòâèòåëüíîñòè. Ýòó îñîáåííîñòü Ðèêêåðò ñâÿçûâàë ñ íåóñòðàíèìîñòüþ öåííîñòíîãî èçìåðåíèÿ èç íàóê î äóõå, èëè íàóê î êóëüòóðå, êàê îí ïðåäïî÷èòàë ãîâîðèòü [òàì æå: 125–128]. Ïî åãî ìíåíèþ, âîïðîñ î öåííîñòÿõ ýëèìèíèðóåòñÿ â íîìîòåòè÷åñêèõ íàóêàõ, äàæå åñëè îíè ïðèáåãàþò ê èíäèâèäóàëèçèðóþùèì ïðîöåäóðàì, ò.å. èäåîãðàôè÷åñêîìó ìåòîäó. Íî ñîöèàëüíûå èññëåäîâàíèÿ íàóêè, àêòèâèçèðîâàâøèåñÿ ñî âòîðîé ïîëîâèíû XX â., ïîêàçàëè, ÷òî åñòåñòâîçíàíèå íå ÿâëÿåòñÿ â ýòîì ñìûñëå íåéòðàëüíûì è îáúåêòèâíûì. Öåííîñòè ó÷åíûõ – êàê ýïèñòåìè÷åñêèå, òàê è òå, êîòîðûå íå ñ÷èòàþòñÿ ÷àñòüþ íàó÷íîãî ýòîñà, – âëèÿþò íà ðàçëè÷íûå ýòàïû ïðîöåññà ïîçíàíèÿ. Ïîïûòêè ðàçëè÷èòü èäåîãðàôè÷åñêèé è íîìîòåòè÷åñêèé ñïîñîáû ïîçíàíèÿ äåéñòâèòåëüíîñòè, òàêèì îáðàçîì, åùå áîëåå çàòðóäíÿþòñÿ. Íàêîíåö, êîíñòðóêòèâèñòñêèå ïîäõîäû, ðàñïðîñòðàíåííûå â ñîâðåìåííîé ýïèñòåìîëîãèè, çàñòàâëÿþò ñåðüåçíî çàäóìàòüñÿ: â êàêîì ñìûñëå ìû ìîæåì ãîâîðèòü îá îòêðûòèè çàêîíîâ â åñòåñòâîçíàíèè è èõ èçîáðåòåíèè â ñîöèîãóìàíèòàðíûõ íàóêàõ. Ñ òî÷êè çðåíèÿ êîíñòðóêòèâèçìà, ëþáûå íàøè ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ ïîÿâëÿþòñÿ â ðåçóëüòàòå àêòèâíîé äåÿòåëüíîñòè ñîçíàíèÿ ñóáúåêòîâ ïîçíàíèÿ. Íåîêàíòèàíöû ñ÷èòàëè íàóêè î ïðèðîäå îáúåêòèâíûìè â ñèëó èõ ñïîñîáíîñòè îòêðûâàòü íåçàâèñèìûå îò ñóáúåêòîâ ïîçíàíèÿ çàêîíû äåéñòâèòåëüíîãî ìèðà. Àêòóàëüíûå òåíäåíöèè â ýïèñòåìîëîãèè è ôèëîñîôèè íàóêè ñòàâÿò ïîä âîïðîñ è ýòî óòâåðæäåíèå. Íà óðîâíå ÿçûêà è äèñöèïëèíàðíîãî äåëåíèÿ â ðîññèéñêîé ïðàêòèêå ïðèíÿòî íå îòêàçûâàòü â íàó÷íîì ñòàòóñå íèêàêèì àêàäåìè÷åñêèì äèñöèïëèíàì (èíîãäà çà èñêëþ÷åíèåì ôèëîñîôèè). Íà Çàïàäå, ïî êðàéíåé ìåðå â àíãëîÿçû÷íûõ ñòðàíàõ, ïîä íàóêîé â ïåðâóþ î÷åðåäü ïîíèìàåòñÿ åñòåñòâîçíàíèå. Òó ÷àñòü ñîöèàëüíîãî ïîçíàíèÿ, ãäå óäàëîñü ïðèìåíèòü òî÷íûå è ýêñïåðèìåíòàëüíûå ìåòîäû, íàçûâàþò ñîöèàëüíîé íàóêîé, à îñòàëüíûå äèñöèïëèíû îòíîñÿò ê àìîðôíûì humanities. Ìû æå ñìåëî (è, íà ìîé âçãëÿä, ïðàâèëüíî) ãîâîðèì î ñîöèàëüíî-ãóìàíèòàðíûõ íàóêàõ, äåëàÿ ïîïðàâêó íà ñïåöèôèêó èõ ìåòîäîâ è îáúåêòîâ èññëåäîâàíèÿ. Íî âîïðîñ î íàó÷íîì ñòàòóñå, î òàêîé ñïåöèôèêå èëè åå îòñóòñòâèè òðåáóåò îáîñíîâàííîãî ôèëî3

Ñì.: The Journal of Mixed Methods Research (JMMR). – http://mmr.sagepub.com/ Cì.: Mixed Methods International Research Association (MMIRA) – https://mmira. wildapricot.org/ 4

43

À.À. ÀÐÃÀÌÀÊÎÂÀ

ñîôñêîãî îòâåòà. Ïî÷åìó ïðîáëåìàòè÷íî îòâå÷àòü íà íåãî ïî øàáëîíàì íåîêàíòèàíñòâà – íàäåþñü, óäàëîñü âêðàòöå ïîÿñíèòü. Ñåãîäíÿ èäåè íîìîòåòè÷åñêîãî è èäåîãðàôè÷åñêîãî ìåòîäîâ è ñîîòâåòñòâóþùàÿ êëàññèôèêàöèÿ íàóê ìàëîïîëåçíû äëÿ ìåòîäîëîãè÷åñêîãî àíàëèçà íàóêè. Íàì òðåáóþòñÿ îáíîâëåíèå èíñòðóìåíòàðèÿ ïîäîáíûõ èññëåäîâàíèé è îáðàùåíèå ê ÿçûêó ñîâðåìåííîé ëîãèêè è ôèëîñîôèè íàóêè.

Библиографический список Ðèêêåðò, 1998 – Ðèêêåðò Ã. Íàóêè î ïðèðîäå è íàóêè î êóëüòóðå. Ì. : Ðåñïóáëèêà, 1998. Creswell, 2013 – Creswell J.W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA : SAGE Publications, 2013. Glennan, 2006 – Glennan S. Explanation // The Philosophy of Science: an Encyclopedia. N.Y. : Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2006. Kincaid, 2004 – Kincaid H. There are Laws in the Social Sciences // Contemporary Debates in the Philosophy of Science. Oxford : Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004. Koertge, 2006 – Koertge N. Philosophy of the Social Sciences // The Philosophy of Science: an Encyclopedia. N.Y. : Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2006. P. 780–785. Roberts, 2004 – Roberts J.T. There are no Laws of Social Sciences; Kincaid H. There are Laws in the Social Sciences // Contemporary Debates in the Philosophy of Science. Oxford : Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004.

44

EPISTEMOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE · 2015 · Ò. XLV · ¹ 3

О R

ТВЕТ НА ДИСКУССИЮ

EPLY TO CRITICS

К.Х. Момджян

Äîðîãèå êîëëåãè! Áëàãîäàðþ âàñ çà êðèòè÷åñêèé ðàçáîð ìîåé ñòàòüè. Ìíîãèå çàìå÷àíèÿ ïîêàçàëèñü ìíå âåñüìà ïðîäóêòèâíûìè, çàñòàâëÿþùèìè çàäóìàòüñÿ è óòî÷íèòü ñâîþ ïîçèöèþ. Íà÷íåì ñ çàìå÷àíèé À.À. Àðãàìàêîâîé, ïîçèöèÿ êîòîðîé âî ìíîãîì ñîâïàäàåò ñ âûñêàçàííûìè ìíîþ ìûñëÿìè. Êàê ñëåäóåò èç òåêñòà, ã-æà Àðãàìàêîâà ïðèçíàåò íåîáõîäèìîñòü èññëåäîâàòåëüñêèõ ïðîöåäóð, îðèåíòèðîâàííûõ íà ïîèñê óíèâåðñàëüíûõ çàêîíîâ, è ñ÷èòàåò ýòè ïðîöåäóðû «íàèáîëåå íàó÷íûìè» è «íàèáîëåå ïðåäïî÷òèòåëüíûìè». Îíà íå ñ÷èòàåò ïîèñê óíèâåðñàëüíûõ çàêîíîâ èñêëþ÷èòåëüíîé çàäà÷åé åñòåñòâîçíàíèÿ è óáåæäåíà â òîì, ÷òî ñîöèàëüíî-ãóìàíèòàðíûå íàóêè ìîãóò è äîëæíû èñïîëüçîâàòü «âàðèàòèâíûå ìîäåëè îáúÿñíåíèÿ». Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ã-æà Àðãàìàêîâà, ïî åå ïðèçíàíèþ, ïîääåðæèâàåò «çàìûñåë è îñíîâíóþ ìûñëü» ìîåé ñòàòüè, îáðàùàÿ ñâîþ êðèòèêó íà èñïîëüçóåìóþ ìíîé òåðìèíîëîãèþ. À.À. Àðãàìàêîâà óáåæäåíà â òîì, ÷òî òåðìèíîëîãèÿ íåîêàíòèàíöåâ «áåçíàäåæíî óñòàðåëà» âìåñòå ñ ñàìîé èäååé äåëåíèÿ íàóê íà íîìîòåòè÷åñêèå è èäåîãðàôè÷åñêèå. Ñ ýòèìè óòâåðæäåíèåì ÿ ñîãëàñèòüñÿ íå ìîãó, õîòÿ âïîëíå ñîãëàñåí ñ òåì, ÷òî ðàçëè÷èå íîìîòåòè÷åñêîãî è èäåîãðàôè÷åñêîãî ïîäõîäîâ íå ìîæåò áûòü ñàìîäîñòàòî÷íûì îñíîâàíèåì ðàçëè÷åíèÿ íàóê î ïðèðîäå è íàóê î êóëüòóðå, ïîñêîëüêó ðå÷ü èäåò î ìåòîäàõ, èñïîëüçóåìûõ è åñòåñòâîçíàíèåì, è ñîöèîãóìàíèòàðíûìè äèñöèïëèíàìè. Ýòî îáñòîÿòåëüñòâî, êàê îòìå÷àåò À.À. Àðãàìàêîâà, ïðèçíàâàëè ñàìè íåîêàíòèàíöû.  ÷àñòíîñòè, Ðèêêåðò ñ÷èòàë, ÷òî íîìîòåòè÷åñêàÿ ñòðàòåãèÿ, îðèåíòèðîâàííàÿ íà ïîèñê çàêîíîâ, ÿâëÿåòñÿ ïðÿìîé îáÿçàííîñòüþ òàêèõ îáùåñòâåííûõ è ãóìàíèòàðíûõ íàóê, êàê ïîëèòè÷åñêàÿ ýêîíîìèÿ, àêàäåìè÷åñêàÿ ïñèõîëîãèÿ è, íàêîíåö, îñîáàÿ íàóêà î «ïðèíöèïàõ èñòîðèè», ïîä êîòîðîé ïîíèìàëñÿ íåêèé ñèíòåç ñîöèàëüíîé ôèëîñîôèè è òåîðåòè÷åñêîé ñîöèîëîãèè. Íî îçíà÷àåò ëè ýòî, ÷òî íàóêè â ïðèíöèïå íå ìîãóò äåëèòüñÿ íà íîìîòåòè÷åñêèå è èäåîãðàôè÷åñêèå? ß ïîëàãàþ, ÷òî òàêîå äåëåíèå âîçìîæíî è íåîáõîäèìî ïðè óñëîâèè, ÷òî ìû íå ñ÷èòàåì èäåîãðàôè÷åñêèìè âñå áåç èñêëþ÷åíèÿ ñîöèàëüíî-ãóìàíèòàðíûå äèñöèïëèíû, à çàêðåïëÿåì ýòîò ñòàòóñ çà òåìè èç íèõ, ïðåäìåòîì êîòîðûõ ÿâëÿþòñÿ íå «ñòðóêòóðû», à åäèíè÷íûå è íåïîâòîðèìûå «ñîáûòèÿ». Ðå÷ü èäåò ïðåæäå âñåãî îá èñòîðè÷åñêîé íàóêå, à òàêæå îá «èíòåðïðåòàöèîííîé» êóëüòóðîëîãèè òèïà ïðèêëàäíîãî èñêóññòâîçíàíèÿ (îò-

Panel Discussion

45

Ê.Õ. ÌÎÌÄÆßÍ

ëè÷íîãî îò ýñòåòèêè, èçó÷àþùåé îáùèå ïðèíöèïû «òâîðåíèÿ ìèðà ïî çàêîíàì êðàñîòû»). Íå ìîãó íå ñîãëàñèòüñÿ ñ À.À. Àðãàìàêîâîé â òîì, ÷òî òåðìèíîëîãèÿ íåîêàíòèàíöåâ ìîæåò è äîëæíà óòî÷íÿòüñÿ è ðàçâèâàòüñÿ â ñîîòâåòñòâèè ñ ðåàëèÿìè ñîâðåìåííîé íàóêè. È âñå æå ÿ íå ñòàë áû åå îòáðàñûâàòü. Óæå áåçîòíîñèòåëüíî ê òåêñòó À.À. Àðãàìàêîâîé äîëæåí ñêàçàòü, ÷òî ñî ñêåïñèñîì è èðîíèåé îòíîøóñü ê ëþáûì ðàññóæäåíèÿì îá «óñòàðåëîñòè» ïðèçíàííîé ôèëîñîôñêîé òåðìèíîëîãèè. Íåìåäëåííî âñïîìèíàåòñÿ ïàôîñ ñîâåòñêîãî äèàìàòà, ñ÷èòàâøåãî ñåáÿ åäèíñòâåííî íàó÷íîé ôèëîñîôèåé è íà ýòîì îñíîâàíèè çëîáíî ðóãàâøåãî èëè – â ëó÷øåì ñëó÷àå – ñíèñõîäèòåëüíî ïîõëîïûâàâøåãî ïî ïëå÷ó «óñòàðåëûõ» êëàññèêîâ äîìàðêñèñòñêîé ôèëîñîôèè (êàê ñëåäñòâèå, ìû âñòðå÷àåì â ñîâåòñêîé «Ôèëîñîôñêîé ýíöèêëîïåäèè» ÷óäîâèùíîé ãëóïîñòè óòâåðæäåíèÿ òèïà ñóæäåíèÿ î òîì, ÷òî «ïîíÿòèå ñóáñòàíöèè åñòü óñòàðåâøèé àíàëîã êàòåãîðèè ìàòåðèÿ»).  íûíåøíèõ óñëîâèÿõ ðîëü åäèíñòâåííî ïðàâèëüíîé «ñîâðåìåííîé» ôèëîñîôèè ïûòàþòñÿ èãðàòü ðàçëè÷íûå âàðèàíòû ïîñòìîäåðíèçìà. Íåäîó÷èâøèåñÿ ôèëîñîôèè ëèòåðàòîðû, ôèëîëîãè è èñêóññòâîâåäû ðàññóæäàþò îá «óñòàðåëîñòè» ìåòàôèçèêè, ïîðîêàõ ëîãîöåíòðèçìà, óùåðáíîñòè ýññåíöèàëèñòñêîé ñòðàòåãèè ïîçíàíèÿ, âûäàâàÿ ñïåöèôè÷åñêèå òðóäíîñòè èíòåðïðåòàöèîííîé êóëüòîðîëîãèè çà ñìåíó ñàìèõ îñíîâ íàó÷íîãî ïîçíàíèÿ ìèðà. Ê ñ÷àñòüþ, âñå ýòè çàêëèíàíèÿ íèêàê íå çàòðàãèâàþò ëþäåé, çàíèìàþùèõñÿ íàóêîé, à íå ïðàçäíî áîëòàþùèõ î íåé. Ó÷åíûå, êàê è ðàíüøå, ñòðåìÿòñÿ ïîíÿòü ñîáñòâåííóþ ëîãèêó áûòèÿ îêðóæàþùåãî è îõâàòûâàþùåãî íàñ ìèðà, êîòîðàÿ äàíà íàì ïðèíóäèòåëüíî è íå çàâèñèò îò íàøèõ öåííîñòíûõ óñòàíîâîê. Íàóêà, êîíå÷íî, èçìåíÿåòñÿ, íî â ëþáîì ñâîåì ñîñòîÿíèè («êëàññè÷åñêîì», «íåêëàññè÷åñêîì», «ïîñòíåêëàññè÷åñêîì» è ò.ä.) îíà áûëà è îñòàåòñÿ «èãðîé äâóõ ïàðòíåðîâ, â êîòîðîé íàì íåîáõîäèìî ïðåäóãàäàòü ïîâåäåíèå ðåàëüíîñòè, íå çàâèñÿùåå îò íàøèõ óáåæäåíèé, àìáèöèé èëè íàäåæä. Ïðèðîäó íåâîçìîæíî çàñòàâèòü ãîâîðèòü òî, ÷òî íàì õîòåëîñü áû óñëûøàòü» [Ïðèãîæèí, Ñòåíãåðñ, 1986: 44]. Ñîîòâåòñòâåííî ñîâðåìåííûå ó÷åíûå, êàê è èõ ïðåäøåñòâåííèêè, èùóò îáúåêòèâíóþ èñòèíó, îòëè÷íóþ îò çàáëóæäåíèé, ñòðåìÿòñÿ íàéòè óñòîé÷èâûå, âîñïðîèçâîäèìûå, íåîáõîäèìûå ñâÿçè ìåæäó ÿâëåíèÿìè è ñîáûòèÿìè, íàçûâàåìûå çàêîíàìè, èëè æå èñïîëüçîâàòü óæå îòêðûòûå çàêîíû äëÿ îáúÿñíåíèÿ è ïîíèìàíèÿ åäèíè÷íûõ, íå ïîâòîðÿþùèõñÿ ñîáûòèé. Ïîâòîðþ, ýòè ðàññóæäåíèÿ íèêàê íå îòíîñÿòñÿ ê ñàìîé ã-æå Àðãàìàêîâîé, êîòîðàÿ äàëåêà îò èíäåòåðìèíèñòñêèõ ôàíòàçèé. Õîòÿ íå ñêðîþ, ÷òî íåêîòîðûå âûñêàçûâàíèÿ àâòîðà çàñòàâèëè ìåíÿ íàñòîðîæèòüñÿ.  ÷àñòíîñòè, ÿ êðèòè÷íåå, ÷åì ã-æà Àðãàìàêîâà, îòíîøóñü ê êîíñòðóêòèâèñòñêèì äîêòðèíàì, ïàðàçèòèðóþùèì íà ðåàëüíûõ

46

ÎÒÂÅÒ ÍÀ ÄÈÑÊÓÑÑÈÞ

ñëîæíîñòÿõ íàóêè â öåëÿõ ðàçðóøèòü ñàìó åå îñíîâó – èäåþ îáúåêòèâíîñòè çàêîíîâ, íå çàâèñÿùèõ îò ïðîèçâîëà ÷åëîâå÷åñêîé âîëè. Äàëåå, ÿ íå ñòàë áû îãðàíè÷èâàòü óíèâåðñàëüíûå çàêîíû, ñ êîòîðûìè ñòàëêèâàþòñÿ ñîöèîãóìàíèòàðíûå íàóêè, ëèøü âåðîÿòíîñòíûìè, ñòàòèñòè÷åñêèìè çàêîíîìåðíîñòÿìè. Ãëóáîêî óáåæäåí, ÷òî çàêîíîñîîáðàçíîñòü â ñôåðå ñîöèàëüíîãî ñâÿçàíà íå òîëüêî ñî ñòîõàñòè÷åñêèìè ïðîöåññàìè, íî è ñ êîíêðåòíûìè àêòàìè äåÿòåëüíîñòè, â êîòîðûõ – íåñìîòðÿ íà ïðèñóùóþ ÷åëîâåêó ñâîáîäó âîëè – îáíàðóæèâàþòñÿ òàêèå çàêîíû, êàê çàêîí ïîòðåáíîñòíîé äåòåðìèíàöèè, çàêîí ïðåïîòåíòíîñòè, çàêîí îïîñðåäîâàííîñòè ÷åëîâå÷åñêèõ ïîòðåáíîñòåé îðóäèéíûìè, èíôîðìàöèîííûìè, êîììóíèêàòèâíûìè è îðãàíèçàöèîííûìè èíòåðåñàìè, çàêîí ñâîáîäû ÷åëîâå÷åñêîé ìîòèâàöèè, çàêîí çàâèñèìîñòè îáùåñòâåííûõ îòíîøåíèé îò ñóáúåêò-îáúåêòíûõ ïàðàìåòðîâ âçàèìîäåéñòâèÿ è ò.ä. è ò.ï. Íàêîíåö, ÿ êàòåãîðè÷åñêè íå ìîãó ñîãëàñèòüñÿ ñ ïîçèöèåé À.À. Àðãàìàêîâîé, ñ÷èòàþùåé, ÷òî óíèâåðñàëüíûå çàêîíû îáùåñòâîçíàíèÿ è ãóìàíèòàðèñòèêè «ìàëî ÷åì îòëè÷àþòñÿ îò ñëó÷àéíî èñòèííûõ îáîáùåíèé». Âî âñåì îñòàëüíîì ýðóäèöèÿ ã-æè Àðãàìàêîâîé ïðîèçâåëà íà ìåíÿ âïå÷àòëåíèå. Òåïåðü î çàìå÷àíèÿõ íà ìîþ ñòàòüþ, âûñêàçàííûõ èçâåñòíûì ðîññèéñêèì ôèëîñîôîì À.Ë. Íèêèôîðîâûì. Áëàãîäàðåí çà ëåñòíûå ñëîâà â ìîé àäðåñ è õî÷ó ñäåëàòü íåñêîëüêî îòâåòíûõ çàìå÷àíèé. Ïðåæäå âñåãî ÿ äîëæåí ïîâòîðèòü, ÷òî íå ñîáèðàþñü èñïîëüçîâàòü ðàçëè÷èå íîìîòåòè÷åñêîãî è èäåîãðàôè÷åñêîãî ìåòîäîâ ïîçíàíèÿ êàê ñïîñîá ðàçâåäåíèÿ åñòåñòâåííûõ è îáùåñòâåííî-ãóìàíèòàðíûõ íàóê. Ìíîãèå èç ïîñëåäíèõ èñïîëüçóþò íîìîòåòè÷åñêèé ìåòîä, íî ê íèì ÿâíî íå îòíîñèòñÿ èñòîðè÷åñêîå ïîçíàíèå, êîòîðîå íå îòêðûâàåò óíèâåðñàëüíûõ çàêîíîâ, à èñïîëüçóåò èõ äëÿ ïðè÷èííîãî îáúÿñíåíèÿ óíèêàëüíûõ è íåïîâòîðÿþùèõñÿ ñîáûòèé. Èñòîðèÿ, êàê óòâåðæäàë êðóïíåéøèé ðîññèéñêèé èñòîðèê À.ß. Ãóðåâè÷, èìååò äåëî íå ñ çàêîíàìè, à ñ íåêîòîðûìè íåñëó÷àéíûìè çàêîíîñîîáðàçíîñòÿìè, ëèøåííûìè àòðèáóòà ïîâòîðÿåìîñòè, ÷òî âûâîäèò èõ çà ðàìêè íîìîòåòè÷åñêîé ìåòîäû ìûøëåíèÿ. Ïîýòîìó èäåÿ À.Ë. Íèêèôîðîâà «êîíêðåòèçèðîâàòü è îãðàíè÷èâàòü» âîçìîæíîñòè íîìîòåòè÷åñêîãî ïîçíàíèÿ â îáùåñòâîçíàíèè, ó÷èòûâàòü ñïåöèôèêó îòäåëüíûõ íàóê è öåëûõ ãðóïï íàóê êàê áû «âû÷èòàíà èç ìîåé äóøè», ÿ ñ íåé ñîãëàñåí àáñîëþòíî. Îäíàêî ÿ íå ìîãó ñîãëàñèòüñÿ ñ òåì, ÷òî «âñå çàêîíû, îòíîñÿùèåñÿ ê ïîâåäåíèþ îòäåëüíîãî ÷åëîâåêà èëè ãðóïï ëþäåé, ìîãóò íîñèòü ëèøü âåðîÿòíîñòíûé, ñòàòèñòè÷åñêèé, ïðèáëèçèòåëüíûé õàðàêòåð». Ìîè ìíîãîëåòíèå èññëåäîâàíèÿ ñîöèóìà, îáùåñòâà è èñòîðèè óáåæäàþò ìåíÿ â íàëè÷èè â ýòîé ñôåðå íåêîòîðûõ (äàëåêî íå âñåõ) çàêîíîâ, íè÷åì íå îòëè÷àþùèõñÿ îò íåñòàòèñòè÷åñêèõ çàêîíîâ åñòåñòâîçíàíèÿ. Ðå÷ü èäåò î çàêîíàõ, êîòîðûå äåéñòâóþò ñ íåîáõîäèìîñòüþ

47

Ê.Õ. ÌÎÌÄÆßÍ

â êàæäîì êîíêðåòíîì ñëó÷àå, î çàêîíàõ, êîòîðûå â ïðèíöèïå íåëüçÿ íàðóøèòü (â îòëè÷èå îò çàêîíîâ-ïðåäïèñàíèé, êîòîðûå êàê áû «ïîçâîëÿþò» ñåáÿ èãíîðèðîâàòü, æåñòêî îãðàíè÷èâàÿ äååñïîñîáíîñòü ïîäîáíûõ «íàðóøèòåëåé»). Íåêîòîðûå èç òàêèõ çàêîíîâ ÿ óæå ïåðå÷èñëèë â îòâåòå ã-æå Àðãàìàêîâîé. Óáåæäåí, â ÷àñòíîñòè, ÷òî íåò, íå áûëî è íèêîãäà íå áóäåò ÷åëîâåêà, äåÿòåëüíîñòü êîòîðîãî íå äåòåðìèíèðîâàëàñü áû âèäîñïåöèôè÷åñêèìè, ïðèñóùèìè âñåì áåç èñêëþ÷åíèÿ ëþäÿì äåôèöèåíòíûìè è áûòèéíûìè ïîòðåáíîñòÿìè (÷åëîâåê, êàê óòâåðæäàë êëàññèê, íå ìîæåò ñäåëàòü íè÷åãî, íå äåëàÿ ýòîãî ðàäè îäíîé èç ñâîèõ ïîòðåáíîñòåé). Íåò, íå áûëî è íå áóäåò ÷åëîâåêà (çà èñêëþ÷åíèåì òÿæåëåéøèõ áîëåçíåé «çàâèñèìîãî» ïîâåäåíèÿ, ìåøàþøèõ ÷åëîâåêó âåñòè ñåáÿ ïî-÷åëîâå÷åñêè), êîòîðûé íå áûë áû ñâîáîäåí â ìîòèâàöèîííîé ýêñïåðòèçå ñâîèõ ïîòðåáíîñòåé, «îáðå÷åí», ñëîâàìè Æ.Ï. Ñàðòðà, íà ýòó ñâîáîäó. Íåò, íå áûëî è íèêîãäà íå áóäåò ÷åëîâåêà, öåëåðåàëèçàöèÿ êîòîðîãî íå äåòåðìèíèðîâàëàñü áû îáúåêòèâíûìè èíòåðåñàìè (âñïîìíèì êëàññèêà, óòâåðæäàâøåãî, ÷òî «èäåÿ» âñåãäà ïîñðàìëÿëà ñåáÿ, êîãäà îòðûâàëàñü îò èíòåðåñà). Íåò, íå áûëî è íèêîãäà íå áóäåò îáùåñòâà, ñòðóêòóðà êîòîðîãî íå âêëþ÷àëà áû â ñåáÿ ÷åòûðå ôóíäàìåíòàëüíûå ïîäñèñòåìû, ñîçäàâàåìûå íåîáõîäèìûìè âèäàìè âñåîáùåãî ïðîèçâîäñòâà îáùåñòâåííîé æèçíè (âêëþ÷àÿ ñþäà ïðîèçâîäñòâî ëþäåé, ïðîèçâîäñòâî âåùåé, ïðîèçâîäñòâî èíôîðìàöèè è ïðîèçâîäñòâî ñóáúåêò-ñóáúåêòíûõ è ñóáúåêò-îáúåêòíûõ ñâÿçåé). Åñëè êòî-òî ñ÷èòàåò çàêîíû òàêîãî ðîäà áàíàëüíûìè, òðèâèàëüíûìè, íå èìåþùèìè íàó÷íîãî çíà÷åíèÿ, ÿ ñ óäîâîëüñòâèåì ðàçúÿñíþ îøèáî÷íîñòü òàêîé òî÷êè çðåíèÿ. Âñå ýòî, êîíå÷íî, íå îòìåíÿåò ðàçëè÷èé ìåæäó îáùåñòâîçíàíèåì è åñòåñòâîçíàíèåì, ñïîñîáíûì òî÷íî ïðîãíîçèðîâàòü ïðèðîäíûå ïðîöåññû, â êîòîðûõ íåò âîçìóùàþùåãî âîçäåéñòâèÿ ñâîáîäíîé ÷åëîâå÷åñêîé âîëè. Èç-çà íåå ìû íèêîãäà íå ñìîæåì ïðîãíîçèðîâàòü ðåçóëüòàòû äåÿòåëüíîñòè ñ åñòåñòâåííî-íàó÷íîé òî÷íîñòüþ (÷òî àïðèîðè çàùèùàåò íàñ îò òîòàëèòàðíûõ îïàñíîñòåé, î êîòîðûõ ãîâîðèò À.Ë. Íèêèôîðîâ). Íî ýòî íå çíà÷èò, ÷òî ñàì ïðîöåññ äåÿòåëüíîñòè ëèøåí ñòðîãèõ, ïðåäñêàçóåìûõ äåòåðìèíàöèîííûõ ñâÿçåé (êîíå÷íî, â òîì ñëó÷àå, êîãäà ìû ãîâîðèì î âîñïðîèçâîäèìûõ ñòðóêòóðàõ ïîâåäåíèÿ, à íå î ñîáûòèÿõ òèïà Êóëèêîâñêîé áèòâû). Äàâàòü àñòðîíîìè÷åñêè íåïðåëîæíûå ïðîãíîçû ïîäîáíûõ ñîáûòèé ìû íå ìîæåì è íå ñìîæåì íèêîãäà, íî ýòî íå ìåøàåò Ê. ôîí Êëàóçåâèöó è äðóãèì òåîðåòèêàì âîåííîãî äåëà ôèêñèðîâàòü îáúåêòèâíûå çàêîíû, îò êîòîðûõ çàâèñèò óñïåõ èëè íåóñïåõ âîåííîãî ïðîòèâîñòîÿíèÿ. Ïîýòîìó ÿ óáåæäåí â òîì, ÷òî âñå íåîïðåäåëåííîñòè, íåÿñíîñòè, ïðîòèâîðå÷èÿ èäåîãðàôè÷åñêîãî ïîçíàíèÿ ñîáûòèéíîé èñòîðèè (î êîòîðûõ òàê óáåäèòåëüíî ïèøåò Àëåêñàíäð Ëåîíèäîâè÷) íå äîëæíû

48

ÎÒÂÅÒ ÍÀ ÄÈÑÊÓÑÑÈÞ

ñòàâèòü ïîä ñîìíåíèå âîçìîæíîñòü è ïîëåçíîñòü íîìîòåòè÷åñêîãî ïîäõîäà â îáùåñòâåííûõ è ãóìàíèòàðíûõ íàóêàõ. Ìîé äàâíèé äðóã è îïïîíåíò Â.Ñ. Êðæåâîâ íà ýòîò ðàç äàë ìíå íåìíîãî îñíîâàíèé äëÿ íåñîãëàñèÿ. ß âïîëíå ñîãëàñåí ñ òåì, ÷òî ïðè âñåé êîëîññàëüíîé ðîëè ÷åëîâå÷åñêîãî ñîçíàíèÿ, îòëè÷àþùåé äåÿòåëüíîñòü ëþäåé îò ïðîöåññîâ íåæèâîé è æèâîé ïðèðîäû, ýòî ñîçíàíèå (âêëþ÷àþùåå â ñåáÿ ìîòèâû, öåííîñòè, öåëè, âîëþ è äð.) íå äîëæíî ñóáñòàíöèàëèçèðîâàòüñÿ, ïðåâðàùàÿñü â ïåðâîîñíîâó è ïåðâîïðè÷èíó ÷åëîâå÷åñêîé àêòèâíîñòè. Íå ñëåäóåò çàáûâàòü, ÷òî âñå áåç èñêëþ÷åíèÿ êîìïîíåíòû íàøåãî ñîçíàíèÿ â êîíå÷íîì ñ÷åòå ÿâëÿþòñÿ èíñòðóìåíòîì ïðàêòè÷åñêîé àäàïòàöèè ÷åëîâåêà â ìèðå, ñîõðàíåíèÿ ôàêòà íàøåé æèçíè è ïðåóìíîæåíèÿ åå êà÷åñòâà. Ê ñîæàëåíèþ, Âëàäèìèð Ñåðãååâè÷ èíîãäà àáñîëþòèçèðóåò ýòîò ïðàâèëüíûé òåçèñ, ÷òî âåäåò ê íåäîîöåíêå èì ôóíäàìåíòàëüíîãî ðàçëè÷èÿ ìåæäó åñòåñòâåííûìè è ñîöèîãóìàíèòàðíûìè íàóêàìè, ñâÿçàííîãî ïðåæäå âñåãî ñ îñîáåííîñòÿìè èíôîðìàöèîííîé îðãàíèçàöèè ñîöèóìà. ×òîáû íå âûõîäèòü çà ïðåäìåòíûå ðàìêè íàøåé ïîëåìèêè, ñâÿçàííîé ñ ïðèìåíèìîñòüþ íîìîòåòè÷åñêîé ïàðàäèãìû ïîçíàíèÿ â îáùåñòâîçíàíèè, ÿ âûíóæäåí îòêàçàòüñÿ îò óäîâîëüñòâèÿ ïðîäîëæèòü ñòàðûé ñïîð ñ Â.Ñ. Êðæåâîâûì î ôåíîìåíå ÷åëîâå÷åñêèõ ïîòðåáíîñòåé, îá èõ ñâÿçè ñ èíòåðåñàìè ëþäåé, î âîçìîæíîñòè âûäåëåíèÿ îñîáîé ãðóïïû áûòèéíûõ ïîòðåáíîñòåé ÷åëîâåêà, ñâÿçàííûõ ñ ïîääåðæàíèåì êà÷åñòâà æèçíè, à íå åå ôàêòà. Ñ óäîâîëüñòâèåì ïðîäîëæó ýòó ïîëåìèêó çà ðàìêàìè äàííîé ïóáëèêàöèè. Íàêîíåö, íåñêîëüêî ñëîâ î çàìå÷àíèÿõ, âûñêàçàííûõ âûñîêî öåíèìûì ìíîþ À.Þ. Àíòîíîâñêèì. Íà÷íåì ñ òåðìèíà, ïîñðåäñòâîì êîòîðîãî ã-í Àíòîíîâñêèé îáîçíà÷àåò ìîþ ïîçèöèþ («àíîìàëüíûé ñîöèîìîíèçì»). Èñïîëüçîâàíèå â ýòîì êîíòåêñòå òåðìèíà «ìîíèçì» íå âïîëíå ïîíÿòíî, ïîñêîëüêó ïðèâû÷íàÿ ìíå òðàêòîâêà äèõîòîìèè ìîíèçì – ïëþðàëèçì ðàñõîäèòñÿ ñ òðàêòîâêîé À.Þ. Àíòîíîâñêîãî. Ìîé îïïîíåíò ñâÿçûâàåò èäåþ ìîíèçìà íå ñ ïðîáëåìîé ñóáîðäèíàöèîííî-êîîðäèíàöèîííûõ ñâÿçåé êîìïîíåíòîâ öåëîãî, à ñ «èäååé êàóçàëüíîãî åäèíñòâà è ïðè÷èííîé çàìêíóòîñòè ìèðà» (÷òî òî÷íåå áûëî áû íàçâàòü èäååé äåòåðìèíèçìà, à íå ìîíèçìà). ×òî êàñàåòñÿ «àíîìàëüíîñòè» ýòîãî «ñîöèîìîíèçìà», åå À.Þ. Àíòîíîâñêèé ñâÿçûâàåò ñ íåâîçìîæíîñòüþ îáùåñòâîçíàíèÿ ñòîïðîöåíòíî «ïðåäñêàçûâàòü è îáúÿñíÿòü ñîáûòèå Â, åñëè èçâåñòíî ñîáûòèå À». Íå ñïîðþ, íåâîçìîæíîñòü òàêîãî ðîäà ÿâëÿåòñÿ ðåàëüíîñòüþ â ñëó÷àå, åñëè ðå÷ü èäåò îá èíäèâèäóàëüíîé æèçíåííîé àêòèâíîñòè ëþäåé, îáëàäàþùèõ ñâîáîäíîé âîëåé. Ýòà âîëÿ, äåéñòâèòåëüíî, ñòàâèò ïîä ñîìíåíèå ôóíäàìåíòàëüíûé ïðèíöèï äåòåðìèíèçìà, ñîãëàñíî êîòîðîìó îäíà è òà æå ïðè÷èíà ïðè îäíèõ è òåõ æå óñëîâèÿõ ïîðîæäàåò îäíè è òå æå ñëåäñòâèÿ (â ðåçóëüòàòå, êàê ñïðàâåäëèâî îòìå÷àåò

49

Ê.Õ. ÌÎÌÄÆßÍ

À.Þ. Àíòîíîâñêèé, «æåëàíèå è âîçìîæíîñòü ïîéòè â òåàòð íå âî âñåõ ñëó÷àÿõ ïðèâîäèò ê ïîñåùåíèþ òåàòðà»). Îäíàêî âåñü ïàôîñ ìîåé ñòàòüè çàêëþ÷àåòñÿ â äîêàçàòåëüñòâå òîãî, ÷òî â ñîöèàëüíîé ðåàëüíîñòè íàëè÷åñòâóþò ôàêòîðû, íèâåëèðóþùèå ñâîáîäó ÷åëîâå÷åñêîé âîëè, îãðàíè÷èâàþùèå åå ñîáûòèéíûìè àñïåêòàìè èíäèâèäóàëüíîãî ÷åëîâå÷åñêîãî ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ. Ýòè ôàêòîðû ïðåâðàùàþò äåÿòåëüíîñòü ëþäåé â çàêîíîñîîáðàçíûé ïðîöåññ, ôóíäèðóþò îòäåëüíûå ñîáûòèÿ è ïðîÿâëÿþòñÿ â íèõ, òî÷íî òàê æå, êàê ïðèðîäíàÿ íåîáõîäèìîñòü ïðîÿâëÿåòñÿ â ïðèðîäíûõ ñëó÷àéíîñòÿõ (ñóùåñòâîâàíèå êîòîðûõ, êàê ÿ íàäåþñü, ìîé îïïîíåíò íå îòðèöàåò). Ïðè òàêîì ïîäõîäå êàóçàëüíàÿ «àíîìàëüíîñòü», î êîòîðîé ãîâîðèò À.Þ. Àíòîíîâñêèé, èñ÷åçàåò, êàê äûì. Âûÿñíÿåòñÿ, ÷òî è â èíäèâèäóàëüíîé, è â êîëëåêòèâíîé ÷åëîâå÷åñêîé äåÿòåëüíîñòè îáíàðóæèâàþòñÿ óñòîé÷èâûå, âîñïðîèçâîäèìûå, îáúåêòèâíûå è íåîáõîäèìûå ñâÿçè, â òîì ÷èñëå è íåñòàòèñòè÷åñêèå çàêîíû, ïîçâîëÿþùèå ñî «ñòîïðîöåíòíîé äîñòîâåðíîñòüþ» ïðåäñêàçûâàòü è îáúÿñíÿòü ñâÿçü îòäåëüíûõ ñîöèàëüíûõ ÿâëåíèé. Îòñóòñòâèå òàêîé âîçìîæíîñòè â èñòîðè÷åñêîì ïîçíàíèè, èìåþùåì äåëî ñ íåïîâòîðèìûìè ñîáûòèÿìè, à íå ñ âîñïðîèçâîäèìûìè ñòðóêòóðàìè ÷åëîâå÷åñêîãî ïîâåäåíèÿ, íå îòìåíÿåò âîçìîæíîñòü òî÷íûõ è îäíîçíà÷íûõ ïðîãíîçîâ, ñîâåðøàåìûõ äðóãèìè – íîìîòåòè÷åñêèìè, à íå èäåîãðàôè÷åñêèìè – îáùåñòâåííûìè íàóêàìè. Òåïåðü íåñêîëüêî ñëîâ î ðåäóêöèîíèçìå, â êîòîðîì ìåíÿ ïîäîçðåâàåò ìîé óâàæàåìûé îïïîíåíò. Ñêàæó ñðàçó: ÿ íå ñîáèðàëñÿ è íå ñîáèðàþñü «âêëþ÷àòü ñîöèàëüíî çíà÷èìûå ñîáûòèÿ â ôèçè÷åñêóþ îíòîëîãèþ íåîáõîäèìûõ ïðè÷èííî-ñëåäñòâåííûõ ñâÿçåé», ïîñêîëüêó ãëóáîêî óáåæäåí, ÷òî ôèçè÷åñêàÿ ïðè÷èííîñòü, êîòîðàÿ ñîäåðæèòñÿ â ñîöèàëüíûõ àêöèÿõ è èíòåðàêöèÿõ â «ñíÿòîì», ñëîâàìè Ãåãåëÿ, âèäå, íèêàê íå îáúÿñíÿåò ýòèõ àêöèé è èíòåðàêöèé. Èíûìè ñëîâàìè, ÿ âûñòóïàþ êàòåãîðè÷åñêèì ïðîòèâíèêîì âñåõ ôîðì ôèçè÷åñêîãî ðåäóêöèîíèçìà. Ðå÷ü èäåò êàê î êàðèêàòóðíûõ ôîðìàõ òðàäèöèîííîãî ôèçèêàëèçìà (ñ÷èòàþùåãî, ÷òî ðåøàþùåé ïðè÷èíîé, ïðèâåäøåé ñîëäàòà â äâèæåíèå, ÿâëÿåòñÿ íå èíôîðìàöèîííûé ñèãíàë – êîìàíäà îôèöåðà, à òðåíèå ñàïîã îá àñôàëüò), òàê è î ñîâðåìåííûõ ñèíåðãåòè÷åñêèõ ðàçíîâèäíîñòÿõ ôèçèêàëèñòñêîé ðåäóêöèè. Ñòîëü æå ðåøèòåëüíî ÿ âûñòóïàþ ïðîòèâ âñåõ ôîðì áèîëîãè÷åñêîãî ðåäóêöèîíèçìà, â êîòîðîì ìåíÿ ïîäîçðåâàåò ìîé óâàæàåìûé îïïîíåíò. Äà, ÿ ïðèçíàþ òó èíèöèèðóþùóþ ðîëü, êîòîðóþ èãðàþò â äåÿòåëüíîñòè ÷åëîâåêà èíñòèíêòîïîäîáíûå âëå÷åíèÿ, íî ýòî ñîâñåì íå îçíà÷àåò, ÷òî ÿ îñóùåñòâëÿþ «ðåäóêöèîíèçì ê æèâîòíîé ïðèðîäå». Äåëî â òîì, ÷òî òàêèå ôåíîìåíû, êàê ïîòðåáíîñòü, âëå÷åíèå, öåëü, íå ìîãóò ðàññìàòðèâàòüñÿ â êà÷åñòâå áèîëîãè÷åñêèõ ôàêòîðîâ, êàê â ýòîì óáåæäåí À.Þ. Àíòîíîâñêèé. Íà ñàìîì äåëå ðå÷ü èäåò îá

50

ÎÒÂÅÒ ÍÀ ÄÈÑÊÓÑÑÈÞ

óíèâåðñàëüíûõ ôàêòîðàõ æèçíè êàê ñàìîöåëüíîãî ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ â ñðåäå áåçîòíîñèòåëüíî ê òèïîëîãè÷åñêèì ðàçíîâèäíîñòÿì òàêîãî ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ (áèîëîãè÷åñêàÿ æèçíü èëè îáùåñòâåííàÿ æèçíü). Âëå÷åíèÿ è öåëè ñóùåñòâóþò â ëþáîé èíôîðìàöèîííî íàïðàâëåííîé àêòèâíîñòè – áóäü òî àêòèâíîñòü æèâîòíîãî èëè äåÿòåëüíîñòü ÷åëîâåêà. Îáâèíåíèÿ â áèîëîãè÷åñêîì ðåäóêöèîíèçìå óìåñòíû ëèøü â òîì ñëó÷àå, åñëè ìû èãíîðèðóåì ñóáñòàíöèàëüíîå ðàçëè÷èå ìåæäó âëå÷åíèÿìè æèâîòíîãî è âëå÷åíèÿìè ÷åëîâåêà, ê ÷åìó ÿ ñîâåðøåííî íå ñêëîíåí. Èìåííî ïîýòîìó ÿ âñëåä çà À. Ìàñëîó ãîâîðþ îá èíñòèíêòîïîäîáíûõ âëå÷åíèÿõ ÷åëîâåêà, êîòîðûå êà÷åñòâåííî îòëè÷íû îò èíñòèíêòèâíûõ âëå÷åíèé æèâîòíîãî (ïîñêîëüêó ó ëþäåé îòñóòñòâóþò ëþáûå è âñÿ÷åñêèå èíñòèíòû, ïîíÿòûå êàê ñëîæíàÿ öåïü áåçóñëîâíûõ ðåôëåêñîâ, ïðîãðàììèðóþùàÿ ïîâåäåíèå). Ñâîèì ñëåäóþùèì øàãîì óâàæàåìûé îïïîíåíò óïðåêàåò ìåíÿ çà òî, ÷òî îñíîâîé äèñòèíêöèè ïðè÷èíà–ñëåäñòâèå ÿ ñ÷èòàþ äèñòèíêöèþ âíóòðåííåãî–âíåøíåãî â îòíîøåíèè èíäèâèäà, íàñòàèâàÿ íà äåòåðìèíàöèè âíóòðåííåãî âíåøíèì. Ïðè ýòîì îñíîâíàÿ ìûñëü À.Þ. Àíòîíîâñêîãî ñîñòîèò íå â äîêàçàòåëüñòâå îáðàòíîãî òåçèñà î äåòåðìèíàöèè âíåøíåãî âíóòðåííèì, à â ðåëÿòèâèñòñêîì îòðèöàíèè îáúåêòèâíîãî ðàçëè÷èÿ ìåæäó âíóòðåííèì è âíåøíèì, íå ñâÿçàííîãî ñ ïîçèöèåé íàáëþäàòåëÿ. Íè ñ ïåðâûì, íè ñî âòîðûì óòâåðæäåíèåì À.Þ. Àíòîíîâñêîãî ÿ ñîãëàñèòüñÿ íå ìîãó. Ïðåæäå âñåãî ÿ íå ñâÿçûâàþ ñóùåñòâîâàíèå îáúåêòèâíûõ çàêîíîâ ñîöèóìà èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî ñ äåòåðìèíàöèîííûì âîçäåéñòâèåì âíåøíåé ñîöèàëüíîé ñðåäû íà èíäèâèäà. Òàêîå âîçäåéñòâèå, íåñîìíåííî, ñóùåñòâóåò – íàäûíäèâèäóàëüíûå ðåàëüíîñòè (áóäü òî ñëîæèâøàÿñÿ ñèñòåìà îáùåñòâåííûõ îòíîøåíèé èëè îáúåêòèâèðîâàííûå ñèìâîëè÷åñêèå ïðîãðàììû ìûøëåíèÿ è ÷óâñòâîâàíèÿ, íàçûâàåìûå êóëüòóðîé) ñ íåîáõîäèìîñòüþ ïðîãðàììèðóþò ïîâåäåíèå êàæäîãî îòäåëüíîãî ÷åëîâåêà. Îäíàêî ðîâíî òàêàÿ æå îáúåêòèâíàÿ íåîáõîäèìîñòü, îáðàçóþùàÿ îñíîâó çàêîíà, îáíàðóæèâàåòñÿ â ïðîòèâîïîëîæíîì ïî âåêòîðó âîçäåéñòâèè.  ñàìîì äåëå, íàäûíäèâèäóàëüíûå ðåàëèè ñîöèóìà íå ïàäàþò â ãîòîâîì âèäå ñ íåáà – îíè ñòàíîâÿòñÿ çàêîíîìåðíûì ðåçóëüòàòîì êîíêðåòíûõ àêöèé è èíòåðàêöèé ÷åëîâå÷åñêèõ èíäèâèäîâ. Äåéñòâèÿ è âçàèìîäåéñòâèÿ îòäåëüíûõ ëþäåé èìåþò ñîáñòâåííóþ èììàíåíòíóþ çàêîíîñîîáðàçíîñòü, îáóñëîâëèâàþùóþ îáùåñòâî è åãî èíñòèòóòû, à íå òîëüêî îáóñëîâëèâàåìûå èìè.  ýòîì ïëàíå ìíå ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ îøèáî÷íûì óòâåðæäåíèå, êîòîðîå ïðèïèñûâàåò ìíå À.Þ. Àíòîíîâñêèé: «Áàçîâûå âëå÷åíèÿ, ïîòðåáíîñòè è èíòåðåñû ïîëó÷àþò êàóçàëüíóþ ñèëó è ïðèíóäèòåëüíîñòü â ñèëó òîãî, ÷òî â ñâîåì ïðîñòðàíñòâå-âðåìåíè âûõîäÿò çà ïðåäåëû ëîêàëüíîñòè êîíêðåòíîãî èíäèâèäà». Óáåæäåí, ÷òî ýòî óòâåðæäåíèå îøèáî÷íî è ìåòîäîëîãè÷åñêè, è îíòîëîãè÷åñêè. Íå áóäåì çàáûâàòü, ÷òî â ïðîñòðàíñòâå-âðåìåíè åäèíñòâåííûìè íîñèòåëÿìè ïîòðåáíî-

51

Ê.Õ. ÌÎÌÄÆßÍ

ñòåé ÿâëÿþòñÿ ñàìè êîíêðåòíûå èíäèâèäû. Ïîñëå âîçíèêíîâåíèÿ Homo sapiens ñòàâøåå ÷åëîâå÷åñêèì îáùåñòâî íå ñôîðìèðîâàëî íè îäíîé íîâîé ÷åëîâå÷åñêîé ïîòðåáíîñòè. Îáùåñòâåííûå ðåàëèè ñïîñîáíû âëèÿòü ëèøü íà ñïîñîá óäîâëåòâîðåíèÿ ïîòðåáíîñòåé (êàíàëèçèðîâàòü èõ, êàê âûðàæàåòñÿ Þ.À. Àíòîíîâñêèé), îäíàêî îíè íå â ñèëàõ èçìåíèòü íè èõ ñîäåðæàíèå, íè äåòåðìèíàöèîííîå âîçäåéñòâèå ýòèõ ôàêòîðîâ, êîòîðûå, ñëîâàìè êëàññèêà, «íàñèëóþò» êàæäîãî êîíêðåòíîãî ÷åëîâåêà1. Óïðåêàÿ ìåíÿ çà èäåþ âíåøíåé ïðè÷èííîñòè êàê îñíîâàíèÿ ñîöèàëüíûõ çàêîíîâ, À.Þ. Àíòîíîâñêèé ïîëàãàåò, ÷òî «â ìèðå ñàìîì ïî ñåáå íåò îäíîçíà÷íî îïðåäåëåííîãî ðàçäåëåíèÿ íà âíóòðåííèå è âíåøíèå äåòåðìèíàöèè èëè êàóçàöèè áåç ó÷åòà íàáëþäàòåëüíûõ ïåðñïåêòèâ òîãî èëè èíîãî íàáëþäàòåëÿ».  êà÷åñòâå èëëþñòðàöèè îí ïðèâîäèò ïðèìåð ñ ïîäæîãîì, ïðè÷èíû êîòîðîãî ïî-ðàçíîìó ïîíèìàþòñÿ ïðåñòóïíèêîì, ïîëèöåéñêèìè è ãèïîòåòè÷åñêèìè ìàðñèàíàìè. Ýòîò ïðèìåð ìíå êàæåòñÿ âåñüìà íåóäà÷íûì, êàê, âïðî÷åì, è ñàìà èäåÿ, èì èëëþñòðèðóåìàÿ. Ìíå êàæåòñÿ, ÷òî À.Þ. Àíòîíîâñêèé ñòàë æåðòâîé êàòåãîðèàëüíîé ïóòàíèöû, ñâÿçàííîé ñ îøèáî÷íûì îòîæäåñòâëåíèåì ïðè÷èí è óñëîâèé, ïîðîæäàþùèõ è ïîðîæäåííûõ ïðè÷èí, ïðè÷èí êîíå÷íûõ è ïðè÷èí îïîñðåäóþùèõ è ò.ä. Ãëóáîêî óáåæäåí, ÷òî íè ñ êàêîé èç òî÷åê çðåíèÿ – äàæå ñ ìàðñèàíñêîé – íàëè÷èå êèñëîðîäà â àòìîñôåðå, ÿâëÿþùååñÿ óñëîâèåì ãîðåíèÿ, íå ìîæåò ðàññìàòðèâàòüñÿ êàê ïðè÷èíà ïîäæîãà. Íåò è íå ìîæåò áûòü íîðìàëüíûõ ïîëèöåéñêèõ, êîòîðûå ïðåäëîæàò ñóäó ðàññìàòðèâàòü â êà÷åñòâå ïðè÷èíû âïîëíå êîíêðåòíîãî ïîäæîãà îáñòîÿòåëüñòâà âçðîñëåíèÿ è âîñïèòàíèÿ ïðåñòóïíèêà (ýòî ìîæåò äåëàòü òîëüêî àíãàæèðîâàííûé àäâîêàò, êîòîðûé ïûòàåòñÿ çàìàñêèðîâàòü ëè÷íóþ îòâåòñòâåííîñòü çà ïðåñòóïëåíèå ðàññóæäåíèÿìè î «ïîðîêàõ îáùåñòâà»). Ïîäâîäÿ èòîã ñêàçàííîìó, ÿ ðàäóþñü òîìó, ÷òî Àëåêñàíäð Þðüåâè÷ Àíòîíîâñêèé – ýðóäèðîâàííûé è âûñîêîïðîôåññèîíàëüíûé ñïåöèàëèñò – íå îòðèöàåò âîâñå èäåþ óíèâåðñàëüíûõ çàêîíîâ ÷åëîâå÷åñêîãî îáùåæèòèÿ è ïûòàåòñÿ «ñïàñòè» â êàêîé-òî ôîðìå èäåþ îíòîëîãè÷åñêèõ ðåãóëÿðíîñòåé ñîöèóìà (íå ïóòàòü ñ äåîíòîëîãè÷åñêèìè çàêîíàìè ïðàâà). È âñå æå ÿ óáåæäåí, ÷òî ýòà èäåÿ íå íóæäàåòñÿ â ñïà1 Êîíå÷íî, ñ ýòèìè óòâåðæäåíèÿìè íå ñîãëàñÿòñÿ ñòîðîííèêè «ìåòîäîëîãè÷åñêîãî êîëëåêòèâèçìà», ñ÷èòàþùèå, ÷òî ïîòðåáíîñòè è èíòåðåñû îòäåëüíûõ ëþäåé ïðîèçâîäíû îò ïîòðåáíîñòåé è èíòåðåñîâ, ïðèñóùèõ èíòåãðàòèâíûì ñóáúåêòàì (òàêèì, êàê îáùåñòâî â öåëîì èëè ãîñóäàðñòâî). Óáåæäåí, ÷òî íèêàêèõ èíòåãðàòèâíûõ ñóáúåêòîâ, îáëàäàþùèõ ñîáñòâåííûìè ïîòðåáíîñòÿìè, èíòåðåñàìè è öåëÿìè, êîòîðûå îòñóòñòâóþò ó îáðàçóþùèõ èõ ëþäåé, íåò è íå ìîæåò áûòü. Ýòî íå çíà÷èò, ÷òî ÿ ñîãëàñåí ñ ïîçèöèåé ñîöèîëîãè÷åñêîãî íîìèíàëèçìà, îòâåðãàþùåãî ñóùåñòâîâàíèå íàäûíäèâèäóàëüíûõ ðåàëüíîñòåé (â òîì ÷èñëå îáúåêòèâèðîâàííîãî è ñîöèàëèçèðîâàííîãî ñîçíàíèÿ, îòëè÷íîãî îò «æèâîãî ñîçíàíèÿ» èíäèâèäîâ). Ýòè ðåàëèè, êîíå÷íî, ñóùåñòâóþò â âèäå ñîöèàëüíûõ èíñòèòóòîâ (èëè èíòåðñóáúåêòèâíûõ íîðì êóëüòóðû), îäíàêî îíè ëèøåíû âñÿêîé ñóáúåêòíîñòè, íå èìåþò ñîáñòâåííûõ ñóáúåêòíûõ ñâîéñòâ â âèäå ïîòðåáíîñòåé, èíòåðåñîâ è öåëåé.

52

ÎÒÂÅÒ ÍÀ ÄÈÑÊÓÑÑÈÞ

ñåíèè. Ðîëü «îãðàíè÷èòåëÿ ñëó÷àéíîñòåé» â ñîöèóìå èãðàþò íå òîëüêî çàêîíîìåðíîñòè, îáíàðóæèìûå â ñîáûòèéíîì ïîëå èñòîðèè (À.Þ. Àíòîíîâñêèé íàçûâàåò èõ «êâàçèçàêîíàìè», è ñ ýòèì ìîæíî ñîãëàñèòüñÿ), íî è âïîëíå ïîëíîöåííûå çàêîíû íåñîáûòèéíîé îáùåñòâåííîé æèçíè, êîòîðûå ïðîÿâëÿþòñÿ â èñòîðè÷åñêèõ ñîáûòèÿõ òî÷íî òàê æå, êàê âñÿêàÿ ñóùíîñòü ïðîÿâëÿåòñÿ â ñâîèõ ÿâëåíèÿõ. Ñðåäè òàêèõ çàêîíîâ – ïîâòîðþ åùå ðàç – ìû îáíàðóæèâàåì íå òîëüêî ñòàòèñòè÷åñêèå çàêîíû áîëüøèõ ÷èñåë, âîâñþ ðàáîòàþùèå â ýêîíîìèêå è â äðóãèõ ñôåðàõ îáùåñòâåííîé æèçíè, íî è äèíàìè÷åñêèå çàêîíû, äåéñòâóþùèå äëÿ âñåõ è âñÿ÷åñêèõ «Õ» (åñëè ñîêðàòèòü ïðåäëîæåííóþ Àëåêñàíäðîì Þðüåâè÷åì ôîðìóëó «íîìîòåòè÷åñêîãî çàêîíà»).  òîì ÷èñëå ðå÷ü èäåò è î «êîíòðôàêòè÷åñêèõ» çàêîíàõ îáùåñòâåííîé æèçíè, êîòîðûå íèêàê íå çàâèñÿò îò îáñòîÿòåëüñòâ ïðîñòðàíñòâà-âðåìåíè. Èìåííî òàêèå óíèâåðñàëüíûå çàêîíû, âîñïðîèçâîäèìûå è â ïåðâîáûòíûõ ïëåìåíàõ, è â àíòè÷íûõ ïîëèñàõ, è â ôåîäàëüíûõ ãîñóäàðñòâàõ, è â ñîâðåìåííîì èíôîðìàöèîííîì îáùåñòâå, ñîñòàâëÿþò ïðåäìåò ðåôëåêòèâíîé ñîöèàëüíîé ôèëîñîôèè è îáùåé ñîöèîëîãèè, êîòîðûå èçó÷àþò îáùåñòâåííóþ æèçíü ëþäåé â åå âñåîáùíîñòè è öåëîñòíîñòè. Óáåæäåí, ÷òî ñïîðèòü ñ èäååé óíèâåðñàëüíûõ îáùåñòâåííûõ çàêîíîâ ìîæíî òîëüêî ñîäåðæàòåëüíî. Íóæíî àíàëèçèðîâàòü êàæäîãî «ïðåòåíäåíòà» íà ñòàòóñ óíèâåðñàëüíîãî «êîíòðôàêòè÷åñêîãî» çàêîíà, â ñóùåñòâîâàíèè êîòîðîãî óáåæäåíû îïïîíåíòû, è îïðîâåðãàòü (èëè ïîäòâåðæäàòü) åãî «êîíòðôàêòè÷íîñòü». Íåëüçÿ ïîäìåíÿòü ñîäåðæàòåëüíûé àíàëèç ñîöèóìà àïðèîðíûìè îáùåìåòîäîëîãè÷åñêèìè ñïåêóëÿöèÿìè. Óáåæäåí, ÷òî ëþáîé íåïðåäâçÿòûé ó÷åíûé, êîòîðûé îáðàòèòñÿ ê ñîäåðæàòåëüíîìó àíàëèçó ñóáúåêò-îáúåêòíîé è ñóáúåêò-ñóáúåêòíîé îðãàíèçàöèè äåÿòåëüíîñòè, ðàññìîòðèò ñòðîåíèå, ôóíêöèîíèðîâàíèå è ðàçâèòèå îáùåñòâà êàê îðãàíèçàöèîííîé ôîðìû ýòîé äåÿòåëüíîñòè, óáåäèòñÿ â íàëè÷èè ñóùåñòâåííûõ, âîñïðîèçâîäèìûõ, îáúåêòèâíûõ è íåîáõîäèìûõ ñâÿçåé, ñîîòâåòñòâóþùèõ îáùåíàó÷íûì êðèòåðèÿì çàêîíà.  çàêëþ÷åíèå õî÷ó åùå ðàç ïîáëàãîäàðèòü ñâîèõ êîëëåã çà óäîâîëüñòâèå ïîëåìèçèðîâàòü è ñîãëàøàòüñÿ ñ íèìè. Âûðàæàþ îñîáóþ áëàãîäàðíîñòü À.Þ. Àíòîíîâñêîìó, êîòîðûé èíèöèèðîâàë íàøó èíòåðåñíóþ è ñîäåðæàòåëüíóþ äèñêóññèþ.

Литература Ïðèãîæèí, Ñòåíãåðñ, 1986 – Ïðèãîæèí È., Ñòåíãåðñ È. Ïîðÿäîê èç õàîñà. Ì., 1986.

53

EPISTEMOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE · 2015 · Ò. XLV · ¹ 3

P

ERSPECTIVES OF AND CHALLENGES FOR A SOCIAL

PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE: HIGHLIGHTING THE CHALLENGES Alexander Ruser – Zeppelin University, Friedrichshafen, Germany. Email: [email protected]

The role of scientific knowledge in general and social science knowledge in particular is changing in emerging and advanced knowledge societies. Science is becoming more important in identifying and framing social challenges and providing ‘suitable and feasible’ solution to decision-makers. Yet, scientific authority is increasingly challenged and contested. This increased social significance of scientific knowledge claims call for an elaborate social philosophy of science. However any attempt to develop a theoretical framework for a social philosophy of science has to face three challenges: (1) an increased challenging of scientific authority, (2) the need for interdisciplinarity to cope with ever more complex problems and (3) to elaborate on a social epistemology and/ or social ontology respectively. Key words: social philosophy of science, scientific authority, interdisciplinary, epistemology, ontology.

1. Introduction

1

On November 18–19 2014 domestic and international experts gathered at the Russian Academy of Science in Moscow. Invited and organized by the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Science these distinguished scholars honored the lifetime achievements of one of the famous thinkers on the social Philosophy of Science, Prof. Vjatchslav Stepin. But the international conference Social Philosophy of Science – Russian Prospects went well beyond the honoring of a renowned scholar. The purpose of the conference, reflecting the research interests of Professor Stepin, was to identify and address the pressing and emerging issues in the field of social philosophy of science. The relevance of this topic stems from two sources. Being concerned with the relation of science and society is of exceptional importance in times when progress in science reveals fundamental challenges and problems for societies. Additionally the role of science must be rethought and analyzed carefully in emerging knowledge societies; that is societies that increasingly rely on scientific knowledge. To help addressing these important questions the conference focused on science itself (holding sessions on the ‘Social Ontology of Science’, ‘Science as Culture’ the controversy between ‘Constructivism vs. Realism’ Science and Technology Studies, ‘the social Dimension of Technology’, dimensions, challenges and obstacles of ‘Reforming Science’ 1 I would like to thank Dr. Amanda Machin (Zeppelin University Friedrichshafen) for providing invaluable advice and critical comments to improve the quality of this contribution. I also want to thank my master class on ‘philosophy of science and research design’ for their enthusiasm and inspiration.

54

Epistemology and Cognition

PERSPECTIVES OF AND CHALLENGES FOR A SOCIAL…

and the problem of ‘Naturalism and Interdisciplinarity’) but also reserved its plenary session to address the question of how science relates to society and how to deal with the consequences. The aim and scope of this modest contribution is to reflect on some of the key aspects presented during the plenary sessions and to pick up on some of the thrilling and important issues raised during the subsequent discussions. Following Stepins conviction that scientific reasoning, although in principle applicable to all kinds of phenomena (including the human mind itself) cannot be a complete substitute for all other kinds of cognition [Stepin, 2014: 5–6] the main focus is not exclusively on how science relates to society but also on the complex interplay of how science is shaping society and is in turn itself shaped by societal processes. Addressing this interplay is seemingly an ever more pressing issue given the emergence of so called ‘knowledge societies’ on the one hand and the increase of political and social disputes over science (e.g. in the field of climate change or the controversy on creationism and evolution theory) sometimes interpreted as anti-scientific backlash. The concurrency of the increased importance of scientific knowledge and growing resistance to scientific authority is not only an emerging field of research for various social scientific disciplines but also a crucial premise for any social philosophy of science. Growing popular disagreement with scientific authority and the actual or perceived significance of scientific knowledge to deal with ever more complex problems raise the questions of what scientific knowledge claims actually ‘are’ (e.g. whether they state something about an objective reality or whether they describe social constructions) and what kind of social consequences they provoke. The later aspect brings up once again the controversy about a value free science, a dispute, the German Sociologist Max Weber tried to settle over a hundred years ago by calling for a science, which limit itself to cautious advisory: ‚An empirical science cannot tell anyone what he should do – but rather what he can do – and under certain circumstances – what he wishes to do [Weber, 1904]. It only seems appropriate for recalling the debates held at a conference organized by the Russian Academy of Science to point at Max Weber’s adherence to the view expressed by Leo Tolstoi. Tolstoi claimed that ‘science is meaningless, because it gives no answer to our question, the only question important for us: What shall we do and how shall we live our live?’ [Weber, 1946: 138]. In Webers view, (social) science should not try to offer meaning but limit itself to help putting ‘the question correctly’ [ibid.]. Taking up on this programmatic advice the following paragraphs outline some hints on how to formulate the questions social philosophy of science has to answer. These questions stem from three different processes. (1) Shifts in the relation between science and society (2) Consequences of an increased complexity of any (social) scientific venture and (3) changing ways and modes of thinking about science itself.

55

ALEXANDER RUSER

2. Challenging Scientific Authority: Fullers Concept of a customized ‘Protscience’ Scientific knowledge plays an ever more important role in modern societies. Against the background of an actual or perceived increase of complexity, scientists (both from the natural and the social sciences) tend to be credited with the authority to define the most pressing problems and simultaneously providing suitable, scientifically ‘proven’ solutions. Apparently scientific advice provides not only ‘the best way of understanding the world’ [Wolpert, Lewis, 1992: 172] but is also a powerful source of (political) legitimacy. However, somewhat puzzling to philosophers of science and sociologists of knowledge scientific authority becomes increasingly contested at the same time: ‘Climate Skeptics’ question the authority of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) arguably an assembly of the most distinguished climate scientists in the world. ‘Creationists’ and supporters of ‘intelligent design’ reject Darwin´s theory of evolution claiming to offer a rivaling but equally ‘scientific’ approach. Do these developments indicate an ‘antiscientific’ backlash, a challenging of the authority of science? Philosophy of Science usually focuses on the epistemological conditions and methodological principles necessary to produce valid scientific knowledge within a scientific community. In the terms of Knorr-Cetina (1999: 1) philosophy of science tends to deal with the rules and structure of ‘epistemic cultures’ defined as ‘those amalgams of arrangements and mechanisms (…) which, in a given field, make up how we know what we know’. Keeping with the rules of an epistemic culture is a necessary prerequisite not only for the individual scholar to become a member of a particular epistemic culture but also for estimating the validity of knowledge claims made within the boundaries of a discipline. The respective scientific community ‘guards’ the standards of the knowledge it produces. In his paper ‘Customized Science as a Reflection of Protscience’, Steve Fuller challenges this position, for in his view science is currently undergoing a process similar to the Protestant Reformation of the 15th and 16th century. Much like some communities of Christianity grew dissatisfied with the orthodox doctrine of the Roman-catholic church, he argues, people today are ‘taking science seriously means taking it personally’ [Fuller, Steve, 2014: 5].2 This approach offers somewhat of a diverging explanation of how the current interplay between science and society must be analyzed. At times displayed as a general trend towards the scientification of societies on the 2 Fuller indirectly refers to Whiteheads notion that the spread of modern scientific thought differs fundamentally from the Reformation. Starting as an elite movement during the thirty years war period modern science spread comparatively peacefully and ‘quite’. It owes its apparent success to the rise of a ‘recolored (…) mentality so that modes of thought which in former times were exceptional are now broadly spread through the educated world’ [Whitehead, 1925: 2]. Unlike Whitehead who believed in the universal persuasiveness of scientific reasoning [ibid: 3] Fuller argues that a kind of ‘catching up development’ is taking place.

56

PERSPECTIVES OF AND CHALLENGES FOR A SOCIAL…

on hand and anti-scientific sentiment in reaction on the other, Fuller argues for the emergence of ‘Protscience’ not as a symptom of irrational backlash but of a fundamental change of the interplay between science and society. The changing relation between science and society is driven by the increased access of the public to scientific findings. Scientific knowledge claims become widely disseminated worldwide web, a development, which seemingly neither result in a more ‘educated’ nor an ‘enlightened’ public. People don´t simply ‘get’ the knowledge. As the emergence of concepts like ‘creationism’ or ‘intelligent design’ but also ‘climate skepticism ’demonstrate, people more often engage and contest knowledge claims made by professional scientists. Drawing on terminology used in marketing literature, Fuller describes this process not as rising skepticism towards science and scientists, but rather as a transition from science customers to science consumers. While science costumers can be conceptualized as a purchaser of research or ‘epistemic goods’ while the consumer actually consumes (though not always intentionally) scientific goods. In consequence, science costumers may follow a different approach in engaging science (and scientific) authority, an approach, which may not be fully explained by the common ‘deficit model’ which equates the refusal to accept scientific authority with ‘ignorance’ or denial of facts. Science costumers may rather deliberately deviate from scientific norms, accepting alternative explanations not because of a lack of scientific knowledge but because of a personal decision (parallel to theological well informed protestants) to challenge scientific authority. From the perspective of the social philosophy of science Fuller’s argumentation raises a series of important questions: Science customization directly challenges the ‘privilege’ of scientific community to judge their knowledge claims. Scientific verdicts increasingly come under fire form people claiming that subjective viewpoints and alternative explanations (which mustn´t follow the rules of scientific inquiry) must be considered. While Fuller portrays this development as (necessary) consequence of the increased accessibility of scientific information and welcomes the democratization of science by the advent of ‘Protscience’, form the perspective of philosophy of science these changes may not mark the beginning of a science reformation but the fall back to medieval superstition: It invokes Lakatos (1977) skepticism about the ability of the public to judge the quality of scientific statements. In his view neither the number of people believing in a particular claim nor the strength of their conviction could establish a criteria for the adequacy of such a claim: ‘If the strength of beliefs were a hallmark of beliefs of knowledge, we should have to rank some tales of demons, angels, devils and of heaven and hell as knowledge’ [Lakatos, 1977: 20]. Lakatos neither argues in favor of a ‘blind commitment to a theory’ nor does he seeks to restore the inviolability of scientific authority. What he is arguing for is a sharp distinction between scientificity and plausibility: ‘Thus a statement may be pseudoscientific even it is emi-

57

ALEXANDER RUSER

nently ‘plausible’ and everybody believes in, and it may be scientifically valuable even if it is unbelievable and nobody believes it’ [ibid.]. Lakatos´ attempt to outline a structured approach for demarcating science form non- or pseudoscicence culminated in his more sophisticated model of research programs [Lakatos, 1968]. However, this concept was often criticized for being to narrow and formalistic. Among the most prominent critics was Paul Feyerabend. Fullers diagnosis of the emergence of Protscience is obviously close to Feyerabends argumentation outlined in ‘Science in a free Society’ (1978). Both are polemicizing against the centralized power of a ‘science Vatican’ jealously guarding its privilege to tell scientific knowledge from pseudo-scientific superstition. In contrast to Feyerabend, who favors a ‘slow erosion of the authority of science’ (1978: 102), Fuller describes an accelerated process driven by mainly by the advent of the world wide web. While Feyerabend speaks about a (truly) free society, by which he means an ’assembly of mature people’ (1978: 78) prepared to accept the plurality (and equality) of viewpoints, Fullers ‘Protscientists’ simply seem to take science ‘personally’ (2014: 5). Fuller is drawing a parallel here between the impact of the invention of book print by Guttenberg in increasing the accessibility of theological knowledge (sparking reformation which lead to the erosion of a unified Christianity) and the dissemination of scientific research by the internet. However, the question of how this knowledge is translated for a wider public is yet to be answered. To stay in the picture, when the advent of the internet is mirroring the sea change for knowledge distribution by the invention of the book print, it has yet to be answered who fills the role of Luther, Calvin and Zwingli in providing alternative versions of the ‘scientific gospel’? Because even when a scientific reformation would shake scientific authority to its foundations and spark a ‘skewing (of balance of power in science, AR) from centralized, homogenous contributors toward distributed, collective, sometimes amateur action’ [Grand et al., 2012: 680] the need to reduce complexity and establish a system of trust would remain. Under changing circumstances like these, a social philosophy of science has to focus on the question of how trust in scientific knowledge claims can be justified. In contrast to the ‘trust technology’ of ‘virtual witnessing’, which means a ‘powerful reassurance that things really were done in a way it is claimed that they were’3 [Grand et al., 2012: 769–680] nowadays scientists find their ideas, theories and findings increasingly presented in the mass media, being accessed, commented and ‘used’ in the internet and becoming part of public debates. Optimistic interpretations labeling these developments as ‘open science’ see ‘the potential to enable citizen scientist´s participation to go beyond counting, checking, and organizing data to involvement in the full complexities of the research process and in dialogue with researchers’ [Grand et al., 2012: 683]. However, a more pessimistic interpretation 3 ‘Trust’ is generated by a general belief in the appropriateness of ‘good scientific practice’. It is important to note that in this conception the trustworthiness of scientific knowledge claims depends on compliance with the rules of scientific inquiry not on discussing these very rules with an audience outside the scientific community.

58

PERSPECTIVES OF AND CHALLENGES FOR A SOCIAL…

would doubt that the new modes of communication provided by social media will in fact turn researchers into ‘public figures and honest brokers’ [Grand et al., 2012: 684]? What could a ‘trust technology’ for the Protscience look like? With ‘professional’ scientist losing control over the standards of actually conducting research and subsequently backing their knowledge claims, what will determine the validity of scientific findings disseminated, discussed and constantly contested by ‘civic scientists’? In contrast to the overly optimistic assumption that ‘the tools used by scientists and public groups are evolving in response to demands for openness and transparency’ [Grand et al., 2012: 685]. ‘Protscience’ could also indicate increasing conflict between scientific rules of inquiry (leading to a particular knowledge claim) and individual (or group) preferences explaining it´s acceptance or rejection. A social philosophy of science must be concerned with the future image of ‘scientific reformators’ and the role and the image of science in the ‘Protscience’.

3. Science in a changing world – Kasavins call for true interdisciplinary Part of the difficulties in addressing these issues and making sense of the (new and changing) role of science in contemporary societies stem from the fruitful yet artificial ‘division if labour’ between the history of science, science and technology studies, psychology of science, sociology of science and philosophy of science [Kasavin, 2014: 8–9] Despite some cooperation in an interdisciplinary framework, each discipline tends to focus on a particular aspect of science jealously guarding its particular field of inquiry. The lack of sufficient exchange results in shortcomings in arriving at a ‘consistent picture of science’ [ibid.: 9] and the subsequent development of a comprehensive ‘science policy’ [ibid.]. To overcome this fragmentation and enable researchers to make a fruitful contribution to our understanding of the role of science in contemporary societies Kasavin is turning to Russian philosophical traditions. Outlining a programmatic framework Kasavin identifies five crucial tasks: first to acknowledge the non-independent character of the philosophy of science, second to consider insights from social philosophy more systematically, third to revise the epistemological status of the natural sciences, fourth to turn to the social sciences and humanities for alternative methodological approaches and fifth to develop new approaches in dealing with case studies [cf. ibid.: 9]. By invoking Russian philosophical tradition Kasavin calls for making use of a ‘holistic approach’ (2014: 11) suited for making sense of the ’value controversies’, which are endemic in methodological and epistemological questions. Of particular importance, especially given the current changes in way science relates (and is challenged by) societies is to apply these approaches to the underlying conception of ‘rationality’ and ‘truth’ [ibid.: 12]. Conventionally the authority of science rests on the implicit or explicit assumption of the universalizability of rationality, which in consequence

59

ALEXANDER RUSER

implies that science may uncover universal laws and ‘that universal laws not only cover everything {but also that} they can be proved by arguments that all rational men must accept’ [Agassi, 1975: 405]. Instead of accepting this ‘optimistic doctrine of rationality’ [ibid.: 407] Kasavin seeks to build on Russian philosophical tradition, which is not only rejecting the optimistic doctrine but also stresses the role of agency in the process of scientific knowledge production, understands science as one particular source of knowledge (among others) and, finally, embraces social constructivist approaches [Kasavin, 2014: 12]. Each of these dimensions is related to the ‘embeddedness’ of science in respective surrounding societies. Following Fuller’s diagnosis of some fundamental changes in the relation between science and society (without necessarily accepting the subsequent interpretation provided by Fuller) Kasavin’s thoughts might be interpreted as a roadmap for further investigation. With regard to the first identified task, the acknowledgment of the non-independent character of philosophy of science, a more systematic inclusion of (at least) insights from history of science and the sociology of science seems the most promising. Kasavin´s reflection on combining insights from different disciplines and fields of inquiry are closely related to Stepins thoughts on scientiftic rationality itself, for it corresponds with the idea of a co-evolution or interdependency of historical types of scientific rationality and the complexity of systems observed [Stepin, 2014: 6–7]. Stepin argues that science, as moving from seeing to understand the function and regularities of simple systems, to complex self-regulating systems and finally to complex self-developing systems is developing not only new research interests but new types of rationality which differ with respect to the underlying ‘ideals and norms of investigation’ and with regard to the respective ‘character of philosophical and methodological reflection [ibid.: 7].

4. Thinking differently about Science: Three challenges for a social philosophy of science Social Philosophy of Science can be rooted in scientific realism or follow constructivist approaches. Given the social phenomenon of more and more people challenging scientific authority (social) philosophy has to elaborate on how knowledge claims made by scientists can be justified. In order to do so it has two general options: To develop a social ontology or a social epistemology. A social ontology addresses the ‘mode of existence of social objects’ [Searle, 2006: 12]. A social epistemology asks how we know about a social object: Can social ontology provide a secure base for dealing with the ‘Protscientists`? At first glance, no: For elements of social reality ‘are all objective facts in the sense that they are not matters of my opinion. If I believe the contrary, I am simply mistaken. But these objective facts only exist in virtue of collective acceptance or recognition or acknowledgement.’ [ibid.: 13, Emphasize AR] Following these more general considerations regarding the prospects of philosophy of science the final paragraphs will focus on more specific

60

PERSPECTIVES OF AND CHALLENGES FOR A SOCIAL…

concepts of how to deal with the challenge of making sense of the relation of science and society and the prospects of arriving at a more holistic approach of thinking about science. While Steve Fuller diagnoses a loss of the authority of science, Hamati-Ataya turns to the loss of its apparent foundation. At the heart of much of the epistemological and methodological discussion in the social sciences in recent decades she argues lay the need for ‘theory of knowledge’ understood as a discourse that has the ability to establish social order by setting standards for what counts as valid representation of the social world’ [Hamati-Ataya, 2014: 14]. But where does this challenge to Foundation come from? What led to the ‘chaos’ and the necessity to ‘interrogate the social function of epistemology’ [ibid.]. From my perspective Hamati-Ataya outlines here another frontline of contemporary thinking about the social philosophy of science. For unlike Steve Fuller, who focus on challenges for (social) sciences stemming from changes within societies, Hamati-Ataya points towards the sociological reflexivity, which ‘is more specifically concerned with the social conditions of possibility of knowledge’ [ibid.: 15]. Starting with the broad assumption that ‘knowledge and reality are mutually constitutive’ [ibid.: 14] she then describes her understanding of reflexivity as an epistemic principle of social scientific research. Accordingly any theory of knowledge must refer to a ‘social epistemology’ that is it must contain a ‘system of principles that define the conditions of possibility of all the properly sociological acts and discourses produced in the course of social scientific research` [ibid.: 15]. What is argued here is that the social ‘facts’ lying at the core of social science knowledge mustn’t have an ‘ontological status (…) over and above its relation to the realm of thought’ [Rescher, 2003: 101]. That again mustn’t imply that social science knowledge contains ‘fictional facts’ but rather calls for philosophically distinguishing between the ‘finding of facts’ and the construction of (social) science knowledge. To a certain degree the issues (or problems) addresses by Fuller and Hamati-Ataya can be considered to be complementary: both take a specific socio-historic perspective to indicate at some major challenges for science and subsequent for social philosophy of science. However, in contrast to Fuller who outlines his interpretation of a particular episode in history Hamati-Ataya draws attention to the problem that any attempt ‘to objectivate knowledge socio-historically {means necessarily to} objectivate (…) it from a given socio-historical perspective’ [Hamati-Ataya, 2014: 15] One of the implications Hamti-Ataya suggests is particularly important here because it adds to the implicit relativism of Fullers concept of ‘Protscience’. Reflexivism clearly conflicts with an ‘objective understanding of objectivity’ (ibid.). This means that social philosophy of science by adopting reflexivity, has to accept that ‘knowledge is socially and culturally produced and historically contingent’ [Knuuttila, 2002]. In a nutshell: Social philosophy of science might face three challenges: (1) since scientific knowledge claims increasingly come under attack from ‘Protscience’, the classical scientific disciplines might struggle to maintain

61

ALEXANDER RUSER

their ‘cognitive authority in a distrustful world’ [Jasanoff, 1990: 14]. (2) In order to stay abreast of the changes in the natural and social world scientific inquiry is forced to transgress disciplinary boundaries and (3) taking into account the social functioning of scientific epistemology requires rethinking some of the most fundamental concepts of philosophy of science, in particular the ontological and epistemological status of social science knowledge. A likely candidate for providing some solution might be Science and Technology Studies. 4 After all STS is clearly an interdisciplinary undertaking, which derives three important assumptions from the account of ‘social constructivism’. First, ‘that science and technology are importantly social’ [Sismondo, 2010: 57; 2014: 32]. This assumption clearly links to the first challenge. Second, that science and technology imply activity. Analyzing this active part requires an interdisciplinary approach, which means that STS may be well equipped to chart a way to avoid the second horn. Third, and finally STS acknowledges that ‘science and technology are not themselves natural’ [Sismondo, 2014: 32] which has important implications regarding their respective ontological status. To start with the third assertion, one has to ask what the ‘non-natural’ character of science and technology means? Drawing on Searle´s fundamental distinction ‘natural’ could be conceptual as observer- independent. Science and technology would then, being ‘non natural’ fall into the category of observer dependent facts [Searle, 2006: 13]. Acknowledging ‘observer dependence’ has major implications for a social epistemology as well as social ontology. Emphasizing the observer’s dependence of the observation points towards the need to develop a social epistemology. Rather than accepting the Cartesian ‘cogito’ as the cornerstone of an epistemological venture the social, cultural and historical circumstances of the lone thinker have to be taken into account as inter-individual aspects. Only then social conditionality mustn’t lead to epistemological arbitrariness. Stressing the observer’s dependence of the observed in contrast calls for a social ontology. The task is then to uncover ‘the principles that underlie the constitution of social reality’ [Searle, 2006: 16] or at least follow the ‘historical ontology’ which can be found in STS to ‘see the competing ways in which things are constructed’ [Sismondo, 2014: 35] 4 Knuutilla, taking a stand closely related to Sismondo points out that reflexivity in STS ‘was on the agenda more or less in the beginning of that movement’ [Knuutilla, 2002]. However, STS, having been interested in the social study of science ever since (in particular so called ‘interest explanations’, Knuutilla, 2002) is running into the problem of ‘simultaneously trying to approach the practices of any scientific group as historically contingent and culturally specific, and seek for generalizable explanations’ [Knuutilla, 2002]. The question is whether STS can provide some guidance when moving away from objectivist (or positivist) social sciences ‘can be a move towards many different things – including a complete indifference to what becomes the meaning of knowledge’ [Hamati-Ataya, 2014: 16].

62

PERSPECTIVES OF AND CHALLENGES FOR A SOCIAL…

5. Conclusions and Outlook What does this all mean for a social philosophy of science? Scholarly discussions at the international conference Social Philosophy of Science – Russian Prospects highlighted some of the important issues currently driving theoretical thinking in the social philosophy of science. In particular three challenges for a social philosophy of science surfaced: (1) An increased challenging of scientific authority in emerging and developed knowledge societies (2) The need to develop truly interdisciplinary approaches to deal with an ever more complex world and, finally (3) The need to elaborate on a social epistemology and social ontology How (and if) these challenges can be satisfactorily met has yet to be determined. However, it is important to stress that the existence of these challenges mustn’t indicate failure or flaws in the thinking about social philosophy of science so far. All of the three challenges highlighted here can be explained as a consequence of a changing relation between science and society. This change can stem from changes within society (like Fullers concept of ‘Protscience’ which is mainly technologically driven and is an expression of social change) or from scientific progress itself (e.g. the sequence of ‘turns’ in STS). In any case it is not surprising that such changes result in the need for progress in the social philosophy of science. This thought, the idea of a co-evolution of social complexity (or at least the level of the complexity investigated) and scientific rationality lies at the core of Stepins typology of scientific rationality. Tolstoi claimed science was meaningless, for it fails to provide to the crucial questions of ‘What shall we do?’ and ‘How shall we live our live?’. If he was correct, then there is no urgency for a social philosophy of science to meet the challenges discussed in this paper. And yet scientific knowledge does seem able to provide at least some guidance for these important questions, particularly in knowledge societies where technological advance actually compounds rather than reduces social complexity. Meeting the challenges discussed is therefore crucial if there is to be a meaningful conception of the range and limits of scientific knowledge claims. In consequence, this could inform a truly reformatory debate about the future of scientific authority.

References Agassi, Joseph (1975) Science in Flux. Dordrecht, Boston: D. Reidel Publishing.

63

ALEXANDER RUSER

Cook, Russel (2014) ‘Merchants of Smear’ Policy Brief, The Heartland Institute, September 2014. Feyerabend, Paul (1978) Science in a Free Society. L. : New Left Books. Fuller, Steve (2014) ‘Customized Science as a Reflection of Protscience’ Proceedings of International Conference ‘Social Philosophy of Science: Russian Prospects’ Moscow, November 18–19, 2014. Grand, Ann, Wilkinson, Clare, Bultitude, Karen, Winfield, Alan F.T. (2012) ‘Open Science: A New ‘Trust Technology’? Science Communication 34(5): 679–689. Hamati-Ataya, Inanna (2014) ‘Outline for a Reflexive Epistemology’ Proceedings of International Conference ‘Social Philosophy of Science: Russian Prospects’, Moscow, November 18–19, 2014. Jasanoff, 1990 – Jasanoff Sh. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Cambrige, MA : Harvard University Press, 1990. Kasavin, Ilya (2014) ‘Social Philosophy of Science: Russian Prospects’ Proceedings of International Conference ‘Social Philosophy of Science: Russian Prospects’, Moscow, November 18–19, 2014. Knorr-Cetina, Karin (1999) Epistemic Cultures. How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, Mass. L. : Harvard University Press. Knuuttila, Tarja (2002)‚ Signing for Reflexivity: Constructionist Rhetorics and Its Reflexive Critique in Science and Technology Studies’. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(3). Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-esearch.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/828/1799 Lakatos, Imre (1968) ‘Criticism and the Methodology of Research Programmes’ Proceedings Of the Aristotelian Society 69, 1968. P. 149ff. Lakatos, Imre (1977) ‘Science and Pseudoscience’ in: Lakatos, Imre, Philosophical Papers, Vol.1. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. Rescher, Nicholas (2003) Imagining Irreality. A Study of Unreal Possibilities. Chicago, La Salle: Open Court. Searle, John R. (2006) ‘Social Ontology. Some Basic Principles’ Anthropological Theory. Vol. 6(1). P. 12–29. Sisomondo, Sergio (2010) An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. 2nd Edition. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. Sismondo, Sergio (2014) ‘Ontological Turns, Turnoffs and Roundabouts’ Proceedings of International Conference ‘Social Philosophy of Science: Russian Prospects’. Moscow, November 18–19, 2014. Weber, Max (1904) ‘The Objectivity of Sociological and Social Political Knowledge’. Weber, Max (1946) ‘Science as Vocation’ in Gerth H.H. and Mills Wright C. (eds.) From Max Weber: Essay in Sociology. N.Y. : Oxford University Press. P. 129–156. Weingart, Peter, Stehr, Nico (2000) Practising Interdiciplinarity. Toronto, Buffalo. L. : University of Toronto Press. Whitehead, Alfred North (1925/1997) ‘The Origins of Modern Science’ in: Tauber, Alfred I. (ed.) Science and the Quest for Reality. N.Y. : New York University Press. Wolpert, Lewis (1992) The Unnatural Nature of Science. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

64

EPISTEMOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE · 2015 · Ò. XLV · ¹ 3

А

НАЛИЗ РЕАЛЬНОГО ПОЗНАНИЯ КАК УСЛОВИЕ

СНЯТИЯ СПОРА КОНСТРУКТИВИСТОВ И РЕАЛИСТОВ

Вадим Маркович Ро$ зин – доктор философ ских наук, профессор, ведущий научный со трудник Института фи лософии РАН. Email: [email protected]

A

В статье обсуждается спор конструктивистов и реалистов, который в настоящее время в определенной степени потерял свою актуальность. Автор старается по казать, что предпосылки этого спора относятся к античной культуре, где стали создаваться идеальные объекты и встал вопрос об их отношении к обычному миру. В истории философии это отношение задавалось поразному, что и опре делило формирование двух противоположных концепций – реализма и конст руктивизма. Чтобы уйти от малопродуктивного диалога этих концепций, пред лагается обратиться к методологическому анализу реальной познавательной деятельности. При этом вводятся такие различения: «идеальный объект», «объ ективация», «схема», «реальность предметной онтологии», «цикл становления нового явления» и два случая феноменов – природных (в смысле первой при роды) и социальных. В последней части статьи предлагается реконструкция Интернета как, с одной стороны, рукотворного и ментального создания челове ка, а с другой – естественного феномена (автор выдвигает гипотезу, что Интер нет в настоящее время превратился в планетарный живой организм). Интернет не только выступает в качестве нового «социальнотехнического тела» челове ка, но и позволяет в ситуации современного кризиса и перехода сохранять и во зобновлять социальную и политическую жизнь. В результате утверждается, что еальность Интернета и конструктивна, и бытийственна. Если понимать конст руирование и естественное существование не просто как оппозиции и отдель ные сущности, а как два дополнительных аспекта реальной деятельности чело века, одновременно познавательной и практической, то спор конструктивистов и реалистов теряет смысл. Ключевые слова: конструктивизм, реализм, деятельность, познание, рекон струкция, Интернет, онтология, схема, реальность, природа.

N ANALYSIS OF THE REAL COGNITION AS A CONDITION

FOR THE RESOLVING THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN CONSTRUCTIVISTS AND REALISTS Vadim Rozin – Ph.D., professor, leading researcher of the Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences.

The article discusses the dispute between constructivists and realists, which is claimed to be losing its relevance. The author tries to show that the presuppositions of the dispute relate to the ancient culture, where the ideal objects first appeared and where the question of their relation to the real world was first raised. In the history of philosophy these relations were comprehended differently, and as a result two opposing views were developed – realism and constructivism. The author argues that in order to get away from the ineffectiveness of the opposition between these views one needs to turn to the methodological analysis of the real cognitive activity. In the process of discussing how this turn could be possible the author introduces the notions of ideal object, objectification, diagram, the reality of object ontology, the cycle of the development a new phenomenon along with

Epistemology and Cognition

65

Â.Ì. ÐÎÇÈÍ

two kinds of phenomena – the natural phenomena (in the sense of the first nature) and the social phenomena. In the final part of the article the author offers a conceptualization of the Internet as a handmade and mental creation of man, on the one hand, and as a natural phenomenon on the other. It is argued that the Internet exists not only as a newly created «sociotechnical body» of man. In the situation of the present crisis it also allows us to maintain and reproduce the social and political life. As a result, it is claimed that the reality of the Internet could be considered both constructive and existential. The author concludes that if we understand the processes of construction and of natural existence not merely as two oppositions associated with one phenomenon, but as two complementary aspects of real human activities, the dispute between constructivists and realists becomes meaningless in the cognitive as well as in the practical perspective. Key words: constructivism, realism, activity, cognition, upgrade, web, ontology scheme, reality, nature.

Èçâåñòíàÿ ïîëåìèêà ñòîðîííèêîâ êîíöåïöèé êîíñòðóêòèâèçìà è ðåàëèçìà, íà ìîé âçãëÿä, çàøëà â òóïèê. Ñïîðÿùèå ñòîðîíû âûñêàçàëè àðãóìåíòû â çàùèòó ñâîèõ óáåæäåíèé è îñòàëèñü íà ñâîèõ ïîçèöèÿõ. Ìîæíî ñîãëàñèòüñÿ ñ À. Ëèïêèíûì, ôîðìóëèðóþùèì ñóòü ïîëåìèêè ñëåäóþùèì îáðàçîì. Îñíîâíîé òåçèñ «ìåòàôèçè÷åñêîãî» («íàèâíîãî») ðåàëèçìà, óòðàòèâøåãî ñâîè ïîçèöèè, «çàêëþ÷àåòñÿ â òîì, ÷òî âåðèôèêàöèÿ òåîðåòè÷åñêèõ âûñêàçûâàíèé è òåîðèé â öåëîì äåòåðìèíèðóåòñÿ ñóùåñòâóþùåé íåçàâèñèìî îò íàøåãî çíàíèÿ “ðåàëüíîñòüþ”; èñòèííîñòü òàêèõ âûñêàçûâàíèé è òåîðèé – ýòî “ñîîòâåòñòâèå ñ ðåàëüíîñòüþ ñàìîé ïî ñåáå”». Àëüòåðíàòèâíàÿ êîíöåïöèÿ âàí Ôðààññåíà, ïðîâîçãëàøàþùåãî «êîíñòðóêòèâíûé ýìïèðèçì – “âçãëÿä, ñîãëàñíî êîòîðîìó íàó÷íàÿ äåÿòåëüíîñòü ÿâëÿåòñÿ ñêîðåå êîíñòðóèðîâàíèåì, ÷åì îòêðûòèåì: êîíñòðóèðîâàíèåì ìîäåëåé, êîòîðûå äîëæíû áûòü àäåêâàòíû ÿâëåíèþ, à íå îòêðûòèåì èñòèíû, èìåþùåé îòíîøåíèå ê íåíàáëþäàåìîìó” (êàêîâûìè ÿâëÿþòñÿ òåîðåòè÷åñêèå ñóùíîñòè òèïà íüþòîíîâñêîé ñèëû òÿãîòåíèÿ èëè ìîëåêóë â ñòàòèñòè÷åñêîé (ìîëåêóëÿðíîé) ôèçèêå. – À.Ë.)… Íàèáîëåå óÿçâèìûì ìåñòîì êðèòèêóåìîãî âàí Ôðààññåíîì “ìåòàôèçè÷åñêîãî ðåàëèçìà” ÿâëÿåòñÿ “êîððåñïîíäåíòíàÿ òåîðèÿ èñòèíû” è âûòåêàþùàÿ èç íåå àïåëëÿöèÿ ê “îáúåêòèâíîìó ìèðó”, “òðàíñöåíäåíòàëüíîé ðåàëüíîñòè”, èíà÷å ãîâîðÿ, “îíòîëîãèè”, êîòîðàÿ íå ïîñòóëèðóåòñÿ òåîðèåé, à ïðåäïîñûëàåòñÿ åé, – ãîâîðèò Â.Í. Ïîðóñ â îáçîðå, ïîñâÿùåííîì “íàó÷íîìó ðåàëèçìó”. – Ôàêòè÷åñêè ìåòàôèçè÷åñêèé ðåàëèçì èñïîëüçóåò êàíòîâñêîå ïîíÿòèå “ðåàëüíîñòè” êàê “âåùè â ñåáå”, íî ïûòàåòñÿ ñîåäèíèòü íåñîåäèíèìîå: óòâåðæäàåò ïîçíàâàåìîñòü òîãî, ÷òî ïî ñàìîìó ñìûñëó êàíòîâñêîãî ïîíÿòèÿ ÿâëÿåòñÿ íåïîçíàâàåìûì; îòñþäà ýêëåêòè÷íîñòü è íåïîñëåäîâàòåëüíîñòü ýòîé êîíöåïöèè… Ëèøü íåìíîãèå îòâàæèâàþòñÿ íà “ìåòàôèçè÷åñêèé ðåàëèçì”, òðåáóþùèé çàùèòû òåîðèè èñòèíû êàê “ñîîòâåòñòâèÿ ñ ðåàëüíîñòüþ” èëè “êîððåñïîíäåíòíîé òåîðèè èñòèíû”» [Ëèïêèí, 2007: 193, 196, 197]. Íà÷àëî äàííîé ïîëåìèêè, ïðàâäà â èíîé êîíöåïòóàëèçàöèè, ìîæíî óâèäåòü â êðèòèêå Àðèñòîòåëåì ïëàòîíîâñêèõ èäåé.  «Ìåòàôèçèêå» Ñòàãèðèò ïèøåò: «Ïëàòîí, óñâîèâøè âçãëÿä Ñîêðàòà, ïî óêàçàí-

66

ÀÍÀËÈÇ ÐÅÀËÜÍÎÃÎ ÏÎÇÍÀÍÈß ÊÀÊ ÓÑËÎÂÈÅ…

íîé ïðè÷èíå ïðèçíàë, ÷òî òàêèå îïðåäåëåíèÿ èìåþò ñâîèì ïðåäìåòîì íå÷òî äðóãîå, à íå ÷óâñòâåííûå âåùè; èáî íåëüçÿ äàòü îáùåãî îïðåäåëåíèÿ äëÿ êàêîé-íèáóäü èç ÷óâñòâåííûõ âåùåé, ïîñêîëüêó ýòè âåùè èçìåíÿþòñÿ (îäíàêî äëÿ ñîôèñòîâ èìåííî èçìåíåíèå – èñõîäíûé ôàêò è ðåàëüíîñòü, à òîæäåñòâåííîñòü êàêîãî-òî ïðåäìåòà è ñîäåðæàíèÿ ÿâëÿåòñÿ íîíñåíñîì. – Â.Ð.). Èäÿ óêàçàííûì ïóòåì, îí ïîäîáíûå ðåàëüíîñòè íàçâàë èäåÿìè, à ÷òî êàñàåòñÿ ÷óâñòâåííûõ âåùåé, òî î íèõ ðå÷ü âñåãäà èäåò îòäåëüíî îò èäåé è â ñîîòâåòñòâèè ñ íèìè; èáî âñå ìíîæåñòâî âåùåé ñóùåñòâóåò â ñèëó ïðèîáùåíèÿ ê èäåÿì... Íî òîëüêî Ñîêðàò îáùèì ñòîðîíàì âåùè íå ïðèïèñûâàë îáîñîáëåííîãî ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ è îïðåäåëåíèÿì – òàêæå; ìåæäó òåì ñòîðîííèêè òåîðèè èäåé ýòè ñòîðîíû îáîñîáèëè è ïîäîáíîãî ðîäà ðåàëüíîñòè íàçâàëè èäåÿìè» [Àðèñòîòåëü, 1934: 29, 223]. Çäåñü ïðàâèëüíî óêàçàíà ñâÿçü èäåé ñ îïðåäåëåíèÿìè. Äåéñòâèòåëüíî, Ñîêðàò, èäÿ âñëåä çà ïèôàãîðåéöàìè, ïîêàçàë, ÷òî îøèáêè â ðàññóæäåíèÿõ âîçíèêàþò ïîòîìó, ÷òî ìûñëÿùèé èëè ìåíÿåò èñõîäíîå ïðåäñòàâëåíèå, èëè æå ïåðåõîäèò îò îäíîãî ïðåäìåòà ìûñëè ê äðóãîìó, íàðóøàÿ, òàê ñêàçàòü, ïðåäìåòíûå ñâÿçè. Âîò ïðèìåð ýëåìåíòàðíîãî ñîôèñòè÷åñêîãî ðàññóæäåíèÿ: «Ó ÷åëîâåêà åñòü êîçåë, ó êîòîðîãî åñòü ðîãà, ñëåäîâàòåëüíî, ó ÷åëîâåêà åñòü ðîãà». Çäåñü â ïåðâîé ïîñûëêå ñâÿçêà «åñòü» – ýòî îäíî îòíîøåíèå (èìóùåñòâåííîé ïðèíàäëåæíîñòè, ò.å. êîçåë ïðèíàäëåæèò ÷åëîâåêó), à âî âòîðîé – äðóãîå îòíîøåíèå (ðîãà êîçëà – ýòî íå åãî èìóùåñòâî, à ÷àñòü åãî òåëà). ×òîáû ïðè ïîäîáíûõ ïîäìåíàõ è îòîæäåñòâëåíèÿõ íå âîçíèêàëè ïàðàäîêñû, Ñîêðàò ñòàë òðåáîâàòü, âî-ïåðâûõ, îïðåäåëåíèÿ èñõîäíûõ ïðåäñòàâëåíèé (â äàííîì ñëó÷àå íóæíî îïðåäåëèòü, ÷òî òàêîå ÷åëîâåê, êîçåë è ðîãà), âî-âòîðûõ, ñîõðàíåíèÿ (íåèçìåííîñòè) â ðàññóæäåíèè çàäàííûõ â îïðåäåëåíèè õàðàêòåðèñòèê ïðåäìåòà. Åñëè ñðàâíèòü ïðåäìåò, çàäàííûé â îïðåäåëåíèè, ñ ýìïèðè÷åñêèì ïðåäìåòîì (íàïðèìåð, êîçó êàê ñîáñòâåííîñòü è êîçó êàê òàêîâóþ), òî ëåãêî çàìåòèòü, ÷òî ïåðâûé ïðåäìåò – ýòî «ìûñëèòåëüíîå ïîñòðîåíèå». Ó ýìïèðè÷åñêîé êîçû, êîòîðóþ â àíòè÷íîñòè êîíöåïòóàëèçèðîâàëè êàê «âåùü», ïî÷òè áåñêîíå÷íîå ÷èñëî ñâîéñòâ (êîçà – ýòî æèâîòíîå, ñóùåñòâî ñ ÷åòûðüìÿ íîãàìè, äàþùåå ìîëîêî, ïðèïëîä, øåðñòü è ò.ä. è ò.ï.), à ó êîçû êàê ñîáñòâåííîñòè ñâîéñòâ íåñêîëüêî. Êðîìå òîãî, â ïðèðîäå, âîîáùå-òî ãîâîðÿ, òàêîé êîçû íå ñóùåñòâóåò, õîòÿ îíà íà÷èíàåò ñóùåñòâîâàòü â ðàññóæäåíèè è ìûñëè ÷åëîâåêà. Èíà÷å ãîâîðÿ, ñîçäàâàÿ îïðåäåëåíèå, ÷åëîâåê èìåííî ïðèïèñûâàåò êîçå îïðåäåëåííûå êîíòðîëèðóåìûå â ðàññóæäåíèè ñâîéñòâà, ò.å. êîíñòðóèðóåò, êàê ñåãîäíÿ ãîâîðÿò â íàóêîâåäåíèè, èäåàëüíûé îáúåêò. Òðóäíî ïåðåîöåíèòü çàñëóãó Ïèôàãîðà, Ñîêðàòà è Ïëàòîíà, çàïóñòèâøèõ óêàçàííûé ïðîöåññ èäåàëèçàöèè. Ýòè ôèëîñîôû ïðåäëîæèëè ïîä÷èíèòü ðàññóæäåíèÿ è ïîçíàíèå ïðàâèëàì, êîòîðûå áû ñäåëàëè íåâîçìîæíûìè ïðîòèâîðå÷èÿ è äðóãèå çàòðóäíåíèÿ â ìûñëè

67

Â.Ì. ÐÎÇÈÍ

(ðàññóæäåíèÿ ïî êðóãó, ïåðåíîñ çíàíèé èç îäíèõ îáëàñòåé â äðóãèå è äð.), à òàêæå ïîçâîëèëè áû ñ ïîìîùüþ ðàññóæäåíèé ïîëó÷àòü çíàíèÿ î ðàçëè÷íûõ ÿâëåíèÿõ (ðîäàõ áûòèÿ). Íåîáõîäèìîå óñëîâèå ýòèõ ðåâîëþöèîííûõ ïðåäëîæåíèé – ïîñòðîåíèå èäåàëüíûõ îáúåêòîâ è çàìåíà èìè ýìïèðè÷åñêèõ ÿâëåíèé (âåùåé). Íî âîò î òîì, ÷òî ñîáîé ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ìèð, â êîòîðîì ïîÿâèëèñü ïðàâèëà è èäåàëüíûå îáúåêòû, ìíåíèÿ àíòè÷íûõ ôèëîñîôîâ ðàçîøëèñü. Îäíè ñ÷èòàëè, ÷òî ñóùåñòâóþò òîëüêî âåùè, à èäåàëüíûå îáúåêòû – ýòî àáñòðàêöèè (ñõåìû) âåùåé (íå îòñþäà ëè èäåò ìåòàôèçè÷åñêèé ðåàëèçì?). Íàïðîòèâ, Ïëàòîí óòâåðæäàë, ÷òî â êà÷åñòâå ïîäëèííîé ðåàëüíîñòè, îáåñïå÷èâàþùåé ñïàñåíèå è áåññìåðòèå, ñóùåñòâóþò èäåè (èäåàëüíûå îáúåêòû); ïîñêîëüêó «ïðèïîìèíàíèå èäåé», ïî Ïëàòîíó, ïðåäïîëàãàåò ìûñëèòåëüíûå ïîñòðîåíèÿ (ìàòåìàòè÷åñêèå è ïîñòðîåíèÿ ñõåì), äàííîå ðåøåíèå ìîæíî ñ÷èòàòü ïðîòîêîíñòðóêòèâèñòñêèì. Òðåòüå ðåøåíèå ïðèíàäëåæèò Àðèñòîòåëþ, ñ÷èòàâøåìó, ÷òî ñóùåñòâóåò åäèíûé ìèð, îáðàçîâàííûé âåùàìè, ñóùíîñòÿìè (èäåàëüíûìè îáúåêòàìè) è äåÿòåëüíîñòüþ ÷åëîâåêà1. Ñòàãèðèò ïîëàãàë, ÷òî ñóùíîñòè – ýòî íå òîëüêî «êèðïè÷èêè» ñóùåãî (áûòèÿ), íî ãëàâíûì îáðàçîì ïðàâèëüíîãî áûòèÿ, êîòîðîå âûÿâëÿåòñÿ ñ ïîìîùüþ äåéñòâèé ïîçíàþùåãî. Âîò, íàïðèìåð, êàê Àðèñòîòåëü îïðåäåëÿåò â «Êàòåãîðèÿõ», ÷òî òàêîå «ðîä» è «âèä». «È òàê æå êàê ïåðâûå ñóùíîñòè, – ïèøåò îí, – îòíîñÿòñÿ êî âñåìó îñòàëüíîìó, òàê è âèä îòíîñèòñÿ ê ðîäó: âèä åñòü ïîäëåæàùåå äëÿ ðîäà, âåäü ðîäû ñêàçûâàþòñÿ î âèäàõ, âèäû æå íå ñêàçûâàþòñÿ î ðîäàõ. Çíà÷èò, åùå è ïî ýòîé ïðè÷èíå âèä â áîëüøåé ìåðå ñóùíîñòü, ÷åì ðîä» [Àðèñòîòåëü, 1978: 57]. Îäíàêî âåäü íå ñàìè ðîäû ñêàçûâàþòñÿ î âèäàõ, à ðàññóæäàþùèé ÷åëîâåê, êîòîðûé, åñëè îí íå õî÷åò ïîëó÷èòü ïðîòèâîðå÷èé, ðàçìûøëÿÿ, ïåðåíîñèò ïðèçíàêè îò ðîäà ê âèäó, íî íå íàîáîðîò (íàïðèìåð, ëþäè – ýòî ðîä, à Ñîêðàò – âèä; ìîæíî ñêàçàòü, ÷òî ïîñêîëüêó ëþäè ðîæäàþòñÿ, áîëåþò, óìèðàþò, òî è Ñîêðàò – òîæå, íî íåëüçÿ ñêàçàòü, ÷òî, òàê êàê Ñîêðàò ìóäð è ëûñ, è ëþäè – ìóäðû è ëûñû). Íî òîãäà è ïîëó÷àåòñÿ (ñ ñîâðåìåííîé òî÷êè çðåíèÿ), ÷òî óñëîâèåì ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ ïðàâèëüíûõ ðîäîâ è âèäîâ ÿâëÿåòñÿ äåÿòåëüíîñòü ÷åëîâåêà, à òàêæå òî, ÷òî êàòåãîðèè – ýòî ëàòåíòíûå ïðàâèëà, ñóùåñòâóþùèå â îíòîëîãè÷åñêîé ôîðìå. Ïåðâîå ðåøåíèå ìîæíî íàçâàòü íàòóðàëèñòè÷åñêèì, îíî îñìûñëåííî, åñëè ìû èãíîðèðóåì ïðîöåññû ñòàíîâëåíèÿ è ôîðìèðîâàíèÿ èçó÷àåìîãî ÿâëåíèÿ. Âòîðîå, ïëàòîíîâñêîå, íàïðîòèâ, ââîäèò â èãðó ýòè ïðîöåññû, îòäàâàÿ èì ïðèîðèòåò; íàïðèìåð, â «Ãîñóäàðñòâå» Ïëàòîí ïðåäëàãàåò «ìûñëåííî ñòðîèòü» ýòî ãîñóäàðñòâî (ñåãîäíÿ áû ìû ñêàçàëè «ïðîåêòèðîâàòü») è îáñóæäàåò óñëîâèÿ ñòðîèòåëüñòâà. Àðè1 Èçâåñòíî, ÷òî «ïåðâàÿ ñóùíîñòü» ó Àðèñòîòåëÿ ñîâïàäàåò ñ åäèíè÷íûìè âåùàìè. Ñóùåå ïî Àðèñòîòåëþ – ýòî îäíîâðåìåííî è òî, ÷òî ñóùåñòâóåò, è òî, ÷òî ïðàâèëüíî óñòðîåíî (â ÷åì ñêðûòû ïðàâèëà è episteme), òî, ÷òî âûÿâëÿåòñÿ ñ ïîìîùüþ ðàññóæäåíèé, ïîçíàíèÿ è äåéñòâèé ÷åëîâåêà.

68

ÀÍÀËÈÇ ÐÅÀËÜÍÎÃÎ ÏÎÇÍÀÍÈß ÊÀÊ ÓÑËÎÂÈÅ…

ñòîòåëü áàëàíñèðóåò íà ãðàíèöå íàòóðàëèñòè÷åñêîãî è êîíñòðóêòèâèñòñêîãî ðåøåíèé: ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, îí ñòîðîííèê èíäóêòèâíîãî ïîäõîäà, ñ äðóãîé – äåäóêòèâíîãî è äåÿòåëüíîñòíîãî. Ñîâåðøåííî èíîå ïîíèìàíèå ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ è ìûøëåíèÿ ìû âèäèì â ôèëîñîôèè Íîâîãî âðåìåíè. ×åëîâåê íå ïðîñòî ïîäðàæàåò áîæåñòâåííîìó Ðàçóìó, êàê ó Àðèñòîòåëÿ, à íà÷èíàÿ ñ XVI–XVII ââ. ñ÷èòàåòñÿ íàñòîÿùèì òâîðöîì, êàê ïèñàë Íèêîëàé Êóçàíñêèé, «âòîðûì Áîãîì». Ïðèðîäà èñòîëêîâûâàåòñÿ íå òîëüêî êàê îñîáûé (áåç ó÷àñòèÿ ÷åëîâåêà) ðîä áûòèÿ (Àðèñòîòåëü) è çàòåì îáëàäàþùàÿ çàêîíàìè (Ñðåäíèå âåêà), íî è êàê çàäàííàÿ ìàòåìàòèêîé è «ñòåñíåííàÿ èñêóññòâîì», ïîä êîòîðûì ïîíèìàëàñü öåëåíàïðàâëåííàÿ òåõíè÷åñêàÿ äåÿòåëüíîñòü. Äà, Áîã ñîçäàë ïðèðîäó è îæèâëÿåò åå (ñðåäíåâåêîâàÿ òî÷êà çðåíèÿ), íî ñîçäàë äëÿ ÷åëîâåêà.  Ñðåäíèå âåêà ÷åëîâåê áûë óáåæäåí, ÷òî äëÿ òâîðåíèÿ âåùåé íåîáõîäèìû ðóêîâîäñòâî ñî ñòîðîíû Òâîðöà, à òàêæå ñèíåðãèÿ äåéñòâèÿ Áîãà è ÷åëîâåêà. Êðîìå òîãî, ñ÷èòàëîñü, ÷òî íàä äåéñòâèåì ïðèðîäû ÷åëîâåê íå âëàñòåí. Èíà÷å â Íîâîå âðåìÿ: ÷åëîâåê, îùóòèâøèé ñåáÿ òâîðöîì, ðåøàåò âñòàòü íàä ïðèðîäîé, îâëàäåòü åþ, íî ïîñòåïåííî óÿñíÿåò, ÷òî íåîáõîäèìîå óñëîâèå ýòîãî – ïîçíàíèå çàêîíîâ ïðèðîäû, âûÿâëåíèå êîòîðûõ âîçìîæíî íå â îáû÷íûõ óñëîâèÿõ, à â ïðîöåññå òåõíè÷åñêîãî òâîð÷åñòâà. Ô. Áýêîí ïèñàë, ÷òî íàñ èíòåðåñóåò íå ïðèðîäà âíå ÷åëîâåêà, à «ïðèðîäà ñâÿçàííàÿ è ñòåñíåííàÿ, êîãäà èñêóññòâî è ñëóæåíèå ÷åëîâåêà âûâîäèò åå èç îáû÷íîãî ñîñòîÿíèÿ, âîçäåéñòâóåò íà íåå è îôîðìëÿåò åå... ïðèðîäà Âåùåé ñêàçûâàåòñÿ áîëåå â ñòåñíåííîñòè ïîñðåäñòâîì èñêóññòâà, ÷åì â ñîáñòâåííîé ñâîáîäå» [Áýêîí, 1935: 95–96]. Êîíêðåòíî ýòó ïðîãðàììó ðåàëèçóþò Ãàëèëåî Ãàëèëåé è Õðèñòèàí Ãþéãåíñ. Ãàëèëåé, èçó÷àÿ ñâîáîäíîå ïàäåíèå òåë, ïîêàçàë, ÷òî ìàòåìàòè÷åñêèå êîíñòðóêòû ìîãóò ðàññìàòðèâàòüñÿ êàê ìîäåëè ïðèðîäíûõ ÿâëåíèé (ïðîöåññîâ) ëèøü â óñëîâèÿõ ýêñïåðèìåíòà, ãäå êàê ðàç è äîñòèãàëîñü «ñòåñíåíèå ïðèðîäû ïîñðåäñòâîì òåõíè÷åñêîãî èñêóññòâà»2.  ýòîì ñëó÷àå òàêèå êîíñòðóêòû ìîæíî áûëî èñòîëêîâàòü êàê çàêîíû ïðèðîäû, âûÿâëåííûå â íîâîé íàóêå î ïðèðîäå (ïîëó÷èâøåé ïîçäíåå íàçâàíèå «åñòåñòâåííàÿ»). Ãþéãåíñ, îïèðàÿñü íà ðàáîòû Ãàëèëåÿ, ñîçäàë òåõíè÷åñêèé ìåõàíèçì, ïðîöåññû â êîòîðîì ïðîòåêàëè ïî çàêîíàì ïðèðîäû, âûÿâëåííûì â ïîäîáíîé íîâîé íàóêå; ýòî áûë ïåðâûé îáðàçåö èíæåíåðíîé äåÿòåëüíîñòè. Åñëè òåïåðü ñòàâèëñÿ âîïðîñ î ïîçíàíèè, òî íåëüçÿ áûëî íå çàìåòèòü, ÷òî, ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, èçó÷àåìûå ïðèðîäíûå ÿâëåíèÿ äàíû èññëåäîâàòåëþ äî ïîçíàíèÿ (íàïðèìåð, íàáëþäàåìûå â ïðèðîäå ïàäàþùèå òåëà). Ñ äðóãîé ñòîðîíû, â èññëåäîâàíèè îíè îïèñûâàëèñü ìàòåìàòè÷åñêè è ñòàâèëèñü â îñîáûå óñëîâèÿ (ýêñïåðèìåíòàëüíûå, 2  ýêñïåðèìåíòå ñîçäàâàëèñü óñëîâèÿ, ïîä âîçäåéñòâèÿì êîòîðûõ ïðèðîäíûå ïðîöåññû ïðîòåêàëè â ñîîòâåòñòâèè ñ ìàòåìàòè÷åñêèìè êîíñòðóêòàìè.

69

Â.Ì. ÐÎÇÈÍ

íàïðèìåð ïàäåíèå òåë â ñðåäå, ãäå îòñóòñòâóåò ñîïðîòèâëåíèå, ïîñêîëüêó óäàëåí âîçäóõ), ÷òî ìîæíî áûëî ïîíÿòü êàê êîíñòèòóèðîâàíèå ïðèðîäíîãî ÿâëåíèÿ («ñòåñíåíèÿ åãî èñêóññòâîì»). Ñ òðåòüåé ñòîðîíû, â èíæåíåðíîé äåÿòåëüíîñòè êîíñòèòóèðîâàëèñü ïðèðîäíûå ÿâëåíèÿ, ïîä÷èíÿâøèåñÿ ñõîäíûì çàêîíîìåðíîñòÿì (òàê â òî÷íûõ ÷àñàõ Ãþéãåíñà ìàÿòíèê ïàäàë ïî çàêîíó, óñòàíîâëåííîìó Ãàëèëååì). Ìîãëî ëè ïîíÿòèå âåùè îõâàòèòü ýòè ðàçíûå ìîìåíòû: ÿâëåíèå êàê à) ñóùåñòâóþùåå íåçàâèñèìî îò èññëåäîâàòåëÿ è êàê á) êîíñòèòóèðóåìîå èì, ïðè÷åì òðîÿêî (íà îñíîâå ìûñëèòåëüíîãî êîíñòðóêòà, â ýêñïåðèìåíòå è â èíæåíåðíîé äåÿòåëüíîñòè)?  ïåðâîì ñëó÷àå ñâîéñòâà ÿâëåíèÿ åùå íåèçâåñòíû (ïîýòîìó, âåðîÿòíî, Êàíò è ââîäèò ïîíÿòèå «âåùü â ñåáå»). Âî âòîðîì îíè çàäàíû ìûñëèòåëüíûì êîíñòðóêòîì (â åñòåñòâåííîé íàóêå ìàòåìàòèêîé, à â ôèëîñîôèè, ãóìàíèòàðíûõ è ñîöèàëüíûõ íàóêàõ, êàê ÿ ñòàðàþñü ïîêàçàòü, ñõåìàìè [Ðîçèí, 2011]) è óêàçûâàþò íà îñíîâàíèå (ñóùíîñòü) ÿâëåíèÿ.  òðåòüåì è ÷åòâåðòîì ñëó÷àÿõ ñâîéñòâà ÿâëåíèÿ ñîçäàþòñÿ ñ îïîðîé íà äàííûå îñíîâàíèÿ è ñ èñïîëüçîâàíèåì òåõíèêè. Ïîíÿòèå âåùè ïåðåñòàåò ðàáîòàòü è óñòóïàåò ìåñòî íîâîìó ïîíÿòèþ – îáúåêò, òî÷íåå, ïàðå ïîíÿòèé îáúåêò–ñóáúåêò. Ôîðìà ïîíÿòèÿ èëè êîíöåïòóàëèçàöèÿ îáúåêòà (ïî ñóòè íàòóðàëèñòè÷åñêàÿ) áûëà ñëåäóþùàÿ: îáúåêò ïðîòèâîïîñòàâëÿåòñÿ ñóáúåêòó, êîòîðûé ýòîò îáúåêò ïîçíàåò (ïîëó÷àåò î íåì çíàíèÿ, êîíñòèòóèðóåò), îáúåêò ñîäåðæèò â ñåáå ñâîéñòâà, êîòîðûå âûÿâëÿþòñÿ ñóáúåêòîì, ýòè ñâîéñòâà îáúÿñíÿþò çíàíèÿ, êîòîðûå ïîëó÷àþòñÿ â ïîçíàíèè îáúåêòà. Èíòóèòèâíî îáúåêò ïîíèìàåòñÿ è êàê ñóùåñòâóþùèé äî èññëåäîâàíèÿ, è êàê êîíñòèòóèðóåìûé â õîäå èññëåäîâàíèÿ, à òàêæå â ïðàêòè÷åñêîé äåÿòåëüíîñòè (íàïðèìåð, èíæåíåðíîé èëè ïðîåêòèðîâî÷íîé). Íî óæå Êàíò ÷óâñòâîâàë, ÷òî ïîäîáíûé íàòóðàëèñòè÷åñêèé äèñêóðñ ïëîõî ðàáîòàåò â ôèëîñîôèè, è ïîýòîìó èçáåãàë ïîëüçîâàòüñÿ ïîíÿòèåì îáúåêòà. È ñîâñåì îí ïåðåñòàåò ðàáîòàòü â ãóìàíèòàðíûõ íàóêàõ, ãäå, êàê óêàçûâàåò Ì. Áàõòèí, «íå îäèí, à äâà “äóõà” (èçó÷àåìûé è èçó÷àþùèé, êîòîðûå íå äîëæíû ñëèâàòüñÿ â îäèí äóõ). Íàñòîÿùèì ïðåäìåòîì ÿâëÿåòñÿ âçàèìîîòíîøåíèå è âçàèìîäåéñòâèå “äóõîâ”» [Áàõòèí, 1979: 349], ãäå «íóæíî ïðåäîñòàâèòü ãîëîñ èçó÷àåìîìó». Äðóãèìè ñëîâàìè, â ãóìàíèòàðíûõ íàóêàõ (à òàêæå ñîöèàëüíûõ) ìû íå èìååì äåëà ñ îáúåêòàìè, èññëåäîâàòåëü è èññëåäóåìûé çäåñü – íå îáúåêòû. Îãðàíè÷åííîñòü íàòóðàëèñòè÷åñêîãî, äà è êîíñòðóêòèâèñòñêîãî äèñêóðñîâ âûÿâëÿåòñÿ è â ñîâðåìåííûõ êóëüòóðíî-èñòîðè÷åñêèõ ðåêîíñòðóêöèÿõ, ãäå óäàåòñÿ ïîêàçàòü, ÷òî êîíñòðóêòèâíàÿ äåÿòåëüíîñòü ôèëîñîôà è ó÷åíîãî, âêëþ÷àÿ è âèäåíèå èìè îáúåêòîâ, îáóñëîâëåíà áîëåå øèðîêèì êîíòåêñòîì: âûçîâàìè âðåìåíè, íà êîòîðûå îíè îòâå÷àþò, çàäåéñòâîâàííûìè ñðåäñòâàìè è êîíöåïöèÿìè ìûøëåíèÿ, óñëîâèÿìè êîììóíèêàöèè, ñàìîé ëîãèêîé ìûøëåíèÿ. Ñ ýòîé òî÷êè çðåíèÿ äåÿòåëüíîñòü ôèëîñîôà è ó÷åíîãî ìîæåò áûòü èñòîëêîâàíà â ìîäàëü-

70

ÀÍÀËÈÇ ÐÅÀËÜÍÎÃÎ ÏÎÇÍÀÍÈß ÊÀÊ ÓÑËÎÂÈÅ…

íîñòè èñêóññòâåííîå–åñòåñòâåííîå, à òàêæå â ñõåìå «öèêëà æèçíè». Íàïðèìåð, àíàëèçèðóÿ òâîð÷åñòâî Ãàëèëåÿ, ÿ ïåðåõîäèë îò ðàññìîòðåíèÿ óñëîâèé åãî äåÿòåëüíîñòè ê åå îïèñàíèþ è îáðàòíî, ïîêàçûâàÿ, êàê òâîð÷åñòâî Ãàëèëåÿ ñîçäàåò äëÿ íåãî íîâûå óñëîâèÿ, ò.å. ìåíÿë ìîäàëüíîñòè ìûøëåíèÿ. Êðîìå òîãî, ÿ ïîêàçàë, ÷òî ñíà÷àëà Ãàëèëåé ñîçäàåò ëèøü îáðàçåö íîâîãî ìûøëåíèÿ (åñòåñòâåííî-íàó÷íîãî), ïîòîì ýòó íîâàöèþ è ïðåöåäåíò îáñóæäàþò è òðàíñëèðóþò â ôèëîñîôñêîì è íàó÷íîì ñîîáùåñòâå, ñëåäóþùèé øàã – ðåàëèçàöèÿ îñìûñëåííîãî îáðàçöà â òâîð÷åñòâå ðàçíûõ ó÷åíûõ è ôèëîñîôîâ.  ðåçóëüòàòå ñêëàäûâàåòñÿ óæå ðåàëüíîå åñòåñòâåííî-íàó÷íîå ìûøëåíèå, ÷òî â ñâîþ î÷åðåäü ïîçâîëÿåò ïîçäíåå èçó÷àòü åãî â ñôåðå îáðàçîâàíèÿ è ôèëîñîôèè íàóêè, ò.å. èìååò ìåñòî öèêë æèçíè ìûøëåíèÿ, íà ðàçíûõ ýòàïàõ êîòîðîãî âîïðîñ î ñóùåñòâîâàíèè è êîíöåïòóàëèçàöèè ðåàëüíîñòè áóäåò ðåøàòüñÿ ïî-ðàçíîìó. Ñêàæåì, îáðàçåö åñòåñòâåííî-íàó÷íîãî ìûøëåíèÿ ñóùåñòâóåò êàê çíàíèå è òåêñò â êîììóíèêàöèè, à ðåàëüíîå ìûøëåíèå – êàê ìûñëèòåëüíàÿ ïðàêòèêà è ñîöèàëüíûé èíñòèòóò. Åñëè â ìåòîäîëîãè÷åñêîì ïëàíå îñìûñëÿòü ïðåäëîæåííûé çäåñü ìàòåðèàë, òî íåîáõîäèìî ââåñòè ðÿä ïîíÿòèé è ñäåëàòü îïðåäåëåííûå ðàçëè÷åíèÿ. Ïðåæäå âñåãî íóæíî ââåñòè ïîíÿòèÿ «èäåàëüíûé îáúåêò», «îáúåêòèâàöèÿ», «ñõåìà», «ðåàëüíîñòü ïðåäìåòíîé îíòîëîãèè»3. Èäåàëüíûé îáúåêò ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé ïîñòðîåíèå (êîíñòðóêöèþ) èññëåäîâàòåëÿ, êîòîðîå â òåîðåòè÷åñêîì ñëîå ïîçâîëÿåò ìûñëèòü áåç ïðîòèâîðå÷èé è âåñòè íàó÷íîå îáúÿñíåíèå (ðàçíîå â ðàçíûõ òèïàõ íàóê è äèñöèïëèí), à òàêæå íàõîäèòñÿ â îïðåäåëåííûõ îòíîøåíèÿõ ñ îáúåêòàìè ýìïèðè÷åñêîãî ñëîÿ. Òàê, ôèãóðà â ãåîìåòðèè êàê èäåàëüíûé îáúåêò ñòðîèòñÿ ãåîìåòðîì, ïîçâîëÿåò âåñòè äîêàçàòåëüñòâî òåîðåì, îòíîñèòñÿ êàê ñõåìà (èëè ìîäåëü) ê ïðåäìåòàì ïðàâèëüíîé ôîðìû. Èäåàëüíîé æèäêîñòè ïðèïèñûâàþòñÿ òàêèå ñâîéñòâà, êàê îòñóòñòâèå âÿçêîñòè è òåïëîïðîâîäíîñòè. Ïîäîáíûé èäåàëüíûé îáúåêò ïîçâîëÿåò, íàïðèìåð, ðåøàòü çàäà÷è, â êîòîðûõ âÿçêîñòü íå ÿâëÿåòñÿ îïðåäåëÿþùèì ôàêòîðîì è åþ ìîæíî ïðåíåáðå÷ü; òàêàÿ èäåàëèçàöèÿ äàåò íåïëîõîå îïèñàíèå ðåàëüíûõ òå÷åíèé æèäêîñòåé è ãàçîâ íà äîñòàòî÷íîì óäàëåíèè îò îìûâàåìûõ òâåðäûõ ïîâåðõíîñòåé è ïîâåðõíîñòåé ðàçäåëà ñ íåïîäâèæíîé ñðåäîé. Âàæíî, ÷òî õîòÿ èäåàëüíûå îáúåêòû ñîîòíîñÿòñÿ ñ îáúåêòàìè ýìïèðè÷åñêîãî ñëîÿ, â ïëàíå ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ îíè ïðîïèñûâàþòñÿ â ñëîå òåîðèè èëè, åñëè ãîâîðèòü áîëåå òî÷íî, ïðèíàäëåæàò «ðåàëüíîñòè ïðåäìåòíîé îíòîëîãèè». Íàïðèìåð, èäåàëüíûå îáúåêòû åñòåñòâåííûõ íàóê ïðîïèñûâàþòñÿ â ðåàëüíîñòè ïåðâîé «ïðèðîäû», èäåàëüíûå îáúåêòû ïñèõîëîãèè – â ðåàëüíîñòè «ïñèõèêè».  ñâîþ î÷åðåäü ðåàëüíîñòü ïðåäìåòíîé îíòîëîãèè – ýòî ñëîæíàÿ êîíñòðóêöèÿ; òàê, ðåàëüíîñòè ïðèðîäû 3 Ðå÷ü èäåò î õàðàêòåðèñòèêàõ ïîíÿòèé, íåîáõîäèìûõ äëÿ ïîíèìàíèÿ ïðåäëîæåííîãî çäåñü ìàòåðèàëà. Ñóùåñòâóþò è äðóãèå òðàêòîâêè ýòèõ ïîíÿòèé, ââåäåííûå äëÿ îáúÿñíåíèÿ èíûõ ïîçíàâàòåëüíûõ êîíòåêñòîâ è çàäà÷, â ðàìêàõ äðóãèõ òðàäèöèé ìûøëåíèÿ.

71

Â.Ì. ÐÎÇÈÍ

ïðèïèñûâàþòñÿ çàêîíû, íàëè÷èå ïðîöåññîâ, ñèë è ýíåðãèé (çàêîíû ìîæíî âûÿâèòü, ïðîöåññû, ñèëû è ýíåðãèè ïîñòàâèòü íà ñëóæáó ÷åëîâåêó). Èäåàëüíûå îáúåêòû ñîçäàþòñÿ ñ ïîìîùüþ ñõåì. Ïîñëåäíèå ïîçâîëÿþò ðàçðåøàòü ïðîáëåìíûå ñèòóàöèè, çàäàþò íîâóþ ðåàëüíîñòü (îáúåêò), ïîçâîëÿþò äåéñòâîâàòü. Íàïðèìåð, â ïëàòîíîâñêîì «Ïèðå» íàððàòèâíûå ñõåìû («àíäðîãèíà», «âûíàøèâàíèÿ äóõîâíûõ ïëîäîâ», «ëþáâè êàê ãåíèÿ») ïîçâîëèëè ïåðåêëþ÷èòü ëþáîâü ñ ðîäîâîãî ïîíèìàíèÿ íà ëè÷íîñòíîå è îõàðàêòåðèçîâàòü æèçíü ôèëîñîôà êàê ëþáîâü ê ìóäðîñòè; ïðè ýòîì îíè çàäàëè ñîâåðøåííî íîâîå (ïîëó÷èâøåå ïîòîì íàçâàíèå «ïëàòîíè÷åñêîé») ïîíèìàíèå ëþáâè, ïîçâîëèâøåå ðàçâåðíóòü íîâóþ ïðàêòèêó ëþáâè [Ðîçèí, 2014: 58–71]. Ïëàòîíè÷åñêàÿ ëþáîâü, çàäàííàÿ â «Ïèðå» îïðåäåëåíèÿìè, ïðåäñòàâëÿëà ñîáîé èäåàëüíûé îáúåêò, íî õàðàêòåðèñòèêè îïðåäåëåíèé Ïëàòîí íàùóïàë ñ ïîìîùüþ óêàçàííûõ ñõåì. Åñëè àíàëèçèðîâàòü ñòàíîâëåíèå èäåàëüíûõ îáúåêòîâ, òî ìîæíî ãîâîðèòü òàêæå î «ïðîöåññå îáúåêòèâàöèè», êîòîðûé âêëþ÷àåò â ñåáÿ äâà øàãà – ïîëàãàíèå îáúåêòà (åãî, êàê áû ñêàçàë È. Êàíò, íóæíî ïîìûñëèòü) è ïðèïèñûâàíèå åìó îïðåäåëåííûõ õàðàêòåðèñòèê. Íàïðèìåð, Ãàëèëåé, èçó÷àÿ ñâîáîäíîå ïàäåíèå òåë, ïîëàãàåò âîçìîæíîñòü äâèæåíèÿ â ïóñòîòå (÷òî â ñâîå âðåìÿ ðåøèòåëüíî îòðèöàë Àðèñòîòåëü) è ïðèïèñûâàåò ñâîáîäíîìó ïàäåíèþ ñâîéñòâà, ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, âûòåêàþùèå èç îðåìîâñêîé ìàòåìàòè÷åñêîé ìîäåëè, ñ äðóãîé – ñëåäóþùèå èç ýêñïåðèìåíòà.  îáúåêòèâàöèþ ïî ñóòè âõîäèò è óñòàíîâêà íà èñòîëêîâàíèå îáúåêòîâ ýìïèðè÷åñêîãî ñëîÿ êàê èäåàëüíûõ; äðóãîå äåëî, ÷òî ýòî óäàåòñÿ ëèøü â òîì ñëó÷àå, åñëè îáû÷íûé ìèð ïåðåäåëûâàåòñÿ ïî îáðàçöó ðåàëüíîñòè ïðåäìåòíîé îíòîëîãèè. Êàê èçâåñòíî, ýòà óñòàíîâêà èäåò îò «Ãîñóäàðñòâà» Ïëàòîíà, ãäå îí ïðåäëàãàåò ïåðåäåëàòü îáû÷íûé ìèð (âåùåé) â ñîîòâåòñòâèè ñ ìèðîì èäåé. Ñëåäóþùåå ðàçëè÷åíèå è ïîíÿòèå – «öèêë ñòàíîâëåíèÿ íîâîãî ÿâëåíèÿ». Êàê ïðàâèëî, ýòîò öèêë âêëþ÷àåò â ñåáÿ ÷åòûðå îñíîâíûõ çâåíà: ñîçäàíèå âèðòóàëüíîé ðåàëüíîñòè, çàäàííîé â íîâîì ïîíÿòèè èëè òåîðèè; ôîðìèðîâàíèå íà åå îñíîâå íîâîé ïðàêòèêè, â ðåçóëüòàòå ÷åãî ñêëàäûâàåòñÿ (ïîÿâëÿåòñÿ) íîâûé ðåàëüíûé ôåíîìåí; ñâîåîáðàçíîå «ðàçìíîæåíèå» ýòîãî ôåíîìåíà (ñîçäàíèå ïîëÿ ñõîäíûõ ôåíîìåíîâ); íàêîíåö, èõ èçó÷åíèå â íîâîé íàóêå. Íàïðèìåð, ñíà÷àëà Àðèñòîòåëü â ðàáîòå «Î äóøå» êîíñòðóèðóåò ìûøëåíèå êàê äåéñòâèÿ ñ ìûñëèòåëüíûìè ñîäåðæàíèÿìè («íîýìàìè»), äàþùèå èñòèííûå çíàíèÿ. Çàòåì â àíòè÷íîé ôèëîñîôèè è êóëüòóðå ñêëàäûâàåòñÿ ïðàêòèêà ìûøëåíèÿ, îïèðàþùàÿñÿ íà àðèñòîòåëåâñêèå ïðàâèëà è êàòåãîðèè, êîòîðûå êàê ðàç è ïîçâîëÿëè ïîëó÷àòü èñòèííûå çíàíèÿ (íà ÷òî óøëî ïî÷òè äâà ñòîëåòèÿ). Ñëåäóþùèé ýòàï, âêëþ÷àþùèé óæå è Íîâîå âðåìÿ, – ôîðìèðîâàíèå ðàçëè÷íûõ òèïîâ ìûøëåíèÿ (ñðåäíåâåêîâîå, åñòåñòâåííî-íàó÷íîå, ãóìàíèòàðíîå è äð.). Óæå Ô. Áýêîí è Ð. Äåêàðò ñòàâÿò çàäà÷ó ñîçäàíèÿ íàóêè î ìûøëåíèè, êîòîðàÿ, ïðàâäà, ðåàëüíî íà÷èíàåò ðàçðàáàòûâàòüñÿ òîëüêî â ÕÕ â. [Ðîçèí, 2014].

72

ÀÍÀËÈÇ ÐÅÀËÜÍÎÃÎ ÏÎÇÍÀÍÈß ÊÀÊ ÓÑËÎÂÈÅ…

Àíàëèç öèêëîâ ñòàíîâëåíèÿ íîâûõ ÿâëåíèé ïîçâîëÿåò ðàçðåøèòü îäèí àñïåêò ñïîðà ðåàëèñòîâ è êîíñòðóêòèâèñòîâ – ïîêàçàòü, ÷òî ðåçóëüòàòîì êîíñòðóêòèâíîé äåÿòåëüíîñòè âûñòóïàåò íîâàÿ ðåàëüíîñòü. Äåéñòâèòåëüíî, íà ïåðâîì ýòàïå âåäóùåé óñòàíîâêîé ÿâëÿåòñÿ êîíñòðóêòèâíàÿ (ïðîåêòíàÿ), òåì íå ìåíåå çäåñü óæå åñòü óñòàíîâêà íà îáúåêòèâàöèþ. Íà âòîðîì ñêëàäûâàåòñÿ ðåàëüíûé íîâûé ôåíîìåí, ïðè÷åì ðåàëèçóþòñÿ îáå óñòàíîâêè – êîíñòðóêòèâèñòñêàÿ è ðåàëèñòè÷åñêàÿ (îíòîëîãè÷åñêàÿ), âåäü ýòîò ôåíîìåí, ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, ñêîíñòðóèðîâàí, ñ äðóãîé – ñëîæèëñÿ êàê íîâàÿ ðåàëüíîñòü. Ýòà ðåàëüíîñòü æèâåò è ïî çàêîíàì ÷åëîâå÷åñêîé äåÿòåëüíîñòè, è ïî çàêîíàì ñâîåé ïðèðîäû (êàê ïðàâèëî, ðå÷ü â äàííîì ñëó÷àå èäåò íå î ïåðâîé ïðèðîäå).  ñâÿçè ñ ýòèì ñòîèò ââåñòè åùå è òàêîå ðàçëè÷åíèå: ïðèðîäíûõ ôåíîìåíîâ (â ñìûñëå ïåðâîé ïðèðîäû) è ñîöèàëüíûõ. Íàïðèìåð, õîòÿ ïàäåíèå òåë â ýêñïåðèìåíòàõ Ãàëèëåÿ êîíñòðóêòèâíî (â ðåàëüíîé ïðèðîäå íåò ïóñòîòû è äâèæåíèÿ, ñòðîãî îïèñàííîãî ìàòåìàòè÷åñêè), íî îäíîâðåìåííî ýòîò ôåíîìåí, ïðàâäà â íåñêîëüêî èíîé ôîðìå, ñâîáîäíîé îò ñîçäàííûõ ÷åëîâåêîì îãðàíè÷åíèé, ñóùåñòâîâàë è äî Ãàëèëåÿ4. Ñëîæèâøååñÿ æå â àíòè÷íîé êóëüòóðå ìûøëåíèå äî ðàáîò Àðèñòîòåëÿ è ïðàêòèêîâàíèÿ ìûøëåíèÿ àíòè÷íûìè ôèëîñîôàìè è ó÷åíûìè íå ñóùåñòâîâàëî, ýòîò ôåíîìåí – ñîöèàëüíûé. Ìíå êàæóòñÿ èíòåðåñíûìè îáà ñëó÷àÿ: è êîíñòðóêòèâíàÿ ïðèðîäà ÿâëåíèé, êîòîðûå ìû îòíîñèì ê ïåðâîé ïðèðîäå, è åñòåñòâåííàÿ æèçíü (ò.å. âòîðàÿ ïðèðîäà) ñîöèàëüíûõ è òåõíè÷åñêèõ ôåíîìåíîâ. ßðêèé ïðèìåð âòîðîãî ñëó÷àÿ – Èíòåðíåò, îñîáåííîñòè êîòîðîãî ìû ðàññìîòðèì ïîäðîáíåå. Íà÷íåì ñ õàðàêòåðèñòèêè Èíòåðíåòà êàê îäíîé èç ñîâðåìåííûõ òåõíîëîãèé. Ýòó òåõíîëîãèþ ìîæíî ñ÷èòàòü ãëîáàëüíîé è óñêîðåííî ðàçâèâàþùåéñÿ. Äåëî â òîì, ÷òî Èíòåðíåò âîøåë â «çîíó áëèæàéøåãî òåõíîëîãè÷åñêîãî ðàçâèòèÿ» [Ðîçèí, 2006], âåäü ñëîæèëèñü âñå óñëîâèÿ (íîâûå òåõíîëîãèè, çíàíèÿ, ðåñóðñíîå è èíôðàñòðóêòóðíîå îáåñïå÷åíèå), ïîçâîëÿþùèå ñîâåðøèòü â ýòèõ îáëàñòÿõ íàñòîÿùèé ïðîðûâ è óñêîðåííîå ðàçâèòèå. Îäèí èç ïðèìåðîâ – ðîáîòèçàöèÿ (áîòèçàöèÿ) Èíòåðíåòà (è, êñòàòè, îáðàòíîå âëèÿíèå Èíòåðíåòà íà ðîáîòèçàöèþ). Åñëè ïåðâàÿ âîëíà ðîáîòèçàöèè â èäåéíîì ïëàíå îïèðàëàñü íà êîíöåïöèþ èñêóññòâåííîãî èíòåëëåêòà è ïðåäïîëîæåíèå, ÷òî ðîáîòû áóäóò ðàçâèâàòüñÿ â íàïðàâëåíèè àíòðîïîìîðôíîãî èäåàëà (íå ïðîñòî ïîìîãàòü ÷åëîâåêó, íî è ìûñëèòü è ïîíèìàòü, êàê îí, – îòñþäà èçâåñòíûå çàêîíû ðîáîòîòåõíèêè), òî â íàñòîÿùåå âðåìÿ êîíöåïöèÿ ðîáîòîòåõíèêè ñîâåðøåííî èíàÿ. Ðîáîò è áîò – ýòî ñëîæíûå ïðîãðàììû (â ìàòåðèàëüíûõ èíæåíåðíûõ óñòðîéñòâàõ èëè â ýëåêòðîííîì âèäå), ïîçâîëÿþùèå àâòîìàòèçèðîâàòü ðàáî÷èå ïðîöåññû, çàìåíèòü â ðÿäå ñëó÷àåâ äåéñòâèÿ 4 Âñïîìíèì Ô. Áýêîíà, êîòîðûé ïèñàë, ÷òî íàñ íå èíòåðåñóåò ïðèðîäà ñàìà ïî ñåáå, à òîëüêî òà, êîòîðàÿ «ñòåñíåíà èñêóññòâîì ÷åëîâåêà».

73

Â.Ì. ÐÎÇÈÍ

÷åëîâåêà (íî íå åãî ñàìîãî), âûïîëíèòü îïàñíûå èëè ñèëîâûå îïåðàöèè èëè ïðîöåññû, ïðîòåêàþùèå íà âûñîêèõ ñêîðîñòÿõ. Òåïåðü ðîáîò è áîò íå ñâÿçàíû çàêîíàìè ðîáîòîòåõíèêè (íàïðèìåð, óæå íà âûõîäå àìåðèêàíñêèå ðîáîòû «ñîâåðøåííûå ñîëäàòû») è ðàçâèâàþòñÿ íå äëÿ òîãî, ÷òîáû íà êàêèõ-òî ïðàâàõ âîéòè â ÷åëîâå÷åñêîå ñîîáùåñòâî, à ïðîñòî êàê ñëîæíàÿ òåõíèêà íà ñëóæáå ÷åëîâåêà. Ïî ñóòè â Èíòåðíåòå ìíîãèå îïåðàöèè è ïðîöåññû ðîáîòèçèðîâàíû. À ÷åì åñëè íå ýëåêòðîííûìè ðîáîòàìè (áîòàìè) ÿâëÿþòñÿ ñëîæíûå âèðóñû? Íî åùå ðàíüøå ïðåäïîñûëêîé ðàçâèòèÿ Èíòåðíåòà è ìîáèëüíîé ñâÿçè âûñòóïèëî ýëåêòðè÷åñòâî, ïîçâîëèâøåå ñîçäàòü íå òîëüêî èñêóññòâåííûå èñòî÷íèêè ñèëû, äâèæåíèÿ (ìîòîðû) è ñâåòà, íî è ïåðâûå ñåòè (ýëåêòðè÷åñêèå). Îäíàêî íàèáîëåå âàæíûìè ñîâðåìåííûìè ñîñòàâëÿþùèìè çîíû áëèæàéøåãî òåõíîëîãè÷åñêîãî ðàçâèòèÿ Èíòåðíåòà âûñòóïèëè ðàçðàáîòêè â îáëàñòÿõ âû÷èñëèòåëüíîé òåõíèêè, ÝÂÌ, ïåðåäà÷è èíôîðìàöèè, ðàñïîçíàâàíèÿ îáðàçîâ è ðÿä äðóãèõ. Ê êîíöó ÕÕ è íà÷àëó ÕÕI â. ïåðå÷èñëåííûå çäåñü è ìíîãèå äðóãèå íå óêàçàííûå âèäû äåÿòåëüíîñòè è íîâàöèé, âêëþ÷àÿ èäåîëîãèþ, ñîâðåìåííûå ìåíåäæìåíò è ôèíàíñîâûå âîçìîæíîñòè, îáðàçîâàëè óñëîâèÿ äëÿ òåõíîëîãè÷åñêîãî ïðîðûâà, íà âîëíå êîòîðîãî è áûë ñîçäàí Èíòåðíåò. Ñëåäóþùàÿ õàðàêòåðèñòèêà Èíòåðíåòà âîîáùå ïîòðÿñàåò: îí íå ïðîñòî ñëîæíàÿ òåõíè÷åñêàÿ ñèñòåìà, ÷òî äîñòàòî÷íî î÷åâèäíî, íî è ñâîåîáðàçíûé æèâîé îðãàíèçì. Íà ýòó ìûñëü íàâîäÿò ðàçìûøëåíèÿ íàä íåñêîëüêèìè âîîáùå-òî èçâåñòíûìè ìîìåíòàìè: ôåíîìåíîì ïàêåòíîé ïåðåäà÷è èíôîðìàöèè, õðàíåíèåì èíôîðìàöèè â «îáëàêå», ïîñåùåíèåì ñàéòîâ òûñÿ÷àìè ïðîãðàìì è âèðóñîâ, íàðàñòàíèåì êîëè÷åñòâà è ñëîæíîñòè ïàðàçèòè÷åñêèõ âèðóñîâ è ïàðàëëåëüíî âûñòðàèâàíèåì ïðîòèâ íèõ âñå áîëåå ìîùíîé çàùèòû. Âîçüìåì äëÿ ïðèìåðà ïåðâûé ìîìåíò.  îòëè÷èå îò êàíàëüíûõ ðåæèìîâ, êîãäà ñòðîèòñÿ íàäåæíîå ñîåäèíåíèå (êàíàë) «ïèð-òó-ïèð» (òî÷êà – òî÷êà) ìåæäó êëèåíòîì è áàçîâîé ñòàíöèåé, ïàêåòíûé ðåæèì èñïîëüçóåò âèðòóàëüíûé êàíàë, êîòîðûé áàçèðóåòñÿ íà ñâîáîäíûõ â äàííûé ìîìåíò êàíàëàõ. Ïàêåò ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé ïîñëåäîâàòåëüíîñòü íóëåé è åäèíèö, ïðè ýòîì âî âñåõ ñåòÿõ ïðèõîäèòñÿ ðåøàòü ïðîáëåìó âûäåëåíèÿ íà÷àëà è êîíöà ïàêåòîâ. Êàê ïðàâèëî, äëÿ ýòîé öåëè ïðèìåíÿþòñÿ óíèêàëüíûå ïîñëåäîâàòåëüíîñòè áèò èëè óíèêàëüíûå êîäû. Ïðàêòè÷åñêè âñå ñåòè òàê èëè èíà÷å ðåøàþò ïðîáëåìó ìóëüòèïëåêñèðîâàíèÿ äàííûõ (êàê ïðàâèëî, ýòî îïðåäåëÿåò àëãîðèòì äîñòóïà ê ñåòåâîé ñðåäå). Ïðèíöèï ðàáîòû ñåòåé, èñïîëüçóþùèõ ïàêåòíûé ðåæèì, ïðèìåðíî òàêîâ. Ñôîðìèðîâàííûé ïàêåò «íàõîäèò» ñâîáîäíûé êàíàë è ïîñòóïàåò â ñåòü. Ñèñòåìà íà îñíîâå ñïåöèàëüíûõ êîäîâ, ïðîãðàìì è àëãîðèòìîâ îïîçíàåò ïàêåò è íàïðàâëÿåò åãî àäðåñàòó. Èíòåðåñíî, ÷òî ïðè ðàçðàáîòêå ïîäîáíûõ êîäîâ, ïðîãðàìì è àëãîðèòìîâ èñïîëüçîâàíû ðàçëè÷íûå áèîëîãè÷åñêèå è ïñèõîëîãè÷åñêèå àíàëîãèè.

74

ÀÍÀËÈÇ ÐÅÀËÜÍÎÃÎ ÏÎÇÍÀÍÈß ÊÀÊ ÓÑËÎÂÈÅ…

 íåêîòîðîì îòíîøåíèè ïàêåò ìîæíî óïîäîáèòü æèâîìó îðãàíèçìó, à Èíòåðíåò – ñëîæíîé ñðåäå-îðãàíèçìó ñ êîëîññàëüíûì ìíîæåñòâîì ïîäîáíûõ ïàêåòíûõ îðãàíèçìîâ, ñâîåãî ðîäà ðóêîòâîðíîìó Ñîëÿðèñó. Íî õðàíåíèå èíôîðìàöèè â «îáëàêå» òîæå ïðåäïîëàãàåò ïàêåòíóþ ïåðåäà÷ó.  îòëè÷èå îò ìîäåëè õðàíåíèÿ äàííûõ íà âñåì èçâåñòíûõ ñåðâåðàõ îáëà÷íîå õðàíèëèùå äàííûõ êëèåíòó â îáùåì ñëó÷àå íå âèäíî. Èíôîðìàöèÿ õðàíèòñÿ è îáðàáàòûâàåòñÿ â òàê íàçûâàåìîì îáëàêå, êîòîðîå ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé, ñ òî÷êè çðåíèÿ êëèåíòà, îäèí áîëüøîé âèðòóàëüíûé ñåðâåð. Ôèçè÷åñêè òàêèå ñåðâåðû ìîãóò ðàñïîëàãàòüñÿ óäàëåííî äðóã îò äðóãà, âïëîòü äî ðàñïîëîæåíèÿ íà ðàçíûõ êîíòèíåíòàõ. Åùå áîëåå î÷åâèäíà âèòàëüíàÿ ñóùíîñòü Èíòåðíåòà, åñëè ïîñìîòðåòü íà íåãî ñ òî÷êè çðåíèÿ óñòðîéñòâà è æèçíè ïðîãðàìì è îñîáåííî âèðóñîâ. Ïðîãðàììû ïîäîáíî æèâûì îðãàíèçìàì äîëæíû âîñïðîèçâîäèòüñÿ (ýòî îñîáåííî ïîíèìàåøü, êîãäà ïî÷åìó-ëèáî òâîè ïðîãðàììû ïåðåñòàþò ðàáîòàòü), ó íèõ åñòü ñâîåîáðàçíûé öèêë æèçíè – îò çàïèñè äî ìîìåíòà óäàëåíèÿ, îíè ïèòàþòñÿ (ýëåêòðè÷åñòâîì), â ôîðìå âèðóñîâ (èëè àíòèâèðóñîâ) ìîãóò ðàçìíîæàòüñÿ è «ïîåäàòü» äðóãèå ïðîãðàììû, ìîãóò ñêàíèðîâàòü äðóãèå ïðîãðàììû è ïåðåäàâàòü èíôîðìàöèþ î íèõ, èìåþò ñâîè íèøè, ïåðåìåùàþòñÿ ïî ñåòÿì.  Èíòåðíåòå, êàê ìû çíàåì, èäåò íàñòîÿùàÿ âîéíà æèâûõ ýëåêòðîííûõ îðãàíèçìîâ: îäíè èùóò ñëàáûå ìåñòà â äðóãèõ ïðîãðàììàõ è «ïîåäàþò» (ðàçðóøàþò) èõ, äðóãèå çàùèùàþò ñâîþ òåððèòîðèþ îò ýòèõ «ýëåêòðîííûõ õèùíèêîâ», ïðè÷åì ÿñíî, ÷òî îêîí÷àòåëüíàÿ ïîáåäà îäíîé èç ñòîðîí â ýòîé âîéíå Èíòåðíåòó íå ãðîçèò. Êîíå÷íî, èíòåðåñíî ïîíÿòü, êàêèì îáðàçîì Èíòåðíåò ïðåâðàòèëñÿ èç ñëîæíîé òåõíè÷åñêîé ñèñòåìû â æèâîé îðãàíèçì, òî÷íåå, îñòàâàÿñü òåõíèêîé, ñòàíîâèòñÿ è æèâûì îðãàíèçìîì. Îäíó èç ïðåäïîñûëîê ìû óæå óêàçàëè: ýòî ýëåêòðè÷åñêàÿ îñíîâà Èíòåðíåòà. Èñòî÷íèêè ýëåêòðè÷åñòâà äàþò Èíòåðíåòó æèçíü è ïèòàíèå, ýëåêòðè÷åñêèå ñåòè è ðàäèîêàíàëû (íàïðèìåð, WiFi) ñîçäàþò ïóòè è çîíû èíòåðíåòîâñêîé æèçíè, âîîáùå ñàìè êîìïüþòåðû è êîìïüþòåðíûå ïðîãðàììû ðàáîòàþò íà ýëåêòðè÷åñêîé îñíîâå. Ýëåêòðè÷åñòâî, òàê ñêàçàòü, ñóáñòðàòíàÿ îñíîâà æèçíè Èíòåðíåòà (åñòåñòâåííî, ñóáñòðàò Èíòåðíåòà ê ýòîìó íå ñâîäèòñÿ, åãî îáðàçóþò è «æåëåçî» êîìïüþòåðîâ è ñåðâåðîâ, è êàáåëè ëèíèé ñâÿçè, è ñïóòíèêè). Âòîðóþ ïðåäïîñûëêó ìîæíî íàçâàòü ãåíîìíîé. Èññëåäîâàíèÿ ïîêàçàëè, êàê óñòðîåí ãåíîì ÷åëîâåêà: â ÄÍÊ ñîäåðæèòñÿ èíôîðìàöèÿ, íåîáõîäèìàÿ äëÿ ïîñòðîåíèÿ êëåòî÷íûõ ñòðóêòóð îðãàíèçìà, à âõîäÿùèå â ÄÍÊ è ïåðåäàþùèåñÿ ïî íàñëåäñòâó ãåíû óïðàâëÿþò âñåìè õèìè÷åñêèìè ðåàêöèÿìè â îðãàíèçìå, îïðåäåëÿÿ ñòðîåíèå è ôóíêöèè íàøåãî òåëà.  êîìïüþòåðå è Èíòåðíåòå ïðîãðàììû ïîñòðîåíû ïî ñõîäíûì ïðèíöèïàì: îäíè ïðîãðàììû óïðàâëÿþò äðóãèìè, ïîñëåäíèå óïðàâëÿþò ïðîöåññîðàìè, ñîçäàþùèìè òåêñòû è èçîáðàæåíèÿ. Íî ðîëü «ïðîåêòèðîâùèêîâ ãåíîâ» çäåñü âûïîëíÿåò íå ïðèðîäà, à ÷å-

75

Â.Ì. ÐÎÇÈÍ

ëîâåê, âîîðóæåííûé íàóêîé è òåõíèêîé. Îäíàêî, ñîçäàâàÿ ïðîãðàììû, îí äåéñòâóåò íå ïðîèçâîëüíî, à îáóñëîâëåí êóëüòóðîé, ïîñêîëüêó, ðàçðàáàòûâàÿ êîìïüþòåðíûå ïðîãðàììû, îòâå÷àåò íà âûçîâû âðåìåíè è äðóãèå çàïðîñû ïðîèçâîäñòâà; êðîìå òîãî, ÷åëîâåê ñëåäóåò òðàäèöèè, âîñïðîèçâîäÿ ïðåæíèå äîñòèæåíèÿ, ÷òîáû íà èõ îñíîâå ñäåëàòü ñëåäóþùèé øàã ðàçâèòèÿ. Ïîëó÷àåòñÿ, ÷òî ñîçäàíèå è ôóíêöèîíèðîâàíèå êîìïüþòåðíûõ ïðîãðàìì ïî ñâîåé ëîãèêå, à íå áóêâàëüíî, âîñïðîèçâîäÿò ïðîöåññû æèçíè, ïðè÷åì íå áèîëîãè÷åñêèå, à ñîöèàëüíûå: òâîðöû è ðàçðàáîò÷èêè êîìïüþòåðíûõ ïðîãðàìì ðàáîòàþò íå íàä ïîñòðîåíèåì áèîëîãè÷åñêèõ îðãàíèçìîâ, à íàä äîñòóïíûì âîñïðîèçâåäåíèåì (èìèòàöèåé) äåéñòâèé è ýôôåêòîâ ÿçûêà, ìûøëåíèÿ, óñëîâèé äëÿ îáùåíèÿ è äðóãèõ ñîöèàëüíûõ ñòðóêòóð. Äðóãîå äåëî, ÷òî â ñâîåì òâîð÷åñòâå îíè íåðåäêî ïîëüçóþòñÿ áèîëîãè÷åñêèìè àíàëîãèÿìè. Òðåòüÿ ïðåäïîñûëêà – ñîöèàëüíàÿ. Õîòÿ ïåðâûå èíòåðíåòîâñêèå ñåòè áûëè çàêðûòûå (â âîåííîé îáëàñòè), î÷åíü áûñòðî Èíòåðíåò ñòàë ðàçâèâàòüñÿ êàê îòêðûòàÿ ñèñòåìà, ê êîòîðîé ïîëó÷èëè äîñòóï ëþáûå ïîëüçîâàòåëè. Áîëåå òîãî, îíè ìîãëè áûòü àíîíèìíûìè, âûñòóïàÿ ïîä ñîáñòâåííûìè «íèêàìè» èëè «àâàòàðàìè».  ðåçóëüòàòå Èíòåðíåò ïðåâðàòèëñÿ â ãëîáàëüíóþ ïëîùàäêó, íàïîìèíàþùóþ ãðå÷åñêóþ àãîðó, íà êîòîðóþ ìîæåò âûéòè è îáùàòüñÿ ëþáîé ÷åëîâåê èëè ãðóïïà, òåððèòîðèàëüíî íàõîäÿùèåñÿ â ëþáîé òî÷êå çåìíîãî øàðà. È â èäåàëå âûñêàçûâàòüñÿ îíè ìîãóò ñîâåðøåííî ñâîáîäíî, íå áîÿñü ïîäâåðãíóòüñÿ îñòðàêèçìó èëè íàêàçàíèþ.  ñâîèõ èññëåäîâàíèÿõ Õàííà Àðåíäò ïîêàçûâàåò, ÷òî ïîëèòè÷åñêàÿ æèçíü çàðîäèëèñü â Ãðåöèè, ãäå ñâîáîäíûå îò íåîáõîäèìîñòè îáåñïå÷èâàòü ñâîþ æèçíü ãðàæäàíå (ïîñêîëüêó îíè áûëè õîçÿåâàìè è âëàäåëè ðàáàìè) ìîãëè íà àãîðå âûñêàçûâàòü ñâîè ìíåíèÿ, îáùàòüñÿ, óáåæäàòü äðóã äðóãà, ó÷àñòâîâàòü â ïðèíÿòèè ðåøåíèé, êàñàþùèõñÿ æèçíè ïîëèñà [Àðåíäò, 2014].  íåêîòîðîì ñìûñëå Èíòåðíåò ïîçâîëèë âîçîáíîâèòü ïîëèòè÷åñêóþ æèçíü íà ðàçíûõ òåððèòîðèàëüíûõ óðîâíÿõ (ãîðîäà, ðåãèîíà, ñòðàíû) âïëîòü äî ïëàíåòàðíîãî. Ïóñòü ýòà ïîëèòè÷åñêàÿ æèçíü ïîêà îãðàíè÷åíà, íî âàæíî íà÷àëî. Îòêðûòûé, ñâîáîäíûé è îò÷àñòè àíîíèìíûé õàðàêòåð äîñòóïà â Èíòåðíåò îáåñïå÷èë âîçìîæíîñòü èñïîëüçîâàòü åãî ðàçíûìè ñóáúåêòàìè è â ðàçíûõ öåëÿõ: îäíè ðåøàþò ïðîèçâîäñòâåííûå èëè òâîð÷åñêèå çàäà÷è, äðóãèå îáùàþòñÿ, òðåòüè âîðóþò èëè ðàçðóøàþò, ÷åòâåðòûå ðàçâëåêàþòñÿ è èãðàþò, ïÿòûå ïðèçûâàþò æèòü äðóæíî, øåñòûå, êàê èñëàìñêèå ôóíäàìåíòàëèñòû, íàîáîðîò, òðåáóþò óáèâàòü íåâåðíûõ è àìåðèêàíöåâ, ñåäüìûå… è ò.ä. Óäîâëåòâîðèòü ýòè ðàçíîîáðàçíûå è ïðîòèâîïîëîæíûå óñòðåìëåíèÿ è äåéñòâèÿ íèêàêàÿ èñêóññòâåííàÿ òåõíè÷åñêàÿ ñèñòåìà íå ìîãëà, ñìîã æèâîé îðãàíèçì, ñëîæèâøèéñÿ íà ñóáñòðàòíîé òåõíè÷åñêîé îñíîâå Èíòåðíåòà. Ìîæíî óêàçàòü åùå îäèí ôàêòîð, ñïîñîáñòâîâàâøèé ñòàíîâëåíèþ Èíòåðíåòà êàê ãëîáàëüíîãî îðãàíèçìà. Ýòî êðèçèñ òåõíîãåííîé öèâèëèçà-

76

ÀÍÀËÈÇ ÐÅÀËÜÍÎÃÎ ÏÎÇÍÀÍÈß ÊÀÊ ÓÑËÎÂÈÅ…

öèè, îáóñëîâèâøèé ïåðåõîäíûé õàðàêòåð íàøåé öèâèëèçàöèè è âðåìåíè. Äåëî â òîì, ÷òî ìû æèâåì â ñèòóàöèè ðàñïàäà ñîöèàëüíûõ ñòðóêòóð, ïðèòîì ÷òî íîâûå, îòâå÷àþùèå ñîâðåìåííûì âûçîâàì, åùå íå ñëîæèëèñü. Êàêèì æå òîãäà îáðàçîì â ñèòóàöèè ïåðåõîäà ïîêà íåèçâåñòíî êóäà ñîõðàíÿþòñÿ ñîöèàëüíîñòü è îáùíîñòè? Ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, îíè òîæå ïðåòåðïåâàþò íàïðÿæåíèÿ è òðàíñôîðìàöèè, íî ñ äðóãîé – âñå æå æèâóò. Ñïðàøèâàåòñÿ, çà ñ÷åò ÷åãî? Êàê âñåãäà â ýòèõ ñëó÷àÿõ (âåäü ïåðåõîäû îò îäíèõ êóëüòóð è ñîöèàëüíîñòè ê äðóãèì â èñòîðèè óæå áûëè: îò êóëüòóðû äðåâíèõ öàðñòâ – ê àíòè÷íîñòè, îò àíòè÷íîñòè – ê Ñðåäíèì âåêàì, îò Ñðåäíèõ âåêîâ – ê Íîâîìó âðåìåíè), çà ñ÷åò îáùåíèÿ è áîðüáû, à òàêæå îáðåòåíèÿ íîâîãî «ñîöèàëüíî-òåõíè÷åñêîãî òåëà». Íàïðèìåð, ïåðåõîä ê êóëüòóðå Íîâîãî âðåìåíè ñîïðîâîæäàëñÿ, âî-ïåðâûõ, ñìåíîé õðèñòèàíñêîãî ìèðîîùóùåíèÿ íà ðàöèîíàëüíîå (íà ïåðâûé ïëàí ñòàâèòñÿ íå Áîã, à ðåàëüíîñòè ëè÷íîñòè è ïðèðîäû), êîòîðîå ïðîèñõîäèò â áîðüáå è ñîöèàëüíîé ïîëåìèêå (ðåëèãèîçíûå, èäåîëîãè÷åñêèå è ýêîíîìè÷åñêèå âîéíû). Âî-âòîðûõ, ðàçâèâàþòñÿ åñòåñòâîçíàíèå, èíæåíåðèÿ, èíäóñòðèàëüíîå ïðîèçâîäñòâî, ðûíîê è öåëûé ðÿä íîâûõ ñîöèàëüíûõ èíñòèòóòîâ (áóðæóàçíûõ, ëèáåðàëüíî-äåìîêðàòè÷åñêèõ), ïîääåðæèâàâøèõ ýêñïàíñèþ ÷åëîâåêà â îòíîøåíèè ïðèðîäû è ñàìîãî ñåáÿ (Ïðîñâåùåíèå). Ïîñòåïåííî ñêëàäûâàåòñÿ òåõíîãåííàÿ öèâèëèçàöèÿ, ñîöèàëüíî-òåõíè÷åñêèì òåëîì êîòîðîé âûñòóïàþò óêàçàííûå ïðàêòèêè è èíñòèòóòû. Íå ÿâëÿåòñÿ ëè Èíòåðíåò ïîäîáíûì ïëàíåòàðíûì ñîöèàëüíî-òåõíè÷åñêèì òåëîì, ïîçâîëÿþùèì ëþäÿì â ñèòóàöèè ñîâðåìåííîãî êðèçèñà è ïåðåõîäà ñîõðàíÿòü è âîçîáíîâëÿòü ñîöèàëüíóþ è ïîëèòè÷åñêóþ æèçíü? Äóìàåì, ÷òî äà, âåäü èìåííî â Èíòåðíåòå ìû ìîæåì ïðîäîëæàòü äåéñòâîâàòü, îáùàòüñÿ, áîðîòüñÿ, ïðåäëàãàòü ðåøåíèÿ, ñîâåðøàòü ïîñòóïêè, íåñìîòðÿ íà êðàõ è ïàðàëè÷ îñíîâíûõ ñîöèàëüíûõ íîðì è ðåãóëÿòèâîâ (ïðàâà, ìîðàëè, íðàâñòâåííîñòè, àâòîðèòåòà è ïðî÷.). Ýòî òåëî äîñòàòî÷íî ïàðàäîêñàëüíîå: è ñëîæíàÿ òåõíè÷åñêàÿ ñèñòåìà, è ñðåäà íàøåãî îáèòàíèÿ, è æèâîé îðãàíèçì. Åñëè îò ïëàíåòàðíîãî ìàñøòàáà ïåðåéòè ê àíòðîïîëîãè÷åñêîìó, òî ìîæíî îòìåòèòü äâà ìîìåíòà: ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, Èíòåðíåò ïîñòåïåííî ñòàíîâèòñÿ åùå îäíèì «ñîöèàëüíî-òåõíè÷åñêèì òåëîì ÷åëîâåêà» (íàðÿäó ñ äðóãèìè – ýëåêòðè÷åñòâîì, òðàíñïîðòîì, æèëüåì, îäåæäîé è ò.ï.)5, êîëîññàëüíî ðàñøèðÿÿ åãî âîçìîæíîñòè, ñ äðóãîé ñòîðîíû, ñóùåñòâåííî òðàíñôîðìèðóåò åãî ïñèõèêó è îò÷àñòè òåëåñíîñòü. 5 Ïîäîáíî òîìó êàê ÷åëîâåê â ãîðîäå ïåðåäâèãàåòñÿ ñî ñêîðîñòüþ òðàíñïîðòà, «âèäèò», íàïðèìåð, âå÷åðîì è íî÷üþ, ïîëüçóÿñü ýëåêòðè÷åñêèì ñâåòîì, â îäåæäå èëè äîìà íå áîèòñÿ õîëîäà èëè æàðû, ñ ïîìîùüþ Èíòåðíåòà è ìîáèëüíîé ñâÿçè îí ìîæåò ðàçãîâàðèâàòü ñ ÷åëîâåêîì, íàõîäÿùèìñÿ íà äðóãîì êîíöå ïëàíåòû, ïîëó÷àòü èíôîðìàöèþ ïðÿìî èç Ëîíäîíñêîé áèáëèîòåêè, ðåøàòü ðàçëè÷íûå çàäà÷è, ñìîòðåòü ôèëüìû è ìíîãîå-ìíîãîå äðóãîå, íåâîçìîæíîå âíå ýòèõ ñðåäñòâ. Ïîíÿòèå «ñîöèàëüíîå òåëî» ââîäèòñÿ, ÷òîáû óêàçàòü íà ýòè íåáèîëîãè÷åñêèå âîçìîæíîñòè ÷åëîâåêà, ñîçäàííûå öèâèëèçàöèîííûìè èçîáðåòåíèÿìè.

77

Â.Ì. ÐÎÇÈÍ

Ýòîò âòîðîé ìîìåíò ìîæíî ïîÿñíèòü, àíàëèçèðóÿ ñåòåâóþ ïðèðîäó îáåèõ ñèñòåì. Íî ñíà÷àëà î òîì, êàê ìîæíî ïîíèìàòü ñåòè. Ñåòü ïîìèìî ñóáñòðàòíîé òåõíè÷åñêîé îñíîâû (óçëû, ëèíèè èëè êàíàëû ñâÿçè) ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé ñèñòåìó ñàìîñòîÿòåëüíûõ ñóáúåêòîâ (èíäèâèäóàëüíûõ èëè ãðóïïîâûõ), çàèíòåðåñîâàííûõ â ñâÿçÿõ äðóã ñ äðóãîì è îñóùåñòâëÿþùèõ òðàíñàêöèè, êîòîðûå ìîãóò áûòü âåñüìà ðàçëè÷íûìè (ïðåäúÿâëåíèå èíôîðìàöèè, âñòðå÷è è îáùåíèÿ, ñîçäàíèå äðóã äëÿ äðóãà âèðòóàëüíûõ èëè ðåàëüíûõ ñèòóàöèé è ïðî÷.). Ïðèìåðàìè ìîãóò ñëóæèòü ñàéòû â ñîöèàëüíûõ ñåòÿõ, ãäå «äðóçüÿ» îáìåíèâàþòñÿ òåêñòàìè, ðàáîòàþò íàä óêðåïëåíèåì è ðàñøèðåíèåì ñîäðóæåñòâà, ðåàëèçóþò ñåáÿ â îáùåíèè. Àêòóàëèçèðóÿ ñåáÿ â ñåòè, èíäèâèä ïîïàäàåò â ñèòóàöèþ (íàçîâåì åå «èíäóöèðîâàííàÿ ñåòü»), â êîòîðîé îí âûíóæäåí âåñòè ñåáÿ â ñîîòâåòñòâèè ñ òðåáîâàíèÿìè ñåòè è â ýòîì ñìûñëå ÷àñòî íåîáû÷íî. Ñîñòîÿíèÿ ÷åëîâåêà, èíäóöèðîâàííûå ñåòüþ, – ýòî ñîñòîÿíèÿ, åñëè ïîëüçîâàòüñÿ ïîíÿòèåì Ë.Ñ. Âûãîòñêîãî, «îïîñðåäîâàííûå». Îïîñðåäîâàíû îíè äâîÿêî: ñåìèîòè÷åñêè, ò.å. òåêñòàìè (ïîñëåäíèå ìîãóò áûòü è âèçóàëüíûìè), è ïðàâèëàìè (óñëîâíîñòÿìè) æèçíè â ñåòè. Ñîñòîÿíèÿ, èíäóöèðîâàííûå ñåòüþ, òðàíñôîðìèðóþò ïñèõèêó ÷åëîâåêà, ïîãðóæàÿ åãî â «ñåòåâîå áûòèå». Ïðèìåðîì òàêîãî áûòèÿ ÿâëÿåòñÿ æèçíü ÷åëîâåêà â Ôåéñáóêå, èìåþùåãî 200–300 äðóçåé è ïîñòîÿííî îáùàþùåãîñÿ ñ íèìè. Êàê ïðàâèëî, ñåòåâîå áûòèå òðåáóåò áûñòðîé ðåàêöèè, íå ïîçâîëÿåò ãëóáîêî ïðîäóìàòü âîïðîñ, âûëèâàåòñÿ â ïîñòðîåíèå îáðàçà, êîòîðûé îæèäàþò äðóãèå ó÷àñòíèêè òðàíñàêöèé (èìåííî ýòîò îáðàç è ïîñûëàåòñÿ â ñåòü).  ïñèõîëîãè÷åñêîì ïëàíå æèçíü â ñåòè îáû÷íî èìååò äâà âàðèàíòà ðàçâèòèÿ. Ïåðâûé – èíäèâèä ðàñùåïëÿåòñÿ íà äâóõ ñóáúåêòîâ – îáû÷íîãî è, òàê ñêàçàòü, ñåòåâîãî (íàçîâåì ïîñëåäíåãî «ñåòåâîé äóáëü») – è ïûòàåòñÿ êàê-òî ïðèìèðèòü èõ ñóùåñòâîâàíèå, ÷òî åìó ÷àñòî íå óäàåòñÿ. Âòîðîé âàðèàíò ðàçâèòèÿ: èíäèâèä ïðèíèìàåò ñåòåâîå áûòèå êàê îñíîâíîå, âæèâàåòñÿ â íåãî, ïåðåñòðàèâàåòñÿ, ò.å. ôàêòè÷åñêè ñòàíîâèòñÿ ñåòåâûì äóáëåì. Çàìåòèì òîëüêî, ÷òî äàííàÿ êàðòèíà – íå ýìïèðè÷åñêàÿ, à èäåàëüíî-òèïè÷åñêàÿ (ïî Ì. Âåáåðó); ðåàëüíûé ÷åëîâåê ìîæåò â íåå íå óêëàäûâàòüñÿ. Òàê âîò Èíòåðíåò ïîðîæäàåò â ìàññîâîì ïîðÿäêå êàê èíäèâèäîâ ñ äèññîöèèðîâàííîé (ðàñùåïëåííîé) ïñèõèêîé, òàê è ñåòåâûõ äóáëåé. Åñëè áû Èíòåðíåò áûë òîëüêî òåõíîëîãèåé (ïóñòü è î÷åíü ñëîæíîé), òî ìíîæàùèåñÿ â íàñòîÿùåå âðåìÿ ïðîáëåìû ðàíî èëè ïîçäíî ìîæíî áûëî áû ìèíèìèçèðîâàòü, à íåêîòîðûå è âîîáùå ñíÿòü. Òàê è ïðîèñõîäèëî â èñòîðèè ñî âñåìè íîâûìè òåõíîëîãèÿìè. Íî Èíòåðíåò – æèâîé îðãàíèçì, ñîñòàâëÿþùèìè è îðãàíàìè êîòîðîãî âûñòóïàþò ëþäè è äðóãèå ñîöèàëüíûå ñòðóêòóðû (ñîöèàëüíûå èíñòèòóòû, âëàñòè ðàçíûõ óðîâíåé, «íîâûå êî÷åâíèêè» â ëèöå ôèíàíñîâûõ è âëàñòíûõ ìåæäóíàðîäíûõ ýëèò, ìåòàêóëüòóðû òèïà Êèòàÿ, Îáùåãî ðûíêà, ÑØÀ è äð.).  ñâÿçè ñ ýòèì ëþáîìó ñîçíàòåëüíîìó âëèÿíèþ è óñèëèþ,

78

ÀÍÀËÈÇ ÐÅÀËÜÍÎÃÎ ÏÎÇÍÀÍÈß ÊÀÊ ÓÑËÎÂÈÅ…

çàäàþùèì îïðåäåëåííîå íàïðàâëåíèå ðàçâèòèÿ ýòîãî îðãàíèçìà, ìîæíî ïðîòèâîïîñòàâèòü ïðîòèâîïîëîæíûå óñèëèÿ. Åñëè îäíè ðàçðàáîò÷èêè ñòðåìÿòñÿ ñäåëàòü Èíòåðíåò óäîáíåå è ýôôåêòèâíåå äëÿ ëþäåé è ïðîèçâîäñòâà, ÷òîáû ñëóæèòü ñâîáîäíîìó îáìåíó èíôîðìàöèåé è îáùåíèþ, òî äðóãèå (íå òîëüêî õàêåðû, íî è, íàïðèìåð, íåêîòîðûå ñëóæáû ãîñóäàðñòâà) ñ íåìåíüøèì ýíòóçèàçìîì ïðîäóìûâàþò ïðàâèëà, òåõíèêó è äåéñòâèÿ, ïðèçâàííûå îãðàíè÷èòü ñâîáîäó, çàòðóäíèòü èëè ðàçðóøèòü ðàáîòó îáåèõ ñèñòåì. Ïðè÷åì ÷àñòî íå äëÿ êàêèõ-òî òàì ïðàãìàòè÷åñêèõ öåëåé èëè ïðèáûëè, à â ñèëó èëè ñêëîííîñòåé ê ñîðåâíîâàíèþ è ëþáîïûòñòâà ðàäè (èíòåðåñíî, íå ñìîãó ëè ÿ áëîêèðîâàòü ýòó ñèñòåìó èëè ïðîíèêíóòü â íåå), èëè ñêëîííîñòåé ê ïðÿìîìó çëó. Íî òîãäà ïîëó÷àåòñÿ, ÷òî ìèíèìèçàöèÿ èëè ðàçðåøåíèå îáñóæäàåìûõ íàìè ïðîáëåì óïèðàåòñÿ íå â òåõíè÷åñêèå èëè îðãàíèçàöèîííûå ïðîáëåìû è çàäà÷è ïî ïîâîäó Èíòåðíåòà è ìîáèëüíîé ñâÿçè, à â çàäà÷è ñîöèàëüíûå, ò.å. íà íåñêîëüêî ïîðÿäêîâ áîëåå ñëîæíûå è îò÷àñòè âîîáùå íåðåøàåìûå â ðàìêàõ ñëîæèâøåéñÿ òåõíîãåííîé öèâèëèçàöèè. Èòàê, Èíòåðíåò, ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, ðóêîòâîðíîå è ìåíòàëüíîå ñîçäàíèå ÷åëîâåêà, ñ äðóãîé – åñòåñòâåííûé ôåíîìåí. Ðåàëüíîñòü Èíòåðíåòà è êîíñòðóêòèâíà, è áûòèéñòâåííà.  îïðåäåëåííîì îòíîøåíèè òàêîâû âñå ÿâëåíèÿ, ñ êîòîðûìè èìååò äåëî ÷åëîâåê, â òîì ÷èñëå è îòíîñÿùèåñÿ ê ïåðâîé ïðèðîäå. Äàæå ðàññóæäàÿ î äàëåêèõ ãàëàêòèêàõ, äî êîòîðûõ âðÿä ëè êîãäà-íèáóäü äîëåòèì, ìû òåì ñàìûì âêëþ÷àåì èõ â ñîáñòâåííîå áûòèå, ñïîñîáñòâóÿ òîìó, ÷òî è èõ áûòèå ñòàíîâèòñÿ çàâèñèìûì îò íàñ. Åñëè ïîíèìàòü êîíñòðóèðîâàíèå è åñòåñòâåííîå ñóùåñòâîâàíèå íå ïðîñòî êàê îïïîçèöèè è îòäåëüíûå ñóùíîñòè, à êàê äâà äîïîëíèòåëüíûõ àñïåêòà ðåàëüíîé äåÿòåëüíîñòè ÷åëîâåêà, îäíîâðåìåííî ïîçíàâàòåëüíîé è ïðàêòè÷åñêîé, òî ñïîð êîíñòðóêòèâèñòîâ è ðåàëèñòîâ òåðÿåò ñìûñë.

Библиографический список Àðåíäò, 2014 – Àðåíäò Õ. Ìåæäó ïðîøëûì è áóäóùèì. Âîñåìü óïðàæíåíèé â ïîëèòè÷åñêîé ìûñëè. Ì., 2014. Àðèñòîòåëü, 1934 – Àðèñòîòåëü. Ìåòàôèçèêà. Ì. ; Ë., 1934. Àðèñòîòåëü, 1978 – Àðèñòîòåëü. Êàòåãîðèè. Ñî÷.  4 ò. Ò. 2. Ì., 1978. Áàõòèí, 1979 – Áàõòèí Ì. Ýñòåòèêà ñëîâåñíîãî òâîð÷åñòâà. Ì., 1979. Áýêîí, 1935 – Áýêîí Ô. Íîâûé îðãàíîí. Ì., 1935. Ëèïêèí, 2007 – Ëèïêèí À. Ýìïèðèçì: «êîíñòðóêòèâèçì» ïðîòèâ «ðåàëèçìà» // Ôèëîñîôèÿ íàóêè. Ì., 2007. Ðîçèí, 2011 – Ðîçèí Â.Ì. Ââåäåíèå â ñõåìîëîãèþ. Ñõåìû â ôèëîñîôèè, êóëüòóðå, íàóêå, ïðîåêòèðîâàíèè. Ì., 2011. Ðîçèí, 2014 – Ðîçèí Â.Ì. «Ïèð» Ïëàòîíà. Íîâàÿ ðåêîíñòðóêöèÿ è íåêîòîðûå ðåìèíèñöåíöèè â ôèëîñîôèè è êóëüòóðå. Ì., 2014. Ðîçèí, 2006 – Ðîçèí Â.Ì. Ïîíÿòèå è ñîâðåìåííûå êîíöåïöèè òåõíèêè. Ì.: ÈÔ ÐÀÍ, 2006.

79

EPISTEMOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE · 2015 · Ò. XLV · ¹ 3

П

ОНЯТИЕ А PRIORI В ФИЛОСОФИИ ЛОГИЧЕСКОГО

ЭМПИРИЗМА И ЕГО ПЕРВЫЕ КРИТИКИ Татьяна Дмитриевна Соколова – аспирант сектора социальной эпистемологии Инсти тута философии РАН. Email: [email protected]

T

Философия логического эмпиризма во многом определила направление разви тия и круг основных проблем движения философской мысли, которое впослед ствии стало именоваться аналитической философией. Перед философами Вен ского кружка и их последователями стояла непосредственная задача отмеже ваться от доминирующих в начале ХХ в. философских течений (в частности, неокантианства и неогегельянства). В рамках данной задачи был осуществлен пересмотр понятий классической теории познания, в том числе и понятия a priori. В настоящей статье анализируется, каким образом в рамках философии логического эмпиризма априорность стала отождествляться с аналитичностью, а также рассматриваются альтернативные концепции понятия a priori, ставшие следствием данного отождествления. Ключевые слова: a priori, аналитичность, логический эмпиризм, синтетическое a priori, функциональное a priori.

HE NOTION OF A PRIORI IN LOGICAL EMPIRICISM AND

ITS FIRST CRITICS Tatiana Sokolova – PhDstudent, department of social epistemology, Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Science.

The philosophy of logical empiricism has largely determined the direction and the range of problems of the philosophy, which later became known as analytic philosophy. Philosophers of the Vienna Circle and their followers had to dissociate their program from other philosophies predominant in the early twentieth century (particularly from neo-Kantianism and neo-Hegelianism). As a part of this task the revision of the concepts of classical epistemology, including the concept of a priori was carried out. The paper examines how, in the framework of logical empiricism, apriority became identified with analyticity, and discusses alternative theories of the a priori, which resulted of this identification. Key words: a priori, analyticity, logical empiricism, synthetic a priori, functional a priori.

Постановка проблемы Êëàññè÷åñêîå îïðåäåëåíèå a priori áûëî ïðåäëîæåíî Èììàíóèëîì Êàíòîì âî ââåäåíèè ê «Êðèòèêå ÷èñòîãî ðàçóìà» [Êàíò, 1964: 105–106], è õîòÿ èñïîëüçîâàíèå äàííîãî òåðìèíà èìååò áîëåå ãëóáîêóþ èñòîðèþ, èìåííî Êàíò âïåðâûå ïðåäëîæèë ðàçâåðíóòóþ òåîðèþ àïðèîðèçìà. Ïîä àïðèîðíûìè èñòè-

80

Epistemology and Cognition

ÏÎÍßÒÈÅ À PRIORI  ÔÈËÎÑÎÔÈÈ ËÎÃÈ×ÅÑÊÎÃÎ ÝÌÏÈÐÈÇÌÀ…

íàìè Êàíò èìåë â âèäó òàêèå èñòèíû, áëàãîäàðÿ êîòîðûì ñòàíîâèòñÿ âîçìîæåí îïûò, ò.å. óïîðÿäî÷åíèå ýìïèðè÷åñêîãî ìàòåðèàëà. Îí âûäâèíóë òðè êðèòåðèÿ, îòâå÷àÿ êîòîðûì, òà èëè èíàÿ èñòèíà ìîæåò ðàññìàòðèâàòüñÿ â êà÷åñòâå àïðèîðíîé: íåçàâèñèìîñòü îò îïûòà, íåîáõîäèìîñòü è óíèâåðñàëüíîñòü (âñåîáùíîñòü). Íåçàâèñèìîñòü îò ýìïèðè÷åñêîãî îïûòà ÿâëÿåòñÿ áàçîâîé õàðàêòåðèñòèêîé àïðèîðíûõ ïîíÿòèé è ñóæäåíèé. Íàïðèìåð, ïîíÿòèå âðåìåíè àïðèîðíî â òîì ñìûñëå, ÷òî âðåìÿ (â îòëè÷èå îò èçìåíåíèÿ) íåâîçìîæíî çàôèêñèðîâàòü ýìïèðè÷åñêè. Îäíàêî èìåííî áëàãîäàðÿ ïîíÿòèþ âðåìåíè èçìåíåíèÿ ìîæíî âûñòðîèòü â ïîñëåäîâàòåëüíîñòü, ò.å. óïîðÿäî÷èòü â îïûò. Òðàêòîâêà íåîáõîäèìîñòè ó Êàíòà äâîÿêà: ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, âûñêàçûâàíèÿ, îáëàäàþùèå íåîáõîäèìîñòüþ, äîëæíû óäîâëåòâîðÿòü ëîãè÷åñêîìó çàêîíó íåïðîòèâîðå÷èÿ, ñ äðóãîé – ïîä íåîáõîäèìûìè ïîíèìàþòñÿ ñóæäåíèÿ, ëîæíîñòü êîòîðûõ íåëüçÿ ïîìûñëèòü. Óíèâåðñàëüíîñòü êàê ñâîéñòâî àïðèîðíûõ ñóæäåíèé âûòåêàåò èç èõ íåîáõîäèìîñòè: åñëè ïîëîæåíèå íåîáõîäèìî, îíî íå ìîæåò íå áûòü óíèâåðñàëüíûì. Îäíàêî äëÿ îáîñíîâàíèÿ êàíòîâñêîé òåîðèè ïîçíàíèÿ òàêîãî ðîäà îïðåäåëåíèå àïðèîðíîñòè áûëî íåäîñòàòî÷íî, òàê êàê íå îáúÿñíÿëî, â ÷àñòíîñòè, ñïåöèôèêó ìàòåìàòè÷åñêîãî çíàíèÿ. Ïîýòîìó ê ðàçäåëåíèþ íà àïðèîðíûå è àïîñòåðèîðíûå ñóæäåíèÿ äîáàâëÿåòñÿ ðàçäåëåíèå íà ñóæäåíèÿ àíàëèòè÷åñêèå (ïîÿñíÿþùèå) è ñèíòåòè÷åñêèå (ðàñøèðÿþùèå çíàíèå). Ãðàíèöà ìåæäó àïðèîðíûì è àïîñòåðèîðíûì ïðè ýòîì íå ñîâïàäàåò ñ ãðàíèöåé ìåæäó àíàëèòè÷åñêèì è ñèíòåòè÷åñêèì. Ñîãëàñíî Êàíòó, ñóùåñòâóþò òàêèå èñòèíû, êîòîðûå óäîâëåòâîðÿþò êðèòåðèÿì íåçàâèñèìîñòè îò îïûòà, íåîáõîäèìîñòè è óíèâåðñàëüíîñòè, îäíàêî äàþò íîâîå çíàíèå, ò.å. ÿâëÿþòñÿ ñèíòåòè÷åñêèìè. Ïðèìåðàìè òàêîãî ðîäà ñóæäåíèé ìîæíî ñ÷èòàòü ñóæäåíèÿ ìàòåìàòè÷åñêèõ äèñöèïëèí. Âïîñëåäñòâèè àïðèîðèçì ïðîäîëæèë ñâîå ðàçâèòèå óæå â ðàìêàõ íåîêàíòèàíñòâà: áëàãîäàðÿ íåîêàíòèàíñêîé èíòåðïðåòàöèè ïîíÿòèå a priori ïðèîáðåëî ñâîé ñòàòóñ â ýïèñòåìîëîãèè, ñòàâ îäíîé èç äîãì èññëåäîâàíèÿ ïîçíàâàòåëüíîãî ïðîöåññà [Ñòîëÿðîâà, 2012: 45–58]. Íåîêàíòèàíñòâî âàæíî â ñèëó òîãî, ÷òî îíî «ôîêóñèðóåòñÿ íà ÷åëîâå÷åñêîì ýëåìåíòå â çíàíèè, à òàêæå ïðîâîäèò áàçîâîå ðàçëè÷èå ìåæäó àïðèîðíûì è ýìïèðè÷åñêèì, ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, è àíàëèòè÷åñêèì è ñèíòåòè÷åñêèì – ñ äðóãîé» [Stump, 2011: 276].  òî æå âðåìÿ èìåííî â ðàìêàõ íåîêàíòèàíñòâà ñêëàäûâàåòñÿ òàêàÿ ìîäåëü ôèëîñîôñêîãî èññëåäîâàíèÿ ïîçíàâàòåëüíîãî ïðîöåññà, ïðîòèâ êîòîðîé âïîñëåäñòâèè âûñòóïèëè êàê ëîãè÷åñêèå ïîçèòèâèñòû, òàê è ïðåäñòàâèòåëè äðóãèõ ýïèñòåìîëîãè÷åñêèõ òå÷åíèé, íàïðàâëåííûõ íà ðåôîðìèðîâàíèå êëàññè÷åñêîé òåîðèè ïîçíàíèÿ. Êàíòîâñêîå îïðåäåëåíèå àïðèîðíûõ èñòèí ïîçâîëÿåò ðàññìàòðèâàòü èõ â êà÷åñòâå çàêîíîâ ìûøëåíèÿ, ò.å. ïî ñóòè îòîæäåñòâëÿòü ëîãèêó è ïñèõîëîãèþ.

81

Ò.Ä. ÑÎÊÎËÎÂÀ

 íà÷àëå ÕÕ â. êëàññè÷åñêîå ïîíÿòèå a priori ïîäâåðãëîñü ñåðüåçíîé êðèòèêå è ïåðåñìîòðó. Âî-ïåðâûõ, ýòî áûëî âûçâàíî ðàçâèòèåì åñòåñòâåííî-íàó÷íîãî çíàíèÿ, âûøåäøåãî çà ïðåäåëû íüþòîíîâñêîé ôèçèêè è åâêëèäîâîé ãåîìåòðèè, ò.å. ïðîöåññîì, êîòîðûé êëàññè÷åñêàÿ òåîðèÿ ïîçíàíèÿ íå ìîãëà íè îáúÿñíèòü, íè ïðåäñêàçàòü. Êðîìå òîãî, ïîÿâëÿþòñÿ íîâûå ëîãèêè, îòëè÷íûå îò àðèñòîòåëåâñêîé. Âî-âòîðûõ, èçìåíåíèÿ ïðîèçîøëè è â ðàìêàõ ñàìîé ôèëîñîôèè: ïîÿâëåíèå ïðàãìàòèçìà, êðèòèêà ìåòàôèçèêè è ïñèõîëîãèçìà, ðàçâèòèå òàêèõ òå÷åíèé, êàê ëîãè÷åñêèé ýìïèðèçì è ôèëîñîôèÿ ÿçûêà, ñòðåìÿùèõñÿ îðãàíèçîâàòü ôèëîñîôñêîå çíàíèå ïî ïðèíöèïó åñòåñòâåííî-íàó÷íûõ äèñöèïëèí, ðàçâèòèå ôèëîñîôèè íàóêè êàê ñàìîñòîÿòåëüíîé äèñöèïëèíû. Êëàññè÷åñêîå ïîíèìàíèå a priori ïåðåñòàëî ñîîòâåòñòâîâàòü êàê ñîñòîÿíèþ åñòåñòâåííî-íàó÷íîãî çíàíèÿ, òàê è òðåáîâàíèÿì, ïðåäúÿâëÿåìûì ê ôèëîñîôèè è ãóìàíèòàðíûì íàóêàì. Åñëè ðàññìàòðèâàòü êðèòèêó êëàññè÷åñêîãî àïðèîðèçìà õðîíîëîãè÷åñêè, ìîæíî âûäåëèòü íåñêîëüêî áàçîâûõ ýòàïîâ. Ïåðâûé èç íèõ ñâÿçàí ñ ëîãè÷åñêèì ýìïèðèçìîì è ñâåäåíèåì âñåõ àïðèîðíûõ èñòèí ê àíàëèòè÷åñêèì èñòèíàì. Íåìíîãèì ïîçæå Êëàðåíñ Èðâèíã Ëüþèñ ïðåäëîæèë êîíöåïöèþ ïðàãìàòè÷åñêîãî a priori, îïèðàÿñü íà ëîãè÷åñêèé è ëèíãâèñòè÷åñêèé èíñòðóìåíòàðèé. Àðòóð Ïàï, âî ìíîãîì îïèðàÿñü êàê íà ïðàãìàòèçì, òàê è íà ëîãè÷åñêèé ýìïèðèçì, ïðåäëàãàåò áîëåå ñëîæíóþ ìîäåëü, âêëþ÷àþùóþ íåñêîëüêî òèïîâ àïðèîðíûõ èñòèí. Çàâåðøàþùèì ýòàïîì â ðàçâèòèè êðèòèêè àïðèîðèçìà ñòàëè êðèòèêà Óèëëàðäîì Êóàéíîì ðàçäåëåíèÿ ñóæäåíèé íà àíàëèòè÷åñêèå è ñèíòåòè÷åñêèå â ñòàòüå «Äâå äîãìû ýìïèðèçìà» (1951) è äèñêóññèè âîêðóã íåå.  ñâîþ î÷åðåäü èìåííî ôèëîñîôèÿ ëîãè÷åñêîãî ýìïèðèçìà (è îò÷àñòè ôèëîñîôèÿ ÿçûêà) ïåðâîé ïîëîâèíû ÕÕ â. ñîçäàëà êîíòåêñò äèñêóññèé âîêðóã àïðèîðèçìà, êîòîðûå ïðîäîëæàþòñÿ ñåãîäíÿ â ðàìêàõ àíàëèòè÷åñêîé ôèëîñîôèè. Ýòî êàñàåòñÿ êàê èíòåðïðåòàöèè êàíòîâñêîãî a priori, òàê è ïðîáëåì, âîêðóã êîòîðûõ ñòðîèòñÿ êðèòèêà èëè îáîñíîâàíèå a priori.

Против психологизма: роль априорных суждений в познании Äàâàÿ êðàòêóþ îöåíêó ôèëîñîôèè Êàíòà, Áåðòðàí Ðàññåë âûäåëèë ñëåäóþùèå åãî îñíîâíûå çàñëóãè â ðàçâèòèè ôèëîñîôñêîé ìûñëè: «Âî-ïåðâûõ, îí óñòàíîâèë, ÷òî åñòü àïðèîðíîå çíàíèå, íå ÿâëÿþùååñÿ ÷èñòî “àíàëèòè÷åñêèì”, ò.å. òàêèì, ïðîòèâîïîëîæíîñòü ÷åãî áûëà áû ñàìîïðîòèâîðå÷èâà; è, âî-âòîðûõ, îí ÿñíî ïîêàçàë çíà÷åíèå äëÿ ôèëîñîôèè òåîðèè ïîçíàíèÿ» [Ðàññåë, 2000: 215]. Òåì íå ìåíåå Ðàññåë, îêàçàâøèé çíà÷èòåëüíîå âëèÿíèå íà ðàçâèòèå êîíöåïöèé ëîãè÷åñêîãî ïîçèòèâèçìà, êðèòèêîâàë Êàíòà çà òî, ÷òî òîò ïóòàë ëîãè÷åñêèå çàêîíû è çàêîíû ìûøëåíèÿ. Ñîãëàñíî òàêîé èíòåðïðåòàöèè êàí-

82

ÏÎÍßÒÈÅ À PRIORI  ÔÈËÎÑÎÔÈÈ ËÎÃÈ×ÅÑÊÎÃÎ ÝÌÏÈÐÈÇÌÀ…

òîâñêîãî àïðèîðèçìà, àïðèîðíûå ôîðìû ïðåäñòàâëÿþò ñîáîé áàçîâûå çàêîíû ÷åëîâå÷åñêîãî ìûøëåíèÿ (èëè äàæå ÷åëîâå÷åñêîé ïðèðîäû), êîòîðûå îñòàþòñÿ íåèçìåííûìè, íåñìîòðÿ íà èçìåíÿþùèéñÿ õàðàêòåð íàó÷íîãî çíàíèÿ. Äàííàÿ èíòåðïðåòàöèÿ, ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, ñòàâèò ëîãè÷åñêèå çàêîíû â çàâèñèìîñòü îò ïñèõîëîãèè ÷åëîâåêà, à ñ äðóãîé – ïðåäëàãàåò äîãìàòè÷åñêóþ (è âìåñòå ñ òåì ìåòàôèçè÷åñêóþ) êàðòèíó ðàçóìà, îñíîâàííóþ íà îäíèõ è òåõ æå àáñîëþòíûõ è íåèçìåííûõ ïðèíöèïàõ. Ïîíèìàíèå ëîãè÷åñêèõ çàêîíîâ êàê çàêîíîâ ìûøëåíèÿ, óñòîÿâøååñÿ â ðàìêàõ íåîêàíòèàíñòâà, êðèòèêóåòñÿ â ïåðâîé ïîëîâèíå ÕÕ â. ïðàêòè÷åñêè âñåìè ýïèñòåìîëîãàìè âíå çàâèñèìîñòè îò èõ òðàäèöèè. Çàêîíû ìûøëåíèÿ ïåðåäàþòñÿ â âåäåíèå àêòèâíî ðàçâèâàþùåéñÿ ïñèõîëîãèè, â òî âðåìÿ êàê ëîãèêà (èëè ëîãèêè) ñòàíîâèòñÿ äèñöèïëèíîé î ïðàâèëàõ âûâîäà: «Òðàäèöèîííî ëîãèêà îïðåäåëÿëàñü êàê íàóêà î çàêîíàõ ìûøëåíèÿ... Îäíàêî ñåãîäíÿ íå âîçíèêàåò ñîìíåíèé â òîì, ÷òî ëþáîå èññëåäîâàíèå çàêîíîâ èëè ñïîñîáîâ íàøåãî ìûøëåíèÿ îòíîñèòñÿ ê îáëàñòè ïñèõîëîãèè. Ëîãè÷åñêîå ðàçëè÷èå ìåæäó îáîñíîâàííûì è íåîáîñíîâàííûì óìîçàêëþ÷åíèåì íå óêàçûâàåò íà òî, êàê ìû äóìàåì, ò.å. íà ïðîöåññ, ïðîèñõîäÿùèé â ñîçíàíèè ÷åëîâåêà. Äîêàçàòåëüíàÿ ñèëà îñíîâàíèé ñàìà ïî ñåáå ÿâëÿåòñÿ íå âðåìåííûì ÿâëåíèåì, à îòíîøåíèåì èìïëèêàöèè ìåæäó îïðåäåëåííûìè êëàññàìè èëè òèïàìè ñóæäåíèé» [Êîýí, Íàãåëü, 2010: 49]. Ãàíñ Ðåéõåíáàõ, ïî êðàéíåé ìåðå â ðàííèõ ñâîèõ ðàáîòàõ, òàêæå êðèòèêîâàë êàíòîâñêèé àïðèîðèçì, îäíàêî íå ïðåäëàãàë îãðàíè÷èòü ðîëü àïðèîðíîãî â ïîçíàíèè òàâòîëîãè÷åñêèìè âûñêàçûâàíèÿìè. Îí ïîä÷åðêèâàë âàæíîñòü êîíñòðóêòèâíîãî ýëåìåíòà, êîòîðûé àïðèîðíûå ïîíÿòèÿ è ñóæäåíèÿ âíîñÿò â ïîçíàâàòåëüíûé ïðîöåññ: «Ñîãëàñíî Êàíòó, îáúåêò ïîçíàíèÿ, ò.å. ÿâëåíèå, íå ÿâëÿåòñÿ íåïîñðåäñòâåííî äàííûì. Âîñïðèÿòèå äàåò íàì íå îáúåêò, à òîëüêî ìàòåðèàë, èç êîòîðîãî îí ñêîíñòðóèðîâàí. Ýòè êîíñòðóêöèè óñòàíàâëèâàþòñÿ ïîñðåäñòâîì àêòà ñóæäåíèÿ. Ñóæäåíèå – ýòî ñèíòåç, êîíñòðóèðóþùèé îáúåêò èç ìíîãîîáðàçèÿ âîñïðèÿòèÿ» [Reichenbach, 1965: 48]. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, a priori ìîæíî ðàññìàòðèâàòü â êà÷åñòâå ëèáî âå÷íûõ è íåèçìåííûõ èñòèí èëè ïðèíöèïîâ ïîçíàíèÿ, ëèáî òîãî, ÷òî ôîðìèðóåò îáúåêò ïîçíàíèÿ, à âìåñòå ñ íèì è îïûò. Îòáðàñûâàÿ ïåðâîå îïðåäåëåíèå êàê äîãìàòè÷åñêîå, Ðåéõåíáàõ ñîõðàíÿåò âòîðîå (õîòÿ âïîñëåäñòâèè îòêàæåòñÿ è îò íåãî). Îäíàêî ïðè ïðèíÿòèè ðàçäåëåíèÿ ñóæäåíèé íà àíàëèòè÷åñêèå è ñèíòåòè÷åñêèå êîíñòðóêòèâíàÿ ðîëü ìîæåò ñîõðàíèòüñÿ çà àïðèîðíûìè ñóæäåíèÿìè òîëüêî â òîì ñëó÷àå, åñëè îíè íå áóäóò îãðàíè÷åíû òàâòîëîãèÿìè, ò.å. èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî àíàëèòè÷åñêèìè ñóæäåíèÿìè, êîòîðûå â ñâîþ î÷åðåäü ëèøåíû ôàêòóàëüíîãî ñîäåðæàíèÿ è ïîýòîìó äàþò íîâîãî çíàíèÿ îá îêðóæàþùåé äåéñòâèòåëüíîñòè.  òî æå âðåìÿ òàêàÿ èíòåðïðåòàöèÿ àïðèîðíûõ ïðèíöèïîâ ïîçíàíèÿ ïîçâîëÿåò ñäåëàòü âûâîä, ÷òî ÷åëîâåê ïðåäïèñûâàåò çàêîíû ïðèðîäå, âìåñòî òîãî ÷òîáû îòêðûâàòü èõ èëè èññëåäîâàòü îêðóæàþùóþ äåéñòâèòåëüíîñòü. Ïî ìíåíèþ ãëàâû Âåíñêîãî êðóæêà Ìîðèöà

83

Ò.Ä. ÑÎÊÎËÎÂÀ

Øëèêà, äàííûé ïîäõîä ê èññëåäîâàíèþ ïîçíàâàòåëüíîãî ïðîöåññà íå ñîîòâåòñòâîâàë ïîëîæåíèþ äåë â ôèçèêå íà÷àëà ÕÕ â.: «Åñëè àïðèîðíîå íåîòäåëèìî îò ïñèõîëîãè÷åñêîãî, òî ýòî õàðàêòåðèçóåò îïðåäåëåííóþ ôèëîñîôñêóþ ïîçèöèþ, ò.å. êàíòîâñêóþ òåîðèþ, ÷òî íàøå ìûøëåíèå ïðåäïèñûâàåò çàêîíû ïðèðîäå.  ïðîòèâîâåñ ýòîìó ñîâðåìåííàÿ ôèçè÷åñêàÿ íàóêà íå ïðèçíàåò òàêîãî ðîäà àïðèîðíûõ êîíñòðóêöèé è ïðîòèâîïîñòàâëÿåò èì çäîðîâûé ñêåïòèöèçì ýìïèðèêà» [Schlick, 1979à: 95].  äàííîì ñëó÷àå àïðèîðíûå ñóæäåíèÿ êàê ïîòåíöèàëüíûé èñòî÷íèê íîâîãî çíàíèÿ î ìèðå èëè êàê ïðèíöèïû, íà îñíîâàíèè êîòîðûõ îñóùåñòâëÿåòñÿ ïîçíàâàòåëüíûé (è, â ÷àñòíîñòè, åñòåñòâåííî-íàó÷íûé) ïðîöåññ, êðèòèêóþòñÿ ñ òî÷êè çðåíèÿ èõ ïñèõîëîãè÷åñêîé èíòåðïðåòàöèè. Åñòåñòâåííî-íàó÷íûå çàêîíû íå ìîãóò è íå äîëæíû â ñâîåì îñíîâàíèè óïèðàòüñÿ â ïñèõîëîãè÷åñêèå îñîáåííîñòè ÷åëîâåêà (èäåò ëè ðå÷ü î ÷åëîâå÷åñêîì ðàçóìå âîîáùå èëè ðàçóìå îòäåëüíîãî ó÷åíîãî). Áîëåå òîãî, ñàìà ïñèõèêà (è ñëåäîâàòåëüíî, ìûøëåíèå) ìîæåò èçó÷àòüñÿ ýêñïåðèìåíòàëüíî, ò.å. ïî àíàëîãèè ñ åñòåñòâåííî-íàó÷íûìè, îáúÿñíèòåëüíûìè äèñöèïëèíàìè. Êîíöåïöèÿ íåèçìåííîãî è àáñîëþòíîãî ðàçóìà, íàëàãàþùàÿ ôîðìó íà õàîñ ÷óâñòâåííûõ âïå÷àòëåíèé, ïîäâåðãàåòñÿ êðèòèêå, òàê êàê ïåðåñòàåò ñîîòâåòñòâîâàòü àêòóàëüíîìó ðàçâèòèþ åñòåñòâåííî-íàó÷íûõ äèñöèïëèí. Ýòî ïåðâûé è îñíîâíîé ïóíêò êðèòèêè êàíòîâñêîãî àïðèîðèçìà. Îòîæäåñòâëåíèå ëîãè÷åñêèõ çàêîíîâ ñ çàêîíàìè ìûøëåíèÿ, ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, ïðèâîäèò ê ìåòàôèçè÷åñêîé èíòåðïðåòàöèè ÷åëîâå÷åñêîãî ðàçóìà, à ñ äðóãîé – îãðàíè÷èâàåò åñòåñòâåííî-íàó÷íîå ïîçíàíèå ðàç è íàâñåãäà óñòàíîâëåííûì èíñòðóìåíòàðèåì. Òåì íå ìåíåå âàæíîñòü ëîãè÷åñêèõ çàêîíîâ äëÿ ïîçíàíèÿ âîîáùå è åñòåñòâåííî-íàó÷íîãî ïîçíàíèÿ â ÷àñòíîñòè ñëîæíî îòðèöàòü. Ñîîòâåòñòâåííî ïñèõîëîãè÷åñêèé êðèòåðèé, âûäåëÿåìûé Êàíòîì, óñòóïàåò ìåñòî ÷èñòî ôîðìàëüíîìó êðèòåðèþ: ëîãè÷åñêèå çàêîíû ïðåäñòàâëÿþò ñîáîé íå çàêîíû ìûøëåíèÿ, à ïðàâèëà âûâîäà, íåçàâèñèìûå îò íåïîñðåäñòâåííîãî ïðîöåññà ìûøëåíèÿ òîãî èëè èíîãî ÷åëîâåêà1.

Существуют ли априорные синтетические суждения? Òàêîãî ðîäà ïîäõîä ê ïðîáëåìå a priori òðåáóåò ïåðåñìîòðà äðóãèõ õàðàêòåðèñòèê äàííîãî ïîíÿòèÿ. Âî-ïåðâûõ, åñëè ó Êàíòà àïðèîðíîñòü ìîãëà áûòü ñâîéñòâîì êàê ïîíÿòèé, òàê è ñóæäåíèé, òî â ðàìêàõ ëîãè÷åñêîãî ïîçèòèâèçìà, à òàêæå ëèíãâèñòè÷åñêîé ôèëîñîôèè àïðè1 Íåñìîòðÿ íà ðàñïðîñòðàíåííîñòü äàííîé èíòåðïðåòàöèè êàíòîâñêîãî ïîíèìàíèÿ àïðèîðíûõ ôîðì, îíà íå ÿâëÿåòñÿ åäèíñòâåííîé. Ñð.: «Êàíò ïðèäàåò ôèëîñîôñêîé ìûñëè î ñîçíàíèè (mind) ñåìàíòè÷åñêèé ïîâîðîò, ïåðåíîñÿ öåíòð âíèìàíèÿ ñ èñòèíû è îáîñíîâàíèÿ íà ïðèðîäó ñàìîé ðåïðåçåíòàöèè... Îí âèäèò, ÷òî ýïèñòåìîëîãè÷åñêèå âîïðîñû áàçèðóþòñÿ íà ñåìàíòè÷åñêèõ ïðåäïîñûëêàõ» [Brandom, 2006: 2].

84

ÏÎÍßÒÈÅ À PRIORI  ÔÈËÎÑÎÔÈÈ ËÎÃÈ×ÅÑÊÎÃÎ ÝÌÏÈÐÈÇÌÀ…

îðíûé õàðàêòåð ïðèïèñûâàåòñÿ óæå òîëüêî ñóæäåíèÿì (èëè ïðîïîçèöèÿì) [Îñòèí, 2006: 57–75]. Ïðè ýòîì ïðîèñõîäèò îòêàç îò ïîíÿòèÿ ñèíòåòè÷åñêîãî a priori è àïðèîðíîñòü çàêðåïëÿåòñÿ èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî çà àíàëèòè÷åñêèìè ñóæäåíèÿìè: «Àíàëèòè÷åñêîå ñóæäåíèå èñòèííî â ñèëó ñâîåé ôîðìû. Êòî ïîíèìàåò çíà÷åíèå òàâòîëîãèè, òåì ñàìûì âèäèò, ÷òî îíà èñòèííà. È ïîýòîìó îíà àïðèîðíà. Ñ äðóãîé ñòîðîíû, â ñëó÷àå ñ ñèíòåòè÷åñêèì ñóæäåíèåì, íóæíî ñíà÷àëà ïîíÿòü åãî çíà÷åíèå, à óæå ïîòîì îïðåäåëÿòü, èñòèííî îíî èëè ëîæíî. È ïîýòîìó îíî àïîñòåðèîðíî» [Schlick, 1979b: 162–163]. Äàííîå îïðåäåëåíèå Øëèêà ñòàëî àêñèîìîé â ðàìêàõ ëîãè÷åñêîãî ýìïèðèçìà. Ñâÿçàâ àïðèîðíîñòü ñ àíàëèòè÷íîñòüþ, à ñèíòåòè÷íîñòü ñ ôàêòóàëüíûì ñîäåðæàíèåì âûñêàçûâàíèÿ, Ìîðèö Øëèê ïðèøåë ê âûâîäó, ÷òî ñèíòåòè÷åñêèå a priori ïðåäñòàâëÿþò ñîáîé ëîãè÷åñêîå ïðîòèâîðå÷èå, ò.å. îíè ëîãè÷åñêè íåâîçìîæíû2. Øëèê ðàññìàòðèâàåò ïðèìåðû, ñ÷èòàâøèåñÿ ñèíòåòè÷åñêèìè a priori, òèïà «êðàñíûé îáúåêò íå çåëåíûé», «÷åðíîå – ýòî ÷åðíîå, à áåëîå – ýòî áåëîå» è ïðèõîäèò ê âûâîäó, ÷òî èñòèííîñòü òàêîãî ðîäà âûñêàçûâàíèé ñâÿçàíà íå ñ èõ ñîäåðæàíèåì, à ñ èõ ôîðìîé, ïðåäñòàâëÿÿ ñîáîé îòíîøåíèå ïîíÿòèé. Ïîýòîìó âûðàæåíèÿ òàêîãî òèïà ÿâëÿþòñÿ òàâòîëîãèÿìè è íå ïðèáàâëÿþò çíàíèÿ. Áîëåå òîãî, Øëèê ïîëàãàåò, ÷òî òàêîãî ðîäà âûñêàçûâàíèÿ íå òîëüêî íå âñòðå÷àþòñÿ â íàóêå èëè ïîâñåäíåâíîé æèçíè, íî ÿâëÿþòñÿ ðèòîðè÷åñêèìè èëè äàæå ñîôèñòè÷åñêèìè ïðèåìàìè, êîòîðûå èñïîëüçóþòñÿ íåäîáðîñîâåñòíûìè îðàòîðàìè äëÿ êîíñòàòàöèè áàíàëüíîñòåé: «Íàøè “ìàòåðèàëüíûå” àïðèîðíûå ïðîïîçèöèè ÿâëÿþòñÿ â äåéñòâèòåëüíîñòè êîíöåïòóàëüíûìè ïî ñâîåé ïðèðîäå, èõ äîñòîâåðíîñòü – ýòî ëîãè÷åñêàÿ äîñòîâåðíîñòü, è ó íèõ òàâòîëîãè÷åñêèé, ôîðìàëüíûé õàðàêòåð» [Schlick, 1979b: 168]. Îäíàêî àíàëîãè÷íûì îáðàçîì ïåðåñìîòðó ïîäëåæàò òàêæå ïîíÿòèÿ îïûòà è àïîñòåðèîðè. Îòïðàâíîé òî÷êîé îïÿòü æå ñëóæàò îïðåäåëåíèÿ, ïðåäëîæåííûå Êàíòîì. Êàíòîâñêàÿ ïîçèöèÿ, ñîãëàñíî êîòîðîé ëþáîå ïîçíàíèå íà÷èíàåòñÿ ñ îïûòà, à çíà÷èò, áåç îïûòà íåâîçìîæåí ñàì ïîçíàâàòåëüíûé ïðîöåññ, çäåñü âûõîäèò íà ïåðâûé ïëàí. Õðîíîëîãè÷åñêîå ïåðâåíñòâî îïûòà äëÿ ïîçíàâàòåëüíîãî ïðîöåññà, òàêèì îáðàçîì, îáåñïå÷èâàåò åìó ïðèîðèòåòíûé ýïèñòåìîëîãè÷åñêèé ñòàòóñ. Ðàçëè÷èå ìåæäó àïðèîðíûì çíàíèåì è àïîñòåðèîðíûì ñâîäèòñÿ ê ðàçëè÷èþ ìåæäó ñïîñîáàìè îáîñíîâàíèÿ äàííûõ âèäîâ çíàíèÿ: «Áåç îïûòà íå ìîæåò áûòü, î÷åâèäíî, íèêàêîãî çíàíèÿ âîîáùå. Íî çíàíèÿ íåêîòîðîãî ðîäà ïîäòâåðæäàþòñÿ îïûòîì èíà÷å, ÷åì äðóãèå… Â øèðîêîì ñìûñëå ñëîâà “îïûò” âñå, ÷òî ìû çíàåì, îñíîâûâà2 Òàêàÿ èíòåðïðåòàöèÿ êàíòîâñêîãî ïîíÿòèÿ a priori èñòîðè÷åñêè íåâåðíà. Ïîä ñèíòåòè÷íîñòüþ àïðèîðíûõ ñóæäåíèé Êàíò ïîíèìàë âûõîä çà ïðåäåëû ïîíÿòèÿ, à íå íàëè÷èå êîíêðåòíîãî ôàêòóàëüíîãî ñîäåðæàíèÿ ó òîãî èëè èíîãî àïðèîðíîãî ñóæäåíèÿ.  òî æå âðåìÿ ýìïèðè÷åñêèå ïîíÿòèÿ ìîãóò áûòü ÷àñòüþ àïðèîðíûõ ñóæäåíèé.  òàêîì ñëó÷àå àïðèîðíîå ñóæäåíèå ñòàíîâèòñÿ «íå÷èñòûì» â îòëè÷èå îò «÷èñòîãî», â êîòîðîì âñå âõîäÿùèå â íåãî ïîíÿòèÿ ñàìè àïðèîðíû.

85

Ò.Ä. ÑÎÊÎËÎÂÀ

åòñÿ íà îïûòå. Ãëàâíîå, îäíàêî, ñîñòîèò â òîì, ÷òî äëÿ îáîñíîâàíèÿ èñòèííîñòè àíàëèòè÷åñêèõ óòâåðæäåíèé íèêîãäà íå òðåáóåòñÿ îáðàùàòüñÿ ê îïûòó… Èñòèííîñòü àíàëèòè÷åñêîãî óòâåðæäåíèÿ âûòåêàåò èç çíà÷åíèé åãî òåðìèíîâ áåç âñÿêîé ññûëêè íà êàêîå-ëèáî èññëåäîâàíèå ìèðà» [Êàðíàï, 2008: 242–243]. Îäíàêî çäåñü ñòîèò âñïîìíèòü î çàòðóäíåíèè â èñïîëüçîâàíèè òåðìèíà «îïûò» êàê ó Êàíòà, òàê è ó ïîñëåäóþùèõ ôèëîñîôîâ, êàñàþùèõñÿ äàííîé òåìû.  îòëè÷èå îò íåïîñðåäñòâåííûõ ÷óâñòâåííûõ äàííûõ, êîòîðûå ïðåäñòàâëÿþò ñîáîé íåóïîðÿäî÷åííûå ýìïèðè÷åñêèå îùóùåíèÿ, îïûò ïîäðàçóìåâàåò óïîðÿäî÷åííîñòü â ñîîòâåòñòâèè ñ îïðåäåëåííûìè êðèòåðèÿìè, êîòîðûå â ñâîþ î÷åðåäü îò ñîäåðæàíèÿ îïûòà íå çàâèñÿò. Äàæå åñëè äàííûå êðèòåðèè áûëè âûÿâëåíû è ñôîðìóëèðîâàíû óæå ïîñëå òîãî, êàê òîò èëè èíîé îïûò èìåë ìåñòî, â ãåíåòè÷åñêîì îòíîøåíèè îò ýìïèðè÷åñêîãî ìàòåðèàëà îíè çàâèñåòü íå ìîãóò.  òî æå âðåìÿ îïûò ïðè èçìåíåíèè äàííûõ àïðèîðíûõ êðèòåðèåâ ìîã áû íîñèòü ñîâåðøåííî èíîé õàðàêòåð. Íà íàø âçãëÿä, èìåííî èãíîðèðîâàíèå àïðèîðíîãî ýëåìåíòà â îïûòå ïðèâîäèò ê ñâåäåíèþ àïðèîðíîñòè ê àíàëèòè÷íîñòè, ò.å. âîçâðàòó ê òîé ïîçèöèè, êîòîðóþ êðèòèêîâàë Êàíò, âûäâèãàÿ êîíöåïöèþ ñèíòåòè÷åñêèõ a priori: «Àïîñòåðèîðíûå óòâåðæäåíèÿ íå ìîãóò áûòü îáîñíîâàíû áåç îáðàùåíèÿ ê îïûòó… Ãðóáî ãîâîðÿ, àïîñòåðèîðíîå çíàíèå â íàñòîÿùåå âðåìÿ ñòîèëî áû íàçâàòü ýìïèðè÷åñêèì çíàíèåì» [Êàðíàï, 2008: 243]. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, àïîñòåðèîðíîå çíàíèå îòîæäåñòâëÿåòñÿ ñî çíàíèåì ñèíòåòè÷åñêèì è ýìïèðè÷åñêèì, äëÿ îáîñíîâàíèÿ êîòîðîãî â ðàìêàõ ëîãè÷åñêîãî ýìïèðèçìà òðåáóåòñÿ âåðèôèêàöèÿ. Èç ýòîãî âûòåêàåò, ÷òî ãðàíèöà ìåæäó àïðèîðíûì è àïîñòåðèîðíûì ñîâïàäàåò ñ ãðàíèöåé ìåæäó àíàëèòè÷åñêèì è ñèíòåòè÷åñêèì. Ëþáîå ñèíòåòè÷åñêîå çíàíèå áóäåò ÿâëÿòüñÿ çíàíèåì àïîñòåðèîðíûì, òàê êàê îíî «÷òî-òî ãîâîðèò î ìèðå» [Êàðíàï, 2008: 244]. Ïðè òàêîì ïåðåîïðåäåëåíèè ïîíÿòèé àïðèîðíîãî è àïîñòåðèîðíîãî (à âìåñòå ñ íèìè è ïîíÿòèé àíàëèòè÷åñêîãî è ñèíòåòè÷åñêîãî) àïðèîðíûå ñóæäåíèÿ ïî ñóòè ïåðåñòàþò áûòü çíàíèåì â ñòðîãîì ñìûñëå ñëîâà, èõ ðîëü â ëó÷øåì ñëó÷àå ñâîäèòñÿ ê èíñòðóìåíòàëüíîé. Ñèíòåòè÷åñêèå àïðèîðíûå ñóæäåíèÿ, êîòîðûå, ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, îáëàäàþò ëîãè÷åñêîé íåîáõîäèìîñòüþ è óíèâåðñàëüíîñòüþ, à ñ äðóãîé – ÿâëÿþòñÿ èñòî÷íèêîì íîâûõ çíàíèé î ìèðå, îáúÿâëÿþòñÿ íåâîçìîæíûìè. Ïðè ýòîì ïîä çíàíèÿìè î ìèðå èëè ôàêòóàëüíûì ñîäåðæàíèåì âûñêàçûâàíèÿ ïîäðàçóìåâàþòñÿ ýìïèðè÷åñêèå äàííûå è ôàêòû. Ìàòåìàòè÷åñêèå ìîäåëè, ðàâíî êàê è äðóãèå âèäû íàó÷íûõ êëàññèôèêàöèé, íå îáëàäàÿ ýìïèðè÷åñêèì ñîäåðæàíèåì, íå ìîãóò íàçûâàòüñÿ çíàíèåì. Îíè ÿâëÿþòñÿ âñåãî-íàâñåãî ôîðìîé, â êîòîðóþ óêëàäûâàåòñÿ ýìïèðè÷åñêîå ñîäåðæàíèå, è íå ïðåäñòàâëÿþò ñàìîñòîÿòåëüíîé ýïèñòåìè÷åñêîé öåííîñòè.

86

ÏÎÍßÒÈÅ À PRIORI  ÔÈËÎÑÎÔÈÈ ËÎÃÈ×ÅÑÊÎÃÎ ÝÌÏÈÐÈÇÌÀ…

Íåîáõîäèìîñòü è óíèâåðñàëüíîñòü, êîòîðûå ÿâëÿþòñÿ ñâîéñòâàìè àíàëèòè÷åñêèõ, à çíà÷èò, è àïðèîðíûõ èñòèí, íåïðèìåíèìû ê îïûòíûì ñóæäåíèÿì, îáëàäàþùèì ôàêòóàëüíûì ñîäåðæàíèåì è óêàçûâàþùèì íà äåéñòâèòåëüíîñòü. Îïûò, íåñìîòðÿ íà òî ÷òî îí îãðàíè÷åí íàøèìè ïîçíàâàòåëüíûìè ñïîñîáíîñòÿìè, ïîòåíöèàëüíî áåçãðàíè÷åí â êîëè÷åñòâåííîì îòíîøåíèè. Âûñêàçûâàíèå «âñå ëåáåäè áåëû» ôàëüñèôèöèðóåòñÿ îáíàðóæåíèåì ÷åðíûõ ëåáåäåé. Àíàëîãè÷íûì îáðàçîì ëþáîå âûñêàçûâàíèå, â êîòîðîì èìååò ìåñòî îòñûëêà ê ýìïèðè÷åñêèì îáúåêòàì, íàñêîëüêî áû îáùèì îíî íè áûëî (íàïðèìåð, áàçîâûå çàêîíû íüþòîíîâñêîé ìåõàíèêè), íå ìîæåò ïðåòåíäîâàòü íà íåîáõîäèìîñòü è óíèâåðñàëüíîñòü, ïîäîáíî ëîãè÷åñêèì èëè ìàòåìàòè÷åñêèì çàêîíàì3. Òàêîãî ðîäà âçãëÿä íà ãðàíèöó ìåæäó àïðèîðíûì è àïîñòåðèîðíûì ïðèâåë ê òîìó, ÷òî ñôåðà àïðèîðíîãî âñå áîëüøå è áîëüøå ñóæàåòñÿ, îñòàâàÿñü â çàëîæíèêàõ ó ñâîèõ æå áàçîâûõ ñâîéñòâ – íåîáõîäèìîñòè è óíèâåðñàëüíîñòè. Åñëè òî èëè èíîå ïðåäëîæåíèå íåâîçìîæíî ýìïèðè÷åñêè âåðèôèöèðîâàòü, çíà÷èò, åãî ñîäåðæàíèå ïóñòî, ò.å. íå ÿâëÿåòñÿ çíàíèåì. Áîëåå òîãî, îíî íå ìîæåò áûòü èñòèííûì èëè ëîæíûì â òîì æå ñìûñëå, â êîòîðîì èñòèííûìè èëè ëîæíûìè ìîãóò áûòü âûñêàçûâàíèÿ, îáëàäàþùèå ýìïèðè÷åñêèì ñîäåðæàíèåì: «Ýìïèðèê äîëæåí èìåòü äåëî ñ èñòèíàìè ëîãèêè è ìàòåìàòèêè îäíèì èç äâóõ ñëåäóþùèõ ñïîñîáîâ: ëèáî îí äîëæåí ñêàçàòü, ÷òî îíè íå ÿâëÿþòñÿ íåîáõîäèìûìè èñòèíàìè, è â ýòîì ñëó÷àå îí äîëæåí îáúÿñíèòü óíèâåðñàëüíîå óáåæäåíèå â òîì, ÷òî îíè íåîáõîäèìî èñòèííû; ëèáî îí äîëæåí ñêàçàòü, ÷òî îíè íå èìåþò ôàêòóàëüíîãî ñîäåðæàíèÿ, è òîãäà îí äîëæåí îáúÿñíèòü, êàêèì îáðàçîì ïðîïîçèöèÿ, ëèøåííàÿ âñÿêîãî ôàêòóàëüíîãî ñîäåðæàíèÿ, ìîæåò áûòü èñòèííîé, ïîëåçíîé è íåîæèäàííîé. Åñëè íè îäíî èç ýòèõ íàïðàâëåíèé íå áóäåò óäîâëåòâîðèòåëüíî äîêàçàíî, òî ìû áóäåì âûíóæäåíû óñòóïèòü äîðîãó ðàöèîíàëèçìó» [Àéåð, 2010: 104]. Ïîñòàâëåííàÿ òàêèì îáðàçîì ñòðîãàÿ àëüòåðíàòèâà â èíòåðïðåòàöèè ëîãè÷åñêèõ è ìàòåìàòè÷åñêèõ âûñêàçûâàíèé âåäåò, ïî ìíåíèþ ëîãè÷åñêèõ ýìïèðèñòîâ, ê îòêàçó îò êîíöåïöèè ñèíòåòè÷åñêîãî a priori, à âìåñòå ñ íèì è ê îòêàçó îò ðàöèîíàëèçìà â ïîëüçó ýìïèðèçìà. Ïðè ýòîì íåòðóäíî çàìåòèòü, ÷òî ñ èñòîðè÷åñêîé òî÷êè çðåíèÿ çäåñü ïðèñóòñòâóåò ÿâíîå ïåðåäåðãèâàíèå: â òî âðåìÿ êàê ôèëîñîôû Íîâîãî âðåìåíè ñòðåìèëèñü ê òîìó, ÷òîáû íàéòè ñâÿçóþùåå çâåíî ìåæäó ðàçóìîì, ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, è îïûòîì (êàê áû îí íå îïðåäåëÿëñÿ) – ñ äðóãîé, â ðàìêàõ ëîãè÷åñêîãî ýìïèðèçìà ðàçðûâ ýìïèðè÷åñêîãî è ðàöèîíàëüíîãî â ïðîöåññå ïîçíàíèÿ, íàïðîòèâ, òîëüêî óâåëè÷èâàëñÿ. 3 Òàêàÿ èíòåðïðåòàöèÿ ðàçäåëåíèÿ íà àïðèîðíîå è àïîñòåðèîðíîå ñóùåñòâåííî îòëè÷àåòñÿ îò êëàññè÷åñêîé, ïðåäëîæåííîé Êàíòîì, ñîãëàñíî êîòîðîé óíèâåðñàëüíûå çàêîíû ôèçèêè, íåñìîòðÿ íà èõ ÷àñòè÷íîå ôàêòóàëüíîå ñîäåðæàíèå, âñå æå îáëàäàþò ñâîéñòâàìè íåîáõîäèìîñòè è óíèâåðñàëüíîñòè è ïîýòîìó ðàññìàòðèâàþòñÿ â êà÷åñòâå àïðèîðíûõ êîíñòðóêöèé, óïîðÿäî÷èâàþùèõ ýìïèðè÷åñêèå äàííûå.

87

Ò.Ä. ÑÎÊÎËÎÂÀ

Òàêîå ïîíèìàíèå àïðèîðíûõ ñóæäåíèé âïîëíå óäîâëåòâîðÿåò öåëÿì, êîòîðûå ñòàâèëè ïåðåä ñîáîé ïðåäñòàâèòåëè ëîãè÷åñêîãî ýìïèðèçìà äëÿ îáîñíîâàíèÿ ñâîåé ïðîãðàììû â ðàìêàõ ýïèñòåìîëîãèè è ôèëîñîôèè íàóêè. Îäíàêî çàäà÷è êàíòîâñêîãî ïðîåêòà áûëè ãîðàçäî áîëåå ìàñøòàáíûìè. Óòâåðæäåíèå, ÷òî â ðàìêàõ ëîãè÷åñêîãî ýìïèðèçìà ïîä íàóêîé ïîíèìàëîñü ïðåæäå âñåãî åñòåñòâåííî-íàó÷íîå çíàíèå, à ãóìàíèòàðíûå íàóêè ïðàêòè÷åñêè íå ðàññìàòðèâàëèñü, âðÿä ëè áóäåò áîëüøèì ïðåóâåëè÷åíèåì.  îòíîøåíèè òåîðèè ïîçíàíèÿ Êàíòà ìîæíî îòìåòèòü, ÷òî åãî ïðîãðàììà êàñàëàñü íå òîëüêî åñòåñòâåííûõ íàóê. Èìåííî ïîýòîìó Êàíò ãîâîðèò î âîçìîæíîñòè àïðèîðíûõ ïîíÿòèé (à íå òîëüêî ñóæäåíèé), à òàêæå ðàçäåëÿåò àïðèîðíûå ñóæäåíèÿ íà ÷èñòûå è íå÷èñòûå. Òàêîãî ðîäà ðàçäåëåíèå äàåò Êàíòó âîçìîæíîñòü ïðîáëåìàòèçèðîâàòü ñàì ãåíåçèñ ïîíÿòèé. Åñëè ïîñòàâèòü âîïðîñ î òîì, êàêèì îáðàçîì âõîäÿùåå â ñîñòàâ ïðîïîçèöèè (èëè ñóæäåíèÿ) ïîíÿòèå ïîëó÷èëî ñâîå îïðåäåëåíèå, õàðàêòåðèñòèêà, äàííàÿ ëîãè÷åñêèì ïîçèòèâèñòàìè àíàëèòè÷íîñòè, à âìåñòå ñ òåì è àïðèîðíîñòè, âî ìíîãîì òåðÿåò ñâîé ñòðîãèé ôîðìàëüíûé õàðàêòåð.  òî æå âðåìÿ íåëüçÿ íå óâèäåòü óãðîçó äëÿ ïîíÿòèÿ a priori â åãî ñâåäåíèè ê àíàëèòè÷íîñòè: ñòàâÿ ïîä ñîìíåíèå ïîíÿòèå àíàëèòè÷íîñòè è ïðèçíàâàÿ åãî íåñîñòîÿòåëüíîñòü, èññëåäîâàòåëü âìåñòå ñ òåì òåðÿåò è ïîíÿòèå a priori. Äëÿ ýìïèðèçìà â öåëîì è äëÿ íàòóðàëèçìà â ÷àñòíîñòè ýòî íåáîëüøàÿ ïîòåðÿ, îäíàêî òàêàÿ êðèòèêà íàïðÿìóþ óãðîæàåò ïðåäñòàâèòåëÿì ðàöèîíàëèñòè÷åñêè îðèåíòèðîâàííîé ýïèñòåìîëîãèè (â ñìûñëå Ó. Êóàéíà). Ýòè âîïðîñû, â ÷àñòíîñòè, íàøëè îòðàæåíèå â êîíöåïöèè a priori Àðòóðà Ïàïà, îòîøåäøåãî îò óçêîãî ïîíèìàíèÿ àïðèîðíîñòè êàê àíàëèòè÷íîñòè, à òàêæå â êðèòèêå Óèëëàðäîì Êóàéíîì ïîíÿòèÿ àíàëèòè÷íîñòè.

Пап и три вида a priori  ñâîèõ ðàáîòàõ Ïàï êðèòè÷åñêè àíàëèçèðóåò óñòîÿâøèåñÿ â ðàìêàõ ëîãè÷åñêîãî ýìïèðèçìà îïðåäåëåíèÿ àïðèîðíîñòè, íåîáõîäèìîñòè è àíàëèòè÷íîñòè.  ãëîññàðèè ê îäíîé èç ñâîèõ ñàìûõ èçâåñòíûõ ðàáîò «Ñåìàíòèêà è íåîáõîäèìàÿ èñòèíà» (ïåðâîå èçäàíèå – 1958) îí äàåò ñëåäóþùåå îïðåäåëåíèå àïðèîðíûì ñóæäåíèÿì: «Ñóæäåíèå, âûðàæåííîå âûñêàçûâàíèåì, ÿâëÿþùèìñÿ àíàëèòè÷åñêèì â øèðîêîì ñìûñëå [âûñêàçûâàíèå, èñòèííîñòü êîòîðîãî îïðåäåëÿåòñÿ çíà÷åíèÿìè ñîñòàâëÿþùèõ åãî òåðìèíîâ]; åãî èñòèííîñòü ìîæåò áûòü óñòàíîâëåíà áåç îïûòíîãî èçó÷åíèÿ ïîäòâåðæäàþùèõ ïðèìåðîâ, èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî ïóòåì ðàçìûøëåíèé íàä äàííûì ñóæäåíèåì» [Ïàï, 2002: 384]. Ïàï ïîëàãàåò, ÷òî èìåííî òàêîå îïðåäåëåíèå a priori ÿâëÿåòñÿ áàçîâûì äëÿ ëîãè÷åñêîãî ýìïèðèçìà.  äàííîì ñëó÷àå åãî îñíîâíîé çàäà÷åé áûëî ïðîäåìîíñòðèðîâàòü áàçîâûå ïîíÿòèÿ, îïðåäåëåíèÿ è ïðî-

88

ÏÎÍßÒÈÅ À PRIORI  ÔÈËÎÑÎÔÈÈ ËÎÃÈ×ÅÑÊÎÃÎ ÝÌÏÈÐÈÇÌÀ…

áëåìû â ðàìêàõ ôèëîñîôèè ëîãè÷åñêîãî ïîçèòèâèçìà. Îäíàêî åãî ñîáñòâåííîå ïîíèìàíèå a priori íåñêîëüêî øèðå.  ñâîåé áîëåå ðàííåé ðàáîòå Ïàï âûäåëÿåò òðè âèäà a priori, êîòîðûå îïðåäåëÿþòñÿ â çàâèñèìîñòè îò òèïà íåîáõîäèìîñòè, ëåæàùåé â èõ îáîñíîâàíèè. Ïðè ýòîì âñå òðè òèïà èìåþò ìåñòî â ïðîöåññå ïîçíàíèÿ: (1) Ôîðìàëüíîå (àíàëèòè÷åñêîå) a priori. Ñþäà îòíîñÿòñÿ âñå òàâòîëîãèè, ò.å. àíàëèòè÷åñêèå ñóæäåíèÿ. Òàêîå ïîíèìàíèå a priori íàèáîëåå áëèçêî ê òîìó, ÷òî ïîíèìàëè ïîä àïðèîðíûì ëîãè÷åñêèå ïîçèòèâèñòû. Îäíàêî, êàê ñïðàâåäëèâî çàìå÷àåò Ïàï, îíî ÿâëÿåòñÿ íåäîñòàòî÷íûì, òàê êàê íå ïðîÿñíÿåò îáîñíîâàíèå ñàìèõ ëîãè÷åñêèõ ïðèíöèïîâ, â îòíîøåíèè êîòîðûõ òàâòîëîãèÿ ÿâëÿåòñÿ òàâòîëîãèåé. Êðèòèêóÿ îïðåäåëåíèå a priori Øëèêà, Ïàï ïèøåò: «Âàæíî îòìåòèòü, ÷òî ïîíÿòèÿ “íå ñóùåñòâóþò” êàê íå÷òî ïåðâè÷íîå ïî îòíîøåíèþ ê ñóæäåíèÿì, êîòîðûå èõ êîíñòðóèðóþò è îïðåäåëÿþò. Àêñèîìû íå àíàëèçèðóþò çíà÷åíèå ñèìâîëîâ; îíè ñêîðåå ñîçäàþò çíà÷åíèÿ èëè ïîíÿòèÿ, è êîãäà ýòî òâîðåíèå, ýòîò “ñèíòåç” ïîëó÷åí, ñèìâîë ìîæåò áûòü ïðèêðåïëåí ê ýòèì ïîíÿòèéíûì ñîçäàíèÿì; è òîëüêî òîãäà ìîæíî ñêàçàòü, ÷òî àêñèîìû “ïðîñòî” îïðåäåëÿþò çíà÷åíèå ýòèõ ñèìâîëîâ. Âñå çàáûâàþò, ÷òî àíàëèç ïðåäïîëàãàåò ñèíòåç» [Pap, 1944: 474]. Ïîýòîìó ôîðìàëüíûå a priori ìîãóò ðàññìàòðèâàòüñÿ êàê ÷àñòíûé ñëó÷àé äðóãèõ òèïîâ a priori.  ðàìêàõ êàíòîâñêîé ôèëîñîôèè èìåííî èç ôîðìàëüíûõ a priori â ñèëó èõ ëîãè÷åñêîé íåîáõîäèìîñòè (óäîâëåòâîðåíèÿ çàêîíó íåïðîòèâîðå÷èÿ) âûòåêàåò èõ óíèâåðñàëüíîñòü.  ñëó÷àå ñ äðóãèìè òèïàìè a priori íåîáõîäèìîñòü è óíèâåðñàëüíîñòü íå ñîâïàäàþò [Pap, 1943à: 505–514]. (2) Ôóíêöèîíàëüíîå (ãèïîòåòè÷åñêîå) a priori4. Ê òàêîìó âèäó a priori îòíîñÿòñÿ, íàïðèìåð, ôèçè÷åñêèå çàêîíû. Îíè ÿâëÿþòñÿ ñèíòåòè÷åñêèìè, òàê êàê â èõ îñíîâå ëåæèò ýìïèðè÷åñêèé ìàòåðèàë, îäíàêî ôóíêöèîíàëüíî îíè àïðèîðíû, òàê êàê äåëàþò îïûò âîçìîæíûì.  òî æå âðåìÿ îíè ïðåäñòàâëÿþò ñîáîé áàçîâûå ïðåäïîñûëêè, êîòîðûå äåëàþò âîçìîæíûì íàó÷íîå ïîçíàíèå. Ê òàêèì ïðåäïîñûëêàì, â ÷àñòíîñòè, ìîæíî îòíåñòè òåçèñ î ñóùåñòâîâàíèè âíåøíåãî ìèðà êàê íåçàâèñèìîé è äîñòóïíîé äëÿ ïîçíàíèÿ ðåàëüíîñòè, ò.å. òåçèñ, êîòîðûé ðàçäåëÿëè è ïðîäîëæàþò ðàçäåëÿòü ýìïèðèñòû. Áîëåå òî÷íî ôóíêöèîíàëüíîå a priori Ïàï îïðåäåëÿåò êàê «ãèïîòåòè÷åñêè íåîáõîäèìàÿ èñõîäíàÿ ïðåäïîñûëêà» [Pap, 1944: 479].  ðàìêàõ íàó÷íîãî ïîçíàíèÿ òàêîãî ðîäà ïðèíöèïû èãðàþò ïåðâîñòåïåííóþ ðîëü, ÿâëÿÿñü óñëîâèåì âîçìîæíîñòè ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ íàó÷íîãî çíàíèÿ êàê òàêîâîãî: «Ýòî íàèáîëåå îáùèå çàêîíû, êîòîðûå ïðè âñåõ îáñòîÿòåëüñòâàõ ïðèíèìàþòñÿ â êà÷åñòâå ìåòîäîëîãè÷åñêèõ ïîñòóëàòîâ èëè âåäóùèõ ïðèíöè4 Òåîðèþ ôóíêöèîíàëüíîãî a priori Àðòóðà Ïàïà ìîæíî ðàññìàòðèâàòü â êà÷åñòâå âàðèàíòà òåîðèè ïðàãìàòè÷åñêîãî a priori [Stump, 2011].

89

Ò.Ä. ÑÎÊÎËÎÂÀ

ïîâ, òàê êàê ñàìà âîçìîæíîñòü íàóêè çàâèñèò îò èõ äîñòîâåðíîñòè» [Pap, 1944: 482]. Âàæíîñòü äàííîãî òèïà àïðèîðíûõ ïîëîæåíèé çàêëþ÷àåòñÿ â òîì, ÷òî îíè ïî ñóòè ÿâëÿþòñÿ íîðìàòèâíûìè ïðèíöèïàìè, â îòíîøåíèè êîòîðûõ ñòðîèòñÿ ïðîöåññ ïîçíàíèÿ.  îòëè÷èå îò ôîðìàëüíîãî a priori èõ íåîáõîäèìîñòü íå íîñèò ëîãè÷åñêèé õàðàêòåð, îíà óñòàíàâëèâàåòñÿ ïðàãìàòè÷åñêè – åå ìåðîé ïðèìåíèìîñòè òàêîãî ðîäà ïðèíöèïîâ ñëóæèò èõ ïîëåçíîñòü, èëè ïðîäóêòèâíîñòü, äëÿ ïîçíàâàòåëüíîãî ïðîöåññà5. (3) Ìàòåðèàëüíîå (ïñèõîëîãè÷åñêîå, ñàìîî÷åâèäíîå) a priori. Ê ýòîé ãðóïïå Ïàï òàêæå îòíîñèò ñèíòåòè÷åñêèå àïðèîðíûå ñóæäåíèÿ, êîòîðûå ìîæíî ðàññìàòðèâàòü â êà÷åñòâå ñàìîî÷åâèäíûõ. Íàëè÷èå ìàòåðèàëüíûõ a priori óæå ïðåäïîëàãàåòñÿ âîçìîæíîñòüþ ôîðìàëüíûõ a priori, ò.å. òàâòîëîãèé, è îáîñíîâàíèåì èõ èñòèííîñòè. Ïðè ýòîì äàæå â ñëó÷àå èõ èíòåðïðåòàöèè â êà÷åñòâå êîíâåíöèé, à íå ïñèõîëîãè÷åñêèõ îñîáåííîñòåé ÷åëîâå÷åñêîãî ðàçóìà èëè çàêîíîâ ìûøëåíèÿ, èõ îáîñíîâàííîñòü íå ïðîèãðûâàåò: «Ïî÷åìó ïîëüçà è èñòèíû a priori íå ìîãóò áûòü ñîâìåñòèìû? Ïðèíöèïû ëîãèêè ÿâëÿþòñÿ ïîëåçíûìè êîíâåíöèÿìè íå âîïðåêè, à áëàãîäàðÿ èõ àïðèîðíîé èñòèííîñòè» [Pap, 1944: 475]. Åùå îäíîé õàðàêòåðíîé îñîáåííîñòüþ ìàòåðèàëüíûõ a priori ñòàíîâèòñÿ òî, ÷òî îíè íå ÿâëÿþòñÿ íè ñèíòåòè÷åñêèìè (êàê ôóíêöèîíàëüíûå a priori), íè àíàëèòè÷åñêèìè (êàê ôîðìàëüíûå). Ïî ìíåíèþ Ïàïà, îñíîâíàÿ îøèáêà Êàíòà çàêëþ÷àëàñü â òîì, ÷òî îí íå ðàçëè÷àë ôîðìàëüíîå è ìàòåðèàëüíîå a priori, ïðè ýòîì âñå æå âûäåëÿÿ ôóíêöèîíàëüíîå, âñëåäñòâèå ÷åãî êëàññè÷åñêèé àïðèîðèçì ñòàë óÿçâèì äëÿ êðèòèêè ëîãè÷åñêèì ïîçèòèâèçìîì. Íà íàø âçãëÿä, îäíèì èç âàæíûõ âûâîäîâ Ïàïà â îòíîøåíèè ïîíÿòèÿ a priori ñòàíîâèòñÿ òî, ÷òî îí â îòëè÷èå îò áîëüøèíñòâà ñâîèõ êîëëåã îòêàçûâàåòñÿ ñâîäèòü àïðèîðíîå ê àíàëèòè÷åñêîìó [Pap, 1950; 1957]. Ïàï ïûòàåòñÿ èçáåæàòü óçêîãî ðàññìîòðåíèÿ a priori, ïðåäëîæåííîãî ëîãè÷åñêèìè ïîçèòèâèñòàìè, ðåàáèëèòèðóÿ ïîíÿòèå ñèíòåòè÷åñêîãî a priori.  ýòîì îí îïèðàåòñÿ, ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, íà ïðàãìàòèçì Ê.È. Ëüþèñà è Äæ. Äüþè, ñ äðóãîé – íà êîíâåíöèîíàëèçì À. Ïóàíêàðå. Ìîæíî ñêàçàòü, ÷òî Ïàï ïðåäëàãàåò àëüòåðíàòèâó ëîãè÷åñêîìó ïîçèòèâèçìó, ïðè÷åì íå òîëüêî äëÿ ðàññìîòðåíèÿ ïîíÿòèÿ a priori, íî è äëÿ ýïèñòåìîëîãèè è ôèëîñîôèè íàóêè â öåëîì. Îäíàêî ïðåäëîæåííàÿ êëàññèôèêàöèÿ àïðèîðíûõ ñóæäåíèé íå ÿâëÿåòñÿ æåñòêîé. Àïðèîðíûå èñòèíû ìîãóò «ïåðåõîäèòü» èç îäíîé êàòåãîðèè â äðóãóþ.  òî æå âðåìÿ àïðèîðíûå èñòèíû ÷óâñòâèòåëüíû 5 Îíà íå ñâîäèòñÿ ê ôîðìàëüíîé (ëîãè÷åñêîé) íåîáõîäèìîñòè, íî è íå ÿâëÿåòñÿ ñëó÷àéíûì âûáîðîì: «Ãèïîòåòè÷åñêàÿ íåîáõîäèìîñòü åñòü è áûëà ñâÿçóþùèì çâåíîì ìåæäó ýìïèðè÷åñêîé ñëó÷àéíîñòüþ è ëîãè÷åñêîé íåîáõîäèìîñòüþ. È ýìïèðèêàì, è ðàöèîíàëèñòàì íå óäàëîñü ïîíÿòü âñåé âàæíîñòè âçàèìîäåéñòâèÿ ýìïèðè÷åñêîãî è ôîðìàëüíîãî çíàíèÿ». [Pap, 1943b: 458].

90

ÏÎÍßÒÈÅ À PRIORI  ÔÈËÎÑÎÔÈÈ ËÎÃÈ×ÅÑÊÎÃÎ ÝÌÏÈÐÈÇÌÀ…

ê êîíòåêñòó èññëåäîâàíèÿ: îäíî è òî æå ñóæäåíèå ìîæåò ðàññìàòðèâàòüñÿ è êàê ôîðìàëüíîå, è êàê ìàòåðèàëüíîå a priori.  îòíîøåíèè ôóíêöèîíàëüíûõ a priori ñèòóàöèÿ óñëîæíÿåòñÿ: îíè ìîãóò ðàññìàòðèâàòüñÿ îïÿòü æå â çàâèñèìîñòè îò êîíòåêñòà è êàê ýìïèðè÷åñêèå, è êàê àïðèîðíûå ñóæäåíèÿ. Ýòî ïîçâîëÿåò Ïàïó îòêàçàòüñÿ îò ÷åòêîãî ðàçäåëåíèÿ ñóæäåíèé íà àíàëèòè÷åñêèå è ñèíòåòè÷åñêèå, ïðèñóùåãî íåîêàíòèàíñòâó è ëîãè÷åñêîìó ïîçèòèâèçìó, ò.å. ïî ñóòè îòêàçàòüñÿ îò äîãìû, ïðè÷åì íå òîëüêî ýìïèðèçìà, íî è ðàöèîíàëèçìà: «×àñòî óêàçûâàëîñü, ÷òî Êàíò îïðåäåëÿë àíàëèòè÷åñêîå ñóæäåíèå êàê ñóæäåíèå, â êîòîðîì ïðåäèêàò (íåÿâíî) ñîäåðæèòñÿ â ïîíÿòèè ñóáúåêòà... à òàêîå îïðåäåëåíèå íåóäîâëåòâîðèòåëüíî íå òîëüêî ïîòîìó, ÷òî íåïîíÿòíî áóêâàëüíîå çíà÷åíèå ìåòàôîðû “ñîäåðæèòñÿ”, íî òàêæå è ïîòîìó, ÷òî ñëèøêîì ìíîãî ñóæäåíèé (êàê â òðàäèöèîííîì, òàê è â ñîâðåìåííîì, ñåìàíòè÷åñêîì ñìûñëå) íå èìåþò ñóáúåêòíî-ïðåäèêàòíîé ôîðìû, õîòÿ ïî çàìûñëó Êàíòà àíàëèòè÷åñêèå è ñèíòåòè÷åñêèå ñóæäåíèÿ äîëæíû èñ÷åðïûâàòü êëàññ èñòèííûõ ñóæäåíèé» [Ïàï, 2002: 38]. Óòâåðæäåíèå, ÷òî äëÿ àïðèîðèçìà íå ÿâëÿåòñÿ íåîáõîäèìûì ÷åòêîå è æåñòêîå ðàçäåëåíèå âñåõ ñóæäåíèé íà àíàëèòè÷åñêèå è ñèíòåòè÷åñêèå, òàê êàê ïîäîáíîå ðàçäåëåíèå åñëè è âîçìîæíî, òî ïî êðàéíåé ìåðå âåñüìà ïðîáëåìàòè÷íî, – äîâîëüíî ñèëüíûé òåçèñ, íàïðàâëåííûé ïðîòèâ áàçîâûõ ïðèíöèïîâ ëîãè÷åñêîãî ýìïèðèçìà. Ïàï ñòàâèò ïîä ñîìíåíèå íîâûå îïðåäåëåíèÿ, äàííûå ïîíÿòèÿì «àíàëèòè÷åñêîå» è «ñèíòåòè÷åñêîå» â ðàìêàõ ëîãè÷åñêîãî ïîçèòèâèçìà, íàñòàèâàÿ íà òîì, ÷òî èõ íîâîå ïîíèìàíèå íå ñîîòâåòñòâóåò íè êàíòîâñêîìó ïðîåêòó îáîñíîâàíèÿ íàó÷íîãî ïîçíàíèÿ, íè ôàêòè÷åñêîìó ðàçâèòèþ íàóêè: «Íåêîòîðûå àâòîðû îïðåäåëÿþò ñèíòåòè÷åñêîå òàêèì íåçàâèñèìûì îò àíàëèòè÷åñêîãî ñïîñîáîì, êîòîðûé ïðåâðàùàåò åãî â ñèíîíèì ýìïèðè÷åñêîãî, è ÿñíî, ÷òî ïîäîáíîå óïîòðåáëåíèå äàííîãî òåðìèíà ïðèâîäèò ê ëîãè÷åñêîé íåâîçìîæíîñòè ñèíòåòè÷åñêèõ àïðèîðíûõ èñòèí. Íî íåëåïî îïðåäåëÿòü òðàäèöèîííûé òåðìèí òàê, ÷òî â ðåçóëüòàòå òðàäèöèîííûé âîïðîñ, ñôîðìóëèðîâàííûé ñ ïîìîùüþ ýòîãî òåðìèíà, ïðåâðàùàåòñÿ â áåññìûñëåííûé, à çàòåì îáúÿâëÿòü, ÷òî àíàëèç îáíàðóæèë áåññìûñëåííîñòü òðàäèöèîííîãî âîïðîñà» [Ïàï, 2002: 96]. Çäåñü âàæíî ïîìíèòü, ÷òî, íåñìîòðÿ íà âñþ êðèòèêó êàíòîâñêîé ýïèñòåìîëîãèè, ëîãè÷åñêèé ýìïèðèçì íàñëåäóåò ó íåå íå òîëüêî òåðìèíîëîãè÷åñêèé àïïàðàò, íî è ðÿä ïðîáëåì, ñâÿçàííûõ ñ îáîñíîâàíèåì íàó÷íîãî çíàíèÿ. Ïåðåîïðåäåëåíèå êëàññè÷åñêèõ ïîíÿòèé, íàïðàâëåííîå íà ðåøåíèå ïîñòàâëåííûõ â ðàìêàõ êàíòîâñêîãî ïðîåêòà ïðîáëåì, â äàííîì ñëó÷àå íå äîñòèãëî öåëè. Ðîëü àïðèîðíûõ ñèíòåòè÷åñêèõ ñóæäåíèé â ïðîöåññå îáîñíîâàíèÿ íàó÷íîãî ïîçíàíèÿ ó Êàíòà â òîì ÷èñëå çàêëþ÷àëàñü â èõ ïîòåíöèàëüíîé ïðîäóêòèâíîñòè, ñïîñîáíîñòè ñòàòü èñòî÷íèêîì íîâîãî çíàíèÿ, ò.å. âêëþ÷àëà â ñåáÿ è ïðàãìàòè÷åñêèé, è êîíñòðóêòèâíûé ýëåìåíòû. Ýòîò ìîìåíò èãíîðèðîâàëñÿ ëîãè÷åñêèìè ýìïèðèñòàìè ëèáî òðàêòîâàëñÿ èìè êàê ïîïûòêà íàâÿ-

91

Ò.Ä. ÑÎÊÎËÎÂÀ

çàòü ïðèðîäå çàêîíû, îáúÿñíèòü îêðóæàþùóþ äåéñòâèòåëüíîñòü, íå ïðèáåãàÿ ê íàáëþäåíèÿì è ýêñïåðèìåíòàì: «Èñòî÷íèêîì ìíåíèÿ, ÷òî ñèíòåòè÷åñêîå a priori âñå ðàâíî ÷òî êðóãëûé êâàäðàò, äîâîëüíî ïîïóëÿðíîãî ñðåäè ñîâðåìåííûõ àíàëèòè÷åñêèõ ôèëîñîôîâ, ÿâëÿåòñÿ, âåðîÿòíî, èçìåíåíèå çíà÷åíèÿ òåðìèíà àíàëèòè÷åñêèé îò ïåðâîíà÷àëüíîãî îãðàíè÷åííîãî ïîíèìàíèÿ, ïðèíÿòîãî Êàíòîì, ê áîëåå øèðîêîìó è íåòî÷íîìó ïîíèìàíèþ êàê èñòèííîãî â ñèëó îäíèõ òîëüêî çíà÷åíèé» [Ïàï, 2002: 97].  òî æå âðåìÿ îòêàç îò æåñòêîãî ðàçãðàíè÷åíèÿ ñóæäåíèé íà àíàëèòè÷åñêèå è ñèíòåòè÷åñêèå îñòàâëÿåò «ïðîñòðàíñòâî äëÿ ìàíåâðà» â îòíîøåíèè îïðåäåëåíèÿ a priori: ïîíÿòèå a priori òåðÿåò ñâîé àáñîëþòíûé ñòàòóñ, ñòàíîâÿñü áîëåå ãèáêèì è âîñïðèèì÷èâûì ê ïðàêòèêå íàó÷íîãî èññëåäîâàíèÿ. Îíî â áîëüøåé ñòåïåíè ñîîòâåòñòâóåò èçíà÷àëüíîé öåëè ïåðåñìîòðà êëàññè÷åñêîãî ïîíÿòèÿ a priori, íåæåëè êîíöåïöèÿ a priori â ðàìêàõ ëîãè÷åñêîãî ýìïèðèçìà. Âàæíîñòü ñîõðàíåíèÿ ïîíÿòèÿ a priori äëÿ Ïàïà îáóñëîâëåíà òåì, ÷òî îíî îáðàùàåò âíèìàíèå íà ñèíòåç ïîíÿòèé, ïîçâîëÿÿ ïîñòàâèòü ïîä ñîìíåíèå èõ ýïèñòåìîëîãè÷åñêèé (ðàâíî êàê è îíòîëîãè÷åñêèé) ñòàòóñ. Ñâåäåíèå àïðèîðíîãî ê àíàëèòè÷åñêîìó, ïî åãî ìíåíèþ, ñâèäåòåëüñòâóåò îá èãíîðèðîâàíèè òîãî ôàêòà, ÷òî çíà÷åíèå ïîíÿòèé ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé ñèíòåç, îñíîâàííûé íà òåõ èëè èíûõ ñóæäåíèÿõ, â òî âðåìÿ êàê â ðàìêàõ ëîãè÷åñêîãî ýìïèðèçìà ïîíÿòèå (â àíàëèòè÷åñêèõ ñóæäåíèÿõ) ðàññìàòðèâàåòñÿ êàê íå÷òî èçíà÷àëüíî äàííîå. Ó ôèëîñîôèè â äàííîì ñëó÷àå ñîõðàíÿåòñÿ êðèòè÷åñêàÿ ôóíêöèÿ ïî îòíîøåíèþ ê íàó÷íîé ìåòîäîëîãèè è ÿçûêó íàó÷íîãî èññëåäîâàíèÿ. Óæå Êàíò îáðàòèë âíèìàíèå ÷òî ñóùåñòâîâàíèå íå ÿâëÿåòñÿ ïðåäèêàòîì, ïîýòîìó 100 òàëåðîâ â êàðìàíå è âîîáðàæàåìûå 100 òàëåðîâ íè÷åì íå îòëè÷àþòñÿ äðóã îò äðóãà â ïîíÿòèè, íî îòëè÷àþòñÿ äëÿ èõ îáëàäàòåëÿ â ðåàëüíîñòè. Àíàëèç ïîíÿòèé ïîçâîëÿåò ïîñòàâèòü âîïðîñ î òîì, êàêèì îáðàçîì áëàãîäàðÿ âûáîðó ïîíÿòèéíîãî àïïàðàòà êîíñòðóèðóåòñÿ îáúåêò èññëåäîâàíèÿ è îïûò, à òàêæå âîïðîñ î âîçìîæíîñòè àëüòåðíàòèâíûõ ïîíÿòèé è êîíñòðóêöèé.

«Две догмы эмпиризма» – последняя точка в споре? Îòêàç îò ðàçäåëåíèÿ ñóæäåíèé íà àíàëèòè÷åñêèå è ñèíòåòè÷åñêèå ìîæåò èñïîëüçîâàòüñÿ íå òîëüêî â çàùèòó, íî è ïðîòèâ ïîíÿòèÿ a priori, ÷òî íàãëÿäíî ïðîäåìîíñòðèðîâàë Ó. Êóàéí.  «Äâå äîãìû ýìïèðèçìà» (1951) Êóàéí â êà÷åñòâå ïåðâîé è îñíîâíîé äîãìû, îò êîòîðîé íåîáõîäèìî îòêàçàòüñÿ, íàçûâàåò ðàçäåëåíèå ñóæäåíèé íà àíàëèòè÷åñêèå (òàâòîëîãèè, èñòèííûå â ñèëó çíà÷åíèé âõîäÿùèõ â íèõ òåðìèíîâ) è ñèíòåòè÷åñêèå (äàþùèå íîâîå çíàíèå, ýìïèðè÷åñêèå ñóæäåíèÿ).

92

ÏÎÍßÒÈÅ À PRIORI  ÔÈËÎÑÎÔÈÈ ËÎÃÈ×ÅÑÊÎÃÎ ÝÌÏÈÐÈÇÌÀ…

Íåòðóäíî çàìåòèòü, ÷òî ôèëîñîô â äàííîì ñëó÷àå îïèðàåòñÿ íà ñòàíäàðòíîå äëÿ ëîãè÷åñêîãî ýìïèðèçìà îïðåäåëåíèå àíàëèòè÷íîñòè è ñèíòåòè÷íîñòè, ïðè êîòîðîì îïðåäåëåíèå àïðèîðíîãî ïîäìåíÿåòñÿ îïðåäåëåíèåì àíàëèòè÷åñêîãî, à ñèíòåòè÷íîñòü ñâîäèòñÿ ê ýìïèðè÷åñêèì âûñêàçûâàíèÿì. Àðãóìåíò Êóàéíà ïðîòèâ îñîáîãî ñòàòóñà àíàëèòè÷åñêèõ ñóæäåíèé âåñüìà èçÿùåí: ðàññìàòðèâàÿ îòíîøåíèå ñèíîíèìèè êàê îòäåëüíûé âèä òàâòîëîãè÷åñêèõ ñóæäåíèé, îí óêàçûâàåò íà íåäîîïðåäåëåííîñòü äàííîãî îòíîøåíèÿ. Òàâòîëîãèè, îáðàçîâàííûå íà îñíîâàíèè ñèíîíèìèè, íå ìîãóò áûòü îáîñíîâàíû â ñòðîãîì ñìûñëå ñëîâà, òàê êàê ïðè èõ îáîñíîâàíèè âîçíèêàåò ëîãè÷åñêàÿ îøèáêà – êðóã â àðãóìåíòàöèè. Âñëåäñòâèå ýòîé íåäîîïðåäåëåííîñòè âîçíèêàþò ðàçëè÷íîãî ðîäà ôèëîñîôñêèå (è íå òîëüêî) çàòðóäíåíèÿ, êîòîðûå, ïî ìíåíèþ Êóàéíà, ëåãêî ïðåîäîëåâàþòñÿ çàìåíîé òåðìèíà «àíàëèòè÷åñêèé» íà òåðìèí «èñòèííûé». Ñâîþ êðèòèêó Êóàéí âñòðàèâàåò â îáùóþ êàðòèíó íàó÷íîãî çíàíèÿ, â êîòîðîé âñå ñóæäåíèÿ íîñÿò ñèíòåòè÷åñêèé õàðàêòåð ñ òîé ëèøü ðàçíèöåé, ÷òî íåêîòîðûå èç íèõ íàèáîëåå îòäàëåíû îò íåïîñðåäñòâåííîãî îïûòà, à ïîòîìó èõ ïåðåñìîòð è îïðîâåðæåíèå ïðîèñõîäÿò ãîðàçäî ìåäëåííåå, íåæåëè ïåðåñìîòð è îïðîâåðæåíèå ñóæäåíèé, íàõîäÿùèõñÿ íà ïåðèôåðèè, ò.å. íåïîñðåäñòâåííî ñâÿçàííûõ ñ îïûòîì: «Ãëóïî èñêàòü ãðàíèöó ìåæäó ñèíòåòè÷åñêèìè âûñêàçûâàíèÿìè, êîòîðûå ñëó÷àéíî îïèðàþòñÿ íà îïûò, è àíàëèòè÷åñêèìè âûñêàçûâàíèÿìè, êîòîðûå ñïðàâåäëèâû ïðè ëþáûõ îáñòîÿòåëüñòâàõ. Ëþáîå âûñêàçûâàíèå ìîæåò ñ÷èòàòüñÿ èñòèííûì ïðè ëþáûõ îáñòîÿòåëüñòâàõ, åñëè ìû ïðîèçâåäåì äîñòàòî÷íî ðåøèòåëüíûå ïðåîáðàçîâàíèÿ ãäå-òî âíóòðè ñèñòåìû. Äàæå î÷åíü áëèçêîå ê ïåðèôåðèè âûñêàçûâàíèå ìîæåò ñ÷èòàòüñÿ èñòèííûì ïåðåä ëèöîì íåïîäàòëèâîãî îïûòà, áóäó÷è îïðàâäàíî ãàëëþöèíàöèåé èëè èñïðàâëåíèåì îïðåäåëåííûõ âûñêàçûâàíèé òîãî òèïà, êîòîðûå íàçûâàþòñÿ ëîãè÷åñêèìè çàêîíàìè. È íàîáîðîò, ïî òîé æå ñàìîé ïðè÷èíå íè îäíî âûñêàçûâàíèå íå èìååò èììóíèòåòà ê ïåðåñìîòðó» [Êóàéí, 2003: 45]. Ïîçèöèÿ Êóàéíà ïî âîïðîñó îá a priori áëèçêà ê ïîçèöèè Äæîíà Ñòþàðòà Ìèëëÿ, ïîëàãàâøåãî, ÷òî ëþáîå çíàíèå (â òîì ÷èñëå è ìàòåìàòè÷åñêîå) â êîíå÷íîì ñ÷åòå îñíîâûâàåòñÿ íà èíäóêöèè, ïîýòîìó íå ìîæåò áûòü íèêàêèõ àïðèîðíûõ ïðèíöèïîâ ïîçíàâàòåëüíîãî ïðîöåññà. Ïðè ýòîì Êóàéí ðàññìàòðèâàåò ñâîþ ïîçèöèþ êàê áîëåå ïîñëåäîâàòåëüíûé ïðàãìàòèçì, íåæåëè òîò, êîòîðûé ðàçäåëÿëè åãî ïðåäøåñòâåííèêè: «Êàðíàï, Ëüþèñ è äðóãèå ïðèíèìàþò ïðàãìàòè÷åñêóþ òî÷êó çðåíèÿ îòíîñèòåëüíî âîïðîñà î âûáîðå ìåæäó ëèíãâèñòè÷åñêèìè ôîðìàìè è íàó÷íûìè êàðêàñàìè, íî èõ ïðàãìàòèçì îñòàíàâëèâàåòñÿ ïåðåä âîîáðàæàåìîé ãðàíèöåé ìåæäó àíàëèòè÷åñêèì è ñèíòåòè÷åñêèì. Îòðèöàÿ òàêóþ ãðàíèöó, ÿ ïîääåðæèâàþ áîëåå ïîñëåäîâàòåëüíûé ïðàãìàòèçì» [Êóàéí, 2003: 48].

93

Ò.Ä. ÑÎÊÎËÎÂÀ

Îäíàêî äàëåêî íå âñå ôèëîñîôû ðàçäåëÿëè äàííûé ïîäõîä.  ÷àñòíîñòè, Ðóäîëüô Êàðíàï êðèòèêîâàë êóàéíîâñêèé ñêåïòèöèçì â îòíîøåíèè ýêñïëèêàöèè ïîíÿòèÿ àíàëèòè÷íîñòè.  òî æå âðåìÿ ïðåäëîæåííîå èì îáúÿñíåíèå àíàëèòè÷íîñòè ïîñðåäñòâîì ïîñòóëàòîâ çíà÷åíèÿ îòíîñèòñÿ ê èñêóññòâåííî çàäàííûì, à íå åñòåñòâåííûì ÿçûêàì [Êàðíàï, 1959]. Ïðåäñòàâèòåëè áðèòàíñêîé ôèëîñîôèè ÿçûêà òàêæå âûñòóïèëè ñ êðèòèêîé ñòàòüè Êóàéíà, ïîëàãàÿ, ÷òî îòêàç îò òåðìèíîâ òîëüêî ïîòîìó, ÷òî îíè íåäîîïðåäåëåíû èëè ñîçäàþò òå èëè èíûå çàòðóäíåíèÿ äëÿ èññëåäîâàòåëÿ, íå ðåøàåò ïðîáëåì, ñâÿçàííûõ ñ óïîòðåáëåíèåì äàííîãî òåðìèíà [Äîëãîðóêîâ, 2012: 201–205]. Ïðè ýòîì çàìåíà îäíîãî òåðìèíà íà äðóãîé, ÿêîáû áîëåå ïîíÿòíûé è îáîñíîâàííûé, íà äåëå ìîæåò âûÿâèòü åùå áîëüøåå ÷èñëî ïðîáëåì, ñâÿçàííûõ ñî ñëîâîóïîòðåáëåíèåì: «Åñëè âñå òðóäíîñòè, êàê ãîâîðèò Êóàéí, âûçâàíû ñëîâîì “àíàëèòè÷åñêîå”, òî, áåç âñÿêîãî ñîìíåíèÿ, îíè äîëæíû èñ÷åçíóòü âìåñòå ñ îòêàçîì îò ýòîãî ñëîâà. Äàâàéòå çàìåíèì “àíàëèòè÷åñêîå” ñëîâîì “èñòèííîå”, êîòîðîå Êóàéí ñàì ïðîòèâîïîñòàâëÿåò “àíàëèòè÷åñêîìó” êàê áîëåå ïîíÿòíîå. Ìîæíî ëè ñêàçàòü, ÷òî íàøà íåðåøèòåëüíîñòü òóò æå èñ÷åçàåò? Äóìàåì, ÷òî íåò» [Ãðàéñ, Ñòðîñîí, 2012: 218]. Ñïðàâåäëèâîñòè ðàäè ñòîèò îòìåòèòü, ÷òî è â ðàìêàõ áðèòàíñêîé ôèëîñîôèè ÿçûêà óðîâåíü ñêåïòèöèçìà â îòíîøåíèè a priori áûë äîâîëüíî âûñîê. Ýòî âûðàæàëîñü (êàê, âïðî÷åì, è â ÑØÀ) â ïðîòèâîïîñòàâëåíèè çàèìñòâîâàííîìó èç Åâðîïû (â ÷àñòíîñòè, ó íåîêàíòèàíöåâ) èäåàëèçìó ôèëîñîôèè íîâîãî òèïà: «Ëþáàÿ ôîðìà ñëîâ, íåêîãäà ðàññìàòðèâàâøàÿñÿ êàê âûðàæàþùàÿ íå÷òî èñòèííîå, áåç ñîìíåíèÿ, ìîæåò â äðóãîå âðåìÿ ðàññìàòðèâàòüñÿ êàê âûðàæàþùàÿ íå÷òî ëîæíîå. Îäíàêî íå òîëüêî ôèëîñîôû ñìîãóò îòëè÷èòü ñèòóàöèþ, êîãäà òàêîé îòêàç ïðîèñõîäèò èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî â ðåçóëüòàòå î÷åâèäíîãî èçìåíåíèÿ ìíåíèÿ îòíîñèòåëüíî èìåþùèõ ìåñòî ôàêòîâ, îò ñèòóàöèè, êîãäà îòêàç ïðîèñõîäèò, ïî êðàéíåé ìåðå îò÷àñòè, â ðåçóëüòàòå èçìåíåíèÿ ñìûñëà ñëîâ» [Ãðàéñ, Ñòðîñîí, 2012: 222]. Òåì íå ìåíåå, íåñìîòðÿ íà ïðåäñòàâëåííûå âûøå çàìå÷àíèÿ, êðèòèêà Êóàéíîì ïîíÿòèÿ àíàëèòè÷íîñòè ñîõðàíÿåò ñâîþ àêòóàëüíîñòü è ñåãîäíÿ, îñîáåííî â ðàìêàõ íàìå÷åííîãî èì æå ñàìèì äâèæåíèÿ ïî íàòóðàëèçàöèè ýïèñòåìîëîãèè, ïîä êîòîðûì ïîíèìàåòñÿ îòêàç îò àïðèîðíûõ ïðèíöèïîâ êàê íîðìàòèâíûõ ýëåìåíòîâ ðàçâèòèÿ íàó÷íîãî çíàíèÿ. Çäåñü êàìåíü ïðåòêíîâåíèÿ – óæå íå êëàññè÷åñêèå ïðèçíàêè àïðèîðíîñòè (íåçàâèñèìîñòü îò îïûòà, íåîáõîäèìîñòü, óíèâåðñàëüíîñòü), à âîçìîæíîñòü îïðîâåðãíóòü ëèáî ÷àñòè÷íî ïåðåñìîòðåòü àïðèîðíûå ïðèíöèïû, êîòîðûå, ïî ìíåíèþ êðèòèêîâ àïðèîðèçìà, ñâèäåòåëüñòâóþò î åãî íåñîñòîÿòåëüíîñòè â êà÷åñòâå ýïèñòåìîëîãè÷åñêîé òåîðèè. Îòâåò íà êóàéíîâñêóþ êðèòèêó ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé

94

ÏÎÍßÒÈÅ À PRIORI  ÔÈËÎÑÎÔÈÈ ËÎÃÈ×ÅÑÊÎÃÎ ÝÌÏÈÐÈÇÌÀ…

îñíîâíîé ïóíêò ïðîãðàììû ñîâðåìåííûõ ñòîðîííèêîâ àïðèîðèçìà [Christopoulou, Psillos, 2009; Engel, 1998].

Заключение Îñíîâíûì íàñëåäèåì ëîãè÷åñêîãî ýìïèðèçìà äëÿ ñîâðåìåííûõ äèñêóññèé îá a priori ñòàëî ñâåäåíèå àïðèîðíûõ èñòèí ê àíàëèòè÷åñêèì èñòèíàì – òàâòîëîãèÿì.  òî æå âðåìÿ îòîæäåñòâëåíèå àïðèîðíîñòè è àíàëèòè÷íîñòè ïðèâåëî ê îòêàçó îò àïðèîðíûõ ïîíÿòèé: àïðèîðíûé õàðàêòåð ìîãóò èìåòü òîëüêî ñóæäåíèÿ. Òàêîãî ðîäà ñóæåíèå ïîíÿòèÿ a priori ïðèâåëî è ê ñóæåíèþ ïîíÿòèÿ íåîáõîäèìîãî: ïîä íåîáõîäèìîñòüþ íà÷èíàþò ïîíèìàòü èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî ëîãè÷åñêóþ íåîáõîäèìîñòü.  ñîâîêóïíîñòè èíòåðïðåòàöèÿ àïðèîðíîñòè â ðàìêàõ ëîãè÷åñêîãî ýìïèðèçìà ïðèâåëà ê ñî÷åòàíèþ àïðèîðíîñòü/àíàëèòè÷íîñòü/íåîáõîäèìîñòü, êîòîðîå âûòåñíèëî èç ïîëÿ ðàññìîòðåíèÿ èññëåäîâàòåëåé ïðàãìàòè÷åñêèé àñïåêò a priori. Áîëüøèíñòâî äèñêóññèé ïîñëåäíèõ ëåò òàê èëè èíà÷å ñòðîèòñÿ âîêðóã äàííîé êðèòèêè àïðèîðèçìà (îñîáåííî êóàéíîâñêîé êðèòèêè). Ñòîðîííèêîâ àïðèîðèçìà êîíöà ÕÕ–íà÷àëà XXI â. ìîæíî óñëîâíî ðàçäåëèòü íà ïðåäñòàâèòåëåé ñåìàíòè÷åñêîãî ïîäõîäà ê îïðåäåëåíèþ a priori è ïðåäñòàâèòåëåé êîãíèòèâíîãî ïîäõîäà. Íåñìîòðÿ íà ðàçëè÷èå äàííûõ ïîäõîäîâ, îáùàÿ èäåÿ äëÿ ñîâðåìåííûõ ñòîðîííèêîâ àïðèîðèçìà ñîñòîèò (êàê êîãäà-òî äëÿ Êàíòà) â òîì, ÷òî àïðèîðíûå èñòèíû ÿâëÿþòñÿ óñëîâèÿìè ðåàëèçàöèè ïîçíàâàòåëüíîãî ïðîöåññà. Îäíàêî äàííûé òåçèñ ðàñøèðÿåòñÿ: àïðèîðíûå èñòèíû ñëóæàò íå òîëüêî îñíîâàíèåì äëÿ îïûòíîãî ïîçíàíèÿ (ïîçâîëÿþò êëàññèôèöèðîâàòü õàîñ ÷óâñòâåííûõ âïå÷àòëåíèé), íî è íåîáõîäèìûì óñëîâèåì ëþáîé ðàöèîíàëüíîé äèñêóññèè: «Ìû âèäèì, ÷òî îòêàç îò âñåõ àïðèîðíûõ îáîñíîâàíèé ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ ðàâíîñèëüíûì îòêàçó îò àðãóìåíòàöèè è ðàññóæäåíèÿ âîîáùå, ÷òî â ñîâîêóïíîñòè âåäåò ê èíòåëëåêòóàëüíîìó ñàìîóáèéñòâó» [BonJour, 1998: 5].  ýòîì îòíîøåíèè ñïîð ñîâðåìåííûõ ñòîðîííèêîâ àïðèîðèçìà è åãî ïðîòèâíèêîâ (â ÷àñòíîñòè, ïðåäñòàâèòåëåé ðàçíîãî ðîäà íàòóðàëèçîâàííûõ ýïèñòåìîëîãèé) ìîæíî ðàññìàòðèâàòü êàê òðàíñôîðìàöèþ íîâîâðåìåííîãî ñïîðà ðàöèîíàëèñòîâ è ýìïèðèêîâ. Íåêîòîðûå çàùèòíèêè àïðèîðèçìà (â ÷àñòíîñòè, Ë. ÁîíÆóð) îòêðûòî ïîçèöèîíèðóþò ñåáÿ â êà÷åñòâå ïðîäîëæàòåëåé ðàöèîíàëèñòè÷åñêîé òðàäèöèè Íîâîãî âðåìåíè â ôèëîñîôèè, ïðèçûâàÿ âåðíóòüñÿ ê êëàññè÷åñêèì âçãëÿäàì íà ðîëü ôèëîñîôèè è íàóêè â æèçíè ÷åëîâåêà. Îáîñíîâàíèå àïðèîðèçìà â äàííîì ñëó÷àå (òî÷íî òàê æå, êàê è â Íîâîå âðåìÿ) ìîæåò áûòü ðåøàþùèì ôàêòîðîì â ýòîì ñïîðå, ïðè÷åì íå òîëüêî â ðàìêàõ ôèëîñîôèè, íî è äëÿ âñåõ ãóìàíèòàðíûõ íàóê.

95

Ò.Ä. ÑÎÊÎËÎÂÀ

Âëèÿíèå ëîãè÷åñêîãî ïîçèòèâèçìà îòðàçèëîñü è íà âåêòîðå èññëåäîâàíèÿ ïðîáëåì, ñâÿçàííûõ ñ ïîíÿòèåì a priori.  íàèáîëåå ðàäèêàëüíîé ôîðìå ýòî âûðàçèëîñü â óáåæäåíèè, ÷òî a priori äîëæíî ðàññìàòðèâàòüñÿ èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî â êîíòåêñòå ñîâðåìåííûõ åñòåñòâåííûõ íàóê (ãóìàíèòàðíûå è ñîöèàëüíûå íàóêè âûïàäàþò), à íå áûòü èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî ïðåäìåòîì ðåôëåêñèè ôèëîñîôîâ: «Åñëè íåêèé àïðèîðíûé ýëåìåíò âñå æå ñóùåñòâóåò, òî áûëî áû íåæåëàòåëüíî èçîëèðîâàòü åãî îò ýìïèðè÷åñêîãî çíàíèÿ, îòäàâàÿ ôèëîñîôàì, êîòîðûå ìîãëè áû èçó÷àòü åãî íåçàâèñèìî îò ïîëîæåíèÿ äåë â åñòåñòâåííûõ íàóêàõ. Ôèëîñîôñêîå èññëåäîâàíèå àïðèîðíîãî ýëåìåíòà â ýìïèðè÷åñêîì çíàíèè ìîæåò áûòü óñïåøíûì, òîëüêî åñëè ôèëîñîôèÿ îáðàòèò âíèìàíèå íà ñïåöèôèêó ñîâðåìåííîãî åé íàó÷íîãî çíàíèÿ. Àïðèîðíûé ýëåìåíò íå ïðåäìåò èññëåäîâàíèÿ äëÿ “ôèëîñîôèè èç êðåñëà”» [Mormann, 2012: 113].

Библиографический список Àéåð, 2010 – Àéåð À. Äæ. A Priori // À.Äæ. Àéåð. ßçûê, èñòèíà è ëîãèêà. Ì., 2010. Ãðàéñ, Ñòðîñîí, 2012 – Ãðàéñ Ã.Ï., Ñòðîñîí Ï.Ô.  çàùèòó äîãìû // Ýïèñòåìîëîãèÿ è ôèëîñîôèÿ íàóêè. 2012. ¹ 2. Äîëãîðóêîâ, 2012 – Äîëãîðóêîâ Â.Â. «Â çàùèòó äîãìû»: Ãðàéñ è Ñòðîñîí ïðîòèâ Êóàéíà // Ýïèñòåìîëîãèÿ è ôèëîñîôèÿ íàóêè. 2012. ¹ 2. Êàíò, 1964 – Êàíò È. Êðèòèêà ÷èñòîãî ðàçóìà // È. Êàíò. Ñî÷èíåíèÿ.  6 ò. Ò. 3. Ì., 1964. Êàðíàï, 1959 – Êàðíàï Ð. Ïîñòóëàòû çíà÷åíèÿ // Ð. Êàðíàï. Çíà÷åíèå è íåîáõîäèìîñòü. Ì., 1959. Ñ. 321–330. Êàðíàï, 2008 – Êàðíàï Ð. Ôèëîñîôñêèå îñíîâàíèÿ ôèçèêè: ââåäåíèå â ôèëîñîôèþ íàóêè. Ì., 2008. Êîýí, Íàãåëü, 2010 – Êîýí Ì., Íàãåëü Ý. Ââåäåíèå â ëîãèêó è íàó÷íûé ìåòîä. ×åëÿáèíñê, 2010. Êóàéí, 2003 – Êóàéí Ó.Â.Î. Äâå äîãìû ýìïèðèçìà // Ó.Â.Î. Êóàéí. Ñ òî÷êè çðåíèÿ ëîãèêè: 9 ëîãèêî-ôèëîñîôñêèõ î÷åðêîâ. Òîìñê, 2003. Îñòèí, 2006 – Îñòèí Äæ. Ñóùåñòâóþò ëè àïðèîðíûå ïîíÿòèÿ? // Äæ. Îñòèí. Òðè ñïîñîáà ïðîëèòü ÷åðíèëà. ÑÏá., 2006. Ïàï, 2002 – Ïàï À. Ñåìàíòèêà è íåîáõîäèìàÿ èñòèíà. Ì., 2002. Ðàññåë, 2000 – Ðàññåë Á. Ïðîáëåìû ôèëîñîôèè // Ó. Äæåéìñ. Ââåäåíèå â ôèëîñîôèþ. Ì., 2000. Ñòîëÿðîâà, 2012 – Ñòîëÿðîâà Î.Å. Äâà ëèöà àïðèîðèçìà // Ýïèñòåìîëîãèÿ è ôèëîñîôèÿ íàóêè. 2012. ¹ 4. BonJour, 1998 – BonJour L. In Defense of Pure Reason: a Rationalist Account of a priori Justification. Cambridge, N.Y., 1998. Brandom, 2006 – Brandom R. Kantian Lessons about Mind, Meaning, and Rationality // Philosophical Topics. 2006. Vol. 34, ¹ 1. P. 1-2. Christopoulou, Psillos, 2009 – Christopoulou D., Psillos S. The A Priori: Between Conventions and Implicit Definitions // The A Priori and its Role in Philosophy ; N. Kompa, Ch. Nimtz, Ch. Suhm (eds.). Paderborn, 2009. P. 205–220. Engel, 1998 – Engel P. Quine et le retour de l’a priori // Lire Quine. P., 2006. P. 159–184.

96

ÏÎÍßÒÈÅ À PRIORI  ÔÈËÎÑÎÔÈÈ ËÎÃÈ×ÅÑÊÎÃÎ ÝÌÏÈÐÈÇÌÀ…

Mormann, 2012 – Mormann T. Toward a Theory of the Pragmatic A Priori: From Carnap to Lewis and Beyond // Rudolf Carnap and the Legacy of Logical Empiricism. Vienna : Circle Institute Yearbook, 2012. Vol. 16. Pap, 1943a – Pap A. On the Meaning of Universality // The Journal of Philosophy. 1943. Vol. 40, ¹ 1. P. 19. Pap, 1943b – Pap A. On the Meaning of Necessity // The Journal of Philosophy. 1943. Vol. 40, ¹ 1. P. 17. Pap, 1944 – Pap A. The Different Kinds of A Priori // The Philosophical Review. 1944. Vol. 53, ¹ 1. P. 5. Pap, 1950 – Pap A. Logic and the Synthetic A Priori // Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 1950. Vol. 10, ¹ 4. P. 500–514. Pap, 1957 – Pap A. Once More: Colors and the Synthetic A Priori // The Philosophical Review. 1957. Vol. 66, ¹ 1. Ð. 94–99. Reichenbach, 1965 – Reichenbach H. The Theory of Relativity and A Priori Knowledge. Oakland, 1965. Schlick, 1979a – Schlick M. Epistemology and Modern Physics // M. Schlick. Philosophical Papers. Vol. II (1925–1936). Dordrect, 1979. Schlick, 1979b – Schlick M. Is there a Factual A Priori? // M. Schlick. Philosophical Papers. Vol. II (1925–1936). Dordrect, 1979. Stump, 2011 – Stump D.J. Arthur Pap’s Functional Theory of the A Priori // HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science. 2011. Vol. 1.

97

EPISTEMOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE · 2015 · Ò. XLV · ¹ 3

B

ELIEF CONTENT AND BELIEF STATE

Alexei Cherniak – PhD. Russian People’s Friendship University

1

The paper is dedicated to the analysis of a contribution of the distinction between states and contents of beliefs to the explanation of changes of beliefs in some specific situations such as changed stakes or evidence. The plausible idea about beliefs is that an agent may have two different beliefs in the same proposition representing different relations to that proposition – belief states. Different accounts of states of beliefs were proposed. The claim critically observed in the paper is that a change of belief may be explained as a change of either proposition believed or state of belief. It is argued that explanations of changes of beliefs in terms of changes in their states are reducible to explanations in terms of changes in their propositional contents. In particular it is argued that cases where changing beliefs are expressed by sentences with so called essential indexicals, which are considered to be cases of changing belief states, but not propositions, may be described as rather instances of changing belief’s propositional contents. There is also the account of belief as triadic relation between believer, believed propositions and mode of its presentation by believers. According to it belief change may be represented as a change of the mode of presentation which preserves propositional content of the belief. Against this account it is argued that modes of presentation of propositions either does not in fact contribute to semantic contents of corresponding beliefs or may be assimilated by their propositional contents. It seems plausible that to be relevant to the belief change the information is to be at least available to a competent reflexive agent of the belief, and this information then may be added to a propositional content of that belief after some reflection. Key words: belief, proposition, state, semantic content, degree of belief, evidence, mode of presentation, direct reference, essential indexical.

1. The twofold conception of belief Below I would like to consider one popular account of beliefs as relations between subjects and propositions – abstractions of independent on particular languages logical contents of sentences saying the same which are genuine bearers of truth and falsity. Due to this understanding beliefs and many other psychological attitudes (such as hopes, desires, promises etc.) are ordinarily called propositional attitudes.2 Belief then is treated within this account as a twofold construction consisting from proposition it expresses and some state of belief in that proposition by the subject. Hence the belief change is seen as either the change of a proposition believed or the change of a state of belief. Thus John Perry describes a situation in which he sees in the market the trail of sugar on the floor and comes to believe that some shopper has the sack of sugar torn; 1

Supported by the Russian Humanitarian Science Foundation, project ¹ 14-33-01043. Of course this is not the only, though most popular, account of beliefs: alternatively they are sometimes treated as relations between subjects and sentences or properties. 2

98

Language and Mind

BELIEF CONTENT AND BELIEF STATE

he begins to follow the trail to warn the shopper, but cannot catch her and in the end understands that the shopper is he himself. Then he changes his way of action [Perry, 1979: 1]. We might say that J. Perry changed his belief; but his initial belief (that some shopper has a torn sugar sack), and his final belief (that I have a torn sugar sack (1)) are both about J. Perry. They may be said to express the same proposition.3 So, what exactly had changed? The indexical term «I» does not specify the subject of the belief expressed as (1). Uttered by another person it would refer to him, not to J. Perry. So, the belief content correlating with the proposition expressed by (1) looks to be equal to that: the speaker of this sentence has a torn sugar sack. But we understand that the belief refers to J. Perry and no one else: so, it will imply the proposition that J. Perry has a torn sugar sack. If J. Perry believes (1) he may be assigned the belief: (2) I believe that I have a torn sugar sack. Now if «I» within the scope of the verb «believe» is substituted for «J. Perry» we will get the sentence which does not express the belief in question without an additional supposition, like: «I am J. Perry». There is a well-known and widely criticized solution of the problem suggested by G. Frege which claims that in contexts of propositional attitudes denoting expressions change their denotations, denoting what were in normal contexts their senses.4 Thus there must be some concept, individuating J. Perry, associated with the use of «I» in (2) such that second appearance of «I» in (2) denotes this concept, hence making that-clause of (2) to be about J. Perry, though not directly. Many philosophers see this solution highly problematic by the variety of reasons. They include doubts that denoting terms are actually changing their references in contexts of propositional attitudes (why should they, after all?), and suspecting the very notion of sense, in particular of there being senses associated with indexicals (and if they are they are not guaranteed to be the same even for each use of the indexical by the same subject). Another proposal rejects denotation shifts in contexts of propositional attitudes and claims that singular propositions, like that expressed by (1), consist of the very objects of correlating thoughts and ordinary propositional elements, i.e. predicate functions or open propositions (expressed as «that x is p»).5 These are usually called de re beliefs (i.e. about the thing itself) [Perry, 1979: 10]. But this does not yet solve the problem. Perry gives an example: he is making shopping and the mess described in the previous example, and sees his own reflection in the mirror but thinks that this is the 3 Under certain notion of proposition, where proposition is composed by denotations rather than senses of the terms composing the sentence which expresses it. 4 The key source of the account is: [Frege, 1948]. 5 This idea can be traced back to Russell’s idea of proposition: [Russell, 1910], [Russell, 1912: ch. 5].

99

A. CHERNIAK

refection of the messy shopper. Then he can believe that: «He is making a mess». We can then ascribe J. Perry the belief that he believes of J. Perry that he is making a mess. That will be a de re belief but not the one held by the subject in the scenario [Perry, 1979: 11]. Yet another solution is that according to which propositions are entities which truth-values are relative to certain parameters, like times and agents. They are now treated as functions from times (and some other parameters) to truth-values.6 More precisely the proposition expressed in that-clause of (2) assigns the truth-value relative to the agent and the time of the utterance of (2). But the proposition that I have a torn sugar sack may be believed by an agent at certain time and be true of another (or the same) person at another time. Perry distinguishes between two types of contexts in this respect: the one of belief and another of evaluation, which need not be the same [Perry, 1979: 11].7 If I believe now that I have a torn sugar sack, and now is not the time when the sack is torn this believe would be false of the context of now, though may be true of the context of then (when the sack was torn). That J. Perry believed at some moment that he was making a mess at some other time does not explain his actions (that he began to seek the torn sack in his own cart). According to Perry there may be different shoppers in the supermarket who believe each about herself «I am making a mess» (3), and begin looking for the torn sack in their carts. Perry says that the common element explaining the behavior of all these people is not what they believe, since there is no person (or time) which all these people would believe (3) to be true of. They are all in one belief state – the one which leads them to examine their carts (given other belief states they are expected to be in) [Perry, 1979: 18]. Perry suggests that belief states have something in common with personal dispositions to act in a certain way, i.e. to utter the sentence expressing the proposition believed. Thus the state of believe in proposition that I am making a mess is that of saying (3) sincerely and consciously. Anyone can believe that, and anyone can believe of J. Perry that he is making a mess; but only J. Perry may have that belief by being in that state [Perry, 1979: 19]. Perry calls such attitudes beliefs with essential indexical; for a behavior explained by ascribing such belief cannot be explained by the belief with the same propositional content where the indexical term is substituted by a term with more context-independent meaning [Perry, 1979: 5].8 Many beliefs with no explicit indexical may be considered as essentially indexical because they implicitly relate the main propositional content with some time or place, or alike introduced by the context. Thus believing that Moscow is the capital 6

See: [Perry, 1979: 13], [Kaplan, 1989]. The same distinction was made by D. Kaplan: [Kaplan, 1989]. 8 Perry uses the notion of singular proposition which is supposed to be constituted by denotations of the terms used to express it, where some of the terms refer directly to objects in the world which thus are their denotations and constituents of a proposition. 7

100

BELIEF CONTENT AND BELIEF STATE

of Russia I may be well understood as believing that Moscow is the capital of Russia now, where what time is now is determined by the context.9 In the following literature on propositional attitudes and belief attribution this epistemic constituent has got different names, such as doxastic state, credence or degree of belief.10 Some philosophers equate it with the probability ascribed to the proposition believed by an agent. Then a change in beliefs explaining some change in actions is described as certain update of the belief state in the light of new evidence: evidence-dependant changes of beliefs are considered rational, otherwise irrational [Ramsey, 1931; Jeffrey, 1983; Lewis, 1980]. There are common objections to this account of states of beliefs. Deciding how to act according to the reasons based on current beliefs an agent does not ordinarily apply exact probabilistic or analogous values to propositions. Our ordinary rational beliefs should not, further, satisfy the rule of the null-sum. Besides the evidence may be not the only motive for the belief update. Nevertheless, these arguments do not affect the very idea according to which there are cases where only a state of belief changes, leaving its propositional context untouched. Of course there are good reasons to see beliefs as consisting of at least two elements – an epistemic attitude or state and a propositional content. In fact we can distinguish yet more such elements, since, say, the credence, and the degree of acceptance must not be the same state, and they both may differ from that of the amount of disposition to act according to the belief. And perhaps there are such changes in beliefs which may be characterized as changes in states. But I think that they all may be construed as changes in believed propositions. So, if I am right, the proposed explanation of cases like that of J. Perry above as changes of some belief states is reducible to the more familiar explanation in terms of changes in propositional contents of these beliefs.

2. Exploring some changes Suppose the following case when the degree of probability assigned to the proposition is supposed to change. Let’s take the proposition be that all swans are white; and an ornithologist S gets a new evidence (sees a black swan) which undermines his belief in proposition that all swans are white 9 Of course we may alternatively consider such propositions as more context independent by treating corresponding beliefs as being not about definite time, place or etc. Thus I may be thought believing that Moscow is the capital of Russia whatever the time. 10 Cr. for example: [Foley, 2009: 37–47]. He attaches to the belief state an additional feature: justification which consists of certain amount of evidence supporting the proposition believed. His definition of belief is: (i) S believes that p just in case S has a sufficiently high credence that p; (ii) It is rational for S’s credence that p to be proportionate to the strength of S’s evidence supporting that p; therefore, it is rational for S to believe that p just in case it is rational for S to have a credence that p above the threshold for belief.

101

A. CHERNIAK

(4). If S accepts the evidence the relevant modification he makes in his beliefs on its ground may be described in different ways. S may be said to quit believing (4), but there are also reasons to suppose that not any relevant counterevidence if accepted is sufficient for a subject to abandon the belief. It may just weaken the evidential support the belief has, and therefore may be considered as changing the personal degree, hence state of the belief, though not making the later vanish altogether. Meanwhile S may be said to still believe the same proposition (4), just in some weakened way. But we may note that ordinarily new evidence affects the belief state when the change of degree of belief which it causes exceeds some threshold. Compare the case when S simply imagines the possibility of there being black swans. This may affect his belief in (4) by making its degree a bit lesser or, in other words, by making its state a bit less that of the belief; but S will be justified as before to say of himself that he believes that all swans are white. On the other hand if S gets and accepts some real evidence E he will most likely have to change his way of self-ascription of the proposition (4). S could say of himself, as before, that he believes that all swans are white, but as a rational reflexive agent he would understand that, say, «I am not so sure now that all swans are white» was better way of expressing his current attitude. The difference is very informal, but supposedly there is some amount of evidence which acceptance by the subject changes rather his attitude from that of believing to that of not believing the proposition than the state of the belief.11 Nevertheless an acceptance of E by S can still preserve the state of his original belief, though by way of changing the propositional content: he would then better self-ascribe to himself the belief that, e.g., all but some swans are white. What about essentially indexical beliefs? When J. Perry in Perry’s scenario comes from the belief that some shopper has a torn sugar sack to the belief that he himself has a torn sugar sack he may be said to change the state of self-ascription from that of (5) I believe that some shopper has a torn sugar sack to that of (2). (5) may be understood in one of the two following modes called de dicto and de re. De dicto reading of (5) may be represented in a formalized form as (6) I believe that $x (shopper (x) and has_a_torn_sugar_sack (x)), and its de re reading as (7) $x (shopper (x) and I believe that has_a_torn_sugar_sack (x)). In the context where, as in the scenario, the speaker is the only shopper who has a torn sugar sack (5) may be about the same individual as (2). The later may also express at least de re thought if «I» before and after «belie11 Of course any change in degree of evidence supporting the truth of the proposition from the point of view of the subject may be alternatively seen as changing the state of certain belief if we reject that there are thresholds of degrees below which states are not those of beliefs. But intuitively there are such thresholds.

102

BELIEF CONTENT AND BELIEF STATE

ve» may refer to different things: e.g. when I (the speaker) believe that I (the bearer of some set of properties identifying myself as a person) have a torn sugar sack. But the reading corresponding to the most ordinary use of «I» is called de se: in it I say of myself and no one else that I have a torn sugar sack. This meaning cannot be expressed by (8) $x (x is the speaker and x believes that x has a torn sugar sack), since «is the speaker» may not refer to the speaker of (8) only, and even if it does, (8) corresponds to «The speaker believes that he has a torn sugar sack» where the reference of «he» may be not borrowed from «the speaker».12 However formalized de se reading of (2) will differ from both (6) and (7). Unlike (6) the reference of the second appearance of «I» must not be bound within the scope of «believe»; and unlike (7) both appearances of «I» must refer to the same individual. The transition of self-ascription from (5) to (2) was provided by accepting the evidence that the shopper referred to in (5) is the speaker himself, hence the referent of «I» as used in (5). The speaker of (2) may then make the following inference: since I am the shopper I believe that I have a torn sugar sack. Now that I am the shopper seems to play the role of the presupposition of (2) as self-ascribed by the subject on the basis of (5) and certain evidence. Does it change the content of J. Perry’s belief (which happened to be about himself) that some shopper has a torn sugar sack? I think, yes. «Some shopper» in (5) refers to J. Perry in the described scenario; and so does «I» in (1) and (2). But even if we agree that it is directly referential, i.e. refer to the individual independently of its descriptive content, this does not mean that this is the only contribution it makes to the denotation of (5). It also contribute with some predicative content – «shopper (x)» – represented both in (6) and (7), but absent in (1) and (2); neither it is needed in the de se reading of the later. The transition from (5) to (2) changes the believed proposition at least by that it eliminates this bit of its predicative content by making it at best part of what is presupposed by believing in (1) instead of believing in what is self-ascribed in (5). Now let’s consider the guy who fell asleep in lethargy and woke up in 10 years (let’s call him V). Unbeknownst of the years passed he woke up with the belief that he is 20 years old (the age when he fell asleep); so he may be and is disposed to say of himself «I am 20". According to Perry, since the state of the belief did not change, i.e. he continues to believe the same proposition (that V is 20) in the same way, the belief just becomes false [Perry, 1997]. But it is arguably so only if we are in position to assert that the proposition thus believed did not differ from the same proposition believed in by the same subject at the 12 There are different ways of interpreting de se beliefs like (2): e.g., «I believe PRO has a torn sugar sack». But the later corresponds more neatly to «I believe to have a torn sugar sack», hence it is dubitable whether to say this is the same as to say in de se mode what (2) says.

103

A. CHERNIAK

moment of falling asleep 10 years ago. But there are good reasons to suppose that the very proposition has changed. Suppose that V is explained the situation and asked: what exactly his age-ascribing belief was when he woke up? This would be the motive (for a normal reflexive person) to think about the unity of his own personality among other things: given that his belief after wakeup was that he was 20, he would have to specify the content of his belief either as referring to the person V was 10 years ago or the one he was at the moment of wakeup. Why? Because though the way of V’s thinking about himself and even perhaps his corresponding feelings did not change since what they were 10 years ago, his body has changed, and so did the world around him. A lot of his beliefs about particular things may become false because these things have changed or disappeared. In fact we can treat each of these beliefs as ambiguous after the wake up as well, for it may refer either to the thing as it has been or to that thing (if only existing, otherwise to its modal counterpart) as it is. This whole situation may be called the shift of the world relative to an agent. Is the presence of such shift is enough to make the belief in question ambiguous? I think, yes. Compare the V’s story with the following one. Due to some scientific experiment the person X was destroyed and reassembled 10 years after from the same elements with the same personality, behavioral dispositions, attitudes, memory etc. The one appeared in 10 years is exactly the same as his destroyed precursor; even the body is qualitatively the same, let alone the links with the external world. But we would not hesitate in qualifying such person as rather an incarnation or replica than an extension of the one destroyed 10 years ago. An absence in the world for a considerable period of time looks sufficient reason to count the situation as consisting of two individuals rather than one. Lethargy does not look exactly like absence, but it reminds it in certain respects: first of all it presupposes the absence of a subjective will, consciousness, reflexivity, rational activity etc. And there is also a similarity between these situations in that they both produce shifts of worlds relative to agents – massive turning of beliefs into false ones (given the propositions believed are the same as before the destruction or lethargy). I suppose that V’s belief of himself that he is 20 is ambiguous after wakeup, i.e. it may be treated as the same state related to two different propositions one of which is constituted by V before and another by V after the lethargy, or a unity of both.13 Therefore V’s case looks like that of the change of the belief’s propositional content from some certain to an ambiguous one (at least unless it is specified according to some new evidence). Now consider the following example: Hannah has a check that needs to be deposited at their bank, though there is no particular urgency in doing 13 The same will be true for the implicit indexical of time: the now of the belief would be ambiguous in the same way after the lethargy referring either to the time just before V’s falling asleep or to the time right after the wakeup (or of the utterance).

104

BELIEF CONTENT AND BELIEF STATE

this. It is late on a Friday afternoon, and the bank is likely to be crowded. Hannah thinks the bank is open on Saturdays, having made a recent stop at the bank when she remembers having read the bank’s hours. So she decides to go Saturday. But eventually she recollects that if she does not deposit a check before Monday she will be late paying her mortgage. So Hannah decides to go Friday, just in case the bank isn’t open Saturday [Reed: 12].14 What was changed in Hannah’s belief? One explanation presupposes that it is the state, the degree of belief, given the believed proposition is the same. But the degree of a rational belief seems sensitive to the justification a subject has for it. Hannah’s justification for thinking the bank is open on Saturday did not change; what did change are her practical stakes, which are not part of a justification. She looks having changed her mind in the case considered due to the higher practical stakes alone. Such situations ar supposed to show that beliefs are interest-relative.15 If so, then the case might be treated as well as such that Hannah in fact ceased to hold the belief that the bank is open on Saturday when she considered how high stakes were. But it is just unlikely that rational beliefs of normal subjects may be just ceased to be held by a subject without any change in the totality of his evidence.16 Here is another example: Maria is taking part in a psychological study that measures how people assess risk. She is asked a question and then will have the opportunity to play two games simultaneously. In the first game, she is given a jellybean for a correct answer and a severe electrical shock for an incorrect answer. In the second game, she is given $1000 for a correct answer and a gentle slap on the wrist for an incorrect answer. In both games, there is neither penalty nor reward for abstaining from answering. Maria is asked, “What was the name of Hannibal’s brother?” She takes herself to remember, from a course she took several years earlier, that his name is Hasdrubal. She gives this answer in the second game, but she abstains from answering in the first game [Reed, 2010]. In this example it is yet harder to describe changes in the subject’s behavior as caused by instantly increased and decreased degrees of the belief that «Hasdrubal» is the name of Hannibal’s brother. Alternatively we may suppose that both Hannah and Maria quit using their certain beliefs as reasons to act under the pressure of higher stakes. Then their beliefs did not change at all. Under this interpretation they behave as if they don’t believe what they believe; but they didn’t have enough time to forget their relevant beliefs, so they cannot be described as just not taking 14

I slightly modified an example. See: [Fantl, McGrath, 2009; Stanley, 2005; Weatherson, 2011]. The preferred interpretation of the case is that the first decision, unlike the second one, is backed by Hannah’s knowledge that the bank is open at Saturday. But it may be construed as well as presenting just some change in her belief. 16 Of course a person can change her relation to the same part of evidence so that it ceases to justify for her certain belief; but even if justification is treated subjectively, the very fact of such change of justifying force of some old evidence may count a new evidence contributing to an attitude. 15

105

A. CHERNIAK

these beliefs into account in making decisions how to act. These beliefs must be somehow consciously deactivated in such cases. Therefore the most likely interpretation of them is that the subjects still use their certain beliefs but with no motivational force. But in important sense to believe is to be disposed to act in a certain way in certain circumstances. If so, then a change in the way of action should presuppose some change in a relevant belief. If there are in fact changes in beliefs in the cases described above, they do not look like true changes in degrees of these beliefs. Although justification in the cases remains the same the personal use of it changes. Hannah and Maria are not very attentive to the evidential support their beliefs have in the less risky cases, while they are more attentive to it in more risky ones. This seems to influence the ways of action but not the ways of belief ascription. We presume ascribing a belief that a subject is acting relative to that belief under the same representation of it linking it with a unique propositional content. But this may be just a stipulation. Thus Hannah is ascribed a belief in the same proposition through the course of her changing decisions: that the bank is open on Saturday (p). Meanwhile p is related by Hannah to the same evidence in different ways. At first Hannah behaves as if she has no doubts in p, but then she behaves as if p is very doubtful, though her reasons to doubt did not change. What Hannah is actually considering when she decides to make a deposit right now is the combination of the proposition p with the evidence to accept it: I remember having read the bank’s hours (e). Now the content Hannah uses in making a decision when stakes are high looks rather the result of the fusion of p with e: something close to I remember having read that the bank is open on Saturday. Recognizing that her personal recollection is not enough to avoid a costly mistake Hannah then rejects act according to that belief.17 But the belief thus rejected to be used as a current motive differs from the original one rather in content than in state. But Perry’s example is the one where new evidence contributes the belief change. The content (3) which changes the subject’s behavior may be described as a result of a fusion of the original proposition – the shopper is making a mess – with the new evidence – I am the shopper. Since «the shopper» and «I» in ascriptions of these contents refer to the same individual, this may be thought to indicate that they provide the same propositional element to certain beliefs. But «the shopper» also expresses a predicate function" shopper" which is absent from the resulting proposition expressed in (3). So this is one reason to consider this proposition as different from that of the original belief, and the change as that in the beliefs’ content. Another one is that the second belief has a presupposition different 17 This recognition may be thought as giving new evidence, hence changing the justification the belief has; but if so then all such cases should be rather considered inappropriately construed as not involving the change in justification. Anyway, this conceptual move will not affect the interpretation of certain cases as those of changing belief contents.

106

BELIEF CONTENT AND BELIEF STATE

from that of the original belief. It presupposes that the subject is the shopper; the new presupposed content thus links two beliefs on the basis of new information, explicating the nature of the new belief as a result of the fusion of the old one with new evidence.

3. Propositions and characters Perhaps a state of belief may contribute to its content in a way different from that of a believed proposition. The idea is known as two-dimensional account of semantic meaning. The most famous one is Kaplan’s distinction between contents and characters. Kaplan defined contents as functions from possible worlds to extensions of expressions, and characters corresponding to linguistic rules as functions from contexts of expressions’ use to their contents [Kaplan, 1989: 506].18 There are arguments based on the Kaplanian notion of meaning, aimed to show that beliefs’ semantics depend beside their objects (commonly, though not unanimously, considered as propositions) on some non propositional information. M. Richard [Richard, 1983] gives the example: There is an intelligent, rational, and competent English speaker A who both sees a woman B, across the street, in a phone booth, and is speaking to that very woman through a phone. He does not realize that the woman he is speaking to is the woman he sees. He perceives her to be in some danger. A waves at the woman through the window but says nothing into the phone. If A quizzed himself concerning what he believes, he might well say (9) I believe that I can inform you of her danger via the telephone. An indexical «you» would refer here to the woman being spoken to by phone, while «her» to the woman seen through the window. At the same time A would deny the truth of (10) I believe that I can inform her of her danger via the telephone, as uttered by himself. The embedded sentences in (9) and (10) differ only with respect to indexicals which are co-referential in the context. Therefore if indexicals are directly referential, as it is often supposed, the embedded sentences should express, relative to the context, the same proposition: that A can inform B of her danger via telephone. But (9) and (10) definitely diverge in truth value in that context [Richard, 1983: 439–440]. From Richard’s point of view though A understands both sentences embedded in (9) and (10) and knows of each which proposition it expresses, since A doesn’t know that his uses of «she» and «you» are co-referential, he can hardly be expected to know that the embedded sentences in (9) and (10) express the same proposition. So for him the distinction between two beliefs consists in the ways the propositions are believed: «A believes the proposition that B can be informed of her danger via the phone under the 18 Kaplan’s

notion of content is different from the one used above.

107

A. CHERNIAK

meaning of the embedded sentence of (9), but not under the meaning of the embedded sentence of (10) [Richard, 1983: 442]. Thus Richard construes belief is a triadic relation between a person, a sentential meaning (understood as a function from context to proposition), and a proposition; “to believe a proposition is to do so under a sentential meaning” [Richard, 1983: 429]. There may be objected that if indexicals are directly referential then if anyone is ascribed (9) as true she should be ascribed (10) as true too, whatever her own evaluation of both. But Richard claims that (9) is true in A’s context because A knows what proposition is expressed by the embedded sentence when he utters it, for «he knows the meaning of the sentence, he is perceiving the referents of the demonstratives therein, and may be said to know of each demonstrative that it denotes the thing perceived»; and since A would, sincerely and reflexively attest to the truth of (9), it seems that (9) is true. But (10) would be true only if A believed that there was someone in danger with whom he could converse via the phone, and «as the case is set up, there’s every reason to think that A does not have this belief. Hence, there’s every reason to think that (10) isn’t true» [Richard, 1983: 440]. Nevertheless if A actually knows what proposition is ascribed in (9) then he, as a rational reflexive agent, should know the same about the embedded sentence of (10) in the same context; and since the two propositions thus expressed are the same, he may be said to be in the relation of knowledge to that fact, though not knowing that he knows that. Then A’s denial of (10) in the situation considered would follow rather from his ignorance of the limits of his own knowledge, than from his ignorance of the fact that (9) and (10) express the same proposition. Being quite reflexive the person may be unable to apply enough reflection, e.g., to what he knows in the context because of the circumstances of the context. A does not have enough time to see what his organism perhaps already observes – that the woman he is talking is the one on the street. We may accept that an expression used as an ascription of a belief bears information not only about the proposition believed but also about the manner it is believed, in particular that it is believed by way of accepting certain sentence and understanding its meaning. But whether this information is relevant to the ascription of the belief as such is not so clear. Suppose that someone articulates the belief that Barrack Obama is the president of USA by saying that he (supported with the pointing to the picture of George Bush) is the president of USA. From the character of the sentence it is clear that the proposition believed must include as the referent for «he» the one whom the speaker is referring to. But what is this element in the situation considered? In one sense it is Barrack Obama, for him the speaker meant uttering the sentence. But in another sense it is George Bush, for him the speaker actually pointed at through pointing at his picture.19 The speaker’s meaning is most likely that Barrack Obama is the president of USA (11); if asked «Whom are you talking about?» the speaker 19 We skip here reflections upon the hypothesis that true referent of the indexical in such case is the representation itself, for the sake of briefness.

108

BELIEF CONTENT AND BELIEF STATE

would most likely articulate Obama’s name, not that of Bush. But this does not yet mean that the original utterance ascribes to a subject the belief in (11). Its’ ascription rather looks ambiguous: either the belief about Obama or the similar belief about Bush20. What is the personal disposition to articulate the belief may be irrelevant to what is thus believed. Therefore, we may accept that truth values of (9) and (10) are in fact different, but reject that propositions expressed in their embedded sentences are the same; for if they were, we could not be stopped from ascribing to A the kind of knowledge that two propositions are the same, which would leave the difference in truth-values unexplained. I suppose that the core of the problem is the supposed knowledge of indexicals’ referents ascribed to the subject. A may be truly said to know of each of the indexicals he uses in (9) and (10) that it denotes the thing perceived by him. But that thing may not be the same relative to two different modes of perception – an individual B. What A can perceive, and know from perception, are not full-fledged individuals, but rather certain location-sensitive entities or sense-data-sensitive slices of individual objects – something close to Russellian objects of knowledge by acquaintance. It may be proposed, then, that at least in the scope of attitude operators (belief operator, in particular) objects of direct references of indexicals are not individuals as such, but sort of situated individuals, i.e. objects got from the coupling of an individual with certain spatio-temporal location related to a believer. Thus «you» in (9) would refer to the result of a coupling of B with the location of being on the other side of the phone cable relative to A (which is on the context-centered side of it), and «her» would refer in both sentences to the result of a coupling of B with the location of being in the phone booth on the street seen from the window (located in the center of the context).21 Now, we have an explicit difference between propositions expressed in (9) and (10) correspondingly. But this may mean, inter alia, that at least some aspects of the way of holding the proposition by a believer, those which are relevant to the belief ascription, are rather to be reflected in the propositional content of the belief, than taken from some external source of information. A would know what propositions he was ascribed in (9) and (10) correspondingly, but could not know that these were the same proposition if the propositions in question included only those parts of the individual B which A could certainly know from acquaintance in the situation described. In this situation the same proposition should not be truly ascribed to A, and (9) and 20 Or

even perhaps a belief with an ambiguous content.

21 These locations are not reducible to the conventional coordinates which could eliminate

the difference in locations, because localization by conventional coordinates is part of information about the situation which an agent may not have; so he cannot use it. This proposal should not lead to the denial of the direct references of indexicals as such, though it may look like this; for the reference of the term may be still supposed to be provided without any aid from descriptive means.

109

A. CHERNIAK

(10) should not be seen as providing only the difference concerning manners in which the same proposition is held in each case. Richard compares the position of A with that of a person X, who is in the same situation as A, but knows that the woman he sees is the woman to whom he is speaking. He supposes that we cannot explain the difference between positions of A and X in terms of propositions believed, since both of them believe the proposition that B can be informed of her danger via the phone. But X believes that proposition under the meaning of «I can inform her of her danger via the phone», and will attribute to B the property of being a thing that can be informed of its danger via the phone (P); meanwhile A, who doesn’t believe the proposition under that meaning will not attribute this property to B [Richard, 1983: 442–443]. But again, A’s self-ascription of (9) is true and his self-ascription of (10) is false in the same context c only if we infer a truth-value of the sentence from subjective evaluation or acceptance of it. (10) may be said to be true in c just because it expresses true proposition in c, and A in fact is attributing to B the property P in that context, though he does not know it, and even would deny it (in that very context). What makes X’s self-ascription of (10) different from that of A according to this interpretation of the case is not its truth-value, but its justification, i.e. the presence of good reasons for X to assert and accept (10).

4. Beliefs and modes of presentation Another way to distinguish the propositional content of a belief from its state is through the description of beliefs as triadic relations between believers, believed contents (propositions) and modes of presentation of propositions by believers.22 Therefore to ascribe a belief one need to explicate not only an agent and a propositional content but also a mode of presentation; and in talking about belief change one may then talk about some change of the mode of presentation which preserves propositional content of the belief. It is said within the account that, e.g., two beliefs: (12) Cicero is an excellent writer and (13) Tully is an excellent writer, while both about Cicero, involve different modes of presentation or ‘notions’ of him. It is suggested then that beliefs can be classified in two ways: either by their truth-conditional content (Cicero, when he thinks that he is an excellent writer, thinks the same thing which we believe when we believe that Cicero is an excellent writer or that Tully is an excellent writer), or by the modes of presentation or notions involved: Cicero and John 22 See,

110

in particular: [Schiffer,1977], and [Crimmins, Perry, 1989].

BELIEF CONTENT AND BELIEF STATE

both think the same thing when they think «I am an excellent writer» (14) [Rå´canati, Crimmins, 1995: 179]. Indeed, we may say that Cicero and John both are presenting some object in the same way by using an indexical «I» in their utterances of (14); their corresponding beliefs present different objects though, hence express different singular propositions: one is about Cicero, another about John. But to say that (12) and (13) express the same proposition we need to accept that «Cicero» and «Tully» denote the same individual. And this may be said only if we suppose that the propositional component contributed by a directly referential proper name is an individual object, i.e. some thing which may remain the same in different spatial and temporal locations, and through some other changes. But this does not prevent individuals to be complex things constituted by different parts (of different sorts). Are the one given to some believer S as Cicero and the one given to S as Tully things composed from the same parts? Not necessarily. And to be different they need not necessarily be sort of intensional things like individual concepts or senses. If S does not know that Tully is Cicero he may identify Tully with young Cicero only and Cicero with a matured Cicero. Thus only the complex of those parts of Cicero which constitute matured Cicero would be referred to by S’s normal use of «Cicero», while analogous use of «Tully» by S would contribute to propositions like (13) the complex of parts which constitute young Cicero. Since some of the properties of this two are different (e.g., young Cicero was not yet a famous orator) there will be parts of the one who is Cicero for S which are not parts of the one who is Tully for S, and vice a versa. Tully, for instance, is smaller, thinner, and lower than Cicero at any moment of his existence; so he may be truly be said to have some different body parameters in comparison with Cicero. And of course they are very different in what concerns their minds and social roles. Therefore (12) uttered by S is true about Cicero only if the one who is the bearer of a set of properties identifying Cicero for S, is an excellent writer. And this one may be a unity of parts, though intersecting with, but not identical to the bearer of a set of properties identifying Tully for S. Now the replacement of «Cicero» for «Tully» in (12) will turn it into a false belief-ascription relative to S just because of the difference between propositional contents of (12) and (13) relative to S. So if someone believes (13) about Cicero (i.e. using «Tully» with its common meaning) but does not know that Tully is Cicero, the contribution of his personal notion of Cicero may be represented as part of what is thus believed. The propositional content of such belief may be described as that Cicero-Tully is an excellent writer, where «Cicero-Tully» is the name of a unity of parts constituting the thing which is seen as Tully by the subject of the belief, and as a stage or phase of Cicero by the evaluator (the one who assigns the meaning). That’s what believer’s notions of objects seem to do ordinarily: restrict sets of parts from which the object may consist.

111

A. CHERNIAK

According to F. Recanati, who gives different interpretation of the contribution of personal notions to contents of beliefs, embedded clauses in beliefs’ ascriptions express quasi-singular propositions which «are like singular propositions, except that to the normal constituents of a singular proposition are associated modes of presentation». Thus the constituents of such propositions are ordered pairs consisting of the normal constituent of the corresponding singular proposition and a mode of presentation of that constituent [Re´canati, Crimmins, 1995: 179]. Therefore an embedded sentence in a belief report may be construed as expressing a quasi-singular proposition, to which the ‘that’-clause refers. Substituting «Tully» for «Cicero», for example, would preserve the truth-conditions of the embedded sentence of «John believes that Cicero is an excellent writer» (15) which content can be represented as a singular proposition (that Cicero is an excellent writer), but affect the quasi-singular proposition by changing the mode of presentation which, together with Cicero, constitutes its first constituent. The content of (15) may be represented as: «B (John, , the property of being an excellent writer>)» (16), – and that of «John believes that Tully is an excellent writer» as:"B (John, , the property of being an excellent writer>) (17)" [Re´canati, Crimmins, 1995: 180]. To preserve both: direct reference and semantic innocence, the thesis according to which if the sentence expresses certain proposition in one context (e.g. as an embedded clause of the belief report) it should express the same proposition in the other (e.g. when occurs as unembedded) – Recanati insists that sentences involving directly referential expressions in a predicative frame, express quasi-singular propositions also when uttered in isolation [Re´canati, Crimmins, 1995: 179]. He introduces a distinction between the proposition expressed by an utterance and the utterance’s complete semantic content – what it expresses in some broader sense, and claims that modes of presentation should be added to broad semantic contents of the utterances expressing beliefs. Since modes of presentation do not influence truth-conditions of beliefs corresponding components of quasi-singular propositions are truth-conditionally irrelevant. Their truth-conditions are genuinely singular [Re´canati, Crimmins, 1995: 182]. This idea works with the same concept of singular propositions. Unlike what it declares – that modes of presentation are not parts of genuine propositional contents of beliefs, – it seems to me showing quite opposite. If ‘Cicero’ in (16) and ‘Tully’ in (17) refer to some notions of Cicero, hence sets of properties, both (16) and (17) may be read as saying that John believes that Cicero as Tully in one case and Cicero as Cicero in another is an excellent writer. But this looks the same as to say that John believes in one case that the thing which is the part of Cicero determined by Tully-features is an excellent writer, and in another case that the thing which is the part of Cicero determined by Cicero-features, is an excellent writer.

112

BELIEF CONTENT AND BELIEF STATE

Modes of presentation look quite irrelevant to propositional contents when schematically depicted as in Crimmins’ exposition [Re´canati, Crimmins, 1995: 195, 199]. In it they don’t appear as elements of any string of symbols describing the believed content. He follows Perry and Crimmins [Crimmins, Perry, 1989: 86] in counting the ascribed modes of presentation no part of the content of that-clause of a belief ascription; instead he considers the content of a that-clause to be a singular rather than quasi-singular proposition. But modes of presentation are thought in this account as unarticulated constituents of truth-conditional contents of belief ascriptions. Nevertheless thus depicted they look rather not contributing at all to semantic contents of corresponding beliefs; they may be thought as mere causes of occurrences of certain terms in utterances instead.23

5. De re beliefs There exist simple de re beliefs and ascriptions which seem to involve no modes of presentation at all. Answering this objection Recanati points that a belief ascription somehow changes the context of the sentence. For that argument he uses Quine’s account of de re belief reports as ascriptions of triadic relations between the believer, the referent, and the property believed of the referent [Quine, 1956]. The content of (14) may be then represented as «B (John, Cicero, )». And the later may be then converted in «B (John, Cicero, , the property of being an excellent writer>)», where m is the believer’s mode of presentation, and then to «B (John, , , the property of being an excellent writer>)», where mj is the speaker’s and mk the believer’s modes of presentation of Cicero. In de re cases then mk may be vacuous [Re´canati, Crimmins, 1995: 191].24 To save semantic innocence he accepts that prefixing the sentence with «John believes that» changes the context: it becomes that of a belief ascription, and this affects the reference of ‘that’-clause.25 But we should not consider cases of belief ascription as necessarily changing contexts. Let’s consider the situation when the sentence occurs in an utterance both as unembedded and as embedded in the belief report. If I say about Cicero that he is an excellent writer and then say that John believes that, there is good reason to think that both an occurrence of the sentence and the reference to its content by «that» are parts of the same context.26 We may substitute «that» with (12), since the meaning of this term is anaphorically dependent on it. This way the sentence may occur twice in one utterance, one occurrence being an unembedded while another embedded. John may have no specific notion of Cicero except that he is an excellent writer, but (15) (as 23 Otherwise we will be free to add them to a relevant propositional content which would contradict to the semantic innocence, since this requires that the proposition should be the same both in embedded and in unembedded occurrences of the same sentence.

113

A. CHERNIAK

part of the imagined complex utterance) will not therefore ascribe him the belief that the excellent writer is an excellent writer; rather his belief will be that an individual commonly known as Cicero is an excellent writer. But if his use of «Cicero» is directly referential it may make this occurrence of (15) still about Cicero as such. Simple de re belief then may be described as the one where a set of parts constituting the referent of a subjective term is unrestricted by any notion. Meanwhile my own use of the name may be associated with some notion. Now, it looks like we cannot explain the difference in the contents of these two occurrences of (12) by a difference in their contexts. It may be explained, though, if we permit a shift of the reference of «Cicero» in ‘that’-clause from a restricted by my notion to an unrestricted one.27 Crimmins thinks that in cases like «Hesperus was more highly regarded than Phosphorus» (18) we might portray speakers and hearers of attitude ascriptions as «conspiratorially pretending that there are two individuals where really there is just one».28 But again we can treat (18) as rather expressing the thought about two distinct individual objects, though it may be saying what is thus expressed about the same thing. Perhaps the speaker of (18) knows that Hesperus is Phosphorus but describes the thought of some other people who does not know this fact that the thing which is Hesperus is 24 Recanati introduces the distinction between two types of modes of presentation: the ascribed to the believer and the exercised by the speaker. The later also is ordinarily supposed to be the mode which a hearer of the utterance must employ to understand it [Récanati, Crimmins, 1995: 199]. But I suppose that things are subtler in this respect: the speaker may mean some mode of presentation of an object which is neither her own nor the believer’s, but rather something like a common sense idea of that object. This later one is usually what is supposed to be employed by a hearer to understand the utterance. If we then identify the exercised mode of presentation with the speaker’s in cases when this one does not coincide with the common one the speaker may be expected to provide in the utterance one of the two types of a mode of presentation different from the one ascribed to the believer. But we may identify as an exercised mode of presentation the common one if this is what the speaker is disposed to mean in relevant utterances. Sometimes, of course, the hearer is supposed to employ the speaker’s mode of presentation strictly, and sometimes – the believer’s one. So, we shouldn’t harry reducing the hearer’s mode of presentation to the speaker’s, the believer’s or the common’s: there may be cases where the speaker knowing whom she is addressing means the hearer’s mode of presentation, however distinct from her own, the believer’s or the common, to be employed in understanding of the utterance. mj in Recanati’s representation may also stand for common sense rather than speaker’s mode of presentation. 25 He supposes that there is a general and a special theses of semantic innocence where the first one says that words behave in the normal way when they occur in contexts of attitude ascription, and the latter one – ‘Sentential Innocence’ – says that the content of the sentence once embedded is necessarily the same as that of the sentence unembedded. He rejects the later for it does not make room for context-sensitivity [Re´canati, Crimmins, 1995: 189]. 26 If the time of the process of the utterance made so much difference then we might not even say that the context remains the same for any real utterance, since it took some time to be pronounced. 27 Of course the conjunction of (12) and (15) is not equivalent to (12) plus «an John believes that», since in the second case ordinarily what the speaker associates with (12) is ascribed to John as his belief; meanwhile in the first case the speaker may not pretend to ascribe John his own belief if he suspects that their ideas of Cicero are different. 28 [Re´canati, Crimmins, 1995: 207].

114

BELIEF CONTENT AND BELIEF STATE

in such and such relation to the thing which is Phosphorus. In this case we may rephrase (18) as: «There is a thing of which some people think that it is two things, one is Hesperus, and another Phosphorus, and for these people Hesperus was more highly regarded than Phosphorus». But we can notice that in this presentation (18) is explicitly about three things two of which are composed from some parts of the third (the one referred to by the speaker from his own point of view or under his own notion unlike those of «Hesperus» or «Phosphorus»). Hesperus is after all that part of Venus which is seen from some Earthly location at evening, and Phosphorus is another part of that thing which is seen from the same location at morning.

6. Conclusion So, even if we take Kaplanian two-dimensional semantics as basic for an analysis of beliefs, and distinguish strictly, as it prescribes, believed propositions from characters of beliefs, this will not prove that there are changes of beliefs which cannot be explained as changes in their propositional contents. It seems plausible that to be relevant to the belief change the information is to be at least available to a competent reflexive subject of the belief, and this information then may be added to a propositional content of a normal belief after the reflection. Consider the following case: Basil says that (19) Peter believes that Cicero is better writer than Tully. Treating (19) as having a two-dimensional semantic content, part of which is the proposition expressed, when another part informs about subjective modes of presentation of the objects referred to directly by certain terms, we should agree that it expresses the proposition that Peter believes that Cicero is better writer than himself. As an ascription of rational belief (19) should be thought as somehow informing the hearer about Peter’s point of view treating Cicero and Tully as different persons. Now suppose that Peter himself articulates his belief and says: (20) I believe that Cicero is better writer than Tully. (20) will express the same proposition as (19) given the presumption of direct references of proper names and indexicals and a two-dimensionalism. But suppose further that Basil and Peter both share the same notion of singular proposition and can apply it to the case illustrated by (19) and (20). Then we might rephrase (19) as (19’) Peter believes the proposition that Cicero is better writer than himself. And if (20) expresses the proposition that Peter believes that Cicero is better writer than himself (19’) should also be an adequate paraphrase for (20). But this is of course wrong description of what Peter could truly ascribe to himself; for to do this he had to be informed of and accept that Cicero and Tully are the same person, which is currently not the case for him. Sin-

115

A. CHERNIAK

ce (19’) may be inferred from what is supposed to be Peter’s current belief articulated in (20) and (19) it is tempting to prescribe the content of (19’) as the propositional content of (20). But it seems to me that the failure of ascription of this content from the first person shows that we better not confuse the inferred content of the belief with its propositional content. Of course we should not add «that Cicero and Tully are different persons» to the propositional content of (20), for this is rather what (20) presupposes about Peter’s beliefs as rational. But we can rephrase (20) as «I believe that Cicero-not-Tully is better writer than Tully-not-Cicero», where two names refer to those parts of Cicero which exclude, correspondingly, features associated by Peter with his normal use of «Tully» and those associated with his normal use of «Cicero». Without this, I think, we cannot explain why, saying truly what (20) says, Peter cannot say truly what (19’) says.

References Crimmins, Perry, 1989 – Crimmins M., Perry J. The Prince and the Phone Booth: Reporting Puzzling Beliefs // Journal of Philosophy. 1989. Vol. 86. P. 685–711. Fantl, McGrath, 2009 – Fantl J., McGrath M. Knowledge in an Uncertain World. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2009. Foley, 2009 – Foley R. Beliefs, Degrees of Belief, and the Lockean Thesis // F. Huber, C. Schmidt-Petri (eds.). Degrees of Belief. Synthese Library, 2009. Frege, 1948 – Frege G. Sense and Reference (1892) // The Philosophical Review. 1948. Vol. 57, ¹ 3. P. 209–230. Jeffrey, 1983 – Jeffrey R. The Logic of Decision. N.Y. : McGraw-Hill, 1983. Kaplan, 1989 – Kaplan D. Demonstratives (1977) // J. Almog, J. Perry, H. Wettstein (eds.). Themes from Kaplan. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1989. P. 481–563. Lewis, 1980 – Lewis D. A Subjectivist’s Guide to Objective Chance // R. Jeffrey (ed.). Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability. 1980. Vol. 2. Berkeley, CA : University of California Press. Perry, 1979 – Perry J. The Problem of Essential Indexical // Noûs. 1979. Vol. 13, ¹ 1. Perry, 1997 – Perry J. Rip Van Winkle and other Characters // The European Review of Analytical Philosophy. 1997. Vol. 2. P. 13–39. Quine, 1956 – Quine W.v.O. Quantifiers and Propositional Attitudes // Journal of Philosophy. 1956. Vol. 53. P. 177–87. Ramsey, 1931 – Ramsey F.P. Truth and Probability // Foundations of Mathematics and Other Essays. L. : Routledge&Kegan Paul, 1931. Récanati, Crimmins, 1995 – Récanati F., Crimmins M. Quasi-Singular Propositions: The Semantics of Belief Reports // Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. Supplementary Volumes. 1995. Vol. 69. Reed – Reed B. Against the Interest-Relative Account of Belief. Northwestern University. – [email protected] Reed, 2010 – Reed B. A Defense of Stable Invariantism // Noûs. 2010. Vol. 44. P. 224–244. Richard, 1983 – Richard M. Direct Reference and Ascriptions of Belief // Journal of Philosophical Logic. 1983. Vol. 12, ¹ 4. Russell, 1910 – Russell B. Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description // Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. 1910. Vol. 11. P. 108–128.

116

BELIEF CONTENT AND BELIEF STATE

Russell, 1912 – Russell B. The Problems of Philosophy. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1912. Schiffer, 1977 – Schiffer S. Naming and Knowing // P. French, T. Uehling, and H. Wettstein (eds.). Midwest Studies in Philosophy. 1977. Vol. 2. P. 28–41. Stanley, 2005 – Stanley J. Knowledge and Practical Interests. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2005. Weatherson, 2011 – Weatherson B. Defending Interest-Relative Invariantism // Logos & Episteme. 2011. ¹ 2. P. 591–609.

117

EPISTEMOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE · 2015 · Ò. XLV · ¹ 3

Ф

ИЛОСОФСКАЯ «ЯЗЫКОВАЯ ИГРА»: ПРОБЛЕМА

ПРОФЕССИОНАЛЬНОЙ КОММУНИКАЦИИ Елена Всеволодовна Золотухина$Аболи$ на – доктор философ ских наук, профессор Южного федерального университета (Рос товнаДону). Email: [email protected]

«L

Статья посвящена проблеме профессиональной коммуникации между филосо фами. Автор полагает, что во второй половине ХХ в. сложилась ситуация атоми зации философских языков, когда каждый философ строит свою речь на базе субъективных ассоциаций, исключительно личного видения, не связанного прямо с наличной интеллектуальной традицией, использует термины и понятия, которые не имеют ни определения, ни разъяснения. Причиной радикального «разбегания» и индивидуализации философских языков автор считает круп ные мировоззренческие изменения, произошедшие в интеллектуальной и ду ховной жизни ХХ в., – секуляризацию и отказ от метафизической проблемати ки, ранее задававшей философам единый понятийный и смысловой контекст. В качестве черт философской «языковой игры» второй половины ХХ в. рассмат риваются: метафоризация по субъективным ассоциациям; камуфляж мисти корелигиозных терминов под термины светские; стремление говорить, избе гая субъектобъектного различения и метафизических отсылок; эссеистиче ская манера письма. Возникшее таким образом туманное языковосмысловое поле создает, с одной стороны, широкие возможности для герменевтического толкования, а с другой – крайне затрудняет понимание идей, которые филосо фы пытаются донести до коллег. А именно это понимание автор статьи полагает главной задачей философской коммуникации. В статье также поднимается во прос о коммуникации с мыслителями прошлого и о деконструкции как негатив ном способе отношения к философским оппонентам. В статье проводится мысль о том, что разрыв между идеями автора прошлого и его текстом сущест венно преувеличен и без стремления понять именно автора, а не только текст, философский диалог с прошлым невозможен. Ключевые слова: философская языковая игра, коммуникация, интерпретация, субъективизация, общезначимость, понимание, деконструкция.

ANGUAGE GAMES» IN PHILOSOPHY: THE PROBLEM

OF PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION

Elena Zolotukhinа$Abolina – Ph.D., professor, Southern Federal University (RostovonDon).

The paper discusses professional communication among philosophers. The author argues that starting from the second half of the twentieth century atomization of philosophical languages has begun. Philosopher are argued to have been creating their own speech on the basis of subjective associations, exclusively personal vision, not directly related to existing intellectual tradition; they would use their own terms and concepts without proper definitions or clarification. The author addresses the major ideological changes in the intellectual and cultural life of the twentieth century (the secularization and the rejection of metaphysical issues) as the core reasons for the radical «change» and the individualization of the philosophical language. Metaphorization by subjective associations; camouflaging of mysticalreligious terms for the secular term; the desire to speak, avoiding the subjectobject distinction and metaphysical references; essayistic style of writing are claimed to be the most characteristic properties of what is dubbed as «the philosophical language game of the second half of the twentieth century». The reality produced is fruitful for various hermeneutic interpretations, but at the same time the ideas that philosophers attempt

118 Language and Mind

ÔÈËÎÑÎÔÑÊÀß «ßÇÛÊÎÂÀß ÈÃÐÀ»…

to convey to their colleagues become very hard to grasp. Key words: philosophical language game, communucation, interpretation, subjectivization, universal validality, understanding, deconstruction.

Постановка проблемы Âîïðîñ î ÿçûêå ôèëîñîôèè, åå äèñêóðñå – ñïîñîáå âûðàæàòüñÿ – íå ÿâëÿåòñÿ ïðàçäíûì, ïóñòûì èëè äàâíî ðåøåííûì. Ôèëîñîôñêàÿ ïðîáëåìàòèêà âñåãäà êàñàëàñü ïðåäìåòîâ, ëèøü êîñâåííî ñâÿçàííûõ ñ ïîâñåäíåâíîé æèçíüþ, æèòåéñêèìè îáûäåííûìè âåùàìè è îáñòîÿòåëüñòâàìè, ïîýòîìó «ðàçãîâîð ôèëîñîôîâ» âî âñå âðåìåíà âûãëÿäåë êàê îñîáûé ðàçãîâîð, íå ñîâñåì ïîíÿòíûé «íåïîñâÿùåííûì», â ÷åì-òî ýçîòåðè÷íûé. Îáîáùåíèÿ âûñîêîãî óðîâíÿ, «ïîëåòû â ìåòàôèçè÷åñêèå âûñè», óãëóáëåíèå â òàéíû ìèðîóñòðîéñòâà è ÷åëîâå÷åñêîé äóøè òðåáóþò ñâîåîáðàçíîãî ïîíÿòèéíîãî àïïàðàòà, ñïåöèôè÷åñêîãî êàòåãîðèàëüíîãî ñòðîÿ, âûðàæàþùåãî òåîðåòè÷åñêèé ïîèñê àâòîðà, åãî ïîçíàâàòåëüíóþ óñòðåìëåííîñòü ê òåì õàðàêòåðèñòèêàì ìèðà, íà êîòîðûå íåâîçìîæíî ïðîñòî óêàçàòü ïàëüöåì. Ñîâåðøåííî ÿñíî: íåôèëîñîôó íóæíî èçó÷àòü ôèëîñîôñêèé äèñêóðñ, âõîäèòü â íåãî, îñâàèâàòü åãî, èíà÷å îí íè÷åãî íå ïîéìåò… Îäíàêî ôèëîñîôñêèé ÿçûê, ìåíÿþùèéñÿ îò âåêà ê âåêó, îò ýïîõè ê ýïîõå, ðàçëè÷íûé ó ðàçíûõ íàðîäîâ è â ðàçíûõ ñòðàíàõ, ñîñòàâëÿåò ïðîáëåìó è äëÿ ñàìèõ ôèëîñîôîâ. Ïðè áëèæàéøåì ðàññìîòðåíèè îêàçûâàåòñÿ, ÷òî ôèëîñîôû ïîä÷àñ èãðàþò íå â îäíó «ÿçûêîâóþ èãðó», à â ñîâñåì ðàçíûå «ÿçûêîâûå èãðû» è äëÿ íèõ ÿâëÿåòñÿ ðåàëüíîé íå òîëüêî ïðîáëåìà ïîïóëÿðèçàöèè ñâîèõ èäåé äëÿ øèðîêèõ ìàññ, íî ñîáñòâåííî ïðîôåññèîíàëüíàÿ êîììóíèêàöèÿ, ñïîñîáíàÿ òàê èëè èíà÷å ñâÿçàòü èõ â åäèíîå ñîîáùåñòâî. Ðýíäàëë Êîëëèíç â ñâîåé çíàìåíèòîé ðàáîòå «Ñîöèîëîãèÿ ôèëîñîôèé» ïîêàçàë íà ìíîãî÷èñëåííûõ ïðèìåðàõ, ÷òî ôèëîñîôû íå ìîãóò áûòü è íå áûâàþò îäèíî÷êàìè, íåêèìè ìûñëèòåëüíûìè ðîáèíçîíàìè, îíè âñåãäà ÿâíî èëè ñêðûòî «èãðàþò â êîìàíäå», ñîñòàâëÿþò ñîîáùåñòâî, ïðîñòèðàþùååñÿ êàê â ïðîñòðàíñòâå, òàê è âî âðåìåíè. Ê òîìó æå ñòîðîííèêè ðàçíûõ êîíöåïöèé è ïîäõîäîâ òîæå íå îòãîðîæåíû äðóã îò äðóãà íåïðåîäîëèìîé ñòåíîé, îíè íåèçáåæíî ïåðåñåêàþòñÿ, îáðàùàÿñü ñ ðàçíûõ ïîçèöèé ê îäíèì è òåì æå âîïðîñàì è ïîòîìó âñòóïàþò íà îáùåå èíòåëëåêòóàëüíîå ïîëå. Îäíàêî äëÿ óñïåøíîé «èãðû» íà ýòîì ïîëå äîëæíû âûïîëíÿòüñÿ îïðåäåëåííûå óñëîâèÿ, êîòîðûå â îòäåëüíûå ýïîõè, íàïðèìåð â íàøó, ñóùåñòâåííî íàðóøàþòñÿ. Îáðàòèìñÿ ê ïðîáëåìàì, ñâÿçàííûì ñ ÿçûêîì è ñ ïðîöåññîì ïîíèìàíèÿ òåêñòà, êîòîðûå âîçíèêëè â íåäàâíåì ïðîøëîì – â ÕÕ â.

119

Å.Â. ÇÎËÎÒÓÕÈÍÀ-ÀÁÎËÈÍÀ

Коммуникация с современниками: можно ли обойтись без толмача? Øèðîêî èçâåñòíî, ÷òî âî âòîðîé ïîëîâèíå XIX â. â åâðîïåéñêîé ôèëîñîôñêîé ìûñëè íà÷àëñÿ íåêèé ïåðåëîì, ÷òî âïîñëåäñòâèè ïîçâîëèëî èññëåäîâàòåëÿì ãîâîðèòü î ñîâðåìåííîé çàïàäíîé ôèëîñîôèè, îòñòðàèâàÿ åå îò ðàáîò À. Øîïåíãàóýðà. Êëàññè÷åñêîå ïîëå ôèëîñîôñêîé ðåôëåêñèè êàê áóäòî èñ÷åðïàëî ñâîþ âåêîâóþ ïðîáëåìàòèêó, âûöâåëî, ñòàëî ðàññûïàòüñÿ íà îñêîëêè, êîòîðûå óæå íå ïîõîäèëè íà òó ñïåêóëÿòèâíóþ ìåòàôèçèêó, êîòîðàÿ íåêîãäà ñòîÿëà ó èñòîêîâ íîâûõ ó÷åíèé. Ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, â èíòåëëåêòóàëüíûõ êðóãàõ ïîñòåïåííî øåë ïðîöåññ ñåêóëÿðèçàöèè, êîòîðûé øèðîêî ðàçâåðíóëñÿ ëèøü â ÕÕ â., íî äëÿ ôèëîñîôîâ îí îçíà÷àë âîçìîæíîñòü ñâîáîäíî ãîâîðèòü âíå õðèñòèàíñêîé äîêòðèíû, ôèëîñîôñêèõ òåîëîãèé, ñïåêóëÿòèâíûõ ïîíÿòèé è ñîîòâåòñòâóþùåé èì ëåêñèêè. Ñâîáîäà ìèðîâîççðåíèÿ, èçáàâëåíèå îò «êîíöåïòóàëüíûõ î÷êîâ», åñòåñòâåííî, ïðåäïîëàãàëè ðàçíîãîëîñèöó òåì è òåîðåòè÷åñêèõ ñþæåòîâ, êîíöåíòðàöèþ âíèìàíèÿ íà òàêèõ âîïðîñàõ, êîòîðûå ðàíüøå îñòàëèñü áû â òåíè. Ñ äðóãîé ñòîðîíû, äàæå â òåîëîãèè, êîòîðàÿ ê êîíöó XIX â. ïîëó÷èëà, ê ïðèìåðó â Ãåðìàíèè, òåíäåíöèþ ïðåîáðàçîâàíèÿ â ôåíîìåíîëîãèþ ðåëèãèè, âîçîáëàäàëè èäåè ïîñòðîåíèÿ ôèëîñîôñêî-òåîëîãè÷åñêîãî çíàíèÿ ïî åñòåñòâåííî-íàó÷íîìó îáðàçöó. Åñòåñòâîçíàíèå, óãëóáëÿþùååñÿ â ñâîè êîíêðåòíûå, ÷óâñòâåííî-äàííûå ïðåäìåòû, äèêòîâàëî òàêèå æå ïóòè äëÿ ôèëîñîôñêîé ìûñëè, ðîæäåíèå ïîçèòèâèçìà îçíà÷àëî âûòåñíåíèå òðàäèöèîííîé ïðîáëåìàòèêè – Áîãà, ñâîáîäû è áëàãîäàòè, ìåòàôèçè÷åñêèõ ñèñòåì è âûðàæàþùèõ èõ êàòåãîðèé – íà çàäâîðêè òåîðåòè÷åñêîé ìûñëè. Èìåííî ýòî íàñòóïëåíèå åñòåñòâîçíàíèÿ ñ åãî ðåëÿòèâèçìîì è ñêåïòèöèçìîì íà ãóìàíèòàðíóþ ìûñëü âûçûâàëî ïðîòåñò òàêèõ êðóïíûõ ìûñëèòåëåé, êàê Ý. Ãóññåðëü, õîòÿ è íå çàÿâëÿâøèé î ñåáå êàê î ðåëèãèîçíîì àâòîðå, íî ïðîòåñòîâàâøèé ïðîòèâ ïîïûòêè çàñòàâèòü íàóêó î ñîçíàíèè ñëåäîâàòü ïóòåì íàòóðàëèçìà. Âìåñòå ñ ïðåæíåé ïðîáëåìàòèêîé ðàññûïàëàñü è ñèñòåìà êàòåãîðèé, êîòîðûå õîòÿ è òîëêîâàëèñü ðàçíûìè àâòîðàìè ïî-ðàçíîìó, âñå æå îñòàâàëèñü íåêèì îáùèì ïðîñòðàíñòâîì äëÿ ôèëîñîôñêîé äèñêóññèè. Òî æå ñóáúåêò-îáúåêòíîå îòíîøåíèå, âïîñëåäñòâèè ðàñêðèòèêîâàííîå, áûëî îáùåïîíÿòíûì èíñòðóìåíòîì ìûñëè, îïðåäåëåííîé ïðåäïîñûëêîé äëÿ âçàèìíîãî ïîíèìàíèÿ êîëëåã. Îäíàêî óõîä â ïðîøëîå ïðåæíèõ îáùåçíà÷èìûõ òåì è ïðîáëåì íå ïðèâåë ê âîçíèêíîâåíèþ â åâðîïåéñêîé êóëüòóðå ÕÕ â. íîâîãî åäèíîãî òåîðåòè÷åñêîãî òðåíäà. Íàïðîòèâ, íà÷àâøàÿñÿ è ñîïðîâîæäàâøàÿ âåñü ïðîøëûé âåê áîðüáà ñ ìåòàôèçèêîé îáåðíóëàñü ïîñëåäîâàòåëüíîé è æåñòêîé ñóáúåêòèâèçàöèåé ôèëîñîôñêîãî ïîèñêà, ÷òî íå ìîãëî íå ñêàçàòüñÿ íà ôè-

120

ÔÈËÎÑÎÔÑÊÀß «ßÇÛÊÎÂÀß ÈÃÐÀ»…

ëîñîôñêîì ÿçûêå è âîçìîæíîñòÿõ ïðîôåññèîíàëüíîé êîììóíèêàöèè. Îáðàòèìñÿ ê ñèòóàöèÿì, êîòîðûå äåìîíñòðèðóþò, ÷òî â ÕÕ â. ïðîèçîøëà ëàâèíîîáðàçíàÿ àòîìèçàöèÿ ôèëîñîôñêèõ ÿçûêîâ, ðàññåèâàíèå åäèíûõ ñìûñëîâ, ïîðîé äîõîäÿùåå ïî÷òè äî àóòèçìà, âûìûñëèâàíèå äèñêóðñîâ, êîãäà êàæäûé ìûñëèòåëü èçúÿñíÿåòñÿ íà ñâîåì ñîáñòâåííîì ïåðñîíàëüíîì ÿçûêå, ïðàêòè÷åñêè íå çàáîòÿñü î ïîíèìàíèè ñî ñòîðîíû äðóãèõ ïðåäñòàâèòåëåé ôèëîñîôñêîãî öåõà. Åñëè âçãëÿíóòü íà èñòîðèþ åâðîïåéñêîé êóëüòóðû, òî ìîæíî óâèäåòü, ÷òî â ïåðèîä ñòàíîâëåíèÿ õðèñòèàíñêîé ïàðàäèãìû â ôèëîñîôèè ñóùåñòâîâàëî òÿãîòåíèå ê ïðîñòîòå è îáùåçíà÷èìîñòè.  êíèãå «Ïóòè ê óíèâåðñàëèÿì» Ñ. Íåðåòèíà è À. Îãóðöîâ îòìå÷àþò, ÷òî «Àâãóñòèí, ýòî íàäî îñîáî ïîä÷åðêíóòü, îïèðàåòñÿ íà îáûäåííóþ ðå÷ü (êàê â ñâîå âðåìÿ Òåðòóëëèàí), êîòîðàÿ â ñèëó ñâîåé ïðîñòîòû îäíà ñïîñîáíà âûðàçèòü èñòèíó… Çíàíèå îáûäåííîé ðå÷è ïî ñâîåé ïðîñòîòå ïîçâîëÿåò ïîíÿòü ñëîæíîå óïîòðåáëåíèå ñëîâ.  ýòîì – ôèëîñîôñêàÿ çàäà÷à Àâãóñòèíà. Òîãäà ñëîâà ïåðåñòàþò êàçàòüñÿ ñòðàííûìè èç-çà ïðèâû÷êè óïîòðåáëÿòü èõ â ðàçíûõ çíà÷åíèÿõ. È èìåííî â ýòîì ñîñòîèò çàäà÷à “òîëêîâàòåëÿ Ñâÿùåííîãî Ïèñàíèÿ è ó÷èòåëÿ”, â ñëó÷àå Àâãóñòèíà – õðèñòèàíñêîãî ó÷èòåëÿ, êîòîðîãî îí ïðåäñòàâëÿåò êàê çàùèòíèêà âåðû» [Íåðåòèíà, Îãóðöîâ, 2006: 232–233]. Îäíàêî ñî âðåìåíåì ÿçûê ôèëîñîôèè óñëîæíÿåòñÿ, ñòðåìëåíèå àâòîðîâ, ïðèíàäëåæàùèõ ê íåìåöêîé êëàññè÷åñêîé ôèëîñîôèè, ñòðîèòü ìîùíûå ìåòàôèçè÷åñêèå ñèñòåìû – ñîáñòâåííûå òåîðåòè÷åñêèå êîíñòðóêöèè, ëèøü êîñâåííî ñâÿçàííûå ñ õðèñòèàíñêîé ïàðàäèãìîé, – âûëèâàåòñÿ â ñîçäàíèå èñêóññòâåííûõ ôèëîñîôñêèõ ÿçûêîâ, ïðåòåíäóþùèõ íà îáúåêòèâíîñòü è âñåîõâàòíîñòü. Èññëåäóÿ òåìó íåïåðåâîäèìîñòè íåìåöêîé ôèëîñîôèè, àìåðèêàíñêèé ôèëîñîô Áàððè Ñìèò îòìå÷àåò: «Óæå â 1794 ã., ïîñëå ðàçíîîáðàçíûõ ïîïûòîê ñäåëàòü êàíòîâñêóþ èëè âîëüôîâñêóþ ôèëîñîôèþ “ëåãêî ÷èòàåìîé è ïîíÿòíîé äëÿ âñåõ ñîñëîâèé è ïîêîëåíèé”, Ãåîðã Ãóñòàâ Ôþëëåáîðí â ñâîèõ Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie ñôîðìóëèðîâàë ïîçèöèþ êëàññè÷åñêîé íåìåöêîé ôèëîñîôèè â îòíîøåíèè òàêîãî ðîäà ýêñïåðèìåíòîâ. Îí ïèñàë: “Òî, ÷òî ñîâðåìåííûå ïèñàòåëè ïðåâðàùàþò â ðàçâëåêàòåëüíîå ÷òåíèå, ýòî îòíþäü íå âîëüôîâñêàÿ ëîãèêà, ìåòàôèçèêà è ýòèêà: ýòî âñåãî ëèøü ðàññóæäåíèÿ îá îáùåçíà÷èìûõ ïðåäìåòàõ, ìàòåðèàë äëÿ êîòîðûõ ïîçàèìñòâîâàí èç ýòèõ ñèñòåì... Ñîçäàííàÿ ôèëîñîôîì ñèñòåìà, åñëè îíà äåéñòâèòåëüíî îñíîâàíà íà ñïåêóëÿòèâíûõ ïðèíöèïàõ è âûâåäåíà èç íèõ ñ ñèñòåìàòè÷åñêîé îñíîâàòåëüíîñòüþ, ñîâåðøåííî íå ìîæåò áûòü èçëîæåíà áåç èñêóññòâåííîãî ÿçûêà, ÷òî äåëàåò òàêæå íåâîçìîæíûì åå óïðîùåíèå äëÿ âñåîáùåãî ÷òåíèÿ» … è äàëåå: «Òå, êòî ðàçäåëÿë òî÷êó çðåíèÿ Ôþëëåáîðíà, à â Ãåðìàíèè èõ áûëî äåéñòâèòåëüíî ìíîãî, ðàñöåíèâàëè êàê äîñòîèíñòâî òî, ÷òî ôèëîñîôñêèé òåêñò õàðàêòåðèçóåòñÿ òðóäíîäîñòóïíîñòüþ â åãî ïîíèìàíèè.  èõ ïðåäñòàâëåíèè ïîäëèííûé ôèëîñîôñêèé ÿçûê òðåáóåò îñî-

121

Å.Â. ÇÎËÎÒÓÕÈÍÀ-ÀÁÎËÈÍÀ

áîãî ðîäà äóõîâíûõ óñèëèé è íå êàæäîìó äàíî óñëûøàòü ýòîò ïðèçûâ.  ñâîåì ïðåäèñëîâèè ê Hegel-Lexikon Ãëîêíåð ïèøåò: “Èçâåñòíî, ÷òî Ãåãåëü ïîëüçóåòñÿ ñâîèì ñîáñòâåííûì ÿçûêîì, à ïîýòîìó îí äîëæåí áûòü ïðî÷èòàí êàê ôèëîñîôèÿ àíòè÷íîñòè èëè Ñðåäíåâåêîâüÿ, ñ òàêîé æå “ôèëîëîãè÷åñêîé” ïðåäàííîñòüþ ýòîìó ÿçûêó, êîòîðûé îòíþäü íå ÿâëÿåòñÿ îáùåïîíÿòíûì» [Áàððè, 2000]. Òåì íå ìåíåå íàäî çàìåòèòü, ÷òî «ñîáñòâåííûé ÿçûê Ãåãåëÿ» î÷åíü ïîõîæ íà ÿçûê Ôèõòå è Øåëëèíãà, õîòÿ, ðàçóìååòñÿ, â èõ ïîíÿòèéíîì àïïàðàòå, êàê è â èõ èäåÿõ, åñòü ðàçíî÷òåíèÿ, â ñâîå âðåìÿ ïðîâîöèðîâàâøèå ñïîðû. Îáðàçíî ìîæíî ñêàçàòü, ÷òî ðàçëè÷èå ÿçûêîâ àâòîðîâ íåìåöêîé êëàññèêè – ýòî ðàçëè÷èå «äèàëåêòîâ» îäíîãî ôèëîñîôñêîãî ÿçûêà, ãäå ïðè âñåõ ñïîðàõ è äèñêóññèÿõ ôèëîñîôû ïîíèìàþò äðóã äðóãà, ñòðåìÿñü ãîâîðèòü îá îäíèõ è òåõ æå ïðåäìåòàõ – Áîãå, ïîíÿòîì êàê Àáñîëþòíîå, ñòðóêòóðàõ ìèðîçäàíèÿ, ïðèðîäå è ÷åëîâåêå. Îðèãèíàëüíûå àâòîðû, ñîçäàþùèå ñîáñòâåííûé ÿçûê, âðîäå Ê.Õ.Ô. Êðàóçå, íå áûëè â XIX â. â ïî÷åòå. Èíòåðåñíî, ÷òî ôèëîñîôèÿ ÕÕ â., ïðåæäå âñåãî â ñâîåì ýêçèñòåíöèàëüíî-ôåíîìåíîëîãè÷åñêîì è ïîñòìîäåðíèñòñêîì âàðèàíòàõ, îòâåðãàåò ìåòàôèçè÷åñêèå ïîèñêè ïðîøëîãî ñ èõ êàòåãîðèàëüíûì ÿçûêîì, ïîëàãàÿ åãî èñêóññòâåííûì, è ïðåòåíäóåò íà íåïîñðåäñòâåííîå âûðàæåíèå îïûòà.  òî æå âðåìÿ îíà ñîçäàåò äðóãèå «èñêóññòâåííûå ÿçûêè», òîëüêî óæå íàïðàâëåííûå íå íà ïîñòèæåíèå ïðåäïîëàãàåìûõ îíòîëîãè÷åñêèõ ðåàëèé. Îíè íàïðàâëåíû íà âûðàæåíèå ñóãóáî ñóáúåêòèâíîãî, ëè÷íîãî, ïàðòèêóëÿðíîãî ìèðîâîñïðèÿòèÿ, îòêàçàâøåãîñÿ îò ñòàðûõ ôîðì (è â ïåðâóþ î÷åðåäü îò ñóáúåêò-îáúåêòíîãî îòíîøåíèÿ, ïðåæäå ÿñíîãî èíñòðóìåíòà ôèëîñîôñêîãî ìûøëåíèÿ), êîòîðîå èùåò ñâîé ÿçûê äëÿ ñâîåãî óíèêàëüíîãî ïåðåæèâàíèÿ, íå çàáîòÿñü î ÷óæèõ ñîçíàíèÿõ ñ èõ ïîíèìàíèåì ëèáî íåïîíèìàíèåì. Ìíîæåñòâî ïðèìåðîâ «íåïîíÿòíîãî ôèëîñîôñêîãî ÿçûêà» äàåò ýêçèñòåíöèàëüíàÿ ôèëîñîôèÿ. Õàéäåããåðîâñêèé òåðìèí Dasein, íåñìîòðÿ íà ñâîå ïîÿâëåíèå â ðàáîòå «Áûòèå è âðåìÿ», ïî ñåé äåíü ïîäâåðãàåòñÿ ìíîãîîáðàçíûì òîëêîâàíèÿì è èññëåäîâàíèþ – êàê êîíòåêñòóàëüíîìó, òàê è èñòîðèêî-ôèëîñîôñêîìó.  îäíîì èç íîìåðîâ æóðàíàëà «Ëîãîñ» çà 2000 ã. ïîìåùåíà îáøèðíàÿ ñòàòüÿ À. Àõóòèíà «Dasein (ìàòåðèàëû ê òîëêîâàíèþ)», ãäå àâòîð ïûòàåòñÿ íàéòè àäåêâàòíûé ðóññêèé ïåðåâîä ýòîãî ýêçèñòåíöèàëà, îïèðàÿñü íà íåìåöêóþ è ðóññêóþ ïîýçèþ è íåìåöêóþ êëàññèêó, ñòðåìÿñü îïðåäåëèòü èäåþ Õàéäåããåðà, âëîæåííóþ â ñëîâî. Îí ïèøåò: «Ìîæíî âèäåòü â ñëîâå Dasein êàê ñàìîãîâîðÿùåì èìåíè ÷åëîâå÷åñêîãî áûòèÿ óäà÷íóþ íàõîäêó (çíà÷èìà ñàìà âîçìîæíîñòü òàêèõ “íàõîäîê”) âíèìàòåëüíîãî ñëóøàòåëÿ ÿçûêà, ìîæíî âèäåòü çäåñü è óìûøëåííóþ âûäóìêó ôèëîñîôà Ì. Õàéäåããåðà. Íî êàê áû òàì íè áûëî, ýòî, âî-ïåðâûõ, îáèõîäíîå ñëîâî íåìåöêîãî ÿçûêà, êàê ïîâñåäíåâíîãî, òàê è ïîýòè÷åñêîãî, ñî âñåì ìíîãîîáðàçèåì çíà÷åíèé è ñìûñëîâûõ îòòåíêîâ. Ìû, âî-âòî-

122

ÔÈËÎÑÎÔÑÊÀß «ßÇÛÊÎÂÀß ÈÃÐÀ»…

ðûõ, íàéäåì îáû÷íîå èñïîëüçîâàíèå ýòîãî ñëîâà è â òåêñòàõ ñàìîãî Õàéäåããåðà (â ðàííèõ ëåêöèîííûõ êóðñàõ, â ïåðåâîäàõ ãðå÷åñêèõ ñëîâ, â ïèñüìàõ). Â-òðåòüèõ, ýòî ñëîâî óæå íå ðàç ñëóæèëî òåðìèíîì â íåìåöêîé ôèëîñîôèè. Íàêîíåö, ýòî ñëîâî, êîòîðîå ìû çäåñü äîëæíû êàê-òî ïåðåäàòü ïî-ðóññêè, ïåðåâåñòè åãî â ñòèõèþ ðóññêîãî ÿçûêà, ñîîòíåñòè ñ ñîîòâåòñòâóþùèìè ñëîâîîáðàçîâàíèÿìè ðóññêîãî ÿçûêà» [Àõóòèí, 2000]. Òåðìèí Dasein îêàçûâàåòñÿ íàñòîëüêî ìíîãîñìûñëåííûì è ðàçìûòûì, ÷òî êàæäûé ìîæåò ïîíÿòü åãî ïî-ñâîåìó: «áûòèå», «ïðèñóòñòâèå», ìîæåò áûòü, «âîò-áûòèå», à ìîæåò, è ïðîñòî «ýìïèðè÷åñêèé èíäèâèä». È ïî ñåé äåíü ýòà õàéäåããåðîâñêàÿ òóìàííîñòü è ñìóòíîñòü âûçûâàåò íåáåçîñíîâàòåëüíóþ äîñàäó èññëåäîâàòåëåé: «Õàéäåããåð â îòëè÷èå îò ïðîñòîäóøíîãî Ãóññåðëÿ, – ïèøåò Ñ.Í. Ìàðååâ, – ñëîâå÷êà â ïðîñòîòå íå ñêàæåò. È èç íåãî âñå íàäî âûíèìàòü êëåùàìè» [Ìàðååâà, Ìàðååâ, 2013: 93]. Íî è â áîëåå îòäàëåííûå îò ñåãîäíÿøíåãî äíÿ âðåìåíà ôèëîñîôû ïîðîé ãëóáîêî âîçìóùàëèñü íàìåðåííîé íåâíÿòíîñòüþ õàéäåããåðîâñêèõ âûðàæåíèé, âî ìíîãîì ñêðûâàþùåé èõ ñìûñë. Ðàçâå ÷òî íå ïðèïå÷àòûâàëè, êàê â ÷åõîâñêîé «Ñâàäüáå»: «Îíè õî÷óò ñâîþ îáðàçîâàííîñòü ïîêàçàòü è âñåãäà ãîâîðÿò î íåïîíÿòíîì». Òàê, â êíèãå «Æàðãîí ïîäëèííîñòè. Î íåìåöêîé èäåîëîãèè» Ò. Àäîðíî ñåðäèòî ïèøåò î ÿçûêå íåìåöêîé ýêçèñòåíöèàëüíîé ôèëîñîôèè, ïðåæäå âñåãî î Õàéäåããåðå è ßñïåðñå, êàê îá àâòîðàõ, èñïîëüçóþùèõ æàðãîí, çëîóïîòðåáëÿþùèõ îáûäåííûìè ñëîâàìè, â êîòîðûõ ñîäåðæèòñÿ íàìåê íà ÷òî-òî ñìóòíîå è âûñîêîçíà÷èìîå: ýêçèñòåíöèÿ, ïîäëèííîñòü, Äðóãîé. Àäîðíî ñ÷èòàåò, ÷òî çà ìíîãîçíà÷èòåëüíûìè íàìåêàìè ñêðûâàåòñÿ ïóñòîòà, à ñàìè âûðàæåíèÿ ñòàíîâÿòñÿ øòàìïàìè, ïðèçâàííûìè îòäåëèòü ëþäåé, ïðåòåíäóþùèõ íà èíòåëëåêòóàëüíóþ ýëèòàðíîñòü, îò âñåõ îñòàëüíûõ. Îí ïèøåò: «Îñòåðåãàÿñü àïåëëèðîâàòü ê îòêðîâåíèþ, èñêóøåííûå óìû â ñâîåé òîñêå ïî àâòîðèòåòó îðãàíèçóþò âîçíåñåíèå òîãî èëè èíîãî ñëîâà íàä ñôåðîé ôàêòè÷íîãî, îáóñëîâëåííîãî è ñïîðíîãî, ïðîèçíîñÿ åãî, â òîì ÷èñëå è ïå÷àòíî, òàê, ñëîâíî â íåì íåïîñðåäñòâåííî ïðèñóòñòâóåò ïîìèìî ïðî÷åãî íåêîå áëàãîñëîâåíèå ñâûøå. Æàðãîí óðîäóåò òî âûñøåå, ÷òî íàäëåæèò ìûñëèòü è ÷òî îêàçûâàåò ìûñëè ñîïðîòèâëåíèå, êîãäà âåäåò ñåáÿ òàê, ñëîâíî “óæå âñåãäà” (ïî åãî âûðàæåíèþ) ýòèì âûñøèì îáëàäàåò… æàðãîí ñàìîâîëüíî çàõâàòûâàåò… òðàíñöåíäåíöèþ, òåì ñàìûì ðàçðóøàÿ åå, è îòäàåò åå íà îòêóï ñâîåé òðåñêîòíå» [Àäîðíî, 2011: 16]. Âåñü ïàôîñ ðàáîòû Àäîðíî íàïðàâëåí íà äåìîíñòðàöèþ òîãî, ÷òî ñâîåîáðàçíûé ýêçèñòåíöèàëüíûé ÿçûê â ñèëó ñâîåé òóìàííîñòè ïðåâðàùàåòñÿ ïðîñòî â ðàñõîæèé ñîöèàëüíûé èíñòðóìåíò, íå ðåøàþùèé çàäà÷ ïîäëèííî ôèëîñîôñêîãî èññëåäîâàíèÿ. Äàæå åñëè ìû íå âî âñåì ñîãëàñíû ñ Àäîðíî è íå áóäåì ñìîòðåòü íà óïîìÿíóòûå âûøå òåðìèíû, êàê íà øòàìïû, ñòîèò ïðèçíàòü, ÷òî íåóëîâèìîñòü ñìûñëà, ñóáúåêòèâíûå àññîöèàöèè, îò÷àñòè äàþùèå

123

Å.Â. ÇÎËÎÒÓÕÈÍÀ-ÀÁÎËÈÍÀ

ïèùó âîñòîðæåííîé è áåñêîíå÷íîé ãåðìåíåâòèêå ýêçèñòåíöèàëüíûõ òåêñòîâ, âñå æå çàòðóäíÿþò ïîíèìàíèå èäåé, êîòîðûå õîòÿò âûðàçèòü àâòîðû, à ÷òî êàê íå èäåè äîëæíû ìû óñâîèòü è ïðèíÿòü, îáðàùàÿñü ê ëþáîìó ôèëîñîôñêîìó òåêñòó? Ôèëîñîôñêàÿ ÿçûêîâàÿ èãðà ñòàíîâèòñÿ äåéñòâèòåëüíî èãðîé: àâòîð ïðÿ÷åòñÿ, ÷èòàòåëü èùåò, àâòîð óáåãàåò, ÷èòàòåëü ïûòàåòñÿ äîãíàòü, íî âñå âðåìÿ ñïîòûêàåòñÿ. Îäíèì èç ïðîñòûõ ïðèìåðîâ âûñòóïàåò ñëîâî «ýêçèñòåíöèÿ», êîòîðàÿ, êîíå÷íî, íå ðàâíà ïðîñòî «ñóùåñòâîâàíèþ», íî ÷åìó îíà ðàâíà, îñòàåòñÿ çàãàäêîé. Ê. ßñïåðñ âî âòîðîì òîìå ñâîåé òðåõòîìíîé «Ôèëîñîôèè», ïðàâäà, îãîâàðèâàåòñÿ îäíàæäû, ÷òî åãî, ÿñïåðñîâñêàÿ ýêçèñòåíöèÿ – ýòî äóøà: «Òî, ÷òî â ìèôè÷åñêîì ñïîñîáå âûðàæåíèÿ íàçûâàåòñÿ äóøîé è Áîãîì, à íà ôèëîñîôñêîì ÿçûêå – ýêçèñòåíöèåé è òðàíñöåíäåíöèåé – íå åñòü ìèð» [ßñïåðñ, 2012: 3]. Íî, âî-ïåðâûõ, ïîäîáíîå ïðî÷òåíèå äàëåêî íå âñåãäà ïðèìåíèìî ê äðóãèì ôðàãìåíòàì òðåõòîìíèêà, à âî-âòîðûõ, ýêçèñòåíöèÿ Õàéäåããåðà, íåñîìíåííî, íå÷òî èíîå.  ýòîé ÷èòàòåëüñêîé ñèòóàöèè ïîñòîÿííî íóæåí «òîëìà÷» – ãåðìåíåâò-ïåðåâîä÷èê ñ êîíêðåòíî-ôèëîñîôñêîãî ÿçûêà íà «îáùåãðàæäàíñêèé» ïðîñòî äëÿ òîãî, ÷òîáû îðèãèíàëüíûå àâòîðñêèå èäåè íå ïîãèáëè ïîä ñïóäîì ñóáúåêòèâíûõ àññîöèàöèé è íåçðèìûõ äëÿ ÷èòàòåëÿ îòñûëîê.

Черты философской «языковой игры» ХХ в. Ïåðå÷èñëèì êîðîòêî äðóãèå îñîáåííîñòè «ðàññåèâàþùåãîñÿ» ÿçûêà ñîâðåìåííîé ôèëîñîôèè, íåãàòèâíî ñêàçûâàþùèåñÿ íà âíóòðèôèëîñîôñêîé êîììóíèêàöèè. Ìåòàôîðèçàöèÿ ïî ñóáúåêòèâíûì àññîöèàöèÿì. Ìåòàôîðû ôèëîñîôîâ ÕÕ â. íå ïðîñòî ðàçëè÷íû, îíè íåïðåäñêàçóåìû è íåðåäêî íè ñ ÷åì âîîáùå íå àññîöèèðóþòñÿ. Ê òîìó æå îíè â áîëüøèíñòâå ñâîåì íå èìåþò ÿñíûõ ðàáî÷èõ îïðåäåëåíèé (åñëè ñ÷èòàòü, ÷òî äåôèíèöèè â ôèëîñîôèè íå ãëàâíîå, òî óæ «îïåðàöèîíàëüíîå» óïîòðåáëåíèå ñëîâ æåëàòåëüíî ïîíèìàòü). Íàïðèìåð, äåëåçîâñêîå «òåëî áåç îðãàíîâ». Ìåòàôîðà, ñêîëü óðîäëèâàÿ, ñòîëü è íåïîíÿòíàÿ, âïîëíå âîçìîæíî, ïðîñòî íåòî÷íàÿ. È ñêîëüêî àâòîðû – Æ. Äåëåç è Ô. Ãâàòòàðè – íè îáúÿñíÿþò ñìûñë ýòîãî æóòêîâàòîãî îáðàçà, íà ìîé âçãëÿä, îíè íå äîñòèãàþò óñïåõà. Ïðîñòî ñ èõ îáúÿñíåíèÿìè ó äðóãèõ ëþäåé àññîöèèðóþòñÿ äðóãèå îáðàçû, è ìåòàôîðè÷åñêèé òåðìèí â äàííîì ñëó÷àå ñêîðåå ðàññ÷èòàí íà øîêîâóþ ðåàêöèþ ÷èòàòåëÿ, ïðèâëå÷åíèå åãî âíèìàíèÿ, ÷åì íà ïîíèìàíèå àâòîðñêîé ìûñëè. Âïðî÷åì êîììåíòàòîðû è èíòåðïðåòàòîðû, ñòðåìÿùèåñÿ ÷òî-òî ðàçúÿñíèòü äðóãèì ëþäÿì, âñå áîëüøå ññûëàþòñÿ íà ïîñòàíîâêó Àíòîíåíà Àðòî, êîòîðóþ, êàê ïðàâèëî, íèêòî íå âèäåë. Ñîâåðøåííî çàãàäî÷íîé âûñòóïàåò ìåòàôîðà Æàêà Ëàêàíà, íàçûâàåìàÿ «îáúåêò à» èëè «àãàëüìà». Íåêîòîðîå åå ðàçúÿñíåíèå íà ïðè-

124

ÔÈËÎÑÎÔÑÊÀß «ßÇÛÊÎÂÀß ÈÃÐÀ»…

ìåðå ëèòåðàòóðíûõ è êèíîïðîèçâåäåíèé ìîæíî îòûñêàòü ðàçâå ÷òî ó Ðåíàòû Ñàëåöë1, â òî âðåìÿ êàê òàêèå ïîñëåäîâàòåëè Ëàêàíà, êàê Ñëàâîé Æèæåê, àêòèâíî ïðèìåíÿþò åãî â êà÷åñòâå çàãàäî÷íîãî èåðîãëèôà, íàä ñìûñëîì êîòîðîãî âñÿêèé ðàç íàäî áèòüñÿ, êàê íàä äçåíñêèì êîàíîì. Òî æå êàñàåòñÿ «èìåíè Îòöà» (çíà÷åíèå âñÿêèé ðàç èíîå) è, êîíå÷íî, ãëàâíûõ ëàêàíîâñêèõ ìåòàôîð Ðåàëüíîãî, Âîîáðàæàåìîãî è Ñèìâîëè÷åñêîãî. Íàä íèìè ÷èòàòåëü ìîæåò ìåäèòèðîâàòü áåñêîíå÷íî, ïðîêëèíàÿ ñîáñòâåííóþ íåïîíÿòëèâîñòü. Âïðî÷åì äàæå ñïåöèàëèñòû, êîòîðûå ÷èòàþò Ëàêàíà â îðèãèíàëå è ïèøóò î íåì êíèãè, çàìå÷àþò: «×åòêîé äåôèíèöèè Âîîáðàæàåìîãî, Ñèìâîëè÷åñêîãî è Ðåàëüíîãî îí… íå äàë, íî ñêîðåå ëèøü íàìåêíóë íà íèõ. Âïðî÷åì, è â áóäóùåì ðàññ÷èòûâàòü íà ñòðîãèå îïðåäåëåíèÿ íå ïðèõîäèòñÿ: âî-ïåðâûõ, Ëàêàí âñåãäà èçáåãàåò äèäàêòè÷íîñòè, à âî-âòîðûõ, ðå÷ü âåäåòñÿ î ïðåäìåòàõ ñòîëü òóìàííûõ èëè, åñëè óãîäíî, òðàíñöåíäåíòíûõ, ÷òî óêàçàòü íà íèõ ÿñíî íå óäàåòñÿ» [Äüÿêîâ, 2010: 124–125]. Êàìóôëÿæ ìèñòèêî-ðåëèãèîçíûõ òåðìèíîâ ïîä òåðìèíû ñâåòñêèå. Ïîíèìàíèå ôèëîñîôñêèõ òåêñòîâ ÕÕ â. ÷ðåçâû÷àéíî çàòðóäíÿåò ñòðåìëåíèå ìèñòè÷åñêèõ ôèëîñîôîâ ãîâîðèòü íà ñâåòñêîì ÿçûêå, íå âûçûâàÿ íà ñåáÿ îãîíü íè ñî ñòîðîíû ÿâíî êîíôåññèîíàëüíûõ àâòîðîâ, íè ñî ñòîðîíû ïîáîðíèêîâ ñâåòñêîãî íàó÷íîãî ìèðîâîççðåíèÿ.  íåìàëîé ñòåïåíè ýòî îòíîñèòñÿ ê Õàéäåããåðó è ßñïåðñó, êîòîðûõ, êîíå÷íî, òðóäíî íàçâàòü ðåëèãèîçíûìè èëè ñîáñòâåííî ìèñòè÷åñêèìè ôèëîñîôàìè, ñêîðåå ôèëîñîôàìè «ïàðàðåëèãèîçíûìè», âçûñêóþùèìè òðàíñöåíäåíòíîãî. Èññëåäóÿ ýòîò âîïðîñ â îäíîé èç ñâîèõ ñòàòåé, ÿ, â ÷àñòíîñòè, îòìå÷àþ: «Ãîâîðÿ îá àáñîëþòíîé èíàêîâîñòè òðàíñöåíäåíöèè, ßñïåðñ îòìåæåâûâàåòñÿ îò ìèñòèêè, íàçûâàÿ åå “íåêîììóíèêàáåëüíîé è áåçìèðíîé”, ñ÷èòàÿ, ÷òî ïîâñåäíåâíàÿ æèçíü ìèñòèêà è åãî áûòèå-âíå-ìèðà ïðîòåêàþò äðóã âîçëå äðóãà áåç âñÿêîãî âçàèìíîãî îòíîøåíèÿ. Ýêçèñòåíöèÿ æå ñ åãî òî÷êè çðåíèÿ æèâåò â ïðîòèâîðå÷èè, â äâîéñòâåííîñòè, â àíòèíîìèè, êîòîðàÿ âûðàæåíà ëèøü êîñâåííî. Ýêçèñòåíöèÿ ïðåáûâàåò íà ãðàíèöå ìèðíîãî è âíåìèðíîãî, îäíîâðåìåííî îñîçíàâàÿ ãëóáîêóþ âàæíîñòü è ïîëíóþ áåññìûñëåííîñòü âñåãî ïðîèñõîäÿùåãî. Ýòî îñîáåííî ÿðêî âûðàæåíî â ïîãðàíè÷íûõ ñèòóàöèÿõ. Îäíàêî ðàçìûøëåíèÿ òàêîãî ðîäà î÷åíü ÿðêî ñâèäåòåëüñòâóþò èìåííî î “ïàðàðåëèãèîçíîì” õàðàêòåðå êîíöåïöèè ßñïåðñà, î åå “áîãîèñêàòåëüñêîì” õàðàêòåðå, ïîòîìó ÷òî àâòîðû-ìèñòèêè, îáëàäàþùèå æèâûì ïåðåæèâàíèåì âûñøåãî, èíà÷å îïèñûâàþò ñîîòíîøåíèå Áîãà è äóøè» [Çîëîòóõèíà-Àáîëèíà, 2014: 32]. Òî æå ìîæíî ñêàçàòü î Õàéäåããåðå, êîòîðûé, â ÷àñòíîñòè, â çíàìåíèòîé ñòàòüå «Ïèñüìî î ãóìàíèçìå» äàåò ìíîæåñòâî ÷èñòî àïîôàòè÷åñêèõ íàìåêîâ íà òî, ÷òî òàêîå Áûòèå, íî â ðàâíîé ñòåïåíè èãíîðèðó1 Ñì.: Ñàëåöë Ð. (Èç)âðàùåíèÿ ëþáâè è íåíàâèñòè. Ì.,1999; Îíà æå. Òèðàíèÿ âûáîðà. Ì., 2014; Îíà æå. Î ñòðàõå. Ì., 2014.

125

Å.Â. ÇÎËÎÒÓÕÈÍÀ-ÀÁÎËÈÍÀ

åò êàê âîçìîæíîñòü îáúÿñíåíèÿ, òàê è âîçìîæíîñòü ññûëêè íà ìèñòè÷åñêèå àâòîðèòåòû, íàïðèìåð íà Ìåéñòåðà Ýêõàðòà, êîòîðîãî îí öåíèë è èçó÷àë2. Íå â ìåíüøåé ñòåïåíè «ñêðûâàþùèìè» ìèñòèêî-ðåëèãèîçíûå ìîòèâû âûñòóïàþò ïîíÿòèÿ â ðÿäå ðàáîò Ý. Ëåâèíàñà: Òîæäåñòâåííîå è Èíîå, Òîòàëüíîñòü è Áåñêîíå÷íîå, Äðóãîé, Ëèê. Ñàìî ïîñòðîåíèå òåêñòà òàêîâî, ÷òî íåðåäêî ïîëîâèíà ôðàçû èìååò ÿâíî ñâåòñêèé ñìûñë, à ïîëîâèíà – ìèñòèêî-ðåëèãèîçíûé, ïðè÷åì «ïåðåòåêàíèå ñìûñëà» èç îäíîãî ìèðîâîççðåí÷åñêîãî «ðåãèñòðà» â äðóãîé ïðîèñõîäèò ïðè ÷òåíèè êàê áû íåçàìåòíî, è ÷èòàòåëü âñå âðåìÿ ñòîèò ïåðåä âîïðîñîì, î ÷åì æå èäåò ðå÷ü: îá îòíîøåíèÿõ ìåæäó ëþäüìè èëè îá îòíîøåíèè ÷åëîâåêà è Áîãà? Ñòðåìëåíèå ãîâîðèòü, èçáåãàÿ ñóáúåêò-îáúåêòíîãî ðàçëè÷åíèÿ è ìåòàôèçè÷åñêèõ îòñûëîê. Âûðàæåíèÿ òèïà æèçíåííûé ìèð, áûòèå-â-ìèðå, èíòåðòåêñòóàëüíîñòü, íîìàäèçì, ìåòàíàððàòèâ, îïûòû-ïðåäåëû è äð. íîñÿò áåçëè÷íûé õàðàêòåð, ìîãóò áûòü îòíåñåíû êàê ê èíäèâèäàì, òàê è ê ãðóïïàì, îáúåäèíÿþò æèâûõ ëþäåé, òåêñòû è îáñòîÿòåëüñòâà êóëüòóðíîãî ìèðà â íåðàçëè÷èìîå íå÷òî, â íåðàñ÷ëåíåííûé ñèíêðåòèçì. Æåëàíèå èçáàâèòüñÿ îò «ãåíåðàëà» – îíòîëîãè÷åñêîãî è ìîðàëüíîãî öåíòðà – ëèøàåò âûñêàçûâàíèÿ ñâÿçè, îáúåäèíåíèÿ â ñèñòåìó è åäèíûé êîíòåêñò, â ñòðóêòóðèðîâàííîå öåëîå; èäåÿ «ìíîæåñòâåííîñòè áåç åäèíñòâà» ïðåâðàùàåò òåêñòû â áîëüøóþ çàãàäêó, êîòîðóþ ìîæíî íèêîãäà è íå ðàçãàäàòü, áëóæäàÿ ïî ëàáèðèíòàì ñâîåîáðàçíîãî àâòîðñêîãî âîîáðàæåíèÿ. Òàêàÿ çàãàäêà ìîæåò èìåòü òûñÿ÷ó ðàçãàäîê, è áåçëè÷èå âêóïå ñ àìîðôíîñòüþ äåëàþò òåêñò èñòî÷íèêîì ïîèñòèíå «ãåðìåíåâòè÷åñêîãî ïèðà», òåì áîëåå ÷òî òîëêîâàòåëü íå ñâÿçàí ïî ñóùåñòâó íèêàêèìè ïðàâèëàìè òîëêîâàíèÿ. Ýòî â ÷èñòîì âèäå èãðà, èãðà áåç ïðàâèë, âîçìîæíîñòü âîëüíî ïëåñêàòüñÿ â ñìûñëîâîì ìîðå (à ïîðîé è â ìîðå áåññìûñëåííîñòè), ÷òî îêàçûâàåòñÿ ïðèìåíèìî íå òîëüêî ê ôèëîñîôñêèì òåêñòàì îïðåäåëåííîãî òèïà, íî è ê õóäîæåñòâåííîé ëèòåðàòóðå. Âïðî÷åì, èññëåäîâàòåëè ñâèäåòåëüñòâóþò ïðèìåíèòåëüíî ê ïåðâîìó äåñÿòèëåòèþ ÕÕI â., ÷òî «ñîâðåìåííàÿ ïàðàäèãìà ïåðåêëþ÷àåòñÿ â òîëêîâàíèè ëèòåðàòóðû ñ èãðîâûõ ñòðóêòóð íà êðåàòèâíî-òðóäîâóþ» [Ãðèãîðüåâà, 2005: 5]. Ýññåèñòè÷åñêàÿ ìàíåðà ïèñüìà, ñëîæèâøàÿñÿ çàäîëãî äî ÕÕ â., íà ñàìîì äåëå ìîæåò áûòü ïðåêðàñíîé âîçìîæíîñòüþ ÷åòêî è âíÿòíî äîíåñòè ñëîæíûå ôèëîñîôñêèå èäåè êàê äî êîëëåã, òàê è äî èíòåëëåêòóàëüíî íàñòðîåííîé ïóáëèêè, îäíàêî îíà æå íåðåäêî ïðåâðàùàëàñü â ÕÕ â. â ñïîñîá çàòóìàíèâàíèÿ ñìûñëà.  íåé ìîæåò âûðàæàòüñÿ è íåðåäêî âûðàæàåòñÿ ñâîåîáðàçíîå àâòîðñêîå êîêåòñòâî ñ ÷èòàòåëåì, ïðèçâàííîå ïðîäåìîíñòðèðîâàòü, ÷òî ìûñëèòåëü àáñîëþòíî ñâîáî2 Ñì. îá ýòîì: Ñàôðàíñêè Ð. Õàéäåããåð. Ãåðìàíñêèé ìàñòåð è åãî âðåìÿ. Ì., 2005; Êîíà÷åâà Ñ.À. Áûòèå. Ñâÿùåííîå. Áîã. Õàéäåããåð è ôèëîñîôñêàÿ òåîëîãèÿ ÕÕ âåêà. Ì., 2010.

126

ÔÈËÎÑÎÔÑÊÀß «ßÇÛÊÎÂÀß ÈÃÐÀ»…

äåí è íå ñêîâàí íèêàêèìè ïðàâèëàìè. Ýññåèñòèêà â îñîáåííîñòè áûëà ñâîéñòâåííà ôðàíöóçñêèì ôèëîñîôàì, ÷üè ïðîèçâåäåíèÿ, íûíå èçâåñòíûå ðîññèéñêîìó ÷èòàòåëþ, ïîðîé ñòàíîâÿòñÿ ïîõîæè íà êàðòèíû èìïðåññèîíèñòîâ è ïóàíòèëèñòîâ – òîëüêî âçãëÿä èçäàëåêà ïîçâîëÿåò õîòü ÷òî-íèáóäü ïîíÿòü – «ñõâàòèòü» àáðèñ ñìûñëà. Äëÿ ðàáîò Ð. Áàðòà, Æ. Áàòàÿ, Æ. Áîäðèéÿðà, íåðåäêî Æ. Äåððèäà õàðàêòåðíû ôðàãìåíòàðíîñòü, îòñóòñòâèå âñòóïëåíèÿ ê òåêñòó, îáîðâàííîñòü ÷àñòåé òåêñòà íà ïîëóñëîâå, îòñóòñòâèå êàê îáúÿñíåíèé, òàê è ìîòèâàöèé. È ýòî ïðè áîãàòñòâå ýðóäèöèè, êîòîðàÿ âïîëíå îïðåäåëåííî äåìîíñòðèðóåòñÿ. Ôèëîñîôñêèé òåêñò, ïîäîáíî ìîäåðíèñòñêîìó è ïîñòìîäåðíèñòñêîìó òåêñòó â ëèòåðàòóðå, ìîæåò íà÷èíàòüñÿ ñ êîíå÷íîãî óòâåðæäåíèÿ, êîíêðåòíîãî ýïèçîäà, âîñêëèöàíèÿ èëè âîïðîñà. Âåñüìà âîñòðåáîâàíà äíåâíèêîâàÿ ôîðìà, ãäå çàïèñü â äíåâíèêå íà÷èíàåòñÿ ñ ëþáîãî, âîçìîæíî, ñëó÷àéíîãî âïå÷àòëåíèÿ. Ìîæíî ñêàçàòü, ÷òî òåêñòû ìíîãèõ àâòîðîâ â ÷èñòîì âèäå «ëþáîñëîâåñíû», êîãäà ñëîâîì ëþáóþòñÿ ðàäè íåãî ñàìîãî, êàê òî áûâàåò â ïîýçèè. Àâòîð óâëå÷åí ôèëîëîãè÷åñêîé ñàìîïðåçåíòàöèåé, íå çàáîòÿñü î ôèëîñîôñêèõ èäåÿõ è èõ ïîíèìàíèè äðóãèìè. Ðàçóìååòñÿ, ïåðå÷èñëåííûå çäåñü ÷åðòû ÿçûêîâîé ôèëîñîôñêîé èãðû ÕÕ â. îòíþäü íå èñ÷åðïûâàþò âñå åå êà÷åñòâà è âàðèàíòû, à ëèøü ïîä÷åðêèâàþò åå ñâîåîáðàçíûé àóòè÷åñêèé õàðàêòåð, äàþùèé ÷èòàòåëþ, êîòîðûé ñóäèò èçâíå, áåçãðàíè÷íûé ïðîñòîð äëÿ âàðèàíòîâ ïîíèìàíèÿ, íî ëèøàþò åãî âîçìîæíîñòè íàäåÿòüñÿ íà àóòåíòè÷íîñòü. Îäíèì èç ðåçóëüòàòîâ ñàìîçàìêíóòîñòè è ñìóòíîñòè ïîñòìîäåðíèñòñêîãî ÿçûêà ÿâëÿåòñÿ åãî êðàéíå òðóäíîå âõîæäåíèå â ó÷åáíûé ïðîöåññ ïðè ïðåïîäàâàíèè ôèëîñîôèè â âûñøåé øêîëå. Ñîâðåìåííûé ðîññèéñêèé ïðåïîäàâàòåëü ôèëîñîôèè ïðè ðàçãîâîðå ñî ñòóäåíòàìè ëèáî âîîáùå íå îáðàùàåòñÿ ê òåìå ïîñòìîäåðíèçìà, îïàñàÿñü ïîëíîãî îòêëþ÷åíèÿ âíèìàíèÿ ñëóøàòåëåé â ñèëó íåÿñíîñòè ñêàçàííîãî, ëèáî, åñëè îí ñàì óâëå÷åí ñîîòâåòñòâóþùèìè èäåÿìè, íàõîäèò äëÿ ñåáÿ ÷ðåçâû÷àéíî óçêèé êðóã «ëþáèòåëåé øàðàä». Íàâÿçûâàíèå ñóáúåêòèâíîé ïîñòìîäåðíèñòñêîé ëåêñèêè ïðè ðàçãîâîðå îá îáùåçíà÷èìûõ âîïðîñàõ, íàïðèìåð â êóðñå ôèëîñîôñêîé àíòðîïîëîãèè, îòâðàùàåò ñòóäåíòîâ êàê ðàç îò àíòðîïîëîãèè, êàêîâàÿ â ýòîì ñëó÷àå ïîíèìàåòñÿ êàê «çàóìü», è âàæíåéøàÿ ïðîáëåìàòèêà, êîòîðàÿ ïðÿìî êàñàåòñÿ ÷åëîâåêà è åãî èíòåðåñîâ, îêàçûâàåòñÿ ïîòåðÿíà èç-çà íåàäåêâàòíîñòè ñïîñîáà äîíåñåíèÿ ñìûñëà. Ïîñëåäîâàòåëè ïîñòìîäåðíèçìà â Ðîññèè ïîðîé îïðàâäûâàþò ìíîãîñìûñëåííîñòü ñâîåãî ñïîñîáà èçúÿñíÿòüñÿ òåì, ÷òî, ìîë, åùå ðóññêèé ïîýò ïèñàë: «Ìûñëü èçðå÷åííàÿ åñòü ëîæü». Îäíàêî ýòîò àðãóìåíò òðóäíî ïðèíÿòü, ïîòîìó ÷òî â ñâåòñêîì âàðèàíòå îáó÷åíèå ôèëîñîôèè (äà è ëþáîé ôèëîñîôñêèé ðàçãîâîð) íå ìîæåò áûòü «îáìåíîì ìîë÷àíèåì», à îñòàåòñÿ âñå æå äèàëîãîì, ãäå îäíà ñòîðîíà íåïðåìåííî äîëæíà äî îïðåäåëåííîé ñòåïåíè ïîíèìàòü äðóãóþ.

127

Å.Â. ÇÎËÎÒÓÕÈÍÀ-ÀÁÎËÈÍÀ

Îáðàòèìñÿ òåïåðü ê òåìå ôèëîñîôñêîé êîììóíèêàöèè ñ ïðîøëûì, êîòîðàÿ òîæå çàíèìàåò çíà÷èòåëüíîå ìåñòî â «ôèëîñîôñêèõ èãðàõ», âñåãäà îáðàùåííûõ ê òåêñòàì óæå óøåäøèõ èç æèçíè «èãðîêîâ».

«Философия подозрения» и коммуникация с прошлым Ñòîèò ëè ó÷èòûâàòü àâòîðà? Êàê îáùàòüñÿ ñ êîëëåãàìè, ôèëîñîôàìè, êîòîðûõ äàâíî íåò? Êàê âñòóïàòü ñ íèìè â äèàëîã, êàê ïîíÿòü èõ èäåè? È ìîæíî ëè ýòî ñäåëàòü? Îáñóæäåíèå ïîäîáíûõ âîïðîñîâ ïîñòîÿííî âîñïðîèçâîäèëîñü â ãåðìåíåâòè÷åñêîé ìûñëè ÕÕ â., íî âîñïðîèçâîäèëîñü íà ôîíå óñòàíîâîê «ôèëîñîôèè ïîäîçðåíèÿ» (Ï. Ðèêåð), â ñîîòâåòñòâèè ñ êîòîðîé àóòåíòè÷íîãî ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ îá èäåÿõ àâòîðîâ ïðîøëûõ ýïîõ ïîëó÷èòü íåëüçÿ. Ã.Ã. Ãàäàìåð, êàê èçâåñòíî, ôîðìóëèðóåò â ÕÕ â. òåçèñ î «ïðåäðàññóäêàõ» èëè «ïðåäìíåíèÿõ», ñ êîòîðûìè ìû âñåãäà ïîäõîäèì ê òåêñòàì ïðîøëîãî, ïðèòîì ÷òî çàäàòü âîïðîñû óæå íåêîìó è óøåäøèé íå ìîæåò âñòóïèòü â ðåàëüíóþ äèñêóññèþ. Õîòÿ «ïðåäðàññóäêè» ñâîéñòâåííû è ðàçíûì ïîêîëåíèÿì æèâóùèõ, â ðåçóëüòàòå ÷åãî îíè ïîðîé ñòðàñòíî ëîìàþò êîïüÿ âîêðóã êàêîãî-òî âîïðîñà, ñîâåðøåííî î÷åâèäíî íå ïîíèìàÿ äðóã äðóãà. Ãàäàìåð ïîä÷åðêèâàåò òàêæå, ÷òî íàäî âíèìàòü ñàìîìó òåêñòó, à íå àâòîðó, êîòîðûé ÷òî-òî ñèëèëñÿ íàì ñêàçàòü, íî, âïîëíå âåðîÿòíî, íå ñóìåë.  îáùåì åñòü áîëüøîå ïîäîçðåíèå, ÷òî ñêàçàíî ÷òî-òî èíîå, íåæåëè çàäóìàííîå, è ÷òî ìû ðàñêðîåì â òåêñòå ñâîè ñîáñòâåííûå ñìûñëû, à âîâñå íå àâòîðñêèå çàìûñëû. Ñ.Ñ. Àâåðèíöåâ îòìå÷àåò åùå îäèí àñïåêò, çàòðóäíÿþùèé êîììóíèêàöèþ ìåæäó ýïîõàìè, êîòîðûé, íåñîìíåííî, îòíîñèòñÿ íå òîëüêî ê ïðîèçâåäåíèÿì èñêóññòâà, íî è ê ôèëîñîôñêèì ðàáîòàì. Ýòî íàëè÷èå â òåêñòå ìîìåíòîâ, êàê âûãîâîðåííûõ, òàê è âñåãî ëèøü ïîäðàçóìåâàåìûõ àâòîðîì ïðîèçâåäåíèÿ, êîòîðûå ñîâðåìåííûé ÷èòàòåëü äîëæåí èçâëåêàòü èç èñòîðè÷åñêîãî êîíòåêñòà èëè èç êîíòåêñòà ëè÷íûõ îáñòîÿòåëüñòâ èçó÷àåìîãî àâòîðà. «Îáà âèäà îáúåêòèâàöèè ñìûñëà, – ïèøåò Àâåðèíöåâ, âûãîâàðèâàþùèé è íåâûãîâàðèâàþùèé, âçàèìíî êîððèãèðóÿ äðóã äðóãà, ñâîèì ïîäâèæíûì ñîîòíîøåíèåì ôèêñèðóþò íåòîæäåñòâî ñìûñëà ôîðìå è ñïàñàþò ñìûñë îò ìàññèâíîãî çàñòûâàíèÿ â ôîðìå, îò óáèåíèÿ ÷åðåç îâåùåñòâëåíèå. Ïîýòîìó ïðèõîäèòñÿ íàïðÿãàòü âñþ ñâîþ ñïîñîáíîñòü ê ÷óòêîñòè, ÷òîáû óäåðæèâàòü â ïîëå çðåíèÿ îáà óðîâíÿ ñèìâîëè÷åñêîãî ñìûñëà, ïðèòîì íè â êîåì ñëó÷àå íå ñìåøèâàÿ ýòè óðîâíè. Ñèìâîë êàê òàêîâîé åñòü èìåííî ðàâíîâåñèå âûãîâàðèâàíèÿ è óìîë÷àíèÿ; îí, óïîòðåáëÿÿ âûðàæåíèå Ãåðàêëèòà, “íå âûãîâàðèâàåò è íå ñêðûâàåò, íî çíàìåíóåò” [Àâåðèíöåâ, 1975].

128

ÔÈËÎÑÎÔÑÊÀß «ßÇÛÊÎÂÀß ÈÃÐÀ»…

 òî æå âðåìÿ, çàâåðøàÿ ñâîþ ñòàòüþ î ñðåäíåâåêîâîé ýñòåòèêå, Àâåðèíöåâ îòìå÷àåò: «Íå íàäî ñòàâèòü âîïðîñ òàê: äîëæíû ëè ìû èíòåðïðåòèðîâàòü ÿâëåíèÿ êóëüòóðû äàëåêîé ýïîõè â êàòåãîðèÿõ ýòîé ýïîõè èëè, íàïðîòèâ, â êàòåãîðèÿõ íàøåé ñîáñòâåííîé ýïîõè? Íåîïîñðåäîâàííîå, íåêðèòè÷åñêîå, íåäèñòàíöèðîâàííîå ïîëüçîâàíèå îäíèì èëè äðóãèì ðÿäîì êàòåãîðèé ñàìî ïî ñåáå ìîæåò áûòü òîëüêî ïðîâàëîì. Ïîïûòêà ñêîëüêî-íèáóäü ïîñëåäîâàòåëüíî ðàññóæäàòü â êàòåãîðèÿõ ìèíóâøåé ýïîõè – ýòî ïîïûòêà ïèñàòü çà êàêîãî-òî íåâåäîìîãî ìûñëèòåëÿ ýòîé ýïîõè òðàêòàò, êîòîðûé îí ïî÷åìó-òî óïóñòèë íàïèñàòü âîâðåìÿ; ïîëåçíîñòü òàêîé ïîïûòêè âåñüìà íåÿñíà, íî íåîñóùåñòâèìîñòü î÷åâèäíà. Èíòåðïðåòèðîâàòü êóëüòóðó ïðîøëîãî, íàèâíî ïåðåíîñÿ íà íåå ïîíÿòèÿ ñîâðåìåííîñòè, – çíà÷èò çàíèìàòüñÿ ìûøëåíèåì, êîòîðîå èäåò ìèìî ñâîåãî ïðåäìåòà è ãðîçèò óéòè â ïîëíóþ áåñïðåäìåòíîñòü. Èíòåðïðåòàöèÿ âîçìîæíà òîëüêî êàê äèàëîã äâóõ ïîíÿòèéíûõ ñèñòåì: “èõ” è “íàøåé”. Ýòîò äèàëîã âñåãäà îñòàíåòñÿ ðèñêîâàííûì, íî íèêîãäà íå ñòàíåò áåçíàäåæíûì» [Àâåðèíöåâ, 1975]. Òåì íå ìåíåå ïðåêðàñíàÿ èäåÿ Ñåðãåÿ Ñåðãååâè÷à î äèàëîãå ñ ìûñëèòåëÿìè ïðîøëîãî ÷àùå âñåãî îñòàåòñÿ íåðåàëèçîâàííîé, è ñîâðåìåííûé ÷èòàòåëü îòíîñèòñÿ ê ìûñëèòåëþ ìèíóâøèõ ëåò ñêîðåå êàê áàõòèíñêèé Àâòîð ê Ãåðîþ: ìûñëèòåëü ñòàíîâèòñÿ «ãåðîåì» èíòåðïðåòàòîðà â òîì ñìûñëå, ÷òî ýòîò âòîðîé îêàçûâàåòñÿ «òðàíñãðåäèåíòåí» åìó, âíåïîëîæåí íàñòîëüêî, ÷òî îõâàòûâàåò åãî ñîáîé ñî âñåõ ñòîðîí, «çíàåò» åãî ëó÷øå, ÷åì îí ñàì, ïðèïèñûâàåò åìó èñõîäÿ èç ñåãîäíÿøíèõ ïðåäïîñûëîê ñîáñòâåííîå âèäåíèå è íå äîâåðÿåò íè÷åìó, ÷òî èäåò îò ñàìîãî «ãåðîÿ». Îí æå òîëüêî «ãåðîé» – ïîðîæäåíèå ñîçíàíèÿ èíòåðïðåòàòîðà. Âîîáùå-òî ñ ýòèì òðóäíî ñîãëàñèòüñÿ, è íå òîëüêî ïîòîìó, ÷òî êàæäûé ïèøóùèé ñàì ðèñêóåò êîãäà-òî îêàçàòüñÿ â ïîëîæåíèè áåçìîëâíîãî è áåññèëüíîãî «ãåðîÿ» ÷óæèõ èíòåðïðåòàöèé, íî è ðàäè àóòåíòè÷íîãî ïîíèìàíèÿ òåìïîðàëüíîé êîììóíèêàöèè ìåæäó ôèëîñîôàìè ðàçíûõ ýïîõ. Ìíå ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ, ÷òî àâòîð ïðîøëîãî, íåñìîòðÿ íà åãî âûíóæäåííóþ óñòíóþ íåìîòó, âñå æå ìîæåò áûòü ïîíÿò. Èìåííî àâòîð, à íå «òåêñò». È çàâèñèò ýòà âîçìîæíîñòü ïîíèìàíèÿ îò ðÿäà ìîìåíòîâ: à âêëþ÷åííîñòè èíòåðïðåòàòîðà â òðàäèöèþ, ê êîòîðîé ïðèíàäëåæèò èññëåäóåìûé ôèëîñîô, èëè ïðîòèâîñòîÿíèÿ åé; à ëîãèêî-ðàöèîíàëüíîãî ëèáî ìåòàôîðè÷åñêîãî ñïîñîáà âûñêàçûâàíèé àâòîðà ïðîøëîãî (ñîâåðøåííî î÷åâèäíî, ÷òî ìåòàôîðè÷åñêèé ñïîñîá âûðàæàòüñÿ çàòðóäíÿåò ïîíèìàíèå, â îñîáåííîñòè åñëè îí íå èñïîëüçóåò «ìåòàôîðû êóëüòóðû», à îïèðàåòñÿ íà ëè÷íûå àññîöèàöèè); à ñòðåìëåíèÿ ôèëîñîôà ïðîøëîãî îáúÿñíèòü ñâîþ ïîçèöèþ ÷èòàòåëþ, ÷òî îçíà÷àåò ðàçíîãî ðîäà ïðåäèñëîâèÿ è ïîñëåñëîâèÿ, ïîÿñíåíèÿ â ñíîñêàõ, ââåäåíèÿ, ïðåàìáóëû è âûâîäû. Ðàçóìååòñÿ, äîïîëíèòåëüíóþ ÿñíîñòü â ïîçèöèþ èçó÷àåìîãî ìûñëèòåëÿ – êàê ÷åëîâå-

129

Å.Â. ÇÎËÎÒÓÕÈÍÀ-ÀÁÎËÈÍÀ

êà, êàê ëè÷íîñòè – âíîñèò íàøå çíàíèå ïèñåì, äíåâíèêîâ, èíòåðâüþ, â êîòîðûõ ïðèñóòñòâóþò ðàçúÿñíåíèÿ îòíîñèòåëüíî èäåéíûõ ïîçèöèé ôèëîñîôà. Ðàçðûâ ìåæäó «çàäóìàííûì» è «èñïîëíåííûì» ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ ìíå ñóùåñòâåííî ïðåóâåëè÷åííûì, à ìûñëü î íåîáõîäèìîñòè «ñëóøàòü òîëüêî òåêñò» – â êàêîì-òî ñìûñëå ñöèåíòèñòñêîé, ïîòîìó ÷òî ñàì ïî ñåáå òåêñò êóëüòóðû áåç ó÷åòà ñîçäàâøåé åãî ëè÷íîñòè – ýòî òîëüêî ñîâîêóïíîñòü çíàêîâ. Äåêîíñòðóèðîâàòü èëè ðåêîíñòðóèðîâàòü? Åùå îäèí âîïðîñ, î÷åíü âàæíûé ïðè ðàçãîâîðå î êîììóíèêàòèâíûõ àñïåêòàõ ôèëîñîôñêîé «ÿçûêîâîé èãðû», ýòî âîïðîñ î äåêîíñòðóêöèè. Ñàì òåðìèí «äåêîíñòðóêöèÿ» (íåñîìíåííî àññîöèèðóþùèéñÿ ñ «äåñòðóêöèåé») è âîñõîäÿùèé ê Ëàêàíó è Äåððèäà, ïîëó÷èë äîñòàòî÷íî ìíîãî èíòåðïðåòàöèé â ôèëîñîôñêîé ëèòåðàòóðå, íî îäíî îñòàåòñÿ â äåêîíñòðóêöèè íåèçìåííûì – âñåãäà êðèòè÷åñêèé, èðîíè÷åñêèé, äîñòàòî÷íî àãðåññèâíûé ðàçáîð ÷óæîãî òåêñòà, ïðåòåíäóþùèé íà òî, ÷òîáû ïîêàçàòü íåïîñëåäîâàòåëüíîñòü ðàçìûøëåíèé àâòîðà, ñáîè â åãî ëîãèêå, êîëåáàíèÿ ñìûñëà ïðèìåíÿåìûõ òåðìèíîâ, ïðîòèâîðå÷èâîñòü è òóìàííîñòü íàïèñàííîãî, áåçîñíîâàòåëüíîñòü ïðèìåíÿåìûõ â íåì îïïîçèöèé. Íå âîññòàíîâèòü, íå ðåêîíñòðóèðîâàòü, à ðàçðóøèòü, ïðåâðàòèòü â íåëåïîñòü – ãëàâíûé ïàôîñ ýòîãî óäèâèòåëüíîãî ìåòîäà. Ê ñ÷àñòüþ, äåêîíñòðóêöèÿ íå ïîëó÷èëà øèðîêîãî ðàñïðîñòðàíåíèÿ, âîçìîæíî, â òîì ÷èñëå â ñèëó òîãî, ÷òî äëÿ åå îñóùåñòâëåíèÿ íóæåí îñîáûé õàðàêòåð àíàëèòèêà, æåëàþùåãî íåïðåìåííî ñîêðóøèòü ÷óæîå òåîðåòè÷åñêîå çäàíèå. Ìíå ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ, ÷òî îïûòû äåêîíñòðóêöèè â îòëè÷èå îò îïûòîâ îáû÷íîé êðèòèêè, âûðàñòàþùåé â òîì ÷èñëå íà ïî÷âå ìèðîâîççðåí÷åñêîãî ïðîòèâîñòîÿíèÿ, îòëè÷àþòñÿ ýòèì èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî íåãàòèâíûì õàðàêòåðîì, ïðîñòî ïåðå÷åðêèâàþùèì ïðîèçâåäåíèå àâòîðà íåçàâèñèìî îò öåííîñòè åãî èäåé. Òàêàÿ ïîëó÷àåòñÿ âïîëíå æåñòîêàÿ ôèëîñîôñêàÿ ÿçûêîâàÿ «èãðà íà óíè÷òîæåíèå». Õàðàêòåðíûì ïðèìåðîì òàêîãî ðîäà äåêîíñòðóêöèè, íàðóøàþùåé ìåæïîêîëåííóþ ôèëîñîôêóþ êîììóíèêàöèþ, ÿâëÿåòñÿ ðàáîòà Äåððèäà «Î ïî÷òîâîé îòêðûòêå îò Ñîêðàòà äî Ôðåéäà è íå òîëüêî».  ýòîé îáúåìíîé ðàáîòå Äåððèäà äîëãî ïåðåñêàçûâàåò è êîììåíòèðóåò ïðîèçâåäåíèå Ç. Ôðåéäà «Ïî òó ñòîðîíó ïðèíöèïà óäîâîëüñòâèÿ», íàñìåõàÿñü íàä êàæäîé ôðàçîé, ìíîãîêðàòíî ïîâòîðÿÿ îäíî è òî æå, â áóêâàëüíîì ñìûñëå ãàðöóÿ âîêðóã âñÿêîãî òåçèñà è çàíèìàÿñü ïðåçåíòàöèåé ñàìîãî ñåáÿ êàê ÷åëîâåêà «íó, êîíå÷íî, óìíåå Ôðåéäà». Âûðûâàíèå ôðàç èç òåêñòà è äîëãîå ñ îòâëå÷åíèÿìè êîììåíòèðîâàíèå ðàçðóøàþò òåêñòóàëüíóþ âÿçü ôðåéäîâñêîé ðàáîòû, ëèøàåò åå ñìûñëà íå ïîòîìó, ÷òî îíà ýòîãî ñìûñëà ëèøåíà, à êàê ðàç â ðåçóëüòàòå äëèííûõ îòñòóïëåíèé. Ñîçäàåòñÿ âïå÷àòëåíèå, ÷òî Äåððèäà, ïîçèöèîíèðóþùèé ñåáÿ êàê ïðîòèâíèê ðàçóìà-òèðàíà, æäåò è òðåáóåò îò Ôðåéäà êðèñòàëüíîé ëîãèêè è íåóêîñíèòåëüíîé íàó÷íîé ðàöèîíàëü-

130

ÔÈËÎÑÎÔÑÊÀß «ßÇÛÊÎÂÀß ÈÃÐÀ»…

íîñòè, íà ÷òî ñàì Ôðåéä, ñîáñòâåííî ãîâîðÿ, è íå ïðåòåíäóåò, âûäâèãàÿ ãèïîòåçû è ðàçìûøëÿÿ íàä íàáëþäàåìûì. Ôðåéä, íåñîìíåííî, â îãðîìíîé ñòåïåíè ìèôîëîã, íî âåäü ê ìîìåíòó, êîãäà Äåððèäà ïèñàë, íèêòî óæå è íå ñ÷èòàë ïñèõîàíàëèç âåðõîì àêàäåìè÷åñêîé íàó÷íîñòè, çà÷åì æå áûëî â äóõå òðèêñòåðà-ïåðåñìåøíèêà èçìûâàòüñÿ íàä ÷óæèì òåêñòîì? Êàê è â ñëó÷àå ñ Ôðåéäîì, Äåððèäà íàì ñåãîäíÿ óæå íå îòâåòèò. ×òî êàñàåòñÿ ôëóêòóàöèé ñìûñëà â ðàìêàõ ðàçìûøëåíèé ëþáîãî àâòîðà, çà êîòîðûå Äåððèäà óïðåêàåò ôèëîñîôîâ ïðîøëîãî, òî ôëóêòóàöèè ýòè çàêîíîìåðíû è íåèçáåæíû, ïîýòîìó ëîâèòü êîãî-ëèáî íà íèõ, îòâëåêàÿñü îò êîíòåêñòà, – äåëî ñîâåðøåííî ïóñòîå. Ìóäðóþ ìûñëü âûñêàçàë â ñâîå âðåìÿ ïî ýòîìó ïîâîäó Â.Â. Íàëèìîâ, óòâåðæäàâøèé, ÷òî ìû ìûñëèì «ðàçìûòûìè ñìûñëîâûìè ïÿòíàìè». Îí ïèøåò: «Ïðèõîäèòñÿ ïðèçíàòü ñëåäóþùåå: ìû íèêîãäà íå ìîæåì óòâåðæäàòü, ÷òî íåëüçÿ ïðèäóìàòü åùå îäíîé ôðàçû, êîòîðàÿ êàê-íèáóäü èíà÷å, ÷åì ýòî áûëî ðàíåå, ðàñêðûâàëà áû ñìûñë ñëîâà. È èìåííî â ýòîì è òîëüêî â ýòîì ñìûñëå ìîæíî ãîâîðèòü î êîíòèíóàëüíîñòè ìûøëåíèÿ, åñëè èñõîäèòü èç àíàëèçà ñåìàíòèêè ÿçûêà. Ñìûñëîâîå ïîëå áåçãðàíè÷íî äåëèìî. Ïðåäñòàâëåíèå îá àòîìàõ ñìûñëà, ñòîëü íåîáõîäèìîå äëÿ ïîñòðîåíèÿ ëîãè÷åñêîé ñåìàíòèêè, â ïñèõîëîãè÷åñêîì ïëàíå íå áîëåå ÷åì íåêîòîðàÿ èëëþçèÿ» [Íàëèìîâ, 2003: 226]. Âàæíî, ÷òî ñìûñëîâàÿ ðàçìûòîñòü, òàì ãäå îíà âûçûâàåò íàïðàøèâàþùèåñÿ àññîöèàöèè èëè áëàãîäàðÿ êîíòåêñòó ñîçäàåò çíàêîìûé «ôèëüòð» äëÿ ïîíèìàíèÿ, âîâñå ýòîìó ïîíèìàíèþ íå ìåøàåò, à, íàïðîòèâ, ïðåäïîëàãàåò íîâûå âîçìîæíîñòè äëÿ ðåêîíñòðóêöèè èäåé èçó÷àåìîãî àâòîðà, ò.å. äëÿ âíÿòíîãî ïîíèìàíèÿ òîãî, ÷òî îí õîòåë äîíåñòè äî ñâîèõ ñîâðåìåííèêîâ, à âîçìîæíî, è äî íàñ – ïîòîìêîâ. Äëÿ òîãî ÷òîáû èíòåðïðåòèðîâàòü, âàæíî âñå-òàêè ïîíÿòü, èáî èíòåðïðåòàöèÿ ýòî íå ÷òî èíîå, êàê ïåðåïîíèìàíèå – ïîíèìàíèå â íîâûõ óñëîâèÿõ è îáñòîÿòåëüñòâàõ. Äóìàåòñÿ, ÷åðåç ÷àñòîêîëû ñëîâ, êàê ê íèì íè îòíîñèñü, íàäî ñòðåìèòüñÿ ïðîðâàòüñÿ ê ÷óæîé èäåå, îñóùåñòâèòü òîò «òðàíñöåíçóñ», î êîòîðîì ïèøåò óæå óïîìÿíóòûé íàìè Àâåðèíöåâ. È òîãäà, íåñìîòðÿ íà âñå òðóäíîñòè, âñå æå ñîñòîèòñÿ ôèëîñîôñêàÿ êîììóíèêàöèÿ – ÷åðåç ãîäû, âåêà, òûñÿ÷åëåòèÿ. *** Àòîìèçàöèÿ ôèëîñîôñêèõ ÿçûêîâ è «àóòèçàöèÿ» ôèëîñîôîâ âìåñòå ñ ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿìè, ÷òî òåêñò âñå âûðàæàåò ëó÷øå è ïîìèìî æèâîãî ÷åëîâåêà, – ñïåöèôèêà âðåìåíè.  êàêîì-òî ñìûñëå ýòî îáúåêòèâíûé êóëüòóðíûé ïðîöåññ, êîòîðûé ïðîèçîøåë â Åâðîïå âî âòîðîé ïîëîâèíå ÕÕ â. Òðóäíî ñêàçàòü, õîðîøî ýòî èëè ïëîõî, ñêîðåå âñåãî ýòî ïðîñòî ôàêò èñòîðèè (Ðåíå Ãåíîí, íàâåðíîå, ïîñåòîâàë áû, ÷òî ýòî ïðîÿâëåíèå «öàðñòâà êîëè÷åñòâà» è ìàòåðèàëüíîé äðîáíîñòè). Íî íûíå æèâóùèì àâòîðàì ïðè âñåì óâàæåíèè ê ñîêðîâåííîñòè âíóòðåí-

131

Å.Â. ÇÎËÎÒÓÕÈÍÀ-ÀÁÎËÈÍÀ

íåãî ìèðà êîëëåã âñå-òàêè õî÷åòñÿ ïîíèìàòü èõ áåç ïåðåâîä÷èêà-èíòåðïðåòàòîðà, ðàçäåëÿòü íåêóþ îáùóþ êàðòèíó ìèðà, õîòÿ è ïðåäñòàâëåííóþ â ðàçíûõ ðàêóðñàõ. Ìû íå çíàåì, ñëó÷èòñÿ ëè òàê. Ìîæåò áûòü, åùå ñëîæèòñÿ íåèçâåñòíàÿ ïîêà íîâàÿ ìèðîâîççðåí÷åñêàÿ ïàðàäèãìà, ñïîñîáíàÿ ïðåäëîæèòü îáùèé ÿçûê, îáùóþ ðå÷ü, îáùèé êîíòåêñò ñàìûì ðàçíûì èíòåëëåêòóàëüíûì ôèãóðàì, íèêîãî íå óòåñíÿÿ è íå îòâåðãàÿ, íî äàâàÿ ôèëîñîôñêóþ òðèáóíó êàæäîìó.

Библиографический список Àâåðèíöåâ, 1975 – Àâåðèíöåâ Ñ. Ïðåäâàðèòåëüíûå çàìåòêè ê èçó÷åíèþ ñðåäíåâåêîâîé ýñòåòèêè. Äðåâíåðóññêîå èñêóññòâî. Ì., 1975. Ñ. 149–164. – http://ec-dejavu.ru/a-2/Aesthetics.html (17.12.2014). Àäîðíî, 2011 – Àäîðíî Ò.Â. Æàðãîí ïîäëèííîñòè. Î íåìåöêîé èäåîëîãèè. Ì., 2011. Àõóòèí, 2000 – Àõóòèí À. Dasein (Ìàòåðèàëû ê òîëêîâàíèþ) // Ëîãîñ. 2000. ¹ 5–6 (26). – http://www.ruthenia.ru/logos/number/2000_5_6/2000_5-6_ 10.htm – 10.12.2014 Áàððè, 2000 – Áàððè Ñ. Ê íåïåðåâîäèìîñòè íåìåöêîé ôèëîñîôèè //Ëîãîñ. 2000. ¹ 5–6 (26). – http://www.ruthenia.ru/logos/number/2000_5_6/2000_5-6_ 10.htm – 10.12.2014 Ãðèãîðüåâà, 2005 – Ãðèãîðüåâà Í. Anima laborans. ÑÏá., 2005. Äüÿêîâ, 2010 – Äüÿêîâ À. Æàê Ëàêàí. Ôèãóðà ôèëîñîôà. Ì., 2010. Çîëîòóõèíà-Àáîëèíà, 2014 – Çîëîòóõèíà-Àáîëèíà Å. Ì. Õàéäåããåð è Ê. ßñïåðñ: èíîñêàçàíèå î Áîãå. Ýêçèñòåíöèàëüíàÿ ôèëîñîôèÿ â÷åðà è ñåãîäíÿ. Ì., 2014. Ìàðååâà, Ìàðååâ, 2013 – Ìàðååâà Å., Ìàðååâ Ñ. Ïðîáëåìà ìûøëåíèÿ: ñîçåðöàòåëüíûé è äåÿòåëüíîñòíûé ïîäõîä. Ì., 2013. Íàëèìîâ, 2003 – Íàëèìîâ Â. Âåðîÿòíîñòíàÿ ìîäåëü ÿçûêà. Òîìñê ; Ì., 2003. Íåðåòèíà, Îãóðöîâ, 2006 – Íåðåòèíà Ñ., Îãóðöîâ À. Ïóòè ê óíèâåðñàëèÿì. ÑÏá., 2006. ßñïåðñ, 2012 – ßñïåðñ Ê. Ôèëîñîôèÿ. Ò. 2. Ïðîñâåòëåíèå ýêçèñòåíöèè. Ì., 2012.

132

EPISTEMOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE · 2015 · Ò. XLV · ¹ 3

С

ОВРЕМЕННАЯ КУЛЬТУРНАЯ НЕЙРОНАУКА

И ПРИРОДА СУБЪЕКТА ПОЗНАНИЯ: ЛОГИКОЭПИСТЕМОЛОГИЧЕСКИЕ ИЗМЕРЕНИЯ Валентин Александ$ рович Бажанов – за служенный деятель науки РФ, доктор фило софских наук, профес сор, завкафедрой фи лософии Ульяновского университета, ведущий научный сотрудник ла боратории трансдисци плинарных исследова ний познания Томского университета. Email: [email protected]

M

1

В статье предпринимается попытка осмыслить последние достижения в облас ти социальной и культурной нейронауки и показать, что эти достижения подво дят к мысли о необходимости существенно пересмотреть традиционное пони мание природы субъекта познания и перейти от его «универсалистской» трак товки в духе когнитивного «трансцендентализма» к интерпретации, которая бы в общем случае в явном виде учитывала социальнокультурный контекст актив ности субъекта познания и в некоторых случаях его биологические особенности. Ключевые слова: субъект познания, трансцендентальный субъект, культурная нейронаука, коллективистские и индивидуалистские культуры.

ODERN NEUROSCIENCE AND THE NATURE OF THE

SUBJECT OF COGNITION: A LOGICOEPISTEMOLOGICAL STUDY Valentin A. Bazhanov – DSc Habilitat, professor, dept. of philosophy chairperson, Ulyanovsk State University, transdisciplinary studies of cognition laboratory leading researcher, Tomsk State University

1

The paper presents an attempt to reassess from the philosophical standpoint the latest social and cultural neuroscience results. These results enables to put forward the idea that traditional comprehension of subject of cognition interpretation should be reconstruct radically. We must move from its universalistic interpretation mostly manifested in transcendentalism to interpretation explicitly taking into account socio-cultural context of subject’s activity, and sometimes its biological background. Key words: subject of cognition, transcendental schema subject, cultural neuroscience, collectivistic and individualistic cultures.

Ðàáîòà ïîäãîòîâëåíà ïðè ïîääåðæêå ÐÔÔÈ, ïðîåêò ¹13-06-00005à.

Case$studies – Science studies 133

Â.À. ÁÀÆÀÍÎÂ

Ïðîáëåìàòèêà, ñâÿçàííàÿ ñ èñòîëêîâàíèåì ïðèðîäû ñóáúåêòà è îáúåêòà ïîçíàíèÿ, èõ âçàèìîñâÿçüþ è îñîáåííîñòÿìè âçàèìîäåéñòâèÿ, íåèçìåííî íàõîäèòñÿ â ýïèöåíòðå òåîðåòèêî-ïîçíàâàòåëüíûõ èññëåäîâàíèé. Ìîæíî äàæå óòâåðæäàòü, ÷òî êà÷åñòâåííî íîâîå ïîíèìàíèå ýòîé ïðèðîäû è õàðàêòåðà âçàèìîîòíîøåíèÿ âñåãäà îçíà÷àëî åñëè íå ðåâîëþöèþ, òî ïî ìåíüøåé ìåðå çàìåòíûé ïîâîðîò â íàïðàâëåíèè ðàçâèòèÿ ýïèñòåìîëîãè÷åñêîé ìûñëè. Áëàãîäàðÿ èíòåíöèè ê ðàçëè÷åíèþ ýìïèðè÷åñêîãî è òðàíñöåíäåíòàëüíîãî ñóáúåêòà òàêîé ïîâîðîò, íàïðèìåð, íàáëþäàëñÿ â ïîñëåäåêàðòîâñêîé ôèëîñîôèè. Àíàëîãè÷íàÿ ñèòóàöèÿ ñîïóòñòâîâàëà ïðåîäîëåíèþ ñèòóàöèè, êîòîðóþ ïðèíÿòî íàçûâàòü «ãíîñåîëîãè÷åñêàÿ ðîáèíçîíàäà», êîãäà â ôèëîñîôèè òâåðäî óòâåðäèëîñü íîðìàòèâíîå ïî ñâîåé ñóòè òðåáîâàíèå ïðèçíàòü àâòîíîìíîñòü è èçâåñòíóþ êðåàòèâíóþ ñàìîäîñòàòî÷íîñòü ìûøëåíèÿ2. «Êîïåðíèêàíñêèé ïåðåâîðîò», ñîâåðøåííûé È. Êàíòîì, òàêæå áûë ñâÿçàí ñ îñìûñëåíèåì ïðèðîäû è ñòàòóñà ñóáúåêòà ïîçíàíèÿ, à òàêæå ïåðåñìîòðîì åãî ðîëè è ìåñòà â ïîçíàâàòåëüíîì ïðîöåññå. Äàæå â ìàòåìàòè÷åñêîé ëîãèêå, êîòîðàÿ ê êîíöó ÕÕ â., êàçàëîñü áû, ïîëíîñòüþ îñâîáîäèëàñü îò ïñèõîëîãèçìà, òðàêòîâàâøåãî ëîãèêó êàê ôîðìó àêòèâíîñòè ñóáúåêòà â ñôåðå äèñêóðñèâíîé ïðàêòèêè, õîòÿ è ðîáêî, íî çâó÷àëà ìûñëü, ÷òî «ïîñêîëüêó (â ëîãèêå. – Â.Á.) ìû èìååì äåëî ñ ÷åëîâå÷åñêèì ìûøëåíèåì, çíàíèå î ðåàëüíîñòè íå ìîæåò áûòü ïîëíîñòüþ îòäåëåíî îò åå ïîíÿòèéíîãî îñâîåíèÿ» [Õèíòèêêà, 1980: 99–100]. Ïðîáëåìó ñóáúåêòà àêòèâíî îáñóæäàëè ìíîãèå îòå÷åñòâåííûå ìûñëèòåëè. Åñëè èìåòü â âèäó òîëüêî îòå÷åñòâåííûå òðóäû ïîñëåäíèõ äåñÿòèëåòèé, òî, íå ïðåòåíäóÿ íà ïîëíîòó, ìîæíî íàçâàòü ïðåæäå âñåãî ôèëîñîôîâ è ïñèõîëîãîâ – Ê.À. Àáóëüõàíîâó, À.Â. Áðóøëèíñêîãî, Â.À. Ëåêòîðñêîãî, Â.Å. Ëåïñêîãî, Ë.À. Ìèêåøèíó, È.Ò. Êàñàâèíà, Ñ.Ë. Ðóáèíøòåéíà. Ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ î òðàíñöåíäåíòàëüíîì ñóáúåêòå âïëåòåíû â êîíòåêñò ñóùåñòâåííîãî ïðîãðåññà ýïèñòåìîëîãè÷åñêèõ êîíöåïöèé, â êîòîðûõ ïðèçíàâàëàñü âàæíàÿ ðîëü ñîöèàëüíîãî îêðóæåíèÿ è êóëüòóðû â ôîðìèðîâàíèè è ïîçíàâàòåëüíûõ óñòàíîâêàõ ýòîãî ñóáúåêòà, íî ñàì îí ïðåèìóùåñòâåííî òðàêòîâàëñÿ êàê ñâîåãî ðîäà óíèâåðñàëüíîå îáðàçîâàíèå, ïî áîëüøîìó ñ÷åòó ëèøåííîå ôèçèîëîãè÷åñêîãî ñîäåðæàíèÿ â òîì ñìûñëå, ÷òî ñâîéñòâà åãî ìîçãà íå çàâèñÿò îò êóëüòóðû è ïðîöåññà åãî ñîöèàëèçàöèè. «Òðàíöåíäåíòàëüíûé ñóáúåêò, – çàìå÷àåò Ë.À. Ìèêåøèíà, – ïîíèìàåòñÿ êàê íåçàâèñèìûé îò ýìïèðè÷åñêîãî òåëåñíîãî èíäèâèäà è ñîîáùåñòâà äðóãèõ ß, êàê íàäûíäèâèäóàëüíàÿ ñòðóêòóðà, îáåñïå÷èâàþùàÿ îáùåçíà÷èìîå îáúåêòèâíîå çíàíèå» [Ìèêåøèíà, 2005: 29]. Ðå÷ü, òàêèì îáðàçîì, èäåò î íåêîòîðîé òðàíñ2 Ïðîáëåìû, ñâÿçàííûå ñ ôåíîìåíîì ãíîñåîëîãè÷åñêîé ðîáèíçîíàäû, â îïðåäåëåííîé ìåðå ïðèñóùè è ñîâðåìåííîé ôèëîñîôèè [Êàñàâèí, 2013].

134

ÑÎÂÐÅÌÅÍÍÀß ÊÓËÜÒÓÐÍÀß ÍÅÉÐÎÍÀÓÊÀ È ÏÐÈÐÎÄÀ ÑÓÁÚÅÊÒÀ…

öåíäåíòíîé ðåàëüíîñòè, è ññûëêè íà åå ñîöèîêóëüòóðíóþ îáóñëîâëåííîñòü ïî ñóùåñòâó îòíîñÿòñÿ ê åå «âíåøíèì» êîíòóðàì. Ôèçèîëîãè÷åñêèå õàðàêòåðèñòèêè åäâà ëè íå ëþáîãî ñóáúåêòà ïîçíàâàòåëüíîé äåÿòåëüíîñòè ñ÷èòàþòñÿ àáñîëþòíûìè è íå çàâèñÿùèìè íè îò èñòîðè÷åñêèõ, íè îò ñîöèàëüíûõ ðåàëèé: ôèçèîëîãè÷åñêè ñîâðåìåííûé ÷åëîâåê ôàêòè÷åñêè íè÷åì íå îòëè÷àåòñÿ îò ñâîåãî ïðåäêà, îáèòàâøåãî íåñêîëüêî ñòîëåòèé íàçàä, è âðÿä ëè ìîæíî ïîëàãàòü, ÷òî åìó â îáîçðèìîì áóäóùåì ñóæäåíî ôèçèîëîãè÷åñêè ïðåîáðàçèòüñÿ [ßáëîêîâ, Þñóïîâ, 2006: 251]. Ðåçóëüòàò æå ïîçíàâàòåëüíîé äåÿòåëüíîñòè íèêîèì îáðàçîì íå çàâèñèò îò ýòèõ õàðàêòåðèñòèê: «Ñóáúåêò – ýòî âñåîõâàòûâàþùåå, íàèáîëåå øèðîêîå ïîíÿòèå ÷åëîâåêà, îáîáùåííî ðàñêðûâàþùåå íåðàçðûâíî ðàçâèâàþùååñÿ åäèíñòâî, öåëîñòíîñòü âñåõ åãî êà÷åñòâ: ïðèðîäíûõ, ñîöèàëüíûõ (social), îáùåñòâåííûõ (societal), èíäèâèäóàëüíûõ è ò.ä. … ×åëîâåê êàê ñóáúåêò – ýòî âûñøàÿ ñèñòåìíàÿ öåëîñòíîñòü âñåõ åãî ñëîæíåéøèõ è ïðîòèâîðå÷èâûõ êà÷åñòâ, â ïåðâóþ î÷åðåäü ïñèõè÷åñêèõ ïðîöåññîâ, ñîñòîÿíèé è ñâîéñòâ, åãî ñîçíàíèÿ è áåññîçíàòåëüíîãî» [Áðóøëèíñêèé, 2003: 22, 61; Áðóøëèíñêèé, 2002: 351]. Òàêîãî æå ðîäà èñòîëêîâàíèå ïðèðîäû ïîçíàþùåãî ñóáúåêòà â öåëîì áûëî õàðàêòåðíî è äëÿ ãåíåòè÷åñêîé ýïèñòåìîëîãèè Æ. Ïèàæå, è äëÿ íàòóðàëèçîâàííîé ýïèñòåìîëîãèè Ó. Êóàéíà, è âî ìíîãîì äëÿ ýâîëþöèîííîé ýïèñòåìîëîãèè Ê. Ëîðåíöà è åãî ïîñëåäîâàòåëåé. Ñâîåãî ðîäà âåðøèíîé ïðåíåáðåæåíèÿ ê âíóòðåííåìó íàïîëíåíèþ è îñîáåííîñòÿì ñóáúåêòà ïîçíàíèÿ ìîæíî, ïî-âèäèìîìó, ñ÷èòàòü «ýïèñòåìîëîãèþ áåç ïîçíàþùåãî ñóáúåêòà» Ê. Ïîïïåðà. Ðå÷ü èäåò î ïðèíöèïå êîãíèòèâíîé óíèâåðñàëüíîñòè ñóáúåêòà ïîçíàíèÿ, ïðåäïîëàãàåìîãî ëîãîöåíòðèñòñêîé ïîçèöèåé çàïàäíîé ðàöèîíàëüíîé ôèëîñîôèè, ïðèìåíåíèå êîòîðîãî èìååò äàëåêîèäóùèå ïîñëåäñòâèÿ è äëÿ êîíòóðîâ òåõ êîíöåïòóàëüíûõ êîíñòðóêöèé, êîòîðûå îáû÷íî ñîîòíîñÿòñÿ ñ ìåòàôèçèêîé è ïîñòðîåíèåì êàðòèíû ìèðà.  êëàññè÷åñêîé ïñèõîëîãèè äîñòàòî÷íî òâåðäî ïðèäåðæèâàëèñü óñòàíîâêè, ÷òî, ïîäîáíî òîìó êàê ëþáîìó ÷åëîâåêó ñâîéñòâåííî ïðÿìîõîæäåíèå, îí íåçàâèñèìî îò ðàñû, àðåàëà è âðåìåíè îáèòàíèÿ îáëàäàåò îäíèìè è òåìè æå êîãíèòèâíûìè ñïîñîáíîñòÿìè, åãî ìûøëåíèå â ñìûñëå çàäàòêîâ è îñîáåííîñòåé íå çíàåò âðåìåííûõ, ïðîñòðàíñòâåííûõ èëè äåÿòåëüíîñòíûõ ãðàíèö. Åñëè èñïîëüçîâàòü àíàëîãèþ ñ êîìïüþòåðîì, òî ìîçã ìîæíî óïîäîáèòü hardware (òîìó, ÷òî â èíôîðìàöèîííûõ òåõíîëîãèÿõ ïðèíÿòî íàçûâàòü «æåëåçîì»), à åãî íàïîëíåíèå â òå÷åíèå æèçíè è â ðåçóëüòàòå îáó÷åíèÿ – software (òîìó, ÷òî ïðèíÿòî íàçûâàòü ïðîãðàììíûì îáåñïå÷åíèåì). Ïî ñóùåñòâó ìû çäåñü âñòðå÷àåìñÿ ñî ñâîåîáðàçíûì êîãíèòèâíûì ðåäóêöèîíèçìîì, ïðåäïîëàãàþùèì îïðåäåëåííûé îíòîëîãè÷åñêèé àñïåêò, ñâÿçàííûé ñ ÿâíîé èëè íåÿâíîé êîíñòàòàöèåé áàçèñíîé óíèâåðñàëüíîé êîãíèòèâíîé ñòðóêòóðû, â ïðàâîìåðíîñòè ïðèçíàíèÿ êîòîðîãî åñòü ñåðüåçíûå îñíîâàíèÿ óñîìíèòüñÿ.

135

Â.À. ÁÀÆÀÍÎÂ

Äàííûå íîâåéøèõ èññëåäîâàíèé â îáëàñòè íåéðîïñèõîëîãèè è òàê íàçûâàåìîé ñîöèàëüíîé è êóëüòóðíîé íåéðîíàóêè, äóìàåòñÿ, çàñòàâëÿþò ïåðåñìîòðåòü óñòîÿâøèåñÿ â òå÷åíèå äëèòåëüíîãî âðåìåíè è ñòàâøèå óæå òðàäèöèîííûìè, êàê áû îòëèòûìè â ãðàíèò íåçûáëåìûå ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ î ñâÿçè ìîçãà ÷åëîâåêà, òåìïîðàëüíîãî àñïåêòà åãî ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ, äåÿòåëüíîñòè è êóëüòóðû. Ñóòü íîâîãî âçãëÿäà íà ÷åëîâåêà êàê ñóáúåêòà ïîçíàíèÿ ïîäâîäèò ê ìûñëè î ðåíåññàíñå èçâåñòíîãî äåÿòåëüíîñòíîãî ïîäõîäà, íàäåëÿåìîãî íîâûìè èçìåðåíèÿìè. Íåëüçÿ íå îáðàòèòü âíèìàíèå, ÷òî ïðîãðåññ â îáëàñòè íåéðîíàóêè çàòðîíóë, êàçàëîñü áû, äàëåêèå îò èçó÷åíèÿ ìîçãà îáëàñòè çíàíèÿ. Òàê, íûíå àêòèâíî ðàçâèâàþòñÿ íåéðîýêîíîìèêà è ñìåæíûå ñ íåé ðàçäåëû (ñêàæåì, íåéðîìàðêåòèíã), íî àíàëèç ýòèõ íàïðàâëåíèé âûõîäèò çà ðàìêè íàñòîÿùåãî èññëåäîâàíèÿ.  êàêîé ñòåïåíè ýòè èññëåäîâàíèÿ ìîãóò ïîâëèÿòü íà ïîíèìàíèå ïðèðîäû ñóáúåêòà ïîçíàíèÿ? Íå áóäåò ëè ýòî ïîíèìàíèå ñïîñîáñòâîâàòü óêðåïëåíèþ ñâîåãî ðîäà ðåëÿòèâèñòñêèõ ðåäóòîâ ýïèñòåìîëîãè÷åñêèõ èññëåäîâàíèé? Íàêîíåö, êàê îíî ìîæåò çàòðîíóòü îñíîâàíèÿ ëîãèêî-ìàòåìàòè÷åñêîãî çíàíèÿ, ïðîáëåìó ñîîòíîøåíèÿ áèîëîãè÷åñêîãî è ñîöèàëüíîãî â ÷åëîâåêå è ðÿä äðóãèõ ôèëîñîôñêèõ ïðîáëåì, êîòîðûå ìîæíî îòíåñòè ê ðàçðÿäó êëþ÷åâûõ?

Идея культурной обусловленности активности нейронных сетей мозга Äîãàäêè î ãëóáèííîì âëèÿíèè ñîöèàëüíî-êóëüòóðíîãî êîíòåêñòà íà ïñèõè÷åñêèå ôóíêöèè ÷åëîâåêà è îáðàòíîì âîçäåéñòâèè âûñêàçûâàëèñü åùå â íà÷àëå ÕÕ â. Â. Âóíäòîì, êîòîðûé çàìå÷àë, ÷òî âñå ìåíòàëüíûå ÿâëåíèÿ – ïðîäóêòû îïðåäåëåííûõ ñîöèàëüíûõ ãðóïï. Îäíàêî ïîñëåäîâàòåëüíî ýòà èäåÿ áûëà ðàçâèòà Ë.Ñ. Âûãîòñêèì è À.Ð. Ëóðèåé, êîòîðûå ïî ïðàâó ñ÷èòàþòñÿ îñíîâàòåëÿìè ñîöèîêóëüòóðíîãî íàïðàâëåíèÿ â ñîâðåìåííîé ïñèõîëîãèè. Èìè âïåðâûå ïîñëåäîâàòåëüíî ïðîâîäèëàñü ìûñëü, ÷òî êóëüòóðíàÿ è áèîëîãè÷åñêàÿ ëèíèè æèçíè ÷åëîâåêà òåñíî ïåðåïëåòàþòñÿ, ïðè÷åì ïðîèñõîäèò ýòî åäâà ëè íå ñ ñàìîãî íà÷àëà ïðåíàòàëüíîãî ðàçâèòèÿ. Âîâñå íå ñëó÷àéíî åäâà ëè íå âî âñåõ ñîâðåìåííûõ òðóäàõ, ãäå õîòÿ áû êðàòêî çàòðàãèâàåòñÿ èñòîðèÿ âîçíèêíîâåíèÿ êóëüòóðíîé íåéðîíàóêè, Ë.Ñ. Âûãîòñêèé è À.Ð. Ëóðèÿ ñ÷èòàþòñÿ åå ðîäîíà÷àëüíèêàìè [Choi, Peng, 2007: 574–576; Nisbett, 2007: 837]. Âïðî÷åì, ãëóáèíà ïðîâèäåíèÿ ðóññêîé øêîëû ïñèõîëîãèè áûëà îñîçíàíà ñðàâíèòåëüíî íåäàâíî, ïðåæäå âñåãî áëàãîäàðÿ ïèîíåðñêèì ðàáîòàì Ì. Êîóëà è Ñ. Ñêðèáíåðà [Êîóë, Ñêðèáíåð, 1977], à åå îñíîâîïîëàãàþùèå èäåè äî ñèõ ïîð îêàçûâàþò çàìåòíîå âëèÿíèå íà ðàçëè÷íûå íàïðàâëåíèÿ ñàìûõ ñîâðåìåííûõ èññëåäîâàíèé â êóëüòóðíîé íåéðîíàóêå

136

ÑÎÂÐÅÌÅÍÍÀß ÊÓËÜÒÓÐÍÀß ÍÅÉÐÎÍÀÓÊÀ È ÏÐÈÐÎÄÀ ÑÓÁÚÅÊÒÀ…

[Norenzayan, Choi, Peng, 2007: 570; Ôàëèêìàí, Êîóë, 2014: 6]. Ñîöèàëüíàÿ è êóëüòóðíàÿ íåéðîíàóêà – ïåðñïåêòèâíîå è èíòåíñèâíî ðàçâèâàþùååñÿ íàïðàâëåíèå òðàíñäèñöèïëèíàðíûõ èññëåäîâàíèé, ïðåäïîëàãàþùèõ ñèíòåç ñàìûõ ðàçíûõ – åñòåñòâåííûõ è ñîöèàëüíî-ãóìàíèòàðíûõ – ðàçäåëîâ çíàíèÿ è ôîðìèðîâàíèå íîâîãî ñòèëÿ ìûøëåíèÿ, ñîîòâåòñòâóþùåãî íåòðèâèàëüíûì çàäà÷àì íåéðîêîãíèòèâíîãî àíàëèçà [Òðàíñäèñöèïëèíàðíîñòü â ôèëîñîôèè è íàóêå, 2015]. Åñëè ïîïûòàòüñÿ âûðàçèòü ñîâðåìåííîå ïîíèìàíèå èäåè êóëüòóðíîé îáóñëîâëåííîñòè êîãíèòèâíûõ ïðîöåññîâ è èõ îáðàòíîãî âîçäåéñòâèÿ íà ìîçã, òî ìîæíî ñêàçàòü, ÷òî êóëüòóðà îêàçûâàåò ñóùåñòâåííîå âëèÿíèå íà îáúåêòèâíûå áèîõèìè÷åñêèå ïðîöåññû, ïðîòåêàþùèå â ìîçãå, è íà èçìåíåíèå ãåíåòè÷åñêîãî ìàòåðèàëà ÷åëîâåêà, ÷òî â ñâîþ î÷åðåäü ìîæåò ïðåäðàñïîëàãàòü åãî íîñèòåëåé ê ôîðìèðîâàíèþ è ïîääåðæêå îïðåäåëåííûõ ñîöèàëüíûõ è êóëüòóðíûõ ñðåä, íàïðÿìóþ ñâÿçàííûõ ñ õàðàêòåðîì âîñïðèÿòèÿ, ðàññóæäåíèÿ è îñîáåííîñòÿìè ïîçíàâàòåëüíîé äåÿòåëüíîñòè ÷åëîâåêà â öåëîì. Ýòîò ôåíîìåí èçâåñòåí êàê ýôôåêò Áîëäóèíà: èçìåíåíèÿ â ãåíàõ ìîãóò ïðèâîäèòü ê èçìåíåíèþ ÷åëîâå÷åñêîãî ïîâåäåíèÿ, êîòîðîå â ñâîþ î÷åðåäü ìîæåò âåñòè ê èçìåíåíèþ ôàêòîðîâ åñòåñòâåííîãî îòáîðà è, ñòàëî áûòü, ê âûáîðó íîâîé òðàåêòîðèè ýâîëþöèè ÷åëîâå÷åñêîãî îðãàíèçìà. Ñìûñë ôåíîìåíà çàêëþ÷àåòñÿ â ôàêòå êîýâîëþöèè ãåíîìà ÷åëîâåêà è åãî êóëüòóðû, â íàëè÷èè äâóõ ïåðåïëåòàþùèõñÿ è âçàèìîçàâèñèìûõ òðàåêòîðèé ðàçâèòèÿ homo sapiens – åñòåñòâåííîé (íàòóðàëüíîé) è êóëüòóðíî-èñòîðè÷åñêîé. Àðõèòåêòóðà ðàçâèâàþùåãîñÿ ìîçãà è åãî ñïîñîáíîñòè ê êîãíèòèâíîé àêòèâíîñòè îêàçûâàþòñÿ çàâèñèìû îò ðÿäà ñîöèàëüíî-ýêîíîìè÷åñêèõ ôàêòîðîâ (äîõîäà ðîäèòåëåé è âïîñëåäñòâèè ñîáñòâåííîãî äîõîäà, ñîöèàëüíîãî ñòàòóñà, îáðàçîâàíèÿ). Òàê, äîëÿ ñåðîãî âåùåñòâà (íàïðèìåð, â ãèïïîêàìïå) òåì âûøå, ÷åì áîëåå áëàãîïðèÿòíû ñîöèàëüíî-ýêîíîìè÷åñêèå ôàêòîðû, â êîòîðûõ ôîðìèðîâàëñÿ íîñèòåëü äàííîãî ìîçãà [Jednorog, Altarelli, Monzalvo, Fluss, Dubois, Billard, Dehaene-Lambertz, Ramus, 2012: 5]. Ìåòîäû èçó÷åíèÿ àêòèâíîñòè ìîçãà è åãî íåéðîííûõ ñåòåé, êîòîðûå èíòåíñèâíî ðàçâèâàþòñÿ â ïîñëåäíåå âðåìÿ (ïðåæäå âñåãî ôóíêöèîíàëüíàÿ ìàãíèòíî-ðåçîíàíñíàÿ òîìîãðàôèÿ), åùå íå âïîëíå ñîâåðøåííû, à ïîýòîìó ðåçóëüòàòû èññëåäîâàíèé èíîãäà èíòåðïðåòèðóþòñÿ ïî-ðàçíîìó [Klein, 2010]. Îäíà èç ïðè÷èí êðîåòñÿ â òîì, ÷òî ìåäèàòîðàìè äëÿ êóëüòóðíûõ ðàçëè÷èé, êîòîðûå ñâÿçûâàþòñÿ ñ ïîâûøåííîé àêòèâíîñòüþ òåõ èëè èíûõ ðàçäåëîâ ìîçãà, äëÿ ñîöèàëüíûõ è íåñîöèàëüíûõ ïðîöåññîâ âûñòóïàþò â îáùåì ñëó÷àå íåñîâïàäàþùèå íåéðîííûå ñåòè, èíîãäà êàê áû èíòåðôåðèðóþùèå ìåæäó ñîáîé [Han, Ma, 2014: 293]. Îäíàêî íàäåæíîñòü è äîñòîâåðíîñòü ýòèõ ìåòîäîâ äîñòàòî÷íî âûñîêè, ÷òîáû ïî-íîâîìó âçãëÿíóòü íà ñîîòíîøåíèå áèîëîãè÷åñêîãî

137

Â.À. ÁÀÆÀÍÎÂ

è ñîöèàëüíîãî â ÷åëîâåêå è âûñêàçàòü ïðåäïîëîæåíèå î íåîáõîäèìîñòè óòî÷íèòü íàøè ýïèñòåìîëîãè÷åñêèå ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ î ïðèðîäå ñóáúåêòà íàó÷íîãî ïîçíàíèÿ.

Гены человека и культура: цепь взаимовлияний Âàðèàöèÿ ãåíîìà â ïðåäåëàõ ÷åëîâå÷åñêîé ïîïóëÿöèè íåçíà÷èòåëüíà – 0,2–0,4 % (ïðèìåðíî 70 % ãåíîâ èìååòñÿ â ìîçãå), íî äàæå ñòîëü ìèçåðíîå ðàçëè÷èå ñïîñîáíî ñóùåñòâåííî âëèÿòü íà ôîðìàò âîñïðèÿòèÿ ðåàëüíîñòè è îñîáåííîñòåé äåÿòåëüíîñòè òåõ èëè èíûõ ãðóïï ëþäåé [Chiao, Hariri, Harada, Mano, Sadato, Parish, Iidaka, 2010: 359]. Ñ÷èòàåòñÿ, ÷òî ãåíû îêàçûâàþò âëèÿíèå íà àêòèâíîñòü òåõ èëè èíûõ ó÷àñòêîâ ìîçãà. Ýòî âëèÿíèå ñâÿçàíî ñ ýïèãåíåòè÷åñêèìè âàðèàöèÿìè, çàâèñèò îò ñðåäû è êàñàåòñÿ ïðîöåññà åñòåñòâåííîãî îòáîðà [Robinson, Fernald, Clayton, 2008; LeClair, Janusonis, Kim, 2014]. Òàê, óñòàíîâëåíî, ÷òî îáëàäàòåëè àëëåëÿ 7R ãåíà DRD4 ñêëîííû ê ïîèñêó è áîëåå ëåãêîìó ïðèíÿòèþ íîâîãî, ê èññëåäîâàòåëüñêîé äåÿòåëüíîñòè è íåòðèâèàëüíûì ðåøåíèÿì (ïîýòîìó ýòîò àëëåëü íàçûâàþò «àëëåëü ðèñêà»). Ñðåäè ýìèãðàíòîâ áîëüøå ëþäåé ñ «äëèííûìè» àëëåëÿìè ýòîãî ãåíà [Chiao, Ambady, 2007: 244]. ×åì áîëüøå ó íèõ äðóçåé â þíîøåñòâå, òåì áîëåå ëèáåðàëüíûõ âçãëÿäîâ îíè ïðèäåðæèâàþòñÿ.  òî æå âðåìÿ ýòè ëþäè ñóùåñòâåííî áîëüøå ÷åì äðóãèå ñêëîííû ê èçáûòî÷íîìó âåñó [Fowler, Schreiber, 2008].  êóëüòóðàõ, êîòîðûå ïðèíÿòî ñ÷èòàòü êîëëåêòèâèñòñêèìè è ê êîòîðûì îáû÷íî îòíîñÿò âîñòî÷íûå êóëüòóðû, ïðåîáëàäàþò èíäèâèäû ñ êîðîòêèìè àëëåëÿìè òèïà 5-HTTLPR, ó íèõ íàáëþäàåòñÿ áîëüøåå ñîäåðæàíèå ñåðîòîíèíà. Èíäèâèäû ñ òàêîãî ðîäà àëëåëÿìè â ìåíüøåé ñòåïåíè ñêëîííû ê òðåâîãàì è äåïðåññèÿì áëàãîäàðÿ äîìèíèðîâàíèþ êîëëåêòèâèñòñêèõ öåííîñòåé, îáåðåãàþùèõ ãåíîòèïè÷åñêè âîñïðèèì÷èâîå íàñåëåíèå îò âîçäåéñòâèÿ ðàçíîãî ðîäà ðèñêîâ àôôåêòèâíîãî ïîâåäåíèÿ è ïñèõè÷åñêèõ íàðóøåíèé [Chiao, Hariri, Harada, Mano, Sadato, Parish, Iidaka, 2010: 359; Mrazek, Chiao, Blizinsky, Lun, Gelfand, 2013]. Ïðåäñòàâèòåëè çàïàäíûõ êóëüòóð, ñ÷èòàþùèåñÿ èíäèâèäóàëèñòñêèìè, ãåíåòè÷åñêè (â ñìûñëå ïðåîáëàäàþùèõ êîìïîçèöèé ãåíîìà) ïðåäðàñïîëîæåíû ê áîëåå âûñîêîìó óðîâíþ òðåâîæíîñòè, äåïðåññèâíûì ñîñòîÿíèÿì è äðóãèì ôîðìàì ïñèõè÷åñêèõ àíîìàëèé. Ñ (íåéðî)áèîëîãè÷åñêîé òî÷êè çðåíèÿ çäåñü èìååòñÿ â âèäó ðàáîòà ãåíåòè÷åñêèõ ìåõàíèçìîâ ïðèîáðåòåíèÿ ñîöèàëüíî-êóëüòóðíîãî îïûòà ïóòåì çàäàíèÿ îáùèõ ïðèíöèïîâ ïîñòðîåíèÿ è íàñòðîéêè íåéðîííûõ êîíòóðîâ, à ñ ñîöèàëüíî-êóëüòóðíîé òî÷êè çðåíèÿ – íå çàìå÷àåìàÿ ðàíåå ãëóáèííàÿ ôóíäèðîâàííîñòü ñîîòâåòñòâóþùèõ ïðàêòèê ôèçèîëî-

138

ÑÎÂÐÅÌÅÍÍÀß ÊÓËÜÒÓÐÍÀß ÍÅÉÐÎÍÀÓÊÀ È ÏÐÈÐÎÄÀ ÑÓÁÚÅÊÒÀ…

ãè÷åñêîé îðãàíèçàöèåé ÷åëîâå÷åñêîãî îðãàíèçìà è åãî ìîçãà. Îñîáåííî ðåëüåôíî ýòà îñîáåííîñòü íàáëþäàåòñÿ ó íîñèòåëåé ðàçíûõ ïî ñâîåé àðõèòåêòîíèêå êóëüòóð – çàïàäíîé è âîñòî÷íîé. Íàäî, îäíàêî, èìåòü â âèäó è òîò ôàêò, ÷òî íåêîòîðûå êîãíèòèâíûå ñïîñîáíîñòè ãåíåòè÷åñêè ïðåäçàäàíû ó ëþáîãî ÷åëîâåêà. Ýòî ñâîåãî ðîäà íåéðîäèíàìè÷åñêèå àðõåòèïû. Íàïðèìåð, «÷óâñòâî ÷èñëà», âûðàæàþùååñÿ â âèäå ïðîòîìàòåìàòè÷åñêîé èíòóèöèè, êîòîðàÿ ïðèñóòñòâóåò íà óðîâíå íåêîòîðûõ áàçèñíûõ ñòðóêòóð ìîçãà è æèâîòíûõ, è ìëàäåíöåâ íåçàâèñèìî îò èõ èíûõ ñïîñîáíîñòåé, âêëþ÷àÿ ÿçûêîâûå, è ïðîöåññà îáó÷åíèÿ. Ôóíêöèè ìîçãà æèâîòíûõ, ìëàäåíöåâ è âçðîñëûõ ñõîæè; íåçàâèñèìî îò êóëüòóðíîé è/èëè ÿçûêîâîé ïðèíàäëåæíîñòè ïîðàæåíèå êàêèõ-òî åãî ó÷àñòêîâ ìîæåò ïðèâîäèòü ê ïîòåðå ÷óâñòâà ÷èñëà, íî ïðè ýòîì íå çàòðàãèâàòü èõ èíûå èíòåëëåêòóàëüíûå ñïîñîáíîñòè [Dehaene, 2011]. Ðàçâèòèå ýòîé èäåè ïîçâîëÿåò âûñêàçàòü ïðåäïîëîæåíèå î òðîéñòâåííîé äåòåðìèíàöèè ìàòåìàòè÷åñêîãî òâîð÷åñòâà è ìàòåìàòè÷åñêîé ðåàëüíîñòè (ñèñòåìû ëîãèêî-ìàòåìàòè÷åñêèõ îáúåêòîâ) – «âíóòðåííåé», «âíåøíåé» è ñîáñòâåííî äåÿòåëüíîñòíîé, íîðìàòèâíîé [Áàæàíîâ, 2014]. «Åñëè ìû õîòèì ãëóáæå ïîçíàòü ïðèðîäó ìàòåìàòèêè, òî, êàê óòâåðæäàåò Ð. Õåðø, ìû îáÿçàíû ïîíÿòü è îñìûñëèòü ñïåöèôè÷åñêèå ñâîéñòâà ÷åëîâå÷åñêîãî ìîçãà» [Hersh, 2008: 17]. Íåêîòîðûå ìàòåìàòèêè óæå â òå÷åíèå íåñêîëüêèõ äåñÿòèëåòèé âûðàæàþò óâåðåííîñòü, ÷òî ýòà íàóêà ÿâëÿåòñÿ ôîðìîé (áèîëîãè÷åñêîé) àäàïòàöèè ê îêðóæàþùåé ñðåäå [Steen, 2000: 224]. Íîâåéøèå íåéðîáèîëîãè÷åñêèå è íåéðîïñèõîëîãè÷åñêèå èññëåäîâàíèÿ ìîçãà äîñòàòî÷íî óáåäèòåëüíî ïîäòâåðæäàþò äàííóþ ãèïîòåçó, ïðè÷åì ôàêòû ãîâîðÿò â ïîëüçó ïðèðîäíîé âðîæäåííîñòè ýëåìåíòàðíûõ «äèãèòàëüíûõ» (÷èñëîâûõ, àðèôìåòè÷åñêèõ) ñâîéñòâ íå òîëüêî ó ÷åëîâåêà, íî è ó ìíîãèõ äðóãèõ ïðåäñòàâèòåëåé ìèðà æèâîãî. Ìàòåìàòèêà ïîä óãëîì çðåíèÿ ýíàêòèâèçìà òàêæå ÿâëÿåòñÿ ïðîöåññîì íå ñòîëüêî ðåïðåçåíòàöèè íåêîòîðûõ êîëè÷åñòâåííûõ è ïðîñòðàíñòâåííûõ îòíîøåíèé âíåøíåãî ìèðà, ñêîëüêî ñîçäàíèÿ îñîáîé ðåàëüíîñòè, êîòîðàÿ íåñåò íà ñåáå ïå÷àòü ñïåöèôèêè òåëåñíîé îðãàíèçàöèè ÷åëîâåêà (èìååòñÿ â âèäó è ôèçèîëîãèÿ åãî ìîçãà), – ïðîöåññîì, â êîòîðîì òåñíåéøèì îáðàçîì ïåðåïëåòàþòñÿ ìåõàíèçìû ðåïðåçåíòàöèè (âíåøíèå ñòèìóëû), îñîáåííîñòè åãî òåëåñíîé îðãàíèçàöèè (âíóòðåííèå ñòèìóëû) è ñîáñòâåííî äåÿòåëüíîñòü ñ åå èñòîðè÷åñêîé îáóñëîâëåííîñòüþ è ñîöèàëüíî-êóëüòóðíîé ïðåäîïðåäåëåííîñòüþ, ôîðìèðóþùèìè íîðìàòèâû äåéñòâèÿ ñ àáñòðàêòíûìè îáúåêòàìè.

Коллективистские vs индивидуалистские культуры и их носители: различие нейрокогнитивных стратегий 139

Â.À. ÁÀÆÀÍÎÂ

Ýêñïåðèìåíòû â îáëàñòè êóëüòóðíîé íåéðîíàóêè, êîòîðûå ïðîâîäèëèñü ñ ó÷àñòèåì æèòåëåé Âîñòî÷íîé Àçèè (Êèòàé, Þæíàÿ Êîðåÿ, ßïîíèÿ), Ñåâåðíîé Àìåðèêè (åâðîïåéñêîãî ïðîèñõîæäåíèÿ) è Çàïàäíîé Åâðîïû, äåìîíñòðèðóþò ðàçëè÷èå êîãíèòèâíûõ ñòðàòåãèé, êîòîðûå ñâîéñòâåííû íîñèòåëÿì ðàçëè÷íûõ êóëüòóð, è ñîîòâåòñòâóþùåãî íàáîðà ãåíîâ. Áîëåå êîíêðåòíî ðå÷ü èäåò î òàêèõ ïñèõîëîãè÷åñêèõ îñîáåííîñòÿõ, êàê âîñïðèÿòèå, êîíöåíòðàöèÿ âíèìàíèÿ, ïàìÿòü, âëèÿþùèõ è íà õàðàêòåð ðàññóæäåíèÿ. Ýêñïåðèìåíòàòîðû ñòàðàþòñÿ ñâåñòè ê ìèíèìóìó èëè âîîáùå óáðàòü òàê íàçûâàåìûé ïðàéìèíã, ñâîåãî ðîäà «íàñòðîéêó» âîñïðèÿòèÿ, ñâÿçàííóþ ñ àïðèîðíûì, ïðåäøåñòâóþùèì êîíêðåòíîìó èñïûòàíèþ íàêîïëåííûì îïûòîì, êîòîðûé ñ ñîâðåìåííîé òî÷êè çðåíèÿ ìîæíî èíòåðïðåòèðîâàòü êàê ïðîÿâëåíèå àêòèâíîñòè ñóáúåêòà ïîçíàâàòåëüíîé äåÿòåëüíîñòè. Îäíàêî ýëèìèíèðîâàòü çàäàííûå êóëüòóðîé ãëóáèííûå ìåõàíèçìû, äåéñòâóþùèå â ìîçãå, îêàçûâàåòñÿ íåâîçìîæíûì. Îáû÷íî ýêñïåðèìåíòû êàñàþòñÿ ïðîÿâëåíèÿ ïñèõîëîãè÷åñêèõ îñîáåííîñòåé â òàêèõ êóëüòóðíûõ îïïîçèöèÿõ: à èíäèâèäóàëèçì – êîëëåêòèâèçì; à õîëèñòè÷åñêèé – àíàëèòè÷åñêèé õàðàêòåð ïîçíàâàòåëüíîé äåÿòåëüíîñòè; à äîëãîñðî÷íîå – êðàòêîñðî÷íîå ïëàíèðîâàíèå æèçíè; à ìóæñêîå – æåíñêîå íà÷àëî â ÷åëîâå÷åñêîì ïîâåäåíèè; à ñòåïåíü äèñòàíöèðîâàíèÿ îò âëàñòè; à îòíîøåíèå ê íåîïðåäåëåííîñòè áóäóùåãî; à îñîçíàíèå ïðè÷èííî-ñëåäñòâåííûõ ñâÿçåé.  ïëàíå íåêîòîðûõ êîíêðåòíûõ êîãíèòèâíûõ îñîáåííîñòåé ðå÷ü èäåò î ñëåäóþùèõ îïïîçèöèÿõ: à íåïðåðûâíîñòü – äèñêðåòíîñòü â âîñïðèÿòèè ñîáûòèé; à äîìèíèðîâàíèå âûâîäîâ ïî àíàëîãèè (ïîäîáèå) – ñëåäîâàíèå ïðàâèëàì è ðàñïðåäåëåíèþ ñîáûòèé ñîãëàñíî íåêîòîðûì êàòåãîðèÿì; à ñîñðåäîòî÷åííîñòü íà êîíòåêñòå èëè íà îáúåêòå, êîòîðûé âïèñàí â îïðåäåëåííûé êîíòåêñò; à àêöåíò íà äèàëåêòè÷åñêîì èëè ôîðìàëüíî-ëîãè÷åñêîì òèïå ìûøëåíèÿ; à áîëüøåå äîâåðèå çíàíèþ, îñíîâàííîìó íà îïûòå èëè æå íà àáñòðàêòíîì àíàëèçå [Nisbett, Choi, Peng, Norenzayan, 2001: 294–295]. Åñëè ïîïûòàòüñÿ ñæàòî âûðàçèòü ñóòü ýòèõ èíòåðåñíûõ ýêñïåðèìåíòîâ, òî îíè ïîêàçûâàþò, ÷òî êóëüòóðà çàäàåò óãîë çðåíèÿ, ðàêóðñ îáðàáîòêè èíôîðìàöèè, ïîñòóïàþùåé â ìîçã îò íåêîòîðîãî îäíîãî ïðåäìåòà. Áîëåå òîãî, â êàêîé-òî ìåðå âûäåëåíèå ñàìîãî ïðåäìåòà (èìååòñÿ â âèäó ôîí, êîíòåêñò åãî «ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ») çàäàåòñÿ ýòèì ðàêóðñîì.  ðåçóëüòàòå ó íîñèòåëåé ðàçíûõ êóëüòóð àêòèâèçèðóþòñÿ ðàçíûå ó÷àñòêè ìîçãà: ó åâðîïåéöåâ ýòî ïðåèìóùåñòâåííî çàòû-

140

ÑÎÂÐÅÌÅÍÍÀß ÊÓËÜÒÓÐÍÀß ÍÅÉÐÎÍÀÓÊÀ È ÏÐÈÐÎÄÀ ÑÓÁÚÅÊÒÀ…

ëî÷íî-âèñî÷íûå îòäåëû êîðû ìîçãà, îòâåòñòâåííûå çà âûäåëåíèå îòäåëüíûõ îáúåêòîâ, à ó ïðåäñòàâèòåëåé Âîñòî÷íîé Àçèè – òàê íàçûâàåìàÿ ïàðàãèïïîêàìïàëüíàÿ èçâèëèíà (gyrus parahippocampalis), êîòîðàÿ ïðåæäå âñåãî îáðàáàòûâàåò êîíòåêñò, ôîí, íà êîòîðîì íàõîäèòñÿ îáúåêò. Ó âîñòî÷íûõ íàðîäîâ íåéðîííûå ñåòè áîëåå àêòèâíû â ðàéîíàõ ìîçãà, îòâå÷àþùèõ çà âçàèìîäåéñòâèå ñ äðóãèìè íîñèòåëÿìè ñîçíàíèÿ è ýìîöèîíàëüíîé ñôåðîé, à ó çàïàäíûõ – â ðàéîíàõ ìîçãà, êîòîðûå îñóùåñòâëÿþò ôóíêöèè ñàìîîïèñàíèÿ è ïðîöåññóàëüíîé ýìîöèîíàëüíîé ðåàêöèè, îòíîñÿùåéñÿ ê ïðîäîëæàþùåéñÿ ñîöèàëüíîé äåÿòåëüíîñòè [Han, Ma, 2014: 298]. Âñå ýòî ãîâîðèò â ïîëüçó âûñîêîé ñòåïåíè ïëàñòè÷íîñòè ìîçãà: ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, îí ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé ñóãóáî áèîëîãè÷åñêóþ (íåéðîáèîëîãè÷åñêóþ) ñòðóêòóðó, à ñ äðóãîé – åãî íàïîëíåíèå íà ñîçíàòåëüíîì è ïîäñîçíàòåëüíîì óðîâíÿõ äåòåðìèíèðóåòñÿ êóëüòóðîé, êîòîðàÿ çàêðåïëÿåò ñåáÿ óæå íà ôèçèîëîãè÷åñêîì óðîâíå (â îíòîãåíåòè÷åñêèõ è ôèëîãåíåòè÷åñêèõ àñïåêòàõ) è îêàçûâàåò îáðàòíîå âëèÿíèå íà ðàçëè÷íûå ñîöèîêóëüòóðíûå ðåàëèè. Íîñèòåëè çàïàäíîé êóëüòóðû ïðèâåðæåíû äîñòàòî÷íî âûðàæåííîìó àíàëèòè÷åñêîìó ñòèëþ ìûøëåíèÿ [Sfera, Osorio, 2014]. Ýòî îçíà÷àåò, ÷òî: à îíè âîñïðèíèìàþò âåùè êàê èíäèâèäóàëüíûå îáúåêòû è êîíöåíòðèðóþò ñâîå âíèìàíèå íà èõ ñâîéñòâàõ, ñêëîííû óïîðÿäî÷èâàòü ñèñòåìû âåùåé ñ îïîðîé íà çàêîíû ôîðìàëüíîé ëîãèêè è êîíöåïòóàëüíûå êàòåãîðèè (âåùè À è  ñóòü Ñ); à ðàñöåíèâàþò ïðîòèâîðå÷èå ÷àùå âñåãî êàê ñâèäåòåëüñòâî íåêîòîðîãî íåáëàãîïîëó÷èÿ è ñòàðàþòñÿ åãî èçáåãàòü; ïðè âñòðå÷å ñ ïðîòèâîðå÷èåì ðóêîâîäÿùèì âûñòóïàåò ïðèíöèï «(íå) ïðîòèâîðå÷èÿ»; à ñ ëèíãâèñòè÷åñêîé òî÷êè çðåíèÿ ìèð êàê áû ðàçáèâàåòñÿ íà äèñêðåòíûå áëîêè. Êîðî÷å ãîâîðÿ, íîñèòåëÿì çàïàäíîé êóëüòóðû ñâîéñòâåííû ñâîåãî ðîäà ãèïåðëîãèöèçì, äîñòàòî÷íî âûðàæåííûé ðàöèîíàëüíûé äèñêóðñ, âîñõîäÿùèé ê àíòè÷íîñòè ñ åå êîñìîöåíòðèçìîì, ñòðåìëåíèå íàéòè â ìèðå íåêèé ïîðÿäîê, ñêðûòûé ïîä íàñëîåíèÿìè õàîòè÷åñêè ðàçáðîñàííûõ âåùåé3. Ýòîò ñòèëü ìûøëåíèÿ ïîä ëîãè÷åñêèì óãëîì çðåíèÿ ïðåäïîëàãàåò îïîðó íà îòíîøåíèå ðîäà è âèäà, ñâîåãî ðîäà äåêîíòåêñòóàëèçàöèþ ñîáûòèÿ. Îí ñôîðìèðîâàëñÿ â óñëîâèÿõ äðåâíåãðå÷åñêîé äåìîêðàòèè ñ åå òðàäèöèÿìè ñâîáîäíûõ äèñêóññèé, íàõîæäåíèÿ èñòèíû â ïîëåìèêå, ñòðåìëåíèåì ÷åðåç ïîçíàíèå êîíòðîëèðîâàòü è ñåáÿ, è îêðóæàþùóþ ïðèðîäó, âîñïèòûâàòü ÷åëîâåêà êàê èíäèâèäóàëüíîñòü (ñâîåãî ðîäà ñîöèàëüíûé íîìèíàëèçì).  Ñðåäíåâåêîâüå â ëîíå õðèñòèàíñòâà âîçîáëàäàëà ëèíèÿ, ñîãëàñíî êîòîðîé èñ3  ðàìêàõ çàïàäíîé êóëüòóðû ñ íåêîòîðîé äîëåé óñëîâíîñòè ìîæíî âûäåëèòü è ñòèëü ìûøëåíèÿ, êîòîðûé äîìèíèðóåò ó ðîññèÿí [Ãà÷åâ, 2008: 205–213; Bazhanov, 2000].

141

Â.À. ÁÀÆÀÍÎÂ

òèíà íå ìîæåò íàõîäèòüñÿ ãäå-òî ïîñåðåäèíå, âûáîð â ïîëüçó îäíîé ñòîðîíû íåèçáåæåí: îòñòóïëåíèå îò õðèñòèàíñêèõ êàíîíîâ òðàêòîâàëîñü êàê åðåñü, ÷àñòî ïðåäïîëàãàþùàÿ æåñòîêîå íàêàçàíèå. Íîñèòåëè âîñòî÷íîé êóëüòóðû òÿãîòåþò ê õîëèñòè÷åñêîìó, èëè, êàê ïðèíÿòî íàçûâàòü â íåéðîïñèõîëîãè÷åñêîé ëèòåðàòóðå, ê äèàëåêòè÷åñêîìó ñòèëþ ìûøëåíèÿ [ñì. òàêæå: Ãðèãîðüåâà, 1992]. Ýòî îçíà÷àåò, ÷òî: à îíè âîñïðèíèìàþò âåùè â êîíòåêñòå ïîäâèæíîãî, ïîñòîÿííî ìåíÿþùåãîñÿ ìèðà, â «ïîëå» èõ ðàçâèòèÿ, êàê öåëîñòíîñòü, «ñèòóàòèâíî» â òîì ñìûñëå, ÷òî êëàññû âåùåé óïîðÿäî÷èâàþòñÿ ñ îïîðîé íà îòíîøåíèå ÷àñòü–öåëîå (âåùü À åñòü ÷àñòü âåùè Â)4, íà ïðåäñòàâëåíèå î «âñåîáùåé ñâÿçè ÿâëåíèé»; à ïðåèìóùåñòâåííî íå òðàêòóþò ôîðìàëüíî-ëîãè÷åñêèå çàêîíû è ïðåäïèñàíèÿ êàê èìåþùèå ïðèíóäèòåëüíûé, æåñòêèé íîðìàòèâíûé õàðàêòåð; à ñêëîííû ðàññìàòðèâàòü ñîáûòèÿ â êîíòåêñòå äðóãèõ ñîáûòèé è ÿâëåíèé; à â îòëè÷èå îò çàïàäíîé òðàäèöèè, çàëîæåííîé, âåðîÿòíî, â õðèñòèàíñêîé ðåëèãèè, îíè ðàññìàòðèâàþò ðàíåå ïîäïèñàííûé äîãîâîð íå êàê íåçûáëåìûé, à êàê ñîîòâåòñòâóþùèé èëè íå ñîîòâåòñòâóþùèé òåêóùåìó ïîëîæåíèþ äåë, ñèòóàòèâíî; à ÷åëîâåê âîñïèòûâàåòñÿ êàê ÷ëåí ñîîáùåñòâà, ãðóïïû, ñöåìåíòèðîâàííûõ ñîâìåñòíîé äåÿòåëüíîñòüþ. Ïðîòèâîðå÷èå äëÿ íîñèòåëåé òàêîãî ðîäà êóëüòóðû – íå âûçîâ ðàçóìó, à åñòåñòâåííîå ñîñòîÿíèå, êîòîðîå ïðåäïîëàãàåò ðàçðåøåíèå ïðîòèâîðå÷èâîé ñèòóàöèè íå ñ ïîìîùüþ ëèêâèäàöèè îäíîé èç ñòîðîí ïðîòèâîðå÷èÿ, à ïîñðåäñòâîì ïîèñêà «ñðåäèííîãî ïóòè», íåêîòîðîãî äåéñòâèÿ, êîòîðîå ñîõðàíÿåò åñòåñòâåííóþ «ãàðìîíèþ». Íåëüçÿ òàêæå íå îòìåòèòü, ÷òî áóääèçì ïî ñðàâíåíèþ ñ õðèñòèàíñòâîì çíà÷èòåëüíî áîëåå òîëåðàíòåí ïî îòíîøåíèþ ê âíåøíèì ïðèâíåñåíèÿì è îòñòóïíèêàì îò íåêîòîðûõ ÿâíûõ èëè íåÿâíûõ êàíîíîâ. Íàêîíåö, ïðåäñòàâèòåëè âîñòî÷íîé êóëüòóðû â ñâîèõ äåéñòâèÿõ áîëüøå äîâåðÿþò íå êîíöåïòóàëüíûì êîíñòðóêöèÿì, à ñâîåìó íåïîñðåäñòâåííîìó îïûòó è îïûòó ñâîåãî (ñî)îáùåñòâà, ïîñêîëüêó ïðàâà îòäåëüíîãî ÷ëåíà ýòîãî (ñî)îáùåñòâà îêàçûâàþòñÿ ïðîèçâîäíûìè îò ïðàâ, ïîìîãàþùèõ ñîõðàíèòü öåëîñòíîñòü è ãàðìîíè÷íîå ôóíêöèîíèðîâàíèå ýòîãî îáùåñòâà (ñâîåãî ðîäà ñîöèàëüíûé ðåàëèçì). Óñòàíîâëåíî, ÷òî ïðåäñòàâèòåëè âîñòî÷íîé êóëüòóðû ñêëîííû ê áîëåå ðèñêîâàííûì ôèíàíñîâûì îïåðàöèÿì, ÷åì ïðåäñòàâèòåëè çàïàäíîé êóëüòóðû. Îáúÿñíåíèå ýòîãî ôàêòà êðîåòñÿ â òîì, ÷òî â êîëëåêòèâèñòñêèõ êóëüòóðàõ ðèñê ïðè òàêîãî ðîäà îïåðàöèÿõ ìîæåò ñ áîëüøåé âåðîÿòíîñòüþ äåìïôèðîâàòüñÿ çà ñ÷åò ïîìîùè ñîîáùåñò4 Íàïðèìåð, ïðè âèäå ðûáû â âîäå ïðåäñòàâèòåëü çàïàäíîé êóëüòóðû îáðàòèò âíèìàíèå ïðåæäå âñåãî íà ðûáó, à ïðåäñòàâèòåëü âîñòî÷íîé êóëüòóðû áóäåò ñêëîíåí óòâåðæäàòü, ÷òî îí âèäèò ðûáó â ðåêå (à íå ïðîñòî ðûáó).

142

ÑÎÂÐÅÌÅÍÍÀß ÊÓËÜÒÓÐÍÀß ÍÅÉÐÎÍÀÓÊÀ È ÏÐÈÐÎÄÀ ÑÓÁÚÅÊÒÀ…

âà, òîãäà êàê â èíäèâèäóàëèñòñêèõ îáùåñòâàõ ÷åëîâåê äîëæåí è ïðèâûê ðàññ÷èòûâàòü òîëüêî íà ñåáÿ, íå ïîëàãàÿñü íà ïîìîùü òîãî èëè èíîãî ñîîáùåñòâà. Íîñèòåëè çàïàäíîé è âîñòî÷íîé êóëüòóð ðàçëè÷àþòñÿ è â ëîãè÷åñêîé îöåíêàõ ñèòóàöèé, ñâÿçàííûõ ñ ñîáûòèÿìè, êîòîðûå èìåþò ðàçíûå âåðîÿòíîñòè. Áîëåå âåðîÿòíûå ñîáûòèÿ îöåíèâàëèñü â ðàññóæäåíèÿõ êàê áîëåå íàäåæíûå ïðåäñòàâèòåëÿìè âîñòî÷íîé êóëüòóðû, òîãäà êàê ïðåäñòàâèòåëè çàïàäíîé êóëüòóðû áûëè ñóùåñòâåííî áîëåå ñäåðæàííûìè â ñâîèõ çàêëþ÷åíèÿõ [Peng, Nisbett, 1999]. Ñòîèò âñïîìíèòü ñèìâîëè÷åñêîå èçîáðàæåíèå ïðîòèâîïîëîæíûõ íà÷àë â äðåâíåêèòàéñêîé ôèëîñîôèè èí è ÿíü: ïîäåëåííûé ïîïîëàì êðóã ñ âçàèìîïðîíèêàþùèìè ýëåìåíòàìè.  çíàìåíèòîé «Êíèãå ïåðåìåí» ìîæíî ïðî÷èòàòü, ÷òî «íåñ÷àñòüå ïðîèñòåêàåò èç ñîñòîÿíèÿ ñ÷àñòüÿ, à â ñ÷àñòüå ñïðÿòàíî íåñ÷àñòüå». Âîñòî÷íîå îáùåñòâî ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé èåðàðõè÷åñêè îðãàíèçîâàííóþ öåëîñòíîñòü, è â ýòîì ñìûñëå åãî ñòðîåíèå ñëîæíåå, ÷åì ó çàïàäíîãî. Äðåâíåå âîñòî÷íîå îáùåñòâî íå çíàëî ñâîáîäíûõ äèñêóññèé, îíî îðèåíòèðîâàëîñü íà äîñòèæåíèå íåïîñðåäñòâåííîãî ïðàêòè÷åñêîãî ðåçóëüòàòà è ïî áîëüøîìó ñ÷åòó íå áûëî ñêëîííî ê âûðàáîòêå àáñòðàêòíûõ òåîðèé. Íå ñëó÷àéíî â Äðåâíåì Êèòàå òàê è íå ïîÿâèëàñü ïîëíîöåííàÿ ãåîìåòðè÷åñêàÿ òåîðèÿ, ñîïîñòàâèìàÿ ñ ãåîìåòðèåé Åâêëèäà. Ãåîìåòðè÷åñêîå ðàññóæäåíèå ïðåäïîëàãàåò âûðàæåííûé äåäóêòèâíûé òèï ðàññóæäåíèé, àáñòðàêòíîñòü è «óìîçðèòåëüíîñòü» êîòîðûõ î÷åâèäíû. Íà Âîñòîêå àáñòðàêòíîñòè è óìîçðèòåëüíîñòè ïðåäïî÷èòàëè ïðàêòè÷åñêóþ ïðèëîæèìîñòü è íåïîñðåäñòâåííóþ ïîëåçíîñòü. Íà Äðåâíåì Âîñòîêå òàê è íå ñîçðåëî ïðåäñòàâëåíèå î «çàêîíå ïðèðîäû» êàê îòðàæåíèè îáúåêòèâíîãî ïîëîæåíèÿ âåùåé è äèíàìèêè èõ äâèæåíèÿ.  âîñòî÷íîì îáùåñòâå îðãàíèçì ðàññìàòðèâàëñÿ êàê íåêîòîðàÿ ãàðìîíè÷åñêàÿ öåëîñòíîñòü, à áîëåçíü – êàê ôàêòîð, åå íàðóøàþùèé. Ïîýòîìó ìåòîäû êèòàéñêîé ìåäèöèíû áûëè ñîñðåäîòî÷åíû íà âîññòàíîâëåíèè ýòîé ãàðìîíè÷åñêîé öåëîñòíîñòè, åñòåñòâåííîãî áàëàíñà âíóòðåííèõ ñèë îðãàíèçìà.  çàïàäíîé ìåäèöèíå èñõîäèëè èç òåçèñà, ÷òî ïðè÷èíîé áîëåçíè ìîæåò áûòü íåïîðÿäîê â ôóíêöèîíèðîâàíèè êàêîãî-òî êîíêðåòíîãî îðãàíà. Èìåííî ýòî óáåæäåíèå ïðèâåëî ê âîçíèêíîâåíèþ õèðóðãèè, êîòîðàÿ ïðåäïîëàãàåò, ÷òî óäàëåíèå êàêîãî-òî êîíêðåòíîãî îðãàíà ìîæåò âûëå÷èòü ÷åëîâåêà îò íåäóãà. Õàðàêòåð ïðîèçâîäñòâåííîé äåÿòåëüíîñòè òàêæå íàêëàäûâàåò çàìåòíûé îòïå÷àòîê íà ñòèëü ìûøëåíèÿ è äîìèíèðóþùèå ïîçíàâàòåëüíûå ñòðàòåãèè: ÷åì áîëåå êîëëåêòèâèñòñêîé ÿâëÿåòñÿ äåÿòåëüíîñòü, òåì áîëåå âûðàæåííîå äèàëåêòè÷åñêîå (õîëèñòè÷åñêîå) ìûøëåíèå ôîðìèðóåòñÿ. Òàê, ñêîòîâîäñòâî è ðûáîëîâñòâî ïðåäðàñïîëàãàþò ê ôîðìèðîâàíèþ àíàëèòè÷åñêîãî ñòèëÿ ìûøëåíèÿ, à çåìëåäåëèå – äèàëåêòè÷åñêîãî. Èññëåäîâàíèÿ ïîêàçàëè, ÷òî ìûøëåíèå êèòàéñêèõ çåìëåäåëüöåâ, êîòîðûå çàíèìàëèñü âûðàùèâàíèåì ïøåíèöû, áûëî

143

Â.À. ÁÀÆÀÍÎÂ

çàìåòíî ìåíåå äèàëåêòè÷åñêèì, ÷åì ó òåõ, êîòîðûå âûðàùèâàëè ðèñ, òðåáóþùèé ñóùåñòâåííî áîëüøèõ êîëëåêòèâíûõ óñèëèé è ñîâìåñòíîãî òðóäà [Talhelm, Zhang, Oishi, Shimin, Duan, Lan, Kitayama, 2014: 603–608].

Принцип культурной и нейробиологической детерминации познавательной стратегии субъекта Íîâåéøèå èññëåäîâàíèÿ â îáëàñòè êóëüòóðíîé íåéðîíàóêè äîñòàòî÷íî óáåäèòåëüíî ãîâîðÿò â ïîëüçó íåîáõîäèìîñòè ñóùåñòâåííî ïåðåñìîòðåòü ïðèðîäó ñóáúåêòà ïîçíàíèÿ, êîòîðàÿ â òå÷åíèå ìíîãèõ äåñÿòèëåòèé ïðèíèìàëàñü çàïàäíîé ôèëîñîôñêîé òðàäèöèåé è âñëåä çà È. Êàíòîì èíòåðïðåòèðîâàëàñü â äóõå òðàíñöåíäåíòàëüíîãî ñóáúåêòà, íàäåëåííîãî óíèâåðñàëüíûìè (âíåâðåìåííûìè, âíåäåÿòåëüíîñòíûìè è íåñèòóàòèâíûìè) êîãíèòèâíûìè ñïîñîáíîñòÿìè è ñâîéñòâàìè. Ôàêòû çàìåòíîãî âëèÿíèÿ êóëüòóðû íà õàðàêòåð ÷åëîâå÷åñêîãî âîñïðèÿòèÿ è îñîáåííîñòè êîãíèòèâíûõ ñòðàòåãèé, êîòîðûå çàäàþòñÿ äàæå íà ãåíåòè÷åñêîì óðîâíå, â îáùåì ñëó÷àå çàñòàâëÿþò ìîäèôèöèðîâàòü ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ î ñóáúåêòå ïîçíàíèÿ è ââåñòè ïðèíöèï êóëüòóðíîé, äåÿòåëüíîñòíîé è íåéðîáèîëîãè÷åñêîé äåòåðìèíàöèè åãî ïîçíàâàòåëüíîé ñòðàòåãèè. Ôàêòè÷åñêè ðå÷ü èäåò î òîì, ÷òî êîãíèòèâíûé èíñòðóìåíòàðèé ñóáúåêòà îêàçûâàåòñÿ «çàâÿçàí» íà åãî, ñóáúåêòà, ñîöèîêóëüòóðíîì áàçèñå è äåòåðìèíèðîâàí èñòîðèåé ñòàíîâëåíèÿ è ïðåáûâàíèÿ â îïðåäåëåííîì êóëüòóðíîì êîíòåêñòå, êîòîðûé îáóñëîâëèâàåò îíòîãåíåòè÷åñêèå è ôèëîãåíåòè÷åñêèå îñîáåííîñòè ìîçãà. Äóìàåòñÿ, ÷òî ýòîò ïðèíöèï äîïóñòèìî ïåðåôîðìóëèðîâàòü â ïðèíöèï îòíîñèòåëüíîñòè ñóáúåêòà ïîçíàíèÿ ê åãî ñîöèîêóëüòóðíîìó è áèîëîãè÷åñêîìó ïðîèñõîæäåíèþ è àðåàëó äåÿòåëüíîñòè è ãåíåòè÷åñêîé ïðåäðàñïîëîæåííîñòè, êîððåêòèðóåìîé îñîáåííîñòÿìè èñòîðèè åãî æèçíè. Çäåñü ìû ïî ñóùåñòâó ñòàëêèâàåìñÿ ñ íåêîòîðûì àñïåêòîì äåÿòåëüíîñòíîãî ïîäõîäà â âèäå ïðîáëåìû àêòèâíîñòè ñóáúåêòà ïîçíàíèÿ è ñîçíàíèÿ. Ñôîðìèðîâàííîå â îïðåäåëåííîé êóëüòóðíîé ñðåäå è îïðåäåëåííîé ñòåïåíè áèîëîãè÷åñêè îðèåíòèðîâàííîå ñîçíàíèå êîíñòðóèðóåò îíòîëîãèþ, ïðèïèñûâàÿ ðåàëüíîñòè è îáðàòíî – âîñïðèíèìàÿ – òå ñâîéñòâà, êîòîðûå êàê áû çàäàíû ñîöèàëüíîé è êóëüòóðíîé àêòèâíîñòüþ. Îêàçûâàåòñÿ, ÷òî äåÿòåëüíîñòü ñóáúåêòà îáëàäàåò áîëåå ôóíäàìåíòàëüíûì ñòàòóñîì, íåæåëè ñóùåñòâîâàíèå îòäåëüíûõ âåùåé. Ïîçíàíèå ñ òî÷êè çðåíèÿ äåÿòåëüíîñòíîãî ïîäõîäà â âåðñèè È.Ñ. Àëåêñååâà [Àëåêñååâ, 1978: 209–231] ìîæíî ïðåäñòàâèòü êàê ïðîöåññ, íà íà÷àëüíîì ýòàïå êîòîðîãî äåÿòåëüíîñòè ñóáúåêòà è îáúåêòà àáñîëþòíî ïðîòèâîïîëîæíû, ïðè÷åì îáúåêòèâíîñòü (ïðèðîäû)

144

ÑÎÂÐÅÌÅÍÍÀß ÊÓËÜÒÓÐÍÀß ÍÅÉÐÎÍÀÓÊÀ È ÏÐÈÐÎÄÀ ÑÓÁÚÅÊÒÀ…

îçíà÷àåò íå áîëåå, ÷åì åå îáúåêòíîñòü.  õîäå ñîáñòâåííî ïîçíàíèÿ îñóùåñòâëÿåòñÿ ïîãðóæåíèå â îáúåêòèâíîñòü; ñóáúåêò ñíèìàåò ñâîå îò÷óæäåíèå îò îáúåêòà, ïîñêîëüêó îñíîâíîé åãî öåëüþ ÿâëÿåòñÿ ñâîåãî ðîäà ñëèÿíèå ñ îáúåêòîì. Ìåðà ñîâïàäåíèÿ ñóáúåêòèâíîãî è îáúåêòèâíîãî åñòü íå ÷òî èíîå, êàê ìåðà ïîçíàíèÿ îáúåêòèâíîé èñòèíû. Åñëè â ïðîöåññå ïîçíàíèÿ çíàíèå ñóùåñòâóåò â «ôîðìå äåÿòåëüíîñòè», òî ðåçóëüòàò ïîçíàíèÿ äîëæåí áûòü ïðåäñòàâëåí â «ôîðìå îáúåêòà», ò.å. â òîì âèäå, êîãäà âîçäåéñòâèå äåÿòåëüíîñòè íà îáúåêò (îáúåêòèâíîå) ýëèìèíèðóåòñÿ èç êîíå÷íîãî ðåçóëüòàòà ïîçíàâàòåëüíîé äåÿòåëüíîñòè. Ðå÷ü çäåñü èäåò, åñëè âñïîìíèòü ìûñëü Íèëüñà Áîðà, î «âû÷åêàíèâàíèè» ñóáúåêòèâíîñòè, ñîïðÿæåííîé ñ êîíêðåòíîé ïîçíàâàòåëüíîé äåÿòåëüíîñòüþ, êîòîðàÿ òåì íå ìåíåå íå ìîæåò íå ñîõðàíÿòüñÿ â âèäå äåòåðìèíèðîâàííûõ áèîëîãè÷åñêîé îðãàíèçàöèåé, ñîöèàëüíî è êóëüòóðíî îáóñëîâëåííûõ «ñïîñîáîâ ïîãðóæåíèÿ», à â ñëó÷àå ãóìàíèòàðíîãî çíàíèÿ â îïðåäåëåííîé ìåðå è òîé ôîðìîé, â êîòîðîé èçëàãàåòñÿ ðåçóëüòàò ïîçíàíèÿ. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, â êà÷åñòâå îáúÿñíèòåëüíîãî òåîðåòèêî-ïîçíàâàòåëüíîãî ïðèíöèïà äåÿòåëüíîñòíûé ïîäõîä ïðåäïîëàãàåò, ÷òî çíàíèå íåîáõîäèìî àíàëèçèðîâàòü ñ ó÷åòîì ïîðîæäàþùèõ åãî ñòðóêòóð (âêëþ÷àÿ íåéðîáèîëîãè÷åñêèå) è îñîáåííîñòåé ñîöèîêóëüòóðíîé äåÿòåëüíîñòè ñóáúåêòà ïîçíàíèÿ. Çíàíèÿ è ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ ñóáúåêòà ïîçíàíèÿ, êîòîðûå ñôîðìèðîâàíû åãî êóëüòóðíîé ïðåäûñòîðèåé è ôèçèîëîãè÷åñêîé îðãàíèçàöèåé, ôîðìèðóþò ñâîåãî ðîäà ïðèçìó, ñêâîçü êîòîðóþ «ïðîñìàòðèâàåòñÿ» ðåàëüíîñòü. Ýòî íåêèå àïðèîðíûå ìàòðèöû, çà êîòîðûå â ïñèõèêå íåñóò îòâåòñòâåííîñòü ãåíåòè÷åñêèå ïðåäïîñûëêè, ïðåäøåñòâóþùàÿ è òåêóùàÿ äåÿòåëüíîñòü, ïðîèñòåêàþùàÿ è ñâÿçàííàÿ ñ êîíêðåòíûìè ñîöèîêóëüòóðíûìè ðåàëèÿìè. Ýòè àïðèîðíûå ìàòðèöû ìîæíî ñðàâíèòü ñ ñåòüþ, êîòîðàÿ çàáðàñûâàåòñÿ â ðåàëüíîñòü è âûëàâëèâàåò âñå, ÷òî ñîðàçìåðíî ñ åå ÿ÷åéêàìè, ïðè÷åì ôîðìà ïîñëåäíèõ çàâèñèò îò èõ êóëüòóðíîé è áèîëîãè÷åñêîé ïðåäûñòîðèè. Çäåñü, ðàçóìååòñÿ, èìååò çíà÷åíèå è öåëåïîëàãàíèå ñóáúåêòà, ïîä÷èíÿþùåå åãî ïîçíàâàòåëüíóþ àêòèâíîñòü îïðåäåëåííûì çàäà÷àì è ïîäñòðàèâàþùåå ñèñòåìó åãî àïðèîðíûõ êàòåãîðèé ïîä êîíêðåòíûå öåëè. Êàê îäíàæäû çàìåòèë Íèëüñ Áîð ïî ïîâîäó, áëèçêîìó ê îáñóæäàåìîìó, «to a boy with a hammer all things seems like a nail» (äëÿ ìàëü÷èêà ñ ìîëîòêîì âñå âåùè – ãâîçäè).  ôîðìèðîâàíèè ýòèõ «ìàòðèö» ïðèíèìàþò ó÷àñòèå è íåéðîáèîëîãè÷åñêèå, è ñîöèîêóëüòóðíûå ìåõàíèçìû. Çäåñü óìåñòíî âñïîìíèòü è èçâåñòíûé â êèíîèñêóññòâå ýôôåêò Ëüâà Êóëåøîâà (çàâèñèìîñòü âîñïðèÿòèÿ âåùè îò ôîíà åå ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ), êîòîðûé çàñòàâëÿåò çàäóìàòüñÿ íàä àêòèâíûì õàðàêòåðîì íå òîëüêî ñîçíàíèÿ, íî è ïîäñîçíàíèÿ. Àíàëîãè÷íî ìîæíî óòâåðæäàòü è àêòèâíûé õàðàêòåð ÿçûêà, êîòîðûé èñïîëüçóåòñÿ â ïðîöåññå ïîçíàíèÿ: ñëîâà – ýòî íå ïðîñòî «áèðêè», ñîîòâåòñòâóþùèå òîé èëè èíîé

145

Â.À. ÁÀÆÀÍÎÂ

âåùè, ñâîéñòâó èëè îòíîøåíèþ, à îïÿòü-òàêè åäèíèöû, ïîðîæäåííûå äåÿòåëüíîñòüþ, ñåìàíòèêà êîòîðûõ çàäàåòñÿ åå îñîáåííîñòÿìè, – åäèíèöû, â ïðîöåññå ïîçíàíèÿ òàêæå âûñòóïàþùèå íåêîòîðûìè îïòè÷åñêèìè èíñòðóìåíòàìè, ïðåïàðèðóþùèìè ìèð è ôèêñèðóþùèìè îñîáåííîñòè ïðîöåññà ïðåïàðàöèè. Çäåñü ìîæíî íàéòè äîïîëíèòåëüíûé àðãóìåíò â ïîëüçó ãëóáîêîãî çàêëþ÷åíèÿ, ñäåëàííîãî åùå Êîíðàäîì Ëîðåíöåì î òîì, ÷òî ìû ñïîñîáíû àäåêâàòíî ïîíèìàòü òîëüêî íèçøèå ôîðìû, ïðåäøåñòâóþùèå íàøèì ñîáñòâåííûì ôîðìàì ìûøëåíèÿ è âîñïðèÿòèÿ. Äåÿòåëüíîñòíûé ïîäõîä, òàêèì îáðàçîì, ïîçâîëÿåò ïî-íîâîìó ïîñìîòðåòü íà ïåðñïåêòèâû ïðîöåññà äåçàíòðîïîëîãèçàöèè ÷åëîâå÷åñêîãî îáðàçà ìèðà. Ïñèõè÷åñêèé îáðàç ñîäåðæèò êàê áû ñîòâîðåííûé ìèð; ÷åëîâåê ñîçèäàåò íîâóþ ðåàëüíîñòü, îòòàëêèâàÿñü îò ñïåöèôèêè ñâîåé (â áîëåå îáùåì ñëó÷àå – ñîîáùåñòâà) äåÿòåëüíîñòè è ôèëîãåíåòè÷åñêèõ îñîáåííîñòåé, çàäàþùèõ óñòàíîâêè, ýìîöèè, êîìïåòåíöèè, ðàêóðñ âèäåíèÿ ðåàëüíîñòè – òî, ÷òî îòíîñèòñÿ íå òîëüêî ê âíóòðåííåìó äóõîâíîìó ìèðó ÷åëîâåêà, íî è åãî ôèçèîëîãè÷åñêîé îðãàíèçàöèè. Èìåííî áëàãîäàðÿ äåÿòåëüíîñòè ñóáúåêòèâíîå äîïóñòèìî ýëèìèíèðîâàòü èç ðåçóëüòàòîâ äåÿòåëüíîñòè òîëüêî óñëîâíî; ïðîöåññ äîñòèæåíèÿ îáúåêòèâíîãî çíàíèÿ ñîñòîèò â «âû÷åêàíèâàíèè» ïðèâíåñåíèé, ïðåäîïðåäåëåííûõ äåÿòåëüíîñòüþ, ñîöèàëüíîñòüþ è êóëüòóðîé, èç îáúåêòà (ò.å. ïåðåâîäà çíàíèÿ èç «ôîðìû äåÿòåëüíîñòè» â «ôîðìó îáúåêòà»), êîòîðîå, òåì íå ìåíåå, íå ìîæåò áûòü â îáùåì ñëó÷àå àáñîëþòíûì â òîé ìåðå, â êîòîðîé õàðàêòåð äåÿòåëüíîñòè èçìåíÿåò ñîñòîÿíèå îáúåêòà, åñëè èñïîëüçîâàòü êâàíòîâóþ òåðìèíîëîãèþ, «âîçìóùàåò» åãî. Òàêèì îáðàçîì àêòèâíîñòü ñóáúåêòà ïîçíàíèÿ çàäàíà åãî ñîöèàëüíûì, êóëüòóðíûì è ôèçèîëîãè÷åñêèì «íàïîëíåíèåì» è, âîîáùå ãîâîðÿ, öåëåïîëàãàíèåì. Âíèìàíèå íà èíäèâèäóàëüíûé îáúåêò èëè íà êîíòåêñò, â êîòîðîì ñóùåñòâóåò îáúåêò, îïîðà íà ôîðìàëüíî-ëîãè÷åñêèå îïåðàöèè, êàòåãîðèçàöèþ è êëàññèôèêàöèþ, îñíîâàííûå íà íåêîòîðûõ ïðàâèëàõ, à íå íà ñèòóàòèâíûõ ñîîáðàæåíèÿõ, èíòåðïðåòàöèÿ ôîðìàëüíî-ëîãè÷åñêîãî ïðîòèâîðå÷èÿ êàê âûçîâà ðàçóìó, à íå óêàçàíèå íà íåîáõîäèìîñòü ïîèñêà «ñðåäèííîãî» ïóòè è òîëåðàíòíîå ê íåìó îòíîøåíèå, íàêîíåö, äîìèíàíòíàÿ îðèåíòàöèÿ íà óìîçðèòåëüíûå êîíöåïöèè, à íå íà ñîáñòâåííûé îïûò – âñå ýòî ïîäâîäèò ê ìûñëè, ÷òî èäåÿ óíèâåðñàëüíîñòè êîãíèòèâíûõ ñïîñîáíîñòåé ñóáúåêòà äîëæíà áûòü ïåðåñìîòðåíà â ïîëüçó èõ ñîöèîêóëüòóðíîé ðåëÿòèâíîñòè è íåîáõîäèìîñòè ó÷èòûâàòü êîíêðåòíûå ôîðìû åå ðåàëèçàöèè. Îäíàêî â êîíå÷íîì ñ÷åòå ýòî âåäåò ê ïîâûøåíèþ óäåëüíîãî âåñà îáúåêòèâíîñòè â åãî ïîçíàâàòåëüíîé äåÿòåëüíîñòè. Äóìàåòñÿ, ÷òî â êàêîì-òî ñìûñëå ðå÷ü ìîæåò èäòè î íîâîì àñïåêòå êîíöåïöèè ïñèõîëîãèçìà, êîòîðûé îòíîñèòñÿ ê îñîáåííîñòÿì è ìå-

146

ÑÎÂÐÅÌÅÍÍÀß ÊÓËÜÒÓÐÍÀß ÍÅÉÐÎÍÀÓÊÀ È ÏÐÈÐÎÄÀ ÑÓÁÚÅÊÒÀ…

õàíèçìàì àêòèâíîñòè ñóáúåêòà ïîçíàíèÿ è êàñàåòñÿ ãëóáîêèõ îñíîâàíèé åãî òâîð÷åñêîé äåÿòåëüíîñòè. Ñóáúåêò ïîçíàíèÿ îêàçûâàåòñÿ ïëîòíî âïèñàííûì â èñòîðè÷åñêè è áèîëîãè÷åñêè äåòåðìèíèðîâàííûé êóëüòóðíûé êîíòåêñò, ïðèäàþùåé åãî äåÿòåëüíîñòè æèâîòâîðÿùóþ ïîëíîòó îòâåäåííîãî åìó ñðîêà. Ñîöèîêóëüòóðíàÿ ðåëÿòèâíîñòü ñóáúåêòà âîâñå íå îòìåíÿåò ïðèçíàíèÿ åãî íàöåëåííîñòè íà äîñòèæåíèå îáúåêòèâíîé èñòèíû è ñíèìàåò îïàñåíèÿ, ñâÿçàííûå ñ «ðàäèêàëüíûì» ðåëÿòèâèçìîì [Ðåëÿòèâèçì êàê áîëåçíü ñîâðåìåííîé ôèëîñîôèè, 2015]. Îáúåêò ïîçíàíèÿ â ýòîì ñëó÷àå ïðåäñòàåò ìíîãîãðàííûì îáðàçîâàíèåì â òîì ñìûñëå, ÷òî ðàçëè÷íûå åãî ãðàíè âûñâå÷èâàþòñÿ ïîä óãëîì çðåíèÿ íåéðîêîãíèòèâíûõ îñîáåííîñòåé, êóëüòóðíîãî è/èëè äåÿòåëüíîñòíîãî «èíñòðóìåíòàðèÿ» ñóáúåêòà, êîòîðûé íàïðàâëÿåò åãî âíèìàíèå íà òå èëè èíûå ñòîðîíû îáúåêòà è ïîçâîëÿåò ïîëó÷àòü ðàçëè÷àþùååñÿ ïî êîìïîçèöèè è ñîäåðæàíèþ çíàíèå. Çäåñü äîïóñòèìà àíàëîãèÿ ñ îñâåùåíèåì íåêîòîðîãî îáúåìíîãî ïðåäìåòà ëó÷îì ñâåòà ñ îïðåäåëåííîé ñòîðîíû. Ïîíèìàíèå ñóáúåêòà â àñïåêòå åãî «óíèâåðñàëüíîñòè» ïîäðàçóìåâàåò, ÷òî îí âèäèò ñ îïðåäåëåííîé ïîçíàâàòåëüíîé ïîçèöèè âåñü îáúåêò öåëèêîì, òîãäà êàê íà ñàìîì äåëå åìó äîñòóïíû ëèøü îïðåäåëåííûå åãî ñòîðîíû, êîòîðûå îêàçûâàþòñÿ äîñòóïíûìè ïðè èñïîëüçîâàíèè êîíêðåòíûõ ïîçíàâàòåëüíûõ ñðåäñòâ, ÷òî, ñîáñòâåííî, è èìååòñÿ â âèäó ïðè óòâåðæäåíèè ñîöèîêóëüòóðíîé è/èëè ôèçèîëîãè÷åñêîé îáóñëîâëåííîñòè êîãíèòèâíîãî ïîòåíöèàëà ñóáúåêòà è ðåçóëüòàòîâ åãî àêòèâíîñòè. Íå ñòîèì ëè ìû íà ïîðîãå íîâîãî ïîíèìàíèÿ ïðèðîäû ñóáúåêòà ïîçíàíèÿ, ê êîòîðîìó ïîäâîäÿò ñîâðåìåííàÿ íåéðîíàóêà è êóëüòóðíàÿ ïñèõîëîãèÿ? Àâòîð ïðèçíàòåëåí Ë.Ï. Êèÿùåíêî çà ïîëåçíûå ñîîáðàæåíèÿ, ïîçâîëèâøèå âûðàçèòü ëåéòìîòèâ ñòàòüè áîëåå ÷åòêî.

Библиографический список Àëåêñååâ, 1978 – Àëåêñååâ È.Ñ. Êîíöåïöèÿ äîïîëíèòåëüíîñòè. Èñòîðèêî-ìåòîäîëîãè÷åñêèé àíàëèç. Ì. : Íàóêà, 1978. 276 ñ. Áàæàíîâ, 2014 – Áàæàíîâ Â.À. Ðàçíîâèäíîñòè è ïðîòèâîñòîÿíèå ðåàëèçìà è àíòèðåàëèçìà â ôèëîñîôèè ìàòåìàòèêè. Âîçìîæíà ëè òðåòüÿ ëèíèÿ? // Âîïðîñû ôèëîñîôèè. 2014. ¹ 5. Ñ. 52–64. Áðóøëèíñêèé, 2002 – Áðóøëèíñêèé À.Â. Î äåÿòåëüíîñòè ñóáúåêòà è åãî êðèòåðèÿõ // Ñóáúåêò, ïîçíàíèå, äåÿòåëüíîñòü. Ì. : Êàíîí+, 2002. Ñ. 351–376. Áðóøëèíñêèé, 2003 – Áðóøëèíñêèé À.Â. Ïñèõîëîãèÿ ñóáúåêòà. Ì. : Àëåòåéÿ, 2003. Ãà÷åâ, 2008 – Ãà÷åâ Ã. Ìåíòàëüíîñòè íàðîäîâ ìèðà. Ì. : Ýêñìî, 2008. Ãðèãîðüåâà, 1992 – Ãðèãîðüåâà Ò.Ï. Äàî è ëîãîñ (âñòðå÷à êóëüòóð). Ì. : Íàóêà, 1992. Êàñàâèí, 2013 – Êàñàâèí È.Ò. Çíàíèå è êîììóíèêàöèÿ: ê ñîâðåìåííûì äèñêóññèÿì â àíàëèòè÷åñêîé ôèëîñîôèè //Âîïðîñû ôèëîñîôèè. 2013. ¹ 7. Ñ. 63–72.

147

Â.À. ÁÀÆÀÍÎÂ

Êîóë, Ñêðèáíåð, 1977 – Êîóë Ì., Ñêðèáíåð Ñ. Êóëüòóðà è ìûøëåíèå. Ì. : Ïðîãðåññ, 1977. Ìèêåøèíà, 2005 – Ìèêåøèíà Ë.À. Ôèëîñîôèÿ íàóêè. Ì. : Ïðîãðåññ-Òðàäèöèÿ : ÌÏÑÈ : Ôëèíòà, 2005. Ðåëÿòèâèçì êàê áîëåçíü ñîâðåìåííîé ôèëîñîôèè, 2015 – Ðåëÿòèâèçì êàê áîëåçíü ñîâðåìåííîé ôèëîñîôèè ; îòâ. ðåä. Â.À. Ëåêòîðñêèé. Ì. : Êàíîí+ : Ðåàáèëèòàöèÿ, 2015. Òðàíñäèñöèïëèíàðíîñòü â ôèëîñîôèè è íàóêå, 2015 – Òðàíñäèñöèïëèíàðíîñòü â ôèëîñîôèè è íàóêå: ïðîáëåìû, ïîäõîäû, ïåðñïåêòèâû. Ì. : Íàâèãàòîð, 2015. Ôàëèêìàí, Êîóë, 2014 – Ôàëèêìàí Ì.Â., Êîóë Ì. «Êóëüòóðíàÿ ðåâîëþöèÿ» â êîãíèòèâíîé íàóêå: îò íåéðîííîé ïëàñòè÷íîñòè äî ãåíåòè÷åñêèõ ìåõàíèçìîâ ïðèîáðåòåíèÿ êóëüòóðíîãî îïûòà // Êóëüòóðíî-èñòîðè÷åñêàÿ ïñèõîëîãèÿ. 2014. Ò. 10, ¹ 3. Ñ. 4–18. Õèíòèêêà, 1980 – Õèíòèêêà ß. Ëîãèêî-ýïèñòåìîëîãè÷åñêèå èññëåäîâàíèÿ. Ì. : Ïðîãðåññ, 1980. ßáëîêîâ, Þñóïîâ, 2006 – ßáëîêîâ À.Â., Þñóïîâ À.Ã. Ýâîëþöèîííîå ó÷åíèå. Ì. : Âûñøàÿ øêîëà, 2006. Bazhanov, 2000 – Bazhanov V.A. The Rationality of Russia and Rationality of the West // Rationalitat und Irrationalitat. Beitrage des 23. Internationalen Wittgenstein Symposiums. 13–19 August 2000. Kirchberg-am-Wechsel, 2000. Bd 1. S. 58–63. Chiao, Ambady, 2007 – Chiao J., Ambady N. Cultural Neuroscience: Parsing Universality and Diversity // Handbook of Cultural Psychology ; ed. S. Kitayama, D. Cohen. N.Y., 2007. P. 237–254. Chiao, Hariri, Harada, Mano, Sadato, Parish, Iidaka, 2010 – Chiao J., Hariri A., Harada T., Mano Y., Sadato N., Parish T., Iidaka T. Theory and Methods in Cultural Neuroscience // SCAN. 2010. Vol. 5. P. 356–361. Choi., Peng, 2007 – Choi I., Peng K. Perception and Cognition // Handbook of Cultural Psychology ; ed. by S. Kitayama, D. Cohen. N.Y., 2007. Ð. 574–576. Dehaene, 2011 – Dehaene S. The Number Sense: How the Mind Creates Mathematics. N.Y. : Oxford University Press, 2011. Fowler, Schreiber, 2008 – Fowler J.H., Schreiber D. Biology, Politics, and the Emerging Science of Human Nature // Science. 2008. Vol. 322. P. 912–914. Han, Ma, 2014 – Han S., Ma Y. Cultural Differences in Human Brain Activity: a Quantitative Meta-analysis // Neuroimage. 2014. Vol. 99. P. 293–300. Hersh, 2008 – Hersh P. On Platonism // European Mathematical Society Newsletter. June, 2008. P. 17–18. Jednorog, Altarelli, Monzalvo, Fluss, Dubois, Billard, Dehaene-Lambertz, Ramus, 2012 – Jednorog K., Altarelli I., Monzalvo K., Fluss J., Dubois J., Billard C., Dehaene-Lambertz G., Ramus F. The Influence of Socioeconomic Status on Children’s Brain Structure // PLoS ONE. 2012. Vol. 7, ¹ 8. Klein, 2010 – Klein C. Images Are not the Evidence in Neuroimaging // British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. 2010. Vol. 61. P. 265–278. LeClair, Janusonis, Kim, 2014 – LeClair J., Janusonis S., Kim H.S. Geneculture Interactions: Multigene Approach // Culture and Brain. 2014. ¹ 2(2). P. 122–140. Mrazek, Chiao, Blizinsky, Lun, Gelfand, 2013 – Mrazek A., Chiao J., Blizinsky K., Lun J., Gelfand M. The Role of Culturegene Coevolution in Morality Judgement: Examining the Interplay between Tightness-looseness and Allelic Variation of Serotonin Transporter Gene // Culture and Brain. 2013. ¹ 1 (2–4). P. 100–117.

148

ÑÎÂÐÅÌÅÍÍÀß ÊÓËÜÒÓÐÍÀß ÍÅÉÐÎÍÀÓÊÀ È ÏÐÈÐÎÄÀ ÑÓÁÚÅÊÒÀ…

Nisbett, 2007 – Nisbett R.E. A Psychological Perspective: Cultural Psychology – Past, Present, and Future // Handbook of Cultural Psychology ; ed. by S. Kitayama, D. Cohen. N.Y., 2007. P. 837–846. Nisbett, Choi, Peng, Norenzayan, 2001 – Nisbett R., Choi I., Peng K., Norenzayan A. Culture and Thought: Holistic vs Analytic Cognition // Psychological Review. 2001. Vol. 108. P. 291–310. Norenzayan, Choi, Peng, 2007 – Norenzayan A., Choi I., Peng K. Perception and Cognition // Handbook of Cultural Psychology ; ed. by S. Kitayama, D. Cohen. N.Y., 2007. P. 569–594. Peng, Nisbett, 1999 – Peng K., Nisbett R. Culture, Dialectics, and Reasoning about Contradiction // American Psychologist. 1999. Vol. 54. P. 741–754. Robinson, Fernald, Clayton, 2008 – Robinson G.E., Fernald R.D., Clayton D.F. Genes and Social Behavior // Science. 2008. Vol. 322. P. 896–900. Sfera, Osorio, 2014 – Sfera A., Osorio C. Thinking Pattern East and West // SOJ Psychology. 2014. Vol. 1 (4). P. 1–2. Steen, 2000 – Steen A. A Mathematical Mystery Tour: Discovering the Truth and Beauty of the Cosmos // Notices of AMS. 2000. Vol. 47, ¹ 2. P. 221–224. Talhelm, Zhang, Oishi, Shimin, Duan, Lan, Kitayama, 2014 – Talhelm T., Zhang X., Oishi S., Shimin C., Duan D., Lan X., Kitayama S. Large-scale Psychological Differences within China Explained by Rice versus Wheat Agriculture // Science. 2014. Vol. 244. P. 603–608.

149

EPISTEMOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE · 2015 · Ò. XLV · ¹ 3

T

HE NOTION OF SPACE IN SOME MODERN PHYSICS

THEORIES

1

Ivan A. Karpenko – National Research University Higher School of Economics. Faculty of Philosophy. PhD, Associated professor. Email: [email protected]

The article analyzes a number of modern physics approaches in different aspects, which are directly or indirectly affected by the problem of space. The variations of cosmologies based on the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, the theory of inflation, the holographic universe model, the model of the virtual universe, etc. and their scientifically validated combinations are examined for specifics of category of space interpretation in each case. In reliance to the historical and philosophical analysis the connection between the traditional interpretations of the concept of space in philosophy and the modern ones in physics is established. The context of some modern physical theories is concluded to bring new dimensions to the understanding of space (while retaining certain classical concepts). Key words: concept of space, cosmology, philosophy of physics, history of science.

Introduction This study is focused on the analysis of several hypotheses of the multiverse in modern physics in order to consider the interpretation of the concept of space in their contexts. The historical and philosophical scientific development of the problem is also taken into account within the interpretation. Space is one of the fundamental concepts of physics. Modern theoretical physics affects this category in such a way that it becomes more and more difficult to formalize it in definitions and unambiguous representations. The theories of the multiverses became the one of the examples of same space appears differently. This article focuses on the category of space (and related concepts), which originates from the philosophical interpretation of several multiverse theories.

Short overview of the space problem In relation to the concept of space, the following characteristics (also related to each other) are conventionally distinguished: finiteness or infinitude; presence of voids and matter or absence of such division; possibility of movement, continuity and discontinuity; existence of space, solidity. The history of the finiteness or infinitude issue of space has been discussed in detail in the work of Alexandre Koyre´ [Koyre´, 1957] and some of the ideas on this subject are also expressed in the article 1 The article was prepared within the framework of the Academic Fund Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE) in 2015-2-16 (grant ¹15-01-0071) and supported within the framework of a subsidy granted to the HSE by the Government of the Russian Federation for the implementation of the Global Competitiveness Program.

150 Casestudies – Science studies

THE NOTION OF SPACE IN SOME MODERN PHYSICS THEORIES

of I.A. Karpenko [Karpenko, 2014: 105–118]. Koyré mentions an interesting detail: the concept of “cosmic space” in antiquity and in the Middle Ages is not the same as the “universe” of Modern Ages and is certainly a different thing with the global space in modern physics. The cosmic space of Aristotle, Hipparchus, and Ptolemy is a closed finite world, which has nothing beyond itself2. Nicholas of Cusa and Giordano Bruno have already researched the infinite universe; the worlds of René Descartes, Gottfried Leibniz and Isaac Newton (and probably the world of Galileo, too) are also infinite contrary to the ideas of Nicolaus Copernicus and Johannes Kepler (in fact, thanks largely to them). Moreover, space is not necessarily infinite in models that allow infinity – for example, Descartes’ space as a matter dimension is finite but only God is infinite. Henry Moore’s space is infinite as the “sensitivity of God (sensorium Dei)” and multiplicity of worlds does not follow infinity3. Today, the question of finiteness or infinitude of space remains open (perhaps, in some way because of the absence of space nature clarity). Theoretically, if the postulate of symmetry is granted and the general theory of relativity becomes the base, the options of the flat finite (but without boundaries), the spherical and the saddle shape spaces are possible (which follows from the work of Friedman4, 1924). In other words, space can be zero, positive or negative cambered. The area of observed space is so small when comparing the dimensions of an expanding universe that it is difficult to deduce the configuration of space on available area. If the method of induction is to be trusted, the flat infinite space becomes the most probable because of the equality of “there” and “here”. Another problem concerns place and matter. Should the material object, its location and boundary place be distinguished? In such a case (in accordance with Democritus, epicureans and atomist followers), space is a “place” and matter differs from space. Then the question of essence of “place” arises – is it the empty space, is it nothing5? Even Eleatics have been aware of this problem – they have no voids and therefore a lot is impossible, including movement. Consequently, the Eleatics’ world is joint, indivisible, motionless space6. In fact, the difference between space and matter disappears in this situation. Aristotle admitted the existence of “place” but not void, which led to inexpungible collisions. One of the most important differences in the views on matter essence of ancient philosophers and scientists of the Modern Ages is that the first ones consi2 Cosmic space of Aristotle is finite because “nothing infinite can have being” [Aristotle, 1998: 47], which follows from the analysis of Plato’s arguments about the All and other. 3 Descartes has not strongly allowed a plurality of worlds; see [Descartes, 1982, § 22]. 4 See the English version of article [Friedmann, 1999: 2001–2008]. 5 It is possible to distinguish the void from nothing by endowing the first with length. 6 The origins of scientific worldview in antiquity and the Modern Ages have been detailed investigated in the works of P.P. Gaydenko [Gaydenko, 2011; 2012].

151

IVAN A. KARPENKO

dered matter a shadow, a reflection of real world of ideas (as for Plato) or the “possibility”, something that does not exist without shape (as for Aristotle). But, for example, Descartes’ has supposed it to be a substance, actuality, the true reality. R. Descartes rejected the idea of void space and declared all to have material length: “The reason for this is that the very names of “place” and “space” do not mean anything really different from the so-called “taking place” object; these are just the denotations of its scale, shape and position among other objects” [Descartes, 1982: § 13] and therefore, material length forms space. During the reconceiving of the Parmenides sayings, Leibniz asks why there is somewhat instead of nothing [Leibniz, 2006: 31–38] and brings the problem to a new level of complexity. The very question so far admits the possibility of “not-being”, “nothing”. Leibniz solves this problem by involving the religious aspect and the law of sufficient reason. However, his issue leads to another important question: is it supposedly possible that somewhat does not exist? Therefore, the assumption arises that everything has to be because there is no reasonable basis for the absence of anything. A detailed analysis of this problem through a historical and philosophical perspective can be found in an article by A.S. Karpenko [Karpenko, 2014: 51–74]. Contrary to Descartes, Isaac Newton definitively separates space and matter. He has clearly declared that “Place is a part of space which a body takes up, and is according to the space, either absolute or relative...” [Newton, Cajori, Motte, 1974: 6–7]. Matter for Leibniz is the relevant phenomenon, but space is an ideal abstraction, without length! So the space has no dimension. Descartes and Leibniz completely denied atoms (the latter has them as monads – particles of matter which have purposely no length) and determined the qualities of matter to be the result of immaterial substance. But Newton was the atomist (but in a different way than, for example, Christiaan Huygens and other atomists of 17th century – Newton’s atoms have active forces and different shapes). If there are no atoms and voids, continuous ether should exist for movement to be possibility (Aristotle introduced whirling motion, Descartes also used “whirls” for the explanation of movement in ether), which is basically space. The ether concept was further developed in the form of the “luminiferous ether”, where the electromagnetic waves are guided. Also it has been applied to James Maxwell’s discovery of electromagnetism – his calculations showed the speed of light, which is close to that established by experiments, but the question remained: 300 000 km/s used towards what? The answer is to ether. However, Einstein’s special theory of relativity has shown that Maxwell’s equations do not really need any ether and the light moves with (always the same) speed towards anything. Thus, the status of space has become unclear again – it is empty. Then the reference system has become necessary for movement possibility in empty space. Therefore, Newtonian “absolute” space appears (while the space of Descartes and Leibniz is relative). This has yet become other than “nothing”, but it is although not quite clear that exactly. It is notable that in a strict sense the Einstein movement is

152

THE NOTION OF SPACE IN SOME MODERN PHYSICS THEORIES

according to Einstein himself) – space-time (the Minkowski space) may be interpreted as a reference system in the theory of relativity. Consequently, the problem of movement is closely related to continuity and discontinuity. Zeno’s famous paradoxes are still relevant proving that movement and multiplicity do not exist, that thus, mines the foundations of early Pythagorean mathematics with its objects forming discrete monads7. Started by Leucippus-Democritus (who tried to avoid these paradoxes), the atomism program, Pythagorean ideas, developed by Plato (his discretes are point, line, plane) and Eudoxus, Aristotle’s physics and Euclidean geometry have resulted in interesting theories today8. In the 20th century, atomism has been established. On the one hand it states the atoms’ substance (quarks, electrons, photons, particles that transmit interactions, etc. are more relevant here), but on the other hand, it considers atoms as points without physical dimensions in mathematical body. If particles are physically discrete, but mathematically continuous (without minimum size) units in the standard model of particle physics, then the string theory and loop quantum gravity theory state their both scopes to have finite size. However, this shows the discrete nature of “located” in space matter, but not the discrete nature of space itself. The attempts to assign space as discrete are equal to stating space as not fundamental but “consisting” of something. The question remains open nowadays9. The special mention should be made of space in Plato’s system, where space is not a place for objects and is not sensually perceived or completely perfect [Plato, 2000: 52 a-b]. It acts as a mediator between ideas and the world of senses. The accurate perception of it is impossible: it is as if “seen in the dream”, but still needed for geometry practice. Accordingly, movement in it is impossible, too. The movement in the world of geometry, according to Proclus [Proclus, 1992], is a convenient fantasy resulting from the characteristics of our perception of the world. Kant’s conception of space is close to its Platonic interpretation as a priori form of sensibility, which is itself impossible to be felt and thought, but remains the condition of perception. As a result of Albert Einstein’s formulation of the special theory of relativity, modern cosmology prefers operating not with space, but with space-time as a single structure (as has been shown by Jules Henri Poincaré [Poincaré, 1906: 129–176] and Hermann Minkowski [Minkowski, 1909: 75–88]). In particular, this implicates the connection between movement in space and over time movement. In fact, the geometrization of the time concept10 happened in the 20th century. 7 The analysis of almost all possible solutions of paradoxes with specifying of these decisions inconsistency has been carried out by A. Koyre in the special work [Koyre´, 1961] 8 The influence of geometry and mathematics of the Middle Ages and the Modern Ages to modern science is certainly great, but the science starting points are only indicated here. 9 The details about the history of atomism see, for example, in [Zubov, 1965]. 10 Einstein believed that it is typical for the human mind [Einstein, 1954: 141].

153

IVAN A. KARPENKO

Types of multiverse As pointed out by Nelson Goodman, “If there is but one world, it embraces a multiplicity of contrasting aspects; if there are many worlds, the collection of them all is one universe” [Goodman, 1978: 2]. In other words, a lot of worlds can be considered as one, the multiverse, but one world can be viewed as many, too. Indeed, such a problem exists and it has a long history (e.g. Plato’s relation of the all and the many11), and therefore a special criterion of the multiverse is required. In this paper the term multiverse (and its synonym meta-universe) is used to imply a variety of worlds where some of them are identical to ours12 (or almost identical). Identity is an essential aspect – if ignored, any other star system or galaxy in the observable universe may become the research object. The assumptions of other similar to our one star systems` inhabitation (or objects of the solar system) have been repeatedly expressed in the history of science, and in the Modern Age acquired a strong share in scientific literature and fiction. Giordano Bruno [Bruno, 1584], Cyrano de Bergerac [Bergerac, 1657], Bernard Fontenelle [Fontenelle, 1686], Gottfried Alfred Burger, Rudolf Erich Raspe and many others have turned to the subject of habitable space in their works. The assumption of habitable universe is quite acceptable, but it is not related to the multiverse theories. The idea of multiple worlds in modern physics presupposes that the other worlds exist beyond the observable universe (perhaps “parallel” to it). The first key point of the multiverse concept is that it is extremely difficult and virtually impossible to observe those worlds due to certain restrictions imposed by the laws of nature. The second key point, as has been mentioned, is the assumption that there are identical (or nearly identical) worlds to the one in focus. The simplest type of multiverse arises from a single assumption: space is infinite. Curiously, the ideas of Nicholas of Cusa and Giordano Bruno are most fitting for the concept of such a multiverse. However, Nicholas of Cusa believed that all worlds have to be unique [Nicholas of Cusa, 2001: 94] and this, as will be shown, is an unreasonable condition. Bruno also raised an important point, that “act and potency are the same thing” [Bruno, 2004: 66], thus postulating that everything imaginable exists. However, in the case of physically possible universes, the laws of physics restrict “everything imaginable”13. Let us assume that conditions (laws of nature) beyond the observable universe are the same as in the one observed. If so, there is a finite number 11 See the Plato`s “Parmenides”, which has the extensive review on this issue [Plato, 1998]. 12 “Our world” is used as the observable universe within its cosmic horizon. 13 An important question arises here: is it possible to think of something contrary to physics if the thinking itself is the subject to the laws of physics?

154

THE NOTION OF SPACE IN SOME MODERN PHYSICS THEORIES

of possible variations of the particles and their combinations14. The number of combinations is enormous, but there likely will be repetitions in an infinite universe (an infinite number of times). Consequently, there is an infinite number of worlds that are repeated endlessly. Repeatability turns out to be an important condition for the understanding of the multiverse. Otherwise, we return to the traditional variations of an infinite universe, typical for Modern Age beliefs. This model describes a single infinite space. It is classical in the sense that in terms of physics it is treated as discrete and means a place for all possible configurations of matter. Nevertheless, it cannot be called empty, as it is “permeated” by various fields, which within the quantum field theory can be identified with particles. Each particle has a field (as it is impossible to precisely localize a particle in a finite space, a fluctuating particle can be considered the field quantum). However, a field is not space; the fields are sort of “situated” in the space determining the properties of matter, interactions of which are active in the space. Another popular type of the multiverse is related to the previous one and turns out to be its extended version. It originates from the principle of plenitude (a term introduced by Arthur Lovejoy), which comes from the Plato’s theory of forms. The essence of this theory is best described as “anything is possible”. Perhaps, the first to explicitly develop the ideas of Plato was Giordano Bruno. This theory is not a physical one in the scientific sense, since obviously absurd scenarios would take place in such a multiverse (this makes up the fundamental difference from the previous type). Everything conceived has to exist, including nothing and any kinds of worlds that are physically and logically impossible. Here, however, one nuance appears: the identifying of language (thinking) with the world can lead to a conclusion that anything conceivable is logically possible (this trend, by the way, appears in Plato’s works). This was stated by Ludwig Wittgenstein in Logical-Philosophical Treatise [Wittgenstein, 2007]. Thus, we can not conceive something that contradicts logic or describes a world fundamentally different from ours. However, Wittgenstein admits the “mystical”, which is impossible, but does exist15. Fullness of objective reality requires the existence of everything, but in this context, laws and key concepts of physics lose all their meaning. The space can be anything you want, with some made-up characteristics, sometimes even mutually exclusive. This makes the principle of plenitude quite speculative. The principle of plenitude is covered in the works by Arthur Lovejoy [Lovejoy, 1936], Robert Nozick [Nozick, 1981], David Lewis [Lewis, 1986], V.P. Vizgin [Âèçãèí, 2007] and A.S. Karpenko [Karpenko, 2013]. 14 It is possible to object the finite number of possible configurations, because the particles can be anywhere, and the number of options is infinite. But there are fundamental limits on the measurement accuracy (the ability to localize the particles is limited by the uncertainty principle), so that the space still appears discrete. 15 Do these thoughts of Wittgenstein once again refer to the Plato’s reflections on the àll and the other?

155

IVAN A. KARPENKO

In inflationary cosmology space acquires specific properties. Inflationary expansion is a leftover of the Big Bang theory, which helps to explain similar temperatures of the relict radiation within the limits of the observable universe. We are interested in a particular scenario of eternal inflation (inflationary cosmology model). The original scenario of eternal inflation was proposed by Alan Guth [Guth, 1997], Andrei Linde [Linde, 1990] and Paul Steinhardt [Bardeen, Steinhardt, Turner, 1983: 679]. Alexander Vilenkin apparently became the first to realize and explain in lay terms that inflationary expansion can be eternal (this idea has been further developed by physicists mentioned above). For such an assumption infinite space should be assumed as filled with hypothetical inflaton16 field, high energy of the latter is causing the ultra-fast expansion. When the field energy rolls down to low values, new worlds start forming (the energy of the inflaton field is converted into particles, which later constitute new galaxies). Inflaton field fall could be explained through the quantum field theory, which predicts that quantum fluctuations (inevitable random distortion of the field at the micro level) can “reset” the inflaton field from the high point, leading to the formation of universes. Thus, there is endless space (the inflaton field) which permanently creates new universes. It is worth mentioning that although from the point of view of a hypothetical external observer, which possibly stays within the inflaton, these universes are finite, from the perspective of an internal observer they are infinite (this happens due to the difference in the time flow inside and outside each universe). This means that each of these universes can be considered as a multiverse, which leads to the original concept of the multiverse within the multiverse. But there is a peculiarity: the calculations show that universes within the inflaton must have negative curvature. While the most widespread opinion is that our universe is flat (has zero curvature), it can also be negative (or positive). Within large space, as already mentioned, curvature can remain unnoticed. But if observations show that our universe has no negative curvature, the inflationary multiverse scenario will be disproved [Freivogel, Kleban, Rodrgiuez Martinez, Susskind, 2006: 39]. It is not clear, whether the terms “inflaton field” and “space” can be used as synonyms. It is incorrect in the conventional understanding of space. An inflaton field is not some place for an object’s location. On the other hand, it is as if covering the universes. Another problem is the dimension. But if by inflaton we understand space, then there is a problem with the interpretation of the environment that is contained in the universes “inside” the inflaton: it would seem absolutely different. Another unusual viewpoint on the nature of space is contained in the quantum multiverse theory. In quantum physics, multiverse concept derives from the problem of quantum measurements. The history of this problem and some modern ways of solving it has been analyzed, for example, in my 16 The

156

Higgs boson can probably be the quantum of this field.

THE NOTION OF SPACE IN SOME MODERN PHYSICS THEORIES

works [Karpenko, 2014 a: 110–126; Karpenko, 2014 b: 16–28], as well as in some other distinguished papers17. In this case, we shall only provide a brief statement: the problem of quantum measurement is that the linear Schrodinger equation, which describes the microcosm (the time evolution of the wave function), does not seem to work in the conditions of the macrocosm. Max Born was the first to realize the stochastic nature of the wave function [Born, 1926: 863–867] and introduced the term “probability wave”18 describing the behavior of particles that create an interference pattern. In other words, the particle can be regarded as a wave (demonstrated by Louis de Broglie [Broglie, 1965]), which means that there is a certain probability to find a particle in a particular location19. In those spots where the value of the wave is high (the amplitude is large) finding the particle is most likely. The essence of the problem is: a probability wave shows (or rather, it is shown by the Schrodinger equation) that a particle can equally be found in several spots. However, when a measurement is being conducted (an interaction of the microcosm with the macroscopic measuring tool), the wave collapses, and only one spot for the particle is selected. This leads to a regular question: why the particle “has chosen” this spot rather than another – the wave function evolution shows us that the particle could be discovered elsewhere with the same probability. Of course, one can answer that such a choice has happened for no reason; it has been just an absolutely undetermined accident of nature. Such an answer is unacceptable for two reasons: obviously, science cannot rely on such grounds. Secondly, in this case it is necessary to state that the Schrodinger equation ceases to work after the transition from micro to macro level (when interacted with large measuring tools20), just as the Copenhagen interpretation claims. For us, an important interpretation is the one proposed by Hugh Everett21. He suggested the so-called “many-worlds interpretation”, the essence of which is that all possible outcomes take place. This means that any potential spot of the particle, described by a probability wave, is taken but in a separate, parallel universe. The huge advantage of this approach is that the Schrodinger equation never stops working. The obvious drawback lies in the extreme difficulty of proving this theory. David Deutsch asserts that the experiment with two (or more) holes definitively proves the existence 17 See,

for example [Bell, 1987; Wheeler, Zurek 1983]. Waves of probability are related with wave functions, but they do not congruent with them. In fact, the possibility can not hold negative values, but the value of the wave function can. If it has been limited to probability waves, the interference pattern would not occur. 19 Later Richard Feynman has shown that quantum field theory does not need the concepts of “particle” and “wave” for the valuable work; instead of that the composition of state vectors (summation over trajectories) is effected [Feynman, Hibbs, 2005]. 20 Of course, this can be explained by decoherence, but in this case it has no effect on essence of the many-worlds interpretation. 21 The original version of the Everett`s thesis can be found in the book [DeWitt, Graham, 1973]. 18

157

IVAN A. KARPENKO

of parallel worlds [Deutsch, 1997: 32–55], since interference is the result of a photons (or electrons) collision from our world with photons (or electrons) from a parallel world, the history of which is still very close to ours. But since this is a “parallel reality”, we are not able to see it. His theory becomes untenable if the elementary particles are considered as the waves. However, based on such phenomena as the photoelectric effect, he does not accept the principle of wave-particle duality. It is worth pointing out that despite the very considerable credibility of Deutsch in the world of physics, these arguments have not found substantive support in the scientific community. If the many-worlds interpretation is accepted, the relevant question appears: where do these universes arise from and exist at every moment and in such large numbers? In a certain space? If so, they cease to be parallel, because there is a common space for them, which allows the possibility of their intersection. If not, and a new space appears every time, it appears nowhere. We have to assume the transformation of something into nothing, but such assumptions are obviously dead ends22, which brings us back to how the problem was formulated in the times of Antiquity. Another problem is that the quantum field theory works not in an ordinary three-dimensional space, but in Hilbert space (a variant of configuration for quantum theory), which can have any number of dimensions. Quantum-mechanical description deals with the usual space only if there is a single isolated particle wave function. But to describe each new particle, the three new spatial dimension axis are set up, so the number of dimensions would be three times bigger than the number of particles. It is clear that with macroscopic objects, such as measuring tools or people, the calculations become even more complex. But we are interested in another question: is the Hilbert space real and in what sense? It is considered to be a mathematical fiction, but the usage of the term “mathematical fiction” does not anyhow prove that the designated phenomenon is unreal. Another effect of quantum mechanics (derived from the well-known experiment of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) is the nonlocality of space, which later became an important element of the de Broglie-Bohm theory [Bohm, 1983: 369], indirectly confirmed in the works of John Bell [Bell, 1964: 195–200] and Alain Aspect [Aspect, Grangier, Roger, 1982: 91–94]. Conventional ideas on the structure of space are based on the fact that space is local, meaning that a certain distance should be passed for some impact transfer, the speed of which is limited by the speed of light. However, nonlocality violates this principle: the so-called entangled photons instantly correlate, transferring the impact on one of them from one to another. This process obviously exceeds the speed of light (in fact, the speed has generally nothing to do with it). It definitely contradicts the special relativity theo22 The problem arises precisely because of the emergence of new worlds, otherwise the “where”-question becomes redundant.

158

THE NOTION OF SPACE IN SOME MODERN PHYSICS THEORIES

ry, which sets this upper limit of the speed23. While the elimination of this inconsistence is a purely mathematical problem, the philosophical foundations of physics can vary greatly depending on whether the space is local or not. If such confusion is interpreted as an effect of nonlocality, so the very concept of distance would change: it would lose its objective meaning and turn into an illusion of perception. And, apparently, the correlation remains no matter how far apart the particles are (last year Nicholas Gisin and his colleagues measured a distance of 25 kilometers [Bussie´res, Clausen, Tiranov, Korzh, Verma, Sae Woo Nam, Marsili, Ferrier, Goldner, Herrmann, Silberhorn, Sohler, Afzelius, Gisin, 2014: 775–778]). In such an instance, what makes “there” and “here” distinct for us if such a distinction does not really exist and space is nonlocal? Why does the human experience vary from the scientific data and a man has to pass nonexistent distances to get from one point to another? Does it all supposedly happen due to the same difference between the microcosm and macrocosm in the Copenhagen interpretation and space is nonlocal only at the micro level? Such a hypothesis requires a great deal of explanations. Gisin’s experiments have shown that quantum teleportation is possible, which actually means the instantaneous dislocation of an object from one spot in space to another (thus far it concerns elementary particles). This may mean that despite nonlocality, the concept of “place in space” remains: the essence of teleportation is that an identical double of an object appears in a different place, while the original object stays in the same place. The connections between objects in space might be named nonlocal, while space, as considered by the classical physics (by Newton, Einstein, and others), is local and provides “spots” to locate objects. It is worth mentioning that the many-worlds interpretation, apart from being hard to prove, comes across another serious difficulty. The very concept of probability loses its sense within such an interpretation. If all possible outcomes are real, why do any of the outcomes become more or less probable? Being statistical by its nature, quantum calculations show that during a repeated experiment, a particle would most likely appear in a certain place, however, the probability of some outcomes may be higher than others. So the particle will not necessarily appear in the most probable place, but it will get there more often. Nevertheless, with the mandatory execution of all outcomes the meaning of such probability – the foundation of quantum mechanics – vanishes. Another unconventional vision of space occurs in the concept of a virtual multiverse. This concept allows the existence of virtual worlds, which are the specific representations of imaginary things by sentient beings. Let’s refer to computer simulations for simplicity of research, though, more broadly speaking, any result of consciousness activity can be named by vir23 The

limit is imposed on movement in space, but space may expand faster.

159

IVAN A. KARPENKO

tual reality: scientific theories, visual arts, literary works, dreams and more widely, thought at all. Since the growth of technological capacities and, therefore, processing power of computers, the reasonable assumption has been formulated according to the future creation of computers, which will precisely simulate the environment. Long before the introduction of computers, Alan Turing showed [Turing, 1937: 544–546] that it is basically possible to create a universal computing machine which carries out all possible calculations, except noncomputable statements24. To prove the existence of noncomputable environments Turing has used a modification of the diagonal method of Georg Cantor. Considering this, According to Turing’s result (and also a similar independent result of Alonzo Church [Church, 1936: 345–363] and Kurt Gödel’s [Gödel, 1931: 173–198] incompleteness theorem) with a computer world’s simulation it is reasonable to discuss only the computable procedures. There are an infinite number of noncomputable objects (worlds), but discussing them is useless – we cannot think of them (if we consider the brain as an analogue of a classical computer) and the computer cannot simulate them25. Is it possible to imagine such an uncomputable world? Deutsch believes that it is possible – this is the world that constantly and completely changes its shape (but there is no way to find yourself there). These worlds are physically impossible, but logically possible. Thus, if there is sufficient processing power (and other parts resulting from the complexity theory – but some calculations will take too much time), the creation of an accurate, interactive, changeable computer model of reality is possible. Furthermore, there is no need to model something that cannot be observed directly (this would require incredible additional calculations) – for example, the universe beyond the cosmic horizon, the interior of stars, distant planets, etc., and a microcosm of elementary particles –these are being simulated during the observation. If our existence within a simulated universe is assumed, that explains the problem of quantum measurements: some configuration is calculated only at the moment when the measurement begins. It should be recognized in such cases that the problem of measurement is a program failure, and thus it notifies us of our simulated state of being. The next required step for virtual multiverse term recognition contains acceptance of facts that consciousness can be considered as a program, which provides processing procedures, and that the presence of a biological carrier is not a mandatory term for the existence of consciousness. In other words, consciousness can be simulated on an electronic medium in the form of program code (strong evidence suggests that the creation of artifi24 This refers to the so-called “halting problem”, which postulates that there is no general algorithm to solve all possible problems and, therefore, formulated by Gilbert problem of mathematics solvability has no solution. 25 We can not exclude that quantum computers will show differently.

160

THE NOTION OF SPACE IN SOME MODERN PHYSICS THEORIES

cial intelligence is nothing more than a matter of time26). From this assumption the very important conclusion arises: all reality, including consciousness, can be presented as a program code. Moreover, inhabitants of this will naturally assume their reality to be the true one (at least, up to a certain stage of their science development). It is not clear what should be considered the space of this reality: software or hardware (hard disk, CPU, memory, etc.). Furthermore, inhabitants of this simulation may sooner or later create a simulation within a simulation and inhabitants of the new simulation, too, and so on indefinitely. Any number of simulations within simulations is possible. Of course, here raises the question of the primary world, where the very first computer model of the world was created – the discovery of this reality will provide answers to the world structure, its real physical laws and the properties of space. In fact, the problem of search for the ultimate cause was set up. It is reminiscent of Thomas Aquinas’s proof of the existence of God, where one of the points comes from the necessity for the ultimate cause of existence [Thomas Aquinas, 1948: 11–14]. However, his critics have questioned the fact that there must be some ultimate cause, the cause of all causes, which does not need a reason. There are no convincing (scientific) arguments that there necessarily has to be an ultimate cause (for example, some models of cyclic universes in the theory of eternal inflation do not have it). Thus, simulation within simulation can extend both infinitely into the future and into the past. But in this case, when simulations are the only affordable reality, is it possible to state that there is some genuine space outside simulations? So if there is no other reality than simulations, which are processing objects, this reality has a mathematical nature or rather equals mathematics. In this sense, the concept of physical space makes no sense at all. On the other hand, the problem of how these simulations work and where they are located still remains. Can they work without the original hardware or is the idea of the “hardware” just a projection, caused by the limitations of our perception? And so they still are mathematical objects, same as the observable world in Plato’s theory – a shadow of the world of ideas. Leibniz claimed that if there is the difficult, there must be the simple, inseparable (monads), which forms the basis. Kant’s monads turn into things in themselves, incognoscible substances, which also form the basis and become the causes of phenomena27. But according to time infinity of simulations28 the very substances, which formthe phenomena, may not be 26 On the history and current problems of artifical intelligence see, for example [Hutter, 2005; Nilsson, 2010; Rajani, 2011: 173–176]. 27 “…we will begin here with the category of substance, and thus go backwards throw the series” [Kant, 1998: 413]. 28 “Time” concept is also not easy: considering it as infinite is possible only in case of external time existence in relation to all simulations, otherwise the internal time of each individual simulation exists and in this case simulations can not be sequentially arranged in time.

161

IVAN A. KARPENKO

present. In such a world, the whole reality is mathematics (or it is itself this substance), and cognition of world is the study of mathematics itself. This accords with the Pythagorean concept “everything is number”, which was clearly formulated by Philolaus and formed the program of development of mathematics as a key science, which was supported by Plato and his school (in the sense of the program of mathematics development), developed by Galileo and later involved the increasing number of supporters29. Roger Penrose is known for his extreme position on the question of the role of mathematics – he firmly believes that the only reality is a world of mathematical abstractions [Penrose, 2004: 12]. If we accept this version of the multiverse, it is necessary to recognize that the concept of space as physical reality represents fiction.

Conclusions In discussed theories it could be frequently found that space appears as a certain scene of actions, where events of microcosm and macrocosm occur. However, its specific features are defined by an emphasis on certain basic theories, which form the concept of multiverse. For example, the space of the quantum multiverse is a fluctuating field (and there is no sense asking what is behind this field or where it is), which is associated with particles, the probable positions of which set up new universes. However, it seems to be possible to simplify the concept of quantum multiverse as follows. New worlds appear “nowhere”. In quantum theory all possible worlds are already set up initially – but only potentially. The wave function of the system is a mixture of all possibilities of its implementation – it already describes quantum multiverse. Its unmeasured positions and particle momenta (thus, basically unknown) in particular constitute the true multiverse – this quantum uncertainty can be interpreted as “everything possible is possible”. In this sense, the space of quantum field theory (directly unobservable at the micro level) is the repository of an infinite number of possibilities. This is not the actual, but the potential multiverse, which nevertheless exists. Described macrocosm theories are based on the general theory of relativity. The space of the general theory of relativity is inseparable from time. It is particularly obvious with the consequences of the theory of black holes. “Inside” the black hole, space and time are reversed, so movement in space becomes movement in time after the crossing of the (hypothetical) event horizon. In that case, is it possible to refer to space as a place (in other words, can time become place)? Another question arises: does a black hole itself holds a place in space? Apparently, the answer “yes” is impossible, because inside the black hole, the space-time structure changes so that the current mathe29 See

162

[Heisenberg, 1952; 1979].

THE NOTION OF SPACE IN SOME MODERN PHYSICS THEORIES

matics does not answer (or rather gives meaningless answers – this is a common problem of singularities). In this regard, the idea of “place” could be abandoned and the Cartesian space could be revived by acceptance of new the interpretation of Einstein’s results on curvature of space caused by massive objects: a massive object “drives out” its spanning field, thus producing its curvature. Such an interpretation returns us to denying void (as the idea of separation between space and matter) and, therefore, atomism concepts. The research in the field of such general theory of relativity result as black holes or even their entropies, also supplemented by superstring theory, has led to the idea of the universe, based on the holographic principle. The first steps in this direction were made in the works of Karl Schwarzschild [Schwarzschild, 1916: 189–196], and afterwards developed by Jacob Bekenstein [Bekenstein, 1976: 2333–2346], Stephen Hawking [Hawking, 1974: 30–31], Leonard Susskind [Susskind, 1995: 6377–6399] and Gerard ‘t Hooft [Stephens, ‘t Hooft, Whiting, 1994: 621] (in the standard model of physics). Based on these studies, string theorists Edward Witten [Witten, 1998: 253–291] and Juan Maldacena [Horowitz, Maldacena, Strominger, 1996: 151–159] have shown that the observed three-dimensional universe may be regarded as a reflection (hologram) of physical events taking place on a distant two-dimensional plane, which in a certain sense is the true reality because it generates the three-dimensional reality of our existence. A mysterious boundary plane is not material in the regular sense: the so-called matter and space in this concept are the holograms, but “real” matter and space are somewhere else (if it is worth making such a distinction at all). This position is close to the correlation between Plato’s ideas and their shadows – the sensual world – but it also maintains one significant difference. From Plato’s point of view, it is pointless to perceive the world of the senses – it is a dead end track – so you should immediately contact an ideal world, containing prototypes. In the concept of Maldacena and Witten, the situation is different: there is a mathematical duality – the complicated properties of three-dimensional reality can be described and established by the language of two-dimensional plane and vice versa, which is in terms of Plato the way from the sensual, the observed, to the intelligible. While conducting research on the possible characteristics of space, the following question should also be considered closer: what are the impossible characteristics? Regarding the question of the probable distribution of intelligent life in the multiverse due to the anthropic principle, Steven Weinberg [Weinberg, 1989: 1–23] drew the conclusion that the formation of galaxies (with the admitted mandatory condition of observers occurrence) is possible only for certain values of the cosmological constant30. Thus, theoretically the values of a constant can vary. This means that there is no sense in asking about the properties and structure of the universe, space and 30 This

refers to what is commonly denoted as gravitational repulsion or dark energy.

163

IVAN A. KARPENKO

time – for what reason they are as they are and are not different. It makes no sense, because all possible configurations appear to be realized in the multiverse. In more detail, there are some fundamental values of our universe (other than the mentioned constant, for example, the electron mass), which are known from experience, but have not been calculated mathematically. Their mathematical calculation will give justification of their origin. Meanwhile mathematics offers a wide range of possible values. We know them from experience and insert them to equations (for example, quantum field theory operates this way). These result in the description of our world. But it is possible that these values are not generally able to be processed, which means that for the mathematics theory any value is allowed. This may mean that the multiverse is real – all the possibilities are being realized in it. But such a position may affect the nature and method of science. The logical, in terms of the traditional science question of the exact origins of space properties, loses sense because there is no need to explain anything in an infinite number of worlds with all implemented properties. The answer is: this is just one of all possible configurations. However, even considering this, the former questions of whether it is place or matter – it has the length or not, it is continuous or discontinuous, it is fundamental or not – still remain relevant and fit into the modern scientific paradigm.

References Aristotle, 1998 – Aristotle. Metaphysics. L., 1998. Aspect, Grangier, Roger, 1982 – Aspect A., Grangier P., Roger G. Experimental Realization of Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen–Bohm Gedankenexperiment: A New Violation of Bell’s Inequalities // Physical Review Letters. 1982. Vol. 49, Iss. 2. Bardeen, Steinhardt, Turner, 1983 – Bardeen J.M., Steinhardt P.J., Turner M.S. Spontaneous Creation of Almost Scale-Free Density Perturbations in an Inflationary Universe // Phys. Rev. 1983. D 28. Bekenstein, 1976 – Bekenstein J. Black Holes and Entropy // Phys. Rev. 1976. D7. Bell, 1964 – Bell J.S. On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox // Physics. 1964. ¹ 1, 3. Bell, 1987 – Bell J.S. Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge, 1987. Bergerac, 1657 – Bergerac Cyrano de. Histoire comique par Monsieur de Cyrano Bergerac contenant les Estats & Empires de la Lune. P., 1657. Bohm, 1983 – Bohm D. A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of ‘Hidden’ Variables, I and II // J.A. Wheeler and W.H. Zurek (eds.). Quantum Theory and Measurement. Princeton, 1983. Born, 1926 – Born M. Zur Quantenmechanik der Stoßvorgänge. // Zeitschrift für Physik. 1926. Bd. 37, ¹ 12. Broglie, 1965 – Broglie L. de. Revolution in Physics (New Physics and Quanta). M., 1965. (In Russian) Bruno, 2004 – Bruno, G. Cause, Principle and Unity. N.Y., 2004. Bruno, 1584 – Bruno, G. De l’infinito, universo e mondi. Venice, 1584. BussiPres, Clausen, Tiranov, Korzh, Verma, Sae Woo Nam, Marsili, Ferrier, Goldner, Herrmann, Silberhorn, Sohler, Afzelius, Gisin, 2014 – Bussières F., Clau-

164

THE NOTION OF SPACE IN SOME MODERN PHYSICS THEORIES

sen C., Tiranov A., Korzh B., Verma V., Sae Woo Nam, Marsili F., Ferrier A., Goldner P., Herrmann H., Silberhorn C., Sohler W., Afzelius M., Gisin N. Quantum Teleportation from a Telecom-Wavelength Photon to a Solid-State Quantum Memory // Nature Photonics. 2014. ¹ 8(10). Descartes, 1982 – Descartes, R. Principles of Philosophy. Dordrecht, 1982. Deutsch, 1997 – Deutsch D. Fabric of Reality. N.Y., 1997. DeWitt, 1973 – Grandham, DeWitt Bryce S., Graham N. (eds.). The Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton, 1973. Einstein, 1954 – Einstein A. Relativity: The Special and the General Theory. L., 1954. Feynman, Hibbs 2005 – Feynman R., Hibbs A. Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals. N.Y., 2005. Fontenelle, 1686 – Fontenelle B. Le B. de. Entretiens sur la pluralité des mondes. P., 1686. Freivogel, Kleban, Rodríguez Martínez, Susskind, 2006 – Freivogel B., Kleban M., Rodríguez Martínez M., Susskind L. Observational Consequences of a Landscape // Journal of High Energy Physics. 2006. Vol. 3, ¹ 03. Friedmann, 1999 – Friedmann A. On the Possibility of a World with Constant Negative Curvature of Space // General Relativity and Gravitation. 1999. Vol. 31, ¹ 12. Goodman, 1978 – Goodman N. Ways of Worldmaking. Hackett publishing company, 1978. Greene, 2011 – Greene B. The Hidden Reality. Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos. N.Y., 2011. Guth, 1997 – Guth A. The Inflationary Universe. L., 1997. Hadot, 1987 – Hadot P. Exercices spirituels et philosophie antique. P., 1987. Hawking, 1974 – Hawking S.W. Black Hole Explosions? // Nature. 1974. Vol. 248. Horowitz, Maldacena, Strominger, 1996 – Horowitz G.T., Maldacena J., Strominger A. Nonextremal Black Hole Microstates and U-Duality // Phys. Lett. 1996. 383B. Karpenko, 2014 – Karpenko I. Question of Consciousness: to Quantum Mechanics for the Answers // Studia Humana. 2014. Vol. 3, ¹ 3. Karpenko, 2014a – Karpenko I.A. From a Closed to an Infinite Universe and Back // Sciences of Philosophy, 2014. ¹ 6. (In Russian) Karpenko, 2014b – Karpenko I.A. Relation of Quantum Mechanics and Reality Problem: Search of Solutions // Epistemology and Philosophy of Science. 2014. ¹ 2. (In Russian) Karpenko, 2013 – Karpenko À.S. Philosophical Completeness Approach // Problems of Philosophy, 2013. ¹ 6–7. (In Russian) Koyre´, 1957 – Koyre A. From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe. Baltimore, 1957. Koyre´, 1961 – Koyre A. Remarques sur les paradoxes de Ze´non (1922). Trad. Par M. Cranaki-Be´laval // À. Koyre´. Etudes de l’histoire de la pense´e philosophique. P., 1961. Leibniz, 2006 – Leibniz G.W. On the Ultimate Origination of Things. The Shorter Leibniz Texts // A Collection of New Translations Trowbridge. Trowbridge, 2006. Lewis, 1986 – Lewis D. On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford, 1986. Linde, 1990 – Linde A.D. Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology. Chur, 1990. Lovejoy, 1936 – Lovejoy A.O. The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History of an Idea. Harvard University Press, 1936.

165

IVAN A. KARPENKO

Minkowski, 1909 – Minkowski H. Raum und Zeit // Physikalische Zeitschrift. 1909. ¹ 10. Nicholas of Cusa, 2001 – Nicholas of Cusa. De Docta Ignorantia // Complete Philosophical and Theological Treatises of Nicholas of Cusa. Minneapolis, 2001. Vol. 1. Nozick, 1981 – Nozick R. Philosophical Explanations. Harvard University Press, 1981. Plato, 1998 – Plato. Parmenides. Yale : Yale University Press, 1998. Plato, 2000 – Plato. Timaeus. Indianapolis, 2000. Poincare´, 1906 – Poincare H. Sur la dynamique de l’e´lectron // Rendiconti del Circolo matematico di Palermo, 1906. Proclus, 1992 – Proclus L. A Commentary on the First Book of Euclid’s Elements. Princeton, 1992. Schwarzschild, 1916 – Schwarzschild K. Über das Gravitationsfeld eines Massenpunktes nach der Einstein’schen Theorie. Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Berlin, 1916. Stephens, ‘t Hooft, Whiting, 1994 – Stephens C. R., ‘t Hooft G., Whiting B.F. Black Hole Evaporation without Information Loss // Classical and Quantum Gravity. 1994. Vol. 11, ¹ 3. Susskind, 1995 – Susskind L. The World as a Hologram // Journal of Mathematical Physics. 1995. Vol. 36, ¹ 11. Thomas Aquinas, 1948 – Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica. N.Y., 1948. Vol. 1. Turing, 1937 – Turing A. M. On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem: A Correction // Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society. 1937. ¹ 2(43). Weinberg, 1987 – Weinberg S. Anthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constant // Phys. Rev. Lett. 1987. Vol. 59. Weinberg, 1989 – Weinberg S. The Cosmological Constant Problem // Rev. Mod. Phys. 1989. Vol. 61. Wheeler, Zurek, 1983 – Quantum Theory and Measurement ; J.A. Wheeler, W.H. Zurek (eds.). Princeton, 1983. Whitrow, 1980 – Whitrow G.J. The Natural Philosophy of Time. Oxford, 1980. Witten, 1998 – Witten E. Anti-de Sitter Space and Holography // Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics. 1998. ¹ 2. Zubov, 1965 – Zubov, V.P. Razvitie atomisticheskikh predstavlenii do nachala XIX v. [Development of Atomistic Perceptions before the XIX Century]. Moscow, 1965. (In Russian)

166

EPISTEMOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE · 2015 · Ò. XLV · ¹ 3

Ф

ИЗИКА И ЭКОНОМИКА: О ПРИНЦИПАХ СОХРАНЕНИЯ

В НАУЧНОИССЛЕДОВАТЕЛЬСКИХ ПРОГРАММАХ Александр Иванович Пигалев – доктор фи лософских наук, про фессор кафедры фило софии Волгоградского государственного уни верситета. Email: pigalev[email protected]

Целью статьи является прослеживание методологических и эпистемологиче ских аналогий между физикой и экономикой на основе концепции научноис следовательской программы И. Лакатоса. Рассмотрение основывается на дета лизации отдельных аспектов параллелизма между понятиями энергии в физике и стоимости в экономике. Подчеркивается, что принципы сохранения опирают ся на онтологию изолированной системы, которая в своей зачаточной форме восходила к мифологической картине мира, а затем долгое время выступала в качестве модели природы в физике и стала основой понятия эквивалентного обмена в экономике. Указывается, что стандартная стратегия спасения самой идеи сохранения при обнаружении нарушения принципов сохранения заклю чается в расширении системы посредством введения новых гипотетических объектов и параметров при условии, что система остается изолированной. Та кой образ действий структурно совпадает с сохранением «твердого ядра» науч ноисследовательской программы с помощью «защитного пояса». Ключевые слова: физика, экономика, научноисследовательская программа, принципы сохранения, метафизика, субстанция, изолированная система, от крытая система, энергия, стоимость.

P

HYSICS AND ECONOMICS: ON CONSERVATION

PRINCIPLES IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PROGRAMS Alexander Pigalev – doctor of philosophical sciences, professor of the department of philosophy of Volgograd State University.

The purpose of the paper is to retrace methodological and epistemological analogies between physics and economics on the basis of the concept of scientific research program that was proposed by I. Lakatos. It is emphasized that these analogies are expressed first of all in a striking resemblance of the notion of energy in physics to the notion of value in economics. The scrutiny of conservation principles points out their generality that not only covers physics and economics, but also presupposes the peculiar metaphysical foundations as the most persistent component of the “hard core” of scientific research programs in question. It is demonstrated that conservation principles rely on the ontology of a closed system which in its germinal form dates back to the mythological worldview and subsequently modeled nature in physics for a long time and became the basis of the concept of an equivalent exchange in economics as well. The notion of motion is regarded as interlink between the foundations of physics and economics, since both motion and economic exchange are displacement, change and permanence at the same time. The metaphysical background of the conceptualization of substance, thing and motion is examined in the context of the imperative of the identification of nonidentical entities. It is observed that the standard strategy of saving the very idea of conservation at detection of conservation principles violation is system expansion by introducing new hypothetic objects and parameters provided the system still remains a closed one. This practice structurally coincides with saving the “hard core” of the scientific research program with the help of its “protective belt”. The problems of the research strategy under stu-

Interdisciplinary Studies 167

À.È. ÏÈÃÀËÅÂ

dy are discussed in a nutshell taking into account the theoretical consequences of the ontology of the open system. Key words: physics, economics, scientific research program, conservation principles, metaphysics, substance, closed system, open system, energy, value.

Введение Êîíöåïöèÿ íàó÷íî-èññëåäîâàòåëüñêèõ ïðîãðàìì È. Ëàêàòîñà, â êîòîðîé àíàëèç ðàçâèòèÿ îäíîé òåîðèè çàìåíÿåòñÿ ðàññìîòðåíèåì öåëîé ñåðèè ñìåíÿþùèõ äðóã äðóãà òåîðèé, îáû÷íî îòíîñèòñÿ ê îäíîé ïðåäìåòíîé îáëàñòè. ×àùå âñåãî ýòî ôèçèêà è åñòåñòâåííûå íàóêè, â êîòîðûõ êîíöåïöèÿ «òâåðäîãî ÿäðà» è îêðóæàþùåãî åãî «çàùèòíîãî ïîÿñà», êàê ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ, â íàèáîëüøåé ñòåïåíè ñîîòâåòñòâóþò ðåàëüíîé íàó÷íîé ïðàêòèêå. Âîçìîæíîñòü òîãî, ÷òî îäíà è òà æå íàó÷íî-èññëåäîâàòåëüñêàÿ ïðîãðàììà ðåàëèçóåòñÿ íå òîëüêî â åñòåñòâåííûõ, íî è, äîïóñòèì, â ñîöèàëüíûõ íàóêàõ, ðàññìàòðèâàåòñÿ êðàéíå ðåäêî. Ñêîðåå âñåãî ãëàâíîé ïðè÷èíîé òàêîãî ïîëîæåíèÿ äåë ÿâëÿåòñÿ óáåæäåíèå â òîì, ÷òî ðàçëè÷èÿ ìåæäó ýòèìè íàóêàìè ñëèøêîì âåëèêè, ÷òîáû ïðèäàâàòü êàêîå-ëèáî çíà÷åíèå ïàðàëëåëÿì ìåæäó íèìè, òàê ÷òî ýòè ïàðàëëåëè, íåñìîòðÿ íà ñâîþ î÷åâèäíîñòü, çàðàíåå ñ÷èòàþòñÿ ñëèøêîì îòäàëåííûìè. Îäíàêî âñå æå èìåþòñÿ ðàáîòû, â êîòîðûõ óáåäèòåëüíî äîêàçûâàåòñÿ íàëè÷èå îòíþäü íå ñëó÷àéíîãî ïàðàëëåëèçìà ìåæäó ñòàíîâëåíèåì ýêîíîìèêè êàê íàóêè è ðàçâèòèåì ôèçèêè, ïðåæäå âñåãî òàêèõ åå ðàçäåëîâ, êàê òåðìîäèíàìèêà è ñòàòèñòè÷åñêàÿ ôèçèêà, íî íå òîëüêî èõ (ñì. íàïðèìåð: [Chen, 2005; Mirowski, 1994; Arena, Dow, Klaes, 2009]). Ðåçóëüòàòû èññëåäîâàíèé äîêàçûâàþò, ÷òî ñâÿçè ìåæäó ôèçèêîé è ýêîíîìèêîé ñóùåñòâîâàëè ïðåæäå è ñóùåñòâóþò â íàñòîÿùåå âðåìÿ. Íî ÷åì áîëüøå âûÿâëåíî òàêèõ ñâÿçåé, ÷åì î÷åâèäíåå, ÷òî îíè îáðàçóþò íåêîòîðóþ ñèñòåìó, òåì êîíòðàñòíåå ôîí, íà êîòîðîì ñòàíîâÿòñÿ îñîáåííî çàìåòíûìè ïîðîæäàþùèå èõ ñòðóêòóðíûå è ñîäåðæàòåëüíûå ñõîäñòâà, êîòîðûå íåðåäêî îñòàþòñÿ áåç âíèìàíèÿ ñî ñòîðîíû èññëåäîâàòåëåé (åñëè èõ âîîáùå õîòÿò çàìå÷àòü). Êàê áû òî íè áûëî, ñõîäñòâî ýïèñòåìîëîãè÷åñêèõ ïîäõîäîâ â ôèçèêå è ýêîíîìèêå, ïðîÿâëÿþùååñÿ âî ìíîæåñòâå àíàëîãèé, òðåáóåò ñïåöèàëüíîãî àíàëèçà. Ïðè ýòîì óæå íà ðàííèõ ýòàïàõ èññëåäîâàíèÿ îáíàðóæèâàþòñÿ óáåäèòåëüíûå ñâèäåòåëüñòâà òîãî, ÷òî íå òîëüêî ôèçèêà âëèÿëà è âëèÿåò íà ýêîíîìèêó, íî è ýêîíîìèêà ñóùåñòâåííî îïðåäåëÿåò ýâîëþöèþ ôèçè÷åñêèõ ïðåäñòàâëåíèé. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ðå÷ü äîëæíà èäòè íå îá îäíîñòîðîííåì çàèìñòâîâàíèè ïîíÿòèé ôèçèêè ýêîíîìèêîé, à î âçàèìîïðîíèêíîâåíèè ïðèíöèïîâ, ïîíÿòèé è ìåòîäîâ èç îäíîé îáëàñòè íàó÷íîãî çíàíèÿ â äðóãóþ. Îñîáåííî îò÷åòëèâî ýòî ïðîÿâëÿåòñÿ â àíàëèçå ïðèíöèïîâ ñîõðàíåíèÿ, êîòîðûå â îòëè÷èå îò äðóãèõ êîìïîíåíòîâ «òâåðäîãî ÿäðà» íàó÷íî-èññëåäîâàòåëüñêèõ ïðîãðàìì è â ôèçèêå, è â ýêîíîìèêå èìåþò óæå íå òîëüêî íàó÷íûé, íî è ìåòàôè-

168

ÔÈÇÈÊÀ È ÝÊÎÍÎÌÈÊÀ: Î ÏÐÈÍÖÈÏÀÕ ÑÎÕÐÀÍÅÍÈß…

çè÷åñêèé ñòàòóñ. Õîòÿ ïî ñâîåìó ïðîèñõîæäåíèþ ïðèíöèïû ñîõðàíåíèÿ òðàäèöèîííî îòíîñÿòñÿ ïðåèìóùåñòâåííî ê ôèçèêå, â íàñòîÿùåå âðåìÿ îíè èãðàþò âàæíóþ ðîëü äàëåêî çà åå ïðåäåëàìè, îïèðàÿñü íà îáùèå ìåòàôèçè÷åñêèå îñíîâàíèÿ.

Метафизический фон принципов сохранения Ôîðìèðîâàíèþ ïðèíöèïîâ è äàæå çàêîíîâ ñîõðàíåíèÿ â íàóêå ïðåäøåñòâîâàëî ïîÿâëåíèå ôèëîñîôñêîé êàòåãîðèè ñóáñòàíöèè, ñ êîòîðîé èçíà÷àëüíî ñâÿçûâàåòñÿ ïðåäñòàâëåíèå î íåçàâèñèìîñòè, ïîëíîé ñàìîäîñòàòî÷íîñòè. Èñòîêè òàêîãî ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ èìåþò îòíþäü íå íàó÷íóþ ïðèðîäó è âîçíèêàþò çíà÷èòåëüíî ðàíüøå ñàìîé íàóêè óæå íà óðîâíå ìèôîëîãè÷åñêèõ ïðåäñòàâëåíèé êàê íåêàÿ ïåðâè÷íàÿ èñòèíà.  ñâÿçè ñ ýòèì äîñòàòî÷íî óêàçàòü íà ðàçëè÷íûå ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ î ñîòâîðåíèè ìèðà èç íåêîòîðûõ ïåðâè÷íûõ îáúåêòîâ, òàêèõ, íàïðèìåð, êàê êîñìè÷åñêîå ÿéöî, ïåðâî÷åëîâåê èëè òàê íàçûâàåìûé óðîáîðîñ, ñèìâîëèçèðóåìûé êóñàþùåé ñåáÿ çà ñîáñòâåííûé õâîñò çìååé, êîòîðàÿ ñàìà ñåáÿ óáèâàåò, ñàìà ñåáÿ ïîæèðàåò è ñàìà ñåáÿ ñíîâà ïîðîæäàåò. Âî âñåõ ñëó÷àÿõ ñàìîäîñòàòî÷íîñòü ïðåäñòàåò êàê îòñóòñòâèå ó òîãî èçíà÷àëüíîãî ñóùåãî èëè ñóùåñòâà, èç êîòîðîãî âîçíèêàåò ìèð, ÷àñòåé. Èíà÷å ãîâîðÿ, èçíà÷àëüíîå ñóùåå èëè ñóùåñòâî ñíà÷àëà íå èìååò íèêàêîé âíóòðåííåé äèôôåðåíöèàöèè è ïðåáûâàåò â ñîñòîÿíèè ñàìîòîæäåñòâåííîñòè (íåèçìåííîñòè).  ýòîì ðàâíîâåñíîì ñîñòîÿíèè îòñóòñòâóþò êàê âíóòðåííèå, òàê è âíåøíèå ñâÿçè è íàïðÿæåíèÿ, ñïîñîáíûå áûòü ïðè÷èíîé íåóñòîé÷èâîñòè, âûçâàííîé âíåøíèìè è âíóòðåííèìè ïðè÷èíàìè ñîîòâåòñòâåííî, è íàðóøàþùèå ñàìîòîæäåñòâåííîñòü. Âíåøíèõ ñâÿçåé íå ìîæåò áûòü ïîòîìó, ÷òî ïîìèìî èçíà÷àëüíîãî ñóùåãî èëè ñóùåñòâà íè÷åãî íåò, à âíóòðåííèõ ñâÿçåé íåò ïî ïðè÷èíå îòñóòñòâèÿ ó èçíà÷àëüíîãî ñóùåãî èëè ñóùåñòâà âíóòðåííåé äèôôåðåíöèàöèè [Leeming, 2010].  òàêîé ìîäåëè âîçíèêíîâåíèå ìèðà ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé íå÷òî èððàöèîíàëüíîå, íåîáúÿñíèìûì îáðàçîì íàðóøàþùåå ñàìîäîñòàòî÷íîñòü èñõîäíîãî ñîñòîÿíèÿ â ðåçóëüòàòå ïîÿâëåíèÿ âíóòðåííåé äèôôåðåíöèàöèè. Íå âäàâàÿñü â àíàëèç èñòîðè÷åñêîãî ðàçâèòèÿ ñîîòâåòñòâóþùèõ ïðåäñòàâëåíèé, ïîä÷åðêíåì ëèøü, ÷òî èòîãîì ñòàíîâèòñÿ ôîðìèðîâàíèå ñèìâîëè÷åñêîé áèíàðíîé ñòðóêòóðû òèïà à/íå-à, â êîòîðîé ðåàëüíîé ñàìîäîñòàòî÷íîñòüþ îáëàäàåò òîëüêî îäèí ýëåìåíò ïàðû, òîãäà êàê âòîðîé ñîâåðøåííî íåñàìîñòîÿòåëåí è ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé âñåãî ëèøü îòðèöàíèå ïåðâîãî (êâàçèäóàëèçì). Íà ýòîé îñíîâå ôîðìèðóåòñÿ âòîðàÿ âàæíàÿ êîíöåïöèÿ, òåñíî ñâÿçàííàÿ ñ ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿìè î ñóáñòàíöèè, – îíòîëîãè÷åñêàÿ ìîäåëü èçîëèðîâàííîé ñèñòåìû. Èçîëèðîâàííîñòü ñèñòåìû îçíà÷àåò îòñóòñòâèå îáìåíà ÷åì áû òî íè áûëî ìåæäó íåé è îêðóæàþùåé ñðåäîé. Ñèìâîëè÷åñêàÿ áèíàðíàÿ

169

À.È. ÏÈÃÀËÅÂ

ñòðóêòóðà ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé ìîäåëü òàêîé ñèñòåìû ñ ìèíèìàëüíî âîçìîæíûì êîëè÷åñòâîì ýëåìåíòîâ. Äëÿ òîãî ÷òîáû èç ñèìâîëè÷åñêèõ áèíàðíûõ ñòðóêòóð ìîæíî áûëî ñòðîèòü áîëåå ñëîæíûå êîíñòðóêöèè, ââîäèòñÿ òðåòèé ýëåìåíò, êîòîðûé èìååò íåêîòîðûå îáùèå ñâîéñòâà è ñ ïåðâûì, è ñî âòîðûì ýëåìåíòàìè, îáåñïå÷èâàÿ òåì ñàìûì âîçìîæíîñòü îïîñðåäîâàíèÿ ìåæäó íèìè.  ðåçóëüòàòå êîëè÷åñòâî ýëåìåíòîâ èçîëèðîâàííîé ñèñòåìû ìîæåò áûòü ëþáûì. Ïîñêîëüêó òðåòèé ýëåìåíò íåéòðàëåí, èìåííî åãî íåéòðàëüíîñòü ïîçâîëÿåò ñ÷èòàòü ýëåìåíòû áèíàðíîé ñòðóêòóðû ïîëîæèòåëüíûì è îòðèöàòåëüíûì. Áëàãîäàðÿ ñâîåé îïîñðåäóþùåé ôóíêöèè òðåòèé ýëåìåíò âûïîëíÿåò ôóíêöèþ çåðêàëà, è âòîðîé ýëåìåíò â êà÷åñòâå çåðêàëüíîãî îòðàæåíèÿ ïåðâîãî ìîæåò ðàññìàòðèâàòüñÿ êàê åãî ïîëíàÿ ïðîòèâîïîëîæíîñòü. Èòîãîì ðàçâèòèÿ èäåè âçàèìíîãî çåðêàëüíîãî îòðàæåíèÿ ñòàíîâèòñÿ êîíöåïöèÿ ñîîòâåòñòâèé â êà÷åñòâå îñîáîãî òèïà óñëîæíåíèÿ âíóòðåííåé äèôôåðåíöèàöèè ñèñòåìû, ñèìâîëè÷åñêè âîñïðîèçâîäÿùåé ñèñòåìó ñóùåãî [Brach, Hanegraaff, 2006: 275–279].  ñâåòå òàêîãî ïîíèìàíèÿ îïîñðåäîâàíèå ìåæäó ýëåìåíòàìè ïðåäñòàåò êàê ñâîåãî ðîäà îáìåí, ñàìà âîçìîæíîñòü êîòîðîãî íàêëàäûâàåò íà ñèñòåìó íåêîòîðûå óñëîâèÿ. Ïîýòîìó â ó÷åíèè î ñîîòâåòñòâèÿõ çàêëþ÷åíû òàêæå êîíöåïöèè ñèììåòðèè è ñàìîïîäîáèÿ (èçâåñòíûå ïðèíöèïû «÷òî ââåðõó, òî è âíèçó» è «âñå âî âñåì»). Ýòè êîíöåïöèè íå òîëüêî ïîä÷åðêèâàþò, íî è êîíêðåòèçèðóþò òàêèå ñâîéñòâà èçîëèðîâàííîé ñèñòåìû â êà÷åñòâå îíòîëîãè÷åñêîé ìîäåëè ñóùåãî, êîòîðûå äåëàþò âîçìîæíûì îáìåí. Ïîñëåäíèé, ÷òîáû áûòü ýêâèâàëåíòíûì, äîëæåí îñóùåñòâëÿòüñÿ ïî îïðåäåëåííûì ïðàâèëàì. Ïðè ýòîì îñîáîå çíà÷åíèå èìåþò ñòðóêòóðû è ìåõàíèçìû ìûøëåíèÿ, ïîçâîëÿþùèå îòîæäåñòâëÿòü íåòîæäåñòâåííîå [Sohn-Rethel, 1989; Sohn-Rethel, 1971; Ìåéåðñîí, 1912]1.

Сохранение энергии: от субстанциалистских моделей к концепции поля Ïåðâûå ðàáîòû, â êîòîðûõ ïàðàëëåëèçì òåîðåòè÷åñêèõ ìîäåëåé ýêîíîìèêè è ôèçèêè áûë ïîäâåðãíóò ñîäåðæàòåëüíîìó è äåòàëüíîìó àíàëèçó, ïðèíàäëåæàò àìåðèêàíñêîìó èññëåäîâàòåëþ Ôèëèïó Ìèðîâñêè [Rizvi, 2001: 209–222]. Ñîãëàñíî åãî êîíöåïöèè, àíàëîãèè ñ ôèçèêîé èìåëè ìåñòî óæå â ïåðèîä ãîñïîäñòâà êëàññè÷åñêîé ïîëèòè÷åñêîé ýêîíîìèè. Êðîìå òîãî, èìåííî â çàâåðøàþùèé ïåðèîä åå 1 Íà òåîðåòè÷åñêèå ðåçóëüòàòû ïîëóçàáûòîãî íûíå ôðàíöóçñêîãî ìûñëèòåëÿ Ýìèëÿ Ìåéåðñîíà (1859–1933) ñëåäóåò îáðàòèòü îñîáîå âíèìàíèå. Åãî îñíîâíîé çàñëóãîé ÿâëÿåòñÿ òî, ÷òî îí íå òîëüêî âûÿâèë, íî è âïåðâûå îñóùåñòâèë âåñüìà äåòàëüíûé àíàëèç ðåçóëüòàòîâ îòîæäåñòâëåíèÿ íåòîæäåñòâåííîãî â òåîðèÿõ åñòåñòâåííî-íàó÷íûõ äèñöèïëèí, ïðåèìóùåñòâåííî â ôèçèêå.

170

ÔÈÇÈÊÀ È ÝÊÎÍÎÌÈÊÀ: Î ÏÐÈÍÖÈÏÀÕ ÑÎÕÐÀÍÅÍÈß…

ðàçâèòèÿ ïðîèñõîäèò ïåðåõîä îò ñóáñòàíöèàëèñòñêèõ êîíöåïöèé ñòîèìîñòè ê ïåðâûì òåîðåòè÷åñêèì ìîäåëÿì, îñíîâàííûì íà àíàëîãèÿõ êîíöåïöèè ïîëÿ. Áàçîâûì äëÿ ýòîãî àíàëèçà ÿâëÿåòñÿ ïîëîæåíèå, ñîãëàñíî êîòîðîìó óêàçàííûé ïåðåõîä äîëæåí ðàññìàòðèâàòüñÿ íà îñíîâå ó÷åòà âçàèìîñâÿçè òðåõ êîíöåïöèé – òåëà, äâèæåíèÿ è ñòîèìîñòè, ïðè÷åì èìåííî èçìåíåíèå ñòðóêòóðû ýòèõ âçàèìîîòíîøåíèé õàðàêòåðèçóåò èçìåíåíèÿ â ïîíèìàíèè ñòîèìîñòè (ñì. ðàáîòó, êîòîðàÿ ñ÷èòàåòñÿ îñíîâíîé è âûçâàëà áóðíóþ è ïîðîé î÷åíü ðåçêóþ ïîëåìèêó [Mirowski, 1991]).  ðàìêàõ òàêîãî ïîäõîäà àíàëèç ïàðàëëåëèçìà òåîðåòè÷åñêèõ ìîäåëåé ýêîíîìèêè è ôèçèêè ïðèâîäèò ê âûâîäàì, êîòîðûå çíà÷èòåëüíî áîëåå ýâðèñòè÷íû, íåæåëè òðèâèàëüíûå êîíñòàòàöèè ñõîäñòâ â êîíöåïòóàëèçàöèè ñâîèõ ïðåäìåòíûõ îáëàñòåé ôèçèêîé è ýêîíîìèêîé. Íåëüçÿ íå ïðèçíàòü, ÷òî è äëÿ ôèçèêè, è äëÿ ýêîíîìè÷åñêîé òåîðèè êîíöåïöèÿ äâèæåíèÿ äåéñòâèòåëüíî èìååò ïðèíöèïèàëüíî âàæíîå çíà÷åíèå, ïîñêîëüêó ïðîöåññû îáìåíà ïðåäñòàâëÿþò ñîáîé ïåðåìåùåíèå òîâàðîâ, ò.å. âåùåé, â ïðîñòðàíñòâå è, ñòàëî áûòü, ìîãóò áûòü îïèñàíû â êà÷åñòâå íåêîòîðîãî âèäà äâèæåíèÿ. Èìåííî â ýòîì êîíòåêñòå âîçíèêàåò ñàìî ïîíÿòèå ýíåðãèè, à òàêæå ôîðìóëèðóåòñÿ çàêîí åå ñîõðàíåíèÿ, íåðàçðûâíî ñâÿçàííûé ñ ïîñòóëàòîì èçîëèðîâàííîñòè ñèñòåìû, â êîòîðîé ýòîò çàêîí äåéñòâóåò. Ýòî ïðîÿâëÿåòñÿ ïðåæäå âñåãî â òîì, ÷òî ïîíÿòèå ýíåðãèè îïðåäåëÿåòñÿ ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿìè î ïðèðîäå äâèæåíèÿ. Òàê, â ðàìêàõ àðèñòîòåëåâñêîãî ïîäõîäà äâèæåíèå, êàê èçâåñòíî, ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé ïåðåìåùåíèå òåëà èç îäíîãî ìåñòà â äðóãîå è êàæäîå îòäåëüíîå äâèæåíèå îïèñûâàåòñÿ, âûðàæàÿñü ñîâðåìåííûì ÿçûêîì, â ñâîåé, ëîêàëüíîé ñèñòåìå êîîðäèíàò. Ïîýòîìó ïåðåìåùåíèÿ ðàçíûõ òåë îòëè÷àþòñÿ äðóã îò äðóãà êà÷åñòâåííî è èõ ñðàâíåíèå äðóã ñ äðóãîì íåâîçìîæíî, ðàâíî êàê è ïðåäñòàâëåíèå îá îòíîñèòåëüíîñòè äâèæåíèÿ.  òî æå âðåìÿ, õîòÿ Àðèñòîòåëü ñ÷èòàë äâèæåíèå ïîëó÷åííûì îò êàêîãî-òî äðóãîãî òåëà, â ïîñëåäóþùåì îáíàðóæèâàåòñÿ õàðàêòåðíàÿ òåíäåíöèÿ ê åãî ðàññìîòðåíèþ êàê íåîòúåìëåìîãî êà÷åñòâà ñàìîãî äâèæóùåãîñÿ òåëà, êîòîðàÿ âîçîáëàäàëà â ñðåäíåâåêîâîé ñõîëàñòèêå [Sorabji, 1988]. Èç ýòîãî ïîíèìàíèÿ âîçíèêëà íå òîëüêî òåîðèÿ òàê íàçûâàåìîãî èìïåòóñà [Wolff, 1978; Sarnowsky, 2008: 121–145], íî è ïðîãðàììà êîëè÷åñòâåííîãî îïèñàíèÿ äâèæåíèÿ. Ñóùåñòâåííî, ÷òî ñõîæèé ïîäõîä áûë õàðàêòåðåí äëÿ äåÿòåëüíîñòè îêñôîðäñêèõ êàëüêóëÿòîðîâ, êîòîðûå â õîäå ðàçðàáîòêè êëàññèôèêàöèè ðàçëè÷íûõ âèäîâ äâèæåíèÿ îïèðàëèñü íà íåïðèâû÷íûå äëÿ ïðåäøåñòâóþùèõ ïîäõîäîâ ïîíÿòèÿ «øèðîòà ôîðì» è «êîíôèãóðàöèÿ êà÷åñòâ» [Àõóòèí, 1976: 129–144; Ãðèãîðüÿí, 1974: 74–82]. Îòñþäà ñëåäóåò, ÷òî èìåííî êîëè÷åñòâåííûé ïîäõîä ïîçâîëèë Ã. Ãàëèëåþ ñôîðìóëèðîâàòü ïðèíöèï îòíîñèòåëüíîñòè äâèæåíèÿ, êîòîðûé äåëàåò ðàçíûå äâèæåíèÿ ðàâíîïðàâíûìè è ñîèçìåðèìûìè.  ðåçóëüòàòå ïðîèñõîäèò îêîí÷àòåëüíûé îòêàç îò àðèñòîòåëåâñêîé

171

À.È. ÏÈÃÀËÅÂ

êîíöåïöèè àáñîëþòíîãî ìåñòà, ÷òî áûëî çàêðåïëåíî è ôîðìàëèçîâàíî ââåäåíèåì Ð. Äåêàðòîì ñèñòåìû êîîðäèíàò, ïîçâîëÿþùåé åäèíîîáðàçíî îïèñûâàòü âñå âèäû äâèæåíèÿ. Áîëåå òîãî, Äåêàðò îòêàçàëñÿ è îò àðèñòîòåëåâñêîãî ó÷åíèÿ î êà÷åñòâàõ, ñ÷èòàÿ, ÷òî èñõîäíîé òî÷êîé àíàëèçà äîëæíî áûòü ñàìî äâèæåíèå êàê òàêîâîå – ïåðåìåùåíèå ìàòåðèàëüíûõ îáúåêòîâ â ïðîñòðàíñòâå. Òîëüêî ïîñëå ýòîãî ñòàëà âîçìîæíà òàê íàçûâàåìàÿ «ðàöèîíàëüíàÿ ìåõàíèêà», â êîòîðîé ìàòåðèàëüíîå òåëî âûñòóïàåò â êà÷åñòâå àáñòðàêòíîé ìàòåðèàëüíîé òî÷êè, à ïðîñòðàíñòâî è âðåìÿ ñòàíîâÿòñÿ àáñîëþòíûìè, êàê ýòî áûëî ïðîâîçãëàøåíî â ìåõàíèêå È. Íüþòîíà [Gabbey, 1998: 649–679].  èòîãå ïîïóëÿðíàÿ ìåòàôîðà, â êîòîðîé ìèð óïîäîáëÿåòñÿ ÷àñîâîìó ìåõàíèçìó [Newton, 2007], äîïîëíÿåòñÿ àòîìèçìîì è ñòàíîâèòñÿ îñíîâîé ïîñòðîåíèÿ òåîðåòè÷åñêèõ ìîäåëåé êàê â åñòåñòâåííûõ, òàê â è ñîöèàëüíûõ íàóêàõ [Barbour, 2001; Gaukroger, 2006; Osler, 2004], îñîáåííî â òåîðèè ãîñóäàðñòâà è ïðàâà, à òàêæå â ýêîíîìè÷åñêîé òåîðèè. Òåì ñàìûì áûëà ïîäãîòîâëåíà ïî÷âà äëÿ ôîðìèðîâàíèÿ ïîíÿòèÿ ýíåðãèè, ðàâíî êàê è ñîîòâåòñòâóþùèõ ïðèíöèïîâ ñîõðàíåíèÿ. Ñòðîãî ãîâîðÿ, çàêîí ñîõðàíåíèÿ ýíåðãèè áûë ñôîðìóëèðîâàí ïåðâîíà÷àëüíî òîëüêî â ðàìêàõ ìåõàíèêè â êîíòåêñòå, âî-ïåðâûõ, ñïîðîâ î «æèâîé» è «ìåðòâîé» ñèëå, ò.å. î êîëè÷åñòâåííîé ìåðå ìåõàíè÷åñêîãî äâèæåíèÿ, è, âî-âòîðûõ, ïîëîæåíèÿ î íåâîçìîæíîñòè âå÷íîãî äâèãàòåëÿ. Ïîíÿòèå ýíåðãèè âûøëî çà ðàìêè ìåõàíèêè ëèøü â ñâÿçè ñ íà÷àëîì èññëåäîâàíèé âçàèìîïðåâðàùåíèé ìåõàíè÷åñêîé, õèìè÷åñêîé, òåïëîâîé, ýëåêòðè÷åñêîé, ìàãíèòíîé è äðóãèõ «ñèë». Ñíà÷àëà áûë óñòàíîâëåí ìåõàíè÷åñêèé ýêâèâàëåíò òåïëîòû, à çàòåì è äðóãèõ «ñèë», íà îñíîâå ÷åãî ôîðìèðóåòñÿ íàêîíåö îáùåå ïîíÿòèå ýíåðãèè, êîòîðàÿ ïåðåõîäèò èç îäíîãî âèäà â äðóãîé, íî âñåãäà ñîõðàíÿåòñÿ.  èòîãå ýíåðãèþ ðàçäåëèëè íà êèíåòè÷åñêóþ è ïîòåíöèàëüíóþ è ïðèøëè ê âûâîäó, ÷òî ñîõðàíÿåòñÿ íå «æèâàÿ ñèëà», à ïîëíàÿ ýíåðãèÿ â êà÷åñòâå ñóììû êèíåòè÷åñêîé è ïîòåíöèàëüíîé ýíåðãèé [Harman, 1982]. Ýíåðãèÿ ïîëó÷èëà ñòðîãîå îïðåäåëåíèå è íà÷àëà ðàññìàòðèâàòüñÿ êàê ñïîñîáíîñòü ñîâåðøàòü ðàáîòó. Âàæíûì ýòàïîì ñòàëî âîçíèêíîâåíèå Ëàãðàíæåâà è Ãàìèëüòîíîâà ôîðìàëèçìîâ [Capecchi, 2012; Yourgrau, Mandelstam, 1960], êîòîðûå äîâîëüíî ñêîðî âûøëè çà ðàìêè ÷èñòî ìàòåìàòè÷åñêîãî îïèñàíèÿ ìåõàíè÷åñêèõ ïðîöåññîâ íà îñíîâå âàðèàöèîííûõ ïðèíöèïîâ.  òî æå âðåìÿ ïîíÿòèå ïîòåíöèàëüíîé ýíåðãèè ïîñëóæèëî îäíîé èç âàæíåéøèõ ïðåäïîñûëîê ôîðìèðîâàíèÿ êîíöåïöèè ïîëÿ, êîòîðîå ðåâîëþöèîíèçèðîâàëî âñþ ôèçèêó, íî íå òîëüêî ôèçèêó. Ïîëå ïîíèìàåòñÿ êàê íåèçìåííàÿ èëè ìåíÿþùàÿñÿ ñî âðåìåíåì êîíôèãóðàöèÿ íåêîòîðûõ êîëè÷åñòâåííûõ õàðàêòåðèñòèê (ñêàëÿðíûõ, âåêòîðíûõ, òåíçîðíûõ è ò.ä.), ñâÿçàííûõ ñ êàæäîé òî÷êîé ïðî-

172

ÔÈÇÈÊÀ È ÝÊÎÍÎÌÈÊÀ: Î ÏÐÈÍÖÈÏÀÕ ÑÎÕÐÀÍÅÍÈß…

ñòðàíñòâà, êîòîðûå îáðàçóþò êîíòèíóóì. Ýòè êîíôèãóðàöèè îïèñûâàþòñÿ óðàâíåíèÿìè â ÷àñòíûõ ïðîèçâîäíûõ, êîòîðûå äî ïîÿâëåíèÿ ïîíÿòèÿ ïîëÿ óæå áûëè èçâåñòíû â ìåõàíèêå ñïëîøíûõ ñðåä, à òàêæå èñïîëüçîâàëèñü â òåîðåòè÷åñêèõ ìîäåëÿõ ýôèðà. Îòêàç îò êîíöåïöèè ýôèðà ïðè ñîõðàíåíèè ôîðìàëèçìà äëÿ îïèñàíèÿ ñïëîøíûõ ñðåä ïðèâåë ê îêîí÷àòåëüíîé ëåãèòèìàöèè ïîíÿòèÿ ïîëÿ.  ðåçóëüòàòå ýíåðãèþ ìîæíî áûëî íå òîëüêî îòíîñèòü ê ìàòåðèàëüíûì òåëàì, íî è ñ÷èòàòü ðàñïðåäåëåííîé ïî âñåìó ïðîñòðàíñòâó ìåæäó íèìè [Berkson, 1974; Hesse, 1962]. Âåñüìà õàðàêòåðíû ÿâíî ýêîíîìè÷åñêèå êîííîòàöèè ïîíÿòèÿ ýíåðãèè, îòíîñèòåëüíî êîòîðîé â ïåðâóþ î÷åðåäü ïîñòóëèðóåòñÿ, ÷òî åå, êàê è ðåñóðñîâ â ýêîíîìèêå, âñåãäà íåäîñòàòî÷íî, òàê ÷òî ýíåðãåòè÷åñêèå ïîòåðè äîëæíû áûòü ìèíèìàëüíû. Âàæíûìè ðåçóëüòàòàìè ýòîãî ðàçâèòèÿ ñòàëè ôîðìóëèðîâêà è äîêàçàòåëüñòâî èçâåñòíîé òåîðåìû Ý. ͸òåð, â êîòîðîé óñòàíàâëèâàåòñÿ ñâÿçü ìåæäó ñâîéñòâàìè ñèììåòðèè ôèçè÷åñêîé ñèñòåìû è çàêîíàìè ñîõðàíåíèÿ [Kosmann-Schwarzbach, 2011]. Îòñþäà ñëåäóåò, ÷òî ëþáîå íàðóøåíèå ñèììåòðèè îçíà÷àåò íàðóøåíèå òîãî èëè èíîãî çàêîíà ñîõðàíåíèÿ.  ñîâðåìåííîé ôèçèêå áûëî îáíàðóæåíî ìíîãî ñëó÷àåâ òàêèõ íàðóøåíèé. Òàê, ïðè ñòàíîâëåíèè êâàíòîâîé ìåõàíèêè îêàçàëîñü, ÷òî çàêîíû ñîõðàíåíèÿ â åäèíè÷íûõ ïðîöåññàõ ìîãóò íå ñîáëþäàòüñÿ. Áûëî âûäâèíóòî ïðåäïîëîæåíèå, ÷òî îíè ìîãóò èìåòü ëèøü ñòàòèñòè÷åñêèé õàðàêòåð èç-çà íåêîíòðîëèðóåìîñòè îáìåíà ýíåðãèåé è èìïóëüñîì ìåæäó èññëåäóåìûì îáúåêòîì è òâåðäûìè òåëàìè è ÷àñàìè. Îïèñàííàÿ íåêîíòðîëèðóåìîñòü ðàâíîçíà÷íà íàðóøåíèþ ïðèíöèïà ñîõðàíåíèÿ ýíåðãèè â åãî êëàññè÷åñêîì ïîíèìàíèè. Îäíàêî, êàê èçâåñòíî, â ñèñòåìó ñóùåãî áûëè äîáàâëåíû íåêîòîðûå íîâûå ýëåìåíòû è ïàðàìåòðû, êîòîðûå âïîñëåäñòâèè áûëè îáíàðóæåíû ýêñïåðèìåíòàëüíî, è ïðèíöèï ñîõðàíåíèÿ ýíåðãèè áûë ñïàñåí [Ëàêàòîñ, 2008: 423–432]2. Íåòðóäíî âèäåòü, ÷òî òàêîé îáðàç äåéñòâèé ÿâëÿåòñÿ ïàðàäèãìàòè÷åñêèì. Ïàðàäèãìà çàêëþ÷àåòñÿ èìåííî â òðåáîâàíèè íàéòè – ïåðâîíà÷àëüíî õîòÿ áû â êà÷åñòâå ãèïîòåçû – äðóãèå ýëåìåíòû ñèñòåìû è ñîîòâåòñòâóþùèå ïàðàìåòðû, êîòîðûå ïîçâîëèëè áû ðàñøèðèòü ñèñòåìó ïðè ñîõðàíåíèè åå èçîëèðîâàííîñòè è òåì ñàìûì ïîñòàâèòü åé â ñîîòâåòñòâèå íîâûé âèä ñèììåòðèè.  ðåçóëüòàòå óäàåòñÿ èçáåæàòü âûâîäà î íàðóøåíèè ïðèíöèïîâ ñîõðàíåíèÿ, ïðè÷åì ïðè îñóùåñòâëåíèè ýòîé ïðîöåäóðû íîâûå ïàðàìåòðû ñèñòåìû ñíà÷àëà, êàê 2 Õàðàêòåðíî, ÷òî Ëàêàòîñ çàâåðøàåò ñâîþ êðèòèêó ðîëè «ðåøàþùèõ ýêñïåðèìåíòîâ» â ðàçâèòèè íàóêè èìåííî àíàëèçîì ðàçâèòèÿ ñèòóàöèè âîêðóã îáíàðóæèâøåãîñÿ íåñîõðàíåíèÿ ýíåðãèè â ïðîöåññå b-ðàñïàäà. Âîïðîñ ñòîÿë äàæå îá îòðèöàíèè ïðèíöèïà ñîõðàíåíèÿ ýíåðãèè â èíäèâèäóàëüíûõ ïðîöåññàõ è ðàññìîòðåíèè åãî â êà÷åñòâå ñòàòèñòè÷åñêîãî. Êàê èçâåñòíî, ïðèíöèï ñîõðàíåíèÿ ýíåðãèè áûë ñïàñåí ââåäåíèåì Â. Ïàóëè ãèïîòåòè÷åñêîé ÷àñòèöû íåéòðèíî, âïîñëåäñòâèè îáíàðóæåííîé ýêñïåðèìåíòàëüíî.

173

À.È. ÏÈÃÀËÅÂ

ïðàâèëî, ïîñòóëèðóþòñÿ (òàê, áûëà ââåäåíà ñòðàííîñòü êàê ñïåöèôè÷åñêàÿ õàðàêòåðèñòèêà àäðîíîâ) [Îâ÷èííèêîâ, 2009].

Сохранение стоимости: субстанциалистские модели Òî, ÷òî îïèñàííûå ïðîöåññû, îòíîñèìûå ê ïðåäìåòíîé îáëàñòè ôèçèêè, èìåþò âûðàçèòåëüíûå àíàëîãè â îáëàñòè ýêîíîìè÷åñêîé òåîðèè, íåëüçÿ ñ÷èòàòü ëèøü ÷èñòî âíåøíèì ñõîäñòâîì. Íàïðîòèâ, ñàìà íåîáõîäèìîñòü ïðèíöèïîâ ñîõðàíåíèÿ â ñëó÷àå ýêîíîìè÷åñêîãî îáìåíà îáóñëîâëèâàåòñÿ òåì, ÷òî îí äîëæåí óäîâëåòâîðÿòü íåêîòîðûì óñëîâèÿì, ïðåæäå âñåãî òðåáîâàíèþ ñîèçìåðèìîñòè ñòîèìîñòåé òîâàðîâ â ïðîöåññå îáìåíà. Äëÿ ýòîãî îáìåí äîëæåí îñíîâûâàòüñÿ íà ìåõàíèçìàõ óñòàíîâëåíèÿ è ïîääåðæàíèÿ òîæäåñòâåííîñòè, ïðè÷åì ýòî íå òîëüêî ïðèðàâíèâàíèå ñòîèìîñòåé ðàçëè÷íûõ òîâàðîâ, íî è, ê ïðèìåðó, îáåñïå÷åíèå ïðàâ ñîáñòâåííîñòè îáìåíèâàþùèõñÿ àãåíòîâ â ïðîöåññå îáìåíà, ÷òî íåâîçìîæíî ñ ïîìîùüþ ðûíî÷íûõ ìåõàíèçìîâ êàê òàêîâûõ è òðåáóåò îïðåäåëåííûõ óñèëèé ñî ñòîðîíû ãîñóäàðñòâà. Íåòðóäíî âèäåòü, ÷òî ýòà ïðîáëåìà âî ìíîãîì àíàëîãè÷íà ïîèñêó óñëîâèé, îáåñïå÷èâàþùèõ ñîõðàíåíèå îïðåäåëåííûõ õàðàêòåðèñòèê ìåõàíè÷åñêîãî äâèæåíèÿ, ÷òî â ñâîþ î÷åðåäü ñóùåñòâåííî çàâèñèò îò ñïîñîáà åãî êîíöåïòóàëèçàöèè. Ïîêàçàòåëüíà òàêæå òðàäèöèîííàÿ ôàêòîãðàôèÿ, ñîãëàñíî êîòîðîé ñ÷èòàåòñÿ, ÷òî èìåííî Àðèñòîòåëü ââåë â ôèëîñîôèþ ïîíÿòèå ýíåðãèè è îñíîâàë ýêîíîìèêó êàê íàóêó. Íå ìåíåå õàðàêòåðíî è òî, ÷òî äëÿ Àðèñòîòåëÿ â ýêîíîìèêå èìååò ìåñòî îòîæäåñòâëåíèå íåòîæäåñòâåííîãî, êîãäà äðóã äðóãó ïðèðàâíèâàþòñÿ íå ðàâíûå äðóã äðóãó ñóáúåêòû îáìåíà, òî÷íî òàê æå, êàê è îáìåíèâàåìûå âåùè.  ñóùíîñòè çäåñü óæå çàëîæåíî ïîíèìàíèå ñòîèìîñòè â êà÷åñòâå òîé ñóáñòàíöèè, êîòîðàÿ ñîõðàíÿåòñÿ ïðè âñåõ îáìåíàõ. Áîëåå òîãî, ïðè òàêîì ïîíèìàíèè ñóììà ñòîèìîñòåé âñåõ òîâàðîâ äîëæíà áûòü íåèçìåííîé è â ýòîì îòíîøåíèè ñòîèìîñòü àíàëîãè÷íà ýíåðãèè â èçîëèðîâàííîé ñèñòåìå âêóïå ñ ñîîòâåòñòâóþùèìè çàêîíàìè ñîõðàíåíèÿ.  ýòîì ñìûñëå ñëåäóåò ãîâîðèòü î ïðèíöèïàõ ñîõðàíåíèÿ â ýêîíîìèêå, â êîíòåêñòå îïðåäåëåííîãî ïîíèìàíèÿ êîòîðûõ ðàçâèâàþòñÿ âñå òåîðèè äåíåã è äåíåæíîãî îáðàùåíèÿ. Ôóíäàìåíòàëüíîå çíà÷åíèå èìååò ïîñòóëàò î òîì, ÷òî äåíüãè òàêæå äîëæíû ïîä÷èíÿòüñÿ íåêîòîðûì ïðèíöèïàì ñîõðàíåíèÿ, êîòîðûå ÿâëÿþòñÿ îñíîâîé çàêîíîâ äåíåæíîãî îáðàùåíèÿ.  îáëàñòè ñîöèàëüíûõ íàóê â öåëîì òàêîìó ïîíèìàíèþ ñîîòâåòñòâóåò âïîëíå îïðåäåëåííàÿ êîíöåïöèÿ ÷åëîâåêà – ýêîíîìè÷åñêèé ÷åëîâåê (homo oeconomicus), êîòîðûé, êàê ñ÷èòàåòñÿ, âûïàë (èëè îáÿçàí âûïàñòü) èç êóëüòóðíîé òðàäèöèè, ïîòåðÿë èñòîðè÷åñêóþ è íà-

174

ÔÈÇÈÊÀ È ÝÊÎÍÎÌÈÊÀ: Î ÏÐÈÍÖÈÏÀÕ ÑÎÕÐÀÍÅÍÈß…

öèîíàëüíóþ ïàìÿòü è ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé ñâîåêîðûñòíîãî èíäèâèäà-ïîòðåáèòåëÿ, êîòîðûé àïðèîðè ñ÷èòàåò ñåáÿ ñîâåðøåííî ñâîáîäíûì. Òàêîé òèï ÷åëîâåêà áåçîãîâîðî÷íî îïèðàåòñÿ íà âåðó â òî, ÷òî åãî ñóáúåêòèâíàÿ öåëü îáðåòåíèÿ ëè÷íîãî áëàãîñîñòîÿíèÿ, êîòîðàÿ äîëæíà áûòü äîñòèãíóòà òîëüêî ïðè íàèìåíüøèõ óñèëèÿõ, â âûñøåé ñòåïåíè ñîîòâåòñòâóåò òðåáîâàíèÿì ðàçóìà, ò.å. ÿâëÿåòñÿ ïðåäåëüíî ðàöèîíàëüíîé. Ñëåäîâàòåëüíî, çàäà÷åé òåîðåòè÷åñêîé ðàáîòû â ñîöèàëüíûõ íàóêàõ ÿâëÿåòñÿ ñîçäàíèå òàêèõ ìîäåëåé îáùåñòâà, ôóíêöèîíèðîâàíèå êîòîðûõ äîëæíî áûòü îïòèìàëüíûì.  ðàìêàõ îïèñàííîé ïîñòàíîâêè ïðîáëåìû áåç çàêîíîâ ñîõðàíåíèÿ íåâîçìîæíî òàêæå ïðåäñòàâèòü ñåáå ôóíêöèîíèðîâàíèå íåçàâèñèìîãî îò àãåíòîâ îáìåíà ìåõàíèçìà ðûíêà, êîòîðûé, êàê ïîñòóëèðóåòñÿ, ãàðìîíèçèðóåò ðàçíîíàïðàâëåííûå âîëè ýòè àãåíòîâ. Åñëè ãîâîðèòü î ðàçâèòûõ ôîðìàõ ýêîíîìè÷åñêîé òåîðèè, òî ýòîò âîïðîñ îêàçàëñÿ îïðåäåëÿþùèì óæå â ìåðêàíòèëèçìå. Îñíîâíàÿ ïðîáëåìà ñîñòîÿëà â íåâîçìîæíîñòè îáúÿñíèòü ïðèáûëü â ñèñòåìå îáìåíà ýêâèâàëåíòàìè, ïîñêîëüêó â òàêîé ñèñòåìå åé íåîòêóäà áûëî âîçíèêíóòü. Ñèòóàöèÿ åùå áîëåå óñëîæíèëàñü ïîñëå îñîçíàíèÿ òîãî, ÷òî ñòîèìîñòü, êîòîðàÿ ñ÷èòàëàñü âíóòðåííå ïðèñóùåé ñàìèì òîâàðàì, ò.å. ñóáñòàíöèàëüíîé, îòëè÷àåòñÿ îò èõ ðûíî÷íîé ñòîèìîñòè, ôîðìèðóþùåéñÿ ïîä äåéñòâèåì ìíîæåñòâà ôàêòîðîâ ðûíêà. Ñïîðû âåëèñü òàêæå âîêðóã ïðèçíàíèÿ èëè îòðèöàíèÿ ó äåíåã ñïîñîáíîñòè áûòü âñåîáùåé ìåðîé ñòîèìîñòè.  ñàìîì äåëå, äåíüãè ïåðâîíà÷àëüíî áûëè ïðåäñòàâëåíû çîëîòîì, ñåðåáðîì èëè èõ êîìáèíàöèåé è íè÷åì íå îòëè÷àëèñü îò ïðî÷èõ òîâàðîâ. Ïðè ýòîì äåíüãè äåéñòâèòåëüíî äîëãîå âðåìÿ íå âûñòóïàëè â êà÷åñòâå âñåîáùåé ìåðû ñòîèìîñòè. Ïðèìå÷àòåëüíî, îäíàêî, ÷òî áîëüøèíñòâî ïðåäñòàâèòåëåé ìåðêàíòèëèçìà ñ÷èòàëî èìåííî äåíüãè, êîòîðûå êàçàëèñü òàêèìè æå ñóáñòàíöèàëüíûìè, êàê è ñòîèìîñòü, âûðàæåíèåì áîãàòñòâà. Ýòà ñèòóàöèÿ àíàëîãè÷íà êîíöåïöèè ìåñòà â àðèñòîòåëåâñêîé ôèçèêå, â êîòîðîé ïðîñòðàíñòâî ñ÷èòàåòñÿ ñîñòîÿùèì èç îòäåëüíûõ ìåñò è íå ÿâëÿåòñÿ åäèíûì. Äàëüíåéøåå ðàçâèòèå áûëî ñâÿçàíî ñ ïîÿâëåíèåì êîíöåïöèè ôèçèîêðàòîâ, âïåðâûå ðàçäåëèâøèõ ýêîíîìèêó íà ïðîèçâîäèòåëüíóþ è íåïðîèçâîäèòåëüíóþ ñôåðû, ÷òî îïÿòü-òàêè îñíîâûâàåòñÿ íà îñîáîì, áîëåå ñëîæíîì ïî ñðàâíåíèþ ñ ïðåäøåñòâóþùåé ñòàäèåé ïðèíöèïå ñîõðàíåíèÿ ñòîèìîñòè. Îäíîâðåìåííî áûëî ïîääåðæàíî ïîíèìàíèå ñòîèìîñòè â êà÷åñòâå ñóáñòàíöèè, ÷òî ïàðàäîêñàëüíûì îáðàçîì ïðîèñõîäèëî íà ôîíå ïîñòåïåííîãî îòêàçà îò ñóáñòàíöèàëèñòñêîé êîíöåïöèè äåíåã. Äåíüãè ïåðåñòàþò ðàññìàòðèâàòüñÿ â êà÷åñòâå òîâàðà â ñâÿçè ñ íåóêëîííî óâåëè÷èâàþùåéñÿ ðîëüþ áóìàæíûõ äåíåã, îäíàêî, ñòðîãî ãîâîðÿ, âåðà â èõ ñóáñòàíöèàëüíûé õàðàêòåð åùå ñóùåñòâîâàëà íåêîòîðîå âðåìÿ.

175

À.È. ÏÈÃÀËÅÂ

Òàê, ñóáñòàíöèàëèñòñêîå ïîíèìàíèå ñòîèìîñòè åùå ñîõðàíÿåòñÿ ó Àäàìà Ñìèòà, õîòÿ ó íåãî óæå ïîÿâëÿþòñÿ ïåðâûå ïîïûòêè ñâÿçàòü åå ïðîèñõîæäåíèå íå ñ çåìëåäåëü÷åñêèì òðóäîì, à ñ òðóäîâîé äåÿòåëüíîñòüþ â ëþáîé îòðàñëè ïðîèçâîäñòâà, òîãäà êàê «íåïðîèçâîäèòåëüíîå» îòîæäåñòâëÿåòñÿ èì ñ íåñóáñòàíöèàëüíûì. Ïðè ýòîì èçâåñòíîå ïîëîæåíèå, ñîãëàñíî êîòîðîìó ñòîèìîñòü îáùåñòâåííîãî ïðîäóêòà ðàâíÿåòñÿ ñóììå äîõîäîâ – çàðàáîòíîé ïëàòå, ïðèáûëè è ðåíòå (äîãìà Ñìèòà), î÷åâèäíî, ñëåäóåò ëîãèêå ïðèíöèïîâ ñîõðàíåíèÿ. Îäíàêî ñëåäóåò ïîä÷åðêíóòü, ÷òî ýòî ïîëîæåíèå, â êîòîðîì â êà÷åñòâå ýëåìåíòà ñòîèìîñòè èãíîðèðóåòñÿ ïîñòîÿííûé êàïèòàë, çàêðûâàëî âîçìîæíîñòü îáúÿñíèòü âîñïðîèçâîäñòâî, êîòîðîãî ïðîñòî íå ìîãëî áûòü. Äåéñòâèòåëüíî, åñëè âñå, ÷òî åæåãîäíî ïðîèçâîäèòñÿ, åæåãîäíî æå è ïîòðåáëÿåòñÿ, òî äàæå ïðîñòîå âîñïðîèçâîäñòâî ñòàíîâèòñÿ íåâûïîëíèìîé çàäà÷åé âñëåäñòâèå òîãî, ÷òî, ñîãëàñíî íåÿâíî ïîäðàçóìåâàåìûì ïðèíöèïàì ñîõðàíåíèÿ, ñòîèìîñòü íå ìîæåò âîçíèêàòü èç íè÷åãî. Èíà÷å ãîâîðÿ, â êîíöåïöèè Ñìèòà âíîâü ñîçäàâàåìàÿ çà îïðåäåëåííîå âðåìÿ ñòîèìîñòü îòîæäåñòâëÿåòñÿ ñî ñòîèìîñòüþ ïðîèçâåäåííîãî çà ýòî æå âðåìÿ ïðîäóêòà, òîãäà êàê ñòîèìîñòü èñïîëüçîâàííûõ ñðåäñòâ ïðîèçâîäñòâà, êîòîðûå áûëè ïðîèçâåäåíû ðàíåå, íå ó÷èòûâàåòñÿ. Ýòî îçíà÷àåò, ÷òî âñå ïàðàäîêñû äîãìû Ñìèòà è ñïîðû âîêðóã íåå ïðåäñòàâëÿþò ñîáîé òèïè÷íûé îáðàçåö ïîèñêà òàêèõ ïàðàìåòðîâ ñèñòåìû, êîòîðûå óäîâëåòâîðÿëè áû íåêîòîðîìó ïðèíöèïó ñîõðàíåíèÿ. Áðîñàåòñÿ â ãëàçà, ÷òî òàêàÿ èññëåäîâàòåëüñêàÿ ñòðàòåãèÿ àíàëîãè÷íà îïèñàííîé âûøå ïîñëåäîâàòåëüíîñòè øàãîâ ðàäè ñïàñåíèÿ ïðèíöèïîâ ñîõðàíåíèÿ ïóòåì ââåäåíèÿ â òåîðåòè÷åñêóþ ìîäåëü ðåàëüíîñòè äîïîëíèòåëüíûõ îáúåêòîâ è ïàðàìåòðîâ. Ïàðàäîêñû äîãìû Ñìèòà áûëè ïðåîäîëåíû óæå çà ïðåäåëàìè òåîðåòè÷åñêèõ ïðåäïîñûëîê åãî âçãëÿäîâ – â ðàìêàõ òðóäîâîé òåîðèè ñòîèìîñòè, èãðàâøåé âàæíóþ ðîëü â òåîðåòè÷åñêèõ ìîäåëÿõ Ä. Ðèêàðäî è äåòàëüíî ðàçðàáîòàííîé Ê. Ìàðêñîì.  ðàìêàõ òðóäîâîé òåîðèè ñòîèìîñòü òàêæå ðàññìàòðèâàåòñÿ êàê íåîòúåìëåìîå êà÷åñòâî ñâîåãî íîñèòåëÿ – òîâàðà èëè äåíåã è, ñëåäîâàòåëüíî, ñîõðàíÿåò ñâîéñòâà ñóáñòàíöèè, õîòÿ ó Ìàðêñà ïðåäñòàâëåíèå î ñóáñòàíöèàëüíîñòè óæå íà÷èíàåò ðàçìûâàòüñÿ êîíöåïöèåé òîâàðíî-äåíåæíîãî ôåòèøèçìà. Âñå ðàäèêàëüíî èçìåíèëîñü ñ íà÷àëîì ôîðìèðîâàíèÿ â êîíöå XIX â. òàêîãî òå÷åíèÿ ýêîíîìè÷åñêîé ìûñëè, êàê ìàðæèíàëèçì, êîòîðûé äëÿ èññëåäîâàíèÿ ýêîíîìè÷åñêèõ çàêîíîâ è êàòåãîðèé íà÷àë èñïîëüçîâàòü ïðåäåëüíûå («ìàðæèíàëüíûå») âåëè÷èíû.

Сохранение стоимости: теоретико6полевое описание 176

ÔÈÇÈÊÀ È ÝÊÎÍÎÌÈÊÀ: Î ÏÐÈÍÖÈÏÀÕ ÑÎÕÐÀÍÅÍÈß…

Ìàðæèíàëèçì îïðåäåëèë îáëèê òàê íàçûâàåìîãî íåîêëàññè÷åñêîãî íàïðàâëåíèÿ â ýêîíîìèêå (Ó. Äæåâîíñ, Äæ. Áåíòàì, À. Êóðíî è Ã.Ã. Ãîññåí êàê ïðåäøåñòâåííèêè, îñíîâíûå ïðåäñòàâèòåëè – Ë. Âàëüðàñ, Â. Ïàðåòî, È. Ôèøåð, Ô.È. Ýäæóîðò). Ïðè ýòîì èçìåíåíèÿ â ýêîíîìè÷åñêîé òåîðèè â ñâÿçè ñ âîçíèêíîâåíèåì ìàðæèíàëèçìà áûëè íàñòîëüêî ñóùåñòâåííû, ÷òî îáû÷íî ãîâîðÿò äàæå î «ìàðæèíàëèñòñêîé ðåâîëþöèè» [Blaug, 1990: 294–327]. Èìåííî ïðåäñòàâèòåëè ìàðæèíàëèçìà âïåðâûå ïîñòàâèëè çàäà÷ó îðèåíòàöèè ýêîíîìè÷åñêîé òåîðèè íà íàóêó èëè, òî÷íåå, ïðåâðàùåíèÿ ýêîíîìèêè â íàóêó, êîòîðàÿ ê òîìó æå äîëæíà îïèðàòüñÿ íà ìàòåìàòè÷åñêèå ìåòîäû. Ýòî íå áûëî ïðîñòîé äåêëàðàöèåé, à óñòàíîâëåíèåì ñîâåðøåííî êîíêðåòíûõ ïàðàëëåëåé. Áîëåå òîãî, îáðàçöîì íàó÷íîñòè äëÿ ïðåäñòàâèòåëåé íåîêëàññè÷åñêîãî íàïðàâëåíèÿ ÿâëÿåòñÿ èìåííî ôèçèêà, î ÷åì îíè ñàìè ïèñàëè ñîâåðøåííî íåäâóñìûñëåííî. Àíàëîãèè ìåæäó ýêîíîìè÷åñêèìè è ôèçè÷åñêèìè êîíöåïöèÿìè ñòàíîâÿòñÿ åùå î÷åâèäíåå, ÷åì íà ïðåäøåñòâóþùåì ýòàïå ðàçâèòèÿ ýêîíîìè÷åñêîé òåîðèè. Õàðàêòåðíûì íîâøåñòâîì ÿâëÿåòñÿ òî, ÷òî â ýêîíîìè÷åñêîé òåîðèè íà÷èíàþò ñèñòåìàòè÷åñêè èñïîëüçîâàòüñÿ àíàëîãè ïîíÿòèÿ ïîëÿ, õîòÿ çäåñü åäèíñòâî ïîäõîäîâ óæå ìåíåå î÷åâèäíî. Ãëàâíîé çàäà÷åé îòíûíå ñòàíîâèòñÿ ïîèñê îïòèìàëüíûõ ñðåäñòâ äëÿ äîñòèæåíèÿ çàðàíåå ïîñòàâëåííûõ öåëåé ïðè îãðàíè÷åííîñòè ðåñóðñîâ (ðåñóðñû ñ÷èòàþòñÿ ïî ñàìîé ñâîåé ñóòè «ðåäêèìè»), ÷òî èçìåíÿåò âñþ ïðîáëåìàòèêó ýêîíîìèêè êàê íàóêè, à õîçÿéñòâåííàÿ äåÿòåëüíîñòü îòíûíå ëèøàåòñÿ êîíêðåòíûõ õàðàêòåðèñòèê è ïîíèìàåòñÿ ïðåäåëüíî àáñòðàêòíî.  öåíòðå âíèìàíèÿ èññëåäîâàòåëåé îêàçûâàåòñÿ «àòîìèçèðîâàííàÿ» ñîâîêóïíîñòü èíäèâèäóàëüíûõ õîçÿéñòâ, à çàêîíû ýêîíîìèêè ñ÷èòàþòñÿ îñíîâàííûìè íà àíàëèçå ýêîíîìè÷åñêèõ ðåøåíèé èíäèâèäîâ, êàæäûé èç êîòîðûõ ñòðåìèòñÿ ìàêñèìèçèðîâàòü ðåçóëüòàòû ñâîåé äåÿòåëüíîñòè è ìèíèìèçèðîâàòü óñèëèÿ. Òàêîé ïîäõîä ïîçâîëÿåò èñïîëüçîâàòü âûðàáîòàííîå â ìàòåìàòèêå ïîíÿòèå ïðåäåëà ôóíêöèè è òåì ñàìûì ïðèëîæèòü ê ýêîíîìèêå ìåòîäû ìàòåìàòè÷åñêîãî àíàëèçà, ïðèåìû íàõîæäåíèÿ ýêñòðåìóìîâ ôóíêöèé è, â îñîáåííîñòè, âàðèàöèîííûå ìåòîäû.  ðåçóëüòàòå âîçíèêàåò íåîáõîäèìîñòü èññëåäîâàòü êîëè÷åñòâåííûå îòíîøåíèÿ ìåæäó ðàçëè÷íûìè âåëè÷èíàìè, õàðàêòåðèçóþùèìè õîçÿéñòâåííóþ äåÿòåëüíîñòü. Ãëàâíîé çàäà÷åé íåîêëàññè÷åñêîãî íàïðàâëåíèÿ â ýêîíîìè÷åñêîé ìûñëè ñòàíîâèòñÿ îïðåäåëåíèå îïòèìàëüíîãî ðåæèìà ôóíêöèîíèðîâàíèÿ ýêîíîìè÷åñêèõ åäèíèö è ïàðàìåòðîâ, îáåñïå÷èâàþùåãî ýêîíîìè÷åñêîå ðàâíîâåñèå â óñëîâèÿõ ñâîáîäíîé, à â ðÿäå ñëó÷àåâ è ñîâåðøåííîé êîíêóðåíöèè. Íå âäàâàÿñü â àíàëèç äåòàëåé ñòàíîâëåíèÿ íåîêëàññè÷åñêîãî íàïðàâëåíèÿ ýêîíîìè÷åñêîé ìûñëè, îòìåòèì, ÷òî äëÿ íåãî õàðàêòåðíî ñóáúåêòèâèñòñêîå ïîíèìàíèå ñòîèìîñòè, ñîãëàñíî êîòîðîìó îíà ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé âñåãî ëèøü ïñèõîëîãè÷åñêîå ÿâëåíèå, òàê ÷òî ðå÷ü

177

À.È. ÏÈÃÀËÅÂ

èäåò î ïðîèçâîëüíîé îöåíêå ñòåïåíè ïîëåçíîñòè òîâàðîâ. Ïðè ýòîì íà ïåðâûé ïëàí èññëåäîâàíèÿ âûõîäÿò ìîòèâû è ïîâåäåíèå homo oeconomicus, êîòîðûé îòíþäü íå ñâîäèòñÿ ê áåçæèçíåííîé ñõåìå è îêàçûâàåòñÿ ìíîãîëèêèì, ïðîÿâëÿÿ ñâîè ñâîåîáðàçíûå êà÷åñòâà è â ïðåäïðèíèìàòåëå, è â ïîòðåáèòåëå, è â ïðîäàâöå ñâîåé ðàáî÷åé ñèëû. Òàêîé ïîäõîä îçíà÷àåò â ñóùíîñòè äåñóáñòàíöèàëèçàöèþ ñòîèìîñòè, êîòîðàÿ àíàëîãè÷íà ñîîòâåòñòâóþùèì ïðîöåññàì â ôèçèêå, ïðîèñõîäèâøèì ñ ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿìè îá ýíåðãèè. Òî÷íî òàêóþ æå äåñóáñòàíöèàëèçàöèþ ïðåòåðïåâàþò è äåíüãè, ëèøåííûå ñâÿçè ñ çîëîòîì.  èñòîðè÷åñêîé ðåòðîñïåêòèâå ñóáúåêòèâèñòñêèé ïîäõîä ê ïîíèìàíèþ ñòîèìîñòè áûë â çíà÷èòåëüíîé ñòåïåíè ïîäãîòîâëåí ðàáîòàìè Ã.Ã. Ãîññåíà, êîòîðûé ñ÷èòàåòñÿ îñíîâîïîëîæíèêîì è òåîðèè ïðåäåëüíîé ïîëåçíîñòè. Òåîðèÿ Ãîññåíà îñíîâûâàåòñÿ íà íåñêîëüêî íåîáû÷íîì äëÿ ïðåäøåñòâóþùåé ýêîíîìè÷åñêîé òåîðèè ïîëîæåíèè, ñîãëàñíî êîòîðîìó ýêîíîìè÷åñêàÿ íàóêà äîëæíà ïîìîãàòü ÷åëîâåêó â ïîëó÷åíèè ìàêñèìàëüíîé ñòåïåíè íàñëàæäåíèÿ. Óäîâëåòâîðåíèå îò ïîòðåáëåíèÿ îïèñûâàåòñÿ äâóìÿ çàêîíàìè Ãîññåíà, â êîòîðûõ ïðåäïîëàãàåòñÿ, ÷òî îöåíêà áëàã äîëæíà áûòü èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî ïñèõîëîãè÷åñêîé, õîòÿ êàêîâû èìåííî ïñèõîëîãè÷åñêèå çàêîíû, çàñòàâëÿþùèå ÷åëîâåêà ïðåäïî÷èòàòü îäíî äðóãîìó, íèêîãäà íå óòî÷íÿëîñü. Èíûìè ñëîâàìè, ñòðåìëåíèå íåêîåãî «åñòåñòâåííîãî» (íà ñàìîì äåëå «ýêîíîìè÷åñêîãî») ÷åëîâåêà ê íàñëàæäåíèÿì ðàññìàòðèâàåòñÿ â êà÷åñòâå ñàìîñòîÿòåëüíîé âåëè÷èíû. Îíà íå ìîæåò áûòü èçìåíåíà íè ñîöèàëüíûìè, íè êóëüòóðíûìè, íè ýêîíîìè÷åñêèìè ôàêòîðàìè, îïðåäåëÿÿñü ëèøü ñóáúåêòèâíûìè èíòåðåñàìè è ïðåäïî÷òåíèÿìè ÷åëîâåêà. Îäíàêî òàêîå ñòðåìëåíèå ìîæåò èñïûòûâàòü âëèÿíèå ìíîæåñòâà ïñèõîëîãè÷åñêèõ ôàêòîðîâ, âðîäå îæèäàíèé è ïðîãíîçîâ, è êàòåãîðèçàöèÿ ÷åëîâåêà â êà÷åñòâå «åñòåñòâåííîãî» íå èñêëþ÷àåò øèðîêîãî ðàçáðîñà ñòðåìëåíèé è ïðåäïî÷èòàåìûõ íàñëàæäåíèé. Ýòî âëå÷åò çà ñîáîé ñóùåñòâåííûå èçìåíåíèÿ â ïîíèìàíèè ñòîèìîñòè, êîòîðàÿ â îòëè÷èå îò ïðåäøåñòâóþùåãî ïåðèîäà ðàçâèòèÿ ýêîíîìè÷åñêîé íàóêè ïåðåñòàåò áûòü ýêîíîìè÷åñêèì èíâàðèàíòîì è ñ÷èòàåòñÿ çàâèñÿùåé íå îò îäíîãî, à îò ìíîæåñòâà ôàêòîðîâ. Êðîìå òîãî, îäíîé èç âàæíåéøèõ êàòåãîðèé íåîêëàññè÷åñêîãî íàïðàâëåíèÿ â ýêîíîìè÷åñêîé òåîðèè îêàçûâàåòñÿ ïîëåçíîñòü, êîòîðàÿ, ïîâòîðèì, ñ÷èòàåòñÿ ðåçóëüòàòîì ñóáúåêòèâíîé îöåíêè ó÷àñòíèêîâ õîçÿéñòâåííîãî ïðîöåññà. Åñòåñòâåííûì ðàçâèòèåì ýòîãî õîäà ìûñëè ñòàëà çàìåíà ñòðåìëåíèÿ ÷åëîâåêà ê ìàêñèìàëüíî ñèëüíûì íàñëàæäåíèÿì íåêîòîðîé òåîðèåé ðàöèîíàëüíîñòè, òî÷íåå, òåîðèåé ðàöèîíàëüíîãî âûáîðà.  òàêîì êîíòåêñòå íàâÿçûâàåìàÿ ÷åëîâåêó «ðàöèîíàëüíîñòü» åñòü íå ÷òî èíîå, êàê ñïîñîá òàê èëè èíà÷å óíèôèöèðîâàòü åãî ñòðåìëåíèå ê íàñëàæäåíèÿì è, ñëåäîâàòåëüíî, ïîëó÷èòü âîçìîæíîñòü ïîíèìàòü ñòîèìîñòü êàê ÷òî-òî, ñóùåñòâóþùåå îáúåêòèâíî.  êîíå÷íîì ñ÷åòå ïðîáëåìà ñíèìàåòñÿ ñ ïîìîùüþ òàê íàçûâàåìîãî çàêîíà, à òî÷íåå, ïî-

178

ÔÈÇÈÊÀ È ÝÊÎÍÎÌÈÊÀ: Î ÏÐÈÍÖÈÏÀÕ ÑÎÕÐÀÍÅÍÈß…

ñòóëàòà «îäíîé öåíû», â ñîîòâåòñòâèè ñ êîòîðûì ïðîïîðöèÿ îáìåíà îäèíàêîâà äëÿ âñåõ ó÷àñòâóþùèõ â îáìåíå èíäèâèäîâ. Òåì íå ìåíåå ïðè ïîñëåäîâàòåëüíîì ïðîäóìûâàíèè ñëåäñòâèé òàêîé ïîçèöèè ïîëó÷àåòñÿ, ÷òî ñòîèìîñòè êàê òàêîâîé (ò.å. â êà÷åñòâå íåêîòîðîé ñóáñòàíöèè) âñå æå íå ñóùåñòâóåò è ðåàëüíûìè äîëæíû ñ÷èòàòüñÿ ëèøü îòíîøåíèÿ ìåæäó òîâàðàìè. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, «åñòåñòâåííàÿ» ñòîèìîñòü òîâàðà ñâîäèòñÿ ê åãî ðûíî÷íîé ñòîèìîñòè. Ýòî îçíà÷àåò òàêæå, ÷òî â íåîêëàññè÷åñêîé ýêîíîìèêå íà ïåðâîå ìåñòî âûõîäèò íå ïðîèçâîäñòâî, à îáìåí. Èìåííî â òàêîì êîíòåêñòå ãëàâíîé íåèçáåæíî ñòàíîâèòñÿ ïðîáëåìà ýêîíîìè÷åñêîãî ðàâíîâåñèÿ, êîòîðàÿ âïåðâûå ñ èñïîëüçîâàíèåì ìàòåìàòè÷åñêèõ ìåòîäîâ áûëà äåòàëüíî ïðîàíàëèçèðîâàíà â ðàáîòàõ Ë. Âàëüðàñà [Daal, van Jolink, 1993; Caravale, 1997]. Ïîä ýêîíîìè÷åñêèì ðàâíîâåñèåì ïîíèìàþòñÿ ïðèîðèòåò è ïîëíàÿ íåçàâèñèìîñòü ïîòðåáèòåëÿ ïðè ïîñòóëèðóåìîì â êà÷åñòâå èäåàëà åäèíñòâå èíòåðåñîâ âñåõ ñîöèàëüíûõ ãðóïï, êîòîðîå ñóùåñòâóåò â óñëîâèÿõ îïÿòü-òàêè ïîñòóëèðóåìîé íåáîëüøîé èçìåí÷èâîñòè èëè äàæå óñòîé÷èâîé íåèçìåííîñòè êîíêðåòíîé ýêîíîìè÷åñêîé ñèòóàöèè. Îñíîâíàÿ ïðîáëåìà òåîðèè ýêîíîìè÷åñêîãî ðàâíîâåñèÿ îáóñëîâëåíà òåì, ÷òî èñõîäíîé àáñòðàêöèåé òåîðåòè÷åñêèõ ïîñòðîåíèé ÿâëÿåòñÿ èíäèâèä, ñ÷èòàþùèéñÿ àâòîíîìíûì è âñòóïàþùèì â ýêîíîìè÷åñêèå îòíîøåíèÿ ñ äðóãèìè èíäèâèäàìè. Èíà÷å ãîâîðÿ, ïðè ðàññìîòðåíèè óñëîâèé ðàâíîâåñèÿ èñõîäíûì ïóíêòîì ÿâëÿåòñÿ íå îáùåñòâî, à èìåííî èíäèâèä, êîòîðûé äîëæåí âûñòðîèòü ñâîè îòíîøåíèÿ ñ äðóãèìè àâòîíîìíûìè èíäèâèäàìè òàêèì îáðàçîì, ÷òîáû îíè áûëè áåñêîíôëèêòíûìè è òåì ñàìûì ïîääåðæèâàþùèìè â ýêîíîìè÷åñêîé ñèñòåìå ñîñòîÿíèå ðàâíîâåñèÿ. Âïðî÷åì, íåîáõîäèìî ïðèçíàòü, ÷òî ïîíÿòèå ýêîíîìè÷åñêîãî ðàâíîâåñèÿ íå ÿâëÿåòñÿ àáñîëþòíûì íîâøåñòâîì, ïðèâíåñåííûì èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî íåêëàññè÷åñêèì íàïðàâëåíèåì, ïîñêîëüêó â îáùåì ñìûñëå îíî ïðèñóòñòâóåò â òåîðèè è ïðè ñóáñòàíöèàëèñòñêîì ïîíèìàíèè ñòîèìîñòè. Îäíàêî ìîäåëè ýêîíîìè÷åñêîãî ðàâíîâåñèÿ â íåîêëàññè÷åñêîì íàïðàâëåíèè â ýêîíîìèêå, íåñìîòðÿ íà áðîñàþùóþñÿ â ãëàçà ìåõàíèñòè÷íîñòü èõ ïåðâûõ ôîðì, çíà÷èòåëüíî ñëîæíåå è, êðîìå òîãî, ïîçâîëÿþò ïðîäâèíóòüñÿ â îïèñàíèè ïðîöåññîâ â ýêîíîìèêå ñ ïîìîùüþ ìàòåìàòè÷åñêîãî ôîðìàëèçìà çíà÷èòåëüíî äàëüøå.  ñâåòå ýòîé ëîãèêè íåò íè÷åãî óäèâèòåëüíîãî â òîì, ÷òî â íåîêëàññè÷åñêîé ýêîíîìè÷åñêîé òåîðèè (îñîáåííî ó Äæåâîíñà è Âàëüðàñà) îäíîé èç îñíîâíûõ ìåòàôîð ñòàíîâÿòñÿ ðàâíîâåñèå ðû÷àãà, êàê îíî ïîíèìàëîñü â ðàöèîíàëüíîé ìåõàíèêå [Mirowski, 1991: 220]. Ðàâíîâåñèå ðû÷àãà îçíà÷àåò, ÷òî âåëè÷èíû, ðàâíûå ñèëàì, äåéñòâóþùèì íà åãî ïëå÷è è óìíîæåííûì íà èõ äëèíó, îêàçûâàþòñÿ ðàâíûìè äðóã äðóãó, íî èìåþùèìè ïðîòèâîïîëîæíûå çíàêè. Ñëåäîâàòåëüíî, èõ ñóììà ðàâíà íóëþ. Ýêîíîìè÷åñêîå ðàâíîâåñèå îçíà÷àåò,

179

À.È. ÏÈÃÀËÅÂ

÷òî íåêîòîðûå ïåðåìåííûå âåëè÷èíû (èõ ìîæåò áûòü ìíîãî), õàðàêòåðèçóþùèå ýêîíîìè÷åñêóþ ñèñòåìó, êàê è â ñëó÷àå ðû÷àãà, â ñóììå äàþò íóëü. Ïîñêîëüêó ñîñòîÿíèå ðàâíîâåñèÿ, êàê ïðàâèëî, ðàâíîçíà÷íî äîñòèæåíèþ íåêîòîðûìè âåëè÷èíàìè ýêñòðåìóìà, äëÿ ïîèñêà óñëîâèé ýòîãî ñîñòîÿíèÿ ìîãóò áûòü èñïîëüçîâàíû âàðèàöèîííûå ìåòîäû, íåðàçðûâíî ñâÿçàííûå ñ îïðåäåëåííûìè ïðèíöèïàìè ñîõðàíåíèÿ.  òî æå âðåìÿ õàðàêòåðíî, ÷òî îñíîâíûå àíàëîãèè íà ðàííåé ñòàäèè ðàçâèòèÿ íåîêëàññè÷åñêîãî íàïðàâëåíèÿ ýêîíîìè÷åñêîé òåîðèè îñíîâûâàëèñü íà ïðîâåäåíèè ïàðàëëåëåé ñ ìàòåìàòè÷åñêèìè ìîäåëÿìè, êîòîðûå èñïîëüçîâàëèñü ïðè îïèñàíèè ñïëîøíîé ñðåäû.  ýòîì íåîêëàññè÷åñêîå íàïðàâëåíèå â ýêîíîìèêå ïîäîáíî êëàññè÷åñêîé ïîëèòè÷åñêîé ýêîíîìèè â òîò ïåðèîä åå ðàçâèòèÿ, êîãäà â åå êàòåãîðèàëüíûé àïïàðàò áûëè ââåäåíû àíàëîãè ïîíÿòèÿ ïîëÿ. Àíàëîãè÷íî ðàñïðåäåëåííîé â ïðîñòðàíñòâå ñ÷èòàåòñÿ è ïîëåçíîñòü, êîòîðàÿ â ìàòåìàòè÷åñêîì ôîðìàëèçìå íåîêëàññè÷åñêîé ýêîíîìèêè ðàññìàòðèâàåòñÿ â êà÷åñòâå ñêàëÿðíîãî ïîëÿ, èç êîòîðîãî ïóòåì ñòàíäàðòíîé ïðîöåäóðû – âû÷èñëåíèÿ ãðàäèåíòà – ïîëó÷àåòñÿ âåêòîðíîå ïîëå öåíû [Mirowski, 1991: 223]. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ôîðìàëèçì òåîðèè ïîëÿ èñïîëüçóåòñÿ äëÿ îïèñàíèÿ äèíàìèêè ðûíî÷íûõ ïðîöåññîâ.

Заключение Åñòü îñíîâàíèÿ ïîëàãàòü, ÷òî ïîëåìèêà âîêðóã àíàëîãèé ôèçèêè è ýêîíîìèêè [De Marchi, 1993], îñîáåííî åå íåîêëàññè÷åñêîãî íàïðàâëåíèÿ, äàëåêà îò çàâåðøåíèÿ. Ìíîãèå èñòîðèêè ýêîíîìèêè íå ñ÷èòàþò äîâîäû ñòîðîííèêîâ êîíöåïöèè, ñîãëàñíî êîòîðîé ðàçâèòèå ýêîíîìèêè àíàëîãè÷íî ðàçâèòèþ ôèçèêè, îáîñíîâàííûìè è óáåäèòåëüíûìè è âûñòóïàþò ñ âåñüìà ðåçêîé êðèòèêîé. Êàê áû òî íè áûëî, åñëè ïîïûòàòüñÿ ðàññìîòðåòü ïðîáëåìó â êîíòåêñòå êîíöåïöèè íàó÷íî-èññëåäîâàòåëüñêèõ ïðîãðàìì, òî ïðèíöèïèàëüíûå èçìåíåíèÿ â ïîçíàâàòåëüíûõ ñòðàòåãèÿõ ýêîíîìèêè, çàòðàãèâàþùèå «òâåðäîå ÿäðî» åå íàó÷íî-èññëåäîâàòåëüñêèõ ïðîãðàìì, äåéñòâèòåëüíî àíàëîãè÷íû ïðèíöèïèàëüíûì èçìåíåíèÿì â ïîçíàâàòåëüíûõ ñòðàòåãèÿõ, ïðîèçîøåäøèõ â îáëàñòè ôèçèêè. Áîëåå òîãî, ýòè ïðèíöèïû âî ìíîãîì ïîäîáíû òåì ïðèíöèïàì ñîõðàíåíèÿ, êîòîðûå îïèðàþòñÿ íà îíòîëîãèþ èçîëèðîâàííîé ñèñòåìû. Âîïðîñ â òîì, íàñêîëüêî ýòè àíàëîãèè çàêîíîìåðíû, è åñëè îíè äåéñòâèòåëüíî òàêîâû, òî âàæíûì ÿâëÿåòñÿ ïîíèìàíèå òîãî, êàêîå çíà÷åíèå îíè èìåþò äëÿ ýïèñòåìîëîãèè è ôèëîñîôèè íàóêè. Íà ÿçûêå êîíöåïöèè íàó÷íî-èññëåäîâàòåëüñêîé ïðîãðàììû ýòî îçíà÷àåò íåîáõîäèìîñòü îáîçíà÷èòü âîçìîæíîñòè è ãðàíèöû ýòîé êîíöåïöèè, êîòîðûå â ñâîþ î÷åðåäü çàâèñÿò îò âîçìîæíîñòåé è ãðàíèö îíòîëîãè÷å-

180

ÔÈÇÈÊÀ È ÝÊÎÍÎÌÈÊÀ: Î ÏÐÈÍÖÈÏÀÕ ÑÎÕÐÀÍÅÍÈß…

ñêîé ìîäåëè, îïðåäåëÿþùåé ìåõàíèçìû âçàèìîäåéñòâèÿ «òâåðäîãî ÿäðà» è «çàùèòíîãî ïîÿñà». Ýòè ìåõàíèçìû â òî÷íîñòè ïîâòîðÿþò ïîñëåäîâàòåëüíîñòü äåéñòâèé â ôèçèêå â ñëó÷àå îáíàðóæèâøèõñÿ íàðóøåíèé ïðèíöèïîâ ñîõðàíåíèÿ, êîòîðûå, êàê ïîä÷åðêèâàëîñü âûøå, îïèðàþòñÿ íà îíòîëîãèþ èçîëèðîâàííîé ñèñòåìû. Äëÿ âîññòàíîâëåíèÿ ïðèìåíèìîñòè ïðèíöèïîâ ñîõðàíåíèÿ â èçîëèðîâàííîé ñèñòåìå èùóò ðàíåå íåèçâåñòíûå ýëåìåíòû è ïàðàìåòðû, êîòîðûå äîëæíû îáåñïå÷èòü íåèçìåííîñòü ýòèõ ïðèíöèïîâ è ñîîòâåòñòâåííî ïîäòâåðäèòü èçîëèðîâàííîñòü òîé ñèñòåìû, ÷àñòüþ êîòîðîé ñ÷èòàþòñÿ èçó÷àåìûå ÿâëåíèÿ. Òî÷íî òàê æå ôóíêöèÿ «çàùèòíîãî ïîÿñà» íàó÷íî-èññëåäîâàòåëüñêîé ïðîãðàììû ñîñòîèò â îáåñïå÷åíèè âîçìîæíîñòè ââîäèòü â òåîðåòè÷åñêóþ ìîäåëü íîâûå ýëåìåíòû è ïàðàìåòðû, ò.å. âñïîìîãàòåëüíûå ãèïîòåçû. ×àùå âñåãî ýòî ãèïîòåçû îíòîëîãè÷åñêîãî õàðàêòåðà, äîïóñêàþùèå ñóùåñòâîâàíèå íå òîëüêî ðàíåå íåèçâåñòíûõ ñâîéñòâ ó óæå èçâåñòíûõ îáúåêòîâ, íî è ðàíåå íåèçâåñòíûõ îáúåêòîâ, ÷òî ïîçâîëÿåò ñîõðàíèòü «òâåðäîå ÿäðî» íåèçìåííûì. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ïðåäïîñûëêîé êîíöåïöèè íàó÷íî-èññëåäîâàòåëüñêîé ïðîãðàììû òàêæå ÿâëÿåòñÿ îíòîëîãèÿ èçîëèðîâàííîé ñèñòåìû, õîòÿ îíà è ïðèñóòñòâóåò â îñíîâàíèÿõ ýòîé êîíöåïöèè íåÿâíî è îñòàåòñÿ â óìîë÷àíèÿõ. Ýòà ïðîáëåìàòèêà ñòàíîâèòñÿ îñîáåííî àêòóàëüíîé â ñâÿçè ñ óñèëèâàþùåéñÿ òåíäåíöèåé ïðèìåíåíèÿ â ýêîíîìè÷åñêîé òåîðèè êîíöåïöèè äåòåðìèíèðîâàííîãî õàîñà. Òàêàÿ òåíäåíöèÿ ïðåäïîëàãàåò ðàçðàáîòêó íåëèíåéíûõ òåîðåòè÷åñêèõ ìîäåëåé è â òåîðèÿõ ýêîíîìè÷åñêîãî ðîñòà, è â òåîðèè ôèíàíñîâ, è â òåîðèè ýêîíîìè÷åñêèõ öèêëîâ, è â öåëîì ðÿäå äðóãèõ îáëàñòåé ýêîíîìèêè [Creedy, Martin, 1996]. Áîëåå òîãî, íà óðîâíå ýêîíîìè÷åñêîé òåîðèè ïðîèñõîäèò ñóùåñòâåííîå èçìåíåíèå ïðåäñòàâëåíèé î ÷åëîâåêå [Mirowski, 2002]. Ïåðåõîä ê íåëèíåéíûì òåîðåòè÷åñêèì ìîäåëÿì îçíà÷àåò ïåðåõîä ê îíòîëîãèè óæå íå èçîëèðîâàííûõ, à îòêðûòûõ ñèñòåì. Îäíàêî çäåñü âîçíèêàåò öåëûé ðÿä ïðèíöèïèàëüíûõ âîïðîñîâ. Ñïîñîáåí ëè òåîðåòè÷åñêèé àïïàðàò è ôèçèêè, è ýêîíîìèêè íåïðîòèâîðå÷èâî ôîðìàëèçîâàòü ìîäåëè ëèøü îòêðûòîé ñèñòåìû áåç ïîñòóëàòà ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ èçîëèðîâàííîé ñèñòåìû â êà÷åñòâå èõ ÿâíîé èëè íåÿâíîé ïðåäïîñûëêè? Îçíà÷àåò ëè ýòî, ÷òî â óñëîâèÿõ ýïèñòåìîëîãè÷åñêîãî ñäâèãà, ïðèíöèïèàëüíî èçìåíÿþùåãî ñîîòíîøåíèÿ äåòåðìèíèçìà è ñëó÷àéíîñòè, àíàëîãèè ìåæäó ôèçèêîé è ýêîíîìèêîé ñîõðàíÿþòñÿ? Êàê ïðè ýòîì ìîäèôèöèðóþòñÿ ïðèíöèïû ñîõðàíåíèÿ è êîíöåïöèÿ îáùåãî ýêîíîìè÷åñêîãî ðàâíîâåñèÿ? È, íàêîíåö, ñïîñîáíà ëè êîíöåïöèÿ íàó÷íî-èññëåäîâàòåëüñêîé ïðîãðàììû, â îñîáåííîñòè òðàêòîâêà ìåõàíèçìîâ âçàèìîñâÿçè åå «òâåðäîãî ÿäðà» è «çàùèòíîãî ïîÿñà», ñîõðàíèòüñÿ èëè â óñëîâèÿõ ñîâðåìåííîãî ýïèñòåìîëîãè÷åñêîãî ñäâèãà îíà ñòàíîâèòñÿ íåïðèìåíèìîé? Îòâåòû íà ýòè âîïðîñû òðåáóþò ìåæäèñöèïëèíàðíîãî ïîäõîäà.

181

À.È. ÏÈÃÀËÅÂ

Библиографический список Àõóòèí, 1976 – Àõóòèí À.Â. Èñòîðèÿ ïðèíöèïîâ ôèçè÷åñêîãî ýêñïåðèìåíòà (îò àíòè÷íîñòè äî XVII âåêà). Ì., 1976. Ãðèãîðüÿí, 1974 – Ãðèãîðüÿí À.Ò. Ìåõàíèêà îò àíòè÷íîñòè äî íàøèõ äíåé. 2-å èçä., ïåðåðàá. è äîï. Ì., 1974. Ëàêàòîc, 2008 – Ëàêàòîc È. Ôàëüñèôèêàöèÿ è ìåòîäîëîãèÿ íàó÷íî-èññëåäîâàòåëüñêèõ ïðîãðàìì // È. Ëàêàòîñ. Èçáðàííûå ïðîèçâåäåíèÿ ïî ôèëîñîôèè è ìåòîäîëîãèè íàóêè ; ïåð. ñ àíãë. È.Í. Âåñåëîâñêîãî, À.Ë. Íèêèôîðîâà, Â.Í. Ïîðóñà. Ì., 2008. Ìåéåðñîí, 1912 – Ìåéåðñîí Ý. Òîæäåñòâåííîñòü è äåéñòâèòåëüíîñòü: Îïûò òåîðèè åñòåñòâîçíàíèÿ êàê ââåäåíèå â ìåòàôèçèêó ; ïåð. ïîä îáù. ðåä. [è ñ ïðåäèñë.] Ä.Ì. Êîéãåíà. ÑÏá., 1912. Îâ÷èííèêîâ, 2009 – Îâ÷èííèêîâ Í.Ô. Ïðèíöèïû ñîõðàíåíèÿ: çàêîíû, ñèììåòðèÿ, ñòðóêòóðà. 2-å èçä., èñïð. Ì., 2009. Arena, Dow, Klaes, 2009 – Open Economics: Economics in Relation to Other Disciplines ; R. Arena, S. Dow, M. Klaes (eds.). L. ; N.Y., 2009 (Routledge Studies in the History of Economics). Barbour, 2001 – Barbour J.B. The Discovery of Dynamics: A Study from a Machian Point of View of the Discovery and the Structure of Dynamical Theories. Oxford, UK, etc., 2001. Berkson, 1974 – Berkson W. Fields of Force. N.Y., 1974. Blaug, 1990 – Blaug M. Economic Theory in Retrospect. 4th ed. Cambridge, UK, etc., 1990. P. 294–327. Brach, Hanegraaff, 2006 – Brach J.P., Hanegraaff W.J. Correspondences // Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism ; W.J. Hanegraaff et al. (eds.). Leiden ; Boston, 2006. P. 275–279. Capecchi, 2012 – Capecchi D. History of Virtual Work Laws: A History of Mechanics Prospective. Milan, 2012. Caravale, 1997 – Equilibrium and Economic Theory ; G. Caravale (ed.). L. ; N.Y., 1997 (Routledge Studies in the History of Economics). Chen, 2005 – Chen J. The Physical Foundations of Economics: An Analytical Thermodynamic Theory. Singapore etc., 2005. Creedy, Martin, 1996 – Chaos and Non-Linear Models in Economics. Theory and Application ; J. Creedy, V.L. Martin (eds.). Hants, UK, 1996. Daal, van Jolink, 1993 – Daal J, van Jolink A. The Equilibrium Economics of Léon Walras. L. ; N.Y., 1993. De Marchi, 1993 – Nonnatural Social Science: Reflections on the Project of More Heat than Light ; N. De Marchi (ed.). Durham, NC, 1993. Gabbey, 1998 – Gabbey A. New Doctrines of Motion // The Cambridge History of Seventeenth-Century Philosophy. Vol. 1 ; D. Garber, M. Ayers (eds.). Cambridge, UK, etc., 1998. P. 649–679. Gaukroger, 2006 – Gaukroger S. The Emergence of a Scientific Culture: Science and the Shaping of Modernity, 1210–1685. Oxford, UK, etc., 2006. Harman, 1982 – Harman P.M. Energy, Force, and Matter: The Conceptual Development of Nineteenth-Century Physics. Cambridge, UK, etc., 1982. Hesse, 1962 – Hesse M. Forces and Fields. L., 1962. Kosmann-Schwarzbach, 2011 – Kosmann-Schwarzbach Y. The Noether Theorems: Invariance and Conservation Laws in the Twentieth Century. N.Y., etc., 2011. Leeming, 2010 – Leeming D.A. Creation Myths of the World: An Encyclopedia. 2nd ed. Santa Barbara, CA ; Denver, CO ; Oxford, UK, 2010.

182

ÔÈÇÈÊÀ È ÝÊÎÍÎÌÈÊÀ: Î ÏÐÈÍÖÈÏÀÕ ÑÎÕÐÀÍÅÍÈß…

Mirowski, 1991 – Mirowski P. More Heat than Light: Economics as Social Physics, Physics as Nature’s Economics. Cambridge, UK, etc., 1991. Mirowski, 1994 – Natural Images of Economic Thought: “Markets Read in Tooth and Claw” ; P. Mirowski (ed.). Cambridge, UK, etc., 1994. Mirowski, 2002 – Mirowski P. Machine Dreams: Economics Becomes a Cyborg Science. Cambridge, UK, etc., 2002. Newton, 2007 – Newton R.G. From Clockwork to Crapshoot: A History of Physics. Cambridge, MA; L., 2007. Osler, 2004 – Osler M.J. Divine Will and the Mechanical Philosophy: Gassendi and Descartes on Contingency and Necessity in the Created World. Cambridge, UK, etc., 2004. Rizvi, 2001 – Rizvi S.A.T. Philip Mirowski as a Historian of Economic Thought // Historians of Economics and Economic Thought: The Construction of Disciplinary Memory ; S.G. Medema, W.J. Samuels (eds.). L. ; N.Y., 2001. P. 209–222. Sarnowsky, 2008 – Sarnowsky J. Concepts of Impetus and the History of Mechanics // Mechanics and Natural Philosophy before the Scientific Revolution ; W.R. Lard, S. Roux (eds.). Dordrecht, 2008 (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. 254). P. 121–145. Sohn-Rethel, 1971 – Sohn-Rethel A. Warenform und Denkform: Aufätze. Frankfurt a/M ; Wien, 1971. Sohn-Rethel, 1989 – Sohn-Rethel A. Geistige und körperliche Arbeit: Zur Epistemologie der abendländischen Geschichte // Rev. und erg. Neuauflage. Weinheim, 1989. Sorabji, 1988 – Sorabji R. Matter, Space, and Motion: Theories in Antiquity and Their Sequel. L., 1988. Wolff, 1988 – Wolff M. Geschichte der Impetustheorie: Untersuchungen zum Ursprung der klassischen Mechanik. Frankfurt a/M, 1978. Yourgrau, Mandelstam, 1960 – Yourgrau W., Mandelstam S. Variational Principles in Dynamics and Quantum Theory. 2nd. ed. N.Y. ; Toronto ; L., 1960.

183

EPISTEMOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE · 2015 · Ò. XLV · ¹ 3

И

СТОРИЧЕСКИЕ И МЕТОДОЛОГИЧЕСКИЕ

ОСНОВАНИЯ РАЗВИТИЯ И ВОСПРИЯТИЯ ДАРВИНИЗМА И АНТИДАРВИНИЗМА Елена Борисовна Муз$ рукова – доктор био логических наук, про фессор, руководитель Центра истории социо культурных проблем науки и техники Инсти тута истории естество знания и техники им. С.И. Вавилова РАН. Email: [email protected] Роман Алексеевич Фандо – кандидат био логических наук, веду щий научный сотруд ник Института истории естествознания и тех ники им. С.И. Вавилова РАН. Email: [email protected]

H

В статье рассматриваются различные философские и методологические подхо ды, направленные на понимание сущности живого и вскрывающие движущие силы эволюционного процесса. Авторами проанализировано, как разные тео ретические подходы (дарвинизм и антидарвинизм) приводили к разнообраз ным интерпретациям фактов при изучении одинаковых познавательных моде лей. Показано, как исследования этих моделей различными учеными проложи ли путь к современным естественнонаучным представлениям. Примеры из истории науки наглядно демонстрируют, что в области биологических дисцип лин закономерно происходила конкуренция различных методологий и эври стических гипотез. Это объясняется сложностью уровней организации живого и многомерностью системы взаимодействия биологических объектов друг с другом и с окружающей средой. Ключевые слова: научная парадигма, методология биологического познания, история естествознания, философия науки, познавательные модели, конкурен ция эвристических гипотез.

ISTORICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL BASES

OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND PERCEPTION OF DARWINISM AND ANTIDARWINISM Elena Muzrukova – doctor of sciences (biology), professor, heard of the Center of cociocultural problems of the history of science and technology of the Institute for the history of science and technology, the Russian Academy of Sciences.

The article considers different philosophical and methodological approaches in understanding the essence of the living, the approaches which reveal the dynamics of evolution. The authors analyze how different theoretical concepts (Darwinism and antidarwinism) conditioned various interpretations of the same facts in the study of cognitive models. The article shows how research of these models has led to the modern scientific ideas suggested by different scientists. These examples from the history of science clearly demonstrate the competition between numerous methodologies and heuristic hypotheses that exist in the field of different biological disciplines. The established variety is explained as a result of complexity of the organization of the life and multidimensional system of interaction of biological objects with each other and with the environment

184 Interdisciplinary Studies

ÈÑÒÎÐÈ×ÅÑÊÈÅ È ÌÅÒÎÄÎËÎÃÈ×ÅÑÊÈÅ ÎÑÍÎÂÀÍÈß…

Roman Fando – candidate of sciences (biology), leading researcher of the Institute for the history of science and technology, the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Key words: scientific paradigm, the methodology of biological cognition, the history of science, philosophy of science, cognitive models, competition of heuristic hypotheses.

 áèîëîãè÷åñêîé íàóêå íà ïðîòÿæåíèè åå äëèòåëüíîé èñòîðèè íàáëþäàëèñü êîíêóðåíöèÿ è ñìåíà ðàçëè÷íûõ ïàðàäèãì. Ñëîæíîñòü îáúåêòîâ æèâîé ïðèðîäû ñïîñîáñòâîâàëà çíà÷èòåëüíîìó óâåëè÷åíèþ ãèïîòåòè÷åñêèõ ïðåäñòàâëåíèé, îáúÿñíÿþùèõ îñîáåííîñòè ñòðîåíèÿ è ôóíêöèîíèðîâàíèÿ ðàçëè÷íûõ ñèñòåì îðãàíèçìîâ, èõ ýêîëîãè÷åñêèå è ýâîëþöèîííûå õàðàêòåðèñòèêè, ìåõàíèçì èíäèâèäóàëüíîãî ðàçâèòèÿ è îïðåäåëÿþùèå åãî ôàêòîðû. Òàêîå ïîëîæåíèå äåë ïîçâîëèëî áèîëîãèè èçáåæàòü ìîíîïîëèçìà êàêîé-ëèáî åäèíîé îáùåïðèçíàííîé íàó÷íîé ïàðàäèãìû. Îäíîé èç ñàìûõ ðàñïðîñòðàíåííûõ êîíöåïöèé áèîëîãèè ñòàëà òåîðèÿ ïðîèñõîæäåíèÿ âèäîâ íà îñíîâå åñòåñòâåííîãî îòáîðà, ñôîðìóëèðîâàííàÿ ×àðëüçîì Äàðâèíîì (Charles Darwin) è Àëüôðåäîì Óîëëåñîì (Alfred Wallace) íåçàâèñèìî äðóã îò äðóãà. Ýòó òåîðèþ âåðíûé ïîñëåäîâàòåëü Äàðâèíà Ò. Ãåêñëè (Thomas Huxley) â ðåöåíçèè íà êíèãó Äàðâèíà «Ïðîèñõîæäåíèå âèäîâ ïóòåì åñòåñòâåííîãî îòáîðà, èëè Ñîõðàíåíèå áëàãîïðèÿòíûõ ðàñ â áîðüáå çà æèçíü» (1859) íàçâàë äàðâèíèçìîì. Îñíîâíîé çàñëóãîé äàðâèíèçìà ñòàëî âñêðûòèå äâèæóùèõ ôàêòîðîâ ýâîëþöèè. Èçâåñòíî, ÷òî æèâûå îðãàíèçìû èìåþò îãðîìíûé ïîòåíöèàë äëÿ çíà÷èòåëüíîãî óâåëè÷åíèÿ ñâîåé ÷èñëåííîñòè, ÷òî â êîíå÷íîì èòîãå äîëæíî ïðèâåñòè ê ïåðåíàñåëåíèþ è êîíêóðåíöèè çà ðåñóðñû.  ðåçóëüòàòå îãðàíè÷åííîñòè ïðèðîäíûõ ðåñóðñîâ ìåæäó îñîáÿìè âîçíèêàåò áîðüáà çà ñóùåñòâîâàíèå – ìåæäó ïðåäñòàâèòåëÿìè êàê ñâîåãî âèäà, òàê è äðóãèõ âèäîâ, íàõîäÿùèõñÿ â êîíêóðåíòíûõ îòíîøåíèÿõ çà ïèùó è òåððèòîðèþ. Åñòåñòâåííûé îòáîð, â èíòåðïðåòàöèè Äàðâèíà, äåéñòâóåò íà ñîõðàíåíèå íàèáîëåå ïðèñïîñîáëåííûõ ê êîíêðåòíûì óñëîâèÿì îáèòàíèÿ ãðóïï îðãàíèçìîâ, ýëèìèíèðóÿ «ñëàáûå» ñ ýâîëþöèîííîé òî÷êè çðåíèÿ îñîáè. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ýâîëþöèîííûé ïðîöåññ ìîæíî òðàêòîâàòü êàê ñåðèþ ïðèñïîñîáëåíèé, êàæäîå èç êîòîðûõ âèäû ïðèîáðåòàþò èëè òåðÿþò ïîä äàâëåíèåì îòáîðà íà ïðîòÿæåíèè äëèòåëüíîãî âðåìåíè. Åñòåñòâåííûé îòáîð ñïîñîáñòâîâàë, ïî ìíåíèþ Äàðâèíà, ïîÿâëåíèþ íîâûõ ïðèçíàêîâ, ÷òî â äàëüíåéøåì äîëæíî áûëî ïðèâåñ-

185

Å.Á. ÌÓÇÐÓÊÎÂÀ, Ð.À. ÔÀÍÄÎ

òè ê ïîÿâëåíèþ íàñëåäñòâåííîé èçìåí÷èâîñòè è äèâåðãåíöèè ðàçëè÷íûõ ïðèçíàêîâ. Ýòîò ôàêòîð ïîçâîëèë åìó îáúÿñíèòü ïðîèñõîæäåíèå íîâûõ âèäîâ. Íå îñòàâèë áåç âíèìàíèÿ Äàðâèí è âîïðîñ î ïðîèñõîæäåíèè ÷åëîâåêà, õîòÿ â ýòîì áîëåå óñïåøíûìè áûëè åãî ïîñëåäîâàòåëè: Ò. Ãåêñëè è Ý. Ãåêêåëü (Ernst Haeckel). Äëÿ ìíîãèõ áèîëîãîâ ñåðüåçíûì âûçîâîì ñòàëî óòâåðæäåíèå î æèâîòíîì íà÷àëå ÷åëîâåêà. Êðîìå àíàòîìî-ìîðôîëîãè÷åñêèõ, ýìáðèîëîãè÷åñêèõ è ôèçèîëîãè÷åñêèõ ïðèçíàêîâ ñõîäñòâà ÷åëîâåêà è æèâîòíûõ Äàðâèí ïîñòóëèðîâàë îáùíîñòü èõ ïðîèñõîæäåíèÿ, åäèíñòâî äëÿ íèõ çàêîíîâ ýâîëþöèîííîãî ðàçâèòèÿ.  ñâîåé êíèãå «Ïðîèñõîæäåíèå ÷åëîâåêà è ïîëîâîé îòáîð» (1871) îí ïèñàë: «Ìû âèäåëè, ÷òî ÷åëîâåê èçìåíÿåòñÿ è ôèçè÷åñêè, è óìñòâåííî è ÷òî èçìåíåíèÿ âûçûâàþòñÿ, ïðÿìî èëè êîñâåííî, òåìè æå ñàìûìè îáùèìè ïðè÷èíàìè è ïîä÷èíåíû òåì æå ñàìûì îáùèì çàêîíàì, êàê è ó íèçøèõ æèâîòíûõ» [Äàðâèí, 1953: 171]. Ïðîáëåìà íàñëåäîâàíèÿ èçìåíåíèé áûëà êëþ÷åâîé äëÿ ñóäüáû äàðâèíîâñêîé òåîðèè. Âî âðåìåíà Äàðâèíà ãîñïîäñòâîâàëè ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ î ñëèòíîé íàñëåäñòâåííîñòè. Íàñëåäñòâåííîñòü îáúÿñíÿëàñü ñëèÿíèåì «êðîâè» ïðåäêîâûõ ôîðì. «Êðîâè» ðîäèòåëåé ñìåøèâàþòñÿ, äàâàÿ ïîòîìñòâî ñ ïðîìåæóòî÷íûìè ïðèçíàêàìè. Äàðâèí, ðàçâèâàÿ ñâîþ òåîðèþ èçìåí÷èâîñòè, óêàçûâàë íà ðàçëè÷èÿ ëþäåé ðàçëè÷íûõ ðàñ ïî ñòðîåíèþ âîëîñ, îòíîñèòåëüíûì ïðîïîðöèÿì âñåõ ÷àñòåé òåëà, åìêîñòè ëåãêèõ, îáúåìà è ôîðìû ÷åðåïà. Ïî åãî ìíåíèþ, ðàñû òàêæå îòëè÷àþòñÿ ïî ñïîñîáíîñòè ê àêêëèìàòèçàöèè è ñêëîííîñòè ê ðàçëè÷íûì áîëåçíÿì. Äàðâèíèçì íà ìíîãèå äåñÿòèëåòèÿ ïðèîáðåë íåáûâàëóþ ïîïóëÿðíîñòü â ðàçëè÷íûõ åñòåñòâåííî-íàó÷íûõ îáëàñòÿõ, ñîâåðøèâ ïîäîáèå êîïåðíèêàíñêîé ðåâîëþöèè. Áûëè â çíà÷èòåëüíîé ñòåïåíè ïåðåñìîòðåíû ïðåæíèå ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ î ïðèðîäå. Ý.È. Êîë÷èíñêèé îòìå÷àåò, ÷òî óñïåõ äàðâèíèçìà áûë îáóñëîâëåí øèðîêèì ñèíòåçîì ðàçëè÷íûõ ñâåäåíèé è ôàêòîâ èç ðàçëè÷íûõ áèîëîãè÷åñêèõ îáëàñòåé, ïîäòâåðæäàâøèõ âûäâèíóòóþ êîíöåïöèþ åñòåñòâåííîãî îòáîðà [Êîë÷èíñêèé, 2012: 7]. Êðîìå òîãî, çàêîíîìåðíîñòè ïðèðîäû, ðàñêðûòûå Äàðâèíîì â åãî òåîðèè, îêàçàëèñü äîñòàòî÷íî ïðîñòûìè äëÿ ïîíèìàíèÿ è ðàñïðîñòðàíåíèÿ ñðåäè ñïåöèàëèñòîâ åñòåñòâåííûõ è ãóìàíèòàðíûõ äèñöèïëèí [Ðåàëå, Àíòèñåðè, 1997], ÷òî áûëî ñâÿçàíî ñ åå ñîöèàëüíî-ýêîíîìè÷åñêèìè çàèìñòâîâàíèÿìè è ìåòàôîðè÷íîñòüþ åå ñàìûõ êëþ÷åâûõ ïîíÿòèé [×àéêîâñêèé, 1990]. Îäíàêî Äàðâèí íå ñìîã ñîçäàòü òåîðèþ ìàêðîýâîëþöèè. Èì áûëà ïðåäëîæåíà êîíöåïöèÿ âèäîîáðàçîâàíèÿ, îñíîâàííàÿ íà äèâåðãåíöèè è ìåõàíèçìå äåéñòâèÿ åñòåñòâåííîãî îòáîðà. Ïðèíöèï ñëó÷àéíîñòè áûë èì ñôîðìóëèðîâàí òîëüêî ïî îòíîøåíèþ ê ìèêðîýâîëþöèè, çàêîíîìåðíîñòè êîòîðîé î÷åíü ÷àñòî ïåðåíîñÿò íà âåñü ýâîëþöèîííûé

186

ÈÑÒÎÐÈ×ÅÑÊÈÅ È ÌÅÒÎÄÎËÎÃÈ×ÅÑÊÈÅ ÎÑÍÎÂÀÍÈß…

ïðîöåññ â îñíîâíîì àäåïòû ãåíåòèêè ïîïóëÿöèé1. Âìåñòå ñ òåì Äàðâèí íå îòðèöàë ÿâëåíèÿ êîíâåðãåíöèè2 â èñòîðèè îðãàíè÷åñêîãî ìèðà, à îò ââåäåííîãî èì óìîçðèòåëüíîãî ïîíÿòèÿ åñòåcòâåííîãî îòáîðà âïîñëåäñòâèè îòêàçàëñÿ [×àéêîâñêèé, 2008]. Äàðâèíèçì ñûãðàë â ôèëîñîôèè è ìåòîäîëîãèè ïîçíàíèÿ îãðîìíóþ ðîëü. Ñîãëàñíî âûäâèíóòîé Ý. Ìàéðîì (Ernst Mayr) è Ì. Ðüþçîì (Michael Ruse) êîíöåïöèè, óñïåõ äàðâèíèçìà ìîæíî îáúÿñíèòü ñìåíîé çàïàäíîé èíòåëëåêòóàëüíîé òðàäèöèè, øåäøåé îò äðåâíåãðå÷åñêîé ôèëîñîôèè è ñðåäíåâåêîâîãî ðåàëèçìà, êîòîðóþ ïðèíÿòî íàçûâàòü ýññåíöèàëèçì, èëè òèïîëîãèçì. Òèïîëîãè÷åñêîå ìûøëåíèå ïûòàëîñü êëàññèôèöèðîâàòü ïðèðîäó ñ ïîìîùüþ ðàçëè÷íûõ êàòåãîðèé. Îïðåäåëÿÿ ðàçëè÷íûå òèïîëîãèè æèâûõ îáúåêòîâ è ÿâëåíèé ïðèðîäû, èññëåäîâàòåëè ñ÷èòàëè èõ îïðåäåëåííûìè ñóùíîñòÿìè (ýéäîñàìè) è «íàêëåèâàëè» íà íèõ ñâîåîáðàçíûå «ÿðëûêè». Òèïîëîãèçì ïîñòóëèðîâàë íåâîçìîæíîñòü ïîñòåïåííîé ýâîëþöèè è ïåðåõîäà èç îäíîé ôîðìû â äðóãóþ, ñ÷èòàÿ âñå èçìåíåíèÿ ëèøü èëëþçèåé è àáñòðàêöèåé. Íà ñìåíó òèïîëîãèçìó ïðèøåë ïîïóëÿöèîíèçì, ïîñòóëèðóþùèé ðåàëüíîñòü ýâîëþöèè è èëëþçîðíîñòü ýéäîñîâ. Ïîïóëÿöèîííîå ìûøëåíèå îòîøëî îò öåëîñòíîñòè è íåèçìåííîñòè îðãàíèçìîâ, êîðåííûì îáðàçîì èçìåíèâ ïðåäñòàâëåíèå î ñòðóêòóðå îðãàíè÷åñêîãî ìèðà è ìåõàíèçìàõ ýâîëþöèè. «Äîêàçàâ åäèíñòâî ìèðà, Äàðâèí òåì ñàìûì äîêàçàë è óñëîâíîñòü àâòîíîìíîñòè æèçíåííûõ ïðîöåññîâ», – ïîä÷åðêèâàë È.È. Àãîë [Àãîë, 2013: 121]. Îäíàêî äàííûå ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ âûçâàëè è âûçûâàþò ìàññó ñïîðîâ. Â.È. Íàçàðîâ ñ÷èòàë, ÷òî ñàì Äàðâèí íå ñîâñåì èçáàâèëñÿ îò îðãàíèçìîöåíòðè÷åñêîãî (òèïîëîãè÷åñêîãî) ïîäõîäà.  ñôîðìóëèðîâàííîé äàðâèíîâñêîé êîíöåïöèè åñòåñòâåííîãî îòáîðà ÷àñòî èñïîëüçóþòñÿ ïîíÿòèÿ «èíäèâèä», «îðãàíèçì», «æèâîòíîå», ÷òî óêàçûâàåò íà âàæíîñòü îòäåëüíîé îñîáè â ýâîëþöèîííîì ïðîöåññå. Èìåííî ñî÷åòàíèå â äàðâèíèçìå îðãàíèçìîöåíòðè÷åñêîãî è ïîïóëÿöèîííîãî ïîäõîäîâ ïîçâîëèëî óñòàíîâèòü äâóñòîðîííþþ ñâÿçü ìåæäó ïðîöåññàìè èíäèâèäóàëüíîãî è èñòîðè÷åñêîãî ðàçâèòèÿ [Íàçàðîâ, 2005]. Ðàçðàáîòêà àëüòåðíàòèâíûõ ãèïîòåç, ò.å. æèâîé íàó÷íûé ïîèñê íîâîãî, çàñòàâëÿþò íàñ âñïîìíèòü ðàáîòû Ï. Ôåéåðàáåíäà (Paul Feyerabend). Ðàññìîòðèì åãî îñíîâíûå èäåè ïî ôîðìóëèðîâêàì â ðàáîòàõ «Ïðîòèâ ìåòîäîëîãè÷åñêîãî ïðèíóæäåíèÿ» [Feyerabend, 1975] è «Íàóêà â ñâîáîäíîì îáùåñòâå» [Feyerabend, 1978]. Êàê èçáåæàòü äîãìàòèçìà è çàñòîÿ â íàóêå? Ïî Ôåéåðàáåíäó, îòâåò ïðîñò: óñòðàíèòü èõ ïðè÷èíó – îòñóòñòâèå ñîïåðíè÷åñòâà òåîðèé. Íî ÷òî äåëàòü, åñëè 1 Ãåíåòèêà ïîïóëÿöèé (ñèíîíèì – ïîïóëÿöèîííàÿ ãåíåòèêà) – ðàçäåë ãåíåòèêè, èçó÷àþùèé ãåíû, èõ èçìåíåíèå â ïðîñòðàíñòâå è âî âðåìåíè ó îñîáåé ïîïóëÿöèè, ÿâëÿþùèõñÿ ïðåäñòàâèòåëÿìè îäíîãî âèäà, äîñòàòî÷íî äëèòåëüíîå âðåìÿ çàíèìàþùèõ îïðåäåëåííóþ òåððèòîðèþ è îòíîñèòåëüíî èçîëèðîâàííûõ îò äðóãèõ ïîïóëÿöèé. 2 Êîíâåðãåíöèÿ – ñõîæäåíèå ïðèçíàêîâ â ïðîöåññå ýâîëþöèè íåáëèçêîðîäñòâåííûõ ãðóïï îðãàíèçìîâ, ïðèîáðåòåíèå èìè ñõîäíîãî ñòðîåíèÿ â ðåçóëüòàòå ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ â ñõîäíûõ óñëîâèÿõ è îäèíàêîâî íàïðàâëåííîãî åñòåñòâåííîãî îòáîðà.

187

Å.Á. ÌÓÇÐÓÊÎÂÀ, Ð.À. ÔÀÍÄÎ

ó ñóùåñòâóþùåé è ïðèçíàííîé òåîðèè ïîêà íåò ñîïåðíèö? Íå æäàòü ïîÿâëåíèÿ ñîïåðíèöû, à êîíñòðóèðîâàòü íîâóþ òåîðèþ, èìåþùóþ, åñëè âîñïîëüçîâàòüñÿ òåðìèíîì È. Ëàêàòîñà (Imre Lakatos), ïðèíöèïèàëüíî èíîå òâåðäîå ÿäðî. È ÷åì áîëåå óáåäèòåëüíà ñóùåñòâóþùàÿ òåîðèÿ, òåì îñòðåå íóæäà â òåîðèè àëüòåðíàòèâíîé. Òðåáîâàíèå êîíñòðóèðîâàíèÿ àëüòåðíàòèâíîé òåîðèè îáîçíà÷àåòñÿ Ôåéåðàáåíäîì êàê ïðèíöèï ïðîëèôåðàöèè. Ïðîëèôåðàöèÿ îñóùåñòâëÿåòñÿ ïóòåì èçîáðåòåíèÿ íîâîé êîíöåïòóàëüíîé ñèñòåìû, íàïðèìåð íîâîé òåîðèè, êîòîðàÿ íåñîâìåñòèìà ñ òùàòåëüíî îáîñíîâàííûìè ðåçóëüòàòàìè íàáëþäåíèÿ è íàðóøàåò íàèáîëåå ïðàâäîïîäîáíûå òåîðåòè÷åñêèå ïðèíöèïû. Íà÷èíàÿ ñî âòîðîé ïîëîâèíû XIX â. è äî íàñòîÿùåãî âðåìåíè íå óòèõàþò ñïîðû ìåæäó ñòîðîííèêàìè è ïðîòèâíèêàìè ó÷åíèÿ Äàðâèíà. Ïîñëåäîâàòåëÿìè èäåé äàðâèíèçìà ñòàëè âûäàþùèåñÿ ó÷åíûå èç ðàçíûõ ñòðàí: àíãëè÷àíèí Òîìàñ Ãåêñëè, àìåðèêàíåö Àçà Ãðåé (Asa Gray), íåìåö Ýðíñò Ãåêêåëü, èòàëüÿíåö Äæîâàííè Êàíåñòðèíè (Giovanni Canestrini) è ìíîãèå äðóãèå. Ñ âûõîäîì êíèãè Äàðâèíà «Ïðîèñõîæäåíèå âèäîâ» èäåÿ ýâîëþöèè ðàçâåí÷àëà ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ î íåèçìåííîñòè ïðèðîäû. Äàðâèíèçì áåçîãîâîðî÷íî ñòàë çàíèìàòü ëèäèðóþùèå ïîçèöèè â åñòåñòâîçíàíèè è ïðîíèêàòü â óìû ëèáåðàëüíîé îáùåñòâåííîñòè. Ó÷åíèå î åñòåñòâåííîì îòáîðå íå âñåãäà ïðèíèìàëîñü áåçîãîâîðî÷íî, îíî ïðåòåðïåâàëî òðàíñôîðìàöèþ â çàâèñèìîñòè îò ðàçëè÷íûõ êîãíèòèâíûõ è ñîöèîêóëüòóðíûõ ïðåäïîñûëîê. Í.Í. Âîðîíöîâ îòìå÷àåò, ÷òî ê êîíöó XIX â. â äàðâèíèçìå âûäåëèëèñü òðè òå÷åíèÿ: îðòîäîêñàëüíûé äàðâèíèçì, ïðèçíàâàâøèé îòáîð åäèíñòâåííûì ôîðìèðóþùèì ôàêòîðîì ñðåäû; «ãåêêåëåâñêèé äàðâèíèçì», ïîñòóëèðóþùèé ñóùåñòâîâàíèå îòáîðà è íàñëåäîâàíèå ïðèîáðåòåííûõ ïðèçíàêîâ â êà÷åñòâå äâèæóùèõ ôàêòîðîâ ýâîëþöèè; íåîäàðâèíèçì, èëè âåéñìàíèçì, îïðîâåðãàâøèé ëàìàðêîâñêèå ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ îá óïðàæíåíèè è íåóïðàæíåíèè îðãàíîâ è ïåðåäà÷å âîçíèêøèõ â òå÷åíèå èíäèâèäóàëüíîãî ðàçâèòèÿ ïðèçíàêîâ [Âîðîíöîâ, 1999]. Äàííûå òå÷åíèÿ âîçíèêëè â ñâÿçè ñ äèôôåðåíöèàöèåé âçãëÿäîâ âíóòðè ñîîáùåñòâà äàðâèíèñòîâ, òåì íå ìåíåå ãëàâíûì âî âñåõ ïîäîáíûõ êîíöåïöèÿõ îñòàâàëîñü ïðèçíàíèå ðîëè åñòåñòâåííîãî îòáîðà â ýâîëþöèîííîì ïðîöåññå. Â.È. Íàçàðîâ â ñâîåì îðèãèíàëüíîì òðóäå, ïîñâÿùåííîì îöåíêå äàðâèíîâñêîé êîíöåïöèè è åå àëüòåðíàòèâ, ïèñàë: «Â íàøè äíè ñóùåñòâîâàíèå åñòåñòâåííîãî îòáîðà â ïðèðîäå íèêòî íå ñòàâèò ïîä ñîìíåíèå. Îí ïî-ïðåæíåìó ñîõðàíÿåò çà ñîáîé ðîëü âåäóùåãî íàïðàâëÿþùåãî ôàêòîðà â ïîïóëÿöèîííûõ ïðîöåññàõ. Íî â ñâÿçè ñ òåì ÷òî çíà÷åíèå ïîñëåäíèõ äëÿ ýâîëþöèè ïîäâåðãëîñü ïåðåîöåíêå, èñòèííàÿ ðîëü åñòåñòâåííî îòáîðà â ýâîëþöèè îêàçàëàñü ìíîãî ñêðîìíåå, ÷åì áûëà â “çðåëîé” òåîðèè Äàðâèíà, èçëîæåííîé â “Ïðîèñõîæäåíèè âèäîâ”» [Íàçàðîâ, 2005: 29]. Ïðèçíàâàÿ ðåàëüíîñòü ýâîëþöèîííûõ ïðîöåññîâ â ïðèðîäå, ðÿä âûäàþùèõñÿ ó÷åíûõ ïîäâåðã êðèòèêå äàðâèíîâñêîå ó÷åíèå î ðîëè åñ-

188

ÈÑÒÎÐÈ×ÅÑÊÈÅ È ÌÅÒÎÄÎËÎÃÈ×ÅÑÊÈÅ ÎÑÍÎÂÀÍÈß…

òåñòâåííîãî îòáîðà â îáðàçîâàíèè íîâûõ âèäîâ è áîëåå êðóïíûõ ñèñòåìàòè÷åñêèõ åäèíèö. Îäíèì èç ñàìûõ íåïðåîäîëèìûõ äëÿ Äàðâèíà ñòàëî âîçðàæåíèå øîòëàíäñêîãî èíæåíåðà è ìàòåìàòèêà Ôëåìèíãà Äæåíêèíà (Fleeming Jenkin).  1867 ã. Ô. Äæåíêèí ñ ïîìîùüþ àëãåáðàè÷åñêèõ ðàñ÷åòîâ äîêàçàë, ÷òî âñÿêîå ðåçêîå óêëîíåíèå ÿâëÿåòñÿ âñåãäà èëè â åäèíè÷íîì, èëè â î÷åíü îãðàíè÷åííîì ÷èñëå ýêçåìïëÿðîâ è ïîòîìó íå èìååò øàíñîâ íà ñîõðàíåíèå. Îí ðàññóæäàë, ÷òî, åñëè èçâåñòíûì ïðèçíàêîì n îáëàäàåò îäèí èç ðîäèòåëåé, òî ó èõ äåòåé áóäåò n/2 ýòîãî ïðèçíàêà, ó âíóêîâ – n/4 è ò.ä. â áûñòðî óìåíüøàþùåéñÿ ïðîãðåññèè. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, äàííûé ïðèçíàê îáðå÷åí íà èñ÷åçíîâåíèå è íå ìîæåò ïîñëóæèòü ìàòåðèàëîì äëÿ åñòåñòâåííîãî îòáîðà. Âî âðåìåíà Äàðâèíà åùå íå ñóùåñòâîâàëî äîêàçàòåëüñòâ ìàòåðèàëüíûõ îñíîâ íàñëåäñòâåííîñòè è íå áûëè âñêðûòû ìåõàíèçìû ïåðåäà÷è ãåíåòè÷åñêîé èíôîðìàöèè. Òåì íå ìåíåå Äàðâèí áåç òðóäà ìîã áû ðåøèòü ïðîáëåìó, êîòîðóþ îí íàçâàë «êîøìàð Äæåíêèíà», åñëè áû îçíàêîìèëñÿ ñ èòîãàìè ìíîãîëåòíèõ èññëåäîâàíèé ñâîåãî ñîâðåìåííèêà, îñíîâàòåëÿ ïðèíöèïèàëüíî íîâîãî ïîäõîäà ê ãåíåòèêå Èîãàííà Ãðåãîðà Ìåíäåëÿ (Gregor Mendel). Íî òàê êàê ýòîãî íå ïðîèçîøëî, äîñòàòî÷íî äîëãîå âðåìÿ ãåíåòèêà è äàðâèíèçì ðàçâèâàëèñü îáîñîáëåííî è ïðåäñòàâèòåëè ýòèõ íàóê íå íàõîäèëè îáùåãî ÿçûêà. «Ó÷åíèå îá èçìåí÷èâîñòè è âñÿ ñîâðåìåííàÿ ãåíåòèêà, ÷àñòüþ êîòîðîé îíî ÿâëÿåòñÿ, îòíþäü íå ñâÿçàíû íåðàçðûâíûì îáðàçîì ñ ýâîëþöèîííûì ó÷åíèåì… Ãåíåòèê ìîæåò ñïîêîéíî ðàçðàáàòûâàòü ñâîþ îáëàñòü, äàæå íå âñïîìèíàÿ îá ýâîëþöèè… Âïîëíå ìûñëèìà ïîçèöèÿ ãåíåòèêà, ÿâëÿþùåãîñÿ ãëóáîêèì àãíîñòèêîì â âîïðîñàõ ýâîëþöèè», – ïèñàë èçâåñòíûé ðîññèéñêèé ãåíåòèê Þ.À. Ôèëèï÷åíêî [Ôèëèï÷åíêî, 1929: 249–250]. Äðóãèìè ñåðüåçíûìè îïïîíåíòàìè Äàðâèíà ñòàëè åãî ñîâðåìåííèêè – íåìåöêèé áîòàíèê Àëüáåðò Âèãàíä (Albert Wigand) è ðóññêèé çîîëîã Í.ß. Äàíèëåâñêèé. Âèãàíä ñ÷èòàë äàðâèíèçì íåñîñòîÿòåëüíûì ïî ïðè÷èíå óêëîíåíèÿ åãî ñîçäàòåëÿ îò òðåáîâàíèé ïîçèòèâíîé íàóêè, êîòîðîé ñëåäîâàëè È. Íüþòîí è Æ. Êþâüå. Îí ãîâîðèë î íåâîçìîæíîñòè ñðàâíåíèÿ èñêóññòâåííîãî îòáîðà ñ åñòåñòâåííûì, ñ÷èòàÿ, ÷òî èõ ðîëü ñëèøêîì ïðåóâåëè÷åíà Äàðâèíîì. Äàíèëåâñêèé âòîðèë Âèãàíäó, ïîëàãàÿ, ÷òî èçìåíåíèÿ ó äîìàøíèõ ôîðì íå ìîãóò ñëóæèòü ïðèìåðàìè äëÿ ïîíèìàíèÿ ïðîöåññîâ âèäîîáðàçîâàíèÿ, òàê êàê åùå íè îäíîìó ñåëåêöèîíåðó íå óäàâàëîñü ñàìîñòîÿòåëüíî ïîëó÷àòü íîâûå âèäû ðàñòåíèé è æèâîòíûõ, íàîáîðîò, â ñëó÷àå îäè÷àíèÿ ñåëüñêîõîçÿéñòâåííûõ ïîðîä è ñîðòîâ íàáëþäàëîñü èõ âîçâðàùåíèå ê äèêîìó òèïó. Âûäâèíóòàÿ Äàðâèíîì èäåÿ î ðàçíîâèäíîñòÿõ êàê çàðîæäàþùèõñÿ íîâûõ âèäàõ òîæå íå íàøëà ïîäòâåðæäåíèÿ ïîñëå àíàëèçà îãðîìíîãî ôàêòè÷åñêîãî ìàòåðèàëà, ñîáðàííîãî â ðàçëè÷íûõ ðåãèîíàõ ïëàíåòû. Òå èçìåíåíèÿ, êîòîðûå íàêàïëèâàþòñÿ â ïðåäåëàõ ïîïóëÿöèé,

189

Å.Á. ÌÓÇÐÓÊÎÂÀ, Ð.À. ÔÀÍÄÎ

íå âñåãäà íîñÿò ïðèñïîñîáèòåëüíûé õàðàêòåð. Òåîðèÿ Äàðâèíà âîîáùå íå àêöåíòèðóåò âíèìàíèÿ íà áåñïîëåçíûõ ïðèçíàêàõ, õîòÿ îíè ïîðîé âûçûâàþò îòëè÷èòåëüíûå îñîáåííîñòè áëèçêèõ âèäîâ è ðîäîâ. Âèãàíä âïåðâûå ñòàë êðèòèêîâàòü äàðâèíèçì çà íåïðàâèëüíîå ïîíèìàíèå ìåõàíèçìîâ îáðàçîâàíèÿ íàäâèäîâûõ òàêñîíîìè÷åñêèõ åäèíèö, ñ÷èòàÿ, ÷òî êàòåãîðèè âèäà, ðîäà, ñåìåéñòâà è êëàññà îòëè÷àþòñÿ êà÷åñòâåííûìè îðãàíèçàöèîííûìè ïðèçíàêàìè è õàðàêòåðèñòèêàìè. Êîíôëèêò ðàçëè÷íûõ ïîíèìàíèé ýâîëþöèîííîé òåîðèè ñ äàðâèíèçìîì ñïîñîáñòâîâàë óêîðåíåíèþ â ïðîôåññèîíàëüíîì ñîîáùåñòâå òåðìèíà «àíòèäàðâèíèçì», êîòîðûì îáîçíà÷àëè ñîâîêóïíîñòü òå÷åíèé, îïðîâåðãàþùèõ äîãìàò î âåäóùåé ðîëè åñòåñòâåííîãî îòáîðà â âèäîâîé è íàäâèäîâîé ýâîëþöèè. Ñðåäè ñàìûõ ðàííèõ ðàñïðîñòðàíåííûõ íåäàðâèíîâñêèõ êîíöåïöèé, çàðîäèâøèõñÿ åùå â XIX â., âûäåëÿþò ñàëüòàöèîíèçì, ôèíàëèçì è íåîëàìàðêèçì. Ñîçäàòåëü õðîìîñîìíîé òåîðèè Ò.Õ. Ìîðãàí (Thomas Morgan) òàêæå íå áûë ñîãëàñåí ñ äàðâèíîâñêîé òåîðèåé åñòåñòâåííîãî îòáîðà, çà ÷òî íîäíîêðàòíî ïîäâåðãàëñÿ êðèòèêå, äàæå ñî ñòîðîíû ñâîèõ ó÷åíèêîâ. Íàèáîëåå îáùåå åãî âîçðàæåíèå ïðîòèâ òåîðèè Äàðâèíà êàñàëîñü òèïà èçìåí÷èâîñòè. Ìîðãàí ñ÷èòàë, ÷òî îòáîð äåéñòâóåò ëèøü íà ïðåðûâèñòóþ èçìåí÷èâîñòü3.  äàííîì ñëó÷àå îí ðàçäåëÿë òî÷êó çðåíèÿ Ó. Áýòñîíà (William Bateson). Ïî ìíåíèþ Ìîðãàíà, Äàðâèí ñëèøêîì áîëüøîå çíà÷åíèå ïðèäàâàë íåîïðåäåëåííîé èçìåí÷èâîñòè4 êàê îñíîâå åñòåñòâåííîãî îòáîðà, èñïîëüçóÿ ïðè ýòîì ëàìàðêîâñêèå ïðèíöèïû.  öåëîì Ìîðãàí óòâåðäèëñÿ âî ìíåíèè, ÷òî òåîðèÿ åñòåñòâåííîãî îòáîðà íå ìîæåò àäåêâàòíî îáúÿñíèòü ìåõàíèçì ïðèñïîñîáëåííîñòè (àäàïòàöèè) [Ìóçðóêîâà, 2002]. Îñîáîå âíèìàíèå Ìîðãàí óäåëèë äîêàçàòåëüñòâàì èç îáëàñòè ýìáðèîëîãèè [Morgan, 1932]. Îí îòìåòèë, ÷òî â òå÷åíèå áîëåå ÷åì ïîëóâåêà áîëüøèíñòâî áèîëîãîâ ïîëàãàëî, ÷òî çàðîäûø ïîâòîðÿåò â ñâîåì ðàçâèòèè èñòîðèþ ýâîëþöèè ãðóïïû, ê êîòîðîé îí ïðèíàäëåæèò. Ýòî îáîáùåíèå, íàçâàííîå Ãåêêåëåì áèîãåíåòè÷åñêèì çàêîíîì, ìíîãî ëåò ñëóæèëî èñòî÷íèêîì âäîõíîâåíèÿ äëÿ øêîëû îïèñàòåëüíîé ýìáðèîëîãèè, ñ÷èòàâøåé, ÷òî ýâîëþöèÿ ïðîèñõîäèò ïóòåì íàäñòðîåê êîíå÷íûõ ñòàäèé ýìáðèîãåíåçà. Ñàì Ìîðãàí ïîëàãàë, ÷òî òðóäàìè Âåéñìàíà (August Weismann), Áýòñîíà è äå Ôðèçà (Hugo de Vries) áûëî ïîêàçàíî, ÷òî âîçíèêàþùèå íîâûå ïðèçíàêè íå ïðèìûêàþò íåïðåìåííî ê êîíöó, îíè êàê áû ïðèõî3 Ïðåðûâèñòàÿ èçìåí÷èâîñòü (ñèíîíèìû – äèñêðåòíàÿ èçìåí÷èâîñòü, êà÷åñòâåííàÿ èçìåí÷èâîñòü) – ðàçëè÷èÿ ìåæäó îñîáÿìè èëè ãðóïïàìè îñîáåé â ïîïóëÿöèè êàêîãî-ëèáî âèäà, êîòîðûå ÷åòêî âûðàæåíû è ïðåäñòàâëåíû îãðàíè÷åííûì ÷èñëîì âàðèàíòîâ (ðàçëè÷èÿ ïî ãðóïïàì êðîâè ó ÷åëîâåêà, ÷åðíàÿ è áåëàÿ îêðàñêà êðûëüåâ ó áåðåçîâîé ïÿäåíèöû). Ýòè ïðèçíàêè îáû÷íî êîíòðîëèðóþòñÿ îäíèì èëè äâóìÿ ãëàâíûìè ãåíàìè, ó êîòîðûõ ìîæåò áûòü äâà èëè íåñêîëüêî àëëåëåé, à âíåøíèå óñëîâèÿ ìàëî âëèÿþò íà èõ ôåíîòèïè÷åñêîå ïðîÿâëåíèå. 4 Íåîïðåäåëåííàÿ èçìåí÷èâîñòü (ñèíîíèì – èíäèâèäóàëüíàÿ èçìåí÷èâîñòü) – èçìåíåíèÿ â îðãàíèçìå, êîòîðûå ïðîèñõîäÿò â ñàìûõ ðàçëè÷íûõ íàïðàâëåíèÿõ è ïåðåäàþòñÿ ïî íàñëåäñòâó.

190

ÈÑÒÎÐÈ×ÅÑÊÈÅ È ÌÅÒÎÄÎËÎÃÈ×ÅÑÊÈÅ ÎÑÍÎÂÀÍÈß…

äÿò èçâíå ñ íîâûìè ìóòàöèÿìè. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, Ìîðãàíó áûë áëèçîê ñàëüòàöèîíèçì. Òåðìèíîì «ñàëüòàöèÿ» (îò ëàò. saltatio – ñêà÷îê, ïðûæîê) îáîçíà÷àþò ñêà÷êîîáðàçíîå èçìåíåíèå, ïðîèñõîäÿùåå ó îðãàíèçìîâ, à òàêæå âíåçàïíîå îáðàçîâàíèå íîâûõ ôîðì è òàêñîíîâ, ðåçêóþ ñìåíó áèîò â ãåîëîãè÷åñêîì ïðîøëîì. Ïîÿâëåíèå ñàëüòàöèîíèçìà ïðèøëîñü íà ïåðèîä ðàñöâåòà ýâîëþöèîííîé òåîðèè Äàðâèíà. Âçãëÿäû íà âíåçàïíîå îáðàçîâàíèå íîâûõ ôîðì ÿâëÿëèñü ñâîåãî ðîäà àíòèïîäîì ãðàäóàëèñòè÷åñêîìó íàïðàâëåíèþ, ïîñòóëèðóþùåìó îáðàçîâàíèå íîâûõ ôîðì çà ñ÷åò äëèòåëüíîãî íàêîïëåíèÿ íåçíà÷èòåëüíûõ èçìåíåíèé è ïîääåðæèâàåìîìó îðòîäîêñàëüíûìè äàðâèíèñòàìè. Ïðåäïîñûëêàìè ñàëüòàöèîíèçìà ÿâèëîñü ñëåäóþùåå: îòñóòñòâèå â ïàëåîíòîëîãè÷åñêîé ëåòîïèñè ïåðåõîäíûõ ôîðì ìåæäó ðàçëè÷íûìè áëèçêèìè ôîðìàìè, ôàêòû, ñîçäàþùèå âïå÷àòëåíèå âíåçàïíîãî âûìèðàíèÿ ãðóïï â êîíöå ãåîëîãè÷åñêèõ ïåðèîäîâ è ñòîëü æå âíåçàïíîãî ïîÿâëåíèÿ íîâûõ ôîðì â èõ íà÷àëå, íåâîñïðèèì÷èâîñòü ê ïîïóëÿöèîííîìó ìûøëåíèþ è îïïîçèöèÿ äîãìàòè÷åñêèì ïðèíöèïàì äàðâèíèçìà [Íàçàðîâ, 2005]. Ñðåäè ó÷åíûõ, çàíèìàâøèõñÿ ôèëîãåíèåé, ñïîñîáíûõ êðèòè÷åñêè âçãëÿíóòü íà ïîñòóëàòû äàðâèíèçìà è îòëè÷àâøèõñÿ îòñóòñòâèåì îðòîäîêñàëüíîñòè ìûøëåíèÿ, ìîæíî íàçâàòü È.È. Ìå÷íèêîâà. Êàê íàñòîÿùèé åñòåñòâîèñïûòàòåëü Ìå÷íèêîâ ìîã íåîäíîêðàòíî ïåðåïðîâåðÿòü ñâîè ñîáñòâåííûå íàáëþäåíèÿ è íàáëþäåíèÿ, ïðîâåäåííûå äðóãèìè íàòóðàëèñòàìè. Îí ñîáðàë êîëëåêöèþ áåñêðûëûõ ôîðì íàñåêîìûõ îñòðîâà Ìàäåéðà, ãäå Äàðâèí â ñâîå âðåìÿ ïðîâåë ïîäîáíîå èññëåäîâàíèå, âûäâèíóâ èäåþ î òîì, ÷òî åñòåñòâåííûé îòáîð ñïîñîáñòâîâàë ðàñïðîñòðàíåíèþ íà îñòðîâàõ áåñêðûëîé ýíòîìîôàóíû. Ìå÷íèêîâ, ñäåëàâ íåîáõîäèìûå ïðîìåðû äëèíû êðûëüåâ óíåñåííûõ â ìîðå êðûëàòûõ íàñåêîìûõ è íàñåêîìûõ, îáèòàþùèõ â ãëóáèíå îñòðîâà, ïðèøåë ê âûâîäó: ðàçìåðû êðûëüåâ ïîãèáøèõ è âûæèâøèõ îñîáåé íå îòëè÷àþòñÿ, çíà÷èò, áåñêðûëîñòü ïîÿâèëàñü âíåçàïíî è ñêà÷êîîáðàçíî, à çàòåì çàêðåïèëàñü åñòåñòâåííûì îòáîðîì.  1909 ã. Ìå÷íèêîâ ïèñàë â ñòàòüå, ïîñâÿùåííîé ïîëóâåêîâîìó þáèëåþ äàðâèíèçìà: «Îðòîäîêñàëüíûå äàðâèíèñòû ïîääåðæèâàëè òåçèñ, ÷òî âèäû ìîãóò ðîæäàòüñÿ ëèøü â ðåçóëüòàòå î÷åíü ñëàáûõ èíäèâèäóàëüíûõ èçìåíåíèé, êàê óòâåðæäàë Äàðâèí… Åñëè ñëóøàòü îðòîäîêñîâ, òî íàóêà ñîâåðøåííî íå ïðîãðåññèðîâàëà ñî âðåìåí Äàðâèíà. Îäíàêî æå ñîâåðøåííî íåîñïîðèìûì ÿâëÿåòñÿ òîò ôàêò, ÷òî îðãàíèçìû, â çíà÷èòåëüíîé ñòåïåíè âàðüèðóþùèå, äî íåêîòîðîé ñòåïåíè ïîäòâåðæäàþò èçìåíåíèÿ, ïðîèçîøåäøèå âíåçàïíî, áåç ïðîìåæóòî÷íûõ ýòàïîâ» [öèò. ïî: Âîðîíöîâ, 1999: 371]. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, Ìå÷íèêîâ, ðàçâèâàÿ îñíîâíûå äàðâèíîâñêèå ïîëîæåíèÿ, âñåãäà ïîä÷åðêèâàë ñïîðíîñòü ìíîãèõ ïîñòóëàòîâ è íåçàêîí÷åííîñòü âûâîäîâ.

191

Å.Á. ÌÓÇÐÓÊÎÂÀ, Ð.À. ÔÀÍÄÎ

Èäåþ ñïîíòàííîãî âèäîîáðàçîâàíèÿ âûäâèãàë áîòàíèê Ñ.È. Êîðæèíñêèé â ñâîåé ðàáîòå «Ãåòåðîãåíåçèñ è ýâîëþöèÿ. Ê òåîðèè ïðîèñõîæäåíèÿ âèäîâ» (1899). Ïî ìíåíèþ Êîðæèíñêîãî, ïðîÿâëÿþùèåñÿ âíåçàïíûå îòêëîíåíèÿ ìîãóò äàâàòü íà÷àëî íîâûì ðàñàì. Âîçíèêøèå òàêñîíû îñòàþòñÿ îòíîñèòåëüíî íåèçìåííûìè, íî ìîãóò ïðîäóöèðîâàòü íîâûå ôîðìû çà ñ÷åò ñïîíòàííûõ èçìåíåíèé. Îòáîð îòñåêàåò íåêîòîðûå âàðèàöèè, íî íå ñïîñîáñòâóåò âîçíèêíîâåíèþ íîâûõ ôîðì. Çà íåäîîöåíêó ðîëè åñòåñòâåííîãî îòáîðà âçãëÿäû Êîðæèíñêîãî áûëè ïîäâåðãíóòû êðèòèêå ñî ñòîðîíû Ê.À. Òèìèðÿçåâà, ïîýòîìó ðàáîòû ó÷åíîãî ïî ñïîíòàííîìó âèäîîáðàçîâàíèþ áûëè äîëãîå âðåìÿ íåçàñëóæåííî çàáûòû. Òåîðèÿ ñïîíòàííîé ýâîëþöèè íàøëà ïîääåðæêó ñðåäè ïåðâûõ ãåíåòèêîâ, â òîì ÷èñëå â ðàáîòàõ ãîëëàíäöà Ãóãî äå Ôðèçà, îäíîãî èç ïåðåîòêðûâàòåëåé çàêîíîâ Ìåíäåëÿ. Îí ñôîðìóëèðîâàë ïîëîæåíèÿ ñàëüòàöèîííîé òåîðèè ýâîëþöèè, îïðîâåðãíóâ ðàñïðîñòðàíåííûå ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ Äàðâèíà îá îòñóòñòâèè ðåçêèõ ñêà÷êîâ â ïðèðîäå, íåïðåðûâíîñòè è íåîãðàíè÷åííîñòè èçìåí÷èâîñòè. Ïèîíåðñêèìè äëÿ ñâîåãî âðåìåíè áûëè âçãëÿäû äå Ôðèçà íà íåñòàáèëüíîñòü ãåíîâ. Ó÷åíûé îòìå÷àë, ÷òî ñàëüòàöèè èëè ìóòàöèè ïðèâîäÿò ê îáðàçîâàíèþ íîâûõ âèäîâ, ïðè÷åì ýòîò ïðîöåññ ïðîèñõîäèò íåçàâèñèìî îò åñòåñòâåííîãî îòáîðà. Ñóùåñòâîâàíèå åñòåñòâåííîãî îòáîðà îí íå îòðèöàë, íî çàìå÷àë, ÷òî äàííûé ìåõàíèçì íå îáðàçóåò â ïðèðîäå íîâûõ âèäîâ. Ãëàâíîå îòëè÷èå âèäîîáðàçîâàíèÿ, ïî äå Ôðèçó, çàêëþ÷àëîñü â ðåçêîì ñêà÷êîîáðàçíîì èçìåíåíèè íàñëåäñòâåííîãî ìàòåðèàëà â îòëè÷èå îò ìåäëåííîãî è ïîñòåïåííîãî âèäîîáðàçîâàíèÿ ïî Äàðâèíó. Òåì íå ìåíåå êîíöåïöèÿ ñàëüòàöèîíèçìà äå Ôðèçà íå òîëüêî êîíôëèêòîâàëà ñ ïîñòóëàòàìè òåîðèè åñòåñòâåííîãî îòáîðà.  íåé áûëè ìîìåíòû, ñîçâó÷íûå èäåÿì äàðâèíîâñêîãî ñåëåêòèçìà.  ýòèõ êîíöåïöèÿõ îáðàçîâàíèå âûñøèõ òàêñîíîâ ñâÿçûâàëîñü ñ ïîñòåïåííûì íàêîïëåíèåì èçìåíåíèé íà ïðîòÿæåíèè äëèòåëüíîãî ïåðèîäà âðåìåíè. Òîëüêî êðóïíûå ýâîëþöèîííûå øàãè, â ïîíèìàíèè äå Ôðèçà, ñêëàäûâàëèñü èç íàêîïëåííûõ ìóòàöèé. Îñíîâûâàÿñü íà ãåíåòè÷åñêîì ìàòåðèàëå, êîíöåïöèÿ ñàëüòàöèîíèçìà äå Ôðèçà íîñèëà â öåëîì àíòèäàðâèíèñòñêèé õàðàêòåð è íå ñëó÷àéíî áûëà íàçâàíà Ê.Ì. Çàâàäñêèì «ãåíåòè÷åñêèì àíòèäàðâèíèçìîì» [Çàâàäñêèé, 1973]. Èäåÿ ñòîõàñòè÷åñêîé ýâîëþöèè, íå ïîääàþùåéñÿ îáúÿñíåíèþ ñ ïîçèöèè îòáîðà íàèáîëåå ïðèñïîñîáëåííûõ ïðèçíàêîâ, íå ïîòåðÿëà àêòóàëüíîñòè è â íàøå âðåìÿ. Âîñòðåáîâàííûìè îêàçàëèñü è ìíîãèå äðóãèå èäåè äå Ôðèçà. «Áóäó÷è áåñïðèñòðàñòíûì è áëåñòÿùèì èññëåäîâàòåëåì, íàäåëåííûì áîëüøîé íàó÷íîé èíòóèöèåé, äå Ôðèç âûñêàçàë òðè êàðäèíàëüíûõ ïîëîæåíèÿ, ñîñòàâèâøèõ ÿäðî ñîâðåìåííîé òåîðèè ïðåðûâèñòîãî ðàâíîâåñèÿ è íàõîäÿùèõñÿ ñåé÷àñ â ôîêóñå îñòðûõ äèñêóññèé. Ê íèì îòíîñÿòñÿ: èäåÿ ïåðèîäè÷íîñòè ìóòèðîâàíèÿ è ýêñïëîçèâíîñòè âèäîîáðàçîâàíèÿ, îò-

192

ÈÑÒÎÐÈ×ÅÑÊÈÅ È ÌÅÒÎÄÎËÎÃÈ×ÅÑÊÈÅ ÎÑÍÎÂÀÍÈß…

ðèöàíèå âíóòðèâèäîâîé áîðüáû è ïðèçíàíèå ìàêðîýâîëþöèîííîé ðîëè ìåæâèäîâîé áîðüáû, ïîëîæåíèå îá îáðàçîâàíèè áîëüøèíñòâà íîâûõ âèäîâ çà ñ÷åò áîêîâûõ îòâåòâëåíèé» [Íàçàðîâ, 1991: 73]. Ôèíàëèçì, èìåþùèé äîñòàòî÷íî ïðîäîëæèòåëüíóþ èñòîðèþ è ìíîæåñòâî ðàçëè÷íûõ îòâåòâëåíèé, ñòàë îäíèì èç ñåðüåçíûõ îïïîíåíòîâ äàðâèíîâñêîé êîíöåïöèè ýâîëþöèè. Ôèíàëèñòû ñ÷èòàþò, ÷òî ïðîöåññ ýâîëþöèîííîãî ðàçâèòèÿ íîñèò íàïðàâëåííûé è çàäàííûé õàðàêòåð. Ïðèðîäà ñ ïîçèöèé öåëåïîëàãàíèÿ çàïðîãðàììèðîâàíà íà îïðåäåëåííûå ìåõàíèçìû è ïåðñïåêòèâû ýâîëþöèîííûõ ïðåîáðàçîâàíèé. Â.È. Íàçàðîâ, ðàñøèðèâ ãðàíèöû ôèíàëèçìà, óêàçàë, ÷òî äëÿ ôèíàëèñòè÷åñêèõ òåîðèé íå îáÿçàòåëüíî íàëè÷èå â æèâîé ïðèðîäå êàêèõ-ëèáî öåëåé: äîñòàòî÷åí ôàêò ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ êàíàëîâ ðàçâèòèÿ îðãàíèçìîâ è íàïðàâëåííîñòè ýâîëþöèè. «Îñíîâíûå êðèòåðèè, äàþùèå îñíîâàíèå îòíîñèòü òó èëè èíóþ êîíöåïöèþ ê ôèíàëèñòè÷åñêîé, ëåæàò â îáëàñòè òàêèõ ïàðàìåòðîâ ýâîëþöèîííîãî ïðîöåññà, êàê åãî íàïðàâëåííîñòü, äâèæóùèå ñèëû è õàðàêòåð ïðîòåêàíèÿ» [Íàçàðîâ, 1984: 14]. Îäíîé èç õàðàêòåðíûõ ÷åðò ôèíàëèçìà áûëî ïîíÿòèå îá ýêâèôèíàëüíîñòè, ñôîðìóëèðîâàííîå Ã. Äðèøåì (Hans Driesch) è îáîçíà÷àþùåå ñòðåìëåíèå áèîëîãè÷åñêèõ îáúåêòîâ ê äîñòèæåíèþ îäíîé êîíå÷íîé öåëè. Ýêñïåðèìåíòàëüíûì ïóòåì îí äîêàçàë, ÷òî îðãàíèçì îáëàäàåò ïðîñïåêòèâíîé ïîòåíöèåé5, êîòîðàÿ ðåàëèçóåòñÿ â ïðîöåññå ýìáðèîíàëüíîãî ðàçâèòèÿ. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ïðîöåññû æèçíåäåÿòåëüíîñòè íåëüçÿ ñâîäèòü ê ìåõàíè÷åñêèì è ôèçè÷åñêèì çàêîíàì: â æèâûõ îðãàíèçìàõ äåéñòâóåò äîïîëíèòåëüíûé ïðè÷èííûé ôàêòîð, ôàêòîð êîíå÷íîé ïðè÷èíû, êîòîðûé Äðèø îáîçíà÷èë àðèñòîòåëåâñêèì òåðìèíîì «ýíòåëåõèÿ». Îí íàäåëèë ýíòåëåõèþ ñâåðõ÷óâñòâåííîé è íåìàòåðèàëüíîé ïðèðîäîé, óêàçàâ íà åå âåäóùóþ ðîëü â äîñòèæåíèè öåëîñòíîñòè è ãàðìîíè÷íîñòè, ïðèñóùèõ æèâûì îðãàíèçìàì. Ð. Øåëäðåéê (Rupert Sheldrake) îòìå÷àåò, ÷òî ýíòåëåõèÿ Äðèøà íå ÿâëÿåòñÿ ôîðìîé ýíåðãèè è åå äåéñòâèå íå ïðîòèâîðå÷èò âòîðîìó çàêîíó òåðìîäèíàìèêè è çàêîíó ñîõðàíåíèÿ ýíåðãèè, íî â òî æå âðåìÿ ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé åñòåñòâåííûé ôàêòîð – â ïðîòèâîïîëîæíîñòü ìåòàôèçè÷åñêèì è ìèñòè÷åñêèì çàáëóæäåíèÿì [Øåëäðåéê, 2005]. Ïîíÿòèå ýíòåëåõèè Äðèø ïðèìåíèë ê îáúÿñíåíèþ ìîðôîãåíåòè÷åñêèõ ïðîöåññîâ6, ïîçäíåå åå ñòàëè èñïîëüçîâàòü ïðè ðàññìîòðåíèè ýâîëþöèîííûõ ïðîöåññîâ: «Ýíòåëåõèÿ ïðåâðàòèëàñü â åäèíñòâåííóþ ñèëó ôèëîãåíåòè÷åñêîãî ðàçâèòèÿ, ïðèäàâ ïîñëåäíåìó õàðàêòåð èììàíåíòíî ôèíàëèñòè÷åñêîãî ïðîöåññà» [Íàçàðîâ, 2005: 193–194]. Ïîñëåäîâàòåëè Äðèøà áûëè ÿðûìè êðèòèêàìè äàðâèíèçìà, òàê êàê ñ÷è5 Ïðîñïåêòèâíàÿ ïîòåíöèÿ (ñèíîíèì – ýêâèïîòåíöèÿ) – ñïîñîáíîñòü âñåõ êëåòîê çàðîäûøà ðàçâèâàòüñÿ â ëþáóþ ÷àñòü îðãàíèçìà. 6 Ìîðôîãåíåòè÷åñêèå ïðîöåññû – ïðîöåññû âîçíèêíîâåíèÿ è ðàçâèòèÿ îðãàíîâ, ñèñòåì è ÷àñòåé òåëà îðãàíèçìîâ êàê â èíäèâèäóàëüíîì ðàçâèòèè (îíòîãåíåç), òàê è â èñòîðè÷åñêîì (ôèëîãåíåç).

193

Å.Á. ÌÓÇÐÓÊÎÂÀ, Ð.À. ÔÀÍÄÎ

òàëè, ÷òî îòáîð íå ñïîñîáåí ïðèâåñòè ê ïîÿâëåíèþ íîâûõ ïðèçíàêîâ. Îòáîð ìîæåò ëèøü ñîõðàíèòü èëè îòñåÿòü òî, ÷òî óæå çàðàíåå äàíî â ãîòîâîì âèäå. Äàðâèíèçì – â ïîíèìàíèè Äðèøà – ñòðîèò çäàíèå áåç îïðåäåëåííîãî ïëàíà, áåñïîðÿäî÷íî íàãðîìîæäàÿ ãðóäó êàìíåé [Äðèø, 1915]. Äðèø ââåë â áèîëîãèþ òàêèå ïîíÿòèÿ, êàê èíäèâèäóàëüíîñòü è îðãàíèçàöèÿ. Îñîáîå çíà÷åíèå ýòè ïîíÿòèÿ ïðèîáðåòàëè â èñòîðèè áèîëîãèè ïðè ñîçäàíèè îñíîâ ýìáðèîëîãèè, ýâîëþöèîííîé òåîðèè, áèîöåíîëîãèè è òåîðèè ñèñòåì. Ïîíÿòèå èíäèâèäóàëüíîñòè áûëî òàêæå îäíèì èç ãëàâíûõ â êàòåãîðèàëüíî-ìåòîäîëîãè÷åñêîì àíàëèçå Äðèøà, îäíèì èç ïåðâûõ îáîñíîâàâøåãî ñàìîñòîÿòåëüíîñòü áèîëîãèè êàê íàóêè íà îñíîâàíèè ïðèíöèïà öåëîñòíîñòè è ââåäåíèÿ ïðîñòðàíñòâåííûõ è äèíàìè÷åñêèõ ïàðàìåòðîâ â èçó÷åíèå áèîëîãè÷åñêèõ ïðîöåññîâ. Äðóãîé íå ìåíåå èçâåñòíîé ôèíàëèñòè÷åñêîé êîíöåïöèåé, êîòîðàÿ íàíåñëà òåîðèè åñòåñòâåííîãî îòáîðà ñåðüåçíûé óäàð, áûëà ãèïîòåçà íîìîãåíåçà Ë.Ñ. Áåðãà. Ïîä íîìîãåíåçîì ïîíèìàëñÿ ïðîöåññ ýâîëþöèè, áàçèðóþùèéñÿ íà ñòðîãèõ çàêîíîìåðíîñòÿõ. Îäíîé èç òàêèõ çàêîíîìåðíîñòåé ÿâëÿåòñÿ àâòîíîìè÷åñêèé îðòîãåíåç – âíóòðåííèé ôàêòîð, íàïðàâëåííûé íà óñëîæíåíèå ìîðôîôèçèîëîãè÷åñêîé îðãàíèçàöèè. Ïî Áåðãó, ýòî óñëîæíåíèå íå ïðèâîäèò ê ïîÿâëåíèþ ìíîæåñòâà òàêñîíîâ, êàê ýòî ïîñòóëèðîâàëè äàðâèíèñòû. Ñîãëàñíî ñôîðìóëèðîâàííîìó èì ïðèíöèïó ïîëèôèëèçìà7, âñå îðãàíèçìû ðàçâèâàëèñü èç ìíîæåñòâà ïåðâè÷íûõ ôîðì, ïðè÷åì èõ ýâîëþöèÿ â îñíîâíîì íîñèëà êîíâåðãåíòíûé õàðàêòåð. Ïîëèôèëèçì Áåðãà íå áûë îðòîäîêñàëüíûì, à ïðåäñòàâëÿë ñîáîé ñðåäíåå çíà÷åíèå â øêàëå ìåæäó êðàéíèìè òî÷êàìè ïîëèôèëèçìà Ê. Ëèííåÿ (Carl Linnaeus) è ìîíîôèëèçìà8 Äàðâèíà. Áåðã íå îòðèöàë âîçìîæíîãî îáðàçîâàíèÿ ðîäîâ è âèäîâ ïóòåì äèâåðãåíöèè îò îáùåãî ïðåäêà. À.Á. Ãåîðãèåâñêèé òàê ãîâîðèë î çàêîíå ïîëèôèëè÷åñêîãî ïðîèñõîæäåíèÿ òàêñîíîâ: «Ýòîò ïîñòóëàò ìîæíî ðàñöåíèòü â êà÷åñòâå “ôèëîãåíåòè÷åñêîé íàõîäêè”, òàê êàê â ïðåäøåñòâóþùèé ïåðèîä î ïîëèôèëèè è äðóãèõ íàçâàííûõ íàïðàâëåíèÿõ ýâîëþöèè â ñòîëü êàòåãîðè÷íîé ôîðìå âðîäå áû íèêòî íå âûñêàçûâàëñÿ. Ïîëîæåíèå î òîì, ÷òî ìíîãîîáðàçèå ôîðì óæå èñõîäíî ïåðâè÷íî è ÷òî áîëüøèíñòâî èç ñîâðåìåííûõ ãðóïï îðãàíèçìîâ èìååò ñîâåðøåííî íåçàâèñèìûå îò âñåõ äðóãèõ ôèëóìîâ9 èñòîðè÷åñêèå êîðíè â àðõåîçîå, ÷òî äàæå ñàìûå î÷åâèäíûå ñòåïåíè ñõîäñòâà íå îáúÿñíÿþòñÿ ãåíåàëîãè÷åñêèì ðîäñòâîì, íå áûëî äîêàçàíî Áåðãîì. Ïîëó÷åííûå â ïîñëåäóþùåå âðåìÿ áîëåå óãëóáëåííûå äàííûå î ïàðàëëåëüíîé è êîíâåðãåíòíîé 7 Ïîëèôèëèçì – îäíîâðåìåííîå ïîÿâëåíèå â äðåâíîñòè ìíîãèõ âèäîâ æèâûõ îðãàíèçìîâ, êîòîðûå ýâîëþöèîíèðîâàëè íåçàâèñèìî äðóã îò äðóãà. 8 Ìîíîôèëèçì – ïðîèñõîæäåíèå ðàçëè÷íûõ âèäîâ îò îáùåãî ïðåäêà (ïðàðîäèòåëÿ). 9 Ôèëóì – ãðóïïà îðãàíèçìîâ ñ îáùèì ïëàíîì ñòðîåíèÿ.

194

ÈÑÒÎÐÈ×ÅÑÊÈÅ È ÌÅÒÎÄÎËÎÃÈ×ÅÑÊÈÅ ÎÑÍÎÂÀÍÈß…

ýâîëþöèè, ïðîòèâîïîëîæíûå òåì, êîòîðûìè ðàñïîëàãàë êëàññè÷åñêèé äàðâèíèçì, à òàêæå ðàñ÷ëåíåíèå ðÿäà êðóïíûõ òàêñîíîâ ïî èõ ïîëèôèëåòè÷åñêîìó ïðîèñõîæäåíèþ, íè â êîåé ìåðå íå ìîãóò ñëóæèòü ïîäòâåðæäåíèåì ïîñòóëàòîâ î ïîëèôèëèè è ïàðàëëåëèçìàõ êàê âñåîáùèõ è ïåðâè÷íûõ çàêîíàõ ýâîëþöèè» [Ãåîðãèåâñêèé, 2012: 860]. Ïðåäñòàâëåííûå ãèïîòåçû ôèíàëèñòîâ êðèòèêîâàëè äàðâèíèçì çà ïðåóâåëè÷åíèå ðîëè ñåëåêòèâíîñòè â îáðàçîâàíèè íîâûõ ñèñòåìàòè÷åñêèõ ãðóïï. Ôèíàëèñòè÷åñêèå èäåè â ðàçëè÷íûå ãîäû âûñêàçûâàëè Àíðè Áåðãñîí (Henri Bergson), Ëþñüåí Êåíî (Lucien Cuenot), Êàðë Íåãåëè (Carl Naegeli), Àëüáåð Âàíäåëü (Albert Vandel), Ëåâ Èâàíîâè÷ Êîðî÷êèí. Âñå ïðåäëîæåííûå èìè îðèãèíàëüíûå êîíöåïöèè ñòðîèëèñü íà îãðîìíîì ýêñïåðèìåíòàëüíîì ìàòåðèàëå è äîêàçûâàëè íàëè÷èå èììàíåíòíûõ çàêîíîâ ïðèðîäû, êîòîðûå ïðèâîäÿò ê ðàçâåðòûâàíèþ ïðåäñóùåñòâóþùåãî, à ýòî íå îáÿçàòåëüíî îáðàçîâàíèå íîâîãî. Ôèíàëèçì íå ïîòåðÿë àêòóàëüíîñòè è äî íàñòîÿùåãî âðåìåíè, îí âïèòûâàåò â ñåáÿ íîâûå îòêðûòèÿ â îáëàñòè ìîëåêóëÿðíîé áèîëîãèè è ãåíåòèêè, ðàññìàòðèâàÿ ðåçóëüòàòû ýâîëþöèîííûõ ïðåîáðàçîâàíèé íà ðàçëè÷íûõ óðîâíÿõ îðãàíèçàöèè æèâîãî. Íîâûé ïëàñò ôàêòè÷åñêîãî ìàòåðèàëà ïîòðåáîâàë ðàçðàáîòêè íîâûõ èäåé è ïîäõîäîâ.  îðáèòó ðàññìîòðåíèÿ ýâîëþöèîííîé òåîðèè ïîïàëè èíôîðìàöèîííûå ìàêðîìîëåêóëû è èõ ñèñòåìû, ñâåäåíèÿ î êîòîðûõ âî âñå âîçðàñòàþùåì êîëè÷åñòâå íàêàïëèâàþòñÿ ìîëåêóëÿðíîé áèîëîãèåé è ãåííîé èíæåíåðèåé. Îãðîìíàÿ ðîëü â ïðîòèâîñòîÿíèè ñåëåêòèçìó ïðèíàäëåæèò íåîëàìàðêèçìó – ó÷åíèþ, âîçðîäèâøåìó èäåè Æ.Á. Ëàìàðêà (Jean Lamarck). Êîíå÷íî, íåîëàðìàêèçì âûíóæäåí áûë îòêàçàòüñÿ îò íåêîòîðûõ îòæèâøèõ ñâîé âåê ïîíÿòèé Ëàìàðêà, íî â êà÷åñòâå áàçîâûõ áûëè âçÿòû ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ î âîçíèêíîâåíèè ïîä äåéñòâèåì âíåøíåé ñðåäû àäåêâàòíîé èçìåí÷èâîñòè è ïåðåäà÷å ïî íàñëåäñòâó ïðèîáðåòåííûõ ïðèçíàêîâ. Ïî ìíåíèþ Â.È. Íàçàðîâà, íåîëàìàðêèçì çàíÿë ïðèíöèïèàëüíî îòëè÷íûå îò äàðâèíèçìà ïîçèöèè â îòíîøåíèè ìàòåðèàëà, äâèæóùèõ ñèë è íàïðàâëåííîñòè ýâîëþöèîííîãî ïðîöåññà [Íàçàðîâ, 2005]. Íåîëàìàðêèçì óïðî÷èë ñâîè ïîçèöèè ïîñëå ðÿäà îòêðûòèé â áèîõèìèè, ôèçèîëîãèè, èììóíîëîãèè è ìîëåêóëÿðíîé áèîëîãèè. Ïðîáëåìà àäàïòèâíîé èçìåí÷èâîñòè è åå ïåðåäà÷è ïî íàñëåäñòâó ïåðåøëà èç ñðàâíèòåëüíî-àíàòîìè÷åñêîé â áèîõèìè÷åñêóþ îáëàñòü. Èçâåñòíûé ôðàíöóçñêèé çîîëîã Ïîëü Âèíòðåáåð (Paul Wintreber) äàæå íàçâàë ñâîþ òåîðèþ «õèìè÷åñêèé ëàìàðêèçì», òåì ñàìûì ïîä÷åðêíóâ, ÷òî äëÿ îáúÿñíåíèÿ ëàìàðêîâñêèõ ïðåäñòàâëåíèé íåîáõîäèìû ñîîòâåòñòâóþùèå õèìè÷åñêèå ïîíÿòèÿ. Îí îáúÿñíÿë îòâåòíóþ ðåàêöèþ îðãàíèçìà íà âíåøíèå âîçäåéñòâèÿ âîçíèêíîâåíèåì ñîîòâåòñòâóþùèõ èììóííûõ ïðîöåññîâ, ïðåäïîëîæèâ, ÷òî èç-çà êðèçèñíûõ óñëîâèé ñðåäû, íàðóøàþùèõ íîðìàëüíóþ æèçíåäåÿòåëüíîñòü îðãàíèçìà, íà÷èíàåòñÿ âûðàáîòêà âðåäíûõ âåùåñòâ, à ýòî ñòèìóëèðóåò

195

Å.Á. ÌÓÇÐÓÊÎÂÀ, Ð.À. ÔÀÍÄÎ

îòâåòíóþ èììóííóþ ðåàêöèþ. Èììóííàÿ ñèñòåìà îáåñïå÷èâàåò ñîçäàíèå íîâûõ ãåíîâ, îòâåòñòâåííûõ çà ñèíòåç íîâûõ àíòèòåë. Íîâûå ãåíû âñòðàèâàþòñÿ â õðîìîñîìû ïîëîâûõ êëåòîê, ïåðåäàþòñÿ îò ðîäèòåëåé ïîòîìêàì è â öåëîì ìåíÿþò íàñëåäñòâåííîñòü âíóòðè ïîïóëÿöèé è âèäîâ. Èäåè íåîëàìàðêèçìà íàøëè ïðèìåíåíèå â ðàáîòàõ èììóíîëîãà ×àðëüçà Äæàíåâåÿ (Charles Janeway). Ïðèçíàâàÿ ôàêò ôîðìèðîâàíèÿ ïðèîáðåòåííîãî èëè àäàïòèâíîãî èììóíèòåòà â êàæäîì ïîêîëåíèè çàíîâî, îí âûñêàçàë ìûñëü, ÷òî âðîæäåííûé èììóíèòåò ÿâëÿåòñÿ íà÷àëüíîé è çàêëþ÷èòåëüíîé ñòàäèåé ïðèîáðåòåííîãî èììóíèòåòà. Þ.Â. ×àéêîâñêèé, ñîæàëåÿ î ïðåíåáðåæèòåëüíîì îòíîøåíèè ê èäåå Äæàíåâåÿ ñîåäèíèòü ìåõàíèçìû ôîðìèðîâàíèÿ âðîæäåííîãî è ïðèîáðåòåííîãî èììóíèòåòà, îòìåòèë, ÷òî ñïóñòÿ ãîäû ïîñëå ñìåðòè ãåíèàëüíîãî ó÷åíîãî âûñêàçàííûå èì ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ íàøëè ýêñïåðèìåíòàëüíîå ïîäòâåðæäåíèå [×àéêîâñêèé, 2009]. Ê ëàãåðþ íåîëàìàðêèñòîâ îòíîñÿò òàêæå ñòîðîííèêîâ ýïèãåíåòèêè. Ýïèãåíåòèêà èçó÷àåò ýïèãåíîìû10, íàäåëÿþùèå êàæäóþ êëåòêó ñâîåé èíäèâèäóàëüíîñòüþ. Ýïèãåíîì îïðåäåëÿåò íàçíà÷åíèå êëåòêè, ðåøàÿ, êàêîé ãåí è â êàêîé ìîìåíò äîëæåí àêòèâèðîâàòüñÿ. Îí òàêæå ïðîãðàììèðóåò ñêîðîñòü ñòàðåíèÿ êëåòêè, åå âîñïðèèì÷èâîñòü ê âíåøíèì ðàçäðàæèòåëÿì, ñêëîííîñòü ê çàáîëåâàíèÿì è äëèòåëüíîñòü ôóíêöèîíèðîâàíèÿ.  2006 ã. áûëà ïðèñóæäåíà ïåðâàÿ Íîáåëåâñêàÿ ïðåìèÿ çà îòêðûòèå â îáëàñòè ýïèãåíåòèêè. Åå ïîëó÷èëè àìåðèêàíñêèå ó÷åíûå Ýíäðþ Ôàéåð (Andrew Fire) è Êðåéã Ìåëëî (Craig Mello) çà îòêðûòèå íîâîãî ìåòîäà êîíòðîëÿ àêòèâíîñòè ãåíîâ – ÐÍÊ-èíòåðôåðåíöèè. Èõ èññëåäîâàíèÿ ïîäòâåðäèëè òîò ôàêò, ÷òî âíåøíèå âîçäåéñòâèÿ ñïîñîáíû ïåðåïðîãðàììèðîâàòü ñ÷èòûâàíèå íàñëåäñòâåííîé èíôîðìàöèè. Ïîäîáíûå ïðîöåññû ìîãóò èçìåíÿòü áèîõèìèþ êëåòêè, îñòàâëÿÿ íåèçìåííûì ãåíåòè÷åñêèé êîä. «Èçìåíèòå ñòèëü æèçíè – è âû ïîëîæèòå íà÷àëî öåïî÷êå áèîõèìè÷åñêèõ èçìåíåíèé, êîòîðûå ñòàíóò íåçàìåòíî, íî íåóêëîííî ïîìîãàòü è âàì, è, âîçìîæíî, âñåì âàøèì ïîòîìêàì äî êîíöà èõ æèçíè íà Çåìëå. Áëàãîäàðÿ ýïèãåíîìàì âíåøíèå ôàêòîðû è ïîñëåäñòâèÿ íàøåãî ñîáñòâåííîãî îáðàçà æèçíè ïîðîé íà íåñêîëüêî äåñÿòèëåòèé âïåðåä îïðåäåëÿþò òî, ÷òî ïðîèñõîäèò ñ íàìè è íàøèìè ïîòîìêàìè» [Øïîðê, 2012: 17].  ïîñëåäíåå âðåìÿ ýïèãåíåòèêà àêòèâíî âûõîäèò íà áèîëîãè÷åñêóþ àðåíó, ìåíÿÿ ïðåæíèå ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ î ìåõàíèçìàõ îáðàçîâàíèÿ íàñëåäñòâåííûõ èçìåíåíèé è ôèêñàöèè èõ â ãåíîòèïå. Èçðàèëüñêèé ãåíåòèê Åâà ßáëîíêà (Eva Jablonka) ìíîãèå ãîäû ñîáèðàåò äîêàçàòåëüñòâà ýïèãåíåòè÷åñêîãî íàñëåäîâàíèÿ è çàùèùàåò òåçèñ î òîì, ÷òî îíòîãåíåòè÷åñêèå èçìåíåíèÿ îêàçûâàþò íåïîñðåäñòâåííîå âëèÿíèå íà ýâî10 Ýïèãåíîì (ñèíîíèì – íàäãåíîì) – ñîâîêóïíîñòü íàñëåäñòâåííîãî ìàòåðèàëà, îïðåäåëÿþùåãî ýêñïðåññèþ ãåíîâ è ïðîÿâëåíèå ïðèçíàêîâ.

196

ÈÑÒÎÐÈ×ÅÑÊÈÅ È ÌÅÒÎÄÎËÎÃÈ×ÅÑÊÈÅ ÎÑÍÎÂÀÍÈß…

ëþöèîííûå ïðîöåññû. Ïî åå ìíåíèþ, ýïèãåíåòè÷åñêàÿ èíôîðìàöèÿ ìîæåò â äîëãîñðî÷íîé ïåðñïåêòèâå èçìåíÿòü ãåíû è èõ ôóíêöèîíèðîâàíèå. Ýïèãåíåòè÷åñêèå ìîäèôèêàöèè ñ÷èòàþòñÿ ïðè÷èíîé ñðàâíèòåëüíî êðàòêîâðåìåííûõ, íî ðåçêèõ èçìåíåíèé âíóòðè îäíîãî âèäà. Îáñóæäåíèå ìåõàíèçìîâ ýâîëþöèîííûõ ïðåîáðàçîâàíèé ñïîñîáñòâîâàëî ïîÿâëåíèþ â áèîëîãèè ìíîæåñòâà ðàçëè÷íûõ ãèïîòåç è òåîðèé, â êàæäîé èç êîòîðûõ åñòü ñâîè ðàöèîíàëüíûå çåðíà. Ìíîãèå ñîâðåìåííûå èññëåäîâàíèÿ îáúÿñíÿþò ðàçëè÷íûå ÿâëåíèÿ ïðèðîäû ñ ïîçèöèè ñåëåêòèçìà. Òåì íå ìåíåå ñóùåñòâóåò ìíåíèå, ÷òî â ñâÿçè ñ ïîÿâëåíèåì íîâûõ ýêñïåðèìåíòàëüíûõ äàííûõ èäåÿ åñòåñòâåííîãî îòáîðà ïîòåðÿëà âñÿêóþ àêòóàëüíîñòü. Íàïðèìåð, Þ.Â. ×àéêîâñêèé ñ÷èòàåò, ÷òî äàðâèíèçì íå ìîæåò ñ÷èòàòüñÿ íàó÷íîé äèñöèïëèíîé, õîòÿ 100 ëåò íàçàä åþ áûë. «Ïîýòîìó òå, êòî âñåðüåç èññëåäóåò ýâîëþöèþ, îáû÷íî ðàáîòàþò âíå äàðâèíèçìà. Îíè ëèáî ìîë÷àò î ñâîèõ ïðèíöèïàõ, ëèáî ñêëîííû ê èíûì òåîðèÿì – ôèçèîëîãè ê ëàìàðêèçìó, ïàëåîíòîëîãè ê íîìîãåíåçó, ýìáðèîëîãè ê æîôôðóèçìó, à ýêîëîãè ê ãåîôèçèîëîãèè» [×àéêîâñêèé, 2008: 234]. Ýâîëþöèîííàÿ òåîðèÿ ïðîäîëæàåò îñòàâàòüñÿ àðåíîé áîðüáû ðàçëè÷íûõ áèîôèëîñîôñêèõ è ìåòîäîëîãè÷åñêèõ ïàðàäèãì, ÷òî ñïîñîáñòâóåò ðàñøèðåíèþ åå êîãíèòèâíîãî ïðîñòðàíñòâà. Íàêàïëèâàþòñÿ íîâûå ôàêòû, ïîÿâëÿþòñÿ îðèãèíàëüíûå èäåè, ìåíÿþòñÿ ïîäõîäû è ïðèåìû ïîçíàíèÿ. Âñå ýòî ñòèìóëèðóåò ðàçâèòèå ìåòîäîëîãèè íàó÷íîãî ïîçíàíèÿ è ïîâûøàåò èññëåäîâàòåëüñêèé èíòåðåñ ê ïðîáëåìå. Àíàëèçèðóÿ ïèñüìà Â.Í. Áåêëåìèøåâà ê À.À. Ëþáèùåâó, ìû íàøëè âàæíîå çàìå÷àíèå Áåêëåìèøåâà ïî ïîâîäó äâèæóùèõ ñèë ýâîëþöèè: «Çà 40 ëåò íàó÷íîé æèçíè ÿ íå âèæó, ÷òîáû â ýòîì îòíîøåíèè íàóêà ïðîäâèíóëàñü õîòÿ áû íà øàã, íåñìîòðÿ íà òî ÷òî âîïðîñ ýòîò ñ÷èòàåòñÿ âñå âðåìÿ ñàìûì áîåâûì. È ÿ ñ óäîâîëüñòâèåì êîíñòàòèðóþ, ÷òî â áèîëîãèè åñòü ìíîãî èíòåðåñíûõ ïðîáëåì âíå âîïðîñîâ åñòåñòâåííîãî îòáîðà» [öèò. ïî: Ìóçðóêîâà, ×åñíîâà, 2009: 80]. Çíà÷åíèå íàó÷íîãî îòêðûòèÿ è ÷åëîâåêà, åãî ñäåëàâøåãî, ìîæíî îöåíèòü ïî ñòåïåíè åãî âîçäåéñòâèÿ íà íàó÷íîå ìèðîâîççðåíèå â öåëîì. Òåîðèÿ Äàðâèíà ñî âñåìè åå ïðîòèâîðå÷èÿìè ïîñëóæèëà íà÷àëîì, èç êîòîðîãî âûðîñëà ñîâðåìåííàÿ áèîëîãèÿ, ðîäèëèñü íîâûå òåîðèè, íîâîå ïîíèìàíèå ïðèðîäû, îíà ñûãðàëà îãðîìíóþ ðîëü â ôîðìèðîâàíèè ñîâðåìåííîé êàðòèíû ìèðà.

Библиографический список Àãîë, 2013 – Àãîë È.È. Âèòàëèçì, ìåõàíèñòè÷åñêèé ìàòåðèàëèçì è ìàðêñèçì. Ì., 2013. Âîðîíöîâ, 1999 – Âîðîíöîâ Í.Í. Ðàçâèòèå ýâîëþöèîííûõ èäåé â áèîëîãèè. Ì., 1999.

197

Å.Á. ÌÓÇÐÓÊÎÂÀ, Ð.À. ÔÀÍÄÎ

Ãåîðãèåâñêèé, 2012 – Ãåîðãèåâñêèé À.Á. Ýâîëþöèîííûé ñèíòåç Ë.Ñ. Áåðãà // Ñîçäàòåëè ñîâðåìåííîãî ýâîëþöèîííîãî ñèíòåçà. ÑÏá., 2012. Äàðâèí, 1953 – Äàðâèí ×. Ïðîèñõîæäåíèå ÷åëîâåêà è ïîëîâîé îòáîð. Ì., 1953. Äðèø, 1915 – Äðèø Ã. Âèòàëèçì, åãî èñòîðèÿ è ñèñòåìà. Ì., 1915. Çàâàäñêèé, 1973 – Çàâàäñêèé Ê.Ì. Ðàçâèòèå ýâîëþöèîííîé òåîðèè ïîñëå Äàðâèíà. Ë., 1973. Êîë÷èíñêèé, 2012 – Êîë÷èíñêèé Ý.È. Ýâîëþöèîííûé ñèíòåç: åãî ñîçäàòåëè è îïïîíåíòû // Ñîçäàòåëè ñîâðåìåííîãî ýâîëþöèîííîãî ñèíòåçà. ÑÏá., 2012. Ñ. 7–43. Ìóçðóêîâà, 2002 – Ìóçðóêîâà Å.Á. Ìîðãàí è ãåíåòèêà. Ì., 2002. Ìóçðóêîâà, ×åñíîâà, 2009 – Ìóçðóêîâà Å.Á., ×åñíîâà Ë.Â. Ïðîðîê ÕÕ âåêà. Ì. : Academia, 2009. Íàçàðîâ, 1991 – Íàçàðîâ Â.È. Ó÷åíèå î ìàêðîýâîëþöèè: íà ïóòÿõ ê íîâîìó ñèíòåçó. Ì., 1991. Íàçàðîâ, 1984 – Íàçàðîâ Â.È. Ôèíàëèçì â ñîâðåìåííîì ýâîëþöèîííîì ó÷åíèè. Ì., 1984. Íàçàðîâ, 2005 – Íàçàðîâ Â.È. Ýâîëþöèÿ íå ïî Äàðâèíó: ñìåíà ýâîëþöèîííîé ìîäåëè. Ì., 2005. Ðåàëå, Àíòèñåðè, 1997 – Ðåàëå Ä., Àíòèñåðè Ä. Çàïàäíàÿ ôèëîñîôèÿ îò èñòîêîâ äî íàøèõ äíåé. Ò. 4. Îò ðîìàíòèçìà äî íàøèõ äíåé. ÑÏá., 1997. Ôèëèï÷åíêî, 1929 – Ôèëèï÷åíêî Þ.À. Èçìåí÷èâîñòü è ìåòîäû åå èçó÷åíèÿ. Ì. ; Ë., 1929. Øåëäðåéê, 2005 – Øåëäðåéê Ð. Íîâàÿ íàóêà î æèçíè. Ì., 2005. Øïîðê, 2012 – Øïîðê Ï. ×èòàÿ ìåæäó ñòðîê ÄÍÊ. Âòîðîé êîä íàøåé æèçíè, èëè Êíèãà, êîòîðóþ íóæíî ïðî÷èòàòü âñåì. Ì., 2012. ×àéêîâñêèé, 2008 – ×àéêîâñêèé Þ.Â. Àêòèâíûé ñâÿçíûé ìèð. Îïûò òåîðèè ýâîëþöèè æèçíè. Ì., 2008. ×àéêîâñêèé, 1990 – ×àéêîâñêèé Þ.Â. Ýëåìåíòû ýâîëþöèîííîé äèàòðîïèêè. Ì., 1990. ×àéêîâñêèé, 2009 – ×àéêîâñêèé Þ.Â. Þáèëåé Ëàìàðêà – Äàðâèíà è ðåâîëþöèÿ â èììóíîëîãèè // Íàóêà è æèçíü. 2009. ¹ 2. Feyerabend, 1975 – Feyerabend P.K. Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. L., 1975. Feyerabend, 1978 – Feyerabend P.K. Science in a Free Society. L., 1978. Morgan, 1932 – Morgan T.H. The Scientific Basis of Evolution. N.Y., 1932.

198

EPISTEMOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE · 2015 · Ò. XLV · ¹ 3

Н

АМЕРЕНИЕ, ДЕЙСТВИЕ, ОТВЕТСТВЕННОСТЬ

Виталий Васильевич Оглезнев – доктор фи лософских наук, до цент, профессор ка федры истории фило софии и логики философского факуль тета Национального исследовательского Томского государст венного университета. Email: [email protected]

I

1

В статье представлен анализ понятий намерения, действия, ответственности, показаны их взаимосвязь и значение для философии права. В частности, уста новлено, что экспликация намерения, основного термина философии сознания, в контексте юридического языка способствует прояснению значений действия, решения, мотива и других понятий, часто используемых в теории уголовного права. Доказано, что связь намерения и действия необходима, но связь намере ния и решения таковой не является. Показана релевантность разработанных в философии сознания методик в сфере права. Ключевые слова: намерение, действие, ответственность, решение, определен ность, неопределенность.

NTENTION, ACTION, RESPONSIBILITY

Vitaly Ogleznev – Dr.Phil., Professor, Department of History of Philosophy and Logics, Faculty of Philosophy, National Research Tomsk State University.

The paper investigates the way in which criminal law of most countries allocates to the idea of intention, as one of the principal determinants of liability to punishment. All civilized penal systems make liability to punishment for at any rate serious crime dependent not merely on the fact that the person to be punished has done the outward act of a crime, but on his having done it in a certain state of frame of mind. These mental or intellectual elements are many and various and are collected together in the legal terminology under the description of a guilty mind. But the most prominent, of these mental elements, and in many ways the most important, is a man’s intention. The law’s concern with intention generates a number of problems, some of which are discussed in this paper. It is argued that even before one reaches these problems there is a more fundamental question to be addressed: what is a man’s intention? This is a question which, quite apart from the law, philosophers have found both intriguing and difficult to answer. The author discusses how it can add complexity to what is considered intentional in criminal law. Key words: intention, action, responsibility, decision, certany, uncertainty.

Êîíêðåòíûå ïîâåäåí÷åñêèå ñòðàòåãèè èíäèâèäà, îñîáåííî èõ èíòåíöèîíàëüíàÿ ñîñòàâëÿþùàÿ (èëè ìåíòàëüíûé êîìïîíåíò), âñåãäà áûëè è îñòàþòñÿ îáúåêòîì èçó÷åíèÿ è ïðåäìåòîì äèñêóññèé âî ìíîãèõ îòðàñëÿõ ãóìàíèòàðíîãî çíàíèÿ, áóäü òî ôèëîñîôèÿ ñîçíàíèÿ, êîãíèòèâíàÿ ïñèõîëîãèÿ, ïðàãìàòè÷åñêàÿ ñåìàíòèêà èëè ôèëîñîôèÿ ïðàâà.  îáû÷íîì ÿçûêå îòâåòèòü íà âîïðîñ «Ñäåëàë ëè X a íàìåðåííî?» ïîìîãàåò ïðåçóìïöèÿ: åñëè ÷åëîâåê ÷òî-òî ñäå1 Ðàáîòà âûïîëíåíà ïðè ôèíàíñîâîé ïîääåðæêå Ñîâåòà ïî ãðàíòàì Ïðåçèäåíòà ÐÔ, ïðîåêò ¹ ÌÊ-2149.2014.6.

Interdisciplinary Studies 199

Â.Â. ÎÃËÅÇÍÅÂ

ëàë, îí ñäåëàë ýòî íàìåðåííî. Òàê, ïðè îïèñàíèè äåéñòâèé, ñîâåðøåííûõ (èëè ñîâåðøàåìûõ) ïðè íîðìàëüíûõ îáñòîÿòåëüñòâàõ, áûëî áû íåóìåñòíûì óòâåðæäàòü, ÷òî ÷åëîâåê ÷òî-òî ñäåëàë (èëè äåëàåò) íàìåðåííî èëè íåíàìåðåííî. Îäíàêî àêòóàëèçàöèÿ ïîäîáíûõ âîïðîñîâ â íåñòàíäàðòíûõ òèïàõ äèñêóðñà, íàïðèìåð â þðèäè÷åñêîì, èìååò èíòåðåñíûå îñîáåííîñòè, ôèêñàöèÿ êîòîðûõ ïîçâîëÿåò ïðîäåìîíñòðèðîâàòü è îöåíèòü çíà÷åíèå íàìåðåíèÿ äëÿ ôèëîñîôèè ïðàâà. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ýêñïëèêàöèÿ íàìåðåíèÿ – îñíîâíîé êàòåãîðèè ôèëîñîôèè ñîçíàíèÿ – â êîíòåêñòå þðèäè÷åñêîãî ÿçûêà ïîçâîëèò, âî-ïåðâûõ, ïðîÿñíèòü çíà÷åíèÿ òàêèõ ïîíÿòèé, êàê äåéñòâèå, ðåøåíèå, îòâåòñòâåííîñòü, ÷àñòî èñïîëüçóåìûõ â ôèëîñîôèè óãîëîâíîãî ïðàâà, è, âî-âòîðûõ, ïðîäåìîíñòðèðîâàòü (íà ïðèìåðå íàìåðåíèÿ) ðåëåâàíòíîñòü ìåòîäîëîãè÷åñêèõ óñòàíîâîê ôèëîñîôèè ñîçíàíèÿ ñôåðå ôèëîñîôèè ïðàâà è ôèëîñîôèè íàêàçàíèÿ. Çäåñü îñîáî ñëåäóåò îòìåòèòü, ÷òî äàëåå ðå÷ü ïîéäåò íå ñòîëüêî îá óãîëîâíîì ïðàâå (â ñòðîãîì þðèäè÷åñêîì ñìûñëå), ñêîëüêî î ôèëîñîôèè óãîëîâíîãî ïðàâà, êîòîðàÿ íå îáóñëîâëåíà õàðàêòåðîì êîíêðåòíîé ïðàâîâîé ñèñòåìû è íå ïðèâÿçàíà ê îïðåäåëåííûì ïðàâîâûì òðàäèöèÿì. ×òî òàêîå íàìåðåíèå? ×òî çíà÷èò íàìåðåííîå ïîâåäåíèå? ×òî çíà÷èò ñäåëàòü ÷òî-òî íàìåðåííî? Íà ýòè âîïðîñû ñëîæíî îòâåòèòü, íå ññûëàÿñü íà êîíêðåòíûå êîíöåïöèè ôèëîñîôèè ñîçíàíèÿ. Ïîäîáíîå ïîëîæåíèå äåë õàðàêòåðíî è äëÿ ôèëîñîôèè ïðàâà [Parsons, 2000: 5–6; Coffey, 2009: 394], ãäå, íåñìîòðÿ íà îáùåå ñîãëàñèå â îòíîøåíèè ðåëåâàíòíîñòè íàìåðåíèÿ òåîðèè îòâåòñòâåííîñòè èëè ôèëîñîôèè íàêàçàíèÿ, ýòîò òåðìèí óïîòðåáëÿåòñÿ ïî-ðàçíîìó. Êðîìå òîãî, åñòü ñóùåñòâåííûå îòëè÷èÿ â òîì, êàê ïðàâîâåäû èñïîëüçóþò èëè îïðåäåëÿþò ïîíÿòèå íàìåðåíèÿ, è êàê îíî ïîíèìàåòñÿ â ôèëîñîôèè ñîçíàíèÿ. Ðàçëè÷àåòñÿ è óïîòðåáëåíèå ýòîãî òåðìèíà â ðàçíûõ ïðàâîâûõ òðàäèöèÿõ. Òàê, â ðîññèéñêîì óãîëîâíîì ïðàâå îòñóòñòâóåò ëåãàëüíàÿ äåôèíèöèÿ íàìåðåíèÿ; ïðè ýòîì øèðîêîå ðàñïðîñòðàíåíèå ïîëó÷èë ïðèíöèï âèíîâíîé îòâåòñòâåííîñòè, êîòîðûé ãëàñèò, ÷òî îòâåòñòâåííîñòü çà äåéñòâèÿ îïðåäåëåííîãî ëèöà âîçíèêàåò òîëüêî òîãäà, êîãäà óñòàíîâëåíà åãî âèíà, ò.å. îïðåäåëåííîå ïñèõè÷åñêîå îòíîøåíèå ëèöà ê ñîäåÿííîìó (÷. 1. ñò. 5 Óãîëîâíîãî êîäåêñà ÐÔ). Íàïðîòèâ, «àíãëèéñêîå óãîëîâíîå ïðàâî äîñòàòî÷íî ÷åòêî õàðàêòåðèçóåò íàìåðåíèå êàê íàèáîëåå îïàñíóþ ðàçíîâèäíîñòü mens rea, ñâÿçûâàÿ åãî ëèáî ñ öåëüþ, êîãäà íàñòóïëåíèå ðåçóëüòàòà ÿâíî æåëàåìî îáâèíÿåìûì, ëèáî ñ ïðåäâèäåíèåì íåèçáåæíîñòè íàñòóïëåíèÿ ðåçóëüòàòà, êîãäà ñ ïîñëåäñòâèåì, ìîæåò áûòü è íå æåëàåìûì ýìîöèîíàëüíî, îáâèíÿåìûé ñîãëàøàåòñÿ è òåì ñàìûì ïñèõîëîãè÷åñêè æåëàåò åãî íàñòóïëåíèÿ» [Åñàêîâ, 2005: 591]. Îáùåé òåíäåíöèåé â ðàññìîòðåííûõ ïîäõîäàõ ÿâëÿåòñÿ çàìåíà ïîíÿòèÿ íàìåðåíèÿ íà ðîäñòâåííûå èëè áëèçêèå ïî çíà÷åíèþ ñ íèì ñëîâà, íàïðèìåð íà «âèíó» èëè «óìûñåë» â ðîññèéñêîì ïðàâå ëèáî íà «maliciously» èëè «willfully» â àíãëèéñêîì ïðàâå. Îäíàêî,

200

ÍÀÌÅÐÅÍÈÅ, ÄÅÉÑÒÂÈÅ, ÎÒÂÅÒÑÒÂÅÍÍÎÑÒÜ

êàê ñïðàâåäëèâî îòìå÷àåò Äæ. Ôëåò÷åð, «ðàçíîîáðàçíûå ñèñòåìû ïîçèòèâíîãî óãîëîâíîãî ïðàâà… âûÿâëÿþò áîëüøåå åäèíñòâî, ÷åì ìû îáû÷íî ñåáå ïðåäñòàâëÿåì. Äëÿ òîãî ÷òîáû ïîñòè÷ü ýòî îñíîâîïîëàãàþùåå åäèíñòâî, ìû äîëæíû ñäåëàòü øàã íàçàä îò äåòàëåé è ëèíãâèñòè÷åñêèõ âàðèàöèé óãîëîâíûõ êîäåêñîâ» [Fletcher, 1998: 285]. Èãíîðèðîâàíèå ýòèõ ðàçëè÷èé ïîçâîëÿåò ñìåñòèòü èññëåäîâàòåëüñêèå àêöåíòû ñ ÷àñòíûõ àñïåêòîâ íà áîëåå îáùóþ ïðîáëåìó ïîíèìàíèÿ íàìåðåíèÿ â ôèëîñîôèè ïðàâà, â ÷àñòíîñòè èññëåäîâàòü òàê íàçûâàåìîå îáùåå ó÷åíèå îá óãîëîâíîé îòâåòñòâåííîñòè, êîòîðîå áåðåò ñâîå íà÷àëî â ôèëîñîôèè äåéñòâèÿ XVIII â. Ñîãëàñíî ýòîìó ó÷åíèþ [Hart, 2008: 90], ïîìèìî òàêèõ ýëåìåíòîâ, êàê çíàíèå îáñòîÿòåëüñòâ è ïðåäâèäåíèå ïîñëåäñòâèé, êîòîðûå èñïîëüçóþòñÿ äëÿ îïðåäåëåíèÿ âèíîâíîñòè äåÿíèÿ, ñóùåñòâóåò åùå îäèí «ìåíòàëüíûé» èëè ïî êðàéíåé ìåðå ïñèõîëîãè÷åñêèé ýëåìåíò, íåîáõîäèìûé äëÿ îòâåòñòâåííîñòè, ò.å. ïîâåäåíèå X (âêëþ÷àÿ åãî áåçäåéñòâèå, êîãäà îíî íàêàçóåìî) äîëæíî áûòü íàìåðåííûì è íå áûòü íåíàìåðåííûì. Íî ÷òî â òàêîì ñëó÷àå îçíà÷àåò äëÿ ïîâåäåíèÿ áûòü íàìåðåííûì è íå áûòü íåíàìåðåííûì? Âïåðâûå ñ òàê íàçûâàåìîé òåîðèåé ìåíòàëüíîãî ôàêòîðà, êîãäà (íà ïðèìåðå óãîëîâíîãî ïðàâà) äîñòàòî÷íûì óñëîâèåì è íåîáõîäèìûì îñíîâàíèåì äëÿ âîçíèêíîâåíèÿ óãîëîâíîé îòâåòñòâåííîñòè ÿâëÿåòñÿ íàëè÷èå «óìûñëà» è âîçìîæíîñòè «ïðåäñêàçàíèÿ ñâîèõ äåéñòâèé», ò.å. îïðåäåëåííîé èíòåíöèè, êîòîðàÿ ñëóæèëà áû ïðè÷èíîé ïîñòóïêîâ, ñòîëêíóëñÿ Ã.Ë.À. Õàðò, äîêàçûâàÿ íåäåñêðèïòèâíóþ ïðèðîäó þðèäè÷åñêèõ òåðìèíîâ [Îãëåçíåâ, 2011]. Òåîðèÿ ìåíòàëüíîãî ôàêòîðà îáîñíîâûâàåò äåñêðèïòèâíóþ ïðèðîäó þðèäè÷åñêèõ ïîíÿòèé, êîãäà íà âîïðîñ, âèíîâåí ëè òîò èëè èíîé ÷åëîâåê â îïðåäåëåííîì ïðîñòóïêå, ìû äîëæíû îòâåòèòü âèíîâåí, åñëè îáíàðóæèì ó íåãî â ïîñòóïêàõ «íàìåðåíèÿ». Ã. Ðàéë îòìå÷àåò èíòåðåñíûé ôàêò çàâèñèìîñòè òåîðèè ìåíòàëüíîãî ôàêòîðà îò òîãî, ÷òî îí îáîçíà÷èë «èíòåëëåêòóàëüíûå ñïîñîáíîñòè», ò.å. îò ñîçíàíèÿ, ìûøëåíèÿ è ðàçóìà. Êîãíèòèâíûå ñïîñîáíîñòè è ñàì ïðîöåññ ïîçíàíèÿ ïðè ïðàâèëüíîé ìåòîäîëîãè÷åñêîé èíòåðïðåòàöèè ìîãëè è íå ïðèâîäèòü ê ïîñòóëèðîâàíèþ ìåíòàëüíîé ñôåðû ñîáûòèé. Èñïîëüçóÿ äîñòèæåíèÿ ëèíãâèñòè÷åñêîãî ïîâîðîòà, ïðîöåññ ïîçíàíèÿ è åãî ðóêîâîäÿùèå ôàêòîðû ìîæíî èíòåðïðåòèðîâàòü, íå ññûëàÿñü íà íåäîñòóïíûå íàáëþäåíèþ ýïèçîäû èç âíóòðåííåé æèçíè èíäèâèäà.  ýòîì ñëó÷àå ïîçíàâàòåëüíûå ñïîñîáíîñòè ðåäóöèðóþòñÿ äî ñïîñîáíîñòåé ïîëüçîâàòüñÿ ÿçûêîì èëè ïîíèìàòü è óïîòðåáëÿòü ñëîâà â ÿçûêå, à ðàçëè÷èÿ «ìåæäó îïèñàíèåì áåññîçíàòåëüíî ñîâåðøåííîãî äåéñòâèÿ è îïèñàíèåì ôèçèîëîãè÷åñêè ñõîäíîãî ñ íèì äåéñòâèÿ, íî âûïîëíåííîãî öåëåíàïðàâëåííî, ñ ðàñ÷åòîì èëè ñíîðîâêîé… çàêëþ÷àþòñÿ â îòñóòñòâèè èëè íàëè÷èè îïðåäåëåííîãî ðîäà ïîääàþùèõñÿ ïðîâåðêå îáúÿñíèòåëüíî-ïðåäñêàçàòåëüíûõ ñóæäåíèé» [Ðàéë, 1999: 34]. Ðàöèîíàëüíîå ïîâåäåíèå – ýòî ïîâåäåíèå, äëÿ êîòîðîãî ñóùåñòâóåò òåîðèÿ, îïèñûâàþùàÿ åãî è ïðåäñêàçûâàþùàÿ åãî ïîñëåäñò-

201

Â.Â. ÎÃËÅÇÍÅÂ

âèÿ, ïîýòîìó «èíòåëëåêòóàëèñòñêàÿ ëåãåíäà» ëîæíà è, êîãäà ìû îïèñûâàåì äåéñòâèå êàê ðàçóìíîå, ýòî íå âëå÷åò çà ñîáîé îïèñàíèÿ äâîéíîé îïåðàöèè îáäóìûâàíèÿ è èñïîëíåíèÿ. Õàðò îáúÿñíÿåò ýòî çàòðóäíåíèå, ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, êðèòèêóÿ ïîíÿòèÿ «óìûñåë», «âîëÿ», «íàìåðåíèå» êàê òóìàííûå è òðóäíî àíàëèçèðóåìûå, à ñ äðóãîé ñòîðîíû, ïîêàçûâàÿ, ÷òî ýòè ìåíòàëüíûå ïîíÿòèÿ ðàñêðûâàþòñÿ ÷åðåç ïåðå÷èñëåíèå êîíêðåòíûõ ôèçè÷åñêèõ óñëîâèé, îòñóòñòâèå êîòîðûõ ãàðàíòèðóåò íàëè÷èå ýòèõ çàãàäî÷íûõ ñóùíîñòåé, ò.å. Õàðòó óäàëîñü âåðíóòü ðàññìîòðåíèå ïðîáëåìû ïðàâîïðèìåíåíèÿ èç îáëàñòè ïñèõîëîãèè â ïðèâû÷íóþ îáëàñòü ïðîáëåì âçàèìîîòíîøåíèÿ ôàêòîâ è íîðì [Õàðò, 2010: 122–124]. Èòàê, ÷òî ñîîòâåòñòâóåò íàìåðåíèþ â þðèñïðóäåíöèè? Êàê ïîíèìàåòñÿ íàìåðåíèå â ôèëîñîôèè ïðàâà? Íàèáîëåå óäà÷íî íà ýòè âîïðîñû, ïî íàøåìó ìíåíèþ, îòâå÷àåò Õàðò. Îí ïðåäëàãàåò ðàññìàòðèâàòü íàìåðåíèå ñîñòîÿùèì èç òðåõ âçàèìîñâÿçàííûõ ÷àñòåé, ãäå ïåðâàÿ ÷àñòü ýòî «äåëàíèå ÷åãî-òî íàìåðåííî», âòîðàÿ – «äåëàíèå ÷åãî-òî ñ ïîñëåäóþùèì íàìåðåíèåì» è òðåòüÿ – «ïóñòîå (bare) íàìåðåíèå» [Hart, 2008: 117]. Äëÿ îáúÿñíåíèÿ ýòèõ àñïåêòîâ íàìåðåíèÿ Õàðò ïðèâîäèò ñëåäóþùèå ïðèìåðû. Ïðåäñòàâèì äëÿ ïåðâîãî ñëó÷àÿ, ÷òî X ñäåëàë ÷òî-òî òàêîå, ÷òî ïî âíåøíèì ïðèçíàêàì (ñîâåðøåííûå èì äâèæåíèÿ òåëà ïðèâåëè ê íåáëàãîïðèÿòíûì ïîñëåäñòâèÿì) ïîäïàäàåò ïîä îïðåäåëåíèå ïðåñòóïëåíèÿ, íàïðèìåð X âûñòðåëèë èç ïèñòîëåòà è ðàíèë èëè óáèë Y.  ñâÿçè ñ ýòèì âîçíèêàåò âîïðîñ «X ðàíèë (èëè óáèë) Y íàìåðåííî?» Íåñìîòðÿ íà òî ÷òî ýòè è äðóãèå ôàêòû ñêëîíÿþò íàñ ê óòâåðäèòåëüíîìó îòâåòó íà ýòîò âîïðîñ, äàëüíåéøåå ðàññëåäîâàíèå ìîæåò ïîêàçàòü, ÷òî X ðàíèë èëè óáèë Y ñëó÷àéíî, íàïðèìåð îøèáî÷íî ïîëàãàÿ, ÷òî åãî ïèñòîëåò áûë íåçàðÿæåí, çíà÷èò, îí ñäåëàë ýòî íåíàìåðåííî. Ñëó÷àè, îïèñûâàåìûå âòîðûì àñïåêòîì íàìåðåíèÿ («äåëàíèå ÷åãî-òî ñ ïîñëåäóþùèì íàìåðåíèåì»), èìåþò ñóùåñòâåííûå îòëè÷èÿ. Ïðåäïîëîæèì, ÷òî X ïðîíèê íî÷üþ â ÷óæîé äîì, òîãäà âîïðîñîì áóäåò íå ñòîëüêî «X ïðîíèê â ÷óæîé äîì íàìåðåííî?», ñêîëüêî «X ïðîíèê â ÷óæîé äîì ñ ïîñëåäóþùèì íàìåðåíèåì ÷òî-òî óêðàñòü?» Åñëè ýòî òàê, òî X âèíîâåí â íåçàêîííîì ïðîíèêíîâåíèè â ÷óæîå æèëèùå, äàæå åñëè îí íè÷åãî íå óêðàë. Òðåòèé àñïåêò íàìåðåíèÿ («ïóñòîå íàìåðåíèå») ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé íàìåðåíèå ñäåëàòü ÷òî-òî â áóäóùåì, íå ñîâåðøàÿ äëÿ ýòîãî â íàñòîÿùåì íèêàêèõ äåéñòâèé, íàïðèìåð X íàìåðåí óáèòü Y, íî ïëàíèðóåò ýòî ñäåëàòü â ñëåäóþùåì ìåñÿöå, ïîñêîëüêó îí åùå íå ïðèîáðåë îðóæèå. Õàðò îòìå÷àåò, ÷òî äëÿ ïðàâà èìåííî ïåðâûé àñïåêò íàìåðåíèÿ («äåëàíèå ÷åãî-òî íàìåðåííî») èìååò íàèáîëüøåå çíà÷åíèå [Hart, 2008: 118] è âîò ïî÷åìó. Àíàëèç îïðåäåëåíèé ðàçëè÷íûõ ïðåñòóïëåíèé (óáèéñòâî, îãðàáëåíèå, óìûøëåííîå ïðè÷èíåíèå âðåäà çäîðîâüþ è äð.) ïîêàçûâàåò, ÷òî ìåíòàëüíûé êîìïîíåíò, íåîáõîäèìî ïðèñóòñòâóþùèé â îïðåäåëåíèè ýòèõ ïîíÿòèé, âêëþ÷àåò â ñåáÿ òðè ýëåìåíòà: 1) ôèçè÷åñêèå äâèæåíèÿ ÷àñòÿìè òåëà;

202

ÍÀÌÅÐÅÍÈÅ, ÄÅÉÑÒÂÈÅ, ÎÒÂÅÒÑÒÂÅÍÍÎÑÒÜ

2) ïîñëåäñòâèÿ èëè ðåçóëüòàòû, îáû÷íî íåáëàãîïðèÿòíûå, ýòèõ äâèæåíèé; 3) íàáîð îïðåäåëåííûõ îáñòîÿòåëüñòâ, ïðè êîòîðûõ äâèæåíèÿ âûçûâàþò ïîñëåäñòâèÿ. Äåéñòâèòåëüíî, êîãäà X ñòðåëÿåò â Y è óáèâàåò åãî, X ñîâåðøàåò îïðåäåëåííûå ôèçè÷åñêèå äâèæåíèÿ: íàæàòèå ïàëüöåì íà êóðîê ïèñòîëåòà, åñëè îí çàðÿæåí, ïðèâîäèò ê âûñòðåëó, à â ñëó÷àå ïîïàäàíèÿ â Y ê åãî ñìåðòè èëè ðàíåíèþ. Èíûìè ñëîâàìè, íàáîð ôèçè÷åñêèõ äâèæåíèé âûçûâàåò íåáëàãîïðèÿòíûå ïîñëåäñòâèÿ, è ýòà ñâÿçü íåîáõîäèìà. Íî êàê óñòàíîâèòü ñâÿçü ìåæäó ïåðâûì è âòîðûì ýëåìåíòàìè? Õàðò ñ÷èòàåò, ÷òî ýòî ìîæíî ñäåëàòü, äîáàâèâ âî âòîðîé ýëåìåíò òàê íàçûâàåìîå ïðåäâèäåíèå íàñòóïëåíèÿ íåáëàãîïðèÿòíûõ ïîñëåäñòâèé (èëè ïðåäâèäåíèå íåèçáåæíîñòè íàñòóïëåíèÿ ðåçóëüòàòà) [Bayles, 1992: 245], êîãäà X ñòðåëÿåò â Y, ïðåäâèäÿ íàñòóïëåíèå íåáëàãîïðèÿòíûõ ïîñëåäñòâèé è/èëè æåëàÿ èõ íàñòóïëåíèÿ. Åñëè ìû ïîñìîòðèì íà òèïû äåéñòâèé, êîòîðûå îáðàçóþò îñíîâíîé èíòåðåñ óãîëîâíîãî ïðàâà (íàïðèìåð, óáèéñòâî, íàíåñåíèå ðàíåíèé äðóãèì ëèöàì è ò.ä.), ñòàíîâèòñÿ î÷åâèäíûì, ÷òî ïîñëåäíèå ìîãóò ñîâåðøàòüñÿ ëèáî òåì, êòî îáëàäàåò ïîëíûì çíàíèåì îòíîñèòåëüíî èõ îñóùåñòâëåíèÿ, ëèáî, íàîáîðîò, òåì, êòî íå ïðåäâèäèò çíà÷èìûõ ñëåäñòâèé ñâîèõ äâèæåíèé èëè ó êîãî îòñóòñòâóåò ñîîòâåòñòâóþùåå çíàíèå îá îáñòîÿòåëüñòâàõ, â êîòîðûõ îí íàõîäèòñÿ, î õàðàêòåðå çàòðàãèâàåìûõ åãî äâèæåíèÿìè âåùåé èëè ëèö. Íàïðèìåð, X äåéñòâèòåëüíî âûñòðåëèë â Y. Îäíàêî áîëåå ïîëíîå ðàññëåäîâàíèå ïîêàçàëî, ÷òî îí ñäåëàë ýòî íåíàìåðåííî. Âîçìîæíî, îí âûñòðåëèë â ïòèöó, çàðàíåå íå çíàÿ òîãî, ÷òî Y íåîæèäàííî è áåç ïðåäóïðåæäåíèÿ ïîÿâèòñÿ íà ëèíèè îãíÿ èëè ÷òî ïóëÿ îòðèêîøåòèò îò äåðåâà, ëèáî, âîçìîæíî, ó íåãî áûëè âåñêèå îñíîâàíèÿ ïîëàãàòü, ÷òî ðóæüå, êîòîðûì îí øóòëèâî öåëèëñÿ â Y, áûëî íåçàðÿæåííûì [Hart, 2008: 91]. Íî çà ïðåäåëàìè ïðàâà ñâÿçü ýòèõ ýëåìåíòîâ íå âñåãäà ÿâëÿåòñÿ íåîáõîäèìîé. Ìîé ñîñåä êàæäûé äåíü â 6 ÷àñîâ óòðà íà÷èíàåò èãðàòü íà ïèàíèíî, çíàÿ, ïðåäïîëàãàÿ èëè ïðåäâèäÿ, ÷òî òåì ñàìûì ìîæåò ìåíÿ ðàçáóäèòü, è äåéñòâèòåëüíî áóäèò. Ìîæíî ëè â ýòîì ñëó÷àå óòâåðæäàòü, ÷òî îí ðàçáóäèë ìåíÿ íàìåðåííî, èìåÿ â âèäó îòìå÷åííóþ âûøå ñâÿçü ìåæäó ôèçè÷åñêèìè äâèæåíèÿìè è âûçûâàåìûìè èìè ïîñëåäñòâèÿìè? Èñêëþ÷åíèå ñîñòàâëÿþò ñëó÷àè, ãäå ýòà ñâÿçü íàñòîëüêî î÷åâèäíà è íåïîñðåäñòâåííà, ÷òî óòâåðæäàòü, ÷òî ðåçóëüòàò äâèæåíèé íå ÿâëÿåòñÿ èõ ïðÿìûì ñëåäñòâèåì, áûëî áû àáñóðäíî. Íàïðèìåð, X áåðåò â ðóêè ìîëîòîê è ñ ñèëîé óäàðÿåò èì ïî ôàðôîðîâîé òàðåëêå òàê, ÷òî îíà ðàçáèâàåòñÿ. Áåç ñîìíåíèé, X ðàçáèë òàðåëêó íàìåðåííî íåçàâèñèìî îò òîãî, êàêèå öåëè îí ïðè ýòîì ïðåñëåäîâàë: ïðîâåðèòü íà ïðî÷íîñòü òàðåëêó, ìîëîòîê, ïîøóìåòü èëè ïðîñòî ïðèâëå÷ü âíèìàíèå. Ñîâåðøåíèå äåéñòâèÿ – ýòî ñëîæíîå äåëî, ïðåäïîëàãàþùåå ñîñóùåñòâîâàíèå è óïîðÿäî÷èâàíèå áîëüøîãî ÷èñëà ðàçëè÷íûõ ýëåìåí-

203

Â.Â. ÎÃËÅÇÍÅÂ

òîâ. Çäåñü ìíîãîå ìîæåò ïîéòè íå òàê, è íåêîòîðûå èç ïîäîáíûõ ñèòóàöèé îòðàæåíû â óïîòðåáëÿåìûõ íàìè ïå÷àëüíûõ èçðå÷åíèÿõ: «ñëó÷àéíîñòè íåèçáåæíû» è «ìû âñå îøèáàåìñÿ». Óñïåøíîå ñîâåðøåíèå ïðîñòûõ äåéñòâèé (áóäü òî çàæèãàíèå ñïè÷êè, óäàð íîãîé ïî ôóòáîëüíîìó ìÿ÷ó èëè íàïèñàíèå ïðîñòîãî ïðåäëîæåíèÿ) òðåáóåò íàøåé ñïîñîáíîñòè îïðåäåëåííûì îáðàçîì óïðàâëÿòü äâèæåíèÿìè ñîáñòâåííîãî òåëà, ðàñïîçíàâàòü îïðåäåëåííûå ïðåäìåòû è îáëàäàòü îïðåäåëåííûì çíàíèåì èëè ïðåäâèäåíèåì ïîñëåäñòâèé îáðàùåíèÿ ñ íèìè èëè èõ ïîð÷è [Hart, 2008: 90]. Ñëîæíîñòü è ìíîãîãðàííîñòü àíàëèçà ïîíÿòèÿ äåéñòâèÿ, ðàâíî êàê è ñâÿçàííûõ ñ íèì ïîíÿòèé íàìåðåíèÿ, ðåøåíèÿ, çíàíèÿ è äð., óäà÷íî ïðîäåìîíñòðèðîâàëè Ã.Ë.À. Õàðò è Ñ. Ãåìïøèð (äàëåå – àâòîðû) â ñòàòüå «Decision, Intention, and Certainty» íà ïðèìåðå ïàðû ïðåäëîæåíèé «ß äóìàþ, ÷òî ýòî ñäåëàþ, íî ñîìíåâàþñü» è «Òåïåðü ÿ çíàþ, ÷òî ýòî ñäåëàþ», â êîòîðûõ ïðèñóòñòâóåò çíàíèå ñâîèõ äîáðîâîëüíûõ äåéñòâèé â íàñòîÿùåì è áóäóùåì. Îñíîâíîé òåçèñ àâòîðîâ çàêëþ÷àåòñÿ â òîì, ÷òî åñòü íåîáõîäèìàÿ ñâÿçü ìåæäó îïðåäåëåííîñòüþ, èìåþùåé ìåñòî â ïîäîáíûõ âûðàæåíèÿõ, è ðåøåíèåì ÷òî-òî ñäåëàòü, à òàêæå ÷òî åñòü íåîáõîäèìàÿ ñâÿçü ìåæäó ïîäîáíîé îïðåäåëåííîñòüþ, íàìåðåíèåì ÷òî-òî ñäåëàòü è äåëàíèåì ÷åãî-òî íàìåðåííî. Èç ýòèõ ïðåäëîæåíèé ëîãè÷åñêè âûâîäÿòñÿ 1) «ß çíàþ, ÷òî ýòî ñäåëàþ», 2) «ß ðåøèë ýòî ñäåëàòü», 3) «ß íàìåðåí ýòî ñäåëàòü», ïðè÷åì íåîáõîäèìàÿ ñâÿçü, íà êîòîðóþ óêàçûâàþò àâòîðû, îáíàðóæèâàåòñÿ òîëüêî ìåæäó ïàðàìè ïðåäëîæåíèé 1 è 2, 1 è 3. Ïîïûòàåìñÿ ðàçîáðàòüñÿ, íàñêîëüêî îáîñíîâàí ýòîò òåçèñ. Î÷åâèäíî, ÷òî ýòè ïðåäëîæåíèÿ íå èìåþò ýìïèðè÷åñêîãî ïîäòâåðæäåíèÿ, ò.å. íå èìåþò îòíîøåíèÿ ê ôàêòàì, ÷òî ÿâëÿåòñÿ, ïî ìíåíèþ àâòîðîâ, äîïîëíèòåëüíûì ñòèìóëîì äëÿ èõ èññëåäîâàíèÿ. Ñëåäóåò ñäåëàòü íåñêîëüêî äîïóùåíèé, ñïîñîáñòâóþùèõ íå òîëüêî ïðîÿñíåíèþ àâòîðñêîé ïîçèöèè, íî è âûðàáîòêå ñîáñòâåííîé èññëåäîâàòåëüñêîé ñòðàòåãèè. Íàì êàæåòñÿ, ÷òî íåîáõîäèìî, âî-ïåðâûõ, óñòàíîâèòü íåêîòîðîå ñîîòâåòñòâèå ìåæäó «íàìåðåíèåì ÷òî-òî ñäåëàòü» è «ôîðìèðîâàíèåì ðåøåíèÿ», âî-âòîðûõ, ìåæäó «äåëàíèåì ÷åãî-òî íàìåðåííî» è «ïðèíÿòèåì ðåøåíèÿ» è, â-òðåòüèõ, ðàçîáðàòüñÿ, êàê â öåëîì ñîîòíîñÿòñÿ ïîíÿòèÿ «íàìåðåíèå», «ðåøåíèå» è «îïðåäåëåííîñòü». Êðîìå òîãî, ðàññìîòðèì, íàñêîëüêî ïðàâèëüíû óòâåðæäåíèÿ, ÷òî çíàíèå åñòü îïðåäåëåííîñòü, à ðåøåíèå ýòî äåéñòâèå. Êàê íàì êàæåòñÿ, ïîä ôîðìèðîâàíèåì ðåøåíèÿ ñëåäóåò ïîíèìàòü ïîäãîòîâêó èñõîäíûõ äàííûõ è èõ îáðàáîòêó òàêèì îáðàçîì, ÷òîáû áûëè ÿñíû ïîñëåäñòâèÿ åãî ïðèíÿòèÿ. Ïðèíÿòèå æå ðåøåíèÿ – ýòî èçó÷åíèå ðàçëè÷íûõ âàðèàíòîâ åãî ïîñëåäñòâèé è óòâåðæäåíèå îäíîãî èç íèõ. Åñëè ÷åëîâåê óòâåðæäàåò, ÷òî ñïîñîáåí ñ óâåðåííîñòüþ (èëè îïðåäåëåííî) ïðåäñêàçàòü ñâîè äåéñòâèÿ â áóäóùåì, îñíîâûâàÿ ñâîå ïðåäñêàçàíèå íà èíäóêöèè, òî îí ïîäðàçóìåâàåò, ÷òî ðàññìàòðè-

204

ÍÀÌÅÐÅÍÈÅ, ÄÅÉÑÒÂÈÅ, ÎÒÂÅÒÑÒÂÅÍÍÎÑÒÜ

âàåìûå äåéñòâèÿ áóäóò â íåêîòîðîì ñìûñëå èëè â íåêîòîðîé ñòåïåíè íåäîáðîâîëüíûìè, íåêîíòðîëèðóåìûìè. Åñëè äåéñòâèå â ïðåäóñìîòðåííîé ñèòóàöèè äåéñòâèòåëüíî äîáðîâîëüíîå, òî ðåøåíèå ñîâåðøèòü äåéñòâèå çàâèñèò îò íåãî. Àâòîðû ñ÷èòàþò, ÷òî åñëè îò íåãî çàâèñèò ðåøåíèå òîãî, ÷òî îí ñîáèðàåòñÿ ñäåëàòü, òî îí áóäåò äî òåõ ïîð îñòàâàòüñÿ â ñîñòîÿíèè íåîïðåäåëåííîñòè â îòíîøåíèè òîãî, ÷òî îí ñäåëàåò, ïîêà îí íå ïðèìåò ðåøåíèå èëè ïîêà íå ñôîðìèðóþòñÿ åãî íàìåðåíèÿ. Íàðÿäó ñ ïðèíÿòèåì ðåøåíèÿ è îáîçðåíèåì òåõ, à íå èíûõ ïðè÷èí äåéñòâèÿ ÷åëîâåê äîëæåí íàõîäèòüñÿ â ñîñòîÿíèè íåîïðåäåëåííîñòè â îòíîøåíèè òîãî, ÷òî îí ñîáèðàåòñÿ ñäåëàòü. Îïðåäåëåííîñòü âîçíèêàåò â ìîìåíò ðåøåíèÿ, îòìå÷àþò àâòîðû, è äåéñòâèòåëüíî êîíñòèòóèðóåò ðåøåíèå òîãäà, êîãäà îïðåäåëåííîñòü, ÿâèâøàÿñÿ ïîäîáíûì îáðàçîì, ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé ñëåäñòâèå ðàññìîòðåííûõ ïðè÷èí [Hampshire & Hart, 1958: 2–3] Òàê ëè ýòî? Ìîæíî ëè ïðèíÿòü ðåøåíèå áåç óæå ñôîðìèðîâàâøåãîñÿ íàìåðåíèÿ åãî ïðèíÿòü? Áûëî áû íåïðàâèëüíî óòâåðæäàòü «ß ðåøèë ñäåëàòü p, íî íå óâåðåí â ýòîì», ïîñêîëüêó ãëàãîë «ðåøèòü» óïîòðåáëÿåòñÿ çäåñü â ïðîøåäøåì âðåìåíè, ÷òî óæå óêàçûâàåò íà ïðèíÿòîå ðåøåíèå. Ðàâíî êàê áûëî áû íåïðàâèëüíî óòâåðæäàòü «ß ðåøèë ñäåëàòü p, íî íå óâåðåí â òîì, ÷òî ñäåëàþ p, áûòü ìîæåò, ñäåëàþ q». Íî ÷òî â òàêîì ñëó÷àå ÿâëÿåòñÿ ìîìåíòîì ïðèíÿòèÿ ðåøåíèÿ? Îïðåäåëåííîñòü êîíñòèòóèðóåò ðåøåíèå, åñëè îíà íå ÿâëÿåòñÿ ñëåäñòâèåì ôàêòîâ, ò.å. âîçíèêàåò â ñîîòâåòñòâóþùèé ìîìåíò ïðèíÿòèÿ ðåøåíèÿ. Êîãäà ÷åëîâåê ïðèíÿë ðåøåíèå, òî ãîâîðÿò, ÷òî îí íàìåðåí ÷òî-òî ñäåëàòü. Ìîìåíòîì ïðèíÿòèÿ ðåøåíèÿ ñòàíîâèòñÿ ñôîðìèðîâàâøååñÿ íàìåðåíèå. Êîãäà ÷åëîâåê ïðèíÿë ðåøåíèå, ò.å. êîãäà ïîñëå ðàññìîòðåíèÿ ïðè÷èí âñÿêàÿ íåîïðåäåëåííîñòü â îòíîøåíèè òîãî, ÷òî îí ñîáèðàåòñÿ ñäåëàòü, áûëà óñòðàíåíà èç åãî ñîçíàíèÿ, ãîâîðÿò, ÷òî êàêîå áû ðåøåíèå îí íè ïðèíÿë, îí íàìåðåí ÷òî-òî ñäåëàòü. Âûçûâàåò ñîìíåíèå óòâåðæäåíèå àâòîðîâ, ÷òî çíàíèå ñ÷èòàåòñÿ îïðåäåëåííîñòüþ. Äåéñòâèòåëüíî, ðåøåíèå òðåáóåò îïðåäåëåííîñòè. Ïðèíÿòèå ðåøåíèÿ â óñëîâèÿõ îïðåäåëåííîñòè ïðåäïîëàãàåò, ÷òî åñëè ïîä îïðåäåëåííîñòüþ ïîíèìàåòñÿ ñèòóàöèÿ, ïðè êîòîðîé êàæäîìó âàðèàíòó ðåøåíèÿ èçâåñòåí âïîëíå îïðåäåëåííûé íàáîð ïîñëåäñòâèé, òî, âî-ïåðâûõ, çàäà÷à õîðîøî ôîðìàëèçîâàíà (èìååòñÿ ìîäåëü ðåøåíèÿ), âî-âòîðûõ, ñóùåñòâóþò êðèòåðèè îöåíêè êà÷åñòâà ïðèíÿòèÿ ðåøåíèÿ, â-òðåòüèõ, ìîæíî ïðåäâèäåòü ïîñëåäñòâèÿ ïðèíÿòèÿ ðåøåíèÿ. Îïåðàòèâíûå ðåøåíèÿ ïðèíèìàþòñÿ â óñëîâèÿõ îïðåäåëåííîñòè. Ïðè ýòîì ïàðàìåòðû (õàðàêòåðèñòèêè), èñïîëüçóåìûå â ïðîöåññå ïðèíÿòèÿ ðåøåíèÿ, îïðåäåëåíû, èõ îöåíêà èçâåñòíà ñ òðåáóåìîé òî÷íîñòüþ. Ïðàâèëüíûì áûëî áû ñêàçàòü, ÷òî çíàíèå åñòü ñëåäñòâèå óñòðàíåíèÿ íåîïðåäåëåííîñòè, à íå îïðåäåëåííîñòü, êàê óêàçûâàþò àâòîðû, â ÷åì ìû äàëåå óáåäèìñÿ. Íî ðåøåíèå ìîæåò ïðèíèìàòüñÿ è â óñëîâèÿõ íåîïðåäåëåííîñòè, êîãäà íåâîçìîæíî îöåíèòü âåðîÿòíîñòü

205

Â.Â. ÎÃËÅÇÍÅÂ

ïîòåíöèàëüíûõ ðåçóëüòàòîâ. Ýòî äîëæíî èìåòü ìåñòî, êîãäà òðåáóþùèå ó÷åòà ôàêòîðû íàñòîëüêî íîâû è ñëîæíû, ÷òî íàñ÷åò íèõ íåâîçìîæíî ïîëó÷èòü äîñòàòî÷íî ðåëåâàíòíóþ èíôîðìàöèþ.  èòîãå âåðîÿòíîñòü îïðåäåëåííîãî ïîñëåäñòâèÿ íåâîçìîæíî ïðåäñêàçàòü ñ äîñòàòî÷íîé ñòåïåíüþ äîñòîâåðíîñòè. Íåîïðåäåëåííîñòü õàðàêòåðíà äëÿ íåêîòîðûõ ðåøåíèé, êîòîðûå ïðèõîäèòñÿ ïðèíèìàòü â áûñòðî ìåíÿþùèõñÿ îáñòîÿòåëüñòâàõ. Ýòè çàäà÷è âîçíèêàþò ïðè óñëîâèè ïðèìåíåíèÿ â ïðîöåññå ïðèíÿòèÿ ðåøåíèé, âî-ïåðâûõ, íåòî÷íîé, íåïîëíîé èëè ñëàáî ñòðóêòóðèðóåìîé èíôîðìàöèè, âî-âòîðûõ, ôîðìàëüíûå ìîäåëè ëèáî îòñóòñòâóþò, ëèáî ñëîæíû, è, â-òðåòüèõ, âåðîÿòíîñòè íàñòóïëåíèÿ ñîáûòèé íå îïðåäåëÿþòñÿ. Ñóùåñòâóåò èçìåðèìàÿ íåîïðåäåëåííîñòü, ò.å. ðèñê, è íåèçìåðèìàÿ – ñîáñòâåííî íåîïðåäåëåííîñòü. Ðèñê ñ÷èòàåòñÿ íà îñíîâå ñòàòèñòè÷åñêèõ äàííûõ, à íåîïðåäåëåííîñòü íå âû÷èñëÿåòñÿ íèêàê, åå âåëè÷èíà óñòàíàâëèâàåòñÿ íà îñíîâå ñóáúåêòèâíûõ çíàíèé ÷åëîâåêà. Èñòî÷íèêîì íåîïðåäåëåííîñòè ñëóæèò ëèáî íåïîëíîòà çíàíèé î ôàêòàõ èëè ñîáûòèÿõ, ëèáî ñâîéñòâî îáúåêòà, êîòîðîå ïðèíöèïèàëüíî íåâîçìîæíî èçìåðèòü [Äèåâ, 2012: 7–8]. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ðåçóëüòàòîì ïðèíÿòèÿ ðåøåíèÿ ìîæíî ñ÷èòàòü óñòðàíåíèå íåîïðåäåëåííîñòè. ßâëÿåòñÿ ëè ðåøåíèå äåéñòâèåì? Àâòîðû ñ÷èòàþò, ÷òî ðåøåíèå íå åñòü äåéñòâèå ñàìî ïî ñåáå, íî ïðåäâàðèòåëüíîå äåéñòâèå ïî âûáîðó ìåæäó äâóìÿ âàðèàíòàìè ïîâåäåíèÿ, ïîñêîëüêó ðåøèòü ÷òî-òî ñäåëàòü íå çíà÷èò ñîâåðøèòü äåéñòâèå. Ìîæíî âîçðàçèòü, ÷òî ñëîâî «ðåøèòü» ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé äåéñòâèå, ò.å. íå÷òî, ÷òî ÿ äåëàþ, è ïîýòîìó ðåøåíèå íå ìîæåò áûòü àäåêâàòíî îõàðàêòåðèçîâàíî ïðîñòî êàê ïðèîáðåòåíèå îïðåäåëåííîñòè â îòíîøåíèè ñâîèõ áóäóùèõ äåéñòâèé [Ëåâèí, 2014: 31–32]. Ìîæíî ñêëîíèòüñÿ ê óòâåðæäåíèþ, ÷òî îïðåäåëåííîñòü – ýòî ñëåäñòâèå èëè ðåçóëüòàò ðåøåíèÿ è îíà äîëæíà îòëè÷àòüñÿ îò ñàìîãî ðåøåíèÿ. Ýòî äîïóùåíèå, ïî ìíåíèþ àâòîðîâ, íå ïîçâîëÿåò óòâåðæäàòü, ÷òî ïðèíÿòü ðåøåíèå çíà÷èò ñîâåðøèòü äåéñòâèå. Íàïðîòèâ, ïðåäëîæåíèå òèïà «Ïîñîâåùàâøèñü, ñóä ïðèíÿë ðåøåíèå» êàê ðàç è óêàçûâàåò íà òî, ÷òî ñóäîì ñîâåðøåíî îïðåäåëåííîå äåéñòâèå, ïîñêîëüêó ýòî åñòü ïåðôîðìàòèâíîå âûðàæåíèå, à íå ïðîñòî óòâåðæäåíèå [Îãëåçíåâ, Ñóðîâöåâ, 2013]. Àâòîðû ïðåäëàãàþò ðàçëè÷àòü èíäóêòèâíóþ îïðåäåëåííîñòü, îñíîâàííóþ íà ôàêòàõ, è îïðåäåëåííîñòü, îñíîâàííóþ íà ïðè÷èíàõ, ïðè÷åì ïîñëåäíÿÿ è åñòü äåéñòâèå [Hart, 2008: 104–106]. Àíàëèç ïîñëåäíåé ðàçíîâèäíîñòè îïðåäåëåííîñòè êàê ðàç è ïîçâîëÿåò ïðîëèòü ñâåò íà ïîíÿòèå íàìåðåíèÿ. Êàê ìû óæå îòìå÷àëè, åñòü äâà ïðèíöèïèàëüíûõ ìîìåíòà, óêàçûâàþùèõ íà òî, êàê íàìåðåíèå ñâÿçàíî ñ äåéñòâèåì. Âî-ïåðâûõ, êîãäà X ÷òî-òî ñäåëàë íàïðèìåð óäàðèë Y, ìîæåò âîçíèêíóòü âîïðîñ, ñäåëàë ëè X ýòî íàìåðåííî èëè íåíàìåðåííî, èëè èìåë ëè X íàìåðåíèå ñäåëàòü òî, ÷òî ôàêòè÷åñêè ñäåëàë. Âî-âòîðûõ, ìîæåò âîçíèêíóòü âîïðîñ, íàìåðåí X èëè íåò âûïîëíèòü íåêîòîðîå

206

ÍÀÌÅÐÅÍÈÅ, ÄÅÉÑÒÂÈÅ, ÎÒÂÅÒÑÒÂÅÍÍÎÑÒÜ

äåéñòâèå â áóäóùåì; ïîäîáíûé âîïðîñ ìîæåò âîçíèêíóòü îòíîñèòåëüíî åãî ïðîøëîãî (óæå ñôîðìèðîâàâøåãîñÿ) íàìåðåíèÿ ñîâåðøèòü êàêîå-òî äåéñòâèå, äàæå åñëè îí íå ñîáèðàëñÿ åãî ñîâåðøàòü.  ïåðâîì ñëó÷àå âûñêàçûâàíèå «Îí ýòî ñäåëàë íàìåðåííî» óêàçûâàåò èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî íà óñòðàíåíèå òîãî, ÷òî îí ÷òî-òî ñäåëàë íåíàìåðåííî, ãäå ïîä «íåíàìåðåííî» ïîíèìàåòñÿ, ÷òî òî, ÷òî îí ñäåëàë, îí ñäåëàë ñëó÷àéíî èëè ïî îøèáêå. Èç ýòîãî ñëåäóåò, ÷òî ïîëíîå çíà÷åíèå «íàìåðåííî» çàêëþ÷àåòñÿ ëèøü â îòðèöàíèè èì ñëó÷àéíîñòè èëè îøèáêè. Àíàëèç ïîíÿòèÿ äåëàíèÿ ÷åãî-ëèáî íàìåðåííî âîçìîæåí òîëüêî, âî-ïåðâûõ, ÷åðåç îïèñàíèå ñîîòâåòñòâóþùåãî êîíòåêñòà èñïîëüçîâàíèÿ ñëîâà «íàìåðåííî», îòðèöàþùåãî ñëó÷àéíîñòü èëè îøèáêó, è, âî-âòîðûõ, ÷åðåç ðàçúÿñíåíèå ñëó÷àéíîñòè èëè îøèáî÷íîñòè. Ñëåäóåò ó÷èòûâàòü, ÷òî âûðàæåíèå «Îí ýòî ñäåëàë íàìåðåííî» îçíà÷àåò ãîðàçäî áîëüøå, ÷åì «Îí íå äåëàë ýòîãî íåíàìåðåííî» èëè «Îí íå äåëàë ýòîãî ñëó÷àéíî èëè ïî îøèáêå», êîòîðûå ëîãè÷åñêè ïðåäïîëàãàþòñÿ ïåðâûì ïðåäëîæåíèåì è óæ òåì áîëåå èì íå èñêëþ÷àþòñÿ. Åñëè äåéñòâèå ÿâëÿåòñÿ íàìåðåííûì, òî àãåíò, ïî ìíåíèþ àâòîðîâ, äîëæåí îáëàäàòü, âî-ïåðâûõ, îïðåäåëåííûì ýìïèðè÷åñêèì (ïðàêòè÷åñêèì) çíàíèåì òîãî, ÷òî çàòðàãèâàþò åãî äåéñòâèÿ, à âî-âòîðûõ, àãåíò äîëæåí çíàòü ïîñëåäîâàòåëüíîñòü ñâîèõ äåéñòâèé è ðåçóëüòàò ñâîåãî äåéñòâèÿ, ò.å. òî, ê ÷åìó ïðèâåäåò åãî äåéñòâèå. Òàê ëè ýòî? Íàïðèìåð, X âûñòðåëèë â Y. Åñëè ñïðîñèòü X, ÷òî îí ñäåëàë, òî åìó ïðèøëîñü áû îïðåäåëèòü ñâîå äåéñòâèå êàê âûñòðåë â Y, ïîñêîëüêó åãî íàìåðåíèå áûëî íàïðàâëåíî íà ïîðàæåíèå öåëè. Åñëè X ýòî ïðèçíàåò, òî çíàíèå òîãî, ÷òî âûñòðåë ÿâëÿåòñÿ ðåçóëüòàòîì âçðûâà ïîðîõîâîãî çàðÿäà ïàòðîíà, ò.å. çíàíèå ôàêòîâ, íå ÿâëÿåòñÿ íåîáõîäèìûì è äîñòàòî÷íûì îñíîâàíèåì íàìåðåííîñòè â äåéñòâèÿõ X. Òåì áîëåå íåîáÿçàòåëüíî çíàòü ïîñëåäîâàòåëüíîñòü äåéñòâèé, ïðèâåäøèõ ê âûñòðåëó (íàòÿæåíèå ñïóñêîâîãî ìåõàíèçìà îðóæèÿ, âçðûâ ïîðîõîâîãî çàðÿäà, âûñòðåë è ò.ä.). Àâòîðû îòìå÷àþò, ÷òî X äîëæåí çíàòü: òî, ÷òî ó íåãî â ðóêå, – ýòî îãíåñòðåëüíîå îðóæèå.  ïðîòèâíîì æå ñëó÷àå äåéñòâèÿ X íåëüçÿ ñ÷èòàòü íàìåðåííûìè èëè ÷òî òî, ÷òî îí ôàêòè÷åñêè ñäåëàë, îí ñäåëàë íåíàìåðåííî (ñëó÷àéíî èëè ïî îøèáêå). Íî åñëè ìû, ñëåäóÿ ïîäîáíîé àðãóìåíòàöèè, ïðèçíàåì, ÷òî îïðåäåëåííîñòü ýòî è åñòü çíàíèå (÷òî âåñüìà ñïîðíî, êàê ìû óáåäèëèñü âûøå), òî íàìåðåíèå X âûñòðåëèòü â Y ìîæåò îáîñíîâûâàòüñÿ è èíäóêòèâíîé îïðåäåëåííîñòüþ (ýìïèðè÷åñêèìè ôàêòàìè), äëÿ ÷åãî íåò íåîáõîäèìîñòè â çíàíèè ìåõàíèçìà âûñòðåëà è çíàíèÿ òîãî, ÷òî â ðóêàõ – îðóæèå, ïîñêîëüêó X ìîæåò ñêàçàòü, ÷òî îí âèäåë, êàê äðóãèå ïîðàæàþò öåëü, ñîâåðøàÿ îïðåäåëåííûå ìàíèïóëÿöèè ñ ìåòàëëè÷åñêèì ïðåäìåòîì, êîòîðûé îíè íàçûâàëè îðóæèåì. Âîçìîæíî, àâòîðû èìåëè â âèäó, ÷òî èìåííî ïðè÷èíû îïðåäåëÿþò íàìåðåíèå, à íå ôàêòû òâîåãî ïðîøëîãî ïîâåäåíèÿ èëè ïîâåäåíèÿ äðóãèõ.

207

Â.Â. ÎÃËÅÇÍÅÂ

Èç ïðåäñòàâëåííîãî àíàëèçà ïðåäëîæåíèé «ß çíàþ, ÷òî ýòî ñäåëàþ», «ß ðåøèë ýòî ñäåëàòü», «ß íàìåðåí ýòî ñäåëàòü» ìû ìîæåì ñäåëàòü ñëåäóþùèå âûâîäû. Âî-ïåðâûõ, íå âñåãäà, íî çà÷àñòóþ íàìåðåíèå ÿâëÿåòñÿ æåëàíèåì ñîâåðøèòü ÷òî-òî, ïðåäïîëàãàþùåå íàëè÷èå öåëè. Íåñìîòðÿ íà òî ÷òî æåëàíèå è íàìåðåíèå èìåþò ñõîæåå óïîòðåáëåíèå, åñòü è âåñüìà ñóùåñòâåííûå ðàçëè÷èÿ, êîòîðûå îáíàðóæèâàåòñÿ, íàïðèìåð, â òàêèõ âûðàæåíèÿõ, êàê «ñîêðîâåííîå æåëàíèå», «æåëàííàÿ æåíùèíà» èëè «æåëàþ ñ÷àñòüÿ». Áîëåå òîãî, êàê âåðíî îòìå÷àþò Ë. Çàéáåðò è Á. Ñìèò, «íàìåðåíèÿ ñâÿçàíû ñ äåéñòâèÿìè èíà÷å, ÷åì æåëàíèÿ. Òû ìîæåøü íàìåðåâàòüñÿ ñäåëàòü òîëüêî òå âåùè, êîòîðûå, êàê òû äóìàåøü, ñïîñîáåí ñäåëàòü; êîãäà òû íàìåðåí ñäåëàòü X ïðè óñëîâèè, ÷òî òâîå íàìåðåíèå ñôîðìèðîâàëîñü, òî X îñóùåñòâèòñÿ òàê, “êàê ïîëàãàåòñÿ”, íàïðèìåð òàêèì îáðàçîì, êàêèì àãåíò ýòîãî îæèäàë. Ýòè äâà ìîìåíòà îòëè÷àþò íàìåðåíèÿ îò òàêèõ ÿâëåíèé, êàê æåëàíèÿ» [Zaibert & Smith, 2007: 169]. Âî-âòîðûõ, êîíå÷íî, íàìåðåíèå ñâÿçàíî ñ äåéñòâèåì, íî íå èñ÷åðïûâàåò ïîëíîñòüþ åãî çíà÷åíèÿ [Boden, 1959; Stern, 1959], â òî æå âðåìÿ íàì óäàëîñü äîêàçàòü, ÷òî ïðèíÿòü ðåøåíèå çíà÷èò ñîâåðøèòü äåéñòâèå. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ñ Õàðòîì è Ãåìïøèðîì ñëåäóåò ñîãëàñèòüñÿ ëèøü â òîì, ÷òî ñâÿçü íàìåðåíèÿ è äåéñòâèÿ íåîáõîäèìà, íî ñâÿçü íàìåðåíèÿ è ðåøåíèÿ òàêîâîé íå ÿâëÿåòñÿ. Â-òðåòüèõ, ïðåäñòàâëåííûé àíàëèç íàìåðåíèÿ ñâèäåòåëüñòâóåò î ðåëåâàíòíîñòè ìåòîäèê ôèëîñîôèè ñîçíàíèÿ ñôåðå ïðàâà, â ÷àñòíîñòè ôèëîñîôèè íàêàçàíèÿ è îáùåé òåîðèè þðèäè÷åñêîé îòâåòñòâåííîñòè.

Библиографический список Áîðèñîâ, Ëàäîâ, Ñóðîâöåâ, 2010 – Áîðèñîâ Å.Â., Ëàäîâ Â.À., Ñóðîâöåâ Â.À. ßçûê, Ñîçíàíèå, Ìèð. Î÷åðêè êîìïàðàòèâíîãî àíàëèçà ôåíîìåíîëîãèè è àíàëèòè÷åñêîé ôèëîñîôèè. Âèëüíþñ : ÅÃÓ, 2010. Äèåâ, 2012 – Äèåâ Â.Ñ. Êðèòåðèè âûáîðà àëüòåðíàòèâ: ðàöèîíàëüíûå ìîäåëè è ðåàëüíûå ðåøåíèÿ // Âåñòíèê Íîâîñèáèðñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî óíèâåðñèòåòà. Ñåð. Ôèëîñîôèÿ. 2012. ¹ 1(10). Ñ. 5–12. Åñàêîâ, 2005 – Åñàêîâ Ã.À. Íàìåðåíèå â àíãëèéñêîì óãîëîâíîì ïðàâå (íà ïðèìåðå òÿæêîãî óáèéñòâà) // Lex Russica. 2005. Ò. LXIV, ¹ 3. Ñ. 576–591. Ëåâèí, 2014 – Ëåâèí Ñ.Ì. Ïðåäâàðèòåëüíûå íàìåðåíèÿ è ïðîáëåìà çàáëóäøåé ïðè÷èííîñòè // Ôèëîñîôèÿ íàóêè. 2014. ¹ 3(62). Ñ. 30–41. Îãëåçíåâ, 2011 – Îãëåçíåâ Â.Â. Èíòåíöèîíàëüíîñòü â ôèëîñîôèè ïðàâà Ãåðáåðòà Õàðòà // Âåñòíèê Òîìñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî óíèâåðñèòåòà. Ôèëîñîôèÿ. Ñîöèîëîãèÿ. Ïîëèòîëîãèÿ. 2011. ¹ 2(14). Ñ. 160–166. Îãëåçíåâ, Ñóðîâöåâ, 2013 – Îãëåçíåâ Â.Â., Ñóðîâöåâ Â.À. Àíàëèòè÷åñêàÿ ôèëîñîôèÿ ïðàâà Ã. Õàðòà è ïðàâîâîé ðåàëèçì // Ïðàâîâåäåíèå. 2013. ¹ 4(309). Ñ. 134–147. Îãëåçíåâ, Òàðàñîâ, 2010 – Îãëåçíåâ Â.Â., Òàðàñîâ È.Ï. Àñêðèïòèâíîñòü êàê îíòîëîãè÷åñêîå ñâîéñòâî þðèäè÷åñêèõ ïîíÿòèé // Âåñòíèê Òîìñêîãî ãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî óíèâåðñèòåòà. Ôèëîñîôèÿ. Ñîöèîëîãèÿ. Ïîëèòîëîãèÿ. 2010. ¹ 4(12).

208

ÍÀÌÅÐÅÍÈÅ, ÄÅÉÑÒÂÈÅ, ÎÒÂÅÒÑÒÂÅÍÍÎÑÒÜ

Ðàéë, 1999 – Ðàéë Ã. Ïîíÿòèå ñîçíàíèÿ. Ì .: Èäåÿ-Ïðåññ : Äîì èíòåëëåêòóàëüíîé êíèãè, 1999. Õàðò, 2010 – Õàðò Ã.Ë.À. Ïðèïèñûâàíèå îòâåòñòâåííîñòè è ïðàâà // Ïðàâîâåäåíèå. 2010. ¹ 5(292). Ñ. 116–135. Bayles, 1992 – Bayles M.D. Hart’s Legal Philosophy: An Examination. Dordrecht : Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1992. Boden, 1959 – Boden M.A. In Reply to Hart and Hampshire // Mind, New Series. 1959. Vol. 68, No. 270. P. 256–260. Coffey, 2009 – Coffey G. Codifying the Meaning of “Intention” in the Criminal Law // The Journal of Criminal Law. 2009. No. 73. P. 394–413. Fletcher, 1998 – Fletcher G.P. The Fall and Rise of Criminal Theory // Buffalo Criminal Law Review. 1998. Vol. 1, No. 2. P. 275–294. Hart, 2008 – Hart H.L.A. Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law. Second Edition. Oxford University Press, 2008. Hart, 1952 – Hart H.L.A. Signs and Words // The Philosophical Quarterly. 1952. Vol. 2. P. 59–62. Hampshire & Hart, 1958 – Hampshire S., Hart H.L.A. Decision, Intention, and Certainty // Mind. 1958. Vol. 67. P. 1–12. Parsons, 2000 – Parsons S. Intention in Criminal Law: Why Is It So Difficult to Find? // Mountbatten Journal of Legal Studies. 2000. No. 4. P. 5–19. Stern, 1959 – Stern K.Mr. Hampshire and Professor Hart on Intention: A Note // Mind, New Series. 1959. Vol. 68, No. 269. P. 98–99. Zaibert & Smith, 2007 – Zaibert L., Smith B. The Varieties of Normativity: An Essay on Social Ontology // Intentional Acts and Institutional Facts: Essays on John Searle’s Social Ontology. Dordrecht : Springer, 2007. P. 157–175.

209

EPISTEMOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE · 2015 · Ò. XLV · ¹ 3

О

Т РЕДАКТОРА ПЕРЕВОДА

Илья Теодорович Касавин – доктор фило софских наук, членкорреспондент РАН, за ведующий сектором социальной эпистемо логии Института философии РАН. Email: [email protected]

E

Ilya Kasavin – doctor of philosophical sciences, correspondentmember of the Russian Academy of Sciences, chair of the Department of Social Epistemology of the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

DITORS REMARKS

 î÷åðåäíîì ôðàãìåíòå «Èñòîðèè èíäóêòèâíûõ íàóê» Óèëüÿìà Õüþýëëà íà÷èíàåòñÿ ðàññìîòðåíèå íàóê, íåïîñðåäñòâåííî íå îïèðàþùèõñÿ íà îïûò. Èìåíóÿ òàêèå íàóêè «÷èñòûìè», Õüþýëë èìååò â âèäó â ïåðâóþ î÷åðåäü ãåîìåòðèþ è àëãåáðó – ÷èñòóþ ìàòåìàòèêó – â îòëè÷èå îò ìåõàíèêè è ôèçèêè, êîòîðûå îí ñ÷èòàåò âîçìîæíûìè ðàññìàòðèâàòü êàê ìàòåìàòèêó ïðèêëàäíóþ. Çàäàâàÿñü âîïðîñîì î ïðèðîäå ÷èñòûõ íàóê, Õüþýëë âìåñòå ñ òåì íå àïåëëèðóåò ïðÿìî ê âðîæäåííûì èäåÿì Ïëàòîíà èëè àïðèîðíûì ôîðìàì È. Êàíòà. Äà, îí ïðèçíàåò, ÷òî èäåè ïðîñòðàíñòâà, âðåìåíè è ÷èñëà íå ÿâëÿþòñÿ ñâîéñòâàìè âíåøíèõ îáúåêòîâ, à åñòü ôîðìû ïîçíàíèÿ è ñîçíàíèÿ, ïðèñóùè ïîçíàþùåìó ñóáúåêòó ñàìîìó ïî ñåáå. Âàæíî, ÷òî ïðîñòðàíñòâî, íàïðèìåð, åñòü íå òîëüêî ôîðìà âîñïðèÿòèÿ, íî è ôîðìà ìûøëåíèÿ, èíòåëëåêòóàëüíîé èíòóèöèè: ïðîñòðàíñòâî ñõâàòûâàåòñÿ ñóáúåêòîì îäíîâðåìåííî â âèäå îòðåçêîâ, âîñïðèíèìàåìûõ êàê îòäåëüíî, òàê è ìûñëèìûå â åäèíñòâå êîíòèíóóìà. Ïðè ýòîì âíåîïûòíàÿ, íåîáõîäèìàÿ, àïðèîðíàÿ ïðèðîäà ÷èñòûõ íàóê íå èñêëþ÷àåò äëÿ Õüþýëëà ýìïèðè÷åñêèé ãåíåçèñ ãåîìåòðèè èç ïðàêòèêè çåìëåìåðèÿ, à òàêæå íàãëÿäíîå ïðåäñòàâëåíèå ãåîìåòðè÷åñêèõ àêñèîì ïóòåì ñëîæåíèÿ áóìàæíîãî ëèñòà è ïðî÷. Îäíàêî èõ íèêàê íåëüçÿ ñ÷èòàòü ãèïîòåçàìè èëè ïðîèçâîëüíûìè îïðåäåëåíèÿìè. Äîêàçûâàÿ ýòî, Õüþýëë âêëþ÷àåò â ñâîé òåêñò ïîëåìèêó ñ àíîíèìíûì ðåöåíçåíòîì. Ïîñëåäíèé êðèòèêóåò òî÷êó çðåíèÿ Õüþýëëà, ïðîòèâîïîñòàâëÿÿ åé êîíöåïöèþ Äóãàëäà Ñòþàðòà (ñì. ñíîñêó 4). Áóäó÷è ñâîéñòâàìè óìà, èäåè ÷èñòûõ íàóê íå ïðèîáðåòàþò â ðåçóëüòàòå ýòîãî ñâîéñòâà ïðîèçâîëüíîñòè èëè ñîìíèòåëüíîñòè, îòñòàèâàåò ðàöèîíàëèñòè÷åñêóþ ïîçèöèþ Õüþýëë. Äàæå àðãóìåíò î ñîìíèòåëüíîñòè àêñèîìû ïàðàëëåëüíûõ Åâêëèäà íå ìîæåò ïîêîëåáàòü åãî óáåæäåíèÿ. Ñòþàðò, ïðèíàäëåæàùèé ê øîòëàíäñêîé øêîëå çäðàâîãî ñìûñëà, çàèìñòâóåò ó Ò. Ðèäà «àðãóìåíò èäîìåíèàíèíà», ñîãëàñíî êîòîðîìó ìîæåò ñóùåñòâîâàòü ÷åëîâå÷åñêîå ñóùåñòâî, âîñïðèíèìàþùåå ìèð ïî ïðèíöèïàì èíîé, ñôåðè÷åñêîé ãåîìåòðèè. Ýòîò ìûñëåííûé ýêñïåðèìåíò çàäàåò îáðàçåö ïîñëåäóþùèõ ýêñïåðèìåíòîâ òàêîãî ðîäà, ðàñïðîñòðàíåííûõ â ñîâðåìåííîé àíàëèòè÷åñêîé ôèëîñîôèè, è îäíîâðåìåííî ïîêàçûâàåò, ÷òî èäåè íååâêëèäîâîé ãåîìåòðèè çàõâàòûâàëè øèðîêèå êðóãè ó÷åíûõ åùå äî ïóáëèêàöèè ðåçóëüòàòîâ ß. Áîéÿè è Í.È. Ëîáà÷åâñêîãî. È âñå æå Õüþýëë íå âûäåðæèâàåò ïîñëåäîâàòåëüíî àïðèîðèñòñêîé òðàêòîâêè èñòèí ÷èñòîé íàóêè. Íåîáõîäèìîñòü òàêèõ èñòèí ïîêîèòñÿ â êîíå÷íîì ñ÷åòå íà ýìïèðè÷åñêîì îñíîâàíèè, êîòîðîå

210 Archive

ÔÈËÎÑÎÔÈß ÈÍÄÓÊÒÈÂÍÛÕ ÍÀÓÊ

Õüþýëë ÷åðïàåò â ôèçèîëîãèè çðåíèÿ. Çäåñü îí âñòàåò â ðÿä èçâåñòíûõ ìûñëèòåëåé íà÷èíàÿ ñ èòàëüÿíöà Ó. Ìîëèíî, èðëàíäöà Äæ. Áåðêëè è çàêàí÷èâàÿ ñîâðåìåííûìè åìó àíãëèéñêèìè àíàòîìàìè è ôèçèîëîãàìè Äæ. Áåëëîì è Ò. Áðàóíîì. Ïîèñêîâîå äâèæåíèÿ ãëàç – âîò èñòî÷íèê ÷åëîâå÷åñêîãî âîñïðèÿòèÿ ïðîñòðàíñòâà, èç êîòîðîãî è âîçíèêàåò ñîîòâåòñòâóþùàÿ èäåÿ, îäíàêî ÷åëîâåê íå ïàññèâíî óñâàèâàåò çðèòåëüíîå îùóùåíèå ïðîñòðàíñòâà. Íå îáðàçû âîñïðèÿòèÿ, à èíòóèöèè, îñíîâàííûå íà ïðàêòèêå, ëåæàò â îñíîâå èäåè ïðîñòðàíñòâà. Îíî àêòèâíî «êîíñòðóèðóåòñÿ» áëàãîäàðÿ äâèæåíèþ, ìû «ñîçäàåì ïðîñòðàíñòâà ñ ïîìîùüþ äâèæåíèÿ íàøèõ êîíå÷íîñòåé», – çàêëþ÷àåò Õüþýëë. Òåì ñàìûì ÷èñòàÿ íàóêà îáðåòàåò íå ýìïèðèêî-ñåíñóàëèñòè÷åñêîå, à àïðèîðíî-ïðàãìàòè÷åñêîå îñíîâàíèå. Òàêîâ ãëàâíûé àðãóìåíò Õüþýëëà, íî ïðèìå÷àòåëüíû è ñðåäñòâà åãî îáîñíîâàíèÿ: êëàññè÷åñêàÿ ôèëîñîôèÿ Äæ. Ëîêêà è Ä. Þìà; èíòåëëåêòóàëüíûå òðàäèöèè øîòëàíäñêîãî Ïðîñâåùåíèÿ; àíàòîìèÿ è ôèçèîëîãèÿ ÷åëîâåêà; ãåîìåòðèÿ, àñòðîíîìèÿ; æèâîïèñü, ïîýçèÿ; æèâàÿ ïîëåìèêà íà ñòðàíèöàõ «Edinburgh Review» è «Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London» – âîò èíòåëëåêòóàëüíûé êîíòåêñò, âîñêðåøàåìûé äëÿ íàñ Óèëüÿìîì Õüþýëëîì.

Ф T

ИЛОСОФИЯ ИНДУКТИВНЫХ НАУК,

ОПИРАЮЩАЯСЯ НА ИХ ИСТОРИЮ. КНИГА II

1

Уильям Хьюэлл

HE PHILOSOPHY OF THE INDUCTIVE SCIENCES,

FOUNDED UPON THEIR HISTORY. BOOK II William Whewell

Книга II. Философия чистых наук Глава I. О чистых науках 1. Âñå âíåøíèå îáúåêòû è ñîáûòèÿ, î êîòîðûõ ìû ìîæåì ðàçìûøëÿòü, ðàññìàòðèâàþòñÿ êàê îáëàäàþùèå îòíîøåíèÿìè ïðîñòðàíñòâà, âðåìåíè è ÷èñëà; îíè äîëæíû áûòü ïîä÷èíåíû îáùèì óñëîâèÿì, íàëàãàåìûì ýòèìè èäåÿìè, êàê îíè ïîä÷èíÿþòñÿ êîíêðåòíûì çàêîíàì, 1 Ïðîäîëæåíèå. Ïåðâûå òðè ÷àñòè ïåðåâîäà ñì. â ïðåäøåñòâóþùèõ íîìåðàõ æóðíàëà (2014. ¹ 2; ¹ 3; 2015. ¹ 1).

211

ÓÈËÜßÌ ÕÜÞÝËË

îòíîñÿùèìñÿ ê îòäåëüíûì êëàññàì îáúåêòîâ è ÿâëåíèé. Êîíêðåòíûå çàêîíû ïðèðîäû, ðàññìàòðèâàåìîé â ðàçëè÷íûõ àñïåêòàõ, îáðàçóþùèå ðàçíûå íàóêè, ïîëó÷àþòñÿ ïðè ñîâìåñòíîì îáðàùåíèè ê îïûòó è ê ôóíäàìåíòàëüíûì èäåÿì êàæäîé íàóêè. Îäíàêî íàðÿäó ñ íàóêàìè, îáðàçîâàííûìè ñ ïîìîùüþ êîíêðåòíîãî îïûòà, óñëîâèÿ (conditions), âûòåêàþùèå èç áîëåå øèðîêèõ èäåé ïðîñòðàíñòâà, âðåìåíè è ÷èñëà, îáðàçóþò íàóêè, ïðèìåíèìûå ê îáúåêòàì è ñîáûòèÿì ëþáîãî ðîäà è ïîëó÷åííûå áåç îáðàùåíèÿ ê êàêîìó-ëèáî êîíêðåòíîìó íàáëþäåíèþ. Ïîýòîìó òàêèå íàóêè, ñîäåðæàíèå êîòîðûõ ðàçâîðà÷èâàåòñÿ òîëüêî èç èäåé áåç êàêîãî-ëèáî îáðàùåíèÿ ê ìàòåðèàëüíûì ôåíîìåíàì, èìåíóþòñÿ ÷èñòûìè íàóêàìè. Âàæíåéøèìè íàóêàìè ýòîãî êëàññà ÿâëÿþòñÿ ãåîìåòðèÿ, òåîðåòè÷åñêàÿ àðèôìåòèêà è àëãåáðà, ðàññìàòðèâàåìûå â ñàìîì øèðîêîì ñìûñëå – êàê èññëåäîâàíèå ïðîñòðàíñòâåííûõ è ÷èñëîâûõ îòíîøåíèé ïîñðåäñòâîì îáùèõ ñèìâîëîâ. 2. Ýòè ÷èñòûå íàóêè íå áûëè âêëþ÷åíû â íàø îáçîð èñòîðèè íàóê, ïîñêîëüêó îíè íå ÿâëÿþòñÿ èíäóêòèâíûìè íàóêàìè. Èõ ïðîãðåññèâíîå ðàçâèòèå çàêëþ÷àåòñÿ íå â èçâëå÷åíèè çàêîíîâ èç ôåíîìåíîâ, èñòèííûõ òåîðèé èç íàáëþäàåìûõ ôàêòîâ èëè áîëåå îáùèõ çàêîíîâ èç çàêîíîâ ìåíüøåé ñòåïåíè îáùíîñòè. Îíè çàíèìàþòñÿ âûâåäåíèåì ñëåäñòâèé èç ñàìèõ èäåé è îáíàðóæåíèåì íàèáîëåå îáùèõ è âàæíûõ àíàëîãèé è ñâÿçåé ìåæäó ïîíÿòèÿìè, âûâîäèìûìè èç èäåé. Ýòè íàóêè íå ñîäåðæàò èíûõ ïðèíöèïîâ, êðîìå îïðåäåëåíèé è àêñèîì, è â íèõ íåò ïðîöåññîâ äîêàçàòåëüñòâà, ïîìèìî äåäóêöèè. Îäíàêî äåäóêöèÿ ïðèîáðåòàåò çäåñü ñîâåðøåííî çàìå÷àòåëüíûé õàðàêòåð, ñîåäèíÿÿ ïðîñòîòó è ñëîæíîñòü, ñòðîãîñòü è îáùíîñòü, ÷åìó íåò íèêàêèõ àíàëîãîâ â äðóãèõ îáëàñòÿõ. 3. Óíèâåðñàëüíîñòü èñòèí è ñòðîãîñòü äîêàçàòåëüñòâ ýòèõ ÷èñòûõ íàóê ïðèâëåêàëè ê ñåáå âíèìàíèå â î÷åíü îòäàëåííûå âðåìåíà. Åùå òîãäà áûëî îñîçíàíî, ÷òî îíè óïðàæíÿþò è äèñöèïëèíèðóþò èíòåëëåêòóàëüíûå ñïîñîáíîñòè â òàêîé ôîðìå, êîòîðàÿ ñîâåðøåííî ñâîáîäíà îò ïðèìåñè ïîñòîðîííèõ ýëåìåíòîâ. Èìè ìíîãî çàíèìàëèñü äðåâíèå ãðåêè – êàê äëÿ âîñïèòàíèÿ äèñöèïëèíû óìà, òàê è èç øèðîêî ðàñïðîñòðàíåííîé ëþáâè ê óìîçðèòåëüíîé èñòèíå, è íàèìåíîâàíèå ìàòåìàòèêà, êîòîðûì îáîçíà÷àëè òàêèå çàíÿòèÿ, óêàçûâàåò íà èõ äèñöèïëèíèðóþùèé (disciplinal) õàðàêòåð. 4. Êàê óæå áûëî ñêàçàíî, èäåè, âêëþ÷åííûå â ýòè íàóêè, ðàñïðîñòðàíÿþòñÿ íà âñå îáúåêòû è ïðîöåññû, íàáëþäàåìûå íàìè âî âíåøíåì ìèðå, ïîýòîìó ðàññìîòðåíèå ìàòåìàòè÷åñêèõ îòíîøåíèé îáðàçóåò çíà÷èòåëüíóþ ÷àñòü ìíîãèõ íàóê, èçó÷àþùèõ ÿâëåíèÿ è çàêîíû âíåøíåãî ìèðà, – àñòðîíîìèè, îïòèêè è ìåõàíèêè. Òàêèå íàóêè ÷àñòî íàçûâàþò ïðèêëàäíîé (mixed) ìàòåìàòèêîé, ïîñêîëüêó â ýòèõ îáëàñòÿõ ïîçíàíèÿ îòíîøåíèÿ ïðîñòðàíñòâà è ÷èñëà ñîåäèíÿþòñÿ ñ ïðèíöèïàìè, âûäåëåííûìè èç êîíêðåòíûõ íàáëþäåíèé, â òî âðåìÿ êàê

212

ÔÈËÎÑÎÔÈß ÈÍÄÓÊÒÈÂÍÛÕ ÍÀÓÊ

ãåîìåòðèÿ, àëãåáðà è ïîäîáíûå èì äèñöèïëèíû, íå âêëþ÷àþùèå â ñåáÿ ðåçóëüòàòîâ îïûòà, íàçûâàþòñÿ ÷èñòîé ìàòåìàòèêîé. 5. Ïðîñòðàíñòâî, âðåìÿ è ÷èñëî ìîãóò áûòü ïîíÿòû êàê ôîðìû, â êîòîðûå îòëèâàåòñÿ çíàíèå, âûâåäåííîå èç íàøèõ ÷óâñòâåííûõ âïå÷àòëåíèé, è êîòîðûå íå çàâèñÿò îò ðàçëè÷èé â ìàòåðèàëå (matter) íàøèõ çíàíèé, âîçíèêàþùèõ èç ñàìèõ âïå÷àòëåíèé. Ïîýòîìó íàóêè, äåëàþùèå ñâîèì ïðåäìåòîì ýòè èäåè, ìîãóò áûòü íàçâàíû ôîðìàëüíûìè.  ýòîì ïóíêòå îíè îòëè÷àþòñÿ îò íàóê, ãäå ïîìèìî ÷èñòî ôîðìàëüíûõ çàêîíîâ, ïîñðåäñòâîì êîòîðûõ êîððåêòèðóþòñÿ ÿâëåíèÿ, ìû ñòðåìèìñÿ ïðèìåíÿòü èäåþ ïðè÷èííîñòè èëè íåêîòîðûå äðóãèå èäåè, áîëåå ãëóáîêî âõîäÿùèå â ïðèíöèïû ïðèðîäû. Ïîýòîìó, ãîâîðÿ îá èñòîðèè íàóê, ìû îòëè÷àëè ôîðìàëüíóþ àñòðîíîìèþ è ôîðìàëüíóþ îïòèêó îò ôèçè÷åñêîé àñòðîíîìèè è ôèçè÷åñêîé îïòèêè. Òåïåðü ìû ïåðåõîäèì ê ðàññìîòðåíèþ èäåé, îáðàçóþùèõ îñíîâàíèå ôîðìàëüíûõ, èëè ÷èñòûõ, ìàòåìàòè÷åñêèõ íàóê, è íà÷èíàåì ñ èäåè ïðîñòðàíñòâà.

Глава II. Об идее пространства 1. Ãîâîðÿ î ïðîñòðàíñòâå, ÿ õî÷ó îáðàòèòü âíèìàíèå íà òî, ÷òî ïðåäñòàâëåíèå îáúåêòîâ êàê ñóùåñòâóþùèõ â ïðîñòðàíñòâå è îòíîøåíèé âçàèìíîãî ðàñïîëîæåíèÿ ìåæäó íèìè ÿâëÿåòñÿ íå ñëåäñòâèåì îïûòà, à ðåçóëüòàòîì îñîáîé ñòðóêòóðû è àêòèâíîñòè ìûøëåíèÿ, êîòîðîå ïî ñâîåìó èñòî÷íèêó íå çàâèñèò îò êàêîãî-ëèáî îïûòà, õîòÿ ïîñòîÿííî ñîåäèíÿåòñÿ ñ íèì â ñâîåì èñïîëüçîâàíèè. Î òîì, ÷òî èäåÿ ïðîñòðàíñòâà íå çàâèñèò îò îïûòà, óæå áûëî ñêàçàíî, êîãäà ìû ãîâîðèëè îá èäåÿõ â îáùåì, îäíàêî ïîëåçíî ðàçâèòü ýòó ìûñëü áîëåå ïîäðîáíî äëÿ äàííîãî êîíêðåòíîãî ñëó÷àÿ. Èòàê, ÿ óòâåðæäàþ, ÷òî ïîíÿòèå ïðîñòðàíñòâà íå ïîëó÷åíî èç îïûòà. Îïûò äàåò íàì èíôîðìàöèþ î âåùàõ, ñóùåñòâóþùèõ âíå (without) íàñ, îäíàêî íàøå ïðåäñòàâëåíèå î íèõ êàê íàõîäÿùèõñÿ âíå íàñ ïðåäïîëàãàåò èõ ñóùåñòâîâàíèå â ïðîñòðàíñòâå. Îïûò çíàêîìèò íàñ ñ ôîðìîé, ïîëîæåíèåì, âåëè÷èíîé êîíêðåòíûõ îáúåêòîâ, íî òî, ÷òî îíè îáëàäàþò ôîðìîé, ïîëîæåíèåì, âåëè÷èíîé, óæå ïðåäïîëàãàåò, ÷òî îíè íàõîäÿòñÿ â ïðîñòðàíñòâå. Ïðèâû÷êó ïðåäñòàâëÿòü ñåáå âåùè êàê íàõîäÿùèåñÿ â ïðîñòðàíñòâå ìû íå ìîæåì âûâåñòè èç ÿâëåíèé, ïîñêîëüêó ñàì àêò íàáëþäåíèÿ îêàçûâàåòñÿ âîçìîæíûì òîëüêî â òîì ñëó÷àå, åñëè ñ ñàìîãî íà÷àëà ìû ïðåäñòàâëÿåì è ìûñëèì îáúåêòû êàê óæå ñóùåñòâóþùèå â ïðîñòðàíñòâå. 2. ×òî íàø ñïîñîá ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ ïðîñòðàíñòâà íå âûâåäåí èç îïûòà, ñòàíîâèòñÿ ÿñíî òàêæå èç ñëåäóþùåãî îáñòîÿòåëüñòâà: èìåííî áëàãîäàðÿ ýòîìó ñïîñîáó ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ ìû ïðèõîäèì ê ñóæäåíèÿì, êîòîðûå ñòðîãî óíèâåðñàëüíû è íåîáõîäèìû. Íåò íèêàêîé âîçìîæíî-

213

ÓÈËÜßÌ ÕÜÞÝËË

ñòè ïîëó÷èòü òàêîãî ðîäà ñóæäåíèÿ èç îïûòà, èáî îïûò ìîæåò äàòü íàì ëèøü îãðàíè÷åííîå ÷èñëî ïðèìåðîâ, ñëåäîâàòåëüíî, íèêîãäà íå äàåò íàì íàäåæíîãî îáîñíîâàíèÿ óíèâåðñàëüíûõ ñóæäåíèé. Îïÿòüòàêè îïûò ñïîñîáåí ïðîèíôîðìèðîâàòü íàñ î òîì, ÷òî äåëî îáñòîèò òàê-òî è òàê-òî, îäíàêî îí íå ñïîñîáåí äîêàçàòü, ÷òî îíî äîëæíî îáñòîÿòü èìåííî òàê. Òî, ÷òî äâå ñòîðîíû òðåóãîëüíèêà áîëüøå, ÷åì òðåòüÿ ñòîðîíà, åñòü óíèâåðñàëüíàÿ è íåîáõîäèìàÿ ãåîìåòðè÷åñêàÿ èñòèíà äëÿ âñåõ òðåóãîëüíèêîâ, ýòî òàêàÿ èñòèíà, ÷òî ïðîòèâîïîëîæíîå íåâîçìîæíî ñåáå ïðåäñòàâèòü. Îïûò íå ìîæåò äîêàçàòü òàêîãî ñóæäåíèÿ. È îïûò íå äîêàçûâàåò åãî, íè îäèí ÷åëîâåê íèêîãäà íå ïûòàëñÿ ýòîãî äåëàòü, è íèêàêàÿ ïîïûòêà â ýòîì ðîäå íè÷åãî íå äîáàâèëà áû ê íåñîìíåííîñòè ýòîé èñòèíû. Ïûòàòüñÿ äîêàçûâàòü ãåîìåòðè÷åñêèå ñóæäåíèÿ ïîñðåäñòâîì îáðàùåíèÿ ê íàáëþäåíèþ â äåéñòâèòåëüíîñòè íè÷åãî íå äàåò, à ÷åëîâåê, êîòîðûé ïûòàåòñÿ ýòî äåëàòü, íå èìååò íè ìàëåéøåãî ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ î ïðèðîäå ãåîìåòðè÷åñêîãî äîêàçàòåëüñòâà. Ìû ñëûøàëè î ëþäÿõ, êîòîðûå ïîñðåäñòâîì èçìåðåíèÿ óáåæäàëèñü â òîì, ÷òî ãåîìåòðè÷åñêîå ïðàâèëî î ñîîòíîøåíèè êâàäðàòîâ ñòîðîí ïðÿìîóãîëüíîãî òðåóãîëüíèêà èñòèííî. Íî ìûøëåíèå ýòèõ ëþäåé ïîãëîùåíî ïðàêòè÷åñêèìè äåéñòâèÿìè è ó íèõ ñïåêóëÿòèâíîå ðàçâåðòûâàíèå èäåè ïðîñòðàíñòâà ïîäàâëåíî äðóãèìè çàíÿòèÿìè. Ïðàêòè÷åñêîå èñïûòàíèå ýòîãî ïðàâèëà ñïîñîáíî ïðîèëëþñòðèðîâàòü, íî íå ìîæåò äîêàçàòü åãî. Êîíå÷íî, ïðàâèëî áóäåò ïîäòâåðæäåíî òàêîé ïîïûòêîé, èáî òî, ÷òî èñòèííî â îáùåì, èñòèííî è â êîíêðåòíîì ñëó÷àå. Îäíàêî äàííîå ïðàâèëî íåëüçÿ äîêàçàòü íèêàêèì ÷èñëîì ïîïûòîê, èáî íèêàêîå ñîáðàíèå ÷àñòíûõ ñëó÷àåâ íå îáåñïå÷èâàåò óíèâåðñàëüíîñòè. Äëÿ ëþáîãî ÷åëîâåêà, ñïîñîáíîãî îöåíèòü ñèëó êàêîãî-ëèáî äîêàçàòåëüñòâà, óïîìÿíóòîå âûøå ãåîìåòðè÷åñêîå ïðàâèëî íàñòîëüêî æå î÷åâèäíî è åãî î÷åâèäíîñòü ñòîëü æå íåçàâèñèìà îò îïûòà, êàê è äëÿ óòâåðæäåíèÿ î òîì, ÷òî øåñòíàäöàòü è äåâÿòü â ñóììå äàþò äâàäöàòü ïÿòü.  òî æå âðåìÿ ñëåäóåò èìåòü â âèäó, ÷òî èñòèííîñòü ãåîìåòðè÷åñêîãî ïðàâèëà íèñêîëüêî íå çàâèñèò îò ÷èñëîâûõ èñòèí è ÿâëÿåòñÿ ðåçóëüòàòîì òîëüêî ïðîñòðàíñòâåííûõ îòíîøåíèé. Ýòîãî íå ìîãëî áû áûòü, åñëè áû íàøå ïîñòèæåíèå ïðîñòðàíñòâåííûõ îòíîøåíèé áûëî ïëîäîì îïûòà, èáî â îïûòå íåò ýëåìåíòà, èç êîòîðîãî ìîãëè áû âîçíèêíóòü òàêèå èñòèíû è òàêèå äîêàçàòåëüñòâà. 3. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ñóùåñòâîâàíèå íåîáõîäèìûõ èñòèí, òàêèõ, êàê èñòèíû ãåîìåòðèè, äîêàçûâàåò, ÷òî èäåÿ ïðîñòðàíñòâà, èç êîòîðîé îíè ïðîèñòåêàþò, íå âûâîäèòñÿ èç îïûòà. Íåâîçìîæíî ïðåäïîëàãàòü, áóäòî òàêèå èñòèíû èçâëå÷åíû èç ñîâîêóïíîñòè íàáëþäåíèé, èáî ÷óâñòâåííûå âïå÷àòëåíèÿ íå ñîäåðæàò ñâèäåòåëüñòâà íåîáõîäèìîñòè. Îäíàêî ëåãêî ïîíÿòü íåîáõîäèìûé õàðàêòåð òàêèõ èñòèí, åñëè îñîçíàòü, ÷òî èìåþòñÿ îïðåäåëåííûå íåîáõîäèìûå óñëîâèÿ, ïðè êîòîðûõ ìûøëåíèå ñïîñîáíî ïîëó÷èòü ÷óâñòâåííûå âïå÷àòëåíèÿ. Ïîñêîëüêó ýòè óñëîâèÿ êîðåíÿòñÿ â ñàìîé ñòðóêòóðå ìûøëåíèÿ è íàëàãàþòñÿ íà êàæ-

214

ÔÈËÎÑÎÔÈß ÈÍÄÓÊÒÈÂÍÛÕ ÍÀÓÊ

äîå âîñïðèÿòèå îáúåêòà, äî êîòîðîãî ñïîñîáíî äîòÿíóòüñÿ ìûøëåíèå, ïîñòîëüêó ëåãêî âèäåòü, ÷òî èõ ïðàâèëà äîëæíû îõâàòûâàòü íå òîëüêî âñå, ÷òî áûëî, íî è âñå, ÷òî ìîæåò áûòü ñîäåðæàíèåì îïûòà. Íàøè ÷óâñòâåííûå âïå÷àòëåíèÿ íåñóò èíôîðìàöèþ òîëüêî î ñàìèõ ñåáå, â ëþáîì èç íèõ íåò íèêàêîãî ñëåäà äðóãèõ âïå÷àòëåíèé. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, îòíîøåíèå è ñâÿçü äâóõ ÷óâñòâåííûõ âïå÷àòëåíèé íå ìîãóò áûòü äàíû ñàìèìè ÷óâñòâåííûìè âïå÷àòëåíèÿìè. Îäíàêî ñïîñîá, ïîñðåäñòâîì êîòîðîãî ìûøëåíèå âîñïðèíèìàåò ýòè âïå÷àòëåíèÿ â êà÷åñòâå îáúåêòîâ, âíîñèò íåîáõîäèìûå ñâÿçè ìåæäó íèìè. Ïîýòîìó, ïîñòèãàÿ èäåþ ïðîñòðàíñòâà êàê óñëîâèå âîñïðèÿòèÿ, ñóùåñòâóþùåå â ìûøëåíèè, ìû ìîæåì ïîíÿòü è ñóùåñòâîâàíèå íåîáõîäèìûõ èñòèí, ïðèìåíèìûõ êî âñåì âîñïðèíèìàåìûì îáúåêòàì. 4. Åñëè ìû ðàññìàòðèâàåì ÷óâñòâåííûå âïå÷àòëåíèÿ êàê ïðîñòîé ìàòåðèàë íàøåãî îïûòà, òî òàêèå ìàòåðèàëû ìîãóò íàêàïëèâàòüñÿ â ëþáîì êîëè÷åñòâå è â ëþáîì ïîðÿäêå. Íî êîãäà ìû ïðåäïîëàãàåì, ÷òî ýòîò ìàòåðèàë èìååò îïðåäåëåííóþ ôîðìó, ïðèäàâàåìóþ åìó â àêòå ìûøëåíèÿ, ìû ìîæåì ïîíÿòü, ïî÷åìó ýòîò ìàòåðèàë ïîä÷èíåí íåèçáåæíûì ïðàâèëàì, ïî÷åìó íè÷òî íå ìîæåò áûòü âîñïðèíÿòî âíå îòíîøåíèé, ïðèíàäëåæàùèõ ýòîé ôîðìå. À ïîñêîëüêó ñóùåñòâóþò èñòèíû, ïðèìåíèìûå ê íàøåìó îïûòó è âîçíèêàþùèå èç ïðèðîäû ïðîñòðàíñòâà, ïîñòîëüêó ìû ìîæåì ðàññìàòðèâàòü ïðîñòðàíñòâî êàê òó ôîðìó, êîòîðóþ â ìûøëåíèè íåèçáåæíî ïðèíèìàåò ìàòåðèàë, äîñòàâëÿåìûé îïûòîì, êàê íåêèé ïîðÿäîê, âûâîäèìûé èç âîñïðèíèìàþùåãî ìûøëåíèÿ, à íå ïðîñòî èç âïå÷àòëåíèé. 5. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ýòó ôðàçó î òîì, ÷òî ïðîñòðàíñòâî åñòü ôîðìà, ïðèíàäëåæàùàÿ íàøåé ñïîñîáíîñòè âîñïðèÿòèÿ, ìîæíî èñïîëüçîâàòü äëÿ âûðàæåíèÿ ìûñëè î òîì, ÷òî ìû íå ìîæåì âîñïðèíèìàòü îáúåêòû êàê íàõîäÿùèåñÿ â ïðîñòðàíñòâå áåç ïðèìåíåíèÿ êàê ìûøëåíèÿ, òàê è îðãàíîâ ÷óâñòâ, ò.å. áåç èñïîëüçîâàíèÿ êàê àêòèâíûõ, òàê è ïàññèâíûõ ñïîñîáíîñòåé. Îäíàêî ýòà ôðàçà âîâñå íå îáÿçàòåëüíà äëÿ èçëîæåíèÿ íàøåãî ó÷åíèÿ. Íàçîâåì ëè ìû ïðîñòðàíñòâî óñëîâèåì âîñïðèÿòèÿ, ôîðìîé âîñïðèÿòèÿ, èäååé èëè ÷åì-òî åùå, ýòî åñòü íå÷òî òàêîå, ÷òî èçíà÷àëüíî ïðèñóùå âîñïðèíèìàþùåìó ìûøëåíèþ, à íå âîñïðèíèìàåìûì îáúåêòàì. È ïîñêîëüêó ïîñòèæåíèå âñåõ îáúåêòîâ ïîä÷èíåíî îïðåäåëåííûì ìåíòàëüíûì óñëîâèÿì – ôîðìàì èëè èäåÿì, ïîñòîëüêó íàøå ïîçíàíèå ñîäåðæèò â ñåáå îïðåäåëåííûå íåðóøèìûå îòíîøåíèÿ è íåîáõîäèìûå èñòèíû. Ïðèíöèïû òàêèõ èñòèí, åñëè ðå÷ü èäåò î ïðîñòðàíñòâå, âûâîäÿòñÿ èç èäåè ïðîñòðàíñòâà, è ìû äîëæíû ïîïûòàòüñÿ âûÿâèòü òàêèå ïðèíöèïû â èõ ñàìîé îáùåé ôîðìå. Íî ïðåæäå ÷åì ïåðåéòè ê ýòîìó, íàì íóæíî îáðàòèòü âíèìàíèå íà íåêîòîðûå óñëîâèÿ, ïðèíàäëåæàùèå íå íàøèì èäåÿì âîîáùå, à òîëüêî èäåå ïðîñòðàíñòâà.

215

ÓÈËÜßÌ ÕÜÞÝËË

Глава III. О некоторых особенностях идеи пространства 1. Íåêîòîðûå èç èäåé, êîòîðûå ìû áóäåì ðàññìàòðèâàòü, âêëþ÷àþò â ñåáÿ ïîíÿòèÿ îá îïðåäåëåííûõ îòíîøåíèÿõ ìåæäó îáúåêòàìè, êàê, íàïðèìåð, èäåè ïðè÷èíû è ñõîäñòâà. Ìîæåò ïîêàçàòüñÿ, ÷òî îíè âíóøåíû îïûòîì, ïîçâîëÿþùèì íàì àáñòðàãèðîâàòü ýòè îáùèå îòíîøåíèÿ èç êîíêðåòíûõ ñëó÷àåâ. Íî ìû óâèäèì, ÷òî ïðîñòðàíñòâî íå ÿâëÿåòñÿ òàêèì îáùèì ïîíÿòèåì îá îòíîøåíèÿõ. Ìû ãîâîðèì íå î ïðîñòðàíñòâàõ, êàê ãîâîðèì î ïðè÷èíàõ è ñõîäñòâàõ, à î ïðîñòðàíñòâå. È êîãäà ìû âñå-òàêè ðàññóæäàåì î ïðîñòðàíñòâàõ, ìû ïîíèìàåì ïîä ýòèì ÷àñòè îäíîãî è òîãî æå òîæäåñòâåííîãî âñåîõâàòûâàþùåãî ïðîñòðàíñòâà. Ìû ìûñëèì î íåêîì Óíèâåðñàëüíîì Ïðîñòðàíñòâå, êîòîðîå âîâñå íå ñëàãàåòñÿ èç ýòèõ ÷àñòíûõ ïðîñòðàíñòâ êàê èç ñâîèõ êîìïîíåíòîâ. Îíî ñîõðàíèëîñü áû äàæå â òîì ñëó÷àå, åñëè áû ýòè ÷àñòíûå ïðîñòðàíñòâà áûëè óñòðàíåíû, î íèõ âîîáùå íåëüçÿ äóìàòü, íå ïðåäïîëàãàÿ àáñîëþòíîãî ïðîñòðàíñòâà. Àáñîëþòíîå ïðîñòðàíñòâî ñóùåñòâåííî îäíî, è ñëîæíîñòè, ñóùåñòâóþùèå â íåì, è ïîíÿòèå ðàçëè÷íûõ ïðîñòðàíñòâ çàâèñÿò òîëüêî îò îãðàíè÷åíèé (boundaries). Ñëåäîâàòåëüíî, êàê ìû óæå ñêàçàëè, ïðîñòðàíñòâî äîëæíî áûòü íå îáùèì ïîíÿòèåì, àáñòðàãèðîâàííûì èç ÷àñòíûõ ïðîñòðàíñòâ, à óíèâåðñàëüíûì ñïîñîáîì ðåïðåçåíòàöèè, íå çàâèñÿùèì îò îïûòà. 2. Ïðîñòðàíñòâî áåñêîíå÷íî. Ìû ïðåäñòàâëÿåì åãî ñåáå êàê áåñêîíå÷íî áîëüøóþ âåëè÷èíó. Òàêèå èäåè, êàê èäåè ñõîäñòâà èëè ïðè÷èíû, îáíàðóæèâàþòñÿ, íåñîìíåííî, â áåñêîíå÷íîì ÷èñëå êîíêðåòíûõ ñëó÷àåâ è ïîýòîìó îõâàòûâàþò ýòè ñëó÷àè. Îäíàêî ýòè èäåè íå âêëþ÷àþò áåñêîíå÷íîãî ÷èñëà ñëó÷àåâ â êà÷åñòâå ÷àñòåé áåñêîíå÷íîãî öåëîãî. Êîãäà ìû ãîâîðèì î òîì, ÷òî âñå òåëà è ÷àñòíûå ïðîñòðàíñòâà ñóùåñòâóþò â áåñêîíå÷íîì ïðîñòðàíñòâå, ìû ïîëüçóåìñÿ âûðàæåíèåì, êîòîðîå â òîì æå ñàìîì ñìûñëå íåëüçÿ ïðèìåíèòü íè ê ÷åìó, êðîìå ïðîñòðàíñòâà è âðåìåíè. 3. Ñêàçàííîå âûøå ìîæåò ïîêàçàòüñÿ îòðèöàíèåì ðåàëüíîãî ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ ïðîñòðàíñòâà. Îäíàêî ñëåäóåò çàìåòèòü, ÷òî ìû íå îòðèöàåì, à, íàïðîòèâ, ñî âñåé îïðåäåëåííîñòüþ óòâåðæäàåì ñóùåñòâîâàíèå ïðîñòðàíñòâà â êà÷åñòâå ðåàëüíîãî è íåîáõîäèìîãî óñëîâèÿ âñåõ âîñïðèíèìàåìûõ îáúåêòîâ. Ìû íå òîëüêî ïðèçíàåì, ÷òî âèäèì îáúåêòû êàê âíåøíèå ïî îòíîøåíèþ ê íàì, íî îïèðàåìñÿ èìåííî íà ýòîò ôàêò ïðè ðàññìîòðåíèè ïðèðîäû ïðîñòðàíñòâà. Åñëè æå, îäíàêî, ñêàæóò, ÷òî ìû îòðèöàåì ðåàëüíîñòü ïðîñòðàíñòâà êàê íåêîòîðîãî îáúåêòà èëè âåùè, òî ýòî ïðàâäà. Î÷åíü òðóäíî íàñòàèâàòü íà òîì, ÷òî ïðîñòðàíñòâî ñóùåñòâóåò êàê íåêîòîðàÿ âåùü, ïðèçíàâàÿ â òî æå âðåìÿ, ÷òî ýòà âåùü áåñêîíå÷íà âî âñåõ ñâîèõ èçìåðåíèÿõ. Êðîìå òîãî, ÷òî ýòî çà âåùü, êîòîðàÿ, áóäó÷è ñàìà ïî ñåáå íè÷åì, ñóùåñòâóåò ëèøü â òîì ñìûñëå, ÷òî â íåé ìîãóò ñóùåñòâîâàòü äðóãèå âåùè? Òîò, êòî óò-

216

ÔÈËÎÑÎÔÈß ÈÍÄÓÊÒÈÂÍÛÕ ÍÀÓÊ

âåðæäàåò ðåàëüíîå ñóùåñòâîâàíèå ïðîñòðàíñòâà, äîëæåí óòâåðæäàòü òàêæå ðåàëüíîå ñóùåñòâîâàíèå âðåìåíè â òîì æå ñàìîì ñìûñëå. Òîãäà äâå áåñêîíå÷íûå âåùè, êîòîðûå ñóùåñòâóþò ðåàëüíî, íî ñóùåñòâóþò ëèøü ïîñòîëüêó, ïîñêîëüêó â íèõ ñóùåñòâóþò äðóãèå âåùè, îêàçûâàþòñÿ ñòîëü ñòðàííûìè ïîíÿòèÿìè, ÷òî ìû ïðèõîäèì ê íåêîòîðîìó èíîìó îáúÿñíåíèþ ñîñòîÿíèÿ ìàòåðèè. 4. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ïðîñòðàíñòâî íå åñòü îáúåêò, ñâîéñòâà êîòîðîãî ìû âîñïðèíèìàåì, à ñàìà ôîðìà íàøåãî âîñïðèÿòèÿ; íå âåùü, âîçäåéñòâóþùàÿ íà íàøè îðãàíû ÷óâñòâ, íî èäåÿ, êîòîðîé ìû ïîä÷èíÿåì ÷óâñòâåííûå âïå÷àòëåíèÿ. Åå îñîáåííîñòè îïðåäåëÿþòñÿ òåì, ÷òî îíà ÿâëÿåòñÿ íå òîëüêî ôîðìîé ÷óâñòâåííîãî âîñïðèÿòèÿ, íî ôîðìîé èíòóèöèè: ïðèâëåêàÿ ïðîñòðàíñòâî, ìû íå òîëüêî âîñïðèíèìàåì, íî ìûñëèì îáúåêòû. Ìû âèäèì îáúåêòû â ïðîñòðàíñòâå îäèí ðÿäîì ñ äðóãèì, îäèí âíå äðóãîãî; ïðîñòðàíñòâî è îáúåêòû, çàíèìàþùèå åãî, èìåþò ÷àñòè, îòäåëåííûå îò äðóãèõ ÷àñòåé, è èìååòñÿ öåëîå, ñîñòàâëåííîå èç ðÿäîïîëîæåííûõ ÷àñòåé. Òàêîé ñïîñîá ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ îòíîñèòñÿ òîëüêî ê èäåÿì ïðîñòðàíñòâà è âðåìåíè. Ïðîñòðàíñòâî è âðåìÿ ñîñòàâëåíû èç ÷àñòåé, íî ïðè÷èíà è ñõîäñòâî íå ìûñëÿòñÿ êàê ñîñòîÿùèå èç ÷àñòåé. È òåðìèí èíòóèöèÿ (â ñòðîãîì ñìûñëå) ïðèìåíèì òîëüêî ê òàêîìó ñïîñîáó ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ, ïðè êîòîðîì ìû ðàññìàòðèâàåì îáúåêòû êàê ñîñòîÿùèå èç ÷àñòåé è ñõâàòûâàåì îòíîøåíèÿ ýòèõ ÷àñòåé â òî æå âðåìÿ è ïîñðåäñòâîì òîãî æå àêòà, ïîñðåäñòâîì êîòîðîãî ìû ñõâàòûâàåì ñàìè îáúåêòû. 5. Êàê ìû ñêàçàëè, ïðîñòðàíñòâî çàêëþ÷åíî â ãðàíèöû, ïîðîæäàþùèå ðàçëè÷íûå ïîíÿòèÿ, êîòîðûå ìû ÷àñòî ðàññìàòðèâàåì. Îãðàíè÷åííîå òàêèì îáðàçîì ïðîñòðàíñòâî ïðèîáðåòàåò ôîðìó èëè ôèãóðó, è âîçíèêàþùåå òàêèì îáðàçîì ðàçíîîáðàçèå ïîíÿòèé ÿâëÿåòñÿ áåñêîíå÷íûì. Ó íàñ åñòü ëèíèè âñåâîçìîæíûõ ôîðì – ïðÿìûå è êðèâûå, ïðè÷åì ÷èñëî êðèâûõ ëèíèé áåñêîíå÷íî – îêðóæíîñòè, ïàðàáîëû, ãèïåðáîëû, ñïèðàëè. Èìåþòñÿ ïëîñêèå ïîâåðõíîñòè ðàçëè÷íûõ âèäîâ – ïàðàëëåëîãðàììû, ìíîãîóãîëüíèêè, ýëëèïñû; ñþäà äîáàâëÿþòñÿ òðåõìåðíûå óñòîé÷èâûå (solid) ôèãóðû – êóáû, êîíóñû, öèëèíäðû, øàðû, ñôåðîèäû è ò.ä. Âñå îíè îáëàäàþò ðàçëè÷íûìè ñâîéñòâàìè, çàâèñÿùèìè îò ñîîòíîøåíèé èõ ãðàíèö. Èññëåäîâàíèå ýòèõ ñâîéñòâ ÿâëÿåòñÿ çàäà÷åé íàóêè ãåîìåòðèè. 6. Ïðîñòðàíñòâî èìååò òðè èçìåðåíèÿ èëè íàïðàâëåíèÿ, â êîòîðûõ îíî ìîæåò áûòü èçìåðåíî, îíî íå ìîæåò èìåòü áîëüøå èëè ìåíüøå òðåõ èçìåðåíèé. Ïðîñòåéøèì èçìåðåíèåì ÿâëÿåòñÿ èçìåðåíèå ïðÿìîé ëèíèè, êîòîðàÿ îáëàäàåò òîëüêî äëèíîé. Ó ïîâåðõíîñòåé èìåþòñÿ äëèíà è øèðèíà, îáúåìíûå òåëà îáëàäàþò äëèíîé, øèðèíîé è âûñîòîé èëè ãëóáèíîé. Èñòî÷íèê ýòîé ðàçíèöû â êîëè÷åñòâå èçìåðåíèé ñòàíîâèòñÿ ÿñåí, åñëè ìû îñîçíàåì, ÷òî êàæäàÿ ÷àñòü ïðîñòðàíñòâà èìååò ãðàíèöó è ðàñïðîñòðàíÿåòñÿ êàê â íàïðàâëåíèè, â êîòîðîì ðàñïðîñòðàíÿåòñÿ ãðàíèöà, òàê è â íàïðàâëåíèè îò ãðàíèöû, â ïðîòèâíîì ñëó÷àå ýòî íå

217

ÓÈËÜßÌ ÕÜÞÝËË

áûëî áû ãðàíèöåé. Òî÷êà íå èìååò èçìåðåíèé. Ó ëèíèè îäíî èçìåðåíèå – ðàññòîÿíèå îò åå ãðàíèöû, èëè åå äëèíà. Ïîâåðõíîñòü, îãðàíè÷åííàÿ ïðÿìîé ëèíèåé, èìååò îäíî èçìåðåíèå, ïðèíàäëåæàùåå ýòîé ëèíèè, è äðóãîå èçìåðåíèå, îïðåäåëÿåìîå ðàññòîÿíèåì åå ÷àñòåé îò ýòîé îãðàíè÷èòåëüíîé ëèíèè; åãî ìîæíî íàçâàòü øèðèíîé. Òðåõìåðíîå òåëî, îãðàíè÷åííîå ïîâåðõíîñòüþ, èìååò èçìåðåíèÿ, ïðèíàäëåæàùèå ýòîé ïîâåðõíîñòè. Îíî èìååò òàêæå òðåòüå èçìåðåíèå, êîòîðîå ìîæíî íàçâàòü âûñîòîé èëè ãëóáèíîé, åñëè ðàññìàòðèâàòü ðàñøèðåíèå òåëà ââåðõ èëè âíèç îò ïëîñêîñòè, èëè òîëùèíîé, åñëè îòâëå÷üñÿ îò ðàçäåëåíèÿ âåðõà è íèçà. Ïðîñòðàíñòâî íå ìîæåò îáëàäàòü êàêèìè-ëèáî äðóãèìè èçìåðåíèÿìè, êîòîðûå íåëüçÿ ñâåñòè ê ýòèì òðåì. Òåïåðü ìû ìîæåì ïåðåéòè ê ðàññìîòðåíèþ òîãî, êàêèì îáðàçîì èäåÿ ïðîñòðàíñòâà èñïîëüçóåòñÿ äëÿ îáðàçîâàíèÿ ãåîìåòðèè.

Глава IV. Об определениях и аксиомах, относящихся к пространству 1. Ïðîñòðàíñòâåííûå îòíîøåíèÿ ñ îñîáîé ÷åòêîñòüþ è ÿñíîñòüþ áûëè ïðåäñòàâëåíû óæå íà ñàìîé ðàííåé ñòàäèè ðàçâåðòûâàíèÿ ñïåêóëÿòèâíûõ ñïîñîáíîñòåé ÷åëîâåêà. Ýòî áûëî îáóñëîâëåíî îáñòîÿòåëüñòâîì, êîòîðîå óæå áûëî îòìå÷åíî, à èìåííî òåì, ÷òî ïðîñòåéøèå èç ýòèõ îòíîøåíèé, îò êîòîðûõ çàâèñÿò âñå îñòàëüíûå, óñìàòðèâàþòñÿ ïîñðåäñòâîì èíòóèöèè. Ïîýòîìó êàê òîëüêî ëþäè íà÷èíàþò ðàçìûøëÿòü î ïðîñòðàíñòâåííûõ îòíîøåíèÿõ, îíè ïðèíèìàþò âåðíûå ïðèíöèïû è ïîëó÷àþò èñòèííûå ðåçóëüòàòû. Ãîâîðÿò, ÷òî íàóêà ãåîìåòðèÿ çàðîäèëàñü â Åãèïòå åùå äî ïîÿâëåíèÿ ãðå÷åñêîé ôèëîñîôèè, îäíàêî çíàíèÿ äðåâíèõ åãèïòÿí (èñêëþ÷àÿ èõ ìèôîëîãèþ) áûëè, ïî-âèäèìîìó, ÷èñòî ïðàêòè÷åñêèìè. Ïîýòîìó èõ ãåîìåòðèÿ, ïî âñåé âåðîÿòíîñòè, ñîñòîÿëà òîëüêî èç íåêîòîðûõ ïðàâèë èçìåðåíèÿ çåìåëüíûõ ó÷àñòêîâ. Íî ãðåêè âî âðåìåíà Ïëàòîíà óæå íå òîëüêî âëàäåëè ìíîãèìè èç íàèáîëåå çàìå÷àòåëüíûõ ýëåìåíòàðíûõ òåîðåì ãåîìåòðèè, íî âî ìíîãèõ îòíîøåíèÿõ äîñòèãëè ãðàíèö ýòîé íàóêè â åå ýëåìåíòàðíîé ôîðìå – êîãäà ñòàâèëè ïåðåä ñîáîé ïðîáëåìó êâàäðàòóðû êðóãà èëè óäâîåíèÿ êóáà. Îäíàêî äåäóêöèÿ ýòèõ òåîðåì ïîñðåäñòâîì ñèñòåìàòè÷åñêîãî ïðîöåññà è ÿâíîå âûðàæåíèå ïðîñòåéøèõ ïðèíöèïîâ, âêëþ÷åííûõ â èäåþ ïðîñòðàíñòâà, áûëè îñóùåñòâëåíû, íàñêîëüêî ìîæíî ñóäèòü, â áîëåå ïîçäíèé ïåðèîä. Íà÷àëà ãåîìåòðèè Åâêëèäà, ãäå áûëà ðåøåíà ýòà çàäà÷à, äî ñèõ ïîð îñòàþòñÿ îáðàçöîâîé ðàáîòîé â äàííîé îáëàñòè. Àâòîð ýòîãî ïðîèçâåäåíèÿ ñ áîëüøèì óñïåõîì ïðåïîäàâàë ìàòåìàòèêó â Àëåêñàíäðèè â ïðàâëåíèå Ïòîëåìåÿ Ëàãèäà ïðèáëèçèòåëüíî â 280 ã. äî Ð.Õ. Ïðèíöèïû, ïîëîæåííûå Åâêëèäîì â îñíîâàíèå åãî ñèñòåìû, ïðåòåðïåëè ñ òåõ ïîð ëèøü î÷åíü íåáîëüøîå óïðîùåíèå, è âî

218

ÔÈËÎÑÎÔÈß ÈÍÄÓÊÒÈÂÍÛÕ ÍÀÓÊ

âñåõ ñî÷èíåíèÿõ è äèñêóññèÿõ, çàòðàãèâàþùèõ ýòè ïðèíöèïû, îíè óïîìèíàëèñü â òîì âèäå, êîòîðûé ïðèäàë èì Åâêëèä. 2. Îïðåäåëåíèÿ. Êàê äîëæíî áûòü â ëþáîé ñèñòåìå ãåîìåòðèè, ïåðâûìè ïðèíöèïàìè ãåîìåòðèè Åâêëèäà ÿâëÿþòñÿ îïðåäåëåíèÿ è àêñèîìû, îòíîñÿùèåñÿ ê ðàçëè÷íûì ââîäèìûì èì èäåàëüíûì ïîíÿòèÿì – ïðÿìîé ëèíèè, ïàðàëëåëüíûì ëèíèÿì, óãëàì, îêðóæíîñòÿì è ò.ï. Îäíàêî ýòè îïðåäåëåíèÿ è àêñèîìû âîâñå íå ÿâëÿþòñÿ ïðîèçâîëüíûìè ãèïîòåçàìè è äîïóùåíèÿìè. Èõ èñòî÷íèê – èäåÿ ïðîñòðàíñòâà, à îíè ïðåäñòàâëÿþò ñîáîé ëèøü ñïîñîáû âûðàçèòü ýòó èäåþ, ÷òîáû çàëîæèòü îñíîâû äåäóêòèâíîãî ðàññóæäåíèÿ. Àêñèîìû ÿâëÿþòñÿ íåîáõîäèìûìè ñëåäñòâèÿìè òåõ ïîíÿòèé, î êîòîðûõ îíè ãîâîðÿò, à îïðåäåëåíèÿ ïðåäñòàâëÿþò ñîáîé ñòîëü æå íåîáõîäèìûå îãðàíè÷åíèÿ ýòèõ ïîíÿòèé. Îíè íóæíû íå äëÿ òîãî, ÷òîáû ïîëó÷èòü òî èëè èíîå êîíêðåòíîå ñëåäñòâèå, à äëÿ òîãî, ÷òîáû ìîæíî áûëî âûâåñòè ëþáîå ñëåäñòâèå è îáîñíîâàòü ëþáóþ îáùóþ èñòèíó. Íàïðèìåð, åñëè ìû îäíó ïðÿìóþ ïàëêó ïîñòàâèì íà ñåðåäèíó äðóãîé ïðÿìîé ïàëêè è áóäåì íàêëîíÿòü ïåðâóþ âïðàâî è âëåâî, òî áóäåì èçìåíÿòü ïðàâûé è ëåâûé óãëû, îáðàçóåìûå ýòèìè äâóìÿ ïàëêàìè. Íî åñëè ìû çàôèêñèðóåì ïàëêó â òàêîì ïîëîæåíèè, ÷òî ïðàâûé è ëåâûé óãëû áóäóò ðàâíû, òî, ñîãëàñíî Åâêëèäó, îáà óãëà áóäóò ïðÿìûìè. Ýòî è åñòü îïðåäåëåíèå ïðÿìîãî óãëà, òîëüêî Åâêëèä ïîëüçóåòñÿ àáñòðàêòíûì ïîíÿòèåì ïðÿìîé ëèíèè, à ìû ãîâîðèì î ïàëêàõ. Ýòîò âûáîð ñëó÷àÿ, â êîòîðîì äâà óãëà ÿâëÿþòñÿ ðàâíûìè, çàâèñèò íå îò ïðîñòîãî êàïðèçà, êàê áûëî áû, åñëè áû áûëè âûáðàíû íåðàâíûå óãëû. Èç ñëó÷àÿ ñ íåðàâíûìè óãëàìè íåëüçÿ áûëî áû âûâåñòè ñëåäñòâèé, âåäóùèõ ê îáùèì èñòèíàì, áåç ññûëêè íà òîò ñïåöèàëüíûé ñëó÷àé, êîãäà óãëû ÿâëÿþòñÿ ðàâíûìè. Ïîýòîìó îêàçûâàåòñÿ íåîáõîäèìûì âûäåëèòü è îïðåäåëèòü ýòîò îñîáûé ñëó÷àé, îòìåòèâ åãî ñïåöèàëüíûì âûðàæåíèåì. Ëþáîìó ÷åëîâåêó, ñïîñîáíîìó ñôîðìóëèðîâàòü îáùåå ïîíÿòèå óãëà, ýòî îïðåäåëåíèå íå òîëüêî äàåò ïîëíîå è ÷åòêîå çíàíèå î òîì, ÷òî òàêîå ïðÿìîé óãîë, íî è íåêîòîðûé ïðèíöèï, èç êîòîðîãî ìîæíî âûâåñòè âñå ñâîéñòâà ïðÿìûõ óãëîâ. 3. Àêñèîìû. Îòíîñèòåëüíî äðóãèõ ïîíÿòèé, òàêèõ, êàê îêðóæíîñòü, êâàäðàò è ò.ï., ìîæíî óñòàíîâèòü îïðåäåëåíèÿ, îáðàçóþùèå äîñòàòî÷íûé áàçèñ íàøèõ ðàññóæäåíèé îá ýòèõ ôèãóðàõ. Îäíàêî íàðÿäó ñ ýòèìè îïðåäåëåíèÿìè îêàçàëîñü íåîáõîäèìî ââåñòè â ÷èñëî ôóíäàìåíòàëüíûõ ïðèíöèïîâ ãåîìåòðèè îïðåäåëåííûå àêñèîìû. Îíè íîñÿò ÷ðåçâû÷àéíî ïðîñòîé õàðàêòåð, íàïðèìåð àêñèîìà î äâóõ ïðÿìûõ ëèíèÿõ, êîòîðûå ìîãóò ïåðåñåêàòüñÿ òîëüêî â îäíîé òî÷êå, èëè àêñèîìà î ïàðàëëåëüíûõ ëèíèÿõ. Êàê è îïðåäåëåíèÿ, ýòè àêñèîìû âûòåêàþò èç èäåè ïðîñòðàíñòâà è ïðåäñòàâëÿþò ðàçëè÷íûå àñïåêòû ýòîé èäåè. Îíè îòëè÷àþòñÿ îò îïðåäåëåíèé, è ïîñëåäíèå íå ìîãóò çàíÿòü ìåñòî àêñèîì â ðàññóæäåíèÿõ, îáîñíîâûâàþùèõ ýëåìåíòàðíûå ãåîìåòðè÷åñêèå ñâîéñòâà. Íàïðèìåð, îïðåäåëåíèå ïàðàëëåëüíûõ ïðÿìûõ ëèíèé ãîâî-

219

ÓÈËÜßÌ ÕÜÞÝËË

ðèò, ÷òî ýòî òàêèå ëèíèè, êîòîðûå, ñêîëüêî áû èõ íè ïðîäîëæàëè, íèêîãäà íå ìîãóò âñòðåòèòüñÿ. Îäíàêî äëÿ òîãî ÷òîáû ðàññóæäàòü î òàêèõ ëèíèÿõ, ìû äîëæíû âäîáàâîê ïðèíÿòü íåêîòîðóþ àêñèîìó, ãîâîðÿùóþ î íèõ. Íàïðèìåð, î÷åíü óäîáíî ïðèíÿòü ñëåäóþùóþ àêñèîìó: äâå ïåðåñåêàþùèåñÿ ïðÿìûå íå ìîãóò áûòü îáå ïàðàëëåëüíû íåêîòîðîé òðåòüåé ïðÿìîé2. Îïðåäåëåíèÿ è àêñèîìû íåðàçðûâíî ñâÿçàíû ñ íàøèì èíòóèòèâíûì ïîíèìàíèåì ñâîéñòâ ïðîñòðàíñòâà, îäíàêî àêñèîìû íåëüçÿ ñêîëüêî-íèáóäü ñòðîãî äîêàçàòü èç îïðåäåëåíèé. Åñëè áû ìû ïðèíÿëè êàêîå-ëèáî èíîå îïðåäåëåíèå ïàðàëëåëüíûõ ïðÿìûõ (íàïðèìåð, ãëàñÿùåå, ÷òî îíè îáå ïåðïåíäèêóëÿðíû íåêîòîðîé òðåòüåé ïðÿìîé), òî â ñâîåì äàëüíåéøåì äâèæåíèè ìû áû âñå ðàâíî ñòîëêíóëèñü ñ òåìè æå òðóäíîñòÿìè ïðè äîêàçàòåëüñòâå èõ ñâîéñòâ, ïðåîäîëåíèå êîòîðûõ ïîòðåáîâàëî áû äîïîëíèòåëüíûõ äîïóùåíèé. 4. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ýëåìåíòàðíûå ñâîéñòâà ôèãóð, ÿâëÿþùèåñÿ áàçèñîì íàøåé ãåîìåòðèè, ïðåäñòàâëÿþò ñîáîé íåèçáåæíûå ðåçóëüòàòû íàøåé èäåè ïðîñòðàíñòâà è ñâÿçàíû äðóã ñ äðóãîì áëàãîäàðÿ ïðèðîäå ýòîé èäåè, à íå òîëüêî íàøèì ãèïîòåçàì è êîíñòðóêöèÿì. Îïðåäåëåíèÿ è àêñèîìû äîëæíû áûòü ñîåäèíåíû, ÷òîáû âûðàçèòü èäåþ íàñòîëüêî, íàñêîëüêî òðåáóþò öåëè äåìîíñòðàòèâíîãî ðàññóæäåíèÿ. Ýòè ñëîâåñíûå âûðàæåíèÿ ðåçóëüòàòîâ äàííîé èäåè íå ìîãóò çàâèñåòü äðóã îò äðóãà áëàãîäàðÿ ëîãè÷åñêîé ñâÿçè, ìåæäó íèìè ñóùåñòâóåò âçàèìíàÿ çàâèñèìîñòü áîëåå ãëóáîêîãî ðîäà – çàâèñèìîñòü, êîòîðàÿ íå ìîæåò áûòü ïîëíîñòüþ âûðàæåíà ñëîâàìè. Íåëüçÿ ýòè èñòèíû ïðåäñòàâèòü â âèäå íåêîòîðûõ ãèïîòåç, à âñå îñòàëüíîå – êàê íåîáõîäèìîå ëîãè÷åñêîå ñëåäñòâèå ýòèõ ãèïîòåç. Çäåñü íåîáõîäèìîñòü íå ãèïîòåòè÷åñêàÿ, à èíòóèòèâíàÿ. Àêñèîìû òðåáóþò íå äîêàçàòåëüñòâà, à óñìîòðåíèÿ. Åñëè áû êòî-òî ñîãëàñèëñÿ ñ íèìè, íå óñìàòðèâàÿ èõ èñòèííîñòè, åãî ñîãëàñèå íè÷åãî áû íå äàëî äëÿ ðàññóæäåíèÿ, èáî îí íå ñóìåë áû óâèäåòü, â êàêèõ ñëó÷àÿõ èõ ìîæíî ïðèìåíÿòü. ßñíîå îâëàäåíèå èäååé ïðîñòðàíñòâà ÿâëÿåòñÿ ïåðâûì óñëîâèåì âñÿêîãî ãåîìåòðè÷åñêîãî ðàññóæäåíèÿ, è ýòà ÿñíîñòü èäåè ïðîâåðÿåòñÿ òåì, îòêðûâàþòñÿ ëè àêñèîìû ìûøëåíèþ êàê íå÷òî î÷åâèäíîå. 5.  íîâåéøèå âðåìåíà íåîáõîäèìîñòü èäåé, äîáàâëÿåìûõ ê ÷óâñòâåííûì âïå÷àòëåíèÿì äëÿ ïðîèçâîäñòâà çíàíèÿ, ÷àñòî óïóñêàëè èç âèäó èëè îòðèöàëè. Âñëåäñòâèå ýòîãî òåðÿëè îñíîâàíèå íåîáõîäèìîé èñòèíû, äîñòàâëÿåìîå èäåÿìè, ïðåäñòàâëÿÿ äåëî òàê, ÷òî îñíîâàíèå íåîáõîäèìîñòè êðîåòñÿ â îïðåäåëåíèÿõ, ÷òî ìîæíî ñîõðàíèòü íåîáõîäèìûå èñòèíû, óòâåðæäàÿ, ÷òî â íèõ íåÿâíî ñîäåðæàòñÿ îïðåäåëåíèÿ. Óòâåðæäàëè òàêæå, ÷òî êàê ðàç òàê äåëî îáñòîèò â ãåîìåòðèè: âñå ñâîéñòâà 2 Ýòà àêñèîìà ïðîùå è óäîáíîå, íåæåëè àêñèîìà Åâêëèäà. Åå èñïîëüçîâàë â ñâîåé «Ãåîìåòðèè» ïîêîéíûé (late) ïðîôåññîð Ïëåéôýð. [Õüþýëë ññûëàåòñÿ íà âûäàþùåãîñÿ øîòëàíäñêîãî ìàòåìàòèêà è ãåîãðàôà Äæîíà Ïëåéôýðà (Playfair, 1748–1818), èçâåñòíîãî ñâîèì èçäàíèåì «Íà÷àë» Åâêëèäà ñ êîììåíòàðèÿìè, àâòîðà àêñèîìû ïàðàëëåëüíîñòè òåîðèè ëåäíèêîâîãî äâèæåíèÿ è ñòîðîííèêà ãåîëîãè÷åñêîãî óíèôîðìèçìà, ðàáîòàâøåãî â Ýäèíáóðãñêîì óíèâåðñèòåòå. – Ïðèìå÷. ðåä.]

220

ÔÈËÎÑÎÔÈß ÈÍÄÓÊÒÈÂÍÛÕ ÍÀÓÊ

îêðóæíîñòè, íàïðèìåð, óæå íåÿâíî ñîäåðæàòñÿ â îïðåäåëåíèè îêðóæíîñòè. Áûëî ïîêàçàíî, ÷òî îäíî ýòî åùå íå äàåò îñíîâàíèÿ íåîáõîäèìîñòè èñòèí, îòíîñÿùèõñÿ ê îêðóæíîñòè, ÷òî ïðè ýòîì ìû íå ñìîãëè áû ðàçâåðíóòü îïðåäåëåíèå â ñóæäåíèÿ, íå îáëàäàÿ èíòóèòèâíûì ïîíèìàíèåì òåõ îòíîøåíèé, ê êîòîðûì âåäåò îïðåäåëåíèå. Íåäîñòàòî÷íîñòü óïîìÿíóòîãî âûøå ïîíèìàíèÿ îñíîâàíèé íåîáõîäèìîñòè ãåîìåòðè÷åñêèõ èñòèí îáíàðóæèâàåòñÿ è èíûì ïóòåì. Îêàçàëîñü, ÷òî íåâîçìîæíî ñôîðìóëèðîâàòü òàêóþ ñèñòåìó îïðåäåëåíèé, èç êîòîðîé ìîæíî áûëî áû ïîëó÷èòü âñþ ãåîìåòðè÷åñêóþ èñòèíó. Íåëüçÿ îáîéòèñü áåç àêñèîì. Íåëüçÿ äàòü òàêîå îïðåäåëåíèå ïðÿìîé ëèíèè, êîòîðîå ñäåëàëî áû èçëèøíåé àêñèîìó î ïðÿìûõ ëèíèÿõ. Áëàãîäàðÿ ýòîìó âûÿñíèëîñü, ÷òî èñòî÷íèêîì ãåîìåòðè÷åñêèõ èñòèí ÿâëÿåòñÿ íå îäíî îïðåäåëåíèå.  ýòîì ðåçóëüòàòå ìû óñìîòðåëè ïîäòâåðæäåíèå òîãî ó÷åíèÿ, íà êîòîðîì ìû çäåñü íàñòàèâàåì, à èìåííî, ÷òî ýòîò èñòî÷íèê èñòèíû êðîåòñÿ â ôîðìå èëè óñëîâèÿõ íàøåãî ÷óâñòâåííîãî âîñïðèÿòèÿ – â èäåå, êîòîðàÿ âñåãäà ñîåäèíÿåòñÿ ñ ÷óâñòâåííûìè âïå÷àòëåíèÿìè, â àêòèâíîñòè, à íå ïàññèâíîñòè ìûøëåíèÿ3. 6. Ýòî ñòàíîâèòñÿ ÿñíåå, êîãäà ìû ïåðåõîäèì ê ðàññìîòðåíèþ òîãî, êàêèì îáðàçîì îñóùåñòâëÿåòñÿ íàáëþäåíèå ïðîñòðàíñòâåííûõ îòíîøåíèé. Íî â ïåðâóþ î÷åðåäü ìû ìîæåì âûñêàçàòü çàìå÷àíèå, ãîâîðÿùåå î ñâÿçè ìåæäó íàøèì ïîíÿòèåì ïðÿìîé ëèíèè è àêñèîìîé, îáåñïå÷èâàþùåé îñíîâàíèå íàøèõ ðàññóæäåíèé îòíîñèòåëüíî ïðîñòðàíñòâà. Àêñèîìà òàêîâà: äâå ïðÿìûå ëèíèè, êîíöû êîòîðûõ ñîâïàäàþò, íå ìîãóò èìåòü ÷àñòåé, ðàçäåëåííûõ ïðîñòðàíñòâîì. Íåîáõîäèìîñòü ýòîé àêñèîìû íîñèò òî÷íî òàêîé æå õàðàêòåð, êàê íåîáõîäèìîñòü îïðåäåëåíèÿ ïðÿìîãî óãëà, î êîòîðîì ãîâîðèëîñü âûøå. Êàê ëèíèÿ, ïåðïåíäèêóëÿðíàÿ äðóãîé ëèíèè, îáðàçóåò ïðÿìûå óãëû, êîãäà óãëû ïî îáå åå ñòîðîíû ðàâíû, òàê è ëèíèÿ ÿâëÿåòñÿ ïðÿìîé, êîãäà ÷àñòè ïðîñòðàíñòâà, íàõîäÿùèå ïî îáå åå ñòîðîíû, îäèíàêîâû. È êàê ñóùåñòâóåò ëèøü îäíî ïîëîæåíèå ëèíèè, îáðàçóþùåå ðàâíûå óãëû, òàê ñóùåñòâóåò ëèøü åäèíñòâåííàÿ ôîðìà ëèíèè, äåëàþùàÿ ïðîñòðàíñòâà îäèíàêîâûìè ñ îäíîé è ñ äðóãîé ñòîðîíû îò íåå. Ïîýòîìó íå ìîæåò ñóùåñòâîâàòü äâóõ ïðÿìûõ ëèíèé, î êîòîðûõ ãîâîðèòñÿ â àêñèîìå, äàþùèõ äâà ðàçíûõ îãðàíè÷åíèÿ ïðîñòðàíñòâà. Âîò òàê ìû óñìàòðèâàåì îïðàâäàíèå ââåäåíèþ äàííîé àêñèîìû. Âîçìîæíî, ýòî ñòàíåò ÿñíåå, åñëè âçÿòü ëèñò áóìàãè è ñëîæèòü åãî ïîïîëàì. Íà ñãèáå ìû ïîëó÷èì ïðÿìóþ ëèíèþ, ðàçäåëÿþùóþ ïîâåðõíîñòü ëèñòà íà äâà îäèíàêîâûõ ïðîñòðàíñòâà. Òî, ÷òî ïðîñòðàíñòâà ïî îáå ñòîðîíû ñãèáà îäèíàêîâû, ñòàíîâèòñÿ î÷åâèäíî, êîãäà ìû 3 Ïîõîæèå âîççðåíèÿ ÿ âûñêàçûâàë ðàíåå â «Çàìå÷àíèÿõ», äîáàâëåííûõ ê ðàáîòå, íàçâàííîé ìíîþ «Ìåõàíè÷åñêèé Åâêëèä» è îïóáëèêîâàííîé â 1837 ã. Ýòè «Çàìå÷àíèÿ», â òîé ìåðå, â êîòîðîé îíè êàñàëèñü ðàññìàòðèâàåìîãî çäåñü âîïðîñà, áûëè îòìå÷åíû è ïîäâåðãëèñü êðèòèêå â ¹ 135 Edinburgh Review. Àíàëèç âîçðàæåíèé ðåöåíçåíòà ìîæåò áûòü ïîëåçåí äëÿ èëëþñòðàöèè ïðåäìåòà îáñóæäåíèÿ, ïîýòîìó ê íàñòîÿùåé ãëàâå ÿ ïðèëàãàþ îòâåò àâòîðó ðåöåíçèè.

221

ÓÈËÜßÌ ÕÜÞÝËË

íàëàãàåì äðóã íà äðóãà ïîëîâèíêè ëèñòà. Ëèíèÿ ñãèáà ëèñòà èëëþñòðèðóåò îïðåäåëåíèå ïðÿìîé ëèíèè è â òî æå âðåìÿ ïîäòâåðæäàåò àêñèîìó, ãëàñÿùóþ, ÷òî äâå òàêèå ëèíèè íå ìîãóò áûòü ðàçäåëåíû ïðîñòðàíñòâîì. Åñëè áû ðàçäåëåíèå ïðîñòðàíñòâà íà äâå ÷àñòè áûëî áû îñóùåñòâëåíî êàê-òî èíà÷å, à íå ïðÿìîé ëèíèåé, íàïðèìåð ëèñò áóìàãè áûë áû ðàçðåçàí âûïóêëîé ëèíèåé, òîãäà, íàëàãàÿ ïîëó÷èâøèåñÿ ÷àñòè îäíó íà äðóãóþ, ëåãêî áûëî áû óâèäåòü, ÷òî êðàé îäíîé ÷àñòè ÿâëÿåòñÿ âûïóêëûì, à êðàé äðóãîé ÷àñòè – âîãíóòûì è ýòè äâå ëèíèè ðàçäåëåíû ïðîñòðàíñòâîì. Êàæäàÿ èç íèõ ðàçäåëÿëà áû ïðîñòðàíñòâî íà äâå íåñîâïàäàþùèå ÷àñòè, îäíà èç êîòîðûõ èìååò âûïóêëûé êðàé, à äðóãàÿ – âîãíóòûé. Ìåæäó äâóìÿ òî÷êàìè ìîæíî ïðîâåñòè áåñ÷èñëåííîå ÷èñëî ëèíèé, èçîãíóòûõ ïî-ðàçíîìó, îäíàêî ïðÿìàÿ ëèíèÿ íå èçãèáàåòñÿ íè â îäíó, íè â äðóãóþ ñòîðîíó, îíà ÿâëÿåòñÿ åäèíñòâåííûì ñðåäíèì ñòàíäàðòîì, îò êîòîðîãî âñå äðóãèå ëèíèè ìîãóò îòêëîíÿòüñÿ â ðàçëè÷íûõ íàïðàâëåíèÿõ. Òàêîãî ðîäà ðàññóæäåíèÿ äîñòàòî÷íî õîðîøî ïîêàçûâàþò, ÷òî åäèíñòâåííîñòü ïðÿìîé ëèíèè, ñâÿçûâàþùåé ëþáûå äâå òî÷êè, ÿâëÿåòñÿ ðåçóëüòàòîì íàøåãî ôóíäàìåíòàëüíîãî ïîíÿòèÿ ïðîñòðàíñòâà. Òåì íå ìåíåå ïîíÿòèå îá îäèíàêîâîé ôîðìå äâóõ ÷àñòåé ïðîñòðàíñòâà ïî îáåèì ñòîðîíàì ëèíèè è ïîíÿòèå î ôîðìå ëèíèè, ÿâëÿþùåéñÿ ñðåäíèì çâåíîì ñðåäè âñåõ äðóãèõ ôîðì, ÿâëÿþòñÿ íàñòîëüêî íåîïðåäåëåííûìè, ÷òî íå ìîãóò ñëóæèòü óäîâëåòâîðèòåëüíûì áàçèñîì íàøåé ýëåìåíòàðíîé ãåîìåòðèè. Ãîðàçäî óäîáíåå çàìåíèòü èõ, êàê ýòî è äåëàëîñü ïî÷òè âî âñåõ òðàêòàòàõ ïî ãåîìåòðèè, àêñèîìîé, ãëàñÿùåé, ÷òî äâå ïðÿìûå ëèíèè íå ìîãóò îãðàíè÷èâàòü ïðîñòðàíñòâî. 7. Òåïåðü ìîæíî îáðàòèòü âíèìàíèå íà òî, ÷òî âûøå ìû ðàññìàòðèâàëè ïðîñòðàíñòâî òîëüêî â îäíîì àñïåêòå – êàê ïëîñêîñòü. Ïðåäïîëàãàëîñü, ÷òî ëèñò áóìàãè, ñ ïîìîùüþ êîòîðîãî ìû èëëþñòðèðîâàëè ïðèðîäó ïðÿìîé ëèíèè, ÿâëÿåòñÿ ñîâåðøåííî ïëîñêèì, â ïðîòèâíîì ñëó÷àå, ñãèáàÿ åãî, ìû ìîãëè áû íå ïîëó÷èòü ïðÿìîé ëèíèè. Ýòî ïðåäïîëîæåíèå î ïëîñêîñòè, ïî-âèäèìîìó, ñ÷èòàåò íåñîìíåííûì òî ñàìîå ïîíÿòèå ïðÿìîé ëèíèè, äëÿ èëëþñòðàöèè êîòîðîãî áûë èñïîëüçîâàí ëèñò áóìàãè, ïîñêîëüêó îïðåäåëåíèå ïëîñêîñòè, äàííîå â «Íà÷àëàõ ãåîìåòðèè» [Åâêëèäà], ãîâîðèò î òîì, ÷òî ýòî åñòü ïîâåðõíîñòü, íà êîòîðîé ëåæàò âñå ïðÿìûå ëèíèè, ïðîâåäåííûå èç îäíîé òî÷êè ýòîé ïîâåðõíîñòè ê äðóãîé. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, äàííîå âûøå îáúÿñíåíèå ïðèðîäû ïðÿìîé ëèíèè êàê ëèíèè, ðàçäåëÿþùåé ïëîñêîå ïðîñòðàíñòâî íà îäèíàêîâûå ÷àñòè, êàæåòñÿ íåñîâåðøåííûì èëè áåñïîëåçíûì. Íà ýòî ìû îòâå÷àåì, ÷òî äàííîå îáúÿñíåíèå ñòàíåò ïîëíûì è çíà÷èìûì, åñëè âûâåñòè ïîíÿòèå ïëîñêîñòè èç ðàññóæäåíèé, àíàëîãè÷íûõ òåì, ÷òî áûëè èñïîëüçîâàíû äëÿ ïðÿìîé ëèíèè. Ëþáóþ ÷àñòü îáúåìíîãî ïðîñòðàíñòâà ìîæíî ðàçäåëèòü íà äâå ÷àñòè ñ ïîìîùüþ ïîâåðõíîñòè, ïðîõîäÿùåé ÷åðåç ëþáóþ äàííóþ ëèíèþ èëè ãðàíèöó. Ýòè ïîâåðõíîñòè ìîãóò áûòü â ðàçëè÷íîé ñòåïåíè âûïóêëûìè ñ òîé

222

ÔÈËÎÑÎÔÈß ÈÍÄÓÊÒÈÂÍÛÕ ÍÀÓÊ

èëè èíîé ñòîðîíû. Åñëè ïîâåðõíîñòü ñ êàêîé-ëèáî ñòîðîíû ÿâëÿåòñÿ âûïóêëîé, ðàçäåëÿåìûå åþ ÷àñòè ïðîñòðàíñòâà íå áóäóò îäèíàêîâûìè: ó îäíîé áóäåò âûïóêëàÿ ãðàíèöà, à ó äðóãîé – âîãíóòàÿ. Îäíàêî ñóùåñòâóåò îïðåäåëåííîå ïðîìåæóòî÷íîå ïîëîæåíèå ïîâåðõíîñòè, ïðè êîòîðîì äâå ðàçäåëåííûå ÷àñòè ïðîñòðàíñòâà îáëàäàþò â òî÷íîñòè ñîâïàäàþùèìè ãðàíèöàìè.  ýòîì ïîëîæåíèè ïîâåðõíîñòü íå áóäåò íè âûïóêëîé, íè âîãíóòîé, à ïëîñêîé. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ïëîñêàÿ ïîâåðõíîñòü îïðåäåëÿåòñÿ ýòèì ñàìûì óñëîâèåì: ýòî åäèíñòâåííàÿ ïîâåðõíîñòü, êîòîðàÿ ÿâëÿåòñÿ ñðåäíåé ñðåäè âñåõ âûïóêëûõ è âîãíóòûõ ïîâåðõíîñòåé, êîòîðûå ìîãóò ðàçäåëÿòü îáúåìíîå ïðîñòðàíñòâî; îíà ðàçäåëÿåò òàêîå ïðîñòðàíñòâî íà äâå ÷àñòè, ãðàíèöû êîòîðûõ, õîòÿ îíè ïðåäñòàâëÿþò ñîáîé îäíó è òó æå ïîâåðõíîñòü â äâóõ ïðîòèâîïîëîæíûõ ïîëîæåíèÿõ, â òî÷íîñòè ñõîäíû. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ïëîñêîñòü åñòü íàèáîëåå ïðîñòàÿ è ñèììåòðè÷íàÿ ãðàíèöà, ðàçäåëÿþùàÿ òðåõìåðíîå òåëî, à ïðÿìàÿ ëèíèÿ ÿâëÿåòñÿ íàèáîëåå ïðîñòîé è ñèììåòðè÷íîé ïîãðàíè÷íîé ëèíèåé, ðàçäåëÿþùåé ïëîñêîñòü. Ýòè ïîíÿòèÿ ïîëó÷åíû èç ðàññìîòðåíèÿ îãðàíè÷åíèé áåñêîíå÷íîãî ïðîñòðàíñòâà, êîòîðîå âîîáðàæåíèåì ìîæåò áûòü ðàçäåëåíî ïî ðàçíûì íàïðàâëåíèÿì. È êàê çàìêíóòîå ïðîñòðàíñòâî ìîæåò áûòü ðàçäåëåíî íà äâå ÷àñòè ïëîñêîñòüþ, à ïëîñêîñòü îïÿòü-òàêè ìîæåò áûòü ðàçäåëåíà íà äâå ÷àñòè ïðÿìîé ëèíèåé, òàê è ëèíèÿ ðàçäåëÿåòñÿ íà äâå ÷àñòè òî÷êîé, êîòîðàÿ ÿâëÿåòñÿ îáùåé ãðàíèöåé äâóõ ÷àñòåé. Êîíåö îäíîé ÷àñòè è íà÷àëî äðóãîé ñàìè ïî ñåáå íå îáëàäàþò âåëè÷èíîé, ôîðìîé èëè ÷àñòÿìè. 8. Ãåîìåòðè÷åñêèå ñâîéñòâà ïëîñêîñòè è îáúåìíîãî òåëà âûâîäèìû èç ïåðâûõ ïðèíöèïîâ «Íà÷àë» [Åâêëèäà] áåç êàêèõ-ëèáî íîâûõ àêñèîì. Îïðåäåëåíèå ïëîñêîñòè, äàííîå âûøå è ãîâîðÿùåå î òîì, ÷òî âñå ïðÿìûå ëèíèè, ñîåäèíÿþùèå åå òî÷êè, ëåæàò íà îäíîé ïëîñêîñòè, ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé äîñòàòî÷íîå îñíîâàíèå äëÿ âñåõ ðàññóæäåíèé îá ýòèõ âåùàõ. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, èñòîëêîâàíèå ïðèðîäû ïðîñòðàíñòâà, âûðàæåííîå ïîñðåäñòâîì êîíêðåòíûõ îïðåäåëåíèé è àêñèîì, ñòàíîâèòñÿ ôóíäàìåíòîì äëèííîé öåïè äåäóêòèâíûõ ðàññóæäåíèé, ïîñðåäñòâîì êîòîðûõ óñòàíàâëèâàåòñÿ ÷ðåçâû÷àéíî îáøèðíîå è ëþáîïûòíîå ñîáðàíèå èñòèí, à èìåííî: âñÿ íàóêà îá ýëåìåíòàðíîé ïëîñêîñòè è ãåîìåòðèÿ îáúåìíûõ òåë. Äëÿ êàæäîãî ÷åëîâåêà, èçó÷àþùåãî çàêîíû ïðèðîäû, ýòà íàóêà ïðåäñòàâëÿåò íåóñòðàíèìóþ è ïîñòîÿííóþ îñíîâó, èáî ïðîñòðàíñòâåííûå è ÷èñëîâûå îòíîøåíèÿ ÿâëÿþòñÿ òåì àëôàâèòîì, ñ ïîìîùüþ êîòîðîãî çàïèñûâàþòñÿ ýòè çàêîíû. Îäíàêî ïîìèìî ýòîãî ãåîìåòðèÿ ïðåäñòàâëÿåò îãðîìíóþ è îñîáóþ öåííîñòü äëÿ âñåõ, êòî õî÷åò ïîíÿòü îñíîâàíèÿ ÷åëîâå÷åñêîãî ïîçíàíèÿ è ìåòîäû ïðèîáðåòåíèÿ çíàíèÿ. ×åëîâåê, èçó÷èâøèé ãåîìåòðèþ, ñ òàêîé ãëóáèíîé è ÿñ-íîñòüþ, êîòîðûå äàæå òðóäíî ñåáå ïðåäñòàâèòü ëþäÿì, íåçíàêîìûì ñ ìàòåìàòèêîé, óáåæäàåòñÿ â ñëåäóþùåì: ñóùåñòâóþò íåîáõîäèìûå èñòèíû, ìíîãèå

223

ÓÈËÜßÌ ÕÜÞÝËË

èç êîòîðûõ íîñÿò âåñüìà ñëîæíûé è ïîðàçèòåëüíûé õàðàêòåð, è íåñêîëüêî ïðîñòûõ è ñàìîî÷åâèäíûõ èñòèí, êîòîðûå ñïîñîáíî óñâîèòü ÷åëîâå÷åñêîå ìûøëåíèå, ïîñðåäñòâîì ñèñòåìàòè÷åñêîé äåäóêöèè ìîãóò ïðèâåñòè ê âåñüìà îòäàëåííûì è íåîæèäàííûì ðåçóëüòàòàì.  òàêîì ôèëîñîôñêîì èññëåäîâàíèè, êîòîðûì ìû ñåé÷àñ çàíèìàåìñÿ, îâëàäåíèå äî íåêîòîðîé ñòåïåíè ãåîìåòðèåé ïðåäîñòàâëÿåò òåîðåòèêó âàæíîå ïðåèìóùåñòâî, ïîñêîëüêó â ðåçóëüòàòå èçó÷åíèÿ ãåîìåòðèè îí ìîæåò ñ áîëüøåé ïîëíîòîé îñîçíàòü óïîìÿíóòûå âûøå îñîáåííîñòè ÷åëîâå÷åñêîãî ïîçíàíèÿ. Îïèðàÿñü íà óðîê, ïîëó÷åííûé ïðè ðàññìîòðåíèè ãåîìåòðè÷åñêèõ èñòèí, ìû ïîïûòàëèñü ðàçâèòü íàøå ó÷åíèå è ïîêàçàòü, ÷òî ýòè èñòèíû ïðåäñòàâëÿþò ñîáîé âûðàæåíèå ðàçëè÷íûõ àñïåêòîâ îäíîé è òîé æå ôóíäàìåíòàëüíîé èäåè è ÷òî îñíîâàíèÿ íåîáõîäèìîñòè ýòèõ èñòèí êîðåíÿòñÿ â èäåå, èç êîòîðîé îíè âûòåêàþò. Ñàìà æå èäåÿ íå ÿâëÿåòñÿ ðåçóëüòàòîì, âûâåäåííûì èç îïûòà, à ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé èñõîäíîå ïðàâèëî îïûòà. Åñëè ÷èòàòåëü ïîëó÷èë ÿñíîå è äîñòàòî÷íîå ïðåäñòàâëåíèå îá ýòèõ âåùàõ â òîé ìåðå, â êîòîðîé îíè ïðèìåíèìû ê íàøåìó çíàíèþ î ïðîñòðàíñòâå, îí ñóìååò, ìû óâåðåíû, ïðåîäîëåòü ãëàâíóþ òðóäíîñòü, ñ êîòîðîé îí ñòîëêíåòñÿ â ïðîöåññå äàëüíåéøèõ ïðåäñòàâëåííûõ åìó ðàññóæäåíèé. Îí ãîòîâ èäòè âïåðåä âìåñòå ñ íàìè, ÷òîáû óáåäèòüñÿ â òîì, ñêîëü øèðîêà îáëàñòü ïðèëîæåíèÿ òåõ æå ñàìûõ èäåé è íàñêîëüêî áîãàòû è ðàçíîîáðàçíûõ ïëîäû çíàíèÿ, èçâëåêàåìûå èç ýòèõ êàæóùèõñÿ âåñüìà òîùèìè ïðèíöèïîâ. Îäíàêî ïðåæäå ÷åì ïîêèíóòü ïðåäìåò íàñòîÿùåãî îáñóæäåíèÿ è ïåðåéòè ê äðóãèì âîïðîñàì, ìû äîëæíû îòâåòèòü íà íåêîòîðûå âîçðàæåíèÿ, êîòîðûå áûëè âûñêàçàíû ïðîòèâ ðàññìîòðåííûõ çäåñü âçãëÿäîâ, è ïðåäñòàâèòü äàëüíåéøèå èëëþñòðàöèè òåõ àêòèâíûõ ñïîñîáíîñòåé, êîòîðûå ìû ïðèïèñàëè ìûøëåíèþ. Глава V. О некоторых возражениях, высказанных против взглядов, изложенных в предшествующих главах4 «Edinburgh Review» (No. CXXXV) ñîäåðæèò êðèòèêó ðàáîòû «Ìåõàíè÷åñêèé Åâêëèä», â êîòîðîé áûëè ïðåäñòàâëåíû âîççðåíèÿ, 4 ×òîáû ñäåëàòü íàñòîÿùóþ ãëàâó áîëåå ïîíÿòíîé, ìîæíî êðàòêî ñôîðìóëèðîâàòü àðãóìåíòû, äàâøèå ïîâîä äëÿ ðåöåíçèè. Ïîñëå îòìå÷åííûõ óòâåðæäåíèé Ñòþàðòà î òîì, ÷òî íåñîìíåííîñòü ìàòåìàòè÷åñêîãî ðàññóæäåíèÿ îáåñïå÷èâàåòñÿ åãî çàâèñèìîñòüþ îò îïðåäåëåíèé è ÷òî ìàòåìàòè÷åñêàÿ èñòèíà íîñèò ãèïîòåòè÷åñêèé õàðàêòåð, ÿ íàñòàèâàë íà òîì, ÷òî åùå íèêîìó íå óäàâàëîñü ïîñòðîèòü ñèñòåìó ìàòåìàòè÷åñêèõ èñòèí òîëüêî ñ ïîìîùüþ îïðåäåëåíèé; ÷òî îïðåäåëåíèå íå áûëî áû ïðèåìëåìî, åñëè áû îíî íå ñîãëàñîâûâàëîñü ñ ÷åòêèì ïîíÿòèåì â ìûøëåíèè; ÷òî îïðåäåëåíèÿ, èñïîëüçóåìûå â ìàòåìàòèêå, íå ÿâëÿþòñÿ ïðîèçâîëüíûìè èëè ãèïîòåòè÷åñêèìè, à ïðåäñòàâëÿþò ñîáîé íåîáõîäèìûå îïðåäåëåíèÿ; ÷òî åñëè áû Ñòþàðò â êà÷åñòâå ïðèìåðà àêñèîì âçÿë ñïåöèàëüíûå ãåîìåòðè÷åñêèå àêñèîìû, åãî óòâåðæäåíèÿ îêàçàëèñü áû î÷åâèäíî îøèáî÷íûìè; ÷òî ðåàëüíûì îñíîâàíèåì èñòèí ìàòåìàòèêè ÿâëÿåòñÿ èäåÿ ïðîñòðàíñòâà, êîòîðàÿ ìîæåò áûòü âûðàæåíà (äëÿ öåëåé äîêàçàòåëüñòâà) îò÷àñòè ïîñðåäñòâîì îïðåäåëåíèé, à îò÷àñòè – ïîñðåäñòâîì àêñèîì.

224

ÔÈËÎÑÎÔÈß ÈÍÄÓÊÒÈÂÍÛÕ ÍÀÓÊ

áëèçêèå ê òåì, ÷òî áûëè ñôîðìóëèðîâàíû â ïîñëåäíåé ãëàâå è â ãë. XI êíèãè 1-é. Õîòÿ ÿ óâåðåí â òîì, ÷òî íåò òàêèõ àðãóìåíòîâ, âûñêàçàííûõ ðåöåíçåíòîì, íà êîòîðûå ó ëþáîãî ÷åëîâåêà, âíèìàòåëüíî ïðî÷èòàâøåãî ïðåäûäóùèå ãëàâû, íå íàøëîñü áû îòâåòà (çà èñêëþ÷åíèåì, âîçìîæíî, îäíîãî èëè äâóõ çàìå÷àíèé, îòíîñÿùèõñÿ ê ìåõàíè÷åñêèì èäåÿì), äëÿ ïðîÿñíåíèÿ ïðåäìåòà îáñóæäåíèÿ ïîñòàðàþñü îòâåòèòü íà âîçðàæåíèÿ ïðÿìî, ïðèíèìàÿ èõ â òîì âèäå, â êîòîðîì îíè âûñêàçàíû ðåöåíçåíòîì. 1. ß áûë íå ñîãëàñåí ñ óòâåðæäåíèåì Ñòþàðòà î òîì, ÷òî ìàòåìàòè÷åñêàÿ èñòèíà ÿâëÿåòñÿ ãèïîòåòè÷åñêîé èëè çàâèñèò îò ïðîèçâîëüíûõ îïðåäåëåíèé, ïîñêîëüêó ïîä ãèïîòåçîé ìû ïîíèìàíèåì íåêîòîðîå ïðåäïîëîæåíèå, êîòîðîå ìîæíî ïðèíèìàòü, îòâåðãàòü èëè çàìåíÿòü äðóãèì, â òî âðåìÿ êàê îïðåäåëåíèÿ è ãèïîòåçû ãåîìåòðèè ÿâëÿþòñÿ íåîáõîäèìûìè è èõ íåëüçÿ èçìåíèòü èëè îòáðîñèòü. Ðåöåíçåíò ñîîáùàåò íàì (ð. 84), ÷òî ïîíèìàåò Ñòþàðòà, êîãäà òîò ãîâîðèò î ãèïîòåçàõ è îïðåäåëåíèÿõ êàê îá îñíîâàíèÿõ ãåîìåòðèè â òîì ñìûñëå, ÷òî ðåàëüíûå îáúåêòû ãèïîòåòè÷åñêè ñîîòâåòñòâóþò íàøèì ãåîìåòðè÷åñêèì îïðåäåëåíèÿì. «Åñëè êðèñòàëë ÿâëÿåòñÿ òî÷íûì øåñòèãðàííèêîì, åìó ìîæíî ïðèïèñàòü ãåîìåòðè÷åñêèå ñâîéñòâà øåñòèãðàííèêà». Íà ýòî ÿ îòâå÷àþ, ÷òî ïîäîáíûå ãèïîòåçû äàþò îñíîâàíèå äëÿ ïðèìåíåíèÿ ãåîìåòðè÷åñêèõ èñòèí ê ðåàëüíûì îáúåêòàì, îäíàêî íè â êîåì ñëó÷àå íåëüçÿ ãîâîðèòü, ÷òî îíè ÿâëÿþòñÿ îñíîâàíèåì ñàìèõ ýòèõ èñòèí. ß íå äóìàþ, ÷òî Ñòþàðò èìåë â âèäó òîò ñìûñë, êîòîðûé ïðèïèñûâàåò åìó ðåöåíçåíò, íî äàæå åñëè è òàê, òî òàêîé âçãëÿä íà èñïîëüçîâàíèå ìàòåìàòèêè âîîáùå íå çàòðàãèâàåò âîïðîñà, êîòîðûé ìû ñîáèðàëèñü îáñóæäàòü, à èìåííî: âîïðîñà îá îñíîâàõ ìàòåìàòè÷åñêîé íåñîìíåííîñòè. Ê ýòîìó ÿ ìîãó äîáàâèòü, ÷òî âîïðîñ î òîì, ÿâëÿåòñÿ ëè íåêèé êðèñòàëë òî÷íûì øåñòèãðàííèêîì, ðåøàåòñÿ íàáëþäåíèåì è èçìåðåíèåì, à íå îïðåäåëåíèåì. Äóìàþ, ÷èòàòåëü ëåãêî çàìåòèò, ñêîëü ìàëî ìîå ó÷åíèå çàòðàãèâàåòñÿ òîé ñâÿçüþ, íà êîòîðîé íàñòàèâàåò ðåöåíçåíò. ß óòâåðæäàë: ñóæäåíèå î òîì, ÷òî êâàäðàò äèàãîíàëè ïðÿìîóãîëüíèêà ðàâåí ñóììå êâàäðàòîâ ñòîðîí, âîâñå íå îïèðàåòñÿ íà ïðîèçâîëüíûå ãèïîòåçû; êðèòèê îòâå÷àåò: ñóæäåíèå î òîì, ÷òî êâàäðàò äèàãîíàëè ýòîé ñòðàíèöû ðàâåí ñóììå êâàäðàòîâ ñòîðîí, çàâèñèò îò ïðîèçâîëüíîé ãèïîòåçû, ïðåäïîëàãàþùåé, ÷òî ñòðàíèöà ÿâëÿåòñÿ ïðÿìîóãîëüíîé. Äàæå åñëè áû ýòîò ôàêò çàâèñåë îò ïðîèçâîëüíîé ãèïîòåçû, êàêîå îòíîøåíèå ýòî èìåëî áû ê îáùåìó ãåîìåòðè÷åñêîìó ñóæäåíèþ? Êàêèì îáðàçîì êàêîé-òî åäèíè÷íûé ôàêò, íàáëþäàåìûé èëè ãèïîòåòè÷åñêèé, ìîã áû çàòðîíóòü óíèâåðñàëüíóþ è íåîáõîäèìóþ èñòèíó, êîòîðàÿ îñòàëàñü áû èñòèíîé, äàæå åñëè áû ôàêò îêàçàëñÿ ëîæíûì? Åñëè â ãåîìåòðèè íåò íè÷åãî ïðîèçâîëüíîãî èëè ãèïîòåòè÷åñêîãî, ïîêà ìû íå äîøëè äî åå ïðèìåíåíèÿ, ÿñíî, ÷òî ñàìè èñòè-

225

ÓÈËÜßÌ ÕÜÞÝËË

íû íå ÿâëÿþòñÿ ãèïîòåòè÷åñêèìè, à èìåííî ýòîò âîïðîñ ÿâëÿåòñÿ äëÿ íàñ ðåøàþùèì. 2. Çàòåì (ð. 85) ðåöåíçåíò ðàññìàòðèâàåò ó÷åíèå î òîì, ÷òî êàê àêñèîìû, òàê è îïðåäåëåíèÿ ÿâëÿþòñÿ îñíîâàíèÿìè ãåîìåòðèè, è çäåñü îí ïî÷åìó-òî ñóæàåò è çàïóòûâàåò îáñóæäåíèå, âûñòóïàÿ â êà÷åñòâå àäâîêàòà Ñòþàðòà, âìåñòî òîãî ÷òîáû âûñêàçàòü ñâîþ òî÷êó çðåíèÿ. ß óòâåðæäàë, ÷òî â êà÷åñòâå îñíîâàíèé ìàòåìàòè÷åñêîãî ðàññóæäåíèÿ â äîïîëíåíèå ê îïðåäåëåíèÿì íåîáõîäèìû òàêæå íåêîòîðûå àêñèîìû. Åñëè Ñòþàðò íå íàìåðåâàëñÿ îáñóæäàòü ýòîò âîïðîñ, òî ìåíÿ íå èíòåðåñóþò åãî âûñêàçûâàíèÿ îá àêñèîìàõ. Îäíàêî ó ìåíÿ åñòü îñíîâàíèå ñ÷èòàòü, ÷òî îí âñå-òàêè ñîáèðàëñÿ îáñóæäàòü ýòîò âîïðîñ. ß ïîëàãàþ, íåò ñîìíåíèé â òîì, ÷òî îí íàìåðåâàëñÿ âûñêàçàòü ñâîå ìíåíèå îá îáùèõ îñíîâàíèÿõ ìàòåìàòè÷åñêîãî ðàññóæäåíèÿ. Îí íà÷èíàåò ñâîè ðàññóæäåíèÿ («Elements». Vol. II. P. 38)5, îñïàðèâàÿ ìíåíèå Ðèäà (Reid) ïî ýòîìó âîïðîñó, êîòîðûé îí ôîðìóëèðóåò â îáùåì âèäå. Îí îïÿòü âîçâðàùàåòñÿ ê ýòîìó ïðåäìåòó, óòâåðæäàÿ â îáùèõ òåðìèíàõ, ÷òî ïåðâûìè ïðèíöèïàìè ìàòåìàòèêè ÿâëÿþòñÿ íå àêñèîìû, à îïðåäåëåíèÿ. Åñëè çàòåì îí äåëàåò ñâîå äîêàçàòåëüñòâî áîëåå óçêèì, ÷åì åãî óòâåðæäåíèå, è åñëè ïðîâîçãëàøàåò, ÷òî àêñèîìû íå ÿâëÿþòñÿ íåîáõîäèìûìè, à çàòåì îãðàíè÷èâàåòñÿ äåìîíñòðàöèåé òîãî, ÷òî ñåìü èç äâåíàäöàòè àêñèîì Åâêëèäà ïðåäñòàâëÿþò ñîáîé òîùèå òðþèçìû, òî ÿ íå ñîáèðàþñü îñïàðèâàòü ýòî óòâåðæäåíèå, ïîñêîëüêó îíî íèêàê íå çàòðàãèâàåò ìîåãî òåçèñà. ß óòâåðæäàë, ÷òî ïîäëèííûå ãåîìåòðè÷åñêèå àêñèîìû (î òîì, ÷òî äâå ïðÿìûå ëèíèè íå ìîãóò çàìêíóòü ïðîñòðàíñòâî, èëè î ïàðàëëåëüíûõ ëèíèÿõ) íåóñòðàíèìû èç ãåîìåòðèè. Êàê èñòîëêîâûâàåò ýòè àêñèîìû ðåöåíçåíò, ìû ñêîðî óâèäèì. Íî åñëè Ñòþàðò ñ÷èòàåò ýòè àêñèîìû íåîáõîäèìûìè äëÿ ãåîìåòðè÷åñêîãî ðàññóæäåíèÿ, òî îí îïðîâåðãàåò ñâîå ñîáñòâåííîå óòâåðæäåíèå îá îñíîâàíèÿõ òàêîãî ðàññóæäåíèÿ. Åñëè æå îí íå ãîâîðèò íè÷åãî âàæíîãî îá ýòèõ àêñèîìàõ, ÿâëÿþùèõñÿ öåíòðàëüíûì ïóíêòîì äèñêóññèè, òî åãî óòâåðæäåíèå îñòàåòñÿ íåäîêàçàííûì è ìíå íåò íóæäû âñòóïàòü â ñõâàòêó ïî âòîðîñòåïåííûì âîïðîñàì, êîãäà ãëàâíûé óæå ðåøåí. Ëèêîâàíèå ðåöåíçåíòà ïî ïîâîäó òîãî, ÷òî ÿ íå çàùèùàë ïåðâûå ñåìü àêñèîì, äàåò çàáàâíûé ïðèìåð óñåðäèÿ ñàìîäîâîëüíîãî àäâîêàòà. 3. Îáðàòèìñÿ ê ñàìîé ñóòè äåëà – ê ïîäëèííûì ãåîìåòðè÷åñêèì àêñèîìàì. Êàê èñòîëêîâûâàåò èõ ðåöåíçåíò? ×üþ ñòîðîíó â ñïîðå îí ïðèíèìàåò? Çàâèñÿò ëè îíè îò îïðåäåëåíèé è ãîòîâ ëè îí ïðîäåìîíñòðèðîâàòü ýòó çàâèñèìîñòü? Èëè îíè ÿâëÿþòñÿ èçëèøíèìè, è îí ìîæåò ñêîíñòðóèðîâàòü ñòðóêòóðó ãåîìåòðèè áåç íèõ? Ïî-âèäèìîìó, îí äîëæåí ïðèíÿòü îäíó èç äâóõ òî÷åê çðåíèÿ. Ìû îáà íà÷èíàåì ñ óòâåð5 Èìååòñÿ â âèäó ðàáîòà: Stewart D. Elements of the Philosophy of the Human Mind (1792). – Ïðèìå÷. ðåä.

226

ÔÈËÎÑÎÔÈß ÈÍÄÓÊÒÈÂÍÛÕ ÍÀÓÊ

æäåíèÿ ïðåâîñõîäñòâà ãåîìåòðèè êàê ïðèìåðà äåìîíñòðàòèâíîé èñòèíû. Èìåííî ýòî åå ñâîéñòâî äåëàåò èíòåðåñíûì íàñòîÿùåå èññëåäîâàíèå.  òàêîì ñëó÷àå êàêèì îáðàçîì ðåöåíçåíò îáúÿñíèò ýòî ïðåâîñõîäñòâî ñî ñâîåé òî÷êè çðåíèÿ? Êàê îí ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñåáå îñíîâàíèÿ òîãî çäàíèÿ, êîòîðîå ìû ñîãëàñíû ñ÷èòàòü ñîâåðøåííûì ïðèìåðîì èíòåëëåêòóàëüíîãî ñîîðóæåíèÿ?  êà÷åñòâå îòâåòà íà ýòîò âîïðîñ ÿ ìîãó ïðèíÿòü åãî ñîãëàñèå ñ òåì, ÷òî ñêàçàë áû Ñòþàðò (ð. 87): â ÷èñëî îñíîâàíèé ãåîìåòðèè ïðåäïîëîæèòåëüíî âõîäÿò ñàìîî÷åâèäíûå íåäîêàçóåìûå èñòèíû, õîòÿ ñòðàííî, ÷òî ðåöåíçåíò íå ðèñêíóë çàäóìàòüñÿ íàä èñòèííîñòüþ èëè ëîæíîñòüþ ýòîãî ïðåäïîëîæåíèÿ. Åñëè áû òàêèå èñòèíû ñóùåñòâîâàëè, îíè áûëè áû, ãîâîðèò îí, «çàêîííûìè îòïðûñêàìè» îïðåäåëåíèé. Îíè âêëþ÷àëèñü áû â îïðåäåëåíèÿ. È îí îïÿòü ãîâîðèò îá îñíîâàíèè ãåîìåòðè÷åñêîãî ó÷åíèÿ î ïàðàëëåëüíûõ êàê î ñëàáîì ìåñòå, êàê îá èñòèíå, êîòîðàÿ òðåáóåò, íî íå ïîëó÷àåò äîêàçàòåëüñòâ. Åùå ðàç îí ñîîáùàåò íàì, ÷òî êàæäàÿ èç ýòèõ ïðåäïîëàãàåìûõ àêñèîì (íàïðèìåð, 12-ÿ àêñèîìà Åâêëèäà) åñòü «ëèøü óêàçàíèå íà òîò ïóíêò, â êîòîðîì ãåîìåòðèè íå óäàëîñü îñóùåñòâèòü òî, ÷òî îíà ñîáèðàëàñü îñóùåñòâèòü» (ð. 91), è ÷òî â äåéñòâèòåëüíîñòè åå èñòèíû òàê è îñòàþòñÿ íåäîêàçàííûìè.  èòîãå ïîëó÷àåòñÿ, ÷òî ãåîìåòðè÷åñêèå àêñèîìû äîëæíû ñ÷èòàòüñÿ «çàêîííûìè îòïðûñêàìè» îïðåäåëåíèé, èáî õîòÿ îíè íåñîìíåííî èñòèííû, èõ íåëüçÿ äîêàçàòü èç îïðåäåëåíèé; ÷òî îíè âêëþ÷åíû â îïðåäåëåíèÿ, õîòÿ èõ íåëüçÿ èçâëå÷ü èç îïðåäåëåíèé; è ÷òî, íå äîïóñêàÿ, ÷òî îíè ìîãóò èìåòü èíîé èñòî÷íèê, íåæåëè îïðåäåëåíèÿ, ìû âûíóæäåíû ïðîâîçãëàñèòü, ÷òî ãåîìåòðèè íå óäàëîñü îñóùåñòâèòü òî, ê ÷åìó îíà ñòðåìèëàñü. Íà ýòî ÿ îòâå÷àþ, ÷òî íå ìîãó ïîíÿòü, ÷òî ïîäðàçóìåâàåòñÿ ïîä «çàêîííûìè îòïðûñêàìè» êàêèõ-òî ïðèíöèïîâ, åñëè ýòî íå îçíà÷àåò ñëåäñòâèé òàêèõ ïðèíöèïîâ, îáîñíîâàííûõ ñòðîãèì è ôîðìàëüíûì äîêàçàòåëüñòâîì. Åñëè ðåöåíçåíò ïðåòåíäóåò íà òî, ÷òî åãî âûðàæåíèå èìååò êàêîé-òî ðåàëüíûé ñìûñë, òî îí äîëæåí îáîñíîâàòü ýòîò ñìûñë ïîñðåäñòâîì òàêîãî äîêàçàòåëüñòâà, îí äîëæåí ñíàáäèòü ñâîåãî «çàêîííîãî îòïðûñêà» óäîâëåòâîðèòåëüíûì ãåíåàëîãè÷åñêèì äðåâîì. Åñëè æå ýòîãî íåëüçÿ ñäåëàòü, òî óòâåðæäåíèå î òîì, áóäòî ñóæäåíèÿ âêëþ÷åíû â îïðåäåëåíèÿ, åñòü ïðîñòî óõîä îò âîïðîñà. Îïðàâäûâàòü ýòî, ññûëàÿñü íà òî, ÷òî ãåîìåòðèÿ ÿêîáû íå ñîâåðøèëà òîãî, ÷òî îáåùàëà, çíà÷èò îõàèâàòü òó íàóêó, êîòîðóþ ìû ïðîâîçãëàøàåì ñâîèì ñòàíäàðòîì, âìåñòî òîãî ÷òîáû îòêàçàòüñÿ îò ïðîèçâîëüíûõ è íåîáîñíîâàííûõ óòâåðæäåíèé îòíîñèòåëüíî ðåàëüíûõ îñíîâàíèé åå ïðåâîñõîäñòâà. Äîáàâëþ, ÷òî åñëè ó÷åíèå î ïàðàëëåëüíûõ èëè ëþáîå äðóãîå ãåîìåòðè÷åñêîå ó÷åíèå, èñòèííîñòü êîòîðîãî ìû óñìàòðèâàåì âìåñòå ñ ãëóáî÷àéøèì ïîíèìàíèåì åãî íåîáõîäèìîñòè, äî ñèõ ïîð íå ïîëó÷èëî äîêàçàòåëüñòâà, óäîâëåòâîðÿþùåãî êàêóþ-ëèáî øêîëó ìûñëèòåëåé, òî ýòîò êàæóùèéñÿ íåäîñòàòîê ñëåäóåò îòíåñòè íà

227

ÓÈËÜßÌ ÕÜÞÝËË

ñ÷åò îøèáî÷íîñòè èõ ïðåäñòàâëåíèé î ïðèðîäå äîêàçàòåëüñòâà è îñíîâàíèÿõ ìàòåìàòè÷åñêîé íåñîìíåííîñòè. 4. Ñ÷èòàþ, ÷òî ðåöåíçåíòó íå óäàëîñü îïðîâåðãíóòü ó÷åíèå î òîì, ÷òî àêñèîìû ãåîìåòðèè íåîáõîäèìû êàê ÷àñòü îñíîâàíèé ýòîé íàóêè. ß óòâåðæäàë, ÷òî àêñèîìû âîñïîëíÿþò òî, ÷åãî íå äàþò îïðåäåëåíèÿ, è ÷òî âìåñòå ñ îïðåäåëåíèÿìè îíè ïðåäñòàâëÿþò èäåþ ïðîñòðàíñòâà â òàêîì àñïåêòå, êîòîðûé äàåò íàì âîçìîæíîñòü ðàññóæäàòü î íåé ëîãè÷åñêè. Ðåöåíçåíò ïðîòèâîïîñòàâëÿåò ýòîìó ðàñïðîñòðàíåííîå ìíåíèå, ñîãëàñíî êîòîðîìó óäîâëåòâîðèòåëüíîå îïðåäåëåíèå ÿâëÿåòñÿ ïîëíûì îáúÿñíåíèåì íåêîòîðîãî èìåíè è ïðîâåðêà åãî óäîâëåòâîðèòåëüíîñòè çàêëþ÷àåòñÿ â òîì, ÷òî èìÿ ìû ìîæåì âåçäå çàìåíÿòü åãî îïðåäåëåíèåì. ß îòâå÷àþ, ÷òî, ñ ìîåé òî÷êè çðåíèÿ, îïðåäåëåíèå âûðàæàåò ëèøü ÷àñòè÷íî, à íå ïîëíîñòüþ ñóùåñòâåííûå îñîáåííîñòè èäåè. Ýòî, áåçóñëîâíî, ðàñõîäèòñÿ ñ âñòðå÷àþùèìñÿ èíîãäà ìíåíèåì, áóäòî îïðåäåëåíèå ëèøü îáúÿñíÿåò ñëîâî è äîëæíî äåëàòü ýòî ñ òàêîé ïîëíîòîé, ÷òîáû âñåãäà çàìåíÿòü ýòî ñëîâî. Îøèáî÷íîñòü ïðèâåäåííîãî ðàñïðîñòðàíåííîãî ìíåíèÿ ìîæíî ïîêàçàòü, ìíå êàæåòñÿ, ñëåäóþùèìè ðàññóæäåíèÿìè. Åñëè ìû õîòèì îïðåäåëèòü íåêîòîðîå ñëîâî ñ ïîìîùüþ äðóãèõ ñëîâ, òî çàòåì ìîæåò ïîòðåáîâàòüñÿ îáúÿñíèòü êàæäîå èç ýòèõ ñëîâ ñ ïîìîùüþ åùå êàêèõ-òî ñëîâ è íà ýòîì ïóòè íå âèäíî êîíöà èëè ïóíêòà îñòàíîâêè. Êîãäà ïðè îáñóæäåíèè îáùèõ ïðèíöèïîâ ìû âìåñòî îòäåëüíûõ òåðìèíîâ ïîäñòàâëÿåì èõ îïðåäåëåíèÿ, ýòî âåäåò íå ê ïðîÿñíåíèþ, à ê çàòåìíåíèþ ñóòè äåëà. Äàæå è â ýòîì ñëó÷àå ìû íå ìîæåì ðàññóæäàòü, íå ïðåäñòàâëÿÿ ñåáå, ÷òî îçíà÷àåò òîò èëè èíîé òåðìèí. Îòíîøåíèÿ íàøèõ ïîíÿòèé, à íå ïðîèçâîëüíàÿ ýêâèâàëåíòíîñòü äâóõ ôîðì âûðàæåíèÿ – âîò îñíîâàíèÿ íàøåãî ðàññóæäåíèÿ. 5. Ðåöåíçåíò ñ÷èòàåò, ÷òî íåêîòîðûå òàê íàçûâàåìûå àêñèîìû â äåéñòâèòåëüíîñòè ÿâëÿþòñÿ îïðåäåëåíèÿìè. Àêñèîìà, ãëàñÿùàÿ, ÷òî «âåëè÷èíû, ñîâïàäàþùèå îäíà ñ äðóãîé, ò.å. çàïîëíÿþùèå îäíî è òî æå ïðîñòðàíñòâî, ðàâíû», ÿâëÿåòñÿ îïðåäåëåíèåì ãåîìåòðè÷åñêîãî ðàâåíñòâà; àêñèîìà, ãëàñÿùàÿ, ÷òî «öåëîå áîëüøå ñâîèõ ÷àñòåé», ÿâëÿåòñÿ îïðåäåëåíèåì öåëîãî è ÷àñòè. Îäíàêî òàêàÿ òî÷êà çðåíèÿ âûçûâàåò ñåðüåçíûå âîçðàæåíèÿ. Ãîðàçäî áîëåå åñòåñòâåííî áûëî áû ñêàçàòü, ÷òî åñëè ïåðâàÿ àêñèîìà ÿâëÿåòñÿ îïðåäåëåíèåì ñëîâà «ðàâåíñòâî», òî âòîðàÿ ÿâëÿåòñÿ îïðåäåëåíèåì ñëîâà «áîëüøå». Êàê îäíà êîðîòêàÿ ôðàçà ìîæåò îïðåäåëÿòü äâà òåðìèíà? Åñëè ÿ ñêàæó: «Òåïëîòà ëåòà áîëüøå, ÷åì òåïëîòà çèìû», òî õîòÿ ýòî ñóæäåíèå ñîâåðøåííî ïîíÿòíî è ÿñíî, ðàçâå îíî ÷òî-ëèáî îïðåäåëÿåò? Ìíå êàæåòñÿ, ïîïûòêà ñâåñòè ýòè àêñèîìû ê îïðåäåëåíèÿì íåñîñòîÿòåëüíà. 6. ß óòâåðæäàë, ÷òî îïðåäåëåíèå ìîæíî íå èñïîëüçîâàòü, åñëè ìû îñîçíàåì âîçìîæíîñòü è èñòèííîñòü ñâÿçàííîãî ñ íèì ñâîéñòâà; è åñëè ìû îñîçíàåì ýòî, òî èìååì ïðàâî íà÷èíàòü íàøè ðàññóæäåíèÿ, êîíñòàòèðîâàâ ýòî ñâîéñòâî â êà÷åñòâå àêñèîìû. Èìåííî òàê ïîñòóïàåò

228

ÔÈËÎÑÎÔÈß ÈÍÄÓÊÒÈÂÍÛÕ ÍÀÓÊ

Åâêëèä ñ ïðÿìûìè ëèíèÿìè è ïàðàëëåëüíûìè. Ðåöåíçåíò ñïðàøèâàåò (ð. 92), ãîòîâ ëè ÿ ðàñïðîñòðàíèòü ýòîò ïîäõîä íà îêðóæíîñòè, ðàññóæäåíèÿ î êîòîðûõ îáû÷íî íà÷èíàþò ñ îïðåäåëåíèÿ, ìîãó ëè ÿ çàìåíèòü ýòî îïðåäåëåíèå àêñèîìîé. Íà ýòî ÿ îòâåòèë áû, ÷òî äëÿ ìåíÿ âîâñå íå îáÿçàòåëüíî ïðåäïðèíèìàòü òàêîå èçìåíåíèå. Âîîáùå ãîâîðÿ, íå èìååò çíà÷åíèÿ, â êàêîì âèäå âûðàæåíî ôóíäàìåíòàëüíîå ñâîéñòâî, î êîòîðîì ìû ðàññóæäàåì, – îïðåäåëåíèÿ èëè àêñèîìû, åñëè åãî íåîáõîäèìîñòü î÷åâèäíà. Îäíàêî ÿ ãîòîâ óòâåðæäàòü, ÷òî íàøà ãåîìåòðèÿ íå ñòàëà áû õóæå îò òîãî, ÷òî âìåñòî îáû÷íîãî îïðåäåëåíèÿ îêðóæíîñòè êàê «ôèãóðû, îáðàçîâàííîé îäíîé ëèíèåé, êîòîðàÿ íàçûâàåòñÿ îêðóæíîñòüþ è ÿâëÿåòñÿ òàêîé, ÷òî âñå ïðÿìûå ëèíèè, èñõîäÿùèå èç îïðåäåëåííîé òî÷êè âíóòðè îêðóæíîñòè, ðàâíû», ìû ïîñòàâèëè áû ñëåäóþùèå àêñèîìó è îïðåäåëåíèå. Àêñèîìà. Åñëè ïðîâåñòè ëèíèþ òàê, ÷òî êàæäàÿ åå òî÷êà áóäåò íàõîäèòüñÿ íà ðàâíîì ðàññòîÿíèè îò îïðåäåëåííîé òî÷êè, òî ýòà ëèíèÿ ñîìêíåòñÿ èëè áóäåò îäíîé ëèíèåé, çàìûêàþùåé ïðîñòðàíñòâî. Îïðåäåëåíèå. Ïðîñòðàíñòâî íàçûâàåòñÿ êðóãîì, ëèíèÿ – îêðóæíîñòüþ, à òî÷êà – öåíòðîì. Ïðè ýòîì ìû óáåäèëèñü áû, êàê çàìåòèë ðåöåíçåíò, â òîì, ÷òî ãåîìåòðèÿ íå ìîæåò ñäåëàòü íè îäíîãî øàãà, íå îïèðàÿñü íà êàêóþ-ëèáî àêñèîìó. È ÿ íå ïîáîþñü ñêàçàòü, ÷òî ïðèâåäåííàÿ âûøå àêñèîìà – âûðàæåííàÿ â ÿâíîì âèäå èëè ïîíèìàåìàÿ – íå ìåíåå íåîáõîäèìà, ÷åì îïðåäåëåíèå, è îíà íåÿâíî ïðåäïîëàãàåòñÿ êàæäûì ñóæäåíèåì, êîòîðîå ãîâîðèò î êðóãàõ. 7. Äóìàþ, ÷òî ïðèøëî âðåìÿ óñòðàíèòü ïðèíöèïèàëüíûå âîçðàæåíèÿ, îòíîñÿùèåñÿ ê ñîáñòâåííûì àêñèîìàì ãåîìåòðèè. Êàê ÿ óæå ñêàçàë, íåò íóæäû îáñóæäàòü çäåñü ïðèíöèïû, ñôîðìóëèðîâàííûå â êà÷åñòâå ïåðâûõ ñåìè àêñèîì â «Íà÷àëàõ» Åâêëèäà. Ýòè ïðèíöèïû ãîâîðÿò íå êîíêðåòíî î ïðîñòðàíñòâå, à î âåëè÷èíàõ âîîáùå, íàïðèìåð: «Åñëè ê ðàâíûì äîáàâëåíî ðàâíîå, òî öåëûå áóäóò ðàâíû»; «Åñëè îò ðàâíûõ îòíÿòü ðàâíîå, òî îñòàíóòñÿ ðàâíûå». Îäíàêî ïðåæäå ÷åì ïðîäîëæàòü, ÿ âûñêàæó î íèõ îäíî èëè äâà çàìå÷àíèÿ. È Ëîêê, è Ñòþàðò ãîâîðÿò îá ýòèõ àêñèîìàõ, êàê î áåññîäåðæàòåëüíûõ òðþèçìàõ, êàê î ñóæäåíèÿõ, èç êîòîðûõ íåëüçÿ íè÷åãî âûâåñòè, à ðåöåíçåíò óòâåðæäàåò, ÷òî îíè ÿâëÿþòñÿ íå ïåðâûìè ïðèíöèïàìè, à çàêîíàìè ìûøëåíèÿ (ð. 88). Ñ ïîñëåäíèì óòâåðæäåíèåì ÿ ñîãëàñåí, íî õîòåë áû äîáàâèòü, ÷òî íå òîëüêî ýòè, íî âñå ïðèíöèïû, âûðàæàþùèå ôóíäàìåíòàëüíûå óñëîâèÿ íàøåãî ïîçíàíèÿ, ñ ðàâíûì ïðàâîì ìîæíî íàçâàòü çàêîíàìè ìûøëåíèÿ, èáî ýòè ïðèíöèïû çàâèñÿò îò íàøèõ èäåé è óïðàâëÿþò àêòèâíûìè äåéñòâèÿìè ìûøëåíèÿ, êîòîðîå ïðèäàåò ïîñëåäîâàòåëüíîñòü è ñâÿçíîñòü íàøèì ïàññèâíûì ÷óâñòâåííûì âïå÷àòëåíèÿì. Îäíàêî óòâåðæäåíèå î òîì, ÷òî èç ïðîñòûõ àêñèîì èëè çàêîíîâ ìûøëåíèÿ, îòíîñÿùèõñÿ ê êîëè÷åñòâó, íåëüçÿ ñäåëàòü íèêàêîãî âûâîäà, íèêîèì îáðàçîì íå ÿâëÿåòñÿ èñòèí-

229

ÓÈËÜßÌ ÕÜÞÝËË

íûì. Âñÿ àðèôìåòèêà, íàïðèìåð ïðàâèëà óìíîæåíèÿ, äåëåíèÿ èëè íàõîæäåíèÿ îáùåãî äåëèòåëÿ, êîðî÷å, âñå ñîäåðæàíèå òåîðèè ÷èñåë îïèðàåòñÿ íà óïîìÿíóòûå âûøå àêñèîìû, ãîâîðÿùèå î òîì, ÷òî åñëè ê ðàâíûì äîáàâèòü ðàâíîå, òî ïîëó÷èâøèåñÿ öåëûå áóäóò ðàâíû, è ò.ï. Êîãäà Ñòþàðò è ðåöåíçåíò èçìåíÿþò óòâåðæäåíèå Ëîêêà î òîì, ÷òî èç ýòèõ àêñèîì íåëüçÿ âûâåñòè íèêàêèõ èñòèí, è îãðàíè÷èâàþò èõ ãåîìåòðè÷åñêèìè èñòèíàìè, ñ ýòèì åäâà ëè ìîæíî ñîãëàñèòüñÿ (íå ãîâîðÿ óæå î òîì, ÷òî ê íàøåìó àðãóìåíòó ýòî èìååò âåñüìà ìàëîå îòíîøåíèå). Áî´ëüøàÿ ÷àñòü ñåäüìîé êíèãè «Íà÷àëà» Åâêëèäà (î ñîèçìåðèìûõ è íåñîèçìåðèìûõ âåëè÷èíàõ) è ïÿòîé êíèãè (î ïðîïîðöèÿõ) çàâèñèò îò ýòèõ àêñèîì ñ åäèíñòâåííûì äîáàâëåíèåì îïðåäåëåíèÿ èëè àêñèîìû (ýòî ìîæíî âûðàçèòü ëþáûì ñïîñîáîì), âûðàæàþùèõ èäåþ ïðîïîðöèîíàëüíîñòè â ÷èñëàõ. Òàê ÷òî ïîïûòêà íèñïðîâåðãíóòü íåîáõîäèìîñòü è èñïîëüçîâàíèå àêñèîì â êà÷åñòâå ïðèíöèïîâ ðàññóæäåíèÿ ïðîâàëèâàåòñÿ äàæå â òîì ñëó÷àå, êîãäà ìû îáðàùàåìñÿ ê ïðèìåðàì, êîòîðûå íàøè îïïîíåíòû ñ÷èòàþò íàèáîëåå áëàãîïðèÿòíûìè äëÿ èõ äîêòðèíû. 8. Ìîæåò áûòü, ó ÷èòàòåëÿ óæå âîçíèê âîïðîñ: çà÷åì ôîðìàëüíî óñòàíàâëèâàòü ïîäîáíûå ïðèíöèïû (íàïðèìåð, åñëè ê ðàâíûì äîáàâèòü ðàâíîå, òî ïîëó÷àòñÿ ðàâíûå öåëûå), åñëè íåçàâèñèìî îò ýòîãî îíè âñå ðàâíî áóäóò ïðèñóòñòâîâàòü â íàøåì ðàññóæäåíèè? È êàê ìîæíî òàêèå ïðèíöèïû ñ÷èòàòü íåîáõîäèìûìè, åñëè íàøå äîêàçàòåëüñòâî ñ ðàâíûì óñïåõîì îñóùåñòâëÿåòñÿ áåç êàêîé-ëèáî ññûëêè íà íèõ? Îòâåò ñîñòîèò â ñëåäóþùåì: ïîñêîëüêó ðå÷ü èäåò îá îáùåïðèíÿòûõ ïðèíöèïàõ ðàññóæäåíèÿ, êîòîðûìè ìû åñòåñòâåííî ïîëüçóåìñÿ áåç èõ ñïåöèàëüíîãî ðàññìîòðåíèÿ, ïîñòîëüêó îíè òðåáóþò âûäåëåíèÿ è ôîðìàëüíîãî âûðàæåíèÿ òîëüêî òîãäà, êîãäà ìû àíàëèçèðóåì óæå ïîëó÷åííûå äîêàçàòåëüñòâà.  ëþáîì ìûñëèòåëüíîì ïðîöåññå ìíîãèå ïðèíöèïû îáúåäèíÿþòñÿ è ïîäâåðãàþòñÿ ñîêðàùåíèþ, ïîýòîìó ïðåäñòàþò â ñêðûòîì èëè íåÿñíîì âèäå. Ïðè àíàëèçå ýòèõ ïðîöåññîâ ñîåäèíåíèÿ äîëæíû áûòü ðàçúåäèíåíû, ñîêðàùåíèÿ – ðàçâåðíóòû è âñå äîëæíî áûòü ïðåäñòàâëåíî ïåäàíòè÷íî è ôîðìàëüíî. Òî, ÷òî êàæåòñÿ èçëèøíèì äëÿ ñàìîãî äîêàçàòåëüñòâà, íåîáõîäèìî äëÿ àíàëèçà äîêàçàòåëüñòâà. Äëÿ òîãî ÷òîáû ÷åòêî ïðåäñòàâèòü óñëîâèÿ äåìîíñòðàòèâíîãî ðàññóæäåíèÿ, èõ íóæíî ïðåäñòàâèòü ôîðìàëüíî. Òî÷íî òàê æå â äåìîíñòðàòèâíîì ðàññóæäåíèè ìû îáû÷íî íå âûðàæàåì êàæäûé øàã â âèäå ñèëëîãèçìà, îäíàêî ìîæåì îáíàðóæèòü îñíîâàíèÿ óáåäèòåëüíîñòè ðàññóæäåíèÿ, ðàçëîæèâ åãî íà ñèëëîãèçìû. Íè àêñèîìû, íè ñèëëîãèçìû íå ÿâëÿþòñÿ íåîáõîäèìûìè äëÿ óáåæäåíèÿ, îäíàêî îíè íåîáõîäèìû äëÿ âûÿâëåíèÿ òåõ óñëîâèé, ïðè êîòîðûõ óáåæäåíèå ñòàíîâèòñÿ íåèçáåæíûì. Ïðèìåíåíèå îòäåëüíîé àêñèîìû åñòü ñòîëü ìåëêèé øàã â äîêàçàòåëüñòâå, ÷òî êàæåòñÿ ïåäàíòèçìîì îñîáî îòìå÷àòü åãî, îäíàêî ïîäëèííàÿ ñóùíîñòü äåìîíñòðàòèâíîãî ðàññóæäåíèÿ êàê ðàç è çàêëþ÷à-

230

ÔÈËÎÑÎÔÈß ÈÍÄÓÊÒÈÂÍÛÕ ÍÀÓÊ

åòñÿ â òîì, ÷òî îíî ñîñòîèò èç íåðàçðûâíîé ïîñëåäîâàòåëüíîñòè òàêèõ ìåëêèõ øàãîâ. Ïîñðåäñòâîì íàêîïëåíèÿ òàêèõ âíåøíå íåçàìåòíûõ óñïåøíûõ ïðîäâèæåíèé ìû â êîíå÷íîì èòîãå ìîæåì äîáèòüñÿ íåñîìíåííîãî è îãðîìíîãî ïðîãðåññà. Ïîëíîòà àíàëèçà íàøåãî ïîçíàíèÿ êàê ðàç è âûðàæàåòñÿ â äîñòèæåíèè ìåëü÷àéøèõ ýëåìåíòîâ, íà êîòîðûå îíî ìîæåò áûòü ðàçëîæåíî. Ìèêðîñêîïè÷íîñòü ëþáîãî èç ýòèõ ýëåìåíòîâ èñòèíû, íàïðèìåð àêñèîì, íå ìåøàåò èì áûòü ñòîëü æå ñóùåñòâåííûìè, êàê è äðóãèõ, áîëåå çàìåòíûõ. Ëþáàÿ ïîïûòêà ïðèçíàâàòü ýëåìåíòû ëèøü îäíîãî âèäà, â òî âðåìÿ êàê àíàëèç ïðåäúÿâëÿåò íàì äâà èëè áîëåå âèäîâ ýòèõ ýëåìåíòîâ, ÿâëÿåòñÿ âñåöåëî íåôèëîñîôñêîé. Àêñèîìû è îïðåäåëåíèÿ – íåïîñðåäñòâåííûå êîíñòèòóåíòû ïðèíöèïîâ íàøèõ äåìîíñòðàòèâíûõ ðàññóæäåíèé, è òåñíóþ ñâÿçü ìåæäó îïðåäåëåíèÿìè è àêñèîìàìè íåëüçÿ âûðàæàòü óòâåðæäåíèåì î òîì, ÷òî âòîðûå âûâîäèìû èç ïåðâûõ. Ýòà ñâÿçü ñóùåñòâóåò â ìûøëåíèè ðàññóæäàþùåãî, â åãî ïîíÿòèè î òîì, íà ÷òî ññûëàþòñÿ îïðåäåëåíèÿ è àêñèîìû, à ñëåäîâàòåëüíî, â îáùåé ôóíäàìåíòàëüíîé èäåå, ìîäèôèêàöèåé êîòîðîé ÿâëÿåòñÿ ýòî ïîíÿòèå.

Глава VI. О восприятии пространства 1. Ñîãëàñíî èçëîæåííîìó âûøå, íàøè âïå÷àòëåíèÿ ïîçâîëÿþò íàì âîñïðèíèìàòü îáúåêòû êàê ñóùåñòâóþùèå â ïðîñòðàíñòâå, ïîñêîëüêó áëàãîäàðÿ ñòðóêòóðå ìûøëåíèÿ ìû ñïîñîáíû ïîëó÷àòü ýòè âïå÷àòëåíèÿ ëèøü â îïðåäåëåííîé ôîðìå, âêëþ÷àþùåé ñïîñîá ñóùåñòâîâàíèÿ. Îäíàêî òåïåðü ñëåäóåò ïîñòàâèòü âîïðîñ î òîì, ÷òî ñîáîé ïðåäñòàâëÿþò òå ÷óâñòâåííûå âïå÷àòëåíèÿ, ïîñðåäñòâîì êîòîðûõ ìû çíàêîìèìñÿ ñ ïðîñòðàíñòâîì è ïðîñòðàíñòâåííûìè îòíîøåíèÿìè. Ìû âèäåëè, ÷òî ïîä èäååé ïðîñòðàíñòâà ïîäðàçóìåâàåòñÿ êàê íåêîòîðûé àêò ìûøëåíèÿ, òàê è ÷óâñòâåííîå âïå÷àòëåíèå. Êàê ïðîÿâëÿåòñÿ ýòà àêòèâíîñòü ìûøëåíèÿ â íàøåì íàáëþäåíèè âíåøíåãî ìèðà? Î÷åâèäíî, ÷òî òåìè ÷óâñòâàìè, ïîñðåäñòâîì êîòîðûõ öåëèêîì èëè â îñíîâíîì âîñïðèíèìàþòñÿ ïðîñòðàíñòâåííûå îòíîøåíèÿ, ÿâëÿþòñÿ çðåíèå è îñÿçàíèå. Îáîíÿíèå, îùóùåíèå òåïëà èëè õîëîäà åäâà ëè ñìîãëè áû íåçàâèñèìî îò îïûòà âíóøèòü íàì ïîíÿòèå îá îêðóæàþùåì ïðîñòðàíñòâå. Íî êîãäà ìû ñìîòðèì íà îáúåêòû, ìû âèäèì, ÷òî îíè ÿâëÿþòñÿ ïðîòÿæåííûìè è çàíèìàþò ïðîñòðàíñòâî; êîãäà ìû ïðèêàñàåìñÿ ê íèì, ìû ÷óâñòâóåì, ÷òî îíè íàõîäÿòñÿ â òîì æå ïðîñòðàíñòâå, ÷òî è ìû. Êîãäà ïåðåä íàøèìè ãëàçàìè íàõîäèòñÿ êàêîé-òî îáúåêò, ñêàæåì êóñîê êàðòîíà, ïîêðûòûé ãåîìåòðè÷åñêèìè äèàãðàììàìè, òî ñ ïîìîùüþ çðåíèÿ ìû îò÷åòëèâî âîñïðèíèìàåì òå ëèíèè, îòíîøåíèÿ ìåæäó êîòîðûìè ÿâëÿþòñÿ ïðåäìåòîì ìàòåìàòè÷åñêîãî ðàññóæäåíèÿ. Èëè ìû âèäèì ïåðåä ñîáîé êàêîé-òî îáúåìíûé îáúåêò, íàïðèìåð êóáè÷åñêèé ÿùèê; ìû âèäèì, ÷òî îí íàõîäèòñÿ íåäàëåêî îò

231

ÓÈËÜßÌ ÕÜÞÝËË

íàñ, ïðîòÿãèâàåì ðóêó è ïîñðåäñòâîì îñÿçàíèÿ âîñïðèíèìàåì åãî ñòîðîíû, ãðàíè, óãëû – òî, ÷òî ìû óæå âîñïðèíèìàëè çðåíèåì. 2. Ïî-âèäèìîìó, áîëüøèíñòâî ëþäåé âîîáùå íå ïîíèìàåò, ÷òî ìåæäó ýòèìè äâóìÿ ñëó÷àÿìè åñòü êàêîå-òî ðåàëüíîå ðàçëè÷èå, ÷òî ñóùåñòâóþò ðàçíûå àêòû ìûøëåíèÿ, ñâÿçàííûå ñî çðèòåëüíûì âîñïðèÿòèåì ìàòåìàòè÷åñêèõ äèàãðàìì íà êàðòîíå è îáúåìíîãî ÿùèêà, ñòîÿùåãî íà ñòîëå. Îäíàêî íåòðóäíî ïîêàçàòü, ÷òî âî âòîðîì ñëó÷àå âîñïðèÿòèå ôîðìû îáúåêòà íå ÿâëÿåòñÿ íåïîñðåäñòâåííûì. Óæå ñàìîå íåáîëüøîå ðàçìûøëåíèå ïîäñêàæåò íàì, ÷òî äëÿ òîãî ÷òîáû âèäåòü êàêîé-òî îáúåìíûé îáúåêò, òðåáóåòñÿ êàê ïðîñòîå ÷óâñòâåííîå âïå÷àòëåíèå, òàê è íåêîòîðûé àêò ñóæäåíèÿ. Íåò âèäèìîãî ÿâëåíèÿ, êîòîðîå áûëî áû íåðàçäåëüíî ñâÿçàíî ñ îáúåìíîñòüþ. Åñëè êóá èçîáðàæåí â ïðàâèëüíîé ïåðñïåêòèâå è óìåëî çàøòðèõîâàí, òî îí áóäåò âîñïðèíèìàòüñÿ êàê ðåàëüíîå òåëî. Ðèñóíîê ìîæåò áûòü îøèáî÷íûì äëÿ îáúåìíîãî òåëà, îäíàêî ÿñíî, ÷òî îáúåìíîñòü ïðèäàåòñÿ îáúåêòó àêòîì ìåíòàëüíîãî ñóæäåíèÿ. Âñå, ÷òî ìû âèäèì, – ýòî î÷åðòàíèÿ è òåíè, ôèãóðû è êðàñêè íà ïëîñêîé ïîâåðõíîñòè. Òâåðäûå óãëû è ðåáðà, ñîîòíîøåíèå ñòîðîí ôèãóðû, îáðàçóþùèõ êóá, îáóñëîâëåíû âûâîäîì. Ýòî î÷åâèäíî â ñëó÷àå ñ íàðèñîâàííûì êóáè÷åñêèì ïðåäìåòîì, íî ýòî âåðíî è äëÿ âñÿêîãî çðåíèÿ. Ìû âèäèì ïåðåä ñîáîé ðàçíîîáðàçíûå ôèãóðû è êðàñêè, íî ãëàç íå ìîæåò âèäåòü áîëüøåãî. Îí âèäèò øèðèíó è âûñîòó, íî íå òðåòüå èçìåðåíèå. ×òîáû çíàòü, ÷òî ñóùåñòâóþò îáúåìíûå òåëà, íóæíî è âèäåòü, è äåëàòü âûâîä. Ìû äåëàåì ýòî ëåãêî è ïîñòîÿííî, è íàñòîëüêî ïðèâû÷íî, ÷òî íå çàìå÷àåì ýòîé îïåðàöèè. Òåì íå ìåíåå ýòîò ñêðûòûé ïðîöåññ ìîæíî îáíàðóæèòü ðàçíûìè ñïîñîáàìè, íàïðèìåð, îáðàòèâ âíèìàíèå íà òå ñëó÷àè, êîãäà ïðèâû÷êà îñóùåñòâëÿòü òàêèå âûâîäû ââîäèò íàñ â çàáëóæäåíèå. Ìíîãèå ëþäè èñïûòûâàëè ýòó èëëþçèþ, ãëÿäÿ íà ñöåíó â òåàòðå, îñîáåííî â ñëó÷àå òàêîé ñöåíû, êîòîðàÿ íàçûâàåòñÿ «äèîðàìà» è ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé âíóòðåííèé èíòåðüåð êàêîãî-òî çäàíèÿ.  ýòèõ ñëó÷àÿõ ïåðñïåêòèâíîå ïðåäñòàâëåíèå ðàçëè÷íûõ ýëåìåíòîâ àðõèòåêòóðû è âíóòðåííåãî óáðàíñòâà âíóøàåò íàì ïî÷òè íåïðåîäîëèìîå óáåæäåíèå â òîì, ÷òî ïåðåä íàìè îáøèðíîå è ñëîæíîå ïðîñòðàíñòâî, à íå ïëîñêèé ðàçðèñîâàííûé õîëñò. Çäåñü ïðîñòðàíñòâî îêàçûâàåòñÿ íàøèì ñîáñòâåííûì òâîðåíèåì, íî îíî ñîçäàíî òåì æå ñàìûì àêòîì ìûøëåíèÿ, êàê åñëè áû ìû äåéñòâèòåëüíî íàõîäèëèñü âî äâîðöå èëè â õðàìå, çàëû èëè ïðèäåëû êîòîðîãî îêðóæàþò íàñ. Àêò, áëàãîäàðÿ êîòîðîìó ìû èç âîñïðèíèìàåìîé äëèíû è âûñîòû ñîçäàåì òðåõìåðíîå ïðîñòðàíñòâî, îñóùåñòâëÿåòñÿ ïîñòîÿííî è íåçàìåòíî. Ìû âñåãäà òàêèì îáðàçîì èíòåðïðåòèðóåì ÿçûê âèäèìîãî ìèðà. Èç ÿâëåíèÿ âåùåé, êîòîðûå ìû íåïîñðåäñòâåííî âèäèì, ìû ïîñòîÿííî âûâîäèì òî, ÷åãî âèäåòü íå ìîæåì, – èõ ðàññòîÿíèå îò íàñ è ïîëîæåíèå èõ ÷àñòåé.

232

ÔÈËÎÑÎÔÈß ÈÍÄÓÊÒÈÂÍÛÕ ÍÀÓÊ

3. Èíòåðïðåòèðóåìûå íàìè ñâîéñòâà ðàçëè÷íû. Ýòî, íàïðèìåð, âèäèìûå ôîðìû, öâåòà è îòòåíêè ÷àñòåé, èñòîëêîâûâàåìûå ñîãëàñíî ïðàâèëàì ïåðñïåêòèâû (çíàíèå ïåðñïåêòèâû ÿâëÿåòñÿ ïðàêòè÷åñêèì çíàíèåì, êàê çíàíèå ãðàììàòèêè), íàïðÿæåíèå ìûøö, çàñòàâëÿþùèõ îáà ãëàçà ôèêñèðîâàòü îäèí è òîò æå îáúåêò, è ò.ï. Ïðàâèëüíàÿ èíòåðïðåòàöèÿ èíôîðìàöèè, äîñòàâëÿåìîé íàì òàêèì îáðàçîì îòíîñèòåëüíî èñòèííûõ ôîðì âåùåé è ðàññòîÿíèé, ôîðìèðóåòñÿ ïîñòåïåííî; îáó÷åíèå íà÷èíàåòñÿ â ñàìîì ðàííåì äåòñòâå è ïðîäîëæàåòñÿ êàæäûé ðàç, êîãäà ìû ïîëüçóåìñÿ çðåíèåì. Ïîëíîòà, ñ êîòîðîé óñâàèâàåòñÿ ýòîò óðîê, ïîèñòèíå âîñõèùàåò, ìû çàáûâàåì î òîì, ÷òî íàøå çàêëþ÷åíèå ïîëó÷åíî êîñâåííûì ïóòåì, è îøèáî÷íî ñ÷èòàåì ñóæäåíèå î ñâèäåòåëüñòâå èíòóèòèâíûì âîñïðèÿòèåì. Øèðèíó óëèöû ìû âèäèì ñòîëü æå ÿñíî, êàê âèäèì äîì íà äðóãîé ñòîðîíå óëèöû, è ìû âèäèì äîì êóáè÷åñêèì, êàê áû îí íè áûë íàì ïðåäñòàâëåí. Îäíàêî ýòî íå âíóøàåò íèêàêèõ ñîìíåíèé è íå ïðåäñòàâëÿåò çàòðóäíåíèé äëÿ çàêëþ÷åíèÿ î òîì, ÷òî âî âñåõ ýòèõ ñëó÷àÿõ ìû èíòåðïðåòèðóåì è äåëàåì âûâîä. Áûñòðîòà ýòîãî ïðîöåññà è íåîñîçíàííîñòü óñèëèÿ â ýòîì ñëó÷àå íå áîëåå ïðèìå÷àòåëüíû, ÷åì â ñëó÷àÿõ, êîãäà ìû ïîíèìàåì çíà÷åíèå ðå÷è, êîòîðóþ ñëûøèì, èëè êíèãè, êîòîðóþ ÷èòàåì.  ïîñëåäíèõ äâóõ ñëó÷àÿõ ìû ñëûøèì ëèøü çâóêè è âèäèì ëèøü ÷åðíûå çíà÷êè, íî èç ýòèõ ýëåìåíòîâ èçâëåêàåì ìûñëè è ÷óâñòâà, íå îñîçíàâàÿ òîãî àêòà, ñ ïîìîùüþ êîòîðîãî ìû ýòî äåëàåì. Ïîñðåäñòâîì òî÷íî òàêîãî æå ïðîöåññà ìû èç âèäèìîé ðàñêðàøåííîé ïîâåðõíîñòè èçâëåêàåì ïðîñòðàíñòâî, íàïîëíåííîå îáúåìíûìè òåëàìè.  îáîèõ ñëó÷àÿõ àêò èíòåðïðåòàöèè ñòàíîâèòñÿ íàñòîëüêî ïðèâû÷íûì, ÷òî ìû åäâà ëè ìîæåì îñòàíîâèòüñÿ ëèøü íà îäíîì ÷óâñòâåííîì âîñïðèÿòèè. 4. Òåì íå ìåíåå ñóùåñòâóåò íåñêîëüêî ñïîñîáîâ óáåäèòüñÿ â òîì, ÷òî ýòè äâå ÷àñòè ïðîöåññà âèäåíèÿ îáúåêòîâ âñå-òàêè ðàçëè÷íû. Çàäà÷à ðàçäåëèòü ýòè äâå îïåðàöèè âñòàåò ïåðåä õóäîæíèêîì, êîòîðûé ïûòàåòñÿ èçîáðàçèòü èìåííî òî, ÷òî âèäèò. Îí äîëæåí îñîçíàòü ñâîå ðåàëüíîå è ïîäëèííîå ÷óâñòâåííîå âïå÷àòëåíèå è âûäåëèòü ëèíèè îáúåêòà òàêèìè, êàêèìè îíè âîñïðèíèìàþòñÿ. Ñíà÷àëà ýòî êàæåòñÿ òðóäíûì, îí ïûòàåòñÿ íàðèñîâàòü èçâåñòíûå åìó ôîðìû âèäèìûõ îáúåêòîâ, à íå òî, ÷òî îí âèäèò. Íî ïî ìåðå òîãî, êàê îí ñîâåðøåíñòâóåòñÿ â ñâîåì èñêóññòâå, îí ïðèó÷àåòñÿ íàíîñèòü íà áóìàãó ëèøü òî, ÷òî âèäèò, îòáðàñûâàÿ òî, ÷òî âûâîäèòñÿ. Ïðè ýòîì âûâîä è âìåñòå ñ íèì ïîíÿòèå ïðîñòðàíñòâà îñòàþòñÿ äëÿ çðèòåëÿ. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, åñòåñòâåííûé ïðîöåññ âèäåíèÿ åñòü ïðèâû÷êà âèäåòü òî, ÷åãî íåëüçÿ óâèäåòü, è èñêóññòâî ðèñîâàíèÿ çàêëþ÷àåòñÿ â òîì, ÷òîáû íàó÷èòüñÿ âèäåòü íå áîëüøå òîãî, ÷òî ìîæíî óâèäåòü. 5. Îïÿòü-òàêè äàæå â ïðîñòåéøåì ðèñóíêå ìû âûðàæàåì íå÷òî òàêîå, ÷åãî íå âèäèì. Êàêèì áû íåáðåæíûì íè áûëî íàøå ïðåäñòàâëåíèå îáúåêòà, îíî íåñåò â ñåáå òî, ÷òî ñîçäàåì ìû ñàìè. Âåäü ìû ðèñóåì êîíòóð, à êîíòóð íå ñóùåñòâóåò â ïðèðîäå. Íå ñóùåñòâóåò âèäèìûõ

233

ÓÈËÜßÌ ÕÜÞÝËË

ëèíèé, êîòîðûå ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ãëàçó ãðóïïà ôèãóð. Ìû îòäåëÿåì êàæäóþ ôèãóðó îò âñåãî îñòàëüíîãî, è ãðàíèöà, ïîñðåäñòâîì êîòîðîé ìû äåëàåì ýòî, è åñòü êîíòóð ôèãóðû. Òî æå ïðîèñõîäèò ñ ýëåìåíòàìè êàæäîé ôèãóðû. Ñîâðåìåííûé õóäîæíèê âûñêàçûâàåò ýòî çàìå÷àíèå â ðàáîòå, ïîñâÿùåííîé åãî èñêóññòâó: «Âîçäåéñòâèå, êîòîðîå ïðîèçâîäÿò íà íàø îðãàí çðåíèÿ ïðèðîäíûå îáúåêòû, îáóñëîâëåíî êîëè÷åñòâîì ÷àñòåé èëè ðàçíûõ ôîðì è öâåòîâ, íî íå ëèíèé. Íî êîãäà ìû ïûòàåìñÿ ïîñðåäñòâîì æèâîïèñè ïðåäñòàâèòü îáúåêòû, íàõîäÿùèåñÿ ïåðåä íàìè èëè ñîçäàííûå íàøèì ìûøëåíèåì, ïåðâîå è ñàìîå ïðîñòîå ñðåäñòâî, ê êîòîðîìó ìû îáðàùàåìñÿ, – ýòî ðèñóíîê, ñ ïîìîùüþ êîòîðîãî ìû îòäåëÿåì ôîðìó êàæäîãî îáúåêòà îò ôîðì äðóãèõ îáúåêòîâ, îáîçíà÷àåì åãî ãðàíèöû, åãî ðàçìåðû â ðàçíûõ íàïðàâëåíèÿõ, çàïå÷àòëåííûõ íàøèì âèäåíèåì. Ýòî è ñ÷èòàåòñÿ ðèñóíêîì êîíòóðà» 6. 6. Ñóùåñòâóþò è äðóãèå ñïîñîáû óâèäåòü ïðîÿâëåíèÿ àêòà ìûøëåíèÿ, ïîñðåäñòâîì êîòîðîãî ìû ïðèïèñûâàåì ÷àñòÿì îáúåêòîâ èõ ïîëîæåíèå â ïðîñòðàíñòâå, ïðè÷åì ÷óâñòâåííûå âïå÷àòëåíèÿ ñëóæàò ëèøü ìàòåðèàëîì äëÿ ýòîãî àêòà. Åñëè ìû âçãëÿíåì íà ìåäàëü ÷åðåç ëèíçó, äàþùóþ îáðàòíîå èçîáðàæåíèå (inverts), ìû óâèäèì, ÷òî ôèãóðû íà íåé âìåñòî âûïóêëûõ ñòàëè âäàâëåííûìè, ïîñêîëüêó ñâåò, îñâåùàþùèé áëèçêóþ ê ñâåòó ñòîðîíó âûïóêëîñòè, áóäåò ïåðåíåñåí íà ïðîòèâîïîëîæíóþ ñòîðîíó áëàãîäàðÿ êàæóùåéñÿ èíâåðñèè ìåäàëè è ñîçäàñò âïå÷àòëåíèå ïóñòîòû, â êîòîðîé áëèæàéøàÿ ê ñâåòó ñòîðîíà îêàæåòñÿ â òåíè. Ìû ïðèíèìàåì ðåøåíèå î òîì, êàêàÿ ÷àñòü ðàñïîëîæåíà áëèæå ê íàì, îðèåíòèðóÿñü íà òó ñòîðîíó, îò êîòîðîé èñõîäèò ñâåò.  äðóãèõ ñëó÷àÿõ ðåøåíèå ìîæåò áûòü áîëåå íåïðîèçâîëüíûì. Åñëè ìû ðèñóåì ÷åðíûå ëèíèè, ïðåäñòàâëÿþùèå ãðàíè êóáà â ïåðñïåêòèâå, òî êàêèå-òî èç ýòèõ ëèíèé áóäóò ïåðåñåêàòüñÿ; òîãäà ìîæåò êàçàòüñÿ, ÷òî êóá çàíèìàåò äâå ðàçíûå ïîçèöèè â çàâèñèìîñòè îò òîãî, êàêîå ïåðåñå÷åíèå ëèíèé íàøå ìûøëåíèå ñ÷èòàåò áëèæàéøèì ê íàì, à êàêîå – áîëåå îòäàëåííûì. Çäåñü íàø âîëåâîé àêò, îïåðèðóþùèé îäíèì è òåì æå ÷óâñòâåííûì îáðàçîì, äàåò íàì äâà êóáà, çàíèìàþùèõ äâå ðàçíûå ïîçèöèè. Îïÿòü-òàêè ìíîãèå ìîãóò íàáëþäàòü, ÷òî êîãäà âåòðÿíàÿ ìåëüíèöà íàõîäèòñÿ äîñòàòî÷íî äàëåêî îò íàñ (òàê ÷òî ìû ðàçëè÷àåì ëèøü î÷åðòàíèÿ åå êðûëüåâ) è ìû ñìîòðèì íà íåå ïîä óãëîì, òî óñèëèåì ìûøëåíèÿ ìû ìîæåì óâèäåòü åå â òîé èëè äðóãîé èç äâóõ ïîçèöèé: â îäíîé ïîçèöèè åå êðûëüÿ âðàùàþòñÿ ñïðàâà íàëåâî, à â äðóãîé – ñëåâà íàïðàâî. ×åëîâåê, íåìíîãî çíàêîìûé ñ ýòèì ìåíòàëüíûì óñèëèåì, ìîæåò èçìåíÿòü ýòî äâèæåíèå òàê ÷àñòî, êàê ïîæåëàåò, åñëè óñëîâèÿ ôîðìû è îñâåùåíèÿ åìó íå ïðåïÿòñòâóþò. 6 Giles F.Ph. A Practical Treatise on Drawing, and on Painting in Water Colours. L., 1839 (ññûëêà óòî÷íåíà). – Ïðèìå÷. ðåä.

234

ÔÈËÎÑÎÔÈß ÈÍÄÓÊÒÈÂÍÛÕ ÍÀÓÊ

Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ó íàñ åñòü ìíîãî÷èñëåííûå è ðàçíîîáðàçíûå ïðîÿâëåíèÿ àêòèâíîñòè ìûøëåíèÿ, áëàãîäàðÿ êîòîðîìó ìû â ïðîöåññå çðåíèÿ ïîëó÷àåì îòíîøåíèÿ òðåõìåðíîãî ïðîñòðàíñòâà. Òåïåðü ìû äîëæíû âûñêàçàòü íåêîòîðûå çàìå÷àíèÿ î ïðîöåññå, ïîñðåäñòâîì êîòîðîãî ìû âîñïðèíèìàåì òîëüêî âèäèìûå ôèãóðû, à òàêæå î ñïîñîáå âîñïðèÿòèÿ ïðîñòðàíñòâåííûõ îòíîøåíèé ïîñðåäñòâîì ïðèêîñíîâåíèÿ. Ñíà÷àëà î âòîðîì. 7. Èçëîæåííîå âûøå ìíåíèå î òîì, ÷òî çðåíèå íå äàåò íàì íåïîñðåäñòâåííîãî çíàíèÿ îòíîøåíèé îáúåìíîãî ïðîñòðàíñòâà è ÷òî ýòî çíàíèå ïðèîáðåòàåòñÿ òîëüêî áëàãîäàðÿ äåÿòåëüíîñòè ìûøëåíèÿ, âïåðâûå áûëî âûñêàçàíî çíàìåíèòûì åïèñêîïîì Áåðêëè è òåïåðü ïðèíèìàåòñÿ âñåìè ìåòàôèçèêàìè. Íî äàåò ëè íåïîñðåäñòâåííîå çíàíèå ïðîñòðàíñòâà ÷óâñòâî îñÿçàíèÿ?  ïîñëåäíåå âðåìÿ ýòîò âîïðîñ ïðèâëåê ê ñåáå áîëüøîå âíèìàíèå è ñîâåðøåííî íîâîå îñâåùåíèå, ÷òî òåì áîëåå óäèâèòåëüíî, åñëè ó÷åñòü, êàê ìíîãî âíèìàíèÿ óäåëÿëîñü ôèëîñîôèè âîñïðèÿòèÿ ñ ñàìûõ äàâíèõ âðåìåí. Äâà ôèëîñîôà, èññëåäîâàâøèå ýòîò âîïðîñ ñ ðàçíûõ ñòîðîí, – ìåòàôèçèê è ôèçèîëîã – íåçàâèñèìî äðóã îò äðóãà ïðèøëè ê óáåæäåíèþ, ÷òî äîëãî äåðæàâøååñÿ ìíåíèå, ñîãëàñíî êîòîðîìó ìû ïðèîáðåòàåì çíàíèå ïðîñòðàíñòâà ïîñðåäñòâîì îñÿçàíèÿ, îøèáî÷íî. Ó÷åíèå, êîòîðîå îíè ñòàâÿò íà ìåñòî äðåâíåé îøèáêè, èìååò ÷ðåçâû÷àéíî áîëüøîå çíà÷åíèå äëÿ ïðèíöèïà, êîòîðûé ìû ñòðåìèìñÿ îáîñíîâàòü, à èìåííî: íàøå çíàíèå ïðîñòðàíñòâà è åãî ñâîéñòâ âûòåêàåò ñêîðåå èç àêòèâíûõ îïåðàöèé, ÷åì èç ïàññèâíûõ âïå÷àòëåíèé âîñïðèíèìàþùåãî ìûøëåíèÿ. Íåñîìíåííî, óáåæäåíèå â òîì, ÷òî çíàíèå ôîðìû ìû ïðèîáðåòàåì ïîñðåäñòâîì îñÿçàíèÿ, î÷åâèäíûì îáðàçîì âíóøàåòñÿ íàøèìè îáûäåííûìè ïðèâû÷êàìè ïîâåäåíèÿ. Åñëè ìû õîòèì óçíàòü ôîðìó êàêîãî-òî òåëà, íàõîäÿñü â òåìíîòå, èëè ñêîððåêòèðîâàòü âïå÷àòëåíèÿ, äîñòàâëÿåìûå çðåíèåì, êîãäà ïîäîçðåâàåì, ÷òî îíè ìîãóò áûòü îøèáî÷íûìè, íàì íóæíî, êàê êàæåòñÿ ïî êðàéíåé ìåðå íà ïåðâûé âçãëÿä, ëèøü ïðîòÿíóòü ðóêó è ïðèêîñíóòüñÿ ê îáúåêòó.  ýòèõ ñëó÷àÿõ ôîðìà âûÿâëÿåòñÿ êàê íåïîñðåäñòâåííîå âîñïðèÿòèå ÷óâñòâà îñÿçàíèÿ, êàê öâåò äëÿ ÷óâñòâà çðåíèÿ. Íî áóäåò ëè ýòî âîñïðèÿòèå ëèøü ðåçóëüòàòîì ïàññèâíîãî ÷óâñòâà îñÿçàíèÿ? Âîïðåêè òàêîìó ìíåíèþ ä-ð Áðàóí7 (Brown) – ìåòàôèçèê, î êîòîðîì ÿ ãîâîðèë, íàñòàèâàåò íà òîì, ÷òî êîãäà êàêîé-òî îáúåêò ïðèëîæåí ê ðóêå èëè ëþáîé äðóãîé ÷àñòè òåëà, òî ñàìî ïî ñåáå îùóùåíèå ïðèêîñíîâåíèÿ ñòîëü æå íåñïîñîáíî äàòü ïîíÿòèÿ î ôîðìå èëè ðàçìåðàõ, êàê îùóùåíèå çàïàõà èëè âêóñà, åñëè ó íàñ íåò íåêîòîðîãî çíàíèÿ îá îòíîñèòåëüíîì ðàñïîëîæåíèè ÷àñòåé íàøåãî îáúåêòà. 7 Òîìàñ Áðàóí (1778–1820) – øîòëàíäñêèé ôèëîñîô, ëèòåðàòîð è ìåäèê, ó÷åíèê Äóãàëäà Ñòþàðòà. Ññûëêà äàåòñÿ íà: Brown T. Lectures on the Philosophy of the Human Mind. Nineteenth Edition. L. : William Tegg & Co., 1824. – Ïðèìå÷. ðåä.

235

ÓÈËÜßÌ ÕÜÞÝËË

Ìû óæå äîëæíû îáëàäàòü èäååé ïðîñòðàíñòâà è èìåòü â ìûøëåíèè ïðåäñòàâëåíèå î ïîëîæåíèè íàøèõ êîíå÷íîñòåé, à ýòî ïðåäïîëàãàåò, ÷òî ó íàñ óæå åñòü ïîíÿòèå ôîðìû. 8. Òîãäà áëàãîäàðÿ êàêîé ñïîñîáíîñòè ìû ïåðâîíà÷àëüíî óñâàèâàåì íàøè ïîíÿòèÿ îá îòíîøåíèÿõ ïîëîæåíèé? Áðàóí îòâå÷àåò: ïîñðåäñòâîì ìóñêóëüíîãî ÷óâñòâà, ò.å. áëàãîäàðÿ îñîçíàíèþ íàïðÿæåíèÿ ðàçëè÷íûõ ìóñêóëîâ, ïðèâîäÿùèõ â äâèæåíèå íàøè êîíå÷íîñòè. Êîãäà ìû îùóïûâàåì ðóêîé ôîðìó è ïîëîæåíèå îáúåêòîâ, ìû ïîëó÷àåì çíàíèå íå çà ñ÷åò ïðîñòîãî ïðèêîñíîâåíèÿ ê òåëó, à â ðåçóëüòàòå âîñïðèÿòèÿ äâèæåíèé ïàëüöåâ, ïåðåìåùàþùèõñÿ ïî ïîâåðõíîñòè òåëà èëè îò îäíîãî òåëà ê äðóãîìó. Ìû îñîçíàåì äàæå ñàìûå ñëàáûå âîëåâûå èìïóëüñû, áëàãîäàðÿ êîòîðûì îùóùàåì ôîðìó èëè ìåñòîïîëîæåíèå; ìû çíàåì, äâèæåòñÿ íàø ïàëåö íàïðàâî èëè íàëåâî, âíèç èëè ââåðõ, ê ñåáå èëè îò ñåáÿ, íà áîëüøîå èëè ìàëîå ðàññòîÿíèå; è âñå ýòè ñîçíàòåëüíûå àêòû îáúåäèíÿþòñÿ â íàøåì ìûøëåíèè èäååé âíåøíåãî ïðîñòðàíñòâà, â êîòîðîì îíè îñóùåñòâëÿþòñÿ. Ñîâåðøåííî î÷åâèäíî, ÷òî èäåÿ ïðîñòðàíñòâà íå ðîæäåíà çðåíèåì, à çàòåì ïåðåäàíà ìóñêóëüíûì îùóùåíèÿì, èáî ñëåïîé îò ðîæäåíèÿ ÷åëîâåê ñïîñîáåí îùóïûâàòü äîðîãó ñâîåé ïàëêîé è èìååò ïðåäñòàâëåíèå î ñâîåì ïîëîæåíèè, çàäàííîì óñëîâèÿìè ïðîñòðàíñòâà, êàê è ÷åëîâåê, ïîëüçóþùèéñÿ çðåíèåì. Îñîçíàíèå ìóñêóëüíûõ óñèëèé, îòêðûâàþùåå íàì ïîëîæåíèå îáúåêòîâ è èõ ÷àñòåé ïðè îùóïûâàíèè èõ ðóêîé, ïðîÿâëÿåòñÿ òûñÿ÷üþ äðóãèõ ñïîñîáîâ è ïðè èñïîëüçîâàíèè äðóãèõ êîíå÷íîñòåé, èáî íàøè ïðèâû÷êè ñòîÿòü, õîäèòü ñîâåðøàòü âñå èíûå äâèæåíèÿ ðåãóëèðóþòñÿ íàøèì îùóùåíèåì ñîáñòâåííîãî ïîëîæåíèÿ è ïîëîæåíèÿ îêðóæàþùèõ íàñ îáúåêòîâ. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ìû íå ìîæåì ïðèêîñíóòüñÿ ê êàêîìó-ëèáî îáúåêòó, íè÷åãî íå çíàÿ î åãî ìåñòîïîëîæåíèè. Îñÿçàíèå ñàìî ïî ñåáå íå äàåò òàêîãî çíàíèÿ, íî ïîñòîÿííî óïðàæíÿåìîå ìóñêóëüíîå ÷óâñòâî äàåò íàì çíàíèå î ïîëîæåíèè òîé êîíå÷íîñòè, êîòîðîé êàñàåòñÿ îáúåêò. 9. Äóìàþ, ñïðàâåäëèâîñòü ýòîãî ðàçëè÷èÿ áóäåò ïðèçíàíà âñåìè, êòî îáðàùàë âíèìàíèå íà ýòîò ïðîöåññ, è ìîæåò áûòü ïîäòâåðæäåíà ìíîãèìè âåñêèìè ôàêòàìè. Îäíî èç íàèáîëåå ïîðàçèòåëüíûõ ñâèäåòåëüñòâ â åãî ïîëüçó çàêëþ÷àåòñÿ â òîì, ÷òî, êàê ÿ óæå óïîìèíàë, ê òîìó æå âûâîäó ïðèøåë äðóãîé âûäàþùèéñÿ ôèëîñîô ñýð ×àðëüç Áåëë, êîòîðûé îïèðàëñÿ èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî íà ïðèíöèïû ôèçèîëîãèè. Åãî èññëåäîâàíèÿ ïîêàçàëè, ÷òî íàðÿäó ñ íåðâàìè, ïåðåäàþùèìè âîëåâîé èìïóëüñ èç ìîçãà ê ìóñêóëàì, êîòîðûå îòâå÷àþò çà äâèæåíèå íàøèõ êîíå÷íîñòåé, ñóùåñòâóåò äðóãîå ìíîæåñòâî íåðâîâ, êîòîðûå ñîîáùàþò ìîçãó î ñîñòîÿíèè íàøèõ ìóñêóëîâ è, òàêèì îáðàçîì, ðåãóëèðóþò åãî àêòèâíîñòü. Ýòî äàåò íàì âîçìîæíîñòü îñîçíàòü íàøå ïîëîæåíèå è îòíîøåíèå ê îêðóæàþùèì îáúåêòàì. Äâèæåíèå ðóêè èëè ïàëüöåâ è îñîçíàíèå ýòîãî äâèæåíèÿ äîëæíû áûòü ñîåäèíåíû ñ ÷óâñòâîì îñÿçàíèÿ, ÷òîáû äîñòàâèòü çíàíèå òàêèõ îòíîøåíèé. Ñýð ×. Áåëë ïîêàçû-

236

ÔÈËÎÑÎÔÈß ÈÍÄÓÊÒÈÂÍÛÕ ÍÀÓÊ

âàåò, ÷òî èìåííî ýòî îñîçíàíèå ìóñêóëüíîãî íàïðÿæåíèÿ, êîòîðîå îí íàçûâàåò øåñòûì ÷óâñòâîì8, äàåò íàì îðèåíòèð äëÿ îáû÷íîãî ïðàêòè÷åñêîãî óïðàâëåíèÿ íàøèìè äâèæåíèÿìè. Îí ãîâîðèò î òîì, ÷òî ñôîðìóëèðîâàë ñâîå îáúÿñíåíèå âîñïðèÿòèÿ â êà÷åñòâå ôèçèîëîãè÷åñêîãî ó÷åíèÿ, à çàòåì ñ óäîâëåòâîðåíèåì óçíàë î òîì, ÷òî îíî ïîäòâåðæäàåòñÿ ðàññóæäåíèÿìè ä-ðà Áðàóíà. 10. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, îêàçûâàåòñÿ, ÷òî íàøå îñîçíàíèå ïðîñòðàíñòâåííûõ îòíîøåíèé íåðàçäåëüíî è ñóùåñòâåííî ñâÿçàíî ñ íàøèìè ñîáñòâåííûìè äåéñòâèÿìè â ïðîñòðàíñòâå. Ìû âîñïðèíèìàåì ëèøü òîãäà, êîãäà äåéñòâóåì; íàøè ÷óâñòâåííûå âïå÷àòëåíèÿ òðåáóþò èíòåðïðåòàöèè ïîñðåäñòâîì íàøåé âîëè. Ïðè îöåíêå ðàññòîÿíèÿ è ôèãóðû ìû âîâñå íå èíåðòíû è ïàññèâíû: ìû ïðîâîäèì ëèíèè ïàëüöàìè, êîíñòðóèðóåì ïîâåðõíîñòè ïîñðåäñòâîì äâèæåíèé ðóêè, ñîçäàåì ïðîñòðàíñòâà ñ ïîìîùüþ äâèæåíèÿ êîíå÷íîñòåé. Êîãäà ãåîìåòð ïðåäëàãàåò íàì îáðàçîâàòü ëèíèè, ïîâåðõíîñòè èëè îáúåìíûå òåëà ïîñðåäñòâîì äâèæåíèÿ, åãî ïðåäïèñàíèå ÿâëÿåòñÿ ãèïîòåòè÷åñêèì, íàì íóæíî òîëüêî ïîíÿòü, ÷òî ýòî çà äâèæåíèÿ. Îäíàêî ýòà ãèïîòåçà äåéñòâèòåëüíî ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé èñòî÷íèê íàøåãî çíàíèÿ, ìû âîñïðèíèìàåì è ìûñëèì ïðîñòðàíñòâî áëàãîäàðÿ äâèæåíèþ, ïóñòü íå âñåãäà àêòóàëüíîìó, íî ïî êðàéíåé ìåðå ïîòåíöèàëüíîìó. Åñëè ìû âîñïðèíèìàåì äëèíó ïàëêè, óäåðæèâàÿ åå êîíöû äâóìÿ ðóêàìè è íå ïåðåáèðàÿ ïàëüöàìè âäîëü íåå, òî ýòî îáóñëîâëåíî òåì, ÷òî áëàãîäàðÿ ïðèâû÷íîìó äâèæåíèþ ìû óæå çíàåì âåëè÷èíó ðàññòîÿíèÿ ìåæäó íàøèìè ðóêàìè â ëþáîì îñîçíàâàåìîì ïîëîæåíèè. Äàæå â ýòîì ïðîñòåéøåì ñëó÷àå íàøå ÷óâñòâåííîå âîñïðèÿòèå ñëåäóåò íå èç îñÿçàíèÿ, à èç øåñòîãî ÷óâñòâà è, êàê áû íè îáñòîÿëî äåëî ñ äðóãèìè ïÿòüþ îðãàíàìè ÷óâñòâ, ýòî øåñòîå ÷óâñòâî ãîâîðèò îá àêòèâíîì ìûøëåíèè, ñîåäèíÿåìîì ñ ïàññèâíûì âîñïðèÿòèåì. 11. Åñëè ó÷åñòü ýòè ñîîáðàæåíèÿ, òî ñòàíîâèòñÿ ÿñíî, ÷òî áîëüøàÿ äîëÿ ÷óâñòâåííûõ âîñïðèÿòèé ïðîñòðàíñòâà, êîòîðûå íà ïåðâûé âçãëÿä êàæóòñÿ ïîëó÷åííûìè îäíèì çðåíèåì, â äåéñòâèòåëüíîñòè ïðèîáðåòàþòñÿ ïîñðåäñòâîì ýòîãî øåñòîãî ÷óâñòâà. Òàê, ìû ðàññìàòðèâàåì âèäèìîå íåáî êàê îäíó ïîâåðõíîñòü, îêðóæàþùóþ íàñ è çàìêíóòóþ íà ñåáÿ, è áëàãîäàðÿ ýòîìó ôîðìèðóåì ïîëóñôåðó. Íî òàêîé ñïîñîá ïîñòèæåíèÿ îáúåêòà çðåíèÿ íèêîãäà íå ïðèøåë áû íàì íà óì, åñëè áû ìû íå áûëè ñïîñîáíû ïîâîðà÷èâàòü ãîëîâó, îáîçðåâàÿ íåáî 8 Bridgewater Treatise. P. 195; Phil. Trans. 1826. Pt. ii. P. 167. Çäåñü Õüþýëë, âåðîÿòíî, äîïóñêàåò íåòî÷íîñòü öèòèðîâàíèÿ, ññûëàÿñü îäíîâðåìåííî íà ðàçíûå ñòðàíèöû. Òðàêòàò ×àðëüçà Áåëëà (1774–1842), øîòëàíäñêîãî ìåäèêà è òåîëîãà, âïåðâûå áûë îïóáëèêîâàí êàê: Bell Ch. The Hand. Its Mechanism and Vital Endowments as Evincing Design // Bridgewater Treatises, W. Pickering, 1833. ×òî æå êàñàåòñÿ óïîìèíàíèÿ Philosophical Transactions, òî ïîä íèìè îáû÷íî ïîíèìàþò ñòàðåéøèé àíãëèéñêèé æóðíàë Ëîíäîíñêîãî êîðîëåâñêîãî îáùåñòâà (ñ 1665), à èíîãäà æóðíàë Ôèëîñîôñêîãî îáùåñòâà Êåìáðèäæñêîãî óíèâåðñèòåòà, îñíîâàííîãî â 1819 ã. Îäíàêî áîëåå ðàííåãî èçäàíèÿ òðàêòàòà Áåëëà â ýòèõ æóðíàëàõ îáíàðóæèòü íå óäàëîñü. – Ïðèìå÷. ðåä.

237

ÓÈËÜßÌ ÕÜÞÝËË

äî òåõ ïîð, ïîêà íå ïðèäåì ê íà÷àëüíîìó ïóíêòó. Ïðîäåëàâ ýòî, ìû ñ íåîáõîäèìîñòüþ ïðåäñòàâëÿåì åãî ñåáå â âèäå èçîãíóòîé ñôåðû, îêðóæàþùåé íàñ. Îäíî ÷óâñòâî çðåíèÿ, ëèøåííîå ìóñêóëüíîãî äâèæåíèÿ, íå ñìîãëî áû çàñòàâèòü íàñ âèäåòü íåáî êàê ñâîä èëè ïîëóñôåðó. Ìû ñìîãëè áû âîñïðèíÿòü òîëüêî òî, ÷òî ïðåäñòàâëåíî ãëàçó â îäíîì åãî ïîëîæåíèè; åñëè áû íàì ïîñëåäîâàòåëüíî áûëè ïðåäñòàâëåíû ðàçíûå âïå÷àòëåíèÿ, òî ìû íå ñìîãëè áû ñâÿçàòü èõ âîåäèíî êàê ÷àñòè îäíîé è òîé æå êàðòèíû âñëåäñòâèå îòñóòñòâèÿ ó âîñïðèÿòèé èõ îòíîñèòåëüíîé ïîçèöèè. Îíè ïðåäñòàâëÿëè áû ñîáîé ëèøü ìíîæåñòâî îòäåëüíûõ è íåóïîðÿäî÷åííûõ âèçóàëüíûõ âïå÷àòëåíèé. Ìóñêóëüíîå ÷óâñòâî ñâÿçûâàåò èõ ÷àñòè â åäèíîå öåëîå, äåëàÿ èõ ðàçíûìè ÷àñòÿìè îäíîé óíèâåðñàëüíîé êàðòèíû9. 12. Ýòè ñîîáðàæåíèÿ óêàçûâàþò íà îøèáî÷íîñòü âåñüìà ñòðàííîãî ïðåäñòàâëåíèÿ ä-ðîì Ðèäîì (Reid) òåõ óáåæäåíèé, ê êîòîðûì ïðèøåë áû ÷åëîâåê, îáëàäàþùèé çðåíèåì, íî ëèøåííûé îñÿçàíèÿ.  êà÷åñòâå èëëþñòðàöèè Ðèä ïðèäóìûâàåò íàðîä, êîòîðûé îí íàçûâàåò èäîìèíèàíàìè (idomenians)10, ïðåäñòàâèòåëè êîòîðîãî ëèøåíû âñåõ îðãàíîâ ÷óâñòâ, êðîìå çðåíèÿ. Èõ ïîíÿòèÿ î ïðîñòðàíñòâåííûõ îòíîøåíèÿõ îí îïèñûâàåò êàê ñîâåðøåííî îòëè÷íûå îò íàøèõ. Àêñèîìû èõ ãåîìåòðèè ïîëíîñòüþ ïðîòèâîðå÷àò íàøèì àêñèîìàì. Íàïðèìåð, ñðåäè íèõ ñ÷èòàåòñÿ ñàìîî÷åâèäíûì, ÷òî äâå ïðÿìûå ëèíèè, ïåðåñåêàþùèåñÿ îäèí ðàç, äîëæíû ïåðåñå÷üñÿ åùå ðàç; ÷òî òðè óãëà ëþáîãî òðåóãîëüíèêà áîëüøå, ÷åì äâà ïðÿìûõ óãëà, è ò.ï. Ýòè ïàðàäîêñû ïîëó÷àþòñÿ êàê îòíîøåíèÿ ëèíèé íà ïîâåðõíîñòè çàìêíóòîé ñôåðû, îêðóæàþùåé íàáëþäàòåëÿ, íà êîòîðîé âñå âèäèìûå ÿâëåíèÿ ïðåäïîëàãàþòñÿ ïðåäñòàâëåííûìè åìó. Íî èç ñêàçàííîãî âûøå ñëåäóåò, ÷òî ïîíÿòèå î òàêîé ñôåðå è òàêèå ñâÿçè âèäèìûõ îáúåêòîâ, ðàññìàòðèâàåìûõ ïî ðàçíûì íàïðàâëåíèÿì, íå ìîãóò áûòü ïîëó÷åíû çà ñ÷åò îä9 Íà ýòî âîçðàæàëè, óòâåðæäàÿ, ÷òî ìû ìîæåì ïîëó÷èòü ïîíÿòèå íåáà êàê ïîëóñôåðû çà ñ÷åò âðàùåíèÿ (íàïðèìåð, íà âðàùàþùåìñÿ ñòóëå), ïîñëåäîâàòåëüíî âîñïðèíèìàÿ âñå ÷àñòè íåáà. Îäíàêî ýòî óòâåðæäåíèå ÿ ñ÷èòàþ îøèáî÷íûì. Âðàùàÿñü òàêèì îáðàçîì, ìû óâèäèì êàêîå-òî ÷èñëî êàðòèí, êîòîðûå äîëæíû ñëîæèòü âìåñòå êàê ÷àñòè íåêîòîðîé ïëîñêîé êàðòèíû. À êîãäà ìû ïðèäåì â ïåðâîíà÷àëüíóþ òî÷êó, ìû íå ñìîæåì ðåøèòü, áûëà ëè ýòî òà æå ñàìàÿ òî÷êà: ýòî ïîêàæåòñÿ ëèøü ïîâòîðåíèåì êàðòèíû. Ó÷åíèå Áåðêëè î òîì, ÷òî ñàìî ïî ñåáå çðåíèå ñïîñîáíî äàòü íàì ëèøü ïëîñêóþ êàðòèíó, êàæåòñÿ áåññïîðíûì; ñòîëü æå áåññïîðíî ó÷åíèå î òîì, ÷òî èìåííî îñîçíàíèå íàøåé ñîáñòâåííîé àêòèâíîñòè â ïðîñòðàíñòâå ñâÿçûâàåò ýòè êàðòèíû òàê, ÷òî îíè ïîêðûâàþò ïîâåðõíîñòü îáúåìíîãî òåëà. Äëèíó è øèðèíó ìû ìîæåì âîñïðèíÿòü íàøèì çðåíèåì, îäíàêî ìû äîëæíû ïîëîæèòü ðóêó íà ïîâåðõíîñòü äëÿ òîãî, ÷òîáû ñîåäèíèòü â ìûøëåíèè òðåòüå èçìåðåíèå ñ äâóìÿ ïåðâûìè. 10 Èäîìèíèàíå, èëè, òî÷íåå, – íàðîä, íàñåëÿâøèé ñ ñåðåäèíû II òûñÿ÷åëåòèÿ äî í.ý. èñòîðè÷åñêóþ îáëàñòü Ýäîì íà þãå Èçðàèëüñêîãî íàãîðüÿ. Ìèôè÷åñêèé ïðàðîäèòåëü – áèáëåéñêèé Èñàâ, ñûí Èñààêà. Ê èäóìåÿì ïðèíàäëåæàë òàêæå Èðîä Âåëèêèé.  ñâîåì ìûñëåííîì ýêñïåðèìåíòå Òîìàñ Ðèä (1710–1796) èñïîëüçóåò, âåðîÿòíî, îòñûëêó ê âîîáðàæàåìûì ñïîñîáíîñòÿì ýòîãî äðåâíåãî íàðîäà. Ýêñïåðèìåíò, ïðåäâåùàþùèé íååâêëèäîâó ãåîìåòðèþ, áûë ïðåäëîæåí èì â êí.: Reid Th. An Inquiry into the Human Mind: On the Principles of Common Sense, 1764, è àêòèâíî îáñóæäàëñÿ ïîìèìî Õüþýëëà â èñòîðèè ôèëîñîôèè è ïñèõîëîãèè Äæ. Ïðèñòëè, Äæ. Ñò. Ìèëëåì, Äæ. Äóãëàñîì, Ó. Äæåéìñîì è äð. – Ïðèìå÷. ðåä.

238

ÔÈËÎÑÎÔÈß ÈÍÄÓÊÒÈÂÍÛÕ ÍÀÓÊ

íîãî çðåíèÿ. Êîãäà íàáëþäàòåëü â ñâîåì ïîíÿòèè ñîåäèíÿåò äëèííûå ëèíèè è áîëüøèå ôèãóðû, ïðè ðàññìîòðåíèè êîòîðûõ îí âðàùàåò ãîëîâîé òî âïðàâî, òî âëåâî, âíèç èëè ââåðõ, îí ïåðåñòàåò áûòü èäîìèíèàíèíîì. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, íàøè ïîíÿòèÿ î ñâîéñòâàõ ïðîñòðàíñòâà, ïîëó÷åííûå áëàãîäàðÿ îäíîìó ñïîñîáó âîñïðèÿòèÿ, íå ðàñõîäÿòñÿ ñ ïîíÿòèÿìè, ïîëó÷åííûìè èíûì ñïîñîáîì; âñå îíè – ñîçäàííûå èëè âîîáðàæàåìûå – íàõîäÿòñÿ â ãàðìîíèè ìåæäó ñîáîé, áóäó÷è, êàê óæå áûëî ñêàçàíî, ëèøü ðàçíûìè àñïåêòàìè îäíîé è òîé æå èäåè. 13. Åñëè íàøè âîñïðèÿòèÿ îêðóæàþùèõ îáúåêòîâ çàâèñÿò íå òîëüêî îò ÷óâñòâà çðåíèÿ, íî è îò ìóñêóëüíîãî ÷óâñòâà ïðè ïîâîðîòå ãîëîâû, òî î÷åâèäíî, ÷òî áóäåò òî æå ñàìîå, êîãäà ìû ïîâîðà÷èâàåì íå ãîëîâó, à òîëüêî ãëàçà. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ìû ìîæåì ðàñïîçíàâàòü ôîðìû îáúåêòîâ, ñëåäóÿ ãëàçàìè ïî èõ ãðàíèöàì. Õîòÿ ãîëîâà îñòàåòñÿ íåïîäâèæíîé, ãëàçà äâèæóòñÿ ïî î÷åðòàíèÿì îáúåêòîâ, ïåðåõîäÿ îò îäíîé òî÷êè ê äðóãîé; êàæäûé òàêîé ïåðåõîä ñîïðîâîæäàåòñÿ îñîçíàíèåì ìóñêóëüíîãî óñèëèÿ, êîòîðîå ãîâîðèò íàì î íàïðàâëåíèè äâèæåíèÿ ãëàç. Òàê ìû ïîëó÷àåì èíôîðìàöèþ î ôîðìå è ìåñòîïîëîæåíèè îáúåêòîâ, ôèêñèðóÿ èõ âèçóàëüíûì ëó÷îì, êàê ñëåïîé ÷åëîâåê óçíàåò ôîðìû âåùåé, ôèêñèðóÿ èõ ïàëêîé è îñîçíàâàÿ äâèæåíèÿ ñâîåé ðóêè. 14. Ýòî ïîíèìàíèå òîãî ñïîñîáà, êîòîðûì ãëàç âîñïðèíèìàåò ðàñïîëîæåíèå âåùåé, ïîääåðæàííîå àíàëîãèåé ñ ðàáîòîé äðóãèõ îðãàíîâ ÷óâñòâ, áûëî ïîäòâåðæäåíî ñýðîì ×àðëüçîì Áåëëîì, îïèðàâøèìñÿ íà ôèçèîëîãèþ. Îí ñîîáùàåò íàì î òîì11, ÷òî ïðè ðàññìîòðåíèè îáúåêòà ìû èñïîëüçóåì äâà îùóùåíèÿ: èìååòñÿ âïå÷àòëåíèå íà ñåò÷àòêå ãëàçà, íî ìû ïîëó÷àåì èäåþ ïîëîæåíèÿ èëè îòíîøåíèÿ â ïðîñòðàíñòâå, êîòîðóþ íå ìîæåò äàòü ñåò÷àòêà, áëàãîäàðÿ îñîçíàíèþ ïðîèçâîëüíûõ äâèæåíèé ãëàçíûõ ìûøö. È îí òùàòåëüíî èññëåäóåò ðàáîòó íåðâîâ, ïî êîòîðûì ìûøöû ïåðåäàþò ñâîþ èíôîðìàöèþ. Ïîñòîÿííîå ïîèñêîâîå, êàê îí åãî íàçûâàåò12, äâèæåíèå ãëàçà – âîò òî 11 Bell Ch. On the motion of the eye, in illustration of the uses of the muscles and nerves of the orbit // Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. 1823. Vol. 113. P. 166–186 (ññûëêà óòî÷íåíà. – Ïðèìå÷. ðåä.). 12 Bridgewater Treatise. P. 282.  íàïèñàííîì âûøå ÿ ïðèíèìàë âîççðåíèÿ è âûðàæåíèÿ ñýðà ×àðëüçà Áåëëà. Ñóùåñòâåííûé ýëåìåíò åãî ó÷åíèÿ çàêëþ÷àåòñÿ â òîì, ÷òî ãëàç ïîñòîÿííî äâèæåòñÿ, òàê ÷òî îáðàç îáúåêòà, íà êîòîðûé íàïðàâëåíî íàøå âíèìàíèå, ïîïàäàåò íà îïðåäåëåííûå òî÷êè ñåò÷àòêè; êîãäà îáðàç ïîïàäàåò íà ëþáóþ äðóãóþ òî÷êó, ãëàç ïîâîðà÷èâàåòñÿ, ÷òîáû ïðèíÿòü ïðÿìîå íàïðàâëåíèå. Äðóãèå àâòîðû óòâåðæäàëè, ÷òî ãëàç ïîâîðà÷èâàåòñÿ íå ïîòîìó, ÷òî òî÷êà, íà êîòîðóþ ïîïàäàåò îáðàç ïðè ïðÿìîì âèäåíèè, ÿâëÿåòñÿ íàèáîëåå ÷óâñòâèòåëüíîé, à ïîòîìó, ÷òî îíà äàåò íàèáîëåå îò÷åòëèâîå âèäåíèå. Îíè îáðàùàëè âíèìàíèå íà òî îáñòîÿòåëüñòâî, ÷òî êîãäà ãëàç ïðÿìî ñìîòðèò íà ìàëåíüêóþ çâåçäî÷êó, îíà ìîæåò èñ÷åçàòü èç ïîëÿ çðåíèÿ, íî ñòàíîâèòñÿ âèäíà, êîãäà ãëàç ñìåùàåòñÿ íåìíîãî â ñòîðîíó. Îòñþäà îíè äåëàëè âûâîä, ÷òî ÷àñòè ñåò÷àòêè, ðàñïîëîæåííûå â ñòîðîíå îò îáëàñòè ïðÿìîãî âèäåíèÿ, áîëåå ÷óâñòâèòåëüíû. Ýòè ôàêòû âåñüìà ëþáîïûòíû, êàê áû èõ íè îáúÿñíÿëè, îäíàêî îíè íå ïðîòèâîðå÷àò èçëàãàåìîìó çäåñü ó÷åíèþ.

239

ÓÈËÜßÌ ÕÜÞÝËË

ñðåäñòâî, áëàãîäàðÿ êîòîðîìó ìû îñîçíàåì ïîëîæåíèå îáúåêòîâ îòíîñèòåëüíî íàñ. 15. Íàì íå ñëåäóåò óãëóáëÿòüñÿ â ôèçèîëîãèþ, îòìåòèì ëèøü, ÷òî ñýð ×. Áåëë èññëåäîâàë ñïåöèàëüíûå îáñòîÿòåëüñòâà, êîòîðûìè ñîïðîâîæäàåòñÿ ýòà îïåðàöèÿ ãëàçà. Îò íåãî ìû óçíàëè, ÷òî êîíêðåòíàÿ òî÷êà ãëàçà, îòñëåæèâàþùàÿ ôîðìû âèäèìûõ îáúåêòîâ, ÿâëÿåòñÿ ÷àñòüþ ñåò÷àòêè, êîòîðàÿ íàçûâàåòñÿ ÷óâñòâèòåëüíûì ïÿòíîì; ýòà ÷àñòü íàèáîëåå ÷óâñòâèòåëüíà ê âîçäåéñòâèþ ñâåòà è öâåòà. Íà ñàìîì äåëå ýòà ÷àñòü íå ÿâëÿåòñÿ ïÿòíîì îïðåäåëåííîãî ðàçìåðà è ôîðìû, ïîñêîëüêó îòõîä îò îïðåäåëåííîé òî÷êè ñåò÷àòêè äàåò ëèøü ïîñòåïåííîå óìåíüøåíèå ÷óâñòâèòåëüíîñòè. Ïîèñêîâîå äâèæåíèå ãëàçà îáóñëîâëåíî èíñòèíêòèâíûì æåëàíèåì ïîìåñòèòü îáðàç îáúåêòà, íà êîòîðûé íàïðàâëåíî íàøå âíèìàíèå, â îáëàñòü ÷óâñòâèòåëüíîãî ïÿòíà. Ìû èñïûòûâàåì íåóäîáñòâî è áåñïîêîéñòâî äî òåõ ïîð, ïîêà ãëàç íå ïîâåðíóò òàê, ÷òîáû äîñòèãíóòü ýòîãî ýôôåêòà. Ïî ìåðå òîãî êàê íàøå âíèìàíèå ïåðåõîäèò îò îäíîé òî÷êè íàõîäÿùåéñÿ ïåðåä íàìè êàðòèíû ê äðóãîé, ãëàç è åãî ÷óâñòâèòåëüíîå ïÿòíî äâèæóòñÿ ñîâìåñòíî ñ ìûñëüþ. Ìóñêóëüíîå ÷óâñòâî, ñîîáùàþùåå íàì îá ýòèõ äâèæåíèÿõ îðãàíà çðåíèÿ, äàåò íàì çíàíèå ôîðì è ìåñòîïîëîæåíèé îêðóæàþùèõ îáúåêòîâ. 16. Íàñêîëüêî âåëèêà íàøà àêòèâíîñòü â òåõ ïðîöåññàõ, ïîñðåäñòâîì êîòîðûõ ìû âîñïðèíèìàåì î÷åðòàíèÿ îáúåêòîâ, ïîêàçûâàåò ÿçûê, ñ ïîìîùüþ êîòîðîãî ìû îïèñûâàåì èõ ôîðìû. Ìû ïðèìåíÿåì ê íèì íå òîëüêî ïðèëàãàòåëüíûå ôîðìû, íî è ãëàãîëû äâèæåíèÿ. Êðóòîé õîëì âîçíåññÿ íàä ðàâíèíîé; ïðåêðàñíàÿ ôèãóðà ñî ñêîëüçÿùèìè î÷åðòàíèÿìè. Èëè: È âåòðà ãðóáûå ìàíåðû Ïîä êóïîëîì íåáåñíîé ñôåðû13. Ýòè òåðìèíû âûðàæàþò äâèæåíèå ãëàçà, ñëåäóþùåãî ïî ëèíèÿì, îáðàçóþùèì òàêèå ôîðìû. Àíàëîãè÷íûì îáðàçîì äðóãîé ñîâðåìåííûé ïîýò ãîâîðèò î Ñîðàêòå14: Äåâÿòûì âàëîì âñòàâøèé ñðåäü ðàâíèíû, Çàñòûâøèé íà èçëîìå âîäîïàä. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ìóñêóëüíîå ÷óâñòâî, êîòîðîå íåðàçäåëüíî ñâÿçàíî ñ àêòîì, ïîðîæäåííûì íàøèì ñîáñòâåííûì ìûøëåíèåì, íå òîëüêî ñîñòàâëÿåò çíà÷èòåëüíóþ äîëþ íàøèõ âîñïðèÿòèé ïðîñòðàíñòâà 13 Èç ïîýìû «Ãðîíãàð õèëë» Äæîíà Äàéåðà, âàëëèéñêîãî ïîýòà è õóäîæíèêà, àíãëèêàíñêîãî ñâÿùåííèêà (John Dyer, 1699–1757, «Grongar Hill») â àíòîëîãèè, Poems of Places: An Anthology in 31 Volumes ; ed. by H.W. Longfellow. England : Vols I–IV. 1876–1879 ; ïåð. Å. Ôåëüäìàíà. 14 Ãîðà â Ãðåöèè. – Ïðèìå÷. ðåä.

240

ÔÈËÎÑÎÔÈß ÈÍÄÓÊÒÈÂÍÛÕ ÍÀÓÊ

ïðè èñïîëüçîâàíèè îñÿçàíèÿ, íî è òåõ âîñïðèÿòèé ïðîñòðàíñòâà, êîãäà ìû ïîëüçóåìñÿ çðåíèåì. Âûøå ìû âèäåëè, ÷òî íàøå çíàíèå îáúåìíîãî ïðîñòðàíñòâà è åãî ñâîéñòâ íåëüçÿ ìûñëèòü èíà÷å êàê ðåçóëüòàò ìåíòàëüíîãî àêòà, íàïðàâëÿåìîãî óñëîâèÿìè, çàâèñÿùèìè îò åãî ñîáñòâåííîé ïðèðîäû; òåïåðü îêàçûâàåòñÿ, ÷òî è íàøè âîñïðèÿòèÿ âèäèìûõ ôèãóð íå ìîãóò áûòü ïîëó÷åíû áåç ìåíòàëüíîãî àêòà, îñóùåñòâëÿåìîãî ïðè òåõ æå ñàìûõ óñëîâèÿõ. Âïå÷àòëåíèÿ îñÿçàíèÿ è çðåíèÿ ïîä÷èíåíû èäåå, ïðåäñòàâëÿþùåé ñîáîé îñíîâó íàøåãî ñïåêóëÿòèâíîãî çíàíèÿ ïðîñòðàíñòâà è åãî îòíîøåíèé. È òà æå ñàìàÿ èäåÿ ðàñêðûâàåòñÿ ñîçíàíèþ áëàãîäàðÿ åå ðåãóëÿòèâíîé ðîëè â íàøèõ âçàèìîäåéñòâèÿõ ñ âíåøíèì ìèðîì. Ïðåäñòàâëåííûå âûøå ñîîáðàæåíèÿ âíå âñÿêèõ ñîìíåíèé äîêàçûâàþò, ÷òî â îãðîìíîì ÷èñëå ñëó÷àåâ íàøå çíàíèå ôîðì è ïîëîæåíèé ÷åðïàåòñÿ èç ìóñêóëüíîãî ÷óâñòâà, à íå íåïîñðåäñòâåííî èç ÷óâñòâà çðåíèÿ, íàïðèìåð âî âñåõ ñëó÷àÿõ, êîãäà ìû èìååì ïåðåä ñîáîé ñòîëü áîëüøèå îáúåêòû è ñòîëü îáøèðíûå ðàññòîÿíèÿ, ÷òî íå ìîæåì óâèäåòü èõ öåëèêîì íåïîäâèæíûì ãëàçîì15. Òåïåðü ìû îñòàâèì ðàññìîòðåíèå ñâîéñòâ ïðîñòðàíñòâà è îáðàòèìñÿ ê Èäåå âðåìåíè. Ïåðåâîä ñ àíãëèéñêîãî À.Ë. Íèêèôîðîâà

15  ïåðâîì èçäàíèè áûëî èñïîëüçîâàíî âûðàæåíèå «áîëüøèå îáúåêòû è îáøèðíûå ïðîñòðàíñòâà».  íàñòîÿùåì òåêñòå ÿ óñòàíàâëèâàþ îïðåäåëåííóþ âåëè÷èíó è ðàçìåðû, â ðàìêàõ êîòîðûõ ñàìî çðåíèå ñïîñîáíî îöåíèòü ïîëîæåíèå è ôèãóðó. Ó÷åíèå î òîì, ÷òî òðåáóåòñÿ íàëè÷èå ìóñêóëüíîãî ÷óâñòâà, ïîçâîëÿþùåãî íàì âîñïðèíèìàòü òðåõìåðíîå ïðîñòðàíñòâî, íå ÿâëÿåòñÿ âñåöåëî íåñîâìåñòèìûì ñ ýòîé äðóãîé äîêòðèíîé, óòâåðæäàþùåé, ÷òî â ïðîñòðàíñòâå, âèäèìîì íåïîäâèæíûì ãëàçîì, ìû âîñïðèíèìàåì îòíîñèòåëüíîå ðàñïîëîæåíèå òî÷åê ïîñðåäñòâîì çðåíèÿ è, ñëåäîâàòåëüíî, ïîëó÷àåì âîñïðèÿòèå âèäèìîé ôèãóðû. Ñýð ×àðëüç Áåëë ãîâîðèò (Phil. Trans. 1823. P. 181): «Ìíå ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ, ÷òî íå õâàòèò íèêàêîé èçîáðåòàòåëüíîñòè, ÷òîáû îáúÿñíèòü òó ñïîñîáíîñòü, áëàãîäàðÿ êîòîðîé ãëàç óñòàíàâëèâàåò ïîëîæåíèå è îòíîøåíèÿ îáúåêòîâ, åñëè íå ïðèíèìàòü âî âíèìàíèå ÷óâñòâî ìóñêóëüíîé àêòèâíîñòè, ñîïðîâîæäàþùåå äâèæåíèÿ ãëàçíîãî ÿáëîêà». Íåñîìíåííî, îäíàêî, ÷òî ìû íå âñòðå÷àåì òðóäíîñòåé ïðè âîñïðèÿòèè ñòîðîí è óãëîâ ìàëîãî òðåóãîëüíèêà, íàõîäÿùåãîñÿ ïåðåä ãëàçîì, äàæå åñëè ìóñêóëû, óïðàâëÿþùèå äâèæåíèåì ãëàçíîãî ÿáëîêà, íåïîäâèæíû. Êðàòêèé èòîã îáñóæäåíèÿ ýòîãî âîïðîñà äàí â êí. IV, ãë. II, ðàçä. 11.

241

EPISTEMOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE · 2015 · Ò. XLV · ¹ 3

Э R

СТАФЕТА НАУЧНОГО ПОИСКА

ELAY OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

Софья Владиславовна Пирожко$ ва – кандидат философских наук, на учный сотрудник сектора теории по знания Института философии РАН. Email: [email protected]

Sophia Pirozhkova – Ph.D., research fellow of the Department of the Theory of Knowledge of the Institute of Philosophy RAS.

(Рецензия на книгу: Поппер К.Р. Неокончен ный поиск: интеллектуальная автобиография ; пер. с англ. А.В. Карташова. М. : Праксис, 2014. 290 с. ISBN 9785906345028 (Popper K.R. Unended Quest. An Intellectual Autobiography. L. ; N.Y. : Routledge, 2002)

Íà÷íó ñ òåçèñà: ïóáëèêàöèÿ ðóññêîãî ïåðåâîäà êíèãè Ê. Ïîïïåðà – çíà÷èìûé ôàêò â ðîññèéñêîé èíòåëëåêòóàëüíîé æèçíè. Òåçèñ, êàê ìíå ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ, íå áåññïîðåí è òðåáóåò àðãóìåíòàöèè. Áîëåå òîãî, äîëæíà ÷åñòíî ïðèçíàòüñÿ, ÷òî îí íå áåññïîðåí äàæå äëÿ ìåíÿ, íå âçÿâøåéñÿ áû çà ïåðåâîä àâòîáèîãðàôèè ôèëîñîôà, ñ êîòîðûì ìåíÿ ñâÿçûâàåò äëèííûé è âàæíûé ýòàï ñîáñòâåííîãî òâîð÷åñêîãî ïóòè. Òåì íå ìåíåå, ïîäõîäÿ ê ýòîìó âîïðîñó ñî ñêåïñèñîì, à çíà÷èò, ðåàëèçóÿ êðèòè÷åñêóþ óñòàíîâêó, çà êîòîðóþ Ïîïïåð ðàòîâàë íà ïðîòÿæåíèè âñåé ñâîåé æèçíè, ìîæíî ïîëó÷èòü íå÷òî áîëåå öåííîå, ÷åì â ñëó÷àå, êîãäà íåîáõîäèìîñòü ïåðåâîäà è ïóáëèêàöèè êàêîãî-òî òåêñòà íå âûçûâàåò íèêàêèõ ñîìíåíèé. Óòâåðæäåíèå, âûäåðæàâøåå ñåðüåçíóþ êðèòèêó, îáëàäàåò ïî ñðàâíåíèþ ñ ïðîñòî ïðèíÿòûì íà âåðó áîëüøåé íàäåæíîñòüþ, à ïî Ïîïïåðó, åùå è áîëüøåé ñòåïåíüþ ïðàâäîïîäîáíîñòè, ò.å. îíî áëèæå ê èñòèíå – ïîäëèííîé öåëè âñÿêîãî íàó÷íîãî èçûñêàíèÿ.

242 Book Reviews

Çàùèùàòü çàÿâëåííûé òåçèñ ÿ ñîáèðàþñü îò ïðîòèâíîãî, ïîýòîìó îáîçíà÷ó ïðè÷èíû, ïî êîòîðûì, âçÿâ êíèãó «Íåîêîí÷åííûé ïîèñê», ÷èòàòåëü ìîæåò ïîëîæèòü åå îáðàòíî íà ïîëêó è âûáðàòü ÷òî-òî äðóãîå. Âî-ïåðâûõ, íåñìîòðÿ íà îñîáûé ñòàòóñ, îòðàæåííûé â ïîäçàãîëîâêå «Èíòåëëåêòóàëüíàÿ àâòîáèîãðàôèÿ», ìíîãîå èç òîãî, ÷òî ìîæíî çäåñü ïðî÷åñòü, ðàçáðîñàííî ïî äðóãèì ñî÷èíåíèÿì Ïîïïåðà. Îñîáåííî-

ÝÑÒÀÔÅÒÀ ÍÀÓ×ÍÎÃÎ ÏÎÈÑÊÀ

ñòüþ åãî àâòîðñêîãî ñòèëÿ ÿâëÿþòñÿ ðåìàðêè è îòñûëêè ê òåì èíòåëëåêòóàëüíûì, à ïîä÷àñ è æèçíåííûì îáñòîÿòåëüñòâàì, â óñëîâèÿõ êîòîðûõ ôîðìèðîâàëèñü òå èëè èíûå åãî èäåè è êîíöåïöèè (æàíðû ñòàòüè è ïåðåðàáîòàííîé ëåêöèè, ïðèâû÷íûå äëÿ Ïîïïåðà, óñèëèâàþò ýòîò ýôôåêò). Âòîðàÿ ïðè÷èíà çàñòàâëÿåò óñîìíèòüñÿ íå âîîáùå â íåîáõîäèìîñòè ïóáëèêàöèè «Íåîêîí÷åííîãî ïîèñêà», íî â íåîáõîäèìîñòè ïóáëèêîâàòü ýòó êíèãó èìåííî ñåãîäíÿ. Ïðîáëåìà íå â òîì, ÷òî Ïîïïåð óæå ñêàçàë âñå è îáî âñåì â äðóãèõ ðàáîòàõ, íî â òîì, ÷òî ðîññèéñêèé ÷èòàòåëü óæå ïðî÷åë è ïîíÿë âñå, ÷òî ôèëîñîô ìîã åìó ñêàçàòü. Èäåè Ïîïïåðà ïîëó÷èëè íàñòîëüêî øèðîêîå îñâåùåíèå, î íåì ñòîëüêî íàïèñàíî è ñêàçàíî, ÷òî áîëüøèíñòâî ïîòåíöèàëüíûõ ÷èòàòåëåé íå òî ÷òî õîðîøî ïðåäñòàâëÿåò åãî òâîð÷åñêèé ïóòü, íî, âîçìîæíî, çíàåò î Ïîïïåðå áîëüøå, ÷åì îí ñàì. Íè÷òî íå ìåøàåò òàêæå îáîáùèòü ýòîò àðãóìåíò, çàäàâøèñü âîïðîñîì î ñâîåâðåìåííîñòè ïóáëèêàöèè íå òîëüêî èíòåëëåêòóàëüíîé àâòîáèîãðàôèè Ïîïïåðà, íî è ëþáîãî åãî ñî÷èíåíèÿ è ñî÷èíåíèÿ î íåì. Ïîïïåð áûë èíòåðåñåí 40, 20 è, õîòÿ íå áåññïîðíî, 10 ëåò íàçàä, íî ìîæåò ëè îí áûòü èíòåðåñåí ñåãîäíÿ? Äóìàþ, íå âñå ñîãëàñÿòñÿ ñ òåì, ÷òî îïèñàíèå ïðåäïîñûëîê ôîðìèðîâàíèÿ ñâîèõ èäåé îòíîñèòñÿ ê óíèêàëüíûì ÷åðòàì Ïîïïåðà-ôèëîñîôà. Ïîÿñíþ: îñîáåííîñòüþ ÿ ýòî íàçûâàþ ïîòîìó, ÷òî òàêîé ñïîñîá èçëîæåíèÿ îòðàæàåò åãî ôèëîñîôñêèå è, ñêàæåì øèðå, íàó÷íûå ïðèíöèïû: âî-ïåðâûõ, íàñòîÿùåå íàó÷íîå èññëåäîâàíèå âñåãäà íà÷èíàåòñÿ ñ ïðîáëåìû – íå ñ ïîïûòêè äîêàçàòü è îáîñíîâàòü, à ñ ñîìíåíèÿ, îïðîâåðæåíèÿ è ïîèñêà íîâîé îáúÿñíèòåëüíîé ãèïîòåçû; âî-âòîðûõ, èññëåäîâàíèå âñåãäà ñîâåðøàåòñÿ â ïðîñòðàíñòâå êðèòèêè è ñàìîêðèòèêè; â-òðåòüèõ, îäíèì èç ïðåäìåòîâ ôèëîñîôèè íàóêè ÿâëÿåòñÿ ñèòóàöèîííàÿ ëîãèêà âûäâèæåíèÿ îáú-

ÿñíèòåëüíûõ ãèïîòåç. Ïîïïåð â ñàìîì äåëå ñòàðàåòñÿ âîñïðîèçâîäèòü ýòó ëîãèêó ïðè êàæäîì íîâîì èçëîæåíèè ñâîèõ êîíöåïöèé, îäíàêî íè â îäíîì äðóãîì ñî÷èíåíèè ìû íå íàõîäèì ýòîãî èñòîðè÷åñêîãî ðàêóðñà â òàêîì êîíöåíòðèðîâàííîì âèäå, ÷òîáû ìîæíî áûëî ïðîâåðèòü: íàñêîëüêî â äåéñòâèòåëüíîñòè Ïîïïåð ñëåäîâàë ñâîèì ñîáñòâåííûì ïðàâèëàì. Ñóáúåêòèâíîñòü àâòîáèîãðàôèè êàê æàíðà ýòîìó íèñêîëüêî íå ìåøàåò, íàîáîðîò, âçãëÿä íà ñàìîãî ñåáÿ, äîïîëíåííûé âçãëÿäîì äðóãèõ, ìîæåò îòêðûòü ìíîãî íåîæèäàííîãî è èíòåðåñíîãî. ×òî áû ÷èòàòåëü íè çíàë î Ïîïïåðå, îáñòîÿòåëüñòâàõ åãî æèçíè è èñòîðè÷åñêèõ ðåàëèÿõ, â êîòîðûõ ýòà æèçíü ïðîæèâàëàñü, îí íå ñìîæåò ïîëó÷èòü òîò öåëîñòíûé è óíèêàëüíûé âçãëÿä ôèëîñîôà íà ñàìîãî ñåáÿ è ñâîå âðåìÿ, êîòîðûé äàåò êíèãà «Unended Quest». È äàæå åñëè Ïîïïåð óæå íå èíòåðåñåí, òî èíòåðåñ ê ýïîõå íåèñ÷åðïàåì òàê æå, êàê íåèñ÷åðïàåìî åå ñîäåðæàíèå.  ýòîì ñìûñëå êíèãà çàõâàòûâàåò âíèìàíèå â îïðåäåëåííîé íåçàâèñèìîñòè îò òîãî, ÷òî âû çíàåòå è äóìàåòå î åå àâòîðå. Âîçâðàùàÿñü ê àâòîðó, íàäî ñêàçàòü, ÷òî ïðè âñåé èçó÷åííîñòè íàñëåäèÿ Ïîïïåðà îíî íå òåðÿåò ñâîåé àêòóàëüíîñòè êàê âàæíûé ýòàï â ðàçâèòèè ýïèñòåìîëîãèè è ôèëîñîôèè íàóêè. Ïðèíöèïû ôàëüñèôèöèðóåìîñòè, ôàëëèáèëèçìà, êðèòè÷åñêîãî ðàöèîíàëèçìà ïðî÷íî âîøëè íå òîëüêî â ôèëîñîôñêèé, íî è íàó÷íûé îáèõîä. Íåëüçÿ ñêàçàòü, ÷òî Ïîïïåð – åäèíñòâåííûé ñîçäàòåëü è âûðàçèòåëü ýòèõ èäåé, îíè ñîçðåâàëè â óìàõ ðàçíûõ ìûñëèòåëåé äîè ïîñëåâîåííîãî ïîêîëåíèé, è áîëåå òî÷íî ýòîò ïðîöåññ îòðàæåí â êàðòèíå ýâîëþöèè îáúÿñíèòåëüíûõ ìîäåëåé, ñîçäàííîé Ñ. Òóëìèíîì, ÷åì â îáðàçå ó÷åíîãî-îäèíî÷êè, ñìåëî âûäâèãàþùåãî ðèñêîâàííûå ãèïîòåçû. Ýòî æå, íî â áîëüøåé ñòåïåíè îòíîñèòñÿ ê ñîöè-

Book Reviews 243

Ñ.Â. ÏÈÐÎÆÊÎÂÀ

àëüíûì èäåÿì Ïîïïåðà – èíñòèòóöèîíàëüíîìó ïîäõîäó è ñîöèàëüíîé ÷àñòè÷íîé èíæåíåðèè. Òåì íå ìåíåå òî, êàê ðàçíûå ìûñëèòåëè âûðàæàþò íîñÿùèåñÿ â âîçäóõå èäåè, âñêðûâàåò îñîáåííîñòè ýòèõ èäåé, íåî÷åâèäíûå, à ïîä÷àñ è íåîáíàðóæèâàåìûå ïðè èõ îáîáùåííîì ðàññìîòðåíèè.  ÷àñòíîñòè, ýòî êàñàåòñÿ èäåè Ïîïïåðà î òåõíîëîãè÷åñêîì õàðàêòåðå óíèâåðñàëüíûõ âûñêàçûâàíèé è ñäåëàííîì îòñþäà çàêëþ÷åíèè î íåâîçìîæíîñòè ïîñòðîèòü ïîäëèííóþ ñîöèàëüíóþ íàóêó èíà÷å, ÷åì â ôîðìå ñîöèàëüíîé èíæåíåðèè. Ýòîò âûâîä, ðàâíî êàê è ñïîñîá åãî ïîëó÷åíèÿ – èñõîäÿ èç ÷èñòî ëîãè÷åñêèõ, à íå ïðàãìàòè÷åñêèõ îñíîâàíèé, èìååò ñåãîäíÿ, â ïåðèîä ïðèñòàëüíîãî âíèìàíèÿ ê ôåíîìåíó òåõíîíàóêè è ïðîáëåìå åãî ðàñïðîñòðàíåíèÿ íà ñîöèàëüíî-ãóìàíèòàðíóþ îáëàñòü, ïåðâîñòåïåííîå çíà÷åíèå. Ïðåäïîëàãàþ, ÷òî ñêàçàííîå ìîæåò óáåäèòü â íåîáõîäèìîñòè ïðî÷åñòü «Unended Ouest» òåõ, êòî íå ÷èòàë, è ïåðå÷èòàòü åå – òåõ, êòî çíàêîì ñ ýòîé êíèãîé. Íî ñòîèò ëè åå ïåðåâîäèòü? Ïðåæäå âñåãî íå áóäåì çàáûâàòü î, ñêàæåì òàê, ôîðìàëüíûõ ïðè÷èíàõ: ðàáîòà ïî ïåðåâîäó òðóäîâ Ïîïïåðà íà ðóññêèé ÿçûê äîëæíà áûòü çàâåðøåíà, êðîìå òîãî, ýòî åùå îäíà âîçìîæíîñòü àïðîáèðîâàòü îòå÷åñòâåííûé ôèëîñîôñêèé ÿçûê è åãî àäåêâàòíîñòü. Íî, êàê ìíå âèäèòñÿ, ãëàâíîå ìîòèâèðóþùåå îáñòîÿòåëüñòâî çàêëþ÷àåòñÿ â äðóãîì. Îäíà èç ñàìûõ âàæíûõ ïðè÷èí, ïî÷åìó âûõîä â ñâåò ïåðåâîäà «Unended Ouest» äåéñòâèòåëüíî ñîñòàâëÿåò ñîáûòèå â ðóññêîÿçû÷íîì ôèëîñîôñêîì ñîîáùåñòâå, ñâÿçàíà íå ñ ëè÷íîñòüþ è çíà÷åíèåì Ïîïïåðà è åãî íàñëåäèÿ ñàìèìè ïî ñåáå, íî ñ òåì çíà÷åíèåì, êîòîðîå îíè èìåþò äëÿ ýòîãî ñîîáùåñòâà. Äëÿ ðàçâèòèÿ îòå÷åñòâåííîé ýïèñòåìîëîãèè, ôèëîñîôèè è ìåòîäîëîãèè íàóêè 1960–1980-å ãã. áûëè îñîáåííî ïëîäîòâîðíûìè, áîãàòûìè íå ïðîñòî íà êðóïíûõ, íî ãëóáîêèõ è âäóì÷èâûõ èñ-

244 Book Reviews

ñëåäîâàòåëåé. Ýòîìó âî ìíîãîì ñïîñîáñòâîâàëè ñïåöèôè÷åñêèå óñëîâèÿ, â êîòîðûõ ñóùåñòâîâàëà ñîâåòñêàÿ ôèëîñîôèÿ; ýòè óñëîâèÿ îáùåèçâåñòíû, íî âñå-òàêè ÿ íàïîìíþ èõ. Âî-ïåðâûõ, èäåîëîãè÷åñêîå äàâëåíèå â îáëàñòè äèàëåêòè÷åñêîãî ìàòåðèàëèçìà â ýòîò ïåðèîä óæå áûëî íå òàêèì óäóøàþùèì, êàê â ñëó÷àå, â ÷àñòíîñòè, èñòìàòà, âî-âòîðûõ, çíàêîìñòâî ñ çàðóáåæíûìè ðàáîòàìè (ðàçóìååòñÿ, ïðåæäå âñåãî ñ öåëüþ êðèòèêè) îòêðûâàëî âîçìîæíîñòü íå òîëüêî âñòóïèòü â äèàëîã ñ èíîé òðàäèöèåé, íî è ñîêðàòèòü ðàçðûâ, âîçíèêøèé â ãîäû òîòàëüíûõ çà÷èñòîê îòå÷åñòâåííîãî èíòåëëåêòóàëüíîãî ïðîñòðàíñòâà. Ðàáîòû ïðåäñòàâèòåëåé ëîãè÷åñêîãî è ïîñòïîçèòèâèçìà èìåëè äëÿ ñîâåòñêèõ ôèëîñîôîâ òîãî ïåðèîäà íàìíîãî áîëüøåå çíà÷åíèå, ÷åì äëÿ ñîâðåìåííûõ èññëåäîâàòåëåé, à Ïîïïåð âõîäèë â ÷èñëî ñàìûõ ÷èòàåìûõ è «êðèòèêóåìûõ». Îäíàêî ðåçîíàíñíîé ôèãóðà Ïîïïåðà ñòàëà íå òîëüêî ïîòîìó, ÷òî áûëà îäíèì èç ñèìâîëîâ ïðåîäîëåíèÿ íåîïîçèòèâèçìà, èëè ïîòîìó, ÷òî îí ïîäíèìàë öåíòðàëüíûå äëÿ îòå÷åñòâåííîé ýïèñòåìîëîãèè òåìû – ëîãèêè íàó÷íîãî ïîèñêà, èñòèíû è åå êðèòåðèåâ, ðàöèîíàëüíîñòè è äð.  ïåðâîì îòíîøåíèè, íàïðèìåð, ó÷åíèê Ïîïïåðà È. Ëàêàòîñ èíòåðåñíåå è ãëóáæå. Ïîïïåð ïðèâëåêàë ê ñåáå áîëåå øèðîêîå âíèìàíèå, ïîñêîëüêó èç ñâîèõ ýïèñòåìîëîãè÷åñêèõ è ìåòîäîëîãè÷åñêèõ èäåé äåëàë âûâîäû â îáëàñòè ñîöèàëüíîé ôèëîñîôèè. Êîíöåïöèÿ îòêðûòîãî îáùåñòâà, íåâçèðàÿ íè íà êàêèå ñâîè íåäîñòàòêè, â ïîñòñîâåòñêîé Ðîññèè ïðåòåíäîâàëà ÷óòü ëè íå íà ñòàòóñ íîâîé èäåîëîãåìû, è íåñëó÷àéíî íàçâàíèå îäíîãî èç îáùåñòâåííî-ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ äâèæåíèé çâó÷èò åå ïàðàôðàçîì. Âñå ïåðå÷èñëåííîå äåëàåò «Íåîêîí÷åííûé ïîèñê» èíòåëëåêòóàëüíîé àâòîáèîãðàôèåé íå òîëüêî Ïîïïåðà, íî è íàøåãî ñòàðøåãî ñîâðåìåííèêà, è, áåðÿ åå â ðóêè, èìååøü øàíñ ïîíÿòü íå

ÝÑÒÀÔÅÒÀ ÍÀÓ×ÍÎÃÎ ÏÎÈÑÊÀ

òîëüêî îäíîãî ÷åëîâåêà èëè òåõ, êòî ðàçäåëÿë ñ íèì ñîöèîêóëüòóðíûå îáñòîÿòåëüñòâà æèçíè è òâîð÷åñòâà, íî è ñâîþ ñîáñòâåííóþ èñòîðèþ. Òîò ôàêò, ÷òî ïåðåä íàìè íå îðèãèíàëüíûé òåêñò, à ïåðåâîä, óñèëèâàåò ýòîò ýôôåêò. Ê îãðîìíîìó ñîæàëåíèþ, ïåðåâîä÷èêà «Unended Quest» Àíäðåÿ Âàëåðüåâè÷à Êàðòàøîâà íå ñòàëî, è ïîäèñêóòèðîâàòü ñ íèì î âàðèàíòàõ ïåðåâîäà íå ïîëó÷èòñÿ.  îòëè÷èå îò âîïðîñà îá àêòóàëüíîñòè è ñâîåâðåìåííîñòè ïóáëèêàöèè ïåðåâîäà, è ÿ â ýòîì ãëóáîêî óáåæäåíà, – íå ïðåäìåò êàêèõ-ëèáî ïðåòåíçèé, îñîáåííî â ñèòóàöèè äîñòóïíîñòè îðèãèíàëüíîãî òåêñòà. Ýòî ïðåäìåò îáñóæäåíèÿ, âñêðûâàþùåãî î÷åíü âàæíûå îñîáåííîñòè íàøåãî ïîíèìàíèÿ è ïðî÷òåíèÿ òåêñòà. È òîëüêî ïîýòîìó îäíó åäèíñòâåííóþ ðåìàðêó ÿ âñå-òàêè ïîçâîëþ ñåáå ñäåëàòü. Êàê â ñëó÷àå ñàìîãî Ê. Ïîïïåðà, òàê è À.Â. Êàðòàøîâà, ÿ íå ìîãó ñìèðèòüñÿ ñ âûáðàííûì âàðèàíòîì ïåðåâîäà íàçâàíèÿ, õîòÿ íå èñêëþ÷àþ, ÷òî âûáîð ýòîò âåðåí. Òàêîé ïàðàäîêñ îáúÿñíèì òåì, ÷òî åñòü ÷òî-òî íåïðàâèëüíîå â ñëîâàõ «íåîêîí÷åííûé ïîèñê», âñòðå÷àþùèõ ÷èòàòåëÿ íà ïåðåïëåòå âìåñòå ñ îäíèì èç ïîñëåäíèõ ôîòîèçîáðàæåíèé Ïîïïåðà, à ïðè âçãëÿäå íà ôîòîãðàôèþ ïåðåâîä÷èêà, ðàçìåùåííóþ â êîíöå êíèãè, ýòî âïå÷àòëåíèå åùå áîëåå óñèëèâàåòñÿ. Íàó÷íûé ïîèñê êàæäîãî êðóïíîãî ó÷åíîãî âñåãäà îñòàåòñÿ íåîêîí÷åííûì, áîëåå òîãî, âîçìîæíî, íàó÷íûé ïîèñê ñàìîãî Ïîïïåðà îñòàëñÿ íåîêîí÷åííûì è óæ òî÷íî îí íå áûë îêîí÷åí âî âòîðîé ïîëîâèíå 1970-õ ãã., êîãäà ôèëîñîô ïóáëèêîâàë ñâîþ èíòåëëåêòóàëüíóþ àâòîáèîãðàôèþ. È â òîì, ÷òî êíèãà íàçûâàåòñÿ «Unended quest», à íå «Unending quest», îòðàæåíî îñîçíàíèå ïðîäîëæàþùåãîñÿ òâîð÷åñêîãî ïóòè (è ïðîäîëæàòüñÿ åìó îñòàâàëîñü åùå ïî÷òè 20 ëåò). Òåì íå ìåíåå ñåãîäíÿ çàãîëî-

âîê ÷èòàåòñÿ ñîâåðøåíî èíà÷å.  ñëîâîñî÷åòàíèè «íåîêîí÷åííûé ïîèñê» ñëûøàòñÿ îáðå÷åííîñòü è òðàãè÷íîñòü – òî, ÷åãî ó Ïîïïåðà íå áûëî. Åãî èäåè ïðîíèêíóòû îñîáûì ïàôîñîì, çàêëþ÷àþùèìñÿ â îòêàçå îò ôóíäàìåíòàëèçìà ëþáîãî âèäà: íåò ôèêñèðîâàííîãî ýìïèðè÷åñêîãî áàçèñà, íåïîãðåøèìûõ óíèâåðñàëüíûõ âûñêàçûâàíèé, çàêîíîâ ñìåíû èñòîðè÷åñêèõ ïåðèîäîâ, ïðåäîïðåäåëåííîñòè íà óðîâíå ôèçè÷åñêèõ ïðîöåññîâ. Îäíàêî íåîïðåäåëåííîñòü áóäóùåãî, äåëàÿ ðèñêîâàííûì êàæäîå ÷åëîâå÷åñêîå äåéñòâèå, â òî æå âðåìÿ ïîçâîëÿåò ýòîìó äåéñòâèþ áûòü ñîçèäàòåëüíûì. Ýòî êàñàåòñÿ è ïîèñêîâ èñòèíû, íåäîñòèæèìîñòü êîòîðîé íå ïîâîä äëÿ ðåëÿòèâèçìà èëè ïåññèìèçìà, íî óñëîâèå ïîñòîÿííîãî èçìûøëåíèÿ íîâûõ ñïîñîáîâ ê íåé ïðèáëèçèòüñÿ. Òàêîå ïðèáëèæåíèå, êàê è ñîçèäàíèå îáùåñòâà, íåëüçÿ ðàññìàòðèâàòü â êà÷åñòâå ïðåäìåòà äåÿòåëüíîñòè îäíîãî ÷åëîâåêà, íàó÷íûé ïîèñê – âñåîáùåå äåëî. Ïîýòîìó îí ìîæåò îêàçàòüñÿ îêîí÷åííûì, òîëüêî åñëè çàâåðøèòñÿ èñòîðèÿ ÷åëîâå÷åñòâà. Ïîêà æå ÷åëîâå÷åñêîå îáùåñòâî ñóùåñòâóåò, ïðîäîëæàåòñÿ è ýòîò íå èìåþùèé êîíöà ïîèñê – áåñêîíå÷íûé, íî íå áåññìûñëåííûé, óâëåêàòåëüíûé è âîëíóþùèé, êîòîðûé âñå ìû ïðèçâàíû ïðîäîëæàòü, ïðèíèìàÿ ýñòàôåòó îò ïðåäûäóùèõ ïîêîëåíèé è ïåðåäàâàÿ åå ïîñëåäóþùèì. Êíèãà «Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography» – ñâîåîáðàçíàÿ ýñòàôåòíàÿ ïàëî÷êà, çàâåò, îñòàâëåííûé îäíèì èç ó÷àñòíèêîâ ýòîãî áåñêîíå÷íîãî (èëè, ïîëüçóÿñü âàðèàíòîì ïåðåâîäà, ïðåäëîæåííûì À.Ë. Íèêèôîðîâûì, íåñêîí÷àåìîãî) ïîèñêà òåì, êîìó ïðåäñòîèò åãî ïðîäîëæàòü. È ýòîò çàâåò íå íóæäàåòñÿ â îñîáûõ îáñòîÿòåëüñòâàõ, ÷òîáû áûòü àêòóàëüíûì è ïðèâëåêàòü âíèìàíèå ïóáëèêè. Îí àêòóàëåí âñåãäà.

Book Reviews 245

EPISTEMOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE · 2015 · Ò. XLV · ¹ 3

В P

ЛАСТЬ ПОД ВЫВЕСКОЙ НАУКИ

1

OWER UNDER THE GUISE OF SCIENCE

Лиана Анваровна Тухватулина – ас пирант сектора социальной эписте мологии Института философии РАН. Email: spero[email protected]

Liana Tukhvatulina – PhDstudent, department of social epistemology, Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences.

(Рецензия на книгу Штера Н., Грундманна Р. Власть научного знания. СПб. : Алетейя, 2015)

Âåêòîð ðàçâèòèÿ ôèëîñîôñêîé ìûñëè (ïî ìåíüøåé ìåðå, â êîíòèíåíòàëüíîé òðàäèöèè) çà ïîñëåäíèå 30–40 ëåò ñâèäåòåëüñòâóåò î ïîâûøåíèè èíòåðåñà ê ðàçðàáîòêå òåîðåòèêî-ïîçíàâàòåëüíîé ïðîáëåìàòèêè ñ òî÷êè çðåíèÿ ñîöèîëîãèè çíàíèÿ. Èñòîðè÷åñêèé ïîâîðîò â ôèëîñîôèè íàóêè, ïðîèçîøåäøèé áëàãîäàðÿ ðàáîòàì Ì. Ïîëàíè, Ò. Êóíà, Ï. Ôåéåðàáåíäà, Ñ. Òóëìèíà è äð., âûâåë íà ïîâåñòêó äíÿ ýòîé äèñöèïëèíû ñîöèîëîãè÷åñêèå âîïðîñû, ñâÿçàííûå ñ ñîöèîêóëüòóðíûì è èñòîðè÷åñêèì êîíòåêñòàìè îáîñíîâàíèÿ íàó÷íîãî çíàíèÿ è èõ âëèÿíèåì íà ôîðìèðîâàíèå è ðàçâèòèå íàó÷íûõ ïðîãðàìì. Çíà÷åíèå ýòîé ðåâîëþöèè ñëîæíî ïåðåîöåíèòü, ïîñêîëüêó âñå ïîñëåäóþùåå ðàçâèòèå íå òîëüêî ôèëîñîôèè íàóêè, íî è ðÿäà ñìåæíûõ äèñöèïëèí (îò òåîðèè ïîçíàíèÿ äî òåîðèè ïîëèòèêè) õàðàêòåðèçîâàëîñü àêòèâíûì îáðàùåíèåì ê ìåòîäîëîãè÷åñêèì ðåñóðñàì èñòîðè÷åñêîé ôèëîñîôèè íàóêè. Áîëåå òîãî, óêàçàííûé ïîâîðîò îçíàìåíîâàë ñîáîé ïîÿâëåíèå íîâûõ ìåæäèñöèïëèíàðíûõ íàïðàâ-

ëåíèé â ñîöèàëüíî-èñòîðè÷åñêèõ è ãóìàíèòàðíûõ íàóêàõ, ñðåäè êîòîðûõ âñå áîëüøèé ïîòåíöèàë îáðåòàåò ïðîãðàììà STS (Science, Technology, and Society). Ïðîáëåìíîå ïîëå ïîñëåäíåé âî ìíîãîì

1 Ðàáîòà âûïîëíåíà ïðè ïîääåðæêå ÐÍÔ, ïðîåêò ¹ 14-18-02227 «Ñîöèàëüíàÿ ôèëîñîôèÿ íàóêè. Ðîññèéñêàÿ ïåðñïåêòèâà

246 Book Reviews

ÂËÀÑÒÜ ÏÎÄ ÂÛÂÅÑÊÎÉ ÍÀÓÊÈ

côîðìèðîâàíî íà îñíîâå ïîñòïîçèòèâèñòñêèõ èññëåäîâàòåëüñêèõ óñòàíîâîê è îðèåíòèðîâàíî íà ðàññìîòðåíèå ðîëè âíåøíèõ è âíóòðåííèõ ôàêòîðîâ ðàçâèòèÿ íàó÷íîãî çíàíèÿ, à èìåííî: âçàèìîäåéñòâèÿ è âçàèìîâëèÿíèÿ ìåæäó íàóêîé è òåõíîëîãè÷åñêîé, ïîëèòè÷åñêîé è ýêîíîìè÷åñêîé ñôåðàìè. Ðåöåíçèðóåìàÿ ðàáîòà Íèêî Øòåðà è Ðàéíåðà Ãðóíäìàííà ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé êëàññè÷åñêèé îáðàçåö case study, âûïîëíåííûé «ïî ïðàâèëàì» ïðîãðàììû STS. Çäåñü íåñêîëüêî íà ïåðâûé âçãëÿä íå ñâÿçàííûõ äðóã ñ äðóãîì ñþæåòîâ èç èñòîðèè íàóêè êîíöåïòóàëèçèðóþòñÿ â êà÷åñòâå èëëþñòðàòèâíûõ ïðèìåðîâ, ïîäòâåðæäàþùèõ èñõîäíûé òåçèñ î íàëè÷èè òåñíåéøåé âçàèìîñâÿçè ìåæäó âíóòðåííèìè (êîòîðûå îòíîñÿòñÿ íåïîñðåäñòâåííî ê íàó÷íîìó ïîçíàíèþ) è âíåøíèìè (ñîöèîêóëüòóðíûìè, ïîëèòè÷åñêèìè, òåõíîëîãè÷åñêèìè) ôàêòîðàìè ðàçâèòèÿ çíàíèÿ.  ðàáîòå «Âëàñòü íàó÷íîãî çíàíèÿ» òàêîé êîíöåïòóàëèçàöèè ïîäâåðãàþòñÿ êåéíñèàíñòâî, íåìåöêàÿ ðàñîëîãèÿ è ñîâðåìåííàÿ êëèìàòîëîãèÿ. Âûáîð êåéñîâ äëÿ àíàëèçà íåñëó÷àåí – îí îáóñëîâëåí òîé òðàêòîâêîé ïîíÿòèÿ çíàíèÿ, êîòîðóþ äàþò àâòîðû: «Ìû ïðåäëàãàåì ïîíèìàòü ïîä çíàíèåì ñïîñîáíîñòü è âîçìîæíîñòü ïðèâîäèòü â äâèæåíèå òå èëè èíûå ïðîöåññû» [Ãðóíäìàíí, Øòåð, 2015: 33]. Àâòîðû, ïî èõ ñîáñòâåííîìó ïðèçíàíèþ, áåðóò çà îñíîâó çíàìåíèòóþ ôîðìóëó Ô. Áýêîíà «Scientia est potentia», àäàïòèðóÿ åå ñ ó÷åòîì ñïåöèôèêè ñîâðåìåííîãî ôèëîñîôñêîãî äèñêóðñà. Ñîãëàñíî êëàññè÷åñêîìó îïðåäåëåíèþ Áýêîíà, çíàíèå îáëàäàåò îñîáåííîé ñèëîé «ïðèâîäèòü âåùè â äâèæåíèå» – ñïîñîáñòâîâàòü ïðåîáðàçîâàíèþ îêðóæàþùåé äåéñòâèòåëüíîñòè. Èìåííî â ýòîì çàêëþ÷àþòñÿ åãî îáùåñòâåííîå çíà÷åíèå è ïðàêòè÷åñêàÿ ïîëüçà.  êîíòåêñòå ñîâðåìåííîé ýïèñòåìîëîãèè èäåÿ Áýêîíà ñâîåîáðàçíûì îáðàçîì ïðåëîìëÿåòñÿ â ñîöèîëîãè÷å-

ñêîé òåîðèè ôðåéìîâ Èðâèíãà Ãîôìàíà [Ãîôìàí, 2004], ê êîòîðîé òàêæå àïåëëèðóþò Øòåð è Ãðóíäìàíí. Ïðè ýòîì àâòîðû íå èñïîëüçóþò òåîðèþ Ãîôìàíà êàê ñðåäñòâî êîíöåïòóàëèçèðîâàòü ïðîáëåìó îñíîâàíèé ñîöèàëüíîé äåéñòâåííîñòè (âëàñòè) íàó÷íîãî çíàíèÿ. Êîíöåïöèÿ Ãîôìàíà, êàê è ìíîãèå äðóãèå ïîäõîäû, êîòîðûå îñâåòèëè àâòîðû, ïðèçâàíà ñêîðåå îáîçíà÷èòü îïòèêó ðàññìîòðåíèÿ ïðîáëåìû «âëàñòè çíàíèÿ» è óêàçàòü íà îáùèé çàìûñåë ðàáîòû. Îäíàêî îáèëèå îòñûëîê ê ðàçëè÷íûì èñòî÷íèêàì è ïîñòîÿííîå âîñïðîèçâåäåíèå ìíîæåñòâà ñóùåñòâóþùèõ ïîçèöèé ïî ïðîáëåìå âî ìíîãîì îñëîæíÿþò ïîíèìàíèå àâòîðñêîé íîâèçíû â àðãóìåíòàöèè çàÿâëåííûõ òåçèñîâ è ñïîñîáñòâóþò ðàñôîêóñèðîâêå âíèìàíèÿ ÷èòàòåëÿ. Òåì íå ìåíåå îáðàùåíèå ê êîíöåïöèè Ãîôìàíà ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ îïðàâäàííûì, ïîñêîëüêó ìåòàôîðèêà ôðåéì-àíàëèçà (ðå÷ü ïðè ýòîì åäâà ëè ìîæåò èäòè î ïîñëåäîâàòåëüíîì çàèìñòâîâàíèè ìåòîäà Ãîôìàíà) áîëåå âñåãî ïîçâîëÿåò àâòîðàì ïðîÿñíèòü ïðåäëîæåííûé èìè ïîäõîä ê ïðîáëåìå ôóíêöèîíèðîâàíèÿ íàó÷íîãî çíàíèÿ â îáùåñòâå.  òðàêòîâêå Ãîôìàíà ôðåéì îïðåäåëÿåòñÿ îäíîâðåìåííî êàê «ìàòðèöà âîçìîæíûõ ñîáûòèé» è «ñõåìà èíòåðïðåòàöèè» [Âàõøòàéí, 2014: 89], ïðè÷åì åäèíñòâî ýòèõ îïðåäåëåíèé èìååò ïðèíöèïèàëüíûé õàðàêòåð. Îáúåäèíÿÿ ìîäåëèðóþùóþ è èíòåðïðåòàòèâíóþ ôóíêöèè ôðåéìà, Ãîôìàí òåì ñàìûì íàñòàèâàåò íà òåçèñå î íåðàçðûâíîñòè êîãíèòèâíûõ è ñèòóàöèîííûõ ýëåìåíòîâ âîñïðèÿòèÿ è ïîçíàíèÿ: «ß ñ÷èòàþ [ôðåéìèðîâàíèå] ñâîéñòâîì ñàìîé îðãàíèçàöèè ñîáûòèé è êîãíèöèé» [öèò. ïî: Ãðóíäìàíí, Øòåð, 2015: 32]. Àâòîðû ïîëàãàþò, ÷òî âîçìîæíîñòü «ïðèâåäåíèÿ âåùåé â äåéñòâèå» (à èìåííî ýòèì âíåøíèì ïî îòíîøåíèþ ê ñóãóáî ïîçíàâàòåëüíûì öåëÿì íàóêè êðèòåðèåì èçìåðÿåòñÿ çäåñü óñïåøíîñòü íàó÷íîé òåîðèè) íàïðÿìóþ ñâÿçàíà ñî ñïîñîáíî-

Book Reviews 247

Ë.À. ÒÓÕÂÀÒÓËÈÍÀ

ñòüþ íàó÷íîãî ñîîáùåñòâà «ñîçäàâàòü» ôðåéìû, â êîòîðûõ, â ÷àñòíîñòè, ïðèíèìàþòñÿ è ïîëèòè÷åñêèå ðåøåíèÿ. Àâòîðû ïîä÷åðêèâàþò, ÷òî «õîòÿ íàó÷íûå èçûñêàíèÿ ðåäêî èëè äàæå íèêîãäà íå îïðåäåëÿþò ïîëèòè÷åñêèé êóðñ… òåì íå ìåíåå îíè èãðàþò âàæíóþ ðîëü ïðè ðàññòàíîâêå ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ ïðèîðèòåòîâ.  ïîëèòè÷åñêîì ïðîöåññå èìååò çíà÷åíèå òî, î ÷åì äóìàþò ëþäè, à òàêæå òî, êàêèì îáðàçîì îíè äóìàþò î òåõ èëè èíûõ âîïðîñàõ» [Ãðóíäìàíí, Øòåð, 2015: 32]. Çàìåòèì, ÷òî ôðåéìû âîñïðèÿòèÿ, ôîðìèðóåìûå íàó÷íûì (èëè «ýïèñòåìè÷åñêèì») ñîîáùåñòâîì, îðèåíòèðîâàíû êàê íà ïîëèòèêîâ (íåïîñðåäñòâåííî ïðèíèìàþùèõ ïîëèòè÷åñêèå ðåøåíèÿ), òàê è íà îáûâàòåëåé (òåõ, êòî âûðàæàåò îòíîøåíèå ê ïðèíÿòûì ðåøåíèÿì).  ïîëèòèêî-èäåîëîãè÷åñêîì êîíòåêñòå íàó÷íîå çíàíèå, òàêèì îáðàçîì, âûïîëíÿåò îäíîâðåìåííî ðåãóëÿòèâíóþ è ëåãèòèìàöèîííóþ ôóíêöèè. Ïðè÷åì àâòîðû îáðàùàþò âíèìàíèå íà òî, ÷òî çíàíèÿ ìîãóò «âîçäåéñòâîâàòü íà ðåàëüíîñòü» äâîÿêèì îáðàçîì: ñ îäíîé ñòîðîíû, «çíàíèÿ ìîãóò âûñòóïàòü â ôîðìå èäåé, ïðåäñòàâëÿþùèõ èíòåðïðåòàöèè ñèòóàöèé (ôðåéìû) è îïðåäåëÿþùèõ ïðîáëåìû, òåì ñàìûì âëèÿÿ íà èõ ðåøåíèÿ» [Ãðóíäìàíí, Øòåð, 2015: 38], ñ äðóãîé ñòîðîíû, «ñàìî çíàíèå ñîäåðæèò â ñåáå âîçìîæíîñòü äåéñòâèÿ â ñâÿçè ñ êîíêðåòíûì ïðîáëåìíûì ñëó÷àåì» [Ãðóíäìàíí, Øòåð, 2015: 38]. Ãðóíäìàíí è Øòåð ïîä÷åðêèâàþò, ÷òî â ñîâðåìåííîì êîíòåêñòå âîïëîùåíèå áýêîíîâñêîé ìàêñèìû î ñóòè íàó÷íîãî çíàíèÿ â åãî îòíîøåíèè ê îáùåñòâó íàïðÿìóþ ñâÿçàíî ñ âîçìîæíîñòüþ âëèÿòü íà ïðîöåññ ïðèíÿòèÿ ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ ðåøåíèé. Èìåííî ñïîñîáû îáðåòåíèÿ ýòîãî âëèÿíèÿ áîëåå âñåãî èíòåðåñóþò àâòîðîâ.  êîíòåêñòå äàííîãî ðàññìîòðåíèÿ Ãðóíäìàíí è Øòåð îòêàçûâàþòñÿ îò óíèâåðñàëèçàöèè ïîíÿòèÿ íàó÷íîãî çíàíèÿ – îíè âîâñå íå óòâåðæäàþò, ÷òî, ñêàæåì, ôèçè÷åñêàÿ òåîðèÿ ñòðóí è ýêî-

248 Book Reviews

íîìè÷åñêàÿ òåîðèÿ çàíÿòîñòè â ðàâíîé ìåðå è î÷åâèäíûì îáðàçîì ñïîñîáíû îêàçûâàòü âëèÿíèå íà ïîëèòè÷åñêóþ ïîâåñòêó. Ýòî óòâåðæäåíèå áûëî áû ïî ìåíüøåé ìåðå ëåãêîâåñíûì. Îòìå÷ó, ÷òî Ãðóíäìàíí è Øòåð ñîâñåì íå óäåëÿþò âíèìàíèÿ ïðîáëåìå «âëàñòè» ôóíäàìåíòàëüíîé íàóêè – ñîöèàëüíî-ïîëèòè÷åñêèì àñïåêòàì íàïðàâëåíèé åå ðàçâèòèÿ. Ïî-âèäèìîìó, ñïîñîá ïîñòàíîâêè ïðîáëåìû, ïðåäëîæåííûé èìè, ïîïðîñòó íå ïîçâîëÿåò êà÷åñòâåííî àíàëèçèðîâàòü äàííûé âîïðîñ, ïîñêîëüêó ôåíîìåí ôóíäàìåíòàëüíîé íàóêè íå óêëàäûâàåòñÿ â òî äîñòàòî÷íî óçêîå îïðåäåëåíèå çíàíèÿ, êîòîðîå ïðåäëàãàþò àâòîðû. Ãðóíäìàííà è Øòåðà èíòåðåñóåò îñîáûé êëàñòåð íàó÷íîãî çíàíèÿ – òàê íàçûâàåìîå çíàíèå äëÿ ïðàêòèêè, ãäå èññëåäîâàíèÿ èçíà÷àëüíî îðèåíòèðîâàíû íà ðàçðàáîòêó íàó÷íûõ ïðîãðàìì ñîöèàëüíîãî ðåôîðìèðîâàíèÿ â òîé èëè èíîé ñôåðå. Îñíîâíûìè ðåòðàíñëÿòîðàìè òàêîãî çíàíèÿ ÿâëÿþòñÿ ýêñïåðòû è ïîëèòè÷åñêèå êîíñóëüòàíòû, ÷üå âëèÿíèå â ñâåðõñëîæíîì ñîâðåìåííîì îáùåñòâå ÷ðåçâû÷àéíî ðàñòåò. È àêòóàëüíûì çäåñü ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ ñëåäóþùèé âîïðîñ: êàêèå ôàêòîðû ñïîñîáñòâóþò ïîëèòè÷åñêîìó ïðèçíàíèþ òîãî èëè èíîãî ó÷åíèÿ? Îòâå÷àÿ íà íåãî, Ãðóíäìàíí è Øòåð ïîëàãàþò, ÷òî òåîðåòèêî-ïîçíàâàòåëüíûå ïðåèìóùåñòâà òîé èëè èíîé êîíöåïöèè íå ÿâëÿþòñÿ ïàðàìåòðîì, ïî êîòîðîìó îöåíèâàåòñÿ èõ ïîëèòè÷åñêàÿ ðåëåâàíòíîñòü. Íàïðîòèâ, ðàññìîòðåííûå êåéñû ïîêàçûâàþò, ÷òî êîíöåïöèè êåéíñèàíñòâà, ðàñîëîãèè è êëèìàòîëîãèè âûçûâàëè â ñâîå âðåìÿ ñåðüåçíûå ñîìíåíèÿ â èõ íàó÷íîé îáîñíîâàííîñòè è òåì íå ìåíåå îáðåëè àâòîðèòåò è âëèÿíèå íà ñôåðó ïîëèòèêè. Ó÷åíèå Êåéíñà äîëãîå âðåìÿ íå áûëî âîñòðåáîâàíî, ïîñêîëüêó åãî êëþ÷åâûå ïîëîæåíèÿ ñòðîèëèñü íà îòâåðæåíèè ãîñïîäñòâîâàâøåãî íåîêëàññè÷åñêîãî ïîäõîäà ê ýêîíîìè÷åñêèì ïðîáëåìàì. Êðîìå òîãî, ðàäèêàëüíûå ìåðû

ÂËÀÑÒÜ ÏÎÄ ÂÛÂÅÑÊÎÉ ÍÀÓÊÈ

ïî ñòàáèëèçàöèè ýêîíîìèêè (ñðåäè êîòîðûõ ãëàâíûì òðåáîâàíèåì ÿâëÿëîñü óâåëè÷åíèå ãîñóäàðñòâåííûõ çàòðàò) â ñèòóàöèè êðèçèñà íå âîñïðèíèìàëèñü êàê î÷åâèäíûå è òðåáóþùèå íåçàìåäëèòåëüíîãî èñïîëíåíèÿ.  1932 ã. Êåéíñ àêòèâíî ïðèçûâàë ïðàâèòåëüñòâî Âåéìàðñêîé Ðåñïóáëèêè ê îòêàçó îò àíòèèíôëÿöèîíèñòñêèõ ìåòîäîâ â ýêîíîìèêå è àêòèâíîé ïîääåðæêå óðîâíÿ ïîòðåáëåíèÿ. Îäíàêî àðãóìåíòû Êåéíñà íå íàøëè ïîääåðæêè íå òîëüêî ó ïðàâèòåëüñòâà Ãåíðèõà Áðþíèíãà, íî è â ñðåäå íåìåöêèõ ýêîíîìè÷åñêèõ ýêñïåðòîâ. Îäèí èç âåäóùèõ ýêîíîìèñòîâ, Àëüôðåä Âåáåð, çàÿâèë, ÷òî íè îäèí ïîëèòýêîíîì, ñòðåìÿùèéñÿ «ê èñòèíå è ÿñíîñòè», íå ïðèäåò â çäðàâîì óìå ê çàêëþ÷åíèþ, ÷òî âîññòàíîâèòü ýêîíîìèêó ìîæíî áåç ñíèæåíèÿ «æàëîâàíèé è çàðïëàò» (âåäü ìåðû, ïðåäëîæåííûå Êåéíñîì, ïîäðàçóìåâàëè ïî ñóòè åùå áîëüøåå óâåëè÷åíèå äåíåæíîé ìàññû â ñèòóàöèè ãàëîïèðóþùåé èíôëÿöèè!). Îãðàíè÷åííîñòü ïðåäñòàâëåíèé â ñðåäå ýêîíîìè÷åñêèõ ýêñïåðòîâ (íåïîíèìàíèå èìè öèêëè÷åñêîãî õàðàêòåðà äåíåæíîé ïîëèòèêè), íåðåøèòåëüíîñòü ïðàâèòåëüñòâà è íåãîòîâíîñòü ê ðàäèêàëüíûì ìåðàì, à òàêæå âåðà â óíèâåðñàëüíóþ ñïîñîáíîñòü ðûíêà ê ñàìîðåãóëÿöèè ïðèâåëè Ãåðìàíèþ ê îêîí÷àòåëüíîìó ýêîíîìè÷åñêîìó êîëëàïñó, êîòîðûé, êàê èçâåñòíî, ñûãðàë íà ðóêó ïðèøåäøèì ÷åðåç ãîä ê âëàñòè íàöèîíàë-ñîöèàëèñòàì. Ãðóíäìàíí è Øòåð, îñíîâûâàÿñü íà èçó÷åíèè èññëåäîâàíèé ïî èñòîðèè êåéíñèàíñòâà, ïðèõîäÿò ê âûâîäó, ÷òî «âåðîÿòíîñòü ýôôåêòèâíîé äèññåìèíàöèè è èìïëåìåíòàöèè ýêîíîìè÷åñêèõ èäåé ñóùåñòâåííî âîçðàñòàåò, åñëè ñîîòâåòñòâóþùèå òåîðèè èçíà÷àëüíî íàõîäÿò ïîääåðæêó ó ýëèòû òîãî èëè èíîãî ãîñóäàðñòâà» [Ãðóíäìàíí, Øòåð, 2015: 70]. À ñóùåñòâåííûì ôàêòîðîì ïîääåðæêè çäåñü îêàçûâàåòñÿ ãîòîâíîñòü ãîñóäàðñòâà ê àêòèâíîìó âìåøàòåëüñòâó â ýêîíîìèêó – òî, ÷åìó íå íàøëîñü ìåñòà

â Âåéìàðñêîé Ðåñïóáëèêå è ÷òî îêàçàëîñü íåîáõîäèìîé ìåðîé â ïîñëåâîåííîì ìèðå. Ïèê âëèÿíèÿ èäåé êåéíñèàíñòâà ñíà÷àëà â Àìåðèêå, à çàòåì â Åâðîïå ïðèõîäèòñÿ íà 1940–1960-å ãã. – ïåðèîä, êîãäà âîñòðåáîâàííîñòü ãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî ðåãóëèðîâàíèÿ â ñèëó èñòîðè÷åñêèõ îáñòîÿòåëüñòâ áûëà ìàêñèìàëüíîé, è ñõîäèò íà íåò ê 1970-ì, êîãäà óñèëèâàåòñÿ èíòåãðàöèÿ íàöèîíàëüíûõ ýêîíîìèê è ñíèæàþòñÿ âîçìîæíîñòè ïðÿìîãî ãîñóäàðñòâåííîãî ðåãóëèðîâàíèÿ. Òàêèì îáðàçîì, ñðåäè ôàêòîðîâ,ñïîñîáñòâîâàâøèõ ðàñïðîñòðàíåíèþ êåéíñèàíñòâà, ìîæíî âûäåëèòü íåîáõîäèìîñòü âîññòàíàâëèâàòü ïîñëåâîåííûå ýêîíîìèêè ïðè àêòèâíîì ó÷àñòèè ãîñóäàðñòâà, îòíîñèòåëüíóþ îòêðûòîñòü ïîëèòè÷åñêîãî ðóêîâîäñòâà è åãî âîñïðèèì÷èâîñòü ê ðåêîìåíäàöèÿì ýêñïåðòîâ, ëåãêîñòü è ãèáêîñòü òåîðåòè÷åñêîé ìîäåëè Êåéíñà. Òåì íå ìåíåå èñòîðèÿ êåéíñèàíñòâà, ðàññìîòðåííàÿ Ãðóíäìàííîì è Øòåðîì, åäâà ëè ñëóæèò àðãóìåíòîì â ïîëüçó òåçèñà î òîì, ÷òî íàó÷íîå çíàíèå ìîæåò ìîäåëèðîâàòü ïîëèòè÷åñêóþ ïîâåñòêó äíÿ. Ñêîðåå, íàîáîðîò, ïîëèòè÷åñêàÿ ïîâåñòêà â ñëó÷àå ñ êåéíñèàíñòâîì îêàçàëàñü îäíèì èç ðåøàþùèõ ôàêòîðîâ, ñïîñîáñòâîâàâøèõ åãî àêòèâíîé ðåàëèçàöèè. È ïîëèòè÷åñêàÿ êîíúþíêòóðà ïîñëåâîåííîãî ìèðà (êåéíñèàíñòâî íàèáîëåå ñîîòâåòñòâîâàëî ýêîíîìè÷åñêîé ïðîãðàììå ñîöèàë-äåìîêðàòîâ) â ñóùåñòâåííîé ìåðå îáúÿñíÿåò óñïåøíîñòü âîïëîùåíèÿ ýòèõ èäåé. Êîíå÷íî, êåéíñèàíñòâî «ñðàáîòàëî» åùå è ïîòîìó, ÷òî äîêàçàëî ñâîþ ðåçóëüòàòèâíîñòü (ïóñòü è îòíîñèòåëüíî êðàòêîâðåìåííóþ) â ðåøåíèè òåêóùèõ çàäà÷. Îäíàêî ìíîãèå ýêîíîìèñòû ñ÷èòàþò, ÷òî èäåè Êåéíñà íå îñíîâûâàëèñü íà íàó÷íîì àíàëèçå (è äàæå âî ìíîãîì íàõîäèëèñü â ïðîòèâîðå÷èè ñ ýêîíîìè÷åñêèìè ðàñ÷åòàìè), à áûëè ñêîðåå ïîïóëèñòñêî-èäåîëîãè÷åñêèìè [Hayek, 1995]. Ìîãëî ëè êåéíñèàíñòâî îáðåñòè «âëàñòü» â äðóãîì ïîëèòè-

Book Reviews 249

Ë.À. ÒÓÕÂÀÒÓËÈÍÀ

êî-èäåîëîãè÷åñêîì êîíòåêñòå? Ýòîò âîïðîñ îñòàåòñÿ îòêðûòûì, îäíàêî àíàëèç Ãðóíäìàííà è Øòåðà íå ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ äîñòàòî÷íûì äëÿ ïîäòâåðæäåíèÿ çàÿâëåííîãî èìè òåçèñà î âëèÿíèè íàó÷íîé ïðîãðàììû íà ïîëèòè÷åñêèé êîíòåêñò. Âòîðîé êåéñ, êîòîðûé ðàññìàòðèâàåòñÿ â êíèãå, ñâÿçàí ñ èñòîðèåé ðàñîëîãèè. Àâòîðû ïîêàçûâàþò, ÷òî àêòèâíîå îáðàùåíèå ê ðàñîëîãè÷åñêèì èññëåäîâàíèÿì â íà÷àëå ÕÕ â. âî ìíîãîì áûëî îáóñëîâëåíî äèñöèïëèíàðíûì ðàçâèòèåì àíòðîïîëîãèè. Êîíöåïöèè çäåñü âûñòðàèâàëèñü ïóòåì ýêñòðàïîëÿöèè äàðâèíîâñêèõ èäåé îá îðãàíèçóþùåì îòáîðå è ðîëè íàñëåäñòâåííîñòè è èçìåí÷èâîñòè â èçó÷åíèè «÷åëîâå÷åñêèõ ïîïóëÿöèé». Íàóêîîáðàçèå êîíöåïöèè ñîçäàâàëîñü íà îñíîâå êîëîññàëüíîãî êîëè÷åñòâà ýìïèðè÷åñêèõ äàííûõ, òåîðåòè÷åñêèå èíòåðïðåòàöèè êîòîðûõ õàðàêòåðèçîâàëèñü äàëåêî èäóùèìè îáîáùåíèÿìè. Òàê, âûñîòà ëáà è ðàçìåð ãîëîâû íàïðÿìóþ ñâÿçûâàëèñü ñ óðîâíåì èíòåëëåêòóàëüíîé ðàçâèòîñòè – ýòîãî áûëî äîñòàòî÷íî äëÿ óòâåðæäåíèé î «ðàñîâîì ïðåâîñõîäñòâå» îäíèõ è íåïîëíîöåííîñòè äðóãèõ. Êðîìå òîãî, â êà÷åñòâå êðèòåðèÿ ýâîëþöèîííîé óñïåøíîñòè òîé èëè èíîé «ðàñû» âûäâèãàëñÿ óðîâåíü ðàçâèòèÿ äóõîâíîñòè è ìàòåðèàëüíîé êóëüòóðû. Áåññïîðíûì ýòàëîíîì îöåíêè ñòàëà Ñåâåðíàÿ Åâðîïà; òàê, â ÷àñòíîñòè, äåëàëñÿ âûâîä î òîì, ÷òî ôàêò ïðîìûøëåííîé ðåâîëþöèè ïîçâîëÿåò ãîâîðèòü, ÷òî «ðàñû, ïðîæèâàþùèå íà ýòîé òåððèòîðèè, íàèáîëåå ðàçâèòûå» [Ãðóíäìàíí, Øòåð, 2015: 119]. Ðàñîëîãèÿ âîîáùå îòëè÷àëàñü òåì, ÷òî ëåãêî êîìïåíñèðîâàëà íåõâàòêó íàó÷íîãî îáîñíîâàíèÿ âûäâèãàåìûõ òåçèñîâ àïåëëÿöèåé ê «çäðàâîìó ñìûñëó» è ïîâñåäíåâíîìó îïûòó åâðîïåéñêîãî îáûâàòåëÿ (â óñëîâèÿõ ÷óäîâèùíîãî ðîñòà àíòèñåìèòñêèõ íàñòðîåíèé çàïðîñ íà äîáðîñîâåñòíîñòü íàó÷íûõ îáúÿñíåíèé ïîäîáíûõ èäåé è íå áûë âûñîê). Ãðóíäìàíí è Øòåð ïîêàçûâà-

250 Book Reviews

þò, ÷òî ïðàêòè÷åñêîìó âîïëîùåíèþ ðàñîëîãè÷åñêèõ èäåé ñïîñîáñòâîâàëè òðè ôàêòîðà. Âî-ïåðâûõ, âîçíèêëà ïðîôåññèÿ, â ðàìêàõ êîòîðîé ëþäè çàíèìàëèñü «ðàçâåäåíèåì» ëþäåé (ïðîãðàììà ðàñîâîé ãèãèåíû íà áàçå Óíèâåðñèòåòà Ãóìáîëüäòà è Èíñòèòóòà êàéçåðà Âèëüãåëüìà). Âî-âòîðûõ, ê 1933 ã. ðàñîëîãè îòêàçàëèñü îò èäåè «óëó÷øåíèÿ» ðàñû ïóòåì ñîöèàëüíîãî âîçäåéñòâèÿ íà åå ïðåäñòàâèòåëåé – îòíûíå ðàñîâûå ïðèçíàêè ïðèçíàâàëèñü íåèçìåííûìè. Â-òðåòüèõ, ê 1930-ì ãã. äîñòàòî÷íîå ðàçâèòèå ïîëó÷èëè òåõíèêà àíòðîïîìåòðèè è ñðàâíèòåëüíàÿ àíàòîìèÿ, ïîçâîëèâøèå ðàñîëîãàì «òî÷íî èçìåðÿòü» è «íàó÷íî êëàññèôèöèðîâàòü» ðàñîâûå ïðèçíàêè. Âñå ýòî ïðèäàâàëî ðàñîëîãèè îáëèê ïîäëèííî íàó÷íîé äèñöèïëèíû.  ñèëó óêàçàííûõ îáñòîÿòåëüñòâ ê êîíöó 1930-õ ãã. Ãèòëåð ìîã ãîâîðèòü î «íàó÷íîé îáîñíîâàííîñòè» ïðèòÿçàíèé íà òåððèòîðèàëüíóþ ýêñïàíñèþ. Ïåðâîíà÷àëüíî îíà îáúÿñíÿëàñü íåîáõîäèìîñòüþ ñíÿòü ïîëèòè÷åñêèå ãðàíèöû ìåæäó ïðåäñòàâèòåëÿìè åäèíîé ðàñû, à çàòåì – ñ 1939 ãã. – áûëà äîïîëíåíà òåçèñîì î «ãåíåòè÷åñêîì ïðåâîñõîäñòâå àðèéñêîé ðàñû», êîòîðàÿ ïî ñâîåìó åñòåñòâåííîìó ïðàâó âûòåñíÿåò ðàñû áîëåå ñëàáûå. Ãðóíäìàíí è Øòåð ïîëàãàþò, ÷òî ôàòàëüíîé îêàçàëàñü ñèíõðîííîñòü äèñöèïëèíàðíîãî ðàçâèòèÿ ðàñîëîãèè è ôîðìèðîâàíèÿ âíåøíåïîëèòè÷åñêîãî êóðñà íàöèñòñêîé ïàðòèè. Ïðè÷åì, ïî ìíåíèþ àâòîðîâ, ñòàíîâëåíèå ðàñîëîãèè, «íàó÷íàÿ ïðîãðàììà» êîòîðîé âïîñëåäñòâèè ïîçâîëèëà îïðàâäàòü óíè÷òîæåíèå åâðååâ, áûëî èíèöèèðîâàíî â ðàâíîé ìåðå âíóòðèäèñöèïëèíàðíûì è âíåøíèì ïîëèòè÷åñêèì êîíòåêñòîì çíàíèÿ. Òåîðåòè÷åñêèå âûâîäû, ïîñëóæèâøèå âïîñëåäñòâèè ëåãèòèìàöèè Õîëîêîñòà, â íåêîòîðîé ìåðå îòðàæàëè âíóòðåííþþ òåíäåíöèþ òåîðèè ê íàêîïëåíèþ îáúÿñíèòåëüíîãî ïîòåíöèàëà è ðàñøèðåíèþ ïðîãíîñòè÷åñêîãî ãîðèçîíòà.

ÂËÀÑÒÜ ÏÎÄ ÂÛÂÅÑÊÎÉ ÍÀÓÊÈ

Ðàñîëîãè÷åñêàÿ òåîðèÿ â çíà÷èòåëüíîé ìåðå áûëà ðåçóëüòàòîì åñòåñòâåííîé ýâîëþöèè àíòðîïîëîãèè, îäíèì èç íàïðàâëåíèé èññëåäîâàíèé â îáëàñòè òåîðèè ýâîëþöèè. Òåì íå ìåíåå äèñöèïëèíàðíûé ñòàòóñ ðàñîëîãèè íå îáúÿñíÿåò òîãî âîîäóøåâëåíèÿ, ñ êîòîðûì ó÷åíûå âûäâèãàëè ñâîè óñòðàøàþùèå ãèïîòåçû ïî ïîâîäó åñòåñòâåííîé íåðàâíîïðàâíîñòè ðàñ è íåîáõîäèìîñòè ìåð ïî èñêóññòâåííîìó îòáîðó âî èìÿ «îáùåâèäîâîãî» ïðîãðåññà. Áûë ëè ïðè÷èíîé òîãî âîåîáðàçíûé èíôàíòèëèçì èññëåäîâàòåëåé, ãîòîâûõ ïîæåðòâîâàòü ýòè÷åñêèìè îãðàíè÷åíèÿìè âî èìÿ íàêîïëåíèÿ çíàíèé è àïðîáàöèè íàó÷íûõ ðåçóëüòàòîâ? Èëè æå âèíîé âñåìó âîïèþùàÿ íåäàëüíîâèäíîñòü íàó÷íîãî ñîîáùåñòâà, íåóìåíèå ïðåäóãàäàòü ñîöèàëüíûå ïîñëåäñòâèÿ ðàçâèòèÿ è ïðàêòè÷åñêîãî âîïëîùåíèÿ ðàñîëîãè÷åñêîé òåîðèè?  ëþáîì ñëó÷àå àíàëèç Ãðóíäìàííà è Øòåðà ïîêàçûâàåò, ÷òî îòâåòñòâåííîñòü ðàñîëîãîâ çà ó÷àñòèå â îáîñíîâàíèè Õîëîêîñòà íå ñâîäèòñÿ ê áàíàëüíîìó îïïîðòóíèçìó è ñòðàõó ïðîòèâîäåéñòâèÿ êðîâàâîé äèêòàòóðå. «Âëàñòü» ðàñîëîãè÷åñêîé òåîðèè – ðåçóëüòàò ñëîæíîãî âçàèìîäåéñòâèÿ êàê âíóòðèäèñöèïëèíàðíûõ, òàê è èíñòèòóöèîíàëüíûõ, ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ ôàêòîðîâ. Îí îñîáåííî çíà÷èì äëÿ èñòîðèè è ôèëîñîôèè íàóêè, ïîñêîëüêó ïîçâîëÿåò óâèäåòü, êàêèå ÷óäîâèùíûå ïîñëåäñòâèÿ ìîæåò èìåòü ñèìáèîç (ïñåâäî)íàóêè è ïîëèòèêè, åñëè îí íå ïîäâåðãàåòñÿ ãóìàíèòàðíîé ýêñïåðòèçå. Ïîñëåäíèé êåéñ, êîòîðûé ðàññìàòðèâàþò Ãðóíäìàíí è Øòåð, ñâÿçàí ñ èçó÷åíèåì ãëîáàëüíûõ êëèìàòè÷åñêèõ èçìåíåíèé, äåÿòåëüíîñòüþ ÌÃÝÈÊ (Ìåæïðàâèòåëüñòâåííàÿ ãðóïïà ýêñïåðòîâ ïî èçó÷åíèþ êëèìàòà), à òàêæå âëèÿíèåì ýêñïåðòîâ-êëèìàòîëîãîâ íà ìèðîâóþ ïîëèòè÷åñêóþ ïîâåñòêó. Èçâåñòíî, ÷òî òåêóùèå çíàíèÿ î ôàêòîðàõ, âëèÿþùèõ íà êëèìàòè÷åñêèå èçìåíåíèÿ, íå îòëè÷àþòñÿ íè ïîë-

íîòîé, íè îäíîçíà÷íîñòüþ èíòåðïðåòàöèé ôàêòè÷åñêèõ äàííûõ. Ìåòîäîëîãè÷åñêèå ïðîáëåìû êëèìàòîëîãèè ñâÿçàíû êàê ñ ïîèñêîì è ñáîðîì äàííûõ, òàê è ñ ïðîáëåìàìè èõ îáðàáîòêè è îáîáùåíèÿ. Ãðóíäìàíí è Øòåð ïèøóò, ÷òî ãèïîòåçà îá àíòðîïîãåííîì âëèÿíèè íà êëèìàòè÷åñêèå èçìåíåíèÿ èùåò íàó÷íîãî ïîäòâåðæäåíèÿ, â ÷àñòíîñòè ÷åðåç ìåòîä òàê íàçûâàåìîé ïàëåîêëèìàòè÷åñêîé ðåêîíñòðóêöèè (âîññòàíîâëåíèÿ äàííûõ î êëèìàòè÷åñêèõ õàðàêòåðèñòèêàõ ðàçëè÷íûõ ýïîõ). Îäíàêî ýòîò ìåòîä ïîçâîëÿåò ïîëó÷èòü ëèøü êîñâåííûå ñâèäåòåëüñòâà, ïîñêîëüêó îñíîâàí íà àíàëèçå ãîäè÷íûõ êîëåö äåðåâüåâ.  ñðåäå êëèìàòîëîãîâ âåäóòñÿ îæåñòî÷åííûå äèñêóññèè î ïðàâîìî÷íîñòè çàêëþ÷åíèé, îñíîâàííûõ íà ñòîëü íåîäíîçíà÷íîì ìåòîäå (òàê íàçûâàåìûé «ñïîð î õîêêåéíîé êëþøêå»). Äðóãèì ïîëîæåíèåì, ñîìíèòåëüíûì ñ òî÷êè çðåíèÿ íàó÷íîé îáîñíîâàííîñòè, ÿâëÿåòñÿ òåçèñ î âëèÿíèè ôðåîíîâ íà ðàçðóøåíèå îçîíîâîãî ñëîÿ. Âïåðâûå îí áûë çàÿâëåí â ñòàòüå Ø. Ðîóëàíäà è Ì. Ìîëèíà â Science â 1974 ã. è ïðàêòè÷åñêè ñðàçó ñòàë ïîâîäîì ê àêòèâíûì îáùåñòâåííûì è ïîëèòè÷åñêèì äèñêóññèÿì. Èõ èòîãîì â ñâîþ î÷åðåäü îêàçàëîñü ïðèíÿòèå â ÑØÀ â 1977 ã. çàêîíà î çàïðåòå èñïîëüçîâàíèÿ ôðåîíîâ â ñïðåÿõ, ÷òî ïîçâîëèëî ïî÷òè íà ÷åòâåðòü ñîêðàòèòü ìèðîâûå âûáðîñû àýðîçîëåé. Ãðóíäìàíí è Øòåð ïîä÷åðêèâàþò, ÷òî ïîëèòè÷åñêîå ðåøåíèå îñíîâûâàëîñü çäåñü îòíþäü íå íà íàó÷íîì äîêàçàòåëüñòâå èçëîæåííîé ãèïîòåçû (íà òîò ìîìåíò ó÷åíûå íå ðàñïîëàãàëè ôàêòè÷åñêèìè äàííûìè îá èçìåíåíèè àòìîñôåðû – èõ âûâîäû îñíîâûâàëèñü íà ìîäåëüíûõ âû÷èñëåíèÿõ ñîêðàùåíèÿ îçîíîâîãî ñëîÿ â áóäóùåì); ïðèçíàíèå ãèïîòåçû äîñòîâåðíîé ñòàëî ñêîðåå ñëåäñòâèåì «îáùåñòâåííîãî ïðèçíàíèÿ åå öåííîñòè» [Ãðóíäìàíí, Øòåð, 2015: 187]. Àíàëèç ýòèõ àâ-

Book Reviews 251

Ë.À. ÒÓÕÂÀÒÓËÈÍÀ

òîðîâ ïîêàçûâàåò, ÷òî íàó÷íàÿ ýêñïåðòèçà ïðîáëåìû âëèÿåò íà ïîëèòè÷åñêèå ðåøåíèÿ ïî âîïðîñàì êëèìàòè÷åñêèõ èçìåíåíèé åäâà ëè íå â ïîñëåäíþþ î÷åðåäü. Êðîìå òîãî, ïðàêòè÷åñêèå âûâîäû çäåñü çàòðóäíåíû îòñóòñòâèåì êîíñåíñóñà ñðåäè ñàìèõ èññëåäîâàòåëåé ïî âîïðîñó òåîðåòè÷åñêèõ èíòåðïðåòàöèé äàííûõ. Ìåòîäîëîãè÷åñêèå ëàêóíû â êëèìàòîëîãèè (ãëàâíûì îáðàçîì, îòñóòñòâèå åäèíñòâà â ïîíèìàíèè ïðè÷èííî-ñëåäñòâåííûõ ñâÿçåé ìåæäó ôàêòîðàìè êëèìàòè÷åñêèõ èçìåíåíèé) ñîçäàþò âîçìîæíîñòè äëÿ ñïåêóëÿöèé. Åäèíîëè÷íîå ãîñïîäñòâî ÌÃÝÈÊ â ñôåðå êëèìàòè÷åñêîé ýêñïåðòèçû ïðèâîäèò ê ìàðãèíàëèçàöèè àëüòåðíàòèâíûõ ïîäõîäîâ è óòâåðæäåíèþ ìåòîäîëîãè÷åñêîãî êàíîíà, ïðåîáëàäàíèå êîòîðîãî ñêîðåå îáóñëîâëåíî êîíñåíñóñîì â îáùåñòâåííîì ìíåíèè, ÷åì èòîãàìè âíóòðåííåé ýâîëþöèè çíàíèÿ. Êðîìå òîãî, âàæíî ïîìíèòü, ÷òî ýêñïåðòèçà â ñôåðå êëèìàòîëîãèè òåñíåéøèì îáðàçîì çàòðàãèâàåò èíòåðåñû òðàíñíàöèîíàëüíûõ êîìïàíèé. Ïîýòîìó, âåðîÿòíî, êàê ïîëèòè÷åñêèå ðåøåíèÿ, òàê è «íàó÷íûå» çàêëþ÷åíèÿ â ñôåðå êëèìàòîëîãèè â ñóùåñòâåííîé ìåðå ëîááèðóþòñÿ ñ ó÷åòîì ýòèõ èíòåðåñîâ. Âñå ýòè îáñòîÿòåëüñòâà çàñòàâëÿþò óñîìíèòüñÿ â íàó÷íîé äîñòîâåðíîñòè òîãî çíàíèÿ, êîòîðîå ïðîèçâîäèò ýêñïåðòíîå ñîîáùåñòâî êëèìàòîëîãîâ.  ñâåòå ïîñëåäíåãî çàìå÷àíèÿ èíòåðåñíî åùå ðàç âçãëÿíóòü íà âñå òðè êåéñà, êîòîðûå ïðåäëîæèëè Ãðóíäìàíí è Øòåð. Àíàëèç èõ ðàáîòû ïîêàçûâàåò, ÷òî áýêîíîâñêîå îïðåäåëåíèå çíàíèÿ, î êîòîðîì ãîâîðèëîñü âûøå, îíè ñ÷èòàþò íåîáõîäèìûì äîïîëíèòü åùå îäíèì – èíñòèòóöèîíàëüíûì – êðèòåðèåì. Ñêëàäûâàåòñÿ âïå÷àòëåíèå, ÷òî ñ èõ òî÷êè çðåíèÿ èìåííî ýòîò ïîñëåäíèé ÿâëÿåòñÿ êëþ÷åâûì äëÿ ïðèäàíèÿ çíàíèþ ñòàòóñà íàó÷íîãî. Âûäåëåíèå òàêîãî êðèòåðèÿ âïîëíå âïèñûâàåòñÿ â îáùóþ ëîãèêó ýòèõ àâòîðîâ, ïîñêîëüêó èìåííî èíñòèòóöèîíàëèçàöèÿ òîé èëè èíîé êîíöåïöèè/äèñöèïëèíû,

252 Book Reviews

êàê ïîëàãàþò Ãðóíäìàíí è Øòåð, ñïîñîáñòâóåò ïðèîáðåòåíèþ åþ «âëàñòè» (îïðåäåëåííîãî ïîòåíöèàëà âëèÿíèÿ íà ïîëèòè÷åñêóþ ïîâåñòêó). Çäåñü, îäíàêî, ëþáîïûòíî òî, ÷òî êàê ðàç ýòîò ïîñëåäíèé êðèòåðèé ñàì ïî ñåáå íå ìîæåò ñëóæèòü äîñòàòî÷íûì îñíîâàíèåì äëÿ óäîñòîâåðåíèÿ íàó÷íîñòè çíàíèÿ è èìåííî ýòî ïîêàçûâàþò âñå òðè ñþæåòà êíèãè.  ñëó÷àå óòðàòû èíñòèòóöèîíàëüíîé ïîääåðæêè è êåéíñèàíñòâî, è ðàñîëîãèÿ, è êëèìàòîëîãèÿ (ïî êðàéíåé ìåðå â åå íûíåøíåì âèäå) îêàçûâàþòñÿ íåñîñòîÿòåëüíû. Òàê, êîíöåïöèÿ Êåéíñà âûçûâàëà æåñòî÷àéøèé îòïîð â ñðåäå ýêîíîìèñòîâ äî òåõ ïîð, ïîêà íå íàøëà ïîääåðæêè ó ïîëèòèêîâ (èìåííî ê ýòîìó âûâîäó ïðèõîäÿò íàøè àâòîðû). Ìíîãèå ýêîíîìè÷åñêèå ýêñïåðòû äî ñèõ ïîð ñ÷èòàþò, ÷òî êåéíñèàíñòâî ïðåäñòàâëÿëî ñîáîé ñêîðåå èäåîëîãè÷åñêóþ ïðîãðàììó, ÷åì íàó÷íî-ýêîíîìè÷åñêóþ. Íå ñëó÷àéíî êðàòêîâðåìåííûé óñïåõ êåéíñèàíñòâà çàâåðøèëñÿ ãèãàíòñêèì èíôëÿöèîííûì ïóçûðåì, âîçíèêøèì â òåõ ñòðàíàõ, êîòîðûå ïîïûòàëèñü ñëåäîâàòü ðåêîìåíäàöèÿì Êåéíñà (ãëàâíûì îáðàçîì, â ÑØÀ è Âåëèêîáðèòàíèè). Êñòàòè, èñõîä ýòèõ ïîïûòîê áûë ëåãêîïðîãíîçèðóåì ñ ñàìîãî íà÷àëà. Ýêîíîìè÷åñêèå ðàñ÷åòû è ïðîãíîçû ïîçâîëÿëè ñóäèòü î òîì, ÷òî ïðåäëîæåííûå ìåðû íîñÿò ÷ðåçâû÷àéíûé è êðàòêîñðî÷íûé õàðàêòåð. Êðîìå òîãî, îíè îñíîâûâàþòñÿ íå ñòîëüêî íà ñåðüåçíîì íàó÷íîì àíàëèçå, ñêîëüêî íà ëîãèêå çäðàâîãî ñìûñëà è ñèþìèíóòíîé öåëåñîîáðàçíîñòè. Ïîòîìó íå óäèâèòåëüíî, ÷òî â ðÿäå «êåéíñèàíñêèõ» ñòðàí ñòðàòåãèÿ «ñâîáîäíîãî ðûíêà» äîâîëüíî áûñòðî âåðíóëà óòðà÷åííûå ïîçèöèè, ïðèäÿ íà ñìåíó àêòèâíîìó âìåøàòåëüñòâó ãîñóäàðñòâà â ýêîíîìèêó.  óñëîâèÿõ ìíîãîêðàòíî óñëîæíèâøåãîñÿ óïðàâëåíèÿ ñîâðåìåííûì ïðîèçâîäñòâîì ýòà ñòðàòåãèÿ ïðåäñòàâàëà áîëåå ðàöèîíàëüíîé. (Îãðîìíàÿ çàñëóãà â äåìîíñòðàöèè «áëèçîðóêîñòè» êåéíñèàíñòâà è åãî ïðîñ÷åòîâ

ÂËÀÑÒÜ ÏÎÄ ÂÛÂÅÑÊÎÉ ÍÀÓÊÈ

ïðèíàäëåæèò àâñòðèéñêîé ýêîíîìè÷åñêîé øêîëå.) Èñòîðèÿ âûíåñëà ñâîé âåðäèêò è â îòíîøåíèè ðàñîëîãè÷åñêîé òåîðèè. Ñîâðåìåííàÿ àíòðîïîëîãèÿ îïðîâåðãëà òåçèñ î ïðåäóñòàíîâëåííîì áèîëîãè÷åñêîì è èíòåëëåêòóàëüíîì ïðåâîñõîäñòâå îäíèõ ðàñ íàä äðóãèìè; êðîìå òîãî, îïðîâåðãíóòî ïîëîæåíèå î ïðÿìîé êîððåëÿöèè ìåæäó ôèçèîëîãè÷åñêèìè îñîáåííîñòÿìè ïðåäñòàâèòåëåé ðàçíûõ ðàñ è èõ êîãíèòèâíûìè è ïîâåäåí÷åñêèìè ñïîñîáíîñòÿìè. Ñåãîäíÿ òåçèñ î ñîîòíîøåíèè îáúåìà ìîçãà è óðîâíÿ èíòåëëåêòóàëüíûõ ñïîñîáíîñòåé âûçûâàåò ëèøü ñïðàâåäëèâóþ èðîíèþ ñðåäè áèîëîãîâ, êîòîðûå ðåçîííî çàìå÷àþò, ÷òî åñëè áû ïîäîáíàÿ êîððåëÿöèÿ äåéñòâèòåëüíî èìåëà ìåñòî, òî êèòû (à âîâñå íå ëþäè) ïîñòðîèëè áû öèâèëèçàöèþ è ëåòàëè â êîñìîñ. Ïðèçíàíèå ðàñîâåäåíèÿ â íàöèñòñêîé Ãåðìàíèè, êàê áûëî ïîêàçàíî, íèêàê íå áûëî ñâÿçàíî ñ äîñòîâåðíîñòüþ óòâåðæäåíèé åãî àäåïòîâ. Êëþ÷åâûì ôàêòîðîì óñïåõà áûëà òà ïîëèòè÷åñêàÿ ïîâåñòêà, êîòîðóþ, ïî ñóòè äåëà, îíè îáñëóæèâàëè. Òî æå ñàìîå – õîòÿ, âèäèìî, ñ áîëüøåé îñòîðîæíîñòüþ – ìîæíî ñêàçàòü è î ñîâðåìåííîé êëèìàòîëîãèè. Ïîäîáíîå, êàê ïðåäñòàâëÿåòñÿ, äàëåêî íå ñëó÷àéíîå ñõîäñòâî òðåõ íàçâàííûõ êîíöåïöèé ïîçâîëÿåò ñäåëàòü âûâîä î òîì, ÷òî âî âñåõ ñëó÷àÿõ ññûëêà íà íàó÷íîñòü âûäâèãàåìûõ â íèõ ïîëîæåíèé âûïîëíÿëà ñêîðåå ëåãèòèìàöèîííóþ ôóíêöèþ, íåæåëè ïîäòâåðæäàëà èõ îáîñíîâàííîñòü è äîñòîâåðíîñòü.  ýòîé ñâÿçè âûçûâàåò ñîìíåíèå ñàìî íàçâàíèå ðåöåíçèðóåìîé ðàáîòû. Âåðîÿòíî, ñëîâî «íàó÷íîå» â íåì ñëåäîâàëî áû çàìåíèòü íà «ýêñïåðòíîå», ïîñêîëüêó èìåííî ïîíÿòèå ýêñïåðòèçû ñõâàòûâàåò òîò ñïåöèôè÷åñêèé ìîäóñ ôóíêöèîíèðîâàíèÿ çíàíèÿ â îáùåñòâå, êîãäà ñ íåêîòîðîé êâàçèíàó÷íîé ïîçèöèè ôîðìóëèðóþòñÿ ñîöèàëüíî çíà÷èìûå ïîëîæåíèÿ è ðàçðàáàòûâàþòñÿ ïðàêòè÷åñêèå ðåêîìåíäàöèè. Îäíàêî ïîñêîëüêó êàê â çàãëàâèè, òàê è â ñî-

äåðæàíèè êíèãè ðå÷ü èäåò èìåííî î íàó÷íîì çíàíèè, à ïîíÿòèå «ýêñïåðòèçà» åñëè è óïîìèíàåòñÿ àâòîðàìè, òî ëèøü âñêîëüçü, ïðèõîäèòñÿ ñäåëàòü âûâîä î ÿâíîé íåäîñòàòî÷íîñòè òîãî èíñòèòóöèîíàëüíîãî êðèòåðèÿ íàó÷íîñòè, íà êîòîðûé îíè äåëàþò îñíîâíîé óïîð. Ïîâòîðèì åùå ðàç: àíàëèç Ãðóíäìàííà è Øòåðà ïîçâîëÿåò óòâåðæäàòü, ÷òî êàæäàÿ èç ðàññìîòðåííûõ èìè êîíöåïöèé îáðåòàëà ñòàòóñ «íàó÷íîé» â áîëüøåé ìåðå èç-çà òîãî, ÷òî ïðèõîäèëàñü «êî âðåìåíè è êî äâîðó» (ñëóæèëà òåêóùèì ïîëèòè÷åñêèì è èäåîëîãè÷åñêèì èíòåðåñàì), à íå ïîòîìó, ÷òî îáëàäàëà ñóùåñòâåííûìè ýïèñòåìîëîãè÷åñêèìè ïðåèìóùåñòâàìè è âûèãðûâàëà â ÷åñòíîé êîíêóðåíöèè ñ äðóãèìè òåîðèÿìè.  ñèëó ýòîãî äëÿ ìåíÿ îòêðûòûì îñòàëñÿ âîïðîñ, áûëè ëè òðè ðàññìîòðåííûõ êåéñà èñòîðèÿìè î «âëàñòè íàó÷íîãî çíàíèÿ» èëè âñå-òàêè îá îòíîøåíèÿõ ìåæäó âëàñòüþ è çíàíèåì, âñåãî ëèøü ïðåòåíäóþùèì íà íàó÷íîñòü. Òåì íå ìåíåå â êîíòåêñòå ñîâðåìåííîé ñîöèàëüíî-ýïèñòåìîëîãè÷åñêîé ïðîáëåìàòèêè âîïðîñ îñòàåòñÿ îäíèì èç öåíòðàëüíûõ.  ýòîì ïëàíå êíèãà öåííà íå òîëüêî ÿðêèì ôàêòîëîãè÷åñêèì ñîäåðæàíèåì, íî è ðàñøèðåíèåì ãîðèçîíòà ïðîáëåìíîãî ïîëÿ ñîöèàëüíîé ýïèñòåìîëîãèè.

Библиографический список Âàõøòàéí, 2014 – Âàõøòàéí Â.Ñ. Ñîöèîëîãèÿ ïîâñåäíåâíîñòè è òåîðèÿ ôðåéìîâ. ÑÏá. : Èçä-âî Åâðîïåéñêîãî óíèâåðñèòåòà â Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðãå, 2014. Ãîôìàí, 2004 – Ãîôìàí È. Àíàëèç ôðåéìîâ: ýññå îá îðãàíèçàöèè ïîâñåäíåâíîãî îïûòà. Ì.: Èíñòèòóò ñîöèîëîãèè ÐÀÍ, 2004. Ãðóíäìàíí, Øòåð, 2015 – Ãðóíäìàíí Ð., Øòåð Í. Âëàñòü íàó÷íîãî çíàíèÿ. ÑÏá. : Àëåòåéÿ, 2015. Hayek, 1995 – Hayek F.A. Contra Keynes and Cambridge. Essays, Correspondence // The Collected Works of F.A. Hayek ; ed. by B. Caldwell. Vol. 9. N.Y. : Routledge, 1995.

Book Reviews 253

Ïàìÿòêà äëÿ àâòîðîâ 1. ÎÁÙÈÅ ÐÅÊÎÌÅÍÄÀÖÈÈ Ïðè íàïèñàíèè ñòàòåé ðåêîìåíäóåòñÿ ó÷èòûâàòü ïðîôèëü èçäàíèÿ è ñòðîèòü ñîäåðæàíèå è ôîðìó ñòàòüè ïðèìåíèòåëüíî ê îäíîé èç ðóáðèê æóðíàëà. Ïðåäëàãàåìûå ìàòåðèàëû äîëæíû ÿâëÿòüñÿ íå îïóáëèêîâàííûìè ðàíåå íàó÷íî-ôèëîñîôñêèìè òåêñòàìè, îáëàäàþùèìè àêòóàëüíîñòüþ è íîâèçíîé. Îáúåì ëþáîãî ìàòåðèàëà – äî 1 à.ë. 2. ÒÐÅÁÎÂÀÍÈß Ê ÎÔÎÐÌËÅÍÈÞ ÑÒÀÒÅÉ:  ìàòåðèàëû ïðèíèìàþòñÿ ïî ýëåêòðîííîé ïî÷òå â ôîðìàòå doc (øðèôò – Times New Roman, ðàçìåð – 12, ìåæäóñòðî÷íûé èíòåðâàë – îäèíàðíûé);  íà ïåðâîé ñòðàíèöå ñòàòüè äîëæíî áûòü: ðóññêîå è àíãëèéñêîå íàçâàíèÿ òåêñòà, ðóññêîÿçû÷íûå è àíãëîÿçû÷íûå äàííûå îá àâòîðå (ÔÈÎ, ó÷åíàÿ ñòåïåíü, äîëæíîñòü è ìåñòî ðàáîòû, e-mail), ðóññêîÿçû÷íàÿ è àíãëîÿçû÷íàÿ àííîòàöèè ñ êëþ÷åâûìè ñëîâàìè (àíãëîÿçû÷íàÿ àííîòàöèÿ äîëæíà áûòü ðàñøèðåííîé – îêîëî 1,5 òûñ. çíàêîâ ñ ó÷åòîì ïðîáåëîâ);  ñíîñêè ðàçìåùàþòñÿ â íèçó ñòðàíèöû, ñêâîçíàÿ íóìåðàöèÿ;  ññûëêè íà ëèòåðàòóðó äàþòñÿ â òåêñòå ñòàòüè â êâàäðàòíûõ ñêîáêàõ – ôàìèëèÿ àâòîðà è ãîä (åñëè íàäî, íîìåð ñòðàíèöû): [Ñèäîðîâ, 1994: 25]. Ïîñëå òåêñòà íà ïîñëåäíåé ñòðàíèöå ïðèëàãàåòñÿ áèáëèîãðàôè÷åñêèé ñïèñîê â àëôàâèòíîì ïîðÿäêå, ãäå äëÿ êàæäîé ññûëêè ñíà÷àëà ïðèâîäèòñÿ åå ñîêðàùåííîå îáîçíà÷åíèå (êîòîðîå â òåêñòå äàâàëîñü â ñêîáêàõ, íî óæå áåç óêàçàíèÿ ñòàòüè) è ðÿäîì ÷åðåç òèðå ïîëíûå âûõîäíûå äàííûå: Ñèäîðîâ, 1994 – Ñèäîðîâ È.È. Íàçâàíèå êíèãè. Ãîðîä, ãîä;  â êîíöå ñòàòüè òàêæå ñëåäóåò ïðåäîñòàâëÿòü áèáëèîãðàôè÷åñêèé ñïèñîê íà ëàòèíèöå, â êîòîðîì âûõîäíûå äàííûå ðóññêîÿçû÷íûõ èñòî÷íèêîâ áóäóò òðàíñëèòåðèðîâàíû ïî ïðàâèëàì íàó÷íîé òðàíñëèòåðàöèè ðóññêîãî ÿçûêà: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_transliteration_of_Cyrillic;  ê òåêñòó ñòàòüè ñëåäóåò ïðèëàãàòü ôîòîãðàôèþ àâòîðà.  ÑÑÛËÊÀÕ ÎÑÒÀÂËßÒÜ ÒÎËÜÊÎ ÑËÅÄÓÞÙÈÅ ÑÎÊÐÀÙÅÍÈß:  íåì., àíãë., àìåð., ãðå÷., ëàò. – è äð. ÿçûêè;  ïåð. – ïåðåâîä;  ñî÷. – ñî÷èíåíèå, ñî÷èíåíèÿ;  êí. – êíèãà;  Ò. – òîì;  ×. – ÷àñòü. ÑÎÊÐÀÙÀÞÒÑß ÍÀÇÂÀÍÈß ÃÎÐÎÄΠ( ÑÑÛËÊÀÕ): Ì., Ë., ÑÏá. – Ìîñêâà, Ëåíèíãðàä, Ñàíêò-Ïåòåðáóðã. L., P., N.Y., F.a.M. – Ëîíäîí, Ïàðèæ, Íüþ-Éîðê, Ôðàíêôóðò-íà-Ìàéíå. Ñíà÷àëà èäóò ðóññêèå íàçâàíèÿ (åñëè åñòü), çàòåì – íàçâàíèÿ íà èíîñòðàííîì ÿçûêå. Àâòîð, íàçâàíèå, ìåñòî è ãîä èçäàíèÿ – L., 1965; Ì., 1995. Ðàáîòû îòäåëÿþòñÿ äðóã îò äðóãà òî÷êîé ñ çàïÿòîé ( ; ). Åñëè â áèáëèîãðàôèþ âêëþ÷àåòñÿ ñòàòüÿ, òî êíèãà èëè æóðíàë, â êîòîðûõ îíà íàïå÷àòàíà, ïðèâîäèòñÿ ÷åðåç çíàê //. Íàçâàíèÿ æóðíàëîâ – áåç êàâû÷åê, áåç êóðñèâà è áåç ñîêðàùåíèé. Èâàíîâ Â.Ñ. Ëèáåðàëèçì Ô. Õàéåêà. Ì., 1997; Popper K. Open Society. V. 1. Oxford, 1956. 3. ÏÎÐßÄÎÊ ÏÐÈÍßÒÈß ÑÒÀÒÜÈ Ìàòåðèàëû ðàññìàòðèâàþòñÿ â òå÷åíèå òðåõ ìåñÿöåâ äâóìÿ íåçàâèñèìûìè ðåöåíçåíòàìè è äàëåå ðåäêîëëåãèåé, êîòîðàÿ ïðèíèìàåò îêîí÷àòåëüíîå ðåøåíèå î ïóáëèêàöèè. 4. ÌÀÒÅÐÈÀËÛ ÏÐÈÍÈÌÀÞÒÑß ÏÎ ÀÄÐÅÑÓ: [email protected] 5. Ïî æåëàíèþ àâòîðà åìó ìîæåò áûòü ïðåäñòàâëåí ìîòèâèðîâàííûé îòçûâ â ñëó÷àå îòêàçà ðåäàêöèè æóðíàëà îò ïóáëèêàöèè åãî ñòàòüè. 6. Ñ àâòîðîì òåêñòà, îäîáðåííîãî ðåäêîëëåãèåé, çàêëþ÷àåòñÿ äîãîâîð î ïåðåäà÷å ÎÎÎ «Èçäàòåëüñòâî «ÊíîÐóñ» èñêëþ÷èòåëüíûõ ïðàâ íà åãî ïóáëèêàöèþ ñðîêîì íà 1 ãîä. Çà ïóáëèêàöèþ ìàòåðèàëîâ ïëàòà íå âçèìàåòñÿ è ãîíîðàð íå âûïëà÷èâàåòñÿ.

Information for Contributors All manuscripts are submitted by e-mail and must be sent to: [email protected]. Requirements for articles and book reviews: Please, use DOC file type. Page size: A4. Font: Times New Roman, size 12. Do not double-space. Author information, abstract and key words must be sent in a separate file while another separate file containing the text must be devoid of personal data and prepared for the blind peer review. Please, use notes on the page they appear in the text. The list of references must follow the manuscript. In the text we prefer the references to be of the following style: author’s last name (date), section or page(s). The article’s recommended size is 3000–6000 words. Review and Publication Time Evaluation time for manuscripts of articles by blind peer reviewers is up to 3 months. All evaluated materials can be revised by the editorial board within 3 months after evaluation. Publication time for approved materials is within 3 months. Total publication time is up to 9 months. Unsolicited book reviews are invited. The standard size of a review is 1 thousand words.

254

Ïîäïèñêà Óâàæàåìûå êîëëåãè. Íàø æóðíàë ðàñïðîñòðàíÿåòñÿ êàê â ðîçíèöó, òàê è ïî ïîäïèñêå. Æóðíàë âûõîäèò åæåêâàðòàëüíî. Ãîäîâàÿ ïîäïèñêà ñîñòîèò èç 4 íîìåðîâ. Êðîìå òîãî, â íàñòîÿùåå âðåìÿ àëüòåðíàòèâíóþ ïîäïèñêó æóðíàëà îñóùåñòâëÿþò: «Èíòåðïî÷òà» (Ìîñêâà), «Èíôîðìíàóêà» (Ìîñêâà), «Êðàñíîñåëüñêîå àãåíòñòâî “Cîþçïå÷àòü”» (Ìîñêâà), «Ïðåññ Èíôî» (Êàçàíü). ×èòàòåëè ìîãóò òàêæå ïîëó÷èòü ëþáîå êîëè÷åñòâî íîìåðîâ æóðíàëà (îò 1 äî 4 â ãîä), ëè÷íî îáðàòèâøèñü â ðåäàêöèþ.

Èíäåêñ â êàòàëîãå Ðîñïå÷àòè: 46318 Àäðåñ ðåäàêöèè:

Àäðåñ èçäàòåëüñòâà:

119991, Ìîñêâà, Âîëõîíêà, 14/1, ñòð. 5 Èíñòèòóò ôèëîñîôèè ÐÀÍ Òåëåôîí: (495) 697-9576 Ôàêñ: (495) 697-9576 Ýëåêòðîííàÿ ïî÷òà: [email protected]

117218, Ìîñêâà, óë. Êåäðîâà, ä. 14, êîðï. 2 ÎÎÎ «Èçäàòåëüñòâî «ÊíîÐóñ» Òåë./ôàêñ: +7 (495) 741-4628 Ýëåêòðîííàÿ ïî÷òà: [email protected]

Áîëåå ïîäðîáíóþ èíôîðìàöèþ ñì. íà ñàéòå æóðíàëà http://iph.ras.ru/journal.htm

Subscription Information All potential subscribers from outside the Russian Federation or CIS countries must contact the editor: [email protected]. Current rates for institutional subscribers: 270 USD per year, 80 USD per issue; for individual subscribers: 220 USD per year, 60 USD per issuue. For more information please see the journal's web page: eng.iph.ras.ru/journal.htm.

Вниманию подписчиков Журнал «Эпистемология и философия науки» прошел перерегистрацию в Агентстве «Роспечать» и с 1 янва6 ря 2015 г. выходит под названием «Epistemology & Philosophy of Science / Эпистемология и филосо фия науки». Все обязательства по подписке сохраня6 ют свою силу, подписной индекс не меняется. С июня 2014 г. журнал входит в международную базу данных «Philosophy Documentation Center», которая будет обеспечивать open access журнала. К публикации принимаются статьи на русском и анг6 лийском языках.

255

Epistemology & Philosophy of Science / Ýïèñòåìîëîãèÿ è ôèëîñîôèÿ íàóêè. 2015. Ò. XLV. ¹ 3

Ãëàâíûé ðåäàêòîð ÷ë.-êîðð: ÐÀÍ È.Ò. Êàñàâèí Çàìåñòèòåëè ãëàâíîãî ðåäàêòîðà: ä-ð ôèëîñ. íàóê È.À. Ãåðàñèìîâà, êàíä. ôèëîñ. íàóê Ï.Ñ. Êóñëèé Îòâåòñòâåííûé ñåêðåòàðü: Ë.À. Òóõâàòóëèíà

Ïîäïèñàíî â ïå÷àòü 27.08.2015 Ôîðìàò 60  100 1/16. Ïå÷àòü îôñåòíàÿ. Áóìàãà îôñåòíàÿ. Ïå÷. ë. 16,0. Òèðàæ 800 ýêç. Çàêàç ¹

ÎÎÎ «Èçäàòåëüñòâî «ÊíîÐóñ» Àäðåñ: 117218, Ìîñêâà, óë. Êåäðîâà, ä. 14, êîðï. 2 Òåë./ôàêñ: +7 (495) 741-4628 E-mail: [email protected]

Àäðåñ ðåäàêöèè: 119991, Ìîñêâà, Âîëõîíêà, 14/1, ñòð. 5 Èíñòèòóò ôèëîñîôèè ÐÀÍ. Òåë.: (495) 697-9576 Ôàêñ: (495) 697-9576. E-mail: [email protected]