E-LOGOS - University of Economics, Prague
Faculty of Economics, University of Economics, Prague

Arousing a Dispute over BioCosmology. A Reply to Stephen Modell (2007)

Author: K.S. Khroutsky

Article type: Standard scientific article

Section: Biocosmology (neo-Aristotelism)

Language: language

Abstract (english):

Author draws a parallel, in the beginning of his response to Stephen Modell, between Aristotelian philosophy (Greek universalism), especially his conception of final causality, and Russian cosmological philosophy and science (Russian cosmism, in its true sense), which likewise emphasizes the significance of vital inherent active teleological forces of a living being (“inner drivers”, causa finalis). However, in spite of their evident teleological similarity, Aristotelian universal naturalism and Russian universal cosmism have the polar directivities: Aristotle’s – ‘from God (Absolute) – to Man’1 (a kind of ‘theocosmism’), while Russian cosmism realizes the directivity ‘from Man to Absolute’ (at the resulting personalist, active-evolutionary integration into the whole ambient Cosmos – a kind of ‘anthropocosmism’) – by virtue of a man’s inherent deliberate activity, through the realization of a person’s Basic Cosmist Functionality). In this perspective, author revises and develops the conceptual foundations of his BioCosmological concept, advancing the triadic elucidation of the three real macro-cycles (macro-levels) of the world’s cultural evolution (ACosmist, AntiCosmist, RealCosmist, a kind of Thesis–AntiThesis–SynThesis or Day–Night–NewDay triadicity), including likewise the characterization of the three kinds of naturalism: Eastern, Western, and Russian (RealCosmist). A cornerstone on this way is the division of cosmology into the two universal types: First and Second, following the ancient approach of Aristotle who discerned "first philosophy" (metaphysics) that lays the necessary grounds for the "second philosophy’s" (physical) understanding of reality. In author’s substantiation, a First cosmology is proposed to deal with ontological and gnoseological issues (distinguishing, in the triadic approach, at least three distinct forms), while the Second cosmology uses the derived and elaborated (from the basics of a First c.) paradigmatic and methodological research principles. In the sphere of Second cosmology, author introduces the notion of Russian (Cosmist) functionalism that is characterized chiefly with reference to the general theory of functional systems by P.K. Anokhin. Decidedly, at present, Russian (Cosmist, functionalist) scientific achievements realize the true explanation and use of Aristotelian causa finalis, i.e. implementing rational and universal comprehension (insight into) the organization of intrinsic active forces that determine biological, personalist, social and ecological development of a living being (of a person, first of all).

Download/View: khrou107.pdf

Current issue

Next issue will be published in August 2017.

Indexed by

E-LOGOS was licensed as peer-reviewed scientific journal by the Research and Development Council of the Government of the Czech Republic.

E-LOGOS is indexed in ERIH Plus.