What do we know about ourselves? About how we think, how our consciousness is structured, in what ways could we find meaning? And why, using the achievements of science and technology, do we trust scientific knowledge so little? We decided to ask the philosopher Danil Razeev truly global questions.
Psychologies: Where to look for the meaning of modern man? If we have a need for meaning, in what areas and in what ways can we find it for ourselves?
Danil Razeev: The first thing that comes to my mind is creativity. It can manifest itself in a wide variety of forms and spheres. I know people whose creativity is expressed in the cultivation of indoor plants. I know those whose creativity is manifested in the throes of creating a piece of music. For some, it occurs when writing a text. It seems to me that meaning and creativity are inseparable. What I mean? Meaning is present where there is more than mere mechanics. In other words, meaning cannot be reduced to an automated process. Contemporary philosopher John Searle1 came up with a good argument touching on the difference between semantics and syntax. John Searle believes that the mechanical combination of syntactic constructions does not lead to the creation of semantics, to the emergence of meaning, while the human mind operates precisely at the semantic level, generates and perceives meanings. There has been an extensive discussion around this question for several decades: is artificial intelligence capable of creating meaning? Many philosophers argue that if we do not understand the rules of semantics, then artificial intelligence will forever remain only within the framework of syntax, since it will not have an element of meaning generation.
“Meaning exists where there is more than mere mechanics, it cannot be reduced to an automated process”
What philosophers and what philosophical ideas do you think are the most relevant, alive, and interesting for today’s person?
D. R .: It depends on what is meant by today’s man. There is, say, a universal concept of man, man as a special kind of living beings that once arose in nature and continues its evolutionary development. If we talk about today’s man from this point of view, then it seems to me that it will be very useful to turn to the American school of philosophers. I already mentioned John Searle, I can name Daniel Dennett (Daniel C. Dennett)2by David Chalmers3, an Australian philosopher who is now at New York University. I am very close to the direction in philosophy, which is called «philosophy of consciousness». But the society for which American philosophers speak in the USA is different from the society in which we live in Russia. There are many bright and deep philosophers in our country, I will not name specific names, it may not sound quite correct. However, in general, it seems to me that the stage of professionalization has not yet ended in Russian philosophy, that is, much of ideology remains in it. Even within the framework of university education (and in our country, as in France, every student must take a course in philosophy), students and graduate students are not always satisfied with the quality of the educational programs that are offered to them. Here we still have a very long way to go, to understand that philosophizing should not be connected with work for the state, for the church or a group of people who require philosophers to create and justify some kind of ideological constructions. In this regard, I support those people who advocate a philosophy free from ideological pressure.
How are we fundamentally different from people of previous eras?
D. R .: In short, the era of technogenic man has come with us, that is, a man with an “artificial body” and an “extended mind”. Our body is more than a biological organism. And our mind is something more than a brain; it is a branched system that consists not only of the brain, but also of a large number of objects that are outside the biological body of a person. We use devices that are extensions of our consciousness. We are victims — or fruits — of technical devices, gadgets, devices that perform a huge number of cognitive tasks for us. I must confess that a couple of years ago I had a very ambiguous inner experience when I suddenly realized that I did not remember what time it was six to nine. Imagine, I could not perform this operation in my head! Why? Because I have been relying on extended mind for a long time. In other words, I am sure that some device, say, an iPhone, will multiply these numbers for me and give me the correct result. In this we differ from those who lived 50 years ago. For a man half a century ago, knowledge of the multiplication table was a necessity: if he could not multiply six by nine, then he lost in the competitive struggle in society. It should be noted that philosophers also have more global ideas about the ideological attitudes of a person who lived in different eras, for example, about a man of fusis (natural man) in Antiquity, a religious man in the Middle Ages, an experimental man in modern times, and this series is completed by modern man, whom I called «technogenic man».
“Our mind consists not only of the brain, but also of a large number of objects that are outside the biological body of a person”
But if we are completely dependent on gadgets and rely on technology for everything, we must have a cult of knowledge. How is it that so many people have lost confidence in science, are superstitious, easily manipulated?
D. R .: This is a question of the availability of knowledge and the management of information flows, that is, propaganda. An ignorant person is easier to manage. If you want to live in a society where everyone obeys you, where everyone follows your orders and orders, where everyone works for you, then you are not interested in the society in which you live to be a society of knowledge. On the contrary, you are interested in it being a society of ignorance: superstition, rumors, enmity, fear… On the one hand, this is a universal problem, and on the other hand, it is a problem of a particular society. If, for example, we move to Switzerland, we will see that its inhabitants hold a referendum on any occasion, even the most insignificant from our point of view. They sit at home, think about some seemingly simple issue and develop their own point of view, in order to then come to a consensus. They collectively use their intellectual abilities, are ready to make responsible decisions, and constantly work to increase the level of enlightenment in society.
1 J. Searl «Rediscovering consciousness» (Idea-Press, 2002).
2 D. Dennett «Types of the psyche: on the way to understanding consciousness» (Idea-Press, 2004).
3 D. Chalmers “The Conscious Mind. In Search of a Fundamental Theory” (Librokom, 2013).