A popper is a rational or at least rationally traceable transition. Kun is like a change of faith that cannot be explained rationally.

The concept of research programs.

If we consider the most significant sequences that have taken place in the history of science, we can see that they are characterized by continuity, connecting their elements into a single whole. This continuity is nothing but the development of a certain research program, the beginning of which can be laid by the most abstract statements. The program consists of methodological rules: some of them are rules indicating which research paths should be avoided (negative heuristic), the other part are rules indicating which paths should be chosen and how to follow them (positive heuristic).

Negative heuristic: "hard core" of the program

All research programs have a "hard core". The negative heuristic forbids concessions when we are talking about the statements included in the "hard core". Instead, we must exercise our ingenuity to clarify, develop existing ones, or put forward new "auxiliary hypotheses" that form protective belt around this core. The protective belt must withstand the brunt of the checks; thus protecting the ossified core, it must be adapted, altered, or even completely replaced if the interests of defense so require. If all this results in a progressive shift in problems, the research program can be considered successful. It is not successful if it leads to a regressive shift of problems.

Example: Newtonian theory of gravitation, anomalies around it and confirming the anomalies of the theory. Newtonians refute these theories and turn counterexamples into confirmatory ones. Each coup in this game allows you to predict new facts, increases the empirical content. We have an example a steadily progressive theoretical shift. It is necessary that each next step of the research program be directed towards increasing the content, in other words, contribute to consistently progressive theoretical shift of problems. Moreover, it is necessary that, at least from time to time, this increase in content be reinforced retrospectively; the program as a whole should be seen as discretely progressive experiential shift. This does not mean that every step along the way must directly lead to observable new fact. The sense in which the term is used here "discretely", provides enough reasonable limits to which a dogmatic adherence to a program can remain when faced with seeming"denials".

positive heuristic.

Only a few theorists working within the research program devote great attention"denials". They are conducting a far-sighted research policy that allows such "refutations" to be anticipated.

If the negative heuristic defines the "hard core" of the program, which, according to its supporters, is considered "irrefutable", then the positive heuristic consists of a series of arguments, more or less clear, and assumptions, more or less likely, aimed at changing and develop "refutable variants" of the research program, how to modify, refine the "refutable" protective belt.

"Model" - it is a set of boundary conditions (perhaps together with some "observational" theories) that are known to be changed in the course of further development of the program. More or less known even in what way. This again shows how insignificant a role "refutations" of any particular model play in the research program; they are fully predictable, and a positive heuristic is a strategy for this prediction and further "digestion".

Thus, the methodology of scientific research programs explains relative autonomy of theoretical science. Which problems are rationally chosen by scientists working in powerful research programs depends more on the program's positive heuristics than on psychologically unpleasant but technically unavoidable anomalies. Anomalies are registered, but then they try to forget about them, in the hope that the time will come and they will turn into program reinforcements. Hypersensitivity to anomalies is only found in scientists who engage in trial-and-error exercises or work in the regressive phase of a research program when positive heuristics have exhausted their resources. (All this, of course, must sound wild to the naive falsificationist who believes that since the theory has been "refuted" by experiment (i.e., the highest for him instance), it would be irrational, and besides, shameless, to develop it further, but it is necessary to replace the old, as yet unrefuted, new theory). Consistency - in the exact sense of the term (172) - should remain the most important regulatory principle(standing above and beyond the requirement of a progressive problem shift); detection contradictions should be considered as a problem.** The reason is simple. If the goal of science is truth, science must seek consistency; by renouncing consistency, science would also renounce truth. To assert that "we must moderate our exactingness" (173), that is, to accept contradictions, whether weak or strong, is to indulge in a methodological vice. On the other hand, it does not follow from this that as soon as a contradiction - or anomaly - is discovered, the development of the program should immediately stop; a reasonable way out may be to arrange a temporary quarantine for this contradiction using ad hoc hypotheses and rely on positive program heuristics.

Besides, some of the most significant research programs in the history of science were grafted on to previous programs that were in flagrant contradiction. For example, Copernican astronomy was "grafted" onto Aristotle's physics. When the sprout of the grafted program comes into force, peaceful coexistence comes to an end, the symbiosis is replaced by competition, and the supporters of the new program try to completely oust the old one. In relation to the "grafted program", two extreme and equally irrational positions are generally possible.

Conservative stance is that the development of the new program must be suspended until the contradiction with the old program, which affects the foundations of both programs, is somehow eliminated: it is irrational to work with contradictory reasons. "Conservatives" direct their main efforts to eliminate the contradiction, trying to explain (approximately) the postulates of the new program, based on the concepts of the old program, which does not lead to success.

Anarchist stance in relation to grafted programs lies in the fact that anarchy in the foundations is elevated to the rank of virtue, and (weak) contradiction is understood either as a fundamental natural property, or as an indicator of the finite limitations of human knowledge.

Rational position is best represented by Newton, who once faced problems similar in a sense to the one under discussion. The Cartesian mechanics of propulsion, to which Newton's mechanics was originally grafted, was in (weak) conflict with Newton's theory of gravity. Newton worked on both his positive heuristic (and succeeded) and his reductionist program (without success). The rational attitude towards "grafted" programs is to use their heuristic potential, but not to accept the chaos in the foundations from which they grow. The presence of a progressive shift provides credibility and rationality - in relation to a research program with a contradiction in the bases.

An important lesson in the analysis of research programs is the fact that only a few experiments are of real importance for their development. Checks and "refutations" usually give the theoretical physicist such trivial heuristic clues that large-scale checks or too much fuss about already obtained data is often just a waste of time. To understand that a theory needs to be replaced, as a rule, no refutation is needed; positive heuristics itself leads forward, paving its way. In addition, resorting to harsh "refuting interpretations" when it comes to a very young program is a dangerous methodological callousness. The first versions of such a program can only be applied to "ideal", non-existent objects; Decades of theoretical work are needed to obtain the first new facts, and even more time for such variants of the research program to arise, the verification of which could give really interesting results when denials can no longer be predicted by the program itself.

The dialectic of research programs is therefore not at all reduced to an alternation of speculative conjectures and empirical refutations. The types of relationship between the program development process and empirical testing processes can be very diverse; which of them is carried out is a concrete historical question.

Let us indicate the three most typical cases.

1) Let each of the successive options H1, H2, H3 successfully predict some facts and fail to predict others, in other words, each of these options has both reinforcements, as well as denials. Then H4 is proposed, which predicts some new facts, but still withstands the most severe tests. We have a progressive shift of problems and, moreover, a nice alternation of conjectures and refutations in the spirit of Popper. (201) One can be touched by this classic example, when theoretical and experimental work march side by side, hand in hand.

2) In the second case, we are dealing with some lonely Bohr (maybe even without Balmer who preceded him), who consistently develops H1, H2, H3, H4, but is so self-critical that he publishes only H4. The H4 is then tested and the evidence is found to support H4, the first (and only) published hypothesis. Then the theoretician, who deals only with blackboard and paper, appears to be going far ahead of the experimenter - we have before us a period of relative autonomy of theoretical progress.

3) Now imagine that all the empirical data referred to are already known at the time H1, H2, H3 and H4 are put forward. Then this entire succession of theoretical models does not appear as a progressive shift of problems, and therefore, although all the data support his theories, the scientist must work on new hypotheses in order to prove the scientific validity of his program.

A new look at decisive experiments: the end of precocious rationality. The scientist must not accept that the research program becomes

embodiment scientific rigor, claiming to be the all-knowing arbiter. Unfortunately, this is precisely the position that T. Kuhn takes: what he calls normal science "is in fact nothing more than a research program that has seized a monopoly. In reality, research programs very rarely enjoy a complete monopoly, moreover for a very short time, no matter what efforts the Cartesians, whether Newtonians, or supporters of Bohr, made. The history of science has been and will be a history of rivalry between research programs (or "paradigms" if you like), but it has not been and should not be an alternation of periods of normal science: the sooner the rivalry begins, the better for progress."Theoretical pluralism" is better than "theoretical monism": here Lakatos agrees with Popper.

Are there any objective the reasons why the program should be rejected, that is, its solid core and the program for building protective belts should be eliminated? In short, our answer is that such an objective reason lies in the action of a rival program that manages to explain all the previous successes of its rival, which it also surpasses by further demonstration heuristic strength. This power depends on the factual novelty of the theory, however, the novelty of the actual statement often becomes apparent only after a long time. A new, competitive research program may start with a new explanation of "old" facts, but it sometimes takes a long time to predict "really new" facts.

All this strongly suggests that a promising research program should not be abandoned just because it could not beat a strong competitor. It should not be discarded if, provided it has no rival, it brings about a progressive problem shift.

All this taken together emphasizes the importance of methodological tolerance, but leaves open the question of how research programs are eliminated. Inside research program "small decisive experiments", called upon to make a choice between successive options is quite common. With the help of an experiment, it is not difficult to make a choice between the nth and n + 1st version, since the n + 1st version not only contradicts the nth one, but also surpasses it. If the n+1st version has more reinforced content defined within the same programs and based the same enough supported by "observational" theories, then elimination has a relatively common character.

When two research programs compete, their first "ideal" models, as a rule, deal with different aspects of a given field of phenomena (for example, the first model of Newtonian semi-corpuscular optics described the refraction of light rays, the first model of Huygens' wave optics - interference). With the development of competing research programs, they gradually begin to invade foreign territory, and then a situation arises in which the nth version of the first program comes into glaring contradiction with the mth version of the second program. (219) An experiment is set up (repeatedly), and one of these options fails, while the other celebrates victory. But fight it does not end there: every research program in its lifetime knows several such defeats. To regain lost positions, it is only necessary to formulate the n+1st (or n+kth) option that could increase the empirical content, part of which must pass a successful test.

If prolonged efforts lead nowhere, and the program cannot regain its former positions, the struggle subsides, and the original experiment is retroactively recognized as "decisive". But if the failed program is still young and able to develop rapidly, if its "protoscientific" achievements are sufficiently credible, the supposed "crucial experiments" are pushed aside one by one, yielding to its breakthroughs. * Even if the program that lost some battle is in in adulthood, accustomed to recognition and "tired" of it, approaches the "natural saturation point", (220) it can still resist for a long time and offer ingenious innovations that increase empirical content, even if they are not crowned with empirical success. A program supported by talented scientists with a vivid and creative imagination is extremely difficult to defeat.

R decisive experiments are recognized as such only decades later. There is nothing that could be. called decisive experiments, at least if we mean by them such experiments that are capable of immediately overturning the research program. In fact, when one research program fails and is supplanted by another, one can - looking closely at the past call an experiment decisive if it can be seen as a spectacular confirming example in favor of the winning program and obvious evidence of the failure of the program that has already been defeated. But if a scientist from the "defeated" camp a few years later offers a scientific explanation for the supposedly "crucial experiment" within the framework of the supposedly defeated program (or in accordance with it), the honorary title may be withdrawn and the "crucial experiment" may turn from a failure of the program into its new victory.

Considering what has been said earlier, the idea of ​​premature rationality looks utopian. But this idea is the hallmark of most branches of epistemology. Justificationists (scientific knowledge consists of evidence-based statements) would like to see scientific theories were evidence-based even before they are published; probabilists place their hopes on some mechanism that could, based on experimental data, immediately determine the value (degree of confirmation) of the theory; naive falsificationists believed that at least the elimination of a theory is the instantaneous result of experiment sentence. (291) I hope I have shown that all these theories of precocious rationality - and instantaneous learning - are false.

My approach suggests a new demarcation criterion between "mature science" consisting of research programs and "immature science" operating on a well-worn pattern of trial and error. My understanding of scientific rationality, although based on Popper's concept, still deviates from some of his general ideas.

From this point of view, scientists (and, as I have shown, mathematicians (297)) are not at all irrational when they try to ignore counterexamples, or, as they prefer to call them, "recalcitrant" or "inexplicable" examples, and consider problems in according to the sequence dictated by the positive heuristics of their program, develop and apply their theories, regardless of anything. (298) Contrary to Popper's falsificationist morality, scientists often and quite rationally argue that "experimental results are unreliable or that the discrepancies that supposedly exist between a given theory and experimental results lie on the surface of phenomena and will disappear with the further development of our knowledge."

“Negative Heuristics”

The “negative heuristics” of the princely retinue subculture, as well as the pagan culture of the Eastern Slavs, are: the lack of awareness of the “I” of a person as a specific spiritual reality; "reflectivity" as an activity of self-understanding, self-construction of culture; high authority of the theme of "reason", the presence of which in spiritual culture is an indicator of its development.

The formation of the princely retinue subculture did not lead to the development of an individual, spiritual principle in a person. It also lacked an idea of ​​the value of the human person as a spiritual, non-natural being. AT Kievan Rus In the 9th - 10th centuries, a naturalistic attitude to man as a physical, material being prevailed. According to V.O. Klyuchevsky: “... The property of a person in Pravda is valued not cheaper, but even more expensive than the person himself, his health, personal safety. The work of labor for the law is more important than the living instrument of labor - the labor force of man. ... The law valued the security of capital more and provided it more carefully than the personal freedom of a person. The personality of a person is regarded as a mere value and comes in the place of property.” Vladimir Monomakh said about himself: “And he fell a lot from his horse, broke his head twice, and injured his arms and legs - in his youth he injured, not valuing his life, not sparing his head.”

Unlike Western European culture, in which chivalry, an in-depth analysis inner world man in Christian religious and fiction, etc. contributed to the growth of individualistic processes in ancient Russian culture in the IX-X centuries. in general, there was practically no interest in the subjective world of man, the reflexive attitude itself, which found expression in the absence of chivalry and lyrical literature, and in particular love lyrics. In the Russian heroic epic, the motif of the struggle for salvation, the liberation of an individual, sounds very weak. Meanwhile, one of the main goals of the chivalrous movement in Western Europe was to protect the weak and disadvantaged, the unfortunate and those who suffered from the lust for power and self-interest of the strong. In the knight's oath, after defending the faith and religion, the king and the fatherland, the third point is: "The shield of the knights should be a refuge for the weak and oppressed; the courage of the knights should always support the just cause of the one who turns to them." One of the main tasks of the wandering knights was the protection of the oppressed and the unfortunate, the punishment of violence and injustice. The epic heroes fight monsters (the serpent, the Idolish, the Nightingale the Robber), possessing great physical strength, the Tatars and defeat them, thanks to the advantage in physical strength, but in this struggle the humanism of the heroes is abstract. In their exploits, their desire to serve the prince and overcome evil forces is more expressed than the salvation of specific people.

In ancient Russian culture (both in pagan Slavic and princely retinues), the theme of reason, the “high” authority of wisdom, does not sound, while in the most developed world civilizations, respect and admiration for wisdom goes back to deep antiquity. In ancient Russian literature, wisdom, knowledge, reason do not appear in their pure form, but to a large extent with a touch of witchcraft, magic, sorcery. The founder of the state of Kievan Rus Oleg is called prophetic. Princess Olga is traditionally considered a wise ruler. However, her "wisdom" lies in cunning, deceit, infidelity to the word, i.e. in the "virtues" of a barbarian, pagan order, which already Christian-minded writers continue to regard as high virtues.

Like the pagan Slavic, the princely retinue is a subculture whose spiritual reality was limited to existing existence. If in Western European culture in the X-XI centuries. “reflexive” activity unfolds in order to self-understand, overcome barbarism, create a more perfect, sublime spiritual reality, then in ancient Russian culture such processes are practically not visible.

Thus, the mental space of ancient Russian culture by the end of the tenth century. was a complex formation, consisting of two sub-spatial configurations, partially overlapping structures and partially broken value-thinking systems, agricultural pagan Slavic and princely retinue subcultures. Unfortunately, the formation of the princely retinue subculture as an elite culture did not lead to a spiritual outburst. On the contrary, pagan naturalism was further developed, became more sensually rich and diverse. The princely-boyar elite manifested not so much creative and productive as consumer-destructive ability. Changes in the thematic space took place within the framework of pagan, naturalistic value and thought orientations. Universals, coloring the entire spiritual space, were the themes of "prey", "nature", "liberty", "kind", "prince" and "physical strength". Therefore, in the structure of the explanation of spiritual processes in the ancient Russian culture of the 9th - 10th centuries. in the explanatory part (“explanance”), these topics should be used in the function of laws (otherwise the explanation will be incomplete). An essential role in overcoming the barbarism of the Germanic tribes in Western Europe was played by the external influence of ancient culture. The relative isolation of the territory of Kievan Rus, the aggressiveness and “naturalistic Russocentrism” of Old Russian culture prevented the expansion of cultural ties with Byzantium and Western Europe, its inclusion in a single European cultural and creative process.

It is also necessary to pay attention to the fact that the study of the formation and development of ancient Russian culture until the 11th century. does not provide grounds for affirming the existence of Belarusian, Ukrainian and Russian cultures as specific value-thinking realities. The fundamental, initial, defining criterion for the existence of a certain culture is the presence of a specific value-thematic reality (“spirit” of culture). The language of the people, ethnos as an expression of the organic unity of the people are concomitant, but still secondary formations, because in the absence of a specific mental reality, the existence of language as its reflection and ethnos is impossible. Therefore, it can be argued that the isolation of these cultures is not possible. Consequently, their existence did not take place, however, as well as the language and ethnic groups.

Meanwhile, the assertion of the existence of the Old Russian culture, consisting of the agricultural pagan Slavic and princely retinue subcultures, does not provide grounds for asserting the existence of the Old Russian nationality. Predominantly naturalistic, “tribal” thinking dominated throughout the history of Kievan Rus, on the vast expanses of which many peoples lived. The emergence of the Kyiv state did not significantly change their lives. Tribal formations became lands, but basically tribal self-identification remained the same. land, probably realized himself as Pereyaslovtsy or moreover, representatives of this or that city or locality. A thin layer of princes, boyars, warriors was to a large extent a closed formation, to a large extent was cut off from the local population. Since the centralizing, integrating state activity of this layer was small (in fact, it was reduced to receiving tribute), there is no need to talk about the emergence of spiritual unity. It is impossible to confuse the unity of the level of existence, the analysis of which was carried out, and the unity of self-consciousness, the consciousness of "We". There was certainly no consciousness of "We" - dew as the totality of all the peoples of Kievan Rus. Unless sporadically, during the campaigns against Byzantium, the dews were united by a single spirit. Therefore, in this sense, there was nothing to disintegrate. There was a persistent consciousness of "We" - the people of Kiev, Chernigov, Novgorod, Polotsk, Vladimir, Galicia, etc. In the absence of written language, one should keep in mind the conventionality of using the phrase "Old Russian language". This phrase denotes the language of not a single people, but of many tribes, which has retained in the language, way of life kinship from the Proto-Slavic unity.

Moreover, this community in the IX-X centuries. goes beyond the borders of the Kievan state. In a developed multi-ethnic state, a supra-ethnic level of unity arises: in the Roman Empire - the Romans, in Byzantium - the Romans, in the USSR - the Soviet people. At the same time, the ethnic level of consciousness is preserved (it can be traced very clearly among Roman and Byzantine historians). In the amorphous, barbarian state of Kievan Rus, the supra-ethnic level was not formed at all. Therefore, it is not necessary and inappropriate to use the term “Old Russian nationality” in the analysis, which would otherwise be an obvious modernization.

Thus, the arrival of the Varangians to Russia and the socio-economic differentiation of the ancient Russian society led to the formation of the estate of combatants, and in the mental plan - the princely-rescue subspace, which did not differ significantly in its value-thematic structure and arose through the transformation of the FCS of the pagan East Slavic culture. Two genetically and thematically related mental subspatial configurations were formed, having a common value-thematic center (FCS).

Ancient Russian culture, consisting of agricultural pagan Slavic and princely retinue subcultures, on the eve of the adoption of Christianity, remained a pagan, barbaric culture, the spiritual space of which was limited to naturalistic values. The “existential” way of functioning of cultures prevented the emergence of a professional culture that formed a “reflexive” attitude and, thus, leading beyond the limits of existing being into the area of ​​“pure spirit”, constructing a multi-layered value-thinking reality, etc.

In preparing this work, materials from the site www.studentu.ru were used.

Similar works:

• “Negative heuristics” in cultural analysis

  Report >> Culture and art

  She does not possess. " Negative heuristic" fulfills an important positive ... period. The most important circumstance in negative heuristics" in the pagan culture of the Slavs (in ... .). The third important feature negative heuristics" pagan culture of the Eastern Slavs...

• Methodology of research programs by I. Lakatos

  Abstract >> Philosophy

  Program. 8. Program effectiveness. 9. Positive and negative heuristic. 10. Literature. Studying the patterns of development ... further research ("positive heuristic"), and which paths should be avoided (" negative heuristic"). Mature growth...

• “Negative heuristics” in cultural analysis

  The mental space of each culture is like a comet, the "core" of which is a set of dominant themes, and the "tail" is a set of derivative themes. The task of understanding the uniqueness of culture also necessitates a comparative cultural analysis, which in turn generates a layer of " negative heuristic". This term, introduced into the methodology of science by I. Lakatos, seems appropriate to use to refer to a set of statements in conceptual constructions that fix the differences between the studied culture from others (most often exemplary, ancient Greek, Western European, ancient Indian, etc.), showing what value-thinking "Negative heuristics" performs an important positive function of understanding the uniqueness of culture, and also allows you to avoid illegitimate analogies, extrapolations, when, based on the similarity of a certain group of characteristics of compared cultures, a conclusion is made about their unity in general or in other characteristics, for example, when they talk about chivalry or the “Renaissance” in Russian culture.

  A notable feature of the pagan spiritual culture of the Eastern Slavs is the absence of individualistically directed value and thought orientations. The "naturalistic" perception of reality as applied to man caught only the physiological side of his existence. Therefore, a group of naturalistic values, of which "physical strength" was decisive, outlined the horizon of the barbarian Slav man. The concepts of honor, dignity, high value of human life, etc. in relation to a pagan Slav are inapplicable. They require a naturalistic interpretation. And this is understandable, because the horizon of any pagan culture is naturalistic values. The Eastern Slavs lived in a territory little studied for Western Europeans (on the maps of Western Europeans, the lands above the lower reaches of the Dnieper and Don are practically not indicated, i.e. not known). The Byzantine historian of the 6th century, Procopius of Caesarea, limited himself to describing only the coastal lands of the Euxine Pontus (i.e., the Black Sea), specifically stipulating the approximateness of his information: “This is the circumference of Pontus Eleusinus from Calchedon (Chalcedon) to Byzantium. But what is the size of this circle as a whole, I can’t say this for sure, since there are so many, as I said, barbarian tribes living there, with whom the Romans, of course, have no communication, except for sending embassies. Archaeological finds on the territory of Ukraine of coins, ceramics, etc. of Greek and Byzantine origin can testify not only to the intensity of trade and cultural ties, but also to the success of the predatory campaigns of the Slavs.

  The pagan culture of the Eastern Slavs, like the Scythian, turned out to be immune to ancient and Byzantine cultural influences, which carried the cult of high virtue (honor, loyalty, valor, etc.) into the consciousness. Only the absence of the latter and the dominance of the thematic structure of “strength”, “violence” and “passion” can explain the ferocious brutality of the Slavs during robbery raids, as unanimously testified by Byzantine writers and historians from the 6th to the 11th centuries. One of the most vivid descriptions was left by Procopius of Caesarea: “The barbarians… took the city by force. They immediately killed up to fifteen thousand men and plundered valuables, while children and women were enslaved. At first they spared neither age nor sex; both of these detachments, from the very moment they broke into the region of the Romans, killed everyone, without considering the years, so that the whole land of Illyria and Thrace was covered with unburied bodies. They killed those who came across to them, not with swords and spears, or by any of the usual methods, but, driving stakes firmly into the ground and making them as sharp as possible, they impaled these unfortunates on them with great force, making the point of this stake enter between the buttocks. , and then under pressure [of the body] penetrated into the insides of a person. This is how they considered it necessary to treat them ... So at first the Slavs destroyed all the inhabitants they met. Now they and the barbarians from another detachment, as if drunk on a sea of ​​blood, began to take some of those they came across as prisoners, and therefore everyone went home, taking with them countless tens of thousands of prisoners. "" They (Avars - V.M.) sent a tribe of Slavs, - writes the Byzantine historian Theophylact Simokatta, - and a vast expanse of Roman lands was devastated. The Slavs reached the so-called "Long Walls", breaking through which they carried out a terrible massacre in front of everyone. The description of such atrocities on the part of the Slavs is easy to continue.

  Insufficient development of individualism, self-consciousness, consciousness of one's own dignity as a moral, spiritual being is the general criterion of barbaric existence. The absence of these qualities in behavior is expressed in infidelity, treachery, cruelty, disorganization and indiscipline, etc. It is these properties that characterize the Slavs in Western European and Byzantine sources. “In general, they are insidious,” writes Pseudo-Mauritius, “and do not keep their word regarding treaties”, “... the Slavs are by nature unreliable and prone to evil, and therefore they should beware.”

  Those barbarians who came into close contact with Christianity and the achievements of the ancient spirit experienced dramatic changes in a relatively short period of time. Vandals, the destroyers of Rome, having settled in northern Africa in Libya, quickly learned antique image life. "From the time they took possession of Libya, all the vandals daily used the baths and the most exquisite table, everything that the land and sea produces only the best and most delicious. All of them for the most part wore gold jewelry, dressing in a Median dress, which is now called silk, spending time in theaters, hippodromes and among other pleasures, especially fond of hunting. They enjoyed good singing and performances of myths; all the pleasures that caress the ear and sight were very common with them. In other words, everything that people in the area of ​​music and spectacle is considered the most attractive, they were in use. Most of them lived in parks rich in water and trees, they often arranged feasts among themselves and indulged in all the joys of Venus with great passion.

  The Goths, who settled the lands of the Apennine Peninsula, underwent a deeper spiritual evolution. Their most famous king Theodoric, as Procopius of Caesarea writes, “in the highest degree cared about justice and fairness and adamantly observed the implementation of laws; he guarded the whole country inviolably from the neighboring barbarians and thus earned the highest glory and wisdom and valor ... By name Theodoric was a tyrant, a power grabber, in fact, a real emperor, no lower than the most famous, who bore this title from the very beginning; the love for him on the part of the Goths and the Italians was enormous, unlike what people usually have.” After Theodoric's death, his grandson Athalaric assumed power. “As the guardian of her son, Amalasuntha held power in her hands, standing out among everyone with her reason and justice.” “Amalazunta wanted her son to be completely similar in his way of life to the first persons among the Romans and even then forced him to attend a teacher’s school.” According to Procopius, after the death of Atalaric, Theodates seized power, one of whose main aspirations was the study of philosophy, and he considered himself a follower of the Platonic school.

  Of course, the mitigation of the morals of the Goths was greatly facilitated by their adoption of Christianity. However, analyzing the value-thematic structure of the speeches of the Gothic leaders, which are cited by Procopius of Caesarea (it is obvious that these speeches are not a transcript of the speeches actually delivered; meanwhile, it seems that the general value-cogitative orientation is reproduced in them), there is no doubt that the defining motives The behavior of the Gothic elite were examples of the Greek and Roman humanistic spirit (valor, justice, honor, loyalty, etc.). In the highly humane, noble deeds of the king of the Goths, Totila, the influence of antique samples is clearly traced. Here are three illustrative examples. “When Totila took Naples, he showed so much humanity towards those who surrendered that this could not have been expected either from the side of the enemy or from the side of the barbarian. Finding the Romans so exhausted by hunger that they no longer had any strength left in their bodies, fearing that, as if suddenly attacking food to extreme satiety, they, as is usually the case, would not suffocate, he came up with the following: placing guards in the harbor and at the gate, he told no one to come out. He himself began to give everyone less food than they wanted, wisely showing a kind of stinginess in this, but every day he added so much to this norm that it was not felt that this increase was taking place. Thus, he strengthened their strength, and then, opening the gate, he allowed each of them to go where he wants. "To the Byzantine soldiers, the defenders of Naples," he gave horses and carts, gave them money for the road and allowed them to go by land to Rome sending along with them as guides some of the most distinguished Goths.

  Below, Procopius of Caesarea gives another example of the nobility of Totila, which can be seen as a continuation of the best Roman traditions. When one of the Romans came to Totila and complained that one of his bodyguards had raped his daughter, a girl, the noblest of the Goths immediately came to him and asked to forgive this man, because he was an energetic man and knowledgeable military affairs. Totila, in particular, answered them the following: “I know very well that usually most people remake the names of deeds and actions and give them other meanings. By philanthropy and gentleness they call the violation of laws, as a result of which there is the death of everything honest and good, and general confusion; they usually call someone unpleasant and difficult someone who wants to strictly fulfill the law, so that, hiding behind these names, like a shield, it would be safer for them to show their licentiousness and indulge in debauchery ... It is impossible, by no means impossible that a criminal and a rapist in life in battles he could show valor and good luck, but the military happiness of each is determined personal life After his words, the noblest of the Goths no longer began to ask him for his bodyguard. Soon he executed this man, yet he gave his money, which he had, to the victim of his violence.

  The third example is notable. When Totila captured Rome, then, based on a military-strategic assessment of the situation, he decided to destroy it to the ground. Upon learning of this, his main opponent, the most famous Byzantine commander Belisarius, sent ambassadors with a letter to Totila. Its content was as follows: "As far as creating new decorations of the city is the business and peculiarity of reasonable people and understanding social life, so destroying the existing is characteristic of people stupid and not ashamed to leave these noticeable signs of their [wild] nature for a later time. Of all the cities that are under the sun, Rome, unanimously recognized by all, is the largest and most remarkable.It was not created by the valiant forces of one person, and it was not the power of a short time that brought it to such size and beauty: a whole series of kings and emperors, whole great alliances and joint labor of outstanding people, a long series of years and the presence of incalculable riches, everything that is only wonderful on earth, they brought all this here, and especially people experienced in art and construction.Thus, creating little by little this wonderful city that you see, they left monuments to their descendants valor of all generations, so that any violence committed against them will be considered what a crime against people of all ages, and rightly so: after all, this will deprive previous generations of the memory of their valor, and those who come after them, the joy of contemplating these creations. In this state of affairs, know the following for sure. One of two things must inevitably happen: either you will be defeated by the emperor in this war, or if that happens, you will prevail. So, if you win, then, having destroyed Rome, you will destroy, my dear, not someone else's, but your own property, preserving it, you will be enriched with wealth, naturally, the most beautiful of all. If, however, you are destined to be filled with a more difficult fate, then, having preserved Rome unscathed, you will retain great gratitude from the side of the conqueror, but if you destroy him, there will no longer be any point in talking about mercy. Add that this business will do you no good. And then, among all people, the glory of the worthy of your work will be preserved for you; she is ready to pronounce her decision over you in both directions. What are the affairs of rulers, such a name is given to them by necessity. "Totila read this letter more than once ... He understood his justice and did nothing more to the detriment of Rome. It is curious that Belisarius soon recaptured Rome, significantly worsening the situation ready. In general, comparing the actions and way of thinking of Totila with the emperor Justinian and his main commander Belisarius (especially if you take into account the book of Procopius of Caesarea "The Secret History"), who considered themselves and were officially recognized as the heirs of the high Greek and Roman traditions in terms of nobility, valor, justice, etc. .p., then the advantage, of course, will be on the side of the "barbarian" Totila.

  In culturology, one can formulate a “universal culturological law” that operates unambiguously and inevitably, like Newton’s laws: “every culture, discovering (or rediscovering) the culture of antiquity, necessarily experiences the rise of spirituality, humanism, which forms a kind of “Renaissance era”. Another formulation of this "law" is possible: "in any rise of spirituality, humanism in the cultures of the European region, one of the components of the necessary causes must necessarily be the direct influence of ancient culture."

  In one of the most charming periods of spiritual upsurge in Russian culture, the "Pushkin era" (especially since early XIX in. and until 1826) the most important circumstance was the craze for antiquity. In Russian culture, if one can speak of the "Renaissance", then only in relation to this period. The most important circumstance in the "negative heuristics" in the pagan culture of the Slavs (including the Eastern ones) was the everyday disorder, largely indifference to the external arrangement, the improvement of life, a dismissive attitude towards it, which would later receive a stable label of philistinism. We also find the origins of this tradition in the pagan culture of the Eastern Slavs.

  Again, let us turn to Procopius of Caesarea: “They live in miserable huts, at a great distance from each other, and they all often change their place of residence ... Their lifestyle, like that of the Massagetae, is rough, without any amenities, they are always covered with mud, but in essence they are not bad and not at all malicious, but in all their purity they preserve the Hun morals. The life of the Slavs passed in constant expectation of danger from other tribes (most often nomads from the forest-steppe zone). Pseudo-Mauritius notes: “They settle in forests, near inconvenient rivers, swamps and lakes, arrange many exits in their dwellings due to the dangers that happen, which is natural. They bury the things they need in hiding places, do not openly own anything superfluous and lead wandering life."

  Western European sources note this feature of the life of the Western, Baltic Slavic tribes until the XII century. "... They do not bother building houses, preferring to weave wicker huts for themselves, prompted to do so only by the need to protect themselves from storms and rains. chaff, grain and gold, and silver, and all kinds of jewelry. Women and children are sheltered in fortresses, or at least in forests, so that nothing is left for the enemy to plunder - only huts, the loss of which they themselves consider easy for themselves " . “Foreign writers say,” writes S.M. Solovyov, - that the Slavs lived in crappy huts, located at a great distance from each other, and often change their place of residence. Such fragility and frequent change of dwellings were a consequence of the continuous danger that threatened the Slavs both from their own tribal strife and from the invasions of alien peoples ... The same cause, which acted for a long time, produced the same consequences; life in constant expectation of enemy attacks continued for the Eastern Slavs even when they were already under the power of the princes of Rurik at home ... The habit of being content with little and always being ready to leave the home supported in the Slav an aversion to someone else's yoke "...

  The pagan culture of the Eastern Slavs could be characterized as a culture of original inconsistency, "torn". Apparently, inconsistency is the most effective way to describe the Slavic soul as a contradictory torn value-thought structure. Really, spiritual world The pagan Slavs are, on the one hand, an irresistible thirst for individual freedom, on the other hand, the lack of value of individuality. On the one hand, the absolute dominance of barbarian naturalism, and on the other, its denial, a strange rejection of the material arrangement of life. On the one hand, the ferocious cruelty during the robber raids; on the other - softened forms of slavery, hospitality amazing for all strangers. "...Hospitality and care for parents occupy the first place among the virtues among the Slavs." The inconsistency of being is probably the most optimal form of expressing the state of the Slavic soul, as a value-thought structure, because a simple reference to the "soul", the spirit of the people, its "irrational" character over the past two centuries have shown themselves to be unfruitful concepts. It seemed that they denote something deep, primordial, fundamental. In fact, the use of these terms expresses the limit of philosophical reflection, throwing into the irrational the most important, most interesting problems, the recognition of the inability for further theoretical analysis. In philosophy, in cultural studies, the analysis of any phenomenon is subject to description in the form of theoretical objects. If the concepts of "soul", "spirit" of the people have not found expression in the form of theoretical constructs, "idealized theoretical objects", "ideal types", then we can confidently assume that they have not yet found a theoretical description.

  Thus, on the one hand, the generous productivity of the surrounding nature, low population density created favorable conditions for life, on the other hand, the constant threat from the steppe, nomadic pastoralists - all this contributed to the formation of a unique culture and its spatial configuration, in which there were no incentives to persistent systematic work, improvement of life and way of life, and at the same time, barbarism took on softened forms (the absence of a rigid cult of leaders, a caste system, a militant character, a rigid system of taboos, the custom of killing crippled newborn children and elderly parents, the relative freedom of a woman, etc.).

  The third important feature of the "negative heuristics" of the pagan culture of the Eastern Slavs is its "existential" character. The pagan culture of the ancient Slavs is a purely "existential" culture, which has two distinctive features: the lack of need and the ability to transcend and self-construct. That is, on the one hand, it is characterized by the attachment of landmarks and values ​​to the sphere of existence, the lack of aspiration to go beyond its limits into a created more perfect, well-organized material world or into an intelligible higher spiritual world, the life of people is carried out in a sensually predetermined predominantly natural environment. material space. On the other hand, fragmentary information about the life of the Slavs shows an amazing amorphousness, uncertainty, disorder social structure, religious life, the whole way of life. This means that in the tribal communities of the Polyans, Drevlyans, Krivichi, and others, social mechanisms for stabilizing and ordering the social organism were poorly developed, and there was practically no self-constructing activity.

  It was an integral culture of strength, dexterity, daring, direct feelings and passions, spiritual breadth. In joy and in suffering, this culture was not burdened with reflection, did not close its gaze on itself. Farming, tendencies towards a settled way of life created the prerequisites for the formation of a "reflexive" type of culture from below (the development of material production, the growth of the division of labor and social differentiation, etc.). However, these processes were undermined, disrupted, and hampered by external and internal destabilizing factors. Therefore, the nature of the pagan culture of the Eastern Slavs turned out to be dual: on the one hand, converted, completely immersed in the sensual-material existence, and on the other, Slavic culture, as if decimated was deprived of its root support in the same sensual-material existence. Probably, the resolution of this conflict was expressed in an increased focus on the present, immediate experience and striving for immediate concerns and goals.

  Concluding the consideration of the pagan culture of the Eastern Slavs, we highlight two important points. Firstly, in this culture the process of individualization of the Slavs did not develop, leading to the isolation of the individual. Secondly, in the thematic space of pagan culture, there was probably no theme of common Slavic unity. Appears to be a horizon Eastern Slav ended at the border of the clan and tribe.

  In preparing this work, materials from the site www.studentu.ru were used.

  In his studies of nature scientific discoveries, Imre Lakatos introduced the concepts of positive and negative heuristics. Within some scientific school certain rules prescribe which paths to follow in the course of further research. These rules form a positive heuristic. Other rules tell you which paths to avoid. This is the Negative heuristic. EXAMPLE. The "positive heuristic" of a research program can also be formulated as a "metaphysical principle". For example, the Newtonian program can be stated in the following formula: "The planets are rotating tops of approximately spherical shape, attracted to each other." No one has ever exactly followed this principle: planets have not only gravitational properties, they have, for example, electromagnetic characteristics that affect movement. Therefore, a positive heuristic is, generally speaking, more flexible than a negative one. Moreover, it happens from time to time that when a research program enters a regressive phase, a small revolution or creative push in its positive heuristics can move it back into a progressive shift. Therefore, it is better to separate the "hard core" from the more flexible metaphysical principles expressing positive heuristics. I. Lakatos, Methodology of research programs, M., "ACT", "Ermak", 2003, p. 83. Pedagogical reception