Psikhologicheskie Issledovaniya • ISSN 2075-7999
peer-reviewed • open access journal
      

 

Martsinkovskaya T.D. Comparative analysis of the approach to the problem of biosphere and noosphere in the works of V.I.Vernadsky, V.S.Solovyov and S.L.Rubinstein

Full text in Russian: Марцинковская Т.Д. Сравнительный анализ подхода к проблеме биосферы и ноосферы в трудах В.И.Вернадского, В.С.Соловьева и С.Л.Рубинштейна
Psychological Institute, Russian Academy of Education, Moscow, Russia

About author
Suggested citation


The three scientists’ (V.I.Vernadsky, V.S.Solovyov and S.L.Rubinstein) approaches to the problem of all-unity (vseyedinstvo) that is considered as a man unity with nature, society and himself are presented. Biosphere, noosphere and exisphere are considered as reference point of development and a man unity with the world (both natural and artificial). Characteristics of Solovyov, Vernadsky and Rubenstein interpretation of the role of science and art as factors for biosphere-noosphere transition that determine the range of possibilities for this transition are revealed. Similarity and difference of the three scientists’ interpretation of biological and spiritual development, personality growth and evolution, as well as methods of analysis of nature and culture development crisis and bifurcation points in the context of philosophy, biology and psychology are considered.

Keywords: biosphere, noosphere, all-unity (vseedinstvo / vseyedinstvo), exisphere, science, art

 

The concepts of biosphere and noosphere developed in V.I.Vernadsky's works are rather well-known. It seems important to create a new discourse that allow to analyze these concepts based on earlier and later similar ideas developed in works of V.S.Solovyov and S.L.Rubenstein. For that matter Vernadsky's idea of the need for use of interdisciplinary approach to a scientific problem under study is very productive. Precisely this approach is presented in the article in which not only the scientists’ views but also social situation of science development, approaches to biosphere and noosphere based on natural science, philosophy and psychology are compared. The notions of the opponents circle and the social situation of a certain problem development and certain scientist’ live and work as well as certain scientist’ cognitive style are introduced in scientific discourse.

The comparative analysis is performed along three lines:
– the idea of all-unity (vseedinstvo / vseyedinstvo) as a man unity with nature, society and himself;
– biosphere, noosphere and exisphere as reference points of development and a man unity with the world (both natural and artificial);
– the role of science and art as factors for biosphere-noosphere transition that determine the range of possibilities for this transition.

The idea of unity of a man, nature and space was accepted by Solovyov, Vernadsky and Rubenstein, however each of them focused attention on different aspects of this unity. If for Vernadsky the idea of a man unity with nature, the living matter unity was leading, the most important for Solovyov was the idea of awareness of a man relation with the social world, with the world (worlds) of other people. For Rubenstein the idea of a man unity with himself became central.

Thus, it is possible to say that the idea of a man unity with the wildlife and the social world was shared by all three scientists; the scientists also agree that the vector of development of the world passes through a man, his mind, creations of his hands which change the world. Without denying a huge role of science in transformation of the world the scientists disagree on an issue of how we perceive the world and how we use the gained knowledge.

Solovyov repeatedly emphasizes importance and authority of science stating that science proves organic unity of nature and considers nature as developing unity. However, in his opinion science can't totally understand the essence of this unity. Only philosophy and poetry can understand it. Vernadsky who proved insufficiency and incompleteness of philosophy and mysticism in the process of cognition had absolutely different opinion. Vernadsky focuses on "a scientific method", on scientific facts and observational generalization that make up the content of science. Based on unity of scientific thought Vernadsky developed the concept of transition of biosphere to noosphere. Vernadsky wrote about both positive and negative consequences of transition of biosphere to noosphere. Not all these consequences came true, but one of his warnings related to the mankind capability to reconstruct biosphere by its thought and work is becoming more and more important. Vernadsky also thought that reorganization and development of noosphere shouldn't destroy harmony in relationships of a man and the wildlife and, especially, the social world. Many people began to understand the consequences of destruction of harmony with nature only now while the disruption of the social was perceived in the middle of the last century. This perception was expressed by Rubenstein in his concept of exisphere.

Thus, it is possible to note that science lays the foundation for understanding and reconstruction of the natural and social world. But in self-development and self-creation, according to all scientists, art is more important. Considering that a man with his complex inner world can’t be understood only in terms of rationality Vernadsky, as well as Solovyov and a bit later Rubenstein, addresses to art which is harmoniously combined with science. Probably, such harmonious combination Vernadsky found in Goethe – a scientist, apolitician and, of course, a great artist.

V.I.Vernadsky's idea of biosphere and noosphere as well as Rubenstein's ideas of a personal space connecting external and internal worlds may be connected with Solovyov’s idea of different levels of being (nature and human). However, unlike Solovyov who gave a palm to moral development and Vernadsky who considered human mind and science Rubenstein focused on art which helped to create the inner personal space. This new existential space offered oppotunities of self-realization.

V.I.Vernadsky wrote that each generation had to reconsider independently the past scientific knowledge as many things became clear and adequate only to future generations. Considering the three scientists’ (V.I.Vernadsky, V.S.Solovyov and S.L.Rubinstein) approaches it is possible to say that despite the essential distinctions these approaches are synthetic (according T.I.Raynov's definition). They are characterized not only with the broad range of the described phenomena, but also with the great opportunities in finding out new prospects, in creating new points of view that unite and systematize already known facts as well as open the road for the next generations.


Funding
The study was supported by the Russian Foundation for Humanities, project 14-06-00640.


References

Rubinshtein S.L. Bytie i soznanie. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo akademii nauk SSSR, 1957. (in Russian)

Rubinshtein S.L. Chelovek i mir. Moscow: Pedagogika, 1973. (in Russian)

Rubinshtein S.L. Osnovy obshchei psikhologii. Moscow: Pedagogika, 1989. Vol. 1. (in Russian)

Solovyov V.S. Opravdanie dobra. Moscow: Akademicheskii proekt, 2010. (in Russian)

Solovyov V.S. Tri razgovora. Moscow: AST, 2011. (in Russian)

Solovyov V.S. Dukhovnye osnovy zhizni. Moscow: Direkt-Media, 2012. (in Russian)

Vernadskaya-Toll N.V. Prometei: Istoriko-biograficheskii al'manakh, 1988, No. 15, 120–131. (in Russian)

Vernadsky V.I. Iz istorii idei. Moscow: Tipografiya t-va I.N.Kushnerova, 1912. (in Russian)

Vernadsky V.I. Byulleten' Mosk. ob-va ispytatelei prirody, otd. geologii, 1946, 21(1), 5–52. (in Russian)

Vernadsky V.I. Nauchnaya mysl' kak planetnoe yavlenie. Moscow: Nauka, 1991. (in Russian)

Vernadsky V.I. Avtotrofnost' chelovechestva. Russkii kosmizm: Antologiya filosofskoi mysli. Moscow: Pedagogika-Press, 1993. pp. 288–303. (in Russian)

Vernadsky V.I. Biosfera i noosfera. Moscow: Airis-press, 2012. (in Russian)

 Received 15 September 2013. Date of publication: 27 February 2014.

About author

Martsinkovskaya Tatyana D. Ph.D., Professor, Psychological Institute, Russian Academy of Education, ul. Mokhovaya, 9, str. 4, 125009 Moscow, Russia.
E-mail: Этот адрес электронной почты защищен от спам-ботов. У вас должен быть включен JavaScript для просмотра.

Suggested citation

Martsinkovskaya T.D. Comparative analysis of the approach to the problem of biosphere and noosphere in the works of V.I.Vernadsky, V.S.Solovyov and S.L.Rubinstein. Psikhologicheskie Issledovaniya, 2014, Vol. 7, No. 33, p.  2. http://psystudy.ru (in Russian, abstr. in English).

Permanent URL: http://psystudy.ru/index.php/eng/2014v7n33e/950-martsinkovskaya33e.html

Back to top >>

Related Articles