Ethnogenesis and a modern science.
Really – passionarity is impossible (or it is very difficult) to measure
quantitatively. But you can see this quality in a reality. This is ability of
some people to make the acts which have been not directed to satisfaction of
elementary biological needs, and thus the compulsions not dictated by any form?
Certainly, the nature of passionary is complicated matter. Gumilev assumed, that this consequence of the certain space radiation – ‘passionary pushes’, drawing strips on a body of the Earth. Though it did not deny also other reasons – internal radiation of a planet, divine will …
Certainly all of this is "fantastic". But what is it a science? This is concrete historical phenomenon which not always was, and, probably, not will eternal. Ancient Greeks did not know the science – they had a physio-philosophy. Plato and Aristotle it is absolute "un scientific". The Orient has not created science also.
The science
as the form of comprehension of the world and, simultaneously, public
institute, has arisen in Europe New time, on the basis of methodology of
medieval scholasticism, antique physio-philosophy and
east technology. As the engine here has acted Promethean
fire of the Western world to unlimited expansion.
Thus the
majority of the countries and did not manage "to adopt" the western
science. The abundance of scientific institutes in all parts of the world
should not deceive us. As a rule these are scenery, simulacra.
Talented
scientists in the Third world, certainly are (clever
people are everywhere). But they work in the West, being a part of the western
science. And not only for money, but also in order necessary moral-professional
climate in their countries is not.
The
scientific school has arisen in
Thus it is
not necessary to mix a science and technology. Chinese have invented gunpowder,
a compass, publishing without any science. Indians of Central America deduced
new grades of agricultural plants and operated with chromosomes, not knowing
genetics.
So, the
science is the special historical phenomenon, and, as such – is not eternal. Knowingly speak about crisis of modern
scientific idea.
For instance:
the modern science shares on corporate and state. The
main task of the first is to prove, as far as production of corporation is
useful to the consumer.
The state
science sees the main sense of the existence in
acknowledgement for a long time known theses, or – in reception of negative
result. «Negative result – too result». Man-hours and so forth to prove are
exhausted money, that those or other phenomena cannot take place under any
conditions (are resulted variants of conditions).
All the
matter is that a science never moved institutes in modern sense (the same as
art was not moved by academies). All this nonsense, that a modern scientific
idea is created by the big collectives, has no attitude to a reality, and
serves interests of chiefs and mediocrities. And to
talented people it cuts wings, and, hence – cuts wings to the Science.
Each opening
has got the concrete author. As any national fairy tale or
the epic saga (that did not speak about collective creativity in folklore).
The genius fought, suffered sneers of "public" and
"management", then died – and there was a masterpiece. It also
is passionary.
By the way,
the same situation has developed and in philosophy. The world philosophical
congress (three thousand participants several years ago has taken place!). One
of was present journalists told, that has been surprised ‘ordinary face’ of modern philosophers. And funny
explained it: these people supposedly have got used to argue on clever things,
and think easily, why do not arise on persons of a wrinkle.
Probably, these
philosophers think much more easy their great
predecessors (at which process of thinking
leaves traces on face).
Keep to the
point, however. Gumilev
is the historian. And the history is not the exact science, despite of all
attempts (in something successful) to apply here mathematical methods. Show me
the historian who can mathematic precisely build
forecasts of the future?
On what adore
mathematical formulas economists. But, as all history of the twentieth century
shows, that is, the period when economic theories were in the enormous
authority, everywhere, where they applied – business came to an end poorly.
Historical
experience shows, that really successful economic policy professional economists,
and people, with knowledge of a real life, and having carried out not political
will.
Gumilev’s theory of much cannot explain. For example – growth of a modern techno sphere. In a number of concrete cases scholar, really resorts to stretches or is simply biased. The situation in Russia, for example, appeared more tragically, than it thought (or spoke). The break in the twentieth century has burnt out a huge part passionary, and stayed is directed chaotically, has no uniform vector and, hence its cumulative force is small.
But, at all lacks Gumilev’s the theory (which as I already spoke, a little limited name ‘the passionary theory’ - there there are also other important points) difficultly to find more successful system of sights at historical processes (certainly, much Gumilev borrowed predecessors, for example, Spengler). Unless written by scholar several decades ago about ancient China was not a prediction of some details of a modern Russian life?
Alex Fantalov.