Gods and Monsters: The Scientific Method Applied to the Human Condition - Book II
Page 22
Chapter 18:
Knowledge and human purpose of the self-consciousness and of the consciousness of nature, in general
Radcliffe-Brown stated that there are two concepts, contrasting,of the nature. The first: the naturalistic, connected to science. The second: the spiritualist or mythological, implied in the myth and in the religion, and made their own, often, from philosophical theories (1), and identifiable with the logic of structural reality historic.
Alberto Masani stated that the human being can be defined as the means of nature to achieve self-consciousness. Since this self-consciousness is realized through science, in that only rational form of knowledge, it is evident the necessity of making scientific the knowledge in field social and human. It is, thus, necessary to create a scientific sense of purpose, subtracting it to the theologies and of the their teleologies (2). Religion is distinguished from science: essentially in placing the subject, the object and the purpose of knowledge, outside by the human being. On the contrary, science identifies the subject, the object and the purpose of knowledge: in the human individual. The human science, and in general the knowledge, are not in contrast with the cosmic nature, nor with human nature, nor with the individuals, but are the expression of the conscience of nature itself. The conscience is definable as knowledge based on the feeling or on love for themselves and for others. You can, therefore, say that the fullness of consciousness constitutes the intrinsic purpose of cosmic nature and of the humanity.
Cerniscevski has declared as “the Nature, stifled by reason, by circumstances, by pride, is silent and does not give a voice to the conscience, but still keeping the silent he suffers and undermines the life” (3). He recognized, namely, as: the structural reality smother human nature. Federico Chabod has reported as Friedrich Meinecke had took into account the historical evolution as a continuous “progress” of the “historical consciousness” (4). Beyond the “positivist progressivism” in this statement there may be some truth, when you consider how the endless repetition of the cyclicity of the universe structural statual cannot avoid producing a progressive consciousness of the essence of the structural reality itself.
Francis Bacon had individuated the purpose of scientific progress in improving the existence and alleviate the sufferings, increasing happiness, namely: in contributing to the welfare of the human being. Had recognized as in the historical evolution there are ages favorable at the scientific progress (the Greek, the Roman and the “modern”), while had identified in the “age of contemplation” or of the “doctrinal science”: a period of decline of science (5). He noted how, with the seventeenth century, is born a new period, particularly fruitful for scientific progress (there was, in fact, the phase mercantile consolidated and, in particular, in the period of transition to the capitalist system competitive); there was, in fact, the birth of: scientific associations, academies and astronomical observatories. The Cartesianism, in addition to defend, as positive axioms, the “supremacy of reason” (namely of reason) and the invariability of the natural laws, had proposed an analytical method, valid in any scientific field (6). The spring that pushes the “Scientists” and the researchers can be defined: rational faith. This, since it is based on the hope of acquiring the knowledge. It is based on the belief of the the existence of a complete truth and on its reachability by humans. This conception is not based on empirical evidence, but on a theory of man that excludes the contradictions, which they are, however, implicits in the theories that deny at to the human being, the reachability of completeness of itself, namely the satisfaction of all its needs. This is the premise of a coherent epistemology with a conception of the human being not self-contradictory, and not inconsistent with the possibility of to realize themselves (in the sense of the achievement the full manifestation of the essence) of the same human being.
The esotericism is a metaphysics based on the assumption of danger, for the truth itself, that certain truths from falling into the hands of people unworthy (“not given the pearls to pigs”). In reality, the esoteric cosmology is not, in itself, dangerous, nor for the persistence of the structural reality, nor for humanity, but is based on the assumption that the researchers of the truth can attain some knowledge that could undermine the existence of the reality structural historic, since there are not, still, valid alternative theories, capable of allowing to overcome the same structural reality historic. From this concept was born the exclusivism and sectarianism of the esoteric. Science, by its very nature, must be known by all, because its universality prevents, in theory, a its misuse. Is part of the scientific spirit, the generalization of the same scientific knowledge. Without the universal diffusion, the same scientific knowledge it would be devalued, as science, losing part of its heuristic value. Conversely, all the religious mythology has, also, the function of esoteric knowledge or knowledge reserved for researchers. This methodology of knowledge acquisition of the condition and of human destiny, remains a backlight knowledge and partial, not having reached (and not being able to reach) the heuristic degree: of science of the society and of human nature.
The philosophy is part of the culture of a given society, being at the base of the specific ideologies of that society. It can become a science of man and of his social life: if you wriggles by the conditioning of the historical structures in act or in progress. Luigi Pareyson stated that there are several “personality” of philosophy (each corresponding to one of the two phases statual), and stated that these “personality” have need to be incurred even at the cost of life, by those who recognize himself in them. He had stated, however, that a such an attitude, while it is necessary at the philosophy, it is useless for the science (7). This shows the a-scientificity of philosophy, as recognized the same Pareyson. In fact, science, does not require the sacrifice of his supporters to demonstrate its validity. The sacrifice of the supporters of science is justifiable, and valuable, as a personal choice and as a way of life.