The Science Work
Site is for sale:
Category: History

Social ideals in K.E. Tsiolkovsky's outlook

v. V. Lytkin


In article theoretical provisions of the Russian cosmism — an original philosophical and cultural current of the Russian social thought of the end of H1H — the beginning of the XX centuries which became the world outlook basis of modern astronautics are analyzed.

N.A. Berdyaev, speaking about the main perspective and orientation of the Russian philosophical thought, noted that initially Russian philosophical thought was "mainly, religious, moral and social. It means that the subject about the person was the central theme,

about the fate of the person in society and in history" 1. The analysis of creativity of the vast majority of the Russian thinkers, including also representatives of the Russian cosmism, serves as confirmation obvious to that.

In present conditions of radical, really revolutionary changes


the way of life of the Russian society, strengthening of processes of globalization, threat of "anthropological accident" (M. Mamardashvili) and "end of story", lack of national strategy of the future, etc., identification and assessment of anthropological and social ideals of the Russian cosmism acquires special sharpness and relevance.

The most developed doctrine of cosmism which is directly raising the questions of social transformations and improvement of human nature is submitted in a theoretical research of K.E. Tsiolkovsky. In 1920 K.E. Tsiolkovsky wrote in one of the letters: "It is difficult to decide what opening it is more important: technical or on a society organization. I incline, itself without fluctuation, to the last" 2. Researches in this direction relied on the fundamental ideas of the French Education. In combination with projects of the Western European social utopianism they played a crucial role in formation of outlook of Tsiolkovsky. He repeatedly emphasized that in questions of anthropology and social philosophy it only develops and concretized the ideas of ways and the directions of social progress which are put forward still by Platon, T. Mor and other scientists.

In 1916 there is K.E. Tsiolkovsky's work "A grief and the genius", demonstrating dissatisfaction of the author with the current situation. During the postrevolutionary period tasks of development of the social doctrine are set and implemented. Essentially important place in it is given to a problem of cosmological interpretation of the developed system of the international relations. K.E. Tsiolkovsky believes that wars are an inevitable part of modern society because in it contradictions in the form of intellectual and property inequality between people and the people remain. It neiz-

the bezhny evil which will be possible to be overcome only on the basis of association of people in uniform mankind.

The main lack of modern society, according to K.E. Tsiolkovsky, is his division into classes, estates, castes, etc. that has to be considerably overcome on the ways of preservation not so much social, how many individual differences between people (intellectual, psychological, physical type, etc.).

What strategic objective, an anthropological and public ideal of Tsiolkovsky and those imperatives to which the mankind has to follow? It is first of all about realization of natural moral aspirations to achievement of happiness. Evdemonichesky ethics of Tsiolkovsky assumes achievement by the person and society of the state excluding any possibility of suffering. A direct prerequisite of this state is formation and domination in the Universe of the perfect human beings capable to direct life "to destruction of sufferings and to perfection" 3. In other words, the problem of happiness of each certain human individual and society in general has to be formulated and be solved in the context of the cosmological idea. In "The abstract of space philosophy" K.E. Tsiolkovsky wrote that happiness is freedom (including freedom from sufferings) and material security. Thus the understood happiness has to become a source of social system of people.

What is the engine of social progress, besides aspiration of the person fortunately? What can really promote progress of society? Answers to these questions contact, first of all, progress in science, the equipment and education. They are considered as the main means of modernization of mankind on its ways to perfection. During all the life of K.E. Qi -

olkovskiya consistently defends technicism positions. On his deep belief, process of development of space will inevitably lead to social progress. In this regard Tsiolkovsky develops the argument in favor of a conclusion about progressiveness of scientific and technical progress, about its linear and cumulative character. Similar views were characters for many contemporaries of K.E. Tsiolkovsky. In particular, Theodor V. Adorno, however, a little later of K.E. Tsiolkovsky, came to a conclusion about that, as the equipment, and society in the development equally influence at each other, mutually causing the progressive development. He considered that there are no technical tasks which would not concern society. Society and the equipment since the beginning of modern times so strongly intertwined in each other that the question of a priority of economy or the equipment reminds a question of what was earlier: chicken or egg. The public purposes, according to Adorno, are not something external that has to take into account only.

Developing the social theory of reorganization and improvement of society of the future, K.E. Tsiolkovsky tries to solve the main problem: that or who can and has to become the driving force of future social changes. What will be that force which will be able to change the world, to lead society to ideals of good, happiness and abundance? The thinker finds this force acting through the genius scientist. According to K.E. Tsiolkovsky, ingenious scientists, inventors and philosophers-thinkers directly "develop" society, promote its progressive advance. Not accidentally one of the first works of K.E. Tsiolkovsky devoted to a social perspective was called "A grief and the genius" (Kaluga, 1916). Here unconditional influence on K.E. Tsiolkovsky's views was rendered by the Russian revolutionary democrats and them filosofsko-publitsi-

stichesky creativity. Our predecessors, researchers of creativity of K.E. Tsiolkovsky repeatedly pointed to it.

So, still in the late sixties of the XX century L.V. Golovanov wrote that in K.E. Tsiolkovsky's works echoes of the concept of P.L. Lavrov about a role of the hero intellectual in social reorganization of society are obviously traced, that the loner hero can turn society. Really, in the autobiography of K.E. Tsiolkovsky "My life" we find the brightest and very emotional confirmation to it. Describing the interests during the Moscow period of life, in what he was engaged, than was interested that studied and what read, K.E. Tsiolkovsky remembers: "The famous young publicist D.I. Pisarev forced me to shiver for joy and happiness. In him I saw then the second & #34; Я". Already at mature age I looked at it differently and saw its mistakes... Nevertheless it is one of sa-

the my my teachers respected by me". Geniuses, according to K.E. Tsiolkovsky, are capable to change society. But they should be found, distinguished from other people. Also it is necessary in order that geniuses scientists could head society (ideal future society) at all its levels. K.E. Tsiolkovsky wrote about it: "This organization of life on the earth will facilitate the choice of the most perfect. Each small society living in one building or its office mutually studying each other within several years, can separate the most generous, public, talented, healthy, long, prolific and beautiful people from the members".

Thus, society is divided by the mathematical principle on small groups, no more than 100 people. It is made of those reasons that it is easier for small group to study the companions, to appreciate their moral, physical and to intelligence -

alny data and to allocate outstanding, talented people from the number. According to the thinker, from these primary societies, or societies of the first order, five people are allocated (five people from 100) who are delegated by this society to represent its interests in Council of higher level. K.E. Tsiolkovsky writes that all society will be presented in ideal option by five-six categories, five-six levels consisting of consistently delegated, most outstanding persons of the corresponding, lower category. Thus, in the highest category of society the most outstanding representatives, actually geniuses who exercise final control of all human community okazhutsya: "... Council becomes complicated with cell height. The number of his members increases. Than society is higher, that the laws created by it, more important and play more significant role. They more difficult".

The idea of allocation of the most talented and worthy representatives of society for management of its division into small groups by creation of hierarchical social structure is also not new. It is characteristic of social utopias. T. Mora is enough to mention "Utopia". There are each 30 families, or farms, elect the special official called by a sifo-grant, or filarkhy. Sifogranta make the lowest category of officials. In their each city there are about 200 people. Sifo-granty participate in meetings of the supreme council — the senate. The people through them control government. All officials in the Utopia get out the people or national representatives, according to the hierarchical principle. At the same time all officials are chosen from among the most talented, educated part of society.

The mechanism of division of society offered by K.E. Tsiolkovsky has, certainly, the simplified character. It is rather a scheme, than a real system. The utopian system of hierarchical democracy of K.E. Tsiolkovsky can be effective only in the state inhabited by ideal people (honest, decent, sincere, highly moral and educated). It is a paradox and the main thing from contradictions of the social system developed by K.E. Tsiolkovsky.

The utopianism of a social ideal of K.E. Tsiolkovsky is brightly visible on the example of the description to them settlements of the future. K.E. Tsiolkovsky represents the classical ideal society living in ideal, absolute conditions ("almost eternal" rooms where there is nothing negative, i.e. harmful). Work in this community is obligatory. Everyone works within 6 hours, devoting the rest of the time to rest, self-improvement and education. What basic principles of interpersonal communications and what else functions, according to K.E. Tsiolkovsky, does it have to carry out "new society"? According to the ethical concept of K.E. Tsiolkovsky, one of the main purposes of reason in space (if not the main thing in general!) is a fight with imperfect, with everything that potentially can hinder the movement fortunately. The reason has to be sure that space is in a perfect state. According to K.E. Tsiolkovsky, the reason of the planet has to gradually, but persistently and steadily to fight with all imperfect on Earth, and then and in space, leaving only necessary and useful to reason carriers, what can help them to live happily and will not bring tortures and sufferings. From this point of view, "new society" of K.E. Tsiolkovsky has to be engaged actively in elimination imperfect, first of all, in wildlife. Between young people in this society for -

marriages klyuchatsya, but there is it according to the decision of the society. Chairmen of councils define quantity of the posterity resolved by the birth. If marrying are at rather low level of development, according to council, then it can not allow to have detey5. "New society" of K.E. Tsiolkovsky has pronounced totalitarian character, the nature of dictatorship. It is impossible to forget that these ideals were formed in K.E. Tsiolkovsky's outlook at the beginning of the XX century, in many respects under the influence of the revolutionary events which were taking place in Russia.

From positions of our time these views can be estimated only negatively. But whether we have the right for similar assessment? Whether there will be more justified and more logical an approach from positions historical, from positions of that time when the ideas of radical, revolutionary reorganization of society and the nature had quite natural and scientific character and were widespread in public consciousness, in works of philosophers and historians? At the same time, we quite share opinion of V.V. Kazyutin-sky considering that similar views of K.E. Tsiolkovsky and his idea about which we will speak further "... are capable to tread on strongly moral senses of any person irrespective of whether he is a non-believer or the believer. No life forms, even the most primitive, can be pulled out from & #34; great chain of Prirody" without prejudice to a universal organism" 6. To reorganization process, according to "the rational principles of destruction imperfect", also all our planet, and not just human society, according to K.E. Tsiolkovsky has to undergo. Destruction imperfect, elimination of "evil" and sufferings, even potential, has to have general, total character. Special groups have to, consistently moving ahead on the planet, to destroy on

to it all imperfect, harmful and dangerous to the person, leaving only plants, useful and necessary for his life, and animals. Thus, Earth will be sterilized, all bacteria and harmful microorganisms, the lowest animals and plants "not necessary" to mankind are destroyed.

Similar changes, according to K.E. Tsiolkovsky, will have character gradual and especially voluntary, that is will only participate in these transformations wishing to do it.

Even in the fundamental work "Ethics, or natural bases of morality", acting from positions of extreme radicalism concerning opportunities of artificial biological selection for achievement of a social ideal society, K.E. Tsiolkovsky crosses moral border, border of opportunities of carrying out a research (or opportunities, moral limits of distribution of a scientific hypothesis), passing to positions of obviously racist character. Extremely seeking to absolutize the hypotheses, K.E. Tsiolkovsky comes to a conclusion that he is possible and not only artificial biological selection of the best human individuals (ev-genik), but also "improvement of human races", carrying out "painless selection of the best races by their sterilization" will be necessary in the future. He writes about it: "I am a person and I can be only a person.... I do not wish to lead life of the lowest races. Life of the Black or Indian".

Most likely, for the first time honestly and objectively these views of K.E. Tsiolkovsky were analyzed and critically estimated in V.V. Kazyutin-sky's works. In particular, V.V. Kazyutinsky notices about it: "The given reasonings on crossing of races for the purpose of improvement of the person. are capable to cause shock. It is difficult to comment on them, of course, not only, but also it is unpleasant. Tsiolkovsky argued as social

the Darwinian anxious with improvement & #34; human породы" without burdening itself with doubts in terrible ethical vulnerability of such approach".

Certainly, in terms of our modern ideas of need of the ecological point of view to Earth and Space, these views of the scientist are represented not just extremely radical, but also cruel. But it is impossible to forget also that similar active evolyutsionistskiye, converting, progressivist approaches in general are characteristic of mankind during all historical eras of its existence. V.I. Vernadsky paid attention to this phenomenon, for the first time formulating the noosphere principle: "... The curve of influence of mankind quickly rises (by the nature). And no hint on a turning point or on delay of this rise is observed".

These processes of more or less active transformation of our planet, most often unconscious, proceed the most active image and now. Moreover, as K.E. Tsiolkovsky and V.I. Vernadsky expected it, processes of preobrazovatelsky activity from mankind, its science and technology more and more begin to extend out of Earth, to be thrown not space, other planets of the Solar system. It should be noted that since a certain moment, namely from the beginning of an era of development of space, the idea of change of a surface and atmosphere of planets, first of all planets of the Solar system, begins to find more and more supporters among scientists and experts including abroad. So, one of modern popular writers of science Nikos Prantzos in the work "Our space future. Destiny

>" notes mankind in the Universe that the mankind sought for change of the environment from time immemorial. Irrespective of K.E. Tsiolkovsky's works of the corresponding period (because they were not published abroad, and in the Soviet Russia left limited circulations, in the form of a samizdat) as N. Prantzos notes, the idea of a possibility of global planetary change is published in works by the English writer fantast Olaf Staildon. In the fifties the XX centuries the American writer Jack Villyamson enters the term "terraforming" meaning a possibility of complex transformation of planets. The first scientific material about opportunities of change of planets was published in 1961 in the Sayens magazine and belonged to a feather of the famous American astronomer Karl Sagan. These ideas constantly are present at K. Sagan's publications, including the latest of them. In particular, the scientist is convinced of opportunities of change of the atmosphere of Venus, so, its climate that he will make the planet manned (the mankind will be able to occupy her). The same, according to him, concerns also Mars, it atmosfe-


ry and surfaces.

Thus, the idea of a possibility of transformation of planets as possible future places of resettlement of mankind is present at a modern scientific paradigm that is scientific reality. Anthropological and social ideals of the Russian cosmism and space philosophy of Tsiolkovsky despite their utopianism represent one of forms of the theoretical image of features actually of "the Russian way" in the history and in many respects promote clearing of prospects of domestic culture in difficult and contradictory conditions of today.

1 N.A. Berdyaev. Russian idea. Main problem of the Russian thought of the 19th century and beginning of the XX century. About Russia and the Russian philosophical culture. M, 1990. Page 118.

Culturological education in the system of continuous education

2 K.E. Tsiolkovsky. K.E. Tsiolkovsky's letter to V.M. Vishnev. RAS archive. T. 555, op. 4, 4, l. 3-4 about.
3 K.E. Tsiolkovsky. What to do on Earth//K.E. Tsiolkovsky. What to do on Earth. Mankind life. M, 1999. Page 9.
4 K.E. Tsiolkovsky. My life. GMIK archive of K.E. Tsiolkovsky. T. 1, op. 1, 67, l. 1-55.
5 K.E. Tsiolkovsky. Grief and genius//K.E. Tsiolkovsky. Public organization of mankind. Grief and genius. M, MIP "Memory", CPI of RAU, 1992. Page 29.
6 V.V. Kazyutinsky. Space philosophy of K.E. Tsiolkovsky at a boundary of HH1 of a century//K.E. Tsiolkovsky. Essays about the Universe. Kaluga, 2001. Page 361-362.
7 Sagan C. Carl Sagan&s Cosmic connection. An Extraterrestrial perspective. Cambridge University Press. 2000. P. 151-153.

V. Lytkin


Theoretical ideas of Russian cosmism, an original philosophical and cultural trend of Russian social thought of the end of XIXth — beginning of XXth centuries, which formed the foundation of the modern cosmonautics are analyzed.

Joseph Greer
Other scientific works: