欧洲保守主义与自然研究:从自然的神圣化到虚无主义

Philipp Tagirov
{"title":"欧洲保守主义与自然研究:从自然的神圣化到虚无主义","authors":"Philipp Tagirov","doi":"10.22363/2313-2272-2022-22-4-764-781","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The issue of how we understand nature and operate with it goes beyond the scope of ecology or economics and directly affects the ontological-anthropological foundations of culture. The subject-object model that dominates today claims universal validity, but many thinkers challenge its universality. Representatives of the European continental conservative thought of the 20th - early 21st centuries focus on the already accepted forms of natural knowledge and nature relations, which do not imply the objectification of nature or its reduction to an economic resource. These cultural forms belong to the historical past, which raises the question of the possible return to them by the contemporary man or of their possible return to his life. The article starts with the analysis of the nature-knowledge that dominated, according to the mentioned conservative thinkers, before the modern ‘objectification’ of nature. The author considers two related but non-identical approaches to the ‘traditional’ understanding of nature developed by these thinkers. The first approach claims the ‘sanctification of nature’, i.e., the natural world is not objectified but understood as a single reality that includes the man and has a sacred status. The second approach is represented by the metaphysically oriented conservatists and considers the natural world primarily through its function of symbolizing the transcendent supernatural world. Then the author considers the conservative thinkers’ views on the ‘nihilism’ of the last centuries, which led to the current subjectobject relationship with nature, and focuses on their perception of the Christian understanding of nature. The article concludes with the hypothesis that the recognition of each culture’s ‘right to its own nature’ (the essence of the contemporary cultural pluralism) can help to overcome the universalization of a specific understanding of nature by choosing a different model known to this culture in past epochs.","PeriodicalId":42659,"journal":{"name":"RUDN Journal of Sociology-Vestnik Rossiiskogo Universiteta Druzhby Narodov Seriya Sotsiologiya","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"European conservatism and the study of nature: From sacralization of nature to nihilism\",\"authors\":\"Philipp Tagirov\",\"doi\":\"10.22363/2313-2272-2022-22-4-764-781\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The issue of how we understand nature and operate with it goes beyond the scope of ecology or economics and directly affects the ontological-anthropological foundations of culture. The subject-object model that dominates today claims universal validity, but many thinkers challenge its universality. Representatives of the European continental conservative thought of the 20th - early 21st centuries focus on the already accepted forms of natural knowledge and nature relations, which do not imply the objectification of nature or its reduction to an economic resource. These cultural forms belong to the historical past, which raises the question of the possible return to them by the contemporary man or of their possible return to his life. The article starts with the analysis of the nature-knowledge that dominated, according to the mentioned conservative thinkers, before the modern ‘objectification’ of nature. The author considers two related but non-identical approaches to the ‘traditional’ understanding of nature developed by these thinkers. The first approach claims the ‘sanctification of nature’, i.e., the natural world is not objectified but understood as a single reality that includes the man and has a sacred status. The second approach is represented by the metaphysically oriented conservatists and considers the natural world primarily through its function of symbolizing the transcendent supernatural world. Then the author considers the conservative thinkers’ views on the ‘nihilism’ of the last centuries, which led to the current subjectobject relationship with nature, and focuses on their perception of the Christian understanding of nature. The article concludes with the hypothesis that the recognition of each culture’s ‘right to its own nature’ (the essence of the contemporary cultural pluralism) can help to overcome the universalization of a specific understanding of nature by choosing a different model known to this culture in past epochs.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42659,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"RUDN Journal of Sociology-Vestnik Rossiiskogo Universiteta Druzhby Narodov Seriya Sotsiologiya\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"RUDN Journal of Sociology-Vestnik Rossiiskogo Universiteta Druzhby Narodov Seriya Sotsiologiya\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2272-2022-22-4-764-781\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"RUDN Journal of Sociology-Vestnik Rossiiskogo Universiteta Druzhby Narodov Seriya Sotsiologiya","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2272-2022-22-4-764-781","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们如何理解自然并与之相处的问题超出了生态学或经济学的范畴,直接影响到文化的本体人类学基础。今天占主导地位的主客体模型声称具有普遍有效性,但许多思想家对其普遍性提出了质疑。20世纪至21世纪初欧洲大陆保守主义思想的代表集中在已经被接受的自然知识和自然关系的形式上,这并不意味着对自然的客观化或将其减少为经济资源。这些文化形式属于历史的过去,这就提出了当代人是否可能回归这些文化形式,或者它们是否可能回归他的生活的问题。根据上述保守派思想家的说法,本文首先分析了在现代“物化”自然之前占主导地位的自然知识。作者认为,对于这些思想家对自然的“传统”理解,有两种相关但不完全相同的方法。第一种方法主张“自然的神圣化”,即自然世界不是客体化的,而是被理解为一个包括人并具有神圣地位的单一现实。第二种方法以形而上学的保守主义者为代表,主要通过自然世界象征超越的超自然世界的功能来思考自然世界。然后,作者考虑了近几个世纪保守派思想家对“虚无主义”的看法,这导致了当前与自然的主客体关系,并重点关注了他们对基督教对自然理解的感知。文章最后提出这样一个假设,即承认每种文化的“对其自身自然的权利”(当代文化多元主义的本质)可以通过选择这种文化在过去时代已知的不同模式来帮助克服对自然的特定理解的普遍性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
European conservatism and the study of nature: From sacralization of nature to nihilism
The issue of how we understand nature and operate with it goes beyond the scope of ecology or economics and directly affects the ontological-anthropological foundations of culture. The subject-object model that dominates today claims universal validity, but many thinkers challenge its universality. Representatives of the European continental conservative thought of the 20th - early 21st centuries focus on the already accepted forms of natural knowledge and nature relations, which do not imply the objectification of nature or its reduction to an economic resource. These cultural forms belong to the historical past, which raises the question of the possible return to them by the contemporary man or of their possible return to his life. The article starts with the analysis of the nature-knowledge that dominated, according to the mentioned conservative thinkers, before the modern ‘objectification’ of nature. The author considers two related but non-identical approaches to the ‘traditional’ understanding of nature developed by these thinkers. The first approach claims the ‘sanctification of nature’, i.e., the natural world is not objectified but understood as a single reality that includes the man and has a sacred status. The second approach is represented by the metaphysically oriented conservatists and considers the natural world primarily through its function of symbolizing the transcendent supernatural world. Then the author considers the conservative thinkers’ views on the ‘nihilism’ of the last centuries, which led to the current subjectobject relationship with nature, and focuses on their perception of the Christian understanding of nature. The article concludes with the hypothesis that the recognition of each culture’s ‘right to its own nature’ (the essence of the contemporary cultural pluralism) can help to overcome the universalization of a specific understanding of nature by choosing a different model known to this culture in past epochs.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
20.00%
发文量
53
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: The mission of the Journal is a broad exchange of scientific information, and of the results of theoretical and empirical studies of the researchers from different fields of sociology: history of sociology, sociology of management, political sociology, economic sociology, sociology of culture, etc., philosophy, political science, demography – both in Russia and abroad. The articles of the Journal are grouped under ‘floating’ rubrics (chosen specially to structure the main themes of each issue), with the following rubrics as basic: Theory, Methodology and History of Sociological Research Contemporary Society: The Urgent Issues and Prospects for Development Surveys, Experiments, Case Studies Sociology of Organizations Sociology of Management Sociological Lectures. The titles of the rubrics are generally broadly formulated so that, despite the obvious theoretical focus of most articles (this is the principal distinguishing feature of the Series forming the image of the scientific journal), in each section we can publish articles differing substantially in their area of study and subject matter, conceptual focus, methodological tools of empirical research, the country of origin and disciplinary affiliation.
期刊最新文献
Sociological diagnostics of the historical consciousness of Russians: Request for sustainable development and teaching of sociology Sociology of the body as an independent research direction: prerequisites for formation and subject field Students’ empathy in the context of extremist risks Eurasian Economic Union: Mechanisms and meanings of social-humanitarian cooperation Social functions of mentors for graduates of orphanages (on the example of Novosibirsk)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1