Criticism of A.M. Pischik and his Colleagues’ Historiosophy from the Perspective of the General Theory of Development

R.P. Selegin

Introduction. The Russian historical pendulum has come close to its extreme point of deviation, called total Westernism, thus causing enormous moral and material damage to the country, especially since those in power in recent decades have not decelerated, but accelerated the movement to this point, thereby intensively swinging the pendulum. With view to the entry of the pendulum into the pivot point, which can be clearly seen from the many manifestations of the country’s internal life and the state’s reaction to external challenges, predictive studies are the most relevant; however, the society still continues to live according to the “ride the tide” principle. In this regard, it is advisable to turn to the consideration of the recently published historiosophical study of the cyclogenesis of the paradigms of the Western and Russian worldviews, carried out by A.M. Pischik, a specialist in social philosophy [1 and 2] within the framework of the philosophical concepts of the Nizhny Novgorod philosophical school.

This consideration is aimed at using specific research material to show the suitability of materialistic ideas only for creating simulacra for fake philosophy and their inability to express, explain, predict, and constructively solve general issues of the human society existence. It is also shown that the general logic theory of the development of Everything, or the Theory of Everything, represented by the model from Nothing, can provide significant assistance in these issues [3]. The subject of criticism in the research of A.M. Pishchik is an attempt at a philosophical understanding of historical processes with references to “concepts (lumps of meaning)” by his associates L.A. Zelenov and A.I. Subetto. At the same time, in fairness, it should be stated that the analysis of general problems of the life of a modern society using the model for a number of provisions is partly consistent with the formulation of these problems by the Nizhny Novgorod school representatives. It is unlikely that the authors of the materials considered, given their ambitions, inherent in modern representatives of the materialist paradigm, will rethink the results of their work in the light of the model from Nothing. Of course, it is preferable for them to live in the present day, to stick to their own, even if erroneous, position, since misconceptions in issues of general development generally become recognized years and decades, or even centuries later, especially since modern culture is still based on materialism. However, the problem is that, in order to reverse the movement of the Russian pendulum, adequate elaborations on general issues of the development of society are needed today. Therefore, these critical remarks with comments will be useful to those for whom it is of paramount importance to obtain initially reliable scientific results that are really useful to society; above all, this applies to young researchers.