Published in journal "Philosophy and Culture", 2015-8 in rubric "Editor-in-Chief's column", pages 1113-1116.
Resume: The present article is devoted to critical analysis of the sociobiological concept of human. It is emphasized that this approach synthesizes social Darwinism, genetic determinism and ethologism. Sociobiologists advocate the expansion of the scope of biological researches that try to explain human nature. The main objective of sociobiological disputes is to answer the question to what degree the behavior of human is determined by genetic factors, or how cultural development corresponds to human genetics. Such research trend is called genetic-cultural coevolution. Some researchers are convinced that the behavior of human is entirely determined by sociocultural prerequisites. Others, on the contrary, consider that genetic factors play the dominating role in behavior of not only animals but also humans. In his article Gurevich has used theoretical achievements of philosophical anthropology that proves uniqueness of human as a living being of a special kind. The author also describes approaches to the subject of the research from the position of sociobiologists who depreciate or eliminate the role of cultural factors in human behvior and destination. In his article the author also critisizes sociobiology taking into account the latest developments of biology and philosophy of culture. It is shown that representatives of sociobiology assumed the role of orthodox evolutionists. As well as Charles Darwin, sociobiologists try to explain social behavior of animals from the point of view of the theory of natural selection. At the same time, the author has noted that there are no bases to accept achievements of population genetics without critics. Gurevich raises a question whether modern humans are capable of changing the nature of evolution. It is proved that one should not consider evolution only as a mean of species conservation. Evolution allows to mark out only conservative features, i.e. to inherit and keep only checked and selected features in the course of development.
Keywords: destructiveness, tradition, culture, animal world, sociobiology, human, animal, language, gestures, communication
Gurevich P.S. Dostatochno li vy ozvereli? // Filosofiya i kul'tura. 2012. ¹ 2(50). S. 4-5.
Gurevich P.S. Est' li bessoznatel'noe u zhivotnykh? // Psikhologiya i psikhotekhnika. 2015. ¹ 3(78). S. 231-234.
Midgley M. Beast and Man: The Roots of Human Nature. Routledge, 1978.
Gauze G.F., Karpinskaya R.S. Egoizm ili al'truizm? // Voprosy filosofii. 1978. ¹ 8. S. 145-150.
Ignat'ev V.N. Sotsiobiologiya cheloveka. Teoriya genno-kul'turnoy koevolyutsii // Voprosy filosofii. 1982. ¹ 9. S. 134-141.
Karpinskaya R.S., Nikol'skiy S.A. Kriticheskiy analiz sotsiobiologii. M.: Znanie, 1985. 64 s.
Midgley M. The Solitary Self: Darwin and the Selfish Gene. Acumen, 2010.
Wilson E.O. Sociobiology: the new synthesis. Cambridge (Mass.); London: Belknap press of Harvard univ. press, 2002. 697 s.
Novozhenov Yu.I. Globalizm i sotsiobiologiya. Ekaterinburg: Bank kul'turnoy informatsii, 2009. 241 s.
Novozhenov Yu.I. Tainstvennoe libido: Sotsiobiologicheskiy analiz chelovecheskoy seksual'nosti. Ekaterinburg: Bank kul'turnoy informatsii, 1999. 767 s.
Sapunov V.B. Esse o sotsiobiologii. SPb.: Kopi-Park, 2008. 155 s
Correct link to this article:
just copy this link to clipboard