The Anthropological Principle in Philosophy

An Analysis of “The Anthropological Principle in Philosophy” from the Perspective of Modern Science. The epitome of nihilist and positivist ideas emerges in Nikolay Chernyshevsky’s “The Anthropological Principle in Philosophy”. Within the article, the 19th century Russian writer uses his personal philosophical beliefs to outline the problems facing humanity, individually and as a whole. Chernyshevsky details these problems through a variety of ideas ranging from the application of socialism in society to the role of environmental stimuli and ego on individuals’ actions. The concepts discussed in his article appear to align with many well-known topics about human behavior in the sciences today; however, Chernyshevsky and his works precede these relatively modern publications. Although the polarization of his ideas is fairly obvious and present throughout the entirety of the paper, the basis of each one of them is rooted in reason. Chernyshevsky’s most effective, yet also unreasonable, argument is his rejection of the existence of free will. In “The Anthropological Principle in Philosophy”, he presents the idea that humans are exclusively controlled by external stimuli. Abraham Maslow, a 20th century American psychologist, similarly characterized human behavior. His theory of the hierarchy of needs sequentially organized human needs – from the most basic for survival to those for achievement of human idealization. Maslow argued that if these most innate needs such as food, shelter, and safety were not met, there would be no potential for self-improvement and actualization. Chernyshevsky related these basic needs to motivation for violence and crime. Simply put, an individual will go to extremes to fulfill whichever need seems to be missing. The idea that humans are this simplistic in behavior is an illogical one; a similar criticism comes from notable Russian author, Fyodor Dostoyevsky. In his novella, Notes from Underground, Dostoyevsky voices his response to Chernyshevsky’s claims using an analogy to piano keys – humans cannot be equated to keys that respond to external factors like touch, they are infinitely more complex. Chernyshevsky expands on the concept of human motivation, offering another major component: an internal motivator. The internal factor that Chernyshevsky believes contributes to human behavior, if not drives all of it, is ego. On the surface, this statement is not difficult to argue; most intelligent species are egotistic in nature – they must be to survive, and humans are no different. The polarization of Chernyshevsky’s ideas is present again with this argument. While ecologists will agree that these species are mostly concerned with their own survival, acts of altruism are not uncommon. Among most bird species, completely selfless acts to aid in the survival or even just the well-being of another individual occur extremely frequently. To suggest that non-primate species portray a larger range of reasons for behavior than humans is to suggest they are more complex and intricate in motivation than humans – something that is undeniably incorrect. Once again, it is clear that Chernyshevsky is oversimplifying human nature so as to suggest a solution to humanity’s problems based on his own definition of human nature. Chernyshevsky proceeds to outline how to solve the problems facing humanity, namely crime and violence in societies. As mentioned earlier, because he believes there are only two motivators for human behavior – lack of basic needs and ego – Chernyshevsky approaches the idea of utopian socialism. The political theory of socialism has to do with the people of a society controlling production of goods and services. Chernyshevsky embraces this Western ideal and introduces utopian socialism, where the future societies that embody this ideology thrive. In this way, he sees crime and violence due to the lack of basic human needs diminishing and humanity being perfected. Chernyshevsky discusses humanity’s problems in the length of an article, which, once again, is not that simple. He also explains morality from his perspective – which centers around the idea that if an action is beneficial to the society, it must be morally right, and if the action is detrimental to the society, it must be morally wrong. The concept of morality has long been pondered by theologians and philosophers and psychologists alike. There is not one definition for morally right or wrong, and there is not one situation where these two are different from each other. What Chernyshevsky does throughout “The Anthropological Principle in Philosophy” is consistently oversimplify complex and deep concepts and attempt to explain them. The biggest problem with Chernyshevsky’s tendency to oversimplify things is when it comes to discussing application of these ideas. His belief that humanity as a whole could be fixed by providing every individual with all the basic necessities and educating them about their true self-interest is naïve. However, this is just one problem. Even without discussing how this idea works, the application of it into the real world must first be dealt with. It is simply impossible, in every sense of the word, to address every individual in the world and communicate to them that this is the way humanity works and this is what they must do from now on. Beyond that, it is even more impossible to convince every person in the world of this. Chernyshevsky is misguided in his attempt to rectify the world because the solutions he offers up are impractical and simply, incorrect. While Nikolay Chernyshevsky has plausible beliefs that have since been supported by modern science, his polarization of most every idea he offers up in “The Anthropological Principle in Philosophy” is what renders his arguments almost pointless. His discussion spanning the roles of external stimuli and the lack of basic needs of individuals to egoism on human behavior is simplistic in nature. Too often does Chernyshevsky negate the complexity of man by describing humans as simply a combination of chemical reactions. Psychologist Maslow’s theory on the requirement of basic needs for humans before any other kind of achievement can happen is based in scientific investigation; Chernyshevsky’s theories are based in opinion and personal beliefs. There are many problems with the arguments presented in Nikolay Chernyshevsky’s “The Anthropological Principle of Philosophy” but still the most obvious is his distortion of human nature in a way that portrays people as slaves to the environment and the egoist inside.