Abstract

The article is devoted to reflections on the future of the humanistic paradigm that underlies modern culture, and an analysis of the views of modern philosophers and historians on this scientific problem. Modern science and technology are evolving very rapidly. Society is trying to keep up with their development and modernize culture to meet new requirements. The foundation of modern culture is humanism as a system of views and values associated with the recognition of the central role of man, as well as with the belief in the need to coordinate strategies for solving any socio-cultural issues with the essence of human. At the same time, a person in the context of a humanistic worldview is certainly perceived as a bearer of the individual “I”, acts as the basis of personality. Science and technology are still developing within the framework of a humanistic system of values, and they also set ambitious goals based on such value. However, there are already very significant contradictions between the values of humanism and scientific achievements. Consequently, there is a need for a fundamental analysis of this situation. It seems that technology poses a significant threat to humanism, and this threat can be realized in several scenarios. On the one hand, modern science undermines “faith” in humanism when it claims that despite advances in the analysis of the functioning of the brain, it has failed to find the very center of personality, the individual “I” of a person, on the basis of which the humanistic paradigm is built. That is, science has failed to figure out how electrical impulses turn into consciousness. And if we assume that no “I” actually exists, that this is only a certain function of the brain to create a holistic picture of the world, then a person can be considered simply as one of the algorithms. Then it does not matter on what basis this algorithm works, that is, “live” and artificial algorithms in fact are not fundamentally different. Such considerations, of course, leave humanism no chance. Such reasoning, of course, leaves no chance for humanism. On the other hand, the “humanistic” goals of humanity can lead to its complete or partial transformation into a certain “super-humanity”. And attempts to define the “spiritual” values of such a future “new formation” look like a fundamentally insoluble task. So, from the point of view of determining the future states of humanism, modern philosophers have something to think about.