Образ человека будущего, Том 7
Шрифт:
Key Words: Homo economicus, education, cultural ideal, future human image, Asgardia
Introduction
We will consider one of the possible prospects for the development of modern education in this study. Moreover, the authors understand that the "perspective on the development of modern education" is a whole problem field of the philosophy of education, which was researched in many scientific studies. For example, this problem field was researched by some scientists such as Oleg Bazaluk [Bazaluk, 2015], Galina Beregova [Beregova, 2016], Lidiia Fedorova [Fedorova, 2016], Denys Svyrydenko [Svyrydenko, 2016], Valentina Voronkova [Voronkova, 2016], etc.
The concept of education is understood by the authors in the Attic interpretation. In this issue, the authors are based on the definition of education, which was formulated by Werner Jaeger who is a recognized authority in this field of study. In his book "Paideia: The Ideals
Oleksenko, Roman, 2017
Fedorova, Lidiia, 2017
Future Human Image. Volume 7, 2017 113
Homo Economicus as the Basis of "Asgardia" Nation State in Space: Perspective of Educational Technologies by Roman Oleksenko and Lidiia Fedorova
of Greek Culture" Jaeger writes, "They were the first to recognize that education means deliberately moulding human character in accordance with an ideal" [Jaeger, 1946: xxii].
Thus, when we consider a perspective on the development of modern education as a scientific problem, we must solve at least two problems:
1. To define an ideal, with which the deliberately molding human character will be carried
out.
2. To prove the expediency of achievement of a cultural ideal, which was formed by us for civilization.
Homo economicus in the classical interpretation
In our previous studies, we paid much attention to the problem of the features of human existence in the sociocultural space in the Age of Globalization and the Information Revolution. For example, in the book "The Philosophy of Market Relations" we examined the diversity of interpretations, which are embedded in the concept of Homo economicus, as well as the importance of these interpretations in the Age of Globalization and the Information Revolution [Oleksenko, 2013; Oleksenko, 2013a]. Based on the results of the research of John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith, William Stanley Jevons, Vilfredo Pareto and other economists, we examined the classical interpretation of the Homo economicus concept.
For example, in the 19th century John Stuart Mill wrote about Homo economicus: "It is concerned with him [man] solely as a being who desires to possess wealth, and who is capable of judging of the comparative efficacy of means for obtaining that end.... It makes entire abstraction of every other human passion or motive; except those which may be regarded as perpetually antagonizing principles to the desire of wealth, namely, aversion to labour, and desire of the present enjoyment of costly indulgences" [Mill, 1844: 321].
Historical Antecedents the birth of Homo economicus as we understand the concept nowadays can be found in the work of Carlos Rodriguez-Sickert [Rodriguez-Sickert, 2009].
Criticism of the concept of Homo economicus
From the outset, the term Homo economicus carried a pejorative connotation. Back in the 19th century, John Kells Ingram caricaturized Homo economicus by demoting him from the genus Homo and declared it a "money-making animal" [Ingram, 1888]. Among the critics of the concept of the Homo economicus we can call such economists as Thorstein Veblen, John Maynard Keynes, Herbert A. Simon, etc. and such economic anthropologists as Marshall Sahlins, Karl Polanyi, Marcel Mauss, Maurice Godelie, etc.
For example, let us consider the criticism of Homo economicus by Peter Weise (German economist). Weise not only distinguishes human images in sociology and economic theory, but he is very categorical in his conclusions. Considering the image of man who meets the requirements of social sciences, Weise comes to the conclusion that Homo economicus and Homo sociologicus are special cases of Homo socioeconomicus, which can exist only in the world of equilibrium, but not in the world of disequilibrium. According to Weise, the concepts of Homo economicus and Homo sociologicus exist only as theoretical abstractions and no more [Weise, 1989: 160].
Here is another example of criticism of the concept of Homo economicus. A Swiss economist Bruno Frey notes that economics tends to become a branch of applied mathematics; the majority
114 Future Human Image. Volume 7, 2017
Homo Economicus as the Basis of "Asgardia" Nation State in Space: Perspective of Educational Technologies by Roman Oleksenko and Lidiia Fedorova
of all publications in professional journals and books are full of axioms, lemmas and proofs, and they are much concerned with purely formal deductions. However, Frey defends another point of view and believes that economics is a social science. Therefore, economics as a social science has every right to offer its concept of man or a model of human behavior. This model is slightly relevant to the concept of Homo economicus as consistently rational and narrowly self-interested agents, because this interpretation of the concept of Homo economicus are excessively formalized and torn away from real human behavior. Therefore, in his interpretation of the concept of economic man, Frey considers man not as an object-agent of theory, but as a subject of research and as a key structural element of social relations [Frey, 1992].
The interpretation of Homo economicus was criticized a lot, and deservedly. We wrote about this in our studies (e.g. Oleksenko"s studies [Oleksenko, 2013]). A comment about the concept of Homo economicus is presented, for example, in the studies of Bruno Frey [Frey, 1992], Carlos Rodriguez-Sickert [Rodriguez-Sickert, 2009], etc.
Analyzing the constructive criticism of the interpretation of Homo economicus, we come to the conclusion that, in fact, the criticism of Homo economicus not only refutes and denies the use of the concept, but gives new interpretations to it and expands the scope of application.
This applies, above all, to the expansion of the interpretation of the concept of Homo economicus due to achievements in the field of cognitive psychology and neurophilosophy. In this case, Homo economicus moves from the formal mathematical term to the domain model, projected and managed by educational practices. It becomes possible to apply to Homo economicus the formative forces, which, according to Protagoras, are the act of shaping the soul [Jaeger, 1946].
New interpretation in the concept of Homo economicus