To the question of interpretation of F. Bacon's empiricism and I. Kant's transcendentalism in V.A. Kutyrev's anthropoconservatism

The paper examines the concept of anthropoconservatism developed by V.A. Kutyrev. For this purpose, a critical analysis of V.A. Kutyrev's interpretation of F. Bacon's empiricism and I. Kant's transcendentalism is carried out. In his opinion, these philosophers play the role of key figures whose ideas played a crucial role in the turn of European humanity towards a technogenic civilization. At the same time, it was Bacon who filled scientific knowledge with a certain utilitarian content, acting as the forerunner of the technogenic era. We concretize Bacon's civilizational project of building paradise on Earth by means of science. It is also pointed out that V.A. Kutyrev underestimated Descartes' rationalism, the development of whose ideas ultimately led to the emergence of Artificial Intelligence, which plays the role of a man-made God in Bacon's man-made paradise. Further, the interpretation of I. Kant's transcendentalism is considered within the framework of Kutyrev's anthropoconservatism, first of all, Kant's Copernican turn and his doctrine of the "thing in itself", which ultimately lead European humanity to virtual reality technologies and initiate the exploration of outer space, the rationale for the feasibility of which is subsequently carried out within the framework of Russian cosmism by N.F. Fedorov and K.E. Tsiolkovsky, whom V.A. Kutyrev calls the first theoretical traitors to the Earth and "Luciferians". Disagreement is expressed with such an interpretation of Kant's work, in which we agree with B. Russell, who claimed that Kant carried out a "Ptolemaic counterrevolution" by placing the knowing subject at the center of his epistemology, while Copernicus removed man from the center of the Universe, placing the Sun there. By limiting the possibilities of the human mind, Kant casts doubt on the possibility of implementing Bacon's civilizational project, acting as an anthropoconservative. The movement towards virtual reality technologies occurred not thanks to, but in spite of Kant, as a result of his followers' attempts to refute the doctrine of the "thing in itself". Here we agree with A. Kozhev. It was Hegel, not Kant, who built a consistent philosophy of death. In the final part of the work, an exit to general ontological problems is made, which leads to the substantiation of the cardinal truth "We will all die!" However, as a free being, a person can choose the strategy of anthropoconservatism, striving to prolong his existence as much as possible, or the opposite Nietzschean strategy, when the highest value is given not to existence, but to development.