3 Answers

  1. I read the book “Energy Evolutionism” by Mikhail Weller (https://iknigi.net/avtor-mihail-veller/60180-energoevolyucionizm-mihail-veller/read/page-1.html). It is small, only 26 pages, although the author says that he went to this book for ten years. The point, of course, is not in the volume. Einstein laid out the theory of relativity in 14 pages, but it revolutionized science and philosophy. But such “philosophical works” as Weller's” Energy Evolutionism”, I would like to ask, who and why are they needed? Unless only to its author for some reason that has nothing to do with philosophy.

    I found it very difficult to read. Not because of the complexity of the theory, but because of the lack of theory and the completely unintelligible and disorderly presentation of some material on the history of philosophy, which can be found in the library or on the Internet without Weller.

    There is its central statement: “Energoevolutionism, having social psychology and sociology as its main field of consideration and interest, focuses on the ontological unity of psychological and social laws with the laws of physics of the Universe and traces the determining essence of their connection; but, secondly, what is fundamental and most important, in no case considers human activity on Earth aimed solely at improving the conditions of its own existence, closed in its own needs and desires, but objectively understands the existence of humanity as a necessary link in the evolution of the Universe, playing an active and irrevocable role in it during the transition to further and important stages.”

    This scientific definition is practically all that is said, in fact, about energy evolutionism. A theory is a system of views. But there is no actual presentation of the theory. There is no need to talk about any consistency at all. This text does not meet any criteria for being considered a theory. In addition to the fact that social and psychological laws form an ontological unity with the laws of physics of the Universe, nothing more is said here in principle, everything else is some fragments pulled from popular science literature, and also poorly stated.

    But the idea that man and humanity exist and develop as part of the cosmos, and naturally, as part and whole are united by common laws of development, is not Weller's original idea. But by making this promising statement, he did not show the essence of this ontological unity, did not reveal the structure of the process, how the energy of the cosmos formed life on the surface of the Earth, how it affected human development.

    So there is no need to talk about Weller's theory of energy evolutionism, it simply does not exist.

    I sometimes listened to Weller, when he often appeared on political talk shows, and I perceived his speeches as empty moralizing lectures, chaotic both in form and content. Seeing his volumes on the shelf in bookstores, I thought that maybe he writes interesting things. But after reading it, I was surprised that the author, who writes so much, is so logically illiterate. He does not have an accurate knowledge of concepts and often combines them into meaningless or contradictory combinations. He writes in long, complex sentences with several subordinate clauses. Sometimes you have to read it two or three times to understand it.

    After reading the book, I got the impression that you were promised a theory, but sold a bad fake.

  2. Sergey, you addressed me a question from 2016) — I read his reasoning on this topic many years ago. Most of all, I liked the very energy of his presentation. He is passionate, and builds logical chains.

    Why not?.. This is one of the attempts to answer the unsolvable existential contradictions, at least one of them: between people's need for meaning and the lack of objective meaning.

    Religions give their own answers.

    Isthmat gave his own.

    Weller is also one of his own.

    Everything is quite energetic and logical. If there is a request, then there are also possible responses.

    Weller, I think, is as good at this as the evangelists and Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

    As for myself, no, I don't think there is any universal purpose for humanity to create the next Big Bang. — Although the idea is no less attractive than the Revelation of St. John the Theologian. Seriously.

  3. In the most general terms, this theory considers objective reality as the evolution of the Big Bang energy. This energy evolves to form clumps of matter. The role of man in this theory is an energy converter. At the end of the Story, man will transform all the matter in the universe into pure energy and destroy it. The released energy will evolve and a new universe will appear.
    I think it's quite a logical theory, and Weller is a great guy. If you read his books, not only scientific, but also artistic, then there is a lot of interesting things written about our everyday reality.

Leave a Reply