If I were not reluctant to repeat Marx, I would call this contribution The Poverty of Philosophy, but not from the same reasons as Marx did. Philosophy is not responsible for its poverty. It is developed in old idea schemes and I think that it is doing well. It resembles a mill, which works well but it has nothing to grind and only works in vain. This is because philosophy as well as sociology and other social sciences did not notice that the world has changed. Fatal laws that exist beyond out possibilities to change or avoid them, tells us that today everything is different. This is caused by the fact that people became an extinct species as well as the whole living reality of the planet. This is a state, which has never occurred before; we have always relied on spontaneous creation of other generations and renewability of the nature. Old ideological theories count on the fact that human generations renew spontaneously as well as the nature, therefore they do not apply completely or they are insufficient.
Ontology describes being. But what if being is harmed by itself? Where is the ontology of conservation? Systems are able to eat one another. But every time one is destroyed, another one is created. But what if the man is destroyed and nothingness is created? Culture vanishes and culture of lowness and low instincts directed towards nothingness appears. Does the philosophy have the means to create a new concept, a new category, a new philosophical thinking? Can it somehow philosophically define what is already emerging in sociology and politics to be able to give it a philosophical frame?
Therefore I claim that what started with Kant and his saying that the man is the purpose himself, lost its validity. Not that people would not have the freedom to follow this appeal, but if they want to survive, they have to accept the idea that man is not the purpose himself, but only the tool to conserve and improve the world, a tool for conservation of essential living realities. If the purpose is to become a tool, it is a return to thinking of the periods before Kant – enlightened humanism. At that time people were the tools of God’s will. God’s will was interpreted by dogmas and decisions of the priests. Today we have to obey reason; there is nothing to substitute it. There is no superior force that would tell people as tools – you must do this! Therefore human reason must become reasonable. By free will people have to decide to become the tools of their conservation, not the tools of their own temporary interests. This influences upbringing of children and the whole ideological culture. Creating the social order has to have the character of a man as a tool. Humanism – everything for the people – has to become timeless humanism – everything for the conservation of people and the nature.
A space filled with the image of people – purpose – does not want to listen; it is not ready to hear an appeal to become a tool. It means denying the current idea system of human rights, material abundance and freedom. It is not convenient to hear about it. On the outside, we are the witnesses of consumption hedonistic or material life as the highest level of “service for people”, the image of people as “the purposes themselves”. It is the last phase of this era of a “disjuncted person”. The man as the purpose himself, if it really is supposed to be the purpose, has to be alone and in disjunction. First from the nature, from the natural principles, from their vital traits and from everything that is natural. Later, when people stop needing one another, disjunction from other people occurs. Individualistic society of people in disjunction is being created. On the top of this there is today’s popular “single” lifestyle. This phenomenon prevents creating families and the mankind is endangered.