One of the key aspects of constructivism is the role of the observer and observation. I share this perspective, but beyond that I try to open up some problematic consequences of the core philosophical assumptions of globally observing existence. An additional conclusion could be drawn that in fact we can only speak reasonably about local observations, leaving out the issue of an external reality.
This article considers the problem of analysis of Ernst Mally’s theory. The problem mainly lies in the fact that this theory is usually considered in connection with other theories. For example, it can be considered as the development of Alexius Meinong’s theory of objects. Meinong was Mally’s teacher and his ideas have formed the basis of the contemporary study of nonexistent objects, the basis of the theories of Terens Parsons, Richard Routley etc. But he was often criticized for the fact that he claimed as they said that from his point of view all things exist in one form or another, that the golden mountain or round square exist just like the real mountains, but in some weak or low-grade way. Mally understood problems of Meinong’s theory and tried to suggest possible solutions to these problems. So that in fact we can say that he has created an alternative theory of objects.
Mally’s theory in turn has also influenced the development of Edward Zalta’s theory of abstract objects. In this regard, we can also consider Mally’s theory as a first version of Zalta’s theory. But at the same we want to understand the relations between the theories of Meinong and Mally, Mally and Zalta. Was Mally really so close to introduce a distinction of two types of predication - exemplification and encoding (which was introduced later Zalta), or not? To answer this question, we should consider the Mally’s theory itself.
The article considers the origins of the ethnomethodological studies of science. It is shown that neither A. Schutz’s approach, nor ethnography of science (also known as a «second wave of the sociology of science») can serve as an origin of the ethnomethodological studies of science, because former rules out the possibility of the empirical investigation of scientific rationality and later presupposes the distinction between scientists’ technical and social competences. Therefore, the origins of the ethnomethodological studies of science should be found within the ethnomethodology itself.
In the article author develops the analysis of genesis of B. Whorf’s views on language and reality. First part is dedicated to the historical analysis of Whorf’s views on mind and language. Genesis of his views is threefold: modern logic, cultural linguistics and mysticism. The latter becomes in a sense prevalent. Second part deals with analysis of arguments of the critics of principle of ‘linguistic rela-tivity’ and concludes in evaluation of the validity of the arguments for the proponents of the ‘principle’. The article accompanies first Russian translation of Whorf’s article ‘language, mind and reality’, important for critical evaluation of his background views and his theosophical mysticism in particular.
This text is a translation of an article of B.L. Whorf “Language, mind and reality” (first published in 1941). The text was originally written for the journal Theosophist (India) during the last year of Whorf’s life. The article contains a formulation of the principle of linguistic relativity that relates to the idea of that the world picture of a user of a language depends on the grammar of the language she is using. The article also contains a critique of the Western science from Whorf’s theosophist perspective. The paper was translated in Russian by Andrey A. Veretennikov.