Book
Трансдисциплинарность в философии и науке: подходы, проблемы, перспективы
Some peculiarities of the phenomenon of transdisciplinarity in the modern science, its differences from interdisciplinarity and multidisciplinarity, are under consideration in the article. The methodological principles of transdisciplinary studies and new possibilities of synthesis of scientific knowledge based on these principles are studied. The theory of complexity, futures studies, cognitive science, and the eco-evo-devo-perspective connected with cognitive biology are regarded as the most significant fields of the modern transdisciplinary researches. It is shown that transdisciplinary researches will, by all appearances, define the character of science in the medium-term future.
Some key characteristics of ecological evolutionism, the fundamental integration of ideas of evolution and ecology are under consideration in the article. The heuristic and integrative abilities of the evolutionary thinking and of the ecological thinking based initially on the theory of biological evolution, which is nowadays supplemented with genetics, are demonstrated. It is supposed that evolutionary thinking goes out of evolution of living systems and rests upon more universal notions, namely upon the understanding of laws of evolution and co-evolution of complex nonlinear systems, nonlinear dynamics, synergetics, network science, global (or universal) evolutionism, the so called Big History. At the same time, ecology being a science of interaction of living organisms and their communities with environment goes beyond its primary frames of biological knowledge. The ecological approach turns to be perspective in social and humanitarian researches. One often speaks nowadays of ecology of action, ecology of life, of cognition and of creativity, ecology of thought and of words, ecology of ideas, ecology of communication and ecology of management.
Some peculiarities of the phenomenon of transdisciplinarity in the modern science, its differences from interdisciplinarity and multidisciplinarity, are under consideration in the article. The methodological principles of transdisciplinary studies and new possibilities of synthesis of scientific knowledge based on these principles are studied. The theory of complexity, futures studies, cognitive science, and the eco-evo-devo-perspective connected with cognitive biology are regarded as the most significant fields of the modern transdisciplinary researches. It is shown that transdisciplinary researches will, by all appearances, define the character of science in the medium-term future.
The round table rises important questions - the questions concerning developments of the conceptual apparatus which would provide constructive movement within the limits of a complexity paradigm. These problems concern the status of the such paradigm, how it is accepted or not accepted in natural-science and philosophical traditions, what influence it renders to express its specificity on description languages. Different aspects and ways of understanding of complexity are considered in a context of the conceptual strategy which is offered by the French philosopher Gilles Deleuze. During the discussion an attempt of rethinking the relation of methodology and ontology, parts and whole, a text and a context etc. is undertaken. Also the problem that draws attention of the participants of a round table is the conceptualization of the opposition “simple-complex”. Within the limits of the discussion on the dichotomy “simple-complex” possible approaches to complex thinking are considered to construct the concept “complex vision of the world”. In this aspect the construction ontology of nonclassical type, the ontology, which is based not on static vision of the world, not on identity, but on dynamics, on becoming, is discussed. The accent is done on dynamics and on removal of classical dichotomies, for example on removal of dichotomy “methodology-ontology”. This suggests a new postnonclassical ontology and special type of methodology. The special attention is given to the problem of observer, considering that the conceptual character “observer of complexity” is found almost in all later works of Deleuze. Thus the emphasis is made on a role of recursion and communications during such observation. In this context complexity is seen as a recursive process between integrity and partiality which basic premise is the idea of distinction. The observer of complexity is the observer creating distinctions, staying in the nonequilibrium, uncertain situation which is open for the future having in the past the set of causes and effects for retrospective explanations which however cannot serve as a support for the determined forecasts of the future events. Position, according to which it is necessary to refuse the position of the external observer, considering this or that state of affairs from outside, is put forward. Moreover, we have in mind postnonclassical complexity, but not difficult complex problems that we have to solve. And this fact can be grasped from a number of practices related primarily to innovation activities. Also the special attention is given to postnonclassical control strategy of complex systems which can be considered in terminology of Deleuze as movements from “virtual object” to “the virtual subject”. The considerable attention in performances is given to the status of truth in a paradigm of complexity (in perspective of philosophical strategy of Deleuze). At last, the considered theme is developed in a context of congruence of philosophies of Deleuze with philosophical and research strategy of Edgar Moraine (the author of the term “paradigm of complexity”) and also with the theory of autopoiesis offered by Francisco Varela and Humberto Maturana.
Some aspects of the phenomenon of complexity which are congruent to the conceptual constructions of Gilles Deleuze are considered in the presentation of Helena Knyazeva. Six such methodologically important aspects of the phenomenon of complexity are singled out by her. The round table rises important questions – the questions concerning developments of the conceptual apparatus which would provide constructive movement within the limits of a complexity paradigm. These problems concern the status of the such paradigm, how it is accepted or not accepted in natural-science and philosophical traditions, what influence it renders to express its specificity on description languages. Different aspects and ways of understanding of complexity are considered in a context of the conceptual strategy which is offered by the French philosopher Gilles Deleuze. During the discussion an attempt of rethinking the relation of methodology and ontology, parts and whole, a text and a context etc. is undertaken. Also the problem that draws attention of the participants of a round table is the conceptualization of the opposition “simple–complex”. Within the limits of the discussion on the dichotomy “simple–complex” possible approaches to complex thinking are considered to construct the concept “complex vision of the world”. In this aspect the construction ontology of nonclassical type, the ontology, which is based not on static vision of the world, not on identity, but on dynamics, on becoming, is discussed. The accent is done on dynamics and on removal of classical dichotomies, for example on removal of dichotomy “methodologyontology”. This suggests a new postnonclassical ontology and special type of methodology. The special attention is given to the problem of observer, considering that the conceptual character “observer of complexity” is found almost in all later works of Deleuze. Thus the emphasis is made on a role of recursion and communications during such observation. In this context, complexity is seen as a recursive process between integrity and partiality which basic premise is the idea of distinction. The observer of complexity is the observer creating distinctions, staying in the nonequilibrium, uncertain situation which is open for the future having in the past the set of causes and effects for retrospective explanations which however cannot serve as a support for the determined forecasts of the future events. Position, according to which it is necessary to refuse the position of the external observer, considering this or that state of affairs from outside, is put forward. Moreover, we have in mind postnonclassical complexity, but not difficult complex problems that we have to solve. And this fact can be grasped from a number of practices related primarily to innovation activities. Also the special attention is given to postnonclassical control strategy of complex systems which can be considered in terminology of Deleuze as movements from “virtual object” to “the virtual subject”. The considerable attention in performances is given to the status of truth in a paradigm of complexity (In perspective of philosophical strategy of Deleuze). At last, the considered theme is developed in a context of congruence of philosophies of Deleuze with philosophical and research strategy of Edgar Morin (the author of the term “paradigm of complexity”) and also with the theory of autopoiesis offered by Francisco Varela and Humberto Maturana.
Science develops today, when generating more and more complex transdisciplinary structuresof knowledge. Just on the transdisciplinary fields of knowledge, a constructive dialogue between specialists of different disciplines is carried out, new knowledge arises, breakthroughs in the understanding of the world occur. Some peculiarities of transdisciplinarity, its differences from interdisciplinarity and multidisciplinarity, are under consideration in the article. The theory of complexity (synergetics), futures studies and cognitive science are regarded as intensively developing fields of modern transdisciplinary researches. It is shown that transdisciplinary research will, by all appearances, define the characterof science in the medium-term future.
In this article, I propose to consider semiotics as one of the fundamental transdisciplinary methodologies of social sciences and to explore how it functions in this role in the political discourse analysis and in the political research in general. The aim of this article is to outline the structure of the semiotic toolkit in political studies, to explore its points of growth and to locate the gaps that exist in it today.
The article considers the Views of L. N. Tolstoy not only as a representative, but also as a accomplisher of the Enlightenment. A comparison of his philosophy with the ideas of Spinoza and Diderot made it possible to clarify some aspects of the transition to the unique Tolstoy’s religious and philosophical doctrine. The comparison of General and specific features of the three philosophers was subjected to a special analysis. Special attention is paid to the way of thinking, the relation to science and the specifics of the worldview by Tolstoy and Diderot. An important aspect is researched the contradiction between the way of thinking and the way of life of the three philosophers.
Tolstoy's transition from rational perception of life to its religious and existential bases is shown. Tolstoy gradually moves away from the idea of a natural man to the idea of a man, who living the commandments of Christ. Starting from the educational worldview, Tolstoy ended by creation of religious and philosophical doctrine, which were relevant for the 20th century.
This important new book offers the first full-length interpretation of the thought of Martin Heidegger with respect to irony. In a radical reading of Heidegger's major works (from Being and Time through the ‘Rector's Address' and the ‘Letter on Humanism' to ‘The Origin of the Work of Art' and the Spiegel interview), Andrew Haas does not claim that Heidegger is simply being ironic. Rather he argues that Heidegger's writings make such an interpretation possible - perhaps even necessary.
Heidegger begins Being and Time with a quote from Plato, a thinker famous for his insistence upon Socratic irony. The Irony of Heidegger takes seriously the apparently curious decision to introduce the threat of irony even as philosophy begins in earnest to raise the question of the meaning of being. Through a detailed and thorough reading of Heidegger's major texts and the fundamental questions they raise, Haas reveals that one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century can be read with as much irony as earnestness. The Irony of Heidegger attempts to show that the essence of this irony lies in uncertainty, and that the entire project of onto-heno-chrono-phenomenology, therefore needs to be called into question.
The article is concerned with the notions of technology in essays of Ernst and Friedrich Georg Jünger. The special problem of the connection between technology and freedom is discussed in the broader context of the criticism of culture and technocracy discussion in the German intellectual history of the first half of the 20th century.