Authors
- Ustinov Vadim Yurevich
Annotation
The article is devoted to the problem of adaptation and application of T. Kuhn’s paradigmatic methodology to the study of philosophical doctrines about man. The author
substantiates and reveals the concept of «philosophical-anthropological paradigm» as a set of theoretical, methodological and other principles and attitudes adopted by philosophers of a particular intellectual orientation as a general standard for setting and solving human problems. The article develops a historical and philosophical concept of the existence of two basic paradigms in Russian philosophy — religious-philosophical and philosophicalscientific. The leading methods in the study were the methods of T. Kuhn’s paradigmatic approach (the «disciplinary matrix» method, the paradigmatic-genetic method, the paradigmatic-historical method, the paradigmatic-perestroika method) adapted to the analysis of historical and philosophical phenomena. The analysis of the structure of each paradigm is based on the identification and study of the components and determining its development of the main elements, which include the problem of the anthropological ideal, the problem of the relationship of spirit, soul and body or social and biological in the essence of man, the problem of the relationship of freedom and necessity, external freedom and internal freedom, the problem of the meaning of life, the problem of the relationship of personality and society. The paper presents the results of the author’s historical and philosophical
reconstruction of the structure, content and specifics of the evolution of religious-philosophical and philosophical-scientific paradigms in Russian philosophy of the Soviet period. The main forms and nature of the interaction of adherents of the two paradigms are also analyzed, from mutual denial to the appearance of proposals on the need for dialogue between them with positive retention in both cases of concepts that are important for the comprehensive knowledge of the human phenomenon. Hypothesizes that the verified identification and substantiation of the basic paradigms of Russian philosophical anthropology makes it possible to find a theoretical and methodological key to a deeper understanding and study of the «anthropological code» in the Russian intellectual tradition.
How to link insert
Ustinov, V. Y. (2022). PARADIGMATIC APPROACH TO THE ANALYSIS OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL CONCEPTS IN RUSSIAN PHILOSOPHY OF THE SOVIET PERIOD Bulletin of the Moscow City Pedagogical University. Series "Pedagogy and Psychology", 2022, №2 (42), 6. https://doi.org/10.25688/2078-9238.2022.42.2.01
References
1.
1. Arshinov, V. I. (2021). E`volyuciya antropocentrizma v perspektive slozhnostnogo podxoda [The evolution of anthropocentrism in the perspective of a complex approach]. Questions of philosophy, 10, 44–48. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.21146/0042-8744-2021-10-44-48
2.
2. Babintsev, V. P., & Krivenko, O. A. (2011). Ponyatie religiozno-filosofskoj i filosofsko-nauchnoj antropologicheskix paradigm v russkoj filosofii [The concept of religiousphilosophical and philosophical-scientific anthropological paradigms in Russian philosophy]. Scientific Bulletin of Belgorod State University. Series: Philosophy. Sociology, 8 (103), 16, 30–43. (In Russian). Retrieved from https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/ponyatie-religioznofilosofskoy-i-filosofsko-nauchnoy-antropologicheskih-paradigm-v-russkoy-filosofii
3.
3. Birich, I. A. (2003). Filosofskaya antropologiya i obrazovanie: (na putyax k novomu pedagogicheskomu soznaniyu) [Philosophical anthropology and education: (on the way to a new pedagogical consciousness]. Moscow: Life and Thought. 272 p. (In Russian). https://search.rsl.ru/ru/record/01002354262
4.
4. Budanov, V. G. (2021). K voprosu o genezise Bol`shogo antropologicheskogo perexoda [On the genesis of the Great Anthropological Transition]. Questions of philosophy, 10, 40–43. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.21146/0042-8744-2021-10-40-43
5.
5. Ermolaeva, O. A. (2008). Osnovny`e principy`, metody` i urovni sovremennogo paradigmal`nogo podxoda [Basic principles, methods and levels of the modern paradigm approach]. Bulletin of the Nizhny Novgorod University named after N. I. Lobachevsky. Series: Social Sciences, 1 (9), 163–168. (In Russian). https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=12499729
6.
6. Korsakov, S. N. (2015) Mify` i istiny` v russkoj filosofii [Myths and truths in Russian philosophy]. Questions of philosophy, 5, 69–85. (In Russian). https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=23447380
7.
7. Kotlyarova, V. V. (2014). Paradigmal`ny`j podxod v zarubezhnoj filosofii: pro et contra [Paradigmatic approach in foreign philosophy: pro et contra]. Almanac of modern Science and education, 10 (8), 90–94. (In Russian). https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=21961156
8.
8. Maslanov, E. V. (2020). Revolyucionnaya konservativnost` normal`noj nauki [Revolutionary conservatism of normal science]. Questions of philosophy, 12, 157–160. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.21146/0042-8744-2020-12-157-160
9.
9. Nikiforov, A. L. (2020). T. Kun ob interpretacii i ponimanii [T. Kuhn on interpretation and understanding]. Questions of philosophy, 12, 161–164. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.21146/0042-8744-2020-12-161-164
10.
10. Prosvetov, S. Yu. (2013). Struktura istoriko-filosofskoj paradigmy` [The structure of the historical and philosophical paradigm]. Bulletin of Kemerovo State University. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Research, 2 (54), 1, 234–238. (In Russian). https://www.onacademic.com/detail/journal_1000037336574710_7701.html
11.
11. Somkin, A. A., & Somkina, N. A. (2014). Paradigmal`ny`j podxod v sovremennoj filosofii [Paradigmatic approach in modern philosophy]. Science and culture of Russia, 1, 115–117. (In Russian). https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=22476550
12.
12. Suvorov, G. V. (2021). Metodologicheskie problemy` formirovaniya paradigm gumanitarnogo znaniya [Methodological problems of formation of paradigms of humanitarian knowledge]. Kirov: Vyatka State University. 195 p. (In Russian). https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=44848133
13.
13. Ustinov, O. A. (2019). Stanovlenie filosofskoj antropologii v SSSR: istorikofilosofskij analiz [The formation of philosophical anthropology in the USSR: historical and philosophical analysis]. Bulletin of Perm University. Philosophy. Psychology. Sociology, 4, 492–503. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17072/2078-7898/2019-4-492-503
14.
14. Anand, G., Larson, E. C. & Mahoney, J. T. (2020). Thomas Kuhn on Paradigms. Production and Operations Management, 29 (7), 1650–1657. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.13188
15.
15. Fish, W. (2021). Perceptual Paradigms. In Purpose and Procedure in Philosophy of Perception (p. 23–42). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/978019885 3534.003.0002
16.
16. Grim, P., Kavner, J., Shatkin, L., & Trivedi, M. (2021). Philosophy of science, network theory and conceptual change: Paradigm shifts as information cascades. In Complex Systems in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: Theory, Method and Application (p. 301–325). East Lansing: University of Michigan Press. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2
17.
17. Jabko, N., & Schmidt, S. (2021). Paradigms and Practice. International Studies Quarterly, 65 (3), 565–572. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqab028
18.
18. Klang, P. (2019) Kuhns paradigmbegrepp och sprakvetenskapen. Sprak och Stil, 29, 233–260. https://doi.org/10.33063/DIVA-399065
19.
19. Laszlo, E. (2021) Introduction to systems philosophy: Toward a new paradigm of contemporary thought. London: Routledge Revivals. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003205586
20.
20. Pirozelli, P. (2021) The grounds of knowledge: a comparison between kuhn’s paradigms and foucault’s epistemes. Kriterion (Brazil), 62 (148), 277–304. https://doi.org/10.1590/010 0-512X2021N14813PP
21.
21. Schwartz, S. A. (2018). Kuhn, Consciousness, and Paradigms. Explore, 14 (4), 254–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2018.04.004
22.
22. Sciortino, L. (2021). The emergence of objectivity: Fleck, Foucault, Kuhn and Hacking. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 88, 128–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2021. 06.005
23.
23. Sönning, L., & Werner, V. (2021). The replication crisis, scientific revolutions, and linguistics. Linguistics, 59 (5), 1179–1206. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2019-0045
24.
24. Thomas, R. (2020). Keynes, Kuhn and the sociology of knowledge: A comment on Pernecky and Wojick. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 44 (6), 1415–1424. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/beaa016
25.
25. Trubody, B. (2019). The Structure of Scientific Fraud: The Relationship Between Paradigms and Misconduct. Synthese Library, 413, 67–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23769-1_5
26.
26. Yang, G. (2021). The Paradigm Shift of Political Science from Being «Changeoriented » to «Governance-oriented»: A Perspective on History of Political Science. Chinese Political Science Review, 6 (4), 506–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41111-021-00188-z