Authors
- Mamedova Natalia Mikhailovna Doctor of Philosophy, Professor
Annotation
The article analyzes the heuristic potential of various paradigms of modern ontological discourse. The versatility of discourse reflects the complexity and heterogeneity of the social in various modes of its being: existential, systemic, network. The philosophy of existentialism has created a methodology for studying the unique human existence, the most adequate language for its description, introduced a new ontological reality into the philosophical discourse — the existence of a person. Communicative ontology, in which communication not only reflects and transmits information, but also actively creates and constructs reality, emerged as an interdisciplinary research project in the fields of philosophy, sociology, political science, and communication theory. A radical turn in social ontology is associated with the restructuring of social theory based on systems (N. Luhmann) and networks (B. Latour), which reflected the convergence of natural science and socio-humanitarian
research programs characteristic of post-nonclassical studies. The article emphasizes that the problem of modern ontological reflection is the coordination of these paradigms. The problem lies in the unification and convergence of these approaches. On what basis is transparadigm synthesis possible in social ontology? The author believes that the complexity paradigm is a relevant basis for combining various social ontologies.
How to link insert
Mamedova, N. M. (2023). SOCIAL ONTOLOGY: A PARADIGM CHANGE Bulletin of the Moscow City Pedagogical University. Series "Pedagogy and Psychology", 2023, №4 (48), 6. https://doi.org/10.25688/2078-9238.2023.48.4.1
References
1.
1. Mamedova, N. M. (2019). Information society: transgression of sociality. Bulletin of Moscow State Pedagogical University, Series: Philosophical Sciences, 1 (29), 9–14. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.25688/2078-9238.2019.29.1.01
2.
2. Mamedova, N. M. (2021). Transgression as a way of being social. In: Personality in the conditions of global sociocultural transformations of the digital information society. A collection of articles based on the results of the International Scientific Conference, Moscow, December 02, 2020 (pp. 7–10). Moscow: Rusains. (In Russian).
3.
3. Barkovskaya, A. V. (2019). Paradigmatic status of ontology in the context of the “death of metaphysics”. In: Philosophy and social sciences in the modern world. Materials of the International scientific conference for the 30-th anniversary of the Faculty of Philosophy and Social Sciences of the Belarusian State University, Minsk, September 26–27, 2019 (pp. 144–150). Minsk: Belarusian State University. (In Russian).
4.
4. Rozin, V. M. (2020). How one can think about social science, social reality and ontology. Culture and Art, 1, 17–26. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.7256/2454-0625.2020.1.32042
5.
5. Latour, B. (2017). On actor-network theory. Some clarifications, supplemented by even greater complications. Logos, (1), 173–200. (In Russian).
6.
6. Pavlov, A. V. (2019). Posthumanism: overcoming and legacy of postmodernism. Questions of Philosophy, (5), 27–36. (In Russian).
7.
7. Pisarev, A. A. (2020). Networks, Planes, Matter: on the use of flat social ontologies. Bulletin of Tver State University, Philosophy, 1 (51), 144–157. (In Russian).
8.
8. Heidegger, M. (2003). Being and time. Kharkov: Folio. 503 p. (In Russian).
9.
9. Heidegger, M. (1992). Zollikoner seminars. Logos, (3), 84. (In Russian).
10.
10. Sartre, J.-P. (2015). Being and nothingness: Experience of phenomenological ontology. Moscow: AST. 199 p. (In Russian).
11.
11. Sartre, J.-P. (1990). Existentialism is humanism. Twilight of the Gods (pp. 319–344). Moscow: Politizdat. (In Russian).
12.
12. Arendt, H. (2000). Vita active, or about active life. St. Petersburg: Aletheia. 437 p. (In Russian).
13.
13. Foucault, M. (2004). Archeology of knowledge. St. Petersburg: Humanitarian Academy; University book. 416 p. (In Russian).
14.
14. Habermas, Yu. (2001). Moral consciousness and communicative action. St. Petersburg: Science. 392 p. (In Russian).
15.
15. Luhmann, N. (2007). Social systems. Essay on general theory. St. Petersburg: Nauka. 643 p. (In Russian).
16.
16. Arshinov, V. I., & Budanov, V. G. (2016). The paradigm of complexity and sociohumanitarian projections of convergent technologies. Questions of Philosophy, (1), 59–70. (In Russian).
17.
17. Astakhov, S. S. (2017). The problem of contingency in actor-network theory: specialty 09.00.01 “Ontology and theory of knowledge”. Dissertation of Candidate of Philosophical Sciences. Moscow. 176 p. (In Russian).
18.
18. Budanov, V. G., Arshinov, V. I., Lepsky, V. E., & Svirsky, Ya. I. (2018). Complexity and the problem of the unity of knowledge, vol. 1, iss. 1. Moscow: Russian Academy of Sciences. 105 p. (In Russian).