English (United Kingdom)  Russian (CIS)

«Вопросы философии и психологии» – научный гуманитарный журнал.

E-ISSN 2414-0856

Периодичность – 1 раз в год.

Издается с 2014 года.

1 June 30, 2020


1. Fedor I. Girenok
On the Identity and Difference between Dream and Reality in Oneiric Philosophy

Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii, 2020, 7(1): 3-8.
DOI: 10.13187/vfp.2020.1.3CrossRef

The article shows how oneiric philosophy understands the identity and difference between dream and reality. The research material is the works of Nietzsche, Calderon, Schopenhauer and Pascal. The author uses the method of correlation of logical and historical in the study of the problem of reality. In oneiric philosophy the identity of dream and reality is the basis of the idea of human insanity. The difference between dream and reality is for it the basis of the idea of rationality. The article notes that Nietzsche saw in human the sleepwalker of the day. The author explains the connection between this statement of Nietzsche and his theory of values. What is value, according to Nietzsche? These are primarily collective hallucinations. They are based on the identification of dream and reality. In turn, Calderon shows that sleep is not a physiological process, but what people used to call morality. That is, morality, according to Calderon, is a kind of dream in which a person resides. Whereas in Schopenhauer's philosophy the world appears as a world of ghosts. Ghosts expand the world of the real. The article analyzes Pascal's concept of the identity of dream and reality and concludes that in this world of identity there is no difference between the highest and the lowest, between the king and the artisan. The author concludes that in oneiric philosophy society is understood as a way of dreaming that has become a reality for a person.

URL: http://ejournal20.com/journals_n/1593533086.pdf
Number of views: 193      Download in PDF

2. Sergey A. Lebedev, Oleg A. Chistyakov
Four-Level Model of the Scientific Knowledge Structure

Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii, 2020, 7(1): 9-17.
DOI: 10.13187/vfp.2020.1.9CrossRef

The article develops the new, four-level model of the structure of scientific knowledge of particular science. Scientific knowledge is understood as knowledge that meets the following requirements: certainty, evidence, consistency, verifiability, utility, reflexivity, methodology, openness to criticism, ability to change and improve. The totality of these requirements constitutes the concept of scientific rationality and is the criterion of demarcation that distinguishes scientific knowledge from all other types of human knowledge (everyday, artistic, philosophical, religious, mythological, intuitive, etc.). Scientific knowledge is the complex system that has a level structure of its organization in each specific science. The problem of levels of scientific knowledge is one of the main themes of the philosophy of science. Its solution involves reasonable answers to three main questions: 1) how many levels of scientific knowledge make up its complete structure, 2) what is the nature, content, functions and qualitative specificity of each of these levels, 3) what is the form of the relationship between different levels of scientific knowledge and the method of transition from one level of scientific knowledge to another. The classical philosophy of science assumed that the structure of scientific knowledge of each particular science consists of only two levels: sensory and rational, or empirical and theoretical knowledge. We consider the two-level concept of scientific knowledge incomplete and does not correspond to the real structure of scientific knowledge of any particular science. It is a clear simplification of the real structure based on the illegal identification and "gluing" of qualitatively different types of scientific knowledge in their nature and functions: for example, sensory and empirical, or empirical and theoretical, or theoretical and metatheoretical. In each of these cases of such identification, there is a manifestation of reductionist methodology, the basis of which is an underestimation of the real qualitative specificity of the compared items. In our proposed model of the structure of scientific knowledge, it is proposed to distinguish not two, but four qualitatively different levels of knowledge: sensory, empirical, theoretical and metatheoretical. In turn, the knowledge of each of these levels is also vertically structured, but this is already structuring within the qualitative identity of the content of knowledge of each level. The article shows that all four levels of scientific knowledge differ qualitatively in their nature, content and functions, and therefore there is no relation between them of logical deducibility of knowledge of one level from knowledge of another level. The type of relationship that exists between different levels of scientific knowledge is not formally logical, but constructively genetic. The transition from one level of scientific knowledge to another is possible only with the help of such a form of knowledge as the interpretation of knowledge of one level in terms of another level. The basis of this procedure is the subject of scientific knowledge making a cognitive decision about the possible identity of the content of different levels of knowledge. Despite the relative independence of various levels of scientific knowledge, all of them, thanks to the interpretation procedure, are interconnected within the framework of an integral system of scientific knowledge of each of the specific sciences. As a result, any particular science and scientific discipline functions, develops and interacts with other sciences, as well as with various segments of culture and practice as a whole.

URL: http://ejournal20.com/journals_n/1593532323.pdf
Number of views: 198      Download in PDF

3. Sergey A. Lebedev, Dmitry K. Alekseev
Philosophical Foundations of Science and Their Types

Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii, 2020, 7(1): 18-25.
DOI: 10.13187/vfp.2020.1.18CrossRef

The actual problem of the modern philosophy of science is to determine the content, structure and methodological status of the philosophical foundations of science. First of all, it is necessary to answer the question of whether the philosophical foundations of science are purely philosophical statements or heterogeneous, consisting of both philosophical and concrete scientific concepts. The second problem is: what are the functions of the philosophical foundations of science performed by them in scientific knowledge and culture. The third question is: what kinds of philosophical foundations of science exist in real science? In response to the first question, we proceed from the fact that the philosophical foundations of science are not purely philosophical statements, but a special layer of knowledge bordering between philosophy and science, which can equally be attributed to both philosophy and science. The philosophical foundations of science are the interpretation of more general categories and principles of philosophy in relation to a particular field of science. What are the main functions of the philosophical foundations of science in scientific knowledge? In our opinion, there are four of them: 1) deductive or constructive justification from the standpoint of philosophy as the most general type of rational knowledge of all the structural elements of meta-theoretic scientific knowledge (fundamental scientific theories, general scientific and private scientific pictures of the world, methods of scientific knowledge, ideals and norms of scientific research); 2) inductive justification of philosophical concepts by scientific data; 3) ensuring the integrity of culture, in which philosophy and science are its most important subsystems; 4) reflection and critical analysis of existing and possible philosophical foundations of science. There are the six kinds of philosophical foundations of science: ontological, epistemological, social, practice, axiological, anthropological. This article will focus on reconstructing the content of the last three stages of the science development: classical, non-classical and post-non-classical science.

URL: http://ejournal20.com/journals_n/1593532380.pdf
Number of views: 209      Download in PDF

4. Natalya N. Rostova
The Question of Human in Modern Philosophy

Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii, 2020, 7(1): 26-33.
DOI: 10.13187/vfp.2020.1.26CrossRef

The article analyzes the fate of the question «What is human?» in modern philosophy. The author identifies two basic strategies: posthumanism and postcosmism. The first strategy is dominant for western european philosophy, the second – for russian philosophy. Using the method of comparative analysis, the author characterizes both approaches. Posthumanist strategy is based on the idea of the end of the exclusivity of human existence. The author considers the concept of human death to be the historical source of this idea. This idea is implemented by removing the basic oppositions, namely: «nature and culture», «human and technology», «human and animal», «human and objects». The essence of posthumanistic strategy consists in reducing a human to the world that exists, including him in the determinative whole. The posthumanist tradition is being embodied today in the projects of a new ontology, a new phenomenology, a new anthropology, and a new ecology. In modern russian philosophy, as well as in russian philosophy in general, the question of human determines the question of being. The concept of an anthropological catastrophe appears in russian philosophy and new anthropological projects are formulated that respond to its challenges. Poskosmism of modern russian philosophy consists in overcoming the logic of cosmism and establishing a connection with russian religious philosophy, discovering the essence of human not in nature and the body, but in his metaphysical expansion, transcending himself.

URL: http://ejournal20.com/journals_n/1593532439.pdf
Number of views: 211      Download in PDF

5. Elena A. Volodarskaya, Artem F. Gasimov
Directions for the Study of Responsiveness as a Personal Determinant of Effective Group Management

Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii, 2020, 7(1): 34-41.
DOI: 10.13187/vfp.2020.1.34CrossRef

The article is devoted to the study of modern ideas about the phenomenon of responsiveness of a leader in a group, established in psychology and other areas of knowledge based on the use of different criteria for describing this phenomenon. The first approach considers responsiveness as a quality of the emotional intelligence of a person, empathy, understanding of the feelings of another person. The second methodological approach considers responsiveness as an element of the general humanitarian culture of the individual. The third theoretical approach determines the pedagogical conditions for the development of responsiveness in preschool and primary school age. The fourth area describes responsiveness as a professionally important quality of people in helping professions. In addition to psychological approaches, the phenomenon of responsiveness is considered within the framework of the economy, where it is supposed to analyze responsiveness as a criterion for assessing the relationship between business and society, a component of consumer loyalty. In business psychology, the leader’s responsiveness is determined from the perspective of a significant skill in intergroup communication, an understanding of the growing tension in the group, an indicator of professionalism and the conditions for business training.

URL: http://ejournal20.com/journals_n/1593532506.pdf
Number of views: 192      Download in PDF

6. Elena A. Volodarskaya
«Open» Science as a New Form of Interaction with Society

Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii, 2020, 7(1): 42-48.
DOI: 10.13187/vfp.2020.1.42CrossRef

The article reveals the modern approach to building a system of relations between science and society. The phenomenon of "open" science is described. The possible directions of movement towards more accessible for non-specialists scientific results and their participation in the production of new knowledge are analyzed in detail. These are such areas as the fundamentalization of the educational environment, the development of research competencies of students; scientific and educational tourism; revision of the criteria for assessing the scientific result. “Open” science will increase the prestige of the profession of a scientist, build more trusting relationships between participants in this system by promoting scientific knowledge and strengthening the scientific worldview and interest of citizens, creating conditions for the implementation of an applied request from society. Criteria for assessing the conditions for carrying out research activities, the practical value of the economic feasibility of science are becoming more popular and require a review of characteristics traditional for science. The openness of science presupposes the active development of “open” scientific competencies, common both for professionals and for people outside research institutions, which entails the fundamentalization of training for the development of such “open” research knowledge and skills. Scientific tourism combines science and tourism, creates the conditions for a new type of outdoor activities, when non-specialists interested in scientific knowledge, under the guidance of scientists, make their own contribution to the development of science. This allows satisfying the research interest of a non-specialist, forming and supporting his scientific worldview, and reinforcing a positive attitude towards science in society.

URL: http://ejournal20.com/journals_n/1593532546.pdf
Number of views: 195      Download in PDF

full number
URL: http://ejournal20.com/journals_n/1593533130.pdf
Number of views: 200      Download in PDF

Главная   Редакционный совет   Рецензирование   Индексирование   Публикационная этика   Статистика   Наши авторы   Авторам   Договор оферты   Образец   Архив   

Copyright © 2014-2020. Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii.