Theory in the historical progress of psychological cognition

Petro Myasoid
{"title":"Theory in the historical progress of psychological cognition","authors":"Petro Myasoid","doi":"10.35774/pis2021.01.036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article analyzes the correlation between the theory and history of psychology on the basis of a concept, which is formed in the process of researching the work of the outstanding Ukrainian scientist V. A Romenets. According to the concept, psychological cognition is a historical-logical-psychological process that is carried out on an epistemological basis and runs from dualism to monism; stages of the process are ways to solve the main problem of psychology, which fixes the need to characterize the mental as subjective in view of the objective; patterns of the process illuminates the thinking of the author of the theory of mind in solving this problem. The state of theoretical psychology is critically assessed, the latter is understood as marked by the theory of mind progress of psychological cognition. The example of V. A. Romenets’ creative dialogue with his predecessors shows that the theory is evidence of the author’s extraordinary place in this process. The search for the place of man in cognition ends with the proclamation of man as a subject of cognition, a body of self-knowledge of the world, capable of comprehending an object within the limits of its thinking. In epistemology, it is substantialism, proceduralism; the principle of observation is opposed by the principle of involvement; man’s place in cognition is characterized either dualistically or monistically. The idea of the identity of thought and being means that the condition of cognition is the coincidence of the way of understanding an object with the way of its existence. The philosophy of science either denies or affirms the principle of involvement, the same thing happens in the psychology of science. Subjectocentrism in epistemology is echoed in psychology by the opposition of the subjective to the objective, overcoming this opposition generates monistic theories in both epistemology and psychology. In psychology, this is the main problem; it is accentuated by the circle of cognition that the psychologist enters into when, using his own psychic, he explores the nature of the psychic. The problem – a source of psychological knowledge, the circle – evidence of the direct presence of a psychologist in this process. Marxist psychologists solve the problem monistically, in terms of the category of practice. Solutions encounter difficulties, ideas deepen the content of the category of practice and open the possibility of new solutions to this problem. Psychologists of the post-Soviet era do not think as a category of practice and, in contrast to the activity-based, assert the subjective approach. From an epistemological point of view, this is subject-centrism, and from a historical and psychological point of view, it is a step in the opposite direction. According to V. A. Roments, the main way of practice is the act as a contradictory interaction of subjective and objective, which is engraved in the history of human self-knowledge. The dynamics of the components of the act highlights the historical and ontogenetic path of man, the essence and purpose of mental, historical levels of psychological knowledge. In the work of the scientist, psychology reaches a post-classical level of development. For classical psychology, the subjective and the objective are disproportionate entities, for non-classical – the sides of reality, for post-non-classical - the side of the human way of life. The main problem of psychology is solved in fundamentally different ways; the solutions illuminate the path of psychology from dualism to increasingly meaningful monism. Analysis of the work of V. A. Romenets shows that the progress of thinking of the psychologist expresses the historical progress of psychology, which occurs when the way of thinking coincides with the way of being mental. The idea of the identity of thinking and being is illustrated, which logically completes the search for the place of man in cognition in epistemology. The inherent explanation of the nature of the mental circle of cognition expands to the limits of the existence of the mental, and the monistic solution to the basic problem of psychology no longer stands in the way. V. A. Romenets creates a theory of the way of human existence at the historical and ontogenetic level, it is actual to characterize the way of human existence at the individual level on the basis of category of being in the subject-practical content, to implement the anthropological approach in psychology and overcome the gap between theoretical and practical branches of this science.","PeriodicalId":380512,"journal":{"name":"Psihologìâ ì suspìlʹstvo","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psihologìâ ì suspìlʹstvo","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35774/pis2021.01.036","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The article analyzes the correlation between the theory and history of psychology on the basis of a concept, which is formed in the process of researching the work of the outstanding Ukrainian scientist V. A Romenets. According to the concept, psychological cognition is a historical-logical-psychological process that is carried out on an epistemological basis and runs from dualism to monism; stages of the process are ways to solve the main problem of psychology, which fixes the need to characterize the mental as subjective in view of the objective; patterns of the process illuminates the thinking of the author of the theory of mind in solving this problem. The state of theoretical psychology is critically assessed, the latter is understood as marked by the theory of mind progress of psychological cognition. The example of V. A. Romenets’ creative dialogue with his predecessors shows that the theory is evidence of the author’s extraordinary place in this process. The search for the place of man in cognition ends with the proclamation of man as a subject of cognition, a body of self-knowledge of the world, capable of comprehending an object within the limits of its thinking. In epistemology, it is substantialism, proceduralism; the principle of observation is opposed by the principle of involvement; man’s place in cognition is characterized either dualistically or monistically. The idea of the identity of thought and being means that the condition of cognition is the coincidence of the way of understanding an object with the way of its existence. The philosophy of science either denies or affirms the principle of involvement, the same thing happens in the psychology of science. Subjectocentrism in epistemology is echoed in psychology by the opposition of the subjective to the objective, overcoming this opposition generates monistic theories in both epistemology and psychology. In psychology, this is the main problem; it is accentuated by the circle of cognition that the psychologist enters into when, using his own psychic, he explores the nature of the psychic. The problem – a source of psychological knowledge, the circle – evidence of the direct presence of a psychologist in this process. Marxist psychologists solve the problem monistically, in terms of the category of practice. Solutions encounter difficulties, ideas deepen the content of the category of practice and open the possibility of new solutions to this problem. Psychologists of the post-Soviet era do not think as a category of practice and, in contrast to the activity-based, assert the subjective approach. From an epistemological point of view, this is subject-centrism, and from a historical and psychological point of view, it is a step in the opposite direction. According to V. A. Roments, the main way of practice is the act as a contradictory interaction of subjective and objective, which is engraved in the history of human self-knowledge. The dynamics of the components of the act highlights the historical and ontogenetic path of man, the essence and purpose of mental, historical levels of psychological knowledge. In the work of the scientist, psychology reaches a post-classical level of development. For classical psychology, the subjective and the objective are disproportionate entities, for non-classical – the sides of reality, for post-non-classical - the side of the human way of life. The main problem of psychology is solved in fundamentally different ways; the solutions illuminate the path of psychology from dualism to increasingly meaningful monism. Analysis of the work of V. A. Romenets shows that the progress of thinking of the psychologist expresses the historical progress of psychology, which occurs when the way of thinking coincides with the way of being mental. The idea of the identity of thinking and being is illustrated, which logically completes the search for the place of man in cognition in epistemology. The inherent explanation of the nature of the mental circle of cognition expands to the limits of the existence of the mental, and the monistic solution to the basic problem of psychology no longer stands in the way. V. A. Romenets creates a theory of the way of human existence at the historical and ontogenetic level, it is actual to characterize the way of human existence at the individual level on the basis of category of being in the subject-practical content, to implement the anthropological approach in psychology and overcome the gap between theoretical and practical branches of this science.
理论在心理认知上的历史进展
本文在研究乌克兰杰出科学家罗曼涅茨的工作过程中形成的一个概念的基础上,分析了心理学理论与心理学史的关系。根据这一概念,心理认知是在认识论基础上进行的从二元论到一元论的历史-逻辑-心理过程;这一过程的各个阶段是解决心理学主要问题的方法,这一问题确定了从客观的角度将心理定性为主观的必要性;模式过程阐明了作者在解决这一问题时的思维模式。理论心理学的状态被批判性地评估,后者被理解为以心理认知的心理理论进步为标志。罗门内茨与前人创造性对话的例子表明,这一理论证明了作者在这一过程中的特殊地位。对人在认知中的地位的探索,最终以宣告人是认知的主体、是对世界的自我认识的主体、能够在自己的思维范围内理解对象而告终。在认识论上,它是实体主义,程序主义;观察原则与介入原则相对立;人在认识中的地位有二元论或一元论的特点。思维与存在同一性的观念,意味着认识的条件是认识对象的方式与对象的存在方式的一致。科学哲学或否认或肯定涉入原则,科学心理学也是如此。认识论中的主体中心主义在心理学中与主观与客观的对立相呼应,克服这种对立产生了认识论和心理学的一元论。在心理学中,这是主要问题;当心理学家利用自己的心灵探索心灵的本质时,他所进入的认知圈更加突出了这一点。问题——心理学知识的来源,圆圈——心理学家在这个过程中直接存在的证据。马克思主义心理学家从实践范畴出发,一元论地解决了这个问题。解决遇到的困难,思路深化了实践范畴的内容,开启了解决这一问题的新可能。后苏联时代的心理学家不把思维作为一种实践范畴,与以活动为基础的思维方式相反,他们主张主观方法。从认识论的角度来看,这是主体中心主义,从历史和心理学的角度来看,这是向相反方向迈出的一步。罗门茨认为,实践的主要方式是主观与客观相互矛盾的行为,这是人类自我认识的历史。行为组成部分的动态突出了人的历史和个体发生路径,精神的本质和目的,心理知识的历史水平。在科学家的工作中,心理学达到了一个后古典的发展水平。对于古典心理学来说,主观和客观是不成比例的实体,对于非古典——现实的一面,对于后非古典——人类生活方式的一面。心理学的主要问题以根本不同的方式解决;这些解决方案阐明了心理学从二元论到越来越有意义的一元论的道路。对罗门涅茨作品的分析表明,心理学家的思维进步表现了心理学的历史进步,这种进步发生在思维方式与心理方式重合的时候。在认识论中提出了思维与存在的同一性,从而在逻辑上完成了对人在认识中的地位的探索。对心理认知圈本质的内在解释扩展到心理存在的极限,对心理学基本问题的一元论解决不再是阻碍。罗门涅茨在历史层面和个体发生层面创立了人类存在方式理论,在主体-实践内容的存在范畴基础上对个体层面的人类存在方式进行刻画,在心理学中实施人类学方法,克服这门科学的理论分支和实践分支之间的差距是现实的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信