从现代考古科学本体论看(论平行话语与东西方相互理解的门槛)

I. Bruyako
{"title":"从现代考古科学本体论看(论平行话语与东西方相互理解的门槛)","authors":"I. Bruyako","doi":"10.55086/sp233151164","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article outlines some aspects of the development of archaeological knowledge in the interaction, or rather in the absence of creative interaction between representatives of eastern, post-Soviet archaeology and their colleagues from Western and Central Europe and North America. In the scientific dialogue, there are clearly unhealthy tendencies that have nothing to do with science, which seriously interfere with the synergy of the cognition process. The author sees two such trends. The first is the involvement of archaeological knowledge in the illumination, or even the solution of the problems of modernity of a political and ideological nature. At the forefront of this quasi-scientific trend, there are representatives of countries experiencing various kinds of historical complexes and trying to overcome them in this way. The second is the reluctance of Western specialists to thoroughly study literature in Russian, and even more so in the national languages of the former Soviet republics. This rejection is based on a deep, ingrained confidence in the absolute superiority of the cognitive and analytical abilities of representatives of the Romano-Germanic civilization. As a result, two research paradigms are formed, which develop in parallel, having no points of contact.","PeriodicalId":435723,"journal":{"name":"Stratum plus. Archaeology and Cultural Anthropology","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From the Ontology of Modern Archaeological Science (About Parallel Discourses and the Threshold of Mutual Understanding between East and West)\",\"authors\":\"I. Bruyako\",\"doi\":\"10.55086/sp233151164\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article outlines some aspects of the development of archaeological knowledge in the interaction, or rather in the absence of creative interaction between representatives of eastern, post-Soviet archaeology and their colleagues from Western and Central Europe and North America. In the scientific dialogue, there are clearly unhealthy tendencies that have nothing to do with science, which seriously interfere with the synergy of the cognition process. The author sees two such trends. The first is the involvement of archaeological knowledge in the illumination, or even the solution of the problems of modernity of a political and ideological nature. At the forefront of this quasi-scientific trend, there are representatives of countries experiencing various kinds of historical complexes and trying to overcome them in this way. The second is the reluctance of Western specialists to thoroughly study literature in Russian, and even more so in the national languages of the former Soviet republics. This rejection is based on a deep, ingrained confidence in the absolute superiority of the cognitive and analytical abilities of representatives of the Romano-Germanic civilization. As a result, two research paradigms are formed, which develop in parallel, having no points of contact.\",\"PeriodicalId\":435723,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Stratum plus. Archaeology and Cultural Anthropology\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Stratum plus. Archaeology and Cultural Anthropology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.55086/sp233151164\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stratum plus. Archaeology and Cultural Anthropology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55086/sp233151164","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这篇文章概述了考古学知识发展的一些方面,在互动中,或者更确切地说,在东方、后苏联考古学代表与他们来自西欧、中欧和北美的同事之间缺乏创造性互动的情况下。在科学对话中,明显存在着与科学无关的不健康倾向,严重干扰了认知过程的协同。作者看到了两种趋势。第一个是考古知识介入阐释,甚至是解决政治和意识形态性质的现代性问题。在这种准科学趋势的最前沿,有一些国家的代表正在经历各种各样的历史情结,并试图以这种方式克服它们。二是西方专家不愿深入研究俄语文学,更不愿深入研究前苏联加盟共和国的民族语言文学。这种拒绝是基于对罗马-日耳曼文明代表的认知和分析能力的绝对优势的一种根深蒂固的信心。因此,形成了两种并行发展的研究范式,没有契合点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
From the Ontology of Modern Archaeological Science (About Parallel Discourses and the Threshold of Mutual Understanding between East and West)
The article outlines some aspects of the development of archaeological knowledge in the interaction, or rather in the absence of creative interaction between representatives of eastern, post-Soviet archaeology and their colleagues from Western and Central Europe and North America. In the scientific dialogue, there are clearly unhealthy tendencies that have nothing to do with science, which seriously interfere with the synergy of the cognition process. The author sees two such trends. The first is the involvement of archaeological knowledge in the illumination, or even the solution of the problems of modernity of a political and ideological nature. At the forefront of this quasi-scientific trend, there are representatives of countries experiencing various kinds of historical complexes and trying to overcome them in this way. The second is the reluctance of Western specialists to thoroughly study literature in Russian, and even more so in the national languages of the former Soviet republics. This rejection is based on a deep, ingrained confidence in the absolute superiority of the cognitive and analytical abilities of representatives of the Romano-Germanic civilization. As a result, two research paradigms are formed, which develop in parallel, having no points of contact.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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