历史决定论作为现代科学社会学的普遍科学原理

A. Kornienko
{"title":"历史决定论作为现代科学社会学的普遍科学原理","authors":"A. Kornienko","doi":"10.47475/1994-2796-2023-474-4-64-70","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the given article, the author tries to defi ne historicism as an eff ective scientifi c principle in the fi eld of humanities, namely in the modern sociology of science. Trying to solve this task, the author focuses his attention on the B. Latour and G. Harman’s discussion on the essence of material objects. Analyzing their positions, the author\nstates that despite initially diff erent philosophical attitudes, both thinkers consider the subject of their research in a historicist way, that is, as dynamic and changeable in the course of the time. This way of thinking, in turn, forces them to solve their program tasks, using the instruments which were developed in the frame of classical historicist\nthought. So B. Latour chooses to use the historicist methodology and G. Harman, in turn, reproduces its specific ontology. Taking into consideration the results of the study and opinions of domestic and foreign researchers, the author concludes that despite the destructive criticism of postmodernism, historicism still remains a kind of organizing\nprinciple in humanities, which doesn’t only set the context of modern discussions, but also forms prospects for further development.","PeriodicalId":229258,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University","volume":"40 37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"HISTORICISM AS A GENERAL SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE IN A MODERN SOCIOLOGY OF SCIENCE\",\"authors\":\"A. Kornienko\",\"doi\":\"10.47475/1994-2796-2023-474-4-64-70\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the given article, the author tries to defi ne historicism as an eff ective scientifi c principle in the fi eld of humanities, namely in the modern sociology of science. Trying to solve this task, the author focuses his attention on the B. Latour and G. Harman’s discussion on the essence of material objects. Analyzing their positions, the author\\nstates that despite initially diff erent philosophical attitudes, both thinkers consider the subject of their research in a historicist way, that is, as dynamic and changeable in the course of the time. This way of thinking, in turn, forces them to solve their program tasks, using the instruments which were developed in the frame of classical historicist\\nthought. So B. Latour chooses to use the historicist methodology and G. Harman, in turn, reproduces its specific ontology. Taking into consideration the results of the study and opinions of domestic and foreign researchers, the author concludes that despite the destructive criticism of postmodernism, historicism still remains a kind of organizing\\nprinciple in humanities, which doesn’t only set the context of modern discussions, but also forms prospects for further development.\",\"PeriodicalId\":229258,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University\",\"volume\":\"40 37 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.47475/1994-2796-2023-474-4-64-70\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47475/1994-2796-2023-474-4-64-70","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

在本文中,作者试图将历史决定论定义为人文领域即现代科学社会学中的一种有效的科学原则。为了解决这一问题,笔者将注意力集中在拉图尔和哈曼关于物质对象本质的讨论上。在分析他们的立场时,作者指出,尽管最初的哲学态度不同,但两位思想家都以历史主义的方式考虑他们的研究主题,即在时间的进程中是动态和可变的。这种思维方式反过来又迫使他们使用在古典历史主义思想框架内发展起来的工具来解决他们的程序任务。因此,拉图尔选择使用历史主义的方法论,而哈曼则复制了其特定的本体论。综合国内外学者的研究成果和观点,作者认为,尽管后现代主义受到了破坏性的批评,但历史主义仍然是人文学科的一种组织原则,它不仅为现代讨论奠定了语境,而且形成了进一步发展的前景。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
HISTORICISM AS A GENERAL SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE IN A MODERN SOCIOLOGY OF SCIENCE
In the given article, the author tries to defi ne historicism as an eff ective scientifi c principle in the fi eld of humanities, namely in the modern sociology of science. Trying to solve this task, the author focuses his attention on the B. Latour and G. Harman’s discussion on the essence of material objects. Analyzing their positions, the author states that despite initially diff erent philosophical attitudes, both thinkers consider the subject of their research in a historicist way, that is, as dynamic and changeable in the course of the time. This way of thinking, in turn, forces them to solve their program tasks, using the instruments which were developed in the frame of classical historicist thought. So B. Latour chooses to use the historicist methodology and G. Harman, in turn, reproduces its specific ontology. Taking into consideration the results of the study and opinions of domestic and foreign researchers, the author concludes that despite the destructive criticism of postmodernism, historicism still remains a kind of organizing principle in humanities, which doesn’t only set the context of modern discussions, but also forms prospects for further development.
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