Name
Korsakova Lidija Viktorovna
Scholastic degree
—
Academic rank
associated professor
Honorary rank
—
Organization, job position
Kuban State Technological University
Web site url
—
Articles count: 3
In the article we have observed the main theoretical
and methodological issues of European philosophy
streams in the second half of XX century, which
refused the image of philosophy as exact science,
based on logic conceptual tool. We have shown the
connection of poststructuralist formations and
structuralist scheme in creating «discourse typology»,
a new discipline which implies philosophy to be
considered as one of literature genres. Structuralists’
search starts from the description of invariable, static
structures that help to create separate pieces of fiction.
The latter are observed as isolated situations in which
these atomic structures are used. Such attitude, as
revealed in the article, results in two deductions. The
first considers literature having no specific features
compared to other types of discourse, i.e. it does not
exist as such. (Ts.Todorov) The second deduction
implies that being aware of the logical creation of any
meaning reader’s hermeneutics is seen as unnecessary.
These deductions resulted in a new scientific
discipline «discourse typology», developed by
structuralists. This stream was continued by
poststructuralists, i.e. strategy to «poetize philosophy»
is justified by the expansion of the object for science
cognition in the direction of not verifiable and not
rationalized, requiring separate methods of study as
well as description language. Consequently,
philosophical discourse becomes that very descriptive
language that helps to overcome «logocentrism» of
traditional thinking. Further in the article we consider
the main «logomachy» strategies developed by
J.Derrida, i.e. «deconstruction», «structure
decentration», «critics of transcendental significatum»,
«critics of structural properties of the construction»
The aim of the article is to demonstrate binarism as a
method of theoretical perception. First of all, the
authors define the initial concept of binarism as a
principle of differentiating binary oppositions which
came from philology into other sciences. Then, they
stipulate the application conditions of binarism as a
methodological principle, namely, both members of
the opposition are stipulated, however, reasoning
should not contain such logical mistakes as ‘defining
through negation’ and ‘range of evidence’.
Subsequently, logic of description is connected with
stipulation of the ‘life’ concept, first, philosophically,
then, using propositions of some natural sciences,
namely, biological and, further on, physical and
astrophysical definitions. Every time the authors use
binary principle in describing these propositions. So,
every time it becomes evident that if death can be
defined as absence of life, the concept of life requires
another approach, based on positive statements, which
is also hard to do as it leads the researchers to the limit
‘nothing’ – ‘everything’; ‘not being’ – ‘being’. The
results of the article have double nature. As the aim of
the investigation was to demonstrate application
features of the definite methodological principle,
representation of the material may be considered as
the aim achievement. In addition, in the concluding
part the authors draw a line, formulating theoretical
propositions, which concern both natural science and
philosophical argumentation
A clarification and interpretation of the philosophical
meaning of the "learned ignorance" doctrine, viewed
from an aspect of a history of philosophy, involves a
necessity to educe a genetic and essential relationship
between the "learned ignorance" principle and the
apophatic tradition of thought. The article describes
the genesis of the "docta ignorantia" principle: it
appeared in a context of theology as a method for
attaining of the knowledge of God. It is this concept
that often forces researchers to restrict the epistemic
potential of the "learned ignorance" principle, leaving
it in limits of negative theology and mystics. However
after investigating the difference between the
philosophical and the religious understanding of
theology the authors of the article interpret the
paradigm of the "learned ignorance" to be a
fundamental philosophic principle of thought and
cognition. Nowadays it is widely accepted, that the
paradigm of the "learned ignorance" in it's classical
form originates from the apophatic tradition. The
article points out, that the representative examples of
apophaticism, which could be found in the christian
theology, on the one hand, were based on a solid
philosophic tradition (predominantly platonic and
neoplatonic), and on the other hand, did not complete a
spread in a world philosophic thought of a definite
(apophatic) tradition, which had an intimate
connection with the paradigm of the "learned
ignorance", postulating as it's main intention a
seemingly paradoxical comprehension of the Absolute,
supposed to be absolutely incomprehensible.
The results of the scientific research in a field, thus
defined, are presented briefly in this article