Íàó÷íûå äèñêóññèè

Ñòð. «35—48»

Ñåðãåé Ïèëåöêèé

Î õèìåðå íàó÷íîñòè ôèëîñîôèè / About the chimera of scientific philosophy

Àííîòàöèÿ. Ñ÷èòàåòñÿ, ÷òî ïñèõîëîãèÿ âûêðèñòàëëèçîâàëàñü èç ôèëîñîôèè.  ìåòîäîëîãèè ïðèíÿòî ñåïàðèðîâàòü ôèëîñîôèþ îò íàóê. Îáñóæäàåòñÿ äàâíÿÿ, íî âî âñå âðåìåíà àêòóàëüíàÿ ïðîáëåìà – íàó÷íîñòü ôèëîñîôèè. Àâòîð ïîäâåðãàåò ñîìíåíèþ ñåé ñòàòóñ è ñòàðàåòñÿ äîêàçàòü, ÷òî èñêóññòâåííî íàâÿçûâàåìûå ôèëîñîôèè òðåáîâàíèÿ è êàíîíû íàó÷íîñòè ÷ðåçâû÷àéíî ñóæàþò ãîðèçîíòû ôèëîñîôñêèõ èíòåðåñîâ è îáåäíÿþò ïîëå èññëåäîâàòåëüñêîé äåÿòåëüíîñòè. Áîëåå òîãî, àâòîð ïûòàåòñÿ îáîñíîâàòü, ÷òî ñòåðåîòèïû è «òðàôàðåòû» èçâðàùåííî ïîíèìàåìîé íàó÷íîñòè ìîãóò áûòü âðåäîíîñíû êàê äëÿ èíäèâèäóàëüíîãî ôèëîñîôñêîãî òâîð÷åñòâà, òàê è äëÿ ñóäüáû ôèëîñîôèè âîîáùå.

Êëþ÷åâûå ñëîâà: ôèëîñîôèÿ; ìåòîäîëîãèÿ íàóêè; íàó÷íîñòü; ôóíäàìåíòàëüíàÿ íàóêà; ïðèêëàäíàÿ íàóêà; êàíîíû; êðèòåðèè; ðàöèîíàëüíîñòü; òâîð÷åñòâî.

Abstract. Psychology has been “crystallized” from philosophy. Philosophy is also separated from sciences. The ancient, but actual in all the times problem – the scientific status of philosophy is devoted. The author questions this status and tries to prove that the artificial imposing of the requirements and canons of science to philosophy extremely narrow the horizons of the philosophical interests and impoverishes the field of the research activity. Moreover, the author attempts to justify the thesis that the stereotypes and the «stencils» of the perverted understanding of the scientific status are quite harmful both for the individual philosophical creation and for the perspectives of philosophy in common.

Keywords: philosophy; science methodology; scientific status; fundamental science; applied science; canons; criterions; rationality; creation.

×èòàòü ïîëíûé òåêñò ñòàòüè