Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.21146/2413-9084-2022-27-2-46-57
T. Rockmore
The article analyses V.A. Lektorsky’s views on the debate on constructivism and realism. On the one hand, it considers the history of development of constructivism and realism as philosophical positions embedded in the evolution of European philosophical tradition. On the other hand, the changes in V.A. Lectorsky’s views on constructivism and realism are traced from dialectical materialism to post-Marxist variant of realism. The latter is built on the basis of analysis of cognitive science and recognition of limitations of the so-called computational model of cognition, as well as on the explication of epistemological consequences of enactivism, a concept emphasizing significance that the physical body of a knowing subject actively inscribed in the cognizing environment, i.e. interacting with it, has for cognitive processes. The article discusses the two distinguished stages in Lectorsky’s work on epistemological realism, reconstructs its genesis, discusses and evaluate the arguments that Lectorsky presents in support of his conception so-called “constructive” or “activity” realism.
{"title":"Lektorsky on dialectical materialism and enactivism","authors":"T. Rockmore","doi":"10.21146/2413-9084-2022-27-2-46-57","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21146/2413-9084-2022-27-2-46-57","url":null,"abstract":"The article analyses V.A. Lektorsky’s views on the debate on constructivism and realism. On the one hand, it considers the history of development of constructivism and realism as philosophical positions embedded in the evolution of European philosophical tradition. On the other hand, the changes in V.A. Lectorsky’s views on constructivism and realism are traced from dialectical materialism to post-Marxist variant of realism. The latter is built on the basis of analysis of cognitive science and recognition of limitations of the so-called computational model of cognition, as well as on the explication of epistemological consequences of enactivism, a concept emphasizing significance that the physical body of a knowing subject actively inscribed in the cognizing environment, i.e. interacting with it, has for cognitive processes. The article discusses the two distinguished stages in Lectorsky’s work on epistemological realism, reconstructs its genesis, discusses and evaluate the arguments that Lectorsky presents in support of his conception so-called “constructive” or “activity” realism.","PeriodicalId":227944,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Science and Technology","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121889073","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.21146/2413-9084-2022-27-2-6-19
E. Chertkova
The article is devoted to the 90th anniversary of Academy member Vladislav Alexandrovich Lectorsky, his scientific views and personal qualities. On the basis of acquaintance with his works and many years of personal communication, an attempt is made to comprehend the reasons and conditions for the fruitful life in science, which allowed him to become a universally recognized classic of Russian philosophy during his lifetime and a recognized worldwide authority in the field of epistemology and philosophy of science. The mechanism of interaction of scientific inclinations and interests with personal inclinations and ethical principles of a scientist, which determined the choice of life path and direction of scientific research, is considered. There is a tendency to expand the scope of research from special problems of the theory of knowledge to generalizing concepts of philosophical epistemology, philosophy of consciousness, philosophical anthropology, encompassing cognition, man and culture in a holistic worldview system. There is a pronounced social orientation of epistemological research. The way of formation of a scientist’s personality and his civic position in the process of solving research tasks is shown – from the analysis of cognition as an end in itself to the application of the concepts and principles developed in this process to the philosophical understanding of a person, his place and destiny in a modern transforming society, the protection of rationality and humanism as values of civilization. The talent of V.A. Lektorsky as an organizer of science, who worked for a long time as the head of the theory of knowledge department and editor-in-chief of the journal “Voprosy filosofii”, the current professor and dean of the Faculty of Philosophy of GAUGN and editor-in-chief of the journal “Philosophy of Science and Technology” is noted. It is shown how the theoretical concepts of tolerance, critical thinking, and humanism developed by him are at the same time practical principles of his own life. This is the sign of a real philosopher, not just a researcher in the field of philosophy.
{"title":"The scientist’s dignity as a path to the truth","authors":"E. Chertkova","doi":"10.21146/2413-9084-2022-27-2-6-19","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21146/2413-9084-2022-27-2-6-19","url":null,"abstract":"The article is devoted to the 90th anniversary of Academy member Vladislav Alexandrovich Lectorsky, his scientific views and personal qualities. On the basis of acquaintance with his works and many years of personal communication, an attempt is made to comprehend the reasons and conditions for the fruitful life in science, which allowed him to become a universally recognized classic of Russian philosophy during his lifetime and a recognized worldwide authority in the field of epistemology and philosophy of science. The mechanism of interaction of scientific inclinations and interests with personal inclinations and ethical principles of a scientist, which determined the choice of life path and direction of scientific research, is considered. There is a tendency to expand the scope of research from special problems of the theory of knowledge to generalizing concepts of philosophical epistemology, philosophy of consciousness, philosophical anthropology, encompassing cognition, man and culture in a holistic worldview system. There is a pronounced social orientation of epistemological research. The way of formation of a scientist’s personality and his civic position in the process of solving research tasks is shown – from the analysis of cognition as an end in itself to the application of the concepts and principles developed in this process to the philosophical understanding of a person, his place and destiny in a modern transforming society, the protection of rationality and humanism as values of civilization. The talent of V.A. Lektorsky as an organizer of science, who worked for a long time as the head of the theory of knowledge department and editor-in-chief of the journal “Voprosy filosofii”, the current professor and dean of the Faculty of Philosophy of GAUGN and editor-in-chief of the journal “Philosophy of Science and Technology” is noted. It is shown how the theoretical concepts of tolerance, critical thinking, and humanism developed by him are at the same time practical principles of his own life. This is the sign of a real philosopher, not just a researcher in the field of philosophy.","PeriodicalId":227944,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Science and Technology","volume":"129 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122759242","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.21146/2413-9084-2019-24-2-162-169
E. Gavrilina, A.A. Kazakova
{"title":"Institutionalization of TA and RRI in Russia: current status and prospects","authors":"E. Gavrilina, A.A. Kazakova","doi":"10.21146/2413-9084-2019-24-2-162-169","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21146/2413-9084-2019-24-2-162-169","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":227944,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Science and Technology","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123031868","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.21146/2413-9084-2022-27-1-84-98
S. Pirozhkova
The article describes philosophy as a part of the modern system of scientific knowledge in Russia, reconstructs basic arguments against the recognizing philosophy as a scientific discipline, distinguishes between philosophers and non-philosophers criticism of philosophy scientificity, shows that while the former consider philosophy as an intellectual activity which is superior to science in its functionality, the latter, by contrast, regard it as unable to meet the basic criteria of scientific knowledge. Based on the reconstruction of the evolution of theoretical knowledge, it is shown that if the core and model of modern science is theoretical natural science, which allows to obtain universal theoretical knowledge, providing it with empirical content through procedures of empirical interpretation and testing, then philosophy is a form of theoretical knowledge, that cannot be subjected to the same rigorous procedures of establishing empirical content. However, this fact only proves to be a problem if philosophy claims to study the same objects that empirical disciplines study. Such a claim was proclaimed by the program of Soviet scientific philosophy, and it was questioned in Soviet philosophy as well. It is argued that the subject of philosophy as a scientific discipline is thinking and its forms, tools, and results – not cognitive activity, but human activity, objectified in language, conceptual and figurative representations, cultural and social practices, and institutions, including science. Thus, science incorporating philosophy into its structure acquires the possibility to make not just itself (it is also possible within, for example, the framework of science studies), but its own boundaries and foundations the object of cognition. This opens the prospect for science to design its own development more effectively, while understanding science as a human enterprise and ensuring its humanistic orientation.
{"title":"Philosophy as a scientific discipline: subject, functions and tasks in modern context","authors":"S. Pirozhkova","doi":"10.21146/2413-9084-2022-27-1-84-98","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21146/2413-9084-2022-27-1-84-98","url":null,"abstract":"The article describes philosophy as a part of the modern system of scientific knowledge in Russia, reconstructs basic arguments against the recognizing philosophy as a scientific discipline, distinguishes between philosophers and non-philosophers criticism of philosophy scientificity, shows that while the former consider philosophy as an intellectual activity which is superior to science in its functionality, the latter, by contrast, regard it as unable to meet the basic criteria of scientific knowledge. Based on the reconstruction of the evolution of theoretical knowledge, it is shown that if the core and model of modern science is theoretical natural science, which allows to obtain universal theoretical knowledge, providing it with empirical content through procedures of empirical interpretation and testing, then philosophy is a form of theoretical knowledge, that cannot be subjected to the same rigorous procedures of establishing empirical content. However, this fact only proves to be a problem if philosophy claims to study the same objects that empirical disciplines study. Such a claim was proclaimed by the program of Soviet scientific philosophy, and it was questioned in Soviet philosophy as well. It is argued that the subject of philosophy as a scientific discipline is thinking and its forms, tools, and results – not cognitive activity, but human activity, objectified in language, conceptual and figurative representations, cultural and social practices, and institutions, including science. Thus, science incorporating philosophy into its structure acquires the possibility to make not just itself (it is also possible within, for example, the framework of science studies), but its own boundaries and foundations the object of cognition. This opens the prospect for science to design its own development more effectively, while understanding science as a human enterprise and ensuring its humanistic orientation.","PeriodicalId":227944,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Science and Technology","volume":"77 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115583474","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.21146/2413-9084-2022-27-2-31-45
D. Bakhurst
This paper, written to honor Prof. Vladislav Lektorsky on the occasion of his 90th birthday, addresses a subject to which Lektorsky has returned many times in the course of his long and distinguished career: the concept of activity. I begin with the distinction between activity and action, arguing against the view, associated with Leontiev, that actions are components of activities. In my view, the distinction between activity and action is an aspectual rather than ontological or mereological one. I then draw on the analysis of intentional action offered by G.E.M. Anscombe to argue that her understanding of action, intention and practical knowledge, when supplemented by insights from MacIntyre, McDowell and others, provides grounds to endorse three theses central to the activity approach (theses I find in Prof. Lektorsky’s recent summation of the tradition): that (i) consciousness, the inner plane of our mental lives, can be understood only in relation to the forms of our activity as embodied beings; (ii) human agency and behavior cannot be described or explained without essential reference to the social, cultural and historical context; and (iii) selves or persons are constituted in and through their activity. I then consider the objection that my analysis is too focused on the intentional activities of the individual, at the expense of the collective. I reply that the unit of analysis is neither the individual nor the collective, but the human life form. There is plenty of room, as there must be, for countenancing joint, shared and collective intentionality, and for recognizing that individuals and collectives do many things unintentionally. But no sense can be made of any of that without a robust account of intentional action. I believe my findings are congenial to three themes that characterize the legacy of Vladislav Lektorsky: (i) respect for the phenomenology of everyday thought and experience; (ii) humanism; and (iii) the belief that much is to be gained by bringing Russian philosophy into constructive dialogue with fruitful trends in Anglo-American philosophy.
{"title":"Philosophy, activity, life","authors":"D. Bakhurst","doi":"10.21146/2413-9084-2022-27-2-31-45","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21146/2413-9084-2022-27-2-31-45","url":null,"abstract":"This paper, written to honor Prof. Vladislav Lektorsky on the occasion of his 90th birthday, addresses a subject to which Lektorsky has returned many times in the course of his long and distinguished career: the concept of activity. I begin with the distinction between activity and action, arguing against the view, associated with Leontiev, that actions are components of activities. In my view, the distinction between activity and action is an aspectual rather than ontological or mereological one. I then draw on the analysis of intentional action offered by G.E.M. Anscombe to argue that her understanding of action, intention and practical knowledge, when supplemented by insights from MacIntyre, McDowell and others, provides grounds to endorse three theses central to the activity approach (theses I find in Prof. Lektorsky’s recent summation of the tradition): that (i) consciousness, the inner plane of our mental lives, can be understood only in relation to the forms of our activity as embodied beings; (ii) human agency and behavior cannot be described or explained without essential reference to the social, cultural and historical context; and (iii) selves or persons are constituted in and through their activity. I then consider the objection that my analysis is too focused on the intentional activities of the individual, at the expense of the collective. I reply that the unit of analysis is neither the individual nor the collective, but the human life form. There is plenty of room, as there must be, for countenancing joint, shared and collective intentionality, and for recognizing that individuals and collectives do many things unintentionally. But no sense can be made of any of that without a robust account of intentional action. I believe my findings are congenial to three themes that characterize the legacy of Vladislav Lektorsky: (i) respect for the phenomenology of everyday thought and experience; (ii) humanism; and (iii) the belief that much is to be gained by bringing Russian philosophy into constructive dialogue with fruitful trends in Anglo-American philosophy.","PeriodicalId":227944,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Science and Technology","volume":"184 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114753310","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.21146/2413-9084-2022-27-1-149-162
I. V. Krechetova, L. V. Tselishcheva
The main idea of the article is to use the method of historical reconstruction in the study of physics at a modern university as a basis for the formation of an interest in understanding the events of the Great Patriotic War, which took place in 1941–1945 in the city of Yoshkar – Ola during the scientific activity of the State Optical Institute (GOI). The scientific discoveries of the Institute’s staff and academician S.I. Vavilov (head of the GOI) are particularly emphasized. Research attention is paid to the creation by the teacher of conditions for the formation of patriotic consciousness, feelings and beliefs among students through the study of certain historical material while organizing independent work through traditional and online learning from the point of view of the history of science. The implementation of research tasks was achieved on the basis of the use of historical documents from the archive of the Museum of the Volga State Technological University and the library fund of the S.G. Chavain National Library of the Republic of Mari El.
{"title":"Scientific activity of the State Optical Institute during the war years (Yoshkar-Ola period): from the history of physics science","authors":"I. V. Krechetova, L. V. Tselishcheva","doi":"10.21146/2413-9084-2022-27-1-149-162","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21146/2413-9084-2022-27-1-149-162","url":null,"abstract":"The main idea of the article is to use the method of historical reconstruction in the study of physics at a modern university as a basis for the formation of an interest in understanding the events of the Great Patriotic War, which took place in 1941–1945 in the city of Yoshkar – Ola during the scientific activity of the State Optical Institute (GOI). The scientific discoveries of the Institute’s staff and academician S.I. Vavilov (head of the GOI) are particularly emphasized. Research attention is paid to the creation by the teacher of conditions for the formation of patriotic consciousness, feelings and beliefs among students through the study of certain historical material while organizing independent work through traditional and online learning from the point of view of the history of science. The implementation of research tasks was achieved on the basis of the use of historical documents from the archive of the Museum of the Volga State Technological University and the library fund of the S.G. Chavain National Library of the Republic of Mari El.","PeriodicalId":227944,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Science and Technology","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125732291","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.21146/2413-9084-2019-24-1-145-158
Ahmed Siddiqui Naseeb
The first part of this research discussed a theoretical framework of a new theory of time which was systematically proposed, developed and defended. Time was exposed to a natural categorization that calls forth two different real times; Existential and Essential. The current paper which is the conclusion of the research deals with the ontological dimension of Essential time. Contrary to the fine-tuning of physical constants of the universe by coincidence, this article tries to establish that “coincidence” in itself depends on time. The Essential time provides a timeline of creation which starts from absolute uniformity to dis-uniform universe and coincidence is planned. Hence, essential time is uniform, formless and powerful to facilitate the creation of the universe by forming dis-uniformity to everything that was uniform. The question that why essential time is able to do that and what is the source to trigger dis-uniformity brings the discussion to the ontology of essential time. This ontological being in essential time will be proved by two premises. The article argues that why the interpretation based on essential time must be considered instead of “coincidences” of modern science, “Demiurge” of Plato and “unmoved mover” of Aristotle to explain the final cause of the universe. By doing so the fundamental flaw in the anthropic principle is revealed and argued that it does not present a convincing answer to the “why” question of the universe. The combinations of scientific, philosophical and metaphysical arguments establish a conclusive interpretation about the ontological being in essential time without any deviation from the universal facts of the universe. This might end the creation dilemma which is, why did the universe come into existence.
{"title":"Beyond the coincidental fine-tuning of the universe: The ontology of Essential Time","authors":"Ahmed Siddiqui Naseeb","doi":"10.21146/2413-9084-2019-24-1-145-158","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21146/2413-9084-2019-24-1-145-158","url":null,"abstract":"The first part of this research discussed a theoretical framework of a new theory of time which was systematically proposed, developed and defended. Time was exposed to a natural categorization that calls forth two different real times; Existential and Essential. The current paper which is the conclusion of the research deals with the ontological dimension of Essential time. Contrary to the fine-tuning of physical constants of the universe by coincidence, this article tries to establish that “coincidence” in itself depends on time. The Essential time provides a timeline of creation which starts from absolute uniformity to dis-uniform universe and coincidence is planned. Hence, essential time is uniform, formless and powerful to facilitate the creation of the universe by forming dis-uniformity to everything that was uniform. The question that why essential time is able to do that and what is the source to trigger dis-uniformity brings the discussion to the ontology of essential time. This ontological being in essential time will be proved by two premises. The article argues that why the interpretation based on essential time must be considered instead of “coincidences” of modern science, “Demiurge” of Plato and “unmoved mover” of Aristotle to explain the final cause of the universe. By doing so the fundamental flaw in the anthropic principle is revealed and argued that it does not present a convincing answer to the “why” question of the universe. The combinations of scientific, philosophical and metaphysical arguments establish a conclusive interpretation about the ontological being in essential time without any deviation from the universal facts of the universe. This might end the creation dilemma which is, why did the universe come into existence.","PeriodicalId":227944,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Science and Technology","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123222758","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.21146/2413-9084-2021-25-2-151-158
K. Dolgov
The paper is a memoirs of the Honoured scientist of the Russian Federation Konstantin M. Dolgov of his communication with Soviet Academy of Science member Nikolay N. Semyonov – one of the founders of the physical chemistry and the only Soviet Nobel Prize winner in chemistry. The paper provides the analysis of the personality of this prominent scientist, his achievements and his views upon the development of science and interactions between different branches of science.
这篇论文是俄罗斯联邦荣誉科学家konstantin M. Dolgov与苏联科学院院士Nikolay N. Se-myonov交流的回忆录，Nikolay N. Se-myonov是物理化学的创始人之一，也是苏联唯一的诺贝尔化学奖获得者。本文分析了这位杰出科学家的个性、成就以及他对科学发展和不同科学分支之间相互作用的看法。
{"title":"Nikolay N. Semyonov: a prophet and a tamer of fire and atom energy","authors":"K. Dolgov","doi":"10.21146/2413-9084-2021-25-2-151-158","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21146/2413-9084-2021-25-2-151-158","url":null,"abstract":"The paper is a memoirs of the Honoured scientist of the Russian Federation Konstantin M. Dolgov of his communication with Soviet Academy of Science member Nikolay N. Semyonov – one of the founders of the physical chemistry and the only Soviet Nobel Prize winner in chemistry. The paper provides the analysis of the personality of this prominent scientist, his achievements and his views upon the development of science and interactions between different branches of science.","PeriodicalId":227944,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Science and Technology","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123335316","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.21146/2413-9084-2021-26-1-122-130
E. Nikitina
The relevance of addressing the problem of the collective subject is due to the need to study the laws of complex self-developing human-dimensional systems. In these systems, the subjects of knowledge and activity are organically connected with the means of knowledge and activity and objects. Self-development is realized in these systems through the information and communication technology environment. Self-development is carried out with the help of the reflexive activity of the collective subject. The purpose of the article is to identify the features of the collective subject in complex human-dimensional systems. It is shown that the characteristics of the collective subject are influenced by such trends as the intellectualization of the technosphere and the technologization of human cognition and activity. The functions of a collective subject in the information society are beginning to be performed by information management systems. The collective subject under the conditions of the co-evolution of man and technology evolves in the direction of a hybrid collective subject.
{"title":"The collective subject in complex human-dimensional systems: intelligence or the sum of technologies?","authors":"E. Nikitina","doi":"10.21146/2413-9084-2021-26-1-122-130","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21146/2413-9084-2021-26-1-122-130","url":null,"abstract":"The relevance of addressing the problem of the collective subject is due to the need to study the laws of complex self-developing human-dimensional systems. In these systems, the subjects of knowledge and activity are organically connected with the means of knowledge and activity and objects. Self-development is realized in these systems through the information and communication technology environment. Self-development is carried out with the help of the reflexive activity of the collective subject. The purpose of the article is to identify the features of the collective subject in complex human-dimensional systems. It is shown that the characteristics of the collective subject are influenced by such trends as the intellectualization of the technosphere and the technologization of human cognition and activity. The functions of a collective subject in the information society are beginning to be performed by information management systems. The collective subject under the conditions of the co-evolution of man and technology evolves in the direction of a hybrid collective subject.","PeriodicalId":227944,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Science and Technology","volume":"65 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126296742","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.21146/2413-9084-2019-24-1-76-89
S. Korsakov
{"title":"Page from the history of philosophical problems of physics in the USSR: Eduard Fritsevich Lepin (1893‒1937)","authors":"S. Korsakov","doi":"10.21146/2413-9084-2019-24-1-76-89","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21146/2413-9084-2019-24-1-76-89","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":227944,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Science and Technology","volume":"2012 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129907236","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：