{"title":"后新古典历史哲学的认知策略","authors":"Y. Dobrolyubska","doi":"10.36059/978-966-397-144-5/65-86","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION The idea of inter-paradigm synthesis in the philosophy of history is still new and has not received a thorough justification in the scientific literature. Its setting can be found in some papers that discuss aspects of interdisciplinarity in historical science and the problems of historiographic synthesis. In this regard, its needed to highlight the works of the classics of French historical school “Annals” and A.Ya. Gurevich, O.M. Medushevskoyi, L.P. Repinoi, J. Tosha and some other authors. They lay the foundations of interdisciplinary cooperation in the field of social and humanitarian cognition (J. Tosh), discussing the topic of “historical synthesis” (A.Ya. Gurevich), “bridges” are built between traditional historiography and the latest epistemological “calls” of the philosophy of postmodernism (L.P. Repina). However, in whole, the question of whether it is possible, in the context of methodological pluralism, to reduce different cognitive practices to some discursive types or models, as well as to distinguish between each of them the standards of science inherent in each of them.","PeriodicalId":339216,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES OF THE STUDY OF MODERN SOCIETY","volume":"61 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"THE COGNITIVE STRATEGY OF POST-NEOCLASSICAL PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY\",\"authors\":\"Y. Dobrolyubska\",\"doi\":\"10.36059/978-966-397-144-5/65-86\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"INTRODUCTION The idea of inter-paradigm synthesis in the philosophy of history is still new and has not received a thorough justification in the scientific literature. Its setting can be found in some papers that discuss aspects of interdisciplinarity in historical science and the problems of historiographic synthesis. In this regard, its needed to highlight the works of the classics of French historical school “Annals” and A.Ya. Gurevich, O.M. Medushevskoyi, L.P. Repinoi, J. Tosha and some other authors. They lay the foundations of interdisciplinary cooperation in the field of social and humanitarian cognition (J. Tosh), discussing the topic of “historical synthesis” (A.Ya. Gurevich), “bridges” are built between traditional historiography and the latest epistemological “calls” of the philosophy of postmodernism (L.P. Repina). However, in whole, the question of whether it is possible, in the context of methodological pluralism, to reduce different cognitive practices to some discursive types or models, as well as to distinguish between each of them the standards of science inherent in each of them.\",\"PeriodicalId\":339216,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PHILOSOPHICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES OF THE STUDY OF MODERN SOCIETY\",\"volume\":\"61 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PHILOSOPHICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES OF THE STUDY OF MODERN SOCIETY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.36059/978-966-397-144-5/65-86\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PHILOSOPHICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES OF THE STUDY OF MODERN SOCIETY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36059/978-966-397-144-5/65-86","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
历史哲学中范式间综合的概念仍然是一个新概念,在科学文献中还没有得到充分的证明。它的设置可以在一些讨论历史科学跨学科方面和史学综合问题的论文中找到。在这方面,有必要突出法国历史学派的经典著作《编年史》和阿雅。Gurevich, O.M. Medushevskoyi, L.P. Repinoi, J. Tosha和其他一些作者。他们在社会和人道主义认知领域奠定了跨学科合作的基础(J. Tosh),讨论了“历史综合”的话题(A.Ya;在传统史学和后现代主义哲学最新的认识论“呼唤”(L.P. Repina)之间架起了“桥梁”。然而,总的来说,在方法论多元主义的背景下,是否有可能将不同的认知实践简化为一些话语类型或模式,以及区分它们各自内在的科学标准。
THE COGNITIVE STRATEGY OF POST-NEOCLASSICAL PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY
INTRODUCTION The idea of inter-paradigm synthesis in the philosophy of history is still new and has not received a thorough justification in the scientific literature. Its setting can be found in some papers that discuss aspects of interdisciplinarity in historical science and the problems of historiographic synthesis. In this regard, its needed to highlight the works of the classics of French historical school “Annals” and A.Ya. Gurevich, O.M. Medushevskoyi, L.P. Repinoi, J. Tosha and some other authors. They lay the foundations of interdisciplinary cooperation in the field of social and humanitarian cognition (J. Tosh), discussing the topic of “historical synthesis” (A.Ya. Gurevich), “bridges” are built between traditional historiography and the latest epistemological “calls” of the philosophy of postmodernism (L.P. Repina). However, in whole, the question of whether it is possible, in the context of methodological pluralism, to reduce different cognitive practices to some discursive types or models, as well as to distinguish between each of them the standards of science inherent in each of them.