CC BY
5
DOI: 10.24234/wisdom.v18i2.570 Hovhannes O. HOVHANNISYAN
EPISTEMOLOGICAL-METHODOLOGICAL AND APPLIED ASPECTS OF GEORG BRUTIAN'S PHILOSOPHY
Abstract
The article presents a number of key episodes and elaborations of the philosophical legacy of the famous Armenian philosopher of the 20th-21st centuries Georg Abel Brutian, each of which is a valuable contribution to the treasury of world philosophical thought. In particular, the paper deliberates on the epis-temological-methodological and applied aspects of the concept of polylogic, transformational logic as a non-classical logical value system, the principle of linguistic complementarity. The paper analyzes the main achievements of the famous thinker in the field of study of the semantic theory of knowledge, logical principles of translation art, issues of argumentation theory, methodological bases of Armenology, their methodological significance in the context of further development of science.
Keywords: conception of polylogic, transformational logic, the theory of argumentation, the logic of translation, metaarmenology.
According to their creative style and mentality, scientists can be divided into two groups with certain reservations. The first group comprises inventors, the pioneers of new directions and spheres - a unique avant-garde in the field of science. The second group involves those scientists who successfully develop and deepen the fields and principles discovered by others, expand, add to them and create practical application for them.
Georg Brutian, the prominent philosopher of the 20th and 21st centuries, is more distinguished by the qualities of the first group of researchers.
Talented researchers typically have a wide range of interests. Despite having a certain range of interests, however, they are not limited within the range of one topic, one scientific discipline, one genre. This second feature is also typical of G. Brutian's creative heritage.
The range of G. Brutian's philosophical researches has a rather wide coverage: logic, gno-seology and epistemology, philosophy of language, communication, methodology of science, history of philosophy.
The issues of logic, gnoseology and episte-
mology have always been in the focus of Academician G. Brutian's philosophical studies. His early research already showed an interest in the key issues of logic. His analysis of the problems of formal-dialectical logic, his research into traditional-modern, in particular, non-classical logical systems, culminated in the development of the concept of polylogic (Brutian, 1968, pp. 351359).
Brutian's style of philosophizing in a number of cases is distinguished by effective solutions for the development of different, even seemingly contradictory and opposing principles, of the correct combination and overlap of scientific theories. The principle of polylogic is a valuable idea to analyze and assess structures of thought from the point of view of different logical systems and with the help of various toolkits and, thus, to go deeper into them, to discover new layers of content, meaning, structure. According to it, form and content logic systems do not contradict but mostly complement each other, while formal (mathematical) logic systems ("mathematics of thought") act as a kind of explication in terms of
clarifying the structures studied by formalized logic ("grammar of thought") (Brutian, 1987, p. 45). Non-classical logical systems not only offer new perspectives on the study of logical structures through a review of traditional principles of two-valued and functionality, but also examine issues beyond the scope of classical logical systems, thus enriching and expanding the skills to comprehend, analyze and assess structures of thought.
In this latter sense it is worthwhile to note the value of Brutian's system of transformational logic, which studies the explicit and implicit forms of thought, the rules for the emergence of implicit forms from explicit forms, and the principles of clarifying the meaning and significance of explicit forms through implicit forms (Brutian, 1983, pp. 6-12, 1998, pp. 51-53).
Explicit forms of thought are fixed through linguistic means, objectivized by external speech units, and are accessible to the interlocutor's sensory faculties. The implicit forms of thought are obviously not fixed through linguistic means (units of external speech), they are not perceptible by the sensory faculties, but they can be guessed, assumed by analyzing the context (logical-physical) and subtext of the text under consideration. According to that, G. Brutian distinguishes between subtextual and contextual forms of implicit thought, as well as elucidation (or generative), precision and complex rules of transformational logic (Brutian, 1983, pp. 6-12, Brutian, 1998, pp. 51-70).
Transformational logic, going beyond classical logic, and in a number of ways supplementing and enriching it, is very valuable for various areas of scientific knowledge and intellectual activity from the methodological point of view. The toolkit of transformational logic opens up new opportunities in the hermeneutic interpretation and uncovering of latent layers of meaning in mental structures and texts. Thus, it brings a new impetus to content analysis in sociology, organization of advertising activities in the field of marketing, mass- and interpersonal communi-
cation, improvement of the culture of political negotiations. The methodological apparatus of this logical discipline is also very valuable in the sphere of legislative activity, logical study of legal acts, and development of technologies for their interpretation (Hovhannisyan, H. O., 2008, pp. 619-626, Hovhannisyan, H. O., 2019, pp. 160-166).
The most important achievement in the field of research on the philosophical issues of language of Academician Brutian is the development of the principle of linguistic complementarity. Analyzing the relations between thinking and language by F. de Saussure, W. von Humboldt, works of American researchers B. Whorf and Ed. Sapir, revealing the shortcomings of the theory of linguistic relativity and the theory of linguistic determinism, Brutian proposed the principle of linguistic complementarity, revealing the nuances of the relationship between language and thought (Brutian, 1972, pp. 3-144, 1979, pp. 134-209, 1998, pp. 131- 140). According to this principle, the linguistic picture of the world, unlike the logical one, changes to some extent during the transition from one language to another and brings additional nuances to the logical content defining and enriching it (Brutian, 1972, pp. 123-124, 1979, pp. 227-228, 1998, pp. 140-158).
According to another interpretation of Bru-tian's principle, the linguistic membrane (words, expressions, sentences) expressing the thought comprises additional information about the perception and assessment of the subject of thought, about the peculiarities of the subject's (both collective and individual) subconscious attitude towards it (Hovhannisyan, H. O., 2019, p. 179).
The principle of linguistic complementarity has practical-methodological significance in terms of researching the gnoseological problems of thinking, revealing the subconscious layers of an individual's psyche, revealing and analyzing specific features of the historically formed mentality, worldview of the community speaking a definite language. As T. Oizerman (1986) rightly
notes, it is also a valuable contribution to the development of translation theory, methodology, and the principles of translational art (p. 89). G. Brutian's work "The Art of Translation from the Perspective of Logic" (2004) is dedicated to revealing the problems of the ratio of content-semantic and artistic-stylistic components in the process of translation (pp. 270-383).
It is hard to overestimate the role of G. Bru-tian in the sphere of research of theoretical-practical problems of argumentation. His scholarly articles and monographs, published since the 1970s of the 20th century, formed the basis for a direction in the study of argumentation issues, known as "Yerevanian". Brutian created a general theory of argumentation, revealed the peculiarities of philosophical argumentation. The studies of the Armenian philosopher are dedicated to revealing the role of logical and extra-logical - psychological, aesthetic, eloquent, ethical, linguistic, processual elements of argumentation and their relations. Meticulously analyzing and not underestimating the significance of the illogical elements of argumentation, nevertheless, G. Brutyan considers the logical-content factor to be the key component of the argumentation process (Brutian, 1992, pp. 127-140; 156168, 1998, pp. 102-109). Touching upon the examination of defective and imperfect forms of argumentation, Brutian proclaims the principle "Not by the argument of force, but by the force of argument, not by the argument of power, but by the power of argument" to be the motto of the Yerevan School of Argument (Brutian, 1992, p. 45). Brutian's principles of studying argumentation have become widespread and recognized by international think tanks. They have provided a theoretical basis for the many research of leading philosophers in the field (Hovhannisyan, H. H., 2009, pp. 199-238, 2001; Alekseev, 1991, p. 4, 1999, pp. 125-126).
G. Brutian's (1959) gnoseological studies are devoted to the analytical examination of the semantic theory of knowledge, the study of the universal nature, analytical, critical, methodolog-
ical, worldview and linguistic features of philosophical knowledge (Brutian, 1972, pp. 3-25, 1998, pp. 15-23; 32-35).
In the field of the history of the Armenian philosophical thought, Academician Brutian's researches are especially significant for his comprehensive and valuable interpretation of the
philosophical legacy of the famous thinker of the 5th-6th
centuries David Anhaght (the Invincible), in particular, Anhaght's theory on the system of philosophical knowledge and its peculiarities and his logical teaching (Brutian, 1980). In the works of D. Anhaght, G. Brutian analyzes several episodes of defining, reflecting, proving, refuting, arguing, which are valuable from the perspective of modern studies, and which became the basis to classify the medieval Armenian philosopher as one of the most influential thinkers during his lifetime. Revealing the value of D. Anhaght's works from the point of view of hermeneutic interpretation of Aristotle's works, G. Brutian has made a significant contribution also into the development of Aristotelian studies (Djidjian, 1982; Styazkin, 1983).
Among the scientific-epistemological researches, it is necessary to single out G. Brutian's works dedicated to issues of meta-Armenology. Textbooks usually begin introducing a material with a direct definition of concepts. It often happens just the opposite way round during the process of scientific comprehension: concepts are refined, clarified during the settlement of the given problem, the drawing up and development of the theory, thanks to extensive studies. To be able to handle vaguely defined concepts, skillfully implement them and to clarify them in due course of time is one of the most important features of a creative personality endowed with a strong intuition. Qualities that are also characteristic of Academician Brutian.
G. Brutian's (2004) works "The Subject-Matter of Armenology and Its Methods", "Ar-menology and Metaarmenology" are the result of the analysis of the categorical apparatus, system-ization of methodological bases and philosophi-
cal understanding of his more than thirty scientific publications on Armenology (pp. 28-40; 6072). The author clarifies the content and scope of the concepts of "Armenology", "Armenian science" and "metaarmenology", analyzes a group of methods - historical-comparative, hermeneu-tic, contextual and subtextual analysis, evincive -which are more practical in the sphere of Arme-nology and outlines main directions and tendencies.
Conclusion
Georg Brutian has long occupied his notable place among the modern classics of world philosophical thought and meritorious figures of higher education. The topics of his scientific interests and researches are comprehensive. G. Brutian is the author of more than 60 monographs, books and textbooks published in 20 languages of the world, of about 200 scientific articles.
He is the founder and author of a number of scientific directions and basic methodological principles, some of which are:
• The concept of polylogic, the main ideas of which are set out in an article published in the Oxford-based magazine "Mind".
• Transformational logic, which explores the relationship between explicit and implicit forms of thought, opens new horizons for researchers dealing with thinking and mental communication issues.
• The logic of translation, which is a new word in the field of elaboration of the basic principles of hermeneutics and translation.
• The principle of linguistic complementarity, which has proved to be crucial both in terms of the study of the issues of gnoseology, relationship between thinking and language, as well as the reinterpretation and settlement of the problems of language philosophy.
• Brutian's contribution both to the research of remarkable episodes of Armenian philosophical thought (particularly, concerning the teachings of David Anhaght (the Invincible))
and making them the property of the world scientific community, and to the development of the methodological principles of Armeno-logy - metaarmenology is very valuable, indeed.
• Brutian's concept of argumentation theory has gained wide recognition and variable applications. Efficient activities of the Yerevan School of Argumentation founded by him (which has adopted "Brutian formula" as its motto "Not by force of argument, but by force of argument, not by argument of power, but by power of argument") is highly praised by international centers researching issues of argumentation, thus, making it possible for them to involve various scientists from different countries in their projects. Brutian's works are characterized by avantgarde-innovative style, his leadership in selected spheres, bold discoveries and perspective formulations.
References
Alekseev, P. A. (1991). Argumentatsiya. Ob-shchenie. Poznaie (Argumnetation. Cognition. Communication, in Russian). Moscow: Moscow State University Publication. Retrieved from https://-philos.msu.ru/sites/default/files/lib/%D0 %90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA% D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2. pdf
Alekseev, P. A. (1999). Filosofi Rossii XX-XX stoletiy. Biografii, idei, trudi (Philosophers of Russia XIX-XX Centuries. Biographies, ideas, works, in Russian). Moscow: "Acad. Project" Publication. Retrieved from https://vk.com/doc182-881627_460817879 Brutian, G. A. (2004). Hayagitutyun ev metaha-yagitut'yun (Armenology and metaar-menology, in Armenian, English and Russian). Yerevan: NAS RA Publication.
Brutian, G. A. (1987). Tramabanut'yan dasyn-t'ats (Logic course, in Armenian). Yerevan: Yerevan State University Press.
Brutian, G. A. (1972). Pilisopayut'yun ev lezu (Philosophy and language, in Armenian). Yerevan: Publishing House "Ha-yastan".
Brutian, G. A. (1983). Transformatsionnaya lo-gika (Transformational logic, in Russian). Yerevan: NAS RA Publication.
Brutian, G. A. (1959). Teoriya pomamya ob-shchei semantiki (The theory of knowledge of general semantics, in Russian). Yerevan: NAS ASSR Publication.
Brutian, G. A. (1968, July). On the conception of polylogic. Mind, 77(307), 351-359. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/sta-ble/2252459?seq= 1
Brutian, G. A. (1979). Ocherk po analisu flosof-skogo mania (Outline on the Analysis of Philosophical Knowledge, in Russian). Yerevan: "Hayastan" Publication.
Brutian, G. A. (1980). Davit Anhaghti usmunqy tramabanutyan masin (The study of logic of David Invincible (Anhaght)), in Armenian). Yerevan: NAS RA Publication.
Brutian, G. A. (1992). Ocherk teorii argumen-tatsii (Outline of argumentation theory, in Russian). Yerevan: NAS RA Publication.
Brutian, G. A. (1998). Logic, language and argumentation in projection of philosophical knowledge. Lisbon: Galouste Gul-benkian Foundation, Grafica de Coim-bera Ltd. Retrieved from https://www.-academia.edu/957266/Brutians_Logic-_Language_and_Argumentation_in_Pro jection_of_Philosophical_Knowledge
Djidjian, R. Z. (1982). G. A Brutian. Davit Anhaghti usmunqy tramabanut'yan masin (G. A. Brutian. The study of logic of David the Invincible, in Armenian) (Review). Patma-banasirakan handes (Historical-Philological Journal, in Ar-
menian), 2, 216-218. Retrieved from http://hpj. asj -oa.am/3666/; http://hpj. asj -oa.am/3666/1/1982-2(216).pdf
Hovhannisyan, H. H. (2001). Yerevanskaya shkola argumenttsii (Yerevan school of argumentation, in Russian). Sofia: Bulgarian Association for Rhetoric.
Hovhannisyan, H. H. (2009). Pastarkman har-tsery' hay pilisophayakan mtqi patmut '-yan hamatextum Girq 2, Pastarkman erevanyan dprots (Argumentation questions in the context of the history of Armenian philosophical thought. Book 2, Yerevan school of argumentation, in Armenien). Yerevan: International Academy for Philosophy Press.
Hovhannisyan, H. O. (2019). Banavechi tesutyun ev artest. Piliopayakan qnnakhosutyun (The theory and art of discussion: Philosophical tractate, in Armenian). Yerevan: Yerevan State University Press. Retrieved from http://publishing.ysu.-am/hy/1578921445
Hovhannisyan, H. O. (2008). Pokhakertakan tramabanut'yan metodabanakan ev kira-rakan tesankyunnery' (Methodological and applied aspects of transformational logic, in Armenian). In G. A. Brutian (Ed.), Pokhakerpakan tramabanut'yun (Transformational Logic). (Book 2., pp. 619-626). Yerevan: International Academy of Philosophy Press.
Oizerman, T. I. (1986). Academik G. Brutian (Academician G. Brutian, Review in Russian). Vestnik obshchestvennikh nauk RAN RA (Bulletin of social sciences NAS RA, in Russian), 4, 88-90.
Styazkin, N. I. (1983). G. A Brutian. Logika Da-vida Nepobedimogo (The logic of David the Invincible, Review in Russian). Vestnik obshchestvennikh nauk (Bulletin of Social Sciences NAS RA), 10, 95-96. Retrieved from https://arar.sci.am/dli-bra/publication/40499/edition/36299/co ntent?ref=struct
