CC BY
246. Гаврилов К.А. Риск и моральная ответственность: реконструкция нормативного измерения рискованного поведения. // Нормы и мораль в социологической теории: от классических концепций к новым идеям: [монография] / [И.Ф. Девятко и др.]; Отв. ред. И.Ф. Девятко, Р.Н. Абрамов, И.В. Катерный; ФНИСЦ РАН. М.: Весь Мир, 2017. С.144.
7. Делягин М.Г. Кривое зеркало официальной статистики // Московский комсомолец. 2018. 18 мая. С.3.
8. Делягин М.Г. "Молись и кайся": как порочат Советский Союз ради уничтожения России // Московский комсомолец. 2018. 1 сентября. С.3.
9. Ивлева М.И. Концепция онтологического статуса субъекта в университетской философии в России в конце XIX - начале ХХ в.в. // Вестник Российского экономического университета им. Г.В. Плеханова. 2012. №8. С. 28-35.
10. Ивлева М.И. О спиритуалистической концепции свободы личности // Социально-гуманитарные знания. 2008. №6. С.317-323.
11. Локосов В. Кровавая капитализация. Интервью А. Чуйкова. // Аргументы недели. 2018. 14 июня. №23(616). С.3.
12. Минкин А. Рывок: вперед или взад // Московский комсомолец. 2018. 6 июня. С.4.
13. Миронов Н. Моральный кодекс строителей пофигизма // Московский комсомолец. 2018. 10 августа. С.3.
14. Поляков Ю.М. Перелетная элита. М.: Книжный мир. 2017. 384 с.
15. Рикер П. Конфликт интерпретаций. Очерки о герменевтике. / Пер. с франц. И. Сергеевой. М.: Медиум, 1995. 6. Рикер П. Память, история, забвение. / Пер. с франц. М.: Издательство гуманитарной литературы, 2004.
17. Рикер П. Справедливое. / Пер. с франц. Б.Скуратова, П.Хицкого. М.: Гнозис. М.: Логос, 2005.
18. Ростовский М. Тайна пропажи... // Московский комсомолец. 2018. 25 августа. С.3.
19. Стогова Е. Пир на обочине // Москва вечерняя. 2018. 4 сентября. №103. С.16.
20. Холмогоров С. Грефным делом. // Культура. 1-7 июля 2018 г. №18. С.7.
21. Чернова Я.С., Медведев Н.В. Философская герменевтика Поля Рикера: монография. Тамбов: Издательский дом ТГУ им. Г.Р. Державина, 2014.
22. Barkova E., Ivleva M., Buzskaya O., Buzskij M. Aghabekyan K.B. Eecology of socio-cultural communications: worldview and methodological foundations Man in India. 2017. Т. 97. № 21. С. 241-256.
References and Source
1. Barkova EH.V. Strategii razvitiya ehkofilosofii: k novomu gumanitarnomu proryvu// Pravo i praktika. 2017. № 4. S. 188-197.
2. Barkova EH.V. Filosofiya otvetstvennosti, gumanitarnoe znanie i duhovnaya bezopasnost' // Gumanitarnoe znanie i duhovnaya bezopasnost': sbornik materialov IV Mezhdunarodnoj nauchno-prakticheskoj konferencii (Groznyj, 1-3 dekabrya 2017 g.). Mahachkala: CHGPU, ALEF (IP Ovchinnikov M.A.), 2017.
3. Besedin P. Pokolenie bez pokayaniya. // Kul'tura. 18-24 maya 2018 g. №16. S.7.
4. Vvedenie v filosofiyu otvetstvennosti: Monografiya. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo SibGUTI, 2007.
5. Vdovina I.S. Riker. // Novaya filosofskaya ehnciklopediya: v 4 t. M.: Mysl', 2010. T.3. S.455-456.
6. Gavrilov K.A. Risk i moral'naya otvetstvennost': rekonstrukciya normativnogo izmereniya riskovannogo povedeniya. // Normy i moral' v sociologicheskoj teorii: ot klassicheskih koncepcij k novym ideyam: [monografiya] / [I.F. Devyatko i dr.]; Otv. red. I.F. Devyatko, R.N. Abramov, I.V. Katernyj; FNISC RAN. M.: Ves' Mir, 2017. S.144.
7. Delyagin M.G. Krivoe zerkalo oficial'noj statistiki // Moskovskij komsomolec. 2018. 18 maya. S.3.
8. Delyagin M.G. "Molis' i kajsya": kak porochat Sovetskij Soyuz radi unichtozheniya Rossii // Moskovskij komsomolec. 2018. 1 sentyabrya. S.3.
9. Ivleva M.I. Koncepciya ontologicheskogo statusa sub"ekta v universitetskoj filosofii v Rossii v konce XIX - nachale HKH v.v. // Vestnik Rossijskogo ehkonomicheskogo universiteta im. G.V. Plekhanova. 2012. №8. S. 28-35.
10. Ivleva M.I. O spiritualisticheskoj koncepcii svobody lichnosti // Social'no-gumanitarnye znaniya. 2008. №6. S.317-323.
11. Lokosov V. Krovavaya kapitalizaciya. Interv'yu A. CHujkova. // Argumenty nedeli. 2018. 14 iyunya. №23(616). S.3.
12. Minkin A. Ryvok: vpered ili vzad // Moskovskij komsomolec. 2018. 6 iyunya. S.4.
13. Mironov N. Moral'nyj kodeks stroitelej pofigizma // Moskovskij komsomolec. 2018. 10 avgusta. S.3.
14. Polyakov YU.M. Pereletnaya ehlita. M.: Knizhnyj mir. 2017. 384 c.
15. Riker P. Konflikt interpretacij. Ocherki o germenevtike. / Per. s franc. I. Sergeevoj. M.: Medium, 1995. 6. Riker P. Pamyat', istoriya, zabvenie. / Per. s franc. M.: Izdatel'stvo gumanitarnoj literatury, 2004.
17. Riker P. Spravedlivoe. / Per. s franc. B.Skuratova, P.Hickogo. M.: Gnozis. M.: Logos, 2005.
18. Rostovskij M. Tajna propazhi... // Moskovskij komsomolec. 2018. 25 avgusta. S.3.
19. Stogova E. Pir na obochine // Moskva vechernyaya. 2018. 4 sentyabrya. №103. S.16.
20. Holmogorov S. Grefnym delom. // Kul'tura. 1-7 iyulya 2018 g. №18. S.7.
21. CHernova YA.S., Medvedev N.V. Filosofskaya germenevtika Polya Rikera: monografiya. Tambov: Izdatel'skij dom TGU im. G.R. Derzhavina, 2014.
22. Barkova E., Ivleva M., Buzskaya O., Buzskij M. Aghabekyan K.B. Eecology of socio-cultural communications: worldview and methodological foundations Man in India. 2017. T. 97. № 21. S. 241-256.
КОСТИН ПЕТР АЛЕКСЕЕВИЧ - аспирант кафедры истории и философии Российского экономического университета имени Г.В. Плеханова ([email protected]).
KOSTIN, PETR A. - Ph.D. student, Department of history and philosophy, Plekhanov Russian University.
УДК 1(091)
ИВЛЕВА М.И., ЛЕВЧЕНКО К.Г. МАТЕМАТИЗАЦИЯ ГУМАНИТАРНОГО ЗНАНИЯ КАК ТЕНДЕНЦИЯ СОВРЕМЕННОЙ
КУЛЬТУРЫ
Ключевые слова: информационное общество, информация, социокультурная ситуация, экология медиа, личность
В статье исследован вопрос об особенностях современного научного знания и роли методической компоненты. Авторы поднимают вопрос о возможностях применения этого компонента в гуманитарных дисциплинах, в частности, на примере исследований в области исторических наук, предпринятых И.Д. Ковальченко. В работе использованы исторический, системный методы, а также методы междисциплинарного анализа применения математических методов в науке.
IVLEVA, M.I., LEVCHENKO, K.G.
THE MATHEMATIZATION OF THE HUMANITIES AS A TREND OF MODERN CULTURE
Keywords: ecology, information, information society, media ecology, ecology of the person
The article investigates the question about the features of modern scientific knowledge and the role of methodological component. The authors raise the question about the possibility of using this component in the human sciences, in particular, on the example of research in the field of historical sciences undertaken by I. D. Kovalchenko. The paper uses the historical method, as well as the method of analysis of the research question of the application of mathematical methods in science.
The famous motto inscribed at the entrance to the ancient Greek philosopher Plato's Academy, "Do not enter here who does not know geometry!", vivid illustrates the role of mathematics in scientific knowledge in General. It is well known that at the beginning of antiquity syncretic scientific knowledge was expressed exclusively in the form of philosophy, and the process of separation from the philosophy of specific Sciences in the history of Humanity took more than a thousand years. Mathematics stands out from the philosophy of one of the first and subsequently participates in the esteblishment of independent natural Sciences, so the mathematization of physics and mechanics contributed to their final "spin-off" from philosophy. The mathematization of natural science raised it to a new qualitative level of study and understanding of reality, as it contained three elements: a new way of forming concepts, the formal mathematical methods implementation, as well as the possibility of building formal quantitative models of objective reality.
In contrast to the concepts of common language, mathematical concepts are a generalization of research objects from their quantitative characteristics, in which a thorough study of these objects at a qualitative level leads to the allocation of such a General content, which is then studied by mathematical methods.
Both formal mathematical methods and formal quantitative models, being distracted directly from the content of reality, operate not with random, insignificant quantitative characteristics of objects, but with those repetitive quantitative characteristics that are essential for these objects and the change of which leads to a change in, ultimately, the qualitative content of the system, the elements of which these objects are.
Thus, the unity of the qualitative diversity of objects is one of the important prerequisites for the mathematization of scientific knowledge, and this fact largely explains the situation in science until the twentieth century, when the question of the mathematization of humanitarian knowledge was not raised in principle. Unlike natural elements, people, as elements of reality and elements of society, are not identical to each other, the consciousness of each individual is unique, unique and inimitable its spiritual, intellectual world, as well as the genetic set of abilities. As a consequence, often referred to the possibility of studying the trends of uniformity between people, recognizes the existence of a special methodology of the Humanities, aimed, first and foremost, on understanding rather than on explanation of the object. It is worth recalling the fact that the emergence of sociology, as the first private social and humanitarian science, dates only to the thirties of the nineteenth century, and that its founder, the French philosopher Auguste Comte, first of all, set the task to systematize social processes, to find common ground between seemingly heterogeneous social events and facts, and on the basis of this to be able to conduct a comparative analysis, the use of another methodology of private Sciences in order to open social patterns, possibilities of scientific explanation and prediction of changes in social phenomena [1]. At that time, the idea of the possibility of systematization of humanitarian knowledge, the identification of common in qualitatively heterogeneous social life was so impossible that Comte initially called the new branch of knowledge social physics, striving for the accuracy of natural Sciences.
In turn, during the twentieth century there is a dialectical process of unity of differentiation and integration of scientific knowledge.
The iterative process of the introduction of mathematical methods in the Humanities reflects a fundamental connection between completely different, at first glance, disciplines and the complete failure of attempts to strictly differentiate the latter at the present stage of development of the system of scientific views. Interdisciplinary environment, generating new knowledge, like the primordial broth, is becoming the reality that has to be faced. This knowledge becomes crowded in a narrow little world for him the old theories and dogmas [2]. This leads to further expansion and complication of the world in all its diversity (in all its "dimensions").
The cosmological analogy with the Universe evolution from the moment of cosmological singularity, when in the still homogeneous and isotropic early Universe with its unification by all fundamental interactions and the complete absence of the laws of nature familiar at the present state, in which entire ecosystems of galactic scales have already been formed, subordinated to complex and heterogeneous laws and regularities. The whole interdisciplinary group of researchers are required for their description and study (which are only mentions of such traditional professions as space biologist, planet geneticist, cliometrist, ...)
Moreover, the marked pattern of interpenetration of various branches of scientific knowledge is observed from the lowest level, the foundation of these disciplines as such [3]. So, speaking about the mathematization of humanitarian knowledge and the stimulation of the development of mathematics by the human sciences, one shouldn't forget about the inevitable counter-process of rethinking the natural and mathematical sciences within the humanitarian sections, causing a powerful synergetic effect, obliged to ideas exchange between such different sciences (and therefore fresh for the rest of the sciences), as fully able to describe the real world with all its laws (mainly natural) and problems (mainly socio-economic).
The problem of the mathematization of humanitarian knowledge has occupied an important place in scientific research since the second half of the twentieth century. The complexity of the problem is emphasized by the fact that there is no clear generally accepted position on this issue and so far few scientists have ventured to introduce mathematical methods in certain areas of the human sciences,. However, it should be noted that since the beginning of the sixties of the twentieth century, domestic historians have been actively interested in the possibility of applying quantitative methods in their research. "The Use of computers in historical science", M., 1964 by of V. A. Ustinov was among the first books in the framework of this problem. Their work has resulted in such works and collections as "Mathematical methods in historical research" M., 1972, "Mathematical methods in research on socio-economic history" M., 1975, "Mathematical methods in historical-economic and historical-cultural research" M., 1977, "Mathematical methods in socio-economic and archaeological research" M., 1981, and many others.
One of the examples of a fairly successful attempt to imagine humanitarian knowledge, namely, historical science, in unity with mathematical methods is the work of academician of the USSR I. D. Kovalchenko. Let's try to describe some of his ideas briefly.
According to I. D. Kovalchenko, in the process of mathematization of historical knowledge it is necessary to make a distinction between mathematical methods and quantitative methods. Quantitative methods-analysis of processes and phenomena based on a system of quantitative indicators that reveal the main characteristics of these objects of analysis. In their application, the mathematical apparatus is used. In turn, mathematical methods make it possible to achieve a new level of development of historical research, as they are used to build mathematical models of processes and phenomena based on a system of quantitative data.
I. D. Kovalchenko pays special attention to the fact that with all the opportunities that the quantitative methods provide the historian by, it is impossible to absolutize these methods, underestimate the importance of qualitative and meaningful methods. Revealing the inner essence of the studied processes and phenomena, meaningful analysis necessarily plays a leading role in historical science, in turn, the disclosure of the essence, content of the phenomenon or process is unthinkable without describing them and taking into account their quantitative characteristics. Thus, qualitative and quantitative types of analysis of history in unity with descriptive methods complement and enrich each other. The academician rejects attempts to establish a special section of historical knowledge, the so-called "mathematical history", where the content and description of historical objects would be ignored.
Defining specifics of application of quantitative methods in historical science, I. D. Kovalchenko notes that "the quantitative analysis allows to establish an absolute and relative measure of the considered features and properties of objects and the phenomena and to reveal intensity of their manifestation" [4, page 330] that is impossible while only narrative methods applied in historical research.
While narrative, descriptive methods are used already at the initial stage of historical research, the application of quantitative methods is possible only if the accumulation of information to such an extent that, firstly, it is possible to measure the characteristics of the phenomena and processes under
study, and, secondly, it is possible to detect the unity in the diversity of these historical objects, their qualitative homogeneity, which makes them quantitatively measurable and comparable with each other.
I. D. Kovalchenko concludes that it is necessary to apply quantitative and mathematical methods in historical science for its development and fruitful research in the following areas. First, the use of these methods is necessary to identify the quantitative measure and the boundaries of the characteristics of the studied objects during their classification and classification of their constituent elements, for example, certain layers, groups. Secondly, the formalization of the results of historical knowledge is an integral part of the process of development of existing historical theories and the creation of new ones. The wide application of quantitative and mathematical methods should contribute to the justification and identification of natural, internally determined nature of historical development in general, provided the unity in this development of objective and subjective components. The dynamics of the historical development of the object, provided sufficient information can be expressed mathematically defined functional relationship. Third, the use of quantitative and mathematical methods is mandatory in the construction of multidimensional typological classifications, without which modern historical science is unthinkable. Fourthly, as already noted, the use of these methods is necessary both to build models of historical development in general, and individual processes or phenomena. Finally, quantitative and mathematical methods are effective in solving epistemological, research problems of historical science, such as the verification of the truth of the information of individual and mass sources, as well as in the processing of this information, which are both quantitative and descriptive; when forming a representative system of facts, when the apparatus of mathematical statistics are used to determine a representative sample, etc.
Литература и источники
1. Ивлева М.И., Левченко К.Г. Концепция lifelonglearning в контексте экологии образования // Право и практика. 2017. № 4. С. 210-218.
2. Ивлева М.И., Левченко К.Г. Информационное пространство фундаментальных и прикладных наук в высшей школе// Инициативы XXI века. 2012. № 4. С. 102-104.
3. Ивлева М.И., Левченко К.Г. Полиаспектность современного образовательного процесса // Современные направления развития гуманитарных, юридических и экономических наук Сборник трудов международной научно-практической конференции. М., 2013. С. 16-20.
4. Ковальченко И. Д. Методы исторического исследования. М.: Наука, 1987.
References and Source
1. Ivleva M.I., Levchenko K.G. Koncepciya lifelonglearning v kontekste ehkologii obrazovaniya // Pravo i praktika. 2017. № 4. S. 210-218.
2. Ivleva M.I., Levchenko K.G. Informacionnoe prostranstvo fundamental'nyh i prikladnyh nauk v vysshej shkole// Iniciativy XXI veka. 2012. № 4.
5. 102-104.
3. Ivleva M.I., Levchenko K.G. Poliaspektnost' sovremennogo obrazovatel'nogo processa // Sovremennye napravleniya razvitiya gumanitarnyh, yuridicheskih i ehkonomicheskih nauk Sbornik trudov mezhdunarodnoj nauchno-prakticheskoj konferencii. M., 2013. S. 16-20.
4. Koval'chenko I. D. Metody istoricheskogo issledovaniya. M.: Nauka, 1987.
ИВЛЕВА МАРИНА ИВАНОВНА - кандидат философских наук, доцент Российского экономического университета имени Г.В. Плеханова ([email protected])
ЛЕВЧЕНКО КИРИЛЛ ГЕННАДЬЕВИЧ - кандидат философских наук, доцент Финансового университета при Правительстве Российской Федерации ([email protected])
IVLEVA, MARINA L - Ph.D. in Philosophy, Associate Professor, Department of history and philosophy, Plekhanov Russian University.
LEVCHENKO, KIRILL G. - Ph.D. in Philosophy, Associate Professor,
УДК 009
БУЗСКАЯ О.М.
ЭВРИСТИЧЕСКИЙ СМЫСЛ СОЦИАЛЬНОГО ПРОЕКТИРОВАНИЯ В ФОРМИРОВАНИИ КОНТИНУУМА БУДУЩЕГО
Ключевые слова: будущее, общество, глобализация, культура, континуум. социокультурное проектирование.
В статье раскрыт конструктивно-творческий потенциал проектной деятельности в условиях роста рискогенных тенденций общества в эпоху глобализации. Показана его роль в формировании нового континуума общества, по-новому связывающего будущее с настоящим. Потребность в преодолении стихийно формирующихсся тенденций формирования будущего изменяет роль субъекта социокультурного проектирования. На материале наследия М.Вебера акцентирована мысль о важности типа рационализации жизни общества и ценности избираемой модели, подобно тому, как в Европе протестантская мораль стала средством, рационализирующим процесс производства, поскольку представляла его целью самого для себя. Обосновывается идея о внутренней связи между целями и средствами в концепции рациональности М.Вебера как одно из направлений взаимодействия связи настоящего и будущего. В статье раскрываются функции пространства и времени как константы социального бытия и одновременно обосновываются их функции в детерминации проектируемых изменений, идеалов и ценностей.
