Discussion

Publication Type:

Language:

Author(s): 
Olga Stoliarova
Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences
Natalia Kuznetsova
Russian State University for the Humanities
Vladimir Filatov
Russian State University for the Humanities
Andrei Rodin
Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences
Irina Dudenkova
The Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration
Issue number: 
No. 1 (Vol. 35)
Pages: 
66-84
Abstract: 

The discussion was devoted to the philosophical (or, more precisely, ontological) role of the history of science. The problem is put as follows: can history of science be a contribution to the defence of realism in the ontology of process? The discussion in headed by the article of O.Stoliarova (Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences) who defends the realistic interpretations of the history of science. N.Kuznetsova and V.Filatov (both: Russian State University for the Humanities) criticize O.Stoliarova for an allegedly unjustified ontologization of the history of science. They argue that philosophical ontology should remain within the borders of the critique of reason and the history of science should remain within the borders of the factual. I.Dudenkova (The Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration), on the other hand, criticized O.Stoliarova for a too weak ontological radicalism of her position, arguing that historicism today is an ontological principle for the whole of science. A.Rodin (Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences) considers O.Stoliarova position as plausible but lacking a full justification and elaboration. O.Stoliarova in her reply to the critiques states that the development of natural sciences causes a revision of the ontological assumptions that had given support for relativism and subjectivism and thus, she argues, natural science itself compels us to prefer the realistic position.

Keywords: 
realism, history of science, transcendental historicism, a priori knowledge, relativism
References: 

Akhundov M.D. Kontseptsii prostranstva i vremeni. Istoki, evolyutsiya, perspektivy (Conceptions of space and time: the origins, evolution and perspectives). Moscow, 1982.

Akhutin A.V. Tyazhba o bytii (The dispute about being). Moscow, 1997.

Dzhemmer M. Ponyatie massy v klassicheskoy i sovremennoy fizike (The notion of mass in classical and contemporary physics). Moscow, 1967.

Gaydenko P.P. Proryv k transtsendentnomu. Novaya ontologiya XX veka (The breakthrough to the transcendent. The new ontology of the XXth century). Moscow, 1997.

Kant I. Sochineniya v shesti tomakh. T. 3. (Works in six volumes. Vol 3). Moscow, 1964.

Khund F. Istoriya kvantovoy teorii (Hund F. History of Quantum Theory). Kiev, 1980.

Kuayn U. Slovo i ob"ekt (Quine W. Word and Object). Moscow, 2000.

Macherey P. The Encounter with Spinoza // Deleuze G. A Critical Reader / Ed. by Paul Patton. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996. P. 146/

Meillassoux Q. Apres la finitude. Esse sur la necessite de la contingence. Seuil, 2006.

Merton R. Sotsial'naya teoriya i sotsial'naya struktura (Social theory and social structure) Moscow, 2006.

Uayt Kh. Metaistoriya: istoricheskoe voobrazhenie v Evrope XIX veka (White H. Metahistory). Ekaterinburg, 2002.

Full Text: