KNOWLEDGE BETWEEN TRANSCENDENT AND IMMANENT: CLASSICAL AND NON-CLASSICAL APPROACH

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24919/2522-4700.43.17

Keywords:

cognition, gnoseology, transcendental, immanent, subject, object, thinking

Abstract

The purpose of the article is to study the basic principles of classical and non-classical gnoseology, namely its understanding of the structure and internal mechanisms of cognitive activity. In this context, the main attention is paid to the analysis of the role of transcendent and immanent experiences in it from the standpoint of classical and non-classical approaches. The methodological basis of the study was an analytical approach aimed at analyzing cognitive activity, as well as the principles of comparative studies and hermeneutics, which were used in the comparative analysis of classical and non-classical theories of knowledge. Scientific novelty. In modern philosoph, epistemological issues play a far from paramount role. This is despite the fact that its most influential direction is analytical philosophy, especially when it comes to Western philosophy. This tendency is even more inherent in modern Ukrainian philosophy. Therefore, our study can be considered to fill a significant gap in it. Also, almost for the first time in the national philosophical discourse, the main focus is on a specific analysis of the gnoseological components of classical and non-classical philosophies, clearly outlining the specifics of "classical gnoseology" and "non-classical gnoseology". The analysis of the place and role of transcendent and immanent experiences in cognitive activity in their historical and philosophical genesis ‒ in the process of transition from the classical to the non‒classical paradigm ‒ also claims scientific novelty. Conclusions. Within the classical philosophical paradigm and in classical gnoseology, respectively, the cognitive process was understood as one that is possible only through the relation to the transcendent, i.e. to the transcendental. This understanding of cognition changes markedly in the transition to a non-classical philosophical paradigm, in which, in contrast to the transcendent, the decisive role is played by the immanent, i.e. direct and comprehensive human experience.

References

Гайденко В. Поворот к феминистской эпистемологии. Постнеоклассика – феминизм – наука. Сумы : Университетская книга, 2003. 174 c.

Зотов А.Ф. Буржуазная философия сер. ХІХ – нач. ХХ века. Москва : Высшая школа, 1988. 518 c.

Касавин И.Т. Миграция. Креативность. Текст. Проблемы неклассической теории познании. Санкт-Петербург: РХГИ, 1998. 408 c.

Лекторский В.А. Эпистемология классическая и неклассическая. Москва: Эдиториал УРСС, 2001. 256 c.

Мамардашвили М.К. Классический и неклассический идеалы рациональности. Москва: Логос, 2004. 352 c.

Мамардашвили М.К. Стрела познания (набросок естественноисторической гносеологии). Москва: Школа «Языки русской культуры», 1997. 304 c.

Микешина Л.А. Философия познания. Полемические главы. Москва: Прогресс – Традиция, 2002. 624 c.

Перспективы метафизики: классическая и неклассическая метафизика на рубеже веков / под. ред. Г.Л. Тульчинского, М.С. Уварова. Санкт-Петербург : Алетейя, 2000. 415 c. (Тела мысли).

Петрушенко В.Л. Епістемологія як філософська теорія знання: [монографія]. Львів : Вид-во держ. ун-ту «Львівська політехніка», 2000. 296 c.

Петрушенко В.Л. Ностальгия по абсолютному. Київ : Самватас, 1995. 188 c.

Петрушенко В.Л. Філософія : [курс лекцій]. Київ : Каравела; Львів : Новий світ-2000, 2002. 544 c.

Западная философия от истоков до наших дней : у 4 тт. / Дж. Реале, Д. Антисери. Санкт-Петербург : Петрополис, 1997. Т. 4. 880 c.

Published

2021-11-29