Suchergebnisse

The article examines the current situation related to the prospects for further development of philosophical knowledge. It is pointed out that in the interpretation of a number of authors, philosophy is now actually reduced to the history of philosophy, turning into a purely historical discipline. Philosophical thought boils down to the analysis and systematization of what was created before, but not to the free search and creation directed to the future. The current situation has been created due to the practice in which every thought does not arise by itself, but is necessarily based on previously expressed thoughts. Philosophy deals mainly not with the actual, but with the previously described and interpreted reality. Therefore, it is almost impossible for modern philosophers to create on virgin soil. In addition, the amount of philosophical knowledge has reached such a volume that it is almost impossible to keep it within individual human memory. A significant part of philosophical research at present is actually aimed at studying the history of philosophy, while such works sometimes do not contain their own thoughts at all. This situation is considered in philosophy as a systemic inversion: the service, subordinate element of the system acquires a dominant meaning in it. Of course, the role of the history of philosophy in this discipline itself cannot be disputed. Philosophy is a kind of cumulative knowledge in which the past is inseparable from the present and the future. However, it is impossible to identify the history of philosophy with philosophy itself, because this approach closes any path leading to the future for philosophical thought. It is implied that philosophers from now on should be engaged exclusively in rethinking what was created earlier. The further development of philosophical thought with this approach is actually denied. However, Aristotle pointed out that even the complete denial of philosophy implies the use of philosophical argumentation, and therefore, willingly or unwittingly forces one to accept the existence of a philosophical discipline. The most important point is that philosophy is a discipline of interest not only for philosophers themselves. Philosophy is not a 'toy for philosophers', it is a cognitive tool that is in demand in all other areas of human knowledge. And since science and practice as a whole continue to develop, philosophy will remain in demand precisely as a living, developing discipline, and not as a frozen collection of accumulated thoughts.

The paper is devoted to the issues of social progress and conditions for its implementation, the main of which is education. The authors substantiate the topicality of the social progress study by saying that today the uncertainties and risks of sustainable development in the world are amplified. People become aware of their responsibility for the future of the whole society and they understand that meaningful actions of a large number of people have to be taken in the direction of becoming initiative and independent people who are aware of themselves as the creators of their own lives. The authors highlight the role of knowledge acquired from various cognitive systems (science, culture, art, literature, etc.) expanding the cognitive capabilities of a man and the possibilities of his/her creativity. In education, all knowledge acquired from different cognitive systems should be 'sublimated'; it should become a civilizational institution which mission is to transform the world in the direction of social progress. The authors consider the risks of forming such an institution, including educational inequality in the quality and accessibility of education. The paper concludes that modern Russian education does not serve for social progress and not even for the market, but for financial capital.

The significance of the analysis of medical narrative is determined by its dissemination in recent decades in the context of humanization and individualization of medicine. Comparative content analysis of the texts shows that 'subjective understanding' (F. Schleiermacher), 'inner experience' and methods of descriptive psychology (W. Dilthey) are essential components of contemporary narrative analysis. The 'narrative turn' in socio-humanitarian knowledge became possible only after the questions about the genuine existence of man and the ways of understanding his individuality were worked out in various directions of the continental philosophy of the twentieth century. The growing popularity of the narrative approach in the field of medicine is due to theoretical, methodological, and practical changes that occurred in medicine: the rejection of the priority of the biomedical model of health, the principle of paternalism, objectification of the patient and disease. Changes in the structure of diseases also played an important role in its spread. However, as the analysis of the content and methodological foundations of the medical narrative has shown, one should not absolutize its possibilities in solving the problems of patient individualization, preserving his/her identity and, ultimately, in optimizing the treatment process.