| Article | |
|---|---|
| Article name | Heuristic Nature of the Disease in Modern Foreign Studies: Problems of Philosophical Approaches and Search for Essential Alternative |
| Authors | Galochkina N.E. Postgraduate Student, galonatasha@yandex.ru |
| Bibliographic description | |
| Section | SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY |
| UDK | 316:1:61 |
| DOI | |
| Article type | |
| Annotation | The article presents a critical analysis of foreign philosophical concepts of the middle of the XXth century in the search of the essential foundations of the disease. The necessity of handling the works of foreign philosophers is substantiated in the article. It is noted that unresolved questions of the essential components of the disease have determined conceptual pluralism in this area, such as the objective, subjective, hybrid, alternative and social concepts. The author shows pluralism of views on the phenomenon of the disease, which is stipulated by the multiplicity and ambiguity of the phenomenon regarded. The dispute between the proponents of the objective (from the standpoint of real essence) and the subjective (from the standpoint of nominal essence) concepts has been tried to be resolved by the authors of the hybrid and alternative concepts of the disease where supporters of the hybrid approach combined objective and subjective representations, as imitators of the alternative conceptual measurement denied any essence of the disease. Strong and weak sides of the foreign philosophical concepts are highlighted in the article. The problem of the philosophical approach to the study of this phenomenon is pointed out. It is noted that none of the existing concepts is sufficient to provide a comprehensive philosophical definition of the disease due to a methodological “vacuum” concerning this phenomenon. In conclusion an attempt is made to justify the author’s social and philosophical understanding of the disease. |
| Key words | the essence of the disease, the objective concept, the subjective concept, the hybrid concept, the alternative concept, the social concept, conceptual pluralism |
| Article information | |
| References | 1. Bodriiyar Zh. Simvolicheskii oblik i smert’. M.: Dobrosvet, KDU, 2006. 320 s. 2. Galochkina N. E. Ob”ektivnaya kontseptsiya «bolezni» v svete zarubezhnoi istoriografii (problema filosofskogo podkhoda) // Aspirant. 2015. № 6 (1). S. 54–57. 3. Merton R. Yavnye i latentnye funktsii // Amerikanskaya sotsiologicheskaya mysl’. M.: Izd-vo MGU, 1994. S. 386–391. 4. Parsons T. O sotsial’nykh sistemakh. M.: Akadem. Proekt, 2002. 432 s. 5. Albert D., Munson A. R., Resnik M. D. Reasoning in Medicine: An Introduction to Clinical Inference . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988. 259 p. 6. Bernard C. An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine. New York: Dover, 1927. 180 p. 7. Boorse C. Concepts of health and disease // Philosophy of medicine. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 2011. P. 13–64. 8. Boorse C. Health as a theoretical concept // Philosophy of Science. 1972. № 44. P. 542–73. 9. Brown W. M. On defining “disease” // Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. 1985. № 10 (4). P. 311–328. 10. Caplan A. If gene theory is the cure, what is the disease? In G. Annas & S. Elias (Eds.), Gene Map-ping: Using Law and Ethics as Guides. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. P. 128–141. 11. Cohen H. The evolution of the concept of disease // Concepts of Medicine: A Collection of Essays on Aspects of Medicine. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1961. № 48 (3). P. 155–160. 12. Culver C, Gert B. Philosophy in Medicine. N. Y.: Oxford University Press, 1982. 210 p. 13. Hesslow G. Do we need a concept of disease // Theoretical Medicine 1993. № 14. P. 1–14. 14. Horton R. Georges Canguilhem: philosopher of disease // Journal of the Royal society of medicine, 1995. Vol. 88. P. 316–319. 15. Kendell R. The concept of disease and its Implications for Psychiatry // British Journal of Psychiatry. 1975. № 127 (4). P. 305–315. 16. King L. What is a Disease? // Philosophy of Science 1954. № 21. P. 193–203. 17. Lennox J. Health as an objective value // The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. 1995. № 20. P. 499–511. 18. Margolis J. The concept of disease // Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 1976. № 1. P. 238–255. 19. Mechanic D. Illness and Social Disability: Some Problems in Analysis // Pacifi c Sociol. Rev. 1959. Vol. 2. P. 37–41. 20. Mechanic D. Medical Sociology. New York: Free Press, 1978. 2-nd Ed. 305 p. 21. Nordenfelt L. On the Nature of Health. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1987. P. 537–542. 22. Rather L. J. Zur Philosophie der Begriffs “Krankheit” // Deutsche Medizinische. Wochenschrift 1958. Vol. 83. P. 2012– 2018. 23. Reznek L. The Nature of Disease. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 1987. 150 p. 24. Rothschuh K. Der Krankheitsbegriff (Was ist Krankheit?) // Hippokrates. 1972. Vol. 43. P. 3–17. 25. Scadding J. G. Sarcoidosis. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1967. 26. Schwartz P. H. Decision and discovery in defining ‘disease’. In: Establishing medical reality. Essays in the metaphysics and epistemology of biomedical science, H. Kincaid and J. McKitrick (eds.). Dor-drecht: Springer. 2007. P. 44–63. 27. Szasz T. The myth of mental illness // American Psychologist. 1960. № 15. P. 113–118. 28. Vreese L. Rethinking the concept of disease debate: a pragmatist alternative // Centre for Logic and Philosophy of Science. 2014. P. 1–25. 29. Wakefield J. The concept of mental disorder: on the boundary between biological facts and social values // American Psychologist. 1992. № 47. P. 373–388. 30. Weiner H. Der Organismus als leib-seelische Funktionseinheit – Folgerungen f’r eine psychosoma-tische Medizin // Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik, 8 Medizinische Psychologie. 1991. № 41. S. 465–481. |
| Full article | Heuristic Nature of the Disease in Modern Foreign Studies: Problems of Philosophical Approaches and Search for Essential Alternative |
| 0 | |
| 7 | |
