| Annotation |
The most important cultural value is rationality, as the fundamental characteristic of all human activities. Possessing simultaneously the properties of methodology and axiology, the concept of “rationality” is poorly susceptible to criterial comprehension, either in absolute terms or in a relativistic understanding. However, this does not mean that rationality cannot be studied methodologically. On the contrary, this notion gets its meaning only when it is interpreted as a system of adopted regulatory norms. The paradox of rational thinking is manifested in the fact that once a certain categorical evaluation system is adopted, a person loses critical thinking about this system and the ability to go beyond it. When this subject decides to revise the whole system, tries to improve it or replace it fundamentally different, then at this moment it acts irrationally, but this irrationality is just a rational behavior. The transformation of medieval idealistic ahumanism into the idealistic ahumanism of bourgeois commodity-money relations, which, in essence, was the same ahumanism turned inside out, introduced European culture into a logical trap. However, the opposite of delusion is not necessarily the truth, but only another error, which it turned out to be in practice. As a result, the humanistic reformation that took place during the Renaissance made only a substitution of one ahumanism for others, and the difference was manifested only in the substitution of the source and attractor of faith. |
| References |
1.
Weber, M. Selected works. M: Progress, 1990. (In Rus.)
2.
Evdokimov, V. S., Satdanova, N. H. The Problem of rationality in cognition and activity. Philosophical sciences, no. 1, p. 114, 1988. (In Rus.)
3.
Kasavin I. T. On the social content of the concept “rationality”. Philosophical Sciences, no. 6, pp. 64–65, 1985. (In Rus.)
4.
Kosareva, L. M. Socio-Cultural Genesis of modern science. Philosophical aspect of the problem. M: Nauka, 1989. (In Rus.)
5.
Kuhn, T. The Structure of scientific revolutions. M: Progress, 1975. (In Rus.)
6.
Leont’eva, E. Yu. Rationality and its types: Genesis and evolution. Dr. sci. diss. Volgograd, 2003. (In Rus.)
7.
Nikiforov, A. L. Scientific rationality and the purpose of science. Web: 20.12.2017. https://www Oh. studfiles.net/preview/1175695. (In Rus.)
8.
Porus, V. N. Paradoxes of scientific rationality and ethics. In: Historical types of rationality. Vol.1. M: IF RAN, 1995: 299–316. (In Rus.)
9.
Porus, V. N. Epistemology: some trends. Questions of philosophy, no. 2, pp. 93–110, 1997. (In Rus.)
10.
Porus, V. N. C. Pierce and the modern “philosophy of science”. Questions of philosophy, no. 3, pp. 137–144, 1982. (In Rus.)
11.
Porus, V. N., Chertkova, E. L. “Evolutionary-biological” model of science by S. Toulmin. In search of the theory of science development (Essays of Western European and American concepts of the XX century). M: Progress, 1982: 260–277. (In Rus.)
12.
Rakitov, A. I. Rationality and theoretical knowledge. Questions of philosophy, no. 11, pp. 68–81, 1982. (In Rus.)
13.
Rudnev, V. P. Wittgenstein as a person. Ludwig Wittgenstein: a man and a thinker. M: Progress, 1993: 332–348. (In Rus.)
14.
Rutmanis, K. V. Genesis of ideas of rationality in philosophy. In: Rationality as a subject of philosophical research. M: IF RAN, 1995: 10–22. (In Rus.)
15.
Trubnikov, N. H. Crisis of the European scientific mind. Philosophy of science and philosophy of life. In: Rationality as a subject of philosophical research. M: IF RAN, 1995: 143–170. (In Rus.)
16.
Heidegger, M. The Doctrine of Plato about the truth. In: History of philosophy Yearbook. M: Nauka, 1986: 255–275. (In Rus.)
17.
Shvyrev, V. S. Rationality as a philosophical problem. In: Rationality as a subject of philosophical research. M: IF RAN, 1995: 23–27. (In Rus.)
18.
Bartley, W. W. Theories of Demarcation between Science and Metaphysics. Problems in the philosophy of science. Amsterdam, 1968:43. (In Rus.)
19.
Mortimore, G. W. Rational action. Rationality and the social sciences. L. etc., 1976: 106. (In Engl.)
20.
Nagel, T. Mortal questions. Cambridge, 1979:208. (In Engl.)
21.
Putnam, H. Three kinds of scientific realism // Philos. Quart. 1982. Vol. 32,128:198. (In Engl.)
22.
West, M. L. Early Greek philosophy and the Orient. Oxford, 1971: 124. (In Engl.) |
