| Article | |
|---|---|
| Article name | On the Limits to the Generational Theory Applicability in Modern Philosophy of History |
| Authors | Chistanov M.N. Doctor of Philosophy , Associate Professor, maratchistanov@gmail.com |
| Bibliographic description | Chistanov M. N. On the Limits to the Generational Theory Applicability in Modern Philosophy of History // Humanitarian Vector. 2017. Vol. 12, No. 3. PP. 35–39. DOI: 10.21209/1996-7853-2017-12-3-35-39. |
| Section | Social philosophy |
| UDK | 101.1:168:930.2 |
| DOI | 10.21209/1996-7853-2017-12-3-35-39 |
| Article type | |
| Annotation | There is a shortage of new theories in modern philosophy of history. During the twentieth century, the basic concepts in philosophy of history were consistently disavowed: the idea of the objective historical process and social progress, the neo-Kantian theory of historical cognition, the phenomenological and hermeneutic concept of the subject’s internal historicism, the analytic philosophy of history. The last major attempt to create a historical epistemology based on the theory of the historical narrative ends with the recognition of the irrational nature of the latter. In these circumstances, empirical theories get a new chance. Since the main feature of empirical research is the search for all kinds of repeatability, in recent decades, a massive return to cyclic models can be observed. One of these theories is the theory of generations, proposed by American researchers W. Strauss and N. Howe. Since the representatives of the same generation have common values and tastes, the model of Strauss and Howe was very popular in marketing research and later some attempts were made to use it in other economic and social disciplines. However, upon a closer look this approach does not have any serious ontological foundations and needs a serious philosophical revision. |
| Key words | philosophy of history, historical epistemology, generational theory, ontological foundations, empirical methodology |
| Article information | |
| References | 1. Veber M. «Ob\'\'ektivnost’» sotsial’no-nauchnogo i sotsial’no-politicheskogo znaniya // Izbrannye proizvedeniya. M.: Progress, 1990. S. 345–415. 2. Gempel’ K. G. Funktsiya obshchikh zakonov v istorii // Logika ob\'\'yasneniya. M.: Dom intellektual’noi knigi, 1998. S. 16–31. 3. Drei U. Eshche raz k voprosu ob ob\'\'yasnenii deistvii lyudei v istoricheskoi nauke // Filosofiya i metodologiya istorii. M.: Progress, 1977. S. 37–71. 4. Markuze G. Odnomernyi chelovek // Eros i tsivilizatsiya. Odnomernyi chelovek: issledovanie ideologii razvitogo industrial’nogo obshchestva. M.: ACT, 2002. 526 s. 5. Osnovy teorii pokolenii [Elektronnyi resurs]. Rezhim dostupa: https://www.rugenerations.su / (data obrashcheniya: 20.09.2016). 6. Riker P. Vremya i rasskaz. M.: Universitetskaya kniga, 2000. T. 1. Intriga i istoricheskii rasskaz. 313 s. 7. Rikkert G. Nauki o prirode i nauki o kul’ture // Nauki o prirode i nauki o kul’ture. M.: Respublika, 1998. S. 44–128. 8. Syrov V. N. Rastsvet i zakat evropeiskoi filosofii istorii. (Ot Bekona k Shpengleru). Tomsk: Kursiv, 1997. 387 s. 9. Uait Kh. Metaistoriya: istoricheskoe voobrazhenie v Evrope XIX veka. Ekaterinburg: Izd-vo Ural. un-ta, 2002. 528 s. 10. Howe Neil, Strauss William. Generations: The History of America’s Future, 1584 to 2069. New York: William Mor-row & Company, 1991. 544 p. |
| Full article | On the Limits to the Generational Theory Applicability in Modern Philosophy of History |
| 0 | |
| 12 | |
