Article/Publication Details
Views: 4150

CONSTITUTING OF PLURAL IMAGES OF SCIENCE
AS A HISTORICAL TASK OF PHENOMENOLOGY

Abstract
The main purpose of article is representation of conceptual introduction to a cycle of the future researches devoted to reconstruction of phenomenological views on processes of creation of images of science. That purpose is achieved as a result of detection of key features (the conceptual bases) of pre-phenomenological and phenomenological ways of a reflection of science. Research leans on a method of the comparative analysis. Classical and non-classical variant of creation of images of science were compared. Members of classical philosophy assumed that there is a way to present science in an image of unity of knowledge. Such image could be valid without any exceptions. Since works of Neo-kantianism, modern philosophy has developed the idea that creation of a uniform image of science is problematic. The phenomenology keeps classical idea of unity of images of science, but the unity is interpreted as a complex of «comprehension» intensions of consciousness. Such complex of intensions gives the horizon of judgment of each of images of science in terms of their relations to concrete subject domain. Theoretical value of the work consists in identification of conditions under which phenomenological approach leads to institutionalization of the pluralistic image of science. As a result research leads to the original conclusion that the problem of phenomenology consists in constituting a pluralistic image of science.

Key words
Philosophical and methodological studies, classical philosophy, non-classical philosophy, phenomenology, mission of phenomenology, uniformity of scientific knowledge, pluralism of images of science.

References

• Aristotel'. (1976). Sochineniya v chetyrekh tomakh [Collected Works in Four Volumes. Volume 1.]. Moscow: Mysl' (in Russian).
• Bast, R. A. (1986). Der Wissenschaftsbegriff Martin Heideggers im Zusammenhang seiner Philosophie. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog.
• Bruzina, R. (2010). Husserl's “Naturalism” and Genetic Phenomenology. New Yearbook for Phenomenology & Phenomenology Philosophy, 10 (1), 91–125.
• Casement, W. (1988). Husserl and Philosophy of History. History and Theory, 27 (3), 229–240.
• Davidson, D. (1993). Ob idee kontseptual'noi skhemy [On Very Idea of the Conceptual Scheme]. In A. F. Gryaznov (Ed.), Analiticheskaya filosofiya. Izbrannye teksty [Analytical Philosophy. Selected Texts] (144–159). Moscow: Moscow State University Press. (in Russian).
• Gadamer, H.-G. (2000). Dialekticheskaya etika Platona (Fenomenologicheskaya interpretatsiya “Fileba”) [Plato's Dialectical Ethics (Phenomenological Interpretation of “Phileb”)]. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg Philosophical Society Publ. (in Russian).
• Gegel', G. V. F. (1975). Entsiklopediya filosofskikh nauk. Tom 2. Filosofiya prirody [Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences. Volume 2. Philosophy of Nature]. Moscow: Mysl'. (in Russian).
• Gegel', G. V. F. (1999). Nauka logiki [Science of Logic]. Moscow: Mysl'. (in Russian).
• Glazebrook, T. (2000). From Physis to Nature, Technê to Technology: Heidegger on Aristotle, Galileo and Newton. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 38 (1), 95–118.
• Gusserl', E. (2000). Logicheskie issledovaniya. Kartezianskie razmyshleniya. [Logical Investigations. Cartesian Meditations]. Moscow: AST. (in Russian).
• Kant, I. (1998). Kritika chistogo razuma [Critique of Pure Reason]. Moscow: Nauka. (in Russian).
• Kant, I. (1999). Metafizicheskie nachala estestvoznaniya [Metaphysical Origins of Natural Sciences]. Moscow: Mysl'. (in Russian).
• Kassirer, E. (2002). Filosofiya simvolicheskikh form. Tom 1 [Philosophy of Symbolic Forms. Volume 1]. St. Petersburg: University Book Publ. (in Russian).
• Khaideger, M. (1993). Raboty i razmyshleniya raznykh let [Works and Essays of Different Years]. Moscow: Gnozis. (in Russian).
• Khaideger, M. (2003). Bytie i vremya [Being and Time]. Khar'kov: Folio. (in Russian).
• Konopka, A. (2008). A Renewal of Husserl's Critique of Naturalism. Environmental Philosophy, 5 (1), 37–59.
• Kulikov, S. B. (2005). Voprosy stanovleniya predmetnoi i problemnoi oblastei filosofii nauki [Questions of Formation of Subject and Problem Domain of Philosophy of Science]. Tomsk: Tomsk State Pedagogical Press. (in Russian).
• Kurtz, P. (1969). Phenomenology and Naturalism. Journal of History of Philosophy, 7 (1), 74–78.
• Lembeck, K.-H. (2010). Philosophie als Zumutung? Ihre Rolle im Kanon der Wissenschaften. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.
• Moran, D. (2008). Husserl's Transcendental Philosophy and the Critique of Naturalism. Continental Philosophy Review, (41), 401–425.
• Platon, (1998). Apologiya Sokrata, Kriton, Ion, Protagor [Apology of Socrates, Kriton, Ion, Protagor]. Moscow: Mysl'. (in Russian).
• Rikkert, H. (2000). Filosofiya zhizni [Philosophy of Life]. Moscow: AST. (in Russian).
• Shtreker, E. (1996). Gusserlevskaya ideya fenomenologii kak obosnovyvayushchei teorii nauki [Husserl's Idea of Phenomenology as Proving Theory of Science]. In Sovremennaya filosofiya nauki [Modern Philosophy of Science] (376–392). Moscow: Logos. (in Russian).
• Wagner, H. R. (1972). Husserl and Historicism. Social Research, 39 (4), 696–719.