Social cognition in the social and cultural focus of the postmodern epoch

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Central Ukrainian National Technical University

Social cognition in the social and cultural focus of the postmodern epoch

Z.V. Stezhko, S.P. Rimar

Abstract

The article is devoted to the analysis of postmodern methodology as a paradigm of modern social research. The purpose of the research is to analyze and substantiate the expediency of applying the methodological principles of postmodernism in the context of rational epistemology; the task is to determine the framework of postmodern conceptualization of social processes and the reasons for the ambiguous attitude towards this complex phenomenon. It was given an author's assessment about abilities of postmodernism - as it is a social theory in total and as a knowledge methodology, limits of their possibilities and prospects. Applying of synergetic methodology in the context of a postmodernism strategy of deconstruction was analyzed. As part of the study of the possibilities of practical implementation, an attempt was made to explain why the implementation of the philosophy of postmodernism in general does not contribute to the optimization of social processes and arouses great criticism, but remains popular among the majority of the Western population. A comparative analysis of the pros and cons of philosophical and social theories of the Modern and Postmodern periods shows the ambiguity of the results of the practical implementation of the principles of postmodernism, since their research idea leads to some chaos in both social processes and scientific research. The methodological analysis carried out is capable of initiating a loud discussion about the place and role of postmodernism in various spheres of modern society and the future.

Keywords: postmodernism, methodology, rationalism, irrationalism, truth, freedom, synergetics.

Аннотация

З. В. Стежко, С. П. Рымарь

СОЦИАЛЬНОЕ ПОЗНАНИЕ В СОЦИАЛЬНО-КУЛЬТУРНОМ ФОКУСЕ ПОСТМОДЕРНОЙ ЭПОХИ

Статья посвящена анализу методологии постмодернизма как парадигмы современного социального познания. Цель исследования - обосновать методологические принципы постмодернизма с позиций рациональной эпистемологии, осуществить его критический анализ, определить границы постмодернистской концептуализации социальных процессов и причины амбивалентного отношения к этому сложному явлению. Критика методологических принципов постмодернизма включает в себя их познавательную идею, преимущества и недостатки по сравнению с модернистскими социальными теориями. Дана оценка познавательных возможностей постмодернизма как социальной теории в целом, его возможностей и перспектив. Проанализировано применение синергетической методологии в контексте постмодернистской стратегии деконструкции. В рамках рассмотрения способов практической реализации идей постмодернизма сделана попытка объяснить, почему имплементация философии постмодернизма в целом не способствует оптимизации общественных процессов, вызывает массу яростной критики, но сохраняет популярность в среде большей части населения европейских стран. Предпринятый методологический анализ способен инициировать широкую дискуссию о роли и месте постмодернизма в теории познания современного общества.

Ключевые слова: постмодернизм, методология, рационализм, иррационализм, истина, свобода, синергетика.

Анотація

З. В. Стежко, С. П. Римар

СОЦІАЛЬНЕ ПІЗНАННЯ В СОЦІАЛЬНО-КУЛЬТУРНОМУ ФОКУСІ ПОСТМОДЕРНОЇ ЕПОХИ

Стаття присвячена аналізу методології постмодернізму як парадигми сучасного соціального пізнання. Метою дослідження є аналіз та обгрунтування доцільності застосування методологічних принципів постмодернізму в контексті раціональної епістемології; завданням - визначення меж постмодерністської концептуалізації соціальних процесів та причини амбівалентного ставлення до цього складного явища. Методологію дослідження визначають принципи раціональної філософії: об'єктивності, раціональності, детермінізму, зв'язку та розвитку, конкретності істини, історичності; методи: єдності історичного та логічного, сходження від абстрактного до конкретного; міждисциплінарні методи - аналізу та синтезу, індукції та дедукції, метод синергетики. Результати дослідження. Дана авторська оцінка здатностей постмодернізму як соціальної теорії і як методології пізнання, меж його можливостей та перспективи. Проаналізовано застосування синергетичної методології в контексті постмодерністської стратегії деконструкції. У рамках розгляду способів практичної реалізації ідей постмодернізму зроблена спроба пояснити, чому імплементація філософії постмодернізму в цілому не сприяє оптимізації суспільних процесів та викликає масу критики, проте зберігає популярність в середовищі більшої частини населення Заходу. Обговорення різних аспектів постмодернізму в філософському середовищі є досить активним, однак достатньо швидке його проникнення у всі сфери західного суспільства виявляє нові грані, які потребують подальшого аналізу; крім цього, недостатньо висвітленими є проблеми методологічної концептуалізації пізнавальних процесів сучасного суспільства. Висновки. Зіставний аналіз переваг та недоліків філософсько-соціальних теорій доби Модерну та постмодерну демонструє неоднозначність результатів практичного втілення принципів постмодернізму, зокрема, їх пізнавальна ідея приводить до певної хаотизації як суспільних процесів, так і наукових досліджень. Проведений методологічний аналіз здатний ініціювати широку дискусію про роль і місце постмодернізму в різних сферах сучасного суспільства та майбутньому.

Ключові слова: постмодернізм, методологія, раціоналізм, ірраціоналізм, істина, свобода, синергетика.

Introduction

It is well known that the philosophy of postmodernism is the basis of worldview, ideology, morality, aesthetics of the world leading countries. Its main postulates contradict the modernist style of thinking widely-spread in our country as well. Therefore, the overall process of Westernization has multimeaning character, moreover, it is accompanied by some confusion of a significant part of society. The criticism of some significant provisions of postmodernism prevails in domestic philosophical and scientific literature, calling up some cognitive dissonance and, moreover, the sincere rejection at the level of common sense. Philosophy itself is able to offer a way out of the methodological impasse alike Hegel's advice: “Answer the questions, which philosophy leaves unanswered is that they must be put differently”. And the first question-grotesque: “Is it possible for people to lie themselves so much?”. This is a rhetorical question (of course. not). In the light of the foregoing the aim of the paper is the substantiation of methodological principles and boundaries of postmodern conceptualization of social processes in the context of rational epistemology.

Research methods

The research is carried out in accordance with the requirements of rational philosophy: the principles of objectivity, dialectics (connection and development), determinism, rationality, concreteness of truth, historicity; methods of the unity of the historical and the logical, the ascent from the abstract to the concrete and general scientific (or interdisciplinary) methods (synergetic, analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction).

Research results

The sphere of postmodern philosophical discourse has traditionally been defined as the sphere of "human-society" relations. The main and the highest goal of philosophizing, which gives a holistic picture of the realities of life, is social cognition. Not a single solution in this area can be effective without taking into account the methodological conceptualization of social processes by social cognition. However, the postmodern period has sharply limited the possibilities of conceptualization and this is the main problem of social cognition. Such domestic philosophers as A. Brodetsky, V. Vladimirenko, I. Dobronravova, L. Drotyanko, V. Lukyanets, M. Ozhevan, V. Rizhko, O. Sobol and others referred to this problem directly or indirectly. But there is no need to talk about a common vision of the social and methodological priorities of study and their conceptualization - not only in domestic, but also in foreign philosophical literature. So, Leslie Marsh states: “Social cognition [...] is thus a kaleidoscope of research projects that has seen exponential growth over the past thirty or so years... of cognitive anthropology, cognitive archaeology, cognitive economics, cognitive linguistics, cognitive sociology and even the cognitive science of religion, all vibrant fields of endeavor” (Marsh, 2008: 12). Let's clarify: conflicting interests, goals, norms, values acquire an independent ontological status in the postmodern era. And social cognition is precisely the area in which a wide range of conflicting public interests are manifested, and the procedure directly depends on socio-cultural conditions, prevailing values and, most importantly, methodology. They inevitably affect the content gained in this process of knowledge.

What methodological principles does postmodernism use in the study of social processes? These are the principles of “..fallibilism, discursiveness, deconstruction, deprivilegedization of science” (Zubkov, 2019: 64). They are well known. Therefore, we will pay attention to interdisciplinary methodological principle of synergetic, which mainly explains the appearance of postmodernism (we agree that there is "a need for an account the complex and interdisciplinary nature of the choice of both methodological approaches and the actual source base of research" (Orlyk & Stezhko, 2019: 5).

The attitude to the inevitability of errors, uncertainty, indecision, ambiguity, the intermediate interpretations dominance - all this is a manifestation of the "theory of dynamic chaos", studied by synergetics.

Synergetics as a modern theory of development is based on the organization and order positions, the ideas of disorder, chaos, randomness as equivalent to the former. So, people live in a non-stationary universe, where three concepts are inextricably linked: randomness, irreversibility, uniqueness. Dialectics gets argued that the world does not just exist, but constantly arises through a sequence of destructive and creative states, in which not only organized, but also stochastic, nonlinear, chaotic processes play an important role. Moreover, chaos is not an absolute antithesis of organization but a necessary transitional situation from one level of "order" (and dialectics) to another. The "chaos" theory challenged the traditional principles of determinism, i.e. an unambiguous dependence of the system state on the initial parameters. Consequently, a new social phenomenon - planetary globalization processes - is defined as dynamic chaos, which can be described only in the terms of synergetics. The state of chaotic dynamics in society is mostly determined by the irrationality of the actions of both separate individuals and social groups; these actions do not fit the description in the schemes of the centrism-methodology of the modern epoch.

A field of bifurcation is appearing as opposites to "dynamic chaos" and "controlled chaos", which determines the capabilities of a qualitatively new attractor, determines the transition to a new direction of development. History gives many examples of "whole world chaos", which way out does not fit the traditional discrete and linear understanding of the world as a manifestation of historical necessity. The value of synergetics as a methodology lies in the fact that it rehabilitates chaos (and, therefore, in part, postmodernism) as an integral part of the development of society. The course of events in recent world history, the collapse of some state-political or military political formations and the creation of new ones are already presented as an inevitable reality, which is determined not so much objectively as subjectively. The newest history is rather a manifestation of the non-standard, turbulent nature of world processes, permanent management of the "chaoticized world", when the light disturbances make conditions into the global unpredictability of changes in society as a complex and nonlinear system.

The neo-dynamics of the chaoticized world contradicts the requirements of necessity, rationality, linearity of the historical process within spirit of the modern era. In the rationalism schemes of revolution, war, etc. there is a continuation of the objectively conditioned policy of states "by other means" (K. Clausewitz). In a postmodern situation, the inclusion of the synergetic procedure into the cognition process provides the latter with a significantly different essence compared to the classical methodology of scientific rationalism. The society is seen as capable of "irrational self-organization", but the path to truth lies through inter-subjectivity and taking into account the infinitely varied individual values. Therefore, current social cognition is not seen in the plane of scientific rationality (as a reduction to uniquely determined canons of thinking), but as an understanding of history exclusively in the humanitarian context.

Thus, synergetics provides the researcher with a categorical apparatus, using expands the range of forms and methods of cognition of social processes. The modern level of research indicates the multi manifestations of chaos and therefore, the possibility of maximum liberalization of criteria of the rationality, freedom for thoughts in the vision of self-organization. "The mobility of synergetic methods and models, their ability to self-adapt and restructure can be considered [...] as a virtue corresponding to cognitive practices of the postmodern era (Dobronravova, 2004: 194). Having said that, it is possible to consider synergetics as a leading methodology of social cognition in the postmodern epoch.

Postmodernists being heavily criticized are replacing the rationality, determinism and objectivity of the truth with intersubjectivity and irrationalism. In our opinion, the criticism is unfounded and needs some clarification. Firstly, history as a science is specified by "polysemy of notions and categories of history and a unique big amount of subjectivity" (Orlyk, Stezhko, 2019: 151); this would give a feeling of confidence (but not the authentic, which is based on knowledge of necessity); secondly, social practice already demonstrates the senselessness of the efforts of the ratiocentrism of the modern era to optimize society. It is impossible to fix the existence of strict laws in economics, politics and culture; any prosperity is fraught with degradation, and any human transformation plans are doomed to inevitable collapse. Moreover, there is a paradox of rationality - the more rationally the goals are, the wider the gap between them is. Thus, the logocentrism of the European culture in the modern era has found, in fact, the limits of its possibilities and it is only a tribute to rationality as an immanent feature of a thinking person. Therefore, the theory of rigid rationality, which explains social processes in a simplified manner, must yield to other principles that enable a deeper understanding of society (modeled on: historical reality is an interpretation of the praxeological side of the reason exclusively). In this regard, let us pay attention to the fact that the core of postmodernism - deconstruction (J. Derrida) - is not a total disregard for ratio. It is rather reconstruction not destruction aimed at understanding how certain integrity was constructed. It cannot be reduced to an indiscriminate denial of reason: rationalism is denied and the goals of rational analysis are changing. Therefore, the sharp criticism of the philosophy of postmodernism due to the complete denial of rationality is somewhat exaggerated.

The problem of deconstruction proclaimed by postmodernists is closely connected with the problem of the truth. The initiators of the postmodern tradition in social cognition propose to get away from the dominance of ratiocentrism as a synonym for truth and objectivity of knowledge in favor of pluralism of intersubjectivity. It proposes a shift of emphasis in the search for truth into the plane of collective creativity, convention. According to Y. Habermas, “only those norms can pretend to be significant, which will receive agreement of all possible participants in the discourse” (Habermas, 2000: 107). The main thing is not the correspondence of the vision of reality to this reality itself, but the extent to which it agrees with the considerations of other participants in the discourse. From the standpoint of the logic of common sense, this thesis can be criticized, but philosophy notes that it is partly based, since the subject reflects reality in the paradigm of subjectivism, i.e. through the prism of various values (which in the era of postmodern acquires an ontological status), the consensus of likeminded people can be accepted as a criterion of truth. However, this statement is very controversial in the paradigm of objectivity.

Thus, we have shown that the substantiation of the legitimacy of postmodernism are included the reliable factors, but their totality still leads us to an ambivalent attitude towards this complex phenomenon. The nonlinear dynamics of the "irrational world order" is perhaps a positive correction to the methodology of history as an objectively determined process. But the next question arises: why the implementation of postmodernism as a whole does not contribute to the optimization of social processes and causes a lot of fierce criticism? Why “does it lead to moral nihilism, political apathy, rejection of intellect, chaos of uncertainty” (Mikhalina, 2012: 2)? postmodern social epistemology

There are several causes of this situation:

- philosophical and methodological. Postmodernism uses specific interdisciplinary methods of cognition, such as analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction. Delving into a value-based analysis of a diverse and multidimensional social life only leads to deepening disagreements and "deep disagreements are characteristically resistant to rational resolution" (Aberdein, 2019) and to the search for horizontal causality; vertical causality, i.e. conceptual synthesis is ignored by postmodernists. This leads to ignoring the inductive-deductive structure of knowledge and the impossibility of forming a network of methodological concepts, without which the optimization of social processes is impossible. The interdisciplinary methodology of synergetics presupposes the path of conceptual synthesis, “crystallization of order out of chaos”, but this possibility is rejected by the absolutization of “deconstruction”;

- social and political. This refers to the specificity of the implementation of the philosophy of postmodernism in the structure of social practice of the Western model. The rapprochement of the content of truth and freedom ("...truth and freedom need each other -- neither can go alone (Lynch, 2014: 5), the absence of restrictions in "deconstruction" make the state elite think about the "socio-political attitude" of postmodernism towards extreme liberalism, which manifests itself in maximum freedom of self-expression and actions that deny any canons. This is a very dangerous turn - through "the contradictory essence of freedom itself, which complicates very a responsibility, objectively transforming it somewhere into partial, somewhere into elusive and somewhere quite rightly - and this is a paradox - postulate its complete absence" (Stezhko, Stezhko, 2018: 69), i.e. it's arbitrary. This was confirmed by Leibniz: “Stronger arguments and impressions delivered by reason to the will did not prevent the act of the will to be accidental” (Lejbnic, 1983: 175). Political scientists and politicians hope for the restraining power of democracy. But this is an illusion, because democracy is not an unambiguous concept - even with the freedom of the absolute majority (which is idealization itself), the power of freedom is taken away from a part of the people. This can lead to the "dictate" of chaos and "powerless" anarchy because, as noted by F. Nietzsche, "hatred grows in them from impotence to monstrous and terrible proportions, to the very spiritual and poisonous forms themselves" (Nietzsche, 1990: 422). Then the so- called negative freedom awaits the power which by its nature is close to nihilism and unrestrained egoism. Today we have the opportunity to observe the implementation of negative freedom in some democracies in Europe;

- human universal. This refers to a trait inherent in all people - this is the lack of a sense of proportion. The simple expression: "You need to know when to stop everything" is included in the content of common sense, but who observes it? We think only a few. And yet this is a very dangerous tendency, which both G. Hegel and F. Nietzsche warned about: “Measure is alien to us, we admit it; it is the infinite, the immeasurable that tickles us. [...] and there we only find our bliss, where we are in the greatest danger¹' (Nietzsche, 1990: 345). Exceeding the line of measure leads to the absolutization of one's own position - positions of doctrine (for example, the absolutization of subjectivism in postmodernism), subject, group, gang, sect, etc. In this case, you can forget about compromises, tolerance, empathy, respect for theory or freedom of someone else.

Discussion

But the question arises: how the popularity of the ideas of postmodernism among the majority of the population of European countries can be explained? Among the reasons we single out the ambivalent attitude of a person to freedom. On the one hand, each person initially gravitates towards absolute, irrational freedom, which borders on arbitrariness. But on the other hand, he understands that such freedom ignores the freedom of other people and can only lead to loneliness. Therefore, for the sake of the opportunity to become a member of a group, an individual is ready to sacrifice his own freedom, replacing it with the freedom of the group (and in fact, for the duty and conquest of any collective -- student group, party, religion, people). E. Fromm said very accurately about this: “The first need of a person, be it a leper or a convict, rejected or sick, is to find a companion in fate. Thirsting to satisfy this feeling, a person wastes all his strength, all his power, all the ardor of his soul” (Fromm, 2011: 143). We consider this statement to be very important, since it focuses on the analysis of the actions of social groups.

Conclusions

Thus, the postmodern era focuses on a new sociopolitical reality. Indeed, there is a need for a new type of theorizing, for the construction of a new discourse. Such construction would result in the end of the dominance of the "order from chaos" paradigm in the analysis of social systems and the emergence of the prerequisites for a new vision of the historical process. Agreeing with the thesis about the methodological focus “on the search for certain principles of sociocultural dynamics”, related to its “conceptualization of the complexity and polysemy of culture” (Vykhovanets, Lukashuk, 2020: 48) and entering into dialogue, we note both the extraordinary complexity of this task and the inevitability of its solution. After all, if we abstract from the mind its objective and substantive aspects, then in fact there will be nothing left which let control the mental activity. In addition, the main thing is to note - “rational philosophy does not manifest “the ratio” unambiguously as an unconditional primacy of logic; it does not neutralize a sensitive (somewhere irrational) experience of an ordinary person. It is possible and necessary to balance and stabilize the irrational experience within the general rational system - so a brain is able to take into account emotional and irrational moments" (Stezhko, 2019: 79).

However, the postmodern era has not yet lost its positions, has not revealed all its facets, therefore, philosophy should foresee its new challenges and prospects and define an outstripping strategy of social development and, above all, education. However, like any innovation, the emergence of a new methodology raises more questions than it answers, so the topic we have chosen requires further unbiased discussion in order to find a consensus between modernity, postmodernity and the post-postmodern perspective on the field of methodological possibilities of social cognition.

Literature

1. Вихованець З. С., Лукашук М. А. Сучасна динаміка росту знань: діалогічність осмислення // Вісник Національного авіаційного університету. 2020. Вип. 1 (31). С. 47-52. (Серія «Філософія. Культурологія»).

2. Добронравова И. С. Постнеклассический тип рациональности и основания синергетики // Sententiae. 2004. № 1. С. 190-200.

3. Зубков В. И. Непротиворечивость методологических принципов противоречивого постмодернизма // Социодинамика. 2019. № 9. С. 64-74. URL: https://nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=29745. DOI: 10.25136/2409-7144.2019.9.29745.

4. Лейбниц Г. Новые опыты о человеческом разумении : в 2 т. М. : Мысль, 1983. Т. 2. 686 с.

5. Михалина О. Философия образования и постмодернизм. URL: http://dspace. nbuv. gov.ua/bitstream/handle/123456789/39532/07-Mihalina. pdf?sequence =1.

6. Ницше Ф. К генеалогии морали: в 2 т. М.: Мысль, 1990. T. 2. 829 с.

7. Orlyk S., Stezhko Z. World Spirit by Georg Hegel: from Universe to the History of Mankind. Philosophy and Cosmology. 2019. No. 23 P. 14-156. URL: file:///C:/ Users/Yuri/ Desktop/% D0%B2%D1 %81%D0%B5%20%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1 %82%D1%8C%D0%B8/Philosophy%20and%20Cosmology,%20 Volume%2023,%202019.pdf. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29202/phil- cosm/23/14.

8. Орлик В. М., Орлик С. В. Теоретико-методологічні та джерелознавчі проблеми економічної історії України. Універсум історії та археології. 2019. Т. 2 (27). Вип. 2. С. 5-25. DOI: 10.15421/2619022702.

9. Стежко З. В. Ratio як світоглядний орієнтир: від містифікації до об'єктивності // Вісник Національного авіаційного університету. 2019. Вип. 2 (30). С. 78-82. (Серія «Філософія. Культурологія»).

10. Стежко З. В., Стежко Ю. Г. Суперечливість свободи та парадокси відповідальності (антропологічний аналіз). Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research. 2018. № 13. С. 65-78. URL: http://ampr.diit. edu.ua/issue/view /7514http://ampr.diit.edu.ua. DOI: 10.15802/ampr.v0i13.131937.

11. Фромм Э. Бегство от свободы. М. : аСт, 2011.288 с.

12. Хабермас Ю. Моральное сознание и коммуникативное действие. СПб. : Наука, 2000. 380 с.

13. Aberdein А. Courageous Arguments and Deep Disagreements. 2019. URL: https:// philarchive. org/archive /ABECAA-3.

14. Lynch M. P. Truth and Freedom. The European Legacy. 2014. No. 2. Vol. 19. Р. 23-33. DOI: http ://dx.doi. org/10.1080/10848770.2014.876198.

15. Marsh L., Onof C. Introduction to «Perspectives on Social Cognition» - special issue of Cognitive Systems Research. Cognitive System Resaerch. 2008. Vol. 9. Issue 1-2. P. 1-4. URL: https://www.academia.edu/297947/Introduction_to_Perspec tives_on_Social_Cognition_special_issue_of_Cognitive_Systems _Research. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2007.08.001.

References

1. Aberdein, А. (2019). Courageous Arguments and Deep Disagreements. Retrieved from https://philarchive. org/archive/ ABECAA-3.

2. Dobronravova, I.S. (2004). Postneklassicheskiy tip ratsionalnosti i osnovaniia sinergetiki [Postnonclassical type of rationality and the foundations of synergetics]. Sententiae, 1: 190200 [in Russian].

3. Fromm, E. (2011). Begstvo ot svobody (Escape from freedom]. Moskow: AST [in Russian].

4. Khabermas, Iu. (2000). Moralnoe soznanie i kommunikativnoe deystvie [Moral awareness and communicative action]. SPb.: Nauka [in Russian].

5. Leybnits, G. (1983). Novye opyty o chelovecheskom razumenii [New Experiments on Human Understanding]. (Vols. 1 - 2). Moskow: Mysl [in Russian].

6. Lynch, M.P. (2014). Truth and Freedom. The European Legacy, 2(19): 23-33. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/10848770.2014.876198.

7. Marsh, L., & Onof, C. (2008). Introduction to "Perspectives on Social Cognition" - special issue of Cognitive Systems Research. Cognitive System Resaerch, 9(1-2), 1-4. Retrieved from https://www. academia. edu/297947/ Introduction _to_ Perspectives_on_Social_Cognition_special_issue_of_Cognitive_ Systems_Research. DOI: https:// doi.org /10.1016 /j.cogsys.2007.08.001.

8. Mikhalina, O. (2012). Filosofiia obrazovaniia i postmodernizm [Philosophy of Education and Postmodernism]. Retrieved from http://dspace .nbuv.gov. ua/bitstream /handle/ 123456789/39532/07-Mihalina.pdf?sequence=1 [in Russian].

9. Nitsshe, F. (1990). K genealogii morali [Towards a genealogy of morality]. (Vols. 1-2). Moskow: Mysl [in Russian].

10. Orlyk, S., & Stezhko, Z. (2019). World Spirit by Georg Hegel: from Universe to the History of Mankind. Philosophy and Cosmology, 23, 147-156. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/Yuri/Desktop/%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%B5%20%D1%81% D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%D0%B8/Philosophy%20and %20Cosmology,%20Volume%2023,%202019.pdf. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29202/phil-cosm/23/14.

11. Orlyk, V.M., & Orlyk, S.V. (2019). Teoretyko- metoolohichni ta zhereloznavchi problem ekonomichnoi istorii Ukrainy [Theoretical and methodological and source studies problems of the economic history of Ukraine]. Universum istorii ta arkheolohii, Universum of History and Archeology, 2(27), Iss. 2, 525. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15421/2619022702 [in Ukrainian].

12. Stezhko, Z.V. (2019). Ratio yak svitohliadnyi oriientyr: vid mistyfikatsii do obiektyvnosti [Ratio as a worldview benchmark: from mystification to objectivity]. Visnyk Natsionalnoho aviatsiinoho universytetu, Proceedings of the National Aviation University, 2(30): 78-82 [in Ukrainian].

13. Stezhko, Z.V., & Stezhko, Yu.H. (2018). Superechlyvist svobody ta paradoksy vidpovidalnosti (antropolohichnyi analiz) [Controversy of freedom and paradoxes of responsibility (anthropological analysis)]. Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research, 13: 65-78. Retrieved from http://ampr.diit.edu.ua/issue/view/7514http://ampr.diit.edu.ua. DOI: 10.15802/ampr.v0i13.131937 [in Ukrainian].

14. Vykhovanets, Z.S., & Lukashuk, M.A. (2020). Suchasna dynamika rostu znan: dialohichnist osmyslennia [Modern dynamics of knowledge growth: dialogical understanding]. Visnyk Natsionalnoho aviatsiinoho universytetu, Proceedings of the National Aviation University, 1(31), 47-52 [in Ukrainian].

15. Zubkov, V.I. (2019). Neprotivorechivost metodologicheskikh printsipov protivorechivogo postmodernizma [Consistency of methodological principles of controversial postmodernism]. Sotsiodinamika, Sociodynamics, 9: 64-74. Retrieved from https:/ /nbpublish. com/library _read _article.php?id=29745. DOI: 10.25136/2409-7144.2019.9.29745 [in Russian].

Размещено на Allbest.ru