Social cognition can be based on two contrary axioms that answer the question of whether the society can provide for the universal survival of all of its members. Negative answer (relativist model of society) is more productive methodologically. The key notion here is the technosocial formula of society, the physical meaning of which is that the society as an aggregate of people needs bigger vital space than it can create. The growth of man in nature was the result not only (...) of the supplanting of other species but also of the intraspecific struggle which became the main factor of the development process. The criterion of social progress is reduced in the end to only one index – the ability of society’s survival and it doesn’t have any absolute value in space and time. (shrink)

t. 1. Dialog s V. V. Davydovym -- t. 2. Nereshennye problemy razvivai︠u︡shchego obrazovanii︠a︡.

Purpose. The purpose is to prove the synchronicity of anthropogenesis, noogenesis and sociogenesis based on emotions, which are their self-organizational principles, as well as to reveal the synergistic essence of these processes. Theoretical basis. The study is based on the self-organizational paradigm, the theory of autopoiesis, labour theory, pananthropological concept, as well as on the concept of synergy of biological and mental phenomena. Originality. The concept of synchronicity of anthropogenesis, noogenesis and sociogenesis based on the emotions is substantiated. The concept (...) of self-organizational emergence of emotions on the basis of hormones is developed. It is established that anthropogenesis is a process of anthropologisation of life based on biochemical reactions in the form of hormones and emotions, which are a synergy of genetic information, biochemical processes, instincts, and physiological phenomena. It was outlined that noogenesis has an emotional dimension, because emotions are the basis for self-organization of rationality, which begins at the level of emotional consciousness. The author shows the specifics of sociogenesis, which self-organizes based on social emotions, which in their turn "distinguish" a man from the sphere of natural existence based on the ability to control emotions. Conclusions. Emotions arise self-organizationally on the basis of hormones. They are self-organizational factors of anthropogenesis, noogenesis and sociogenesis based on the synergistic effect that arises through the combination of emotions and hormones at the biochemical level. The basic principle of anthropology is emotions that synchronize anthropogenesis, noogenesis and sociogenesis, which manifests themselves on the physical, mental, and spiritual levels. At the bodily level, emotions are expressed as biochemical and hormonal reactions. At the spiritual level emotions create the basis for the development of the mind, which originates as emotional consciousness. Emotions self-organize the process of anthropologisation of life, which is possible based on the synergy of human genome, biochemical, physiological phenomena and instincts. The concepts of synchronicity of anthropogenesis, noogenesis and sociogenesis and self-organizational emergence of emotions based on hormones initiate a promising direction of further research of the role of emotions in the processes of self-organization of social phenomena. (shrink)

In this article, cognitivism is understood as the view that the engine of human (individual and collective) action is the intentional, dispositional, or other mental capacities of the brain or the mind. Cognitivism has been criticized for considering the essence of human action to reside in its alleged source in mental processes at the expense of the social surroundings of the action, criticism that has often been inspired by Ludwig Wittgenstein's later philosophy. This article explores the logical extent of the (...) critique of cognitivism, arguing that by positing collectively shared knowledge of criteria as the engine of human action many such critiques themselves display latent cognitivism. (shrink)

In this article, cognitivism is understood as the view that the engine of human action is the intentional, dispositional, or other mental capacities of the brain or the mind. Cognitivism has been criticized for considering the essence of human action to reside in its alleged source in mental processes at the expense of the social surroundings of the action, criticism that has often been inspired by Ludwig Wittgenstein's later philosophy. This article explores the logical extent of the critique of cognitivism, (...) arguing that by positing collectively shared knowledge of criteria as the engine of human action many such critiques themselves display latent cognitivism. (shrink)

_Purpose._ To substantiate the definition of technics as the attributive characteristics of a human being and the necessity of its orientation towards human flourishing in the context of new anthropological models of the 21st century. _Theoretical basis._ Correlation between technics, technology and the human essence is examined. The role of technics is traced at different historical stages of human development. Negative and positive effects of digital technology development upon a contemporary human being is analysed in the light of new anthropological (...) models: homo technologicus, homo digitalis and homo eudaimonicus. The content of a new worldview-value paradigm of defining goals of technology is outlined. _Originality._ Transformation of the role of technics correlates with value and worldview shifts in person’s understanding of his/her purpose in both natural and social worlds. Nowadays, philosophical analysis of anthropological dimension of technics and technology opens a horizon for seeking effective solutions in the face of the contemporary challenges and anti-utopian threats by means of focusing on the fact that, indeed, technological development is subordinate to the humanist goal that is flourishing, wellbeing and comprehensive development of a human being. _Conclusions._ The essence of technology reveals not through its functional but anthropogenic definitions in a sense of a source of institutionalization and in a sense of a source of realization of a human way of self-identification and self-objectification of human subjectivity. Technics/technology is the attributive characteristics of human essence and being: a human being is as much human as much he/she is a creator of technics. The purpose of technics is not to master the nature and to transform the world; technics is, above all, a tool of human self-improvement and self-creation through broadening the horizon of human capacities. The analysis of new modern anthropological models shows that it is the orientation of technology/technology towards human flourishing that is, on the one hand, a response to the existential demands of modern man, and on the other hand, a way of preventing future threats related to technological development. (shrink)

Portion of Sanskrit treatise on Hindu logic and epistemology of the Navya-Nyāya school in Hindu philosophy.

A range of multidisciplinarily arguments and observations can and have been employed to challenge the view that the human relationship to nature is fundamentally a cognitive matter of collectively held cultural ideas and values about nature. At the same time, the very similar cognitivist idea of collective sharing of conceptual schemes, normative orientations, and the like as the engine of collective action remains the chief analytic tool offered by many influential philosophical and sociological theories of collective action and human sociality (...) generally. Critically discussing in empirical as well as theoretical contexts the prospects of cognitivism to account for the human collective causing of environmental problems, the paper illustrates the deficiencies of cognitivism about collective action and discusses the challenges facing a different way forward. (shrink)

Critically discussing the causal social ontologies presented by Dave Elder-Vass and John Searle, the article argues that these views implausibly identify the causal ontological source of human sociality in collectively known, recognized and accepted statuses, criteria, norms and the like. This is implausible, for it ignores human sociality as occurring in temporally and spatially dispersed on-going processes of human interaction of differently placed, often unequal, and thus epistemically differently equipped actors in division of labour. Human scientific concepts are best seen (...) as picking out (aspects of) such complex and heterogeneous processes, not what the participating actors allegedly collectively know, accept or recognize about them. The article observes that similar appeals to collective recognition are also common in Wittgensteinian literature that, however, have claimed to reject the causal ontological view. It is argued that the ultimate value in rejecting the causal ontological view, and the accompanying idea of collective recognition, resides in that we thereby avoid epistemically homogenizing and over-intellectualizing the diverse mass of dispersed, often unequal, but interacting actors. (shrink)

This problem is not a new one, but it is hardly likely that anyone will contend that it is not timely. It is all the more important because entirely too little attention has hitherto been given, in our schools and higher educational institutions, to visual and aesthetic education. Yet for the man of today visual culture is not the least bit less important than the culture of verbal communication, including that in written form, to which considerable attention is given throughout (...) one's school years. (shrink)

In a range of human sciences, the human relationship to nature has often been viewed as driven fundamentally by religious, philosophical, political, and scientific ideas as well as values and norms about nature. As others have argued before, the emphasis on ideas and values faces serious problems in heeding the structural, socioeconomic quality of the human relationship to nature and thereby the deeply problematic structural character of the human environmental burden. At the same time, alleviating the structural environmental burden generated (...) by global industrial market society represents arguably the single most challenging task in addressing environmental problems. Critically explicating the tendency of our intellectual culture to produce ideological and psychologistic explanations of human ecologically consequential action, and human action more generally, can clarify the notion of the cultural causes of environmental problems and the character of the human collective causing them. Only a structuralist point of view can accommodate the diversity of our positions and perspectives toward nature in the global context in which environmental problems are caused. (shrink)