Banber Erevani hamalsarani. P'ilisop'ayut'yun, hogebanut'yun.
| E - ISSN | : | 2738-2621 |
| P - ISSN | : | 1829-4553 |
In the article, the ideas and ideals of the project of modernity considered as the basics of construction of the modern socialcultural reality, which are based on the principle of rationality. But because of the modernization the demythologized, demystified modern social-cultural space is incurred of the invasive activity of the man of the crowd, which is the offspring of the modernised civilization. The man of the crowd obliges the modern civilization to accept its own social-cultural reality, because of what the myths and archetypes, which were hidden in the archaic layers of collective unconsciousness of the mankind, emerge in the modernized, rationalized current civilization. So, in the modern world myths and mythical consciousness construct the social-cultural reality of the man of the crowd.
In contemporary global processes migrations and intercultural mutual penetrations as well as the emergence of cultural collages and hybrids stand out with their influence. Due to incompatibility, and the impossibility of ideal harmony of human freedom and security, the contemporary man is in the process of constant identity creation. In this context expressions such as “Loss of roots”, “Rejection of one’s roots” etc. was replaced by the allegory of “Dropping and raising the anchor”. As a result of dropping and raising anchors, humans can end up in various cultural environments. This phenomenon has brought forth the idea of multiculturalism, which can become reality only thanks to tolerance and general “agreement”.
A human being is a social being and s/he is always affected by a special sociocultural matrix. The mechanisms of social effects and enforcement are in all the levels of social structure. Social effects and power are not realized by rude strengths and enforcement, but are used whole manipulation mechanisms, that becomes possible, because of new informational technologies in contemporary informational age. To effectively influence, the manipulators clean the consciousness of society and unique individual from responsibilities and moral principles, treating the individual as a subject/thing. Resulting in human loses his/ her fundamental civil rights. The Democratic system uses the mechanism of manipulation to establish his absolute power, which leads to the formation of a new type of totalitarianism.
Postmodern philosophical paradigm redefines previously defined concepts and frames of the symbol. As a relatively new independent phase in the development and interpretation of the symbol, the philosophy of postmodernism formulates the so-called “non-classical” interpretation of the symbol as a new alternative which has been continued in the philosophy of poststructuralism. From the point of view of “epistemological doubt”, the symbol gradually loses its ontological basis, it turns into a “pure” semiotic sign, into a linguistic game, a way of creation of hyperreality – a simulator. Conversion is subjected to the representative, ontological, epistemological descriptors of the symbol and change is subjected to such conceptual context within which “the symbol” as a philosophical concept previously specified its content.
Fundamental elements of the social system and their functional features are analyzed in the article from the positions of middle levels theory and methodology of structural functionalism. The article studies structural and functional aspects of institutionalization and institutional crises, demonstrations of evident and not evident functions in the administrative decision-making context. Efficiency and expediency of system approach in cases of problem resolution are substantiated. The article analyzes definite examples of problems of Armenia in 2010-2014 arising during making decisions at various levels of public management and their implementation, methodologically effective ways to overcome these problems.
Paul Feyerabend’s antidemarcationism is justified in the article. Feyerabend, analyzing the problem of demarcation, argues that there are no universal scientific criteria, and the problem of demarcation is a pseudoproblem. According to Feyerabend, actually there is no objective difference between the scientific and non-scientific knowledge. Moreover, he claims that we have no right to separate science from non-science.
The article is an attempt to understand the use of the concept of “paradigm” in psychology. The author shows that the usage of the term “paradigm” to describe exemplary psychological theories and concepts imply neither the development of the psychology in the manner of Kuhn’'s scientific revolution nor the change in the meaning of the concept of “paradigm”. According to the author, psychological paradigms in their structure and functions are similar to the paradigms of the natural sciences observed by Kuhn. Differences concern not just the nature paradigms, but the form of their development, shift, and transformation.