Banber Erevani hamalsarani. P'ilisop'ayut'yun, hogebanut'yun.
| E - ISSN | : | 2738-2621 |
| P - ISSN | : | 1829-4553 |
An anthropological crisis emerges in contemporary society which stems from profound changes of values and meaning of life resulting from the intensive development of technological environment and the very nature of human nature and leading to the disappearance of social-cultural conditions typical for the traditional society. On the bases of analysis of modern and traditional types of overcoming the anthropological crisis, the author suggests following a new principle of rationality that integrates the truth and the ethical, instrumental rationality and value rationality, which immanently involves reflection over values. It is assumed that the worldview of real humanism which has human life, human dignity, and nonviolence as its axiological basis, is important for overcoming the anthropological crisis. This axiological trinity will save humanity from the deadly enticement of the impulsive all-permissiveness.
The development of society cannot be imagined without contradictions and crises, which are particularly acute in today's information society, where values and norms governing people's lives are being freely interpreted and reevaluated. At the same time, new meanings are not generally binding, leading to reconstruction of the whole system of social relations, and instead of going through a crisis of social institutions – family, education, morality, etc., the role of socialization take the teams and groups. Simultaneously, the destruction of regulating social and cultural life – nation, state, truth, morality, etc., leads to their secularization in the personal and public consciousness. Man, this way acts in social relationships not as a creator, but only as a consumer dictated by social institutions minimal meanings and values, downmixed to .
The sociocultural construction of the modern world is based on the ideologies of the project of modernity, which are undergoing a crisis today. As in the whole world, so in the Armenian society, skeptical and cynical attitudes are being spread in relation to these ideologies. But in the Armenian society and in modernized societies the socio-cultural preconditions for the diffusion of cynicism in relation to ideologies are different. While in modernized societies the spread of cynicism is conditioned by the sociocultural preconditions of the consumer society, the formation of a postmodern culture and individualization, in Armenian society this is conditioned of the incompatibility of the sociocultural values and norms of the Armenian sociocultural environment and the ideologies of modernity. But in both cases, cynical societies are sociocultural antisystems for any ideologies.
One of the most important issues concerning the methodology of history is what the subject of Social History is and which the functions of it are. Under Social History the article refers to the society of the past, the human, his individuality in social, political, economic, psychological, cultural planes, their change in space and time. Here the disclosure, description, and explanation of the peculiarities of natural changes can be stated. The article presents the scientific-cognitive and educational functions of History. In addition, History serves as public memory and contributes to foresight.
The article presents the issue of the givenness of mental reality. The author tries to show that the solutions to that problem have largely failed because there are more general, unresolved philosophical problems before this issue, and researchers approach the question from this or that philosophical position. According to the author, in particular, there is a prediction which prevents the solution to the problem: the prediction concerns to the immediacy and priority of the givenness of mind in the consciousness.
The article compares two systems of postulates, 76 which are basic for the two paradigms of the psychology of perception – classical and transcendental. On the example of the analysis of the problem of the adequacy of perception, a fundamental difference in their methodological resources is shown. If the correspondence between the object and its image is true in the classical paradigm, then in the transcendental paradigm, along with the elimination of the concept of the object, the concept of the adequacy of perception loses its meaning.