Does psychology need stars of Spinoza?

Результат исследования: Научные публикации в периодических изданияхобзорная статья

Аннотация

The article is a response to the article of E.E. Sokolova (bprosy psikhologii. 2017. N 6) which, on the one hand, states that approaches of N.I. Chuprikova (Ntoprosy psikhologii. 2016. N 6) and IA Mironenko (Voprosy psikhologii. 2017. N 1) have nothing to do with the ideas of B. Spinoza, and, on the other hand, considers spinozism as an underlying philosophical basis of A.N. Leontiev's school. It's stated that it's hardly possible to have a claim on the only authentic interpretation of B. Spinoza's doc-trine. Considering its vagueness and even contradictions it can be understood as a neutral monistic, dual-aspect, materialistic or even idealistic system. It's asserted that spinozism can't help in dealing with problems of psychology because there is no uniform understanding how to put its ideas into scientific practice. The article also criticizes E.E. Sokolova's opinion that T. Hobbes' theory is only a reduced version of cartesianism. It argues instead that it's B. Spinoza who has more in common with the doctrine of R. Descartes. It's also noticed that the birth of nonclassical psychology and nonclassical physics may be related with the "turn to Spinoza". But as M. Paty warns, we have to be very careful both while interpreting philosophical theory in terms of contemporary conceptions and while trying to find justification of a given philosophical idea in contemporary science.

Язык оригиналаанглийский
Страницы (с-по)105-112
Число страниц8
ЖурналVoprosy Psikhologii
Том2018-January
Номер выпуска3
СостояниеОпубликовано - 1 янв 2018

Fingerprint Подробные сведения о темах исследования «Does psychology need stars of Spinoza?». Вместе они формируют уникальный семантический отпечаток (fingerprint).

  • Цитировать