THE CLASSIFICATION OF APPROACHES (PARADIGMS)
IN PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY
Preface: Methodology of classifying
The paradigms classification has been done as a basis for answering the following problems:
A. Formal order: the description of paradigms of on-going epochs (f.e. Antique, Ellinist and Early Cristian paradigms, c. of Middle Ages, of Renaissance, etc.), or according to crosscultural principle (Western, Arabian, Indian, Chinese, Russian paradigms). Formal order is adequate for special monographical research or educational goals but not for philosophical analysis.
B. Religious and ideological traditions (f.e. catholic, protestant, orthodox, islamic, induist paradigms; liberal, progressist, technocratic, socialist, communist paradigms, etc.).
C. Philosophical traditions (f.e. idealistic, naturalistic, nominalistic, analytical, hermeneutical, existential, personalistic, psychoanalytical paradigms).
I suggest the combined structure of primary classification and further typology:
on the basis of philosophical assumptions
_____________________________________________________________________ ALL PH&TH paradigms=
Ex's: Hesiodes, Prophet Daniel, Apocalipsis, St. Augustin, Swedenborg , Maritain, D.Andreev _____________________________________________________________________ INTERNALIST paradigms=
· STRICT IDEALISTIC (only ideal essences and reasons have effect to history): Plato, Hehel,Croce
· STRICT NATURALISTIC (only material, sensually empirical essences and reasons have effect to history): Hobbes, Huxley, some authors of contemporary sociobiology (Lorenz?), etc.
· COMBINED paradigms (both types of essences) _____________________________________________________________________ COMBINED paradigms=
· INDIVISIBLE paradigms (biological, anthropological, national aspects are merged indissolubly with ideal, psychical, social aspects): W.Diltey, A.Bergson, O.Spengler, T.de ▒Chardain
· SEPARATE paradigms (these aspects can be separated from each other with rational abstraction) _____________________________________________________________________ The most multiple, diversible (also interesting and fruitful from my viewpoint) are SEPARATE paradigms. Although they cannot be classified further because they differ from each other not by denying aspects but by the different emphasis among multiple aspects. That's why I suggest to continue sructurizing by typology method. Its basis corresponds with the ontological core (conceptual core) as a most important explanatory principle. _____________________________________________________________________ Typology
on the basis of ontological core (in brackets)
+ main authors _____________________________________________________________________ SEPARATE PH&TH paradigms:
Which paradigms are the most promising for further research, synthesis and discussion in PHILOFHI?
Is reconstruction (modernization) of the paradigms legitimate?(I think it is inevitable and it can be extremely fruitful).
And if 'yes' - what can be the primary tasks?
Hope for feedback,
yours Nikolai S. Rozov
P.S. I am
sure there are many mistakes or non-English constructions here. If it irritates
you I would be grateful for corrections in a private
post. Thank you
Back to PHA main page