Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Can there be a Russian-speaking person who does not speak Russian, but speaks his own “Russian”? Maybe, but who will consider him Russian-speaking, except himself? That is, it can't.
Similarly with science/art – both areas are their own traditions. But these are not the once-and-for-all tracks that people traditionally follow and cannot be swerved from. There is a fairly large area of parascience and, for lack of a better term, para – art-that is, just the development options that are fighting to become a tradition themselves. This is exactly what development options are, and not something that was born by itself in dirty laundry – that is, things that somehow rely on their predecessors. And it's usually the options that work best that win here – in the sense that art or science generally work.
Speaking of tradition, we are also talking about the academic tradition: academ. Wednesday, akadem. approach, academy. competence, etc. In this case, it is worth remembering that“academic get-together” is a rather narrow circle of specialists who understand a particular topic not only in connection with scientific interests, but also make up the dogmas of the approach as such/discussion of the topic in general. That is, the academy. the environment is a circle of people who decide how to correctly and appropriately talk about a particular subject of study. And its own discrepancy with the already recognized academy. traditions can only lead to non-recognition by members of an existing academy. wednesday.
But this does not mean that it is impossible to start creating an alternative academic environment for a different way of discussing a particular subject!
For example, now it is difficult to say with all seriousness and at the academic and scientific level that Russian art is famous in the West for only two periods: icon-painting works, for example, of the 12th and 17th centuries, and the era of the Russian avant-garde, the beginning of the 20th century. Such an attitude is not perceived as possible for voicing in the academic community, although it is more than reproduced, for example, in the popular science environment.
(the picture shows another possible discussion aspect of your question)
The prevailing ideas today that modern science is objective and develops in the only possible way (formed according to objective laws) is a delusion.
The channel along which modern science is trying to move and develop is an erroneous and leading nowhere branch from the objective trajectory of development.
This erroneous trend is precisely a deviation from the tradition, the vector of objective development of which was identified and indicatedPythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz and Hegel.
The person who most contributed to the emergence of the deviation of science in the wrong direction is Newton.
Einstein (through the creation of Special and General Relativity) managed to redirect the vectors of scientific development to an objective channel to a considerable extent. But this process has not yet been completed in all its necessary completeness.
Therefore, the topic of objectification of science (reforms to objectify fundamental science) is relevant.
It should be noted that modern “subjectivized” science gives false (erroneous) ideas about the surrounding reality, about the Universe, and about the place (purpose) of man in the Universe. This, in turn, generates destructive processes and trends both at the social, political, geopolitical and macroeconomic levels, as well as in relation to the life, goal setting and motivation of individuals.
Thus, the sooner the reform on objectification of fundamental science is implemented, the less large-scale (global) catastrophes and losses will be avoided.
It can! But only about such a person no one will know. They will promote people who work in close contact with the existing government. They fulfill a kind of social order. They do not do what they are interested in, but what is ordered from above.