2 replies

  1. “We can say that the most important feature of philosophy in the 2010’s is the presence of sociality in the results obtained by a scientist.” Could you please confirm how this is a feature of philosophy? It seems the field ‘sociology of science’ is far closer than philosophy to this ‘sociality’ you describe. Or it is a peculiar kind of ‘anthropic philosophy’ that looks more sociological or even anthropological than philosophical. Perhaps it indicates that those scholars who were (or some still are) stuck on dehumanising, misanthropic or human-less ‘philosophistry’ have realised it is time to stop that approach. Yet the great innovations still almost always only come from one mind first & then spread out from there, don’t you agree? Iow, it’s not like you wish to resurrect Bukharin & Bernal with ‘socialist science,’ right? It seems more like a request to turn from naturalism to humanism in social philosophy, or something more inspiring than ‘memetic materialism.’

  2. Any philosophy deals with the thinking of a person who plays, however, not the same role in different philosophical systems. In classical science, everything connected with man and his activities is eliminated as far as possible from the result, knowledge will be true only in this case. Social is understood as external factors, not related to the logic of knowledge. In quantum physics, it has been shown that it is impossible to eliminate everything connected with the scientist and his activity from the result obtained. Philosophy developed accordingly. Scientific research is oriented not on nature, but on human and on his world. In my commentary, I tried to show the importance of this turn in the thinking of the 20th century, its importance for both philosophy and sociology, the difference between which ceases to be significant.
    As for Bukharin and Bernal, I did not study their works, but I think it’s not hard to guess that your position is close to their views.

Leave a Reply