?

Log in

No account? Create an account
July 9th, 2017 - Boris Lvin — LiveJournal

July 9th, 2017

July 9th, 2017
09:48 pm

[Link]

сто пятьдесят лет назад
ЧЕГО ОНИ ТАК ИСПУГАЛИСЬ?

Или чем их всех так настращали, что нельзя больше удержать вопль, крик, плач, завыванье патриотизма, усердие без границ, преданность без смысла? Адресы, панихиды, молебны на чистом воздухе и в воздухе, продымленном ладаном, адресы от грамотных и безграмотных, от старообрядцев и новообрядцев, от кур-, эст- и лиф-ляндских русских, от временнообязанных крестьян и бессрочноразоренных помещиков, от старшин Рогожского кладбища и от школярей кладбища науки, называемого Московским университетом.


<...>

Ниже ученых и журналистов никто не падает в раболепии перед властью. Это заметил пятьдесят лет тому назад император Александр Шатобриану. И как ни больно было видеть Московский университет пресмыкающийся с своим тяжело-рабским адресом у подножия трона, но это больше по старой памяти. Он вполне заслужил сделать этот почин и дать этот пример союза мертвой науки с мертвящей полицией.

ну и так далее

(6 comments | Leave a comment)

TimeEvent
09:56 pm

[Link]

философия унд теология
Министерство образования и науки Российской Федерации
Федеральное государственное бюджетное образовательное учреждение высшего профессионального образования
"Иркутский государственный университет" (ФГБОУ ВПО "ИГУ")
Исторический факультет
Отделение философии и теологии
Кафедра философии и методологии науки


Н.С.Коноплев

История свободомыслия.
Учебное пособие для бакалавров 3 курса очной формы обучения по специальности 47.03.03.62 "Религиоведение" на базе среднего (полного) общего образования, срок обучения 4 года

Иркутск. 2016


<...>

Великий Октябрь, как мы помним, открыл широкую перспективу свободомыслию, представленному рукотворной деятельностью большевиков во главе с В.И.Лениным. Это было свободомыслие, не запятнанное буржуазным духовным воздействием; и суть его сводилась к воспитанию нового человека на социоколлективистских трудовых основаниях. Что представляет собою - с позиций свободомыслия - этот новый человек? "Кодекс строителя коммунизма" рисует его портрет. Суть нового человека заключается в том, что, обрабатывая коренные традиции поколениями сложившегося общежития, он на них строит свое служение людям, осуществляет социальную защищенность человека труда. Никакой особой новизны в "советском простом человеке" не было; в то же время его новизна состоялась, и она - разительная. Как известно, советское общество наследовало тысячелетние общинные нормы поведения, характерные для русского народа, смешанного с населением "евразийской ойкумены". Общинный коллективизм - основа нашей жизнедеятельности, и отдельно взятый индивид - порою сам того не осознавая - несет в себе "багаж коллективизма". Это видно по тому, что каждый из нас хотел бы поделиться переживаниями со своим ближним. Такое, конечно, присуще людям разных национальностей, но только у россиян, преимущественно у русских, это выливается в пресловутое "Ты меня уважаешь?"

http://hist.isu.ru/ru/science/docs/2017/konoplev_2.pdf

Коноплев Николай Сергеевич

В 1966 г. поступил в аспирантуру на кафедру диалектического и исторического материализма ИГУ, по окончании которой в 1970 г. защитил кандидатскую диссертацию "О некоторых противоречиях мировоззрения Ф. М. Достоевского"».
В 1988 г. защитил докторскую диссертацию "Принцип детерминизма как методологическая основа гуманитарных наук: содержание детерминации гуманитарных наук".
С 1990-го по 2010-й гг. Н.С.Коноплев - зав. кафедрой философии ИГУ (ныне это кафедра философии и методологии науки).

В 2012 г. Н.С.Коноплеву присвоено почетное звание "Заслуженный работник высшей школы Российской Федерации". Н.С.Коноплев является также действительным членом Академии Гуманитарных Наук (1995)

http://hist.isu.ru/ru/about/departments/philosophy/kadr/konoplev.html

(1 comment | Leave a comment)

TimeEvent
10:19 pm

[Link]

Conquest on Political "Science''
Robert Conquest

Some Notes on Political "Science''



"Politics is not an exact science," Bismarck told the Prussian Chamber in the 1860s. It was at about this time that such a warning was evidently beginning to be necessary. German academics who had, so they thought, systemized most other fields of knowledge, were now treating history and politics as though these, too, could be brought within a set of formulae. They were developing a tradition that had only recently become dominant, though it went back to such aberrations as Leibnitz's "mathematical proof" in 1664 that the Count Palatine of Neuberg must win the Polish throne.

Theories As Doctrine

In the century that followed Bismarck's warning, the prestige of the physical and other genuine sciences has grown so great that other studies have wished to share it. Unfortunately, it is not as easy to introduce the scientific rigors - such as testing of evidence - into areas from which the information extracted is as yet greatly insufficient for such structures. As a result, in psychology, sociology, linguistics, literary criticism, and so forth, highly inflated theorizings have been treated as though they were established doctrine.

Their true intellectual position is roughly that of phrenology - the practice of measuring mental ability by the conformation of the human skull - in the last century. A complicated and (on the face of it) sophisticated methodology was used to study phenomena which appeared to be directly related to the subject, but from which in practice absolutely no useful information could be extracted. Similarly, physiognomy was developed as a "science"; Norman Douglas, in Siren Land (1911), effectively ridicules the attempts by its practitioners to deduce many contradictory characteristics from a bust of Tiberius - one which, as it happened, was probably not a bust of Tiberius at all.

Yet the academic mind cannot be kept from premature theory. Behavioralism, systems analysis - and soon, no doubt, "catastrophe theory" - arise elsewhere and are applied one by one to politics.

Wolves and Bassets

And so we see the ready adoption of terms like "system" and· "structure" to describe and even to predict human activity.

The key word in modern academic studies of politics is "model." With its overtones of something that works in the same way as its original, such as a model steam engine, the term is highly inappropriate. A modest and realistic word like "sketch" would be more suitable; it would avoid giving the impression that the model-maker, at least in essentials, has mastered the workings of his original. He never has. Polities are sui generis.

The word "system" is so general that it can be used in any field from nuclear weaponry to elementary education and thus leads to the widespread assumption that the ideas of design, engineering, measurement, and analysis suitable to the one can be applied to the other. Resemblances of form rather than of intent or actual activity tend to mislead. A wolf has a very close resemblance, physiologically speaking, to a basset hound. Its reaction to a pat on the head, however, is different. A death camp is "structured," both physically and operationally, very much like a holiday camp. Two identically structured cars may present different dangers if one of them is driven by an alcoholic psychopath. The Roman Empire had the same "structure" under Nero as under Vespasian.

The same objection applies to all premature systematizing. The success of conceptual and mathematical rigor in the fields in which it can be applied - for example, in the engineering triumphs which went into the Apollo spacecraft - must be distinguished severely from the failure in areas where an allegedly scientific or rigorous "system" has been applied, but where the rigor is in fact inapplicable.

The failure of scientific sociologists in putting vast sums of money into poverty programs which have not done anything for poverty, except to some degree among the bureaucracy, is matched by the failure of Mr. McNamara's Pentagon academics and their computerized science of war, with its "escalations" and "responses."

Generally speaking, attempts by the new schools of political science to introduce "rigor" into their subject are just as fallacious, and hence dangerous if taken seriously - and, if not, a notable waste of money. A recent attempt is reported to analyze problems of international detente by feeding 1,200 factors into a computer. Such readily numericized factors, of course, do not exist.

It is impossible, even in principle, to design a computer that could cover all the potentialities of even a chess game, for it can be shown that such a computer would need more units than there can be particles in the entire universe. And chess has rules in the sense that international politics does not.

In all areas of historical and anthropological investigation, genuine scholars have progressively abandoned both theories of linear development and older attempts to attain generality by the selection and inflation of often superficial similarities.

A "Scientific" Delusion

On the other hand, at a certain theoretical level, worthless generalization is still rampant - nowhere more so than in political "science." It is for the most part evident to both newspaper readers and serious students that (except in a very shortrange sense) predictability in the political and social field is unattainable, at any rate by the weak and fallible general theories now in existence. The academic urge to premature and inadequately supported generalities, far from being a higher development, is a sure sign of primitivism.

Insofar as such generalities retain the element of intellectual rigor that makes them liable to refutation on empirical and evidential grounds, they are invariably so refuted. Insofar as they are irrefutable, it is precisely because they are so general and flexible as to convey no real information. In that case, why do they emerge and flourish? We are plainly in the presence not of an intellectual but of a psychological phenomenon: an astonishing tribute to the power and persistence of the human desire for tidiness and certitude, even when these are totally inappropriate.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40469484

(3 comments | Leave a comment)

TimeEvent
10:30 pm

[Link]

В Ленинграде тоже есть университет
В Руанде сегодня правит президент, которого поддерживает абсолютное большинство, — такой тип руководителя идеально подходит для развития любой африканской страны. Именно для развития, прогресса.

http://vestnik.spbu.ru/html15/s13/s13v2/13.pdf

(9 comments | Leave a comment)

Previous Day 2017/07/09
[Archive]
Next Day
My Website Powered by LiveJournal.com