UDC: 168: 316.74: 930.85
https://doi.org/10.25198/2077-7175-2024-3-74


viewing

PAUL FEYERABEND’S “METHODOLOGICAL ANARCHISM” AND THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL STATUS OF THE SCIENTIST’S ACTIVITY IN THE POLITARY AGE

V. Yu. Vasechko
Institute of Philosophy and Law, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Yekaterinburg, Russia
e-mail: vyacheslavpetro@yandex.ru

Abstract. The relevance of the article is determined by the importance of comprehension and theoretical explication of the origins and forms of specifically scientific cognition of objective reality, which originated in the civilizations of the ancient and medieval East (ancient Egypt and Babylon, ancient and medieval India and China, the medieval Arab-Muslim East), generally designated in the article as «politary societies». The purpose of the article is to show the possibility and effectiveness of applying the concept of the so-called «methodological anarchism» developed by the American philosopher Paul Feyerabend (1924–1994) to the epistemological activity that took place over the course of about three millennia in societies of the politary type. As the main method of research, the author uses the ascent from the abstract to the concrete: from the abstract generalized description of the methodological principles proclaimed by Feyerabend, the author moves on to the concrete realities of the epistemological discourse of the politary epoch, demonstrating the relevance of these principles in this respect and the fruitfulness of the coverage of politary science from this perspective. Three principles of Feyerabend’s were chosen as the supporting pillars of the study: 1) «Leave science to scientists!»; 2) «Anything goes!»; 3) separation of science from the state. The unity of the logical and the historical acts as an auxiliary method: the concrete-historical features of natural-scientific and mathematical work under the conditions of politarism appear as more or less pronounced individualized specifications of those general, universal criteria of scientific activity which modern philosophy of science tries to logically reconstruct, and which (as Feyerabend never tired of showing) are still very far from perfection. As a result of the study, the author draws conclusions that have a novelty. First of all, the very possibility of successful application of the concepts developed by Feyerabend on the material of the history of Western science, far beyond the socio-cultural sphere with which the American thinker directly dealt is substantiated. Secondly, it has been demonstrated that the reasons that ensured, on the one hand, the success of scientific and cognitive research, and, on the other hand, hindered it and harmed it, were, in fact, of the same type both on the European continent and in the politary East. Thirdly, it is shown that it is the acquisition by the research community of subjectness, the right to independently form research priorities, that is the condition for obtaining significant scientific innovations, and a condition that works in any culture and in any era - from antiquity to the present. The practical significance of the work carried out by the author of the article is seen in the fact that a methodological basis is created for a stricter demarcation between the concepts of «science» and «proto- (pre-) science» and for qualified theoretical and moral assessments of the intellectual and creative work that was done by scientists of the ancient and medieval East.

Key words: Feyerabend, politarism, epistemological discourse, methodological anarchism, philosophy and methodology of science, ancient and medieval East.

Cite as: Vasechko, V. Yu. (2024) [Paul Feyerabend’s «methodological anarchism» and the epistemological status of the scientist’s activity in the politary age]. Intellekt. Innovacii. Investicii [Intellect. Innovations. Investments]. Vol. 3, pp. 74–88. – https://doi.org/10.25198/2077-7175-2024-3-74.


References

  1. Bartol’d, V. V. (1964) [Ulugbek and his time]. V. V. Bartol’d. Sochineniya [V. V. Bartold. Works]. Vol. II (2). Moscow: Science, pp. 23–196.
  2. Beruni i Ibn Sina (1973) Perepiska [Correspondence]. Tashkent: Fan, 36 p.
  3. Biruni, A. R. (1995) Indiya [India]. Moscow: Ladomir, 727 p.
  4. Biruni, A. R. (1966) [Defining the boundaries of places to clarify the distances between settlements]. A. R. Biruni. Izbrannye proizvedeniya [A.R. Biruni. Selected works]. Vol. III. Tashkent: Fan, 361 p. (In Russ.).
  5. Biruni, A. R. (1957) [Monuments of past generations]. A. R. Biruni. Izbrannye proizvedeniya [A. R. Biruni. Selected works]. Vol. I. Tashkent: AN UzSSR Publishing House, 488 p. (In Russ.).
  6. Vajman, A. A. (1961) Shumero-vavilonskaya matematika III – I tys. do n. e. [Sumerian-Babylonian Mathematics of the III – I Millennia BC]. Moscow: Oriental Literature Publishing House, 280 p.
  7. Vasechko, V. Yu. (2022) Nauka v politarnom obshchestve: priklyucheniya i sud’by uchenyh v civilizaciyah drevnego Vostoka [Science in politary society: Adventures and destinies of scientists in the civilizations of the Ancient East]. Moscow: INFRA-M, 373 p. – https://doi.org/10.12737/1831655.
  8. Vasechko, V. Yu. (2017) [Scientist in politary society: conjugation of professional and meaningful life discourse]. Diskurs-Pi. Vol. 2 (27), pp. 48–57. – EDN: YLUPCT. (In Russ.).
  9. Vizgin, V. P. (2020) Nauka v ee istorii: vzglyad filosofa [Science in its history: a philosopher’s view]. Moscow: Publishing House YaSK, 696 p. (In Russ.).
  10. Eremeev, V. E. (2009) [Astronomy]. Duhovnaya kul’tura Kitaya: Enciklopediya [Spiritual Culture of China: Encyclopedia]. Vol. 5. Moscow: Oriental Literature Publishing House, pp. 102–139. (In Russ.).
  11. Eremeev, V. E. (2009) [Geography]. Duhovnaya kul’tura Kitaya: Enciklopediya [Spiritual Culture of China: Encyclopedia]. Vol. 5. Moscow: Oriental Literature Publishing House, pp. 226–248. (In Russ.).
  12. Eremeev, V. E. (2009) [Mathematics]. Duhovnaya kul’tura Kitaya: Enciklopediya [Spiritual Culture of China: Encyclopedia]. Vol. 5. Moscow: Oriental Literature Publishing House, pp. 52–95. (In Russ.).
  13. Eremeev, V. E. (2005) Simvoly i chisla «Knigi peremen» [Symbols and numbers of the Book of Changes]. Moscow: Ladomir, 600 p.
  14. Zacepin, V. (2020) [The Philosophical legacy of Paul K. Feyerabend]. P. Fejerabend. Ubijstvo vremeni [P. Fejerabend. Killing Time]. Moscow: Rosebud Publishing, pp. 345–362. (In Russ.).
  15. Matvievskaya, G. P. (2012) Uchenie o chisle na srednevekovom Blizhnem i Srednem Vostoke [The doctrine of number in the Medieval Middle East]. Moscow: URSS, 344 p.
  16. Nejgebauer, O. (2003) Tochnye nauki v drevnosti [The Exact Sciences in Antiquity]. Moscow: Editorial URSS, 240 p.
  17. Polani, M. (1985) Lichnostnoe znanie. Na puti k postkriticheskoj filosofii [Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy]. Moscow: Progress, 1985, 344 p.
  18. Popova, L. V. (2006) [Hanlin]. Duhovnaya kul’tura Kitaya: Enciklopediya [Spiritual Culture of China: Encyclopedia]. Vol. 1. Moscow: Oriental Literature Publishing House, p. 475. (In Russ.).
  19. Popova, L. V. (1993) [Hanlin Academy is the most important organ of state administration in the Chinese Empire]. Materialy XXIV NK OGK [Proceedings of the XXIV scientific conference «Society and State in China»]. Vol. 1. Moscow: Oriental Literature Publishing House. (In Russ.).
  20. Rozenfel’d, B. A., Rozhanskaya, M. M., Sokolovskaya, Z. K. (2014) Abu-r-Rajhan al-Biruni. 973 – 1048 [Abu’r Rayhan al-Biruni. 973–1048]. Moscow: URSS, 2014, 272 p. – EDN: STFCZP.
  21. Semenov, Yu. I. (2011) Politarnyj («aziatskij») sposob proizvodstva: sushchnost’ i mesto v istorii chelovechestva i Rossii [The politary («Asian») mode of production: essence and place in the history of mankind and Russia]. Moscow: LIBROKOM Publishing House, 376 p.
  22. Sirazhdinov, S. H., Matvievskaya, G. P., Ahmedov, A. (1973) Matematika i astronomiya u Beruni [Mathematics and Astronomy at Beruni’s]. Tashkent: Fan, 48 p.
  23. Starr, S. F. (2017) Utrachennoe Prosveshchenie: Zolotoj vek Central’noj Azii ot arabskogo zavoevaniya do vremen Tamerlana [Central Asia’s Golden Age from the Arab Conquest to Tamerlane]. Moscow: Alpina Publisher, 574 p.
  24. Starcev, P. A. (1961) Ocherki astronomii v Kitae [Essays on Astronomy in China]. Moscow: Fizmatgiz, 156 p.
  25. Tulmin, S. (1984) Chelovecheskoe ponimanie [Human Understanding]. Moscow: Progress, 328 p.
  26. Fejerabend, P. (2010) Nauka v svobodnom obshchestve [Science in a Free Society]. Moscow: AST: AST MOSCOW Publishing, 378 p. (In Russ.).
  27. Fejerabend, P. (1986) [Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge]. P. Feyerabend. Izbrannye trudy po metodologii nauki [Selected Works on the Methodology of Science]. Moscow: Progress, pp. 125– 466. (In Russ.).
  28. Fejerabend, P. (2010) Рroshchaj, razum [Farewell to Reason]. Moscow: AST: Astrel Publishing, 480 p. (In Russ.).
  29. Fejerabend, P. (2020) Ubijstvo vremeni: avtobiografiya [Killing Time: An Autobiography]. Moscow: Rosebud Publishing, 368 p.
  30. Engel’s, F. (1961) [Dialectics of Nature]. Marks K. i Engel’s F. Sochineniya, 2-e izd. [Marx K. and Engels F. Works, 2nd edition]. Vol. 20. Moscow: Gospolitizdat, pp. 339–626. (In Russ.).
  31. Feyerabend, P. K., Agassi J. (1976) Comments and replies. Philosophia 6, pp. 177–191. – https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02383264 (accessed: 08.12.2023). (In Eng.).
  32. Gellner, E. (1975) Beyond Truth and Falsehood, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, vol. 26, pp. 331– 342. (In Eng.).
  33. Hoyningen-Huene, P. (2002) Paul Feyerabend und Thomas Kuhn, Journal for General Philosophy of Science, vol. 33, pp. 61–83. (In Eng.).
  34. Motterlini, M. (ed.) (1999) For and Against Method: Imre Lakatos and Paul Feyerabend, University of Chicago Press, 451 p. (In Eng.).
  35. Putnam, H. (1981) Reason, Truth and History, Cambridge, pp. 113–126. (In Eng.).