Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 3

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
The article analyzes the historical and philosophical roots of the art of suspicion and its role in the development of modern philosophy and its method. Particular attention is paid to the issues of the comparison of philosophical suspicion and conspiracy theories as a special state of mass consciousness. The article also specifies the dependence of the art of suspicion on the sociology of knowledge and post-theoretical thinking.
EN
An important revolution in modern philosophy consists in postulating that philosophy does not cognize the world, but is able only to study thinking, or, which in this context is the same, to cognize knowledge. This thesis has allowed reorganizing the pattern of interaction between philosophers and the representatives of special sciences. Ancient philosophers created general theories of the world by basing on the principles “revealed by the power of the mind” and then entrusted it as an intellectual weapon to other intellectuals. Nowadays philosophers develop theories of knowledge; transmit the methods built on their basis to the special sciences, and wait for the results of its application. It is assumed that the theories of the animate and inanimate nature, of the humans and society, constructed by using the scientific method, could be generalized, and only on this basis an ontology, i.e. a philosophical theory of being, can be built. Then philosophers must be re-engaged in performing generalization and reflection, which replaces speculation. But today, philosophy is neither speculation nor reflection. Philosophy seems to become “post-theoretical thinking,” which determines the boundaries of a theory, and articulates the use of theoretical knowledge in a variety of intellectual and social practices.
EN
This article deals with the issues of museum communication and interpretation of museum exhibits in a philosophical and cultural context. As an example, it considers two different ways of presenting palaeontological material – specifically, the skeleton of southern mammoth – revealing differences in how the semantic content is interpreted. The first method – the traditional approach of assembling the skeleton – gives a “world picture” of a certain era, as it appears to a palaeontologist. The second approach presents the skeleton in a “sandbox”, representing how it was found during excavations, such that viewers deal not with the interpreted “ready-made” material, but with the contemporary experienced reality – the “life-world”, the “raw” source material. This allows visitors to realize their own creative potential and to recreate the nature of the Pleistocene epoch in their imagination. Thus, through the mutual correlation of the roles exhibition’s author and of the visitor as an interpreter, the semantic field of museum communication expands. In Heidegger’s conception, “hides the world rather than explains it, while the “life world” represents it as it is.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.