A Dialogue of Social Philosophy with W. Whewell’s Logic of Science

In the 21^st century, there is a turn of thinking toward its reorientation first of all to the human as an author of thought and not to the nature, existing independently of us and of the process of scientific knowledge obtaining. It is possible to see the difference of these two types of thinking (classical and non-classical) in the context of dialogue between W. Whewell’s philosophy and the scientific investigations after the scientific revolution in the beginning of the 20^th century. In the philosophy of 21^st century, man is a social being and this is the basis of social philosophy (social epistemology). The artificial world around us is created by a human, it has its foundation in the laws of thinking but not the laws of nature. The foundations of both systems are quite different. In what way can we achieve mutual understanding between them? From both sides some aspects can be put forward, for instance, the concept of a mediator (carrier) of a thought. This concept is studied actively by W. Whewell and by philosophers of our time, and this leads in both cases to some unexpected interpretation of the basic question of philosophy: the border between thing and thought is becoming less noticeable. We can come to the same result, going by different ways. Whewell finds common qualities for some group of things. Social philosophers are interested in what makes things different. Not one of these idealizations corresponds completely to the reality. Always something is not taken into consideration. A thinker chooses out of real world some of its characteristics that become a basis of a thought system, which explains everything but in its own way. The paper demonstrates the way of possible creation of a new type of thinking.

1. Antonovsky A.Yu. (2010) System-communicative Approach: On an Interdisciplinary Basis of Sociological Theory. In: Kasavin I.T. (Ed.) Interdisciplinarity in Philosophy and Science. Moscow: Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences (in Russian).

2. Frodeman R. (2015) Anti-Fuller. Transhumanism and the Proactionary Imperative. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective. Vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 38-43.

3. Fuller S. (2017, April 19) Twelve Questions on the Transhumanism’s Place in the Western Philosophical Tradition. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective. Retrieved from http://wp.me/p1Bfg0-3yl

4. Kasavin I.T. (2017) Victorian Philosophy of Science: William Whewell (Reflections on the Book). Voprosy Filosofii. 2017. No. 3 (in Russian).

5. Kasavin I.T. (2008) Text. Discourse. Context. Introduction to the Social Epistemology of Language. Moscow (in Russian).

6. Kasavin I.T. (2017) Towards a Social Philosophy of Science. Russian Prospects. Social Epistemology. Vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 1-15.

7. Kusliy P.S. (2013) Formal Semiotics and Natural Language. Voprosy Filosofii. 2013. No. 8, pp. 105-117 (in Russian).

8. Markova L.A. (2016) A Turn in the Research of the Social Nature of Scientific Knowledge. Voprosy Filosofii. 2016. No. 4, pp. 182-193 (in Russian).

9. Markova L.A. Social Epistemology in the Context of Past and Future. Moscow (in Russian).

10. Markova L.A. (2017) Transhumanism in the Context of Social Epistemology. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective. Vol. 6, no. 7, pp. 50-53.

11. Stoliarova O.E. (2014) The Language of Science and the Problem of Understanding. Russian Journal of Philosophical Sciences = Filosofskie nauki. 2014. No. 11, pp. 82-94 (in Russian).

12. Whewell W. (1840) The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences Founded upon their History. London: J.W. Farker, West Strand.