Standard

Does psychology need stars of Spinoza? / Fedorov, A. A.

в: Voprosy Psikhologii, Том 2018-January, № 3, 01.01.2018, стр. 105-112.

Результаты исследований: Научные публикации в периодических изданияхобзорная статьяРецензирование

Harvard

Fedorov, AA 2018, 'Does psychology need stars of Spinoza?', Voprosy Psikhologii, Том. 2018-January, № 3, стр. 105-112.

APA

Fedorov, A. A. (2018). Does psychology need stars of Spinoza? Voprosy Psikhologii, 2018-January(3), 105-112.

Vancouver

Fedorov AA. Does psychology need stars of Spinoza? Voprosy Psikhologii. 2018 янв. 1;2018-January(3):105-112.

Author

Fedorov, A. A. / Does psychology need stars of Spinoza?. в: Voprosy Psikhologii. 2018 ; Том 2018-January, № 3. стр. 105-112.

BibTeX

@article{d3b101ab9cad46938566c991e33f7ecd,
title = "Does psychology need stars of Spinoza?",
abstract = "The article is a response to the article of E.E. Sokolova (bprosy psikhologii. 2017. N 6) which, on the one hand, states that approaches of N.I. Chuprikova (Ntoprosy psikhologii. 2016. N 6) and IA Mironenko (Voprosy psikhologii. 2017. N 1) have nothing to do with the ideas of B. Spinoza, and, on the other hand, considers spinozism as an underlying philosophical basis of A.N. Leontiev's school. It's stated that it's hardly possible to have a claim on the only authentic interpretation of B. Spinoza's doc-trine. Considering its vagueness and even contradictions it can be understood as a neutral monistic, dual-aspect, materialistic or even idealistic system. It's asserted that spinozism can't help in dealing with problems of psychology because there is no uniform understanding how to put its ideas into scientific practice. The article also criticizes E.E. Sokolova's opinion that T. Hobbes' theory is only a reduced version of cartesianism. It argues instead that it's B. Spinoza who has more in common with the doctrine of R. Descartes. It's also noticed that the birth of nonclassical psychology and nonclassical physics may be related with the {"}turn to Spinoza{"}. But as M. Paty warns, we have to be very careful both while interpreting philosophical theory in terms of contemporary conceptions and while trying to find justification of a given philosophical idea in contemporary science.",
keywords = "B. Spinoza, Classical psychology, Post-nonclassical psychology, R. Descartes",
author = "Fedorov, {A. A.}",
year = "2018",
month = jan,
day = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "2018-January",
pages = "105--112",
journal = "Voprosy Psikhologii",
issn = "0042-8841",
publisher = "Akademiia pedagogicheskikh nauk RSFSR",
number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Does psychology need stars of Spinoza?

AU - Fedorov, A. A.

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - The article is a response to the article of E.E. Sokolova (bprosy psikhologii. 2017. N 6) which, on the one hand, states that approaches of N.I. Chuprikova (Ntoprosy psikhologii. 2016. N 6) and IA Mironenko (Voprosy psikhologii. 2017. N 1) have nothing to do with the ideas of B. Spinoza, and, on the other hand, considers spinozism as an underlying philosophical basis of A.N. Leontiev's school. It's stated that it's hardly possible to have a claim on the only authentic interpretation of B. Spinoza's doc-trine. Considering its vagueness and even contradictions it can be understood as a neutral monistic, dual-aspect, materialistic or even idealistic system. It's asserted that spinozism can't help in dealing with problems of psychology because there is no uniform understanding how to put its ideas into scientific practice. The article also criticizes E.E. Sokolova's opinion that T. Hobbes' theory is only a reduced version of cartesianism. It argues instead that it's B. Spinoza who has more in common with the doctrine of R. Descartes. It's also noticed that the birth of nonclassical psychology and nonclassical physics may be related with the "turn to Spinoza". But as M. Paty warns, we have to be very careful both while interpreting philosophical theory in terms of contemporary conceptions and while trying to find justification of a given philosophical idea in contemporary science.

AB - The article is a response to the article of E.E. Sokolova (bprosy psikhologii. 2017. N 6) which, on the one hand, states that approaches of N.I. Chuprikova (Ntoprosy psikhologii. 2016. N 6) and IA Mironenko (Voprosy psikhologii. 2017. N 1) have nothing to do with the ideas of B. Spinoza, and, on the other hand, considers spinozism as an underlying philosophical basis of A.N. Leontiev's school. It's stated that it's hardly possible to have a claim on the only authentic interpretation of B. Spinoza's doc-trine. Considering its vagueness and even contradictions it can be understood as a neutral monistic, dual-aspect, materialistic or even idealistic system. It's asserted that spinozism can't help in dealing with problems of psychology because there is no uniform understanding how to put its ideas into scientific practice. The article also criticizes E.E. Sokolova's opinion that T. Hobbes' theory is only a reduced version of cartesianism. It argues instead that it's B. Spinoza who has more in common with the doctrine of R. Descartes. It's also noticed that the birth of nonclassical psychology and nonclassical physics may be related with the "turn to Spinoza". But as M. Paty warns, we have to be very careful both while interpreting philosophical theory in terms of contemporary conceptions and while trying to find justification of a given philosophical idea in contemporary science.

KW - B. Spinoza

KW - Classical psychology

KW - Post-nonclassical psychology

KW - R. Descartes

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85054871233&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:85054871233

VL - 2018-January

SP - 105

EP - 112

JO - Voprosy Psikhologii

JF - Voprosy Psikhologii

SN - 0042-8841

IS - 3

ER -

ID: 17115329