Anthropological turn in worldview studies: Theoretical and practical aspects

Authors

  • Alexander A. Lvov St. Petersburg State University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2020.206

Abstract

The concept of worldview is quite ambiguous in modern humanities. Philosophers and scholars insist that there is such a spiritual or cognitive basis of each people, person or language, which finds its expression in the way they behave, think, or speak. Current Russian-speaking colleagues hold that there are different levels or types of worldview (such as mythological, religious, and scientific). All this testifies that the term of worldview lacks preciseness either in Russian and in foreign discourse. The main task of the article is to justify the possibility of a different approach to the study of worldview as a special phenomenon. The question can be raised of what exactly we analyze when dealing with worldview. The author is convinced that it would be better to work with the concept of worldview not as “what”, but rather as “how”. In developing his argument, the author focuses on three main aspects of the issue: (1) the accuracy in describing and conceiving worldview as the issue of philosophy; (2) the historical and contemporary examples of the worldview typology; (3) the refutation of such a dichotomy of “science — worldview” and the proposal of an integrated approach to the issue. The alternative way advocated by modern and classical authors is to turn to a more theoretically fruitful method of studying worldviews, that is, to the anthropological perspective.

Keywords:

worldview, anthropological turn, typology of worldview, worldview studies, philosophy as a rigorous science, worldview as the issue of philosophy, Bernhard Groethuysen, Heinrich Gomperz

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
 

References

References

1. Mironov, V. V. (ed.) (2010), Philosophy, Moscow: Prospekt Publ. (In Russian)

2. Markov, B. V. (2014), Philosophy, St. Petersburg: Piter Publ. (In Russian)

3. Spirkin, A. G. (2012), Philoposhy: A Textbook for the Bachelor Students, Moscow: Iurait Publ. (In Russian)

4. Naugle, D. K. (2002), Worldview. The History of a Concept, Grand Rapids, MI: William Eerdmans Publishing Company.

5. Sire, J. W. (2004), Naming the Elephant. Worldview as a Concept, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,

6. Lvov, A. (2018), The Subversive of Worldviews: Alois Riehl’s Foundation of the Tasks of Non-Scientific Philosophy, Terra Aestheticae, no. 2, pp. 163–178.

7. Husserl, E. (1965), Philosophy as a Strict Science, in Johnstone, H. W. (ed.), What is Philosophy?, New York: Macmillan, pp. 85–92.

8. Bossert, P. J. (1974), A Common Misunderstanding Concerning Husserl’s Crisis Text, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, vol. 35, no. 1 (Sep.), pp. 20–33.

9. Steinbock, A. J. (1994), The New “Crisis” Contribution: A Supplementary Edition of Edmund Husserl’s “Crisis”, The Review of Metaphysics, vol. 47, no. 3 (Mar.), pp. 557–584.

10. Wang, T. A. (2014), Philosophical Analysis of the Concept of Crisis, Frontiers of Philosophy in China, vol. 9, no. 2 (June), pp. 254–267.

11. Riehl, A. (1914), The Vocation of Philosophy at the Present Day, in Lectures Delivered in Connection with the Dedication of the Graduate College of Princeton University in October 1913, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp. 43–63.

12. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2013). Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heinrich-rickert/ (accessed: 21.12.2019).

13. Heidegger, M. (1989), Die Grundprobleme der Phänomenologie, in Heidegger, M., Gesamtausgabe, Bd. 24, Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann Publ.

14. Gadamer, H.-G. (1999) Wahrheit und Methode, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

15. Avenarius, R. (2007), Philosophy as Thinking about the World, Moscow: KomKniga Publ. (In Russian)

16. Gomperz, H. (1905) Weltanschauungslehre (Methodologie und Noologie), 1. Bd., E., Jena und Leipzig Diederichs Verlag Publ.

17. Diltei, V. (1995), The Types of Worldviews and Their Discovery in Metaphysical Systems, in Levit, S. Ya. (ed.), Kul’turologiia. XX vek. Antologiia, Moscow: Tsentr gumanitarnykh initsiativ Publ., pp. 213–255. (In Russian)

18. Sheler, M. (1994), Selected Works, Moscow: Gnozis Publ. (In Russian)

19. Shelling, F. V. (2009), The Lectures on the Method of University Education, St. Petersburg: Mir Publ. (In Russian)

20. Ashmore, J. (1966), Three Aspects of Weltanschauung, The Sociological Quarterly, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 215–228.

21. Ginev, D. (2017), Bernard Groethuysen’s Way of Coping the ‘Problem of Historicism, History and Theory, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 216–240.

22. Ermarth, M. (1993), Intellectual History as Philosophical Anthropology: Bernard Groethuysen’s Transformation of Traditional Geistesgeschichte, The Journal of Modern History, vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 673–705.

23. Groethuysen, B. (1968), The bourgeois: Catholicism vs. capitalism in eighteenth-century France, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

24. Scheffer, J.-M. (2010), The End of Human Exclusiveness, Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie Publ. (In Russian)

25. Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. (1986), Laboratory Life. The construction of Scientific Facts, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

26. Catana, L. (2008), The Historiographical Concept ‘System of Philosophy’. Its Origin, Nature, Influence and Legitimacy, Leiden and Boston: Brill.

Published

2020-06-30

How to Cite

Lvov, A. A. (2020). Anthropological turn in worldview studies: Theoretical and practical aspects. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies, 36(2), 279–290. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2020.206