|
MAIN PAGE
> Back to contents
Philosophy and Culture
Reference:
Ponochevnaya I.D.
Paul Kurtz and the Philosophical Critique of Secular Humanism
// Philosophy and Culture.
2015. № 4.
P. 524-532.
DOI: 10.7256/2454-0757.2015.4.14957 URL: https://en.nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=14957
Пол Куртц и философская критика светского гуманизма
Ponochevnaya Inna Dmitrievna
post-graduate student of the Department of Religion and Religious Studies at Saint Petersburg State University
199178, Russia, Saint Petersburg, Liniya 15, 34, ap. 25
|
inpono@gmail.com
|
|
 |
|
DOI: 10.7256/2454-0757.2015.4.14957
Received:
08-04-2015
Published:
29-05-2015
Abstract:
The article explores the attitude of Paul Kurtz (1925-2012), who is considered by many to be the father of the secular humanist movement, towards philosophical critique of the scientific methodology and humanistic values. The author analyzes Paul Kurtz’ understanding and interpretation of the works of such philosophers as Søren Kierkegaard, Martin Heidegger, Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend, Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Jacques Lacan, and his counter-arguments used against the following concepts: radical subjectivism, irrationalism, anti-humanism and philosophical pessimism. In her research Ponochevnaya has used the methods that are usually used in humanitarian disciplines. These methods include the comparative historical, conceptual problematic, classification and system-forming methods. The scientific novelty of the research is caused by the fact that for the first time in the academic literature the researcher conducts a fundamental analysis of Paul Kurtz' views on the key issues of existential and post-modern philosophy. The main conclusion of the research is the definition of ideological contradictions between humanistic and pragmatistic traditions, on the one hand, and philosophy of existentialism and philosophy of French post-modernism, on the other hand.
Keywords:
subjectivism, anti-humanism, Martin Heidegger, Soren Kierkegaard, Paul Kurtz, secular humanism, postmodernism, pragmatism, anthropology, irrationalism
References
1. Dawkins, Richard. Postmodernism Disrobed // Nature. 1998. Vol. 394. P. 141-143 < http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/dawkins.html >
2. Farias V. Heidegger and Nazism. Temple University Press, 1989
3. Ferry L., Alain R. French Philosophy of the Sixties. An Essay on Antihumanism. Amherst. The University of Massachusetts Press, 1990 (vpervye opublikovano na frantsuzskom yazyke v 1985 g.)
4. Geroulanos S. Slaughterbench of Humanisms: The 1987 Heidegger Affair in Intellectual-Historical Perspective // Journal of French Philosophy, Volume 17, Number 1, Spring 2007.
5. Kurtz P. Antiscience Paradigm // Skepticism and Humanism. The New Paradigm. Transaction Publishers, 2001.
6. Kurtz P. Kierkegaard, Existentialism, and the Contemporary Scene // The Antioch Review, Vol. 21, No. 4 (Winter, 1961-1962), pp. 471-487
7. Kurtz P. The Relevance of Science to Ethics // Toward A New Enlightenment. Transaction Publishers, 1994
8. Kurtz P. Toward a New Enlightenment // Toward A New Enlightenment. Transaction Publishers, 1994
9. Madigan Timothy J. Introduction to Part Two // Toward a New Enlightenment: The Philosophy of Paul Kurtz. Ed.by Vern L. Bullough and Timothy J. Madigan, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1994
10. Sheehan T. Heidegger and the Nazis // The New York Review of Books V.35, N.10, June 16, 1988 (primechanie k stat'e №5) < http://nybooks.com/articles/archives/1988/jun/16/heidegger–and–the–nazis/ >
11. Adorno T.V. Posle Osventsima // Negativnaya dialektika. M.: Nauchnyi mir, 2003, s. 322-333.
12. Gurevich P.S. Chelovek kak ob''ekt sotsial'no-filosofskogo analiza // Problema cheloveka v zapadnoi filosofii. M.: Progress, 1988. S. 504-517;
13. Guseinov A.A. Perestroika: novyi obraz morali // Eticheskaya mysl'. M.: Respublika, 1990.
14. Deklaratsiya svetskogo gumanizma // Sovremennyi gumanizm: dokumenty i issledovaniya. Pod obshch. red. Kuvakina V. A., Kruglova A. G. M.: RGO, 2000
15. Dekomb V. Sovremennaya frantsuzskaya filosofiya. M.: Ves' mir, 2000.
16. Kun T. Struktura nauchnykh revolyutsii. M.: OOO «Izdatel'stvo ACT», 2003
17. Kurtts P. Gumanizm i skeptitsizm – paradigmy kul'tury tret'ego tysyacheletiya // Zdravyi Smysl, №17, 2000 g.
18. Kurtts P. Iskushenie potustoronnim. M.: Akademicheskii Proekt, 1999 (vpervye opublikovano na angliiskom yazyke v 1987 g.)
19. Kurtts P. Muzhestvo stat': Dobrodeteli gumanizma. M.: Rossiiskoe gumanisticheskoe obshchestvo, 2000
20. Kurtts P. Novyi skeptitsizm: Issledovanie i nadezhnoe znanie. M.: Nauka, 2005
21. Lamont M. Kak stat' samym vazhnym filosofom: sluchai Derrida. «Logos» №4-5 (72). 2009, S. 3-42 (vpervye opublikovano na angliiskom yazyke v 1987 g.).
22. Lenel'-Lavastin A. Zabytyi fashizm: Ionesko, Eliade, Choran. M.: Progress-Traditsiya, 2007
23. Ponochevnaya I. D. Svetskii gumanizm i religioznyi konservatizm v SShA // Religiovedenie-2014.-№ 2.-S. 125-133
24. Ponochevnaya I. D. U istokov svetskogo gumanizma Vestnik SPbGU (seriya 6). // Izd-vo S.-Peterb. gos. un-ta, 2014
25. Sartr Zh.P. Ekzistentsializm – eto gumanizm // Sumerki bogov. M.: Politizdat, 1990. S. 319-344.
26. Sokal A. Brinkmon Zh. Intellektual'nye ulovki, M.: Dom intellektual'noi knigi, 2002 (vpervye opublikovano na angliiskom yazyke v 1997 g.)
27. Solzhenitsyn A. Raskolotyi mir. Rech' na assamblee vypusknikov Garvardskogo universiteta 8 iyunya 1978 g. // Russkoe vozrozhdenie. Parizh; M.; N'yu-Iork, 1978. № 2. S. 85—109. Tsit. po materialam saita «Samizdat» < http://antology.igrunov.ru/authors/solzh/1121759601.html >
28. Feierabend P. Protiv metodologicheskogo prinuzhdeniya // Izbrannye trudy po metodologii nauki. M.: Progress, 1986
29. Fuko M. Intellektualy i vlast': Izbrannye politicheskie stat'i, vystupleniya i interv'yu. Chast' 2. M.: Praksis, 2005.
30. Khaidegger M. Pis'mo o gumanizme // Vremya i bytie: Stat'i i vystupleniya: Per. s nem. M.: Respublika, 1993. S. 192-201.
31. Chernyi Yu. Yu. Sovremennyi gumanizm (obzor) // M.: INION RAN «Filosofiya v XX veke. Ch. 2», 2001
Link to this article
You can simply select and copy link from below text field.
|
|
