CARTESIAN PARADIGM OF TNE SUBJECT CRISIS AS AN «EPISTEMIC SHIFT»

Russian version of the article

DOI: 10.17072/2078-7898/2016-2-32-38

CARTESIAN PARADIGM OF TNE SUBJECT CRISIS
AS AN «EPISTEMIC SHIFT»

Pankova Ekaterina Sergeevna
Ph.D. Student of Department of Social Philosophy

Kazan Federal University,
18, Kremlyovskaya str., Kazan, 420008, Russia;
e-mail: kotyshenka@mail.ru

The paper focuses on the analysis of Cartesian paradigm of the subject and its critical reflection in the Post-
modern. The methodology of the research is an integration of the two schools such as classical philosophy of rationalism and structuralism. Moreover, not only the fundamental works of the representatives of these schools would be regarded, but the works of their methodological successors as well. The scientific consideration of human nature and identity and the subject and subjectivity begins right from the classical philosophy of rationalism. Structuralism set out the cornerstones for the studies of mechanisms of functioning of the subject and social that is logically continued in poststructuralism. Apart from that, at the heart of poststructuralism there is a methodological differentiation of the Premodern, the Modern and the Postmodern that is of great importance for the research. The main provisions of Cartesian subjectivity, which became the basis for the subsequent criticism in the 20th-century philosophy, are designated in the paper. It is concluded that the epistemological transformation of the subject in the poststructuralist methodology leads to the «epistemic shift» and isolation of the three forms of the subject, such as the Renaissance episteme, the classical episteme and the modern episteme that will present the Premodern, the Modern and the Postmodern. The gradual devaluation of the subject, which can be seen in epistemes, leads to a crisis of identity, the alienation of man from himself and to what might be called the death of the subject.

Key words: Cartesian paradigm of the subject; subject; episteme; poststructuralism; Postmodern.

References

  1. Batkin
  2. Baudrillard
  3. Hegel
  4. Descartes: v 2 [Writings: in 2 vol. Vol. 1]. Moscow, Mysl Publ, 1989, 654 p. (In Russian).
  5. Descartes R. Sochineniya: v 2[Writings: in 2 vol. Vol. 2]. Moscow, Mysl Publ, 1994, 633 p. (In Russian).
  6. Derrida J. O grammatologii [On grammatology]. Moscow, Ad Marginem Publ, 2000, 512 p. (In Russian).
  7. Zhizhek S. Schekotlivyi subect: otsutstvuyuschii centr politicheskoi ontologii [The ticklish subject: the absent centre of political ontology]. Moscow, Delo Publ., Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration Publ., 2014, 528 p. (In Russian).
  8. Kant I. Kritika chistogo razuma [The critique of pure reason]. Moscow, Mysl Publ, 1994, 591 p. (In Russian).
  9. Lacan J. «Ya» v teorii Freida i v technike psichoanaliza(1954/55) [The ego in Freud’s theory and in the technique of psychoanalysis]. Moscow, Gnozis Publ, Logos Publ, 1999, 520 p. (In Russian).
  10. Losev A. Estetika Vozrozhdeniya [Aesthetics of the Renaissance]. Moscow, Mysl Publ, 1978, 623 p. (In Russian).
  11. Ryabushkina T. [Self-Reflection as a method of self-knowledge: on the question about the crisis of foundations of the Cartesian and Post-Cartesian theories of subjectivity]. NB: Filosofskie issledovaniya [NB: Philosophical thought]. 2013, no 1, pp. 1–59. DOI: 10.7256/2306-0174.2013.1.268.
  12. Saussure F. Kurs obschey lingvistiki [Course of general linguistics]. Ekaterinburg, Ural University Publ, 1999, 432 p. (In Russian).
  13. Fromm E. Imet ili byt? [To have or to be?]. Moscow, AST: Astrel’ Publ, 2010, 314 p. (In Russian).
  14. Foucault M. Slova i veschi. Arheologiya gumanitarnyh nauk [The order of things: an archaeology of the human sciences]. Moscow, Progress Publ, 1977, 488 p. (In Russian).

The date of the manuscript receipt 28.01.2016

Please cite this article in English as:

Pankova E.S.Cartesian paradigm of tne subject crisis as an «epistemic shift» // PermUniversityHerald. Series «Philosophy. Psychology. Sociology». 2016. Iss. 2(26). P. 32–38. doi: 10.17072/2078-7898/2016-2-32-38

Категория: Phylosophy.