English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This article analyzes the creative path of G. P. Shchedrovitsky and the programs for reforming different fields of knowledge (mindset, science, pedagogy, design, etc.). The author claims that Shchedrovitsky formed the approach towards studying the indicated fields of knowledge under the influence of the works of A. A. Zinoviev and L. S. Vygotsky, Marxist doctrine, Scientist attitudes of that time. However, there was a different perspective on the reforms in the three key periods and programs of the Moscow Methodological Circle &amp;ndash; creation of the theory of reasoning, theory of activity, and concept of mental activity. In the first period, it was deemed that the reforms will be successful if the reformers follow the method of reasoning developed by Marx in &amp;ldquo;Das Kapital&amp;rdquo;; in the second period &amp;ndash; if the subjects and fields of knowledge under reform will be viewed as transformed in the context of philosophical, scientific, and practical reasoning; as well as activity (including mental activity). within the framework of which these subject and fields were created, will be subsequently reconstructed. The author examines the peculiarities of implementation of Shchedrovitsky&amp;rsquo;s reforms and assesses this work negatively. Namely because from the author&amp;rsquo;s perspective, Shchedrovitsky, on the one hand, did not give due attention to the structure and life of the studied complex phenomena, while on the other hand, designing them as the ideal objects, which is a necessary condition for philosophical and scientific research, he first and foremost fulfilled his personal values and attitudes, ascribing corresponding values to the ideal objects. The author believes that this is an expected outcome, since Shchedrovitsky's methodology for creating the ideal objects did not suggest ascertainment of the structure and life of the corresponding real phenomena.	

The problems and peculiarities of G. P. Shchedrovitsky's reform of mindset, science, pedagogy and other fields of knowledge