Pavergto mąstymo problema: Maxas Scheleris ir žinojimo sociologijos ištakos

LTApybraižoje nagrinėjama Maxo Schelerio žinojimo sociologija, kuri pirmaisiais XX amžiaus dešimtmečiais Vakarų humanitariniuose bei visuomenės moksluose atvėrė duris naujo pobūdžio sociologiniams epistemologiniams tyrimams, taip pat apibendrino paties Schelerio paskutinio mokslinės veiklos dešimtmečio teorinius vaisius - dešimtmečio, praleisto narpliojant įvairius kultūros klausimus, tyrinėjant politines bei socialines Pirmojo pasaulinio karo priežastis. Žinojimo sociologija vainikuoja iškiliausius ir svarbiausius daugelio metų tyrimus, kuriais Scheleris mėgino įsiskverbti į daugialypę visuomeninių pažintinių problemų pasaulį, joje atsiskleidžia vėliausios ir brandžiausios sociologinės mąstytojo pažiūros. Apybraižoje išskleisti tyrimai įkūnija ne vieno kurio nors teiginio apologetiką, o daugybę samprotavimų, kurių visų tikslas vienas - kuo asmeniškiau įsismelkti į Schelerio žinojimo sociologijos esmę ir tik paskui mėginti perteikti skaitytojui dalykus, palikusius gilesnį pėdsaką autoriaus mąstyme. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Maxas Scheleris, pavergtas mąstymas, sociologija, žinojimas; Max Scheler, Enslaved Thinking, Sociology, Knowledge.

ENMax Scheler has been considered by numerous philosophers and historians of philosophy as one of the most original and independent minds in the phenomenological movement. His intellectual fame lies in the areas of ethics, anthropology, social philosophy, and philosophy of religion. The theory of valuebased ethics propounded in "Formalism in Ethics and Non-Formal Ethics of Values", the analysis of the interpersonal world of human emotions unfolded in "The Nature of Sympathy", the sociological study of historical and cultural forms of knowledge proposed in "Problems of a Sociology of Knowledge", and finally, the doctrine of the originality and non-derivation of religious experience defended in "On the Eternal in Man", are but a few illustrations of what an immense contribution Scheler has made to the philosophy of the twentieth century. On this occasion I should like to turn my attention to one of the above-mentioned works, specifically, I have in mind Scheler's book, "Problems of a Sociology of Knowledge". The date of its first publication was 1924, the year that marked the peak of Scheler's sociological interests. The writing of the book, however, had been preceded by a decade of intense theoretical concerns with such topics as culture, World War I and its social and political causes, the sociological orientation of the twentieth-century Christianity, a critique of Marxist socialism and positivistic philosophy of history, the sociology of national education, and numerous studies in cultural world-views - topics, that is, revolving around the notions of culture, society, history, and knowledge. I have chosen "Problems of a Sociology of Knowledge" because it represents a comprehensive resume of the many years of research that Scheler dedicated to diverse sociological issues, and because it also represents his latest and maturest views on those issues.What has Scheler intended by the term "a sociology of knowledge?" (Indeed, he takes the credit for coining the term). What sort of a discipline does it represent? Is it a philosophy, or an empirical science, and if so, is it a natural or a humanistic science, or, if not, is it perhaps a happy combination of the two, a kind of supra-disciplinary intellectual synthesis reminiscent of Humboldt's and Schleierm acher's speculative spirit which they proposed as the ultimate goal of the Hochschule curriculum at the opening of the University of Berlin? To these I append another - rather commonplace - question: what is the proper object of a sociology of knowledge? Also, I cannot rest without having learnt something of the methodology and the paraphernalia that enable the pursuit of enquires appertaining to a sociology of knowledge. For I might imagine it to be a theoretical discipline or a practical one, a science for its own sake or one geared towards the satisfaction of real human needs, but I do not know for sure, not yet. Preceding is a testimonial to the inquisitive attitude that seized upon me once, as soon as, browsing through a cemetery of scientific names, I chanced to stumble upon the term 'a sociology of knowledge' like a man who, while rambling through a long corridor and passing by the doors of countless cabinets, suddenly halts by a door with an oddly provocative inscription on it, and who, precisely because the inscription is odd and provocative, begins conjuring up the many possibilities of what's behind the door. Well, if the door with a strange inscription stands for a sociology of knowledge, then that which is behind the doors should stand for the actual thoughts Scheler had when he applied the term.To continue with the figure of speech, then, by way of present investigations I want to open the doors and see what is behind them, to wit, I want to examine what is "behind" a sociology of knowledge as it was conceived by Max Scheler in his work, "Problems of a Sociology of Knowledge". There will be four major parts to my work. In the first part I shall present the ideas of several prominent thinkers - namely, Georg Hegel, Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Sigmund Freud - who are rightfully considered to be intellectual precursors of the sociology of knowledge. In the second part I shall discuss the philosophical presuppositions which lie at the base of the principles and tasks accorded by Scheler to the factual and theoretical domain of a sociology of knowledge. In the third part I shall attempt to enumerate, exemplify, and systematize, as much as possible, the different themes that belong to a sociology of knowledge. In the fourth part I shall seek for generalizations. I shall try to delineate the theses of a sociology of knowledge by emphasizing their noetic and social aspects. Furthermore, I shall search for the "common property" of all different themes of a sociology of knowledge which would account for the fact that they all [themes] belong to a single discipline. Then, as a result of my interpretation of Scheler's sociology of knowledge, I shall propose my own, needless to say, tentative definition of his approach to it. Lastly, I shall also express my opinion as to what extent Scheler's sociology of knowledge is a "philosophical" discipline. Furthermore, I shall voice a number of more general criticisms by pointing out what I opine to be deficiencies, inconsistencies, and errors in the Schelerian theoretical scheme of a sociology of knowledge. Finally, I shall suggest some theoretical perspectives concerning the future development of a Schelerian sociology of knowledge. [...]. [Extrac