Две концепции открытой рациональности

Abstract

Rationality is one of the key and most controversial topics of modern philosophy that gave rise to many different approaches. In this article I explore two original approaches to rationality, which are based on the connection between rationality and openness. I analyze key differences and similarities between two theories. The approach taken by Vladimir Shvyrev in his work “Rationality as a Cultural Value” differentiates between open and closed rationality. Open rationality is able to reconsider and to creatively develop its own presuppositions, while closed rationality always works within a fixed predefined scheme. But only in the case of openness rationality is exercised to its full extent, while closedness in its absolute form leads to the destruction of rationality. This approach is contrasted to Adin Steinsaltz’s theory of open and closed knowledge, presented in his work “Sociology of Ignorance”. According to this approach, rational or open knowledge is also based upon continuous examination of its own criteria. Both authors understand ‘open’ and ‘closed’ as ideal types that do not exist in reality in their pure form. They both agree that rationality or openness was first developed in ancient Greek culture, but blossomed only in the Enlightenment; openness is also connected to the development of trade. However Steinsaltz argues that the ideal of open knowledge was also developed in the ancient Hebrew culture in parallel to ancient Greek. The key difference between the two approaches is that they conceive openness very differently: according to Shvyrev, openness is a continuous change and development of knowledge, while Steinsaltz understands openness as open access to knowledge for every person. Despite such a stark difference, the two approaches are very similar in other respects. Theories of open rationality today are especially relevant because of the development of open science.