Principle, approach, method

and way as the basic forms of methodologization in creativity

of V. A. Romenets


Among methodologists of system-think-action camp (see [31]) there is a conviction that “Dialogues” of Galileo, “A treatise on light” Descartes, “Principles” Newton, work in special and general theories of relativity of Einstein – it’s methodological but not scientific works, since the most important in them is not “scienti­fic result, not new knowledge but a formation and demonstration of new methods, new forms and schemes of organization cognition”; that’s why they “were used by contemporaries-col­leagues not as textbooks but as samplers of researches every time of new type, scilicet in org-action function and only later in structures of training, brought to serial state of ontological statements” [4, p. 118].

For us it is clear that philosophical, historical-psychological works of V. A. Romenets, firstly “Life and death in the scientific and religious interpretation” [34], sections of the textbook “Bases of psychology” [16], “History of the psychology of XX century” [15] and of course the author-report of the doctoral dissertation “Subject and principles of historical-psycholo­gical research” [17]), also is mainly methodolo­gical than actually scientific. The explanation to this focuses around methodological core of his creative way in the science and philosophy: objectively substantiated principles of formation historical-psychological knowledge for building the history of world psychology are organizing in paradigmatic format of cultural-humanistic approach, implementing method of committing dialectics as a standard of rational cognition in humanities for students and successors offering at the same time as research canons methods of setting and solving the most complex problems: creativity, deed as logical core of historical-psychological research, life and death in being personal existence, the canonical psychology as a way to wisdom by steps of ecstatic being and other (see. [22]). In the last case we get four fun­damental form of methodological organi­zation the research activity of Ukrainian worthy man – a principle, an approach, a method, a way with which permeated through entire fabric of theoretical constructs and empirical ap­pearances and factual argumentations.  It is noteworthy that the scientist uses these forms of clearness the historical-psychological process of humanity not only and not so much by their highest philosophical appointment but also in meaning-semantic similarity on the one hand and in structural-functional and form-creative diffe­rence – on the other, additionally on maximum widely reflexive horizon of own problem-dialogic consciousness. In general for our convictions there are reasons to state the uniqueness of perfect sphere of semantic flow of Romenets consciousness which embracing existential all-inclusive and poli-dialogically tense field of canonical think-action presence of the scientist-thinker in the world and this world in his everyday psycho-spiritual existence, at the same time provides not only a detailed reflection of historical-psychological process of human deve­lopment but also the generation of meanings, values, actualization and activation cognitive, sensory, intentional, intuitive and other psycho-forms (let’s say personal experiences, opinions or knowledge) finally enabling scatter of critical and creative reflection in acts of self-awareness Self-conceptualization, self-knowledge and self-creation (see. [28]).

Mentioned eloquently confirms the structure and content, themes and methodologems, con­cepts and episteme of doctoral report of V. A. Ro­menets. And the substantiation of the subject and principles of inter-scientific research of cultural-humanistic direction from the very beginning creates great by its complexity metho­dological problem in finding ways and forms of setting, solving and interpretation of which he doesn’t go by well-trodden way. Ukrainian thinker only repelled from famous works of           M. M. Bakhtin, S. L. Rubinstein, M. G. Ya­roshevsky and other philosophers and scientists and creates those organizational-thinking sche­mes and models (first of all “the deed as logical core of IVP” stages and peculiarities of trans­formation of its subject, scilicet definition of essential shifts in “clarifying the nature of mental and its place in the world” and on this base “establishing the culturalogical periodization” of this integral scientific discipline, etc.) which are modern “skeleton” of historical-psychological science, more precisely – peculiar worldview map that defines culturally the most important and the most humane research directions for present and future generations of scientists. So actually it is talking about IVP as about new world-creating scheme which embracing in its numerous branching differently-fundamental (including personalized, intuitive) knowledge from all spheres and segments of human activity, a number of theoretical concepts (art, history of psychology, life course of the human, sources of human being) and principles of systemati­zation rich historical-psychological material is still built by talented scientists on first-premises and exceptionally within frames of newly created by him form of organization the humanitarian cognition.

Methodological organization of reflexive think-activity of V. A. Romenets in determining the object of historical-psychological research is not just logically substantiated by idealization of historically lengthy reality mankind in positions of deductive method of cognition. It is a separate exemplary way of structural-func­tional unification of various knowledge with all-possible means of ratio-humanitarian searching (from thinking operations and empirical activi­ties to schematisms and conceptual-categorical apparatus of modern science). Volodymyr Andriyovych  himself very modestly defines this as the main task – “the development of the complex of methodological techniques of studying the sources of  historical-psychological knowledge for periodization and creation IPP” [17, p. 8]. In fact, we have discovery of one of the most fundamental, compared with existing, methodological schemes of research that rises from subject core of philosophical-psychological considerations of thinker and complement:

a)         evolution, development, formation of psychological knowledge and their form of expression in folklore, art, religion (theology), law, medicine, philosophy, science;

b)         forms and types of creativity as an important channel of disclosure psychological nature of human, his cultural step, beginnings and transformation of psychological ideas in human history;

c)         step interpretation of psychic nature and its place in the world that enables the separation of the leading trends in  definition the subject of psychology;

d)        methodologem of logical transition of objective and subjective as the process wave of becoming, determination and formation of psychic due to committing core which is subject to historical-psychological shifts in different regions of the world;

e)         approval of unity of the subject and the principles of historical-psychological research that in the end enabled at the first time determine culturological periodization of HWP (history of world psychology) as a basis for building the perfect model of historical-psy­chological process.

For V. A. Romenets the principle is a leading position that has self-sufficient value in the ideal area, alternately pulsing in his consciousness theorizing (clarification the essence and peculi­arities of “behavior” of the subject cognition) and methodologization (selection and application on this way to the hidden secrets of object forms, methods, techniques, means and tools of thinking and activity). Thus, fundamental in the construction of HWP undoubtedly is committing principle that allows “to see the logical structure of psychology, to build its system, points towards the establishment of psychology as an independent science with its psychological regularities. To understand historically conscious forms of the deed means to understand quali­tatively different stages of the becoming psy­chology itself, to understand its history “[17, p. 10]. Except this first-fundamental principle, the researcher reflexes at least two quaternary concenters of principles that reflect the basic characteristics of the object cognition and orient it in actualized historical-psychological material, forming a kind of a launch pad of analyzing, explanation, interpretation, guidance to commit­ting think-activity and self-determination in the ocean of views, opinions, facts of differently-perfect knowledge. First concenter is principles of general periodization of HWP that concep­tualizes full range of Romenets research (always available correlation with the essence which saves the existence of psychic; phenomenological change of forms of psychic moves to revealing its real essence; psychic unfolds itself in the mastering of the world and at the same time knower itself in this mastering and creates instruc­ted to self-creation). Second concenter covers the principles of committing periodization of HWP – situational, motivational, commit­ting-active, post-active – as those logical and structural substantiated moments-components of the deed that denote the basic content of the main stages of development the psychology; what’s more each of its historical level “has its emphasis in this structure of the deed and their shift determine in the most essential features the content, meaning of psychology history, first of all the transition to the new position of vision the subject from which the field of discipline opens its rising wealth” [17, p. 11]. In particular, the situational side of the deed represented in mythological psychology, psychology of the Ancient World and the Middle Ages (see. [12]), motivational determines the major milestone of becoming the psychology from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment inclusively (see. [13]), effective and post-effective become the most important focus in the studying of psychology of XIX-XX centuries (see. [14], [15]).

So, the deed and its org-functional structure quite rightly used by V. A. Romenets as logical core of methodologization just because as event driven being, scilicet as real subjective presence of the human in the world and implemented availability of the world in psycho-sphere of the human and at the same time as psycho-spiritual phenomenon of called mutual presence it is the core or a clot of course-transformation of psychic in cultural-historical dynamics of human development. Processed by Volodymyr Andriyovych hierarchically self-sufficient system of principles of historical-psychological research, setting basic provisions for aimed step forward in organization humanitarian cognition, elabo­rates its thought-semantic horizon of conscious­ness as a methodologist by basic ideality which later in meta-system of ideas, principles and standards of reflexive searching, create cultural-historical approach and method of committing dialectics.

The methodological approach in philosophy or science – it’s a certain strategy of cognition as more or less balanced set of principles and standards of reflexively implemented theoriza­tion that determines the orientation of individual and collective think-activity, caused by proble­matic field of consciousness of researcher (diffi­cul­ties on the way of satisfaction cognitive need by impossibility to achieve the goal of the search in a known way, etc.). This approach testifying personal certainty of researcher in selecting directivity of theoretical or practical work, present in his thinking in reflexive form (mainly on the stage of becoming during processing appropriate means and methods) and in not reflexive (in the period of steady, episteme unchanged functioning) and finally settles in multiple-segment rational knowledge of history and theory of thinking. In this analytical cut of cultural-historical approach of V. A. Roments, to opinion of M. S. Guseltseva (see. [3]) and   P. A. Myasoyid (see. [6], [9]) are post­nonclassical, concerning the three- aspect methodological optics, substantiated in the philosophical conception of theoretical know­ledge of V. S. Stiopin (classical, nonclassical and postnonclassical types of rationality, see. [35]). The main features of this approach are: “communicativity of the concept, categorical network, culturalogical and anthropological methodological formats, mutual complementa­rity micro- and macro-analysis, the dialectic of the universal and unique” overcoming dilemmas of monism and pluralism as interdependent functioning of two research strategies and finally “the opportunity to engage a living canvas of knowledge the work of thinkers as different cultures and historical epochs and establish a rehash of ideas between them and contemporaries ... “[3, p. 102–103].

Obviously, there are reasons to state a high complexity of implemented by scientist, as he called it by himself, cultural-historical or cul­tural-humanistic approach to HWP which except outlined principles and methodological standards (with the help of category of the deed, taken as a cognitive tool) allows to conduct the research in such way that it branches from the trunk to crown by parameters of the situation, motiva­tion, committing actions, reflection and let new shoots of analysis: unique reveals itself through universal and semantic diversity of boundless horizons of psycho-spiritual phenomenology of human existence detected structured by single logic of conceptual-categorical organization covered by psychological material. However, based on substantiated by us earlier (see. [10, p. 108–116], [11, p. 7–14]), “by exceptional importance are characterized not only works of V. A. Romenets the significant historical-psychological themes in the context of the entire human culture and created by him meta-theory of the deed and no just paramount way-method which he moved  from theory of creativity and history of world psychology to psycho-sophia of the deed and theory of canonical psy­chology…” [20, p. 8].

Speaking about the rising of the method of committing dialectics as a form of methodo­logization (see. [21]) compared with form-con­tent of committing principle then its formation “can’t coincide either with available at our dis­posal amount of knowledge about the subject or with any separately taken principle or even not with a set of principles. Because a set of principles – is, figuratively speaking, only the artist”s palette. Its paints should be carried over canvas so that is the recognizable natures outline (subject) ... “[5, p. 209]. At the same time self-sufficient research use any approach, in addition cultural-historical as one of the most complex and the most heuristic, does not guarantee a success. Moreover, the main thing for V. A. Ro­menets was to achieve the goal – to get the right product, namely a new scheme of org-committing implementation of humanitarian cognition  and on its basis create a theory of historical-psychological process. And here really decisive role starts to play knowledge of psychological content, adequate to the subject of think-activity. So, that’s why in works of Volodymyr Romenets, author’s method presents by itself the system of knowledge about the principles and approaches to the implementation both – cognition and any of intellectual practice. Although it is clear that such knowledge can’t be complete, and the more scientists deepened within implementation by him approach into the essence and forms of display of the research subject, the bigger and more interesting became a problematic field of episteme confrontation between knowledge and ignorance, understan­ding and ignorance, considerations and misre­cognition, reflection and intuition in network of idealization and semantic forms of its poli-intentional problem-dialogic consciousness.

So, the main in the methodic of committing dialectics – is that it theoretically determines general direction of historical-psychological research, fundamental milestone in forming the idea about the object and its multi-aspect filling by subject content, limits and character of inter­pretation obtained outcome of creative work. Exceptional significance of this method is not only that it is essentially by the method of theorizing is philosophical, but also because of its historically variable, invariant content turns out psychological, cultural-humanistic. Without no doubt that method of such level of sophianity foresees thorough knowledge of the essence and peculiarities of the subject and philosophy, and psychology, and history, and culturology, the ability to intelligently draw logically non-contradiction sketch of mutual enrichment configuration, single out from a number of other fillings of subject content and detail their se­parate parts and the main – to determine opportunities and limitation of this sketchy decorated episteme psycho-cultural picture in certain set of premises, principles, basic provisions. With this task as follows from the creative heritage of V. A. Romenets, scientist fully coped, leaving to the next generation of scientists committing  scheme of organization humanitarian cognition as a canon of metho­dological thinking and an example of perfect research activity.

At the same time another important form of methodologization of this hard-working bound­less spiritual culture of the Ukrainian nation and humanity is the way which elaborates and even pragmatic variant of norm-content of com­mitting principle, cultural-historical approach and method of committing dialectics, represents such committing think-actions and accordingly the system of cognitive techniques that enable implementation of historical-psychological re­search of grandiose culture-knowing magnitude and completeness of psychological material. This method, firstly using for its direct methodo­logical appointment – organizing research, teaching and psycho-sophian practice of everyday life that leads to the real achievement of the goal – to building fundamental meta-theoretical system, segment formations of which is the theory of creativity, deed, historical-psycholo­gical process, psycho-sophia as a model of human being; secondly it serves as a reflective tool, a means and in separate logical-cognitive proce­dures even as a tool of committing organized and dialectically implemented thinking, thus – philosophical and applied methodologization. As a result a set of ways – from “psychic as a peculiar way of self-reflection of the world” to “committing way of human being” and mastering by the person world and herself and finally to “practice as committing way of existing human in the world and the world in the human“ – in the creativity of Volodymyr Romenets quite naturally becomes practically accented, reconst­ructed form of approval the method of commit­ting dialectics.




1. Methodology of humanitarian cognition today – unexplored mysterious world, which in complementarity and integrity covers at least four side: a) teaching about logical organization and structural-semantic dynamics, principles and standards, methods and means of action; b) a system of rational knowledge about the forms, methods, ways of reflexive thinking and committing action in the unity of totality of norms and tools of different level methodo­logization; c) the sphere of think-action centered cognition, criticism, creation and reflection which integrate all types and styles of thinking in the form of such neoplasm as methodological thinking, through the optics of which setting whole world; d) personified lifestyle, the type of problem-reflective existence  in which self-produced methodological thoughts and attitude that circulating situationally each time anew from problematisation to designing and back as difficult practical art of thoughts realization (detail see. [29]).

2. One of the first discoverers of new conti­nent of methodology of humanitarian cognition as little-known multi-problem world is outstan­ding Ukrainian philosopher and psychologist Volodymyr Andriyovych Romenets, whose creative way marked as  extraordinary but little-mastered and what more little-worked out cultu­rally significant achievements and discoveries. He – is not only self-sufficient, strong, disjoint theorist-humanist and what is the most important bright, consistent and productive methodologies who with his self-knowledge mastered a new way of development of sciences about human – committing-canonical scheme of organizing the humanitarian  cognition as reflective think-activity – psycho-sophian – type. That’s why real mastering of this Romenets continent is still ahead.

3. V. A. Romenets is an architector of the methodology of humanitarian cognition in the sense that he is as a gifted thinker and a talented scientist creates a new – original, logically slender, heuristic – scheme of implementation of intellectual creativity hitherto unprecedented completeness and perfection. Psycho-sophian core of this scheme, scilicet unique way of cogni­tion-creation is committing-canonical organiza­tion of his think-activity which connecting extremely different faced material of spiritual culture of humanity mentally and org-action, logically and historically, theoretically and methodologically, understandable and practi­cally represents by itself “embryo” of new order or way of developmental functioning of socio-humanitarian sciences and what is first of psy­chology with its main filling of subject content – “life taken in the development process” – and the “golden fund” – conceptual-categorical apparatus. In this reflexive cut, definition of academician Volodymyr Romenets, certainly – evolutioner who rethinking creative heritage of other famous philosophers and scientists but also with no doubt he is a revolutioner, too respon­sible, captious to details of well thought out and proclaimed and at the same time invariably tolerant on well-trodden by himself ways to the truth in the field of methodology of cultural-historical direction, psyho-socium spirit and crea­tive lifestyle.

4. The most well-known and widely cited philosophical and historical-psychological works of V. A. Romenets are methodological, but not actually a scientific that confirm well-known fact of their usage by students, successors and supporters as schemes or means of professional methodologization. And it is naturally, conside­ring that they contain development and de­monstration of new forms and methods of humanitarian cognition and that’s why were using and are using today as exemplar of the research of new type, scilicet in purely org-think-action function. This convincingly confirms on the one hand principle, approach, method, way as basic form of methodological organization of research activity of the scientist, with which permeated through the entire fabric of his theoretical constructions and empirical outcomes and argumentations, on the other – structure and content, themes and methodologems, concepts and episteme of his doctoral report (1990). In other words, academician Romenets creates such methodological schemes and models which in complementary creates foundation of modern historical-psychological science and at the same time logically organized as a peculiar worldview map that determines culturally important and the most humane  research directions for current and future generations of scientists. Namely the deed in his org-functional structural-canonical construction and categorical certainty is a logical core of problem-dialogue methodologization which centered on the course-transition of psychic in cultural-historical dyna­mics of human development. Limitless thought-semantic horizon of consciousness of this  scien­tist-intellectualist as disjoint methodologist overflowing with basic idealities and thought-schemes which later in meta-system of ideas, principles and standards of reflexive searching, create both cultural-historical approach and me­thod of committing dialectics.

Perspective directions of application the committing-canonical scheme of organization the cognitive creativity of philosophers and scientists in the problem field of modern humanities are: a) further development of cyclically-committing  approach (see. [26], [27], [30]) that revealed its heuristic in reconstruction of complete paradig­matic cycles of collective cognitive creativity in the sphere of science, game as committing, creative way of Imre Lakatos as well-known methodologist of science, etc.; b) substantiation of four-zone scheme of thought-committing as form of methodological thinking and toll of methodologization and also its versatile appro­bation in “live” socio-humanitarian discourse; c) creation a series of new methodological including paradigmatic plan-cards of the research as one of the most advanced tools of theoretical and applied methodologization (see detail work of O. Y. Furman in which at the first time studied the innovation-psychological climate of educational organization and its parameters [36]); d) rising of the psycho-sophia of conscious­ness as the highest form of and at the same time frames of human existence, co-vitally organized as an act of mutual presence of human and the world by canons of wisdom commitment and etc.


1. Academician V. A. Romenets: creativity and work: coll. art. / f. P. A. Myasoid; e. r. L. O. Shatyrko. – K.:Lybid, 2016. – 272 p.

2. Committing psychology: history and modernity: materials of interdisciplinary roundtable on the occasion of the 90th anniversary of birthday prof. V. A. Romenets, May 20, 2016 /by ed. I. V. Danyliyk. – K.: Logos, 2016. – 105 p.

3. Guseltseva, M. Cultural-historical approach of V. A. Romenets: the idea of culture and ideas in culture [Text] / M. Guseltseva // Psychology and Society. – 2011. – № 2. – P. 92-104.

4. Kopylov, G. On the nature of "scientific revolutions" [Text] / G. Kopylov // Psychology and Society. – 2010. – № 2. – P. 113-127.

5. Laponov, M. Philosophy as a science. Fundamentals of philosophical methodology [Text] / M. Laponov, V. Komissarov // System of modern methodologies: [reader in 4 volumes] / f., e. r., transl. A. V. Furman. – Ternopil: TNEU, 2015. – T. 1. – P. 220-222.

6. Myasoid, P. A. Course of general psychology [Text]: textbook: in 2 v. / P. A. Myasoid. – K.: Alerta, 2011. – Vol.1. – 496 p.; 2013 – Vol.2. – 758 p.

7. Myasoid, P. Meta-theoretical analysis in psychology [Text] / P. Myasoid // Psychology and Society. – 2009. – № 4. – P. 54-82.

8. Myasoid, P. Science and practice in the psychologist work [Text] / P. Myasoid // Psychology and Society. – 2004. – №3. – P. 5-74.

9. Myasoid, P. A. Psychological cognition: history, logic, psychology [Text] / P. A. Myasoid. – K .: Lybid, 2016. – 560 p.

10. Psychology of the deed: By ways of creativity of V. A. Romenets: coll. art. / f. P. A. Myasoid; e. r. A. V. Furman. – K.: Lybid, 2012. – 296 p.

11. Psychology and Society: Special edition devoted to the 85th anniversary of the birth of Volodymyr Andri­yovych Romenets. – 2011. – №2. – 190 p.

12. Romenets, V. A. History of psychology: Ancient world. Middle Ages. Renaissance [Text] teach. Textbook. – K .: Lybid, 2005. – 916 p.

13. Romenets, V. A. History of psychology: XVІI century. The Age of Enlightenment [Text]: [teach. textbook] / V. A. Romenets. – K.: Lybid, 2006. – 1000 p.

14. Romenets, V. A. History of psychology: XIX – early XX century [Text]: teach. textbook / V. A. Romenets. – K.: Lybid, 2006. – 832 p.

15. Romenets, V. A. History of psychology XX century [Text]: teach. textbook / V. A. Romenets, I. P. Manoha. – K.: Lybid, 1998. – 992 p.

16. Romenets, V. A. Rise of canonical psychology [Text] / V. A. Romenets // Bases of psychology: textbook. / by gen. ed. of O. V. Kyrychuk, V. A. Romenets. – 6th ed., stereot. – K .: Lybid, 2006. – P. 605-621 (1st ed. – 1995).

17. Romenets, V. A. Subject and principles of historic-psychological research [Text] / V. A. Romenets // Psychology and Society. – 2013. – № 2. – P. 6-27.

18. Tatenko, V. O. Volodymyr Andriyovych Romenets (1926-1998): Life as the deed and event [Text] / V. O. Ta­tenko, T. M. Tytarenko // Romenets V. A., Manoha I. P. History of psychology of XX century: teach. textbook. – K.: Lybid, 1998. – P. 7-37.

19. Furman, A. A. Fundamental forms of methodologi­zation in the creativity of V. A. Romenets [Text] / A. A. Furman // Committing psychology: history and modernity: materials of interdisciplinary roundtable on the occasion of the 90th anniversary of birthday prof. V. A. Romenets, May 20, 2016 / by ed. I. V. Danyliyk. – K.: Logos, 2016. – P. 35-38.

20. Furman, A. V. Volodymyr Romenets as methodo­logist of psycho-sophian spirit [Text] / A. V. Furman // Psychology and Society. – 2011. – № 2. – P. 7-14.

21. Furman, A. V. The idea and content of professional methodologization [Text]: monograph. / A. V. Furman. – Ternopil: TNEU, 2015. – 362 p.

22. Furman, A. V. Methodologist – profession of the future [Text] / A. V. Furman // Psychology and Society. – 2016. – № 1. – P. 16-43.

23. Furman, A. V. Methodological substantiation of multi-level of paradigmatic researches in social psychology [Text] / Anatoliy V. Furman // Psychology and Society. – 2012. – №4. – P. 78-125.

24. Furman A. V. Methodology of paradigmatic resear­ches in social psychology [Text]: [monograph.] / Anatoliy Vasyliovych Furman. – K.: Institute of polit. and social psychology; Ternopil: Economic thought, 2013. – 100 p.

25. Furman, A. V. Science and practice in the work of psychologist, sociologist: between truth and duplicity [Text] / A. V. Furman // Psychology and Society. – 2004. – P. 7-12.

26. Furman, A. V. Organization-action games at high school [Text]: [monograph.] / Anatoliy V. Furman, Sergiy Shandruk. – Ternopil: TNEU, 2014. – 272 p.

27. Furman, A. V. Paradigm as a subject of methodolo­gical reflection [Text] / A. V. Furman // Psychology and Society. – 2013. – №3. – P. 72-85.

28. Furman, A. V. Consciousness as the framework conditions in methodologization in social-humanities [Text] / A. V. Furman // Psychological principles of development psychological diagnostics and correction the personality in the system of continuing education / by scientific edition of Tomchuk M. I. // coll. mat. Podilskf n.-pr. conf. – Vinnytsya: KVNZ “Vinnytsya academy of continuing education”, 2016. – P. 147-156.

29. Furman, A. V. World of methodology [Text] / A. V. Fur­man // Psychology and Society. – 2015. – № 2. – P. 47-60.

30. Furman, A. V. The essence of the game as commit­ment [Text]: [monograph.] / Anatoliy V. Furman, Sergiy Shandruk. – Ternopil: TNEU, 2014. – 120 p.

31. Georgiy Petrovych Shchedrovytskiy / [under. ed. of P. G. Shchedrovytskiy, V. L. Danilovoy]. – M.: Russ. pol. enc. (ROSSPEN), 2010. – 600 p.

32. Kuhn, T. Structure of scientific revolutions [Text] / Thomas Kuhn; transl. from engl. / f. V. Y. Kuznetsov. – M.: “Publishing House AST”, 2002. – 608 p.

33. Lakatos, I. The history and its rational reconstruc­tions [Text] / I. Lakatos // Structure and development of science. From Boston researches on the philosophy of the science. – M.: Progress, 1978. – P. 203-235.

34. Romenets, V. A. Life and death in the scientific and religious interpretation. Ed. 2nd [Text] / V. A. Romenets. – K.: Lybid, 2003. – 232 p.

35. Stepin, V. S. Theoretical knowledge: structure, historical evolution [Text]: [monograph.] / V. S. Stepin. – M.: Progress-Tradition, 2000. – 744 p.

36. Furman O. Ye. The innovative psychological climate: its scope, structure and parameters / Oksana Ye. Furman // Problems of Psychology in the 21 st. Century. – 2015. – Vol. 9, No.1. – P. 14–19.




1. Akademik V.A. Romenets: tvorchist i pratsi: zb. st. / uporiad. P.A. Miasoid; vidp. red. L.O. Shatyrko. – K.: Lybid, 2016. – 272 s.

2. Vchynkova psykholohiia: istoriia i suchasnist: mate­rialy mizhdysts. kruhloho stolu z nahody 90-richchia vid dnia nar. prof. V.A. Romentsia, 20 travnia 2016 roku / za red. I.V. Danyliuka. – K.: Lohos, 2016. – 105 s.

3. Huseltseva, M. Kulturno-istorychnyi pidkhid V.A. Romentsia: ideia kultury ta idei v kulturi [Tekst] / M. Huseltseva // Psykholohiia i suspilstvo. – 2011. – № 2. – S. 92–104.

4. Kopylov, H. Pro pryrodu “naukovykh revoliutsii” [Tekst] / H. Kopylov // Psykholohiia i suspilstvo. – 2010. – № 2. – S. 113–127.

5. Laponov, M. Filosofiia yak nauka. Osnovy filosofskoi metodolohii [Tekst] / M. Laponov, V. Komissarov // Systema suchasnykh metodolohii: [khrestomatiia u 4-kh tomakh] / uporiad., vidp. red., perekl. A.V. Furman. – Ternopil: TNEU, 2015. – T. 1. – S. 220–222.

6. Myasoyid, P.A. Kurs zahalnoi psykholohii [Tekst]: pidruchn.: u 2 t. /  P.A. Myasoyid. – K.: Alerta, 2011. – T.1. – 496 s.; 2013. – T.2. – 758 s.

7. Myasoyid, P. Metateoretychnyi analiz u psykholohii [Tekst] / P. Myasoyid // Psykholohiia i suspilstvo. – 2009. – № 4. – S. 54–82.

8. Myasoyid, P. Nauka i praktyka u roboti psykholoha [Tekst] / P. Myasoyid // Psykholohiia i suspilstvo. – 2004. – №3. – S. 5–74.

9. Myasoyid, P.A. Psykholohichne piznannia: istoriia, lohika, psykholohiia [Tekst] /  P.A. Miasoid. – K.: Lybid, 2016. – 560 s.

10. Psykholohiia vchynku: Shliakhamy tvorchosti V.A. Romentsia: zb. st. / uporiad. P.A. Myasoyid; vidp. red. A.V. Furman. – K. : Lybid, 2012. – 296 s.

11. Psykholohiia i suspilstvo: Spetsvypusk, prysviachenyi 85-y richnytsi z dnia narodzhennia Volodymyra Andriio­vycha Romentsia. – 2011. – №2. – 190 s.

12. Romenets, V.A. Istoriia psykholohii: Starodavnii svit. Seredni viky. Vidrodzhennia [Tekst]: navch. posibnyk. – K.: Lybid, 2005. – 916 s.

13. Romenets, V.A.  Istoriia psykholohii: XVII stolittia. Epokha Prosvitnytstva [Tekst]: [navch. posibnyk] / V.A. Romenets. – K.: Lybid, 2006. – 1000 s.

14. Romenets, V.A. Istoriia psykholohii: XIX – pochatok XX stolittia [Tekst]: navch. posibnyk / V.A. Romenets. – K.: Lybid, 2006. – 832 s.

15. Romenets, V.A. Istoriia psykholohii XX stolittia [Tekst]: navch. posibnyk / V.A. Romenets, I.P. Manokha. – K.: Lybid, 1998. – 992 s.

16. Romenets, V.A. Postannia kanonichnoi psykholohii [Tekst] / V.A. Romenets // Osnovy psykholohii: pidruch. / za zah. red. O.V. Kyrychuka, V.A. Romentsia. – 6-e  vyd., ster. – K.: Lybid, 2006. – S. 605–621 (1-vyd. – 1995 r.).

17. Romenets, V.A. Predmet i pryntsypy istoryko-psykholohichnoho doslidzhennia [Tekst] / V.A. Romenets // Psykholohiia i suspilstvo. – 2013. – № 2. – S. 6–27.

18. Tatenko, V.O. Volodymyr Andriiovych Romenets (1926–1998): zhyttia yak vchynok i podiia  [Tekst] / V.O. Tatenko, T.M. Tytarenko // Romenets V.A., Manokha I.P. Istoriia psykholohii XX stolittia: navch. posib. – K.: Lybid, 1998. – S. 7–37.

19. Furman, A.A. Zasadnychi formy metodolohuvannia u tvorchosti V.A. Romentsia [Tekst] / A.A. Furman // Vchynkova psykholohiia: istoriia ta suchasnist: materialy mizhdysts. kruhloho stolu z nahody 90-richchia vid dnia nar. prof. V.A. Romentsia, 20 travnia 2016 roku / za red. I.V. Danyliuka. – K.: Lohos, 2016. – S. 35–38.

20. Furman, A.V. Volodymyr Romenets yak metodoloh psykhosofiinoho dukhu [Tekst] / A.V. Furman // Psy­kholohiia i suspilstvo. – 2011. – № 2. – S. 7–14.

21. Furman, A.V. Ideia i zmist profesiinoho metodolo­huvannia [Tekst]: monohr. / A.V. Furman. – Ternopil: TNEU, 2015. – 362 s.

22. Furman, A.V. Metodoloh – profesiia maibutnoho [Tekst] / A.V. Furman // Psykholohiia i suspilstvo. – 2016. – № 1. – S. 16–43.

23. Furman, A.V. Metodolohichne obgruntuvannia bahatorivnevosti paradyhmalnykh doslidzhen u sotsialnii psykholohii [Tekst] / Anatolii V. Furman // Psykholohiia i suspilstvo. – 2012. – №4. – S. 78–125.

24. Furman A.V. Metodolohiia paradyhmalnykh doslidzhen u sotsialnii psykholohii [Tekst]: [monohr.] / Anatolii Vasylovych Furman. – K.: Instytut polit. i sots. psy­kholohii; Ternopil: Ekonomichna dumka, 2013. – 100 s.

25.       Furman, A.V. Nauka i praktyka u roboti psykho­loha, sotsioloha: mizh pravdoiu i lukavstvom [Tekst] / A.V. Furman // Psykholohiia i suspilstvo. – 2004. – S. 7–12.

26. Furman, A.V. Ohanizatsiino-diialnisni ihry u vyshchii shkoli [Tekst]: [monohr.] / Anatolii V. Furman, Serhii Shandruk. – Ternopil: TNEU, 2014. – 272 s.

27. Furman, A.V. Paradyhma yak predmet metodolo­hichnoi refleksii [Tekst] / A.V. Furman // Psykholohiia i suspilstvo. – 2013. – №3. – S. 72–85.

28. Furman, A.V. Svidomist yak ramkova umova metodolohuvannia u sotsiohumanitarystytsi [Tekst] / A.V. Furman // Psykholohichni zasady rozvytku, psykho­diahnostyky ta korektsii osobystosti v systemi neperervnoi osvity / za nauk. red. Tomchuka M.I. // Zb. mat. Podilskoi n.-pr. konf. – Vinnytsia: KVNZ “Vinnytska akademiia neperervnoi osvity”, 2016. – S. 147–156.

29. Furman, A.V. Svit metodolohii [Tekst] / A.V. Furman // Psykholohiia i suspilstvo. – 2015. – № 2. – S. 47–60.

30. Furman, A.V. Sutnist hry yak uchynennia [Tekst]: [monohr.] / Anatolii V. Furman, Serhii Shandruk. – Ternopil: TNEU, 2014. – 120 s.

31. Georgiy Petrovich Shchedrovitsky / [pod. red. P.H. Shchedrovitskoho, V.L. Danylovoi]. – M.: Ross. polyt. ents-ya (ROSSPEN), 2010. – 600 s.

32. Kuhn, T. Struktura nauchnykh revolutsyi [Tekst] / Thomas Kuhn; per. s anhl. / sost. V.Iu. Kuznetsov. – M.: OOO “Izd-vo AST”, 2002. – 608 s.

33. Lakatos, Y. Istoryia nauky i yeyo ratsyonalnye rekonstruktsyi [Tekst] / Y. Lakatos // Struktura i razvytye nauky. Iz Bostonskykh issledovaniy po fylosofii nauki. – M.: Prohress, 1978. – S. 203–235.

34. Romenets, V.A. Zhyzn y smert v nauchnom i relyhyoznom istolkovanii. Izd. 2-e [Tekst]  / V.A. Romenets. – K.:  Lybid, 2003. – 232 s.

35. Stiopyn, V.S. Teoreticheskoe znanie: struktura, istorycheskaia evolutsyia [Tekst]: [monogr.] / V.S. Stiopyn. – M.: Prohress-Tradytsyia, 2000. – 744 s.

36. Furman O. Ye. The innovative psychological climate: its scope, structure and parameters / Oksana Ye. Furman // Problems of Psychology in the 21 st. Century. – 2015. – Vol. 9, No.1. – P. 14–19.




Фурман Анатолій Васильович.

Володимир Роменець як Архітектор методології гума­нітарного пізнання.

Міждисциплінарне дослідження висвітлює творчість видатного українського вченого другої половини ХХ століття В.А. Роменця (1926–1998) не стільки як талановитого теоретика філософсько-психологічного дискурсу, скільки як послідовного і продуктивного методолога, котрий творив і мислевчинково апробував самобутню систему методології гуманітарного піз­нання. Осереддя цієї системи становить циклічно-вчинкова схема організації його винятково плідної рефлексивної миследіяльності, яка поєднує оригінальні форми, методи, способи і засоби психософійно зорієн­то­ваного методологування. Аргументуючи погляд, згідно з яким сфера науки розвивається не стільки науковими революціями, скільки кардинальними методологічними зсувами, що завдяки оновленню формосхем організації дослідницької діяльності вчених забезпечують її еволюцію, доведено, що як мислитель Володимир Роменець є еволюціонером, котрий ґрун­товно переосмислює творчу спадщину інших відомих людству філософів і науковців, тоді як методолог культурно-історичного спрямування, психософійного духу і креативного способу життя він справді револю­ціонер, новатор, першопроходець. Це підтверджують його віхові, головні твори, що демонструють нову, власне світоглядну, схему оргучинкового здійснення розумової праці на найскладніші предметні ділянки міждисциплінарного пошуку (творчості, життєвого шляху людини, джерел людського буття, періодизації історії всесвітньої психології, житті і смерті та ін.), а тому є визначально методологічними. Водночас базо­вими формами проблемно-діалогічного методологу­вання для вченого є принцип, підхід, метод і спосіб, якими наскрізно пронизана вся тканина теоретичних побудов, логічних вислідів та емпіричних оприявнень.

Ключові слова: гуманітарне пізнання, теоретичний світ, методологія, методологування, вчинок, метод учинкової діалектики, парадигма, багаторівневість па­радигмальних досліджень, методологічна революція, форма (схема) організації пізнання, психософія вчинку, канонічна психологія, культурно-гуманістичний під­хід, учинковий канон, теорія історико-психологічного процесу, понятійно-категорійний лад, базові форми методологування, миследіяльність, оргмисленнєва схема, вчинковий принцип, методологічне мислення, циклічно-вчинковий підхід.




Фурман Анатолий Васильевич.

Владимир Роменец как Архитектор методологии гу­манитарного познания.

Междисциплинарное исследование освещает твор­чество выдающегося украинского ученого второй половины ХХ века В.А. Роменца (1926–1998) не столько как талантливого теоретика философско-психологического дискурса, сколько как последова­тель­ного и продуктивного методолога, который тво­рил и мыслепоступково апробировал самобытную систему методологии гуманитарного познания. Средоточие этой системы составляет циклически-поступковая схема организации его исключительно плодотворной рефлексивной мыследеятельности, которая соединяет оригинальные формы, методы, способы и средства психософийно сориентированного методологизирования. Аргументируя взгляд, согласно с которым сфера науки развивается не столько на­учными революциями, сколько кардинальными ме­тодологическими сдвигами, что благодаря обнов­лению формосхем организации исследовательской деятельности ученых обеспечивают ее эволюцию, доказано, что как мыслитель Владимир Роменець – эволюционер, который основательно переосмысли­вает творческое наследство других известных чело­вечеству философов и ученых, тогда как методолог культурно-исторического направления, психософий­ного духа и креативного образа жизни он действи­тельно революционер, новатор, первопроходец. Это подтверждают его этапные, главные произведения, которые демонстрируют новую, собственно мировоз­зренческую, схему оргпоступкового осуществления умственного труда на самые сложные предметные участки междисциплинарного поиска (творчества, жиз­ненного пути человека, источников человеческого бытия, периодизации истории всемирной психологии, жизни и смерти и пр.), а поэтому изначально являются методоло­гическими. В то же время базовыми формами проблемно-диалогического методологизирования для ученого являются принцип, подход, метод и способ, которыми насквозь пронизана вся ткань теоретических построений, логических выводов и эмпирических фак­туализаций.

Ключевые слова: гуманитарное познание, тео­ретический мир, методология, методологизирование, поступок, метод поступковой диалектики, парадигма, многоуровневость парадигмальных исследований, методологическая революция, форма (схема) органи­зации познания, психософия поступка, каноничная психология, культурно-гуманистический подход, пос­тупковый канон, теория историко-психологического процесса, понятийно-категориальный строй, базовые формы методологизирования, мыследеятельность, оргмыслительная схема, поступковый принцип, ме­тодологическое мышление, циклически-поступковый подход.




Furman Anatoliy Vasyliovych.

Volodymyr Romenets as Architect of methodology of humanitarian cognition.

Interdisciplinary research highlights the creativity of the outstanding Ukrainian scientist of the second half of the twentieth century V. A. Romenets (1926–1998) not so much as talented theorist of philosophical-psychological discourse but as consistent and productive methodologist who created and thought-committing approbated distinc­tive system of methodology of humanitarian cognition. The core of this system is cyclically-committing scheme of organization of its exceptionally productive reflective think-activity which unites original forms, methods, ways and means of psycho-sophian oriented methodologization. Argumenting the opinion, according to which the area of ??science develops not so much by scientific revolutions but radical methodological shifts that thanks to updating of form-schemes of organization the research activity of scientists ensured its evolution, proved that as thinker Volodymyr Romenets is evolutioner who thoroughly rethinking the creative heritage of others well-known to mankind philosophers and scientists, while methodologist of cultural-historical direction, psycho-sophian spirit and creative lifestyle, he’s really revolutioner, an innovator, a pioneer. This confirms his main works which demonstrate new, own worldview scheme of org-committing implemen­tation of mental work on the most difficult subject areas of interdisciplinary search (creativity, human life way, sources of human existence, periodization of the history of world psychology, life and death, etc.) and that’s why metho­dological from the very beginning. At the same time basic form of problem-dialogue methodologization for a scientist is the principle, approach, the method and the way with which is permeated through the entire fabric of theoretical constructs, logical and empirical appearances.

Keywords: humanitarian cognition, theoretical world, methodology, methodologization, the deed, method of committing dialectic, paradigm, multilevel of paradigmatic researches, methodological revolution, form (scheme) of organization the cognition, psycho-sophia of the deed, canonical psychology, cultural-humanistic approach, committing canon, theory of historical-psychological process, conceptual-categorical manner, the basic forms of methodologization, think-activity, org-thought scheme, committing principle, methodological thinking, cyclically-committing approach.

Надійшла до редакції 11.05.2016.

Переглядів: 72 | Додав: yurikkk | Рейтинг: 0.0/0
Всього коментарів: 0