Hi, Andy
Indeed, "Discourse on Method" can be roughly translated as "Methodology" but
we can do it just because that is a text of Descartes, because according his
philosophy the method of thinking or the law of thinking reflects the
causality of "mental substance" as it is. This method and this law exists
independently from laws of objective or "extensive" world or "substance".
That's why the Descartes method can be comprehended as so called
"methodology". (But still and all I think that this interpretation will be
too rough even for Descartes.)
But when we are translating the texts of Spinoza, Hegel or Marx applying the
term "methodology" will be a gross error.
As for "the methodology of medicine" we have to pay attention not only on
date, but at the subject of term as well. Even now a medicine remains more
an art of curing than theoretically well-founded discipline. And what can we
expect from medicine 1800? It's useless to examine this "methodology" with
hope to find the slightest signs of dialectic or theoretical reflection in
it. A compendium of uncoordinated, theoretically untied empirical methods -
that is this "methodology", and usually all other methodologies as well. (I
advisedly emphasize the situation. I know that the antique medicine was very
close to philosophy - good dialectical philosophy. But the medicine of XIX -
XX centuries renounce succession as heir from antique culture in favor of
utmost empiricism.)
And finally I want to underline the characteristic detail that according to
OED the first language where it was used was English - the language (the
culture) basicly connected with tradition of classical empiricism of
J.Locke.
As for mentioned by Wolff-Michael German scholars who "love to use
expressions like "methodisch-methodologisch" I can suppose that this is
connected with Neo-Kantianist tendencies.
Cheers,
Sasha
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> Behalf Of Andy Blunden
> Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 3:32 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: RE: [xmca] Method/Methodology
>
>
> But surely Sasha, isn't "Discourse on Method" roughly translated as
> "Methodology"? I agree with your conclusion that the study of any
> particular science is inseparable from the study of the method of that
> science, but I do question the recentness of the concept of
> "methodology." According to the OED, the word was first used in
> English in 1800 as "the methodology of medicine".
> Andy
> At 03:09 PM 21/08/2005 +0400, you wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> IMHO the problem of meaning of so called “methodology” is a
> little bit more
> complicated than it can be estimated from the first sight. First of
> all this
> term is rather new. It was brought into fashion in the beginning of
> the last
> century. Neither Hegel nor Marx had ever used it. Certainly
> Ilyenkov knew
> this term but never used it either.
> In the strict sense this term derives to those philosophical
> schools which
> suppose the thinking and the objective reality as something
> initially
> distinct and independent of each other.
> On the contrary according the Spinozian point of view there is no
> methodology without theory. In other words a method can be
> comprehended only
> as a reflection of theory, of “idea”. One can not discuss
> method in
> abstracto. (For example a soviet philosopher G.P.Schedrovitsky
> pretended to
> invent a universal abstract methodology applicable in any sphere.)
> We can read at Spinoza’s “On the Improvement of the
> Understanding”
> http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/spinoza/Improvement.ht
> ml
> “…method is nothing else than reflective knowledge, or the idea
> of an idea;
> and that as there can be no idea of an idea --- unless an idea
> exists
> previously, --- there can be no method without a pre-existent
> idea.”
> That is why Ilyenkov - a consistent spinozist - never used term
> “methodology” as well as “epistemology”. From his POV the
> only possible
> “methodology”, “epistemology” or “the theory of
> knowledge” is di=lectic. But
> real, genuine dialectic is impossible in abstraction from real,
> concrete
> theoretical or practical process.
> We can find a fragment in Ilyenkov’s “Dialectical logic”
> “...Marx, Engels,
> and Lenin established that it was dialectics, and only dialectics,
> that was
> the real logic in accordance with which modern thought made
> progress. It was
> it, too, that operated at the ‘growing points’ of modern
> science, although
> the representatives of science were not wholly conscious of the
> fact. That
> was why logic as a science coincided (merged) not only with
> dialectics but
> also with the theory of knowledge of materialism. ‘In Capital
> Marx applied
> to a single science logic, dialectics, and the theory of knowledge
> of
> materialism (three words are not needed; it is one and the same
> thing),’ is
> how Lenin categorically formulated it.”
> http://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/essays/essay9.htm
> As for Vygotsky who used this term the situation is much more
> complex.
> Indeed we can find the terms “methodology” as well as
> “dialectic” in
> Vygotsky’s theoretical luggage. But the division of his theoretic
> heritage
> into theoretic and methodologic halves is extremely unproductive.
> He has
> advanced in theory as far as in methodology, and vice versa.
>
> Cheers,
> Sasha
>
>
>
> Alexander V. Surmava, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor
> The Russian State University for the Humanities
> The Vygotsky Institute of Psychology
> Liapidevskogo str. 8-2-274
> 125581 Moscow, Russia
> tel./fax: 7 (095) 455-88-24
> mob.: 7 903 579-19-20
> e-mail: monada@netvox.ru
> monada@voxnet.ru
> ICQ: 84411775
> [1]http://www.voxnet.ru/~monada
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [[2]mailto:xm
> ca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> > Behalf Of Carol Macdonald
> > Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 2:34 PM
> > To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'
> > Subject: RE: [xmca] Method/Methodology
> >
> > Hi,
> > I don't have a reference except for Wertsch (1979) ACTIVITY
> THEORY but
> > we make a very strong distinction at our university, and
> regard
> > methodology as the study of method, or metatheory, and method as
> the
> > specific method adopted in a particular study. Margaret
> Donaldson, who
> > was my Ph D supervisor two decades ago explained the distinction
> to me,
> > and so I wrote about method in my little studies I did then.
> > Carol
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> [[3]mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> > On Behalf Of Ares, Nancy
> > Sent: 17 August 2005 07:34 PM
> > To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'
> > Cc: Franz Breuer
> > Subject: RE: [xmca] Method/Methodology
> >
> > although the chapter below is not particular to cultural
> historical
> > theory,
> > Harding presents a very clear distinction between method and
> > methodology,
> > making a strong case for attending to methodology in terms of
> > epistemology;
> > philosophies of knowledge, knowers, and knowing; and theory to
> > distinguish
> > research paradigms, rather than simply to methods that are
> > characteristic.
> >
> >
> > Harding, S. (1987). Introduction: Is there a feminist method?
> In
> > S.
> > Harding (Ed.), Feminism and methodology: Social science issues
> (pp.
> > 1-13).
> > Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
> >
> > Nancy Ares
> > Assistant Professor
> > Teaching & Curriculum
> > The Warner Graduate School of Education
> > and Human Development
> > University of Rochester
> > P.O. Box 270425
> > Rochester, NY 14627
> > 585-273-5957
> > fax 585-473-7598
> >
> > > ----------
> > > From: Wolff-Michael Roth
> > > Reply To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 1:23 PM
> > > To: mcole@weber.ucsd.edu; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > Cc: Franz Breuer
> > > Subject: Re: [xmca] Method/Methodology
> > >
> > > Is there anyone from Germany on this list? I know German
> scholar love
> > > to use expressions like "methodisch-methodologisch". I will
> copy this
> > > message to a friend in Germany, Franz Breuer, a qualitatively
> working
> > > psychologist and co-editor of the online journal FQS: FORUM
> > QUALITATIVE
> > > SOZIALFORSCHUNG / FORUM QUALITATIVE SOCIAL RESEARCH.
> > >
> > > In my book on research method that is going to be published
> this or
> > > next week, I point out that methodology is something like the
> science
> > > of method, as distinct to the particular method you use in
> enacting a
> > > project. More so, I think it is important to practice method
> for
> > > graduate students rather than merely to read methodologies,
> treatises
> > > that conceptualize different ways of doing research. . .
> > >
> > > I think there is a greater penchant in Germany, for example, to
> do
> > real
> > > methodological work, as you can find it in Stegmüller (1974),
> who
> > > distinguishes different ways of conducting historical research,
> etc.
> > >
> > > Stegmüller, W. (1974). Probleme und Resultate der
> Wissenschaftstheorie
> >
> > > und Analytischen Philosophie, Band I: Wissenschaftliche
> Erklärung und
> > > Begründung[Problems and results of a theory of science and
> analytical
> > > philosophy, volume 1: Scientific explication and explanation].
> Berlin:
> >
> > > Springer-Verlag.
> > >
> > >
> > > Perhaps we can get Franz to assist us on this list?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Michael
> > >
> > >
> > > On 17-Aug-05, at 10:16 AM, Mike Cole wrote:
> > >
> > > > A visiting colleague has rasied the issue of the distinction
> between
> >
> > > > method
> > > > and methodology in a cultural-historical
> > > > perspective. I do not know offhand of any good written
> discussions
> > of
> > > > this
> > > > distinction although I think it is important.
> > > > Can anyone help?
> > > > mike
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > xmca mailing list
> > > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > [4]http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > xmca mailing list
> > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > [5]http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > [6]http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > [7]http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> [8]htt=://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
> Andy Blunden=[9]http://home.mira.net/~andy/index.htm (61) 3 9380
> 9435
>
> References
>
> 1. 3D"http://www.voxnet.ru/~monada" 2. 3D"mailto:xmca-
> bounces@weber.ucsd.edu"
> 3. 3D"mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu" 4.
> 3D"http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca" 5.
> 3D"http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca" 6.
> 3D"http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca" 7.
> 3D"http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca" 8.
> 3D"http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca"
> 9.
> 3D"http://home.mira.net/~andy/index.htm"__________________________________
> _____________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 01 2005 - 01:00:09 PDT