Geosophy as a scientific discipline: issues of methodology and metatheory


Keywords: geosophy, post-non-classical approaches, methodology, metatheory, landscape

Abstract

Today is characterized by a dialectical combination of opposite processes in the development of science - differentiation, expressed in the emergence of new analytical, sectoral disciplines, and integration, which consists of the design of synthetic, complex disciplines mainly at the frontiers of science. One of the relatively young synthetic geographic disciplines is geosophy, which originated about a hundred years ago at the boundary of geography and philosophy. The object of geophysical research is human space, that is, space perceived and conceived by man. For a hundred years, this scientific discipline has undergone a difficult path of development, due to both internal, expressed in the nature of the discipline itself, and external (ideological, geopolitical, etc.) factors. Nowadays, post-non-classical methodological approaches are becoming more widely used in geosophy - besides geosophical, it is noospheric, synergistic, eco-evolutionary and passionate. They are based on a fundamentally new relationship between the subject and the research object, qualitatively different from what has traditionally been recognized as classical and non-classical geography. One feature of post-non-classical approaches is subject-object convergence. In particular, the content of the geophysical approach is to consider geographical features as totals that represent the interpenetrating unity of the mineral, organic and human components. Possibilities of its application exist in almost all sections of geography. A special place among the theoretical and methodological foundations of science is metatheoretical provisions - scientific developments that substantially go beyond this science. An essential feature of metatheory as an important attribute of science is its integrating role, both internally (enhancing systemic links between particular branches of science) and external (establishing and strengthening interdisciplinary links between the sciences of one cycle). Formation of metatheory involves the use of theoretical foundations, methods, approaches, evidence of other sciences, which has a verifiable, reflective, integrative and ideological significance. One of the main ones in all geography is the category of landscape. The ambiguity of its interpretation attests to the fundamental importance of this concept, its exceptional role in the knowledge of the Earth’s surface as a multidimensional reality. From the diversity of landscape understandings, two basic concepts stand out. The content of one of them, dating back to the 19th century, is to see the landscape as a general picture of the terrain, which from the point of view is interpreted as totality. From other positions, designed in the early twentieth century, the landscape is understood as a real existing natural material object, characterized by genetic homogeneity, the presence of vertical and horizontal structure and clearly defined boundaries. The coexistence of the aforementioned landscape concepts and the search for possibilities of combining them is one of the important theoretical problems of modern geography, in particular, geosophy.

Author Biography

Yuriy O. Kyselov
Uman national university of horticulture

References

1. Armand, A. D., 1988. Landshaft kak konstruktsiya [Landscape as a construction] Izvestiya Vsesoyuznogo Geograficheskogo obshchestva [Bulletin of the All-Union Geographical society], vol. 120, 2, 120–125 (in Russian).
2. Banse, E., 1924. Die Seele der Geographie. Geschichte einer Entwicklung [The soul of geography. History of a development]. Georg Westermann, Braunschweig (in German).
3. Barnes, T., 1995. Logics of dislocation: Models, Metaphors, and Meanings of Economics Space. The Guilford Press.
4. Derhachov, V. O., 1998. Raskalennyie rubezhi: ocherki marginalnoy kommunikativnosti [Affair boundaries: essays of marginal communicability]. Astroprynt, Odesa (in Russian).
5. Dugin, A. G., 2017. Noomakhiya: geosofiya: gorizonty i tsivilizatsiyi [Noomachia: geosophy: horizonts and civilizations]. Moscow (in Russian).
6. Epstein, M. N., 2004. Znak probela. O budushchem gumanitarnykh nauk [The sign of gap. About the future of human natures]. Novoye literaturnoye obozreniye, Moscow (in Russian).
7. Gumilev L. N., 2006. Etnogenez i biosfera Zemli [Ethnogenesis and the biosphere of the Earth]. AirisPress, Moscow (in Russian).
8. Harvey, D., 2006. Spaces of global capitalism: towards a theory of uneven geographical development. London: Verso.
9. Haushofer, K., 1934. Weltpolitik von heute [World politics from today]. Zeitgeschichte-Verlag Wilhelm Andermann, Berlin (in German).
10. Hrodzynskyi, M. D., 2005. Piznannia landshaftu: mistse i prostir: U 2 tomakh [Cognition of the landscape: place and space: In 2 volums]. Kyiv (in Ukrainian).
11. Kovalyov, O. P., 1997. Heohrafichnyi protses: shcho stoiit za tsym ponyattyam? [Geographical process: what stays behind this notion?] Ukrayinskyi heohrafichnyi zhurnal [Ukrainian geographical journal], 20 (4), 45–51 (in Ukrainian).
12. Kovalyov, O. P., 2009. Landshaft sam po sebe i dlya cheloveka [Landscape as own-by-self and for man]. Burun-knyha, Kharkiv (in Russian).
13. Kyselov, Yu. O., 2010. Do problemy heosofichnoyi kontseptsii landshaftu [To the issue of a geosophical conception of landscape] Fizychna heohrafiia ta heomorfolohiia [Physical geography and geomorphology], 61 (4), 6–10 (in Ukrainian).
14. Kyselov, Yu. O., 2011. Osnovy heosofii: problemy teorii ta metodolohii [Fundamentals of geosophy: issues of theory and methodology]. Luhansk Taras Shevchenko national university, Luhansk (in Ukrainian).
15. Lefebvre, H., 2007. Production of space. Blackwell, Oxford.
16. Milkov, F. N., 1970. Landshaftnaya sfera Zemli [The landscape sphere of the Earth]. Mysl, Moscow (in Russian).
17. Pashchenko, V. M., 1999. Metodolohiia postneklasychnoho landshaftoznavstva [Methodology of the post-non-classic landscape science]. Kyiv (in Ukrainian).
18. Pashchenko V. M., 2000. Zemleznannya: Knyha 1. Metodolohiia pryrodnycho-heohrafichnykh nauk [Land knowledge: Book 1. Methodology of natural and geographical sciences]. Kyiv (in Ukrainian).
19. Piskozub, A., 1994. Mędzy historiozofią a geozofią [Between historiosophy and geosophy]. Gdańsk (in Polish).
20. Rudnytskyi, S. L., 1994. Do osnov ukraiinskoho natsionalizmu [To the fundamentals of the Ukrainian nationalism] Chomu my khochemo samostiinoii Ukraiiny? [Why we want independent Ukraine?]. Svit, Lviv, 271–348 (in Ukrainian).
21. Savitski, P. N., 1997. Kontinent Yevraziia [The continent of Eurasia]. Agraf, Moscow (in Russian).
22. Shabliy, O. I., 2001. Suspilna heohrafiia: teoriia, istoriia, ukraiinoznavchi studii [Human geography: theory, history. Ukrainian studies]. Lviv Ivan Franko national university, Lviv (in Ukrainian).
23. Spengler, O., 1921–1927. Untergang des Abendlandes: In 2 Bänden [Decline of the West: in 2 volums]. C.H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, München (in German). 24. Toynbee, A. J., 1974. A Study of History (4th ed.). Dell Publishing Co., Inc., New York.
25. Tuan, Yi-Fu., 1977. Space and place: the Perspective of Experience. Univ. of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
26. Wright, J. K., 1947. Terrae Incognitae: The Place of Imagination in Geography. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, vol. 37, 1–15.
Published
2020-07-08
How to Cite
Kyselov, Y. (2020). Geosophy as a scientific discipline: issues of methodology and metatheory. Journal of Geology, Geography and Geoecology, 29(2), 327-334. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15421/112029