Reply to critics

Alexan­der L. Niki­forov
Insti­tute of Phi­los­o­phy, Russ­ian Acad­e­my of Sci­ences

Reply to crit­ics

Abstract. This paper sug­gests brief answers to the crit­i­cism giv­en on the arti­cle “On the mean­ing and sig­nif­i­cance of the con­cept of ‘progress’”. This arti­cle depicts progress as an eval­u­a­tive con­cept, and since the val­ue sys­tems of dif-fer­ent peo­ple are dif­fer­ent, it argues that the assess­ments about progress or regres­sion will always dif­fer. Crit­ics’ com­ments, how­ev­er, clar­i­fy that there are cri­te­ria for eval­u­at­ing some changes on which there is real gen­er­al agree­ment. The author notes that the crit­i­cal com­ments sup­port the fact that the notion of progress is still vague and unclear and a spe-cial con­sid­er­a­tion of its var­i­ous aspects seems impor­tant.

Key­words: seman­tics, prag­mat­ics, progress, con­text, ref­er­ence

DOI: 10.32326/2618–9267–2021–4–2–48–51

Ref­er­ences:

  1. Efre­mov, O.A. “Prob­le­ma – Feniks” sot­sial­noy filosofii – k vopro­su o gi-poteze obshch­estvenno­go pro­gres­sa [The phoenix prob­lem of social phi­los­o­phy: to the ques­tion about the hypoth­e­sis of social progress], The Dig­i­tal Schol­ar: Philosopher’s Lab, 2021, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 25–28, doi: 10.32326/2618–9267-2021–4-2–6-16. (In Russ­ian)
  2. Kus­liy, P.S. “On the seman­tic con­tent of ‘progress’”, The Dig­i­tal Schol­ar: Philosopher’s Lab, 2021, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 30–39, doi: 10.32326/2618–9267-2021–4-2–6-16. (In Russ­ian)
  3. Sokolo­va, T.D. “The con­cept of progress and the progress of philo­soph­i­cal vocab­u­lary”, The Dig­i­tal Schol­ar: Philosopher’s Lab, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 40–47, doi: 10.32326/2618–9267-2021–4-2–6-16. (In Russ­ian)
  4. Vostriko­va, E.V. “The notion of ‘progress’ from the phi­los­o­phy of lan­guage per­spec­tive”, The Dig­i­tal Schol­ar: Philosopher’s Lab, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 17–24, doi: 10.32326/2618–9267-2021–4-2–6-16. (In Russ­ian)

Comments are closed.