The notion of knowledge society, its analysis and evaluation

: 105-109
Received: October 26, 2016
Accepted: November 29, 2016
Lviv Medical Institute

The author analyses the meaning of the notion of the knowledge society,  as  in the special investigations, the term is interpreted broadly and ambiguously. The analysis includes main ideas of a well-known management theorist P. Drucker who introduced the term,  believing that in modern highly developed societies special knowledge becomes the most important factor of social and economic development.  P.Druker’s  ideas  on  knowledge  society  were  developed  in  the UNESCO report “To the Knowledge Societies” (2005), but in this article, the interpretation of the term is slightly expanded and modified – it is spoken about the need for science and education for the modern knowledge society in all regions of the world on the one hand and preservation and development of regional indigenous knowledge on the other. Interpretation of the term by educators involves mainly the need for modernization and changes in the existing educational system. 
As  for  the scientific accuracy of  the  term,  there  is a number of observations: 1)  the  idea of knowledge society was 
already  proposed  by F. Bacon,  but  it was  also  criticised;  2)  in modern  texts  devoted  to  public  knowledge,  this  notion  is interpreted widely, and often not correctly; 3) in the community, in addition to knowledge, an important role is played by religion, morality, and art; 4) in human mentality an important role (except knowledge) is played by will, memory, thinking, feelings and emotions, self-consciousness.  
Thus, the author concludes that knowledge society is a technical term which, to some extent, is a utopia as an ideal type
by M. Weber since it allows to highlight some new aspects in society, but it does not describe the real state of a society as a system. Both  – man and society are complex systems that cannot be reduced solely to knowledge. Basic research methods are as follows: logical, comparative, textual. 

Bekon,  Fr. (1972).  Novaya  Atlantida.[In Russian]. In Sochineniya  v 2  tomakh. (Vol. 2). Moskwa: Mysl.

Gaydenko, P. (1991).  Istoriya  i  ratsionalnost:  Sotsiologiya M.Vebera  i  veberovskiy renessans. Moskwa: Politizdat.

 K  obshchestvam  znaniya:  Vsemirnyy doklad  YuNYeSKO. (2005). [In Russian]. Retrieved from http//unesdoc.unesco

Miller, L. (Ed). (1987).  Questions that matter.  An invitation to philosophy. McGraw – Hill Publishing House.

Prokopovych, F. (1980). Etyka. Filosofski  tvory  v  trokh  tomakh. [In Ukrainian]. (Vol. 2). Kyiv:  Naukova  dumka.

Ratnikov,  V. (2016).  Chto  meshaet  formirovaniyu  obshchestva znaniy. [In Russian]. In Znannia. Osvita. Osvichenist.  Zbirnyk  materialiv  III  Mizhnarodnoi  naukovo-praktychnoi  konferentsii, m. Vinnytsia,  28–29  veresnia  2016  r.  Vinnytsia:  VNTU.

 Svift,  D. (1976). Mandry Lemiuelia Hullivera.Kyiv: Veselka.

Vedmedev,  M. (2016). Nauka  i universitet v obshchestve znaniya. [In Russian]. In Znannia. Osvita.  Osvichenist.  Zbirnyk  materialiv  III  Mizhnarodnoi naukovo-praktychnoi konferentsii, m. Vinnytsia, 28–29 veresnia 
2016 r.
 (pp. 10-14). Vinnytsia: VNTU.

Zanden, V., Wilfrid, J. (1993). Sociology, the core. McGraw  – Hill,  Inc.  

Zgurovskiy, M. (n/d). Put' k obshchestvu, osnovannomu na znaniyakh. [In Russian]. Retrieved from  nttp://www/zn/ua