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