The author analyses the structural and procedural tendencies in the development of knowledge connected with manifestations of the peculiarities in the modern development of cognition as well as tasks of modern education. The structural components of knowledge and the main interpretations of procedural tendencies of knowledge development are subject to analysis. There is a lack of interest in the analysis of knowledge constituents in contemporary English editions, although in the history of philosophy this issue is of great significance. In the article, the author highlights four components of knowledge, as well as analyses their role in recognizing knowledge reliability. There is traced the connection of initial components of the knowledge structure with the challenges facing modern education that requires consideration of knowledge in the context of the initial meanings of culture. The main approaches to the laws of knowledge of historical development are analysed and the connections of these tendencies with the processes of post-non-classical science and modern education establishment are revealed, and the conclusion is made about the inadmissibility of reducing knowledge to the information and pragmatic component of modern social life. On the other hand, according to the increasing role of practical, subjective and minimalistic understanding of knowledge, the necessity of introducing knowledge into the context of meaningful components of culture is argued. The author uses methods of comparative analysis, analysis and synthesis, phenomenological reduction and hermeneutics. Conclusions can be used for the in-depth study of modern trends in the development of science and education, in particular for a detailed consideration of the cognitive functions of the main components of knowledge, to clarify the latest trends in the development of modern education.
Dufresne, R., Leonard, W., Gerare, W. (2016). Structure of Knowledge. Retrieved from https://www.srri.umass.edu/topics/knowledge-structure/
Frege, G. (1997). Logical Investigations. [In Russian].Tomsk: Vodoley.
Husserl, E. (1994). Logical Investigations. [In Russian]. Vol. 1. Philosophy as Rigorous Science.
Knowledge. English-English Dictionary. (2018). Retrieved from https://glosbe/com/en/en/structured%20knowlege
Knowledge. Structurе of knowledge. Wikipedia. (2018). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge
Kont, A. (2001). The Spirit of positive philosophy. [In Russian]. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg Philosophical Society.
Mamardashvili, M. (1982). Science as culture. [In Russian]. In Methodological problems in historical research, 35–38. Moscow: Science.
Marx, K. (1975). The difference between the natural philosophy of Democritus and Epicurus's natural philosophy. [In Russian]. In Marx K. and Engels F. Works. Moscow: Publishing House of Political Literature.
Neisser Ulric (1981). Cognition and Reality. Principles and implications of cognitive psychology. [In Russian]. Moscow: Progress.
Plato. Menon. Works in 3 vol. Vol. 1. [In Russian]. 367–412. Moscow: Thought.
Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and Mirror of Nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Schedrovitskii, G. (1984). Synthesis of Knowledge: Problems and Methods. [In Russian]. On the way towards the
theory of scientific knowledge, 67–109. Moscow: Science.
Sellars, W. (1975). The Structurе of Knowledge. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Solso, L. (2001). Cognitive psychology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Stiopin, V. (2011). History and Philosophy of Science. [In Russian]. Moscow: Academic Project.
Tatarkevich, W. (1999). The History of Philosophy. Vol. 1. [In Ukrainian]. Lviv: Svichado.
Yuhua, Q., Jiye L., Chuangyin, D. (2009). Knowledge Structure, Knowledge Granulation and Knowledge Distance in A Knowledge Base. In International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 50, 174–188. Retrieved from www.elsevier. com/locate/ijar https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2008.08.004