On Mothodological Approach to Philosophical System of Sunology Abstract A Study on the Methodology of the Philosophical System of Sunology The focus of this doctoral dissertation is primarily predicated upon my attempt to explore the philosophical system of Sunology or Dr. Sun Yat-sen¡¦s works and the related mode and value of the methodology. As a consequence of this effort, this author suggests a common foundation of research and dialogue as a model for human epistemology. With this foundation in mind, the main dimensions of Sunology has been explored: (1) Regarding the philosophical system, the method of content analysis in social sciences has been applied, yielding its peculiar characteristics and mode; (2) Regarding its logical structure, the axiomatic method has been employed so as to testify that Dr. Sun¡¦s logical structure is well integrated; (3) Regarding Dr. Sun¡¦s operational dimension, the mode of interdisciplinary integration has been used, so as to clarify his operational conversion; and (4) Regarding Sunology¡¦s consistency in its logic, an attempt has been made to explore its methodology, so as to find out its form and value and, at the same time, the kind of method and approach to materialize an ideal. From the study, one should realize that mankind ought to seriously weigh the value of any given theoretical and philosophical systems in the past and fully appreciate its latent significance and validity. As a next step, one should try to put it into practice. Subsequently, an attainable framework should be constructed, so as to fulfill the projected undertaking. However, we should understand that the approach and method should not be just limited to this. At the same time, it should be noted that our framework argues that knowledge has a holistic structure which can be mutually continuous. Philosophical systems are interrelated. When analyzing any change in the relationship and its development, it is necessary to clarify the structure and operation aspects of the two. Only having done that, can we enhance the clarification and systematization of thinking. And only then, can we handle humankind and nature¡¦s mutual movement. Unless this is done, it is not possible for us to have an original look at human thinking and knowledge construction. In this connection, it should be noted that each discipline has its background and knowledge. Based on this, can we develop pervasive and automatic mode of knowledge. After that, can we have the ability to be creative. As a result, human knowledge and culture can continue its integrative process and be progressive.

The paper presents an original literary concept that describes both the philosophical system of L. Gubanov and the originality of his poetry. The logic of the master's thesis is subject to the presentation of this concept. The work outlines the originality of lyrical poetry by L. Gubanov; investigates the images of Chaos and Cosmos, as well as the main myths that define the uniqueness of artistic and philosophical system of the poet. The work analyses some of the author's poetic techniques, presents observations on the ways of organization of the poetic expression. / В работе представлена оригинальная литературоведческая концепция, описывающая как философскую систему Л. Губанова, так и своеобразие его поэтики. Изложению этой концепции и подчинена логика магистерской диссертации. В ней очерчено своеобразие лирического героя поэзии Л. Губанова; исследованы макрообразы Хаоса и Космоса, основные мифологемы, определяющие своеобразие художественно-философской системы поэта; осуществлен анализ некоторых приемов авторской поэтики, представлены наблюдения над способами организации поэтического высказывания.

À la suite d’Agrippa, maint sceptique a argué de la pluralité des systèmes pour ruiner toute ambition de vérité philosophique : des systèmes contradictoires ne pouvant être vrais simultanément, leurs prétentions respectives s’annulent. L’argument n’a pourtant de valeur que si la pluralité des systèmes est elle-même irrationnelle. Or plusieurs philosophes ont rationalisé la diversité des systèmes philosophiques, suggérant par là que la raison puisse s’approprier sa propre limite ; notamment Kant, dans l’« Histoire de la raison pure » qui conclut la Critique de la raison pure (1781) ; Hegel, dans les Leçons sur l’histoire de la philosophie (1805–1830) ; Victor Cousin, dans Du Vrai, du beau et du bien (1828) et l’Histoire générale de la philosophie (1863) ; Charles Renouvier, dans l’Esquisse d’une classification systématique des doctrines philosophiques (1885–1886) ; et Jules Vuillemin, dans Nécessité ou contingence (1984).Étudier de manière interne chacune de ces entreprises permet de déterminer quels en sont les critères fondamentaux, la forme mathématique générale, et le but philosophique. L’histoire kantienne de la raison pure, injustement dédaignée, repose sur les concepts fondamentaux du criticisme, structure maint chapitre des trois Critiques, et annonce la paix philosophique perpétuelle dont est porteur le criticisme. Les Leçons de Hegel ne sont ni un résumé empirique ni une histoire biaisée de la philosophie : fondées sur la Logique et la Phénoménologie, elles mettent au jour la dialectique interne des systèmes. La classification de Renouvier n’est pas, comme on le dit parfois, a posteriori, mais repose au contraire sur le jeu a priori d’une table des catégories et d’une théorie de la contradiction. Enfin, la classification vuilleminienne des systèmes, qui s’appuie sur une classification des formes de prédication, généralise la classification kantienne. Seule la classification de Victor Cousin s’avère finalement a posteriori.Ancrées dans les concepts fondamentaux de chacune de ces doctrines, ces classifications montrent qu’un système peut construire l’image des autres et de leurs relations aussi rigoureusement qu’il décrit le monde : les relations entre systèmes ne sont pas moins structurales que les systèmes eux-mêmes. / Following the example of Agrippa, a lot a sceptics argued that, because of the plurality of philosophical systems, there could be no unique philosophical truth: contradictory systems could not be true at the same time. But this argument presupposes that this plurality is itself irrational. And yet some philosophers took the diversity of philosophical systems as rational, suggesting that reason was able to take possession of its own boundary: Kant, in the “History of pure reason” of the Critique of Pure Reason (1781); Hegel, in the Lessons on the History of Philosophy (1805–1830); Victor Cousin, in his books Du Vrai, du beau et du bien (1828) and the Histoire générale de la philosophie (1863); Charles Renouvier, in the Esquisse d’une classification systématique des doctrines philosophiques (1885–1886); and Jules Vuillemin, in Necessity or Contingency (1984).By examining the internal structure of each of these attempts, we can show their main criteria, their general mathematical form, and their philosophical aim. Kant’s “History of Pure Reason” uses the fundamental concepts of criticism, plays a structuring role in the Critique of Pure Reason, and forecasts the perpetual peace of criticism. Hegel’s Lessons are neither an empirical summary nor a biased history of philosophy: they are grounded on Hegel’s Logic and Phenomenology, and reveal the internal dialectic of systems. Renouvier’s classification is not a posteriori, but combines an a priori table of categories with a theory of contradiction. Finally, Vuillemin’s classification of systems, which is grounded on a classification of elementary sentences, is a generalization of Kant’s classification. Only Victor Cousin’s classification is a posteriori.These classifications find their roots in the fundamental concepts of each of these systems. A philosophical system is thus able to account not only for the world, but also for other systems and for their relationship. The relationship between systems is not less structural than systems themselves are.