Post-nonclassical rationality in the humanities through the lens of phenomenology and deconstruction

The subject of the study is the methodological analysis of the adaptation of V.S. Stepan's typology of scientific rationality (classical, non-classical, post-non-classical) in the realm of philosophical knowledge. The object of the research is the philosophical systems of Edmund Husserl and Jacques Derrida, examined through the lens of this typology. The author carefully considers aspects of the topic such as the overcoming of classical objectivism in phenomenology through the concepts of "lifeworld" and intersubjectivity, as well as the epistemological potential of deconstruction revealed in the critique of logocentrism and the concepts of "diffrance" and "trace." Special attention is given to identifying points of convergence and divergence between the two approaches, justifying their mutually supplementary nature as the foundation of modern humanities in the context of post-non-classical science, as well as addressing the problem of the researcher's inclusion in the researched reality during the era of digital transformation and the crisis of classical notions of truth. The methodology of the study is based on a comparative analysis of the philosophical systems of E. Husserl and J. Derrida in the context of changing types of rationality. The key analytical tool is V.S. Stepan's typology, applied to the reconstruction of ideas, while the work includes reflection on the boundaries of the applicability of this typology to humanitarian knowledge. The main conclusions of the conducted study are the justification of a methodological model that allows for overcoming the superficial opposition between phenomenology and deconstruction. The novelty of the research lies in the interpretation of E. Husserl's philosophy as a transitional form of rationality that lays the groundwork for post-non-classical thinking, and Derrida's deconstruction as a full-fledged epistemological strategy of post-non-classical science that legitimizes the multiplicity of interpretations. A significant contribution of the author to the study of the topic is the demonstration that phenomenology ensures the rigor of analysis of meaningful structures, while deconstruction introduces critical reflection on linguistic mediation and ethical responsibility toward the "Other." The synthesis of these strategies, illustrated by analyzing the concept of "justice," forms a methodological basis that is adequate to the complexity of the modern world and addresses the problem of the researcher's inclusion in the researched reality.