Using the achievements of various anthropological «dimensions» of education in social and humanitarian cognition, the article presents for the first time a meaningful and semantic interpretation of factors as motivating causes of the process of development of anthropological knowledge about human education and the mechanisms that put it into action. The factors of the development of anthropological knowledge about human education are characterized by: a) subjectivity, as a value-semantic constructive position of a person, determining their cognitivetransformative focus on the creation of new knowledge; b) methodological reflection, contributing to the development of anthropological axiomatics and refinement of the instrumental means of cognition, causing a critical rethinking of anthropological ideas about human education, as well as the improvement of means and methods of cognitive-transformative activity; c) the influence of scientific and technological progress, causing the direction of the development of humanitarian and anthropological knowledge to overcome the gaps between the achievements of scientific progress and the effectiveness of their transformation into an innovative educational product; d) socio-political and socio-cultural reasons that encourage the creation of new scientific knowledge that meets the growing challenges of our time and predetermines the effectiveness of their practical implementation in the field of education. The variety of mechanisms of the development of anthropological knowledge is represented by the description of methods: borrowing semantic meanings from other knowledge systems; inheritance; enrichment of subject-thematic content; integration; categorization; complex development of knowledge in the context of a systematic view of modern education development level. The condition for its progressive perfection is put forward. The prospects of creating a holistic humanitarian and anthropological knowledge about human education are assessed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
S. M. Zverev (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: