This paper demonstrates the role of dialectics in accounting, highlighting its implications for scientific research and practices.
In the process of cognition and practical activity, humanity sets certain goals and tasks. To implement these intentions, a method must be used - that is, effective approaches and principles of theoretical research and practical action must be identified. Without a method, no scientific or practical tasks can be solved. The method is largely determined by the phenomena being studied, which possess their own regularities. Each field of science or practice develops its own specific methods. Scientific philosophy has developed its universal method of cognition - materialist dialectics, which provides the key to understanding all areas of reality in nature, society, and thought - the world as a whole. The laws and methods of dialectics are based on specific categories and concepts. Philosophical categories are concepts that reflect the general features and relationships, aspects, and properties of reality. The main ones include: the particular (individual) and the general, content and form, essence and phenomenon, cause and effect, necessity and chance, possibility and actuality. Each of these categories, with their objective nature, is extremely important for practical and cognitive activity, and for scientific research in various fields of technical-technological and socio-economic knowledge. The laws and methods of dialectics are universal. This universality is of critical importance in understanding the most diverse phenomena of the world. Thus, the use of dialectical methods in philosophy plays an essential role in the development of other sciences, such as management, marketing, finance, accounting, economic analysis, and other fields. In this paper, the author seeks to identify and develop the close relationship between dialectical methods and categories of cognition, and the methods and elements characteristic of accounting, with the aim of its improvement and development.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tudor Tuhari (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: