NATURALISTIC APPROACHES TO THE FORMATION OF THE “PHILOSOPHY OF HEALTH”
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31392/cult.alm.2022.4.15Keywords:
health, philosophy, paradigm, naturalism, values, anthropology, valeologyAbstract
The paper examines attempts to construct a philosophy of health based on the generalization of specific scientific directions of its research, mainly of a medical and biological nature. It is shown that the multifaceted and multifaceted nature of the health phenomenon is the reason for the emergence of very diverse approaches that claim the role of health philosophy. Such “philosophies of health” represent attempts to generalize using the philosophical categorical apparatus of scientific innovations in the field of concepts of sociology, psychology, biology, medicine, etc. The most meaningful approaches are formed within the socio-anthropological methodology, taking into account the sociality of the individual as its basic factor. The so-called integration approach, which emphasizes the priority of the integration of knowledge in the field of researching the phenomenon of health in order to make the necessary philosophical generalizations about its nature, is quite common among the directions of formation of the “philosophy of health”. As for the domestic tradition of philosophical understanding of the phenomenon of health, the formation of the school of valeology, which is assigned the role of a scientific paradigm of all disciplines investigating the phenomenon of health, is of perhaps the greatest importance here. In a philosophical sense, valeology substantiates as an integral object of research the naturalistic image of a person, interpreted within the limits of medical terminology. Taking the axiosphere and the problems of spirituality outside the discourse of the philosophy of health also leads to a reduced understanding of the ways of its provision. The solution to the problem can be seen only in the way of the formation of the philosophy of health within the limits of philosophical knowledge with a combination of the guidelines of social philosophy, philosophical anthropology, philosophy of culture and other areas of philosophical thought.
References
Белов В. М., Котова А. Б. (2017). Здоровье человека: вызовы, методы, подходы : монография. Киев : Наукова думка. 130 c.
Bircher J., Kuruvill S. (2014). Defining health by addressing individual, social, and environmental determinants: new opportunities for health care and public health. J Public Health Policy. № 35. P. 363–386.
Bolton D., Grant G. (2019). The Biopsychosocial Model of Health and Disease: New Philosophical and Scientific Developments. Houndmills : Palgrave. 218 р.
Братаніч Б. В., Лаврова Л. В. (2021). Культура здоров’я як предмет філософського розгляду. Перспективи. № 2. С. 108–114.
Іванов О. О. (2013). Здоров’я в дискурсі соціального буття людини : автореф. дис. ... канд. філос. наук : 09.00.03. Одеса. 19 с.
Педагогіка здоров’я як основа розвитку потенціалу особистості : колективна монографія (2020) / В. А. Гладуш та ін. Дніпро : Ліра. 383 с.
Савчин М.В. (2019). Здоров’я людини. Духовний, особистісний і тілесний виміри : монографія. Дрогобич. 229 с.
Saad J.M., Prochaska J.O. (2020). A philosophy of health: life as reality, health as a universal value. Palgrave Commun. № 6. P. 39–45. DOI: 10.1057/s41599-020-0420-https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-0420-9
Schramme T. (2007). A qualified defence of a naturalist theory of health. Med Health Care Philos. № 10. P. 11–17.
Schroeder S.A. (2012). Rethinking health: healthy or healthier than? Br J Philos Sci. № 64(1). P. 131–159.
Xavier da Silveira dos Santos A., Liberali P. (2018). From single cells to tissue self‐organization. FEBS J. № 286(8). P. 1495–1513.
Фромм Э. (2005). Здоровое общество. Москва : АСТ. 365 с.