Philosophical foundations of the formation of contemporary humanities knowledge

Anna Solodova*

Solodova.Anna@outlook.com

Abstract

Contemporary transformational processes affecting the socio-cultural space of the twenty-first century have intensified the need to reconsider the foundations of humanities and its methodological orientations. The humanities emerge as a key instrument for interpreting complex social phenomena, while philosophy ensures their conceptual coherence by defining the framework for understanding human experience, communication, and cultural dynamics. The relevance of this study is determined by the necessity of developing a comprehensive methodological foundation capable of integrating diverse approaches to the analysis of humanitarian reality and ensuring an adequate response to contemporary challenges. The aim of this work was to substantiate the philosophical foundations of the formation of contemporary humanities knowledge and to identify the key methodological principles that support its development. The study employed methods of conceptual analysis, comparative theoretical reconstruction, interpretation, and to identify the key methodological principles that ensure its development. The application of these methods made it possible to reveal the internal logic underlying the development of humanities knowledge, trace the interaction between different epistemological models, and outline their influence on contemporary research strategies. The principal findings indicated that contemporary humanities knowledge is formed at the intersection of hermeneutic, phenomenological, critical, and narrative approaches, each providing its own mode of interpreting human experience. It was demonstrated that interdisciplinarity constitutes a necessary condition for investigating the complex and multidimensional nature of humanitarian reality, while philosophy performs an integrative function by bringing together diverse methodological perspectives. It was argued that flexibility, openness, and adaptability are defining characteristics of the contemporary humanities, enabling them to respond effectively to the dynamics of social change. The practical value of the study lies in the possibility of applying the findings to improve methodological approaches in humanities research, develop educational programmes, and construct analytical models that contribute to a deeper understanding of contemporary socio-cultural processes

Keywords

epistemology; philosophy; methodology; interpretation; cultural dynamics

Suggested citation
Solodova, A. (2026). Philosophical foundations of the formation of contemporary humanities knowledge. Humanities Studios: Pedagogy, Psychology, Philosophy, 14(3), 112-121. https://doi.org/10.31548/hspedagog/3.2026.112
References
  1. Amat, M. (2023). Values of reciprocal action: Georg Simmel’s “relativist philosophy”. Noesis, 40, 39-57. doi: 10.4000/1472t.
  2. Archer, A., & Matheson, B. (2020). Admiration over time. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 101(4), 669-689. doi: 10.1111/papq.12324.
  3. Berry, R.M. (2020). Can literature know itself and not become philosophy? Transatlantica, 1, 1-14. doi: 10.4000/transatlantica.15428.
  4. Bonnet, A. (2021). Léontine Zanta, philosopher and novelist: Notes on a pioneer’s career. Journal of Italian Studies, 32, 1-12. doi: 10.4000/cei.8780.
  5. Calcaterra, R.M. (Ed.). (2001). New perspectives on pragmatism and analytic philosophy. Amsterdam: Rodopi. doi: 10.4000/ejpap.854.
  6. Farafonova, I.A. (2024). The role of consciousness in electoral behavior: A philosophical analysis. Epistemological Studies in Philosophy, Social and Political Sciences, 7(1), 122-127. doi: 10.15421/342423.
  7. Ferrer, G. (2024). Samuel Ramos and Bergson: Philosophy of intuition and the project of a new humanism. Bergsoniana, 5, 39-49. doi: 10.4000/12b4e.
  8. Gallagher, S. (2020). Action and interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oso/9780198846345.001.0001.
  9. Gallagher, S. (2022). Phenomenology and pragmatism: From the end to the beginning. European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy, 14(2), 1-14. doi: 10.4000/ejpap.2985.
  10. Grangé, N. (2022). Thinking/representing the massacre: A philosophical taboo since antiquity? Kentron, 37, 173-196. doi: 10.4000/kentron.6361.
  11. Kutsepal, S. (2025). Artificial intelligence and technical creativity: Aspects of integration in the continuum of digital society. Humanities Studies, 25(102), 86-92. doi: 10.32782/hst-2025-25-102-09.
  12. Mattei-Gentili, P. (2020). Social facts & the semantic conception of norms: Customary norms as a test of ontology. Phenomenology and Mind, 19, 242-254.
  13. Moreno, J.C., & Vinck, D. (2021). Encounters between philosophy of science, philosophy of technology and STS. Journal of the Anthropology of Knowledge, 15(2), 1-20. doi: 10.4000/rac.23127.
  14. Mortari, L., Valbusa, F., Ubbiali, M., & Bombieri, R. (2023). The empirical phenomenological method: Theoretical foundation and research applications. Social Sciences, 12(7), article number 413. doi: 10.3390/socsci12070413.
  15. Roelens, C. (2022). Charles Taylor’s philosophy of education: The ideal of authenticity as a resource for thinking mass individualization in education and training. Thinking Education, 51, 93-118. doi: 10.4000/pensereduc.1043.
  16. Salihu, A. (2024). The challenges of post-philosophy. European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy, 16(1), 1-19. doi: 10.4000/11p55.
  17. Surina, H.Y., & Miroshkina, N.V. (2025). Aspects of integral anthropology in Ken Wilber’s philosophy. Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research, 28, 63-73. doi: 10.15802/ampr.v0i28.349021.
  18. Tharakan, K., & George, V.M. (2025). Husserl’s crisis text and the spatial turn in philosophy of science. Philosophia Scientia, 29(1), 137-150. doi: 10.4000/13cnk.
  19. Torsen, I., & Pippin, R.B. (2021). Philosophy by other means: The arts in philosophy and philosophy in the arts. The Journal of Aesthetics & Art Criticism, 79(4), 521-524. doi: 10.1093/jaac/kpab046.
  20. van Noord, N. (2022). A survey of computational methods for iconic image analysis. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 37(4), 1316-1338. doi: 10.1093/llc/fqac003.