This article explores how actor-network theory has redescribed the concept of modernity. B. Latour provides a radical critique of modern rationality by undermining its basic opposition between nature and culture. What he offers instead is relational approach to techno-science. From this point of view, all the actors are initially hybrid entities, and the ontological regime of modernity emerged as an unsuccessful attempt to purify and to divide them into clearly defined 'subjects' and 'objects'. The main paradox of modern rationality is that while it was trying to produce an illusion of two different realms (nature and culture), the number of hybrids was increasing dramatically. To tackle this problem, Latour offered a quite utopian alternative - the Parliament of Things. In the end of the article, it is stated that there is a danger for ANT of being modernist itself. And it is rejection of reductionism that distinguishes actor-network analysis from the other theories of modernity.
The conception of logical pluralism claims that there is not one true logic but there are many. The conception of metalogical relativism is based on the assumption that there is not one correct answer as to whether a given argument is deductively valid, but there are many—many non-classical answers depending of which non-classical metalogic we exploit: intuitionistic, relevant, quantum, many-valued, etc. Since this leads to the interplay between logics and metalogics the question arises: What is the nature of this interplay? The Universal Logics approach gives us hints at some answers to this question but at the expense of the exploitation of different combination of non-classical logical systems leading to the transition from metalogical pluralism to metalogical monism. The only problem in this case is the impossibility of the exploitation of an infinite combination of non-classical systems. There are also some semantic keys to the issue under consideration which are connected with the problem of the interplay of classical and non-classical universes: non-classical logics would be interpreted in the classical universe, and vice versa, the classical logic would be interpreted in non-classical universes.
The impact of logical pluralism on the development of modern science still is disputable but there are studies in progress allowing to make this issue more popular. It would be demonstrated that some new aspects of those studies are connected with the pluralistic approach to the well-known results in mathematical logic, speciﬁcally in the theory of algebraic systems.
It is generally accepted that the logical hylomorphism goes back to the Aristotelian form versus matter dichotomy. However, the role of Aristotle as the founder of logical hylomorphism may be challenged. The aim of this paper is to answer the question: in what sense (if any) was Aristotle the father of logical hylomorphism?
The main aim of this paper is to show the advantages of shifting focus from substantial towards dynamic model of formality, i.e. from formal ontology (the domain of higher order formal objects, e.g. hypostases of structurally invariant properties of models) to formal deontology (the domain of rules-governed and goals-directed activity).