<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.2 20190208//EN" "http://jats.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/1.2/JATS-journalpublishing1.dtd">
<article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.2" xml:lang="ru" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="issn">2408-932X</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Research Result. Social Studies and Humanities</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2408-932X</issn></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.18413/2408-932X-2016-2-2-5-11</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">638</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>RESEARCHES</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>INCOMPREHENSIBLE HEGEL AND THE DECEIVING EXPONENTIAL: COLLISION OF GROWTH OF MODERN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS</article-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="en"><trans-title>INCOMPREHENSIBLE HEGEL AND THE DECEIVING EXPONENTIAL: COLLISION OF GROWTH OF MODERN SCIENCE IN THE LIGHT OF INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS</trans-title></trans-title-group></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><name-alternatives><name xml:lang="ru"><surname>Ivashchuk</surname><given-names>Olga F.</given-names></name><name xml:lang="en"><surname>Ivashchuk</surname><given-names>Olga F.</given-names></name></name-alternatives><email>ofi@list.ru</email></contrib></contrib-group><pub-date pub-type="epub"><year>2016</year></pub-date><volume>2</volume><issue>2</issue><fpage>0</fpage><lpage>0</lpage><self-uri content-type="pdf" xlink:href="/media/humanities/2016/2/5-11.pdf" /><abstract xml:lang="ru"><p>This article is an attempt to reveal with the help of history of science institutionalization the causes and mutual relations of two phenomena: the turning-point in the philosophical development in the 19th century, which was noted by E. Husserl, and the transformation of the science growth from the exponential phase to the phase of a logistic curved line, which was noted by sociology of science and interpreted by M.K. Petrov in terms of his conception of thesaurus dynamics as connected with the process of science institutionalization taking place in Europe from the middle of 19th century. 
In 1917, E. Husserl outlined the development of German philosophy as a line similar to parabola: a gradual rise, a burst on the border of the 18th and 19th centuries, and then a sharp downturn and alienation from spiritual achievements of the great classical philosophy, so that even the Germans themselves could not comprehend any more this “intellectual acrobatics”. E. Husserl does not reflect the sources of this transformation of the mode of thinking. In the 30-th, he connected it with the crisis of European sciences. 
In those years, a science by no means displayed any tendency to stagnation, but since the eighties of 20th century, a scientometric analysis has fixed a change in the growth pace. M.K. Petrov has suggested a hypothesis claiming to explain this phenomenon and to connect it systematically with a single source – with those characteristics of institutionalization of science and national education which he has marked as extensive scientification.
A sense of those transformations in science and national education, taking place in today’s Russia, is determined within the horizon of these all-European processes and as their continuation.</p></abstract><trans-abstract xml:lang="en"><p>This article is an attempt to reveal with the help of history of science institutionalization the causes and mutual relations of two phenomena: the turning-point in the philosophical development in the 19th century, which was noted by E. Husserl, and the transformation of the science growth from the exponential phase to the phase of a logistic curved line, which was noted by sociology of science and interpreted by M.K. Petrov in terms of his conception of thesaurus dynamics as connected with the process of science institutionalization taking place in Europe from the middle of 19th century. 
In 1917, E. Husserl outlined the development of German philosophy as a line similar to parabola: a gradual rise, a burst on the border of the 18th and 19th centuries, and then a sharp downturn and alienation from spiritual achievements of the great classical philosophy, so that even the Germans themselves could not comprehend any more this “intellectual acrobatics”. E. Husserl does not reflect the sources of this transformation of the mode of thinking. In the 30-th, he connected it with the crisis of European sciences. 
In those years, a science by no means displayed any tendency to stagnation, but since the eighties of 20th century, a scientometric analysis has fixed a change in the growth pace. M.K. Petrov has suggested a hypothesis claiming to explain this phenomenon and to connect it systematically with a single source – with those characteristics of institutionalization of science and national education which he has marked as extensive scientification.
A sense of those transformations in science and national education, taking place in today’s Russia, is determined within the horizon of these all-European processes and as their continuation.</p></trans-abstract><kwd-group xml:lang="ru"><kwd>science</kwd><kwd>philosophy</kwd><kwd>thesaurus</kwd><kwd>institutionalization of science</kwd><kwd>diatribical tradition</kwd><kwd>creativity</kwd></kwd-group><kwd-group xml:lang="en"><kwd>science</kwd><kwd>philosophy</kwd><kwd>thesaurus</kwd><kwd>institutionalization of science</kwd><kwd>diatribical tradition</kwd><kwd>creativity</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><back><ref-list><title>Список литературы</title><ref id="B1"><mixed-citation>Berkeley,&amp;nbsp;G. The Analyst; or, a Discourse Addressed to an Unbelieving Mathematician. Sochineniya. Moscow: Mysl, 1978. 558&amp;nbsp;p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B2"><mixed-citation>Gadamer,&amp;nbsp;H.-G. Way of Martin Heidegger: Study Late Work. Minsk: Propilei. 2007. 240&amp;nbsp;p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B3"><mixed-citation>Hegel,&amp;nbsp;G.&amp;nbsp;W.&amp;nbsp;F. Lectures on the History of Philosophy. Moscow: Sotsekgiz, 1935. Vol.&amp;nbsp;3. 350&amp;nbsp;p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B4"><mixed-citation>Husserl,&amp;nbsp;E. Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology. St.-Petersburg: &amp;laquo;Vladimir Dal&amp;raquo;, 2004. 400&amp;nbsp;p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B5"><mixed-citation>Husserl,&amp;nbsp;E. Fichte&amp;rsquo;s Ideal of Humanity. Three Lectures. Yearbook on Phenomenological Philosophy 2009/2010. [II]. Moscow: Publishing House of RSUH, 2010. Pp.&amp;nbsp;366-394.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B6"><mixed-citation>Ilyenkov,&amp;nbsp;E. The Problem of General in the Dialectics. The Dialectic Logic. Moscow: Politizdat, 1974. 271&amp;nbsp;p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B7"><mixed-citation>Ivashchuk,&amp;nbsp;O.&amp;nbsp;F. Human &amp;ldquo;I&amp;rdquo; as a Ground of the Science: Philosophical Classics and Modernity. L&amp;#39;univers de l&amp;#39;homme. No.&amp;nbsp;1 (2010). Pp.&amp;nbsp;22-29.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B8"><mixed-citation>Mandelstam,&amp;nbsp;O. Sturm und Drang. Russkoye iskusstvo [Russian Art]. No.&amp;nbsp;1 (February) (1923). Pp.&amp;nbsp;75-82.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B9"><mixed-citation>Newton,&amp;nbsp;I. The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. Moscow: Nauka, 1989. 711&amp;nbsp;p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B10"><mixed-citation>Parshin,&amp;nbsp;A.&amp;nbsp;N. The Lesson of English for the Education Secretary). Russian Education and Science: new legislation &amp;ndash; new challenges. Moscow: Humanitariy, 2014. Pp.&amp;nbsp;202-206.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B11"><mixed-citation>Petrov,&amp;nbsp;М.&amp;nbsp;К. The History of the European Cultural Tradition and Its Problems. М.: ROSSPEN, 2004. 776&amp;nbsp;p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B12"><mixed-citation>Petrov,&amp;nbsp;М.&amp;nbsp;К. Philosophical Problems of the Science of Science. The Subject of Sociology of Science. Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2006. 624&amp;nbsp;p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B13"><mixed-citation>Polanyi,&amp;nbsp;K. The Self-Regulating Market and the Fictitious Commodities: Labor, Land and Money. The Great Transformation. The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. St. Petersburg: Aleteya, 2002. 320&amp;nbsp;p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="B14"><mixed-citation>Potemkin,&amp;nbsp;A.&amp;nbsp;V. Metaphilosophical Diatribes on the Banks of Kiziterinka. Rostov-on-Don: Rostizdat, 2003. 576&amp;nbsp;p.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>