Eugen Andreanský

The aim of the paper is to examine various aspects of holism, especially with regard to scientific knowledge and scientific realism. It is concerned with that tradition of holism, which has been largely influenced by W. V. O. Quine, but in some respects also by T. S. Kuhn. It offers a survey of different versions of holism, evaluating at the same time various aspects of the holistic approach. Attention is paid also to anti-holistic critique ant its contribution to understanding the nature and development of scientific knowledge.

The aim of the paper is to examine various aspects of holism, especially with regard to scientific knowledge and scientific realism. It is concerned with that tradition of holism, which has been largely influenced by W. V. O. Quine, but in some respects also by T. S. Kuhn. It offers a survey of different versions of holism , evaluating at the same time various aspects of the holistic approach. Attention is paid also to anti-holistic critique ant its contribution to understanding the nature and development of scientific knowledge

The paper offers an analysis of the forms of the Socratic paradoxes as well as their importance for the epistemological inquiries. In the author’s view there are various kinds of paradoxes. A special attention is paid to the Meno paradox from Plato’s Meno. In dealing with paradoxes there are three possible strategies: their critical overcoming, their demythologization or their acceptation. The author gives the descriptions of all of these strategies, reminding us that each of them put the stress on a specific epistemological problem, whereby they are completing each other