But why is the ancient knowledge? Isn’t there anything newer? The point is, that in the times of Ancient Greece the knowledge about Man and the World wherein he habitats, was, however scarce, of necessity whole, undivided. Thereafter followed long medieval centuries crowned with a sign of Theology. The changes gradually came in Renaissance – but it predictably initiated an apportionment of specific sciences from Philosophy, amorphous, but still whole, “Meta-science”. (Actually, however, it was predominantly Theology). And natural differentiation, “scattering” of sciences is continuing up to now. On the contrary, their integration on the basis of frontier disciplines is understandably slow and tedious.

But why are postulates necessary for the purpose? As a matter of fact, practically all branches of sciences concerning the Man: psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc., are not deductive. That is, they are very loosely linked to mathematics – notwithstanding cardinal changes taking place today. This is corroborated, i.e., by the fact that an attempt of B. Spinoza as far back as in XVII-th century to develop a comprehensive deductive theory in psychology based on formal mathematic (geometric) demonstrations hasn’t been followed up to now. The problem proved too complex. And, as once remarked L.S. Vigotsky, the majority of issues set out by Spinoza are still unsolved.

The proposed axiomatic may facilitate association of various spheres and branches of sciences concerning the Man upon a common foundation. Besides, it may help “tying-up the chain of times”, i.e., providing for continuity of scientific knowledge. Knowledge is going in line with the natural basis of multi-dimensional science of Man as organic whole. 

Sergey Kamenskiy

M.Sc. (Eng), Odessa, Ukraine