The Idea of Interdisciplinary Approach in Contemporary Epistemology Ilya T. Kasavin Contemporary (or non-classical) epistemology is qualified by a number of key words. The most important of these are: ‘constructivism’, ‘contextualism’, ‘naturalism’, ‘dis- course’ and ‘interdisciplinarity’. The understanding of the last of these terms and the methodology relating to it constitute the subject of this paper, which discusses the ways and forms of interaction between epistemology and social humanities. 1. Regarding the specifics of social epistemology The central subject of social epistemology – as a non-classical branch in the study of cognitive process – is knowledge in the socio-cultural context analyzed on the basis of some of the humanities and cognitive sciences. ‘Non-classical’ means opposed to the accepted complex of ideas that, despite their fairly heterogeneous nature (for instance, this complex might incorporate epistemological ideas of such thinkers as Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Engels and Rudolf Carnap), have a certain common ground. This consists in the following. Knowledge is determined by three factors: the object, the subject (together with the cognitive abilities proper to it) and, finally, the socio-cultural conditions of cognition. Each of these factors acts as a source of knowledge. From among them, classical epistemology singles out the object, placing it in the focus of research interest. It is with the object that the positive, true contents of knowledge are primarily associated. That is why classical epistemology regards knowledge (at large) as the true knowledge – these two notions practically coincide. That which comes from the subject is regarded as either an obstruction (distortion of the truth) or, quite the reverse, its foundation (Kant’s a priori forms, Descartes’ inborn ideas). It may also be regarded as a product of creative activity (imagination, intuition, etc.) whose content and structure are not quite clear. As for social condi- tions of cognition, until the second third of the twentieth century they were mostly treated as an unambiguously negative factor, a source of illusions and false beliefs. Copyright © ICPHS 2009 SAGE: Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore, http://dio.sagepub.com DOI: 10.1177/0392192109339683 Diogenes 222 & 223: 110–124 ISSN 0392-1921 DIOGENES