Search results

The article discusses the controversy between Semyon Frank and the publicist Semyon Lurye: the discussion between thinkers has become a rare example of a constructive dialogue unfolded around the collection of articles about the Rus­sian intelligentsia of the early 20th century "Vekhi". Responding to Lurye's Crit­icism, Frank wrote an article "Culture and Religion", Which in many ways better represents Frank's views of that time then the article "The Ethics and Nihilism" from the collection "Vekhi". The author analyses in detail the questions posed to Frank by Lurye and shows that the answers he gave in subsequent years became strikingly different from those contained in his earlier works. Moreover, in later years, in the books "The Downfall of Idols" and "Reality and Man" his answers to the questions posed by Lurye began to resemble the views of his opponent rather than his own, set in 1908. This is especially well observed in the analyses of Lurye's response article "Ideas and Life", Which Frank has already left with­out a direct answer. An analysis of controversy between Frank and Lurye and of the Frank's views outlined in later works leads the author to the conclusion that this distinct contradiction of views reveals the non-monolithic nature of Franks philosophy as a whole and forces researchers to hierarchize Frank's legacy, which was non-linear and accompanied by corrections of his mistakes from earlier works.

Annotation: The article provides a detailed analysis of the issues of harmonization of information culture with national and universal values in today's globalization process. The article also draws conclusions and recommendations on the solution of current issues of information culture today.

From text: Acta Academica has been in existence for more than 30 years. During this time the political and social world around us has changed. South Africa is a 20-year-old democracy; globalisation has prompted redefinitions of culture and identity; new manifestations of the political are emerging in different countries; technology is challenging the classical separation between the publicsphere and the private realm; financial crises are pointing to the urgent need to re-examine the bases of capitalist production. At the same time academia is being permanently re-invented not always in palatable and productive ways, and the very conceptualisation of university education is under scrutiny. It seems only natural that under these circumstances a journal that is based at a university that is also undergoing profound institutional change should stop to think about its focus, its public and its purpose.