Search results

These days, Africa is seen as an underdeveloped or developing continent. (...) What is meant by this is that Africa as a whole lags behind other areas in terms of measurable economic output and general "quality of life" indices for its inhabitants. An evident paradox in the attempts made to solve the problem of underdevelopment in Africa is that the vast majority of the research into the cause of Africa's present condition emanates from research centres and universities located in the West. And what is evident about the majority of such theories is that they tend to focus narrowly on strictly economic issues geared towards "alleviating poverty" and creating piecemeal conditions for "sustainable development". The collection of essays in this issue approach the problem of development from a broader, more holistic perspective which analyses that explore Africa's present status theoretically, from the standpoint of all the social sciences, not just economics. (Afr Dev/DÜI)

Aileen Kelly, Empiriocriticism: a Bolshevik philosophy?
In the first decade of this century a group of Bolshevik theorists attempted to construct a new philosophical basis for marxism with the aid of the empiriocriticism of Avenarius and Mach. Their attempt is usually treated by historians as merely a brief episode in Bolshevik party history. This article examines its significance within the wider framework of the collective psychology of the Russian radical intelligentsia, in which voluntarism was uneasily reconciled with a predilection for deterministic philosophies of history. The empiriocriticist movement can be seen as a final attempt on the part of the members of the intelligentsia to achieve a synthesis of these elements in their outlook. Their writings and the ensuing polemics are examined with particular regard to the light which they shed on the social psychology of the Russian radical intelligentsia and on the part played by its subjective aspirations in the formulation of its historical goals.

The article attempts to provide a definition for the problem area of the philosophy of politics, political philosophy and political science. Given the lack of a well-established distinction between the subjects of these sciences in the Russian-language discourse, the author turns to the English-language tradition. The analysis of this discourse shows the following: 1) the absence of a distinction between political philosophy and the philosophy of politics, which is replaced by political ontology as part of political philosophy; 2) the existence of a distinction between political theory and political philosophy; 3) the dependence of the paradigm of the relationship between political theory and political philosophy on the consensus developed in the national intellectual tradition. In the English-language discourse, the question of the relationship between political science and political philosophy comes to the fore. The latter is considered as a subordinate, integral part of political science. It is shown that, based on the criterion of "insufficient scientificity", attempts to exclude political philosophy from the political science do not stop. The article substantiates the position according to which, despite their apparent similarity, the subjects of political science and political philosophy do not coincide – the disciplinary ontology of political science can become the subject of political philosophy. When discussing the relationship between the philosophy of politics and political philosophy, the article presents several hypotheses. First, a distinction is made between the philosophy of politics and political philosophy and the author argues that they are distinct. Secondly, the position, according to which the philosophy of politics belongs to the field of philosophy, and political philosophy to political science, is critically examined, and the fact that the two disciplines belong to the philosophical corpus of knowledge is substantiated. Thirdly, it is proposed to demarcate between the philosophy of politics and political philosophy in accordance with the difference between their subjects. The subject of philosophy of politics is the phenomenon of the political, while the subject of political philosophy is political phenomena.

This article provides an overview of the Seventh International Readings on the History of Russian Philosophy, entitled "Intercultural Philosophy: A Polylogue of Traditions", which were held at the Sociological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences – a branch of the Federal Research Sociological Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The path of the intercultural philosophy began around the 1980ies and 1990ies in Germany and Austria as a criticism of Western-centrism in philosophy and as an ideological alternative to the Western style of thinking. In this conference, an attempt was made to transfer the principles and methods of intercultural philosophy (philosophy of polylogue) to the history of Russian philosophy. This article also offers a summary of the structure of the conference, the content of its plenary lectures as well as the reports on the intercultural subjects and polylogue methodology, including their applied aspects. The main parts of the plenary sessions, roundtables and seminars that were held within the conference are also analyzed. It is pointed out that the process of formation of intercultural philosophy has not been completed yet; its terminology has not been established; and, eventually, the methods and results have not received wide recognition. However, the period of declarations and of manifestos is coming to an end. The conference contributed to the popularization of intercultural philosophy and the philosophy of polylogue in Russia. Relying on the experience and traditions of non-Western thinking, it offers a solution to the problems facing modern humanity, it indicates a number of possible ways to overcome the crisis situations in culture and society, and it also provides some answers to the "eternal" philosophical questions.

The paper examines the conventionalism that arose within the framework of the second positivism in European philosophy at the turn of the XIX–XX centuries, in connection with Russian science and philosophy. Despite its being popular and developed mainly in Western philosophy, we demonstrate that its ideas were also reflected in Russian culture. Moreover, we argue that it was the achievements of Russian mathematicians that influenced the emergence of this direction in European philosophy. To determine the place of conventionalism in Russian culture, the works of such scientists, philosophers and historians of science as A. Poincaré, N.V. Efimov, G.V. Florovsky, P.S. Yushkevich and others were used. The article also provides an overview of their main works and ideas. The analysis also deals with the influence of ideological and political factors on the development of philosophy in the XX century in Russia and the USSR. It is shown that the achievements of Russian mathematicians had a significant influence on the emergence of conventionalism, and the ideas of conventionalism, in turn, were reflected in the concepts of Russian thinkers concerning the philosophy of science and the philosophy of history. Thus, N.I. Lobachevsky can be called a harbinger of mathematical conventionalism, some ideas of P.S. Yushkevich and A.A. Bogdanov can be referred to natural-scientific conventionalism, and some ideas of G.V. Florovsky can be called historical conventionalism. We conclude that Russian science, firstly, was one of the reasons for the emergence of conventionalism in Europe, and secondly, Russian philosophy adopted and applied some of its ideas, in particular, concerning the impossibility of complete knowledge of the world or the relativity of ways of expressing truth, which remain relevant today.

The article deals with the problem of civil education in Gessen's social phylosophy. Opportunities and the meaning of the civil education concept of S.I. Gessen are reviewed with the purpose of individual's forming and development in the modern philosophy of education. The importance of world view are considered as the main value of civil education.

This paper outlines the theory of knowledge John Maynard Keynes had developed in his writings. It sheds a light on a different understanding of his central notions like intuition, individual judgment, convention and logic, which is compatible with his view of uncertainty. The reconsideration of his philosophy rejects current attempts to anchor his theory of knowledge against infinite regresses of reason. The movement from categories of truth to categories of knowledge underlines the relativity of the Cambridge Philosophy, of idealisms as well as of empiricism, he already had presented in his philosophical papers. Keynes transformed orthodox categories, which enabled him to analyse economic decision- making in the light of ignorance and uncertainty.

This article explores the contradictory relationship Lev Shestov had with Vladimir Solovyov's thinking, basing mostly on the main writing that he dedicated to him, i.e. the article «Speculation and Apocalypse. The Religious Philosophy of Vl. Solovyov» of 1927. However harshly critical Shestov's reading of Solovyov may have been, and considering also the objective difference between two philosophers who can hardly be compared, there is still a margin for a positive dialogue between their respective works. This is done in the larger frame of N. Berdyaev's concept of «Russian idea», where their thoughts can be brought closer together in a way that Shestov himself had actually anticipated at the end of his essay on Solovyov. In this respect, as is suggested by an interpretation of the two authors offered by N. Berdyaev and A. Losev, the ultimate meaning of both Solovyov's and Shestov's ideas would converge in an eschatological view of the truth of this world as well as in a fundamental mistrust of the Western epistemological worldview.

The article examines the views of V.S. Solovyov on the existence of man in the world and on the future of humanity. Its main task is to prove that it is necessary to shift the focus of consideration of V.S. Solovyov's philosophy from the study of Sofia to the study of God-manhood and to the ways of achieving this result. This problem is worked out by means of a comparative analysis on the views on Man-god and God-man by V.S. Solovyov, F.M. Dostoevsky, and L.N. Andreev. It turns out that the doctrine of God-manhood is considered as the cornerstone of V.S. Solovyov's by a number of scholars, such as Janusz Dobieszewski and Jan Krasicki. V.S. Solovyov investigates the material nature of humankind and states that the latter is subjected to the temptations of the flesh and can subordinate its life to the basic needs. In this regard, V.S. Solovyov presumably sees a way for humankind to overcome its material nature and such a way would be the overcoming of the three temptations of a higher order; whereas he certainly identifies the path to God-manhood in overcoming the three temptations, in the way Jesus Christ indicated. The same subject of "overcoming the temptations" is also analyzed through the scenes of temptations of F.M. Dostoevsky's and L.N. Andreev's heroes, each of which contains the plot of Jesus Christ's temptation in the wilderness. The scene of the superhuman's temptation taken from V.S. Solovyov's "A Short Story of Antichrist" is also considered. In conclusion, for V.S. Solovyov it was important to show what the overcoming the temptations in the human soul leads to and the impact of this victory on humanity. In this respect, it can be affirmed that the God-Man and God-manhood are the result of the joint efforts of man and God. The conclusion of the article deals with the relevance of searching for an answer to the question stated by V.S. Solovyov and F.M. Dostoevsky, which concerns what awaits humanity in the future.

Medicine is the oldest (along with philosophy) science. But the philosophy is the basic method of scientific knowledge. The philosophical category of "bioethics", "morality", "ethics" boldly called interdisciplinary, touching and medical science. This article discusses the above concepts of Michel Foucault in their relationship with medicine.

The article explores the problem of purposeful human evolution, acquiring a new dimension in the unfolding fourth industrial revolution. The object of socio-philosophical analysis is a complex of ideas of N.F. Fedorov's teachings about the actively-evolutionary perspectives of man, the humanistic potential of cosmosophy as a whole. The subject is specific methods and principles of the evolution of Homo sapiens, the final image of the «perfect man» proposed by the cosmosophy and defined in the main features of projective-cultural anthropology. The fundamental concepts that express the intention of transforming the «old man» are revealed in the value field of humanistic representations of the philosophy of cosmism. The article explicates by the method of content-analysis the semantic variations of such concepts as full organisms, natural tissue creation, organo-creation, psychocracy. The synthesis of cosmosophy's ideas about a person is carried out in the form of an integral cultural-evolutionary, humanistically given projection of a human being. Attention is focused on the fact that in the planned practice of real improvement of the «son of man», the cosmosophy confirms the beginning of creative-organic cultivation of projectively given anthropology, assigning to the technical equipment of the process an auxiliary and temporary role. For discussion within the topic frame of a new anthropology formation, it is proposed that the classical form of humanism will inevitably undergo a transformation in the technological environment of Industry 4.0. It is pointed out that the radical forms of transhumanism can provoke a new form of technology race, transferred to the humanistic sphere, and create risks of cyber segregation in society. In conclusion, it is argued that on the issue of the transformation of Homo sapiens anthropological identity, the philosophy of cosmism takes a firm and justified supramoralistic and suprahumanistic position. Cosmosophy postulates an organic principle in the cultivation of cultural anthropology and the principle of the natural gradualness of the evolutionary process.