Search results

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 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.

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.

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 question of the most adequate naming of the «philosophy of the common cause» of N.F. Fedorov in modern philosophical concepts is considered. The object of the analysis includes areas common today directly related to the problem of death / immortality, such as immortology and thanatology. A comparative analysis of Fedorov's attitude towards death and those «death discourses» taking place in modern immortology and thanatology is carried out. The moral core of the relationship of N.F. Fedorov to death, which is significantly different from his teachings and the above areas, is revealed. N.F. Fedorov's doctrine with his philosophy of death as a «moral challenge» is characterized as one of the most striking incarnations and manifestations of the ethical-centric essence of Russian philosophy.

We present here sections XV–XVI of A. Volynsky's article "Critical and Dogmatic Elements in Kant's Philosophy", which are devoted to an analysis of such categories of Kant's aesthetics as "the beautiful" and "the sublime." Volynsky emphasizes the special significance of the problem of the unity of Kant's transcendental aesthetics and transcendental logic, as well as the unity of the critical and dogmatic foundations of his philosophy. This article is included in full in Volynsky's A Book of Great Anger, which constructs on the basis of Kant's categories of "the beautiful" and "the sublime" a picture of the development of Russian literature at the turn of the century, as well as a theory of the Russian ballet of the 1920s.

The issue of the existence of a peculiarly "Russian" philosophy has long been the object of many debates, which soon led to very different and often opposite conclusions. The question is always the same: Is there an original contribution that Russian authors made to philosophy, in the same way as with literature, arts, and sciences? What happened to Greek/Western philosophy when cultivated in "Russian soil"? In order to answer these questions, it is necessary to first carry out a brief examination of the never-obvious issue of "what being a philosopher means", i.e. of what generally distinguishes an intellectual who claims to be a "philosopher" from other kinds of intellectuals or scholars. After this short but necessary premise, this article will try to sum up some of the classic and modern definitions of Russian philosophy (from Chaadaev to Evlampiev) and conclude by proposing a personal idea about an overarching frame of Russian philosophical thought. In my opinion, the latter mostly originates from a peculiar reception in Russia of Platonism, Idealism and Marxism that ultimately transformed those views, especially during the Silver Age, into a sort of "integral gnoseology", which connects "logos" and "life" in a specifically dialectical way that can be described, pour cause, as "Russian". This "integral gnoseology" ultimately conjoins science and humanism in an original way and is capable of opening up to discreet phenomena and to multiple levels of knowledge.

For the first time, "The Forest" by A. N. Ostrovsky is analyzed in the terms of cultural philosophy, which determines its relevance. The problem in question is investigated using a number of methods, the most significant being the analytical, historical-cultural method using a general cultural-philosophical approach to understanding the essence and semantic field of the phenomenon of "forest". On the basis of the articles by A.A. Grigoriev, the author outlines the worldview of the playwright, defined as the organic development of community life. The main meaning and semantic field of such a natural and cultural phenomenon as "forest" are considered, and the most significant examples relevant to the given problem, drawn from ancient, Italian and folk cultures, as well as testimonies from the playwright's contemporaries, are brought forward. The choice of examples is explained by A. N. Ostrovsky's knowledge of foreign languages, which allowed him, among other things, to be engaged in translation activities, and also to study authors writing about folk culture. All that was reflected in the language and plots of his plays. The article presents a detailed analysis of "The Forest" and reveals all the semantic shades in the use of the word "forest", their functions in the description of the characters and the development of the plot. The philosophical and socio-cultural meanings of the "forest" as a phenomenon of Russian life are clarified. Special attention is paid to the symbolist tendencies in the play, which fit into the general pursuit of time, not only in the life of the playwright, but also later. The methodological basis of the author's reflections is ontologism, meaning here the reality of the hidden essences of being in their objective expression. On this basis, the cultural-philosophical approach to A. N. Ostrovsky's play "The Forest" allowed to reveal all the meanings of the word "forest", to structure these meanings, to determine their place in the development of the plot and to show their role in the formation of the characters' personalities. In addition, it was the cultural-philosophical approach to the "forest" phenomenon that allowed to see the hidden symbolism of the play, which makes "The Forest" by A. N. Ostrovsky an object of the research on the late XIXth century.

This work is devoted to the analysis of the book by A.V. Malinov "Research and Articles on Russian Philosophy". The main subject-content and thematic-subject lines of the book are revealed: philosophy of Slavophiles; historical, cultural and philosophical contexts of V.S. Solovyov and V.V. Rozanov; professional philosophy in Russia. Points to the variety of genres published in a collection of articles and materials of historical and philosophical articles, teaching materials (lectures and paragraphs from the textbooks), archival materials, methodological reflections. The author considers the interpretations of A.S. Khomyakov, the Slavophil ideas of O.F. Miller, the evolution of ideas about the common Slavic language, the attitude of V.S. Solovyov with N.I. Kareyev and St. Petersburg Slavophiles (including the polemic of V.S. Soloviev with the Slavophiles in the last work of the Russian philosopher – "Three Conversations"), V.V. Rozanov with the Slavophiles and V.I. Lamansky, features of V.V. Rozanov, the philosophical heritage of A.I. Vvedensky and the controversy caused by him, the place of L.P. Karsavin in the tradition of teaching the philosophy of history at St. Petersburg University, the specifics and historical path traversed by university philosophy in Russia, the modernization of the methods of modern historical and philosophical research, etc. The author notes the author's appeal to little-studied representatives of Russian philosophy, original interpretations of biographical and historical-philosophical plots, the use of the expressive possibilities of the Russian language, enriching the interpretive possibilities of the historiography of Russian philosophy. The conclusion is made about the preservation of the "Russian canon" in the research of Russian philosophy, about its heuristic possibilities. The author's intention is explained and the value of research of this kind, serving the purpose of reinterpreting the ideas of Russian philosophy, solving the problem of preserving the values and meanings of Russian culture in the modern historical and cultural context, is indicated.