Suchergebnisse

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 sixth volume of the 'Communications' of the German-Russian Historical Commission includes papers presented at the 2012 Hamburg colloquium. Presented bilingually--as always--the fifteen essays by prominent German and Russian historians and cultural scholars examine a broad range of cultural interactions between Germany and Russia"--Provided by publisher

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.