Suchergebnisse

This article examines the phenomenon of levity through the prism of the dialectic of simple and complex. For this purpose explicated relations of stupidity and levity, levity and wisdom, wisdom and stupidity. Simple shown as something with the maximum of complexity.

The article deals with the features of sociological analysis of religion in Russia during the imperial period of its history. The national sociological tradition of study of religion as a socio-cultural phenomenon and a social institution, which was developed during this period, had its own unique and peculiar appearance and was just begun to revive again in post-Soviet Russia, is sharply different from the tradition that took place in the West. In this context, the appeal to the works of classics of Russian religious, socio-political thought, unfortunately undeservedly forgotten, is a very promising area of modern sociological research.When studying this problem, the author emphasizes the study of the works of representatives of three ideological areas of Russian religious and socio-political thought: conservatism, liberalism and socialism, as well as the peculiarities of the historical development of Russian society and the state and those events that had a significant impact on the formation and development of scientific understanding of religion in Russia. Among such features, the author, in particular, refers to the formation of an "antisystem" (systemic integrity of people who are negative about their homeland, hate their own nation, its values and culture, history, traditional religious, political and social systems) among the Russian intelligentsia, bureaucracy and part of the elite of Russian society, under a certain influence of Westernism, as a consequence of the spiritual schism of the 18th century, which occurred in the educated strata and elite of Russian society.The author of the article analyzing the views of A.I. Herzen, P.L. Lavrov, M.A. Bakunin, P.A. Kropotkin, G.V. Plekhanov, V.I. Lenin, emphasizes the understanding of religious issues by representatives, primarily the socialist camp, who dreamed of carrying out a socialist revolution in Russia and who were extremely negative about religion, religious institutions and the traditional life of society. He notes the fact that the authors mentioned above were more concerned with introducing various ideological stamps into science, as well as using political technologies to discredit in a destructive way for society and the State, this traditionally important sphere of life for any society and an influential social institution. Against this background, a peculiar exception to the rules was the balanced, scientifically based approach to sociological analysis of religion in society developed by P.A. Sorokin, with an emphasis on the study of the integrating role of religion in social stratification. ; Настоящая статья посвящена исследованию особенностей социологического анализа религии в России в имперский период ее истории. Отечественная социологическая традиция изучения религии как социокультурного феномена и социального института, сложившаяся в этот период, имеет свой неповторимый и своеобразный облик. Она к настоящему моменту только начинает возрождаться в постсоветской России, и резко отличается от той традиции, которая имела место на Западе. В этом контексте обращение к трудам классиков русской религиозной, социально-политической мысли, к сожалению, незаслуженно забытых, является очень перспективным направлением современных социологических исследований в данной области.При изучении данной проблемы автор делает акцент на исследовании работ представителей трех идеологических направлений русской религиозной и социально-политической мысли: консерватизма, либерализма и социализма, а также особенностях исторического развития российского общества и государства и тех событиях, которые оказали знаковое влияние на становление и развитие научного осмысления религии в России. К таким особенностям, автор, в частности, относит формирование "антисистемы" (системной целостности людей, негативно относящихся к своей Родине, ненавидящих свою собственную нацию, ее ценности и культуру, историю, традиционные религиозные, политические и социальные системы) в среде русской интеллигенции, бюрократии и части элиты русского общества, под определенным влиянием западничества, как последствие духовного раскола XVIII в., произошедшего в образованных слоях и элите русского общества.Автор статьи делает акцент на осмыслении религиозной проблематики представителями, прежде всего, социалистического лагеря, мечтавшими осуществить социалистическую революцию в России и крайне негативно относившимися к религии, религиозным институтам и традиционным устоям жизнедеятельности общества, анализируя воззрения А.И. Герцена, П.Л. Лаврова, М.А. Бакунина, П.А. Кропоткина, Г.В. Плеханова, В.И. Ленина. Он отмечает тот факт, что упомянутые авторы в большей степени занимались привнесением в науку различных идеологических штампов, а также использованием политтехнологий для дискредитации в деструктивном для общества и государства ключе, этой традиционно значимой для любого общества сферы жизнедеятельности и влиятельного социального института. На этом фоне, своеобразным исключением из правил являлся разработанный П.А. Сорокиным взвешенный, научно обоснованный подход к социологическому анализу религии в обществе, с акцентом на изучение интегрирующей роли религии в социальной стратификации общества.

The article analyzes the process of adaptation of labor migrants from Central Asia in the Republic of Tatarstan. Today, migrants occupy a significant place in modern Russian society. In terms of the number of incoming migrants, Russia occupies one of the leading places in the world. In our study, we studied the process of adaptation of the largest ethnic groups from Central Asia (Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Turkmens, Tajiks, Kirghiz). We were interested in how the process of adaptation of labor migrants from Central Asia takes place, what adaptation strategy they choose in certain circumstances, what problems they face, how they solve them and whose help they turn to in solving them. In addition, it was important to study the readiness of the local population to accept labor migrants arriving in our country. During the study, two main methods were used: expert interviews and population surveys. During the expert interview, experts from various fields were interviewed: researchers, public figures, civil servants of the Republic of Tatarstan. According to the results, it was revealed that the adaptation process is very ambiguous and complex: every year, mainly at the expense of young people, the share of labor migrants increases, whose level of Russian language proficiency is very low, this fact negatively affects adaptation. In addition, the choice of adaptation strategy largely depends on the goals of the incoming migrant. An important role in the success (or, conversely, failure) of adaptation is played by the local host population. A survey was conducted among residents of Tatarstan, in which 400 respondents were interviewed using a questionnaire created in a Google Form. The results showed that the majority of respondents are ready to accept labor migrants and do not see any serious reasons for preventing the latter from entering the territory of Tatarstan. However, some respondents have a negative attitude towards them and are in favor of limiting their stay in the Republic of Tatarstan.

The article deals with the features of sociological analysis of religion in Russia during the imperial period of its history. The national sociological tradition of study of religion as a socio-cultural phenomenon and a social institution, which was developed during this period, had its own unique and peculiar appearance and was just begun to revive again in post-Soviet Russia, is sharply different from the tradition that took place in the West. In this context, the appeal to the works of classics of Russian religious, socio-political thought, unfortunately undeservedly forgotten, is a very promising area of modern sociological research. When studying this issue, the author emphasizes the peculiarities of the historical development of Russian society and the state and the events that had a significant impact on the formation and development of scientific understanding of religion in Russia: reforms of Peter I, the elimination of patriarchy, the independence of the Russian Orthodox Church, its transformation into part of the bureaucratic state system created by Peter I, the beginning of a large-scale process of secularization of Russian society, the emergence of Westernism (the direction of the Russian social thought and political ideology focused on values of the Western European culture, which is negative to the idea of originality, an originality, uniqueness of ways of development of the Russian culture, combined with the aspiration of representatives of this trend to impose to the Russian nation of a form of the western culture, social practice and political system, rejecting the system of values and traditional foundations of activity of the Russian society), the imperial nature of the Russian statehood and official imperial ideology. The author analyzes the content of the Uvarov's triad formula, which underlies the official imperial ideology, as well as the discussions that took place between representatives of Slavophilism and Westernism about understanding the historical path and fate of Russia, the historical role of Orthodoxy, the Russian Orthodox Church in the fate of the Russian people, Russian society and the state, as well as the whole world. In his opinion, this problem has remained relevant to the present, including in the framework of a sociological analysis of religion in post-Soviet Russia. ; Настоящая статья посвящена исследованию особенностей социологического анализа религии в России в имперский период ее истории. Отечественная социологическая традиция изучения религии как социокультурного феномена и социального института, сложившаяся в этот период, имеет свой неповторимый и своеобразный облик. Она к настоящему моменту только начинает возрождаться в постсоветской России, и резко отличается от той традиции, которая имела место на Западе. В этом контексте обращение к трудам классиков русской религиозной, социально-политической мысли, к сожалению, незаслуженно забытых, является очень перспективным направлением современных социологических исследований в данной области. При изучении данной проблемы автор делает акцент на особенностях исторического развития российского общества и государства и тех событиях, которые оказали знаковое влияние на становление и развитие научного осмысления религии в России: реформы Петра I, ликвидацию патриаршества, самостоятельности Русской Православной Церкви, превращение ее в часть созданной Петром I бюрократической государственной системы, начало масштабного процесса секуляризации российского общества, возникновении западничества (направления русской общественной мысли и политической идеологии, ориентированного на ценности западноевропейской культуры, отрицательно относящегося к идее самобытности, своеобразия, уникальности путей развития русской культуры, сочетающееся со стремлением представителей этой тенденции навязать русской нации формы западной культуры, социальной практики и политического устройства, отвергая систему ценностей и традиционных устоев жизнедеятельности русского общества), имперский характер российской государственности и официальную имперскую идеологию. Автор статьи анализирует содержание формулы-триады С.С. Уварова, лежащей в основе официальной имперской идеологии, а также дискуссии, которые происходили между представителями славянофильства и западничества по поводу осмысления исторического пути и судьбы России, исторической роли православия, Русской Православной Церкви в судьбе русского народа, российского общества и государства, а также всего мира. Данная проблематика сохранила свою актуальность до настоящего времени, в том числе в рамках социологического анализа религии в постсоветской России.

The article examines postmodern as the crisis in the being of human and society in terms of the unity of theory and practice. There is compares postmodern society with the communist and information. There is analysis some variants of development, especially European society in terms of a new source of passionate impulse: new ethno genesis in connection with the increase in the number of migrants, passionate impetus from the US, China, Russia, emergence of a new syncretic religion. The conclusion is that the difference between the post-modern and the freedom not to have an ontological character are only apparent. Postmodern tolerance is a consequence of the absence of ontological foundation of postmodern existence.

The article deals with the issues of faith, religion and atheism in opinion journalism by Russian émigré authors of the second half of the 20th century. During the years of the 'Thaw' the problems of 'scientific atheism' and religion gained popularity as discussion points among writers, journalists and men of culture. The social and political situation in the society led to a series of high-profile court cases and the subsequent forced exile of a number of talented authors and journalists. This exodus began the "third wave" of Russian emigration. Our article looks at how the issues of faith, religion and atheism were treated by such diverse authors as A. Solzhenitsyn, V. Maksimov, A. Siniavskii, A. Zinov'ev, V. Aksionov, F. Gorenstein, M. Epstein, and A. Genis.Soviet émigré authors held widely different views on religion and faith, largely due to their commitment to conflicting literary schools and methods. Self-proclaimed proponents of 'spiritual realism' Solzhenitsyn and Maksimov called for a revival of Russian Orthodox faith, while Siniavskii the postmodernist was more attracted by the Russian Schism, sects and the aesthetics of folk belief, and Zinov'ev oxymoronically self-identified as a 'pious infidel'. All of them, however, agreed that both Soviet and Western societies faced a crisis of spirituality at the end of the 20th century. An important role in social and cultural life of emigrant communities belonged to Orthodox press. Issues of faith and morality were widely debated in the years of the perestroika, with lifting the ban on discussing the mistakes and flaws of how the Soviet power treated religion, faith and religious institutions.We conclude that Russian émigré authors, while focusing on religion, faith and atheism in their opinion journalism, tend to begin with analyzing their own religious experience and views on faith. ; Статья посвящена темам веры, религии и атеизма в публицистических работах авторов русского зарубежья второй половины XX в. В СССР в период «оттепели» вопросы религии и научного атеизма стали активно обсуждаться в среде деятелей культуры, писателей, публицистов. Социально-политическая обстановка в стране обусловила череду громких политических дел и последующую высылку, вынужденный выезд из государства ряда талантливых писателей и журналистов, которых стали называть представителями «третьей волны» русской эмиграции. Статья посвящена анализу вопросов веры, религии, атеизма и содержит исследование творчества А. И. Солженицына, В. Е. Максимова, А. Д. Синявского, А. А. Зиновьева, В. П. Аксенова, Ф. Н. Горенштейна, М. Н. Эпштейна, А. А. Гениса.Творческая эмигрантская интеллигенция из Советского Союза по-разному относилась к вере и религии. В значительной мере это объяснялось приверженностью авторов русского зарубежья к разным литературным направлениям и методам. Так, сторонники духовного реализма А. И. Солженицын и В. Е. Максимов ратовали за возрождение православия, постмодернист А. Д. Синявский интересовался расколом христианства и сектантством, эстетикой народной веры, А. А. Зиновьев называл себя «верующим безбожником». Однако и те и другие отмечали духовно-нравственный кризис как советского, так и западного общества на исходе XX в. Важную роль в социальной и культурно-просветительской жизни эмигрантов сыграли православные издания. Особое значение вопросы духовной нравственности получили в эпоху «перестройки», когда свобода слова и печати позволила открыто обсуждать ошибки и упущения советской власти в отношении веры, религии и религиозных институтов.Сделан вывод о том, что авторы русского зарубежья активно обсуждали в своих публицистических произведениях проблемы религии и веры, а также атеистического мировоззрения. В рассмотрении этих вопросов они исходили из самоанализа собственных религиозных взглядов, чувств, переживаний.

This article discusses the "fundamental onto-epistemological deception " in terms of changes in the state of society in all historical times and reveals his "place" a finding in terms of ontology. It is concluded that "fundamental onto-epistemological deception" "localized" in the Heideggerian "open" between being and what is. The article gives a classification of phenomena, which are summarized under the name of "fundamental onto-epistemological deception" and the criterion of this generalization. Attention is drawn to the socio-philosophical, existential meaning of the concept "simulacrum." Fundamental onto-epistemological deception is revealed as a different sort of human waste from reality, from mirages, deterministic physical laws to simulacra whose absorption as a "spiritual food" takes away the meaning of life and deprives a person of his own "I". During the presentation it shows that the fundamental onto-epistemological deception - is not a phenomenon of the mystical order, as a consequence of free will, which manifests itself, including in the "optics" of perception and its setting. Attention is paid to knowledge as a natural human need and the search for his "I".

The article is devoted to historiography problems of state-religion societies relations in Russia (1940 - 1960) in emigrant and soviet scolarly works. The following questions are considered: scolarly works of emigrants (YMCA-Press), policy of Soviet government in the sphere of state-religion relations in soviet historiography. ; Статья посвящена историографии проблемы взаимоотношения государства и религиозных организаций в России (1940-е - 1960-е гг.) в трудах эмигрантских и советских исследователей. Рассмотрены следующие вопросы: труды эмигрантских историков (ИМКА-Пресс), политика советского государства в сфере государственно-конфессиональных отношений в советской историографии.

Too often today we hear that the Russian social philosophy is not demanded by society, the state ignores the opinion of the humanities. Is this true? Opinion Regional Development Fund and the security of the Omsk region covers FRRB Deputy Director Mikhail Leonidovich Kaluzhsky.

The article deals with the features of sociological analysis of religion in Russia during the imperial period of its history. The national sociological tradition of studying religion as a socio-cultural phenomenon and a social institution, which was developed during this period, had its own unique and peculiar appearance and was just begun to revive again in post-Soviet Russia, contrasts with the tradition that took place in the West. In this context, the appeal to unfortunately undeservedly forgotten works of classics of Russian religious and socio-political though is very promising area of modern sociological research.When studying this problem, the author emphasizes the study of the works of representatives of three ideological areas of Russian religious and socio-political thought: conservatism, liberalism and socialism, as well as the peculiarities of the historical development of Russian society and the state and those events that had a significant impact on the formation and development of scientific understanding of religion in Russia. Among such features, the author, in particular, refers to the formation of an "antisystem" (systemic integrity of people who take a dim view of their homeland, hate their own nation, its values and culture, history, traditional religious, political and social systems) among the Russian intelligentsia, bureaucracy and part of the elite of Russian society, under a certain influence of Westernism, as a consequence of the spiritual schism of the 18th century, which occurred in the educated strata and elite of Russian society.When studying the features of understanding religious issues by representatives of Russian conservatism, the author of the article analyzes the views of N.Ya. Danilevsky, K.N. Leontiev, F.M. Dostoevsky, M.N. Katkov, K.P. Pobedonostsev, L.A. Tikhomirov. He notes the fact that judgment of this perspective was carried out by these authors from "Slavophile", traditionalist (pochvennichesky and guarding) positions, in the context of judgment of features and an ...

The article deals with the features of sociological analysis of religion in Russia during the imperial period of its history. The national sociological tradition of studying religion as a socio-cultural phenomenon and a social institution, which was developed during this period, had its own unique and peculiar appearance and was just begun to revive again in post-Soviet Russia, contrasts with the tradition that took place in the West. In this context, the appeal to unfortunately undeservedly forgotten works of classics of Russian religious and socio-political though is very promising area of modern sociological research.When studying this problem, the author emphasizes the study of the works of representatives of three ideological areas of Russian religious and socio-political thought: conservatism, liberalism and socialism, as well as the peculiarities of the historical development of Russian society and the state and those events that had a significant impact on the formation and development of scientific understanding of religion in Russia. Among such features, the author, in particular, refers to the formation of an "antisystem" (systemic integrity of people who take a dim view of their homeland, hate their own nation, its values and culture, history, traditional religious, political and social systems) among the Russian intelligentsia, bureaucracy and part of the elite of Russian society, under a certain influence of Westernism, as a consequence of the spiritual schism of the 18th century, which occurred in the educated strata and elite of Russian society.When studying the features of understanding religious issues by representatives of Russian liberalism, the author of the article analyzes the views of representatives of both radical and moderate (classical) liberalism: M.M. Kovalevsky, N.I. Kareev, P.N. Milyukov, V.S. Solovyov, B.N. Chicherin, P.B. Struve. He notes that the understanding of this issue was carried out by these authors from a "Westernist" position. Liberal thinkers generally negatively ...

The article aims to discuss the role of social sciences and, in particular, history in the memory discourse and the politics of the country. The article is comprised of 6 chapters: First World War, Second World War and the Holocaust, Civil Wars, Decolonization and class, race and gender in deindustrialization, each of them discussing a specific memory agenda and the role of historians in formulating it. By using the case study method and methods of historical analysis, authors draw conclusions on how countries with different culture and roles in international events cope with existing historical perspective and alter them for their policy goals. The authors also mention the change in the memory science itself, stating that, with the transition from the 20th century to 21, the memory politics changed focus from studying national history to studying relations between them or even transnational memory phenomena. All in all, the authors conclude, that the role of historians increased during the last century as they became one of the most influential actors among many who influence the social discourse and collective memory.For citation: Berger, S. (2020). Ideas in History, Philosophy and Religion: the Historical Sciences and Memory Activism in the Twentieth-Century. Tempus et Memoria, 1, 1–2, 8–24.Submitted: 30.10.2020Accepted: 02.12.2020 ; DOI 10.15826/tetm.2020.1-2.001Цель статьи — обсудить роль общественных наук, в частности истории, в дискурсе памяти и государственной политике. Статья состоит из 6 глав: Первая мировая война, Вторая мировая война и Холокост, гражданские войны, деколонизация и класс, раса и гендер в условиях деиндустриализации, каждая из которых обсуждает конкретную мемориальную повестку и роль историков в ее формулировании. Используя метод кейс-стади, автор делает вывод о том, как страны с различной культурой и позицией в международных отношениях справляются с существующей исторической перспективой и изменяют их для своих политических целей. Автор также упоминает об изменении самой науки о памяти, заявляя, что с переходом от XX века к веку XXI политика памяти изменила фокус с изучения национальной истории на изучение отношений между государствами или даже на анализ транснациональных мемориальных явлений. В целом, заключает автор, роль историков в прошлом веке возросла, поскольку они стали одним из самых влиятельных социальных акторов, влияющих на коллективный дискурс памяти.Для цитирования: Бергер Ш. Идеи в истории, философии и религии: исторические науки и активизация памяти в XX веке // Tempus et Memoria. 2020. Т. 1. № 1–2. С. 8–24.Поступила в редакцию: 30.10.2020Принята к печати: 02.12.2020

The article analyzes phenomenon of physicality in the context of the concept of «flesh» and in frame the dichotomy of matter and ideas. There is considers materialistic, postmodern and Christian aspects. The materialistic aspect equalizes «body» and «flesh» concepts. The postmodern aspect transforms the «body» in the «soma». And the Christian aspect of the materiality of the body and postulates the possibility of spiritualization of flesh.