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.

One people reach the goals, find sense of the life, and others - don't reach, don't find. Attract attention that fact that together with logical, reasonable preconditions of results of achievement of the objectives there are irrational - good luck or fate.The purpose of this work consists in definition of contours of complete system of the theory of the risk consisting from objective (rational) and subjective (irrational) components, and also their harmonious combination at the decision-making, connected with risk.Object of research is the risk philosophy as system of knowledge and set of the relations based on philosophical approach to risk. philosophical approach to a risk problem also consists in concentrating attention on knowledge of and our opportunities, to increase probability of achievement of the objectives.In article to be considered questions which concern historical aspect of a problem of philosophy of risk: science development in the field of risk, cultures of risk, perception of risk the person.The researches devoted to single questions of philosophy of risk are present at works of domestic and foreign scientists, philosophers: V. Diyev, A.Algina, F.Knight, D. Kaneman, A.Tverski, D. Neumann and many others. However complete illumination of theoretical and applied questions of philosophy of risk it wasn't carried out. World financial and economic crisis showed that global and local control systems of risks and economic development on macro - and microlevels were not ready to modern calls.Historians say that the risk existed always, decision-making and risk exist from the moment of emergence of mankind. According to definition, the risk - the size of a possible deviation from the planned level of the purpose, in the phenomenon "risk" can be allocated the following elements which interrelation makes its essence: possibility of a deviation from the estimated purpose for the sake of which it was carried out the chosen alternative; probability of achievement of desirable result; absence of confidence of achievement of a goal; possibility of the material, moral and other losses connected with implementation in chosen conditions of uncertainty of alternative. stimulating and protective functions are inherent in risk. Stimulating function has constructive and destructive aspects. protective function too has two aspects: historical and genetic and social and legal.The professionals who are engaged in the prevention and elimination of emergency situations, sharply feel need to rely on the potential of modern science. Therefore works on creation and development of strategy of risk management with attraction of new approaches in recent years are actively conducted. In the different countries of the world there is a number of the specialized institutes which activity is risk research, the risk analysis, studying of problems of risk. Some of them place emphasis on rational, mathematical approach. Others, together with the rational suggest to consider at an assessment of risk and its subjective party, that is depending on a type of risk to form methodology of its assessment.At the present stage speech has to go about creation of a new paradigm in the field of management of risk.So, the philosophy of risk can be defined as system of knowledge and set of the relations based on philosophical approach to risk who allows to make the most optimum decisions.The mission of philosophy of risk consists in generalization saved up by mankind of knowledge, skills in management of personal, social risks, on the one hand, and with another - search of new models of risk management, their approbation and distribution for all comers.The special attention is paid to new approaches, ideas, methods which can be useful in the sphere of management of risk. Contours of the research program connected with creation of the mathematical theory of safety and risk are planned.On the basis of the experience of previous development saved up in the world the new science - the mathematical theory of safety and risk can be constructed. This theory has to be between level at which political and strategic decisions, and level of development of concrete technical means and systems are made. In this area the view of the prevention, the forecast and mitigation of the consequences of emergency situations forces to change a number of the reached results. ; Раскрывается сущность теории философии риска как системы знаний и совокупности отношений, основывающихся на философском подходе к риску, рассматриваются вопросы, которые касаються исторического аспекта проблемы философии риска, выявляються контуры целостной системы теории риска, состоящей из объективной (рациональной) и субъективной (иррациональной) составляющих, а также их гармоничного сочетания при принятии решения, связанного с риском. ; Розкривається сутність теорії філософії ризику як системи знань та сукупності відносин, які базуються на філософському підході до ризику, розглядаються питання історичного аспекту проблеми філософії ризику, визначаються контури цілісної системи теорії ризику, яка складається з об'єктивної (раціональної) та суб'єктивної (ірраціональної) складових, а також їхнього гармонічного поєднання при прийнятті рішення, пов'язаного з ризиком.

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.