Suchergebnisse

The article is devoted to the problem of the correlation of language as a form of realization of the essence of a person who transforms the uncertainty of being into the ordering the world. The authors proceed from the axiomatic assumption that language is an integral activity of the human community, in the vocabulary and syntactic-semantic definiteness of which all contradictions that open up to people in their joint diverse experience of mastering the subject (presupposed) existence are removed. At the same time, human activity is the fulfillment of free transforming energy activated by an elementary (primary-fundamental) act of communication, Thanks to it, the determinism of the natural predestination of human presence in the Being is overcome, which manifests itself in the excessive effectiveness of people's activities, opening the spiritual (supernatural) horizon of life. Literature is understood by the authors as a stylization of the national language, through which the content of national identity is determined, and, consequently, the general picture of the world created by a certain people. Literature can have two levels of implementation: artistic and theoretical ones, differing, on the one hand, in the way and degree of generalization, on the other — hand, in the form of expression. The peculiarity of the Russian self-consciousness, firstly, is on the stage of transition from the artistic to the theoretical levels; and, secondly, it is historiosophical, i. e. it not only retains the experience of the past, but also tends to the discretion of semantic perspective of the future associated with the activity of many generations of people of the Russian world. According to the authors, this circumstance is most adequately reflected in the Socialist Realism of Soviet literature.

The article is devoted to the work of the famous scholar, Doctor of Philosophy, Professor S.I. Dudnik, Head of the Department of the History of Philosophy and Director of the Institute of Philosophy of St. Petersburg State University. The most important provisions of his concept of the history of political thought, the formation of Russian statehood, the principles of constitutionalism and the rule of law are considered. In his works, he focused on the need for a synthesis of historical-philosophical, socio-cultural and axiological studies. The views of S.I. Dudnik on the theoretical foundations and humanistic aspects of the political philosophy of classical and Soviet Marxism, the features of the ideology of socialism and conservatism, the prerequisites for the "totalitarian mutation" of the Soviet society. The article also examines the works by S.I. Dudnik devoted to the traditions of philosophical education at St. Petersburg University. These include receptivity to everything relevant and progressive in world philosophy, a close connection with classical domestic and world philosophy, the development of a methodology for politics and political culture. It is shown that the scholar analyzed the St. Petersburg experience of the modernization process through the development of scientific knowledge in Russia during the eighteenth — twentieth centuries and the formation of science as a social institution in the life of Russian society. A special place in Russian science is occupied with the research by S.I. Dudnik of the transformation of education in the digital age, the modern Russian education system. The article emphasizes that Professor S.I. Dudnik is a worthy representative of the St. Petersburg philosophical school, a successor to its best traditions; under his leadership, the Institute of Philosophy of St. Petersburg University has consolidated its position as the flagship of domestic philosophical research, one of the centers of world philosophy.

The article raises the problem of the possibility of updating the foundations of scientific knowledge. The authors proceed from the generally accepted thesis about the "crisis of European sciences". Analyzing some cultural and historical features of the formation of classical science, the authors note its connection with the specifics of Western religiosity, from which science eventually freed itself. Further, referring to the formulation of the problem by E.Husserl, the authors substantiate the position according to which Russian philosophy, criticizing the Western type of rationality, put forward principles of the organization of science that differ from European ones. The originality of the Russian interpretation of science and scholarship is expressed in the synetic unity of the principles of Truth, Goodness and Beauty. The authors pay special attention to the philosophical views of N.F.Fedorov, which, on the one hand, paradoxically combine the scientific and religious ideas of the thinker, and, on the other, most fully reveal the format of the unity of cognitive, moral and aesthetic ideas. The authors consistently reconstruct N.F.'s teaching. Fedorova, showing that the "philosophy of the common cause", in addition to radical criticism of the methodological principles and targets of the bourgeois system of knowledge, contain conceptual innovations that expand cognitive and heuristic possibilities. The generally recognized principles of rational egocentrism, formal criticism and pragmatic utilitarianism can be reformatted into conciliar unity and transformative pragmatism, respectively. The conclusion of the article is devoted to the actual implementation of the Fedorov principles in the process of the formation of scientific knowledge and its practical application in Russia. The authors emphasize that during the Soviet period of Russian history, the principles of science put forward by N.F.Fedorov began to be embodied in real life. Soviet cosmonautics became the brightest personification of science as a common cause.

The article examines the changes that have occurred in the nature of risks and threats in modern society. The authors refer to the works of foreign and domestic researchers who have contributed to the explanation of the transformations that have taken place in the so-called risk society. Thus, attention is paid to understanding the foundations of the sociology of risk in the works of O.N.Yanitsky; the difference between the two types of modernity by U.Beck; differentiation of risk and danger N.Luhmann; new properties of risks in the context of globalization by A.Giddens; the ability of social systems to produce risks, described in the works of O.Renn; the peculiarities of the world of high-risk technologies by Ch. Perrow; methods of adaptation to the risks considered by E.V. Shlykova; the role of politics and the state in relation to risks by P. Slovic and K.Tierney. The authors emphasize the global nature of modern risks. Emphasis is placed on the inequality of society, social communities and individuals in the face of threats associated with various risks. Also, the problem of responsibility and the inevitable politicization of risks are considered. The article discloses the conflicting nature of the relationship between risk producers and risk consumers, including different motivations of these actors. By raising issues of political intervention and governance in a "risk society", the authors address the issue of equity. It is noted that responsibility, positive and negative consequences of risk should be evenly distributed among members of society. The opposite situation could be reason for serious conflicts. An alternative to such a development of events can be an open and broad public discussion, which can help to defend the interests of all participants and resolve the problem of imbalance on a more equitable basis. The authors note different variants of adaptation to risks, and tendencies towards the emergence of protest moods as one of the forms of this adaptation.

The article presents the authors' vision of the formation of the "philosophy of history" as a form of philosophical knowledge. Analyzing the retrospective of its formation in the first part of the article, the interpretation of the "philosophy of history" is given not as one of the sections of philosophy in general, but as one of its modes in the semantic horizon of which a specific answer to the main question of philosophy is achieved: what is the source of all that exists? In the context of this consideration of the problem, philosophy is viewed as the highest form of human activity, integrating all types of human activity as expressions of its spiritual and, in this sense, supernatural content. In fact, this concerns the formation of historical self-consciousness as one of the modes of the manifestation of modern civilization. The authors trace how "historicity" has asserted itself in the structure of human thinking from the time of antiquity to the present. Through the views of Herodotus, Polybius and Titus Livy, Blessed Augustine, Machiavelli, Vico, Hegel, and Marx, the step-by-step logic of this process is revealed. In the second part of the article, the authors consider the content of the actual "historical" form of being that is characteristic of modern, bourgeois civilization. Independent human activity appears here for the first time as an unconditional principle of the world order (or reality as such), and interest in the past as a source is replaced by interest in the future as a target setting. Thus, the classical philosophy of history is transformed into historiosophy. In conclusion, the authors touch upon the specifics of historical self-consciousness in the Russian intellectual and spiritual tradition. They assume that the experience of recent Russian history cannot be adequately understood in terms of bourgeois thinking since its content does not correspond to the value orientations of the latter.