Suchergebnisse

The article manifests three projects of society development: Marx's – materialistic, Gefter's – anthropological and Latour's – geological. The choice of manifestos is explained by the coincidence of their characteristics of the Modern era, where history is presented as the era of Copernican humanity, implementing its plans through revolution. The first project is considered not from the usual dialectical-materialist position, but from the point of view of the performativity of the sign, which has the ability to instantly switch what is said into action (into exchange, war, trade, relations with each other). Relying on the performativity of the sign is a scientific experiment with the aim of understanding the power of the thing in its entirety. Gefter's main concepts in relation to Russia are the "country of countries" entering the "World of Worlds" (a form of dwelling of mankind) as one of the poles. Gefter presents history as a world of multidirectional, i.e. alternative developments. Latour presented the whole world through actor-network theory, including the activities of humans and invisible hybrid beings (viruses) affecting human life. The network is revealed through mapping and reveals the ways in which spatio-temporal coordinates expand, contract or break, revealing shifting trajectories of development.

The article, dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the birth of Mikhail Konstanti­novich Petrov (1923–1987), an outstanding Russian philosopher, cultural theo­rist, science scholar, evaluates his contribution to the philosophy of the second half of the 20th century. The problems of mutual influence, communication and the formation of cultures are investigated, the genesis and ways of identifying different universals of culture – sociocodes are traced: personal-nominal, profes­sional-nominal and universal-conceptual. Language, sign, culture are the central themes and main concepts of all Petrov's works (and the title of one of the fun­damental books). These terms are used to express the specific characteristics of a person who has necessarily become a social being due to biological insuffi­ciency. Translation, transmutation and communication are the main types of com­munication. Culture is considered due to such a means of communication as lan­guage and a sign, understood as a gene of social heredity, a carrier of meaning, a keeper of knowledge and meaning. Petrov's position is compared with the po­sition of Clifford Geertz, for whom human nature is both a cultural and biologi­cal product. Complementing and developing the organic abilities of a person, culture is "an integral part of these abilities themselves". Despite the difference in positions, the logic of the discussion of problems by both authors turned out to be similar stylistically and in terms of the formulation of problems.

The purpose of this paper is to show how the thought and speech of people holding and defending directly opposite positions affect the change in the thought and speech of people of their own and subsequent generations, with different life orientations, and to find ways of this influence. The author describes the situation that arose at the end of the sixties of the twentieth century, known as the ideological dispersal of philosophical, historical and sociological trends that ran counter to the policy of the CPSU, which became especially fierce in the fight against opponents after the USSR's invasion of Czechoslovakia in August, 1968. One of the results of such an ideological battle was the defeat of the sector of the methodology of history of the Institute of General History of the USSR Academy of Sciences, headed by M. Ya. Gefter, who published a series of books in which the so-called laws of historical development (formational approach) were questioned and the fundamental provisions of the classics of Marxism-Leninism were criticized. The subject of analysis is Gefter's article "A Page from the History of Marxism in the Early 20th Century", published in the book "Historical Science and Some Problems of the Modernity", dedicated to the analysis of Lenin's tactics and strategy development which changed the views of many, especially young, historians on the historical process, and most importantly - on the methods of seeking and expressing the truth. The differences were expressed primarily in the fact that the proponents and defenders of the Soviet regime, which was based on their own established norms of Marxism-Leninism, fearlessly used all means of pressure on unwanted opponents. Professionals, however, who tried to understand the true sense of the historical process, the sense of judgments about it, especially the sense of the revolutionary struggle against the autocracy, unfolding at the beginning of the twentieth century, were forced to use the Aesopian language, which also provoked a distortion of this sense in many ways: due to the nebulous and veiled expressions, which give the impression of theoretical blackmail, causing such consequences as speech irresponsibility.