Transcript

1 Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B. N. Yeltsin Institute of Social and Political Sciences Department of Philosophy PHILOSOPHY IN THE XXI CENTURY: CHALLENGES, VALUES, PROSPECTS Collection of scientific articles Ekaterinburg Publishing and printing enterprise "Max-Info" 2016

2 UDC 122/129 BBK Yu 0/8 F 561 Scientific editor: A. V. Loginov, Candidate of Philosophy, Associate Professor of the Department of Social Philosophy. Executive editor: O. N. Tomyuk, senior lecturer at the Department of Ontology and Theory of Knowledge. Reviewer: - Department of Philosophy of the Ural State Economic University (head of the department - Kropotov S. L., Doctor of Philosophy, Professor). - Smirnov A. E., Doctor of Philosophy, Professor of the Department of Philosophy and Methodology of Science, Irkutsk State University. F 561 Philosophy in the 21st century: challenges, values, prospects: Sat. scientific Art. / scientific ed. A. V. Loginov, resp. ed. O. N. Tomyuk. Ekaterinburg: Publishing and printing enterprise "Max-Info", p. ISBN Collection of scientific articles “Philosophy in the 21st century: challenges, values, prospects” is devoted to the analysis of key topics, problems and directions for modern philosophy. In addition to working in the content space of the history of philosophy, philosophical anthropology, ontology and theory of knowledge, logic and ethics, social philosophy, philosophy of religion and cultural theory, representatives of the professional community, primarily the Ural School of Philosophy, give their assessment of the state and prospects for the development of philosophical knowledge in modern Russia . The collection is addressed to teachers, researchers, graduate students and students of philosophical faculties, as well as everyone interested in philosophy and the philosophical aspects of social and humanitarian knowledge. BBK Yu 0/8 ISBN Department of Philosophy ISPN UrFU, 2016

3 PREFACE November 2015 marked the fiftieth anniversary of philosophical education in the Urals: in 1965 at the Ural State University named after. A. M. Gorky made the first intake of students for the specialty “Philosophy”, and in 1970 the first graduation took place. Thus, the history of the Faculty of Philosophy of the Ural University (now the Department of Philosophy of the ISPN UrFU) goes back half a century. The Department of Philosophy of UrFU is one of the most authoritative Russian philosophical schools with outstanding results in scientific and educational activities. The Department of Philosophy is widely known for its scientific schools that have developed around such scientists as M. N. Rutkevich, I. Ya. Loifman, K. N. Lyubutin, D. V. Pivovarov, V. I. Plotnikov, B. V. Emelyanov, V. E. Kemerov. Currently, the Department of Philosophy trains bachelors and masters in the areas of “Philosophy”, “Religious Studies”, “Intellectual Systems in the Humanities”, graduate students in the direction of “Philosophy, Ethics and Religious Studies”, and also implements the master’s program “Political Philosophy” in its entirety in English, where undergraduates from Italy, Indonesia, Pakistan, Algeria and other countries study. A high level of training allows students and staff to maintain and develop a unique atmosphere of elite intellectual culture. We were congratulated on our anniversary by colleagues and graduates from almost the entire educational space of Russia; kind words were said to the Department of Philosophy by high-ranking leaders of the Sverdlovsk region. On behalf of the team, I express my gratitude for the warm wishes and recognition of merit. Most of the congratulatory addresses, as well as unique photographic materials, are posted on the department’s website: urfu.ru/50-let/ The collection “Philosophy in the 21st Century: Challenges, Values, Prospects” includes materials from the anniversary conference (Russia, Yekaterinburg, UrFU, November 2015) . As part of the conference, round tables, open lectures and discussion platforms were organized, in which teachers, graduates, undergraduate and graduate students, and guests of the Department of Philosophy took part. The management of the Department of Philosophy thanks the heads of departments A. V. Pertsev, T. Kh. Kerimov, L. A. Zaks, A. G. Kislov, E. S. Cherepanova for participating in the discussion platforms, associate professors L. M. Nemchenko, I. V. Krasavin, A. S. Menshikov, O. M. Farkhitdinov, D. V. Kotelevsky for moderating the round tables. 3

4 Special thanks to my colleagues for reviewing the materials in the collection. I express my gratitude to O. N. Tomyuk (Deputy Director of the Department of Philosophy for Development) for his great contribution to organizing the conference “Philosophy in the 21st Century: Challenges, Values, Prospects,” as well as preparing the collection for publication. The Directorate of the Department thanks Yu. N. Koldogulova (General Director of the Publishing and Printing Enterprise "Max-Info") for her sponsorship in the publication of the collection of scientific articles of the anniversary conference "Philosophy in the 21st Century: Challenges, Values, Prospects." Director of the Department of Philosophy, ISPN UrFU A. V. Loginov

5 Section 1. Plenary reports and open lectures Metaphysics without metaphysics T. Kh. Kerimov The meaning of the concepts “metaphysics” and “metaphysical” is functionally and contextually determined: it depends on the series of comparisons and oppositions in which this concept arises. And at the same time, one could say that metaphysics is a constant and unchanging theme in the history of philosophy. Changing its specific forms, this topic does not always become a problem in the proper sense, at least until philosophy itself becomes a problem. Therefore, I would like to immediately clarify the context of my speech. “Metaphysics without metaphysics” means metaphysics without ontotheology. Thus, every time we talk about overcoming metaphysics, we mean, first of all, overcoming the ontotheological project of metaphysics. This project constitutes both the history and the structure of metaphysics, so I will begin by clarifying this project. In the unity of history and structure, metaphysics goes far beyond the disciplinary boundary and reveals its full significance as a form of social reproduction, embedding itself in and predetermining the political, socio-economic, technological, cultural and psychological orders of society. Philosophy is born with a trauma of identity. It is born both as physics and as metaphysics. That is, philosophy is established as the science of being in its formation and as the science of being as such, of being as being, that is, as a science of nature and as a science of cause, foundation, and principles. At the same time, this duality of physics-metaphysics is accompanied by another duality. On the one hand, philosophy is ontology, the science of being in its presence, both earthly and divine presence. On the other hand, philosophy is ontotheology, the science of beings in relation to their essence. Philosophy explores the essence of existence, the stable, unchanging core, thanks to which the essence remains self-identical despite all its changes. Therefore, ontology leads to the science of the divine, or to theology. But since it designates beings as a whole in their being and raises the question of the essence of beings as such, theology is ontology. In modern times, the question of existence, which, as Aristotle believed, is a question of essence, is transformed into a question of reflection. Reflection as a transcendental condition of knowledge 5

6 in general, becomes at the same time a means, a method, and a basis through which metaphysics is self-justified. Thanks to reflection, it retains the status of “first philosophy”, since it provides and guarantees the ontological foundations of knowledge of nature. And the “place” of this guarantee, the substance with which this basis is identified, is human subjectivity. Restored to its rights, “first philosophy” acquires all its meaning in Hegel as the pinnacle and completion of the metaphysics of subjectivity: reason is not so much the human mind as being itself or the substance of the material world. Reason as Spirit is both objective and subjective: “The whole point is to understand and express the true, not as a substance only, but equally as a subject.” 1 Thus, the completion of Aristotelian metaphysics as a metaphysics of substance also means the completion of modern metaphysics as metaphysics of subjectivity. As J. Hippolyte says, “speculative consciousness is self-consciousness, but it represents the universal self-consciousness of being, and being is not the Absolute, which is beyond any reflection, it itself is reflection on itself, it is thinking of itself” 2. Thanks Through this reflection on oneself and thinking oneself, the substance becomes a subject. But it is also an absolute subject, since substance is not limited to any particular subject: it is reality itself that is structured as reflection, or subjectivity. Logic becomes the science of being as a whole, where “the whole” means totality, and totality is a reflection of being over itself as a self-moving and self-describing substance. From now on, philosophy is metaphysics as the science of the a priori structures of the reality of existence. It is always turned to the foundation (reason, absolute) and searches for it, regardless of how this foundation is understood: being, language, sociality or man. Philosophy understood in this way comes to its end. The end of metaphysics is the end of the ontotheological project. And it is precisely in relation to this project that the question of metaphysics without metaphysics arises. But in order to understand the prospects of metaphysics, it is not enough to limit ourselves to its history, since the latter is inscribed in the structure of metaphysics and forms its architectonics. In “The Onto-Theological Structure of Metaphysics,” Heidegger explains how the concept of God comes into philosophy. This question is of fundamental importance, since the coming of God 1 Hegel G. V. F. Phenomenology of spirit. St. Petersburg: Nauka, S. Ippolit J. Logic and existence. SPb.: Vladimir Dal, S

7 decisively transforms and reveals the architectonics of metaphysics. God comes into metaphysics as causasui, “from the mode that we first think of as the threshold of the essence of the difference between being and being. Difference is the master plan for the construction of metaphysics. Lad generates and bestows existence as a producing basis, which itself, based on what is justified by it, needs a justification commensurate with it, that is, in causing by the original thing-thing. It is the reason causasui. This is how the name of God, consistent with the work of philosophy, sounds.” 3. The difference is a “historical-alethological structure” (i.e., “the clearing of what closes and closes”), which underlies the ontotheological structure of all metaphysics. Difference bestows and opens up that historical horizon, the “shape of the era” in which all metaphysics becomes possible. For Aristotle, this “shape of the era” is the difference between ousia and hypokeimenon, for Thomas Aquinas between essesubsistens and esseparticipatum, for Hegel between substance and subject. But from Heidegger’s point of view, this articulation, this “shape of the era,” existing in the difference between ousia and hypokeimenon, essesubsistens and esseparticipatum, substance and subject, is determined from the difference, from the way in which it liberates the essential unity of metaphysics. This unity, called “onto-theology,” expresses the as yet unthought essential unity of metaphysics, which can be expressed by the formula: metaphysics is the truth of beings as such as a whole. What does this essential unity of metaphysics mean? This unity of metaphysics is perpetuated by its “leading question”: “Western European thought is guided by the question “What is existence?” In this form, she asks about being” 4. However, the answer to the question “what is a being?” must be understood precisely as “the being of a being”: “The word “is,” in one way or another speaking about a being, names the being of a being” 5. To answer the question “what is a being?”, metaphysics asks about what (the essence or whatness of a being) and how (the way in which) a being is, and, therefore, asks about the being of a being. Throughout the history of philosophy, these metaphysical theses about the being of beings take the same form: “Metaphysics speaks of beings as such in its whole, that is, of the being of beings.” 6. The main metaphysical theses are designed to consolidate the truth 3 Heidegger M. Onto-theological structure metaphysics // Identity and difference. M.: Gnosis; Logos, S. Heidegger M. Kant’s thesis on being // Time and Being. Articles and speeches. M.: Republic, S. Heidegger M. Statement of the Foundation. Articles and fragments. SPb.: Laboratory of Metaphysical Research, Faculty of Philosophy, St. Petersburg State University; Aletheia, With Heidegger M. Nietzsche. St. Petersburg: Vladimir Dal, T. II. WITH

8 about beings as such as a whole. A formal analysis of this truth shows that the metaphysical understanding of the existence of beings is, in fact, two-fold. That is, in fact, to the question about the existence of beings, metaphysics gives two different, although interconnected, answers. The basic metaphysical position regarding “being as such as a whole” consists of two parts: the understanding of being “as such” and the understanding of being “as a whole”, or “in general”. “Meanwhile, recalling once again the history of Western European thought, we will see: the question of being as a question of the being of beings is two-sided. On the one hand, it asks: what is being in general as being? Considerations around this question fall in the course of the history of philosophy under the rubric of ontology. At the same time, in the question “What is existence?” the question is: what is being in the sense of the highest being and what is it like? This is a question about the divine and about God. The scope of this question is called theology. The two-sidedness of the question of being can be summed up by giving it the name of onto-theology. The twofold question: “What is being?” firstly says: what is (in general) being? Secondly, it says: what is (what is) (immediately) existing?” 7. Heidegger here outlines in very general terms the formal onto-theological structure of metaphysics in general and the metaphysical question in particular. This question, “What is being?”, turns on itself in such a way that it gives rise to two different answers. The situation is made worse by the fact that one of the responses turns back on itself, so that we have a fold fold. Let's focus on these folds. A formal analysis of this position about beings as such shows that the metaphysical understanding of the existence of beings is, in fact, two-fold. That is, the basic metaphysical position regarding “being as such as a whole” consists of two parts: the understanding of being “as such” and the understanding of being “as a whole”, or “in general”. Heidegger calls the two parts of this metaphysical question “ontology” and “theology,” respectively. Metaphysics as ontology studies what all beings have in common, namely, what they are. All beings share being in the most general sense of the word. Ontology explores this general meaning of being. But the definition of ontology as the study of the general still remains vague, since it does not tell us anything about this general, namely about being. Moreover, it leaves open the question of the meaning of the division of this common thing, that is, being. Metaphysics solves this question of the general theologically. Ontological search for the general, i.e. that is, that beings possess in general, 7 Heidegger M. Kant’s Thesis on Being // Time and Being. Articles and speeches. M.: Republic, S

9 metaphysics identifies with the search for the highest being. Theology actually consists of this: it examines being as a whole, or in general, reducing this whole to the highest being. So, being as being can be interpreted ontologically, that is, being in its being, but being as being can be interpreted theologically, i.e., as “being from being” in the sense of an authentic, true, valid, perfect being: some one being from the circle of the grounded-founded receives the privilege of the first ground, causaprima, and becomes the ground of all beings. When, for example, substantiality or objectivity or subjectivity are called that which is common to beings, the logic of the study of beings remains ontological. But as soon as this substantiality is elevated to the dignity of a supreme being in the meaning of a true or actual being, the logic of the study of beings becomes theological logic. But if metaphysics thinks of being as such from a general and higher ground, then it is precisely the deconstruction of the position of ground that turns out to be a necessary condition for overcoming the ontotheological project of metaphysics and developing metaphysics without metaphysics. The ground clause states that everything that exists must have a reason, or reason for its existence. This means that nothing exists without a reason, Nihil est sine ratione. This position is onto-theological par excellence, since the first principle and first cause is God: “As the ultima ratio of nature, as the ultimate, highest and thus the first existent basis for the nature of things, one can establish what is usually called the word “God.” This the foundation is called God as the first existing cause of all things" 8. That is, the position of the foundation belongs to ontology, which is at the same time theology: "To put it most radically, this means that only insofar as the position of the foundation is valid, God exists However, God exists only insofar as the proposition of ground is valid.”9 Therefore, as a hypothesis, one could assume that in ontology after ontotheology, being as such as a whole, or in general, takes place without its reduction to a ground. First of all, why is the cause clause called the sufficient cause clause? What kind of foundation is needed 8 Heidegger M. Statement of foundation. Articles and fragments. SPb.: Laboratory of Metaphysical Research, Faculty of Philosophy, St. Petersburg State University; Aletheia, S Ibid. WITH

Is 10 enough? But to answer this question, we must ask something else: what reason is insufficient? Obviously, the basis will be considered insufficient if it does not cope with the function of founding, if this reason is not sufficient to found the basis. In other words, a reason will be considered insufficient if it is not the last, that is, if it, in turn, needs another reason. Consequently, the provision on a sufficient basis speaks of a self-sufficient reason, that is, a reason that does not need another reason. The question then arises: what reason can be considered sufficient, not requiring any other reason? If, since the early era of Western thought, the being of beings is interpreted as the ground or foundation on which beings as beings are founded, and if the metaphysical question, “what is being?” always asks about the being of beings as the ground of beings as such, the question inevitably arises: what is the basis of the existence of beings? If the final ground of being is the being of being, then what is the ground of being of being? This formulation of the question suggests two ways to find a basis and, accordingly, two answers to the question about the basis. The first path, conventionally call it the path of “bad infinity,” occurs when any foundation is posited as local, temporary and accidental, in relation to which the question of the basis of the foundation is always asked. Each time the ground will be considered insufficient and in need of a ground of ground, which, in turn, will refer to another ground, etc. The second way, let's call it the way of “introjected bad infinity,” continues to insist on the ontotheological project of philosophy and imposes a ban on the question of the basis of the reason, accordingly, the being of beings is posited as the last basis, regarding which it is no longer asked, what is the basis of the being of beings? The being of a being acts as the basis of itself. That is, the being of beings reveals itself as a basis that ontologically gives itself a basis and theologically justifies itself. To identify a possible third way, let us once again ask the question: what basis can and should be considered sufficient? If a reason is said to be sufficient provided that it does not need another reason, then the only sufficient reason is the absence of a reason. If every ground, by virtue of its ontic character, will always need another ground, then only the absence of a ground will be an ontological condition for the sufficiency of a ground. Moreover, the absence of 10

11 of the basis makes it necessary to transform the position of sufficient reason in such a way that one has to sacrifice the ontic basis of being in favor of the ontological non-foundation of being. It is here that the essential duality of being as a ground lies. Being as a ground or non-ground is Ab-gründung, this very duality, since it is the absence of a ground in the traditional sense (Ab-grund), and at the same time this absence itself is a certain way of grounding, Ab-gründung. Yet we must never lose sight of the fact that being includes both movements simultaneously. And this means that we cannot say that being is the basis and source of the truth of existence. At the same time, we cannot say that the truth of existence precedes being. Being is given only as the foundation of that which is not a foundation, but an abyss, but an abyss, which is the foundation itself. Being the foundation, thanks to which the bottomless foundation of beings is founded, comes to its own. Being grounds precisely in absence. Its absence is the discovery of the foundation, the world. Thus the ground always fails before what is truly and simply “here,” before presence as such. And yet it is not indifferent to presence: it grounds it. This ground is absent in self-concealment, does not provide a ground, refuses to ground. But this refusal or non-giving is not nothing, but a way of allowing-to-be, a release, and in such a way that it is never exhausted in the process, redundant in relation to what is revealed. Therefore, this is not just a refusal, but a “wavering refusal.” And from this hesitation everything arises. Ab-grund is the "oscillating failure" of the foundation. It is in this refusal that enlightenment enlightens, and again in such a way that enlightenment is never completed: full presence will never be achieved, will never be a thing, the realm of metaphysics will never be closed. If we stop limiting ourselves to the ontotheological project of metaphysics, which we give privilege due to the identity of metaphysics and ontology on the question of foundation, and if we draw consequences from the folding, dual complexity of being, then the ontoteleological project of philosophy is problematized. Such a limitation of the field of legitimacy of metaphysics is necessary if we apply the principle of non-foundation strictly enough. This principle instructs us not only not to give privileges to one or another basis, but also to consider the process of justification itself as a game of difference. But if metaphysics is always ontotheology as the basis, the cause of existence as such, then the transition from metaphysics to question 11

12 about being will not mean a transition to another ontology, even a fundamental one. Meanwhile, if the foundation is the abyss, the foundation of the renunciation of beings from nothingness, the return to the question of being has first of all already left the sphere of any ontology. The deconstruction of the proposition of sufficient reason specifies several motives and a series of philosophemes that define the contours of metaphysics without metaphysics. 1. First of all, this is the motive of post-fundamentalism and a whole series of philosophies of groundlessness, randomness, chaos or even hyper-chaos, which become central not only in philosophy, but also in the social and human sciences. This motive involves not just a transition from fundamentalism to anti-fundamentalism, but a deconstruction of the area of ​​​​functioning of fundamentalism and fundamentalist premises. In fact, if it is impossible to simply go beyond fundamentalism, it follows that non-fundamentalism continues to some extent the deconstructive work of fundamentalism and uses its resources. The fundamental thing in this regard is not the rejection of the concept of foundation, but its reformulation. Ultimately, what is in question is not the existence of the ground, but its ontological status, that is, its inevitably contingent status. This analytical shift from existing foundations to their status or condition of possibility can be characterized as a speculative movement, since the question of foundation is not about the empirical conditions of possibility, but about its status: the initial ontological absence of a final foundation is the condition of the possibility of ontic foundations. The multiplication of reasons is the inevitable result of a radical impossibility, a radical break between the ontic and the ontological. A stronger version of post-fundamentalism is expressed by the hypothetical principle of non-foundation” by C. Meillassoux, the principle of equal and indifferent possibility of all things. According to this principle, no reason legitimizes the continuous existence of something, everything can be different without any reason: “We will no longer agree with any formulation of the principle of sufficient reason, according to which every thing has a necessary reason for being so, and not otherwise we We adhere to the absolute truth of the principle of non-foundation. Nothing has a reason to be and remain as it is, everything must have the possibility of not being and/or being different without any reason” 10. The principle of non-foundation is also hypothetical, 10 Meillassoux Q. After Finitude. An Essay on the Necessity of Contingency. London: Continuum, P

13 and absolute, since it is impossible to dispute the absolute significance of this principle without admitting its absolute truth. The skeptic presents the difference between “in-itself” and “for-us” only by subordinating “for-us” to the absence of a foundation. It is precisely because we can think of the absolute possibility of otherness “in-itself” that the correlationist argument can be effective. And since the hypothetical nature of the principle of non-foundation concerns both the “in-itself” and the “for-us,” to challenge this principle is to presuppose it. A continuation of this principle of non-foundation is another principle, namely the principle of factuality. If the principle of non-foundation asserts the absolute and indifferent possibility of everything, then the principle of factuality postulates the absolute necessity of chance, that is, “the absolute necessity of the unnecessaryness of any thing” 11: everything can be different in the future, except that everything can be different. Facticity is identified with absolute contingency in the sense of positive knowledge about the possibility-of-being-other/possibility-of-not-being of any thing, i.e. a pure possibility that may never come true. “An unequivocal rejection of the principle of sufficient reason requires the recognition that both the destruction and the permanent preservation of a certain being must be able to occur without any reason. The randomness is such that anything can happen, even that nothing will happen, and everything will remain as it is.” In some way, these motives of post-fundamentalism are introduced next to the theme of anti-essentialism with its series of concepts of multiplicity, event, singularity, etc. The only possible the ontology of the One is theology. The only legitimate post-theological ontological attribute is plurality. If God is dead, then it follows that the “fundamental problem” of modern philosophy is the articulation of thought immanent in the plural. Badiou, Deleuze, Lyotard, Derrida, Lacan: each tried to think of the “radical primacy of the multiple” in the sense of a pure or inconsistent multiple, ontologically escaping the one and excluding reductionism in all its forms. Anti-reductionism prescribes the axiomatization of the set, an irreducible ontological pluralism that excludes any unifying principle, and liberates “heterology” or “object-oriented ontology” (G. Harman) 11 Ibidem. P Meillassoux Q. After Finitude. An Essay on the Necessity of Contingency. London: Continuum, P

14 or “flat ontology” (M. De Landa). Sets are composed exclusively of sets, their structure prescribing rules of manipulation for their undefined objects, avoiding the definition of what a set is. Groundlessness and unlimitedness are the two initial conditions for the possibility of thinking multitude. Modern mathematics meets these requirements. From a philosophical point of view, science, or mathematics, is the essence of “the truth of being-multitude” 13. Turning to mathematics and borrowing the necessary mathematical resources becomes almost a necessary condition for building ontology after onto-theology. For example, Badiou, whose philosophical project can be seen as one of the influential versions of modern ontology, solemnly declares in the introduction to Being and Event: “The science of being as being has existed since the time of the Greeks, being the form and content of mathematics. But only today do we have the means to know this.” 14 Many considered ontology an archaic science, like alchemy or astrology. Badiou believes that the fate of modern philosophy depends on the solution of the question of ontology, of being. But for Badiou, and on this point he differs from both continental and analytical philosophers, the role of ontology is exclusively negative. Philosophy is not concerned with the construction of ontology, but it is able to name a discipline that studies being as being, that is, mathematics. Since ontology is now identified with mathematics, it is taken outside the discourse of philosophy and declared, along with art, politics and love, as one of its conditions. Mathematics allows us to think of being as being: mathematics is an ontology without ontology, an ontology devoid of its own dogmatism. If there cannot be a presentation of being, since being happens in any presentation, there remains only one solution: the ontological situation is the presentation of presentation. In such a situation, it is precisely being as being that is at stake, since only through presentation is there access to being. Thus ontology is able to speak of pure plurality even if it studies the nature or structure of presentation from which being is withdrawn. Ontology studies various modes or orders of presentation and only in this way does it provide a place for “grasping every possible access to being.” Metaphysics deals not only with the search for the foundations or causes of existence, but also, by reconciling different ideas about reality, 13 Badiou A. Infinite Thought: Truth and the Return of Philosophy. London: Continuum, P Badiou A. Being and Event. London: Continuum, P Ibid. P

15 creates a certain ethos of philosophical activity. Consequently, overcoming the ontotheological project of metaphysics presupposes the transformation of this ethos. Such a transformation, thematizing, at least formally, the onto-theological structure of metaphysics, points to the unthinkable by metaphysics itself. This transformation takes the form of a correspondence that exceeds the possibilities of its onto-theological appropriation and at the same time forms an adequate response to the historical “event” of metaphysics. This form of correspondence introduces a whole series of concepts that make up the non-theoretical ethos of philosophy. In fact, if groundlessness or contingency or hyperchaos constitute the fundamental modality of being, and multiplicity, event and singularity become the main ontological categories, does this not mean that the ethos of philosophical activity cannot be thought of as the ethos of theory? First of all, these are concepts such as hope, promise, forgiveness, witnessing, oath, loyalty, determination, responsibility, faith, etc. These concepts were not considered within the framework of traditional ontology. This series of concepts and, in general, the non-theoretical ethos of philosophy, by deconstructing traditional explanations of human practice, extracts and even reveals a non-metaphysical, non-theological, more original sense of the practical, or ethical. That original meaning that Heidegger speaks of, for example, when he, in his “Letter on Humanism,” challenges “ethics” as a metaphysical discipline in order to identify the original meaning of ethics as a “dwelling place,” “dwelling,” “standing” in the truth of being. And earlier, in Being and Time, the distinction between good and evil is challenged in order to reveal a primary guilt that is more basic than good-and-evil morality, and which provides the ontological condition of possibility for morality in general. 16 Ultimately, for Heidegger , as he argues in “Letter on Humanism,” the thought of being is the original ethics, because being “is” not a substantial basis, but an event that calls for responsible participation. Ontology and ethics are not distinct and separate spheres. Ontology does not delimit a certain area of ​​origins, which is then attached to the ontic sphere of ethics. Ontology is the original ethics, and ethics is ontology. Heidegger gives us a deeper understanding of this original ethics when he writes: “If, in accordance with the basic meaning of the word ἦθος, the name “ethics” should mean that it comprehends the abode of man, then the thought that thinks through the truth of being in the sense of the original element of man as ek-sisting 16 Heidegger M. Being and time. M.: AdMarginem, S.

16 being, there is already ethics in itself at its source” 17. Ontology and ethics are not distinct and separate spheres. Ontology does not delimit a certain area of ​​origins, which is then attached to the ontic sphere of ethics. Ontology is the original ethics, and ethics is ontology. Derrida also follows Heidegger in suggesting a return to what he considers the original meaning of the Greek polis, of which he says that translating it as a city or state does not convey its full meaning. Before the state, before what we call politics or political, “the polis is Da, that is, that in which and thanks to which Dasein is geschichtlich, acts as history, the historical source of history. To this historical place belong not only sovereigns, people endowed with power: an army, a navy, a council, a body of people, but also gods, temples, priests, poets, thinkers." 18 Derrida emphasizes the fact that the polis is not limited to the distinction of "politics" or "political" provided that he is not subject in advance to law and divine authority. Moreover, the Greek polis can in no way be understood as a modern state: the being of man in his relation to beings as a whole is collected through a polis in which there is nothing political. The polis is “beyond” politics; the difference between politics and the political prevents us from thinking about what could be called original politics. Thus, to think of the polis, the original politics, is tantamount to withdrawing it from the sphere of the political and political philosophy in order to return it to its own essence, in which there is nothing political. These guidelines make it possible to detect a certain direction in the renewal of metaphysical research, general methodological tendencies hidden behind them, and the relationship of these tendencies with the nature of social practice. Why does a philosopher need logic? A. G. Kislov Once upon a time, however, by certain standards, quite recently, the question acting as a headline would have looked somewhat incorrect, not even because of its deliberate ambiguity. 17 Heidegger M. Letter on Humanism // Time and Being. Articles and speeches. M.: Republic, With Derrida J. The Beast and the Sovereign, Volume I. Chicago. University of Chicago Press, P

17 Firstly, if we are talking about people, the philosophers themselves Aristotle, Boethius 19, Ockham, Leibniz, as well as many others were logicians, but, more importantly, no one else except them. Secondly, if we still have theories in mind, the use of the plural would have a significant degree of convention; we would rather be talking about either different author’s presentations of the unified science of logic, or about different philosophical projects (more or less radical) alternatives to logic 20 , which retained the “trace of the break” in their names, first of all, such as “transcendental logic” or “dialectical logic”. But over the 20th century the situation has changed quite a lot; the “golden age of Logic” was called by the leading figure of logical and philosophical research G. H. von Wright, speaking at the IX International Congress on Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science (Uppsala, Sweden) 21. The use of such a flattering epithet can be explained by many reasons, but two of them are perhaps the most important: firstly, the mathematization of logic, and it seems that “such betrayal” cannot be forgiven in any way in the wider humanitarian community (pioneers of modern logical research Frege, Hilbert, Brouwer , Gödel, Church and many other mathematicians); secondly, the deuniversalization of classical logic and the emergence of many non-classical logical systems, a current scientific event, the philosophical understanding of which is only just taking shape. Often, meaning a special scientific discipline, the epithet “formal” is applied to the term “logic”; for the first time this, apparently, was done by I. Kant 22. Having once become customary, now this clarification turns out to be unnecessary: ​​and because everything is philosophical -intellectual systems known 19 Boethius had his own answer to the question we are discussing: “Logic is rather a tool than a part of philosophy” (Boethius. “The Consolation of Philosophy” and other treatises. M.: Nauka, P. 10). We will try to clarify this instrumentalist vision of logic, which has become very widespread. See also: Lisanyuk E. N. Consolation with logic? // Bulletin of St. Petersburg University. Series 6. Political science. International relations C Not to be confused with alternative (non-classical) logics, which we will discuss further. 21 Wright G. H. von. Logic and philosophy in the 20th century // Questions of philosophy C “Since this purely formal logic is abstracted from any content of knowledge (whether pure or empirical knowledge) and deals only with the form of thinking (discursive knowledge) in general, then in its analytical part it can also to conclude a canon for reason, the form of which is subject to firm prescriptions, and these prescriptions can only be studied by dividing the actions of reason into their moments, without considering the special nature of the knowledge applied in this case” (Kant I. Criticism of pure reason // Kant I. Works in eight volumes. M.: Mysl, T. 3. P. 190). 17

18 under the term “logic”, without excluding the substantive aspects of justification, they were looking for principles of the design of thinking; and because, despite the free search for scientific tools, it was formal methods that turned out to be truly stable. 23. The latter sometimes becomes the reason for the hasty opinion that formal logic does not change its appearance, “representing an example of science or art, immediately brought to perfection by the genius of its founder” 24. The idea of ​​the absolute static nature of logic, surprisingly, is extremely tenacious, despite the open possibilities of abundant criticism. Especially often they make reference to I. Kant, who argued that since the time of Aristotle, logic “has not had to take a single step back, unless one considers as an improvement the elimination of some unnecessary subtleties and a clearer presentation, which relates more to the elegance than to the reliability of science. What is also noteworthy about it is that until now it has not been able to take a step forward and, apparently, it seems to be a completely complete and complete science.”25 A clear criticism of such statements can be presented by tracing the development of logic to the present day. This science, of course, “had to take steps,” and over two and a half millennia its history experienced three major periods of its development 26, which can be designated as ancient logic (IV-III centuries BC), scholastic logic (XII-XIV centuries) and modern logic (second half of the 19th century, beginning of the 21st century), and each time one could observe the coincidence of active logical research with the special position of the problem of language in the philosophy of a particular era. It is not difficult to see that if doubts about the dynamics of logical research were provoked by the long-standing and difficult distinguishability of the first two periods, for reasons of convenience sometimes combined under the name “traditional formal logic,” then the last period, called “symbolic (or mathematical) logic,” turned out to be so radical , which should have eliminated doubts. However, many of those, in principle, the few who were given the opportunity to get acquainted with logical culture within the framework of higher education, seem to make incredible efforts to remain not particularly dedicated 23 See, for example: Dragalina-Chernaya E. G. Informal notes on logical form. St. Petersburg: Aletheya, p. 24 Minto V. Deductive and inductive logic. Ekaterinburg: Business book, With I. Kant. Criticism of pure reason // I. Kant. Works in eight volumes. M.: Mysl, T. 3. With Wright G. H. von. Logic and philosophy in the 20th century // Questions of Philosophy C

19 into the modern mysteries of the “strange and magical science of Logic” 27. However, observed even in an educated and intellectually sophisticated environment, the lack of attention to numerous modern, including philosophical, logical studies is easily explained: mastering the progressively increasing technical material of modern logic is quite labor-intensive an activity that requires the expenditure of physical, mental and time resources. Hence, it becomes even more obvious that “in the current situation, what is troubling is not so much the incompetence of some philosophical interpretations of such well-known results as Gödel’s theorem, but rather the reluctance (or inability) of many philosophers, following Socrates, to admit the full extent of their incompetence” 28. Over the past century Studies of modal and intensional logic have become widespread; systems that limit certain laws and principles of classical logic have formed a spectrum of non-classical logics. Developed semantics of intensional logics (alethic, epistemic, deontic, temporal, and many others) relativized the concept of truth, for example, regarding “possible worlds”; non-classical logics (multivalued, intuitionistic, paraconsistent, relevant, and many others) relativized the concept of universal validity ( logical law) and the concept of logical consequence coordinated with it regarding various (alternative) logical systems. However, the above-mentioned high assessment of the successes of logic in the philosophy of the twentieth century is unexpectedly compensated by von Wright’s statement that logic will not be among the leading trends in the philosophy of the first century of the third millennium 29. Respect for the author of this remark, who influenced the development of logic in its most diverse fields, is not allows us to ignore such a pessimistic statement. Some believe that the idea was simply expressed unsuccessfully, too rigoristically, while others see here an indication of the replacement of the theoretical emphasis of logical research with an applied, even technological, emphasis. Applied research is, of course, important for any science, but the problems with which logic entered the new millennium are precisely theoretical, largely philosophical, and sometimes general cultural 27 The expression belongs to Professor A. S. Karpenko, pronounced during a speech dedicated to in memory of the outstanding Russian logician and philosopher V. A. Smirnov. 28 Hintikka J. Logic in philosophy, philosophy of logic // Hintikka J. Logical-epistemological studies. M.: Progress, S. Wright G. H. von. Logic and philosophy in the 20th century // Questions of Philosophy C

20 character. First of all, there was a need for a radical revision of traditional views on logical research in accordance with the situation of coexistence of logical systems of various types, and in this sense, logic needs a “true age of criticism” of its scientific and cultural status. Firstly, one should not exaggerate the practical (instrumentalist) role of logic, and not only in technically oriented areas of knowledge. When, for example, Art. Toulmin says that “logic is a generalized jurisprudence” 30, it is necessary to remember the limited context of his statement, which is quite appropriate in a certain sense. Secondly, one should not absolutize the theoretical purity of logic. One often encounters a skeptical view of the very possibility of any justification of logic, based on an immature idea of ​​the almost religious sanctity of either logical laws (which is outdated) or methods (usually set-theoretic) for constructing logical systems. Words of J. Lukasiewicz: “no matter how much I study even the smallest logical problem, every time I cannot leave the feeling that I am next to some powerful, incredibly dense and immeasurably stable structure. This design acts on me as a specific tangible object made of the hardest material. I can’t change anything in it, I don’t create anything arbitrarily, but through exhausting labor I discover new details in it, achieving unshakable and eternal truths. Where and what is this ideal design? A believing philosopher would say that it is in God and is His thought”31, are filled with deep meaning, but these words do not refer to any of the feasible systems. Logic is relied upon (explicitly or not) as the basis of any analysis, but this in no way justifies the intention to place it itself beyond any criticism. Speaking about the special status of logic in science, it should be noted the fundamentally self-reflexive nature of its knowledge: logic substantiates the principles of justification; that is, logic is determined by the general ability of the mind to construct reasoning independently of any experience. Thus, raising the question of the possibility of logic, determining the sources and boundaries of logical analysis in various contexts, which the deuniversalization of classical logic leads to, is feasible only from the standpoint of criticism of pure reason itself. The general idea of ​​such a critical attitude, namely the exploration of the limits of the application of our cognitive abilities, within the framework of the problem under discussion corresponds to the understanding of the construction of the local 30 Toulmin St. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, P Lukasevich J. In defense of logistics // Philosophy and logic of the Lviv-Warsaw school. M.: ROSSPEN, S

21 (non-universal) logic as the desire to “construct a scheme for reasoning more suitable for mere mortals than for angels” 32 and this agnosticism is contextual, and “in the spirit of Kant.” Taking “for granted” the social effectiveness of logic, when in the modern situation this effectiveness itself cannot be realized without recognizing social and cultural diversity, it is difficult to avoid contradiction with such an important, but by no means popular aspect of humanism, which, as we see it, is radically declared in the words of “Mr. Testa,” the talented and completely insufferable character of Paul Valéry: “You should simply remember that there are only two types of relationships between people: logic and war. Always ask for evidence; this is basic politeness that people are obliged to observe towards each other. If you are denied it, know that you are being attacked, and they are trying to force you into obedience without sparing any means.” 33. What to do? Hasty aspirations to get rid of all standards of rationality, as well as strict demands to obey predetermined rules once and for all, have an equally bitter taste in social memory. And here the readiness of modern logic to be philosophically critical in the search for new standards of rationality is encouraging. Logic as a life position A. V. Pertsev Since the 19th century, historical and philosophical science has adopted two opposing directions: scientism and anthropologism. Representatives of scientism, as well as representatives of anthropology, act as natural heirs of the traditions of enlightenment, however, each of the movements inherits only one of its sides. Scientism believes that the goal of man is knowledge, and therefore a scientist is the highest purpose of man. Only science is an occupation worthy of man, since man is homosapiens. Everything else in human life, both emotions and feelings, and routine everyday life that does not require the use of reason, is neglected by scientism. At the very least, scientism considers science a universal human calling, and all kinds of moral 32 Da Costa N., French S. Consistency, omniscience and truth (or an attempt to construct a scheme for reasoning more suitable for mere mortals than for angels) // Philosophical Sciences With Valerie P. Young parka. Poems, poem, prose. M.: Text, S

22 experiences, feelings evoked by art, etc. a private matter that should not be discussed publicly. Scientism considers philosophy, which tries to study the world of values ​​and feelings, everyday human activities, not worthy of attention, “not strict.” Anthropologism, on the contrary, believes that human interests are paramount. Science is divided into that which serves man, and that which is hostile to him, enslaves him, dumbens him and standardizes him. Anthropologism is wary of physics, chemistry, and other “exact” sciences that have compromised themselves by working for the war. Anthropologism does not at all consider natural science to be an absolute value and advocates for its limitation in people’s lives, as well as for limiting the influence of technology on humanity. According to anthropology, it is science and technology that are to blame for the standardization of people, etc. Needless to say, anthropology does not consider it necessary for philosophy to serve the exact sciences, acting as a theory of knowledge. In Russia, where throughout the 20th century. Scientism dominated, and today its influence reaches its maximum; the scientistic criticism of the “imprecise” humanities, art and ethics, which today are relegated far into the background even in the curricula of universities and schools, is well known. Less well known are anthropological counterarguments, namely interpretations of the desire to see an ideal in the exact mathematical sciences as a consequence of certain anthropological factors. Simply put, the desire for mathematics and logic is determined by a certain worldview and life position of those who devote their lives to these disciplines. This correlation was most clearly traced by the young Karl Jaspers, later the founder of German existentialism, but a psychiatrist by training. His early articles described a young man suffering from schizophrenia and gradually slipping into psychosis. However, this young man spent his time at the university, reading a lot and participating in student discussions. The psychiatrist Jaspers could only monitor what books this person preferred to read at each stage of his descent into psychosis. If you slightly complete this “staircase” leading down, then Jaspers’s work looks like this. At the first stage, which Jaspers himself does not talk about, but which is implied and actively described in pragmatism as mental health, a person acts quasi-instinctively, without doubt and without resorting to thinking. He follows his skills, which are formed by his parents and educators, and achieves success. Thus, a person could live without thinking for the entire 22

I 6 For example, the relationship between question and answer in the education system was traced by E. Fromm. True, he did not conduct a methodical study of the problem. He needs this to distinguish between two methods

Section 3. PHILOSOPHICAL PICTURE OF THE WORLD 1. The basis of being, existing as the cause of itself a) substance b) being c) form d) accident 2. Being is a) everything that exists around b) a certain material formation

Realism (Platonism) The concept of “realism” in modern philosophy of mathematics has several meanings. It is often used in a methodological sense to designate 143 all mathematics that operates

What is philosophy Specificity of philosophical knowledge 1. The uniqueness of philosophy, along with universality and abstractness, is A. The affirmation of humanistic ideals, moral imperatives, universal

Topic 2.1. Philosophy of the Ancient World and Medieval Philosophy Topic of the lesson: Medieval philosophy: patristics and scholastics Plan 1. Medieval philosophy 2. Philosophy of patristics 3. The period of scholasticism 4.

E.G. YUDIN (MOSCOW) Zh.M. Abdildin. Kant's dialectics. Alma-Ata: publishing house "Kazakhstan", 1974. 160 p. * A considerable number of works in our literature are devoted to the study of Kant’s work, in which, naturally,

2 PROGRAM CONTENT 1. Philosophy, its subject and place in the culture of mankind Worldview and its historical and cultural character. Emotional-imaginative and logical-rational levels of worldview. Types of worldview:

To prepare for the exam in the discipline “History and Philosophy of Science” for adjuncts of the first year of study Academic and thematic plan Name of sections and topics Total hours Lectures Of which Seminars Independent

Serebrennikova P.N. Scientific supervisor Emelyanov B.V. Doctor of Philosophy sciences, prof. Lifeworld as a philosophical category Rational thinking has long been proclaimed the only worthy and respected

Àëòàéñêèé ãîñóäàðñòâåííûé óíèâåðñèòåò, ã. Áàðíàóë ÃÅÐÌÅÍÅÂÒÈ ÅÑÊÀß ÂÅÐÑÈß ÊÎÍÖÀ ÂÑÅÌÈÐÍÎÉ ÈÑÒÎÐÈÈ (ÃÍÎÑÅÎËÎÃÈ ÅÑÊÈÉ ÐÀÊÓÐÑ) Àâòîð äàííîé ñòàòüè îáðàùàåòñÿ ê àíàëèçó ôåíîìåíà «êîíåö èñòîðèè». Â ðàìêàõ ãåðìåíåâòè

APPROVED by the decision of the selection committee of the Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education RGUP, minutes of meeting 2 dated 03/27/2014 PROGRAM OF ENTRANCE TESTS IN PHILOSOPHY IN THE DIRECTION OF PREPARATION OF RESEARCH AND PEDAGOGICAL PERSONNEL IN POSTGRADUATE STUDIES

Feedback from an official opponent - Doctor of Philosophy, editor-in-chief of the journal of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences "Questions of Philosophy", head of the Scientific Council on Philosophy of Education and Problems of Research Methodology

ABOUT THE SPECIFICITY OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD B.A. Kislov Doctor of Philosophy, Professor In any scientific research (dissertation, monograph, article), and especially in scientific discussion, there is one immutable

GENERAL PROBLEMS OF PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE 06/04/01 Chemical sciences 06/09/01 Informatics and computer technology 06/19/01 Industrial ecology and biotechnology 06/38/01 Economics 06/40/01 Law 06/41/01

MAMEDOV NIZAMI MUSTAFAYEVICH Doctor of Philosophy, Professor, Academician of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and the Russian Academy of Economics, UNESCO expert FOUNDATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION the process of mastering systematized knowledge, skills and abilities necessary

1. General provisions As a result of mastering the academic discipline, the student must be able to: Orientate himself in the most general philosophical problems of being, knowledge, values, freedom and the meaning of life as the basis

Presentation on the topic: Science and its role in modern society What is science? What is the role of science in shaping the picture of the world? And what is its role in modern society? The discussion of all these issues accompanied

Logicism Logicism in the 20th century. associated mainly with the name Russell. Having criticized Frege's constructions, Russell, however, did not reject his program as a whole. He believed that this program, with some reform

CONTENTS page 1. PASSPORT OF THE WORK PROGRAM OF THE ACADEMIC DISCIPLINE 4 2. STRUCTURE AND CONTENT OF THE ACADEMIC DISCIPLINE 6 3. CONDITIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE WORK PROGRAM OF THE ACADEMIC DISCIPLINE 12 4. CONTROL AND EVALUATION OF THE RESULT TOV

Chapter 7 NOMINALISM AND REALISM IN MODERN PHILOSOPHY OF MATHEMATICS In philosophical discussions regarding the justification of mathematics, two diametrically opposed views on the essence of mathematical

Organization of scientific research Theoretical foundations. Assignment for independent work. 1 Scientific research: essence and features Scientific research is purposeful knowledge, results

The editors of the scientific and practical journal “Bulletin of the Izhevsk State Agricultural Academy” (hereinafter referred to as the Editorial Board) maintain a certain level of requirements when selecting and accepting articles submitted

1. EXPLANATORY NOTE The academic discipline “Fundamentals of Philosophy” is part of the main professional educational program of secondary vocational education in accordance with the Federal State Educational Standard. This discipline

1 CONTENT OF THE ENTRANCE EXAM Topic 1 The subject and functions of philosophy. Worldview The concept and subject of philosophy. The structure of philosophical knowledge. Philosophy as a type of worldview. Basic philosophical

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education "NATIONAL RESEARCH MOSCOW STATE CONSTRUCTION

Chapter 1. Man and society 1.1. Natural and social in man (man as a result of biological and sociocultural evolution) The question of man is the most important in social science, therefore it

09.00.11 “SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY” An applicant to graduate school in the specialty 09.00.11 - social philosophy must have solid knowledge and skills in operating concepts in the following sections of social philosophy:

AFTERWORD Every scientific work must contain new knowledge, otherwise it is not truly scientific. Based on this, we would like to explain what is new in this monograph. Brief instructions

Moscow State Technical University named after N.E. Bauman Faculty of Fundamental Sciences Department of Mathematical Modeling A.N. KASIATOVIKOV

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION MOSCOW STATE UNIVERSITY OF GEODESY AND CARTOGRAPHY (MIIGAIK) Abstract of the work program of the discipline Concepts of modern natural science

FEDERAL STATE BUDGETARY INSTITUTION OF SCIENCE INSTITUTE OF PETROLEUM CHEMISTRY OF THE SIBERIAN BRANCH OF THE RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES (IKH SB RAS) APPROVED BY Director IHN SB RAS Dr. Tech. Sciences, Professor L.K. Altunina

1 Contents 1. Passport of the work program of the academic discipline... 4. Structure and content of the academic discipline... 6 3. Conditions for the implementation of the academic discipline... 11 4. Monitoring and evaluation of mastery results

SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHETICAL KNOWLEDGE AS A DIDACTIC RESOURCE L.A. Krasnova (Moscow) The direction of modern social trends gives grounds to characterize the emerging society as a society of information,

1 2 CONTENTS page 1. PASSPORT OF THE SCHOOL DISCIPLINE PROGRAM 4 2. STRUCTURE AND CONTENT OF THE SCHOOL DISCIPLINE 5. CONDITIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE SCHOOL DISCIPLINE 9 4. CONTROL AND EVALUATION OF THE RESULTS OF MASTERING THE SCHOOL DISCIPLINE INES

The work program of the academic discipline “Fundamentals of Philosophy” was developed in accordance with the requirements of the Federal State Educational Standard for Secondary Professional Education in the specialty 20.02.02 Protection in Emergency Situations, approved by order of the Ministry

MASTER'S PROGRAMS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCES Ekaterinburg, 2016 WHAT IS A MASTER'S PROGRAM? THIS: - maximum convergence of science and education; - in-depth, detailed,

Practical thinking as a basis for expanding the capabilities of educational institutions Popov Alexander Anatolyevich Doctor of Philology, Chief Researcher of the Federal Institute of Education and Science of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, Head of the Laboratory of Competence-Based Educational Practices

Such different logic Program tutor: Kazangapova M.S. Project authors: - Wagner A.N., Gorbacheva V.V., Kozhakhmetova Z.M., Orynbaev B.N. William Shakespeare Explain the concept of “logic” from a scientific point of view

UDC 17.0 D. A. TKACHENKO Moscow, Russian Economic University named after G.V. Plekhanov SUBJECT SELF-DETERMINATION OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF EVIL The article gives an outline of the philosophy of evil, exploring the forces affecting

CONTENTS PREFACE TO THE STUDIA PETROPOLITANA SERIES PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS INTRODUCTION: MORALITY, CHRISTIAN ETHICS AND MORAL THEOLOGY 11 13 15 17 1. Christian Ethics

Andrey Patkul THE BEGINNING OF PHILOSOPHICAL HISTORY: THE GREEKS, HEGEL, HEIDEGGER If we try to determine in general terms the initial state of affairs in which any kind of philosophy is undertaken in the present

REGULATIONS on the review of scientific articles in the journal “Humanitarian Gazette of TSPU im.l.n. Tolstoy" 1. General provisions 1.1. This Regulation on the review of scientific articles determines the order and procedure

PHILOSOPHY (Articles on the specialty 09.00.08) 2009 M.A. Dedyulina HUMANITARIAN EXPERTISE IN THE HI-TECH SOCIETY The problem of humanitarian expertise in the high-tech society is considered. Technologies

2 CONTENTS PASSPORT OF THE SCHOOL DISCIPLINE PROGRAM FUNDAMENTALS OF PHILOSOPHY STRUCTURE AND CONTENT OF THE SCHOOL DISCIPLINE 6 CONDITIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE SCHOOL DISCIPLINE PROGRAM 9 MONITORING AND EVALUATING THE RESULTS OF MASTERING THE SCHOOL DISCIPLINE

Values ​​and value orientations, their formation and role in personality development. Raitina M. S. Chita State University. Value orientations of the individual are one of the main structural formations

ALBERT SCHWEITZER'S PHILOSOPHY AS A NEW ETHICAL TEACHING SIMONYAN S. M. The history of ethical thought dates back to the formation of theoretical thought in general. Beginning with

SYSTEM-ACTIVITY APPROACH BASIS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF FSES As is known, the modern strategy for the modernization of Russian education is based on the ideas of person-centered learning. Training in which

Saidova Zarema Khamidovna assistant of the department of “Humanities, natural sciences and social disciplines” of the Medical Institute of the Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education “Chechen State University”, Grozny SELF-AWARENESS HOW

Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "ORYOL STATE AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY" Department of "Philosophy"

Explanatory note on SOCIAL STUDIES basic level (grades 10-11) The content of secondary (complete) general education at the basic level in “Social Studies” is a complex of knowledge reflecting

RYLSK AVIATION TECHNICAL COLLEGE - BRANCH OF THE FEDERAL STATE BUDGET EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OF HIGHER PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION "MOSCOW STATE TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY"

2 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS 1.1. This Regulation has been developed in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation in the field of education, federal state educational standards of higher

G. I. Ikonnikova, V. P. Lyashenko Philosophy of Law Textbook 2nd edition, revised and expanded Approved by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation as a textbook for higher education students

The work program of the academic discipline “Fundamentals of Philosophy” was developed on the basis of the Federal State Educational Standard for the specialty of secondary vocational education (hereinafter referred to as SPO)

Accounting, statistics 293 Methodology for quality assessment 2009 E.S. Sokolova Candidate of Economic Sciences, Associate Professor Moscow State University of Economics, Statistics and Informatics (MESI) Considered

Abstract of the work program of the academic discipline “Philosophy” 1. Goals of mastering the academic discipline The target setting for teaching the academic discipline “Philosophy” is built taking into account the tasks, content and forms of activity

Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "Russian Economic University named after

Either the 21st century will be the century of the humanities, or it will not exist at all.

Claude Lévi-Strauss

I.Challenges of our time

External...

The modern world is changing rapidly. There is an awareness that many crisis phenomena in the global economy are of a non-economic nature. Today, leading scientists and experts, reflecting on the causes of the economic crisis, are increasingly talking about the crisis of ideas and value systems. Thus, questions about humanitarian knowledge and cultural policy are becoming increasingly relevant from a practical point of view. The global environment is, first of all, a competition of ideas and a struggle for world leadership. Today, the real leaders are those countries that dominate in the ideological and intellectual sphere. In the modern neo-global world, the leadership of centers of power is determined not only by economics and military potential, but also by the factor of achieving intellectual superiority (including linguistic, discursive and linguocultural). According to experts, in the future, the main processes in the struggle for world leadership will unfold in the sphere of the mind, through mind control and consciousness control.

Internal…

Currently, Russian society is disunited. After more than twenty years of market reforms, it is in a state of apathy. There is no consensus on assessing the results of the changes that have occurred since the early 90s, and there are no clear prospects for the future of the country. The continuous outflow of financial and human capital from Russia is one of the most convincing and alarming symptoms of the dysfunctional state of affairs in the country.

Our economy is already very close to a state of stagnation. There is a real danger of the country gradually sliding into a deep systemic crisis, the consequences of which are now difficult to assess. This crisis is economic, legal, intellectual and cultural. The question of the state's ability to develop dynamically has seriously arisen. Currently, our country is facing challenges that require intellectual comprehension and scientific analysis. The preservation of the unified cultural and historical space of Russian civilization and the future of the “Russian World” depend on the quality of this work. These are issues of state, national identity, the theoretical and practical value of various approaches to the development of the economy and the legal system, the mission of education, the content of the concepts of “freedom” and “justice”.

Looking for an answer...

The time for lulling rhetoric, sometimes strongly reminiscent of “Soviet stagnation,” has already passed. The strict imperative of the time does not allow us to ignore the current difficult situation: the situation no longer allows us to imitate changes, it urgently requires real changes. This is not about cosmetic changes, but about developing a new strategic paradigm. Today's rapid search for sources of economic growth in the face of international pressure must be accompanied by thorough work to prepare the appropriate ground for deep reforms. The policy of maintaining the existing status quo must be replaced by a policy of rapid development. What is in demand is a strategy of getting ahead of time, not a survival tactic. At the same time, the main request of Russian society is obvious - a clear vision of the image of the future of our country. The key problem, therefore, must be recognized as the lack of goal-setting or a formulated image of the country’s future that could consolidate the efforts of the state and society aimed at developing and implementing a project for modernizing the country.

The answer to this challenge could be, among other steps:. creating in the country an atmosphere of free creative intellectual search with an unspecified result; . active involvement of intellectuals in the development of a new agenda for the country; . creation of new mechanisms for real, not simulated, independent intellectual examination of socially significant projects being developed, primarily in the field of education, science, economic strategy, and in the field of building a rule of law state.

II. The role of philosophy in overcoming intellectual stagnation

Deficit of meanings

It is known that there is a very definite relationship between economics and culture, between economic issues and the value state of society. If the signs and consequences of economic stagnation are quite clear and, most importantly, noticeable to everyone, then the situation with intellectual stagnation is not so noticeable. This has been talked about for years, but the severity of the problem is still far from being realized. Referring to S. Lec, we can say that “the intellectual drought continues to flood us with rains of words.” Today, socio-philosophical discourse has been squeezed out of the intellectual and spiritual space of national culture.

At the same time, this area of ​​scientific and cultural activity is the main channel for the generation and transmission of values ​​in society. The main element of this work is the possibility of creative experiments and explorations carried out in public space. Public space is the space of human life in civil society, an environment of constant communication, dialogue and debate on socially important issues. Only as a result of a productive public intellectual discussion can Russia’s value position, the principles of its civilizational strategy, and the grounds for involving our country in the international intellectual context be formulated and argued.

The art of thinking must play a key role in such work. Philosophy is the basis of science and culture, which, in turn, creates the intellectual and spiritual soil that serves as the basis for the integrity of the state. The word, which, according to Foucault's definition, has received the task and opportunity to represent thought, is the subject of philosophy. First of all, it is she who creates and preserves the verbal and semantic space of the nation. The word survives eras and creates ways of thinking - the British Empire has not existed for a long time, but the “English linguistic empire” still occupies a leading position in the world.

Unlocking intellectual potential throughout the country forms the overall agenda of the state. In these processes, philosophy plays a consolidating role, being a means of crystallizing national identity, understanding the country's own needs and developing national long-term solutions. Similar facts can be traced from the experience of leading Western countries. In particular, France is associated by the world community with the movement of socialist-minded poststructuralists (M. Foucault, C. Lévi-Strauss), England and the USA - with the development of analytical philosophy of language and philosophy of consciousness (B. Russell, H. Putnam, J. Searle, D. . Dennett), Germany - political and social philosophy (J. Habermas, H. Arendt, K.-O. Apel), etc. Having proposed their own nationally oriented intellectual projects, the states of Western Europe and the USA embarked on an innovative path of development in the field of socio-humanitarian and cultural knowledge.

The image of a thinking country is formed through an active dialogue between the state and society in the course of developing a national intellectual agenda. At the same time, the initiative must come from society itself, which within itself gives birth to new intellectual projects, and also conducts their initial examination. Further development takes place in close dialogue with the state, which carries out the final examination and, in case of a positive decision, promotes the promotion of new projects. The presence of such feedback indicates a high intellectual and cultural resource, which, thanks to the efforts of philosophy as a fundamental humanitarian discipline, becomes relevant and in demand. However, the achievement

Such results are directly related to the level and quality of positioning of philosophy itself on a national scale. According to the definition of the Russian philosopher N. Rozov, “intellectual stagnation is a prolonged and habitual absence of independent production of ideas.” It is precisely this state of “intellectual coma” that Russia needs to emerge from before it is too late. Without this, it is impossible to imagine Russia's leading position in the 21st century. Moreover, the question of the very survival of our country in the conditions of global competition arises seriously. At the beginning of the twentieth century, Russia was close to intellectual leadership - according to experts, at that time we had at least 50 thinkers above the average level.

Unfortunately, the country's best minds were either physically destroyed or forcibly sent into exile on the infamous "philosophical ship" in 1922. Despite the loss of their homeland, the exiled bright minds of Russia gave a lot to world socio-humanitarian thought and influenced entire generations of Western intellectuals. At the same time, almost a century after the departure of the “philosophical ship,” the status and role of philosophy in Russian culture remains extremely low. There is an opinion that today Russia does not produce meanings. A total deficit of creative scientific thinking is obvious.

An anti-theoretical consensus has developed in society, according to which a lack of intellectual creativity and laziness of thought are the norm. In this context, it should be noted that humanitarian knowledge is becoming increasingly relevant from a practical point of view. Resolving issues of state and national identity, the theoretical and practical value of various approaches to the development of the economy and the legal system, the mission of education, the content of the concepts of “freedom” and “justice” is critical to achieving a clear social ideal. All these are questions of philosophy. As philosopher A. Smirnov rightly notes, “philosophy draws fundamental ideas from the life of a nation. If philosophy has no ideas, then the nation does not have them. The fact that philosophy in today’s Russia is poorly perceived by society is a tragedy not so much for philosophy as for the nation.”

"Medici Effect"

Humanitarian knowledge in general and philosophy in particular are a condition for the development of an atmosphere of intellectualism, which in turn is a powerful resource for development in the 21st century. This atmosphere is the energy that fuels the desire of states and nations for self-realization and self-affirmation. Intellectual energy is what sets in motion the creative powers of the mind. It may be intangible here and now, but in the long term its effect is obvious. The sleep of reason that we are witnessing can lead to economic and political collapse. Turning to history allows us to assert that the peak moments of European philosophical reflection, which determined the progress of European civilization, occurred at times when a special creative atmosphere, “the air of intellectualism,” reigned. At the same time, interesting historical parallels are drawn. For example, in 15th-century Florence, the Medici family, which was in power, sponsored talent. Thanks to this family and a few others like it, creative people (painters, sculptors, architects and poets), along with philosophers and financiers, concentrated in Florence.

Together they laid the foundation for a new world based on new ideas, which was later called the Renaissance. Using modern terminology, this time can be defined as one of the most innovative periods in world history. American publicist Frans Johansson believes that the “Medici effect” continues to be felt today. Moreover, in his opinion, we can create the same “effect” by achieving “interaction between disciplines and cultures, realizing the benefits of people with open minds.” It is no coincidence that the American Silicon Valley in modern California is compared to Florence during the Renaissance.

Only instead of artists and sculptors, people live and work there, inspired by integrated circuits no less than Michelangelo was by marble. The "Air of Intellectualism" of Silicon Valley provides a contemporary insight into the "Air of Intellectualism" of Florence, blown away by the wind of history. Such phenomena that take place in intellectual and cultural life set the tone for their era and perpetuate the achievements of not only the geniuses of science and art, but also the rulers who created the conditions for them. Is it possible to introduce the “air of intellectualism” into modern Russia? And if possible, what needs to be done to achieve this? And one more thing: what could be the role of philosophy in the implementation of this task? It seems that in search of answers to these questions, one must first of all realize that today intelligence is the most important strategic resource of the country.

The formation of a public intellectual space...

It is necessary to develop a new vision for the development of a modern institutional environment for the “reproduction of intelligence.” This vision should contain not just a set of “clever phrases and good wishes”, but an effective, energetic and systematic approach to implementing perhaps the most important task for our country. The result of such a long-term “intellectual project” may be the emergence in the foreseeable future of a new generation of intellectuals, thinkers, scientists and simply creative people. In this case, we can count on the emergence of new ideas, without which it is difficult to imagine the country’s development in the 21st century. Philosophy, as a powerful cognitive means of understanding and giving meaning to existing things, is an important integrating factor of intellectuality. However, it actually does not exist in the Russian public space.

Today, politicians, economists, lawyers, historians, scientists, spiritual pastors, advertisers, PR people, show business and sports stars and other social engineers and designers claim to manage society. The voice of philosophers in the current chorus of “masters of minds” is sometimes barely perceptible. It is important not to allow the philosophical community to become confined to solving its own philosophical puzzles, to create conditions so that it can focus on the study of pressing problems of our time. There is a need for philosophical reflection on the everyday life in which we live.

Thinkers should leave the “ivory tower” in search of a new “balance” between the “transitory” and the “eternal.” Deep changes are taking place in modern Russian philosophy. The very form of philosophical reflection is changing, especially under the influence of modern information and communication technologies. Let us remember that philosophy, from the moment of its inception, was or sought to be in the public space. The art of thinking arose in the squares of ancient city-states. At the same time, the understanding of what this space represents in different historical periods could be different.

The public space of antiquity is the space of human life in civil society, a space of constant communication, dialogue, dispute and discussion about problems affecting a significant part of society. And, for example, in the 18th century, Immanuel Kant understood the public use of his own reason as an appeal to his own public. He believed that the very ability of thinking was dependent on public application, believing that without “free and open testing, no thinking is possible.” Kant never gave up the hope of popularizing his thought in order to turn “this path for the elite into a high road for all.” According to the German philosopher, “a thinker needs society.” I would like to hope that the need for active interaction between thinkers and society has not lost its relevance to this day. At the same time, the format of interaction should be determined taking into account the realities of the day, including taking into account the capabilities of the media and information space. The establishment of a public intellectual space in Russia is a step towards acquiring a philosophical, humanitarian platform capable of making our country a full participant in international intellectual discussion.

III. Landmark projects in the intellectual sphere

Today, one of the most important conditions for productive intellectual discussion is a modern interactive intellectual environment. Such an environment can be created through joint efforts by representatives of academic and university science, the business community, government bodies, civil society institutions and independent intellectuals. In recent years, a number of socially significant projects aimed at supporting the humanitarian sector have already appeared. In particular, in March of this year, in order to consolidate the forces of the state and society in the study of the military-historical past of Russia, the public-state organization “Russian Military Historical Society” was created. In 2012, the activities of the Russian Historical Society were resumed. In 2010, the Board of Trustees of the Russian Geographical Society was created. This Council revived long-standing traditions in philanthropy. The Council included prominent figures in science, education, culture, entrepreneurs, heads of government bodies, and representatives of the public. It is obvious that philosophy deserves no less attention than historical, geographical or military sciences.

Russian philosophers, left to their own devices for the last 25 years, deprived of public attention and government support, have achieved significant success. In the development of the world philosophical heritage, the blind spots caused by the ideological restrictions of previous years have been eliminated. The prestige of Russian philosophy in the world philosophical community has risen significantly, as evidenced by the inclusion of a special section of Russian philosophy in the program of World Congresses. Fundamental works have been published aimed at raising the level of philosophical culture of society: the 4-volume “New Philosophical Encyclopedia”, the authors of the concept of which were awarded the State Prize in the field of science for 2003; encyclopedic dictionaries on individual areas of philosophical knowledge (“Ethics”. “Epistemology and philosophy of science”, “Philosophy of antiquity”. “Indian philosophy”. “Buddhist philosophy”. “Russian philosophy”).

Sofia". “Modern Western Philosophy”, etc.); 22-volume series of research works “Philosophy of Russia in the second half of the twentieth century.” Currently, a 40-volume publication of the research series “Philosophy of Russia in the first half of the twentieth century” is being published. The scientific productivity of the philosophical professional workshop is evidenced, for example, by the following fact: the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences alone annually publishes over 100 books and more than 1000 articles. If we agree with the opinion that philosophy is the freest space of thought, then there is reason to believe that today we need projects that take philosophy out of “intellectual cells” into the space of public consciousness, public discussion and public attention. For example, it would be possible to develop and implement a project called “Philosophy in the public space of modern Russia.”

To carry out systematic work aimed at returning philosophy to the public space of modern Russia, it is advisable to consider the issue of creating a new interactive element of the institutional environment. In particular, we could talk about the creation of a National Philosophical and Educational Center - a new public institution that can play a positive role both in increasing the level of demand for philosophical knowledge and philosophical education, and in the nature of the representation of philosophy in society - in the general public space and in expert activities. The Center's activities can contribute to achieving the following goals: . intellectualization of public space, popularization of philosophy, raising the prestige of philosophical knowledge, increasing the status of humanitarian knowledge in Russian society; . increasing the role of philosophers in the examination of socially significant programs and projects; . creating an environment for public discussions on socially significant issues, increasing the cultural and educational level of these discussions; . creating an environment for the emergence and development of nationally oriented, world-class intellectuals;

Integration of the domestic intellectual agenda with the global one; . development of intellectual life in the regions of Russia; . strengthening and expanding the “Russian World”; . systematic search for solutions to the main request of society: the image of the future of Russia, involving leading intellectuals in the discussion, analysis and modeling of scenarios for the country's development. The implementation of this project is possible on the principles of public-private partnership of nationally-oriented bureaucratic and business elites. The “National Philosophical and Educational Center” can perform communication and educational functions both within the country and abroad, especially in the Russian-speaking world.

In the current domestic philosophical infrastructure, the Center can occupy the position of a mediator between the philosophical community, represented by the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences, philosophy faculties of universities, the Russian Philosophical Society, philosophical clubs and alumni associations, as well as free thinkers, and civil society, government, and the media environment.

Thus, in relation to the existing infrastructure, the Center turns out to be an auxiliary mechanism that attracts funds and provides media support to solve theoretical and practical problems of national importance. The project must be modern, innovative, and use a project approach in managing its activities. The Center can initiate interdisciplinary research on socially significant topics in areas such as philosophy of law, philosophy of economics, and philosophy of culture. The Center's activities should be aimed at creating the environment necessary for the productive work of an independent expert community. It can become an independent discussion and expert platform. The Center can help improve the efficiency of interaction between the philosophical community and the external environment, namely with authorities, popular science and popular magazines, youth organizations,

independent expert platforms, international organizations, creative unions, foreign intellectual centers, philosophers with foreign colleagues; popularization of the most prominent representatives of the Russian philosophical guild on an international scale. The project to create the Center is described in detail in the report “Philosophy in the public space of modern Russia: institutional aspects” included in this publication, prepared by a working group of scientists and experts under the leadership of academicians of the Russian Academy of Sciences, director of the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences A.A. Guseinov and the President of the Russian Philosophical Society V.S. Stepina. The report not only highlights the current state of affairs in the Russian philosophical infrastructure and explains the importance of the humanities for the development and implementation of Russia's long-term development strategy, but also includes a detailed description of this institutional proposal. The publication also includes a detailed presentation of the concept of the project to create the Center. This report was sent to the President of the Russian Federation along with an appeal from leading representatives of the Russian philosophical community. Domestic thinkers also took the initiative to hold the Year of Philosophy in Russia in 2016

IV. Philosophy as a necessary element in creating our future

In his Nobel lecture, the poet Joseph Brodsky noted that “there can be no laws that protect us from ourselves; not a single criminal code provides for punishment for crimes against literature... There is a more serious crime - neglect of books, non-reading of them. For this crime a person pays with his whole life; if a nation commits this crime, it pays for it with its history.” To paraphrase Brodsky, one can say: the nation pays for “not thinking” with its future. It is hardly possible to overcome “non-thinking” without thinkers, without “priests of thought” - philosophers.

Only as a result of a productive public intellectual discussion can Russia’s value position, the principles of its civilizational strategy, and the grounds for involving our country in the international intellectual context be formulated. Creating conditions for such a discussion presupposes the further modernization of the domestic infrastructure for supporting intelligence, the implementation of bright innovative projects in the field of development of the intellectual space. Instead of a conclusion As you know, people are driven not only by the “imperative of survival”, but also by the “imperative of self-fulfillment”.

Equally, these “imperatives” can be attributed to the historical existence of the state. In order to survive in the modern dynamic neo-global world, Russia in the 21st century will have to go through the thorny path of new “self-realization” based on fundamental humanitarian knowledge.

A. V. Zakharov Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Moscow-Petersburg Philosophical Club

main directions of philosophy of the 20th century. - neopositivism, pragmatism, existentialism, personalism, phenomenology, neo-Thomism, analytical philosophy, philosophical anthropology, structuralism, philosophical hermeneutics. The main trends of modern philosophy are associated with the understanding of such fundamental problems as the world and the place of man in it, the fate of modern human civilization, the diversity and unity of culture, the nature of human cognition, existence and language.

26. Evolution of the concept of “being”.

One of the central sections of philosophy that studies the problem of being is called ontology, and the problem of being itself is one of the main ones in philosophy. The formation of philosophy began precisely with the study of the problem of existence. Ancient Indian, ancient Chinese, and ancient philosophy first of all became interested in ontology, tried to understand the essence of being, and only then philosophy expanded its subject and included epistemology (the study of knowledge), logic, and other philosophical problems. The initial concept on the basis of which the philosophical picture of the world is built is the category of “being”. Being is the broadest and most abstract concept. Being means to be present, to exist. Being is a really existing, stable, independent, objective, eternal, infinite substance that includes everything that exists. The main forms of existence are: material existence - the existence of material (having extension, mass, volume, density) bodies, things, natural phenomena, the surrounding world; ideal being - the existence of the ideal as an independent reality in the form of individualized spiritual being and objectified (non-individual) spiritual being; human existence - the existence of man as a unity of the material and spiritual (ideal), the existence of man in himself and his existence in the material world; social existence, which includes the existence of a person in society and the existence (life, existence, development) of society itself. Among being, the following also stand out: noumenal being (from the words “noumenon” - a thing in itself) - being that really exists regardless of the consciousness of the one who observes it from the outside; phenomenal being (from the word “phenomenon” - a phenomenon given in experience) is apparent being, that is, being as the knowing subject sees it.

27. Category "matter". Basic forms of existence of matter.

Of all forms of existence, the most common is material existence. In an effort to comprehend the nature of objective reality, which in philosophy is usually denoted using the category “matter,” people already in ancient times began to think about what the surrounding world consists of, whether there is some kind of “first brick,” “first principle” in the structure of the material world. The search for the basis of objective reality in philosophy is called the problem of substance. There were different hypotheses in ancient times: water is the basis of all things (Greek philosopher Thales); fire is the basis of all things (Heraclitus); the basis of the world is not any specific substance, but an infinite indefinite substance “apeiron” (Greek philosopher Anaximander); the basis of the world is an indivisible substance - atoms (Democritus, Epicurus); the fundamental principle of the world is God, Divine thought, Word, Logos (Plato, religious philosophers). Matter as an objective reality is capable of influencing our sensations, which creates the basis for our consciousness to perceive the world around us, that is, to cognize this objective reality. Matter is something that in its qualities is opposite to what is commonly called “consciousness”, or subjective reality. In philosophy, there are several approaches to the concept (category) of “matter”: the materialistic approach, according to which matter is the basis of being, and all other forms of existence - spirit, man, society - are a product of matter; according to materialists, matter is primary and represents existence;

objective-idealistic approach - matter objectively exists as a product (objectification) independently of all that exists of the primary ideal (absolute) spirit; subjective-idealistic approach - matter as an independent reality does not exist at all, it is only a product (phenomenon - apparent phenomenon, “hallucination”) of the subjective (existing only in the form of human consciousness) spirit; positivist - the concept of "matter" is false because it cannot be proven and fully studied through experimental scientific research. The elements of the structure of matter are: inanimate nature, living nature, society (society).

Why is philosophy needed? (philosophy and worldview)

Unlike an animal, a person lives not so much according to biologically inherited programs, but rather according to artificial programs created by himself. As a result, he is in a state of permanent novelty and this novelty is not always successful. In order to avoid, as far as possible, the undesirable consequences of his activities, he must constantly keep his finger on the pulse of the process of creating a “second nature” and his position in it, his attitude to what he does and how he builds interactions with other people. To create something new you need to have consciousness, and in order to “create without causing harm,” a person needs self-awareness. To one degree or another, every person has developed consciousness, at least in the sphere of his knowledge and skills. Unfortunately, this cannot be said about self-awareness; it is much more weakly expressed. And in this sense, we can say that the “prehistory” is still ongoing: man has sailed from the animal shore, but has not yet reached the truly human shore, i.e. has not achieved the required level of responsibility for oneself and the environment it changes. And this is evidenced by the global catastrophe that threatens us, as a consequence of the inadequate use of our power in relation to nature, each other and ourselves.

The weakness of self-awareness is manifested in the fact that many people make decisions not so much on the basis of conscious choice, but by imitating other people’s models: “it’s fashionable, prestigious, nowadays everyone does it.” This is the path of conformists. Even more dangerous is the behavior of predator-destructors, carriers of the “will to power.” They, putting themselves at the center, actively follow the guidelines self-will, not wanting to compare their goals and actions with the consequences for other people and objective reality. Both of them, of course, know and think about how to do something, and can be very inventive in this, but they do not think about whether they are thinking and doing the right thing.

The underdevelopment of self-awareness manifests itself especially harmfully in times of crisis and disruption of established values ​​and norms of behavior. Life poses a Challenge, and the Answer, the choice of a new adequate strategy (remember the concept of A. Toynbee) can be given as a result of criminal manipulation of the consciousness of conformists by the “predators” who exploit them. People with more developed self-awareness tend to make their own choices. But, if making such a choice is not easy at the personal level, then it is even more difficult at the level of the strategy for the development of society, in the modern era of globalization - at the level of humanity as a whole. The worldview of a person in the case of a conscious decision is based on a choice from the worldviews present in that era and in the culture to which this person belongs. But is it enough mudra a separate personality (if we are not talking about geniuses and prophets) in order to completely on one's own make such a choice? Isn’t there a need for a special social specialization here, so to speak, an organized “lover of wisdom”, promoting a critical awareness of the old “wisdom” and the formation of a new one? And isn’t this what the great philosophers of all times and peoples did?

I am afraid that what has been said above can be understood very differently if we do not clarify the relationship between the concepts of wisdom, worldview and philosophy. The term “worldview” is understood in two senses, which can be conventionally designated as “positivist” and “existential”. In the first sense, a worldview is a set (ideally a system) of scientific knowledge of a given era, forming a picture of objective reality (for example, in the spirit of Comte or Spencer). Worldview in the existential sense differs, firstly, in that it can exist both on a scientific and on an extra-scientific (which is not synonymous with anti-scientific) level: everyday, mythological, religious, etc. Secondly, and this is the main thing, the core of such a worldview is a person’s attitude to the world, the meaning of human life. Thinking about this is the main issue of worldview(OBM). In other words, knowledge about the world is built from the positions of basic values subject of worldview. This article will only refer to worldview in the existential sense.

Wisdom differs from worldview in two ways: a direct connection with life experience and positive content. This is knowledge in direct action to control behavior in general and it is not just any knowledge, but one where truth is combined with goodness. A worldview can remain a general ideology without its active application in practice. The worldview can be that of a tradesman, a criminal, or a Satanist. But we will not call the bearers of such worldviews sages. It is instructive to compare the interpretation of wisdom in our scientistic age and in Dahl's time. In Ozhegov’s explanatory dictionary, only the connection in the wisdom of worldview with experience 1 is indicated, and in Dahl’s dictionary it is emphasized that wisdom is “the combination of truth and good, the highest truth, the merging of love and truth, the highest state of mental and moral perfection; philosophy" 2.

I will allow myself to disagree only with the last one - with the identification of wisdom and philosophy. Philosophy is not wisdom, but love To wisdom. Moreover, to wisdom that is clearly lacking or lost, for the sage, being such, no longer philosophizes, but teaches by his example, by his actions. There is no opportunity here to delve into the historical excursion of the etymology of the word “philosophy” and speculate about the relationship between wisdom and sophistication. In practice, philosophy, even inspired by the ideals of wisdom, as theoretical knowledge, directly deals with the worldview, with its analysis, criticism and attempt at justification. But in itself it is not a worldview, despite their constant mixing. For example, Marxism and Christianity, as types of worldview, are not the same as Marxist or Christian philosophy. Philosophy enters into a relationship with the worldview in a certain way, namely, it is self-awareness or reflection worldview. It compares different worldviews and justifies the one that is preferable from the point of view of the basic values ​​(i.e., worldview!) of a given philosopher. It turns out to be an inevitable circle, because a philosopher cannot absolutely rise above his time and culture. The only thing he can do with his values ​​at the level of self-awareness is to honestly recognize their presence and try to draw consequences from their acceptance for the regulation of human behavior. Only further development of philosophy can turn this circle into a spiral, but at each stage it simultaneously generates its own circle.

When dealing with different worldviews, the philosopher must take a special reflective position in order to understand them from an extremely general point of view. The tools for such work are categories- concepts that reflect attributes(characteristics that an object cannot lose while remaining itself) components of OBM: the world, man and human-peaceful relations. Accordingly, philosophy reveals the categorical frameworks of the world (ontology), man (philosophical anthropology and social philosophy) and the essential relations of man to the world (theory of knowledge, aesthetics, philosophy of religion, etc.). No matter how the world, man and man’s relationship to the world, we cannot avoid comparing the characteristics attributable to each of these spheres. Such, for example, as subjective and objective, material and ideal, change and stability, truth, goodness and beauty, etc. But in order to realize what content they are filled with in different worldviews, we must present these concepts themselves quite clearly, and not at the level of vague general phrases. Thus, philosophy can be more specifically described as categorical reflection worldview, as his self-awareness at the categorical level.

Unfortunately, people who do not understand the difference between the categorical and everyday meaning of such terms (everyone, supposedly, knows what cause and effect are), look down on philosophy. And they don’t feel any particular need for reflection on their worldview, being completely satisfied with the pragmatics of their private business. Thus, a scientist who has the ideological beliefs of an empiricist believes that science is above all and it comes down to facts and their statistical processing. The rest for him is “unscientific ideology” that has no value, and the claims of the worldview as a whole and philosophy for the role of strategic management seem ridiculous to him. Such a scientist snob does not understand that in a culture where there is no mathematical science, he would look like a buffoon. And that the development of society will not be able to avoid very dangerous surprises if its beloved science is not comprehended in the context of the holistic development of society and the individual.

The globalization of planetary life sends humanity a Challenge, the absence of an adequate response to which is fraught with the death of human civilization and nature. A new worldview is required as the basis for a holistic strategy (not pragmatist tactics!) for solving global problems. None of the existing worldviews (liberal, Marxist, varieties of religious, especially postmodern, based generally on the denial of ideological ideals) is sufficient to find such an Answer. Is modern philosophy ready to successfully participate in the development of such a worldview?

I do not undertake to assess the situation in philosophy on a global scale, although, judging by the next idol of our “advanced” Badiou, it is not very different from the Russian one. As for Russian philosophy as a whole, one can say unequivocally: it is not ready. The certainty, albeit limited, of Soviet philosophy has been lost, but a new one has not been acquired. In the teaching of philosophy, there is an eclectic mixture of remnants of former certainty, compensation for the lack of a clear position by going into the history of philosophy, and some fashionable fads. As for philosophical research, here we have reached the European level that N.A. Berdyaev sadly spoke about in his “Self-Knowledge.” Sharing his impressions of French philosophy of the 30s of the last century, he noted. What if the Russians are characterized by posing problems and trying to solve them, then the French have long abandoned such a naive approach and are simply demonstrating their historical and philosophical erudition. These trends only intensified in the subsequent period.

In modern Russian philosophy, the above idea of ​​philosophy as a categorical reflection of a worldview is, to one degree or another, met only by some marginals and outsiders. The orientation of the “elite”, consisting of “advanced”, and, so to speak, mass philosophy is completely different. Such philosophizing is characterized by the following features:

Philosophy is not a science, but rather a type of literature; after Heidegger it is impossible to work with categories;

Philosophy has neither a strict method nor a definite subject, and therefore it is concerned with either phenomenological description (without any explanation!), or postmodern interpretation (in practice, most often it turns out to be “interpretation”);

Philosophy should not be ideologically biased; it distances itself in every possible way from “ideology”;

Philosophy renounces the pretense of seeking truth; on the contrary, pluralism of approaches is its advantage;

The desire for integrity and consistency is the path to totalitarianism (“war on the whole” according to Deleuze and Guattari); philosophizing, like art, is the free self-expression of the individual;

Philosophy does not solve problems, it engages in “questioning” and criticism, deconstruction, i.e. “exposes”, providing solutions to problems to the course of development in the form of a rhizome;

Asking about the responsibility of free philosophizing to something or someone and on what basis taxpayers should pay for this “discourse” is simply indecent.

It is clear that one cannot expect from such a philosophy a categorical analysis and justification of the ideological strategy for the development of modern civilization. Moreover, the very formulation of such a task seems, from her point of view, outdated and utopian.

There are objective and subjective reasons for such a turn in the development (degradation?) of philosophy. Attempts to implement the main ideological projects in the twentieth century, as we know, ended in failure. Compared to the “classical” period, what came to the fore was not the eternal and general, but the developing (more precisely, becoming) and individual. Disappointment in the possibility of implementing any projects based on general laws and fairly stable values, coupled with the fear of totalitarian methods of their implementation, threw many intellectuals and masses of “educated people” to the other extreme: my personal freedom (and, of course, my rights) is higher Total. Not ambitious modernist transformations, but postmodern games: being Homo ludens in this cruel world is much easier and more enjoyable. A society of market democracy, which has proclaimed the “end of history,” does not need serious philosophy at all. In this society, everything turns into business: politics, art, science. Philosophy has a chance of being only a pseudo-business. Self-sufficiency, and even more so the profit from it, is doubtful. It can prolong its existence only due to still-preserving traditions and subsidies, if philanthropists or the Tatars or another party in the information wars are interested in this (for example, as a means of distraction from real problems). But in terms of the scope of self-promotion (for example, postmodern), it can claim to be classified as, at least pseudo, but still a business).

Dissatisfaction with this state of affairs is beginning to manifest itself more and more clearly among our philosophers. The collapse of postmodernism is no longer in doubt. The authority of Heidegger and Husserl remains unshakable among their followers, but it is quite obvious that the corresponding studies generally have an intraphilosophical, so to speak, laboratory significance and cannot lay claim to any practical recommendations. Figuratively speaking, it is not enough to apodictically describe one’s perceptions of the sweetness or bitterness of honey; "natural installation" requires explain the difference between such perceptions and estimate them in the context of the regulation of human activity and the possibility of mutual understanding and interaction. But the search for a way out, a breakthrough of philosophy to life, has not yet received at least some recognition from the philosophical community.

Philosophical concepts are extremely diverse, and the consumer of philosophical knowledge has the right to ask the question: what and how can I believe if you cannot agree among yourself? This diversity, in turn, is determined by the diversity of the following factors: the types of cultures and worldviews with which the philosopher consciously or, more often, subconsciously identifies himself; personal characteristics of the thinker (Nietzsche was right that philosophy is the rationalization of the philosopher’s psychology); the versatility of the very subject of philosophical research. Thus, positivism is associated with a scientistic culture and a rationalistic worldview, the researcher’s inner sympathy for precisely this kind of values ​​and the objective presence of repeating patterns in the world, and in human activity - scientific knowledge. On the contrary, existentialism is an expression of humanitarian and artistic culture and reflects the presence in the world and in man of the unique, non-rational (existence, and not just essence), and in human activity - a figurative and symbolic way of mastering reality.

In relation to the fact of diversity and contradictions with each other of different types of philosophy, we observe two extremes: either the recognition of the absolute independence and equality of all forms, or the selection of one as absolutely true (in the limit - for all times and peoples). This is reminiscent of the attitude towards the diversity of cultures: either recognition of their complete independence from each other in the spirit of Spengler or Danilevsky, or comparison of them with a certain single main line of development (Hegel, Marxism). The same situation is in the methodology of science: either the irreducibility of independent paradigms to a single beginning and their complete equality (T. Kuhn, extreme version - P. Feyerabend), or the assumption of a cumulative process of development of scientific knowledge.

The methodological basis for solving this issue is the principle of complementarity. Its completely philosophical formulation, given by N. Bohr himself, says: “For an objective description and harmonious coverage of facts, it is necessary in almost all areas of knowledge to pay attention to the circumstances under which this knowledge was obtained” 3 . To the above-mentioned circumstances influencing the nature of the philosophical vision of the world, man and human relations, one more thing should be added. Namely: type tasks, for the solution of which this type of philosophy is adequate. It is absurd to talk about love and faith from the point of view of positivism (for him these are “pseudo-problems”), and in structuring scientific knowledge and ensuring its accuracy, proceed from the ideas of existentialism (in this case, you get a complete denial of the role of an objective scientific approach, say, in the spirit of Berdyaev or Shestov).

Does this mean recognition of the complete relativity and absolute equality of philosophical concepts? Not at all. This is where the recognition comes from interval relativity: yes, to solve such and such a problem, to understand such and such aspect of the subject of philosophy, i.e. not “in general,” but in a certain finite interval, this approach is adequate. And, if this approach corresponds to your cultural and psychological attitudes, then work for your health within its limits. But you can't talk about it like that philosophy in general, called upon as objectively as possible (we have already noted that this possibility is also never absolute) to reflect on existing worldviews and substantiate the one that is most adequate for the Response to the Challenge of a given era. For those for whom philosophy is just an egocentric game, a fun construction of collages or possible worlds, such an approach is, of course, completely alien. For it rests on the assumption of a certain possible directionality of all forms of the historical process. And this direction is not determined with absolute inevitability either by the will of God or by what took place in the Big Bang. It is realized in our freedom and in our creativity. From the side of objectivity, there are, firstly, some prerequisites, and, secondly, those consequences that follow from our choice and our activities. And we have the right to choose whether to be content with simply interesting, prestigious and successful activities in any partial interval, or, if you don’t take responsibility, which not everyone can do, then at least know how things are generally.

Let's imagine the subject of philosophy (attributive characteristics of the world, man and human relations) in the form of a house. Marxism describes its material foundation; phenomenology is my perception determined by my intention; religious philosophy tries to understand his relationship to the Spirit; existentialism - to capture its unique aura for my existence; postmodernism - imagine it as a text with infinite difference. All this is interesting to someone and in some respects necessary. And if we limit ourselves to cognitive-experiential interest, then we can say that everyone is right in their own way and let everyone choose their own philosophy. It’s the teacher’s job to introduce students to the possible assortment.

Why can't I agree with this approach? Yes, because I stand first and foremost on practical positions: we live in this house. And, therefore, you need to know it generally. No private philosophical concept provides such knowledge. Perhaps each of them is, to one degree or another, more suitable for a particular culture of society or individual. But in the era of globalization, a common worldview and a general philosophy justifying it are required that would provide a reasonable universal development strategy. Currently, the values ​​of the West are presented as “universal”; real globalization does not pursue the interests of a single humanity; a holistic worldview and its philosophical justification are unknown. The presence of such a holistic invariant philosophy would not exclude the existence of individual philosophical teachings, just as the existence of a single humanity would not exclude the uniqueness of individual nations and individuals. However, for a worthy response to the Challenge of our time, it is necessary to place emphasis not on pluralism, but on synthesis, on assembly our home. The focus on solving real life problems and the desire for integrity and synthesis have always been distinctive features of Russian culture and Russian philosophy. Not unity or diversity, but, as S.L. Frank said, “the unity of diversity and unity.”

How is such a synthesis possible? To begin with, it is worth remembering the wise thought of Vl. Solovyov, that any philosophical concept contains true moments, which, however, turn into false abstract beginnings, as soon as these concepts begin to claim to explain everything. In modern language, as soon as they go beyond their range of applicability. Consequently, the first condition of synthesis is the isolation of such moments in existing philosophical teachings with a clear awareness of the range of their applicability. But to move on to the “assembly”, you need to know what our “house” as a whole is intended for, i.e. what purposes the proposed synthesis should serve. This is the second condition. The third condition is the presence of a “field” or some kind of “conceptual diagram” of the upcoming assembly. A certain hypothesis is required that allows us to see the place of existing achievements in a holistic concept, and those moments that are still lacking for integrity. Let’s say that the foundation blocks of a house fully satisfy the intended design of this building, but a window solution has not yet been found. And finally, the fourth condition is the availability of tools and assembly tools. In our case, we mean a culture of categorical thinking, a clear understanding of the methods of philosophy and the ability to use them. These are the conditions categorical synthesis, as the direction of development of philosophical thought that is most in demand by the development of society, but, alas, not yet in demand by the philosophical community. Responsible creative synthesis, not rhizomic games and cabinet designs!

Let me specify the conditions formulated above for the synthesis of a holistic philosophy using the example of the contours outlined by the author of this article. Naturally, I take the material that is closest to me, but I do not at all claim to be the ultimate truth. On the contrary, I really need constructive criticism and will not be surprised that as the need for a transition to philosophical synthesis is realized, new options will appear. And, perhaps, their synthesis at the highest level will be the most adequate (which, of course, also should not turn into a frozen dogma).

1. Identification of elements for subsequent assembly. The experience of historical and philosophical introduction not as a history of dates and names, but as a history of problems and their resolution was undertaken by me back in the 90s 4 . I proposed a certain periodization of the history of philosophy and focused not on the originality of various directions and their “struggle” with each other, but on the cumulative process of accumulation of moments of future synthesis. Philosophers and concepts interested me from the point of view of their consistent contribution to the resolution of “eternal” problems: substance, man, human-worldly relations (epistemological, ethical, religious, aesthetic, praxeological and axiological) and the self-awareness of philosophy. As a result, I came to the conclusion that the main ideas for further synthesis have now been accumulated in dialectical materialism (the contribution of Soviet philosophers is clearly underestimated and their ideas, which have become “unfashionable”, have been abandoned in vain) and in the direction that I called existential transcendentalism ( existence, soul, addressed to transcendence, spirit; the most vivid expression in K. Jaspers and M. Buber). But will we not find ourselves captive to banal eclecticism if we try to “reconcile” the fundamental ideas about the primacy of matter or the individual soul or the superhuman spirit? We will not find ourselves if we formulate a basis that allows us to remove the claim to primacy and remove the mutually exclusive “or”.

I consider the work I have done as a first and largely imperfect draft. Efforts to solve the problem must be collective. But the reaction to my approach from the philosophical community has so far been zero.

2. The purpose of the “assembly”: what should the proposed system serve? This formulation of the question is the main requirement of a systems approach in the design of new systems. The short answer is: justification noospheric worldview. None of the existing worldviews can be entirely used as the basis for a strategy for solving the global problems of our time. The modern world is developing on the basis of the contradictory and short-sighted tactics of individual competing elites. Neither the kingdom of God on Earth, nor communism in its classical version, nor liberal democracy are ideals, following which can prevent a global catastrophe. 5 A worldview is required in which the external contradiction between man and nature and the internal contradiction between society and the individual are resolved. The ideal Such a worldview is the construction of the noosphere on our planet. This is the Common Cause that can unite humanity.

We use the term “noosphere” not in an energetic sense, but in a meaningful sense, i.e. We answer the question, not in what energy form it can exist, but how its main components - society, nature, the individual - are related in it. The remarkable hypothesis of Vernadsky - Leroy - Chardin has still, strangely enough, not been confirmed empirically. But the fact that the interaction between man and nature gives rise to a special situation, now expressed in the global problems of our time, is beyond doubt. Man, by definition, cannot help but change nature. But ideological orientation towards maximum exposure and consumption of the results obtained threatens the death of both nature and humans. What is required is a worldview reorientation (“revaluation of values”, “revolution of the spirit” 6) to optimum in relations between society (sociosphere, technosphere) and the biosphere. Exactly the same optimum is necessary in solving the problem of society-personality (the whole - individuality), because maximalist aspirations in favor of one of the parties (liberalism and totalitarianism) do not lead to anything good. Under noosphere we understand optimal interaction of society - nature - personality. Namely: each of the interacting parties should be considered as self-worth(not just as a means) in them complementarity to a new integrity. Only within the framework of such integrity (the noosphere), or at least on the path towards it, can the global problems of our time be solved. The noosphere is the only possible answer to the disastrous challenge of real globalization, which in many ways pursues criminal goals and is carried out by criminal means. The tactics of pragmatists, not guided by a strategic worldview, will not save the situation.

3. The base of the "assembly". Let us recall that the system-forming core of any worldview, around which its values ​​and ideals are grouped, is the question of man’s relationship to the world, of man’s place in the world, of the meaning of human life. In order to look at ideological answers from an extremely general categorical-attributive point of view, it is obvious that philosophy must also have its own system-forming core. The categorical tracing paper of OBM is OVF; yes, that same “obsolete” fundamental question of philosophy. Only it must be formulated not at the level of the positivist 19th century, when subject-object relations dominated in man’s relationship to the world, and therefore, from the standpoint of Marxist philosophy, it was enough to ask about the relationship of the subjective principle - consciousness - to objective reality - matter. In order to take an unbiased look at various ideas about the relationship of a person, as a subject, to the world, it is necessary, based on the real state of affairs in history and especially at the present time, to take into account the assumption of three main principles in this world: “The triple life relationship of a person is his relationship to the world and things, his attitude towards people... and his attitude towards the mystery of existence... which the philosopher calls the absolute, and the believer calls God" 7. These three principles appear in the language of categories as objective reality (matter), subjective reality (soul, existence) and transcendental reality (Spirit, transcendence 8). Any worldview is built on a certain understanding of the relationship between these principles both in man and in the world. The task of the philosopher is to clearly imagine the content of these concepts and their relationship 9. By concretizing these ideas, we receive philosophical teachings about the world, man and man’s relationship to the world (subject-object, subject-subject and existence to transcendence). The corresponding formulation of the CVF is formal the basis of the "assembly".

Why formal? Because the content of this “fundamental diagram” can be very different, depending on the understanding of the relationship between the three initial principles. Recognition of the dominance, the “primacy” of one of them gives rise to such directions of philosophy as materialism, subjective and objective idealism (and this division cannot “become obsolete”, just like the fact of considering those principles that they put at the forefront). And now - attention! - we are moving to the moment when our ideological and philosophical attitudes are closed on each other (it is impossible to avoid such a “circle”, as mentioned above; you can and should only honestly reflect on it). The noospheric worldview is based on the recognition of such development peace and man, which is provided and will provide in the future mutual complementarity society, nature and personality, as intrinsically valuable began, within the framework of a single developing and equally valuable the whole - the noosphere. Translating this into the language of philosophical categories, we have developing unity and complementarity in developing diversity, or, in a short formulation - developing harmony. In terms of content, this developing harmony acts as anthropocosmism. The anthropocosmist unity of man and the world appears as a unity of unity and diversity, unity (harmony) and development, unique individuality and an “embracing” (K. Jaspers) whole.

But how do the original universal principles of matter, soul and spirit correlate in this process-state of developing anthropocosmist harmony? Naturally, like complementary, as necessary and sufficient to ensure the integrity of both man and the world with which man interacts. The worldview of the era of global development requires overcoming the claims of individual aspects of development to absolute “monocausal” dominance, which inevitably translates them into the rank of “false abstract principles.” In my works, I identified precisely the positive aspects of materialism (respect for objectivity, for natural repeatability), subjective idealism (recognition of the irreducible, unique principle of subjectivity, thereby freedom and creativity) and objective idealism (overcoming the egocentrism of subjectivism, recognition of the spiritual integrity of being), synthesized them based on the idea of ​​mutual complementarity and concretized in identifying the categorical-attributive frameworks of the ontology of the world, anthropology and social philosophy of man and human-peaceful relations 10 .

I do not pretend to be more than an attempt to move along a new path, along the path of overcoming the crisis of modern philosophy, which has escaped from the embrace of dogmatism and fallen into the even more dangerous embrace of the fashion for absolute relativism, pluralism and gambling addiction.

Naming philosophy categorical reflection of the worldview, it should be clarified that we are talking about philosophy as science. It is now fashionable to completely deny the scientific status of philosophy. However, be consistent: give up scientific degrees and titles, do not torment students with exams and do not logically argue your position - after all, there is no arguing about tastes. However, you, following Shestov and the postmodernists, also deny the need for consistency: a surprisingly advantageous position! I believe that philosophy is still first and foremost a science, although philosophizing, of course, cannot be reduced to science. Let me clarify this thesis this way: philosophy is a science to the extent that a systematic approach operates within its framework. And within this framework, she works with categories. But since the subject of philosophy is not limited to the level of the system, but is integrity, its development requires a holistic approach. And at this level, philosophizing works with existentials.

The terms introduced require clarification. System there is a set of elements, the internal structure of which, under given external conditions, necessarily and sufficiently determines the quality (properties, functions) of this set 11. Knowledge of a subject as a system can be formalized. Above, we characterized the philosophy organized by OVF as a system. A detailed description of any of the main components of philosophical knowledge can and should also be presented as category system displaying the corresponding attribute system ov (for example, in ontology or social philosophy). Each of the categories, naturally, must be unambiguously defined. Since categories are, by definition, universal for their subject, their definition cannot be generic. They are determined through the relationship with each other, as links in the interaction of the described system with other systems and through the relationship with their opposites. Unfortunately, the philosophical community did not react to the principles I developed for defining categories and constructing categorical systems 12, and very loose handling of categories is still in use.

Categorical knowledge sets the general framework of philosophy as a science. But inside categorical frameworks, we are faced with “gaps” that cannot be clearly and unambiguously fixed conceptually, and thus the results of our ideal mastery of the subject of philosophical reflection cannot be fully formalized. We, for example, can place Heraclitian fire or becoming and time in the sense of A. Bergson within the framework of a categorical description of movement. But it is in principle impossible to reduce these metaphors-symbols to unambiguously defined concepts. The same can be said about Heidegger's events, nothingness or care. Or - an even more obvious example - placing Tyutchev’s “Silentium” in the categorical framework of our ideas about the processes of cognition and communication. And, nevertheless, all this is the essence of manifestations of genuine philosophizing.

So, philosophy is not reduced to categorical knowledge. Does it follow from this that its categorical tools are of yesterday? In no case. Philosophy as a science, i.e. having its own language, a set of unambiguously defined concepts and being verifiable, it exists precisely at the categorical level. Without him, it will turn into chaos. But an ordered cosmos does not live without chaos. And the characteristic of Vl. is applicable to any science, to the humanities in particular. Solovyova: “The bright daughter of dark chaos.” The chaos of ambiguous, in principle multi-interpretable experiences, on the one hand, feeds future concepts, and on the other, the boundaries of its territory are, as it were, designated by the last boundary pillars of conceptual knowledge. If we completely reduce the tools of philosophy to existentials, then it will be impossible to prove or disprove anything in the resulting “picture”. For example, Heidegger's “fundamental ontology” can serve not only as a means of countless “interpretations” on the part of his admirers who have accepted his vision of the situation as dogma, but also as a beneficial source of serious reflection. And what, if we keep in mind the last case, will be the result? Firstly, this may contribute to the emergence of a new slice of categorical vision of the subject. Secondly, it can remain outside the boundaries of philosophy as a science, without losing its value. But there is no reason to believe that Heidegger created a new ontology, after which categorical work becomes unnecessary and impossible. M. Buber was right when he showed that “fundamental ontology” is not ontology, but a variant of anthropology, and a rather one-sided one at that 13 . I would add to this that this is an extra-scientific (which does not equal “anti-scientific”) vision of anthropological problems.

To what genre do such discourses belong, which do not pretend to be categorical and in some ways certainly surpass it? I can't give a satisfactory answer. Dostoevsky is much deeper than other philosophical anthropologists

or ethicists, Tyutchev or Prishvin - estheticians, Art. Lem or I. Efremov are social philosophers. But in all these cases we have no doubt that we are dealing with fiction, philosophical poetry. Philosophical essays can be very deep, and many valuable thoughts can be found in good journalism. Perhaps, along with philosophical poetry, we should also talk about philosophical prose. Of course, traces of philosophical poetry can be found in many poets, and philosophical prose can also be found in detective stories. However, in some authors they clearly dominate. In literature of this kind, as a rule, there is no clear differentiation of philosophy and worldview, but it undoubtedly serves the development of both.

But where should we include, say, “listening to language” by the same Heidegger or the verbose studies of modern French philosophers? If we agree with Deleuze that an indefinite “concept” is the main tool of philosophy, then this is modern non-classical philosophy. Based on the attitudes that permeate this article, such a conclusion is unacceptable. Probably, Derrida’s “letter” can be useful in some way, so to speak, in internal laboratory work, but to call it genuine philosophy - no, it’s hard to come by... But in literature, classical texts are still better. Than their interpretations in the spirit of Barthes. Perhaps the deconstruction of texts should be placed under the department of criticism?

So, having digested the searches and achievements, as well as the bitter lessons of the evolution of philosophy in the twentieth century, let’s return to good categorical work and continue, to the best of our ability, step by step, solving “eternal” philosophical problems in the context of a genuine, and not narrow-minded, Challenge of our time. Not the pursuit of “original” fashion, but good quality and necessity will be our guidelines. Pluralism has already scattered more than enough stones. It's time to collect them. Time for holistic synthesis.

1. Ozhegov S.I. Dictionary of the Russian language. M., 1988. P. 294.

2. Dal V.I. Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language. M., 2001. P. 393.

3. Bohr N. Selected scientific works in 2 volumes. T. 2. M., 1971. P. 517.

4. See: Sagatovsky V.N. Philosophy of developing harmony Philosophical foundations of worldview in 3 parts. Part 1: Philosophy and life. St. Petersburg 1997. pp. 78-222. Pay attention to the tables: p. 96 (Main stages in the development of philosophy) and p. 136 (Basic approaches to understanding substance)

5. See: Sagatovsky V.N. Worldview for the post-new era. Excerpts from the manuscript. / http://vasagatovskij.narod.ru ; him. Is there a way out for humanity? St. Petersburg 2000.

6. One “public figure”, together with two lawyers, wrote a denunciation to the prosecutor’s office exposing “noospherites” (under this name they lumped together everyone who uses the term “noosphere”) and petitioned for criminal prosecution of V.N. Sagatovsky and A.I. Subetto for calling for the overthrow of the existing social system, since they used the expression ... “noospheric revolution.” I did not consider it necessary to respond to this, since the level of culture and thinking of these gentlemen does not need comments, but prof. Subetto gave them a worthy rebuke in: Subetto A.I. Noospherism: movement, ideology or a new scientific and worldview system? (An open letter is a response to some “fighters” against noosphereism). St. Petersburg - Kostroma. 2006.

7. Buber M. The problem of man // Buber M. Two images of faith. M., 1995. P. 209.

8. See Jaspers K. Philosophical faith // Jaspers K. The meaning and purpose of history. M., 1991. S. 425-428.

9. See Sagatovsky V.N. Philosophy of anthropocosmism in brief. St. Petersburg, 2004. pp. 41-65; him. Triad of existence. St. Petersburg 2006.

10. See: Sagatovsky V.N. Philosophy of developing harmony. Philosophical foundations of worldview in 3 parts. Part 2: Ontology of St. Petersburg. 1999; Part 3: Anthropology. St. Petersburg 1999; him. The existence of the ideal. St. Petersburg 2003; him. The philosophy of anthropocosmism in brief. St. Petersburg 2004.

11. See Sagatovsky V.N. Experience in constructing a categorical apparatus of a systematic approach // Philosophical Sciences, 1976. No. 3.

12. See: Sagatovsky V.N. Fundamentals of systematization of universal categories. Tomsk 1973. Ch. 2; him. Triad of existence. St. Petersburg 2006. pp. 14-31.

13. See: Buber M. The Problem of Man // Buber M. Two Images of Faith. M., 1995. S. 197-212.

Philosophy about the prospects for the future of humanity

Let's begin our discussion of the problem with the thoughts of the famous French moralist, Duke François de La Rochefoucauld: “Philosophy triumphs over the sorrows of the past and future, but the sorrows of the present triumph over philosophy.”

So, we moved on to the study of real humanity, to the analysis of the main characteristics of modern era(lit. - from the gr. - stop, abstention from judgment; a qualitatively unique historical period in the development of society).

We live in the 21st century. Progress in the field of economics, medicine, new technologies, space exploration, etc. is obvious. Today people are exploring new planets, creating new supercomputers, etc. Sometimes it seems that fairy tales, the fruits of the wildest fantasies, become reality.

But, despite progress, humanity is captivated by its own achievements and technical successes. Humanity, solving some problems, gives rise to others, more fateful for its existence, but, most likely, survival. For half a century now, human civilization has been under the influence of many unique factors, unfamiliar to previous eras. It is entering the era of globalization.

Why? What are these problems? What are the reasons for their occurrence?

First of all, let's define the concept of “global”. It originates from the Latin word "globe" (Earth), that is, the Earth. Since the late 60s of the twentieth century. this term has become widespread to refer to planetary problems of the modern era that affect the interests of humanity as a whole.

Note: Many of these problems, being caused by scientific and technological progress, can nevertheless only be solved thanks to scientific and technological progress, and the creative efforts of the person himself.

For the first time, the global nature of existing problems was announced to humanity by the Club of Rome, which was created in 1968. on the initiative and under the leadership of the Italian economist A. Peccei. Initially it included 100 members, representatives of 30 countries. The club's reports caused a sensation, as the authors concluded: if existing trends in scientific and technological progress continue, humanity will face a global catastrophe in the first half of the 21st century.

Opinions differ regarding the real possibility of solving these problems: some do not allow this possibility at all, others, due to the lack of answers, do not want to think about it at all, and still others advise stopping progress.

Giving a general description of global problems, we note that:

Firstly, globalization makes sense of previous ideas about the center of civilization; gradually their diversity converges into a single concept: “world city”.

Secondly, the economic, financial, technological and information capabilities of the “developed West”, the so-called. "golden billion" contribute to the fact that it is he, this “golden billion”, who gives impetus to the processes of globalization.

Global are:

System problems "Nature and Society" (problem of resources, energy, food, environment);

System problems "Human and society" (problems of health care, population, education, culture, computerization, human development and his future;

"Intersocial Problems"(the problem of war and peace, socio-economic problems, problems of overcoming the backwardness of countries)

In our lecture we will be able to consider only a few of them.

Of primary importance for humanity today is ecological problem. The word "ecology" (Greek – “oikos” - habitat, dwelling), means the study of the biosphere, which is our own home, in which we live and of which we are a part. Hence the science - "ecology", studying the relationships of living organisms between themselves and the environment. Thus, the word speaks for itself: in order to solve the problems of human survival, you need to know your own home and learn to live in it! Live long and happy!

In scientific use the term "ecology" was introduced in the nineteenth century. German biologist E. Haeckel (1834-1919) to designate everything external, in relation to man, to the world. Incredible (compared to animals) Man's ability to adapt, determining the wide scale of his activities, led to the environmental crisis. Thus, the dominant system aimed at satisfying needs is have as much as possible, came into deep conflict with a much more fundamental human need - to be alive and develop.

As the population grows, so do human needs. To meet these needs, people influence their environment, which changes more and more. But until recently, all these changes happened so slowly that no one thought seriously about them. The situation began to change rapidly with the rapid development of industry. The main reasons for these changes are the extraction and use of hydrocarbon fuels - coal, oil, shale, gas, and then the extraction of huge quantities of metals and other minerals. The intensity of pollution is growing rapidly, living conditions have begun to change visibly.

Plants and animals were the first to feel the process taking place. The number and, most importantly, the diversity of the living world began to decline rapidly. In the second half of the twentieth century. process of oppression of nature caused by man himself ( those. his uncontrolled activities and selfishness), especially accelerated.

The oppression of nature is a consequence not only of human industrial activity, but also of any careless actions that lead to the contamination of parks, forests, recreation areas, public gardens, etc. with household waste. The outskirts of many cities have turned into unauthorized landfills. Dumped garbage on the outskirts of the forest or on the river bank, discarded cans and bottles, lit fires and even an abandoned cigarette butt - all this, of course, violates the beauty of nature and leads to the alienation of huge areas of land on which trees could grow, grass turn green, and bloom. flowers and thereby enrich the atmosphere with oxygen. To restore alienated lands, it is necessary to spend considerable financial resources, which could be invested in any other useful and noble cause. Apparently, the state should intervene in solving the problem of pollution of nature - in any case, nature must be preserved.

Hence the irreversible result: violation ecological balance. So, until recently, the Earth was inhabited by about 500 thousand species of plants, one and a half million species of animals (of which there are about 13 thousand species of mammals). However, more and more species of living organisms continue to disappear from the face of the Earth, and the “Red Book” of endangered species of animals and plants is becoming more voluminous. If some of them, for example, dinosaurs, became extinct, apparently as a result of natural disasters, then many more species are exterminated by the unreasonable and inhumane actions of man.

As is known, there is an opinion that evolution leads to the replacement of less complex and less adapted species by others, more complex and adapted, and man became the “crown” of this process. And the “crown of nature,” in turn, felt like its “king”: he “executed” some (i.e. exterminated), and had mercy on others (i.e. artificially propagated).

Now for science, and philosophy as well, there is no doubt that there is a cycle on Earth in which there is nothing superfluous. The fact that life depends to a great extent on existing conditions on Earth and their changes has been known at least since antiquity. Also, the opposite effect on living conditions on the part of living organisms has long been noticed. Back in the 18th century. J.-B. Lamarck argued that all substances located on the surface of the globe and forming its crust were formed due to the activity of living organisms It includes plants that contain chlorophyll and process solar energy, and simple inorganic substances into complex organic compounds. In this cycle, creatures that eat living organisms (biofacs) and saprophages that feed on dead tissues also take their place..

This is, in general terms, the essence of the environmental problem. Now let's move on to considering the problem of finding possible ways to overcome them? Now theologians and idealistic philosophers of the West and East argue that in order to overcome the global environmental crisis it is necessary to revive the ancient religious and mystical teachings about the unity of man and nature. Therefore, it is not surprising that there is a tendency to revive some aspects of pantheistic views of nature in the Renaissance and Modern times. Pantheism is a religious and philosophical doctrine, according to which the world - nature resides in God, and God manifests himself in the world.

Modern Western scientists of various ideological orientations - A. Toynbee , E. Fromm , They see the key to overcoming the environmental crisis either in Sufism, or Taoism, or Buddhism, etc. One of the modern researchers of the problem, S. Nasser, shares the same opinion. He believes that “recognizing the limitations of Western science in the field of “development of nature,” one should turn to the traditional teachings of the East, the sciences of the great eastern civilizations: Islamic and Chinese, Japanese and Indian.” Although they differ from each other, they are united by the principle of studying nature, permeated with “intelligent higher light.”

This approach to solving the environmental problem, although it has positive potential, in modern conditions will not be able to completely solve the global environmental problem. Therefore, some philosophers and scientists believe that to solve this problem it is necessary to use the means provided by the development of culture, science and technology.

However, a number of scientists have rather pessimistic views on this matter. Thus, the famous modern scientist A. Peccei believes that “the entire set of scientific and technical means is not able to resolve them.” They see the way out of the crisis not in changing reality, but in suppressing the internal, spiritual sources of the crisis - a “revolution in man”, as a result of which the transformation of man himself occurs, that is, "ethical revolution".

Let's consider the following global problem: demographics.

Demographic problem has become global for a long time. According to experts, from the beginning of the Neolithic to the Paleolithic, about 18 million people visited the stage of history, and the rate of population growth was growing all the time. In 1987 The 5 billionth person was born, we are now approaching 7 billion people. The rate of population growth is such that every second the number of people on Earth increases by three persons. As a result, about 100 million people appear annually, which is equal to the modern population of Western Europe. There is also no unity in the world of scientists regarding the demographic threat. Some scientists say that since the Earth is not dimensionless, and the number of people is growing, a demographic collapse (a sharp decrease in population) is inevitable, which will result in a “decay loop.” That is, the Earth will protect itself, but for humanity this will result in a global tragedy: famine, depletion of mineral resources and soil, unsuitability of water for casting, thermal overheating of the Earth’s surface, the spread of AIDS, etc. Others, on the contrary, say that the Earth, with reasonable use of its resources, will “support” a population of 12-14 billion people.

The global population situation is characterized by deep contradictions as a whole. Thus, the main population growth is provided by Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia, in which, at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries, over 80% of the world’s population lives, which was still the case in the 60s. last century was regarded as a “demographic bomb”. In some countries, population growth is quite rapid and vigorous measures are being taken to limit it (China, Japan). And in a number of other countries depopulation is occurring (decrease in birth rate), which creates enormous difficulties for economic and social development (Western and Eastern Europe, Russia, where there is a threatening decrease population size and its significant aging).

According to the figurative expression of scientists, the Earth “is sick with man.” And sometimes humanity is compared to a cancerous tumor on the body of the Earth, believing that it and the Cosmos are living beings endowed with super intelligence. This fully applies to such global problems as resource, energy and food.

The problem of war and peace firmly occupied first place among global problems during the period of ideological confrontation between two political systems: socialist and capitalist. After the collapse of the USSR and the entire socialist system as a whole, this problem lost its urgency. In addition, humanity has realized that there will be no winners in a new nuclear war. But this problem, for reasons that we will discuss later, remains among the global problems of humanity.

War– what comes to our mind when we hear this word? Of course, murder, violence, ruin, cruelty, orphans, disabled people, victorious heroes. Over the 3,500-year period of human development, 14,530 wars occurred. They died:

in the 17th century – 3.3 million, in the 18th century – 5.5 million, in the 19th century – 16 million people.

Two world wars of the twentieth century. killed 3.6 billion people

(of these, 100 million people died as a result of hostilities, the rest died from hunger, cold, disease, epidemics, etc.)

What is the reason for the global nature of this problem? In the second half of the twentieth century. nuclear weapons appeared, a real possibility arose of the destruction of entire countries, continents, and all modern civilization as a whole. Suffice it to say that a single nuclear charge contains a destructive force that is several times greater than the force of all explosives used in all previous wars combined. In addition, nuclear weapons in combination with ballistic missiles, if used, are capable of covering vast distances in a matter of minutes and striking almost anywhere on the globe.

The total power of nuclear weapons already accumulated in the world is more than sufficient to destroy all life on Earth more than once. The United States alone has enough nuclear weapons to destroy all life on earth 12 times over. That is, the world has come to a critical point when Hamlet’s famous question “to be or not to be?” stood before all humanity.

War is politics through violence. Some historians and anthropologists argue that wars are inevitable, even necessary, because they are inextricably linked to the evolutionary struggle for survival, and that war is waged in the interests of biological, social and moral progress. Thus, justifying such a point of view, the English economist (and priest) Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) formulated a sociological doctrine - the “natural law”, according to which the population grows in geometric progression, and the means of subsistence can, at best, increase in arithmetic progression. The result will be absolute overpopulation. This, he believes, can be combated: by regulating marriages and regulating the birth rate. He assigns not the least place in solving the problem to wars, which play a positive role, like “cleansing thunderstorms.” Hence the name of this belief system: Malthusianism.

Modern science and politics do not accept such a solution to demographic problems, although this doctrine exists in an updated form as “neo-Malthusianism.” Humanity needs to move to a new era of world history without wars. This requires the conscious activity of all forces advocating peace. We have focused on characterizing the most important problems of humanity, although the importance of other problems cannot be diminished. But, as you understand, everyone else seems to be “twisted” around these problems. The successful solution of environmental, war and peace, demographic problems will allow humanity to overcome the crisis in solving problems such as health, education, resources, energy, etc.

Our first lecture, as you remember, we began with the words of Pythagoras, to whom, with an easy presentation Diogenes Laertsky, is attributed to him: “Life... is like games: some come to compete, others to trade, and the happiest come to watch. Others, like slaves, are born for glory and profit, while, like a philosopher, they are born to comprehend the truth.”

Competitiveness, competition, initiative, and other human aspirations have led it to its modern state. Are such motives for life justified in the future? After all, the world is on the brink of destruction. This pessimistic motif permeates the now textbook article. Francis Fukuyama“The End of History?”, published at the dawn of perestroika in Voprosy istorii.

In modern philosophy of history, this article is of greatest interest. History, according to its author, unfolds mainly on the economic and ideological plane, as a vector for the realization of two human aspirations - to satisfy material needs and to justify one’s place among people - in society. But, you say, this is a fairly established view of history (for example, in Marxism). Contrary to Marxism, F. Fukuyama argues that it is not the material method of production that determines the development of the world, but, on the contrary, the world of ideology, the spiritual world will become the basis for the further development of economic production. M. Weber spoke about this in his time: culture, ideology, religion, etc. - this is the basis that determines the superstructure - the material sphere of society. But why does this inevitably lead to the death of history?

Although the author poses a question in the title of the article, there is no doubt for him that the end of history is inevitable. The reason is economic liberalism and the dominance of democratic ideology. This is the only conceivable path of development for humanity, but it is will lead the history of mankind to destruction. For him, the fact that “liberalism has no viable alternatives left” is completely obvious: the collapse of totalitarian ideologies, the widespread spread of consumer culture, market relations in all types of activities (even in the spiritual sphere, not to mention the political), recognition of the idea of ​​freedom as the highest values, the victorious march of rock music around the world.

He considers these signs that ideological evolution has ended. But it is precisely this ideal world that will ultimately determine the world of the future, which will be the material world. As a result, he believes, in the coming universal state (whose arrival he expects without much enthusiasm)“all contradictions will be resolved and all needs will be satisfied. But this will be a society focused only on economic activity, material production.”

There are other positions on the prospects for development in the 21st century. Thus, theorists of the philosophy of history highlight the following directions of development and self-development of humanity:

Changing life orientation from the concept of “having” to the concept of “being”;

Priority of spiritual and moral development of a person (its free development,

priority of social principles - justice, equality, etc.).

The leitmotif of the current history of philosophy is “the expectation of destruction.” In any study of this direction we will encounter words such as: “crash”, “catastrophe”, “sunset”. But, most philosophers and sociologists believe, “waiting for death” is in vain. The era of a qualitatively new state of humanity is coming.