The call to “know thyself” is neither a matter of presence and absence to self, nor the necessary or unnecessary possibility or impossibility of self-knowledge ‒ rather it is a problem. And the oracle gives a sign of this problem, i.e., it implies that which is ne-ither spoken nor concealed. But then, if implication is the problem of the sign, it is because it suspends the very possibility of self-knowledge, and of the self.
The state is usually considered to be a centralized and specialized coercive institution for governing a society. Contrariwise, our approach stems from the presumption that the state should be studied as a type of society for which this institution is adequate. This leads to the necessity of paying special attention to the coming to the fore of the non-kin relations in state society. Political centralization cannot be regarded as a feature specific to the state, as it is applicable to many non-state forms of societies. In the meantime, the feature typical only for the state is specialization resulting in administrators’ professionalization, that is, in the formation of bureaucracy which is related directly to the non-kin social ties coming into prominence. As for the right to coerce, it is a dependent variable: the legitimate violence in states is exercised through and by bureaucrats who operate within bureaucratic institutions.
В истории восприятия интеллектуального наследия Оригена русскими богословами и философами последних столетий выделяются несколько ключевых моментов и несколько ключевых фигур. Это, прежде всего, Григорий Сковорода (1722–1794), Владимир Соловьёв (1853–1900), Сергей Булгаков (1871–1944), Николай Бердяев (1874–1948) и Георгий Флоровский (1893–1979). Значимость этих авторов для нашего исследования определяется сочетанием трёх обстоятельств: (1) ключевой ролью названных мыслителей в эволюции русской богословской и философской мысли и (2) тем фактом, что их собственная интеллектуальная эволюция, а также (3) восприятие их идей современниками и/или более поздними исследователями осуществлялись в тесной связи с проблемой Оригена. Таким образом, процесс восприятия интеллектуального наследия Оригена в России оказался в существенной степени обусловлен теми спорами, которые велись и ведутся вокруг ключевых представителей так называемой «русской религиозной философии».
The formation of the Afroeurasian world-system was one of the crucial points of social evolution, starting from which the social evolution rate and effectiveness increased dramatically. In the present article we analyze processes and scales of global integration in historical perspective, starting with the Agrarian Revolution. We connect the main phases of historical globalization with the processes of the development of the Afroeurasian world-system. In the framework of the Afroeurasian world-system the integration began a few thousand years BCE. In this world-system the continental and supracontinental links became rather developed long before the Great Geographic Discoveries and thus, they could quite be denoted as global (albeit in a somehow limited sense). As some researchers are still inclined to underestimate the scale of those links in the pre-Industrial era, it appears necessary to provide additional empirical support for our statement. It also turns necessary to apply a special methodology (which necessitated the use of the world-system approach). We analyze some versions of periodization of globalization history. We also propose our own periodization of globalization history using as its basis the growing scale of intersocietal links as an indicator of the level of globalization development.
The article deals with the problem of normative evaluation of war and mass violence. The doctrines of Realism, Pacifism, Militarism, Realism and Just War are the most widely used theoretical and normative tools of this evaluation and normative practice. The latest developments have brought the Just War theory to the fore. The peak of popularity of the Just War Theory may prove, nevertheless, to be its swan's song. The recent theoretical findings as well as the political applications of this ethical theory in Kosovo and Iraq, have proved to be somewhat less then adequate, to say the least. Theoretically it hovers uneasily in between Militarism and Pacifism, pragmatically it may work as a smoke screen for the most hideous forms of agression and an instrument of the wide scale information war. The author of this article is holding that we must not put aside the idea of the morally constrained war, it may be modified. The result of this modification may be entitled Necessary War doctrine. The necessary war differs significantly from the just war, it is closer to pacifism and less prone to theoretical critisism. The foundations of this doctrine has been laid by Russian philosopher Ivan Ilyin.
The article discusses the design praxis in relation to the Peircean semiotics. It approaches the product as sign. The product should communicate its functions; it should emit its message. Its own form communicates. So to transmit messages in a creative way through the design is necessary to work the associations by similarity more intensely to obtain object-signs riches in information and analogies.
Mikhail Bakhtin’s term “participative reason” (uchastnoe myshlenie) means “reason that acts”—a way of thinking in which a person participates because it is not indifferent to the fate of the Other. The article considers two main trends in the understanding of participative reason. The first is connected with the co-being of I and the Other, the second develops the idea of obligation and non-alibi in being. The article aims to show that the unity of these two interpretations could make “participative reason” a basis for a more decent human world.
Keywords: participative reason, responsibility, non-alibi in being, philosophy of the act, Mikhail Bakhtin.