Новые войны - старая этика
e emergence of “new wars” in the second half of the twentieth century has changed the conventional paradigm for thinking about military con icts and called into question the relevance of what previous theorists have o ered. However, the most useful approach to the analysis of war is based on the widely accepted concep- tual framework of the theory of just war, which is itself grounded in analytical eth- ics. e interpretations of just war theory by Michael Walzer, Nick Fotion, Brian Orend and Je McMahan are central to an ethical understanding of war, but they are of only limited value for considering the topic of “new wars,” which meanwhile are in constant flux. Philosophical thinking on these matters is failing keep pace with the transforma- tion of the object it is considering. War is becoming a media phenomenon, a subject for futuristic speculation, and a routine reality for a number of countries and regions. It is losing its clear spatial and temporal contours, and although we are gaining greater control over its management and increasing the variety of forms that military con icts take, we are losing control over the overall situation. War should be now seen as a complex phenomenon of social reality that demands a revision of the outdated and limited ethical supports that have been provided for this “necessary evil.” Military conflicts are among the images of modernity that must be apprehended in all their complexity.
The concept of war has always been fundamental for understanding of politics. But there's still no appropriate war and enemy theory available. I suppose such a theory should focus on the concept of bracketing of enmity. It should use just war theory principles limiting the possibility of armed conflicts and limiting methods applied to war. This approach takes in account both principles of law and justice that treats enemy as necessary part of political existence.
The Teaching aid describing the basic top-ics of the philosophy course, namely: what is philosophy?; history of philosophy; philosophy of existence; cognition, its possibilities and limits; scientific knowledge; human philosophy; social philosophy. These topics are fully compatible with the standard of education, approved by the Ministry of education andscience of the Russian Federation. In the content of the Teaching aid reflect both traditional and cutting-edge issues and philosophical knowledge. Topics and problems studyguide contains available for perception of language. The Teaching aid is intended for Bache-lor's degree students in higher education.
The article examines various theories of punishment, their relationship and criticism. Punishment is an object of study for different disciplines. Interdisciplinary barriers should be overcome. In this article we are to formulate the main principles of convergence of jurisprudence and sociology in the study of punishment.
Contemporary discussion on the concept of "civilization" raises a number of questions for researchers: what is civilization? Does it make sense to talk about "civilizations" in the plural? What is the relationship between "civilization" and contemporaneity? The relevance of the issues can be confirmed by indicating the appeal to them not only by scientists, but also by politicians and common people. The cultural complexity of the contemporary world leads to the fact that the concepts are used more often, but the clarity of their meanings is largely lost. The article proposes to return to the methodological issue of definition of concepts in order to clarify how contemporaneity functions. To achieve this goal, it is proposed to consider the concept of "civilization" and "civilizations", first, in the historical context, and, secondly, to relate them to one of the most important features of contemporaneity – "late globalization". The author assumes that the undertaken consideration is able not only to clarify the use of concepts, but also to deepen our understanding of contemporaneity, as well as to get closer to the productive meaning of the discussion on "civilizational projects" which is relevant in the Russian context.
The processes of the growing societal complexity, emergence of new forms of social and political inequality, formation of pre-state or complex stateless polities belong to the most intriguing subjects of Anthropology and Social Philosophy.
Social Evolution & History has consistently published the research articles devoted to these issues. The chiefdom concept plays a special role within the theories that try to account for the transition from simple social systems to systems of greater complexity. Following its emergence in the 1950s this notion became an important heuristic means to advance Anthropology and Archaeology. It was also subjected to vigorous debates within which the participants denied the methodological significance of chiefdoms and the very notion of the chiefdom. These debates are becoming even more vigorous in connection with the rapid accumulation of information on ancient societies (see the dispute over chiefdoms between Timothy Pauketat and Robert Carneiro in 9.1). There is also much discrepancy in the definition of ‘chiefdom’ as some scholars consider it a standard phase of cultural evolution, a natural transition between the ‘Big Man’ society and the states of the ancient world.
The article considers the Views of L. N. Tolstoy not only as a representative, but also as a accomplisher of the Enlightenment. A comparison of his philosophy with the ideas of Spinoza and Diderot made it possible to clarify some aspects of the transition to the unique Tolstoy’s religious and philosophical doctrine. The comparison of General and specific features of the three philosophers was subjected to a special analysis. Special attention is paid to the way of thinking, the relation to science and the specifics of the worldview by Tolstoy and Diderot. An important aspect is researched the contradiction between the way of thinking and the way of life of the three philosophers.
Tolstoy's transition from rational perception of life to its religious and existential bases is shown. Tolstoy gradually moves away from the idea of a natural man to the idea of a man, who living the commandments of Christ. Starting from the educational worldview, Tolstoy ended by creation of religious and philosophical doctrine, which were relevant for the 20th century.
This important new book offers the first full-length interpretation of the thought of Martin Heidegger with respect to irony. In a radical reading of Heidegger's major works (from Being and Time through the ‘Rector's Address' and the ‘Letter on Humanism' to ‘The Origin of the Work of Art' and the Spiegel interview), Andrew Haas does not claim that Heidegger is simply being ironic. Rather he argues that Heidegger's writings make such an interpretation possible - perhaps even necessary.
Heidegger begins Being and Time with a quote from Plato, a thinker famous for his insistence upon Socratic irony. The Irony of Heidegger takes seriously the apparently curious decision to introduce the threat of irony even as philosophy begins in earnest to raise the question of the meaning of being. Through a detailed and thorough reading of Heidegger's major texts and the fundamental questions they raise, Haas reveals that one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century can be read with as much irony as earnestness. The Irony of Heidegger attempts to show that the essence of this irony lies in uncertainty, and that the entire project of onto-heno-chrono-phenomenology, therefore needs to be called into question.
The article is concerned with the notions of technology in essays of Ernst and Friedrich Georg Jünger. The special problem of the connection between technology and freedom is discussed in the broader context of the criticism of culture and technocracy discussion in the German intellectual history of the first half of the 20th century.