От позитивизма Огюста Конта к «положительной» философии Густава Шпета: проблема эмпирической истории
The article offers a comparative consideration of the ideas of Gustav Shpet and Auguste Comte in relation to the concept of "empirical history". The positivist thought of Comte had a significant impact on the formation of social disciplines at the turn of the XIX and XX centuries, but its philosophical reflexivity and logic were questioned at the beginning of the XX century by Gustav Shpet. Russian philosopher pointed out such shortcomings of positivism as the presence of metaphysical assumptions, inability to work with historical material, following the abstract scheme of the historical process. From his point of view, positivism was a philosophical doctrine of the philosophy of history, but not a productive methodology of science. The author presents a critique by Gustav Shpet and summarizes his ideas about real history, which can serve as a methodological basis for overcoming the crisis of modern social theory.
Articles and materials, gathered in this collective work, were presented in international scientific and educational seminar “Eschatos: Philosophy of history in context of “the Limit-conception” (Odessa, September-October 2011). Historians, philosophers, culturologists from Ukraine, Russia, Israel, France and Uzbekistan were involved in the discussions. Researches in this collective work are devoted to the concepts of disruption of time in Late Antiquity, Middle Ages and in Modernity. Especial block consists of materials of the round table devoted to the problem of “intellectual contraband”.
For a wide range of humanitarians who are interested in the problems of theory and philosophy of history, place of historical knowledge in contemporary world.
This paper outlines peculiarities of the use of organicistic allegories by representatives of the German historical school of law — F.K. Savigny and G.F. Puchta. On the wide range of texts on the philosophy of history and the history of law written by contemporaries (Fichte, Hegel) and precursors (Herder, Vico) it is shown how the comparison between history with human life can perform different functions depending on the methodological presumptions of the authors.
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.
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.