Conceptual freedom of the globalized mind: Multicultural experiences enhance human cognition through the expansion of conceptual categories
This work provides a psychological perspective on globalization. It argues that multicultural experience may facilitate a merge of different cultural values, which forms a distinctively new state of mind. Experience with multicultural settings expands conceptual category boundaries, interrupts categorical thinking, and subsequently creates a new frame of thought. Studies identifying the important role of the multicultural experience in cognitive development and enhancement of creative abilities are presented to support this argument. The article questions the validity a of common critique that globalization brings the world to the unified model of thought. It argues that this critique is an oversimplification of the matter caused by individuals' closed-mindedness and unreceptiveness to a new experience.
This article is devoted to Russian religious thinker Semyon L. Frank’s philosophical interpretation of Alexander S. Pushkin’s work. The article identifies the place and significance of the Pushkin theme in Frank’s legacy. The author believes that Pushkin’s creative example was, for Frank, a key moment in the national culture’s self-cognition, defining its spiritual and moral ideal. In Pushkin’s work, Frank sees a synthesis of European rationality and mystical intuition that is characteristic of the Russian spiritual tradition. Frank endows Pushkin’s aesthetics with the features of religious gnosis, finding there an embodiment of his ideal of “living knowledge” or “wise ignorance.” The article expands on the thesis that Frank’s research on Pushkin is an important structural element in the development of his original metaphysical system. In a unique essayistic form, his articles on Pushkin represent an independent, complete version of Frank’s ontological aesthetics and philosophy of culture.
The book aspires to show the inherent paradoxes of the "pure idea" of freedom and its foreignness, and possible contrariety, revealed in and by some specific historical-political contexts, to freedom as practice of human liberation. This theme is looked at mainly through the prism of Kant's moral and political philosophy, which-by way of critical engagement with it-offers a particularly propitious vantage point for its exploration and elaboration. Kant's Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason, with its dramatic juxtaposition and conjoining of freedom with evil, along with its emphasis on "radical evil" and, at the same time, its dismissal of "diabolic evil" (as something applicable to and practicable by humans) is particularly seminal in this respect. The book furnishes a political-philosophical reading of the paradoxes of Kant's account of freedom and culminates in showing what they reveal and allow us to come to grips with politics in "real life", in particular the politics of great revolutions.
The Petrine-Pushkinian era lasted no more than two hundred years. It originated at the Battle of Poltava, where Russian troops first showed themselves not just equal to the Swedes, who were otherwise the best European troops at the time, but even surpassed them. Russia became a part of Europe. As both poets and historians (Fyodor Tyutchev, Vasilii Kliuchevskii) have said, Peter the Great’s empire rose in response to Charles the Great’s, just as Russian state power rose in response to its Roman-German counterparts. Peter declared Russia an empire in 1721, giving it both a supra-confessional and supranational idea, creating a legal framework, the first step toward freedom of man. Pushkin sang the work of Peter, imbuing the new capital, Petersburg, with a soul. This allowed Georgy Fedotov to call Pushkin a singer of both empire and freedom. The October Revolution of the 1917 and Civil War, that broke out in late 1917, served as the tragic end to the era.
The article reconstructs the understanding of Kant’s political theory from the standpoint of neo-republicanism of P. Pettit. Based on selected texts, the field of historical philosophical analysis is created, which allows to develop an understanding of the significance of Kant’s heritage for contemporary normative theory. The grounds are traced for Pettit’s distinction of the Italian-Atlantic and Franco-German types of republicanism. Kant’s texts are analyzed on three points: an understanding of the freedom, government and contestability of politics. It becomes possible to compare Pettit’s theses and relevant fragments of Kant’s works. As a result, the rejection of the idea of mixed constitution in favor of a representative sovereign and the narrowing of the possibilities of contesting politics are recognized as fundamental features of Kant’s Franco-German republicanism highlighted by Pettit. In addition, the analysis of the polemical thesis of R. Forst about the need to consider justice as a constitutive political category through the perspective of Kantian understanding of autonomous will is involved. A joint examination of the texts of Kant, Boden, Hobbes and Rousseau, on the one hand, and a comparison of Forst’s thesis with the concept of orthonomy of Pettit and Smith, on the other, are indicated as possible ways to further elaboration of the question of Kant’s significance for modern republicanism and political theory as a whole.
This paper is devoted to the problem of cultural crisis and those points of view on this problem that were maintained by russian and western philosophers. It was written a lot of books concerning this subject. At the beginning of XX century many philosophers within different philosophical tradition and schools began to reason about the crisis of culture. For some of them it was important to stress religious aspect of crisis: the mankind has lost the belief in God — this is the reason of crisis. For others it was importatt to understand the social aspect of cultural crisis.
Cultural crisis is the crisis of values: human and freedom. In the first half of the XXth century the culture has not found answers for two questions: what is freedom and what is human?
The author looks into the contradictions of security and the paradigms of their resolution in the modern era. The issue of security is considered in conjunction with the issue of justice. Emphasi is placed on the fact that the disharmony of the modern security paradigms is just temporary. As the global civil society is growing stronger, the paradigm of human rights must once again regain its priority. Just as in the case of the return of the multipolarity of the world, the paradigm of cooperation and non-intervention must get back the lost rights
Hannah Arendt is well-studied in Russia; her legacy is noticeable in academic discussions. However, her theoretical positions can hardly bring about a significant change in the present state of local political and philosophical affairs. The reason is the same for both the unusual popularity of her theoretical concepts and their lack of practical relevance. Her non-traditional approach to politics seamlessly fits into recurrent patterns of Russian social life which are no-less distant from the established forms of Western political culture. Being uncritically transplanted into different soil, her unorthodox way of thinking about politics found an immediate enthusiastic reception in Russia, but not at the same level of scrutiny as was in the West. Paradoxically, this proves that Arendt’s views may confirm the local status-quo, rather than challenging it. In this paper, I will try to explain this paradox by presenting both the elements of her theory that remain under-appreciated by her Russian followers, and her dogmatic positions shared with her school of thought, which can be elucidated by reading them against the Russian context. Arendt’s theory features hidden, but distinct, elitist, and liberal tendencies; to some degree, her theory goes well with the Machiavellian character of contemporary Russian politics. However, at the exact point when she finds an unlikely ally in Isaiah Berlin, her normative solutions mostly go unnoticed. On the other hand, reading her texts against the Russian experience exposes some of her preconceptions about human existence, the meaning of political life, and our relations to history, all of which weaken the practical relevance of her thoughts.
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.
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.