This paper develops the libertarian deliberative externalist account of free will. In the first part, I discuss some problems with the existing libertarian theories using Kane’s theory of ultimate responsibility and O’Connors agent-causal theory as paradigmatic examples. I argue that some of the main problems of these theories are due to the isolation of the agent from the external world and to the weakening of the necessary connection between the agent’s personality and his actions. In the second part, I propose an alternative externalist account of libertarian freedom. I defend an externalist account of reasons for action that emphasize the importance of the objective facts in reasoning and decision-making process. Then I propose an account of the decision-making process that is indeterministically sensitive to the objective reasons for action. I argue that this account preserves both alternative possibilities and full causal control over the action. It although illuminates that some degree of luck is immanent to every decision making process.
The article describes the dynamics of relationship of S.L. Frank towards Leo Tolstoy within several decades. Tolstoy’s logic and ethics are explored through the prism of Frank’s teaching and outlook. Particular attention is paid to the two foundations of this prism: the ethical and logical collisions of Tolstoy and the intelligentsia and the study of «dual» and «whole» Tolstoy in Frank’s earlier and later articles. The analysis allows us to notice not only the ethical, but also the philosophical influence of Tolstoy on Frank himself on a number of key problems connected both with the logic and methodology of cognition, and with the doctrine of the soul and society. Tolstoy is considered as an endless magic point of attraction not only for Frank, but also for the intelligentsia. The Russian «thinker and artist» has always been a life guide and a model of uncompromising honesty, allowing to approach, as closely as possible, the understanding of his teaching and personality, but he remained to be an eternal mystery which cannot be evolved even by an omniscient man. Frank clearly showed that Tolstoy is a universe, which is always greater than what we can understand in it.
Main issue of the article is the problem of knowledge classification in traditional Indian culture as it presents in authoritative sanskrit texts like Chāndogyopanishada, Mundakopanishada, Mānavadharmaśāstra, Arthaśāstra, Lalitavistara, Kāmasūtra and others. Author used some concepts of social epistemology and pointed out the relations between cognitive practice, educational practice and religious one.
The system of traditional sciences (vidyā, śāstra) and principia of their classification were created by brahmans. Non-brahmans did import here nothing, because they were opponents with brahmanical tradition in the whole. But Jainas and Buddhists were the successors of brahmans in educational sphere and brahmanical classifications of knowledge also. Two main criteria for knowledge classification in brahmanical tradition were pragmatic one and the presence on traditional lists of sciences.
In his article V.N. Musolov considering the image Antichrist, created by V.l. Soloviev, as a means of ideological struggle, author examines embedded in this image meanings and target audience this image. The author gives special attention to coincidence between the description of Antichrist Soloviev's and subsequent interpretations of the Russian intelligentsia.
Two fundamental problems of the methodology of M. Scheler and K. Mannheim are in focus of this comparative analysis: the one of the rationals of a new sociocentric thinking which is represented in the sociology of knowledge, the another of the objectivity of cognition which is connected with the fending off the threat of the relativism. Under the differences in the base presuppositions and the means of solving of these problems, nonpresumable significant similarities emerge in the outlooks of two thinkers. They give reasons to change the prevalent approach to the qualification theirs views based on the opposition.
The research explores that the emulating AI is focused on the so-called naturalistic understanding of sense – as a meaning. But if we assume that the category of sense has the attributes of transcendence and is not identical to the meaning, then we may be able to shed light on problems of natural semantics emulation. The research emphasizes valuable and teleological aspects of meaning, which together lead to the concept of "metaphysical sense". The hypothesis that the "metaphysical meaning" is the basis of any cognitive acts is proved. The computerization of meaning in this case should emulate the system of values or ethics that represents an apparent large problem.
The article is devoted to identifying trends in studies of Buddhist epistemology and logic (hetu-vidyā) conducted in the USA, based on Pali, Sanskrit and Tibetan sources, as well as the contents and evaluation of the methodological discussions of the American Buddhologists. It continues the analysis of the area of Buddhist studies, presented in earlier publications of the author on the research of hetu-vidyā in Europe and in Russia. In the article there are examined the ideas of such leading experts as K. Potter, R. Robinson, A. Wayman, R. Chi, C. Huntington, J. Cabezon, J. Garfield, J. Blumenthal, G. Dreyfus, J. Dunn, and others. Some of them believe in necessity of using symbolic language and concepts of Western logic for studies on the Buddhist logico-epistemological tradition (K. Potter, R. Chi, R. Robinson, J. Garfield), the other (S. Huntington) categorically deny their usefulness. Nāgārjuna’s relation to logic received extremely contradictory evaluations from the researchers. Some of them, like C. Huntington, believed that Nāgārjuna used logic exclusively for the destruction of logic, others, like R. Robinson, proved that Nāgārjuna was well equipped with knowledge of axioms and rules of inference, and he employed them to substantiate metaphysical concepts.
In the article Spinoza's and Lev Tolstoy's ideas are compared in the course of examining the oeuvres of the Russian writer. The relationship and difference between the metaphysical, religious and ethical conceptions of these two thinkers is being explained, as well as Spinoza's influence on the formation of Tolstoy's worldview The special attention is paid to the marginalia, left by Tolstoy on the pages of Spinoza's treatises. These marginalia has been found in his library at Yasnaya Polyana.