Recently founded out in the archive of G. Bataille manuscript of Alexandre Kojève “Sophia, Philo-sophia, Phenomenology” is only partly deciphered. In the Introduction to manuscript’s § 3 publication we examine the circumstances of time and place of its writing; the content of the manuscript is compared with other works of Kojève of this period (1930-1950), when his exposition of Hegel evidently contained a trace of Marxist interpretation.
The article attempts to reflect on the revolution and the fate of Russia by the Russian intelligentsia in the collection “De profundis” (1918); it reconstructs the borderline mental situation of the Russian thought of that time – the breakdown experienced by the intellectuals, the state of intellectual hysteria. The authors of the collection send their accusations to two addresses – “mass”, “Russian people”, its “lack of culture”, “wildness”, etc. and the “rotten” Russian intelligentsia, who seduced the people, cut them off from Orthodoxy and honoring the fatherland. The question is raised whether the authors of the collection themselves realize the destructive nature of such criticism. An attempt of S.N. Bulgakov to find reconciliation of the dispute between the six “talking heads” and the words about the resurrection of Christ does not give confidence in the salvation of Russia. The author of article shows that the S.L. Frank’s accusations addressed to the people who replaced the “idea of socialism” with a “personal material interest” is doubtful. The diagnosis of the “spirits of the revolution”, extracted by Berdyaev from the works of Russian writers, is of interest from a literary and philosophical point of view, but it does not give a recipe for saving Russia. The problem, as it seems to the author of article, is in the absence of analytics and intellectual consensus regarding the events under discussion. In another, program key, as the author shows, is written the article by P.B. Struve, who offered an alternative to the transformation of a collapsed empire for building Russia as a nation. However, his departure to emigration at the end of 1918 turned this program into an illusion. The author of article discovers that the tasks set by Struve are still in demand today by the Russian authorities, and she concludes that Russian history is slowly moving.
The A.A. Kara-Murza’s article «Russian Northernship» of the Princes Vyazemsky (to the Question of National Identity) explores the little-studied question of the role of the princes Vyazemsky in the creation of the concept of «Russian Northernship» – a rich «identification matrix», which played a big role in the philosophical and ideological polemics of the 18th and the first third of 19th centuries and pushed back into the distance in the middle of the 19th century, with the beginning of the «classical» Russian dispute between «Westerners» and «Slavophiles». According to the author of the article, the main ideological inspirer of the rurikoviches Vyazemsky was N.M. Karamzin, who lived and worked in Vyazemsky’s «family nests» in Moscow and Ostafievo, and whose «History Of the Russian State» is a classical text of the «Russian Northernship».
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.