The article is devoted to the analysis of political conflict in novel ‘Demons’ by F.M.Dostoevsky. Its secondary plot, describing a civil conflict, includes unusual designation of political opponents as ‘freebooters’. This particular term allows to expand traditional view on political problematics of this novel, which is usually confined to concepts of revolution and nihilism. Identification of political opponent as a pirate raises the conflict to a new level. From now on this is a struggle between land and sea, i.e. space of law against space of outlawry, where might makes right. Freebooter is banished from human society, he is not an ordinary criminal, but a hostis humani generis, enemy of mankind. Dostoevsky’s description of an ordinary conflict being escalated to this level allows to regard him not only as a prophet of future disasters, but as a chronicler of a catastrophe which had already taken place yet remained unnoticed.
In his article Vladimir Kantor explores the destiny of Russia intelligentsia within the context of cultural crisis that took place at the turn of XIX and XX centuries, analyzing the Vekhovs, a group of leading intellectuals who ran a collection of essays, titled "Vekhi", studying their relationship towards that Russian cultural phenomenon. To author, the intelligentsia is considered as a critical factor in the development of Russian history. Within a context of the struggle around the "Vekhi", by referring to famous philosophical and literature books, published in 1909, the author focuses on relationships between intelligentsia and ordinary people, their attractive and repulsive interaction, which represents the key theme of the Russian destiny. Any historical movement occurs through tragedy; heroes who move the history have to sacrifice themselves to provide that movement. Confirmation to that idea would be rejection and exclusion of the Russian intelligentsia from the country's mentality throughout a number of generations which ultimately led to its tragic being.
The article deals with the directing methodological project of “concepts history” by Vladimir Ivanovsky and Gustav Shpet (“Dictionary of philosophical terms”, 1922).
Solovyov’s attitude to Joseph de Mestre is striking in its paradox. The name of this bright and convinced propagandist of Catholicism is absent from the works of Solovyov on the Catholic Church, and unexpectedly appears in the article “Slavophilism and its degeneration”. In this article, Mestre is presented as a teacher of Slavophiles, for whom the attractiveness of his po-litical conservatism overshadowed an unacceptable for them religious system, sympathy for the Jesuits, and even hostility towards the Russian people and their religion. For Solovyov this is one of the evidence of the inconsistency of the Slavophil doctrine. At the same time, Soloviev does not himself es-tablish a genetic link between the Mestre and the late Slavophiles, but merely cites the thoughts from the article of the writer of the Slavophile di-rection P.A. Matveyev. Further acquaintance with the works of Mestre al-lowed Solovyov to formulate his own critical attitude to his ideas. Despite a number of coincidences in relation to Catholicism and to Pope, Solovyov actually denied Mestres the right to be considered a Christian thinker be-cause of his positive attitude towards the death penalty and the idealization of the executioner. In this, according to Solovyov, pagan roots features characteristic of the medieval worldview were revealed.
The purpose of the article is systematization of the cognitive principles and norms of traditional knowledge, formed in India before epistemology and logic rose (up to the III century). The basis of the systematization is concept «paradigm». The paradigms of Indian traditional knowledge were the science of ritual (kalpa) and grammar (vyākaraṇa). Just two sciences determined the contents and the architecture of texts for all traditional Indian sciences (vidyās and śāstras) and philosophies (darśanas). Later the norms and forms of organization from two sciences were borrowed by Indian epistemological and logical theories. If we don’t know the way of the construction of the logical-epistemological theory (pramāṇa-vāda) we are not able to understand the authentic meanings of its conceptions.
=The plot of the book is formed by two problem knots. The first of them is weaved out of questions of the logical bases of various civilizations and opportu- nities of rational contact dialogue between them. Discussion of these questions leads to a conclusion that rational mutual understanding between civilizations is possible irrespective of the fact which logics prevail in each of them. Rationality does not reduce to logical rules as well as the reason is not exhausted by logic. It includes a reflection over the ontological assumptions which are the corner- stone of language, creative imagination, the principles of practice. Also reflec- tions over worldview intuitions are within its competence. Modern rationalism breaks off with apriority of criteria of rationality, but recognizes a variety of fun- damental forms of rationality. The future of mankind in many respects depends on whether it will manage to keep this variety, without reconciling with in- evitability of the clash of civilizations. The second knot – some questions of the special Russian civilization possessing own logic of “vsechelovecheskoye”, dis- tinguishing it from the “western” civilization which applies for the “obshche- chelovecheskoye” in nature of the principles. The author of the book tries to an- swer these questions, developing the ideas of N.Y. Danilevsky and Russian “Eurasians”. However it is impossible to tell that he manages to resolve the con- tradictions internally inherent in these ideas. More likely, its developments can serve as an incentive for further judgment of historical ways of Russia. There is also open a question of communication of the mentioned problem knots: how from discussion of epistemological problems to pass to the analysis of the princi- ples which lie in the basis of regional and world civilizations?
The article deals with the perception of surrounding countries in Tokugawa Japan. The main source of the investigation was the treatise “Sangoku Tsūran” (“The General Survey of Three Countries”) written by the famous scholar Hayashi Shihei. It was a geographical and ethnographical description of Korea, Ryukyu and Ezo, which shared borders with Japan at the time and became the objects of Japanese expansionism in the following Meiji period. The article also raises a question of formation of Japan-centered model of world order and an infl uence of the “Hua-Yi distinction” on this process.