The article holds the idea that for A. Kojève during his lecture course «Introduction to Hegel's Reading» the central figure of the course was «Gestalt » of the Intellectual. The author of the article emphasizes: the beginning of the transition from Master–Slave relationship to the bourgeois world, Kojève sees in times of the late Roman Empire, and with the beginning of Modernity we have to do with the predominance of bourgeois as a human type. The Intellectual of Kojève represents as a kind of bourgeois, namely of the poor bourgeois wanting to be rich. The author traces the thought of Kojève: beginning with the humanists of Renaissance through moralists of the 16th century he comes to Enlightenment, which prepared the French Revolution and Napoleon’s Empire. With the fall of this Empire and the development of bourgeois national states («Slave without Master» or «Slave of the Capital») once more emerges the figure of the Intellectual (Romanticism, Liberalism) and the typical for this figure «Republic of Letters » reappear for Kojève. The article focuses on the fact that the Intellectual don’t like to sacrifice anything for Truth, Goodness or Beauty, he strives only for self-realization. The author comprehends the following reasoning of Kojève: the wish of recognition of Intellectual for him is simply a caricature of the authentic pursuit of universal recognition of the Citizen. For the last one, we must fight and risk our lives, while the Intellectual wants to stay «over the fray».
Since the end of the XX century projects "Creation of the Future" came into fashion in the West,its main purpose is radical transformation of human "nature" with the mix of high technology. This problem as been discussed in the conference in Belgorod, a review of which is presented in this article.
The ongoing current transformation of war is different from the transformations of the past not only in scope, but also in its meaning and profoundness. This transformation is comparable only to the profound transformation, which was taking place at the dawn of Modernity and led to the emergence of the sovereign states. The contemporary transformation is triggered by the tectonic shift in the forms of political sovereignty, the emergence of the global sovereign authority. The most important change, related to this transformation is the change in the moral content and meaning of war. The author of this article provides ethical description and evaluation of this change. This goal is accomplished through the normative characteristic of motives, means, goals and meanings of war. The ethical analysis of the major characteristics of war makes it possible to claim that the ongoing moral degradation of war is taking place. This degradation derives not only from the predominantly unreasonable motives of the contemporary war, the lack of proper honor and courage, but also from the very impossibility of victory in the proper sense of the term in the new war. War becomes absolute and permanent. We need some new conceptual tools to grasp the new moral reality of war, since the dominant just war theory is hardly of any use in this regard.
Hannah Arendt refers to the notions of ancient Greek philosophy for the clarification her own concepts of action and thinking. Some of them are the terms "daimon", "daimonion" associated with thought and personality of Socrates. This article considers the role of metaphorical using of these categories in such Arendt’s texts as «Vita activa, or about the activities of life," "Life of the Mind", "Thinking and moral considerations ". How does the socratic daimon (daymonion) become a metaphor in Arendt’s philosophy? What functions does his image play in Arendt's concepts of action and thinking? What things do separate and unite the context of the metaphorical application of these terms in her different texts? The answers on these questions form the content of the article.
The so called “Gift of the Gods” in Plato’s “Philebus” [15a-19a] remains to be one of the most enigmatic, perplexing and interesting texts in the ‘later’ dialogues. It was often considered as being largely influenced by Pythagoreans or even as a direct adoption of some Pythagorean way of inquiry. However, what might seem to be a good explanation of its origin and style, would not always work as a good way of interpretation. In this paper an attempt is made to interpret the “God’s Gift” as a part of Plato’s discussion of the dialectical method in the ‘later’ period. The problem of the nature of ‘henads’ is the focal point of the analysis, since these become the main subject of the ‘godly’ method. Also presented here are some thoughts concerning the role of the two oppositions which has traditionally been viewed as ‘pythagorean’, namely one & many and limit & unlimited.
Review of book by Deborah Martinsen "Surprised by Shame"