In this article we show that it is possible to put the point of divergence of ethics to the time of the early Pythagorean school. The analysis of the specific amalgamation of monism and the ontological and epistemological dualism of the early Pythagoreans and Eleatics shows that European thought inherited from these schools а philosophical foundation of interrelationship between cosmology and ethics together with a tangle of unresolved problems. These problems are visible in the first appearances of philosophical reactions to four key existentialist-epistemological phenomena: the twoness, the angst, the dirtiness, and the error. We follow the traces of this heritage, systematised by Plato and Aristotle, through examples from the teachings of Galileo, Kepler, Agrippa, Descartes and Bacon, Kant's schematism and categorical imperative, Vernadsky's noosphere, and Næss' deep ecology and his quest for a “non-Galilean” ontology.
“The mountain teaches silence” – these words from “Meditation on the Peaks” by Julius Evola highlight the special place, which mountains occupied in western esotericism. Julius Evola, Aleister Crowley, Otto Rahn were also ardent mountain climbers and saw in the conquest of the mountains the analogue of the inner spiritual path. For different currents of theosophy mountains was the habitat of a mysterious “spiritual masters” (Blavatsky – the Himalayas; Roerich – the Altai mountains). For the writer Algernon Blackwood the Caucasus Mountains was a place where man can attain spiritual rebirth. There are various explanations for the popularity of the mountains in the esotericism at the turn of the century. For the Europeans high inaccessible mountains represent the final frontier, places not yet reached a civilized man, and therefore shelter for mysteries and secrets. It is no coincidence that after the conquest of Everest in 1953 stories about space aliens become so popular, exotic border has shifted outside the earth. The role of the mountains might also be explained due to their significance for traditional religions.
The O.A. Zhukova's article presents the idea that Vyazemsky creates aesthetic canon of Russian classics, showing the process of universalization of aesthetic values in Russian culture. He consistently defended the thesis of the necessary of national literature in relationship with spiritual traditions and civil institutions of the people. The author reveals the aesthetic sense of the Vyzemsky's program, wich structural elements are the language as a form of expression of thought, historism in the formation of national literature and the ideas of the Enlightenment.
The article discusses the historical image of Neoplatonism as it emerges in the works of A.A. Takho-Godi based on the analysis of Proclus’ hymnography and the history of the notion of “symbol.” Neoplatonism is presented as a historically localized phenomenon viewed both from the outside, from other cultures, and from within the classical antiquity itself. Moreover, in some cases, Neoplatonism even conflicts with or the very least engages into a counterpoint dialog with its own cultural milieu. Therefore, a “reading” of Neoplatonism is only possible through a reconstruction of the entire organics of the era. Yet, as A.A. Takho-Godi demonstrates, this is precisely what makes the spiritual experience of Neoplatonism necessary for heterogeneous cultures that both create their own boundaries and recognize the imperative to overcome them. The very research methodology adopted by A.A. Takho-Godi allows arriving at the noted results; it is marked by such qualities as logistic rigor and philological care; crucially, it entails considering the subject of analysis in its specific historic and cultural context that excludes any reductions or universalizations. The article characterizes this method as one of the possible “third ways” of the historical and philosophic analysis; it was developed by A.F. Losev; A.A. Takho-Godi elaborated it and applied to specific phenomena of the classical antiquity.
The article focuses on an analysis of the possible connection between the second law of thermodynamics and time. The growth of entropy as a physical process - mostly its technical side - has been well studied but in fact there is no philosophical interpretation of this phenomenon according to the current research, in particular, regarding the inflation model, black holes, the holographic principle, the quantum gravity, etc. Article enhances the role of the second law in its precise connection with these promising areas of theoretical physics, which allow us to take a fresh look at law`s significance and corollaries.
In an effort to achieve this task the contexts of history of science, philosophy and modern physical research are involved. The article proposes two ways of handling the low-entropic initial state (in connection with the concept of “time arrow”). The first one is based on the assumption that if there is a selected time reference point when it should have relatively low entropy (because of its distinguishability and uniqueness). Another approach is based on the fact that gravity plays the role of a low-entropy factor which is able to explain the initial state and the observed increase in entropy in the selected direction over time.
In conclusion these ideas` possible significance for the development of the quantum gravity theory is introduced.
The author considers Information Openness of social structures as the problem in the context of the general problems of the social development.
Historism (historicism) in a most general sense is a principle of historical science, which
demands to see the phenomena in their development and connection with concrete circumstances
of the past. In a more narrow sense it is a trend in the European historical thought,
emerging under the influence of German Romanticism and Hegelianism. Specific features of
it were the romantic thesis about uniqueness and singularity of individuals, cultures and
epochs, the opposition of methods of natural and human sciences, view of history as a history
of spirit (Geist). The overcoming of this program in historical science occurred during the first
decades of the XX century, the philosophical critics had to do mostly with its relativism. K.
Popper’s critics of “historicism” had nothing to do with these debates or with German Historismus
itself. Indeterminism of Popper and F.A. Hayek is close to this Historismus; their
direct precursor and mentor L. von Mises himself developed the ideas of German historical
school in “national economy”. In the debates on positivism in sociology, transformed then
into debates on hermeneutics took part Popper’s disciple H. Albert, but he negated the methodological
dualism of “emancipative” hermeneutics of J. Habermas and K.-O. Apel, without
any reduction of Historismus to economical determinism. Among the opponents of historicism
in political philosophy important were the arguments of L. Strauss. In polemics with A. Kojève
he turns against not only of the Hegelianism or Romanticism; Historismus with its radical
relativism begins with Machiavelli and Hobbes, from the outset of the Modernity.
How is metaphysics possible? The answer to this question can be received by means of Kant’s transcendental method. According to Kant, the basis (background) of any metaphysics is metaphysica naturalis, which is conceived as human reason speculation demand to arise and solve questions that are beyond possible experience and exceed the limits of a current ‘physical’ situation. Thereby the man is homo metaphysicus (Aristotle. Kant). Possibility of metaphysica naturalis roots in the human faculty of imagination and is connected with our language, its metaphysics. There are two modus of the academic metaphysics. Possibility of metaphysica generalis is connected with presence in our language (resp. Mind) special metaphysical (ontologic) predicates (categories). Possibility of metaphysica specialis is connected with presence in our language (resp. Mind) wholeness, or encompassing totalities (comp. with the Encompassing of K. Jaspers).
Author examines one of the most important spiritual issues of growing Russian culture. Peter the Great has returned Russia to Europe as a military and political force. This cultural hero was a military and political builder. Needed was a second cultural hero – Russian builder of spiritual meanings. Incredible effort Karamzin, who gave Russian self-awareness and self-knowledge, which approved the European values in Russia meant that the second was a cultural hero – a creator of spiritual meanings. It can rightly be called a European Russian, paves the way for the development of a great culture.
The article is a historiographical and theoretical overview of the basic concepts of the genesis of ancient Greek philosophy in the Russian and Soviet philosophical literature 19–20th centuries. The author recalls that the first information about the ancient world appeared in Russia in the 10th century, and indicates the scientific study of ancient Greek philosophy in Russia began only in the 19th century. One of the first original research in this area belonged to the O. Novitsky. He put forward the idea of the development of Greek philosophy from mythology and religion. This concept was developed to creatively S. Trubetskoy. He argued that the philosophy of the Greeks is a special phase of their religious ideas.
The class approach has dominated in the Soviet history of philosophy, and it required to consider the philosophy of the ancient Greeks as a direct reflection of the contemporary level of development of the productive forces. Concepts of philosophy genesis conformed with the requirements of the political situation. Thus, the epistemogeneous concept corresponded to the Communist Party course to struggle against religious vestiges in Soviet society and apologetics myth in a bourgeois political thought. According to this concept philosophy arose from science as opposed to religion and the fight against it. And hypothesis of oriental responsible policy of rapprochement with the countries of the Third World and criticism of eurocentrism. This concept is emphasized oriental influences on Greek philosophy.
In the late 1950s – early 1960s, there is a number of original concepts, operating Marxist methodology as a lively and plastic material. One of the greatest historians of philosophy was A.F. Losev, who created a distinctive methodology for the study of the genesis of philosophy. Interesting theory offered J.E. Golosovker, A.N. Chanyshev, F.C. Kessidy and other scientists. Philosophical debates have become more vivid character and the theoretical value.
The author emphasizes that the conflicting approaches to the problem of the origin of ancient Greek philosophy are attempts to answer the questions of profound character. The debate between supporters of autochthonous and Oriental hypotheses about external sources of Greek philosophy is designed to answer the question: “how and where philosophy emerged?” The question “from what is philosophy emerged?” defined the content of the controversy between the adherents mythogeneous and epistemogeneous concepts concerning the spiritual sources of philosophy. And finally, the question of “how and why philosophy emerged?” accompanied by discussions about social, ontological and other conditions of the emergence of philosophy.
The author argues that the last point in this debate is unlikely to be delivered, because to find the solution to the problem of the genesis of philosophy – it is important to solve the question of philosophy: what is philosophy?