The main issue of the paper is the foundations of Indian epistemology and logic foremost their categorical apparatus. We examine two linguistic determinations of that apparatus: an influence of the features of language (sa§skçta) and an influence of the theory of language (vyаkaraхa). The author demonstrates textual evidences of an influence of grammar on Buddhist epistemology and logic (pramахavаda) via doctrine of nyаya, which was expressed in " Nyаya-såtra" by Gotama and in the commentary on it by Vаtsyаyana. Nyаya epistemology included categorization of the process of knowing by Gotama which was made with the help of the system of kаraka by Pахini. Buddhists began to use that categorization for epistemological and logical discussions. Dignāga himself also borrowed classification of varieties of words from Pataхjali's Mahаbhaùya on Pахini's Aùсаdhyаyã. The process of designation of the results of perception was regarded in the Yogacаra's epistemology as a kind of mental construction - kalpanа. Those definitions of kalpanа, which we find in Yogacаra's texts, find out the lack of coincidence in their understanding of status of logic. Dignāga saw that logic could be separate from epistemology and ontology, that logic was a description of third reality reality of consciousness. He also thought that description was a product of conventional verbal practice. The definitions of kalpanа by Dharmakãrti and Dharmottara were more careful in the sense of understanding of status of logic. They still considered anumаnavаda as a part of pramахavаda. The kinds of mental constructions which were named by yogacārins (pratãtiþ the image as a result of perception, vidhi perceptual judgment and anumаna inference), were much nearer to modern logical forms as the elements of structure of knowing mind than the categories of the epistemologies of Indian realists.
When Jan Łukasiewicz, eminent representative of the Lvov-Warsaw school, has reproached the great philosophical systems of Plato or Aristotle, Descartes or Spinoza, Kant or Hegel with vagueness, incomprehensibility, inexactness of reasoning and proofs, erroneousness of logical theories underlaying those systems then his receipt of overcoming these shortcomings was that philosophy must be reconstructed from its very foundations; it should take its inspiration from scientific method and be based on the new logic. However, the twist of fate was that Łukasiewicz’s appeal left philosophers indifferent whereas the logicians responded in it in unexpected manner. They did not begin to reconstruct the philosophy itself but for the purpose of making it based on the new logic they start to elaborate non-classical logical systems allowing to evaluate the logical content of the philosophical theories with the new point of view. Where early logicians have seen just paralogisms and logical errors they now start instead discovering non-standard logical reasonings and proofs because their position became pluralistic. Such logical pluralism was disseminated in the Lvov-Warsaw school whose representatives (Łukasiewicz himself among them) exert themselves to develop and strengthen it. The paper deals with the analysis of that phenomenon of logical pluralism in the Lvov-Warsaw school and the ascertainment of its presuppositions and tendencies. It is shown that the reason of logical pluralism of the school became its orientation to logic and logical methods when solving the complex philosophical issues, the paraphrasing method and awareness by school representatives of an impossibility of overcoming paralogisms of some philosophical theories in the framework of classical logic.
The article discusses the original concept of myth, created by the Soviet philosopher aesthetician Mikhail Lifshits, presented in the comparison with many classical and modern theories of myth. The logic of myth, called Logomythia, is analyzed not only from the standpoint of Marxism, but also resting on the traditions of the Western and Russian Enlightenment, and on Levi-Strauss’s ideas. The overriding feature of myth, from his point of view, is not practice and labour, but the ambivalent, dual principle, manifested in art, where archaic myth dies as historical nonsense and is resurrected as a human sense.
The correspondence of two prominent classical philologists – A.F. Losev (1893–1988) and his German colleague Bruno Snell (1896–1986) – introduces into scientific circulation for the first time. This correspondence relates to the 1959–1960 years and arose in connection with the publication of the “Lexicon of early Greek epos” (“Lexicon des frühgriechischen Epos”), edited by B. Snell. Printed in German in 1962 Losev’s review about the first 3 issues of this “Lexicon” published in Russian also for the first time. A.F. Losev’s letters to B. Snell are printed after typewritten originals from the Bavarian state library: Bayerische Staatsbibliothek; Nachlass Bruno Snell / B. Korrespondenz. Signatur: Ana 490. B. IV. Lossew, Alexis. B. Snell’s letters to A.F. Losev printed after typewritten originals of personal Losev’s archive (copies: Brief von Bruno Snell an Alexis Lossew // Bayerische Staatsbibliothek; Nachlass Bruno Snell / B. Korrespondenz. Signatur: Ana 490. B.II). Translation of Losev’s review about “Lexicon of early Greek epos” (“Lexicon des frühgriechischen Epos”) is done by publication: Deutsche Literaturzeitung. Jahrgang 83, Heft 2 – Februar 1962.S. 113–117.
Max Weber’s lecture “Science as a vocation and a profession” sums up a hundred years history of the German “Humboldtian” university. From the reflections on the academic career in Germany of his time he passes to the feeling of “inner vocation” and to the science as Weltanschauung. As a sociologist of religion Weber retraces the genealogy of the university profes-sors: the worldly asceticism of the intellectuals has a source in the seculari-zation of the religion of salvation. Humboldtian University was protestant by its spirit, science was experienced as a religious vocation by Lutherans, combining the progressivism of Enlightenment with philosophical specula-tion in the manner of Fichte or Hegel. This University is now dead and the question of inner “vocation” is even a more pressing issue for the scientific community than in times of Weber. Further secularization and democrati-zation of the university eliminates the religious legitimization of the scien-tific research, rests the philosophical one: or Epicurean (“I love this job”), or Stoical (“do what you must”), or Platonic (contemplation of ideas, “the myth of the cave”). Now the choice of scientific research as a profession is a decision largely implying the experience of it as a vocation, since scien-tific activity is not associated with financial or social success.
The publication presents the Russian translation of selected chapters from "Dissertatio de Arte Combinatoria" by G.W. Leibniz, one of his earliest works. These chapters were published separately in 1666 under the title "Disputatio Arithmetica de complexionibus" and never translated into Russian. In his introduction the translator analyses the main themes of the "Dissertation" in there connection to the projects of universal science developed by R. Lull, E. Weigel, J. Biesterfeld and in the context of metaphysical and logical researches of Leibniz.
The article deals with the fate of one of the greatest thinkers and writers of the late 19th – mid 20th centuries Dmitry Merezhkovsky, creator of the novel trilogy “Christ and the Antichrist”, a treatise that shook the whole of Europe, “L. Tolstoy and Dostoevsky”, the creator of the meanings of the Silver age. The author’s interest is focused on the idea of the Second, Christian Revival, which, according to Merezhkovsky, should take into account the experience of the Renaissance; it “will find the Holy Flesh”, turning conscious efforts not in the previous, pagan era, but directly into Christianity itself. Merezhkovsky saw The Second Revival in the possibilities of new imagery of Russian literature, imbued with the new trends of the mysterious “John’s Christianity”. He outlined Russian literature, earlier than L. Shestov, as a Russian philosophy of the cultures in a series of philosophical articles – “The Forthcoming Ham”, “Sick Russia”, “The Prophet of the Russian revolution” perceived by contemporaries as a revelation of a new era. After Joachim of Fiore Merezhkovsky actualized the idea of the Third Testament. This actualization had a huge impact on the society and culture of European countries. The author shows that Merezhkovsky seems to be testing Christianity for the possibility of preserving and realizing human freedom. The thinker argues that Christianity has lost the very idea of freedom, so Nietzsche is right to speak with his “Antichrist” against the Christian Church. The article shows that the Joachim of Fiore’s idea of the Third Testament, accepted by Merezhkovsky, would facilitate the return of freedom to Christianity when the way for the Second Revival will be opened. Every idea is changing in the minds its of supporters. The article notes that instead of freedom in the idea of the Third Testament, the Nazis saw the idea of the Third Reich. The fate of Merezhkovsky in the era of Nazism and Bolshevik totalitarianism was an endless flight. The author comes to the conclusion that the idea of freedom, which was to be realized in the Third Testament of Merezhkosky, was the answer of the intellectual and writer to the practice of totalitarian structures of the ideocracy of the 20th century.
The purpose of this article consists in identification of the bases of a normativeness in modern ethics, object of studying in which is not practice, but moral knowledge. The modern moral philosophy developed from opposition between intellectualism where the Good was thought in categories "true" and "false", and sentimentalism for which there is no moral truth, but there are only moral emotions and feelings. Today this discussion is still actual, however it has got new sense in connection with criticism of ethical rationalism and realism in modern metaethics.