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.
For the last two decades a large number of philosophical texts have been issued including texts that were formerly hard to access for a Russian reader – publications of the works of Russian philosophers that had not been issued for wide circles of readers, translations (including from eastern languages), publications of the archival materials and epistolary heritage of the philosophers. Notwithstanding, in cases of quality issues the process of publishing itself generally used to be accompanied by signiﬁ cant preparative work – research, philological, commentary and philosophically-interpretative work. Vast experience has been accumulated in this sphere. While at the same time, a number of signiﬁ cant philosophic-methodological problems have been revealed. At the center of this problem ﬁ eld lies the question – is there any speciﬁ city in the work of publishing preparation of archival philosophical texts? Is the publishing preparation of such a philosophical text differentiated from that of the preparation of any other translated or archival literary work that requires transcription or commentary? Or is this a sphere of exclusively philological work? What is the speciﬁ city of philosophical translation and can we represent the archival publication as a type of “translation”? And so on. Certain answers to these questions deﬁ ne not only the peculiarities of publishing projects and the choice of readership, but also the situation in the intellectual culture of Russia. Therefore it is often surrounded by quite distinct polemics. It is supposed, that an acute necessity of comprehensive discussion of correlated thematics has emerged today. Furthermore the accumulated experience allows the clariﬁcation of the practical requirements for publication.
In April 2017 in the journal Voprosy Filosofii took place a round-table format conference dedicated to the discussion of the situation that developed in the sphere of modern ethical investigations and perspectives of ethical problematics in Russian philosophical ethics. The relevance of the conference’s topic is determined by the fact that nowadays the spiritual atmosphere in the country and in the world is rapidly changing. That is why ethical problematics becomes the key element of philosophical work as in our country and also abroad. The participants of the conference set the task to analyze moral alternatives of the modern world conditioned by the ethics orientation on absolute foundations of morality on one hand, and on the other hand by the factual relativity of these norms, that expresses in the detachment of applied ethics from the philosophical ethics. In the center of discussion were problems and difficulties in Russian ethical investigations and the attempts to determine the priorities of their near-future development. All the participants of the occurred heated discussions agreed that the contemporary situation in ethics can be adequately understood only in the broad historical context of philosophical experiments in this sphere and first of all in the context of relevant philosophical-methodological problematics. Below are published the materials of the conference.
The paper claims all metaphysical views could be divided in two classes: metaphysical moral exclusivism that is the idea of the otherworldly nature of morality, and metaphysical moral inclusivism that is the idea that morality is an intrinsic component of the reality. The originality of the proposed separation is justiﬁ ed by historical review and the comparison with known ethical concepts. We also consider how the metaphysical notions of morality should correlate with the methodology of the empirical study of moral consciousness. We show that asking the question about the place of morality in the structure of reality imposes some theoretical constraints upon the Is-Ought Problem.
Hannah Arendt did not consider herself a philosopher and was not going to create any general doctrine of man. However, Arendt wrote philosophical works, and she never lost sight of what was going on in the German philosophical anthropology for about half a century. The polemics with philosophical anthropology forms one of the important, albeit implicit themes of her works. She criticized Martin Heidegger, one of her main philosophical mentors, drawing on some arguments that were mostly like those Max Scheler, the founder the German philosophical anthropology, used against Heidegger. The last great work that Arendt did not even prepare to print, her book “The Life of the Mind”, based on her Gifford Lectures. Here, especially in the ﬁrst
The article is devoted to the peculiarities of philosophical outlook insurance and examined its effect on the development of Tolstoy as a philosopher
The article is devoted to the comparison of M. Mamardashvili`s and H. Arendt`s ideas on the nature of thinking, evil, moral and political actions. Comparing ideas of these two thinkers the following thesis is justified: both authors explore the idea of law as a special type of supernatural community and human solidarity. They also emphasize that to be moral means to practice the thinking (reflection) which is always in process and neverstops.