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.
The article delivers an analysis of German text by the Russian philosopher and classical philologist A.F.Losev (1893–1988) published below which contains four annotations of his earlier works. The author discusses the question of it's dating and shows that the annotations present brief summaries of Losev's treatises which have been later partially used as material for his published books. The treatise “General aesthetics from the dialectical viewpoint” has given materials for two books “The dialectics of the artistic form” (1927) and “Music as an object of logic” (1927), the study “The theory of number in the ancient Greek philosophy” has been published in parts as two studies “Dialectics of number in Plotinus” (1928) and “Aristotle's critique of Platonism (1928), the three-volume “Philosophy of name' has been shortened up to the published version оf “The philosophy of name” (1927), finally the monography “The philosophy of Plotinus” has become one of the sources for the book “The ancient cosmos and the modern science” (1927). Through the textological comparison of German annotations with the published works by Losev the author comes to the conclusion they could be dated on the beginning of the 1920s, not later but the summer of 1923. According to the author's hypothesis these annotations togetherb with the other German texts by Losev cold be an evidence for his contacts with german academic scholars at the beginning of the 1920s.