XXVIII Ежегодная богословская конференция ПСТГУ
In the text, the author proposes to consider Western esotericism at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries as a complex phenomenon, largely based on the deconstructed Christian theology and the discoveries of a new science of religion. This idea is illustrated by two examples — the teachings of R. genon and A. Crawley.
This contribution to a volume on the“ultimate why-question” discusses ambiguities in Leibniz’s formulation of the question, “[. . . ] pourquoi il y a plus tôt quelque chose que rien”. This formulation poses two problems: Leibniz does not explain how to understand the concepts of “something” and “nothing”. And it is not clear, whether “something” and “nothing” are contradictory opposites, so that there is either nothing or something, or whether both concepts denote principles which are effective in the world at the same time. My analysis rests on the hypothesis that the relevant context for Leibniz’s question is the theology of creation.
Hence, the paper compares eight different approaches to “creation from nothing” (Thomists, Scotists, Taurellus, Lubinus, Timpler, Keckermann, Kircher, Knorr von Rosenroth, van Helmont). Candidates for the nihil the world was created from include absolute non-being, thoughts in God’s mind, unformed matter, imaginary space, or a self-contraction of the Divine spirit. These different approaches can be translated into different versions of the “ultimate why-question”. The paper concludes that Leibniz’s formulation contains a comparison between two Divine acts of creation, because not only “something”, but “nothing” as well owes its subsistence to the Divine will. This rises substantial questions: either God created first an imperfect entity in order to create the world as a whole, or Leibniz subscribes to an emanative understanding of creation that either levels the difference between creation and (natural) generation or is based on misunderstanding God as a material entity.
The prospects of various interdisciplinary researches, the problem of the unity of scientific knowledge, the possibility of translating methods from one discipline to another, the impact of digitalization on various fields of scientific knowledge, the acceptability of general approaches to science management, in particular, to the evaluation of scientific productivity are debated in the discussion on the limits of methodological convergence of natural-scientific and social-humanitarian knowledge. The debaters Н.N. Knyazeva, G.L. Tulchinsky, V.G. Kuznetsov and N.M. Smirnova comment on each other’s positions, point out the strengths and weaknesses in proponents’ justification, agree on a number of issues, and indicate the main theses and arguments for each position, groping for prospects for further development of the discussed issues.
Within a brief historical period, BRICS as an inter-State association has become an influential player in the world economy and politics. BRICS is a primarily political entity, and in that regard, the BRICS grouping correlates with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). However, not all the expectations placed on the SCO by the founding countries at the time of its creation in 2001 have been met so far. The question is to what extent expectations may be fulfilled in case of BRICS.
The article identifies the effect of personalization of politics: its definition is given, the determinants and possible consequences are considered. That effect is illustrated by some features in the Asian and European style of modern political leadership.