Russian Intelligentsia in Search of an Identity (Between Dostoevsky’s Oppositions and Tolstoy’s Holism)
The text traces the rise of the intelligentsia, from the 18th century to the present day, at the same time problematizing its central ideas. Beginning with this historical background, the book proceeds to investigate the distinctive intellectual, spiritual and biographical opposition of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy in relation to the history, character and fate of the Russian intelligentsia.The present is indeterminate and, just as we did three hundred years ago, we Russians
once again find ourselves searching for answers to the question of who we are, as we attempt to defend our own sense of distinctiveness in a multipolar world, and to produce a differentiated narrative of our own identity. The precariousness of the present geopolitical situation lends a particular urgency to these questions.
The article considers the Views of L. N. Tolstoy not only as a representative, but also as a accomplisher of the Enlightenment. A comparison of his philosophy with the ideas of Spinoza and Diderot made it possible to clarify some aspects of the transition to the unique Tolstoy’s religious and philosophical doctrine. The comparison of General and specific features of the three philosophers was subjected to a special analysis. Special attention is paid to the way of thinking, the relation to science and the specifics of the worldview by Tolstoy and Diderot. An important aspect is researched the contradiction between the way of thinking and the way of life of the three philosophers.
Tolstoy's transition from rational perception of life to its religious and existential bases is shown. Tolstoy gradually moves away from the idea of a natural man to the idea of a man, who living the commandments of Christ. Starting from the educational worldview, Tolstoy ended by creation of religious and philosophical doctrine, which were relevant for the 20th century.
Leo Tolstoy and Max Weber on value neutrality of university research The problem of value neutrality of science is considered on the basis of works by Leo Tolstoy and Max Weber. In the first part of the article, the statements on the value neutrality of scientific knowledge and university teaching by Weber and Tolstoy are made explicit and analyzed in a comparative perspective. In the second part, the central problem of Tolstoy and Weber, that is, a rational choice of the value paradigm, is studied systematically. Differences in their assumptions and conclusions are shown. In the third part, a historical commentary to the context of Tolstoys and Webers works is given. The works are treated as episodes in a wider modern history of the value neutralization of the scientific knowledge and university teaching. The specifics of this process are tightly connected with the fundamental principles of the modern research university (the Humboldtian model of university).
This paper is aimed to show crucial points of Quine’s language acquisition conception that were criticized by Noam Chomsky. Willard Van Orman Quine tried to build a language theory in a behavioristic way using such terms as: stimulus, reaction and reinforcement. He thought that language acquisition by children could be explained as the process of ontogenesis of reference. N. Chomsky mainly objected to behaviorism and showed its weak explanatory force in language theory.
The response of Leo Tolstoy to the First Russian Revolution highlighted new aspects of his teaching, which had long occupied an important place in Russian debates about the most important. He himself began his own personal uprising against the government back in the 70s, and his sermon of non-violence managed to acquire polemical works, arrays of pros and cons, and even sects, but the revolution showed that everything is not so transparent in his understanding of violence and state and the role of personality in history. There was a mutual reflection of two mirrors - Tolstoy and the Revolution. And this revealed some element that fell in Tolstoy’s previous doctrine: the motive, the invisibility of which led to a simplified reading of Tolstoy’s already deliberately simple teachings, to a suspiciously easy revelation of obvious contradictions and inconsistencies in his writings.
The monograph is devoted to the consideration of complex systems from the position of the end the 21st century. The considerable breakthrough in the understanding of complex systems is comprehensively analyzed. Such a breakthrough is connected with the use of the newest methods of nonlinear dynamics, of organization of the modern computational experiments. The book is meant for specialists in different fields of natural sciences and the humanities as well as for all readers who are interested in the recent advancements in science.
Collection is published conclusions of Tolstovedov.
This important new book offers the first full-length interpretation of the thought of Martin Heidegger with respect to irony. In a radical reading of Heidegger's major works (from Being and Time through the ‘Rector's Address' and the ‘Letter on Humanism' to ‘The Origin of the Work of Art' and the Spiegel interview), Andrew Haas does not claim that Heidegger is simply being ironic. Rather he argues that Heidegger's writings make such an interpretation possible - perhaps even necessary.
Heidegger begins Being and Time with a quote from Plato, a thinker famous for his insistence upon Socratic irony. The Irony of Heidegger takes seriously the apparently curious decision to introduce the threat of irony even as philosophy begins in earnest to raise the question of the meaning of being. Through a detailed and thorough reading of Heidegger's major texts and the fundamental questions they raise, Haas reveals that one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century can be read with as much irony as earnestness. The Irony of Heidegger attempts to show that the essence of this irony lies in uncertainty, and that the entire project of onto-heno-chrono-phenomenology, therefore needs to be called into question.
The article is concerned with the notions of technology in essays of Ernst and Friedrich Georg Jünger. The special problem of the connection between technology and freedom is discussed in the broader context of the criticism of culture and technocracy discussion in the German intellectual history of the first half of the 20th century.