This article discusses the problem of the so-called objectless presentations, which was largely discussed within Austrian philosophy of the 19th century. Our analysis is concentrated on the evolution of understanding and status of objectless presentations in works of three main authors of this tradition: The Theory of Science by B. Bolzano, On Content and Object of Presentations by K. Twardowski and Intentional Objects by E. Husserl. For the first time the thesis on objectless presentations was offered by Bolzano (1837), who gave precise characteristics to objects, which do not correspond to any type of presentation. Later, Bolzanos ideas were reactualized by Twardowski (1894). Logical and psychological study of the latter was mainly based on his interpretation of Brentanos conception, and particularly on his own understanding of intentionality. Twardowski in his investigations wrote about a necessity of special differentiation between the content of presentation and the immanent object, where the latter was considered as intentional and real. Thus, from Twardowskis point of view, the idea of objectless presentations is based on a visible mistake: nonexistence of an object is always confused with its nonbeing presented. Also the matter of exceptional importance is his analysis of the notion nothing. This notion was originally brought into the discussion by Bernard Bolzano, who used it as an example of objectless presentation. As an answer to this Twardowski presented the logical analysis of nothing and proved that it (in terms of Mills logic) is not a name, or, in other words, it is not a categorematic, but syncategorematic expression. Husserls essay in some way finishes this discussion. Here we should pay attention to the problem of the context Husserl was writing his work (1894) in. Intentional Objects was the first work Husserl did not write in the tradition of Brentanos descriptive psychology. Under the influence of Frege and Bolzano, Husserl becomes a radical critic of psychologism, and, of course, he successfully ridiculed the thing as an assumption of existence of such essences as content of presentation. Accordingly, as he took up the position of logicism he sharply criticized various attempts of assuming the real existence of those things, which are logically impossible. Thus, we can note, that this analysis allows us to find out the key opposition, which characterizes philosophy of those times: the opposition of psychologism and logicism.
This collection of articles includes papers based on materials of reports, delivered at the International scientific and practical seminar "Media texttas poliintentional system" ( December 7-8, 2011, the Higher school of journalism and mass communications of St. Petersburg State University). All presented works are devoted to a key practice of media speech to a problem directly connected with formation of communicative competence of the journalist, PRexchange and the advertisement maker, therefore with development of the contents and a technique of teaching at journalism faculties. The edition is addressed to experts in media linguistics, high school teachers, students of the corresponding specialties, specialists in public relations and advertizing.
In the article results of K.Rogers psychotherapeutic speech intent-analysis realized by authors purposely to describe general psychological foundations of speech psychotherapeutic activity, studying it's intentional plan, revealing of therapist speech intentional specificity are presented. Existing views on intentionality concept are shown, intention bases of psychotherapeutic discourse which according to authors are determined by base aims of concrete therapeutic method are analyzed. Methods and stages of research are described. As an object of research С.Rogers therapeutic cases illustrating his professional work during different periods of his life are selected. Psychotherapist speech intensions dictionary made during research process and also their classification are resulted. The result of the research is comparative analysis of intentional characteristics of Rogers speech.
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.
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.