Политологический анализ концепций идеологических гетеротопий
Information in the SGEM 2017 Conference Proceedings is subject to change without notice. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, for any purpose, without the express written permission of the International Scientific Council of SGEM.
Upon analyzing the political processes occurring during the nineteenth-twentieth centuries, G.Musikhin posits that the popular idea about the supremacy of professional managers in politics over demagogues speculating with mass’ political aspirations conceals an attempt by the power holders to get rid of the axiological rationale for the political hegemony. He concludes that when the governmental policy is supported by the voters’ will rather than sovereign power per se, the ideological discourse becomes of fundamental importance since support is lent to someone who can present his ideological position as a majority’s goal. The debate within the political space is built around an ability to offer to the society a more attractive political (to be more precise, ideological) prospect rather than detailed mechanisms of how to govern society (that are largely universal).
Russian researchers polemics on Kants essay On a supposed right to tell lies from benevolent motives in which Kant argues that if a malefactor (a murderer) who is going to kill a persons friend asks that person where ones friend is, the morality requires to tell the truth. It is proved in the paper that though Kantians are usually considered as absolutists and their opponents - as relativists, the Kantians perform a large-scale relativization of maxim of truthfulness and exhibit more conformity to lie than the relativisits do. Paradoxes A Precious Friend and Kants Generalized Consequence for Many Friends showing inconsistency and contradictoriness of Kantians point of view are introduced. The confrontation of absolutists and relativists is interpreted as a fundamental opposition of reductionism and holism followers, with understanding that in this case the opposition is many times strengthened by confrontation of moral values.
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.
Herausgegeben von Daniel Schubbe, Jens Lemanski und Rico Hauswald. Die Frage "Warum ist überhaupt etwas und nicht vielmehr nichts?" gehört zu den ebenso traditionsreichen wie umstrittenen Problemen der Philosophie. Der vorliegende Band nimmt sich der "Grundfrage" in einer ideengeschichtlichen Perspektive an. Dabei stellt sich heraus, dass sie in ihrer Geschichte von der Antike bis zur gegenwärtigen analytischen Philosophie nicht nur jeweils unterschiedliche Antworten provoziert hat, sondern vor allem auch ganz verschieden gestellt worden ist. Der Band wird durch einen Überblick über die vielschichtige Diskussion der "letzten Warum-Frage" in der Tradition der Analytischen Philosophie sowie einen Antwortversuch aus Sicht der aktuellen Physik und Kosmologie abgerundet.
In this work the problem of learning and development of creativity with a view to the position of reflexive psychology, akmeology and pedagogics in the context of the human capital analysis in the conditions of modern society globalization is raised. The theme is urgent from the practical point of view in demand of a creative personality under conditions of the economic crisis and at the same time it is actual, because it interprets creativity in a new way according to interdisciplinary approach. The author emphasizes that a reflexively-creative potential is considered to be the backbone factor of professional and innovative activity in modern social space. On basis of philosophical foundations' analysis of psychology of creativity we theoretically build the conceptual model of reflexive creativity and we also examine the precedents of its psychology-pedagogical development in the secondary and high education (in case of reflexive-psycological support).