Philosophy

The article considers one of Heidegger’s statements presented in a letter to his friend K. Löwit dated August 19, 1921, in which he defines himself as a “Christian theologian”. The main existing perspectives on Heidegger’s “religiosity” being listed, the question arises, can we, and if so, in which sense, call Heidegger a “faithful Christian”? To answer this question, one needs to distinguish between “ontic theology” and “onto-theology”, the latter concept being very close to Heidegger’s own project of “fundamental ontology”.

The article analyzes the mechanisms providing informational exchange between the subjects of culture considered as individuals and cultural groups. Integrating and differentiating components of the translation of cultural knowledge are distinguished, the dependence of the translational processes on the personal experience of the information donor and recipient is described. Cultural communication also provides a single vector of development for its participants contributing to their more effective adaptation to the social environment.

The article is devoted to the analysis of understanding of the meaning of “rationality” of the rational activity by a modern person. According to the author, the achievement of the goal is impossible without solving the problem of studying the epistemological foundations of post-non-classical rationality which dominates the system of civilizational values, since the basis of the meaning of “rationality” always has a certain type of rationality. At the same time, the author pays special attention to such tools of cognitive activity of a person as information and knowledge.

The constructive solution of the diverse essential problems of human life in the space-time continuum of life involves an explanation of the specifics of the development of life on Earth from the perspective of bioethics. In the article, the human world and all living organisms of the biosphere are considered as unified dynamic and organic integrity. The principles of bioethics acquire an important role for the civilizational interaction of nature, a man and society within the framework of a single global system of life.

The article considers the aspects of reciprocity of rhetoric and missiology. Many rhetoric aspects of the Holy Scriptures can be found in the Bible, but they experience certain transformation. The text of the Bible is particularly examined in order to find out different rhetorical constructions. This analysis is based on Aristotle’s works, devoted to topics and rhetoric. Such an approach to the Holy Scriptures from the point of view of the Orthodox Theology research is innovative and hasn’t been applied before.

The article is devoted to the analysis of such properties of normativity as ascriptivity and descriptivity, as well as the principle of the evolutionary development of norms. The article defines the content of the concept of “norm”, identifies two main interpretations of it: as a combination of a standard set of properties and as a sample of desirable behavior. It is argued that the second interpretation forms the idea of social norms. The problem investigated in the article is the presence of various properties of social norms and their corresponding requirements for people’s actions.

The main subjects of the article are the analysis of Thomas Reid’s conception concerning the “active power” and an attempt to give the definition of it on the basis of this conception. Such an examination hasn't been undertaken in Russian philosophy up to now. The goal of the article is to combine these meanings and to reveal the sense of his conception of this power by stepwise consideration of specific character of every meaning of this present power, outlined fragmentarily in his philosophical works.

The correlation between the linguistic turn and the turn to ontology is analyzed. The ideal of “pure mind” in classical philosophy is corresponded to epistemological and methodological orientation of philosophical thought, and the turn to language in the philosophy of the ХХ–ХXI centuries is followed by the turn to ontology. It is proved that, despite the contrast, Russian and western philosophy of language have convergence points in the sphere of ontology.

The article considers the mental foundations of the cultural specificity of the Eastern Christian civilization based on the cultural-historical method. The purpose of the article is to clarify the historical model which formed the mental differences between Western European and Russian cultures. It is shown that the roots of the civilizational division of Europe into Western and Eastern ones are largely determined by the special way in which “barbarian” ethnic groups were attached to the Christian and ancient traditions.

The article explores how Kozhev repeatedly strengthens the role of the anthropological factor in being, preserving the basis of Hegel’s philosophical approach and at the same time attributing this intention to Hegel himself. Since Kozhev defines a person as an entity taken in isolation, but understood as a component element of the reality, humanity becomes the only one responsible for the dialectical, i.e. historical dimension in being. On the contrary, Hegel attributes the logic of historicity and dialectical development to all identity, including nature, as a whole.